Michigan Department of Transportation

Geotechnical
Manual

Bureau of Bridges & Structures

November 2019
 Engineering Manual Preamble
This manual provides guidance to administrative, engineering, and technical staff. Engineering
practice requires that professionals use a combination of technical skills and judgment in
decision making. Engineering judgment is necessary to allow decisions to account for unique
site-specific conditions and considerations to provide high-quality products, within budget, and
to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This manual provides the general operational
guidelines; however, it is understood that adaptation, adjustments, and deviations are
sometimes necessary. Innovation is a key foundational element to advance the state of
engineering practice and develop more effective and efficient engineering solutions and
materials. As such, it is essential that our engineering manuals provide a vehicle to promote,
pilot, or implement technologies or practices that provide efficiencies and quality products,
while maintaining the safety, health, and welfare of the public. When making significant or
impactful deviations from the technical information from these guidance materials, it is
expected that reasonable consultations with experts, technical committees, and/or policy
setting bodies occur prior to actions within the time frames allowed. It is also expected that
these consultations will eliminate any potential conflicts of interest, perceived or otherwise.
Michigan Department of Transportation Leadership is committed to a culture of innovation to
optimize engineering solutions.

The National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for Engineering is founded on six
fundamental canons. Those canons are provided below.

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform Services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statement only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, reasonably, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the
honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Cover Photos: Top, Left – Drilled shaft construction within cofferdam for new bridge.
Top, Right – Existing slope failure on MDOT trunkline.
Center, Left – Drill crew drilling with a CME 850 ATV.
Center, Right – 16-inch diameter steel pile driving at proposed bridge abutment.
Bottom, Left – Graphical 3D representation of aerial lidar data collected on federal highway route.
Bottom, Right – Lab testing equipment, direct shear and triaxial testing apparatuses.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

SECTION 2 – GENERAL INFORMATION................................................................. 2

2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE OR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ....................................... 2
2.2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................... 2
2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN POLICIES AND THEIR BASIS ......................................... 2
2.3.1 MANUAL CHANGES ............................................................................................ 3
2.4 GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE ............................................................................. 4

SECTION 3 – CONSULTANT CONTRACTS .............................................................. 6

3.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 6
3.2 CONSULTANT CONTRACTING METHODS .......................................................... 6
3.2.1 DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECTS ............................................................................. 6
3.2.2 INNOVATIVE CONTRACTING METHODS ............................................................. 7
3.2.3 SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 7

SECTION 4 – MICHIGAN GLACIAL HISTORY .......................................................... 8

4.1 FUTURE SECTION TO BE DEVELOPED................................................................ 8

SECTION 5 – FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES .................. 9

5.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 9
5.1.1 REVIEW OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS................................................................ 9
5.1.2 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................................. 9
Topographic Maps.............................................................................. 9
Aerial Photographs ........................................................................... 10
Geological Maps and Reports .......................................................... 10
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surveys ..................... 10
Water Well Surveys .......................................................................... 10
Existing Design Plans and Construction Records.............................. 10
Remote Sensing ................................................................................ 11
5.1.3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .................................................................................... 11
5.2 PERMITS ....................................................................................................... 12
5.3 FIELD WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ............................................................. 12
5.3.1 RAILROAD ACCESS ............................................................................................ 12
5.3.2 DOCUMENTATION OF PROPERTY DAMAGE ..................................................... 13

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page i

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.4 UTILITY LOCATION/NOTIFICATION................................................................. 13

5.5 DRILLING SAFETY........................................................................................... 13
5.6 DRILLING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL AND ROCK................................................ 14
5.6.1 EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 14
5.6.2 DRILLING METHODS ......................................................................................... 14
Continuous Flight or Hand Auger Borings ........................................ 14
Hollow-Stem Auger Borings ............................................................. 15
Rotary Drilling................................................................................... 15
Direct Push Borings (i.e., GeoProbe®) .............................................. 15
Coring ............................................................................................... 15
Other Drilling Methods .................................................................... 16
5.6.3 BACKFILL OF BOREHOLES ................................................................................. 16
5.6.4 SOUNDINGS ...................................................................................................... 16
5.6.5 TEST PITS AND TRENCHES ................................................................................ 16
5.6.6 SAMPLING PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 17
Bulk Bag Samples.............................................................................. 17
Split-Barrel Sampler ......................................................................... 17
Thin-Walled Undisturbed Tube Sampler .......................................... 17
Transverse Shear Core Sampling ...................................................... 18
Rock Core Sampling .......................................................................... 18
Other Sampling Methods ................................................................. 20
5.7 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ............................................................................... 20
5.7.1 SEISMIC REFRACTION AND REFLECTION SURVEY............................................. 20
5.7.2 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY...................................................................... 21
5.7.3 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR) ............................................................. 21
5.7.4 SURFACE WAVE METHODS (SASW AND MASW).............................................. 21
5.8 IN-SITU SOIL TESTING .................................................................................... 22
5.8.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) .............................................................. 22
5.8.2 CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) ................................................................... 23
5.8.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST (DCP) .................................................. 23
5.8.4 DILATOMETER TEST (DMT) ............................................................................... 24
5.8.5 PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT) ........................................................................... 24
5.8.6 FIELD VANE TEST .............................................................................................. 25
5.8.7 FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD) ...................................................... 25
5.9 FIELD INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 25
5.9.1 GENERAL PURPOSE........................................................................................... 25
5.9.2 INCLINOMETERS ............................................................................................... 26
5.9.3 SETTLEMENT INDICATORS ................................................................................ 27
Settlement Plates ............................................................................. 27

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page ii

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pneumatic Settlement Cell ............................................................... 28

Benchmarks and Heave Stakes ........................................................ 28
Crack Gauges .................................................................................... 28
5.9.4 PIEZOMETERS ................................................................................................... 28
5.9.5 MONITORING WELLS ........................................................................................ 29
5.9.6 TILTMETERS ...................................................................................................... 29
5.9.7 VIBRATION MONITORING ................................................................................ 30
5.9.8 OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUMENTATION................................................................ 30
5.9.9 INTERPRETATION AND REPORTING.................................................................. 30
Qualifications of Personnel .............................................................. 31
5.10 SURVEY ......................................................................................................... 31
5.11 APPENDIX 5................................................................................................... 32
5.11.1 APPENDIX 5.1 ................................................................................................... 32

SECTION 6 – SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES.................................... 34

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 34
6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 34
6.2.1 SPACING AND NUMBER OF BORINGS .............................................................. 34
6.2.2 CONSULTANT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ........................................................ 35
6.2.3 MISCELLANEOUS .............................................................................................. 35
6.3 GUIDELINES FOR MINIMUM EXPLORATIONS.................................................. 37
6.3.1 STRUCTURES ..................................................................................................... 37
Bridges .............................................................................................. 37
Bridge Approach Embankments....................................................... 38
Retaining Walls ................................................................................. 38
Culverts............................................................................................. 39
Overhead Sign Structures................................................................. 39
High Mast Lighting............................................................................ 40
Mast Arms and Strain Poles ............................................................. 40
Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Closed Circuit Television Camera
(CCTV) Poles & Environmental Sensor Station (ESS) Poles .............................. 40
Cable Barriers ................................................................................... 41
Noise Abatement Walls .................................................................... 41
Buildings ........................................................................................... 41
Excavations ....................................................................................... 42
Tunnels ............................................................................................. 42
Other Structures ............................................................................... 42
6.3.2 ROADWAY......................................................................................................... 42
New Roadway Alignment or Widening ............................................ 43
Evaluation of Existing Pavement Section and Subgrade .................. 45

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page iii

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bedrock............................................................................................. 45
Peat Deposits, Compressible Soils, and Very Soft Soils.................... 46
6.3.3 GEOHAZARDS ................................................................................................... 47
Artesian Conditions .......................................................................... 47
Landslides – Slope Failure ................................................................ 48
Karst/Sinkholes (Define, Characteristics) ......................................... 48
Underground Mines ......................................................................... 48
Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 49
6.3.4 OTHER CASES .................................................................................................... 49
Sewers .............................................................................................. 49
Detention or Retention Ponds ......................................................... 49
Wetland Mitigation .......................................................................... 50
Trenchless Pipe Installation.............................................................. 50

SECTION 7 – LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................. 51

7.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 51
7.2 SOIL .............................................................................................................. 51
7.2.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 51
Sieve Analysis ................................................................................... 51
Hydrometer ...................................................................................... 52
7.2.2 MOISTURE CONTENT ........................................................................................ 52
7.2.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS ........................................................................................... 52
Liquid Limit ....................................................................................... 52
Plastic Limit ...................................................................................... 52
Shrinkage Limit ................................................................................. 53
7.2.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY ............................................................................................. 53
7.2.5 UNIT WEIGHT ................................................................................................... 53
7.2.6 STRENGTH TESTS .............................................................................................. 53
Unconfined Compression Test ......................................................... 53
Triaxial Compression Tests ............................................................... 54
Housel Transverse Shear test ........................................................... 54
Direct Shear ...................................................................................... 55
Miniature Vane Shear (Torvane) ...................................................... 55
Pocket Penetrometer ....................................................................... 55
7.2.7 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST ..................................................... 55
7.2.8 LOSS ON IGNITION TEST (LOI) – ORGANIC CONTENT ....................................... 56
7.2.9 PERMEABILITY TESTS ........................................................................................ 57
Constant Head .................................................................................. 57
Falling Head ...................................................................................... 57
Flexible Wall Permeability ................................................................ 57

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page iv

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL CORROSION TESTS OR ELECTRO-CHEMICAL TESTS ............ 57

pH ..................................................................................................... 57
Chloride ............................................................................................ 58
Sulfates ............................................................................................. 58
Electrical Resistivity .......................................................................... 58
7.2.11 COMPACTION TEST........................................................................................... 58
Standard Proctor .............................................................................. 58
Modified Proctor .............................................................................. 59
Michigan Cone Test .......................................................................... 59
7.2.12 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO ............................................................................ 59
7.2.13 RESILIENT MODULUS TEST ............................................................................... 59
7.3 ROCK ............................................................................................................ 59
7.3.1 UNIT WEIGHT ................................................................................................... 59
7.3.2 STRENGTH TESTING .......................................................................................... 60
Unconfined (Uniaxial) Compression Tests ....................................... 60
Point Load Tests ............................................................................... 60
7.3.3 ELASTIC MODULI .............................................................................................. 60

SECTION 8 – MATERIALS DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING .......... 61

8.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 61
8.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ....................................................... 61
8.2.1 RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY ............................................................... 61
8.2.2 COLOR............................................................................................................... 63
8.2.3 MOISTURE CONDITION..................................................................................... 63
8.2.4 PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE ................................................................. 63
8.2.5 CONSTITUENTS AND GRADATION .................................................................... 63
Primary ............................................................................................. 63
Secondary Soil Constituents ............................................................. 66
Tertiary ............................................................................................. 66
8.2.6 ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE TERMS .................................................................... 66
Unusual Odors .................................................................................. 67
8.2.7 FIELD LOGGING................................................................................................. 67
8.2.8 GLOSSARY OF SOIL DESCRIPTION TERMS ......................................................... 67
8.3 ROCK DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ..................................................... 69
8.3.1 COLOR............................................................................................................... 69
8.3.2 WEATHERING ................................................................................................... 69
8.3.3 CONSTITUENTS ................................................................................................. 70
8.3.4 STRENGTH......................................................................................................... 70
8.3.5 GRAIN SIZE ........................................................................................................ 71

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page v

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.3.6 DISCONTINUITIES ............................................................................................. 71

8.3.7 ROCK FRACTURE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 71
8.3.8 RECOVERY AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) ..................................... 72
8.3.9 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) .............................................................................. 72
8.4 CLASSIFICATION OF SWAMP DEPOSITS .......................................................... 72
8.4.1 SEDIMENTARY PEAT ......................................................................................... 73
8.4.2 SEMI-ORGANIC SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS ........................................................ 74
8.4.3 FIBROUS PEAT................................................................................................... 74
8.4.4 WOODY PEAT.................................................................................................... 75
8.4.5 MOSS PEAT ....................................................................................................... 75
8.4.6 MUCK .............................................................................................................. 75
8.4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLOR AND DEGREE OF DECOMPOSITION............. 76
8.4.8 MARL AND VERY SOFT CLAY ............................................................................. 76

SECTION 9 – GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................. 79

9.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 79
9.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING QUALITY ASSURANCE ..................................... 79
9.2 FINAL SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUES ............................................................ 80
9.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBSURFACE PROFILE .................................................... 80
9.2.2 SOIL STRENGTH DETERMINATION.................................................................... 81
9.2.3 DRAINED STRENGTH OF GRANULAR SOILS ...................................................... 81
Standard Penetration Test Corrections............................................ 82
Friction Angle Correlation ................................................................ 83
9.2.4 SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS............................................................. 84
9.2.5 SELECTION OF DESIGN PROPERTIES FOR ENGINEERED MATERIALS ................ 84
Embankment, Compacted in Place .................................................. 84
Structure Embankment .................................................................... 85
Structure Backfill .............................................................................. 86
Select Backfill.................................................................................... 86
9.3 ROADWAY .................................................................................................... 87
9.3.1 SOIL MAP, PROFILE DRAWINGS, AND CROSS-SECTIONS .................................. 87
9.3.2 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE......................................................................... 87
9.3.3 ROADWAY SUBGRADE ...................................................................................... 89
Subgrade Design Value Determination and Recommendations ...... 89
Problematic Subgrade Conditions .................................................... 89
Potholes............................................................................................ 96
Impact of Water Seepage and Drainage on Subgrade ..................... 98
9.3.4 SLOPE SLOUGHING ........................................................................................... 99
9.3.5 CULVERTS ....................................................................................................... 101

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page vi

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.3.6 UTILITY EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................... 101

9.3.7 ROADWAY SLOPES AND EMBANKMENTS ...................................................... 102
Roadway Design Responsibilities ................................................... 103
Embankment Settlement ............................................................... 104
Slope Stability of Embankments and Slopes .................................. 110
Lateral Squeeze .............................................................................. 114
Other Slope Stability Considerations ............................................. 116
Stability Improvement Techniques ................................................ 117
9.3.8 EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................... 123
9.3.9 DETERMINATION OF PLAN QUANTITIES AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....... 123
9.4 BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN – LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD) METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 123
9.4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW .............................................................. 124
9.4.2 FOUNDATION LOAD AND RESISTANCE DETERMINATION .............................. 126
9.4.3 FOUNDATION TYPE......................................................................................... 126
Shallow Foundations ...................................................................... 126
Driven Piles ..................................................................................... 130
Micropiles ....................................................................................... 135
Drilled Shafts .................................................................................. 136
9.4.4 FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................................ 138
Deep Foundation Deflection Criteria ............................................. 138
Lateral Loads .................................................................................. 138
Scour............................................................................................... 139
Downdrag ....................................................................................... 139
Reuse of Existing Foundations ....................................................... 140
9.4.5 OVERALL STABILITY......................................................................................... 140
9.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN–ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN (ASD) METHODOLOGY . 141
9.5.1 SPREAD FOOTINGS – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN ........................................ 141
9.5.2 DRIVEN PILES – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN................................................. 142
9.5.3 MICROPILES – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN................................................... 142
9.5.4 DRILLED SHAFTS – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN ............................................ 142
9.6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN ............................................................................ 143
9.6.1 GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS ........................................................................... 147
9.6.2 MSE WALLS ..................................................................................................... 149
9.6.3 NONGRAVITY CANTILEVERED WALLS ............................................................. 150
9.6.4 ANCHORED WALLS ......................................................................................... 152
9.6.5 SOIL NAIL WALLS ............................................................................................ 152
9.6.6 TEMPORARY GEOTEXTILE WALL ..................................................................... 153
9.7 REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES............................................................................ 154
9.7.1 REINFORCED FILL MATERIALS ........................................................................ 154

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page vii

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.8 OVERHEAD SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SOUNDS WALLS, AND

BUILDINGS .................................................................................................. 154

SECTION 10 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING ...................................................... 157

10.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 157
10.2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT ..................................................................... 158
10.2.1 SOIL BORING NAMING CONVENTION ............................................................ 158
10.3 CONTENTS OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ................................. 159
10.3.1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL OR LETTER REPORT ....................................... 159
10.3.2 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT....................................................................... 161
Executive Summary (Optional) ....................................................... 161
Table of Contents ........................................................................... 161
Introduction ................................................................................... 161
Project Description ......................................................................... 162
Field Investigation .......................................................................... 162
Laboratory Testing ......................................................................... 162
Site Conditions ............................................................................... 162
Subsurface Conditions.................................................................... 162
Design Analysis and Recommendations......................................... 163
Construction Considerations .......................................................... 172
Attached Figures ............................................................................ 173
Appendix A ..................................................................................... 174
Appendix B ..................................................................................... 175
Other Appendices........................................................................... 177
10.3.3 REPORTS FOR BUILDINGS ............................................................................... 177
10.3.4 CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................... 177
10.4 ADDENDUM REPORTS ................................................................................. 177
10.5 SPECIAL PROVISION..................................................................................... 178

SECTION 11 – REFERENCES .............................................................................. 179

11.1 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 179

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page viii

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Terms Used to Convey Geotechnical Policy .................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Geotechnical Software .................................................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Minimum Number of Building Borings.......................................................................................... 41
Table 4: Relative Density for Cohesionless Soils ......................................................................................... 62
Table 5: Consistency for Cohesive Soils ...................................................................................................... 62
Table 6: Moisture Content Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 63
Table 7: Rock Type Classifications............................................................................................................... 69
Table 8: Rock Weathering Terms ................................................................................................................ 70
Table 9: Strength Terms .............................................................................................................................. 70
Table 10: Terms to Describe Rock Grain Size .............................................................................................. 71
Table 11: Terms to Describe Degree of Rock Fractures .............................................................................. 72
Table 12: Estimated Shear Strengths and Unit Weights for Preliminary Embankment Analysis ............... 85
Table 13: Frost Susceptibility Classification of Soils (NCHRP 1-37A, 2004) ................................................ 93
Table 14: Shear Strengths and Drainage Conditions for Slope Stability Analysis (after FHWA-NHI-05-123,
2005) ........................................................................................................................................ 111
Table 15: Limit States (modified after FHWA-NHI-05-094) ...................................................................... 125
Table 16: Fill Wall Evaluation Factors (modified after Earth Retaining Structures, 2008,
FHWA-NHI-07-071) .................................................................................................................. 145
Table 17: Cut Wall Evaluation Factors (modified after Earth Retaining Structures, 2008,
FHWA-NHI-07-071) .................................................................................................................. 146
Table 18: Soil Boring Naming Convention ................................................................................................ 159

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page ix

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Metal Core Box with Styrofoam Inserts ....................................................................................... 19

Figure 2: Wood Core Box with Wood Inserts.............................................................................................. 19
Figure 3: Recommended Practice for Plugging Soil Borings ....................................................................... 32
Figure 4: Soil Boring Layout for Retaining Walls ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 5: Typical Spiral Augers .................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 6: The Formation of Sedimentary Peat ............................................................................................ 74
Figure 7: The Formation of Fibrous Peat .................................................................................................... 75
Figure 8: The Formation of Woody Peat .................................................................................................. 75
Figure 9: Example 1 Soil Boring Data Sheet ................................................................................................ 77
Figure 10: Example 2 Soil Boring Data Sheet .............................................................................................. 78
Figure 11: Angle of Internal Friction vs. N-value (After Peck et al, 1974) ................................................... 84
Figure 12: Cut to Fill Transition Undercut ................................................................................................... 91
Figure 13: Load Transfer from Axle Loads on Concrete Joints (After MATES, Issue No. 14) ...................... 96
Figure 14: Pumping Water at Joint (after MATES, Issue No. 14) ................................................................ 97
Figure 15: Soil Slough in Spring ................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 16: Existing Roadway Slopes .......................................................................................................... 102
Figure 17: Schematics of Lateral Squeeze Phenomenon .......................................................................... 114
Figure 18: Definitions of Parameters in Calculating Factor of Safety Against Lateral Squeeze ................ 115
Figure 19: Examples of Abutment Tilting Due to Lateral Squeeze (FHWA, 2006a) .................................. 116
Figure 20: Rock Buttress Integrated into Slope Fix (TRB SR 247, 1996) ................................................... 121
Figure 21: Rock Buttress at Toe of Slope (FHWA, 2005) ........................................................................... 121
Figure 22: Cobblestone Ditch at Slope Interface ...................................................................................... 122
Figure 23: Flowchart for LRFD Spread Footing Design.............................................................................. 129
Figure 24: General Flowchart for LRFD Pile/Shaft Design......................................................................... 131
Figure 25: Abutment Stability Analysis Critical Section ............................................................................ 141
Figure 26: Gravity Mass Concrete Wall and Gabion Basket Wall (AASHTO LRFD, November 2017) ....... 147
Figure 27: Gravity – Precast Segmental and Modular Block Walls (AASHTO LRFD, November 2017) ..... 148
Figure 28: Semi-Gravity Retaining Walls -a) Cantilever, b) Counterfort, c) Buttress (Earth Retaining
Structures, June 2006) ............................................................................................................. 148
Figure 29: Generic Cross-Section of an MSE Structure ............................................................................. 149
Figure 30: Nongravity Retaining Walls-a) Cantilever, b) Anchored, c) Braced, d) Deadman Anchored
(Earth Retaining Structures, June 2008) .................................................................................. 151
Figure 31: General Cross-Section of a Soil Nail Wall (after Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual, 2015,
FHWA-NHI-14-007) .................................................................................................................. 153
Figure 32: General Cross-Section of a CCTV Foundation .......................................................................... 155
Figure 33: Geotechnical Report Table of Sign Foundation Recommendations ........................................ 161
Figure 34: Stability Analysis Summary Graphic......................................................................................... 165
Figure 35: Spread Footing Design Summary Table ................................................................................... 166
Figure 36: Spread Footing Bearing Resistance Summary Chart................................................................ 167

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page x

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 37: Example of Driven Pile Analysis Summary Table .................................................................... 168
Figure 38: Example of Micropile Analysis Summary Table ...................................................................... 169
Figure 39: Example of Micropile Lateral Analysis Summary Table .......................................................... 169
Figure 40: Example of Drilled Shaft Foundation Analysis/Recommendations Summary Table .............. 170
Figure 41: Example of Drilled Shaft Lateral Analysis Summary Table ...................................................... 171
Figure 42: Example of Permanent Tieback Sheet Pile Wall Design Summary Table ............................... 172
Figure 43: Example of Permanent Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall Design Summary Table ........................... 172

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page xi

NOVEMBER 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page xii

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Geotechnical Manual (the
Manual) is to convey MDOT geotechnical policies and procedures for design and construction of
transportation infrastructure and appurtenances. The creation of the Manual complements the
overall objective of the Geotechnical Services Section (GSS) of providing for safe, economical,
effective and efficient geotechnical designs.

Entities that perform work for MDOT or on MDOT funded projects are expected to adhere to
the criteria presented in the Manual. When deviations from guidelines presented in the Manual
are needed, the GSS must be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action. The
Manual supersedes the Fifth Edition of the Field Manual of Soils Engineering and the 2004
Edition of the Geotechnical Investigation and Analysis Requirements for Structures.

The format of the Manual is intended to present information in the same general sequence as it
would occur during project development for a conventional design-bid-build project. With that
said, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is continually looking at ways to
improve project delivery to the public and does utilize innovative contracting mechanisms to
achieve this goal. As such, the Manual contents also will apply on recently used contractual
procedures for Design Build and Construction Management-General Contractor processes.

The Manual presents most of the information normally required in the geotechnical design of
transportation projects; however, it is impossible to address every situation that designers will
encounter. Therefore, designers must exercise good engineering judgment on individual
projects. Any questions concerning the applicability of procedure, analysis, or method should be
directed to the GSS for review and comment. MDOT manuals are reviewed either monthly or
annually and revised as necessary. At times during the geotechnical investigation and analysis, it
may be helpful to obtain information from MDOT manuals. The following link provides access to
these manuals.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 1

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

SECTION 2 – GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE OR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

This subsection summarizes the responsibilities of MDOT’s geotechnical engineering staff. In
general, the geotechnical staff is broken into two sections: the Geotechnical Service Section
(GSS) located in Lansing and the region soils engineer located in each region. Under the
umbrella of the Bureau of Bridges and Structures, the overall GSS personnel structure services
geotechnical needs for both design and construction aspects on MDOT projects.

It should be noted that the Manual only addresses geotechnical aspects of pavement design.
How this information is applied in pavement and roadway design can be found in the MDOT
User Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design manual.

2.2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

MDOT’s project development process consists of a complex system with several predefined
tasks. Within the MDOT system, Planisware is the software used to manage a project via these
tasks. Typical tasks allocated for geotechnical services include the following:
 Task 3510 – Roadway Geotechnical Investigation
 Task 3325 – Geotechnical Site Characterization – Structures
 Task 3530 – Geotechnical Foundation Engineering Report
 Task 3815 – Geotechnical Design Review – Structures
In general, Task 3510 functions are associated with field investigations and recommendations
associated with roadway related infrastructure. Tasks 3325, 3530, and 3815 are directly
associated with the bridge investigation and design process. A complete description of these
Program/Project Management System (P/PMS) tasks is provided on the MDOT website or in the
P/PMS Task Manual. In addition, the P/PMS flowchart is provided on MDOT’s website and
provides a graphical view of how each task fits into the overall project development process.

2.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN POLICIES AND THEIR BASIS

Technical policies and design requirements provided in the Manual have been derived from
national standards and design guidelines such as those produced by American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). The following manuals, listed in order of priority, are the primary source of
geotechnical policy for MDOT:
1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, most current edition plus interims
2. FHWA Manual on Subsurface Investigations, most current edition
FHWA geotechnical manuals, or other nationally recognized design manuals, are considered
secondary relative to the AASHTO manuals listed above for establishing MDOT geotechnical
design policy. FHWA geotechnical manuals have been used to address areas not specifically

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 2

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

covered by the above listed AASHTO manuals. Where justified by research or local experience,
the design policies and requirements provided herein may deviate from the AASHTO and FHWA
design specifications and guidelines and shall supersede the requirements and guidelines within
the AASHTO and FHWA manuals.

For foundation and wall design, the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) approach must be
used to be consistent with MDOT Bridge Design policy. For aspects of foundation and wall
design that have not yet been developed in the LRFD format, allowable stress (ASD) or load
factor design (LFD) will be used until such time the LRFD approach has been developed.

In the Manual, terms and definitions provided in the table below are used to convey
geotechnical policy.

Table 1: Terms Used to Convey Geotechnical Policy

Term Definition
The associated provisions must be used. There is no acceptable
Must
alternative.
The associated provisions must be used unless strong
justification is available and provided based on well-established
Should
regional or national practice, and if backed up by well accepted
research results.
The associated provisions are recommended, but alternative
May methods or approaches that are consistent with the intent of
the provisions are acceptable.
Evaluate, evaluated, The associated issue must be evaluated or addressed through
address, addressed detailed analysis and the results documented.
The associated recommended provisions must be evaluated,
and the reasons and analyses used to decide whether to or not
Consider, considered
to implement the recommended provisions must be
documented.
The geotechnical engineer, soils engineer, or engineering
geologist who has been given responsibility to coordinate the
Geotechnical Engineer
geotechnical design, field investigation, or research activities
for the project.

2.3.1 MANUAL CHANGES

It is intended that the Manual will be continually updated as required to clarify geotechnical
practice in MDOT and include new information. Revisions and submittals from all users of the
Manual, both inside MDOT and consultants, are encouraged. The following revision procedure
should be used:

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 3

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Define the Problem - Discuss the suggestion or revision of the Manual with others that
have a stake in the outcome. If it is agreed the item should be proposed, develop a
written proposal.
2. Develop a Written Proposal - Research and develop a written proposal using the three
general subject headings:
 Problem Statement – Clearly state the existing problem.

 Analysis/Research Data – Research and analysis of the problem and potential

solution are thorough and understandable.
 Proposal – Present solution that is supported by facts and solves the problem.
Include impact on other areas and how these impacts have been coordinated with
other areas.
3. Review and Approval - After reviewing the written proposal for completeness, the
Geotechnical Services Section will either accept, without further review, manual
corrections for inclusion in the Manual or advance the proposal to other sections within
MDOT for further review and comment.
Regardless of whether a proposal is accepted, the Geotechnical Services Section will
reply in writing to the person making the submittal.
4. Implementation of Approved Revision - After a proposal has final approval, a revised
manual page will be prepared for inclusion into the document. The Geotechnical
Services Section will keep records of manual changes. Major changes like adding new
sections will require the words “REVISED Month Year” to be placed adjacent to the
initial date on the Manual’s cover and in page footers.

2.4 GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE

This section provides a general overview of software used in geotechnical engineering and
analysis. The following table provides a list of software, including but not limited to, which is
currently used by MDOT or its representatives. Consultants are not required to obtain the same
software as MDOT unless indicated by an asterisk, but all software must adhere to the models
and theory permitted in the Manual.

Table 2: Geotechnical Software

Analysis Type Software
 Gint*
Soil Boring Log Preparation
 PowerGEOPAK (or future version)*
 Driven
 DrivenPiles
Structure Foundation Analysis
 Apile
 GRLWEAP

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 4

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 2 GENERAL INFORMATION

Analysis Type Software

 CAPWAP
 LPILE
 COM624
 FoSSA
 EMBANK
 GROUP
 FB-MultiPier
 MSEW
 ReSSA
Retaining Wall Analysis, Steepened
 SupportIT
Slopes, and Shoring Analysis
 SPW 911
 CivilTech Software Shoring Suite
 Slide
 SLOPE/W
Slope Stability
 PCSTABL
 RSS
 Microsoft Excel
Miscellaneous Analysis
 MathCADD

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 5

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 3 CONSULTANT CONTRACTS

SECTION 3 – CONSULTANT CONTRACTS

3.1 GENERAL
MDOT has historically utilized geotechnical consultants to provide geotechnical engineering
services on selected projects. Performing work in this capacity requires consultants to be
prequalified in the Design-Geotechnical and/or Design-Geotechnical: Advanced classifications.
Requirements to obtain prequalification status can be viewed by clicking on this link. Please
note that obtaining prequalification status does not guarantee work from MDOT.

3.2 CONSULTANT CONTRACTING METHODS

The following three avenues are typical ways geotechnical consultants can perform work for
MDOT.

3.2.1 DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECTS

 The Geotechnical Services Section (GSS) issues a Request for Proposal for Statewide As-
Needed Geotechnical Services. Selected consultants are then contracted as needed
when projects arise. While the scoping of work may vary in complexity with this
contract, the statewide contract typically encompasses more complex geotechnical
work such as bridge foundation design, geo-hazard investigation and analyses, or
embankment settlement and stability analyses in challenging soil conditions. This type
of work requires prequalification in the Design-Geotechnical: Advanced classification.
The selected consultants act as an extension of the GSS. Statewide as-needed
opportunities are advertised on MDOT’s website under Vendor/Consultant Services.

 The MDOT region office issues a Request for Proposal for As-Needed Geotechnical
Services specific to that region. Selected consultants are then contracted by the region
soils engineer to provide services as required. In general, the scope of work for these
contracts encompass soil borings and pavement core acquisitions, standard plan
foundation analyses and recommendations (e.g., strain poles, overhead signs), and
roadway recommendations. This type of work requires prequalification in the
Design-Geotechnical classification. These consultants act as an extension of the region
soils engineer. In addition, regional based opportunities are advertised on MDOT’s
website under Vendor/Consultant Services.

 Request for Proposals for transportation projects (e.g., roadway

reconstruction/rehabilitation, bridge widening/reconstruction, Intelligent
Transportation System structures) are advertised on MDOT’s website. As part of this
request for proposal, a secondary prequalification of either geotechnical classification is
listed on the request and opportunities exist to be on a project design team in this
capacity. Projects typically consist of either roadway or bridge design services.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 6

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 3 CONSULTANT CONTRACTS

In general, geotechnical consultants working directly with the GSS or region offices will do so
through a formal contract in which the consultant is assigned project specific tasks. Through
these tasks, the consultant is typically responsible to develop a detailed geotechnical
investigation plan, conduct a field investigation, perform testing and design, and produce a
geotechnical report. On certain projects requiring only drilling/coring services, the number of
soil borings/pavement cores and depths should be defined by the GSS or region soils engineer.
For these as-needed assignments, the consultant is viewed as an extension of MDOT’s
geotechnical staff; therefore, frequent communication between MDOT’s geotechnical staff and
the consultant is essential for a successful project.

When a geotechnical subconsultant is retained by a prime design consultant, the GSS or region
soils engineer should assist the MDOT project manager in development of any special/specific
geotechnical requirements on the project. In addition, the GSS or region soils engineer may
assist as needed in review of the geotechnical consultant cost estimate and geotechnical
consultant work product.

3.2.2 INNOVATIVE CONTRACTING METHODS

Innovative contracts consist of design-build, construction management-general contractor,
alternate technical concepts, and public private partnership projects. Opportunities exist for
geotechnical companies to be a subconsultant to the prime consultant or contractor in these
settings as well. Future innovative contracting projects can be found on the MDOT Innovative
Contracting website by clicking on this link. Prequalification in one or both geotechnical
classifications is required to perform services on these types of projects.

3.2.3 SPECIAL PROJECTS

The GSS or region may select a consultant to conduct geotechnical research, special studies, or
prepare documents. Upon request by the region on these project types, the GSS and/or region
soils engineer should provide assistance in the following ways.

 Determine the scope of services required.

 Prepare Request for Qualifications.
 Review overall proposal.
 Review price proposal.
 Attend initial scoping meetings with selected consultant and other meetings as needed.
 Review final deliverable.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 7

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 4 MICHIGAN GLACIAL HISTORY

SECTION 4 – MICHIGAN GLACIAL HISTORY

4.1 FUTURE SECTION TO BE DEVELOPED

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 8

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

SECTION 5 – FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

5.1 GENERAL
This section provides guidelines and commonly used techniques for determining the scope of a
geotechnical field investigation. As requirements and conditions will vary with each project,
engineering judgment is essential in tailoring the investigation to the specific project. Useful
references that provide extensive information on planning and conducting a geotechnical
investigation are NHI 132031 Subsurface Investigations-Geotechnical Site Characterization and
GEC-5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties published 2002, and GEC-5 Geotechnical Site
Characterization published 2017.

5.1.1 REVIEW OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

One item to initially consider when planning and performing a subsurface investigation is a
thorough review of the project requirements. Useful items for the Geotechnical Engineer to
review are the following:
 Project location and size.

 Project type (current and proposed alignment, reconstruction, widening, improvement,

structure type, and slope stability).
 Project criteria (structure locations, structure loads, bridge span lengths, maintenance
of traffic, and cut and fill locations).

 Project constraints (right-of-way, environmental considerations, and permitting).

 Project design and construction timelines and budgets.

5.1.2 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

Upon review of the project requirements, the Geotechnical Engineer should review all available
pertinent information sources as part of the planning process. Further research into these data
sources could provide valuable information in determining applicable soil boring number, type,
depths, and other sources of testing as necessary. The following sections highlight potential
sources that should be considered in developing a field investigation.

Topographic Maps
These maps are prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are readily available
at the USGS Topographic Maps or Michigan Geographic Data Library. Physical features,
configuration and elevation of the ground surface, and surface water features are
portrayed on these maps. This data is valuable in determining preliminary accessibility
for field equipment and possible problem areas.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 9

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Aerial Photographs
These photographs are available from commercial web mapping sources and the
Michigan Geographic Data Library noted in Section 5.1.2.1. They are valuable in that
they can provide the basis for reconnaissance and, depending on the age of the
photographs, show manmade structures, excavations, or fills that affect accessibility and
the planned depth of exploration. Historical photographs can also help determine the
reasons and timeline of channel migration, general scour, and sinkhole activity.

Geological Maps and Reports

Considerable information on the geological conditions of an area can often be obtained
from geological maps and reports. These reports and maps often show the location and
relative position of the different geological strata and present information on the
characteristics of the different strata. This data can be used directly to evaluate the rock
conditions or depths to be expected and indirectly to estimate possible soil conditions
since the parent material is one of the factors controlling soil types. These maps may
also be useful to the Geotechnical Engineer in delineating areas of karst or existing
underground mines. Geological maps and reports can be obtained from the USGS,
Michigan Geological Survey website, and local university libraries.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surveys

These surveys are compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture usually in the form of
county soils maps. These surveys can provide valuable data on shallow surface soils
including mineral composition, grain size distribution, depth to rock, general water table
information, drainage characteristics, geologic origin, and presence of significant organic
deposits. Published and downloadable county soil maps are available on the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey web page while interactive soil maps
are available on the NRCS Web Soil Survey web page.

Water Well Surveys

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has developed a
web-based database of water wells drilled throughout Michigan. These files are useful in
obtaining general soil and rock types and depths in a specific area. Groundwater depth
information is typically documented in these files as well. This resource can be located
on the MDEQ Wellogic website.

Existing Design Plans and Construction Records

MDOT has many archived plans and construction records of the existing roadways and
structures. Obtaining and reviewing this information can be useful for the Geotechnical
Engineer in many ways. Specific knowledge of the subsurface conditions, foundation
type, depth, width, and other existing underground structures can be determined from
these plans. These plans can typically be obtained through a request to the MDOT

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 10

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

project manager for the project. The Field Manual of Soil Engineering should be
referenced for the design methodology utilized in the development of these plans.

Some caution is advised when reviewing the soil boring information in older versions of
the plans. Older drilling and field testing methods, such as jetting or manual Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) hammers, may not be as reliable as drilling and field testing
methods utilized today. As a result, variations in the subsurface conditions than those
indicated in these documents may be observed utilizing present-day drilling equipment
and procedures.

Remote Sensing
A tool that is starting to gain use for gathering large amounts of terrain or topographical
data is the use of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys. LiDAR surveys are
comprised of three types. Each type and best use practices are summarized below.
1. Mobile – The survey equipment for this type of scan is mounted on a vehicle and is
capable of traveling at near highway speeds. This scan type is capable of collecting
large amounts of corridor information in a quick and safer way when compared to
traditional survey methods.
2. Terrestrial – Terrestrial LiDAR is mounted on a tripod and is useful in collecting very
accurate survey information in a localized area. This method is very useful in
collecting data in hard to access areas (cliff faces, steep slopes) or when repeatable
data is desired to compare current and future land topography conditions.
3. Aerial – When topographical data or general land features are needed, aerial LiDAR
provides a great tool in cheaply collecting this data from the user’s desktop. This
data is available for MDOT users through the MiSAIL website. The data is best used
from hydraulic surveys, conceptual or preliminary roadway re-alignments, or
geohazard delineation such as sinkholes or a preliminary slope stability
investigation.

5.1.3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

As part of the planning phase, the Geotechnical Engineer should visit the project site. The site
visit is most effective when conducted after the previously noted project site information has
been collected and reviewed. The visit will enable the engineer to observe first-hand the field
conditions and more accurately correlate previous data with newly obtained site information.
The following items, if applicable, should be defined by the site reconnaissance:
 Drilling Logistics – define approximate boring locations, required routes to access
borings, type of equipment required, location of existing benchmark (if applicable),
evidence of buried or overhead utilities, right-of way or private property access, traffic
control required to perform soil borings, equipment storage areas, water supply, site
restoration, cutting disposal, etc.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 11

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

 Structures – consider nearby structures/utilities and how they will impact the field
investigation and design development. Note condition of existing pavements and
structures.

 Permits – determine the various types of permits that may be required.

 Land & Water Features – escarpments, outcrops, erosion features, surface settlement,
marshes, vegetation, slope failures or sloughing, drainage, scour, flood levels, channel
migration, adjacent land usage, etc.

5.2 PERMITS
A right-of-way permit is required to perform work within MDOT’s right-of-way. More
information on the process for obtaining this permit is provided in Task 3510 and 3325
descriptions. In addition, permits can be obtained through the MDOT Permit Gateway.

When drilling in or near lakes and streams, a permit is required under Part 301 and for wetlands
Part 303 of 1994 PA 451, as amended, from MDEQ. If work is being conducted for the
department, the permit is coordinated through the Transportation Service Center. If the work is
for a private entity, the applicant must go through MDEQ directly.

5.3 FIELD WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

If the field investigation extends outside the MDOT right-of-way, the Geotechnical Engineer
must obtain written permission prior to entering the property. Right-of-way maps are available
for all MDOT trunklines and can be obtained via coordination with the MDOT project manager.
The Geotechnical Engineer should consult these maps if field activities extend outside MDOT’s
right-of-way. Obtaining right of entry is typically conducted by MDOT and can be coordinated by
the MDOT project manager.

5.3.1 RAILROAD ACCESS

If the field investigation is near or within the railroad right-of-way, it is necessary to coordinate
the field work with the railroad company. The coordination is initially conducted through the
MDOT project manager.

The schedule for obtaining permission/permits from the railroad company can sometimes be a
long process. Consequently, this coordination should begin as soon as possible once it is realized
that work is required within the railroad right-of-way. Depending on the location of the field
investigation, the railroad may require a safety course before work can proceed. Dependent on
the distance the drilling is from the track, the railroad may also require a flagger during the field
investigation.

For consultant contracts, the Geotechnical Engineer should account for costs associated with
work conducted in the railroad right-of-way in their price proposal.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 12

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

5.3.2 DOCUMENTATION OF PROPERTY DAMAGE

The Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for documenting any damage that occurs during the
field investigation. Examples of this are crop damage, tire ruts in the lawn, cutting trees or
shrubs, utilities. The field personnel must document the type and extent of the damaged item.
For trees, the size and type of tree must be recorded. Take photographs of the damaged
area/item and at completion of any repaired area.

For consultant contracts, the Geotechnical Engineer should account for costs within the price
proposal that are associated with damages that occur during the field investigation, if
applicable. In the case where unexpected damages occur, the Geotechnical Engineer should
contact the MDOT project manager for further direction.

5.4 UTILITY LOCATION/NOTIFICATION

Prior to drilling, it is necessary for the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the location of any
utilities within the area. For most areas, underground utilities can be determined by contacting
the Statewide “MISS DIG” system. Review of existing plans can also provide additional insight
into where existing or abandoned utilities may be located.

MDOT roadway right-of-ways include freeway lighting and storm sewers, Intelligent
Transportation Structures, and miscellaneous electrical systems, which are not typically part of
the MISS DIG System. The Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for contacting the appropriate
MDOT agency noted in Task 3510 or 3325 descriptions to provide appropriate clearance for
these utilities. For utilities not located through the MISS DIG system, a “soft dig” utilizing hand
digging or vacuum type equipment may be necessary prior to conducting the field investigation.

5.5 DRILLING SAFETY

The nature of the equipment used and climatic conditions often present potential hazards that
should be evaluated on a site-specific basis. It is the responsibility of the Geotechnical Engineer,
as well as field crew members, to adjust the investigation program and/or provide equipment,
training, and other means to provide safe working conditions. It may be necessary to prepare a
unique safety plan for unusual projects to provide guidance for field staff, which could include
unique safety practices, emergency contact information, and considerations for first aid.
Minimum protective gear for all field personnel should be in compliance with MDOT’s Personal
Protection Equipment Policy, as stated in MDOT Guidance Document #10118. During drilling,
field personnel should also use tear-away safety vests.

Nonroutine environmental issues may be encountered during a site investigation. For example,
discolored odorous soil or contaminated groundwater may be detected from previous site
studies during the planning process or during drilling and sampling operations. Other geologic
conditions that can create issues during drilling operations and require preplanning are artesian
groundwater or naturally occurring methane gas. When geotechnical investigations must be

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 13

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

conducted under such conditions, significant preplanning is required not only to protect the
field crew, but also to comply with any governing environmental regulations. These conditions
may require additional personal protection equipment and training during the field investigation
and disposal of contaminated spoils at an appropriate location.

5.6 DRILLING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL AND ROCK

Various types of drilling and sampling techniques are typically utilized on MDOT projects. Drilling
equipment utilized to advance the borehole must be noted on the field log. This section
summarizes general information on the equipment, methods, and techniques utilized during a
typical field investigation.

