Soil Investigation Manual-25379

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25379 SHARE

   
Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2019)
DETAILS
372 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48947-8 | DOI 10.17226/25379
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Glenn J. Rix, Njoroge Wainaina, Ali Ebrahimi, Robert C. Bachus, Maria Limas,
Rodolfo Sancio, Brooke Fait, and Paul W. Mayne; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Manual on

Subsurface Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25379.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Manual on Subsurface Investigations
NCHRP
Web-Only Document 258:
Glenn J. Rix Paul W. Mayne

Njoroge Wainaina Georgia Institute of Technology
Ali Ebrahimi Atlanta, Georgia
Robert C. Bachus
Maria Limas
Rodolfo Sancio
Brooke Fait
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Final Report for NCHRP Project 21-10

Submitted November 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation
with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP),
which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or
persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular
product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit
uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material,
request permission from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They
are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine;
or the program sponsors.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been
edited by TRB.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 258

Christoper J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Senior Program Officer
Sheila A. Moore, Program Associate
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 21-10 PANEL

AREA TWENTY-ONE: SOILS AND GEOLOGY--TESTING AND INSTRUMENTATION
Leo L. Fontaine, Connecticut DOT, Newington, CT (Chair)

James A. Williams, III, Mississippi DOT, Jackson, MS
James H. "Jim" Anspach, Cardno, Bend, OR
Derrick D. Dasenbrock, Minnesota DOT, Maplewood, MN
William P. Owen, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Xiong "Bill" Yu, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
Benjamin S. Rivers, FHWA Liaison

Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xii
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................... xvi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... xvii
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. xviii
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Organization of the Manual ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Planning the Investigation ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Executing the Investigation ..................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Interpreting the Results of the Investigation ........................................................................... 3
1.2.4 Reporting and Presenting the Results of the Investigation...................................................... 3
1.2.5 Supplemental Investigative Information ................................................................................. 3
1.2.6 Supplemental Administrative Information .............................................................................. 4
Key Complementary Resources .................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1 References ............................................................................................................................... 6
GEOTECHNICAL UNCERTAINTY AND RISK .............................................................. 7

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7
Uncertainty .................................................................................................................................. 7
Geotechnical Risks ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Technical Risk ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Financial Risk.......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Risk Mitigation........................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.4 Geotechnical Risk for Design-Build Projects ......................................................................... 9
Load and Resistance Factor Design and Subsurface Investigation ........................................... 10
Chapter 2 References ............................................................................................................................. 11
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROCESSES ............................................................ 12

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 12
Types of Data Required for Subsurface Investigations ............................................................. 12
3.2.1 Subsurface Investigation Objectives ..................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Review of Available Records ................................................................................................ 17
3.2.3 Site Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................. 19
Developing a Subsurface Investigation Plan ............................................................................. 21
3.3.1 Developing a Geophysical Testing Plan ............................................................................... 21
iv

3.3.2 Selecting the Number and Locations for In Situ Tests, Drilling, and Sampling ................... 21
3.3.3 Determining the Minimum Depth of Investigation at Each Location ................................... 25
3.3.4 Determining the Required Types of Samples and Sampling Frequency ............................... 25
3.3.5 Developing an In Situ and Laboratory Testing Plan ............................................................. 26
3.3.6 Developing a Plan for Evaluating Groundwater Conditions ................................................. 33
GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................... 35

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 35
Planning a Geophysical Investigation ....................................................................................... 36
Surface Geophysical Methods ................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Seismic Methods ................................................................................................................... 38
4.3.2 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods............................................................................... 45
4.3.3 Potential Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 50
Borehole Geophysical Methods................................................................................................. 53
4.4.1 Borehole-to-Borehole and Surface-to-Borehole Methods .................................................... 54
4.4.2 In-Hole Logging Methods ..................................................................................................... 57
IN SITU TESTING OF SOIL AND ROCK ....................................................................... 66

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 66
Borehole Test Methods.............................................................................................................. 67
5.2.1 Standard Penetration Test...................................................................................................... 67
5.2.2 Vane Shear Test .................................................................................................................... 72
5.2.3 Pressuremeter Testing ........................................................................................................... 75
Direct-Push In Situ Test Methods for Soils ............................................................................... 78
5.3.1 Cone-Penetration Testing ...................................................................................................... 78
5.3.2 Flat Plate Dilatometer Test .................................................................................................... 85
In Situ Tests for Rock ................................................................................................................ 88
5.4.1 Plate Load Tests on Rock ...................................................................................................... 88
5.4.2 Flat Jack Tests ....................................................................................................................... 89
5.4.3 Rock Dilatometer .................................................................................................................. 90
5.4.4 Large Field Direct Shear Test ............................................................................................... 90
5.4.5 Rock Borehole Shear Test ..................................................................................................... 90
5.4.6 Measurements for Rock Discontinuities ............................................................................... 91
DRILLING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL AND ROCK .................................................... 94

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 94
Field Equipment ........................................................................................................................ 94
6.2.1 Drilling on Land .................................................................................................................... 94
6.2.2 Drilling over Water ............................................................................................................... 95
Borehole Advancement Methods .............................................................................................. 96
6.3.1 Manual Methods.................................................................................................................... 96

6.3.2 Test Pits ................................................................................................................................. 96

6.3.3 Auger Drilling ....................................................................................................................... 97
6.3.4 Rotary Drilling ...................................................................................................................... 98
6.3.5 Measuring While Drilling ..................................................................................................... 99
Soil Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 101
6.4.1 Split-Spoon (Disturbed Samples) ........................................................................................ 101
6.4.2 Direct-Push Sampling (Disturbed Samples) ....................................................................... 101
6.4.3 Thin-Wall Tube Sampling (Undisturbed Samples) ............................................................. 103
Rock Coring Methods.............................................................................................................. 108
6.5.1 Core Bits.............................................................................................................................. 108
6.5.2 Core Barrel Types ............................................................................................................... 109
6.5.3 Triple-Tube Core Barrel ...................................................................................................... 110
6.5.4 Logging Borings.................................................................................................................. 110
6.5.5 Soil Boring Logs ................................................................................................................. 111
6.5.6 Logging Rock Core ............................................................................................................. 113
6.5.7 Sample Protection ............................................................................................................... 114
Boring Closure......................................................................................................................... 114
Chapter 6 References ........................................................................................................................... 116
HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................. 117

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 117
Geology and Hydrogeology..................................................................................................... 117
Aquifer Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 118
7.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity ....................................................................................................... 118
7.3.2 Porosity ............................................................................................................................... 118
7.3.3 Permeability ........................................................................................................................ 118
7.3.4 Transmissivity ..................................................................................................................... 119
7.3.5 Storage Coefficient and Specific Yield ................................................................................ 119
Aquitard Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 119
Direction and Gradient of Groundwater Flow ......................................................................... 120
Groundwater Measurements .................................................................................................... 120
7.6.1 Methods for Groundwater Levels and Pressures ................................................................. 120
7.6.2 Methods for Aquifer Characteristics ................................................................................... 125
LABORATORY TESTING OF SOIL AND ROCK ....................................................... 130

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 130
Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................... 130
8.2.1 Sample Tracking ................................................................................................................. 131
8.2.2 Sample Transportation, Storage, and Handling................................................................... 131
8.2.3 Sample Disturbance ............................................................................................................ 131
8.2.4 Assessment of Sample Disturbance .................................................................................... 133
Index Property Testing ............................................................................................................ 135
8.3.1 Particle Size Distribution .................................................................................................... 135
vi

8.3.2 Moisture Content ................................................................................................................. 136

8.3.3 Atterberg Limits .................................................................................................................. 136
8.3.4 Unit Weight ......................................................................................................................... 137
8.3.5 Specific Gravity .................................................................................................................. 138
8.3.6 Organic Content .................................................................................................................. 138
8.3.7 Electrical Resistivity ........................................................................................................... 138
8.3.8 pH Test ................................................................................................................................ 139
Soil Classification .................................................................................................................... 139
8.4.1 AASHTO Soil Classification System ................................................................................. 139
8.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System ..................................................................................... 141
8.4.3 Visual-Manual Procedure .................................................................................................... 143
8.4.4 Additional Tests for Soil Classification .............................................................................. 144
Compaction Tests .................................................................................................................... 145
Hydraulic Conductivity ........................................................................................................... 146
8.6.1 Flexible-Wall Permeameter................................................................................................. 146
8.6.2 Rigid-Wall, Compaction-Mold Permeameter ..................................................................... 147
Consolidation ........................................................................................................................... 147
Shear Strength ......................................................................................................................... 149
8.8.1 Miniature Vane Test ............................................................................................................ 150
8.8.2 Direct Shear Test ................................................................................................................. 150
8.8.3 Triaxial Tests ....................................................................................................................... 150
8.8.4 Direct Simple Shear Test..................................................................................................... 154
8.8.5 Interpretation of Laboratory Strength Data ......................................................................... 154
Dynamic Properties ................................................................................................................. 155
8.9.1 Resonant Column Test ........................................................................................................ 155
8.9.2 Cyclic Triaxial Test ............................................................................................................. 156
8.9.3 Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Test ......................................................................................... 157
Laboratory Test Methods for Characterizing Subgrade Soils and Unbound Bases for
Pavement Design ........................................................................................................................ 158
8.10.1 Resilient Modulus Test ................................................................................................... 158
8.10.2 California Bearing Ratio Test ......................................................................................... 158
8.10.3 Resistance-Value Test..................................................................................................... 159
Laboratory Tests for Rock ....................................................................................................... 159
8.11.1 Moisture Content ............................................................................................................ 159
8.11.2 Unit Weight..................................................................................................................... 160
8.11.3 Slake Durability of Weak Rock ...................................................................................... 160
8.11.4 Point-Load Strength Index .............................................................................................. 160
8.11.5 Direct Shear Test ............................................................................................................ 161
8.11.6 Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens ................... 161
EVALUATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES ........................................................................ 164

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 164
Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................. 165
9.2.1 Geophysical Methods .......................................................................................................... 165
vii

9.2.2 In Situ Tests ......................................................................................................................... 166

9.2.3 Soil Borings......................................................................................................................... 167
Soil Classification .................................................................................................................... 168
9.3.1 Soil Behavioral Type by Cone-Penetration Tests ............................................................... 168
9.3.2 Soil Classification by Flat Dilatometer Tests ...................................................................... 171
Soil Unit Weight ...................................................................................................................... 171
9.4.1 Unit Weight from Shear Wave Velocity ............................................................................. 172
9.4.2 Unit Weight from Cone Penetration Tests .......................................................................... 172
9.4.3 Unit Weight from Flat Dilatometer Tests ........................................................................... 173
Preconsolidation or Effective Yield Stress .............................................................................. 174
9.5.1 Effective Yield Stress from Cone-Penetration Tests ........................................................... 174
9.5.2 Effective Yield Stress from Flat Dilatometer Tests ............................................................ 176
9.5.3 Effective Yield Stress from Standard Penetration Tests ..................................................... 177
9.5.4 Effective Yield Stress from Shear Wave Velocity .............................................................. 178
Effective Stress Strength Parameters ....................................................................................... 179
9.6.1 Effective Strength Parameters from Cone-Penetration Tests .............................................. 179
9.6.2 Effective Strength Parameters from Flat Dilatometer Tests................................................ 182
9.6.3 Effective Strength Parameters from Standard Penetration Test .......................................... 184
Total Stress Strength Parameters ............................................................................................. 185
9.7.1 Undrained Shear Strength from Critical State Soil Mechanics ........................................... 185
9.7.2 Undrained Shear Strength from Cone-Penetration Tests .................................................... 186
9.7.3 Undrained Shear Strength from Flat Dilatometer Tests ...................................................... 187
9.7.4 Undrained Shear Strength from Standard Penetration Test ................................................ 187
9.7.5 Undrained Shear Strength from Vane Shear Tests, Pressuremeter Tests, and Other Tests 188
Lateral Stress State .................................................................................................................. 188
Modulus ................................................................................................................................... 189
9.9.1 Elastic Modulus from Shear Wave Velocity ....................................................................... 190
9.9.2 Elastic Modulus from Cone Penetration Test ..................................................................... 192
9.9.3 Elastic Modulus from Flat Dilatometer Tests ..................................................................... 193
9.9.4 Elastic Modulus from Standard Penetration Test ................................................................ 194
Rigidity Index .......................................................................................................................... 195
Flow Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 196
9.11.1 Coefficient of Consolidation from Piezocone Dissipation Tests .................................... 197
9.11.2 Coefficient of Consolidation from Dilatometer Dissipation Tests ................................. 199
9.11.3 Hydraulic Conductivity from Piezocone Dissipation Tests ............................................ 200
9.11.4 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated from CPT Material Index ........................................ 201
Special Considerations ............................................................................................................ 202
EVALUATION OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES ......................................................... 206

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 206
Intact Rock Classification ........................................................................................................ 207
Intact Rock Properties ............................................................................................................. 209
10.3.1 Specific Gravity of Solids ............................................................................................... 209
viii

10.3.2 Unit Weight..................................................................................................................... 210

10.3.3 Seismic Velocities........................................................................................................... 212
10.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Strength ...................................................................................... 213
10.3.5 Elastic Modulus of Intact Rock....................................................................................... 214
10.3.6 Poisson’s Ratio ............................................................................................................... 216
10.3.7 Tensile Strength .............................................................................................................. 216
10.3.8 Shear Strength of Intact Rock ......................................................................................... 217
Rock Mass Classification ........................................................................................................ 219
10.4.1 Rock Mass Rating ........................................................................................................... 219
10.4.2 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Q-Rating System for Rock Masses .......................... 223
10.4.3 Geological Strength Index .............................................................................................. 224
10.4.4 Estimating Quality of Rock Mass from Seismic Velocity .............................................. 225
Rock Mass Parameters............................................................................................................. 226
10.5.1 Rock Mass Strength ........................................................................................................ 226
10.5.2 Rock Mass Modulus ....................................................................................................... 230
10.5.3 Foundation Bearing Resistances ..................................................................................... 231
10.5.4 Unit Side Resistance for Socketed Drilled Shafts ........................................................... 233
10.5.5 Rock Rippability and Earthwork Factor ......................................................................... 234
10.5.6 Other Rock Parameters ................................................................................................... 234
Chapter 10 References ......................................................................................................................... 236
COMPILING, REPORTING, AND PRESENTING GEOTECHNICAL

INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 238
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 238
Uses of Geotechnical Information ........................................................................................... 238
Factual Information ................................................................................................................. 238
11.3.1 Preexisting Data Resources............................................................................................. 239
11.3.2 Remote Sensing Data ...................................................................................................... 239
11.3.3 Geophysical Information ................................................................................................ 239
11.3.4 In Situ Testing ................................................................................................................. 240
11.3.5 Hydrogeologic Information ............................................................................................ 240
11.3.6 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................... 240
11.3.7 Construction-Phase Testing and Monitoring Results...................................................... 240
Interpretive Information .......................................................................................................... 240
11.4.1 Performance Criteria ....................................................................................................... 241
11.4.2 Ground Model ................................................................................................................. 241
11.4.3 Design Recommendations .............................................................................................. 241
11.4.4 Construction Considerations ........................................................................................... 242
11.4.5 Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring ............................................................... 242
11.4.6 Geotechnical Information for LRFD .............................................................................. 243
Geotechnical Reports............................................................................................................... 243
11.5.1 Uncertainty of Geotechnical Information ....................................................................... 244
11.5.2 Geotechnical Reports for Conventional Project Delivery Method ................................. 244
11.5.3 Geotechnical Reports for Alternative Project Delivery Method ..................................... 245
11.5.4 Geotechnical Data Reports ............................................................................................. 245
11.5.5 Geotechnical Baseline Report ......................................................................................... 246
11.5.6 Geotechnical Design Memoranda ................................................................................... 247
ix

Contractual Implications of Geotechnical Reports .................................................................. 248

11.6.1 Alternative Delivery Methods......................................................................................... 248
11.6.2 Contractor Briefings ....................................................................................................... 249
11.6.3 Legal Implications .......................................................................................................... 249
11.6.4 Differing Site Conditions Clause .................................................................................... 249
Chapter 11 References ......................................................................................................................... 250
APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................251
A. Geotechnical Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 251
B. Applications of Geotechnical Instrumentation........................................................................ 264
C. Evaluation of Existing Bridge Foundations for Reuse ............................................................ 272
D. Management of Geotechnical Data ......................................................................................... 282
E. Quality Assurance Systems ..................................................................................................... 310
F. Health and Safety .................................................................................................................... 317
G. Contracting Subsurface Investigations.................................................................................... 334
H. Technology Transfer Strategies .............................................................................................. 343

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Geologic and man-made constraints

Table 3-2. Performance issues and required design properties and parameters
Table 3-3. Documents and sources of available information
Table 3-4. Items that need to be evaluated during field reconnaissance
Table 3-5. Guidelines for selecting number of investigation locations and depths of
investigation
Table 3-6. Investigation equipment and their applications
Table 3-7. Summary of in situ tests and associated design parameters
Table 3-8. Sampling equipment and their applications
Table 3-9. Borehole advancing methods and their applications
Table 3-10. Guidelines for selecting laboratory tests
Table 4-1. Matrix of surface geophysical methods in relation to investigation objectives
Table 4-2. ASTM guides and standards for surface geophysical investigations
Table 4-3. Matrix of borehole geophysical methods in relation to investigation objectives
Table 4-4. ASTM guides for borehole geophysical investigations
Table 5-1. Summary of hammer energy measurements using automatic hammers
Table 5-2. SPT correction factors for field procedures
Table 5-3. Types of cone penetrometers
Table 6-1. Rotary drill rigs
Table 6-2. Standard drill rod sizes
Table 6-3. Core sizes from WG swivel type double-tube core barrel
Table 6-4. Basic rock types
Table 6-5. Rated quality of rock mass based on RQD
Table 7-1. Typical water level measurement intervals for observation wells
Table 7-2. Methods for interpreting pumping tests
Table 8-1. Specimen quality rating system based on vertical strain
Table 8-2. Specimen quality rating system based on change in void ratio
Table 8-3. Relationship between electric resistivity and corrosion potential
Table 8-4. AASHTO soil classification system
Table 8-5. Unified soil classification system
Table 8-6. Soil constituents for visual-manual procedure
Table 8-7. Checklist for visual-manual procedure
Table 8-8. Summary of equipment and procedures for density tests
Table 9-1. Methods for evaluating SBT from CPTs
Table 9-2. Soil classification using the DMT
Table 9-3. Relationships for constrained modulus from DMTs in various soil types
Table 9-4. Expressions for estimating Gmax from DMT readings in various soils
Table 10-1. Primary rock types classified by geologic origin and mineral grain size
Table 10-2. Strength and stiffness properties of select intact rocks measured in laboratory tests
Table 10-3. Selected guideline values of peak friction angles for rocks, joints, and minerals
Table 10-4. Selected guideline values of residual friction angles for rocks
Table 10-5. Assessment of discontinuity orientation for tunneling in fractured rock
Table 10-6. RMR parameter R6 adjustment for orientation of discontinuities
Table 10-7. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown model for intact and fractured rocks
xi

Table 10-8. Values of the disturbance factor D for GSI rock mass quality system
xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Typical ranges of compression (top) and shear wave velocity (bottom)
Figure 4-2. Example seismic refraction tomography test results
Figure 4-3. Estimated D8R ripper performance from seismic velocity
Figure 4-4. Seismic reflection section showing depth to bedrock
Figure 4-5. Seismic reflection section showing sinkhole locations
Figure 4-6. Example Rayleigh-wave dispersion curve
Figure 4-7. Example 2D shear wave velocity cross section from MASW test
Figure 4-8. Typical ranges of electrical resistivity
Figure 4-9. Example electrical resistivity imaging results
Figure 4-10. Example terrain conductivity results
Figure 4-11. Example GPR results showing base of fill layer
Figure 4-12. Example GPR results showing pavement void detection
Figure 4-13. Example of a microgravity profile
Figure 4-14. Example of a microgravity contour map
Figure 4-15. Example seismic crosshole data
Figure 4-16. Example seismic downhole data
Figure 4-17. Example mechanical caliper, natural gamma, and acoustic televiewer logs
Figure 4-18. Example interpretation of acoustic televiewer log
Figure 4-19. Example results from seismic logging
Figure 5-1. Selection of in situ tests for geotechnical site characterization
Figure 5-2. SPT setup and procedures
Figure 5-3. Example of SPT N-values
Figure 5-4. Comparison of (a) uncorrected (Nm) and (b) energy-corrected (N60) SPT blow
counts
Figure 5-5. VST or field van for clays and silts
Figure 5-6. Limit equilibrium solutions for calculating undrained shear strength of
rectangular and tapered vanes
Figure 5-7. EVST results from selected depths in clay deposit
Figure 5-8. Example of EVST in soft clay
Figure 5-9. Basic components and procedures of the PMT
Figure 5-10. Example PMT pressure-volume curve
Figure 5-11. Basic setup and equipment for (electric) CPT
Figure 5-12. Common piezocone configurations for pore pressure readings
Figure 5-13. Example results from CPTu showing (a) total cone resistance, qt, (b) sleeve
friction, fs, and (c) pore pressures, u2
Figure 5-14. Example piezo-dissipation tests from CPTu
Figure 5-15. SCPTu
Figure 5-16. Example SCPTu soundings in sediment
Figure 5-17. Example continuous-interval SCPTu
Figure 5-18. DMT procedures and measurement readings
Figure 5-19. Example DMT measured pressure profiles
Figure 5-20. Example DMT index profiles
Figure 5-21. Example PLT on limestone
Figure 5-22. Cross section of flat jack setup per ASTM D4729
xiii

Figure 5-23. Rock borehole shear test in sandstone

Figure 6-1. HSA methods: drill rod (left) and wireline (right)
Figure 6-2. Rotary drilling techniques in comparison with other borehole methods
Figure 6-3. Geometry of split-spoon sampler
Figure 6-4. Direct-push samples of soil
Figure 6-5. Example of recovered sonic soil samples
Figure 6-6. Consecutive vibracore samples showing changes in stratigraphy
Figure 6-7. Components of a fixed-piston sampler
Figure 6-8. Osterberg piston sampler
Figure 6-9. Denison triple-tube core barrel sampler
Figure 6-10. Primary types of rock core barrels; (a) single tube; (b) rigid double tube; (c)
swivel double tube; (d) triple tube
Figure 6-11. Recovered rock core in gneissic granite bedrock
Figure 6-12. Example engineering boring log
Figure 6-13. Evaluation of RQD from recovered core
Figure 7-1. Single-level monitoring well
Figure 7-2. Multilevel monitoring wells
Figure 7-3. Example potentiometric surface map
Figure 7-4. Example results from pumping test in a confined aquifer
Figure 7-5. Example results from slug test in an unconfined aquifer
Figure 8-1. Changes in effective stress during drilling, sampling, and specimen preparation
Figure 8-2. Example of x-ray radiography
Figure 8-3. Example of particle-size distribution plot for a well-graded sand
Figure 8-4. Atterberg limits
Figure 8-5. AASHTO plasticity chart
Figure 8-6. Plasticity chart
Figure 8-7. Example of compaction curves
Figure 8-8. Example results from CRS consolidation test
Figure 8-9. Example of Casagrande procedure to estimate preconsolidation pressure
Figure 8-10. Example DS test results
Figure 8-11. (a) Schematic of triaxial apparatus and (b) assumed stress conditions for triaxial
compression
Figure 8-12. Example CU test results
Figure 8-13. Example CD test results
Figure 8-14. Example DSS test results
Figure 8-15. Example results from a cyclic DSS test
Figure 8-16. Example results from a cyclic triaxial test
Figure 8-17. Schematic of the resilient modulus equipment
Figure 8-18. Example results from DS test on rock with discontinuities
Figure 9-1. Example subsurface profile developed from a 2D MASW survey
Figure 9-2. Example subsurface profile developed from cone resistances of several CPT
records
Figure 9-3. Example subsurface profile developed from soil boring records and SPT values
Figure 9-4. Nine-zone soil behavioral chart for conducting CPTs in soils
Figure 9-5. Use of CPT material index Ic and algorithms for nine-zone soil behavioral chart
Figure 9-6. Soil unit weight relationship with shear wave velocity
xiv

Figure 9-7. Soil unit weight estimated from CPT sleeve friction
Figure 9-8. Soil unit weight estimated from DMT readings
Figure 9-9. General relationship for effective yield stress and CPT net cone resistance in soils
Figure 9-10. General trend for yield stress exponent and CPT material index
Figure 9-11. General relationship for effective yield stress and DMT net contact pressure in
soils
Figure 9-12. General relationship for effective yield stress and energy-corrected SPT N60
resistance in soils
Figure 9-13. General relationship for effective yield stress and shear wave velocity in soils
Figure 9-14. Effective friction angle of sands from CPT-normalized cone resistance
Figure 9-15. Effective stress friction angle of clays from CPTu via NTH solution
Figure 9-16. Calibration of NTH solution with lab triaxial and in situ CPTu data from 105 clay
sites
Figure 9-17. Effective friction angle of sands from DMT horizontal stress index
Figure 9-18. Calibration of NTH solution with lab triaxial and in situ DMT data from 46 clays
Figure 9-19. Empirical relationship for effective friction angle of sands from stress-normalized
SPT N60 value using data from undisturbed sampling techniques
Figure 9-20. Normalized undrained shear strength ratio vs. OCR for clays tested in DSS mode
Figure 9-21. Cone bearing factor Nkt for obtaining undrained shear strength in clays
Figure 9-22. Trends reported between undrained shear strength and SPT resistance
Figure 9-23. General relationships between K0 and OCR in soils for loading-unloading
Figure 9-24. Representative stress-strain-strength curve of soil in triaxial compression mode
Figure 9-25. Modulus reduction factor of sands and clays in drained and undrained loading
expressed in terms of mobilized strength
Figure 9-26. Dilatometer modulus vs. net cone resistance for different soils
Figure 9-27. Estimate for Vs from SPT
Figure 9-28. Geologic-specific relationship between equivalent elastic modulus and energy-
corrected SPT N60 from DMTs and foundation performance
Figure 9-29. Rigidity index from spherical cavity expansion (SCE-CSSM) in terms of ϕ and
CPT resistances
Figure 9-30. Representative monotonic dissipation record from CPTu2 in Mud Island
Figure 9-31. Dissipation time factors from SCE-CSSM solution at different degrees of
consolidation
Figure 9-32. Definitions of monotonic vs. dilatory type for pore pressure response
Figure 9-33. Correction of dilatory dissipation tests using square root time plots to get t50
Figure 9-34. Dissipations from DMT A-reading with time
Figure 9-35. Interpreted coefficient of permeability from monotonic t50 dissipations in soils
Figure 9-36. Coefficient of permeability expression from CPT material index in soils
Figure 10-1. Diversity of rock types found in the conterminous United States. Note: each color
represents one of 154 different geologic formations
Figure 10-2. Geologic time scale and associated age of rocks
Figure 10-3. Specific gravity of solids of common rock minerals
Figure 10-4. Unit weight of saturated rock vs. porosity
Figure 10-5. Trend for rock unit weight with in situ shear wave velocity
Figure 10-6. Trends between measured Vs and Vp for various types of rocks
Figure 10-7. Measured stress-strain response on intact gneissic rock
xv

Figure 10-8. General trends between tensile and compressive strengths for intact rock
according to geologic origin
Figure 10-9. General interrelationships between strength parameters of intact rock
Figure 10-10. Basic components for RMR system
Figure 10-11. New RMR component R23 = R2 + R3 for number of discontinuities
Figure 10-12. Depictions of massive, favorable, unfavorable, and highly fractured rock mass
scenarios for rock slope cuts
Figure 10-13. Outline and components of the Q systems for RMR
Figure 10-14. Chart for assessing the GSI rating and quality of rock masses
Figure 10-15. Correlative trend for RMR in terms of shear wave velocity
Figure 10-16. Example calculations of rock mass strength of marble using Hoek-Brown model
Figure 10-17. Example rock mass strength of fractured marble from Hoek-Brown model to
determine c' and ϕ' using (a) Mohr's circles and (b) MIT q-p' space
Figure 10-18. Rock mass modulus estimated from the RMR and Q rating systems
Figure 10-19. Allowable bearing stress for foundations on fractured rock
Figure 10-20. Allowable bearing stress for drilled shaft foundations (L/d > 3) on rock
Figure 10-21. Unit side resistance of drilled shaft foundations related to rock strength
xvi

Author Acknowledgments
The research presented in this report was conducted under National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) 21-10 by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. The principal investigators for the work were Mr.
Njoroge Wainaina and Dr. Glenn J. Rix. The authors are grateful to the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program of the National Academy of Sciences for their support. In particular, the authors would
like to acknowledge the contributions and support provided by the NCHRP Project Managers Mr. David
Reynaud and Dr. Waseem Dekelbab and the valuable guidance and peer review comments from the
NCHRP Project Panel members.
xvii

Abstract
The primary purpose of geotechnical subsurface investigations in transportation projects is to collect data
that will help transportation engineers and planners identify, assess, and address risks associated with
subsurface conditions; select appropriate design parameters; and monitor performance during construction
and operation phases of a project’s life cycle. The results of the research performed for NCHRP Project 21-
10 have resulted in a complete revision and update to the 1988 American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual on Subsurface Investigation that reflects the changes in the
approaches and methods used for geotechnical site characterization that the geotechnical community has
developed and adopted in the past 30 years. The updated manual provides information and guidelines to
help geoprofessionals plan and execute a sound geotechnical site investigation program; use the results to
develop a ground model for planning, design, construction, and asset management phases of a project; and
report and document the results in a manner that facilitates peer review, communication with stakeholders,
and potential future uses.
xviii

Summary
Subsurface investigation plays a critical role in all phases of transportation project development—
planning, design, construction, and operations—as it provides information that is needed to ensure public
safety and to make cost-effective decisions. For the past 30 years, transportation engineers and planners
have relied on the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation (1988) to provide guidance on best
practices for planning and conducting geotechnical subsurface investigations. However, in the past 30
years, significant advances have occurred in the geophysical, in situ, and laboratory methods used by
geoprofessionals to conduct subsurface investigations. There are also new design approaches (e.g., load and
resistance factor design [LRFD]) and project delivery methods (e.g., design-build) that impact subsurface
investigations.
These changes in geotechnical practices, design approaches, and project delivery methods warrant an
update to the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations to reflect the current state of the practice. The
objective of the efforts to update the 1988 manual was to develop a concise, comprehensive document that
will be invaluable for planning, executing, and using subsurface investigations and geotechnical
characterizations for planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and managing assets of transportation
facilities.
The organization of the updated AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations was intended to mirror
the manner in which a subsurface exploration program is typically performed. The major activities are as
follows:
• Planning the investigation (Chapters 2 and 3)
• Executing the investigation (Chapters 4 through 8)
• Interpreting the results of the investigation (Chapters 9 and 10)
• Reporting and presenting the results of the investigation (Chapter 11)
Supplemental information is presented in appendices that are broadly grouped into two categories—
investigative and administrative. The following are new topics presented in the updated manual:
• Geotechnical uncertainty and risk as they pertain to subsurface investigations
• Developments in in situ test methods and their interpretation to estimate engineering properties of soil
and rock
• Rock mass characterization
• Geotechnical reports for alternative project delivery methods
• Geotechnical instrumentation
• Geotechnical data management
The results of the research performed for NCHRP Project 21-10 have resulted in a complete revision and
update to the 1988 AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigation. The updated manual defines a
reasonable minimum standard of practice for modern geotechnical site investigations and will enable
geoprofessionals to develop cost-effective geotechnical design and construction solutions while
optimizing project life-cycle costs, ensuring public safety and environmental sustainability, minimizing
contract disputes and cost overruns, and accelerating construction.
xix

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Purpose
The primary purpose of geotechnical subsurface investigations in transportation projects is to collect data
that will help transportation engineers and planners identify, assess, and address risks associated with
subsurface conditions; select appropriate design parameters; and monitor performance during construction
and operation phases of an asset’s life cycle. Geotechnical risks generally pose the greatest risk to
transportation projects because adverse subsurface conditions can have significant impacts on public safety,
project schedules, life cycle costs, and environmental sustainability. A sound subsurface investigation
program can mitigate these risks and yield significant dividends for state transportation agencies in terms
of cost savings and timely completion of projects. Thus, it is prudent for transportation agencies to include
geotechnical investigations as a part of their project development process.
This manual provides information and guidelines to help geoprofessionals (i.e., geotechnical engineers,
geological engineers, geologists, and engineering geologists) plan and execute a sound geotechnical site
investigation program; use the results to develop a ground model for planning, design, construction, and
asset management phases of a project; and report and document the results in a manner that facilitates peer
review, communication with stakeholders, and potential future uses.
Organization of the Manual

The organization of the manual mirrors how the subsurface investigations are typically performed:
• Planning the investigation (Chapters 2 and 3)
• Executing the investigation (Chapters 4 through 8)
• Interpreting the results of the investigation (Chapters 9 and 10)
• Reporting and presenting the results of the investigation (Chapter 11)
Supplemental information is presented in appendices that are broadly grouped into two categories—
investigative and administrative. Appendices A through C contain information regarding investigations that
are not typically conducted as part of the routine subsurface investigations but are conducted either during
construction or operation to monitor performance and assess the condition of existing geotechnical features.
Appendices D through H contain information pertaining to administration functions, such as geotechnical
data management, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and best practices for health and safety. The
following is a synopsis of the content included in each of the chapters and appendices.
1.2.1 Planning the Investigation

Chapter 2 describes the two types of uncertainty related to subsurface conditions—natural variability and
knowledge uncertainty—and summarizes the nature of the technical and financial risks associated with a
subsurface investigation that inadequately recognizes and addresses these uncertainties. General strategies
for conducting a sound subsurface investigation program are also provided. Special considerations for

subsurface investigations performed for the AASHTO LRFD bridge design and design-building projects
are also discussed.
Chapter 3 presents processes for developing the scope for the subsurface investigations related to
planning, designing, constructing, and operating transportation facilities including the following:
• Identifying the types of data required to address the anticipated geotechnical risks and performance
issues
• Determining the required appropriate type of data
• Selecting the most appropriate investigation equipment for the anticipated site conditions
• Selecting the appropriate scope for geophysical testing and the appropriate geophysical methods
• Selecting the appropriate scope for in situ testing and the appropriate in situ tests
• Selecting the appropriate sampling equipment and borehole advancing methods for the anticipated
subsurface conditions
• Selecting the appropriate type of measurements to evaluate groundwater conditions
• Selecting the appropriate scope for laboratory testing and the appropriate laboratory tests
1.2.2 Executing the Investigation

Chapter 4 provides an overview of surface and borehole geophysical methods based on measuring,
analyzing, and interpreting seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, gravitational, and magnetic fields.
Geophysical methods are often useful during the initial phases of a site investigation program to efficiently
gain an understanding of the overall subsurface conditions, including stratigraphy and the location and size
of potential anomalies. The locations of subsequent borings and soundings can then be optimized to
investigate areas of concern identified from the geophysical surveys. Geophysical methods are also useful
to estimate some engineering properties of subsurface materials directly.
Chapter 5 includes information to aid geoprofessionals with evaluating the different in situ geotechnical
tests commonly used for characterizing soil and rock and with selecting the appropriate in situ test(s) for an
investigation. In situ tests can efficiently collect abundant data to help define subsurface stratigraphy,
evaluate vertical and horizontal variability, and obtain geotechnical engineering parameters for analysis and
design. The in situ tests presented in Chapter 5 for soils include the standard penetration test (SPT), cone-
penetration test (CPT), flat plate dilatometer test (DMT), vane shear, and pressuremeter; and the in situ tests
for rock are plate load test (PLT, also known as plate jacking test), flat jacking test (FJT), rock dilatometer
test, large field direct shear (DS) test, rock borehole shear test, and borehole cameras.
Chapter 6 provides information on the variety of equipment, methods, and procedures available for
drilling and sampling soil and rock to obtained disturbed and undisturbed samples:
• Field equipment
• Methods for advancing boreholes
• Soil sampling
• Rock coring methods
• Logging borings
• Boring closure
Chapter 7 describes the methods available to perform a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization

to gather information on (i) geology and hydrogeology, (ii) aquifer characteristics, (iii) aquitard
characteristics, and (iv) the direction and gradient of groundwater flow. Methods for establishing
groundwater levels and measuring pressure heads (e.g., monitoring wells, piezometers) and estimating
aquifer characteristics (e.g., pumping tests, slug tests, packer tests) are presented.
Chapter 8 presents the laboratory testing methods commonly used to characterize soil and rock. The
chapter provides references for pertinent AASHTO, ASTM International (ASTM), and other applicable
standards for each of the tests discussed. The following topics are presented:

• QA (e.g., sample identification and tracking; transportation, storage, and handling of samples;
assessment of sample disturbance)
• Index tests (e.g., particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, moisture content)
• Soil classification
• Performance tests on soil (e.g., compaction, hydraulic conductivity, one-dimensional [1D] consolidation,
shear strength, dynamic properties)
• Performance tests for pavement design (e.g., resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio [CBR])
• Tests on rock (e.g., slake durability, compressive strength, elastic moduli)
1.2.3 Interpreting the Results of the Investigation

Chapter 9 provides guidance for interpreting soil properties derived from geophysical, in situ, and
laboratory testing methods. The emphasis is on parameters commonly used in highway analysis and design:
• Preconsolidation stress or effective yield stress (i.e., stress history)
• Effective-stress and total-stress shear strength parameters
• Lateral stress state
• Modulus
• Coefficient of consolidation
• Hydraulic conductivity
Chapter 10 provides guidance for interpreting the engineering properties of intact rock and rock masses.
The specific topics presented include:
• Intact rock classification
• Intact rock properties (e.g., uniaxial compressive strength, shear strength)
• Rock mass classification (e.g., rock mass rating [RMR], Geological Strength Index [GSI])
• Rock mass properties (e.g., shear strength, foundation capacity)
1.2.4 Reporting and Presenting the Results of the Investigation

Chapter 11 provides background on the characterization of geotechnical data as either factual or
interpretative and typical uses of geotechnical information. The chapter also includes some guidance on
compiling, preparing, and presenting geotechnical information. The following are specific topics presented:
• Presentation of factual information
• Presentation of interpretative information
• Geotechnical reports for conventional (i.e., design-bid-build) and alternative (design-build) project
delivery methods
• Contractual implications of geotechnical reports
1.2.5 Supplemental Investigative Information

Appendix A contains the following information regarding geotechnical instrumentation to assist
geoprofessionals evaluate the potential effectiveness of an instrumentation program:
• Identifying potential failure modes where instrumentation may add significant value
• Making a preliminary selection of the appropriate types of instrumentation
• Acquiring a conceptual understanding of the steps involved in developing an instrumentation plan
• Evaluating, presenting, and managing the data obtained from instrumentation

Appendix B provides guidelines for implementing a geotechnical instrumentation program for

embankments, deep foundations, excavations in soil and rock, dewatering, earth retaining structures,
tunnels, and grouting. Appendix B also highlights how geotechnical instrumentation can be used to resolve
legal disputes and manage geotechnical assets.
Appendix C provides guidelines for characterizing the integrity of the existing bridge foundation
elements (condition assessment) and assessing their load carrying capacity.
1.2.6 Supplemental Administrative Information

Appendix D introduces basic geotechnical data management concepts and then advances to providing
guidance for developing and implementing a standardized geotechnical data management system. The
following aspects of geotechnical data management systems are presented and described:
• Introduction
• Basic features
• Implementation guidelines
• Software requirements
• Data sources
• Business process considerations
• Data interchange for geotechnical and geoenvironmental specialist (DIGGS).
Appendix E establishes QA guidelines to define an agency’s standards and quality management protocols
during the subsurface investigation to ensure delivery of consistent and competent subsurface investigation
products and services. The topics presented include the following:
• QA/QC policy
• Roles and responsibilities
• QA/QC plan
• Prequalification and verification
• Policies and procedures
• Standards
• Performance monitoring
Appendix F provides guidelines for planning and executing a subsurface investigation following
commonly accepted safe operating practices to protect human health and the environment. The topics
discussed include the following:
• General health and safety guidelines
• Responsibilities
• Administrative requirements
• Site inspection
• Development of a health and safety plan
• On-site activities
Appendix G provides guidelines and best practices for contracting subsurface investigation services. The
topics presented include the following:
• Prequalification of private engineering firms
• Development of scope of work
• QA/QC practices
• Contract administration

Appendix H summarizes the resources available to assist geoprofessionals plan and execute subsurface
investigations, analyze and interpret subsurface investigation data, present subsurface information, and
manage subsurface investigations. The following topics are presented:
• Technical manuals and reports
• Geotechnical websites
• Available training resources
• References
Key Complementary Resources

To complement the information in this manual, geoprofessionals responsible for planning and executing
subsurface explorations, and using the results for planning, design, construction, and asset management
phases of a project should consult the following complementary resources that also provide comprehensive
information on geotechnical site characterization:
• AASHTO R 13 (ASTM D420) on Conducting Subsurface Investigations
• Article 10.4 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2017)
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 on
Geotechnical Site Characterization (FHWA 2017)
• The reference manuals for the National Highway Institute (NHI) course on Soils and Foundations
(FHWA 2006a, 2006b)
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Manual No. 1110-1-1804 on
Geotechnical Investigations (USACE 2001)

Chapter 1 References
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. US Customary Units, 8th Edition. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2006a. Soils and Foundations, Reference Manual – Volume I, Publication No. NHI-06-088, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2006b. Soils and Foundations, Reference Manual – Volume II, Publication No. NHI-06-089, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2017. Geotechnical Site Characterization. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Publication No. NHI-16-072.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
USACE. 2001. Geotechnical Investigations. Engineer Manual 1110-1-1804, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC.

CHAPTER 2
Geotechnical Uncertainty and Risk
Introduction
For many civil infrastructure projects, uncertainties regarding subsurface soil and rock conditions are a
significant contributor to the overall technical and financial risks for the project (National Research Council
[NRC] 1984, Institution of Civil Engineers [ICE] 1991). The broad purpose of a subsurface investigation
is to inform geotechnical engineers, contractors, and other professionals about soil and rock conditions to
aid with identifying and mitigating the geotechnical-related risks (FHWA 2017). The objective of the
investigation is to gather sufficient information regarding subsurface conditions to reduce technical and
financial risks due to subsurface conditions to a level that the stakeholders of the project find tolerable.
Uncertainty
The uncertainties related to subsurface conditions are typically divided into two categories: (i) natural or
aleatory variability, and (ii) knowledge or epistemic uncertainty (Baecher and Christian 2003). Natural
variability is the inherent randomness in geologic materials that manifests itself on both spatial and temporal
scales. In principle, natural variability cannot be reduced; however, it can be estimated more accurately by
collecting additional data. Knowledge uncertainty is related to a lack of data or information about geologic
materials and a lack of understanding of the physical laws that govern their behavior and, thus, limit the
ability to model subsurface conditions. In geotechnical engineering, knowledge uncertainty is often
considered to include (i) site characterization (or statistical estimation) uncertainty, (ii) model uncertainty,
and (iii) parameter (or measurement) uncertainty (Lacasse and Nadim 1996, Phoon and Kulhawy 1999,
Baecher and Christian 2003). Unlike natural variability, knowledge uncertainty can in principle be reduced
collecting additional data and improving the quality of the data and models.
Geoprofessionals infer or estimate the uncertainties regarding the geometry (i.e., stratigraphy and
groundwater level) and properties of subsurface materials using inductive reasoning based on limited data,
judgment, and experience (Baecher and Christian 2003) when performing analyses and preparing designs.
A subsurface exploration program can be viewed as a critical element to identifying and reducing the
knowledge uncertainties and to more accurately estimating the natural variability regarding soil and rock
conditions at the project site. A thorough subsurface exploration program is a means to an end of
identifying, characterizing, and reducing geotechnical risks associated with knowledge uncertainty and
natural variability. In many cases, the marginal costs of a more thorough subsurface exploration program
are small compared to the risk-reduction benefits.
Geotechnical Risks
Geotechnical risks comprise both technical and financial risks. Technical risks are related to the inability
of a structure to satisfy the desired performance requirements for one or more limit states, including service,
fatigue and fracture, strength, and extreme event. Financial risks are related to claims, change orders, and
cost and schedule overruns attributed to subsurface conditions that differ from those anticipated based on
the preconstruction site investigation, as well as an overly conservative design.

