Geotechnical Procedures

Handbook
June 2012
1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this handbook is to provide Engineers with a guide to the performance of
geotechnical activities, specific to Build Change projects. General guidelines are provided
covering the geotechnical phases of a typical project.

This handbook was not intended to be a comprehensive procedural or design reference for
geotechnical engineering. Instead, this handbook is focused on simplified investigative and
design procedures that are suited to the Haiti office of Build Change, based on locally available
resources and equipment. This handbook is tailored to the specific geotechnical needs of the
homeowner driven retrofit and new construction programs that Build Change has undertaken,
and is suited to the appropriate level of geotechnical risk for such programs. More complex or
critical structures will require the use of more sophisticated and refined investigation, testing,
design, and analysis techniques.

1.1 Geotechnical Tasks in Typical Projects

1.1.1 Planning, Development, and Engineering Phase

 Prepare geotechnical scope of services
 Review available data
 Perform field reconnaissance of existing site and structures
 Plan and supervise field investigation program
 Plan and supervise field and laboratory testing programs
 Analyze available data
 Prepare preliminary geotechnical report summarizing data and
providing recommendations
 Identify potential construction requirements and problems

1.1.2 Project Design Phase

 Perform additional field investigation and provide additional or revised
recommendations if the project has substantially changed since
previous investigation
 Assist design engineers with interpreting and applying geotechnical
recommendations
 Review plans to ensure conformance to recommendations
 Identify construction activities and techniques to minimize potential
construction problems

1.1.3 Construction Phase

 Establish construction criteria for geotechnical portions of project
 Inspect construction procedures to ensure compliance with design and
established checklists
 Solve geotechnical-related problems that arise during construction
2.0 Subsurface Investigation Procedures

Due to the varying complexity of projects and soil conditions, it is difficult to establish rigid
guidelines for development of subsurface investigation programs. However, there are basic
phases that should be followed for any project.

The basic steps are summarized in this section, as well as commonly used methods in Haiti for
performing field investigations.

2.1 Review of Project Requirements

The first step in developing a subsurface investigation plan is a thorough review of the
project requirements. Engineers should become familiar with the project location,
structure locations, structure types, approximate structure loads, and any other mitigating
factors specific to the project site. This information will aid in the development of a
subsurface investigation program.

2.2 Review of Available Data

After gaining a thorough understanding of the specific project requirements, Engineers

should collect all relevant information on the project site. Review of this information
will allow the Engineer to develop an understanding of the site geology, geography, and
topography of the area. This information will also assist in developing the subsurface
investigation program, as well as locating potential problems in the field.

2.2.1 Topographic Maps

Topographic maps portray physical features, configuration and elevation of the

ground surface, and surface water features. This data may be required to
determine site accessibility, as well as potential problem areas.

The U.S. Army Map Service has provided Topographic Maps of select portions of
Haiti (1:12,500 scale). These maps are available electronically at:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/haiti.html /.
 
2.2.2 Aerial Photographs

Aerial photographs can provide the basis for reconnaissance. Depending on the
age of the photos they can show manmade features, excavations, and fills that
may affect accessibility of the site. Aerial photographs can also indicate potential
geologic hazards, including ground depressions and landslide features.

2.2.3 Geologic Maps and Reports

Geologic maps provide considerable information on the location and setting of

various geologic strata, as well as provide detailed information on the geologic
 units. Data from geologic maps can be used to determine rock conditions at the
site. Geologic maps can also be used to indirectly determine soil types, as the
parent bedrock type factors into this determination.

Geologic and Site Classification maps for the Port-au-Prince area have been
developed by a joint UNDP project and are available in Appendix A.

2.3 Field Reconnaissance

The Engineer should visit the site following review of available data to verify gathered
information and become familiar with actual field conditions. The following items
should be noted during the field reconnaissance:
 Adjacent structure should be inspected to determine their foundation performance,
as well as any settlement issues.
 Note any features that may restrict accessibility during the subsurface
investigation program, including: structures, overhead utilities, signs of buried
utilities, or property restrictions.
 Note any features that may assist in the engineering analyses, including: angle of
natural slopes or stability of open excavations (including latrine excavations).
 Any drainage features, including erosion characteristics
 Any features that may require additional investigation, including areas of
depression or settlement, landslide areas, etc.

2.4 Field Exploration Methods

Field explorations are developed based on information gained during the field
reconnaissance. There are numerous methods for completing field exploration programs.
Some of the more common methods which are reasonably suited for conditions in Haiti
are described below. Many of these methods are supplemented with in-situ testing.

Geotechnical consultants which provide field exploration services in Haiti are presented
in Appendix B.

2.4.1 Test Pits and Trenches

These are the simplest methods for investigating and inspecting surficial soils.
They consist of excavations dug by hand or by excavation equipment. Hand
excavations can be performed with pick and shovel or with hand auger
equipment. Test pits can be completed fairly rapidly without the same access
constraints as other exploration methods. However, the depth of exploration is
severely limited and safe excavations cannot be performed in soft or loose soils or
below the water table.

For various safety reasons, the reasonable depth of hand excavated test pits should
be limited to 2.0 meters in soil and 3.0 meters in weathered rock. Nearby, on-
going or recently completed latrine excavations can also provide a wealth of
geotechnical information.

2.4.2 Borehole Methods

A variety of equipment and techniques are available to perform borings and

obtain soil samples. The methods used to advance the boring and obtain samples
should be well suited to the soil and groundwater conditions to ensure that
suitable quality soil samples are retrieved. Special attention should be made to
clearing the borehole of slough or loose soil before sampling methods are
attempted. Below the groundwater table, drilling fluid is required to maintain
stability of the borehole. Without drilling fluids, the borehole may collapse due to
the water pressure and limit the quality of retrieved samples. For most subsurface
investigation programs borings are advanced with solid stem augers, hollow stem
auger, or rotary wash boring methods. Haitian geotechnical consultants appear to
be suitably equipped to perform these types of boring methods. Figure 2-1
presents a typical truck-mounted drilling rig.

Figure 2-1. Truck mounted drilling rig.