5.6.1 EQUIPMENT
Several factors influence the applicability and selection of subsurface exploration equipment
and methodology for site investigation. Selection of equipment and methods are usually based
on geotechnical data needs and geologic conditions but may also be based on site access,
equipment availability, project budget, environmental restrictions, or a combination of these.

Geotechnical Engineers should be familiar with the exploration methods applied on their
projects, their results, and potential limitations or effects on the data they receive from the
field. For a specific project, the Geotechnical Engineer should carefully consider the drilling and
sampling methods best suited. The main purpose of the subsurface investigation is adequate
site characterization. The quality of the results is an important facet of the subsurface
investigation, and different drilling techniques are better suited to certain materials and
conditions. Michigan is a state of very diverse soil and rock conditions and proper selection of
tooling is critical to achieve high quality and timely results. Achieving quality results from a
drilling program are more important than convenience.

5.6.2 DRILLING METHODS

Continuous Flight or Hand Auger Borings

This drilling method consists of rotating an auger while simultaneously advancing it into
the ground to the desired depth. Samples of cuttings can be removed from the auger;
however, the depth of the sample can only be approximated. These samples are
disturbed and should be used only for material identification. Primary uses include soil
strata and groundwater determination and hole advancement prior to SPTs. Machine
auger borings have been widely used within MDOT to evaluate shallow subsurface
conditions for roadway investigations. Auger borings are limited in depth by the
presence of groundwater or collapsible soils. The standard practice for advancing augers
is described by ASTM D1452.

Manual hand auger borings are another method utilized in field investigations. Hand
auger borings are limited in depth by the presence of groundwater and collapsible soil.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 14

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Additionally, penetration into hard or dense soil can be difficult due to the operator’s
physical limitations. These borings are typically utilized to supplement other drilling
methods or in areas that normal drilling equipment are unable to access.

Hollow-Stem Auger Borings

A hollow-stem auger (HSA) consists of a continuous flight auger surrounding a hollow
drill stem. This advancement method is one of the most common drilling methods
utilized in Michigan. The HSA is advanced similar to other augers; except, removal of the
hollow stem auger is not necessary for sampling. SPT and undisturbed samples are
obtained through the hollow drill stem, which acts like a casing to hold the hole open.
As a supplemental form of verification, soil cuttings observed by the driller/field
engineer can be utilized to determine soil strata type. Monitoring wells and piezometers
can also be installed using this method.

When groundwater is encountered, appropriate action to mitigate differential

hydrostatic head that develops between the inside and outside of the auger casing must
be taken to prevent unreliable SPT results. The standard practice for using hollow-stem
augers is described by ASTM D6151.

Rotary Drilling
Rotary drilling is one of the common methods utilized in Michigan. In this method, the
boring is advanced by a combination of the chopping action of a light bit and jetting
action of the water flowing through the bit. A downward pressure applied during
rotation advances the hollow drill rods with a cutting bit attached to the bottom. The
drill bit cuts the material and the drilling fluid washes the cuttings from the borehole.
SPT and undisturbed samples are obtained through the drilling fluid, which holds the
borehole open. To obtain accurate water level readings during the field investigation,
this drilling method should be used in addition to hollow-stem augers or monitoring
wells.

Direct Push Borings (i.e., GeoProbe®)

Direct push equipment is hydraulically-powered percussion/probing machines that use
the vehicle weight (sometimes with ground anchors) combined with percussion at times
to advance the drill string. These machines can obtain continuous, small diameter
samples through the soil strata but due to the percussion effects produce a considerable
amount of sample disturbance. These samples are suitable for determining the soil
profile and for performing basic index testing.

Coring
The most common method for obtaining rock samples is through coring. Circulating
water removes ground-up material from the hole while also cooling the bit. The rate of

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 15

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

advance is controlled to obtain the maximum possible core recovery with a minimal
amount of disturbance. Coring is to be performed in accordance with ASTM D2113 –
Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigation. For
further guidance on this topic, refer to Section 5.6.6.5 Rock Core Sampling.

A geologist or geotechnical engineer is often on-site during coring operations to observe

the coring process and perform measurements that are pertinent in determining the
rock mass characteristics.

Other Drilling Methods

Other drilling advancement methods exist such as percussion (sonic), wash borings, jet,
air rotary, and cable tool but are not commonly utilized for geotechnical investigations
in Michigan. The Geotechnical Services Section must be contacted prior to use of these
drilling methods.

5.6.3 BACKFILL OF BOREHOLES

Upon completion, all borings must be backfilled in accordance with the Recommended Practice
for Plugging Soil Borings issued by the Southeastern Branch, Michigan Section, American Society
of Civil Engineers. This document is appended to the end of this section as Figure 3. Following
these guidelines prevents cross-contamination of aquifers and reduces the risk of borehole
subsidence and resulting issues that could develop (e.g., vehicle damage, adjacent roadway
deterioration, delay to traveling public due to lane closure). If special cases arise that require
deviation from this document, then the Geotechnical Services Section (GSS) should be contacted
prior to the use of these methods.

Boreholes that penetrate through surface layers of hot mixed asphalt or concrete pavement
must be suitably patched. In addition, boreholes through bridge decks must be suitably patched.

5.6.4 SOUNDINGS
A sounding is a method of exploration in which either static or dynamic force is used to push a
rod or advance an auger into the soil profile. Samples are not usually obtained with this
procedure. The depth to rock or thickness of an organic layer can easily be deduced from the
resistance to penetration. Soundings are considered as a supplemental form of investigation.

5.6.5 TEST PITS AND TRENCHES

These are the simplest methods of inspecting subsurface soils. Test pits consist of excavations
performed by hand, backhoe, vacuum truck, or dozer. They offer the advantages of speed and
ready access for sampling. They are severely hampered by limitations of depth and by the fact
they generally cannot be used below the groundwater table. Test pits are typically used as a
supplemental form of investigation during the design phase or to investigate soil related issues
and various types of structure location/depths during construction. In certain situations, soil
erosion and sedimentation control measures may be required.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 16

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Upon completion, the excavated test pit should be backfilled with the excavated material or
other suitable material. If future construction of a slope, roadway, or structure, is planned for
this area, the backfill should be compacted in accordance with the MDOT Standard
Specifications for Construction requirements. In areas of agricultural use or areas used to
support plant growth, the operator should be instructed to keep the topsoil separate. Ideally,
the operator should backfill the excavation such that the backfilled pit is reestablished to
support vegetation. Reseeding may be necessary to comply with MDOT requirements.

5.6.6 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) has procedures that must be
followed for collection of field samples. Samples must be properly obtained, preserved, and
transported to a laboratory facility in accordance with these procedures to preserve the samples
as best as possible. See ASTM D4220 – Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil.
Soil and rock samples collected during the field investigation are to be retained for a period of
two years from the completion of the field investigation or until the project has been
constructed, whichever is less. There are several procedures that can be used for the collection
of samples as described below.

Bulk Bag Samples

Bulk samples are highly disturbed samples obtained from auger cuttings or test pits. The
quantity of the sample depends on the type of testing to be performed but can range up
to 50 pounds or more. General testing performed on these samples includes
classification, moisture-density, environmental testing, California Bearing Ratio, and
triaxial testing on remolded specimens.

Split-Barrel Sampler
The most commonly used sampling method utilized in Michigan is the split-barrel
sampler, also known as the standard split-spoon. This method is used in conjunction
with the Standard Penetration Test. The sampler is a 2-inch (O.D.) split barrel that is
driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. After it has been
driven 18 inches, it is withdrawn and the sample removed. The sample should be
immediately examined, logged, and placed in sample jar for storage. Sample jars should
be affixed with a label indicating the boring number, sample number, depth, blow
counts, and percent recovery. Soil obtained with this type of sampling is adequate for
moisture content, grain-size distribution, Atterberg limit tests, and visual identification.
Sampling must be in accordance with ASTM D1586 – Standard Test Method for
Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.

Thin-Walled Undisturbed Tube Sampler

The thin-walled tube sampler, also known as the Shelby tube, is a thin-walled steel tube
pushed into the soil to be sampled by hydraulic pressure and then after a short waiting

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 17

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

period, spun to shear off the base. Afterward, the sampler is pulled out, immediately
sealed, and taken to the laboratory facility. This process allows the sample to be
undisturbed as much as possible and is suitable for fine-grained soils that require
strength and consolidation tests. See ASTM D1587 - Standard Practice for Thin-Walled
Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes.

Transverse Shear Core Sampling

This method of sampling collects undisturbed cohesive samples and consists of
hydraulically pushing a 1.75-inch O.D. diameter by 28.75-inch-long sampling barrel into
the sampled soil. Within the sampling barrel are several liners varying in length between
1 and 3 inches. For more details on this method, refer to the Field Manual of Soil
Engineering, Fifth Edition, page 38.

Historically, this method of sampling has been performed by MDOT on a routine basis.
Although this method is not commonly utilized in the private sector, MDOT uses the
method on a case-by-case basis. Samples collected are tested in unconfined
compression tests and transverse shear strength tests.

Rock Core Sampling

Rock core sampling is used to obtain a continuous, relatively undisturbed sample of the
intact rock mass for evaluation of its geologic and engineering properties. Three basic
types of core barrels are single tube, double tube, and triple tube. MDOT requires the
use of double or triple tube core barrels and N-size (core diameter of 1.874 in.) or larger
cores when conducting rock coring. Wireline recovery methods are preferred when
coring lengths exceed 10 ft. Individual core runs must be no greater than 5 ft. When
projects involve rock slope applications, the Geotechnical Engineer should consider the
use of only a triple tube core barrel system because it is better suited to obtain the level
of detail critical for these types of investigation. Rock coring must be labeled, preserved,
and transported in accordance with ASTM D2113 and ASTM D5079. Rock core recovery
and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) should be determined in the field by a qualified
professional such as the geotechnical field engineer or geologist. Core samples must be
placed in either wood or metal core boxes (see Figure 1 and 2).

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 18

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Figure 1: Metal Core Box with Styrofoam Inserts

Figure 2: Wood Core Box with Wood Inserts

Once the rock core is placed in the core box and the box properly labeled, a photograph
should be taken to obtain a permanent record of the original core condition at the time
of recovery. Furthermore, the photographs are also useful for reviewing the condition of
the core when preparing final logs and are invaluable to individuals who do not have an
opportunity to inspect the actual core.

Drilling Bits - The proper selection of a drilling bit is critical. An improper bit is
detrimental to core recovery and drilling production rates. Many resources are available
to determine the appropriate bit including the references provided in Section 5.1 and
from the bit manufacturer. Ultimately, the driller is responsible for bit selection and
obtaining quality results. A combination of proper planning, being familiar with bit
types, and experience coring various rock formations within Michigan aid in obtaining
higher quality results.

Core Orientation - In some rock slope applications, it is important to understand

the precise orientation of rock discontinuities for the design. Orienting recovered rock
core so that it can be properly mapped and evaluated, as though it were still in place,
requires special core barrels. Currently, specialized core barrels that scribe a reference
mark (line) on the side of the core as it is drilled are more routinely used. Special
recording devices within the core barrel relate the known azimuth orientations to the
reference mark so that, when the core is subsequently removed from the core barrel,
the core can be oriented to its exact in-situ position. These specialized core barrels are

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 19

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

relatively expensive and require additional training to use properly and interpret results.
Refer to NHI 132031 Subsurface Investigations-Geotechnical Site Characterization.

Borehole Camera Surveys – In special cases, boreholes can be imaged to visually

inspect the condition of the sidewalls and distinguish gross changes in lithology. These
devices can also be used to identify fracture zones, shear zones, and joint patterns in
rock core holes. Furthermore, they aid the Geotechnical Engineer or geologist in
identifying/interpreting the orientation of the rock core. The GSS should be contacted
prior to using this technique.

Other Sampling Methods

Other sampling methods exist such as a piston sampler, Denison core sampler, and
pitcher tube sampler but are not commonly utilized for MDOT geotechnical
investigations. The GSS or region soils engineer should be contacted prior to using
sampling methods not listed in previous sections of the Manual.

5.7 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS

Geophysical techniques are nondestructive methods used to gather information over large areas
and to supplement information between boreholes. These exploration techniques are most
useful for extending the interpretation of subsurface conditions beyond what is determined
from small diameter borings. This tool can provide information on the general subsurface
profile, the depth of bedrock, depth to groundwater, the location of granular borrow areas,
peat/marl deposits, or subsurface anomalies. Common methods utilized for geotechnical
explorations include seismic refraction and reflection, electrical resistivity, and ground
penetrating radar.

However, results can be significantly affected by many factors including the presence of
groundwater, non-homogeneity of soil stratum thickness, and the range of wave velocities
within a particular stratum. Subsurface strata that have similar physical properties can be
difficult to distinguish with geophysical methods. Because of these limitations, geophysics
should be considered a secondary exploration method to drilling and the primary exploration
should be by conventional borings. Furthermore, data obtained from the surveys should be
interpreted and processed by an experienced and highly-trained geophysicist. This information
must not be included in the bid documents unless otherwise approved by the GSS.

For secondary resources on this topic, see FHWA-IF-021 Application of Geophysical Methods for
Highway Related Problems and USACE EM 1110-1-1802.

5.7.1 SEISMIC REFRACTION AND REFLECTION SURVEY

These methods rely on the fact that acoustic signals travel through different materials at
different velocities. The times required for an induced acoustic signal to travel to set detectors

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 20

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

after being refracted or reflected by the various subsurface materials are measured. This data is
then used to interpret material types and thicknesses. Seismic refraction is limited to material
stratifications in which velocities increase with depth. For the seismic refraction method, refer
to ASTM D5777. Seismic investigations can be performed from the surface or from various
depths within borings. For crosshole seismic techniques, see ASTM D4428.

5.7.2 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

This method is based on the differences in electrical conductivity between subsurface strata. An
electric current is passed through the ground between electrodes and the resistivity of the
subsurface materials is measured and correlated to material types. Several electrode
arrangements have been developed, with the Wenner four-point electrical test being the most
commonly used in the United States. Refer to ASTM G57 and D6431 for additional guidance on
this topic.

Electrical resistivity testing is generally utilized for the following reasons.

 To find the depth to bedrock since soil and rock typically have different electrical
resistances.
 Resistivity testing is affected by the moisture content of the soil and the presence or
lack of metals, salts, and clay particles. Thus, resistivity surveys may be used to model
groundwater flow through the subsurface.

 Resistivity surveys are also used to determine the potential for corrosion of foundation
materials for the in-situ subsurface materials.

5.7.3 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR)

The velocity of electromagnetic radiation is dependent upon the material through which it is
traveling. GPR uses this principle to analyze the reflections of radar signals transmitted into the
ground by a low frequency antenna. Signals are continuously transmitted and received as the
antenna is towed across the area of interest, thus providing a profile of the subsurface material
interfaces.

GPR is limited by the contrast in the properties of adjacent material. In addition to having
sufficient velocity contrast, the boundary between the two materials needs to be sharp. For
instance, it is more difficult to see a water table in fine-grained materials than in coarse-grained
materials because of the different relative thicknesses of the capillary fringe for the same
contrast. See ASTM D6432.

5.7.4 SURFACE WAVE METHODS (SASW AND MASW)

Surface wave methods consist of Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) or Multi-channel
Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW). The SASW and MASW methods are used to measure layer
thickness, depth, and the shear wave velocity (VS) of the layer. The shear wave velocity is more

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 21

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

of bulk (general) velocity than a discrete velocity of a layer. Discrete shear wave velocity may be
determined by crosshole or downhole methods. While the SASW will typically have two
geophones, the MASW will have additional geophones spread over a larger area. Typically,
SASW and MASW profiles are limited to a depth of approximately 130 feet using man-portable
equipment. Additional depth can be obtained, but heavier motorized equipment is required.

5.8 IN-SITU SOIL TESTING

The testing described in this section provides the Geotechnical Engineer with soil and rock
parameters determined in-situ. This is important on all projects, especially those involving soft
clays, loose sands, and/or sands below the water table, due to the difficulty of obtaining
representative samples suitable for laboratory testing. For each test included, a brief description
of the equipment and test method is presented. While this section covers some of the more
common tests performed at MDOT, others may also be useful in the field investigation and can
be considered by the GSS or region soils engineer on a case-by-case basis.

5.8.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed during the advancement of a soil boring to
obtain an approximate measure of soil resistance, as well as a disturbed soil sample with a
split-barrel sampler. The procedures for the SPT are detailed in ASTM D1586.

Generally, all borings should be performed with split-spoon sampling. Split-spoon samples must
be obtained with a standard spoon of 2 inches O.D. and 1.5 inch I.D., and advanced by dropping
a 140-pound hammer on the drill rod from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is typically
advanced a total of 18 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler for each of
the three 6-inch increments is recorded. The sum of the number of blows for the second and
third increments is called the N-value.

Various types of hammers have historically been utilized to perform the SPT, including donut,
safety, and automatic hammers. Currently, safety and automatic hammers are utilized with the
automatic hammer being the preferred hammer of choice by MDOT. Field investigations should
use an automatic hammer unless site or project conditions warrant otherwise. The use of a
donut hammer is not permitted. Hammers utilized on an MDOT funded project must be
calibrated in accordance with ASTM D4633 Standard Test Method for Energy Measurement for
Dynamic Penetrometers. Hammer calibration must have been conducted within two years from
the start of drilling the project or after hammer adjustment/repair, whichever criterion is more
stringent. The energy ratio result of the calibration test should be provided in the geotechnical
report. This information allows the Geotechnical Engineer the opportunity to apply hammer
energy corrections to the field N-values as deemed applicable.

The SPT values should not be used indiscriminately. They are sensitive to the variations in
individual drilling practices and equipment. Studies have also indicated that the results are more

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 22

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

reliable in sands than clays. In addition, SPTs conducted in gravel, cobbles, and boulder
formations can result in elevated blow counts that are not necessarily representative of the
actual subsurface conditions. Although extensive use of this test in subsurface exploration is
recommended, it should be augmented by other field and laboratory tests, particularly in clay
profiles.

5.8.2 CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT)

The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) is a quasi-static penetration test in which a cylindrical rod
with a conical point is advanced through the soil at a constant rate and the resistance to
penetration is measured. A series of tests performed at varying depths at one location is
commonly called a sounding. Although not widely used on transportation projects for MDOT,
special circumstances may find the use of this test beneficial. Tests must be performed in
accordance with ASTM D5778 - Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone
and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils (electro-piezocones). The use of this method must be
approved by the GSS.

The penetrometer data is plotted showing the tip stress, the friction resistance, and the friction
ratio (friction resistance divided by tip stress) vs. depth. Pore pressures can also be plotted with
depth. Ideally, these results can be graphically presented adjacent to the soil profile for that
specific location. The results should also be presented in tabular form indicating the interpreted
results of the raw data.

5.8.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST (DCP)

This test is similar to the cone penetrometer test except, instead of being pushed at a constant
rate, the cone is driven into the soil similar to the SPT. The number of blows required to advance
the cone in selected increments is recorded. The increment determination is dependent on the
purpose of obtaining the test data. The DCP test is typically utilized at shallow depths (5 ft) in
pavement investigations as design methodology trends toward the direction of a mechanistic
design approach.

Tests can be performed continuously to the depth desired with an expendable cone, which is
left in the ground upon drill rod withdrawal, or they can be performed at specified intervals
using a retractable cone and advancing the hole by auger or other means between tests.
Samples are not obtained.

Blow counts are generally used to identify material type and relative density. However, while
correlations between blow counts and engineering properties of the soil exist, they are not as
widely accepted as those for the SPT. Furthermore, available correlations are based on an
instrument with specific size and weight parameters. Since there are currently various models
available that have different size hammers, drop heights, cone diameters and cone tip angles,
the user should ensure the proper device is being used for the appropriate testing purpose and

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 23

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

data correlation. These tests are conducted on a case-by-case basis and should be approved by
the GSS or region soils engineer prior to use.

MDOT users must use DCP equipment with the following specifications. The DCP instrument
consists of a 0.625-inch (16mm) diameter steel drive rod with a replaceable point or disposable
cone tip, a 17.6-lb (8 kg) hammer that is dropped from a fixed height of 22.6 inches (575 mm), a
coupler assembly, and a handle. During pavement investigations, the instrument is typically
used to assess material properties down to a depth of at least 39 inches (1000 mm) below the
surface. The penetration depth can be increased using drive rod extensions. The penetration
rate (mm per blow) is calculated and can be used to estimate the California Bearing Ratio (CBR),
to identify strata thickness, shear strength of strata, and other material characteristics. The test
must be performed in accordance with ASTM 6951 Standard Test Method for Use of the
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. The DCP is being increasingly
used in routine as well as specialized testing of unbound pavement layers and subgrade.

5.8.4 DILATOMETER TEST (DMT)

The dilatometer is a 3.75-inch wide and 0.55-inch thick stainless-steel blade with a thin 2.4-inch
diameter expandable metal membrane on one side. While the membrane is flush with the blade
surface, the blade is either pushed or driven into the soil using a drilling rig. Rods carry
pneumatic and electrical lines from the membrane to the surface. At depth intervals of 12
inches, pressurized gas is used to expand the membrane, both the pressure required to begin
membrane movement and that required to expand the membrane into the soil 0.04 inches (1.1
mm) are measured. Additionally, upon venting the pressure corresponding to the return of the
membrane to its original position may be recorded. Through developed correlations,
information can be deduced concerning material type, pore water pressure, in-situ horizontal
and vertical stresses, void ratio or relative density, modulus, shear strength parameters, and
consolidation parameters. Compared to the pressuremeter, the flat dilatometer has the
advantage of reduced soil disturbance during penetration. Tests must be performed in
accordance with ASTM D6635 - Standard Test Method for Performing the Flat Plate Dilatometer.
These tests are conducted on a case-by-case basis and should be approved by the GSS prior to
use.

5.8.5 PRESSUREMETER TEST (PMT)

The pressuremeter measures stress/strain properties of soils by inflating a probe placed at a
desired depth in a borehole. The PMT provides much more direct measurements of soil
compressibility and lateral stresses than do the SPT or CPT. Results are interpreted based on
semi-empirical correlations from past tests and observation. In situ horizontal stresses, shear
strength, bearing capacities, and settlement can be estimated using these correlations. The PMT
is a delicate tool and is very sensitive to borehole disturbance. This test requires a high level of
technical expertise to perform and is relatively time consuming. Tests are completed in
accordance with ASTM D4719. Further guidance into the use of this instrument can be located

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 24

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

in FHWA-IP-89-008 The Pressuremeter for Highway Applications. These tests are conducted on a
case-by-case basis and should be approved by the GSS prior to use.

5.8.6 FIELD VANE TEST

This test consists of pushing a four-bladed vane at the base of a borehole into very soft to
medium stiff cohesive soil or organic deposits to the desired depth and applying a torque at a
constant rate until the material fails in shear. The torque measured at failure provides the
undrained shear strength. A second test run immediately after remolding at the same depth
provides the remolded strength of the soil and soil sensitivity. Tests must be completed in
accordance with ASTM D2573 (AASHTO T 223). These tests are conducted on a case-by-case
basis and should be approved by the GSS prior to use.

5.8.7 FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD)

A deflectometer is a portable apparatus used to determine the stiffness of base and subbase
materials during pavement design by measuring the deflection under an applied load or, in
simple terms, to ensure the in-place foundation materials are compacted enough to provide a
stable foundation for the pavement.

The device is either mounted on a trailer or truck bed and takes measurements of the deflection
of the compacted soils impacted by a falling weight. It measures deflection and estimates a
modulus value based on the force required to generate a given deflection for that soil type.
These tests can be used to obtain subgrade resilient modulus values for pavement design or are
sometimes used to detect potential voids below the roadway. In addition, the use of FWD tests
are conducted on a case-by-case basis and should be approved by the region soils engineer prior
to use.

5.9 FIELD INSTRUMENTATION

5.9.1 GENERAL PURPOSE
Every geotechnical design involves uncertainties and every construction job involving soil or rock
runs the risk of encountering surprises because of uncertain soil conditions or soil behavior.
These circumstances are the result of working with materials created by nature, which seldom
provides uniform conditions. The inability of exploratory procedures to detect all possible
properties and conditions of natural material requires the Geotechnical Engineer to make
assumptions and select equipment and construction procedures without full knowledge of what
might be encountered. Field instrumentation can reduce these uncertainties and can aid in the
selection of appropriate field equipment and construction procedures.

Field instrumentation is typically utilized during two stages of project development, either
during the design phase or the construction phase. During the design phase, field
instrumentation can be utilized for the following purposes:

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 25

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

 Definition of initial site conditions

 Establish the behavior of geologic formations when loaded or unloaded
 Confirmation of foundation response through performance or proof testing
 Fact finding at a failure or emergency situation
The most common deployment of field instrumentation monitoring is during construction. In
this phase, instrumentation can be utilized to address the following situations:
 Validate engineering design assumptions
 Construction control
 Liability protection
 Research or advance the state-of-the-practice
 Safety
The objectives for instrumentation during construction will change depending on the size and
type of construction, the geotechnical conditions and the project schedule. Some types of
instrumentation monitoring are a required part of construction (e.g., testing of tieback anchors,
testing of micropiles). Other types of instrumentation monitoring should only be implemented if
construction durations are sufficiently long to make the data collection useful or relevant.
Preload (surcharge) monitoring is an example of this category.

After establishing a clear set of objectives, the Geotechnical Engineer identifies the potential
need for instrumentation monitoring and communicates the preliminary instrumentation plans
with the MDOT project manager to confirm that the objectives of the instrumentation work are
justified and fit within the project scope or construction plans. In the case of plan development,
the use of field instrumentation will require development of a special provision. The special
provision must describe, at a minimum, the type of equipment to be utilized, frequency of
measurements, qualifications of personnel, and type of frequency of reporting required.

The following sections highlight commonly used field instrumentation. Additional information
and guidelines for selecting, installing, monitoring, and interpreting instrumentation data can be
found in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Geotechnical Instrumentation Manual,
FHWA, HI-98-034. In addition, companies selling instrumentation typically have detailed
information describing these guidelines as well.

5.9.2 INCLINOMETERS
These instruments are used to monitor the magnitude, direction, and rate of subsurface
deformations. Typical applications include monitoring the rate and extent of horizontal
movement of embankments or cut slopes, determining the location of an existing failure
surface, and monitoring deflection of retaining walls. They are also used to measure
deformation during lateral load testing of deep foundations.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 26

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Inclinometers can be installed at several levels on an embankment or cut slope to define the
extent and nature of subsurface movements. An inclinometer consists of a grooved casing
grouted vertically in a borehole. The role of the casing is to deform with the surrounding ground
such that readings taken within the casing reflect accurate measurements of ground movement.
Typically, the grooves are aligned parallel to the direction of movement. The probe is
periodically inserted down the casing and deflection of the casing is measured. The inclinometer
probe contains accelerometers at either end to measure the parallel and perpendicular tilt of
the casing. Successive measurements are plotted to provide a chronological indication of the
extent and rate of subsurface movements.

Installation of inclinometer casing must be continued sufficiently into material that is not
expected to deform. This will provide a point-of-fixity at the bottom of the casing to which other
measurements through the casing can be reliably correlated to.

5.9.3 SETTLEMENT INDICATORS

These instruments are used to record the amount and rate of settlement under load. The most
common installation of these instruments is for use with embankments where high settlements
are predicted. In these situations, the load from the new embankment causes compression in
the underlying soil, resulting in settlement at the roadway surface or in adjacent areas. While
monitoring the vertical settlements of embankments is most common, vertical settlements may
also need to be monitored for bridges on spread footings or piles, drainage culverts, or natural
hillsides as an indicator of slope movement. The instruments detailed below identify the most
common instrumentation types for monitoring vertical deformation of structures and
embankments. A special provision for use of these devices must be developed based on site and
project conditions and included in the contract documents.

Settlement Plates
One of the simplest forms of a settlement indicator is the settlement plate, which
typically consists of a steel plate placed on the ground surface prior to embankment
construction. A reference rod and steel protective casing are then attached to the plate.
As fill placement progresses, additional rods and casing are added and a measurement
taken.

Settlement plates are to be placed at those points under the embankment where
maximum settlement is predicted, or other points of interest. The platform elevation
must be recorded before embankment construction begins. This is imperative because
all future readings will be compared with the initial reading. Plotting of the data is then
plotted as a function of time. Upon review of this data, the Geotechnical Engineer will
determine when the rate of settlement has slowed sufficiently for construction to
continue.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 27

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Pneumatic Settlement Cell

Another way to monitor settlement during construction is with a pneumatic settlement
cell. This system consists of a reservoir, liquid-filled tubing, and a pressure transducer
attached to a settlement plate.

The transducer measures the pressure created by the column of liquid in the tubing. As
the transducer settles with the surrounding ground, the height of the column is
increased and the transducer measures higher pressure. Settlements are calculated by
converting the change in pressure to inches of liquid head.

Benchmarks and Heave Stakes

Settlement benchmarks are installed on structures or embankments upon essential
completion of construction or in an excavation to determine vertical deformations.
Place physical targets, such as a PK nail, a sturdy stake, or simply a painted mark on a
wall, to measure settlement. Use conventional elevation survey techniques to
determine changes in elevation. To serve as a reference monument, ensure the
benchmark is located outside the area that is loaded or unloaded. Collection of
reference data in advance of any work to establish a sufficient baseline condition is
preferred.

Crack Gauges
Crack gauges refer to simple commercial devices installed over a crack in a structure,
such as a retaining wall, to visually monitor relative vertical and horizontal movements.
Crack gauges permit visual monitoring and measurement of structural movements
without requiring the use of survey equipment. Several configurations of the gauges are
available, such as gauges mounted on a flat surface or gauges mounted on either side of
a corner.

Crack gauges have some limitations and their use requires judgment and experience.
Crack gauges are typically only capable of monitoring movement in two dimensions;
therefore, multiple gauges mounted at several locations on the structure will be
required to monitor movement in three dimensions.

5.9.4 PIEZOMETERS
The term piezometer is generally used to describe an instrument where seals are placed within
the ground at selected depths to monitor pore pressure conditions only within a certain
stratum. Piezometers are used to measure the groundwater head at a specific depth. The layout
and target depths of piezometer installation are determined by actual site conditions and
project requirements. Typical uses include monitoring of embankment construction, measuring
groundwater in a landslide situation, or determining the hydrostatic head of a confined aquifer.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 28

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

The simplest type of piezometer is an open standpipe piezometer. Open standpipe piezometers
have a slower response time than some of the more sophisticated instruments but are generally
more cost effective to install and are more reliable than other methods. Where fast response to
pore pressure changes is desired, the use of more sophisticated instruments, such as a vibrating
wire or pneumatic piezometers, should be considered by the Geotechnical Engineer.

For monitoring filling activities, the critical levels to which the excess pore pressure will increase
prior to failure can be estimated during design. During construction, vibrating wire or pneumatic
piezometers are typically used to monitor the pore water pressure buildup. After construction,
the dissipation of the excess pore water pressure over time is used as a guide to consolidation
rate. Thus, piezometers can be used to control the rate of fill placement during embankment
construction over soft soils.

Piezometers should be placed prior to construction in the strata in which problems are most
likely to develop. The pore water pressure should be checked often during embankment
construction. After the fill is in place, it can be monitored at a decreasing frequency. The data
should be plotted (as pressure or feet of head) as a function of time. A good practice is to plot
pore water pressure, settlement, and embankment elevation on the same time-scale plot for
comparison.

Piezometers are to be abandoned in accordance with MDEQ guidelines.

5.9.5 MONITORING WELLS

A monitoring or observation well is used to monitor “long-term” groundwater levels or to
provide ready access for sampling to detect groundwater contamination. It consists of a
perforated section of pipe or well point attached to a riser pipe, installed in a borehole with the
annulus filled with sand, and then appropriately sealed. Installation and decommissioning of
monitoring wells must be in accordance with MDEQ requirements.

5.9.6 TILTMETERS
Tiltmeters are used to monitor the change in vertical inclination of points on the ground or on
structures. Typical highway applications include monitoring the tilt of mechanically stabilized
earth or conventional retaining walls and bridge columns. The complexity of tiltmeters can
range from relatively simple instruments, based on a plumb line or bubble level, to more
sophisticated devices equipped with accelerometers, which are housed inside a protective
cover. Two common transducer types are servo-accelerometers and pendulum and vibrating-
wire setups. Tiltmeters can either be permanently affixed to a structure or be portable. For the
portable versions, a reference plate is attached to the structure and the portable instrument is
attached to the plate in a repeatable position and the reading is obtained. The portable
tiltmeter can be used to measure tilt biaxially by rotating the instrument 180 degrees on the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 29

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

reference plate and taking another reading. Fixed tiltmeters can also be used biaxially by
installing two transducers on the same bracket at 90-degree angles to one another.

It is imperative that the tiltmeter reference plate or mounting bracket is attached securely to
the structure that is to be monitored. Tiltmeters are typically cemented or screwed into place. A
limitation of tilt measurements is that they tend to be more localized than with other types of
field instrumentation. Extrapolating tilt measurements across a structure involves assumptions
about the rigidity of the structure and, therefore, can be very difficult. For this reason, tiltmeters
are generally used in conjunction with other deformation measurement methods such as
inclinometers or surveying points.

5.9.7 VIBRATION MONITORING

Some projects require that ground vibrations be monitored during construction. The two most
common examples of vibration monitoring occur with installation of driven piles and blasting for
rock excavation. The vibrations caused by pile driving or blasting can be damaging to nearby
structures, utilities, or bothersome to people who feel the vibrations. This is especially true of
historic structures and structures constructed over poor soils. Other sources of vibrations
encountered on a construction project to be considered by the Geotechnical Engineer include
vibratory compactors, large equipment, demolition, and sheet pile installation.

If vibration monitoring is deemed necessary during construction, the contract documents are to
include a special provision covering this topic. The special provision should specify the type of
monitoring, the sensitivity, frequency, duration of the monitoring, and in some cases, the
maximum permissible vibration levels.

5.9.8 OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUMENTATION

Situations may arise where field instruments, other than those described above, and automated
data acquisition systems are desired for use on a project. The need for special instrumentation
and the selection of instruments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the GSS.

5.9.9 INTERPRETATION AND REPORTING

For guidance on the data interpretation process, refer to the aforementioned references.
Product manufacturers typically provide useful guidelines on the data interpretation process.

In general, field instrumentation reporting will consist of two phases, interim monitoring reports
and a final report of a monitoring program. The reported information must adhere to the
contract special provision or project scoping document. The Geotechnical Engineer is to
distribute copies of these reports to all the parties, as determined during development of the
field monitoring plan.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 30

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Qualifications of Personnel
All personnel involved in the installation, collection, and interpretation of instrument
data must be familiar with the instrumentation being used. These personnel must be
familiar with the installation report so that, if anomalies are encountered, they can
provide feedback to the engineers processing the data. In addition, personnel obtaining
the data must report to a licensed engineer experienced in the interpretation of the
specific type of data being collected. In the case of settlement readings, a licensed land
surveyor may be required. The qualifications of all personnel involved with the
installation, calibration, maintenance and data collections must comply with the
requirements as directed by the special provision. Specific qualifications for a specific
type of instrumentation used on a specific project should be outlined within the special
provision.

5.10 SURVEY
The level of survey and oversight required for geotechnical tasks, other than locating soil
borings, will be determined by the GSS or region soils engineer on a case-by-case basis. The level
of oversight and survey control used for determining the location and elevation of soil borings
must be in accordance with Section 6.2.3. The requirement details for other
geotechnical-related survey tasks will be provided in the scope of service or special provision
documents.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 31

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

5.11 APPENDIX 5
5.11.1 APPENDIX 5.1

Figure 3: Recommended Practice for Plugging Soil Borings

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 32

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES

Figure 3 continued: Recommended Practice for Plugging Soil Borings Continued

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 33

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

SECTION 6 – SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
A subsurface investigation is required for new or replaced structures and roadway alignments
involving earthwork. Examples of this include bridge replacements, widening of existing bridges
and roadway realignments (permanent and temporary), retaining walls, box culverts, overhead
sign structures, sound barrier walls and other miscellaneous structures.

This section presents guidelines to plan a subsurface investigation. Since requirements will vary
with project conditions, engineering judgment is essential in tailoring the investigation to the
specific project. The Geotechnical Engineer uses available soils and geologic maps, water well
records, existing reports, plans and boring logs, publications, aerial photographs, and other
reference material that are available to prepare a preliminary subsurface investigation. Borings
should then be selectively located during a field check attended by the Geotechnical Engineer or
an appointed representative.

The actual location, spacing, and depth of borings are dictated by the topography, geologic
conditions, visible soil conditions, design considerations, existing utilities, and in accordance
with the practices set forth herein.

The investigation should provide sufficient data for the Geotechnical Engineer to recommend
the most efficient design. Without sufficient data, the engineer must rely on conservative
designs, which may cost considerably more than a site-specific exploration program.

A comprehensive subsurface investigation might include both conventional borings and other
specialized field investigatory or testing methods. While existing data can provide some
preliminary indication of the necessary extent of exploration, more often it will be impossible to
finalize the investigation plan until some additional field data is collected. Therefore, close
communication between the Geotechnical Engineer and driller/field engineer is essential. The
results of preliminary borings should be reviewed as the investigation is ongoing so that
additional borings and in-situ testing, if necessary, can be performed without remobilization.

6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

6.2.1 SPACING AND NUMBER OF BORINGS
On new alignments, borings are sometimes made in two or more stages. In the planning/scoping
stage, relatively few borings are made to assist in the selection of preferred alignment,
bridge/structure location and length, and to identify areas requiring further exploration in the
subsequent stage(s). Based upon these findings, additional borings may be made between the
initial borings to define soil conditions in greater detail. The selection of sample type and
frequency is determined by soil conditions and design and construction requirements for the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 34

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

structure. Where soil conditions are favorable, especially for small structures or roadway
investigations, all borings are often completed in the first phase of the investigation. The
spacing, depth, and number of borings should be in accordance with Section 6.3 so that soil
conditions are adequately characterized. However, if soil conditions vary appreciably, more
closely spaced or deeper borings may be required. The spacing, depth, and number should be
determined by engineering judgment as the work progresses. There should be a sufficient
number of borings to determine the stratification and interrelation of the soils to the extent
economically feasible. The exploration should be conducted considering the requirements of the
structure or roadway. All subsurface data necessary for the selection of the foundation or
roadway quantities and their design must be obtained.

6.2.2 CONSULTANT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

Consultant Geotechnical Engineers must submit to the MDOT project manager for review and
comment a detailed subsurface investigation plan prior to the commencement of any field
operations. The plan must describe the soil or rock stratification anticipated as the basis of the
planned exploration. In the plan, outline proposed testing types (borings/soundings), depths,
boring equipment, and locations of all testing. The consultant’s subsurface investigation plan
must conform to the requirements of the Manual. Frequently, explorations are conducted in
sensitive environmental areas or in high hazard traffic areas. The consultant’s exploration plan
must describe any special access requirements or traffic control requirements necessary to
protect MDOT’s interests during the field investigation phase. The consultant is responsible for
all special access requirements, permits, and traffic control. All traffic control must conform to
the approved maintenance of traffic permit.

6.2.3 MISCELLANEOUS
The extent of the exploration will vary considerably with the nature of the project. However, the
following general standards apply to all investigation programs or as appropriate for the specific
project and agreed upon by the Geotechnical Services Section (GSS) or region soils engineer.
1. All borings for bridge foundation design must extend below the estimated scour depths.
2. All borings must extend below the foundation.
3. Each boring, sounding, and test pit should be given a unique identification number for
easy reference. Generally, the borings should be numbered in chronological order with
lower number borings starting at the lower stations.
4. The ground surface elevation and actual location must be accurately determined for
each boring, sounding, and test pit by qualified personnel who are trained in the use of
the required equipment. Locate each item by survey, use conventional survey methods
and/or a Global Positioning System unit certified by the manufacturer to submeter
accuracy. Survey data transmitted to the individual boring logs and soil boring data
sheet must include station, offset, elevation, northing, easting, longitude, and latitude.
Coordinates must be in the Michigan State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83) and

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 35

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

elevations in the Vertical Datum (NAVD 1988). Longitude and latitude coordinates must
be reported in the WGS 1984 Datum. Vertical elevations should be reported within an
accuracy of 0.1 ft. These methods and accuracies must be followed unless otherwise
approved by the project manager.
5. A sufficient number of disturbed and undisturbed samples, suitable for the types of
testing and analyses intended, should be obtained within each layer of material. SPTs
must be taken at 5 ft intervals unless noted otherwise. Conduct sampling and in-situ
testing in accordance with ASTM D1586, ASTM D1587, and ASTM D2113.
6. All soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration must be labeled,
preserved, and transported in accordance with ASTM D4220. Refer to Section 5.6.6.5 for
further guidance on rock core samples.
7. Measure and record groundwater levels within each boring or test pit when first
encountered, at completion of drilling, and after sufficient time has elapsed for the
groundwater level to stabilize. An elapsed time of 24 hours is commonly utilized for
structure investigations. If more than one day is required to complete a boring, measure
and record the depth of the boring and groundwater level at the end and beginning of
each day. Hole collapse, if applicable, should also be noted on the boring log.

In addition, drilling or flushing fluids introduced into the borehole that may affect the
groundwater readings must be recorded on the boring logs. Drilling methods utilized
during the field investigation may affect the accuracy of groundwater level readings.
Therefore, the Geotechnical Engineer should carefully consider the drilling methods
utilized so that accurate groundwater information is obtained. Regardless of drilling
methods utilized, the Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for accurate depiction of the
groundwater level(s) at the time of the investigation. Installing a monitoring well or
drilling with augers for a certain distance may be necessary to accurately depict the
groundwater level.
8. For all overhead sign, high mast lighting, mast arms, strain poles, closed circuit television
camera (CCTV) poles, environmental sensor station, cable barrier and sound wall
structures, boring locations must be within 10 ft of the foundation footprint. If the
proposed foundation is in an area not accessible to a machine boring meeting this
criterion, one hand boring to a target depth of at least 7 ft must be taken within the
footprint of the foundation and one auger boring taken at the closest point of access. It
is highly desirable to have the hand auger and machine boring overlap so that a
continuous profile can be achieved.

When rock is encountered during the field investigation, the minimum depth of exploration
must be equal to the maximum expected foundation depth plus 5 ft.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 36

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

6.3 GUIDELINES FOR MINIMUM EXPLORATIONS

With the above general concepts in mind, the following guidelines for location and depth of
borings should be followed. In addition to the guidelines below, the number and depth of
borings must be adequate to assess overall stability.

6.3.1 STRUCTURES

Bridges
For all bridges, at least one boring must be taken at each substructure unit location.
Borings should be taken at opposite sides of adjacent substructure locations when
practical. Additional requirements are indicated below.

 For bridges that are 100 feet wide and wider, an additional boring must be taken at
opposite ends of each substructure.

 When spread footings are proposed on bedrock, conduct one sounding at the
opposite end of the footing.

 Where highly variable conditions are anticipated or encountered, then a boring

should be advanced at both ends of each substructure unit.

If part-width (staged) construction is a potential design scenario, then the Geotechnical

Engineer should consider locating a boring at/near the stage line so that the contractor
has sufficient soil data for design of the temporary earth retention system.

The minimum sampling frequency is every 5 ft in depth where an SPT is obtained. In

cases where spread footings are proposed, increase SPT frequency to 2.5 ft directly
below the bottom of footing elevation to a minimum of 1.5 times the footing width B.
When cohesive materials are encountered that indicate undrained shear strength values
less than 2,500 pounds/square foot, representative undisturbed Shelby tube samples
must be obtained for laboratory analysis. Push Shelby tubes in conjunction with or in
place of SPTs for strength and consolidation testing.

If spread footings are a potential foundation support option, the borings are extended
until sufficient information has been obtained to complete the bearing capacity and
settlement analysis. The boring must extend to a minimum depth of 50 ft below bottom
of footing elevation unless rock is encountered.