2.3.1 Technical Risk

Geotechnical-related technical risks are often attributed to weak or soft soils, loose sands, expansive
clays, and jointed rock among other causes. Geotechnical failures may be related to the following:
• Global or local stability (i.e., exceeding the strength limit state)
• Excessive deformation (i.e., exceeding the service limit state)
• Internal piping and erosion
• Shrink and swell of foundation soils
• Collapse of metastable soils (e.g., loess)
• Collapse of subsurface voids due to natural phenomena (e.g., karst) or human activity (e.g., mining)
• Extreme events, including earthquakes (e.g., soil liquefaction, lateral spreading) or floods (e.g., scour)
Sowers (1993) examined nearly 500 failures of civil infrastructure, including foundations, embankment
dams, excavations, tunnels, highways, waste disposal facilities, port and marine structures, and heavy
construction. Most of the failures he examined involved geotechnical engineering issues. Based on analysis
results presented by Sowers, it can be inferred that approximately 20 percent of the failures he considered
involved inadequate or missing data, factors that Sowers attributes often to an engineer or owner’s decision
in the early stages to postpone or forego a detailed site investigation to save time and money. The timely
recognition of the benefits related to detailed site investigation may have reduced the technical risks and
the number of failures.
2.3.2 Financial Risk

There have been numerous studies in recent years to examine geotechnical-related financial risks (Hoek
and Palmeiri 1998, Prezzi et al. 2011, Boeckmann and Loehr 2016, Neupane 2016). Hoek and Palmeiri
(1998) observed that on all major civil engineering projects, geotechnical risks are a “serious factor in cost
and schedule control.” They also concluded that the inadequacy of information obtained from the site
investigation program is a leading contributor to geotechnical risks on large projects. This was found to be
particularly true for those projects that are linear in nature (e.g., highways and tunnels) because boreholes
are often widely spaced and the interpolation between boreholes introduces additional knowledge
uncertainty.
Prezzi et al. (2011) examined more than 300 contracts issued by the Indiana Department of
Transportation (DOT) and found that 41 percent of road contracts and 37 percent of bridge contracts
experienced geotechnical change orders. These change orders comprised approximately 1.3 percent of the
total estimated construction costs per year. Based on interviews with engineers from Indiana DOT and their
consultants, Prezzi et al. (2011) concluded that one of the main reasons for the large numbers of
geotechnical change orders was the failure to identify areas of poor subgrade soil due, in part, to an
insufficient site investigation. Prezzi et al. (2011) found that the geotechnical change orders for Indiana
DOT agreed with a survey the authors conducted of other State DOTs that found a primary reason for
change orders in other states were unexpected site conditions due to insufficient site investigations.
Boeckmann and Loehr (2016) surveyed 55 transportation agencies and found that construction claims,
change orders, and cost overruns resulted most frequently from differing site conditions (DSCs), including
(i) pile overruns, (ii) higher than expected groundwater, (iii) misclassified or mischaracterized subgrade
soils, (iv) unanticipated rock encountered during foundation construction, and (v) mischaracterized rock for
drilled shaft construction. Boeckmann and Loehr (2016) estimated that the costs associated with claims,
change orders, and overruns caused by DSCs were likely much greater than 7 percent of the project budget
for some projects.
Neupane (2016) surveyed geotechnical engineers from State DOTs and consulting firms to evaluate the
causes and impacts of geotechnical problems on bridge and road construction projects. Responses were
received by 53 engineers representing 42 different State DOTs and 43 consulting engineers. The survey

respondents indicated geotechnical-related problems frequently caused cost overruns, schedule overruns,
and construction claims resulting in additional costs ranging from at least 5 percent to more than 25 percent
of the project cost. Among the most common geotechnical-related causes of cost and schedule overruns,
claims, and change orders were (i) an insufficient number of borings or soundings, (ii) misclassified or
mischaracterized subgrade soils, and (iii) poorly defined groundwater conditions (i.e., higher groundwater
table than expected).
The results of these studies are consistent in drawing attention to the significant financial risks caused by
a poor subsurface investigation that fails to sufficiently reduce the knowledge uncertainties and accurately
evaluate the natural variability in the subsurface soils.
2.3.3 Risk Mitigation

The previously cited studies also provide recommendations to mitigate geotechnical risks. In general,
these recommendations fall into one of four categories:
• Provide an adequate budget to enable more borings, soundings, and tests to be conducted.
• Retain suitably qualified and experienced consultants to plan and perform the site investigation, evaluate
potential risks, and prepare a geotechnical baseline report (GBR) consistent with the risks.
• Allocate sufficient time and resources to prepare a thorough GBR.
• Improve subsurface investigation practices to include developing and implementing minimum standards.
The results of the referenced studies and surveys imply that technical and financial risks can be readily
mitigated by conducting a more thorough subsurface exploration to reduce knowledge uncertainties and
better characterize natural variability. While this is true, it should be recognized that (i) these risks cannot
be eliminated altogether and (ii) there may already be an implicit acceptance of these risks as tolerable and,
thus, a more thorough subsurface exploration is not considered justified. This latter point is called the
normalization of deviance, defined by Vaughn (1996) as “the gradual process through which unacceptable
practices or standards become acceptable.” In many cases, the normalization of deviance associated with
an adequate subsurface investigation can be attributed to human and organizational factors that are not
included in engineering analysis and design methods (Sowers 1993, Baecher and Christian 2003, Bea 2006).
Sowers (1993) attributes it to “ignorance of prevailing practice” or “rejection of current technology.” Bea
(2006) calls the failure to take advantage of available information an “unknown knowable,” and Bazerman
and Watkins (2004) call the consequences of not using available information a “predictable surprise.” From
these descriptions, it is clear that many geotechnical-related risks can also be reduced by becoming familiar
with best practices for geotechnical site investigations and avoiding the normalization of deviance.
2.3.4 Geotechnical Risk for Design-Build Projects

Mitigating the risk of differing geotechnical site conditions is more difficult for design-build contracts
awarded before a complete subsurface investigation is conducted. Typical design-build highway projects
often provide only a small fraction of the necessary geotechnical investigation at the time of procurement.
The design-build contracts require the design-build team to conduct a full subsurface site investigation and
prepare a GBR as part of the final design. As a result, construction costs could increase due to unforeseen
site conditions at the time the contract is awarded. While this risk is intended to be assumed by the
contractor, it is likely that it will be assigned ultimately to the owner. Essex (2007) provides guidelines for
using the GBR as a risk-management tool for design-build projects. In addition, the forthcoming NCHRP
Report 844: Guidelines for Managing Geotechnical Risks in Design-Build Projects being prepared by Iowa
State University is intended to assist public agencies in managing geotechnical risk on highway construction
projects that are delivered using the design-build contracting mechanism. The guidelines are intended to
provide strategies for aligning the DOT’s and its design-builder’s perception of geotechnical risk and

provide geotechnical risk management tools that can be used to implement those strategies on typical
design-build projects.
Load and Resistance Factor Design and Subsurface Investigation

LRFD is a reliability-based approach that replaces the single factor of safety that is used in allowable
stress design (ASD) with individual factors applied independently to loads and resistances. Various
combinations of factored loads are used to define limit states corresponding to service, fatigue, strength,
and extreme events. The individual factors are intended to reflect the natural variability and knowledge
uncertainties associated with both loads and resistances and can be chosen to replicate conventional factors
of safety or, preferably, to result in a target probability of failure or reliability index based on reliability
theory.
For geotechnical analyses (e.g., driven piles), the resistance factors depend primarily on the method used
to calculate the nominal resistance. However, consideration is also given to the type and extent of the
subsurface exploration program to account for knowledge uncertainty and the natural variability of the
subsurface materials. For example, resistance factors in Article 10.5.5 of AASHTO (2017) for the strength
limit state were calibrated using the average values of soil parameters from in situ and laboratory tests,
accounting for the typical variability in the property. It is noted in Article 10.5.5 that smaller resistance
factors should be used if “site or material variability is anticipated to be unusually high.” Conversely, higher
resistance factors may be used if they are based on “substantial statistical data combined with calibration”
via reliability theory. Similarly, Article 10.5.5 notes that when, for example, static or dynamic load tests
are used for driven pile and drilled shaft foundations, the number of tests used to develop design resistance
factors should be based on the variability in subsurface conditions. In this regard, LRFD represents a step
forward in explicitly recognizing the important roles of uncertainty and risk in geotechnical practice. LRFD
also provides a framework for achieving a more efficient and reasonable design via the use of improved
resistance factors that are directly linked to the thoroughness of the subsurface investigation.
10

AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. US Customary Units, 8th Edition. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Baecher, G.B., and J.T. Christian. 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, West
Sussex.
Bazerman, M.H., and M.D. Watkins. 2004. Predictable Surprises, the Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming, and How
to Prevent Them. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Bea, R. 2006. “Reliability and Human Factors in Geotechnical Engineering.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 132, No. 5, pp. 631–643.
Boeckmann, A.Z., and J.E. Loehr. 2016. Influence of Geotechnical Investigation and Subsurface Conditions on Claims,
Change Orders, and Overruns. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 484, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Essex, R.J. 2007. Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction: Suggested Guidelines. The Technical Committee on
Geotechnical Reports of the Underground Technology Research Council. ASCE, Reston, VA.
FHWA. 2017. “Geotechnical Site Characterization.” Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5. National Highway Institute
Course No. 132031, FHWA NHI-16-072, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Washington, DC. April.
Hoek, E., and A. Palmeiri. 1998. “Geotechnical Risks on Large Civil Engineering Projects.” International Association of
Engineering Geologists Congress. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, September 21–25.
ICE. 1991. Inadequate Site Investigation. Institution of Civil Engineers. Thomas Telford, London.
Lacasse, S., and F. Nadim. 1996. “Uncertainties in Characterising Soil Properties.” Uncertainty in the Geologic
Environment: From Theory to Practice. C.D. Shackleford, P.P. Nelson, and M.J.S. Roth, Eds. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 58, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 49–75.
NRC. 1984. Geotechnical Site Investigations for Underground Projects. Vol. 1: Overview of Practice and Legal Issues,
Evaluation of Cases, Conclusions, and Recommendations. National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Neupane, K.P. 2016. “Causes and Impacts of Geotechnical Problems on Bridge and Road Construction Projects.” MS
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
December.
Phoon, K.K., and F.W. Kulhawy. 1999. “Characterisation of Geotechnical Variability.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 612–624.
Prezzi, M., B. McCullouch, and V.K.D. Mohan. 2011. Analysis of Change Orders in Geotechnical Engineering Work at
INDOT. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/10. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of
Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Sowers, G.F. 1993. “Human Factors in Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Failures.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 238–256.
Vaughn, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
11

CHAPTER 3
Subsurface Investigation Processes
Introduction
This chapter presents processes for developing the scope for the subsurface investigations that are
typically conducted to collect subsurface data for planning, designing, constructing, and operating
transportation facilities. The specific motivations may include selecting appropriate foundation types,
determining if specialty construction means and methods are required, or estimating bid quantities. The
scope of a subsurface investigation is typically governed by the types and amount of data that need to be
collected to develop an appropriate ground model for the project to address these requirements. The scope
is optimized by selecting the most appropriate and efficient methods and equipment for collecting and
evaluating the required data. The topics covered in this chapter include the following:
1. Identifying the types of data required to address the anticipated geotechnical risks and performance
issues
2. Determining the required appropriate type of data
3. Selecting the most appropriate investigation equipment for the anticipated site conditions
4. Selecting the appropriate scope for geophysical testing and the appropriate geophysical methods
5. Selecting the appropriate scope for in situ testing and the appropriate in situ tests
6. Selecting the appropriate sampling equipment and borehole advancing methods for the anticipated
subsurface conditions
7. Selecting the appropriate type of measurements to evaluate groundwater conditions
8. Selecting the appropriate scope for laboratory testing and the appropriate laboratory tests
AASHTO R 13 (ASTM D420) contains complementary guidance on developing the scope of a

geotechnical site investigation and selecting the appropriate geophysical, in situ, and laboratory test
methods.
Types of Data Required for Subsurface Investigations

Determining the types of data required for an investigation is a critical step of investigation planning
because the data drives the scope as well as the cost and schedule of the investigation activities. If
inappropriate types of data are obtained or appropriate information is missed, data gaps will occur. The data
gaps may require remobilizing to the field to collect the missing information, which will add to the
investigation cost and could delay a project. An understanding of the primary factors that influence the
types of information needed for an investigation is critical to developing a sound investigation plan. The
remainder of this section discusses the three primary factors that govern the types of data that need to be
collected and analyzed for an investigation:
• Subsurface investigation objectives
• Information that can be obtained from available records
• Information that can be obtained from a site reconnaissance
12

Reviewing the available records and conducting site reconnaissance provides information that will aid in
understanding the local geology, potential variability in subsurface conditions, likely performance issues
that need to be addressed by the investigation, available pertinent data, and the data gaps that need to be
filled to satisfy the investigation objective(s).
3.2.1 Subsurface Investigation Objectives

The objective(s) of a subsurface investigation must be clearly defined and understood for the project
features being investigated to correctly determine the data requirements. Otherwise the type of data
collected may not be appropriate. Investigation objectives can be broadly grouped into the following four
categories:
1. Project planning
2. Design and construction
3. Performance monitoring during construction and operation
4. Forensic evaluations
3.2.1.1 Project Planning Investigations

Investigations related to project planning are typically conducted during the initial stages of project
development when multiple corridors and alignments within each corridor are being evaluated. This is so
project planning investigation results can be factored into selecting the project corridor and alignments. The
primary objective of a geotechnical investigation during the planning stage is to identify geologic or man-
made constraints that can significantly affect major planning considerations (e.g., public safety during and
after construction, environmental protection, construction costs, operation costs, project delivery schedule).
Acquiring subsurface information to identify geologic or man-made constraints may or may not require an
extensive or costly field effort during the planning stage. Examples of geologic and man-made constraints
that could affect project planning are presented in Table 3-1. To aid in determining the types of information
that may be required during a planning investigation, Table 3-1 also includes the types of information that
are typically required to evaluate each potential constraint.
Table 3-1. Geologic and man-made constraints
Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Made Constraint Performance Issue Requirements
Subsidence (mass Foundation support, Mapping, geophysical Depth, geometry, areal
displacement, open settlement, and ground methods, in situ testing, extent, stratigraphy
voids in roadways) improvement and drilling and
sampling
Landslides in soil and Slope stability, lateral Remote sensing, Geometry of mass,
rock earth pressure and mapping, geophysical definition of driving
excavation support, methods, in situ testing, stresses, shear
dewatering, and and drilling and strength, unit weight,
permanent sampling hydraulic conductivity,
groundwater control groundwater
conditions, and
stratigraphy
Unstable soil and rock Foundation support, Mapping, geophysical Stratigraphy, shear
(e.g., soft or weak soils, settlement, ground methods, in situ testing, strength, groundwater
improvement, conditions, moisture
13

Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Made Constraint Performance Issue Requirements
degradable rock, permanent and drilling and content, Atterberg
expansive soils) groundwater control, sampling limits, organic content,
soil shrink and swell, hydraulic conductivity,
use of materials unit weight, sensitivity,
excavated from the coefficient of
project, and frost consolidation, and
penetration and compression index
freezing
Chemical properties Corrosion of buried Known detrimental Stratigraphy, depth,

metals and use of geologic formations, geometry, and areal
materials excavated mapping, drilling, extent, pH, resistivity,
from the project petrographic, and and mineralogy
laboratory testing
Abandoned landfills Foundation support, Remote sensing, Depth, geometry, areal

settlement, corrosion of mapping, reviewing extent, contents of the
buried metals, and records, geophysical landfill, and chemical
slope stability methods, in situ testing, properties of the landfill
and drilling and materials
sampling
Contaminated sites Deterioration of buried Mapping, reviewing Depth, geometry, areal

structural components, available records, extent, and chemistry
constructability geophysical methods, of waste materials
hazards, and disposal in situ testing, and
of materials excavated drilling and sampling
from the project
Flooding, scour, and Foundation support, Mapping, reviewing Estimation of erosion

erosion settlement, slope available information, susceptibility and
stability, lateral earth geophysical methods, determination of level
pressure, and in situ testing, and or path of flow
excavation support drilling and sampling
Rock structure Slope stability, Mapping, drilling, Orientation and spacing

foundation support, sampling, testing, and of rock discontinuities,
settlement, dewatering, reviewing available rock classification,
and permanent information shear strength, elastic
groundwater control modulus, and unit
weight
Groundwater conditions Impacts most Reviewing available Aquifer and aquitard

geotechnical records, geophysical characteristics,
performance issues methods, in situ testing, groundwater levels,
monitoring wells, and direction and gradient
piezometers of groundwater flow
Stratigraphy Impacts most Geophysical methods, Depth, thickness, and

geotechnical in situ testing, and classification of each
performance issues drilling and sampling strata
Sources: AASHTO and FHWA (2002)
14

3.2.1.2 Design and Construction Investigations

Design and construction investigations are typically conducted after the project alignment and grade has
been selected and the locations of structures have been established. The objectives of the design and
construction investigations are to collect data to aid with the following:
• Identifying geotechnical performance issues of concern
• Identifying areas of concern and mapping their three-dimensional (3D) extent (areal and depth)
• Understanding the potential geologic variability of the site
• Developing design recommendations and specifications
Table 3-2 provides a summary of information to aid with selecting which performance issues to evaluate
for each type of project feature and the types of data that may be needed. The data required to identify the
stratigraphy and groundwater conditions is required for most of the project features because these are
important to identifying the geotechnical performance issues of concern, areas of concern, and quantifying
the geologic variability of a site.
Table 3-2. Performance issues and required design properties and parameters
Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

Bridges and viaducts Foundation support, settlement, Index properties, shear strength
lateral earth pressure, seismic (drained and undrained), unit
evaluations, dewatering, weight, coefficient of consolidation,
corrosion or decay potential, compression index,
and construction impacts on preconsolidation pressure,
adjacent structures chemical properties of soil and
rock, lateral stress coefficient,
hydraulic conductivity, artesian
conditions, rock structure, durability
of rock, shear modulus, shear
damping, shrink and swell,
stratigraphy, and groundwater
conditions
Retaining structures Lateral earth pressure, Index properties, lateral stress

foundation support, settlement, coefficient, shear strength (drained
permanent groundwater control, and undrained), elastic modulus,
seismic evaluations, corrosion, unit weight, coefficient of
and construction impacts on consolidation, hydraulic
adjacent structures conductivity, chemical properties of
soil and rock, rock structure, shear
modulus, shear damping,
conditions
Cuts and embankments Slope stability, heave potential, Lateral stress coefficient, shear
permanent groundwater control, strength (drained and undrained),
ground improvement, use of elastic modulus, unit weight,
materials excavated from the coefficient of consolidation,
project, evaluation of material compression index,
sources, and construction preconsolidation pressure,
impacts on adjacent structures hydraulic conductivity, chemical
properties of soil and rock, rock
structure, durability of rock,
15

Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

conditions
Pavements Soil shrink and swell, frost Index properties, compaction

penetration and freezing, characteristics, resilient modulus,
permanent groundwater control, CBR, resistance R-value, hydraulic
ground improvement, use of conductivity, stratigraphy, and
materials excavated from the groundwater conditions
project, and evaluation of
material sources
Tunnels and underground Slope stability, heave potential, Index properties, lateral stress
structures dewatering, permanent coefficient, shear strength (drained
groundwater control, ground and undrained), elastic modulus,
improvement, corrosion, and unit weight, coefficient of
construction impacts on consolidation, hydraulic
adjacent structures conductivity, chemical properties of
soil and rock, rock structure, shear
modulus, shear damping,
conditions
Culverts and pipes Lateral earth pressure, Lateral stress coefficient, shear
excavation support, dewatering, strength (drained and undrained),
foundation support, settlement, index properties, elastic modulus,
heave potential, corrosion, use unit weight, coefficient of
of materials excavated from the consolidation, compression index,
project, and evaluation of preconsolidation pressure,
material sources chemical properties of soil and
rock, rock structure, durability of
rock, stratigraphy, and groundwater
conditions
Poles, masts, and towers Foundation support, corrosion, Index properties, shear strength
and lateral earth pressure (drained and undrained), unit
weight, coefficient of consolidation,
compression index,
preconsolidation pressure,
chemical properties of soil and
rock, lateral stress coefficient,
hydraulic conductivity, artesian
conditions, rock structure, durability
of rock, shear modulus, shear
damping, shrink and swell,
conditions
Sources: AASHTO, FHWA (2002), and FHWA (2017)
3.2.1.3 Performance Monitoring During Construction and Operation

During construction, the investigation objective is usually to monitor performance and guide
construction. For example, settlement plates and piezometers are typically installed while constructing
embankments on soft soils to measure the amount of settlement and monitor dissipation of pore pressures;
16

this information is used to determine when to place the next lift of the embankment fill or when to terminate
waiting periods.
During operation, the investigation objective is to collect information that can help with evaluating the
existing conditions, predicting long-term performance, and identifying geotechnical assets with impending
elevated risk of failure or deficient performance. This information can be used to optimize operation and
maintenance budgets and establish rehabilitation priorities.
The type of information that can be collected during construction and operation include pore pressures,
vertical and horizontal deformations, tilt, crack widths, loads, strains, and changes in groundwater
elevations during dewatering. Additional information regarding performance monitoring during
construction and operation of geotechnical project features is presented in Appendices A and B.
3.2.1.4 Forensic Evaluations

The investigation objective of evaluating failure is to identify the factors that contributed to the failure;
the investigation is usually directed and focused on specific location(s) where failure has occurred. The
type of information that needs to be collected during forensic evaluations depends on the type of failure,
but it is similar to information required for design and construction and could include performance
monitoring.
3.2.2 Review of Available Records

Once the objectives of an investigation are defined, Tables 3-1 or 3-2 can be used to preliminary select
the types of geotechnical issues that may need to be evaluated and the types of data that may need to be
collected. While Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide a good starting point, the information is not site specific, and
additional screening is necessary to obtain refined site-specific information. Fortunately, there are many
readily available data sources that can be used to identify such things as the major geologic processes that
have affected a project site and history of land use at the site and surrounding areas that can reveal
potentially problematic past activities (e.g., mining, waste disposal). For example, historical aerial
photographs can be used to identify areas that have experienced landslides, locations of past mining
activities, and past industrial activities. Reviewing available information from multiple sources is critical
to developing a sound investigation plan because it helps narrow the relevant site-specific geotechnical
issues that need to be evaluated. Reviewing available records also establishes the types and amount of
information that is available which helps identify the data gaps that need to be filled by the investigation.
Table 3-3 provides a listing of the types of documents that contain information relevant to geotechnical
investigations, sources of information included in these documents, and the types of information that can
be found in each type of document.
Table 3-3. Documents and sources of available information
Types of Sources of Type of Available Information Comments

Documents Information
Topographic United States Site topography, physical Maps can be used to
Maps Geological Survey features, and good index map evaluate access issues
and state of site area for field equipment and
geological survey identify areas susceptible
agencies to slope instability.
17


Digital elevation United States Raster grids of elevation values Geographic information
models Geological Survey representing ground surface systems (GIS) can use a
3D Elevation topography and terrain digital elevation model for
Program (3DEP), 3D surface visualization,
United States contouring, slope
Interagency calculations, etc.
Elevation Inventory
(USIEI), and state
and regional data
clearinghouses
Soil survey National Resource Soil classifications using Available information is

reports Conservation AASHTO and Unified Soil for shallow depths (6 ft or
Service and local Classification System methods, less). It can be useful in
soil conservation moisture contents, Atterberg identifying near-surface
agencies limits, organic contents, problematic soils (e.g.,
chemical properties (e.g., pH), soils susceptible to
permeability of soils, climate, swelling and shrinkage)
stratigraphy, and groundwater or identifying potential
conditions borrow sources.
Geologic maps United States Soil and rock formations (rock These documents can be
and reports and Geological survey types, fracture, orientation and used to identify areas
sinkhole and and state approximate age), groundwater susceptible to landslides,
karst maps geological survey flow patterns, and bedrock subsidence, and others.
agencies contours that provide
approximate estimates of rock
depths, and potential geologic
hazards
Aerial Google EarthTM, Man-made structures, geologic Photographs can track

photographs Google MapsTM, and hydrogeologic information, site changes over time to
National Agriculture current and past land use, identify potential
Imagery Program borrow sources, and potential problematic past land use
(NAIP), and aerial geologic and man-made activities or geologic
survey companies hazards events such as
landslides.
Existing State and local Soil and rock classification, Existing subsurface
subsurface DOTs, United stratigraphy, groundwater reports can be useful in
investigation States Geological conditions, engineering identifying geotechnical
reports for survey, state and parameters-shear strength, unit performance issues of
nearby projects local environmental weights, elastic modulus, concern.
agencies, and coefficient of consolidation,
United States compression index, hydraulic
Environmental conductivity, Atterberg limits,
Protection Agency moisture and organic contents,
potential hazards, and locations
of landfills and Superfund sites
Hydrogeological United States Hydrogeological features (e.g., Well maps and logs can
and well maps Geological survey, springs), groundwater hazards, be useful in evaluating
and well logs state natural the need for construction
18


resources and soil stratigraphy, and groundwater dewatering and
survey agencies depths permanent groundwater
control.
Utility maps Utility companies Locations of buried utilities Utility maps are very
and local useful in identifying
government potential locations for in
agencies situ testing, drilling, and
sampling to avoid
impacting utilities or
creating unsafe working
environment. Also, useful
in mapping potential
equipment access routes
to drilling and testing
locations.
Flood insurance Federal Emergency 100- and 500-year floodplains, This information can be
maps Management data for evaluating scour used to ensure that the
Agency, USACE, potential final alignment does not
United States go through 100- and 500-
Geological survey, year floodplains.
State and local
government
agencies
Sanborn fire Library of Environmental hazards and Sanborn maps are

insurance maps Congress, state historical land use available for urban areas.
and university
libraries, and
Sanborn Company
Sources: AASHTO, FHWA (2002), and FHWA (2017)
3.2.3 Site Reconnaissance

Site reconnaissance provides a firsthand account of the actual conditions on the ground and often will
reveal information that would most likely be overlooked without it. Site reconnaissance minimizes the
potential for encountering major unexpected problems during the investigation. It also offers an opportunity
to confirm and further explore issues identified from reviewing available records. Additional objectives for
site reconnaissance include the following:
• Identify and confirm the geotechnical and man-made constraints relevant to the investigation
• Select the appropriate equipment required for geophysical testing, in situ testing, and drilling
• Select locations for geophysical testing, in situ testing, and drilling
• Select viable access routes to testing and drilling locations
• Provide good estimation of the time that will be required to complete the field investigation
• Identify field personnel safety needs
Site reconnaissance activities need to be conducted systematically to avoid missing critical pieces of
information. Table 3-4 includes information that can aid with planning and executing an effective site
reconnaissance.
19

Table 3-4. Items that need to be evaluated during field reconnaissance
Item Things to Note Comments

Access Rank access using one of the following Evaluating access helps determine
criteria: (1) easy, (2) accessible by four- the types of equipment that will be
wheel drive, (3) dozer and grading required.
required, and (4) inaccessible.
Utilities Existing overhead lines, marked gas lines, Utilities information helps select
manholes, sewer outfalls, and power appropriate in situ testing, drilling,
substations. and sampling locations.
Surface soils Presence of fill, debris, pollutants, slope Evaluating surface soils can reveal
instabilities, heave, subsidence, and scour evidence of abandoned landfills,
Superfund sites, subsidence, and
flooding.
Subsurface Visual soil and rock classifications, loose Subsurface materials can provide
materials cobbles, boulders, rock outcrops, rock joint evidence for subsidence, landslide
patterns, faults, discontinuities, activity, unstable soil and rock, and
weathering, planes of weakness, talus, stratigraphy.
karst and sinkholes, and caves
Surface drainage Swampy, ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers Surface drainage information
provides indications of the
groundwater conditions, hydraulic
conductivity of the underlying
materials, potential for flooding,
and others.
Subsurface Major aquifers, water wells, and pumping Subsurface draining information
drainage from deep wells provides indication of the
groundwater conditions.
Terrain Rank terrain in terms of (1) level ground, Evaluating terrain helps with
(2) sloping, (3) hummocky, (4) rolling hills, selecting appropriate field
and (5) mountainous. equipment, assessing the need for
slope stability investigations, and
others.
Past investigations Existing boreholes, core holes, and Past investigations can provide
evidence of past blasting operations information regarding stratigraphy
and groundwater conditions.
Source: AASHTO and FHWA (2002)
After the field reconnaissance study is complete, a field reconnaissance report should be prepared for use
in developing the investigation plan. This report should include the following:
1. A summary of the geologic framework of the site area
2. A summary of the geotechnical issues of concern
3. A stratigraphic listing of soil and rock units expected to be encountered
4. Locations, numbers, and depth ranges for the recommended subsurface investigation methods
5. Locations or areas requiring special attention
6. Opinion relating to potential use of materials excavated from the project and the probability of locating
significant quantities of borrow materials near the project
7. A sketched reconnaissance map
20

Developing a Subsurface Investigation Plan

While Section 3.2 primarily focused on providing guidelines for selecting the appropriate types of
information to collect for each of the four investigation objectives, this section focuses on providing
guidelines for developing subsurface investigation plans only for the planning, design, and construction
objectives. The other two objectives—performance monitoring during construction and operation, and
forensic investigations—are not included because they are usually not part of the typical subsurface
investigation programs conducted for transportation projects. Information on geotechnical instrumentation
for performance monitoring and forensic investigations is presented in Appendices A and B.
As discussed in Chapter 2, a subsurface exploration program is a means to identify and reduce the
uncertainties regarding soil and rock conditions at the project site. In general, confidence in design
parameters increases with increasing quantity and quality of measurements. Design parameters derived
from small number of measurements will have large uncertainty and may be inappropriate regardless of the
methods used for testing or interpretation (Christian 2004). The rest of this section provides guidelines for
developing the scope for a sound, cost-effective investigation plan that has one or more of the following
components:
1. Developing a geophysical testing plan
2. Selecting the number and locations for in situ tests, drilling, and sampling
3. Determining the minimum depth of investigation at each location
4. Determining the required types of samples and the sampling frequency
5. Developing an in situ and laboratory testing plan
6. Developing a plan for evaluating groundwater conditions
The type and overall scope of the project will dictate which of the components are required to develop
an appropriate ground model.
3.3.1 Developing a Geophysical Testing Plan

Geophysical investigations are used to estimate the physical properties of the subsurface by measuring,
analyzing, and interpreting seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, gravitational, and magnetic fields measured
at the ground surface or within boreholes. Surface geophysical methods are well suited to use during the
initial phases of a site investigation program to efficiently gain an understanding of the overall subsurface
conditions, including stratigraphy and the location and size of potential anomalies. The locations of
subsequent borings and soundings can then be optimized to investigate areas of concern identified from the
geophysical survey(s). A geophysical investigation followed by a targeted program of in situ tests, drilling
and sampling, and laboratory tests is a robust approach to developing an accurate conceptual site model for
a project. More information is presented in Chapter 4 regarding the selection and use of geophysical
methods for a geotechnical site investigation.
3.3.2 Selecting the Number and Locations for In Situ Tests, Drilling, and Sampling
There are primary factors that influence the selection of the number and locations for in situ tests and
boreholes for obtaining samples at a site:
• Objective of the investigation
• Project feature(s) being targeted by the investigation
• Subsurface conditions
• Anticipated uncertainty and variability of the subsurface conditions
• Access constraints
21

Investigations conducted for design and construction objectives are much more detailed than planning
objectives and, therefore, require more investigation locations than investigations for planning objectives.
Data required for planning objectives is needed to evaluate global geotechnical issues that can affect the
selection of the project corridor and alignment. This type of information can generally be obtained from
reviewing existing data and conducting a site reconnaissance. The primary purpose of field investigations
done for planning is to verify information obtained from reviewing existing records and site reconnaissance
and collecting data that can be used for preliminary designs, so the investigation locations tend to be farther
apart, which reduces the number of locations required. The guidelines presented in the remainder of this
section apply to design and construction investigations.
The required minimum number of locations for design and construction investigations depends on the
types of project features being targeted by the investigation. For example, the typical maximum spacing
between investigation locations for structures such as bridges and earth-retaining structures is usually
smaller than for the roadway features such as embankments and roadway cuts; therefore, for identical
lengths, the number of required investigation locations for structures is usually greater than for roadway
features. Column 2 of Table 3-5 provides guidelines for determining the minimum number of investigation
locations for each type of project feature. The number of investigation locations may be increased or
decreased depending on the expected variability of subsurface conditions and other project-specific
considerations.
Table 3-5. Guidelines for selecting number of investigation locations and depths of investigation
Project Feature Minimum Number of Investigation Minimum Depth of Investigation

Locations
Bridge - shallow One location per pier if width of pier is 2B for L ≤ 2B
foundations less than 100 ft (30 m)
3B for 2B ≤ L ≤ 5B
Two locations per pier if width of pier is
4B for L ≥ 5B
greater than 100 ft (30 m)
Should extend below any soft
Additional investigation locations
compressible material into competent
should be included if uncertain or
material. Should extend 10 ft (3 m)
highly variable subsurface conditions
into competent rock if rock is
are encountered.
encountered before the above criteria
is met.
Bridge - deep One location per pier if width of pier is In soil: Extend below the anticipated
foundations less than 100 ft (30 m) pile tip elevation a minimum of 20 ft (6
m) or 2x the maximum group
Two locations per pier if width of pier is
dimension whichever is greater.
greater than 100 ft (30 m)
Piles on rock: Extend below
Additional investigation locations
anticipated pile tip elevation a
should be included if uncertain or
minimum of 10 ft (3 m).
highly variable subsurface conditions
are encountered. Shafts on or in rock: Extend below
anticipated shaft tip elevation a
At each shaft location for rock
minimum of 10 ft (3 m) or 3x shaft
socketed shafts.
diameter for isolated shafts or 2x
maximum group dimension whichever
is greater.
22


Locations
Retaining structures A minimum of one location for each Extend below bottom of the wall 2x
wall. If wall is greater than 100 ft (30 the wall height or 10 ft (3 m) into hard
m), spacing should be at intervals of rock. Should extend below any soft
100 to 200 ft (30 to 60 m) with compressible material into competent
locations alternating from in front to material.
behind the wall.
Anchored walls: Additional locations in
the anchorage zone spaced at
intervals of 100 to 200 ft (30 to 60 m)
Soil nail walls: Additional locations
behind the wall at a distance of 1 to
1.5x the wall height. Spacing should be
at intervals of 100 to 200 ft (30 to 60
m).
Temporary structures: The same
recommendations generally apply to
temporary structures. However, the
scope of the subsurface investigation
for temporary structures is usually
within the purview of the contractor.
Roadway - Spacing of 200 ft (60 m) in uncertain or Depth of 2x the embankment height

embankment highly variable conditions to 400 ft (120 unless a hard stratum is encountered
foundations m) in uniform conditions along above this depth.
centerline embankment.
If soft strata are encountered
At critical locations (maximum height extending to a depth greater than 2x
or maximum depth of soft strata): a embankment height, extend below the
minimum of three locations along the soft strata into competent material.
transverse direction.
Bridge approach embankment: a
minimum of one location per abutment.
Roadway cuts Spacing of 200 ft (60 m) in uncertain or Minimum depth of 15 ft (4.5 m) below
highly variable conditions to 400 ft (120 lowest cut elevation unless a hard
m) in uniform conditions along stratum is encountered before the
centerline of cut. minimum depth is achieved.
At critical locations (maximum cut If soft strata are encountered extend
depth or maximum depth of soft depth of investigation to a competent
strata): a minimum of three locations layer.
along the transverse direction.
If base of cut extends below
For cut slopes in rock, perform groundwater level, extend depth of
geologic mapping along the length of investigation to determine the depth
the cut slope. of the underlying pervious strata
Pavements Spacing of 100 to 300 ft (30 to 90 m) Minimum depth of 10 ft (3 m) from the

depending on the subsurface proposed top of subgrade elevation.
conditions. Closer spacing for
uncertain or highly variable conditions
23


Locations
and longer spacing for uniform
conditions.
Culverts and pipes One boring at each end of the culvert. Same criteria as for bridge
foundations for large culverts.
Additional borings between the end of
culvert spaced at 100 to 300 ft (30 to Small culverts: Minimum of 10 ft (3 m)
90 m) depending on the variability of below anticipated invert elevation
the subsurface conditions
For culvert extensions, one boring
every 50 to 100 ft (15 to 30 m) with a
minimum of one boring.
Poles, masts and One boring at each foundation 30 ft (9 m) below the anticipated top
towers location. of foundation in soil or 10 ft (3 m) of
rock coring whichever is shallower.
Source: FHWA (2002), FHWA (2017), New York State DOT (2013), and South Carolina DOT (2010)
B: Footing width
L: Footing length
The nature of subsurface conditions also influences the number of in situ tests and borings that can be
conducted within the available schedule and budget for the site investigation. For example, if ground
conditions are suitable for using CPTs, it is likely possible to conduct a larger number of tests than for sites
where extensive rock coring is needed to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The anticipated uncertainty
and variability in subsurface conditions is another consideration for selecting the number of investigation
locations. A larger number of locations should be planned for sites with uncertain or highly variable
subsurface conditions to reduce the knowledge uncertainties and to more accurately estimate the natural
variability associated with soil and rock conditions at the project site.
Finally, access constraints at a site drive the equipment selection. Costs associated with mobilizing and
using equipment are a large component of the investigation cost. For a project with a fixed budget, if the
site has easy access and as such a lower equipment cost, the budget can include a larger number of
investigation locations. For example, drilling over water is typically much more expensive than drilling on
land because it requires using barges. Mobilization costs for barges are generally high, and set up times and
time required to move between investigation locations on water are much longer than drilling on land; so
drilling over water is a much slower investigation process than drilling on land. This slower process means
that for the same budget and schedule, fewer investigation locations will be selected when drilling over
water. Table 3-6 presents information that can aid with selecting the appropriate equipment for the
anticipated access conditions. Additional information on equipment for conducting borings and soundings
is presented in Chapters 5 and 6.
Table 3-6. Investigation equipment and their applications
Rig Type Application

Truck-mounted drill rigs Areas with easy access
All-terrain vehicles drill rigs Sites with soft ground and rugged terrain
Track-mounted drill rigs Sites with swampy and very soft ground
24

Skid drill rigs Sites with steep terrain
Wireline drill rigs Rock sampling
Hydraulic direct-push rigs Fast, continuous sampling, cleaner (no spoils)
Sonic rigs Continuous sampling of soil and rock
Barges – regular Over water drilling for shallow water depths (10 ft [3 m] or
less)
Jack up platform barges Over water drilling for areas with deep water (up to 40 ft
[12 m])
Source: Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee (2015)
3.3.3 Determining the Minimum Depth of Investigation at Each Location

The minimum required depth of investigation at each location usually depend on (i) the type of
anticipated subsurface conditions and (ii) the type of feature being investigated. Column 3 of Table 3-5
provides guidelines on the criteria that should be used to select the minimum depth of investigation for each
type of project feature. The criteria for bridge foundations works best in projects where a preliminary
investigation has been completed and there is some site-specific subsurface information that can be used to
select the most likely foundation type and approximate depth to the bottom of the foundation element. If a
preliminary investigation has not been completed, some assumptions regarding the subsurface conditions
need to be made based on available records and knowledge of the local geology to start the investigation;
adjustments should be made during the investigation in consultation with the geotechnical design engineer
when the actual site conditions differ from the assumed conditions.
3.3.4 Determining the Required Types of Samples and Sampling Frequency

Once the investigation locations and the depths of investigation at each sampling location have been
selected, the next step includes determining the required types of samples (disturbed and undisturbed) and
the required sampling frequency. Disturbed samples are used to conduct index tests that are required for (i)
classifying soil and rock, (ii) developing stratigraphy, and (iii) identifying problematic soil or rock
conditions. Disturbed samples and index tests are more economical, so they are typically used more
frequently. Undisturbed samples are used to run performance tests that are required to measure specific
design parameters for fine-grained soils. Undisturbed samples and performance tests are more expensive,
so they are used less frequently than disturbed samples. The required sampling frequency for each type of
sample varies depending on the variability of the subsurface conditions at the site, the type of project feature
being investigated, and the required design properties. In general, a lower sampling frequency is required
for sites with more uniform subsurface conditions. An additional consideration for undisturbed samples is
difficult sampling conditions that can induce sample disturbance. In these situations, the sampling
frequency should be higher to offset the samples that may be unsuitable for laboratory testing due to a high
degree of disturbance.
FHWA (2002) recommends the following minimum sampling frequencies for disturbed and undisturbed
samples:
• Two disturbed samples per 5-ft (1.5-m) interval in the top 10 ft (3 m)
• One disturbed sample per 5-ft (1.5-m) interval for depths from 10 to 100 ft (3 to 30 m)
• One disturbed sample per 10-ft (3-m) interval for depths greater than 100 ft (30 m)
• One undisturbed sample in each layer of fine-grained soil
• For layers of fine-grained soil thicker than 10 ft (3 m), one undisturbed sample for every 10 to 20 ft (3
to 6 m)
25

These guidelines should be considered as a starting point and may need to be adjusted during the
investigation depending on the results of the investigation. If the results show that the subsurface conditions
are uncertain or highly variable, additional samples will likely be required.
3.3.5 Developing an In Situ and Laboratory Testing Plan

Once the types of samples and sampling frequency have been determined, the next step is selecting the
combination of in situ and laboratory tests that will provide reliable measurements of design parameters.
Both types of tests have advantages and disadvantages. Laboratory tests usually offer the opportunity to
make direct measures of design parameters (e.g., strength, compressibility), and it is often possible to
control the boundary conditions precisely (e.g., confining pressure, drainage). However, laboratory tests
are conducted on small specimens that may not be representative of the properties of the entire stratum in
the field, and the test results will be affected by sample disturbance. On the other hand, in situ tests often
involve minimal disturbance and, by definition, measure soil and rock properties at the in situ stress state.
Some in situ tests, such as the CPT, allow for continuous profiling with depth. The disadvantage of many
in situ tests is that they make an indirect measurement of design parameters. The desired parameter must
be obtained from empirical correlations or via the solution of an appropriate boundary value problem. This
introduces an additional source of uncertainty, which Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) called transformation
uncertainty, due to the method being used to estimate the design parameter.
In situ and laboratory tests complement one another well. In situ tests are often a large component of the
subsurface exploration program because tests can usually be conducted at lower cost. Laboratory tests
provide direct measurements of design parameters that can either be used for design or to evaluate the
accuracy of the values estimated from in situ tests. On larger projects, sufficient laboratory tests can be
conducted to develop site-specific empirical correlations that can reduce transformation uncertainties
associated with in situ tests.
3.3.5.1 In Situ Testing

In situ testing programs are designed to provide the information required to accomplish the following:
1. Classify soil and rock
2. Develop stratigraphy
3. Establish variability of the subsurface conditions
4. Identify problematic soils and rock
5. Provide measurements of the required parameters for design and construction
Because it is possible to collect abundant data via in situ tests, they allow for a more comprehensive
definition of soil strata, zones, layering, and stratigraphy, as well as the identification of lenses, weak zones,
and inclusions. In situ tests also allow an investigation of vertical and horizontal variability to evaluate the
heterogeneity across a site.
The selection of the most appropriate in situ tests for a site depends on the (i) anticipated subsurface
conditions, (ii) ability of the in situ tests to provide reliable estimates of the required design parameters, and
(iii) cost. Anticipated subsurface conditions tend to rule out certain in situ tests. For example, in situ test
methods that require direct push into the ground are usually not appropriate for sites with hard soil deposits
or rock, while in situ tests that requires a borehole may be appropriate for a wide variety of subsurface
conditions. Table 3-7 provides a summary of information that should aid in selecting the appropriate in situ
tests for the anticipated subsurface conditions and data requirements. Additional information pertaining to
in situ tests is provided in Chapter 5.
26

Table 3-7. Summary of in situ tests and associated design parameters

In Situ Tests Design Parameters Advantages Disadvantages
Estimated
SPT Drained shear strength of Most widely used in situ test, SPT is unreliable for
sands and over- economical, can be soils containing course
consolidated clays conducted in a wide variety gravels, cobbles,
of materials including boulders, silts, or soft
partially weathered rock, and sensitive clays.
allows recovery of samples
Piezocone Drained and undrained Fast and continuous profiling Piezocone

Penetrometer Test shear strength, coefficient (excellent for stratigraphy), penetrometer test is
of consolidation, and test is fast (economical and unsuitable for very stiff
hydraulic conductivity; productive), results are not to hard clays, gravel,
compression and shear operator dependent boulder, and boulder
wave velocity can be deposits, and there is
measured via a seismic no sample recovery.
downhole test using the
piezocone penetrometer
test
Dilatometer Elastic modulus and Good for predicting elastic A dilatometer may be
lateral stress coefficient settlements; can be used in difficult to push in very
sands, silts, and clays; can stiff to hard clays and
be run with either drilling or very dense sands, and
direct-push equipment there is no sample
recovery.
Vane shear test Undrained shear strength Most accurate in situ test for This test is not
and sensitivity determining undrained shear applicable for stiff and
strength for soils with an hard clays and there is
undrained shear strength of no sample recovery.
500 pounds per square foot
(24 kilopascals) or less
Pressuremeter Elastic modulus, shear Can be used for both soil This is a slow test that
modulus, lateral stress and weathered rock, can be requires a very
coefficient, and drained run with either drilling or experienced operator.
and undrained shear direct-push equipment, The results are affected
strength excellent for design of by quality of borehole
shallow foundations and and there is no sample
evaluating lateral capacity of recovery.
deep foundations
Rock PLT Elastic modulus of rock Measures rock mass This test requires a
mass and lateral stress properties and is good for specialized operator.
coefficient evaluating settlement
Field rock DS test Drained shear strength Can be used along joints This test requires a
and shear planes to specialized operator.
measure strength of
discontinuities, good for
slope stability analysis
27

In Situ Tests Design Parameters Advantages Disadvantages

Estimated
Rock dilatometer Elastic modulus of rock Good for predicting This test requires a
mass settlement of rock mass specialized operator.
Rock borehole Drained shear strength Robust, measures shear This test requires a
shear test strength directly, and is good specialized operator
for evaluating slope stability and may not be readily
and foundation design of available.
drilled shaft socketed in rock
Acoustic and Location and orientation Economical method for This test requires a
optical televiewer of rock joints and other evaluating rock mass specialized operator.
discontinuities properties
Source: Clayton et al. (2008) and FHWA (2002)
Information pertaining to stratigraphy and groundwater conditions is needed for most situations (Tables
3-1 and 3-2). One in situ test that is very efficient in developing stratigraphy and determining the
approximate depth to groundwater is the piezocone penetrometer test (CPTu). Therefore, if the subsurface
conditions are suitable for CPTu testing, it may be advantageous to conduct CPTu tests first and follow up
with a more targeted in situ testing and sampling program. CPTu tests will help (i) establish the uniformity
or heterogeneity of the subsurface conditions, which should help develop the scope of the sampling program
(i.e., if uniform conditions are encountered, the required number of samples may be reduced), (ii) identify
the types of soils in terms of coarse or fine grained, and (iii) quantify the consistency of fine-grained soils
in terms of soft to hard, which should help with selecting the layers that require more targeted in situ testing
and acquiring undisturbed samples. This information will also aid with determining the most appropriate
in situ test(s). For example, if very soft to soft fine-grained soil layers are identified and shear strength is
one of the required design parameters, vane shear tests (VSTs) can be conducted in those layers.
The performance of geotechnical features founded in rock or constructed in rock depends on the
composite strength of the rock mass rather than the strength of the intact rock. Therefore, in addition to
obtaining cores for laboratory testing, field mapping and evaluating rock discontinuities should be included
in the in situ evaluation program. Field mapping includes collecting information such as spacing of the
discontinuities, continuous lengths of discontinuities, alignment of the discontinuities relative to the
direction of loading, condition of the discontinuities in terms of roughness, and hardness. This information
is needed to classify the rock mass and calculate its properties. Appropriate in situ tests on rock should be
included to supplement the field mapping and evaluation efforts.
3.3.5.2 Sampling Equipment and Methods

A summary of information pertaining to available sampling equipment for subsurface investigations,
along with their applications, advantages, and disadvantages, is included in Table 3-8 to aid with selecting
the most appropriate sampling equipment for an investigation. Additional information is presented in
Chapter 6. Most of the sampling equipment presented in Table 3-8 requires a borehole. Therefore, selecting
sampling equipment also requires selecting an appropriate borehole advancing method. To facilitate the
selection of the most appropriate borehole advancing method for the anticipated subsurface conditions,
information pertaining to borehole advancing methods and their applications is summarized in Table 3-9.
Chapter 6 also contains information on methods for soil borings and rock corings.
28

Table 3-8. Sampling equipment and their applications
Sampling
Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Equipment
Split barrel Obtaining disturbed soil Robust and Results in poor or no
samples and partially economical recovery in loose
weathered rock sands, gravels, and
cobbles; cannot
obtain undisturbed
samples.
Sonic Obtaining continuous Excellent for These cannot obtain

disturbed samples of soil stratigraphy, fast, and undisturbed samples.
and rock produces less spoils
Vibracore Obtaining continuous Excellent for These cannot obtain

disturbed samples of soil stratigraphy undisturbed samples.
at the bottom of a body of
water, requires a minimum
of 20 ft (6 m) of water
above the mudline
Shelby tube Obtaining undisturbed Can obtain high-quality Tubes are easily
samples of soft to stiff silt undisturbed samples damaged if very stiff
and clay soils in cased clays are
boreholes encountered; cannot
sample granular
materials (e.g., sands,
gravel).
Laval Obtaining undisturbed Obtains very high- These are more

samples of soil in cased quality samples due to expensive than
boreholes its large diameter, can Shelby tubes.
sample a wide variety
of soils
Piston Obtaining high-quality Ability to sample in These are

undisturbed samples in uncased boreholes complicated, time
uncased boreholes consuming, and
costly.
Osterberg Obtaining high-quality Excellent for sampling These are unsuitable

undisturbed samples of in swampy areas and for sampling hard,
soft and potentially areas with difficult dense, or gravelly
sensitive soils in uncased access due to its soils.
boreholes portability, ability to
sample in uncased
boreholes
Denison Obtaining high-quality Excellent sample These are unsuitable

undisturbed samples of recovery for sampling loose
sand soils, gravel soils, sands and soft clays.
hard clays, partially
29

Sampling
Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Equipment
cemented soils, and
partially weathered rock
Core barrel Obtaining high-quality rock Can sample a wide These are unsuitable
core samples variety of rock for sampling badly
materials fractured rock.
Table 3-9. Borehole advancing methods and their applications
Borehole Method Application Comments

Solid flight auger Good for advancing soil borings to Sampling can only be done in
shallow depths (20 ft [6 m] or less) soils (e.g., stiff clays, silts) that
can allow the borehole to remain
open (no cave in).
Hollow-stem auger (HSA) Good for advancing deep soil borings The augers may get stuck in the
(depths can exceed 100 ft [30 m]), may ground at sites with groundwater
not work for sites with shallow depths to at shallow depths.
groundwater
Rotary drilling Good for advancing shallow and deep This is the most common
soil borings, especially good for sites exploration method (economical)
with groundwater at shallow depths and works for most materials.
Test pits and trenches Good for mapping stratigraphy, This is expensive but excellent for
(excavated by backhoes) determining depth to rock, presence of evaluating slope stability in
faults, degree of weathering, and projects with major cuts and
groundwater inflow where the geologic structure
controls slope stability. It allows
recovery of large block samples
for laboratory testing.
Exploratory shafts Good for mapping rock structure to This is expensive but excellent for
adequately assess nature, elevation, and obtaining design information for
spacing of rock discontinuities design of tunnels and
underground structures.
Manual methods (hand Used for shallow depth exploration in These methods are slow (low
probes and hand augers) wetland areas and areas with very soft productivity) but can be
soils that are difficult to access with economical for small projects.
equipment, excellent for mapping
thicknesses and lateral extent of soft
clays and compressible organic soils
In planning and executing an in situ testing and sampling program, it is very important to minimize the
number of equipment mobilizations and demobilizations to control cost and schedule. Therefore, in
developing an in situ testing and sampling program, it is prudent to try to group together activities that can
be efficiently conducted with the same equipment. For example, if in situ tests that require a borehole are a
30

part of the in situ testing program, they should be conducted during sampling and in the same borehole if
possible. Also, it is important to provide regular updates to the geotechnical design engineer to facilitate
adjustments in the testing and sampling program, especially if unanticipated subsurface conditions are
encountered. For example, if CPTu test results identify fine-grained soil layers prone to consolidation,
CPTu pore-pressure dissipation tests may need to be added to the testing program to evaluate time rate of
consolidation parameters; if pore-pressure dissipation tests are necessary, the tests should be conducted
before demobilizing the CPTu equipment.
3.3.5.3 Laboratory Testing Program

Laboratory tests offer the capability to systematically characterize the behavior of soil and rock in a
controlled environment. This capability allows laboratory tests to be used to model existing in situ
conditions as well as conditions that will exist at various stages of project development. A typical laboratory
testing program usually includes index and performance tests. Index tests provide general information
regarding the material and include such tests as grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, moisture content,
and organic content. Performance tests measure specific material parameters that are required for design
and assessment of constructability, such as shear strength, coefficient of consolidation, compression index,
and elastic modulus.
The objective in developing the scope of a laboratory testing program is to select the types and quantities
of laboratory tests that should be conducted to provide reliable estimates of the required design parameters.
The selection of the requited types of tests is usually governed by (i) anticipated performance issues that
need to be addressed, (ii) predominant material types anticipated at the site (i.e., coarse-grained soil, fine-
grained soils, or rock), and (iii) anticipated subsurface conditions (e.g., soft, hard). Determining the
quantities of each type of test that should be conducted is usually based on the anticipated variability of the
subsurface conditions (e.g., a site with highly variable subsurface conditions would require more tests than
a site with more uniform conditions) and the scope of the planned in situ testing program (e.g., if the scope
of the in situ testing program is small, a large number of laboratory tests may be required). Table 3-10
provides some guidelines for selecting the appropriate laboratory tests for the required parameters.
Additional information pertaining to laboratory testing is included in Chapter 8.
Table 3-10 Guidelines for selecting laboratory tests
Geotechnical Issue Pertinent Parameters that Applicable Lab Tests

Can Be Obtained from Lab
Tests
Foundation support Shear strength, particle size Index tests
distribution, unit weight, and DS test (drained shear strength of soil and shear
durability of rock strength of rock)
UU Triaxial (undrained shear strength)
CU Triaxial (undrained and drained shear strength)
CD Triaxial (drained shear strength)
Triaxial or uniaxial tests on rock (compressive
strength)
Point-load strength test (shear strength index of rock)
Slake durability test (durability of rock)
Settlement Elastic modulus, coefficient Index tests

of consolidation, One dimensional consolidation test to obtain
compression index, coefficient of consolidation, compression index,
preconsolidation pressure, preconsolidation pressure
31

Geotechnical Issue Pertinent Parameters that Applicable Lab Tests

Can Be Obtained from Lab
Tests
particle size distribution, Triaxial or uniaxial tests on rock (elastic modulus)
Atterberg limits, moisture
content, and organic content
Seismic evaluations Shear modulus, shear Index tests
damping, particle size Resonant column (shear modulus and material
distribution, and Atterberg damping ratio vs. shear strain)
limits Cyclic triaxial (cyclic strength for liquefaction
evaluations)
Dewatering Hydraulic conductivity Index tests
Flexible-wall or rigid-wall permeameter tests
(hydraulic conductivity)
Permanent Hydraulic conductivity Index tests

groundwater control Flexible-wall or rigid-wall permeameter tests
(hydraulic conductivity)
Corrosion of buried pH and resistivity pH

metals Resistivity
Soil swell and shrink Particle size distribution, Index tests

moisture content, and 1D consolidation (swell potential)
Atterberg limits
Use of excavated Particle size distribution, Index tests

material Atterberg limits, maximum Compaction tests
dry unit weight, optimum Resilient modulus test (estimating resilient modulus
moisture content, modulus, of subgrade soils for pavement design)
shear strength, moisture CBR (estimating strength of subgrade soils for
content, and organic pavement design)
contents Resistance R-value (estimating strength of subgrade
soils for pavement design)
Source: information from AASHTO (2018), ASTM Standards, Clayton et al. (2008), and FHWA (2002)
Notes:
UU: Unconsolidated-Undrained
CU: Consolidated-Undrained
CD: Consolidated-Drained
The predominant material type(s) anticipated at a site plays a significant role in determining the types of
laboratory tests that may be required. If the anticipated predominant material type happens to be granular
soils, performance laboratory tests on undisturbed samples may not be required, and the laboratory testing
program may consist of conducting laboratory index tests to confirm stratigraphy and performance tests on
compacted disturbed samples to obtain parameters needed for pavement design. If the anticipated
predominant material type is fine-grained soils, performance tests on undisturbed samples may be required
when the consistency of the materials is in the range of very soft to stiff. Furthermore, index tests and
performance tests on compacted disturbed samples may be required to confirm stratigraphy and facilitate
evaluating the use of excavated material, the shrink and swell potential, and the parameters needed for
32

pavement design. If the anticipated predominant material is rock, the focus of the laboratory testing program
should be on obtaining parameters that are needed for evaluating rock mass properties (e.g., the strength of
intact rock specimens, durability of rock).
The quantities of samples that should be tested for each type of required test is typically finalized after
the field testing and sampling program is completed. This provides an opportunity to review all the available
in situ test results and visually classify the collected samples prior to determining the final quantity of the
samples that need to be tested. Reviewing and evaluating the in situ test results and samples can assist with
developing a preliminary stratigraphy that can be used to (i) quantify the variability of the subsurface
conditions, (ii) identify soil strata of concern that should be targeted for laboratory testing, and (iii) assess
the appropriateness and adequacy of the completed in situ testing program to identify any data gaps that
should be filled by the laboratory testing program.
3.3.6 Developing a Plan for Evaluating Groundwater Conditions