2.4.2.1 Solid Stem Augers

Solid stem augers are generally limited to stiff cohesive soil units (clay or
weathered rock), where the sidewalls of the boring will remain stable for
the entire depth of the boring. A drill bit, usually chosen based on soil
conditions, is attached to the leader auger flight to cut the soil. The
remaining flights of auger act as a screw conveyer to bring the cuttings to
the surface. As the auger drills into the soil, additional flights of auger are
added until the desired depth is reached.

Due to their limited application, solid stem augers are generally not
suitable for use in investigations requiring soil sampling. When used,
careful observation of the resistance to penetration and the vibrations or
“chatter” of the drill bit can provide valuable information for interpretation
of subsurface conditions. Careful and continuous monitoring of drill
cuttings is also required to identify changes in stratification between
sample locations.

2.4.2.2 Hollow Stem Augers

In general, hollow stem augers are very similar to solid stem augers,
except that they have a hollow annular space. When the hole is being
advanced a center stem, plug, and bit are inserted into the hollow center of
the auger and prevent soil cuttings from entering the annular space as the
boring is advanced. Once the desired sampling depth is reached the center
stem and plug are removed, and the sampler is lowered through the hollow
stem.

Hollow stem auger methods are commonly used in cohesive or granular

soils above the groundwater table, where the boring walls may be
unstable. The augers form a temporary casing that allows sampling to
continue below the bit. Significant issues may arise from using hollow
stem auger methods below the water table and this practice is not
recommended. Figure 2-2 presents a photo of hollow stem augers.

Figure 2-2. Hollow stem augers.

 2.4.2.3 Rotary Wash Borings

The rotary wash boring methods are generally the most appropriate for
advancing borings below the water table in soil. In rotary wash borings,
the borehole sidewalls are supported either with casing or with the drilling
fluid. When casing is used the boring is advanced sequentially be driving
the casing to the desired sampling depth, cleaning the bottom of the hole,
and then sampling through the casing.

For holes drilled using drilling fluid to stabilize the borehole walls, casing
is still recommended at the top of the hole to prevent sloughing of the
ground from surface activities and to facilitate the circulation of drilling
fluid. In addition to stabilizing the borehole walls, the drilling fluid also
removes the soil cuttings from the drill hole. Bentonitic clay or synthetic
drilling fluids can be added to drilling water to increase the density of the
mixture and stabilize borehole sidewalls. During drilling it is important to
maintain the head of drilling fluid above the ground surface to maintain a
positive pressure the full length of the boring.

2.4.2.4 Rock Coring

A core barrel is advanced through rock using downward pressure and

rotation. Water circulating through drill rods and core barrel removes the
drill cuttings and cools the bit. The rate of advance is controlled so that
the maximum recovery of rock core can be attained. Continuous core
recovery is attempted through 1.5 meter long core runs. Rock coring is
not anticipated to be a significant need of subsurface investigation
programs for Build Change Haiti.

2.4.3 Geophysical Methods

There are a variety of geophysical methods that can be used to delineate

subsurface conditions and stratiagraphic profiles. Methods include the
measurement of mechanical waves within or along the ground surface, as well as
electromagnetic techniques. Geophysical methods are generally non-intrusive
and non-destructive. As such, they can be completed rapidly and economically.

Geophysical methods can provide information on the general subsurface profile,

the depth to bedrock, depth to groundwater, and subsurface anomalies. Results
can vary significantly and can be affected by many factors, including the depth to
groundwater or non-homogeneity of soil stratum thickness. All surface
geophysical tests are limited by decreasing resolution with depth. For this reason,
geophysical tests should always be accompanied by conventional boring methods
and the results must be interpreted by an experienced professional.
 2.4.3.1 Seismic Refraction and Reflection

These methods rely on the fact that seismic waves travel through different
materials at different velocities. The times required for an induced seismic
wave to travel to set receptors after being refracted or reflected by the
various subsurface materials are measured. The data is then used to
interpret material types and thicknesses. Seismic refraction is limited to
material stratifications in which density or seismic velocity or materials
increases with depth.

Seismic tests are completed with the use of a sledgehammer, strike plate,
geophones (receptor), and seismograph. The geophones are strung along
the ground surface at a consistent spacing and then attached to the
seismograph. A steel strike plate struck by a sledgehammer serves as the
source of seismic waves. The seismograph records the time it takes the
seismic waves to travel to each geophone. The raw data files are
processed by a geophysical professional and a subsurface profile is
generated.

2.4.3.2 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

The velocity of electromagnetic radiation is dependent upon the material

through which it is travelling. GPR uses this principle by sending short
impulses of high frequency electromagnetic waves into the ground using a
pair of transmitting and receiving antennae. GPR antennae are passed
over the ground surface in a regular grid pattern, to ensure proper
coverage. The GPR surveys provide a quick image of the subsurface
conditions. GPR can be a valuable tool to define subsurface strata, detect
underground tanks or utilities, and can also be used to detect rebar in a
building slab.

2.4.4 Soil Sampling

Common methods of sampling during field explorations in Haiti are described

below.

2.4.4.1 Bulk (Bag) Samples

These samples are generally obtained from test pit excavations or from
recovered soil cuttings from borehole methods. The quantity of sample
ranges on the desired type of soil testing, but can range up to 25 kg.
Testing performed on these samples is generally limited to classification,
moisture content, and moisture-density tests.

2.4.4.2 Split-Barrel
Also know wn as the split spoon sam mpler, this mmethod is useed in conjuncction
with the Sttandard Penetration Testt (SPT). The sampler is a 50 mm. (O O.D.)
split barrell that is driven into the gground by a 68 kg. hamm mer falling
through a height
h of 76
6 cm. After tthe sampler is driven 450 mm. the
sampler is withdrawn from the borrehole and thhe sample reemoved. Thhe
recovered soil is consiidered a distuurbed samplle and is not suitable for
strength orr consolidatiion testing, bbut is suitablle for classiffication testinng
and visual identificatio on. Split barrrels are cappable of recovering a varriety
of soil types, from san nds and graveels to fine cllays. A typiccal split spoon
sampler is presented in n Figure 2-3 .

Figure 2-3. Split spoon sa

ampler.

