You are on page 1of 820

Geotechnical

Design Manual
M 46-03.07
April 2012
Environmental and Engineering Programs
Geotechnical Services
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Materials can be provided in alternative formats by calling the ADA Compliance Manager
at 360-705-7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact that number via the
Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1.
Title VI Notice to the Public
It is Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) policy to ensure no person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefts of, or be otherwise
discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who
believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated may fle a complaint with WSDOTs Offce
of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For Title VI complaint forms and advice, please contact OEOs
Title VI Coordinator at 360-705-7082 or 509-324-6018.
To get the latest information on WSDOT publications, sign up for individual email updates at
www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals.
Washington State Department of Transportation
Environmental and Engineering Programs
Geotechnical Services
1655 S 2nd Avenue
Tumwater, WA 98512-6951
www.wsdot.wa.gov/business/materialslab/geotechnicalservices.htm
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page i
July 2010
Contents
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
1.1 Scope of Geotechnical Design, Construction, and Maintenance Support 1-1
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase 1-2
1.1.2 Geotechnical Design Objectives for Project Design Phase 1-2
1.1.3 Geotechnical Design Objectives for PS&E Development Phase 1-3
1.2 RoleofOffcesProvidingIn-HouseGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,and
Maintenance Support 1-3
1.2.1 Lead Role for WSDOT Regarding Geotechnical Policy and Design 1-3
1.2.2 Geotechnical Functions Delegated to the Regions 1-5
1.2.3 CoordinationbetweenHQsandRegionRegardingEmergencyResponse 1-8
1.3 Geotechnical Support within the WSDOT Project Management Process (PMP) 1-10
1.3.1 InitiateandAlign 1-10
1.3.2 Plan the Work 1-11
1.3.3 Endorse the Plan 1-11
1.3.4 Work the Plan 1-12
1.3.5 Transition and Closure 1-12
1.3.6 ApplicationofthePMPtoConstruction 1-12
1.3.7 Master Deliverables to be Considered 1-13
1.4 GeotechnicalReportReviewProcess,CertifcationandApprovalRequirements 1-15
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation 1-16
1.4.2 ApprovalofReportsProducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision 1-17
1.5 ReportsProducedbyConsultantsorotherAgenciesforWSDOT,andReports
Produced by Design-Builders 1-17
1.6 GeotechnicalConsultantAdministration 1-18
1.7 GeotechnicalInformationProvidedtoBidders 1-21
1.7.1 Final Geotechnical Project Documentation 1-21
1.7.2 Final Geotechnical Documentation Publication 1-21
1.7.3 GeotechnicalInformationtobeIncludedasPartoftheContract 1-22
1.8 Sample Retention and Chain of Custody 1-22
1.9 Geotechnical Design Policies and their Basis 1-23
1.10 Geotechnical Construction Support Policies 1-24
1.10.1 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Bid-Build Projects 1-24
1.10.2 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Build Projects 1-25
1.10.3 Geotechnical Division Roles and Communication Protocols for
Construction Support 1-26
Contents
Page ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
1.11 Geotechnical Construction Submittal Review Policies 1-27
1.11.1 Proprietary Retaining Walls 1-27
1.11.2 Other Construction Submittals (Non-Proprietary walls, Excavation
andShoring,SoldierPiles,GroundAnchors,Shafts,Piles,Ground
Improvement,etc.) 1-27
Appendix1-A Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work 1-29
Appendix1-B Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work for PS&E Level Design 1-33
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 Preliminary Project Planning 2-1
2.2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2.2 OffceReview 2-2
2.2.2.10 Site Geology and Seismicity 2-3
2.2.2.20 Previous Site Exploration Data 2-5
2.2.2.3 Previous Site Use 2-6
2.2.2.4 Construction Records 2-7
2.2.3 Site Reconnaissance 2-7
2.2.3.1 General 2-7
2.3 Development of the Subsurface Exploration Plan 2-9
2.3.1 General Considerations for Preparation of the Exploration Plan 2-9
2.3.2 Criteria for Development 2-9
2.3.3 Preparing the Exploration Plan 2-15
2.4 References 2-17
Appendix2-A FieldExplorationRequestForm 2-19
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 ActivitiesandPoliciesBeforeExploration 3-1
3.3 ActivitiesandPoliciesDuringExploration 3-3
3.4 ActivitiesandPoliciesAfterExploration 3-7
3.5 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Calibration 3-7
3.6 References 3-7
Appendix3-A DailyDrillReportForm 3-9
Appendix3-B FieldInvestigationBestManagementPracticesforErosionand
Spill Prevention 3-11
Appendix3-C PortablePenetrometerTestProcedures 3-15
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page iii
July 2010
Chapter 4 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.1 Overview 4-3
4.2 SoilClassifcation 4-3
4.2.1 Coarse Grained Soils 4-4
4.2.2 Fine-GrainedInorganicSoils 4-7
4.2.3 Organic Fine Grained Soils 4-7
4.2.4 Angularity 4-10
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 InfuenceofExistingandFutureConditionsonSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.3 Methods of Determining Soil and Rock Properties 5-2
5.4 In-SituFieldTesting 5-3
5.4.1 Well Pumping Tests 5-5
5.4.2 Packer Permeability Tests 5-5
5.4.3 Seepage Tests 5-5
5.4.4 Slug Tests 5-6
5.4.5 Piezocone Tests 5-6
5.4.6 Flood Tests 5-7
5.5 Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock 5-7
5.5.1 QualityControlforLaboratoryTesting 5-7
5.5.2 Developing the Testing Plan 5-9
5.6 Engineering Properties of Soil 5-10
5.6.1 LaboratoryIndexPropertyTesting 5-10
5.6.2 Laboratory Performance Testing 5-10
5.6.3 Correlations to Estimate Engineering Properties of Soil 5-12
5.7 Engineering Properties of Rock 5-14
5.8 Final Selection of Design Values 5-15
5.8.1 Overview 5-15
5.8.2 Data Reliability and Variability 5-16
5.8.3 Final Property Selection 5-17
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle 5-18
5.8.5 Selection of Design Properties for Engineered Materials 5-19
5.9 Properties of Predominant Geologic Units in Washington 5-23
5.9.1 Loess 5-23
5.9.2 Peat/Organic Soils 5-24
5.9.3 GlacialTillandGlacialAdvanceOutwash 5-25
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus 5-26
5.9.5 Columbia River Sand 5-27
5.9.6 Columbia Basin Basalts 5-27
5.9.7 Latah Formation 5-28
5.9.8 Seattle Clay 5-29
Contents
Page iv WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
5.9.9 Bellingham Glaciomarine Drift 5-31
5.9.10 Coastal Range Siltstone/Claystone 5-32
5.9.11 Troutdale Formation 5-32
5.9.12 Marine Basalts - Crescent Formation 5-33
5.9.13 Mlange Rocks on Olympic Peninsula 5-33
5.10 References 5-34
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
6.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy 6-1
6.1.1 Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer 6-1
6.1.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies 6-1
6.1.2.1 Seismic Performance Objectives 6-1
6.1.2.2 LiquefactionMitigationforBridgeWidenings 6-3
6.1.2.3 MaximumConsideredDepthforLiquefaction 6-4
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources 6-5
6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations 6-7
6.2.1 Overview 6-7
6.2.2 Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters 6-8
6.2.3 InformationforStructuralDesign 6-20
6.3 SeismicHazardandSiteGroundMotionResponseRequirements 6-20
6.3.1 DeterminationofSeismicHazardLevel 6-22
6.3.2 SiteGroundMotionResponseAnalysis 6-28
6.3.3 2006IBCforSiteResponse 6-28
6.3.4 AdjustingGroundSurfaceAccelerationtoOtherSiteClasses 6-29
6.3.5 EarthquakeMagnitude 6-30
6.4 SeismicGeologicHazards 6-30
6.4.1 Fault Rupture 6-30
6.4.2 Liquefaction 6-33
6.4.2.1 Methods to Evaluate Potential Susceptibility of Soil to
Liquefaction 6-35
6.4.2.2 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotential 6-37
6.4.2.3 MinimumFactorofSafetyAgainstLiquefaction 6-41
6.4.2.4 LiquefactionInducedSettlement 6-42
6.4.2.5 Residual Strength Parameters 6-45
6.4.2.6 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotentialandEffectsUsing
Laboratory Test Data 6-45
6.4.2.7 WeakeningInstabilityDuetoLiquefaction 6-47
6.4.2.8 CombiningSeismicInertialLoadingwithAnalysesUsing
LiquefedSoilStrength 6-50
6.4.3 SlopeInstabilityDuetoInertialEffects 6-53
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-StaticAnalysis 6-53
6.4.3.2 Deformations 6-54
6.4.4 Settlement of Dry Sand 6-57
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page v
July 2010
6.5 InputforStructuralDesign 6-57
6.5.1 Foundation Springs 6-57
6.5.1.1 Shallow Foundations 6-58
6.5.1.2 Deep Foundations 6-59
6.5.2 EarthquakeInducedEarthPressuresonRetainingStructures 6-63
6.5.3 Downdrag Loads on Structures 6-63
6.5.4 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures 6-64
6.5.4.1 DisplacementBasedApproach 6-64
6.5.4.2 ForceBasedApproaches 6-66
6.5.4.3 MitigationAlternatives 6-67
6.6 References 6-70
Appendix6-A SiteSpecifcSeismicHazardandSiteResponse 6-75
6-A.1 BackgroundInformationforPerformingSiteSpecifcAnalysis 6-75
6-A.1.1 RegionalTectonics 6-75
6-A.1.2 SeismicSourceZones 6-76
6-A.2 DesignEarthquakeMagnitude 6-78
6-A.3 ProbabilisticandDeterministicSeismicHazardAnalyses 6-79
6-A.4 SelectionofAttenuationRelationships 6-81
6-A.5 SiteSpecifcGroundResponseAnalysis 6-81
6-A.5.1 Design/ComputerModels 6-81
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis6-83
6-A.6 AnalysisUsingAcceleration-TimeHistories 6-84
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-1
7.3 DesignRequirements 7-2
7.4 ResistanceFactorsandSafetyFactorsforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-4
7.5 References 7-5
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
8.1 Overview 8-1
8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations 8-1
8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design 8-5
8.3.1 FieldExplorationRequirementsforFoundations 8-7
8.3.2 LaboratoryandFieldTestingRequirementsforFoundations 8-10
8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations 8-10
8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations 8-12
8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered 8-13
8.6.1 FoundationAnalysistoEstablishLoadDistributionforStructure 8-13
8.6.2 Downdrag Loads 8-15
Contents
Page vi WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
8.6.3 Uplift Loads due to Expansive Soils 8-16
8.6.4 Soil Loads on Buried Structures 8-16
8.6.5 Service Limit States 8-16
8.6.5.1 Tolerable Movements 8-17
8.6.5.2 Overall Stability 8-19
8.6.5.3 AbutmentTransitions 8-20
8.6.6 Strength Limit States 8-21
8.6.7 Extreme Event Limit States 8-21
8.7 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignDesignParameters 8-21
8.8 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignServiceLimitStates 8-22
8.9 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignStrengthLimitStates 8-22
8.10 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.10.1 Scour 8-23
8.10.2 Other Extreme Event Limit States 8-23
8.11 Spread Footing Design 8-23
8.11.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoFootingDesign 8-24
8.11.2 Footing Foundation Design 8-27
8.11.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth 8-28
8.11.2.2 Nearby Structures 8-28
8.11.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Footings 8-28
8.11.2.3.1 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils 8-28
8.11.2.3.2 Settlement of Footings on Rock 8-29
8.11.2.3.3 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State
Using Presumptive Values 8-29
8.11.2.4 Strength Limit State Design of Footings 8-29
8.11.2.4.1 Theoretical Estimation of Bearing Resistance 8-29
8.11.2.4.2 Plate Load Tests for Determination of Bearing
Resistance in Soil 8-30
8.11.2.4.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock 8-30
8.11.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings 8-30
8.12 Driven Pile Foundation Design 8-31
8.12.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrivenPileDesign 8-33
8.12.2 Driven for Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design 8-35
8.12.2.1 Driven Pile Sizes and Maximum Resistances 8-35
8.12.2.2 Minimum Pile Spacing 8-36
8.12.2.3 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance 8-36
8.12.2.4 Batter Piles 8-37
8.12.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations 8-37
8.12.2.5.1 Overall Stability 8-37
8.12.2.5.2 HorizontalPileFoundationMovement 8-37
8.12.2.6 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundations 8-37
8.12.2.6.1 NominalAxialResistanceChangeafterPileDriving 8-37
8.12.2.6.2 Scour 8-37
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page vii
July 2010
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag 8-39
8.12.2.6.4 DeterminationofNominalAxialPileResistance
in Compression 8-41
8.12.2.6.5 NominalHorizontalResistanceofPileFoundations 8-43
8.12.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations 8-44
8.13 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design 8-46
8.13.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrilledShaftDesign 8-48
8.13.2 Drilled Shaft Geotechnical Design 8-48
8.13.2.1 General Considerations 8-48
8.13.2.2 Nearby Structures 8-48
8.13.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts 8-49
8.13.2.3.1 HorizontalMovementofShaftsandShaftGroups 8-49
8.13.2.3.2 Overall Stability 8-50
8.13.2.4 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Drilled Shafts 8-50
8.13.2.4.1 Scour 8-50
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag 8-51
8.13.2.4.3 NominalHorizontalResistanceofShaftand
Shaft Group Foundations 8-51
8.13.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts 8-52
8.14 Micropiles 8-52
8.15 Proprietary Foundation Systems 8-52
8.16 Detention Vaults 8-53
8.16.1 Overview 8-53
8.16.2 FieldInvestigationRequirements 8-53
8.16.3 DesignRequirements 8-54
8.17 References 8-54
Chapter 9 Embankments
9.1 Overview and Data Needed 9-1
9.1.1 Site Reconnaissance 9-1
9.1.2 FieldExplorationandLaboratoryTestingRequirements 9-2
9.1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy 9-3
9.1.4 Groundwater 9-5
9.2 Design Considerations 9-6
9.2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction 9-6
9.2.1.1 Rock Embankments 9-6
9.2.1.2 EarthEmbankmentsandBridgeApproachEmbankments 9-7
9.2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water 9-8
9.2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities 9-8
9.2.3 StabilityAssessment 9-9
9.2.3.1 Safety Factors 9-9
9.2.3.2 Strength Parameters 9-10
Contents
Page viii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
9.2.4 EmbankmentSettlementAssessment 9-11
9.2.4.1 SettlementImpacts 9-11
9.2.4.2 SettlementAnalysis 9-12
9.2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation 9-12
9.2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression 9-13
9.2.4.3 Stress Distribution 9-13
9.2.4.3.1 Simple2V:1HMethod 9-13
9.2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity 9-14
9.2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts 9-15
9.2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement 9-16
9.2.4.4 AnalyticalTools 9-17
9.3 Stability Mitigation 9-17
9.3.1 Staged Construction 9-17
9.3.1.1 Design Parameters 9-19
9.3.1.2 In-SituShearStrengthandDeterminationofStabilityAssuming
Undrained Loading 9-20
9.3.1.3 TotalStressAnalysis 9-22
9.3.1.4 EffectiveStressAnalysis 9-26
9.3.2 Base reinforcement 9-28
9.3.3 GroundImprovement 9-29
9.3.4 Lightweight Fills 9-30
9.3.4.1 Geofoam 9-30
9.3.4.2 LightweightAggregates 9-31
9.3.4.3 Wood Fiber 9-31
9.3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires 9-31
9.3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete 9-31
9.3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys 9-32
9.4 Settlement Mitigation 9-32
9.4.1 AccelerationUsingWickDrains 9-32
9.4.2 AccelerationUsingSurcharges 9-33
9.4.3 Lightweight Fills 9-34
9.4.4 Over-excavation 9-34
9.5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development 9-35
9.5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring 9-36
9.5.2 Instrumentation 9-37
9.5.2.1 Piezometers 9-37
9.5.2.2 InstrumentationforSettlement 9-38
9.5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates 9-38
9.5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells 9-38
9.5.2.2.3 Sondex System 9-38
9.5.2.2.4 HorizontalInclinometer 9-38
9.5.3 PS&E Considerations 9-39
9.5.4 PS&E Checklist 9-39
9.6 References 9-40
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page ix
July 2010
Appendix9-A ExamplesIllustratingStagedFillConstructionDesign 9-43
9-A.1 ProblemSetup 9-43
9-A.2 DeterminationofMaximumStableFirstStageFillHeight 9-44
9-A.3 TotalStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-45
9-A.4 EffectiveStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-51
Chapter 10 Soil Cut Design
10.1 OverviewandDataAcquisition 10-3
10.1.1 Overview 10-3
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 10-3
10.1.3 Field Exploration 10-4
10.1.3.1 Test Borings 10-4
10.1.3.2 Sampling 10-4
10.1.3.3 Groundwater Measurement 10-5
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing 10-5
10.2 Overall Design Considerations 10-6
10.2.1 Overview 10-6
10.2.2 Design Parameters 10-7
10.3 Soil Cut Design 10-7
10.3.1 DesignApproachandMethodology 10-7
10.3.2 SeepageAnalysisandImpactonDesign 10-9
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design 10-9
10.3.4 StabilityImprovementTechniques 10-10
10.3.5 Erosion and Piping Considerations 10-11
10.4 Use of Excavated Materials 10-12
10.5 Special Considerations for Loess 10-13
10.6 PS&E Considerations 10-20
10.7 References 10-20
Appendix10-A WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationLoess
Slope Design Checklist 10-23
Chapter 11 Ground Improvement
11.1 Overview 11-3
11.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforGround
ImprovementAnalysis 11-3
11.3 DesignRequirements 11-4
11.4 References 11-5
Contents
Page x WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Chapter 12 Rock Cut Design
12.1 Overview 12-3
12.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforRockCut
StabilityAnalysis 12-3
12.3 DesignRequirements 12-3
12.4 References 12-3
Chapter 13 Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
13.1 Overview 13-3
13.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforLandslideAnalysis 13-3
13.3 DesignRequirements 13-3
13.4 References 13-3
Chapter 14 Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
14.1 Overview 14-3
14.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforUnstable
RockslopeAnalysis 14-3
14.3 DesignRequirements 14-3
14.4 References 14-3
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
15.1 IntroductionandDesignStandards 15-1
15.2 OverviewofWallClassifcationsandDesignProcessforWalls 15-2
15.3 RequiredInformation 15-4
15.3.1 Site Data and Permits 15-4
15.3.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Retaining Wall and Reinforced Slope Design 15-4
15.3.3 Site Reconnaissance 15-6
15.3.4 FieldExplorationRequirements 15-6
15.3.4.1 Exploration Type, Depth, and Spacing 15-8
15.3.4.2 WallsandSlopesRequiringAdditionalExploration 15-9
15.3.4.2.1 Soil Nail Walls 15-9
15.3.4.2.2 WallsWithGroundAnchorsorDeadmenAnchors 15-9
15.3.4.2.3 Wall or Slopes With Steep Back Slopes or
Steep Toe Slopes 15-10
15.3.5 Field,Laboratory,andGeophysicalTestingforAbutments,
Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes 15-10
15.3.6 Groundwater 15-11
15.3.7 WallBackfllTestingandDesignProperties 15-12
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page xi
August 2011
15.4 GeneralDesignRequirements 15-12
15.4.1 Design Methods 15-12
15.4.2 Tiered Walls 15-14
15.4.3 Back-to-Back Walls 15-14
15.4.4 Walls on Slopes 15-15
15.4.5 Minimum Embedment 15-16
15.4.6 WallHeightLimitations 15-16
15.4.7 ServiceabilityRequirements 15-17
15.4.8 Active,Passive,At-RestEarthPressures 15-18
15.4.9 Surcharge Loads 15-19
15.4.10 Seismic Earth Pressures 15-19
15.4.11 Liquefaction 15-23
15.4.12 Overall Stability 15-23
15.4.13 Wall Drainage 15-23
15.4.14 Utilities 15-24
15.4.15 Guardrail and Barrier 15-24
15.5 WallTypeSpecifcDesignRequirements 15-26
15.5.1 Abutments 15-26
15.5.2 NongravityCantileverandAnchoredWalls 15-26
15.5.2.1 Nongravity Cantilever Walls 15-26
15.5.2.2 Anchored/BracedWalls 15-27
15.5.2.3 PermanentGroundAnchors 15-28
15.5.2.4 Deadmen 15-32
15.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 15-32
15.5.3.1 Live Load Considerations for MSE Walls 15-32
15.5.3.2 BackfllConsiderationsforMSEWalls 15-34
15.5.3.3 CompoundStabilityAssessmentforMSEWalls 15-35
15.5.3.4 Design of MSE Walls Placed in Front of Existing Permanent
Walls or Rock 15-36
15.5.3.5 MSEWallSupportedAbutments 15-38
15.5.3.6 FullHeightProppedPrecastConcretePanelMSEWalls 15-40
15.5.3.7 Flexible Faced MSE Walls With Vegetation 15-41
15.5.3.8 Dry Cast Concrete Block Faced MSE Walls 15-41
15.5.3.9 InternalStabilityUsingK-StiffnessMethod 15-43
15.5.3.9.1 K-StiffnessMethodLoadsandLoadFactors 15-43
15.5.3.9.2 K-StiffnessMethodLoadFactors 15-51
15.5.3.9.3 K-StiffnessMethodResistanceFactors 15-53
15.5.3.9.4 SafetyAgainstStructuralFailure(InternalStability)15-54
15.5.3.9.5 StrengthLimitStateDesignforInternalStability
UsingtheK-StiffnessMethodGeosyntheticWalls15-56
15.5.3.9.6 StrengthLimitStateDesignforInternal
StabilityUsingtheK-StiffnessMethodSteel
Reinforced Walls 15-60
15.5.3.9.7 CombiningOtherLoadsWiththeK-StiffnessMethod
Estimate of T
max
forInternalStabilityDesign 15-64
15.5.3.9.8 DesignSequenceConsiderationsforthe
K-StiffnessMethod 15-64
Contents
Page xii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.5.4 Prefabricated Modular Walls 15-65
15.5.5 Rock Walls 15-65
15.5.6 Reinforced Slopes 15-66
15.5.7 Soil Nail Walls 15-67
15.6 Standard Plan Walls 15-68
15.7 Temporary Cut Slopes and Shoring 15-69
15.7.1 Overview 15-69
15.7.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Design 15-71
15.7.3 GeneralDesignRequirements 15-71
15.7.3.1 Design Procedures 15-72
15.7.3.2 Safety Factors/Resistance Factors 15-72
15.7.3.3 Design Loads 15-73
15.7.3.4 Design Property Selection 15-74
15.7.4 SpecialRequirementsforTemporaryCutSlopes 15-74
15.7.5 PerformanceRequirementsforTemporaryShoringandCutSlopes 15-76
15.7.6 SpecialDesignRequirementsforTemporaryRetainingSystems 15-77
15.7.6.1 FillApplications 15-77
15.7.6.1.1 MSE Walls 15-77
15.7.6.1.2 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls 15-78
15.7.6.2 CutApplications 15-78
15.7.6.2.1 Trench Boxes 15-79
15.7.6.2.2 SheetPiling,withorwithoutGroundAnchors 15-79
15.7.6.2.3 SoldierPilesWithorWithoutGroundAnchors 15-80
15.7.6.2.4 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls 15-80
15.7.6.2.5 Braced Cuts 15-80
15.7.6.2.6 Soil Nail Walls 15-80
15.7.6.3 UncommonShoringSystemsforCutApplications 15-81
15.7.7 Shoring and Excavation Design Submittal Review Guidelines 15-81
15.8 References 15-83
Appendices 15-86
PreapprovedWallAppendices 15-87
Appendix15-A PreapprovedProprietaryWallandReinforcedSlopeGeneralDesign
RequirementsandResponsibilities 15-A-1
Appendix15-B PreapprovedProprietaryWall/ReinforcedSlopeDesignand
Construction Review Checklist 15-B-1
Appendix15-C HITECEarthRetainingSystemsEvaluationforMSEWallandReinforced
SlopeSystems,asModifedforWSDOTUse:SubmittalRequirements 15-C-1
Appendix15-D PreapprovedProprietaryWallSystems 15-D-1
Appendix15-E DescriptionofTypicalTemporaryShoringSystemsandSelection
Considerations 15-E-1
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page xiii
April 2012
Preapproved Wall Appendix:
Specifc Requirements and Details for LB Foster Retained Earth Concrete Panel Walls 1
Specifc Requirements and Details for Eureka Reinforced Soil Concrete Panel Walls 11
Specifc Requirements and Details for Hilfker Welded Wire Faced Walls 15
Specifc Requirements and Details for KeySystem I Walls 21
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar MESA Walls 31
Specifc Requirements and Details for T-WALL (The Neel Company) 51
Specifc Requirements and Details for Reinforced Earth (RECO) Concrete Panel Walls 67
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls 117
Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls 137
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls 143
Chapter 16 Geosynthetic Design
16.1 Overview 16-3
16.2 Development of Design Parameters for Geosynthetic Application 16-3
16.3 Design Requirements 16-4
16.4 References 16-4
Chapter 17 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
Culverts, and Buildings
17.1 General 17-3
17.1.1 Overview 17-3
17.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 17-3
17.1.3 Field Investigation 17-3
17.2 Foundation Design Requirements for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles,
Cantilever Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires - General 17-6
17.2.1 Design by Correlation for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever
Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-6
17.2.2 Special Design for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever Signs,
Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-9
17.2.3 Cantilever Signals and Strain Pole Standards 17-9
17.2.3.1 Overview 17-9
17.2.3.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-10
17.2.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-10
Contents
Page xiv WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
17.2.4 Cantilever and Sign Bridges 17-11
17.2.4.1 Overview 17-11
17.2.4.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-11
17.2.4.3 Construction Considerations 17-11
17.2.5 Luminaires (Light Standards) 17-12
17.2.5.1 Overview 17-12
17.2.5.2 Standard Foundation Design 17-12
17.2.5.3 Construction Considerations 17-13
17.3 Noise Barriers 17-13
17.3.1 Overview 17-13
17.3.4 Foundation Design Requirements for Noise Barriers 17-14
17.3.4.1 Spread Footings 17-14
17.3.4.2 Shaft Foundations 17-15
17.3.4.3 Non-Standard Foundation Design 17-17
17.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-18
17.4 Culverts 17-18
17.4.1 Overview 17-18
17.4.2 Culvert Design and Construction Considerations 17-18
17.5 Buildings 17-19
17.5.1 Overview 17-19
17.5.2 Design Requirement for Buildings 17-19
17.6 References 17-22
Chapter 18 Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
18.1 Overview 18-3
18.2 Design Philosophy 18-3
18.3 Load and Resistance Factors for Marine Structures Subject to Ship Impact 18-3
18.4 References 18-3
Chapter 19 Infltration Facility Design
19.1 Overview 19-3
19.2 Geotechnical Investigation and Design for Infltration Facilities 19-3
19.3 References 19-3
Chapter 20 Unstable Slope Management
20.1 Overview 20-3
20.2 References 20-3
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page xv
November 2011
Chapter 21 Materials Source Investigation and Report
21.1 Overview 21-3
21.2 MaterialSourceGeotechnicalInvestigation 21-3
21.3 Materials Source Report 21-6
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and
Support for Design-Build Projects 22-1
22.1 Overview 22-1
22.2 Defnitions 22-1
22.3 FieldInvestigationRequirementsfortheGDRandGBR 22-2
22.4 PurposeandContentoftheGeotechnicalReportsIncluded
in the Contract Documents 22-5
22.5 Geotechnical Memoranda and Other Reference Documents 22-8
22.6 Geotechnical RFP Development 22-10
22.7 GeotechnicalInvestigationDuringRFPAdvertisement 22-11
22.8 Geotechnical Support for Design-Build Projects 22-12
Appendix22-A ExampleSupplementalGeotechnicalBoringProgramITPLanguage 22-15
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
23.1 OverviewandGeneralRequirements 23-1
23.2 ReportCertifcationandGeneralFormat 23-2
23.2 GeotechnicalDivisionReportContentRequirements 23-7
23.2.1 Conceptual or Preliminary Level Geotechnical Reports 23-7
23.2.2 Final Geotechnical Design Reports 23-9
23.2.3 SpecialReportingRequirementsforLRFDFoundationandWallDesigns 23-13
23.2.3.1 Footings 23-13
23.2.3.2 Drilled Shafts 23-15
23.2.3.3 Piles 23-17
23.2.3.4 Retaining Walls 23-19
23.3 InformationtoBeProvidedintheGeotechnicalDesignFile 23-24
23.3.1 Documentation for Conceptual Level Geotechnical Design 23-24
23.3.2 Documentation for Final Geotechnical Design 23-25
23.3.3 Geotechnical File Contents 23-26
23.4 Consultant Geotechnical Reports and Documentation Produced on Behalf
of WSDOT 23-27
23.5 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions 23-28
Appendix23-A PS&EReviewChecklist 23-31
Appendix23-B Typical Design Cross-Section for a Deep Foundation 23-37
Contents
Page xvi WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Chapter 1 Geotechnical
Operations and Administration Contents
1.1 ScopeofGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,andMaintenanceSupport 1-1
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase 1-2
1.1.2 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDesignPhase 1-2
1.1.3 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforPS&EDevelopmentPhase 1-3
1.2 RoleofOffcesProvidingIn-HouseGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,and
MaintenanceSupport 1-3
1.2.1 LeadRoleforWSDOTRegardingGeotechnicalPolicyandDesign 1-3
1.2.2 GeotechnicalFunctionsDelegatedtotheRegions 1-5
1.2.3 CoordinationbetweenHQsandRegionRegardingEmergencyResponse 1-8
1.3 GeotechnicalSupportwithintheWSDOTProjectManagementProcess(PMP) 1-10
1.3.1 InitiateandAlign 1-10
1.3.2 PlantheWork 1-11
1.3.3 EndorsethePlan 1-11
1.3.4 WorkthePlan 1-12
1.3.5 TransitionandClosure 1-12
1.3.6 ApplicationofthePMPtoConstruction 1-12
1.3.7 MasterDeliverablestobeConsidered 1-13
1.4 GeotechnicalReportReviewProcess,CertifcationandApprovalRequirements 1-15
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation 1-16
1.4.2 ApprovalofReportsProducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision 1-17
1.5 ReportsProducedbyConsultantsorotherAgenciesforWSDOT,andReports
ProducedbyDesign-Builders 1-17
1.6 GeotechnicalConsultantAdministration 1-18
1.7 GeotechnicalInformationProvidedtoBidders 1-21
1.7.1 FinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentation 1-21
1.7.2 FinalGeotechnicalDocumentationPublication 1-21
1.7.3 GeotechnicalInformationtobeIncludedasPartoftheContract 1-22
1.8 SampleRetentionandChainofCustody 1-22
1.9 GeotechnicalDesignPoliciesandtheirBasis 1-23
1.10 GeotechnicalConstructionSupportPolicies 1-24
1.10.1 DivisionofResponsibilitiesforConstructionSupportofDesign-
Bid-BuildProjects 1-24
1.10.2 DivisionofResponsibilitiesforConstructionSupportofDesign-
BuildProjects 1-25
1.10.3 GeotechnicalDivisionRolesandCommunicationProtocolsfor
ConstructionSupport 1-26
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-i
J anuary 2010
1.11 GeotechnicalConstructionSubmittalReviewPolicies 1-27
1.11.1 ProprietaryRetainingWalls 1-27
1.11.2 OtherConstructionSubmittals(Non-Proprietarywalls,Excavation
andShoring,SoldierPiles,GroundAnchors,Shafts,Piles,Ground
Improvement,etc.) 1-27
Appendix1-A PreliminaryGeotechnicalEngineeringServicesScopeofWork 1-29
Appendix1-B GeotechnicalEngineeringServicesScopeofWorkforPS&ELevel
Design 1-33
Contents Chapter 1
Page 1-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
1.1 Scope of Geotechnical Design, Construction, and
Maintenance Support
Thefocusofgeotechnicaldesign,construction,andmaintenancesupport
withinthecontextofWSDOTistoinsurethatthesoilorrockbeneath
thegroundsurfacecansupporttheloadsandconditionsplacedonitby
transportationfacilities.Typicalgeotechnicalactivitiesincludethefollowing:
subsurfacefeldinvestigations,
geologicsitecharacterization,laboratorytestingofsoilandrock,
structurefoundationandretainingwalldesign,
soilcutandfllstabilitydesign,
subsurfacegroundimprovement,
seismicsitecharacterizationanddesign,
rockslopedesign,
unstableslopemanagement,
unstableslope(e.g.,rockfall,landslides,debrisfow,etc.)mitigation,
infltration,subsurfacedrainageandrelatedhydrogeologicdesign,
materialsource(pitsandquarries)evaluation,
long-termsitemonitoringforgeotechnicalengineeringpurposes,
supporttoRegionalconstructionstaffregardinggeotechnicalissuesand
contractorclaims,and
supporttoRegionalmaintenancestaffasgeotechnicalproblems
(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,earthquakeorfooddamage,etc.)ariseon
transportationfacilitiesthroughoutthestate.
A geotechnical investigation isconductedonallprojectsthatinvolve
signifcantgradingquantities(includingstateownedmaterialssource
development),unstableground,foundationsforstructures,andgroundwater
impacts(includinginfltration).Thegoalofthegeotechnicalinvestigationisto
preservethesafetyofthepublicwhousethefacility,aswellastopreservethe
economicinvestmentbytheStateofWashington.
Asdefnedinthismanual,geotechnicalengineeringisinclusiveofall
theaspectsofdesignandconstructionsupportasdescribedabove,and
includesthedisciplinesoffoundationengineeringandengineeringgeology.
Geotechnicalengineeringshallbeconductedbyengineersorengineering
geologistswhopossessadequategeotechnicaltrainingandexperience.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-1
J anuary 2010
Geotechnicalengineeringshallbeconductedinaccordancewithregionallyor
nationallyacceptedgeotechnicalpractice,andthegeotechnicalengineering
practiceasdefnedbythismanual.Geotechnicalengineeringshall be
performedby,orunderthedirectsupervisionof,apersonlicensedtoperform
suchworkinthestateofWashington,whoisqualifedbyeducationor
experienceinthistechnicalspecialtyofengineeringperWAC196-27A-020.
Forworkthatdoesordoesnotrequirecertifcationbyaprofessionalengineer,
butdoesrequirecertifcationbyalicensedengineeringgeologist(LEG),such
workalsoshallbeperformedby,orunderthedirectsupervisionof,aperson
licensedtoperformsuchworkinthestateofWashington,whoisqualifedby
educationorexperienceinthistechnicalspecialtyperWAC308-15-090.
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase
Fortheprojectdefnitionphase,thegeotechnicalrecommendationsprovided
willbeattheconceptual/feasibilitylevel,forthepurposeofdevelopinga
projectestimatetoestablishthetransportationconstructionprogramtobe
approvedbythelegislature.Theinvestigationforthisphaseusuallyconsists
ofafeldreconnaissancebythegeotechnicaldesignerandareviewofthe
existingrecords,geologicmaps,andsoforth.Forprojectsthatlacksignifcant
geotechnicalinformationorarecomplex,somesoilboringsmaybedrilledat
criticallocationsfordevelopmentoftheprojectdefnitionwithapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Akeyroleofthegeotechnicaldesignerinthisstageofaprojectistoidentify
potentialfatalfawswiththeproject,potentialconstructabilityissues,and
geotechnicalhazardssuchasearthquakesourcesandfaults,liquefaction,
landslides,rockfall,andsoftground,forexample.Thegeotechnicaldesigner
shallprovideconceptualhazardavoidanceormitigationplanstoaddressall
theidentifedgeotechnicalissues.Anassessmentoftheeffectgeotechnical
issueshaveonconstructionstagingandprojectconstructabilitymustbemade
atthistime.Futuregeotechnicaldesignservicesneededintermsoftime,cost,
and the need for special permits to perform the geotechnical investigation
(criticalareasordinances),aredeterminedatthistime.
1.1.2 Geotechnical Design Objectives for Project Design Phase
ItisinthisphasethattheRegionoffce,orcivilconsultant,refnesand
defnestheprojectsalignment,setsproflesandgrade,andidentifesspecifc
projectelementstobeaddressedbyspecialtygroupswithinWSDOT,orother
consultants.Oncethepreliminaryprojectelementsandalignmentsforthe
projectareestablished,thegeotechnicaldesignerwillassessfeasiblecutand
fllslopestoenabletheRegionorcivilconsultanttoestablishtheright-of-way
needsfortheproject.Wherewallsmaybeneeded,usingapproximatewall
locationsandheightsidentifedbytheRegion,anassessmentoffeasiblewall
typesisperformedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,primarilytoestablishright-
of-wayandeasementneeds(asistrueforslopes).
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheRegionwillidentifypotentiallocationsforinfltration/detentionfacilities,
and the geotechnical designer shall begin investigating and assessing if the
selectedsitesaresuitableforinfltration.Thegeotechnicaldataandanalysis
neededtoassessinfltration/detentionfacilitysizeandfeasibility,including
theseasonalgroundwatermeasurementsnecessarytomeettherequirements
intheHighwayRunoffManual(HRM)arealsoobtained.Sizingofthe
infltration/detentionfacilitiesisconductedatthistimetomakesureenough
right-of-wayisavailabletoaddresstheprojectstormwaterrequirements.
Conceptualand/ormoredetailedpreliminarybridgefoundationdesign,for
example,Type,Size,&Location(TS&L),ifrequired,maybeconducted
duringthisphase,ifitwasnotconductedduringprojectdefnition,toevaluate
bridgealternativesanddevelopamoreaccurateestimateofcost.
Beforetheendofthisphase,thegeotechnicaldatanecessarytoallowfuture
completionofthePS&Eleveldesignworkisgathered(fnalgeometricdata,
testholedata,andsoforth.)
1.1.3 Geotechnical Design Objectives for PS&E Development Phase
Itisinthisphasethatfnaldesignofallgeotechnicalprojectfeaturesis
accomplished.Recommendationsforthesedesigns,aswellasspecial
provisions and plan details to incorporate the geotechnical design
recommendationsinthePS&E,areprovidedinthegeotechnicalreports
andmemorandumspreparedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Thismanual,
AASHTOSpecifcations,andWSDOTsvariousengineeringpublications
providespecifcdesignrequirementsforthisphaseofdesign.Detailed
recommendationsforthestagingandconstructabilityoftheproject
geotechnicalfeaturesarealsoprovided.
1.2 Role of Offces Providing In-House Geotechnical Design,
Construction, and Maintenance Support
1.2.1 Lead Role for WSDOT Regarding Geotechnical Policy and Design
Basedonanexecutivelevelpolicydecisioninitiatedin1980,formally
implementedin1983,andlaterformallydocumentedintheWSDOTState
DesignManual(M22-01),geotechnicaldesign,constructionsupport,and
maintenancesupportfunctionsarecentralizedasaHeadquartersfunction.
Asaresultofthisexecutivedecision,theHQMaterialsLaboratorywas
directedtobeginobtainingstaffwithspecializedgeotechnicalexpertiseand
tomaintainthatspecializedexpertise.Theregionsweredirectedtoretainthe
RegionMaterialsEngineerposition,andthatRegionMaterialsstaffbetrained
intheareaofsoilstothedegreepossibletobeabletofunctionasaneffective
liaisonwiththeHQMaterialsLaboratorygeotechnicalpersonnel.However,
themajorgeotechnicalwork(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.2.2)istobe
conductedbytheHQsstaff,basedonthisexecutivepolicy.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-3
J anuary 2010
Therefore,theHeadquarters(HQ)GeotechnicalDivisionprovidesthelead
regarding the development and implementation of geotechnical design policy
forWSDOT.TheStateGeotechnicalEngineeristhefnalapprovalauthority
forgeotechnicalpolicy,andforgeotechnicalinvestigationsanddesigns
conductedstatewideforWSDOTprojects.Geotechnicalpoliciesarecontained
intheWSDOTStateDesignManual(e.g.,Chapters510,530,and1130),the
StandardPlans,theStandard Specifcations,andinGeneralSpecialProvisions
inadditiontothisGeotechnicalDesignManual.TheStateGeotechnical
Engineerisalsothefnalapprovalauthorityregardinggeotechnicaldesigns
conductedbyothers(e.g.,localagencies,developers,etc.)thatresultin
modifcationtotransportationfacilitiesthatareunderthejurisdictionof
WSDOTorotherwiseimpactWSDOTfacilities.
ThefunctionalstructureoftheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisprovidedin
Figure1-1.
State Geotechnical Engineer
Foundation
Engineering Section
Engineering
Geology Section
Engineering
Geology
Design Unit
Unstable
Slope Pit
and Quarry
- GIS Unit
Engineering
Geology
Design Unit
Field
Exploration
Unit
Foundation
Design Unit
Geotechnical
Division
Technician
and Clerical
Support
Geotechnical
Consultant Liaison,
Innovative
Contracting, and
Project
Development
Foundation
Design Unit
Geotechnical
Division
Laboratory and
Instrumentation
Support
Geotechnical
Construction
Support
Foundation
Design Unit
Functional organization of the WSDOT HQ Geotechnical Division.
Figure 1-1
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.2.2 Geotechnical Functions Delegated to the Regions
SomegeotechnicalfunctionshavebeendelegatedtotheRegionMaterials
Engineers(RME),asdescribedintheWSDOTStateDesignManual,
Chapter510.Ingeneral,theRMEfunctionsastheinitialpointofcontact
forallgeotechnicalwork,withtheexceptionofBridgeOffce,Washington
StateFerries(WSF),andUrbanCorridorsOffce(UCO)projects.Ifthe
geotechnicalworkrequiredisrelativelystraightforward(inthattheground
isstableandrelativelyfrm,bedrockisnotinvolved,thedesignisnot
complicatedbyhighgroundwaterorseepage,andthedesignoftheproject
geotechnicalelementsdoesnotrequirespecializedgeotechnicaldesign
expertise),theRMEtakestheleadinconductingthegeotechnicalwork.If
thisisnotthecase,theRMEasksfortheinvolvementandservicesofthe
HQGeotechnicalDivision.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionrespondstoand
providesrecommendationsdirectlytotheWSDOTOffceresponsiblefor
theproject,butalwayskeepstheRMEinformed.Forstructuralprojects
(bridgesandtunnels,forexample),theBridgeandStructuresOffceworks
directlywiththeHQGeotechnicalDivision.ForWSFprojects,theTerminal
EngineeringOffceworksdirectlywiththeRMEortheHQGeotechnical
Division,dependingonthenatureoftheproject.ForUCOprojects,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionhandlesallgeotechnicalwork.
Generalguidelinesandrequirementsregardingcoordinationofgeotechnical
workareprovidedintheWSDOTStateDesignManual,Section510.04.
Figure1-2illustratesthedivisionofgeotechnicaldesignresponsibility
betweentheregionmaterialsoffcesandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionand
isconsistentwiththeWSDOTStateDesignManual.TheRegionMaterials
Engineers(RME)andtheirstaff,andtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionpersonnel
shouldcommunicateonaregularbasisasgeotechnicalprojectsdevelop.The
RMEshouldbeviewedastheHQGeotechnicalDivisionsrepresentativein
theregion.TheRMEsfunctionastheinitialpointofcontactforgeotechnical
workintheirrespectiveregionsinthattheRMEwillbeevaluatingthe
projectsincludedintheconstructionprogramwithintheirrespectiveregions
atthebeginningofthedesignphaseforthoseprojects,anddecidingifthe
natureoftheworkincludedinthoseprojectswillrequireHQGeotechnical
Divisioninvolvementanddesignsupport.Similarly,duringtheproject
defnitionphase,theRMEfunctionsastheinitialpointofcontactregarding
geotechnicalissues.Ifitappearsthenatureofthegeotechnicalissuesthat
needtobeaddressedtodevelopanaccurateprojectdefnitionwillrequire
HQGeotechnicalDivisionassistance,theRMEisresponsibletocontactthe
HQGeotechnicalDivisiontoobtaingeotechnicalinputfortheproject.Figure
1-2shouldbeusedasaguideforthispurposeforprojectdefnition,design,
andPS&Edevelopment,butsomejudgmentwillberequired,asspecifc
projectsand/orconditionsmaynotcompletelyfttheprojectcategorieslisted
inFigure1-2.TheRMEoffceandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionmustview
themselvesasateamtogetthegeotechnicalworkaccomplishedfromproject
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-5
J anuary 2010
inceptiontocompletionoftheconstruction.IftheRMEisnotsureifHQ
GeotechnicalDivisioninvolvementisneeded,theRMEandHQGeotechnical
Divisionshoulddiscusstheprojectneedstogether.
ForgeotechnicalworkthatisclearlytheresponsibilityoftheRMEto
completebasedonFigure1-2,theRMEshouldcompletethegeotechnical
subsurfacesiteinvestigationplan,performthedesign,andcompletetheregion
soilsreport.Forthoseregionsthatdonothavetheresources(i.e.,drillcrews)
tocarryoutthegeotechnicalsubsurfacesiteinvestigation,theRMEsubmits
theplantotheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividualdelegatedto
actonbehalfoftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.Inthiscase,thesubsurface
siteinvestigationiscarriedoutbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionField
InvestigationUnit.Iftheresultsofthesiteinvestigationdemonstratethatthe
projectgeotechnicaldesignisstillaRMEresponsibility,thedatafromthe
siteinvestigationwillbeprovidedtotheRMEandtheRMEwillcomplete
thegeotechnicaldesignandreport.Ifthesubsurfaceconditionsaresuchthat
HQinvolvementisrequired,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionwilldiscussthe
designresponsibilitywiththeRME.If,duetothenatureoftheprojectorthe
potentialsubsurfaceconditions,itisnotclearifthedesignwillbeaHQor
regionresponsibility,theRMEshouldcontacttheHQGeotechnicalDivision
forassistanceinplanning,andifnecessarytocarryout,thegeotechnical
investigationanddesign.
WithregardtodivisionofworkbetweentheHQGeotechnicalDivisionand
theRME,Figure1-2indicatesthatHQinvolvementisrequiredifthesoils
appeartobesoftorunstable.Asageneralguide,granularsoilsclassifedas
looseorveryloose(i.e.,N10blows/ft)andclaysclassifedasverysoftto
stiff(N15blows/ft)shouldbeconsideredpotentiallyunstable,especially
iftheyarewetorareexhibitingsignsofinstabilitysuchascrackingor
slumping.WhensuchsoilsareencounteredbytheRME,whetherornot
theworkshouldberetainedbytheRMEshouldbediscussedwiththeHQ
GeotechnicalDivisiontodetermineofmoredetailedinputfromHQregarding
thestabilityofthesoilsencounteredisneeded.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Project Development and/or
Maintenance
Through RME to HQ Geotech. Division
J oint Field Investigation by
Region and Geotech. Division
Field Investigation
by Region
Field Investigation
by Geotech. Division
Typical Projects:
Bridge Structures
Major Bldg. Found.
Ferry Terminals
Landslides
All Rock Cuts
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with Unstable Soil
(includes all wetlands)
Major Cuts/Fills >10 ft
(most soils)
Walls >10 ft, Rockeries
>5 ft, and all
Geosynthetic and Special
Design Walls
Walls on Steep Slopes,
with Heavy Surcharges,
or on Soft Soil
Culverts >3 ft dia.
Infiltration ponds with
slopes >10 ft high, or
any pond in soft soil, or
where seepage could
cause instability
Typical Projects:
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with Potentially
Unstable Soil
Walls 10 ft and
rockeries 5 ft on
Potentially Unstable or
Soft Soil
Maint. Bldgs, Rest
Areas, & Park & Ride
Lots, with Potentially
unstable Soil
Pits & Quarries (field
investigation only)
Signs, Signals, &
Luminaires which Need
Special Foundation
Sliver cuts/fills >10 ft or
culverts/arches >3 ft in
dense to very dense soils
Infiltration ponds with
potentially unstable soil,
or located on sloping
ground
Typical Projects:
Resurfacing
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with no Unstable Soil
Walls 10 ft and
Rockeries 5 ft, Except
Wall on Steep Slope or
on Soft Soil
Maint. Bldgs, Rest
Areas, & Park &
Ride Lots, with no
unstable Soil
Culverts 3 ft dia.
Signs, Signals, &
Luminaires with
standard foundation
Pits & Quarries
Pavement and Structure
Coring, pH
Infiltration ponds with
slopes 10 ft high, in
gently sloping areas not
in soft or unstable soils
Region soil report or
memo by RME
HQ Review and
concurrence
HQ Geotechnical
Report or Memo
CC to RME
To Appropriate
Design/Construction Office
Geotechnical design workfow and division of responsibility.
Figure 1-2
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-7
J anuary 2010
1.2.3 Coordination between HQs and Region Regarding Emergency Response
Theneedforemergencygeotechnicalresponseisprimarilytheresultofslope
failure,rockfallevents,fooding,orearthquakes.Forthecaseofslopefailure
(includingretainingwalls)androckfallevents,andslopefailurecausedby
foodingorearthquakes,thefollowingprocessshouldbeused:
1. Oncethefailureoccurs,RegionMaintenanceconductsaninitial
evaluationofthesite.
2. Ifthereisanyquestionastothestabilityoftheaffectedslopeandthe
potentialforfutureslopemovementorrockfall,theRegionMaintenance
OffceshouldcontacttheRegionalMaterialsEngineer(RME).
3. TheRMEperformsasitereviewassoonaspossibletoassessthe
magnitudeoftheproblem,andtodetermineifHQGeotechnicalDivision
assistanceisneeded.Tosavetime,theRMEmay,attheRMEsdiscretion,
skiptheRMEfeldreviewandtransferthefeldreviewandalldesign
responsibilitiesfullytotheHQGeotechnicalDivision,ifitisobvious
thatHQinvolvementwillbeneeded.Ifitisdeterminedthatadetailed
geotechnicalevaluationbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisnotneeded
(e.g.,conditionsarenotgeologicallycomplex,thefailureislimitedin
extent,andtheriskofcontinuedslopemovementorinstabilityislow,
andslopestabilizationmethodsarenotrequired),theRMEprovides
recommendationstocompletethecleanupandfacilityrepair.
4. Ifitisdeterminedthatthereisarealthreatofcontinuedslopemovement,
instability,orrockfall,therearegeologicalcomplexitiesatthesitethatwill
requireamoredetailedgeotechnicalanalysistoassessthepotentialthreat,
orifanengineeredslopestabilitymitigationmayberequired,theRME
immediatelycontactstheHQGeotechnicalDivisiontocompletetheinitial
evaluation.Thiscontactmayinitiallytaketheformofaphonecalland/or
e-mailwithphotos,andassoonaspossibleajointsitereview,iftheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionfeelsitiswarranted.
5. TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionspecialist(s)respondsassoonaspossible
andcomestositetomakeaninitialassessment.Thespecialistprovides
theRegion(onsite)withthatassessmentandtherisk(s)associatedwith
thatassessment.Theassessmentincludesevaluationofthecause(s)ofthe
instability,thepotentialforfutureinstability,whetherornotthethreatof
futureinstabilityisimmediate,thepotentialthreattopublicandworker
safety,andtheneedforslopestabilizationmeasures.
6. TheRegion(typicallyaprojectoffce)shouldusethefeld
recommendationsprovidedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionspecialist
tobegindevelopingascopeofworkandcostestimatetocomplete
theemergencyworkconcurrentlywithHQGeotechnicalDivision
managementreviewofthefeldrecommendations,andwillimmediately
contact the region if any changes in the recommendations are needed as a
resultofthetechnicalreviewoftherecommendations.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
7. Basedontheassessmentandrecommendations,theRegionevaluates
risk(s)andcosttomitigatetheproblem.TheRegionthenmakesa
decisiontoeitherimmediatelyrepairtheslopeandfacility,openingup
thefacilitytothepublic,ortoclose,maintainclosure,orotherwiselimit
facilitypublicaccess.Iftheriskistoohightoimmediatelyrepairthe
facilityand/oropenituptofullpublicaccess,theRegionrequeststheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionforamorecompleteevaluationandstabilization
recommendation.
8. Oncestabilizationrecommendationsaredeveloped,theslopeisstabilized,
andthefacilityisreopened.Duringthestabilizationconstruction
activities,thepointofcontacttoaddressanyproblemsthatoccurandto
reviewtheacceptabilityofthefnishedstabilizationmeasuresistheoffce
whodevelopedthestabilizationrecommendations.
9. Sincemultipleactivitiesconductedbyseveraloffcesmustoccur
simultaneouslytoaddressanemergencyslopeproblem,frequent
stakeholdermeetingsorconferencecallsshouldbeconductedthroughout
thedurationoftheemergencyproject(designandconstruction)tokeep
allstakeholdersinformedandtomakeintermediatedecisionsasneeded.
Thesestakeholdermeetingsorconferencecallsshouldoccuratkey
juncturesinthedevelopmentoftheproject,orasneededbasedonthe
specifcneedsanddurationoftheproject.
Floodorseismiceventscanalsoresultinemergencyconditionsthatneed
geotechnicalevaluation.Otherthantheslopestabilityissuesaddressed
above,sucheventscanaffecttheintegrityofbridgesandotherstructures.In
thesesituations,otherthankeepingtheRMEinformedofthesituation,the
processforgeotechnicalevaluationprimarilyinvolvestheBridgeOffce.If
thestructureisunderthejurisdictionofWSF,thenWSFwouldberesponsible
toinitiatethegeotechnicalinvestigationinsteadoftheBridgeOffce.Inthese
cases,theprocessisgenerallyasfollows:
1. Oncethefailureorstructuredistressoccursandbecomesknown,the
BridgeOffce(orWSFformarineandterminalwork)conductsaninitial
evaluationofthestructure.
2. Ifthereisdamageorpotentialdamagetothestructurefoundation,the
BridgeoffceorWSFcontactstheHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoconduct
aninitialevaluationtoassesstheproblem,identifypotentialriskstothe
structureandthepublic,anddeveloppreliminarysolutions.TheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionshouldnotifytheRMEregardingtheproblem
atthispoint,anddiscusswiththeRMEanyinvolvementtheRegion
MaterialsOffcemayneedtohave.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-9
J anuary 2010
3. Basedonthisinitialevaluation,theBridgeOffce,inconcertwiththe
Region,orWSFinthecaseofmarineorterminalfacilities,determines
whetherornottorestrictpublicaccess,ortoclosethefacility,andwhether
or not to proceed with a more complete geotechnical investigation to
developarepairorreplacementforthestructurefoundation.
4. Ifitisdeterminedthatamorecompletegeotechnicalinvestigationis
needed,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionproceedswiththeinvestigationand
developsdesignrecommendations.
1.3 Geotechnical Support within the WSDOT Project Management
Process (PMP)
ByExecutiveOrderE1032.00,allphasesofWSDOTcapitaltransportation
projectsaretobedeliveredaccordingtotheprinciplesandpracticesofthe
ProjectManagementProcess(PMP).Ingeneral,thePMPincludesfvemain
steps.ThesestepsareInitiateandAlign,PlantheWork,Endorsethe
Plan,WorkthePlan,andTransitionandClosure.
Priortoorduringtheinitiateandalignstep,theprojectmanagershould
contacttheRMEtodetermineifthenatureoftheprojectcouldrequireHQ
GeotechnicalDivisioninvolvement.IfitappearsthatHQGeotechnical
Divisioninvolvementmayberequired,theRMEshouldmakearrangements
tohaveaHQGeotechnicalDivisionrepresentativeincludedinPMP
activities.Notethatatthispoint,detailedprojectsitedatawilllikelynotbe
available.Therefore,thisdeterminationbytheRMEwilllikelyneedtobe
madebasedonconceptualprojectdata,andpossiblyaprojectsitereview.
Thisdeterminationmustbemadeearlyintheprojectdevelopmentprocess.
Forexample,iftheprojectisdefnedforPMPtoincludethedevelopmentof
theprojectdefnition(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1),thisdetermination
mustbemadeatthebeginningoftheprojectdefnitionphase.Iftheproject
isdefnedinsteadtoincludeonlytheprojectdesignandPS&Edevelopment
phases(seeWSDOTGDMSections1.1.2and1.1.3),thisdeterminationmust
bemadeatthebeginningoftheprojectdesignphase,astheoffceresponsible
forthegeotechnicaldesignworkshouldbeincludedintheplanningforthe
project.
1.3.1 Initiate and Align
Assuminggeotechnicaldesignserviceswillbeneededtocompletetheproject,
duringtheinitiateandalignstep,theindividual/offceresponsibletoprovide
geotechnicalsupport(i.e.,eithertheHQGeotechnicalDivision,theRME
Offce,orboth)shouldbeincludedintheprojectteambytheprojectmanager.
Onceincludedintheteam,thegeotechnicalPMPteammember(ingeneral,
thisindividualisalsothegeotechnicaldesignerfortheproject)should,as
aminimum,participateintheInitiateandAligneffortstoprovideinput
regardingrolesandresponsibilities,boundaries,andmeasuresofsuccess.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.3.2 Plan the Work
DuringthePlantheWorkstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembershould
provideinputtotheteamregardingtheprojectspecifcWorkBreakdown
Structure(WBS)developedfromtheMasterDeliverablesList(MDL),and
theinputnecessarytodeveloptheprojectbudgetandschedule.Thiswould
includeadetailedanalysisofhowlongitwilltaketoperformthegeotechnical
tasksneededtocompletetheproject,anyindividualtaskdependenciesthat
affecttasksequencingandtheinterrelationshipbetweenthegeotechnical
tasksandtaskstobecompletedbyotherteammembers,andhowmuchitwill
costtocompletethosetasks.ItistheresponsibilityofthegeotechnicalPMP
teammembertocoordinatetheresourceneedsforthesubjectprojectwiththe
resourceneedsofotherprojectsthatrequiregeotechnicalinput,sothatthe
proposedprojectdeliveryschedulecanbeachieved.ThegeotechnicalPMP
teammemberwillalsocoordinatewiththeprojectteamandwiththeHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionmanagementregardingthedecisiontousegeotechnical
consultants,ifrequiredtoachievethedesiredprojectschedulemilestones.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammemberalsoprovidestechnicaloversightofand
coordinationwithanygeotechnicalconsultantsbeingusedfortheproject.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldalsoprovideinputtotheteam
regardingpotentialrisksorchangesinthegeotechnicalareathatcouldaffect
projectschedule,budget,orscope,andprovideastrategytodealwiththose
risksorchanges.Examplesofgeotechnicalriskincludepotentialdiffculties
ingettingdrillingpermitsorright-of-entry,uncertaintiesinthescopeofthe
geotechnicalinvestigationrequiredduetounknownsubsurfaceconditions,
mitigationofunstableground,liquefactionorotherseismichazards,etc.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldalsoprovidetheteamwithaplan
regardinghowgeotechnicalinvestigationanddesignquality,aswellashow
theaccuracyofgeotechnicaldesignscheduleandbudget,willbeassured.
1.3.3 Endorse the Plan
Oncetheworkhasbeenplanned,thenextstepistoEndorsethePlan.In
thisstep,thegeotechnicalaspectsoftheProjectManagementPlanshould
beendorsedbythemanagementoftheoffceresponsibletocarryoutthe
geotechnicalwork(e.g.,iftheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisresponsiblefor
completinggeotechnicalworkfortheproject,theHQGeotechnicalDivision
managementshouldendorsetheplan).Note:TheProjectManagementPlan
mustbereviewedandendorsedbyRegionManagement.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-11
J anuary 2010
1.3.4 Work the Plan
IntheWorkthePlanstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammemberwilltrack
thescheduleandbudgetforthegeotechnicalworkasitprogresses,keeping
theprojectteaminformedregardingtheprogressofthegeotechnicalworkas
identifedintheprojectCommunicationPlan.Ifchangesinthegeotechnical
scheduleand/orbudgetarelikelyduetounanticipatedproblems,scope
changes,orotherinaccuraciesinthegeotechnicalscheduleorbudget,
thegeotechnicalPMPteammemberisresponsibletoinformtheproject
teamasfarinadvanceaspossiblesothatadjustmentscanbemade.The
frequencyofreportingtotheteamontheprogressoftheworkisidentifed
intheCommunicationPlanandshouldbedecidedbasedontheneedsofthe
project,recognizingthatexcessiveprogressreportingcan,initself,impact
thescheduleandbudgetfortheworkduetothetimeittakestodevelopthe
interimreports.Asproblemsorchangesoccurintheproject,thegeotechnical
PMPteammemberassiststheprojectteamtoaddressthoseproblemsor
changes.
Ingeneralforthisstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembercompletes,
orarrangesforthecompletion,ofthegeotechnicalreportfortheproject,
andassiststheteaminthedevelopmentofcontractdocumentsneededto
constructtheproject.Inthecaseofdesign-buildprojects,seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter22regardingthedeliverablesneeded.
1.3.5 Transition and Closure
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldcoordinatewiththeproject
teamregardingthetransitionandclosureactivitiesthatrequiregeotechnical
inputandassistance.Thismayincludedocumentingthegeotechnicaldesign
decisionsmade,andidentifyingconstructioncontractspecifcationsthatneed
tobereevaluatedatalatertime,shouldtheprojectPS&Ebeputontheshelf
untiladequatefundingisavailable.ThegeotechnicalPMPteammember
shouldalsomakethegeotechnicalprojectflereadyforlong-termstorage,
makingsurethatifanothergeotechnicaldesignermustworkontheproject,
thatthecalculationsandlogicforthedecisionsmadeareeasytofollow.
1.3.6 Application of the PMP to Construction
Ifpossible,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldcontinuetoprovide
geotechnicalsupporttotheprojectthroughconstruction,functioningasthe
GeotechnicalAdvisorfortheconstructionproject,tominimizeanytransition
issuesbetweenthedesignandconstructionphases.TheGeotechnicalAdvisor
wouldbecomepartoftheconstructionprojectteamintheinitiateandalign
step,andwouldparticipatewiththeteamtodefnerolesandresponsibilities,
boundaries,andMeasuresofSuccess,assistinplanningforriskand/or
change,assistinthequalityassuranceandcontroloftheprojectgeotechnical
features,andhelptheprojectteamtomanagerisksandchangeastheyoccur.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.3.7 Master Deliverables to be Considered
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammemberwillneedtoprovideinformation
regardingthegeotechnicaldeliverablesandtasksintheMDL(seeTable1-1)
totheprojectteamforconsiderationindevelopingtheprojectschedule.For
manydeliverables,theregionProjectOffcewillneedtoprovideinformation
beforethegeotechnicalworkcanbegin.Themasterdeliverablesprovidedin
Table1-1arecurrentasofAugust2006.Notethatscoping(termed"Project
Defnition"inWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1),Design,andPS&Eare
combinedintoonephase,"Preconstruction",intheMDL.
AlltasksandsubtasksunderWBSCodePC-21inTable1-1areusedto
accomplishthegeotechnicalworkneededtocompletetheprojectdefnition
(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1).RegardingPreliminarySiteData(WBS
CodePC-21.01),thisinformationshouldbeprovidedbytheProjectOffce
totheRMEtobeconsistentwiththeprocessdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Sections1.2.2and1.3.RefertotheWSDOTDesignManual(M22-01),
Section510.04forspecifcsregardingwhatinformationistobesubmitted.
Notethatforthebigger,morecomplexprojectswheresomelimitedtest
holedrillingmaybeneeded,thistaskwouldalsorequiretheprojectoffce
toobtain,ortomakearrangementstoobtain,drillingpermitsandright-of-
entry.Supplyingthenecessarysitedataandpermitsshouldbeconsidereda
predecessortasktoMDLtaskPC-21.03.
IfitappearsthatHQGeotechnicalDivisioninvolvementmayberequired,
theRMEshouldmakearrangementstohaveaHQGeotechnicalDivision
representativeincludedinthegeotechnicalworktocompletetheproject
defnitionasdiscussedpreviously.Eachoffcethatisinvolvedprovidesinput
dataforthesedeliverablesintermsoftimeandcosttocompletethetask,and
thedeliverablesthemselves.Ifbothoffcesareinvolved,theregionProject
Offcewillneedtoaddthecostrequiredtoaccomplishtheworkfromboth
offcestoobtainthetotalcostforeachtask.
RegardingthescheduletocompletePC-21.03,theRMEandHQGeotechnical
Divisioneffortscan,ingeneral,beconductedconcurrently.Regarding
theConceptualGeotechnicalReport,uptotworeportsmayneedtobe
produced,onefortheRMEworkandonefortheHQGeotechnicalDivision
work,ifbothoffcesneedtobeinvolvedinthisprojectphaseforthegiven
project.Thisdeliverableshouldcontainthecostestimate,schedule,and
scopeofworktocompletethefnalprojectdesignthroughPS&E,andshould
discussthepotentialgeotechnicalriskissuesthatneedtobeaddressedto
constructtheproject,toestablishthescopeandbudgettoconstructthe
overallproject.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-13
J anuary 2010
WBS
Code
Task Name Task Description
Work
Op
PC-18.03 Discipline Reports
- Earth (Geology &
Soils)
Environmental Procedures Manual Section 420 Earth
(Geology & Soils)
0136
PC-20.03 Materials Source
Report
A report on a specifc WSDOT material source that verifes
the quality and quantity of the material requested
0156
PC-21 Geotechnical
Evaluations
Development of Geotechnical reports for project.
PC-21.01 Preliminary Site
Data
Project design offce is to provide a project description
and location of work to be performed to Region Materials
Engineer. See Design Manual Chapter 510.
0140
PC-21.02 Environmental
Permit for Field
Exploration
Field exploration may require permits to complete.
Permits need to be provided by the Project Offce to HQ
Geotechnical Offce/Region Materials Offce to enable
required feld work to be started.
0138
PC-21.03 Conceptual
Geotechnical Report
RME/HQ Geotechnical will provide recommendations at
the conceptual / feasibility level. Some soil borings may
be drilled at this time depending upon project scope and
available information.
0140
PC-21.04 Project Site Data Site information provided to RME by the project design
offce (specifc to the type of project) to initiate geotechnical
work on a project during the design and PS&E phases. See
Design Manual Chapter 510.
0140
PC-21.05 RME Geotech
Report(s)
Region Geotechnical Report containing geotechnical
recommendations and information applicable to the project.
There is a possibility of multiple reports, depending upon
the scope and complexity of the project.
0140
PC-21.06 HQ Geotechnical
Report(s)
HQ Geotechnical Report containing geotechnical
recommendations and information applicable to the project.
There is a possibility of multiple reports, depending upon
the scope and complexity of the project.
0140
PC-37.02 Summary of
Geotechnical
Conditions
HQ Geotechnical and/or Region Materials prepares
summary of geotechnical conditions for inclusion into the
PS&E as Appendix B.
0140
PC-43.03 Project Geotechnical
Documentation
Package
Printing of pertinent geotechnical reports for sale to
prospective bidders. Prepared by HQ Geotechnical and/or
Region Materials and printed by HQ Printing Services.
0140
Geotechnical Items in Master Deliverables List (MDL).
Table 1-1
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WBScodesPC-21.04,PC-21.05,PC-21.06andWBScodesPC-37.02andPC-
43.03)inTable1-1areusedtoaccomplishthegeotechnicalworktocomplete
theprojectdesignandfnalPS&E(seeWSDOTGDMSections1.1.2and
1.1.3).RegardingProjectSiteData(WSBcodePC-21.04),theProject
Offceprovidesthesitedatatotheoffcedesignatedtotakethelead(i.e.,the
HQGeotechnicalDivision,theRME,orboth)regardingthegeotechnical
work,asdeterminedduringtheInitiateandAlignstepfortheproject.
RefertotheWSDOTDesign Manual(M22-01)Section510.04forspecifcs
regardingtheinformationtobesubmitted.Thistaskwouldalsorequirethe
projectoffcetoobtain,ortomakearrangementstoobtain,drillingpermits
andright-of-entry,ifthenecessarypermitswerenotobtainedinWBScode
PC-21.02oriftheyneedtobeamended.Supplyingthenecessarysitedataand
permitsshouldbeconsideredapredecessortasktoMDLtasksPC-21.05and
PC-21.06.TheRMEandHQGeotechnicalDivisioneffortscan,ingeneral,be
conductedconcurrently.NotethatWBSCodesPC-21.05andPC-21.06must
becompletedbeforeWBSCodesPC-37.02andPC-43.03.
1.4 Geotechnical Report Review Process, Certifcation and Approval
Requirements
ForgeotechnicalworkconductedbytheRMEs,thereviewprocessis
illustratedinFigure1-2.Inthatcase,theRMEcompletesandcertifesthe
report(inthiscase,aRegionalSoilsReport),andsendsthereporttotheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionforreviewandconcurrence.IftheHQGeotechnical
Divisiondisagreeswithsomeaspectofthereportrecommendations,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionwillworkwiththeRMEtoproduceanamendmentto
theRegionSoilsReportifnecessary.
ForgeotechnicalreportsproducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision,senior
levelreviewisrequiredatthefollowingkeyprojectjunctures:
Theletter/memotransmittingtheestimateofthescopeofworkand
estimatedcostsforthegeotechnicalservicesneeded,
Thesubsurfaceinvestigationplan,and
Thedraft/fnalgeotechnicalreport.
Typically,threelevelsofreviewareconductedateachoftheseproject
junctures:adetailedreviewbytheimmediatesupervisor(whoislicensed)
andatotherintermediatetimesasneededtoguidethedesign,adetailed
reviewbytheChiefFoundationEngineerorChiefEngineeringGeologist,
andaspotcheckreviewandreviewforconsistencywithdesignpolicy
andstandardsofpracticebytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.TheState
GeotechnicalEngineermaydelegatefnalreviewauthoritytothechiefor
seniorlevel.Forthesubsurfaceinvestigationplan,formalreviewbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineerisgenerallynotrequired.Aminimumofone
level of review by a licensed professional with the necessary geotechnical
orengineeringgeologyexperiencemustbeconductedinallcases,however.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-15
J anuary 2010
Licensedprofessionalsperformingdesignshallseekpeerreviewandshall
obtaintheStateGeotechnicalEngineersapproval,orthereviewandapproval
oftheindividualtowhomfnalreviewauthorityhasbeendelegatedbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer,priortoissuingdesignrecommendations.
Designrecommendationsincludethosethatareconsideredfnal,and
those that are considered preliminary if the preliminary recommendations
willresultinsignifcantdesigneffortbeingexpendedbythosewhousethe
recommendationstoperformtheirdesigns,oriftheycouldotherwiseendup
beingtreatedasfnalrecommendations.Forthosedesignrecommendations
thatareclearlyidentifedasbeingpreliminaryandsubjecttochange,and
forwhichallpartiesreceivingthoserecommendationsfullyunderstand
thattherecommendationsaresubjecttochangeandareonlytobeused
forpreliminaryalternativeandscopedevelopmentpurposes(withthe
exceptionofEISdisciplinereports,criticalareaordinancereports,orsimilar
documents),fnalreviewauthorityisdelegatedtotheChiefFoundation
EngineerandChiefEngineeringGeologistlevel.
Someprojectsrequiresignifcantinputbybothengineeringgeologistsand
foundationengineers(e.g.,landslidescontainedwithinabiggerinterchange
orlineproject,bridgesorwallsfoundedonsoilsorrockinwhichthesite
geologyisverycomplex,retainingwallsusedtostabilizelandslides,drainage
orinfltrationdesignswherethegroundwaterregimeiscomplex,etc.).Insuch
cases,afoundationengineer/engineeringgeologistteam(i.e.,oneindividual
fromeachSectionoftheHQGeotechnicalDivision)shouldperformthe
design,andasaminimum,seniorlevelreviewbytheChiefFoundation
EngineerandtheChiefEngineeringGeologist,inadditiontoaspotcheck
review and review for consistency with design policy and standards of
practicebytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,shallbeconductedateachofthe
keyprojectjuncturesidentifedabove.
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation
Ingeneral,theindividualwhodidthedesign,ifhe/shepossessesaPEorLEG,
andthefrstlinereviewerwhoislicensed,willstampthereport,asrequired
bytheapplicableRCWsandWACs.Ifthesecondlinesupervisor/manager,
orabove(e.g.,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ChiefFoundationEngineer,
orChiefEngineeringGeologist),throughthereviewprocess,requiresthat
changes be made in the design and/or recommendations provided in the
report,otherwiseprovidessignifcantinputintothedesign,oristheprimary
reviewerofthereport,consistentwiththedefnitionofdirectsupervisionin
WAC196-23-030andWAC308-15-070,thesecondlinesupervisor/manager,
orabove,willalsostampthereport/memorandum.Forreportsproduced
bytheEngineeringGeologySectionthatrequireaProfessionalEngineers
stamp,andwhichhavebeenproducedandreviewedbyindividualsthatdonot
possessaProfessionalEngineerslicense,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,
orthelicensedprofessionalengineerdelegatedtoactonbehalfoftheState
GeotechnicalEngineer,willprovideadetailedreviewofthedesignandreport,
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
consistentwiththedefnitionofdirectsupervisioninWAC196-23-030,
andstampthereport.Forplansheetsinconstructioncontracts,thefrstline
manager/supervisor,orabove,whohasfunctionedastheprimaryreviewerof
thegeotechnicalworkasdefnedabovewillstamptheplans,butonlyifthe
plansheetsfullyandaccuratelyrefecttherecommendationsprovidedinthe
geotechnicalreportuponwhichtheplansheetsarebased.
1.4.2 Approval of Reports Produced by the HQ Geotechnical Division
TheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividualdelegatedtoactonbehalf
oftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,mustsignthegeotechnicalreportor
memorandum,asthedesignatedapprovalauthorityforWSDOTregarding
geotechnicaldesign(thisincludesengineeringgeologyreports).Thesignature
oftheapprovalauthorityindicatesthatthereportormemorandumisin
compliancewithWSDOTgeotechnicalstandardsandpolicies.Thispolicy
alsoappliestodesignrecommendationsthataresentoutinformallytoother
offces(e.g.,theWSDOTBridgeandStructuresOffce,WashingtonState
FerriesOffces,RegionProjectEngineerOffces,etc.)fortheiruseindesign
andPS&Edevelopmentpriortoissuanceofthefnalgeotechnicalreportfor
theprojectorprojectelement.
1.5 Reports Produced by Consultants or other Agencies for WSDOT,
and Reports Produced by Design-Builders
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionreviewsandapprovesallgeotechnical
reportsanddesignletters/memorandumsproducedforWSDOTprojects
consistentwiththedivisionofgeotechnicalworkasdescribedinWSDOT
GDMSection1.2.2.Forreportsordesignletters/memorandumsthatcover
onlythelevelofgeotechnicalworkthatisclearlyregionresponsibilityper
WSDOTGDMSection1.2.2,theRMEreviewsandapprovesthereportor
designletter/memorandum,butstillforwardsacopyoftheconsultantreport
totheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforconcurrence,consistentwithWSDOT
GDMSection1.2.2forregionalsoilsreports.Approvalofthereportordesign
letter/memorandumproducedbyconsultantsorotheragenciesshallnotbe
consideredtoconstituteacceptanceofprofessionalresponsibilityonthepart
ofWSDOT,aswellasthereviewer,forthecontentsandrecommendations
containedtherein,consistentwithprofessionalresponsibilityasprescribed
bylaw.Approvalonlyindicatesthatthecontractualobligationsunderwhich
thereportordesignletter/memorandumhavebeenmetandthatthecontents
andrecommendationsmeettheapplicableWSDOT,regional,andnational
standardsofpractice.
Geotechnicalreportsproducedbyconsultantsshallbecertifedinaccordance
withtheprinciplesdescribedaboveinWSDOTGDMSection1.4.1,andas
requiredbytheapplicableRCWsandWACs.Notethatthisapprovalprocess
andassociatedconsiderationsalsoapplytoreportsproducedbyconsultants
fordevelopersbuildingfacilitiesthatimpactWSDOTfacilities.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-17
J anuary 2010
1.6 Geotechnical Consultant Administration
Thissectionaddressesgeotechnicalconsultantsworkingdirectlyforthe
HQGeotechnicalDivision,andgeotechnicalconsultantsworkingfor
aprimeconsultantthrougharegion,orotherWSDOToffce,contract.
Geotechnicalconsultantsareusedtohandlepeakloadwork,ortoobtain
specializedexpertisenotcontainedwithintheHQGeotechnicalDivision.If
ageotechnicalconsultantisneeded,thefrstchoiceistoutilizeaconsultant
workingdirectlyfortheHQGeotechnicalDivision,asthecommunication
linesaremorestraight-forwardthanwouldbethecaseifthegeotechnical
consultantisworkingforaprimeconsultant,whointurnisworkingfor
anotheroffceinWSDOT.ThisisillustratedinFigures1-3and1-4.
Ingeneral,consultantsworkingdirectlyfortheHQGeotechnicalDivision
willdosothroughanon-callmasteragreementinwhichtheconsultant
isassignedprojectspecifctasks.Throughthesetasks,theconsultantis
typicallyresponsibletodevelopthedetailedgeotechnicalinvestigationplan,
performthetestinganddesign,andproduceageotechnicalreport.Forthese
assignments,theconsultantisviewedasanextensionoftheHQGeotechnical
Divisionstaffandisthereforesubjecttothesamestandardsofdesignand
reviewasin-housedivisionstaff.Thereviewandcertifcationprocessfor
consultantgeotechnicalworkmirrorsthatforin-housegeotechnicalwork,as
describedinWSDOTGDMSection1.4,exceptthatthefnalcertifcationof
thereportisdonebytheconsultantratherthanWSDOTstaff,withWSDOT
functioninginareviewcapacity.FrequentcommunicationbetweentheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionstaffandtheconsultantisessentialtoasuccessful
project.Forthiscontractualscenario,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionis
responsibletooverseeandadministertheconsultantagreementandtask
assignments.
IfitisdeterminedbytheRegionorotherWSDOToffcethatageneralcivil
orstructuralconsultantisneededtohandlethedesignworknormallyhandled
bythatWSDOToffce,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionandRegionMaterials
Offceshouldbecontactedpriortosub-consultingthegeotechnicalportion
oftheproject.BoththeRegionMaterialsOffceandGeotechnicalDivision
mayhavestaffavailabletoperformthegeotechnicaldesignfortheproject.If
itisdeterminedthatageotechnicalsubconsultantisneeded,theGeotechnical
Division will need to assist in the development of the geotechnical scope and
estimatefortheproject,sothattheconsultantcontractisappropriate.Atypical
consultantscopeofworkforpreliminarydesignisprovidedinWSDOT
GDMAppendix1-A,andatypicalconsultantscopeofworktocompletethe
geotechnicalworkforaPS&EleveldesignisprovidedinWSDOTGDM
Appendix1-B.Thesetypicalscopesofworkforgeotechnicalsubconsultants
mayneedadjustmentoraugmentationtoadaptthemtothespecifcproject.
Ateammeetingbetweentheconsultantteam,theRegionorotherWSDOT
Offce(dependingonwhoseprojectitis),andtheHQGeotechnicalDivision
isconductedearlyintheprojecttodeveloptechnicalcommunicationlines
andrelationships.Goodproactivecommunicationbetweenallmembersof
theprojectteamiscrucialtothesuccessoftheprojectduetothecomplex
consultant-clientrelationships(seeFigure1-4).
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotech.
Consultant
Region PE
Office
Region
Management
WSDOT
Management
Legislature and
People of WA
Structural
Consultant
Bridge
Office
Geotech.
Division
Consultant-client relationship or
employee-employer relationship
Informal relationship
WSDOT-consultant relationship for consultants working
directly for the HQ Geotechnical Division.
Figure 1.3
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-19
J anuary 2010
Geotech.
Subconsultant
Structural
Subconsult.
Geotech.
Division
A/E Prime
Consultant
Bridge
Office
Region PE
Office
Region
Management
WSDOT
Management
Legislature
and People
of WA
HQ Consultant
Liaison Office
Region
Consultant
Liaison
Office
Consultant-client relationship or
employee-employer relationship
Informal relationship
WSDOT-consultant relationship for consultants working
for a prime consultant for other WSDOT Offces.
Figure 1.4
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.7 Geotechnical Information Provided to Bidders
1.7.1 Final Geotechnical Project Documentation
TheFinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentationforaprojectshallconsistof
allgeotechnicalreportsandmemorandums,intheirentirety,producedby
WSDOTorconsultantsthatarepertinenttothefnalPS&Efortheproject.
Outdatedorotherwisesupercededgeotechnicalreportsandmemorandums
shouldnotbeincludedintheFinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentation.
Insuchcaseswhereasmallportionofageotechnicalreporthasbeen
superceded,theentirereportshouldbeincludedwiththesupercededtext
clearlyidentifedalongwiththesupercedingdocument.Reportsproducedby
theRMEaregenerallykeptunderseparatecover,butareincludedinthefnal
publicationpackageasdescribedbelow.
1.7.2 Final Geotechnical Documentation Publication
OnceaprojectPS&Eisnearcompletion,theFinalGeotechnicalProject
Documentationistobepublishedfortheuseofprospectivebidders.Materials
sourcereportsshouldalsobeincludedaspartofthepackagepublishedfor
bidders.TheRegionProjectDevelopmentOffce(orTerminalEngineering
DepartmentforWashingtonStateFerries)isresponsibletonotifytheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionatleast12to14weeksinadvanceoftheAdorShelf
DatewhenthefnalprojectgeotechnicaldocumentationisdueintheRegion
(orWashingtonStateFerries),andwhichprojectsrequirefnalproject
geotechnicaldocumentation.Theregionprojectdevelopmentoffce(or
TerminalEngineeringDepartmentfortheWashingtonStateFerries)willalso
identify at that time who they have designated to receive the report to handle
orcontinuethepublicationprocess.Ingeneral,itisdesirablethatthefnal
geotechnicaldocumentationbeavailableforprinting10weekspriortotheAd
orShelfDate,butabsolutelymustbeavailablenolaterthantwoFridaysprior
totheAdorShelfdate.Thiscompiledgeotechnicaldocumentationpackageis
typicallysenttotheRegionProjectEngineerOffce(orTerminalEngineering
OffceforWashingtonStateFerriesprojects)bytheHQGeotechnical
Division.Whentransmittingthefnalprojectgeotechnicaldocumentation,
theHQGeotechnicalDivisionwillspecifcallyidentifythegeotechnical
documentationasfnalfortheprojectandascamera-ready.Likewise,the
RegionMaterialsOffcewillconcurrentlysendacamera-readyfnalcopyof
anyRegiongeneratedreports(e.g.,theregionsoilsreport),asapplicable,to
theRegionProjectEngineerOffcetobeincludedaspartofthegeotechnical
documentationfortheproject.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-21
J anuary 2010
1.7.3 Geotechnical Information to be Included as Part of the Contract
Geotechnicalinformationincludedaspartofthecontract(asanappendix)for
design-bid-buildprojectswillgenerallyconsistofthefnalprojectboringlogs,
and,asappropriatefortheproject,aSummaryofGeotechnicalConditions.
Bothoftheseitemsare,ingeneral,providedbytheHQGeotechnical
Division.IfaRegionsoilsreporthasbeenproducedbytheRME,theRME
mustprovidethefnalboringlogsandmayberequiredtocompleteportionsof
theSummaryofGeotechnicalConditionstoincludetheinformationprovided
intheRegionSoilsReport.NotethatWSDOTGDMChapter22coverswhat
geotechnicalinformationistobeincludedintheRequestforProposalsfor
Design-Buildprojects.
Allboringlogsusedasthebasisforthegeotechnicaldesignfortheproject
shouldbeincludedinanappendixtothecontract.Alegendsheetthatdefnes
thetermsandsymbolsusedintheboringlogsmustalwaysbeincludedwith
theboringlogs.TheGeotechnicalDivisionwillprovidealegendforlogsthey
haveproduced.Consultantsshallalsoprovidealegendalongwiththeirlogs
intheirgeotechnicalreports.Thelocationsofallboringlogsincludedwiththe
contractshouldbeshownonthecontractplansheets.
Basedonspecifcprojectneeds,othertypesofgeotechnicaldatamayalso
needtobeincludedinthecontractdocuments.Suchadditionaldatamay
includegeophysicaltestresults,andsubsurfaceproflesandcross-sections
forspecifcgeotechnicalprojectfeatures.Thegoalofsuchdataistoprovide
potentialbiddersamorecompletepictureoftheconditionsasnecessaryfor
accuratebidding,whenthatinformationcannotbeconveyedbytheboring
logsalone.
ASummaryofGeotechnicalConditions,providedbytheGeotechnical
Divisionformostprojectsthatcontainsignifcantgeotechnicalfeatures,
shouldalsobeincludedinthecontractwiththeboringlogs.ThisSummaryof
GeotechnicalConditionsisgenerallya1to2pagedocument(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter23)thatbriefysummarizesthesubsurfaceandgroundwater
conditionsforkeyareasoftheprojectwherefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,are
tobeconstructed.Thisdocumentalsodescribestheimpactofthesesubsurface
conditionsontheconstructionofthesefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,toprovide
acommonbasisforinterpretationoftheconditionsandbidding.
1.8 Sample Retention and Chain of Custody
Ingeneral,therearethreetypesofsamplesobtainedbytheHQGeotechnical
Divisionandgeotechnicalconsultants:disturbedsoilsamples(includessack
samplesfromtestpits),undisturbedsoilsamples,androckcores.Disturbed
soilsamplesaretypicallyusedforsoilclassifcationpurposes,thoughon
occasiontheymaybeusedformoresophisticatedtesting.Undisturbedsoil
samplesareprimarilyusedformoresophisticatedtesting,thoughtheymay
alsobeusedforevaluationofdetailedlayeringandsoilstructure.Undisturbed
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
samplestypicallydegradesignifcantlyandarenotusefulfortestingpurposes
afterabout3to6months.Disturbedandundisturbedsoilsamplesthathave
notbeentestedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionorConsultantwillberetainedfor
aminimumof90daysafterthegeotechnicalreportiscompleted,afterwhich
timetheywillbedisposed.Priortodisposal,Consultantshallcontactthe
GeotechnicalDivisionsothattheymaytakepossessionofthesamples,ifthey
choosetodoso.
Rockcoreisgenerallyretaineduntilaftertheconstructionprojectiscomplete
anditisclearthatclaimsrelatedtotherockarenotforthcoming.After
construction,thecorewillbedisposed.Rockcoreobtainedbyconsultants
shallbedeliveredtotheGeotechnicalDivisionaspartofthedeliverables
associatedwiththeGeotechnicalReport.Rockcoremaybedisposedpriorto
projectconstructionifitisdeterminedthattheriskofclaimsrelatedtorock
qualityissuesissuffcientlylow,iftherockcoreisdegradedandthereforenot
usefulforvisualinspectionortesting,orpossiblyotherreasonsthatcausethe
riskofearlycoredisposaltobelow,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOT
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.Inallcases,whetherornotearlydisposalofthe
coreisconducted,allrockcoreshallbephotographedathighresolutionand
incolorcorrectlight,toprovideapermanentrecordofthecore.
AllsamplesofsoilorrockthatareobtainedonbehalfofWSDOTby
consultantsandtransportedtotheStateMaterialsLaboratoryGeotechnical
DivisionshallbecomethepropertyofWSDOT.
1.9 Geotechnical Design Policies and their Basis
Technicalpoliciesanddesignrequirementsprovidedinthismanualhavebeen
derivedfromnationalstandardsanddesignguidelinessuchasthoseproduced
byAASHTOandtheFHWA.ThefollowingAASHTOmanuals,listedin
orderofpriority,shallbetheprimarysourceofgeotechnicaldesignpolicyfor
WSDOT:
1. AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,mostcurrentedition
plusinterims
2. AASHTOManualonSubsurfaceInvestigations(1988)
FHWAgeotechnicaldesignmanuals,orothernationallyrecognizeddesign
manuals,areconsideredsecondaryrelativetotheAASHTOmanuals
listedaboveforestablishingWSDOTgeotechnicaldesignpolicy.FHWA
geotechnicaldesignmanualshavebeenusedtoaddressareasnotspecifcally
coveredbytheabovelistedAASHTOmanuals.
Wherejustifedbyresearchorlocalexperience,thedesignpoliciesand
requirementsprovidedhereindeviatefromtheAASHTOandFHWAdesign
specifcationsandguidelines,asdescribedherein,andshallsupercedethe
requirementsandguidelineswithintheAASHTOandFHWAmanuals.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-23
J anuary 2010
Forfoundationandwalldesign,theloadandresistancefactordesign(LRFD)
approachshallbeused,tobeconsistentwithWSDOTBridgeOffcestructural
designpolicy.Foraspectsoffoundationandwalldesignthathavenotyetbeen
developedintheLRFDformat,allowablestress(ASD)orloadfactordesign
(LFD)willbeuseduntilsuchtimetheLRFDapproachhasbeendeveloped.
Therefore,forthoseaspectsoffoundationandwalldesignforwhichthe
LRFDapproachisavailable,alternativeASDorLFDdesignformatsarenot
presentedinthismanual.
Inthechaptersthatfollow,aswellaswithinthischapter,theterms,andtheir
defnitions,providedinTable1-2areusedtoconveygeotechnicalpolicy.
Term Defnition
Shall The associated provisions must be used. There is no acceptable alternative.
Should The associated provisions must be used unless strong justifcation is available
and provided based on well established regional or national practice, and if
backed up by well accepted research results.
May The associated provisions are recommended, but alternative methods
or approaches that are consistent with the intent of the provisions are
acceptable.
Evaluate, evaluated,
address, or addressed
The associated issue must be evaluated or addressed through detailed
analysis and the results documented.
Consider, considered The associated recommended provisions must be evaluated, and the reasons
and analyses used to decide whether or not to implement the recommended
provisions must be documented.
Geotechnical designer The geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist who has been given
responsibility to coordinate and complete the geotechnical design activities for
the project
Terms used to convey geotechnical policy.
Table 1-2
1.10 Geotechnical Construction Support Policies
1.10.1 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-Bid-
Build Projects
ThedivisionofresponsibilitiesbetweentheHQGeotechnicalDivisionandthe
RegionMaterialsOffceforresponsetogeotechnicalconstructionproblems
fordesign-bid-buildprojectsareingeneralconsistentwithWSDOTGDM
Section1.2,whichmeansthattheRME,atleasttheoretically,functionsasthe
clearinghousetoaddressgeotechnicalconstructionproblems.Thedivisionof
workshowninFigure1-2appliestoconstructionassistanceaswell.However,
itmustalsoberecognizedthatmostgeotechnicalconstructionproblemsneed
tobeaddressedquicklytopreventconstructioncontractimpacts.Tominimize
delaysingettinggeotechnicalconstructionproblemsaddressed,ifitisobvious
thatHQinputwillberequiredanyway(e.g.,foundationconstructionissues,
retainingwallgeotechnicalconstructionproblems,shoringwallstability
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
orexcessivedeformationproblems,rockslopeconstructionissues,etc.)the
regionprojectoffceshouldcontacttheHQGeotechnicalDivisiondirectly.
Inthatcase,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldkeeptheRMEinformed
astotherequestandthenatureoftheproblemassoonaspractical.Typically,
aconstructionprojectgeotechnicaladvisorwillbeassignedtotheprojectand
isthefrstpointofcontactforassistancefromtheHQGeotechnicalDivision.
Forconstructionemergencies,suchasslopefailures,theprocessdescribed
in WSDOTGDMSection1.2.3shouldbefollowed,exceptthattheregion
projectoffcefunctionsasthemaintenanceoffceinthatprocess.
TherearesometypesofgeotechnicalconstructionissuesforwhichtheRME
shouldalwaysprovidethefrstresponse.Theseinclude,forexample:
Evaluationoffllcompactionproblems;
Evaluationofmaterialssourceandborrowproblems;
Pavementsubgradeproblems;and
Evaluationofthesoilatthebaseofspreadfootingexcavationstocheck
forconsistencywithboringlogs.
Forthespecifcissuesidentifedabove,theRMEwillenlistthehelpofthe
HQGeotechnicalDivisionifcomplicationsarise.
Forevaluationofdifferingsiteconditionsclaims,theHQGeotechnical
Divisionshouldalwaysprovidethegeotechnicalevaluationandwillwork
directlywiththeHQConstructionOffcetoprovidethegeotechnicalsupport
theyneed.
Notethatforconsultantdesignedprojects,theHQGeotechnicalDivision
mayrequestthatthedesignerofrecord(i.e.,theconsultant)getinvolvedto
recommendasolutiontoWSDOTregardingtheproblem.
1.10.2 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Build Projects
Fordesign-buildprojects,thefrstresponderforgeotechnicalconstruction
problemsisthegeotechnicaldesignerofrecordforthedesign-builder.The
nextpointofcontact,ifactiononbehalfofthecontractingagency(i.e.,
WSDOT)isrequiredinaccordancewiththecontractRFP,isthegeotechnical
advisorassignedtotheprojectfromtheHQGeotechnicalDivision.Ifitturns
outthattheRMEshouldprovidearesponseoriftheRMEcouldprovidea
morerapidresponse,consideringthenatureoftheproblem,thegeotechnical
advisorwillcontacttheRMEtoenlisttheirassistance.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-25
J anuary 2010
1.10.3 Geotechnical Division Roles and Communication Protocols for
Construction Support
GeotechnicalDivisionsupporttoHQConstruction,RegionConstruction,
andRegionProjectoffcesmustalwaysbetechnicalinnature,leaving
constructionadministrationissuestotheconstructionoffcestheGeotechnical
Divisionissupporting.SincethetechnicalsupporttheGeotechnicalDivision
providescouldaffecttheconstructioncontract,itisextremelyimportant
tocontactHQConstructionassoonaspossibletoletthemknowofthe
situation,inadditiontothespecifcregionaloffcesbeingsupported.Direct
communicationanddirectionstothecontractorshouldbeavoided,unless
theboundariesofsuchcommunicationhavebeenapprovedinadvance
bytheregionprojectoffceandasappropriate,HQConstruction.Any
communicationinwriting,includinge-mailcorrespondence,mustbewritten
inawaythatcommunicatesonlytechnicalissuesanddoesnotcompromise
WSDOTsabilitytoeffectivelyadministerthecontract.Thisisespecially
importantifpotentialcontractorclaimsareinvolved.
Ifpotentialcontractorclaimsareinvolvedintheconstructionproblem,
theHQGeotechnicalDivisionroleistoprovideassistancetotheHQ
ConstructionOffce.Forexample,withchangedconditionsclaims,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionsprofessionalevaluationofthesituationshouldfocus
ondetermininganddescribingthegeotechnicalconditionsobservedduring
constructionincomparisontowhatwasexpectedbasedonthedataavailable
attimeofbidding.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisnottodetermineoreven
implythemeritsofthecontractorsclaim.HQConstructionwilldothat.
Evaluationsofcontractorclaims,aswellasgeotechnicalrecommendationsfor
theredesignofageotechnicalelementinacontract,mustbeputinaformal
writtenformatsuitableforsealingasdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection
1.4.1.E-mailshouldnotbeusedasacommunicationvehicleforthistypeof
information.Furthermore,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividual
delegatedtoactonbehalfoftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,mustreview
andapprovesuchdocumentsbeforetheyaredistributed.Memorandums
thatprovideanevaluationofacontractorclaimshouldbeaddressedto
theHQConstructionOffce,andacopyshouldnotbesenttotheRegion
ProjectEngineerinthiscase.TheHQConstructionOffcewillforwardthe
GeotechnicalDivisionresponsetotheRegionProjectEngineerwiththeirfnal
determinationofthevalidityoftheclaim.Ifaclaimevaluationisnotinvolved
andonlytechnicalrecommendationsinsupportofacontractredesignare
beingprovided,addressthelettertotheHQConstructionOffce,withacopy
totheRegionProjectOffceandothersasnecessary(e.g.,theBridgeOffce).
IftheresultingchangeorderwillbewithintheRegionauthoritytoapprove,
thememorandumshouldbeaddressedtotheRegionProjectOffcewitha
copytoHQConstructionandtheRegionOperationsorConstructionOffce.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.11 Geotechnical Construction Submittal Review Policies
MostconstructioncontractsubmittalsincludeinformationthatboththeBridge
andStructuresOffceandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionmustreview.Blasting
planandrockslopesubmittals(e.g.,rockbolting)areanexceptiontothis,in
thattheirtechnicalreviewarepurelyaGeotechnicalDivisionfunction.
Forconstructionsubmittalsthatinvolvestructuresorsupportofstructures
orbridgeapproachflls,policiesoncoordinationofsubmittalreviewareas
follows:
1.11.1 Proprietary Retaining Walls
Allpre-approvedwallmanufacturersubmittalsrequiredbythecontract
shallbereviewedbytheBridgeOffce.TheBridgeOffceshallsenda
copyofthesubmittaltotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforreviewwhen
thesubmittalisdistributedtotheappropriateBridgeOffceDesignUnit.
DetailsofspecifcallywhatwillbereviewedareprovidedinWSDOT
GDMAppendix15B.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshallresponddirectlytotheConstruction
SupportUnitoftheBridgeOffcewiththeirsubmittalreviewcomments.
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitisresponsibleforthe
responsebacktotheRegionProjectEngineer,andshallattachorinclude
GeotechnicalDivisioncommentsverbatim.
AfterboththeBridgeOffceDesignUnitandtheHQGeotechnical
DivisionhavesubmittedtheircommentsbacktotheBridgeOffce
ConstructionSupportUnit,theywillbecirculatedtotheBridgeOffce
WallSpecialistforthisreviewforcompletenessandconsistency.
ReturnsforCorrections(RFCs)andChangeOrderNotifcationswill
requirethatacopyofthesubmittalgototheHQConstructionOffce.
Proprietaryretainingwallsthathavebeencompletelydetailedinthe
ContractPlansandSpecialProvisions(includingmanufacturershop
plans)neednotcometotheBridgeOffceforreview.TheRegionsProject
EngineersOffceisresponsibleforthereviewofthecontractorswallsin
accordancewiththecontractdocuments.
1.11.2 Other Construction Submittals (Non-Proprietary walls, Excavation and
Shoring, Soldier Piles, Ground Anchors, Shafts, Piles, Ground Improvement, etc.)
GeosyntheticshoringwallswithoutstructuralfacingdonotrequireBridge
Offcereview.These wallsshallbesentdirectlytotheHQGeotechnical
Divisionfortheirreview.Toprovideconsistencyinthereviewprocess,the
reviewcommentsshouldbesentbacktotheBridgeOffceConstruction
SupportUnitinthesamemannerasanyothersubmittalforforwardingto
theregionprojectengineer.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-27
J anuary 2010
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitwilldeterminetheneed
forgeotechnicalinputwhenreviewingcontractorshoringsubmittals.
Ifgeotechnicalinputisneeded,theConstructionSupportUnitwill
coordinatewiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoobtainreviewcomments
andwillsubmitthecompiledcommentsfrombothoffcestotheregion
projectoffce.
Forallotherconstructionsubmittalswithgeotechnicalitemsreceived
bytheBridgeOffce,theBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitwill
sendacopyofthesubmittaltotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforreview.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshallresponddirectlytotheConstruction
SupportUnitoftheBridgeOffcewiththeirsubmittalreviewcomments.
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitisresponsibleforthe
responsebacktotheregionprojectengineer,andshallattachorinclude
GeotechnicalDivisioncommentsverbatim.ReturnsforCorrections
(RFCs)andChangeOrderNotifcationswillrequirethatacopyofthe
submittalgototheHQConstructionOffce.
Thegeotechnicaldesignersmainemphasisinreviewoftheshaft
submittalsistoensurethattheproposedconstructionprocedurewill
resultinashaftthatmeetstheassumptionsusedduringthedesignphase.