If the footing bears on bedrock, or bedrock is encountered within 1 times the footing
width B, obtain a minimum 10 ft rock core to determine the integrity of the rock and to
verify that the exploration was not terminated on a boulder.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 37

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

For bridges on a deep foundation system supported by soil, the depth of the
investigation must extend at least 20 ft below the anticipated pile or shaft tip elevation
or a minimum of two times the minimum pile group dimension, whichever is greater. All
borings must extend through unsuitable strata, such as unconsolidated fill, peat, highly
organic materials, soft fine-grained soils, and loose coarse-grained soils, to reach hard or
dense materials. For driven piles bearing on rock, a minimum 10 ft rock core must be
obtained at each structure to determine the integrity of the rock and to verify that the
exploration was not terminated on a boulder. For drilled shafts or micropiles that are
supported on or socketed into the rock, obtain a minimum 10 ft rock core, or a length of
rock core equal to at least 3 times the estimated shaft diameter, whichever is greater.
Coring requirements must be sufficient to determine the physical and strength
characteristics of the rock within the entire zone of foundation influence.

Bridge Approach Embankments

For projects involving grade raises, widenings, or new construction, refer to
Subsection 6.3.2 for further guidance. The Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for
evaluating the effects the bridge approach design changes have on the underlying soils.
The bridge approach is defined as the embankment that extends 100 ft longitudinally
from the “beginning” or “end” of the bridge and extends to the toe of the front and side
slopes. The bridge approach embankment classification may be extended if there are
any stability or settlement issues that would affect the bridge’s performance or
transition between the roadway and bridge approach embankment.

Retaining Walls
At least two borings are required for each retaining wall unless the wall length is less
than 50 ft. Exploration points must be spaced at a maximum of 200 ft along the
alignment of the wall. For anchored or tieback walls, perform additional borings in the
anchored or tieback zone at a maximum spacing of 200 ft offset from the borings along
the wall alignment (see Figure 4). For soil nail walls, additional soil borings must be
conducted behind the wall at a distance corresponding to 1.0 to 1.5 times the height of
the wall at a maximum spacing of 200 ft offset from the borings along the wall
alignment.

Figure 4: Soil Boring Layout for Retaining Walls

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 38

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

Borings must extend below the bottom of the wall a minimum of twice the wall height
or auger refusal, whichever is shallower. If the wall bears on or slightly above bedrock, a
minimum of one 10 ft rock core must be conducted at each site to determine the
integrity and load capacity of the rock. Additional rock soundings must be conducted
between borings performed at the wall alignment to profile the rock surface. All borings
must extend through unsuitable strata, such as unconsolidated fill, peat, highly organic
materials and soft fine-grained soils, to reach hard or dense materials. This applies to all
earth retaining structures, proprietary systems as well as precast and cast-in-place.
Refer to Section 6.3.1.1 for boring requirements on structures supported by deep
foundations.

Increase SPT frequency to 2.5 ft directly below the retaining wall footing for a depth of
either 10 ft or 1.5 times the footing width B, whichever is more.

Culverts
All structures considered culverts will have a C## of Control Section designation while a
bridge will have a B##, R##, or S## of Control Section designation assigned to it (e.g.,
C02 of 33082). In general, culverts are defined by having spans less than 20 ft. All new
culverts must have a minimum of two soil borings taken along the alignment and hand
augers at the headwalls/aprons. For culverts under divided freeways, a total of three
soil borings are required with one boring performed in the median. If stage construction
is planned, additional borings may be required near the stage line. Culvert extensions
must have a minimum of one soil boring at each extension and hand augers at the
headwall/aprons. Foundation investigation with SPTs is required for culverts 60 inches
in diameter or greater. Soil borings with SPTs must also be conducted for box or slab
culverts equal to or greater than 48 inches in width. Soil borings must extend to a depth
beneath the anticipated invert elevation of at least 20 ft or twice the height of added
embankment, whichever is greater.

Machine or hand auger borings with hand soundings may be necessary for culverts or
culvert extensions smaller than the sizes specified above. Contact the region soils
engineer or MDOT project manager for further guidance.

Overhead Sign Structures

Truss signs and cantilever signs are commonly encountered on highway structures.
Standard plans have been developed for these structures that contain standard
foundation designs for each of these structures. The foundation designs provided on the
standard plan are based on an assumed set of foundation soil properties, groundwater
conditions, and other factors. These soil properties and conditions must be met in order
to use the foundation design shown on the standard plans. If these conditions are not

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 39

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

met (such as bedrock, organic soils, very soft soils), then a site-specific design will be
required.

The subsurface investigation for these structures must be sufficient to determine

whether the subsurface and site conditions meet the requirements shown on the
standard plans or site-specific designs. The standard plans are located on MDOT’s Traffic
and Safety web page. Minimum investigation guidelines are provided below.

 Non-Cantilever Truss Signs – One soil boring to a minimum depth of 50 ft at each

foundation location. If “low clay” is encountered, deeper soil borings are required.

 Cantilever Signs – One soil boring to a minimum depth of 40 ft at each foundation

location. If “low clay” is encountered, deeper soil borings are required.
 If bedrock is encountered, rock cores must be taken to a depth below the
anticipated foundation depth of at least two times the diameter of the shaft or one
times the width of the spread footing.

High Mast Lighting

Conduct one soil boring at each high mast location. Advance the boring to a minimum
depth of 25 ft unless unsuitable soils are encountered. Conduct sampling and SPTs at
2.5 ft intervals to 10 ft and then 5 ft intervals thereafter to the boring termination
depth. If bedrock is encountered, rock cores must be taken to a depth below the
anticipated foundation depth of at least the diameter of the shaft.

Mast Arms and Strain Poles

Advance one soil boring to a minimum depth of 25 ft at each mast arm or strain pole
foundation location. Verify that the soil strength properties meet or exceed the soil
strength properties outlined on the standard plans. These plans are located on the
Traffic and Safety web page. Conduct sampling and SPTs at 2.5 ft intervals to the boring
termination depth. If bedrock is encountered, rock cores must be taken to a depth
below the anticipated foundation depth of at least the diameter of the shaft.

Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Closed Circuit Television Camera

(CCTV) Poles & Environmental Sensor Station (ESS) Poles
Minimum investigation guidelines are provided below.

 For CCTV Poles, advance one soil boring to a depth of 25 ft at each designated
location.

 For ESS Poles, advance one soil boring to a depth of 20 ft at each designated
location.

 For DMSs, advance one soil boring to a minimum depth of 50 ft at the proposed
foundation location.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 40

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

Conduct sampling and SPTs at 2.5 ft intervals to 10 ft and then 5 ft intervals thereafter
to the boring termination depth. If bedrock is encountered, rock cores must be taken to
a depth below the anticipated foundation depth of at least the diameter of the shaft.

Cable Barriers
One soil boring must be advanced to a depth of 20 ft at each designated end section
terminal. Conduct sampling and SPTs at 2.5 ft intervals to 10 ft and then 5 ft intervals
thereafter to the boring termination depth.

Noise Abatement Walls

Test boring locations for noise abatement walls must be placed near the beginning and
ending of the wall, at the location of major changes in the wall alignment, and at a
distance of 200 to 400 ft between these locations based on the uniformity of the
subsurface conditions.

Due to varying conditions (berms, slopes, etc.) that arise at these locations, boring
depths should be determined based on a case-by-case basis for each project. In general,
typical exploration depths vary from 1 to 2 times the wall height. Unsuitable soil
conditions may require deeper borings.

Buildings
The wide variability of these projects often makes the approach to the investigation of
the subsurface conditions a case-by-case basis. In general, the following guidelines are
provided. For more specific guidelines, refer to the Michigan Building Code.

Table 3: Minimum Number of Building Borings

Building Surface Area (ft2) Minimum Number of Borings
<200 1
200 - 1000 2
1000 – 3000 3
>3000 4

The depth of borings will vary depending on the expected loads being applied to the
foundation and/or site soil conditions. The borings should extend until sufficient
information has been obtained to complete the foundation analysis. At a minimum,
extend borings to a depth of 20 ft below the bottom of footing elevation, unless rock is
encountered. If the footing bears on bedrock, or bedrock is encountered within 1 times
the footing width B, the Geotechnical Engineer should obtain a minimum 5 ft rock core
per site to determine the integrity of the rock and to verify that the exploration was not
terminated on a boulder.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 41

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

Increase SPT frequency to 2.5 ft for a depth of either 10 ft or 1.5 times the footing
width B below the bottom of footing, whichever is more.

Excavations
If deep excavations are required for the project, additional borings may be required if
other site borings do not adequately provide the necessary subsurface data for the
design. The explorations should be carried to at least 1.5 times the depth of the
excavation to determine subsurface conditions that may exist below the level of
excavation. This is necessary to design a temporary shoring system and/or a dewatering
system that may be required in such deep excavations. Additional borings may be
required on a case-by-case basis to address overall stability.

Tunnels
Investigation criteria for tunnels will need to be established by the GSS for each project
on an individual basis.

Other Structures
Contact the GSS for instructions concerning other structures not covered in this section.

6.3.2 ROADWAY
Roadway explorations are made along the proposed alignment for the purpose of defining
subsurface conditions. This information is utilized in the design of the pavement section, as well
as in defining the limits of unsuitable materials and recommending any remedial measures to be
taken. As part of planning each roadway exploration, it is important that the Geotechnical
Engineer review existing data and conduct a site reconnaissance as described in Section 5.1.
Review of existing documentation and visiting the site can provide the Geotechnical Engineer
with insight into project aspects that aid in developing a thorough and effective exploration.
Upon review of this documentation and the complexity of the project, the Geotechnical
Engineer in collaboration with the road designer should determine whether a two-phased
exploration approach is beneficial for the project. The initial investigation phase should be
conducted early enough in the design process to assist in determining the general subsurface
conditions and development of preliminary concepts/plans. Based on the initial information
identified in the initial phase, the second phase is refined to obtain supplemental borings and
samples required for final design.

The following sections provide minimum guidelines for situations that may arise in road
construction. In some cases, combining guidelines from Sections 6.3.2.1and 6.3.2.2 may be
applicable. For situations that are not covered in these sections, contact the GSS or region soils
engineer for further guidance.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 42

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

New Roadway Alignment or Widening

Roadway projects that require a new alignment or additional lane(s) or shoulder
widening must adhere to the following subsections.

6.3.2.1.1 At Grade and Cuts

Several geometric configurations exist when considering cut sections in roadway design.
Some common configurations encountered are symmetrical cuts on a new alignment,
cuts into existing slopes to widen an existing roadway, cut-fill transitions, or cuts on an
existing slope. During the planning phase, it is important that the Geotechnical Engineer
consider and obtain sufficient field data to provide detailed recommendations on the
subgrade and stability of the anticipated slopes. Refer to Section 9.3 for roadway
recommendations needed in design.

In general, conduct at least one boring at intervals of 200 ft (variable conditions) to

400 ft (uniform conditions) along the slope length. For deep cuts (15 ft or greater) or
where sloughing of existing cut slopes is prevalent, the boring plan should have a
minimum of 3 borings along a line perpendicular to the roadway centerline or planned
slope face to establish a geologic cross-section for analysis.

Extend and sample borings as follows:

 For borings in areas of little or no grade change, extend borings a minimum of 5 ft

below the cut at ditch line or top of subgrade, whichever is greater. Where a
stability analysis is required, extend borings a minimum of 15 ft below depth of cut
at the ditch line.
 In unsuitable soils, borings should extend below grade into competent materials or
to twice the depth of the cut, whichever occurs first.

 If rock is present above the minimum elevation of the cut, the rock must be cored to
the full depth of the planned cut plus 5 ft.

 An understanding of the overall purpose of the boring is important when developing

a sampling and field testing plan. For proposed road profiles that are close to the
existing grade, profile drilling with augers to identify the soil type may be sufficient.
In cases where determining the strength or compressibility of the soil is important,
then SPTs and undisturbed sample collection must be conducted. For cases where
the cut is greater than 15 ft or deemed critical by the Geotechnical Engineer due to
the proposed soils, SPTs must be conducted at minimum intervals of 5 ft but
decreasing this interval to 2.5 ft in areas of specific interest should be considered
when planning the investigation.

 For new construction, collect bulk samples of the various types of cut and subgrade
soils encountered throughout the project length. Bulk samples should be sufficient

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 43

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

in quantity to perform the necessary laboratory testing. Laboratory tests will be

dependent based on the depth and use of these soils. Laboratory testing to be
considered, but not limited to, during the geotechnical investigation is grain size
distribution, moisture-density relationship, Atterberg limits, permeability,
consolidated-undrained shear test with pore pressure measurements, and California
Bearing Ration (CBR) or resilient modulus testing.

6.3.2.1.2 Fills
Embankments are placed in several geometric configurations during road design. Some
common configurations encountered are symmetrical fills on a new alignment, fills
placed to widen an existing roadway, cut-fill transitions, or fills placed on an existing
slope. During the planning phase, it is important that the Geotechnical Engineer obtain
adequate field data to provide detailed recommendations on settlement potential and
stability of the proposed embankment slopes based on the underlying subsurface
conditions.

Embankment widening projects will require careful consideration of the exploration

locations. Borings near the toe of the existing fill are needed to evaluate the present
condition of the underlying soils. In addition, borings through the existing fill into the
underlying soil or, if overexcavation of unsuitable soil had been done during the initial
fill construction, borings to define the extent of the removal should be obtained to
define conditions below the existing fill.

In situations where the existing roadway was previously constructed using a swamp
treatment (peat excavation and swamp backfill) and a grade raise or widening is
anticipated, additional investigation must be conducted of the existing fill slopes in
these areas. Historic swamp treatment details allowed the contractor to waste the peat
excavation material between the proposed slope and a theoretical 1:1 line starting at
the shoulder hinge point and extending to the toe of slope. Investigation in these sloped
areas delineate if poor soils exist and, if so, can then be accounted for during design.

In general, place at least one boring at an interval of 200 ft (variable conditions) to

400 ft (uniform conditions) along the embankment length. For high fills (15 ft or greater)
or where unsuitable soils exist, the boring plan should have a minimum of 3 borings
along a line perpendicular to the roadway centerline to establish a cross-section for
stability analysis.

Extend and sample borings as follows:

 A minimum of twice the proposed embankment height unless a hard cohesive or

very dense cohesionless stratum or bedrock is encountered above this depth.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 44

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

 In scenarios where unsuitable soil extends to deeper than twice the fill height, the
boring depth should extend through the unsuitable layer into competent material or
to a depth adequate for settlement analysis, whichever is less.

 An understanding of the underlying soil conditions requires appropriate sampling

intervals and methods. Sampling and SPTs should be conducted at minimum
intervals of 5 ft but decreasing this interval to 2.5 ft in areas of specific interest
should be considered when planning the investigation. In addition, testing for
strength and compressibility in fine-grained soil requires the need for undisturbed
samples.

Evaluation of Existing Pavement Section and Subgrade

For projects that do not entail major earthwork, such as existing roadways or roadways
with proposed minor widenings, a modified subsurface investigation may be utilized.
Projects that may fall into this category are reconstruction and rehabilitation of the
roadway within the existing limits. Subsurface investigation requirements for pavement
structure design vary with location, traffic level, and project size.

In general, conduct pavement cores and soil borings at spacing between 200 and 1000 ft
based on the uniformity of the subsurface conditions, or as directed by the region soils
engineer. Soil boring locations must be alternated between lanes or as directed by the
region soils engineer. Consider additional borings in problem areas (e.g., heaving
rutting, faulting, fatigue cracking). Borings must be advanced to a minimum depth of
5 ft. These borings are typically advanced with either manual hand augers or machine
augers. If requested by the Geotechnical Engineer, SPTs and dynamic cone
penetrometer tests should be conducted at the time of the investigation. Bulk samples
of the subbase and base are collected, and lab testing is conducted to determine the
grain size distribution.

In some investigations, particularly those projects that are reusing existing materials,
samples of the base, subbase, and subgrade are collected for soil classification,
moisture-density relationship (proctor), CBR, or resilient modulus testing. Unless
otherwise directed by the region soils engineer, collect bag samples of the base and
subbase at each boring location for soil classification purposes. In addition, bulk samples
of the different subgrade soils for the entire project should be collected for laboratory
testing.

Bedrock
Shallow rock is sometimes identified during the planning phase or unexpectedly
discovered during the field investigation. In these cases, soil borings must be obtained
as described in Sections 6.3.2.1and 6.3.2.2. However, these borings may not provide
adequate information in a roadway cut scenario for the road designer to establish a

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 45

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

good estimate of rock quantities. As a result, rock soundings using power auger
methods should be conducted to better delineate the surface of the rock. The following
guidelines are provided.

 For single roadways, soundings should be taken at 50 to 100 ft intervals along the
centerline and along both ditch lines.
 For a dual roadway, soundings should be taken at 50 to 100 ft intervals along the
centerline, the centerline of the lanes, and along the outside ditch lines.

 For a dual roadway with widely divided lanes, each lane must be treated as a single
roadway.
It should be noted that the tighter spacing provided is for conditions where potential
nonuniform conditions exist. The greater spacing is for conditions where preliminary
field data indicate that a more uniform condition exists.

In lieu of soundings, the Geotechnical Engineer should also consider geophysical

techniques to determine the bedrock surface elevation. Use of these techniques will be
considered by the GSS on a case-by-case basis.

In some regions throughout Michigan, the Geotechnical Engineer should be aware of

potential geohazards such as karst, artesian flows, and underground mines as outlined
in Section 6.3.3.

Peat Deposits, Compressible Soils, and Very Soft Soils

Borings and soundings are required in all peat deposits, compressible soils (such as marl
and very soft soils), and where significant consolidation or risk of overall instability is
considered possible. The following guidelines cover general conditions.
 Soundings must be taken at 50 ft intervals longitudinally and transversely to the
roadway centerline on a grid pattern to establish the contour of the swamp bottom.
Closer spacing of the soundings may be needed depending on the estimated
embankment width, existing infrastructure surrounding the site, or the condition of
the swamp bottom. If there is an appreciable change in depth between soundings,
intermediate soundings and/or auger borings may be necessary to determine a true
bottom profile. The soundings should extend at least 50 ft beyond an estimated toe
of slope. Additional cross-section soundings will be necessary if a sloping bottom
indicates a potential stability problem.

For roadways being widened in old swamp treatment areas, borings should be
placed to determine if the previous swamp treatment extended to the bottom of
the proposed 1:1 slope noted in the R-103 Standard Plan. In addition, soil

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 46

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

borings/soundings are commonly taken outside this zone so that a profile can be
determined and slope stability analysis conducted.
 Soundings should be conducted with the following methods: auger borings, hand
auger borings, hydraulically pushed probe rod, or small diameter steel rods (peat
rods).
 Locate a sufficient number of borings with SPTs to supplement the soundings and
identify the vertical and horizontal extents. Soil borings should be conducted at
distance intervals between 100 to 200 ft. Spacing considerations are length of
organic soil area, bottom depth consistency, and type of transportation asset
(roadway, retaining wall, etc.) being constructed through that area.

 Sampling and SPTs should be conducted at intervals of 5 ft decreasing to 2.5 ft near

the true bottom interface. Variations from these guidelines require prior approval
by the GSS or region soils engineer.

 Extend soil borings beyond the swamp deposits and a minimum of 5 ft into material
that does not exhibit organic soil or very soft consistency. Extending the boring at
least 5 ft minimizes the risk of a “false bottom” existing. A false bottom is where a
sand layer is interbedded between organic layers but to the driller it appears that no
more organic material is present beneath the sand layer.

6.3.3 GEOHAZARDS
Many geohazards exist throughout the State of Michigan. Several of the more common ones are
discussed in the following sections. When these conditions are anticipated or unexpectedly
encountered during the investigation phase of the project, an experienced geotechnical
engineer may need to develop a specialized subsurface program or modify the existing one.

Artesian Conditions
At times during a field investigation, artesian conditions can be encountered throughout
various areas of Michigan. According to the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality Flowing Well Handbook, artesian characteristics can be defined as water that
rises to a point above the top of the aquifer. If the water also rises above the ground
surface, the well is called a “flowing well” or “flowing artesian well” (MDEQ Flowing
Well Handbook). The borehole should be plugged appropriately per MDEQ guidelines.
Since artesian conditions have the potential to affect the engineer’s design, means to
determine the hydrostatic head must be included as part of the field investigation. For
instance, these means could include, but are not limited to, installing representative
piezometers, pressure transducers, or vibrating wire sensors and need to be included in
the price proposal if possible. For artesian conditions encountered during construction,
the GSS should be contacted to provide additional guidance in this matter.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 47

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

When artesian conditions are anticipated based on the review of existing documents or
experience of drilling in these areas, then proper means of documenting these
conditions should be considered, planned for, and implemented into the field
investigation phase of the project. If artesian conditions are encountered unexpectedly,
the GSS should be contacted to determine the effects these conditions could have on
the project and if further investigation is warranted.

Landslides – Slope Failure

Locate borings within the top, middle, and bottom of the landslide area or as near to
these locations as practical. Obtain additional offset and longitudinal borings to define
the landslide limits and the bedrock surface as necessary, considering the anticipated
remediation. Extend borings through overburden soils and into bedrock. If bedrock is
known to be very deep, extend the borings at least 30 feet below the estimated failure
surface.

If bedrock is encountered, sample a minimum of 5 ft into bedrock at each boring

location. Adjust boring spacing and location, bedrock coring, and boring depth per
Section 6.3.1.3 if the landslide repair will involve a retaining wall. When landslides occur,
contact the GSS for additional guidance.

Karst/Sinkholes (Define, Characteristics)

Karst topography has been encountered in parts of Michigan’s Upper and Lower
Peninsulas. Karst features are a result of dissolution of the carbonate and evaporate
bedrock units and subsequent collapse of these units. Typical karst conditions, both
natural and induced, develop in soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, gypsum, and
rock salt. These cavities are caused by solution-widening of joints and bedding planes
caused by flowing groundwater. As a result, irregularities in the bedrock surface
topography or voids in bedrock units may cause a collapse to occur.

Subsurface karst features must be thoroughly explored using borings and geophysical
methods. The extent of the scope will be determined on a case-by case-basis. The GSS
should be contacted if karst or sinkhole features are suspected or encountered.

Underground Mines
Where the roadway crosses areas of known or possible underground mining, locate
borings transverse to centerline as necessary to establish the lateral extent of mining
conditions. The Geotechnical Engineer should also consider surface features, geology,
and mine records in determining boring locations. Where appropriate, the use of
geophysical techniques in conjunction with drilling may be warranted and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Each program exploring underground mines must
be tailored for the specific project and site conditions. Contact the GSS when mined
conditions are anticipated or encountered.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 48

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

Hazardous Materials
Drilling activities in hazardous or potentially contaminated material may be required
during the field investigation. When this information is known or determined during the
planning phase, the field investigation must include appropriate sampling, drill cutting
disposal, and safety protocols required for environmentally sensitive investigations. If
during the field investigation unusual odors or potentially hazardous materials are
encountered, the region soils engineer or GSS must be immediately notified.
Appropriate environmental staff should also be contacted when these conditions are
encountered. Each scope or subsequent scope of investigation under these conditions
will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

If methane gas or other flammable vapors are anticipated, appropriate monitoring

equipment should be used during the field investigation. It is imperative to document
these observations on the boring logs and soils report.

6.3.4 OTHER CASES

Sewers
Test boring locations for sewers should be coordinated with roadway borings if possible.
In addition, locate soil borings at points of maximum invert depths and to the extent
possible, near manhole structure locations. If roadway borings are not performed as
part of the investigation, borings must be spaced no greater than 500 ft along the
proposed sewer line. Conduct auger drilling or split-spoon sampling to a depth that is at
least 5 ft below the proposed maximum excavation elevation. For excavations that
require shoring, split-spoon sampling should be conducted during advancement of the
soil boring.

Detention or Retention Ponds

Conduct one auger boring (SPT borings with continuous sampling may be substituted)
per one acre with a minimum of three borings per pond. The soil borings must advance
the boring a minimum depth of 5 ft below the proposed deepest elevation of the pond.
If a sheet pile weir is proposed, then additional borings must be conducted for the
design of this structure. The depth of the boring must extend to at least twice the height
of the exposed wall face or a minimum of 20 ft.

A minimum of two field permeability tests per pond should be performed, with this
number increasing for larger ponds. Field permeability tests must be performed in
accordance with ASTM D6391. In lieu of the field permeability tests, hydraulic
conductivity testing of the soil in accordance with ASTM D5084 may be substituted.
Appropriate bulk or undisturbed samples of soil at the pond bottom must be collected
to perform this laboratory testing.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 49

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES

Sufficient testing should be conducted to verify whether the excavated material can be
used for roadway construction. If rock is to be excavated from the pond, sufficient SPT
borings and rock coring must be conducted to estimate the volume, rippability, and
hardness of the rock to be removed.

Wetland Mitigation
On certain projects, wetland mitigation consists of creating a wetland. These potential
mitigation areas must be explored with soil borings and monitoring wells. Soil borings
must be conducted in a grid pattern at a minimum of one boring per acre with a
minimum of three total borings per site. Soil samples must also be collected for soil
classification and testing for potential roadway use. In addition, a minimum of three
monitoring wells must be installed per site.

Trenchless Pipe Installation

Trenchless pipe installation commonly occurs within MDOT’s right-of-way during the
execution of construction projects. In many instances, pits are excavated to house
necessary equipment and to facilitate installation of the drilling tools and pipe. In areas
where this type of installation occurs, one soil boring must be located at each entry and
exit point. Intermediate borings between these points should be considered on a
case-by-case basis or if runs extend longer than 100 ft. Boring depths must extend to at
least 10 ft below the bottom of pipe casing or borehole. When groundwater is
encountered, consideration should be given to installing an observation well.

When utilities are installed using trenchless methods by local agencies or private
entities, a permit is required by MDOT to work in the right-of-way. The geotechnical
requirements for crossing the MDOT right-of-way can be found on Form 3702.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 50

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

SECTION 7 – LABORATORY TESTING

7.1 GENERAL
As with other phases of the geotechnical investigation, the laboratory testing should be
intelligently planned in advance, but flexible enough to be modified based on test results. The
purpose of the laboratory testing program is to validate visual soil classifications and assess the
engineering properties of the soil and bedrock identified by the field exploration.

MDOT requires all laboratory testing for design conform to the requirements of the most
current cited American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), or MTM standards. Users
of the Manual must familiarize themselves with the requirements of these standards and issue
laboratory reports that follow such protocols and include the required reporting information. All
laboratory testing for design must fulfill the requirements of AASHTO R18 for qualifying testers
and calibrating/verifications. Upon request of the Geotechnical Services Section (GSS),
documentation must be provided verifying that the testing entity meets the requirements of
AASHTO R18.

MDOT requires all laboratory testing for construction conform to the Materials Quality
Assurance Procedures Manual.

7.2 SOIL
7.2.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
These tests must be performed on samples that were obtained for field classification verification
on the major soil types encountered during the investigation. The number of tests should be
limited to reasonably establish the stratification without duplication. A minor soil type, if not
critical, may be given a visual classification instead of performing classification tests for
reference.

This test is performed in two stages: sieve analysis for coarse-grained soils (sands, gravels) and
hydrometer analysis for fine-grained soils (clay, silts). A grain size distribution curve with soil
classification (ASTM D2487) must be provided as a part of the following tests.

Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis is used to determine the grain size distribution of soils. The soil is passed
through a series of woven wires with square openings of decreasing sizes. The
information obtained from the test allows the Geotechnical Engineer to classify the soil
based on the percentage retained on the sieve.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 51

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

This work must consist of determining the gradation of a sample in accordance with
ASTM C136 . Sieves used must consist of U.S. Standard Sieve sizes 3 in., 2 in., 1 in., and
3/8 in. and U.S. Standard Sieve Nos. 4, 10, 40, 100 and 200, with the soil decanted over
the No. 200. Additional U.S. standard sieve sizes and numbers may be required.

Hydrometer
The hydrometer analysis is used to determine the particle size distribution in a soil that
is finer than a No. 200 sieve size (0.075 mm), which is the smallest standard size opening
in the sieve analysis. The procedure is based on the sedimentation of soil grains in
water. It is expressed by Stokes Law, which says the velocity of the soil sedimentation is
based on the soil particles shape, size, weight, and viscosity of the water. Thus, the
hydrometer analysis measures the change in specific gravity of a soil-water suspension
as soil particles settle out over time.

The hydrometer analysis must be in accordance with ASTM D7928 and include a specific
gravity determination performed in accordance with ASTM D854. If 20 percent or more
passes the No. 200 sieve, a hydrometer analysis must be performed.

7.2.2 MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water in a sample to the weight of
solids. The weight of the solids must be oven dried and is considered as weight of dry soil.
Organic soils can have the water content determined but must be dried at a lower temperature
for the weight of dry soil to prevent degradation of the organic matter.

This test must consist of the moisture content determination in accordance with ASTM D2216.
Test representative samples of soil from each major stratum.

7.2.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS

Atterberg limits are different descriptions of the moisture content of fine-grained soils as it
transitions between a solid to a liquid state. For classification purposes, the two primary
Atterberg limits used are the plastic limit (PL) and the liquid limit (LL). The plastic index (PI) is
also calculated for soil classification.

Liquid Limit
The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at which a soil transitions from a
plastic state to a liquid state. Tests must be performed in accordance with ASTM D4318.

Plastic Limit
The plastic limit is the moisture content at which a soil transitions from being in a
semisolid state to a plastic state. Tests must be performed in accordance with
ASTM D4318 .

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 52

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

Shrinkage Limit
The shrinkage limit (SL) is the water content corresponding to the behavior change from
the semisolid to solid states of a silt or clay. It can also be defined as the water content
at which any further reduction in water content will not result in a decrease in volume
of the soil mass.

Shrinkage limit tests must be in accordance with ASTM D4943. This test should be
performed only with prior approval from the GSS or region soils engineer.

7.2.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

The specific gravity of soil is defined as the ratio of the unit weight of a given material to the unit
weight of water. For soils composed of particles smaller than the No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm), use the
procedure described in ASTM D854 . For particles larger than this sieve size, use the procedure
described in ASTM C127 .

The specific gravity of soil is needed to relate a weight of soil to its volume, and it is used in the
computations of other laboratory tests such as the consolidation and hydrometer analysis.

7.2.5 UNIT WEIGHT

Unit weight is a direct determination of either the moist or total weight of the soil sample
divided by the total cylindrical volume of the intact sample (for the total/moist unit weight), or
the oven-dried weight divided by the total volume (for the dry unit weight). This test procedure
is performed on soil with cohesive properties. When performing this test, take at least three
height measurements (120 degrees apart) and a minimum of the three diameter measurements
at the quarter points of the height.

7.2.6 STRENGTH TESTS

The strength of a soil is the maximum stress the soil structure can resist before failure. Soils
generally derive their strength from friction between particles (expressed as the angle of
internal friction, φ), or cohesion between particles (expressed as the cohesion, c in units of
force/unit area), or both. These parameters are expressed in the form of total stress (c, φ) or
effective stress (c’, φ’). The total stress on any subsurface element is produced by the
overburden pressure plus any applied loads. The effective stress equals the total stress minus
the pore water pressure. The common methods of determining these parameters in the
laboratory are discussed below.

Unconfined Compression Test

The unconfined compression test is a quick method to determine the value of undrained
shear strength for cohesive soils. The test involves a cohesive soil sample with no
confining pressure and an axial load being applied to observe the axial strains
corresponding to various stress levels. The stress at failure is referred to as the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 53

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

unconfined compression strength. The undrained shear strength is taken as one-half the
unconfined compressive strength.

The test must be conducted in accordance with ASTM D2166. These tests should be
performed on undisturbed samples. A graph of the strain versus compressive stress
must be included as part of the data report.

Triaxial Compression Tests

The triaxial compression test is a more sophisticated testing procedure for determining
the strength of a soil. The test involves a soil specimen subjected to an axial load until
failure while also being subjected to confining pressure that approximates the in-situ
stress conditions. These tests must be performed on undisturbed samples. Contact the
GSS prior to proposing these tests. The three types of triaxial tests are described below.

Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) - In unconsolidated-undrained tests, the

specimen is not permitted to change its initial water content before or during shear. The
results are total stress parameters. This test is used primarily in the calculation of
immediate embankment stability during quick-loading conditions. Refer to ASTM D2850.

Consolidated-Undrained (CU) - The consolidated-undrained test is the most

common type of triaxial test. This test allows the soil specimen to be consolidated under
a confining pressure prior to shear. After the pore water pressure is dissipated, the
drainage line will be closed, and the specimen will be subjected to shear.

CU tests must be conducted in accordance with ASTM D4767. A minimum of 3 tests on

similar specimens with varying confining pressures must be made to determine the
shear strength parameters. Pore pressure measurements must be taken during this test
so that the effective stress parameters can also be derived.

Consolidated-Drained (CD) - The consolidated-drained test is conducted with

similar methods as the consolidated-undrained test except that drainage is permitted
during shear and the rate of shear is very slow. Thus, the buildup of excess pore
pressure is prevented. Again, several tests on similar specimens must be conducted to
determine the shear strength parameters. This test is used to determine parameters for
calculating long-term stability of embankments.

Housel Transverse Shear test

The transverse shearing resistance test is a direct measure of what may be called the
static yield value, or that shear stress greater than which the soil will suffer progressive
deformation. The force required to cause the complete failure of a sample in the
transverse double shear of a soil cylinder 1.5 in2 in cross-sectional area is measured.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 54

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

Observations are made of the rate of shearing deformation for each of six or seven load
elements applied at ten-minute intervals and the actual load at which progressive
deformation occurs is determined by interpolation.

This test is unique to Michigan and has historical significance in calculating bearing and
pile capacity. This work must be conducted in accordance with Michigan Test
Method 401. For additional information on the details and use of this test, refer to the
Field Manual of Soil Engineering, January 1970.

Direct Shear
In this test, a thin soil sample is placed in a shear box consisting of two parallel blocks
and a normal force is applied. One block remains fixed while the other block is moved
parallel to it in a horizontal direction. The soil fails by shearing along a plane that is
forced to be horizontal. A series of at least three tests with varying normal forces is
required to define the shear strength parameters for a particular soil. This test is
typically run as a consolidated-drained test on cohesionless materials. Tests must be
performed in accordance with ASTM D3080.

Miniature Vane Shear (Torvane)

The miniature vane shear test is performed to obtain undrained shear for plastic
cohesive soils. These tests should be utilized in conjunction with a laboratory testing
program. This test consists of a hand-held device that is pushed into the sample and a
torque is measured. They can be performed in the lab or in the field, typically on the
ends of Shelby tubes, split-barrel samples, test pits, and footing excavation. See
ASTM D4648 for additional guidance on the miniature vane shear test.

Pocket Penetrometer
The pocket penetrometer test is used to obtain the unconfined compressive strength of
a soil sample, typically a split-spoon or Shelby tube sample. This test should be utilized
in conjunction with a laboratory testing program. When performing this test, the
hand-held device is slowly pushed into the soil sample to the designated depth marked
on the device and the tip resistance is measured. This test can be performed in the lab
or in the field, typically on the ends of Shelby tubes and split-barrel samples, test pits,
and footing excavations. Common misreadings due to fast versus steady penetration
and pushing against coarse sand or fine gravel particles can occur with this device. To
prevent misreadings from occurring due to larger particles, the user should inspect the
sample after testing to ensure no larger particles were encountered, thereby adversely
affecting the reading.

7.2.7 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST

The amount of settlement induced by placement of load bearing elements on the ground
surface or the construction of earthen embankments will affect the performance of the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 55

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

structure. Settlement occurs in the subsoils through a combination of the rearrangement of the
individual particles and the squeezing out of water. The calculation of settlement involves many
factors (including the magnitude of the load), the effect of the load at the depth at which
compressible soils exist, the water table, and characteristics of the soil itself. Consolidation
testing is performed to determine the nature of these characteristics.

The most often used method of consolidation testing is the one-dimensional test. The
consolidation test unit consists of a consolidometer (oedometer) and a loading device. The soil
sample is placed between two porous stones, which permit drainage. Load is applied
incrementally and is typically held up to 24 hours. Typical load increments not including the
seating load should be 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 tons per square foot (tsf). Unloading
should be applied in 25 percent decrements of the maximum load. In some instances, the
maximum load applied may need to extend to 32 tsf to obtain a minimum load of 4 times the
preconsolidation pressure. The test measures the height of the specimen after each loading is
applied. The results are plotted on a time versus deformation log scale plot. From this curve,
two parameters can be derived: coefficient of consolidation (Cv) and coefficient of secondary
compression (Cα). These parameters are used to predict the rate of primary settlement and the
amount of secondary consolidation.

After the time-deformation plots are obtained, the void ratio and the strain can be calculated.
Two more plots can be presented: an e-log p curve that plots void ratio (e) as a function of the
log of pressure (p) or an ε-log p curve where ε equals percent strain. The parameters necessary
for settlement calculation can be derived from the e-log p curve and are: compression index
(Cc), recompression index (Cr), preconsolidation pressure (Pc), and initial void ratio (eo).
Alternatively, the ε-log p curve provides the compression index (Cεc), the recompression index
(Cεr), and the preconsolidation pressure (Pc).

To evaluate the recompression parameters of the sample, an unload/reload cycle can be

performed during the loading schedule. To better evaluate the recompression parameters for
overconsolidated clays, the unload/reload cycle may be performed after the preconsolidation
pressure has been defined. After the maximum loading has been reached, the loading is
removed in appropriate decrements. Consolidation tests must be in accordance with
ASTM D2435. In addition to the parameters noted earlier in this section, test reports must
include test results from specific gravity, initial and final moisture contents, initial and final
degrees of saturation, and unit weights. Individual data sheets for all time curves, e-log p curve,
and the ε-log p curve must also be provided as part of this test.

7.2.8 LOSS ON IGNITION TEST (LOI) – ORGANIC CONTENT

Organic soils demonstrate very poor engineering characteristics, most notably low strength and
high compressibility. In the field, these soils can usually be identified by their dark color, musty
odor, and low unit weight. The most used laboratory test for design purposes is the Ioss on

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 56

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

ignition test, which measures how much of a sample’s mass burns off when placed in a muffle
furnace. The results are presented as a percentage of the total sample mass. Tests must be
performed in accordance with ASTM D2974.

7.2.9 PERMEABILITY TESTS

Permeability, also known as hydraulic conductivity, has the same units as velocity and is
generally expressed in ft/min. Coefficient of permeability is dependent on void ratio, grain-size
distribution, pore-size distribution, roughness of mineral particles, fluid viscosity, and degree of
saturation. There are three standard laboratory test procedures for determining the coefficient
of soil permeability: constant and falling head tests and flexible wall tests. Permeability can also
be determined either directly or indirectly from a consolidation test.

Constant Head
In the constant head test, water is introduced into a sample of soil and the difference of
head between the inlet and outlet remains constant during the testing. After the flow of
water becomes constant, water that is collected in a flask is measured in quantity over a
time period. This test is more suitable for coarse-grained soils that have a higher
coefficient of permeability. Tests must be conducted in accordance with ASTM D2434.

Falling Head
The falling head test uses a similar procedure to the constant head test, but the head is
not kept constant. The permeability is measured by the decrease in head over a
specified time. Tests must be performed in accordance with ASTM D5856.

Flexible Wall Permeability

For fine-grained soils, tests performed using a triaxial cell are generally preferred. In-situ
conditions can be modeled by application of an appropriate confining pressure. The
sample can be saturated using back pressuring techniques. Water is then allowed to
flow through the sample and measurements are taken until steady-state conditions
occur. Tests must be performed in accordance with ASTM D5084.

7.2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL CORROSION TESTS OR ELECTRO-CHEMICAL TESTS

These tests are performed to determine the corrosion classification of soil and water. A series of
tests may include pH, resistivity, chloride content, and sulfate content testing. Based on the
scope and soil conditions of the project, this testing may be appropriate. Testing can be done
either in the laboratory or in the field. Sampling must be obtained in accordance with sampling
procedures prepared by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

pH
The pH test is used to determine the acidity or alkalinity of the subsurface or surface
water environments. Acidic or alkaline environments have the potential for being
aggressive on structures (such as metallic culverts, anchors, steel strips, pipes, and steel

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 57

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

piles) placed within these environments. Soil samples collected during the normal
course of a subsurface exploration may be used for pH testing. The pH of soils must be
determined using ASTM G51. Surface water samples must have the pH determined
using ASTM D1293.

Chloride
Subsurface soils and surface water should be tested for chloride if the presence of salt
laden or brackish water is suspected. Chloride testing for soils shall be determined using
AASHTO T291 – Standard Method of Test for Determining Water-Soluble Chloride Ion
Content in Soil. The chloride testing for the surface water shall be performed in
accordance with ASTM D512.

Sulfates
Subsurface soils and surface water may be tested for sulfate. Sulfate testing for soils
must be determined using AASHTO T290. This test is commonly performed when
considering subgrade chemical stabilization. The sulfate testing for surface water must
be conducted in accordance with ASTM D516.

Electrical Resistivity
Resistivity testing is used to determine the electric conduction potential of the
subsurface environment. Where construction materials susceptible to corrosion are
used in the existing subgrade, it is necessary to determine the corrosion potential of
these soils. This test may be performed for structures with metallic components such as
steel reinforcement, permanent steel sheet piling, soil anchors, soil nails, culverts, pipes,
or piles. Resistivity must be determined using ASTM G57 (field method) or AASHTO T288
(laboratory method). The resistivity of surface water samples must be determined using
ASTM D1125.

7.2.11 COMPACTION TEST

Compaction tests are used to determine the optimum water content and maximum dry density
that can be achieved for a particular soil using a designated compactive effort. These tests are
utilized in conjunction with certain laboratory tests (such as direct shear, California Bearing
Ratio, and permeability) to establish a baseline when determining the density for testing
remolded samples. For compaction testing on construction projects with earthwork, refer to the
MDOT Density Testing and Inspection Manual.

Standard Proctor
This test method uses a 5.5-pound rammer dropped from a height of 12 inches. The
sample is compacted in three layers. Testing procedures must adhere to ASTM D698
(AASHTO T99).

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 58

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

Modified Proctor
This test method uses a 10-pound rammer dropped from a height of 18 inches. The
sample is compacted in five layers. Testing procedures must adhere to ASTM D1557
(AASHTO T180).

Michigan Cone Test

This test method is intended for determining the dry density of granular soils under a
standard method of compaction. Granular soils are defined here as soil material having
less than 10 percent loss by washing and 100 percent passing the 2-inch sieve. This test
is typically utilized for compaction verification of the fill during construction. For more
information on this test, refer to the MDOT Density Testing and Inspection Manual.

7.2.12 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is used to determine the strength of a soil under controlled
moisture and density conditions. The test results are utilized to provide subgrade design values
for pavement design. The test must be conducted in accordance with ASTM D1883 and requires
approval by either the GSS or region soils engineer. A minimum of three identical soil samples
are tested with varying relative density and moisture content as specified by the Geotechnical
Engineer. CBR testing is encouraged on subgrade soils with high silt content (> 70 percent).

7.2.13 RESILIENT MODULUS TEST

This test is used to determine the dynamic elastic modulus of a base or subgrade soil under
conditions that represent a reasonable simulation of the physical conditions and stress states of
such materials under flexible pavements subjected to wheel loads. A prepared cylindrical sample
is placed in a triaxial chamber and conditioned under static or dynamic stresses. A repeated axial
stress is then applied at a fixed magnitude, duration, and frequency. The resilient modulus (Mr)
is calculated by dividing the deviator stress by the resilient axial strain. This value is used in the
design and evaluation of pavement systems. Tests must be performed in accordance with
AASHTO T307 and with approval of either the GSS or region soils engineer.

7.3 ROCK
Laboratory rock testing is performed to determine the strength and elastic properties of intact
specimens and the potential for degradation and disintegration of the rock material.
Deformation and strength properties of intact rock core specimens aid in evaluating the larger-
scale rock mass. Laboratory test results must be considered in conjunction with knowledge of
the in-situ characteristics of the rock mass. This section covers common laboratory tests
performed on intact rock core specimens.