2.4.4.3 Sh
helby Tube

A Shelby Tube
T sampleer is a thin-w
walled tube w with a diameeter of 75 mm m
and lengthh of 750 mm. The tube iis pushed intto the soil wiith a relativeely
rapid, smoooth stroke. This producces an undistturbed sample which cann be
suitable fo
or strength orr consolidatiion testing, aas well as claassification
testing. Thhe use of Shhelby tube is generally reestricted to ccohesive soills,
which hav ve suitable ad
dhesion to reemain in the tube once reetracted.
3.0 Subsurface Investigation Standards

A subsurface investigation program should be completed in each neighborhood that Build

Change plans to complete retrofit or new construction programs. This chapter presents
guidelines to plan a subsurface investigation program. As the requirements will vary
with the project conditions, engineering judgment is essential in tailoring the subsurface
investigation program to the specific project.

Engineers have a variety of methods and equipment available to them when completing
subsurface investigations. Whenever possible, subsurface investigations should be
focused on the performance of test pits or completion of borings, such that soil samples
can be collected and tested. This practice ensures that physical properties of the soil are
tested and engineering properties of the soils are derived from these tests. Other
methods, including geophysical testing and select in-situ tests, can certainly be used to
supplement excavation or boring techniques, but should not be solely relied upon during
the performance of a subsurface investigation.

3.1.1 Frequency and Depth of Subsurface Investigations

The location and frequency of sampling depends on the type and critical nature of
the structure, the soil and rock formations, the known variability of stratification,
and the foundation loads. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide guidelines for selecting
minimum investigation depths, frequency, and spacing for various geotechnical
features. In many cases, it may be necessary to extend the depth of a boring and
increase boring frequency to better define the geologic setting at a project site.
Generally, it should be assumed that the structure may have an influence on the
supporting subgrade soils to a depth of two times the footing width for static loads
and four times the footing width for seismic loads.

The frequency and spacing of investigations will depend on the nature of the
structure being designed, the variability of subsurface conditions, and the
investigative phase being performed. For conceptual design and for areas with a
fairly uniform subsurface profile, a very wide spacing may be considered
acceptable. Subsurface investigation programs must be flexible to adjust to
variations in subsurface conditions, regardless of how well they were planned.
Table 3-1. Investigation Depth Standards.
Geotechnical
Recommend Investigation Depth
Feature
For isolated footings of length L and width B, where L is less
than 2B, the investigation depth should extend a minimum of
two footing widths below the bearing level.

For isolated footings where L is greater than 5B, the

Spread Footings
investigation depth should extend a minimum of four footing
widths below the bearing level.

For isolated footings where L is between 2B and 5B, the

investigation depth will be determined by linear interpolation.
The investigation depth should extend below the final ground
Retaining Walls
line between 0.75 and 1.5 times the retaining wall height.

Table 3-2. Investigation Layout Standards.

Geotechnical
Subsurface Investigation Layout
Feature
One subsurface investigation (boring or test pit) should be
Spread Footing completed for every 5 hectares of a neighborhood.
(Neighborhood
Evaluation) Additional subsurface investigations should be completed in
areas of erratic and varying soil conditions.
A minimum of one subsurface investigation should be
Retaining Walls completed for retaining walls that are greater than 4.0 meters in
height.
4.0 In-situ Testing

In-situ testing is a vital complement to a subsurface investigation program, especially in soils

where proper samples cannot be collected (soft clays, loose sands, and soils below water table).
For each in-situ test, a brief description of the equipment, the test method, and the use of the data
is presented. There are various other in-situ tests that are not commonly completed in Haiti and
are considered outside the scope of this manual.

4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test is one of the most widely used field tests. It is a relatively
simple test with a wide range of correlations to physical and engineering properties of
soils. A soil sample is also obtained with each test.

To perform the test, a standard split barrel sampler is driven into the ground by a 68 kg.
hammer falling through a height of 76 cm. Generally the sampler is driven at the bottom
of a borehole. After the sampler is driven a total of 450 mm. (through three 150 mm.
increments) the sampler is withdrawn and the sample removed. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler for each of the three 150 mm. increments is recorded. The
sum of the number of blows from the second and third increment is called the SPT N-
value (blows per 0.3 m.).

The test is highly dependent on the equipment used and the operator performing the test.
The most important factor is the energy efficiency of the system. In current practice there
are two methods for delivery the energy to the sampler, the cathead and rope or automatic
hammer systems. A rotating cathead and rope system is commonly used and their
efficiency depends on a number of factors, including type of hammer, number of rope
turns, condition of the cathead, and actual drop height. Recent trends have seen a shift
towards the automatic hammer system to reduce some of the inefficiencies associated
with these factors.

The SPT N-value is calibrated to the energy of the hammer system. Standard practice
using the cathead system delivers energy efficiencies ranging between 35 and 85 percent,
with an average of 60 percent. Newer automatic hammers can deliver efficiencies
ranging between 80 and 95 percent. Often, the energy corrected N-value, reported as N60,
(adjusted to 60 percent efficiency) is used for correlations. While the energy efficiencies
of specific hammer systems will not be measured in Haiti, a reasonable assumption of 60
percent and 80 percent efficiency can be made for cathead and automatic hammer
systems, respectively.

In some correlative relationships, the N-value must be normalized for overburden

pressure, designated (N1)60. The overburden stress at the test depth is normalized to 95.8
kPa (1 tsf).
4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test

The DCP test is similar to the SPT, but the equipment is hand operated and portable. The
DCP is driven into the ground using a 8 kg. hammer dropped from a height of 575 mm.
The number of blows required to advance the cone over a 150 mm. increment is
recorded. A single test generally consists of two increments. Samples are not obtained
during DCP testing.

Blow counts from DCP testing can generally be used to identify material type and
density. While correlations between blow counts and engineering properties of soil exist,
they are generally not as widely used as those correlations for the SPT. Figure 4-1
presents such a correlation between DCP and SPT.

Figure 4-1. Correlation Between DCP (DPI) and SPT.

