CIVE 5501

Advanced Foundation Engineering

Lecture 2:

Site Investigation
2009
M.T. Fall
Rayhani

References:

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

Soils and Foundations, C. Liu & J.B. Evett, Pearson
Soil Mechanics & Foundations, M. Budhu, John Wiley & Sons
Principles of Foundation Engineering, B. M. Das, Thompson Publishing
An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Holtz & Kovacs, Prentice Hall
Foundation Design, Principles & Practices, D.P. Coduto, Prentice Hall

Site Investigation / Exploration

 Definition:
 The process of identifying subsurface layers and
determining engineering properties of the soils/rocks
underneath a proposed structure/site.
 Maximum information at minimum cost

 Purpose:
 Determine sub-surface conditions (layering & properties of
each layer)

 Engineering properties:
 Strength, deformation and hydraulic properties

1
 Why Do It?

Why do it?

 Common Objectives

 Identify surface ground conditions

 Determine subsurface soil profile (location and thickness of

soil and rock strata)
 Determine location of groundwater table

 Recover samples for laboratory testing

 Conduct field and/or laboratory testing

 Identify special problems and concerns

2
 Natural Hazards
 Identifying fault locations is the first step in hazard
mitigation.
 Important for structures such as power plant, dams,
bridges, waste disposals

Shihkang Dam bridge north of Fengyuan

Natural Hazards

Liquefaction induced Bearing Capacity failure

Earthquake 1964, Niigata earthquake

Liquefaction

Pore water Sand boiling

Sand

Subsidence

Vibration

After
Before earthquake Earthquake earthquake

3
 Liquefaction

Collapse

A 1981 drought in Florida caused the collapse of this 320 ft wide by 100 ft
deep sinkhole in Winter Park, Florida

4
 Site Exploration Overview

1. Preliminary survey (desk study)

 Review of Background Information

2. Site visit/Reconnaissance

3. Surface exploration

4. Subsurface exploration (drilling, sampling, In-situ testing)

to establish
 Nature and sequence of strata
 GWT conditions
 Soil properties

Preliminary Survey
 Collect existing Information about the project
 Type of structure, magnitude of loads, structure layout
 Surface geologic reports/maps

 Previous survey reports

 Geologic history (EQs?)
 Aerial photographs
 Underground utilities?

 Existing structures-at the site, adjacent sites

10

5
 Site Reconnaissance

 Observation of Surface Conditions

 Accessibility, general topography; slopes, mountain

 Previous development
 Surface drainage; GWT levels, flooding
 Construction issues; access, heavy equipment
 Geologic Features (Rock outcrops)

11

Site Exploration

 Non-Intrusive methods - Geophysical exploration

 Rapid evaluation of subsurface characteristics
 Allow rapid coverage of large areas
 Less expensive

 Definitive interpretation is difficult

 Preliminary exploration

 Intrusive methods
 Drilling – bore holes

12

6
 Field Exploration: Non-Intrusive

Geophysical Methods

 Surface Geophysical Surveys

• Gravimetry
• Megnetometry
• Seismic
• Resistivity
• Electromagnetometry
 Geophysical Logging
• Down-hole seismic
• Cross-hole seismic

Constraining the earth’s subsurface with observation at the surface

13

Geophysical Exploration
 Geophysical techniques measure physical phenomena:
» Gravity
» Magnetism
» Elastic waves
» Electricity
» Electromagnetic waves

 These are sensitive to subsurface physical properties:

» Density
» Magnetic susceptibility
» Seismic wave velocity and density
» Resistivity
» Conductance/inductance/permittivity

14

7
 Application of Gravity Method

 Geologic mapping
 Salt structures location
 Fault location
 Mapping of alluvial-bedrock contact
 Regional scale studies of lithosphere structure

 Geotechnical applications
 Mapping subsurface voids and cavities
 Depth of bedrock