7.3.1 UNIT WEIGHT

Unit weight is a direct determination of either the moist or total weight of the rock core sample
divided by the total cylindrical volume of the intact sample (for the total/moist unit weight) or

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 59

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 7 LABORATORY TESTING

the oven-dried weight divided by the total volume (for the dry unit weight). This measurement
includes any voids or pore spaces in the sample and, therefore, can be a relative indicator of the
strength of the core sample. Samples should be tested at the moisture content representative of
field conditions, and samples should be preserved until time of testing. Moisture contents must
be performed in accordance with ASTM D2216.

7.3.2 STRENGTH TESTING

Unconfined (Uniaxial) Compression Tests

The purpose of this test is to determine the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. The
uniaxial compression test is the most direct means of determining rock strength and
must be conducted in accordance with ASTM D7012. Cylindrical rock specimens are
tested in compression without lateral confinement. The test procedure is similar to the
unconfined compression test for soil and concrete. The uniaxial test can also be
conducted with confining pressure in a triaxial cell. Use of a confining pressure may be
particularly valuable for softer rock.

Point Load Tests

The purpose of the point load test is to estimate the unconfined compression strength
of rock. The test is conducted by compressing a piece of rock between two points on
cone-shaped platens until the rock specimen breaks in tension between these two
points. Because the point load test provides an index value for the compressive
strength, the Geotechnical Engineer should calibrate the results with a limited number
of uniaxial compression tests. Tests should be conducted in accordance with
ASTM D5731.

7.3.3 ELASTIC MODULI

The elastic modulus of an intact rock core specimen may also be obtained during the unconfined
compression test. The strain for each loading step must be determined if the elastic modulus is
measured. Because strains will be very small, the accuracy and resolution of the strain
monitoring must be very high. By including lateral strain measurements during this test, it is
possible to determine the Poisson’s ratio of the test specimen.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 60

NOVEMBER 2019
 SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

SECTION 8 – MATERIALS DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

8.1 GENERAL
During a field exploration, a log must be kept of the materials encountered. A field engineer,
geologist, or driller usually keeps the field log. Details of the subsurface conditions encountered
(including basic material descriptions, details of the equipment used, drill hole advancement
and sampling methods, weather conditions, date and time of start and finish, boring locations
and elevations, and other subsurface conditions observed (e.g., groundwater, heaving sands,
drilling chatter) should be recorded. The guidelines provided in ASTM D5434 should be utilized
to summarize the work when performing a subsurface exploration.

Material descriptions, classifications, and other information obtained during the subsurface
explorations are heavily relied upon throughout the remainder of the investigation program and
during the design and construction phases of a project. Therefore, it is necessary that the
method of reporting this data is standardized between MDOT soil engineers, technicians, and
consultants. Thus, MDOT has adopted the use of the following procedures presented in this
chapter.

8.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

MDOT utilizes a modified Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) to describe soil in regard to
soil type, color, relative density/consistency, etc. The description should match the
requirements of the USCS as outlined in ASTM D2488 except as modified herein. This practice
has particular value in grouping similar soil samples so that only a minimum number of
laboratory tests need be run for positive soil classification. Where laboratory testing is
conducted in accordance with ASTM D2487, the use of these soil descriptions should be
recorded on the final boring log. With that said, it is common practice to leave out descriptors
on the boring log such as lean, well graded, or poorly graded. A detailed soil description should
include the following items, in this order:

Rela ve Density/Consistency → Color → Moisture → Soil Descrip on (cons tuents) → Other

pertinent information and descriptors.

Descriptors can be defined as particle angularity and shape, particle size, and structure. The
following subsections briefly describe these items.

8.2.1 RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY

Soil strength refers to the degree of load-carrying capacity and resistance to deformation that a
particular soil may develop. For cohesionless granular soils (sand, gravel, and silt), the relative
in-place density is a measure of strength. The in-place relative density for cohesionless soils can
be estimated by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT - Blow counts) and by resistance to drilling
equipment or “spiral” augers (Figure 5) as described in Table 4. The use of spiral augers to

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 61

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Figure 5: Typical Spiral Augers

identify relative consistency is not commonly used in typical field investigations but is
occasionally used during footing subgrade inspections. For cohesive soils, “consistency” is a
measure of cohesion or shear strength. The shear strength of clay soils can be estimated in the
field using manual methods, the SPT, as noted in Table 5, or a hand penetrometer. Table 5 is
based on shear strength and not the estimated unconfined compressive strength as determined
by a hand penetrometer. Note that, for clay soils, loss of moisture will result in increased
strength; therefore, consistency of clay soils should be estimated at the natural moisture
content.

Table 4: Relative Density for Cohesionless Soils

Descriptive SPT – N60 Relative
Resistance to Spiral Auger
Term (blows/ft) 1 Density %
The auger can be forced several inches into the soil
Very Loose ≤4 0 – 20 without turning under the bodyweight of the
technician.
The auger can be turned into the soil for its full length
without difficulty. It can be chugged up and down after
Loose 5 – 10 >20 – 40
penetrating about 1 ft so that it can be pushed down 1
inch into the soil.
The auger cannot be advanced beyond ±2.5 ft without
Medium
11 – 30 >40 – 70 great difficulty. Considerable effort by chugging
Dense
required to advance further.
The auger turns until tight at ±1 ft and cannot be
Dense 31 – 50 >70 – 85
advanced further.
The auger can be turned into the soil only to about the
Very Dense > 50 >85 -100
length of its spiral section.
1
The above descriptor may be misleading in gravelly soils.

Table 5: Consistency for Cohesive Soils

Descriptive SPT – N60 Shear Strength – su
Manual Index for Consistency
Term (blows/ft) (psf)
Very Soft ≤2 0 - 250 Extrudes between fingers when squeezed
Soft 3–4 > 250 - 500 Molded by light to moderate finger pressure
Medium Stiff 5–8 >500 – 1000 Molded by moderate to firm finger pressure

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 62

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Descriptive SPT – N60 Shear Strength – su

Manual Index for Consistency
Term (blows/ft) (psf)
Readily indented by thumb, difficult to
Stiff 9 – 15 >1000 – 2000
penetrate
Very Stiff 16 - 30 >2000 – 4000 Readily indented by thumbnail
Hard > 30 > 4000 Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

The soil consistency, when appropriate and available, should be added to the field classification
at the very beginning, using the terminology described below. Examples: Loose, Brown, Moist,
fine GRAVEL; Medium Stiff, Gray, Moist Sandy CLAY.

8.2.2 COLOR
Soil color is not in itself a specific engineering property but may be an indicator of other
significant geologic processes that may be occurring within the soil mass. Color may also aid in
the subsurface correlation of soil strata. Soil color should be determined in the field at its
natural moisture content. Primary colors should be used (brown, gray, yellow, etc.). Soils with
different shades or tints of basic colors are described by using two basic colors (e.g., gray-green,
dark gray). When the soil is irregularly marked (spots, flecked, blotches, etc.), the term
“mottled” can be applied (e.g., gray mottled brown). Examples are Brown, Gray, Black, Light
Brown, Dark Gray.

8.2.3 MOISTURE CONDITION

The in-situ moisture condition should be determined using the visual-manual procedure. The
moisture condition is defined using the following terms.

Table 6: Moisture Content Descriptions

Moisture Description Criteria
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Saturated Visible free water

8.2.4 PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE

Coarse-grained soils are described as angular, subangular, subrounded, or rounded. Gravel,
cobbles, and boulders can be described as flat, elongated, or flat and elongated. Descriptions of
fine-grained soils will not include a particle angularity or shape. For definitions and illustrations
on these terms, refer to ASTM D2488.

8.2.5 CONSTITUENTS AND GRADATION

Primary
The primary soil constituent is defined as the material fraction that has the greatest
impact on the engineering behavior of the soil and represents the soil type found in the
largest percentage. To determine the primary constituent, it must first be determined

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 63

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

whether the soil is “Fine-Grained” or “Coarse-Grained” or “Organic” as defined below.

The field soil classification “word picture” will be built around the primary constituent as
defined by the soil types described below. This term must be capitalized when listing the
material description on the boring log.

Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 50 percent of the soil is retained on the No. 200 sieve.
A good rule of thumb to determine if particles will be retained or pass the No. 200 sieve
is if individual particles can be distinguished by the naked eye, then they will likely be
retained. Also, the finest sand particles often can be identified by their sparkle or glassy
quality.

 Gravel - Identified by particle size, gravel consists of rounded to angular particles of

rock. Gravel size particles usually occur in varying combinations with other particle
sizes. Gravel is subdivided into particle size ranges as follows: (Note that particles
greater than 3 inches are cobbles or boulders, as defined in the Glossary of Terms.)
 Coarse - Particles passing the 3-inch sieve and retained on the 3/4-inch sieve.
 Fine - Gravel particles passing the 3/4-inch sieve and retained on the No. 4 sieve.
Note: The term "gravel" in this system denotes a particle size range and should not
be confused with "gravel" used to describe a type of geologic deposit or a
construction material.

 Sand - Identified by particle size, sand consists of rock particles, usually silicate
(quartz) based, ranging between gravel and silt sizes. Sand has no cohesion or
plasticity. Its particles are gritty grains that can easily be seen and felt and may be
rounded (natural) or angular (usually manufactured). Sand is subdivided into
particle size ranges as follows:
 Coarse - Particles that will pass the No. 4 sieve and be retained on the No. 10
sieve.
 Medium - Particles that will pass the No. 10 sieve and be retained on the No. 40
sieve.
 Fine - Particles that will pass the No. 40 sieve and be retained on the No. 200
sieve.
 Well-Graded - Indicates relatively equal percentages of fine, medium, and
coarse fractions are present.
Note: The particle size of coarse-grained primary soils is important to the
Geotechnical Engineer. Always indicate the particle size or size range immediately
before the primary soil constituent.
Exception: The use of ‘Gravel’ alone will indicate both coarse and fine gravel are
present. Examples: fine and medium SAND; coarse GRAVEL.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 64

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Include the particle shape (angular, partially angular, sub-rounded, or rounded)

when appropriate, such as for aggregates, manufactured sands, or when it could
significantly affect the engineering properties. Example: medium to coarse, angular
SAND; rounded GRAVEL.
 Cobbles and Boulders - The coarse-grained soil classification as outlined in the
Manual does not take into account the presence of cobbles and boulders within the
soil mass. When cobbles and/or boulders are detected, either visually within a test
pit or as indicated by drilling action/core recovery, they should be reported on the
field logs after the main soil description. These two terms are defined in Section
8.2.8. The descriptor should be as follows:
 with cobbles - when only cobbles are present
 with boulders - when only boulders are present
 with cobbles and boulders - when both cobbles and boulders are present
Fine-Grained Soils: More than 50 percent of the soil passes the No. 200 sieve.

 Silt - Identified by behavior and particle size, silt consists of material passing the No.
200 sieve that has low to no plasticity (no cohesion) and exhibits little or no strength
when dried. Silt can typically be rolled into a ball or strand, but it will easily crack
and crumble. To distinguish silt from clay, place material in the palm of one hand
and with the other, make several vigorous blows on the heel of the hand holding the
soil. If water appears on the surface, creating a glossy texture, then the primary
constituent is silt.

 Clay - Identified by behavior and particle size, clay consists of material passing the
No. 200 sieve and exhibits plasticity or cohesion (ability of particles to adhere to
each other) within a wide range of moisture contents. Moist clay can be rolled into a
thin 1/8-inch thread that will not crumble. Also, clay will exhibit strength increase
with decreasing moisture content, retaining considerable strength when dry. Clay is
often encountered in combination with other soil constituents such as silt and sand.
If a soil exhibits plasticity, it contains clay. The amount of clay can be related to the
degree of plasticity; the higher the clay content, the greater the plasticity.

Note: When applied to laboratory gradation tests, silt size is defined as that portion of
the soil finer than the No. 200 sieve and coarser than the 0.002 mm. Clay size is that
portion of soil finer than 0.002 mm. For field classification, the distinction will be strictly
based upon cohesive/plasticity characteristics.

Organic Soils: Section 8.4 describes the classification process to be used for peat and
common organic soils encountered in Michigan.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 65

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Secondary Soil Constituents

Secondary soil constituents represent one or more soil types other than the primary
constituent that appear in the soil in significant percentages sufficient to readily affect
the appearance or engineering behavior of the soil. To correlate the field classification
with laboratory classification, this definition corresponds to the amounts of secondary
soil constituents ≥ 12 percent for fine-grained and ≥ 30 percent for coarse-grained
secondary soil constituents. The secondary soil constituents will be added to the field
classification as an adjective preceding the primary constituent. Two or more secondary
soil constituents should be listed in ascending order of importance. The use of Silty in
Silty Clay as a secondary soil constituent should be determined based on the plasticity
index criteria stated in ASTM D2487 versus the percentage of silt in the soil.
Examples: Silty fine SAND; Peaty MARL; Gravelly, Clayey SAND; Sandy SILTY CLAY; Silty
Clayey SAND.

Tertiary
Tertiary soil constituents represent one or more soil types that are present in a soil in
quantities sufficient to readily identify, but not in sufficient quantities to significantly
affect the engineering behavior of the soil. The tertiary constituent will be added to the
field classification with the phrase “with __” at the end following the primary
constituent and all other descriptors. This definition corresponds to approximately 5 to
12 percent for fine-grained and 15 to 29 percent for coarse-grained tertiary soil
constituents.

Example: Dense, Gray, Saturated, Silty fine to coarse SAND with Gravel and Peat; Stiff,
Brown, Moist CLAY with Sand.

Soil types that appear in the sample in percentages below tertiary levels need not be
included in the field classification. However, the slight appearance of a soil type may be
characteristic of a transition in soil constituents (more significant deposits nearby) or
may be useful in identifying the soil during construction. These slight amounts can be
included for descriptive purposes at the end of the field classification as “Trace of ___.”
Example: Loose, Brown, Saturated, fine and medium SAND; Trace of Silt – Hard, Gray,
Moist Sandy SILTY CLAY; Trace of Gravel.

8.2.6 ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

Additional descriptors should be added as needed to adequately describe the soil for the
purpose required. These descriptors should typically be added to the field classification before
the primary and secondary constituents, in ascending order of significance (exceptions noted
below). Definitions for several descriptive terms can be found in the Glossary of Terms,
Section 8.2.8. Other terms may be used as appropriate for descriptive purposes, but not for soil

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 66

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

constituents. Examples: Light Brown, Moist, laminated SILTY CLAY; Stiff, Brown, Moist, blocky
CLAY.

Exceptions: Certain descriptive terms such as “Fill” may be more appropriate after the primary
constituent or at the end of the field classification. Also, the description of distinct soils
(inclusions) within a larger stratum should be added after the complete field classification of the
predominant soil.

Examples of Exceptions: Brown, Moist Sandy CLAY FILL with coarse angular Gravel, brick and
asphalt fragments or Loose, Brown, Moist SAND; Trace of organics and brick fragments (FILL) -
Very Soft, Gray, Saturated MARL; Occasional Lenses of Saturated fine Sand.

Unusual Odors
If during drilling activities, any unusual odors are encountered, they should be noted on
the soil boring log/sheet. By noting these, the Geotechnical Engineer can evaluate if a
potential design or construction issue related to the unusual odor exists.

8.2.7 FIELD LOGGING

In addition to recording the soil description outlined in the previous subsections, the field
investigation record should also include applicable items as outlined in ASTM D5434. Key items
such as groundwater observations, artesian conditions, obstructions encountered, difficulties in
drilling (caving, coring boulders, surging, or rise in sand inside casing or augers), loss of
circulation, drilling mud, casing needed and why, sampler plugged, driving on rock, and drilling
equipment utilized are beneficial information to the designer and contractor during the design
and construction phase.

8.2.8 GLOSSARY OF SOIL DESCRIPTION TERMS

 Blocky - Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist
further breakdown.

 Boulder - A rock fragment, usually rounded by weathering or abrasion, with average

dimension of 12 inches or more.

 Calcareous - Soil containing calcium carbonate either from limestone deposits or shells.
The carbonate will react (fizz) with weak hydrochloric acid.
 Cemented - The adherence or bonding of coarse soil grains due to presence of a
cementitious material. May be weak (readily fragmented), firm (appreciable strength),
or indurated (very hard, water will not soften, rocklike).
 Cobble - A rock fragment, usually rounded or partially angular, with an average
dimension of 3 to 12 inches.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 67

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

 Fat Clay - Fine-grained soil with very high plasticity and dry strength. Usually has a sticky
or greasy texture due to very high affinity for water. Remains plastic at very high water
contents (Liquid Limit >50).

 Fill - Man-made deposits of natural soils and/or waste materials. Document the
components carefully since presence and depth of fill are important engineering
considerations.

 Fissured - The soil breaks along definite planes of weakness with little resistance to
fracturing.

 Frequent - Occurring more than one per 1 ft thickness.

 Friable - A soil that is easily crumbled or pulverized into smaller, non-uniform fragments
or clumps.

 Laminated - Alternating horizontal strata of different material or color, usually in

increments of ¼ inch or less.

 Layer - Horizontal inclusion of soil greater than 4 inches thick but less than 12 inches.

 Lens - Inclusion of a small pocket of a soil between 3/8 inch and 4 inches thick, often
with tapered edges.

 Mottled - Irregularly marked soil, usually clay, with spots of different colors.

 Muck - See Section 8.4.

 Occasional - Occurring once or less per 1 ft thickness.

 Organic - Indicates the presence of material that originated from living organisms,
usually vegetative, undergoing some stage of decay. May range from microscopic size
matter to fibers, stems, leaves, wood pieces, shells, etc. Usually dark brown or black in
color and accompanied by a distinct odor.
 Parting - A very thin soil inclusion of up to 3/8-inch thickness.

 Stratum – Horizontal inclusion of soil greater than 12 inches thick.

 Trace - Indicates appearance of a slight amount of a soil type, which may be included in
the classification for descriptive or identification purposes only. The use of this term is
described in the Tertiary subsection above.
 Varved - The paired arrangement of laminations in glacial sediments that reflect
seasonal changes during deposition; fine sand and silt are deposited in the glacial lake
during summer and finer particles are usually deposited in thinner laminations in winter.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 68

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

8.3 ROCK DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

There are numerous rock classification systems, but none of these is universally used. This
section provides a composite of those classification systems that incorporates the significant
descriptive terminology relevant to MDOT geotechnical design and construction.

Rocks are classified into three major divisions: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. All
three rock types are found in the State of Michigan.

Table 7: Rock Type Classifications

Rock Type Definition
Igneous Derived from molten material
Derived from settling, depositional, or
Sedimentary
precipitation processes
Derived from pre-existing rocks due to heat, fluids,
Metamorphic
and/or pressure

A detailed rock description provided on the boring log should include the following applicable
items.

 Color → Degree of Weathering→ Rock Type → Grain size → Strength → Other per nent
descriptive terms and information.

Descriptors can be defined as texture, structure, mineral composition, rock hardness, and
discontinuities. The rock description determination and logging must include identification of
discontinuities and fractures for classification of the rock mass strength. However, the detail of
the rock description provided for a particular rock type should be dictated by the complexity and
objectives of the project. For instance, projects that involve rock stability or require excavation
into the underlying rock (micropiles, drilled shafts) warrants more detail when developing the
rock description. The Soil Boring Data Sheet provided in Figure 9 gives an example of standard
rock descriptions. Additional descriptors, if presented, must be relevant to the design of the
project. The following subsections briefly describe the rock descriptors.

8.3.1 COLOR
The color should be determined in the field from fresh samples directly after removal from the
core barrel. Primary colors should be used (brown, gray, yellow, etc.). Rocks with different
shades or tints of basic colors are described by using two basic colors (e.g., gray-green, dark
gray). Examples are Brown, Gray, Black, Light Brown, Dark Gray.

8.3.2 WEATHERING
The degree of weathering must be described as part of the rock classification. The degree of
weather is defined as follows.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 69

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Table 8: Rock Weathering Terms

Description Definition
Rock shows no sign of weathering, loss of strength,
Fresh or other effects of weathering such as slight
discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces
Rock is slightly discolored, but not noticeably lower
Slightly Weathered
in strength than fresh rock
Rock is discolored and noticeably weakened, but
Moderately less than half is decomposed; a minimum of 2-inch
Weathered diameter sample can be broken readily by hand
across the rock fabric
More than half of the rock is decomposed; rock is
weathered so that a minimum 2-inch diameter
Highly Weathered
sample can be broken readily by hand across the
rock fabric
Original minerals or rock have been almost entirely
Completely decomposed to secondary minerals even though
Weathered the original fabric may be intact; material can be
granulated by hand
Original minerals of rock have been entirely
decomposed to secondary minerals, and original
Residual Soil
rock fabric is not apparent; material can be easily
broke by hand

8.3.3 CONSTITUENTS
The principal constituent is the rock type constituting the major portion of the stratum being
investigated. The rock type provided on the Soil Boring Data Sheet must be identified by either a
professional geologist or a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. Rock descriptions should use
technically correct geologic terms, although accepted local terminology may be used provided
the terminology helps describe distinctive characteristics. Some examples of rock types are
limestone, shale, slate, dolomite, basalt, and sandstone.

8.3.4 STRENGTH
Table 9 presents guidelines for common qualitative assessment of strength while mapping or
during primary logging of rock cores at the site by using point load test correlations or a geologic
hammer and pocketknife. The field estimates should be confirmed where appropriate by
comparisons with selected laboratory tests, such as the point load test or uniaxial compression
test as discussed in Section 7.3.2. Provide qualitative descriptions of factors that might affect
strength such as weak layers and any seams for which strength tests are not representative.

Table 9: Strength Terms

Approximate Uniaxial
Description Definition
Compressive Strength (psi)
Extremely Weak Rock Can be indented by thumbnail 35 - 150

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 70

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Approximate Uniaxial
Description Definition
Compressive Strength (psi)
Very Weak Rock Can be peeled by pocket knife 150 - 725
Can be peeled with difficulty by
Weak Rock 725 – 3,500
pocketknife
Can be indented 3/16 inch with
Medium Strong Rock 3,500 – 7,000
sharp end of pick
Requires one blow of geologist’s
Strong Rock 7,000 – 15,000
hammer to fracture
Requires many blows of geologist’s
Very Strong Rock 15,000 – 36,000
hammer to fracture
Can only be chipped with blows by
Extremely Strong Rock > 36,000
geologist’s hammer

8.3.5 GRAIN SIZE

The grain size description should be classified according to the terms presented in Table 10. This
description is typically utilized for sedimentary rocks. The grain size descriptions are consistent
with those used in the USCS for soil particles.

Table 10: Terms to Describe Rock Grain Size

Description Grain Size (mm) Characterization of Individual Grains
Very coarse grained >#4 (>4.75) Grains are greater than popcorn kernels
Coarse grained #10 to #4 (2.00-4.75) Individual grains can easily be distinguished by eye
Medium grained #40 to #10 (0.425 – 2.00) Individual grains distinguished by eye
#200 to #40 Individual grains distinguished by eye with
Fine grained
(0.075 - 0.425) difficulty
Very fine grained < #200 (0.075) Cannot be distinguished by unaided eye

8.3.6 DISCONTINUITIES
Discontinuity is the general term for any mechanical break in a rock mass that has zero or low
tensile strength. It is the collective term for most types of joints, weak bedding planes, weak
schistosity planes, weakness zones, and faults. When determining the Rock Mass Rating RMR)
on the core run, the Geotechnical Engineer must carefully record the type, shape, width, and
surface roughness of the discontinuity. In addition, the fill material within the discontinuity
should be logged. It is best practice to record the discontinuities in the field immediately after
the core has been removed from the barrel. For additional information on determining these
parameters, refer to NHI Course No. 132012 and GEC No. 5.

8.3.7 ROCK FRACTURE DESCRIPTION

Naturally occurring fractures are described by using the same terminology (surface roughness,
shape, and aperture width) that is used for discontinuities. The number of naturally occurring
fractures observed in each 1 ft of core should be recorded as the fracture frequency. “Good”

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 71

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

practice is to have the field geotechnical engineer or geologist log the fractures per foot while
the core is still in the tube liner or immediately after it has been transferred to the core tray or
box. Mechanical breaks, thought to have occurred during drilling or handling, are not counted.

In certain cases, as determined useful by the Geotechnical Engineer, the degree of fracturing is
added as a descriptor to the rock description. The terms in Table 11 should be used to describe
the degree of fracturing observed in the rock core.

Table 11: Terms to Describe Degree of Rock Fractures

Description Spacing
Unfractured > 10 ft
Intact 3 ft to 10 ft
Slightly Fractured 1 ft to 3 ft
Moderately Fractured 4 inches to 12 inches
Fractured 2 inches to 4 inches
Highly Fractured < 2 inches

8.3.8 RECOVERY AND ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

Core recovery and RQD should be logged while the core is in as close to its original condition as
possible. Ideally, this information is determined while the core is still in the tube liner or split
tube or immediately after it has been transferred to the core box. Mechanical breaks, such as
caused by handling or drilling, should be noted as such and not included in the RQD calculations.
The core recovery and RQD must be reported with the rock description on the boring log. These
values should be calculated in accordance with guidelines presented in ASTM D2113 and
FHWA NHI-01-031.

8.3.9 ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)

The information obtained in the previous sections is used to develop the RMR. The RMR is used
as a basis for design of transportation facilities constructed in, on, or of rock. It should be
determined using the guidelines presented in Section 10 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. Obtaining this value on all projects where rock coring is conducted is not always
necessary and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer on a case-by-case basis.

8.4 CLASSIFICATION OF SWAMP DEPOSITS

Through swamp areas, it has become evident that embankments must be constructed so that
they extend to a stable foundation. The manner in which this will be accomplished and the
problems that will be encountered depend largely on the type and depth of materials that exist
in the swamp. Because of the importance of the type of the swamp materials, a comprehensive
classification taken largely from the works of Dr. Alfred Dachnowski-Stokes is given in the
following paragraphs.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 72

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

The presence of peat or muck is generally easily discernible by surface appearance and
vegetation. An adequate conception of peat deposits can be obtained only from information on
an entire vertical section or profile of a peat area down to the underlying mineral soil. It is
important to bear in mind that peat deposits, under natural conditions, consist of different
layers of peat superimposed upon one another. These layers differ markedly in composition and
show considerable range in physical properties, organic constituents, and reaction to the activity
of micro-organisms and growing plants.

Peat deposits represent different stages in a process of development, which in many instances
has continued since the close of the ice age and is still in progress. The deposits vary in size and
depth, in the number, thickness and composition of layers, and in such characteristics as color,
reaction and elevation of water level.

The purpose of the following classification is to present the properties and characteristics of the
different types of swamp deposits that determine their behavior when subjected to standard
methods of construction. The relationship between the several kinds of swamp material and the
units of natural vegetation that have given rise to them in a succession of stages will become
evident from the following diagrams and descriptions.

The various methods of swamp treatment are discussed in detail in the Standard Specifications
for Construction and Standard Plan R-103 series. The Geotechnical Engineer should become
thoroughly acquainted with the standard methods of treatment for average swamp conditions
and should be so informed as to recognize unusual conditions that require special treatment.

8.4.1 SEDIMENTARY PEAT

In any shallow lake or pond, the history of a peat deposit begins with a stage of vegetation
associated with the open water. It consists of microscopic organisms, submerged plants, pond
weeds, water lilies, and similar forms of plant life. The yearly addition of decaying bodies of such
organisms in depressions and basins accumulates to form a soft, oozy, structureless peat. It
contains plant remains that are recognizable and material that has lost all traces of its origin and
has become changed into an amorphous residue.

Sedimentary peat is fine-textured material, which is often gelatinous when wet but hard when
dry. In some localities, it occurs as a dense, impervious organic sediment; in other places, it
contains bits of tissue from roots and leaves, a variety of seeds, wind-blown pollen, quantities of
shells from mollusks, and diatoms that have siliceous skeletons, or sand, silt, and clay. The color
of sedimentary peat ranges from brown to olive green.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 73

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Figure 6: The Formation of Sedimentary Peat

8.4.2 SEMI-ORGANIC SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS

These are soft sedimentary deposits of silt, mixed with sand, clay and organic material, occurring
in deep glacial drainage ways. They have many of the objectionable characteristics of
sedimentary peat but generally are more stable. The material is generally identified as 'soft
sediments' in boring logs or swamp soundings. In the USCS classification system, this may be
identified or described as “ORGANIC SILT.” The organic content varies between 4 and 10 percent
by dry weight. The moisture content commonly has a range from 50 to 70 percent by dry
weight. Its dry density generally ranges from 50 to 70 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The
transverse yield shear value ranges from 75 to 200 psf. In particle size distribution, the material
generally averages more than 50 percent in silt size with the balance split between the sand and
clay-colloid sizes. Because of a high percentage of mineral silt and sand, soft sediments often
lend themselves better to treatment by consolidation rather than displacement. In addition, the
classification of this material should adhere to the guidelines provided in ASTM D2487.

The physical properties of soft sediments are given above for the purpose of distinguishing this
material from true peat because it is often incorrectly identified as sedimentary peat. Material
classified as peat contains 20 to 30 percent or more organic matter. True peats have very low
dry weights, commonly 25 pcf or less and sometimes as low as 5 pcf. The moisture content of
peats commonly ranges from 100 to 500 percent and often well exceeds 1000 percent. The
shear value for peat normally is less than 50 psf.

8.4.3 FIBROUS PEAT

The second stage in the development of a peat deposit is generally associated with the
encroachment of marsh vegetation upon the lake or pond in which the free water surface is
disappearing by the filling process of aquatic plants. In this case, the dominant vegetation
consists either of sedges (such as wire grass, saw grass, tule, rushes with cattail) or of reeds,
canes, and reedlike grasses. These plants have a root growth that in time builds up to a firm,
coarse to felty fibrous and porous peat layer of an interwoven network of underground stems
and roots.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 74

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Figure 7: The Formation of Fibrous Peat

8.4.4 WOODY PEAT

The final stage of native vegetation that establishes itself upon a layer of reed or sedge peat
under natural conditions is a swamp forest of conifers together with deciduous trees. Under
these conditions, the principal source of organic matter is an accumulation of fallen logs,
branches, and roots varying in size and degree of decomposition. Additional marked effects of
the influence of a swamp forest are indicated by the litter from leaves and needles, by a
considerable contribution of bits of twigs, bark, cones and fruiting bodies, and by a considerable
amount of crumbly, granular residue (duff or leaf mold) matted together by a meshwork of
roots and the mycelium of fungi.

Figure 8: The Formation of Woody Peat

8.4.5 MOSS PEAT

Moss peat differs markedly in character and composition from the kinds of peat previously
described. It is formed predominately by the small stems and leaves of sphagnum mosses. The
native surface vegetation is made up largely of various species of sphagnum and a scattered
growth of sedges and small ericaceous shrubs (principally leatherleaf, Labrador tea, laurel,
blueberries) together with scrubby, dwarfed black spruces and tamarack. There is not much
timber growth owing to the very low amount of soluble mineral and organic constituents in
the water retained by the mosses. Moss peat may be classified as fibrous peat.

8.4.6 MUCK
Although the terms peat and muck are often used synonymously, the two are distinguished
based on the degree of decomposition. Muck is black, structureless ooze containing no
identifiable plant remains. It represents the advanced state of decomposition of plant
remains. Muck generally comprises the well decomposed surface material of swamps and wet
depressions.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 75

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

8.4.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLOR AND DEGREE OF DECOMPOSITION

Color is one of the important aids in the recognition of different grades of peat. There is
generally a progressive darkening in color as peat material decomposes to muck.

To express the degree of decomposition that has taken place, it has been found practical in
highway work to employ an arbitrary scale of three divisions. These represent more or less
definite values to indicate grades of slightly decomposed peat, partly decomposed peat and well
decomposed peat or muck.

Partially decomposed grades of peat are usually brown. Very dark brown and black colors serve
as a general basis for estimating grades of well decomposed peat or muck. They are the result of
active oxidation and of a high proportion of residual material contributed chiefly by the activity
of micro-organisms.

8.4.8 MARL AND VERY SOFT CLAY

Marl and very soft clay are sometimes encountered in association with peat. Marl consists of
fresh water deposits of calcium carbonate with small and varying percentages of peat, clay, and
fine sand. In color, it ranges from dull gray to almost white. The texture varies with the mode of
origin and ranges from very fine textured precipitates to the coarser textured deposits of shells
from mollusks, nodules, and cylinders from stonewort. Marl has a very definite chalky feel and
very little plasticity when tested between the thumb and finger. It may occur anywhere in the
peat profile below the surface peat, with the purer deposits usually found in the shallow
portions of the swamp. Very soft clay, when present, always occurs at the bottom of the swamp.
It differs from underlying soil material because it is of more recent origin and, therefore,
unconsolidated. It is often more fluid than the overlying sedimentary peat and feels very sticky
and very smooth when tested between the thumb and finger. When inspected, very soft clay
has a consistency similar to toothpaste.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 76

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Figure 9: Example 1 Soil Boring Data Sheet

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 77

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

Figure 10: Example 2 Soil Boring Data Sheet

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 78

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

SECTION 9 – GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.1 GENERAL
This section presents MDOT’s geotechnical design guidelines. This includes the approach to the
geotechnical investigations of the project and the correlations that link the field and laboratory
work that precedes this section to the engineering analysis that is described here. Once all
exploration and testing have been completed, the Geotechnical Engineer must organize and
analyze all existing data and provide recommendations. The geotechnical engineer-of-record
must develop a design approach that reflects both the requirements of the Manual, as well as
generally accepted industry practice.

Accordingly, the geotechnical engineering consists of interpreting field data, developing geologic
profiles, selecting foundation types, performing analyses, developing designs, plans and
specifications, construction monitoring, maintenance, etc. This is accomplished by knowing
applicability and limitations of the geotechnical design methodologies and assessing the
uncertainties associated with soil properties and the resulting impact on structural performance.
The Geotechnical Engineer is required to evaluate the design or analysis and decide if it is
“reasonable” and if it will meet the performance expectations that have been established.
Reasonableness is a subjective term that depends on the engineer’s experience, both in design
and construction. If the solution does not appear reasonable, the engineer should make the
appropriate changes to develop a reasonable solution. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineer
should document why the first solution was not reasonable and why the second solution is
reasonable. This documentation is an important part of the development of the design
approach. If the solution appears reasonable, then design should proceed to the economics of
geotechnical engineering.

The economics of geotechnical engineering assesses the effectiveness of the solution from a
cost perspective. Sometimes designers and geotechnical engineers get caught up in the science
and art of geotechnical engineering and do not evaluate other non-geotechnical solutions that
may be cost effective both in design and construction. For example, alternate alignments should
be explored to avoid poor soils or on existing unstable slopes, decreasing vertical alignment to
reduce embankment loads, placing alternate designs on the plans to facilitate competitive
bidding. The science, art, and economics are not sequential facets of geotechnical engineering
but are very often intermixed throughout the design process. As a result, it is crucial that
communication between the interdisciplinary groups involved in the design occur throughout
this process.

9.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING QUALITY ASSURANCE

A formal internal geotechnical engineering quality assurance plan should be established for all
phases of the geotechnical engineering process. The first-line geotechnical engineer is expected
to perform analyses with due diligence and a self-prescribed set of checks and balances. The

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 79

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

geotechnical quality control plan should include milestones in the project development where
analysis, recommendations, etc. are reviewed by at least one other geotechnical engineer of
equal experience or higher seniority. Documentation that the quality assurance process has
been followed and must be evident upon review of geotechnical calculations, reports, etc. (e.g.,
signatures, initials, other notations). All engineering work must be performed under the direct
supervision of a professional engineer licensed by the State of Michigan.

9.2 FINAL SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUES

After the field investigation and laboratory testing is completed, the geotechnical designer must
review the quality and consistency of the data and should determine if the results are consistent
with expectations. Once the lab and field data have been collected, the process of developing a
subsurface profile and selecting final material properties begins. At this stage, the geotechnical
designer generally has several sources of data consisting of that obtained in the field, laboratory
test results and correlations from index testing. In addition, the geotechnical designer may have
experience based on other projects in the area or in similar soil/rock conditions. Therefore, if
the results are not consistent with each other or previous experience, the reasons for the
differences should be evaluated, poor data eliminated or marginalized (based on evaluation)
and trends in data identified. At this stage, it may be necessary to conduct additional tests to try
and resolve discrepancies.

Where reliability data was used to establish load and resistance factors, the factors were
developed assuming mean values for the design properties used. On occasion, design values
that are more conservative than the mean may still be appropriate, especially if there is an
unusual amount of uncertainty in the assessment of the design properties due, for example, to
highly variable site conditions, lack of high-quality data to assess property values, or widely
divergent property values from the different methods used to assess properties within a given
geologic unit.

9.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBSURFACE PROFILE

To better understand the site and aid in determining final design values, the Geotechnical
Engineer should develop a subsurface profile that “paints a picture” of the stratigraphy within
the project limits. Ultimately, a working model is developed that depicts major subsurface layers
exhibiting distinct engineering characteristics. While this is useful to evaluate and interpret the
data gathered and ultimately provide design and construction recommendations, this is
considered interpretive data and the profile should not be included as a contract document.

The following steps outline the creation of the subsurface profile:

1. Complete the field and lab work and incorporate the data into a soil boring log sheet or
individual boring logs.
2. Create a cross-section(s) by plotting borings at their respective elevations and positions
horizontal to one another with appropriate scales. Understanding the geologic

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 80

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

deposition/history can be very useful, especially at river crossings where the river may
have been relocated or may have meandered over time. Caution should be exercised
when attempting to connect with soil layers in adjacent borings because the geologic
stratigraphy may not be consistently thick or consistently present. It has been the
experience of MDOT that soil profiles at river crossings can be considerably different,
particularly at relatively shallow depths, from one side to the other.
If appropriate, two or more cross-sections, longitudinal and transverse to the
structure/roadway centerline can be developed when a site has large extents or varying
conditions. For instance, wider bridge structures may warrant a cross-section
longitudinally along the centerline of the entire bridge and then transversely at each
substructure if variations are seen in the borings between each of the substructure
units. Multiple cross-sections may also be useful when conducting a global stability
analysis at a bridge approach or in a critical fill/cut section.
3. Analyze the profile(s) to see how it compares with the expected results and knowledge
of geologic history. Make modifications to the profile as necessary.

9.2.2 SOIL STRENGTH DETERMINATION

The selection of soil shear strength for design should consider, at a minimum, the following:

 The rate of construction loading relative to the hydraulic conductivity of the soil (i.e.,
drained or undrained strengths);
 The effect of applied load direction from the structure on the measured shear strengths
during testing;
 The effect of expected levels of deformation for the geotechnical structure or soil mass;
and

 The effect of the construction sequence on the loading and drainage of the soil profile.

In general, where loading is rapid enough and/or the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is low
enough such that excess pore pressure induced by the proposed loading will not dissipate,
undrained (total) stress parameters should be used. Where loading will be slow enough and/or
the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is great enough such that excess pore pressures induced by
the applied load dissipate as the load is applied, drained (effective) soil parameters should be
used. Drained (effective) soil parameters should also be used to evaluate long-term conditions
where excess pore pressures have been allowed to dissipate or where the designer has explicit
knowledge of the expected magnitude and distribution of the excess pore pressure.

9.2.3 DRAINED STRENGTH OF GRANULAR SOILS

The drained friction angle of granular deposits should be evaluated by empirical correlation to
the results of SPT testing, other relevant in-situ tests, and/or laboratory shear strength tests on
undisturbed samples (if feasible) or reconstituted disturbed samples. If reconstituted samples

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 81

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

are used in this endeavor, the samples should be compacted to the same relative density
estimated from the available in-situ data. The following sections provide guidance in correlating
the SPT test to the drained angle of friction.

Standard Penetration Test Corrections

Many correlations exist that relate the corrected N-values to relative density (Dr), peak
effective angle of internal friction, undrained shear strength , and other parameters;
therefore, it is incumbent upon the designer to understand the correlations being used
and the requirements of the correlations for corrected N-values. Design methods are
available for using N-values directly in the design of driven piles, embankments, spread
footings, drilled shafts, etc. These methods and correlations were developed based on
the standard of practice, which corresponds to an average hammer efficiency (Ef) of 60
percent. When using these correlations or design methods in the analysis, it is the onus
of the Geotechnical Engineer to use appropriate corrected N-values. Standard
designations used for corrected N-values are N60 and N160. Corrections to obtain these
values are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. It should be noted that
these are not the only corrections that can be made to the field SPT values, but are
more commonly used in geotechnical design, and the Geotechnical Engineer must
determine the applicable correction values for each specific project. More guidance on
the use of correction factors can be found in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical Site Characterization (NHI-01-031), FHWA Soils
and Foundations Workshop (NHI-00-045) publication, and the FHWA Evaluation of Soil
and Rock Properties (FHWA-IF-02-034) publication.

9.2.3.1.1 Correction for Hammer Efficiency

In standard practice, a variety of hammer systems are used to perform the standard
penetration test. These systems can have varying levels of performance and should be
corrected when using correlations or design methods that were developed based on a
N60 value. The correction equation is summarized below.

N60 = Nfield * Ef/60

Nfield = the N-value measured in the field during the test.

Ef = the efficiency of the hammer system used to conduct the test. This is
determined based on calibration of the SPT hammer as described in Section 5.8.1.

9.2.3.1.2 Correction for Overburden Pressure

Since N-values of similar materials increase with increasing overburden stress, the
corrected N-value is often normalized to 1-atomosphere effective overburden stress by
using overburden normalization schemes. This normalized value is described below.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 82

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

N160 = N60 * CN

CN = [0.77*log10(40/p’o)] and CN < 2.0 (Peck, et al., 1974)

p’o = the vertical effective pressure at the depth where the SPT test is
performed (ksf)

Friction Angle Correlation

As discussed previously, the N-values measured in the field (Nfield) will likely require
corrections or adjustments. Once the corrections are completed, various published
correlations estimate the angle of internal friction of cohesionless soils based on SPT-N
values and effective overburden pressure. Some of these correlations are widely
accepted as representative; whereas, others are more likely to overestimate lab test
data. In the absence of laboratory shear strength testing, internal angle of friction
estimates for cohesionless soils, based on N-values, must not exceed the values
proposed by Peck, 1974 (see Figure 11). These values are based on SPT N-values
obtained at an effective overburden pressure of one ton per square foot. The correction
factor, CN, as discussed in Section 9.2.3.1.2 may be used to “correct” N values obtained
at the overburden pressures other than 1 tsf. Caution is advised in soils that exhibit
coarser gravel, cobbles, or boulders as these conditions may artificially inflate the field
N-values and erroneously increase the angle of friction correlation between these
parameters. Also, be cautious of the temptation to use the upper values of these
ranges, especially in cases where the location and geologic deposition of the material
being used on the project is unknown at the time of the design analysis. For additional
information on correlating SPT to the internal angle of friction for cohesionless soil,
refer to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Evaluation of Soil and Rock
Properties (FHWA-IF-02-034) publication.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 83

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 11: Angle of Internal Friction vs. N-value (After Peck et al, 1974)

9.2.4 SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

For design analysis of short-term conditions in normally to lightly overconsolidated cohesive
soils, the undrained shear strength is commonly evaluated. Preferred methods to determine
these values are either in-situ testing or laboratory testing of undisturbed samples. Laboratory
testing such as unconfined compression tests or unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests are
commonly used to estimate this soil parameter. Strength measurements from hand torvanes
and pocket penetrometers can also be useful in estimating the undrained shear strength but
should not be solely used in the geotechnical design of critical elements.

Long-term effective stress strength parameters of clays should be evaluated by consolidated

drained direct shear tests, consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests, or consolidated undrained
(CU) triaxial tests with pore water pressure measurements. The use of these tests should be
determined by the Geotechnical Engineer based on the criteria in Section 9.2.2 and complexity
of the project.