Hydrogeology plays a significant role in the geotechnical analysis, design, and performance of the
subsurface features of the transportation infrastructure. Thus, a hydrogeologic characterization to gain an
understanding of the distribution, thickness, composition, and continuity of the lithologic units that
influence groundwater flow is critical to most subsurface investigation programs. Results of hydrogeologic
characterizations are specifically used to address issues such as slope failures, landslides, piping erosion,
subsidence, subgrade pumping, heave in excavations, and uplift of structures due to buoyancy.
A comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization should include information on (i) geology and
hydrogeology, (ii) aquifer characteristics, (iii) aquitard characteristics, (iv) groundwater levels, and (v) the
direction and gradient of groundwater flow. Knowledge of the site geology and stratigraphy is essential to
define the hydrogeologic framework and identify pathways for groundwater flow. It is necessary to define
water-bearing zones that allow groundwater movement (i.e., aquifers) and zones that may restrict
movement of groundwater (i.e., aquitards), as well as any geologic features that may affect groundwater
movement, such as faults, folds, fractures, buried channel deposits, or solution features. Aquifer
characteristics that should be evaluated include the (i) hydraulic conductivity, (ii) porosity, (iii)
permeability, (iv) transmissivity, and (v) storage coefficient. Aquitards are confining layers that limit the
vertical movement of water. Some aquitards have poor integrity due to secondary permeability in the form
of fractures, rootlets, or other features, and thus the hydraulic conductivity may vary considerably.
Therefore, characterizing aquitards is a critical element of site investigations. Groundwater levels (i.e.,
potentiometric information) may be obtained from soil borings, monitoring wells, and piezometers and used
to estimate the direction and gradient of groundwater flow. Additional information pertaining to
hydrogeological site characterization for evaluating groundwater conditions is presented in Chapter 7.
33

AASHTO. 2018. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, and AASHTO
Provisional Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee. 2015. The Drilling Manual - 5th Edition. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis,
Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9781439814208.
Clayton, C.R.I., N.E. Simons, and M.C. Matthews. 2008. Site Investigations, Second Edition. Halsted Press, Technology &
Engineering, London.
Christian, J.T. 2004. “Geotechnical Engineering Reliability: How Well Do We Know What We Are Doing?” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 10, pp. 1556–1571, DOI: 1061/(ASCE) 1090-
0241(2004)130:10(985).
FHWA. 2017. Geotechnical Site Characterization. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Publication No. NHI-16-072.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2002. Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties. Publication No. IF-02-034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
New York State DOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual. Albany, New York.
Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy. 1999. “Evaluation of Geotechnical Property Variability.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 625–639.
South Carolina DOT. 2010. Geotechnical Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, South
Carolina.
34

CHAPTER 4
Geophysical Investigations
Introduction
Geophysical investigations are used to estimate the physical properties of the subsurface by measuring,
analyzing, and interpreting seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, gravitational, and magnetic fields measured
at the ground surface or within boreholes. Investigations conducted from the ground surface typically
provide information about the subsurface both laterally and to some depth; while most of the borehole
investigations, with some exceptions, provide detailed information about subsurface materials only in the
immediate vicinity of the borehole or between boreholes. In special applications, it is also possible to gather
geophysical measurements of the earth over water or from airborne platforms.
Geophysical methods are often useful during the initial phases of a site investigation program to
efficiently gain an understanding of the overall subsurface conditions, including stratigraphy and the
location and size of potential anomalies. The locations of subsequent borings and soundings can then be
optimized to investigate areas of concern identified from the geophysical surveys. Geophysical methods
are also useful to estimate the engineering properties of subsurface materials directly. For example, seismic
methods may be used to directly measure the shear wave velocity (Vs) profile of near-surface soil and rock
formations, which is required to determine the Site Class for seismic analyses (AASHTO 2011). Direct
measurements of the electrical resistivity of soils via geophysical methods are useful for evaluating
potential corrosion of steel pile foundations (Decker et al. 2008).
Compared to more traditional forms of subsurface exploration (i.e., borings and soundings), geophysical
methods offer several advantages (Wightman et al. 2003, Anderson et al. 2008, AASHTO 2017):
• Because surface geophysical methods are noninvasive, they provide the ability to cover a large area in a
time- and cost-effective manner to gain an understanding of the overall subsurface conditions. As noted
above, this enables optimizing the locations of borings and soundings during subsequent phases of a
subsurface exploration program or interpolating between existing borings and soundings. This is
particularly true for linear projects (e.g., highway construction).
• Geophysical methods are robust in the sense that they are based on fundamental physical principles with
relatively little reliance on empiricism. In many cases, the methods used for geotechnical applications
leverage the extensive experience gained with similar methods developed for resource (e.g., oil, gas)
exploration.
• Surface geophysical methods are also useful for sites where borings and soundings are difficult or
impractical, such as gravel deposits or contaminated soils. The equipment used for many geophysical
tests is highly portable, which may allow testing at sites that are not easily accessible (e.g., a heavily
wooded area) using conventional drilling equipment.
It is also important to recognize the limitations of geophysical methods to avoid using them in situations
where there may be a low probability of success:
• Geophysical methods are more likely to yield good results when (i) there is a large contrast in seismic,
electrical, electromagnetic, gravitational, or magnetic properties between lithologic units or between an
anomaly and the surrounding soils and rocks, and (ii) the subsurface features of interest are of sufficient
size relative to their depth that they are within the limits of detection for a particular geophysical method.
35

• The interpreted subsurface conditions may not be unique for many geophysical methods; there may be
multiple, physically plausible interpretations for the stratigraphy or location and size of anomalies that
all yield the same measured geophysical response. For example, a structural low in bedrock topography;
a small, air-filled void in the bedrock; or a larger, water-filled void in the bedrock may all produce the
same magnitude of gravity anomaly.
• Sites that have a stiff, surficial layer overlying a weaker layer or an electrically resistive layer over a
conductive layer pose a challenge for many surface geophysical tests. For example, many seismic
methods do not work well on concrete pavements because of the large stiffness of the pavement
compared to the base and subgrade materials.
In part because of these limitations and in part because geophysical methods are less familiar to many
geotechnical engineers than conventional site investigation methods (e.g., SPT, CPT), it is essential that
geophysical investigations be conducted by personnel who are trained and experienced in near-surface
geophysics.
Finally, in all but a few applications (e.g., reconnaissance-only investigations), the results of geophysical
investigations should always be complemented by direct observation of subsurface conditions by means of
borings, soundings, test pits, trenches, outcrops, and other geological information. This ground truth
information will help ensure that interpreted subsurface conditions derived from geophysical methods are
as accurate as possible. The combined use of a geophysical investigation with direct observation is a robust
approach to developing an accurate ground model for a project.
Planning a Geophysical Investigation

There are a number of surface and borehole geophysical methods available to choose from when planning
a geophysical site investigation. Selecting one or more methods for a project can be guided by answering
the following questions (Anderson et al. 2008):
• What are the physical properties of interest?
• Which methods respond to the physical properties of interest?
• Which methods can provide the required levels of detection and resolution for the subsurface features of
interest?
• Which methods can perform well given conditions at the project site?
• Which methods provide complementary information to help improve interpretations based on the
observed data?
• What direct observations (e.g., borings or soundings) should be performed to constrain the interpretation
of geophysical data?
• Which methods are most cost effective, and is the overall geophysical investigation cost effective?
Anderson et al. (2008) provide additional discussion and examples for each of these considerations.
Surface Geophysical Methods

This section summarizes surface geophysical methods—seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, and
potential-field methods—that can be used for a variety of subsurface-investigation objectives for
transportation-related projects as shown in Table 4-1. Further guidance is provided in ASTM D6429. For
many applications, more than one method may be capable of achieving the objective. In these cases, an
experienced geophysicist can evaluate what methods have the highest likelihood of success for a particular
project based on site-specific conditions.
36

Table 4-1. Matrix of surface geophysical methods in relation to investigation objectives
Electrical and
Seismic Potential Field
Electromagnetic
Refraction and Reflection
Ground-Penetrating
Electromagnetic
Magnetometry
Surface Wave
Self-Potential
Microgravity
Resistivity
Radar
Objective
Lithology and stratigraphy     
Bedrock topography       
Water table   
Rippability 
Shear wave velocity profile 
Fault detection     
Void and cavity detection      
Subsurface fluid flow  
Ferrous anomalies   
Conductive anomalies    
Corrosion potential 
Sources: Fenning and Hasan (1995), USACE (1995), Sirles (2006), FHWA (2006), Anderson et al. (2008)
There are many readily available references that describe these geophysical methods in detail (e.g.,
USACE 1995, Wightman et al. 2003, Sirles 2006, Anderson et al. 2008), and additional information is
available in the ASTM guides and standards listed in Table 4-2. The focus in this section is to briefly
summarize the key features of the surface geophysical methods that are used for transportation applications
and provide examples of the results obtained for each.
Table 4-2. ASTM guides and standards for surface geophysical investigations
Geophysical Method ASTM Guide or Standard

Standard Guide for Selecting Surface Geophysical Methods D6429
Seismic Refraction D5777
Seismic Reflection D7128
Electrical Resistivity D6431
Soil Resistivity G57
Frequency-domain electromagnetics D6639
37

Geophysical Method ASTM Guide or Standard

Time-domain electromagnetic D6820
Ground-penetrating radar D6432
Microgravity D6430
Source: Sirles (2006)
4.3.1 Seismic Methods

Seismic methods use measurements of the velocity of mechanical (i.e., stress) waves propagating through
the ground to infer stratigraphy from contrasts in seismic velocity between layers and to evaluate the small-
strain stiffness (i.e., modulus) of subsurface materials. Depending on the specific method, either body (i.e.,
compression and shear) waves or surface (i.e., Rayleigh) waves are used. Typical ranges of the compression
(or P) wave velocity (Vp) and shear (or S) wave velocity (Vs) for earth materials are shown in Figure 4-1.
Steel
Intact Rocks
Weathered Rocks
Till
Sand
Clay
Water
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Compression Wave Velocity, Vp (ft/s)
38

Steel
Intact Rocks
Weathered Rocks
Till
Sand
Clay
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ft/s)
Source: Bourbie et al. (1987), USACE (1995), Mavko et al. (1998), Santamarina et al. (2001), FHWA (2002)
Figure 4-1. Typical ranges of compression (top) and shear wave velocity (bottom)
The compression wave velocity is directly related to the constrained modulus of the material:
where
M = the initial tangent constrained modulus
= the total mass density of the material
Similarly, the shear wave velocity is directly related to the shear modulus:
where
G = the initial tangent shear modulus
The compression wave velocity is greater than the shear wave velocity, with the ratio depending on the
Poisson’s ratio of the material. Because the strain levels associated with the propagation of seismic waves
through the ground are very small for most seismic methods, the constrained and shear moduli correspond
to the initial tangent (i.e., maximum) stiffness. These simple, fundamental equations are the basis of one of
the most attractive features of seismic methods⎯in situ measurements of compression and shear wave
velocity may be used to directly measure the small-strain moduli of soil and rock, which are useful for
evaluating deformations related to serviceability limit states.
In saturated soils, the measured compression wave velocity often reflects the properties of the pore fluid
in the voids (Allen et al. 1980). As such, measurements of compression wave velocity in saturated soils are
39

often of limited value for determining the properties of the soil itself. In these cases, the shear wave velocity
is a more useful quantity because it is mostly unaffected by the presence of fluid in the voids.
4.3.1.1 Seismic Refraction and Reflection

When compression and shear waves encounter an interface between two dissimilar materials, some of
the energy is reflected by the interface and some is transmitted (i.e., refracted). The characteristics of the
reflected and transmitted waves are governed by the physics of wave propagation in layered media (e.g.,
Ewing et al. 1957).
The seismic refraction test is based on measuring the travel time of critically refracted (i.e., angle of
refraction = 90°) compression or shear waves along the interfaces between different lithologic formations.
Seismic refraction data is collected using a linear array (spread) of vertical geophones to record first arrivals
of compression waves generated from a weight drop or explosive source. Although seismic refraction tests
can also be conducted using shear waves, it is less common.
The geophones are connected via a geophone cable to an engineering seismograph. The production rate
can be increased significantly by using a towed land streamer rather than placing the geophones
individually. The land streamer consists of geophones attached to a sled or high-strength sleeve, and it
allows the entire array to be moved simultaneously while maintaining a fixed spacing. Energy sources range
from sledgehammers for shorter arrays and shallow depths to explosive sources for longer arrays and deeper
depths. For each geophone spread, multiple source locations (shot points) at the ends and in the center of
the spread are used; more shot points should be used if large lateral variations in subsurface stratigraphy
are expected.
Seismic refraction processing steps include filtering to reduce the effect of unwanted noise, selecting the
first-arrival time for each geophone and shot point, and plotting the travel times vs. geophone offset. Several
methods are available to interpret the data, including the simple intercept-time method, Generalized
Reciprocal Method, and seismic refraction tomography. The Generalized Reciprocal Method (Palmer 1981)
is widely used because it provides the depth and seismic velocities of refractors below each geophone
location and can accommodate nonplanar refractors (i.e., layer interfaces) and lateral variations in seismic
velocity within a single geophone spread. The most important limitation of these interpretation methods is
the hidden layer problem that occurs when either (i) a low-velocity layer underlies a high-velocity layer
(i.e., velocity reversals) or (ii) there are thin layers with insufficient velocity contrasts.
Seismic refraction tomography (White 1989, Zhang and Toksoz 1998) is a more advanced interpretation
method capable of calculating a two-dimensional (2D) velocity structure by minimizing the difference
between predicted and observed first-arrival travel times. It is supplanting the intercept-time method and
Generalized Reciprocal Method for geotechnical applications because the aforementioned hidden-layer
problem is minimized.
The most common application of the seismic refraction test is to evaluate the stratigraphy of various
lithologic units, particularly the interface between soil and rock because of the contrast in seismic velocity
between these two materials. An example is shown in Figure 4-2 of using the measured vertical and lateral
variation of compression wave velocity to estimate the depth to bedrock. The black plus signs indicate the
depth to bedrock observed in soil borings.
40

Source: Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Figure 4-2. Example seismic refraction tomography test results
Seismic refraction is also used to estimate the rippability of bedrock (Caterpillar Inc. 2000) based on the
compression wave velocity using relationships like that shown in Figure 4-3.
Source: Caterpillar, Inc.

Figure 4-3. Estimated D8R ripper performance from seismic velocity
The seismic reflection method is based on measuring the travel time of seismic waves that are reflected
by the interface between different lithologic units. Geotechnical applications of seismic reflection (often
called shallow or high-resolution seismic reflection) have benefited from the experience gained from the
extensive use of the method for resource exploration. Seismic reflection data are also collected using a
linear array of geophones, a seismograph with a corresponding number of channels, and an appropriate
energy source. Like the seismic refraction test, land streamers are commonly used to expedite testing.
Energy sources used include blank shotgun shells fired using a Buffalo gun, explosives, and swept-
frequency sources (e.g., Vibroseis). The processing of shallow seismic reflection data is often complex and
requires considerable skill and experience. Processing steps may include the following:
• Filtering and scaling each record
• Muting to remove ground roll (i.e., surface waves)
• Making static corrections for elevation changes and variable thickness of near-surface zones
41

• Correcting for normal move-out

• Migrating to correct for dip of subsurface reflectors
Subsequent data interpretation can be subjective. Other data, such as boring logs, may be used to generate
synthetic seismograms to correlate with measured seismic reflection data to check the reasonableness of
interpreted sections.
The shallow seismic reflection method (Steeples and Miller 1990) is less common for geotechnical site
characterization than other seismic methods, in part due to cost and the extensive data processing
requirements. However, many near-surface geophysical practitioners have been successful in using shallow
seismic reflection to map depth to bedrock, locate faults, image abandoned mines, and identify areas prone
to subsidence from sinkholes (e.g., Hunter et al. 1984, Steeples and Miller 1990, Miller and Steeples 2008,
Pugin et al. 2009). An example of mapping the interface between soil and bedrock is shown in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-4(a) shows the processed depth section, while Figure 4-4(b) is the interpreted section identifying
the bedrock surface. Note the borehole located at about 4,500 meters that correlates well with the seismic
reflection section. A second example is shown in Figure 4-5 of a seismic reflection section along an
interstate highway that was used to identify the location and lateral extent of sinkholes. The sinkholes are
located at approximately stations 1340 and 1500.
Source: Pugin et al. (2009)

Figure 4-4. Seismic reflection section showing depth to bedrock
42

Source: Miller and Steeples (2008)

Figure 4-5. Seismic reflection section showing sinkhole locations
4.3.1.2 Surface Wave Methods

Surface wave methods use the dispersive nature of Rayleigh (i.e., surface) wave propagation in a
vertically layered medium to develop 1D shear wave velocity profiles. Surface-wave tests may be
conducted using an active source, such as a sledge hammer or dropped weight; it is also possible to use
large, swept-frequency vibrators (e.g., Vibroseis) to generate low-frequency Rayleigh waves that enable
deeper profiling. A linear array of vertical, low-frequency geophones is used to record data. Like seismic
refraction and reflection, a land streamer can be used to expedite testing.
Surface wave seismic data can be collected using passive sources of Rayleigh waves such as ambient
noise. Passive sources generally produce energy at lower frequencies (e.g., 2 to 10 Hertz [Hz]) than most
active sources and thus allow deeper profiling. However, passive tests may be impractical at some sites,
especially those located in rural areas, because of insufficient ambient noise. For passive-source
measurements, a 2D array of geophones is commonly used because the location of the source(s) of passive
energy is usually unknown. An alternative approach, called the refraction microtremor (ReMi) technique
(Louie 2001), uses a linear array of geophones. The passive ReMi technique assumes an omnidirectional
wavefield that should be verified for each test (Foti et al. 2015). However, the ReMi method can also
accommodate active collinear sources, similar to other active-source surface-wave methods. At many sites,
it is advantageous to combine active and passive tests to obtain data over a broad range of frequencies.
43

The processing steps consist of (i) calculating an experimental dispersion curve that shows the variation
of Rayleigh wave phase velocity with frequency (or wavelength) and (ii) performing an inversion of the
experimental dispersion curve to obtain the profile. An example dispersion curve is presented in Figure
4-6. There are many variants of surface wave methods that have been developed, including the Spectral
Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) and Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) methods,
among others. Typically, the differences between these variants include the type of source (active or
passive), the shape of the receiver array (2d or linear), and the specific techniques used to calculate the
experimental dispersion curve and perform the inversion to obtain the profile.

Figure 4-6. Example Rayleigh-wave dispersion curve
The inversion process results in a 1D profile. As noted previously, the profile is useful for seismic
site response analyses (AASHTO 2011). Multiple 1D models generated from a series of array locations can
be combined and presented as a 2D cross section of shear wave velocity. Because shear wave velocity is
directly related to the stiffness of subsurface materials, 2D models are valuable in estimating the depth to
rock and delineating loose zones in the subsurface. Figure 4-7 shows an example of using an MASW test
to identify the top of a firm sand layer.
Additional guidance on performing surface wave tests is available in Foti et al. (2015, 2018).

Figure 4-7. Example 2D shear wave velocity cross section from MASW test
44

4.3.2 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods

Electrical and electromagnetic geophysical methods use the flow of electrical currents through the ground
to evaluate subsurface characteristics. Electrical (or galvanic) methods commonly induce the currents via
electrodes that are directly coupled to the ground and measure the resulting potential (i.e., voltage)
difference via a separate pair of electrodes. But it is also possible to measure currents and potentials that
occur naturally due to subsurface processes. Electromagnetic (or induction) methods use eddy currents that
are induced in the ground by time-varying magnetic fields generated by an electrical current within coils
that are not directly coupled to the ground.
From these measurements, the vertical and lateral distribution of electrical resistivity (or its inverse–
conductivity) can be calculated. Because the resistivity of earth materials is affected by mineralogy,
porosity, chemistry of the pore fluids, and degree of saturation, electrical resistivity surveys can be used to
define subsurface layering, locate cavities, and delineate the groundwater table. For example, clays tend to
have low resistivities because of the presence of exchangeable cations in the pore fluids, while sands
containing fresh water have higher resistivities. The resistivity of an earth material usually decreases as the
moisture content of the material increases. The resistivity of selected earth materials is given in Figure 4-8.
Clay
Sand, wet to moist
Shale
Porous Limestone
Dense Limestone
Metamorphic rocks
Igneous rocks
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Resistivity, ρ (ohm-meters)
Source: ICE (1976), USACE (1995)

Figure 4-8. Typical ranges of electrical resistivity
4.3.2.1 Resistivity
Traditionally, an electrical resistivity array consists of four electrodes that are coupled to the ground.
Two of the electrodes transmit an electrical current ( ) to the ground and the other two electrodes measure
the change in potential ( ) in the earth materials between the current electrodes. The apparent resistivity
( ) is a function of the measured electrical impedance ( = ⁄ ):
where
= the geometric factor that depends on the configuration and spacing of the electrodes
Three configurations of four-electrode arrays have been commonly used in electrical resistivity surveys:
(i) the Schlumberger array, (ii) the Wenner array, and (iii) the dipole-dipole array. These array
configurations differ in their vertical and horizontal resolution; signal-to-noise ratio; susceptibility to
45

electromagnetic coupling; and ease of field implementation, automated data acquisition, and interpretation.
Additional array configurations are available for specific objectives (Zonge et al. 2005). The Wenner and
dipole-dipole arrays readily adapt to modern automatic data acquisition systems employing multielectrode
cables.
The measured apparent resistivities are average resistivities of all the earth materials through which the
electrical current flows. As the electrode spacing is increased, the electrical current flows through more
material, and the apparent resistivities calculated from the field arrays represent averages over a larger
volume. The measured apparent resistivities can be interpreted to evaluate subsurface features using several
approaches of increasing complexity:
• Pseudosections (profile plots of 2D apparent resistivity) are generated from the resistivity measurements.
For relatively simple, nearly homogeneous profiles, the pseudosection gives a reasonable approximation
of the vertical and lateral distribution of actual resistivities. Because computers have made more
complex, accurate methods of interpretation possible, pseudosections are now primarily used for quality
control during field acquisition.
• Closed-form expressions are available that relate the apparent resistivity to the resistivity and thickness
of individuals layers in a 1D, multilayer earth model. Algorithms have been developed that automatically
adjust the resistivity and thickness of individuals layers until satisfactory agreement is obtained between
the calculated and measured apparent resistivity values as a function of electrode spacing.
• Electrical resistivity tomography or electrical resistivity imaging are based on using numerous
combinations of four-electrode arrays from a large, multielectrode cable. For each four-electrode array,
the calculated and measured pseudosections are compared, and the resistivities within a 2D or 3D model
are adjusted until satisfactory agreement is obtained. The numerous combinations of arrays provide
ample data to develop detailed models.
An example of electrical resistivity imaging test results is shown in Figure 4-9. The low-resistivity
materials are interpreted to be caused by (i) higher porosity due to weathering of carbonate bedrock and (ii)
higher water content.

Figure 4-9. Example electrical resistivity imaging results
Induced polarization methods are closely related to resistivity methods, but they include an additional
measurement called chargeability, which is a measure of the energy storage capacity of a material. The
additional parameter aids with identifying anomalies and has proven effective for mapping landfills and
contaminant plumes (Zonge et al. 2005).
46

4.3.2.2 Electromagnetic Methods

Electromagnetic methods can be broadly divided into two groups: Frequency-domain electromagnetics
(FDEM) methods and time-domain electromagnetic (TDEM) methods. In FDEM methods, a transmitter
coil emits a sinusoidally varying current at a specific frequency. A receiver coil measures the secondary
field generated by the induced eddy currents in the subsurface. The amplitude of the secondary field is
usually expressed as a percentage of the primary field at the receiver. The phase shift caused by the time
delay in the received field can also be measured. An alternative is to separate the received field into two
components. The first component is in phase with the transmitted field, and the second component is 90°
out-of-phase with the transmitted field. The in-phase component is sometimes called the real component,
and the out-of-phase component is sometimes called the quadrature or imaginary component.
The most common type of FDEM method for engineering applications is the terrain conductivity method
(McNeill 1990). Terrain conductivity electromagnetic systems are instruments that use two loops or coils
as transmitter and receiver, respectively. For shallow profiling, the two coils are located a fixed distance
apart in a boom that is carried by one person. For deeper profiling, two people are needed: one person
generally carries the transmitter coil, while a second person carries the second coil that receives the primary
and secondary fields. Terrain conductivity meters are operated in both the horizontal and vertical dipole
modes. These terms describe the orientation of the transmitter and receiver coils to each other and the
ground, and each mode gives a significantly different response with depth. When used in the vertical dipole
mode, the instruments are more sensitive to the presence of relatively conductive, steeply dipping
structures; whereas in the horizontal dipole mode, the instruments are relatively insensitive to this type of
structure and can give accurate measurement of ground conductivity near them. Because terrain
conductivity meters read directly in apparent conductivity and most surveys using the instrument are done
in the profile mode, interpretation is usually qualitative and used to identify anomalies. Any anomalous
areas are investigated further with other geophysical techniques or borings and soundings. Information
about the variation of conductivity with depth can be obtained by measuring two or more coil orientations
or intercoil separations, or both, and using commercially available software to perform an inversion of the
measured data to obtain a 1D profile of conductivity at the sounding location.
Figure 4-10 shows the results of a terrain conductivity survey performed to identify areas of high
conductivity corresponding to buried waste and contaminated soils prior to site development.
47

Source: Spotlight Geophysical Services, LLC

Figure 4-10. Example terrain conductivity results
A common TDEM resistivity sounding survey consists of a square transmitter coil laid on the ground
and a receiver coil located in the center of the transmitter coil. The TDEM method measures the decaying
secondary field induced in the subsurface by the current in the transmitter coil. By making measurement of
the voltage out of the receiver coil at successively later times, measurement is made of the current flow and,
thus, also of the electrical resistivity of the earth at successively greater depths. The measured apparent
resistivity as a function of time can be interpreted using commercially available software to calculate a 1D
profile of resistivity at the sounding location.
4.3.2.3. Ground-Penetrating Radar

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) uses an electromagnetic pulse transmitted from a radar antenna to probe
the subsurface. The transmitted, high-frequency electromagnetic pulses are reflected from various
interfaces within the ground, and the reflected pulse is detected by a receiver antenna. Reflecting interfaces
may be soil horizons, the groundwater surface, soil-rock interfaces, man-made objects, or any other
interface possessing a contrast in dielectric properties. GPR has found widespread use for transportation
applications (Sirles 2006), and the following are common applications (Morey 1998):
• Measuring pavement thickness
• Locating voids beneath pavements
• Evaluating delamination in bridge decks
• Estimating depth to bedrock and the groundwater table
48

• Mapping underground utilities and other buried objects such as tanks and drums
GPR antennas are designated by their center frequency and range from approximately 10 megahertz
(MHz) for mapping deep subsurface stratigraphy to approximately 3,000 MHz for shallow rebar mapping.
The antennas may be placed on the ground surface (i.e., ground-coupled) or suspended above the ground
surface (i.e., air-launched). The latter is often mounted on a vehicle and used for pavement studies to allow
surveys to be conducted at highway speeds. A typical mode of operation is the common-offset mode where
the transmitter and receiver antennas are maintained at a fixed separation distance and moved along a survey
line. Measurements are taken at specific distance or time intervals as needed. The reflected pulses are
recorded as a function of time and may be converted to an approximate depth using an estimated velocity
or the reflection time of a known feature such as a drain pipe. As the antennas are moved along the survey
line, the output is displayed as a cross section or radar image of the subsurface. Resolution of interfaces and
discrete objects is typically very good due to the short wavelengths associated with the electromagnetic
pulses. However, the attenuation of the pulses in earth materials may be high, and depth penetration may
be limited. This is particularly true in highly conductive soils such as clays where penetration may be limited
to a few feet. In low-conductivity sands, the penetration depths are potentially much greater, up to
approximately 150 ft (45 m).
The majority of GPR applications use 2D sections that have been corrected for attenuation by applying
a gain function. Further data processing, when needed, is similar to that used for seismic reflection data.
Available processing steps include frequency filtering to remove noise, spatial filtering to remove
horizontal noise, and migration to collapse diffractions and move dipping reflectors to their actual position.
While 2D profiles are sufficient for most projects, 3D processing of GPR data collected along closely
spaced lines can provide more accurate and quicker evaluation of specific targets, such as voids, and better
visualization of subsurface features.
Figures 4-11 and 4-12 present examples showing the use of a GPR test to identify the base of a fill layer
and a void under a continuously reinforced concrete pavement.

Figure 4-11. Example GPR results showing base of fill layer
49

Source: Texas DOT

Notes: CRCP: continuously reinforced concrete pavement
Figure 4-12. Example GPR results showing pavement void detection
4.3.3 Potential Field Methods

Examples of potential fields include gravitational, magnetic, and electrical fields. Several geophysical
methods are based on measuring local changes in these potential fields for identifying subsurface features.
4.3.3.1 Microgravity
Gravity methods involve measuring anomalies in the gravitational field of the Earth due to differences
in the densities of materials in the subsurface. For example, an air-filled solution cavity has a different
density than surrounding rock units, which would result in a gravity anomaly, or a low in the bedrock
surface would appear as an anomaly when compared to the gravity readings in surrounding terrain. A
gravity study to evaluate near-surface voids and loose zones is often referred to as a microgravity survey,
indicating the magnitude of the gravity anomalies that are measured, typically in the microgal (µgal) range
(1 µgal ≈ 10-9 g). Typical applications of microgravity surveys in transportation include mapping bedrock
topography and identifying voids and loose zones caused by karst activity or underground mining. The
resolution of a gravity survey depends on the sensitivity of the gravimeter and on the density contrast
between different units in the subsurface.
Microgravity surveys are conducted by taking measurements at specific stations along a line or at grid
points. The stations should be spaced close enough each other to adequately define the subsurface
conditions of interest. The elevation of each station must be obtained accurately, typically within ±1 in.
(±2 cm) for a data accuracy on the order of a few µgals. The horizontal station accuracy is not as critical as
elevation, and differential global positioning system (GPS) values are usually sufficient. The measurements
are made by placing the gravity meter on the ground surface, leveling the meter (or use a self-leveling
meter), and waiting for the reading to stabilize before recording the reading. At least once per hour, the
gravity meter should be returned to a reference location (i.e., base station) to monitor temporal changes in
the local gravitational field and check for instrument drift.
50

The processing steps for microgravity surveys include making corrections to the measured data for (i)
instrument drift (using base station readings), (ii) Earth tides (using published models), (iii) latitude (using
measured horizontal location), and (iv) elevation differences compared to a reference datum. The last
process step in the list, comparing the elevation differences to a reference datum, is done in two steps:
1. A free-air correction to compensate for the change in gravity due to the elevation of a station above the
reference datum
2. A Bouguer correction to compensate for the mass of soil or rock between the gravity station and the
datum.
The corrected value is the simple Bouguer anomaly and is the value typically used for data interpretation.
Terrain corrections may also be required if the surrounding terrain is not relatively flat (Long and Kaufmann
2013).
Processed microgravity data can be presented as a profile line (Figure 4-13) or, in the case of a grid study,
as a contour map (Figure 4-14). Gravity anomaly sources can be modeled, if needed, but anomalies are
often just used as a guide to select locations for drilling or excavation.

Figure 4-13. Example of a microgravity profile
51


Figure 4-14. Example of a microgravity contour map
4.3.3.2 Magnetometry
Magnetic surveys measure changes in the magnitude in the magnetic field of the Earth due to the presence
of ferrous metal objects or by Earth materials that have high magnetic susceptibilities. Common targets for
a magnetic survey include buried (ferrous) metal objects such as tanks, pipelines, and steel-cased wells;
although the use of magnetometers has been replaced in some applications by electromagnetic induction
metal detectors due to the higher lateral resolution of the metal detectors. Magnetic surveys can also be
used to map the bedrock surface if the rock is known to have a high magnetic susceptibility. Examples of
the latter include rocks that have unusually high magnetic susceptibilities (e.g., gabbro, basalt) as well as
other types of rock that contain significant amounts of ferrous minerals (e.g., manganese, magnetite,
hematite). Prior to conducting a magnetometer study, solar storm activity should be checked, as this may
affect the Earth’s magnetic field. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Space
Weather Prediction Center maintains a website that tracks and predicts solar activity.
Magnetometer data can be collected at specific fixed stations but usually is recorded while the operator
is walking along a survey line or grid using GPS for positioning. Data stations should not be located near
any man-made object that can change the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field (e.g., power transmission
lines, automobiles, metal pipelines and fences, structural steel in roads and buildings). The operator should
also avoid having metallic objects on their person (e.g., steel-toe boots, metal belt buckles). The total
magnetic field is measured in units of nanoTesla (nT) by a single-sensor magnetometer and using a base
station to record diurnal changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. The need for a base station can be eliminated
by using a two-sensor gradiometer that measures the vertical or horizontal gradient of the field. The vertical
gradient cancels out diurnal changes and resolves shallow metallic objects better than single-sensor
magnetometer data because it measures the rate of change between the readings of the two sensors (the
gradient) rather than the total field.
Data processing steps will depend on the type of instrument used (i.e., single-sensor magnetometer or
gradiometer). For both types, the data is initially filtered to remove high-frequency noise. For a single-
sensor magnetometer, subtracting the base station readings from the readings at other stations removes the
52

time-varying changes in the magnetic field (and the value of the field at the base station location). Long-
wavelength filtering (e.g., subtracting a best-fit polynomial) can be used to remove regional changes in the
field over the area of the survey, producing a total field anomaly map. Due to the inclination and declination
of the Earth’s magnetic field, magnetometer anomalies over a single magnetic object will appear dipolar,
and the peak response will be offset laterally from the source of the anomaly. The reduction-to-pole
processing available in commercial software corrects for inclination and declination and converts the dipole
anomaly to a monopole anomaly that is centered over the anomaly. The use of a gradiometer eliminates
much of the processing required for single-sensor data. However, the vertical gradient of the field, while
highlighting the response from shallow ferrous objects, emphasizes the slope of the magnetic field so that
the peak response is offset from the source of the anomaly.
The results of a magnetometer survey can be presented as a profile line or as a contour map. The presented
data should include the location of known metallic objects so that anomalies from these objects will not be
mistaken as targets of interest.
4.3.3.3 Self-Potential
The self-potential (SP) method, also called the spontaneous potential method, measures the naturally
occurring voltage differences caused by water moving through a porous medium. A common geotechnical
application for the SP method is to map seepage paths from dams and reservoirs (e.g., Jansen et al. 1994).
Other applications include mapping groundwater flow around pumping wells or around faults.
SP measurements are made using nonpolarizable (porous pot) electrodes that have a porous ceramic tip,
contain a copper rod, and are filled with a conductive solution of copper-sulfate. A reference electrode is
placed in a fixed location, while a rover electrode is moved from location to location. The two electrodes
are connected to a high-impedance multimeter to measure the voltage difference between the two locations.
Measurements are typically made by inserting the rover electrode in shallow hand-auger holes, 6 to 12 in.
(15 to 30 cm) deep to contact moist soils. SP data are usually collected along parallel lines with
measurements made at a fixed spacing such as 5 or 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m). In addition to variations caused by
water seepage, measurements are affected by corroding metal, electrode polarization and drift, changes in
moisture in the soil at the base station, and variation in natural telluric currents (Corwin 1990). Corrections
must be made for these sources of noise. SP data can be plotted as a single curve or, if collected using a
grid of lines, as a contour map. Typically, SP data are evaluated qualitatively, although quantitative methods
exist (Corwin 1990).
Borehole Geophysical Methods

There are two general categories of borehole geophysical tests used for geotechnical subsurface
explorations: (i) borehole-to-borehole and surface-to-borehole methods, and (ii) in-hole logging methods.
The in-hole logging methods are often based on methods developed for resource exploration and adapted
for near-surface applications. This section provides a summary of borehole geophysical methods that have
applications for transportation-related projects as shown in Table 4-3. Further guidance is provided in the
ASTM guides for borehole geophysical methods listed in Table 4-4.
53

Table 4-3. Matrix of borehole geophysical methods in relation to investigation objectives
Gamma-Gamma Density
Spontaneous Potential
Acoustic Televiewer
Seismic Crosshole
Seismic Downhole
Seismic Logging1
Neutron Porosity
Natural Gamma
Resistivity
Induction
Caliper
Objectives
Lithology      
Seismic wave velocity profile   
Fracture location and characteristics  
Density, porosity, and water content  
Borehole diameter 
Source: Paillet and Ellefsen (2005)
Table 4-4. ASTM guides for borehole geophysical investigations
Geophysical Method ASTM Guide

Standard Guide for Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging D5753
Mechanical Caliper D6167
Natural Gamma and Gamma-Gamma Density D6274
Electromagnetic Induction D6726
Neutron D6727
Crosshole Seismic Testing D4428
Downhole Seismic Testing D7400

Source: Sirles (2006)
4.4.1 Borehole-to-Borehole and Surface-to-Borehole Methods

The seismic crosshole and downhole methods have been used in geotechnical engineering for many years
to measure compression ( ) and shear wave velocity ( ) profiles, with the latter being of valuable for
determining the site class (AASHTO 2011) or analyzing seismic site response. As noted previously, seismic
velocities may also be used to calculate small-strain moduli in soil and rock.
54

4.4.1.1 Seismic Crosshole Method

The seismic crosshole method is conceptually simple. Compression and shear waves are generated in one
borehole, and the arrival of those waves is recorded in one or more additional boreholes by a geophone at
the same depth. By moving the source and geophones(s) up and down the boreholes in unison, a profile of
compression and shear wave velocity vs. depth can be generated. The boreholes are commonly 10 to 15 ft
(3 to 4.5 m) apart and are typically cased to prevent collapse. Cement grout ensures good physical coupling
between the casing and surrounding soil to enable seismic waves to be recorded accurately.
Sources for compression wave surveys include electrical discharge sources and air guns for water-filled
boreholes, and downhole hammers for both water-filled and dry boreholes. A source that clamps to the
inside of the casing and generates a vertical shearing motion can be used for shear wave velocity surveys.
One or more geophones are placed in the adjacent boreholes at the same depth as the source. Generally,
measurements are repeated at 2-ft (0.6-m) depth intervals from the ground surface to 20 ft (6 m). Below
20 ft (6 m), measurements are usually taken at 5-ft (1.5-m) depth intervals to the maximum depth of the
boreholes. Because the seismic wave velocities calculated from the observed travel times depend directly
on the distance of travel between boreholes, it is critical to accurately measure this distance as a function
of depth. The location of the top of each boring (i.e., top of casing) can be located by land surveying
techniques; the borehole deviation can be measured using an inclinometer.
The travel time of the seismic waves may be determined by identifying the initial arrival of compression
and shear waves. Examples of recorded waveforms are shown in Figure 4-15, along with the selection of
the arrival times of shear waves and the calculated travel time (Δt). Alternatively, the travel time can be
determined via cross correlation; peaks in the cross-correlation function correspond to the time lag (i.e.,
travel time) between two or more geophones. The velocity is then determined using the calculated distance
between boreholes at the corresponding depth. Although it is assumed that the measured wave velocity is
for a seismic wave traveling directly between boreholes, it is important to consider that refraction through
a higher-velocity layer above or below the source-receiver depth may produce the first arrival. One way to
minimize the potential for refraction is to limit the distance between boreholes.

Figure 4-15. Example seismic crosshole data
55

4.4.1.2 Seismic Downhole Method

For seismic downhole measurements, a source on the ground surface is used to generate compression
and shear waves, and arrivals are recorded by one or more geophones placed in a borehole. For tests
conducted in soils, the borehole is usually cased to avoid collapse. Care must be taken in grouting the casing
to prevent voids in the borehole annulus that can prevent the seismic waves from reaching the geophones.
The source is located approximately 5 to 15 ft (1.5 to 4.5 m) from the borehole to reduce the potential for
generating seismic waves in the casing itself. For shear wave measurements, a beam or plank in contact
with the ground surface is struck to generate horizontally polarized shear waves. Automatic shear wave
sources, such as the autoseis described in Chapter 5, may also be used. For compression wave
measurements, a sledgehammer striking a metal plate on the ground surface is sufficient. The geophone is
lowered down the borehole at 2-ft to 5-ft (0.6-m to 1.5-m) intervals. At each depth interval, the arrival of
compression and shear waves is recorded. A limitation of the method is that the amplitude of the wave
arrivals diminished with depth due to attenuation. If necessary, the records from multiple source activations
can be added together (i.e., stacked) to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.
Arrival times for the compression and shear waves are selected and used to calculate the corresponding
wave velocity profile. If two or more geophones are used, the wave velocity may be calculated using a true-
interval method where the travel time between the geophones is calculated for a single activation of the
source. This is desirable because the two seismic waveforms should have similar shapes, making it easier
to identify the arrivals and avoid the need for a source trigger. If only one geophone is available, a pseudo-
interval travel time must be calculated as the difference between the source-to-receiver travel times when
the single geophone is at two different depths. If the travel time is calculated over a small depth interval,
the velocities are sensitive to errors in choosing arrival times. This may be overcome by using travel-time
measurements at several adjacent depths to calculate an average velocity.
The most common variant of the seismic downhole method in use is the seismic piezocone test described
in Chapter 5. See Section 5.3.1.3 for further details. Figure 4-16 shows an example from a seismic piezocone
test where seismic tests were performed at 3.3-ft (1-m) depth intervals to a total depth of approximately
260 ft (80 m). The red symbols indicate the first crossover point on each waveform, which is used to
calculate the pseudo-interval travel time.
56

Source: ConeTec
Figure 4-16. Example seismic downhole data
4.4.2 In-Hole Logging Methods

In-hole logging methods use mechanical, electrical, electromagnetic, nuclear, acoustic (or sonic), and
seismic measurements within a borehole (USACE 1995, Hearst et al. 2000, Paillet and Ellefsen 2005).
Continuous borehole logs can be made by raising or lowering one or more tools in the borehole, and
measurements made by the tools are plotted as a function of depth. With few exceptions, logs cannot be
obtained from a cased section of borehole. Borehole logs can be correlated with samples taken from the
borehole. Distinctive signatures of subsurface units can be identified on the logs and correlated between
holes to generate detailed stratigraphic cross sections of a site. Borehole logging can be used to identify
stratified sedimentary deposits such as sands, clays, and organic material; to identify rock units containing
radioactive material; and to distinguish permeable sands from impermeable sands.
4.4.2.1 Mechanical Methods

Caliper logs are logs of the mechanically or acoustically measured diameter of the borehole and represent
one of the most useful and simplest techniques used in borehole geophysics. Mechanical calipers consist of
a downhole probe with one or more feeler arms that contact the borehole walls and can detect irregularities
on the walls as the probe is pulled up the hole. Mechanical calipers may be used in holes filled with air,
water, or drilling fluid. Acoustic calipers consist of a probe usually containing transducers that emit acoustic
waves and measure the travel times of the waves reflected from the borehole walls. Borehole diameters can
be calculated if the seismic wave velocity in the borehole fluid is known. As such, acoustic calipers must
57

be used in boreholes that are filled with water or drilling fluid. Caliper logs may be used to detect fractures
and are commonly used to correct other in-hole logs for borehole diameter effects.
4.4.2.2 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods

Borehole resistivity methods are similar to surface electrical surveys in that electrical current is imparted
to subsurface formations, and voltage drops across the formations are measured. Single-point resistance
logging consists of a single electrode in the borehole and a single electrode on the ground surface, both of
which serve as current and potential electrodes. Normal-resistivity logging is a common multielectrode
technique in which multiple current and potential electrodes are contained within the tool itself. The
calculated apparent resistivity is sensitive to mineralogy, porosity, chemistry of the pore fluids, degree of
saturation, and moisture content as discussed in Section 4.3.2.
Spontaneous potential methods measure the electrical potentials established between formation fluids
and the drilling fluid and the electrical potentials established at the boundaries of permeable subsurface
layers. In both cases, the electrical potential is due to differences in the salinity across formational
boundaries or between the formation fluids and drilling fluids. In many boreholes drilled for engineering
purposes, natural formation waters are used as the drilling fluids and salinity differences between drilling
fluids and formation fluids will not exist, limiting the usefulness of the spontaneous potential log.
Similar to surface electromagnetic methods, induction logging uses a time-varying magnetic field
generated by a current in a transmitting coil to induce eddy currents in the materials surrounding the
borehole. In turn, the eddy currents create a secondary magnetic field that results in a voltage measured by
the receiving coil. Induction logs measure conductivity, which is the reciprocal of resistivity. The
measurement of conductivity usually is inverted to provide curves of both resistivity and conductivity.
4.4.2.3 Nuclear Methods

Nuclear methods involve measuring natural gamma radiation in a formation or the backscatter of
radiation as the result of bombardment of the formation by gamma radiation or neutrons. Natural gamma
logs measure the natural radioactivity (due to the presence of potassium, thorium, and uranium) of geologic
materials and are primarily used for lithologic identification. The natural radioactivity of a material
(measured in counts per second) is proportional to the amount of clay minerals present, and, thus, the natural
gamma log is ideal for identifying the presence of clay layers and seams. An example of a natural gamma
log is shown in Figure 4-17. Also shown in Figure 4-17 are the results of the mechanical caliper and acoustic
televiewer (discussed subsequently) logs.
58


Figure 4-17. Example mechanical caliper, natural gamma, and acoustic televiewer logs
Gamma-gamma density logs use gamma radiation emitted from a source within the logging tool. As the
gamma radiation passes through the formation, some of it is backscattered and measured by a detector in
the tool. The degree of gamma radiation backscatter is directly proportional to the bulk density of a material.
Neutron porosity logs are made with a source of neutrons in the probe and detectors that measure the
backscatter from materials near the borehole. The degree of backscatter is proportional to the amount of
hydrogen present, which is largely a function of the water content. In saturated materials, the water content
is in turn a function of the porosity.
59

A disadvantage of gamma-gamma density and neutron porosity logs is that the radioactive sources
present a health hazard and require permits and certification for transportation and handling. Some states
also restrict their use when testing in drinking water aquifers.
4.4.2.4 Optical and Acoustic Televiewer Methods

Optical and acoustic televiewers provide a continuous, 360° view of the borehole wall that allows rock
mass discontinuities to be identified and characterized. Both devices can be oriented within the borehole so
that the absolute orientation of features (e.g., bedding planes) can be measured. An optical televiewer
(OTV) uses a camera to record high-resolution images of the borehole wall and includes lights for
illumination. An OTV is best suited for dry boreholes or boreholes filled with clear water. Any conditions
that produce cloudy or murky water or coatings on the borehole wall limit the usefulness of the OTV. If
good images are obtained, it is possible to identify locations and orientations of joints, bedding planes,
foliations, faults, shears, and other naturally occurring rock mass discontinuities.
The acoustic televiewer (ATV) uses ultrasound pulses from a rotating sensor in an open, fluid-filled
borehole to record the amplitude and travel time of the signals reflected at the (high-impedance) interface
between fluids and the borehole wall. Because an ATV uses ultrasound rather than visible light, the borehole
fluid is not required to be clear. Rock mass discontinuities in the wall of the borehole will change the
amplitude of the reflected acoustic wave compared to the surrounding material. The method does not work
well in soil because of the lack of a high-impedance boundary between the fluid and soil. ATV surveys are
used to provide information regarding locations and orientations of joints, bedding planes, faults, shears,
and other naturally occurring rock mass discontinuities.
General geologic structure data derived from OTV and ATV data includes a structure log, arrow plot
(tadpole), and stereonet plots (polar and rose). An example of travel time and ATV logs is shown in Figure
4-17. The corresponding interpretation of the data is shown in Figure 4-18, which includes the structure,
tadpole, and 3D logs. Williams and Johnson (2004) provide a summary of optical and acoustic televiewers
and describe how they may be combined and integrated with other in-hole logging methods.
60


Figure 4-18. Example interpretation of acoustic televiewer log
4.4.2.5 Seismic Methods

The purpose of seismic logging methods is to measure the compression and shear wave velocity profiles
using a tool containing both the source(s) and receivers suspended in a fluid-filled borehole. The borehole
fluid provides the necessary coupling between the tool and the surrounding soil or rock. Compression and
shear wave velocity are measured at frequent depth intervals (2 ft [0.6 m] or less) as the probe is lowered
(or raised) in the borehole. In the geophysical literature, these methods are also often called acoustic or
sonic methods. Herein, the term seismic is used to indicate that the primary use is measuring seismic wave
velocity profiles. Seismic logging methods offer excellent resolution, and they are well suited for measuring
seismic wave velocity profiles at great depths.
61

Early geophysical applications of seismic logging methods focused on measuring only the travel time of
compression waves. Since the 1980s, it has been more common to use full waveform logging methods that
compression, shear, and Stonely waves to be measured to gather more information. Stonely waves are
surface waves that propagate along the interface between the borehole wall and borehole fluid. Full
waveform methods usually use logging tools with multiple receivers to enable robust processing methods
to be used to calculate seismic wave velocities and amplitudes from the recorded waveforms. A key
distinction for geotechnical applications is the type of source used in the logging tool. Most early versions
of the tool employed a monopole source, which generates a compression wave in the borehole fluid. Such
devices are useful for evaluating fast formations, defined as follows:
, > ,
where
, = the shear wave velocity of the formation
, = the compression wave velocity of the borehole fluid
In a fast formation, it is possible to measure the shear wave velocity of the soil or rock directly because
the high-frequency monopole P-wave partitions to P and S waves at the interface between the borehole
fluid and borehole wall and are critically refracted along the borehole wall to one or more receivers.
Geotechnical applications typically involve slow formations ( , < , ). In such cases, there
is no critical refraction of shear waves, and, thus, it is not possible to directly measure the shear wave of
the soil using a monopole source. Although the shear wave velocity may be inferred from an analysis of
the dispersion of Stonely waves, it is preferable to use a dipole source in slow formations. A dipole source
generates compression, shear, and flexural waves along the borehole, enabling direct measurement of the
shear wave velocity. The most commonly used variant of seismic logging used for geotechnical site
investigations is the P-S suspension log. Figure 4-19 shows an example of compression and shear wave
velocity profiles obtained from seismic logging using a dipole-source tool.
62

Velocity (ft/sec)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
400
Depth (ft)
800
1200
1600