Casinglimits,constructionjoints,shaftdiameter(s),andsurfacecasing
installation,aswellas,backfllingareareasthattypicallyneedreview.For
soldierpiles,substitutionofanotherpilesectionorpossibleover-stressing
ofthepileanchorstressingshouldbechecked.Theseitemswillgenerally
befaggedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.
TheBridgeOffceshallingeneralbetheclearinghousefortransmittalsof
submittalreviewsbacktotheregionprojectengineer.TheGeotechnical
DivisionwillreturncommentstotheBridgeOffceonly,exceptwhen
previouslyagreedtorespondseparately.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Appendix 1-A Services Scope of Work
TheCONSULTANTshallprovideallPRELIMINARYgeotechnicalservices
thatwouldnormallybeprovidedbytheSTATEsgeotechnicalengineering
personneltotheprojectoffceresponsibleforthedesignandpreparation
ofplans,specifcations,andestimates(PS&E)forthisPROJECT.The
preliminary recommendations are to identify critical design elements and
provideabasisfordevelopingascopeofworkforpreparingdesign-level
(PS&E)geotechnicalrecommendations.Basedontheinformationobtained
andthepreliminaryrecommendations,theGeotechnicalScopemaybe
supplementedbytheSTATEtohavetheCONSULTANTprovidedetailed
designrecommendationsforPS&E.
TheCONSULTANTshallcooperateandcoordinatewiththeSTATEsHQ
GeotechnicalDivision,otherSTATEpersonnel,andMunicipalAgenciesas
necessaryandunderthedirectionoftheSTATEGeotechnicalEngineerto
facilitatethecompletionofthePROJECT.TheCONSULTANTshall:
Review Available I nformation
TheCONSULTANTshallcollectandreviewreadilyavailablegeotechnical
andgeologicdatafortheprojectincluding,butnotlimitedto,geologicmaps
fromtheU.S.GeologicSurvey,WSDOTconstructionrecords,soilsand
geotechnicalreportsfromWSDOT,Federal,Community,CityorCounty
offcials,groupsorindividuals,andgeotechnicalinformationwithinthe
projectlimitsthatmaybeintheCONSULTANTsfles.
Forprojectswherethegeotechnicalelementsoftheprojecthavenotbeen
fullydefnedbytheSTATE,theCONSULTANTshallreviewtheproject
andavailableinformationtoidentifyareaswithintheprojectlimitsthatmay
requiredetailedgeotechnicalrecommendationsorareasthathavegeotechnical
elementsthatarecomplex.TheCONSULTANTshallidentifyareasof
signifcantcutsinsoilorrock,largeflls,areasofsoftcompressiblesoils,
potentialretainingwalllocationsandsuitablewalltypes.
Perform a Site Review
TheCONSULTANTshallperformanon-sitegeologicreconnaissanceof
theprojecttoidentifycriticaldesignelements.TheCONSULTANTshall
determinegeneralsiteconditions,accessforexploration,conditionsof
existingtransportationfeatures,andidentifyareasofpotentialfllsorcuts,
walls,culvertsorculvertextensions,andbridgesorbridgewidenings.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-29
J anuary 2010
Summarize Project Geology
TheCONSULTANTshallsummarizetheregionalgeologyandgeology
oftheprojectslimitsbasedonavailableexistinginformationandthesite
reconnaissance.Geotechnicalhazards,suchasliquefactionandlandslides,
shallbeassessedandthepotentialimpactstotheprojectshallbediscussedfor
identifedhazards.
PrepareareportthatProvidesPreliminaryGeotechnicalRecommendations
TheCONSULTANTshallidentifycriticaldesignelementsandprovideabasis
forgeotechnicalrecommendations.AsaminimumtheCONSULTANTshall
addressoridentifythefollowing:
1. Locationsofpotentialcuts,flls,softcompressiblesoils,soilssusceptible
toliquefaction,landslides,andfaultsclosetooratthesite.
2. Preliminarymaximumcutandfllslopeinclinationsshallbe
recommendedtoensureoverallstabilityforcutslopes,embankments,
structures,andtoprovideabasisforright-of-wayacquisition.
3. Forstructures,suitablefoundationtypesshallbeidentifed.Thereport
shallalsoindicatewhetherthefoundationbearingcapacitiesare
anticipatedtobelow,indicatingmarginalbearingconditions,orhigh,
indicatinggoodtoexcellentbearingconditions.
4. Feasibleretainingwalltypesshallbediscussed.
5. Thereportshallincludeavailablesitemaps,crosssections,endareas,and
subsurfaceprofles,andtheavailablesubsurfaceinformation.
TheCONSULTANTshallprepareaDraftPreliminaryGeotechnical
RecommendationsReportfortheproject.TheCONSULTANTshallprepare
threecopiesoftheDraftGeotechnicalReportandsubmitthemtotheSTATE
forreviewandcomment.TheSTATEwillreviewtheGeotechnicalReport
andprovidewrittencommentswithinthreeweeks.TheCONSULTANTshall
respondtocommentsfromtheprojectteamandWSDOT,revisethedraft
report,andsubmitseven(7)copiesofthefnalreport.AdditionalDraftreports
mayberequestedbytheSTATEpriortocompletingtheFINALreportuntil
theSTATEsreviewcommentsareadequatelyaddressed.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
I nstructions for Preparation of the Scope of Work for Project
SpecifcApplication
ThePreliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work is
tobeusedwhenthecivilengineeringportionoftheprojectisnotdefned
beforeconsultantservicesarerequested.Ingeneral,newsoilboringsare
notrequiredforconceptuallevelrecommendationsexceptwheresubsurface
informationisnotavailablewithintheprojectlimitsandifprojectelements
aregeotechnicallycomplex.TheGeotechnicalDivisionisavailabletoassist
inthedeterminationofwhetherornotboringsarerequired.IftheRegionand
theGeotechnicalDivisiondeterminethatboringsarerequiredtoadequately
developpreliminaryrecommendations,theGeotechnicalDivisionwillprovide
anadditionalsectiontobeincludedinthescopeofworkforthedrillingof
newborings.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldbecontactedtoprovideacostestimate
fortheworkanticipated.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionestimateshouldbe
usedtocompletenegotiationswiththeconsultant.AttheRegionsrequest,the
HQGeotechnicalDivisioncanreviewtheconsultantsestimateandprovided
guidancefornegotiation.
Oncepreliminarygeotechnicalrecommendationsareprovided,theprime
ConsultantorRegioncandefnethecivilengineeringportionofthe
project.Oncethecivilengineeringportionisdefned,asupplementcanbe
preparedtohavetheGeotechnicalConsultantprovidedetailedPS&Elevel
recommendations.TheGeotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work
shouldbeusedforthesupplement.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-31
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Appendix 1-B Scope of Work for PS&E Level Design
TheCONSULTANTshallprovideallgeotechnicalservicesthatwould
normallybeprovidedbytheSTATEsgeotechnicalengineeringpersonnel
totheprojectoffceresponsibleforthedesignandpreparationofplans,
specifcations,andestimates(PS&E)forthisPROJECT.TheSTATEwill
providesupportservicestotheCONSULTANT,asdescribedinthetextbelow.
TheCONSULTANTshallcooperateandcoordinatewiththeSTATEsHQ
GeotechnicalDivision,otherSTATEpersonnel,andMunicipalAgencies
asnecessaryandinaccordancewiththepolicyoftheSTATEGeotechnical
EngineertofacilitatethecompletionofthePROJECT.
State Furnished Services, I nformation and I tems
ThroughoutthedurationoftheprojecttheSTATEwillperformservicesand
furnishinformationanditemsasnecessarytoprovideongoingsupportforthe
CONSULTANTandthePS&Epreparationprocess.
ThefollowingserviceswillbeperformedbytheSTATE:
1. TheSTATEwillhandlepublicinformation.
2. TheSTATEwillaccomplishfeldsurveyworkasrequiredtocompletethe
project,unlesstheSTATEresourcesarenotavailable.TheCONSULTANT
mayrequestanynecessarysurveywork,givingaminimumof14calendar
daysnoticepriortoneed.TheCONSULTANTshallfurnishinformation
forthelocationsandthetypeofworkrequired.
ThefollowinginformationanditemsshallbemadeavailablebytheSTATEto
theCONSULTANT:
1. TheSTATEwillprovideormakeavailableinformationfromitsflesand
answerquestions.
2. Existingutilityplansheets.
3. Rightofwayandaccessplans.
4. AgreementsbetweentheSTATEandutilitiesoranyotheragencywhere
theagreementsaffecttheproject.
Geotechnical Consultant Engineering Services
TheCONSULTANTshallprovidetotheSTATEallgeotechnical
engineeringservicesrequiredbytheSTATEinordertodesignandprepare
PS&E.Thefollowingisanoutlineofanticipatedareasofsignifcant
CONSULTANTwork:
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-33
J anuary 2010
Project Review and Scoping
TheCONSULTANTshallcollectandreviewreadilyavailable
geotechnicalandgeologicdatafortheprojectincluding,butnot
limitedto;GeologicmapsfromtheU.S.GeologicSurvey,WSDOT
constructionrecords,soilsandgeotechnicalreportsfromWSDOT,
Federal,Community,CityorCountyoffcials,groupsorindividuals,
andgeotechnicalinformationwithintheprojectlimitsthatmaybeinthe
CONSULTANTsfles.
Site Review
TheCONSULTANTshallperformanon-sitegeologicreconnaissanceof
theproject.TheCONSULTANTshalldeterminegeneralsiteconditions,
accessforexploration,andconditionofexistingtransportationfeatures.
Project Geology
TheCONSULTANTshallsummarizetheregionalgeologyandgeology
oftheprojectlimits.TheCONSULTANTshallreviewthesiteseismicity
andproviderecommendationsforsuitableresponsespectraandthedesign
acceleration.Geotechnicalhazardsshallbeassessedandthepotential
impactstotheprojectshallbediscussed.Recommendationsformitigating
thehazardsshallbeprovidedattheSTATEsrequest.Liquefaction
potentialshallbeassessedandliquefactionmitigationmethodsshallbe
providedattheSTATEsrequest.
Field Exploration
TheCONSULTANTshall,inconsultationandcoordinationwiththe
STATE,planandconductasubsurfaceinvestigationprogramutilizing
exploratoryborings,testpits,geophysicalmethods,andinsituteststo
provideinformationrelativetosoil,groundwater,andothergeologic
conditionsalongtheprojectalignment.TheCONSULTANTshalldevelop
anexplorationplanshowingthelocationsofexistinginformation,the
locationsfornewexplorations,theanticipateddepthsandsampling
requirementsfortheborings,andfeldinstrumentationrequirements.
Existingsubsurfaceinformationshallbefullyutilizedandconsidered
whenpreparingthefeldexplorationplan.TheCONSULTANTshall
submittheplantotheregionprojectengineerandtheHQGeotechnical
Divisionforreviewandapproval.Uponapproval,theCONSULTANT
shallstakeallboringlocationsinthefeld.
TheSTATEwillprovidealltraffccontrolforthefeldexploration.The
CONSULTANTshallobtainutilitylocatespriortofeldinvestigations
requiringdiggingorboringandshallfeldlocatetheboringsortestpits
relativetostation,offset,andelevation.
The__________shallperformthefeldinvestigation,andthe
_______________shallsecureRightofEntryforthefeldexploration.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
IftheSTATEwillperformallsubsurfaceexplorationdrillingandtaking
ofcores,theCONSULTANTshallprovideaDrillingInspectortoobtain
samples,andkeeprecords.TheSTATEwillcommencedrillingorcoring
operationsassoonaspracticalafterapprovaloftheCONSULTANTs
drillingplan.
All soil samples from drilling operations will become the property of the
CONSULTANT.TheCONSULTANTshallretainthesamplesforaperiod
of90daysaftersubmittalofthefnalgeotechnicalreport,atwhichtime
thesamplesmaybedisposedofunlesstheSTATErequeststhattheybe
madeavailableforpick-upattheCONSULTANTsoffce.Allrockcores
fromdrillingoperationswillbecomethepropertyoftheSTATEandshall
bedeliveredtotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionwith,orpriorto,thefnal
geotechnicalreport.TheCONSULTANTshallprovidelogsfortheborings
andtestpits.Thelogsshallbeeditedbasedonlaboratoryorfeldtestsin
accordancewithWSDOTSoilAndRockClassifcationGuidelines.
Theresultsofthefeldexplorationandalloftheequipmentusedshallbe
summarized.Downholehammersorwirelineoperatedhammersshallnotbe
usedforStandardPenetrationTests(SPT).Boringlogswithstation,offset,
elevation,groundwaterelevations,uncorrectedSPTtestresultswithblowsper
6inchesshallbeprovided.Soilunitsencounteredinthefeldexplorationshall
bedescribedandtheirextentandlimitsshallbeidentifed.Soilsproflesshall
bedevelopedandshownforallstructuresorsignifcantcutandfllslopes.
Planviewsshallbepreparedthatshowtheactuallocationsoftheboringsin
relationtoprojectelements.
Testing
TheCONSULTANTshallconductfeldandlaboratorytestsingeneral
accordancewithappropriateAmericanSocietyforTestingMaterials
(ASTM)andWSDOTstandards,includingStandardPenetrationTests
(SPTs),naturalmoisturecontent,grainsizeanalysis,AtterbergLimits,
moisture/density(Proctor)relationships,resilientmodulusforuse
inpavementdesign,pH,andresistivityandspecializedgeotechnical
testssuchastriaxialtests,directsheartests,pointloadtests,andsoil
consolidation.AlltestresultsshallbeincludedintheGeotechnicalReport.
I nstrumentation
TheCONSULTANTshallprovidetheSTATEwithrecommendations
forfeldinstrumentationtobeinstalledintheexploratoryboringsof
theprojecttomonitorwaterlevelsandslopemovementsduringboth
designandconstruction.Ifnecessary,theCONSULTANTshallprovide
theSTATEwithrecommendationsforinstrumentationforconstruction
controloftheproject,e.g.,monitoringslopemovement,wallmovement,
porepressure,settlement,andsettlementrates.Includedshallbethe
recommendedinstrumenttypes,locations,installationrequirements,
zonesofinfuence,andcriticalreadingsorlevels.TheCONSULTANT
shallcoordinatewiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoensurethat
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-35
J anuary 2010
recommendedinstrumentsarecompatiblewithSTATEreadout/recording
devices.Duringdesign,allinstrumentsshallbeinstalledandmonitoredby
theCONSULTANT.TheSTATEshallmonitorallinstrumentationduring
constructionoriflongtermmonitoringisrequired.
Engineering Analysis
TheCONSULTANTshallperformnecessarygeotechnicalengineering
analysis to identify critical design elements and provide a basis for
geotechnicalrecommendations.Descriptionsoftheanalysisand/or
calculationsshallbeprovidedattheSTATEsrequest.Comprehensive
geotechnical engineering design recommendations shall be provided for
preparationofprojectPS&Edocuments.Therecommendationsshall
bedetailedandcompleteforusebySTATEengineeringpersonnelor
otherCONSULTANTsindesignofstructures,cutslopes,fllslopes,
embankments,drainagefacilities,rockfallcontrol,andlandslide
correction.AsaminimumtheCONSULTANTshalladdressthefollowing:
1. Overallstabilityforcutslopes,embankments,andstructuresshallbe
assessed.Forstructures,minimumfoundationwidths,embedments,
overexcavation,andgroundimprovementshallbeaddressedtosatisfy
overallstabilityrequirements.Maximumcutandfllslopeinclinations
shallberecommended.Anymitigatingmeasuresneededtoobtain
therequiredlevelofsafetyforslopesshallbefullydevelopedforthe
PS&E.
2. Forstructures,suitablefoundationtypesshallbeassessedandalternate
foundationtypesrecommended.Forspreadfootings,allowablebearing
capacityandsettlementshallbeprovided.Forseismicdesignofspread
footings,ultimatebearingcapacityandshearmodulusvaluesshall
beprovidedforstrainlevelsof0.2%and0.02%.Forpilesandshafts,
ultimatecapacityfguresshallbedevelopedthatshowthecapacityin
relationtotipelevationforbothcompressionandtension.Settlement
shallbeassessedandgroupreductionfactorsshallberecommended.
Downdragandlateralsqueezeshallbereviewed.Parametersfor
P-ycurvedevelopmentusingL-PileorCOM624shallbeprovided.
Minimumtipelevations,casingrequirements,andestimatesof
overdriveshallbeprovided.Forpileswithmaximumdriving
resistancesof300tonsormore,waveequationanalysisshallbe
performedtoassessdriveability,pilestress,andhammerrequirements.
3. Suitableretainingwalltypesshallberecommended.Forallwalls
(includingstandard,preapprovedproprietary,andnon-preapproved
proprietarywalls),bearingcapacity,settlement,construction
considerations,andexternalstabilityshallbeaddressed.For
non-standard,non-proprietarywalls,internalstabilityshallbe
addressed.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
4. Earthworkrecommendationsshallbeprovidedincludingsubgrade
preparation,materialrequirements,compactioncriteria,andsettlement
estimates.Inareaswherecompressiblesoilsareencountered,
overexcavation,stagedconstruction,instrumentation,settlement,and
creep characteristics and estimates shall be addressed as well as details
ofanymitigatingmeasuresneededtokeepembankmentperformance
withinprojectconstraints.
5. Atstreamcrossings,evaluationofalternativesandrecommendations
shallbeprovidedforextendingtheexistingculvert,pipejacking
anewculvert,installingabottomlessculvert,orconstructingofa
bridgestructure.Pipebedding,subgradepreparation,bearingcapacity,
andsettlementshallbeaddressed.Forpipejacking,jackingpit
constructionshallbeassessedalongwiththepotentialforcavingsoils.
6. Generaldrainage,groundwater,pH,andresistivityvaluesasthey
applytotheproject.
7. Forsignals,illumination,andsignstructures,allowablelateralbearing
capacityshallbeevaluated.Wherepoorsoilsarepresentdesign
recommendationsforspecialdesignfoundationsshallbeprepared.
Theseshalladdressbearingcapacity,lateralcapacity,rotational
capacity,settlement,andconstructionofthefoundations.
8. Wherepossible,designrecommendationsshallbeprovidedintabular
orgraphicalform.
Construction Considerations
Constructionconsiderationsshallbeaddressed.Temporaryslopesand
shoringlimitsshallbeidentifedforestimatingpurposes.Advisory
SpecialProvisionsshallbepreparedforelementsthatmayencounter
diffcultgroundconditionsorthatmayrequirenon-typicalconstruction
methods.Overexcavationrecommendationsandbackfllrequirements
shallbediscussedanddetailspreparedforthePS&E.Construction
stagingrequirements,whereapplicable,shallbeaddressed.Wetweather
constructionandtemporaryconstructionwatercontrolshallbediscussed.
State Standards
Wheneverpossible,theCONSULTANTsrecommendationsshallprovide
fortheuseofWSDOTstandardmaterial,constructionmethods,andtest
proceduresasgiveninthecurrentWSDOTStandard Specifcations for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.TheCONSULTANTshall
followAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsindesignexceptwhereSTATE
designmethodsareapplicable.Statedesignmethodsareprovidedin
theWSDOTDesignManual,WSDOTBridgeDesignManual,WSDOT
ConstructionManual,WSDOTHydraulicsManual,andWSDOT
StandardPlans.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-37
J anuary 2010
Report
TheCONSULTANTshallprepareaDraftGeotechnicalReportforthe
projectsummarizingtheGeotechnicalrecommendationsfortheareas
ofsignifcantCONSULTANTworkasdiscussedunderGeotechnical
Consultant Engineering Services above.
PriortoDraftreportsubmittal,theCONSULTANTshallmeetwiththe
FOSSCGeotechnicalBranchtodiscusstherecommendations,assumptions,
anddesignmethodologyusedinpreparationofthereport.Afterthemeeting,
theCONSULTANTshallincorporateoraddressWSDOTscommentsin
theDraftReport.TheCONSULTANTshallpreparethreecopiesofthe
DraftGeotechnicalReportandsubmitthemtotheSTATEforreviewand
comment.TheSTATEwillreviewtheGeotechnicalReportandprovide
writtencommentswithinthreeweeks.TheCONSULTANTshallrespondto
commentsfromtheprojectteamandWSDOT,revisethedraftreport,and
submitffteen(15)copiesofthefnalgeotechnicalreport.Inaddition,the
CONSULTANTshallprovideoneunbound,camerareadycopyofthereport
sothatthereportcanbereproducedwiththebiddocuments.AdditionalDraft
reportsmayberequestedbytheSTATEpriortocompletingtheFINALreport
untiltheSTATEsreviewcommentsareadequatelyaddressed.
Special Provisions and Plans
Whereelementsofgeotechnicalcomplexityareidentifed,the
CONSULTANTincooperationandcoordinationwiththeSTATEshall
developormodifySpecialProvisionsasappropriatetomeettheproject
constructionrequirements.Whereverpossible,theCONSULTANT
shallutilizeexistingSTATEspecifcations.AllrecommendedSpecial
Provisionsshallbeincludedinthegeotechnicalreportasanappendix.All
detailsnecessaryfordesignandconstructionoftheprojectelementsshall
beincludedintheGeotechnicalReportsuchasearthpressurediagrams,
overexcavationdetails,walldetails,andstagedconstructiondetails.
Details developed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided in
electronicformtotheSTATEorotherCONSULTANTsforincorporation
intothePS&E.
InstructionsforPreparationoftheScopeofWorkforProjectSpecifc
Application
TheGeotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work istobeusedwhen
thecivilengineeringportionoftheprojectiswelldefnedbeforeconsultant
servicesarerequested.Thefollowingelementsoftheprojectshouldbewell
defnedorguidelinesshouldbeavailableastowhatisacceptabletoWSDOT:
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1. RightofWay
2. WetlandBoundariesandlimits
3. Roadwayalignmentsandroadwaysections
4. Retainingwalllocations,profles,crosssections,andaesthetic
requirements
5. StructurePreliminaryPlans
Therearefll-insthatneedtobecompletedtodesignatewhowillperformthe
drillingandsecureRightofEntry.RegionMaterialsshouldbecontactedto
determineavailabilityfordrillingpriortocompletingthefll-in.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldbecontactedtoprovideacostestimate
fortheworkanticipated.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionestimateshouldbe
usedtocompletenegotiationswiththeconsultant.AttheRegionsrequest,the
HQGeotechnicalDivisioncanreviewtheconsultantsestimateandprovided
guidancefornegotiation.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-39
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning Contents
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 PreliminaryProjectPlanning 2-1
2.2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2.2 OffceReview 2-2
2.2.2.10 SiteGeologyandSeismicity 2-3
2.2.2.20 PreviousSiteExplorationData 2-5
2.2.2.3 PreviousSiteUse 2-6
2.2.2.4 ConstructionRecords 2-7
2.2.3 SiteReconnaissance 2-7
2.2.3.1 General 2-7
2.3 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceExplorationPlan 2-9
2.3.1 GeneralConsiderationsforPreparationoftheExplorationPlan 2-9
2.3.2 CriteriaforDevelopment 2-9
2.3.3 PreparingtheExplorationPlan 2-15
2.4 References 2-17
Appendix2-A FieldExplorationRequestForm 2-19
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-i
J anuary 2010
Contents Chapter 2
Page 2-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
2.1 Overview
Thischapteraddressesgeotechnicalplanningforprojectsthatinvolve
signifcantgradingorfoundationsforstructures,fromtheprojectdefnition
orconceptualphasethroughtheprojectdesignphasetopreparationforthe
PS&Edevelopmentphase.FinaldesignforthePS&Edevelopmentwillbe
coveredinotherchaptersofthismanualspecifctoeachprojectelement.
Thedesignobjectivesofthedifferentphasesofaprojectandguidanceon
thegenerallevelofgeotechnicalinvestigationforeachphasewerediscussed
inWSDOTGDMChapter1.TheWSDOTDesign ManualChapter510
andWSDOTGDMChapter1provideguidanceconcerningtherolesand
responsibilitiesoftheRegionMaterialsEngineerandtheHQGeotechnical
Division,aswellasinformationoninitiatinggeotechnicalwork,scheduling
andsitedataandpermitsneededforeachstageofaproject.Geotechnical
designforWSDOTprojectsisgenerallyprovidedbytheRegionMaterials
EngineerandtheGeotechnicalDivisionorgeotechnicalconsultantsworking
eitheronbehalfofthesegroupsoraspartofaconsultantdesignteam.
Thischapterincludesgeneralguidelinesforgeotechnicalinvestigations
conductedforprojectdefnitionanddesignphases(seeGDMSections1.1.1
and1.1.2),andpreparationofthesubsurfaceexplorationplanforthePS&E
phase.SpecifcinformationonthenumberandtypesofexplorationsforPS&E
leveldesignareprovidedinthechaptersforthespecifcdesignelements.
Toassuresuccessofaproject,itisimportantforthegeotechnicaldesigner
tobecomeinvolvedintheprojectatanearlystage.Theusualprocessstarts
withstudyingthepreliminaryprojectplans,gatheringexistingsitedata,
determiningthecriticalfeaturesoftheproject,andvisitingthesite,preferably
withtheprojectandstructuralengineer.Goodcommunicationthroughoutthe
projectbetweenthegeotechnicaldesigner,thestructuraldesigner,andthe
regionprojectengineerisessential.
2.2 Preliminary Project Planning
2.2.1 Overview
Thegoalintheinitialplanningstagesistodevelopaneffcientinvestigation
planandtoidentifyanypotentialfatalfawsthatcouldimpactdesignor
constructionassoonintheprojectaspossible.Aneffortshouldbemade
tomaximizetheamountofinformationobtainedduringeachphaseofthe
investigationprocessandminimizethenumberofsitevisitsrequiredtoobtain
information.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-1
J anuary 2010
Forlargerprojects,itmaybebenefcialtoconductthefeldexploration
inaphasedsequence,consistingofareconnaissanceinvestigationanda
preliminarysubsurfaceinvestigationduringtheprojectdefnitionphaseand
moredetailedexplorationconductedduringtheprojectdesignandPS&E
developmentphases.Ifthesubsurfaceexplorationcanbeconductedinphases,
itallowsinformationobtainedinthepreliminaryphasetobeusedinplanning
theexplorationprogramforthedetaileddesignphase.Thiscanbecost
effectiveinmaximizingtheeffciencyoftheexplorationsinthesubsequent
phases.Thatis,thelikelydepthsofthetestboringsareknown,problemsoil
layerscanbeidentifedandsampledinsubsequentphases,andthelabtesting
programcanbeplannedwithgreatereffciency.
Thelocationofthesitewillplayapartinthewaytheinvestigationisplanned.
Forprojectswheremobilizationcostsfordrillingequipmentarehigh,the
numberofsubsurfaceinvestigationphasesshouldbeminimized,evenon
fairlylargeprojects.
Thestudiesandactivitiesperformedduringtheplanningstageshould
bedocumented.Alistofreferencesshouldbedeveloped,citingnearby
explorations,notesfromfeldvisitsandconversationswithdesignengineers
andconstructionengineersfromnearbyprojects.Anycriticalissuesthat
areidentifedduringtheplanningstagesshouldbedocumented,suchas
geohazardsthatareidentifed.Ataminimum,enoughdocumentationshould
bemaintainedsothatanotherengineerpickinguptheprojectwouldnothave
togothroughthesamesearchforinformation.
2.2.2 OffceReview
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbecomecompletelyfamiliarwiththe
proposedprojectelementsbystudyingthepreliminaryplansprovidedbythe
regionprojectdesignoffce.Locationandsizeofstructures,embankmentsand
cutsshouldbedetermined.Discusswiththestructuraldesignerstheamount
offexibilityinthelocationofstructuresanddeterminetheapproximate
magnitudeoftheloadstobetransmitted.
Siteexplorationbeginsbyidentifyingthemajorgeologicprocessesthathave
affectedtheprojectsite.Soilsdepositedbyaparticulargeologicprocess
assumecharacteristictopographicfeaturesorlandformsthatcanbereadily
identifedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Alandformcontainssoilswith
generallysimilarengineeringpropertiesandtypicallyextendsirregularlyover
wideareasofaprojectalignment.Earlyidentifcationoflandformsisusedto
optimizethesubsurfaceexplorationprogram.
Many of the soils in the state of Washington fall into geologic provinces with
distinctsoiltypestypicaloftheprovince.ForexamplemuchofthePuget
Soundlowlandhasbeenglaciated,andthesoilsaretypicallyrelatedtoglacial
processes.EasternWashingtongeologygenerallyconsistsofbasaltfows
cappedbyglacialfoodandloessdeposits.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thegeneralgeologyofaprojectmayalsogiveindicationsofsoilconditions
thatmayormaynotbeencounteredintestborings,forinstancebouldersand
largecobblesinglaciallydepositedorglacialfooddeposits,buriedtreesin
debrisfowdeposits,orrelativelyfreshrockencounteredinresidualsoils
depositsinthecoastrange.
Oneoftheobjectsoftheoffcereviewistoplansitereconnaissanceand
prepareaconceptualplanforsubsurfaceexploration.
2.2.2.1 Site Geology and Seismicity
Topographic Maps.Topographicmapsaregenerallyreadilyavailableata
scaleof1:24,000(7.5minute)fortheallofWashingtonState.Thesemaps
arepreparedbytheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS).Themapsprovide
informationontheoveralltopographyofthesiteincludingdrainagepatterns,
slopeinclinations,wetlandsandgeneralaccessibilityforfeldexploration.
Usedinconjunctionwithgeologicmapsandaerialphotos,easilyrecognized
geologicfeaturescansometimesbeidentifed.Theheadscarpsandhummocky
terrainoflandslidescanoftenbeidentifedfromtopographicmaps.
Geologic Maps. TheDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)Divisionof
GeologyandEarthResourcehasgeologicmapcoverageofmostofthestate
at1:100,000scale.Themapsshowthedistributionofthebasicgeologic
unitsandprovideabriefdescriptionofeachdepositandrocktypeincluding
depositionalenvironmentandrelativeage.Themapsalsoincludealistof
referencesthatmayprovidemoreinformationonaparticulararea.
TheDNRalsohaspublishedmapsshowingtheextentofgeohazardsin
selectedareasofthestate.Thesemapsgiveanindicationofthepotential
problemareas.Themapsshowingslopestabilityandliquefablesoilsare
particularlyuseful.TheDNRhaspublishedliquefactionsusceptibilitymaps
forseveralareasinthePugetSoundRegion.Thesemapsgiveageneral
indicationoftheextentofliquefablesoilsintheregion.
GeologicmapsarealsoavailablefromtheUSGS.CoverageofWashington
isnotcomplete,butthemapsarereadilyavailablefromUSGSandmay
beavailablefromtheDNRLibrary.Seismicaccelerationmapsarealso
availablefromtheUSGSandcanbefoundontheirwebsite.Thepeakground
accelerationmapprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter6hasbeenadaptedfrom
theUSGSmaps.
Somelocalagencieshavedevelopedgeohazardmapsdepictingfoodplainsor
areasofsteepslopes.Thesemapsareavailablefromtheindividualcitiesand
counties.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-3
J anuary 2010
Aerial Photos. Aerialphotosalongthestateroutealignmentscangenerallybe
obtainedfromtheWSDOTGeographicServicesOffceinTumwater.Aerial
photoscanbeoneofthemostusefulsourcesofinformationforplanningthe
subsurfaceexplorationprogram.Whenusedwithageneralunderstanding
ofthegeologyofthesiteandlimitedsubsurfaceinformation,theextentof
geologicdepositsonthesitecanoftenbedetermined.Usingstereo-pairsof
photoscangreatlyenhancetheinterpretationoflandforms.
Theidentifcationofalandformasadune,terracedeposit,alluvialfan,
esker,moraine,orothertypeofdepositoftenpermitsthegeneralsubsurface
conditionstobeestablishedwithingivenlimitsandthusyieldstheinitial
appraisalofthesituation.Drainagepatternscanalsoaidintheidentifcation
ofsoiltypeandinthestructuralcharacteristicsoftheunderlyingrock.The
maximumamountofinformationwillbeobtainedwhenaerialphotosare
usedinconjunctionwithfeldinvestigationsthatcanverifyandcorrect
interpretations.
Landslidesareoftenrecognizableinaerialphotosbyslideformedfeatures
orconditions,includinghillsidescars;disturbedordisruptedsoiland
vegetationpatterns;distinctivechangesinslopeordrainagepatterns;irregular,
hummuckysurfaces;smallundraineddepressions;step-liketerraces;andsteep
hillsidescarps.
Althoughoneofthemorediffcultfeaturestoevaluate,vegetationisoften
indicativeofsubsurfaceconditions.Therelationshipbetweenvegetation
soiltype,moisturecontent,topographyandotherpertinentfactorsmaybe
importantandanyvariationsshouldbecheckedinthefeld.
Aerialphotosmaybeavailableinbothblackandwhiteorincolor.Color
photographsaregenerallypreferredbecauseobjectsareeasiertoidentify
whentheyappearintheirnaturalcolor.Finedetailsandsmallobjectscanbe
identifedmorepositivelythanonblackandwhitephotographsatthesame
scaleandthecauseoftonalvariationsismorereadilyestablished.
Aerial photos from different years can give an indication of the history and
previoususeofthesite.Acompletesetofairphotosfromtheoldestavailable
tothemostrecentcangiveanindicationoftheprevioussiteuse,aswellas
signifcantchangesintopographyorlandformsduetothemorerapidgeologic
processessuchasstreamchannelmigration,beacherosion,landslides,or
rockfall.
Remote Sensing. SatelliteimagerysuchasLandsatcanoftenbeusedfor
regionalinterpretationsofgeologicfeaturesanddrainagepatterns.The
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface I nvestigations (1988) provides a more
detaileddiscussiononthetypesandavailabilityofsatelliteimagery.LiDAR
(LightDetectionAndRanging)mappingusesalasertomeasuredistances
tospecifcpointsandiscapableofrapidlygeneratingdigitalelevationdata
similartothatobtainedbytraditionalphotogrammetrytechniques.The
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
equipmentcanbemountedinasmallplaneorhelicopterandcanproduce
accuratedigitaltopographicmapsoftheterrainbeneaththepathofthe
aircraft.OneoftheadvantagesofLiDARisthatvegetationcanberemoved
fromthedatabasetorevealabareearthmodel.Landformsthataretypically
obscuredbywesternWashingtonsheavyvegetationareoftenapparenton
thebareearthview.Similartechnologyusinglandbasedequipmentis
alsobecomingavailable.Thesetechniquesarebeingmorewidelyusedfor
mappingrivermorphologyandfoodplains,andgeologichazardsuchas
landslidesandmaybeavailablefromlocalagencies.
Soil Surveys.AgriculturalsoilsurveysintheUnitedStateshavebeen
conductedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)inconjunctionwithstate
agenciessincetheearly1900s.Theresultsofthesurveysarepresentedin
theformofreportsandmapswhichcommonlycoveracompletecounty.The
reports,ingeneral,containadescriptionoftheaerialextent,physiography,
relief,drainagepatterns,climate,andvegetation,aswellasthesoildeposits
oftheareacovered.Themapsshowtheextentandderivationofthevarious
deposits.Thesurveysgivesomeinformationontheslopeinclinationand
erosionhazardsthatmaybecommon.Thereportsalsoprovideengineering
classifcationsofthenearsurfacesoilandsometimesinformationonthe
suitabilityofthesoilsforvariousconstructionusesaswellasanindicationof
thegeneraldrainagecharacteristics.
Thesurveysareregionalinaspectandonlyprovideinformationonthetop
severalfeetofsoil.Theyshouldnotbeusedformorethanprovidingsome
preliminarysoilinformation.
Other Sources. WSDOTsunstableslopedatabaseshouldbereviewedfor
anyhistoricproblemswithslopeinstabilityorrockfallproblems.
Hydrogeologicsurveyscanprovideregionalinformationonthepresence
anddepthofgroundwater.BoththeDNRandUSGShavecompleted
hydrogeologicsurveysinpartsofWashington.
ScientifcarticlesandreportsongeologyinWashingtonmayalsobeavailable,
throughtheDNRanduniversitylibraries.
2.2.2.2 Previous Site Exploration Data
Mosthighwaytransportationprojectsareonornearexistingalignments,and
previoussubsurfaceinformationmightbeavailable.ForWSDOTprojectsthe
GeotechnicalDivisionmaintainsflesattheMaterialsLabinTumwater.Files
aregenerallyavailableforexistingbridges,retainingwalls,orsignifcantcuts
andembankments.Materialsreportsandsourcereportsthatwerepreparedfor
alignmentstudiesmightalsobeavailableeitherfromtheHQGeotechnical
DivisionortheRegionMaterialsEngineer.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-5
J anuary 2010
WaterwellrecordsareavailablefromtheDepartmentofEcology.Manylogs
canbeobtainedfromtheirwebsite.Thesoildescriptionsaregenerallynot
veryreliable;however,informationongroundwaterlevelsandpresenceof
bedrockcanbeobtainedfromthem.
TheCityofSeattlehasdevelopedanexistingboringdatabaseinconjunction
withtheUniversityofWashington.Thedatabaseincludesboringscompleted
forlocalagencyprojectsaswellasdataprovidedbyconsultants.Thedatabase
isavailableon-lineandincludesamapshowingexplorationlocationsalong
withPDFimagesoftheboringlogs.
2.2.2.3 Previous Site Use
EnvironmentalImpactStatements(EIS)willprobablyhavebeencompleted
andwillindicatethemostrecentlanduseofthearea.Notethatareviewof
landuserecordsorreportsthatdescribeprevioussiteuses,especiallythose
thatcouldidentifythepotentialforhazardouswastewillbecontainedina
separatereportproducedbytheEnvironmentalAffairsOffce(EAO)ortheir
consultant.
Notethatidentifcationofpotentialhazardoussubsurfacematerialscould
affectthesubsurfaceinvestigationapproachforthegeotechnicaldesign.
Thisissuemayneedtobeconsidered,therefore,intheplanningforthe
geotechnicalsubsurfaceinvestigation.Thegeotechnicalinvestigation
approachwillalsoneedtobeadjustedduringthesubsurfaceinvestigation
ifpotentiallyhazardousmaterialsareretrievedduringthesubsurface
investigation,bothforcrewsafetypurposesandtocomplywithenvironmental
regulations.
If,duringtheoffcerevieworduringsubsequentsubsurfaceinvestigation
potentiallyhazardousmaterialsarediscovered,theEAOshouldbenotifed.
TheEAOwillinvestigatethepotentialforhazardouswaste,defningitsnature
andextent,andhowtoaddressitfortheproject.
Othersiteusesmayalsoaffectthesiteinvestigationapproachandpossiblythe
timingoftheinvestigation.Especiallyimportantiswhetherornotthesiteis
historicallyorarcheologicallysignifcant,andwhetherornotthereispotential
forartifactstobediscoveredatthesite.Theinvestigationforthistypeof
previoussiteuseshouldbeconductedpriortobeginningthegeotechnicalsite
investigation.Ingeneral,theregionprojectoffceisresponsibleformaking
surethatthisinvestigationiscarriedout.
Whilethegeotechnicaldesignerisnotresponsibletospecifcallycarry
outadetailedinvestigationregardingthepotentialtoencounterhazardous
subsurfacematerialsorarcheologicalartifacts,thegeotechnicaldesigneris
responsibletoknowwhetherornotsuchinvestigationshavetakenplace,to
communicatethisinformationtotheFieldExplorationManager(FEM),and
toadjustthegeotechnicalsiteexplorationprogramaccordingly.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2.2.2.4 Construction Records
ManyWSDOTprojectsconsistofimprovementorreplacementofexisting
alignmentsorfacilities.Constructionrecordsandexistinggeotechnicalor
materialsreportsareoftenavailablefromWSDOTfles.HeadquartersFinal
Recordshasthemostcompletecollectionofconstructionrecords.
GenerallytheRegionMaterialsEngineerwillbetheprimarycontactto
obtainanyconstructionrecordsfromtheRegionProjectoffces.TheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionalsohassomeconstructionrecords.Allthreeoffces
shouldbecontactedforavailableconstructionrecords.
ConsultationwithWSDOTprojectengineerswhomayhavecompleted
workonsimilarstructuresinthesamegeneralareashouldbeutilizedtogain
generalinformationonthesoil,foundation,andgroundwaterconditions.
Previousexperiencemayalsorevealacceptablefoundationconditionsforthe
problemsathand.
Manyofthecountyandcityagenciesalsomaintainrecordsofinvestigations
andconstruction,andthesearegenerallyavailablethrougheachagency.
2.2.3 Site Reconnaissance
2.2.3.1 General
Beforethesitereconnaissanceisperformed,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldhaveperformedtheoffcereviewasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section2.2.2,aswellasgivensomethoughttothefeldexplorationplan.
Thereviewofavailabledatashouldbedonepriortothefeldreconnaissance
toestablishwhattolookforatthesite.Thefeldreconnaissanceshouldalso
bedonewiththepreliminaryplansinhand.Crosssectionsprovidedwith
thepreliminaryplansshouldbefeldchecked.Thecrosssectionsareoften
generatedbyphotogrammetryandmaynotaccuratelyrepresenttheexisting
groundsurface.Ifavailable,theprojectdesignengineer,structuralengineer
andfeldexplorationsupervisorshouldalsoparticipateinthesitevisit.
Notethelocation,typeanddepthofanyexistingstructuresorabandoned
foundationsthatmayinfringeonthenewstructure.Inspectanynearby
structurestodeterminetheirperformance.Ifsettlementorlateralmovement
issuspected,obtaintheoriginalstructureplansandarrangetohavethe
structuresurveyedusingtheoriginalbenchmark,ifpossible.
Forwatercrossings,inspectstructurefootingsandthestreambanksup
anddownstreamforevidenceofscour.Riprappresentaroundthebridge
foundationmayindicateapastscourproblem,couldimpactthelocation
oftestboringsandwillneedtobedealtwithduringconstruction.Takenote
ofthestreambedmaterial.Oftenlargecobblesandbouldersareexposedin
thestreambed,butnotencounteredintheboringsornotedontheboringlogs.
Thebouldersareanindicationofunexpectedsubsurfaceobstructionstodeep
foundationinstallation.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-7
J anuary 2010
Relatesiteconditionstoproposedboringlocations.Checkaccessfor
explorationequipmentandmakeaninitialdeterminationofwhattypeof
equipmentmightbebestsuitedtothesiteconditions.Ifsitepreparationis
necessary,notethetypeofequipment,suchasabulldozer,thatmaybeneeded
fordrillingequipmentaccess.Notepotentialproblemswithutilitiessuch
asoverheadandundergroundpower,siteaccess,privatepropertyorother
obstructions.Whileutilityclearanceswillneedtobeobtainedbeforethe
subsurfaceexplorationbegins,thelocationswillinfuencewhereexplorations
canbelocated.Noteanywatersourcesthatcouldbeusedduringdrilling.
Alsonotetraffccontrolneedstoaccomplishthefeldexplorationprogram,
considering the practical aspects of the proposed drilling plan with regard
toimpacttothepublic.Ifboringsaretobelocatedinastreambed,the
reconnaissanceshouldnotethesizeofthebargebestsuitedforthejob,details
ofanchoring,depthofwater,locationsforlaunchingthebarge,etc.Notes
shouldbemadeastowhichtypeofdrillingisbestsuitedtothesite.Also
notepotentialproblemswithboringssuchasshallowgroundwatertable,
looseorheavingsands,cobblesandboulders,etc.Availabilityofwater,if
coringormudrotarymethodsareanticipated,shouldbedetermined.Special
samplingequipmentneeded,suchasundisturbedsamplingequipment,
shouldbenoted.Thisevaluationoffeldinvestigationlogisticsshouldbe
donewiththeassistanceofthegeotechnicalfeldexplorationmanageror
supervisorstotakeadvantageoftheirexpertiseinworkingwithgeotechnical
explorationequipmentandinconductingageotechnicalfeldinvestigation
(seeWSDOTGDMSection3.2).
RightofEntryonWSDOTprojectsisgenerallyobtainedthroughtheproject
offce.However,noteproximityofresidencesandbuildingsforpossible
diffcultiesduetonoiseandotherdisturbancesduringthesubsurface
exploration.Localresidentscanoftenprovidesomeinformationonthehistory
ofthesite.
Compare the topography of the site with that shown on maps and try to
confrmtheassumptionsmadeduringtheoffcereviewconcerningthesite
geology.Observeandnotenaturaloccurringexposuressuchasriverbanks,
naturalescarpments,quarries,highwayorrailwaycutsandrockoutcrops.
Measuretheinclinationofanyexistingsteepslopes.Noteanddescribethe
typeandamountoffllthathasbeenplacedonthesite.
Notetheextentofanyexistingunstableslopesorerosionfeatures.For
unstableslopesorlandslidesnotethelengthandwidthoftheareaaffected.
Noteanyotherindicationsofinstabilitysuchaspistolbuttingoftrees,
hummockyterrainorsprings.Notetypesofvegetationpresent.Full
investigationoftheseissueswillrequirereviewofthesiteconditionswell
aboveandbelowthefacilityalignment,andmayextendontoprivate
property.Rightofentrymaybeneededinsuchcasestocompletethesite
reconnaissance.Ifsteepslopesmustbeaccessedtofullyinvestigatethe
site,safetyissueswillneedtobeaddressedbeforeattemptingtoaccessthe
area,oralternativemeansofgettingintothepositiontomakethenecessary
observationsshouldbeconsidered(e.g.,aman-lift,oruseofahelicopter).
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Notethepresenceofanywetlandorothersurfacewater.
Handholesorprobesmaybeusefultoobtaininformationondepthofsoft
soils.
Photographsarevaluablerecordsofthesitevisitandshouldbelabeledwith
theapproximatestationing,directionofview,date,andabrieftitle.Photos
shouldbeobtainedofallthesitefeatureslistedaboveandoftheprobable
explorationlocations.
Arecordofthefeldvisitshouldbekeptandincludedintheprojectfle.
Measuresshouldbetakentopermanentlyarchiveanyphotographstaken.
Therecordshouldlistanddescribesignifcantsitefeaturesasdiscussed
abovealongwithapproximatestationing.Anexamplefeldreconnaissance
reportformisincludedintheFHWASoilandfoundationsWorkshopManual
(Cheney and Chassie, 2000).
Specialsitereconnaissancerequirementsforinvestigationofrockslopesare
provided,byreference,inWSDOTGDMChapter12.
2.3 Development of the Subsurface Exploration Plan
2.3.1 General Considerations for Preparation of the Exploration Plan
Ifthesitereconnaissanceisperformedaspartofaprojectdefnitionphase
investigation,theresultswillbeusedtodeveloptheprojectdefnition
conceptuallevelgeotechnicalreportinaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Chapter23.Otherwise,thesitereconnaissanceandoffcereviewresultsare
usedtodeveloptheprojectdesignand/orPS&Ephasefeldinvestigation.
Adescriptionofthesitedataneededforeachtypeofprojectisprovidedin
theWSDOTDesign ManualChapters510and1130.Thesectionsthatfollow
expandontheconsiderationsrequiredforthepreparationofthesubsurface
explorationplan.Developmentofexplorationplansforgeotechnicalbaseline
reportsiscoveredinWSDOTGDMChapter22.
2.3.2 Criteria for Development
Thegoalofthegeotechnicalinvestigationprogramistoobtainthe
engineeringpropertiesofthesoilorrockandtodefnetheaerialextent,
depth,andthicknessofeachidentifablesoil/rockstratum,withinadepththat
couldaffectthedesignofthestructure,fll,cut,landslide,orotherproject
element,dependentonthesizeandnatureoftheelement.Typicalproperties
andconditionstobeevaluatedincludepermeability,compressibility,shear
strength,thelocationofgroundwaterandthepresenceandmagnitudeof
artesianpressures,ifpresent.Regardingthedeterminationofproperties
fordesign,thefocusoftheexplorationandtestingprogramshouldbe
onthegeologicunit/stratum,andthenumberofmeasurementsofeach
criticaldesignpropertyineachunit/stratumtohaveareasonabledegreeof
confdenceinthepropertymeasured(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5).The
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-9
J anuary 2010
geotechnicalinvestigationatthePS&Elevelshouldbeadequatetofully
defnethesubsurfaceconditionsfordesignandconstructionpurposes,and
shallbeconsistentwiththenationalstandardsofpracticeidentifedinthis
manualandasspecifcallyaugmentedinthismanual,subjecttoadjustment
based on the variability of the site conditions and the potential impact of site
conditionvariabilityasdeterminedbasedonthejudgmentofanexperienced
geotechnicalengineerorengineeringgeologist.
Thetype,location,sizeanddepthoftheexplorationsandtestingare
dependentuponthenatureandsizeoftheprojectandonthedegreeof
complexityandcriticalnatureofthesubsurfaceconditions.Ingeneral,it
isjustifabletospendadditionalmoneyonexplorationsandrelatedtesting
andengineeringbeyondthestandardsasidentifedinthismanualaslong
assuffcientsavingscanberealizedintheprojectconstructioncosts.
Considerationshouldbegiventothesmallcostofaboringinrelationtothe
foundationcost.Atestboringwilltypicallycostlessthanonedrivenpile.Yet
theknowledgegainedfromtheboringmaypermitamoreeffcientdesignthat
mayalloweliminationofoneormorepilesforthatstructure.
Considerationshouldbegiventohowsensitivethestructureorembankment
istovariationsinsubsurfaceconditionswhenplanningthegeotechnical
investigation.Embankmentscangenerallytolerateseveralinchesof
settlementwhileastructuremaybelimitedtolessthanoneinch.Embankment
loadsarespreadoverawideareawhilestructureloadsareconcentrated.
Someconsiderationshouldbegiventotheamountofriskthatunknown
soilconditionscouldbringtotheproject(e.g.,whatistherisktothe
constructabilityandfunctioningofthefacilityifdetailedsubsurface
informationataspecifclocationisnotobtained?)..Therearetimeswhen
soilconditionsmaybeunderstoodfairlywellforthegeotechnicaldesign,but
thatunknownsoilconditionscouldaffectthecostoftheproject.Generally
ifrockisencounteredatthefoundationgradeinaboringatapierlocation,
thelocationandqualityoftherockshouldbeexploredattheothersideofthe
pier.Ifrockmayfallofftowardstheriver,makesuretheboringsexplorethe
rockcontactonthefrontsideofthefooting.
Specifcrequirementsforboringspacing,depth,andsamplingfrequency
areprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter8forfoundationsandhydraulic
structures,WSDOTGDMChapter9forembankments,WSDOTGDM
Chapter10forcuts,WSDOTGDMChapter15forwalls,WSDOTGDM
Chapter17fornoisewalls,signalandsignfoundations,culverts,and
buildings,andbyreferencetootherdocuments/manualsinWSDOTGDM
Chapters11,12,13,and19forgroundimprovement,rockcuts,landslidesand
infltrationfacilities,respectively.Whileengineeringjudgmentwillneedto
be applied by a licensed and experienced geotechnical professional to adapt
theexplorationprogramtothefoundationtypesanddepthsneededandto
thevariabilityinthesubsurfaceconditionsobserved,theintentofspecifc
requirementsprovidedinthechaptersidentifedaboveregardingtheminimum
levelofexplorationneededshouldbecarriedout.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thespecifcexplorationrequirementsidentifedinthechaptersidentifed
aboveshouldbeusedonlyasafrststepinestimatingthenumberofborings
foraparticulardesign,asactualboringspacingswilldependuponthe
projecttypeandgeologicenvironment.Inareasunderlainbyheterogeneous
soildepositsand/orrockformations,itwillprobablybenecessarytodrill
morefrequentlyand/ordeeperthantheminimumguidelinesprovidedin
thesechapterstocapturevariationsinsoiland/orrocktypeandtoassess
consistencyacrossthesitearea.Eventhebestandmostdetailedsubsurface
explorationprogramsmaynotidentifyeveryimportantsubsurfaceproblem
conditionifconditionsarehighlyvariable.Thegoalofthesubsurface
explorationprogram,however,istoreducetheriskofsuchproblemstoan
acceptableminimum.
Inalaterallyhomogeneousarea,drillingoradvancingalargenumberof
boringsmayberedundant,sinceeachsampletestedwouldexhibitsimilar
engineeringproperties.Furthermore,inareaswheresoilorrockconditions
areknowntobeveryfavorabletotheconstructionandperformanceofthe
foundationtypelikelytobeused(e.g.,footingsonverydensesoil,and
groundwaterisdeepenoughtonotbeafactor),obtainingfewerboringsthan
specifedinthechaptersidentifedabovemaybejustifed.
Testboringsaretypicallytheprimarymeansusedtoobtaintheneeded
subsurfaceinformationandsamplesforlaboratorytesting.However,other
meansofobtainingsubsurfacedatashouldbeconsideredtoprovideamore
completepictureofthesubsurfaceconditionsandtohelpreduceexploration
costs.
Coneprobescanbearapidandcosteffectmeanstoreducethenumberof
conventionalborings,yetprovideadditionaldatathatcannotbeobtainedfrom
conventionaltestholedrillingandsampling.Conedatacanbeespecially
effectiveindefningthefnerstratigraphyofgeologicunits,toobtainpore
pressuremeasurementsandin-situpermeabilityandshearwavevelocities,
as well as obtain data that can be directly correlated to a variety of soil
properties.However,theconeisnotveryusefulindensetoverydensesoilsor
soilswithlargergravelsandcobbles(duetoinabilitytopenetratesuchsoils).
Theconecanbeespeciallyusefulincomparisontoconventionalboringswhen
heavingsandsarepresent.Ifconeprobesareusedtosupplementasubsurface
explorationprogram,someconventionaltestholedataarenecessaryto
correlatereadingsfromtheprobetophysicalsamplesofthesoil(sincethe
coneisnotcapableofretrievingphysicalsoilsamples,aswellastoobtainsoil
samplesforlaboratorymeasurementofsoilproperties.
Similarly,in-situtestingdevicessuchasthepressuremeterorvaneshearcan
beconductedtosupplementconventionaltestholedrillingtoobtainspecifc
in-situproperties.Forexample,thepressuremeterisusefulforobtaining
in-situsoilstiffnesspropertiesthatcanbeusedtomoreaccuratelyassess
settlementorlateralloadresponseoffoundations.Shearvanetestingcan
beusefultoobtainin-situundrainedshearstrengthofsoftcohesivesoils.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-11
J anuary 2010
SeeFHWAGeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(Sabatini, et al., 2002)for
additionalinformationonthesetypesofin-situtestsandtheiruse.
Geophysicaltechniquesshouldalsobeconsideredtofllinthegapsbetween
testholesandtopotentiallyreducethecostofthegeotechnicalsubsurface
investigation.Geophysicaltechniquesareespeciallyusefulfordefning
geologicstratigraphy,andcanbeusefultoidentifyburiederosionchannels,
detailedrocksurfacelocation,overallrockquality,buriedobstructionsor
cavities,etc.,aswellastodefnecertainproperties.
Geophysicaltestingshouldbeusedincombinationwithinformationfrom
directmethodsofexploration,suchasSPT,CPT,etc.toestablishstratifcation
ofthesubsurfacematerials,theprofleofthetopofbedrockandbedrock
quality,depthtogroundwater,limitsoftypesofsoildeposits,thepresenceof
voids,anomalousdeposits,buriedpipes,anddepthsofexistingfoundations.
Geophysicaltestsshallbeselectedandconductedinaccordancewith
availableASTMstandards.ForthosecaseswhereASTMstandardsarenot
available,otherwidelyaccepteddetailedguidelines,suchasSabatini, et al.
(2002),AASHTO Manual on Subsurface I nvestigations (1988), Arman, et
al. (1997) and Campanella (1994),and Sirles (2006)shouldbeused.
Geophysicaltestingofferssomenotableadvantagesandsomedisadvantages
thatshouldbeconsideredbeforethetechniqueisrecommendedforaspecifc
application.Theadvantagesaresummarizedasfollows:
Manygeophysicaltestsarenoninvasiveandthus,offer,signifcantbenefts
incaseswhereconventionaldrilling,testingandsamplingarediffcult
(e.g.depositsofgravel,talusdeposits)orwherepotentiallycontaminated
subsurfacesoilsmayoccur.
Ingeneral,geophysicaltestingcoversarelativelylargearea,thus
providingtheopportunitytogenerallycharacterizelargeareasinorder
tooptimizethelocationsandtypesofin-situtestingandsampling.
Geophysicalmethodsareparticularlywellsuitedtoprojectsthathave
largelongitudinalextentcomparedtolateralextent(suchasfornew
highwayconstruction).
Geophysicalmeasurementassessesthecharacteristicsofsoilandrock
atverysmallstrains,typicallyontheorderof0.001%,thusproviding
informationontrulyelasticproperties,whichareusedtoevaluateservice
limitstates.
Forthepurposeofobtainingsubsurfaceinformation,geophysicalmethods
are relatively inexpensive when considering cost relative to the large areas
overwhichinformationcanbeobtained.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Someofthedisadvantagesofgeophysicalmethodsinclude:
Mostmethodsworkbestforsituationsinwhichthereisalargedifference
instiffnessorconductivitybetweenadjacentsubsurfaceunits.
Itisdiffculttodevelopgoodstratigraphicproflingifthegeneral
stratigraphy consists of hard material over soft material or resistive
materialoverconductivematerial.
Resultsaregenerallyinterpretedqualitativelyand,therefore,onlyan
experiencedengineerorgeologistfamiliarwiththeparticulartesting
methodcanobtainusefulresults.
Specializedequipmentisrequired(comparedtomoreconventional
subsurfaceexplorationtools).
Sinceevaluationisperformedatverylowstrains(ornostrainatall),
informationregardingultimatestrengthforevaluationofstrengthlimit
statesisonlyobtainedbycorrelation.
Thereareanumberofdifferentgeophysicalin-situteststhatcanbeused
forstratigraphicinformationanddeterminationofengineeringproperties.
Thesemethodscanbecombinedwitheachotherand/orcombinedwiththe
in-situtestspresentedinWSDOTGDMSection5.4toprovideadditional
resolutionandaccuracy.ASTMD6429,StandardGuideforSelecting
SurfaceGeophysicalMethodsprovidesadditionalguidanceonselectionof
suitablemethods.
Samplingrequirementswilldependonthetypeofsoilorrockencountered
andthenatureoftheprojectelementtobedesignedandtheproperties
necessaryforthegeotechnicaldesignofthatprojectelement.Properties
neededfordesign,andhowthosepropertiescanbestbeobtained,should
beidentifedaspartofthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanningprocess.
Forexample,ifsofttostiffcohesivesoilsarepresent,anadequatenumber
ofundisturbedsampleswillneedtobeobtainedtoperformthelaboratory
shearstrengthandconsolidationtestingtodefnetheshearstrengthand
compressibilitypropertiesneededfordesign,consideringthepotential
variabilityofthesepropertiesineachgeologicunit,aswellastoaccountfor
problemsamplesthatarediscoveredtonotbeusablefortesting.Thedegree
ofsampledisturbanceacceptableshouldalsobeconsidered,aswellasthe
abilityofthespecifcsamplingtechniquetoretainthehighqualityundisturbed
soilsneeded(seeWSDOTGDMChapter3regardingsamplingtechniques).
Thedisturbedsamplingtechniqueselectedtoobtainrepresentativesamples
forclassifcationandcharacterizationwilldependonthesizeofthebigger
particlesanticipated.Forexample,SPTsamplingisgenerallynotsuitable
forsoilsthatcontainalargepercentageofmediumtocoarsegravelinsuch
cases,aBeckerhammersamplermaybemoreappropriate.Ifthegravelly
soilsofinterestarecloseenoughtothesurface,itmaybepossibletoobtain
morerepresentativebagsamplesthroughtestpittechniques.Forlarge
projectswhereshaftfoundationsareanticipated,andifpermitsandaccess
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-13
J anuary 2010
canbeobtainedfarenoughinadvanceofwhenthefnaldesignisdue,larger
diameteraugerscouldbeusedtoinstalltestshaftstoevaluatethesoilsand
evaluateshaftconstructability.Ifdetailedstratigraphyisneeded,forexample,
toidentifypotentialunstablezonesorsurfaces,Shelbytubesamplesortriple
tubecoringtechniquescanbeusedtogetacontinuoussoilorrocksamplefor
visualassessment.
Fieldinstrumentationplanningisalsocrucialtothedevelopmentof
acompletefeldexplorationprogram.Groundwatermeasurementin
termsofitslocation,pieziometrichead,extentacrossthesite,gradient,
andconnectiontosurfacewaterfeaturesistypicallyimportantformost
geotechnicaldesigns,anditsmeasurementshouldalwaysbeapartofany
geotechnicalinvestigationplanningeffort.Eliminationofgroundwater
measurementfromthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanmustbejustifed
bystrongevidencethatthereisnogroundwaterpresentwithinthedepths
ofinterest,orthatthepresenceofgroundwaterwillhavenoeffectonthe
geotechnicaldesignoftheprojectelementoritsconstruction.Notethat
measurementofgroundwaterinthedrilledholeatthetimeofdrillingis
generallynotconsideredtobeadequateforgroundwatermeasurement.In
granularsoilwithmediumtohighpermeability,reliablegroundwaterlevels
cansometimesbeobtainedinthedrilledhole.Ataminimum,groundwater
levelsshouldbeobtainedatcompletionofdrillingafterthewaterlevel
hasstabilizedand12hoursafterdrillingiscompleted.However,sincethe
presenceofdrillingfuidsandthetimerequiredforgroundwaterlevelsto
reachequilibriumafterdrillingcanbesignifcant,measurementsofground
waterattimeofdrillingcanbemisleading.Itisgenerallynecessaryto
installsometypeofpiezometertomakesuchmeasurements.Theextent
ofthegroundwatermeasurementprogramshallbecapableofevaluating
bothdesignandconstructabilityneeds(notethatthisdoesnotmeanthatthe
piezometersneedtobeavailableforuseduringconstructionoftheproject
element,butonlymeansthatconstructabilityissuescanbeassessed).Seasonal
ortidalvariationsinthegroundwaterlevelsshouldalsobeassessedtothe
extentfeasiblegiventheprojectdesignschedule.Continuousmonitoringof
groundwatercanbeachievedbyusingelectricalpiezometerssuchasvibrating
wiretypeinconjunctionwithdigitaldataloggers.Additional information
ongroundwatermonitoringaspartofthefeldinvestigationisprovided
inMayne,etal.(2002).
Otherfeldinstrumentationmaybeneededaspartofageotechnical
investigationforcertainsituations.Forexample,whereinstabilityis
anticipated,inclinometersplacedatstrategiclocationstodefnethepotential
failuresurfaceshouldbeinstalled.Theinclinometershouldbeinstalleddeep
enoughtobefrmlyfxedinstablesoil.Forforensicanalysisofexisting
structures,tiltmetersand/orextensometerscanbeusefulfordeterminingthe
directionandlocationofstructuremovement.Settingupsurveycontrolofkey
pointsonthestructureaspartofthegeotechnicalinvestigationcanalsobeof
useinsomecases.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2.3.3 Preparing the Exploration Plan
Itisimportanttobeconfdentoftheaccuracyofthesitedataprovidedbythe
offcerequestingthegeotechnicalservices,andtoclearlyunderstandthescope
ofservicesbeingrequested.Theoffcerequestingthegeotechnicalservices
shouldalsoclearlyunderstandwhataffectapproximationsinthesitedata
couldhaveonthegeotechnicaldesign,andtheneedtogobacklaterandredo
someofthegeotechnicalworkiftheimpactofsuchapproximationsonthe
geotechnicaldesignissignifcant.Anygeotechnicalconcernsthatarelikely
todevelop,ortheneedforcontingencies,shouldalsobecommunicatedat
thistime.Communicationbetweenthegeotechnicaldesignerandtheproject
offceisessentialthroughoutthegeotechnicalinvestigation.Thegeotechnical
designerisdefnedasthegeotechnicalengineerorengineeringgeologistwho
has been given responsibility to coordinate and complete the geotechnical
designactivitiesfortheproject.Earlycommunicationofpotential
complicationsduetogeotechnicalconcernswillresultinmorecosteffective
andconstructibledesigns.Anyimpacttoprojectscheduleresultingfromthe
geotechnicalinvestigationasitprogressesshouldalsobecommunicatedtothe
projectoffcepromptly.Itisthegeotechnicaldesignersresponsibilitytomake
surethatthiscommunicationtakesplace.
Once the geotechnical investigation plan has been developed and approved
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter1),aproposedbudgetforfeldexploration,
laboratorytestingandengineeringshouldbedevelopedandprovidedtothe
projectoffce.Thebasisofthisbudget,includingadescriptionofthescope
ofworkasthegeotechnicaldesignerunderstandsit,thedateandsource
ofthesitedatauponwhichthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanwasbased,
andthepotentialforchangestotheplanthatcouldoccuroncesomeofthe
geotechnicalsubsurfacedatabecomesavailablemustbeclearlydocumented
inthelettertransmittingthegeotechnicalprojectbudget.
Theproposedlocationsoftheboringsshouldhavebeencheckedfor
accessibilityduringthesitereconnaissance(normally,thedrillingsupervisor
willcheckforthis).Itmaybenecessarytoshiftthelocationsofsome
explorationsduetolocalconditions,suchasutilities,encounteringobstacles
suchasbouldersduringdrilling,orchangesinengineeringplans.The
revisedlocationsoftheseholesshouldbecarefullyplottedonthelayoutby
thedrillinspector,andthereasonfortheshiftshouldbenotedonthefeld
log.Sometoleranceinlocationoftheexplorationsshouldbeexpectedand
communicatedtothedrillcrew.Theamountoftolerancewilldependonthe
topographyatthesite,theexpectedsoilconditions,stageofexploration,
andtypeofstructure.Forexample,forexplorationsmadeduringtheproject
defnitionphaseorforcutslopedesign,exactlocationsmightnotbecritical.
Ontheotherhand,ifthetestboringisbeingmadetodefnetherockcontact
beneathaspreadfooting,movingtheboring10feetmightbetoomuch.Ifthe
locationoftheexplorationiscritical,itmaybejustifedtomobilizeadifferent
typeofdrillrig.Costsincurredduringconstructionbecauseofdiffering
siteconditionsaregenerallymuchgreaterthanthecostofanadditional
mobilization.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-15
J anuary 2010
Communicationbetweenthegeotechnicaldesignerandthedrillinginspector
duringthefeldexplorationisalsocrucial.Thedrillinginspectorshouldbe
briefedastowhatsubsurfaceconditionstoexpectandshouldcontactthe
geotechnicaldesignerifanysignifcantchangesareencountered.Itmaybe
necessarytoadjustthesamplingintervalsofdepthofexplorationsoradd
explorations,ifthesubsurfaceconditionsaredifferentthanexpected.Ifit
becomesapparentthatsuchchangesthatwillsignifcantlyimpacttheproject
budgetorschedule,itisimportanttoimmediatelycontacttheprojectoffce
todiscussthesituationwiththem,andcometoanagreementonthebest
courseofaction,butwithoutimpactingtheprogressofthefeldcrewsin
accomplishingthework.
Theinformationneededonthedrillingrequestformshouldbeascomplete
aspossibletomakeeffcientuseoftheexplorationcrewstime.Theyneedto
knowhowtogettothesite,wheretodrill,whatequipmenttotake,andwhat
diffcultiestoexpect.Thedrillcrewstimeshouldbespentindrillingand
samplingandnotinsendingbackformoreequipment.
AcopyoftheWSDOTFieldExplorationRequestFormisattachedin
WSDOTGDMAppendix2-A.OtherexamplesareavailableintheNational
HighwayInstitute(NHI)Coursemanuals.
Belowisapartiallistofinformationtobeincludedonthefeldexploration
requestbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Otherinformationshouldbeincludedas
appropriate.
FieldExplorationCheckList:
Typeofexplorationsrequired.
Sequenceofdrillingtoallowforadjustmentintheplan.Forexample,
explorationsinareaswheresoilconditionsareunknownorproblemsoils
areexpectedtobepresentshouldbeperformedinthefrststagesofthe
program,toallowforadjustmentinsamplingintervalsoradditional
explorationstobeadded.
Expectedsoilconditions.Attachfeldlogsfromnearbyexplorations,
ifavailable.
Samplingintervalsandtypesofsamplestobeobtained.
Instrumentationandproceduresforinstallation.
Criteriaforendingborings-depth,refusal,thicknessofbearinglayer,etc.
Ifatallpossible,thedepthofallexplorationsshouldbeestimatedprior
todoingthefeldwork.However,thatisnotalwayspracticalinsituations
wherenoprevioussubsurfaceinformationisavailableandsomecriteria
shouldbestatedontheexplorationplan.Acriteriarecommendedfor
typicaluseistohaveaminimumof30feetofmaterialwithblowcounts
of30blowsperfootorgreater,oraminimumof10ftintobedrock,and
fordeepfoundations,theboringdepthshouldbeatleastasdeepasthe
estimatedfoundationdepthplus20ft.Note,thatwithoutcommunication
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
betweenthegeotechnicaldesigneranddrillinginspector,thesecriteriacan
sometimesresultinboringsthataredrilleddeeperthannecessary.
Coordination of drilling inspector and geotechnical designer regarding
whenandatwhatstagesofthefeldexplorationcommunicationshould
takeplace.
Thefeldexplorationsupervisorisresponsibletoobtainthefollowing
information,eitherthroughfeldreviewoftheinvestigationplan,orwiththe
helpoftheappropriateRegionoffces:
Equipmentrequiredandaccessneeds
Knownpermitsrequiredandregulations
Knownutilities
Specialtraffccontrolrequirements
Costoffeldexplorationservices.
Coordinationbetweenthefeldexplorationsupervisorandthegeotechnical
designerisnecessarytoimplementthefeldinvestigationprogram,tomake
surethattherearenologisticalproblemswiththeplanimplementation.
2.4 References
Arman,A.,Samtani,N.,Castelli,R.,Munfakh,G.,1997,Subsurface
Investigations: Training Course in Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering.
ReportNo.FHWA-HI-97-021.FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation.
Campanella,R.G.1994.FieldMethodsforDynamicGeotechnicalTesting:
AnOverviewofCapabilitiesandNeeds.Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II,
Special Technical Publication No. 1213,ASTM,Philadelphia,PA,pp.3-23.
Cheney,R.andChassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002,Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)- EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Sirles,P.C.,2006.Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects A
Synthesis of Highway Practice,NCHRPSynthesis357,Transportation
ResearchBoard,Washington,DC,108pp.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-17
J anuary 2010
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 2-A Field Exploration Request Form
FIELD EXPLORATION REQUEST
DATE: REVIEWED BY:
REGION: SR: C.S.: J OB No.:
PROJ ECT NAME:
PROJ . CONTACT: PHONE:
PROJ ECT TYPE:
CENTERLINE STRUCTURE LANDSLIDE PIT/
QUARRY
NUMBER OF TEST BORINGS:
ESTIMATED DRILL FOOTAGE:
TYPE OF TEST HOLE:
STANDARD TEST HOLE CPT
STANDARD TEST HOLE AND CPT OTHER
INSITU TESTING: FREQUENCY OF TESTING:
VANE SHEAR
CPT PORE PRESSURE DISAPATION
CPT SEISMIC VELOCITY
OTHER
INSTRUMENTATION:
OPEN STANDPIPE PIEZO PNEUMATIC PIEZO
SLOPE INCLINOMETER OTHER
SAMPLING FREQUENCY:
STANDARD SPT AT 5 FOOT INTERVALS WSDOT UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
SHELBY TUBE UNDISTURBED SAMPLES LONGYEAR UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
PISTON SAMPLER UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
CONTINUOUS SAMPLING
OTHER _____________________________________
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-19
J anuary 2010
Special Instructions:
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 3 Field Investigation Contents
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 ActivitiesandPoliciesBeforeExploration 3-1
3.3 ActivitiesandPoliciesDuringExploration 3-3
3.4 ActivitiesandPoliciesAfterExploration 3-7
3.5 StandardPenetrationTest(SPT)Calibration 3-7
3.6 References 3-7
Appendix3-A DailyDrillReportForm 3-9
Appendix3-B FieldInvestigationBestManagementPracticesforErosionand
SpillPrevention 3-11
Appendix3-C PortablePenetrometerTestProcedures 3-15
Contents Chapter 3
Page 3-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 3 Field Investigation
3.1 Overview
Thissectionaddressessubsurfaceinvestigationthatincludesdrillingand
excavationoftestpitsaspartofageotechnicalfeldinvestigation. It is
organizedbyactivitiesandpoliciesinvolvedpriorto,during,andafter
exploration.
3.2 Activities and Policies Before Exploration
Ageotechnicalfeldexplorationplanshouldbeformulatedasdescribed
inWSDOTGDMChapter2.Thegeotechnicaldesignerassignedtothe
projectisresponsibletocoordinatewiththeRegionProjectOffce(or
WSFprojectOffce)topreparethewayforthefeldexplorationcrewsto
implementthefeldexplorationprogram. Thegeotechnicaldesigneralso
functionsastheprimaryliaisonbetweentheregionorWSFandtheField
ExplorationManager(FEM),tokeeptheFEMinformedastheregionorWSF
completesthenecessarypreparationstobeginimplementationofthefeld
explorationplan.
Specifcally,thegeotechnicaldesignershoulddothefollowingbefore
submittingthefnalfeldexplorationrequesttotheFEM:
1. MakesureseniorGeotechnicalDivisionmanagementagreeswiththe
proposedexplorationplan(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.4).
2. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasprovidedadequatesitedatatolocatetest
holesandkeyprojectfeaturesonpaperandinthefeld.
3. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasaskedfor(preferablyobtained)an
environmental assessment of the site to determine whether or not there is
potentialtoencounterhazardoussubsurfacematerials. Thegeotechnicaldesigner
isresponsibletohaveabasicknowledgeofprevioussiteuseaswell.
4. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasaskedfor(preferablyobtained)an
archeological assessment of the site to determine if there is potential to
encounterNativeAmericanorotherartifacts.
5. Coordinatewiththeprojectoffcetomakesureanyright-of-entrysneeded
areobtainedfortheproposeddrilling.
6. Coordinatewiththeprojectoffcetomakesurethenecessarypermitsare
obtained(especiallywithregardtowetlandsandotherenvironmentally
sensitiveareas).
7. CoordinatewiththeFieldExplorationSupervisor(FES)whowillbe
assignedtotheproject,andtheprojectoffce,toconductajointfeld
reviewtoevaluateaccessandotherissuesrelatedtosettingupand
fnalizingthefeldexplorationprogram.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-1
J anuary 2010
8. ActastheliaisonbetweentheFieldExplorationManager(FEM)andthe
projectoffcetomakesuretheFEMknowswhenallthetaskshavebeen
completedandtoinformtheFEMoftheresultssothattheexploration
programcanbeproperlyestimated.
Notethattoobtainpermitsandright-of-entry,apreliminaryfeldexploration
planwilllikelybeneededbytheregion(orWSF)beforethefnalexploration
planiscompletedandturnedin. Therefore,thedevelopmentofthefeld
explorationplanmayrequireasomewhatiterativeprocess. Onceenough
feldexplorationplandetailshavebeendeveloped,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldrequestthatthosewhowillbedirectlynegotiatingwithlocalowners
toobtainright-ofentry(ifneeded)invitetheFEMorFEStoassistinthose
negotiations. Thisgenerallymakesthenegotiationsgomuchsmoother.
Ifthegeotechnicaldesignerrecognizes,eitherthroughanenvironmental
assessmentorthroughgeneralknowledgeoftheprevioussiteuse,thatthere
isapotentialtoencounterhazardousmaterialsduringthe geotechnicalfeld
exploration,itisimportantthatthegeotechnicaldesignermaketheFEM
awareofthisassoonaspossibleinthedevelopmentoftheexplorationplan.
Thepotentialtoencounterhazardoussubsurfacematerialscancompletely
changetheapproach,cost,andschedulingforthesiteexplorationactivities.
Apreliminaryfeldexplorationplanisalsoneededforuseasthebasisfor
conductingthejointfeldreviewmentionedabove. Thisfeldreviewshould
beusedtodeterminehoweachindividualexplorationsitewillbeaccessed,
thetypeofdrillequipmentbestsuitedforthesite,areasforutilitylocates,
requiredtraffccontrol,andtoidentifyanypermit,right-of-entry,and
environmentalissues. Adjustmentstothespecifclocationsofexploration
pointscanbemadeasneededduringthefeldreviewtoaddressthe
aboveissues.
Duringthefeldreview,theFESwillstaketheboringsiftheyhavenotalready
beenlocatedandifright-of-entry(ifneeded)hasbeenobtained. TheFES
shouldalsoassessthetraffccontrolneedsfortheexplorationworkatthis
time. TheFESwillcoordinatedirectlywiththeMaintenanceOffcefortraffc
control. Afterstakingborings,theFESisresponsibleforcallingallutility
locatesaminimumof48hourspriortothestartofexplorations.
Oncethefnalfeldexplorationplanhasbeencompleted,theFEMwill
provideacostestimatetothegeotechnicaldesignertocompletethefeld
explorationplan. Oncetheexpenditureforthefeldexplorationhasbeen
authorized,thegeotechnicaldesignermustthennotifytheFEMtocommence
withthefeldexploration. Oncetheexplorationplanhasbeenexecuted,any
subsequentrequeststomodifytheplanshouldbeprovidedinwritingbythe
geotechnicaldesignertotheFES. TheFESwillrespondwithanupdated
estimateandscheduleforrequestedplanchange.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthegeotechnicaldesignistobeconductedbyageotechnicalconsultant,
theWSDOTgeotechnicaldesignerwhoisoverseeingtheconsultanttask
assignmentoragreementisresponsibletomakesurethattheconsultant
accomplishesthetasksdescribedaboveandtoassistinthecoordination
betweentheconsultantandtheFEM. Iftheconsultantneedschangestothe
feldexplorationplan,thegeotechnicaldesignerisresponsibletoprovide
inputtotheFESorFEMastotheacceptabilityofthechanges. TheFES
orFEMisnottoactontherequestedchangestothefeldexplorationplan
withoutinputfromthegeotechnicaldesigner.
While the geotechnical designer is responsible to coordinate between
theprojectoffceandtheFEMorFESregardingpermits,right-of-entry,
hazardousmaterialsassessmentandarcheologicalevaluationforthesite,
andadequatesitedatatolocatetheexplorationpointsforexplorationplan
developmentandforlocationinthefeld,theprojectoffceisultimately
responsibletoperformthesetasksorseetoitthattheyareperformed.
Currently,WSDOThasafve-yearblanketHydraulicProjectApproval(HPA)
forbothmarineandfreshwatersstatewide.OnceagaintheFEMorFES
shouldbeinvolvedearlyintheprocesstodefnealltechnicalquestionsfor
eachproject.Forallbargeprojects,thedrillingshallbeincompliancewiththe
provisionsdescribedinthegeneralHPAfromtheWashingtonDepartmentof
FishandWildlife(WDF&WL).
TheFEM(orasdelegatedtoaFES)willassigntheprojecttoadrill
inspector(s)andadrillcrew. Thedrillinspectorwilltheninitiateameeting
withthegeotechnicaldesignertodiscusstheobjectivesandanyparticulars
oftheexplorationplan. EithertheFESorthedrillinspectorshouldnotifythe
geotechnicaldesigneroftheanticipatedstartdateoftherequestedwork.
3.3 Activities and Policies During Exploration
Thedrillinspectorwillmaintainregularcontactwiththegeotechnical
designer,especiallywhenunanticipatedconditionsordiffcultiesare
encountered,signifcantscheduledelaysareanticipated,andpriorto
terminatingtheexplorationandinstallinginstrumentation. Thedrilleris
requiredtocompleteadailydrillreportattheendofeachworkday. This
isalsorequiredofanycontractdrillerworkingforWSDOT. Thedrilling
inspectorisalsorequiredtocompleteadailyinspectorsreportattheendof
eachworkday. Atthecompletionofeachworkweekthesereportsshallbe
turnedintotheFESandputintheprojectfle. Examplesforboththedaily
drillandinspectorreportsthatshowtheminimumrequireddocumentationare
includedinWSDOTGDMAppendix3-A.
ExplorationactivitiesduringdrillingmustadheretotheGeotechnical
DivisionsBestManagementPracticestomitigateforsediment/erosion
controlandspillprevention(seeWSDOTGDMAppendix3-B).
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-3
J anuary 2010
Methodsforadvancinggeotechnicalboringsshouldbeinaccordancewiththe
followingASTMstandards:
D6151-97(2003)StandardPracticeforUsingHollow-StemAugersfor
GeotechnicalExplorationandSoilSampling
D5876-95(2000)StandardGuideforUseofDirectRotaryWirelineCasing
AdvancementDrillingMethodsforGeoenvironmentalExplorationand
InstallationofSubsurfaceWater-QualityMonitoringDevices
D2113-99StandardPracticeforRockCoreDrillingandSamplingofRock
forSiteInvestigation
Hollow-stemaugersarenottobeusedforassessmentofliquefaction
potential;wetrotarymethodsshouldbeused. Further,caremustbeexercised
duringdrillingwithhollow-stemaugerstomitigateforheaveandlooseningof
saturated,liquefablesoils.
Samplingofsubsurfacematerialsshouldbeinaccordancewiththefollowing
ASTMstandards:
D1586-99StandardTestMethodforPenetrationTestandSplit-Barrel
SamplingofSoils
D3550-01StandardPracticeforThickWall,Ring-Lined,SplitBarrel,
DriveSamplingofSoils
D1587-00StandardPracticeforThin-WalledTubeSamplingofSoilsfor
GeotechnicalPurposes
D4823-95(2003)e1StandardGuideforCoreSamplingSubmerged,
UnconsolidatedSediments
Inadditiontothemethodsdescribedaboveforsamplingforsoft,fne-
grainedsediments,WSDOTutilizesathick-walledsamplerreferredtoas
theWashingtonundisturbedsampler. Thissamplerislinedwith2-inch(I.D.)
extrudiblebrasstubes. Thesamplerisintendedforstifferfne-graineddeposits
thanwhatwouldbesuitableforShelbytubes.
Down-the-holehammersarenotallowedforuseinperformingStandard
PenetrationTests.
SamplesshouldbehandledinaccordancewiththefollowingASTM
standards:
D4220-95(2000)StandardPracticesforPreservingandTransporting
SoilSamples
D5079-02StandardPracticesforPreservingandTransportingRock
CoreSamples
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Disturbedsoilsamplesshouldbeplacedinwatertightplasticbags. For
moisture-criticalgeotechnicalissues,aportionofthesampleshouldbeplaced
inamoisturetinandsealedwithtape. Extremecaremustbeexercisedwhen
handlingandtransportingundisturbedsamplesofsoft/loosesoil;undisturbed
samplesmustalsobekeptfromfreezing. Rockcoresofsoft/weakrockshould
bewrappedinplastictopreserveinsitumoistureconditions. Rockcores
shouldbeplacedincoreboxesfromhighesttolowestelevationandfromleft
toright.Coringintervalsshouldbeclearlylabeledandseparated. Corebreaks
madetoftthecoreintheboxmustbeclearlymarkedonthecore. All soil
androcksamplesshouldberemovedfromthedrillsiteattheendeachdayof
drillingandtransportedtothelaboratoryassoonaspossible.
Insitutestingmethodscommonlyemployedingeotechnicalinvestigations
shouldbeinaccordancewiththefollowingASTMstandards:
D2573-01StandardTestMethodforFieldVaneShearTestin
CohesiveSoil
D5778-95(2000)StandardTestMethodforPerformingElectronicFriction
ConeandPiezoconePenetrationTestingofSoils
Groundwatermonitoringandinsitucharacterizationmethodscommonly
employedingeotechnicalinvestigationsshouldbeinaccordancewiththe
followingASTMstandards:
D5092-02StandardPracticeforDesignandInstallationofGroundWater
MonitoringWellsinAquifers
D4750-87(2001)StandardTestMethodforDeterminingSubsurface
LiquidLevelsinaBoreholeorMonitoringWell(ObservationWell)
D4044-96(2002)StandardTestMethodfor(FieldProcedure)for
InstantaneousChangeinHead(Slug)TestsforDeterminingHydraulic
PropertiesofAquifers
Additionalinformationongroundwaterinvestigationandmonitoringis
providedinMayne,etal.(2002).
Asaminimum,groundwaterlevelsshouldbemeasured/recordedpriortothe
dailycommencementofdrillingactivitiesanduponcompletionofpiezometer
installation. Subsequentmonitoringisatthediscretionofthegeotechnical
designer. Priortoconstructingapiezometer,theboringshouldbethoroughly
purgedofdrillfuidsusingclean,potablewater. Thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldprovidedesigninputontheconstructionofthepiezometer,specifcally
regardingthescreenedintervalandseals. Piezometersshallbeconstructed
inaccordancewithWashingtonDepartmentofEcology(DOE)regulations
(RCW18.104/WAC173.160)governingwaterwells. Followingcompletion
ofthepiezometer,thepiezometershouldberepeatedlysurgedorbailed
todevelopthewellscreenandoptimizehydraulicconnectivitywiththe
formation. Furthermore,thepiezometershouldbesealedwithintheaquiferof
interest,nothydraulicallylinkingmultipleaquifers.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-5
J anuary 2010
Slopeinclinometersareroutinelyemployedforslopestabilityinvestigations.
Theinstallationandmonitoringofslopeinclinometersshouldbein
accordancewiththefollowingASTMStandard:
D6230-98StandardTestMethodforMonitoringGroundMovementUsing
Probe-TypeInclinometers
Explorationsusinghandequipmentsuchasaugersanddriveprobesmayalso
beusefulforsomegeotechnicalinvestigations,suchastodefnelateraland
verticalextentofsoft/loose,near-surfacedeposits. TheWSDOTportable
penetrometerconsistsof1.75inchdiameterrodwhichtaperstoarounded
0.5inchtipovera4.5inchlength,thatisdriveninthegroundwitha35lb
weight dropped from a 25.5inchheight. Detailedproceduresforportable
penetrometer testing are provided in WSDOTGDMAppendix3-C. Standard
PenetrationTestcorrelationsfortheWSDOTportablepenetrometer(PP)are
approximatedasfollows:
Soil Type SPT Correlation
Clay #PP blows/4
Silt #PP blows/3
Sand/Gravel #PP blows/2
Theexcavationoftestpitscanprovidevaluablesubsurfaceinformationnot
determinableorwellcharacterizedbytestborings. Extremecareshouldbe
exercisedaroundopenexcavations,andaccesswithinthemshouldadhere
toWashingtonAdministrativeCode(WAC)sections296-155-655and
296-155-657.
Priortode-mobilizing,thedrillinspectorshouldensurelocationinformation
(e.g.,station,offset,elevationand/orstateplanecoordinates)ofallthe
explorationsarerecordedonthefeldlogs. If exact location information is
unavailableuponcompletionoffeldactivities,asketchofeachexploration
locationshouldbemadeindicatingrelationshiptoobservablefeatures(i.e.,
bridge/structure,milepost,etc.). Thisinformationshouldbeprovidedwiththe
feldlogstothegeotechnicaldesigner. Inadditiontoprovidingfeldlogsfor
allexplorations,requireddocumentationfortestpitsshouldincludeascale
drawingoftheexcavationandphotographsoftheexcavatedfaces. Sampling
methodsandinsitumeasurementdevicessuchaspocketpenetrometers
shouldalsobedocumented. Detailedrequirementsforboringlogsare
providedinWSDOTGDMChapter4.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3.4 Activities and Policies After Exploration
Uponcompletionofsubsurfaceexplorations,afnishedlogforeach
explorationistobesenttotheDepartmentofEcology(DOE)bytheFES. In
additiontosubsurfaceconditionsencountered,thelogmustincludelocation
(address,county,and-Section/Township/Range)andinstallation
information(well#,typeofinstrumentation,seals,andscreenedinterval).
Unlessotherwiserequestedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,allexplorations
andresourceprotectionwells(piezometersandinclinometers)shallbe
properlydecommissionedpriortoconstructionasperDOErequirements
(WAC173-160-381,500andRCW18.104.048). TheconstructionProject
EngineerisresponsiblefornotifyingtheFEMatleast72hourspriorto
requiredtimefordecommissioning.
Uponcompletion,thedrillinginspectorshalltransmitrecoveredsamplesto
theGeotechnicalDivisionlabandprovideboththeoriginalcopyofthefeld
notesandafnishedlogforallexplorationstothegeotechnicaldesigner.
3.5 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Calibration
Calibrationtodeterminespecifchammersystemeffcienciesshallbe
developedingeneralaccordancewithASTMD4945fordynamicanalysisof
drivenpilesorotheracceptedprocedure.Measuredhammereffcienciesfor
WSDOTdrillingequipmentaresummarizedatalinkfoundatthefollowing
webaddress:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Geotech/default.htm.
3.6 References
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002, Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-7
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 3-A Daily Drill Report Form
Daily Drill Report
SR
DOT Form350-152 EF
Revised 7/2007
CS
Project
Date
Project No.
Drill Drill No.
Structure Line Landslide MaterialsSource
Hole No Size Angle From To Soil Rock Total
Item Hours Item Hours
Mobilization and Demobilization
On Site Moving/Rigging
Drill Site Preparation
Soil Drilling
Rock Drilling
Reaming Hole
Placing and Removing Casing
Hole Stabilization
Install and Maintain Water System
Water Delay
Water Haul: Mileage
Equipment Downtime
Explain:
Standby for Hole Survey and Other Delays
Explain:
Installation of Instrumentation
Type:
Special Testing
Type:
Travel Time
Expendables
Core Boxes Piezo Pipe Slope Incl Cement Bentonite Additives
Other
Support Equipment No. J ob Yard O Serv.
Remarks
Inspector
Reg. OT Comp Total
Driller
Helper
Shift Start Shift Finish Service Codes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-9
J anuary 2010
IDR Sheet of Sheets
Contract Day Date
DIARY - Including but not limited to: a report of the day's operations, time log (if applicable), orders given and received,
discussions with contractor, and any applicable statements for the monthly estimate.
Inspector
DOTForm 422-004A EF
Revised 07/2008
Inspector's Daily Report
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Best
Management Practices for
Appendix 3-B Erosion and Spill Prevention
TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)isdedicated
toprotectingtheenvironmentwhenconductingfeldexplorationprojects.
Thismemooutlinestheerosion/sedimentcontrolandspillpreventionbest
managementpractices(BMPs)thatwillbefollowedforalldrillingactivities.
Thetwodistinctscenariosfordrillingincludepavementandvegetatedareas.
ThevarietyoferosionandsedimentcontrolBMPsmayvarybetweenthetwo
scenarios,butthephilosophyofminimizingsitedisturbance,reducingwaste
materials,trappingsediment,andstabilizingthesite,remainsthesame.
Disturbance Minimizing BMPs:
Selectthesmallestrigcapableforthejob
Useelevatedscaffoldingfordrillerandassistantwhennecessary
Waste Reduction BMPs:
Re-circulatedrillingslurry
Minimizevolumeofwaterfordrilling
Sediment Trapping BMPs:
Baffedmudtub(sealedwithbentonitetopreventfuidloss)
Polyacrylamide(PAM)forfocculation(mustmeetANSI/NSF
Standard60)
Siltfence(trenched,belowdrill,andoncontour)
Sandbagbarrier(washedgravel,belowdrill,tworowshigh,andon
contour)
Strawbalebarrier(trenched,staked,belowdrill,andoncontour)
Catchbasininsert(pre-fabricatedtype,aboveorbelowgrate)
Storageofslurryinlockeddrums
Site Stabilization BMPs:
Seedwithpasturegrass
Strawmulch(2maximumforseededareas)
AllBMPswillbeinstalledandathoroughinspectionforsensitiveareas
(wetlands,streams,aquiferrecharge,etc)andstormwaterconveyanceswillbe
conducted,priortostartingdrillingactivities. Atnotimeshalldrillingslurry
orcuttingsbeallowedtoenterWaterBodiesoftheStateofWashington.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-11
J anuary 2010
Whensensitiveresourcesorconveyancestotheseareasexist,allslurryand
cuttingswillbestoredinlockabledrumsanddisposedofoff-site. Ifnot,the
slurrywillslowlybeinfltratedintothegroundusingsurroundingvegetated
areasandthecuttingswillbestoredanddisposedofoff-site.
RemovalofsedimentcontrolBMPswillbeperformedimmediatelyafter
drillingiscompleted. Placetrappedsedimentwithcuttingsindrums. If
signifcantsoildisturbanceoccursduringdrilling,theBMPswillbeleftin
placeuntilthesiteisstabilizedwithgrassormulch.
ThedrillcrewwillhaveacopyoftheHydraulicProjectApproval(HPA),
issuedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW)
on-siteforallworkadjacenttooroverwater. TheSupervisorwilldiscuss
therequirementsofthispermitwiththecrewpriortoeachproject. All of
theprovisionsineachHPAwillbestrictlyfolloweduntilthecompletionof
saidproject. Thepreviouslydefnederosion/sedimentcontrolphilosophyand
BMPswillbeimplementedintheseconditions
Theapproachtoprotectingsurfaceandgroundwateris focusedonprevention.
Thedrillshaftwillbeflledwithbentoniteclaytopreventmixingofaquifers
andeliminatingtherouteforsurfacecontaminants. Inaddition,thefollowing
SpillPreventionControl&Countermeasures(SPCC)BMPswillbeused
whenapplicable:
Minimize Risk:
Visuallyinspectequipmentforleaksorwornhosesonadailybasis
Fixequipmentleaksassoonaspossibletominimizecleanup
Useproperequipmenttotransfermaterials
Reducetheoverallvolumeoffuelandchemicalsonsite
Removeasmanysourcesofspillsaspossiblefromthesitewhennot
working(evenings/weekends)
Useenvironmentally-friendlychemicalswheneverpossible
Storeallchemicalswithlidsclosedandkeepcontainersundercover
Havesecondarycontainmentdevicesunderneathpotentialspillsources
whenapplicable(i.e.5gallonbucket)
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Maximize Response:
Eachdrillingoperationwillhaveatleastoneemergencyspillresponsekit
on site at all times
Knowwhotocallincaseofemergencyspill
Ifanincidentalspill(lessthan1gallon/smallequipmentleak)occurs,
immediatelycollectcontaminatedsoilandstoreitinlabelstoragedrum.
Donotmixsoilswithdifferentcontaminantstogether. Reportspilltoyour
supervisor,astheyareawareofreportingrequirements.
Ifamajorspill(morethan1gallon)towateroccurs,controlthesourceofthe
leakifpossibleandcontacttheWashingtonStateEmergencyManagement
Division(800-258-5990)andtheNationalResponseCenter(800-424-8802).
Ifamajorspilltosoiloccursandthereisimmediaterisktohumanhealthand/
ortheenvironment,controlthesourceoftheleakifpossibleandcontactthe
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(800-407-7170). Thencontactyour
supervisor,astheyareawareofreportingrequirements.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-13
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 3-C Portable Penetrometer Test Procedures
Background
TheWSDOTportablepenetrometer(PP)isafeldtestusedinhighway
andsmallfoundationdesign. Thetestmaybeusedinbothcohesive(clay)
andcohesionless(sands&gravels)soils. Thetestvalues(i.e.,blowcount
perfootofpenetration)aredependentupontheeffectiveoverburden
pressureofgranularsoilsandshearstrengthofcohesionlesssoils. However,
sinceallequationsandcorrelationsrelatedtouseofblowcountvalues
areapproximate,soundengineeringjudgmentisnecessaryforaccurate
interpretationofthetestresults.
ThePPtestisaderivativeoftheStandardPenetrationTest(SPT),themost
widelyusedmethodfordeterminingsoilconditionsintheworld. TheSPTis
bothadynamicpenetrationtestandamethodofobtainingdisturbedsamples.
FortheSPTtest,asplit-spoonsamplerattachedtodrillsteelisdriven
downwardbytheimpactofafallingweightonthesteel. IntheSPTtest,a140
lb.weightfallsadistanceof30inchesperblow. InthePPtestmethod,a35
lbweightfallsanapproximatedistanceof25.5inches. IntheSPTtest,asa
split-spoonsamplerisdrivendownward,itfllswithdisturbedsoil. InthePP
test,nosampleisobtainedasasolid,cone-shapedtipisdrivendownwardbya
fallingweight. However,thePPmethodrequiresexcavationofatesthole,and
samplesshouldbeobtainedwitheachchangeinsoilstrata.
Equipment
Performanceofportablepenetrometertestingrequirestwogroupsof
equipment. Thefrstgroupisassociatedwithpreparationofadrilledborehole,
backhoetestpit,orhand-excavatedtesthole. Thisgroupincludesthetools
usedtodigthehole,withahandaugeremployedmostfrequentlyinaPPtest
application. Alistofequipmentusedforexcavationofatestholewithahand
augerfollows:
Shovelwithpointedendforbreakingupturfandvegetationatthesurface.
Postholediggerforassistanceinestablishingthetestholeexcavatedusing
thehandauger.
Handaugertoinclude:auger,pipeextensions(+/-3ftlengths),and
handle.
Steelbartoloosenuphardpacksoilandassistintheremovalofrockor
gravelfromthetesthole.
Tarpforcollectingrepresentativesamplesofsoilstrata.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-15
J anuary 2010
Fieldnotebookandpencilforrecordinglocationoftestholes,numbers
anddescriptionsofdistinctsoillayersencountered,andotherinformation
relative to a review of site characteristics and
conditions.
Samplebagswithtiesforpreservationofsamplesofmaterialencountered
withchangesofsoilstrata.
Markerforwritingonsamplebagsortagstodelineatetestholeanddepth
ofsamplecollection.
Pocketorragtapetobeusedtolocatethetestholerelativetosome
referencepoint,grid,orproposedalignmentandformeasurementofdepth
belowsurfaceofdistinctsoilstrataanddepthofexploration.
ThePPdeviceandaccessoriesformthesecondgroupofequipmentrequired
forgeotechnicalinvestigationofproposedhighwayorsmallfoundation
designs. Alistoftheequipmentnecessaryforthisgroupfollows:
Portablepenetrometertoincludecone-shapedtip;drillrodsections
(A-rod-1.75in.pipeOD&22.5in.lengths);fallingweightsection
(lengthofbarforslidingweightupanddown);the35-lbweight;andthe
couplingdevicesusedforconnectingthetipdrillrodsectionsfalling
weightsectionfallingweightstop.
Pipewrenches(2)usedtoloosenconnectionswhenbreakingdown
theportablepenetrometer.
Latheoranotherstraight-edgeusefulforestablishingasurfacereference
elevation.
Constructioncrayonormarkerusedformarkingthree6inchintervals
on the penetrometer in order to clearly delineate displacement as the
penetrometerisdrivenintotheground.
Ragstowipedownequipment,removingmoistureanddirt,priorto
packingawayequipment.
Test Procedure
1. Usingashovelorotherhandtool,stripawaysodorsurfacevegetationand
setasideforfuturerestorationofthelocation. Usingapostholediggeror
a6in.diameterorgreaterhandauger,digdownapproximately2ft,noting
thedepthoftopsoil,subsoil,andotherchangesinsoilstrata. Describe
soilconditionssuchascolor,texture,andmoisturecontentofthesoils
encounteredintheborelog. Collectsamplesforlabsoilclassifcation,
grainsizedetermination,orAtterberglimitsdetermination.
2. AssemblethePPdeviceforevaluationofsoilsnearthesurface. Use
threadedcouplingdevicestoconnectthecone-shapedtip,drillrod
sections,andfallingweightslidesection.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3. Measurethedistancefromthebottomofthetestholetothesurfaceand
record. Fromthetipofthepenetrometer,measurethisdistanceonthe
body of the testing device and annotate a reference line on the body of the
device. Fromthislinemeasureandmarkthreeintervals,each6inches
inlength.
4. LiftupthePPdeviceandplacethetipatthebottomofthetesthole. Insure
thatthebottomorbaselinemarklinesupwiththeapproximateground
surface. Placealatheorotherstraightedgeonthegroundsurfacesothat
anydownwarddisplacementofthePPdevicemaybemeasuredaccurately.
5. Liftthe35lbweightupandloweritdownontotheupper,slideportion
ofthetestingdevice. Screwonthethreadedstopattheupperendofthe
slidesection.
6. PerformanceofPPtestingrequiresaminimumoftwopeople. One person
shouldberesponsibleforsteadyingthePPdeviceinthetesthole,counting
thenumberoftimestheweightdrops,andwatchingthereferencelinein
order to stop the process every time the device is displaced downward
atotalof6inches. Thesecondpersonisresponsibleforraisingand
droppingtheweightinassmoothandcontrolledmanneraspossible.
Raisingtheweightupwardoffftytimesper6inchintervalcanprove
tobeaworkout. Additional personnel can be employed to relieve the
personresponsibleforliftingtheweightandassistinthemanualwork
requirementsoftestholeexcavation.
7. Foreachblow,the35lbweightdropsadistanceofapproximately
25.5in. Thenumberofblowsrequiredtodrivetheconepenetrometer
throughthree6inchintervalsisrecorded. Thecountfortheinitial6inch
intervalisnotedbutisntusedtocomputeatestvaluebecauseitrefects
theseatingofthePPdevice. Thesumoftheblowsforthelasttwo6inch
intervalsisrecorded. Thissumoftheblowsrepresentstheblowcountfor
that1ftintervalbelowthesurface.
8. UponcompletionofPPtestingataspecifcdepth,thedeviceisunseated
bythrustingtheweightagainstthestopattheendoftheslide. Repeating
thisactionshouldloosenthetipandpermitremovalofthedevicefromthe
testhole.
9. Employthehandaugertoremovematerialdisturbedbytheactionof
thePP. Placethisaffectedmaterialonthetarpandobtainasampleforlab
testing. AssociatePPtestresultswithmaterialsampledfromtheproper
testholeandelevation.
10.Continueadvancingtheaugerintothesoil,emptyingsoilandrepeating
theprocedureuntilthedesireddepthisreached. AdvancesfromonePP
testtothenextlowerleveltestareusuallyin2ftincrements. Monitor the
conditionandpropertiesofthesoil,notinganychangesinstrata. Obtain
samplesasnecessary.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-17
J anuary 2010
11.TopreparethePPdeviceforthenexttestatalowertestholelevel,remove
theweightstop,351bweight,andslidesectiontopermittheattachment
ofadditionaldrillrodsections. Re-attachtheslidesectiontothe
penetrometer. Measurethedistancefromthebottomofthetestholetothe
surface. Markthisdistanceonthebodyofthetestingdevicebymeasuring
from the tip and annotating a base line corresponding to the distance on
thePPdevice.
12.Withassistance,liftthePPintothetesthole,properlyseatitinthecenter
ofthehole,andinsurethatthebaselinecorrespondswiththeground
surface.
13.Lifttheweightupandontotheslidesectionandscrewinthethreadedstop
atthetopendoftheslide.
14.PerformPPtestprocedureandsamplingasdescribedpreviously.
15.Monitorchangesinsoilstrataasthehandaugeradvancesdownwardinthe
testhole. Ingeneral,sampleonlywhenthereareobviouschangesinsoil
strata. Useengineeringjudgmenttoguidewhetheradditionalsampling
andtestingarewarranted. Asthedegreeofgeologiccomplexityincreases,
thedegreeofsamplingandtestingincreasesaswell.
Figures3C-1through3C-8illustratetheequipmentandproceduresusedfor
conductingthePortablePenetrometertest.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-1. Performafieldreconnaissanceofthesiteofthegeotechnicalinvestigation.
Insurethattheproposeddesignis tied to an established coordinatesystem,datum,orpermanent
monument.
Figure 3C-2.HandaugersusedinconjunctionwiththePPtest.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-4
Perform a feld reconnaissance of the site of the geotechnical investigation. Insure that the
proposed design is tied to an established coordinate system, datum, or permanent monument.
Figure 3C-1
Figure 3C-1. Performafieldreconnaissanceofthesiteofthegeotechnicalinvestigation.
Insurethattheproposeddesignis tied to an established coordinatesystem,datum,orpermanent
monument.
Figure 3C-2.HandaugersusedinconjunctionwiththePPtest.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-4
Hand augers used in conjunction with the PP test.
Figure 3C-2
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-19
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5
Porta-Pen equipment. Clockwise from the top left: tape measure above cone-shaped tips
(2); 22.5-inch lengths (9); threaded coupling devices used to connect PP components
(10); threaded coupler used to stop weight (1); falling-weight slide section above pipe
wrenches (2); 35 lb. weight; and threaded coupling devices used with small cone tips
(not shown).
Figure 3C-3
Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5

Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5
The vicinity of the test hole is cleared of vegetation using a shovel or posthole digger. Left
photo shows using the auger to advance the hole to the desired depth. Right photo shows
placing soil on the tarp prior to sampling.
Figure 3C-4
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-5.PhotoofPPdeviceinthe process of being assembled.Thethreadedcoupling
devicesontheleftsideoftheboxareusedtoconnectthecone-shapedtipto lengths forming the
bodyofthepenetrometer.Thelengthsformingthebodyofthepenetrometer are then connected
tothesectiononwhichtheweightslides.
Figure 3C-6.Markingabaselineonthebodyofthepenetrometer.Thiswilllineupwiththe
topofthetesthole.Inaddition,alsomarkthree6inchintervals,measuredfromthisbaseline,to
trackthedownwarddisplacementwhenthefallingweightisapplied.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-6
Photo of PP device in the process of being assembled. The threaded coupling devices on the
left side of the box are used to connect the cone-shaped tip to lengths forming the body of the
penetrometer. The lengths forming the body of the penetrometer are then connected to the
section on which the weight slides.
Figure 3C-5
Figure 3C-5.PhotoofPPdeviceinthe process of being assembled.Thethreadedcoupling
devicesontheleftsideoftheboxareusedtoconnectthecone-shapedtipto lengths forming the
bodyofthepenetrometer.Thelengthsformingthebodyofthepenetrometer are then connected
tothesectiononwhichtheweightslides.
Figure 3C-6.Markingabaselineonthebodyofthepenetrometer.Thiswilllineupwiththe
topofthetesthole.Inaddition,alsomarkthree6inchintervals,measuredfromthisbaseline,to
trackthedownwarddisplacementwhenthefallingweightisapplied.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-6
Marking a base line on the body of the penetrometer. This will line up with the top of the test
hole. In addition, also mark three 6 inch intervals, measured from this base line, to track the
downward displacement when the falling weight is applied.
Figure 3C-6
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-21
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-7. PPtestinginprogress.Latheisusedtomarkthesurfaceofthetesthole
excavation.Inthisinstance,onepersonissteadyingtheequipment,anotherisliftingand
droppingthe35lbweight,andathirdisobservingdownwarddisplacementandcountingblows.
Figure 3C-8. ThisPPtestingcanbetiring.Photoshows another person providing relief for the
fallingweighttask.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-7
PP testing in progress. Lathe is used to mark the surface of the test hole excavation. In this
instance, one person is steadying the equipment, another is lifting and dropping the 35 lb
weight, and a third is observing downward displacement and counting blows.
Figure 3C-7
Figure 3C-7. PPtestinginprogress.Latheisusedtomarkthesurfaceofthetesthole
excavation.Inthisinstance,onepersonissteadyingtheequipment,anotherisliftingand
droppingthe35lbweight,andathirdisobservingdownwarddisplacementandcountingblows.
Figure 3C-8. ThisPPtestingcanbetiring.Photoshows another person providing relief for the
fallingweighttask.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-7
This PP testing can be tiring. Photo shows another person providing relief for the falling
weight task.
Figure 3C-8
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-1
Chapter 4 Contents
Page
4.1 Overview 4-3
4.2 SoilClassifcation 4-3
4.2.1 CoarseGrainedSoils 4-4
4.2.2 Fine-GrainedInorganicSoils 4-7
4.2.3 OrganicFineGrainedSoils 4-7
4.2.4 Angularity 4-10
4.2.5 ConsistencyandRelativeDensity 4-11
4.2.6 Color 4-11
4.2.7 Moisture 4-12
4.2.8 Structure 4-12
4.2.9 HClReaction 4-12
4.2.10 TestHoleLogging 4-13
4.3 RockClassifcation 4-13
4.3.1 IntactProperties 4-13
4.3.1.1 IgneousRocks 4-14
4.3.1.2 SedimentaryRocks 4-15
4.3.1.3 MetamorphicRocks 4-16
4.3.1.4 RockColor 4-17
4.3.1.5 GrainSize 4-17
4.3.1.6 WeatheredStateofRock 4-17
4.3.1.6 RelativeRockStrength 4-18
4.3.1.7 Slaking 4-19
4.3.2 InSituProperties 4-19
4.3.2.1 DiscontinuitySpacing 4-20
4.3.2.2 DiscontinuityCondition 4-21
4.3.2.3 CoreRecovery(CR) 4-21
4.3.2.4 RockQualityDesignation(RQD) 4-21
4.3.2.5 FractureFrequency(FF) 4-22
4.3.2.6 Voids 4-22
4.3.3 TestHoleLogging 4-22
4.4 References 4-22
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-2 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-3
Chapter 4 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.1 Overview
Thedetaileddescriptionandclassifcationofsoilandrockareanessentialpartofthegeologic
interpretationprocessandthegeotechnicalinformationdevelopedtosupportdesignandconstruction.
Thedescriptionandclassifcationofsoilandrockincludesconsiderationofthephysicalcharacteristics
andengineeringpropertiesofthematerial.Thesoilandrockdescriptionsthatarecontainedonthefeld
logsshouldbebasedonfactualinformation.Interpretiveinformationshould notbeincludedonthefeld
logs,butprovidedelsewhere,suchasinthetextofgeological,andgeotechnicalreports.Thischapter
providesstandardsfordescribingandloggingsoilandrock.
TheUnifedSoilClassifcationSystem,asoutlinedinASTM 2488 Standard Practices for
Description of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure),providesaconventionalsystemforclassifyingsoils.
However,italonedoesnotprovideadequatedescriptiveterminologyandcriteriaforidentifyingsoilsfor
engineeringpurposes.Therefore,theASTMStandardhasbeenmodifed toaccountfortheseadditional
descriptivetermsandcriteria.Itisnotintendedtoreplacethestandardbuttoimproveuponit,andmake
itbetterunderstood.
Therearenumerousrockclassifcationsystems,butnoneoftheseisuniversallyused.Thischapter
providesacompositeofthoseclassifcationsystemsthatincorporatesthesignifcantdescriptive
terminologyrelevanttogeotechnicaldesignandconstruction.
Animportantfacetofsoilandrockclassifcationisthedeterminationofwhatconstitutesrock,as
opposedtoextremelyweathered,partiallycemented,oralteredmaterialthatapproachessoilinits
characterandengineeringcharacteristics.Extremelysoftordecomposedrockthatisfriable(easily
crumbled),andcanbereducedtogravelsizeorsmallerbynormalhandpressure,shouldbeclassifedasa
soil.
4.2 SoilClassifcation
Soilclassifcation,forengineeringpurposes,isbasedonthedistributionandbehaviorofthefne-grained
andcoarse-grainedsoilconstituents.Soildescriptionsthatarecontainedonthefeldexplorationlogsare
basedonmodifedproceduresasoutlinedinASTM 2488.Thevisual-manualprocedureprovidedin
thisstandardutilizesvisualobservationandsimplefeldindexteststoidentifythecharacteristicsofthe
soilconstituents.DefnitionsforthevarioussoilconstituentscanbefoundinTable 4-1.Inaddition,soil
propertiesthataddressangularity,consistency/relativedensity,color,moisture,structure,etc.havebeen
defned.
Soilsaredividedintofourbroadcategories.Thesesoilcategoriesarecoarse-grainedsoils,fne-grained
inorganicsoils,organicsoils,andpeat.Thefrststepinidentifyingsoilistomakeadetermination
regardingwhichofthefourbroadcategoriesthesoilbelongs.Thedefnitionsforthesebroadcategories
areasfollows:
CoarseGrainedSoils:Soilsthatcontain50%orlessofsoilparticlespassinga0.0030in.(0.075mm)
opening.
FineGrainedInorganicSoils:Soilsthatcontainmorethan50%ofsoilparticlespassinga0.0030in.
(0.075mm)opening.
FineGrainedOrganicSoils:Soilsthatcontainenoughorganicparticlestoinfuencethesoil
properties.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-4 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Peat:Soilsthatarecomposedprimarilyofvegetativetissueinvariousstagesofdecompositionthat
hasafbroustoamorphoustexture,usuallydarkbrowntoblack,andanorganicodoraredesignated
asahighlyorganicsoilcalledpeat.Onceasoilhasbeenidentifedasapeat(groupsymbolPT),the
soilshouldnotbesubjectedtoanyfurtheridentifcationprocedures.
SoilConstituent Description
Boulder Particles of rock that will not pass through a 12 in. opening.
Cobble Particles of rock that will pass through a 12 in. opening, but will not pass
through a 3 in. opening.
Gravel Particles of rock that will pass through a 3 in. opening, but will not pass a
0.19 in. (4.75 mm) opening.
Sand Particles of rock that will pass through a 0.19 in. (4.75 mm) opening, but
will not pass a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening.
Silt Soil that will pass through a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening that is non-
plastic or very slightly plastic and exhibits little or no strength when air-
dried.
Clay Soil that will pass through a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening that can be
made to exhibit plasticity (putty-like properties) within a range of water
contents, and exhibits considerable strength when air-dried.
Organic Soil Soil that contains enough organic particles to infuence the soil properties.
Peat Soil that is composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of
decomposition usually with an organic odor, a dark brown to black color, a
spongy consistency, and a texture ranging from fbrous to amorphous.
Table4-1 Soilconstituentdefnition.
4.2.1 Coarse Grained Soils
Coarsegrainedsoilsareclassifedaseitheragravelorasand,dependingonwhetherornotthepercentage
ofthecoarsegrainsarelargerorsmallerthana0.19in.(4.75mm)opening.Asoilisdefnedasagravel
whentheestimatedpercentageofthegravelsizeparticlesisgreaterthanthesandsizeparticles.Asoilis
defnedasasandwhentheestimatedpercentageofthesandsizeparticlesaregreaterthanthegravelsize
particles.
Ifthesoilisclassifedasagravel,itisthenidentifedaseithercleanordirty.Dirtymeansthatthegravel
containsanappreciable(greaterthan10%)amountofmaterialthatpassesa0.003in.(0.075mm)
opening(fnes),andclean meansthatthegravelisessentiallyfreeoffnes(lessthan10%).Theuseof
thetermscleananddirtyarefordistinctionpurposesonlyandshould notbeutilizedinthedescription
containedonthefeldlog.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-5
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Ifthegraveliscleanthengradationcriteriaapply,andthegravelisclassifedaseitherwellgraded
(GW)orpoorlygraded(GP).Well gradedisdefnedasasoilthathasawiderangeofparticlesizesand
asubstantialamountoftheintermediateparticlesizes.Poorly gradedisdefnedasasoilthatconsists
predominatelyofoneparticlesize(uniformlygraded),orhasawiderangeofparticlesizeswithsome
sizesobviouslymissing(gapgraded).Oncethegradingdeterminationhasbeenmade,theclassifcation
canbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthepercentageofthesandsizeparticlespresentinthesample.
Ifthegravelisdirtythenitwillbeimportanttodeterminewhetherthefnesareeithersiltorclay.Ifthe
fnesaredeterminedtobesiltthenthegravelwillbeclassifedasasiltygravel(GM).Ifthefnesare
determinedtobeclaythenthegravelwillbeclassifedasaclayeygravel(GC).Oncethedetermination
hasbeenmadewhetherthefnesaresiltorclay,theclassifcationcanbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthe
percentageofsandsizeparticlespresentinthesample.
Ifthesoilisclassifedasasand,thesamecriteriathatwereappliedtogravelsareused-cleanordirty.If
thesandisclean,thegradationacriterionisexaminedintermsofwell-gradedsand(SW)versuspoorly
gradedsand(SP).Oncethegradingdeterminationhasbeenmade,theclassifcationcanbefurtherrefned
byestimatingthepercentageofgravelsizeparticlespresentinthesample.Ifthesandisdirty,thenit
willbeimportanttodeterminewhetherthefnesaresiltorclay.Ifthefnesaredeterminedtobesilt,then
thesandwillbeclassifedasasiltysand(SM);conversely,ifthefnesaredeterminedtobeclay,thenthe
sandwillbeclassifedasaclayeysand(SC).Oncethedeterminationhasbeenmadewhetherthefnes
aresiltorclaytheclassifcationcanbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthepercentageofgravelsizeparticles
presentinthesample.Table 4-2shouldbeusedwhenidentifyingcoarsegrainedsoils.
Thecoarse-grainedsoilclassifcationasoutlinedinTable 4-2doesnottakeintoaccountthepresenceof
cobblesandboulderswithinthesoilmass.Whencobblesand/orbouldersaredetected,eithervisually
withinatestpitorasindicatedbydrillingaction/corerecovery,theyshouldbereportedonthefeldlogs
afterthemainsoildescription.Thedescriptortobeusedshouldbeasfollows:
with cobbles-whenonlycobblesarepresent
with boulders-whenonlybouldersarepresent
with cobbles and boulders-whenbothcobblesandbouldersarepresent
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-6 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Grading
Siltor
Clay
Group
Symbol
Sandor
Gravel
Description
Gravel <10% Well
Graded
GW <15%
Sand
Well graded GRAVEL
<10% Well
Graded
GW >15%
Sand
Well graded GRAVEL with sand
<10% Poorly
Graded
GP <15%
Sand
Poorly graded GRAVEL
<10% Poorly
Graded
GP >15%
Sand
Poorly graded GRAVEL with
sand
>10% Silt GM <15%
Sand
Silty GRAVEL
>10% Silt GM >15%
Sand
Silty GRAVEL with sand
>10% Clay GP <15%
Sand
Clayey GRAVEL
>10% Clay GP >15%
Sand
Clayey GRAVEL with sand
Sand <10% Well
Graded
SW <15%
Gravel
Well graded SAND
<10% Well
Graded
SW >15%
Gravel
Well graded SAND with gravel
<10% Poorly
Graded
SP <15%
Gravel
Poorly graded SAND
<10% Poorly
Graded
SP >15%
Gravel
Poorly graded SAND with
gravel
>10% Silt SM <15%
Gravel
Silty SAND
>10% Silt SM >15%
Gravel
Silty SAND with gravel
>10% Clay SC <15%
Gravel
Clayey SAND
>10% Clay SC >15%
Gravel
Clayey SAND with gravel

Table4-2 Fielddescriptionofcoarsegrainedsoilclassifcation.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-7
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.2 Fine-Grained Inorganic Soils
Fine-grainedinorganicsoilsareclassifedintofourbasicgroupsbasedonphysicalcharacteristicsofdry
strength,dilatancy,toughness,andplasticity.ThesephysicalcharacteristicsaresummarizedinTable 4-3.
TheindextestsusedtodeterminethesephysicalcharacteristicsaredescribedinASTM2488.Soilsthat
appeartobesimilarcanbegroupedtogether.Toaccomplishthis,onesampleiscompletelydescribed,and
theothersamplesinthegroupareidentifedassimilartothecompletelydescribedsample.
Whendescribingandidentifyingsimilarsoilsamples,itisgenerallynotnecessarytofollowallofthe
proceduresforindextestingasoutlinedinASTM2488forthosesamples.
SoilGroup DryStrength Dilantancy Toughness Plasticity
Silt (ML) None to Low Slow to Rapid Low Non-plastic
Elastic Silt (MH) Low to Medium None to Slow Low to Medium Low to Medium
Lean Clay (CL) Medium to High None to Slow Medium Medium
Fat Clay (CH) High to Very
High
None High High
Table4-3 Fieldidentifcationoffnegrainedinorganicsoils.
Oncethemajorsoilgrouphasbeendetermined,fnegrainedinorganicsoilscanbefurtherdescribedby
estimatingthepercentagesoffnes,sandandgravelcontainedinthefeldsample.Tables 4-4through4-7
shouldbeusedindescribingfne-grainedinorganicsoils.
4.2.3 Organic Fine Grained Soils
Ifthesoilcontainsenoughorganicparticlestoinfuencethesoilproperties,itshouldbeidentifedasan
organicfne-grainedsoil.Organicsoils(OL/OH)usuallyhaveadarkbrowntoblackcolorandmayhave
anorganicodor.Often,organicsoilswillchangecolors,forexampleblacktobrown,whenexposedto
theair.Organicsoilswillnothaveahightoughnessorplasticity.Thethreadforthetoughnesstestwill
bespongy.Itwillbediffculttodifferentiatebetweenanorganicsiltandanorganicclay.Onceithas
beendeterminedthatthesoilisaorganicfnegrainedsoil,thesoilcanbefurtherdescribedbyestimating
thepercentageoffnes,sand,andgravelinthefeldsample.Table 4-8shouldbeusedindescribingan
organicfne-grainedsoil.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-8 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70% <15% Plus
0.075 mm
SiLt
>70% 15 to 25 % Plus 0.075
mm
% Sand >
% Gravel
SiLt with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus 0.075
mm
% Sand <
% Gravel
SiLt with Gravel
<70% % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy SiLt
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15% Gravel Sandy SiLt with gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly SiLt
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly SiLt with Sand
Table4-4 Fielddescriptionsofsiltgroup(ML)soils.
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Elastic SiLt
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Elastic SiLt with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Elastic SiLt with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Elastic SiLt
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Elastic SiLt with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Elastic SiLt
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Elastic SiLt
with Sand
Table4-5 Fielddescriptionsofelasticsilt(MH)groupsoils.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-9
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Lean CLAy
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Lean CLAy with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Lean CLAy with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Lean CLAy
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Lean CLAy with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Lean CLAy
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Lean CLAy
with Sand
Table4-6 Fielddescriptionsofleanclaygroup(CL)soils.
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Fat CLAy
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Fat CLAy with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Fat CLAy with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Fat CLAy
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Fat CLAy with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Fat CLAy
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Fat CLAy with
Sand
Table4-7 Fielddescriptionoffatclaygroup(CH)soils.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-10 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
ORGANiC SOiL
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
ORGANiC SOiL with
Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
ORGANiC SOiL with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy ORGANiC SOiL
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy ORGANiC SOiL
with Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly ORGANiC
SOiL
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly ORGANiC
SOiL with Sand
Table4-8 Fielddescriptionoforganicfnegrainedsoil(OL/OH)group.
4.2.4 Angularity
Thefelddescriptionofangularityofthecoarsesizeparticlesofasoil(gravel,cobblesandsand)should
conformtothecriteriaasoutlinedinTable 4-9.
Description Criteria
Angular Coarse grained particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides
with unpolished surfaces
Subangular Coarse grained particles are similar to angular description but have
rounded edges
Subrounded Coarse grained particles have nearly plane sides but have well rounded
corners and edges
Rounded Coarse grained particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges
Table4-9 Criteriaforthefelddescriptionofangularity.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-11
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.5 Consistency and Relative Density
Animportantindexpropertyofcohesive(plastic)soilsisitsconsistency,andisexpressedbyterms
suchasverysoft,soft,mediumstiff,stiff,verystiff,hard,andveryhard.Similarly,asignifcantindex
propertyofcohesionless(non-plastic)soilsisitsrelativedensity,whichisexpressedbytermssuchas
veryloose,loose,mediumdense,dense,andverydense.Thestandardpenetrationtest(ASTM1586)is
anin-situfeldtestthatiswidelyusedtodefnecohesivesoilconsistency,andcohesionlesssoildensity.
Tables 4-10 and 4-11shouldbeusedtodescribeconsistency,orrelativedensity.
SPTN(Blows/Foot) Consistency
0 to 1 Very Soft
2 to 4 Soft
5 to 8 Medium Stiff
9 to 15 Stiff
16 to 30 Very Stiff
31 to 60 Hard
Over 60 Very Hard
Table4-10 Consistencyofcohesivesoils.
SPTN(Blows/Foot) RelativeDensity
0 to 4 Very Loose
5 to 10 Loose
11 to 24 Medium Dense
25 to 50 Dense
Over 50 Very Dense
Table4-11 Relativedensityofcohesionlesssoils.
4.2.6 Color
Soilcolorisnotinitselfaspecifcengineeringproperty,butmaybeanindicatorofothersignifcant
geologicprocessesthatmaybeoccurringwithinthesoilmass.Colormayalsoaidinthesubsurface
correlationofsoilunits.Soilcolorshouldbedeterminedinthefeldattheirnaturalmoisturecontent.
Thepredominantcolorofthesoilshouldbebasedonthe Munsell Soil Color Charts.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-12 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.7 Moisture
Avisualestimationoftherelativemoisturecontentofthesoilshouldbemadeduringthefeld
classifcation.Thefeldmoisturecontentofthesoilshouldbebasedonthecriteriaoutlinedin
Table 4-12.
MoistureDescription Criteria
Dry Absence of moisture; dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water
Table4-12 Criteriafordescribingmoisturecondition.
4.2.8 Structure
Soilsoftencontaindepositionalorphysicalfeaturesthatarereferredtoassoilstructure.Thesefeatures
shouldbedescribedfollowingthecriteriaasoutlinedinTable 4-13.
Description Criteria
Stratifed Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 0.25 in.
thick; note thickness and inclination.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 0.25 in.
thick; note thickness and inclination
Fissured Breaks along defnite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smaller angular lumps which
resists further breakdown.
Disrupted Soil structure is broken and mixed. infers that material has moved
substantially - landslide debris.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
Table4-13 Criteriafordescribingsoilstructure.
4.2.9 HCl Reaction
Calciumcarbonateisacommoncementingagentinsoils.Totestforthepresenceofthiscementingagent
thesoilsampleshouldbetestedwithdilutehydrochloricacid(HCL).Thereactionofthesoilsamplewith
HCLshouldbereportedinaccordancewiththecriteriaoutlinedinTable 4-14.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-13
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
HCLReactionDescription Criteria
No HCL Reaction No visible reaction
Weak HCL Reaction Some reaction with bubbles forming slowly
Strong HCL Reaction Violent reaction with bubbles forming immediately
Table4-14 Soilreactiontohydrochloricacid.
4.2.10 Test Hole Logging
Theprotocolforfeldloggingthetestholeistodescribethesoilpropertiesinthefollowingorder:
Soil Description Angularity Density Color Moisture Structure
HCL Reaction
Someexamplesofthisfeldloggingprotocolareasfollows:
WellgradedGRAVEL,withcobblesandboulders,sub-rounded,verydense,lightbrown,wet,
homogeneous,noHCLreaction.
SandySILT,mediumdense,lightgray,moist,laminated,noHCLreaction
FatCLAYwithsand,mediumstiff,darkgray,wet,blocky,noHCLreaction
4.3 RockClassifcation
Rockclassifcationforengineeringpurposesconsistsoftwobasicassessments;onebasedontheintact
propertiesoftherock,andtheotherbasedonthein situ (engineering)featuresoftherockmass.
I ntact properties-Thisassessmentisbasedonthecharacteroftheintactrock(handspecimens
androckcore)intermsofitsgeneticorigin,mineralogicalmake-up,texture,anddegreeofchemical
alterationand/orphysicalweathering.
I n situ properties - Thisassessmentisbasedontheengineeringcharacteristics(orientation,spacing,
etc.)oftheboundingdiscontinuities(bedding,joints,foliationplanes,shearzones,faultsetc.)within
therockmass.
Bothassessmentsareessentialengineeringcharacterizationoftherockmass,andarethebasisforrock
slopedesignandexcavation,foundationdesignonrock,rockanchorage,andcharacterizingrockquarries.
4.3.1 Intact Properties
Rocksaredividedintothreegeneralcategoriesbasedongeneticorigin.Thesecategoriesareigneous
rocks, sedimentary rocks,andmetamorphic rocks.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-14 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.1.1 Igneous Rocks
Igneousrocksarethoserocksthathavebeenformedbythesolidifcationofmoltenorpartiallymolten
material.Typically,theyareclassifedbasedonmineralogyandgeneticoccurrence(intrusiveor
extrusive).SeeTable 4-15forexamples.Textureisthemostconspicuousfeature(keyindicator)of
geneticorigin(seeTable 4-16).
Ingeneral,coarsergrainedigneousrocksareintrusivehavingbeenformed(solidifed)beforethemolten
materialhasreachedthesurface;whilethefnergrainedigneousrocksareextrusiveandhaveformed
(solidifed)afterthemoltenmaterialhasreachedthesurface.Althoughthisgeneralityistrueinmost
cases,itmustbestressedthatthereisnoclearlinebetweenthetwo.
Aspecial,butcommon,classofigneousrockispyroclasticrocks(SeeTable 4-17).Theserockshave
beenderivedfromvolcanicmaterialthathasbeenexplosivelyoraeriallyejectedfromavolcanicvent.
Intrusive
(Coarse-grained)
Primary
Minerals
CommonAccessory
Minerals
Extrusive
(FineGrained)
Granite Quartz,
K-feldspar
Plagioclase, Mica,
Amphibole, Pyroxene
Rhyolite
Quartz Diorite Quartz
Plagioclase
Hornblende, Pyroxene,
Mica
Dacite
Diorite Plagioclase Mica, Amphibole, Andesite
Gabbro Plagioclase,
Pyroxene
Amphibole Basalt
Table4-15 Commonigneousrocks.
Texture GrainSize GeneticOrigin
Pegmatitic Very large; diameters greater
than 0.8 in.
intrusive
Phaneritic Can be seen with the naked
eye
intrusive or Extrusive
Porphyritic Grained of two widely different
sizes
intrusive or Extrusive
Aphanitic Cannot be seen with the
naked eye
Extrusive or intrusive
Glassy No grains present Extrusive
Table4-16 Igneousrocktextures.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-15
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Table 4-16shouldbeusedonlyasanaidindeterminingthepossiblegeneticorigin(intrusiveversus
extrusive)oftheigneousrock.ForgrainsizedeterminationanddescriptorsuseTable 4-23.
RockName Characteristics
Pyroclastic Breccia Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size exceeds 2.5 inches
and in which angular pyroclasts predominate.
Agglomerate Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size exceeds 2.5 inches
and in which rounded pyroclasts predominate.
Lapilli tuff Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size is 0.08 to 2.5 inches.
Ash tuff Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size is less than 0.08 inches.
Table4-17 Pryoclasticrocks.
Someextrusivevolcanicrockscontainsmallsub-roundedtoroundedcavities(vesicles)formedbythe
expansionofgasorsteamduringthesolidifcationprocessoftherock.Theoccurrenceofthesevesicles
aretobereportedusinganestimateoftherelativeareathatthevesiclesoccupyinrelationshiptothetotal
areaofthesampleandthedesignationasoutlinedinTable 4-18.
Designation
Percentage(byvolume)of
TotalSample
Slightly Vesicular 5 to 10 Percent
Moderately Vesicular 10 to 25 Percent
Highly Vesicular 25 to 50 Percent
Scoriaceous Greater than 50 Percent
Table4-18 Degreeofvesicularity.
4.3.1.2 Sedimentary Rocks
Sedimentaryrocksareformedfrompreexistingrocks.Theyareformedbythedepositionandlithifcation
ofsedimentssuchasgravels,sands,silts,andclays;orrocksformedbythechemicalprecipitationfrom
solutions(rocksalt),orfromsecretionoforganisms(limestone).Asindicatedabovesedimentaryrocks
areclassifedbasedonwhethertheyarederivedfromclasticsedimentsorfromchemicalprecipitates/
organisms.SeeTables 4-19 and 4-20fortheirclassifcation.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-16 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
RockName OriginalSediment
Conglomerate Sand, Gravel, Cobbles, and Boulders
Sandstone Sand
Siltstone Silt
Claystone Clay
Shale Laminated Clay and Silt
Table4-19 Clasticsedimentaryrocks.
RockName PrimaryMineral
Limestone Calcite
Dolomite Dolomite
Chert Quartz
Table4-20 Non-clasticsedimentaryrocks.
4.3.1.3 Metamorphic Rocks
Metamorphicrocksarethoserocksthathavebeenformedfrompre-existingrockswhenmineralin
therockshavebeenre-crystallizedtoformnewmineralsinresponsetochangesintemperatureand/or
pressure.Metamorphicrocksareclassifedbasedontwogeneralcategories;foliatedandnon-foliated
metamorphicrocks.Foliatedmetamorphicrockscontainlaminatedstructureresultingfromthe
segregationofdifferentmineralsintolayersparalleltoschistosity.Non-foliatedmetamorphicrocksare
generallyre-crystallizedandequigranular.
RockName Texture FormedFrom PrimaryMinerals
Slate Platy, fne grained Shale, Claystone Quartz, Mica
Phyllite Platy, fne grained with
silky sheen
Shale, Claystone,
Fine grained
pyroclastic
Quartz, Mica
Schist Medium grained, with
irregular layers
Sedimentary and
igneous Rocks
Mica, Quartz,
Feldspar, Amphibole
Gneiss Layered, medium to
coarse grained
Sedimentary and
igneous Rocks
Mica, Quartz,
Feldspar, Amphibole
Table4-21 Foliatedmetamorphicrocks.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-17
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
RockName Texture FormedFrom PrimaryMinerals
Greenstone Crystalline Volcanics,
Intermediate - Mafc
igneous
Mica, Hornblende,
Epidote
Marble Crystalline Limestone,
Dolomite
Calcite, Dolomite
Quartzite Crystalline Sandstone, Chert Quartz
Amphibolite Crystalline Mafc Igneous,
Calcium - iron
Bearing Sediments
Hornblende,
Plagioclase
Table 4-22 Non-foliated metamorphic rocks.
4.3.1.4 Rock Color
Rockcolorisnotinitselfaspecifcengineeringproperty,butmaybeanindicatoroftheinfuenceof
othersignifcantgeologicprocessesthatmaybeoccurringintherockmass(e.g.fracturefowofwater,
weathering,alteration,etc.).Colormayalsoaidinthesubsurfacecorrelationofrockunits.Thecolor
oftherockisbasedontheGeological Society of America Rock Color Charts. Rockcolorshouldbe
determinedassoonasthecorehasbeenrecoveredfromthetesthole.
4.3.1.5 Grain Size
Grainsizeisdefnedasthesizeoftheparticlesormineralcrystalsthatmakeuptheintactportionofthe
rockmass.ThedescriptionofgrainsizeshouldfollowthecriteriaassetforthinTable 4-23.
GrainSize Description Criteria
Less than 0.04
inches
Fine grained Few crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable in the feld
or with a hand lens.
0.04 to 0.2 inches Medium grained Most crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable with the
aid of a hand lens.
Greater than 0.2
inches
Coarse grained Most crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable with the
naked eye.
Table4-23 Grainsize.
4.3.1.6 Weathered State of Rock
Weatheringistheprocessofmechanicaland/orchemicaldegradationoftherockmassthroughexposure
totheelements(e.g.rain,wind,groundwater,ice,changeintemperatureetc.).Ingeneral,thestrength
oftherocktendstodecreaseasthedegreeofweatheringincreases.Intheearlieststagesofweathering
onlydiscolorationandslightchangeintextureoccur.Astheweatheringoftherockadvancessignifcant
changesoccurinthephysicalpropertiesoftherockmass,untilultimatelytherockisdecomposedtosoil.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-18 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Theclassifcationoftheweatheredstateoftherockmassisbasedonsixweatheringclasses(See
Table 4-24)developedbytheInternationalSocietyofRockMechanics(ISRM).
Term Description Grade
Fresh No visible signs of rock material weathering; perhaps slight
discoloration in major discontinuity surfaces.
i
Slightly
Weathered
Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and
discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by
weathering, and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its
fresh condition.
ii
Moderately
Weathered
Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
a continuous framework or as corestones.
iii
Highly
Weathered
More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
discontinuous framework or as corestone.
iV
Completely
Weathered
All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. the
original mass structure is still largely intact.
V
Residual
Soil
All rock material is converted to soil. the mass structure and
material fabric is destroyed. there is a large change in volume,
but the soil has not been signifcantly transported.
Vi
Table4-24 Weatheredstateofrock.
Alterationistheprocessthatappliesspecifcallytothechangesinthechemicalormineralcomposition
oftherockduetohydrothermalormetamorphicactivities.Alterationmayoccurinzonesorpockets,and
canbefoundatdepthsfarbelowthatofnormalweathering.Alterationdoesnotstrictlyinferthatthereis
adegradationoftherockmassoranassociatedlossinstrength.
Wheretherehasbeenadegradationoftherockmassduetoalteration,Table 4-24maybeusedtodescribe
thealterationbysimplysubstitutingthewordalteredforthewordweatheredforGradeIIthrough
GradeV.
4.3.1.6 Relative Rock Strength
Rockstrengthiscontrolledbymanyfactorsincludingdegreeofinduration,cementation,crystalbonding,
degreeofweatheringoralteration,etc.Determinationofrelativerockstrengthcanbeestimatedby
simplefeldtests,whichcanberefned,ifrequired,throughlaboratorytesting.Therelativerockstrength
shouldbedeterminedbasedontheISRMmethodoutlinedinTable 4-25.Duetothepotentialfor
variablerockconditions,multiplerelativestrengthdesignationsmayberequiredforeachcorerun.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-19
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Grade Description FieldIdentifcation
UniaxialCompressive
Strength(Approx)
R0 Extremely Weak
Rock
indented by thumbnail 0.04 to 0.15 ksi
R1 Very Weak Rock Specimen crumbles under sharp blow
with point of geological hammer, and
can be cut with a pocket knife.
0.15 to 3.6 ksi
R2 Moderately
Weak Rock
Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made
in a specimen with a pocket knife.
Geological hammer point indents
deeply with frm blow.
3.6 to 7.3 ksi
R3 Moderately Strong
Rock
Specimen cannot be scraped or cut
with a pocket knife, shallow indentation
can be made under frm blows from a
hammer point.
7.3 to 15 ksi
R4 Strong Rock Specimen breaks with one frm blow
from the hammer end of a geological
hammer.
15 to 29 ksi
R5 Very Strong Rock Specimen requires many blows of a
geological hammer to break intact
sample.
Greater than 29 ksi
Table4-25 Relativerockstrength.
4.3.1.7 Slaking
Slakingisdefnedasthedisintegrationofarockunderconditionsofwettinganddrying,orwhenexposed
toair.Thisbehaviorisrelatedprimarilytothechemicalcompositionoftherock.Itcanbeidentifed
inthefeldifsamplesshrinkandcrack,orotherwisedegradeupondrying,orbeingexposedtoairfor
severalhours.Ifdegradationoftherocksampleoccurs,andslakingissuspected;anair-driedsample
maybeplacedincleanwatertoobserveareaction.Thegreaterthetendencyforslaking,themorerapid
thereactionwillbewhenimmersedinwater.Thistendencyshouldbeexpressedonthefeldlogsas
potential for slaking,andcanbeconfrmedthroughlaboratorytesting.
4.3.2 In Situ Properties
Thein-situpropertiesofarockmassarebasedontheengineeringpropertiesoftheboundingstructure
withintherockmass.Structurereferstolarge-scale(megascopic)planarfeatureswhichseparateintact
rockblocks,andimpacttheoverallstrength,permeability,andbreakagecharacteristicsoftherockmass.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-20 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Commonplanarfeatureswithintherockmassincludejoints,bedding,andfaults;collectivelycalled
discontinuities.Thesecommonplanarfeaturesaredefnedasfollows:
J oints- Jointsarefractureswithintherockmassalongwhichtherehasbeennoidentifable
displacement.
Bedding- Beddingistheregularlayeringinsedimentaryrocksmarkingtheboundariesofsmall
lithologicalunitsorbeds.
Faults - Faultsarefracturesorfracturezoneswithintherockmassalongwhichtherehasbeen
signifcantsheardisplacementofthesidesrelativetoeachother.Thepresenceof
gougeand/orslickensidesmaybeindicatorsofmovement.
Whendefningthein-situpropertiesoftheseplanarfeatures(discontinuities)withintherockmass,the
recoveredrockcorefromtheboreholeisexamined,andthefollowinginformationrecorded:
DiscontinuitySpacing
DiscontinuityCondition
CoreRecovery
RockQualityDesignation(RQD)
FracturesFrequency(FF)
Voids
4.3.2.1 Discontinuity Spacing
Discontinuityspacingisthedistancebetweennaturaldiscontinuitiesasmeasuredalongtheborehole.An
evaluationofdiscontinuityspacingwithineachcorerunshouldbemade,andreportedonthefeldlogsin
conformancewiththecriteriasetforthinTable 4-26.Mechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandling
shouldnotbeincludedinthediscontinuityspacingevaluation.
Description SpacingofDiscontinuity
Very Widely Spaced Greater than 10 ft.
Widely Spaced 3 ft to 10 ft.
Moderately Spaced 1 ft to 3 ft.
Closely Spaced 2 inches to 12 inches
Very Closely Spaced Less than 2 inches
Table4-26 Discontinuityspacing.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-21
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.2.2 Discontinuity Condition
Thesurfacepropertiesofdiscontinuities,intermsofroughness,wallhardness,and/orgougethickness,
affectstheshearstrengthofthediscontinuity.Anassessmentofthediscontinuitieswithineachcorerun
shouldbemade,andreportedonthefeldlogsinconformancewiththedescriptionsandconditionsset
forthinTable 4-27.
Condition Description
Excellent Condition Very rough surfaces, no separation, hard discontinuity wall.
Good Condition Slightly rough surfaces, separation less than 0.05 inches, hard
discontinuity wall.
Fair Condition Slightly rough surface, separation greater than 0.05 inches, soft
discontinuity wall.
Poor Condition Slickensided surfaces, or soft gouge less than 0.2 inches thick, or
open discontinuities 0.05 to 0.2 inches.
Very Poor Condition Soft gouge greater than 0.2 inches, or open discontinuities greater
than 0.2 inches.
Table4-27 Discontinuitycondition.
4.3.2.3 Core Recovery (CR)
Corerecoveryisdefnedastheratioofcorerecoveredtotherunlengthexpressedasapercentage.
Therefore:
Core Recovery (%) = 100 X Length of Core Recovered
Length of Core Run
Thesevaluesshouldberecordedonthefeldlogsonacorerunbycorerunbasis.
4.3.2.4 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
TheRQDprovidesasubjectiveestimateofrockmassqualitybasedonamodifedcorerecovery
percentagefromadoubleortripletubediamondcorebarrel.TheRQDisdefnedasthepercentageof
rockcorerecoveredinintactpiecesof4inchesormoreinlengthinthelengthofacorerun,generally6ft
inlength.Therefore:
RQD (%) = 100 X Length of Core in pieces > 4 inches
Length of Core Barrel
MechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandlingshouldnotbeincludedintheRQDcalculation.Vertical
fracturesinthecoreshouldnotbeutilizedintheRQDcalculation.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-22 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.2.5 Fracture Frequency (FF)
Fracturefrequencyisdefnedasthenumberofnaturalfracturesperunitoflengthofcorerecovered.The
fracturefrequencyismeasuredforeachcorerun,andrecordedonthefeldlogsasfracturesperfoot.
Mechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandlingshouldnotbeincludedinthefracturefrequencycount.
Inaddition,verticalfracturesinthecoreshouldnotbeutilizedinthefracturefrequencydetermination.
4.3.2.6 Voids
Voidsaredefnedasrelativelylargeopenspaceswithintherockmasscausedbychemicaldissolutionor
theactionofsubterraneanwaterwithintherockmass.Inaddition,voidscanbearesultofsubsurface
miningactivities.Voids,whenencountered,shouldberecordedonthefeldlogs.Attemptsshouldbe
madetodeterminethesizeofthevoidbydrillingaction,waterloss,etc.
4.3.3 Test Hole Logging
Theprotocolforfeldloggingthetestholeistofrstdescribetheintactpropertiesiftherockmass
followedbythedescriptionofthein-situproperties:
[I ntact Properties] Rock Name Rock Color Grain Size Weathered State Relative
Rock Strength. then [ I n-situ Properties] Discontinuity Spacing Discontinuity Condition
Core Recovery RQD Fracture Frequency.
Someexamplesofthisfeldloggingprotocolareasfollows:
DIORITE,mediumlightgrey(N6),mediumgrained,slightlyweathered,moderatelystrongrock
(R3).[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarewidelyspaced,andinfaircondition.CR=100%,RQD
=80%,FF=2.[I n-situ Properties]
BASALT,highlyvesicular,darkgrey(N3),veryfnedgrained,slightlyweathered,fresh,strongrock
(R4).[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarecloselyspaced,andinpoorcondition.CR=65%,RQD
=40%,FF=20.[I n-situ Properties]
SILTSTONE,mediumdarkgrey(N4),veryfnegrained,slightlyweathered,veryweakrock(R1),
potentialforslaking.[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarewidelyspaced,andinfaircondition.
CR=100%,RQD=100%,FF=1.[I n-situ Properties]
4.4 References
Munsell Soil Color Charts,2000,GretagMacbeth,NewWindsor,NY.
GeologicalSocietyofAmerica,1991,Rock Color Charts,Boulder,CO.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Contents
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 InfuenceofExistingandFutureConditionsonSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.3 MethodsofDeterminingSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.4 In-SituFieldTesting 5-3
5.4.1 WellPumpingTests 5-5
5.4.2 PackerPermeabilityTests 5-5
5.4.3 SeepageTests 5-5
5.4.4 SlugTests 5-6
5.4.5 PiezoconeTests 5-6
5.4.6 FloodTests 5-7
5.5 LaboratoryTestingofSoilandRock 5-7
5.5.1 QualityControlforLaboratoryTesting 5-7
5.5.2 DevelopingtheTestingPlan 5-9
5.6 EngineeringPropertiesofSoil 5-10
5.6.1 LaboratoryIndexPropertyTesting 5-10
5.6.2 LaboratoryPerformanceTesting 5-10
5.6.3 CorrelationstoEstimateEngineeringPropertiesofSoil 5-12
5.7 EngineeringPropertiesofRock 5-14
5.8 FinalSelectionofDesignValues 5-15
5.8.1 Overview 5-15
5.8.2 DataReliabilityandVariability 5-16
5.8.3 FinalPropertySelection 5-17
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle 5-18
5.8.5 SelectionofDesignPropertiesforEngineeredMaterials 5-19
5.9 PropertiesofPredominantGeologicUnitsinWashington 5-23
5.9.1 Loess 5-23
5.9.2 Peat/OrganicSoils 5-24
5.9.3 GlacialTillandGlacialAdvanceOutwash 5-25
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus 5-26
5.9.5 ColumbiaRiverSand 5-27
5.9.6 ColumbiaBasinBasalts 5-27
5.9.7 LatahFormation 5-28
5.9.8 SeattleClay 5-29
5.9.9 BellinghamGlaciomarineDrift 5-31
5.9.10 CoastalRangeSiltstone/Claystone 5-32
5.9.11 TroutdaleFormation 5-32
5.9.12 MarineBasalts-CrescentFormation 5-33
5.9.13 MlangeRocksonOlympicPeninsula 5-33
5.10 References 5-34
Contents Chapter 5
Page 5-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
5.1 Overview
Thepurposeofthischapteristoidentify,eitherbyreferenceorexplicitly
herein,appropriatemethodsofsoilandrockpropertyassessment,andhow
tousethatsoilandrockpropertydatatoestablishthefnalsoilandrock
parameterstobeusedforgeotechnicaldesign.Thefnalpropertiestobeused
fordesignshouldbebasedontheresultsfromthefeldinvestigation,thefeld
testing,andthelaboratorytesting,usedseparatelyorincombination.Site
performancedatashouldalsobeusedifavailabletohelpdeterminethefnal
geotechnicalpropertiesfordesign.Thegeotechnicaldesignersresponsibility
istodeterminewhichparametersarecriticaltothedesignoftheprojectand
thendeterminethoseparameterstoanacceptablelevelofaccuracy.SeeGDM
Chapter2,andtheindividualchaptersthatcovereachgeotechnicaldesign
subjectarea,forfurtherinformationonwhatinformationtoobtainandhowto
planforobtainingthatinformation.
Thefocusofgeotechnicaldesignpropertyassessmentandfnalselectionshall
beontheindividualgeologicstrataidentifedattheprojectsite.Ageologic
stratumischaracterizedashavingthesamegeologicdepositionalhistoryand
stresshistory,andgenerallyhassimilaritiesthroughoutthestratuminterms
ofdensity,sourcematerial,stresshistory,andhydrogeology.Itshouldbe
recognizedthatthepropertiesofagivengeologicstratumataprojectsiteare
likelytovarysignifcantlyfrompointtopointwithinthestratum.Insome
cases,ameasuredpropertyvaluemaybecloserinmagnitudetothemeasured
propertyvalueinanadjacentgeologicstratumthantothemeasuredproperties
atanotherpointwithinthesamestratum.However,soilandrockproperties
fordesignshouldnotbeaveragedacrossmultiplestrata.Itshouldalsobe
recognizedthatsomeproperties(e.g.,undrainedshearstrengthinnormally
consolidatedclays)mayvaryasapredictablefunctionofastratumdimension
(e.g.,depthbelowthetopofthestratum).Wherethepropertywithinthe
stratumvariesinthismanner,thedesignparametersshouldbedeveloped
takingthisvariationintoaccount,whichmayresultinmultiplevaluesof
thepropertywithinthestratumasafunctionofastratumdimensionsuch
asdepth.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-1
J anuary 2010
5.2 Infuence of Existing and Future Conditions on Soil and
Rock Properties
Manysoilpropertiesusedfordesignarenotintrinsictothesoiltype,but
varydependingonconditions.In-situstresses,thepresenceofwater,rateand
directionofloadingcanallaffectthebehaviorofsoils.Priortoevaluating
thepropertiesofagivensoil,itisimportanttodeterminetheexisting
conditionsaswellashowconditionsmaychangeoverthelifeoftheproject.
Futureconstructionsuchasnewembankmentsmayplacenewsurcharge
loadsonthesoilprofleorthegroundwatertablecouldberaisedorlowered.
Oftenitisnecessarytodeterminehowsubsurfaceconditionsoreventhe
materialsthemselveswillchangeoverthedesignlifeoftheproject.Normally
consolidated clays can gain strength with increases in effective stress and
overconsolidatedclaysmaylosestrengthwithtimewhenexposedincuts.
Someconstructionmaterialssuchasweakrockmayloosestrengthdueto
weatheringwithinthedesignlifeoftheembankment.
5.3 Methods of Determining Soil and Rock Properties
Subsurfacesoilorrockpropertiesaregenerallydeterminedusingoneormore
ofthefollowingmethods:
in-situtestingduringthefeldexplorationprogram,
laboratorytesting,and
backanalysisbasedonsiteperformancedata.
Thetwomostcommonin-situtestmethodsforuseinsoilaretheStandard
PenetrationTest,(SPT)andtheconepenetrometertest(CPT).Thelaboratory
testing program generally consists of index tests to obtain general information
ortousewithcorrelationstoestimatedesignproperties,andperformance
teststodirectlymeasurespecifcengineeringproperties.Theobservational
method,oruseofbackanalysis,todetermineengineeringpropertiesof
soilorrockisoftenusedwithslopefailures,embankmentsettlementor
excessivesettlementofexistingstructures.Withlandslidesorslopefailures,
theprocessgenerallystartswithdeterminingthegeometryofthefailureand
thendeterminingthesoil/rockparametersorsubsurfaceconditionsthatcause
thesafetyfactortoapproach1.0.Oftenthedeterminationoftheproperties
isaidedbycorrelationswithindextestsorexperienceonotherprojects.For
embankmentsettlement,arangeofsoilpropertiesisgenerallydetermined
basedonlaboratoryperformancetestingonundisturbedsamples.Monitoring
offllsettlementandporepressureinthesoilduringconstructionallowsthe
soilpropertiesandpredictionoftherateoffuturesettlementtoberefned.For
structuressuchasbridgesthatexperienceunacceptablesettlementorretaining
wallsthathaveexcessivedefection,theengineeringpropertiesofthesoils
cansometimesbedeterminedifthemagnitudesoftheloadsareknown.As
withslopestabilityanalysis,thegeometryofthesubsurfacesoilmustbe
adequatelyknown,includingthehistoryofthegroundwaterlevelatthesite.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thedetailedmeasurementandinterpretationofsoilandrockpropertiesshall
beconsistentwiththeguidelinesprovidedinFHWA-IF-02-034,Evaluation of
Soil and Rock Properties,GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.5(Sabatini,
et al., 2002),exceptasspecifcallyindicatedherein.
5.4 In-Situ Field Testing
StandardsanddetailsregardingfeldtestssuchastheStandardPenetration
Test(SPT),theConePenetrometerTest(CPT),thevanesheartest,andother
testsandtheiruseprovidedinSabatini, et al. (2002)shouldbefollowed,
exceptasspecifcallynotedherein.RegardingStandardPenetrationTests
(SPT),theN-valuesobtainedaredependentontheequipmentusedandthe
skilloftheoperator,andshouldbecorrectedforfeldprocedurestostandard
N
60
values(aneffciencyof60percentistypicalforropeandcathead
systems).Thiscorrectionisnecessarybecausemanyofthecorrelations
developedtodeterminesoilpropertiesarebasedonN
60
-values.
SPTNvaluesshouldbecorrectedforhammereffciency,ifapplicabletothe
designmethodorcorrelationbeingused,usingthefollowingrelationship.
N
60
= (ER/60%)N (5-1)
Where:
N
60
= SPTblowcountcorrectedforhammereffciency(blows/ft)
ER = Hammereffciencyexpressedaspercentoftheoreticalfree
fallenergydeliveredbythehammersystemactuallyused.
ThefollowingvaluesforERmaybeassumedifhammerspecifcdataarenot
available:
ER = 60%forconventionaldrophammerusingropeandcathead
ER = 80%forautomatictriphammer
Hammereffciency(ER)forspecifchammersystemsusedinlocalpractice
maybeusedinlieuofthevaluesprovided.Ifused,specifchammersystem
effcienciesshallbedevelopedingeneralaccordancewithASTMD-4945for
dynamicanalysisofdrivenpilesorotheracceptedprocedure.SeeWSDOT
GDMChapter 3foradditionalinformationonER,includingspecifc
measurementsconductedforWSDOTdrillingequipment.
Correctionsforrodlength,holesize,anduseofalinermayalsobemadeif
appropriate.Ingeneral,theseareonlysignifcantinunusualcasesorwhere
thereissignifcantvariationfromstandardprocedures.Thesecorrectionsmay
besignifcantforevaluationofliquefaction.Informationontheseadditional
correctionsmaybefoundin:ProceedingsoftheNCEERWorkshopon
EvaluationofLiquefactionResistanceofSoils; PublicationNumber:
MCEER-97-0022;T.L.Youd,I.M.Idriss(1997).
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-3
J anuary 2010
N-valuesarealsoaffectedbyoverburdenpressure,andingeneralshouldbe
correctedforthateffect,if applicable to the design method or correlation
beingused.Nvaluescorrectedforbothoverburdenandtheeffciencyofthe
feldproceduresusedshallbedesignatedasN1
60
.Theoverburdencorrection
equationthatshouldbeusedis:
N1
60
= C
N
N
60
(5-2)
Where,
C
N
= [0.77log
10
(20/
v
)],C
N
<2.0 (5-3)
C
N
= correctionfactorforoverburden
N
60
= N-valuecorrectedforenergyeffciency

v
= verticaleffectivestressatthelocationoftheSPTN-value(TSF)
Ingeneral,correlationsbetweenN-valuesandsoilpropertiesshouldonlybe
usedforcohesionlesssoils,andsandinparticular.Cautionshouldbeused
whenusingN-valuesobtainedingravellysoil.Gravelparticlescanplugthe
sampler,resultinginhigherblowcountsandestimatesoffrictionanglesthan
actuallyexist.CautionshouldalsobeusedwhenusingN-valuestodetermine
siltorclayparametersduetothedynamicnatureofthetestandresultingrapid
changesinporepressuresanddisturbancewithinthedeposit.Correlations
ofN-valueswithcohesivesoilpropertiesshouldgenerallybeconsideredas
preliminary.N-valuescanalsobeusedforliquefactionanalysis.SeeWSDOT
GDMChapter6formoreinformationregardingtheuseofN-valuesfor
liquefactionanalysis.
Ingeneraldesignpractice,hydraulicconductivityisestimatedbasedon
grainsizecharacteristicsofthesoilstrata(seeHighwayRunoffManual
M31-16,Section4-5).Incriticalapplications,thehydraulicconductivity
maybedeterminedthroughin-situtesting.Adiscussionoffeldmeasurement
of permeability is presented in Sabatini, et al. (2002) andMayne,etal.
(2002),andASTMD4043presentsaguidefortheselectionofvarious
feldmethods.Ifin-situtestmethodsareutilizedtodeterminehydraulic
conductivity,oneormoreofthefollowingmethodsshouldbeused:
Wellpumpingtests
Packerpermeabilitytests
SeepageTests
Slugtests
Piezoconetests
FloodtestsorPitInfltrationTests(PIT)appliesmainlytoinfltration
facilitydesignseeSection4-5oftheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual
(2004)
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.4.1 Well Pumping Tests
Pumptestscanbeusedtoprovideanestimateoftheoverallhydraulic
conductivityofageologicformation,andsinceitisinessenceafullscale
test,directlyaccountsforthelayeringanddirectionalityofthehydraulic
characteristicsoftheformation.Thedataprovidedcanbeusedtodetermine
therequirementsforconstructiondewateringsystemsforexcavations.
However,pumptestscanbequiteexpensiveandcantakeasignifcantamount
oftimetocomplete.Furthermore,caremustbeexercisedwhenconducting
thistypeoftest,especiallyifpotentiallycontaminatedzonesarepresent
thatcouldbemobilizedduringpumping.Thiscouldalsocreateproblems
withdisposalofthepumpedwater.Impacttoadjacentfacilitiessuchas
drinkingwellsandsubsidencecausedbydewateringshouldbeevaluated
whenplanningthistypeoftest.Forthistest,themethodprescribedinASTM
D4050shouldbeused.Analysisoftheresultsofpumpingtestsrequires
experienceandathoroughknowledgeoftheactualgeologicconditions
presentatthetestlocation.Thetime-drawdownresponsecurvesareunique
toaparticulargeologiccondition.Therefore,knowledgeoftheactualgeologic
conditionspresentatthetestlocationisrequiredinordertochoosethe
correctanalysisprocedure,e.g.,whethertheaquiferisleaky,unconfned,or
bounded,etc.
5.4.2 Packer Permeability Tests
Packerpermeabilitytestscanbeusedtomeasurethehydraulicconductivity
ofaspecifcsoilorrockunit.Theinformationobtainedisusedprimarily
inseepagestudies.Thistestisconductedbyinsertingthepackerunitsto
thedesiredtestlocationaftertheboringhasbeenproperlycleanedout.The
packersareexpandedtosealoffthezonebeingtested,andwaterisinjected
intotheboreholeunderconstantpressure.Measurementsofthefowrateare
takenatregulartimeintervals.Uponcompletionoftestingataparticular
depth,thepackersareloweredtoanewtestdepth.Testdepthsshouldbe
determinedfromcoresandgeophysicallogsoftheborehole,priortohydraulic
conductivitytesting.Notethatifthepackertestisperformedinsoilborings,
casingmustbeinstalled.SeeMayne,etal.(2002)foradditionalinformation
onthistypeoftest.
5.4.3 Seepage Tests
Threetypesofseepagetestsarecommonlyused:fallinghead,risinghead
andconstantwaterlevelmethods.Ingeneral,eithertherisingorfallinglevel
methodsshouldbeusedifthehydraulicconductivityislowenoughtopermit
accuratedeterminationofthewaterlevel.Inthefallingheadmethod,the
boreholeorpiezometerisflledwithwaterthatisallowedtoseepintothesoil.
Therateofdropofthewatersurfaceinthecasingismonitored.Therising
headmethodconsistsofbailingthewateroutoftheboreholeandobserving
therateofriseuntilthechangebecomesnegligible.Theconstantwaterlevel
methodisusedifsoilistoopermeabletoallowaccuratemeasurementof
therisingorfallingwaterlevel.Generalguidanceonthesetypesoftestsare
provided in Mayne, et al. (2002).
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-5
J anuary 2010
Boreholes(orinsubsequentlyinstalledpiezometers)inwhichseepagetests
aretobeperformedshouldbedrilledusingonlyclearwaterasthedrilling
fuid.Thisprecludestheformationofamudcakeonthewallsofthehole
orcloggingofthesoilporeswithdrillingmud.Thetestscanbeperformed
intermittentlyastheboreholeisadvanced.Ingeneral,therisingheadtestis
preferredbecausethereislesschanceofcloggingsoilporeswithsuspended
sediment.
Datafromseepagetestsonlyrefectthehydraulicconditionsnearthe
borehole.Inadditiontheactualareaofseepageatthebaseoftheborehole
maynotbeaccuratelyknown.Duringtherisingheadtest,thereisthedanger
ofthesoilatthebottomoftheboreholebecomingloosenedorquickif
toogreatagradientisimposed.However,seepagetestscanbeusedinsoils
withlowerhydraulicconductivitiesthanisgenerallyconsideredsuitable
forpumpingtestsandlargevolumesofwaterdonotneedtobedisposedof.
Alsonotethatifthetestisconductedinsidethepiezometer,thehydraulic
conductivitymeasuredfromthiscouldbeinfuencedbythematerialplaced
insidetheboreholearoundthescreenedpipe.
5.4.4 Slug Tests
Thesetestsareeasytoperformandcanbeperformedinaboreholeinwhicha
screenedpipeisinstalled.Twotypesofslugtestsarecommonlyused,falling
headandrisinghead.Fallingheadslugtestsareconductedbyloweringa
solidobjectsuchasaweightedplasticcylinderintotheboreholecausing
aninstantaneouswaterlevelrise.Asthewaterlevelgraduallyreturnsto
static,therateisrecorded.Arisingheadslugtestcanthenbeperformedby
suddenlyremovingtheslug,causinganinstantaneousloweringofthewater
level.Bymonitoringtherateofriseorfallofthewaterlevelintheborehole,
anestimateofthehydraulicconductivitycanbedetermined..Forthistest,
themethodprescribedinASTMD4044shouldbeused.Howeverslugtests
arenotveryreliableandmayunderestimatehydraulicconductivitybyoneor
twoordersofmagnitude,particularlyifthetestwellhasbeeninadequately
developedpriortotesting.Thetestdatawillnotprovideanindicationofthe
accuracyofthecomputedvalueunlessapumpingtestisdoneinconjunction
withtheslugtest.Becausetheslugtestsareshortduration,theyrefect
hydraulicpropertiesofthesoilimmediatelysurroundingthewellintake.
5.4.5 Piezocone Tests
Detailsoftheequipmentandmethodologyusedtoconductthepiezocone
test are provided in Sabatini, et al. (2002).Piezoconedatacanbeusefulto
estimatethehydraulicconductivityofsiltsandclaysfrominterpretationof
thecoeffcientofhorizontalconsolidation,c
h
,obtainedfromthepiezocone
measurments.Theprocedureinvolvespushingtheconetothedesireddepth,
followedbyrecordingporepressureswhiletheconeisheldstationary.The
testisusuallyrununtil50percentoftheexcessporepressurehasdissipated
(t
50
).Thisrequiresknowledgeoftheinitialinsituporepressureatthetest
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
location.Dissipationtestsaregenerallyeffectiveinsiltsandclayswhere
largeexcessporepressuresaregeneratedduringinsertionofthecone.
Hydraulicconductivitycanbeestimatedusingvariouscorrelationswitht
50

andcoeffcientofhorizontalconsolidation(c
h
),(seeLunne, et al. (1997),
and Sabatini, et al. (2002)).EstimationofhydraulicconductivityfromCPT
testsissubjecttoalargeamountofuncertainty,andshouldbeusedasa
preliminaryestimateofpermeabilityonly.
5.4.6 Flood Tests
Floodtestsorpilotinfltrationtestsarenotalwaysfeasible,andingeneral
areonlyusedwhereunusualsiteconditionsareencounteredthatarepoorly
modeledbycorrelationtosoilgradationcharacteristics,andthereisplentyof
wateravailabletoconductthetest.Thekeytothesuccessofthistypeoftestis
theestimateofthehydraulicgradientduringthetest,recognizingthatthetest
hydraulicgradientcouldbemuchhigherthanthehydraulicgradientthatis
likelyinserviceforthefacilitybeingdesigned.Formoreinformation,seethe
WSDOTHighway Runoff Manual(2004).
5.5 Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock
Laboratorytestingisafundamentalelementofageotechnicalinvestigation.
Theultimatepurposeoflaboratorytestingistoutilizerepeatableprocedures
torefnethevisualobservationsandfeldtestingconductedaspartofthe
subsurfacefeldexplorationprogram,andtodeterminehowthesoilorrock
willbehaveundertheimposedconditions.Theideallaboratoryprogram
willprovidesuffcientdatatocompleteaneconomicaldesignwithout
incurringexcessivetestsandcosts.Dependingontheprojectissues,testing
mayrangefromsimplesoilclassifcationtestingtocomplexstrengthand
deformationtesting.
5.5.1 Quality Control for Laboratory Testing
Improperstorage,transportationandhandlingofsamplescansignifcantly
alterthematerialpropertiesandresultinmisleadingtestresults.The
requirementsprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter3regardingtheseissues
shallbefollowed.
LaboratoriesconductinggeotechnicaltestingshallbeeitherAASHTO
accreditedorfulflltherequirementsofAASHTOR18forqualifyingtesters
andcalibrating/verifcationsoftestingequipmentforthosetestsbeing
performed.Inaddition,thefollowingguidelines(Mayne, et al., 1997)for
laboratorytestingofsoilsshouldbefollowed:
1. Protectsamplestopreventmoisturelossandstructuraldisturbance.
2. Carefullyhandlesamplesduringextrusionofsamples;samplesmustbe
extrudedproperlyandsupportedupontheirexitfromthetube.
3. AvoidlongtermstorageofsoilsamplesinShelbytubes.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-7
J anuary 2010
4. Properlynumberandidentifysamples.
5. Storesamplesinproperlycontrolledenvironments.
6. Visuallyexamineandidentifysoilsamplesafterremovalofsmearfrom
thesamplesurface.
7. Usepocketpenetrometerorminiaturevaneonlyforanindication
ofstrength.
8. Carefullyselectrepresentativespecimensfortesting.
9. Haveasuffcientnumberofsamplestoselectfrom.
10.Alwaysconsultthefeldlogsforproperselectionofspecimens.
11.Recognizedisturbancescausedbysampling,thepresenceofcuttings,
drillingmudorotherforeignmatterandavoidduringselection
ofspecimens.
12.Donotdependsolelyonthevisualidentifcationofsoilsforclassifcation.
13.Alwaysperformorganiccontenttestswhenclassifyingsoilsaspeator
organic.Visualclassifcationsoforganicsoilsmaybeverymisleading.
14.Donotdrysoilsinoverheatedorunderheatedovens.
15.Discardoldworn-outequipment;oldscreensforexample,particularly
fne(<No.40)meshonesneedtobeinspectedandreplacedoften,worn
compactionmoldorcompactionhammers(anerrorinthevolumeofa
compactionmoldisamplifed30xwhentranslatedtounitvolume)should
becheckedandreplacedifneeded.
16.PerformanceofAtterbergLimitsrequirescarefullyadjusteddropheightof
theLiquidLimitmachineandproperrollingofPlasticLimitspecimens.
17.Donotusetapwaterfortestswheredistilledwaterisspecifed.
18.Properlycurestabilizationtestspecimens.
19.Neverassumethatallsamplesaresaturatedasreceived.
20.Saturationmustbeperformedusingproperlystagedbackpressures.
21.Useproperlyfttedo-rings,membranes,etc.intriaxialorpermeability
tests.
22.Evenlytrimtheendsandsidesofundisturbedsamples.
23.Becarefultoidentifyslickensidesandnaturalfssures.Reportslickensides
andnaturalfssures.
24.Alsodonotmistakenlyidentifyfailuresduetoslickensidesasshear
failures.
25.Donotuseunconfnedcompressiontestresults(stress-straincurves)to
determineelasticmodulusvalues.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
26.Incrementalloadingofconsolidationtestsshouldonlybeperformedafter
thecompletionofeachprimarystage.
27.Useproperloadingrateforstrengthtests.
28.Donotguesstimatee-logpcurvesfromaccelerated,incomplete
consolidationtests.
29.AvoidReconstructingsoilspecimens,disturbedbysamplingor
handling,forundisturbedtesting.
30.Correctlylabellaboratorytestspecimens.
31.Donottakeshortcuts:usingnon-standardequipmentornon-standardtest
procedures.
32.Periodicallycalibratealltestingequipmentandmaintaincalibration
records.
33.Alwaystestasuffcientnumberofsamplestoobtainrepresentativeresults
invariablematerial.
5.5.2 Developing the Testing Plan
Theamountoflaboratorytestingrequiredforaprojectwillvarydependingon
availabilityofpreexistingdata,thecharacterofthesoilsandtherequirements
oftheproject.Laboratorytestsshouldbeselectedtoprovidethedesiredand
necessarydataaseconomicallyaspossible.Specifcgeotechnicalinformation
requirementsareprovidedintheWSDOTGDMchaptersthataddressdesign
ofspecifctypesofgeotechnicalfeatures.Laboratorytestingshouldbe
performed on both representative and critical test specimens obtained from
geologiclayersacrossthesite.Criticalareascorrespondtolocationswhere
theresultsofthelaboratorytestscouldresultinasignifcantchangeinthe
proposeddesign.Ingeneral,afewcarefullyconductedtestsonsamples
selectedtocovertherangeofsoilpropertieswiththeresultscorrelatedby
classifcationandindextestsisthemosteffcientuseofresources.
Thefollowingshouldbeconsideredwhendevelopingatestingprogram:
Projecttype(bridge,embankment,rehabilitation,buildings,etc.)
Sizeoftheproject
Loadstobeimposedonthefoundationsoils
Typesofloads(i.e.,static,dynamic,etc.)
Whetherlong-termconditionsorshort-termconditionsareinview
Criticaltolerancesfortheproject(e.g.,settlementlimitations)
Verticalandhorizontalvariationsinthesoilprofleasdeterminedfrom
boringlogsandvisualidentifcationofsoiltypesinthelaboratory
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-9
J anuary 2010
Knownorsuspectedpeculiaritiesofsoilsattheprojectlocation
(i.e.,swellingsoils,collapsiblesoils,organics,etc.)
Presenceofvisuallyobservedintrusions,slickensides,fssures,
concretions,etcinsamplehowwillitaffectresults
Projectschedulesandbudgets
Inputpropertydataneededforspecifcdesignprocedures
Detailsregardingspecifctypesoflaboratorytestsandtheiruseareprovided
in Sabatini, et al. (2002).
5.6 Engineering Properties of Soil
5.6.1 Laboratory Index Property Testing
Laboratoryindexpropertytestingismainlyusedtoclassifysoils,thoughin
somecases,theycanalsobeusedwithcorrelationstoestimatespecifcsoil
designproperties.Indextestsincludesoilgradationandplasticityindices.For
soilswithgreaterthan10percentpassingtheNo.200sieve,adecisionwill
needtobemaderegardingthefullsoilgradationcurveisneeded,requiringa
hydrometertestinadditiontosievetestingofthecoarserparticles(AASHTO
T88),orifacoarsegradationisenough(AASHTOT27).Thefullgradation
range(AASHTOT88)willbeneededinthefollowingsituations:
Lateralloadanalysisofdeepfoundationsusingstrainwedgetheory
Liquefactionanalysis
Infltrationdesign,orotheranalysesthatrequirethedeterminationof
hydraulicconductivities
Otheranalysesthatrequiread
10
size,coeffcientofuniformity,etc.
Classifcationusingthecoarsesievingonly(AASHTOT27)maybeadequate
fordesignofMSEwalls,generalearthwork,footingfoundations,gravity
walls,andnoisewalls.Theseenduseneedsshouldbeconsideredwhen
planningthelaboratoryinvestigationforaproject.
5.6.2 Laboratory Performance Testing
Laboratoryperformancetestingismainlyusedtoestimatestrength,
compressibility,andpermeabilitycharacteristicsofsoilandrock.Forrock,
thefocusistypicallyontheshearstrengthoftheintactrock,orontheshear
strengthofdiscontinuities(i.e.,joint/seam)withintherockmass.Forsoil,
shearstrengthmaybedeterminedoneitherundisturbedspecimensoffner
grainedsoil(undisturbedspecimensofgranularsoilsareverydiffcult,if
notimpossible,toget),ordisturbedorremoldedspecimensoffneorcoarse
grainedsoil.Thereareavarietyofshearstrengthteststhatcanbeconducted,
andthespecifctypeoftestselecteddependsonthespecifcapplication.See
Sabatini, et al. (2002)forspecifcguidanceonthetypesofshearstrength
testsneededforvariousapplications,aswellasthechaptersintheWSDOT
GDMthatcoverspecifcgeotechnicaldesigntopics.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Disturbedsoilshearstrengthtestingislesscommonlyperformed,andis
primarilyusedassupplementaryinformationwhenperformingback-analysis
ofexistingslopes,orforfllmaterialandconstructionqualityassurancewhen
aminimumshearstrengthisrequired.Itisdiffculttoobtainveryaccurate
shearstrengthvaluesthroughshearstrengthtestingofdisturbed(remolded)
specimenssincethein-situdensityandsoilstructureisquitediffcultto
accuratelyrecreate,especiallyconsideringthespecifcin-situdensitymay
notbeknown.Theaccuracyofthistechniqueinthiscasemustberecognized
wheninterpretingtheresults.However,forestimatingtheshearstrength
ofcompactedbackfll,moreaccurateresultscanbeobtained,sincethesoil
placementmethod,aswellasthein-situdensityandmoisturecontent,can
berecreatedinthelaboratorywithsomedegreeofconfdence.Thekeyin
thelattercaseisthespecimensizeallowedbythetestingdevice,asinmany
cases,compactedfllshaveasignifcantpercentageofgravelsizedparticles,
requiringfairlylargetestspecimens(i.e.,minimum3to4inchdiameter,or
narrowestdimensionspecimensof3to4inches).
Typically,adisturbedsampleofthegranularbackfllmaterial(ornative
materialinthecaseofobtainingsupplementaryinformationforback-analysis
ofexistingslopes)issievedtoremoveparticlesthataretoolargeforthe
testingdeviceandteststandard,andiscompactedintoamoldtosimulate
thefnaldensityandmoistureconditionofthematerial.Thespecimensmay
ormaynotbesaturatedaftercompactingthemandplacingthemintheshear
testingdevice,dependingontheconditionthatistobesimulated.Ingeneral,a
drainedtestisconducted,orifitissaturated,theporepressureduringshearing
canbemeasured(possiblefortriaxialtesting;generallynotpossiblefor
directsheartesting)toobtaineddrainedshearstrengthparameters.Otherwise,
thetestisrunslowenoughtobeassuredthatthespecimenisfullydrained
duringshearing(notethatestimatingthetestingratetoassuredrainagecanbe
diffcult).Multiplespecimenstestedusingatleastthreeconfningpressures
shouldbetestedtoobtainashearstrengthenvelope.SeeSabatini, et al.
(2002)foradditionaldetails.
Teststoevaluatecompressibilityorpermeabilityofexistingsubsurface
depositsmustbeconductedonundisturbedspecimens,andtheless
disturbancethebetter.SeeSabatini, et al. (2002)foradditionalrequirements
regardingtheseandothertypesoflaboratoryperformanceteststhatshould
befollowed.
Thehydraulicconductivityofasoilisinfuencedbytheparticlesizeand
gradation,thevoidratio,mineralcomposition,andsoilfabric.Ingeneralthe
hydraulicconductivity,orpermeability,increaseswithincreasinggrain-size;
however,thesizeandshapeofthevoidsalsohasasignifcantinfuence.The
smallerthevoids,thelowerthepermeability.Mineralcompositionandsoil
fabrichavelittleeffectonthepermeabilityofgravel,sand,andnon-plastic
silt,butareimportantforplasticsiltsandclays.Therefore,relationships
betweenparticlesizeandpermeabilityareavailableforcoarse-grained
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-11
J anuary 2010
materials,someofwhicharepresentedintheCorrelationssubsection
(WSDOTGDMSection5.6.2).Ingeneral,forclays,thelowertheion
exchangecapacityofthesoil,thehigherthepermeability.Likewise,themore
focculated(open)thestructure,thehigherthepermeability.
Themethodscommonlyusedtodeterminethehydraulicconductivityin
thelaboratoryinclude,theconstantheadtest,thefallingheadtest,and
directorindirectmethodsduringaconsolidationtest.Thelaboratorytests
fordeterminingthehydraulicconductivityaregenerallyconsideredquite
unreliable.Evenwithconsiderableattentiontotestproceduresandequipment
design,testsmayonlyprovidevalueswithinanorderofmagnitudeofactual
conditions.Someofthefactorsforthisare:
Thesoilin-situisgenerallystratifedandthisisdiffculttoduplicateinthe
laboratory.
Thehorizontalvalueofkisusuallyneeded,buttestingisusuallydoneon
tubesampleswithverticalvaluesobtained.
Insand,thehorizontalandverticalvaluesofk aresignifcantlydifferent,
often on the order of k
h
=10to100k
v
.
Thesmallsizeoflaboratorysamplesleadstoboundaryconditioneffects.
Saturatedsteadystatesoilconditionsareusedfortesting,butpartially
saturatedsoilwaterfowoftenexistsinthefeld.
Onlowpermeabilitysoils,thetimenecessarytocompletethetestscauses
evaporationandequipmentleakstobesignifcantfactors.
Thehydraulicgradientinthelaboratoryisoften5ormoretoreduce
testingtime,whereasinthefelditismorelikelyintherangeof0.1to2.
Thehydraulicconductivityisexpectedtovaryacrossthesite;however,
itisimportanttodifferentiateerrorsfromactualfeldvariations.When
determiningthehydraulicconductivity,thefeldandlaboratoryvaluesshould
betabulatedalongwiththeotherknowndatasuchassamplelocation,soil
type,grain-sizedistribution,Atterberglimits,watercontent,stressconditions,
gradients,andtestmethods.Oncethistableisconstructed,itwillbemuch
easiertogrouplikesoiltypesandkvaluestodelineatedistinctareaswithin
thesite,andeliminatepotentiallyerroneousdata.
5.6.3 Correlations to Estimate Engineering Properties of Soil
Correlationsthatrelatein-situindextestresultssuchastheSPTorCPTor
laboratorysoilindextestingmaybeusedinlieuoforinconjunctionwith
performancelaboratorytestingandback-analysisofsiteperformancedata
toestimateinputparametersforthedesignofthegeotechnicalelementsof
aproject.Sincepropertiesestimatedfromcorrelationstendtohavegreater
variabilitythanmeasurementusinglaboratoryperformancedata(seePhoon,
et al., 1995),propertiesestimatedfromcorrelationtoin-situfeldindex
testingorlaboratoryindextestingshouldbebasedonmultiplemeasurements
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
withineachsignifcantgeologicunit(ifthegeologicunitislargeenoughto
obtainmultiplemeasurements).Aminimumof3to5measurementsshouldbe
obtainedfromeachgeologicunitasthebasisforestimatingdesignproperties.
Thedrainedfrictionangleofgranulardepositsshouldbedeterminedbasedon
thecorrelationprovidedinTable5-1.
N1
60
from SPT
(blows/ft)

(

)
<4 25-30
4 27-32
10 30-35
30 35-40
50 38-43
Correlation of SPT N values to drained friction angle
of granular soils (modifed after Bowles, 1977).
Table 5-1
ThecorrelationusedismodifedafterBowles (1977).ThecorrelationofPeck,
Hanson and Thornburn (1974)fallswithintherangesspecifed.Experience
shouldbeusedtoselectspecifcvalueswithintheranges.Ingeneral,fner
materialsormaterialswithsignifcantsilt-sizedmaterialwillfallinthelower
portionoftherange.Coarsermaterialswithlessthen5%fneswillfallinthe
upperportionoftherange.
CareshouldbeexercisedwhenusingothercorrelationsofSPTresultsto
soilparameters.Somepublishedcorrelationsarebasedoncorrectedvalues
(N1
60
)andsomearebasedonuncorrectedvalues(N).Thedesignershould
ascertainthebasisofthecorrelationanduseeitherN1
60
orNasappropriate.
CareshouldalsobeexercisedwhenusingSPTblowcountstoestimate
soilshearstrengthifinsoilswithcoarsegravel,cobbles,orboulders.
Largegravels,cobbles,orboulderscouldcausetheSPTblowcountstobe
unrealisticallyhigh.
Correlationsforothersoilproperties(otherthanasspecifcallyaddressed
aboveforthesoilfrictionangle)asprovidedinSabatini, et al. (2002)
maybeusedifthecorrelationiswellestablishedandiftheaccuracyofthe
correlationisconsideredregardingitsinfuenceiftheestimateobtained
fromthecorrelationintheselectionofthepropertyvalueusedfordesign.
Localgeologicformation-specifccorrelationsmayalsobeusedifwell
establishedbydatacomparingthepredictionfromthecorrelationtomeasured
highqualitylaboratoryperformancedata,orback-analysisfromfullscale
performance of geotechnical elements affected by the geologic formation
inquestion.
Regardingsoilhydraulicconductivity,thecorrelationprovidedintheWSDOT
Highway Runoff Manual, Section4-5shouldbeused.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-13
J anuary 2010
5.7 Engineering Properties of Rock
Engineeringpropertiesofrockaregenerallycontrolledbythediscontinuities
withintherockmassandnotthepropertiesoftheintactmaterial.Therefore,
engineeringpropertiesforrockmustaccountforthepropertiesoftheintact
piecesandforthepropertiesoftherockmassasawhole,specifcally
consideringthediscontinuitieswithintherockmass.Acombinationof
laboratorytestingofsmallsamples,empiricalanalysis,andfeldobservations
shouldbeemployedtodeterminetheengineeringpropertiesofrockmasses,
withgreateremphasisplacedonvisualobservationsandquantitative
descriptionsoftherockmass.
Rockpropertiescanbedividedintotwocategories:intactrockpropertiesand
rockmassproperties.Intactrockpropertiesaredeterminedfromlaboratory
testsonsmallsamplestypicallyobtainedfromcoring,outcropsorexposures
alongexistingcuts.Engineeringpropertiestypicallyobtainedfromlaboratory
testsincludespecifcgravity,unitweight,ultrasonicvelocity,compressive
strength,tensilestrength,andshearstrength.Rockmasspropertiesare
determinedbyvisualexaminationofdiscontinuitieswithintherockmass,
andhowthesediscontinuitieswillaffectthebehavioroftherockmasswhen
subjectedtotheproposedconstruction.
ThemethodologyandrelatedconsiderationsprovidedbySabatini, et al.
(2002)shouldbeusedtoassessthedesignpropertiesfortheintactrockand
therockmassasawhole.However,theportionofSabatini, et al. (2002) that
addressesthedeterminationoffracturedrockmassshearstrengthparameters
(Hoek and Brown, 1988)isoutdated.TheoriginalworkbyHoekandBrown
hasbeenupdatedandisdescribedinHoek, et al. (2002).Theupdatedmethod
usesaGeologicalStrengthIndex(GSI)tocharacterizetherockmassforthe
purposeofestimatingstrengthparameters,andhasbeendevelopedbasedon
re-examinationofhundredsoftunnelandslopestabilityanalysesinwhich
boththe1988and2002criteriawereusedandcomparedtofeldresults.
Whilethe1988methodhasbeenmorewidelypublishedinnational(e.g.,
FHWA)designmanualsthanhastheupdatedapproachprovidedinHoek,
et al. (2002),consideringthattheoriginaldevelopersofthemethodhave
recognizedtheshort-comingsofthe1988methodandhavereassessedit
throughcomparisontoactualrockslopestabilitydata,WSDOTconsidersthe
Hoek, et al. (2002)tobethemostaccuratemethodology.ThereforetheHoek,
et al. (2002)methodshouldbeusedforfracturedrockmassshearstrength
determination.Notethatthismethodisonlytobeusedforhighlyfractured
rockmassesinwhichthestabilityoftherockslopeisnotstructurally
controlled.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter12foradditionalrequirements
regardingtheassessmentofrockmassproperties.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.8 Final Selection of Design Values
5.8.1 Overview
Afterthefeldandlaboratorytestingiscompleted,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldreviewthequalityandconsistencyofthedata,andshoulddetermine
iftheresultsareconsistentwithexpectations.Oncethelabandfelddata
havebeencollected,theprocessoffnalmaterialpropertyselectionbegins.
Atthisstage,thegeotechnicaldesignergenerallyhasseveralsourcesof
dataconsistingofthatobtainedinthefeld,laboratorytestresultsand
correlationsfromindextesting.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignermay
haveexperiencebasedonotherprojectsintheareaorinsimilarsoil/rock
conditions.Therefore,iftheresultsarenotconsistentwitheachotheror
previousexperience,thereasonsforthedifferencesshouldbeevaluated,poor
dataeliminatedandtrendsindataidentifed.Atthisstageitmaybenecessary
toconductadditionalperformanceteststotrytoresolvediscrepancies.
AsstatedinWSDOTGDMSection5.1,thefocusofgeotechnicaldesign
propertyassessmentandfnalselectionisontheindividualgeologicstrata
identifedattheprojectsite.Ageologicstratumischaracterizedashaving
thesamegeologicdepositionalhistoryandstresshistory,andgenerallyhas
similaritiesthroughoutthestratuminitsdensity,sourcematerial,stress
history,andhydrogeology.Alloftheinformationthathasbeenobtainedup
tothispointincludingpreliminaryoffceandfeldreconnaissance,boring
logs,CPTsoundingsetc.,andlaboratorydataareusedtodeterminesoiland
rockengineeringpropertiesofinterestanddevelopasubsurfacemodelof
thesitetobeusedfordesign.Datafromdifferentsourcesoffeldandlab
tests,fromsitegeologicalcharacterizationofthesitesubsurfaceconditions,
fromvisualobservationsobtainedfromthesitereconnaissance,andfrom
historicalexperiencewiththesubsurfaceconditionsatornearthesitemust
becombinedtodeterminetheengineeringpropertiesforthevariousgeologic
unitsencounteredthroughoutthesite.However,soilandrockpropertiesfor
designshouldnotbeaveragedacrossmultiplestrata,sincethefocusofthis
propertycharacterizationisontheindividualgeologicstratum.Often,results
from a single test
(e.g.SPTN-values)mayshowsignifcantscatteracrossasiteforagiven
soil/rockunit.Perhapsdataobtainedfromaparticularsoilunitforaspecifc
propertyfromtwodifferenttests(e.g.feldvanesheartestsandlabUUtests)
donotagree.Techniquesshouldbeemployedtodeterminethevalidityand
reliabilityofthedataanditsusefulnessinselectingfnaldesignparameters.
Afterareviewofdatareliability,areviewofthevariabilityoftheselected
parametersshouldbecarriedout.Variabilitycanmanifestitselfintwo
ways:1)theinherentin-situvariabilityofaparticularparameterdueto
thevariabilityofthesoilunititself,and2)thevariabilityassociatedwith
estimatingtheparameterfromthevarioustestingmethods.Fromthisstep
fnalselectionofdesignparameterscancommence,andfromtherecompletion
ofthesubsurfaceprofle.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-15
J anuary 2010
5.8.2 Data Reliability and Variability
Inconsistenciesindatashouldbeexaminedtodeterminepossiblecauses
andassessanymitigationproceduresthatmaybewarrantedtocorrect,
exclude,ordownplaythesignifcanceofanysuspectdata.Thefollowing
proceduresprovideastep-by-stepmethodforanalyzingdataandresolving
inconsistenciesasoutlinedbySabatini, et al. (2002):
1) Data Validation:Assessthefeldandthelaboratorytestresultsto
determinewhetherthereportedtestresultsareaccurateandarerecorded
correctlyfortheappropriatematerial.Forlabtestson
undisturbedsamplesconsidertheeffectsofsampledisturbanceonthe
qualityofthedata.Forindextests(e.g.grainsize,compaction)makesure
thatthesampleaccuratelyrepresentstheinsitu
condition.Disregardordownplaypotentiallyquestionableresults.
2) Historical Comparison:Assessresultswithrespecttoanticipatedresults
basedonsiteand/orregionaltestingandgeologichistory.Ifthenew
resultsareinconsistentwithothersiteorregionaldata,itwillbenecessary
toassesswhetherthenewdataisanomalousorwhetherthenewsite
conditionsdifferfromthosefromwhichpreviousdatawascollected.
Forexample,analluvialdepositmightbeexpectedtoconsistofmedium
densesiltysandwithSPTblowcountslessthan30.Ifmuchhigherblow
countsarerecorded,thereasoncouldbethedepositisactuallydense(and
thereforehigherfrictionanglescanbeassumed),orgravelmaybepresent
andisinfuencingtheSPTdata.Mostlikelyitisthesecondcase,andthe
engineeringpropertiesshouldprobablybeadjustedtoaccountforthis.
Butifconsiderationhadnotbeengivenastowhattoexpect,valuesfor
propertiesmightbeusedthatcouldresultinanunconservativedesign.
3) Performance Comparison:Assessresultswithrespecttohistoric
performanceofstructuresatthesiteorwithinsimilarsoils.Backanalysis
ofpreviouslandslidesandretainingwallmovementinthesamegeologic
unitsunderconsideration,ifavailable,shouldbeperformedtoestimate
shearstrengthparameters.Settlementdatafromexistingembankments,if
available,shouldbeusedtoestimatecompressibilityandsettlementrates.
Resultscanbecomparedtothepropertiesdeterminedfromfeldandlab
testingfortheprojectsite.Thenewlycollecteddatacanbecorrelatedwith
theparametersdeterminedfromobservationofperformanceandthefeld
andlabtestsperformedforthepreviousproject.
4) Correlation Calibration:Iffeasible,developsite-specifccorrelations
usingthenewfeldandlabdata.Assesswhetherthiscorrelationiswithin
the range of variability typically associated with the correlation based on
previoushistoricdatausedtodevelopthegenericcorrelation.
5) AssessInfuenceofTestComplexity:Assessresultsfromtheperspective
oftheteststhemselves.Sometestsmaybeeasytorunandcalibrate,
butprovidedataofageneralnaturewhileothertestsarecomplexand
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
subjecttooperatorinfuence,yetprovidespecifctestresults.When
comparingresultsfromdifferenttestsconsiderwhichtestshaveproven
togivemoreaccurateorreliableresultsinthepast,ormoreaccurately
approximateanticipatedactualfeldconditions.Forexample,resultsof
feldvanesheartestsmaybeusedtodetermineundrainedshearstrength
fordeepclaysinsteadoflaboratoryUUtestsbecauseofthedifferences
instressstatesbetweenthefeldandlabsamples.Itmaybefound
thatcertaintestsconsistentlyprovidehighorlowvaluescomparedto
anticipatedresults.
Theresultofthesestepsistodeterminewhetherornotthedataobtainedfor
theparticulartestsinquestionisvalid.Whereitisindicatedthattestresults
areinvalidorquestionable,theresultsshouldbedownplayedorthrownout.If
thetestresultsareproventobevalid,theconclusioncanbedrawnthatthesoil
unititselfanditscorrespondingengineeringpropertiesarevariable(vertically,
aerially,orboth).
Thenextstepistodeterminetheamountofvariabilitythatcanbeexpected
foragivenengineeringpropertyinaparticulargeologicunit,andhowthat
variabilityshouldinfuencetheselectionofthefnaldesignvalue.Sabatini, et
al. (2002)listseveraltechniquesthatcanbeused:
1) Experience: In some cases the geotechnical designer may have
accumulatedextensiveexperienceintheregionsuchthatitispossible
toaccuratelyselectanaverage,typicalordesignvaluefortheselected
property,aswellastheappropriatevariabilityfortheproperty.
2) Statistics:Ifageotechnicaldesignerhasextensiveexperienceinaregion,
ortherehasbeenextensivetestingbyotherswithpublishedoravailable
results,theremaybesuffcientdatatoformallyestablishtheaveragevalue
andthevariability(meanandstandarddeviation)forthespecifcproperty.
SeeSabatini, et al. (2002) and Phoon, et al. (1995) for information on the
variabilityassociatedwithvariousengineeringproperties.
3) Establish Best-Case and Worst-Case Scenarios:Basedonthe
experienceofthegeotechnicaldesigner,itmaybepossibletoestablish
upperandlowerboundsalongwiththeaverageforagivenproperty.
5.8.3 Final Property Selection
Thefnalstepistoincorporatetheresultsoftheprevioussectionintothe
selectionofdesignvaluesforrequireddesignproperties.
Recognizingthevariabilitydiscussedintheprevioussection,depending
ontheamountofvariabilityestimatedormeasured,thepotentialimpactof
thatvariability(oruncertainty)onthelevelofsafetyinthedesignshouldbe
assessed.Iftheimpactofthisuncertaintyislikelytobesignifcant,parametric
analysesshouldbeconducted,ormoredatacouldbeobtainedtohelpreduce
theuncertainty.Sincethesourcesofdatathatcouldbeconsideredmay
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-17
J anuary 2010
includebothmeasuredlaboratorydata,feldtestdata,performancedata,and
otherpreviousexperiencewiththegeologicunit(s)inquestion,itwillnot
be possible to statistically combine all this data together to determine the
mostlikelypropertyvalue.Engineeringjudgment,combinedwithparametric
analysesasneeded,willbeneededtomakethisfnalassessmentanddesign
propertydetermination.Atthatpoint,adecisionmustbemadeastowhether
thefnaldesignvalueselectedshouldrefecttheinterpretedaveragevaluefor
theproperty,oravaluethatissomewherebetweenthemostlikelyaverage
valueandthemostconservativeestimateoftheproperty.However,the
desirefordesignsafetymustbebalancedwiththecosteffectivenessand
constructabilityofthedesign.Insomecases,beingtooconservativewith
thedesigncouldresultinanun-constructibledesign(e.g.,theuseofvery
conservativedesignparameterscouldresultinapilefoundationthatmustbe
drivendeepintoaverydensesoilunitthatinrealityistoodensetopenetrate
withavailableequipment).
NotethatinWSDOTGDMChapter8,wherereliabilitytheorywasusedto
establishloadandresistancefactors,thefactorsweredevelopedassuming
thatmeanvaluesforthedesignpropertiesareused.However,eveninthose
cases,designvaluesthataremoreconservativethanthemeanmaystillbe
appropriate,especiallyifthereisanunusualamountofuncertaintyinthe
assessmentofthedesignpropertiesdue,forexampletohighlyvariablesite
conditions,lackofhighqualitydatatoassesspropertyvalues,ordueto
widelydivergentpropertyvaluesfromthedifferentmethodsusedtoassess
propertieswithinagivengeologicunit.Dependingontheavailabilityof
soilorrockpropertydataandthevariabilityofthegeologicstrataunder
consideration,itmaynotbepossibletoreliablyestimatetheaveragevalueof
thepropertiesneededfordesign.Insuchcases,thegeotechnicaldesignermay
havenochoicebuttouseamoreconservativeselectionofdesignparameters
tomitigatetheadditionalriskscreatedbypotentialvariabilityorthepaucity
ofrelevantdata.Notethatforthoseresistancefactorsthatweredetermined
basedoncalibrationbyfttingtoallowablestressdesign,thisproperty
selectionissueisnotrelevant,andpropertyselectionshouldbebasedonthe
considerationsdiscussedpreviously.
Theprocessandexamplestomakethefnaldeterminationofpropertiestobe
usedfordesignprovidedbySabatini, et al. (2002)shouldbefollowed.
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle
WhileWSDOTGDMSection5.8generallyfollowsasequentialorder,itis
importanttounderstandthattheselectionofdesignvaluesandproductionofa
subsurfaceprofleismoreofaniterativeprocess.Thedevelopmentofdesign
propertyvaluesshouldbeginandendwiththedevelopmentofthesubsurface
profle.Testresultsandboringlogswilllikelyberevisitedseveraltimesasthe
dataisdevelopedandanalyzedbeforetherelationofthesubsurfaceunitsto
eachotherandtheirengineeringpropertiesarefnalized.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theultimategoalofasubsurfaceinvestigationistodevelopaworking
modelthatdepictsmajorsubsurfacelayersexhibitingdistinctengineering
characteristics.Theendproductisthesubsurfaceprofle,atwodimensional
depictionofthesitestratigraphy.Thefollowingstepsoutlinethecreationof
thesubsurfaceprofle:
1) Completethefeldandlabworkandincorporatethedataintothe
preliminarylogs.
2) Layoutthelogsrelativetotheirrespectivefeldlocationsandcompare
andmatchupthedifferentsoilandrockunitsatadjacentboringlocations,
ifpossible.However,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenattempting
toconnectunitsinadjacentborings,asthegeologicstratigraphydoes
notalwaysftintoniceneatlayers.Fielddescriptionsandengineering
propertieswillaidinthecomparisons.
3) Groupthesubsurfaceunitsbasedonengineeringproperties.
4) Createcrosssectionsbyplottingboringsattheirrespectiveelevationsand
positionshorizontaltooneanotherwithappropriatescales.Ifappropriate,
twocrosssectionsshouldbedevelopedthatareatrightanglestoeach
othersothatlateraltrendsinstratigraphycanbeevaluatedwhenasite
containsbothlateralandtransverseextents(i.e.abuildingorlarge
embankment).
5) Analyzetheprofletoseehowitcompareswithexpectedresultsand
knowledgeofgeologic
(depositional)history.Haveanomaliesandunexpectedresultsencountered
duringexplorationandtestingbeenadequatelyaddressedduringthe
process?Makesurethatallofthesubsurfacefeaturesandproperties
pertinenttodesignhavebeenaddressed.
5.8.5 Selection of Design Properties for Engineered Materials
Thissectionprovidesguidelinesfortheselectionofpropertiesthatare
commonlyusedonWSDOTprojectssuchasengineeredflls.Theengineering
propertiesarebasedprimarilyongradationandcompactionrequirements,
withconsiderationofthegeologicsourceofthefllmaterialtypicalforthe
specifcprojectlocation.Formaterialssuchascommonborrowwherethe
gradationspecifcationisfairlybroad,awiderrangeofpropertieswillneed
tobeconsidered.
Common Borrow. PertheWSDOTStandard Specifcations,commonborrow
maybevirtuallyanysoiloraggregateeithernaturallyoccurringorprocessed
whichissubstantiallyfreeoforganicsorotherdeleteriousmaterial,andis
non-plastic.Thespecifcationallowsfortheuseofmoreplasticcommon
borrowwhenapprovedbytheengineer.OnWSDOTprojectsthismaterial
willgenerallybeplacedat90percent(MethodB)or95percent(MethodC)
ofStandardProctorcompaction.Becauseofthevariabilityofthematerials
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-19
J anuary 2010
thatmaybeusedascommonborrow,theestimationofaninternalfriction
angleandunitweightshouldbebasedontheactualmaterialused.Arange
ofvaluesforthedifferentmaterialpropertiesisgiveninTable5-2.Lower
rangevaluesshouldbeusedforfnergrainedmaterialscompactedtoMethod
Bspecifcations.Ingeneralduringdesign,thespecifcsourceofborrowis
notknown.Therefore,itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethat
isnearorabovetheupperendoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesigner
hasspecifcknowledgeofthesource(s)likelytobeused,orunlessquality
assuranceshearstrengthtestingisconductedduringconstruction.Common
borrowwilllikelyhaveahighenoughfnescontenttobemoderatelytohighly
moisturesensitive.Thismoisturesensitivitymayaffectthedesignproperty
selectionifitislikelythatplacementconditionsarelikelytobemarginaldue
tothetimingofconstruction.
Select Borrow. Therequirementsforselectborrowensurethatthemixture
willbegranularandcontainatleastaminimalamountofgravelsizematerial.
Thematerialsarelikelytobepoorlygradedsandandcontainenoughfnesto
bemoderatelymoisturesensitive(thespecifcationallowsupto10percent
fnes).SelectBorrowisnotanallweathermaterial.Triaxialordirectshear
strengthtestingonmaterialthatmeetsSelectBorrowgradationrequirements
indicatesthatdrainedfrictionanglesof38to45degreesarelikelywhen
thesoiliswellcompacted.Eveninitlooseststate,shearstrengthtestingof
relativelycleansandsmeetingSelectBorrowrequirementshasindicated
valuesof30to35degreesarelikely.However,thesevaluesarehighly
dependentonthegeologicsourceofthematerial.Muchofthegranularsoil
inWashingtonhasbeenglaciallyderived,resultinginsubangulartoangular
soilparticlesandhence,highshearstrengthvalues.Windblown,beach,or
alluvialsandsthathavebeenroundedthroughsignifcanttransportcouldhave
signifcantlylowershearstrengthvalues.Left-oversfromprocessedmaterials
(e.g.,scalpings)couldalsohaverelativelowfrictionanglesdependingonthe
uniformityofthematerialandthedegreeofroundinginthesoilparticles.
Arangeofvaluesforshearstrengthandunitweightbasedonprevious
experienceforwellcompactedSelectBorrowisprovidedinTable5-2.In
generalduringdesignthespecifcsourceofborrowisnotknown.Therefore,
itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethatisnearorabovetheupper
endoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesignerhasspecifcknowledge
ofthesource(s)likelytobeusedorunlessqualityassuranceshearstrength
testingisconductedduringconstruction.SelectBorrowwithsignifcant
fnescontentmaysometimesbemodeledashavingatemporaryorapparent
cohesionvaluefrom50to200psf.Ifacohesionvalueisused,thefriction
angleshouldbereducedsoasnottoincreasetheoverallstrengthofthe
material.Forlongtermanalysis,alltheborrowmaterialshouldbemodeled
withnocohesivestrength.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Gravel BorrowThegravelborrowspecifcationshouldensureareasonably
wellgradedsandandgravelmix.Becausethefnescontentisunder7
percent,thematerialisonlyslightlymoisturesensitive.However,invery
wetconditions,materialwithlowerfnescontentshouldbeused.Larger
diametertriaxialshearstrengthtestingperformedonwellgradedmixtures
ofgravelwithsandthatmeettheGravelBorrowspecifcationindicatethat
veryhighinternalanglesoffrictionarepossible,approaching50degrees,and
thatshearstrengthvalueslessthan40degreesarenotlikely.However,lower
shearstrengthvaluesarepossibleforGravelBorrowfromnaturallyoccurring
materialsobtainedfromnon-glaciallyderivedsourcessuchaswindblown
oralluvialdeposits.Inmanycases,processedmaterialsareusedforGravel
Borrow,andingeneral,thisprocessedmaterialhasbeencrushed,resulting
inratherangularparticlesandveryhighsoilfrictionangles.Itsunitweight
canapproachthatofconcreteifverywellgraded.Arangeofvaluesforshear
strengthandunitweightbasedonpreviousexperienceisprovidedinTable
5-2.Ingeneralduringdesignthespecifcsourceofborrowisnotknown.
Therefore,itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethatisnearor
abovetheupperendoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesignerhasspecifc
knowledgeofthesource(s)likelytobeusedorunlessqualityassuranceshear
strengthtestingisconductedduringconstruction.
BackfllforWalls.Gravelbackfllforwallsisafreedrainingmaterialthatis
generallyusedtofacilitatedrainagebehindretainingwalls.Thismaterialhas
similaritiestoGravelBorrow,butgenerallycontainsfewerfnesandisfreer
draining.GravelbackfllforWallsislikelytobeaprocessedmaterialand
ifcrushedislikelytohaveaveryhighsoilfrictionangle.Alikelyrangeof
materialpropertiesisprovidedinTable5-2.
Material
WSDOT
Standard
Specifcation
Soil Type (USCS
classifcation)
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Total Unit
Weight (pcf)
Common Borrow 9-03.14(3) ML, SM, GM 30 to 34 0 115 to 130
Select Borrow 9-03.14(2) GP, GP-GM, SP,
SP-SM
34 to 38 0 120 to 135
Gravel Borrow 9-03.14(1) GW, GW-GM, SW,
SW-SM
36 to 40 0 130 to 145
Gravel Backfll
for Walls
9-03.12(2) GW, GP, SW, SP 36 to 40 0 125 to 135
Presumptive Design Property Ranges for Borrow and Other
WSDOT StandardSpecifcation Materials.
Table 5-2
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-21
J anuary 2010
Rock embankment. Embankmentmaterialisconsideredrockembankment
if25percentofthematerialisover4inchesindiameter.Compactiveeffort
isbasedonamethodspecifcation.Becauseofthenatureofthematerial,
compactiontestingisgenerallynotfeasible.Thespecifcationallowsfora
broadrangeofmaterialandpropertiessuchthattheinternalfrictionangle
andunitweightcanvaryconsiderablybasedontheamountandtypeof
rockinthefll.Rockexcavatedfromcutsconsistingofsiltstone,sandstone
andclaystonemaybreakdownduringthecompactionprocess,resultingin
lesscoarsematerial.Also,iftherockisweak,failuremayoccurthrough
therockfragmentsratherthanaroundthem.Inthesetypesofmaterials,the
strengthparametersmayresemblethoseofearthembankments.Forexisting
embankments,thesoftrockmaycontinuetoweatherwithtime,ifthe
embankmentmaterialscontinuetobecomewet.Forsoundrockembankments,
thestrengthparametersmaybemuchhigher.Forcompactedearth
embankmentswithsoundrock,internalfrictionanglesofupto45degrees
maybereasonable.Unitweightsforrockembankmentsgenerallyrangefrom
130to140pcf.
Quarry Spalls and Rip Rap.Quarryspalls,lightlooseriprapandheavy
looseriprapcreatedfromshotrockareoftenusedasfllmaterialbelow
thewatertableorinshearkeysinslopestabilityandlandslidemitigation
applications.WSDOTStandardSpecifcationSection9-13providesminimum
requirementsfordegradationandspecifcgravityforthesematerials.
Thereforesoundrockmustbeusedfortheseapplications.Fordesign
purposes,typicalvaluesof120to130pcffortheunitweight(thisconsiders
thelargeamountofvoidspaceduetothecoarseopengradationofthistype
ofmaterial)andinternalanglesoffrictionofabout40to45degreesshouldbe
used.
Wood Fiber.WoodfberfllshavebeenusedbyWSDOTforover30years
infllheightsuptoabout40feet.Thewoodfberhasgenerallybeenusedas
lightweightfllmaterialoversoftsoiltoimproveembankmentstability.Wood
fberhasalsobeenusedinemergencyrepairbecauserainandwetweather
doesnotaffecttheplacementandcompactionoftheembankment.Onlyfresh
woodfbershouldbeusedtoprolongthelifeofthefll,andthemaximum
particlesizeshouldbe6inchesorless.Thewoodfberisgenerallycompacted
inliftsofabout12incheswithtwopassesofatrackdozer.Presumptive
designvaluesof50pcfforunitweightandaninternalangleoffrictionof
about40degreesmaybeusedforthedesignofthewoodfberflls(Allen et
al., 1993).
Tomitigatetheeffectsofleachate,theamountofwaterenteringthewood
shouldbeminimized.Generallytopsoilcapsofabout2feetinthickness
areused.Thepavementsectionshouldbeaminimumof2feet(athicker
sectionmaybeneededdependingonthedepthofwoodfberfll).Woodfber
fllwillexperiencecreepsettlementforseveralyearsandsomepavement
distressshouldbeexpectedduringthatperiod.Additionalinformationon
thepropertiesanddurabilityofwoodfberfllisprovidedinKilian and
Ferry (1993).
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geofoam. GeofoamhasbeenusedaslightweightfllonWSDOTprojects
forabout10years.Geofoamrangesinunitweightfromabout1to2pcf.
Geofoamconstructedfromexpandedpolystyrene(EPS)ismanufactured
accordingtoASTMstandardsforminimumdensity(ASTMC303),
compressivestrength(ASTMD1621)andwaterabsorption(ASTMC272).
TypeIandIIaregenerallyusedinhighwayapplications.Balesofrecycled
industrialpolystyrenewastearealsoavailable.Thesebaleshavebeenusedto
constructtemporaryhaulroadsoversoftsoil.However,thesebalesshouldnot
beusedinpermanentapplications.
5.9 Properties of Predominant Geologic Units in Washington
Thissectioncontainsabriefdiscussionofsoilandrocktypescommon
toWashingtonstatethathavespecifcengineeringpropertiesthatneed
consideration.
5.9.1 Loess
Loessisawindblown(eolian)soilconsistingmostlyofsiltwithminor
amountsofsandandclay(Higgens et al., 1987).Duetoitsmethodof
deposition,loesshasanopen(honeycomb)structurewithveryhighvoid
ratios.Theclaycomponentofloessplaysapivotalrolebecauseitactsasa
binder(alongwithcalciumcarbonateincertaindeposits)holdingthestructure
together.However,uponwetting,eitherthewatersolublecalciumcarbonate
bondsdissolveorthelargenegativeporepressureswithintheclaythatare
holdingthesoiltogetherarereducedandthesoilcanundergoshearfailures
and/orsettlements.
LoessdepositsencompassalargeportionofsoutheasternWashington.Loess
typicallyoverliesportionsoftheColumbiaRiverBasaltGroupandisusually
mostpronouncedatthetopsoflowhillsandplateauswhereerosionhas
beenminimal(J oseph, 1990).Washingtonloesshasbeenclassifedintofour
geologicunits:PalouseLoess,WallaWallaLoess,RitzvilleLoess,andNez
PerceLoess.However,theseclassifcationsholdlittlerelevancetoengineering
behavior.Forengineeringpurposesloesscangenerallybeclassifedintothree
categoriesbasedongrainsize:clayeyloess,siltyloess,andsandyloess(see
WSDOTGDMChapter10).
Typicalindexandperformancepropertiesmeasuredinloessareprovidedin
Table5-3,basedontheresearchresultsprovidedinReportWA-RD145.2
(Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988).Densityvaluestypicallyincreasefromwest
toeastacrossthestatewithcorrespondingincreaseinclaycontent.Higgins
andFragaszyobservedthatdensitiesdeterminedfromShelbytubesamples
inloessgenerallyresultinartifciallyhighvaluesduetodisturbanceofthe
opensoilstructureandsubsequentdensifcation.Studiesofshearstrengthon
loesshaveindicatedthatfrictionanglesareusuallyfairlyconstantforagiven
depositandaretypicallywithintherangeof27to29degreesusingCUtests.
Thesestudieshavealsoindicatedthatcohesionvaluescanbequitevariable
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-23
J anuary 2010
anddependonthedegreeofconsolidation,moisturecontentandamountof
claybinder.Researchhasshownthatatlowconfningpressures,loesscanlose
allshearstrengthuponwetting.
Type of
Loess
Liquid
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Dry Density (pcf)
Angle of Internal
Friction (
o
)
Clayey 33 to 49 11 to 27 70 to 90, with maximum
of up to 95 to 98
(generally increases
with clay content)
27 to 29 from CU
tests
Silty 14 to 32 0 to 11
Sandy Nonplastic Nonplastic
Typical measured properties for loess deposits in Washington state.
Table 5-3
Thepossibilityofwettinginducedsettlementsshouldbeconsideredforany
structuresupportedonloessbyperformingcollapsetests.Collapsetests
areusuallyperformedaseithersinglering(ASTMD5333)ordoublering
tests.Doubleringtestshavetheadvantageinthatpotentialcollapsecan
beestimatedforanystresslevel.However,twoidenticalsamplesmustbe
obtainedfortesting.Singleringtestshavetheadvantageinthattheymore
closelysimulateactualcollapseconditionsandthusgiveamoreaccurate
estimateofcollapsepotential.However,collapsepotentialcanonlybe
estimatedforaparticularstresslevel,socaremustbetakentochoosean
appropriatestresslevelforsampleinundationduringatest.Whendesigning
foundationsinloess,itisimportanttoconsiderlongtermconditionsregarding
possiblechangesinmoisturecontentthroughoutthedesignlifeoftheproject.
Properdrainagedesigniscrucialtokeepingasmuchwateraspossiblefrom
infltratingintothesoilaroundthestructure.Apossiblemitigationtechnique
couldincludeoverexcavationandrecompactiontoreduceoreliminatethe
potentialforcollapsesettlement.
Loesstypicallyhaslowvaluesofpermeabilityandinfltrationrates.When
designingstormwatermanagementfacilitiesinloess,detentionpondsshould
generallybedesignedforverylowinfltrationrates.
Applicationofthepropertiesofloesstocutslopestabilityisdiscussedin
WSDOTGDMChapter10.
5.9.2 Peat/Organic Soils
Peatsandorganicsoilsarecharacterizedbyverylowstrength,veryhigh
compressibility(normallyorslightlyunder-consolidated)andhavingvery
importanttime-consolidationeffects.Oftenassociatedwithwetlands,ponds
andnearthemarginsofshallowlakes,thesesoilsposespecialchallengesfor
thedesignofengineeringtransportationprojects.Deepdeposits(+100FTin
somecases)withveryhighwatercontent,highlycompressibility,lowstrength
andlocalhighgroundwaterconditionsrequirecarefulconsiderationregarding
settlementandstabilityofearthfllembankments,supportforbridge
foundations,andlocatingculverts.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theinternalstructureofpeat,eitherfbrousorgranular,affectsitscapacity
forretainingandreleasingwaterandinfuencesitsstrengthandperformance.
Withnaturalwatercontentoftenrangingfrom200-600percent(over100
fororganicsiltsandsands)andwetunitweightrangingfrom70to90pcf,it
canexperienceconsiderableshrinkage(>50%)whenitsdriedout.Rewetting
usuallycannotrestoreitsoriginalvolumeormoisturecontent.Undercertain
conditions,driedpeatwilloxidizeandvirtuallydisappear.Undisturbed
samplingforlaboratorytestingisdiffcult.Fieldvanetestingisfrequently
usedtoevaluateinplaceshearstrength,thoughinveryfbrouspeats,reliable
shearstrengthdataisdiffculttoobtainevenwiththefeldvanesheartest.
Initialundisturbedvaluesof100-400PSFarenotuncommonbutremolded
(residual)strengthscanbe30to50%less(Schmertmann, 1967).Vane
strengthhowever,isafunctionofbothvanesizeandpeatmoisturecontent.
Usually,thelowerthemoistureofthepeatandthegreateritsdepth,thehigher
isitsstrength.Strengthincreasessignifcantlywhenpeatisconsolidated,and
peakstrengthonlydevelopsafterlargedeformationhastakenplace.Dueto
thelargeamountofstrainthatcanoccurwhenembankmentloadsareplaced
onpeatsandorganicsoils,residualstrengthsmaycontrolthedesign.
Verticalsettlementisalsoamajorconcernforconstructingonorganicsoils.
Theamountoffoundationsettlementandthelengthoftimeforittooccurare
usuallyestimatedfromconventionallaboratoryconsolidationtests.Secondary
compressioncanbequitelargeforpeatsandmustalwaysbeevaluatedwhen
estimatinglong-termsettlement.BasedonexperienceinWashingtonstate,
compressionindexvaluesbasedonverticalstrain(C
c
)typicallyrangefrom
0.1to0.3fororganicsiltsandclays,andaregenerallyabove0.3to0.4for
peats.Thecoeffcientofsecondarycompression(C