9.2.5 SELECTION OF DESIGN PROPERTIES FOR ENGINEERED MATERIALS

This section provides guidelines for the selection of soil properties that are commonly used on
MDOT projects. The engineering properties are based primarily on gradation and compaction
requirements, with consideration of the geologic source of the fill material typical for the
specific project location.

Embankment, Compacted in Place

Per the MDOT Standard Specifications, Embankment, CIP may consist of “sound earth,”
which is defined as “a natural, or otherwise Engineer-approved material, that can be

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 84

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

compacted to the required density, contains no organic material, and has a maximum
unit weight of at least 95 pounds per cubic foot.” For this type of material where the
gradation specification is fairly broad, a wider range of properties will need to be
considered by the Geotechnical Engineer during the design analysis.

In certain types of projects such as Design Build projects or

Construction Management-General Contractor (CMGC) projects, the source of sound
earth may be known, and sampling and specific laboratory testing may be viable to
ascertain appropriate property selection. However, in most MDOT design projects, the
source of sound earth is unknown and reasonable assumptions must be made by the
Geotechnical Engineer when checking the roadway design, specifically overall stability of
fill sections. To provide a sound and consistent methodology for determination of shear
strength parameters of proposed embankments that are not yet constructed, the
following parameters summarized in Table 12 should be used in the design analysis
unless site-specific data is available. These values should not be used to analyze stability
in existing embankments. When considering roadway projects that consist of both cuts
and fills, it is recommended to obtain bulk samples of the cut areas and conduct
appropriate laboratory tests to obtain site-specific soil parameters. Although this may
not be the exact source of borrow material used by the contractor, it may be more
indicative of borrow sources in that area and, as a result, better estimate soil
parameters used in the design analysis.

Table 12: Estimated Shear Strengths and Unit Weights for Preliminary Embankment Analysis
Moist Unit
Total Stress (short term) Effective (long term)
Material Weight
γm (pcf) c (psf) φ (deg) c’ (psf) φ’ (deg)
Embankment, CIP - 1000-
125-130 0 50-100 24-30
Cohesive 1500
Embankment, CIP –
120-125 0 32-34 0 32-34
Granular1
Structure Embankment 120-125 0 32-34 0 32-34
Structure Backfill 120-125 0 32-34 0 32-34
Select Backfill 120-125 0 34 0 34
1
Granular embankment is a soil that has 15 percent or less passing the No. 200 Sieve.
c = undrained shear strength, c’ = effective shear strength,
φ = angle of internal friction, φ’ = effective angle of internal friction

Structure Embankment
The pay item for Structure Embankment per the MDOT Standard Specifications for
Construction consists of a Class III granular material meeting the gradation specified in
Table 902-3. Although this is granular material, the specification allows for a wide range

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 85

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

of gradations from only sand, to gravel, to an assortment of sand, gravel, and fines
(passing #200 sieve). Fine content can range from 0 to 15 percent.

With such a wide variation in gradation, angles of internal friction between 32 to

40 degrees are possible when the soil is well compacted. Table 12 provides
recommended soil properties to use for the design analysis. When the source of the
material is unknown, it is not prudent to select a design friction angle that is near the
upper end of the range unless quality assurance testing is specified and conducted
during construction. In such cases, the Geotechnical Engineer must look at this
conservatively and use the lower end of the range provided.

This material is typically used beneath a spread footing. Common scenarios where this
material is used with a spread footing are illustrated in Bridge Design Guide 5.45.1.

Structure Backfill
The requirements for Structure Backfill ensure that the mixture will meet MDOT’s Class
II gradation. The materials are likely to be poorly graded sand and contain enough fines
to be moderately moisture sensitive. Depending on the location in Michigan, the
specification allows up to 7 to 10 percent fines. Lab testing and experience on material
that meets Structure Backfill gradation requirements indicate that drained friction
angles of 32 to 40 degrees are possible when the soil is well compacted. However, these
values are highly dependent on the geologic source of the material. The granular soil in
Michigan has typically been glacially derived, resulting in subangular to angular soil
particles. Hence, these angular particles tend to have higher shear strength values.
However, the windblown, beach, or alluvial sands are generally rounded through
significant transport and could have significantly lower shear strength values. Caution
should be used when assigning strength parameters to these sands. For use on MDOT
projects, a range of values for shear strength based on previous experience for Structure
Backfill is provided in Table 12. MDOT recommends using internal angles of friction of
32 to 34 degrees in design if specific lab testing on specific borrow source is unavailable.
For long-term analysis, all granular material must be modeled with zero cohesive
strength.

Select Backfill
Select Backfill consists of granular material meeting MDOT’s Class II gradation. It is used
behind permanent or temporary mechanically stabilized walls. For permanent walls, the
material must also meet the electrochemical requirements of the special provision. An
angle of internal friction equal to 34 degrees should be used for design analysis.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 86

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.3 ROADWAY
Once the field investigation is complete, the Geotechnical Engineer has the task of compiling all
the data and analyzing it to determine its effect on pavement design, drainage, stability, and
roadway plan preparation. To better acquaint the Geotechnical Engineer with design problems
and analysis methods used in this endeavor, the following discussion for the application of the
soil data is presented.

9.3.1 SOIL MAP, PROFILE DRAWINGS, AND CROSS-SECTIONS

When constructing a new roadway or reconstructing an existing roadway, it is important to
understand where the final roadway profile and proposed subgrade elevation fall in relation to
the soils and groundwater and frost depth on the site. As part of understanding this
relationship, it is beneficial for the Geotechnical Engineer to first plot the soil borings on the
roadway profile sheet, which shows the existing ground surface, proposed final road grade,
approximate subgrade elevation, and soil borings with water depth all plotted to scale. It is also
important to note the expected high water table even though it may be different than that
encountered during the actual field investigation. For considerations in determining the final
road plan and profile, refer to Section 9.3.2. Once this is completed, the soil at the subgrade
elevation can be determined and limits of similar subgrades (soil types) plotted on a plan view
drawing. Depending on the project size, it may be beneficial to overlay an aerial map and U.S.
Department of Agriculture soil survey of the project area on the plan view area as well. Some of
the overlays may have already been done at the subsurface investigation phase and could be
reused at this time (see Section 5.1.2). If not already done in the earlier stages of planning,
having the road designer develop a series of cross-sections or a corridor model of existing and
proposed conditions can be beneficial to understanding the overall project and what is required
for further analysis and subsequent recommendations. In critical areas, such as areas of poor
soils or large cuts and fills, plotting the soil borings on the cross-section or as a 3D cell with the
corridor model as a reference further develops this understanding and aids in future analysis
and planning.

After a review of these drawings and an understanding of the soils and groundwater depth is
developed across the site, discussion may be necessary between the Geotechnical Engineer and
roadway designer if concerns arise regarding drainage, unsuitable soils, or stability. Adjustments
to the alignment(s) may be warranted depending on the severity of the issue and site
constraints. These drawings will aid the Geotechnical Engineer in formulating final
recommendations.

9.3.2 ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE

The plan and profile are the medium for adjusting the proposed cross-section to the existing
topography. When grade checking the plan and profile, the Geotechnical Engineer should check
the items in which soil texture and soil topography have a direct influence. Such items are
briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 87

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Fill – The height of a fill above groundwater table, the high-water mark of rivers at flood stage
and known high levels of the Great Lakes and inland lakes is very important. The field
investigation, past observations, and existing county soil surveys provide the information
regarding groundwater tables; the elevation of high water on streams and rivers and lakes is
recorded and is also readily available to the designer. During the early design phase, the
Geotechnical Engineer is concerned with the height of fill grades above groundwater and above
the high-water mark in the smaller streams. The policy for new construction is to establish plan
grades at a minimum of five feet above the yearly maximum groundwater table. When water
table soundings have been taken during the dry season of the year, the geotechnical report
should also include an estimate of the yearly maximum water table. For reconstruction projects
that do not meet this criterion, it may be prudent to increase the grade in these areas. In cases
where grade controls are such that it is impossible to maintain the minimum grade height,
underdrains are used to lower the water table to five feet below plan grade assuming there is
positive drainage available. The fill grade should be established at a minimum of two to four feet
above the high-water mark of small streams depending upon the type of highway being
considered. Where a choice must be made between a raise of grade and the placing of
underdrains, the grade raise is always preferable and, in most cases, improves the vertical
alignment. The elevation of existing structures, ravines, small streams or any low areas should
be examined to determine the suitability of such features as outlets for underdrains placed at
five and one-half feet below pavement grade.

When the project being grade checked follows an existing road, grade raises over undesirable
soils are common. These grade raises may vary from a five-foot raise, controlled by a high water
table, to a minimum one-foot raise over an old pavement where the water table is not a factor.
A grade raise with granular material is desirable wherever possible.

The material available for fill construction will generally influence the cross-section and the
method of construction. Underwater fills and fills in all places where the operation of
compaction equipment is difficult should always be constructed of granular materials.

Cut - The soil through cut sections is the material that will be used for adjacent fills, and the soil
type indicates the necessity for subbase, the estimated quantities of subgrade undercutting, and
drains. These items should be checked and, where the design varies from the standards, a
careful study should be made to determine whether objectionable features introduced by the
variation have been adequately considered. Sand-over-clay soils, depressed sections such as
underpasses, dump areas, deep cuts, and swamps must be checked carefully to determine
whether sufficient drainage has been provided.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 88

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.3.3 ROADWAY SUBGRADE

The supporting ground beneath a pavement structure is called the subgrade. The subgrade is
located below the pavement and base and subbase courses. It extends to such depths as may be
important to structural design and pavement life, and it may consist of materials in excavations
(cuts) or embankments (fills). This section addresses the primary geotechnical attributes of
subgrade soils that the Geotechnical Engineer should be cognizant of during the design process.
It is not the intent of this section to provide pavement section analysis or design guidelines; that
is covered in the Pavement Selection Manual and MDOT User Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design.

Subgrade Design Value Determination and Recommendations

Once the elevation and soil type of the proposed subgrade is known, recommendations
for pavement design and construction are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. The
MDOT User Guide for Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design requires the Geotechnical
Engineer/region soils engineer to provide the subgrade resilient modulus value as an
input to the pavement design analysis. This value(s) can be determined one of three
ways: back calculation using the falling weight deflectometer tests, historical
correlations using visual observation of the soil type, and/or laboratory testing. The
method to use in determination of this value should be discussed with the region soils
engineer and roadway designer prior to the field investigation (MDOT performs field
investigation) or prior to formulating a proposal for advertisement (consultant performs
field investigation). It is common to have an additional geotechnical scope of services as
part of the Request for Proposal when the design/investigation is performed by a
consultant. Although one subgrade resilient modulus value is commonly reported on
most projects, a new alignment or reconstruction project of considerable length may
have varying subgrade soil types and, therefore, warrant reporting more than one value.
A cost analysis can then be made to determine if multiple pavement section designs are
warranted and should be used on the project. For current design procedures, refer to
the MDOT User Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design.

Problematic Subgrade Conditions

Since roadways traverse across long distances and over many soil types and differing
geologic depositions, it is not surprising that conditions arise that are not conducive to
support, or even construction, of pavement systems. In cases where the subgrade is
inadequate, methods of improving the existing subgrade conditions must be identified.
Inadequate subgrade may consist of silt, silty sand, organic laden soils (swamp deposits),
saturated soils, or soft to very soft soil. In summary, objectionable subgrade materials
requiring correction fall into one of two broad categories: soils of low bearing capacity
and frost heave textured soils or conditions that cause detrimental pavement heave.
Discussion of these problematic areas is provided in the following sections.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 89

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

An important part of this evaluation is the balance between construction costs and
long-term operational costs. This balance is best resolved through direct discussions
between the Geotechnical Engineer, roadway designer, and/or Pavement Management
Section.

9.3.3.2.1 Weak Subgrade

Soft to very soft clay soil, organic soils (peat marl), silt, or fine sand with high amounts of
silt could be problematic due to their compressibility or lower bearing capacity
characteristics. Compressibility of the clay soils may be an issue if fills are being placed
upon it or if they are relatively close to the wheel load. Further discussion of subsoils
subject to compressibility concerns are discussed further in Section 9.3.7. Low strength
subgrade will increase the pavement section thickness and/or create constructability
issues. It is best to recognize and account for these potential issues during the design
phase. MDOT has addressed these conditions using the following methods:
 Subgrade Undercutting,
 Subgrade Manipulation,
 Treatment of Peat Marshes,
 or Chemical Subgrade Stabilization
Treatment of peat marshes is discussed in the following section. Details and pay items
for subgrade undercutting and manipulation are discussed further in the Standard
Specifications for Construction while chemical stabilization will require a special
provision. If chemical treatment of the subgrade is being considered, contact the region
soils engineer for more information on this topic and its feasibility. Chemical analysis of
the soil is required in design if stabilization through chemical methods is used.

Another area that has potentially weak subgrade or nonuniform soil is in cut to fill
transitions. These areas can be identified during the design phase and are usually
treated through subgrade undercutting. An undercut detail for cut to fill transitions is
illustrated below. The A and B Horizons illustrated in Figure 12 can be defined as
follows.
A Horizon – The uppermost layer of a soil profile from which inorganic colloids and other
soluble materials have been leached. Usually contains remnants of organic life.
B Horizon – The layer of a soil profile in which material leached from the overlying A
Horizon is accumulated.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 90

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 12: Cut to Fill Transition Undercut

9.3.3.2.2 Peat Marshes

Organic soils such as peat, marl, and very soft clay (either organic or inorganic) have
properties that can be characterized as having low shear strengths and high
compressibility. The characterization and classification of these soil types are discussed
in Sections 7 and 8. If these soil types are encountered during the field investigation, the
Geotechnical Engineer should review the data and determine if additional boring depth
and frequency above the minimums stated in Section 6 are warranted. Since the
properties of these soils cause undesirable roadway performance, soils that fall into this
category and are present within the roadway limits are typically removed and backfilled
with suitable material. Even existing roadways that have been constructed over organic
soils, specifically peat, will continue to see secondary settlement many decades after
the initial stress increase was applied. As such, roadway reconstruct projects where
these conditions exist should be conservatively scoped for removal and replacement
with further investigation, analysis, and recommendations by the Geotechnical Engineer
on the appropriate course of action during the design phase. Furthermore, increases in
vertical alignment and roadway width will result in increased total settlement, which
may be uniform or differential. These increases may also create stability issues, which
are discussed further in Section 9.3.7.3.

Where these poor soils are encountered within the roadway alignment,
Standard Plan R-103-C, Treatment of Peat Marshes, provide three basic methods for
treatment. The details provide guidance for undercuts in organic and very soft soils that
have over time been proven to work. However, the Geotechnical Engineer is still
responsible for checking the stability of these excavations to ensure appropriate factors
of safety exist for that specific project site. Some situations where modifications to
these standard details may be required are the following:

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 91

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

 Peat excavations deeper than 15 ft;

 The swamp bottom is sloping;

 Fills placed through peat excavation areas that are 15 ft or greater in height; or

 A combination of these scenarios.

9.3.3.2.3 Frost Susceptible Soils

As ground temperatures decrease to below freezing, water within a soil mass freezes
and undergoes a volumetric change as a result of the water-to-ice phase change. Lenses
of frozen water form in this zone and draw additional moisture upward through
capillary action that in turn freeze and expand. The movement or displacement
associated with this process is termed frost heave. When thawing occurs during a warm
period after freezing or during the spring thaw, the soil that expanded then resettles to
its original position. In addition, as the frozen soil thaws from the surface downward,
the excess moisture from the thawing ice lenses will cause a loss of strength and
stability in the thawing soil leading to insufficient pavement support. This back and forth
movement, which causes stress in the pavement section, is referred to as frost action.
While pavement sections are designed to accommodate certain levels of stress and
corresponding deflections, the larger the deflections and the greater number of stress
cycles adversely affects the pavement section life expectancy.

Frost action can cause differential heaving, surface roughness and cracking, blocked
drainage, and a reduction in bearing capacity during thaw periods. Three conditions
must exist to cause frost heaving and associated frost action problems:

 Frost-susceptible soils,
 Subfreezing temperatures in the soil, and
 A source of water.
In general, silts, clays with high percentage of silt particles, and fine silty sands are highly
frost susceptible. If encountered during the field investigation, treatment of these areas
must be addressed in the design process.
Table 13 provides a summary of the soil type and frost susceptibility classification based
on research by the Federal Highway Administration.

When designing the pavement section in cold climate regions, three design approaches
have been used to mitigate frost action:
1. Complete Protection approach: requires the use of non-frost susceptible materials
for the entire depth of expected frost penetration.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 92

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

2. Limited Subgrade Frost Penetration approach: permits some frost penetration into
the subgrade, with the intent of not allowing unacceptable surface roughness and
premature pavement distress/life expectancy to occur.
3. Reduced Subgrade Strength approach: allows more frost penetration into the
subgrade but provides adequate strength during thaw weakened periods.
Table 13: Frost Susceptibility Classification of Soils (NCHRP 1-37A, 2004)
Percentage of
Frost Degree of Frost Soil
Type of Soil Finer than 0.075
Group Susceptibility Classification
mm (#200) by wt.
GC, GP, GC-GM,
F1 Negligible to Low Gravelly soils 3-10
GP-GM
GC, GP, GC-GM,
Gravelly soils 10-20
GP-GM
F2 Low to Medium
SW, SP, SM,
Sands 3-15
SW-SM, SP-SM
Gravelly Soils Greater than 20 GM-GC
Sands, except very
F3 High Greater than 15 SM, SC
fine silty sands
Clay, PI> 12 – CL, CH
All Silts – ML, MH
Very Fine Silty
Greater than 15 SM
Sands
F4 Very High Clays PI<12 – CL, CL-ML
Varied clays and
other fine grained, – CL, ML, SM, CH
banded sediments

Currently, MDOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction uses the term Frost Heave
Textured Material, which is defined as soil with 50 percent silt particles (0.002 to
0.075mm) and a plasticity index less than 10. Any soils encountered within the subgrade
meeting these parameters require removal to minimum depths of 3.5 to 4 ft south of
the northern line of Township 12 North and 4 to 5 ft in geographical areas north of that
same line. It is recommended that the higher end of those ranges be used in current
practice, especially in areas of high-volume traffic and deeper frost depths.
Alternatively, if removal is not feasible or reasonable, then subgrade stabilization can be
considered. This consideration should be made in partnership with the MDOT central
office.

Based on this current practice, one could say MDOT uses a “Limited Subgrade Frost
Penetration” approach where the current pavement design section permits some frost
penetration into the subgrade. The most frost susceptible soil (frost heave textured
material) is removed to depths of 3.5 to 5 feet while other subgrade soils, even though

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 93

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

they could be highly frost susceptible, may not result in movements of a magnitude
detrimental to the pavement’s performance.

Nevertheless, it is advised that the Geotechnical Engineer consider how past pavement
performance and water depths in areas where these highly frost susceptible soils are
present could affect the future design. In addition, limited research has shown that soils
with 2.0 inches/foot of frost heave may lead to unacceptable effects on pavement
performance and life expectancy. However, soils that normally would not be classified
as frost heave textured materials could exceed the 2.0 inches/foot criterion. For
instance, soils such as clays with plasticity indices less than 15 and silty clayey sand
would not necessarily be classified as frost heave textured material but are highly frost
susceptible and certain gradations would not meet this criterion. As such, Geotechnical
Engineers may consider using more selective criteria in defining frost heave textured
materials as soil that is 50 percent passing the #200 sieve and has a plasticity index less
than 15. If this approach is selected, the Geotechnical Engineer should specify estimated
limits and quantities to address these soils.

As an alternative, areas that have high frost susceptible soils but do not necessarily
meet the requirement of Frost Heave Textured Material, raising the grade or installing
drains to remove water could also be considered. Normally, establishing the final grade
four to five feet above the high-water level or installing subgrade drains to a similar
depth so that the source of water is cut off can significantly decrease the detrimental
effects caused by frost susceptible soils. In urbanized areas where reconstruction of the
roadway is proposed, it may be challenging or cost prohibitive to raise the grade to this
extent due to the high density of existing building and utility infrastructure. In these
situations, a drainage system and/or subgrade undercutting may be more viable options
in treating these problematic soils.

If evaluating past pavement performance of the existing roadway indicates damage

caused by frost heave, then additional subgrade treatment may be warranted and
should be set up in the design plans. In areas of new roadways or realignments, raising
the grade so that a minimum separation of five feet exists between the roadway surface
and highly frost susceptible soils is also preferred and should be considered a prudent
practice when designing and constructing MDOT roads.

For more information on frost susceptible soils, refer to the FHWA Geotechnical Aspects
of Pavements Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA NHI-10-092 and the research
report Predictive Modeling of Freezing and Thawing of Frost-Susceptible Soils by
Michigan State University, Baladi and Rajaei, Report No:RC-1610.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 94

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Undercut Limits - The width of the undercut excavation varies with the extent of
the deposit of undesirable material. Where the material extends entirely across the
grade, the excavation is made to lines approximately two feet outside the edge of
pavement. In general, good practice is to undercut entirely across the roadway width
even if the undesirable material is only present in a portion of the roadway
cross-section. This practice is to prevent the potential for differential frost heave that
sometimes occurs when materials of different texture or moisture content are placed
directly adjacent to one another (see Texture Changes paragraph below). If underdrains
are present outside this horizontal limit, the undercut must extend out to this line. At
each end of the undercut, the excavation must be extended so that there is a gradual
transition from full depth cut to original subgrade surface. The transition at each is
generally 25 to 50 ft long depending on the depth of the undercut. A 1:10 ratio
(cut:distance) with a minimum of 25 feet is a good rule of thumb when transitioning in
these areas.

Where granular backfill is used in an area of clay soils, it is necessary to provide drainage
for water that would otherwise accumulate within the material. To accomplish this, it is
necessary to undercut to the ditch or provide an underdrain where there is no ditch, or
the bottom of the excavation is below the ditch line.

Texture Changes - Frost heave also occurs where there is an abrupt change in
soil texture. The heave in this case is due to the different natural moisture contents of
the soils. Those soils having a high natural moisture content, such as clay and silt,
expand considerably more upon freezing than do granular soils having a lower natural
moisture content. Hence, differential frost heaving can take place where an abrupt
change in soil texture occurs.

The abrupt change in texture is generally a simple matter to correct. The condition is
corrected by selective excavation and replacement of acceptable backfill where only a
few small deposits are involved. Another less used option that could possibly be utilized
is to thoroughly mix the two soils where the variation is sufficiently extensive that
excavation of individual areas is not practical. Again, appropriate transition zones should
be used in these excavated areas. The mixing operation is generally accomplished with
scrapers by excavating half width of the area and stockpiling. Material from the
remaining half is then excavated and placed in the half already removed. The stockpiled
material is then used to complete the backfill. Handling of the excavated material is
limited to one and one-half times by this method. However, it seems mixing of the soils
is less used and being phased out of general construction practice.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 95

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Potholes
Potholes are formed due to a localized loss of support of the surface course through
either a failure in the subgrade or base/subbase layers. Potholes are often associated
with frost heave, which pushes the pavement up due to ice lenses forming in the
subgrade during the freezing period. During the thaw, voids (often filled with water) are
created in the soil beneath the pavement surface due to the melting ice and/or gaps
beneath the surface pavement resulting from heave. When vehicles drive over this gap,
high hydraulic pressure is created in the void resulting in high pore water pressure that
ultimately weakens the surrounding soil. The road surface cracks due to the weakened
soil and tire load and then falls into the void, leading to the formation of a pothole.

Potholes or joint faulting can also occur as a result of pumping water at joints in
concrete pavement. This scenario occurs when repeated, heavy tire loads are
transferred from one pavement slab to the adjacent one under the following two
principal conditions: 1) lack of effective load transfer from slab to slab across the joints,
and 2) the presence of water under the slab. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the
mechanism by which this occurs.

Figure 13: Load Transfer from Axle Loads on Concrete Joints (After MATES, Issue No. 14)

Figures 12 and13 illustrate a tire load moving over a joint that is either without or has
ineffective load transfer devices and is resting on a water filled base material. As it
approaches the joint traveling from position 1 to 2, the load under the left side of the
joint (at point A) increases from zero up to the full weight of the axle, while
simultaneously, the water under the slab is being squeezed forward of the truck axle
and pushed beneath the right-hand slab, as illustrated in Figure 14. In approximately
one-hundredth of second, the axle load is transferred from the left to the right slab.
During this transition, the vertical load at the end of the first slab immediately drops to
zero while the vertical load on the beginning of the second slab suddenly rises from zero

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 96

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

to its maximum value at B, thereby rapidly expelling the just accumulated water
backward under the end of the first slab. That slab, now unloaded, recovers from its
deflected position, creating a void. Note that, although the same load rolls over points A
and B at the same speed, the rate of load application at B is about 20 times the rate at
A. The ability of the rapidly flowing water to remove particles of soil is substantially
enhanced by its increase in velocity since the largest particle size can be moved by a
stream of water is proportional to the square of the water’s velocity. That is, if the
velocity doubles, the size of the particle that can be moved is quadrupled. Pieces up to
1/8 inch in diameter have been found to move in this manner.

Figure 14: Pumping Water at Joint (after MATES, Issue No. 14)

As a result of the high rate of loading and previous forward water flow, significant
quantities of water are rapidly ejected back from under the end of the second slab,
carrying more soil with them than they carried when they came forward, producing the
void shown in Figure 14. Simultaneously, a portion of the water with finer materials in it
may be squeezed or “pumped” up through the transverse and shoulder joints, removing
more material from beneath the pavement. This process, continually repeated with the
passage of numerous trucks, in the long run results in subsidence near the joint and
eventual slab cracking or formation of a pothole.

In roadway sections where potholes readily occur, additional investigation is warranted

to determine the cause of the pavement deterioration. Undercuts of the subgrade
and/or implementing additional drainage of the subbase and subgrade may be needed
to prevent future occurrence.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 97

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Impact of Water Seepage and Drainage on Subgrade

The damaging effects of excess moisture on the pavement section have long been
recognized. Moisture, in combination with heavy traffic loads and freezing
temperatures, can have a profound negative effect on both material properties and the
overall performance of a pavement system. Water may seep upward from a high
groundwater table or it may flow laterally from the pavement edges, cut slopes, and
shoulder ditches. Knowledge of groundwater and its movement are critical to the
performance of the pavement, as well as stability of adjacent side slopes, especially in
cut situations. Groundwater can be especially troublesome for pavements in low-lying
areas. Thus, groundwater control, usually through interception and removal before it
can enter the pavement section, is an essential part of pavement design.

Removal of free water in pavements can be accomplished by draining the free water
vertically into the subgrade or laterally though a drainage layer into a system of
underdrains. If the subgrade already consists of free draining soil, like on some roads in
the western portion of the Lower Peninsula or where poor draining subgrade has
already been replaced with free-draining material and drainage, then implementation of
a drainage system may not be necessary. An exception to this is discussed in the
In-Slope Drainage paragraph below. In cases where the existing roadway, widening, or
new roadway has no way for subsurface or surface water that enters the pavement
section from being removed, appropriate measures to implement underdrains need to
be addressed in the design phase. Standard Plan R-80 series provides drainage options
for pavement section and slope design. These items of work are typically incorporated
in the project design by 1) discovery during the field investigation and specifically
locating the area to implement the drain or 2) providing a miscellaneous quantity to
allow for wet areas that cannot be definitively anticipated during design but identified
during construction by field staff.

Subbase Drains - Subbase drains serve to provide drainage of the subbase

course throughout the entire roadway section. In wider roadways, several subbase
drains may be required. Common practice is to place a minimum of two per roadway
but not greater than 30 ft center-to-center and not under wheel loads. Spacing
determination could be based on permeability of subbase used in that area of the state
and desired time for removal of water, subgrade slope as it may affect drainage path
distance, and potential amount of water that may need to be removed from the section.

Subgrade Drains - Subgrade drains are placed adjacent to the pavement for the
purpose of lowering a high groundwater condition and/or for the purpose of draining
the granular subbase. Where grades may not be raised consistent with good vertical
alignment, subgrade drains are required. In areas of a level or consistent water table,
this treatment is not as desirable as raised grades because topography and outlet

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 98

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

facilities generally do not allow the placing of drains at suitable depth and gradient.
Where consistent or seasonal water tables are high and where outlets are available,
deep drains, preferably at a minimum of five feet below pavement grade, may be placed
per the standard plan. The number of drains required depends on the elevation of the
water table and width of grade. Spacing and depth should be determined so as to lower
the water five feet below the bottom of pavement.

Bank Drains - Water seepage encountered in cut slopes must be intercepted by

drains before it daylights on the slope face or reaches the subgrade. While in some
cases a subgrade drain, if placed and designed appropriately, can be used as dual
purpose, the use of a bank drain may be better suited to intercept seepage water before
it reaches the subgrade or subbase. When cuts intercept groundwater in rolling
topography, the underground water surface is usually on a gradient. Where the gradient
of the water surface is across the roadway, drains placed on the high side will usually
suffice. Where the probable direction of flow is longitudinal or skewed, drains may be
placed on one side with one or more laterals to intercept water five feet or more below
the bottom of pavement.

In-Slope Drainage – “Day-lighting” - Extreme caution is advised in areas where it

is assumed that the pavement section will be daylighted horizontally through the
subbase onto the fill slope or into the ditch. In some cases, the contractor places clay on
the outside edge of the slope or low permeability topsoil, which can limit or block the
drainage path of the base and subbase courses. Essentially, the drainage system’s
capacity is limited by the least permeable material that the water must pass through. In
a true daylighted section, the base and subbase extend to the slope face. The FHWA
Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements notes that the daylighted sections must be
periodically maintained free from fines, soil, vegetation, and other debris.

It is advised that pavement sections be designed to address these conditions from

happening by either installing edge/subbase drains or ensuring the subbase and base
courses are detailed on the plans and constructed in the field so that horizontal
drainage can occur. Also, ditches should be designed to keep water below the
daylighted area, especially during times of high rain events and spring thaws. The
Geotechnical Engineer is responsible to work with the design engineer ensuring suitable
drainage occurs.

9.3.4 SLOPE SLOUGHING

The occurrence of seepage in the backslopes of cut sections is a common problem when certain
soil conditions are present in these areas. If not addressed, the seeping water will result in
continual erosion and sloughing of the slope. Sometimes substantial quantities of vegetation
and surface soil can slide downslope. Typically, the slough is surficial in nature and not a

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 99

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

deep-seated movement. A picture of a soil slough is illustrated in Figure 15. During the design
phase, the Geotechnical Engineer should be aware of soil conditions that could create sloughing
issues. A few of these conditions are discused in the following paragraphs.

One condition conducive to exit seepage is where a pervious material is underlain or surrounded
by an impervious soil. Generally, it occurs at the contact line where sand overlies clay. If the
contact line between the two strata is uniform, a bank drain placed on the slope to intercept the
water prior to it reaching the slope surface will usually suffice in remediating this condition.
Where irregular sandy pockets or irregular flow conditions exist across a slope face, it is often
difficult to place bank drains effectively. Granular blankets have been found to be a more
effective remedial drainage measure and are discussed more thoroughly in Section 9.3.3.4.

Soil Slough
Figure 15: Soil Slough in Spring

Slope sloughing also occurs during the spring thaw where silt soils are exposed in the
backslopes. During freezing weather, additional moisture is attracted to the frozen slope
surface. In the first warm days of spring, the excess moisture is rapidly released creating a
condition of semi-fluid soil, which tends to flow down the surface of the slope. Whenever silt is
exposed on steeper slopes, it should be undercut and replaced with a granular blanket as
detailed in Standard Plan R-80 Series.

Another scenario to consider in design is where an existing roadway constructed of granular

embankment is widened to accommodate additional lanes/shoulders. To ensure the existing
granular embankment is allowed to drain, fill associated with the widening should consist of
Granular Material Class II or III.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 100

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

When these conditions exist, the Geotechncial Engineer must provide appropriate treatment
limits and associated quantities within the contract documents. During some projects, soil
conditions such as these may not be defined during the design phase. However, it is prudent for
the Geotechnical Engineer to specify miscellaneous quantities based on experience with the
soils encountered within the project limits.

9.3.5 CULVERTS
The size and location of the existing and proposed culverts on a project should be checked by
the Geotechnical Engineer. Whenever a new culvert is proposed or an existing culvert size
and/or location is changed, analysis of the soil borings conducted during the field investigation is
performed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Each culvert location should be checked for adequate
foundation support and depth of cover over the culvert. Where it is deemed that insufficient
foundation support is present, the Geotechnical Engineer will need to provide recommendations
concerning special treatments. When checking the depth of cover, experience has shown that a
two-foot minimum depth of cover over the pipe is required to preclude objectionable heaving of
the pavement. The two-foot minimum dimension is measured from the top of the pipe to the
lowest point at the bottom of the pavement. It should be noted that this distance is a minimum
and, if possible, additional cover is preferred because it will provide better long-term
performance of the roadway.

9.3.6 UTILITY EXCAVATIONS

Utility excavations within the roadway right-of-way should be reviewed by the Geotechnical
Engineer to see if any unusual soil conditions or structural related issues may exist. Proper
bedding and compaction of the utility trench within the roadway is of paramount importance to
achieve acceptable rideability and long-term pavement performance. MDOT has developed
standard bedding details and compaction requirements to achieve this goal. Proposed
excavations near structure footings must be carefully reviewed and recommendations provided
by the Geotechnical Engineer to preclude any loss of foundation support.

Based on the subsurface data gathered in these areas, several conditions may exist that require
inclusion of certain plan quantities in the design phase. For instance, excavations in saturated
granular soil require special considerations for dewatering and/or earth retention to prevent
loss of ground. The stability of the excavation close to the traveled roadway may impose a safety
risk to the traveling public. Another situation in which the Geotechnical Engineer may need to
specify additional quantities is where pits are excavated to facilitate trenchless installation, such
as in a jack and bore operation.

Nonconstruction project utility installations within the MDOT right-of-way require approval by
means of a formal permit. The permit agent in conjunction with the Geotechnical/soils engineer
should advise the applicant about what subsurface information is required and what

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 101

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

precautionary requirements should be added to those given in the standard permit form. Utility
work involving complex soils and/or specialty installations justifies the Geotechnical Engineer’s
interest and periodic inspection during progress of the work. For those utility installations
required to be installed using trenchless methods, refer to Form 3702 Trenchless Installation
Application Requirements.

9.3.7 ROADWAY SLOPES AND EMBANKMENTS

Many of MDOT’s roadway projects require the design and construction of roadway slopes and
embankments. In most cases, roadway slopes and embankments will be used to meet grade and
alignment requirements in areas of changing topography. However, roadway slopes and
embankments can also be used to form temporary access routes or work platforms during
construction. This section summarizes procedures that the Geotechnical Engineer should follow
when conducting geotechnical studies for roadway slopes and embankments.

Roadway slopes and embankments are considered separately in this section, primarily due to
the different geologic conditions that will occur for each:

Roadway Slopes – Roadway slopes are defined by the existing geology at a site. They may
involve excavation of a cut slope or construction adjacent to a natural slope (See Figure 16).
Relative to the embankment fill, geologic conditions for roadway slopes will normally be more
variable.

Figure 16: Existing Roadway Slopes

Roadway Embankments – Roadway embankments involve fills constructed of engineered

material. The embankment fill is either imported from off-site or relocated from another portion
of the project and placed on the existing ground. Contract documents specify fill placement,
procedures, material requirements, and compaction requirements.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 102

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The different geologic conditions for roadway slopes and embankments result in different
geotechnical requirements relative to field explorations and engineering design. For example:

 The primary geotechnical concern for roadway slopes is the stability of the slope. The
stability assessment requires characterization of geologic layers and groundwater
conditions of the existing material. Engineering design activities focus on the evaluation
of short- and long-term stability for different groundwater and material strength
assumptions. If the factor of safety for the stability of the slope is inadequate,
improvement procedures typically involve flattening slopes, drainage improvements,
use of a retaining structure, or some type of ground improvement.

 The primary geotechnical design issues for embankments include bearing capacity, slope
stability and long-term settlement. These design issues are often controlled by the
engineering characteristics of the geologic material below the fill rather than the
properties of the fill. Consequently, geotechnical explorations for the embankment
focus on characterization of the existing foundation material, and engineering design
evaluates how these existing materials respond to the load from the new fill. If an
unacceptable response is predicted, methods of improving the soil below the fill to
achieve better performance may be required before the fill is constructed.

Thorough geotechnical analyses and design are important for both the roadway slope and
embankment. Inadequate consideration of geotechnical design requirements can result in
short-term construction and/or long-term operational problems. For roadway slopes, a primary
design consideration is the potential failure of slopes during construction. If slope movements
are slow, the primary problem could be maintenance requirements to remove earth as it
encroaches on the roadway. In the case of embankments, slope stability and bearing capacity
failures can occur during construction, causing construction delays and contractor claims.
Following construction, settlement beneath the embankment can result in poor ride quality of
the roadway, subsequently leading to long-term maintenance requirements and premature
pavement failures.

One area of main concern is on fills leading up to bridge abutments. Relatively large differential
settlement between the approach embankment and the bridge abutment can create poor ride
quality and potential safety issues. This situation is also referred to as the “bump at the end of
bridge.”

Roadway Design Responsibilities

Responsibility for the design of roadway slopes and embankments primarily resides with
the Geotechnical Engineer and the road designer. Other units are involved as necessary.

For roadway slopes and embankments, the Geotechnical Engineer responsibilities are
the following:

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 103

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

 Plans and then performs the geotechnical exploration, including the field
investigation and laboratory testing;
 Conducts geotechnical analyses to evaluate slope stability for natural and cut slopes
and bearing capacity, side slope stability, and settlement for embankments;
 Provides construction recommendations, including subgrade preparation
requirements, maximum slope angles for construction and long-term operations,
and the need for ground improvement where settlements are excessive;
 Identifies, installs, and monitors instrumentation and develops special provisions for
construction as needed; and

 Supports the construction personnel and road design section if construction issues
develop.
The roadway designer also has an integral part in this design process. The roadway
designer does the following:
 Sets a roadway alignment and grade. Fill/cut slope ratios are generated using preset
“standard” slope ratios as defined in the Road Design Manual. Right--of-way limits
are preliminarily defined by these standard slope ratios. The Geotechnical Engineer
reviews the preliminary slope ratios and provides recommendations for
adjustments, where needed, as part of the project design process. The
recommendations for adjustments are based upon geotechnical investigations and
analyses, economics, right-of-way considerations, etc. Ultimately, the Geotechnical
Engineer and the roadway designer work together to determine the final slope
ratios considering these factors; and
 Prepares plans and specifications for construction with input and review by the
Geotechnical Engineer.

Embankment Settlement
New embankments and embankment widenings must be analyzed to determine the
effects that settlement may have on the roadway embankment. The ability to accurately
quantify both the magnitude and rate of settlement will depend on the thoroughness of
the field investigation, quality of laboratory testing, size of the embankment, and
consistency of the foundation soils. As the height and width of the embankment
increases, the potential for settlement also increases because of the stress change that
occurs in the foundation soil. The amount of settlement also increases as the thickness
and compressibility of the foundation soil increases.

The magnitude and rate of embankment settlement are important long-term

(operational) considerations, particularly where thick deposits of cohesive soil occur. It
is important for the Geotechnical Engineer to conduct settlement analyses to determine

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 104

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

if the amount of settlement after construction is within the project criteria. If the
settlement appears to be excessive, then measures may be required to improve the soil
or that allow a majority of the predicted settlement to occur during construction. This
section summarizes methods of analysis for sites under long-term loading conditions.

9.3.7.2.1 Settlement Analysis Methods

Methods discussed in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (Section 10.6.2), FHWA Soil Slope
and Embankment Design Reference Manual, and FHWA Soils and Foundation Reference
Manuals should be used to perform detailed settlement analysis for roadway
embankments. Laboratory test results from soil samples obtained should be used as a
basis for determining the primary and secondary settlement amounts and rates for
cohesive soils. Because primary consolidation and secondary compression can continue
to occur long after the embankment is constructed (post construction settlement), they
represent the major settlement concerns for embankment design and construction.
Post construction settlement can damage structures and utilities located within the
embankment, especially if those facilities are also supported by adjacent soils or
foundations that do not settle appreciably and lead to differential settlements. If the
primary consolidation is allowed to occur prior to placing utilities or structures that
would otherwise be impacted by the settlement, the impact is essentially mitigated.
However, it can take weeks to years for primary settlement to be essentially complete,
and significant secondary compression of organic soils can continue for decades. Many
construction projects cannot absorb the scheduling impacts associated with waiting for
primary consolidation and/or secondary compression to occur. Therefore, estimating
the time rate of settlement is often as important as estimating the magnitude of
settlement.

The amount and rate of settlement can be calculated by hand or computer programs
such as EMBANK (FHWA, 1993) or FOSSA. Alternatively, spreadsheet or MathCADD
solutions can be easily developed and used for this purpose.

Settlement calculations can be made for cohesionless soil sites using elastic theory.
Typically, this settlement is “immediate” and occurs during construction of the
embankment. Therefore, immediate settlement is typically of less concern than either
primary or secondary settlement amounts since it occurs prior to final grading and
paving operations. Utilize the references stated in the initial paragraph of this
subsection when conducting this type of analysis. Use of corrected blow counts from the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or in-situ methods, such as the pressuremeter, should
be used to develop settlement estimates in cohesionless soils. See Section 9.2.3.1 for
correcting blow count values obtained from the SPT.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 105

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.3.7.2.2 Embankment Settlement Criteria

To establish the target embankment settlement criteria, the tolerance of affected
structures or utilities to total and differential settlement must be determined. Lateral
movement (i.e., lateral squeeze) caused by the embankment settlement and its effect
on adjacent structures, including standard lights, overhead signs and signal foundations,
etc., must also be considered. If structures or utilities are not impacted by the
embankment settlement, settlement criteria are likely governed by long-term
maintenance needs of the roadway surfacing. In that case, the target settlement criteria
must be established with consideration of the effect differential settlement will have on
the pavement life and profile.

9.3.7.2.3 Embankment Settlement Mitigation

During the roadway design process, there are times where the predicted increase in
stress from proposed roadway fill could cause the subsoils to consolidate beyond
tolerable limits. Scenarios where stress increases can commonly occur are placing a new
embankment on a new alignment, an increase in the vertical profile of an existing
roadway, or a widening of the existing roadway embankment. In these cases, some form
of mitigation may be necessary so that the pavement section performs as intended and
so that total and/or differential settlement does not create premature distress in the
pavement and a potential safety issue for motorists using the roadway. For treatment of
peat, marl, muck and underlying very soft clay, see Section 9.3.3.2.2.

The following paragraphs summarize typical methods MDOT implements to mitigate

areas where predicted settlement amounts are outside tolerable limits. It should be
noted that special provisions and/or special details on the plans will need to be
developed as part of the contract documents if these mitigation methods are used. In
addition, www.geotechtools.org may also provide some insight into potential mitigation
measures for embankment settlement.

Undercut (over-excavation) – This method refers to excavating the soft

compressible or unsuitable soils from below the embankment footprint and replacing
these materials with higher quality, less compressible material. Because of the high cost
associated with excavating and disposing of unsuitable soils, as well as the difficulties
associated with excavating below the water table, overexcavation and replacement
typically only makes economic sense under certain conditions. Some of these conditions
include, but are not limited to:

 The area requiring over-excavation is limited;

 The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and generally extend to a depth of
5 ft or less;

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 106

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

 Temporary shoring and/or dewatering are not required to support or facilitate the
excavation or if they are then these costs are included when analyzing this option
and;

 Suitable materials are readily available to replace the over-excavated unsuitable

soils.
Preloading and Surcharging – One of the most effective methods for controlling
the magnitude and rate of settlement in soils is to use preloads and surcharges. As a
designer considering this type of mitigation, it should be noted that overall stability of
the proposed fill heights also needs to be considered to ensure appropriate factors of
safety are achieved under these conditions. Overall stability of fills is discussed in
Section 9.3.7.3.