 Environmental studies
 Landfill investigation
 Ground water modeling

 Mineral exploration

 Hydrocarbon excavation

15

Mapping basin depth

Thicker sediments:

Low bearing capacity

More susceptible to
subsidence with the
removal of water

Low gravity values represent

deep alluvial
High gravity values: shallow
depth to bedrock

16

8
 Magnetic Method

 In practice there are 3 well recognized uses of magnetic

methods:
 Direct exploration (magnetic ores)
 Geological mapping: tracing the extent and shape of magnetic composition
 Indirect exploration: sedimentary basin (magnetic base rocks), Asbestos,
gold (in granodiorite), Columbium-uranium

17

Electrical Resistivity Survey

 Electrical resistivity of any conducting material ()
can be defined as (ohm.m):
RA
 R: electrical resistance 
 A: cross section area L
 L: length
Material Resistivity
Ohm.m
 Soil resistivity depends on moisture Clay (sat.) 0-100

content and concentration of Clayey sand 200-500

dissolved ions Sand 500-1500

 Dry soil and rock have a high resistivity Gravel 1500-400
and saturated clay has a very low
Weathered rock 1500-2500
resistivity
Sound rock >5000

18

9
 Electrical Resistivity Survey
 Wenner method (common)
2dV
 4 electrodes driven into the ground 
 dc current (50-100 m.amp., outside electrodes) I
 Voltage drop measured between inside electrodes

19

Electrical Resistivity Survey

Universal Engineering, Inc.)

20

10
 Applications of Resistivity Survey
 Ground water exploration & water quality
– Aquifer boundaries in sediments
– Groundwater in fissured rocks
– Mapping boundaries of saline groundwater

 Environmental and engineering application

– Mapping of contaminated area
– Landslide investigation
– Location of permafrost zones
– Location of cavities, voids and tunnels
– Location of archaeological objects

 Geothermal

21

Seismic Survey
 Seismic impacts at the ground surface creates two types of
stress waves:
 P waves: travel faster, first arrivals Es (1  )
v
• Es: elastic modulus
 (12 )(1 )
• : density, : Poisson’s ratio
 S waves: shear waves

 Seismic survey
 Reflection
 Refraction
 Down-hole
 Cross-hole

Braja M. Das

22

11
 Seismic Survey
 Use the wave propagation velocity to characterize the subsoil
 System consists of an energy source, geophones and a recorder
 Trigger wave at source
 Measure arrival times at geophones

23

Seismic Refraction Survey

1. Obtain times of first arrivals (t1,
t2,..) at various distances (x1, x2, .)
2. Plot a graph of time against
distance
3. Determine the slopes of the lines
4. Thickness of the top layer:

1 v 2  v1
H1  xc
2 v 2  v1

5. Thickness of the 2nd layer:

1 v2  v2  v v
H 2  Ti 2  2H1 3 1  3 2
2 v3v1  v32  v22
 

24

12
 Example 2.1
 The results of a refraction survey at a site are given below.
Determine the P-wave velocities and the thickness of the
material encountered.

25

Cross-hole Seismic Survey

 Shear waves velocity (vs) of a layer of soil as a result of a
seismic impact can be determined
L
by the cross-hole survey vs 
t
 t: travel time of the waves

 The shear modulus of the

soil can be determined by:

Gs   vs2
 : density
 vs: velocity of shear waves

26

13
 Down-hole Array

27

EM Survey
 Measurement of time-varying electromagnetic fields
 Induced by transmitter (Inductive EM, active) or natural source
of EM energy (passive)
 Useful in a wide range of applications:
– Mineral exploration
– Mapping of faults
– Location of underground pipes, cables
– Mapping of conductive contaminants
– Mapping of (conductive) clays in agricultural studies
– Groundwater modeling