Figure 4-19. Example results from seismic logging
63

AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Second Edition, with 2012, 2014, and
2015 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. US Customary Units, Eighth Edition. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Allen, F.A., F.E. Richart, Jr., and R.D. Woods. 1980. “Fluid Wave Propagation in Saturated and Nearly Saturated Sands.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 106, No. GT3, pp. 235–254.
Anderson, N., N. Croxton, R. Hoover, and P. Sirles. 2008. Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site
Characterization. Transportation Research Circular E-C130, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Bourbie, T., O. Coussy, and B. Zinszner. 1987. Acoustics of Porous Media. Gulf Publishing Company.
Caterpillar Inc. 2000. Handbook of Ripping. Twelfth Edition, Peoria, Illinois.
Corwin, R.F. 1990. “The Self-Potential Method for Environmental and Engineering Applications.” in Geotechnical and
Environmental Geophysics, Vol. I: Review and Tutorial. Ward, S.H., (ed)., Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK, pp. 127–145.
Decker, J.B., K.M. Rollins, and J.C. Ellsworth. 2008. “Corrosion Rate Evaluation and Prediction for Piles Based on Long-
Term Field Performance.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 3, pp. 341–351.
Ewing, W.M., W.S. Jardetzky, and F. Press. 1957. Elastic Waves in Layered Media, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fenning, P.J., and S. Hasan. 1995. “Pipeline Route Investigations Using Geophysical Techniques.” in Eddleston, M., S.
Walthall, S. Cripps, and M.G. Culshaw, (eds), Engineering Geology of Construction, Geological Society Engineering
Geology, Special Publication No. 10, pp. 229–233.
FHWA. 2002. Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical Site Characterization. Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2006. Soils and Foundations, Reference Manual – Volume I. Publication No. FHWA NHI-06-088, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Foti, S., C.G. Lai, G.J. Rix, and C. Strobbia. 2015. Surface Wave Methods for Near-Surface Site Characterization. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Foti, S., F. Hollender, F. Garofalo, et al. 2018. “Guidelines for the Good Practice of Surface Wave Analysis: A Product of
the InterPACIFIC Project,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 16, p. 2367.
Hearst, J.R., P.H. Nelson, and F.L. Paillet. 2000. Well Logging for Physical Properties: A Handbook for Geophysicists.
Geologists, and Engineers, Second Edition, Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Hunter, J.A., S.E. Pullan, R.A. Burns, R.M. Gagne, and R.L. Good. 1984. “Shallow Seismic Reflection Mapping of the
Overburden‐Bedrock Interface with the Engineering Seismograph—Some Simple Techniques.” Geophysics, Vol. 49,
No. 8, pp. 1381–1385.
ICE. 1976. Manual of Applied Geology for Engineers. Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Jansen, J., N. Billington, F. Snider, and P. Jurcek. 1994. “Marine SP Surveys for Dam Seepage Investigations: Evaluation
of Array Geometries through Modeling and Field Trials.” Proceedings of 7th EEGS Symposium on the Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 1053–1071.
Long, L.T., and R.D. Kaufmann. 2013. Acquisition and Analysis of Terrestrial Gravity Data. Cambridge University Press,
New York, New York.
Louie, J.N. 2001. “Faster, Better: Shear-Wave Velocity to 100 Meters Depth from Refraction Microtremor Arrays.” Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 347–364.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin. 1998. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
McNeill, J.D. 1990. “Use of Electromagnetics for Groundwater Studies,” Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics. Vol.
I: Review and Tutorial, Ward, S.H., (ed)., Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, pp. 191–218.
Miller, R.D., and D.W. Steeples. 2008. High-Resolution Seismic-Reflection Imaging of I-70 Sinkholes, Russell County,
Kansas. Kansas Department of Transportation, Open-File Report 2008-18, October.
64

Morey, R.M. 1998. Ground Penetrating Radar for Evaluating Subsurface Conditions for Transportation Facilities. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 255, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National
Academy of Science, Washington, DC.
Paillet, F.L., and K.J. Ellefsen. 2005. “Downhole Applications of Geophysics.” Near-Surface Geophysics, Butler, D.K.,
(ed). Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 439–471.
Palmer, D. 1981. “An Introduction to the Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation.”
Geophysics, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp. 1508–1518.
Pugin, A.J.M., S. Pullan, J.A. Hunter, and G.A. Oldenborger. 2009. “Hydrogeological Prospecting Using P- and S-Wave
Landstreamer Seismic Reflection Methods.” Near Surface Geophysics, pp. 315–327.
Santamarina, J.C., K.A. Klein, and M.A. Fam. 2001. Soils and Waves: Particulate Materials Behavior, Characterization,
and Process Monitoring. Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
Sirles, P. 2006. Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis
357, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Steeples, D.W., and R.D. Miller. 1990. “Seismic Reflection Methods Applied to Engineering, Environmental, and
Groundwater Problems.” in S.H. Ward, (ed), Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Society of Exploration
Geophysics, 63, 1–30.
USACE. 1995. Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations. Engineer Manual 1110-1-1802,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
White, D. J. 1989. “Two-Dimensional Seismic Refraction Tomography.” Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 97, No.
2, pp. 223–245.
Wightman, W.E., F. Jalinoos, P. Sirles, and K. Hanna. 2003. Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related
Problems. Report FHWA-IF-04-021, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Williams, J.H. and C.D. Johnson. 2004. “Acoustic and Optical Borehole-Wall Imaging for Fractured-Rock Aquifer Studies.”
Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol. 55, Issue 1-2, pp. 151–159.
Zhang, J., and M. Toksoz. 1998. “Nonlinear Refraction Traveltime Tomography.” Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 1726–
1737.
Zonge, K., J. Wynn, and S. Urquhart. 2005. “Resistivity, Induced Polarization, and Complex Resistivity.” in Near-Surface
Geophysics, Butler, D.K., (ed), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 265–300.
65

CHAPTER 5
In Situ Testing of Soil and Rock
Introduction
Because the vast body of natural soil and rock at the project construction site will serve as the primary
bearing medium for new bridges, highways, cut slopes, walls, and embankments, in situ geotechnical tests
provide valuable information concerning the field strength, deformation properties, stress state, and
hydraulic conductivity of the underlying geomaterials. The term in situ is derived from Latin meaning
in its original position” and refers to the testing of geomaterials while they remain in the ground, in contrast
to the more traditional approach of taking samples from boreholes and transporting them to the laboratory
for testing.
In situ tests are generally faster than lab testing as the results can be obtained immediately while on-site.
With many in situ tests, field data are collected more abundantly than laboratory data, thus allowing for a
more comprehensive definition of soil strata, zones, layering, and stratigraphy, as well as the identification
of lenses, weak zones, and inclusions. Field tests also allow an investigation of vertical and horizontal
variability to determine whether an overall homogeneity or heterogeneity exists across a site. In situ testing
also provides an independent evaluation of geotechnical engineering parameters for analysis and design.
A wide variety of in situ geotechnical tests have been developed for assessing and characterizing the
ground (Broms and Flodin 1988, Robertson 1986, Mayne 2012). Figure 5-1 shows an assortment of selected
devices available, along with their associated acronyms. Many of these devices are intended for a particular
use and are not widely used in practice. The focus in this chapter is on in situ methods that are commonly
used for obtaining undrained shear strength ( ) in clays, friction angle in sands, elastic soil modulus,
preconsolidation stress, and hydraulic conductivity (K).
Hybrid tests have been developed for some of the tests. Hybrid tests include more than one method in a
single device, such as the CPTu that combines a penetrometer with a piezo probe. A special category of
hybrid tests combines in situ geotechnical and geophysical testing. This optimizes the collection of field
data economically, expediently, and efficiently. Examples of hybrid geotechnical-geophysics testing
devices include the seismic piezocone penetration (SCPTu) and resistivity piezocone (RCPTu).
The in situ tests presented in the following sections have been grouped into three broad categories:
1. Borehole tests in soils
2. Direct-push methods for soils
3. Rock tests
66

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-1. Selection of in situ tests for geotechnical site characterization
Borehole Test Methods

Borehole-type field tests can be conducted in open borings, beneath borehole casings, or below the
bottoms of HSAs, depending upon the soil conditions and drilling methods used.
5.2.1 Standard Penetration Test

One of the oldest and most widely used in situ tests is the SPT. The SPT test is generally used to estimate
the shear strength parameters of sandy soils and overconsolidated clays. It is unreliable for soils containing
course gravel, cobbles, boulders, cohesionless silts, and soft and sensitive clays. Figure 5-2 depicts the
general layout of the SPT using a hammer system, drill rods, and split-spoon or split-barrel sampler.
67

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-2. SPT setup and procedures
The testing procedures for the SPT are found in AASHTO T 206 (ASTM D1586). The basic testing
procedure consists of driving a hollow steel tube with an outside diameter of 2.0 in. (51 mm) and an inside
diameter of 1.38 in. (35 mm) into the ground a vertical distance of 18 in. (46 cm) and counting the number
of blows required to drive each 6-in. (15-cm) increment. The first increment is considered a seating of the
sampler. The blows obtained for the second and third increments are summed to give an N-value, which is
reported in blows per foot (bpf). The test is typically conducted at 5-ft (1.5-m) depth intervals. At shallow
depths of less than 10 ft (3 m), the depth intervals are often less (e.g., 2.5-ft [0.75-m] intervals). An example
profile of measured SPT N-values from a boring by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) is
presented in Figure 5-3.
68

SPT N-value (blows per foot)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
Sandy gravel
2
Raw (N)
4
Corrected (N60) Clay
6
8
Depth (feet)
10
12 Gravelly sand
to Sandy
14 gravel
16
18
Auger refusal at 18.8 ft Sandy silt
20
Source: Paul Mayne (based on data from VTrans)

Figure 5-3. Example of SPT N-values
5.2.1.1 Correction Factors

Since the introduction of the SPT in 1902, the drop hammer systems have evolved from pin weight to
donut to safety to automatic hammers. Automatic hammers are now predominant in the United States. All
systems have a nominal hammer weight of 140 lb. and drop height of 30 in. (76 cm), giving a theoretical
energy of 4,200 pound force (lbf) per in. or 350 lbf per ft per blow if 100 percent efficiency were obtained.
However, actual efficiencies can be significantly less than 100 percent and quite variable, ranging from 30
to 95 percent, depending upon hammer type, commercial system, and age and condition of the equipment.
As a result, it is paramount to calibrate the energy efficiency of the SPT system (including rig, hammer,
and even the crew) approximately once per year so that an energy ratio (ER) can be obtained for correcting
the measured N-value in accordance with ASTM D4633. At the time that the geotechnical profession
became aware that energy efficiency was important (Seed et al. 1985, Skempton 1986), the average energy
efficiency of SPTs in practice was approximately 60 percent, which became the reference value for the
correction. This reference value is designated as N60, and it is calculated as follows:
= =
60
where
CE = correction factor for hammer energy
Nm = the measured blow count
69

An example of the large differences in N-values obtained using a safety hammer and automatic hammer
in two side-by-side borings advanced at the national geotechnical experimentation site at Northwestern
University can be seen in Figure 5-4. Here, the SPTs are conducted in a fine sand layer that extends to a
depth of approximately 22 ft (6.7 m). After correcting for hammer energy, it is evident that the N60 profiles
are in good agreement for both hammer systems. However, without the correction, the N-values from the
automatic hammer are too low (CE = 1.58), while those from the safety hammer are too high (CE = 0.67).
(a) (b)
Source: Paul Mayne
Figure 5-4. Comparison of (a) uncorrected (Nm) and (b) energy-corrected (N60) SPT blow counts
There is a general misconception by geotechnical engineers that SPTs conducted using an automatic
hammer do not need to be corrected for hammer energy. Table 5-1 shows a compilation of thousands of
hammer energy measurements (ASTM D4633) by different agencies, all using automatic hammers. The
measured values of ER range from 46 to 95 percent. The results highlight the importance of correcting for
hammer efficiency even for automatic hammers. The state-of-the-practice using automatic hammers has
increased to a mean ER ±1 standard deviation (SD) of 82 ±7 percent based on more than 17,000 hammer
energy measurements (Honeycutt et al. 2014).
Table 5-1. Summary of hammer energy measurements using automatic hammers
Energy Ratio
(percent)
Standard
Automatic Hammer System Mean Location or Agency
Deviation
Diedrich D-120 46 ± 8.7 Utah DOT
Diedrich D-50 56 ±2 Tennessee
CME 850 62.7 ± 4.0 Utah DOT
BK-81 w/ AW-J rods 68.6 ± 7.5 ASCE/WA
Mobile B-80 70.4 ± 4.6 Utah DOT
CME hammer w/ skid 72.9 ± 4.2 Washington
Diedrich D50 76 ± 5.3 Florida DOT
CME 45c Skid 77.4 ±5 VTrans
Diedrich D-120 78 ±4 Tennessee
CME 55 78.4 ± 8.2 Florida DOT
70

Energy Ratio
(percent)
Standard
Automatic Hammer System Mean Location or Agency
Deviation
CME 850 79 ±2 Tennessee
CME 45c Track 80.6 ± 3.9 VTrans
CME 45c Track 81.1 ± 5.8 VTrans
CME 75 w/ AW-J rods 81.4 ± 4.7 ASCE/WA
CME 75 Track 84 ± 5.3 VTrans
CME 55 Track 85 ± 4.9 VTrans
CME 750 86.6 ± 6.2 Utah DOT
CME 55 Track 87.4 ± 5.4 VTrans
Mobile B-57 88 ±3 Tennessee
Mobile B-57 93 ±3 Tennessee
CME 75 rig 94.6 ± 2.1 Utah DOT
Sources: ASCE/WA (Batchelor et al. 1995), Florida DOT (Davidson et al. 1999), VTrans (Kelley and Lens 2010),
Utah DOT (Sjoblom et al. 2002), and Tennessee (Webster and Rawlings 2009)
In addition to hammer energy (CE), the N-value is also affected by factors such as borehole diameter
(CB), rod length and type (CR), and sampler configuration (CS). Therefore, the corrected N60 is calculated
by adjusting the measured blow counts using the following relation:
Approximate values for the various correction factors are given in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. SPT correction factors for field procedures
Factor Influencing Variable Field Case Factor Values

CN Depth effect due to increasing σatm = 1 atmosphere CN = (σatm/σvo')0.5 ≤ 2
effective overburden stress = 1.013 bars = 101.3
(σvo') kilopascals
= 1.058 tsf = 14.7 psi
CE CE = ER/60 Hammer Type: Range of Factor CE
where Automatic: 1.0 to 1.6
ER = hammer energy ratio Safety: 0.8 to 1.3
(ASTM D4633) Donut: 0.6 to 0.8
Pinweight: 0.5 to 0.7
CB Borehole diameter, b (in.) 2.5 < b ≤ 4.5 CB = 1.00

b=6 CB = 1.05
b=8 CB = 1.15
CS* Split-barrel sampler With liner: CS = 1.0

No liner: CS = 1.2
71

Factor Influencing Variable Field Case Factor Values
CR Drill rod length, L (ft) L > 33 CR = 1.00

20 < L< 33 CR = 0.95
13 < L < 20 CR = 0.85
10 < L < 13 CR = 0.80
L < 10 CR = 0.75
Source: modified from Skempton (1986), Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), Youd et al. (2001)
* Common United States practice is no liner.
psi: pounds per square inch
tsf: tons per square foot
5.2.1.2 Stress Normalization

For clean sands, there can be a stress normalization of N60, often called an overburden correction, which
references N60 to an equivalent effective stress level of one atmosphere (1 atm), designated (N1)60 and
calculated as follows:
( ) =
A variety of stress normalization factors (CN) have been developed (e.g., Kulhawy and Mayne 1990,
Boulanger and Idriss 2014, ASTM D6066). A simple and commonly accepted relationship is as follows:
.
=( ⁄ ) ≤2
where
= effective vertical overburden stress
= 1 atm ≈ 1 bar = 100 kilopascals (kPa) = 14.7 psi ≈ 1 ton per square foot (tsf) ≈ 1 kilogram per
square centimeter (kg/cm2)
5.2.2 Vane Shear Test

VSTs have been used since the 1940s for evaluating undrained shear strength and sensitivity of clays and
silts in situ (Chandler 1988). The test involves a four-sided blade (vane) that is pushed into the soil deposit,
usually at 3.3-ft (1-m) depth intervals (Figure 5-5). Within one minute after blade insertion, a moment is
applied to twist the rods at 0.1 degrees per second to cut a cylindrical section of clay (ASTM D2573). The
peak torque reading ( ) is used to determine the maximum shear stresses acting on the soil cylinder,
which is interpreted as the vane undrained shear strength ( ). The VST is usually applied to clays where
< 4 ksf (200 kPa).
72

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-5. VST or field van for clays and silts
The standard vane is rectangular with a blade width (D) of 65 mm (2.65 in.) and height (H) 130 mm (5.12
in.), giving a height-to-width ratio of H/D = 2, with a blade thickness of 2 mm (0.08 in.). Other vane
configurations and sizes are available to optimize the range of the load cells and torque gages, depending
upon ground conditions (Chandler 1988). For example, tapered blades facilitate insertion (and extraction)
in stiffer soils. Figure 5-6 presents the general solution for calculating suv for vanes with any D, H, and taper
angles at top ( ) and bottom ( ), as well as the most common geometries.
73

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-6. Limit equilibrium solutions for calculating undrained shear strength of rectangular and
tapered vanes
Modern field vanes employ downhole electronic torque meters and rheometers to measure moment and
rotation of the blades (Peuchen and Mayne 2007). The data are obtained in either analog or digital format
and then transmitted uphole using an electronic cable for data logging onto a field computer. With modern
data acquisition systems, the electrovane shear test (EVST) provides continuous records of the entire torque
vs. angle of rotation response for the test (not just peak and residual torque). This data can be interpreted to
provide a shear stress vs. shear strain relationship. The shear stress vs. shear strain relationship can
subsequently be used to estimate the stiffness of the soil. Example results of the EVST are illustrated in
Figure 5-7.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-7. EVST results from selected depths in clay deposit
If desired, an additional 10 revolutions are performed (faster rate permitted during this phase), and,
subsequently, the residual torque reading is recorded at the aforementioned standard rate to evaluate the
remolded undrained shear strength ( ). The ratio of peak-to-remolded strengths (at the same water
content) defines the in-place sensitivity, = ⁄ .
74

Example results of EVST in soft clay for a bridge and embankment crossing in Idaho are presented in
Figure 5-8. The peak values of undrained shear strength are seen on the right side of the figure, averaging
around = 777 psf (37.2 kPa), while the remolded strengths are seen on the left side, averaging 182
pounds per square foot (psf) (8.7 kPa). The sensitivity of the clay has a mean value of = 4.3.
Source: Paul Mayne (based on data from Idaho Transportation Department)

Figure 5-8. Example of EVST in soft clay
5.2.3 Pressuremeter Testing

The pressuremeter testing (PMT) is primarily used to estimate the stiffness and the shear strength of soils.
The testing process involves lowering the pressuremeter to the desired test depth, inflating the cylindrical
rubber balloon by injecting fluid, and measuring the associated changes in pressure and volume of the
injected fluid. Tests are usually conducted at 3.3-ft (1-m) depth intervals. For soils, the injected fluid is
typically water, while in hard soils and rocks, hydraulic oil is typically used. It is also feasible to use gas or
air pressure while testing soils, especially with computerized PMT systems. The components of the PMT
are illustrated in Figure 5-9.
75

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-9. Basic components and procedures of the PMT
Figure 5-10 shows an example of a pressure vs. volume curve obtained from a PMT conducted in sand.
The recorded pressure-volume change response allows the derivation of an entire stress-strain-strength
curve and the evaluation four specific soil parameters at each test depth. The four soil parameters include
(i) lift-off pressure ( ), (ii) stiffness or modulus, (iii) shear strength, and (iv) limit pressure .
Source: Florida DOT

Figure 5-10. Example PMT pressure-volume curve
76

The lift-off pressure is considered to relate to the geostatic horizontal total stress (σh0) and may be used
to estimate the lateral stress coefficient, = ⁄ , where the effective horizontal stress = −
.
Depending on the data reduction method adopted, the stiffness is expressed as either a Young's modulus
( or ) or shear modulus ( or ), where the subscript "u" indicates an assumed undrained condition
at constant volume, and the prime indicates a fully drained condition. The elasticity relationship =
2 (1 + ) can be applied to relate the two moduli where ѵ = Poisson's ratio: = 0.5 (undrained) and
≈ 0.2 (drained). In Figure 5-10, an unload-reload cycle was performed at an applied pressure of 111 psi to
better define the elastic modulus.
The shear strength is evaluated as either the undrained shear strength ( ) for undrained loading (i.e.,
constant volume), or the effective friction angle ( ) for fully drained conditions (i.e., no excess pore
pressure).
Finally, the limit pressure ( ) is an extrapolated value that conceptually corresponds to the pressure to
cause a doubling of the initial volume of the probe ( ), or Δ = . In estimating the extrapolated , two
types of volumetric strain are defined for the PMT: (i) Δ ⁄ based on the initial volume, ; and (ii)
Δ ⁄ based on the current volume, = + Δ , where Δ = measured volume change starting from
beginning of inflation.
There are five basic types of pressuremeters:
• Prebored Menard
• Prebored monocell
• Push-in
• Self-boring
• Full-displacement types
5.2.3.1 Prebored Menard Pressuremeter

The prebored pressuremeter is the most common and includes the original Menard type of
pressuremeters. The Menard version includes three air-inflated guard cells: two situated above and one
below the water-filled center testing probe cell. The testing time is slow because pressures for all three cells
must be recorded, and readings are taken at predefined times before advancing to the next pressure
increment.
5.2.3.2 Prebored Monocell Pressuremeter

More recently, a simpler monocell probe has found favor in United States practice for prebored
pressuremeters. This design omits the upper and lower guard cells and has only the middle probe cell that
is water-inflated (Briaud 1992). A screw pump is convenient because each full revolution of the handle
corresponds to a set injection volume of fluid, and thus ΔV is proportional to the number of rotations.
Several commercial types of monocell probes are available (e.g., Texam, Oyo, and Pencel).
5.2.3.3 Self-Boring Pressuremeter

Several versions of self-boring pressuremeters were simultaneously developed in England
(Camkometer), France (PAFSOR), and Japan (Oyo). In these designs, the self-boring pressuremeter probe
is lowered to the bottom of a borehole and then a small rotary cutter is used to insert the probe to the desired
test depth. The probe is hollow, thus allowing the soil cuttings to be flushed out during advancement. Newer
designs provide a water-jetting feature to cut soil at the front end and to facilitate soil removal.
77

Direct-Push In Situ Test Methods for Soils

Several statically pushed in situ testing devices have been developed to facilitate direct measurements in
soils and expedite field testing times. These direct-push methods often employ large (22.5 tons) hydraulic
pushing systems that use either deadweight reaction or an anchoring system to force the probes into the
ground. The hydraulic frames are mounted on trucks, tracks, and portable setups. The two most common
direct-push in situ test methods are the CPT and DMT.
5.3.1 Cone-Penetration Testing

The CPT is typically used to estimate the shear strength parameters, stiffness, coefficient of
consolidation, and hydraulic conductivity of soils. The basic components of the CPT are illustrated in Figure
5-11. In this test, 25-ton hydraulic pushing systems mounted on wheeled trucks or track vehicles providing
deadweight reaction are typically used to push the penetrometer into the ground. Also, anchored rigs can
develop the necessary reaction forces for penetration. The standard CPT penetrometer has a cross-section
area of 10-cm2 (1.55 in.2), although it is also common to use a cone with a cross-section area of 15-cm2
(2.33 in.2). The CPT penetrometer contains load cells, pressure transducers, inclinometers, or other sensor
devices that measure the response of the ground as the penetrometer is advanced at a constant rate of 20
millimeters per second (mm/s) (0.8 in./s). The basic CPT test is conducted in accordance with ASTM
D5778.
In addition to the standard sizes, there are versions that include sizes between 1-cm2 (0.15 in.2) and 40-
cm2 (6.2 in.2) in cross-section area for special applications (Mayne 2010, 2012). Smaller sizes are used for
profiling in varved clays and highly stratified layers, as well as for soils requiring frequent pore pressure
dissipation testing. Larger size penetrometers have found use in testing of gravelly soils. Table 5-3 lists the
several types of cone penetrometers available and their applications.
78

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-11. Basic setup and equipment for (electric) CPT
Table 5-3. Types of cone penetrometers
Type of CPT Acronym Measurements Taken Applications

Mechanical Cone MCPT qc (or qc and fs) on 8-in. Stratigraphic profiling,
Penetration (20-cm) intervals. Uses fill control, natural
inner and outer rods to sands, hard ground
convey loads uphole
Electric Friction Cone ECPT qc and fs (taken at 0.4- Fill placement, natural
to 2-in. [1- to 5-cm] sands, soils above the
intervals) groundwater table
Piezocone Penetration CPTu and PCPT qc, fs, and either face All soil types (note:
Test u1, or shoulder u2 requires u2 for
(taken at 0.4- to 2-in. correction of qc to qt
[1- to 5-cm] intervals)
Piezocone with CPTu Same as CPTu with Normally conducted to

Dissipation monitoring of u1 or u2 50% dissipation in silts
during decay with time and clays
79

Type of CPT Acronym Measurements Taken Applications

Seismic Piezocone SCPTu Same as CPTu with Provides fundamental
Test downhole shear waves soil stiffness with depth:
(Vs) at 3.3-ft (1-m) Gmax = ρt Vs2
intervals
Resistivity Piezocone RCPTu Same as CPTu with Detect freshwater–salt

Test electrical conductivity or water interface. Index
resistivity readings to contaminant plumes
5.3.1.1 Piezocone Penetration Testing

The piezocone penetrometer is a hybrid device that marries an electric or electronic cone penetrometer
together with a pore pressure probe. This allows the simultaneous measurement of dynamic pore pressures
with cone tip resistance and sleeve friction. Porous filter elements can be positioned at various elevations
on the penetrometer, including the apex and midface of the cone (Type 1), shoulder (Type 2), behind the
sleeve (Type 3), as well as higher elevations (Lunne et al. 1997). The common configurations are shown in
Figure 5-12. The standard position is the Type 2; however, there can be advantages to using Type 1
piezocone in desiccated clays for better profiling results and at sites requiring many dissipation tests for
soil hydraulic conductivity evaluations.
In soils with high fines content, a piezocone-type penetrometer is essential because the measured cone
tip resistance ( ) is affected by pore pressures and must be corrected to the total cone tip resistance ( ).
In dry soils there will be no pore pressures, and in clean sands the pore pressures will be approximately
hydrostatic ( ≈ ), so that the value of ( ≈ ), so using a piezocone is not as critical. However, in
many investigations, the subsurface conditions are not known, and thus a piezocone should be used so that
the proper data and results are obtained.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-12. Common piezocone configurations for pore pressure readings
80

Example results for a CPTu are presented in Figure 5-13.

MnDOT Wakota Bridge - CPTu C107
Cone Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Porewater Pressure

qt (tsf) fs (tsf) u2 (tsf)
0 100 200 300 400 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 0 0
10 10 10
20 20 20
Groundwater at 30 ft
30 30 30
fs
40 40 40
Depth (feet)
50 50 50
60 60 60
u2
70 70 70
80 80 80
90 90 90 qt
100 100 100
110 110 110
120 120 120

INTACT CLAY: u2 > u0
CLAY SAND
50 tsf (5 MPa) SAND: u2 ≈ u0
(a) (b) (c)

Source: Minnesota DOT
Figure 5-13. Example results from CPTu showing (a) total cone resistance, qt, (b) sleeve friction, fs,
and (c) pore pressures, u2
The piezocone is an efficient test for site characterization because it collects three independent and
continuous readings related to soil behavior with depth. As a rule, the total cone tip resistance ( ) can be
visually examined to get a basic understanding of the various layers and soil types encountered. Generally,
if qt > 50 tsf (5 megapascals [MPa]), the soils are coarse-grained (i.e., sands), whereas if < 50 tsf (5
MPa), the soils are fine-grained (i.e., clay or silt). For the CPTu sounding shown in Figure 5-13(a), the
profile indicates that most of the soil profile is sandy, yet distinct clay layers are found at depths of 3.3 ft
(1 m), 11.5 ft (3.5 m), 23 to 39 ft (7 to 12 m), 49 ft (15 m), and 72 to 88 ft (22 to 27 m).
Below the groundwater table, the pore pressure can also be used to assess soil type. The general rules for
pore pressures at the shoulder ( ) are as follows:
1. Sandy soils exhibit ≈
2. Intact clays and silts exhibit >
3. Fissured clays exhibit <
For the example sounding in Figure 5-13(c) at depths below the water table at 29.5 ft (9 m), in the three
sandy layers from 39 to 52 ft (12 to 16 m), 59 to 72 ft (18 to 22 m), and 88 to 118 ft (27 to 36 m), the
measured readings are essentially hydrostatic (i.e., ). Intact clay layers show greater than
hydrostatic. Furthermore, the ratio ∗ = ⁄ can provide an approximate idea about the clay consistency:
soft: ∗ ≈ 2; firm: ∗ ≈ 4; stiff: ∗ ≈ 8, and hard: ∗ ≈ 15+. For stiff, fissured, overconsolidated clays, often
< 0. As a rule, for onshore CPTu the maximum possible negative value of is approximately -1 atm.
For the sleeve resistance ( ), the soil type is normally inferred from the friction ratio (FR): Rf = FR =
100∙ ⁄ (in percent). In the case of clean, uncemented sands, usually FR is less than 1 percent, while in
81

most clays FR is greater than 4 percent. In highly organic clays and peats, FR is greater than 6 percent. In
very sensitive clays, however, FR may be less than 1 percent, similar to sands; thus, FR by itself should not
be considered reliable for identifying soil type.
5.3.1.2 Piezo-dissipation Testing

When an advancing penetrometer is halted, the induced pore pressures will begin to dissipate and seek
equilibrium conditions that reflect hydrostatic conditions ( ). By measuring the rate of decay of Δ with
time, the data can be used to evaluate the coefficient of consolidation ( or ) and the hydraulic
conductivity (K) of the soil. Often, the piezo-dissipation data are plotted with pore pressure vs. log or square
root time, similar to laboratory consolidation tests.
Two primary types of response are usually observed: monotonic and dilatory. The simplest response is a
monotonic-type dissipation whereby the measured pore pressures are highest during penetration, and then
during dissipation, the readings decrease with time, eventually reaching u0. A dilatory response may also
be observed, often in overconsolidated or fissured soils, where the pore pressures first rise with time to a
peak value, then decrease subsequently to reach u0.
Figure 5-14 shows a series of piezo-dissipation measurements from a highway embankment in North
Carolina. Monotonic-type responses were observed at depths of 13.8 and 25 ft (4 and 7.6 m), while dilatory
curves were obtained at depths of 18 and 27.2 ft (5.4 and 8 m). In many clays and soils of low hydraulic
conductivity, it is inconvenient to wait for 100 percent dissipation to to occur because of the very long
times required for consolidation. For practicality, a convenient reference mark is taken at which is the
time required to reach an average degree of consolidation equal to 50 percent.
Source: Paul Mayne (based on data from North Carolina DOT)

Figure 5-14. Example piezo-dissipation tests from CPTu
5.3.1.3 Seismic Piezocone Test

The seismic piezocone is a hybrid device that incorporates one or more geophones in the penetrometer
to permit seismic downhole test (DHT) and the measurement of shear wave velocity with depth in addition
82

to penetration resistances. The general setup and procedures of the test (ASTM D5778 and D7400) are
depicted in Figure 5-15. The CPT/CPTu is conducted over a 3.3-ft (1-m) stroke interval and then stopped
to allow DHT. Then, after DHT, the CPT/CPTu portion is resumed. The SCPTu is very versatile because
it obtains information about the stratigraphy, strength, stiffness, stress state, and hydraulic conductivity of
the ground with up to five separate measurements: , , , , and shear wave velocity ( ).
In the simplest arrangement, a single horizontal geophone (i.e., velocity transducer) is positioned above
the friction sleeve and a pseudo-interval test is conducted using a surface source with its axis parallel to the
geophone. A biaxial geophone (two orthogonal horizontal geophones at same elevation) offers an improved
arrangement in case the penetrometer is inadvertently rotated during penetration. A superior setup for the
seismic portion is called true-interval DHT, where two geophones are used behind the penetrometer usually
at 3.3-ft (1-m) vertical spacing, so that the same seismic wavelet passes by the upper and lower geophones.
If proper care and attention to detail are given, all the above methods essentially give the same results.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-15. SCPTu
The generation of seismic wavelets is facilitated by using an automatic shear wave source (i.e., autoseis).
This helps to provide repeatable waveforms so the delineation of shear wave arrivals is improved via cross-
correlation, rather than the first arrival time or crossover points that are identified using paired sets of right
and left strikes. Autoseis units have been developed that rely on paired electric solenoids, hydraulic,
pneumatic, and electromechanical impact type wave generation, as well as steady-state sources and heavy
mass vibrators.
An illustrative example of SCPTu results are presented in Figure 5-16. Beneath shallow sediments of the
Norfolk Formation, the presence of a stiff Miocene-age clayey calcareous sand (Yorktown Formation) is
evident at depths below 30 ft (10 m) where the pore pressure readings go well below hydrostatic values.
Also, the profile of . starts with very low values of less than 500 ft/s (152 meters per second [m/s]) in the
shallower and weaker Holocene soils of the Norfolk Formation and increases to 1,000 ft/s (300 m/s) in the
lower and stronger Yorktown unit.
83

Source: ConeTec
Figure 5-16. Example SCPTu soundings in sediment
Continuous-interval shear wave measurements can be obtained with Vs readings as frequent as the cone
penetrometer values, on the order of several centimeters (Ku et al. 2013). An example continuous-interval
SCPTu sounding is shown in Figure 5-17. Beneath an approximate 3.3-ft (1-m) fill layer, there is a silty
layer to 23 ft (7 m), underlain by sands to 98 ft (30 m) which overlie soft silty clays until the termination
depth of the sounding at 148 ft (45 m). Also shown are the Vs results from conventional DHT at 3.3-ft (1-
m) intervals in a separate benchmark sounding to verify the approach. Very good agreement is seen with
both procedures where the value of Vs increases from 295 ft/s (90 m/s) at shallow depths to about 820 ft/s
(250 m/s) at the final depths of the sounding at 148 ft (45 m).
84

Source: Mayne and Woeller (2015)

Figure 5-17. Example continuous-interval SCPTu
5.3.2 Flat Plate Dilatometer Test

The DMT is primarily used to estimate the stiffness of the soil and the lateral stress coefficient. The DMT
is conducted according to ASTM D6635. The testing procedures consist of hydraulically pushing a high-
strength stainless steel blade into the ground at 0.66-ft (0.2-m) increments. At each depth increment, a
flexible circular steel membrane (diameter of 60 mm) is inflated horizontally into the soil using nitrogen,
and two readings of pressure are taken. The first reading (A) is collected in about 15 seconds when the
membrane is flush with the flat blade (δ = 0), and the second reading (B) taken at δ = 1.1 mm, approximately
30 seconds later. As soon as the B reading is obtained, the membrane is quickly deflated, and the blade is
pushed to the next test depth. The components of the DMT are illustrated in Figure 5-18.
85

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-18. DMT procedures and measurement readings
Once the DMT data is processed, the field-measured A and B readings are corrected for membrane
stiffness in air and renamed: p0 = contact pressure and p1 = expansion pressure (see Fig. 5-18). These two
pressures are used to calculate three DMT indices:
1. = ( − )⁄( − ) = material index which serves to identify soil type, (i.e., clay when ID < 0.6
and sand when ID > 1.8).
2. = 34.7( − ) = ⁄(1 − ) = dilatometer modulus that provides a measure of soil stiffness.
3. = ( − )⁄ = horizontal stress index that is used to profile soil strength and stress history.
Example and pressure readings with depth from a DMT sounding performed in southeastern
Virginia are presented in Figure 5-19. The corresponding profiles of ID, ED, and KD are shown in Figure
5-20. The material index (ID) clearly indicates the occurrence of shallow interbedded sands and silts with a
transition at a depth 18 ft (5.5 m) to a silty clay layer that extends to 56 ft (17 m), underlain by silty sands
through to the termination depth of the sounding at 100 ft (30 m).
86

Source: ConeTec
Figure 5-19. Example DMT measured pressure profiles
Source: ConeTec
Figure 5-20. Example DMT index profiles
Some additional options for the DMT include (i) force measurements during blade penetration, (ii) A-
dissipation readings, and (iii) C readings. Force readings during penetration of the blade are discussed by
87

Campanella and Robertson (1991). The forces can be used to evaluate the blade resistance ( ) that is a
stress measured during penetration. At selected depths, DMT dissipation testing can be conducted by
recording the decay of A readings with time (Failmezger and Anderson 2006). The dissipation procedures
for DMT are accomplished by repeatedly inflating the membrane to the A position, then releasing the
pressure (i.e., no B reading is obtained). The time corresponding to a change in slope in a plot of vs.
logarithm of time is termed , which is used in evaluating the coefficient of consolidation, . A third
pressure reading (C) can be taken at δ = 0 during the membrane deflation after the B reading is obtained. It
is similar to the A reading but is measured during deflation rather than inflation. The C reading is corrected
as per the A reading and called . In sands, corresponds to the hydrostatic pore pressure ( ).
In Situ Tests for Rock

Several in situ tests are available for the field testing of intact and fractured rocks. The following are the
most common in situ tests for rock:
• PLT
• FJT
• Rock dilatometer
• Large field DS test
• Rock borehole shear test
• Borehole cameras
5.4.1 Plate Load Tests on Rock

PLT on rock is a common in situ testing method for evaluating the rock mass stiffness (Bieniawski 1981).
A PLT on rock is similar to a PLT on soil, except that much larger plates, reaction system, and hydraulic
forces are required for tests on rock. The testing procedure consist of applying stress using a jacking system
and measuring the resulting displacements. The stress can be applied either vertically or horizontally
depending on the nature of the proposed construction. For example, investigation studies for shallow and
deep foundations require vertical PLTs, and investigations involving tunnels require horizontal PLTs. In
addition to measuring the plate displacement, borehole extensometers can also be installed on large projects
so that displacements at different depths inside the rock mass can also be measured during loading. Test
procedures for PLT on rock follow ASTM D4394 for rigid plates and D4395 for flexible plates. The
procedures are similar to those for PLT on soils per AASHTO T221 and T222.
The test results are presented in terms of stress vs. displacements graphs (Figure 5-21). Generally, the
results are analyzed using well-known elasticity solutions to back calculate an equivalent modulus ( ), as
discussed by Hoek (2007).
88

Source: data from Kavur et al. (2015)

Figure 5-21. Example PLT on limestone
5.4.2 Flat Jack Tests

FJTs are used for two purposes in rock mass characterization: (i) evaluate the geostatic in situ state of
stress and (ii) determine rock mass stiffness (Bieniawski 1981, Deklotz and Boisen 1970). For geostatic in
situ state of stress determination, several paired sets of pins are installed at known distances on the rock
face (Figure 5-22). A slot no more than 3 in. (7.6 cm) wide with a length-to-width ratio greater than five is
cut between the paired pins. A square flat jack at least 2 ft (0.6 m) wide is installed and grouted into the slot
and later pressurized after the grout has cured (Rocha 1970). The pressure required to return the pins to
their original positions is interpreted as the geostatic stress state ( ) perpendicular to the direction of the
slot opening. Preferably three separate FJTs using orthogonal slots should be cut in the rock surface to fully
determine the in situ state of stress: , , and .
In addition to measuring the in situ stress, the FJT can be further pressurized and displacement
measurements taken to assess the elastic modulus (E') of the rock material via the theory of elasticity.
89

Rock Face
Slot cut into rock for test

Flatjack inserted into slot
Pressure
Gauge
Limestone Grout Pump
Rock Formation
RQD = 75
RMR ≈ 55 Rock Face
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 5-22. Cross section of flat jack setup per ASTM D4729
5.4.3 Rock Dilatometer

A rock dilatometer test is used to evaluate rock mass stiffness. The testing procedure involves placing a
long cylindrical probe into a rock-cored borehole, inflating the probe laterally, and measuring the resulting
displacements (Rocha 1970). A special directional rock dilatometer has been developed to permit
evaluations of stress anisotropy.
5.4.4 Large Field Direct Shear Test

Large-scale DS tests can be conducted to measure the shear strength of natural rock outcrops in surficial
exposures or in excavations. These tests are analogous to laboratory DS tests where a normal load is first
applied vertically, then a horizontal load is used to create a shearing stress across the rock material. The
large in situ DS test can also be used along joints or shear planes in the rock to measure the peak and residual
strength of the discontinuities (Goodman 1970). Test equipment and procedures for large in situ DS test of
rock joints are provided in ASTM D4554.
5.4.5 Rock Borehole Shear Test

The (Iowa) borehole shear test, originally developed for soils, was modified to allow testing in rocks
(Yang et al. 2006) and called the rock borehole shear test. The rock borehole shear test is used to measure
the shear strength of rock. A downhole probe with paired shear plates is lowered to the desired test elevation.
Pressure is applied to the plates to obtain the normal stress, and a tether is pulled to create a shear force on
the plates. The derived shear stress (τ) vs. normal stress (σ') directly provides the Mohr-Coulomb strength
envelope as shown in Figure 5-23.
= + tan
where
= effective cohesion intercept
= effective friction angle
90

Source: Dick Handy, Handy Geotechnical Equipment

Figure 5-23. Rock borehole shear test in sandstone
5.4.6 Measurements for Rock Discontinuities

Optical and acoustic televiewers provide a continuous, 360° view of the borehole wall that allows rock
mass discontinuities to be identified and characterized. Both devices can be oriented within the borehole so
that the absolute orientation of features (e.g., bedding planes) can be measured. The OTV uses visible light
whereas the ATV uses ultrasound to image the borehole wall. OTV and ATV surveys are used to provide
information regarding locations and orientations of joints, bedding planes, faults, shears, and other naturally
occurring rock mass discontinuities. A more detailed summary of optical and acoustic televiewers is
provided in Section 4.4.2.4.
91

Batchelor, C., G. Goble, J. Berger, and R. Miner. 1995. Standard Penetration Test Energy Measurements on The Seattle
ASCE Field Testing Program. GRL Report to American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Univ. of Washington.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1981. "Experience with In Situ Measurement of Rock Deformability." Geophysical Research Letters, Vol
8, No. 7, pp. 675–677.
Boulanger, R.W., and I.M. Idriss. 2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-
14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California-Davis.
Briaud, J-L. 1992. The Pressuremeter. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Broms, B.B., and N. Flodin. 1988. "History of Soil Penetration Testing." Penetration Testing, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISOPT-1,
Orlando) Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 157–220.
Campanella, R.G., and P.K. Robertson. 1991. "Use and Interpretation of a Research Dilatometer." Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 113–136.
Chandler R. J. 1988. "The In Situ Measurement of the Undrained Shear Strength of Clays Using the Field Vane." Vane Shear
Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies, ASTM Special Tech. Publ.1014. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. pp. 13–44.
Davidson, J.L., J.P. Maultsby, and K.B. Spoor. 1999. Standard Penetration Test Energy Calibrations. Report WPI 0510859
by University of Florida - Gainesville to Florida Dept. Transportation, Tallahassee.
Deklotz, E.J., and B.P. Boisen. 1970. "Development of Equipment for Determining Deformation Modulus and In-Situ Stress
by Means of Large Flatjacks." Determination of the In-Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Masses, Special Technical
Publication 477, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. pp. 117–125.
Failmezger, R.A., and J.B. Anderson (eds). 2006. Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Flat Dilatometer. Arlington,
Virginia.
Goodman, R.E. 1970. "The Deformability of Joints." Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Masses,
Special Tech. Publ. 477, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. pp. 174–196.
Hoek, E. 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. RocScience Inc., Toronto, ON.
Honeycutt, J.N., S.E. Kiser, and J.B. Anderson. 2014. "Database Evaluation of Energy Transfer for CME Automatic
Hammer SPT." Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 1, pp. 194–200.
Kavur, B., N. Stambuk, and P. Hrzenjak. 2015. "Comparison between Plate Jacking and Large Flat Jack Test Results of
Rock Mass Deformation Modulus." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 73, pp. 102–
114.
Kelley, S.P., and J.E. Lens. 2010. Evaluation of SPT Hammer Energy Variability, Windsor, VT. Report No. 2010-3/Contract
0984735 GeoDesign Inc. Montpelier, Vermont.
Ku, T., P.W. Mayne, and E. Cargill. 2013. “Continuous-Interval Shear Wave Velocity Profiling by Auto-Source and Seismic
Piezocone Tests.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 382–390.
Kulhawy, F.H., and P.W. Mayne. 1990. Manual for Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Report EL-6800,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Lunne, T., P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M. Powell. 1997. Cone Penetration in Geotechnical Practice. EF Spon/Blackie
Academic-Routledge, London.
Mayne, P.W. 2010. "Regional Report for North America." Proceedings, 2nd International. Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing (CPT'10). Vol. 1, Huntington Beach, California. pp. 275–312.
Mayne, P.W. 2012. SOA Report: Geotechnical Site Characterization in the Year 2012 and Beyond. State-of-the-Art and
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering. GSP 226, GeoCongress, Oakland, CA, ASCE Press, Reston, Virginia.
Mayne, P.W. and Woeller, D.J. 2015. “Advances in Seismic Piezocone Testing.” Proc. XVI European Conference on Soil
Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 6, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. pp. 3005–3009.
Peuchen, J., and P.W. Mayne. 2007. “Rate Effects in Vane Shear Testing.” Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore
Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference: Confronting New Challenges & Sharing Knowledge, Society for
Underway Technology, United Kingdom. pp. 259–266.
92

Robertson, P.K. 1986. "In Situ Testing and its Application to Foundation Engineering." Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 573–594.
Rocha, M. 1970. "New Techniques in Deformability Testing of In-Situ Rock Masses." Determination of the In-Situ Modulus
of Deformation of Rock Masses, Special Tech. Publication 477, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. pp. 39–57.
Seed, H.B., K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder, and R.M. Chung. 1985. “The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction
Resistance Evaluations.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12, pp. 1425–1445.
Sjoblom, D., J. Bischoff, and K. Cox. 2002. "SPT Energy Measurements with the PDA." Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on the Application of Geophysical and NDT Methodologies to Transportation Facilities &
Infrastructure, Conference sponsored by FHWA, TRB, and CALTRANS.
Skempton, A.W. 1986. “Standard Penetration Test Procedures and Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative
Density, Particle Size, Ageing, and Over Consolidation.” Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 425–447.
Webster, S.D., and M. Rawlings. 2009. Standard Penetration Test Energy Measurements. GRL Engineers Inc. Job. No.
099015 Report to AECOM, Vernon Hills, Illinois.
Yang, H., D.J. White, and V.R. Schaefer. 2006. “In Situ Borehole Shear Test and Rock Borehole Shear Test for Slope
Investigation.” Site and Geomaterial Characterization (GSP 149, GeoShanghai), pp. 293–298.
Youd, T.L., M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, I. Arango, G. Castro, J.T. Christian, R. Dobry, W.D.L. Finn, L.F. Harder, Jr., M.E.
Hynes, K. Ishihara, J.P. Koester, S.S.C. Liao, W.F. Marcuson, III, G.R. Martin, J.K. Mitchell, Y. Moriwaki, M.S. Power,
P.K. Robertson, R.B. Seed, and K.H. Stokoe, II. 2001. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817–833.
93

CHAPTER 6
Drilling and Sampling of Soil and Rock
Introduction
When formulating a plan for the subsurface exploration program, the geotechnical engineer or project
geologist must carefully evaluate the variety of equipment, methods, and procedures available for drilling
and sampling soil and rock. This careful evaluation of drilling and sampling options will assist with
optimizing this phase of the subsurface exploration program to acquire the required information at the least
cost. This chapter presents the information geoprofessionals need to accomplish this objective, focusing on
the following topics:
• Field equipment
• Methods for advancing boreholes
• Soil sampling
• Rock coring methods
• Logging borings
• Boring closure
Field Equipment
A wide variety of conventional and modified drilling equipment is available—ranging from small,
handheld portable drills and augers to large equipment for offshore use. The most common types of
equipment for geotechnical explorations include rotary drills, percussive, hydraulic push, and sonic type
systems. Selecting the most appropriate drilling equipment is an important aspect of any subsurface
exploration program. The equipment must be capable of meeting the project requirements, have sufficient
mobility, and be able to convert rapidly from one drilling technique to another. Consideration should be
given to the nature of the formations to be penetrated (e.g., soft clay, dense sand, hard rock) and the type of
sample that is required (e.g., bulk, disturbed, undisturbed). Hydraulic-feed machines are usually preferable
because they can maintain a constant advance pressure through varying formations, which minimizes
erosion and disturbance of the surrounding material. No single method of drilling is likely to prove
satisfactory and economical for all geological formations and sampling requirements. Local practices and
equipment availability will often dictate the method(s) used for many subsurface exploration programs.
6.2.1 Drilling on Land

The conventional rotary drill rig can make several types of borings (including augering and rotary
drilling); installing casing; obtaining drive samples and hydraulic-push samples; coring rock, and direct-
push placing various in situ tests. Rotary drill rigs are quite versatile and adaptable to a variety of different
geologies. The typical applications of the most common variants of rotary drill rigs are summarized in Table
6-1, and examples are shown in Figure 6-1.
94

Table 6-1. Rotary drill rigs
Type of Rig Applications

Truck-mounted Sites with easy access
All-terrain Soft ground and difficult terrain
Track-mounted Swampy soft ground and heavily wooded terrain
Skid-mounted Steep terrain
With conventional rotary methods, the drill rods are lowered down the borehole and removed repeatedly
to change drill bits and obtain samples. Drill rod lengths of 5 ft (1.5 m) and 10 ft (3 m) are common. As the
borehole advances deeper, considerable time and effort are required to repeatedly lower and remove rods
in sectional lengths not exceeding 30 ft (9 m). Wireline drilling helps facilitate field operations by using a
special cable tool to rapidly swap samplers, bits, and cores as the boring advances. An outer temporary
casing is used to maintain borehole stability, and the cable system is located internal to this casing. The
cable also transmits the rotary cutting action from the rig to the special drilling head at the bottom of the
borehole. This is especially advantageous for deep boreholes to save time and effort.
Percussive-type borings are made by repeated mechanical impacts that are transmitted to the bit. These
impacts break up soil and rock into small particles that are removed by high air pressure. An air-track-type
rig is used to quickly produce an open borehole. Percussive-type borings are often employed to define the
top of bedrock.
Direct-push sampling of soil is accomplished using special hydraulic rigs that use an internal plastic-
lined steel mandrel to capture continuous samples. Samples are obtained in incremental strokes of 5 or 10
ft (1.5 or 3 m). Two types of direct-push hydraulic rigs are shown in Figure 6-3. These rigs often have twin
anchors to provide the necessary reaction forces for thrust pushes. A single person can usually operate a
direct-push rig and achieve depths of 100 ft (30 m) in approximately one hour. Depths greater than 150 ft
(45 m) have also been achieved using direct-push rigs.
Sonic drilling rigs can obtain continuous samples of both soil and rock rapidly and efficiently,
considerably faster than rotary drilling methods. The sonic heads provide a range of vibratory motions and
vertical forces down the rods to a special cutting shoe that cuts into a wide variety of geologic materials.
The repeated cyclic loading prevents undisturbed samples from being obtained. But, continuous logging
and recovery of soil layers, lenses, and strata are possible, and penetration through hard, cemented, or
calcified seams is not hindered. With sonic drilling in soils, there is no need to introduce fluids, water, or
air during soil sampling. This can be beneficial for explorations into earth dams, levees, and embankments
where rotary drilling fluids can damage or erode the soils or in environmentally sensitive areas where water
may aggravate contaminant transport.
6.2.2 Drilling over Water