4.3 Rebar Field Test

The rebar field test is a very simple test in which a length of #4 bar is penetrated into the
ground using the tester’s bodyweight or 2.3 kg. hammer. Results of the field test can be
loosely correlated with the density of the soil and relative SPT N-value, as shown in
Section 6.1.1.
5.0 Laboratory Testing

As with other phases of the subsurface investigation program, the laboratory testing program
must be carefully planned and executed, but be flexible enough to be modified based on findings
or test results. This chapter presents a brief description of each test, the data generated, and how
the results might be used in design. There are several other laboratory soils tests that are not
described herein, as they provide little benefit to specific needs of Build Change Haiti, and are
considered outside the scope of this manual.

5.1 Visual Identification of Soils

The purpose of this test is to verify the field description of soil color and soil type.
Visual identification should also be used to select samples for laboratory testing. Visual
examination of the sample includes color, contents, and consistency, as determined by
handling a small portion of the sample (similar to field description).

5.2 Moisture Content

The purpose of this test is to determine the amount of water present in a quantity of soil
in terms of its dry unit weight and to provide general correlations with strength,
settlement, workability, and other properties. The test is completed by oven-drying a soil
sample of known weight at 110 degrees Celsius until all free water is evaporated, which
usually takes 12 to 18 hours.

Determination of the moisture content of soils is one of the most commonly completed
laboratory tests on soil samples. The moisture content of soil, when combined with data
obtained from other tests, provides significant information on the characteristics of the
soil.

5.3 Sieve Analysis

The sieve analysis is used to determine the various percentages of various grain sizes
contained within a soil sample. The grain size distribution is used to determine the
textural classification of the soil (i.e. sand, gravel, clay), which provides useful
information in evaluating characteristics such as permeability, strength, and swelling
potential. The test is completed by washing a soil sample through a series of sieves
(screens). The soil retained on each sieve is collected, dried, and weighed to determine
the percentage of material passing that sieve size. The results of the sieve analysis are
plotted on a grain size distribution chart.

5.4 Atterberg Limits

The Atterberg Limits test is used to describe the consistency and plasticity of fine-grained
soils with varying degrees of moisture. For the portion of soil passing the No. 40 sieve
the moisture content is varied to identify two stages of soil behavior in terms of
consistency, which are known as the plastic limit and the liquid limit.
The plastic limit is the moisture content of a soil at the boundary between the semi-solid
and plastic state. The liquid limit is the moisture content of a soil at the boundary
between the plastic and liquid state. These values are useful in soils classification and
have been correlated to other soil properties.

The plastic limit is determined by establishing the moisture content at which the material
can be rolled into threads 3 mm. in diameter without crumbling. The liquid limit is
determined by establishing the moisture content at which two halves of a soil cake will
flow together for a distance of 13 mm. along the bottom of the groove separating the
halves, when the bowl they are in is dropped 25 times, at a specified height and at a
specified rate. A special Casagrande device is used to complete the liquid limit test, as
presented in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1. Casagrande device.

5.5 Classification of Soils

The classification of soils is to provide very concise manner information on the type and
fundamental characteristics of soils. The grain size distribution and Atterberg limits are
crucial to determining the classification of soils per the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS). Soil classifications have been correlated to other soil properties.

5.6 Other Soil Tests

There are various other laboratory soil tests that focus on determining soil strength,
permeability, consolidation, and other soil properties. A description of these soil tests is
not provided, but can be found in other sources.
6.0 Materials Description, Classification, and Logging

During field exploration a log must be kept of the materials encountered. A trained engineer or
geologist is usually responsible for keeping the log. Details of the subsurface conditions
encountered, including basic materials descriptions, and details of the drilling and sampling
program should be recorded. Material descriptions and classification are heavily relied upon
throughout the remainder of the subsurface investigation program, as well as the subsequent
design and construction phases.

6.1 Materials Description and Classification

Soil description and identification is the systematic, precise, and complete naming of
soils, while soil classification is the grouping of soil with similar engineering properties
into a category based on the results of completed laboratory index tests (i.e. gradation,
Atterberg limits). It is important to distinguish between visual identification and
classification to minimize conflicts between general visual evaluation of soils versus
more precise laboratory testing supported by index testing.

A detailed description for each material encountered during a subsurface investigation

should be included on the log. The extent of detail including in the description will
depend on the material encountered and on the purpose of the project. The material
descriptions should be detailed enough to provide the Engineer with an understanding of
the material at the site. It is not economically feasible to complete laboratory testing on
each recovered sample; therefore, descriptions should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate
grouping of like samples and selection of representative samples for testing.

6.1.1 Soils Description

The procedure for completing a field description of soils should include a visual
examination of the soil and simple manual field tests to identify soil
characteristics. A detailed soil description should include the following:
 Relative density or consistency adjective
 Moisture content adjective
 Color description
 Plasticity adjective for silts and clays
 Constituents

The various elements of a soil description should generally be stated in the order
given. Following are examples for a coarse grained (sand) and fine grained (clay)
soil.
 Dense, moist, brown, silty SAND.
 Medium stiff, dry, tan, low plasticity CLAY with fine sand.
 6.1.1.1 Relative Density or Consistency

The relative density or consistency of soil samples is obtained from the results
of penetration tests, namely the Standard Penetration Test. The consistency of
clays and silts varies from soft to firm to stiff to hard. The density of sands
and gravels ranges from very loose to firm to dense and very dense.
Suggested guidelines are given in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for estimating in place
consistency or density of soils from penetration tests.

Table 6-1. Estimation of Soil Density.

Measured SPT Apparent Field Rebar Test Behavior
N-value Density
0-4 Very Loose Easily penetrated by hand
5 - 10 Loose Difficult penetration by hand
11 - 25 Medium Easily penetrated when driven with 2
Dense kg. hammer
26 - 50 Dense Penetration of only a few cm. when
driven with 2 kg. hammer
Greater than 50 Very Dense Penetration of only a few mm. when
driven with 2 kg. hammer.

Table 6-2. Estimation of Soil Consistency.