)istypicallyequalto
0.05C
c
to0.06C
c
fororganicsiltsandpeats,respectively.
5.9.3 Glacial Till and Glacial Advance Outwash
Glacialtilltypicallyconsistsofnon-stratifeddepositsofclay,silt,sandand
gravelwithcobblesandoccasionalboulders.Althoughthematrixproportions
ofsiltandclayvaryfromplacetoplace,thematrixgenerallyconsistsof
siltysandorsandysilt(Troost and Booth, 2003).Theglacialtillhasbeen
glaciallyoverridden,buttheupper2to5feetisoftenweatheredandis
typicallymediumdensetodense.Theglacialtillgenerallygradestodenseto
verydensebelowtheweatheredzone.
GlacialtillisoftenfoundnearthesurfaceinthePugetSoundLowlandarea.
ThePugetSoundLowlandisanorth-southtrendingtroughborderedbythe
CascadeMountainstotheeastandtheOlympicMountainstothewest.The
mostrecentglaciation,theVashonStadeoftheFraserGlaciationoccurred
betweenroughly18,000to13,000yearsago.Glacialtilldepositedbythis
glaciationextendsasfarsouthastheOlympiaarea.
Glacialtillgenerallyprovidesgoodbearingresistancebecauseofitsdense
nature.Typicallyvaluesusedinslopestabilityevaluationsrangefrom40to
45degreesforinternalfrictionanglewithcohesionvaluesof100to1,000psf.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-25
J anuary 2010
Unitweightsusedfordesignaretypicallyintherangeof130to140pcf.The
densenatureofglacialtilltendstomakeexcavationandsheetpileinstallation
diffcult.Itisnotuncommontohavetoripglacialtillwithadozerorutilize
largeexcavationequipment.Permeabilityinglacialtillisrelativelylow
becauseofthefnescontentandthedensity.However,localizedpocketsand
seamsofsandwithhigherpermeabilityareoccasionalencounteredinglacial
tillunits.
Wetweatherconstructioninglacialtillisoftendiffcultbecauseofthe
relativelyhighfnescontentofglacialtillsoils.Whenthemoisturecontentof
thesesoilsismorethanafewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,
glacialtillsoilsbecomemuddyandunstable,andoperationofequipmenton
thesesoilscanbecomediffcult.
Glacialadvanceoutwashissimilarinnaturetoglacialtill,buttendstobe
morecoarsegrainedandcleaner(fewerfnes).Propertiesaresimilar,but
cohesionislower,causingthismaterialtohavegreaterdiffcultystanding
withoutravelinginaverticalcut,andingeneralcanmoreeasilycaveinopen
excavationsordrilledholes.Sinceitcontainslessfnes,itismorelikelyto
haverelativelyhighpermeabilityandbewaterbearing.Inverycleandeposits,
non-displacementtypepiles(e.g.,H-piles)canrun.
Forbothglacialtillandglacialadvanceoutwash,cobbleandbouldersized
materialcanbeencounteredanytime.Bouldersinthesedepositscanrange
fromafootortwoindiametertothesizeofabus.Insomeareastheycanalso
benestedtogether,makingexcavationverydiffcult.
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus
Colluviumisageneraltermusedtodescribesoilandrockmaterialthathas
beentransportedanddepositedbygravitationalforces.Colluviumistypifed
bypoorlysortedmixturesofsoilandrockparticlesranginginsizefromclay
tolargeboulders.Talusisaspecialtypeofcolluviumandreferstoaparticular
landformandthematerialthatcomprisesit.Talusdepositsaregenerallymade
upofrockfragmentsofanysizeandshape(butusuallycoarseandangular)
locatedatthebaseofcliffsandsteepslopes.
Colluviumisaverycommondeposit,encompassingupwardsof90percent
ofthegroundsurfaceinmountainousareas.Colluvialdepositsaretypically
shallow(lessthanabout25to30feetthick),withthicknessincreasingtowards
thebaseofslopes.Colluviumgenerallyoverliesbedrockalongtheslopesof
hillsandmountainsandintermixeswithalluvialmaterialinstreambottoms.
Subsurfaceinvestigationsincolluviumusingdrillingequipmentareusually
diffcultbecauseoftheheterogeneityofthedepositandpossiblepresence
oflargeboulders.Inaddition,siteaccessandsafetyissuesalsocanpose
problems.Testpitsandtrenchesofferalternativestoconventionaldrillingthat
mayprovidebetterresults.Subsurfaceinvestigationsintalusareusuallyeven
morediffcult,ifnotimpossible.Engineeringpropertiesoftalusareextremely
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
diffculttodetermineinthelaborinsitu.Ausefulmethodfordetermining
shearstrengthpropertiesinbothcolluviumandtalusistoanalyzeanexisting
slopefailure.Fortalus,thismaybetheonlywaytoestimateshearstrength
parameters.Talusdepositscanbehighlycompressiblebecauseofthepresence
oflargevoidspaces.Colluviumandtalusslopesaregenerallymarginally
stable.Infact,talusslopesareusuallyinclinedattheangleofreposeof
theconstituentmaterial.Cutslopesincolluviumoftenresultinsteepened
slopesbeyondtheangleofrepose,resultingininstability.Slopeinstability
isoftenmanifestedbyindividualrocksdislodgingfromtheslopefaceand
rollingdownslope.Whilethesloperemainssteeperthantheangleofreposea
continuousandprogressivefailurewilloccur.
Constructionincolluviumisusuallydiffcultbecauseofthetypical
heterogeneityofdepositsandcorrespondingunfavorablecharacteristicssuch
asparticlesizeandstrengthvariationsandlargevoidspaces.Inaddition,there
isthepossibilityoflongtermcreepmovement.Largesettlementsarealso
possibleintalus.Foundationsforstructuresintalusshouldextendthroughthe
depositandbearonmorecompetentmaterial.Slopefailuresincolluviumare
mostoftencausedbyinfltrationofwaterfromintenserainfall.Modifcations
tonaturalslopesintheformofcutslopesandconstructionofdrainageditches
areonewaythatwatercaninfltrateintoacolluvialsoilandinitiateaslope
failure.Carefulconsiderationmustbegiventothedesignofdrainagefacilities
topreventtheincreaseofwaterincolluvialsoils.
5.9.5 Columbia River Sand
ThesesandsarelocatedintheVancouverareaandmayhavebeendeposited
bybackwatersfromtheglacialLakeMissoulacatastrophicfoods.The
sandsarepoorlygradedandrangefromloosetomediumdense.Thesand
issusceptibletoliquefactioniflocatedbelowthewatertable.Thesandsdo
notprovideasignifcantamountoffrictionalresistanceforpiles,andnon-
displacementpilesmaytendtorun.Basedontheobservedstabilityofslopes
inthisformation,soilfrictionanglesof28
o
to32
o
shouldbeexpected.
5.9.6 Columbia Basin Basalts
ThebasaltfowsthatdominatetheColumbiaBasinwereeruptedintoa
structuralandtopographiclowbetweenthenorthernRockyMountainsandthe
risingCascadeRange.Duringperiodsbetweenthefows,erosionwouldtake
placeandtuffs,sandstones,andconglomerateswouldbedepositedontopof
basaltfows(Thorsen, 1989).Insomeareaslakebedsformed.Theresulting
drainagesystemsandlakeswereresponsiblefortheextensivelayerof
sedimentsbetween,interfngeringwith,andoverlyingthebasaltfows.These
sedimentsaregenerallythickerinareasperipheraltothefows,especiallyin
andalongthewesternpartofthebasin.Duringtheinterludesbetweenfows,
deepsaprolitesformedonsomefowsurfaces.Presenttopographicreliefon
thebasinhasbeenprovidedlargelybyaseriesofeast-westtrendinganticlinal
folds,bythecuttingofcatastrophicglacialmeltwaterfoodsandbythe
ColumbiaRiversystem.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-27
J anuary 2010
Themostobviousevidenceofbedrockslopefailuresinthebasinisthe
presenceofbasalttalusslopesfringingtherivercanyonsandabandoned
channels.Suchslopesmadeupofclastsofnearlythesamesizeandare
standingatneartheangleofrepose.
Bedrockfailuresaremostcommonlyintheformofverylargeancientslumps
orslumpfows.Blockglidesmaybelocallyimportantandprobablyresult
fromfailuresalonginterbedsorpalagonitezonesatfowcontacts.Mostof
theseancientfailuresoccurinareasofregionaltiltingorareassociatedwith
folds.Thefnaltriggering,inmanycases,appearstohavebeenoversteepening
ofslopesorremovaloftoesupport.
AlongI-82onthewestedgeoftheprovinceandinastructuralbasinnear
Pasco,layersofsedimentsinterfngerwithbasaltfows.Someofthese
sedimentsarecompactenoughtobeconsideredsiltstoneorsandstoneand
arerichinmontmorillionite.Slumpsandtranslationfailuresarecommonin
someplacesalongplanesslopingaslittleas8degrees.Mostlandslidesare
associatedwithpre-existingfailuresurfacesdevelopedbyfoldingandor
ancientlandslides.IntheSpokaneandGrandeRondeareasthicksectionsof
sedimentsmakeupamajorpartofthelandslidecomplexes.
5.9.7 Latah Formation
MuchofeasternWashingtonisunderlainwiththicksequencesofbasaltic
fowrock.Thesefowsspreadoutoveravastareathatnowcompriseswhat
iscommonlyknownastheColumbiaPlateauphysiographicprovince(see
WSDOTGDMSection5.9.6).Consistingofextrusivevolcanicrocks,
theymakeuptheColumbiaRiverBasaltGroup(Griggs, 1959).This
geologicunitincludesseveralbasaltformations,eachofwhichincludes
severalindividualfowsthatarecommonlyseparatedfromoneanotherby
sedimentarylacustrinedeposits(Smith et al., 1989).IntheSpokanearea,
thesesedimentaryrockunitsarecalledtheLatahFormation.
Mostofthesedimentarylayersbetweenthebasaltfowsrangefrom
claystonetofnegrainedsandstoneinwhichveryfnelylaminatedsiltstone
ispredominant.Thefreshrockrangesincolorfromvariousshadesofgray
toalmostwhite,tanandrust.Muchofthefnergrainedstratacontainleaf
imprintsandotherplantdebris.Becauseofitsgenerallypoorlyindurated
state,theLatahrarelyoutcrops.Iterodesrapidlyandthereforeisusually
coveredwithcolluviumorinsteeperterrainhiddenundertherubbleof
overlyingbasalticrocks.
ThemainengineeringconcernfortheLatahFormationisitspotentialfor
rapid deterioration by softening and eroding when exposed to water and
cyclic wetting and drying (Hosterman, 1969).Thelandslidepotentialof
thisgeologicunitisalsoofgreatengineeringconcern.Whileitsundisturbed
statecanoftenjustifyrelativelyhighbearingresistance,foundation
bearingsurfacesneedtobeprotectedfromprecipitationandgroundwater.
Constructiondrainageisimportantandshouldbeplannedinadvanceof
excavating.Bearingsurfaceprotectionmeasuresoftenincludemudslabsor
gravelblankets.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
IntheSpokanearea,landslidedepositsfringemanyofthebuttes(Thorsen,
1989).Disorientedblocksofbasaltlieinamatrixofdisturbedinterfow
silts.TheLatahFormationtypicallyhaslowpermeability.Thebasaltabove
itisoftenhighlyfractured,andjointscommonlyfllwithwater.Although
thissourceofgroundwatermaybelimited,whenitispresent,andthe
excavationextendsthroughtheLatah-basaltcontact,theLatahwilloften
erode(pipe)backunderthebasaltcausingpotentialinstability.TheLatah
isalsosusceptibletosurfaceerosionifleftexposedinsteepcuts.Shotcrete
isoftenusedtoprovideaprotectivecoatingforexcavationsurfaces.Fiber
reinforcedshotcreteandsoilnailingarefrequentlyusedtofortemporary
excavationshoring.
TheLatahformationhasbeenthecauseofanumberoflandslidesinnortheast
WashingtonandinIdaho.Measuredlong-termshearstrengthshavebeen
observedtobeintherangeof14to17degrees.Itisespeciallycriticalto
considerthelong-termstrengthofthisformationwhencuttingintothis
formationoraddingloadonthisformation.
5.9.8 Seattle Clay
TheSeattleclayconsistsofproglaciallacustrinedepositsofsiltandclaythat
weredepositedduringthetransitionfromtheinterglacialtoglacialperiod.
TheSeattleclayhasbeenglaciallyconsolidatedandistypicallyverystiff
tohard.TheSeattleclayisencounteredinthePugetSoundLowlandasa
discontinuousdeposit.Itistheprimarydepositaffectingengineeringdesign
inthedrumoidialhillslocatedinSeattlealongSR-5andonMercerIsland.
Thisdepositcanbemorethan50metersthickintheSeattlearea(Troost
and Booth, 2003).
Asaresultoftheglacialconsolidation,theSeattleclayunitgenerallyhas
highlockedinlateralstresses.Thelockedinstresseshavecreatedproblems
invirginexcavationsintothisgeologicunit.Fracturesandslickensidesare
commonlyencounteredinthisunit.Asexcavationsarecompleted,theunit
experiencesalateralelasticreboundwhichhasledtoslopeinstabilityand
problemsforshoringcontractorsifthelockedinstressesandreboundarenot
incorporatedintothedesign.Thefailuremechanismconsistsofjointsand
fracturesopeningupupontheelasticreboundresponse.Hydrostaticpressure
buildupwithinthejointsandfracturescanthenfunctionasahydraulicjack
tofurtherdisplaceblocksofthesiltandclay.Appreciablemovementcan
drastically degrade the shear strength along the planes of movement leading
toprogressivefailures.SuchinstabilityoccurredinthedowntownSeattlearea
whencutsweremadeintotheSeattleClaystoconstructInterstate5.
Basedonconsiderableexperience,thelong-termdesignofproject
geotechnicalelementsaffectedbythisgeologicunitshouldbebasedon
residualstrengthparameters.ForSeattleclays,therelationshipbetweenthe
residualfrictionangleandtheplasticityindexasreportedinNAVFAC DM7
generallyworkswellforestimatingtheresidualshearstrength(seeFigure
5-1).Inpractice,residualshearstrengthvaluesthathavebeenestimatedbased
onback-analysisofactuallandslidesisintherangeof13to17degrees.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-29
J anuary 2010
Correlation between residual shear strength of overconsolidated
clays and plasticity index (after NAVFAC, 1971).
Figure 5-1
Itisimportanttonotethatresidualstrengthofthisformationisoftenachieved
withashearstrainof5%oflessasmeasuredintriaxialordirectshear
devices.Forplanestrainconditions,whichtypicallygoverninslopestability
andretainingwallapplications,thiscriticalshearstraincouldbesignifcantly
lessthanthis.
Anotherfeatureofthisdepositisthatittendstobelaminatedwithfne,water
bearingsands.Thissituationoftenresultsininstability,notonlyinopencuts,
butalsointheformofcavinginrelativelysmalldiametershaftexcavations.
AlongthesidesofthesedrumoidialhillscontainingSeattleclayaredeposits
fromlandslidesthatoccurredbetweenglacialperiodsastheglaciers
temporarilyreceded.Subsequentglacialadvancespartiallyreconsolidated
theseancientlandslidedeposits,butintheprocessleftahighlyfracturedand
jumbleddepositoftiltedclayblocksanddisplacedsoil.Thesedepositscan
behighlyunstable,andundrainedorpeakdrainedshearstrengthparameters
shouldnotbeusedevenfortemporarydesignsorforwalltypesthatdonot
allowdisplacement(i.e.,cylinderpileortiebackwallsthataredesignedforK
0

conditions).
Aswithmostfnegrainedsoils,wetweatherconstructioninSeattleclayis
generallydiffcult.Whenthemoisturecontentofthesesoilsismorethana
fewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,theybecomemuddyand
unstableandoperationofequipmentonthesesoilscanbecomediffcult.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Eventhoughthisgeologicdepositisaclay,duetothehighlyoverconsolidated
natureofthisdeposit,settlementcangenerallybeconsideredelasticinnature,
andsettlement,forthemostpart,occursastheloadisapplied.Thismakes
placementofspreadfootingsonthisdepositfeasible,providedthefootingis
notplacedonaslopethatcouldallowanoverallstabilityfailureduetothe
footingload(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8).
5.9.9 Bellingham Glaciomarine Drift
Glaciaomarinedrifttypicallyconsistsofunsorted,unstratifedsiltandclay
withvaryingamountsofsand,gravel,cobblesandoccasionalboulders.
Glaciomarinedriftisderivedfromsedimentmeltedoutoffoatingglacial
icethatwasdepositedontheseafoor.Thismateriallocallycontainsshells
andwood.
TheBellinghamareaglaciomarinedriftisfoundwestoftheCascade
MountainsandfromabouttheMountVernonareanorth.Itistypically
foundatthesurfaceorbelowHoloceneagedeposits.Theupperportionof
thisunit,sometimestoabout15feetofdepth,canbequitestiffasaresult
ofdesiccationorpartialicecontactinuplandareas.Thismaterialtypically
gradesfrommediumstifftoverysoftwithdepth.Theentireglaciomarine
driftproflecanbestiffwhenonlyathinsectionofthedriftmantlesbedrock
atshallowdepths.Conversely,theentireprofleistypicallysoftintheBlaine
areaandcanbesoftwheninlow,perenniallysaturatedareas.
Thisgeologicunitcanbeverydeep(150ftormore).Thepropertiesof
thisunitareextremelyvariable,varyingasafunctionoflocation,depth,
loadinghistory,saturationandotherconsiderations.Thesofttomedium
stiffglaciomarinedrifthasverylowshearstrength,verylowpermeability
andhighcompressibility.Basedonvaneshearandlaboratorytestingofthis
unit,thesoftportionofthisunitbelowthestiffcrusttypicallyhasundrained
shearstrengthsofapproximately500to1000psf,andcanbeaslowas200to
300psf.Theupperstiffcrustistypicallyconsiderablystronger,andmaybe
capableofsupportinglightlyloadedfootingsupportedstructures.Atterberg
limitstestingwilltypicallyclassifythesoftermaterialasalowplasticityclay;
although,itcanrangetohighplasticity.Consolidationparametersarevariable,
withthecompressionindex(C
C
)intherangeof0.06toover0.2.Timeratesof
consolidationcanalsobequitevariable.
Wetweatherconstructioninglaciomarinedriftisverydiffcultbecauseof
therelativelyhighclaycontentofthesesoils.Whenthemoisturecontentof
thesesoilsismorethanafewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,
glaciomarinedriftsoilsbecomemuddyandunstable,andoperationof
equipmentonthesesoilscanbecomeverydiffcult.Localizedsandyand
gravellylayersinthedriftcanbesaturatedandarecapableofproducing
signifcantamountsofwaterincuts.Glacialerratics,suchascobblesand
boulders,canalsobepresent.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-31
J anuary 2010
5.9.10 Coastal Range Siltstone/Claystone
TheCoastRange,orWillapaHills,aresituatedbetweentheOlympic
MountainstothenorthandtheColumbiaRivertothesouth.Thicksequences
ofTertiarysedimentaryandvolcanicrocksarepresent.Therocksarenot
intenselydeformedandwerenotsubjectedtotectonismortheassociated
metamorphism (Lasmanis, 1991).TheWillapaHillshaverounded
topographyanddeepweatheringprofles.Theinterbeddedsandstoneandfne
grainedsedimentaryformationsareencounteredinhighwaycuts.Thematerial
fromthesecutshasbeenusedinembankments.Someoftherockexcavated
fromthesecutswillslakewhenexposedtoairandwaterandcausesettlement
oftheembankment,instabilityandpavementdistortion.
Locallythickclaysoilsarepresentandextensiveareasareunderlainby
sedimentaryandvolcanicrocksthatareinherentlyweak.Tuffaceoussiltstone
andtiltedsedimentaryrockswithweakinterbedsarecommon.Thevolcanic
unitsaregenerallyalteredandormechanicallyweakasaresultofbrecciation.
Thedominantformoflandslideinthisareaistheearthfoworslump-fow
(Thorsen, 1989).Manyofthesearemadeupofbothsoilandbedrock.
Reactivationoflandslideinsomeareascanbetracedtostreamcuttingalong
thetoeofaslide.
5.9.11 Troutdale Formation
TheTroutdaleFormationconsistsofpoorlytomoderatelyconsolidatedsilt,
sandandgraveldepositedbytheColumbiaRiver.Thesedepositscanbe
dividedintotwogeneralparts;alowergravelsectioncontainingcobbles,and
uppersectionthatcontainsvolcanicglasssands.Theformationistypically
aterrestrialdepositfoundinthefoodplaneoftheColumbiaRiverandthe
PortlandBasin.Thegranularcomponentsoftheformationaretypically
well-roundedasaresultofthedepositionalenvironmentandareoccasionally
weaklycemented.Occasionalbouldershavebeenfoundinthisformation.
Excavationfordrilledshaftsandsoldierpilesinthesesoilscanbevery
diffcultbecauseofthebouldersandcementedsands.
SlopestabilityissueshavebeenobservedintheTroutdaleFormation.
SignifcantlandslideshaveoccurredinthisunitintheKelsoarea.Wetweather
constructioncanbediffcultifthesoilshavesignifcantfnescontent.As
describedabove,whenthemoisturecontentofsoilwithrelativelyhighfnes
contentrisesafewpercentaboveoptimum,thesoilsbecomemuddyand
unstable.Permeabilityinthissoilunitvariesbasedonthefnescontentor
presenceoflensesorlayersoffnegrainedmaterial.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.9.12 Marine Basalts - Crescent Formation
TheCrescentFormationbasaltswereeruptedclosetotheNorthAmerican
shorelineinamarinesettingduringEocenetime(Lasmanis, 1991).The
formationconsistsmostlyofthicksubmarinebasaltfowssuchaspillow
lavas.TheCrescentFormationwasdepositeduponcontinentallyderived
marinesedimentsandislocallyinterbeddedwithsedimentaryrocks.The
CrescentFormationextendsfromtheWillapaHillsareatotheOlympic
Peninsula.DuringthemiddleEocene,theCrescentFormationwasdeformed
duetoaccretiontoNorthAmerica.Thepillowbasaltshaveextensivezones
ofpalagonite.AlongtheOlympicPeninsulathebasaltsaregenerallyhighly
fracturedandareoftenmoderatelyweatheredtodecomposed.
Thepropertiesofthemarinebasaltsarevariableanddependontheamountof
fracturing,alterationandweathering.Borrowfromcutsectionsisgenerally
suitableforuseinembankments;however,itmaynotbesuitableforuse
asripraporquarryspallsbecauseofdegradation.Allmarinebasaltsshould
betestedfordegradationbeforeuseasripraporquarryspallsinpermanent
applications.
5.9.13 Mlange Rocks on Olympic Peninsula
DuringthemiddleMiocene,convergenceoftheJuandeFucaplatewiththe
NorthAmericanplateacceleratedtothepointthatsedimentary,volcanic,
andmetamorphicrocksalongthewestfankoftheOlympicswerebroken,
jumbled,andchaoticallymixedtoformamlange(Thorsen, 1989).This
formationisknownastheHohrockassemblage.Hohmlangerocksare
exposedalong45milesofthewesterncoast.Successiveaccretionary
packagesofsedimentswithinthecoreofthemountainsarecomposedof
foldedandfaultedHohandOzettemlangerocks.Typicalofmlange
mixtures,whichhavebeenbroken,shearedandjumbledtogetherbytectonic
collision,theHohincludesawiderangeofrocks.Extensivelyexposed
in headlands and terraces along the Olympic coast consisting of resistant
sandstoneandconglomeratedsequence.Themlangerocksmayconsist
ofpillowbasalt,deepoceanclayandsubmarinefans.Slopesintilted
sedimentaryrocksthathavebeenextensivelyalteredand/orcontainweak
interbedshavebeenundercutbywaveactioninplacesalongtheStraitofJuan
deFuca.Slumpfowsorbeddingplaneblockglidesformalongtheinterbeds.
Becauseofthevariabilityofthemlangerocksandthepotentialforfailure
planes,cautionshouldbeusedwhendesigningcuts.Anadequateexploration
program is essential to determine the geometry and properties of the soil and
rocklayers.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-33
J anuary 2010
5.10 References
AASHTO,1988,ManualonSubsurfaceInvestigations.
ASTM,2004,AnnualBookofASTMStandards.
Allen,T.M.,Kilian,A.P.,1993,UseofWoodFiberandGeotextile
ReinforcementtoBuildEmbankmentAcrossSoftGround,Transportation
ResearchBoardRecord1422.
Bowles,J.E.,1979,PhysicalandGeotechnicalPropertiesofSoils,
McGraw-Hill,Inc.
Dunn,I.S.,Anderson,L.R.,Kiefer,F.W.,1980,Fundamentalsof
GeotechnicalAnalysis,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Griggs,A.B.,1976,U.S.GeologicalServiceBulletin1413,TheColumbia
RiverBasaltGroupintheSpokaneQuadrangle,Washington,Idaho,
andMontana.
Higgins,J.D.,Fragaszy,R.J.,Martin,T.L.,1987,Engineering Design in
Loess Soils of Southeastern Washington,WA-RD145.1.
Higgins,J.D.,Fragaszy,R.J.,1988, Design Guide for Cut Slopes in Loess
of Southeastern Washington,WA-RD145.2.
Hoek,E.,andBrown,E.T.1988.TheHoek-BrownFailureCriterion
a1988Update.Proceedings, 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Toronto,Canada.
Hoek,E.,Carranza-Torres,C.,andCorkum,B.,2002,Hoek-Brown
Criterion2002Edition,ProceedingsNARMS-TACConference,
Toronto,2002,1,pp.267-273.
Holtz,R.D.&Kovacs,W.D.,1981,AnIntroductiontoGeotechnical
Engineering,Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Hosterman,JohnW.,1969,U.S.GeologicalSurveyBulletin1270,
ClayDepositsofSpokaneCo.WA.
Joseph,N.L.,1990,GeologicMapoftheSpokane1:100,000Quadrangle,
WashingtonIdaho,WashingtonDivisionofGeologyandEarthResources,
OpenFileReport90-17.
Kilian,A.P.,Ferry,C.D.,1993,LongTermPerformanceofWoodFiberFills,
TransportationResearchBoardRecord1422.
Lasmanis,R.,1991,TheGeologyofWashington:RocksandMinerals,
v.66,No.4.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Lunne,etal.,1997,ConePenetrationTestinginGeotechnicalPractice,
E&FNSpon,London.
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002,Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Meyerhoff,G.G.,JournalofSoilMechanicsandFoundationDivision,
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,January,1956.
NAVFAC,1971,Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth
Structures,DM-7.
Peck,R.B.,Hanson,W.E.andThornburn,T.H.,1974,Fooundation
Engineering,2
nd
Edition,JohnWiley&Sons,NewYork.
Phoon,K.-K.,Kulhawy,F.H.,Grigoriu,M.D.,1995,Reliability-Based
DesignofFoundationsforTransmissionLineStructures,ReportTR-105000,
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute,PaloAlto,CA.
Sabatini,P.J.,Bachus,R.C.,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,T.E.,Zettler,T.E.,
FHWA-IF-02-034,2002,Evaluationofsoilandrockproperties,Geotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.5.
Schmertmann,J.H.,1967,ResearchBulletinNo.121A,FloridaDepartment
ofTransportation;UniversityofFlorida.
Smith,G.A.,Bjornstad,B.N.,Fecht,K.R.,1989,GeologicSocietyof
AmericaSpecialPaper239,NeogeneTerrestrialSedimentationOnand
AdjacenttotheColumbiaPlateau,WA,OR,andID.
Thorsen,G.W.,1989,LandslideProvincesinWashington,Engineering
GeologyinWashington,WashingtonDivisionofGeologyandEarth
Resources,Bulletin78
Troost,K.G.andBoothD.B.(2003),QuaternaryandEngineeringGeology
oftheCentralandSouthernPugetSoundLowland.ProfessionalEngineering
PracticesLiasionProgram,UniversityofWashington,May1-3,2003.
WSDOTHighwayRunoffManualM31-16,March2004.
WSDOTStandard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
ConstructionM41-10,2004.
Youd,T.L.andI.M.Idriss.1997.Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop
on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils;PublicationNo.MCEER-
97-0022.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-35
J anuary 2010
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 6 Seismic Design Contents
6.1 SeismicDesignResponsibilityandPolicy 6-1
6.1.1 ResponsibilityoftheGeotechnicalDesigner 6-1
6.1.2 GeotechnicalSeismicDesignPolicies 6-1
6.1.2.1 SeismicPerformanceObjectives 6-1
6.1.2.2 LiquefactionMitigationforBridgeWidenings 6-3
6.1.2.3 MaximumConsideredDepthforLiquefaction 6-4
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources 6-5
6.2 GeotechnicalSeismicDesignConsiderations 6-7
6.2.1 Overview 6-7
6.2.2 SiteCharacterizationandDevelopmentofSeismicDesignParameters 6-8
6.2.3 InformationforStructuralDesign 6-20
6.3 SeismicHazardandSiteGroundMotionResponseRequirements 6-20
6.3.1 DeterminationofSeismicHazardLevel 6-22
6.3.2 SiteGroundMotionResponseAnalysis 6-28
6.3.3 2006IBCforSiteResponse 6-28
6.3.4 AdjustingGroundSurfaceAccelerationtoOtherSiteClasses 6-29
6.3.5 EarthquakeMagnitude 6-30
6.4 SeismicGeologicHazards 6-30
6.4.1 FaultRupture 6-30
6.4.2 Liquefaction 6-33
6.4.2.1 MethodstoEvaluatePotentialSusceptibilityofSoilto
Liquefaction 6-35
6.4.2.2 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotential 6-37
6.4.2.3 MinimumFactorofSafetyAgainstLiquefaction 6-41
6.4.2.4 LiquefactionInducedSettlement 6-42
6.4.2.5 ResidualStrengthParameters 6-45
6.4.2.6 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotentialandEffectsUsing
LaboratoryTestData 6-45
6.4.2.7 WeakeningInstabilityDuetoLiquefaction 6-47
6.4.2.8 CombiningSeismicInertialLoadingwithAnalysesUsing
LiquefedSoilStrength 6-50
6.4.3 SlopeInstabilityDuetoInertialEffects 6-53
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-StaticAnalysis 6-53
6.4.3.2 Deformations 6-54
6.4.4 SettlementofDrySand 6-57
Contents Chapter 6
Page 6-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.5 InputforStructuralDesign 6-57
6.5.1 FoundationSprings 6-57
6.5.1.1 ShallowFoundations 6-58
6.5.1.2 DeepFoundations 6-59
6.5.2 EarthquakeInducedEarthPressuresonRetainingStructures 6-63
6.5.3 DowndragLoadsonStructures 6-63
6.5.4 LateralSpread/SlopeFailureLoadsonStructures 6-64
6.5.4.1 DisplacementBasedApproach 6-64
6.5.4.2 ForceBasedApproaches 6-66
6.5.4.3 MitigationAlternatives 6-67
6.6 References 6-70
Appendix6-A SiteSpecifcSeismicHazardandSiteResponse 6-75
6-A.1 BackgroundInformationforPerformingSiteSpecifcAnalysis 6-75
6-A.1.1 RegionalTectonics 6-75
6-A.1.2 SeismicSourceZones 6-76
6-A.2 DesignEarthquakeMagnitude 6-78
6-A.3 ProbabilisticandDeterministicSeismicHazardAnalyses 6-79
6-A.4 SelectionofAttenuationRelationships 6-81
6-A.5 SiteSpecifcGroundResponseAnalysis 6-81
6-A.5.1 Design/ComputerModels 6-81
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis6-83
6-A.6 AnalysisUsingAcceleration-TimeHistories 6-84

Chapter 6 Seismic Design
6.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy
6.1.1 Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer
Thegeotechnicaldesignerisresponsibleforprovidinggeotechnical/seismic
inputparameterstothestructuralengineersfortheiruseinstructuraldesignof
thetransportationinfrastructure(e.g.,bridges,retainingwalls,ferryterminals,
etc.).Specifcelementstobeaddressedbythegeotechnicaldesigner
includethedesigngroundmotionparameters,siteresponse,geotechnical
designparameters,andgeologichazards.Thegeotechnicaldesignerisalso
responsibleforprovidinginputforevaluationofsoil-structureinteraction
(foundationresponsetoseismicloading),earthquake-inducedearthpressures
onretainingwalls,andanassessmentoftheimpactsofgeologichazardson
thestructures.
6.1.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies
6.1.2.1 Seismic Performance Objectives
Ingeneral,theAASHTOLoadandResistanceFactorDesign(LRFD)Bridge
DesignSpecifcationsshallbefollowedforstructureclassifcationofbridges.
Critical,essential,andotherstructuresaredefnedinAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations.Inthecurrentinventory,moststructuresareconsidered
otherwithafewbeingessentialorcritical.Inkeepingwiththecurrent
seismicdesignapproachesemployedbothnationallyandinternationally,
geotechnical seismic design shall be consistent with the philosophy for
structuredesignthatlossoflifeandseriousinjuryduetostructurecollapseare
minimized,totheextentpossibleandeconomicallyfeasible.Thisperformance
objectiveshallbeachievedataseismicrisklevelthatisconsistentwiththe
seismicrisklevelrequiredintheAASHTOspecifcations(e.g.,7percent
probabilityofexceedancein75yearsforotherstructures,orlowerprobability
ofexceedancesuchas2percentin50yearsforcriticaloressentialbridges,
asdeterminedbytheStateBridgeEngineerseeGeotechnical Design
ManualM46-03(GDM)Section6.3.1).Thedefnitionofstructurecollapse
isprovidedintheWSDOTLRFDBridge Design ManualM23-50(BDM).
Bridges,regardlessoftheirAASHTOclassifcation,maysufferdamageand
mayneedtobereplacedafteradesignseismicevent,buttheyaredesignedfor
non-collapseduetoearthquakeshakingandgeologichazardsassociatedwith
adesignseismicevent.
Inkeepingwiththenocollapsephilosophy,bridgeapproachembankments
andfllsthroughwhichcut-and-covertunnelsareconstructedshouldbe
designedtoremainstableduringthedesignseismiceventbecauseofthe
potentialtocontributetocollapseofthestructureshouldtheyfail.Theaerial
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-1
J anuary 2010
extentofapproachembankment(andembankmentsurroundingcut-and-cover
tunnels)seismicdesignandmitigation(ifnecessary)shouldbesuchthatthe
structureisprotectedagainstinstabilityorloadingconditionsthatcouldresult
incollapse.Thetypicaldistanceofevaluationandmitigationiswithin100ft
oftheabutmentortunnelwall,buttheactualdistanceshouldbeevaluatedon
acase-by-casebasis.Instabilityorotherseismichazardssuchasliquefaction,
lateralspread,downdrag,andsettlementmayrequiremitigationnearthe
abutmentortunnelwalltoensurethatthestructureisnotcompromised
duringadesignseismicevent.Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldevaluate
the potential for differential settlement between mitigated and non mitigated
soils.Additionalmeasuresmayberequiredtolimitdifferentialsettlementsto
tolerablelevelsbothforstaticandseismicconditions.Thebridgeinteriorpier
foundationsshouldalsobedesignedtobeadequatelystablewithregardto
liquefaction,lateralfow,andotherseismiceffectstopreventbridgecollapse.
Allretainingwallsandabutmentwallsshallbeevaluatedanddesignedfor
seismicstabilityinternallyandexternally(i.e.slidingandoverturning).With
regardtooverallseismicslopestability(oftenreferredtoasglobalstability)
involvingaretainingwall,withorwithoutliquefaction,thegeotechnical
designershallevaluatetheimpactsoffailureduetoseismicloading,iffailure
ispredictedtooccur.Ifcollapseofthewallislikelyduringthedesignseismic
event(i.e.,doesnotmeetminimumslopestabilitylevelofsafetyrequirements
duringseismicloadinginaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1),
andifthatcollapseislikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjurytothe
travelingpublic,thestabilityofthewallshallbeimprovedsuchthatthelife
safetyofthetravelingpublicduringthedesignseismiceventispreserved.As
ageneralguide,wallsthatarelessthan10ftinheight,orwallsthatarewell
awayfromthetraveledway,arenotlikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjury
tothetravelingpublic.Therefore,thewalldesignmayallowtheselower
heightwalls,orwallsthatarewellawayfromthetraveledway,todeform,
translate,orrotateduringaseismiceventandoverallstabilityoftheselower
heightwallsmaybecompromised.
Notethatthepolicytostabilizeretainingwallsforoverallstabilitydueto
design seismic events may not be practical for walls placed on or near large
marginallystablelandslideareasorotherwisemarginallystableslopes.In
general,iftheplacementofawallwithinamarginallystableslope(i.e.,
marginallystableforstaticconditions)hasonlyaminoreffectontheseismic
stabilityofthelandslideorslope,orifthewallhasarelativelylowriskof
causinglossoflifeorsevereinjurytothetravelingpublicifwallcollapse
occurs,therequirementofthewallandslopetomeetminimumseismic
overallstabilityrequirementsmaybewaived,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Cutslopesinsoilandrock,fllslopes,andembankmentsshouldbeevaluated
forinstabilityduetodesignseismiceventsandassociatedgeologichazards.
Instabilityassociatedwithcutsandfllsisusuallynotmitigatedduetothe
highcostofapplyingsuchadesignpolicyuniformlytoallslopesstatewide.
However,slopesthatcouldcausecollapseofanadjacentstructureiffailure
duetoseismicloadingoccursshouldbestabilized.
6.1.2.2 Liquefaction Mitigation for Bridge Widenings
The Policy.Forthecasewhereanexistingbridgeistobewidenedand
liquefablesoilispresent,thefoundationsforthewidenedportionofthe
bridgeandbridgeapproachesshouldbedesignedtoremainstableduringthe
designseismiceventsuchthatbridgecollapsedoesnotoccur.Inaddition,
iftheexistingbridgefoundationisnotstableandcouldcausecollapseof
thebridgewidening,totheextentpractical,measuresshouldbetakento
preventcollapseoftheexistingbridgeduringthedesignseismicevent.The
foundationsforthewideningshouldbedesignedinsuchawaythatthe
seismic response of the bridge widening can be made compatible with the
seismicresponseoftheexistingbridgeasstabilizedintermsoffoundation
deformationandstiffness.Ifitisnotfeasibletostabilizetheexistingbridge
suchthatitwillnotcausecollapseofthebridgewideningduringthedesign
seismicevent,considerationshouldbegiventoreplacingtheexistingbridge
ratherthanwideningit.Specifcdesignandmitigationrequirementstoaddress
theinstabilityintheexistingbridgetocausecollapseofthenewbridge
wideningwillbeassessedbytheWSDOTBridgeandGeotechnicalOffces.
Inaccordancewithexecutivedepartmentalpolicy,thedepartmentmaychoose
todeferliquefactionmitigationfortheexistingbridge,programmingthe
implementationoftheliquefactionmitigationoftheexistingbridgeaspart
oftheoverallWSDOTseismicretroftprogram.SeeWSDOTInstructional
LetterIL4074.00forthespecifcpolicyregardingthisissue.
Scoping for Bridge Widening and Liquefaction Mitigation.Duetothehigh
costofliquefactionmitigation,itisextremelyimportantthatinputbereceived
fromtheBridgeOffceandGeotechnicalOffcewhendevelopingthescope
ofbridgewideningprojectswhereliquefablesoilsmaybepresent,sothat
goodprojectdeliverydecisionscanbemade.Therefore,theregionproject
managershouldcontacttheBridgeOffceforbridgewideningandretaining
wallscopingassistancebeforeprojectfundingcommitmentsaremadetothe
legislatureandthepublic.TheBridgeOffcewillworkwiththeGeotechnical
Offcetoassessthepotentialforliquefactionorotherseismichazardsthat
couldaffectthecostoftheproposedstructures.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-3
J anuary 2010
6.1.2.3 Maximum Considered Depth for Liquefaction
Whenevaluatingliquefactionpotentialanditsimpactstotransportation
facilities,themaximumconsideredliquefactiondepthbelowthenatural
groundsurfaceshallbelimitedto80ft.However,forsitesthatcontain
exceptionallyloosesoilsthatareapparentlyhighlysusceptibletoliquefaction
togreaterdepths,effectivestressanalysistechniquesmaybeusedwiththe
approvaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineertoevaluatethepotentialfor
deeperliquefactionandthepotentialimpactsofthatliquefaction.Thereasons
forthisdepthlimitationareasfollows:
LimitsofSimplifedProcedures.Thesimplifedproceduresmostcommonly
usedtoassessliquefactionpotentialarebasedonhistoricaldatabasesof
liquefedsiteswithshallowliquefaction(i.e.,ingeneral,lessthan50ft).
Thus,theseempiricalmethodologieshavenotbeencalibratedtoevaluate
deepliquefaction.Inaddition,thesimplifedequationusedtoestimate
theearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR)isbasedonastress
reductioncoeffcient,r
d
,whichishighlyvariableatdepth.Forexample,at
shallowdepth(15ft),r
d
rangesfromabout0.94to0.98.Asdepthincreases,
r
d
becomesmorevariableranging,forexample,from0.40to0.80atadepth
of65ft.Theuncertaintyregardingthecoeffcientr
d
andlackofverifcation
ofthesimplifedproceduresusedtopredictliquefactionatdepth,aswellas
someofthesimplifyingassumptionsandempiricismwithinthesimplifed
methodwithregardtothecalculationofliquefactionresistance(i.e.,thecyclic
resistanceratioCRR),limitthedepthatwhichthesesimplifedprocedures
shouldbeused.Therefore,simplifedempiricalmethodsshouldnotbeusedto
predictliquefactionatdepthsgreaterthan50to60ft,andshallnotbeusedat
depthsofgreaterthan80ft.
LackofVerifcationandComplexityofMoreRigorousApproaches.
Severalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramshavebeendeveloped
byresearchersandcanbeusedtoestimateliquefactionpotentialatdepth.
However,therehasbeenlittlefeldverifcationoftheabilityoftheseprograms
topredictliquefactionatdepthbecausetherearefewwelldocumentedsites
withdeepliquefaction.Keyistheabilityoftheseapproachestopredictpore
pressureincreaseandredistributioninliquefablesoilsduringandafterground
shaking.Calibrationofsuchporepressuremodelshassofarbeenlimited
tocomparisontolaboratoryperformancedatatestresultsandcentrifuge
modeling.Furthermore,thesemorerigorousmethodsrequireconsiderable
experiencetoobtainandapplytheinputdatarequired,andtoconfdently
interprettheresults.Hence,useofsuchmethodsrequiresspecifcapproval
fromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineeraswellasindependentpeerreviewby
expert(s)intheuseofsuchmethodsforliquefactionanalysis.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Decreasing I mpact with Depth. Observation and analysis of damage in
pastearthquakessuggeststhatthedamagingeffectsofliquefactiongenerally
decreaseasthedepthofaliquefablelayerincreases.Thisreductionin
damageislargelyattributedtodecreasedlevelsofrelativedisplacementand
theneedforpotentialfailuresurfacestoextenddowntotheliquefyinglayer.
Theeffectsofa10ftthicksoillayerliquefyingbetweendepthsof80and90ft
willgenerallybemuchlessseverethanthoseofalayerbetweenthedepthsof
10and20ft.Notethattheseimpactsarefocusedonthemostdamagingeffects
ofliquefaction,suchaslateraldeformationandinstability.Deeperliquefaction
can,however,increasethemagnitudeandimpactofverticalmovement
(settlement)andloading(downdrag)onfoundations.
DiffcultiesMitigatingforDeepLiquefaction.Thegeotechnicalengineering
professionhaslimitedexperiencewithmitigationofliquefactionhazards
atlargedepths,andvirtuallynofeldcasehistoriesonwhichtoreliably
verifytheeffectivenessofmitigationtechniquesforverydeepliquefaction
mitigation.Inpracticality,thecoststoreliablymitigateliquefactionbyeither
groundimprovementordesigningthestructuretotoleratetheimpactsofvery
deepliquefactionareexcessiveandnotcosteffectiveformoststructures.
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources
Thespecifcationsapplicabletoseismicdesignofagivenprojectdependupon
thetypeoffacility.
ThemostcurrentversionoftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFD
SeismicBridgeDesignandAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
shallbeusedforgeotechnicalseismicdesign,inadditiontotheWSDOT
BDMandGDM.UntiltheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridge
SeismicDesignarefullyadoptedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,theseismicdesignprovisionsintheGuideSpecifcations
regardingfoundationdesign,liquefactionassessment,earthquakehazard
assessment,andgroundresponseanalysisshallbeconsideredtosupersede
theparallelseismicprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.TheBDMandGDMprovidespecifcapplicationofthe
AASHTOspecifcationstoWSDOTdesignpolicyandpractice.
Forseismicdesignofnewbuildingsandnon-roadwayinfrastructure,the2006
InternationalBuildingCode(IBC)(InternationalCodeCouncil,2006)should
beused.
Inadditiontotheabovementioneddesignspecifcations,geotechnical
designersmayutilizeotherresourcesthatareavailableforgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringtoprovidemoredetailedguidanceinseismic
designfordesignissuesandareasnotaddressedindetailintheAASHTO
specifcationsorherein.Abriefdescriptionoffouroftheseadditional
referencesisasfollows:
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-5
J anuary 2010
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 (Kavazanjian, et al.,
1997).ThisFHWAdocumentprovidesdesignguidanceforgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringforhighways.Specifcally,thisdocumentprovides
guidanceonearthquakefundamentals,seismichazardanalysis,groundmotion
characterization,sitecharacterization,seismicsiteresponseanalysis,seismic
slopestability,liquefaction,andseismicdesignoffoundationsandretaining
walls.Thedocumentalsoincludesdesignexamplesfortypicalgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringanalyses.
NCHRP Report 472 (ATC-MCEER J oint Venture, 2001 and 2002).
TheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramReport472(2002),
ComprehensivespecifcationsfortheSeismicDesignofBridges,isa
reportcontainingthefndingsofastudycompletedtodeveloprecommended
specifcationsforseismicdesignofhighwaybridges.Thereportcoverstopics
includingdesignearthquakesandperformanceobjectives,foundationdesign,
liquefactionhazardassessmentanddesign,andseismichazardrepresentation.
Ofparticularinterest,thisdocumentcontainsacase-studyonliquefaction
assessmentofahypotheticalbridgeinWashingtonStateincludingestimating
lateralspreadinducedloadsonthebridge.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Website.TheUSGSNational
HazardMappingProjectwebsiteisavaluabletoolforcharacterizingthe
seismichazardforaspecifcsite.Thewebsiteallowstheusertoidentifythe
peakgroundacceleration(PGA)onsoftbedrock/verydenseorhardsoilsand
spectralaccelerationordinatesatperiodsof0.2,0.3and1secondforhazard
levelsof2,5and10percentprobabilitiesofexceedance(PE)in50years.
Thewebsitealsoprovidesinteractivedeaggregationofasitesprobabilistic
seismichazard.Thedeaggregationisusefulinunderstandingthecontribution
ofearthquakesofvaryingmagnitudeanddistancetotheseismichazardata
siteandisespeciallyusefulforliquefactionhazardevaluations.Thewebsite
addressishttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/.
Theresultsofthehazardsanalysisusingthe2006USGSwebsitehazard
modelatareturnperiodof5percentin50yearsarethesameasthosefrom
theAASHTOhazardanalysismaps.However,theUSGSiscurrentlyupdating
theirhazardsmaps(seeUSGSwebsitefor2008update).OncetheUSGS
updatehasbeenadopted,thehazardresultsfromtheUSGScoulddiffer
somewhatfromtheresultsfromtheAASHTOhazardsmapsforthesame
location.InthiscasetheAASHTOhazardmapsshouldbeusedasthebasis
fordesignunlessspecifcapprovalisreceivedfromtheStateBridgeEngineer
andStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Textbook.Thetextbooktitled
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering(Kramer,1996)providesawealth
ofinformationtogeotechnicalengineersforseismicdesign.Thetextbook
includesacomprehensivesummaryofseismichazards,seismology
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
andearthquakes,stronggroundmotion,seismichazardanalysis,wave
propagation,dynamicsoilproperties,groundresponseanalysis,designground
motions,liquefaction,seismicslopestability,seismicdesignofretaining
walls,andgroundimprovement.
Geotechnicalseismicdesignisarapidlydevelopingsub-disciplinewithinthe
broadercontextofthegeotechnicalengineeringdiscipline,andnewresources
suchastechnicaljournalarticles,aswellasacademicandgovernmentagency
researchreports,arebecomingavailabletothegeotechnicalengineer.Itis
importantwhenusingtheseotherresources,aswellasthosenotedabove,
thatareviewbeperformedtoconfrmthattheguidancerepresentsthecurrent
stateofknowledgeandthatthemethodshavereceivedadequateindependent
review.WherenewmethodsnotgivenintheAASHTOSpecifcationsor
herein(i.e.,WSDOTGDMChapter6)areproposedinthesubjectliterature,
useofthenewmethod(s)shallbeapprovedbytheStateGeotechnical
Engineerforuseintheprojectunderconsideration.
6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations
6.2.1 Overview
Thegeotechnicaldesignerhasfourbroadoptionsavailableforseismicdesign.
Theyare:
Usespecifcation/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1)
withspecifcation/codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDM
Section6.3.2)
Usespecifcation/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1)with
sitespecifcgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)
Usesitespecifchazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withspecifcation/
codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.2)
Usesitespecifchazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withsitespecifc
groundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)
Geotechnicalparametersrequiredforseismicdesigndependuponthetypeand
importanceofthestructure,thegeologicconditionsatthesite,andthetype
ofanalysistobecompleted.Formoststructures,specifcationbaseddesign
criteriaappropriateforthesitessoilconditionsmaybeallthatisrequired.
Unusual,critical,oressentialstructuresmayrequiremoredetailedstructural
analysis,requiringadditionalgeotechnicalparameters.Finally,siteconditions
mayrequiredetailedgeotechnicalevaluationtoquantifygeologichazards.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-7
J anuary 2010
6.2.2 Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters
Aswithanygeotechnicalinvestigation,thegoalistocharacterizethesite
soilconditionsanddeterminehowthoseconditionswillaffectthestructures
orfeaturesconstructedwhenseismiceventsoccur.Inordertomakethis
assessment,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldreviewanddiscusstheproject
withthestructuralengineer,asseismicdesignisacooperativeeffortbetween
thegeotechnicalandstructuralengineeringdisciplines.Thegeotechnical
designershoulddothefollowingasaminimum:
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,structural
characteristics(e.g.,fundamentalfrequency/period),anticipatedmethod(s)
ofstructuralanalysis,performancecriteria(e.g.,collapseprevention,
allowablehorizontaldisplacements,limitingsettlements,targetloadand
resistancefactors,componentsrequiringseismicdesign,etc.)anddesign
hazardlevels(e.g.,7percentPEin75years).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,whattypeofground
motionparametersarerequiredfordesign(e.g.,responsespectraortime
histories),andtheirpointofapplication(e.g.,mudline,bottomofpilecap,
ordepthofpilefxity).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,howfoundation
stiffness will be modeled and provide appropriate soil stiffness properties
orsoil/foundationsprings.
Identifypotentialgeologichazards,areasofconcern(e.g.softsoils),and
potentialvariabilityoflocalgeology.
Identifypotentialforlargescalesiteeffects(e.g.,basin,topographic,and
nearfaulteffects).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,themethodby
whichrisk-compatiblegroundmotionparameterswillbeestablished
(specifcation/code,deterministic,probabilistic,orahybrid).
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.sitespecifcseismic
responseanalysis,liquefactionsusceptibility,lateralspreading/slope
stabilityassessments).
Identifyengineeringpropertiesrequiredfortheseanalyses.
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtype.
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
toobtainthem.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Itisassumedthatthebasicgeotechnicalinvestigationsrequiredfor
nonseismic(gravityload)designhavebeenorwillbeconductedasdescribed
inWSDOTGDMChapters2,5andtheindividualprojectelementchapters
(e.g.,WSDOTGDMChapter8forfoundations,WSDOTGDMChapter15
forretainingwalls,etc.).Typically,thesubsurfacedatarequiredforseismic
designisobtainedconcurrentlywiththedatarequiredfordesignoftheproject
(i.e.,additionalexplorationforseismicdesignoverandabovewhatisrequired
fornonseismicfoundationdesignistypicallynotnecessary).However,
theexplorationprogrammayneedtobeadjustedtoobtainthenecessary
parametersforseismicdesign.Forinstance,aseismicconemightbeused
inconjunctionwithaCPTifshearwavevelocitydataisrequired.Likewise,
ifliquefactionpotentialisasignifcantissue,mudrotarydrillingwithSPT
samplingshouldbeused.Inthiscase,preferenceshouldbegiventodrillrigs
furnishedwithenergycalibratedautomaticSPThammers.Hollow-stemauger
drillingandnon-standardsamplers(e.g.,down-the-holeorwire-linehammers)
shallnotbeusedtocollectdatausedinliquefactionanalysisandmitigation
design,otherthantoobtainsamplesforgradation.
Thegoalofthesitecharacterizationforseismicdesignistodevelopthe
subsurfaceprofleandsoilpropertyinformationneededforseismicanalyses.
Soilparametersgenerallyrequiredforseismicdesigninclude:
Dynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrainsorshearwavevelocity;
Shearmodulusandmaterialdampingcharacteristicsasafunctionofshear
strain;
Cyclicandpost-cyclicshearstrengthparameters(peakandresidual);
ConsolidationparameterssuchastheCompressionIndexorPercent
VolumetricStrainresultingfromporepressuredissipationaftercyclic
loading,and
Liquefactionresistanceparameters.
Table6-1providesasummaryofsitecharacterizationneedsandtesting
considerationsforgeotechnical/seismicdesign.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-9
J anuary 2010
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


s
o
u
r
c
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n


s
i
t
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
a


t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
y


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

d
e
p
t
h

t
o

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
u
s

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s

-

s
o
u
r
c
e
,

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


c
y
c
l
i
c

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

H
a
z
a
r
d
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

f
a
u
l
t
i
n
g
)


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
g


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

d
r
y

s
a
n
d
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
o
w

f
a
i
l
u
r
e


s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
,

d
e
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


B
e
c
k
e
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
s
t


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


p
o
s
t
-
c
y
c
l
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


s
o
u
r
c
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n


s
i
t
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
a


t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
y


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

d
e
p
t
h

t
o

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
u
s

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s

-

s
o
u
r
c
e
,

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


c
y
c
l
i
c

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

H
a
z
a
r
d
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

f
a
u
l
t
i
n
g
)


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
g


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

d
r
y

s
a
n
d
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
o
w

f
a
i
l
u
r
e


s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
,

d
e
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


B
e
c
k
e
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
s
t


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


p
o
s
t
-
c
y
c
l
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
I
n
p
u
t

f
o
r

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n


s
o
i
l

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

f
o
r

s
h
a
l
l
o
w

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
e
.
g
.
,

s
p
r
i
n
g
s
)


P
-
Y

d
a
t
a

f
o
r

d
e
e
p

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s


d
o
w
n
-
d
r
a
g

o
n

d
e
e
p

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s


r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
/
s
l
o
p
e

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

l
o
a
d
i
n
g


p
o
s
t

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


K
e
n
e
m
a
t
i
c

s
o
i
l
-
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
u
b
g
r
a
d
e

r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t
s


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s

o
r

s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
,

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h


C
P
T


S
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

r
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
m
m
a
)


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
m
e
t
e


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


d
i
r
e
c
t

s
h
e
a
r

i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

t
e
s
t
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

S
i
t
e

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

N
e
e
d
s

a
n
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s


f
o
r

S
e
i
s
m
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n

(
A
d
a
p
t
e
d

F
r
o
m

S
a
b
a
t
i
n
i
,

e
t

a
l
.
,

2
0
0
2
)
.
T
a
b
l
e

6
-
1
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-11
J anuary 2010
WSDOTGDMChapter5coverstherequirementsforusingtheresultsfrom
thefeldinvestigation,thefeldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingprogram
separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesforstaticdesign.Manyof
theserequirementsarealsoapplicableforseismicdesign.
Forroutinedesigns,in-situfeldmeasurementsorlaboratorytestingfor
parameterssuchasthedynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrains,shearmodulus
anddampingratiocharacteristicsversusshearstrain,andresidualshear
strengtharegenerallynotobtained.Instead,correlationsbasedonindex
propertiesmaybeusedinlieuofin-situorlaboratorymeasurementsfor
routinedesigntoestimatethesevalues.However,ifasitespecifcground
motionresponseanalysisisconducted,feldmeasurementsoftheshearwave
velocityV
s
shouldbeobtained.
Ifcorrelationsareusedtoobtainseismicsoildesignproperties,andsite-or
region-specifcrelationshipsarenotavailable,thenthefollowingcorrelations
shouldbeused:
Table6-2,whichpresentscorrelationsforestimatinginitialshearmodulus
basedonrelativedensity,penetrationresistanceorvoidratio.
Shearmodulusreductionandequivalentviscousdampingratioequations
byDarendelli(2001),applicabletoallsoils,asprovidedbelow,orFigure
6-1,whichpresentsshearmodulusreductioncurvesandequivalent
viscousdampingratioforsandsasafunctionofshearstrainanddepth,
and,Figures6-2and6-3,whichpresentshearmodulusreductioncurves
andequivalentviscousdampingratio,respectively,asafunctionofcyclic
shearstrainandplasticityindexforfnegrainedsoils.
Figures6-4through6-7,whichpresentchartsforestimatingequivalent
undrainedresidualshearstrengthforliquefedsoilsasafunctionof
SPTblowcounts.Itisrecommendedthatallthesefguresbechecked
toestimateresidualstrengthandaveragedusingaweightingscheme.
Table6-3presentsanexampleofaweightingschemeasrecommended
byKramer(2008).Designersusingthesecorrelationsshouldfamiliarize
themselveswithhowthecorrelationsweredeveloped,assumptions
used,andanylimitationsofthecorrelationsasdiscussedinthesource
documentsforthecorrelationsbeforeselectingafnalweightingscheme
touseforagivenproject.AlternatecorrelationsbasedonCPTdatamay
alsobeconsidered.
Otherpropertyvaluecorrelationsmaybeused,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.Designersareencouragedtodevelopregionor
projectspecifccorrelationsfortheseseismicdesignproperties.
RegardingFigure6-6,twocurvesareprovided,oneinwhichvoid
redistributionislikely,andoneinwhichvoidredistributionisnotlikely.Void
redistributionbecomesmorelikelyifarelativelythickliquefablelayeris
cappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayer.Suffcientthicknessofasaturated
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
liquefablelayerisnecessarytogenerateenoughwaterforvoidredistribution
tooccur,andneedcappingbyarelativelyimpermeablelayertopreventpore
pressuresfromdissipating,allowinglocalizedlooseningnearthetopofthe
confnedliquefablelayer.Engineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedto
determinewhichcurveinFigure6-6touse.
Whenusingtheabovecorrelations,thepotentialeffectsofvariationsbetween
the dynamic property from the correlation and the dynamic property for the
particularsoilshouldbeconsideredintheanalysis.Thepublishedcorrelations
weredevelopedbyevaluatingtheresponseofarangeofsoiltypes;however,
foranyspecifcsoil,thebehaviorofanyspecifcsoilcandepartfromthe
average,fallingeitheraboveorbelowtheaverage.Thesedifferencescan
affectthepredictedresponseofthesoil.Forthisreasonsensitivitystudies
shouldbeconductedtoevaluatethepotentialeffectsofpropertyvariationon
thedesignprediction.Typicalvariationsareasfollows:
Insitushearwavevelocity:+10to20percent
Shearmodulusandviscousdampingversusshearstrain:+20percent
Residualstrength:+20percent
Forthosecaseswhereasinglevalueofthepropertycanbeusedwiththe
knowledgethatthespecifcpropertyselectionwillproducesafedesignresults
or for cases when the design is not very sensitive to variations in the property
beingconsidered,asensitivityanalysismaynotberequired.

Reference Correlation Units
(1)
Limitations
Seed et al. (1984) G
max
= 220 (K
2
)
max
(
m
)

(K
2
)
max
=20(N
1
)
60
1/3
kPa (K
2
)
max
is about 30 for very
loose sands and 75 for very
dense sands; about 80 to 180
for dense well graded gravels;
Limited to cohesionless soils
Imai and Tonouchi (1982) G
max
=15,560 N
60
0.68
kPa Limited to cohesionless soils
Ohta and Goto (1976) G
max
=20000(N
1
)

60
(
60
)
psf
Limited to cohesionless soils
Mayne and Rix (1993) G
max
=99.5(P
a
)
0.305
(q
c
)
0.695
/(e
0
)
1.13
kPa
(2)
Limited to cohesive soils;
P
a
=atmospheric pressure
Notes:
(1) 1 kPa =20.885 psf
(2) P
a
and q
c
in kPa
Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus
(adapted from Kavazanjian, et al., 1997).
Table 6-2
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-13
J anuary 2010
Modulus Reduction Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Themodulusreduction
curveforsoil,asafunctionofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshownin
Equations6-1and6-2.

1
1
r
max
a
G
G

J
J
(6-1)
where,
G = shearmodulusatshearstrain,inthesameunitsasG
max
= shearstrain(%),and
a = 0.92

r
isdefnedinEquation6-2as:

4
3
'
0 2 1
I
I
V I I J u u u OCR PI
r
(6-2)
where,

1
= 0.0352;
2
=0.0010;
3
=0.3246;
4
=0.3483(fromregression),
OCR= overconsolidationratioforsoil

0
= effectiveverticalstress,inatmospheres,and
PI = plasticindex,in%
Damping Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Thedampingratioforsoil,asafunction
ofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshowninEquations6-3through6-7.
Initialstep:Computeclosed-formexpressionforMasingDampingfora=1.0
(standardhyperbolicbackbonecurve):


D
Masing,a
=1()[%]= 2
ln -
4
100
r
2
r
r
r

J J
J
J
J J
J J
S
(6-3)

Forothervaluesofa(e.g.,a=0.92,asusedtocalculateG):
D
Masing,a
()[%]=c
1
(D
masing,a=1
)+c
2
(D
masing,a=1
)
2
+c
3
(D
masing,a=1
)
3
(6-4)
Where,
c
1
= 0.2523+1.8618a1.1143a
2
c
2
= 0.00950.0710a+0.0805a
2
c
3
= 0.0003+0.0002a0.0005a
2
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Finalstep:Computedampingratioasfunctionofshearstrain:
1 . 0
max
sin min
) ( ) (


G
G
bD D D
g Ma
J J
(6-5)
where
) ln( 1
10
'
0 7 6 min
9
8
freq OCR PI D I V I I
I
I
u u u u
(6-6)
) ln(
12 11
N b u I I
(6-7)
where,
freq = frequencyofloading,inHz
N = numberofloadingcycles

6
= 0.8005;
7
=0.0129;
8
=-0.1069;

9
= -0.2889;
10
=0.2919;
11
=0.6329;
12
=-0.0057
Model Weighting Factor
Idriss 0.2
Olson-Stark 0.2
Idriss-Boulanger 0.2
Hybrid 0.4
Weighting factors for residual
strength estimation (Kramer, 2008).
Table 6-3
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-15
J anuary 2010
Shear modulus reduction and damping ratio curves for sand (EPRI, 1993).
Figure 6-1
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Shear modulus reduction curves for fne grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-2

Equivalent viscous damping ratio for fne grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-3
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-17
J anuary 2010

Estimation of residual strength from SPT resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-4

Estimation of residual strength ratio from
SPT resistance (Olson and Stark, 2002).
Figure 6-5
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Estimation of Residual Strength Ratio from SPT
Resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-6
Variation of Residual Strength Ratio with SPT Resistance and
Initial Vertical Effective Stress Using Kramer-Wang Model (Kramer, 2008).
Figure 6-7
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-19
J anuary 2010
6.2.3 Information for Structural Design
Thegeotechnicaldesignershallrecommendadesignearthquakeground
motion,andshallevaluategeologichazardsfortheproject.Forcodebased
groundmotionanalysis,thegeotechnicaldesignershallprovidetheSiteClass
Bspectralaccelerationsatperiodsof0.2and1.0seconds,thePGA,thesite
class,andthemultiplierstothePGAandspectralaccelerationstoaccount
fortheeffectofthesiteclassonthedesignaccelerations.Notethatthesite
classshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface,not
justsoilbelowthefoundations.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignershould
evaluatethesiteandsoilconditionstotheextentnecessarytoprovidethe
followinginputforstructuraldesign:
Foundationspringvaluesfordynamicloading(lateralandvertical),
aswellasgeotechnicalparametersforevaluationofslidingresistance
applicabletothefoundationdesign.Ifliquefactionispossible,spring
valuesforliquefedconditionsshouldalsobeprovided(primarilyapplies
todeepfoundations,asingeneral,shallowfootingsarenotusedover
liquefedsoils).
Earthquakeinducedearthpressures(activeandpassive)forretaining
structuresandbelowgradewalls,andothergeotechnicalparameters,such
asslidingresistance,neededtocompletetheseismicdesignofthewall.
Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,passivesoilspringstousetomodel
theabutmentfllresistancetoseismicmotionofthebridge.
Impactsofseismicgeologichazardsincludingfaultrupture,liquefaction,
lateralspreading,fowfailure,andslopeinstabilityonthestructure,
includingestimatedloadsanddeformationsactingonthestructuredueto
theeffectsofthegeologichazard.
Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,forlongbridges,potentialfor
incoherentgroundmotioneffects.
Optionstomitigateseismicgeologichazards,suchasground
improvement.Notethatseismicsoilpropertiesusedfordesignshould
refectthepresenceofthesoilimprovement.
6.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements
Formostprojects,designcode/specifcation/basedseismichazardandground
motionresponse(referredtoastheGeneralProcedureintheAASHTO
GuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign)areappropriateand
shouldbeused.However,asitespecifchazardanalysisshouldbeconsidered
inthefollowingsituations:
Thefacilityisidentifedascriticaloressentialandamoreaccurate
assessmentofhazardlevelisdesired,or
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Informationaboutoneormoreactiveseismicsourcesforthesitehas
becomeavailablesincetheUSGS/AASHTOSeismicHazardMapswere
developed(USGS2002),andthenewseismicsourceinformationmay
resultinasignifcantchangeoftheseismichazardatthesite.
Ifthesiteislocatedwithin6milesofaknownactivefaultcapableof
producingamagnitude5earthquakeandnearfaulteffectsarenotmodeled
inthedevelopmentofnationalgroundmotionmaps,directivityand
directionalityeffectsshouldbeconsideredasdescribedinArticle3.4.3.1of
theAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignandits
commentary.
Asitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldbeperformedinthe
followingsituations:
Thefacilityisidentifedascriticaloressential,
Siteswheregeologicconditionsarelikelytoresultinun-conservative
spectralaccelerationvaluesifthegeneralizedcoderesponsespectrais
used,or
SitesubsurfaceconditionsareclassifedasSiteClassF.
Asitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldalsobeconsidered,
subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnical
Engineer,forsiteswheretheeffectsofliquefactiononthegroundmotion
couldcausethegroundmotionresponsetobeoverlyconservativeor
unconservative,orwheretheAASHTOorIBCsiteclassesdonotftthe
subsurfaceconditionsadequately.
Ifasitespecifchazardanalysisisconducted,itshallbeconductedin
accordancewithAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridge
DesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Notethatwheretheresponse
spectrumisdevelopedusingasite-specifchazardanalysis,asitespecifc
groundmotionresponseanalysis,orboth,theAASHTOspecifcationsrequire
thatthespectrumnotbelowerthantwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumat
thegroundsurfacedeterminedusingthegeneralprocedureoftheAASHTO
GuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,Article3.4.1,adjusted
bythesitecoeffcients(F
pga
)inArticle3.4.2.3intheregionof0.5T
F
to2T
F
of
thespectrum,whereT
F
isthebridgefundamentalperiod.Forotheranalyses
suchasliquefactionassessmentandretainingwalldesign,thefreefeld
accelerationatthegroundsurfacedeterminedfromasitespecifcanalysis
shouldnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthePGAmultipliedbythespecifcation
basedsitecoeffcientF
pga
.
Whenestimatingtheminimumgroundsurfaceresponsespectrumusing
two-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumfromthespecifcationbasedprocedures
providedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridge
Design,therearenositecoeffcientsforliquefablesitesorforsitesthat
fallinSiteClassF.Noconsensuscurrentlyexistsregardingtheappropriate
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-21
J anuary 2010
sitecoeffcientsforthesecases.UnlessdirectedotherwisebytheState
GeotechnicalEngineerandtheStateBridgeEngineer,thefollowingapproach
shouldbeused:
Forliquefablesites,usethespecifcationbasedsitecoeffcientforsoil
conditionswithoutanymodifcationsforliquefaction.Thisapproach
isbelievedtobeconservativeforhigherfrequencymotions(i.e.,T
F
<
1.0sec).Ifasitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,the
responsespectrumshouldbenolowerthantwo-thirdsofthenon-liquefed
specifcationbasedspectrum,unlessspecifcallyapprovedbytheState
BridgeandGeotechnicalEngineerstogolower.However,whenaccepting
aspectrumlowerthantwo-thirdsofthespecifcationbasedspectrum,
theuncertaintiesintheanalysismethodshouldbecarefullyreviewed,
particularlyforlongerperiods(i.e.,T>1.0sec.)whereincreasesin
thespectralordinatemayoccur.Becauseofthis,forstructuresthatare
characterizedashavingafundamentalperiod,T
F
,greaterthan1.0sec.,a
sitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifliquefable
soilsaredeterminedtobepresent.
ForSiteClassFsoils,conductasitespecifcgroundresponseanalysis.In
previousguidancedocuments,thesuggestionwasmadetouseaSiteClass
EsitecoeffcientforSiteClassFsoils.UseofF
pga
,F
a
andF
v
fromSite
ClassEforSiteClassFsoilsappearstobeoverlyconservativeandisnot
recommended.
Ifasitespecifcanalysistoestablisharesponsespectrumthatislowerthan
two-thirdsofthespecifcationbasedspectrumisapprovedbytheState
GeotechnicalandBridgeEngineers,thesitespecifcanalysisshouldbe
independentlypeerreviewedbysomeonewithexpertiseinthesitespecifc
groundresponseanalysistechniqueusedtoconducttheanalysis.
6.3.1 Determination of Seismic Hazard Level
Alltransportationstructures(e.g.,bridges,pedestrianbridges,walls,andWSF
terminalstructuressuchasdocks,wingwalls,etc.)classifedasother(i.e.,
notcriticaloressential)bytheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
aredesignedforno-collapsebasedonahazardlevelof7percentPEin75
years(i.e.,thesameas5percentPEin50yearsandanapproximately1,000
yearrecurrenceinterval).Therefore,geotechnicalseismicdesignforthese
structuresshallbeconsistentwiththenocollapsedesignobjectiveandthe
seismicrisklevelusedforthosestructures.
TheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,or
Figures6-8,6-9,and6-10shallbeusedtoestimatethePGA,0.2sec.spectral
acceleration(S
s
),and1.0sec.spectralaccelerationvalues(S
1
),respectively,
forWSDOTtransportationfacilitiesforcode/specifcationbasedseismic
hazardevaluation.Bydefnition,PGA,S
S
andS
1
areforSiteClassB(very
hardorverydensesoilorsoftrock)conditions.ThePGAcontoursinFigure
6-8,inadditionS
s
andS
1
infgures6-9and6-10,arebasedoninformation
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
publishedbytheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProject(USGS,
2002)andpublishedbyAASHTOintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.InterpolationbetweencontoursinFigure6-8
shouldbeusedwhenestablishingthePGAforSiteClassBforaproject.
Whenatransportationstructure(e.g.,bridges,walls,andWSFterminal
structuressuchasdocks,etc.)isdesignatedascriticaloressentialbyWSDOT,
amorestringentseismichazardlevelmayberequiredbytheStateBridge
Engineer.IfadifferenthazardlevelthanthatspecifedintheAASHTOLRFD
Seismicdesignspecifcationsisselected,themostcurrentseismichazard
mapsfromtheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProjectshouldbe
used,unlessasitespecifcseismichazardanalysisisconducted,subjecttothe
approvaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Ifasitespecifcprobabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)isconducted,
itshallbeconductedinamannertogenerateauniform-hazardacceleration
responsespectrumconsideringa7percentprobabilityofexceedancein75
yearsforspectralvaluesovertheentireperiodrangeofinterest.Thisanalysis
shallfollowthesamebasicapproachasusedbytheUSGSindeveloping
seismichazardsmapsforAASHTO.Inthisapproachitisnecessaryto
establishthefollowing:
Thecontributingseismicsources,
Amagnitudefault-rupture-lengthorsourcearearelationforeach
contributingfaultorsourceareatoestimateanupper-boundearthquake
magnitudeforeachsourcezone,
Medianattenuationrelationsforaccelerationresponsespectralvaluesand
theirassociatedstandarddeviations,
Amagnitude-recurrencerelationforeachsourcezone,and
Weightingfactors,withjustifcation,forallbranchesoflogictreesused
toestablishgroundshakinghazards.
AASHTOallowssite-specifcgroundmotionhazardlevelstobebasedon
adeterministicseismichazardanalysis(DSHA)inregionsofknownactive
faults,providedthatdeterministicspectrumisnolessthantwo-thirdsofthe
probabilisticspectrum(seeAASHTOArticle3.10.2.2).Thisrequiresthat:
Thegroundmotionhazardataparticularsiteislargelyfromknown
faults(e.g.,randomseismicityisnotasignifcantcontributortothe
hazard),and
Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesontheknownfaultsare
generallylessthanthereturnperiodcorrespondingtothespecifedseismic
risklevel(e.g.,theearthquakerecurrenceintervalislessthanareturn
periodof1,000yearsthatcorrespondstoaseismicrisklevelof7percent
probabilityofexceedancein75years).
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-23
J anuary 2010
Currently,theseconditionsaregenerallynotmetforsitesinWashington
State.ApprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer
isrequiredbeforeDSHA-basedgroundmotionhazardlevelisusedona
WSDOTproject.
Whereuseofadeterministicspectrumisappropriate,thespectrumshallbe
either:
Theenvelopeofamedianspectracalculatedforcharacteristicmaximum
magnitudeearthquakesonknownactivefaults;or
Thedeterministicspectraforeachfault,andintheabsenceofaclearly
controllingspectrum,eachspectrumshouldbeused.
Ifthesitespecifcdeterministichazardanalysisiscombinedwithasite
specifcgroundmotionresponseanalysis,theresponsespectralordinates
maybeaslowastwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumatthegroundsurface
determinedusingthespecifcationbasedproceduresintheAASHTOLRFD
SeismicGuideSpecifcations(Articles3.4.1and3.4.2.3)intheregionof
0.5T
F
to2T
F
.ThesamewouldalsoapplytothefreefeldaccelerationA
s
in
thiscase.
Uncertaintiesinsourcemodelingandparametervaluesshallbetakeninto
considerationinthePSHAandDSHA.Detaileddocumentationofseismic
hazardanalysisshallbeprovidedandshallbepeerreviewedasappropriate.
Forbuildings,restrooms,shelters,andcoveredwalkways,specifcationbased
seismicdesignparametersrequiredbythe2006IBCshouldbeused.The
seismicdesignrequirementsofthe2006IBCarebasedonarisklevelof2
percentPEin50years.The2percentPEin50yearsrisklevelcorresponds
tothemaximumconsideredearthquake(MCE).The2006IBCidentifes
procedurestodevelopamaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration
responsespectrum,atthegroundsurfacebyadjustingSiteClassBspectrafor
localsiteconditions,similartothemethodsusedbyAASHTOexceptthatthe
probabilityofexceedanceislower(i.e.,2percentin50yearsversus7percent
in75years).However,the2006IBCdefnesthedesignresponsespectrumas
two-thirdsofthevalueofthemaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration
responsespectrum.ThesitefactorsusedinIBC2006arethesameasusedby
AASHTOformodifyingtheSiteClassBspectrumforlocalsiteeffects.As
istruefortransportationstructures,forcriticaloruniquestructures,forsites
characterizedassoilprofleTypeF(thicksequenceofsoftsoilsorliquefable
soils),orforsoilconditionsthatdonotadequatelymatchthespecifcation
basedsoilprofletypes,sitespecifcresponseanalysismayberequiredas
discussedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
P
e
a
k

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
8
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-25
J anuary 2010
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

0
.
2

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
e
r
i
o
d

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h

5
%

o
f

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
9
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

1
.
0

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
e
r
i
o
d

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h

5
%

o
f

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
1
0
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-27
J anuary 2010
6.3.2 Site Ground Motion Response Analysis
TheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire
thatsiteeffectsbeincludedindeterminingseismicloadsfordesignofbridges.
TheguidespecifcationscharacterizeallsubsurfaceconditionswithsixSite
Classes(AthroughF)andprovidessitesoilcoeffcientsforPGA(F
pga
),S
S

(F
a
),andS
1
(F
v
)forfveoftheSiteClasses(AthroughE).Code/specifcation
basedresponsespectrathatincludetheeffectofgroundmotionamplifcation
ordeamplifcationfromthesoil/rockstratigraphyatthesitecanbedeveloped
fromthePGA,S
S
,S
1
andtheSite-Class-basedsitecoeffcientsF
pga
,F
a
,and
F
v
.Thegeotechnicaldesignershalldeterminetheappropriatesitecoeffcient
(F
pga
forPGA,F
a
forS
S
,andF
v
forS
1
)toconstructthecode/specifcation
basedresponsespectrumforthespecifcsitesubsurfaceconditions.Tables
3.4.2.3-1,3.4.2.3-2,and3.4.2.3-3oftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignpresentthevaluesoftheSiteCoeffcientsfor
SoilClassesAthroughE.Nospecifcationbasedsiteclassvaluesareavailable
forSiteClassF,howeverinthatcase,asitespecifcgroundresponse
analysismustbeconducted(seetheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignforadditionaldetailsonsiteconditionsthatare
consideredtobeincludedinSiteClassF).
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsdonotspecifcally
requirethatasitespecifcseismicgroundresponseanalysesbecompleted
forsiteswhereliquefactionisanticipatedduringadesignearthquake.The
AASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire
thatthespecifcationbasedgroundmotionspectralresponsefornonliquefed
conditionsbeusedunlessasitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisis
conducted.However,asdiscussedatthebeginningofSection6.3herein,for
structureswithafundamentalperiod,T
F
,greaterthan1.0sec.,asitespecifc
responseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifthesoilsatthesitearepotentially
liquefable.
Sitesthatcontainastrongimpedancecontrast,i.e.,aboundarybetween
adjacentlayerswithshearwavevelocitiesthatdifferbyafactorof2ormore,
maybeneftfromasite-specifcseismicgroundresponseanalysis.Thestrong
impedancecontrastcanoccurwhereathinsoilprofle(e.g.,<20to30ft)
overliesrockorwherelayersofsoftandstiffsoilsoccur.
Ifasitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisisconducted,itshallbe
doneinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridge
SeismicDesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6A.
6.3.3 2006 IBC for Site Response
The2006IBC,Sections1613through1615,providesprocedurestoestimate
theearthquakeloadsforthedesignofbuildingsandsimilarstructures.
Earthquakeloadsperthe2006IBCaredefnedbyaccelerationresponse
spectra,whichcanbedeterminedthroughtheuseofthe2006IBCgeneral
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
responsespectrumproceduresorthroughsite-specifcprocedures.The
intentofthe2006IBCMCEistoreasonablyaccountforthemaximum
possibleearthquakeatasite,topreservelifesafetyandpreventcollapseof
thebuilding.
Thegeneralresponsespectrumperthe2006IBCutilizesmappedMaximum
ConsideredEarthquake(MCE)spectralresponseaccelerationsatshortperiods
(S
s
)andat1-second(S
1
)todefnetheseismichazardataspecifclocationin
theUnitedStates.
The2006IBCusesthesixsiteclasses,SiteClassAthroughSiteClassF,to
accountfortheeffectsofsoilconditionsonsiteresponse.Thegeotechnical
designershouldidentifytheappropriateSiteClassforthesite.Notethatthe
siteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface,
notjustsoilbelowthefoundations.
OncetheSiteClassandmappedvaluesofS
s
andS
1
aredetermined,values
oftheSiteCoeffcientsF
a
andF
v
(siteresponsemodifcationfactors)can
bedetermined.TheSiteCoeffcientsandthemappedspectralaccelerations
S
s
andS
1
canthenbeusedtodefnetheMCEanddesignresponsespectra.
ThePGAatthegroundsurfacemaybeestimatedas0.4ofthe0.2secdesign
spectralacceleration.
ForsiteswhereSiteClassFsoilsarepresent,the2006IBCrequiresthata
site-specifcgeotechnicalinvestigationanddynamicsiteresponseanalysisbe
completed,seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Dynamicsiteresponseanalysis
maynotberequiredforliquefablesoilsitesforstructureswithpredominant
periodsofvibrationlessthan0.5seconds.
6.3.4 Adjusting Ground Surface Acceleration to Other Site Classes
ThesitecoeffcientF
pga
toaccountforthedifferenceingroundresponse
betweenClassBsoil/rockconditionstoothersiteclasseswithregardtothe
estimation of acceleration A
s
are directly incorporated into the development
ofthestandardresponsespectraforstructuraldesignofbridgesandsimilar
structuresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandforthe
structuraldesignofbuildingsandnon-transportationrelatedstructuresinthe
2003IBC.However,thePGAshouldalsobemultipliedbyF
pga
toaccount
forthesiteclasswhenassessingthepotentialforliquefactionandforthe
estimationofseismicearthpressuresandinertialforcesforretainingwall
andslopedesign.Forliquefactionassessmentandretainingwallandslope
design,thesitecoeffcientpresentedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignshouldbeused,unlessasitespecifcevaluation
ofgroundresponseconductedinaccordancewiththeseAASHTOGuide
specifcationsandGDMSection6.3andAppendix6-Aisperformed.Note
thatthesiteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptotheground
surface,notjustsoilbelowthefoundations.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-29
J anuary 2010
6.3.5 Earthquake Magnitude
Assessmentofliquefactionandlateralspreadingrequireanestimateofthe
earthquakemagnitude.Themagnitudeshouldbeassessedusingtheseismic
deaggregationdataforthesite,availablethroughtheUSGSnationalseismic
hazardwebsite(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/)asdiscussed
inWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Thedeaggregationusedshouldbefora
seismichazardlevelconsistentwiththehazardlevelusedforthestructurefor
whichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityof
exceedanceof5percentin50yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Additionaldiscussionand
guidanceregardingtheselectionofearthquakemagnitudevaluesisprovided
intheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesign.
6.4 Seismic Geologic Hazards
Thegeotechnicaldesignershallevaluateseismicgeologichazardsincluding
faultrupture,liquefaction,lateralspreading,groundsettlement,andslope
instability.Thepotentialeffectsassociatedwithseismicgeologichazardsshall
beevaluatedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.
6.4.1 Fault Rupture
WashingtonStateisrecognizedasaseismicallyactiveregion;however,only
arelativelysmallnumberofactivefaultshavebeenidentifedwithinthe
state.Thicksequencesofrecentgeologicdeposits,heavyvegetation,andthe
limitedamountofinstrumentallyrecordedeventsonidentifedfaultsaresome
ofthefactorsthatcontributetothediffcultyinidentifyingactivefaultsin
WashingtonState.ConsiderableresearchisongoingthroughoutWashington
Statetoidentifyandcharacterizetheseismicityofactivefaults,andnew
technologymakesitlikelythatadditionalsurfacefaultswillbeidentifedin
thenearfuture.
Figure6-11presentstheearthquakefaultsintheNorthAmericanplate
consideredtobepotentiallyactive.Thefollowingfaultsareexplicitly
includedinthe2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsthatwereusedinthe
developmentoftheAASHTOseismichazardsmaps:
SeattleFaultZone
SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault
UtsaladyFault
StrawberryPointFault
DevilsMountainFault
HorseHeavenHillsAnticline
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem
MillCreekFault
SaddleMountainsFault
HiteFaultSystem
Thepotentialimpactsoffaultruptureincludeabrupt,large,differentialground
movementsandassociateddamagetostructuresthatmightstraddleafault,
suchasabridge.Untiltherecentapplicationofadvancedmappingtechniques
(e.g.,LIDARandaeromagnetics)incombinationwithtrenchingandage
datingofapparentgroundoffsets,littleinformationwasavailableregarding
thepotentialforgroundsurfacefaultrupturehazardinWashingtonState.
However,WSDOTexpectsthatasthesetechniquesareappliedthroughout
thestate,additionalHolocenefaultstracesandfaultzoneswilllikelybe
identifed,andtheunderstandingofgroundsurfacerupturehazardmaychange
signifcantlywithtime.
Inviewoftheadvancesthatwilllikelybemadeintheareaoffault
identifcation,thepotentialforfaultruptureshouldbeevaluatedandtakeninto
considerationintheplanninganddesignofnewfacilities.Theseevaluations
shouldincorporatethelatestinformationidentifyingpotentialHolocene
grounddeformation.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-31
J anuary 2010
E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