When the alignment of a highway project crosses over a body of water, special equipment may be
necessary to accomplish the borings or soundings. This commonly occurs for bridge crossings over
freshwater rivers, streams, and saltwater bays. The situation also occurs along the shores of lakes, seas, and
oceans where the highway alignment is parallel to the coastline. For shallow-water conditions where water
depths are less than approximately 6 ft (2 m), barges can be used to transport conventional drill rigs to the
borehole or sounding locations. A tugboat or other seaworthy vessel is used to move the barge.
For deeper water, depths of up to 40 ft (12 m), jack-up platform rigs are typically used. Jack-up platform
rigs often consist of a rectangular steel frame with a working deck that have four outriggers at the corners.
Like the barge setup, the frame is floated to its designated location, and a heavy-duty hydraulic system
pushes long vertical poles with spud-cans to the seafloor to act as shallow foundations. The hydraulic
system then raises the platform to the top of the long poles to allow drilling operations.
95

Borehole Advancement Methods

A borehole (boring) is a vertical hole advanced into the ground to determine the depths, layers, zones,
types, and thicknesses of the geomaterials (soil and rock). Geotechnical borings are used for the following:
• Define geologic stratigraphy and structure
• Obtain samples for index testing and information to determine engineering properties
• Provide information on groundwater table and conditions
• Conduct in situ borehole tests
• Install instruments
• Determine the characteristics of existing geotechnical structures
This section will define the following commonly used borehole advancement and exploratory techniques:
• Manual methods
• Test pits
• Auger drilling
• Rotary drilling
• Drilling over water
The quality of information obtained from the various methods varies with the character of the subsurface
geologic conditions; therefore, careful consideration must be given when selecting a method. It may be
necessary to use more than one method in advancing a particular borehole.
6.3.1 Manual Methods

Simple manual exploratory probing and representative sampling techniques are used as preliminary or
supplementary measures to determine basic ground characteristics, typically of near-surface soils. Hand
probes are made to obtain reconnaissance information in wetland areas, concerning the thickness and lateral
extent of soft, compressible organic soils. Small-diameter, flush-coupled, steel rods are pushed into the
ground by hand to refusal in the underlying inorganic soil. There are also a variety of hand augers and
digging tools available to collect representative samples of the near-surface soil conditions. Various sizes
and styles of cutter heads are available, and extensions may be added for greater penetration depths. Small
gasoline-engine-powered hand augers will increase the depth of penetration and decrease the difficulty of
performing the work.
6.3.2 Test Pits

To examine near-surface geological conditions in detail, geoprofessionals can excavate test pits and
trenches by hand or with excavating equipment such as a backhoe. The exploratory test pit technique is
often used to determine geologic contacts and the presence of faulting. Test pits can also be used to recover
bulk samples for laboratory testing.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) prohibits personnel to enter into a test pit
extending more than 5 ft (1.5 m) below ground surface or within any pit displaying evidence of instability,
without proper sheeting and bracing. Once the test pit has served its usefulness, it should be properly
backfilled according to standard practices for compacted fill. This will prevent possible issues later with
subsidence or settlement problems due to improperly placed fill materials.
96

6.3.3 Auger Drilling

Augering is a simple method to advance a borehole. There are two types of augers: solid-flight augers
and HSAs. Augers are equipped with drill bits (e.g., finger bits or fishtail bits) at the lower end for breaking
up soil.
6.3.3.1 Solid-Flight Augers

Solid flight augers typically have a diameter of 3–8 in. (7.6 to 20 cm) and a length of 5 ft (1.5 m).
Procedures for auger borings are given by AASHTO T 306 (ASTM D1452).
Auger cuttings can indicate the soil types present at the site but cannot provide the specific depths of the
soils. If sampling is required beneath the auger bottom, the solid-flight augers must be carefully removed
so that the sampler can be inserted into the hole. This is only possible in soils that are stable, such as stiff
clays and silts or cemented sands. When using solid-flight augers, exploration depths are usually restricted
to about 10–20 ft (3–6 m) because of probable borehole instability.
6.3.3.2 Hollow-Stem Augers

HSAs have continuous flights situated around a central shaft of open cylindrical steel tubing rather than
a solid bar. Thus, HSAs do not need to be removed to collect drive or push samples from beneath the auger
bottom. Because the augers are left in place, they essentially act as a temporary casing to prevent borehole
cave-in. Two HSA systems are available: one that uses inner drill rods within the outer hollow augers and
one that relies on a wireline system to transport samples and drilling tools from top to bottom (Figure 6-1).
HSAs typically have outer diameters of 6–12 in. (15–30 cm) and inside diameters of 3–6 in. (7.6–15 cm).
Auger sections of 5 ft (1.5 m) are common, and these are easily stacked to allow the boring to extend deeper.
Boreholes made with HSA easily reach depths of up to 100 ft (30 m). Because no water is required while
using an HSA, this augering method is considered a dry borehole procedure for geotechnical explorations
that follow ASTM D6151.
97

Source: Jeff Farrar

Figure 6-1. HSA methods: drill rod (left) and wireline (right)
6.3.4 Rotary Drilling

Rotary drilling is a versatile and adaptable technique that can be used with a range of drilling equipment
and sampling devices. Figure 6-2 shows the various procedural methods for creating a borehole, including
rotary wash drilling and rotary auger procedures using either solid-flight augers or HSAs. Other borehole
methods include hydraulic push, percussive, and sonic are also shown.
Rotary drilling consists of advancing a cased or uncased borehole by applying rapid rotation and pressure
on the drill bit that cuts and grinds the materials at the bottom of the borehole into cuttings. These cuttings
are subsequently removed from the borehole by pumping air, water, or drilling mud from a surface reservoir
through the drill rods to the bottom of the borehole (Clayton et al. 2008). When the required sampling depth
is obtained, the drill string is removed from the borehole, and the desired sampling device is lowered to the
bottom of the hole.
Standard guidelines for producing boreholes by this method are given by ASTM D5782, ASTM D5783,
and ASTM D5876 for air, fluid, and wireline variations, respectively.
98

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 6-2. Rotary drilling techniques in comparison with other borehole methods
Several types of drill rods and bits are available for different types of overburden and rock materials
encountered, and the driller can change drill rods and bits as the situation demands. Two-, three-, and four-
wing carbide insert drag bits are usually used in relatively soft or loose soils, and heavier, tri-cone roller
bits are used in denser soils and several types of bedrock.
The Diamond Core Drill Manufacturers Association (DCDMA) has established standard drill rod sizes
and couplings. The sizes for some of the more common rod types are summarized in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Standard drill rod sizes
Size Outside Diameter Inside Diameter

(in.) (in.)
EW 1 3/8 1 5/16
AW 1 3/4 1 1/4
BW 2 1/8 1 3/4
NW 2 5/8 2 1/4
HW 3 1/2 3 1/16
Note: Rod lengths are generally available in 1 ft, 2 ft, 5 ft, and 10 ft; (b) all have 3 threads per in.
Source: Acker Drill Company
6.3.5 Measuring While Drilling

Measuring (or monitoring) while drilling (MWD) uses continuous measurements of drilling-related
parameters to evaluate subsurface stratigraphy and estimate soil and rock characteristics. Though widely
used during oil and gas drilling, it is an emerging technology in geotechnical drilling. It is more widely
99

used in Europe than in the United States at present and is described in an International Organization for
Standards (ISO) standard (ISO 22476-15).
MWD is predominantly used with rotary or rotary-percussive drilling methods. The measurements are
performed using a drill parameter recorder (DPR) installed on a drill rig. The DPR comprises sensors that
measure the following:
• Downward axial force (or crowd),
• Torque,
• Vertical penetration rate,
• Rotation speed,
• Fluid (or mud) pressure ( ) and flow rate ( )
These quantities are typically plotted as a continuous function of penetration depth. It is also possible to
calculate compound parameters that are derived from the basic measurements. For example, the specific
energy (i.e., the amount of energy required to remove a unit volume of material) can be calculated (Teale
1965):
2
= +
where
= cross-sectional area of the borehole
Karasawa et al. (2002a, 2002b) defined the drillability strength, :
64
=
where
= diameter of the borehole
Laudanski et al. (2012) provide a summary of additional compound parameters developed for use with
MWD.
Because MWD provides continuous profiles of measured and compound parameters, it is useful for more
accurately defining subsurface stratigraphy and evaluating variability in site conditions. In soils, Sadkowski
et al. (2010) found that MWD was able to reduce the frequency and number of split spoon samples taken
and ultimately increased the efficiency with which the borings were completed. MWD is also useful for
identifying voids and thin, weak layers that may be missed during conventional drilling, and it can provide
a continuous profile in ground conditions where CPT tests are infeasible, such as partially weathered rock.
In rocks, variations in MWD drilling parameters may be interpreted to indicate the presence of fractures,
changes in lithology, and competency of the bedrock. For example, Sadkowski et al. (2010) used MWD
data collected during bedrock coring to select zones in fractured rock to conduct packer tests to measure
the hydraulic conductivity of the fractured bedrock formation.
MWD parameters can also be used to estimate soil and rock engineering properties. For example,
Rodgers et al. (2018a, 2018b) used MWD to evaluate the unconfined compressive strength of limestone
during drilled shaft construction for quality control purposes. They suggested that the MWD-based
estimates unconfined compressive strength may lead to higher LRFD resistance factors and decreased
construction costs compared to the use of conventional strength tests on cores. MWD parameters have also
been empirically correlated to components of the RMR system (Lindenbach 2016).
100

Soil Sampling
Soil sampling devices are divided into two broad categories based on the condition of the samples they
recover:
• Disturbed samples
• Undisturbed samples
6.4.1 Split-Spoon (Disturbed Samples)

The SPT uses an open-ended drive sampler (i.e., split-spoon or split-barrel sampler) with a shoe having
an outer diameter of 2 in. (50 mm), an inner diameter of 1.38 in. (35 mm), and a length of 24 in. (610 mm).
The split-spoon sampler components are shown in Figure 6-3.
Source: Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

Figure 6-3. Geometry of split-spoon sampler
Split-spoon (split-barrel) sampling and the SPT are conducted per AASHTO T 206 (ASTM D1586). An
impact hammer system having a weight of 140 lb (623 Newtons [N]) and a drop height of 30 in. (76 cm) is
used to drive the split spoon three successive increments of 6 in. (15 cm), for a total driven vertical distance
of 18 in. (45 cm). Occasionally, four increments are driven for a total of 24 in. (61 cm) so that additional
soil material can be recovered for laboratory testing.
Split-barrel samplers can be outfitted with a plastic liner to help collect representative soil particles. In
the United States, however, it has become standard practice to not use these liners. If necessary, a plastic
basket or catcher sleeve can be added within the shoe of the sampler to assist with retaining the sample
during recovery, which is often helpful for sampling loose sands.
The principal advantages of using split-spoon samplers are their simplicity of construction and operation
and their relative economy for estimating in situ soil parameters through empirical correlations with the
SPT N-value. In addition, split-spoon samplers recover representative specimens suitable for classification
and for certain simple laboratory testing, such as grain size and plasticity.
6.4.2 Direct-Push Sampling (Disturbed Samples)

Several direct-push sampling techniques have become available in the past two decades: (i) continuous
hydraulic, (ii) continuous sonic drilling, (iii) cone penetrometer sampling, and (iv) vibracore. General
guidelines for direct-push sampling are given by ASTM D6282.
101

6.4.2.1 Continuous Hydraulic Push Samplers

Using an anchored hydraulic pushing system, geoprobe or powerprobe rigs can direct push a long steel
mandrel in strokes of 2–6 ft (0.6–1.8 m) to obtain continuous soil samples (Figure 6-4). The mandrel is
lined with plastic tubing that captures the soil sample. This produces long soil samples that generally have
a diameter of 1–3 in. (2.5–7.6 cm). The primary advantages of using continuous hydraulic push sampling
over rotary sampling methods are that direct-push methods produce no spoil and add no water or air to the
ground; they are minimally intrusive to the environment. Additionally, the process is faster than
conventional augering or rotary methods, thus, higher production rates are achieved. Both single-tube and
dual-tube systems are available. With the dual-tube system, the outer tube acts as a casing.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 6-4. Direct-push samples of soil
6.4.2.2 Continuous Sonic Samplers

Sonic rigs obtain continuous samples of soil and rock through a combination of cyclic resonant
vibrations, twisting, and downward vertical forces. No water or air or drilling muds are introduced during
sonic drilling operations in soil. The primary advantages of sonic samplers are their speed (they obtain
samples much faster than conventional rotary drilling or augering methods) and how little waste they
produce (sonic drilling produces 70–80 percent less waste than conventional rotary methods).
Sonic drilling is conducted according to ASTM D6914 and can achieve depths of up to 1,000 ft (304 m)
in certain geologic settings. Sonic drilling uses hollow casings that have outside diameters ranging from
4.5 to 12.5 in. (11 to 31 cm) to obtain core sizes that range from 4 to 10 in. (10 to 30 cm). By using sonic
energy transmitted through the drill rods, the core barrel can be advanced into all types of geomaterials. An
outer casing is then forced over the core barrel to provide borehole stability. The core barrel is removed
from the casing, and the sonic core is pulled to the surface to extract the samples of soil and rock in
continuous lengths.
Due to the excessive vibrations and repeated cyclic loading, soil and rock samples are likely to be
disturbed and, therefore, unsuitable for many laboratory tests that require undisturbed specimens. Sonic
drilling often generates considerable heat, so the measured moisture content of recovered samples may be
in error. Sonic drilling may also pulverize cobbles, rock fragments, and boulders, altering the grain size
distribution of the samples. An example of the continuous disturbed soil sampling by sonic methods is
shown in Figure 6-5.
102

Source: Boart Longyear

Figure 6-5. Example of recovered sonic soil samples
6.4.2.3 Vibracore Samplers

Vibracoring is a simple means to obtain soil samples at the bottom of a body of water. An open hollow
casing is dropped vertically through the water. The freefall (fall using gravity only) allows the casing to
penetrate the sediment. At least 20 ft (6 m) of water is needed to use vibracore samplers. Casing lengths of
3.3–6.6 ft (1–2 m) are common, with open inside diameters of 4 in. (10 cm) or larger. The casings can be
made of steel or transparent plastic. The transparent casing allows the soil layers and lithology to be seen
once retrieved (Figure 6-6). Vibracoring provides a continuous core for examination and index testing.
Source: Wessex Archaeology

Figure 6-6. Consecutive vibracore samples showing changes in stratigraphy
6.4.3 Thin-Wall Tube Sampling (Undisturbed Samples)

Thin-wall tube sampling is a method of obtaining medium-to-large undisturbed samples of soil for
laboratory testing. This method consists of pressing thin seamless tubing into soft-to-firm fine-grained soils.
Although loose granular soils may also be sampled with this method, sample retention may be a problem
unless the sampling device is equipped with a piston that creates a vacuum to help retain the sample in the
tube. Standard guidelines for thin-wall sampling have been established by AASHTO T207 (ASTM D1587).
The thin-wall tubing may be used with a variety of sampling devices to obtain representative and
relatively undisturbed samples. As with any sampling device or method, variations in design, operation,
and ability to recover the sample depends on the character of the materials being sampled. The following
are some of the more common thin-wall tube sampling devices:
• Shelby tubes
103

• Laval samplers
• Piston samplers
• Rotary core samplers
6.4.3.1 Shelby Tube Thin-Wall Open Sampler

The thin-walled sampling method, more commonly referred to as Shelby tube from the manufacturer's
tradename, may be any thin-wall tubing or casing that is beveled to form a tapered cutting edge. The tubes
are usually available in diameters ranging from 2 to 5 in. (5 to 12 cm) with lengths ranging from 24 to 36
in. (61 to 91 cm). A common size Shelby tube is made from 16-gauge tubing with a wall thickness of 0.065
in. (1.7 mm) that has an outer diameter of 3 in. (7.6 cm) and a length of 36 in. (91 cm). These tube samplers
are constructed of steel that is often galvanized to mitigate rusting. Brass or stainless steel tubes are also
available.
6.4.3.2 Laval Sampler

The Laval sampler is a special high-end, thin-walled, open-tube sampler having an outer diameter of 8.6
in. and an inner diameter of 8.2 in. (22 cm). This sampler has a special screw-type head valve that applies
a vacuum at the top of the sample to aid in sample recovery (La Rochelle et al. 1981). After the open tube
is pushed into virgin soils, an outer coring tube with a diameter of 10.7 in. (27 cm) is rotated above the open
tube. Laval samples are obtained within a rotary boring using drilling fluids such as bentonitic slurries.
With a wall thickness of 0.2 in. (5 mm), the diameter-to-wall thickness ratio of D/t = 42 results in a very
high-quality undisturbed condition (Clayton et al. 2008).
6.4.3.3 Piston Samplers

A piston sampler is a modified thin-walled open-tube sampler that has a piston at the upper head for
obtaining higher quality undisturbed samples. The piston keeps the front end of the sampler closed until the
desired sample depth is reached and maintains a seal during sample recovery to the ground surface. Several
types of piston samplers are available, including fixed piston and Osterberg (Clayton et al. 2008).
Fixed (Stationary) Piston Sampler. The fixed (or stationary) piston sampler is a significant
improvement over conventional Shelby tubes in that it decreases sample disturbance and improves recovery
(Long 2002). Procedures are given in ASTM D6519. A fixed or stationary piston sampler is constructed
similarly to the thin-wall open-tube sampler but includes a sealed piston and locking cone in the head
assembly to prevent the piston from moving downward (Figure 6-7). The apparatus is more complicated
and time consuming to operate than open-tube samplers. However, samples can be taken in uncased
boreholes.
104

Source: AASHTO
Figure 6-7. Components of a fixed-piston sampler
The piston can be locked and fully sealed at the bottom of the thin-wall tube so that it can be lowered
into the borehole without contamination. Once the sampler is in position, the piston, through a series of
small-diameter inner actuating rods, is locked to the drill rig or the casing, and pressure is applied to the
outer drill rods. The pressure forces the thin-walled tube down from the stationary piston. When the full
press is completed following a stroke of 24 in. (61 cm), any pressure buildup is released through a small
hole in the actuating rods. The tight seal of the piston also creates a vacuum on the sample that helps retain
the sample. The sampler is rotated two full turns to shear off the soil at the bottom of the tube and then
withdrawn very carefully from the borehole. A short waiting period before and after shearing allows
105

additional skin friction to develop between the sample and the tube, which minimizes potential for sample
loss during recovery.
Osterberg Sampler. The hydraulic Osterberg sampler is a fixed-piston sampler designed to obtain
undisturbed samples of soft and potentially sensitive soils in uncased boreholes. The internal design of the
sampler is considerably more complex than a standard fixed-piston sampler, in that it consists of an inner
thin-wall sampler tube and outer pressure cylinder (Figure 6-8). In the sampling position, a movable piston
is attached to the top of the sampling tube, and a fixed piston rests on the soil to be sampled. The sampler
is activated by pumping fluids or gas through the pressure cylinder, which drives the upper piston and
sampling tube down over the lower piston into the soil a fixed distance. Then the piston and the sample are
withdrawn from the borehole.
The Osterberg sampler is available with specially designed thin-wall sampling tubes with a diameter of
either 3.2 or 5.1 in. (8 or 13 cm). The self-contained and very portable aspects of this hydraulic piston
sampler make it an ideal sampling device in swamps and areas where access would be difficult for large
conventional drilling equipment.
Source: Chris Clayton

Figure 6-8. Osterberg piston sampler
6.4.3.4 Rotary Core Sampling

A variety of core barrels, which were originally developed for drilling and sampling bedrock, have been
modified or adapted to obtain undisturbed overburden samples in very dense or partially cemented soils.
These core barrels are used when the more conventional thin-wall samplers cannot penetrate the selected
geological unit, usually because the geomaterials are too hard. There are many local variations in the types
106

and mechanics of these core barrels, which are commercially available under a variety of trade names.
Denison and Pitcher samplers are discussed in the following sections.
Denison Sampler. The Denison sampler is designed to recover undisturbed thin-wall samples in dense
sand and gravel soils, hard clays, partially cemented soils, or soft weathered rock. The sampler consists of
a double- or triple-tube, swivel-type core barrel with a nonrotating inner steel or brass thin-wall liner
designed to retain the sample during penetration and subsequent transport to the laboratory. The basic
components are shown in Figure 6-9. The Denison sampler is designed for use with water, mud, or air with
rotary drilling and is available in five outside diameter sizes, ranging from 2.94 to 7.75 in. (7.5 to 20 cm)
The inner liner tube of the Denison has a sharp cutting edge that can be varied to extend up to about 3 in.
(7.6 cm) beyond the outer rotating cutter bit. The extension variation is achieved by the options of
interchangeable sawtooth cutter bits. These sawtooth cutter bits are preselected depending on the
anticipated formation that will be sampled. The maximum extension is used in relatively soft or loose soils,
and a cutting-edge flush with the coring bit is used in hard or cemented formations.
An important feature of the Denison sampler is a system of check valves and release vents that bypass
the hydrostatic pressure buildup within the inner sampling tube. These check valves and release vents
improve sample recovery and minimize pressure disturbance of the sample.
The Denison sampler is not practical for sampling loose sands or soft clays; the sample retention devices
are usually inadequate for these materials. Cobbles and boulders will present major difficulties for
penetration and recovery. Moreover, the sawtooth bit, with which the Denison is usually equipped, is not
capable of coring hard boulders that may collapse the inner sampler tube if it is in an extended position.
Source: Chris Clayton

Figure 6-9. Denison triple-tube core barrel sampler
107

Pitcher Sampler. The Pitcher rotary core barrel sampler is a modification of the Denison sampler and
consists of a single-tube, swivel-type core barrel with a self-adjusting, spring-loaded inner thin-wall sample
tube that telescopes in and out of the cutter bit as the hardness of the material varies. This telescoping aspect
eliminates the need to preselect a fixed inner barrel shoe length as is necessary with the Denison sampler.
The inner steel or brass thin-wall liner tube has a sharp cutting edge that projects a maximum of 6 in. (15
cm) beyond the sawtooth cutter bit in its normal assembled position.
As the sampler enters the borehole, a sliding valve directs the drilling fluid through the thin-wall sample
tube to thoroughly flush the borehole. When the sample tube contacts the bottom of the borehole, it
telescopes into the cutter barrel and closes the sliding valve. The closed sliding valve diverts the drilling
fluid to an annular space between the sample tube and the cutter barrel. This sliding valve arrangement
allows the drilling fluid to circulate which removes the borehole cuttings during sampling and prevents the
drilling fluid from disturbing the recovered sample.
The spring-loaded inner sample tube automatically adjusts to the density of the formation being
penetrated. In very soft materials, the tube will extend as much as 6 in. (15 cm) beyond the cutter bit. As
the formation density increases, the sample tube telescopes into the outer core barrel and compresses the
control spring, which in turn, exerts a greater force on the tube to ensure adequate penetration.
The Pitcher sampler is rotated into the formation in the same manner as conventional rock coring in either
a cased or mudded borehole. The sampler is designed to be used with either water or mud and is available
in four sizes that have outside diameters ranging from 2.5 to 5.8 in. (6 to 14.7 cm).
In extremely dense formations or obstructions, the sample tube will retract completely into the outer core
barrel to allow the cutter bit to penetrate the obstruction. The Pitcher sample’s telescoping liner is a major
advantage in highly variable formations, since it prevents the sample tube from collapsing. The Pitcher
sampler, like the Denison, is not capable of coring hard cobbles and boulders.
Rock Coring Methods

The primary objective of rock coring is to obtain continuous undisturbed samples of the in situ rock mass
that includes the sectional pieces of intact rock, as well as the joints, discontinuities, cracks, fissures, and
any infillings or other features. These facets are important for evaluating the rock mass characteristics that
will affect its performance as a foundation-bearing medium, as well as the stability for highway construction
involving slopes, excavations, tunnels, and as a construction material such as rock fill or aggregate in
pavements and concretes.
It is essential to any site investigation program to carefully examine and log the recovered core. Logging
the recovered core must be completed on-site immediately after the core has been extracted, since exposure
to the air, moisture, humidity, sunlight, and ambient temperature may change the rock characteristics. In
some cases (e.g., fissile clay shales), the alterations in characteristics can result in significantly different
properties and features than what the actual in situ geomaterials possess.
Rock coring and sampling by rotary drilling methods are detailed in ASTM D2113. Rock coring includes
four components: (i) core bit, (ii) core barrel, (iii) drill rod, and (iv) drilling fluids. These components are
described in detail in the following sections.
6.5.1 Core Bits

Because diamond is the hardest natural material, it serves as an excellent means to cut into rock. The
selection of the diamond size, bit crown contour, and number of water ports depends on the characteristics
of the rock mass. Using an incorrect bit can be detrimental to the overall core recovery. Generally, fewer
and larger diamonds are used to core soft formations, and more numerous, smaller diamonds mounted on
the bit crown are used in hard formations. Special impregnated diamond core bits have been recently
developed for use in severely weathered and fractured formations where bit abrasion can be very high.
108

6.5.2 Core Barrel Types

Core barrels are manufactured in three basic types: single tube, double tube, and triple tube (Figure 6-10)
with diameters that range from 1 to 10 in. (2.5 to 25 cm). These basic units all operate on the same principle
of pumping drilling fluid through the drill rods and core barrel as the core bit cuts the rock. Fluids cool the
diamond bit during drilling and carry the borehole cuttings to the surface. Fluids also maintain low
temperatures that help protect the rock core and barrel from thermal expansion under high-speed rotation.
A variety of coring bits, core retainers, and liners are used in various combinations to maximize the recovery
and penetration rate of the selected core barrel. Of the three basic types of core barrels, the double-tube core
barrel is most frequently used in rock core sampling for geotechnical engineering applications. The triple-
tube core barrel is used in zones of highly variable hardness.
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Source: AASHTO
Figure 6-10. Primary types of rock core barrels; (a) single tube; (b) rigid double tube; (c) swivel
double tube; (d) triple tube
6.5.2.1 Single-Tube Core Barrel

The simplest type of rotary core barrel is the single tube. The single-tube core barrel consists of a case-
hardened, hollow steel tube with a diamond drilling bit attached at the bottom. The diamond bit cuts an
annular groove or kerf in the formation to allow drilling fluid and cuttings to travel up the outside of the
core barrel. However, the drilling fluid must pass over the recovered sample during drilling. The single-
tube core barrel cannot be used in formations that are subject to erosion, slaking, or excessive swelling. The
single-tube core barrel, because of its sample recovery and disturbance problems, is used infrequently.
6.5.2.2 Double-Tube Core Barrel

The most popular and widely used rotary core barrel is the double tube. The double-tube core barrel is
an outer tube barrel connected to the bit with an inner liner that holds the cut rock core. It is available with
either a rigid or swivel inner liner. In the rigid types, the inner liner is fixed to the outer core barrel so that
it rotates with the outer tube. In contrast, the swivel type is supported on a ball bearing carrier that allows
the inner tube to remain stationary, or nearly so, during rotation of the outer barrel—a major improvement
over the rigid type for sampling overburden materials.
The sample or core is cut by rotation of the diamond bit. The bit is in constant contact with the drilling
fluid as it flushes out the borehole cuttings. The addition of bottom discharge bits and fluid control valves
109

to the core barrel system minimizes the amount of drilling fluid and its contact with the sample which
further decreases sample disturbance.
Numerous sizes of cores can be obtained in rock, with the most common size for geotechnical
explorations from rotary wash being NX with a diameter of 2.16 in. (5.5 cm) and wireline drilling at NQ
with a diameter of 1.87 in. (4.7 cm). Figure 6-11 shows a section of rock core that is 10 ft (3 m) long
obtained from rock coring operations. The recovered core is contained in a cardboard box for storage.
A wide variety of core barrel designs and sizes are available. Table 6-3 provides a listing of several
common sizes available for the swivel type double-tube core barrel design.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 6-11. Recovered rock core in gneissic granite bedrock
Table 6-3. Core sizes from WG swivel type double-tube core barrel
Size Rock Core Diameter Outer Tube Diameter

(in.) (in.)
EWG 7/8 1 7/16
AWG 1 1/8 1 13/16
BWG 1 5/8 2 9/32
NWG 2 1/8 2 29/32
HWG 3 3 3/4
Sources: Acker Drill Company (2015)
6.5.3 Triple-Tube Core Barrel

The third and most complex type in rotary core barrel design is the triple-tube core barrel, which adds
another separate, nonrotating liner to the double-tube core barrel. This liner, which retains the sample,
consists of a transparent plastic solid tube or a split, thin metal liner. Each type of liner has its distinct
advantages and disadvantages; however, both can increase sample recovery in inferior quality rock or
partially cemented soils, with the additional advantage of minimizing sample handling and disturbance
during removal from the core barrel.
6.5.4 Logging Borings

Field logging soil and rock core borings is an important part of documenting the soil and rock conditions
that exist at the project site. Field logging is best handled by an independent field engineer or geologist. A
typical field log includes all the relevant information for the specific and unique boring that was completed.
Relevant information includes the boring identification number, date of drilling, GPS coordinates, depths
110

of samples taken, types of samples (drive or tube), how the boring was advanced (auger, rotary wash, or
direct push), hammer type, raw SPT N-values, and personnel on-site, as well as any other information that
is deemed pertinent. In the field log, each sample is also identified by a unique designation, labeled, and
classified per the visual-manual method ASTM D2488. While field logs have traditionally been recorded
on standardized paper forms, commercial products are available that use an electronic tablet for digital entry
of information. The digital entry of field information avoids the need to re-enter the same information later
and is an important component of an effective strategy to manage geotechnical site characterization data as
described in Appendix D.
6.5.5 Soil Boring Logs

The field log, in situ test results, and laboratory testing results on recovered samples are used to produce
the boring log, which is an engineering record. The boring log is interpretive and provides the permanent,
technical documentation of the geomaterials encountered during drilling, sampling, and coring. The
geotechnical engineer or geologist may group consecutive samples together based on color, soil type,
corrected N-values (i.e., N60), and laboratory test results to form a layer or stratum that is consistently found
in the adjacent companion borings from the site. An example of the engineering boring log is shown as
Figure 6-12.
In the final engineering boring logs, the soil types of the various layers are categorized according to a
preselected soil classification system. The common soil classification systems in the United States are (i)
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) per ASTM D2488, (ii) AASHTO system, and (iii) U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition to the soil types (e.g., clay, silt, sand, gravel), the color and
consistency of the sample should be identified, as well as any additional facets or features that may be
deemed important. These additional features might include organics, shells, calcareous nodules, peaty
fibers, mottling, fabric, or natural markings that can help to identify the layer or strata during construction
or excavation.
111


Figure 6-12. Example engineering boring log
112

6.5.6 Logging Rock Core

The recovered rock core is logged in the field using at least three measures: (i) rock type, (ii) core
recovery, and (iii) rock quality designation (RQD).
The rock type should be identified by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer familiar
with the local geologic setting. A selection of common rock types is given in Table 6-4 according to grain
size and origin: sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous. Special attention should be given to rocks that are
soluble (e.g., limestone, some dolomites, and other carbonate geomaterials), since the possible dissolution
and formation of sinkholes, caves, voids, and channels can cause movements, shifting, collapse, and scour
(Sowers 1996).
In addition to the basic rock types, special attention should be given to additional minerals or aspects
found in the rock core and along and between the joints and discontinuities. These additional minerals
include mica, fluorite, galena, asbestos, hematite, halite, and others.
Table 6-4. Basic rock types
Sedimentary Metamorphic Igneous

Grain Clastic Carbonate Foliated Massive Intrusive Extrusive
Aspects
Coarse Conglomerate Limestone Gneiss Marble Pegmatite Volcanic
Breccia Conglomerate Granite Breccia
Medium Sandstone Limestone Schist Quartzite Diorite Tuff

Siltstone Chalk Phyllite Diabase
Fine Shale Calcareous Slate Amphibolite Rhyolite Basalt

Mudstone Mudstone Obsidian
Source: Paul Mayne
When coring rock, an attempt is usually made to collect a certain length of rock in the core barrel. This
is called the core run and is often done in 5-ft or 10-ft lengths. The total length of the rock recovered divided
by the core run is the core recovery, typically reported as a percentage.
The RQD is a modified core recovery and is the sum of all pieces of rock that are at least 4 in. long,
divided by the total core recovered, also reported as a percent. Thus, core recovery ≥ RQD. The RQD is
normally obtained on core having a nominal diameter of about 2 in. and thus includes NX, NQ, and NW
core bits. The RQD serves as a simple measure of the quality of the rock mass comprising the intact pieces
of (often) hard rock material and the network of joints, fissures, and discontinuities in the native formation.
Table 6-5 provides a rating system for the rock mass based on the measured RQD. Figure 6-13 presents a
rendering of the determination on RQD from a hypothetical section of recovered rock core.
Table 6-5. Rated quality of rock mass based on RQD
Measured RQD Quality

0 to 25% Very Poor
25% to 50% Poor
50% to 75% Fair
75% to 90% Good
113

Measured RQD Quality

90% to 100% Excellent
Source: Goodman (1989)
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 6-13. Evaluation of RQD from recovered core
In addition to its use in field logging of rock cores, RQD is also used as an input parameter for rock mass
classification schemes as described in Section 10.4.
6.5.7 Sample Protection

The obtained soil and rock samples should be properly sealed and protected from the environment (e.g.,
exposure to hot sun, freezing temperatures, high winds). Samples should be placed in moisture-controlled
containers and temperature-controlled environments to minimize alterations. During transport to the
laboratory, the samples should not be subjected to excessive shaking, vibration, or rolling.
Thin-walled tubes should be sealed using paraffin wax or plastic O-ring inserts or both. The samples
should be kept vertical throughout transport from the field to the laboratory until specimens are extracted
for laboratory testing. Split-spoon samples should be retained in plastic or glass jars with proper caps to
prevent moisture loss. Recovered rock cores should be placed in secured wood boxes or cardboard core
containers. Any missing rock core should have a placer or plastic insert to prevent the core sections from
shifting during transport.
Boring Closure
Upon completion, the drilled borehole should be sealed in accordance with local, state, or federal
regulations. In some instances, specific borehole closure laws mandate the borehole be sealed to protect
against groundwater contamination and to provide protection for aquifer resources. The closure methods
generally involve placing or injecting sealants (e.g., grouts, bentonites, concrete, other additives) into the
open hole by means of freefall drop, tremie pipe placement, pressurized pumping, or use of special probes
114

with expendable tips and other technologies. A review of the various techniques is given by Lutenegger et
al. (1995).
115

Clayton, C.R.I., N.E. Simons, and M.C. Matthews. 2008. Site Investigation. Second Edition, Halsted Press, Technology &
Engineering, London.
Farrar, J. 1999. Standard Penetration Test: Driller's/Operator's Guide. Report DSO-98-17, Bureau of Reclamation, Dam
Safety Office, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Denver, Colorado.
Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Karasawa, H., T. Ohno, M. Kosugi, and J.C. Rowley. 2002a. “Methods to estimate the rock strength and tooth wear while
drilling with rollerbits. 1: Milled-tooth bits.” Journal of Energy Resource Technology, Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 125–132.
Karasawa, H., T. Ohno, M. Kosugi, and J.C. Rowley. 2002b. “Methods to estimate the rock strength and tooth wear while
drilling with rollerbits. 2: Insert bits.” Journal of Energy Resource Technology, Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 133–140.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Report EL-6800,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
La Rochelle, P., J. Sarrailh, F. Tavenas, M. Roy, and S. Leroueil. 1981. "Causes of Sampling Disturbance and Design of a
New Sampler for Sensitive Soils." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.52–66.
Laudanski, G., P. Reiffsteck, J.-L. Tacita, G. Desanneaux, and J. Benoît. 2012. “Experimental Study of Drilling Parameters
Using a Test Embankment.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, ISC’4, Porto de Galinhas-Pernambuco, Brasil, pp. 435–440.
Lindenbach, E.J. 2016. “Improving Investigations with Drill Parameter Recorder Technology.” American Society of Civil
Engineers, Biennial Rocky Mountain Geo-Conference, Golden, Colorado.
Long, M. 2002. “Quality of Continuous Soil Samples.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 234–253.
Lutenegger, A.J., D.J. DeGroot, C. Mirza, and M. Bozozuk. 1995. NCHRP Report No. 378: Recommended Guidelines for
Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Rodgers, M., M. McVay, C. Ferraro, D. Horhota, C. Tibbetts, and S. Crawford. 2018a. “Measuring Rock Strength While
Drilling Shafts Socketed into Florida Limestone.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
144, No. 3.
Rodgers, M., M. McVay, D. Horhota, and J. Hernando. 2018b. “Assessment of Rock Strength from Measuring While
Drilling Shafts in Florida Limestone.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 1154–1167.
Sadkowski, S.S., K.P. Stetson, J. Benoît, and J.T. Roche. 2010. "Characterizing Subsurface Conditions Using Drilling
Parameters for a Deep Foundation Project in Boston, MA, USA." Proceedings of GeoFlorida: Advances in Analysis,
Modeling, and Design (GSP 199), ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 1132–1141.
Sowers, G.F. 1996. Building on Sinkholes: Design and Construction of Foundations in Karst Terrain. ASCE Press, Reston,
Virginia.
Teale, R. 1965. “The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 57–73.
116

CHAPTER 7
Hydrogeologic Characterization
Introduction
Hydrogeology plays a significant role in the geotechnical analysis, design, and performance of the
subsurface features of the transportation infrastructure. Thus, a hydrogeologic characterization to gain an
understanding of the distribution, thickness, composition, and continuity of the lithologic units and
anthropogenic features (e.g., wells, pumps, vaults, pipelines, trenches) that may influence groundwater flow
is critical to most subsurface investigation programs. Results of hydrogeologic characterizations are
specifically used to address issues such as slope failures, landslides, piping erosion, subsidence, subgrade
pumping, heave in excavations, and uplift of structures due to buoyancy (FHWA 2007). A comprehensive
hydrogeologic characterization should include information on (i) geology and hydrogeology, (ii) aquifer
characteristics, (iii) aquitard characteristics, and (iv) the direction and gradient of groundwater flow
(CalEPA 2012, Ohio EPA 2018). Additionally, information on the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination may be needed if the project site is a brownfield. Guidelines for evaluating the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination are beyond the scope of this manual; see CalEPA (2012) and Ohio
EPA (2018) for more information.
Geology and Hydrogeology

Knowledge of the site geology and stratigraphy is essential to define the hydrogeologic framework and
identify pathways for groundwater flow. It is necessary to define water-bearing zones that allow
groundwater movement (i.e., aquifers) and zones that may restrict movement of groundwater (i.e.,
aquitards), as well as any geologic features that may affect groundwater movement, such as faults, folds,
fractures, buried channel deposits, or solution features. These zones are generally identified by observing
and testing the material from boreholes. Correlation between boreholes is necessary to evaluate whether a
layer is laterally continuous across the site. Geophysical methods can also be used to direct or augment the
characterization of stratigraphy.
The subsurface can be divided into unsaturated (vadose) and saturated (phreatic) zones. Groundwater in
the saturated zone can occur in confined or unconfined aquifers. A confined aquifer is bound by relatively
impermeable layers (i.e., aquitards). Water levels in wells or piezometers in a confined aquifer rise above
the bottom of an upper confining layer (i.e., an artesian condition) and define a potentiometric or
piezometric surface. An aquifer that has a water table as its upper boundary is unconfined. A water table is
a surface where hydrostatic pressure equals atmospheric pressure.
In general, most water-bearing aquifers are not entirely confined or unconfined, and are called
semiconfined or leaky. A special case of an unconfined zone is a perched water table, which may develop
when a relatively impervious layer of limited horizontal extent is located between the water table and the
ground surface. Groundwater accumulates above this impervious layer. Perched zones may drain into an
underlying zone or may be permanent.
Water held immediately above the water table by capillary forces is the capillary fringe, the height of
which depends on the diameter of the interstices. The thickness of the capillary fringe may vary from a
fraction of an inch in gravel to several feet in fine-grained soils.
117

Aquifer Characteristics
Aquifers are water-bearing soil or rock zones that transmit water easily. The following are the key
characteristics of an aquifer that should be evaluated as part of a hydrogeologic characterization:
• Hydraulic conductivity
• Porosity
• Permeability
• Transmissivity
• Storage coefficient (confined aquifers) or specific yield (unconfined aquifers)
7.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity is a coefficient of proportionality between the hydraulic gradient and the velocity
of fluid flow through a permeable medium. The hydraulic conductivity of geologic materials varies over
many orders of magnitude from approximately 102 to 10-11 centimeters per second (cm/s). Generally, fine-
grained materials are characterized by lower values. Spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity largely
control groundwater flow through subsurface materials. Many geologic materials exhibit anisotropy with
respect to hydraulic conductivity. Anisotropy typically is the result of small-scale stratification such as
bedding of sedimentary deposits or fractures. In bedded deposits, the hydraulic conductivity may be several
orders of magnitude higher in the direction parallel to bedding.
There are several field and laboratory techniques for determining the hydraulic conductivity of geologic
materials. In general, field tests are favored over laboratory tests because results better represent in situ
conditions.
7.3.2 Porosity
Porosity is a measure of the amount of void space in a material. It is expressed quantitatively as the ratio
of the volume of voids to the total volume of the porous material. Since groundwater moves and is stored
within pores and fractures (i.e., voids), porosity is important in describing flow. Primary porosity refers to
the original interstices created when a material, such as rock or soil, was formed. It is the dominant porosity
in unconsolidated materials, such as soil, and in loosely cemented or weakly indurated sedimentary rocks.
Secondary porosity refers to interstices created after a material was formed such as fractures (joints and
faults), openings along bedding planes, solution cavities, cleavage, and schistosity. Secondary porosity is
the dominant form in consolidated materials (e.g., well cemented and strongly indurated sedimentary rocks)
and is the only effective porosity in most igneous and metamorphic rocks. Porosity may be calculated via
weight-volume relationships from measurements on undisturbed samples, or it may also be measured via
borehole geophysical methods such as gamma-gamma density and neutron porosity (see Chapter 4).
7.3.3 Permeability
Permeability also describes the ease with which a porous medium can transmit a liquid under a hydraulic
or potential gradient. It differs from hydraulic conductivity in that it is a property of the porous media only
and is independent of the nature of the fluid, so it is often called intrinsic permeability. It is related to
hydraulic conductivity by:
where
= intrinsic permeability
118

= hydraulic conductivity
= dynamic viscosity of the fluid
= acceleration of gravity
Intrinsic permeability has units of area. In general, hydraulic conductivity is measured in a site
investigation. However, intrinsic permeability is sometimes used as an input into models.
7.3.4 Transmissivity
Transmissivity is the amount of water that can be transmitted horizontally by the saturated thickness of
an aquifer. For confined aquifers, transmissivity is equal to the product of the hydraulic conductivity and
the saturated thickness of the aquifer:
where
T = transmissivity
b = saturated thickness of the aquifer
Transmissivity is expressed in units of area divided by time (e.g., m2/day, ft2/day). For unconfined
aquifers, the saturated thickness is the height of the water table above the top of an underlying confining
unit. Field methods for calculating hydraulic conductivity often involve measuring the transmissivity and
dividing by the saturated thickness.
7.3.5 Storage coefficient and Specific Yield

Storage coefficient (or storativity) is a dimensionless number that represents the water that a formation
releases or absorbs from storage per unit surface area per unit change in head. The storage coefficient of a
confined aquifer is caused by the compressibility of the water and mineral framework and is the product of
the specific storage and the thickness. Storage coefficient for confined aquifers is generally on the order of
0.005 or less. Storage coefficient of an unconfined aquifer is essentially the same except that the decline is
in the water table. With unconfined aquifers, water is drained out of pore space, and air is substituted as the
water table drops. The water that is drained by gravity is often referred to as specific yield. The specific
yield of most alluvial saturated zones ranges from 10 to 25 percent.
Aquitard Characteristics
Aquitards are confining layers that limit the vertical movement of water. They are generally comprised
of silt and clay with low hydraulic conductivity (i.e., less than approximately 10-6 cm/s) and can impede the
vertical flow of water. Some aquitards have poor integrity due to secondary permeability in the form of
fractures, rootlets, or other features. Because of the existence of natural and man-made features that provide
preferential pathways for groundwater movement, no aquitard is completely impermeable. Moreover,
hydraulic conductivity may vary considerably within an aquitard. Therefore, characterizing aquitards is a
critical element of site investigations. For example, the depth, thickness, and extent of aquitards must be
determined prior to locating monitoring and extraction wells or selecting screened intervals for piezometers.
Perched zones, in which groundwater mounds over an aquitard that is limited in lateral extent, should also
be identified.
Field investigative methods for delineating aquitards can include indirect methods (e.g., CPTs,
geophysical surveys) and direct methods (e.g., inspecting samples). Hydraulic conductivity can be
measured in the laboratory from undisturbed soil samples as discussed in Chapter 8.
119

Direction and Gradient of Groundwater Flow

Potentiometric information (from piezometers or monitoring wells with short well screens) and
measurements of the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers are used to estimate the direction and gradient of
groundwater flow. These data are used in conjunction with an understanding of the site geology and
stratigraphy.
Because groundwater flows in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head, horizontal and vertical
components of flow direction and gradient can be determined by acquisition and interpretation of water
level data obtained from monitoring wells and piezometers. Potentiometric surface maps are typically
constructed to show horizontal groundwater flow directions. Water-level elevation is plotted on a base map
and linear interpolation of the data points is made to construct lines (contours) of equal elevation. The data
used should be from well intakes located in the same hydrostratigraphic zone and at the same elevation.
The water-table is a particular potentiometric surface for an unconfined aquifer. Water table maps should
be based on elevations from wells screened across the water table. The flow direction for each zone may be
determined by drawing flow lines perpendicular to the contours. A reliable interpretation of groundwater
flow must consider geologic data and interactions with surface water. Horizontal hydraulic gradient is the
change in total head with change in distance in the direction of flow. The gradient generally is analogous
to the slope of the potentiometric or water-table surface. Gradients can range from greater than 1 (near a
point of discharge) to less than 0.0001, a value associated with extensive area of flat terrain and high
hydraulic conductivity. The horizontal gradient can be calculated by dividing the difference in head between
two contour lines on a potentiometric map by the orthogonal distance between them.
In addition to considering the horizontal component of flow, an investigation or monitoring program
should directly assess the vertical component and the interconnection between saturated zones. The vertical
component within a formation can be determined by comparing heads in well or piezometer clusters
screened in that zone. Hydraulic connection between saturated zones can be determined by pumping a lower
zone and monitoring changes in water levels measured in zones above the pumped zone. Vertical gradients
between zones can be determined if hydraulic connection exists. A site could exhibit different horizontal
and vertical gradients depending on where measurements are taken. Gradients are influenced by the
characteristics of the groundwater zone (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, thickness), boundary conditions (e.g.,
rivers), precipitation, and anthropogenic influences.
Groundwater Measurements
This section focuses on methods used to obtain information about groundwater conditions, including
potentiometric and water-table surfaces, pressure heads, groundwater flow, and hydraulic conductivity. As
noted above, knowledge of the site geology and stratigraphy is essential for a comprehensive
hydrogeological characterization. Methods for evaluating the site geology and stratigraphy are described in
Chapters 4 through 6.
7.6.1 Methods for Groundwater Levels and Pressures

The common methods commonly used to establish groundwater levels and measure pressure heads
include the following:
• Existing information sources
• Geotechnical borings
• Monitoring wells
• Piezometers
• Geophysical testing
120

7.6.1.1 Existing Information Sources

Existing information pertaining to hydrogeology is available from a variety of sources including (i) the
United States Geological survey (USGS) Office of Groundwater and Water Science Centers located in each
state; the USDA Natural Resources Conservations Services; hydrogeologic databases or publications from
state or local government agencies (e.g., natural resources, geological survey); logs and reports from public,
private, and industrial monitoring wells; and geologic and groundwater reports by local consultants. This
information can be gathered and reviewed quickly as part of the preliminary hydrogeologic characterization
to help plan the scope of site-specific investigations.
7.6.1.2 Geotechnical Borings

Borings conducted during geotechnical field investigations may be used to establish groundwater
elevations. After the required boring termination depths have been achieved, groundwater level readings
are usually taken immediately after drilling or coring and again at least 12 hours (preferably 24 hours) after
drilling or coring. Geotechnical borings in sandy soils often cave in. When caving occurs, the depth of
caving should be noted because it may coincide with the water table elevation. In borings where drilling
mud is used, a filter cake often forms and obscures the groundwater level. In these situations, bailing the
geotechnical boring is required prior to measuring the groundwater level.
7.6.1.3 Monitoring Wells

Monitoring (or observation) wells are used to evaluate aquifer characteristics and determine groundwater
flow direction and gradient. They are well suited to long-term studies of groundwater conditions and sites
where groundwater samples must be obtained periodically. Wells may be installed solely for groundwater
measurements, or, more commonly, geotechnical borings can be converted to wells. Monitoring wells may
be either single-level or multilevel designs. Single-level wells are screened in only one zone, whereas
multilevel wells are screened in several discrete zones and are configured to eliminate hydraulic connection
between screened zones. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate both types of wells. Single-level wells are the
predominant type used for hydrogeologic characterization. Screened intervals are generally 10 ft (3 m) or
less; however, site conditions may warrant longer screens. For example, longer screened intervals may be
needed for wells screened across a fluctuating water table.
Multiple zones may be monitored by drilling successively deeper boreholes close together and installing
a single-screened well in each hole. This type of installation is known as a monitoring well cluster (Figure
7-2). Nested wells, which contain multiple wells in a single borehole, are generally not recommended
because of difficulties involved with installing reliable seals between zones. Installing well clusters rather
than nested wells is the preferable method of monitoring multiple groundwater zones. Multilevel wells
provide an alternative to cluster wells when monitoring a series of intervals in a single water-bearing zone
is required. Multilevel wells should not be installed across aquitards or confining layers. Detailed
information on designing, installing, and developing monitoring wells is available in ASTM D5092,
Sprecher (2008), CalEPA (2012), CalEPA (2014), and Ohio EPA (2018).
121

Source: CalEPA (2014)

Figure 7-1. Single-level monitoring well
Source: CalEPA (2014)