Measured SPT Consistency Results of Manual Manipulation
N-value
0-1 Very Soft Sample extrudes between fingers when
squeezed
2-4 Soft Sample can be remolded with light
finger pressure
5-8 Firm Sample can be remolded with strong
finger pressure
9 - 15 Stiff Sample can be indented by fingernail
16 - 30 Very Stiff Sample can barely be indented by
fingernail
Greater than 30 Hard Sample cannot be indented by fingernail

6.1.1.2 Water Content (Moisture)

The amount of water present in a soil sample or its moisture content should be
described as dry, moist, or wet as described in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3. Water Content Description.

Description Conditions
Dry No water present and dry to the touch
Moist Signs of water and soil is relatively dry to the touch
Wet Signs of water and soil is wet to the touch
 6.1.1.3 Color

The color of soil should be described as the sample is first retrieved at the
soil’s in-situ water content. Primary colors should be used to describe the
sample (brown, gray, black, green, yellow, red, white). Soils with different
shades or tints should be described by combining two primary colors.

6.1.1.4 Plasticity

To describe fine grained soil types, plasticity adjectives should be used to

further describe the soil’s texture and plasticity characteristics. The following
simple field investigation tests can be used to estimate the degree of plasticity
of fine grained soils.

6.1.1.4.1 Dry Strength Test

A soil sample is allowed to dry out and a portion of the dry sample is
pressed between the fingers. Soil fragments which cannot be broken or
crumpled are characteristic of clays with high plasticity. Fragments which
can be disintegrated under gentle finger pressure are characteristic of silts
with low plasticity.

6.1.1.4.2 Thread Test

A portion of a soil sample is rolled into a ball (approximately 40 mm. in

diameter). A thread is then rolled out to the smallest diameter possible
before the sample disintegrates. The smaller the thread achieved, the
higher the plasticity. Soils with high plasticity will roll to threads smaller
than ¾ mm. in diameter. Soils with low plasticity will have threads larger
than 3 mm. in diameter.

6.1.1.4.3 Smear Test

To complete the smear test a fragment of soil is smeared between the

thumb and forefinger. The smoothness and sheen of the smear surface
will provide an indication of the plasticity of the soil. A soil of low
plasticity will display a rough, textured, dull smear, while a soil of high
plasticity will display a slick, waxy surface.

6.1.1.5 Constituents

The constituents of a soil are defined on the basis of texture in accordance with
particle size descriptors, which are broken into coarse-grained, fine-grained, and
organic soils. Soils with more than 50 percent of particles larger than a 0.075
mm. sieve are considered to be coarse-grained soils. Soils with 50 percent or
more of particles which are smaller than a 0.075 mm. sieve are classified as fine-
 grained. Soil primarily consisting of less than 50 percent by volume of organic
matter, dark in color, and with a distinct odor is considered to be organic. Soil
that consists of 50 percent or more of organic matter is classified as peat.

Coarse-grained soils consists of gravel, sand, and fine-grained soil, whether

separately or in combination, have greater than 50 percent of soil particles larger
than the 0.075 mm. sieve. The gravel and sand components are defined on the
basis of particle size, as presented in Table 6-3.

Table 6-4. Particle Size Definition of Coarse Grained Soils.

Soil Component Grain Size Determination
Boulders 300 mm. or greater Measurable
Cobbles 300 mm. to 75 mm. Measurable
Gravel 75 mm. to 4.75 mm. Measurable
Sand 4.75 mm. to 0.075 mm. Measurable and discernible by eye
Fine-Grained Soil Less than 0.075 mm. Indiscernible by eye

Fine-grained soils are those in which 50 percent or greater are smaller than the
0.075 sieve. These soils are generally classified as clays or silts.

The sedimentation test is a simple field test that can help classify a soil sample
between its coarse- and fine-grained constituents. The test is completed by
placing a small soil sample in a clear bottle or jar. The bottle or jar is filled with
water until the water level is approximately 125 mm. above the soil sample. A
small amount of salt is added to the water which negates the ability of clay and
silt particles to clump together and settle more quickly. The soil sample is then
agitated by shaking or stirring, suspending the soil particles in water. After the
soil particles have been dispersed by the water and then left, the soil particles will
begin to settle, beginning with the larger particles, as indicated in Table 6-4.
After letting the sample sit 24 to 48 hours, measurements and calculations of
respective soil types can be made.

Table 6-5. Sedimentation Test Time Periods.

Approximate Time to Settle Through 125 mm. of Water Soil Type
30 seconds to 1 minute Sand
1 minute to 10 minutes Silt
10 minutes to 1 hour Clay

6.1.2 Classification

A soil classification should allow the Engineer to relate the soil description to its
behavior characteristics. All soils should be classified according to the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS groups soils with similar
engineering properties into categories based on grain size, gradation, and
plasticity. Figure 6-1 details the USCS.
Figure 6-1. USCS Classification
7.0 Construction and Post Construction Activities

Due to the various constraints surrounding subsurface investigations, the possibility always
exists that significant deviations from anticipated subsurface conditions might be encountered
during construction. In addition, construction activities may change the nature of in-place soils.
Therefore, it is recommended that a trained Engineer observe construction activities on a
periodic basis to identify concerns in the field and provide adjustments to the design, if needed.
Engineers inspecting construction activities should be well aware of anticipated soil conditions
and their field properties. If deviations are noted in the field, the Inspector should contact the
appropriate Design Engineers.

7.1 Foundation Inspection

The inspector should be aware of conditions that could affect the intended performance
of the foundation. The inspector can be made aware of these conditions by referring to
the plans and consulting with the design engineer. Foundations are designed to:
 Perform with settlement tolerances
 Maintain an adequate safety factor with regard to bearing capacity failure
 Provide suitable resistance to sliding failure mechanisms
 Provide suitable resistance to lateral earth pressures
 Provide adequate support to prevent slope instability

The bottoms of footing excavation should be probed to determine the bearing resistance
of foundation soils. Refer to Table 6-1 for results of completion of a field rebar test.