F
a
u
l
t
s

i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

S
t
a
t
e

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

U
S
G
S
,

2
0
0
2
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
1
1
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.4.2 Liquefaction
Liquefactionhasbeenoneofthemostsignifcantcausesofdamagetobridge
structuresduringpastearthquakes(ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002).
Liquefactioncandamagebridgesandstructuresinmanywaysincluding:
Modifyingthenatureofgroundmotion;
Bearingfailureofshallowfoundationsfoundedaboveliquefedsoil;
Changesinthelateralsoilreactionfordeepfoundations;
Liquefactioninducedgroundsettlement;
Lateralspreadingofliquefedground;
Largedisplacementsassociatedwithlowfrequencygroundmotion;
Increasedearthpressuresonsubsurfacestructures;
Floatingofbuoyant,buriedstructures;and
Retainingwallfailure.
Liquefactionreferstothesignifcantlossofstrengthandstiffnessresulting
fromthegenerationofexcessporewaterpressureinsaturated,predominantly
cohesionlesssoils.Kramer(1996)providesadetaileddescriptionof
liquefactionincludingthetypesofliquefactionphenomena,evaluationof
liquefactionsusceptibility,andtheeffectsofliquefaction.
Allofthefollowinggeneralconditionsarenecessaryforliquefactiontooccur:
Thepresenceofgroundwater,resultinginasaturatedornearly
saturatedsoil.
Predominantlycohesionlesssoilthathastherightgradationand
composition.Liquefactionhasoccurredinsoilsrangingfromlow
plasticitysiltstogravels.Cleanorsiltysandsandnon-plasticsiltsaremost
susceptibletoliquefaction.
Asustainedgroundmotionthatislargeenoughandactingoveralong
enoughperiodoftimetodevelopexcesspore-waterpressure,equaltothe
effectiveoverburdenstress,therebysignifcantlyreducingeffectivestress
andsoilstrength,
Thestateofthesoilischaracterizedbyadensitythatislowenoughfor
thesoiltoexhibitcontractivebehaviorwhenshearedundrainedunderthe
initialeffectiveoverburdenstress.
Methodsusedtoassessthepotentialforliquefactionrangefromempirically
baseddesignmethodstocomplexnumerical,effectivestressmethodsthat
canmodelthetime-dependentgenerationofpore-waterpressureanditseffect
onsoilstrengthanddeformation.Furthermore,dynamicsoiltestssuchas
cyclicsimpleshearorcyclictriaxialtestscanbeusedtoassessliquefaction
susceptibilityandbehaviortoguideinputforliquefactionanalysisanddesign.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-33
J anuary 2010
Liquefactionhazardassessmentincludesidentifyingsoilssusceptibleto
liquefaction,evaluatingwhetherthedesignearthquakeloadingwillinitiate
liquefaction,andestimatingthepotentialeffectsofliquefactionontheplanned
facility.LiquefactionhazardassessmentisrequiredintheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignifthesiteSeismicDesign
Category(SDC)isclassifedasSDCCorD,andthesoilisidentifedasbeing
potentiallysusceptibletoliquefaction(seeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.1).
TheSDCisdefnedonthebasisofthesite-adjustedspectralaccelerationat
1second(i.e.,S
D1
=F
v
S
1
)whereSDCCisdefnedas0.30S
D1
<0.5and
SDCDisdefnedasS
D1
0.50.Whereloosetoveryloose,saturatedsandsare
withinthesubsurfaceproflesuchthatliquefactioncouldimpactthestability
ofthestructure,thepotentialforliquefactioninSDCB(0.15S
D1
<0.3)
shouldalsobeconsideredasdiscussedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.
Todeterminethelocationofsoilsthatareadequatelysaturatedforliquefaction
tooccur,theseasonallyaveragedgroundwaterelevationshouldbeused.
Groundwaterfuctuationscausedbytidalactionorseasonalvariationswill
causethesoiltobesaturatedonlyduringalimitedperiodoftime,signifcantly
reducingtheriskthatliquefactioncouldoccurwithinthezoneoffuctuation.
Forsitesthatrequireanassessmentofliquefaction,thepotentialeffectsof
liquefactiononsoilsandfoundationsshallbeevaluated.Theassessmentshall
considerthefollowingeffectsofliquefaction:
Lossinstrengthintheliquefedlayer(s)withconsiderationofpotential
forvoidredistributionduetothepresenceofimperviouslayerswithinor
boundingaliquefablelayer
Liquefaction-inducedgroundsettlement
Flowfailures,lateralspreading,andslopeinstability.
Duringliquefaction,pore-waterpressurebuild-upoccurs,resultinginlossof
strengthandthensettlementastheexcesspore-waterpressuresdissipateafter
theearthquake.Thepotentialeffectsofstrengthlossandsettlementinclude:
Slopefailure,fowfailure,orlateralspreading.Thestrengthloss
associatedwithpore-waterpressurebuild-upcanleadtoslopeinstability.
Generally,ifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionislessthan
approximately1.2to1.3,apotentialforpore-waterpressurebuild-up
willoccur,andtheeffectsofthisbuild-upshouldbeassessed.Ifthesoil
liquefes,thestabilityisdeterminedbytheresidualstrengthofthesoil.
Theresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilscanbeestimatedusingempirical
methods.Lossoflateralresistancecanallowabutmentsoilstomove
laterally,resultinginbridgesubstructuredistortionandunacceptable
deformationsandmomentsinthesuperstructure.
Reduced foundation bearing resistance.Theresidualstrengthof
liquefedsoilisoftenafractionofnonliquefedstrength.Thislossin
strengthcanresultinlargedisplacementsorbearingfailure.Forthis
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
reasonspreadfootingfoundationsarenotrecommendedwhereliquefable
soilsexistunlessthespreadfootingislocatedbelowthemaximumdepth
ofliquefactionorsoilimprovementtechniquesareusedtomitigatethe
effectsofliquefaction.
Reduced soil stiffness and loss of lateral support for deep foundations.
Thislossinstrengthcanchangethelateralresponsecharacteristicsofpiles
andshaftsunderlateralload.
Vertical ground settlement as excess pore-water pressures induced
by liquefaction dissipate, resulting in downdrag loads on and loss of
vertical support for deep foundations.Ifliquefaction-induceddowndrag
loadscanoccur,thedowndragloadsshouldbeassessedasspecifedin
WSDOTGDMSections6.5.3and8.12.2.7,andinArticle3.11.8inthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Theeffectsofliquefactionwilldependinlargepartontheamountofsoilthat
liquefesandthelocationoftheliquefedsoilwithrespecttothefoundation.
Onslopingground,lateralfow,spreading,andslopeinstabilitycanoccur
evenongentleslopesonrelativelythinlayersofliquefablesoils,whereasthe
effectsofthinliquefedlayeronthelateralresponseofpilesorshafts(without
lateralgroundmovement)maybenegligible.Likewise,athinliquefedlayer
atthegroundsurfaceresultsinessentiallynodowndragloads,whereasthe
sameliquefedlayerdeeperinthesoilproflecouldresultinlargedowndrag
loads.Giventhesepotentialvariations,thesiteinvestigationtechniquesthat
canidentifyrelativelythinlayersareafundamentalpartoftheliquefaction
assessment.
Thefollowingsectionsproviderequirementsforliquefactionhazard
assessmentanditsmitigation.
6.4.2.1 Methods to Evaluate Potential Susceptibility of Soil to Liquefaction
Evaluationofliquefactionpotentialshouldbecompletedbasedonsoil
characterizationusingin-situtestingsuchasStandardPenetrationTests
(SPT)andConePenetrationTests(CPT).Liquefactionpotentialmayalso
beevaluatedusingshearwavevelocity(V
s
)testingandBeckerPenetration
Tests(BPT);however,thesemethodsarenotpreferredandareusedless
frequentlythanSPTorCPTmethods.V
s
andBPTtestingmaybeappropriate
insoilsdiffculttotestusingSPTandCPTmethods,suchasgravellysoils.
IftheCPTmethodisused,SPTsamplingandsoilgradationtestingshallstill
beconductedtoobtaindirectinformationonsoilgradationparametersfor
liquefactionsusceptibilityassessmentandtoprovideacomparisontoCPT
basedanalysis.
Simplifedscreeningcriteriatoassessthepotentialliquefactionsusceptibility
ofsandsandsiltsbasedonsoilgradationandplasticityindicesshould
beused.Ingeneral,gravellysandsthroughlowplasticitysiltsshouldbe
consideredpotentiallyliquefable,providedtheyaresaturatedandveryloose
tomediumdense.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-35
J anuary 2010
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactionpotentialisneeded,laboratory
cyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluate
liquefactionsusceptibilityandinitiationinlieuofempiricalsoilgradation/PI/
densitycriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Preliminary Screening.Adetailedevaluationofliquefactionpotentialis
requiredifallofthefollowingconditionsoccuratasite,andthesiteSeismic
DesignCategoryisclassifedasSDCCorD:
Theestimatedmaximumgroundwaterelevationatthesiteisdeterminedto
bewithin50ftoftheexistinggroundsurfaceorproposedfnishedgrade,
whicheverislower.
Thesubsurfaceprofleischaracterizedintheupper75ftashavinglow
plasticitysiltsorsandswithameasuredSPTresistance,correctedfor
overburdendepthandhammerenergy(N1
60
),of25blows/ft,oraconetip
resistanceq
ciN
of150,orageologicunitispresentatthesitethathasbeen
observedtoliquefyinpastearthquakes.Forlowplasticitysiltsandclays,
thesoilisconsideredliquefableasdefnedbytheBrayandSancio(2006)
orBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criteria.
Forloosetoveryloosesandsites[e.g.,(N1)
60
,<10bpforq
c1N
,<75],a
potentialexistsforliquefactioninSDCB,iftheaccelerationcoeffcient,A
s

(i.e.,PGAxF
pga
),is0.15orhigher.Thepotentialforandconsequencesof
liquefactionforthesesiteswilldependonthedominantmagnitudeforthe
seismichazardandjusthowloosethesoilis.Asthemagnitudedecreases,
theliquefactionresistanceofthesoilincreasesduetothelimitednumber
ofearthquakeloadingcycles.Generally,ifthemagnitudeis6orless,the
potentialforliquefaction,evenintheseveryloosesoils,iseitherverylow
ortheextentofliquefactionisverylimited.Nevertheless,aliquefaction
assessmentshouldbemadeifloosetoveryloosesandsarepresenttoa
suffcientextenttoimpactbridgestabilityandA
s
isgreaterthanorequalto
0.15.Theseloosetoveryloosesandsarelikelytobepresentinhydraulically
placedfllsandalluvialorestuarinedepositsnearriversandwaterfronts.
Ifthesitemeetstheconditionsdescribedabove,adetailedassessmentof
liquefactionpotentialshallbeconducted.Ifallconditionsaremetexceptthat
thewatertabledepthisgreaterthan50ftbutlessthan75ft,aliquefaction
evaluationshouldstillbeconsidered,andifdeepfoundationsareused,the
foundationtipsshallbelocatedbelowthebottomoftheliquefablesoilthatis
belowthewatertable,oradequatelyabovetheliquefablezonesuchthatthe
impactoftheliquefactiondoesnotcausebridgeorwallcollapse.
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Silts.Liquefactionsusceptibilityofsilts
shouldbeevaluatedusingthecriteriadevelopedbyBrayandSancio(2006)or
BoulangerandIdriss(2006)iflaboratorycyclictriaxialorcyclicsimpleshear
testsarenotconducted.TheModifedChineseCriteria(Finn,etal.,1994)
thathasbeeninuseinthepasthasbeenfoundtobeunconservativebasedon
laboratoryandfeldobservations(BoulangerandIdriss,2006).Therefore,
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thenewcriteriaproposedbyBrayandSancioorBoulangerandIdrissare
recommended.AccordingtotheBrayandSanciocriteria,fne-grainedsoils
areconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionif:
Thesoilhasawatercontent(w
c
)toliquidlimit(LL)ratioof0.85ormore;
and
Thesoilhasaplasticityindex(PI)oflessthan12.
Forfnegrainedsoilsthatareoutsideoftheserangesofplasticity,cyclic
softeningresultingfromseismicshakingmayneedtobeconsidered.
AccordingtotheBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criterion,fnegrainedsoilsare
consideredsusceptibletoliquefactionifthesoilhasaPIoflessthan7.Since
thereisasignifcantdifferenceinthescreeningcriteriaforliquefactionof
siltsinthecurrentliterature,forsoilsthataremarginallysusceptibleornot
susceptibletoliquefaction,cyclictriaxialorsimpleshearlaboratorytesting
ofundisturbedsamplesisrecommendedtoassesswhetherornotthesiltis
susceptibletoliquefaction,ratherthanrelyingsolelyonthescreeningcriteria.
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Gravels.Nospecifcguidanceregarding
susceptibilityofgravelstoliquefactioniscurrentlyavailable.Theprimary
reasonwhygravelsmaynotliquefyisthattheirhighpermeabilityfrequently
precludesthedevelopmentofundrainedconditionsduringandafter
earthquakeloading.Whenboundedbylowerpermeabilitylayers,however,
gravelsshouldbeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionandtheirliquefaction
potentialevaluated.Agravelthatcontainssuffcientsandtoreduceits
permeabilitytoalevelnearthatofthesand,evenifnotboundedbylower
permeabilitylayers,shouldalsobeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefaction
anditsliquefactionpotentialevaluatedassuch.Beckerhammertesting
andsamplingcouldbeusefulforobtainingarepresentativesampleofthe
sandygravelthatcanbeusedtogetanaccuratesoilgradationforassessing
liquefactionpotential.Downholesuspensionlogging(suspensionloggingina
mudrotaryhole,notcasedboring)shouldalsobeconsideredinsuchsoils,as
highqualityV
s
testingcanovercomethevariationinSPTtestresultscaused
bythepresenceofgravels.
6.4.2.2 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential
Themostcommonmethodofassessingliquefactioninvolvestheuseof
empiricalmethods(i.e.,SimplifedProcedures).Thesemethodsprovidean
estimateofliquefactionpotentialbasedonSPTblowcounts,CPTconetip
resistance,BPTblowcounts,orshearwavevelocity.Thistypeofanalysis
shouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,evenwhenmorerigorous
methodsareused.Morerigorous,nonlinear,dynamic,effectivestress
computermodelsmaybeusedforsiteconditionsorsituationsthatarenot
modeledwellbythesimplifedmethods,subjecttotheapprovaloftheState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-37
J anuary 2010
SimplifedProcedures.Proceduresthatshouldbeusedforevaluating
liquefactionsusceptibilityusingSPT,CPT,V
s
,andBPTcriteriaareprovided
inYoudetal.(2001).Youdetal.summarizetheconsensusoftheprofession
uptoyear2000regardingtheuseofthesimplifed(i.e.,empirical)methods.
Sincethepublicationofthisconsensuspaper,variousothermodifcationsto
theconsensusapproachhavebeenintroduced,includingthosebyCetinet
al.(2004),Mossetal.(2006),BoulangerandIdriss(2006),andIdrissand
Boulanger(2008).Thesemorerecentmodifcationstothesemethodsaccount
foradditionstothedatabaseonliquefaction,aswellasrefnementsinthe
interpretationofcasehistorydata.Theupdatedmethodspotentiallyoffer
improvedestimatesofliquefactionpotential,andshouldbeconsideredfor
use.
Thesimplifedproceduresarebasedoncomparingthecyclicresistance
ratio(CRR)ofasoillayer(i.e.,thecyclicshearstressrequiredtocause
liquefaction)totheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR).The
CRRisafunctionofthesoilrelativedensityasrepresentedbyanindex
propertymeasure(e.g.,SPTblowcount),thefnescontentofthesoiltaken
intoaccountthroughthesoilindexpropertyused,thein-situverticaleffective
stress as represented by a factor K

,anearthquakemagnitudescalingfactor,
andpossiblyotherfactorsrelatedtothegeologichistoryofthesoil.The
soilindexpropertiesareusedtoestimateliquefactionresistancebasedon
empiricalchartsrelatingtheresistanceavailabletospecifcindexproperties
(i.e.,SPT,CPT,BPTorshearwavevelocityvalues)andcorrectedtoan
equivalentmagnitudeof7.5usingamagnitudescalingfactor.Theearthquake
magnitudeisusedtoempiricallyaccountforthedurationofshakingor
numberofcycles.
Thebasicformofthesimplifedproceduresusedtocalculatetheearthquake
inducedCSRfortheSimplifedMethodisasshowninEquation6-8:
CSR = 0.65
A
max
g


r
d
MSF
(6-8)

Where
A
max
= peakgroundaccelerationaccountingforsiteamplifcation
effects
g = accelerationduetogravity

o
= initialtotalverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated

o
= initialeffectiveverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated
r
d
= stressreductioncoeffcient
MSF= magnitudescalingfactor
NotethatA
max
isthePGAtimestheaccelerationduetogravity,sincethePGA
isactuallyanaccelerationcoeffcient,andA
max
/gisequaltoA
s
.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ThefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionisdefnedbyEquation6-9:
FS
liq
=CRR/CSR (6-9)
TheSPTprocedurehasbeenmostwidelyusedandhastheadvantageof
providingsoilsamplesforgradationandAtterberglimitstesting.TheCPT
providesthemostdetailedsoilstratigraphy,islessexpensive,canprovide
shearwavevelocitymeasurements,andismorereproducible.IftheCPTis
used,soilsamplesshallbeobtainedusingtheSPTorothermethodssothat
detailedgradationalandplasticityanalysescanbeconducted.Theuseofboth
SPTandCPTprocedurescanprovideadetailedliquefactionassessmentfor
asite.
WhereSPTdataisused,samplingandtestingshallbeconductedin
accordancewithWSDOTGDMChapter3.Inaddition:
Correctionfactorsforboreholediameter,rodlength,hammertype,and
samplerlinersshouldbeused,whereappropriate.
Wheregravelsorcobblesarepresent,theuseofshortintervaladjusted
SPTNvaluesmaybeeffectiveforestimatingtheNvaluesfortheportions
ofthesamplenotaffectedbygravelsorcobbles.
BlowcountsobtainedwhensamplingusingDamesandMooreor
modifedCaliforniasamplersornon-standardhammerweightsanddrop
heights,includingwirelineanddownholehammers,shallnotbeusedfor
liquefactionevaluations.
AsdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.1.2.2,thelimitationsofthe
simplifedproceduresshouldberecognized.Thesimplifedprocedureswere
developedfromempiricalevaluationsoffeldobservations.Mostofthecase
historydatawascollectedfromleveltogentlyslopingterrainunderlainby
Holocene-agealluvialorfuvialsedimentatdepthslessthan50ft.Therefore,
thesimplifedproceduresaremostdirectlyapplicabletothesesiteconditions.
Cautionshouldbeusedforevaluatingliquefactionpotentialatdepths
greaterthan50ftusingthesimplifedprocedures.Inaddition,thesimplifed
proceduresestimatetheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratiobasedona
coeffcient,r
d
,thatishighlyvariableatdepthasdiscussedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.1.2.2.
Asanalternativetotheuseofther
d
factor,toimprovetheassessmentof
liquefactionpotential,especiallyatgreaterdepths,ifsoftorloosesoils
arepresent,equivalentlinearornonlinearsitespecifc,onedimensional
groundresponseanalysesmaybeconductedtodeterminethemaximum
earthquakeinducedshearstressesatdepthintheSimplifedMethod.For
example,thelineartotalstresscomputerprogramsProShake(EduProCivil
Systems,1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000)maybeusedforthispurpose.
Considerationshouldbegiventotheconsistencyofsitespecifcanalyseswith
theproceduresusedtodeveloptheliquefactionresistancecurves.Aminimum
ofsevenspectrallymatchedtimehistoriesshouldbeusedtoconductthese
analyses to obtain a reasonably stable mean r
d
valueasafunctionofdepth.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-39
J anuary 2010
Nonlinear Effective Stress Methods.Analternativetothesimplifed
proceduresforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibilityistocompletea
nonlinear,effectivestresssiteresponseanalysisutilizingacomputercode
capableofmodelingporewaterpressuregenerationanddissipation,suchas
D-MOD2000(Matasovi,etal.,2007).Thisisamorerigorousanalysisthat
requiresadditionalparameterstodescribethestress-strainbehaviorandpore
pressuregenerationcharacteristicsofthesoil.
Theadvantageswiththismethodofanalysisincludetheabilitytoassess
liquefactionpotentialatalldepths,includingthosegreaterthan50ft,and
theeffectsofliquefactionandlargeshearstrainsonthegroundmotion.In
addition,pore-waterredistributionduringandfollowingshakingcanbe
modeled,seismicallyinduceddeformationcanbeestimated,andthetimingof
liquefactionanditseffectsongroundmotionatandbelowthegroundsurface
canbeassessed.
Severalone-dimensionalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramsare
availableforestimatingliquefactionsusceptibilityatdepth,andthesemethods
arebeingusedmorefrequentlybygeotechnicaldesigners.However,agreat
dealofcautionneedstobeexercisedwiththeseprograms,astherehasbeen
littleverifcationoftheabilityoftheseprogramstopredictliquefaction
atdepthsgreaterthan50ft.Thislimitationispartlytheresultofthevery
fewwelldocumentedsiteswithpore-waterpressuremeasurementsduring
liquefaction,eitheratshallowordeepdepths,andpartlytheresultofthe
one-dimensionalapproximation.Forthisreasongreaterreliancemustbe
placedonobservedresponsefromlaboratorytestingorcentrifugemodeling
when developing the soil andporepressuremodelsusedintheeffectivestress
analysismethod.Thesuccessoftheeffectivestressmodelis,therefore,tied
inparttotheabilityofthelaboratoryorcentrifugemodelingtoreplicatefeld
conditions.
Akeyissuethatcanaffecttheresultsobtainedfromnonlineareffective
stressanalysesiswhetherornot,orhowwell,theporepressuremodelused
addressessoildilationduringshearing.Evenifgoodporepressuredatafrom
laboratoryliquefactiontestingisavailable,themodelsusedinsomeeffective
stressanalysismethodsmaynotbesuffcienttoadequatelymodeldilation
duringshearingofliquefedsoils.Thislimitationmayresultinunconservative
predictionsofgroundresponsewhenadeeplayerliquefesearlyduring
groundshaking.Theinabilitytotransferenergythroughtheliquefedlayer
couldresultinshieldingofupperlayersfromstronggroundshaking,
potentiallyleadingtoanunconservativesiteresponse.SeeWSDOTGDM
Appendix6-Aforadditionalconsiderationsregardingmodelingaccuracies.
Two-dimensionaleffectivestressanalysismodelscanovercomesomeofthese
defciencies,providedthatagoodsoilandporepressuremodelisused(e.g.,
theUBCsandmodel)seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.However,theyare
evenmorecomplextouseandcertainlynotfornovicedesigners.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Itshouldalsoberecognizedthattheresultsofnonlineareffectivestress
analysescanbequitesensitivetosoilparametersthatareoftennotaswell
establishedasthoseusedinequivalentlinearanalyses.Therefore,itis
incumbentupontheusertocalibratethemodel,evaluatethesensitivityofits
resultstoanyuncertainparametersormodelingassumptions,andconsider
thatsensitivityintheinterpretationoftheresults.Therefore,thegeotechnical
designermustprovidedocumentationthattheirmodelhasbeenvalidated
andcalibratedwithfelddata,centrifugedata,and/orextensivesensitivity
analyses.
Analysisresultsfromnonlineareffectivestressanalysesshallnotbe
consideredsuffcientjustifcationtoconcludethattheupper40to50ftof
soilwillnotliquefyasaresultofthegroundmotiondampeningeffect(i.e.,
shielding,orlossofenergy)causedbydeeperliquefablelayers.However,
theempiricalliquefactionanalysesidentifedinthisWSDOTGDMsection
maybeusedtojustifythatsoillayersandlenseswithintheupper65ftof
soilwillnotliquefy.Thissoil/porepressuremodeldefciencyfornonlinear
effectivestressmethodologiescouldbecrudelyandconservativelyaddressed
byselectivelymodifyingsoilparametersand/orturningofftheporepressure
generationingivenlayerstobrackettheresponse.
Duetothehighlyspecializednatureofthesemoresophisticatedliquefaction
assessmentapproaches,approvalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineeris
requiredtousenonlineareffectivestressmethodsforliquefactionevaluation.
6.4.2.3 Minimum Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction
Liquefactionhazardsassessmentandthedevelopmentofhazardmitigation
measuresshallbeconductedifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction
(Equation6-9)islessthan1.2orifthesoilisdeterminedtobeliquefable
forthereturnperiodofinterest(e.g.,975years)usingtheperformancebased
approachasdescribedbyKramerandMayfeld(2007)andKramer(2008).
PerformancebasedtechniquescanbeaccomplishedusingtheWSLIQ
software(Kramer,2008).Thehazardlevelusedforthisanalysisshallbe
consistentwiththehazardlevelselectedforthestructureforwhichthe
liquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedance
of7percentin75yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Liquefactionhazardstobeassessed
includesettlementandrelatedeffects,andliquefactioninducedinstability
(e.g.,fowfailureorlateralspreading),andtheeffectsofliquefaction
onfoundations.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-41
J anuary 2010
6.4.2.4 Liquefaction Induced Settlement
Bothdryandsaturateddepositsofloosegranularsoilstendtodensifyand
settleduringand/orfollowingearthquakeshaking.Settlementofunsaturated
granulardepositsisdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3.Settlement
ofsaturatedgranulardepositsduetoliquefactionshallbeestimatedusing
techniquesbasedontheSimplifedProcedure,orifnonlineareffectivestress
modelsareusedtoassessliquefactioninaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Section6.5.2.1,suchmethodsmayalsobeusedtoestimateliquefaction
settlement.
IftheSimplifedProcedureisusedtoevaluateliquefactionpotential,
liquefactioninducedgroundsettlementofsaturatedgranulardepositsshould
beestimatedusingtheproceduresbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)orIshihara
andYoshimine(1992).TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987)procedureestimates
thevolumetricstrainasafunctionofearthquakeinducedCSRandcorrected
SPTblowcounts.TheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureestimatesthe
volumetricstrainasafunctionoffactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction,relative
density,andcorrectedSPTblowcountsornormalizedCPTtipresistance.
Examplechartsusedtoestimateliquefactioninducedsettlementusingthe
TokimatsuandSeedprocedureandtheIshiharaandYoshimineprocedureare
presentedasFigures6-12and6-13,respectively.
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactioninducedsettlementisneeded,
laboratorycyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedto
evaluatetheliquefactioninducedverticalsettlementinlieuofempiricalSPT
orCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,
evenwhenlaboratoryvolumetricstraintestresultsareobtainedandusedfor
design,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytestresults.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Tokimatsu & Seed procedure
(Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987).
Figure 6-12
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-43
J anuary 2010
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Ishihara and Yoshimine procedure
(Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992)
Figure 6-13
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.4.2.5 Residual Strength Parameters
Liquefactioninducedinstabilityisstronglyinfuencedbytheresidualstrength
oftheliquefedsoil.Instabilityoccurswhentheshearstressesrequired
tomaintainequilibriumexceedtheresidualstrengthofthesoildeposit.
Evaluationofresidualstrengthofaliquefedsoildepositisoneofthemost
diffcultproblemsingeotechnicalpractice(Kramer,1996).Avarietyof
empiricalmethodsareavailabletoestimatetheresidualstrengthofliquefed
soils.TheempiricalrelationshipsprovidedinFigures6-4through6-7and
Table6-3shouldbeusedtoestimateresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilunless
soilspecifclaboratoryperformancetestsareconductedasdescribedbelow.
Theseproceduresforestimatingtheresidualstrengthofaliquefedsoil
depositarebasedonanempiricalrelationshipbetweenresidualundrained
shearstrengthandequivalentcleansandSPTblowcountsorCPTq
c1n
values,
usingtheresultsofback-calculationoftheapparentshearstrengthsfromcase
historiesoflargedisplacementfowslides.Thesignifcantlevelofuncertainty
intheseestimatesofresidualstrengthshouldbeaccountedforindesignand
evaluationcalculations.
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofresidualstrengthisneeded,laboratorycyclic
triaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluatethe
residualstrengthinlieuofempiricalSPTorCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordance
withWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,
evenwhenlaboratoryresidualshearstrengthtestresultsareobtainedandused
fordesign,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytest
results.Thefnalresidualshearstrengthvalueselectedshouldalsoconsider
theshearstrainlevelinthesoilthatcanbetoleratedbythestructureorslope
impactedbythereducedshearstrengthinthesoil(i.e.,howmuchlateral
deformationcanthestructuretolerate?).Numericalmodelingtechniquesmay
beusedtodeterminethesoilshearstrainlevelthatresultsinthemaximum
tolerablelateraldeformationofthestructurebeingdesigned.
6.4.2.6 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Effects Using Laboratory
Test Data
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactionpotential,liquefactioninduced
settlement,orresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilisneeded,laboratorycyclic
simpleshearorcyclictriaxialsheartestingmaybeusedinlieuofempirical
soilgradation/PI/density(i.e.,SPTorCPTbased)criteria,ifhighquality
undisturbedsamplescanbeobtained.Laboratorycyclicsimpleshearorcyclic
triaxialsheartestingmayalsobeusedtoevaluateliquefactionsusceptibility
ofandeffectsonsandysoilsfromreconstitutedsoilsamples.However,due
tothediffcultiesincreatingsoiltestspecimensthatarerepresentativeofthe
actualin-situsoil,liquefactiontestingofreconstitutedsoilmaybeconducted
onlyifapprovedbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-45
J anuary 2010
Thenumberofcycles,andeitherthecyclicstressratios(stress-controlled
testing)orcyclicshearstrain(strain-controlledtesting)usedduringthecyclic
testingtoliquefyortoattempttoliquefythesoil,shouldcovertherangeof
thenumberofcyclesandcyclicloadinganticipatedfortheearthquake/ground
motionbeingmodeled.Testingtomorethanonestressorstrainratioshould
bedonetofullycapturetherangeofstressorstrainratiosthatcouldoccur.
Preliminarycalculationsorcomputeranalysestoestimatethelikelycyclic
stressesand/orstrainsanticipatedshouldbeconductedtohelpprovideabasis
forselectionofthecyclicloadinglevelstobeusedforthetesting.Thevertical
confningstressshouldbeconsistentwiththein-situverticaleffectivestress
estimatedatthelocationwherethesoilsamplewasobtained.ThereforeK
o-
consolidationisrequiredintriaxialtests.
Defningliquefactionintheselaboratorytestscanbesomewhatproblematic.
Theoretically,initialliquefactionisdefnedasbeingachievedoncetheexcess
porepressureratiointhespecimen,r
u
,isat100percent.Theassessment
of whether or not this has been achieved in the laboratory tested specimen
dependsonhowtheporepressureismeasuredinthespecimen,andthe
typeofsoilcontainedinthespecimen.Asthesoilgetssiltier,thegreater
thepossibilitythatthesoilwillexhibitfullyliquefedbehavior(i.e.,initial
liquefaction)atameasuredporepressureinthespecimenofsignifcantly
lessthan100percent.Amorepracticalapproachthatshouldbeusedinthis
caseistouseastrainbaseddefnitiontoidentifytheoccurrenceofenough
cyclicsofteningtoconsiderthesoiltohavereachedafailurestatecausedby
liquefaction.Typically,ifthesoilreachesshearstrainsduringcyclicloading
of3percentormore,thesoil,forpracticalpurposes,maybeconsideredto
haveachievedastateequivalenttoinitialliquefaction.
Notethatifthetestingiscarriedoutwellbeyondinitialliquefaction,cyclic
triaxialtestingisnotrecommended.Inthatcase,neckingofthespecimen
canoccur,makingthecyclictriaxialtestresultsnotrepresentativeoffeld
conditions.
Forthepurposeofestimatingliquefactioninducedsettlement,afterthecyclic
shearingiscompleted,withtheverticalstressleftonthespecimen,thevertical
strainismeasuredastheexcessporepressureisallowedtodissipate.
Notethatonceinitialliquefactionhasbeenachieved,volumetricstrains
arenotjustaffectedbytheexcessporepressuregeneratedthroughcyclic
loading,butarealsoaffectedbydamagetothesoilskeletonascyclic
loadingcontinues.Therefore,toobtainamoreaccurateestimateofpost
liquefactionsettlement,thespecimenshouldbecyclicallyloadedtothedegree
anticipatedinthefeld,whichmaymeancontinuingcyclicloadingafterinitial
liquefactionisachieved.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifedgroundmotionmodeling
techniques(e.g.,specifcationbasedgroundresponseanalysisortotalstress
sitespecifcgroundmotionanalysis),volumetricstrainshouldbemeasured
onlyforfullyliquefedconditions.Ifeffectivestressgroundmotionanalysis
(e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,volumetricstrainmeasurementsshouldbe
conductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloadingcyclespredictedby
theeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeingmodeledatthelocation
inthesoilproflebeingmodeled,whetherornotthatcombinationresults
inafullyliquefedstate.Verticalsettlementpredictionshouldbemadeby
usingthelaboratorytestdatatodeveloparelationshipbetweenthemeasured
volumetricstrainandeithertheshearstraininthelabtestspecimensorthe
excessporepressuremeasuredinthespecimens,andcorrelatingthepredicted
shearstrainorexcessporepressureproflepredictedfromtheeffectivestress
analysistothelaboratorytestresultstoestimatesettlementfromvolumetric
strain;however,theshearstrainapproachispreferred.
Toobtaintheliquefedresidualstrength,afterthecyclicshearingis
completed,thedrainlinesinthetestshouldbeleftclosed,andthesample
shearedstatically.Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifedground
motionmodelingtechniques(e.g.,specifcationbasedgroundresponse
analysisortotalstresssitespecifcgroundmotionanalysis),residualstrength
shouldbemeasuredonlyforfullyliquefedconditions.Ifeffectivestress
groundmotionanalysis(e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,residualshearstrength
testingshouldbeconductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloading
cyclespredictedbytheeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeing
modeledatthelocationinthesoilproflebeingmodeled,whetherornotthat
combinationresultsinafullyliquefedstate.
SeeKramer(1996),Seed.etal.(2003),andIdrissandBoulanger(2008)for
additionaldetailsandcautionsregardinglaboratoryevaluationofliquefaction
potentialanditseffects.
6.4.2.7 Weakening Instability Due to Liquefaction
Earthquakegroundmotioninducesstressandstraininthesoil,resultingin
porepressuregenerationandliquefactioninsaturatedsoil.Asthesoilstrength
decreasestowarditsresidualvalue,twotypesofslopeinstabilitycanoccur:
fowfailure,andlateralspreading.
Liquefaction I nduced Flow Failure:Liquefactioncanleadtocatastrophic
fowfailuresdrivenbystaticshearingstressesthatleadtolargedeformationor
fow.Suchfailuresaresimilartodebrisfowsandarecharacterizedbysudden
initiation,rapidfailure,andthelargedistancesoverwhichthefailedmaterials
move(Kramer,1996).Flowfailurestypicallyoccurneartheendofstrong
shakingorshortlyaftershaking.However,delayedfowfailurescausedby
post-earthquakeredistributionofporewaterpressurescanoccurparticularly
ifliquefablesoilsarecappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayers.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-47
J anuary 2010
Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedfowfailuresshouldbeevaluatedusing
conventionallimitequilibriumslopestabilityanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3),usingresidualundrainedshearstrengthparametersforthe
liquefedsoil,anddecouplingtheanalysisfromallseismicinertialforces
(i.e.,performedwithk
h
andk
v
equaltozero).Ifthelimitequilibriumfactor
ofsafety,FS,islessthan1.0,fowfailureshallbeconsideredlikely.Inthese
instances,themagnitudeofdeformationisusuallytoolargetobeacceptable
fordesignofbridgesorstructures,andsomeformofmitigationwilllikelybe
needed.Theexceptioniswheretheliquefedmaterialandanyoverlyingcrust
fowpastthestructureandthestructureanditsfoundationsystemcanresist
theimposedloads.Wherethefactorofsafetyforthisdecoupledanalysisis
greaterthan1.0forliquefedconditions,deformationsshouldbeestimated
usingalateralspreadinganalysis(seethesubsectionLateralSpreading,
below,especiallyregardingcautionsinconductingthesetypesofanalyses).
Residualstrengthvaluestobeusedinthefowfailureanalysismaybe
determinedfromempiricalrelationships(SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.5)
orfromlaboratorytestresults.Iflaboratorytestresultsareusedtoassessthe
residualstrengthofthesoilthatispredictedtoliquefyandpotentiallycause
afowfailure,theshearingresistancemaybeverystraindependent.Asa
default,thelaboratorymobilizedresidualstrengthvalueusedshouldbepicked
atastrainof2percent,assumingtheresidualstrengthvalueisdetermined
fromlaboratorytestingasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.A
higherstrainvaluemaybeusedforthispurpose,subjecttotheapprovalof
theStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer,ifitisknown
thattheaffectedstructurecantoleratearelativelylargelateraldeformation
withoutcollapse.Alternatively,numericalmodelingmaybeconductedto
developtherelationshipbetweensoilshearstrainandslopedeformation,
pickingamobilizedresidualstrengthvaluethatcorrespondstothemaximum
deformationthattheaffectedstructurecantolerate.
Lateral Spreading.Incontrasttofowfailures,lateralspreadingcanoccur
whentheshearstrengthoftheliquefedsoilisincrementallyexceededbythe
inertialforcesinducedduringanearthquakeorwhensoilstiffnessdegrades
suffcientlytoproducesubstantialpermanentstraininthesoil.Theresult
oflateralspreadingistypicallyhorizontalmovementofnon-liquefedsoils
locatedaboveliquefedsoils,inadditiontotheliquefedsoilsthemselves.
Ifthefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityfromthefowfailureanalysis,
assumingresidualstrengthsinalllayersexpectedtoexperienceliquefed
conditions,is1.0orgreater,alateralspreading/deformationanalysisshallbe
conducted.Thisanalysisdoesnotneedtobeconductedifthedepthbelowthe
naturalgroundsurfacetotheupperboundaryoftheliquefedlayersisgreater
than50ft.
Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedlateralspreadingongentlysloping
sitesorwherethesiteislocatednearafreefaceshouldbeevaluatedusing
empiricalrelationshipssuchastheprocedureofYoudetal.(2002)orKramer
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
(2008).TheYoud,etal.andKramerproceduresuseempiricalrelationships
basedoncasehistoriesoflateralspreading.Inputintothesemodels
includeearthquakemagnitude,source-to-sitedistance,sitegeometry/slope,
cumulativethicknessofsaturatedsoillayersandtheircharacteristics(e.g.,
SPTNvalues,averagefnescontent,averagegrainsize).Theseempirical
proceduresprovideausefulapproximationofthepotentialmagnitudeof
deformation that is calibrated against lateral spreading deformations observed
inactualearthquakes.
MorecomplexanalysessuchastheNewmarktimehistoryanalysisand
dynamicstressdeformationmodels,suchasprovidedintwo-dimensional,
nonlineareffectivestresscomputerprograms(e.g.,PLAXISandFLAC),
mayalsobeusedtoestimatelateralspreadingdeformations.However,these
analysisprocedureshavenotbeencalibratedtoobservedperformancewith
regardtolateralmovementscausedbyliquefaction,andtherearemany
complexitieswithregardtodevelopmentofinputparametersandapplication
ofthemethodtorealisticconditions.
IfaNewmarktimehistoryanalysisisconductedtoobtainanestimateof
lateralspreadingdisplacement,thenumberofcyclestoinitiateliquefactionfor
the time history selected for analysis needs to be considered when selecting
ayieldaccelerationtoapplytothevariousportionsofthetimehistory.
Initially,theyieldaccelerationwillbehigh,asthesoilwillnothaveliquefed
(i.e.,non-liquefedsoilstrengthparametersshouldbeusedtodeterminethe
yieldacceleration).Asthesoilexcessporepressurebeginstobuildupwith
additionalloadingcycles,theyieldaccelerationwillbegintodecrease.Once
initialliquefactionorcyclicsofteningoccurs,theresidualstrengthisthenused
todeterminetheyieldacceleration.Notethatiftheyieldaccelerationapplied
totheentireaccelerationtimehistoryisbasedonresidualstrengthconsistent
withliquefedconditions,theestimatedlateraldeformationwilllikelybe
overlyconservative.Toaddressthisissue,aneffectivestressgroundmotion
analysis(e.g.,D-MOD)shouldbeconductedtoestimatethebuildupof
porepressureandthedevelopmentofliquefactionastheearthquakeshaking
continuestoobtainanimprovedestimateofthedropinsoilshearstrengthand
yieldaccelerationasafunctionoftime.
SimplifedchartsbasedonNewmark-typeanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.2)mayalsobeusedforestimatingdeformationresulting
fromlateralspreading.ThesesimplifedNewmarktypeanalyseshavesome
empiricalbasisbuiltinwithregardtoestimationofdeformation.However,
thesesimplifed,empiricallymodifedNewmarkanalysesmaynotbe
directlyapplicabletolateralspreading,astheywerenotdevelopedforsoil
thatweakensduringearthquakeshaking,asisthecaseforsoilliquefaction.
Therefore,asistrueofNewmarktimehistoryanalyses,thesesimplifed
Newmarkbasedchartsshouldbeusedcautiously,especiallywithregardtothe
selectionofayieldaccelerationtobeusedtoenterthesedesignchartsorthe
equationsuponwhichtheyarebased.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-49
J anuary 2010
Thereisnoconsensusonthebestapproachtousetoestimatelateralspreading
deformations.Ifthemorerigorousapproachesareused,theempirically
basedanalysesshallstillbeconductedtoprovideabaselineofcomparison,
toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessoftheestimatesfromthemore
rigorousprocedures,usingthemorerigorousapproachestoevaluatetheeffect
ofvariousinputparametersondeformation.SeeYoud,etal.(2002),Kramer
(1996,2008),Seed,etal.(2003),andDickenson,etal.(2002)foradditional
discussionontheassessmentofslopedeformationsresultingfromlateral
spreading.
Arelatedissueishowfarawaythefreefacemustbebeforelateralspreading
neednotbeconsidered.Lateralspreadinghasbeenobserveduptoabout
1,000ftfromthefreefaceinpastearthquakes(Youd,etal.,2002).Available
casehistorydataalsoindicatethatdeformationsatL/Hratiosgreaterthan20,
whereListhedistancefromthefreefaceorchannelandHistheheightof
thefreefaceofchannelslope,aretypicallyreducedtolessthan20percentof
thelateraldeformationatthefreeface(IdrissandBoulanger,2008).Detailed
analysisoftheYoud,etal.databaseindicatesthatonlytwoof97caseshad
observablelateralspreadingdeformationatL/Hratiosaslargeas50to70.If
lateralspreadingcalculationsusingtheseempiricalproceduresareconducted
atdistancesgreaterthan1,000ftfromthefreefaceorL/Hratiosgreaterthan
20,additionalevaluationoflateralspreadingdeformationusingmorecomplex
orrigorousapproachesshouldalsobeconducted.
6.4.2.8 Combining Seismic Inertial Loading with Analyses Using Liquefed
Soil Strength
Thenumberofloadingcyclesrequiredtoinitiateliquefaction,andhence
thetimeatwhichliquefactionistriggered,tendstovarywiththerelative
densityandcompositionofthesoil(i.e.,densersoilsrequiremorecyclesof
loadingtocauseinitialliquefaction).Whetherornotthegeologichazardsthat
resultfromliquefaction(e.g.,lateralsoildisplacementsuchasfowfailure
andlateralspreading,reducedsoilstiffnessandstrength,andsettlement/
downdrag)areconcurrentwiththestrongestportionofthedesignearthquake
groundmotiondependsonthedurationofthemotionandtheresistanceof
thesoiltoliquefaction.Forshortdurationgroundmotionsand/orrelatively
densesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredneartheendofshaking.Inthiscase,
thestructureofinterestisunlikelytobesubjectedtohighinertialforcesafter
thesoilhasreachedaliquefedstate,andtheevaluationofthepeakinertial
demandsonthestructurecanbeessentiallydecoupledfromevaluationof
thedeformationdemandsassociatedwithsoilliquefaction.However,for
long-durationmotions(whichareusuallyassociatedwithlargemagnitude
earthquakes)and/orveryloosesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredearlyinthe
motion,andthestructuremaybesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethesoil
isinaliquefedstate.Inthiscase,coupledestimationoftheinertialdemands
andliquefaction-induceddeformationdemandsshouldbeconsidered.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Withregardtofowfailureprediction,eventhoughthereisapossibilitythat
seismicinertialforcesmaybeconcurrentwiththeliquefedconditions,itis
thestaticstressesthatdrivethefowfailureandthedeformationsthatresult
fromthefailure.Thedynamicstressespresenthavelittleimpactonthistype
ofslopefailure.Therefore,slopestabilityanalysesconductedtoassessthe
potentialforfowfailureresultingfromliquefactionshouldbeconducted
withoutslopeandstructureseismicinertialforces(i.e.,k
h
andk
v
aresetequal
tozero).
Withregardtolateralspreadingprediction,thetimingoftheonsetof
liquefactionrelativetothetimingandmagnitudeofthesoilinertialforces
causedbytheearthquakegroundmotionisatleastindirectlyconsideredif
theempiricalmethods(e.g.,Youd,etal.2002,Kramer1996,2008andSeed,
etal.2003),orthesimplifedNewmarkanalysesdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.2(e.g.,BrayandTravasarou,2007),areused.Theseempirical
methodstoestimatedisplacementscausedbylateralspreadingshouldbe
consideredapproximate.
Thereiscurrentlynoconsensusonhowtospecifcallyaddressthisissueof
timingofseismicaccelerationandthedevelopmentofinitialliquefaction
anditscombinedimpactonthestructure.Morerigorousanalyses,suchasby
usingnonlinear,effectivestressmethods,aretypicallyneededtoanalytically
assessthistimingissue.Nonlinear,effectivestressmethodscanaccountfor
thebuild-upinpore-waterpressureandthedegradationofsoilstiffnessand
strengthinliquefablelayers.Useofthesemorerigorousapproachesrequires
considerableskillintermsofselectingmodelparameters,particularlythe
porepressuremodel.Thecomplexityofthemorerigorousapproachesissuch
thatapprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineertousetheseapproachesis
mandatory,andanindependentpeerreviewerwithexpertiseinnonlinear,
effectivestressmodelingshouldbeusedtoreviewthespecifcmethodsused,
thedevelopmentoftheinputdata,howthemethodsareapplied,andthe
resultingimpacts.
Sinceseismicinertialforcesareactingonthesoilduringthedevelopmentof
lateralspreading,logically,inertialforcesmayalsobeactingonthestructure
itselfconcurrentlywiththedevelopmentoflateralforcesonthestructure
foundation.However,thereareseveralfactorsthatmayaffectthemagnitude
ofthestructuralinertialloads,ifany,actingonthefoundation.Brandenberg,
etal.(2007aandb)provideexamplesfromcentrifugemodelingregarding
thecombinedaffectoflateralspreadingandseismicstructuralinertialforces
onfoundationloadsandsomeconsiderationsforassessingtheseinertial
forces.Theyfoundthatthetotalloadonthefoundationwasapproximately
40percenthigheronaveragethantheloadscausedbythelateralspreading
alone.However,thestructuralcolumnusedinthistestingdidnotdevelop
anyplastichinging,which,haditoccurredcouldhaveresultedinstructural
inertialloadstransmittedtothefoundationthatcouldhavebeenaslowasone-
fourthofwhatwasmeasuredinthistesting.Anotherfactorthatcouldaffect
thepotentialcombinationoflateralspreadingandstructuralinertialoadsis
howclosethefoundationistotheinitiationpoint(i.e.,downslopeend)forthe
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-51
J anuary 2010
lateralspreading,asittakestimeforthelateralspreadtopropagateupslope
anddeveloptoitsfullextent.ThecurrentAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forseismicdesigndoallowthelateralspreadingforcestobedecoupled
fromanybridgeseismicinertialforces.However,thepotentialforsome
combinedeffectoflateralspreadforceswithstructuralinertialloadsshouldbe
consideredifthestructureislikelytobesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethe
soilisinaliquefedstate,ifthefoundationislocatednearthetoeofthelateral
spread,andifminimalplastichingingofthecolumnisanticipated.
Thistimingissuealsoaffectsliquefaction-inducedsettlementanddowndrag,
inthatsettlementanddowndragdonotgenerallyoccuruntilthepore
pressuresinducedbygroundshakingbegintodissipateaftershakingceases.
Therefore,ade-coupledanalysisisappropriatewhenconsideringliquefaction
downdragloads.
Whenconsideringtheeffectofliquefactionontheresistanceofthesoilto
structurefoundationloadsbothintheaxial(vertical)andlateral(horizontal)
directions,twoanalysesshouldbeconductedtoaddressthetimingissue.For
siteswhereliquefactionoccursaroundstructurefoundations,structuresshould
beanalyzedanddesignedintwoconfgurationsasfollows:
NonliquefedConfguration.Thestructureshouldbeanalyzedand
designed,assumingnoliquefactionoccursusingthegroundresponse
spectrumappropriateforthesitesoilconditionsinanonliquefedstate,
i.e.,usingP-Ycurvesderivedfromstaticsoilproperties.
LiquefedConfguration.Thestructureasdesignedinnonliquefed
confgurationaboveshouldbereanalyzedassumingthatthelayerhas
liquefedandtheliquefedsoilprovidestheappropriateresidualresistance
forlateralandaxialdeepfoundationresponseanalysesconsistentwith
liquefedsoilconditions(i.e.,modifedP-Ycurves,modulusofsubgrade
reaction,T-Zcurves,axialsoilfrictionalresistance).Thedesignspectrum
shouldbethesameasthatusedinnonliquefedconfguration.
WiththeapprovaloftheStateBridgeandStateGeotechnicalEngineers,
asite-specifcresponsespectrum(forsitespecifcspectralanalysis)or
nonlineartimehistoriesdevelopednearthegroundsurface(fornonlinear
structuralanalysis)thataccountsforthemodifcationsinspectralcontent
fromtheliquefyingsoilmaybedeveloped.Themodifedresponsespectrum,
andassociatedtimehistories,resultingfromthesite-specifcanalysesat
thegroundsurfaceshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthespectrum(i.e.,as
appliedtothespectralordinateswithintheentirespectrum)developedusing
thegeneralproceduredescribedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesign,Article3.4.1,modifedbythesitecoeffcients
inArticle3.4.2.3.IfthesoilandbedrockconditionsareclassifedasSiteClass
F,however,thereisnoAASHTOgeneralprocedurespectrum.Inthatcase,the
reducedresponsespectrum,andassociatedtimehistories,thataccountsfor
theeffectsofliquefactionshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthesitespecifc
responsespectrumdevelopedfromanequivalentlineartotalstressanalysis
(i.e.,nonliquefedconditions).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Designingstructuresforthesetwoconfgurationsshouldproduceconservative
results.Typically,thenonliquefedconfgurationwillcontroltheloads
appliedtothestructureandthereforeisusedtodeterminetheloadswithin
thestructure,whereastheliquefedconfgurationwillcontrolthemaximum
deformationsinthestructureandisthereforeusedtodesignthestructurefor
deformation.Insomecases,thisapproachmaybemoreconservativethan
necessary,andthedesignermayuseamorerefnedanalysistoassessthe
combinedeffectofstrongshakingandliquefactionimpacts,consideringthat
botheffectsmaynotactsimultaneously.However,YoudandCarter(2005)
suggestthatatperiodsgreaterthan1second,itispossibleforliquefactionto
resultinhigherspectralaccelerationsthanoccurforequivalentnonliquefed
cases,allotherconditionsbeingequal.Site-specifcgroundmotionresponse
evaluationsmayberequiredtoevaluatethispotential.
6.4.3 Slope Instability Due to Inertial Effects
Slopeinstabilitycanoccurduringearthquakesduetoinertialeffects
associatedwithgroundaccelerations.Inertialslopeinstabilityiscausedby
temporaryexceedanceofthesoilstrengthbydynamicearthquakestresses.In
general,thesoilstrengthremainsunaffectedbytheearthquakeshakinginthis
case.
Slopeinstabilitycanalsobeinitiatedduringaseismiceventduetothe
weakeningofthesoilcausedbyearthquakeshakinginducedsoilstrain.For
example,sensitivefnegrainedsoilscanloosestrengthduetoearthquake
shakingandthesoildeformationitcauses.Forearthquakeinducedslope
instability,withorwithoutsoilstrengthlossresultingfromdeformation
inducedbyearthquakeshaking,thetargetfactorofsafetyorresistancefactor
areasspecifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1.However,ifliquefactionis
thecauseoftheslopeinstability,itshallbeevaluatedasspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection6.4.2.7.
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-Static Analysis
Pseudo-staticslopestabilityanalysesshouldbeusedtoevaluatetheseismic
stabilityofslopesandembankments.Thepseudo-staticanalysisconsistsof
conventionallimitequilibriumstaticslopestabilityanalysisasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter7completedwithhorizontalandverticalpseudo-static
accelerationcoeffcients(k
h
andk
v
)thatactuponthecriticalfailuremass.
Kramer(1996)providesadetailedsummaryonpseudo-staticanalysis.
Ahorizontalpseudo-staticcoeffcient,k
h
,of0.5A
s
andaverticalpseudo-static
coeffcient,k
v
,equaltozeroshouldbeusedwhenseismicstabilityofslopesis
evaluated,notconsideringliquefaction.Fortheseconditions,thetargetfactor
ofsafetyis1.1.Whenbridgefoundationsorretainingwallsareinvolved,the
LRFDapproachshallbeused,inwhichcasearesistancefactorof0.9shallbe
usedforslopestability.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-53
J anuary 2010
Notethattheuseofareducedaccelerationcoeffcientconsiderstheability
oftheslopetodisplacelaterallybasedonaNewmarktypeanalysis,thereby
reducingtheaccelerationthatcanbeexperiencedbytheslopefailuremass.
SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)foradditionalguidanceonthisissue.Forsoils
thatexhibitasignifcantdropinstrengthtoaresidualvalue,thesoilstrength
losscausedbythedeformationshouldbeconsideredintheslopedesign.In
thiscase,theslopestabilityshouldbeevaluatedusingresidualshearstrengths
butwithoutseismicinertialforces,asthedropinshearstrengthwillnotbe
completeuntilafterseismicshakingiscomplete.
Duetothefactthatthesoilistreatedasarigidbodyinpseudo-staticlimit
equilibriumanalyses,andthattheseismicinertialforceisproportionalto
thesquareofthefailuresurfaceradiuswhereastheresistanceisproportional
tojusttheradius,thetendencyisforthefailuresurfacetomovedeeperand
fartheruphillrelativetothestaticfailuresurfacewhenseismicinertialloading
isadded.Thatis,thepseudo-staticanalysisassumesthatthek
h
valueof0.5A
s

appliesuniformlytotheentirefailuremassregardlessofhowbigthefailure
massbecomes.Sincethesoilmassisfarfromrigid,thiscanbeanoverly
conservativeassumption,inthattheaveragevalueofk
h
forthefailuremass
willlikelydecreaserelativetotheinputvalueof0.5A
s
usedforthestability
assessmentduetowavescatteringeffects.SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)for
guidanceonhowtoaddressthisissue.
6.4.3.2 Deformations
Deformationanalysesshouldbeemployedwhereanestimateofthe
magnitudeofseismicallyinducedslopedeformationisrequired,andtheslope
stabilityfactorofsafetyunderthepeakhorizontalseismiccoeffcient(A
s
)is
lessthan1.0.Acceptablemethodsofestimatingthemagnitudeofseismically
inducedslopedeformationincludeNewmarkslidingblock(timehistory)
analysis,simplifeddisplacementchartsandequationsbasedonNewmark-
typeanalyses(SaygiliandRathje,2008;andRathjeandSaygili,2008;Bray
andTravasarou,2007),ordynamicstress-deformationmodels.Thesemethods
shouldnotbeemployedtoestimatedisplacementsifthepostearthquake
shaking(i.e.,assumek
h
andk
v
arezero)slopestabilityfactorofsafetyisless
than1.0,astheslopewillbeunstableduringgravity(static)loading.
Moredetaileddescriptionsoftheseanalysisproceduresareprovidedas
follows:
Newmark Time History Analysis. Newmark(1965)proposedaseismic
slopestabilityanalysisthatprovidesanestimateofseismicallyinducedslope
deformation.TheadvantageoftheNewmarkanalysisoverpseudo-static
analysisisthatitprovidesanindexofpermanentdeformation.Theterm
indexisusedtoindicatethattheestimateofdeformationhasanumber
ofsimplifyingassumptions,andtheseassumptionslimittheprecisionto
whichthedisplacementestimatecanbemade.Forexample,estimatesof
deformation to less than the nearest inch and perhaps the nearest several
inchesareverydiffculttojustify.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheNewmarktimehistoryanalysistreatstheunstablesoilmassasarigid
blockonaninclinedplane.TheprocedurefortheNewmarktimehistory
analysisconsistsofthreestepsthatcangenerallybedescribedasfollows:
Identifytheyieldaccelerationoftheslopebycompletinglimitequilibrium
stabilityanalyses.Theyieldaccelerationisthehorizontalpseudo-static
coeffcient,k
h
,requiredtobringthefactorofsafetytounity.Notethat
wavescatteringeffectsmayneedtobeconsidered(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.1)toinsureconsistencybetweenthecriticalpseudo-static
failuresurfaceandtheassumedpseudo-staticseismiccoeffcientused.
Selectearthquaketimehistoriesrepresentativeofthedesignearthquake
asdescribedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Aminimumofthreetime
historiesrepresentativeofthepredominantearthquakesourcezone(s)
shouldbeselectedforthisanalysis.Thesetimehistoriesshouldbe
responsespectrumcompatibleandmayneedtobepropagatedthrough
thesoilcolumntothebaseoftheslidingsoilmasstoadjustforlocalsite
effects.Fortimehistoriesrepresentingdistinctlydifferentsourcezones
(e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone),thetimehistoriesmaybe
spectrallymatchedorscaledtoanappropriatesource-specifcspectraas
discussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1andAppendix6-A.However,
thedifferentsource-specifcspectrainaggregateshouldenvelopethe
design(target)spectrum.
Doubleintegrateallrelativeaccelerations(i.e.,thedifferencebetween
accelerationandyieldacceleration)whilevelocitiesarenotzerointhe
earthquaketimehistories.
SeeKramer(1996)foradditionaldetailsregardingtheNewmarktimehistory
analysisanditsapplication.
Anumberofcommerciallyavailablecomputerprogramsareavailableto
completeNewmarkanalysis,suchasShake2000(Ordoez,2000)orJava
ProgramforusingNewmarkMethodandSimplifedDecoupledAnalysisto
ModelSlopeDeformationDuringEarthquakes(JibsonandJibson,2003).
Newmark Based Displacement Charts.BrayandRathje(1998)developed
an approach to estimate permanent base sliding deformation for solid waste
landflls.ThemethodwasbasedontheNewmarkslidingblockmodel,andis
similartotheMakdisiandSeed(1978)approach.Althoughthechartswere
developedforsolidwastelandflls,themethodologyissuitableforuseatsoil
androcksites,sincethedeformationrelationshipestimateisbasedontheratio
ofyieldaccelerationtopeakgroundacceleration,andthisratioisrelatively
independentofthematerialtype.TheBray-Rathjechartsarebasedon
signifcantlymoreanalysesandawiderrangeofearthquakemagnitudes,peak
groundaccelerationsandfrequencycontentthantheMakdisi-Seedcharts,and
maybemorereliable.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-55
J anuary 2010
RecentworkbySaygiliandRathje(2008)andRathjeandSaygili(2008)
haveextendedtheworkbyBrayandRathje(1998)toprovideequations
forestimatingdisplacementsfromseismicloading.Bothdeterministicand
probabilisticmethodsarediscussed.
ABray-Travasarouchart,asdevelopedbyIdrissandBoulanger(2008)based
onthemethoddevelopedbyBrayandTravasarou(2007),depictingpermanent
basedeformationasafunctionofyieldacceleration(K
y
)actingontheslide
massispresentedinFigure6-14.SeeBrayandTravasarou(2007)andIdriss
andBoulanger(2008)foradditionaldiscussionregardingthedetermination
ofdeformationfromthismethod.Thesemorerecentmethods(i.e.,Brayand
Travasarou2007;SaygiliandRathje2008;andRathjeandSaygili2008)
shouldbeusedifNewmarkbaseddisplacementchartsareused.

Permanent Base Sliding Block Displacements as a Function of
Yield Acceleration (after Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
Figure 6-14
Dynamic Stress-Deformation Models.Seismicallyinducedslope
deformationscanbeestimatedthroughavarietyofdynamicstress-
deformationcomputermodelssuchasPLAXIS,DYNAFLOW,FLAC,and
OpenSees.Thesemethodscanaccountforvaryinggeometry,soilbehavior,
andporepressureresponseduringseismicloading.Theaccuracyofthese
modelsishighlydependentuponthequalityoftheinputparametersandthe
levelofmodelvalidationperformedbytheuserforsimilarapplications.As
thequalityoftheconstitutivemodelsusedindynamicstress-deformation
modelsimproves,theaccuracyofthesemethodswillimprove.Akeybeneft
ofthesemodelsistheirabilitytoillustratemechanismsofdeformation,which
canprovideusefulinsightintotheproperinputforsimplifedanalyses.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ingeneral,dynamicstressdeformationmodelsshouldnotbeusedforroutine
designduetotheircomplexity,andduetothesensitivityofdeformation
estimatestotheconstitutivemodelselectedandtheaccuracyoftheinput
parameters.Ifdynamicstressdeformationmodelsareused,theyshouldbe
validatedfortheparticularapplication.Useofdynamicstress-deformation
modelsfordesignonWSDOTprojectsshallbeapprovedbytheState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
6.4.4 Settlement of Dry Sand
Seismicallyinducedsettlementofunsaturatedgranularsoils(drysands)is
welldocumented.Factorsthataffectthemagnitudeofsettlementincludethe
densityandthicknessofthesoildepositandthemagnitudeofseismicloading.
Themostcommonmeansofestimatingthemagnitudeofdrysandsettlement
arethroughempiricalrelationshipsbasedonproceduressimilartothe
SimplifedProcedureforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibility.Theprocedures
providedbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)fordrysandsettlementshouldbe
used.TheTokimatsuandSeedapproachestimatesthevolumetricstrainas
afunctionofcyclicshearstrainandrelativedensityornormalizedSPTN
values.ThestepbystepprocedureispresentedinSection8.5ofGeotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.3(Kavazanjian,etal.,1997).
Sincesettlementofdrysandwilloccurduringearthquakeshakingwith
downdragforceslikelytodevelopbeforethestrongestshakingoccurs,the
axialforcescausedbythisphenomenonshouldbecombinedwiththefull
spectralgroundmotionappliedtothestructure.
6.5 Input for Structural Design
6.5.1 Foundation Springs
Structuraldynamicresponseanalysesincorporatethefoundationstiffness
intothedynamicmodelofthestructuretocapturetheeffectsofsoilstructure
interaction.Thefoundationstiffnessistypicallyrepresentedasasystemof
equivalentspringsusingafoundationstiffnessmatrix.Thetypicalfoundation
stiffness matrix incorporates a set of six primary springs to describe stiffness
withrespecttothreetranslationalandthreerotationalcomponentsofmotion.
Springsthatdescribethecouplingofhorizontaltranslationandrockingmodes
ofdeformationmayalsobeused.
Theprimaryparametersforcalculatingtheindividualspringstiffnessvalues
arethefoundationtype(shallowspreadfootingsordeepfoundations),
foundationgeometry,dynamicsoilshearmodulus,andPoissonsRatio.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-57
J anuary 2010
6.5.1.1 Shallow Foundations
Forevaluatingshallowfoundationsprings,theWSDOTBridgeandStructures
Offcerequiresvaluesforthedynamicshearmodulus,G,Poissonsratio,and
theunitweightofthefoundationsoils.Themaximum,orlow-strain,shear
modulusG
0
canbeestimatedusingindexpropertiesandthecorrelations
presentedinTable6-2.Alternatively,themaximumshearmoduluscanbe
calculatedusingEquation6-10below,iftheshearwavevelocityisknown:
G
0
=

g
(V
s
)
2
(6-10)
where:
G
0
= lowstrain,maximumdynamicshearmodulus
= soilunitweight
V
s
= shear wave velocity
g = accelerationduetogravity
Themaximumdynamicshearmodulusisassociatedwithsmallshear
strains(typicallylessthan0.0001percent).Astheseismicgroundmotion
levelincreases,theshearstrainlevelincreases,anddynamicshearmodulus
decreases.IfthespecifcationbasedgeneralproceduredescribedinWSDOT
GDMSection6.3isused,theeffectiveshearmodulus,G,shouldbecalculated
inaccordancewithTable4-7inFEMA356(ASCE,2000),reproducedbelow
forconvenience.NotethatS
XS
/2.5inthetableisessentiallyequivalenttoA
s

(i.e.,PGAxF
pga
).ThistablerefectsthedependenceofGonboththeshear
straininducedbythegroundmotionandonthesoiltype(i.e.,Gdropsoff
morerapidlyasshearstrainincreasesforsofterorloosersoils).
Thistablemustbeusedwithsomecaution,particularlywhereabrupt
variationsinsoilprofleoccurbelowthebaseofthefoundation.Ifthesoil
conditionswithintwofoundationwidths(vertically)ofthebottomofthe
foundationdepartsignifcantlyfromtheaverageconditionsidentifedfor
thespecifcsiteclass,amorerigorousmethodmayberequired.Themore
rigorousmethodmayinvolveconductingone-dimensionalequivalentlinear
groundresponseanalysesusingaprogramsuchasSHAKEtoestimatethe
averageeffectiveshearstrainswithinthezoneaffectingfoundationresponse.
Effective Peak Acceleration, S
XS
/2.5
Site Class S
XS
/2.5 =0 S
XS
/2.5 =0.1 S
XS
/2.5 =0.4 S
XS
/2.5 =0.8
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90
C 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.60
D 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.10
E 1.00 0.60 0.05 *
F * * * *
Notes: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S
xs
/2.5.
* Site-specifc geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed.
Effective Shear Modulus Ratio (G/G
0
)
Table 4-7
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-58 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Alternatively,sitespecifcmeasurementsofshearmodulusmaybeobtained.
Measuredvaluesofshearmodulusmaybeobtainedfromlaboratorytests,
suchasthecyclictriaxial,cyclicsimpleshear,orresonantcolumntests,or
theymaybeobtainedfromin-situfeldtesting.Ifthespecifcationbased
generalprocedureisusedtoestimategroundmotionresponse,thelaboratory
orin-situfeldtestresultsmaybeusedtocalculateG
0
.Thenthetablefrom
FEMA356(ASCE,2000)reproducedabovecanbeusedtodetermineG/G
0
.
However,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenusinglaboratorytestingtoobtain
thisparameterduetothestrongdependencyofthisparameteronsample
disturbance.Furthermore,thelow-strainmodulusdevelopedfromlabtest
shouldbeadjustedforsoilageifthefootingisplacedonnativesoil.Theage
adjustmentcanresultinanincreaseinthelabmodulusbyafactorof1.5or
more,dependingonthequalityofthelaboratorysampleandtheageofthe
nativesoildeposit.Theageadjustmentisnotrequiredifengineeredfllwill
belocatedwithintwofoundationwidthsofthefootingbase.Thepreferred
approachistomeasuretheshearwavevelocity,V
s
,throughin-situtestingin
thefeld,toobtainG
0
.
Ifadetailedsitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,eitherFigures
6-1and6-2maybeusedtoestimateGinconsiderationoftheshearstrains
predictedthroughthesitespecifcanalysis(theeffectiveshearstrain,equal
to65percentofthepeakshearstrain,shouldbeusedforthisanalysis),or
laboratorytestresultsmaybeusedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweenG/G
0

andshearstrain.
PoissonsRatio,v,shouldbeestimatedbasedonsoiltype,relativedensity/
consistencyofthesoils,andcorrelationchartssuchasthosepresentedin
WSDOTGDMChapter5orinthetextbook,Foundation Analysis and
Design(Bowles,1996).PoissonsRatiomayalsobeobtainedfromfeld
measurementsofp-ands-wavevelocities.
OnceGandvaredetermined,thefoundationstiffnessvaluesshouldbe
calculatedasshowninFEMA356(ASCE,2000).
6.5.1.2 Deep Foundations
Lateralsoilspringsfordeepfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordance
withWSDOTGDMChapter8.
Existingdeepfoundationlateralloadanalysiscomputerprograms,and
themethodologiesuponwhichtheyarebased,doprovideapproachesfor
modelingtheresponseofliquefedsoiltolateraldeepfoundationloads.These
approaches,andtheirlimitations,areasfollows:
ThecomputerprogramL-PilePlusversion5.0(Reese,etal.,2005)
includesP-Ycurvesforliquefedsandsthatareintendedtomore
accuratelymodelthestrainhardeningbehaviorobservedfromliquefed
soils.However,thatparticularmodeltendstopredicttoosoftaresponse
andisverylimitedregardingtheconditionsitcanconsider.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-59
J anuary 2010
AsimilarapproachcanbeusedwiththeDFSAPcomputerprogram
(Singh,etal.,2006),whichisbasedontheStrainWedgeModel(see
WSDOTGDMChapter8foradditionalinformationonthestrainwedge
model).DFSAPhasanoptionbuiltintotheprogramforestimating
liquefedlateralstiffnessparametersandlateralspreadloadsonasingle
pileorshaft.However,theaccuracyoftheliquefedsoilstiffnessand
predictedlateralspreadloadsusingstrainwedgetheory,inparticular
theDFSAPprogram,hasnotbeenwellestablished(seeDiscussionand
ClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefedSoil
underLateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyle
M.Rollins,2005,ASCE,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102,ASCE2006,pp.
1238-1241.
Weaver,etal.(2005)andRollins,etal.(2005)providedacomparison
betweenthevariousmethodsofdevelopingP-Yparametersforliquefed
soilandthemeasuredlateralloadresponseofafullscalepilefoundation
inliquefedsoil(i.e.,liquefedusingblastloading).Theyconcludedthat
noneofthesimplifedmethodsthatutilizeadjustedsoilparametersapplied
tostaticP-Yclayorsandmodelsaccuratelypredictedthemeasuredlateral
pileresponsetoloadduetothedifferenceincurveshapeforstaticversus
liquefedconditions(i.e.,convex,orstrainsoftening,versusconcave,orstrain
hardening,shape,respectively).Furthermore,infullyliquefedsand,there
appearstobevirtuallynolateralsoilresistanceforthefrst1to2inchesof
lateralmovement,basedontheirobservations.However,availablestaticP-Y
curvemodelsreducedadequatelytoaccountforthelossofstrengthcausedby
liquefaction,suchasap-multiplierapproach,couldprovideanapproximate
predictionofthemeasuredP-Yresponse.Rollins,etal.(2005)alsoconcluded
thatgroupreductionfactorsforlateralpileresistancecanbeneglectedinfully
liquefedsand(i.e.,R
u
>0.9),andthatgroupreductioneffectsreestablish
quicklyasporepressuresdissipate.Furthermore,theyobservedthatgroup
reductionfactorswereapplicableinsoilthatisnotfullyliquefed.
Ifthedemandonthefoundationduringearthquakeshakingisnotveryhigh,
butthesoilstillliquefes,theconvex-upshapeofthestaticP-Ycurvesmay
alsoresultinanunder-predictionofthedeformationforliquefedconditions.
Assumingthatthestatic(i.e.,convexup)P-Ycurveisreducedtoliquefed
conditionsusingap-multiplierorsimilarapproach,relativelylowseismic
foundationloadingmaynotbegreatenoughtogetpasttheearlysteeper
portionoftheliquefedsoilP-Ycurveandontothefatterportionofthecurve
wheredeformationcanincreasefairlyreadilyinresponsetotheappliedload.
Thiscouldpossiblyresultinanunconservativeestimateoflateralfoundation
deformationfortheliquefedconditionaswell.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-60 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Load, P
Deflection, Y
P
ult
P
ultliq
Static P-Y curve
Currently available
liquefied P-Y
models
(Y
u
, P
ult
)
Load, P
Deflection, Y
P
ult
P
ultliq
Static P-Y curve
Currently available
liquefied P-Y
models
(Y
u
, P
ult
)
Conceptual P-Y curve model for liquefed conditions.
Figure 6-15
TheliquefedP-Ycurvesshouldbeestimatedusingoneoftwooptions.These
optionsareasfollows:
1. UsethestaticsandmodelandtheP-multiplierapproachasprovidedby
Brandenberg,etal.(2007b)andBoulanger,etal.(2003)toreduceP
ult

calculatedforthestaticP-Ycurvetoaliquefedvalue.Thisapproach
isillustratedconceptuallyinFigure6-15.Thep-multiplier,m
p
,usedto
reducethestaticcurvetoaliquefedcurveisdeterminedfromFigure6-16.
Thep-multiplierapproachisprimarilyapplicabletouseinL-Pileora
similarcomputerprogram.
2. Usethestaticsandmodel,usingtheresidualstrengthandtheoverburden
stressatthedepthatwhichtheresidualstrengthwascalculatedtoestimate
areducedsoilfrictionvalue.Thereducedsoilfrictionangleiscalculated
usingtheinversetangentoftheresidualundrainedshearstrengthdivided
bytheeffectiveverticalstressatwhichtheresidualshearstrengthwas
determinedormeasured,i.e.,
reduced
=tan
-1
(S
r
/
vo
),whereS
r
is the
residualshearstrengthand
v0
istheeffectiveverticalstress.Usethe
reducedsoilfrictionangle(i.e.,forliquefedconditions)togeneratethe
liquefedP-Ycurves.Thisapproachisapplicabletoboththestrainwedge
(DFSAPcomputerprogram)andL-Pilecomputerprogrammethods.The
entirestaticcurveneedstobereducedfromstatictoliquefedconditions,
asillustratedinFigure6-15.Parametersrepresentingtheinitialstiffness
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-61
J anuary 2010
oftheP-Ycurvesmayalsoneedtobereducedinamannersimilartothe
reductionappliedtoobtainP
ultliq
.FortheDFSAPcomputerprogram,this
adjustmenttoliquefedconditionswouldbeappliedtoE
50
.ForL-Pile,this
adjustmentwouldbeappliedtothemodulusofsubgradereaction,k.For
bothapproaches,thesoilunitweightshouldnotbeadjustedforliquefed
conditions.
Ifthefrstoptionisselected,thep-multipliervaluesshouldbeselectedfrom
Figure6-16,Brandenberg(2005)curve.Ifthesecondoptionisselected,
residual(i.e.,liquefed)soilshearstrengthshouldbeestimatedusingamethod
thatconsiderstheeffectofoverburdenstress(e.g.,Figures6-5through6-7).
Thep-multipliervaluesrepresentfullyliquefedconditions.Notethatfor
partiallyliquefedconditions,thep-multiplierscanbeincreasedfromthose
valuesshowninthetable,linearlyinterpolatingbetweenthetabulatedvalues
and1.0basedontheporepressureratio,r
u
,achievedduringshaking(e.g.,
Dobry,etal.,1995).ForOption2,apartiallyliquefedshearstrengthmaybe
usedtocalculatethereducedfrictionangleandP
ultliq
.
IfOption2isselectedandtheresidualshearstrengthsarebasedonlaboratory
testdata,thestrainatwhichtheliquefedshearstrengthisdeterminedmay
beakeyfactor,astheresidualstrengthcanbehighlystraindependent.If
empiricalcorrelationsareusedtoestimatetheresidualshearstrength,the
soilconditionsthoseempiricalresidualshearstrengthsrepresentrelativeto
thesoilconditionsatthesiteinquestionshouldbeconsideredwhenpicking
residualshearstrengthvaluestouseintheP-Ycurvedevelopment.
Ingeneral,iftheliquefedP-Ycurvesresultinfoundationlateraldeformations
thatarelessthanapproximately2inchesnearthefoundationtopforthe
liquefedstate,theliquefedP-Ycurvesshouldbefurtherevaluatedtomake
suretheparametersselectedtocreatetheliquefedP-Ycurvesrepresent
realisticbehaviorinliquefedsoil.
Forpileorshaftgroups,forfullyliquefedconditions,P-Ycurvereduction
factorstoaccountforfoundationelementspacingandlocationwithinthe
groupmaybesetat1.0.Forpartiallyliquefedconditions,thegroupreduction
factorsshallbeconsistentwiththegroupreductionfactorsusedforstatic
loading.
Forotherdeepfoundationsoilsprings,i.e.,axial(t-z)andtip(q-z),the
methodologydescribedaboveforP-Ycurvesshouldalsobeusedtoassessthe
effectsofliquefactionont-zandq-zcurves.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-62 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010


Recommended p-multipliers for liquefed soil (after Brandenberg, et al., 2007b).
Figure 6-16
6.5.2 Earthquake Induced Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures
TheMononobe-Okabepseudo-staticmethodshallbeusedtoestimatethe
seismiclateralearthpressure,asspecifedinWSDOTGDMChapter15.
Alternatively,slopestabilityanalysesmaybeusedtocalculateseismicearth
pressuresusingthesamek
h
valuethatwouldbeusedforMononobe-Okabe
analysis,andshouldbeusedforsituationsinwhichMononobe-Okabe
analysisisnotapplicable(seeWSDOTGDMChapter15).Duetothehigh
rateofloadingthatoccursduringseismicloading,theuseofundrained
strengthparametersintheslopestabilityanalysisshouldbeconsideredfor
soilsotherthancleancoarsegrainedsandsandgravels.
6.5.3 Downdrag Loads on Structures
Downdragloadsonfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordancewith
Article3.11.8oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,WSDOT
GDMChapter8,andasspecifedherein.
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article3.11.8,
recommendstheuseofthenonliquefedskinfrictioninthelayerswithin
andabovetheliquefedzonethatdonotliquefy,andaskinfrictionvalue
aslowastheresidualstrengthwithinthesoillayersthatdoliquefy,to
calculatedowndragloadsfortheextremeeventlimitstate.Ingeneral,vertical
settlementanddowndragcannotoccuruntiltheporepressuresgeneratedby
theearthquakegroundmotionbegintodissipateaftertheearthquakeshaking
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-63
J anuary 2010
ceases.Atthispoint,theliquefedsoilstrengthwillbenearitsminimum
residualstrength.Atsomepointaftertheporepressuresbegintodissipate,and
aftersomeliquefactionsettlementhasalreadyoccurred,thesoilstrengthwill
begintoincreasefromitsminimumresidualvalue.Therefore,theactualshear
strengthofsoilalongthesidesofthefoundationelementsintheliquefed
zone(s)maybehigherthantheresidualshearstrengthcorrespondingtofully
liquefedconditions,butstillsignifcantlylowerthanthenonliquefedsoil
shearstrength.Verylittleguidanceontheselectionofsoilshearstrengthto
calculatedowndragloadsduetoliquefactionisavailable;thereforesome
engineeringjudgmentmayberequiredtoselectasoilstrengthtocalculate
downdragloadsduetoliquefaction.
6.5.4 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures
Ingeneral,therearetwodifferentapproachestoestimatethelateralspread/
slopefailureinducedloadondeepfoundationssystemsadisplacement
basedmethodandaforcebasedmethod.Displacementbasedmethodsare
moreprevalentintheUnitedStates.Theforcebasedapproachhasbeen
specifedintheJapanesecodesandisbasedoncasehistoriesfrompast
earthquakes,especiallythepilefoundationfailuresobservedduringthe1995
Kobeearthquake.Overviewsofbothapproachesarepresentedbelow.
6.5.4.1 Displacement Based Approach
Therecommendeddisplacementbasedapproachforevaluatingtheimpactof
liquefactioninducedlateralspreadingloadsondeepfoundationsystemsis
presentedinBoulanger,etal.(2003)andBrandenberg,etal.(2007aandb).
Thegeneralprocedureisasfollows:
Deepfoundationsinliquefed,lateralspreadinggroundcanbedesigned
toresistlateralforcesimposedonthepilebythelateralspreadingground.
L-Pileorsimilarcomputerprogramscanbeusedtoperformthisanalysis
byincorporatingthedesignstepsbelow.Thedesignstepsthatconsiderthe
kinematicloadingfromtheliquefaction-inducedlateralspreadinggroundare
asfollows(Boulangeretal.2007aandb):
1. Estimatethefree-feldgroundsurfacedisplacementscausedbylateral
spreading.Free-feldsoildisplacementassumesnoinfuencefromthe
individualpilesorpilegroup.Free-feldsoildisplacementsshallbe
estimatedasspecifedinWSDOTGDMSections6.4.2.7and6.4.3.2.The
freefelddisplacementanditsdistribution(Step2below)isusedasinput
intoalateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pileincombinationwithsoil
stiffnessproperties(Steps3and4)toestimateloadinthefoundation.
2. Estimatethedistributionofthelateralspreadingdisplacementasa
functionofdepth.Optionsinclude:
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-64 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
a. TheshearstrainprofleapproachdescribedinZhangetal.(2004)
and illustrated by I driss and Boulanger (2008).Theshearstrain
profleisestimatedfromSPTorCPTbasedliquefactionanalysesto
providethedistributionoflateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepth
aboveanon-liquefedlayer.Themaximumshearstrainisobtained
usingtherelationshipbetweenmaximumshearstrain,CSR,andthe
correctedSPTblowcountornormalizedcorrectedCPTtipresistance.
Thelateralspreadingdisplacementisobtainedbyintegrationof
maximumshearstrainforeachdepthincrement.However,forcases
ofdeepliquefactionthemaximumdepthoflateralspreadingwould
havetobeassumed.Thismaximumdepthshouldconsiderthesite
topographyandheightofthefreeface.Alateralspreadisunlikely
to develop for depths greater than twice the height of a free face or a
maximumof50ft.
b. Non-lineareffectivestressdynamicfnite-differencetimehistory
analyses.Severalinputtimehistorieswouldlikelyberunthroughthe
soilprofleandarepresentativedistributionoflateralspreadingwith
depthwouldhavetobeselectedfromtheseoutputs.
c. Agenericsimplifedsoilproflethatassumesconstantground
surfacedisplacementinanon-liquefedcrustandalinear
variationwithdepthacrossliquefedlayers.Theconstantground
surfacedisplacementwouldbebasedonstep1above.Thelinear
variationwouldextendfromthebottomofthenon-liquefablecrustto
thebottomofthelateralspreadinglayer.AccordingtoBoulangeretal.
(2007aandb)pilesthatprovidesatisfactoryperformanceandlateral
stiffnessarerelativelyinsensitivetotheassumeddisplacementprofle.
Forfexiblefoundations,arangeofsoildisplacementproflesmay
havetobeassumedtocapturetherangeofbendingmoment,shear,
andpiledisplacementsversusdepth.
3. Lateralresistanceoftheliquefedsoilspringsshallbeestimatedas
specifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2andasdiscussedbelow.For
soillayersthatliquefy,scaletheultimatestaticP-Yresistance(P
ult
)to
anultimateliquefedresistance(P
ultliq
)asdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.5.1.2.Theultimateliquefedresistanceshouldalsobenogreater
than0.6
vo
*bforthisanalysis,where
vo
istheeffectiveoverburden
stressbeforeseismicloadingandbispilewidth(Boulangeretal2003).
TheP-Ycurvesforthenonliquefedlayerswithinthesoilprofleforthis
analysisshouldbedeterminedusingthestaticanalysisprocedures(see
WSDOTGDMChapter8).
4. Toestimatekinematicloadingeffectsondeepfoundationsfromlateral
spreading,theabovelateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepthprofle
shouldbeinputdirectlyasafreefelddisplacement(soilmovement)into
alateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pile.ThemodifedP-Ycurves
calculatedasdescribedaboveshouldbeusedtocharacterizethesoilin
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-65
J anuary 2010
thisanalysis.Thecomputerlateralloadanalysisprogramwilldetermine
thenetfoundationmovementconsideringthestructuralstiffnessofthe
foundationandthelateralresistanceofthesoilinfrontofthefoundation.
Conceptually,thisisillustratedinFigure6-17.
Methods for imposing kinematic loads from
laterally spreading ground (after Boulanger, et al., 2003).
Figure 6-17
Theestimatedinducedloadsarethencheckedagainsttheabilityofthe
foundationsystemtoresistthoseloads.Theultimatefoundationresistance
is based in part on the resistance provided by the portion of the pile/shaft
embeddedinnon-liquefablesoilsbelowthelateralspreadzoneandthe
structuralcapacityofthepile/shaft.Largepiledeformationsmayresultin
plastichingesforminginthepile/shaft.Iffoundationresistanceisgreater
thanthatappliedbythelateralspreadingsoil,thesoilwillfowaroundthe
structure.Ifthepotentialloadappliedbythesoilisgreaterthanthefoundation
systemresistance,thepile/shaftislikelytomoveinconcertwiththesoil.
Also,thepassivepressureandsidefrictiongeneratedonthepilecapby
the spreading soil needs to be considered in the total load applied to the
foundationsystem.Sincelarge-scalestructuraldeformationsmaybediffcult
andcostlytoaccommodateindesign,mitigationoffoundationsubsoilswill
likelyberequired.
Similarapproachestothoseoutlinedabovecanbeusedtoestimateloadsthat
othertypesofslopefailuremayhaveonthebridgefoundationsystem.
6.5.4.2 Force Based Approaches
Aforcebasedapproachtoassesslateralspreadinginducedloadsondeep
foundationsisspecifedintheJapanesecodes.Themethodisbasedonback-
calculationsfrompilefoundationfailurescausedbylateralspreading.The
pressuresonpilefoundationsaresimplyspecifedasfollows:
Theliquefedsoilexertsapressureequalto30percentofthetotal
overburdenpressure(lateralearthpressurecoeffcientof0.30appliedto
thetotalverticalstress).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-66 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Non-liquefedcrustallayersexertfullpassivepressureonthefoundation
system.
Datafromsimulatedearthquakeloadingofmodelpilesinliquefablesandsin
centrifugetestsindicatethattheJapaneseForceMethodisanadequatedesign
method(FinnandFujita,2004).
Anotherforce-basedapproachtoestimatelateralspreadinginduced
foundationloadsistousealimitequilibriumslopestabilityprogramto
determinetheloadthefoundationmustresisttoachieveatargetsafetyfactor
of1.1.Thisforceisdistributedoverthefoundationintheliquefablezone
asauniformstress.Thisapproachmaybeutilizedtoestimatetheforces
thatfoundationelementsmustwithstandiftheyaretoactasshearelements
stabilizingtheslope.SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3forspecifcstability
analysisprocedures.
6.5.4.3 Mitigation Alternatives
Thetwobasicoptionstomitigatethelateralspreadinducedloadsonthe
foundationsystemaretodesignthestructuretoaccommodatetheloadsor
improvethegroundsuchthatthehazarddoesnotoccur.
Structural Options (design to accommodate imposed loads).SeeWSDOT
GDMSections6.5.4.1(displacementbasedapproach)and6.5.4.2(forcebased
approach)formoredetailsonthespecifcanalysisprocedures.Oncetheforces
and/ordisplacementscausedbythelateralspreadinghavebeenestimated,
thestructuraldesignershouldusethoseestimatestoanalyzetheeffectof
thoseforcesand/ordisplacementswillhaveonthestructuretodetermineif
designingthestructuretotoleratethedeformationand/orlateralloadingis
structurallyfeasibleandeconomical.
Ground I mprovement. It is often cost prohibitive to design the bridge
foundationsystemtoresisttheloadsanddisplacementsimposedby
liquefactioninducedlateralloads,especiallyifthedepthofliquefaction
extendsmorethanabout20ftbelowthegroundsurfaceandifanon-
liquefedcrustispartofthefailuremass.Groundimprovementtomitigatethe
liquefactionhazardisthelikelyalternativeifitisnotpracticaltodesignthe
foundationsystemtoaccommodatethelateralloads.
Theprimarygroundimprovementtechniquestomitigateliquefactionfallinto
threegeneralcategories,namelydensifcation,alteringthesoilcomposition,
andenhanceddrainage.Ageneraldiscussionregardingtheseground
improvementapproachesisprovidedbelow.WSDOTGDMChapter11,
GroundImprovement,shouldbereviewedforamoredetaileddiscussion
regardingtheuseofthesetechniques.
DensifcationandReinforcement:Groundimprovementbydensifcation
consistsofsuffcientlycompactingthesoilsuchthatitisnolongersusceptible
toliquefactionduringadesignseismicevent.Densifcationtechniquesinclude
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-67
J anuary 2010
vibro-compaction,vibro-fotation,vibro-replacement(stonecolumns),deep
dynamiccompaction,blasting,andcompactiongrouting.Vibro-replacement
andcompactiongroutingalsoreinforcethesoilbycreatingcolumnsof
stoneandgrout,respectively.Theprimaryparametersforselectioninclude
grainsizedistributionofthesoilsbeingimproved,depthtogroundwater,
depthofimprovementrequired,proximitytosettlement/vibrationsensitive
infrastructure,andaccessconstraints.
Forthosesoilsinwhichdensifcationtechniquesmaynotbefullyeffectiveto
densifythesoiladequatelytopreventliquefaction,thereinforcementaspectof
thosemethodsmaystillbeusedwhenestimatingcompositeshearstrengthand
settlementcharacteristicsoftheimprovedsoilvolume.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter11fordetailsandreferencesthatshouldbeconsultedforguidancein
establishingcompositepropertiesfortheimprovedsoilvolume.
Ifthesoilisreinforcedwithverticalstructuralinclusions(e.g.,drilledshafts,
drivenpiles,butnotincludingthestructurefoundationelements)butnot
adequatelydensifedtopreventthesoilfromliquefying,thedesignofthe
groundimprovementmethodshouldconsiderboththeshearandmoment
resistanceofthereinforcementelements.Forverticalinclusionsthatare
typicallynotintendedtohavesignifcantbendingresistance(e.g.,stone
columns,compactiongroutcolumns,etc.),therequirementtoresistthe
potentialbendingstressescausedbylateralgroundmovementmaybewaived,
consideringonlyshearresistanceoftheimprovedsoilplusinclusions,ifall
threeofthefollowingconditionsaremet:
Thewidthanddepthoftheimprovedsoilvolumeareequaltoorgreater
thantherequirementsprovidedinFigure6-18,
threeormorerowsofreinforcementelementstoresisttheforces
contributingtoslopefailureorlateralspreadingareused,and
thereinforcementelementsarespacedcenter-to-centeratlessthan5times
thereinforcementelementdiameteror10ft,whicheverisless.
Figure6-18showstheimprovedsoilvolumeascenteredaroundthewall
baseorfoundation.However,itisacceptabletoshiftthesoilimprovement
volumetoworkaroundsiteconstraints,providedthattheedgeofthe
improvedsoilvolumeislocatedatleast5ftoutsideofthewallorfoundation
beingprotected.Greaterthan5ftmaybeneededtoinsurestabilityofthe
foundation,preventseveredifferentialsettlementduetotheliquefaction,and
toaccountforanyporepressureredistributionthatmayoccurduringorafter
liquefactioninitiation.
Forthecasewhereacollarofimprovedsoilisplacedoutsideandaround
thefoundation,bridgeabutmentorotherstructuretobeprotectedfromthe
instabilitythatliquefactioncancause,assumeBinFigure6-18isequalto
zero(i.e.,theminimumwidthofimprovedgroundisequaltoD+15ft,butno
greaterthanZ).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-68 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthesoilisofthetypethatcanbedensifedthroughtheuseofstonecolumns,
compactiongroutcolumns,orsomeothermeanstoimprovethesoilsuchthat
itisnolongersusceptibletoliquefactionwithintheimprovedsoilvolume,
Figure6-18shouldalsobeusedtoestablishtheminimumdimensionsofthe
improvedsoil.
Ifitisdesiredtousedimensionsofthegroundimprovementthatareless
thantheminimumsillustratedinFigure6-18,moresophisticatedanalyses
todeterminetheeffectofusingreducedgroundimprovementdimensions
shouldbeconducted(e.g.,effectivestresstwodimensionalanalysessuch
asFLAC).Theobjectivesoftheseanalysesincludepreventionofsoilshear
failureandexcessivedifferentialsettlementduringliquefaction.Theamount
of differential settlement allowable for this limit state will depend on the
toleranceofthestructurebeingprotectedtosuchmovementwithoutcollapse.
Useofsmallergroundimprovementareadimensionsshallbeapprovedofthe
WSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Anotherreinforcementtechniquethatmaybeusedtomitigatetheinstability
causedbyliquefactionistheuseofgeosyntheticreinforcementasabase
reinforcementlayer.Inthiscase,thereinforcementisdesignedasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter9,buttheliquefedshearstrengthisusedtoconduct
theembankmentbasereinforcementdesign.