Figure 7-2. Multilevel monitoring wells
122

To enable consistent and accurate water level elevation measurements, each monitoring well should have
a surveyed elevation reference point that is consistently used when measuring water levels and total well
depth. If monitoring wells have been installed and surveyed over time during successive phases of
investigations at a site, it is recommended that a single elevation survey be conducted for the entire network
to ensure that the reference point elevations are accurate. Water levels should be referenced to mean sea
level or a fixed marker to a precision of 0.01 ft (0.3 cm). Less precision (i.e., 0.1 ft [3 cm]) may be
acceptable, depending on the slope of the potentiometric surface or water table and the distance between
measuring points. Greater precision is necessary where the slope is gradual, or wells or piezometers are
close together. In newly installed wells, water levels should be allowed to stabilize for at least 24 hours
after well development prior to making measurements. Additional time (e.g., one week) may be necessary
for low-yielding wells.
Several methods are available to measure the water level elevation in monitoring wells (and geotechnical
boreholes). The simplest method is to use a steel measuring tape with a weight attached to the end. The
volume of the weight should be small to minimize the amount of water displaced, particularly in small-
diameter wells. The lower 2 ft (0.6 m) of the tape is rubbed with carpenter's chalk. Measurements are made
by lowering the weighted tape until the chalked section slightly passes the water surface. The depth to the
water level is calculated by subtracting the depth of penetration indicated by waterline in the chalked section
from the reading at the elevation reference point for the well. This method is accurate, but can be
cumbersome especially when multiple readings are required because the tape must be removed from the
borehole to reapply the chalk each time a reading is taken. An alternative is to listen for an audible splash
when the weight breaks the surface of the water in the well, but this method is less accurate.
An electric water-level indicator uses a weighted probe attached to the lower end of an electric cable.
Depth readings are marked on the electric cable at fixed intervals. Water level measurements are made by
lowering the weighted probe until it reaches the water surface in the well. When the probe contacts the
water surface, an electrical circuit in the probe is closed and the device sends a signal to a readout unit. The
depth to the water level is obtained via the marked readings on the cable at the elevation reference point for
the well. This method is accurate; however, errors may occur if oil has accumulated on the water surface in
the well.
Finally, an electrical pressure transducer can be placed at the bottom of a monitoring well. The transducer
measure changes in pressure caused by changes in water levels within the well. The pressure can be used
to calculate the height of the column of water above the transducer and thus the water level elevation in the
well. This type of measurement is accurate, easily automated, and enables a large amount of data can be
collected efficiently.
ASTM D6000 provides guidance on the tabular and graphical presentation of water-level information
obtained from monitoring wells. Figure 7-3 shows an example of a potentiometric surface map developed
using data from monitoring wells.
123


Figure 7-3. Example potentiometric surface map
7.6.1.4 Piezometers
Piezometers are used to measure groundwater levels and pressure heads in saturated soil, rock, or other
porous material. Piezometers differ from monitoring wells in that they are used to measure the groundwater
level or pressure head at only a specific point (i.e., depth). Two types of piezometers commonly used: (i)
open standpipe (or Casagrande-type) piezometers and (ii) electronic piezometers. Open standpipe
piezometers are constructed in a manner similar to monitoring wells, but typically have shorter screened
intervals to isolate a specific depth. Electronic piezometers (e.g., vibrating-wire, pneumatic, strain-gage)
use pressure transducers that commonly are grouted into place with a bentonite-cement grout or directly
pushed into place in soft soils at the desired depth. Both single-level and multilevel configurations are
possible. The transducer responds to pressure variations as water levels rise and fall and sends an electrical
signal to a readout unit. Piezometric data from transducers may also be transmitted via wireless telemetry
to a remote location, eliminating the need to send personnel into the field for manual readings. ASTM
D7764 describes procedures for acceptance testing vibrating-wire piezometers prior to installation to ensure
they are working properly.
7.6.1.5 Geophysical Testing

As described in Chapter 4, there are several surface geophysical methods that may be used to determine
the water table elevation, including seismic refraction and reflection, electrical resistivity, and GPR.
Geophysical methods are useful (i) in the preliminary phases of a hydrogeologic characterization to cover
a large area in a time- and cost-effective manner to gain an understanding of the overall groundwater
conditions before selecting locations for monitoring wells and piezometers, and (ii) as a means to interpolate
between widely spaced, existing monitoring well and piezometer locations. Geophysical investigations
124

should always be complemented by direct observation of groundwater conditions by means of monitoring

wells and piezometers.
7.6.2 Methods for Aquifer Characteristics

Aquifer tests provide a means of determining the properties of water-bearing zones in the subsurface,
including hydraulic conductivity, permeability, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and specific yield.
Aquifer properties are commonly used in engineering models to analyze groundwater flow (i.e., seepage
analyses). ASTM D4043 contains detailed guidance on selecting a type of aquifer test based on the specific
hydrogeological conditions (e.g., confined, unconfined, leaky aquifer) at a site, along with references to
specific ASTM guides and standards for each type of test. Two common types of aquifer tests—pumping
and slug tests—are briefly described below. More information is provided in Ohio EPA (2018). Packer tests
and piezo-dissipation tests using the CPTu are also included below.
It may be beneficial to use laboratory measurements of hydraulic conductivity to augment results of field
testing as laboratory tests may provide valuable information about the vertical component of hydraulic
conductivity of aquifer (and aquitard) materials. However, because of the limited sample size, laboratory
tests commonly miss secondary permeability features such as fractures and joints, and can greatly
underestimate hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, field methods provide the best estimate of hydraulic
conductivity in most cases. Laboratory tests for measuring hydraulic conductivity are discussed in
Chapter 8.
7.6.2.1 Pumping Tests

Pumping tests involve withdrawing water at a constant discharge rate from a control (or extraction) well
and monitoring the drawdown in one or more observation wells at varying radial distances from the control
well. The following factors need to be considered in designing a pumping test:
• Design of the control and observation wells to ensure they are screened at the appropriate depths
• Observation well locations relative to the control well
• Pumping rate
• Duration of the test
• Measurement of the discharge rate at the control well
• Measurement of the water level in the observation wells
• Methods of data analysis
The discharge rate should be measured frequently (e.g., 5-minute intervals) at the beginning of the test,
and adjusted if necessary to achieve the desired constant rate. Once the discharge rate stabilizes, the
frequency of measurement can be decreased (e.g., 2-hour intervals). Measurement of the water levels in the
observations wells are typically conducted according to the schedule in Table 7-1. The duration of the test
depends on the method used to interpret the results. Once the withdrawal phase of the pumping test is
complete, the recovery of water levels in the observation wells should also be monitored using the same
frequency of measurements shown in Table 7-1. Additional details on how to conduct a pumping test are
described in ASTM D4050.
Table 7-1. Typical water level measurement intervals for observation wells
Elapsed Time Measurement Frequency

3 minutes 30 seconds
3 to 15 minutes 1 minute
15 to 60 minutes 5 minutes
125

Elapsed Time Measurement Frequency

1 to 2 hours 10 minutes
2 to 3 hours 20 minutes
3 to 15 hours 1 hour
15 to 60 hours 5 hours
Source: ASTM D4050
Numerous methods are available to analyze data from pumping tests to calculate hydraulic conductivity,
permeability, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and specific yield. The appropriate method depends on
whether (i) the control well and observation wells fully or partially penetrate the aquifer; (ii) the aquifer is
confined, leaky, or unconfined; and (iii) steady-state or unsteady-state (or nonequilibrium) flow conditions
exist as shown in Table 7-2. A detailed presentation of these methods is beyond the scope of this manual,
but Kruseman and de Ridder (1994) provide a comprehensive description and discussion of these methods
and others that can be used to interpret pumping tests. In addition, ASTM D4043 provides detailed guidance
on selecting appropriate interpretation method for pumping tests for a variety of situations as well as
references to additional ASTM guides and standards for each method. Figure 7-4 shows the observed
drawdown in four observation wells during a pumping test in a fully penetrating well in a confined aquifer.
The calculated hydraulic conductivity is 0.30 cm/s, and the storage coefficient is 1.2 × 10-3.
Table 7-2. Methods for interpreting pumping tests
Well Aquifer Steady-State Flow Unsteady-State Flow

Configuration Type
Fully penetrating Confined Theis’s method Theis’s method
Jacob’s method
Leaky DeGlee’s method Walton’s method
Hantush-Jacob’s Hantush’s inflection-point method
method Hantush’s curve-fitting method
Neuman-Witherspoon’s method
Unconfined Theis-Dupuit’s method Neuman’s curve-fitting method
Partially Confined Huisman’s correction Hantush’s modifications of the Theis and

penetrating method I and II Jacob methods
Leaky Huisman’s correction Week’s modifications of the Walton and
method I and II Hantush curve-fitting methods
Unconfined - Streltsova’s curve-fitting method
Neuman’s curve-fitting method
Source: Kruseman and de Ridder (1994)
126

0.0
0.5
Drawdown (feet)
1.0
1.5
2.0
MW-A (31 ft)
MW-B (55 ft)
2.5
MW-C (82 ft)
MW-D (134 ft)
3.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Elapsed Time (minutes)
Figure 7-4. Example results from pumping test in a confined aquifer
7.6.2.2 Slug Tests

Slug (or instantaneous head) tests are the most common in situ tests conducted to estimate hydraulic
conductivity of subsurface materials. Slug tests are conducted by introducing a sudden increase or decrease
in hydraulic head in a control well and subsequently measuring the response of the water level in the same
well. Slug tests require at most a few hours to conduct and are useful for making preliminary estimates of
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity before conducting a pumping test. Slug tests are best suited for
formations that exhibit low hydraulic conductivity; the slug test is generally not suitable for fractured rocks.
One disadvantage of a slug test compared to pumping tests is that the slug test involves a more localized
area in the immediate vicinity of the control well, and thus the results may be influenced by the gravel pack,
poor well development, or skin effects along the borehole wall.
The sudden change in hydraulic head may be induced by (i) injecting or withdrawing a known amount
of water into the control well, (ii) placing or removing a mechanical plug (i.e., slug) below the water level
causing a change in the water level, or (iii) increasing or decreasing the air pressure in a closed control well.
The response of the water level in the control well to the sudden change in head should be measured
frequently during the initial portion of the test. For materials with high hydraulic conductivity, the water
level will recover quickly, and it may be necessary to use an electrical pressure transducer to enable frequent
measurements. Once the water level has recovered to approximately 60 to 80 percent of its pretest level,
water level measurements can be made less often. Additional details on how to conduct a pumping test are
described in ASTM D4044.
There are several methods for calculating the transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity from the results
of the slug test (Kruseman and de Ridder 1994). The methods developed by Cooper et al. (1967),
Papadopulos et al. (1973), Kipp (1985), and van der Kamp (1976) are intended for use with a fully
penetrating well in a confined aquifer. ASTM D4104, D5785, and D5881 describe these methods in detail.
Bouwer and Rice (1976) and Bouwer (1989) developed a method for fully or partially penetrating wells in
an unconfined aquifer, which is described in ASTM D5912. Figure 7-5 shows an example of the results
from a slug test conducted in an unconfined aquifer. The hydraulic conductivity calculated from the slope
of the line fit to the linear portion of the data is 1.5 × 10-2 cm/s.
127


Figure 7-5. Example results from slug test in an unconfined aquifer
7.6.2.3 Piezo-dissipation Testing

CPTu tests can be used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of soils by measuring the dissipation with
time of excess pore pressures induced by penetration. Chapters 5 and 9 provide detailed information on
conducting and interpreting piezo-dissipation testing via the CPTu, respectively.
7.6.2.4 Packer Tests

Packer tests are suitable for measuring the transmissivity and storage coefficient of rock formations with
low hydraulic conductivity. The test is conducted by first lowering a device into the borehole and
hydraulically inflating rubber packers above and below the depth range to be tested in order to seal off this
range. Either (i) a constant pressure is applied to the water between the upper and lower packers and the
resulting flow rate into the surrounding rock formation is measured (ASTM D4630) or (ii) a transient
pressure pulse is applied to the water between the packers and the decay of the pulse with time is measured
(ASTM D4631). The advantages of packer tests are that they are useful for testing rock masses with a wide
range of hydraulic conductivities and can be conducted much more rapidly than pumping or slug tests in
rock masses with low hydraulic conductivities.
For the constant pressure test, the transmissivity and storage coefficient can be calculated by fitting the
flow rate vs. time data using the method developed by Jacob and Lohman (1952). Similarly, for the pressure
pulse test, the transmissivity and storage coefficient can be calculated by fitting the time-dependent decay
of the pressure using the method developed by Bredehoeft and Papadopulos (1980). ASTM D4630 and
D4631 provide additional details on these methods of interpretation.
128

Bouwer, H., 1989. “The Bouwer-Rice Slug Test—An Update.” Ground Water, Vol 27, No. 3, pp. 304–309.
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. “A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers with
Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells.” Water Resources Research, Vol 12, No. 3, pp. 423–423.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and S.S. Papadopulos. 1980. “A Method for Determining the Hydraulic Properties of Tight Formations.”
Water Resources Research, Vol 16, pp. 233–238.
CalEPA. 2012. Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Groundwater Characterization of Contaminated Sites. California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, June.
CalEPA. 2014. Well Design and Construction for Monitoring Groundwater at Contaminated Sites. California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, June.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., J.D. Bredehoeft, and I.S. Papadopulos. 1967. “Response of a Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous
Charge of Water.” Water Resources Research, Vol 3, No. 1, pp. 263–269.
FHWA. 2007. Geotechnical Technical Guidance Manual. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, pp. 4–59.
Jacob, C.E., and S.W. Lohman. 1952. “Non-Steady Flow to a Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer.”
Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol 33, 1952, pp. 559–569.
Kipp, K. L., Jr. 1985. “Type Curve Analysis of Inertial Effects in the Response of a Well to a Slug Test.” Water Resources
Research, Vol 21, No. 9, 1985, pp. 1397–1408.
Kruseman, G.P., and N.A. de Ridder. 1994. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. Second edition, Publication 47,
International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Ohio EPA. 2018. Technical Guidance Manual for Hydrogeologic Investigations and Ground Water Monitoring. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.
Papadopulos, I.S., J.D. Bredehoeft, and H.H. Cooper, Jr. 1973. “On the Analysis of Slug Test Data.” Water Resources
Research, Vol 9, No. 4, pp. 1087–1089.
Sprecher, S.W. 2008. Installing Monitoring Wells in Soils (Version 1.0). National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Lincoln, Nebraska.
van der Kamp, G., 1976. “Determining Aquifer Transmissivity by Means of Well Response Tests: The Underdamped Case.”
Water Resources Research, Vol 12, No. 1, pp. 71–77.
129

CHAPTER 8
Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock
Introduction
Laboratory tests on soil and rock can be used to model existing in situ conditions as well as conditions
that will exist at different stages of project development because the tests can systematically characterize
the behavior of soil and rock in a controlled environment. A typical laboratory testing program usually
includes index and performance tests. Index tests provide general information (e.g., particle size
distribution, material consistency, texture, soil moisture conditions, plasticity). Performance tests measure
specific material parameters that are required for analysis, design, and assessment of constructability (e.g.,
hydraulic conductivity, shear strength, compressibility, stiffness).
The laboratory testing program should be designed to provide the necessary data to reduce uncertainties
and thus mitigate geotechnical risks pertinent to the project. A larger number of tests and more sophisticated
tests can be justified when the results can mitigate technical and financial risks or reduce construction costs.
The specific number and types of laboratory tests required vary with each project and depend on the
following factors:
• Uncertainty and variability of subsurface conditions
• Availability of complementary geophysical and in situ test data
• Availability of laboratory test results from previous projects with similar subsurface conditions
• Type of geotechnical system under consideration (e.g., bridge foundations, embankments, earth retaining
structures)
• Performance requirements for the system (i.e., strength and service limit states)
• Type and magnitude of load to be applied (e.g., seismic, long-term vs. short-term condition, earth
pressure)
• Presence of problematic geomaterials (e.g., swelling soils, collapsible soils, organic materials) or features
(e.g., slickensides, fissures)
• Project scope and budget
• Local practice and customs
This chapter includes brief discussions of frequently used soil and rock properties and laboratory tests.
The discussions assume that the reader will use the corresponding AASHTO and ASTM test standards in
conjunction with the content presented herein.
Quality Assurance
To help ensure that results of the laboratory testing program are representative of subsurface conditions,
it is important to (i) accurately track samples throughout the site investigation program; (ii) transport, store,
and handle samples in a manner that minimizes disturbance; and (iii) characterize the amount of sample
disturbance.
130

8.2.1 Sample Tracking

During a geotechnical site investigation, it is imperative to properly track samples from the field to the
laboratory. Field personnel who collect the soil and rock samples must label each of the samples with a
unique identification number. After the samples are delivered to the laboratory for testing, laboratory
technicians may assign a different identification number to each sample. The identification numbers
assigned by the field and laboratory personnel must be documented in the laboratory testing report so that
each sample tested can be tracked and information about the sample (e.g., sample descriptions) can be
retrieved from the corresponding boring log when needed. A spreadsheet or a data management program
can be used to track the samples and manage the sample identification information. It is also advisable to
create a chain-of-custody form to document who has possession of the samples at any point in time and is
thus responsible for their safekeeping.
8.2.2 Sample Transportation, Storage, and Handling

Protocols for sample storage and handling are available in ASTM D4220. Disturbed samples used for
index testing should be sealed in jars or plastic bags to prevent moisture loss. Undisturbed, thin-walled tube
samples should be sealed with several layers of a nonshrinking, flexible, microcrystalline wax, and should
be stored and transported vertically. Temperature extremes should be avoided if possible during storage
and transport.
Once the samples arrive at the laboratory, they should be stored in a room with a relative humidity of
approximately 100 percent to further reduce the potential for moisture loss. Samples should be tested as
quickly as possible after their arrival at the laboratory. Samples that are not scheduled to be tested within
few days should be resealed, if necessary, to minimize moisture loss. Long-term storage of tube samples is
not recommended, as the tube may corrode and the soil may adhere to the tube.
Exposure of undisturbed samples to the atmosphere while preparing test specimens should be kept to a
minimum. If possible, undisturbed specimens should be prepared in a room with a relative humidity of
approximately 100 percent. Excess portions of tube samples should be removed prior to extrusion to
minimize sample disturbance due to side friction. Preferably, the tube should be cut into predetermined
lengths using a band saw (Ladd and DeGroot 2004). However, if the soil is layered, it may be necessary to
extrude the sample from the full-length tube and assign appropriate tests to portions of the sample as it is
extruded. Tube samples should always be extruded in the same direction as sampling to minimize sample
disturbance. Further guidance on using thin-walled tube samples is available in AASHTO T 207 and ASTM
D1587.
8.2.3 Sample Disturbance

Disturbance may occur during any one or a combination of the following steps in the process of obtaining
and testing samples: drilling, sampling, transportation, extrusion, handling, or trimming in the laboratory.
Causes of sample disturbance may be grouped into five types as described by Hvorslev (1949):
• Changes in stress state
• Changes in water content and void ratio
• Changes in soil structure
• Chemical changes
• Mixing and segregation of soil
8.2.3.1 Changes in Stress State

Changes in the stress state within the sample cannot be avoided during drilling, sampling, extrusion, and
trimming. Figure 8-1 shows the changes in effective stress that a sample may experience starting from the
131

time of drilling to the time just prior to testing. This reduction in effective stress may reduce the measured
shear strength and increase the measured compressibility of the laboratory sample compared to the in situ
condition.
Source: Ladd and DeGroot (2004)

Figure 8-1. Changes in effective stress during drilling, sampling, and specimen preparation
8.2.3.2 Changes in Water Content and Void Ratio

Changes in water content and void ratio may occur during and after sampling. In a fully saturated soil, a
change in void ratio is accompanied by a corresponding change in water content. However, in a partially
saturated soil, the void ratio can change without a corresponding change in water content, and conversely
the water content may change with only minor corresponding changes in void ratio. Changes in water
content and void ratio may affect the measured laboratory engineering properties, and the results may not
be representative of the in situ soils.
8.2.3.3 Changes in Soil Structure

Soil structure and fabric can be disturbed during drilling and sampling. For sampling in boreholes,
disturbance before sampling is usually limited to the upper part of the sample. The lower part of the sample
may be disturbed during sampling. Disturbance after sampling can be minimized by carefully storing,
transporting, and handling the sample.
8.2.3.4 Chemical Changes

Disturbance associated with chemical changes is usually caused by one or any combination of the
following factors:
• Infiltration of wash water or drilling fluid into the sample
• Oxidation after sampling and during specimen preparation
• Contact with the sample containers
• An electrical charge
132

Storing samples in untreated steel containers for long periods of time can increase the occurrence of
chemical changes. Sample containers should be coated with lacquer, and sealing caps should be made of
inert material or the same material as the container.
8.2.3.5 Mixing and Segregation of Soil

Mixing and segregating soil is generally associated with sampling operations and can be minimized by
exercising care and using proper drilling and sampling procedures.
8.2.4 Assessment of Sample Disturbance

Sample disturbance can have a significant effect on the quality of laboratory test results, which depends
on the type and degree of disturbance, the nature of the material, and the type of testing. In addition to
proper sampling, transporting, storing, and handling procedures to minimize disturbance, the degree of
sample disturbance should be assessed prior to running any test that is sensitive to disturbance. Two
methods that are available to evaluate the degree of disturbance are x-ray radiography and the measurement
of the volume change of the specimen during reconsolidation.
8.2.4.1 X-Ray Radiography

X-ray radiography (ASTM D4452) can be used to qualitatively assess the following sample
characteristics, some of which may be caused by disturbance:
• Variations in soil type
• Macrofabric features (e.g., bedding, varves, fissures, cracks, shear planes, voids)
• Presence of inclusions (e.g., gravel, shells, calcareous soils, peat, drilling mud)
• Warping of the sample due to friction on the inside of the sample tube
Figure 8-2 presents an example of x-ray radiography that shows the bedding in the sample and a possible
crack at 0.75 ft (0.22 m) from the bottom of the tube.
133

’
Figure 8-2. Example of x-ray radiography
8.2.4.2 Volume Change During Reconsolidation

A more quantitative method to assess sample disturbance is to measure the volume change that occurs
during reconsolidation of laboratory consolidation and strength tests to the estimated in situ stress. Andresen
and Kolstad (1979) developed the criteria shown in Table 8-1 based on measurements of the vertical strain
during reconsolidation to in 1D consolidation tests. Lunne et al. (1997, 2006) found that the change in
void ratio normalized by the initial void ratio was a better indicator of sample disturbance and proposed the
criteria shown in Table 8-2 for evaluating the degree of disturbance.
Table 8-1. Specimen quality rating system based on vertical strain
εv @ σʹv0 (%)
<1 1–2 2–4 4–8 >8
Rating A B C C E
Description Very good to Good Fair Poor Very poor
excellent
Source: Andresen and Kolstad (1979)
134

Table 8-2 Specimen quality rating system based on change in void ratio
Overconsolidation Δe/e0 @ σʹv0

Ratio
1–2 <0.04 0.04–0.07 0.07–0.14 >0.14
2–4 <0.03 0.03–0.05 0.05–0.10 >0.10
Rating 1 2 3 4
Description Very good to Good to fair Poor Very poor
excellent
Source: Lunne et al. (2006)
Index Property Testing

Geotechnical index tests provide a simple and inexpensive way of developing a qualitative understanding
of some of the engineering properties of soil and rock. This qualitative understanding is useful in
determining the need for and scope of more sophisticated performance tests.
8.3.1 Particle Size Distribution

The particle size distribution test determines the distribution of grain sizes in a soil specimen. The test
consists of two components: mechanical sieve analysis (for course-grained particles) and hydrometer test
(for fine-grained particles). The testing procedures for particle size distribution are available in AASHTO
T 88. Knowing the grain size distribution for coarse-grained soils is valuable for classifying and estimating
the performance characteristics of soils (e.g., strength, permeability, compressibility, stiffness).
The mechanical sieve test is conducted by passing oven-dried materials through a series of sieves of
predetermined opening sizes. The amount of soil retained on each sieve is weighed to determine the
percentage of material retained or passing that sieve. The hydrometer test is based on Stokes law, which
relates the velocity at which a spherical particle falls through a fluid medium to the diameter and specific
gravity of the particle and the viscosity of the fluid.
The particle size distribution of a soil is presented as a plot of the percentage by weight passing a sieve
vs. the logarithm of the sieve opening diameter in millimeters. The shape of the grain-size curve is indicative
of the grading. A uniformly graded soil has a grain-size curve that is nearly vertical, while a well-graded
soil has a curve that is flatter and extends across several log cycles of particle size (Figure 8-3).
135


Figure 8-3. Example of particle-size distribution plot for a well-graded sand
8.3.2 Moisture Content

The (gravimetric) moisture content expresses the mass of water in a specimen as a percentage of its dry
mass. The moisture content is used to evaluate the liquidity index of fine-grained soils as well as numerous
empirical correlations for assessing performance characteristics (e.g., strength, compressibility) of fine-
grained soils.
The three methods commonly used to determine moisture content of soils are (i) oven dried, (ii)
microwave-oven dried, and (iii) field-stove dried. The procedures for conducting these tests are available
in AASHTO T 265 (ASTM D2216, ASTM D4643, and ASTM D4959). The oven-dried method is the most
accurate of the three methods. The microwave-oven and field-stove methods are rapid tests; if either of
these methods is selected as the primary testing method, additional specimens should be tested periodically
with the oven-dried method to calibrate test results. The microwave oven uses radiation that can release the
water trapped in the soil structure, thus potentially resulting in higher moisture contents than would be
obtained using the oven-dried method.
8.3.3 Atterberg Limits

The Atterberg limits represent the moisture contents at which the consistency and plasticity of fine
grained soils change significantly. Figure 8-4 presents the different Atterberg limit states: liquid limit,
plastic limit, and shrinkage limit. The liquid limit represents the moisture content at which the soil
transitions from a plastic to a liquid state. The plastic limit represents the moisture content at which the soil
transitions from a plastic to a semisolid state. The liquid and plastic limits are determined in accordance
with AASHTO T 89 and T 90, respectively, or ASTM D4318. The shrinkage limit represents the moisture
content at which the soil transitions from a semisolid state to a solid state and represents the moisture
content below which reduction in volume is negligible.
136

Source: after Holtz et al. (2011)

Note: LL: liquid limit; PL: plastic limit; SL: shrinkage limit; PI: plasticity index; LI: liquidity index
Figure 8-4. Atterberg limits
Other indices are derived from the Atterberg limits, including the plasticity index (PI), the LI, and activity
(A). The PI is a measure of soil plasticity calculated by subtracting the plastic limit (PL) from the liquid
limit (LL):
= −
The PI is used in numerous empirical correlations to estimate the engineering properties (e.g., strength
and compressibility) of fine-grained soils. The LI relates the in situ moisture content to the liquid and plastic
limits:
=( − )⁄( − )
where
= the in situ (i.e., natural) moisture content
It also correlates well with engineering properties of fine-grained soils such as strength, compressibility,
and sensitivity. Finally, the activity is defined as follows:
= ⁄Clay fraction
where
clay fraction = the percent finer than 0.002 mm by weight
The activity is an index of the type of clay mineral and thus the specific surface. High values of activity
often indicate the potential for large volume changes upon wetting and drying of a soil.
8.3.4 Unit Weight

Unit weight is defined as the weight of material per unit volume and is useful for a variety of engineering
calculations involving gravity or inertial loads on soil. The total (or moist) unit weight ( ) is defined
as the total weight of soil (weight of solids plus weight of water) per unit volume:
= ⁄
where
= the total weight of the specimen
137

= the total volume of the specimen

The saturated unit weight ( ) is defined as the total unit weight under the condition of full saturation
(i.e., S = 100%). The dry unit weight is the weight of solids per unit volume and is related to the total unit
weight and the moisture content:
= ⁄ = ⁄(1 + )
where
= the dry weight of the specimen
Test procedures for measuring the unit weight of soils are described in ASTM D7263.
8.3.5 Specific Gravity

The specific gravity ( ) is the ratio of the weight of a given volume of soil particles to the weight of an
equal volume of distilled water at a standard temperature. The following are typical ranges of specific
gravities for different soils:
• 2.65 ≤ ≤ 2.7 for gravel, sand, and silt
• 2.65 ≤ ≤ 2.8 for clay
• 2.0 ≤ ≤ 2.6 for organic soils
• 1.3 ≤ ≤ 2.0 for peat
Some of the uses for specific gravity values include calculating phase relationships, identifying dominant
minerals, analyzing hydrometer data, and estimating unit weight. The test procedures for the specific-
gravity test are provided in AASHTO T 100, as well as ASTM D854 and ASTM D5550.
8.3.6 Organic Content

The organic-content test helps with classifying soil and evaluating the performance characteristics of a
soil. For example, soils with high organic content have the potential to retain significant amounts of water,
which may contribute to high primary and secondary consolidation and low strength depending on the
nature of organic material. Organic soils are typically distinguished from inorganic soils by their odor and
dark gray to black color.
The organic content of a soil is the ratio of the mass of organic matter in a soil to the mass of dry soil,
expressed as a percentage. The procedures for this test are available in AASHTO T 194 and ASTM D2974.
8.3.7 Electrical Resistivity

Electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil’s resistance to the flow of electricity (i.e., electrical current)
and is useful for evaluating the corrosion potential of soils (e.g., Roberge 2000). The test is conducted in
accordance with AASHTO T 288 and ASTM G57. The test is typically conducted for geotechnical
structures that include buried metals (e.g., soil nail walls, anchored walls, steel piling). The relationship
between soil resistivity and corrosion potential is shown in Table 8-3. If the soil resistivity is between 30
and 50 ohm-meters, a chloride ion content test and a sulfate ion content test should be conducted. If the
tests indicate that the chloride ion content is greater than 100 parts per million (ppm) ([100 milligrams per
kilogram or mg/kg]) or sulfate ion content is greater than 200 ppm (200 mg/kg), then the soil should be
treated as corrosive (Loehr et al. 2017).
138

Table 8-3 Relationship between electric resistivity and corrosion potential
Soil Resistivity (ohm-meters) Corrosivity Rating

>200 Essentially noncorrosive
100–200 Mildly corrosive
50–100 Moderately corrosive
30–50 Corrosive
10–30 Highly corrosive
<10 Extremely corrosive
Source: Roberge (2000)
8.3.8 pH Test
The pH test measures the alkalinity or acidity of subsurface or surface water environments. The acidity
of the subsurface environment is a good indicator of the corrosion potential of the soil, and the pH test can
be used as a screening test to determine when more advanced tests, such as electrical resistivity, should be
conducted. For example, if the results from a pH test indicate that the pH of a soil is below 4.5, the soil is
most likely corrosive, and confirmation with the resistivity test would be prudent. The procedures for the
pH test are available in AASHTO T 289 and ASTM G51.
Soil Classification
The three most widely used soil classification systems in geotechnical engineering practice include the
AASHTO Soil Classification System, USCS, and Visual-Manual Procedure for Description and
Identification of Soils.
8.4.1 AASHTO Soil Classification System

The AASHTO classification system uses information on the grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits.
Soils are divided into two major groups: granular and silt-clay (Table 8-4). The first group consists of the
granular materials with 35 percent or less passing the No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve, and the second group is
the silt-clay materials with more than 35 percent passing the No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve. The sample
classification is obtained by proceeding from left to right in Table 8-4. For Groups A-2 and A-4 through
A-7, the chart shown in Figure 8-5 may be used as an aid to classification.
The group index ( ) provides an index of the suitability of a soil for use as a subgrade material and is
calculated as follows:
= ( − 35) 0.2 + 0.005( − 40) + 0.01( − 15)( − 10) 0
The group index for Groups A-1, A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3 is always zero; for Groups A-2-6 and A-2-7, the
group index should be calculated using only the second term in the expression above. Group index values
should always be rounded to the nearest whole number and shown in parentheses after group symbol (e.g.,
A-2-6(3) or A-4(5)). Additional details pertaining to this classification system are provided in AASHTO
M 145 and ASTM D3282.
139

Table 8-4. AASHTO soil classification system
Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials

General Classification
(35% or less passing 0.075 mm) (More than 35% passing 0.075 mm)
A-1 A-2 A-7
Group Classification A-1-a A-1-b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-5
A-7-6
Sieve analysis, % passing:

2.00 mm (No. 10) 50 max -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
0.425 mm (N0. 40) 30 max 50 max 51 min -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
0.075 mm (No. 200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min
Characteristics of fraction passing

0.425 mm
Liquid limit -- -- 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity index 6 max NP 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min
Usual types of significant constituent Stone fragments, Fine Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soils
materials gravel, and sand sand
General rating as subgrade Excellent to good Fair to poor

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2018.
Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL – 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL – 30 (see Figure 8.5).
140
70
60
50
PLASTICITY INDEX
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Source: AASHTO T 145

Figure 8-5. AASHTO plasticity chart
8.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System

Like the AASHTO classification system, the USCS is based on particle-size distribution and the
Atterberg limits of the fine-grained portion of the soil. The division between coarse- and fine-grained soils
is based on particle size. However, the boundary between coarse- and fine-grained soils is 50 percent
passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve rather than 35 percent in the AASHTO system. Classification using
the USCS proceeds from left to right using Table 8-5. Figure 8-6 may be used as an aid to classifying fine-
grained and organic soils. Details of using the USCS are in ASTM D2487.
141

Table 8-5. Unified soil classification system
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Testsa Soil Classification
Group Symbol Group Nameb
Coarse-Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3e GW Well-graded gravelf
More than 50% More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% of finesc Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3e GP Poorly graded gravelf
retained on No. 200 fraction retained on No. 4
sieve sieve
Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelf,g,h

More than 12% finesc Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelf,g,h
Sands Clean Sands Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3e SW Well-graded sandi
50% or more coarse Less than 5% finesd Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3e SP Poorly graded sandi
fraction passes No. 4
sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandg,h,i
More than 12% finesd Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandg,h,i
Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” linej CL Lean clayk,l,m
50% or more passes Liquid limit less than 50 PI < 4 or plots below “A” line j ML Siltk,l.m
the No. 200 seive Organic Liquid limit – oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clayk,l,m,n
Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OL Organic siltk,l.m,o
Silts and Clays Inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayk,l,m
Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltk,l,m
Organic Liquid limit – oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic clayk,l,m,p
Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 Organic siltk,l,m,q
Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75-mm sieve).
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name
c. Gravels with 5–12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt; GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay; GP-GM poorly graded gravel with
silt; GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay
d. Sands with 5–12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt; SW-SC well-graded sand with clay; SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt;
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
e. Cu = D60/D10 Cc= (D30)2/(D10 x D60) n. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
f. If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. o. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
g. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. p. PI plots on or above “A” line.
h. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. q. PI plots below “A” line.
i. If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
k. If soil contains 15–29% plus No. 200 add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.
l. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
m. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
Source: re-created from ASTM D2487
142
Source: ASTM D2487

Figure 8-6. Plasticity chart
8.4.3 Visual-Manual Procedure

The visual-manual procedure (ASTM D2488) provides a systematic process for grouping soils with
similar physical properties. It is used to supplement the classification of soils using the USCS. One aspect
of the visual-manual procedure is to determine the percentages of the soil constituents shown in Table 8-6
in the specimen. In addition, other characteristics of the soil are evaluated and described using the checklist
presented in Table 8-7.
Table 8-6. Soil constituents for visual-manual procedure
Soil Type Description

Boulder Particles of rock that will not pass a 12-in. (30-cm) square opening
Cobble Particles of rock that will pass a 12-in. (30-cm) square opening and be retained on a
3-in. (75-mm) sieve
Coarse Gravel Particles of rock that will pass a 3-in. (75-mm) sieve and be retained on a 0.75-in
(19-mm) sieve
Fine Gravel Particles of rock that will pass a 0.75-in. (19-mm) sieve and be retained on a No. 4
(4.75-mm) sieve
Coarse Sand Soil that will pass a No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve and be retained on a No. 10 (2.00-mm)
sieve
Medium Sand Soil that will pass a No. 10 (2.00-mm) sieve and be retained on a No. 200 (75-μm)
sieve
Fine Sand Soil that will pass a No. 40 (425-μm) sieve and be retained on a No. 200 (75-μm)
sieve
Silt Soil that will pass a No. 200 (75-μm) sieve and is nonplastic or very slightly plastic
and exhibits little or no strength when air dry
143

Soil Type Description

Clay Soil that will pass a No. 200 (75-μm) sieve and exhibits plasticity and considerable
strength when air dry
Organic A silt or clay with sufficient organic content to influence the soil properties
Peat A soil 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 fibrous to amorphous
Source: ASTM D2488
Table 8-7. Checklist for visual-manual procedure

1. Group name
2. Group symbol
3. Percent of cobbles or boulders, or both (by volume
4. Percent of gravel, sand, or fines, or all three (by dry weight)
5. Particle-size range:
Gravel – fine, coarse
Sand – fine, medium, coarse
6. Particle angularity: angular, subangular, subrounded, rounded
7. Particle shape: flat, elongated, flat and elongated
8. Maximum particle size or dimension
9. Hardness of coarse sand and larger particles
10. Plasticity of fines: nonplastic, low, medium, high
11. Dry strength: none, low, medium, high, very high
12. Dilatancy: none, slow, rapid
13. Toughness: low, medium, high
14. Color (in moist condition)
15. Odor (mention only if organic or unusual)
16. Moisture: dry, moist, wet
17. Reaction with hydrochloric acid: none, weak, strong
For intact samples
Consistency (fine-grained soils only):
Consistency (fine-grained soils only): very soft, soft, firm, hard, very hard
Structure: stratified, laminated, fissured, slickensided, lensed, homogeneous
Cementation: weak, moderate, strong
Local name
Geologic interpretation
Additional comments: presence of roots or root holes, presence of mica, gypsum, etc., surface coatings
on coarse-grained particles, caving or sloughing of auger hole or trench sides, difficulty in augering or
excavating.
Source: ASTM D2488
8.4.4 Additional Tests for Soil Classification

In certain situations, it may be necessary to conduct more complex laboratory testing to determine the
soil mineralogy, structure, fabric, and geochemistry. For those situations, there are new technologies
144

available, including electrical sensing, laser diffraction, particle optical sizing, electron microscopy, and x-
ray diffraction (Abbireddy and Clayton 2009).
Compaction Tests
Compaction tests determine the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content of a soil.
The maximum dry unit weight is defined as the maximum dry unit weight that can be achieved under a
specified nominal compactive effort for a given soil. The optimum moisture content is defined as the
moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry unit weight. Good compaction is desirable to increase
the shear strength and stiffness of soils. Hydraulic conductivity depends on whether the soil is compacted
with a moisture content less than (dry) or greater than (wet) the optimum moisture content. In general, lesser
hydraulic conductivities are achieved when compacting wet of optimum.
The two test methods used to characterize the compaction characteristics of soils are AASHTO T 99
(ASTM D698) and AASHTO T 180 (ASTM D1557). Table 8-8 summarizes the equipment and test
procedures for the two compaction tests. The primary difference between the two test methods is in the
amount of compactive effort used. Figure 8-7 is an illustration of the difference in compaction test results
between standard and modified Proctor tests; the modified Proctor test yields a larger maximum dry unit
weight and smaller optimum moisture content.
Table 8-8. Summary of equipment and procedures for density tests
AASHTO T 99 AASHTO T 180

Test Parameter
(Standard Proctor) (Modified Proctor)
Hammer Weight (lbf) 5.5 10
Drop Distance (in.) 12 18
Number of Layers 3 5
Blows/Layer for 4-in. Mold 25 25
Blows/Layer for 6-in. Mold 56 56
Energy (ft-lbf/ft³) 12,375 56,250
Notes: lbf: pound force; ft-lbf/ft3: feet pound force per cubic foot
145

125
Modified Proctor
Standard Proctor
Zero Air Voids Line
120
(lb/ft3)
115
dry
Dry Unit Weight,
110
105
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture Content, w (%)

Figure 8-7. Example of compaction curves
Hydraulic Conductivity
There are two types of laboratory devices commonly used to measure the hydraulic conductivity of soils:
(i) a flexible-wall permeameter and (ii) a rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter. Tests conducted with
both devices are based on measurements of 1D vertical flow through the specimen and assume that Darcy’s
law is valid. Both devices are also intended for use when the anticipated hydraulic conductivity (K) is less
than 10-3 cm/s. For soils with K > 10-3 cm/s, a simpler test procedure is available (AASHTO T 215).
8.6.1 Flexible-Wall Permeameter

The flexible-wall permeameter test (ASTM D5084) is conducted in a device similar to a triaxial cell with
the specimen enclosed in a flexible membrane that is sealed at the top cap and base. Porous end pieces are
used at the top and bottom of the specimen to help ensure uniform flow. Either undisturbed or laboratory-
compacted specimens may be tested. The permeameter cell permits a confining pressure to be applied to
the specimen to simulate in situ stress conditions, and consolidation should be allowed to occur prior to
measuring the hydraulic conductivity. The cell also permits the use of backpressure to facilitate saturation
of the specimen prior to testing.
Ideally, the hydraulic conductivity should be measured using hydraulic gradients similar to those
anticipated in the field. However, for specimens with low hydraulic conductivity (less than approximately
10-6 cm/s), larger hydraulic gradients may be needed to reduce testing time. The flexible-wall permeameter
test may be conducted using one of four test and interpretation variants:
• Constant-head test (Method A)
• Falling-head test with constant tailwater level (Method B)
• Falling-head test with increasing tailwater level (Method C)
• Constant rate of flow test (Method D)
146

Detailed instructions for conducting and interpreting each type of test are provided in ASTM D5084.
Permeation of the specimen should continue until at least four measurements of K have been made for
which (i) the ratio of outflow to inflow is between 0.75 and 1.25 and (ii) the measured hydraulic
conductivity is within ±25 percent for K > 10-8 cm/s or ±50 percent for K < 10-8 cm/s.
8.6.2 Rigid-Wall, Compaction-Mold Permeameter

A rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter test (ASTM D5856) is conducted using a compaction mold
modified to allow water to flow in and out of a specimen in a controlled way. The device is typically used
to test laboratory-compacted samples. Unlike the flexible-wall permeameter, backpressure saturation
cannot be used to facilitate of check saturation. As such, the rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter test
is applicable to soils that can easily be saturated with water so that the material contains little or no air
during testing. The test should be conducted using flow upward to
One potential problem with this test is the potential for water to flow along the interface between the
inside of the compaction mold and test specimen, particularly for soils that shrink when exposed to water.
In this situation, the flexible-wall permeameter should be used. For soils that tend to swell when exposed
to water, swell in the vertical direction may be prevented if desired via the use of swell rings or confining
pressure.
As with the flexible-wall permeameter, the hydraulic conductivity should be measured using hydraulic
gradients similar to those anticipated in the field. Larger hydraulic gradients may be used to reduce testing
time for specimens with low hydraulic conductivity (less than approximately 10-6 cm/s). When large
hydraulic gradients greater than approximately 20 are used, special care should be taken to monitor for flow
along the interface between the mold and specimen.
The rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter test may be conducted using one of five test and
interpretation variants:
• Constant-head test (Method A)
• Falling-head test with constant tailwater level (Method B)
• Falling-head test with constant headwater level and rising tailwater level (Method C)
• Falling-head test with decreasing headwater level and increasing tailwater level (Method D)
• Constant rate of flow test (Method E)
Detailed instructions for conducting and interpreting each type of test are provided in ASTM D5856.
Permeation of the specimen should continue until at least four measurements of K have been made for
which (i) the ratio of outflow to inflow is between 0.75 and 1.25 and (ii) the measured hydraulic
conductivity is within ±25 percent for K > 10-8 cm/s or ±50 percent for K < 10-8 cm/s. In addition, the total
inflow to the specimen during the test should be expressed in terms of the number of pore volumes and
reported.
Consolidation
Consolidation tests assess the compressibility, stress history (i.e., preconsolidation stress), time rate of
consolidation, creep characteristics, and swell potential of soil specimens. There are two different types of
laboratory testing methods commonly used to evaluate the consolidation behavior of soils: the incremental
load test (AASTO T 216 and ASTM D2435) and the constant rate of strain (CRS) test (ASTM D4186). The
incremental load test subjects the specimen to a series of predetermined static loads—moving from lowest
to highest load during the loading cycle and moving from highest to lowest during the unloading cycle. The
load is generally doubled during the loading cycle and halved during the unloading cycle.
During a CRS test, axial load is applied at a constant rate of deformation (i.e., strain), and axial force,
axial displacement, and excess pore pressure are measured. The rate of deformation is adjusted to maintain
147

the ratio of excess pore pressure to vertical effective stress between approximately 3 and 15 percent. The
CRS test has several advantages compared to the incremental load test, including better definition of the
preconsolidation stress because vertical stress vs. vertical strain data are acquired continuously, shorter
testing duration, and easier test automation (Fox et al. 2014). Conversely, the CRS test does not permit
measurements of secondary compression and requires more complex test equipment. Figure 8-8 shows
typical results obtained from a CRS consolidation test, including plots of the vertical strain ( ) and vertical
coefficient of consolidation ( ) vs. vertical effective stress ( ). Figure 8-9 shows similar results from an
incremental load test. The difference between the number of data points collected during CRS and
incremental load tests is apparent by comparing the two figures.

Figure 8-8. Example results from CRS consolidation test
148

Numerous graphical methods are available to define the preconsolidation stress ( ) from consolidation
tests (Ku and Mayne 2013). The original and most popular approach is that attributed to Casagrande (1936).
An example of the Casagrande approach is shown in Figure 8-9. A line is drawn tangent to the steepest
slope of the curve (along the normally consolidated portion). This slope is called the virgin compression
index ( ) and is defined as Δ ⁄Δ(log ). The easiest way to determine its value is visually by choosing
void ratios over one log cycle of stress. In this example, select 1 tsf and 10 tsf, where the void ratios are
1.58 and 0.90, respectively. For these conditions, is simply the difference in void ratios, thus = 0.68.
The next step is to choose the maximum point of curvature on the curve and draw three lines at this point:
a horizontal line, a line tangent to the curve, and bisector of the two. The intersection of the latter with the
line determines the most probable value of . For the example shown, the estimated = 0.70 tsf (67.0
kPa). Because the current effective overburden is = 0.43 tsf (41.2 kPa), the corresponding
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) = 1.63.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 8-9. Example of Casagrande procedure to estimate preconsolidation pressure
Shear Strength
The shear strength of a soil is an essential engineering parameter that is used in a large number of
transportation-related applications, including foundation capacity, stability of natural and cut slopes, and
stability of earth retaining structures, among others. The shear strength is influenced by many factors:
• Basic soil characteristics (e.g., mineralogy, grain size distribution, soil fabric)
• Current state of stress (i.e., stress level and isotropic vs. anisotropic consolidation)
• Stress history (i.e., OCR)
• Stress path (i.e., compression vs. extension)
• Drainage (i.e., drained vs. undrained)
• Rate of loading (i.e., strain rate effects)
The relative importance of these factors differs for coarse-grained and fine-grained soils. Therefore,
laboratory tests should be conducted under conditions in the laboratory that simulate in situ conditions as
closely as possible. The laboratory shear strength tests presented in this section include (i) miniature vane,
(ii) DS, (iii) triaxial, and (iv) direct simple shear (DSS) tests.
149

8.8.1 Miniature Vane Test

The miniature vane test is well suited for measuring the undrained shear strength of very soft to soft
samples of clay with undrained shear strengths less than approximately 500 psf (23.9 kPa). The miniature
vane test can also be conducted very quickly. The test is conducted by inserting a vane with a diameter
between 0.5 and 1.0 in. (1.3 and 2.5 cm) into the specimen to a depth of at least twice the height of the vane.
The vane is rotated at 60 to 90 degrees per minute, and the maximum measured torque is used to calculate
the undrained shear strength. The measured undrained shear strength must be corrected for strength
anisotropy and strain rate. Details of the test procedure are described in ASTM D4648.
8.8.2 Direct Shear Test

The DS test is useful to obtain the drained shear strength of soils along a predetermined failure plane.
Soil is placed in a split shear box and consolidated under a normal stress. The normal stress is kept constant,
and the shear stress is increased at a constant rate of deformation to cause the specimen to shear along a
predetermined horizontal plane. Detailed testing procedures for the DS test are available in AASHTO T
236 (ASTM D3080). Example results from a DS test illustrating the calculation of the drained friction angle
( ) from tests conducted at different normal stresses are presented in Figure 8-10.
Although the DS test is simple and inexpensive, the test has several limitations. First, the normal and
shear stresses are known only on the horizontal plane along which shearing occurs. Thus, it is not possible
to determine the complete state of stress within the specimen to construct Mohr’s circle. Secondly, there is
no direct control over specimen drainage. Shearing must be conducted slowly enough to ensure the soil is
fully drained. For coarse-grained soils, this is easily achieved. But for fine-grained soils, the test is less
practical for this reason. Finally, stresses within the specimen are not uniform and failure is forced along a
horizontal plane, which may not be the plane of weakness within the specimen.