Preloading refers to the placement of the embankment fill early enough during
construction that most of the settlement has occurred by the time the roadway is
paved. Surcharging involves placing additional embankment height for some specified
period of time, then removing the extra embankment fill once the anticipated
settlement has occurred. This method is effective in speeding up the consolidation
process because the percentage of consolidation required under a surcharge will be less
than the complete consolidation under the design load. It is customary to assume
consolidation is essentially complete at the theoretical 90 percent completion stage,
where T = 0.848. T is known as a dimensionless time factor and is related to the
coefficient of consolidation. In comparison, T = 0.197 for 50 percent consolidation.
Therefore, it takes less than one-fourth the time to achieve an average of 50 percent
consolidation in a soil layer than it does to achieve 90 percent. In this example, the
objective would be to place a surcharge sufficiently large such that 50 percent of the
total settlement estimated from the fill embankment and the surcharge is equal to or
greater than 100 percent of the settlement estimated under the fill embankment alone
at its design height. The surcharge fill as a stand-alone method to accelerate the rate of
settlement needs to be at least one-third the design height of the embankment to
provide any significant time savings. It should be noted that using wick drains as
discussed in the next subsection may reduce this required height and still achieve the
same result.

In addition to decreasing the time to reach the target settlement, surcharges can also be
used to reduce the impact of secondary settlement. Similar to the example presented
above, the intent is to use the surcharge to pre-induce the settlement estimated to
occur from primary consolidation and secondary compression due to the embankment
load. For example, if the estimated primary consolidation under an embankment is
18 inches and secondary compression is estimated at an additional 6 inches over the
next 30 years, then the surcharge would be designed to achieve 24 inches of settlement

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 107

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

or greater under primary consolidation only. The principles of the design of surcharges
to mitigate long-term settlement are complex and the Geotechnical Services Section
should be contacted if this method is being proposed on a project.

Two significant design and construction considerations for using surcharges include
embankment stability and reuse of the additional fill materials. New fill embankments
over soft soils can result in stability problems as discussed in Section 9.3.7.3. Adding
additional surcharge fill would only exacerbate the stability problem. Furthermore, after
the settlement objectives have been met, the surcharge will need to be removed. If the
surcharge material cannot be moved to another part of the project for use as fill or as
another surcharge, it is often uneconomical to bring the extra surcharge fill to the
project only to haul it away again. Also, when fill soils must be handled multiple times or
during cold winter months, it is advantageous to specify granular material to reduce
workability issues during wet and freezing weather conditions.

Wick Drains – Wick drains, or prefabricated vertical drains, are vertical drainage
paths that can be installed into compressible soils to decrease the overall time required
for completion of primary consolidation. Wick drains typically consist of a long plastic
core wrapped by a geotextile. The geotextile functions as a separator and a filter to keep
the plastic core from being plugged by the adjacent soil, and the plastic core provides a
means for the excess pore water pressures to dissipate. A drainage layer is typically
placed across the ground surface prior to installing the wick drains and provides a
drainage path beneath the embankment for water flowing from the wick drains. A
drainage layer typically consists of a free draining material such as an MDOT Class IIAA
or 6A.

The drains are typically rectangular measuring approximately 4 inches wide by 3/16 inch
thick and have a length as specified on the plans. They are attached to a mandrel and
are usually pushed into place using a static force. After the wick drains are installed, the
fill embankment and possibly surcharge fill are placed above the drainage blanket. A key
consideration for the use of wick drains is the site conditions. If obstructions or a very
dense or stiff soil layer is located above the compressible layer, predrilling may be
necessary, which may offset the economic viability of this option. The use of wick drains
to depths over 80 feet also require specialized equipment.

The primary function of a wick drain is to reduce the drainage path in a thick
compressible soil deposit. A significant factor controlling the time rate of settlement is
the length of the drainage path. Since the time required for a given percentage
consolidation completion is related to the square of the drainage path, cutting the
drainage path in half would reduce the consolidation time to one-fourth the initial time,
all other parameters held constant. A key design consideration is maximizing the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 108

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

efficiency of the drain spacing. For design guidance, refer to FHWA RD-86, Prefabricated
Vertical Drains.

Lightweight Fill – Lightweight fills can also be used to mitigate settlement issues
by reducing the new loads imposed on the underlying compressible soils, thereby
reducing the magnitude of the settlement. Situations where lightweight fill may be
appropriate include conditions where the construction schedule does not allow for time
of staged embankment construction, where existing utilities or adjacent structures are
present that cannot tolerate the magnitude of settlement induced by placement of
typical fill, and at locations where post-construction settlements may be excessive
under conventional fills.

Lightweight fill can consist of a variety of materials including expanded polystyrene

blocks (geofoam), lightweight cellular concrete, or lightweight aggregates (expanded
shale, blast furnace slag). Lightweight fills typically have much higher unit prices
compared to conventional earth fill but are especially effective in mitigating settlement
and global stability issues.

Geofoam is approximately 2 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and, as a result, is particularly
effective at reducing driving forces or settlement potential. The weight is proportional
to the Young’s Modulus, or compressibility, of the foam and inversely proportional to its
unit cost. The specific grade of foam selected should consider the needs of the project.
Typical geofoam embankments consist of the foundation soils, the geofoam fill, and a
load dissipater slab designed to transfer loads to the geofoam. Geofoam can be severely
damaged by gasoline and petroleum-based products and, therefore, must be covered
with an impermeable liner where such fluids can potentially reach the geofoam. Other
design considerations for geofoam include creep, flammability, buoyancy, moisture
absorption, photo-degradation, and differential icing of pavement constructed over
geofoam. Furthermore, geofoam should not be used where the water table could rise
and cause buoyancy problems because geofoam will float. Design guidelines for
geofoam embankments are provided in the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) document titled Geofoam Applications in the Design and Construction
of Highway Embankments (Stark et al., 2004). Geofoam embankments using vertical
side slopes, or side slopes steeper than 1V:2H, and their associated facing treatments
are not permitted unless approved in writing by the Geotechnical Services Section.
MDOT has developed a special provision for usage of geofoam in roadway and bridge
approach applications. For use of geofoam beneath roadways, a minimum distance of
3.5 ft is required from the finish grade to the top of the geofoam. When geofoam is used
next to slopes, a minimum cover of 2 ft is required from the finish grade to the
outermost edge of the geofoam block. In addition, the maximum fill height placed above

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 109

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

the geofoam must be analyzed to ensure acceptable strength and deformation

requirements.

Large quantities of air can be entrained into a cement and water mixture to produce a
lightweight porous cementitious material that can be poured in place of soil to reduce
the driving force to improve stability or reduce settlement. Typical unit weights range
from 20 to 80 pcf and, relative to soil, its shear strength is fairly high. However, if
significant differential settlement is still anticipated despite the use of the lightweight
cellular concrete, due to its relatively brittle nature, it could crack and lose much of its
shear strength. Therefore, the stability analysis must be analyzed using cracked section
properties. This aspect should be considered if using lightweight cellular concrete. In
addition, specifications typically require lift thicknesses that allow for dissipation of heat
of hydration. Its cost can be quite high, being among the most expensive of the
lightweight fill materials mentioned herein.

Mineral aggregates, such as expanded shales or blast furnace slags, can also be used as
lightweight fill materials. Expanded shales consist of inert mineral aggregates that have
similar shear strengths to many conventional fill materials but have in-place unit weights
between 45 to 60 pcf. The primary disadvantage with expanded shales is that these
materials are expensive. Blast furnace slag is a waste material sometimes used for
lightweight fill. The weight of blast furnace slag is approximately 80 pcf and, as a result,
is not as effective as other lightweight fill materials. Due to the potential durability and
chemical issues associated with some lightweight aggregates, approval from the
Geotechnical Services Section is required before such materials may be considered for
use in embankments.

Slope Stability of Embankments and Slopes

The Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for determining the overall stability of natural
slopes, cut slopes, and embankments for all phases of construction. Consider the factors
in the following subsections when planning and performing a stability assessment.
Moreover, any fill placed near or against a bridge abutment or foundation or that can
impact a nearby buried or aboveground structure, will likewise require a stability
assessment by the Geotechnical Engineer. Embankments and slopes less than 10 ft in
height with 2H:1V or flatter side slopes may be designed based on past precedence,
experience, and engineering judgement provided there are no problematic soil
conditions.

9.3.7.3.1 Development of Parameters for Stability Assessment

The stability analysis for a specific site should include the following general approach:
Soil Strength Parameters - Perform and obtain appropriate level of investigation, sample
collection, and testing to adequately analyze the slope for the appropriate conditions.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 110

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Section 6.3.2 provides field investigation guidance for roadway fill and slopes. In
addition, detailed assessment of soil and rock stratigraphy is critical to the proper
assessment of slope stability and is a direct input parameter for slope stability analysis.
It is important to define any thin, weak layers that are present as they could control the
stability of the slope in question. Knowledge of geologic conditions present at the site
and knowledge of past performance may also be critical factors in the assessment of
slope stability.

Determine whether the soil layers will experience long-term and/or short-term loading
(drained vs. undrained) strength and which one will control the stability of the slope
because it will determine the type of in-situ and lab testing performed for the site. Table
14 summarizes the principals involved in selecting analysis conditions and shear
strengths. For short-term stability analysis, undrained shear strength parameters should
be obtained. For long-term stability analysis, drained shear strength parameters may be
estimated, but project-specific testing may be required. When assessing the stability of
a landslide, residual shear strength parameters may be needed, since the soil has
typically deformed enough to reach a residual value. Additionally, if a cut slope in
overconsolidated clay is exposed, then residual strength values may be the controlling
case. Furthermore, if a staged stability analysis (multi-stage loading) is required due to a
site underlain by silt, soft clay or organic soils, then appropriate strength parameters
should be obtained under the anticipated staged loading conditions.

Table 14: Shear Strengths and Drainage Conditions for Slope Stability Analysis (after FHWA-NHI-05-123, 2005)
CONDITION
Undrained/End of Intermediate/Multi-Stage
Drained/Long-Term
Construction Loading
Analysis procedure Effective stress
Effective stress analysis, Effective stress analysis,
and shear strength analysis, using c’ and
using c’ and φ’ using c’ and φ’
for free draining soils φ’
Total stress analysis,
Analysis procedure Total stress analysis, using cu Effective stress
using c and φ from
and shear strength from CU tests and estimate analysis, using c’ and
in-situ, UCT, UU or CU
for impermeable soils of consolidation pressure φ’
tests
No internal pore No internal pore pressure
pressure for total stress for total stress analyses, set
analyses, set µ equal to µ equal to zero in computer
Internal pore zero in computer input input µ from seepage
pressures analyses
µ from seepage analysis
µ from seepage analysis for
for effective stress
effective stress analyses
analyses

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 111

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

External water
Include Include Include
pressures

Unit weight Total Total Total*

c’, φ’ – drained strength parameters, effective cohesion and effective angle of friction
c, φ – undrained strength parameters, cohesion and angle of friction
cu – undrained shear strength
µ - pore pressure.
UCT – Unconfined Compression Test, UU – Unconsolidated Undrained, CU – Consolidated Undrained
*This assumes the software or analysis method takes into account pore water pressures.
Note: Multi-stage loading includes stage construction, rapid drawdown, and any other condition where
a period of consolidation under one set of loads is followed by a change in load under undrained
conditions.

It is not always easy to determine whether soil will behave in a drained or undrained
manner. Both the rate of loading and the permeability of the soil will determine
whether the soil responds in a drained or undrained state. Because it is often very
difficult to predict the rate of loading during design, the best approach is to check both
the drained and undrained cases and to use the more critical strength as the basis for
design.

Groundwater – Determine the groundwater level (peizometric levels) for normal

and worse case conditions. For natural slopes, detailed piezometric data at multiple
locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed, depending on the
geologic complexity of the soil stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Consider the
potential for variations in groundwater levels, seasonal fluctuations, artesian effects,
perched water, piping due to water exiting the slope face, potential for rapid drawdown,
and the effects of irrigation.

Cross-Sections – Obtain cross-sections along the slope to determine site

geometry in relation to vertical and lateral limits of each soil layer. Locate cross-sections
in critical areas with respect to loading, height/inclination of slope, and adverse or weak
subsurface conditions.

External Loads – Analyze the effect of structure loads, soil loads, and live load
surcharges on slope stability.

Construction – Consider the construction schedule and any safety issues that
may arise during construction. The most critical case may occur during construction of a
structure, utility installation, embankment, or temporary cut. Foreseeing these

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 112

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

conditions and analyzing them in the design stage may result in fewer issues during
construction.

9.3.7.3.2 Stability Analysis Methods

Limit equilibrium methods must be used to assess slope stability. The Modified Bishop,
simplified Janbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods
should be used for rotational, translational, and irregular surface mechanisms. For more
detailed discussion on the use of these methods, refer to the FHWA-NHI—05-123 Soil
Slope and Embankment Design publication. Section 2.3.1 of the Manual provides various
computer software packages available that allow the limit equilibrium analysis to be
performed relatively quickly.

In a purely cohesionless soil profile, the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated
to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope face. For infinite slopes consisting of
cohesionless soils that are above the water table, the factor of safety for slope stability
is determined as follows:

Factor of Safety = tan Φ where φ is the internal angle of soil friction and β is
tan β the slope angle.

Note that conducting an infinite slope analysis does not preclude the need to check for
deeper slope failure mechanisms, such as would be assessed by the Modified Bishop or
similar methods listed above.

Translational (block) or noncircular searches are generally more appropriate for

modeling thin, weak layers or suspected planes of weakness. If there is a disparately
strong layer either below or above a thin, weak layer, the user must ensure that the
modeled failure plane lies within the suspected weak layer so that the most critical
failure surface is modeled as accurately as possible. Circular searches for these types of
conditions should generally be avoided because they do not generally model the most
critical failure surface.

9.3.7.3.3 Resistance Factors and Factors of Safety for Slope Stability Analysis
For overall stability analysis of walls and structure foundations, design must be
consistent with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Unless approved by the
Geotechnical Services Section (GSS), the following minimum resistance factors and
factors of safety must be used in the design analysis. For slopes adjacent to but not
directly supporting or containing a structural element, a maximum resistance factor of
0.75 should be used. For foundations on slopes that support or contain a structural
element such as bridges, critical utility, building foundation, or another retaining wall, a
maximum resistance factor of 0.65 should be used. Exceptions to this could include

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 113

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

minor walls that have a minimal impact on the stability of the existing slope, in which
the 0.75 resistance factor may be used. Since these resistance factors are combined
with a load factor of 1.0 (overall stability is assessed as a service limit state only), these
resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 are equivalent to a factor of safety equal to 1.3 and
1.5, respectively. These factors of safety that are produced in available slope stability
programs are essentially inversed to obtain the resistance factors noted above.

For general slope stability analysis of cuts, fills, and landslide repairs, a minimum factor
of safety equal to 1.25 should be used. Larger factors of safety should be used if there is
significant uncertainty in the slope analysis input parameters. The 1.25 factor of safety
guideline used in cut and natural slope analysis assumes that in-situ and/or laboratory
testing is performed to obtain additional soil strength parameters. Higher factors of
safety should be considered by the Geotechnical Engineer if only N-value correlations
are used to determine soil strength parameters.

Lateral Squeeze
Lateral squeeze is a special case of short-term undrained deformation that occurs from
a local shear or a long-term creep type deformation when an applied load bears on a
weak cohesive layer overlying a stiff soil or rock stratum as illustrated in Figure 17. This
phenomenon can occur where a soft cohesive layer is located beneath an embankment
fill or a bridge approach fill leading up to an abutment foundation. When this scenario
occurs, significant lateral stresses and associated lateral deformations can occur and,
therefore, must be analyzed by the Geotechnical Engineer. This check is in addition to
the overall stability analysis performed in the AASHTO code.

Figure 17: Schematics of Lateral Squeeze Phenomenon

For embankment slopes which may encounter this scenario, the following equation can
be used to determine the factor of safety against failure by squeezing. The geometry of
the problem and the forces involved are shown in Figure 18.

.
FSSQ = +[ ]

= angle of slope
= unit weight of the fill

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 114

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Ds = depth of soft soil beneath the toe of the end of slope or side slope of the fill
H = height of the fill
Su = undrained shear strength of the soft soil beneath the fill
FSSQ = Lateral Squeeze Factor of Safety

Figure 18: Definitions of Parameters in Calculating Factor of Safety Against Lateral Squeeze

For FSSQ less than 2.0, lateral squeeze may occur, and remediation options must be
considered. Contact the GSS to discuss potential options. The lateral squeeze analysis is
especially crucial when considering the use of a reinforced slope or base reinforcement
in improving stability of fill embankments over softer soils. When the depth of the soft
layer, Ds, is greater than the base of the width of the end slope, be = H/tanθ, general
slope stability behavior governs the design. In that case, the methods described in
previous sections may be used to evaluate the overall stability of the embankment. If
adequate support conditions cannot be achieved, either the soft soils should be
removed, or ground improvement methods of the foundation soils is required.
Additional discussion on these methods are discussed in Section 9.3.7.6.

For approach fills placed at bridge approaches, experience has shown that lateral
squeeze of the foundation soil can occur, and abutment tilting may result if the surface
load applied by the weight of the fill exceeds 3 times the undrained shear strength, su, of
the soft foundation soil,
∗ >3∗ ,

where is the unit weight of fill and H is the height of the fill. Figure 19 illustrates
different modes of abutment tilting due to lateral squeeze. Whether the lateral squeeze
will be short- or long-term can be determined by evaluating the consolidation rate of
settlement with respect to the rate of application of the load.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 115

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 19: Examples of Abutment Tilting Due to Lateral Squeeze (FHWA, 2006a)

If lateral squeeze is suspected at a bridge abutment (based on the aforementioned

equation), then a recommended solution to minimize abutment tilting is to induce
settlement of the fill prior to installation of abutment piles or shafts. Methods of doing
this are discussed in Section 9.3.7.2.3. If the construction time schedule or other factors
do not permit preconsolidation of the foundation soils, then lightweight fill can be used
to reduce the driving forces.

Other Slope Stability Considerations

Over the years of embankment and cut slope construction, MDOT has experienced
occasional stability issues with existing embankments and cut slopes. Usually, the
stability problem is rooted in some form of drainage issue or underlying problematic soil
condition. One area where stability issues have arisen is where embankments are
widened and/or constructed over peat excavation and swamp backfill areas. In this
scenario, either the peat soils were not completely removed or the embankment height
in conjunction with horizontal/vertical excavation limits were not sufficient. Additional
detail on scenarios where additional stability analysis may be required in peat
excavation areas are discussed in Section 9.3.3.2.2.

Another potential long-term, problematic scenario that arises is where embankment fills
greater than 30 ft high are constructed at a 1V:2H slope. In this situation, two
problematic conditions, surficial erosion/sloughing and long-term creep of the
embankment side slope, have been observed. Dealing with the initial problem can be
handled by specifying appropriate erosion control measures in the design. Additionally,
including subbase underdrains and subgrade underdrains into the design allows for
capture of any subsurface water and prevents saturation of the embankment fill or
water daylighting onto the slope. Long-term creep of the embankment is usually quite
massive and can produce constant or seasonal movement, which can lead to

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 116

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

rideability/safety issues or eventual roadway failure. As a result, the Geotechnical

Engineer should look at embankments with these fill heights during design, especially if
typical embankment construction in the region of the state consists of clay fill, and
determine if mitigation is required. Possible mitigation measures could be flattening the
slope, implementing a bench in the slope, or specifying a granular embankment. If
issues such as these are anticipated by the Geotechnical Engineer or scoping engineer,
appropriate discussions should occur with the designer early in the design or scoping
phase so that appropriate right-of-way limits (if applicable) can be defined and planned
for in a timely manner.

Stability Improvement Techniques

If the results of the stability analyses indicate that the slope does not meet the
minimum factor of safety requirements, then it may be necessary to incorporate slope
stabilization methods to improve the slope performance. This section provides a
summary of stabilization methods to consider for natural or cut slopes in soil and
embankment fills. For rock slope stability issues, contact the GSS. In addition,
www.geotechtools.org may also provide some insight into potential mitigation
measures to improve embankment stability.

9.3.7.6.1 Regrading – Flattening the Slope

The simplest approach for improving the stability of a slope is to flatten the slope angle
until the stability requirements are met. This approach can often be used for either cut
slopes or fill slopes unless right-of-way constraints, environmental limitations, or
economic considerations preclude regrading. In some locations, the stability of a slope
can be improved by constructing a balance berm at the toe of the slope. The berm
functions by providing additional horizontal resistance to the driving force. While the
balance berm can be used for cut slopes, it is more suitable for use with embankment
fills. In addition, regrading by reducing the fill height could be a remedial option if other
design parameters, such as geometrics or low beam elevations on a river crossing, are
still able to be achieved.

9.3.7.6.2 Direct Excavation and Replacement

Another relatively simple stability measure is to remove and replace problematic soil, if
it is determined to be too soft for the proposed embankment loading. This approach is
normally limited to a depth of 10 ft below the existing grade. Ideally, this option is used
when the soil is above the water table or possible dewatering provisions must be
accounted for, consequently increasing the cost of this option. Replacement soil is
typically engineered granular backfill.

9.3.7.6.3 Staged Construction

Where soft compressible soils are present below a new embankment location and it is
not economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted fill, the embankment

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 117

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

can be constructed in stages to allow the strength of the compressible soils to increase
under the weight of new fill. Construction of the second and subsequent stages
commences when the strength of the compressible soils is sufficient to maintain
stability. To define the allowable height of fill for each stage and maximum rate of
construction, detailed geotechnical analysis is required. The analysis to define the height
of fill placed during each stage and the rate at which the fill is placed is typically
completed using a limit equilibrium slope stability program along with time rate of
settlement analysis to estimate the percent consolidation required for stability. Field
monitoring of settlement and pore water pressures are usually required during
construction.

9.3.7.6.4 Reinforced Soil Slope

Reinforcement may be used to increase the factor of safety against slope failure and
typically consists of placing either a geotextile or geogrid at the base of an embankment
prior to constructing the embankment. This approach is particularly effective where
soft/weak soils are present below a planned embankment location. The reinforcement
can be designed for either temporary or permanent applications. The design of the
reinforcement is similar to the design of a reinforced slope in that limit equilibrium
slope stability methods are used to determine the geotextile strength required to obtain
the desired factor of safety. Depending on the strength of reinforcement required in the
design, procurement of higher strength geotextiles can take “considerable” time once
the project is let. As a result, the Geotechnical Engineer will need to assess this
parameter and compare it to the project construction timeline during the design phase
to minimize the potential of construction delays occurring.

Reinforcement materials should be placed in continuous, horizontal strips with the

direction of main reinforcement placed perpendicular to the slope face. Where base
reinforcement is used, the use of Granular Material Class II or dense graded aggregate
21AA or 22A may also be needed to increase the embankment shear strength.

Depending on the height of the slope and right-of-way limitations, reinforced soil slopes
may be used to achieve suitable factors of safety for stability. Reinforced slopes and
embankments are slopes constructed at steeper face angles than the effective friction
angle of the fill by the inclusion of soil reinforcement. The reinforcement typically
consists of either geotextile or geogrid and is placed in alternating, horizontal layers
with the backfill. For detailed discussion and design guidance, refer to the
FHWA-NHI-00-043 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design
and Construction Guidelines manual.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 118

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.3.7.6.5 Lightweight Fills

Lightweight fills reduce the proposed loads imposed on the underlying soil, thereby
reducing the driving force and increasing the stability of an embankment. Materials
classified as lightweight fill consist of expanded polystyrene blocks (geofoam),
lightweight cellular concrete, or lightweight aggregates (expanded shale, blast furnace
slag). This remedial option may be appropriate on projects where the construction
schedule does not allow for use of other less timely options. Further discussion on this
topic is provided in Section 9.3.7.2.3.

9.3.7.6.6 Ground Improvement

Various types of ground improvement can be considered to improve the stability or
reduce the settlement of a project site. Typically, these methods involve replacing or
improving the existing material within the slide plane with a higher friction or cemented
soil. Selecting an appropriate ground improvement method depends on the evaluation
of several factors including the types of soil at the site, the depth of the critical failure
zone, access requirements, project timeline, surrounding infrastructure, and design
objectives. Potential ground improvement methods suitable for highway use include the
following.

Stone Columns – This method involves placing columns of gravel or crushed rock
in the ground at 5 to 10 ft horizontal spacing. In general, the columns range in diameter
and depth from 15 to 36 inches and 10 to 50 ft, respectively. Increased strength within
the treatment zone results in a higher factor safety for embankment or slope stability.
Additionally, properly designed treatment zones beneath a proposed embankment
result in limiting the amount of settlement. For design methods and additional
considerations, refer to the FHWA-RD-98-086 Ground Improvement Technical
Summaries and FHWA-RD-83-02C Design and Construction of Stone Columns.

Vibro-Densification/Compaction – This method involves densification of

cohesionless soils with a vibrating probe. Horizontal spacing of densification points
typically range from 5 to 10 ft, depending on the density of the existing material. The
required treatment depth is designed for each project and is typically in the range of 15
to 50 feet. This method is most suitable in cohesionless soils that have less than
15 percent fines (passing the #200 sieve). Densification can be done above and below
the groundwater table. Further discussion and design guidance can be found in
FHWA-SA-98-086 Ground Improvement Technical Summaries.

Dynamic Compaction – This method involves dropping a 10 to 20-ton weight

from heights ranging from 40 to 70 ft above the ground surface. This method is suitable
for densifying cohesionless soil located above the groundwater level. Depths of
densification can extend to about 30 ft below the treatment surface. The primary

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 119

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

advantage of this approach is the relatively low cost for the improvement. One
disadvantage is the ground vibration that occurs during each drop weight. Additional
design guidance can be found in the FHWA-SA-95-037 Dynamic Compaction manual.

Other Methods – Other ground improvement methods exist that may be viable
in the transportation infrastructure. These include compaction grouting and jet
grouting/cement deep soil mixing. Compaction grouting is where a column of grout is
formed at a specified spacing by injecting grout at a high pressure. Where limited
headroom exists on projects, this may be a viable ground improvement option. Jet
grouting involves mixing cement with the native soil thereby increasing the strength of
the soil. While this is a very versatile ground improvement method, it is usually the most
expensive.

9.3.7.6.7 Structural Systems

Structural systems can be used to enhance the stability of many cut or natural slopes.
These structural systems are often more expensive than methods involving ground
improvement, regrading, and groundwater control. Possible systems include the
following.

Retaining Walls – In many cut or natural slope locations, retaining walls can be
used to improve local and/or deep-seated stability. These include conventional concrete
gravity and cantilever retaining walls and cantilever or anchored soldier pile walls.
Section 9.6 discusses types of retaining walls in more detail.

Ground Anchor or Soil Nail Systems – Methods of stabilizing existing slopes may
consist of ground anchors or soil nails. Ground anchors consist of strands or bars that
are grouted into the soil or rock at some distance from the slope face and then
post-tensioned. Soil nails are reinforcing, passive elements that are drilled and grouted
sub horizontally in the ground to support excavations in soil or in soft and weathered
rock. For additional guidance on the design and construction of these systems, refer to
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications manual, FHWA-IF-99-015 Ground
Anchors and Anchored Systems manual, and the FHWA-NHI-14-007 Soil Nail Walls
Reference Manual.

9.3.7.6.8 Rock Buttress or Berm

The principle behind the use of buttresses and toe berms is to provide sufficient dead
weight and increased shear resistance near the toe of the unstable slope or
embankment to increase the stability to an acceptable level. Two types of rock
buttresses or berms are illustrated in Figure 20 and Figure 21. In addition, the geotextile
fabric and open graded nature of the stone berm provide a seepage path for any water
that exits the unstable slope or embankment. The buttress must be heavy enough to

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 120

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

provide the additional resistance near the toe of the slope required for the stability. In
some cases, the rock buttress can extend below the toe of slope and create a shear key
mechanism that provides increased soil strength and achieve better factors of safety for
deeper seated failure surfaces.

Figure 20: Rock Buttress Integrated into Slope Fix (TRB SR 247, 1996)

The buttress must be stable against overturning, sliding, and bearing failure. A
settlement analysis should also be performed if the foundation is compressible to
ensure that the final grade of the buttress is consistent with the geometric design
requirements of the project. Internal failure modes of the buttress should also be
checked to ensure that the buttress does not fail by internal shear.

Figure 21: Rock Buttress at Toe of Slope (FHWA, 2005)

9.3.7.6.9 Groundwater Control

Groundwater can be a significant contribution to slope instability, primarily from the
reduction in effective stresses. The importance of adequate drainage cannot be
overstated when designing cut slopes. Surface water collection can be accomplished

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 121

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

using drainage ditches and berms located above the top of the cut, around the sides of
the cut, and at the base of the cut. Once the surface water is collected, it must be
directed into suitable collection facilities.

One situation that is often overlooked in design of cut slopes is where the existing slope
continues upward at the top of the cut. Surface water flowing from the upper natural
slope onto the cut section can cause severe erosion and sloughing of the cut slope. A
common remedy is to include a cobblestone ditch at this interface point (see Figure 22).
The ditch collects the surface water and directs it to a suitable collection area. The
Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for ensuring that pay items to address this scenario
are included on the plans.

Figure 22: Cobblestone Ditch at Slope Interface

Another situation that arises in the construction of cut slopes is where the cut slope
intersects either the actual groundwater table or a perched groundwater condition.
Borings taken across the cut section should provide information on the groundwater
situation and the Geotechnical Engineer can then provide appropriate
recommendations regarding profile grade, cut slope grades, and drainage. Common
drainage recommendations in this situation include placing miscellaneous quantities of
Bank Drains and/or Granular Blanket in the contract documents for use during
construction. In areas that have known water issues, appropriate quantities can be
placed on the specific plan sheets. In some cases where actual slope stability is
dependent on keeping groundwater levels at a certain level, an actual bank drain design
including details may be necessary so that assumptions utilized in the design analysis
are then built in construction. Standard Plan R-80 series provides drainage details for
Bank Drains and Granular Blankets. Section 9.3.4 also provides additional discussion on
the use of these items.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 122

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Other drainage features such as horizontal drains and relief wells can also be used to
lower groundwater levels when a stability problem arises. However, these are not
widely used within MDOT, and if being considered on a project, the GSS should be
contacted prior to their use.

9.3.8 EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS

Erosion control of embankment and cut slopes need to be considered as part of the design
analysis. Surface erosion is most common in clean sands and nonplastic silts. All slopes should
be designed with adequate drainage and temporary and permanent erosion control measures
to limit erosion. The amount of erosion that occurs along the slope is a factor of soil type,
rainfall intensity, slope angle, length of slope, slope geometry (i.e., swales, benches, curves),
curb and gutter, and vegetative cover. While some of these factors are not controlled by the
designer, the factors that are can be optimized to fit the site by the design team. Considerations
and application for erosion control measures are in Section 2.05 of the Road Design Manual and
Section 6 of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual.

9.3.9 DETERMINATION OF PLAN QUANTITIES AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Section 9.3 covers considerable amounts of information regarding roadway design for MDOT.
Throughout the roadway design process, it is important for the Geotechnical Engineer to
communicate the necessary pay items, quantities, and special provisions required for design,
bidding, and construction. For instance, quantities due to poor subgrade and/or drainage
concerns must have appropriate pay items and quantities noted in the plans. Additionally,
settlement and stability mitigation measures are unique items and require development of new
special provisions or modification of existing ones specific for that job.

9.4 BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN – LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN

(LRFD) METHODOLOGY
The satisfactory performance of a structure depends on the proper selection, design, and
construction of the foundation used to support the structure. This section discusses MDOT’s
criteria for the geotechnical design of bridge foundations for new structures. Section 9.5
provides foundation design criteria for allowable stress design (ASD) foundation design. These
criteria for new bridges adhere to methods and policy set forth in the following documents
unless otherwise modified herein.
 Section 3 (Loads and Load Factors) and Section 10 (Foundations) of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (most recent version)
 Program/Project Management System (P/PMS) Tasks 3325, 3530, and 3815
 MDOT Bridge Design Manual
 MDOT Drainage Manual

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 123

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The function of the bridge foundation is to transfer loads from the structure to the earth. This is
done by spreading concentrated loads over a sufficient area to provide adequate bearing
support and to limit deformations under the imposed load. The foundation can also transfer
loads through unsuitable soil strata to suitable bearing strata. To successfully perform this task,
knowledge of the loading conditions, environmental and climatic effects over the life of the
structure, subsurface soil conditions, location and quality of rock, groundwater conditions,
construction practices, scour effects on the structure, and construction cost is necessary to
choose the most appropriate foundation type and size.

On some projects, the selection process will be relatively intuitive for the particular geology and
bridge location. However, other times secondary factors such as maintaining traffic or
construction schedule may be a deciding factor during the foundation selection process. It
should be noted that the selection process involves several parties, especially on more complex
projects, and continued communication during the design development is crucial and highly
encouraged as part of the MDOT foundation design process.

9.4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

The former process for designing foundations used the Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
methodology in accordance with the 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,
17th Edition. Existing bridges considered for superstructure replacement or widening should
continue to use the ASD foundation design methods or as directed by MDOT Bridge Design. In
these scenarios, it is imperative that the geotechnical and structural engineers discuss this early
in the project so that the design approach is consistent.

In 2007, MDOT adopted the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the approach used
for the design of new bridge supported foundation elements changed. The design methodology
uses load and resistance factors based on the variability of loads and resistances. These load and
resistance factors have been calibrated from actual statistics (in most cases) to ensure the
reliability of components throughout the structure. In general, the overall concept in respect to
structural and geotechnical engineering is that, when a certain load Q is placed on a component,
there is sufficient resistance R to ensure that a certain performance criterion is not exceeded.
This is illustrated in the following equation.
Load (Q) < Resistance (R)

By adding load factors (γ) and a load modifier (n) to each type of load (Q), a certain level of
uncertainty, importance, and redundancy is applied to the anticipated loads. On the resistance
side of the equation, a resistance factor ( ) is applied to the nominal resistance (Rn) to account
for variability and uncertainty. The following equation illustrates the basic LRFD design concept.

Q = ∑ƞi γi Qi ≤ Rn = Rr

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 124

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Where,
Q = Factored Load
Qi = Force Effect
ƞi = Load Modifier
γi = Load Factor
Rr = Factored Resistance
Rn = Nominal Resistance (i.e., ultimate capacity)
= Resistance Factor

The above equation is applicable to more than one load condition that defines the “Limit State.”
A Limit State is a condition beyond which a component/member of a foundation or other
structure ceases to satisfy the provisions for which the component/member was designed.
AASHTO has defined the following limit states for use in design:

 Strength Limit State

 Service Limit State
 Extreme Event Limit State
 Fatigue Limit State

The Fatigue Limit State is the only state that is not used in geotechnical analyses or design. A
description of the limit states that are used in geotechnical engineering are provided in the
following table.
Table 15: Limit States (modified after FHWA-NHI-05-094)
Limit State Description
The strength limit state is a design boundary condition considered to
ensure that strength and stability are provided to resist specified load
combinations and avoid the total or partial collapse of the structure.
Strength Examples of strength limit states in geotechnical engineering include
bearing failure, sliding, design flood event, and earth loadings for
structural analysis. For the design flood event, MDOT uses the 100-year
flood event.
The service limit state represents a design boundary condition for
structure performance under intended service loads and accounts for
some acceptable measure of structure movement throughout the
structure’s performance life. Examples include vertical settlement of a
Service
foundation or lateral displacement of a retaining wall. Another example of
a service limit state condition is the rotation of a rocker bearing on an
abutment caused by instability of the earth slope that supports the
abutment.
Evaluation of a structural member/component at the extreme event limit
Extreme Event state considers a loading combination that represents an excessive or
infrequent design boundary condition. Such conditions may include ship

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 125

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Limit State Description

impacts, vehicle impact, ice flow, check flood, and seismic events. Because
the probability of these events occurring during the life of the structure is
relatively small, a smaller margin of safety is appropriate when evaluating
this limit state. A common Extreme Limit State checked at MDOT is the
check flood event (500-year flood event). Seismic events are not a normal
Extreme Limit design check at MDOT.

9.4.2 FOUNDATION LOAD AND RESISTANCE DETERMINATION

Bridge foundation loads are to be determined by the bridge engineer. However, the
Geotechnical Engineer plays a key role in the evaluation of certain loads. The following
discussion summarizes the typical process recommended in defining foundation loads.

 The bridge engineer determines the nominal loads for the structure, as well as the load
combination limit states and load factors to be considered for each limit state. For
lateral loading on a deep foundation system, the bridge engineer will identify the range
of lateral loads and the fixity at the head of the pile. Some “back and forth” discussion
with the Geotechnical Engineer may be prudent to obtain preliminary values of lateral
resistance available based on the soil encountered at the site. For extreme events (e.g.,
ice, scour), the corresponding axial and lateral loads and their limit states should be
identified as appropriate.
 The Geotechnical Engineer determines the geotechnical resistance based on the
structure layout, load combinations provided by the bridge engineer, and data collected
during the field and laboratory investigation. Again, some “back and forth” discussion
may be necessary to determine the most suitable foundation support for the site.

 The bridge engineer then performs the final sizing and structural design of the
foundations for the bridge based on input from the Geotechnical Engineer. If foundation
elements are revised after submittal of the final geotechnical recommendations, then
the Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted to determine if revisions are necessary.

9.4.3 FOUNDATION TYPE

Foundations for MDOT bridge structures or federal and/or state funded structures must be
supported by spread footings, driven piles, micropiles, or drilled shafts, unless otherwise
approved by the GSS. Each of these foundation elements are discussed in the following sections.

Shallow Foundations
Geotechnical design of footings, and all related considerations, must adhere to the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Article 10.6, except as specified in the
following paragraphs and sections. Figure 23 provides a flowchart that illustrates the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 126

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

design process and interaction required between structural and geotechnical engineers
needed to complete a spread footing design.

In general, spread footings distribute the structure loads to suitable soil strata or rock at
relatively shallow depth (typically less than 10 ft). Shallow foundations should not be
utilized in the following situations:

 For piers at water (stream, river, drain) crossings where the proposed foundation
would bear on soil or erodible bedrock,
 For abutments that bear on erodible rock, unless the bottom of footing is below
scour depths determined for the check flood event. Spread footings on
scour-resistant rock must be designed and constructed to maintain the integrity of
the supporting rock,

 For abutments that bear on soil, unless approved by the GSS and the bottom of
footing is below scour depths determined for the check flood event. In most cases,
this will result in a deep foundation system,

 On nonengineered fills, and

 At abutments that are located within a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall
unless the criteria in Section 7.03.12.C.2 of the Bridge Design Manual is met.

9.4.3.1.1 Footing Bearing Depth

The bottom of footing will be mainly dictated by frost depth for footings not bearing on
bedrock. In addition, footing depth may be dictated by scour depth or the depth to
competent bearing stratum. Embedding the footing to an acceptable depth is
imperative so that the footing does not move due to the freezing ground and
subsequent expansion of the soil beneath the footing. For MDOT design, a minimum
depth of 4 ft is required for footing embedment. This minimum depth is measured from
the bottom of footing to finish grade. Since frost is multi-directional, this minimum
dimension should be considered from any direction. In areas of the state where frost
depths can go much deeper than 4 ft and high frost susceptible soils exist (see Table 13),
the Geotechnical Engineer may specify additional footing depth requirements. In
addition, footing depth may be dictated by scour depth or the depth to competent
bearing stratum.

9.4.3.1.2 Nearby Structures

Where foundations are placed adjacent to existing structures, the influence of the
existing structure on the behavior of the foundation and the effect of the foundation on
the existing structures shall be investigated. Issues to be investigated include, but are
not limited to, settlement of the existing structure due to the stress increase caused by
the new footing, decreased overall stability due to the additional load created by the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 127

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

new footing, and the effect on the existing structure of excavation, shoring, and/or
dewatering to construct the new foundation.

9.4.3.1.3 Settlement Criteria of Shallow Foundations

Settlement normally governs the size and capacity for shallow foundations, especially in
non-cohesive soils. The total and differential settlement of a substructure unit, as well
as the differential settlement between two adjacent substructure units, must be
considered when analyzing a shallow foundation. MDOT recommends a total settlement
limit of 1.5 inches for an individual substructure unit and differential settlement of
0.75 inches between or within substructures units. This settlement criteria are the same
for design of concrete culverts and 3-sided precast culverts. For flexible culverts, MDOT
recommends a total settlement limit of 2 inches and differential settlement of 1.5
inches.

Furthermore, the time for settlement to occur, as well as the rate of settlement, should
be considered in the analysis. The paragraphs below discuss how settlement and
consolidation of the subsoils can be time dependent. In addition, longer spans or some
type of extreme conditions may warrant consideration of settlement criteria outside
these limits. Designers considering using criteria outside the aforementioned limits must
ensure the structure can tolerate the settlement and receive approval from the GSS and
MDOT bridge design supervising engineer.

Typically for shallow foundations founded on cohesionless soil, a large portion of the
settlement occurs quickly, often during construction. Therefore, it may be possible to
manage the settlement by considering the construction sequence and critical structure
connection timeline. The Geotechnical Engineer should investigate the construction
sequence and work with the bridge engineer in determining foundation suitability,
especially if at first glance the calculated settlement seems to be undesirable.

For cohesive soils, the amount of settlement can be quite large and take a long time to
occur. Therefore, subsoils, which consolidate to the extent that exceed the criteria
previously provided, must be modified to support the footing or an alternate deep
foundation system must be used. Transient loads may be omitted from the settlement
analyses on or in cohesive soil deposits that are subject to time dependent
consolidation.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 128

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

1(SE) – Determine bridge geometry and pier locations

2(GE) – Determine footing depth 3(SE) – Determine loads applied to

based on geometry, bearing footing, including lateral earth
material, frost protection, and scour pressure loads at abutments

4(GE) – Determine soil properties for 9(SE) – Design the footing at the
foundation design, and resistance factors service limit state
in consideration of the soil property
uncertainty and the method selected for
calculating nominal resistance 10(SE) – Check the bearing
pressure of the footing at the
strength limit state
5(GE) – If needed, help determine
active and passive earth pressure
11(SE) – Check the eccentricity of
parameters as needed for
the footing at the strength limit
abutments
state

6(GE) – Determine nominal footing

12(SE) – Check the sliding
resistance at the strength and
resistance of the footing at the
extreme limit state
strength limit state

7(GE) – Determine nominal footing

resistance at the service limit state 13(SE) – Check the bearing
pressure of the footing at the
extreme limit state
8(GE) – Check overall stability,
determine max feasible bearing
load to maintain adequate stability 14(SE) – Check the eccentricity of
the footing at the extreme limit
state

SE = Structural/Bridge Engineer 16(GE) – Check

15(SE) – Check sliding resistance of
nominal footing
GE = Geotechnical Engineer the footing at the extreme limit
resistance at all
state
limit states, and
overall stability in
light of new footing 17(SE) – Design the abutment,
dimensions, depth, pier, and adjacent abutment wall
and loads footings per design specification

Figure 23: Flowchart for LRFD Spread Footing Design

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 129

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.4.3.1.4 Other Shallow Foundation Considerations

MDOT has developed several bridge design guides for detailing spread footings located
on Structure Embankment or in cut applications. Detail series 5.45 and 5.46 illustrate
criteria when using a spread footing in these applications. The Geotechnical Engineer
should ensure these guidelines are used when conducting the analysis and subsequently
detailed appropriately on the final design plans.

Driven Piles
The selection of driven pile foundation type for a structure should be based on the
specific soil conditions, foundation loading requirements, and final performance criteria.
Geotechnical analysis and design of driven piles must adhere to Section 10 of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (most current version), except as specified
herein and in the MDOT Bridge Design Manual. Figure 24: General Flowchart for LRFD
Pile/Shaft Design provides a flowchart that illustrates the general design process and the
interaction required between structural and geotechnical engineers to complete a
driven pile foundation design. MDOT has standardized pile sizes and nominal resistances
and therefore streamlining certain steps of this process.