Presumptive bearing capacity values, based on field classification and density (SPT or
field rebar test) can be used for preliminary design purposes. Table 7-1 provides
presumptive bearing capacity values for various soil types. The presumptive bearing
capacity should be used to confirm that foundation soils meet allowable bearing
capacities assumed in design. The values provided in Table 7-1 provide for a suitable
safety factor against bearing capacity failure and avoid significant settlements that may
impact structures.
Table 7-1. Presumptive Bearing Capacity.
Type of Bearing Material Consistency In Place Allowable Bearing
Capacity (kPa)
Sedimentary Rock Medium hard, sound rock 1910
Weathered or Broken Rock Soft Rock 960
Gravel, gravel-sand Very Compact 670
mixtures Medium to Compact 480
Loose 290
Coarse to Medium Sand Very Compact 380
Medium to Compact 290
Loose 140
Fine to Medium Sand, Silty Very Compact 290
Sand Medium to Compact 240
Loose 140
Inorganic Clay, Sandy or Very Compact 380
Silty Clay Medium to Compact 190
Loose 50
Inorganic Silts, Sandy or Very Compact 290
Clayey Silt Medium to Compact 140
Loose 50
(From NAVFAC, 1986)

7.2 Retaining Wall Inspection

Retaining walls are used to provide grade separation and are designed to resist the
adjacent lateral earth pressures. Proper construction of retaining walls is vital to ensuring
they can perform their intended function.

Prior to retaining wall excavation and construction, the Engineer should ensure that
adjacent slopes are stable and will have suitable stand-up time once excavated, such that
construction of the retaining wall can proceed in a safe manner. Significant excavations
should not be completed during periods of heavy precipitation, as slope stability can be
compromised once soils are sufficiently saturated.

Excavated soils should be field classified to ensure that they meet design assumptions.
Inspectors should notify design engineers of any significant deviations in encountered
field conditions from design assumptions.

Retaining wall foundation soils should be probed upon completion of excavation to

ensure adequate bearing resistance to support the designed loads. Refer to Section 7.1.
APPENDIX A
 72°20'0"W 72°18'0"W 72°16'0"W 72°14'0"W
780000 782000 784000 786000 788000 790000 792000 794000

Qht1 Marin Explanation

Qhac Santo
10 meter elevation contour
Duvivier Structural Measurements
Lamatinière

Santo 19

o
Bedding

18°36'0"N
E
B Horizontal bedding
Mouline

9
Surface Wave Test Locations Colored by NEHRP Seismic Site Classification (IBC 2009)

te
18°36'0"N

Rou
!
( NEHRP B
Damiens
Blanchard !
( NEHRP C
Croix Des Missions Savane Bondé
Troutier !
( NEHRP D
Faults - Long dashes indicate relatively high degree of confidence on location
Short dashes express less certain location
2058000

2058000
Menelas
Terre Noire
Inferred primary fault cutting Mio-Pliocene fan deposits
Qht2 Qht2 Ro
u te
De
Sa
nt
Inferred secondary fault cutting Mio-Pliocene fan deposits
o

Geologic Units
Historic
Af - Artificial fill forming reclaimed land west of the mapped 1785 shoreline
Dargout

Holocene

Grand Rue
y Fontaine
rre 21
Qhac - Stream channel alluvium; typically well-sorted, bedded, unconsolidated sand,

9
Taba
a
silty sand, and gravel within the active channels of major streams

Ovide
Rue
Qhad - Delta fan deposits along the western margin of the map area
B

Cazeau
Qham - Marine/estuarine deposits interfingered with alluvial fan deposits and local fill
Sarthe

Clercine 18
Duval Santo Qht1 - Lower alluvial terrace deposits/surfaces within areas of historic flood inundation
e

Garnier
Qht1
Qht2 - Elevated alluvial terrace deposits/surfaces bordering
c

Qham
PAP Airport major streams and margins of intermontane valleys
i n

Blv
d Pleistocene-Holocene
na
lN
r1 Des
In dust Qphf
Na
tio ries Qphf - Alluvial fan/plain deposits
Ave ute
nue
S olei Ro re
Bd Toussaint Louvertu Qpf - Fan deposits forming steep fans at the rangefront
r

l
Cité Soleil
2056000

2056000
Pliocene-Pleistocene
- P

Ppf - Broad, deeply incised strath surface (or thin deposit veneer) developed over Pliocene fan
Aven !
( TL17- 452 m/s
ue M
ais G
ate Mais Gaté Pf - Pliocene fan deposits forming a deeply dissected paleofan complex along the rangefront

o
!
( TL30- 469 m/s Michaud
u

Miocene-Pliocene Bassin
18 Qphf
a

Mpb - Fanglomerate/talus deposits consisting of coarse, angular “breccia”

e
ur
rt
t -

ve
Miocene La Ferme Blanchard

ou
tL
Ru

in
Lmst - Limestone bedrock exposed along rangefront

18°34'0"N
sa
e

us
Ly

To
siu

d
sS

Blv
r

al
om
on
Chancerelles
!
( TL09- 518 m/s Pf !
( TL29- 484 m/s
18°34'0"N

Pf Chateau Blond
P

Pf

R.
li ne
Pf

P.
sa

Ru
Lu
De

e
m
La Cite Militaire
Pf

K
um

aw
JJ
Pf

ba
Bd

as
TL14- 303 m/s TL16- 427 m/s
!
(
!
( Pf
Tapage

1
New Boulevard

Bd
Pf

as 3

du
lm
u

1
zea

De

5O
Ca
De

cto
Rue
Rte

br
P.

o
11 Lum

e
Rue um

o
ba
2054000

2054000
M ack
Pf and
Caradeux

o
al
22 Trois Rigole
7
!
( TL34-356 m/s
Zone Predailler

33
as
Af Qpf Saint Martin

lm
De
Village W lamotte
Pf !
Digneron
( TL15- 451 m/s

Rue T.
Louv
Pf
il

erture
sF
n
Sa

lvio Ca
tor
Pf
e

Rue Sy La Ferronay
Ru

TL33- 232 m/s

!
(

o
!
(
9 !
( TL18-504 m/s
anne

Qhac

Delmas 37
TL13- 385 m/s
arie-Je

R. des
TL11- 426 m/s
!
(

R. An
Miracle
s Fort National !
( TL25-566 m/s
Ru

R. Faustin
Ave. M

noual

o
Rue Pa
Bo

vee !
( TL35- 348 m/s R.
r

6
ge

Es
ti
lla

mo
Cite St Georges
g
in
K
L.