 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

28

14
 Ground Penetrating Radar
 Uses reflection of EM waves at interfaces between materials of
different electrical characteristics
 GPR field device consists of a transmitter (100-1500 MHz) and a
recorder antenna
 Good tool to identify high electrical contrasts
 Underground utilities
 Storage tanks (detects metal-soil interface)
 Limited penetration as signals attenuate with depth
 A function of antenna frequency & soil properties

29

Ground Penetrating Radar

30

15
 Physical properties of earth materials

http://appliedgeophysics.berkeley.edu

31

Physical properties of earth materials

Property of
interest

http://appliedgeophysics.berkeley.edu

32

16
 Techniques and targets

33

Subsurface Exploration: Intrusive

 Exploratory borings
 Test pit: hand or backhoe (block samples)
 Auger drilling (solid stem auger; hollow stem auger)
 Rotary drilling (rotary wash boring)
 Rock coring
 In-situ tests/measurements (Vane, SPT, CPT, Plate load, etc.)
 Determine soil properties (strength, permeability,
compressibility)
 GWT
 Obtain samples (Lab tests)
 Index properties: Atterberg, compaction, ..
 Mechanical properties: permeability, strength, etc.

34

17
 Extent of Investigation

 Depends on:
 Type of the structure, loading
 Variability/layering
 Availability & reliability of existing information

35

How Many Borings & How Deep

 “No hard-and-fast rule exists for determining the

number of borings or the depth to which borings are to
be advanced.”

 But guidelines exist in –

• Textbooks
• Design manuals

36

18
 How Many Borings? Space of Boreholes

 Conventional Wisdom
 The number (density) of borings will increase:
• As soil variability increases
• As the loads increase
• For more critical/significant structures

 Rules of Thumb:
 Soft soils, critical structures – 20 m
 Soft Soils - Space 30 m to 60m
 As soils become harder, spacing may be increased up
to 200 m

37

How Many Borings?

Structure or Project Subsurface Variability Spacing of Borings (m)

Irregular 30-300 (60, typical)
Highway Subgrade Average 60-600 (150, typical)
Uniform 130-1300 (300, typical)
Irregular 8-25
Multistory Building Average 15-50
Uniform 30-100

38

19
 Space of Boreholes

 CFEM 4.4.3:
 Less than 250 m2: 3 boreholes

 250 – 1000 m2: at least 4 boreholes on level ground

• Sloping ground: 5 or more

39

How Deep?
 Boring depth is governed by various factors, including:
 Foundation type
 Foundation load
 Lowering of grade line at underpass?
 Channel relocation, widening, dredging?

 Rules of Thumb
 Generally speaking, 15m- 25m is reasonable
 Local experience is helpful
 Look at nearby structures if available
 If no experience or other info available, plan for long first hole,
then adjust.

40

20
 How Deep?

41

How Deep (Bridges)?

 Boring depth is governed by various factors, including:
 Foundation type
 Foundation load
 Lowering of grade line at underpass?
 Channel relocation, widening, dredging?

 Rules of Thumb
 Generally speaking, 15m- 25m is reasonable
 Local experience is helpful
 Look at nearby structures if available
 If no experience or other info available, plan for long first hole,
then adjust.

42

21
 How Deep (Retaining Walls)?
 Boring depth is governed by various factors, including:
 Wall type (Fill vs. Cut)
 Lowering of grade line at wall?

 Rules of Thumb:
 Fill Walls: Depth = Wall Height +/-
 Soil Nailed Walls: Depth = Through Nailed Area,
plus 3m
 Drilled Shaft Walls: Depth = Exposed Wall Height
plus 150% of Wall Height

43

Case Study: Site Plan

ft

44

22
 Soil Identification

 Field identification of soil is of great importance for civil

engineering.

 Sometimes the lack of time and facilities makes laboratory

soil testing impossible in military construction.

 Even when laboratory tests are to follow, field identification

tests must be made during the soil exploration.

 Visual examination should establish the color, grain size,

grain shapes (of the coarse-grained portion), some idea of
the gradation, and some properties of the undisturbed soil.