9.4.3.2.1 Pile Types, Sizes and Tip Reinforcement

Piles installed on MDOT projects or those with federal aid should consist of steel H-piles,
steel cast-in-place (CIP) concrete piles, or timber piles. Standard practice is to utilize
steel piles for structures supporting vehicular traffic while timber piles are typically
utilized to support timber bridge structures on lower volume local roads, boardwalks, or
multi-use recreational trail structures. Typical pile sizes are provided in Section 7.03.09.B
of the MDOT Bridge Design Manual. Timber pile size variations are provided in
Section 912 of the Standard Specifications for Construction.

Unless otherwise required for special driving conditions, pipe piles should be analyzed
with a closed end as a flat plate with or without a steel pile point (see Bridge Design
Guide 8.21.03). Reinforced pile tips may be warranted on H-piles where the piles are
required to penetrate through cobbles and/or boulders or piles are driven to or into
bedrock. However, installing a pile tip does not eliminate all potential for pile damage
and high driving stresses may occur at these locations resulting in pile damage. To
minimize the risk from this occurring, a drivability analysis must be included as part of
the design process.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 130

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 24: General Flowchart for LRFD Pile/Shaft Design

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 131

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.4.3.2.2 Driven Pile Nominal Resistance Determination

The MDOT Bridge Design Manual Section 7.03.09.B provides standard pile sizes and
nominal driven axial pile resistances used for bridge foundation design. These sizes and
standard resistances should be used unless subsurface conditions, structural
loads/stresses, or economics warrant using other combinations of pile type and
resistance values.

To obtain these standardized nominal pile resistances, boring depths should be of

adequate depth so that the typical nominal pile resistances are obtained. It is not
acceptable to limit pile resistance based on “not having enough soils data” unless
unusual subsurface conditions exist (i.e., artesian conditions). This practice not only
tends to provide an inefficient design, but piles tend to be driven deeper during
construction than estimated on the plans. This adds unexpected costs to the project.

All driven piles must be accepted based on the nominal resistance determined from
 The dynamic formula (Modified Gates Formula),
 Dynamic measurements with signal matching (Pile Driving Analyzer/Case Pile Wave
Analysis Program (PDA/CAPWAP)), or
 Full-scale load testing in addition to dynamic measurements with signal matching.
Pile acceptance based solely on wave equation or static analysis are not acceptable
methods of quality control unless otherwise approved by the GSS. For nominal driven
pile resistances greater than 600 kips, dynamic measurements with signal matching
must be specified in the contract documents. The Modified Gates Formula for pile
driving quality control and design must not be used when the nominal pile driving
resistance is greater than 600 kips. Additionally, this formula is not recommended as a
driving quality control measure when nominal pile driving resistances are less than
250 kips unless some modifications are made to the resistance factor. This modification
is described in the following paragraph. It should be noted that this equation becomes
considerably less reliable/accurate when applied to pile resistances less than 250 kips or
greater than 600 kips.

When determining the nominal driving pile resistance (Rndr) in design and construction,
the resistance factors ( dyn), with the exception of the dynamic formula, adhere to the
guidelines provided in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. A resistance
factor ( dyn) of 0.5 versus 0.4 is utilized by MDOT when the Modified Gates Formula is
specified as the quality control measure for nominal driving resistances 250 kips and
greater. For nominal driving resistances from 150 kips and less than 250 kips, a
resistance factor of 0.4 must be used. Note that the Modified Gates Formula is for end
of driving conditions only and does not apply at the beginning of redrive conditions. In

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 132

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

addition, when dynamic measurement and signal matching is specified, the

0.65 resistance factor has been derived based on beginning of redrive conditions and is
not applied at the end of drive conditions unless approved by the GSS. More
information on the resistance factors is outlined in the MDOT Bridge Design Manual
Section 7.03.09.C.

In certain soil conditions, using a waiting period and restrike after initial pile driving may
be advantageous in optimizing the pile foundation design when dynamic measurement
and signal matching is specified. After initially driving the piles to a specified tip
elevation, the piles are allowed to “set up” for a specified waiting period, which allows
pore water pressures to dissipate and soil strength to increase. The piles are then
instrumented and restruck to confirm the required nominal resistance. The length of the
waiting period depends primarily on the strength and drainage characteristics of the
subsurface soils (how quickly the soil can drain) and the required nominal resistance.
The minimum waiting period should be 48 hours unless otherwise specified by the
engineer. In certain cases, more than 48 hours may be required to allow sufficient set up
to occur to recognize the economic benefits of this process. In this case, the
Geotechnical Engineer must place a note on the plans specifying the required time
interval. Additionally, this time interval should be discussed during the design process
and incorporated into the development of the project schedule. In summary, the pile
design should compare the cost and risk of extending the standard waiting period to
gain sufficient strength versus designing and driving the piles deeper to achieve the
required resistance.

9.4.3.2.3 Other Driven Pile Considerations

Artesian Conditions – Michigan has areas where confined aquifers are present
and artesian conditions exist. Reviewing well logs in the area, speaking with local well
drillers, and reviewing existing soil borings can provide some insight into where these
conditions exist. When considering foundation types, MDOT’s policy is to avoid
penetration into known confined aquifer layers unless otherwise approved by the GSS.

The previously mentioned standard nominal resistances may not be obtained prior to
penetrating the confined stratum and, as a result, requires the Geotechnical Engineer to
specify lower capacity piles. In most cases, the Geotechnical Engineer recommends a
maximum pile tip elevation sufficiently above the confined aquifer to maintain the
integrity of the confining layer. The maximum pile tip elevation must be shown on the
Soil Boring Data sheet. Depending on the situation, it may be prudent to specify
dynamic testing and signal matching so that a delayed restrike can be used if needed to
obtain the specified nominal pile resistance.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 133

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Vibrations – Piles driven into the ground cause vibrations that may be of
concern if buildings, utilities, or other existing structures are present nearby. Several
factors must be considered in this analysis including, but not limited to, structure/utility
foundation type and age, distance from pile driving to structure/utility, and sensitivity of
structure/utility to the vibration frequency and magnitude caused by the anticipated
pile driving. Potential mitigation measures are to move/support the utility or to
pre-bore pile locations of concern. If it is deemed that the vibrations caused by pile
driving cannot be mitigated within tolerable risk, a low vibration foundation such as
micropiles or drilled shafts may provide an alternate foundation solution.

Shakedown settlement can occur on sites where vibrations from pile driving cause
adjacent soils within a certain distance of the pile to settle. Assessing this potential is
crucial in part-width construction sites or where adjacent pavement, utilities and/or
structures are located within the shakedown zone. This is especially true for structures
that are supported on shallow foundations, which bear on cohesionless soils. MDOT
funded a research project to study shakedown settlement and subsequently developed
a spreadsheet to help engineers assess this risk. The research report titled Effect of
Pile-Driving Induced Vibrations on Nearby Structures and Other Assets can be
downloaded from the MDOT Research Administration website. As part of the design
process on projects, evaluation of the shakedown potential by the Geotechnical
Engineer must occur on potentially troublesome sites. The spreadsheet for assessing the
shakedown potential can be obtained by contacting the GSS foundation analysis
engineer.

Pre-Boring – Aside from vibration mitigation, pre-boring may also be necessary

to allow piles to penetrate hard or dense soil layers and to achieve the minimum
required penetration or lessen skin friction in area of downdrag. Piles extending through
embankment fill should penetrate a minimum of 10 feet into natural ground. Greater
minimum penetration is sometimes needed due to estimated scour or when deep pile
embedment is needed to develop adequate resistance to lateral loads. Pre-boring
typically extends to the specified elevation and the pile is driven in the drilled hole to
the specified nominal resistance or absolute refusal. The feasibility of pre-boring piles is
highly dependent on soil and groundwater conditions. When pre-boring is required, the
Geotechnical Engineer should account for this in the driving analysis and specify a
pre-bore elevation on the soil boring data sheet.

Constructability – Pile installation requires leads that support the driving

hammer and driven pile. These are typically free-hanging from a crane and require
ample overhead space. When considering this type of foundation, the overhead space
should be free of all utilities if possible. In certain situations, insulation or temporary
shutdown of overhead power lines can be performed to prevent “arcing” of electricity

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 134

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

from the line to the pile leads but must be coordinated and agreed upon with the utility
company during the design phase.

When installing batter piles, the Geotechnical Engineer should also consider any
conflicts with the proposed cofferdam/temporary sheeting lines. Furthermore, any
safety issues due to the pile leads/hammer overhanging travel lanes must be addressed.

Occasionally within Michigan’s geology, cobbles, boulders, and bedrock may be

encountered within the proposed pile driving zone. Where these conditions exist, the
Geotechnical Engineer needs to consider the risk of pile damage when driving through
these subsurface conditions. It is common practice to specify pile points where these
conditions are encountered.

Micropiles
Micropiles are small diameter (less than 12 inches), drilled and grouted
nondisplacement piles that are reinforced. They are capable of withstanding axial loads
similar to those used for driven steel piles. Micropiles are considered very versatile
because they are installed by methods that cause minimal disturbance to adjacent
structures and soil, can be installed where access is restrictive, and can be installed in all
soil types and ground conditions. However, in comparison to spread footings and driven
piles, micropiles are more costly and should be considered as an alternate to address
special circumstances.

Geotechnical analysis and design of micropiles must adhere to Section 10 of the

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (most current version), except as specified
herein and in the MDOT Bridge Design Manual. Additional information on micropile
design may be found in the FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual
(Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039). Figure 24: General Flowchart for LRFD Pile/Shaft
Design provides a flowchart that illustrates the design process and interaction required
between structural and geotechnical engineers to complete a micropile foundation
design.

9.4.3.3.1 Micropile Diameter

Typical micropile casing outside diameter varies from 5.5 to 10.75 inches. The majority
of MDOT projects have utilized 7-inch and 9.625-inch diameter casing for installation on
bridge foundation projects. These two sizes are more commonly available and should be
specified on MDOT projects unless loads or other site conditions warrant going outside
these sizes.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 135

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.4.3.3.2 Micropile Nominal Resistance Determination

Nominal axial resistances utilizing the sizes above can range from 100 kips to 600 kips
and can be dependent on soil/rock strata, magnitude of bridge loads transferred to the
pile, and site limitations.

Micropiles installed in soil or in weathered/discontinuous rock must only account for the
side friction bond between the grout and soil/rock when determining the nominal
resistance unless otherwise approved by the GSS.

9.4.3.3.3 Other Micropile Considerations

Part of the micropile installation process is to use potable water as a flushing medium.
Appropriate soil erosion and sedimentation control measures must be included as part
of the contract documents to ensure appropriate handling of the discharged water.

Constructability - As part of the micropile construction process, a certain

number of micropiles require verification and proof load testing. Typically, either a dead
load or reaction piles are used as the counterweight in the load test process. The
Geotechnical Engineer must consider site constraints when designing and specifying
these types of load tests on a specific project site. When installing battered micropiles,
the Geotechnical Engineer should also consider any conflict with the proposed
cofferdam/temporary sheeting lines that may impede the installation process.

Drilled Shafts
A drilled shaft (also called drilled caisson) is a circular deep foundation element that is
constructed by excavating a hole in most cases with power auger equipment.
Reinforcing steel and concrete are then placed within the excavation. In unstable soils
such as soft clays and cohesionless soils, casing or drilling slurry is used to maintain the
stability of the hole. Drilled shafts should be considered when large axial and/or lateral
loads are anticipated, and favorable geologic conditions exist (see Bridge Design
Manual). This can occur with large span lengths or at stream crossings where predicted
scour depths are deep that can result in large unsupported lengths on the deep
foundation element. Drilled shaft diameters for bridge construction typically range from
2.5 to 6 ft in diameter. Larger shafts have been utilized on some projects, but smaller
shafts (less than 2.5 ft) for the support of bridge foundations are not allowed per the
AASHTO code.

Geotechnical analysis and design of drilled shafts must adhere to Section 10 of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (most current version), except as specified
herein and in the MDOT Bridge Design Manual. Additional information on drilled shaft
design may be found in the FHWA Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 136

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Design Methods (Publication No. FHWA NHI-10-016, GEC-010). Figure 24: General
Flowchart for LRFD Pile/Shaft Design provides a flowchart that illustrates the design
process and interaction required between structural and geotechnical engineers to
complete a drilled shaft foundation design.

9.4.3.4.1 Drilled Shaft Nominal Resistance Determination

Nominal axial resistances utilizing the sizes above typically range from 600 to 2000 kips
and are dependent on the soil/rock strata, magnitude of bridge loads transferred to the
drilled shaft, length/diameter of the element, and site limitations. In some cases where
shafts bear on competent rock, nominal axial resistances may exceed 2000 kips. The
shaft axial nominal resistance is determined from the tip resistance and/or shaft side
resistance. Since the maximum value of each of these is very unlikely to occur at the
same time, it is MDOT’s practice to determine the axial nominal resistance utilizing only
skin friction between the shaft and soil/rock interface. When either tip resistance or
both side and tip resistance is used to determine the nominal axial resistance, the
Geotechnical Engineer must consider strain compatibility and complete a detailed
analysis to determine what amount of each can be utilized while maintaining acceptable
levels of displacement at the service limit state. The references provided in the
preceding subsection provide detailed guidance and discussion on this topic. Approval
from the GSS is also required when utilizing this design approach.

Another design consideration to account for is when temporary, left in place casing or
permanent casing is utilized within the drilled shaft bond zone. Since steel casing will
generally reduce the side resistance of a shaft, the Geotechnical Engineer must account
for some reduction within this bond zone area.

9.4.3.4.2 Other Drilled Shaft Considerations

Nearby Structures – Where shaft foundations are installed adjacent to existing
structures, the influence of the existing structure(s) on the behavior of the foundation
and the effect of the foundation on the existing structures, including vibration effects
due to casing installation, should be investigated. In addition, the impact of caving soils
during shaft excavation on the stability of foundations supporting adjacent structures
should be evaluated. Where existing structure foundations are adjacent to the proposed
shaft foundation or where a shaft excavation cave-in could adversely affect an existing
foundation, the design should require that casing to be advanced as the shaft
excavation proceeds.

Artesian Conditions – Michigan has areas where confined aquifers are present
and artesian conditions exist. Reviewing well logs in the area, speaking with local well
drillers, and reviewing existing soil borings can provide some insight into where these

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 137

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

conditions exist. When considering foundation types, it is MDOT’s policy to avoid use of
drilled shafts if artesian conditions exist unless otherwise approved by the GSS.
Gas pockets – The general presence of methane in the overburden and rock strata in
Michigan has been chronicled at various locations. When soil boring logs indicate the
presence of gas pockets, MDOT’s policy is to avoid the use of drilled shafts unless
otherwise approved by the GSS.

Aesthetics – Temporary steel casing is sometimes used for constructing the

drilled shaft and is left in place when completed. The designer should consider aesthetic
requirements for the project and, if necessary, specify cut-off elevations on the plans for
the casing that is left in place.

Constructability – Drilled shaft installation equipment requires sufficient access

and ample space to operate. These aspects must be considered by the Geotechnical
Engineer and bridge engineer during the design phase of the project. Logistics such as
the turning radius required for spoil spin-off, staging of pump trucks, material handling,
and area for spoil disposal and equipment should be considered as part of this planning.

For all drilled shafts supporting bridges, crosshole sonic log testing must be installed on
each shaft. Language to provide appropriate access tube types and spacing, testing firm
qualifications, and appropriate installation and testing requirements must be provided
in the bridge drilled shaft special provision.

9.4.4 FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDELINES

Deep Foundation Deflection Criteria

Excessive movement of the foundation supporting bridges may lead to discontinuities in
the slope of the driving surface, damage to the bridge structure, jamming of bearings,
poor bridge deck drainage, and expansion joints, or even collapse. The Geotechnical
Engineer, in collaboration with the structural/bridge engineer, must estimate the
maximum settlement and lateral movement anticipated in the foundation to ensure
they are within tolerable limits. Acceptable lateral deflections need to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis in consultation with the structural/bridge engineer since deflections
will be based upon numerous factors (i.e., type of superstructure, loading type, pile
head fixity, bridge span).

Lateral Loads
Multiple rows of deep foundation elements will have less lateral resistance than the
sum of single foundation elements because of pile-soil-pile interactions that take place
in the group. This is due to the “shadowing” effects caused by foundation elements in
the front row. As a result, appropriate reduction factors must be applied to groups of
foundation elements that have center-to-center spacing close enough to cause this to

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 138

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

happen. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Manual, Section 10, provides
additional guidance on determining appropriate reduction factors.

Scour
The effects of scour must be evaluated in determining the required deep foundation
depth. The foundation must be designed so that it provides the needed geotechnical
resistance during the design scour events. Foundation depth must be sufficient to
provide the required nominal axial and lateral resistance. Scour depths are calculated
for both the 100-year (“design flood”) and 500-year (“check flood”) events. In addition,
the foundation element must also be designed to resist debris/ice loads occurring
during the flood events in addition to the loads applied from the structure. The axial
resistance lost due to scour should be determined using a static analysis and should not
be factored.

For driven pile design, the pile will need to be installed to the required axial resistance
plus the skin friction resistance that will be lost due to scour. From the basic LRFD
equation:

Σηιγi Qi ≤ ϕRn – See Section 9.4.1 for term definitions

The summation of the factored loads (Σηιγi Qi) must be less than or equal to the factored
resistance (ϕRn). Therefore, the nominal resistance (Rn) must be greater than or equal to
the sum of the factored loads divided by the resistance factor (ϕ). This can be written as
follows:

Rn ≥ (ΣγiQi)/ϕdyn

For scour conditions, the total or nominal driving resistance (Rndr) needed to obtain Rn is
therefore:

Rndr = Rn + Rscour

Rscour = skin friction, which must be overcome during driving through predicted scour
zone (kips)

Downdrag
Downdrag loads on piles, shafts, or micropiles must be evaluated as described in
AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, Article 3.11.8 and Section 10. If a downdrag
condition exists, the resulting downdrag loads (DD) are included with the permanent
load combinations used in structure design and an appropriate load factor is applied to
the downdrag loads. In addition to applying the downdrag loads on the load side of the

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 139

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

LRFD equation, the downdrag loads must also be subtracted from the resistance side of
the equation since this resistance will not be available for foundation support.

If downdrag is deemed to be an issue at a particular structure, the Geotechnical

Engineer should consider mitigation through the following ways:
 Deeper installation of the foundation elements to obtain greater resistance that
offsets the calculated downdrag,

 Isolation of the pile from the backfill through a steel pipe or extruded corrugated
polypropylene sheets wrapped around the pile,

 Use of lightweight fills, or

 Implement a preloading or surcharge program prior to installing the foundation
elements.

Reuse of Existing Foundations

Reuse of the existing foundations are common when only the superstructure is
scheduled for replacement. In this case, the foundation must be checked to ensure that
the proposed superstructure does not overload the foundation or cause it to experience
detrimental settlements. It is assumed that the substructure has been evaluated and
meets the anticipated service life. In most cases, the existing plans provide maximum
and average bearing pressures for different dead load and live load scenarios or pile
loads that were used to design the foundation.

If the proposed superstructure loads result in bearing pressures or pile loads equal to or
less than those existing on the structure, then reusing the foundation can be considered
as an option. If the proposed loads result in higher loads than existing, then additional
field investigation and analysis could be required. Depending on project/site constraints
and amount of overload, possible mitigation options to consider are 1) change the type
of the superstructure (steel vs. concrete beams), 2) retrofit the existing foundation with
micropiles, or 3) reconstruct a new foundation system. It should be noted that option 3
requires a scope change of the project.

9.4.5 OVERALL STABILITY

Overall stability of the bridge abutment and approach must be checked at the service limit state.
A detailed overall stability analysis discussion including lateral squeeze analysis is discussed in
Section 9.3.7.3.

When analyzing the stability of an abutment at a river crossing, there are times when either the
bridge abutments or river is not perpendicular to each other. In these cases, modeling a
cross-section transverse to the river or abutment at the centerline of the bridge may not be the
most critical section to analyze. Figure 25 illustrates this scenario at a river crossing.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 140

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 25: Abutment Stability Analysis Critical Section

9.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN–ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN (ASD) METHODOLOGY

While all new bridge construction uses the LRFD methodology for design, existing bridges
considered for superstructure replacement or widening typically use the ASD methodology for
foundation analysis. The type of design methodology should be determined at the beginning of
the project by MDOT Bridge Design. This section discusses MDOT’s criteria for the geotechnical
design of existing or widened bridge foundations. These criteria adhere to methods and policy
set forth in the following documents unless otherwise modified herein.
 Section 3 Loads and Section 4 Foundations of the 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition (ASSHB)

 Sections 9.4.3, 9.4.4, and 9.4.5 of the Manual, except for the parts related to LRFD
methodology

 MDOT Bridge Design Manual – Load Factor Design (LFD) Sections

 MDOT Bridge Design Guides

 MDOT Drainage Manual

9.5.1 SPREAD FOOTINGS – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

Spread footing design must be in accordance with Section 4.4 of the ASSHB. The allowable
bearing capacity must have a minimum factor of safety of 3.0. Allowable settlement of the
existing structure due to the superstructure replacement and/or widening must be determined
on a case-by-case basis for that specific structure. Additional settlement or differential
settlement between the existing and proposed structures estimated to be no greater than 0.5

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 141

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

inches is desired in these types of design scenarios. Estimated settlement greater than this
amount must be approved by the GSS and bridge engineer.

9.5.2 DRIVEN PILES – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

Driven steel piles are typically used for support of foundation widenings when the existing
structure is already founded on driven piles. Standard sizes and allowable vertical capacities are
specified in Section 7.03.09 of the Bridge Design Manual. Pile sizes and capacities outside the
criteria specified must be approved by the GSS. Driven pile design must adhere to Section 4.5 of
the ASSHB.

All driven piles must be accepted based on the pile capacity determined from
 The dynamic formula as specified in the 2003 Standard Specifications for Construction,
 Dynamic measurements with signal matching (PDA/CAPWAP),
 Or full-scale load testing in addition to dynamic measurements with signal matching.
In determining the estimated pile length for design when the dynamic formula (Michigan
Modified Engineering News Record) is to be used as the quality control measure during
construction, it is recommended that a minimum factor of safety of 2.5 be applied to the
ultimate pile capacity as calculated by static analysis when determining the allowable pile
capacity. When dynamic measurements and signal matching is to be used as the quality control
measure in determining the allowable pile capacity, a minimum factor of safety of 2.25 can be
applied to the ultimate capacity. For a full-scale load test with dynamic measurements and
signal matching used as quality control, a minimum factor of safety of 1.9 can be applied to the
ultimate capacity.

9.5.3 MICROPILES – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

Micropiles are sometimes used in bridge widening projects due to the low vibration nature of
their installation or in low overhead. In addition, they are used to retrofit existing foundations
that require additional foundation support caused by additional loading from the new
superstructure replacement. Since micropile design is not discussed in the ASSHB manual, the
design and construction of micropiles must be in accordance with the FHWA Micropile Design
and Construction Reference Manual, 2005 (NHI-05-039). In addition, MDOT has developed
special provisions for micropiles that provide helpful design information based on previous
experience. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 must be used when determining the axial
compressive capacity of a micropile provided verification and proof testing is performed during
construction. Section 9.4.3.3.3 of the Manual should also be used when considering design and
construction of micropiles.

9.5.4 DRILLED SHAFTS – ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

Design of drilled shafts must be in accordance with Section 4.6 of the ASSHB. Another useful
resource is the FHWA Publication FHWA-IF-99-025, Drilled Shaft: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods, 1999, authored by Reese and O’Neil. In addition, MDOT has developed special

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 142

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

provisions for drilled shafts that provide helpful construction requirements based on previous
experience. Section 9.4.3.4.2 of the Manual should also be used when considering design and
construction of drilled shafts. A minimum factor of safety of 2.5 must be used when determining
the axial compressive capacity from static analysis.

9.6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN

Retaining walls are typically included in projects to minimize construction in wetlands, widen
existing facilities, and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed in urban environments.
Projects modifying existing facilities often need to retrofit or replace existing retaining walls or
widen abutments for bridges. All abutments and walls within the right-of-way should be
designed and constructed in accordance with the following documents:

 MDOT Bridge Design Manual,

 MDOT Bridge Design Guides,
 MDOT Road Design Manual,
 MDOT Drainage Manual,
 Section 3 and 11 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (most recent
version),
 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 2002, 17th Edition, (Temporary
Walls Only), and
 FHWA guidance documents for that specific wall type.

Wall types can be classified into fill wall and cut wall applications. Examples of fill walls include
standard cantilever walls, modular gravity walls (gabions, modular block), and Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls. Cut walls include soil nail walls, cantilever soldier pile walls, and
ground anchored walls. Some wall types require a unique design for both internal and external
stability. Other walls have standardized or proprietary designs for internal stability with external
stability analyzed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Many times, Geotechnical Engineers need to
not only develop their own designs but also evaluate and review standardized and proprietary
wall designs. Therefore, it is important that the Geotechnical Engineer has an understanding of
the applications for each wall type, subsurface exploration and design requirements,
construction methods, and relative costs. The following tables provide different types of wall
systems and general evaluation factors that can be used by designers for preliminary wall
selection on a project.

During the design process of the wall system, it is important to identify various design
requirements and constructability concerns such as:

 Surcharge loads from adjacent structures

 Backslope and toe slope geometries
 Right-of-way restrictions
 Material type

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 143

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

 Aesthetics
 Tolerable horizontal and vertical movements of wall and adjacent structures/properties
 Easements
 Utilities
 Excavation limits
 Wetlands
 Construction staging – maintenance of traffic
Once these items are defined, an analysis and design plans can be completed to meet the
project requirements.

Many of the wall systems discussed in the following sections can be used for both temporary
and permanent conditions. For the purpose of design, any wall system that is expected to
remain temporary for more than three years must be designed for the requirements of
permanent structures.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 144

NOVEMBER 2019
 SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Table 16: Fill Wall Evaluation Factors (modified after Earth Retaining Structures, 2008, FHWA-NHI-07-071)
Differential
Cost Effective
Wall Type Application1 Required ROW2 Settlement Relative Cost Advantages Disadvantages
Height Range
Tolerance3
 Durable  Relatively long construction time
Concrete Gravity P 3 – 10 ft 0.5H – 0.7H 1/500 Medium/High  Concrete facing can meet aesthetic
requirements
 Durable  Relatively long construction time
Concrete Cantilever P 6 – 30 ft 0.4H – 0.7H 1/500 Medium/High  Concrete can meet aesthetic  Deep foundation support may be
requirements necessary
 Durable  Relatively long construction time
Concrete Counterfort P 30 – 60 ft 0.4H – 0.7H 1/500 Medium/High  Concrete can meet aesthetic  Deep foundation support may be
requirements necessary
 Does not require skilled labor  Limited application
Modular Block P 6 - 15 ft 3 – 7 ft 1/200 Low/Medium  Relatively fast construction time
 Flexibility in aesthetic facings
 Does not require skilled labor or  Significant labor required
specialized equipment  Need adequate source of stone
Gabion P/T 6 – 15 ft 0.5H – 0.7H 1/50 Low/Medium
 Application use in specialized
areas only
 Does not require skilled labor or  Requires use of select backfill
MSE Wall specialized equipment  Metallic reinforcement subject to
P 10 – 100 ft 0.7H – 1.1H 1/100 Medium
(precast facing)  Flexibility in aesthetic facings corrosion in aggressive
environment
MSE Wall  Does not require skilled labor or  Requires use of select backfill
(modular/segmental P 6 – 50 ft 0.7H – 1.1H 1/200 Medium specialized equipment  Positive reinforcement connection
block facing)  Segmental blocks are easily handled to blocks is difficult to achieve
 Does not require skilled labor or  Facing may not be aesthetically
MSE Wall
specialized equipment pleasing
(geotextile/geogrid/ T 6 – 50 ft 0.7H – 1.1H 1/60 Low/Medium
 Geotextile walls have flexible
welded wire facing)
facing
1
P – Permanent, T – Temporary
2
Right-of-Way (ROW) - ROW requirements expressed as the distance (as a fraction of wall height, H) behind the wall face where fill or footing placement is generally required, except where
noted. Additional distance for temporary excavation may be required for constructability.
3
Ratio of the difference in vertical settlement between two points along the wall to the horizontal distance between the points.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 145

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Table 17: Cut Wall Evaluation Factors (modified after Earth Retaining Structures, 2008, FHWA-NHI-07-071)
Cost Effective
Wall Type Application1 Required ROW2 Relative Cost Advantages Disadvantages
Height Range
 Difficult to construct in hard ground or
through obstructions
 Rapid construction  Vibrations caused by installation can create
Sheet Pile - Cantilever P/T Up to 15 ft None3 Low
 Readily available structural damage, aesthetic cracks, and/or
settlement of adjacent structures and
pavements
 Rapid construction – Driven System  Relatively long construction time
Soldier Pile/Lagging P/T Up to 15 ft None3 Medium
 Soldier piles can be driven or drilled  Deep foundation support may be necessary
 Difficult to maintain vertical tolerances in
 Adaptable to irregular layout
hard ground
Tangent Pile Wall P/T 6 - 15 ft None3 Low/Medium  Can control wall stiffness
 Requires specialized equipment
 Low vibration installation possible
 Significant spoils for disposal
 Adaptable to irregular layout  Requires specialized equipment
Secant Pile Wall P/T 6 – 15 ft None3 Low/Medium  Can control wall stiffness  Significant spoils for disposal
 Low vibration installation possible
 Requires skilled labor and specialized
 Can resist large lateral pressures
0.6H + anchor equipment
Anchored4 P/T 15 – 70 ft Medium/High  Adaptable to varying site
bond length  Anchors may require permanent
conditions
easements
 Smaller equipment required for  Nails may require permanent easements
installation  Difficult to construct and design below
Soil Nail P/T 10 – 70 ft 0.6H – 1.0H Medium
 Adaptable to irregular wall water table or in soil that excessively
alignment sloughing when excavated
1
P – Permanent, T – Temporary
2
Right-of-Way (ROW) - ROW requirements expressed as the distance (as a fraction of wall height, H) behind the wall face where wall anchorage components are installed.
3
ROW required if wall include anchors.
4
Anchored walls are walls that require some type of tieback /anchored system. The four wall systems mentioned prior to this system can all be anchored if required by project design criteria .

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 146

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

9.6.1 GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS

Gravity retaining walls are constructed of either cast-in-place concrete with reinforcement or
precast concrete units. Gravity, semi-gravity, and modular block walls fall under the umbrella of
gravity type walls typically used at MDOT. These types of walls depend on the weight of
concrete and soil to resist external forces such as overturning and sliding. Semi-gravity walls are
commonly used for earth retaining structures and bridge abutments in fill situations. They can
also be used in cut applications, but for such an application the area behind the wall must be
temporarily sloped or supported.

Figure 26: Gravity Mass Concrete Wall and Gabion Basket Wall (AASHTO LRFD, November 2017)

Gravity type walls consist of a concrete mass to retain the fill from a grade difference.
Semi-gravity retaining walls consist of cantilever, counterfort, or buttress type walls, which use
soil weight in addition to the concrete to resist lateral pressures caused by the earth backfill (See
Figure 28). Modular gravity walls consist of concrete blocks stacked on top of one another (See
Figure 27). Gabion baskets filled with coarse stone are another modular wall system but are only
used by MDOT in unique applications (See Figure 26). Prior approval by the GSS must be
obtained prior to use of gabion baskets. Modular blocks can only be used in landscaping or
roadway applications. With the exception of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Abutment,
modular blocks are not used to support or retain fill that is supporting bridge elements. A special
provision for modular blocks is required when using this type of wall system on a project.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 147

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 27: Gravity – Precast Segmental and Modular Block Walls (AASHTO LRFD, November 2017)

Figure 28: Semi-Gravity Retaining Walls -a) Cantilever, b) Counterfort, c) Buttress (Earth Retaining
Structures, June 2006)

The design of gravity walls includes analyzing the overall stability, bearing, deformation (vertical
and horizontal), sliding, and overturning. Following the design guidance provided in Section 9.6,
the Geotechnical Engineer or structural engineer must ensure the wall design meets these

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 148

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

external stability requirements. If a deep foundation is used to support the wall system, the
analyses must be performed using the procedures noted in Section 9.4.

9.6.2 MSE WALLS

Permanent Mechanically Stabilized Earth retaining walls consist of precast concrete panels or
cast-in-place facing connected to a reinforced soil mass. MDOT requires the reinforced mass to
consist of alternating layers of granular material and steel reinforcing. When using an MSE wall
on a project, the Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for performing an external stability and
deformation (vertical and horizontal) analysis of the wall system. The external stability analysis
consists of checking bearing resistance, overall and compound stability, eccentricity, and sliding.
Since these walls are proprietary systems, the wall designer is responsible for designing and
checking the internal stability components such as tensile and pullout resistance of
reinforcement and structural resistance of face elements and face element connections. Shop
drawings are then developed and submitted to MDOT for review and approval. The special
provision for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall System is used when this wall system
is selected on a project. Aside from the manuals noted in Section 9.6, the FHWA GEC 11, Design
and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes – Volume I and II
provide additional guidance and details for the design of these types of walls.

Figure 29: Generic Cross-Section of an MSE Structure

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 149

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

A segmental block retaining wall system consists of smaller precast blocks that are connected to
a geosynthetic reinforced soil mass. The special provision for Segmental Block Retaining Wall,
Reinforced provides standard requirements when this type of reinforced soil mass system is
used on a project. MDOT allows segmental blocks for landscaping and noncritical wall
applications.

9.6.3 NONGRAVITY CANTILEVERED WALLS

A nongravity cantilevered wall is an earth retaining system that derives lateral resistance
through embedment of vertical wall elements and supports retained soil with facing elements.
The vertical wall elements and facing may be continuous such as secant or tangential drilled
shafts and auger cast-in-place piles, or steel sheet piles. Alternatively, vertical elements may
consist of discrete elements (soldier piles) such as driven piles or drilled shafts spanned by a
structural facing such as timber lagging, shotcrete, steel sheets, or precast concrete panels.

Steel Sheet Pile Wall - Steel sheet piling is the most common nongravity cantilevered wall system
used at MDOT (See Figure 30, a). There are typically three steel sheet pile bid items specified for
MDOT projects: temporary, temporary left in place, and permanent. Temporary and temporary
left in place walls are designed by the contractor’s engineer while permanent sheet pile walls
are designed by the Geotechnical Engineer in conjunction with the project’s structural engineer.

 Temporary, Steel Sheet Piling – The designer specifies locations and checks design
viability where sheet piling is anticipated to be needed during construction. During
construction, the contractor’s engineer performs a design analysis and submits a design
package for review by MDOT. Within the submittal package, the contractor’s engineer
specifies the type, size, depth, and other appurtenances needed for the temporary wall.
For temporary conditions, the wall must be designed for a design life of three years
unless the project warrants a longer design life duration. Quantities should be estimated
based on the area of earth retention. How to take these measurements in the field is
described in more detail in the Standard Specifications for Construction. Once the sheet
piling is no longer needed, it is removed by the contractor.
 Temporary, Steel Sheet Piling, Left in Place – All the requirements discussed for the
temporary, steel sheet piling also apply to this item with only one difference. Once the
sheet piling is no longer needed, it is left in place. Since it is left in place, the steel
sheeting must meet Buy America requirements on any federally funded projects.

 Steel Sheet Piling, Permanent – Permanent sheet pile walls must have a minimum
design life of 75 years per the MDOT Bridge Design Manual. The Geotechnical Engineer
is responsible for selecting the size/type of permanent sheet pile to be used, depth to
which it will be installed, and estimating deflection limits. Independently or
collaborating with the structural engineer, structural design requirements must also be
analyzed as part of the design phase. Quantities are determined based on the lines and
length below cut-off shown on the plans or determined by the engineer. Permanent

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 150

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

steel sheet piling used on any federally funded projects must meet Buy America
requirements.

Figure 30: Nongravity Retaining Walls-a) Cantilever, b) Anchored, c) Braced, d) Deadman Anchored (Earth
Retaining Structures, June 2008)

Cantilever sheet pile walls embedded in favorable soils can typically be designed for exposed
heights ranging from 12 to 15 ft before service limit criteria are exceeded. Walls exceeding this
height typically require anchors, deadmen, or internal bracing/rakers.

One common issue overlooked in the design process is how the installation of the sheet piling
affects surrounding structures and roadways. Sheet piling is typically installed via vibratory or
impact driven methods. Since vibratory methods lend to faster installation, this is the method
typically chosen by the contractor. However, vibrations caused by this method verses impact
driven methods tend to be more detrimental and may lead to settlement of adjacent soils and
subsequent damage to surrounding structures. In these sensitive situations, the Geotechnical
Engineer may recommend that a note be placed on the plans notifying the contractor to use
impact driven methods for sheet pile installation. With that said, there are scenarios that arise
where adjacent settlement or vibrations are not tolerable and a low vibration installation
retention system (i.e., drilled) may be better suited. If the sheet piling is to be removed, removal
methods must also be considered and addressed appropriately in the design phase.

Soldier Pile Wall - Soldier pile walls consist of either drilled or driven structural elements with
lagging placed in between each element. Permanent soldier pile walls require a cast-in-place
concrete facing while the lagging on temporary walls can consist of wood, precast concrete

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 151

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

panels, or steel sheets. This type of wall is typically considered where hard/dense soils create
installation challenges for driven wall systems or where vibrations caused by driven systems
cannot be tolerated. Cantilevered wall sections embedded in favorable soils have maximum
exposed heights from 12 to 15 ft. Anchors or deadmen are typically required for exposed
heights that exceed these values. Permanent soldier pile wall systems require approval by the
GSS prior to use on a project.

9.6.4 ANCHORED WALLS

Anchored/braced walls generally consist of vertical structural elements such as soldier piles,
sheet pile, or drilled shafts and lateral anchorage elements placed beside or through the vertical
structural elements (See Figure 30, b & d). Aside from the manuals noted in Section 9.6, the
FHWA GEC 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems manual provides additional guidance and
details into the design and construction of these systems. One item of design that is commonly
overlooked when analyzing anchored walls is what earth pressure envelope to use. Per the
design references previously provided, the Apparent Earth Pressure envelope should be used for
walls that have two or more rows of anchors. Permanent anchored walls require approval by the
GSS prior to use on a project.

9.6.5 SOIL NAIL WALLS

Soil nails are reinforcing, passive elements that are drilled and grouted subhorizontally in the
ground to support excavations in soil or in soft and weathered rock. General elements of a
typical soil nail wall are illustrated in Figure 31. Unlike ground anchors that are post-tensioned,
soil nails contribute to the stability of the earth-resisting systems mainly through tension as a
result of the deformation of the retained soil or weathered soil mass. Soil nails also transfer
loads to the surrounding ground through shear stresses (i.e., bond stresses) along the grout-
ground interface. As with any passive system, some movement of the wall must be expected to
engage the nails.

Soil nail walls are not specifically addressed by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Soil nail walls must be designed by the Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with the FHWA Soil
Nail Walls Reference Manual, 2015 (FHWA-IF-14-007). Use of this wall system and selected
design methodology must be approved by the GSS.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 152

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 31: General Cross-Section of a Soil Nail Wall (after Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual, 2015,
FHWA-NHI-14-007)

9.6.6 TEMPORARY GEOTEXTILE WALL

This section presents design requirements for temporary wrapped-face, geotextile reinforced
walls. Temporary geotextile walls must consist of continuous, sheet-type, woven geotextile
reinforcement layers constructed alternatively with horizontal layers of compacted sand backfill.
The wall face is formed by wrapping each geotextile layer around and back into the overlying lift
of backfill.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 153

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Temporary geotextile walls are typically used for detours, bridge constructing staging, and
roadway widenings. Construction is relatively rapid and does not require specialized labor or
equipment. The MDOT Special Provision for Temporary Geotextile Retaining Wall limits the
height of these walls to 8 ft with a level backslope. Temporary walls higher than this should be
designed as a temporary MSE wall in accordance with the Frequently Used Special Provision for
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall System unless otherwise approved by the GSS.

9.7 REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES

Reinforced soil slopes (RSS) are a transitional system between conventional fill slopes and earth
retaining wall systems. They are a form of reinforced soil that incorporates planar reinforcing
elements in constructed earth-sloped structures with face inclinations of less than 70 degrees
(1V:0.36H). Typically, RSSs have slopes ranging from 1V:2H to 1V:1H while conventional fill
slopes are 1V:2H or flatter. For MDOT or federally funded projects, reinforced slopes steeper
than 1V:1H must be approved by the GSS. Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design & Construction Guidelines by Berg, et al. (2009), or most current version of that manual,
must be used as the basis for design. Allowable stress design methodology should be used for
design of reinforced soil slopes.

9.7.1 REINFORCED FILL MATERIALS

Fill materials used to construct the RSS must meet the Structure Backfill requirements as
outlined in Table 12 and have a pH between 4.5 and 9. Reinforcement used within the
reinforced soil zone must be extensible and consist of either geogrid or geotextile fabric.
Inextensible (metallic) reinforcement, when approved by the Geotechnical Services Section,
must be connected and used with wire basket facing.

9.8 OVERHEAD SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SOUNDS WALLS, AND

BUILDINGS
All new foundation supports for overhead truss and cantilever signs, strain poles, mast arms,
and dynamic message signs must follow design procedures discussed in the Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th
Edition, with 2015 Interim Revisions. In addition, MDOT has developed several standardized
foundation plans for these types of structures. The standard plan drawings or typical size for
drilled shaft foundations are summarized below.

 Strain Poles – See Traffic Signal Strain Pole Foundation Design Table, Sig-Design-153-A
 Mast Arms – See Traffic Signal Mast Arm Pole Foundation Design Table, Sig-Design-284-
A
 Overhead Truss Signs – See Non-Cantilever Truss Foundation Chart, Sign-340-B
 Overhead Cantilever Signs – See Cantilever Foundation Chart, Sign-340-B
 Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) – Contact the Geotechnical Services Section. Also see
Special Provision for Dynamic Message Sign, Support Structure and Foundation.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 154

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

 High Mast Luminaire – Foundation design by Geotechnical Engineer and structural

engineer
 Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV) Poles – Standard foundation is 4 ft diameter by
20 ft embedment – Adequate foundation depth to be verified by Geotechnical Engineer.
Modify if necessary. See Figure 32 for a standard foundation design and Special
Provision for Spun Concrete Pole and Drilled Shaft Foundation.

Figure 32: General Cross-Section of a CCTV Foundation

For the structures that have standardized designs, the details of how these were developed are
summarized in detailed reports. For subsurface conditions not covered within the design charts,
special foundation designs are required by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Michigan. Service loads can be found in the reports or for the case of cantilever and truss signs,
Plan Sign-341-A summarizes these loads. For sound barrier walls, foundation design must follow
guidelines presented in Section 15 (Sound Barriers) of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 155

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

In some locations of the state, shallow bedrock may be present at the structure location. In
these situations, it may be prudent to consider using a shallow foundation instead of a drilled
shaft foundation. Since the spread footing requires a larger footprint for construction, other
items such as adjacent utilities, roadway impacts, and existing right-of-way limits must also be
considered when analyzing the use of a spread footing. Standardized spread footing designs for
cantilever and truss signs are Sign-330-B, Sign-600-B, and Sign-610-B. However, a site-specific
design may be required.

Buildings – The provisions of this section cover design requirements for small building
structures, such as rest areas or maintenance buildings. Typically, buildings are supported on
shallow spread footings. Driven piles or drilled shaft foundations may be considered for
conditions where soft, compressible soils are present. However, long-term performance of floor
slabs, sidewalks, and pavement must be considered.

Foundations must be designed in accordance with the latest Michigan Building Code. This design
code specifies that all foundations be designed using allowable stress design methodology.
These design methods result in ultimate capacities for the selected foundation type and an
appropriate factor of safety must be applied to determine the allowable capacity. The factors of
safety noted in Section 9.5 should be used in the analysis. Reports and designs for buildings
must also address seismic site classification and be sealed by a professional engineer licensed by
the State of Michigan.