Figure 8-10. Example DS test results
8.8.3 Triaxial Tests

The triaxial test is the most common and versatile test available to determine the shear strength and stress-
strain properties of soil. In the triaxial test, a cylindrical specimen is sealed in a rubber membrane, placed
in a cell, and subjected to pressure (i.e., confining pressure). A typical triaxial cell configuration is shown
150

in Figure 8-11. The confining pressure is used to simulate the in situ stress conditions for the specimen. The
use of an isotropic confining pressure is common, but it is also possible to apply an anisotropic confining
pressure to more accurately simulate the in situ stress conditions. The most common way to shear the
specimen is by triaxial compression test, in which an increasing axial load is then applied to the specimen
until the specimen fails. In triaxial compression, the axial stress is the major principal stress ( ) and the
intermediate ( ) and minor principal ( ) stresses are equal to the confining pressure. The difference ( −
) is referred to as the principal stress difference or deviator stress. Drainage of water from the specimen
is controlled by connections to the bottom cap as shown in Figure 8-11. Alternatively, pore pressures within
the specimen may be measured if no drainage is allowed.
Source: Holtz et al. (2011)

Figure 8-11. (a) Schematic of triaxial apparatus and (b) assumed stress conditions for triaxial
compression
Triaxial tests are generally classified based on the drainage conditions selected while (i) applying the
confining pressure and (ii) shearing the specimen. There are three types of triaxial tests commonly
conducted in geotechnical practice: (i) unconsolidated-undrained (UU), (ii) consolidated-undrained (CU),
and (iii) consolidated-drained (CD).
8.8.4.1 Unconsolidated-Undrained Test

The purpose of the UU test (AASHTO T 296 and ASTM D2850) is to measure the undrained shear
strength of fine-grained soils. Drainage is not allowed while applying either the isotropic confining pressure
or axial load. The axial load should be applied to cause an axial strain rate of approximately 1 percent per
minute. Failure is defined as the maximum principal stress difference or the maximum principal stress
difference at an axial strain of 15 percent, whichever occurs first. The undrained shear strength is equal to
one-half of the principal stress difference at failure:
=( − )⁄2
Although the UU test is simple and inexpensive, the measured undrained shear strength reflects several
errors related to the test procedure (Ladd and DeGroot 2004):
• The rapid rate of shearing increases the measured undrained shear strength.
• Isotropic consolidation and axial compression increase the measured undrained shear strength.
• Sample disturbance decreases the measured undrained shear strength.
151

These errors often lead to significant variability in test results. Ladd and DeGroot (2004) note that the
widespread use of the UU test in practice depends to a large extent on the fact that, on average, these errors
tend to cancel.
The unconfined compression test (AASHTO T 208 and ASTM D2166) is a variation on the UU test
where the confining pressure is zero (i.e., = 0). Because no attempt is made to simulate the in situ stress
conditions, the unconfined compression tests are strongly affected by sample disturbance and are
considered the least reliable of the triaxial strength tests (Duncan et al. 2014).
8.8.4.2 Consolidated-Undrained Test

The CU test (AASHTO T 297 and ASTM D4767) is a versatile test used to measure the undrained shear
strength of soils. Because pore pressures generated during shearing are commonly measured, it is possible
to interpret the CU test in terms of effective stresses and thus calculate drained strength parameters as well.
Drainage is allowed during the application of the confining pressure, permitting the specimen to consolidate
under the confining pressure, which helps to mitigate the effects of sample disturbance. Isotropic
consolidation (CIU) using the estimated in situ vertical effective stress is the most common test variant. It
is also possible to anisotropically consolidate the specimen (CK0U or CAU) to more accurately simulate in
situ stress conditions. Using the estimated in situ effective stresses to consolidate the specimen is the
recompression technique. An alternative to the recompression technique—the Stress History and
Normalized Soil Engineering Properties (SHANSEP) method (Ladd and Foott 1974, Ladd 1991)—is
beyond the scope of this manual. While applying the consolidation stresses, it is also advisable to check the
saturation of the specimen.
Axial compression is commonly used to shear the specimen. Draining is not permitted, and the resulting
excess pore pressures induced by shear are measured. The axial load is applied at a rate slow enough to
ensure that excess pore pressures are able to equilibrate within the specimen. Failure may be defined using
one of several criteria: (i) maximum principal stress difference, (ii) principal stress difference at an axial
strain of 15 percent, (iii) maximum effective stress obliquity [( ⁄ )max ], or (iv) Skempton’s pore pressure
parameter ̅ = 0 for dilative soils (Brandon et al. 2006).
It is common to plot the results of the test using the effective stress path, defined as a vs. diagram
where:
=( + )⁄2
=( − )⁄2
An example of the effective stress paths from three CIU tests is shown in Figure 8-12. The undrained
shear strength for each test is calculated as the value of q corresponding to one of the failure criteria listed
above. It is also common to express the results as an undrained strength ratio by normalizing the undrained
strength by the vertical effective stress used for consolidation of the specimen (i.e., ⁄ ). The drained
(i.e., effective stress) friction angle ( ) may be determined from the slope of the line ( ) connecting the
failure points for each test as shown:
If necessary, the effective cohesion intercept can be calculated from the y-intercept (a) of the vs.
diagram:
= ⁄
152

Finally, it is important to recognize that the measured undrained strength will differ for CIU and CK0U
tests because of strength anisotropy. Interested readers should see Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) for details.
5
˚
.3
36
Shear Stress, q = ( '1- '3)/2 (ksf)
'=
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean Effective Stress, p' = ( '1+ '3)/2 (ksf)

Figure 8-12. Example CU test results
8.8.4.3 Consolidated-Drained Test

The CD test (ASTM D7181) is conducted to obtain the drained shear strength parameters of coarse-
grained soils. Because of the difficulty of obtaining undisturbed samples of coarse-grained soils,
particularly below the groundwater table, specimens are often reconstituted to the desired void ratio or
relative density. The specimen is allowed to consolidate (i.e., drain) under the applied (isotropic) confining
pressure, and the change in volume is recorded. Drainage is also permitted during shearing, resulting in no
excess pore pressures. The change in volume during shearing is also measured. Because the excess pore
pressure is zero, the applied stresses are equal to the effective stresses. The drained friction angle ( ) may
be determined from a vs. diagram in a manner similar to the CU test. Figure 8-13 is an example of
results from a CD test.
12
Shear Stress, q = ( '1- '3)/2 (ksf)
10 ˚
.6
34
'=
8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Mean Effective Stress, p' = ( '1+ '3)/2 (ksf)

Figure 8-13. Example CD test results
153

8.8.4 Direct Simple Shear Test

The DSS test (ASTM D6528) is used to measure the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils. The
specimen is trimmed into a wire-reinforced membrane or a conventional membrane within a stack of
TeflonTM-coated circular steel rings. A vertical stress is applied to simulate the in situ vertical effective
stress (i.e., the recompression technique). The SHANSEP method may also be used if desired. The wire-
reinforced membrane or metal rings prevent lateral deformation of the specimen, resulting in anisotropic
consolidation under K0 conditions. An advantage of the test is that the consolidation phase is essentially a
1D consolidation test, from which compression parameters can be estimated. Once the specimen is
consolidated under the applied vertical stress, a horizontal load is applied to induce simple shearing.
Although there is no direct control over drainage, undrained tests may be conducted by adjusting the vertical
stress to maintain a constant specimen height. Because the volume of the specimen remains unchanged, the
specimen is considered to be shearing undrained. The change in the vertical stress required to maintain a
constant height is assumed to be equal to the excess pore pressure generated during shearing. Figure 8-14
shows a plot of shear stress vs. vertical effective stress from a series of DSS tests.
One of the limitations of the DSS test is that the state of stress in the specimen is not uniform and
indeterminate. The undrained shear strength is commonly assumed to equal the maximum measured shear
stress or the shear stress at a defined value of shear strain. The undrained shear strength measured in the
DSS test is approximately two-thirds of the undrained shear strength obtained from CK0U triaxial
compression tests (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) and is approximately the average of the undrained strengths
measured in triaxial compression and extension. As such, Ladd and DeGroot (2004) consider the undrained
shear strength from the DSS test as the most appropriate single value to use for many stability problems.

Figure 8-14. Example DSS test results
8.8.5 Interpretation of Laboratory Strength Data

Ladd and DeGroot (2004) recommend that measured values of undrained shear strength from CU and
DSS tests be adjusted or corrected to account for the following factors:
• Undrained strength anisotropy
• The shear stress on the failure plane at failure
• Strain incompatibility between varying modes of failure along potential failure surfaces
• Differences between triaxial and plane-strain conditions, and 3D effects
Ladd and DeGroot (2004) provide additional details on each of these adjustments and their significance
for various stability problems.
154

Dynamic Properties
For transportation facilities subjected to seismic loads, laboratory tests may be used to measure the
dynamic properties of soils for use in analysis and design. For analyses to evaluate the potential for ground
motion amplification through near-surface materials, the resonant column test may be used to measure the
(i) shear wave velocity ( ) and initial tangent shear modulus ( ) and (ii) the variation of shear modulus
(G) and material damping ratio (D) with cyclic shear strain ( ). Liquefaction or cyclic softening may
be a concern for loose sands and low-to-moderate plasticity silts, respectively, below the water table. In
these situations, cyclic triaxial or cyclic DSS tests can be used to measure the cyclic strength of these soils.
8.9.1 Resonant Column Test

The resonant column test (ASTM D4015) is a simple, robust technique to measure the shear modulus
and damping ratio of soils at very small-to-intermediate shear strain levels. A cylindrical soil specimen is
placed inside the resonant column device with the bottom cap assumed to be fixed and a torsional excitation
introduced to the specimen via the top cap and drive system. The specimen is enclosed in a membrane
sealed at the top cap and base similar to a triaxial test. An isotropic confining pressure can be applied to the
specimen to simulate the in situ stress conditions. The torsional excitation of the specimen is varied over a
range of frequencies to find the resonant frequency of the specimen in shear. Given the resonant frequency,
may be easily calculated. The initial tangent shear modulus is calculated as follows:
where
= the total mass density of the specimen
The material damping ratio may be calculated using the half-power method or the free-vibration decay
method. In the half-power method, the damping ratio is determined from the half-power points of the
frequency response curve. Alternatively, the material damping ratio may be determined from free-vibration
decay measurements using the logarithmic decrement. Accurate measurements of the material damping
ratio are challenging, especially when the magnitude of the material damping ratio is small. Potential
sources of error include (i) imperfect coupling between the test specimen and end platens, (ii) lack of fixity
of the bottom pedestal, (iii) ambient noise, (iv) membrane effects, and (v) equipment-generated damping.
The shear modulus and material damping ratio of soils are dependent on the level of cyclic shear strain
induced in the specimen. The resonant column test is ideally suited to measuring this aspect of soil behavior.
Examples of shear modulus reduction and material damping ratio curves measured using the resonant
column test are shown in Figure 8-15.
155


Figure 8-15. Example results from resonant column test
8.9.2 Cyclic Triaxial Test

Cyclic triaxial tests (ASTM D5311) are commonly used to evaluate the cyclic resistance of soils to
liquefaction or cyclic softening during earthquakes. The testing equipment is similar to the equipment used
for static triaxial compression tests except that a provision is made for applying a cyclic axial load. The test
is usually conducted with stress control (i.e., the amplitude of the cyclic load is kept constant throughout
the test and the resultant strains are measured). The amplitude of cyclic loading is usually expressed as the
cyclic stress ratio, defined as the maximum shear stress within the specimen divided by the effective
confining pressure. Cyclic loading is applied until initial liquefaction is observed (i.e., the excess pore
pressure is equal to the confining pressure) or a threshold axial strain is obtained (e.g., 3 percent single-
amplitude or 5 percent double amplitude). By conducting tests at different cyclic stress ratios, a cyclic
strength curve can be developed that shows the number of cycles of loading required to cause liquefaction.
There are several limitations of the cyclic triaxial test. Earthquake motion is better represented by a
simple shear rather than axial loading condition; triaxial specimens are usually consolidated isotropically,
while in the field the soil is anisotropically consolidated; and in a cyclic triaxial test, the direction of the
156

major principal stress instantaneously rotates 90°, from vertical to horizontal and then back, whereas in the
field, the major principal stress will rotate smoothly and remain nearly vertical. Care should be taken when
high cyclic stress ratios are tested. Large cyclic stress ratios may lift the top cap off the specimen or cause
“necking” during the extension phase of loading. Necking decreases the cross-sectional area of the
specimen, which causes significant stress concentrations.
8.9.3 Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Test

Cyclic DSS tests are superior to cyclic triaxial tests in that the test better replicates field conditions and
earthquake loading. Similar to the monotonic DSS test, the specimen is trimmed into a wire-reinforced
membrane or a conventional membrane within a stack of TeflonTM-coated circular steel rings. A vertical
stress is applied to simulate the in situ vertical effective stress. The wire-reinforced membrane or metal
rings prevent lateral deformation of the specimen, resulting in anisotropic consolidation under K0
conditions. A cyclic, horizontal shear load is applied at constant amplitude and at a loading frequency
ranging from 0.005 Hz to 1 Hz until a predetermined shear strain is reached, or a given number of cycles
of loading have been applied. A single-amplitude shear strain of either 3 or 5 percent is usually considered
to represent the initiation of liquefaction. During cyclic loading, no volume change is permitted, and it is
assumed that undrained loading conditions exist. Thus, it is further assumed that the change in vertical
stress required to maintain constant volume is equivalent to the change in pore pressure. Figure 8-16 shows
an example of results from a cyclic DSS test.
An advantage of the cyclic DSS test is that the specimens have a relatively uniform stress field and
minimum pore water pressure redistribution. There are also several disadvantages to the cyclic DSS
including the lack of test standardization to date, the inability to saturate specimens, and issues caused by
the absence of imposed complementary shear stresses on the sides of the specimen.

Figure 8-16. Example results from a cyclic DSS test
157

Laboratory Test Methods for Characterizing Subgrade Soils and

Unbound Bases for Pavement Design
There are three laboratory test methods commonly used to determine the design parameters for pavement
subgrade soils and unbound bases: (i) resilient modulus test, (ii) CBR test, and (iii) Resistance (R)-value
test.
8.10.1 Resilient Modulus Test

Resilient modulus tests determine the resilient modulus ( ) from the relationship between applied stress
and deformation of unbound pavement subgrade soils and granular bases. The test procedure consists of
placing a cylindrical specimen in an oversized triaxial cell; applying an axial deviator stress of constant
magnitude, duration, and frequency while maintaining a constant lateral confining stress; and measuring
the recoverable or resilient strain. Typically, the test is conducted under different values of axial and lateral
confining stresses. Details of the testing procedure are available in the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) 1-28A (NCHRP 2004). A schematic of the equipment used for this test is
presented in Figure 8-17. The advantage of resilient modulus test over other methods used to characterize
unbound pavement materials is that it measures a fundamental material property (material stiffness). The
resilient modulus is a required input in the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement design method
(AASHTO 2015).
Source: NCHRP (2004)

Note: LVDT: linear variable differential transformer
Figure 8-17. Schematic of the resilient modulus equipment
8.10.2 California Bearing Ratio Test

The CBR test (AASHTO T 193 and ASTM D1883) evaluates the bearing capacity of unbound pavement
materials at specified moisture and density conditions. The test consists of pushing a cylindrical piston with
a cross-sectional area of 3 in.2 (7.6 cm2) into a soil specimen at a specified rate of 0.05 in. (1.3 cm) per
158

minute and measuring the load required to cause a penetration of 0.1 or 0.2 in. (0.25 or 0.5 cm). This load
is expressed as a percentage of a standard load representing a CBR of 100 for the corresponding penetration
depth.
8.10.3 Resistance-Value Test

The primary purpose of the R-value test (AASHTO T 190 and ASTM D2844) is to evaluate the ability
of unbound pavement material to resist lateral deformation when subjected to an axial load. The R-value
test is also used to evaluate the suitability of expansive soils for use under pavements and the amount of
overburden required to control the expansion. The testing procedure consists of applying an axial load to
compacted specimens and measuring the resulting lateral pressure. The test specimens are compacted using
special kneading compaction equipment and are tested using a stabilometer. The R-value is calculated from
the ratio of applied vertical pressure to the developed lateral pressure using the following equation:
100
= 100 −
2.5
−1 +1
where
= the applied vertical pressure of 160 psi
= the transmitted horizontal pressure at = 160 psi
= the turns displacement of the stabilometer fluid needed to increase the horizontal pressure from 5 psi
to 100 psi
Laboratory Tests for Rock

Laboratory testing for rock has very limited applicability to the measurement of significant rock mass
properties because rock samples small enough to be tested in the laboratory are usually not representative
of the entire rock mass. Typically, laboratory tests are used in conjunction with field tests to give reasonable
estimates of rock mass properties. Significant rock properties are defined as those properties that are of
concern to the design and construction in rock:
• Compressive strength
• Shear strength
• Hardness (durability)
• Compressibility
• Permeability
Some common laboratory tests for rock include slake-durability, ultrasonic pulse velocity, point load,
direct shear strength, compressive strength, and elastic moduli.
8.11.1 Moisture Content

The oven-dried method for measuring the moisture content of soils (Section 8.3.2) may also be used to
measure the moisture content of rock specimens. Because the moisture content of intact rocks is typically
low, a larger sample size (>500 grams) is needed to enable sufficient precision in the calculated moisture
content. Details of the test procedure are described in ASTM D2216.
159

8.11.2 Unit Weight

The total and dry unit weights of rock specimens are measured using the same test procedures for soil
specimens described in Section 8.3.4. The standardized test procedure is ASTM D7263.
8.11.3 Slake Durability of Weak Rock

The purpose of the slake durability test (ASTM D4644) is to qualitatively estimate the durability of
shales, clay-bearing rocks, and similar weak rocks when subjected to cycles of wetting and drying. The
testing procedure consists of placing dried fragments of rock of known weight into a drum that is partially
submerged in distilled water. The drum is rotated for 10 minutes to subject the rock fragments to repeated
wetting and abrasion, and the fragments are subsequently dried. After two cycles of wetting, abrasion, and
drying, the weight, shape, and size of the remaining rock fragments are recorded. The slake durability index
is calculated using the following equation:
ℎ
= × 100
ℎ
where
= the durability index after two cycles
Several classification systems based on the durability index are available to classify weak rocks. An
example is the shale rating based on the durability index, point load strength for > 80, and plasticity
index for < 80 (Franklin 1981).
8.11.4 Point-Load Strength Index

Point-load tests (ASTM D5731) determine the point load strength index ( ) and strength anisotropy
index ( ) for strength classification of rock materials. The point-load test was developed primarily for field
use and should be used to test medium-strength rocks with compressive strengths greater than
approximately 2,200 psi. The procedure consists of applying a load slowly to rock specimens using
truncated conical platens until failure occurs. The point-load index is calculated as follows:
= ⁄
where
P = the failure load
D = the distance between the platens when failure occurs
To minimize bias, the initial distance between the platens should be approximately 2 in. (5 cm) If this is
not possible, a size correction factor should be used to adjust the measured point-load index. For anisotropic
rocks, the anisotropy index is defined as the ratio of measured perpendicular and parallel to the planes of
weakness in the specimen.
At least 10 to 20 specimens should be tested to obtain representative results, depending on the type of
specimen that is used (i.e., rock core vs. irregular specimens). Note that although the point-load index is a
strength, it is considered an index of rock strength and should not be used directly for analysis and design.
The uniaxial compression test should be used for these purposes.
160

8.11.5 Direct Shear Test

DS tests (ASTM D5607) determine the shear strength (friction angle and cohesion) of rock along a plane
of weakness. The test can be conducted on intact rock and rock with natural or artificial (e.g., rock-concrete
interface) discontinuities. The measured shear strength reflects the combined strength due to friction and
the dilatancy and breaking of asperities along the plane of shearing. The relative amount of dilatancy and
breaking of asperities will depend on the normal stress applied to the specimen. For rocks with multiple
discontinuities, only one discontinuity can be tested per specimen. The test procedure and equipment for
rock are similar to that of soil presented in Section 8.8.2. One difference is that high-strength gypsum
cement is poured around the specimen in the holding rings to encapsulate it. Figure 8-18 shows results from
DS tests conducted on two specimens of quartzite bedrock containing discontinuities along with the range
of interpreted friction angles ( ).
100
75
(psi)
˚
peak
.9
28
'=
Peak Shear Strength,
50
˚
8.9
'=1
25
Sample A
Sample B
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Normal Effective Stress, 'n (psi)

Figure 8-18. Example results from DS test on rock with discontinuities
8.11.6 Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens
Compression tests (ASTM D7012) are used to measure the compressive strength and elastic properties
of intact rock core specimens. Both the compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock are useful
for developing parameters for rock mass strength and deformation as described in Chapter 10. ASTM
D7012 describes four test variations:
• Method A provides procedures for determining the undrained triaxial compressive strength without pore
pressure measurement.
• Method B provides procedures for measuring axial and lateral strains without pore pressure
measurements; therefore, both the undrained triaxial compressive strength and elastic properties (i.e.,
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) can be determined.
• Method C provides procedures for obtaining the unconfined, uniaxial compressive strength.
• Method D provides provisions for measuring axial and lateral strains; therefore, both the unconfined,
uniaxial compressive strength and elastic properties can be determined.
161

Similar to soil, the strength and deformation properties of rock are stress dependent. Methods A and B
are used to simulate the in situ stress state of rock. Similar to the triaxial test for soils, Methods A and B for
rock are used to obtain the angle of internal friction, angle of shearing resistance, and cohesion intercept.
Methods C and D are similar to the unconfined compression test for soils. The Young’s modulus (E)
calculated using Methods B and D can be expressed as the (i) tangent modulus at a fixed percentage
(typically 50 percent) of the maximum strength, (ii) secant modulus at a fixed percentage (typically 50
percent) of the maximum strength, or (iii) average modulus in the linear portion of the stress-strain curve.
162

AASHTO. 2018. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, and AASHTO
Provisional Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. 2015. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. 2nd Edition, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Abbireddy, C.O.R., and C.R.I. Clayton. 2009. “A Review of Modern Particle Sizing Methods.” Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.162, No. 4, pp. 193–201.
Andresen, A., and P. Kolstad. 1979. “The NGI 54 mm Sampler for Undisturbed Sampling of Clays and Representative
Sampling of Coarser Materials.” Proceedings of International Symposium of Soil Sampling, Singapore, pp. 13–21.
Brandon, T.L., A.T. Rose, and J.M. Duncan. 2006. “Drained and Undrained Strength Interpretation for Low-Plasticity Silts.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 2, pp. 250–257.
Casagrande, A., 1936. “The Determination of the Preconsolidation Load and Its Practical Significance.” Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3. Harvard Printing Office,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: pp. 60–64.
Duncan, J.M., S.G. Wright, and T.L. Brandon. 2014. Soil Strength and Slope Stability. 2nd Edition, Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey.
Fox, P.J., H.-F. Pu, and J.T. Christian. 2014. “Evaluation of Data Analysis Methods for the CRS Consolidation Test.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 6, pp. 1–11.
Franklin, J.A. 1981. “A Shale Rating System and Tentative Applications to Shale Performance.” Transportation Research
Record 790, pp. 2–12.
Holtz, R.D., W.D. Kovacs, and T.C. Sheahan. 2011. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. 2nd Edition, Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1949. Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purpose. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Kulhawy, F.H., and P.W. Mayne. and 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. EL-6800,
Research Project 1493-6, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Ku, T. and P.W. Mayne. 2013. “Yield Stress History Evaluated from Paired In-Situ Shear Moduli of Different Modes.”
Engineering Geology, Vol.152, pp. 122–132.
Ladd, C.C. 1991. “Stability Evaluation During Staged Construction (22nd Terzaghi Lecture).” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol 117, No. 4, pp. 540–615.
Ladd, C.C., and D.J. DeGroot. 2004. “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site Characterization: Arthur Casagrande
Lecture.” Proceedings of the 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Revised May 9.
Ladd, C.C., and R. Foott. 1974. “New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clays.” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. 100, No. GT7, pp. 763–786.
Loehr, J.E., A. Lutenegger, B. Rosenblad, and A. Boeckmann. 2017. "Geotechnical Site Characterization." Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5, FHWA NHI-16-072, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Lunne, T., T. Berre, and S. Strandvik. 1997. “Sample Disturbance Effects in Soft Low Plasticity Norwegian Clay.”
Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 81–102.
Lunne, T., T. Berre, K.H. Andersen, S. Strandvik, and M. Sjursen. 2006. “Effects of Sample Disturbance and Consolidation
Procedures on Measured Shear Strength of Soft Marine Norwegian Clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 43,
pp. 726–750.
NCHRP. 2004. “Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design.” National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Research Results Digest, Vol. 1-28A, No. 285, pp. 1–48.
Roberge, P.R. 2000. Handbook of Corrosion Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York.
163

CHAPTER 9
Evaluation of Soil Properties
Introduction
The mechanical behavior of soils under loading is represented by a suite of parameters that have been
established within the context of theoretical backgrounds, primarily via elasticity, plasticity, and cavity
expansion, but also using Winkler spring analogies and subgrade reaction models. The assigned values of
these parameters can then be used in a variety of engineering analyses, such as stability, foundation bearing
capacity, settlement, and time rate of consolidation. However, in certain cases, geotechnical parameters are
also estimated from empirical methods, using regression, statistical, and probabilistic analyses.
Collectively evaluating of all available geophysical, in situ, and laboratory data is the best approach to
obtaining the most reasonable and realistic values for each geotechnical parameter. As discussed in
Chapter 3, the type of highway project will dictate the importance of the specific parameter in many cases.
For instance, soil shear strength will be paramount in geotechnical site investigations involving
embankment and slope stability, foundation capacity, and excavations. In these cases, unit weight will also
be necessary, but it is of less importance.
In most geotechnical projects, the degree of preconsolidation of the natural soils is particularly significant
as it is a state parameter and represents the current and past stress history. The stress history is commonly
represented by the OCR:
OCR = ⁄
where
= preconsolidation stress
= current effective overburden stress
It is well known that OCR governs the undrained shear strength (su), lateral stress coefficient (K0), pore
pressure behavior (Af), elastic moduli (E' and Eu), and small-strain shear modulus (Gmax) of soils.
Finally, critical-state soil mechanics (CSSM) is valuable as a rational framework in which to organize
the mechanical response of soils to loading, as it offers a simple link between consolidation theory and
shear strength response to help explain the following behaviors:
• Normally consolidated soils vs. overconsolidated soils
• Drained vs. undrained loading
• Positive vs. negative pore pressures
• Contractive vs. dilative response
• Total vs. effective stress analysis
• Static vs. cyclic loading
A description of CSSM is beyond the scope of this manual, but Mayne et al. (2009) and Holtz et al.
(2011) provide summaries of the basic principles.
This chapter covers evaluating soil parameters from a variety of laboratory, in situ, and geophysical
methods. The emphasis in this chapter is on parameters commonly used in highway analysis and design
164

and, thus, is not intended to be exhaustive. Geotechnical aspects of highway projects are often concerned
with pilings, shallow foundations, slopes, earth-retaining structures, roadways, and embankments. As such,
geotechnical engineering parameters of usual concern include the following:
• Subsurface stratigraphy
• Unit weight ( )
• Preconsolidation stress or effective yield stress ( = OCR· )
• Shear strength ( , , )
• Lateral stress state ( )
• Modulus ( , )
• Coefficient of consolidation ( )
Additional details and information may be found in Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), Mayne et al. (2002),
and Loehr et al. (2016). Many of these soil properties can be evaluated directly using laboratory tests as
described in Chapter 8. The emphasis in this chapter is on using the results of in situ tests to estimate soil
properties, often via empirical correlations.
For pavements, the following additional parameters are covered in detail by Newcomb and Birgisson
(1999):
• Soil support value
• CBR
• Regional factor
• Resilient modulus ( )
• Modulus of subgrade reaction (k)
Stratigraphy
An understanding of the subsurface stratigraphy is essential for every project. The most effective
approach for obtaining information about the stratigraphy at a site is to use a combination of geophysical
methods, in situ tests, and laboratory tests.
9.2.1 Geophysical Methods

Surface geophysics can be performed quickly across a property to map horizontal and vertical variations
and show the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity of the subsurface conditions. The process can be
done efficiently and economically using one or more seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, and potential-
field methods as discussed in Chapter 4. An example of a subsurface profile developed from a 2D MASW
survey is presented in Figure 9-1. The profile indicates the vertical and horizontal variations of shear wave
velocity ( ). The results indicate that weak soils ( < 600 ft/s [≈ 200 m/s]) and poor ground conditions
exist over the right half of the survey location to depths of approximately 10 ft (3 m). This information is
helpful to plan subsequent in situ tests and soil borings to evaluate the weak soils more completely.
165

Source: Ilmar Weemees, Vancouver, BC

Figure 9-1. Example subsurface profile developed from a 2D MASW survey
9.2.2 In Situ Tests

Direct-push, in situ tests, such as CPT and DMT, offer improved resolution of the stratigraphy because
the measurements are taken at higher vertical frequencies and multiple readings are obtained from each
sounding. For the DMT, two readings ( and ) are obtained at either 8- or 12-in. (20- or 30-cm) depth
intervals. For the CPT, three readings ( , , and ) are recorded at regular depth intervals of 0.4, 0.8, or
2.0 in. (1, 2, and 5 cm); thus providing much higher resolution in delineating soil layer interfaces. An
illustrative example of stratigraphic profiling using an array of CPT soundings is shown in Figure 9-2 (Liao
2005). The continuous nature of the CPT cone tip resistance ( ) profiles from six soundings to depths of
52 ft (16 m) aids in defining the presence of six soil layers at the site.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-2. Example subsurface profile developed from cone resistances of several CPT records
166

9.2.3 Soil Borings

A traditional means of defining subsurface stratigraphy is to conduct a series of soil borings and
interpolate or extrapolate the interfaces between the various soil zones or strata (Figure 9-3). In this case,
beneath a thin layer of topsoil, the three borings generally show five basic layers with depth. The layers
were chosen based on three facets: (i) soil type, (ii) energy-corrected SPT resistance ( ) value, and (iii)
soil color. In the boring on the right, layer D appears to be absent; however, it is possible that the layer was
missed at this location because SPT split-spoon samples are taken only on 5-ft (1.5-m) intervals and not all
samples have full recovery. Furthermore, only one number is obtained ( ) that has been averaged over a
12-in. (30-cm) interval. Considerable speculation concerning layer interfaces and transitions are often
required with soil borings because of infrequent sampling.
SUBSURFACE PROFILE Note: horizontal and vertical scales are different (as shown)
214 feet 145 feet
ELEVATION AGB-3
feet (msl)
1105 AGB-1
Soil N60
Sym. K bpf AGB-4
Soil
Sym. N60
Soil
K bpf
Sym. N60
1100 K bpf Layer A: SC 4
Topsoil
5 Layer B: ML 11
3
1095
9
29 8
Layer C: SP
1090 32 Groundwater Level

25 28
28
1085 Layer D: SW 68 22
63
22 26
1080 Layer E: SM
20
24
20
1075
16
18
1070
27
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-3. Example subsurface profile developed from soil boring records and SPT values
167

Soil Classification
Traditionally, soil is classified based on recovered soil samples (both drive type and undisturbed tube
samples) based on the USCS and AASHTO classification systems as described in Chapter 8. However, it
is also possible with direct-push technology, such as CPT and DMT, to assess the soil behavior type (SBT)
empirically.
9.3.1 Soil Behavioral Type by Cone-Penetration Tests

Because soil samples are not routinely obtained during CPT, determining soil type is done indirectly,
using one, two, or three of the readings. A listing of selected methods for evaluating SBT from cone and
piezocone soundings is given in Table 9-1. The measured penetrometer readings ( , , and ) provide
the net cone resistance ( = − ) and excess pore pressure (Δ = − ), as well as the effective
cone tip resistance ( = − ). Dimensionless CPT parameters have been developed to give (i)
normalized cone tip resistance: = ⁄ , (ii) normalized sleeve friction: = 100 ⁄ (%), and
(iii) normalized pore pressure parameter: =Δ ⁄ . An alternate form for normalized pore pressures
is defined by ∗ = Δ ⁄ .
Table 9-1. Methods for evaluating SBT from CPTs
Method Procedure Reference

Rules of Thumb 1. Clean sands: qt > 50 σatm and u2 ≈ u0 Mayne et al. (2002)
2. Clays: qt < 50 σatm (see note a)
2.1 Intact clays: u2 > u0
2.2 Fissured clays: u2 < 0
Soil behavioral charts 1. qt vs fs Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

(nonnormalized) 2. qt vs. Bq Senneset et al. (1989)
3. (qt - u2) vs. fs Fellenius and Eslami (2000)
Soil behavioral charts 1. Q vs F Robertson (1990, 1991)

(normalized) 2. Q vs Bq Lunne et al. (1997)
3. Q vs U* Schneider et al. (2012)
4. Qtn vs. IG = G0/qnet (see note b) Robertson (2016)
SBT CPT material index = Ic Robertson (2009a)

where Ic = f(Qtn, F)
Probability-based Statistical estimates of percentage sand, Tümay et al. (2011)

relationships silt, and clay contents
Notes:
(a) σatm = 1 atm (≈ 1.013 bar = 101.3 kPa = 1.058 tsf = 14.7 psi)
(b) used to detect soils with microstructure, bonding, aging, cementation
The most popular method to evaluate SBT from CPTs uses SBT charts based on Q, F, and Bq, termed
SBTn because the three piezocone readings are normalized. This system classifies soils into nine distinct
zones that are presented in two charts: (i) log Q vs. log F charts and (ii) log Q vs Bq charts, as shown in
Figure 9-4 (Lunne et al. 1997). Plotting the CPT data onto one or both charts will assign a zone and soil
classification.
168

9-Zone Soil Behavioral Type Chart for CPT

1000 1000
Very stiff
Gravelly OC sand
Gravelly
Sands to clayey
Normalized Cone Tip Resistance, Q

Sands
Normalized Cone Tip Resistance, Q
(zone 7) sand
(zone 8)
Very stiff
OC clay
to silt
(zone 7)
fs
Sands
(zone 9)
(zone 6) Sands
100 100 (zone 6)
u2
qt
Sandy M ixtures
(zone 5)
Silt M ix
10 (zone 4) 10
Clays
Clays
Sensitive Clays (zone 3) (zone 3)
and Silts
(zone 1) Sensitive
Organic Soils Organic (zone 1)
(zone 2) (zone 2)
1 1
0.1 1 10 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Normalized Friction, Fr = 100 ⋅ fst/(qt - σvo) (%) Normalized Porewater, Bq = Δu2/(qt-σvo)
Source: adapted from Robertson (2009a)

Figure 9-4. Nine-zone soil behavioral chart for conducting CPTs in soils
Robertson (2009a) has developed an alternative SBTn system that uses the CPT material index defined
as follows:
= (3.47 − ) + (1.22 + )
where
= updated normalized cone tip resistance given by:
= ( )
( ʹѵ )
or expressed in dimensionless terms by:
/
=
( )
The exponent n in the expressions above varies with soil type. For clays, the value of n is 1.0, for silts it
is approximately 0.75, and for clean quartz sands n is approximately 0.5. The CPT material index Ic
physically represents a family of circles with different radii that separate SBT Zones 2 through 7 in the log
Q vs. log F chart (Figure 9-5).
169

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-5. Use of CPT material index Ic and algorithms for nine-zone soil behavioral chart
Initially the value of Ic is calculated using n = 1.0 (i.e., the original definition of Q). Then, a revised value
of Q = Qtn is calculated by updating n from the following (Robertson 2009a):
= 0.381 + 0.05( ⁄ ) − 0.05 ≤ 1.0
Then the index Ic is recalculated. Iteration converges quickly, and, generally, only two or three cycles are
needed to obtain the value of Ic at each depth.
Additional expressions are available to cull the CPTu data for Zone 1 (soft sensitive clays) and Zones 8
and 9 (stiff overconsolidated clays and sands). Once these three zones are identified, the material index Ic
is used to separate Zones 2 through 7. Sensitive clays of Zone 1 are identified when:
< 12 exp(−1.4 )
The stiff overconsolidated soils of Zone 8 (1.5 < F < 4.5%) and Zone 9 (F ≥ 4.5%) are found when:
0.006( − 0.9) − 0.0004( − 0.9) − 0.002
Then, the remaining soil types are identified by the CPT material index:
• Zone 2 (organic soils: Ic ≥ 3.60)
170

• Zone 3 (clays: 2.95 ≤ Ic < 3.60)

• Zone 4 (silt mixtures: 2.60 ≤ Ic < 2.95)
• Zone 5 (sand mixtures: 2.05 ≤ Ic < 2.60)
• Zone 6 (sands: 1.31 ≤ Ic < 2.05)
• Zone 7 (gravelly to dense sands: Ic ≤ 1.31).
The red dashed line at Ic = 2.60 in Figure 9-5 represents an approximate boundary separating drained soil
response (Ic < 2.60) from undrained behavior (Ic > 2.60).
The CPT material index (Ic) may also be used to estimate the preconsolidation pressure ( ) and other
geotechnical parameters (Mayne 2016).
9.3.2 Soil Classification by Flat Dilatometer Tests

For the flat plate dilatometer, soil types are made based on DMT material index, ID, as follows:
−
=
−
In the case where ID < 0.6, the presence of clay soils is indicated; whereas when ID > 1.8, the prevailing
soil type is sand. A more detailed soil classification for the DMT is given in Table 9-2.
Table 9-2. Soil classification using the DMT
Soil Peat or Mud Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Sandy Silty Sand
Type Mud Silt Silt Sand
ID = < 0.1* < 0.6* < 0.33 0.33 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.2 1.2 to 1.8 1.8 to 3.3 > 3.3
Source: after Marchetti et al. (2006)
*with additional restriction that ED < 12 bar, where ED = 34.7(p1 - p0) = dilatometer modulus
Soil Unit Weight

Soil unit weight ( ) is needed for the following:
• To evaluate total ( ) and effective overburden ( ) stresses
• To convert shear wave velocity (Vs) to small-strain shear modulus (Gmax)
• To evaluate net cone resistance and normalized CPT parameters, as well as DMT horizontal stress index
(KD).
Unit weight is related to mass density (ρ) by the following:
where
g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2.
Unit weights can be determined in the laboratory using weight-volume relationships as discussed in
Chapter 8, or they can be estimated based on empirical equations for direct-push probes and geophysical
measurements.
171

9.4.1 Unit Weight from Shear Wave Velocity

Total unit weight is correlated to shear wave velocity (Vs), as illustrated by Figure 9-6 using data reported
in Mayne et al. (2009). The regression expressions are given as follows:
(pcf) = 49.8 log( ) − 26.5 with in ft/s
kN⁄m3 = 7.83 log( ) − 0.125 with in m/s
These data are obtained from a variety of uncemented soils, including clays, silts, sands, gravels, and
mixed soils, as well as some peats, where the measured unit weights were obtained from undisturbed
sampling and the majority (92 percent) of shear wave velocities were measured using seismic DHTs. For
the remaining data, measured Vs were obtained from either crosshole or SASW tests. Note that for Vs >
3,000 ft per second (fps), the materials are likely to be rocks, and therefore the expressions above are not
applicable.
Source: after Mayne et al. (2009)

Figure 9-6. Soil unit weight relationship with shear wave velocity
9.4.2 Unit Weight from Cone Penetration Tests

For the CPT, an empirical correlation relates the total unit weight to the measured CPT sleeve friction
(Figure 9-7). The method is applicable to uncemented, insensitive, and inorganic soils, and the dataset
includes unit weights measured on clays, silts, sands, and mixed soils. The trendline from regression
analysis is given in dimensionless form as follows (Mayne 2014):
= 1.22 + 0.345 log(100 ⁄ + 0.01)
172

Source: after Mayne (2014)

Note: 1 atm = 1.058 tsf = 1.013 bars = 101.3 kPa = 14.7 psi
Figure 9-7. Soil unit weight estimated from CPT sleeve friction
9.4.3 Unit Weight from Flat Dilatometer Tests

When results from DMT are available, the total unit weight can be estimated from the following
relationship (Mayne et al. 2009):
( ⁄ ) . ( ) .
= 1.12
Data from several sites are shown in Figure 9-8 in support of this trend.
173

Source: Mayne et al. (2009)

Figure 9-8. Soil unit weight estimated from DMT readings
Preconsolidation or Effective Yield Stress

The preconsolidation (or yield) stress ( ) is the maximum past loading that was exerted on the soil and
is commonly associated with overburden stress removal due to erosion. Preconsolidation stress also
commonly occurs in areas of glaciation due to the removal of heavy ice loading. A more general term used
is effective yield stress ( ) because soils can develop a quasi-preconsolidation or apparent
overconsolidation due to other factors (e.g., aging and creep, exposure to cyclic temperatures, groundwater
fluctuations, repeated wet-dry cycles, diagenesis, bonding).
9.5.1 Effective Yield Stress from Cone-Penetration Tests

For uncemented and low-sensitivity soils composed of basic minerals (e.g., quartz, kaolin, illite), the
effective yield stress is related to the net cone resistance (Figure 9-9) and is given by the following
expression (Mayne et al. 2009):
= 0.33 ( ⁄100)
The exponent depends upon the type of soil. The parameter is defined as the slope of log ( )
versus log ( ), as illustrated above. For intact inorganic clays, = 1.0. For silts = 0.85, and for clean
quartz-silica sands, = 0.72. For organic clays and silts, = 0.9 is recommended.
174


Figure 9-9. General relationship for effective yield stress and CPT net cone resistance in soils
For intact inorganic soils, the CPT material index (Ic) can be used to assign the appropriate value of
for the assessment of σp', (Figure 9-10). The relationship is given by the following:
0.28
=1− for < 3.5
1+
2.65
In the case of heavily overconsolidated and fissured clays, a value of of approximately 1.1 or higher
may be appropriate, depending upon the extent of discontinuities, jointing, spacing, and frequency of
fissures, as well as other factors.
175

Source: Mayne (2017)

Figure 9-10. General trend for yield stress exponent and CPT material index
9.5.2 Effective Yield Stress from Flat Dilatometer Tests

The effective yield stress of nonfissured soils can be evaluated from the results of DMT soundings using
the following expression (Mayne et al. 2009):
= 0.5 ( − )
The data trend between measured by consolidation tests and field values of net contact pressure from
the DMT at the same elevation is presented in Figure 9-11.
176


Figure 9-11. General relationship for effective yield stress and DMT net contact pressure in soils
9.5.3 Effective Yield Stress from Standard Penetration Tests

For SPT resistances that have been corrected for hammer energy, an approximate estimate of the effective
yield stress of soils that are not soft or sensitive can be made (Figure 9-12). The generalized relationship
can be represented by the following equation (Mayne 2007a):
= 0.47 ( )
where the exponent Y is 1.0 for clays, 0.8 for silts, 0.75 for sandy silts, 0.70 for silty sands, and 0.60 for
clean quartz-silica sands. The expression above does not apply to soils that are organic, cemented,
structured, fissured, or sensitive.
177

100
Preconsolidation σp' (bars)
(tsf)
10
N60
1
Exponent Y
= 1 (intact clays)
σp' = 0.47 σatm (N60)Y = 0.8 (silts)
= 0.6 (sands)
0.1
1 10 100
Energy-Corrected SPT N60 (bpf)
Source: Mayne (2007a)
Figure 9-12. General relationship for effective yield stress and energy-corrected SPT N60 resistance
in soils
9.5.4 Effective Yield Stress from Shear Wave Velocity

Using the results of shear wave velocity measurements, the effective yield stress of intact clays, silts, and
sands has been expressed by Mayne (2007b) in dimensionless form by the following:
) . ( ) . ( ) .
= 0.101(
where
= the initial tangent shear modulus
Data from 22 soft intact clays, 2 calcareous clays, 1 silt, and 3 sands are shown in Figure 9-13. In addition,
results from 3 fissured clays are presented solely for comparison; they are not included in the regression.
178

Source: after Mayne (2007b)

Figure 9-13. General relationship for effective yield stress and shear wave velocity in soils
Effective Stress Strength Parameters

The effective stress strength of soils is commonly represented by a Mohr-Coulomb criterion:
= +
where
= shear strength (i.e., maximum shear stress)
= effective normal stress
= effective stress friction angle
A traditional means of evaluating the effective stress strength parameters and has been via
laboratory strength tests, such as the DS, CIU with pore pressure measurements, and CD tests. These tests
are presented and described in Chapter 8. The focus in this section is on evaluating these parameters via in
situ tests.
9.6.1 Effective Strength Parameters from Cone-Penetration Tests

Cone penetration can be evaluated from solutions based on the following:
• Limit equilibrium
• Plasticity
• Cavity expansion
• Strain path
• Finite elements
• Discrete elements
• Finite differences
• Empirical approaches
179

For CPT soundings in sands, the standard penetration rate of 0.787 in./s (20 mm/s) is essentially a drained
condition (∆ = 0), and the results can be used to interpret the peak effective stress friction angle ( ) with
the assumption that = 0. In terms of the CPT material index, drained conditions are prevalent when
Ic < 2.60. In this case, the magnitude of of clean quartz-silica sands is obtained from the relationship
shown in Figure 9-14 using normalized cone tip resistance:
= 17.6° + 11.0° ( )
Source: after Mayne (2007b)

Figure 9-14. Effective friction angle of sands from CPT-normalized cone resistance
When the penetrometer is advanced into intact clays and silts, generally an undrained condition prevails
(Ic > 2.60) and excess pore pressures (∆ 0) develop. For undrained penetration, an effective stress limit
plasticity solution has been developed for in terms of normalized CPTu parameters Q and Bq (Senneset
et al. 1989; as presented in Figure 9-15, designated NTH for Norwegian Institute of Technology). In this
graph, the solution for = 0 has been adopted; however, in the full theoretical formulation, it is possible
to also interpret a paired set of and values (Mayne 2016).
180

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-15. Effective stress friction angle of clays from CPTu via NTH solution
The rigorous NTH solution for = 0 and = 0° (i.e., constant volume) can be arranged to express
normalized cone tip resistance (Q) in terms of pore pressure parameter ( ) and effective stress friction
angle ( ):
tan 45° + ∙ ( ∙ tan ) − 1

2
=
1 + 6 ∙ tan ∙ (1 + tan ) ∙
An extensive calibration of this approach has been made using results from field tests, mini-CPT in
calibration chamber tests, and centrifuge clay deposits. For illustration, data from 105 clay sites where both
CPTu soundings and triaxial (CIU and CAU) tests were conducted have been reviewed by Ouyang and
Mayne (2018a). Figure 9-16 shows the statistical validity and verification of the NTH approach. While a
direct expression for in the theoretical form is not possible, the value of effective friction angle for CPTu
during undrained penetration in soft to firm clays may be obtained from the approximation:
.
= 29.5° ∙ ∙ 0.256 + 0.336 + ( )
Which is applicable over the following ranges: 0.1 < < 1.0 and 20° < < 45°.
181

Source: Ouyang and Mayne (2018a)

Figure 9-16. Calibration of NTH solution with lab triaxial and in situ CPTu data from 105 clay sites
9.6.2 Effective Strength Parameters from Flat Dilatometer Tests

A similar approach is available for the DMT, whereby two equations are available specifically for sands
with drained loading and clays with undrained loading. For the case of drained loading, it can be taken that
the DMT material index > 1, and the expression for the effective friction angle is given by either of the
two equations shown in Figure 9-17. The hyperbolic formulation gives the following:
1
= 20° +
0.06
0.04 +
where
=( − )⁄ = horizontal stress index
182

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-17. Effective friction angle of sands from DMT horizontal stress index
For DMT in clays, a nexus has been established between the CPTu and DMT via spherical cavity
expansion (SCE) theory. The equivalent normalized cone resistance for the DMT is , and the
corresponding equivalent porewater parameter is that are given by the following:
= (2.93 − 1.93 − )⁄
=( − )⁄(2.93 − 1.93 − )
These are used in the above equation (Section 9.6.2) to obtain the effective in clays and clayey silts:
.
= 29.5° ∙ ∙ 0.256 + 0.336 + ( )
Which is applicable over the following ranges: 0.1 < < 1.0 and 20° < < 45°. Data from 46
clays tested by DMT have been reviewed with their corresponding laboratory triaxial values. Figure
9-18 shows the comparison between calculated and measured values of (Ouyang and Mayne 2018b).
183

Source: Ouyang and Mayne (2018b)

Figure 9-18. Calibration of NTH solution with lab triaxial and in situ DMT data from 46 clays
9.6.3 Effective Strength Parameters from Standard Penetration Test

For SPTs in clean quartz-silica sands, results from triaxial compression tests on undisturbed sand samples
indicate a trend with stress-normalized and energy-corrected N-values (Figure 9-19) expressed by the
following equation:
= 20° + 15.4 ( )
There is no known relationship for estimating in clays and silts from SPT N-values. Geoprofessionals
should use laboratory tests or the empirical relationships presented above based on CPTu and DMT as an
alternative.
184

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-19. Empirical relationship for effective friction angle of sands from stress-normalized SPT
N60 value using data from undisturbed sampling techniques
Total Stress Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils can be estimated via (i) the effective stress friction
angle and the stress history (i.e., OCR) using CSSM principles; (ii) empirical correlations with CPT,
DMT, or SPT; or (iii) direct measurements with VST, PMT, and other tests.
9.7.1 Undrained Shear Strength from Critical State Soil Mechanics

For the DSS mode of failure, the undrained shear strength can be estimate from CSSM based on and
OCR:
, =( ⁄2) ∙ ∙
where
Λ = 1 − ⁄ = plastic strain potential
Cs = swelling index
Cc = virgin compression index
185

Because the ratio of 0.1 < ⁄ < 0.2 for many soils, the value of Λ is within the range: 0.8 ≤ Λ ≤ 0.9.
Figure 9-20 shows a summary of normalized undrained shear strengths with OCR from several clays tested
via DSS tests.
For the triaxial compression mode of failure, the value of undrained strength is higher and calculated
from the following:
, =( ⁄2) ∙ ( ⁄2) ∙
where
= 6 sin ⁄(3 − sin ).
For fissured clays, the above expressions should be reduced to one-half the calculated values to account
for additional planes of weakness afforded by the presence of joints, discontinuities, and fissures.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-20. Normalized undrained shear strength ratio vs. OCR for clays tested in DSS mode
9.7.2 Undrained Shear Strength from Cone-Penetration Tests

For the CPT, the most common approach links with (Lunne et al. 1997):
= ⁄
where
= cone bearing factor
Mayne and Peuchen (2018) reviewed 407 high-quality CAU triaxial tests and field piezocone results
from 62 different clays sorted into five groups:
• Soft to firm onshore (blue)
• Soft to firm offshore (green)
• Sensitive (pink)
• Overconsolidated (yellow)
• Fissured (brown)
186

As shown in Figure 9-21, the cone factor decreases with according to the following:
= 10.5 − 4.6 + 0.1
Source: Mayne and Peuchen (2018)

Figure 9-21. Cone bearing factor Nkt for obtaining undrained shear strength in clays
An alternate CPT-based method to evaluate in intact clays is to (i) evaluate the yield stress using
the method described in Section 9.5.1 (ii) calculate the OCR, (iii) measure or estimate , (iv) assume Λ =
0.8, and (v) use the CSSM equations given in Section 9.7.1.
9.7.3 Undrained Shear Strength from Flat Dilatometer Tests

The usual practice of evaluating from DMT is from an empirical equation often associated as a DSS
mode of failure (Marchetti et al. 2006):
(0.5 ) .
= 0.22
where
=( − )⁄ = horizontal stress index
An alternate DMT-based method to evaluate in intact clays is to (i) evaluate the yield stress using
the method described in Section 9.5.2 (ii) calculate the OCR, (iii) measure or estimate , (iv) assume Λ =
0.8, and (v) use the CSSM equations given in Section 9.7.1.
9.7.4 Undrained Shear Strength from Standard Penetration Test

For soft to firm intact clays and structured or sensitive clays, the dynamic energy of the SPT is
inappropriate, and SPT should not be used to estimate . In the case of stiff to hard, insensitive clays, the
SPT may be used to estimate an approximate value of the undrained shear strength. One relationship
suggested is that given by Stroud and Butler (1975):
187

where
f1 = an empirical parameter that depends upon the geologic setting, plasticity, origin, and other aspects
of the clay formation
While f1 has been correlated with PI (in percent), results reported by Sowers (1979) indicate f1 increases
with PI, while other studies of clays and tills by Stroud and Butler (1975) show that f1 decreases with PI
(Figure 9-22). Most likely, a site-specific correlation is needed for a given clay in a particular geologic
setting.
SPT-su Relationships
0.20
Stroud & Butler 1975
0.18
SPT Parameter, f1 (atm)
Sowers 1979 - high plasticity

0.16 Sowers 1979 - medium plasticity
Sowers 1979 - low plasticity
0.14
0.12
su = f1 · σatm · N60
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Plasticity Index, PI (%)

Source: Paul Mayne
Figure 9-22. Trends reported between undrained shear strength and SPT resistance
9.7.5 Undrained Shear Strength from Vane Shear Tests, Pressuremeter Tests, and
Other Tests
The undrained shear strength of clays and clayey silts can also be evaluated from VST and PMT as
detailed by Schnaid (2009). The VST allows a direct in situ determination of the clay sensitivity. For very
soft clays ( < 200 psf or 9.6 kPa), using full-flow penetrometers offers better resolution than most of the
aforementioned tests because their design makes better use of the load cell range (Randolph 2004). Such
tests include the T-bar and ball penetrometer (DeJong et al. 2010).
Lateral Stress State

The geostatic lateral stress state in the ground is represented by the coefficient = ⁄ . For special
cases, the magnitude of can be measured directly in situ using the following:
• Push-in spade cells or total stress cells
• Self-boring PMT
• Hydraulic fracturing
• Iowa stepped blade
188

• Paired sets of directional shear waves
In lieu of direct measurement of , the value may be estimated from the relationship shown in Figure
9-23 and given by the following expression, which applies to soils that have been loaded-unloaded:
ʹ
= (1 − ʹ) ∙ ≤
where
= (1 + )⁄(1 − ) = Rankine passive stress coefficient
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-23. General relationships between K0 and OCR in soils for loading-unloading
Modulus
The stiffness of soils can be represented by a variety of different parameters, depending upon the type of
project and analytical model that is adopted. In geotechnical engineering, the most common parameters are
the elastic moduli including Young's modulus (E), shear modulus (G), and constrained modulus (M). Other
stiffness parameters used for specific applications are the resilient modulus ( ), subgrade reaction
coefficient ( ), and CBR for pavement evaluations (Brown 1996), falling weight deflectometers
(Newcomb and Birgisson 1999), and nonlinear moduli (Vardanega and Bolton 2013).
From elastic theory, the relationships for G and M in terms of E are given as follows:
=
2(1 + )
189

(1 − )
=
(1 + )(1 − 2 )
where
ν = Poisson's ratio
The stiffness of soils is highly nonlinear, beginning in the linear region and extending into intermediate
strains to strains at peak strength. Moreover, in some cases, a softening after peak may occur in sensitive
clays, structured soils, and dilative soils. Thus, it is not possible to assign a single value of modulus because
the value will depend on the level of strain, or stress level, as well as effective confining stress, drainage
conditions, and actual point on the stress-strain curve (Casey et al. 2016).
For triaxial compression testing, Young's modulus (E) is determined as the slope of the applied deviator
stress ( = − ) vs. axial strain ( ). As shown by Figure 9-24, the type of E can be further defined by
loading conditions and specific point on the stress-strain curve, including (i) initial value in linear range
( ); (ii) secant value: = ⁄ ; (iii) tangent modulus: = Δ ⁄Δ ; and (iv) unload-reload
modulus, .
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-24. Representative stress-strain-strength curve of soil in triaxial compression mode
Values of Young’s modulus applicable to drained and undrained conditions are denoted and ,
respectively. Similar notation is used for G and M. Poisson’s ratio for drained conditions ( ) is often
assumed to approximately equal 0.2; for undrained conditions, = 0.5.
9.9.1 Elastic Modulus from Shear Wave Velocity

Shear and compression wave velocities can be used to directly measure initial tangent moduli based on
the theory of elasticity:
= ∙
190

= ∙
=2 (1 + )
The values of or can be obtained from undisturbed soil samples in the laboratory using
resonant column tests (Section 8.9.1), bender elements, or special triaxial apparatuses outfitted with local
strain measurements. Better yet, in situ tests are more reliable because they are unaffected by sample
disturbance, stress relief, and small specimen size effects. In situ measurement of seismic velocities can be
made using the surface and borehole seismic methods described in Section 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, respectively.
The initial tangent shear and Young's modulus can be used directly when strains are small: < 10-6 (e.g.,
dynamically loaded foundations, site amplification for low-intensity ground motions); however, in many
cases, a modulus reduction factor (MRF) must be used to adjust the value of shear or Young’s modulus to
the appropriate level of strain (ε or γ) or mobilized stress (q/qmax or τ/τmax). For cyclic loading, the use of
resonant column tests can be used to obtain the shear modulus reduction curve as discussed in Section 8.9.1.
For monotonic (i.e., static) loading, torsional shear tests and special triaxial tests with local strain sensors
provide the MRF curves for each soil. For empirical estimates, MRF values for cyclic loading may found
from well-known modulus reduction relationships (e.g. Vucetic and Dobry 1991, Darendeli 2001). A recent
method for MRF curves for both monotonic and cyclic loading of clays is presented by Vardanega and
Bolton (2013).
For first-time monotonic loading of soils, the MRF trend in Figure 9-25 is shown in terms of mobilized
stress, which is the reciprocal of the factor of safety: 1⁄ = ⁄ = ⁄ . The data are derived
from both undrained and drained resonant column-torsional shear tests and specially instrumented triaxial
tests conducted on both sands and clays. An algorithm that expresses the trend is given by the following:
=1−( ⁄ ) =1−( ⁄ ) = 1 − (1⁄ )
where
g = fitting parameter
The value of for triaxial compression is given by the expressions shown in Figure 9-25 for either
undrained or drained loading. For DSS conditions, the value of is taken as either the undrained
( = ) or drained ( = + ∙ tan ). For an initial estimate, the exponent g generally takes
a value of approximately 0.3 for uncemented sands and inorganic clays of low sensitivity. Thus, the relevant
value of G or E for a particular problem can be obtained from the following:
= ∙
= ∙
For an FS = 2, an approximate value of MRF = 0.30 would be applicable. Otherwise, it is possible to

generate a continuous curve using the expression above. For instance, a complete stress-strain curve can be
developed by calculating the axial strains for triaxial compression: = ⁄ , or alternatively, shear stress
vs. shear strain for simple shear mode: = ⁄ , where each pair of q-ε or τ−γ values are associated with
their respective FS.
191

Source: Mayne (2007b)

Figure 9-25. Modulus reduction factor of sands and clays in drained and undrained loading
expressed in terms of mobilized strength
9.9.2 Elastic Modulus from Cone Penetration Test

With SCPTu, the shear wave velocity is measured directly and can be used to calculate Gmax or Emax using
the expressions in Section 9.9.1. If only CPT or CPTu data are available, the in situ shear wave velocity
can be estimated from the penetrometer readings, as summarized by Wair et al. (2012). They recommend
using the average of the following three empirical expressions, applicable to all soil types:
(m/s) = 118.8 ∙ log( ) + 18.5
. . .
(m/s) = 2.62 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
(m/s) = (10 . ∙ . )∙( .