45

Soil Identification

 Visual Examination:
1.Colour of soil:
• Color is often helpful in distinguishing between soil types, and with
experience, one may find it useful in identifying the particular soil
type
• Color often varies with moisture content of a soil.
2.Compressive strength
3.Soil size
4.Particle shape
5.Soil structure and form
6.Moisture content

46

23
 Boring Logs

47

Site Plan

60ft boring
50ft boring A
40ft boring
30ft boring B
B

Atrium

Atr
iu
m

A
F
t

48

24
 Analysis of Boring Logs

49

Section A-A

50

25
 Cohesionless Soil

51

Clay versus Silty/Sandy Clay

52

26
 100.0’ Sandy Silt 100
98.0’

Sandy/Silty Clay
90

85.0’
This is just one
Clay 80 reasonable solution
Your design soil

E lev atio n (ft)

73.0’
Silty Sand profile will not be
71.0’
70 exactly like this
Clay
All we need is a soil
Silty Sand
63.0’ profile that provides a
wn
60.0’ 60 reasonable
LL
Clay representation of
PL average conditions
50.0’ 50
that exist at this site

Very Dense Sand

40
0 20 40 60 80
W a te r C o n te n t (%)

53

Data Presentation - Cross Sections

 Source is soil boring logs

 Yields a 2D or 3D
rendering of the
subsurface
 Interpolation
 Extrapolation
 Guesswork
 Helps visualize the
subsurface

54

27
 Geotechnical Drilling
 Auger boring
 Simplest method
 Disturbed sample

 Hand Auger
 Manually driven
 3-4” diameter holes
 3-5 m (hand auger)
 Road construction, small structures

 Power Auger
 Drillers or portable Helical augers
 4-10” diameter holes
 Up to 15 m (continuous flight augers for deep holes)

55

Geotechnical Drilling
 Continuous-flight Auger
 Truck-mounted rig
 Depth: 60 to 70m

1. Solid stem
• Remove pilot assembly & insert sampler
• Non-cohesive soils may cave in (metal pipes)

2. Hollow stem
• Sampling while stem in place
• Casing with outer spiral
• Sample collected inside the stem
• Typically 5 ft sections
• Maximum depth: 60-150ft
• Can be used for sampling below GWT

• Higher operating cost,

• Needs more power

56

28
 Rotary Drilling

 Rapidly rotating drilling bits attached to the

bottom of the rod
 Bit at the end of drill rod rotated and
advanced

 Used in sand, clays and even rocks

 Soil/rock cuttings returned to the surface
by circulating drilling fluid
 Use water/drilling mud (Bentonite)
 Bentonite mud provides lateral support
 slurry density 68-72pcf

57

Rock Coring
 Double-tube core
barrel is typical
 Diamond or tungsten-
carbide tooth bit
 Size of core samples
varies (NX, NQ, HQ,
etc.)

58

29
 Drilling vs. Sampling

 Drilling – “Just” a hole… no sample

 Disturbed Sampling
“…Estimating the nature of the formation from the cuttings
is like identifying the cow from the hamburgers.” G.F.
Sowers

 Undisturbed Sampling
 Retrieve a continuous core
 Applicable to both soil and rock

59

Soil Sampling

 Sample quality
 Undisturbed (AR<10%)
 Disturbed (thick wall) soil

O.D.2  I .D.2
AR  100 (%) sampling tube
I .D.2

 Split spoon sampler (I.D.=35 mm, O.D.=51 mm)

60

30
 Common Soil Samplers

61

Split Spoon (Barrel) Sampler

 Suitable for stiff soil, sand gravel
 Disturbed but representative (AR80%)
 Thick-wall Steel Tubes
 1.5” ID, 2.0” OD, 18”-30” long
 Grading, content, N-value