If septic drain field(s) are needed, local regulations will govern the geotechnical design, including
who is qualified to perform the design (i.e., a special license may be required). In general, the
soil type, permeability of the soil, and the maximum seasonal groundwater level will need to be
assessed for septic system designs.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 156

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

SECTION 10 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

10.1 GENERAL
Upon completion of the subsurface investigation, lab testing, and analysis, the information must
be compiled in a report format that is clear and easy to follow. This report will serve as the
permanent record of all geotechnical data known during design of the project, and it may be
referenced throughout the design, construction, and service life of the project. As such, it is one
of the most important functions of the geotechnical process.

The geotechnical reporting from a high-level view can be characterized under two categories,
either roadway (P/PMS Task 3510) or bridge (P/PMS Tasks 3325, 3530, and 3815) related work.
These tasks are part of the Program/Project Management System MDOT has developed to map
each aspect of the design process. Reporting is one of the work steps outlined in these
geotechnical-related tasks. This section provides guidelines for geotechnical reporting.

In general, the first category in the roadway scope of work may consist of obtaining pavement
cores and soil borings and then simply providing soil boring data sheets. It can also involve a
more complex investigation and reporting process for reconstruction or new road alignment
projects, which may include slope stability and settlement analyses. Ancillary structures such as
sign foundations, light towers, or strain pole/mast arm foundations may also fall within the
more complex roadway projects. In addition, culverts and retaining walls are structures that are
typically within the roadway category but may require a level of foundation investigation and
reporting similar to a bridge. The second category for geotechnical investigations and reporting
involves bridge widenings, new bridges, or bridge reconstruction. Bridge investigations are
typically more complex and require more detailed analysis and reporting requirements.

For projects providing only subsurface information, lab testing, or other field-testing
information, the guidelines provided in Section 10.2 must be adhered to. Note that these
reports contain only factual data and are absent of any engineering recommendations or
interpretation. For more complex roadway projects where analysis and recommendations are
provided and for bridge projects, the reporting guidelines presented in Section 10.3 must be
followed. For internal MDOT geotechnical reports, the basis of the recommendations is
documented in the project file. An internal memo summarizing these items with subsequent
detailed recommendations is prepared for final documentation and is included in the project
file. All internal memos and geotechnical reports are provided to the MDOT project manager.

Lastly, reports and memos can be prepared at all stages of projects, and they must clearly be
identified as “preliminary,” “interim,” or “final” to refer to the stage of the project, not the
correspondence. When correspondence at any stage is going through development or review, it
is identified as “draft.” Providing a preliminary report and subsequent final report has been very

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 157

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

effective in the typical geotechnical design process and should be used on more complex
roadway and bridge projects.

10.2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

In line with P/PMS Task 3325 (Geotechnical Site Characterization), a Geotechnical Data Report is
developed at an early stage of project development. However, many roadway projects falling
under Task 3510 also only require providing factual subsurface information such as pavement
cores, soil borings, in-situ testing, and lab testing and, therefore, should adhere to these
reporting requirements. The contents of this report should include the following.
 Transmittal (typically one page). If desired, provide summary of work performed and
subsurface investigation (optional).
 Soil Boring Data Sheet(s) and Individual Boring Logs (as requested in the scope) – absent
of any interpretive stratigraphy between soil borings. See Section 10.3.2.12 for soil
boring reporting requirements.
 Boring Location Plan – Plan must show existing roadway or bridge alignment with
stationing. Overlay proposed bridge outline and/or roadway alignment and aerial view
as appropriate. Present a north arrow, legend, and appropriate scale.
 Laboratory Testing Results (see Section 10.3.2.13 for laboratory testing requirements).

 In-situ Testing Results, if applicable (e.g., pressuremeter, resistivity, dynamic cone

penetrometer, ground penetrating radar, falling weight deflectometer, vane shear).

The contents of this report present only factual information. No interpretative data,
recommendations, or conclusions are presented in this data report. Examples of typical roadway
and bridge soil boring data sheets are illustrated in Figure 9.

10.2.1 SOIL BORING NAMING CONVENTION

This section addresses test hole or soil boring naming convention for MDOT projects. To provide
clarity for what the soil boring was drilled for, the following naming convention in Table 18 must
be used on MDOT projects. If the soil boring will be used for duplicate purposes, then some
judgement by the Geotechnical Engineer should be used in determining the boring call out
based on the importance of its use on the project. In addition, for more complex projects that
have multiple bridges, roads, and/or signs, the structure number or roadway can be placed in
parentheses for each soil boring if desired by the project manager. This minimizes confusion if
borings have the same number but are for different structures and roads. For instance, a bridge
boring has the designation of BB-1(R02). A sign boring has the designation of SB-1(G-233C) and a
road boring has the designation of RB-1(I-94 EB). Each soil boring abbreviation naming
convention has its own number sequence for that specific project. For instance, road and bridge
borings on the same project will have numbering RB-1, RB-2, etc. and BB-1, BB-2, etc.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 158

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Table 18: Soil Boring Naming Convention

Soil Boring Abbreviation
Description
Naming Convention
Road Boring (Includes borings for road, sewers, water main, roadway
RB
cores)
BB Bridge Boring
Culvert Borings (See Section 6.3.1.4 for culvert definition and when
CB
SPT borings are required)
Sign or Signal Boring (Cantilever, Truss, Gantry, Strain Pole, Mast
SB
Arm)
RWB Retaining Wall Boring
ITS Boring (dynamic message sign (DMS), closed circuit television
ITB camera (CCTV) poles, Road Weather Information System (RWIS)
Stations)
SWB Sound Wall Boring

LB Light Tower Boring

S Soundings to determine rock surface or peat/swamp depths

Miscellaneous borings such as swamp check borings, pump station
MB
borings, or others

10.3 CONTENTS OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

As discussed previously, two categories of reports are typically prepared for MDOT projects:
roadway and bridge. Reports for buildings such as rest areas are considered a unique case and
reporting guidelines must adhere to Section 10.3.3. Geotechnical roadway reports follow P/PMS
Task 3510 (Perform Roadway Geotechnical Investigation) while geotechnical bridge reports
follow P/PMS Task 3530 (Geotechnical Foundation Engineering Report). Unlike the Geotechnical
Data Report, some interpretation and opinion in formulating the recommendations are
discussed within the Geotechnical Engineering Report. However, all interpretations are clearly
defined as such. It is important to describe potential problems disclosed by analyses and identify
potential feasible solutions. Provide an assessment of cost, risk, and uncertainty associated with
each of the possible solutions if requested.

10.3.1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL OR LETTER REPORT

Preliminary level geotechnical reports are typically used to provide geotechnical input for the
following:
1. Alternative/comparison analyses and/or early geologic concerns (e.g., structure study,
initial Task 3325 or 3510 findings, foundation option comparisons, preliminary grading
analyses for roadways, stability and settlement concerns of natural slopes and proposed
cuts/fills, or grading requirements that may affect right-of-way limits), and

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 159

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

2. rapid assessment of emergency repair needs (e.g., geohazards such as landslides or

sinkholes, bridge foundation issues).
For preliminary level design, a reconnaissance of the project site and limited subsurface
exploration program are usually conducted, as well as some detailed geotechnical analysis to
characterize key elements of the roadway, structure, or geohazard remedial action design.
These analyses are adequate to assess potential alternatives and estimate preliminary costs.

Geotechnical projects that consist solely of standard plan structures (such as cantilever and truss
signs, strain poles, mast arms, tower lights, dynamic message signs) may use a simple letter
report as the final documentation. Where special designs are required for standard plan
structures, additional discussion in the analysis and recommendations sections should be
provided so that an understanding of the assumptions and design information/analysis used can
be documented. Letter reports may also be appropriate when investigating small culverts,
sound walls, or where simple roadway projects are solely defined as the scope of work.

The preliminary or letter report should contain the following elements.

1. A general description of the project, project elements, and project background as
applicable.
2. A brief summary of the regional and site geology as applicable. This section may be
more applicable in bridge foundation reports or landslide reports.
3. A summary of the field exploration conducted, if applicable.
4. A summary of the laboratory testing conducted, if applicable.
5. A description of the project soil and rock conditions. The amount of detail included here
will depend on the type of structure/roadway type/scope of work. Soil profiles for key
project features such as bridges, major walls, and landslides may need to be developed.
6. A summary of the preliminary or final geotechnical recommendations. Foundation
tables, as illustrated in Figure 33 and Figure 35 through Figure 43, may be appropriate
when providing recommendations for bridges, walls, or other structure types. For
roadway projects, citing stations and associated preliminary grade, drainage, fill/cut
slope angles, and subgrade recommendations in those areas provide a concise delivery
format. Include discussion of any geologic conditions (e.g., soft soils, unsuitable soils,
landslides) that may affect the project design.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 160

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Figure 33: Geotechnical Report Table of Sign Foundation Recommendations

7. Appendices that include any boring logs, soil boring log sheets, boring location plan,
laboratory test data obtained, soil profiles developed, any field data obtained, and any
photographs.

In larger projects where a two-phased investigation and/or reporting structure is utilized, it may
be feasible to use several sections of the preliminary report in the final geotechnical report.

10.3.2 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

The following outline should be followed in preparing final geotechnical reports for MDOT
projects. Each of these sections could be a sentence, a paragraph, or several subsections
depending on the scope of work and the purpose of the correspondence.

Executive Summary (Optional)

This section is included in project reports with a relatively complicated scope of work.
Prepare executive summaries that provide a brief summary of the findings and
recommendations. List specific recommendations that result in a deviation from
MDOT’s general guidelines or construction practices. Typically, this section is one to two
pages long.

Table of Contents
A detailed table of contents not only provides a general roadmap for the reader but also
allows the reader to find areas of interest within the report rather quickly. Each section
or subsection of the report must also have page numbers noted within the header or
footer. Although not required, linking the table of contents to sections of the report
provides added efficiency, especially in larger project reports.

Introduction
The introduction describes why the report was prepared (purpose, objective, general
scope), what’s included in it, how it relates to other reports prepared for the project,
and how it’s organized. List previous reports, authors, and dates, if applicable. If other

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 161

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

documents or literature were reviewed as part of formulating the report, then adding a
subsection or paragraph citing these items should be placed within the introduction.

Project Description
This section introduces the project and describes it in detail. Include references to a
project or site location map. Discuss the scope of the project (such as roadway widening
or bridge replacement) and major features within the project limits (e.g., five-span
structure, retaining wall, roadway widening widths, and station limits). Discuss other
applicable items of the project such as deep cuts or fills, special drainage considerations,
or maintenance of traffic requirements. It must also be stated what design methodology
and design manuals were used for the project. In more complex projects involving
different manuals and/or methodology, noting these items in the Design Analysis and
Recommendations section may be more appropriate.

Field Investigation
Provide a summary of the field investigation(s) conducted (e.g., number and type of soil
borings, pavement cores, test pits, soundings), if applicable. Note the description of
methods and standards used during the field investigation. Also include a description of
field instrumentation installed and its purpose. Results of the instrumentation should
also be provided or referenced in this section. Indicate date of last calibration and
hammer energy ratio in percent for the hammer system(s) used.

Laboratory Testing
Discuss types and number of laboratory tests conducted on the soil and rock samples.
Include a summary of laboratory testing results as applicable. If deemed significant,
discuss the results of these laboratory tests. Appendices are typically used to present
compiled data. At a minimum, report the information stated in Section 10.3.2.13 on the
laboratory test data report sheet.

Site Conditions
Discuss the general topography, major drainage features, vegetation, utilities, rock
outcrops, notable swamps/marshy areas, and regional and local geology. If appropriate,
describe observations in a specific and quantitative way (e.g., 50 ft high, 4V:1H rock
slope). For building reports, present appropriate seismic site classification information.

Subsurface Conditions
This section provides a summary of the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions at the
project site. The soil and rock conditions should be organized into individual stratum
and general strength, moisture contents, or other laboratory testing data may be
discussed within the stratum descriptions. Groundwater conditions during and after the
drilling operations, perched water tables, artesian aquifers, and potential seasonal
variations if known are included in this section.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 162

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

For large roadway projects where the project is divided into stations in the Design
Analysis and Recommendations section, discussing the specific subsurface conditions for
that area in this section may be more appropriate. Appendices are typically used to
present compiled data such as a soil boring data sheet, individual boring logs,
monitoring well results, and photographs. See Section 10.3.2.12 for soil boring reporting
requirements.

Design Analysis and Recommendations

General - Interpretation of the data is the first phase of analysis and these
interpretations should be summarized here. For analysis procedures, refer to
Section 9.1. Sometimes engineering judgement is all that is needed to develop the
recommendations and identify the construction considerations presented later.
However, often formal analyses are needed to develop, confirm, and quantify
recommendations. Such analyses should be presented in this section. Enough
information should be given to perform a cursory review of the recommendations and
to identify any significant analysis methods, assumptions, and input parameters (e.g.,
soil and rock parameters) used. The calculations conducted are included as a deliverable
per Section 10.3.4.

Design alternatives often need to be evaluated from a geotechnical perspective. The

evaluation of pros and cons, risks and costs, etc. is a form of analysis that belongs in this
section.

The interpretation of analysis results is the first step in developing design

recommendations. It is important that design recommendations for all project features
and loading conditions be presented in this section. Recommendations based on the
analysis results and/or author experience should be evident. For example, if a
recommendation is not consistent with the results of the analysis, an explanation should
be provided. Provide concise recommendations directed toward the preferred
alternative and presented on a station-by-station, structure/substructure location,
and/or feature-by-feature basis. Present recommendations in such a way to be applied
to the design and construction specifications. For example, specifying that shoring is
needed can be considered a general recommendation but by what means does the
designer use to pay for it and by what specification (standard pay item or special
provision). Providing more detailed recommendations allows the designer to
understand the Geotechnical Engineer’s intent for their recommendation. If, in addition
to written recommendations, actual design for geotechnical features or certain
recommendations require visual sketches for clarity, it may be necessary to include
sketches or drawings to convey recommendations or designs as figures. If many are
necessary, these should be placed in the Appendix.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 163

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

If, through this process, the need for further work is identified, it should be presented as
a recommendation here. The Geotechnical Engineer must explain the importance of the
supplemental work. It should also be mentioned in the Executive Summary section, if
applicable.

10.3.2.9.1 Roadway or Subgrade Recommendations

Prepare recommendations related to the design and construction of the roadway that
include any remedial measures necessary to complete the project. Provide specific
treatment of soft foundation areas, revisions to the preliminary roadway
alignment/grade, design of cut/fill slopes, drainage considerations, embankment design
related to stability or settlement, construction sequence, instrumentation, field
controls, and any other design factors affecting the project. Be specific in the
recommendations, noting the extent (station and offset) and depth of all required
remedial measures. Likewise, be detailed regarding locations concerning cut and fill
slope recommendations.

Prepare recommendations related to the pavement design and subgrade support

parameters and construction of the roadway subgrade. Provide specific treatment of
soft subgrade. Be specific in the recommendations, noting the extent (station and
offset) and depth of all required remedial earthwork measures. Subgrade design values
such as the resilient modulus or California Bearing Ratio values with corresponding
conversion factors to the subgrade resilient modulus should be placed in this section.
The pavement design consists of recommendations on the subbase, base, and
pavement (concrete or hot mix asphalt (HMA)) layers. As applicable, the following items
should be addressed by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Alignment Recommendations – Identify recommended revisions to the

horizontal and vertical alignment from the preliminary plans. Include a discussion on
why vertical or horizontal alignment revisions are recommended.

Unsuitable Soils – Determine areas of unsuitable soils and specify treatment

options. For example, subgrade undercutting or peat excavation areas need to be
delineated and these areas presented in the report. See Section 9.3.3 for determination
of these areas and possible mitigation methods.

Drainage – Discuss groundwater levels and effect on excavations or

construction activities. Provide recommendations to address groundwater concerns that
align with the standard specifications or special provisions. Note areas subject to soil
erosion and specify soil erosion control measures, if applicable. Items for the
Geotechnical Engineer to address should be the pavement section drainage system,

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 164

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

cut/fill slope drainage, storm water or retention/detention ponds, or surface water flow
into the roadway section. See Sections 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.4 for additional discussion on
addressing these items.

Roadway Structures – Provide recommendations for structures related to the

roadway corridor including retaining walls, traffic signal poles, overhead highway signs,
culverts, sound walls, sewers, etc. Retaining wall reporting guidelines are provided in
Section 10.3.2.9.2.

Stability Analysis Reporting – Document analysis methods/software used,

assumptions made for soil strength parameters and groundwater conditions, selected
factors of safety/resistance factors, conclusions from analyses, and recommended
methods of mitigation (e.g., regrading, undercutting, ground improvement). Provide
stability analysis graphics that summarize the recommendation in the report (see Figure
34). Reference Section 9.3.7.3 for further discussion on the stability analysis.

Figure 34: Stability Analysis Summary Graphic

Settlement - Document analysis methods/software used, assumptions made for

soil parameters (e.g., preconsolidation pressure, compression/recompression index,
coefficient of consolidation), groundwater conditions, conclusions from analyses,
recommended mitigation (e.g., over-excavation, use of lightweight fills, wick drains and

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 165

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

preloading, staged construction). Reference Section 9.3.7.2 for further discussion on the
settlement analysis.

10.3.2.9.2 Structure Foundation Recommendations

The Geotechnical Engineer must provide definitive recommendations on the structure
or geotechnical aspects that are consistent with the responsibilities discussed in
Section 9. Note suitable shallow or deep foundation types analyzed and provide final
recommendations on selected option. The Geotechnical Engineer must provide a
summary of the design assumptions including, but not limited to, information about the
design methodologies, axial and horizontal structure loading information (usually
obtained from structural engineer), embankment fill heights, type of embankment or
structure backfill required, side slope and end slope angles, and other pertinent
information as applicable or requested by the GSS. At a minimum, the Geotechnical
Engineer must address the following.

Spread Footing – Note settlement analyses results (both total and differential)
and provide recommendations on the bearing resistances for the different limit states,
associated resistance factors, and cohesion and/or drained friction values for sliding
analyses. Recommend minimum footing size and embedment depth. Provide a chart as
needed indicating bearing resistance available based on effective footing sizes. In
addition, include a note that the region soils engineer must inspect the footing
excavation. An example summary table and chart are provided below in Figure 35 and
Figure 36.
Design Parameter Abutment A Pier 1 Abutment B
Bottom of Footing – ft 607.8 608.3 609.9
Proposed Effective Footing Width - ft 12 9 12
Strength Limit State Design
Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn) - psf 10,200 10,200 10,200
Resistance Factor (b) 0.45 0.45 0.45
Factored Bearing Resistance (qR) - psf 4,600 4,600 4,600
Service Limit State Design
Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn) - psf 2,750 2,750 2,750
Estimated Total Settlement – in. <1.5 <1.5 <1.5
Differential Settlement – in. ≤ 0.5
Resistance Factor for Sliding () 0.85 0.85 0.85
Figure 35: Spread Footing Design Summary Table

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 166

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Figure 36: Spread Footing Bearing Resistance Summary Chart

Driven Steel Piles – The following items must be addressed as applicable in this
section. Figure 37 provides an example table summarizing several of these items.
1. Suitable pile type(s) and reasons for design selection and exclusion as appropriate.
2. Provide estimate or design pile tip elevation. Note minimum pile tip elevation.
3. Recommend nominal pile driving resistance, factored nominal bearing resistance,
and corresponding resistance factors. Account for scour or downdrag when
providing these recommendations.
4. Present recommendation on lateral pile resistance and corresponding deflections.
5. Recommend minimum pile spacing and shadowing effects if applicable.
6. Estimate pile settlement and pile group settlement as applicable. Comment on
differential settlement between substructures.
7. Consider effects of lateral squeeze and comment as applicable.
8. Recommend locations and number of test piles.
9. Provide guidance to the design engineer on recommended special provisions for pile
installation or quality control measures.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 167

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

10. Recommend appropriate type of quality control/quality assurance during

installation (e.g., Federal Highway Administration modified Gates formula, dynamic
testing, load test).
11. Make recommendation on whether steel pile points are required.

Design Parameter Abut. A Pier 1 Pier 2 Abut. B

Pile Section HP 14x89 HP 14x89 HP 14x89 HP 14x89
Bottom of Footing/Tremie Elevation 942.0 910.0/908.5 914.0/913.5 933.0
Scour Elevation – 100/500 Year N/A 902.0/905.0 911.0/910.0 N/A
Minimum Pile Tip Elevation 912.0 890.0 894.0 908.0
Estimated Pile Tip Elevation 904.0 866.0 873.0 902.0
Nominal Pile Driving Resistance - Rndr
600 600 600 600
(kips)
Side Resistance in Scourable Zone - Rs
0 20 0 0
(kips) 1
Nominal Pile Bearing Resistance – Rn
600 580 600 600
(kips)
Resistance Factor for Driven Piles - φdyn 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Factored Nominal Bearing Resistance-
300 290 300 300
φdyn*Rn (kips)
Nominal Horizontal Geotechnical
Resistance with 0.5 in. of Deflection 12 12 12 12
(kips)
Resistance Factor for Horizontal Pile
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Resistance
1
Nominal side resistance loss due to 100-year/500-year scour event.
Figure 37: Example of Driven Pile Analysis Summary Table

Micropiles – When micropiles are recommended for use on a project, provide

the following information. Figure 38 and Figure 39 illustrates example tables
summarizing many of these items.
1. Note recommended casing size, casing thickness, reinforcing bar diameter, and
minimum bond zone diameter. Recommend grout compressive strength and steel
yield stress for the casing and bar design.
2. Recommend micropile tip elevation and bottom of casing depth/elevation.
3. Provide recommendations on nominal axial compression resistance, factored
nominal axial compression resistance, and associated resistance factors. Account for
scour and/or downdrag when providing these recommendations.
4. Provide recommendations on lateral micropile resistance and corresponding
deflections.
5. Recommend minimum micropile spacing and shadowing effects if applicable
6. Estimate micropile settlement and micropile group settlement as applicable.
Comment on differential settlement between substructures.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 168

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

7. Consider effects of lateral squeeze and comment as applicable.

8. Recommend locations and number of verification and proof load tests.
9. Provide guidance to the design engineer on recommended special provisions for
micropile installation and quality control measures.

Design Parameter Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3

Minimum Micropile Bond Zone Diameter (in.) 9.6 9.6 9.6
Minimum Casing Outside Diameter – Min. Thickness
9.625 x 0.5 9.625 x 0.5 9.625 x 0.5
(in.)
Reinforcing Bar Diameter No. 18 No. 18 No. 18
Bottom of Footing/Tremie Elevation (ft) 907.0/904.5 904.0/901.0 910.5/908.5
Scour Elevation – 100/500-Year (ft) 893.0/895.0 893.0/895.0 911.0/911.0
Bottom of Permanent Casing Elevation (ft) 889.0 889.0 896.5
Micropile Tip Elevation (ft) 865.0 864.0 870.5
Nominal Axial Compression Resistance - Rn (kips) 430 430 430
Resistance Factor for Micropiles - φstat 0.7 0.7 0.7
Factored Nominal Axial Resistance-φstat*Rn (kips) 300 300 300
Nominal Horizontal Geotechnical Resistance with 0.5
12.0 12.0 12.0
in. of Deflection (kips)
Resistance Factor for Horizontal Micropile Resistance 1.0 1.0 1.0

Figure 38: Example of Micropile Analysis Summary Table

Design Parameter Design Assumptions and Results

Maximum Factored Vertical Load (kips) 300
Maximum Factored Lateral Load (kips) 12
Maximum Factored Moment (ft-kips) 0
Size of reinforcing bar No. 18 Bar
Casing Size (in.) 9.625 O.D., 0.5 Wall Thickness
Grout Compressive Strength (psi) 5,000
Calculated Maximum Shear Force (kips) 12.0
Calculated Maximum Moment (in-kip) 603.54
Point of Fixity (ft) Elev. 895.2
Calculated Depth of Maximum Shear (ft) Top of Micropile, Elev. 907.0
Calculated Depth of Maximum Moment (ft) Top of Micropile, Elev. 907.0

Figure 39: Example of Micropile Lateral Analysis Summary Table

Drilled Shafts – When drilled shafts are recommended for use on a project,
provide the following information. Figure 40 and Figure 41 illustrate example tables
summarizing many of these items.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 169

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

1. Note recommended shaft diameter, bottom of drilled shaft elevation, and casing
size and type. For casing type, specify if permanent or temporary, left-in-place
casing will be required for constructability.
2. Recommend bottom of casing depth/elevation, if applicable.
3. Provide recommendation on nominal axial shaft resistance, factored nominal axial
shaft resistance, and associated resistance factors. Account for scour and/or
downdrag when providing these recommendations.
4. Provide recommendations on lateral shaft resistance and corresponding deflections.
Provide maximum internal moment and shear forces and point of fixity based on the
lateral pile analysis.
5. Estimate shaft settlement and shaft group settlement as applicable. Comment on
differential settlement between substructures.
6. Consider effects of lateral squeeze and comment as applicable.
7. Recommend minimum shaft spacing and group/shadowing effects on capacity if
applicable.
8. Provide guidance to the design engineer on recommended special provisions for
shaft installation and quality control measures.

Design Parameter Abutment A Pier 1 Abutment B

Drilled Shaft, Standard Diameter (in) 60 60 60
Drilled Shaft, Rock Diameter (in) 54 54 54
Design Scour Elevation – 100/500 Year (ft) 584.0/582.0 584.0/583.0 590.0/588.0
Bottom of Abut. Wall or Pile Cap Elevation
621.0 624.1 622.0
(ft)
Casing Type1 Temp, LIP Temp, LIP Temp, LIP
Top / Bottom of Casing Elevation (ft) 621.0 / 580.0 624.1 / 582.0 622.0 / 582.0
Top / Bottom of Drilled Shaft, Standard
621.0 / 580.0 624.1 / 582.0 622.0 / 582.0
Elevation (ft)
Top / Bottom of Drilled Shaft, Rock Elevation
580.0 / 557.0 582.0 / 566.0 582.0 / 567.0
(ft)
Factored Axial Shaft Resistance (kips) 895 895 895
1
Temp, LIP – Temporary Left-in-Place.
Figure 40: Example of Drilled Shaft Foundation Analysis/Recommendations Summary Table

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 170

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Design Assumptions
Design Parameter
and Results
Maximum Unfactored Vertical Load (kips) 586.9
Maximum Unfactored Lateral Load (kips) 45.5
Maximum Unfactored Moment (ft-kips) 2,133
Size and Number of Reinforcing Bars (1% of rock socket
22 – No. 9 Bars
diameter)
Concrete Compressive Strength (psi) 3,500
Calculated Deflection (in) 2.0
Calculated Maximum Shear Force (kips) 587.9
Calculated Maximum Moment (in-kip) 25,261
Point of Fixity (ft) 1 44
Calculated Depth of Maximum Shear (ft) 1 44.6
Calculated Depth of Maximum Moment (ft) 1 41.5
1
Depths are referenced from Bottom of Abutment Wall or Bottom of Pile
Cap as noted in Figure 37.
Figure 41: Example of Drilled Shaft Lateral Analysis Summary Table

Retaining Walls – When retaining walls are recommended for use on a project,
provide the following information. Depending on the type of wall and foundation
support option selected, use the reporting guidelines in the previous sections for that
foundation type.
1. Discuss retaining wall types considered and reasons for design recommendation and
exclusions as appropriate.
2. Provide factored/nominal bearing resistance or alternate foundation
recommendations as applicable.
3. Report on results of external stability analyses including overall stability and lateral
squeeze as applicable.
4. Include discussion on anchor/deadman type, size, length, and capacity as applicable.
5. Discuss estimated total and differential settlement.
6. For MSE walls, note recommendation on minimum strap length to meet modes of
failure analyzed during the external stability analyses.
7. Discuss wall drainage and backfill requirements.
8. Discuss corrosion protection for buried steel elements.
9. Document the testing and instrumentation requirements.
10. For permanent sheet pile walls, document the design assumptions and
recommendations. See Figure 42: Example of Permanent Tieback Sheet Pile Wall
Design Summary Table and Figure 43: Example of Permanent Cantilever Sheet Pile
Wall Design Summary Table.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 171

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Design Criteria Sheet Pile Wall

Design Top of Sheet Pile Wall Elevation (ft) 714-716
Design Front of Wall Height (Exposed Height) Max 19.5 ft
Waler Elevation (ft) 712.0
Design Live Load Surcharge (psf) 360
Backslope Angle (degrees from horizontal) 26.6 – Broken Slope
Sheeting and Bracing Requirements
Recommended Sheet Pile Section – ASTM A572, Grade 50 PZC 26
Required Minimum Section Modulus of Sheet Piling (in3/ft) 48.4
Required Sheet Pile Length (ft) 42
Recommended Wale Section – ASTM A572, Grade 50 2 – C9 x 20
Anchor Plate Dimensions – AASHTO M270, Grade 50, (in) 8.0 x 8.0 x 2.0
Wale Load – Unfactored Horizontal Earth Pressure (kips/ft) 10.42
Wale Load – Unfactored Live Load Surcharge (kips/ft) 4.59
Recommended Threaded Tie Bar – ASTM A615, Grade 75 (in) #18 Bar – 2.25" Dia.
Maximum Tie Bar Spacing (ft) 6.5
Maximum Tie Bar Spacing from End of Wall (ft) 3.4

Figure 42: Example of Permanent Tieback Sheet Pile Wall Design Summary Table

Design Criteria Sheet Pile Wall

Design Top of Wall Elevation (ft) 714 - 716
Design Front (Exposed) Wall Height (ft) Max 9
Design Live Load Surcharge (psf) 360
Backslope Angle (degrees from horizontal) 26.6 - Broken
Frontslope Angle (degrees from horizontal) 18.4
Sheeting Requirements
Recommended Sheet Pile Section – ASTM A572, Grade 50 PZC 26
Required Minimum Section Modulus of Sheet Piling (in3/ft) 48.4
Required Sheet Pile Length (ft) 31

Figure 43: Example of Permanent Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall Design Summary Table

Construction Considerations
Construction considerations for either roadway or structure projects are a key
component of the geotechnical report and must be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Considerations mentioned in this section should assist the designer to identify
potential issues and provide options and/or recommendations to address that issue.
The following bullets provide discussion topics to be considered and addressed as
applicable in this section.
 Groundwater/Surface Water – When groundwater or surface water (e.g., stream,
river, lake) is encountered during a field investigation, methods to control the water
if excavating into it should be addressed. If surface water is also an issue in a culvert
replacement, how will the surface water be maintained during construction. Pay
items such as steel sheet piling, cofferdams, construction dam and bypass pumping
should be recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer if needed to facilitate

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 172

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

construction of the structure or roadway. Several standard pay items or special

provisions exist to address many of these issues.

When sites encounter artesian conditions, which are penetrated by excavation or

foundation systems, contract language and appropriate pay items must be
developed for each site on a case-by-case basis. Questions regarding how to address
this type of subsurface condition should be directed to the Geotechnical Services
Section.
 Cut Slopes – Recommended maximum allowable angle of repose to facilitate
construction should be specified in this section. These recommendations should be
in accordance with Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(MIOSHA) rules.

 Maintenance of Traffic – Whether the project will have traffic detoured or

constructed part-width, it should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Many
part-width construction scenarios involving excavations require shoring of some
type. In consideration of this scenario, the Geotechnical Engineer should provide
recommendations on the type of shoring system to be used and whether it should
be left in place or removed. For instance, during a bridge replacement project,
stageline sheeting installed during the second phase may need to be left in place to
minimize the risk of subsidence of the adjacent roadway.
 Inspections – The Geotechnical Engineer should provide guidance to the design
team whether inspection of the roadway subgrade or foundation/retaining wall
excavations is required and specify what plan notes are required.
 Vibrations – Sheet pile and driven pile installation create vibrations that may be
detrimental to adjacent roadways or structures. Settlement or structural damage of
adjacent roadways, structures, or utilities can occur in certain situations. The
Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate if vibrations are anticipated to be a potential
issue based on installation methods being used, distance from installation source,
and purpose or condition of the existing roadway or structure. Potential mitigation
measures that may need to be specified are as follows:
 Requiring the contractor to impact drive the steel sheet piling versus vibrating it
into place,
 Performing vibration and/or settlement monitoring of structures or utilities, or
 Using a low vibration foundation element or shoring option.

Attached Figures
Provide a site location map, soil boring location plan, and any soil profile drawings or
cross-sections developed when interpreting the geologic conditions of the site. A U.S.
Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map should be provided either as the site

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 173

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

location map or other separate figure. See Section 10.2 for reporting details on the soil
boring location plan.

Appendix A
Place the soil boring data sheet(s) and individual soil boring logs in Appendix A. Develop
these logs by integrating the driller’s field logs, laboratory test data, in-situ test data as
applicable, and visual descriptions. Include the following information on the soil boring
data sheets and individual soil boring logs:

10.3.2.12.1 Soil Boring Heading

 Project Number (123456D)
 Project Name (M-24 over the Iosco River, M-24 Realignment)
 Bridge Identification (B02 of 52055)
 Station, Offset, and Surface Elevation
 Coordinates (see Section 6.2.3)
 Names of Drilling, Sampling and Logging Firm(s) and Personnel
 Name/Type of Drill Rig
 Methods of Drilling and Sampling
 Hammer Efficiency
 Date Started and Date Completed

10.3.2.12.2 Soil Boring Information

 A depth and elevation scale
 Indication of stratum change
 Description of material in each stratum per MDOT material description guidelines
 Depth of bottom of boring
 Depth of boulders and cobbles, if encountered
 Static and free water level observations
 Caving depth
 Artesian water height of rise
 Blow-back of sand during drilling and height
 Cavities or other unusual conditions
 Borehole backfilling or sealing methods
 Types and depths of instrumentation installed
 Depth interval represented by sample
 Sample number and type
 Percent recovery for each sample
 Blow counts as recorded in the field for each 6 inches of drive for split spoon
samples
 Strength testing data (hand penetrometer, unconfined compression test, etc.)

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 174

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

 Moisture content
 Liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index
 Rock core run percent recovery
 Rock core run Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
 Rock compressive strength test results

Appendix B
Include lab testing report sheets, in-situ testing results, and photographs, as applicable.
For the laboratory tests listed below, include these items on the test reports.

10.3.2.13.1 Unconfined Compression Test

Provide a report of the unconfined compression test according to ASTM D2166 and
include the following.

 Heading – Include project identification, boring number, station and offset (if
available), northing and easting coordinates, depth interval of sample, and sample
number in the report heading.

 Graphical Data – Show a graph of the stress-strain relationship. Present an

interpretation of the results including the maximum stress at the corresponding
strain.

 Specimen Data – Show specimen data including dimensions of specimen, wet unit
weight and/or dry unit weight, moisture content, liquid limit, plastic limit,
description of material, and failure sketch to scaled size disclosing major crack
patterns.

10.3.2.13.2 Consolidation Test

Provide a report of the consolidation test according to ASTM D2435 and include the
following information.

 Heading – Include Heading information from Section 10.3.2.13.1.

 Graphical Data – Provide a graph illustrating the pressure-void ratio relationship
with void ratio plotted to arithmetic scale and pressure plotted to logarithmic scale
for both the loading and rebound.
Provide time-consolidation curves for each loading of the specimen on
supplemental sheets. Show deformation readings to the nearest 0.0001 inch,
plotted to an arithmetic scale, with time in minutes plotted to a logarithmic scale or
square root-of-time plotted to an arithmetic scale. Indicate the pressure for each
curve. Show the entire curve of any one loading but no more than two loadings on a
single sheet. Use abbreviated heading information on each sheet.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 175

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Show the coefficient of consolidation for loadings that are used in the analyses.
Present in either graphical or tabular form.
 Test Data – For each consolidation test, include diameter, specific gravity, liquid
limit, plastic limit, description of the soil, and particle-size analysis of samples. Also
include the initial and final readings for thickness, moisture content, wet and dry
unit weight, and void ratio.

10.3.2.13.3 Direct Shear Test

Provide a report for the direct shear test according to ASTM D 3080 and include the
following information.
 Heading - Include Heading information from Section 10.3.2.13.1.

 Graphical Data – Present normal pressure versus shear stress and shear
displacement versus shear stress in graphical form, established on the basis of not
less than three normal loads.

 Test Data – For each of the three specimens, include initial (wet) weight and volume
of the specimen, wet unit weight, and moisture content. In addition, include the
following information on one or more of the test specimens: liquid limit, plasticity
index, and particle-size analysis (see Section 10.3.2.13.5). Record a description of
the material and the type of test. Provide an interpretation of the cohesion and
friction angle from the data.

10.3.2.13.4 Triaxial Compression Test

Provide a report of the triaxial compression test according to ASTM D2850 or D4767 and
provide the following.
 Heading - Include Heading information from Section 10.3.2.13.1.

 Graphical Data - For each test specimen, show the relationship for the vertical stress
versus strain and the pore pressure versus strain in graphical form. For the
appropriate range of stress conditions selected, show the Mohr's stress circles
based on total and effective stress. Provide an interpretation of the cohesion and
friction angle from the data.

 Test Data - For each specimen, include moisture content, wet and dry unit weights,
liquid limit, plastic limit, particle-size analysis (see Section 10.3.2.13.5), chamber
pressures, and failure sketches to a scaled size showing front and side views
disclosing major crack patterns. Record a description of the material and the type of
triaxial test (e.g., UU, CU, CD).

10.3.2.13.5 Particle Size Analysis

Provide a report of the particle size analysis according to ASTM D7928 and provide the
following information.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 176

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

 Heading - Include Heading information from Section 10.3.2.13.1.

 Graphical Data - For each tested sample, show the relationship for grain size (mm)
and percent passing by weight in graphical form. The grain size in millimeters must
be plotted in logarithmic scale on the x-axis while the percent passing by weight is
plotted in arithmetic scale on the y-axis. Provide sieve sizes on the graph showing
the material breaks or at divisions within the same material type.

 Test Data - Provide the unified soil classification description, natural moisture
content, plastic limit, liquid limit, plasticity index, summary of the percent gravel,
sand and silt/clay size particles (D60, D30, D10), coefficient of curvature (Cc), and
coefficient of uniformity (Cu).

Other Appendices
Add and label other appendices as needed.

10.3.3 REPORTS FOR BUILDINGS

Geotechnical reports, which provide geotechnical recommendations for proposed buildings,
should follow the letter report outline presented in Section 10.3.1. In addition to the reporting
sections discussed in Section 10.3.1, recommendations and discussion pertaining specifically to
building design and construction should be presented in this report. For example, sections
pertaining to site grading, building foundation, and the floor slab should be included as part of
this report. As required by the Michigan Building Code, the report must be signed and sealed by
a professional engineer licensed by the State of Michigan.

10.3.4 CALCULATIONS
As part of the final deliverable, a calculation package of the analysis must be provided during
submittal of the final geotechnical report or shortly after the final report submittal and placed in
the design file. However, at any time within the design phase of the project, calculations of the
analysis must be provided by the consultant if requested by MDOT. The package is not part of
the geotechnical report but is a separate deliverable and must have a title sheet and table of
contents. The table of contents must list the different types of analyses performed and
corresponding page numbers. Add narrative throughout the calculations that describes the basis
of the design recommendations from the calculations or other considerations. If using
spreadsheets, provide detailed hand calculations for one example to demonstrate the accuracy
of the spreadsheet. A thorough quality assurance check of the package must be performed with
the following clearly noted on each page: date, initials of the person doing the calculations, and
the reviewer. The calculation package must be submitted in portable document format (PDF).

10.4 ADDENDUM REPORTS

If the project design is altered as project development advances, the geotechnical
recommendations may have to be modified from those presented in the original geotechnical
memorandum or report. When the project approaches the final design stage, the Geotechnical

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 177

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 10 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING

Engineer should determine if the geotechnical report needs to be revised to reflect modified
assumptions and recommendations incorporated in the final design plans.

10.5 SPECIAL PROVISION

A special provision is a document that details directions, provisions, and requirements for the
work to be performed. Many times, these are needed to provide guidance to the construction
staff and contractor. Existing special provisions can be found on the MDOT website at this link. If
modification to existing special provisions are required, then resubmittal, review, and approval
is required prior to use on an MDOT project. Development of new special provisions must
adhere to the guidelines presented in the Road Design Manual, Section 11.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 178

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 11 REFERENCES

SECTION 11 – REFERENCES

11.1 REFERENCES
AASHTO, 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

AASHTO, 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition.

AASHTO, 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

AASHTO, Miscellaneous Standards via ASTM Compass Web Portal, www.compass.astm.org.

Abramson, L.W., T.S. Lee, S. Sharma, G.M. Boyce, Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods,
1996, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York .

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2012 with Interims.
AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications.

American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM International), Miscellaneous
Standards via ASTM Compass Web Portal, www.compass.astm.org.

Das, B.M., 1999, Principles of Foundation Engineering, Fourth Edition, Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, California.

Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982. Soil Mechanics – Design
Manual 7.1, Publication No. NAVFAC DM-7.1, Alexandria, Virginia.

Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986. Foundations and Earth
Structures 7.2, Publication No. NAVFAC DM-7.2, Alexandria, Virginia.

E.C. Novak, Jr., May 1974. An Investigation of the Definition of Frost Heave Textured Material,
Research Report No: R-914.

Gilbert Baladi, Pegah Rajaei, December 10, 2014. Predictive Modeling of Freezing and Thawing
of Frost-susceptible Soils.

Holtz, R.D, Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
New Jersey.

Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R., 2008. Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines, FHWA NHI-07-092.

Lukas, R.G. (1995), Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1 Dynamic Compaction, Publication
No. FHWA SA-95-037.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 179

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 11 REFERENCES

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Bureau, March 2005, Flowing Well
Handbook.

Michigan Department of State Highways, January 1970. Field Manual of Soil Engineering – Fifth
Edition.

Michigan Department of Transportation, April 6, 2009. Uniform Field Soil Classification System
(Modified Unified Description).

Michigan Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Guides. Michigan Department of

Transportation, Bridge Design Manual.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Construction and Technology Support Area,

Geotechnical Services Unit, March 2004. Geotechnical Investigation and Analysis Requirements
for Structures.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Materials and Technology Division, December 1987.

Joint Faulting in Concrete Pavements, Materials and Technology Engineering and Science, Issue
No. 14.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Materials and Technology Division, January 1988,

Drainage – The Solution to the Three Problems Critical to Pavement Performance, Materials and
Technology Engineering and Science, Issue No. 15.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan DOT User Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical

Pavement Design, Interim Edition, November 2017.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Road Design Manual.

Michigan Department of Transportation, Tetra Tech MPS, Drainage Manual, January 2006.

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1996, Landslides – Investigation and
Mitigation, Special Report 247.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, April 2002. Geotechnical

Engineering Circular No. 5 – Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Publication No.
FHWA-IF-02-034.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, November 1997.

Subsurface Investigations, Publication No. FHWA-IF-97-021.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, May 2002. Subsurface

Investigations – Geotechnical Site Characterization, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 180

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 11 REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., June

2010, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA NHI-10-092.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2006.

Soils and Foundations – Volume I and II, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-NHI-06-088.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2008.

Earth Retaining Structures, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-07-071.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2003.

Soil Nail Walls, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7, Publication No. FHWA-IF-03-017.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2006.

Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations – Volume I and II, Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-05-042.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2005.

Micropile Design and Construction, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-039.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2010.

Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 10, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-016.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 1999.

Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2001.

Shallow Foundations, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-023.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.,

September 2005. Soil Slope and Embankment Design, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-123
and 124.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.,

March 2012. Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Slopes – Volume I and II, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-24 and 25.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.,

November 2009. Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Slopes, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-085.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.,

June 1999. Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems, Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-015.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 181

NOVEMBER 2019
SECTION 11 REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington D.C., Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6 – Shallow
Foundations, September 2002. Publication No. FHWA-SA-02-054.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington D.C., 1995, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1 - Dynamic
Compaction, Publication No. FHWA SA-95-037.

MDOT GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL Page 182

NOVEMBER 2019