Delmas
tin
ar

Rue J.
.M

Poupela
ffrard

rd
e

TL08- 506 m/s

Av

!
(
Rue Ge

Pf Tosselle

40
Av
. J.

as
R. Fragneauvi
e)

Br lle

lm
nd Ru

ow
n Pf
De
RueM
agny !
( TL32- 619 m/s 34
o
ra

o Ppf
i

les
rist Ro

Galette
lines (G

Dos Morne
Qpf

R. Ju
UMAN
2052000

2052000
Ave 23
nue
eu

La Ruelle Mayard TL31- 473 m/s

Rue Ch

!
( TL36- 343 m/s M
Rue Mercadi

Rue
arti !
(
Dessa

niere
R. TR

(Boi !
( TL24-577 m/s
s-Ver !
( TL28- 511 m/s
pois
Bd J J

na)
vard

Bourdon

77
Rue Ca

Delmas
Rue Riviere
Bouli

oise

48
as
. Ambr

R. Dr Au
Rue

rand
Delm
Rue Du din Soissons
Ros

Av TL10- 523 m/s Fragneau Ville

18°32'0"N
ue M

enu
!
(

o
eJ
a

e
e an

relin
Aven

Pa
ul

Sho
II 14
Rue Bo Ave Pa
5 Bolosse Rue

178
is Patate n Am
F

52
ern erica
! Qht1
Torture

( TL05-246 m/s
18°32'0"N

and ine

as
lm
Route de Car
refour
De
Rue M La

Canape Vert
1 ére

Pf
o
Galette
losse

o
!
( TL12-949 m/s Delm
Turgeau
R. Bo

Ru !
( TL19-505 m/s 69 Musseau as 60
e Du Platon
C

o
Rte. de 30 an
s Dalle ap
ev

o
Martissant s
Pf ert
! Qpf re
s)

o
10-30 20 ( TL21- 626 m/s Bois Neuf F re

o
23

!
( TL07-436 m/s de
Pf alles
nt

D te

Ro
Des (R
sa

15
Rue 5
rtis

u
54 Freres 10

te
Frères as
Ma

De
lm
Deprez De
De
lm

Rt
as
Fort Mercredi Acadélie Militaire

e
Mpb

T.
Delmas

Ca
95

v
E

al
Pernier
B

ler
!
( TL20- 476 m/s
2050000

2050000
o
o

70 30
Morne Hercule
carrefour Feuille
E
B

o !
( TL22- 767 m/s

o
55
Peguy Ville Chavannes Frères
E
B

o
Pf Mpb

RA Q
12 20-30

ualo
Rue Lambert
Rue Lambert d Mayotte
ar
ou
R
Br Pf
Lmst
Pf
Rue Gregoire
R. Lamarre

Berthe Cacouille
Mpb
Rue Metellus

Mpb Mpb
Boutilier Gerardeau Movette Mpb
780000 782000 784000 786000 788000 790000 792000 794000
72°22'0"W 72°20'0"W 72°18'0"W 72°16'0"W 72°14'0"W
Projection: WGS 84, UTM Zone 18 N
Sources: Road layer provided by MINUSTAH GIS and UN Cartographic Section
GEOLOGIC MAP OF PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI
1785 Shoreline from JCB Archive of Early American Images Rev. 1

¢
December 15, 2010
0 1000 2000 3000 ft
Authors: Jeffrey L. Bachhuber, Ellen M. Rathje, Brady R. Cox, Ranon A. Dulberg, Albert Kottke, Clint Wood, GEER Team

0 500 1000 m
William Lettis & Associates
 72°20'0"W 72°18'0"W 72°16'0"W 72°14'0"W
780000 782000 784000 786000 788000 790000 792000 794000

Marin
Santo
Explanation
10 meter elevation contour
Duvivier Structural Measurements
Lamatinière

Santo 19

o
Bedding

18°36'0"N
E
B Horizontal bedding
Mouline

9
Surface Wave Test Locations Colored by NEHRP Seismic Site Classification (IBC 2009)

te
18°36'0"N

Rou
!
( NEHRP B
Damiens
Blanchard !
Croix Des Missions ( NEHRP C Savane Bondé
Troutier !
( NEHRP D
Faults - Long dashes indicate relatively high degree of confidence on location
Short dashes express less certain location
2058000

2058000
Menelas
Terre Noire
Ro Inferred primary fault cutting Mio-Pliocene fan deposits
u te
De
Sa
nt
Inferred secondary fault cutting Mio-Pliocene fan deposits
o

NEHRP Seismic Site Classification Zones (IBC 2009)

NEHRP B
Dargout
NEHRP C - Localized areas of stiffer rock, correlating to Site Class B

Grand Rue
y
conditions, may exist within the map zone for Site Class C. However, in this
Fontaine 21 zone it is conservative to develop design response spectra assuming C
rre

9
Taba
a

vide
conditions if site specific data is not available to prove B conditions.

O
Rue
B

NEHRP D/E - Soils within this zone may classify as either Site Class D or E,
Cazeau depending on the presence or absence of soft clay. Site specific subsurface
Sarthe
investigation is required to determine if D or E conditions exist. In the absence

Clercine 18
Duval Santo of subsurface data, design response spectra should be developedGarnier for both
e

D and E conditions and the resulting spectra enveloped.

c

NEHRP F - Liquefaction and lateral spreading ground failure is possible

PAP Airport in these areas and site specific investigations should be conducted.
i n

r1 Blv
Ave lN
nue na d
De
S olei tio re
Na Bd Toussaint Louvertu
r

l s In
u te du
Cité Soleil Ro
2056000

2056000
str
ies
- P

Aven !
( TL17- 452 m/s
ue M
ais G
ate Mais Gaté Michaud

o
!
( TL30- 469 m/s
u

Bassin
18
a

e
t -

La Ferme Blanchard

ur
rt
ve
Ru

ou

18°34'0"N
tL
e
Ly

in
siu

sa
us
sS

To
r

al
om

d
Blv
on
Chancerelles !
( TL29- 484 m/s
!
( TL09- 518 m/s
18°34'0"N

Chateau Blond
P

R.
P.
ne

L
li

um
sa
De Cite Militaire

um
La

ba
JJ TL14- 303 m/s
Bd !
( TL16- 427 m/s
!
(

1
Rue

s3
Kaw
as

lma
Tapage

Bd
New Boulevard

De

du
u

15
zea
Ca

O
De

cto
Rue
Rte

br
P.