 Drill to the desired depth

 Remove drill tools
 Lower sampler to the bottom of the hole
 Drive by hammer blows
 Retrieve sampler with soil

62

31
 Shelby Tube Sampler
 Suitable for Soft Soil
 Thin-wall Steel Tubes (AR9% )
 3.0" OD, 2.875" ID, 30.0" long, 7.2 lbs
 Triaxial, consolidation

63

Rock Core Quality

 Core recovery percentage
 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
 Defines the fraction of solid
core recovered greater than 4
inches in length
 Calculated as the ratio of the
sum of length of core
fragments greater than 4
inches to the total drilled
footage per run, expressed as a
percentage

64

32
 Groundwater Monitoring

 Groundwater level must be

determined during
geotechnical exploration
 Measure at time of drilling
and later (24 hrs, 1 week,
etc.)
 install a piezometer

65

In-situ Testing

 When it is difficult to obtain “undisturbed” samples

 Cohesion-less soils, Sensitive clays

 In-situ Test Methods

 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
 Vane shear test (VST)
 Pressure-meter test (PMT)
 Dilatometer test (DMT)
 Plate load test (PLT)

66

33
 In-situ Testing

67

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

68

34
 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 63.5 kg Hammer,
 30” (76 cm) free fall
 Drive sampler over 18” (45 cm),
 Record no. of blows per each 6 inch penetration
 SPT blow count=blows for 2nd 6” + blows for 3rd 6” penetrations

69

Corrections to SPT Blow Counts

Factors affecting SPT blow count:

 Hammer Efficiency (Em)
 Borehole diameter (Cb)
 Rod length (Cr)
N 60  1.67 EmCbCr N

Skempton, 1986

70

35
 Correlations for N60 in Cohesive Soils
 Correlation between N60 and undrained shear strength (cu) of
clay (Hara et al., 1971):
cu  0.29 N 600.7 pa

 pa: atmospheric pressure (100 kPa; 2000 lb/in2)

 The OCR of a natural clay can approximately be estimated

(Mayne and Kemper, 1988):

0.689
N 
OCR  0.193 60' 
 z 
 z’: vertical effective stress in MPa

71

Correlations for N60 in Granular Soils

 In granular soils, the SPT value is affected by the

overburden pressure, z’

 SPT Overburden Correction ( N1 ) 60  C N N 60

100 kPa
CN  (SI) Liao & Whitman (1986)
 z

 Limit: N1(60)  2 N60

 Becker Penetration Test: Large scale SPT (Gravelly Sites)

72

36
 Correlations for N60 in Granular Soils

SPT Value Approximate Relative

Density, Dr (%)
0-5 0-5
5-10 5-30
10-30 30-60
30-50 60-95

Note:
Engineering judgment should be followed in using these values for practice due to the
reason that these results are based on generalized correlations.

73

Correlations for N60 in Granular Soils

SPT Soil Approximate 0.34

Value Condition Value of ’  
 N 60 
10 Loose 30  '  tan 1  
20 Medium 32 12.2  20.3  z  
'

dense   p 
 a 
30 Medium 38
dense-dense
40 Dense 38
50 Dense – very 40 • z’: vertical effective stress
dense • pa: atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
60 Very dense 42 • N60: SPT number

Schmertmann (1975)
Note:
Engineering judgment should be
followed in using these values for
practice due to the reason that these
results are based on generalized
correlations.

74

37
 Correlations for N60 in Granular Soils
Schmertmann (1975)

Note:
Engineering judgment
should be followed in
using these values for
practice due to the
reason that these
results are based on
generalized
correlations.

75

Correlations for N60 in Granular Soils

 Correlation between modulus of elasticity and SPT number

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990):

Es  N 60 pa

 pa: atmospheric pressure (same unit as Es, 100 kPa; 2000 lb/in2)

 =5 sands with fine

 =10-15 clean sand

76

38
 Example 2.2

 A 15cm diameter exploratory boring has been drilled

through a sand layer to a depth of 5.7m. An SPT N-value of
23 was obtained at this depth using a USA safety hammer
with a standard sampler. The bedrock was reached at a
depth of 10.3m. Compute friction angle at the test location.