B
D
1
2
1
2
Liquefiable
Soil
Critical Failure surface
Min. width >B +(D +15 ft) and no less than width required for
shear resistance needed to get FS >1.1 for critical failure surface,
but no greater than Z
Z
>15 ft
Dense or very stiff, non-liquefiable soil or rock
>5 ft >5 ft
Min. depth of ground improvement below foundation or wall base >D +15 ft,
but no greater than Z.
Minimum dimensions
of improved soil
B
D
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Liquefiable
Soil
Critical Failure surface
Min. width >B +(D +15 ft) and no less than width required for
shear resistance needed to get FS >1.1 for critical failure surface,
but no greater than Z
Z
>15 ft
Dense or very stiff, non-liquefiable soil or rock
>5 ft >5 ft
Min. depth of ground improvement below foundation or wall base >D +15 ft,
but no greater than Z.
Minimum dimensions
of improved soil
Minimum Dimensions for Soil Improvement Volume Below Foundations and Walls
Figure 6-18
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-69
J anuary 2010
Altering Soil Composition: Altering the composition of the soil typically
referstochangingthesoilmatrixsothatitisnolongersusceptibleto
liquefaction.Examplegroundimprovementtechniquesincludepermeation
grouting(eitherchemicalormicro-fnecement),jetgrouting,anddeepsoil
mixing.Thesetypesofgroundimprovementaretypicallymorecostlythan
thedensifcation/reinforcementtechniques,butmaybethemosteffective
techniquesifaccessislimited,constructioninducedvibrationsmustbekept
toaminimum,and/ortheimprovedgroundhassecondaryfunctions,suchasa
seepagebarrierorshoringwall.
Drainage Enhancements:Byimprovingthedrainagepropertiesofsoils
susceptibletoliquefaction,itmaybepossibletopreventthebuild-upof
excessporewaterpressures,andthusliquefaction.However,drainage
improvementisnotconsideredadequatelyreliablebyWSDOTtoprevent
excessporewaterpressurebuildupduetoliquefactionduetodrainagepath
timeforporepressuretodissipate,andduetothepotentialfordrainage
structurestobecomecloggedduringinstallationandinservice.Inaddition,
withdrainageenhancementssomesettlementisstilllikely.Therefore,
drainageenhancementsshallnotbeusedasameanstomitigateliquefaction.
However,drainageenhancementsmayprovidesomepotentialbeneftswith
densifcationandreinforcementtechniquessuchasstonecolumns.
6.6 References
AASHTO,2007.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations,FourthEdition.
AASHTO,2008,AASHTO Guide Specifcations for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,FirstEdition.
Anderson,D.E.,Lam,P.,Martin,G.,andWang,J.,2008(inpress),Seismic Analysis and Design
of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments,NCHRPReport611,
TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,___pp.
ASCE,2000,PrestandardandCommentaryfortheSeismicRehabilitationofBuildings,FEMA
356,518pp.
ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2001,Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges, Parts I and II,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,NCHRP
Project12-49,WashingtonDC.
ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002.Comprehensive Specifcation for the Seismic Design
of Bridges,NCHRPReport472,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,
WashingtonDC.
Atwater,BrianF.,1996.Coastal Evidence for Great Earthquakes in Western Washington.
AssessingEarthquakeHazardsandReducingRiskinthePacifcNorthwest,USGS
ProfessionalPaper1560Vol.1:pp.77-90.
Bakun,W.H.,Haugerud,R.A.,Hopper,M.G.,andLudwin,R.S.,2002.TheDecember1872
WashingtonStateEarthquake.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol.92,No.
8,pp.3239-3258.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-70 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Bommer,J.J.,andAcevedo,A.B.,2004,TheUseofRealEarthquakeAccelerogramsasInput
toDynamicAnalysis,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.8,SpecialIssue1,Imperial
CollegePress,pp.43-91.
Bowles,J.E.,1996.Foundation Analysis and Design,FifthEdition.TheMcGraw-Hill
Companies,Inc.,NewYork.
Brandenberg,S.J.,2005.Behavior of Pile Foundations in Liquefed and Laterally Spreading
Ground,Ph.D.dissertation,Univ.ofCaliforniaatDavis,Davis,CA.
Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007a.LiquefactionInduced
SofteningofLoadTransferBetweenPileGroupsandLaterallySpreadingCrusts.ASCE
Journal of. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enginerring,Vol.133,No.1,pp.91-103.
Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007b,StaticPushover
AnalysesofPileGroupsinLiquefedandLaterallySpreadingGroundinCentrifugeTests,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.9,pp.
1055-1066.
Boulanger,R.W.andIdriss,I.M.,2006,LiquefactionSusceptibilityCriteriaforSiltsandClays,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCEVol.132,No.11,Nov.,
pp.1413-1426.
Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,Brandenberg,S.J.,Singh,P.,andChang,D.,2003,Pile
Foundations in Liquefed and Laterally Spreading Ground During Earthquakes: Centrifuge
Experiments & Analyses,CollegeofEngineering,UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis,205pp.
Bray,J.andRathje,E.,1998.EarthquakeInducedDisplacementsofSolidWasteLandflls.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.124,pp.242-253.
Bray,J.D.,andSancio,R.B.,2006,AssessmentoftheLiquefactionSusceptibilityofFine
GrainedSoils,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.132,
No.9,pp.1165-1177.
Bray,J.D.,andTravasarou,T.,2007,SimplifedProcedureforEstimatingEarthquake-Induced
DeviatoricSlopeDisplacements,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.133,No.4,pp.381-392.
Cetin,K.O.,Seed,R.B.,DerKiureghian,A.,Tokimatsu,K.Harder,L.F.,Kayen,R.E.,andMoss,
R.E.S.,2004.StandardPenetrationTest-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessment
ofSeismicSoilLiquefactionPotential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,ASCE,Vol.130,No.12,Dec.,pp.1314-1340.
Dickenson,S.E.,McCullough,N.J.,Barkau,M.G.,andWavra,B.J.,2002,Assessment and
Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon,Final
ReportSPR361,FHWA-OR-RD-03-04,210pp.
DiscussionandClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefedSoilunder
LateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyleM.Rollins,2005,ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102,
ASCE2006,pp.1238-1241.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-71
J anuary 2010
Dobry,R.,Taboada,V,andLiu.,L.,1995.Centrifugemodelingofliquefactioneffectsduring
earthquakes.Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. On Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,K.Ishihara,
ed.,Tokyo,Japan,Vol.3,pp.1291-1324.
Darendeli,M.,2001,Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and
Material Damping Curves,Ph.D.Dissertation,Department.ofCivilEngineering,University
ofTexas,Austin,362pp.
EduProCivilSystems,Inc.,1999.ProShake Version 1.10,ComputerSoftware.
ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI),1993.Guidelines for Site Specifc Ground Motions.
PaloAlto,CA.ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute,November-TR-102293.
Finn,W.D.Liam,Ledbetter,R.H.andWu,G.,1994.LiquefactioninSiltySoils:Designand
Analysis.Ground Failures Under Seismic Conditions,GeotechnicalSpecialPublication44.
ASCE,NewYork,NewYork,pp.51-76.
Finn,W.D.LiamandFujita,N.,2004.BehaviorofPilesinLiquefableSoilsduring
Earthquakes:AnalysisandDesignIssues.Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,NewYork,NewYork,April13-17,2004.
Goter,S.K.,1994.Earthquakes in Washington and Oregon; 1872-1993, 1994,USGSOpen-File
ReportNo.94-226A.
InternationalCodeCouncil,Inc.,2006.2006 International Building Code.CountryClubHills,
IL.
Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2007,ResidualShearStrengthofLiquefedSoils,
Proceedings of the 27th USSD Annual Meeting and Conference, Modernization and
Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs.
Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2008,Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute(EERI),MNO-12,226pp.
Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsanddepositsfollowing
liquefactionduringearthquakes.Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March,
pp.173-188.
JibsonR.andJibsonM.,2003.Java Program for using Newmarks Method and Simplifed
Decoupled Analysis to Model Slope Deformations During Earthquakes.ComputerSoftware.
USGSOpenFileReport03-005.
Johnson,S.Y.,Dadisman,S.V.,Childs,J.R.,andStanley,W.D.,1999.ActiveTectonicsofthe
SeattleFaultandCentralPugetSound,Washington:ImplicationsforEarthquakeHazards.
Geological Society of America Bulletin,Vol.111,No.7,pp.1042-1053.
Kavazanjian,E.,Matasovic,N.,Hadj-Hamou,T.andSabatini,P.J.,1997.Geotechnical
Engineering Circular #3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for
Highways, Volume I Design Principles.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-97-077.U.S.Departmentof
Transportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kramer,S.L.,1996.Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.Prentice-Hall,Inc.,UpperSaddle
River,NJ.
Kramer,S.L.,2008.Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Washington State,WashingtonState
DepartmentofTransportation,ReportWA-RD_______,pp.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-72 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Kramer,S.L.andPaulsen,S.B.,2004.PracticalUseofGeotechnicalSiteResponseModels.
PEER Lifelines Program Workshop on the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and the
Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response.Berkeley,CA.March18-19,2004.
Kramer,S.L.andMayfeld,R.T.,2007,ReturnPeriodofSoilLiquefaction,ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.7,pp.802-813.
Lee,M.andFinn,W.,1978.DESRA-2, Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil
Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction
Potential.SoilMechanicsSeriesNo.38,Dept.ofCivilEngineering,UniversityofBritish
Columbia,Vancouver,B.C.
Makdisi,F.I.andSeed,H.B.,1978.SimplifedProcedureforEstimatingDamandEmbankment
Earthquake-InducedDeformations.ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division,Vol.104,No.GT7,July,1978,pp.849-867.
Matasovi,Neven,andOrdez,Gustovo,2007,D-MOD2000,GeoMotions,LLC,Computer
Software.
McGuire,R.K.,2004.Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis.MonographMNO-10,Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute,Oakland,CA.221pp.
Moss,R.E.S.,Seed,R.B.,Kayen,R.E.,Stewart,J.P.,DerKiureghian,A.andCetin,K.O.,2006.
CPT-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessmentofInSituSeismicSoilLiquefaction
Potential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.132,
No.8,Aug.,pp.1032-1051.
Newmark,N.M.,1965.EffectsofEarthquakesonDamsandEmbankments.Geotechnique,
15(2),pp.139-160.
Olson,S.M.andStark,T.D.,2002.LiquefedStrengthRatiofromLiquefactionFlowFailure
CaseHistories,Canadian Geotechnical Journal,Vol.39,June,pp629-647.
Ordoez,G.A.,2000.Shake 2000,ComputerSoftware.
Rathje,E.M.,andSaygili,G.,2008,ProbabilisticSeismicHazardAnalysisfortheSliding
DisplacementofSlopes:ScalarandVectorApproaches,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.804-814.
Rollins,K.M.,Gerber,T.M.,Lane,J.D.,andAshford,S.A.,2005,LateralResistance
ofaFull-ScalePileGroupinLiquefedSand,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.115-125.
Reese,L.C.,Wang,S.T.Isenhower,W.M.,andArrellaga,J.A.,2004,ComputerProgram
L-PilePlus,Version5.0,TechnicalManual,ENSOFT,Inc,.Austin,Texas.
Sabatini,P.J.,Bachus,R.C.,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,andZettler,T.E.,2002.Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties,ReportNo.FHWA-
IF-02-034.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,D.C.
Saygili,G.,andRathje,E.M.,2008,EmpiricalPredictiveModelsforEarthquake-Induced
SlidingDisplacementsofSlopes,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.790-803.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-73
J anuary 2010
Satake,Kenji,etal.,1996.TimeandSizeofaGiantEarthquakeinCascadiaInferredfrom
JapaneseTsunamiRecordsofJanuary1700.Nature,Vol.379,pp.247-248.
Seed,R.B.,Cetin,K.O.,Moss,R.E.S.,Kammerer,A.M.,Pestana,J.M.,Riemer,M.
F.,Sancio,R.B.,Bray,J.D.,Kayen,R.E.,Faris,A.,2003,Recent Advances in Soil
Liquefaction Engineering: A unifed and Consistent Framework,EarthquakeEngineering
ResearchCenter,Univ.ofCABerkeley,ReportNo.EERC2003-06,71pp.
Singh,J.P.,Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.,2006,Laterally and Axially Loaded Deep Foundation
Systems Computer Program DFSAP,WSDOTReport,172pp.
Stewart,J.P.,Archuleta,R.J.,andPower,M.S.,2008,Earthquake Spectra, Special Issue on the
Next Generation Attenuation Project,24(1),EERI.
Tokimatsu,K.andSeed,H.B.,1987.EvaluationofSettlementinSandsDuetoEarthquake
Shaking.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol.113,No.8,August1987.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2002.Earthquake Hazards Program.Websitelink:http://
eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/
Vucetic,M.andDobry,R.(1991).Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response.Journalof
GeotechnicalEngineering,Vo.117,No.1,pp.89-107.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,2008, LRFD Bridge Design Manual.
PublicationNumberM23-50.
Weaver,T.J.,Ashford,S.A.,andRollins,K.M.,2005,Responseofa0.6mCast-in-Steel-
ShellPileinLiquefedSoilUnderLateralLoading,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102.
Yelin,T.S.,Tarr,A.C.,Michael,J.A.,andWeaver,C.S.,1994.Washington and Oregon
Earthquake History and Hazards.USGS,OpenFileReport94-226B.
Youd,T.L.;Idriss,I.M.;Andrus,R.D.;Arango,I.;Castro,G.;Christian,J.T.;Dobry,R.;Finn,
W.D.;Harder,L.;Hynes,M.E.;Ishihara,K.;Koester,J.P.;Liao,S.S.C.;Marcuson,W.F.;
Martin,G.R.;Mitchell,J.K.;Moriwaki,Y.;Power,M.S.;Robertson,P.K.;Seed,R.B.and
Stokoe,K.H.,2001.LiquefactionResistanceofSoils:SummaryReportfromthe1996
NCEERand1998NCEER/NSFWorkshopsonEvaluationofLiquefactionResistanceof
Soils.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.127,No.10,
pp.817-833.
Youd,T.L.;Hansen,C.M.andBartlett,S.F.,2002.RevisedMultilinearRegressionEquations
forPredictionofLateralSpreadDisplacement..ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.128,No.12,pp.1007-1017.
Youd,T.L.andCarter,B.L.,2005.InfuenceofSoilSofteningandLiquefactiononSpectral
Acceleration,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.131,
No.7,pp.811-825.
Zhang,G.,Robertson,P.K.,Brachman,R.W.I.,2004,EstimatingLiquefaction-InducedLateral
DisplacementsUsingtheStandardPenetrationTestorConePenetrationTest,ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.130,No.8,pp.861-871.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-74 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
SiteSpecifcSeismic
Appendix 6-A Hazard and Site Response
Sitespecifcseismichazardandresponseanalysesshallbeconducted
inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.3andtheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Whensitespecifchazard
characterizationisconducted,itshallbeconductedusingthedesignrisklevels
specifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1.
6-A.1 Background Information for Performing Site Specifc Analysis
WashingtonStateislocatedinaseismicallyactiveregion.Theseismicity
variesthroughoutthestate,withtheseismichazardgenerallymoreseverein
WesternWashingtonandlesssevereinEasternWashington.Earthquakesas
largeasmagnitude8to9areconsideredpossibleoffthecoastofWashington
State.TheregionaltectonicandgeologicconditionsinWashingtonState
combinetocreateauniqueseismicsetting,wheresomeearthquakesoccur
onfaults,butmorecommonlyhistoricearthquakeshavebeenassociated
withlargebroadfaultzoneslocateddeepbeneaththeearthssurface.The
potentialforsurfacefaultingexists,andasdiscussedinthisappendixa
numberofsurfacefaultshavebeenidentifedasbeingpotentialsourcesof
seismicgroundshaking;however,surfacevegetationandterrainhavemade
itparticularlydiffculttolocatesurfacefaults.Inviewofthiscomplexity,a
clearunderstandingoftheregionaltectonicsettingandtherecognizedseismic
sourcezonesisessentialforcharacterizingtheseismichazardataspecifcsite
inWashingtonState.
6-A.1.1 Regional Tectonics
WashingtonStateislocatedattheconvergentcontinentalboundaryknown
astheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ).TheCSZisthezonewherethe
westwardadvancingNorthAmericanPlateisoverridingthesubductingJuan
deFucaPlate.TheCSZextendsfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthern
California.Theinteractionofthesetwoplatesresultsinthreepotentialseismic
sourcezonesasdepictedonFigure6-A-1.Thesethreeseismicsourcezones
are:(1)theshallowcrustalsourcezone,(2)theCSZBeniofforintraplate
sourcezone,and(3)theCSZinterplateorinterfacesourcezone.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-75
J anuary 2010
The three potential seismic source zones
present in the Pacifc Northwest (Yelin et al., 1994).
Figure 6-A-1
6-A.1.2 Seismic Source Zones
Ifconductingasitespecifchazardcharacterization,asaminimum,the
followingsourcezonesshouldbeevaluated(allreportedmagnitudesare
momentmagnitudes):
ShallowCrustalSourceZone.Theshallowcrustalsourcezoneisusedto
characterizeshallowcrustalearthquakeactivitywithintheNorthAmerican
PlatethroughoutWashingtonState.Shallowcrustalearthquakestypically
occuratdepthsrangingupto12miles.Theshallowcrustalsourcezone
ischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesuptoabout
magnitude7.5.Largeshallowcrustalearthquakesaretypicallyfollowedbya
sequenceofaftershocks.
Thelargestknownearthquakesassociatedwiththeshallowcrustalsource
zoneinWashingtonStateincludeaneventontheSeattleFaultabout900
ADandthe1872NorthCascadesearthquake.TheSeattleFaulteventwas
believedtohavebeenmagnitude7orgreater(Johnson,1999),andthe1872
NorthCascadesearthquakeisestimatedtohavebeenbetweenmagnitudes
6.8and7.4.Thelocationofthe1872NorthCascadesearthquakeisuncertain;
however,recentresearchsuggeststheearthquakesintensitycenterwas
nearthesouthendofLakeChelan(Bakunetal,2002).Otherlarge,notable
shallowearthquakesinandaroundthestateincludethe1936Milton
Freewater,Oregonmagnitude6.1earthquakeandtheNorthIdahomagnitude
5.5earthquake(Goter,1994).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-76 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
BenioffSourceZone.CSZBenioffsourcezoneearthquakesarealsoreferred
toasintraplate,intraslab,ordeepsubcrustalearthquakes.Benioffzone
earthquakesoccurwithinthesubductingJuandeFucaPlatebetweendepths
of20and40milesandtypicallyhavenolargeaftershocks.Extensivefaulting
resultsastheJuandeFucaPlateisforcedbelowtheNorthAmericanplateand
intotheuppermantle.Benioffzoneearthquakesprimarilycontributetothe
seismichazardwithinWesternWashington.
TheOlympia1949(M=7.1),theSeattle1965(M=6.5),andtheNisqually
2001(M=6.8)earthquakesareconsideredtobeBenioffzoneearthquakes.
TheBenioffzoneischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakes
uptomagnitude7.5.Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesoriginating
fromtheBenioffsourcezoneisbelievedtobeshorterthanfortheshallow
crustalandCSZinterpolatesourcezonesdamagingBenioffzone
earthquakesinWesternWashingtonoccurevery30yearsorso.Thedeep
focaldepthoftheseearthquakestendstodampentheshakingintensitywhen
comparedtoshallowcrustalearthquakesofsimilarmagnitudes.
CSZInterplateSourceZone.TheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ)is
anapproximately650-milelongthrustfaultthatextendsalongthePacifc
Coastfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthernCalifornia.CSZinterplate
earthquakesresultfromruptureofalloraportionoftheconvergentboundary
betweenthesubductingJuandeFucaplateandtheoverridingNorthAmerican
plate.Thefaultsurfacesapproximately50to75milesofftheWashington
coast.ThewidthoftheseismogenicportionoftheCSZinterplatefaultvaries
alongitslength.Asthefaultbecomesdeeper,materialsbeingfaultedbecome
ductileandthefaultisunabletostoremechanicalstresses.CSZinterplate
earthquakesprimarilycontributetotheseismichazardwithinWestern
Washington,thoughnotasgreatastheBenioffsourcemechanismformuchof
westernWashington.ThisisparticularlythecasefortheI-5corridorbecause
ofthedistanceoftheCSZinterplatesourcetotheI-5corridor.
TheCSZisconsideredasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesof
magnitude8tomagnitude9.NoearthquakesontheCSZhavebeen
instrumentallyrecorded;however,throughthegeologicrecordandhistorical
recordsoftsunamisinJapan,itisbelievedthatthemostrecentCSZevent
occurredintheyear1700(Atwater,1996andSatake,etal,1996).Recurrence
intervalsforCSZinterplateearthquakesarethoughttobeontheorderof
400to600years.Paleogeologicevidencesuggestsfvetoseveninterplate
earthquakesmayhavebeengeneratedalongtheCSZoverthelast3,500years
atirregularintervals.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-77
J anuary 2010
6-A.2 Design Earthquake Magnitude
Inadditiontoidentifyingthesitessourcezones,thedesignearthquake(s)
producedbythesourcezonesmustbecharacterizedforuseinevaluating
seismicgeologichazardssuchasliquefactionandlateralspreading.Typically,
designearthquake(s)aredefnedbyaspecifcmagnitude,source-to-site
distance,andgroundmotioncharacteristics.
Thefollowingguidelinesshouldbeusedfordeterminingasitesdesign
earthquake(s):
Thedesignearthquakeshouldconsiderhazard-compatibleevents
occurringoncrustalandsubduction-relatedsources.
Morethanonedesignearthquakemaybeappropriatedependinguponthe
sourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismichazardandtheimpactthat
theseearthquakesmayhaveonsiteresponse.
Thedesignearthquakeshouldbeconsistentwiththedesignhazardlevel
prescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1.
TheUSGSinteractivedeaggregationtool(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/
research/hazmaps/)providesasummaryofcontributiontoseismichazard
forearthquakesofvariousmagnitudesandsourcetositedistancesfora
givenhazardlevelandmaybeusedtoevaluaterelativecontributionto
groundmotionfromseismicsources.Notethatmagnitudespresentedinthe
deaggregationdatarepresentcontributiontoaspecifedhazardleveland
shouldnotsimplybeaveragedforinputintoanalysessuchasliquefactionand
lateralspreading.Instead,thedeaggregationdatashouldbeusedtoassessthe
relativecontributiontotheprobabilistichazardfromthevarioussourcezones.
Ifanysourcezonecontributesmorethanabout10percentofthetotalhazard,
designearthquakesrepresentativefromeachofthosesourcezonesshouldbe
usedforanalyses.
Forliquefactionorlateralspreadinganalysis,oneofthefollowingapproaches
shouldbeusedtoaccountfortheearthquakemagnitude,inorderof
preference:
1. Useallearthquakemagnitudesapplicableatthespecifcsite(from
thedeggregation)usingthemultiplescenarioorperformancebased
approachesforliquefactionassessmentasdescribedbyKramer
andMayfeld(2007)andKramer(2008).Thesetechniquescanbe
accomplishedusingtheWSLIQsoftware(Kramer,2008).Thehazard
levelusedforthisanalysisshallbeconsistentwiththehazardlevel
selectedforthestructureforwhichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeing
conducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedanceof7percentin75years
inaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismic
BridgeDesign).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-78 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2. Ifasingleorafewlargermagnitudeearthquakesdominatethe
deaggregation,themagnitudeofthesingledominantearthquakeorthe
meanofthefewdominantearthquakesinthedeaggregationshouldbe
used.
3. Forroutinedesign,adefaultmomentmagnitudeof7.0shouldbeused
forwesternWashingtonand6.0foreasternWashington,exceptwithin
30milesofthecoastwhereCascadiaSubductionzoneeventscontribute
signifcantlytotheseismichazard.Inthatcase,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shoulduseamomentmagnitudeof8.0.Thesedefaultmagnitudes
shouldnotbeusediftheyrepresentasmallerhazardthanshowninthe
deaggregationdata.Notethatthesedefaultmagnitudesareintendedfor
useinsimplifedempiricallybasedliquefactionandlateralspreading
analysisonlyandshouldnotbeusedfordevelopmentofthedesignground
motionparameters.
6-A.3 Probabilistic and Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analyses
Probabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)anddeterministicseismic
hazardanalysis(DSHA)canbecompletedtocharacterizetheseismichazard
atasite.ADSHAconsistsofevaluatingtheseismichazardatasiteforan
earthquakeofaspecifcmagnitudeoccurringataspecifclocation.APSHA
consistsofcompletingnumerousdeterministicseismichazardanalysesfor
allfeasiblecombinationsofearthquakemagnitudeandsourcetositedistance
foreachearthquakesourcezone.TheresultofaPSHAisarelationshipofthe
meanannualrateofexceedanceofthegroundmotionparameterofinterest
witheachpotentialseismicsourceconsidered.SincethePSHAprovides
informationontheaggregateriskfromeachpotentialsourcezone,itismore
usefulincharacterizingtheseismichazardatasiteifnumerouspotential
sourcescouldimpactthesite.TheUSGS2002probabilistichazardmapson
theUSGSwebsiteandaspublishedinAASHTO(2007)arebasedonPSHA.
PSHAsandDSHAsmayberequiredwherethesiteislocatedclosetoafault,
long-durationgroundmotionisexpected,oriftheimportanceofthebridge
issuchthatalongerexposureperiodisrequiredbyWSDOT.Foramore
detaileddescriptionandguidelinesfordevelopmentofPSHAsandDSHAs,
seeKramer(1996)andMcGuire(2004).
Sitespecifchazardanalysisshouldincludeconsiderationoftopographicand
basineffects,faultdirectivityandnearfeldeffects.
Ataminimum,seismichazardanalysisshouldconsiderthefollowingsources:
Cascadiasubductionzoneinterpolate(interface)earthquake
Cascadiasubductionzoneintraplate(Bennioff)earthquake
Crustalearthquakesassociatedwithnon-specifcordiffusesources
(potentialsourcesfollow).Thesesourceswillaccountfordiffering
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-79
J anuary 2010
tectonicandseismicprovincesandincludeseismiczonesassociatedwith
Cascade volcanism
Earthquakesonknownandpotentiallyactivecrustalfaults.Thefollowing
listofpotentialseismicsourcesmaybeusedforhazardassessmentand
siteresponsedevelopment.Theapplicabilityofthesesourceswilldepend
ontheirproximitytothesite.
SeattleFaultZone
SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault
UtsaladyFault
StrawberryPointFault
DevilsMountainFault
HorseHeavenHillsAnticline
Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem
MillCreekFault
SaddleMountainsFault
HiteFaultSystem
WhenPSHAorDSHAareperformedforasite,thefollowinginformation
shallbeincludedasaminimuminprojectdocumentationandreports:
Overviewofseismicsourcesconsideredinanalysis
Summaryofseismicsourceparametersincludinglength/boundaries,
sourcetype,sliprate,segmentation,maximummagnitude,recurrence
modelsandrelationshipsused,sourcedepthandgeometry.Thissummary
shouldincludetherationalebehindselectionofsourceparameters.
Assumptionsunderlyingtheanalysisshouldbesummarizedineithera
table(DSHA)orinalogictree(PSHA)
The2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsaspublishedinAASHTO(2007)
essentiallyaccountforregionalseismicityandattenuationrelationships,
recurrencerates,maximummagnitudeofeventsonknowfaultsorsource
zones,andthelocationofthesitewithrespecttothefaultsorsourcezones.
TheUSGSdataissuffcientformostsites,andmoresophisticatedseismic
hazardanalysesaregenerallynotrequired;theexceptionsmaybetocapture
theeffectsofsourcesnotincludedintheUSGSmodel,toassessnearfeldor
directivityinfuences,ortoincorporatetopographicimpactsorbasineffects.
TheAASHTOseismichazardmapsdonotexplicitlyaccountfortheeffects
ofnear-faultmotions(i.e.,groundmotiondirectivityorpulseeffects)or
bedrocktopography(i.e.,socalledbasineffects).Theseeffectsmodifyground
motions,particularlyatcertainperiods,forsiteslocatednearactivefaults
(typicallywith6miles)orforsiteswheresignifcantchangesinbedrock
topographyoccurs.Forspecifcrequirementsregardingnearfaulteffects,see
theAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-80 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6-A.4 Selection of Attenuation Relationships
Attenuationrelationshipsdescribethedecayofearthquakeenergyasit
travelsfromtheseismicsourcetotheprojectsite.Manyofthenewer
publishedrelationshipsarecapableofaccommodatingsitesoilconditions
aswellasvaryingsourceparameters(e.g.,faulttype,locationrelativetothe
fault,near-feldeffects,etc.)Inaddition,duringthepast10years,specifc
attenuationrelationshipshavebeendevelopedforCascadiasubduction
zonesources.Forbothdeterministicandprobabilistichazardassessments,
attenuationrelationshipsusedinanalysisshouldbeselectedbasedon
applicabilitytoboththesiteconditionsandthetypeofseismicsourceunder
consideration.Rationalefortheselectionofandassumptionsunderlyingthe
useofattenuationrelationshipsforhazardcharacterizationshallbeclearly
documented.
AttenuationrelationshipsusedindevelopingtheUSGS/AASHTOSeismic
HazardMapsfortheseGuideSpecifcationsdonotincludetheNext
GenerationAttenuation(NGA)relationshipsdevelopedin2006and2007.It
isrecommendedthattheNGArelationships(Stewart,etal.,2008)beusedfor
anyfuturesite-specifcstudiesformodelingcrustalsources.
Ifdeterministicmethodsareusedtodevelopdesignspectra,thespectral
ordinatesshouldbedevelopedusingarangeofgroundmotionattenuation
relationshipsconsistentwiththesourcemechanisms.Atleastthreetofour
attenuationrelationshipsshouldbeused.
6-A.5 Site Specifc Ground Response Analysis
6-A.5.1 Design/Computer Models
Sitespecifcgroundresponseanalysesaremostcommonlydoneusingone-
dimensionalequivalent-linearornonlinearprocedures.Aonedimensional
analysisisgenerallybasedontheassumptionthatsoilsandgroundsurface
arelaterallyuniformandhorizontalandthatgroundsurfacemotions
canbemodeledbyverticallypropagatingshearwavethroughlaterally
uniformsoils.Theinfuenceofverticalmotions,surfacewaves,laterally
non-uniformsoilconditions,incoherenceandspatialvariationofground
motionsarenotaccountedforinconventional,one-dimensionalanalyses
(Kavazanjian,etal.,1997).Avarietyofsiteresponsecomputermodelsare
availabletogeotechnicaldesignersfordynamicsiteresponseanalyses.In
general,therearethreeclassesofdynamicgroundresponsemodels:1)one
dimensionalequivalentlinear,2)onedimensionalnonlinear,and3)multi-
dimensionmodels.
One-Dimensional Equivalent Linear Models.One-dimensionalequivalent
linearsiteresponsecomputercodes,suchasProShake(EduProCivilSystems,
1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000),useaniterativetotalstressapproach
toestimatethenonlinear,inelasticbehaviorofsoils.Theseprogramsusean
averageshearmodulusandmaterialdampingovertheentirecycleofloading
toapproximatethehysteresisloop.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-81
J anuary 2010
Theequivalentlinearmodelprovidesreasonableresultsforsmallstrains(less
thanabout1to2percent)(KramerandPaulsen,2004).Equivalentlinear
analysisshouldbeusedwithcautionwherelargestrainislikelytooccur.
One-Dimensional Nonlinear Models.One-dimensional,nonlinearcomputer
codes,suchasD-MOD2000,orDESRA,usedirectnumericalintegrationof
the incrementalequationofmotioninsmalltimestepsandaccountforthe
nonlinearsoilbehaviorthroughuseofconstitutivesoilmodels.Depending
upontheconstitutivemodelused,theseprogramscanmodelporewater
pressurebuildupandpermanentdeformations.Theaccuracyofnonlinear
modelsdependsontheproperselectionofparametersusedbyconstitutivesoil
modelandtheabilityoftheconstitutivemodeltorepresenttheresponseofthe
soiltogroundshaking.
AnotherissuethatcanaffecttheaccuracyofthemodelishowtheG/G
max
and
damping relations are modeled and the ability of the design model to adapt
thoserelationstositespecifcdata.Additionally,theproperselectionofa
Rayleighdampingvaluecanhaveasignifcanteffectonthemodelingresults.
Ingeneral,avalueof1to2%isneededtomaintainnumericalstability.
ItshouldberecognizedthattheRayleighdampingwillactinadditionto
hystereticdampingproducedbythenonlinear,inelasticsoilmodel.Rayleigh
dampingshouldthereforebelimitedtothesmallestvaluethatprovidesthe
requirednumericalstability.Theresultsofanalysesusingvaluesgreaterthan
1to2%shouldbeinterpretedwithgreatcaution.
SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.2forspecifcissuesrelatedtoliquefaction
modelingwhenusingone-dimensionalnonlinearanalysismethods.
Two and Three Dimensional Models.Two-andthree-dimensionalsite
responseanalysescanbeperformedusingcomputercodes,suchasQUAD4,
PLAXIS,FLAC,andDYNAFLOW,andusebothequivalentlinearand
nonlinearmodels.Manyattributesofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodels
aresimilartothosedescribedabovefortheone-dimensionalequivalent
linearandnonlinearmodels.However,thetwo-andthree-dimensional
computercodestypicallyrequiresignifcantlymoremodeldevelopmentand
computationaltimethanone-dimensionalanalyses.Theimportantadvantages
ofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodelsincludetheabilitytoconsidersoil
anisotropy,irregularsoilstratigraphy,surfacewaves,irregulartopography,
andsoil-structureinteraction.Anotheradvantagewiththetwo-andthree-
dimensionalmodelsisthatseismicallyinducedpermanentdisplacements
canbeestimated.Successfulapplicationofthesecodesrequiresconsiderable
knowledgeandexperience.Expertpeer review of the analysis shouldbe
conducted,unlessapprovaltonotconductthepeerreviewisobtainedfrom
theStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-82 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis
Theinputparametersrequiredforbothequivalent-linearandnonlinearsite
specifcgroundresponseanalysisincludethesitestratigraphy(including
soillayeringanddepthtorockorrock-likematerial),dynamicproperties
foreachstratigraphiclayer(includingsoilandrockstiffness,e.g.,shear
wavevelocity),andgroundmotiontimehistories.Soilandrockparameters
requiredbytheequivalentlinearmodelsincludetheshearwavevelocityor
initial(smallstrain)shearmodulusandunitweightforeachlayer,andcurves
relatingtheshearmodulusanddampingratioasafunctionofshearstrain(See
Figures6-1through6-3).
Theparametersrequiredforcyclicnonlinearsoilmodelsgenerallyconsist
ofabackbonecurvethatmodelsthestressstrainpathduringcyclicloading
andrulesforloadingandunloading,stiffnessdegradation,porepressure
generationandotherfactors(Kramer,1996).Moresophisticatednonlinearsoil
constitutivemodelsrequiredefnitionofyieldsurfaces,hardeningfunctions,
andfowrules.Manyofthesemodelsrequirespecifcationofmultiple
parameterswhosedeterminationmayrequireasignifcantlaboratorytesting
program.
Oneofthemostcriticalaspectsoftheinputtoasite-specifcresponseanalysis
isthesoilandrockstiffnessandimpedancevaluesorshearwavevelocity
profle.Greatcareshouldbetakeninestablishingtheshearwavevelocity
profleitshouldbemeasuredwheneverpossible.Equalcareshouldbe
takenindevelopingsoilmodels,includingshearwavevelocityprofles,to
adequatelymodelthepotentialrangeandvariabilityingroundmotionsatthe
siteandadequatelyaccountfortheseinthesitespecifcdesignparameters
(e.g.,spectra).Alongbridge,forexample,maycrossmaterialsofsignifcantly
differentstiffness(i.e.,velocities)and/orsoilproflesbeneaththevarious
bridgepiersandabutments.Becausedifferentsoilproflescanrespond
differently,andsometimes(particularlywhenverysoftand/orliquefable
soilsarepresent)verydifferently,greatcareshouldbetakeninselectingand
averagingsoilproflesandpropertiespriortoperformingthesiteresponse
analyses.Inmostcases,itispreferabletoanalyzetheindividualprofles
and then aggregate the responses rather than to average the soil properties or
proflesandanalyzeonlytheaveragedprofle.
Asuiteofgroundmotiontimehistoriesisrequiredforbothequivalentlinear
andnonlinearsiteresponseanalysesasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection
6-A.6.Theuseofatleastthreeinputgroundmotionsisrequiredandsevenor
moreispreferredforsitespecifcgroundresponseanalysis(total,regardless
ofthenumberofsourcezonesthatneedtobeconsidered.Guidelinesfor
selectionanddevelopmentofgroundmotiontimehistoriesarealsodescribed
inWSDOTGDMSection6-A.6.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-83
J anuary 2010
6-A.6 Analysis Using Acceleration-Time Histories
ThesitespecifcanalysesdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3andinthis
appendixarefocusedonthedevelopmentofsitespecifcdesignspectraand
useinothergeotechnicalanalyses.However,sitespecifctimehistoriesmay
berequiredasinputinnonlinearstructuralanalysis.
Timehistorydevelopmentandanalysisforsite-specifcgroundresponse
orotheranalysesshallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Forconvenience,
Article3.4.4andcommentaryoftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
isprovidedbelow:
Earthquake acceleration time histories will be required for site-specifc
ground motion response evaluations and for nonlinear inelastic dynamic
analysis of bridge structures. The time histories for these applications
shall have characteristics that are representative of the seismic
environment of the site and the local site conditions, including the
response spectrum for the site.
Response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be developed from
representative recorded earthquake motions. Analytical techniques used
for spectrum matching shall be demonstrated to be capable of achieving
seismologically realistic time series that are similar to the time series of
the initial time histories selected for spectrum matching. The recorded
time histories should be scaled to the approximate level of the design
response spectrum in the period range of signifcance unless otherwise
approved by the Owner. At least three response-spectrum-compatible time
histories shall be used for representing the design earthquake (ground
motions having 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years) when
conducting dynamic ground motion response analyses or nonlinear
inelastic modeling of bridges.
For site-specifc ground motion response modeling single components
of separate records shall be used in the response analysis. The target
spectrum used to develop the time histories is defned at the base
of the soil column. The target spectrum is obtained from the USGS/
AASHTO Seismic Hazard Maps or from a site-specifc hazard analysis
as described in Article 3.4.3.1.
For nonlinear time history modeling of bridge structures, the target
spectrum is usually located at or close to the ground surface, i.e., the
rock spectrum has been modifed for local site effects. Each component
of motion shall be modeled. The issue of requiring all three orthogonal
components (x, y, and z) of design motion to be input simultaneously
shall be considered as a requirement when conducting a nonlinear
time-history analysis. The design actions shall be taken as the
maximum response calculated for the three ground motions in each
principal direction.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-84 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
If a minimum of seven time histories are used for each component of
motion, the design actions may be taken as the mean response calculated
for each principal direction.
For near-feld sites (D < 6 miles) the recorded horizontal components
of motion selected should represent a near-feld condition and that they
should be transformed into principal components before making them
response-spectrum-compatible. The major principal component should
then be used to represent motion in the fault-normal direction and the
minor principal component should be used to represent motion in the
fault-parallel direction.
Characteristics of the seismic environment of the site to be considered in
selecting time-histories include: tectonic environment (e.g., subduction
zone; shallow crustal faults in western United States or similar crustal
environment; eastern United States or similar crustal environment);
earthquake magnitude; type of faulting (e.g., strike-slip; reverse; normal);
seismic-source-to-site distance; basin effects, local site conditions; and
design or expected ground-motion characteristics (e.g., design response
spectrum; duration of strong shaking; and special ground-motion
characteristics such as near-fault characteristics). Dominant earthquake
magnitudes and distances, which contribute principally to the probabilistic
design response spectra at a site, as determined from national ground
motion maps, can be obtained from deaggregation information on the U.S.
Geological Survey website: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/.
It is desirable to select time-histories that have been recorded under
conditions similar to the seismic conditions at the site listed above, but
compromises are usually required because of the multiple attributes of the
seismic environment and the limited data bank of recorded time-histories.
Selection of time-histories having similar earthquake magnitudes and
distances, within reasonable ranges, are especially important parameters
because they have a strong infuence on response spectral content,
response spectral shape, duration of strong shaking, and near-source
ground-motion characteristics. It is desirable that selected recorded
motions be somewhat similar in overall ground motion level and spectral
shape to the design spectrum to avoid using very large scaling factors
with recorded motions and very large changes in spectral content in the
spectrum-matching approach. If the site is located within 6 miles of an
active fault, then intermediate-to-long-period ground-motion pulses that
are characteristic of near-source time-histories should be included if
these types of ground motion characteristics could signifcantly infuence
structural response. Similarly, the high short-period spectral content of
near-source vertical ground motions should be considered.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-85
J anuary 2010
Ground-motion modeling methods of strong-motion seismology are being
increasingly used to supplement the recorded ground-motion database.
These methods are especially useful for seismic settings for which
relatively few actual strong-motion recordings are available, such as in
the central and eastern United States. Through analytical simulation of
the earthquake rupture and wave-propagation process, these methods can
produce seismologically reasonable time series.
Response spectrum matching approaches include methods in which time
series adjustments are made in the time domain (Lilhanand and Tseng,
1988; Abrahamson, 1992) and those in which the adjustments are made
in the frequency domain (Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976; Silva and
Lee, 1987; Bolt and Gregor, 1993). Both of these approaches can be
used to modify existing time-histories to achieve a close match to the
design response spectrum while maintaining fairly well the basic time-
domain character of the recorded or simulated time-histories. To minimize
changes to the time-domain characteristics, it is desirable that the overall
shape of the spectrum of the recorded time-history not be greatly different
from the shape of the design response spectrum and that the time-history
initially be scaled so that its spectrum is at the approximate level of the
design spectrum before spectrum matching.
When developing three-component sets of time histories by simple scaling
rather than spectrum matching, it is diffcult to achieve a comparable
aggregate match to the design spectra for each component of motion when
using a single scaling factor for each time-history set. It is desirable,
however, to use a single scaling factor to preserve the relationship between
the components. Approaches for dealing with this scaling issue include:
Use of a higher scaling factor to meet the minimum aggregate match
requirement for one component while exceeding it for the other two,
Use of a scaling factor to meet the aggregate match for the most
critical component with the match somewhat defcient for other
components, and
Compromising on the scaling by using different factors as required for
different components of a time-history set.
While the second approach is acceptable, it requires careful examination
and interpretation of the results and possibly dual analyses for application
of the horizontal higher horizontal component in each principal horizontal
direction.
The requirements for the number of time histories to be used in nonlinear
inelastic dynamic analysis and for the interpretation of the results take
into account the dependence of response on the time domain character of
the time histories (duration, pulse shape, pulse sequencing) in addition to
their response spectral content.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-86 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Additional guidance on developing acceleration time histories for
dynamic analysis may be found in publications by the Caltrans Seismic
Advisory Board Adhoc Committee (CSABAC) on Soil-Foundation-
Structure Interaction (1999) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(2000). CSABAC (1999) also provides detailed guidance on modeling the
spatial variation of ground motion between bridge piers and the conduct
of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) analyses. Both
spatial variations of ground motion and SFSI may signifcantly affect
bridge response. Spatial variations include differences between seismic
wave arrival times at bridge piers (wave passage effect), ground motion
incoherence due to seismic wave scattering, and differential site response
due to different soil profles at different bridge piers. For long bridges,
all forms of spatial variations may be important. For short bridges,
limited information appears to indicate that wave passage effects and
incoherence are, in general, relatively unimportant in comparison to
effects of differential site response (Shinozuka et al., 1999; Martin, 1998).
Somerville et al. (1999) provide guidance on the characteristics of pulses
of ground motion that occur in time histories in the near-fault region.
Inadditiontotheinformationsourcescitedabove,Kramer(1996)and
BommerandAcevedo(2004)provideexcellentguidanceontheselection,
scaling,anduseoftimehistoriesforgroundmotioncharacterizationand
dynamicanalysis.
Finalselectionoftimehistoriestobeusedwilldependontwofactors:
Howwelltheresponsespectrumgeneratedfromthescaledtimehistories
matchesthedesignresponsespectrum,and
Similarityofthefaultmechanismsforthetimehistoriestothoseof
recognizedseismicsourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismic
hazardAlso,iftheearthquakerecordsareusedinthesitespecifcground
responsemodelasbedrockmotion,therecordsshouldberecordedon
siteswithbedrockcharacteristics.Thefrequencycontent,earthquake
magnitude,andpeakbedrockaccelerationshouldalsobeusedascriteria
toselectearthquaketimehistoriesforuseinsitespecifcgroundresponse
analysis.
Therequirementsinthefrstbulletaremostimportanttomeetifthefocusof
theseismicmodelingisstructuralandfoundationdesign.Therequirements
inthesecondbulletaremostimportanttomeetifliquefactionanditseffects
areamajorconsiderationinthedesignofthestructureanditsfoundations.
Especiallyimportantinthelattercaseisthedurationofstrongmotion.
Notethatapotentialissuewiththeuseofaspectrum-compatiblemotion
thatshouldbeconsideredisthatinwesternWashington,theuniformhazard
spectrum(UHS)mayhavesignifcantcontributionsfromdifferentsources
thathavemajordifferencesinmagnitudesandsite-to-sourcedistances.The
UHScannotconvenientlybeapproximatedbyasingleearthquakesource.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-87
J anuary 2010
Forexample,thelowperiod(highfrequency)partoftheUHSspectrummay
becontrolledbyalow-magnitude,short-distanceeventandthelongperiod
(lowfrequency)portionbyalarge-magnitude,long-distanceevent.Fittinga
singlemotiontothattargetspectrumwillthereforeproduceanunrealistically
energeticmotionwithanunlikelyduration.Usingthatmotionasaninput
toananalysisinvolvingsignifcantamountsofnonlinearity(suchassome
sortofpermanentdeformationanalysis,ortheanalysisofastructurewith
severeloading)canleadtooverpredictionofresponse(soiland/orstructural).
However,ifthesoilisoverloadedbythispotentiallyunrealisticallyenergetic
predictionofgroundmotion,thesoilcouldsoftenexcessivelyanddampena
lotofenergy(largestrains),morethanwouldbeexpectedinreality,leadingto
anunconservativepredictionofdemandsinthestructure.
Toaddressthispotentialissue,timehistoriesrepresentingthedistinctly
differentseismicsources(e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone)
shouldbespectrallymatchedorscaledtocorrespondinglydistinct,source-
specifcspectra.Asource-specifcspectrumshouldmatchtheUHSordesign
spectrumovertheperiodrangeinwhichthesourceisthemostsignifcant
contributortothegroundmotionhazard,butwilllikelybelowerthanthe
UHSordesignspectrumatotherperiodsforwhichthesourceisnotthemost
signifcantcontributortothehazard.However,thedifferentsource-spectra
inaggregateshouldenvelopetheUHSordesignspectrum.Approvalbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineerisrequiredforuseof
source-specifcspectraandtimehistories.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-88 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis Contents
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-1
7.3 DesignRequirements 7-2
7.4 ResistanceFactorsandSafetyFactorsforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-4
7.5 References 7-5
Contents Chapter 7
Page 7-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview
Slopestabilityanalysisisusedinawidevarietyofgeotechnicalengineering
problems,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:
Determinationofstablecutandfllslopes
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofretainingwalls,includingglobal
andcompoundstability(includespermanentsystemsandtemporary
shoringsystems)
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofshallowanddeepfoundationsfor
structureslocatedonslopesoroverpotentiallyunstablesoils,including
thedeterminationoflateralforcesappliedtofoundationsandwallsdue
topotentiallyunstableslopes
Stabilityassessmentoflandslides(mechanismsoffailure,and
determinationofdesignpropertiesthroughback-analysis),anddesign
ofmitigationtechniquestoimprovestability
Evaluationofinstabilityduetoliquefaction
Typesofslopestabilityanalysesincluderotationalslopefailure,translational
failure,irregularsurfacesofsliding,andinfniteslopefailure.Stability
analysistechniquesspecifctorockslopes,otherthanhighlyfractured
rockmassesthatcanineffectbetreatedassoil,aredescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter12.Detailedstabilityassessmentoflandslidesisdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter13.
7.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for
Slope Stability Analysis
TheinputdataneededforslopestabilityanalysisisdescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter2forsiteinvestigationconsiderations,WSDOTGDMChapters
9and10forfllsandcuts,andWSDOTGDMChapter13forlandslides.
WSDOTGDMChapter5providesrequirementsfortheassessmentofdesign
propertyinputparameters.
Detailedassessmentofsoilandrockstratigraphyiscriticaltotheproper
assessmentofslopestability,andisinitselfadirectinputparameterforslope
stabilityanalysis.Itisimportanttodefneanythinweaklayerspresent,the
presenceofslickensides,etc.,asthesefnedetailsofthestratigraphycould
controlthestabilityoftheslopeinquestion.Knowledgeofthegeologicnature
oftheunitspresentatthesiteandknowledgeofpastperformanceofsuch
unitsmayalsobecriticalfactorsintheassessmentofslopestability.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-1
J anuary 2010
Whetherlong-termorshort-termstabilityisinview,andwhichwillcontrol
thestabilityoftheslope,willaffecttheselectionofsoilandrockshear
strengthparametersusedasinputintheanalysis.Forshort-termstability
analysis,undrainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.Forlong-
termstabilityanalysis,drainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.
Forassessingthestabilityoflandslides,residualshearstrengthparameters
willbeneeded,sincethesoilhasinsuchhas typicallydeformedenoughto
reacharesidualvalue.Forhighlyoverconsolidatedclays,suchastheSeattle
clays(e.g.,LawtonFormation),iftheslopeisrelativelyfreetodeformafter
thecutismadeorisotherwiseunloaded,residualshearstrengthparameters
shouldbeobtainedandusedforthestabilityanalysis.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter5forguidanceonthedevelopmentofshearstrengthparameters.
Detailedassessmentofthegroundwaterregimewithinandbeneaththeslope/
landslide massisalsocritical.Detailedpieziometricdataatmultiplelocations
anddepthswithinandbelowtheslopewilllikelybeneeded,dependingon
thegeologiccomplexityofthestratigraphyandgroundwaterconditions.
Potentialseepageatthefaceoftheslopemustbeassessedandaddressed.
Insomecases,detailedfownetanalysismaybeneeded.Ifseepagedoes
exit attheslopeface,thepotentialforsoilpipingshouldalsobeassessed
asaslopestabilityfailuremechanism,especiallyinhighlyerodablesilts
andsands.Ifgroundwatervariesseasonally,long-termmonitoringofthe
groundwaterlevelsinthesoilshouldbeconducted.Ifgroundwaterlevels
tendtoberesponsivetosignifcantrainfallevents,thelong-termgroundwater
monitoringshouldbecontinuous,andon-siterainfalldatacollectionshould
also be considered.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limitequilibriummethodsshallbeusedtoassessslopestability.The
ModifedBishop,simplifedJanbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslope
stabilityanalysismethodsshouldbeusedforrotational,translational and
irregularsurfacefailuremechanisms.Incaseswherethestabilityfailure
mechanismsanticipatedarenotwellmodeledbylimitequilibriumtechniques,
orifdeformationanalysisoftheslopeisrequired,moresophisticated
analysistechniques(e.g.,fnitedifferencemethodssuchasisusedbythe
computerprogramFLAC)maybeusedinadditiontothelimitequilibrium
methodologies.Sincethesemoresophisticatedmethodsarequitesensitive
tothequalityoftheinputdataandthedetailsofthemodelsetup,including
theselectionofconstitutivemodelsusedtorepresentthematerialproperties
andbehavior,limitequilibriummethodsshouldalsobeusedinsuchcases.
Ifthedifferencesintheresultsaresignifcant,engineeringjudgmentshould
beappliedinconjunctionwithanyavailablefeldobservationstoassessthe
correctnessofthedesignmodelused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthepotentialslopefailuremechanismisanticipatedtoberelativelyshallow
andparalleltotheslopeface,withorwithoutseepageaffects,aninfnite
slopeanalysisshouldbeconducted.Typically,slopeheightsof15to20ftor
morearerequiredtohavethistypeoffailuremechanism.Forinfniteslopes
consisting of cohesionless soils that are either above the water table or that
arefullysubmerged,thefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityisdeterminedas
follows:
FS =
Tan
Tan
(7-1)
where,
= the angle of internal friction for the soil
= theslopeanglerelativetothehorizontal
Forinfniteslopesthathaveseepageattheslopeface,thefactorofsafetyfor
slopestabilityisdeterminedasfollows:
FS =
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
J anbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
=the angle of internal friction for the soil
=the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
=the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
=the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

s
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
J anbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
=the angle of internal friction for the soil
=the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
=the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
=the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Tan
Tan
(7-2)
where,

b
= thebuoyantunitweightofthesoil

s
= thesaturatedunitweightofthesoil
Consideringthatthebuoyantunitweightisroughlyone-halfofthesaturated
unitweight,seepageontheslopefacecanreducethefactorofsafetyby
afactoroftwo,aconditionwhichshouldobviouslybeavoidedthrough
sometypeofdrainageifatallpossible;otherwisemuchfatterslopeswill
beneeded.Whenusingtheinfniteslopemethod,iftheFSisnearorbelow
1.0to1.15,severeerosionorshallowslumpingislikely.Vegetationonthe
slopecanhelptoreducethisproblem,asthevegetationrootsaddcohesion
tothesurfcialsoil,improvingstability.Notethatconductinganinfnite
slopeanalysisdoesnotprecludetheneedtocheckfordeeperslopefailure
mechanisms,suchaswouldbeassessedbytheModifedBishoporsimilar
methodslistedabove.
Translational(block)ornoncircularsearchesaregenerallymoreappropriate
formodelingthinweaklayersorsuspectedplanesofweakness.Ifthereisa
disparatelystronguniteitherbeloworaboveathinweakunit,theusermust
ensurethatthemodeledfailureplanelieswithinthesuspectedweakunitso
thatthemostcriticalfailuresurfaceismodeledasaccuratelyaspossible.
Circularsearchesforthesetypesofconditionsshouldgenerallybeavoidedas
theydonotgenerallymodelthemostcriticalfailuresurface.
Forverysimplifedcases,designchartstoassessslopestabilityareavailable.
ExamplesofsimplifeddesignchartsareprovidedinNAVFACDM-7.These
chartsareforac-soil,andapplyonlytorelativelyuniformsoilconditions
withinandbelowthecutslope.Theydonotapplytofllsoverrelativelysoft
ground,aswellastocutsinprimarilycohesivesoils.Sincethesechartsare
forac-soil,asmallcohesionwillbeneededtoperformthecalculation.If
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-3
J anuary 2010
thesechartsaretobeused,itisrecommendedthatacohesionof50to100
psfbeusedincombinationwiththesoilfrictionangleobtainedfromSPT
correlationforrelativelycleansandsandgravels.Forsiltytoverysiltysands
andgravels,thecohesioncouldbeincreasedto100to200psf,butwiththe
frictionanglefromSPTcorrelation(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5)reducedby
2to3degrees,ifitisnotfeasibletoobtainundisturbedsoilsamplessuitable
forlaboratorytestingtomeasurethesoilshearstrengthdirectly.Thisshould
beconsideredgeneralguidance,andgoodengineeringjudgmentshouldbe
appliedwhenselectingsoilparametersforthistypeofananalysis.Simplifed
designchartsshallonlybeusedforfnaldesignofnon-criticalslopesthatare
approximately10ftinheightorlessandthatareconsistentwiththesimplifed
assumptionsusedbythedesignchart.Simplifeddesignchartsmaybeusedas
applicableforlargerslopesforpreliminarydesign.
ThedetailedguidanceforslopestabilityanalysisprovidedbyAbramson,etal.
(1996)shouldbeused.
7.4 Resistance Factors and Safety Factors for Slope
Stability Analysis
Foroverallstabilityanalysisofwallsandstructurefoundations,designshall
beconsistentwithWSDOTGDMchapters6,8and15andtheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Forslopesadjacenttobutnotdirectly
supportingstructures,amaximumresistancefactorof0.75shouldbeused.
Forfoundationsonslopesthatsupportstructuressuchasbridgesandretaining
walls,amaximumresistancefactorof0.65shouldbeused.Exceptionstothis
couldincludeminorwallsthathaveaminimalimpactonthestabilityofthe
existingslope,inwhichthe0.75resistancefactormaybeused.Sincethese
resistancefactorsarecombinedwithaloadfactorof1.0(overallstabilityis
assessedasaservicelimitstateonly),theseresistancefactorsof0.75and
0.65areequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.3and1.5,respectively.
Forgeneralslopestabilityanalysisofpermanentcuts,flls,andlandslide
repairs,aminimumsafetyfactorof1.25shouldbeused.Largersafety
factorsshouldbeusedifthereissignifcantuncertaintyintheanalysisinput
parameters.TheMonteCarlosimulationfeaturesnowavailableinsomeslope
stabilitycomputerprogramsmaybeusedforthispurpose,fromwhicha
probabilityoffailurecanbedetermined,providedacoeffcientofvariationfor
eachoftheinputparameterscanbeascertained.Forconsiderationsregarding
thestatisticalcharacterizationofinputparameters,seeAllen,etal.(2005).
Forminimumsafetyfactorsandresistancefactorsfortemporarycuts,see
WSDOTGDMSection15.6.
Forseismicanalysis,ifseismicanalysisisconducted(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter6forpoliciesonthisissue),amaximumresistancefactorof0.9
shouldbeusedforslopesinvolvingoradjacenttowallsandstructure
foundations.Thisisequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.1.Forotherslopes(cuts,
flls,andlandsliderepairs),aminimumsafetyfactorof1.05shallbeused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Conditions Probability of Failure, Pf
Unacceptable in most cases >0.1
Temporary structures with no potential life loss and low repair cost 0.1
Slope of riverbank at docks, no alternative docks, pier shutdown threatens
operations
0.01 to 0.02
Low consequences of failure, repairs when time permits, repair cost less
than cost to go to lower Pf
0.01
Existing large cut on interstate highway 0.01 to 0.02
New large cut (i.e., to be constructed) on interstate highway 0.01 or less
Acceptable in most cases except if lives may be lost 0.001
Acceptable for all slopes 0.0001
Unnecessarily low 0.00001
Slope stability probability of failure (adapted from Santamarina, et al., 1992)
Table 7-1
7.5 References
Abramson,L.,Boyce,G.,Lee,T.,andSharma,S.,1996,Slope Stability and
Stabilization Methods,Wiley,ISBN0471106224.
Allen,T.,Nowak,A.,andBathurst,R.,2005,CalibrationtoDetermineLoad
andResistanceFactorsforGeotechnicalandStructuralDesign.TRBCircular
E-C079,83pp.
Santamarina,J.C.,Altschaeff,A.G.,andChameau,J.L.,1992,Reliability
ofSlopes:IncorporatingQualitativeInformation,TransportationResearch
Board,TRR1343,Washington,D.C.,pp.1-5.
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-5
J anuary 2010
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 8 Foundation Design Contents
8.1 Overview 8-1
8.2 OverallDesignProcessforStructureFoundations 8-1
8.3 DataNeededforFoundationDesign 8-5
8.3.1 FieldExplorationRequirementsforFoundations 8-7
8.3.2 LaboratoryandFieldTestingRequirementsforFoundations 8-10
8.4 FoundationSelectionConsiderations 8-10
8.5 OverviewofLRFDforFoundations 8-12
8.6 LRFDLoads,LoadGroupsandLimitStatestobeConsidered 8-13
8.6.1 FoundationAnalysistoEstablishLoadDistributionforStructure 8-13
8.6.2 DowndragLoads 8-15
8.6.3 UpliftLoadsduetoExpansiveSoils 8-16
8.6.4 SoilLoadsonBuriedStructures 8-16
8.6.5 ServiceLimitStates 8-16
8.6.5.1 TolerableMovements 8-17
8.6.5.2 OverallStability 8-19
8.6.5.3 AbutmentTransitions 8-20
8.6.6 StrengthLimitStates 8-21
8.6.7 ExtremeEventLimitStates 8-21
8.7 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignDesignParameters 8-21
8.8 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignServiceLimitStates 8-22
8.9 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignStrengthLimitStates 8-22
8.10 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.10.1 Scour 8-23
8.10.2 OtherExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.11 SpreadFootingDesign 8-23
8.11.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoFootingDesign 8-24
8.11.2 FootingFoundationDesign 8-27
8.11.2.1 FootingBearingDepth 8-28
8.11.2.2 NearbyStructures 8-28
8.11.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-28
8.11.2.3.1 SettlementofFootingsonCohesionlessSoils 8-28
8.11.2.3.2 SettlementofFootingsonRock 8-29
8.11.2.3.3 BearingResistanceattheServiceLimitState
UsingPresumptiveValues 8-29
8.11.2.4 StrengthLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-29
8.11.2.4.1 TheoreticalEstimationofBearingResistance 8-29
8.11.2.4.2 PlateLoadTestsforDeterminationofBearing
ResistanceinSoil 8-30
8.11.2.4.3 BearingResistanceofFootingsonRock 8-30
8.11.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-30
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-i
J anuary 2010
8.12 DrivenPileFoundationDesign 8-31
8.12.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrivenPileDesign 8-33
8.12.2 DrivenforPileFoundationGeotechnicalDesign 8-35
8.12.2.1 DrivenPileSizesandMaximumResistances 8-35
8.12.2.2 MinimumPileSpacing 8-36
8.12.2.3 DeterminationofPileLateralResistance 8-36
8.12.2.4 BatterPiles 8-37
8.12.2.5 ServiceLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-37
8.12.2.5.1 OverallStability 8-37
8.12.2.5.2 HorizontalPileFoundationMovement 8-37
8.12.2.6 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofPileFoundations 8-37
8.12.2.6.1 NominalAxialResistanceChangeafterPile
Driving 8-37
8.12.2.6.2 Scour 8-37
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag 8-39
8.12.2.6.4 DeterminationofNominalAxialPileResistance
in Compression 8-41
8.12.2.6.5 NominalHorizontalResistanceofPileFoundations8-43
8.12.2.7 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-44
8.13 DrilledShaftFoundationDesign 8-46
8.13.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrilledShaftDesign 8-48
8.13.2 DrilledShaftGeotechnicalDesign 8-48
8.13.2.1 GeneralConsiderations 8-48
8.13.2.2 NearbyStructures 8-48
8.13.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts 8-49
8.13.2.3.1 HorizontalMovementofShaftsandShaftGroups 8-49
8.13.2.3.2 OverallStability 8-50
8.13.2.4 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofDrilledShafts 8-50
8.13.2.4.1 Scour 8-50
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag 8-51
8.13.2.4.3 NominalHorizontalResistanceofShaftand
ShaftGroupFoundations 8-51
8.13.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts 8-52
8.14 Micropiles 8-52
8.15 ProprietaryFoundationSystems 8-52
8.16 DetentionVaults 8-53
8.16.1 Overview 8-53
8.16.2 FieldInvestigationRequirements 8-53
8.16.3 DesignRequirements 8-54
8.17 References 8-54
Contents Chapter 8
Page 8-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 8 Foundation Design
8.1 Overview
Thischaptercoversthegeotechnicaldesignofbridgefoundations,cut-and-
covertunnelfoundations,foundationsforwalls,andhydraulicstructure
foundations(pipearches,boxculverts,fexibleculverts,etc.).WSDOT
GDMChapter17coversfoundationdesignforlightlyloadedstructures,and
WSDOTGDMChapter18coversfoundationdesignformarinestructures.
Bothshallow(e.g.,spreadfootings)anddeep(piles,shafts,micro-piles,
etc.)foundationsareaddressed.Ingeneral,theloadandresistancefactor
designapproach(LRFD)asprescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsshallbeused,unlessaLRFDdesignmethodologyisnot
availableforthespecifcfoundationtypebeingconsidered(e.g.,micro-piles).
Structuraldesignofbridgeandotherstructurefoundationsisaddressedinthe
WSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM).
AllstructurefoundationswithinWSDOTRightofWayorwhoseconstruction
isadministeredbyWSDOTshallbedesignedinaccordancewiththeWSDOT
GeotechnicalDesignManual(GDM)andthefollowingdocuments:
WSDOTBridge Design ManualLRFDM23-50
WSDOTStandard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
M21-01
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,U.S.
Themostcurrentversionsoftheabovereferencedmanualsincludingall
interimsordesignmemorandamodifyingthemanualsshallbeused.Inthe
caseofconfictordiscrepancybetweenmanuals,thefollowinghierarchyshall
beused:thosemanualslistedfrstshallsupersedethoselistedbelowinthelist.
8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations
TheoverallprocessforgeotechnicaldesignisaddressedinWSDOTGDM
Chapters1and23.Fordesignofstructurefoundations,theoverallWSDOT
designprocess,includingboththegeotechnicalandstructuraldesign
functions,isasillustratedinFigure8-1.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-1
J anuary 2010
Bridge and Structures Office
(BO) requests conceptual
foundation recommendations
from GeotechnicalDivision (GD)
GD provides
conceptual foundation
recommendations to BO
BO obtains site data
from Region, develops
draft preliminary plan,
and provides initial foundation
needs input to GD
BO performs structural analysis
and modeling, and provides
feedback to GD regarding
foundation loads, type,
size, depth, and configuration
needed for structural purposes
BO performs final structural
modeling and develops final
PS&E for structure
GD provides
preliminary
foundation design
recommendations
GD performs final
geotechnical design
as needed and
provides final
geotechnical report
for the structure
Iterate
Overall design process for LRFD foundation design.
Figure 8-1
Thestepsinthefowchartaredefnedasfollows:
ConceptualBridgeFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinan
informalcommunication/reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionatthe
requestoftheBridgeandStructuresOffce.Thisinformalcommunication/
report,consistentwithwhatisdescribedforconceptuallevelgeotechnical
reportsinWSDOTGDMChapter23,providesabriefdescriptionofthe
anticipatedsiteconditions,anestimateofthemaximumslopefeasibleforthe
bridgeapproachfllsforthepurposeofdeterminingbridgelength,conceptual
foundationtypesfeasible,andconceptualevaluationofpotentialgeotechnical
hazardssuchasliquefaction.Thepurposeoftheserecommendationsisto
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
provideenoughgeotechnicalinformationtoallowthebridgepreliminaryplan
tobeproduced.Thistypeofconceptualevaluationcouldalsobeappliedto
othertypesofstructures,suchastunnelsorspecialdesignretainingwalls.
DevelopSitedataandPreliminaryPlanDuringthisphase,theBridge
andStructuresOffceobtainssitedatafromtheRegion(seeWSDOT
DesignManual,Chapters510,1110,and1130)anddevelopsapreliminary
bridgeplan(orotherstructure)adequatefortheGeotechnicalDivisionto
locateboringsinpreparationforthefnaldesignofthestructure(i.e.,pier
locationsareknownwitharelativelyhighdegreeofcertainty).TheBridge
andStructuresOffcewouldalsoprovidethefollowinginformationtothe
GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtoadequatelydevelopthepreliminary
foundationdesign:
Anticipatedstructuretypeandmagnitudesofsettlement(bothtotaland
differential)thestructurecantolerate.
Atabutments,theapproximatemaximumelevationfeasibleforthetopof
thefoundationinconsiderationofthefoundationdepth.
Forinteriorpiers,thenumberofcolumnsanticipated,andiftherewillbe
singlefoundationelementsforeachcolumn,orifonefoundationelement
willsupportmultiplecolumns.
Atstreamcrossings,thedepthofscouranticipated,ifknown.
Typically,theGeotechnicalDivisionwillpursuethisissuewiththeHQ
HydraulicsOffce.
Anyknownconstraintsthatwouldaffectthefoundationsintermsof
type,location,orsize,oranyknownconstraintswhichwouldaffectthe
assumptionswhichneedtobemadetodeterminethenominalresistanceof
thefoundation(e.g.,utilitiesthatmustremain,constructionstagingneeds,
excavation,shoringandfalseworkneeds,otherconstructabilityissues).
PreliminaryFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinamemorandum
producedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionattherequestoftheBridgeand
StructuresOffcethatprovidesgeotechnicaldataadequatetodothe
structuralanalysisandmodelingforallloadgroupstobeconsideredfor
thestructure.Thegeotechnicaldataispreliminaryinthatitisnotinfnal
formforpublicationandtransmittaltopotentialbidders.Inaddition,the
foundationrecommendationsaresubjecttochange,dependingontheresults
ofthestructuralanalysisandmodelingandtheeffectthatmodelingand
analysishasonfoundationtypes,locations,sizes,anddepths,aswellas
anydesignassumptionsmadebythegeotechnicaldesigner.Preliminary
foundationrecommendationsmayalsobesubjecttochangedependingon
theconstructionstagingneedsandotherconstructabilityissuesthatare
discoveredduringthisdesignphase.Geotechnicalworkconductedduringthis
stagetypicallyincludescompletionofthefeldexplorationprogramtothe
fnalPS&Elevel,developmentoffoundationtypesandcapacitiesfeasible,
foundationdepthsneeded,P-Ycurvedataandsoilspringdataforseismic
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-3
J anuary 2010
modeling,seismicsitecharacterizationandestimatedgroundacceleration,
andrecommendationstoaddressknownconstructabilityissues.Adescription
ofsubsurfaceconditionsandapreliminarysubsurfaceproflewouldalsobe
providedatthisstage,butdetailedboringlogsandlaboratorytestdatawould
usuallynotbeprovided.
StructuralAnalysisandModelingInthisphase,theBridgeandStructures
Offceusesthepreliminaryfoundationdesignrecommendationsprovided
bytheGeotechnicalDivisiontoperformthestructuralmodelingofthe
foundationsystemandsuperstructure.Throughthismodeling,theBridgeand
StructuresOffcedeterminesanddistributestheloadswithinthestructure
forallappropriateloadcases,factorstheloadsasappropriate,andsizesthe
foundationsusingthefoundationnominalresistancesandresistancefactors
providedbytheGeotechnicalDivision.Constructabilityandconstruction
stagingneedswouldcontinuetobeinvestigatedduringthisphase.TheBridge
andStructuresOffcewouldalsoprovidethefollowingfeedbacktothe
GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtochecktheirpreliminaryfoundation
designandproducetheFinalGeotechnicalReportforthestructure:
Anticipatedfoundationloads(includingloadfactorsandload
groupsused).
Foundationsize/diameteranddepthrequiredtomeetstructuralneeds.
Foundationdetailsthatcouldaffectthegeotechnicaldesignofthe
foundations.
Sizeandconfgurationofdeepfoundationgroups.
FinalFoundationDesign-Thisdesignstepresultsinaformalgeotechnical
reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionthatprovidesfnalgeotechnical
recommendationsforthesubjectstructure.Thisreportincludesall
geotechnicaldataobtainedatthesite,includingfnalboringlogs,subsurface
profles,andlaboratorytestdata,allfnalfoundationrecommendations,and
fnalconstructabilityrecommendationsforthestructure.Atthistime,the
GeotechnicalDivisionwillchecktheirpreliminaryfoundationdesignin
considerationofthestructuralfoundationdesignresultsdeterminedbythe
BridgeandStructuresOffce,andmakemodifcationstothepreliminary
foundationdesignasneededtoaccommodatethestructuraldesignneeds
providedbytheBridgeandStructuresOffce.Itispossiblethatmuchofwhat
wasincludedinthepreliminaryfoundationdesignmemorandummaybe
copiedintothefnalgeotechnicalreport,ifnodesignchangesareneeded.This
reportwillalsobeusedforpublicationanddistributiontopotentialbidders.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
FinalStructuralModelingandPS&EDevelopmentInthisphase,the
BridgeandStructuresOffcemakesanyadjustmentsneededtotheirstructural
modeltoaccommodateanychangesmadetothegeotechnicalfoundation
recommendationsastransmittedinthefnalgeotechnicalreport.Fromthis,the
bridgedesignandfnalPS&Ewouldbecompleted.
Notethatasimilardesignprocessshouldbeusedifaconsultantordesign-
builderisperformingoneorbothdesignfunctions.
8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design
ThedataneededforfoundationdesignshallbeasdescribedintheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Section10(mostcurrentversion).The
expectedprojectrequirementsandsubsurfaceconditionsshouldbeanalyzed
todeterminethetypeandquantityofinformationtobedevelopedduringthe
geotechnicalinvestigation.Duringthisphaseitisnecessaryto:
Identifydesignandconstructabilityrequirements(e.g.providegrade
separation,transferloadsfrombridgesuperstructure,providefordry
excavation)andtheireffectonthegeotechnicalinformationneeded
Identifyperformancecriteria(e.g.limitingsettlements,rightofway
restrictions,proximityofadjacentstructures)andschedulecontraints
Identifyareasofconcernonsiteandpotentialvariabilityoflocalgeology
Developlikelysequenceandphasesofconstructionandtheireffectonthe
geotechnical information needed
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.bearingcapacity,
settlement,globalstability)
Identifyengineeringpropertiesandparametersrequiredfortheseanalyses
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtypeandconstructionmethods
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
forthem.
Table8-1providesasummaryofinformationneedsandtestingconsiderations
forfoundationdesign.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-5
J anuary 2010
Found-
ation
Type
Engineering
Evaluations
Required Information for Analyses Field Testing Laboratory Testing
S
h
a
l
l
o
w

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
bearing capacity
settlement (magnitude
& rate)
shrink/swell of
foundation soils
(natural soils or
embankment fll)
frost heave
scour (for water
crossings)
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, groundwater,
rock)
shear strength parameters
compressibility parameters (including
consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and
elastic modulus)
frost depth
stress history (present and past vertical
effective stresses)
depth of seasonal moisture change
unit weights
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
SPT
(granular
soils)
CPT
PMT
dilatometer
rock coring
(RQD)
plate load
testing
geophysical
testing
1-D Oedometer tests
soil/rock shear tests
grain size distribution
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
moisture content
unit weight
organic content
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
D
r
i
v
e
n

P
i
l
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
pile end-bearing
pile skin friction
settlement
down-drag on pile
lateral earth pressures
chemical compatibility
of soil and pile
drivability
presence of boulders/
very hard layers
scour (for water
crossings)
vibration/heave
damage to nearby
structures
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, ground water,
rock)
shear strength parameters
horizontal earth pressure coeffcients
interface friction parameters (soil and
pile)
compressibility parameters
chemical composition of soil/rock (e.g.,
potential corrosion issues)
unit weights
presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin
friction)
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
SPT
(granular
soils)
pile load test
CPT
PMT
vane shear
test
dilatometer
piezometers
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
soil/rock shear tests
interface friction tests
grain size distribution
1-D Oedometer tests
pH, resistivity tests
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
organic content
moisture content
unit weight
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
D
r
i
l
l
e
d

S
h
a
f
t

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
shaft end bearing
shaft skin friction
constructability
down-drag on shaft
quality of rock socket
lateral earth pressures
settlement (magnitude
& rate)
groundwater seepage/
dewatering/ potential
for caving
presence of boulders/
very hard layers
scour (for water
crossings)
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, ground water,
rock)
shear strength parameters
interface shear strength friction
parameters (soil and shaft)
compressibility parameters
horizontal earth pressure coeffcients
chemical composition of soil/rock
unit weights
permeability of water-bearing soils
presence of artesian conditions
presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin
friction)
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
degradation of soft rock in presence of
water and/or air (e.g., rock sockets in
shales)
installation
technique
test shaft
shaft load
test
vane shear
test
CPT
SPT
(granular
soils)
PMT
dilatometer
piezometers
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
1-D Oedometer
soil/rock shear tests
grain size distribution
interface friction tests
pH, resistivity tests
permeability tests
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
moisture content
unit weight
organic content
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
slake durability
Summary of Information Needs and Testing Considerations
(modifed after Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Table 8-1
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOTGDMChapter5 coverstherequirementsforhowtheresultsfromthe
feldinvestigation,thefeldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingaretobeused
separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesfordesign.Thespecifc
testandfeldinvestigationrequirementsneededforfoundationdesignare
describedinthefollowingsections.
8.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations
Subsurfaceexplorationsshallbeperformedtoprovidetheinformationneeded
forthedesignandconstructionoffoundations.Theextentofexplorationshall
bebasedonvariabilityinthesubsurfaceconditions,structuretype,andany
projectrequirementsthatmayaffectthefoundationdesignorconstruction.
Theexplorationprogramshouldbeextensiveenoughtorevealthenatureand
typesofsoildepositsand/orrockformationsencountered,theengineering
propertiesofthesoilsand/orrocks,thepotentialforliquefaction,andthe
groundwaterconditions.Theexplorationprogramshouldbesuffcientto
identifyanddelineateproblematicsubsurfaceconditionssuchaskarstic
formations,minedoutareas,swelling/collapsingsoils,existingfllorwaste
areas,etc.
Boringsshouldbesuffcientinnumberanddepthtoestablishareliable
longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofleatareasofconcern,suchasat
structurefoundationlocations,adjacentearthworklocations,andtoinvestigate
anyadjacentgeologichazardsthatcouldaffectthestructureperformance.
GuidelinesonthenumberanddepthofboringsarepresentedinTable8-2.
Whileengineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedbyalicensedand
experienced geotechnical professional to adapt the exploration program to the
foundationtypesanddepthsneededandtothevariabilityinthesubsurface
conditionsobserved,theintentofTable8-2regardingtheminimumlevelof
explorationneededshouldbecarriedout.Geophysicaltestingmaybeusedto
guidetheplanningofthesubsurfaceexplorationandreducetherequirements
forborings.ThedepthofboringsindicatedinTable8-2performedbeforeor
duringdesignshouldtakeintoaccountthepotentialforchangesinthetype,
sizeanddepthoftheplannedfoundationelements.
Table8-2shallbeusedasastartingpointfordeterminingthelocationsof
borings.Thefnalexplorationprogramshouldbeadjustedbasedonthe
variabilityoftheanticipatedsubsurfaceconditionsaswellasthevariability
observedduringtheexplorationprogram.Ifconditionsaredeterminedto
bevariable,theexplorationprogramshouldbeincreasedrelativetothe
requirementsinTable8-2suchthattheobjectiveofestablishingareliable
longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofleisachieved.Ifconditions
areobservedtobehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimal
impactonthefoundationperformance,andpreviouslocalgeotechnical
andconstructionexperiencehasindicatedthatsubsurfaceconditions
arehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimalimpactonthe
foundationperformance,areducedexplorationprogramrelativetowhatis
specifedinTable8-2maybeconsidered.Eventhebestandmostdetailed
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-7
J anuary 2010
subsurfaceexplorationprogramsmaynotidentifyeveryimportantsubsurface
problemconditionifconditionsarehighlyvariable.Thegoalofthesubsurface
explorationprogram,however,istoreducetheriskofsuchproblemstoan
acceptableminimum.
Forsituationswherelargediameterrocksocketedshaftswillbeusedorwhere
drilledshaftsarebeinginstalledinformationsknowntohavelargeboulders,
orvoidssuchasinkarsticorminedareas,itmaybenecessarytoadvancea
boringatthelocationofeachshaft.
Inalaterallyhomogeneousarea,drillingoradvancingalargenumberof
boringsmayberedundant,sinceeachsampletestedwouldexhibitsimilar
engineeringproperties.Furthermore,inareaswheresoilorrockconditions
areknowntobeveryfavorabletotheconstructionandperformanceofthe
foundationtypelikelytobeused(e.g.,footingsonverydensesoil,and
groundwaterisdeepenoughtonotbeafactor),obtainingfewerborings
thanprovidedinTable8-2maybejustifed.Inallcases,itisnecessaryto
understandhowthedesignandconstructionofthegeotechnicalfeaturewill
beaffectedbythesoiland/orrockmassconditionsinordertooptimizethe
exploration.
Samplesofmaterialencounteredshallbetakenandpreservedforfuture
referenceand/ortesting.Boringlogsshallbepreparedindetailsuffcientto
locatematerialstrata,resultsofpenetrationtests,groundwater,anyartesian
conditions,andwheresamplesweretaken.Specialattentionshallbepaidto
thedetectionofnarrow,softseamsthatmaybelocatedatstratumboundaries.
Fordrilledshaftfoundations,itisespeciallycriticalthatthegroundwater
regimeiswelldefnedateachfoundationlocation.Piezometerdata
adequatetodefnethelimitsandpiezometricheadinallunconfned,
confned,andlocallyperchedgroundwaterzonesshouldbeobtainedateach
foundationlocation.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Application
Minimum Number of Investigation
Points and Location of
Investigation Points
Minimum Depth of Investigation
Shallow
Foundations
For substructure (e.g., piers or abutments)
widths less than or equal to 100 feet, a
minimum of one investigation point per
substructure. For substructure widths
greater than 100 feet, a minimum of two
investigation points per substructure.
Additional investigation points should be
provided if erratic subsurface conditions
are encountered.
For cut-and-cover tunnels, culverts pipe
arches, etc., spacing of investigation
points shall be consistent for that required
for retaining walls (see WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15), with a minimum of two
investigation points spaced adequately to
develop a subsurface profle for the entire
structure.
Depth of investigation should be:
(1) Great enough to fully penetrate
unsuitable foundation soils (e.g., peat,
organic silt, soft fne grained soils) into
competent material of suitable bearing
capacity (e.g. stiff to hard cohesive soil,
compact to dense cohesionless soil or
bedrock)
(2) At least to a depth where stress
increase due to estimated foundation load
is less than 10% of the existing effective
overburden stress at that depth and;
(3) If bedrock is encountered before
the depth required by item (2) above is
achieved, investigation depth should be
great enough to penetrate a minimum
of 10 feet into the bedrock, but rock
investigation should be suffcient to
characterize compressibility of infll
material of near-horizontal to horizontal
discontinuities.
Deep
Foundations
For substructure (e.g., bridge piers or
abutments) widths less than or equal to
100 feet, a minimum of one investigation
point per substructure. For substructure
widths greater than 100 feet, a minimum of
two investigation points per substructure.
Additional investigation points should be
provided if erratic subsurface conditions
are encountered.
Due to large expense associated with
construction of rock-socketed shafts,
conditions should be confrmed at each
shaft location.
In soil, depth of investigation should
extend below the anticipated pile or shaft
tip elevation a minimum of 20 feet, or a
minimum of two times the maximum pile
group dimension, whichever is deeper. All
borings should extend through unsuitable
strata such as unconsolidated fll, peat,
highly organic materials, soft fne-grained
soils, and loose coarse-grained soils to
reach hard or dense materials, a minimum
of 30 ft into soil with an average N-Value of
30 blows/ft or more.
For piles bearing on rock, a minimum of 10
feet of rock core shall be obtained at each
investigation point location to verify that
the boring has not terminated on a boulder.
For shafts supported on or extending into
rock, a minimum of 10 feet of rock core, or
a length of rock core equal to at least three
times the shaft diameter for isolated shafts
or two times the maximum shaft group
dimension, whichever is greater, shall
be extended below the anticipated shaft
tip elevation to determine the physical
characteristics of rock within the zone of
foundation infuence.
Guidelines for Minimum Number of Investigation Points and Depth of Investigation
(modifed after Sabatini, et al., 2002)
Table 8-2
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-9
J anuary 2010
8.3.2 Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations
Generalrequirementsforlaboratoryandfeldtesting,andtheiruseinthe
determinationofpropertiesfordesign,areaddressedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.Ingeneral,forfoundationdesign,laboratorytestingshouldbeused
toaugmentthedataobtainedfromthefeldinvestigationprogram,torefne
thesoilandrockpropertiesselectedfordesign.
FoundationdesignwilltypicallyheavilyrelyupontheSPTand/orq
c
results
obtainedduringthefeldexplorationthroughcorrelationstoshearstrength,
compressibility,andthevisualdescriptionsofthesoil/rockencountered,
especiallyinnon-cohesivesoils.Theinformationneededfortheassessment
ofgroundwaterandthehydrogeologicpropertiesneededforfoundation
designandconstructabilityevaluationistypicallyobtainedfromthefeld
explorationthroughfeldinstrumentation(e.g.,piezometers)andin-situtests
(e.g.,slugtests,pumptests,etc.).Indextestssuchassoilgradation,Atterberg
limits,watercontent,andorganiccontentareusedtoconfrmthevisual
feldclassifcationofthesoilsencountered,butmayalsobeuseddirectly
toobtaininputparametersforsomeaspectsoffoundationdesign(e.g.,soil
liquefaction,scour,degreeofover-consolidation,andcorrelationtoshear
strengthorcompressibilityofcohesivesoils).Quantitativeorperformance
laboratorytestsconductedonundisturbedsoilsamplesareusedtoassessshear
strengthorcompressibilityoffnergrainedsoils,ortoobtainseismicdesign
inputparameterssuchasshearmodulus.Siteperformancedata,ifavailable,
canalsobeusedtoassessdesigninputparameters.Recommendationsare
providedinWSDOTGDMChapter5regardinghowtomakethefnal
selectionofdesignpropertiesbasedonallofthesesourcesofdata.
8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations
Foundationselectionconsiderationstobeevaluatedinclude:
theabilityofthefoundationtypetomeetperformancerequirements
(e.g.,deformation,bearingresistance,upliftresistance,lateralresistance/
deformation)foralllimitstates,giventhesoilorrockconditions
encountered
theconstructabilityofthefoundationtype
theimpactofthefoundationinstallation(intermsoftimeandspace
required)ontraffcandright-of-way
theenvironmentalimpactofthefoundationconstruction
theconstraintsthatmayimpactthefoundationinstallation(e.g.,overhead
clearance,access,andutilities)
theimpactofthefoundationontheperformanceofadjacentfoundations,
structures,orutilities,consideringboththedesignoftheadjacent
foundations,structures,orutilities,andtheperformanceimpactthe
installationofthenewfoundationwillhaveontheseadjacentfacilities.
thecostofthefoundation,consideringalloftheissueslistedabove.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Spreadfootingsaretypicallyverycosteffective,giventherightsetof
conditions.Footingsworkbestinhardordensesoilsthathaveadequate
bearingresistanceandexhibittolerablesettlementunderload.Footingscan
getratherlargeinmediumdenseorstiffsoilstokeepbearingstresseslow
enoughtominimizesettlement,orforstructureswithtallcolumnsorwhich
otherwiseareloadedinamannerthatresultsinlargeeccentricitiesatthe
footinglevel,orwhichresultinthefootingbeingsubjectedtoupliftloads.
Footingsarenoteffectivewheresoilliquefactioncanoccuratorbelow
thefootinglevel,unlesstheliquefablesoilisconfned,notverythick,and
wellbelowthefootinglevel.However,footingsmaybecosteffectiveif
inexpensivesoilimprovementtechniquessuchasoverexcavation,deep
dynamiccompaction,andstonecolumns,etc.arefeasible.Otherfactorsthat
affectthedesirabilityofspreadfootingsincludetheneedforacofferdam
andsealswhenplacedbelowthewatertable,theneedforsignifcant
overexcavationofunsuitablesoil,theneedtoplacefootingsdeepduetoscour
andpossiblyfrostaction,theneedforsignifcantshoringtoprotectadjacent
existingfacilities,andinadequateoverallstabilitywhenplacedonslopes
thathavemarginallyadequatestability.Footingsmaynotbefeasiblewhere
expansiveorcollapsiblesoilsarepresentnearthebearingelevation.Since
deformation(service)oftencontrolsthefeasibilityofspreadfootings,footings
maystillbefeasibleandcosteffectiveifthestructurethefootingssupport
canbedesignedtotoleratethesettlement(e.g.,fatslabbridges,bridgeswith
jackableabutments,etc.).
Deepfoundationsarethebestchoicewhenspreadfootingscannotbe
foundedoncompetentsoilsorrockatareasonablecost.Atlocationswhere
soilconditionswouldnormallypermittheuseofspreadfootingsbutthe
potentialexistsforscour,liquefactionorlateralspreading,deepfoundations
bearingonsuitablematerialsbelowsuchsusceptiblesoilsshouldbeusedas
aprotectionagainsttheseproblems.Deepfoundationsshouldalsobeused
whereanunacceptableamountofspreadfootingsettlementmayoccur.Deep
foundationsshouldbeusedwhereright-of-way,spacelimitations,orother
constraintsasdiscussedabovewouldnotallowtheuseofspreadfootings.
Twogeneraltypesofdeepfoundationsaretypicallyconsidered:pile
foundations,anddrilledshaftfoundations.Shaftfoundationsaremost
advantageouswhereverydenseintermediatestratamustbepenetratedto
obtainthedesiredbearing,uplift,orlateralresistance,orwhereobstructions
suchasbouldersorlogsmustbepenetrated.Shaftsmayalsobecomecost
effectivewhereasingleshaftpercolumncanbeusedinlieuofapile
groupwithapilecap,especiallywhenacofferdamorshoringisrequired
toconstructthepilecap.However,shaftsmaynotbedesirablewhere
contaminatedsoilsarepresent,sincecontaminatedsoilwouldberemoved,
requiringspecialhandlinganddisposal.Shaftsshouldbeusedinlieuofpiles
wheredeepfoundationsareneededandpiledrivingvibrationscouldcause
damagetoexistingadjacentfacilities.Pilesmaybemorecosteffectivethan
shaftswherepilecapconstructionisrelativelyeasy,wherethedepthtothe
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-11
J anuary 2010
foundationlayerislarge(e.g.,morethan100ft),orwherethepierloads
aresuchthatmultipleshaftspercolumn,requiringashaftcap,areneeded.
Thetendencyoftheupperloosesoilstofow,requiringpermanentshaft
casing,mayalsobeaconsiderationthatcouldmakepilefoundationsmore
costeffective.Artesianpressureinthebearinglayercouldprecludetheuse
ofdrilledshaftsduetothediffcultyinkeepingenoughheadinsidetheshaft
duringexcavationtopreventheaveorcavingunderslurry.
Forsituationswhereexistingstructuresmustberetrofttedtoimprove
foundationresistanceorwherelimitedheadroomisavailable,micro-pilesmay
bethebestalternative,andshouldbeconsidered.
Augercastpilescanbeverycosteffectiveincertainsituations.However,
theirabilitytoresistlateralloadsisminimal,makingthemundesirableto
supportstructureswheresignifcantlateralloadsmustbetransferredtothe
foundations.Furthermore,qualityassuranceofaugercastpileintegrityand
capacityneedsfurtherdevelopment.Therefore,itisWSDOTpolicynottouse
augercastpilesforbridgefoundations.
8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations
Thebasicequationforloadandresistancefactordesign(LRFD)statesthatthe
loadsmultipliedbyfactorstoaccountforuncertainty,ductility,importance,
andredundancymustbelessthanorequaltotheavailableresistance
multipliedbyfactorstoaccountforvariabilityanduncertaintyinthe
resistancepertheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Thebasic
equation,therefore,isasfollows:

i
Q
i
R
n

(8-1)
where:

= Factorforductility,redundancy,andimportanceofstructure

i
= LoadfactorapplicabletotheithloadQ
i

Q
i
= Load
= Resistancefactor
R
n
= Nominal(predicted)resistance
FortypicalWSDOTpractice,
i
shouldbesetequalto1.0foruseofboth
minimumandmaximumloadfactors.Foundationsshallbeproportionedso
thatthefactoredresistanceisnotlessthanthefactoredloads.
Figure8-2belowshouldbeutilizedtoprovideacommonbasisof
understandingforloadinglocationsanddirectionsforsubstructuredesign.
Thisfgurealsoindicatesthegeometricdatarequiredforabutmentand
substructuredesign.Notethatforshaftandsomepilefoundationdesigns,the
shaftorpilemayformthecolumnaswellasthefoundationelement,thereby
eliminatingthefootingelementshowninthefgure.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Elev. _____
Axial
Elev. _____
Elev. _____
Transverse
Longitudinal
Plan
Elevation
Elev. ______
Elev. _____ North
Elev. _____ South
Elev. _____ North
Elev. _____ South
Existing Ground Line
Elev. _____
Elev. _____
Axial
Normal to Abutment
Parallel to Abutment
Longitudinal to Bridge
Transverse to Bridge
Template for Foundation Site Data and Loading Direction Defnitions
Figure 8-2
8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered
Thespecifcloadsandloadfactorstobeusedforfoundationdesignareas
foundinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandtheWSDOT
LRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM).
8.6.1 Foundation Analysis to Establish Load Distribution for Structure
Oncetheapplicableloadsandloadgroupsfordesignhavebeenestablished
foreachlimitstate,theloadsshallbedistributedtothevariouspartsofthe
structureinaccordancewithSections3and4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations.Thedistributionoftheseloadsshallconsiderthe
deformationcharacteristicsofthesoil/rock,foundation,andsuperstructure.
Thefollowingprocessisusedtoaccomplishtheloaddistribution(see
WSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2formoredetailedprocedures):
1. Establishstiffnessvaluesforthestructureandthesoilsurroundingthe
foundationsandbehindtheabutments.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-13
J anuary 2010
2. Forserviceandstrengthlimitstatecalculations,useP-Ycurvesfordeep
foundations,orusestrainwedgetheory,especiallyinthecaseofshort
orintermediatelengthshafts(seeWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.3.3),to
establishsoil/rockstiffnessvalues(i.e.,springs)necessaryforstructural
design.Thebearingresistanceatthespecifedsettlementdeterminedfor
theservicelimitstate,butexcludingconsolidationsettlement,should
beusedtoestablishsoilstiffnessvaluesforspreadfootingsforservice
andstrengthlimitstatecalculations.Forstrengthlimitstatecalculations
fordeepfoundationswherethelateralloadispotentiallyrepetitivein
nature(e.g.,wind,water,brakingforces,etc.),usesoilstiffnessvalues
derivedfromP-Ycurvesusingnon-degradedsoilstrengthandstiffness
parameters.Thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesthesoil/rockinput
parameterstothestructuraldesignertodevelopthesespringsandto
determinetheloaddistributionusingtheanalysisproceduresasspecifed
inWSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2andSection4oftheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations,applyingunfactoredloads,togettheload
distribution.Twounfactoredloaddistributionsforserviceandstrength
limitstatecalculationsaredeveloped:oneusingundegradedstiffness
parameters(i.e.,maximumstiffnessvalues)todeterminethemaximum
shearandmomentinthestructure,andanotherdistributionusingsoil
strengthandstiffnessparametersthathavebeendegradedovertimedue
torepetitiveloadingtodeterminethemaximumdefectionsandassociated
loadsthatresult.
3. Forextremeeventlimitstate(seismic)deepfoundationcalculations,use
soilstrengthandstiffnessvaluesbeforeanyliquefactionorothertime
dependentdegradationoccurstodeveloplateralsoilstiffnessvalues
anddeterminetheunfactoredloaddistributiontothefoundationand
structureelementsasdescribedinStep2,includingthefullseismic
loading.Thisanalysisusingmaximumstiffnessvaluesforthesoil/rock
isusedbythestructuraldesignertodeterminethemaximumshearand
momentinthestructure.Thestructuraldesignerthencompletesanother
unfactoredanalysisusingsoilparametersdegradedbyliquefactioneffects
togetanotherloaddistribution,againusingthefullseismicloading,to
determinethemaximumdefectionsandassociatedloadsthatresult.For
footingfoundations,asimilarprocessisfollowed,excepttheverticalsoil
springsarebracketedtoevaluatebothasoftresponseandastiffresponse.
4. Oncetheloaddistributionshavebeendetermined,theloadsarefactored
toanalyzethevariouscomponentsofthefoundationsandstructurefor
eachlimitstate.Thestructuralandgeotechnicalresistancearefactoredas
appropriate,butinallcases,thelateralsoilresistancefordeepfoundations
remainunfactored(i.e.,aresistancefactorof1.0).
Throughoutalloftheanalysisproceduresdiscussedabovetodevelopload
distributions,thesoilparametersandstiffnessvaluesareunfactored.The
geotechnicaldesignermustdevelopabestestimatefortheseparameters
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
duringthemodeling.Useofintentionallyconservativevaluescouldresultin
unconservativeestimatesofstructureloads,shears,andmomentsorinaccurate
estimatesofdefections.
SeetheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.6forthe
development of elastic settlement/bearing resistance of footings for static
analysesandWSDOTGDMChapter6forsoil/rockstiffnessdetermination
forspreadfootingssubjectedtoseismicloads.SeeWSDOTGDMSections
8.12.2.3and8.13.2.3.3,andrelatedAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsforthedevelopmentoflateralsoilstiffnessvaluesfordeep
foundations.
8.6.2 Downdrag Loads
Regardingdowndragloads,possibledevelopmentofdowndragonpiles,
shafts,orotherdeepfoundationsshallbeevaluatedwhere:
Sitesareunderlainbycompressiblematerialsuchasclays,siltsororganic
soils,
Fillwillbeorhasrecentlybeenplacedadjacenttothepilesorshafts,such
asisfrequentlythecaseforbridgeapproachflls,
Thegroundwaterissubstantiallylowered,or
Liquefactionofloosesandysoilcanoccur.
Downdrag loads (DD)shallbedetermined,factored(usingloadfactors),and
appliedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,
Section3.TheloadfactorsforDDloadsprovidedinTable3.4.1-2ofthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsshallbeused.Thistabledoes
notaddressthesituationinwhichthesoilcontributingtodowndraginthe
strengthlimitstateconsistsofsandysoil,thesituationinwhichasignifcant
portionofthesoilprofleconsistsofsandylayers,northesituationinwhich
theCPTisusedtoestimateDDandthepilebearingresistance.Therefore,the
portionofTable3.4.1-2intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
thataddressesdowndragloadshasbeenaugmentedtoaddressthesesituations
asshowninTable8-3.
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and
Method Used to Calculate Downdrag
Load Factor
Maximum Minimum
DD: Downdrag
Piles, Tomlinson Method 1.4 0.25
Piles, Method 1.05 0.30
Piles, Nordlund Method, or Nordlund and Method 1.1 0.35
Piles, CPT Method 1.1 0.40
Drilled shafts, ONeill and Reese (1999) Method 1.25 0.35
Strength Limit State Downdrag Load Factors
Table 8-3
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-15
J anuary 2010
8.6.3 Uplift Loads due to Expansive Soils
Ingeneral,upliftloadsonfoundationsduetoexpansivesoilsshallbeavoided
throughremovaloftheexpansivesoil.Ifremovalisnotpossible,deep
foundationssuchasdrivenpilesorshaftsshallbeplacedintostablesoil.
Spreadfootingsshallnotbeusedinthissituation.
Deepfoundationspenetratingexpansivesoilshallextendtoadepthinto
moisture-stablesoilssuffcienttoprovideadequateanchoragetoresist
uplift.Suffcientclearanceshouldbeprovidedbetweenthegroundsurface
andundersideofcapsorbeamsconnectingpilesorshaftstoprecludethe
applicationofupliftloadsatthepile/capconnectionduetoswellingground
conditions.
Evaluationofpotentialupliftloadsonpilesextendingthroughexpansivesoils
requiresevaluationoftheswellpotentialofthesoilandtheextentofthesoil
stratathatmayaffectthepile.Onereasonablyreliablemethodforidentifying
swellpotentialispresentedinWSDOTGDMChapter5.Alternatively,
ASTMD4829maybeusedtoevaluateswellpotential.Thethicknessofthe
potentiallyexpansivestratummustbeidentifedby:
Examinationofsoilsamplesfromboringsforthepresenceofjointing,
slickensiding,orablockystructureandforchangesincolor,and
Laboratorytestingfordeterminationofsoilmoisturecontentprofles.
8.6.4 Soil Loads on Buried Structures
Fortunnels,culvertsandpipearches,thesoilloadstobeusedfordesignshall
beasspecifedinSections3and12oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
8.6.5 Service Limit States
Foundationdesignattheservicelimitstateshallinclude:
Settlements
Horizontalmovements
Overallstability,and
Scouratthedesignfood
Considerationoffoundationmovementsshallbebaseduponstructure
tolerancetototalanddifferentialmovements,rideabilityandeconomy.
Foundationmovementsshallincludeallmovementfromsettlement,
horizontalmovement,androtation.
Inbridgeswherethesuperstructureandsubstructurearenotintegrated,
settlementcorrectionscanbemadebyjackingandshimmingbearings.Article
2.5.2.3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsrequiresjacking
provisionsforthesebridges.Thecostoflimitingfoundationmovements
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
shouldbecomparedwiththecostofdesigningthesuperstructuresothatitcan
toleratelargermovementsorofcorrectingtheconsequencesofmovements
throughmaintenancetodetermineminimumlifetimecost.WSDOTmay
establishcriteriathataremorestringent.
ThedesignfoodforscourisdefnedinArticle2.6.4.4.2andisspecifed
inArticle3.7.5oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsas
applicableattheservicelimitstate.
8.6.5.1 Tolerable Movements
Foundationsettlement,horizontalmovement,androtationoffoundations
shallbeinvestigatedusingallapplicableloadsintheServiceILoad
CombinationspecifedinTable3.4.1-1oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.Transientloadsmaybeomittedfromsettlementanalysesfor
foundationsbearingonorincohesivesoildepositsthataresubjecttotime-
dependantconsolidationsettlements.
Foundationmovementcriteriashallbeconsistentwiththefunctionand
typeofstructure,anticipatedservicelife,andconsequencesofunacceptable
movementsonstructureperformance.Foundationmovementshallinclude
vertical,horizontalandrotationalmovements.Thetolerablemovementcriteria
shallbeestablishedbyeitherempiricalproceduresorstructuralanalysesorby
considerationofboth.
Experiencehasshownthatbridgescanandoftendoaccommodatemore
movementand/orrotationthantraditionallyallowedoranticipatedindesign.
Creep,relaxation,andredistributionofforceeffectsaccommodatethese
movements.Somestudieshavebeenmadetosynthesizeapparentresponse.
Thesestudiesindicatethatangulardistortionsbetweenadjacentfoundations
greaterthan0.008(RAD)insimplespansand0.004(RAD)incontinuous
spansshouldnotbepermittedinsettlementcriteria(Moulton et al. 1985;
DiMillio, 1982; Barker et al. 1991).Otherangulardistortionlimitsmaybe
appropriateafterconsiderationof:
Costofmitigationthroughlargerfoundations,realignmentorsurcharge,
Rideability,
Aesthetics,and,
Safety.
Inadditiontotherequirementsforserviceabilityprovidedabove,the
followingcriteria(Tables8-4,8-5,and8-6)shallbeusedtoestablish
acceptablesettlementcriteria:
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-17
J anuary 2010
Total Settlement
at Pier or
Abutment
Differential Settlement Over 100 ft within Pier or
Abutment, and Differential Settlement Between Piers
Action
H 1 in H
100
0.75 in Design and Construct
1 in < H 4 in 0.75 in < H
100
3 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 4 in H
100
>3 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Bridges
Table 8-4

Total Settlement Differential Settlement Over 100 ft Action
H 1 in H
100
0.75 in Design and Construct
1 in < H 2.5 in 0.75 in < H
100
2 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 2.5 in H
100
>2 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Cut and Cover Tunnels, Concrete Culverts
(including box culverts), and Concrete Pipe Arches
Table 8-5

Total Settlement Differential Settlement Over 100 ft Action
H 2 in H
100
1.5 in Design and Construct
2 in < H 6 in 1.5 in < H
100
5 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 6 in H
100
>5 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Flexible Culverts
Table 8-6
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Rotationmovementsshouldbeevaluatedatthetopofthesubstructureunit
(inplanlocation)andatthedeckelevation.
Thehorizontaldisplacementofpileandshaftfoundationsshallbeestimated
usingproceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteraction(seeWSDOTGDM
Section8.12.2.3).Horizontalmovementcriteriashouldbeestablishedat
thetopofthefoundationbasedonthetoleranceofthestructuretolateral
movement,withconsiderationofthecolumnlengthandstiffness.Tolerance
ofthesuperstructuretolateralmovementwilldependonbridgeseatwidths,
bearingtype(s),structuretype,andloaddistributioneffects.
8.6.5.2 Overall Stability
Theevaluationofoverallstabilityofearthslopeswithorwithoutafoundation
unitshallbeinvestigatedattheservicelimitstateasspecifedinArticle
11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Overall
stabilityshouldbeevaluatedusinglimitingequilibriummethodssuchas
modifedBishop,Janbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslopestability
analysismethods.Article11.6.3.4recommendsthatoverallstabilitybe
evaluatedattheServiceIlimitstate(i.e.,aloadfactorof1.0)andaresistance
factor,
os
of0.65forslopeswhichsupportastructuralelement.Forresistance
factorsforoverallstabilityofslopesthatcontainaretainingwall,see
WSDOTGDMChapter15.AlsoseeWSDOTGDMChapter7foradditional
informationandrequirementsregardingslopestabilityanalysisandacceptable
safetyfactorsandresistancefactors.
Availableslopestabilityprogramsproduceasinglefactorofsafety,FS.
Overallslopestabilityshallbecheckedtoinsurethatfoundationsdesigned
foramaximumbearingstressequaltothespecifedservicelimitstatebearing
resistancewillnotcausetheslopestabilityfactorofsafetytofallbelow1.5.
ThispracticewillessentiallyproducethesameresultasspecifedinArticle
11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Thefoundation
loadsshouldbeasspecifedfortheServiceIlimitstateforthisanalysis.Ifthe
foundationislocatedontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadcontributes
toslopeinstability,thedesignershallestablishamaximumfootingloadthat
isacceptableformaintainingoverallslopestabilityforService,andExtreme
Eventlimitstates(seeFigure8-3forexample).Ifthefoundationislocated
ontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadincreasesslopestability,overall
stabilityoftheslopeshallevaluatedignoringtheeffectofthefootingonslope
stability,orthefoundationloadshallbeincludedintheslopestabilityanalysis
andthefoundationdesignedtoresistthelateralloadsimposedbytheslope.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-19
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design
December 2006 Chapter 8-21
Foundation Design
Center of rotation Center of rotation
Figure 8-3 Example where footing contributes to instability of slope (left gure)
vs. example where footing contributes to stability of slope (right gure).