o
Lum

e
11 Rue um

o
ba
2054000

2054000
M ack
and
Caradeux

o
al 22 Trois Rigole
7
!
( TL34-356 m/s
Zone Predailler

33
as
Saint Martin

l m
De
Village W lamotte
!
( TL15- 451 m/s
Digneron

Rue T.
Louv
erture

tor
lvio Ca La Ferronay
il Rue Sy
n sF
TL33- 232 m/s Sa
!
(

o
e
Ru !
( TL18-504 m/s
!
( TL13- 385 m/s 9
anne

Delmas 37
Ruelle Arch
arie-Je

R. des
TL11- 426 m/s ille
!
(

R. An
Miracle !
s Fort National ( TL25-566 m/s
Ru
Ave. M

R. Faustin
e

o
noual
Bo

Rue Pa
vee !
( TL35- 348 m/s R.
rg

Es 6
ell

ti mo
a

Cite St Georges
g
in
K
L.

Delmas
tin
ar

Rue J.
.M

Poupela
ffrard

rd
e

TL08- 506 m/s

Av

!
(
Rue Ge

Tosselle

40
as
R. Fragneauvi

lm
Av
e)

. J. lle

De
nd Ru

Br
RueM ow
agny !
( TL32- 619 m/s n 34
o
ra

les
Galette
lines (G

Dos Morne
rist Ro

R. Ju
2052000

2052000
Ave 23
nue
AN

La Ruelle Mayard TL31- 473 m/s

!
( TL36- 343 m/s M

Rue
arti !
(
Dessa

Rue Ch
TRUM

niere
(Boi !
( TL24-577 m/s
s- Ver !
( TL28- 511 m/s
pois
Bd J J

na)
R.

Bourdon

77
Rue Ca
vard

Delmas
Rue Riviere
oise

48
Bouli

as
. Ambr

R. Dr Au
Rue

rand Soissons
Delm
Rue Du din
Ros

Av TL10- 523 m/s Fragneau Ville

18°32'0"N
ue M

enu
!
(

o
e
a

Jea

line
n
Aven

Pa
e
ul
r II 14

Sho
Bolosse Ave Pa
Rue Bois Pata Rue n Am
5

2
te erica

178

Rue Boisrand Canal

F

5
!
Torture

( TL05-246 m/s ern

18°32'0"N

ine

as
and

lm
ou
r De
Rue M La

f
re
ar Canape Vert
eC
1 ére

d
u te
Ro

o
losse

Galette

o
!
( TL12-949 m/s
R. Bo
Martissant

Delm
Turgeau !
( TL19-505 m/s Musseau as 60
69
Platon

o
Rte. de 30
s Dalle

o
Martissant s
23

s)
re
!

o
10 - 30 20 ( TL21- 626 m/s Bois Neuf F re

o
alle
s !
( TL07-436 m/s de
D 15 te
Des

Ro
(R
Rue 54 5

u
Freres 10
Rue Du Canape vert

te
Frères as

De
lm
Deprez De
De
Rte

lm
T. Cav
as
Fort Mercredi
aller Acadélie Militaire
Delmas
95
E
B !
( TL20- 476 m/s
Pernier
2050000

2050000
o
o

70 30 Morne Hercule
carrefour Feuille
E
B
o !
( TL22- 767 m/s

o
55
Peguy Ville Chavannes Frères
E
B
o
12

RA Q
20 - 30

ualo
Rue Lambert
Rue Lambert d Mayotte
ar
ou
Br
R
R. Lamarre

Rue Gregoire

Berthe Cacouille
Rue Metellus

Boutilier Gerardeau Movette

780000 782000 784000 786000 788000 790000 792000 794000
72°22'0"W 72°20'0"W 72°18'0"W 72°16'0"W 72°14'0"W
Projection: WGS 84, UTM Zone 18 N
Sources: Road layer provided by MINUSTAH GIS and UN Cartographic Section
SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION MAP OF PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI
1785 Shoreline from JCB Archive of Early American Images Rev. 1

¢
December 15, 2010
0 1000 2000 3000 ft
Authors: Jeffrey L. Bachhuber, Ellen M. Rathje, Brady R. Cox, Ranon A. Dulberg, Albert Kottke, Clint Wood, GEER Team

0 500 1000 m
William Lettis & Associates
APPENDIX B
 Geotechnical Service Providers in Haiti
 Geotechsol
Contacts:
Phone:
Available Services:
Investigation Equipment:
Laboratory Services:
 IMSRN
Contacts:
Phone:
Available Services:
Investigation Equipment:
Laboratory Services:
 JAGT Corp.
Contacts:
Phone:
Available Services:
Investigation Equipment:
Investigation Equipment:
Thierry Desormoux or Fabrice Nzodoum
509-3735-2244
Full Service (Investigation, Laboratory Testing,
Analysis/Design)
Truck-mounted rig w/ SPT
Compact, track mounted rig
Backhoe
Seismic Refraction
Gradation (Sieve Analysis)
Atterberg Limits
Moisture Content
Consolidation
Permeability
Direct Shear
Moisture Density
Marc Oliver
509-3704-6308
Disaster Risk Reduction Studies
Geotechnical Investigations
Seismic Refraction
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Tripod SPT
None
Anthony Theodorou
509-2943-0436
Limited Full Service
Auger mounted on skid steer
Seismic Refraction
Tripod mounted SPT
Gradation (Sieve Analysis)
Atterberg Limits
Moisture Content
 National Laboratory (LNBTP)
Contacts: Djonh Vaval
Phone: 509-3732-2091
Available Services: Investigation and Laboratory Testing
Investigation Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig
Track-mounted drill rig
Compact, track-mounted drill rig
Laboratory Services Gradation (Sieve Analysis)
Atterberg Limits
Moisture Content
Consolidation