77

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

 Originally Developed in Netherlands 1930s
 Further developments in 1950s (ASTM D 3441)
 No need for borehole
 Types of CPT devices
1. Mechanical cone (Dutch cone)
2. Electric cone (load measurement via strain gauge)
3. Piezocone (PWP in addition to qc, fs)
4. Seismic cone: wave velocity
5. Resistivity cone:

78

39
 Typical CPT

 Measures:
 Cone Resistance, qc

 Frictional sleeve
Resistance, fc

79

Frictional Ratio in CPT

 The frictional ratio is

fc
defined as: Fr 
 qc: cone resistance qc
 fc; shaft (sleeve)
resistance

 Shaft resistance
 0(granular) –
 10% qc(cohesive)

80

40
 Correlations for CPT Data in Cohesive Soils
 Correlation between qc and undrained shear strength (cu) of clay:

 z: total vertical stress

qc  z
 Nk: bearing capacity factor =15 for electric cone, cu 
20 for mechanical cone (Mayne and Kemper 1988) Nk
PI  10
N k  19  ; PI  10
5

 OCR of a natural clay (Mayne and Kemper, 1988): 1.01

 q  
OCR  0.37 c ' z 
 z and z’: total and effective stress  z 

 Pre-consolidation pressure, p’ (Mayne and Kemper, 1988):

 Units in MPa  'p  0.243qc 0.96

81

Correlations for CPT in Granular Soils

 Correlation between qc and drained friction angle for Sand:

  qc 
 '  tan 1 0.1  0.38 log 
' 
   z 

 Quartz sand (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990):

 z’: vertical effective stress

 Correlation between modulus of elasticity and qc :

Es  (2.5  3.5)qc

82

41
 Typical CPT Results - Piezocone

• qt: corrected tip resistance

• u2: PWP generated just behind the tip qt  qc  u2 (1  a)
• a: area ratio (AN/Atoe)

83

Example 2.3

 Define the soil type and the undrained shear strength for
the CPT results shown below (depth=15m).

 Toe resistance=4.5 Mpa

 Shaft resistance=200kPa
 PWP=2.5 MPa
 AN/Atotal=0.8

84

42
 CPT Versus SPT

 CPT: Advantages over SPT

 provides much better resolution, reliability
 versatility; pore water pressure, dynamic soil properties

 CPT: Disadvantages
 Does not give a sample
 Will not work with soil with gravel

85

Vane Shear Test

 Originally developed by Swedish Engineer, John Olsson in

1920s, now Standardized as ASTM D2573 (h/D2)
 Quick test, used to determine in-situ undrained shear
strength (Cu)
 Since the test is very fast, Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)
can be expected

86

43
 Vane Shear Test
 Drill test hole, and Insert vane (top level: 4D below top of bore hole)
 Rotate head (0.1/sec) and measure torque (cylindrical shape failure)

87

Vane Shear Test

 Relationship between Cu and the maximum torque applied to
cause failure:
Tf D 2 H  D 
cu  K
2
1  
K  3H 

 Tf: maximum torque

 Cu: undrained shear strength
 K: a constant with magnitude
depending the vane dimension
 D: vane diameter
 H: measured height of the vane

 For H/D=2, K=366 D3

88

44
 Correlations for VST Data in Cohesive Soils
 OCR of a natural clay (Mayne and Mitchell):

 z’: effective overburden pressure

cu
OCR  
 z'

  22PI 0.48

 Pre-consolidation pressure, p’:  'p  7cu 0.83

 Units in kPa

89

Vane Shear Test

 For actual design purposes, the cu obtained from field vane
shear tests cu(VST) are too high.