8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions
Vertical and horizontal movements caused by embankment loads behind bridge abutments shall be
investigated. Settlement of foundation soils induced by embankment loads can result in excessive
movements of substructure elements. Both short and long term settlement potential should be considered.
Settlement of improperly placed or compacted backll behind abutments can cause poor rideability
and a possibly dangerous bump at the end of the bridge. Guidance for proper detailing and material
requirements for abutment backll is provided in Cheney and Chassie (2000) and should be followed.
Lateral earth pressure behind and/or lateral squeeze below abutments can also contribute to lateral
movement of abutments and should be investigated, if applicable.
In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the bridge and the abutment ll
provided above, an approach slab shall be provided at the end of each bridge for WSDOT projects, and
shall be the same width as the bridge deck. However, the slab may be deleted under certain conditions as
described herein. If approach slabs are to be deleted, a geotechnical and structural evaluation is required.
The nal decision on whether or not to delete the approach slabs shall be made by the WSDOT Region
Project Development Engineer with consideration to the geotechnical and structural evaluation. The
geotechnical and structural evaluation shall consider, as a minimum, the criteria described below.
1. Approach slabs may be deleted for geotechnical reasons if the following geotechnical considerations
are met:
If settlements are excessive, resulting in the angular distortion of the slab to be great enough to
become a safety problem for motorists, with excessive dened as a differential settlement
between the bridge and the approach ll of 8 inches or more, or,
If creep settlement of the approach ll will be less than 0.5 inch, and the amount of new ll
placed at the approach is less than 20 ft, or
If approach ll heights are less than 8 ft, or
If more than 2 inches of differential settlement could occur between the centerline and shoulder
Example Where Footing Contributes to Instability of Slope (Left Figure)
VS. Example Where Footing Contributes to Stability of Slope (Right Figure)
Figure 8-3
8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions
Verticalandhorizontalmovementscausedbyembankmentloadsbehind
bridgeabutmentsshallbeinvestigated.Settlementoffoundationsoilsinduced
byembankmentloadscanresultinexcessivemovementsofsubstructure
elements.Bothshortandlongtermsettlementpotentialshouldbeconsidered.
Settlementofimproperlyplacedorcompactedbackfllbehindabutmentscan
causepoorrideabilityandapossiblydangerousbumpattheendofthebridge.
Guidanceforproperdetailingandmaterialrequirementsforabutmentbackfll
isprovidedinCheneyandChassie(2000)andshouldbefollowed.
Lateralearthpressurebehindand/orlateralsqueezebelowabutmentscanalso
contributetolateralmovementofabutmentsandshouldbeinvestigated,if
applicable.
In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the
bridgeandtheabutmentfllprovidedabove,anapproachslabshallbe
providedattheendofeachbridgeforWSDOTprojects,andshallbethe
samewidthasthebridgedeck.However,theslabmaybedeletedunder
certainconditionsasdescribedherein.Ifapproachslabsaretobedeleted,
ageotechnicalandstructuralevaluationisrequired.Thefnaldecisionon
whetherornottodeletetheapproachslabsshallbemadebytheWSDOT
RegionProjectDevelopmentEngineerwithconsiderationtothegeotechnical
andstructuralevaluation.Thegeotechnicalandstructuralevaluationshall
consider,asaminimum,thecriteriadescribedbelow.
1. Approachslabsmaybedeletedforgeotechnicalreasonsifthefollowing
geotechnicalconsiderationsaremet:
Ifsettlementsareexcessive,resultingintheangulardistortionofthe
slabtobegreatenoughtobecomeasafetyproblemformotorists,with
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
excessivedefnedasadifferentialsettlementbetweenthebridgeand
theapproachfllof8inchesormore,or,
Ifcreepsettlementoftheapproachfllwillbelessthan0.5inch,and
theamountofnewfllplacedattheapproachislessthan20ft,or
Ifapproachfllheightsarelessthan8ft,or
Ifmorethan2inchesofdifferentialsettlementcouldoccurbetween
thecenterlineandshoulder
2. Otherissuessuchasdesignspeed,averagedailytraffc(ADT)or
accommodationofcertainbridgestructuredetailsmaysupersedethe
geotechnicalreasonsfordeletingtheapproachslabs.Approachslabsshall
beusedforallWSDOTbridgeswithstubabutmentstoaccommodate
bridgeexpansionandcontraction.Approachslabsarenotrequired
foraccommodatingexpansionandcontractionofthebridgeforL
abutments.Forbridgewidenings,approachslabsshallbeprovidedfor
thewideningiftheexistingbridgehasanapproachslab.Iftheexisting
bridgedoesnothaveanapproachslab,anditisnotintendedtoinstallan
approachslabforthefullexistingpluswidenedbridgewidth,anapproach
slabshallnotbeprovidedforthebridgewidening.
8.6.6 Strength Limit States
Designoffoundationsatstrengthlimitstatesshallincludeevaluationofthe
nominalgeotechnicalandstructuralresistancesofthefoundationelementsas
specifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5.
8.6.7 Extreme Event Limit States
Foundationsshallbedesignedforextremeeventsasapplicableinaccordance
withtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
8.7 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Design Parameters
Theloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinresultfromacombination
ofdesignmodeluncertainty,soil/rockpropertyuncertainty,andunknown
uncertaintyassumedbythepreviousallowablestressdesignandloadfactor
designapproachincludedinpreviousAASHTOdesignspecifcations.
Therefore,theloadandresistancefactorsaccountforsoil/rockproperty
uncertaintyinadditiontootheruncertainties.
Itshouldbeassumedthatthecharacteristicsoil/rockpropertiestobeused
inconjunctionwiththeloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinthathave
beencalibratedusingreliabilitytheory(seeAllen,2005)areaveragevalues
obtainedfromlaboratorytestresultsorfromcorrelatedfeldin-situtest
results.Itshouldbenotedthatuseoflowerboundsoil/rockpropertiescould
resultinoverlyconservativefoundationdesignsinsuchcases.However,
dependingontheavailabilityofsoilorrockpropertydataandthevariability
ofthegeologicstrataunderconsideration,itmaynotbepossibletoreliably
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-21
J anuary 2010
estimatetheaveragevalueofthepropertiesneededfordesign.Insuchcases,
thegeotechnicaldesignermayhavenochoicebuttouseamoreconservative
selectionofdesignparameterstomitigatetheadditionalriskscreatedby
potentialvariabilityorthepaucityofrelevantdata.Regardingtheextentof
subsurfacecharacterizationandthenumberofsoil/rockpropertytestsrequired
tojustifyuseoftheloadandresistancefactorsprovidedherein,seeWSDOT
GDMChapter5.Forthoseloadandresistancefactorsdeterminedprimarily
fromcalibrationbyfttingtoallowablestressdesign,thispropertyselection
issueisnotrelevant,andpropertyselectionshouldbebasedonpastpractice.
Forinformationregardingthederivationofloadandresistancefactorsfor
foundations,(seeAllen,2005).
8.8 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Service Limit States
Resistancefactorsfortheservicelimitstatesshallbetakenasspecifed
intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5(most
currentversion).
8.9 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Strength
Limit States
Resistancefactorsforthestrengthlimitstatesforfoundationsshallbetaken
asspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle
10.5(mostcurrentversion).Regionallyspecifcvaluesmaybeusedin
lieuofthespecifedresistancefactors,butshouldbedeterminedbasedon
substantialstatisticaldatacombinedwithcalibrationorsubstantialsuccessful
experiencetojustifyhighervalues.Smallerresistancefactorsshouldbeused
ifsiteormaterialvariabilityisanticipatedtobeunusuallyhighorifdesign
assumptionsarerequiredthatincreasedesignuncertaintythathavenotbeen
mitigatedthroughconservativeselectionofdesignparameters.
Exceptionswithregardtotheresistancefactorsprovidedinthemostcurrent
versionofAASHTOforthestrengthlimitstateareasfollows:
Fordrivenpilefoundations,iftheWSDOTdrivingformulaisusedforpile
drivingconstructioncontrol,theresistancefactor
dyn
shallbeequalto
0.55(endofdrivingconditionsonly).Thisresistancefactordoesnotapply
tobeginningofredriveconditions.SeeAllen(2005band2007)fordetails
onthederivationofthisresistancefactor.
Fordrivenpilefoundations,whenusingWaveEquationanalysisto
estimatepilebearingresistanceandestablishdrivingcriteria,aresistance
factorof0.50maybeusedifthehammerperformanceisfeldverifed.
Fieldverifcationofhammerperformanceincludesdirectmeasurementof
hammerstrokeorramkineticenergy(e.g.,ramvelocitymeasurement).
Thewaveequationmaybeusedforeitherendofdriveorbeginningof
redrivepilebearingresistanceestimation.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Fordrilledshaftfoundations,strengthlimitstateresistancefactorsfor
IntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)providedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5shallnotbeused.Instead,the
resistancefortheselecteddesignmethodshallbeused.
All other resistance factor considerations and limitations provided in
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5shallbe
consideredapplicabletoWSDOTdesignpractice.
8.10 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Extreme Event
Limit States
Designoffoundationsatextremeeventlimitstatesshallbeconsistentwith
theexpectationthatstructurecollapseispreventedandthatlifesafetyis
protected.
8.10.1 Scour
Theresistancefactorsandtheirapplicationshallbeasspecifedinthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.5.
8.10.2 Other Extreme Event Limit States
Resistancefactorsforextremeeventlimitstates,includingthedesignof
foundationstoresistearthquake,ice,vehicleorvesselimpactloads,shallbe
takenas1.0,withtheexceptionofbearingresistanceoffootingfoundations.
SincetheloadfactorusedfortheseismiclateralearthpressureforEQis
currently1.0,toobtainthesamelevelofsafetyobtainedfromtheAASHTO
StandardSpecifcationdesignrequirementsforslidingandbearing,a
resistancefactorofslightlylessthan1.0isrequired.Forbearingresistance
duringseismicloading,aresistancefactorof0.90shouldbeused.Foruplift
resistanceofpilesandshafts,theresistancefactorshallbetakenas0.80or
less,toaccountforthedifferencebetweencompressionskinfrictionand
tensionskinfriction.
Regardingoverallstabilityofslopesthatcanaffectstructures,aresistance
factorof0.9,whichisequivalenttoafactorofsafetyof1.1,shouldingeneral
beusedfortheextremeeventlimitstate.WSDOTGDMSection6.4.3and
Chapter7provideadditionalinformationandrequirementsregardingseismic
stabilityofslopes.
8.11 Spread Footing Design
Figure8-4providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto
completeaspreadfootingdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompletedbythe
StructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompletedbythe
geotechnicaldesigner.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-23
J anuary 2010
1(GT).Determinedepthoffooting
based on geometry and bearing
material
2(GT).Determinedepthoffooting
forscour,ifpresent(withhelpof
HydraulicEngineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
footing,includinglateralearthpressure
loadsforabutments
3(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,and
resistancefactors in consideration
ofthesoilpropertyuncertaintyand
themethodselectedforcalculating
nominal resistance
7(GT).Checkoverallstability,
determiningmax.feasiblebearing
loadtomaintainadequatestability
5(GT).Determinenominalfooting
resistanceat thestrength and
extremelimit states
6(GT).Determinenominalfooting
resistanceat theservicelimit state
3(ST).Designthefootingatthe
servicelimit state
4(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof
thefooting at thestrength limit state
5(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe
footing at thestrength limit state
6(ST).Checktheslidingresistanceof
thefooting at thestrength limit state
7(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof
thefooting at theextremelimit state
8(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe
footing at theextremelimit state
10(ST).Designthefooting(andwalls
forabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
9(ST).Checkslidingresistanceofthe
footing at theextremelimit state
8(GT).Check
nominal footing
resistanceat all
limitstates,and
overall stability
in light of new
footing
dimensions,
depth,andloads
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometryandpierlocations
4(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
Flowchart for LRFD Spread Footing Design
Figure 8-4
8.11.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Footing Design
Figures8-5and8-6providedefnitionsandlocationsoftheforcesand
momentsthatactonstructuralfootings.Notethattheeccentricityusedto
calculatethebearingstressingeotechnicalpracticetypicallyisreferenced
tothecenterlineofthefooting,whereastheeccentricityusedtoevaluate
overturningtypicallyisreferencedtopointOatthetoeofthefooting.It
isimportanttonotchangefrommaximumtominimumloadfactorsin
considerationoftheforcelocationrelativetothereferencepointused
(centerlineofthefooting,orpointOatthetoeofthefooting),asdoing
sowillcausebasicstaticstonolongerapply,andonewillnotgetthesame
resultantlocationwhenthemomentsaresummedatdifferentreferencepoints.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgedesignSpecifcationsindicatethatthemoments
shouldbesummedaboutthecenterofthefooting.Table8-7identifeswhen
tousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesoffailurefor
thefooting(bearing,overturning,andsliding)foreachforce,forthestrength
limitstate.
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
Defnition and location of forces for stub abutments
Figure 8-5
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-25
J anuary 2010
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
Defnition and location of forces for L-abutments and interior footings.
Figure 8-6
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ThevariablesshowninFigures8-5and8-6aredefnedasfollows:
DC,LL,EQ = verticalstructuralloadsappliedtofooting/wall
(deadload,liveload,EQload,respectively)
DC
abut
= structureloadduetoweightofabutment
EQ
abut
= abutmentinertialforceduetoearthquakeloading
EV
heel
= vertical soil load on wall heel
EV
toe
= vertical soil load on wall toe
EH
soil
= lateralloadduetoactiveoratrestearthpressure
behindabutment
LS = lateralearthpressureloadduetoliveload
EQ
soil
= lateralloadduetocombinedeffectofactiveoratrestearth
pressureplusseismicearthpressurebehindabutment
R
ep
= ultimatesoilpassiveresistance(note:heightofpressure
distributiontriangleisdeterminedbythegeotechnicalengineer
andisprojectspecifc)
R

= soilshearresistancealongfootingbaseatsoil-concreteinterface

v
= resultantverticalbearingstressatbaseoffooting
R = resultantforceatbaseoffooting
e
o
= eccentricitycalculatedaboutpointO(toeoffooting)
X
o
= distancetoresultantRfromwalltoe(pointO)
B = footingwidth
H = totalheightofabutmentplussuperstructurethickness
Load Factor
Load Sliding Overturning, e
o
Bearing Stress (e
c
,
v
)
DC, DC
abut
Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use max. load factor
LL, LS Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
EV
heel
, EV
toe
Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use max. load factor
EH
soil
Use max. load factor Use max. load factor Use max. load factor
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load Factors for
Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-7
8.11.2 Footing Foundation Design
Geotechnicaldesignoffootings,andallrelatedconsiderations,shallbe
conductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
Article10.6(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifedinfollowing
paragraphsandsections.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-27
J anuary 2010
8.11.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth
Forfootingsonslopes,suchasatbridgeabutments,thefootingsshouldbe
locatedasshownintheWSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.Thefooting
shouldalsobelocatedtomeettheminimumcoverrequirementsprovidedin
WSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.
8.11.2.2 Nearby Structures
Wherefoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,theinfuence
oftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundationandtheeffectof
thefoundationontheexistingstructuresshallbeinvestigated.Issuestobe
investigatedinclude,butarenotlimitto,settlementoftheexistingstructure
duetothestressincreasecausedbythenewfooting,decreasedoverall
stabilityduetotheadditionalloadcreatedbythenewfooting,andtheeffect
ontheexistingstructureofexcavation,shoring,and/ordewateringtoconstruct
thenewfoundation.
8.11.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Footings
Footingfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeetthe
tolerablemovementsforthestructureinaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Section8.6.5.1.Thenominalunitbearingresistanceattheservicelimit
state,q
serve
,shallbeequaltoorlessthanthemaximumbearingstressthat
thatresultsinsettlementthatmeetsthetolerablemovementcriteriaforthe
structureinWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1,calculatedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,andshallalsobelessthanthe
maximumbearingstressthatmeetsoverallstabilityrequirements.
Otherfactorsthatmayaffectsettlement,e.g.,embankmentloadingandlateral
and/oreccentricloading,andforfootingsongranularsoils,vibrationloading
fromdynamicliveloadsshouldalsobeconsidered,whereappropriate.For
guidanceregardingsettlementduetovibrations,seeLam and Martin (1986)
or Kavazanjian, et al., (1997).
8.11.2.3.1 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils
Basedonexperience(seealsoKimmerling,2002),theHoughmethodtends
tooverestimatesettlementofdensesands,andunderestimatesettlement
ofveryloosesiltysandsandsilts.Kimmerling(2002)reportstheresults
offullscalestudieswhereonaveragetheHoughMethod(Hough,1959)
overestimatedsettlementbyanaveragefactorof1.8to2.0,thoughsome
ofthespecifccaseswerecloseto1.0.Thisdoesnotmeanthatestimated
settlementsbythismethodcanbereducedbyafactorof2.0.However,based
onsuccessfulWSDOTexperience,forfootingsonsandsandgravelswith
N1
60
of20blows/ftormore,orsandsandgravelsthatareotherwiseknownto
beoverconsolidated(e.g.,sandssubjectedtopreloadingordeepcompaction),
reductionoftheestimatedHoughsettlementbyuptoafactorof1.5maybe
considered,providedthegeotechnicaldesignerhasnotusedaggressivesoil
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
parameterstoaccountfortheHoughmethodsobservedconservatism.The
settlementcharacteristicsofcohesivesoilsthatexhibitplasticityshouldbe
investigatedusingundisturbedsamplesandlaboratoryconsolidationtestsas
prescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
8.11.2.3.2 Settlement of Footings on Rock
Forfootingsbearingonfairtoverygoodrock,accordingtotheGeomechanics
Classifcationsystem,asdefnedinWSDOTGDMChapter5,anddesigned
inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissection,elasticsettlementsmay
generallybeassumedtobelessthan0.5IN.
8.11.2.3.3 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State Using Presumptive
Values
Regardingpresumptivebearingresistancevaluesforfootingsonrock,
bearingresistanceonrockshallbedeterminedusingempiricalcorrelation
theGeomechanicRockMassRatingSystem,RMR,asspecifedinWSDOT
GDMChapter5.
8.11.2.4 Strength Limit State Design of Footings
Thedesignofspreadfootingsatthestrengthlimitstateshalladdressthe
followinglimitstates:
Nominalbearingresistance,consideringthesoilorrockatfnalgrade,
andconsideringscourasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsSection10:
Overturningorexcessivelossofcontact;and
Slidingatthebaseoffooting.
TheWSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManualallowsfootingstobeinclinedon
slopesofupto6H:1V.Footingswithinclinedbasessteeperthanthisshould
beavoidedwhereverpossible,usingsteppedhorizontalfootingsinstead.
Themaximumfeasibleslopeofsteppedfootingfoundationsiscontrolled
bythemaximumacceptablestableslopeforthesoilinwhichthefooting
isplaced.Whereuseofaninclinedfootingbasemustbeused,thenominal
bearingresistancedeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionshereinshould
befurtherreducedusingacceptedcorrectionsforinclinedfootingbasesin
Munfakh,etal(2001).
8.11.2.4.1 Theoretical Estimation of Bearing Resistance
ThefootingbearingresistanceequationsprovidedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationshavenotheoreticallimitonthebearing
resistancetheypredict.However,WSDOTlimitsthenominalbearing
resistanceforstrengthandextremeeventlimitstatesto120KSFonsoil.
Valuesgreaterthan120KSFshouldnotbeusedforfoundationdesigninsoil.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-29
J anuary 2010
8.11.2.4.2 Plate Load Tests for Determination of Bearing Resistance in Soil
Thenominalbearingresistancemaybedeterminedbyplateloadtests,
providedthatadequatesubsurfaceexplorationshavebeenmadeto
determinethesoilproflebelowthefoundation.Plateloadtestsshall
beconductedinaccordancewithAASHTOT235andasdescribedin
Section6-02.3(17)DoftheWSDOTStandard Specifcations for Road, Bridge,
and Municipal Construction.Thenominalbearingresistancedeterminedfrom
aplateloadtestmaybeextrapolatedtoadjacentfootingswherethesubsurface
profleisconfrmedbysubsurfaceexplorationtobesimilar.
Plateloadtestshavealimiteddepthofinfuenceandfurthermoremaynot
disclosethepotentialforlong-termconsolidationoffoundationsoils.Scale
effectsshouldbeaddressedwhenextrapolatingtheresultstoperformance
offullscalefootings.Extrapolationoftheplateloadtestdatatoafull
scalefootingshouldbebasedonthedesignproceduresprovidedhereinfor
settlement(servicelimitstate)andbearingresistance(strengthandextreme
eventlimitstate),withconsiderationtotheeffectofthestratifcation(i.e.,
layerthicknesses,depths,andproperties).Plateloadtestresultsshouldbe
appliedonlywithinasub-areaoftheprojectsiteforwhichthesubsurface
conditions(i.e.,stratifcation,geologichistory,properties)arerelatively
uniform.
8.11.2.4.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock
Fordesignofbearingoffootingsonrock,whereengineeringjudgmentdoes
notverifythepresenceofcompetentrock,thecompetencyoftherockmass
shouldbeverifedusingtheproceduresforRMRratinginWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.
8.11.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings
Footingsshallnotbelocatedonorwithinliquefablesoil.Footingsmaybe
locatedonliquefablesoilsthathavebeenimprovedthroughdensifcationor
othermeanssothattheydonotliquefy.Footingsmayalsobelocatedabove
liquefablesoilinanon-liquefablelayerifthefootingisdesignedtomeetall
ExtremeEventlimitstates.Inthiscase,liquefedsoilparametersshallbeused
fortheanalysis(seeWSDOTGDMChapter6).Thefootingshallbestable
againstanoverallstabilityfailureofthesoil(seeWSDOTGDMSection
8.6.5.2)andlateralspreadingresultingfromtheliquefaction(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter6).
Footingslocatedaboveliquefablesoilbutwithinanon-liquefablelayershall
bedesignedtomeetthebearingresistancecriteriaestablishedforthestructure
fortheExtremeEventLimitState.Thebearingresistanceofafootinglocated
aboveliquefablesoilsshallbedeterminedconsideringthepotentialfora
punchingshearconditiontodevelop,andshallalsobeevaluatedusinga
twolayerbearingresistancecalculationconductedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsSection10.6,assumingthe
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
soiltobeinaliquefedcondition.Settlementoftheliquefablezoneshall
alsobeevaluatedtodetermineiftheextremeeventlimitstatecriteriaforthe
structurethefootingissupportingaremet.TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987)
ortheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureshouldbeusedtoestimate
settlement.
Forfootings,whetheronsoiloronrock,theeccentricityofloadingatthe
extremelimitstateshallnotexceedone-third(0.33)ofthecorresponding
footingdimension,BorL,for
EQ
=0.0andshallnotexceedfour-tenths
(0.40)ofthecorrespondingfootingdimension,BorL,for
EQ
=1.0.Iflive
loadsacttoreducetheeccentricityfortheExtremeEventIlimitstate,
EQ

shallbetakenas0.0.
8.12 Driven Pile Foundation Design
Figure8-7providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto
completeadrivenpilefoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompleted
bytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompleted
bythegeotechnicaldesigner.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-31
J anuary 2010
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour,
ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic
Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
foundationtop,includinglateralearth
pressureloadsforabutments,through
structuralanalysisandmodelingas
well as pilelateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,liquefaction
potential,andresistancefactorsin
consideration of thesoil property
uncertaintyandthemethod
selectedforcalculatingnominal
resistance
7(GT).Determinenominaluplift
resistanceforpilesasfunctionof
depth
4(GT).Selectbestpiletypes,and
determinenominal single pile
resistanceat thestrength and
extremelimitstatesasfunctionof
depth,estimatingpilesizeslikely
needed,&establishingmaximum
acceptablepile nominal resistance
6(GT).Provideestimateof
settlementforpile/pilegroup,or
foundationdepthrequiredto
precludeunacceptablesettlement
3(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles
requiredtosupporttheunfactored
appliedloadsatthestrengthlimitstate,
and their estimated depth
4(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles
requiredtosupporttheunfactored
applied loads at theextremeevent
limitstate,andtheirestimateddepth
5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation
stiffnesses,andrerunstructural
modelingtogetnewloaddistribution
forfoundations.Reiterateifloads
fromlateral pile analysis do not match
foundationtoploadsfromstructural
modelingwithin5%
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjust
sizeofpilegrouporthepilecapacities
and estimated depths as needed to
resist applied factored loads
7(ST).Checktheminimumpiledepth
requiredtoresistfactoredupliftloads
and to resist lateral loads within
acceptabledeformations
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and
wallsforabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
3(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads,
if present
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve
parameters for pilelateral load
analysis
9(GT).Evaluatethe
pilegroupfornominal
resistanceat the
strength and extreme
limitstates,and
settlement/resistance
at the servicelimit
state
10(GT).Verify
estimated tip elevation
and pile nominal
resistancefromStep
6(ST),aswellas
minimumtipelevation
fromthegreatest depth
requiredtomeetuplift,
lateralload,and
serviceability
requirements
11(GT).Basedon
minimumtipelevation
and pile diameter
needed,determine
need for overdriving
and driveability of pile
asdesigned;ifnot
driveable,reevaluate
pilefoundationdesign
andstructuralmodel
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications,obtainingpilequantities
fromestimatedpiledepths,minimumpilecapacityrequired,
minimumtipelevations,andoverdrivingrequiredfromdesign
Design Flowchart for Pile Foundation Design
Figure 8-7
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Driven Pile Design
Figures8-8and8-9providedefnitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforcesand
momentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrivenpiles.Table8-8identifes
whentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesof
failureforthepile(bearing,uplift,andlateralloading)foreachforce,forthe
strengthlimitstate.
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock DC
net
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
Column
*Shaft
or pile
*Forapilefoundation,
thepileandcolumnmay
beone continous unit.
DC
col
EQ
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock DC
net
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
Column
*Shaft
or pile
*Forapilefoundation,
thepileandcolumnmay
beone continous unit.
DC
col
EQ
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Defnition and Location of Forces for Integral Shaft Column or Pile Bent
Figure 8-8
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-33
J anuary 2010
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
DC
net
*Momentsarecalculated
atbottomofcolumn.
Shaftorpile
EQ
col
DC
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Column
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
DC
net
*Momentsarecalculated
atbottomofcolumn.
Shaftorpile
EQ
col
DC
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Column
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
Defnition and Location of Forces for Pile or Shaft Supported Footing.
Figure 8-9
where,
DC
col
= structureloadduetoweightofcolumn
EQ
col
= earthquakeinertialforceduetoweightofcolumn
q
p
= ultimateendbearingresistanceatbaseofshaft(unitresistance)
q
s
= ultimatesideresistanceonshaft(unitresistance)
DD = ultimatedowndragloadonshaft(totalload)
DC
net
= unitweightofconcreteinshaftminusunitweightofsoil
timestheshaftvolumebelowthegroundline(mayinclude
partofthecolumnifthetopoftheshaftisdeepduetoscour
or for other reasons
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Allotherforcesareasdefnedpreviously.
Load Factor
Load Bearing Stress Uplift *Lateral Loading
DC, DC
col
Use max. load factor Use min. load factor Use max load factor
LL
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
DC
net
Use max. load factor Use min. load factor N/A
DD Use max. load factor
Treat as resistance,
and use resistance
factor for uplift
N/A
*Use unfactored loads to get force distribution in structure, then factor the resulting forces for
fnal structural design.
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Deep Foundation Load Factors for
Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-8
Allforcesandloadfactorsareasdefnedpreviously.
Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinpilefoundationdesignshallbeas
specifedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividual
pileloadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
8.12.2 Driven for Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design
Geotechnicaldesignofdrivenpilefoundations,andallrelatedconsiderations,
shallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsArticle10.7(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifedin
followingparagraphsandsections:
8.12.2.1 Driven Pile Sizes and Maximum Resistances
Inlieuofmoredetailedstructuralanalysis,thegeneralguidanceonpiletypes,
sizes,andnominalresistancevaluesprovidedinTable8-9maybeusedto
selectpilesizesandtypesforanalysis.TheGeotechnicalDivisionlimitsthe
maximumnominalpileresistancefor24inchpilesto1500KIPSand18inch
pilesto1,000KIPS,andmaylimitthenominalpileresistanceforagiven
pilesizeandtypedriventoagivensoil/rockbearingunitbasedonexperience
withthegivensoil/rockunit.Notethatthis1500KIPlimitfor24inch
diameter piles applies to closed end piles driven to bearing on to glacially
overconsolidatedtillorasimilargeologicunit.Open-endedpiles,orpiles
driventolesscompetentbearingstrata,shouldbedriventoalowernominal
resistance.Themaximumresistanceallowedinthatgivensoil/rockunitmay
beincreasedbytheWSDOTGeotechnicalDivisionpermutualagreement
withtheBridgeandStructuresOffceifapileloadtestisperformed.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-35
J anuary 2010
Nominal pile
Resistance
(KIPS)
Pile Type and Diameter (in.)
Closed End
Steel Pipe/
Cast-in-Place
Concrete Piles
*Precast,
Prestressed
Concrete Piles Steel H-Piles Timber Piles
120 - - -
See WSDOT
Standard
Specs.
240 - - -
See WSDOT
Standard
Specs.
330 12 in. 13 in. - -
420 14 in. 16 in. 12 in. -
600
18 in.
nonseismic
areas, 24 in.
seismic areas
18 in. 14 in. -
900 24 in.
Project
Specifc
Project
Specifc
-
*Precast, prestressed concrete piles are generally not used for highway bridges, but are
more commonly used for marine work.
Typical Pile Types and Sizes for Various Nominal Pile
Resistance Values.
Table 8-9
8.12.2.2 Minimum Pile Spacing
Center-to-centerpilespacingshouldnotbelessthanthegreaterof30INor
2.5pilediametersorwidths.Acenter-to-centerspacingoflessthan2.5pile
diametersmaybeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis,subjecttotheapproval
oftheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandBridgeDesignEngineer.
8.12.2.3 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance
Pilefoundationsaresubjectedtohorizontalloadsduetowind,traffcloads,
bridgecurvature,vesselortraffcimpactandearthquake.Thenominal
resistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbeevaluatedbasedon
bothsoil/rockandstructuralproperties,consideringsoil-structureinteraction.
Determinationofthesoil/rockparametersrequiredasinputfordesignusing
soil-structureinteractionmethodologiesispresentedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.
SeeArticle10.7.2.4intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsfor
detailedrequirementsregardingthedeterminationoflateralresistanceofpiles.
Empiricaldataforpilespacingslessthan3pilediametersisverylimited.If,
duetospacelimitations,asmallercenter-to-centerspacingisused,subjectto
therequirementsinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.2,basedonextrapolationof
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thevaluesofP
m
inTable8-10,thefollowingvaluesofP
m
at a spacing of no
lessthan2Dmaybeused:
ForRow1,P
m
=0.45
ForRow2,P
m
=0.33
ForRow3,P
m
=0.25
8.12.2.4 Batter Piles
WSDOTdesignpreferenceistoavoidtheuseofbatterpilesunlessnoother
structuraloptionisavailable.
8.12.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
Drivenpilefoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet
thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith
WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1.
Servicelimitstatedesignofdrivenpilefoundationsincludestheevaluationof
settlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overallstability,
lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation.
Lateralanalysisofpilefoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload
distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates,
andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose
loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof
thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads.
8.12.2.5.1 Overall Stability
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply.
8.12.2.5.2 Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement
Thehorizontalmovementofpilefoundationsshallbeestimatedusing
proceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteractionasspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection8.12.2.3.
8.12.2.6 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundations
8.12.2.6.1 Nominal Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving
SetupasitrelatestotheWSDOTdynamicformulaisdiscussedfurtherin
WSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.4(a)andAllen(2005b,2007).
8.12.2.6.2 Scour
Ifastaticanalysismethodisusedtodeterminethefnalpilebearingresistance
(i.e.,adynamicanalysismethodisnotusedtoverifypileresistanceasdriven),
theavailablebearingresistance,andthepiletippenetrationrequiredto
achievethedesiredbearingresistance,shallbedeterminedassumingthatthe
soilsubjecttoscouriscompletelyremoved,resultinginnooverburdenstress
atthebottomofthescourzone.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-37
J anuary 2010
PiledesignforscourisillustratedinFigure8-11,where,
R
scour
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
scourzone(KIPS)
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)=factoredloadperpile(KIPS)
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal
resistanceperpile(FT)

dyn
= resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused
toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile
(ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,use
stat
)
FromEquation8-1,thesummationofthefactoredloads(
i
Q
i
)mustbe
lessthanorequaltothefactoredresistance(R
n
).Therefore,thenominal
resistanceR
n
mustbegreaterthanorequaltothesumofthefactoredloads
divided by the resistance factor .Hence,thenominalbearingresistanceof
thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloadsistherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
dyn
(8-2)
Ifdynamicpilemeasurementsordynamicpileformulaareusedtodetermine
fnalpilebearingresistanceduringconstruction,theresistancethatthepiles
aredriventomustbeadjustedtoaccountforthepresenceofthesoilinthe
scourzone.Thetotaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accounting
fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot
contributetothedesignresistanceofthepileisasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
scour
+R
n
(8-3)
NotethatR
scour
remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.

D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Scour
Zone
Bearing
Zone
R
scour
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Scour
Zone
Bearing
Zone
R
scour
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
Design of Pile Foundations for Scour
Figure 8-11
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag
Thefoundationshouldbedesignedsothattheavailablefactoredgeotechnical
resistanceisgreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthe
downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Thenominalpileresistanceavailable
tosupportstructureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsidering
onlythepositiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingto
thedowndrag.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurallyresistthe
downdragplusstructureloads.
PiledesignfordowndragisillustratedinFigure8-12,where,
R
Sdd
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
downdragzone(KIPS)
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)=factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndrag
load(KIPS)
DD = downdragloadperpile(KIPS)
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal
resistanceperpile(FT)

dyn
= resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused
toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile
(ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,use
stat
)

p
= load factor for downdrag
SimilartothederivationofEquation8-2,thenominalbearingresistanceof
thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads,includingdowndrag,istherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
dyn
+
p
DD/
dyn
(8-4)
Thetotalnominaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accounting
fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot
contributetothedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
Sdd
+R
n
(8-5)
where,R
ndr
isthenominalpiledrivingresistancerequired.NotethatR
Sdd

remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-39
J anuary 2010

D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
Design of Pile Foundations for Downdrag
Figure 8-12
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignifcant
deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded
toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould
bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe
otherappliedloadsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7.
ThestaticanalysisproceduresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7maybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepile
resistancetowithstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimate
pilelengthsrequiredtoachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthis
calculation,itshouldbeassumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstill
contributesoverburdenstresstothesoilbelowthedowndragzone.
ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodpertheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.7,providedtheskinfriction
resistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromthe
resistancedeterminedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.The
skinfrictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybe
estimatedusingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.7,fromsignalmatchinganalysis,
orfrompileloadtestresults.Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhave
abias,onaverageoverorunderpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthe
methodselectedtoestimatetheskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndrag
zoneshouldbetakenintoaccountasdescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations,Article10.7.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.6.4 Determination of Nominal Axial Pile Resistance in Compression
Ifadynamicformulaisusedtoestablishthedrivingcriterioninlieuofa
combinationofdynamicmeasurementswithsignalmatching,waveequation
analysis,and/orpileloadtests,theWSDOTPileDrivingFormulafrom
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations for Roads, Bridge, and Municipal
ConstructionSection6-05.3(12)shallbeused,unlessotherwisespecifcally
approvedbytheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Thehammerenergyusedtocalculatethenominal(ultimate)pileresistance
duringdrivingintheWSDOTandotherdrivingformulaedescribedhereinis
thedevelopedenergy.Thedevelopedhammerenergyistheactualamountof
grossenergyproducedbythehammerforagivenblow.Thisvaluewillnever
exceedtheratedhammerenergy(ratedhammerenergyisthemaximumgross
energythehammeriscapableofproducing,i.e.,atitsmaximumstroke).
ThedevelopmentoftheWSDOTpiledrivingformulaisdescribedinAllen
(2005b,2007).Thenominal(ultimate)pileresistanceduringdrivingusing
thismethodshallbetakenas:
R
ndr
=F E Ln (10N) (8-6)
Where:
R
ndr
= drivingresistance,inTONS
F = 1.8forair/steamhammers
= 1.2foropenendeddieselhammersandprecastconcrete
or timber piles
= 1.6foropenendeddieselhammersandsteelpiles
= 1.2forclosedendeddieselhammers
= 1.9forhydraulichammers
= 0.9fordrophammers
E = developedenergy,equaltoWtimesH
1
,inft-kips
W = weightofram,inkips
H = verticaldropofhammerorstrokeofram,infeet
N = average penetration resistance in blows per inch for the last
4inchesofdriving
Ln = thenaturallogarithm,inbasee

1
For closed-end diesel hammers (double-acting), the developed hammer energy (E) is to be
determined from the bounce chamber reading. Hammer manufacturer calibration data may be
used to correlate bounce chamber pressure to developed hammer energy. For double acting
hydraulic and air/steam hammers, the developed hammer energy shall be calculated from ram
impact velocity measurements or other means approved by the Engineer. For open ended
diesel hammers (single-acting), the blows per minute may be used to determine the developed
energy (E).
NotethatR
ndr
asdeterminedbythisdrivingformulaispresentedinunits
ofTONSratherthanKIPS,tobeconsistentwiththeWSDOTStandard
Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction(M41-10).
Theaboveformulaappliesonlywhen:
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-41
J anuary 2010
1. Thehammerisingoodconditionandoperatinginasatisfactorymanner;
2. Afollowerisnotused;
3. Thepiletopisnotdamaged;
4. Thepileheadisfreefrombroomedorcrushedwoodfber;
5. Thepenetrationoccursatareasonablyquick,uniformrate;andthepile
hasbeendrivenatleast2feetafteranyinterruptionindrivinggreaterthan
1hourinlength.
6. Thereisnoperceptiblebounceaftertheblow.Ifasignifcantbounce
cannotbeavoided,twicetheheightofthebounceshallbedeductedfrom
Htodetermineitstruevalueintheformula.
7. Fortimberpiles,bearingcapacitiescalculatedbytheformulaaboveshall
beconsideredeffectiveonlywhenitislessthanthecrushingstrengthof
thepiles.
8. IfNisgreaterthanorequalto1.0blow/inch.
AsdescribedindetailinAllen(2005b,2007),Equation8-6shouldnotbeused
fornominalpilebearingresistancesgreaterthanapproximately1,000KIPS
(500TONS),orforpilediametersgreaterthan30inches,duetothepaucityof
dataavailabletoverifytheaccuracyofthisequationathigherresistancesand
largerpilediameters,andduetotheincreasedscatterinthedata.Additional
feldtestingandanalysis,suchastheuseofaPileDrivingAnalyzer(PDA)
combinedwithsignalmatching,orapileloadtest,isrecommendedforpiles
driventohigherbearingresistanceandpilediameterslargerthan30inches.
Asistrueofmostdrivingformulae,iftheyhavebeencalibratedtopileload
testresults,theWSDOTpiledrivingformulahasbeencalibratedtoNvalues
obtainedatendofdriving(EOD).Sincethepilenominalresistanceobtained
frompileloadtestsaretypicallyobtaineddays,ifnotweeks,afterthepile
hasbeendriven,thegaininpileresistancethattypicallyoccurswithtimeis
ineffectcorrelatedtotheEODNvaluethroughthedrivingformula.Thatis,
thedrivingformulaassumesthatanaverageamountofsetupwilloccur
afterEODwhenthepilenominalresistanceisdeterminedfromtheformula
(seeAllen,2005b,2007).Hence,theWSDOTdrivingformulashallnotbe
usedincombinationwiththeresistancefactor
dyn
provided in WSDOT
GDM Section 8.9forbeginningofredrive(BOR)Nvaluestoobtainnominal
resistance.Ifpilefoundationnominalresistancemustbedeterminedbased
onrestrike(BOR)drivingresistance,dynamicmeasurementsincombination
withsignalmatchinganalysisand/orpileloadtestresultsshouldbeused.
Sincedrivingformulasinherentlyaccountforamoderateamountofpile
resistancesetup,itisexpectedthattheoreticalmethodologiessuchasthe
waveequationwillpredictlowernominalbearingresistancevaluesforthe
samedrivingresistanceNthanempiricalmethodologiessuchastheWSDOT
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
drivingformula.Thisshouldbeconsideredwhenassessingpiledrivability
ifitisintendedtoevaluatethepile/hammersystemforcontractapproval
purposesusingthewaveequation,butusingapiledrivingformulaforfeld
determinationofpilenominalbearingresistance.
Ifadynamic(piledriving)formulaotherthantheoneprovidedhereis
used,subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,itshall
becalibratedbasedonmeasuredloadtestresultstoobtainanappropriate
resistancefactor,consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7andAllen(2005b,2007).
Ifadynamicformulaisused,thestructuralcompressionlimitstatecannot
betreatedseparatelyaswiththeotheraxialresistanceevaluationprocedures
unlessadrivabilityanalysisifperformed.Evaluationofpiledrivability,
includingthespecifcevaluationofdrivingstressesandtheadequacyofthe
piletoresistthosestresseswithoutdamage,isstronglyrecommended.When
drivabilityisnotchecked,itisnecessarythatthepiledesignstressesbe
limitedtovaluesthatwillassurethatthepilecanbedrivenwithoutdamage.
Forsteelpiles,guidanceisprovidedinArticle6.15.2oftheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationsforthecasewhereriskofpiledamageis
relativelyhigh.Ifpiledrivabilityisnotchecked,itshouldbeassumedthat
theriskofpiledamageisrelativelyhigh.Forconcretepilesandtimberpiles,
nospecifcguidanceisavailableinSections5and8,respectively,ofthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsregardingsafedesignstresses
toreducetheriskofpiledamage.Inpastpractice(seeAASHTO2002),the
requirednominalaxialresistancehasbeenlimitedto0.6f'
c
for concrete piles
and2,000psifortimberpilesifpiledrivabilityisnotevaluated.
8.12.2.6.5 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Pile Foundations
Thenominalresistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbe
evaluatedbasedonbothgeomaterialandstructuralproperties.Thehorizontal
soilresistancealongthepilesshouldbemodeledusingP-Ycurvesdeveloped
forthesoilsatthesiteorusinstrainwedgetheory(Norris,1986;Ashour,et
al.,1998),asspecifedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3.Forpilesclassifed
asshortorintermediateasdefnedinWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.4.3,Strain
WedgeTheoryshouldbeused.
Theappliedloadsshallbefactoredloadsandtheymustincludeboth
horizontalandaxialloads.Theanalysismaybeperformedonarepresentative
singlepilewiththeappropriatepiletopboundaryconditionorontheentire
pilegroup.IfP-Ycurvesareused,theyshallbemodifedforgroupeffects.
TheP-multipliersinTable8-10shouldbeusedtomodifythecurves.Ifstrain
wedgetheoryisused,P-multipliersshallnotbeused,butgroupeffectsshall
beaddressedthroughevaluationoftheoverlapbetweenshearzonesformed
duetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsinfrontofeachpileinthegroup
aslateraldefectionincreases.Ifthepilecapwillalwaysbeembedded,the
P-Yhorizontalresistanceofthesoilonthecapfacemaybeincludedinthe
horizontalresistance.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-43
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
Fortheapplicablefactoredloads(seeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Section3)foreachextremeeventlimitstate,thepile
foundationsshallbedesignedtohaveadequatefactoredaxialandlateral
resistance.Forseismicdesign,allsoilwithinandaboveliquefablezones,
shallnotbeconsideredtocontributeaxialcompressiveresistance.Downdrag
resultingfromliquefactioninducedsettlementshallbedeterminedasspecifed
inWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations(Article3.11.8),andshallbeincludedintheloadsappliedto
thefoundation.Staticdowndragloadsshouldnotbecombinedwithseismic
downdragloadsduetoliquefaction.
Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreater
thanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthedowndrag,atthe
extremeeventlimitstate.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurally
resistthedowndragplusstructureloads.
PiledesignforliquefactiondowndragisillustratedinFigure8-13,where,
R
Sdd
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
downdragzone
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)= factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndragload
DD = downdrag load per pile
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistance
per pile

seis
= resistance factor for seismic conditions

p
= load factor for downdrag
Thenominalbearingresistanceofthepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads,
includingdowndrag,istherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
seis
+
p
DD/
seis
(8-7)
Thetotaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accountingfortheskin
frictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnotcontributeto
thedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
Sdd
+R
n
(8-8)
NotethatR
Sdd
remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010


D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Liquefaction
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/ M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Liquefaction
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/ M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
Design of Pile Foundations for Liquefaction Downdrag
Figure 8-13
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignifcant
deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded
toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould
bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe
otherappliedloadsinaccordancewithAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
ThestaticanalysisproceduresinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsmaybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepileresistanceto
withstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimatepilelengthsrequired
toachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshouldbe
assumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstillcontributesoverburdenstressto
thesoilbelowthedowndragzone.
ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodperAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,providedtheskinfrictionresistance
withinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromtheresistance
determinedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.Theskin
frictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybeestimated
usingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,fromsignalmatchinganalysis,orfrompileloadtestresults.
Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhaveabias,onaverageoveror
underpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthemethodselectedtoestimate
theskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndragzoneshouldbetakeninto
accountasdescribedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-45
J anuary 2010
Downdragforcesestimatedusingthesemethodsmaybeconservative,asthe
downdragforceduetoliquefactionmaybebetweenthefullstaticshear
strengthandtheliquefedshearstrengthactingalongthelengthofthedeep
foundationelements(seeWSDOT GDM Section 6.5.3).
Thepilefoundationshallalsobedesignedtoresistthehorizontalforce
resultingfromlateralspreading,ifapplicable,ortheliquefablesoilshall
beimprovedtopreventliquefactionandlateralspreading.Forlateralsoil
resistanceofthepilefoundation,ifP-Ycurvesareused,thesoilinput
parametersshouldbereducedtoaccountforliquefaction.Todeterminethe
amountofreduction,thedurationofstrongshakingandtheabilityofthesoil
tofullydevelopaliquefedconditionduringtheperiodofstrongshaking
shouldbeconsidered.
RegardingthereductionofP-Ysoilstrengthandstiffnessparametersto
accountforliquefaction,seeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2.
Theforceresultingfromlateralspreadingshouldbecalculatedasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter6.
Whendesigningforscourattheextremeeventlimitstate,thepilefoundation
designshallbeconductedasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.4.5,
andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Theresistancefactors
andthecheckfoodpertheAASHTOBridgeDesignSpecifcationsshall
beused.
8.13 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design
Figure8-14providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,needed
tocompleteadrilledshaftfoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusually
completedbytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormally
completedbytheGeotechnicalDesigner.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Design Flowchart For Drill Shaft Foundation Design
Figure 8-14
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour,
ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic
Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
foundationtop,includinglateralearth
pressureloadsforabutments,through
structuralanalysisandmodelingas
well as shaft lateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,liquefaction
potential,andresistancefactorsin
consideration of the soil property
uncertaintyandthemethod
selectedforcalculatingnominal
resistance
7(GT).Determinenominaluplift
resistanceforshaftsasfunctionof
depth
4(GT).Determinenominalsingle
shaft resistance at the strength and
extremelimitstatesasfunctionof
depth,forlikelyshaftdiameters
needed,consideringshaft
constructability
6(GT).Provideestimateof
settlement limited resistance
(servicestate)forshaft/shaftgroup,
orfoundationdepthrequiredto
precludeunacceptablesettlement
3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and
nominal shaft resistance needed to
supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat
the strength limit state
5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation
stiffnesses,andrerunstructural
modelingtogetnewloaddistribution
forfoundations.Reiterateifloads
fromlateral shaft analysis do not
matchfoundationtoploadsfrom
structuralmodelingwithin5%
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjustthe
shaftsizeordepthasneededtoresist
appliedfactoredloads,bothlateraland
vertical
7(ST).Checktheminimumshaft
depthrequiredtoresistfactoreduplift
loads and to resist lateral loads within
acceptable deformations
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and
wallsforabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
3(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads,
if present
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve
parameters for shaft lateral load
analysis
9(GT).Evaluatethe
shaft/shaftgroupfor
nominal resistance at
the strength and
extremelimitstates,
and
settlement/resistance
at the service limit
state
10(GT).Verify
estimated tip elevation
and shaft nominal
resistancefromStep
6(ST),aswellasthe
specified tip elevation
fromthe greatest depth
requiredtomeetuplift,
lateralload,and
serviceability
requirements;if
significantly different
than what was
providedinStep
6(ST),havestructural
modelandfoundation
designreevaluated
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications
3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and
nominal shaft resistance needed to
supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat
the extreme limit state
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-47
J anuary 2010
8.13.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Drilled Shaft Design
Figures8-8and8-9providedefnitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforces
andmomentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrilledshafts.Table8-8
identifeswhentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevarious
modesoffailurefortheshaft(bearingcapacity,uplift,andlateralloading)for
eachforce,forthestrengthlimitstate.
Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinshaftfoundationdesignshallbeas
specifedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividualshaft
loadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDspecifcations.
8.13.2 Drilled Shaft Geotechnical Design
Geotechnicaldesignofdrilledshaftfoundations,andallrelated
considerations,shallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcationsArticle10.8(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifed
infollowingparagraphsandsections:
8.13.2.1 General Considerations
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.13andallsubsectionsshall
applytothedesignofdrilledshafts.Throughouttheseprovisions,theuse
ofthetermdrilledshaftshallbeinterpretedtomeanashaftconstructed
usingeitherdrillingorcasingplusexcavationequipmentandrelated
technology.Theseprovisionsshallalsoapplytoshaftsthatareconstructed
usingcasingadvancersthattwistorrotatecasingsintothegroundconcurrent
withexcavationratherthandrilling.Theprovisionsofthissectionarenot
applicabletodrilledpilesinstalledwithcontinuousfightaugersthatare
concretedastheaugerisbeingextracted(e.g.,thissectiondoesnotapplyto
thedesignofaugercastpiles).
Shaftdesignsshouldbereviewedforconstructabilitypriortoadvertisingthe
projectforbids.
8.13.2.2 Nearby Structures
Whereshaftfoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,the
infuenceoftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundation,andthe
effectofthefoundationontheexistingstructures,includingvibrationeffects
duetocasinginstallation,shouldbeinvestigated.Inaddition,theimpactof
cavingsoilsduringshaftexcavationonthestabilityoffoundationssupporting
adjacentstructuresshouldbeevaluated.Forexistingstructurefoundationsthat
areadjacenttotheproposedshaftfoundation,andifashaftexcavationcave-in
couldcompromisetheexistingfoundationintermsofstabilityorincreased
deformation,thedesignshouldrequirethatcasingbeadvancedastheshaft
excavationproceeds.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.13.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts
Drilledshaftfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet
thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith
WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1.
Servicelimitstatedesignofdrilledshaftfoundationsincludestheevaluation
ofsettlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overall
stability,lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation.
Lateralanalysisofshaftfoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload
distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates,
andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose
loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof
thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads.
TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article
10.8.2.2.3)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfor
drilledshaftdesign.
8.13.2.3.1 Horizontal Movement of Shafts and Shaft Groups
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3shallapply.
Forshaftsembeddedinrock,uniaxialunconfnedcompressivestrength,
q
u
,orshearstrength,s
u
(notethats
u
=q
u
/2),isakeyinputparameterto
estimatelateralresistance,bothforP-Yanalysisandstrainwedgetheory.For
determinationoflateralresistance,q
u
or s
u
shall be determined in a way that
accountsforthecharacteristicsoftherockmass.Oneofthefollowingtwo
approachesmaybeusedtoestimateq
u
or s
u
oftherockmass:
UsetherockmassRQDandTable10.4.6.5-1intheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationstoestimaterockmassmodulus,assuming
thattheratioofintacttorockmassmoduluswouldalsoapplytoshear
strength.
Usetheglobalrockmassstrength,
cm
,determinedbasedonthe
methodinHoeketal.(2002).SeeWSDOTGDMSection5.7for
recommendationsondeterminationofrockmassshearstrength.
First,itshouldbenotedthattherockmassshearstrengthessentiallyfunctions
asanindexparametertoestimatethestiffnessresponseofshaftssubjectto
lateralloadaswellasakeyparameterusedtodetermineP
ult
oftherockmass
lateralresistance.Thefrstapproachwasdevelopedforshaftfoundations,
butreliesontheassumptionthattheratiosinAASHTOTable10.4.6.5-1can
beappliedtoshearstrengtheventhoughtheratiosweredevelopedbased
onstiffness,notashearfailurelimitstate.TheHoek,etal.(2002)failure
criterionisempiricallyderivedfromandisprimarilyusedforexcavations,
notshaftfoundations.However,itisthebestavailableestimationmethod
forestimatingcompressivestrength,q
u
,ofafracturedrockmass.Both
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-49
J anuary 2010
approaches have their shortcomings with regard to this application of lateral
resistanceofdeepfoundations.Therefore,otherapproachestoaddressing
thisissuemaybeconsidered,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOTState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
8.13.2.3.2 Overall Stability
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply.
8.13.2.4 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Drilled Shafts
Thenominalshaftgeotechnicalresistancesthatshallbeevaluatedatthe
strengthlimitstateinclude:
Axialcompressionresistance,
Axialupliftresistance,
Punchingofshaftsthroughstrongsoilintoaweakerlayer,
Lateralgeotechnicalresistanceofsoilandrockstrata,
Resistancewhenscouroccurs,and
Axialresistancewhendowndragoccurs.
TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article
10.8.3.5)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfordrilled
shaftdesign.Ingeneral,theequationsforIGMstendtoproduceexcessively
conservativeresults.Therefore,theequationsfordrilledshaftaxialresistance
applicabletosandorclay,asapplicabletothesiteconditions,shouldbeused.
Ifverystrongsoil,suchasglaciallyoverriddentillsoroutwashdeposits,
ispresent,andadequateperformancedataforshaftaxialresistanceinthe
consideredgeologicalsoildepositisavailable,thenominalendbearing
resistancemaybeincreasedabovethelimitspecifedforbearinginsoilin
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsuptotheloadinglimit
thatperformancedataindicateswillproducegoodlong-termperformance.
Alternatively,loadtestingmaybeconductedtovalidatethevalueofbearing
resistanceselectedfordesign.
8.13.2.4.1 Scour
Theeffectofscourshallbeconsideredinthedeterminationoftheshaft
penetration.Resistanceafterscourshallbebasedontheapplicableprovisions
ofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.2andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsSection10.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedsothatthe
shaftpenetrationafterthedesignscoureventsatisfestherequirednominal
axialandlateralresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthe
soillostduetoscourdoesnotcontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoil
belowthescourzone.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedtoresistdebris
loadsoccurringduringthefoodeventinadditionto the loads applied from
thestructure.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theresistancefactorsarethoseusedinthedesignwithoutscour.Theaxial
resistanceofthemateriallostduetoscourshallnotbeincludedintheshaft
resistance.
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag
Thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupportstructureloadsplus
downdragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythepositiveskinandtip
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothedowndrag.Forthis
calculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributingtodowndragdoes
contributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthedowndragzone.In
general,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreaterthan
thefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthedowndrag,atthestrength
limitstate.
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned
totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother
appliedloads.
8.13.2.4.3 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Shaft and Shaft Group Foundations
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.5shallapply.Forshafts
classifedaslongperEquation8-9,P-Ymethodsofanalysismaybeused.
Forshaftsclassifedasshortorintermediate,whenlaterallyloaded,theshaft
maintainsalateraldefectionpatternthatisclosetoastraightline.Ashaftis
defnedasshortifitslength,L,torelativestiffnessratio(L/T)islessthanor
equalto2,intermediatewhenthisratioislessthanorequalto4butgreater
than2,andlongwhenthisratioisgreaterthan4,whererelativestiffness,T,
isdefnedas:
2 . 0

f
EI
T
(8-9)
where,
E = theshaftmodulus
I = themomentofinertiafortheshaft,andEIisthebendingstiffness
oftheshaft,and
f = coeffcientofsubgradereactionforthesoilintowhichtheshaft
isembeddedasprovidedinNAVFACDM7.2(1982)
Forshaftsclassifedasshortorintermediateasdefnedabove,strainwedge
theory(Norris,1986;Ashour,etal.,1998)shouldbeusedtoestimatethe
lateralresistanceoftheshafts.
Thedesignofhorizontallyloadeddrilledshaftsshallaccountfortheeffects
ofinteractionbetweentheshaftandground,includingthenumberofshaftsin
thegroup.Whenstrainwedgetheoryisusedtoassessthelateralloadresponse
ofshaftgroups,groupeffectsshallbeaddressedthroughevaluationofthe
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-51
J anuary 2010
overlapbetweenshearzonesformedduetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsin
frontofeachshaftinthegroupaslateraldefectionincreases.
8.13.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.7shallapply,exceptthat
forliquefactiondowndrag,thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupport
structureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythe
positiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothe
downdrag.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributing
todowndragdoescontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthe
downdragzone.Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistance
shouldbegreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthe
downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesigned
tostructurallyresistthedowndragplusstructureloads.
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned
totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother
appliedloads.
8.14 Micropiles
Micropiles shall be designed inaccordancewithArticles10.5and10.9of
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Additionalbackground
informationonmicropiledesignmaybefoundintheFHWAMicropileDesign
andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,PublicationNo.FHWA-
SA-97-070(Armour,etal.,2000).
8.15 Proprietary Foundation Systems
Onlyproprietaryfoundationsystemsthathavebeenreviewedandapproved
bytheWSDOTNewProductsCommittee,andsubsequentlyaddedto
WSDOTGDMAppendix8-Aofthismanual,maybeusedforstructural
foundationsupport.
Ingeneral,proprietaryfoundationsystemsshallbeevaluatedbasedonthe
following:
1. Thedesignshallrelyonpublishedandproventechnology,andshouldbe
consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandthis
geotechnicaldesignmanual.DeviationsfromtheAASHTOspecifcations
andthismanualnecessarytodesignthefoundationsystemmustbefully
explainedbasedonsoundgeotechnicaltheoryandsupportedempirically
throughfullscaletesting.
2. Thequalityofthefoundationsystemasconstructedinthefeldis
verifable.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3. Thefoundationsystemisdurable,andthroughtestdataitisshownthatit
willhavethenecessarydesignlife(usually75yearsormore).
4. Thelimitationsofthefoundationsystemintermsofitsapplicability,
capacity,constructability,andpotentialimpacttoadjacentfacilities
duringandafteritsinstallation(e.g.,vibrations,potentialsubsurfacesoil
movement,etc.)areclearlyidentifed.
8.16 Detention Vaults
8.16.1 Overview
Requirementsforsizingandlocatingdetention/retentionvaultsareprovided
intheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual.Detention/retentionvaultsas
describedinthissectionincludewetvaults,combinedwet/detentionvaults
anddetentionvaults.Forspecifcdetailsregardingthedifferencesbetween
thesefacilities,pleaserefertoChapter5oftheWSDOTHighwayRunoff
Manual.Forgeotechnicalandstructuraldesignpurposes,adetentionvault
isaburiedreinforcedconcretestructuredesignedtostorewaterandretain
soil,withorwithoutalid.Thelidandtheassociatedretainingwallsmay
needtobedesignedtosupportatraffcsurcharge.Thesizeandshapeofthe
detentionvaultscanvary.Commonvaultwidthsvaryfrom15fttoover60ft.
Thelengthcanvarygreatly.Detentionvaultsovera100ftinlengthhave
beenproposedforsomeprojects.Thebaseofthevaultmaybelevelormay
beslopedfromeachsidetowardthecenterformingabroadVtofacilitate
sedimentremoval.Vaultshavespecifcsitedesignelements,suchaslocation
withrespecttoright-of-way,septictanksanddrainfelds.Thegeotechnical
designermustaddresstheadequacyoftheproposedvaultlocationand
providerecommendationsfornecessaryset-backdistancesfromsteepslopes
orbuildingfoundations.
8.16.2 Field Investigation Requirements
Ageotechnicalreconnaissanceandsubsurfaceinvestigationarecriticalforthe
designofalldetentionvaults.Alldetentionvaults,regardlessoftheirsize,will
requireaninvestigationoftheunderlyingsoil/rockthatsupportsthestructure.
TherequirementsforfrequencyofexplorationsprovidedinTable8-11
shouldbeused.Additionalexplorationsmayberequireddependingonthe
variabilityinsiteconditions,vaultgeometry,andtheconsequencesshoulda
failureoccur.
Vault surface area (ft
2
) Exploration points (minimum)
<200 1
200 - 1000 2
1000 10,000 3
>10,000 3 - 4
Minimum Exploration Requirements for Detention Vaults
Table 8-11
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-53
J anuary 2010
Thedepthoftheboringswillvarydependingontheheightofsoilbeing
retainedbythevaultandtheoveralldepthofthevault.Theboringsshould
beextendedtoadepthbelowthebottomelevationofthevaultaminimum
of1.5timestheheightoftheexteriorwalls.Explorationdepthshouldbe
greatenoughtofullypenetratesofthighlycompressiblesoils(e.g.,peat,
organicsilt,softfnegrainedsoils)intocompetentmaterialofsuitablebearing
resistance(e.g.,verystifftohardcohesivesoil,densecohesionlesssoilor
bedrock).Sincethesestructuresmaybesubjectedtohydrostaticupliftforces,
aminimumofoneboringmustbeinstrumentedwithapiezometertomeasure
seasonalvariationsingroundwaterunlessthegroundwaterdepthisknownto
bewellbelowthebottomofthevaultatalltimes.
8.16.3 Design Requirements
Adetentionvaultisanenclosedburiedstructuresurroundedbythreeor
moreretainingwalls.Therefore,forthegeotechnicaldesignofdetention
vaultwalls,designrequirementsprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter15are
applicable.Sincethevaultwallstypicallydonothavetheabilitytodeform
adequatelytoallowactiveearthpressureconditionstodevelop,atrest
conditionsshouldbeassumedforthedesignofthevaultwalls(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter15).
Iftheseasonalhighgroundwaterlevelisabovethebaseofthevault,the
vaultshallbedesignedfortheupliftforcesthatresultfromthebuoyancyof
thestructure.Upliftforcesshouldberesistedbytie-downanchorsordeep
foundationsincombinationwiththeweightofthestructureandoverburden
materialoverthestructure.
Temporaryshoringmayberequiredtoallowexcavationofthesoilnecessary
toconstructthevault.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter15forguidelineson
temporaryshoring.Ifashoringwallisusedtopermanentlysupportthesides
ofthevaultortoprovidepermanentupliftresistancetobuoyantforces,the
shoringwall(s)shallbedesignedaspermanentwall(s).
8.17 References
AASHTO,2007, LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations,AmericanAssociation
ofStateHighwayandTransportationOffcials,FourthEdition,Washington,
D.C.,USA.
Allen,T.M.,2005,Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and
Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design,
PublicationNo.FHWA-NHI-05-052,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,41pp.
Allen,T.M.,2005b,Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and
Its Calibration for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD),WSDOT
ResearchReportWA-RD610.1,Olympia,WA,45pp.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Allen,T.M.,2007,DevelopmentofNewPile-DrivingFormulaandIts
CalibrationforLoadandResistanceFactorDesign,Transportation Research
Record 2004,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC.,pp.20-27.
Armour,T.,Groneck,T.,Keeley,J.,andSharma,S.,2000,MicropileDesign
andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,FHWA-SA-97-070,
376pp.
Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,1999,LiquefactionandUndrained
ResponseEvaluationofSandsfromDrainedFormulation,,ASCE
JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering,Vol.125,No.8,
pp.649-658.
Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,2003,LateralLoadedPileResponsein
LiquefableSoil,ASCEJournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.129,No.6,pp.404-414.
Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,1998,LateralLoadingofaPilein
layeredSoilUsingtheStrainWedgeModel,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.124,No.4,pp.303-315.
Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,2002,StrainWedgeModel
CapabilityofAnalyzingBehaviorofLaterallyLoadedIsolatedPiles,
DrilledShafts,andPileGroups,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.7,No.4,pp.245-254.
Barker,R.M.,J.M.Duncan,K.B.Rojiani,P.S.K.Ooi,C.K.Tan,andS.G.
Kim.1991.ManualsfortheDesignofBridgeFoundations.NCHRP Report
343.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC.
Broms,B.B.,1964a.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesiveSoil.ASCE,
JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM2,27
63.
Broms,B.B.,1964b.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesionlessSoil.ASCE,
JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM3,123
156.
Cheney,R.&Chassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
DiMillio,A.F.,1982.PerformanceofHighwayBridgeAbutmentsSupported
bySpreadFootingsonCompactedFill,Report No. FHWA/RD-81/184,
(NTISPB83-201822).(FHWAStaffStudy).
Hannigan,P.J.,G.G.Goble,G.E.LikinsandF.Rausche,2006.Design
andConstructionofDrivenPileFoundations-Vol.IandII,Federal
HighwayAdministrationReportNo.FHWA-HI-05-042,FederalHighway
Administration,Washington,D.C.,822pp.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-55
J anuary 2010
Hoek,E.,C.Carrazna-Torres,andB.Corkum,2002.Hoek-BrownFailure
Criterion2002Edition,5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium
and 17th Tunneling Association of Canada Conference:NARMS-TAC,
pp.267-271.
Hough,B.K.1959.CompressibilityastheBasisforSoilBearingValue,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ASCE,Vol.85,
Part2.
Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsand
depositsfollowingliquefactionduringearthquakes.SoilsandFoundations,
JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March,pp.173-188.
Kavazanjian,E.,Jr.,Matasovi,T.Hadj-HamouandSabatini,P.J.1997.
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.3,DesignGuidance:Geotechnical
EarthquakeEngineeringforHighways,Report No. FHWA-SA-97-076,
FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kimmerling,R.E.2002.GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular6.Report No.
FHWA-SA-02-054,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kyfor,Z.G.,Schnore,A.R.,Carlo,T.A.,andBailey,P.F.,1992.Static
TestingofDeepFoundations.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-91-042,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Offceof
TechnologyApplications,WashingtonD.C.,174
Lam,I.P,andG.R.Martin.1986.SeismicDesignofHighwayBridge
Foundations.Vol.2,Design Procedures and Guidelines.FHWA/RD-
86/102,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,
Washington,DC,p.18.
Moulton,L.K.,H.V.S.GangaRao,andG.T.Halverson.1985.Tolerable
MovementCriteriaforHighwayBridges.FHWA/RD-85/107.Federal
HighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,
DC,p.118.
Munfakh,G.,Arman,A.,Collin,J.G.,Hung,J.C.-J.,andBrouillette,R.P.
2001.ShallowFoundationsReferenceManual,Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-01-023,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Norris,G.M.,1986,TheoreticallybasedBEFLaterallyLoadedPile
Analysis:Proceedings,ThirdInternationalConferenceonNumericalMethods
inOffshorePiling,Nantes,France,pp.361-386.
Reese,L.C.1984.HandbookonDesignofPilesandDrilledShaftsUnder
LateralLoad.FHWA-IP-84/11,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,DC.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Reese,L.C.,1986.BehaviorofPilesandPileGroupsUnderLateralLoad.
ReportNo.FHWA/RD-85/106,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Federal
HighwayAdministration,OffceofEngineeringandHighwayOperations
ResearchandDevelopment,WashingtonD.C.,311
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)-EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Seed,R.B.andHarder,L.F.Jr.,1990.SPT-BasedAnalysisofCyclicPore
PressureGenerationandUndrainedResidualStrength.Proceedings,H.B.
BoltonSeedMemorialSymposium,J.M.DuncanEditor,BiTechPublishers,
Vol2,351-376
Tokimatsu,K.andBoltonSeed,B.1987.EvaluationofSettlementsinSands
duetoEarthquakeShaking,JournalofGeotechnicalEngineering,ASCE,113,
8,861-878.
Williams,M.E.,M.McVayandM.I.Hoit,2003.LRFDSubstructureand
FoundationDesignPrograms,Proceedingsofthe2003InternationalBridge
Conference,June9-11,Pittsburgh,Pa.
WSDOT,2008,BridgeDesignManualLRFD,M23-50
WSDOT,2008,Standard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction,M41-01
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-57
J anuary 2010
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-58 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 9 Embankments Contents
9.1 OverviewandDataNeeded 9-1
9.1.1 SiteReconnaissance 9-1
9.1.2 FieldExplorationandLaboratoryTestingRequirements 9-2
9.1.3 SoilSamplingandStratigraphy 9-3
9.1.4 Groundwater 9-5
9.2 DesignConsiderations 9-6
9.2.1 TypicalEmbankmentMaterialsandCompaction 9-6
9.2.1.1 RockEmbankments 9-6
9.2.1.2 EarthEmbankmentsandBridgeApproachEmbankments 9-7
9.2.1.3 FillPlacementBelowWater 9-8
9.2.2 EmbankmentsforDetention/RetentionFacilities 9-8
9.2.3 StabilityAssessment 9-9
9.2.3.1 SafetyFactors 9-9
9.2.3.2 StrengthParameters 9-10
9.2.4 EmbankmentSettlementAssessment 9-11
9.2.4.1 SettlementImpacts 9-11
9.2.4.2 SettlementAnalysis 9-12
9.2.4.2.1 PrimaryConsolidation 9-12
9.2.4.2.2 SecondaryCompression 9-13
9.2.4.3 StressDistribution 9-13
9.2.4.3.1 Simple2V:1HMethod 9-13
9.2.4.3.2 TheoryofElasticity 9-14
9.2.4.3.3 EmpiricalCharts 9-15
9.2.4.3.4 RateofSettlement 9-16
9.2.4.4 AnalyticalTools 9-17
9.3 StabilityMitigation 9-17
9.3.1 StagedConstruction 9-17
9.3.1.1 DesignParameters 9-19
9.3.1.2 In-SituShearStrengthandDeterminationofStabilityAssuming
UndrainedLoading 9-20
9.3.1.3 TotalStressAnalysis 9-22
9.3.1.4 EffectiveStressAnalysis 9-26
9.3.2 Basereinforcement 9-28
9.3.3 GroundImprovement 9-29
9.3.4 LightweightFills 9-30
9.3.4.1 Geofoam 9-30
9.3.4.2 LightweightAggregates 9-31
9.3.4.3 WoodFiber 9-31
9.3.4.4 Scrap(Rubber)Tires 9-31
9.3.4.5 LightWeightCellularConcrete 9-31
9.3.4.6 ToeBermsandShearkeys 9-32
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-i
J anuary 2010
9.4 SettlementMitigation 9-32
9.4.1 AccelerationUsingWickDrains 9-32
9.4.2 AccelerationUsingSurcharges 9-33
9.4.3 LightweightFills 9-34
9.4.4 Over-excavation 9-34
9.5 ConstructionConsiderationsandPS&EDevelopment 9-35
9.5.1 SettlementandPorePressureMonitoring 9-36
9.5.2 Instrumentation 9-37
9.5.2.1 Piezometers 9-37
9.5.2.2 InstrumentationforSettlement 9-38
9.5.2.2.1 SettlementPlates 9-38
9.5.2.2.2 PneumaticSettlementCells 9-38
9.5.2.2.3 SondexSystem 9-38
9.5.2.2.4 HorizontalInclinometer 9-38
9.5.3 PS&EConsiderations 9-39
9.5.4 PS&EChecklist 9-39
9.6 References 9-40
Appendix9-A ExamplesIllustratingStagedFillConstructionDesign 9-43
9-A.1 ProblemSetup 9-43
9-A.2 DeterminationofMaximumStableFirstStageFillHeight 9-44
9-A.3 TotalStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-45
9-A.4 EffectiveStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-51
Contents Chapter 9
Page 9-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 9 Embankments
9.1 Overview and Data Needed
Thischapteraddressesthedesignandconstructionofrockembankments,
bridgeapproachembankments,earthembankments,andlightweightflls.
Staticloadingaswellasseismicloadingconditionsarecovered,thoughfor
amoredetailedassessmentofseismicloadingonembankmentperformance,
seeWSDOTGDMChapter6.Theprimarygeotechnicalissuesthatimpact
embankmentperformanceareoverallstability,internalstability,settlement,
materials,andconstruction.
Forthepurposesofthischapterembankmentsincludethefollowing:
Rockembankments,defnedasfllsinwhichthematerialinallorany
partofanembankmentcontains25percentormore,byvolume,gravelor
stone4inchesormoreindiameter.
Bridgeapproachembankments,defnedasfllbeneathabridgestructure
andextending100feetbeyondastructuresendatsubgradeelevationfor
thefullembankmentwidth,plusanaccessrampona10H:1Vslopefrom
subgradedowntotheoriginalgroundelevation.Thebridgeapproach
embankmentalsoincludesanyembankmentthatreplacesunsuitable
foundationsoilbeneaththebridgeapproachembankment.
Earthembankmentsarefllsthatarenotclassifedasrockorbridge
approachembankments,butthatareconstructedoutofsoil.
Lightweightfllscontainlightweightfllorrecycledmaterialsasa
signifcantportionoftheembankmentvolume,andtheembankment
constructionisusuallybyspecialprovision.Lightweightfllsaremost
oftenusedasaportionofthebridgeapproachembankmenttomitigate
settlementorinlandsliderepairstoreestablishroadways.
9.1.1 Site Reconnaissance
GeneralrequirementsforsitereconnaissancearegiveninWSDOTGDM
Chapter2.
Thekeygeotechnicalissuesfordesignandconstructionofembankments
includestabilityandsettlementoftheunderlyingsoils,theimpactofthe
stabilityandsettlementontheconstructionstagingandtimerequirements,
andtheimpacttoadjacentandnearbystructures,suchasbuildings,bridge
foundations,andutilities.Therefore,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldperform
adetailedsitereconnaissanceoftheproposedconstruction.Thisshould
includeadetailedsitereviewoutsidetheproposedembankmentfootprint
inadditiontowithintheembankmentfootprint.Thisreconnaissanceshould
extendatleasttwotothreetimesthewidthoftheembankmentoneither
sideoftheembankmentandtothetoporbottomofslopesadjacenttothe
embankment.Furthermore,areasbelowproposedembankmentsshouldbe
fullyexploredifanyexistinglandslideactivityissuspected.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-1
J anuary 2010
9.1.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Requirements
Generalrequirementsforthedevelopmentofthefeldexplorationand
laboratorytestingplansareprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter2.The
expectedprojectrequirementsandsubsurfaceconditionsshouldbeanalyzed
todeterminethetypeandquantityofinformationtobeobtainedduringthe
geotechnicalinvestigation.Duringthisphaseitisnecessaryto:
Identifyperformancecriteria(e.g.allowablesettlement,timeavailablefor
construction,seismicdesignrequirements,etc.).
Identifypotentialgeologichazards,areasofconcern(e.g.softsoils),and
potentialvariabilityoflocalgeology.
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.limitequilibrium
slopestabilityanalyses,liquefactionsusceptibility,lateralspreading/slope
stabilitydeformations,settlementevaluations).
Identifyengineeringpropertiesrequiredfortheseanalyses.
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtype.
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
forthem.
Thegoalofthesitecharacterizationforembankmentdesignandconstruction
istodevelopthesubsurfaceprofleandsoilpropertyinformationneeded
forstabilityandsettlementanalyses.Soilparametersgenerallyrequiredfor
embankmentdesigninclude:
Totalstressandeffectivestressstrengthparameters;
Unitweight;
Compressionindexes(primary,secondaryandrecompression);and
Coeffcientofconsolidation).
Table9-1providesasummaryofsitecharacterizationneedsandfeldand
laboratorytestingconsiderationsforembankmentdesign.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical
Issues
Engineering
Evaluations
Required Information
for Analyses
Field Testing
Laboratory
Testing
Embankments
and
Embankment
Foundations
settlement
(magnitude &
rate)
bearing capacity
slope stability
lateral pressure
internal stability
borrow source
evaluation
(available quantity
and quality of
borrow soil)
required
reinforcement
liquefaction
delineation of soft
soil deposits
potential for
subsidence (karst,
mining, etc.)
constructability
subsurface profle
(soil, ground water,
rock)
compressibility
parameters
shear strength
parameters
unit weights
time-rate
consolidation
parameters
horizontal earth
pressure coeffcients
interface friction
parameters
pullout resistance
geologic mapping
including orientation
and characteristics of
rock discontinuities
shrink/swell/
degradation of soil
and rock fll
nuclear density
plate load test
test fll
CPT (w/ pore
pressure
measurement)
SPT
PMT
dilatometer
vane shear
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
piezometers
settlement
plates
slope
inclinometers
1-D Oedometer
triaxial tests
unconfned
compression
direct shear tests
grain size
distribution
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
organic content
moisture-density
relationship
hydraulic
conductivity
geosynthetic/soil
testing
shrink/swell
slake durability
unit weight
relative density
Summary of information needs and testing considerations for embankments
(adapted from Sabatini, et al., 2002)
Table 9-1
9.1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy
Thesize,complexityandextentofthesoilsamplingprogramwilldepend
primarilyonthetype,heightandsizeofembankmentprojectaswellasthe
expectedsoilconditions.
Generally,embankments10feetorlessinheight,constructedoveraverage
togoodsoilconditions(e.g.,non-liquefable,mediumdensetoverydense
sand,siltorgravel,withnosignsofpreviousinstability)willrequireonlya
basiclevelofsiteinvestigation.Ageologicsitereconnaissance(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter2),combinedwithwidelyspacedtestpits,handholes,orafew
shallowboringstoverifyfeldobservationsandtheanticipatedsitegeology
maybesuffcient,especiallyifthegeologyoftheareaiswellknown,orif
thereissomepriorexperienceinthearea.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-3
J anuary 2010
Forlargerembankments,orforanyembankmenttobeplacedoversoftor
potentiallyunstableground,geotechnicalexplorationsshouldingeneralbe
spacednomorethan500ftapartforuniformconditions.Innon-uniformsoil
conditions,spacingshouldbedecreasedto100to300footintervalswith
atleastoneboringineachmajorlandformorgeologicunit.Akeytothe
establishmentofexplorationfrequencyforembankmentsisthepotentialfor
thesubsurfaceconditionstoimpacttheconstructionoftheembankment,the
constructioncontractingeneral,andthelong-termperformanceofthefnished
project.Theexplorationprogramshouldbedevelopedandconductedina
mannerthatthesepotentialproblems,intermsofcost,time,andperformance,
arereducedtoanacceptablelevel.Theboringfrequencydescribedabovemay
needtobeadjustedbythegeotechnicaldesignertoaddresstheriskofsuch
problemsforthespecifcproject.
Allembankmentsover10feetinheight,embankmentsoversoftsoils,or
thosethatcouldimpactadjacentstructures(bridgeabutments,buildingsetc.),
willgenerallyrequiregeotechnicalboringsforthedesign.Themorecritical
areasforstabilityofalargeembankmentarebetweenthetopandbottom
oftheslopes.Thisiswherebasestabilityisofmostconcernandwherea
majorityoftheboringsshouldbelocated,particularlyifthenear-surfacesoils
areexpectedtoconsistofsoftfne-graineddeposits.Atcriticallocations,
(e.g.,maximumembankmentheights,maximumdepthsofsoftstrata),a
minimumoftwoexplorationpointsinthetransversedirectiontodefnethe
existingsubsurfaceconditionsforstabilityanalysesshouldbeobtained.
Moreexplorationpointstodefnethesubsurfacestratigraphy,includingthe
conditionswithinandbelowexistingfll,maybenecessaryforverylargeflls
orveryerraticsoilconditions.
Embankmentwideningprojectswillrequirecarefulconsiderationof
explorationlocations.Boringsnearthetoeoftheexistingfllareneeded
toevaluatethepresentconditionoftheunderlyingsoils,particularlyifthe
soilsarefne-grained.Inaddition,boringsthroughtheexistingfllintothe
underlyingconsolidatedsoftsoil,or,ifoverexcavationofthesoftsoilhad
beendoneduringtheinitialfllconstruction,boringstodefnetheextentof
removal,shouldbeobtainedtodefneconditionsbelowtheexistingfll.
Insomecases,thestabilityand/ordurabilityoftheexistingembankmentfll
maybequestionablebecausethefllmaterialsaresuspectorbecauseslope
instabilityintheformofraveling,downslopelobes,orslopefailureshave
beenobservedduringthesitereconnaissancephase.Someembankments
constructedofmaterialthatissusceptibletoacceleratedweatheringmay
requireadditionalboringsthroughthecoreoftheembankmenttosampleand
testthepresentconditionoftheexistingfll.
Boringsarealsoneedednearexistingorplannedstructuresthatcouldbe
impactedbynewfllplacement.Soilsamplingandtestingwillbeusefulfor
evaluatingthepotentialsettlementoftheexistingstructurefoundationsasthe
newfllisplaced.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thedepthofborings,testpits,andhandholeswillgenerallybedetermined
bytheexpectedsoilconditionsandthedepthofinfuenceofthenew
embankment.Explorationswillneedtobesuffcientlydeeptopenetrate
throughsurfcialproblemsoilssuchasloosesand,softsiltandclayand
organicmaterials,andatleast10feetintocompetentsoilconditions.In
general,allgeotechnicalboringsshouldbedrilledtoaminimumdepthof
twicetheplannedembankmentheight.
Understandingoftheunderlyingsoilconditionsrequiresappropriatesampling
intervalsandmethods.Asformostengineeringproblems,testingforstrength
andcompressioninfne-grainedsoilsrequirestheneedforundisturbed
samples.TheSPTisusefulincohesionlesssoilwhereitisnotpracticalor
possibletoobtainundisturbedsamplesforlaboratoryengineeringtests.
SPTsamplingisrecommendedatwetsandsiteswhereliquefactionisakey
engineeringconcern.
Onlargerprojects,conepenetrationtest(CPT)probescanbeusedto
supplementconventionalborings.Besidesbeingsignifcantlylessexpensive,
CPTprobesallowthenearlycontinuousevaluationofsoilpropertieswith
depth.Theycandetectthinlayersofsoil,suchasasandlensinclaythat
wouldgreatlyreduceconsolidationtimethatmaybemissedinaconventional
boring.Inaddition,CPTprobescanmeasureporepressuredissipation
responses,whichcanbeusedtoevaluaterelativesoilpermeabilityand
consolidationrates.Becausetherearenosamplesobtained,CPTprobesshall
beusedinconjunctionwithastandardboringprogram.Smallerprojectsthat
requireonlyafewboringsgenerallydonotwarrantanintegratedCPT/boring
feldprogram.
9.1.4 Groundwater
Atleastonepiezometershouldbeinstalledinboringsdrilledineachmajorfll
zonewherestabilityanalysiswillberequiredandgroundwaterisanticipated.
Waterlevelsmeasuredduringdrillingareoftennotadequateforperforming
stabilityanalysis.Thisisparticularlytruewheredrillingisinfne-grainedsoils
thatcantakemanydaysormoreforthewaterleveltoequalizeafterdrilling
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter2).Eveninmorepermeablecoarsegrained
soils,thedrillingmudusedtodrilltheboringcanobscuredetectionofthe
groundwaterlevel.Notwithstanding,waterlevelsshouldberecordedduring
drillinginallboringsortestpits.Informationregardingthetimeanddateof
thereadingandanyfuctuationsthatmightbeseenduringdrillingshouldbe
includedonthefeldlogs.
Forembankmentwideningprojects,piezometersaregenerallymoreusefulin
boringslocatedatornearthetoeofanexistingembankment,ratherthaninthe
fllitself.Exceptionsarewhentheexistingfllisalongahillsideorifseepage
ispresentonthefaceoftheembankmentslope.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-5
J anuary 2010
Thegroundwaterlevelsshouldbemonitoredperiodicallytoprovideuseful
informationregardingvariationinlevelsovertime.Thiscanbeimportant
whenevaluatingbasestability,consolidationsettlementorliquefaction.Asa
minimum,themonitoringshouldbeaccomplishedseveraltimesduringthe
wetseason(OctoberthroughApril)toassessthelikelyhighestgroundwater
levelsthatcouldaffectengineeringanalyses.Ifpractical,aseriesofyear-
roundreadingstakenat1to2monthintervalsshouldbeaccomplishedinall
piezometers.
Thelocationofthegroundwatertableisparticularlyimportantduringstability
andsettlementanalyses.Highgroundwatertablesresultinlowereffective
stress in the soil affecting both the shear strength characteristics or the soil and
itsconsolidationbehaviorunderloading.Thegeotechnicaldesignershould
identifythelocationofthegroundwatertableanddeterminetherangein
seasonalfuctuation.
Ifthereisapotentialforasignifcantgroundwatergradientbeneathan
embankmentorsurfacewaterlevelsaresignifcantlyhigherononesideofthe
embankmentthantheother,theeffectofreducedsoilstrengthcausedbywater
seepageshouldbeevaluated.Inthiscase,morethanonepiezometershould
beinstalledtoestimatethegradient.Also,seepageeffectsmustbeconsidered
whenanembankmentisplacedonornearthetopofaslopethathasknown
orpotentialseepagethroughit.Afownetoracomputermodel(suchas
MODFLOW)maybeusedtoestimateseepagevelocityandforcesinthesoil.
Thisinformationmaythenbeusedintothestabilityanalysistomodelpore
pressures.
9.2 Design Considerations
9.2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction
Generalinstructionsforembankmentconstructionarediscussedinthe
WSDOTConstructionManualSection2.3.3,andspecifcconstruction
specifcationsforembankmentconstructionareprovidedinWSDOT
ConstructionSpecifcationsSection2-03.Thegeotechnicaldesignershould
determineduringtheexplorationprogramifanyofthematerialfromplanned
earthworkwillbesuitableforembankmentconstruction(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter10).Considerationshouldbegiventowhetherthematerialis
moisturesensitiveanddiffculttocompactduringwetweather.
9.2.1.1 Rock Embankments
TheWSDOTStandard Specifcationsdefnerockembankmentasallorany
partofanembankmentinwhichthematerialcontains25percentormoreby
volumeofgravelorstone4inchesorgreaterindiameter.Compactiontests
cannotbeappliedtocoarsematerialwithanydegreeofaccuracy;therefore,
agivenamountofcompactiveeffortisspecifedforrockembankments,as
described in Standard SpecifcationsSection2-03.3(14)A.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Specialconsiderationshouldbegiventothetypeofmaterialthatwillbe
usedinrockembankments.Insomeareasofthestate,moderatelyweathered
orverysoftrockmaybeencounteredincutsandusedasembankmentfll.
OnprojectslocatedinsouthwesternWashington,degradablefnegrained
sandstoneandsiltstoneareoftenencounteredinthecuts.Theuseofthis
materialinembankmentscanresultinsignifcantlongtermsettlementand
stabilityproblemsastherockdegrades,unlessproperlycompactedwithheavy
tampingfootrollers(Machan, et al., 1989).
TherockshouldbetestedbytheWashingtonDegradationTest(WSDOT
TestMethod113)andtheslakedurabilitytest(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5)
ifthereissuspicionthatthegeologicnatureoftherocksourceproposed
indicatesthatpoordurabilityrockislikelytobeencountered.Whenthe
rockisfoundtobenon-durable,itshouldbephysicallybrokendownand
compactedasearthembankmentprovidedthematerialmeetsorexceeds
commonborrowrequirements.Specialcompactionrequirementsmaybe
neededforthesematerials.Ingeneral,tampingfootrollersworkbestfor
breakingdowntherockfragments.Theminimumsizerollershouldbe
about30tons.Specifcationsshouldincludethemaximumsizeoftherock
fragmentsandmaximumliftthickness.Theserequirementswilldependon
thehardnessoftherock,andatestsectionshouldbeincorporatedintothe
contracttoverifythattheContractorsmethodswillachievecompactionand
successfullybreakdownthematerial.Ingeneral,boththeparticlesizeandlift
thicknessshouldbelimitedto12inches.
9.2.1.2 Earth Embankments and Bridge Approach Embankments
ThreetypesofmaterialsarecommonlyusedinWSDOTearthembankments,
includingcommon,select,andgravelborrow.Bridgeapproachembankments
shouldbeconstructedfromselectorgravelborrow,althoughcommonborrow
maybeusedinthedrierpartsoftheState,provideditisnotplacedbelow
astructurefoundationorimmediatelybehindanabutmentwall.Common
borrowisnotintendedforuseasfoundationmaterialbeneathstructuresoras
wallbackfllduetoitstendencytobemorecompressibleandduetoitspoor
drainagecharacteristics.
Requirementsforcommon,selectandgravelborrowareinSection9-03.14of
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations.Thesuggestedrangeofsoilproperties
foreachmaterialtypetobeusedindesignisdiscussedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.Thecommonandselectborrowspecifcationsareintendedfor
usewhereitisnotnecessarytostrictlycontrolthestrengthpropertiesofthe
embankmentmaterialandwhereallweatherconstructionisnotrequired.
ProceduresforconstructingearthembankmentsaredescribedinSection
2-03.3(14)BoftheStandard Specifcations.Compactionisspecifedin
accordancewithMethodA,MethodB,orMethodC.MethodAconsistsof
routinghaulingequipmentovertheembankmentandisnotnormallyusedon
WSDOTprojects.MethodBlimitsthethicknessoftheliftsto8inchesand
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-7
J anuary 2010
requiresthat90percentofmaximumdrydensitybeachievedinallbutthe
upper2feetoftheembankment.Intheuppertwofeetoftheembankmentthe
liftthicknessislimitedto4inchesandtherequiredcompactionis95percent
ofmaximumdrydensity.MethodBisusedonallembankmentsonWSDOT
projectsunlessanothermethodisspecifed.
MethodCdiffersfromMethodBinthattheentireembankmentmustbe
compactedto95percentofmaximumdrydensity.MethodCisrequired
whenthestructuralqualityoftheembankmentisessential.MethodCis
requiredinbridgeapproachembankmentsasdefnedinSection1-01.3of
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations.MethodCshallalsoberequiredon
anyfoundationmaterialbeneathstructures.Becausefoundationstressesare
transferredoutwardaswellasdownwardintothebearingsoils,thelimitsof
thefoundationmaterialshouldextendhorizontallyoutwardfromeachedgeof
thefootingadistanceequaltothethicknessofthefllbelowthefoundation.
Themaximumdensityandoptimummoisturecontentforsoilplacedin
earthembankmentsaredeterminedbytestinginaccordancewithWSDOT
TestMethodNo.606(MethodofTestforCompactionControlofGranular
Materials)orAASHTOT99MethodA(standardProctor)asprescribedin
Section2-03.3(14)DoftheStandard Specifcations.Testmethod606isusedif
30percentormoreofthematerialconsistsofgravelsizeparticles(retainedon
theNo.4sieve).
9.2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water
Ifmaterialwillbeplacedbelowthewatertable,materialthatdoesnot
requirecompactionsuchasQuarrySpalls,FoundationMaterialClassB,
ShoulderBallast,orlightlooseriprapshouldspecifed.Onceabovethe
watertable,otherborrowmaterialsshouldbeused.Quarryspallsandriprap
shouldbechokedwithShoulderBallastorFoundationMaterialClassAorB
beforeplacementofborrow.Alternately,constructiongeosyntheticforsoil
stabilizationmaybeusedtopreventmigrationofthefnerborrowintothe
voidsspacesofthecoarserunderlyingmaterial.
9.2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities
Embankmentsfordetention/retentionfacilitiesimpoundingover10acrefeet
ofwatercomeunderthejurisdictionoftheDamSafetyOffce(DSO)ofthe
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyandshallbedesignedasasmall
daminaccordancewithDSOrequirements.
Embankmentsfordetention/retentionfacilitiesimpounding10acrefeetof
waterorlessarenotregulatedbytheDSO,buttheyshouldbedesignedusing
theDSOguidelinesasthebasisfordesign.Unlineddrainagefacilitiesshallbe
analyzedforseepageandpipingthroughtheembankmentfllandunderlying
soils.Stabilityofthefllandunderlyingsoilssubjectedtoseepageforcesshall
haveaminimumsafetyfactorof1.5.Furthermore,theminimumsafetyfactor
forpipingstabilityanalysisshallbe1.5.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.3 Stability Assessment
Ingeneral,embankments10feetorlessinheightwith2H:1Vorfatterside
slopes,maybedesignedbasedonpastprecedenceandengineeringjudgment
providedtherearenoknownproblemsoilconditionssuchasliquefablesands,
organicsoils,soft/loosesoils,orpotentiallyunstablesoilssuchasSeattle
clay,estuarinedeposits,orpeat.Embankmentsover10feetinheightorany
embankmentonsoftsoils,inunstableareas/soils,orthosecomprisedoflight
weightfllrequiremoreindepthstabilityanalyses,asdoanyembankments
withsideslopeinclinationssteeperthan2H:1V.Moreover,anyfllplaced
nearoragainstabridgeabutmentorfoundation,orthatcanimpactanearby
buriedorabove-groundstructure,willlikewiserequirestabilityanalyses
bythegeotechnicaldesigner.Slopestabilityanalysisshallbeconductedin
accordancewithWSDOTGDMChapter7.
Priortothestartofthestabilityanalysis,thegeotechnicaldesignershould
determinekeyissuesthatneedtobeaddressed.Theseinclude:
Isthesiteunderlainbysoftsilt,clayorpeat?Ifso,astagedstability
analysismayberequired.
Aresiteconstraintssuchthatslopessteeperthan2H:1Varerequired?If
so,adetailedslopestabilityassessmentisneededtoevaluatethevarious
alternatives.
Istheembankmenttemporaryorpermanent?Factorsofsafetyfor
temporaryembankmentsmaybelowerthanforpermanentones,
dependingonthesiteconditionsandthepotentialforvariability.
Willthenewembankmentimpactnearbystructuresorbridgeabutments?
Ifso,moreelaboratesampling,testingandanalysisarerequired.
Aretherepotentiallyliquefablesoilsatthesite?Ifsoil,seismicanalysisto
evaluatethismaybewarranted(seeWSDOTGDMChapter6)andground
improvementmaybeneeded.
Severalmethodologiesforanalyzingthestabilityofslopesaredetailed
oridentifedbyreferenceinChapter7andaredirectlyapplicabletoearth
embankments.
9.2.3.1 Safety Factors
Embankmentsthatsupportstructurefoundationsorwallsorthatcould
potentiallyimpactsuchstructuresshouldbedesignedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandWSDOTGDMchapters
8and15.IfanLRFDdesignisrequired,aresistancefactorisusedinlieuof
asafetyfactor.However,sinceslopestabilityintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcationsisassessedonlyfortheserviceandextremeevent
(seismic)limitstates,theloadfactorsareequalto1.0,andtheresistance
factorissimplytheinverseofthefactorofsafety(i.e.,1/FS)thatiscalculated
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-9
J anuary 2010
inmostslopestabilityanalysisproceduresandcomputerprograms.The
resistancefactorsandsafetyfactorsforoverallstabilityunderstaticconditions
areasfollows:
Allembankmentsnotsupportingorpotentiallyimpactingstructuresshall
haveaminimumsafetyfactorof1.25.
Embankmentssupportingorpotentiallyimpactingnon-criticalstructures
shallhavearesistancefactorforoverallstabilityof0.75(i.e.,asafety
factorof1.3).
AllBridgeApproachEmbankmentsandembankmentssupportingcritical
structuresshallhavearesistancefactorof0.65(i.e.,asafetyfactorof
1.5).Criticalstructuresarethoseforwhichfailurewouldresultina
lifethreateningsafetyhazardforthepublic,orforwhichfailureand
subsequentreplacementorrepairwouldbeanintolerablefnancialburden
tothecitizensofWashingtonState.
Underseismicconditions,onlythoseportionsofthenewembankmentthat
couldimpactanadjacentstructuresuchasbridgeabutmentsandfoundations
ornearbybuildingsrequireseismicanalysesandanadequateoverallstability
resistancefactor(i.e.,amaximumresistancefactorof0.9oraminimumfactor
ofsafetyof1.1).SeeWSDOTGDMChapter6forspecifcrequirements
regardingseismicdesignofembankments.
9.2.3.2 Strength Parameters
Strengthparametersarerequiredforanystabilityanalysis.Strength
parameters appropriate for the different types of stability analyses shall be
determinedbasedonWSDOTGDMChapter5andbyreferencetoFHWA
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.5(Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Ifthecriticalstabilityisunderdrainedconditions,suchasinsandorgravel,
theneffectivestressanalysisusingapeakfrictionangleisappropriateand
shouldbeusedforstabilityassessment.Inthecaseofover-consolidatedfne
grainedsoils,africtionanglebasedonresidualstrengthmaybeappropriate.
Thisisespeciallytrueforsoilsthatexhibitstrainsofteningorareparticularly
sensitivetoshearstrainsuchasSeattleClay.
Ifthecriticalstabilityisunderundrainedconditions,suchasinmostclaysand
silts,atotalstressanalysisusingtheundrainedcohesionvaluewithnofriction
isappropriateandshouldbeusedforstabilityassessment.
Forstagedconstruction,bothshort(undrained)andlongterm(drained)
stabilityneedtobeassessed.Atthestartofastagetheinputstrength
parameteristheundrainedcohesion.Thetotalshearstrengthofthefne-
grainedsoilincreaseswithtimeastheexcessiveporewaterdissipates,
andfrictionstartstocontributetothestrength.Amoredetaileddiscussion
regardingstrengthgainispresentedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.4 Embankment Settlement Assessment
Newembankments,asistrueofalmostanynewconstruction,willaddloadto
theunderlyingsoilsandcausethosesoilstosettle.AsdiscussedinWSDOT
GDMChapter8,Section8.11.3.2,thetotalsettlementhasuptothreepotential
components:1)immediatesettlement,2)consolidationsettlement,and3)
secondarycompression.
Settlementshallbeassessedforallembankments.Eveniftheembankment
hasanadequateoverallstabilityfactorofsafety,theperformanceofa
highwayembankmentcanbeadverselyaffectedbyexcessivedifferential
settlementattheroadsurface.
Settlementanalysesforembankmentsoversoftsoilsrequirethecompression
indexparametersforinput.Theseparametersaretypicallyobtainedfrom
standardone-dimensionaloedometertestsofthefne-grainedsoils(see
WSDOTGDMChapter5foradditionalinformation).Forgranularsoils,
theseparameterscanbeestimatedempirically(seeWSDOTGDMSection
8.11.3.2).Oedometertestsshouldbecompletedtoatleasttwicethe
preconsolidationpressurewithatleastthree,andpreferablyfour,pointsonthe
virginconsolidationcurve(i.e.,atstresseshigherthanthepreconsolidation
pressure).Thecoeffcientofconsolidationvalueforthevirgincurvecan
betentimeshigherthanthatforthetestresultsbelowthepreconsolidation
pressure.
9.2.4.1 Settlement Impacts
Becauseprimaryconsolidationandsecondarycompressioncancontinue
tooccurlongaftertheembankmentisconstructed(postconstruction
settlement),theyrepresentthemajorsettlementconcernsforembankment
designandconstruction.Postconstructionsettlementcandamagestructures
andutilitieslocatedwithintheembankment,especiallyifthosefacilitiesare
alsosupportedbyadjacentsoilsorfoundationsthatdonotsettleappreciably,
leadingtodifferentialsettlements.Embankmentsettlementnearanabutment
couldcreateanunwanteddipintheroadwaysurface,ordowndragandlateral
squeezeforcesonthefoundations.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter8formore
informationregardingtheuseofbridgeapproachslabstominimizetheeffects
ofdifferentialsettlementattheabutment,andthemethodologytoestimate
downdragloadsonfoundations.
Iftheprimaryconsolidationisallowedtooccurpriortoplacingutilities
orbuildingstructuresthatwouldotherwisebeimpactedbythesettlement,
theimpactisessentiallymitigated.However,itcantakeweekstoyearsfor
primarysettlementtobeessentiallycomplete,andsignifcantsecondary
compressionoforganicsoilscancontinuefordecades.Manyconstruction
projectscannotabsorbtheschedulingimpactsassociatedwithwaitingfor
primaryconsolidationand/orsecondarycompressiontooccur.Therefore,
estimating the time rate of settlement is often as important as estimating the
magnitudeofsettlement.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-11
J anuary 2010
Toestablishthetargetsettlementcriteria,thetoleranceofstructuresorutilities
todifferentialsettlementthatwillbeimpactedbytheembankmentsettlement
shallbedetermined.Lateralmovement(i.e.,lateralsqueeze)causedbythe
embankmentsettlementanditseffectonadjacentstructures,includinglight,
overheadsign,andsignalfoundations,shallalsobeconsidered.Ifstructures
orutilitiesarenotimpactedbytheembankmentsettlement,settlementcriteria
arelikelygovernedbythelong-termmaintenanceneedsoftheroadway
surfacing.Inthatcase,thetargetsettlementcriteriashallbeestablishedwith
consideration of the effect differential settlement will have on the pavement
lifeandsurfacesmoothness.
9.2.4.2 Settlement Analysis
9.2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation
Thekeyparametersforevaluatingtheamountofsettlementbelowan
embankmentincludeknowledgeof:
Thesubsurfaceprofleincludingsoiltypes,layering,groundwaterlevel
andunitweights;
Thecompressionindexesforprimary,reboundandsecondarycompression
fromlaboratorytestdata,correlationsfromindexproperties,andresults
from settlement monitoring programs completed for the site or nearby
siteswithsimilarsoilconditions.SeeWSDOTGDMchapters5and8
for additional information regarding selection of design parameters for
settlementanalysis.
Thegeometryoftheproposedfllembankment,includingtheunitweight
offllmaterialsandanylongtermsurchargeloads.
Thedetailedmethodologytoestimateprimaryconsolidationsettlementis
providedinWSDOTGDMSection8.11.3.2,exceptthatthestressdistribution
belowtheembankmentshouldbecalculatedasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section9.2.4.3.Thesoilprofleistypicallydividedintolayersforanalysis,
witheachlayerrefectingchangesinsoilsproperties.Inaddition,thicklayers
withsimilarpropertiesareoftensubdividedforrefnementoftheanalysis
sincethesettlementcalculationsarebasedonthestressconditionsatthe
midpointofthelayer(i.e.itistypicallypreferabletoevaluateanear-surface,
20-footthicklayerastwo10-footthicklayersasopposedtoone20-foot
thicklayer).Thetotalsettlementisthesumofthesettlementfromeachofthe
compressiblelayers.
Ifthepre-consolidationpressureofanyofthesoillayersbeingevaluated
isgreaterthanitscurrentinitialeffectiveverticalstress,thesettlementwill
followitsreboundcompressioncurveratherthanitsvirgincompressioncurve
(representedbyC
c
).InthiscaseC
r,
therecompressionindex,shouldbeused
instead of C
c
inEquation8-8uptothepointwheretheinitialeffectivestress
plusthechangeineffectivestressimposedbytheembankmentsurpasses
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thepre-consolidationpressure.Pre-consolidationpressuresinexcessofthe
currentverticaleffectivestressoccurinsoilsthathavebeenoverconsolidated,
suchasfromglacialloading,preloading,ordesiccation.
9.2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression
Fororganicsoilsandhighlyplasticsoilsdeterminedtohaveanappreciable
secondarysettlementcomponent,thesecondarycompressionshouldbe
determinedasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection8.11.3.2.2,Equation8-13.
Notethesecondarycompressionisingeneralindependentofthestressstate
andtheoreticallyisafunctiononlyofthesecondarycompressionindex
andtime.
Similartoestimatingthetotalprimaryconsolidation,thecontributionfrom
theindividuallayersaresummedtoestimatethetotalsecondarycompression.
Sincesecondarycompressionisnotafunctionofthestressstateinthesoilbut
ratherhowthesoilbreaksdownovertime,techniquessuchassurchargingto
pre-inducethesecondarysettlementaresometimesonlypartiallyeffectiveat
mitigatingthesecondarycompression.Oftentheownermustaccepttherisks
andmaintenancecostsassociatedwithsecondarycompressionifacost/beneft
analysisindicatesthatmitigationtechniquessuchasusinglightweightfllsor
overexcavatingandreplacingthehighlycompressiblesoilsaretoocostly.
9.2.4.3 Stress Distribution
Oneoftheprimaryinputparametersforsettlementanalysisistheincrease
inverticalstressatthemidpointofthelayerbeingevaluatedcausedby
theembankmentorotherimposedloads.Itisgenerallyquiteconservative
toassumetheincreaseinverticalstressatdepthisequaltothebearing
pressureexertedbytheembankmentatthegroundsurface.Inadditiontothe
bearingpressureexertedatthegroundsurface,otherfactorsinfuencingthe
stressdistributionatdepthincludethegeometry(lengthandwidth)ofthe
embankment,inclinationoftheembankmentsideslopes,depthbelowthe
groundsurfacetothelayerbeingevaluated,andhorizontaldistancefromthe
centeroftheloadtothepointinquestion.Severalmethodsareavailableto
estimatethestressdistribution.
9.2.4.3.1 Simple 2V:1H Method
Perhapsthesimplestapproachtoestimatestressdistributionatdepthisusing
the2V:1H(verticaltohorizontal)method.Thisempiricalapproachisbased
ontheassumptionthattheareatheloadactsoverincreasesgeometricallywith
depth as depicted in Figure 9-1.Sincethesameverticalloadisspreadovera
muchlargerareaatdepth,theunitstressdecreases.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-13
J anuary 2010

2V:1H method to estimate vertical stress increase as a function
of depth below ground (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-1
9.2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity
Boussinesq (1885)developedequationsforevaluatingthestressstatein
ahomogenous,isotropic,linearlyelastichalf-spaceforapointloadacting
perpendiculartothesurface.Elasticitybasedmethodsshouldbeusedto
estimatetheverticalstressincreaseinsubsurfacestrataduetoanembankment
loading,orembankmentloadincombinationwithothersurchargeloads.
Whilemostsoilsarenotelasticmaterials,thetheoryofelasticityisthe
mostwidelyusedmethodologytoestimatethestressdistributioninasoil
depositfromasurfaceload.Mostsimplifyingchartsandthesubroutinesin
programssuchasSAF-1andEMBANKarebasedonthetheoryofelasticity.
SomearebasedonBoussinesqtheoryandsomeonWestergaardsequations
(Westegaard, 1938),whichalsoincludePoissonsratio(relatestheratioof
strainappliedinonedirectiontostraininducedinanorthogonaldirection).
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts
Theequationsforthetheoryofelasticityhavebeenincorporatedintodesign
chartsandtablesfortypicalloadingscenarios,suchasbelowafoundationor
anembankment.Almostallfoundationengineeringtextbooksincludethese
charts.Forconvenience,chartstoevaluateembankmentloadingareincluded
asFigures9-2and9-3.