 Corrected vane results: cu ( corrected )  cu (VST )

  1.7  0.54 log(PI ) (Bjerrum, 1972)

 PI: plasticity index (%)

90

45
 Vane Shear Test

 Sensitivity analysis: After the initial test, vane can be rapidly

rotated through several revolutions until the clay become
remoulded

91

Example 2.4

 A vane test was conducted on saturated clay. The height

and diameter of the vane were 200 mm and 100 mm,
respectively. The maximum torque was measured as 740
N-m. The residual torque was 320 N-m. Determine
 undrained shear strength,
 sensitivity of the soil.

92

46
 Pressuremeter test
 Developed by Menard 1956
 Cylindrical diaphragm, conducted in a borehole.
 Relatively complex and expensive test.
 Used to measure strength and deformability of all
soils on a theoretical basis, better results in
homogeneous soils.
 Consists of a probe (d=58mm, L=420mm) with 3
cells

93

Pressuremeter test
 Volume versus pressure relation is measured.
 The pressure is applied until the soil fails (V=2V0) or the limit is reached (pl)
 Zone I: reloading portion: soil pushed back to its initial state (before drilling)
 Zone II: pseudoelastic (linear), pf is creep or yield pressure
 Zone III: plastic

94

47
 Pressuremeter test
 Pressuremeter modulus (theory of expansion):

 p f  p0  v0  v f
E p  2(1   )(V0  vm )  vm 
 v v  2
 f 0 

 : Poisson’s ration (0.33)

95

Dilatometer Test (DMT)

96

48
 Dilatometer Test (DMT)

 p0: lift off pressure

 p1: pressure needed to push the

centre of the diaphragm by 1.1
mm

 p2: pressure at which diaphragm

returns to the initial position

 DMT Modulus:

ED  34.7 pl  p0 

97

Plate Load Test

Scale Effect in Foundation Design

Used to determine:
Elastic modulus and
bearing capacity

CFEM: 4.5.9

98

49
 Comparison of In-Situ Test
 Simplicity & ruggedness
 Ease of Testing
 Resolution
 Basis for Interpretation
 Types of Soils
 Equipment Availability
 Potential for Future Development

99

Comparison of In-Situ Test Methods

100

50
 Ex-Situ (Laboratory) Tests

 ex-situ -- “out of its  Moisture content

original place”  Unit weight
 Sieve analysis
 Laboratory testing is the
 Atterberg limits
most common method for  Compaction
measuring soil and rock  Hydraulic conductivity
properties  Consolidation
 Numerous examples...  Direct shear
 Triaxial shear
 Unconfined compression

101

Moisture Content, Unit Weight

 Mass Components:
 Mass of Solids = Ms
 Mass of Water = Mw
M
 Mass of Air ~ 0 Density,  
V

Mw
Water Content , w(%)  100%
Ms
 = g

N/m3 kg/m3 m/s2

102

51
 Typical Unit weights

103

Soil Unit weight (lb/ft3 or kN/m3)

 Bulk (or Total) Unit weight GS  Se

 W
1 e
 Dry unit weight GS
d  W
1 e

GS  e
 Saturated unit weight (S=1)  sat  W
1 e

 Buoyant (submerged) unit weight ’ = - w

104

52
 Grain Size Distribution Curves

105

Engineering Characterization of Soils

Soil Properties that Control its Engineering

Behavior
Particle Size

coarse-grained fine-grained

Particle/Grain Size  Soil Plasticity

Distribution
Particle Shape

106

53
 Consistency of Soil – Atterberg Limits

107

Compaction Curve

• dry of optimum - w < wopt

• at or near optimum
• wet of optimum - w > wopt

108

54
 Compaction Curve for Different Soils

109

Hydraulic conductivity (Permeability)