Infuence factors for vertical stress under a very long embankment
(after NAVFAC, 1971 as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-2
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-15
J anuary 2010

Infuence values for vertical stress under the corners of
a triangular load of limited length (after NAVFAC, 1971
as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-3
9.2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement
Thetimerateofprimaryconsolidationistypicallyestimatedusingequations
basedonTerzaghisone-dimensionalconsolidationtheory.Thetimerate
ofprimaryconsolidationshallbeestimatedasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section8.11.3.2.
ThevalueofC
v
shouldbedeterminedfromthelaboratorytestresults,
piezoconetesting,and/orback-calculationfromsettlementmonitoringdata
obtained at the site or from a nearby site with similar geologic and soil
conditions.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thelengthofthedrainagepathisperhapsthemostcriticalparameterbecause
thetimetoachieveacertainpercentageofconsolidationisafunctionofthe
squareofthedrainagepathlength.ThisiswhereincorporatingCPTsintothe
explorationprogramcanbebenefcial,astheyprovideanearlycontinuous
evaluationofthesoilprofle,includingthinsandlayersthatcaneasilybe
missedinatypicalboringexplorationprogram.Thethinsandlensescan
signifcantlyreducethedrainagepathlength.
ItisimportanttonotesomeoftheassumptionsusedbyTerzaghistheory
tounderstandsomeofitslimitations.Thetheoryassumessmallstrains
suchthatthecoeffcientofcompressibilityofthesoilandthecoeffcientof
permeabilityremainessentiallyconstant.Thetheoryalsoassumesthereis
nosecondarycompression.Bothoftheseassumptionsarenotcompletely
validforextremelycompressiblesoilssuchasorganicdepositsandsome
clays.Therefore,considerablejudgmentisrequiredtowhenusingTerzaghis
theorytoevaluatethetimerateofsettlementforthesetypesofsoil.Intheses
instances,orwhentheconsolidationprocessisverylong,itmaybebenefcial
tocompleteapreloadtestatthesitewithsuffcientmonitoringtoassessboth
themagnitudeandtimerateofsettlementforthesite.
9.2.4.4 Analytical Tools
Theprimaryconsolidationandsecondarysettlementcanbecalculatedby
handorbyusingcomputerprogramssuchasSAF-1(Prototype Engineering
I nc., 1993)orEMBANK(FHWA, 1993).Alternatively,spreadsheetsolutions
canbeeasilydeveloped.TheadvantageofcomputerprogramssuchasSAF-1
andEMBANKarethatmultiplerunscanbemadequickly,andtheyinclude
subroutinestoestimatetheincreasedverticaleffectivestresscausedbythe
embankmentorotherloadingconditions.
9.3 Stability Mitigation
Avarietyoftechniquesareavailabletomitigateinadequateslopestability
fornewembankmentsorembankmentwidenings.Thesetechniquesinclude
stagedconstructiontoallowfortheunderlyingsoilstogainstrength,base
reinforcement,groundimprovement,useoflightweightfll,andconstruction
oftoebermsandshearkeys.Asummaryoftheseinstabilitymitigation
techniquesispresentedbelowalongwiththekeydesignconsiderations.
9.3.1 Staged Construction
Wheresoftcompressiblesoilsarepresentbelowanewembankmentlocation
and it is not economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted
fll,theembankmentcanbeconstructedinstagestoallowthestrengthof
thecompressiblesoilstoincreaseundertheweightofnewfll.Construction
ofthesecondandsubsequentstagescommenceswhenthestrengthofthe
compressiblesoilsissuffcienttomaintainstability.Inordertodefnethe
allowableheightoffllforeachstageandmaximumrateofconstruction,
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-17
J anuary 2010
detailedgeotechnicalanalysisisrequired.Thisanalysistypicallyrequires
consolidatedundrained(CU),consolidateddrained(CD)orconsolidated
undrainedwithporepressuremeasurements(CU
p
),andinitialundrained
(UU)shearstrengthparametersforthefoundationsoilsalongwiththeat-
restearthpressurecoeffcient(K
o
),soilunitweights,andthecoeffcientof
consolidation(c
v
).
Theanalysistodefnetheheightoffllplacedduringeachstageandtherate
atwhichthefllisplacedistypicallycompletedusingalimitequilibrium
slope stability program along with time rate of settlement analysis to estimate
thepercentconsolidationrequiredforstability.Alternatively,numerical
modelingprograms,suchasFLACandPLAXIS,canbeusedtoassessstaged
construction,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOTStateGeotechnical
Engineer.Numericalmodelinghassomeadvantagesoverlimitequilibrium
approachesinthatboththeconsolidationandstabilitycanbeevaluated
concurrently.Thedisadvantagesofnumericalmodelingincludethelack
ofavailablefeldverifcationofmodelingresults,andmostgeotechnical
engineersaremorefamiliarwithlimitequilibriumapproachesthannumerical
modeling.Theaccuracyoftheinputparameterscanbecriticaltotheaccuracy
ofnumericalapproaches.Stepsforusingalimitequilibriumapproachto
evaluatestagedconstructionarepresentedbelow.
Forstagedconstruction,twogeneralapproachestoassessingthecriteriaused
duringconstructiontocontroltherateofembankmentfllplacementtoallow
thenecessarystrengthgaintooccurinthesoftsubsoilsareavailable.Thetwo
approachesaretotalstressanalysisandeffectivestressanalysis:
Forthetotalstressapproach,therateofembankmentconstructionis
controlledthroughdevelopmentofascheduleofmaximumflllift
heightsandintermediatefllconstructiondelayperiods.Duringthese
delayperiodsthefllliftthatwasplacedisallowedtosettleuntilan
adequateamountofconsolidationofthesoftsubsoilcanoccur.Oncethe
desiredamountofconsolidationhasoccurs,placementofthenextlift
offllcanbegin.Thesemaximumfllliftthicknessesandintermediate
delayperiodsareestimatedduringdesign.Forthisapproach,feld
measurementssuchastherateofsettlementortherateofporepressure
decreaseshouldbeobtainedtoverifythatthedesignassumptions
regardingrateofconsolidationarecorrect.However,ifonlyasmall
amountofconsolidationisrequired(e.g.,20to40%consolidation),it
maynotbefeasibletodetermineofthedesiredamountofconsolidation
hasoccurred,sincetherateofconsolidationmaystillbeonthelinear
portionofthecurveatthispoint.Anotherapproachmaybetodetermine
ifthemagnitudeofsettlementexpectedatthatstage,consideringthe
degreeofconsolidationdesired,hasbeenachieved.Ineithercase,some
judgmentwillneedtobeappliedwheninterpretingsuchdataanddeciding
whetherornottoreduceorextendtheestimateddelayperiodduringfll
construction.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Fortheeffectivestressapproach,theporepressureincreasebeneaththe
embankmentinthesoftsubsoilismonitoredandusedtocontroltherate
ofembankmentconstruction.Duringconstruction,theporepressure
increaseisnotallowedtoexceedacriticalamounttoinsureembankment
stability.Thecriticalamountisgenerallycontrolledinthecontractbyuse
oftheporepressureratio(r
u
),whichistheratioofporepressuretototal
overburdenstress.Toaccomplishthisporepressuremeasurement,pore
pressuretransducersaretypicallylocatedatkeylocationsbeneaththe
embankmenttocapturetheporepressureincreasecausedbyconsolidation
stress.Asistrueofthetotalstressapproach,somejudgmentwillneed
tobeappliedwheninterpretingsuchdataanddecidingwhetherornotto
reduceorextendtheestimateddelayperiodduringfllconstruction,asthe
estimateofthekeyparametersmayvaryfromtheactualvaluesofthekey
parametersinthefeld.Also,thisapproachmaynotbefeasibleifthesoil
containsahighpercentageoforganicmaterialandtrappedgases,causing
theporepressurereadingstobetoohighandnotdropoffasconsolidation
occurs.
Sincebothapproacheshavelimitationsanduncertainties,itisgenerally
desirabletoanalyzetheembankmentusingbothapproaches,tohaveavailable
abackupplantocontroltherateoffllplacement,ifthefelddataproves
diffculttointerpret.Furthermore,iftheeffectivestressmethodisused,atotal
stressanalysisshouldingeneralalwaysbeconductedtoobtainanestimateof
thetimerequiredtobuildthefllforcontractbiddingpurposes.
Detailedproceduresforbothapproachesareprovidedinthesectionsthat
follow.Theseprocedureshavebeendevelopedbasedoninformationprovided
in Ladd (1991), Symons (1976), Skempton and Bishop (1955), R. D. Holtz
(personal communication, 1993), S. Sharma (personal communication,
1993), and R. Cheney (personal communication, 1993).Examplesofthe
applicationoftheseproceduresareprovidedinWSDOTGDMAppendix9-A.
9.3.1.1 Design Parameters
First,defnetheproblemintermsofembankmentgeometry,soilstratigraphy,
andwatertableinformation.
Thegeotechnicaldesignermustmakesomebasicassumptionsregarding
thefllproperties.Typically,thedesignerassumespresumptivevaluesfor
theembankmentfll,sincethespecifcsourceofthefllmaterialisusually
notknownatthetimeofdesign.However,specializedsoilslaboratory
testsshouldbeperformedforthesoftunderlyingsoils.Fromundisturbed
samples,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldobtainUnconsolidatedUndrained
(UU)triaxialtestsandConsolidatedUndrained(CU)triaxialtestswith
porepressuremeasurements.Thesetestsshouldbeusedtodeterminethe
initialundrainedshearstrengthavailable.TheCUtestwithporepressure
measurementsshouldalsobeusedtodeterminetheshearstrengthenvelope
neededfortotaloreffectivestressanalyses.Inaddition,thegeotechnical
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-19
J anuary 2010
designershouldobtainconsolidationtestdatatodeterminecompressibility
ofthesoftunderlyingsoilsaswellastherateofconsolidationforthe
compressiblestrata(C
v
).C
v
will be an important parameter for determining
theamountoftimerequiredduringconsolidationtogainthesoilshear
strengthneeded.
Ingeneraltriaxialtestsshouldbeperformedattheinitialconfningstress
(P
o
)forthesampleasdeterminedfromtheunitweightandthedepththatthe
samplewasobtained.
P
o
=D (9-1)
where:
D = SampleDepthinfeet
= EffectiveUnitWeight(pcf)
Thethirdpointinthetriaxialtestisusuallyperformedat4P
o
.Duringthe
triaxialtestingitisimportanttomonitorporepressuretodeterminethepore
pressureparametersAandB.NotethatAandBarenotconstantbutchange
withthestresspathofthesoil.Theseparametersaredefnedasfollows:
A =U/
1
(9-2)
B=U/
3
(9-3)
9.3.1.2 In-Situ Shear Strength and Determination of Stability Assuming
Undrained Loading
Thefrststepinanyembankmentdesignoversoftcohesivesoilsisto
assessitsstabilityassumingundrainedconditionsthroughouttheentirefll
constructionperiod.Ifthestabilityoftheembankmentisadequateassuming
undrainedconditions,thereisnoneedtoperformastagedconstructiondesign.
TheUUshearstrengthdata,aswellastheinitialshearstrengthfromCUtests,
canbeusedforthisassessment.
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbeawarethatsampledisturbancecanresult
inincorrectvaluesofstrengthfornormallyconsolidatedfnegrainedsoils.
Figure 9-4showshowtocorrectlyobtainthecohesivestrengthforshortterm,
undrainedloading.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Determination of short term cohesive shear strength
from the CU envelope
Figure 9-4
Whenanormallyconsolidatedsampleisobtained,theinitialeffectivestress
(P
O
)andvoidratiocorrespondtoposition1onthee-LogPcurveshown
in Figure 9-4.Asthestresschanges,thesamplewillundergosomerebound
effectsandwillmovetowardspoint2ontheeLogPcurve.Generally,when
aUUtestisperformed,thesamplestatecorrespondstoposition2onthee
LogPcurve.Samplesthatarereconsolidatedtotheinitialeffectivestress(P
O
)
duringCUtestingundergoavoidratiochangeandwillgenerallybeatpoint3
ontheeLogPcurveafterreconsolidationtotheinitialeffectivestress.Itis
generallyassumedthatconsolidatingthesampleto4timestheinitialeffective
stresspriortotestingwillresultinthesamplecloselyapproximatingthefeld
virgincurvebehavior.
Todeterminethecorrectshearstrengthforanalysis,performaCUtriaxial
testattheinitialeffectivestress(P
O
)andascloseaspracticalto4P
O
.Onthe
Mohrdiagramdrawalinefromtheordinatetopoint4,anddrawasecond
linefromP
O
topoint3.Wherethetwolinesintersect,drawalinetotheshear
stressaxistoestimatethecorrectshearstrengthforanalysis.InFigure 9-4,
thecohesioninterceptfortheCUstrengthenvelope(solidline)is150psf.The
correctedstrengthbasedontheconstructionprocedureinFigure 9-4wouldbe
160psf.Whilethedifferenceisslightinthisexample,itmaybesignifcantfor
otherprojects.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-21
J anuary 2010
Oncethecorrectshearstrengthdatahasbeenobtained,theembankment
stabilitycanbeassessed.Iftheembankmentstabilityisinadequate,proceedto
performingatotalstressoreffectivestressanalysis,orboth.
9.3.1.3 Total Stress Analysis
TheCUtriaxialtestisideallysuitedtostagedfllconstructionanalysis
whenconsideringundrainedstrengths.ACUtestissimplyaseriesofUU
testsperformedatdifferentconfningpressures.Inthestagedconstruction
technique,eachembankmentstageisplacedunderundrainedconditions(i.e.,
Uconditions).Thenthesoilbeneaththeembankmentstageisallowed
toconsolidateunderdrainedconditions,whichallowstheporepressureto
dissipateandthesoilstrengthtoincrease(i.e.,Cconditions).
Inmostcases,theCUenvelopecannotbeuseddirectlytodeterminethe
strengthincreaseduetotheconsolidationstressplacedontheweaksubsoil.
Thestressincreasefromtheembankmentfllisaconsolidationstress,not
necessarilythenormalstressonpotentialfailureplanesinthesoftsoil,and
withstagedconstructionexcessporepressuresduetooverburdenincreases
areallowedtopartiallydissipate.Figure 9-5illustrateshowtodeterminethe
correctstrengthduetoconsolidationandpartialporepressuredissipation.


Consolidated Strength Construction From Triaxial Data
Figure 9-5
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Tocorrect
cu
fortheeffectsofconsolidationusethefollowing
(seeLadd, 1991):
a
f
/
c
=tan
consol
(9-4)
tan
consol
=sin
cu
/(1-sin
cu
) (9-5)
Determinethestrengthgain(Cuu)bymultiplyingtheconsolidationstress
increase(
v
)bythetangentof
consol
.Theconsolidationstressincreaseis
theincreasedeffectivestressinthesoftsubsoilcausedbytheembankmentfll.
Cuu=
v
tan
consol
(9-6)
Thisisanundrainedstrengthanditisbasedon100%consolidation.When
constructingembankmentsoversoftgroundusingstagedconstruction
practices,itisoftennotpracticaltoalloweachstagetoconsolidateto100%.
Therefore,thestrengthsusedinthestabilityanalysisneedtobeadjustedfor
the consolidation stress applied and the degree of consolidation achieved in
thesoftsoilswithinthedelayperiodbetweenfllstages.Thestrengthatany
degreeofconsolidationcanbeestimatedusing:
Cuu
u%
=Cuu
i
+U(Cuu)
=Cuu
i
+U
v
tan
consol
(9-7)
Theconsolidationisdependantuponthetime(t),drainagepathlength(H),
coeffcientofconsolidation(C
v
),andtheTimeFactor(T).FromHoltz and
Kovacs (1981),thefollowingapproximationequationsarepresentedfor
consolidationtheory:
T=tC
v
/H
2
(9-8)
where,
T=0.25U
2
;forU<60% (9-9)
and,
T=1.7810.933log(100U%);forU>60% (9-10)
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldusetheseequationsalongwithspecifc
constructiondelayperiods(t)todeterminehowmuchconsolidationoccurs
byinputtingatime(t),calculatingaTimeFactor(T),andthenusingtheTime
Factor(T)toestimatethedegreeofconsolidation(U).
Onceallofthedesignparametersareavailable,thefrststepinatotalstress
stagedfllconstructionanalysisistousetheinitialundrainedshearstrength
ofthesoftsubsoiltodeterminethemaximumheighttowhichthefllcanbe
builtwithoutcausingtheslopestabilitysafetyfactortodropbelowthecritical
value.SeeWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.1.2fordeterminationoftheundrained
shearstrengthneededforthisinitialanalysis.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-23
J anuary 2010
Innocaseshalltheinterimfactorofsafetyatanystageinthefllconstruction
beallowedtodropbelow1.15.Ahighercriticalvalueshouldbeused(i.e.,1.2
or1.25)ifuncertaintyintheparametersishigh,orifthesoftsubsoilishighly
organic.Attheendofthefnalstage,determinethetimerequiredtoachieve
enoughconsolidationtoobtaintheminimumlong-termsafetyfactor(or
resistancefactorifstructuresareinvolved)required,asspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection9.2.3.1.Thisfnalconsolidationtimewilldetermineatwhat
pointtheembankmentisconsideredtohaveadequatelong-termstabilitysuch
thatfnalpaving(assumingthatlong-termsettlementhasbeenreducedduring
thattimeperiodtoanacceptablelevel)andotherfnalconstructionactivities
canbecompleted.Ingeneral,thisfnalconsolidation/strengthgainperiod
shouldbeontheorderofafewmonthsorless.
Oncethemaximumsafeinitialfllstageheightisdetermined,calculatethe
stressincreaseresultingfromtheplacementofthefrstembankmentstage
usingtheBoussinesqequation(e.g.,seefgures9-2and9-3).Notethat
becausethestressincreaseduetotheembankmentloaddecreaseswithdepth,
thestrengthgainalsodecreaseswithdepth.Toproperlyaccountforthis,
thesoftsubsoilshouldbebrokenupintolayersforanalysisjustasisdone
forcalculatingsettlement.Furthermore,thestressincreasedecreasesasone
movestowardthetoeoftheembankment.Therefore,thesoftsubsoilmay
needtobebrokenupintoverticalsectionsaswell.
Determinethestrengthgainineachlayer/sectionofsoftsubsoilby
multiplyingtheconsolidationstressincreasebythetangentof
consol
(see
Equation9-6),where
consol
isdeterminedasshowninFigure9-5and
Equation9-5.Thiswillbeanundrainedstrength.MultiplythisUUstrength
bythepercentconsolidationthathasoccurredbeneaththeembankmentup
tothepointintimeselectedforthefllstageanalysisusingEquations9-7,
9-8,and9-9or9-10.Thiswillbethestrengthincreasethathasoccurredupto
thatpointintime.AddtothistheUUsoilstrengthexistingbeforeplacement
ofthefrstembankmentstagetoobtainthetotalUUstrengthexisting
aftertheselectedconsolidationperiodiscomplete.Thenperformaslope
stabilityanalysistodeterminehowmuchadditionalfllcanbeaddedwith
considerationtothenewconsolidatedshearstrengthtoobtaintheminimum
acceptableinterimfactorofsafety.
Oncethesecondembankmentstageisplaced,calculationofthepercent
consolidationandthestrengthgaingetsmorecomplicated,asthestress
increaseduetothenewfllplacedisjuststartingtheconsolidationprocess,
whilethesoftsubsoilhasalreadyhadtimetoreacttothestressincreasedueto
thepreviousfllstage.Furthermore,thesoftsubsoilwillstillbeconsolidating
undertheweightoftheearlierfllstage.ThisisillustratedinFigure9-6.For
simplicity,aweightedaverageofthepercentconsolidationthathasoccurred
foreachstageuptothepointintimeinquestionshouldbeusedtodetermine
theaveragepercentconsolidationofthesubsoilduetothetotalweightof
thefll.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Continuethiscalculationprocessuntilthefllisfullheight.Itisgenerallybest
tochooseassmallafllheightanddelayperiodincrementaspractical,asthe
conservatismintheconsolidationtimeestimateincreasesasthefllheightand
delaytimeincrementincreases.Typicalfllheightincrementsrangefrom2to
4ft,anddelayperiodincrementsrangefrom10to30days.
Time
0
100
%

C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
Consolidation of soil due to
second stage load P
2
during
second stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to
first stage load P
1
during second
stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to first stage load P
1
during first stage consolidation period.
P
1
P
2
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
,

e
(
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
)
Log V
v (increasing)
Increasing
% consolidation
e
0
U
1
U
2
U
3
U
4
Begin consolidation at P
1
Load P
2
added
Consolidation at P
2
Last stage
fill placed
FS = 1.25 obtained
Concepts regarding the percent consolidation resulting
from placement of multiple fll stages
Figure 9-6
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-25
J anuary 2010
9.3.1.4 Effective Stress Analysis
Inthisapproach,thedrainedsoilstrength,or
CD
,isusedtocharacterize
thestrengthofthesubsoil.Ofcourse,theuseofthissoilstrengthwilllikely
indicatethattheembankmentisstable,whereastheUUstrengthdatawould
indicatethattheembankmentisunstable(inthisexample).Itisthebuildupof
porepressureduringembankmentplacementthatcausestheembankmentto
becomeunstable.Theamountofporepressurebuildupisdependentonhow
rapidlytheembankmentloadisplaced.Givenenoughtime,theporepressure
buildupwilldissipateandthesoilwillregainitseffectivestrength,depending
onthepermeabilityandcompressibilityofthesoil.
Thekeytothisapproachistodeterminetheamountofporepressurebuildup
thatcanbetoleratedbeforetheembankmentsafetyfactordropstoacritical
level,using
CD
forthesoilstrengthandconductingaslopestabilityanalysis
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter7).Aslopestabilitycomputerprogramsuch
asXSTABLcanbeusedtodeterminethecriticalporepressureincrease
directly.Thisporepressureincreasecanthenbeusedtodeterminethepore
pressureratio,r
u
,whichisoftenusedtocomparewithin-situporepressure
measurements.Theporepressureratio,r
u
,isdefnedasshowninFigure9-7.

Pore pressure ratio concepts
Figure 9-7
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ForXSTABL,thecriticalporepressureincreaseisinputintotheprogramas
aporepressureconstantforeachdefnedsoilunitinthesoilpropertyinput
menuoftheprogram.Thisporepressureisinadditiontotheporepressure
createdbythestaticwatertable.Therefore,awatertableshouldalsobe
includedintheanalysis.Otherslopestabilityprogramshavesimilarpore
pressurefeaturesthatcanbeutilized.
Todeterminetheporepressureincreaseinthesoftsubsoiltobeinputinto
thestabilityanalysis,calculatetheverticalstressincreasecreatedbythe
embankmentattheoriginalgroundsurface,fortheembankmentheightat
theconstructionstagebeingconsidered.Basedonthis,determinethevertical
stressincrease,
v
,usingtheBoussinesqstressdistribution(e.g., Figures
9-2 and 9-3),atvariousdepthsbelowthegroundsurface,anddistances
horizontallyfromtheembankmentcenterline,ineachsoilunitwhichpore
pressurebuildupisexpected(i.e.,thesoftsiltorclaystratawhicharecausing
thestabilityproblem).Basedonthis,andusingK
o
,theatrestearthpressure
coeffcient,toestimatethehorizontalstresscausedbytheverticalstress
increase,determinetheporepressureincrease,u
p
,basedonthecalculated
verticalstressincrease,
v
,asfollows:
u
p
=B(
oct
+a
oct
)(1-U) (9-11)
Theoctahedralconsolidationstressincreaseatthepointinquestion,
oct
.is
determinedasfollows:

oct
.=(
1
+
2
+
3
)/3=(
v
+K
0

v
+K
0

v
)/3=(1+2K
0
)
v
/3 (9-12)
where,
B = porepressureparameterwhichisdependentonthedegreeof
saturationandthecompressibilityofthesoilskeleton.Bis
approximatelyequalto1.0forsaturatednormallyconsolidated
siltsandclays.

oct
= the change in octahedral consolidation stress at the point in the
soilstratuminquestionduetotheembankmentloading,
a = Henkelporepressureparameterthatrefectstheporepressure
increaseduringshearing.aistypicallysmallandcanbeneglected
unlessrightatfailure.Ifnecessary,acanbedeterminedfrom
triaxialtestsandplottedasafunctionofstrainordeviatorstress
tocheckifneglectingaisanacceptableassumption.

oct
= thechangeinoctahedralshearstressatthepointinthesoilstratum
inquestionduetotheembankmentloading,
U = thepercentconsolidation,expressedasadecimal,underthe
embankmentloadinquestion.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-27
J anuary 2010

oct
=[(
1
-
2
)
2
+(
2
-
3
)
2
+(
3
-
1
)
2
]

(9-13)
Intermsofverticalstress,beforefailure,thisequationsimplifesto:

oct
=1.414
v
(1K
0
) (9-14)
Inthisanalysis,sinceonlyconsolidationstressesareassumedtogovern
porepressureincrease,andstrengthgainasporepressuredissipates(i.e.,the
calculationmethodissetuptonotallowfailuretooccur),itcanbeassumed
thataisequaltozero.Therefore,Equation 9-11simplifesto:
u
p
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U) (9-15)
where,K
0
=1-sin
CD
fornormallyconsolidatedsiltsandclays.
Estimatetheslopestabilityfactorofsafety,determiningu
p
atvariouspercent
consolidations(i.e.,iterate)todeterminethemaximumvalueofu
p
that does
notcausetheslopestabilityinterimsafetyfactortodropbelowthecritical
value(seeWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.3).
Nowdeterminer
u
asfollows:
r
u
=u
p
/
v
.=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U)/
v
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U) (9-16)
Theporepressuresmeasuredbythepiezometersinthefeldduring
embankmentconstructionaretheresultofverticalconsolidationstressesonly
(Boussinesqdistribution).Mostexpertsonthissubjectfeelthatporepressure
increaseduetoundrainedshearingalongthepotentialfailuresurfacedoesnot
occuruntilfailureisactuallyinprogressandmaybehighlylocalizedatthe
failuresurface.Becauseofthis,itishighlyunlikelythatonewillbeableto
measureporepressureincreaseduetoshearingalongthefailuresurfaceusing
piezometersinstalledbelowtheembankmentunlessoneisluckyenoughto
haveinstalledapiezometerintherightlocationandhappenstobetakinga
readingastheembankmentisfailing.Therefore,theporepressureincrease
measuredbythepiezometerswillbestrictlyduetoconsolidationstresses.
Notethatr
u
willvarydependingontheembankmentheightanalyzed.r
u
will
belowestatthemaximumembankmentheight,andwillbehighestatthe
initialstagesoffllconstruction.Therefore,r
u
shouldbedeterminedatseveral
embankmentheights.
9.3.2 Base reinforcement
Basereinforcementmaybeusedtoincreasethefactorofsafetyagainst
slopefailure.Basereinforcementtypicallyconsistsofplacingageotextileor
geogridatthebaseofanembankmentpriortoconstructingtheembankment.
Basereinforcementisparticularlyeffectivewheresoft/weaksoilsare
presentbelowaplannedembankmentlocation.Thebasereinforcement
canbedesignedforeithertemporaryorpermanentapplications.Mostbase
reinforcementapplicationsaretemporary,inthatthereinforcementisneeded
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
onlyuntiltheunderlyingsoilsshearstrengthhasincreasedsuffcientlyas
aresultofconsolidationundertheweightoftheembankment(seeWSDOT
GDMSection9.3.1).Therefore,thebasereinforcementdoesnotneed
tomeetthesamedesignrequirementsaspermanentbasereinforcement
regardingcreepanddurability.Forexample,ifitisanticipatedthatthesoil
willgainadequatestrengthtomeetstabilityrequirementswithoutthebase
reinforcementwithin6months,thenthecreepreductionfactordetermined
perWSDOTStandardPracticeT925couldbebasedon,say,aminimum1
yearlife,assumingdeformationdesignrequirementsaremet.Otherthanthis,
onlyinstallationdamagewouldneedtobeaddressed,unlessunusualchemical
conditionsexistthatcouldcauserapidstrengthdegradation.Alternatively,the
valuesofT
al
providedintheWSDOTQualifedProductsList(QPL)couldbe
used,butwillbeconservativeforthisapplication.However,ifitisanticipated
thatthesoilwillnevergainenoughstrengthtocausetheembankmenttohave
thedesiredlevelofstabilitywithoutthebasereinforcement,thelong-term
designstrengthsprovidedintheQPLorasotherwisedeterminedusingT925
foraminimum75yearlifeshallbeused.
Thedesignofbasereinforcementissimilartothedesignofareinforced
slopeinthatlimitequilibriumslopestabilitymethodsareusedtodetermine
thestrengthrequiredtoobtainthedesiredsafetyfactor(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter15).ThedetaileddesignproceduresprovidedbyHoltz,etal.(1995)
shouldbeusedforembankmentsutilizingbasereinforcement.
Basereinforcementmaterialsshouldbeplacedincontinuouslongitudinal
stripsinthedirectionofmainreinforcement.Jointsbetweenpiecesof
geotextileorgeogridinthestrengthdirection(perpendiculartotheslope)
shouldbeavoided.Allseamsinthegeotextilesshouldbesewnandnot
lapped.Likewise,geogridsshouldbelinkedwithmechanicalfastenersor
pinsandnotsimplyoverlapped.Wherebasereinforcementisused,theuseof
gravelborrow,insteadofcommonorselectborrow,mayalsobeappropriate
inordertoincreasetheembankmentshearstrength.
9.3.3 Ground Improvement
Groundimprovementcanbeusedtomitigateinadequateslopestability
forbothnewandexistingembankments,aswellasreducesettlement.The
primarygroundimprovementtechniquestomitigateslopestabilityfallinto
twogeneralcategories,namelydensifcationandalteringthesoilcomposition.
WSDOTGDMChapter11,GroundImprovement,shouldbereviewedfor
amoredetaileddiscussionandkeyreferencesregardingtheadvantagesand
disadvantagesofthesetechniques,applicabilityfortheprevailingsubsurface
conditions,constructionconsiderations,andcosts.Inadditiontothetwo
generalcategoriesofgroundimprovementidentifedabove,wickdrains
(discussedinWSDOTGDMChapter11andSection9.4.1)maybeusedin
combinationwithstagedembankmentconstructiontoacceleratestrength
gainandimprovestability,inadditiontoacceleratinglong-termsettlement.
Thewickdrainsineffectdrasticallyreducethedrainagepathlength,thereby
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-29
J anuary 2010
acceleratingtherateofstrengthgain.Othergroundimprovementtechniques
suchasstonecolumnscanfunctiontoacceleratestrengthgaininthesame
wayaswickdrains,thoughthestonecolumnsalsoreducethestressappliedto
thesoil,therebyreducingthetotalstrengthgainobtained.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter11foradditionalguidanceandreferencestouseifthistechniqueisto
beimplemented.
9.3.4 Lightweight Fills
Lightweightembankmentfllisanothermeansofimprovingembankment
stability.Lightweightfllsaregenerallyusedfortwoconditions:thereduction
ofthedrivingforcescontributingtoinstability,andreductionofpotential
settlementresultingfromconsolidationofcompressiblefoundationsoils.
Situationswherelightweightfllmaybeappropriateincludeconditionswhere
theconstructionscheduledoesnotallowtheuseofstagedconstruction,
whereexistingutilitiesoradjacentstructuresarepresentthatcannottolerate
themagnitudeofsettlementinducedbyplacementoftypicalfll,andat
locationswherepost-constructionsettlementsmaybeexcessiveunder
conventionalflls.
Lightweightfllcanconsistofavarietyofmaterialsincludingpolystyrene
blocks(geofoam),lightweightaggregates(rhyolite,expandedshale,blast
furnaceslag,fyash),woodfber,shreddedrubbertires,andothermaterials.
Lightweightfllsareinfrequentlyusedduetoeitherhighcostsorother
disadvantageswithusingthesematerials.
9.3.4.1 Geofoam
Geofoamisapproximately1/100
th
theweightofconventionalsoilflland,
asaresult,isparticularlyeffectiveatreducingdrivingforcesorsettlement
potential.Typicalgeofoamembankmentsconsistofthefoundationsoils,
thegeofoamfll,andapavementsystemdesignedtotransferloadstothe
geofoam.Geofoamdissolvesreadilyingasolineandotherorganicfuids/
vaporsandthereforemustbeencapsulatedwheresuchfuidscanpotentially
reachthegeofoam.Otherdesignconsiderationsforgeofoamincludecreep,
fammability,buoyancy,moistureabsorption,photo-degradation,and
differentialicingofpavementconstructedovergeofoam.Furthermore,
geofoamshouldnotbeusedwherethewatertablecouldriseandcause
buoyancyproblems,asgeofaomwillfoat.Designguidelinesforgeofoam
embankmentsareprovidedintheNCHRPdocumenttitledGeofoam
Applications in the Design and Construction of Highway Embankments
(Stark et al., 2004).Additionalinformationonthedesignpropertiesand
testingrequirementsareprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter5.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.3.4.2 Lightweight Aggregates
Mineralaggregates,suchasexpandedshales,rhyolite,fyash,orblastfurnace
slags,canalsobeusedaslightweightfllmaterials.Expandedshalesand
rhyolite materials consist of inert mineral aggregates that have similar shear
strengthstomanyconventionalfllmaterials,butweighroughlyhalfasmuch.
Theprimarydisadvantagewithexpandedshalesandrhyoliteisthatthese
materialsareexpensive.Flyashcanalsobeusedforlightweightfll;however,
fyashisdiffculttoplaceandproperlycontrolthemoisturecondition.Blast
furnaceslagisanotherwastematerialsometimesusedforlightweightfll.Due
totheweightofblastfurnaceslag,itisnotaseffectiveasotherlightweightfll
materials.Also,slagmaterialshavebeendocumentedtoswellwhenhydrated,
potentiallydamagingimprovementsfoundedabovetheslag.Thechemical
compositionoffyashandblastfurnaceslagshouldbeinvestigatedtoconfrm
thathighlevelsofcontaminantsarenotpresent.Duetothepotentialdurability
andchemicalissuesassociatedwithsomelightweightaggregates,approval
fromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineerisrequiredbeforesuchmaterialsmay
beconsideredforuseinembankments.
9.3.4.3 Wood Fiber
Woodfbersmayalsobeusedforlightweightfll.Forpermanentapplications,
onlyfreshwoodfbershouldbeusedtoprolongthelifeofthefll.Wood
fberfllstypicallyhaveunitweightsbetweenabout35to55pcf.Tomitigate
theeffectsofleachate,theamountofwaterenteringthewoodshouldbe
minimized.Woodfberfllwillexperiencecreepsettlementforseveralyears
andsomepavementdistressshouldbeexpectedduringthatperiod.See
WSDOTGDMChapter5formoreinformationregardingwoodfberflls.
9.3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires
In1996,amoratoriumontheuseofscraptiresasembankmentfllwasput
intoeffectduetoseveralinstanceswherethetirefllscaughtfreduetosome
typeofexothermicreactionwhichhasyettobefullydefned.Areporttothe
WashingtonStatelegislaturewaspublishedin2003toaddresswhetherornot,
andunderwhatcircumstances,themoratoriumontheuseofscraptiresasfll
shouldbelifted(Baker, et al., 2003).Basedonthatreport,scraptirefllsup
to10ftinthicknessmaybeconsidered,providedthattheyaredesignedand
specifedasdescribedinBaker, et al. (2003).
9.3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete
Largequantitiesofaircanbeentrainedintoconcretetoproduceaverylight
weightporousconcretethatcanbepouredinplaceofsoiltoreducethe
drivingforcetoimprovestabilityorreducesettlement.Typicalunitweights
feasiblerangefrom20to80pcf,andrelativetosoil,itsshearstrengthisfairly
high.However,ifsignifcantdifferentialsettlementisstillanticipatedinspite
oftheuseofthelightweightconcrete,duetoitsrelativelybrittlenature,
theconcretecouldcrack,losingmuchofitsshearstrength.Thisshouldbe
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-31
J anuary 2010
consideredifusinglightweightcellularconcrete.Itscostcanbequitehigh,
beingamongthemostexpensiveofthelightweightfllmaterialsmentioned
herein.
9.3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys
Toebermsandshearkeysareeachmethodstoimprovethestabilityofan
embankmentbyincreasingtheresistancealongpotentialfailuresurfaces.
Toebermsaretypicallyconstructedofgranularmaterialsthatcanbeplaced
quickly,donotrequiremuchcompaction,buthaverelativelyhighshear
strength.Asimpliedbythename,toebermsareconstructednearthetoeof
theembankmentslopeswherestabilityisaconcern.Thetoebermsareoften
inclinedfatterthanthefllembankmentsideslopes,butthebermitselfshould
becheckedforstability.Theuseofbermsmayincreasethemagnitudeof
settlementsasaconsequenceoftheincreasedsizeoftheloadedarea.
Toebermsincreasetheshearingresistanceby:
Addingweight,andthusincreasingtheshearresistanceofgranularsoils
belowthetoeareaoftheembankment;
Adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential
failuresurfacesthatpassthroughthetoeberm;and
Creatingalongerfailuresurface,thusmoreshearresistance,asthefailure
surfacenowmustpassbelowthetoebermifitdoesnotpassthrough
theberm.
Shearkeysfunctioninamannersimilartotoeberms,exceptinsteadof
beingadjacenttoandincorporatingthetoeofthefllembankment,theshear
keyisplacedunderthefllembankmentfrequentlybelowthetoeofthe
embankment.Shearkeysarebestsuitedtoconditionswheretheykeycanbe
embeddedintoastrongerunderlyingformation.Shearkeystypicallyrange
from5to15feetinwidthandextend4to10feetbelowthegroundsurface.
Theyaretypicallybackflledwithquarryspallsorsimilarmaterialsthat
arerelativelyeasytoplacebelowthegroundwaterlevel,requireminimal
compaction,butstillhavehighinternalshearstrength.Liketoeberms,shear
keysimprovethestabilityoftheembankmentbyforcingthepotentialfailure
surfacethroughthestrongshearkeymaterialoralongamuchlongerpath
belowtheshearkey.
9.4 Settlement Mitigation
9.4.1 Acceleration Using Wick Drains
Wickdrains,orprefabricateddrains,areinessenceverticaldrainagepathsthat
canbeinstalledintocompressiblesoilstodecreasetheoveralltimerequired
forcompletionofprimaryconsolidation.Wickdrainstypicallyconsistofa
longplasticcoresurroundedbyageotextile.Thegeotextilefunctionsasa
separatorandafltertokeepholesintheplasticcorefrombeingpluggedby
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
theadjacentsoil,andtheplasticcoreprovidesameansfortheexcesspore
waterpressurestodissipate.Adrainageblanketistypicallyplacedacrossthe
groundsurfacepriortoinstallingthewickdrainsandprovidesadrainagepath
beneaththeembankmentforwaterfowingfromthewickdrains.
Thedrainsaretypicallyband-shaped(rectangular)measuringafewinches
wideinplandimension.Theyareattachedtoamandrelandareusually
driven/pushedintoplaceusingeitherstaticorvibratoryforce.Afterthewick
drainsareinstalled,thefllembankmentandpossiblysurchargefllareplaced
abovethedrainageblanket.Akeyconsiderationfortheuseofwickdrainsis
thesiteconditions.Ifobstructionsoraverydenseorstiffsoillayerislocated
abovethecompressiblelayer,pre-drillingmaybenecessary.Theuseofwick
drainstodepthsoverabout60feetrequirespecializedequipment.
Theprimaryfunctionofawickdrainistoreducethedrainagepathina
thickcompressiblesoildeposit.AsnotedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.3,a
signifcantfactorcontrollingthetimerateofsettlementisthelengthofthe
drainagepath.Sincethetimerequiredforagivenpercentageconsolidation
completionisrelatedtothesquareofthedrainagepath,cuttingthedrainage
pathinhalfwouldreducetheconsolidationtimetoone-fourththeinitialtime,
allotherparametersheldconstant.However,theprocessofinstallingthewick
drainscreatesasmearzonethatcanimpedethedrainage.Thekeydesign
issueismaximizingtheeffciencyofthespacingofthedrains,andoneofthe
primaryconstructionissuesisminimizingthesmearzonearoundthedrains.
Afulldescriptionofwickdrains,designconsiderations,exampledesigns,
guidelinespecifcations,andinstallationconsiderationsareprovidedby
referenceinWSDOTGDMChapter11.Section2-03.3(14)HoftheWSDOT
Standard Specifcationsaddressesinstallationofprefabricatedverticaldrains.
9.4.2 Acceleration Using Surcharges
Surchargeloadsareadditionalloadsplacedonthefllembankmentabove
andbeyondthedesignheight.Theprimarypurposeofasurchargeistospeed
uptheconsolidationprocess.Thesurchargesspeeduptheconsolidation
processbecausethepercentageofconsolidationrequiredunderasurcharge
willbelessthanthecompleteconsolidationunderthedesignload.Asnoted
previously,itiscustomarytoassumeconsolidationisessentiallycomplete
atthetheoretical90%completionstage,whereT=0.848.Incomparison,
T=0.197for50%consolidation.Thereforeittakeslessthanone-fourththe
timetoachieveanaverageof50%consolidationinasoillayerthanitdoes
toachieve90%.Inthisexample,theobjectivewouldbetoplaceasurcharge
suffcientlylargesuchthat50%ofthetotalsettlementestimatedfromthefll
embankmentandthesurchargeisequaltoorgreaterthan100percentofthe
settlementestimatedunderthefllembankmentaloneatitsdesignheight.
Basedonpreviousexperience,thesurchargefllneedstobeatleastone-third
thedesignheightoftheembankmenttoprovideanysignifcanttimesavings.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-33
J anuary 2010
Inadditiontodecreasingthetimetoreachthetargetsettlement,surcharges
canalsobeusedtoreducetheimpactofsecondarysettlement.Similarto
theexamplepresentedabove,theintentistousethesurchargetopre-induce
thesettlementestimatedtooccurfromprimaryconsolidationandsecondary
compressionduetotheembankmentload.Forexample,iftheestimated
primaryconsolidationunderanembankmentis18inchesandsecondary
compressionisestimatedatanadditional6inchesoverthenext25years,then
thesurchargewouldbedesignedtoachieve24inchesofsettlementorgreater
underprimaryconsolidationonly.Theprinciplesofthedesignofsurcharges
tomitigatelong-termsettlementprovidedbyCotton, et al. (1987)shouldbe
followed.
Usingasurchargetypicallywillnotcompletelyeliminatesecondary
compression,butithasbeensuccessfullyusedtoreducethemagnitude
ofsecondarysettlement.However,forhighlyorganicsoilsorpeatswhere
secondarycompressionisexpectedtobehigh,thesuccessofasurchargeto
reducesecondarycompressionmaybequitelimited.Othermorepositive
meansmaybeneededtoaddressthesecondarycompressioninthiscase,such
asremoval.
Twosignifcantdesignandconstructionconsiderationsforusingsurcharges
includeembankmentstabilityandre-useoftheadditionalfllmaterials.New
fllembankmentsoversoftsoilscanresultinstabilityproblemsasdiscussed
inWSDOTGDMSection9.3.Addingadditionalsurchargefllwouldonly
exacerbatethestabilityproblem.Furthermore,afterthesettlementobjectives
havebeenmet,thesurchargewillneedtoberemoved.Ifthesurcharge
materialcannotbemovedtoanotherpartoftheprojectsiteforuseassitefll
orasanothersurcharge,itoftennoteconomicaltobringtheextrasurcharge
flltothesiteonlytohaulitawayagain.Also,whenfllsoilsmustbehandled
multipletimes(suchaswitharollingsurcharge),itisadvantageoustouse
gravelborrowtoreduceworkabilityissuesduringwetweatherconditions.
9.4.3 Lightweight Fills
Lightweightfllscanalsobeusedtomitigatesettlementissuesasindicatedin
WSDOTGDMSection9.3.4.Lightweightfllsreducethenewloadsimposed
ontheunderlyingcompressiblesoils,therebyreducingthemagnitudeofthe
settlement.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter5andSection9.3.4foradditional
informationonlightweightfll.
9.4.4 Over-excavation
Over-excavationsimplyreferstoexcavatingthesoftcompressiblesoils
frombelowtheembankmentfootprintandreplacingthesematerialswith
higherquality,lesscompressiblesoil.Becauseofthehighcostsassociated
withexcavatinganddisposingofunsuitablesoilsaswellasthediffculties
associatedwithexcavatingbelowthewatertable,over-excavationand
replacementtypicallyonlymakeseconomicsenseundercertainconditions.
Someoftheseconditionsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thearearequiringoverexcavationislimited;
Theunsuitablesoilsarenearthegroundsurfaceanddonotextendvery
deep(typically,eveninthemostfavorableofconstructionconditions,
over-excavationdepthsgreaterthanabout10ftareingeneralnot
economical);
Temporaryshoringanddewateringarenotrequiredtosupportorfacilitate
theexcavation;
Theunsuitablesoilscanbewastedonsite;and
Suitableexcessfllmaterialsarereadilyavailabletoreplacetheover-
excavatedunsuitablesoils.
9.5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development
Considerationshouldbegiventothetimeofyearthatconstructionwilllikely
occur.Ifunsuitablesoilwasencounteredduringthefeldinvestigation,the
depthandstationlimitsforremovalshouldbeprovidedontheplans.Chapter
530oftheWSDOTDesignManualprovidesguidancefortheuseofgeotextile
forseparationorsoilstabilization(seealsoWSDOTGDMChapter16).Note
thatforextremelysoftandwetsoil,asitespecifcdesignshouldbeperformed
forthegeotextile.
HillsideTerracingisspecifedinSection2-03.3(14)oftheWSDOTStandard
Specifcations.Whereembankmentsarebuiltonexistinghillsidesorexisting
embankmentslopes,theexistingsurfacesoilmayformaplaneofweakness
unlesstheslopeisterracedorstepped.Terracingbreaksuptheplane,
increasingthestrengthoftheentiresystem.Generallyslopesthatare3H:1V
orsteepershouldbeterracedtoimprovestability.Howevertheremaybe
specifccaseswhereterracingmaybewaivedduringdesign,suchaswhen
theexistingslopeissteeperthan1H:1Vandbenchingwoulddestabilizethe
existingslope.
ThecompactionrequirementsintheWSDOTStandard Specifcations apply
totheentireembankment,includingneartheslopingfaceoftheembankment.
Forembankmentslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper,dependingontheembankment
soilproperties,gettinggoodcompactionouttotheembankmentface
canbediffculttoachieve,andpossiblyevenunsafeforthoseoperating
thecompactionequipment.Theconsequencesofpoorcompactionatthe
slopingfaceoftheembankmentincludeincreasedriskoferosionandeven
surfcialslopeinstability.Thisissuebecomesespeciallyproblematicas
theembankmentslopesteepnessapproaches1.5H:1V.Surfcialstabilityof
embankments(SeeWSDOTGDMChapter7)shouldbeevaluatedduring
designforembankmentslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper.Theembankmentdesign
shallincludetheuseoftechniquesthatwillimproveembankmentfaceslope
stabilityforembankmentslopessteeperthan1.7H:1V,andshouldconsiderthe
useofsuchtechniquesforslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-35
J anuary 2010
Approachestypicallyusedtoaddresscompactionandsurfcialstabilityof
embankmentslopesinclude:
Over-buildtheembankmentlaterallyattheslopefaceapproximately2
ft,compactthesoil,andthentrimofftheouter2ftoftheembankmentto
produceawellcompactedslopeface.
Usestripsofgeosyntheticplacedinhorizontallayersattheslopeface
asacompactionandsurfcialstabilityaid(seeElias,etal.,2001).The
stripsshouldgenerallybeaminimumof4ftwide(horizontallyintothe
slope)andspacedverticallyat1to1.5ft(1.5ftmaximum).Thespecifc
reinforcementwidthandverticalspacingwilldependonthesoiltype.
Thereinforcementstrengthrequireddependsonthecoarsenessand
angularityofthebackfllmaterialandthesusceptibilityofthegeosynthetic
todamageduringplacementandcompaction.SeeElias,etal.(2001)for
specifcguidanceonthedesignofgeosyntheticlayersasacompactionand
surfcialstabilityaid.
Evenifgoodcompactioncanbeobtainedusingoneofthesetechniques,the
potentialforerosionandsurfcialinstabilityshouldbeaddressedthrough
appropriateuseofslopevegetationtechniquessuchasseedingandmulching,
temporaryorpermanentturfreinforcementmats,orfordeepersurfcial
stabilityproblems,bioengineering.Notethatifgeosyntheticlayersareplaced
inthesoilasacompactionaidortoimproveoverallembankmentslope
stability,thetypicalpracticeofcultivatingtheupper1ftofthesoilperthe
WSDOTStandard Specifcations,Section8-02,shouldnotbeconducted.
Instead,thelandscapearchitectwhoisdevelopingtheslopevegetationplan
shouldconsultwiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoinsurethattheslope
vegetationplan(eitherpertheWSDOTStandard Specifcations or any
specialprovisionsdeveloped)doesnotconfictwiththeslopegeosynthetic
reinforcementandtheneedforgoodcompactionouttotheslopeface.
9.5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring
Ifsettlementisexpectedtocontinueafterembankmentconstruction,some
typeofmonitoringprogramshouldbeprovided.Settlementshouldbe
monitored,ifpostconstructionsettlementwillaffectpavementperformance
orasettlementsensitivestructurewillbeconstructedontheembankment.
Thetypeofmonitoringwilldependonthemagnitudeandtimeframeofthe
settlement.Formanymonitoringprograms,useofsurveyhubsormonuments
androutinesurveyingmethodsareadequate.Thesemethodsarecommonly
usedifpavingshouldbedelayeduntilembankmentsettlementisnearly
complete.Thegeotechnicalreportshouldincludethetimeperiodthatthe
settlementshouldbemonitoredandthefrequencyofobservations.
Settlementestimatesprovidedinthecontractshouldbeconservative.
Therefore,ifanotherconstructionoperationmustbedelayeduntilthe
settlementoftheembankmentisnearlycomplete,thetimeestimateshould
bethelongestlengthoftimethatislikelytobenecessary;thenthecontractor
willnotbedelayedlongerthananticipated.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
AsdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1,embankmentsconstructed
oversoftgroundmayrequiretheuseofstagedconstructiontoensurethe
stabilityoftheembankment.Geotechnicalinstrumentationisavitalpartof
constructiontomonitorfeldperformanceandprovideinformationrelevant
todecisionsregardingtherateofconstruction.Theprincipalparameters
monitoredduringembankmentconstructionareporewaterpressureand
displacement,bothverticalandlateral.
Asdiscussedpreviously,inrelativelyimpermeable,soft,saturatedsoil,the
appliedloadfromembankmentconstructionincreasestheporewaterpressure.
Withtime,theexcessporewaterpressurewilldissipateandtheshearstrength
willincrease.Itisimportanttomeasuretheporewaterpressuretodetermine
whenitissafetoproceedwithadditionalembankmentconstruction.In
suchcasesitisalsousefultomeasureverticaldeformationtoassistinthe
interpretationofthedatatoassesstherateatwhichembankmentconstruction
shouldproceed.
9.5.2 Instrumentation
Thefollowingdiscussionofmonitoringequipmenttypicallyusedfor
embankmentconstructionmonitoringprovidesanoverviewofthetypical
equipmentavailable.Amorecomprehensivediscussionofmonitoring
techniquesisavailableinGeotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring
Field Performance(Dunnicliff, 1993)andGeotechnical Instrumentation
Reference Manual,NHICourseNo.13241FHWA-HI-98-034(Dunnicliff,
1998).AdditionalinformationonWSDOTpoliciesregardinginstrumentation
installationandstandardsisprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter3.
9.5.2.1 Piezometers
Threetypesofpiezometersarecommonlyusedtomonitorembankment
construction:openstandpipe,pneumaticandvibratingwire.Eachtypeof
piezometerhasadvantagesanddisadvantages.Thesectionsbelowdescribe
thevariouspiezometertypes.
Open Standpipe Piezometers.Thesepiezometersareinstalledinadrilled
borehole.Aporouszoneorscreenisinstalledinthesoillayerofinterest.
Forembankmentsettlementpurposesitisnecessarytocompletelysealthe
porouszoneagainsttheinfowofwaterfromshallowerzones.Openstandpipe
piezometersarerelativelysimpletoinstallandthewaterlevelreadings
areeasytoobtain.However,standpipesmayinterferewithorbedamaged
byconstructionactivitiesandtheresponsetimeforchangesinwaterpore
pressureinlowpermeabilitysoilsisslow.Thistypeofpiezometerisgenerally
notveryusefulformonitoringtheporepressureincreaseandsubsequent
decreaseduetoconsolidationinstagedconstructionapplications.
Pneumatic Piezometers.Pneumaticpiezometersareusuallyinstalledin
drilledboreholesinamannersimilartostandpipepiezometers,buttheycan
besealedsothatincreasesinporewaterpressureresultinasmallervolume
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-37
J anuary 2010
changeandamorerapidresponseininstrumentmeasurement.Pneumatic
piezometersdonotneedopenstandpipes.However,crimpingorruptureofthe
tubesduetosettlementoftheembankmentcancausefailure.
Vibrating Wire Piezometers.Vibratingwirepiezometersareusuallyinstalled
indrilledboreholes;although,modelsareavailableforpushingintoplace
insoftsoils.Thecablescanberoutedlongdistancesandtheyareeasily
connectedtoautomaticdataacquisitionsystems.
9.5.2.2 Instrumentation for Settlement
9.5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates
Settlementplatesareusedtomonitorsettlementattheinterfacebetween
nativegroundandtheoverlyingfll.Theyconsistofasteelplateweldedtoa
steelpipe.AnouterpipeconsistingofsteelorPVCpipeisplacedaroundthe
pipeandtheembankmentisbuiltuparoundit.Bothpipesareextendedtothe
completedsurface.Theouterpipeisolatestheinnerpipefromcontactwith
thefll.Astheembankmentandsoilsurfacesettle,thetopoftheinnerpipe
canbemonitoredwithstandardsurveyequipment.Thesedevicesaresimple
touse,butprovidedataatonlyonepointandaresubjecttodamageduring
construction.
9.5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells
Thesecellsaregenerallyplacedattheinterfacebetweentheembankment
fllandnativeground.Afexibletubeisroutedtoareservoir,whichmust
belocatedawayfromthesettlementarea.Thereservoirmustbekeptata
constantelevation.Theprecisionofthecellsisabout0.75inches.
9.5.2.2.3 Sondex System
TheSondexSystemcanbeusedformonitoringsettlementatseveralpointsat
depth.Thesystemisinstalledinaboreholeandconsistsofaseriesofstainless
steelwireloopsonaplasticcorrugatedpipe.Theplasticpipeisplacedoveran
accesscasingandgroutedintheborehole.Thelocationsofthestainlesssteel
loopsaredeterminedbyelectricalinductionmeasurementsfromareadout
unit.Theloopscanbelocatedtoabout0.05inchesanddisplacementsofup
to2inchescanbemeasured.Accuratemeasurementofsettlementdependson
thecompatibilityofthesoilandgrout.Therefore,ifthegroutmixhasahigher
strengththanthesurroundingsoil,notallthesettlementwillbemeasured.
9.5.2.2.4 Horizontal Inclinometer
Horizontalinclinometersareusedtomeasureverticaldefectionsinagrooved
guidecasing,placedhorizontallybeneaththeembankment.Theprobeis
pulledthroughthecasingandreadingsofinclinationrelativetohorizontal
areobtained.Theinclinometerisahighlyaccuratesystemforobtaining
settlementdata.Becausethelengthoftheinclinometerprobeistypically
about2feet,largedisplacementsofthecasingcausedbysettlementmaystop
passageoftheprobe.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.5.3 PS&E Considerations
Specifcationsformonitoringequipmentthatwillbesuppliedbythe
contractorshouldensurethattheequipmentiscompatiblewiththereadout
equipmentthatwillbeusedduringconstruction.Thespecifcationsshould
alsomakeclearwhowillprovidethemonitoringandanalyzethedata.Ifthe
contractorssurveycrewwillcollectthesettlementdata,itshouldbeindicated
inthespecialprovisions.Itisalsoimportanttostipulatewhowillanalyze
thedataandprovidethefnaldeterminationonwhensettlementiscomplete
orwhenadditionalfllcanbeplaced.Ingeneral,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldanalyzeandinterpretthedata.
9.5.4 PS&E Checklist
ThefollowingissuesshouldbeaddressedinthePS&Eregarding
embankments:
Slopeinclinationrequiredforstability
Embankmentfoundationpreparationrequirements,overexcavationlimits
shown on plans
Plandetailsforspecialdrainagerequirementssuchaslinedditches,
interceptortrenches,drainageblankets,etc.
Hillsideterracingrequirements
Evaluationofon-sitematerials
Specialembankmentmaterialrequirements
Specialtreatmentrequiredforfllplacementsuchasnon-durablerock,
plasticsoil,orlightweightfll
Magnitudeandtimeforsettlement
SettlementwaitingperiodestimatedintheSpecialProvisions(SP)
Sizeandlimitsofsurcharge
Specialmonitoringneeds
Ifinstrumentationisrequiredtocontroltherateoffllplacement,dothe
SPsclearlyspellouthowthiswillbedoneandhowthereadingswillbe
usedtocontrolthecontractorsoperation
SPsclearlystatethatanyinstrumentationdamagedbycontractor
personnel will be repaired or replaced at no cost to the state
Settlementissueswithadjacentstructures,shouldconstructionof
structuresbedelayedduringembankmentsettlementperiod
Monitoringofadjacentstructures
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-39
J anuary 2010
9.6 References
Baker,T.E.,Allen,T.M.,Pierce,L.M.,Jenkins,D.V.,Mooney,D.T.,
Christie,R.A.,andWeston,J.T.,2003,Evaluation of the Use of Scrap Tires
in Transportation Related Applications in the State of Washington,Reportto
theLegislatureasRequiredbySHB2308,WSDOT,268pp.
Boussinesq,J.,1885,ApplicationdesPotentielsaLEtudedeLEquilibreet
dueMouvementdesSolidesElastiques,Gauthier-Villars,Paris.
Cheney,R.andChassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
Cotton,D.M.,Kilian,A.P.,andAllenT.(1987),WestboundEmbankment
PreloadonRainierAvenue,Seattle,Washington, Transportation Research
Record 1119,Washington,DC,pp.61-75.
Dunnicliff,J.,1993,Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field
Performance,NCHRPSynthesis89,TransportationResearchBoard.
Elias,V.,andChristopher,B.R.,andBerg,R.R.,2001,Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Design and Construction
Guidelines,No.FHWA-NHI-00-043,FederalHighwayAdministration,
394pp.
FederalHighwayAdministration,1992,EMBANK,ComputerProgram,
UsersManualPublicationNo.FHWA-SA-92-045.
Dunnicliff,J.,1998,Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual,
NHICourseNo.13241,Module11.FHWA-HI-98-034,FederalHighway
Administration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Holtz,R.D.,andKovacs,W.D.,1981,AnIntroductiontoGeotechnical
Engineering,Prentice-Hall,Inc,EaglewoodCliffs,NewJersey.
Holtz,R.D.,Christopher,B.R.,andBerg,R.R.,1995,Geosynthetic
Design and Construction Guidelines,FederalHighwayAdministration,
FHWAHI-95-038.
Ladd,C.C.,1991,StabilityEvaluationDuringStagedConstruction(the22
nd

KarlTerzaghiLecture),Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,ASCE,Vol.
117,No.4,pp.540-615.
Machan,G.,Szymoniak,T.andSiel,B.,1989,EvaluationofShale
EmbankmentConstructionCriteria,ExperimentalFeatureFinalReportOR
83-02,OregonStateHighwayDivision,GeotechnicalEngineeringGroup.
NAVFAC,1971,Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth
Structures,DM-7.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
PrototypeEngineering,Inc.,1993,SAF-1SoilSettlementAnalyses
SoftwareSuite,Winchester,Massachusetts.
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)- EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Skempton,A.W.,andBishop,A.W.,1955,TheGaininStabilityDueto
PorePressureDissipationinaSoftClayFoundation,Fifth International
Conference on Large Dams,Paris,pp.613-638.
Stark,T.,Arellano,D.,Horvath,J.andLeshchinsky,D.,2004, Geofoam
ApplicationsintheDesignandConstructionofHighwayEmbankments,
NCHRPReport529,TransportationResearchBoard,58pp.
Symons,I.F.,1976,Assessment and Control of Stability for Road
Embankments Constructed on Soft Subsoils,TransportandRoadResearch
laboratory,Crowthorne,Berkshire,TRRLLaboratoryReport711,32pp.
Tonkins,T.andTerranova,T.,1995,InstrumentationofTransportation
EmbankmentsConstructedonSoftGround,TransportationResearchCircular
No.438.
Westergaard,H.,1938,AProblemofElasticitySuggestedbyaProblemin
SoilMechanics:ASoftMaterialReinforcedbyNumerousStrongHorizontal
Sheets,in Contribution to the Mechanics of Solids, Stephen Timoshenko 60
th

Anniversary Volume,Macmillan,NewYork,NewYork,pp.268-277.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-41
J anuary 2010
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Examples Illustrating
Appendix 9-A Staged Fill Construction Design
9-A.1 Problem Setup
First,thegeotechnicaldesignershoulddefnetheproblemintermsof
embankmentgeometry,soilstratigraphy,andwatertableinformation.For
thisexampletheproposedconstructionentailsconstructinga20ftthickearth
embankmentfromGravelBorrowwith2H:1Vsideslopes.Theembankment
willhavearoadwaywidthof35ftandwillbeconstructedoversoftsilt.The
softsiltis30ftthickandoverliesdensesand.Groundwaterwasobserved2ft
belowtheexistinggroundsurfaceduringthefeldexploration.


Dense Sand
I = 40qJ
T
= 125 pcf
Soft Silt
J
T
= 90 pcf
C
UU
= 160 psf
I
CU
= 17qI
CD
= 27q
C
v
= 1.0 ft
2
/day
K
o
= 0.55
B = 1.0
Gravel Borrow
I = 36q
J
T
= 130 pcf












Embankment Geometry for Example
Figure 9-A-1
Usingthetestresults,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldfrstassessshortterm
(undrained)strengthoftheembankmenttodetermineifstagedconstruction
isrequired.Fortheexamplegeometry,XSTABLwasusedtoassessshort-
term(undrained)stabilityusingC
uu
=160psf(seefgures9-4and9-5 for
thespecifcstrengthenvelopesused).Figure 9-A-2providestheresultsof
thestabilityanalysis,andindicatesthatthefactorofsafetyiswellbelow
theminimumlong-termvalueof1.25requiredforanembankmentwithout
astructure.Therefore,stagedconstructionorsomeotherformormitigation
isrequiredtoconstructtheembankment.Forthisexample,continuewitha
stagedconstructionapproach.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-43
J anuary 2010


Undrained stability for the example geometry
Figure 9-A-2
9-A.2 Determination of Maximum Stable First Stage Fill Height
Theanalysisconductedintheprevioussectionisconductedagain,butthis
timelimitingthefllheighttothatwhichhasafactorofsafetythatisequalto
orgreaterthantheminimumacceptableinterimvalue(useFS=1.15to1.2
minimumforthisexample).AsshowninFigure 9-A-3,themaximuminitial
fllheightis6ft.Thisinitialfllheightisusedasastartingpointforboththe
totalstressandtheeffectivestressanalyses.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 1 fll stability, assuming no strength gain and a fll height of 6 ft
Figure 9-A-3
9-A.3 Total Stress Analysis Procedure Example
Inthisapproach,theundrainedsoilstrengthenvelope,or
consol
,asdetermined
inFigure9-5,isusedtocharacterizethestrengthofthesubsoil.Next,the
geotechnicaldesignerdetermineshowmuchstrengthgaincanbeobtained
byallowingthefrststageofflltoconsolidatetheunderlyingsoftsoils,
usingtotalstressesandundrainedstrengthsafterconsolidation(seeWSDOT
GDMSection9.3.1.3).Thegeotechnicaldesignercalculatesthestress
increaseresultingfromtheplacementofthefrstembankmentstageusingthe
BoussinesqequationorthoseofWestergaard(seeFigures9-2and9-3).Note
thatbecausethestressincreaseduetotheembankmentloaddecreaseswith
depth,thestrengthgainalsodecreaseswithdepth.Toproperlyaccountfor
this,thesoftsubsoilshouldbebrokenupintolayersandzonesforanalysis
justasisdoneforcalculatingsettlement.Fortheexample,thesubsurface
isdividedintothelayersandzonesshowninFigure9-A-4toaccountfor
thedifferencesinstressincreaseduetotheembankment.Thegeotechnical
designerwillhavetoutilizejudgmentindeterminingtheoptimumnumberof
layersandzonestouse.Ifthedivisionofzonesistoocoarse,themethodmay
notproperlymodelthefeldconditionsduringconstruction,andtoofneofa
divisionwillresultinexcessivecomputationaleffort.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-45
J anuary 2010

Division of subsurface for estimating strength increase and consolidation.
Figure 9-A-4
Fortheexamplegeometrymodeltheembankmentasacontinuousstripwith
awidthof103ft(B=35+(4x20)(2x6)).Aszone3islocatedclosetothe
centeroftheembankmentthestresschangeinthatzonewillbeclosetothat
nearthecenteroftheembankmentforthestage1loading.Therefore,zone3
isnotusedintheanalysisexampleyet.Itwillbeusedlaterintheexample.
Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows:
Layer Zone Z Z/B I

v

6 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
Oncethegeotechnicaldesignerhasthestressincrease,theincreaseinstrength
duetoconsolidationcanbeestimatedusingEquations9-6and9-7.However,
the strength increase achieved will depend on the degree of consolidation
thatoccurs.Theconsolidationisdependantuponthetime(t),drainagepath
length(H),coeffcientofconsolidation(C
v
),andtheTimeFactor(T).Using
Equations9-8through9-10,assumingthestage1fllisallowedtoconsolidate
for15daysandassumingthesoftsoillayerisdoublydrained,thepercent
consolidationwouldbe:
T=tC
v
/H
2
T=15days(1ft
2
/Day)/(30ft/2)
2
(assumeddoubledraining)
T=0.067=0.25U
2
;forU<60%
U=0.292or29%
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Therefore,at15daysand29%consolidation,usingEquation 9-7,the
strengthgainwouldbeasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

29%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 250 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 245 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 210 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 228 psf
Usingthesameprocedurethestrengthgainatothertimeperiodscanbe
estimated.Forexample,at60daysthepercentconsolidationwouldbe59%,
andthestrengthgainwouldbeasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
Cuu
i
U
consol
C
uu

59%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 342 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 333 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 262 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 299 psf
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldconsiderthatasconsolidationtimeincreases
therelativeincreaseinstrengthbecomeslessastimecontinuestoincrease.
Havingasettlementdelayperiodthatwouldachieve100%consolidationis
probablynotpracticalduetotheexcessivedurationrequired.Delayperiod
ofmorethan2monthsaregenerallynotpractical.Continuetheexample
assuminga15daysettlementdelayperiodwillberequired.Usingthestrength
gained,thegeotechnicaldesignerdetermineshowmuchadditionalfllcanbe
placed.
Determinetheheightofthesecondstagefllthatcanbeconstructedbyusing
C
uu

29%
andincreasingthefllheightuntilthefactorofsafetyisapproximately
1.2butnotlessthan1.15.AsshowninFigure 9-A-5,thetotalfllheightcan
beincreasedto8ft(2ftofnewfllisadded)afterthe15daydelayperiod.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-47
J anuary 2010

Stage 2 undrained analysis, assuming 15 day delay period after stage
1, and a total fll height of 8 ft
Figure 9-A-5
Forthesecondstageoffll,theeffectivefootingwidthchangesasthefll
becomesthicker.TheequivalentfootingwidthforusewiththeBoussinesq
stressdistributionwillbe99ft(B=35+(4x20)(2x8)).Aszone3islocated
closetothecenteroftheembankmentthestresschangeinthatzonewillbe
closetothatnearthecenteroftheembankmentforthestage1andstage2
loading.Therefore,zone3isnotusedintheanalysisexampleyet.Itwillbe
usedlaterintheexample.Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows:
Layer Zone Z Z/B I

v

8 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 1040 psf 1019 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 1040 psf 967 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 1040 psf 231 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 1040 psf 315 psf
Oncethegeotechnicaldesignerhasthestressincrease,theincreaseinstrength
duetoconsolidationcanbeestimated.Thegeotechnicaldesignermustnow
begintouseweightedaveragingtoaccountforthedifferenceinconsolidation
times(seeFigure 9-6).Thefrststageoffllwasallowedtosettlefor15days
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
priortoplacingtheadditional2ftoffllinthesecondstage,bringingthe
totalfllheightupto8ft.Ifthesecondliftofsoilisallowedtoconsolidate
foranother15days,thesoilwillactuallyhavebeenconsolidatingfor30days
total.For30days,theTimeFactor(T).wouldbe:
T=tC
v
/H
2

T=30days(1ft
2
/Day)/(30ft/2)
2
(assumeddoubledraining)
T=0.133=0.25U
2
;forU<60%
So,U=0.41or41%
Theaverageconsolidationofthe15+15daydelayperiodwillbe:
[6ft(0.41)+2ft(0.29)]/8ft=0.38or38%
Thestrengthgainat30daysand38%averageconsolidationwouldbeas
follows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 317 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 309 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 248 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 280 psf
Thegeotechnicaldesignerwouldcontinuethisiterativeprocessofaddingfll,
determiningtheweightedaverageconsolidation,subsequentstrengthgain,
andstabilityanalysistodeterminethenextsafeliftuntiltheembankmentis
constructedfullheight.
Oncethefnalstagefllisplaced,itwillcontinuetocauseconsolidationof
thesoftsubsoil,increasingitsstrength.Thecalculationstodeterminethetime
requiredoncetheembankmentiscompletedtocausethefactorofsafetyto
increasetotheminimumlong-termacceptableFSof1.25aresummarizedas
follows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 2509 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 880 psf
2 780 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 384 psf
3 1430 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 570 psf
2
1 2314 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 824 psf
2 962 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 436 psf
3 1560 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 608 psf
Thecalculationstabulatedaboveassumethat25daysafterthefnalflllayer
ishaselapsed,resultinginanaveragedegreeofconsolidationof71%.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-49
J anuary 2010
Thefnalstabilityanalysis,usingtheundrainedshearstrengthstabulated
above,isasshowninFigure 9-A-6.


Final stage undrained analysis, assuming 25 days have expired since
last fll increment was placed, and a total fll height of 20 ft
Figure 9-A-6
Insummary,thefllincrementsanddelayperiodsareasfollows:
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 ft 15 days
2 2 ft 15 days
3 2 ft 15 days
4 2 ft 15 days
5 2 ft 30 days
6 2 ft 30 days
7 3 ft 10 days
8 1 ft 25 days to obtain FS =1.25
TOTALS 20 ft 155 days
Fewerstagescanbeselectedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,butlongerdelay
periodsarerequiredtoachievemoreconsolidationandthehigherstrength
increasesnecessarytomaintainstability.Acomparableanalysisusingthicker
fllstagesandlongersettlementdelayperiodsyieldedthefollowing:
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 ft 60 days
2 4.5 ft 60 days
3 5.5 ft 40 days
4 4 ft 5 days to obtain FS =1.25
TOTALS 20 ft 165 days
Whenusingthetotalstressmethodofanalysisitisoftenbesttomaximizethe
initialfllheight.Doingthiswillproducethegreatestamountofsoilstrength
gainearlyintheconstructionofthefll.Inaddition,keepingthesubsequent
stagesoffllassmallaspossibleenablestheflltobeconstructedwiththe
shortesttotaldelayperiod,thoughintheend,thetimerequiredtoachievethe
fnallong-termsafetyfactorisapproximatelythesameforeitherapproach.
9-A.4 Effective Stress Analysis Procedure Example
Inthisapproach,thedrainedsoilstrength,or
CD
,isusedtocharacterizethe
strengthofthesubsoil.FromFigure 9-5,
CD
is27.However,itisthebuildup
ofporepressureduringembankmentplacementthatcausestheembankment
tobecomeunstable.Theamountofporepressurebuildupisdependentonhow
rapidlytheembankmentloadisplaced.Givenenoughtime,theporepressure
buildupwilldissipateandthesoilwillregainitseffectivestrength,depending
onthepermeabilityandcompressibilityofthesoil.Thekeytothisapproachis
todeterminetheamountofporepressurebuildupthatcanbetoleratedbefore
theembankmentsafetyfactordropstoacriticallevelwhenusing
CD
for the
soilstrength.AlimitequilibriumstabilityprogramsuchasXSTABLshouldbe
usedtodeterminetheporepressureincreasethatcanbetoleratedandresultin
theembankmenthavingasafetyfactorof1.15to1.2duringconstruction.
Many of the newer stability programs have the ability to accept r
u
values
directlyortocalculater
u
.Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbeawareofhow
thestabilityprogramcalculatesr
u
.WhenusingXSTABL,thegeotechnical
designershouldnotinputr
u

directly.Instead,heshouldinputexcesspore
pressuresdirectlyintotheprogramandthenrunthestabilityanalysis.
Therateoffllconstructionrequiredtopreventr
u
from being exceeded
cannotbedetermineddirectlyfromthedrainedanalysis,asembankment
stabilityneedsinadditiontothesubsoilconsolidationrateaffectstherate
ofconstruction.Thetotalconstructiontimecannotthereforebedetermined
directlyusingC
v
andthepercentconsolidationrequiredforstability.
UsingtheexamplegeometryshowninFigure 9-A-1,thegeotechnical
designershoulddividethesubsurfaceintolayersandzonesinamanner
similar to that shown in Figure 9-A-4.Thegeotechnicaldesignerthen
determinesthestressincreaseduetothefrststageoffll,6feetinthiscase.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-51
J anuary 2010
Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollowsbasedonanequivalentstrip
footingwidthof103ft:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

6 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
3
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.019 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
NotethatZone3hasthesamestressincreaseasZone1.
AsdiscussedpreviouslyinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.4,theporepressure
increaseisdependentupontheloadandthedegreeofconsolidation.Using
Equation9-15withanassumedpercentconsolidation,determinethepore
pressurechangetouseinthestabilityanalysis.Itwillbenecessarytoperform
the analysis for several percent consolidations to determine what the critical
porepressureisformaintainingstability.
K
0
=1-sin
CD
=1sin27=0.55
B=1.0,assumingsubsoilisfullysaturated.ForLayer1,Zone1,at30%
consolidation,
u
p
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](764psf)(1-.30)=374psf
Theremainingvaluesareasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p30%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p35%

(psf)
U
(%)
u
p40%

(psf)
1
1 764 30 374 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
2
1 429 30 209 35 194 40 179
2 585 30 286 35 265 40 245
3
1 764 30 373 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
TheslopestabilityresultsfromXSTABLareprovidedinFigure9-A-7.For
thetwosubsoillayers,allzones,adrainedfrictionangle,
CD
,of27 was
used,andtheporepressureincreasesu
p
fromthetabulatedsummaryof
thecalculationsprovidedabovewereinsertedintothesoilzonesshownin
Figure9-A-7asporepressureconstants.Theresultsshowninthisfgureare
forapercentconsolidationof35%.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 1 drained analysis at percent consolidation of 35% and a fll
height of 6 ft
Figure 9-A-7
UsingEquation 9-16,r
u
atthisstageofthefllconstructionisdeterminedas
follows:
r
u
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](1-0.35)=0.45
Subsequentstagesoffllconstructionarecheckedtodeterminethecritical
porepressureratio,uptothepointwheretheflliscompleted.Thepore
pressureratioisevaluatedatseveralfllheights,butnotasmanystages
needtobeanalyzedasisthecasefortotalstressanalysis,astherateoffll
constructionisnotthefocusofthedrainedanalysis.Allthatneedstobe
achievedhereistoadequatelydefnetherelationshipbetweenr
u
andthefll
height.Therefore,oneintermediatefllheight(13.5ft)andthemaximumfll
height(20ft)willbechecked.
Forafllheightof13.5ft,thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows
basedonanequivalentstripfootingwidthof88ft:
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-53
J anuary 2010
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

13 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.97 1,690 psf 1,700 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.90 1,690 psf 1,580 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.40 1,690 psf 702 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.55 1,690 psf 965 psf
3
1 5 ft 0.049 0.75 1,690 psf 1,320 psf
2 20 ft 0.019 0.70 1,690 psf 1,230 psf
NotethatthestressincreaseinZone3isnowdifferentthanthestressincrease
inZone1,duetothefactthattheembankmentslopenowisoverthetopof
Zone3.
Theporepressureincreaseresultingfroma13.5fthighfll,assumingvarious
percentconsolidations,isrecalculatedusingEquation 9-15asillustrated
earlier.Theresultsofthesecalculationsareastabulatedbelow:
Zone Layer

v
(I x
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p55%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p60%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p65%
(psf)
1
1 1702 55 534 60 475 65 415
2 1580 55 496 60 441 65 386
2
1 702 55 220 60 196 65 171
2 695 55 218 60 194 65 170
3
1 1316 55 413 60 367 65 321
2 1229 55 386 60 343 65 300
Notethathigherpercentconsolidationsaretargeted,asahigherpercent
consolidationislikelytohaveoccurredbythetimethefllis13.5fthigh.
TheslopestabilityresultsfromXSTABLareprovidedinFigure 9-A-8.For
thetwosubsoillayers,allzones,adrainedfrictionangle,
CD
,of27 was
used,andtheporepressureincreasesu
p
fromthetabulatedsummaryofthe
calculationsprovidedabovewereinsertedintothesoilzonesshowninFigure
9-A-8asporepressureconstants.Theresultsshowninthisfgurearefora
percentconsolidationof60%.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 2 drained analysis at percent consolidation of 60% and a fll
height of 13.5 ft
Figure 9-A-8
UsingEquation 9-16,r
u
atthisstageofthefllconstructionisdeterminedas
follows:
r
u
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](1-0.60)=0.28
Similarly,thesecalculationswereconductedforthefullfllheightof20ft,
andforaminimumFS=1.15to1.2,r
u
wasdeterminedtobe0.22(U=68%).
Insummary,theporepressureratiosthatshouldnotbeexceededduringfll
constructionareasfollows:
Total Fill Height (ft) r
u
6 0.45
13.5 0.28
20 0.22
Valuesofr
u
couldbeinterpolatedtoestimatethecriticalr
u
atotherfllheights.
Itshouldbeassumedthatifthesevaluesofr
u
areusedtocontroltherateof
fllconstruction,thetimerequiredtobuildthefllwillbeapproximatelyas
determinedfromthetotalstressanalysisprovidedintheprevioussection.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-55
J anuary 2010
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-1
Chapter 10 Contents
Page
10.1 Overview and Data Acquisition 10-3
10.1.1 Overview 10-3
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 10-3
10.1.3 Field Exploration 10-4
10.1.3.1 Test Borings 10-4
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing 10-5
10.2 Overall Design Considerations 10-6
10.2.1 Overview 10-6
10.2.2 Design Parameters 10-7
10.3 Soil Cut Design 10-7
10.3.1 Design Approach and Methodology 10-7
10.3.2 Seepage Analysis and Impact on Design 10-9
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design 10-9
10.3.4 Stability Improvement Techniques 10-10
10.3.5 Erosion and Piping Considerations 10-11
10.4 Use of Excavated Materials 10-12
10.5 Special Considerations for Loess 10-13
10.6 PS&E Considerations 10-20
10.7 References 10-20
Appendix 10-A
Washington State Department of Transportation Loess Slope Design Checklist 10-23
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-2 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-3
Chapter 10 Soil Cut Design
10.1 OverviewandDataAcquisition
10.1.1 Overview
During the project defnition phase, the project designer provides a description of the proposed cuts
to the Region Materials Engineer (RME) as outlined in the WSDOT Design Manual (DM) Chapter
510. The designer may prepare preliminary cross sections using the criteria presented in DM Chapter
640.07. For side hill conditions the cross sections should extend up to the top of the hill or a controlling
feature such as a rock outcrop or level bench. The RME with assistance from the HQ Geotechnical
Division as needed, reviews existing information, performs a site reconnaissance and provides conceptual
recommendations.
During the project design phase the subsurface investigation is completed and the cut slope design
recommendations are prepared. Included in the recommendations are the slope inclinations required for
stability, mitigation requirements if needed and the usability of excavated cut material. Typically for cut
slope design, adequate geotechnical information is provided during the project design phase to complete
the PS&E Development. Additional geotechnical work might be needed when right of way cannot be
obtained or design requirements change.
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
General procedures for site reconnaissance are presented in GDM Chapter 2. Special considerations
for cut slopes should be made during the offce and site review. The offce review of aerial photos from
different dates may reveal if there has been any change in slope angle or vegetation over time. Landforms
identifed on the photos should be feld checked to determine if they can be related to geologic processes
and soil type.
The existing natural and cut slopes in the project vicinity should be inspected for performance. Measure
the inclination and height of existing cut slopes, and look for erosion or slope stability problems. Ask
the regional maintenance engineer about any stability/erosion problems with the existing cut slopes. In
general, if stable slopes will be cut back into an existing slope 10 feet or less and at the same or fatter
angle of inclination, the slope height does not increase signifcantly because of the cut, there is no
evidence of instability, there is no evidence the material type is likely to be different at the excavation
face, and there is no potential for seepage to be encountered in the cut, then typically no further
exploration will be required.
Observation of existing slopes should include vegetation, in particular the types of vegetation that may
indicate wet soil. Indirect relationships, such as subsurface drainage characteristics may be indicated by
vegetative pattern. Assess whether tree roots may be providing anchoring of the soil and if there are any
existing trees near the top of the proposed cut that may become a hazard after the cut is completed.
Changes in ground surface slope angle may refect differences in physical characteristics of soil and rock
materials or the presence of water.
For cuts that are projected to be less than 10 feet in height, determine if further exploration is warranted
based on soil type and extent.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-4 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
10.1.3 Field Exploration
10.1.3.1 Test Borings
A minimum of one boring should be performed for each proposed soil cut slope greater than about 10 feet
in height. For longer cuts, horizontal spacing for borings parallel to the cut should generally be between
200 to 400 feet, based on site geology. Wider spacing may be considered if, based on existing data and
site geology, conditions are likely to be uniform and of low impact to construction and
long-term cut slope performance. Each landform should be explored, and the borings should be spaced
so that the extent of each soil type present is reasonably determined. At critical locations where slope
stability analysis is necessary, additional borings perpendicular to the cut should be provided in order to
model existing geologic conditions for use in slope stability analysis. The exploration program should
also be developed with consideration to the potential for use of the removed material as a source for
fll material elsewhere on the project. If the construction contract is set up with the assumption that the
cut material can be used as a materials source for fll or other uses on the project, it is important to have
adequate subsurface information to assess how much of the cut material is useable for that purpose. A
key to the establishment of exploration frequency for embankments is the potential for the subsurface
conditions to impact the construction of the cut, the construction contract in general, and the long-term
performance of the fnished project. The exploration program should be developed and conducted
in a manner that these potential problems, in terms of cost, time, and performance, are reduced to an
acceptable level. The boring frequency described above may need to be adjusted by the geotechnical
designer to address the risk of such problems for the specifc project.
Borings should extend a minimum of 15 feet below the anticipated depth of the cut at the ditch line
to allow for possible downward grade revision and to provide adequate information for slope stability
analysis. Boring depths should be increased at locations where base stability is a concern due to
groundwater and/or soft or weak soil zones. Borings should extend through any weak zones into
competent material.
Hand augers, test pits, trenches or other similar means of exploration may be used for investigating
subsurface conditions for sliver cuts (additional cut in an existing natural or cut slope) or shallow cuts, if
the soil conditions are known to be fairly uniform.
10.1.3.2 Sampling
For soil cuts, it is important to obtain soil samples in order to perform laboratory index tests such as grain
size analysis, natural moisture content and Atterberg Limits. This is generally the best way to defne
site stratigraphy. In situ testing can be used to augment the exploration program. However, information
obtained from site specifc samples is necessary to verify and place in proper context soil classifcation,
strength and compressibility parameters obtained from in situ tests. Sampling should be performed for
the purpose of cut stability assessment and assessment of the cut material as a materials source, if the cut
material is needed as a materials source. Special considerations for loess slopes are discussed later in this
chapter.
For granular soils, SPT samples at 5 ft intervals and at changes in strata are generally suffcient. A
combination of SPTs and undisturbed thin-wall push tube (i.e. WSDOT undisturbed or Shelby tube)
should be used in cohesive soil. The vane shear test (VST) may also be performed in very soft to soft
cohesive soil. In general, the VST should be used in conjunction with laboratory triaxial testing unless
there is previous experience with the VST at the site. The pressuremeter test (PMT) and dilatometer test
(DMT) are expensive and generally have limited applicability for cut slope design, but are useful for
determining shear strength and overconsolidation ratio in stiff to hard cohesive soil.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-5
Soil Cut Design
Because it is generally desirable to obtain samples for laboratory testing, the static cone penetration test
(CPT) is not often used for routine exploration of cut slopes. However, the CPT provides continuous data
on the stratigraphic profle and can be used to evaluate in situ strength parameters in very soft to medium
stiff cohesive soil and very loose to medium dense sands.
10.1.3.3 Groundwater Measurement
Knowledge of groundwater elevations is critical for the design of cut slopes. The presence of
groundwater within or just below a proposed cut will affect the slope angle required to achieve and
maintain stability. For example, the presence of groundwater near the base of a proposed cut slope in
loess will preclude making a near vertical slope. Substantially more right-of-way may be required to
construct a fatter slope. Measurement of groundwater and estimates of its fuctuations are also important
for the design of appropriate drainage facilities. Groundwater that daylights within a proposed cut slope
may require installation of horizontal drains (generally for coarser grained noncohesive soils) or other
types of drainage facilities. Groundwater near the toe of slopes may require installation of underdrains.
Groundwater measurements are also important if slope stability analysis is required.
In granular soil with medium to high permeability, reliable groundwater levels can sometimes be obtained
during the drilling program. At a minimum, groundwater levels should be obtained at completion of
drilling after the water level has stabilized and 12 hours after drilling is completed for holes located in
medium to high permeability soils. In low permeability soils false water levels can be recorded, as it
often takes days for water levels to reach equilibrium; the water level is further obscured when drilling
fuid is used. In this case piezometers should be installed to obtain water levels after equilibrium has
been reached. Piezometers should be installed for any major cuts, or as determined by the geotechnical
designer, to obtain accurate water level information.
If slope stability analysis is required or if water levels might be present near the face of a cut slope,
piezometers should be installed in order to monitor seasonal fuctuations in water levels. Monitoring
of piezometers should extend through at least one wet season (typically November through April).
Continuous monitoring can be achieved by using electrical piezometers such as vibrating wire type in
conjunction with digital data loggers.
Values of permeability and infltration rates are generally determined based on correlations with grain
size and/or knowledge of the site soil based on previous experience. However, borehole permeability
tests, such as slug or pump tests, may be performed in order to design drainage facilities, especially if
horizontal drains may be used.
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing
Standard classifcation tests should be performed on representative samples for all soil cut slopes.
These tests include gradation analysis, moisture content, and Atterberg limits. These tests will provide
information to aid in determining appropriate slope inclinations, drainage design, and usability of the
cut material as a materials source for earthwork on the project. Additional tests will often be required to
determine the suitability of reusing soil excavated from a cut for other purposes throughout the project.
Examples include organic content to determine if a soil should be classifed as unsuitable and compaction
testing to aid in determining the optimum moisture content and shrink/swell factors for earthwork
calculations. pH and corrosivity tests should also be performed on samples at locations for proposed
drainage structures.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-6 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
If it is determined by the geotechnical designer that slope stability analysis should be performed,
laboratory strength testing on undisturbed samples may be required. Slope stability analysis requires
accurate information of soil stratigraphy and strength parameters, including cohesion (C), friction angle
(), undrained shear strength (S
u
), and unit weight for each layer. In-place density measurements can be
determined from WSDOT undisturbed, Dames and Moore, or Shelby tube samples.
Cohesive soil shear strength parameters should be obtained from undisturbed soil samples using
consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurement if portions of the proposed slope are
saturated or might become saturated in the future. Effective strength parameters from these tests should
be used to analyze cohesive soil cut slopes and evaluate long term effects of soil rebound upon unloading.
Unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests or direct shear tests can be used to obtain undrained
shear strength parameters for short term stability analysis, or when it is determined by the geotechnical
designer that total stress/strength parameters are suffcient. The choice of which test to perform should
be determined by the expected stress condition in the soil in relation to the anticipated failure surface. It
should be understood, however, that strength parameters obtained from unsaturated tests are dependent
on the moisture content at which the tests are performed. If the moisture content of the soil in question
increases in the future, even to levels still below saturation, the shear strength might be signifcantly
reduced, especially for cohesive soils. Repeated direct shear tests can be performed to determine residual
shear strength parameters for soils located in existing landslide areas. Residual strength parameters
should also be obtained for cuts in heavily overconsolidated clays, such as the Seattle clays (e.g., Lawton
formation), as the removal of soil can release locked in stresses and allow the clay to deform, causing its
strength to drop to a residual value.
It should be noted that for unsaturated soils, particularly cohesive soils, the natural moisture content of the
soil at the time of testing must be determined since this will affect the results. Consideration should be
given during stability analysis to adjusting strength parameters to account for future changes in moisture
content, particularly if feld testing was performed during the dry summer months and it is possible that
the moisture content of the soil will likely increase at some point in the future. In this case using the
values obtained from the feld directly may lead to unconservative estimates of shear strength.
10.2 OverallDesignConsiderations
10.2.1 Overview
Small cut slopes are generally designed based on past experience with similar soils and on engineering
judgment. Cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height usually require a more detailed geotechnical
analysis. Relatively fat (2H:1V or fatter) cuts in granular soil when groundwater is not present above
the ditch line, will probably not require rigorous analysis. Any cut slope where failure would result in
large rehabilitation costs or threaten public safety should obviously be designed using more rigorous
techniques. Situations that will warrant more in-depth analysis include large cuts, cuts with irregular
geometry, cuts with varying stratigraphy (especially if weak zones are present), cuts where high
groundwater or seepage forces are likely, cuts involving soils with questionable strength, or cuts in old
landslides or in formations known to be susceptible to landsliding.
A major cause of cut slope failures is related to the release of stress within the soil upon excavation. This
includes undermining the toe of the slope and oversteepening the slope angle, or as mentioned previously,
cutting into heavily overconsolidated clays. Careful consideration should be given to preventing these
situations for cut slopes by keeping the base of the slope as loaded as possible, by choosing an appropriate
slope angle (i.e. not oversteepening), and by keeping drainage ditches near the toe a reasonable distance
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-7
Soil Cut Design
away. For heavily overconsolidated clays, retaining walls rather than an open cut may be needed that will
prevent the deformation necessary to allow the soil strength to go to a residual value.
Consideration should also be given to establishing vegetation on the slope to prevent long-term erosion.
It may be diffcult to establish vegetation on slopes with inclinations greater than 2H:1V without the use
of erosion mats or other stabilization method.
10.2.2 Design Parameters
The major parameters in relation to design of cut slopes are the slope angle and height of the cut. For dry
cohesionless soil, stability of a cut slope is independent of height and therefore slope angle becomes the
only parameter of concern. For purely cohesive (= 0) soils, the height of the cut becomes the critical
design parameter. For c- and saturated soils, slope stability is dependent on both slope angle and height
of cut. Also critical to the proper design of cut slopes is the incorporation of adequate drainage facilities
to ensure that future stability or erosional problems do not occur.
10.3 SoilCutDesign
10.3.1 Design Approach and Methodology
Safe design of cut slopes is based either on past experience or on more in-depth analysis. Both
approaches require accurate information regarding geologic conditions obtained from standard feld
and laboratory classifcation procedures. Cut slope heights and inclinations provided in the WSDOT
Design Manual can be used unless indicated otherwise by the Geotechnical Designer. If the Geotechnical
Designer determines that a slope stability study is necessary, information that will be needed for analysis
include: an accurate cross section showing topography, proposed grade, soil unit profles, unit weight and
strength parameters (c,), (c,), or S
u
(depending on soil type and drainage and loading conditions) for
each soil unit, and location of the water table and fow characteristics.
Generally, the design factor of safety for static slope stability is 1.25. For pseudo-static seismic analysis
the factor of safety can be decreased to 1.1. Cut slopes are generally not designed for seismic conditions
unless slope failure could impact adjacent structures. These factors of safety should be considered as
minimum values. The geotechnical designer should decide on a case by case basis whether or not higher
factors of safety should be used based the consequences of failure, past experience with similar soils, and
uncertainties in analysis related to site and laboratory investigation.
Initial slope stability analysis can be performed using simple stability charts. See Abramson, et al.
(1996) for example charts. These charts can be used to determine if a proposed cut slope might be
subject to slope failure. If slope instability appears possible, or if complex conditions exist beyond the
scope of the charts, more rigorous computer methods such XSTABL, PCSTABL, SLOPE/W, etc. can be
employed (see GDM Chapter 7). As stated previously, effective use of these programs requires accurate
determination of site geometry including surface profles, soil unit boundaries, and location of the water
table, as well as unit weight and strength parameters for each soil type.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-8 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Because of the geology of Washington, many soil cuts will likely be in one of fve typical types of
deposits. These soils can be grouped based on geologic history and engineering properties into residual
soil, alluvial sand and gravel, glacially overconsolidated soil, colluvial deposits, and loess deposits. A
design procedure has been developed for loess slopes and is presented later in this chapter. A brief
discussion of the other three soil types follows:
Residual Soil. The most typical residual soil is encountered in the Coast Range in the southwest part
of the state. Other residual soil units weathered from rock formations such as the Renton, Cowlitz,
Ellensburg and Ringold are also encountered in other parts of the state. However, the soil in the coast
range is the most extensive residual soil found in the state and is the focus of this discussion. These
soils have formed from weathering of siltstone, sandstone, claystone and tuff, and typically consist
of soft to stiff silt, elastic silt and lean clay with varying amounts of rock fragments, sand and fat
clay. Because of the cohesive nature of the soil and the angular rock fragments, the soils often form
fairly steep natural slopes. Root strength from dense vegetation also contributes to the steep slopes.
Logging a slope can often cause it to become unstable within a few years. These slopes are likely to
become at least partially saturated during the winter and spring months. Groundwater also tends to
move unevenly through the soil mass following zones of higher permeability such as sand layers and
relict bedding and joint planes. For this reason, determination of representative groundwater
elevations with the use of open standpipe piezometers may be diffcult.
These slopes should generally be designed using total stress parameters to assess short-term strength
during initial loading, and also using effective stress parameters to assess long-term stability;
however, laboratory testing in these soils can be problematic because of variability and the presence
of rock fragments. Shallow surface failures and weak zones are common. Typical design slopes
should generally be 2H:1V or fatter. Vegetation should be established on cut slopes as soon as
possible.
Alluvial Sand and Gravel Deposits. Normally consolidated sand and gravel deposits in Washington
are the result of several different geologic processes. Post glacial alluvial deposits are located along
existing rivers and streams and generally consist of loose to medium dense combinations of sand,
gravel, silt and cobbles. In the Puget Sound region, extensive recessional outwash deposits were
formed during the retreat of glacial ice. These deposits generally consist of medium to very dense,
poorly graded sand and gravel with cobbles, boulders and varying amounts of silt.
In eastern Washington, extensive sand and gravel deposits were deposited during catastrophic
outburst foods from glacially dammed lakes in Montana. These deposits often consist of loose to
dense, poorly graded sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders and varying amounts of silt. Slopes
in sand and gravel deposits are generally stable at inclinations of from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V, with the
steeper inclinations used in the more granular soil units with higher relative densities. Perched water
can be a problem, especially in western Washington, when water collects along zones of silty soil
during wet months. These perched zones can cause shallow slope failures. If signifcant amounts of
silt are not present in the soil, vegetation is often diffcult to establish.
Glacially Overconsolidated Deposits. Glacially consolidated soils are found mainly in the Puget
Sound Lowland and the glacial valleys of the Cascades. For engineering purposes, these deposits can
generally be divided into cohesionless and cohesive soil. The cohesionless soil deposits are poorly
sorted and consist of very dense sand and gravel with silt, cobbles, and boulders. The soil units
exhibit some apparent cohesion because of the overconsolidation and fnes content. If little or no
groundwater is present, slopes will stand at near vertical inclinations for fairly long periods of time.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-9
Soil Cut Design
However, perched groundwater on low permeability layers is very often present in these slopes and
can contribute to instability. Typical inclinations in these soils range from 1.75H:1V to 1H:1V;
although, the steeper slope inclinations should be limited to slopes with heights of about 20 feet or
less. These slopes also work well with rockeries at slopes of 1H:6V to 1H:4V.
Overconsolidated cohesive soils such as the Seattle Clay consist of very hard silt and clay of
varying plasticity. These soils may stand at near vertical inclinations for very limited periods of time.
However, the relaxation of the horizontal stresses cause creep and can lead to fairly rapid failure.
Slopes in these soils should be designed based on their residual friction angle and often need to be
laid back at inclinations of 4H:1V to 6H:1V.
10.3.2 Seepage Analysis and Impact on Design
The introduction of water to a slope is a common cause of slope failures. The addition of water often
results in a reduction in shear strength of unsaturated soils. It raises the water table and adds to seepage
forces, raising pore pressures and causing a corresponding reduction in effective stress and shear strength
in saturated soil. Finally, it adds weight to the soil mass, increasing driving forces for slope failures. In
addition, it can cause shallow failures and surface sloughing and raveling. These problems are most
common in clay or silt slopes. It is important to identify and accurately model seepage within proposed
cut slopes so that adequate slope and drainage designs are employed.
For slope stability analysis requiring effective stress/strength parameters, pore pressures have to be
known or estimated. This can be done using several methods. The phreatic (water table) surface can
be determined by installing open standpipes or observation wells. This is the most common approach.
Piezometric data from piezometers can be used to estimate the phreatic surface, or peizometric surface if
confned fow conditions exist. A manually prepared fow net or a numerical method such as fnite element
analysis can be used provided suffcient boundary information is available. The pore pressure ratio (r
u
)
can also be used. However, this method is generally limited to use with stability charts or for determining
the factor of safety for a single failure surface.
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design
The importance of adequate drainage cannot be overstated when designing cut slopes. Surface drainage
can be accomplished through the use of drainage ditches and berms located above the top of the cut,
around the sides of the cut, and at the base of the cut. The following section on cut slopes in loess
contains a more in-depth discussion on surface drainage.
Subsurface drainage can be employed to reduce driving forces and increase soil shear strength by
lowering the water table, thereby increasing the factor of safety against a slope failure. Subsurface
conditions along cut slopes are often heterogeneous. Thus, it is important to accurately determine the
geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site in order to place drainage systems where they will be the
most effective. Subsurface drainage techniques available include cut-off trenches, horizontal drains and
relief wells.
Cut-off trenches are constructed by digging a lateral ditch near the top of the cut slope to intercept
ground water and convey it around the slope. They are effective for shallow groundwater depths. If
the groundwater table needs to be lowered to a greater depth, horizontal drains can be installed, if the
soils are noncohesive and granular in nature. Horizontal drains are generally not very effective in fner
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-10 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
grained soils. Horizontal drains consist of small diameter holes drilled at slight angles into a slope face
and backflled with perforated pipe wrapped in drainage geotextile. Installation might be diffcult in soils
containing boulders, cobbles or cavities. Horizontal drains require periodic maintenance as they tend
to become clogged over time. Relief wells can be used in situations where the water table is at a great
depth. They consist of vertical holes cased with perforated pipe connected to a disposal system such as
submersible pumps or discharge channels similar to horizontal drains. They are generally not common in
the construction of cut slopes.
Whatever subsurface drainage system is used, monitoring should be implemented to determine its
effectiveness. Typically, piezometers or observation wells are installed during exploration. These
should be left in place and periodic site readings should be taken to determine groundwater levels or pore
pressures depending on the type of installation. High readings would indicate potential problems that
should be mitigated before a failure occurs.
Surface drainage, such as brow ditches at the top of the slope, and controlling seepage areas as the cut
progresses and conveying that seepage to the ditch at the toe of the cut, should be applied to all cut
slopes. Subsurface drainage is more expensive and should be used when stability analysis indicates
pore pressures need to be lowered in order to provide a safe slope. The inclusion of subsurface drainage
for stability improvement should be considered in conjunction with other techniques outlined below to
develop the most cost effective design meeting the required factor of safety.
10.3.4 Stability Improvement Techniques
There are a number of options that can be used in order to increase the stability of a cut slope. Techniques
include:
Flattening slopes
Benching slopes
Lowering the water table (discussed previously)
Structur