110

55
 Consolidation Test

111

Consolidation

112

56
 Normally and Over-Consolidated Soils

 zo   p ….. Normally

consolidated

 zo   p ….. Over

consolidated

 zo   P ….. Under

consolidated

 P
OCR  ….. Over consolidation ratio
 zo
113

Settlement Predictions

Cc   zf 
Sc   H log 
1  e0   z 0 

Cr   zf 
Sc   H log 
1  e0   z 0 

Cr   p  Cc   zf 
Sc   H log   H log 
1  e0   1    
 z0  e0  p

114

57
 Direct Shear Test
20

15

Max. Shear Stress (psi

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal Stress (psi)

115

Triaxial Test

116

58
 Triaxial Test: Interpretation of Data

1 


3 3 1

117

Soil Response under Loading: Sands and Gravels

Drained
Conditions!

•Excess pore pressure dissipates immediately

• Pore pressure remains at hydrostatic value
•  changes but can be calculated;  =  -u
• Therefore, use f = c’+ tan
118

59
 Soil Response under Loading: Clayey Soils

Undrained
Conditions!

•Excess pore pressure builds up as soil is loaded

• Pore pressure cannot be determined; u = u0+ue
•  remains at initial value (S=100%, no drainage)
• Therefore, use f = Su ; c = Su and  = 0

119

Shear Strength in terms of Total and Effective Stresses

 Shear Strength in terms of effective stress

  u u at hydrostatic value

 f  c    tan  

 Shear strength in terms of total stress

 f  c   tan 

 For cohesive soils under saturated conditions,  = 0.

 f  su  c
120

60
 Triaxial Compression Test: Determining C and 

 Consolidated Undrained Test (CU- Test)

 Consolidated Drained (CD-Test); Also called

“Drained Test”

121

Shear Strength of Clays

Undrained Shear Strength

cu = Undrained Cohesion
u =0

122

61
 Correlations for Shear Strength
 Undrained shear strength (cu) for normally consolidated clay
(NC):
cu
 0.11  0.0037( PI )
 0'

 For over consolidated clay:

cu cu
( ) Over Consolidated ( ) Normally Consolidated  (OCR ) 0.8
 0'  0'

 For NC clays, the effective friction angle is related to PI:

sin  '  0.814  0.234 log( PI )

123

Typical Values for Strength Parameters

 Sand: ’ = 27 to 45 (gravel, boulders are higher)
 Clay Drained:
 Normally consolidated ’ = 10 to 35; c’ = 0
 Overconsolidated ’ = 10 to 25 ; c’ = 100 to 400 psf (typically) but
could be higher
 Clay Undrained: cu= 0 to more than 8,000 psf
 Municipal Waste : ’ = 30 to 60 ; c’ = 0 to 1,600psf
 Sand-to-Membrane: δ = 17 to 27 
 Clay-to-Membrane: δ = 12 to 22 
 Geomembrane-to-Geotextile: δ = 6 to 28 
 Sand-to-Geotextile: δ = 23 to 30 

124

62
 Data Presentation

 Log of Boring
 Soil Test Boring
Records
 Test Pit Records
 Data Included
 Field
 Laboratory
 Software Based
Programs

125

Data Presentation - Cross Sections

 Source is soil boring logs

 Yields a 2D or 3D rendering of the subsurface
 Interpolation
 Extrapolation
 Guesswork
 Helps visualize the
subsurface

126

63
 Site Investigation Report

 Purpose, Scope (items to be performed)

 Site description: local geology
 Details of exploratory program
 Geophysical investigation
 Borings
 Equipment used
 Type of tests: CPT, SPT, VST
 Lab testing
 Analyses
 Description of soil conditions, GWT
 Foundation recommendations
 Concluding remarks: limitations

127

Uncertainty vs. Risk

 Sometimes we develop site exploration not to find out the

subsurface conditions of the site, but to validate and refine
your assumptions of what you believe are the likely
subsurface conditions at the site

 The exploration becomes an exercise in reducing

uncertainty/risk

128

64
 Cost

129

65