− )⁄ )
where
, , and are input in kPa, depth D in meters
ASF = age scaling factor (= 0.92 for Holocene and 1.12 for Pleistocene deposits)
If a quick estimate of the drained Young’s modulus from CPT is desired, a rough approximation for
clays, silts, and sands may be taken as (Mayne 2007b):
=5∙( − )
192

This relationship is corroborated by an independent CPT-DMT study by Robertson (2009b) shown in

Figure 9-26 and approximated by the following:
≈5∙( − )
Source: Robertson (2009b)

Figure 9-26. Dilatometer modulus vs. net cone resistance for different soils
9.9.3 Elastic Modulus from Flat Dilatometer Tests

With seismic DMT, the shear wave velocity is measured directly and can be used to calculate Gmax or
Emax using the expressions in Section 9.9.1. For the standard DMT, a value of constrained modulus is
obtained from the dilatometer modulus ( ) and material index ( ) using the formula given in Table 9-3
with the relationship (Marchetti et al. 2006):
= ∙
Table 9-3. Relationships for constrained modulus from DMTs in various soil types
Criteria Relationship for Factor Notes

RM = M'/ED
If ID < 0.6 RM = 0.14 + 2.36 log KD Clay soils
If ID > 3 RM = 0.50 + 2.0 log KD Clean (quartz) sands
If 0.6 < ID < 3 RM = RM0+ (2.5-RM0) log KD Silts to silty sands

where RM0 = 0.14+0.15(ID-0.6)
If KD > 10 RM = 0.32 + 2.18 log KD High values
If RM < 0.85 Set RM = 0.85 Minimum

Source: after Marchetti et al. (2006)
Notes:
(a) ED = 34.7·(p1-p0) = dilatometer modulus
193

(b) ID = (p1-p0)/(p0-u0) = DMT material index

(c) KD = (p0-u0)/σvo' = horizontal stress index
If an estimate of the small-strain shear modulus (Gmax) is needed from DMT readings in soils, the
expressions in Table 9-4 can be used.
Table 9-4. Expressions for estimating Gmax from DMT readings in various soil types
Soil Type Range of Material Index, ID Expression for Small-Strain Shear Modulus:
Gmax
Clays ID < 0.6 Gmax = 26.2 · MDMT · KD -1.007
Silts 0.6 < ID < 1.8 Gmax = 15.7 · MDMT · KD -0.921
Sands ID > 1.8 Gmax = 4.56 · MDMT · KD -0.797
Source: Marchetti et al. (2008), Amoroso (2014)
9.9.4 Elastic Modulus from Standard Penetration Test

It is viable to measure Vs during SPT by using an uphole geophysical method (Giacheti et al. 2013).
Therefore, with the seismic SPT, one can use the procedures given in Section 9.9.1 to obtain either Gmax or
Emax. In the case of conventional SPTs, the in situ Vs can be estimated by using the N60 as shown in Figure
9-27 or by using one of the available correlations reviewed by Wair et al. (2012).
Source: data from Imai and Tonouchi (1982)

Figure 9-27. Estimate for Vs from SPT
For a direct approach to estimating moduli in soils, N60 should be used in local site-specific correlations
for the particular geology. This may require calibrations with reference moduli obtained from a variety of
194

sources, such as (i) back-calculated values of E' from field performance of foundations, (ii) PLTs, (iii)
pressuremeter data, (iv) DMTs, and (v) laboratory triaxial and consolidometer results. For instance, Mayne
and Frost (1988) developed a correlation between the dilatometer modulus and SPT N60 value in the
Piedmont and Blue Ridge geologies that was verified with back-calculated E' values from foundation
settlement data on full-scale buildings. The derived relationship has been updated and is presented in Figure
9-28.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-28. Geologic-specific relationship between equivalent elastic modulus and energy-
corrected SPT N60 from DMTs and foundation performance
Rigidity Index
The rigidity index is defined as the ratio of the shear modulus to shear strength ( = ⁄ ) and can
be used to calculate undrained distortional displacements of shallow foundations, pile bearing capacity, and
solutions for pore pressure dissipation that are based in cavity expansion, strain path method, and finite
elements. The undrained rigidity index ( = ⁄ ) from the CE-CSSM solution is given by the following:
( − ) 1.5
= ∙ + 2.925 − 2.925
( − )
where
Mc = 6 ∙ sin ʹ⁄(3 − sin ʹ)
The value of the first fractional term within the brackets can be found over the depth range of interest by
plotting =( − ) vs. = ( − ). The relationship for is depicted in Figure 9-29 in
terms of the ratio ⁄ for various values of .
195

φ' = 20° 25° 30° 35°40°45°

500
Rigidity Index, IR = G/su
400
300
200
100
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Ratio (qt - σvo)/(qt - u2)
Source: Paul Mayne
Figure 9-29. Rigidity index from spherical cavity expansion (SCE-CSSM) in terms of ϕ’ and CPT
resistance
An alternative means of evaluating the magnitude of in clays is via a method developed from SCPTu
results. The value of rigidity index at 50 percent mobilized strength ( ) can be calculated from (Krage
et al. 2014):
1.81
=
( ) . ( ) .
where
, , and are in consistent units
is dimensionless
A third method for estimating comes from an empirical approach developed from triaxial test data and
related to the OCR and PI (Keaveny and Mitchell 1986, Mayne 2007b):
(137 − )/23
=
1+ 1+( − 1) . /26 .
Flow Parameters
Flow characteristics of soils are represented by their hydraulic conductivity (K) and coefficient of
consolidation (cv). These two parameters are interrelated by the following consolidation theory:
= ∙ ⁄
As described in Chapter 8, can be measured on undisturbed soil specimens using 1D consolidation or

triaxial tests. The hydraulic conductivity (K) can be measured using flexible-wall or rigid, compaction-
mold permeameters.
In the field, the coefficient of consolidation is commonly obtained using piezocone dissipation tests. A
dissipation test is also available for the DMT. Hydraulic conductivity can be measured using pumping or
196

slug tests as described in Chapter 7, or using push-in piezometers or piezocone penetration tests with
dissipation measurements (Mayne et al. 2002).
9.11.1 Coefficient of Consolidation from Piezocone Dissipation Tests

The in situ is assessed using field dissipation tests by monitoring the dissipation of excess pore pressure
with time using push-in piezometers or CPTù. In the case of clean sands, the dissipation is essentially
immediate. An example of dissipation in soft to firm clay is depicted in Figure 9-30. During CPT
penetration at 20 mm/s, excess pore pressures are seen to be approximately 4 to 5 times hydrostatic. After
a waiting period of some 2,000 seconds (approximately 33 minutes), the measured excess pore pressure has
not returned to equilibrium conditions. The degree of consolidation (U) can be represented by the relative
change in excess pore pressures: − 1 − Δ ⁄Δ , where Δ represents the measured Δ = ( − ) at
initial time (i.e., during penetration).
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-30. Representative monotonic dissipation record from CPTu2 in Mud Island
For estimating , an analytical, numerical, or theoretical solution must be adopted. The hybrid spherical
cavity expansion-critical state soil mechanics (SCE-CSSM) solution by Burns and Mayne (2002) indicates
the following:
.
∙ ∙
=
where
= dimensionless time factor depending on degree of consolidation (U)
= radius of the probe
= ⁄ = soil rigidity index
197

t = measured time to reach the selected U
The respective radii for 10-cm2 and 15-cm2 cone penetrometers are ac = 1.78 cm and ac = 2.20 cm. For a
monotonic response, the various time factors ( ) from SCE-CSSM are presented in Figure 9-31. It is
common in geotechnical practice to use a value for 50 percent consolidation (U = 50%), and thus the
appropriate time factor is = 0.030. The corresponding measured time to reach this value ( ) is defined
in Figure 9-31 for a monotonic pore pressure response.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-31. Dissipation time factors from SCE-CSSM solution at different degrees of consolidation
The porewater response of driven piles, push-in piezometers, and cone penetrometers can also display a
dilatory behavior as shown in Figure 9-32. In this situation, the porewater readings initially increase in
magnitude and eventually reach a peak, thereafter decreasing with time until hydrostatic pore pressures are
measured. For dilatory pore pressures, the initial value can be corrected by using a square root plot
(Madmoodzadeh and Randolph 2014), as illustrated by Figure 9-33. This allows for the proper selection of
t50 and use of the same simple analytical solution given above.
198

Mud Island CPTu Dissipations, Memphis, TN

4
Depth = 23.3 feet
Pore Water Pressure, u2 (tsf)
Depth = 36.4 feet

Monotonic
3
Response
1
Dilatory
Response
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (s)
Source: Paul Mayne
Figure 9-32. Definitions of monotonic vs. dilatory type for pore pressure response
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-33. Correction of dilatory dissipation tests using square root time plots to get t50
9.11.2 Coefficient of Consolidation from Dilatometer Dissipation Tests

For the DMT, dissipation of the A-reading with time may be recorded at selected test depths (Marchetti
et al. 2006). The solution is given by the following:
cv (cm2/s) = 7/tflex
where
= time (seconds) corresponding to the inflection point in measured A-readings
199

An example of the dissipation of DMT A-readings is shown in Figure 9-34 (Marchetti and Totani 1989),
illustrating the selection of the = at the inflection point of the curve. A more theoretical approach
has been proposed by Kim and Paik (2006).
Source: data from Marchetti and Totani (1989)

Figure 9-34. Dissipations from DMT A-reading with time
9.11.3 Hydraulic Conductivity from Piezocone Dissipation Tests

An approximate means to estimate the hydraulic conductivity (K) from piezocone dissipation tests uses
the characteristic time (t50) reported in seconds as shown in Figure 9-35. This method is based on
monotonic-type responses recorded by Parez and Fauriel (1988). The approximation shown by the red-
dashed line can be expressed as follows:
.
1
(cm/s) ≈
251 ∙ ( )
200

1.E-01
Sand and
Hydraulic Conductivity, k (cm/s)
.
Gravel 1
1.E-02 ≈
251 · ( )
Sand
1.E-03
1.E-04 Silty Sand

to Sandy Silt
1.E-05
Silt
1.E-06
u2
Clay
1.E-07
1.E-08
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Measured Dissipation Time, t50 (sec)

Source: relationship from Parez and Fauriel (1988)
Figure 9-35. Interpreted coefficient of permeability from monotonic t50 dissipations in soils
9.11.4 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated from CPT Material Index

The CPT material index ( ) has been empirically correlated to the hydraulic conductivity (Lunne et al.
1997). For CPT SBTs in Zones 2 through 7, Robertson and Cabal (2015) suggest a two-part approximation
for these values. A simpler, single equation is sufficient (Figure 9-36), which can be expressed as follows:
(m/s) = (1.0⁄ )
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 9-36. Coefficient of permeability expression from CPT material index in soils
201

Special Considerations
Under certain circumstances, the interpretation of laboratory and field tests will require special attention,
especially for soils with complex behavior and constituency, including organic clays, sensitive fine-grained
soils, collapsible geomaterials, lateritic and residual soils, loess, and other types of problematic soils.
For fissured clays that have experienced landsliding and undergone slope failure, the use of residual
strength parameters (ϕr' and cr' = 0) will be appropriate. Details on the evaluation of drained residual
strength parameters are given by Stark et al. (2005).
202

Amoroso, S. 2014. “Prediction of the Shear Wave Velocity from CPT and DMT at Research Sites.” Frontiers in Structural
& Civil Engineering, Springer Publishing: DOI 10.1007/s11709-013-0234-6.
Brown, S.F. 1996. “36th Rankine Lecture: Soil Mechanics in Pavement Engineering.” Geotechnique Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.
383–426.
Burns, S.E., and P.W. Mayne. 2002. “Analytical Cavity Expansion-Critical State Model for Piezocone Dissipation in Fine-
Grained Soils.” Soils & Foundations, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 131–137.
Casey, B., J.T. Germaine, N.O. Abdulhadi, N.S. Kontopoulos, and C.A. Jones. 2016. “Undrained Young's Modulus of Fine-
Grained Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 2, 04015070.
Darendeli, M.B. 2001. “Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves.”
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas, Austin.
DeJong, J.T., N. Yafrate, D. DeGroot, H.E. Low, and M.F. Randolph. 2010. “Recommended Practice for Full-Flow
Penetrometer Testing and Analysis.” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 33, No. 2, pp. 1–13.
Fellenius, B.H., and A. Eslami. 2000. “Soil Profile Interpreted from CPTu Data.” Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Engineering Conference, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 1–18.
Giacheti, H., R.A. Pedrini, and B.P. Rocha. 2013. “The Seismic SPT Test in a Tropical Soil and the G0/N Ratio.” Proceedings
of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, Paris.
Hatanaka, M. and A. Uchida. 1996. “Empirical Correlation between Penetration Resistance and Effective Friction of Sandy
Soil.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Holtz, R.D., W.D. Kovacs, and T.C. Sheehan. 2011. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Second Edition. Pearson
Publishing, Upper Saddle River.
Imai, T., and K. Tonouchi. 1982. “Correlation of N-Value with S-Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus.” Proceedings of the
2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol. 1, pp. 67–72.
Keaveny, J., and J.K. Mitchell. 1986. “Strength of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Piezocone.” Use of In-Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston, Virginia, pp. 668–685.
Kim, Y-S., and S. Paik. 2006. “DMT Dissipation Analysis Using an Equivalent Radius and Optimization Technique.”
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Flat Dilatometer Test, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 313–318.
Krage, C.P., N.S. Broussard, and J.T. DeJong. 2014. “Estimating Rigidity Index Based on CPT Measurements.” Proceedings
of the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’14, Las Vegas).
Kulhawy, F.H. and P.W. Mayne. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Report EL-6800,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Liao, T. 2005. Post Processing of Cone Penetration Data for Assessing Seismic Ground Hazards, with Application to the
New Madrid Seismic Zone. PhD dissertation, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta.
Loehr, J.E., A.J. Lutenegger, B. Rosenblad, and A. Boeckmann. 2016. Geotechnical Site Characterization (GEC 5). Report
FHWA NHI-16-072, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Lunne, T., P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M. Powell. 1997. The Cone Penetration Test in Geotechnical Practice. EF Spon/Blackie
Academic, Routledge Publishing, New York.
Madmoodzadeh, H., and M.R. Randolph, M.F. 2014. “Penetrometer Testing: Effect of Partial Consolidation on Subsequent
Dissipation Response.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 6, 04014022.
Marchetti, S., and G. Totani. 1989. “Ch Evaluations from DMTA Dissipation Curves.” Proceedings of XII International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE, Rio), pp. 281–286.
Marchetti, S., P. Monaco, G. Totani, and M. Calabrese. 2006. “The Flat Dilatometer Test in Soil Investigations.” ISSMGE
Committee TC102. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Flat Dilatometer (DMT-2, Arlington), In-Situ
Soil Testing, Fairfax, Virginia.
Marchetti, S., P. Monaco, G. Totani, and D. Marchetti. 2008. “In-Situ Tests by Seismic Dilatometer (SDMT).” In Research
to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publ. No. 180, ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 292–311.
203

Mayne, P.W. 2006. “The 2006 James K. Mitchell Lecture: Undisturbed Sand Strength from Seismic Cone Tests.” Presented
at the GeoShanghai Conference, China. June 6-8. Geomechanics and GeoEngineering, Vol 1., No. 4. Pp 239–257.
Mayne, P.W., and D.D. Frost. 1988. “Dilatometer Experience in Washington, DC and Vicinity.” Transportation Research
Record 1169, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 16–23.
Mayne, P.W., B. Christopher, R. Berg, and J. DeJong. 2002. Subsurface Investigations - Geotechnical Site Characterization.
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Mayne, P.W. 2007a. “In-Situ Test Calibrations for Evaluating Soil Parameters.” Characterization & Engineering Properties
of Natural Soils, Vol. 3, pp. 1602–1652.
Mayne, P.W. 2007b. NCHRP Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetration Test. Transportation Research Board, National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
Mayne, P.W., M.R. Coop, S. Springman, A-B Huang, and J. Zornberg. 2009. “State-of-the-Art Paper (SOA-1): Geomaterial
Behavior and Testing.” Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 4 (ICSMGE, Alexandria), Millpress/IOS Press Rotterdam. pp. 2777–2872.
Mayne, P.W. 2014. “Keynote: Interpretation of Geotechnical Parameters from Seismic Piezocone Tests.” Proceedings of
the 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas. pp 47–73.
Mayne, P.W. 2016. “Evaluating Effective Stress Parameters and Undrained Shear Strengths of Soft-Firm Clays from CPT
and DMT.” Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 27–55.
Mayne, P.W. 2017. “Stress History of Soils from Cone Penetration Tests.” 34th Manual Rocha Lecture, Soils & Rocks, Vol.
40, No. 3, Brazilian Society of Soil Mechanics, Saö Paulo, pp. 203–218.
Mayne, P.W., and J. Peuchen. 2018. “Evaluation of CPTU Nkt Cone Factor for Undrained Strength of Clays.” Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (Delft), CRC Press/Balkema.
Newcomb, D.E., and B. Birgisson. 1999. Measuring In-Situ Mechanical Properties of Pavement Subgrade Soils. NCHRP
Synthesis of Highway Practice 278, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Ouyang, Z., and P.W. Mayne. 2018a. “Effective Friction Angle of Clays and Silts from Piezocone.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal (in press): doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0451.
Ouyang, Z., and P.W. Mayne, P.W. 2018b. “Effective Stress Strength Parameters of Clays from DMT.” ASTM Geotechnical
Testing Journal (in press): DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20170379.
Parez, L., and R. Faureil. 1988. “Le Piézocone. Améliorations Apportées á la Reconnaissance de Sols.” Revue Française de
Géotech, Vol. 44, pp. 13–27.
Randolph, M.F. 2004. “Characterization of Soft Sediments for Offshore Applications.” Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-2, Porto), pp. 209–232.
Robertson, P.K. 1990. “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27,
No.1, pp. 151–158.
Robertson, P.K. 1991. “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test. Closure.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
28, No.1, pp. 173–178.
Robertson, P.K. 2009a. “Cone Penetration Testing: A Unified Approach.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 11,
pp. 1337–1355.
Robertson, P.K. 2009b. “CPT-DMT Correlations.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135,
No.11, pp. 1762–1771.
Robertson, P.K., and K.L. Cabal. 2015. Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, 6th Edition, Gregg
Drilling, Signal Hill, California.
Robertson, P.K. 2016. “Cone Penetration Test-Based Soil Behaviour Type Classification System - An Update.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 53, No. 7, pp. 1910–1927.
Schnaid, F. 2009. In-Situ Testing in Geomechanics: The Main Tests. Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Schneider, J.A., J.N. Hotstream, P.W. Mayne, and M.F. Randolph. 2012. “Comparing Q-F and Q-Δu2/σvo' Soil Classification
Charts.” Géotechnique Letters Vol. 2. No. 4, pp. 209–215.
Senneset, K., R. Sandven, and N. Janbu. 1989. “Evaluation of Soil Parameters from Piezocone Tests.” Transportation
Research Record 1235, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp.24–37.
Stark, T.D., H. Choi, and S. McCone. 2005. “Drained Shear Strength Parameters for Analysis of Landslides.” Journal of
Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 5, pp. 575–588.
Stroud, M.A., and F.G. Butler. 1975. “The Standard Penetration Test and the Engineering Properties of Glacial Materials.”
Proceedings of the Symposium on the Engineering Behavior of Glacial Materials (University of Birmingham, UK),
Midlands Geotechnical Society, UK. pp. 117–128.
204

Sowers, G.F. 1979. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering. 4th Edition, Macmillan
Publishing, New York.
Tümay, M.T., Y HatipKarasulu, Z. Młynarek, and J. Wierzbicki. 2011. “Effectiveness of CPT-Based Classification Methods
for Identification of Subsoil Stratigraphy.” Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Athens, Greece, Vol. 1, IOS/Millpress, Rotterdam. pp. 91–98.
Vardanega, P.J., and M.D. Bolton. 2013. “Stiffness of Clays and Silts: Normalizing Shear Modulus and Shear Strain.”
Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000887: 1575–1589.
Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry. 1991. “Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
117, No. 1, pp. 89–107.
Wair, B.R., J.T. DeJong, and T. Shantz. 2012. Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles. PEER Report
2012/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, California.
205

CHAPTER 10
Evaluation of Rock Mass Properties
Introduction
The engineering behavior of rock masses under loading depends upon the assemblage of composite
components, including (i) intact rock material and (ii) the set of discontinuities, fissures, joints, and cracks
that separate the intact rock. While the rock material itself is quite strong, the fissures and joints permit
movement that can adversely affect the performance and integrity of the rock mass. For highway
construction, this may result in rock falls, falling boulders or stones, talus, and collection of debris along
the roadway, as well as possible instability, collapse, or loss of bridge foundations in the extreme cases. In
assessing the quality of the rock mass, it is important to document both components in a classification
scheme.
The classification of the rock type, mapping of the discontinuities, jointing, shear zones, and fault features
is best handled by an experienced engineering geologist and may require field work in the form of site
reconnaissance, geophysical testing, and coring of rock samples. The extent of this work will depend on
the size of the project, possible consequences, risks associated with construction, and other factors. For
highways and roadways, rock mass classification will be necessary on projects involving tunnels,
foundations, slopes, and excavations. Calculations will be required to evaluate the strength of the rock mass
to quantify the potential for instability and level of support needed. This may necessitate the design of
anchors, drainage ducts, rock bolts, shotcrete, fences, netting, cut slope angles, and other measures, such as
long-term monitoring and instrumentation programs.
The United States covers an immense area with many varied and diverse types of geomaterials (Figure
10-1). Each color represents a distinct unit of the 154 various geologic formations found in the United
States. Thus, it is necessary to recognize the importance of understanding local and site-specific geologic
settings. Often, the state geological survey provides summary reports on the types of geomaterials,
including soils, rocks, and minerals, as well as mining operations found in the local vicinity. These
documents should be sought out and reviewed for common performance expectations, including known
problems encountered on past civil engineering projects, such as landslides, rockfalls, and sinkholes.
206

Source: William Menke

Figure 10-1. Diversity of rock types found in the conterminous United States. Note: each color
represents one of 154 different geologic formations
Intact Rock Classification

Intact rock should be described in terms of its geologic origin (sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous),
color, size of the mineral grains (fine, medium, coarse), strength (i.e., qu = uniaxial compressive strength),
and stiffness (i.e., E50 = elastic modulus at 50 percent ultimate strength). Additional factors describing the
intact rock may include hardness, age, porosity, and seismic velocities.
The primary rock types defined according to geologic origin and mineral grain size are given in Table
10-1. The number in parentheses following the type of rock is a material constant for the intact rock type
assigned according to the GSI, which is a rock mass classification system discussed in Section 10.4.3
(Marinos et al. 2005, Hoek 2007).
Table 10-1. Primary rock types classified by geologic origin and mineral grain size
Grain Sedimentary Metamorphic Igneous

Aspects Clastic Carbonate Foliated Non- Intrusive Extrusive
foliated
Coarse Conglomerate Limestone Gneiss (33) Marble (9) Granite (33) Volcanic
(22) (10) Amphibolite Migmatite Granodiorite Breccia or
Breccia (20) (31) (30) (30) Agglomerate
Diorite (28) (20)
207

Grain Sedimentary Metamorphic Igneous

Aspects Clastic Carbonate Foliated Non- Intrusive Extrusive
foliated
Medium Sandstone Chalk (7) Schist (10) Quartzite Dolerite (19) Basalt (17)
(19) Phyllite (24)
Siltstone (9) (10)
Greywacke
(18)
Fine Shale (4) Calcareous Slate (9) Mylonite (6) Rhyolite Tuff (15)
Claystone (4) Mudstone (8) (16)
Obsidian
(19)
*Note: number in parentheses is the GSI material constant (mi) for the intact rock type (Marinos et al. 2005, Hoek
2007)
Alternate rock classification systems have been devised, such as those based on behavioral response (e.g.,
Goodman 1989). A detailing of the rock mineralogy may be necessary on large and critical projects, thereby
requiring the attention of an engineering geologist. Guidance can be found in published field guides on rock
types and minerals (e.g., Pough 1988).
The type of rock and its mineralogy can be used to infer possible problems that may be encountered in
construction, and thus, should be considered in engineering design (Mayne et al. 2002). Notable issues and
problems are often found with limestones because of water solubility. These issues include the development
of sinkholes, caves, and erosional features associated with karst topography (e.g., voids, vugs, subsidence).
Similarly, serpentine is associated with slippage and low frictional characteristics, while bentonitic shales
can exhibit high swelling and expansive clay characteristics, thereby having concerns with shallow
foundations of light structures and issues with slope instability. In the case of diabase, the residual formation
of boulders may be important during construction, particularly in the case of driven pilings and drilled shaft
foundations.
The deterioration of the shale-claystone-mudstone family of rocks and weakly cemented friable
sandstones is the cause of many maintenance problems, particularly with respect to slope cuts, excavations,
roadway construction using rockfill, and foundations. For instance, cut slopes in shales will expose these
rocks to air, water, wind, and solar processes that trigger weathering and disintegration, eventually resulting
in flatter slopes and possible instability (Hoek 2007). Shale rockfill used in embankments may break down
during compaction operations and result in a material less pervious and less strong than the original borrow
source materials. Maintenance problems for slopes can be mitigated by a variety of solutions, including
using flatter design slopes, installing horizontal drains, applying gunite or shotcrete and mesh. In certain
cases, more elaborate structural supports are required (e.g., anchors, rock bolts, retention walls, and use of
walls with drilled shafts). After the excavation for a structural foundation is made, the bearing level must
be protected against slaking, deterioration, and expansion. This can be accomplished by spraying a
protective coating on the freshly exposed rock surface, such as gunite or shotcrete (Wyllie 1992).
Geologic time plays a role in the characteristics of rock materials. In general, the age of the rock affects
its strength and stiffness (i.e. the older the rock, the stronger and stiffer it will be in relation to similar rock
types that are younger). Figure 10-2 shows the geologic time scale with corresponding era, epoch, and
periods. Excepting recent volcanics as a general guide, sedimentary geomaterials that are Cretaceous age
or younger are considered unconsolidated in the geologic sense, thus are soil-like, whereas older sediments
are rock-like.
208

Geologic Period or Epoch

10,000 Era
0.4 Holocene
Geologic Age Quatenary
2,000,000 Pleistocene
r (atm)
5,000,000 Pliocene
26,000,000 Miocene
Cenozoic
Tertiary
Years
0.3 38,000,000 Geologic Age Oligocene

54,000,000 Eocene
Time in S
Strength,
65,000,000 Paleocene
130,000,000 Cretaceous
0.2 185,000,000 Jurassic
Mezozoic
230,000,000 Triassic
Geologic
265,000,000 Permian
355,000,000 Carboniferous
0.1
Residual
413,000,000 Devonian
425,000,000 Silurian
470,000,000 Ordovician Paleozoic
0.0 570,000,000 Cambrian
3,900,000,000 Precambrian
0 2
4,700,000,000
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Earth Begins
SPT Resistance,
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
(N11.E+06
)60 (bpf)
1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10
Logarithm of Time (years)

Source: Paul Mayne
Figure 10-2. Geologic time scale and associated age of rocks
Intact Rock Properties

Intact rock material can be quantified in terms of density, strength, stiffness, and other properties, as
discussed in this section.
10.3.1 Specific Gravity of Solids

The specific gravity of solids ( ) of various rock types depends on the constituent mineralogy and their
relative composition. Values of for select minerals are presented in Figure 10-3. For common minerals
(quartz, feldspar, calcite, chlorite, illite, kaolinite, mica), the overall bulk value gives an average = 2.7 ±
0.1 for many rock types. Exceptions include areas that contain appreciable amounts of rock salt (halite) that
has a low specific gravity, or heavy metals such as ore deposits and mining operations (e.g., iron, lead) that
have high values of .
209

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-3. Specific gravity of solids of common rock minerals
10.3.2 Unit Weight

The unit weight of rock depends upon its porosity (n) and specific gravity of solids. The dry unit weight
( ) is determined as:
= ∙ (1 − )
where
= unit weight of water (= 9.81 kN/m3 = 64.3 pcf).
The variation of saturated unit weight ( ) of rock with porosity is shown in Figure 10-4 and given by:
= (1 − ) +
210

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-4. Unit weight of saturated rock vs. porosity
The unit weight of rock can be indirectly estimated from the in situ shear wave velocity. Results of
empirical relationships from a variety of different rock types are presented in Figure 10-5. The overall trend
can be expressed as follows:
(pcf) = 38.0 .
where is the shear wave velocity (ft/s)
kN⁄m3 = 7.165 .
where is the shear wave velocity (m/s)
211

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-5. Trend for rock unit weight with in situ shear wave velocity
It is also possible to estimate the unit weight of rock from compression wave velocity. Mavko et al.
(1998) summarize representative empirical correlations developed for different rock types by Gardner et
al. (1974) and Castagna et al. (1993).
10.3.3 Seismic Velocities

The shear and compression wave velocities can be measured in the laboratory on small rock specimens
using ultrasonic tests. These velocities can serve as indicators as to the soundness of the rock and degree of
weathering, as well as an index of their strength. Surface and borehole geophysical methods can also be
used to measure the seismic velocities of intact and fractured rocks, thereby allowing a better quantification
of in situ conditions.
For a wide range of rock types, Figure 10-6 provides a summary of data compiled from several sources:
• Intact rocks tested in the laboratory (Mayne et al. 2002)
• Field measurements on basalt, gneiss, and quartzite in India (Wadhwa et al. 2010)
• Weathered tuff, andesites, granite, and felsite in South Korea (Cha et al. 2006)
The trend relates the measured shear wave velocity ( ) to the measured compression wave velocity ( )
of the rock. The general trend for intact rocks is reported as (Wadhwa et al. 2010):
.
= 1.21 ∙ where and (ft/s)
.
= 1.10 ∙ where and (m/s)
This is applicable to the specified ranges of wave velocities indicated in the figure. For weathered rocks,
these expressions tend to overestimate the shear wave velocity.
212

Source: data from Mayne et al. (2002), Wadhwa et al. (2010), Cha et al. (2006)
Figure 10-6. Trends between measured Vs and Vp for various types of rocks
10.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Strength

The uniaxial compressive strength ( = ) is a basic index parameter quantifying the intact rock
strength. As described in Section 8.11.6, it is classically measured in the laboratory on small cylindrical
specimens of rock (diameter = 2 in. [50 mm]; length = 4 in. [100 mm]) as the peak value of stress ( )
from a stress-strain curve. As the differences between hard soil and soft rock can be unclear, the boundary
can be defined using compressive strength. For instance, rock typically has a uniaxial compressive strength
greater than approximately 10 tsf (≈ 1 MPa) (Mayne et al. 2002).
An illustrative example of the measured stress-strain curve on schistose gneiss is presented in Figure
10-7. The maximum measured stress gives = 964 tsf (92.4 MPa) and the tangent Young's modulus at 50
percent of ultimate is = 402,506 tsf (38.5 GPa). The ratio of modulus to strength is = ⁄ =
417 and is an indicator of the quality of the intact rock; in the case illustrated, very good to excellent rock.
Alternate means of approximately assessing the magnitude of in the field are afforded via point load
index tests or Schmidt hammer (FHWA 2016).
213

Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-7. Measured stress-strain response on intact gneissic rock
A selection of measured properties on a varied assortment of intact rocks is listed in Table 10-2, including
uniaxial compressive strength, elastic modulus, tensile strength, and Poisson's ratio, as well as their
respective sources of data. From these results, the mean value of uniaxial compressive strength is 1,094 tsf
(105 MPa) with a standard deviation of 787 tsf (75.4 MPa).
For any rock formation, the measured properties may vary significantly across the site due to
heterogeneity and site variability. This may be caused by natural features in the rocks, including weathering,
extent of discontinuities, changes in porosity, composition, mineralogy, and other factors. Furthermore,
certain rocks (e.g., schist, phylite) exhibit strong anisotropy manifested as vastly different strengths and
moduli in orthogonal directions of loading. Therefore, it is prudent to test a large number of rock specimens
to evaluate the degree of variability and express the results in terms of the mean and variance.
10.3.5 Elastic Modulus of Intact Rock

The elastic Young's modulus of intact rock is defined as a tangent value taken at 50 percent ultimate
strength. For the data set reviewed in Table 10-2, the mean value was found to be = 408,206 atm with
a standard deviation = 247,860 atm. Regression results from best fit line (r2 = 0.430) give:
= 326 ∙
Table 10-2. Strength and stiffness properties of select intact rocks measured in laboratory tests
Rock Type Intact Rock Material Reference Source σu = q u ER σt = T0

(atm) (atm) (-)
Igneous Cedar City Tonalite Goodman (1989) 1,002 189,341 63 0.17
John Day Basalt Goodman (1989) 3,504 826,909 143 0.29
214

Rock Type Intact Rock Material Reference Source σu = qu ER σt = T0

(atm) (atm) (-)
Chehalis Basalt HDR-S&W (2015) 1,406 607,687 0.27
Nevada Basalt Goodman (1989) 1,461 344,739 129 0.32
Oregon Tuff Mackiewicz and Rippe 316 98,640
(2010)
Nevada Granite Goodman (1989) 1,393 728,360 115 0.22
Nevada Tuff Goodman (1989) 112 36,025 11 0.29
Mexico Andesite Filloy et al. (2015) 841 490,539 78
Mexico Breccia Filloy et al. (2015) 364 155,946 30
Mexico Tuff Filloy et al. (2015) 742 294,126 99
Palisades Diabase Goodman (1989) 2,379 806,369 113 0.28
Pikes Peak Granit Goodman (1989) 2,231 695,953 117 0.18
Metamorphic Baraboo Quartzite Goodman (1989) 3,158 871,718 109 0.11
Cherokee Marble Goodman (1989) 660 550,693 18 0.25
Dworshak Dam Goodman (1989) 1,599 529,249 68 0.34
Gneiss
Quartz Mica Schist Goodman (1989) 545 204,309 5 0.31
Taconic Marble Goodman (1989) 612 473,030 12 0.40
Lasa Marble Cravero et al (2003) 755 534,954 73 0.24
Carrara Marble Cravero et al (2003) 997 586,278 98 0.27
Pentelikon Marble Cravero et al. (2003) 710 756,042 60 0.21
Homblende Gneiss Thompson et al. (2012) 535 70,068 0.14
Homblende Gneiss Thompson et al. (2012) 476 50,340
Sedimentary Bedford Limestone Goodman (1989) 503 281,384 16 0.29
Berea Sandstone Goodman (1989) 728 190,114 12 0.38
Flaming Gorge Shale Goodman (1989) 347 54,546 2 0.25
Hackensack Siltstone Goodman (1989) 1,211 291,863 29 0.22
Oregon Sandstone Mackiewicz and Rippe 395 88,560
(2010)
Oregon Siltstone Mackiewicz and Rippe 331 102,960
(2010)
Lockport Dolomite Goodman (1989) 891 503,562 30 0.34
Micaceous Shale Goodman (1989) 742 109,849 20 0.29
Navajo Sandstone Goodman (1989) 2,112 386,529 80
Oneota Dolomite Goodman (1989) 858 433,140 44 0.34
Solenhofen Goodman (1989) 2,418 628,719 39 0.29
Limestone Goodman (1989) 966 550,776 39 0.30
Tavermalle Limestone
Notes: (a) 1 atm = 1.01 bar = 101.3 kPa = 1.058 tsf = 14.7 psi
(b) qu = σu = uniaxial compressive strength
(c) E50 = tangent modulus at 50% ultimate strength
(d) T0 = σt = tensile strength
(e) ν = Poisson's ratio
215

10.3.6 Poisson’s Ratio

The Poisson's ratio ( ) is a necessary material input into elasticity solutions for various problems
encountered in rock mechanics (Poulos and Davis 1974). Values of Poisson's ratio on intact rocks are
determined as the ratio of horizontal-to-vertical strain. For the data listed in Table 10-2, the following
guidelines for mean value (±1 standard deviation) can be recommended:
• Sedimentary rocks: ѵ = 0.300 ± 0.048
• Metamorphic rocks: ѵ = 0.257 ± 0.087
• Igneous rocks: ѵ = 0.270 ± 0.059
10.3.7 Tensile Strength

The tensile strength of rock ( = ) is considerably less than its compressive strength. For the data in
Table 10-2, the mean value was determined to be = 59 atm with a standard deviation = 42 atm. From
regression analyses on the data available, a weak trend (r2 = 0.449) between uniaxial compressive strength
and tensile strength was found to be:
= 0.044 ∙
More specifically, the trends can be separated by types of rocks based on geologic origins (Figure 10-8).
Weak trends from the regression results for best fit lines give the following:
• Sedimentary rocks: = 0.028
• Metamorphic rocks: = 0.043
• Igneous rocks: = 0.054
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-8. General trends between tensile and compressive strengths for intact rock according to
geologic origin
216

10.3.8 Shear Strength of Intact Rock

The shear strength is most commonly expressed in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion that is a linear
approximation to the strength envelope:
= + ∙
where
= maximum shear stress (= shear strength)
= effective normal stress
= effective stress friction angle
The interrelationships between shear strength, uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength, and
general triaxial mode of shearing are depicted in Figure 10-9.
Shear strength parameters for rock are used in the geotechnical analysis of slope stability, tunnel support,
design of excavations, and foundations. For massive rock with only one or two joint sets, the analyses are
usually conducted using wedge analyses and block theory. For highly fractured rock with extensive sets of
discontinuities, stability will be evaluated using either limit equilibrium or numerical analyses, or both.
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-9. General interrelationships between strength parameters of intact rock
There are four approaches for assessing of rock strength: (i) in situ testing of rock joint strength, (ii) lab
testing of strength, (iii) empirical strength estimations, and (iv) selection of strength parameters based on
index tests and rock mineralogy. For the intact rock, triaxial compressive strength tests can be conducted at
increasing confining stresses to define the Mohr-Coulomb envelope and corresponding and
217

parameters. This will be required on large highway projects with appreciable levels of overburden stress
such as large slopes and deep tunnels. For small to medium projects, it may be possible to use empirical
methods based on the type of rock material and its measured uniaxial compressive strength that are available
for evaluating the shear strength parameters of intact rock (Hoek 2007), as discussed in Section 10.5.1. This
approach is versatile as it has been calibrated to account for the degree of fracturing and weathering, thus,
also used to represent the shear strength of rock masses.
Laboratory DS testing can be used to determine the shear strength of a joint of discontinuity and the
infilling material found within the joints. The split box of the DS device is orientated with the axis along
the preferred plane of interest. The shear strength of the discontinuity surface will determine either a
representative peak or residual value of the frictional component of shear strength. Peak values can be
conceived as the sum of the residual shear strength plus an additional strength component that depends on
the asperities and roughness on the plane of shearing. Relatively small movements can reduce shear strength
from peak to residual values. For highway cuts and excavations in fresh rocks where no movement has
occurred before, the peak shear strengths are applicable. In contrast, for restoration and remedial work
involving rockslides and slipped wedges or blocks of rock, the residual shear strengths are appropriate.
Table 10-3 lists values of peak friction angle of various rock surface types, rock minerals (that may coat
the joints), and infilling materials (such as clays and sands). If the joints are sufficiently open, the infilling
of clay or other soils may control the shear strength behavior. Table 10-4 presents selected values of residual
frictional angle ( , assuming = 0) for various types of rock. These values can give an approximate guide
in selecting interface and joint strengths. Additional guidelines for selecting Mohr-Coulomb parameters are
given by Wyllie (1992), Hoek (2007), and FWHA (2016).
Table 10-3. Selected guideline values of peak friction angles for rocks, joints, and minerals
Field Condition Type of Geomaterial Friction Angle, (degrees)

(assuming = 0)
Rock Joints Crystalline limestone 42–49
Sandstone 32–35
Gabbro 33
Schist 32–40
Chalk 30–40
Clay shale or mudstone 22–37
Bentonitic shale 9–27
Rock Minerals Quartz 33

Feldspar 24
Serpentine 16
Mica (muscovite) 13
Talc 9
Calcite 8
Mica (biotite) 7
Infilling and soil Quartz sand 33–45

Chlorite 20–30
Kaolinite 15–28
Illite 16–26
Source: after Olson (1974) and Mayne et al. (2002)
218

Table 10-4. Selected guideline values of residual friction angles for rock
Type of Rock Friction Angle, (degrees)

(assuming = 0)
Limestone 33–40
Basalt 31–38
Chalk 30
Granite 29–35
Dolomite 27–31
Schistose Gneiss 23–29
Source: after Olson (1974) and Mayne et al. (2002)
Rock Mass Classification

The natural rock mass is composed of intact rock material separated by discontinuities in the form of
joints, fissures, cracks, and shear planes. This assemblage results in a complex arrangement that requires
caution while evaluating the important and dominant features controlling possible modes of displacement,
movement, and in some cases, collapse. An experienced engineering geologist or geological engineer may
be required on critical projects and large civil engineering works.
There are varied types of discontinuities, planar features, and variability that can be expected in the site
characterization of these geomaterials. Quantifying the network and extent of the fissures and
discontinuities is perhaps even more important than classifying the intact rock material itself, as the joints,
planar surfaces, and shear zones offer considerably more potential for movement and slippage than the
intact rock. As such, rock mass classification systems have been developed to address these features. For
instance, the RQD is an early rock mass quantification scheme. However, additional details on the rock
features and jointing characteristics need to be properly assessed for engineering purposes (ASTM D5878).
10.4.1 Rock Mass Rating

The geomechanics system for RMR was developed for the stability of tunnels and openings for diamond
and gold mines in South Africa (Bieniawski 1989). The basic system depends upon five parameters that are
assessed independently and then summed to form a rating on the quality of the overall rock mass
components. Later, a sixth factor was included to better calibrate the performance of the RMR, specifically
related to the orientation of the discontinuities for applications involving tunnels, foundations, and slopes.
The five basic factors are as follows:
1. Uniaxial compressive strength
2. RQD
3. Spacing of the discontinuities
4. Condition of the discontinuities and joints
5. Groundwater conditions
The five parameters (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) are each presented in Figure 10-10. The RMR is the sum of these
factors and ranges from 0 to 100 percent:
= + + + +
The first four terms can be expressed in equation form:
= 0.948 + ( ⁄113) − ( ⁄875) ≤ 15 where = uniaxial compressive strength (atm)
219

= ⁄5 ≤ 20 where RQD is expressed in percent (%)

.
= 10.39 ∙ ≤ 20 where DS = discontinuity spacing (ft)
= 30 − 152 ∙ >0 where JS = joint or gouge thickness (in.)
The fifth parameter (R5) is related to water conditions and can be assessed by one of two alternate
methods: (i) using ratio of pore pressure to overburden stress ( ⁄ ) and (ii) water inflow measured in
gallons per minute per 10-yard (9-m) length, designated INF. These can also be represented in equation
form:
= 22 − 15 ∙ ( ⁄ ѵ )0.55 > 0 Ratio ( ⁄ ) is dimensionless and R5 < 15
≈ 11 − 6 ∙ ( )>0 with INF in gallons/minute and R5 < 15
More recently, it has been noted that parameters R2 and R3 provide redundant measures on the frequency
of fractures and fissures (Lowson and Bieniawski 2013); thus, it has been recommended to combine these
two parameters into a single variable (R23 = R2 + R3), as presented in Figure 10-11. Moreover, there is
evidence that the RQD is not the best or most reliable measure of fracturing (Pells et al. 2016). In fact, the
new parameter R23 is more easily determined than either R2 or R3 because the natural cracks and
discontinuities merely need to be counted and averaged over a 3.3-ft (1-m) length. The parameter R23 can
be expressed as follows:
.
0≤ = 40 − 6.4 ∙ ≤ 40
where
ND = number of discontinuities per yard
The updated value of RMR is then calculated from:
= + + +
220

Source: based on Bieniawski (1989, 2011)

Figure 10-10. Basic components for RMR system
221

RMR Combined Rating: R23 = R2 + R3 40

Lowson & Bieniawski (2013) for meters
35
Lowson & Bieniawski (2013) for yards
30
Note: 0 ≤ R23 ≤ 40
25
20
R23 = 40 - 6.6∙(ND)0.46
15 for ND in meters
10
5
R23 = 40 - 6.4∙(ND)0.48 for ND in yards
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of Discontinuities per Length, ND

Source: modified from Lowson and Bieniawski (2013)
Figure 10-11. New RMR component R23 = R2 + R3 for number of discontinuities
Finally, the orientation of the joints, discontinuities, and fissures may affect the overall performance of
the rock mass during construction and application of structural loading. This can be illustrated for a cut
slope in rock with various scenarios including massive rock with little jointing, favorable joint sets,
unfavorable joint sets, and high-fractured rock mass (Figure 10-12). For tunnels, the relative strike and dip
orientations of the discontinuities with respect to the tunnel axes can be used to assess the favorable-
unfavorable rating (Table 10-5).
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-12. Depictions of massive, favorable, unfavorable, and highly fractured rock mass
scenarios for rock slope cuts
Once an assessment of the joint orientation is made, the value of the sixth RMR parameter (R6) can be
assigned. Table 10-6 provides a guide on the evaluation of R6 for foundations, tunnels, and rock slopes. The
final assessment of an adjusted RMR′ is made from:
ʹ= + + + +
222

Additional details may be found in Bieniawski (2011) and Lowson and Bieniawski (2013).
Table 10-5. Assessment of discontinuity orientation for tunneling in fractured rock
Strike perpendicular to tunnel axis Strike parallel to tunnel axis

Drive with dip; Dip 45°–90° Drive with dip; Dip 20°–45° Dip 45°–90° Dip 20°–45°
Very favorable Favorable Very Fair
unfavorable
Drive against dip; Dip 45°–90° Drive against dip; Dip 20°–45° Dip 0°–20° irrespective of strike
Fair Unfavorable Fair
Source: after Bieniawski (1989) and Hoek (2007)
Table 10-6. RMR parameter R6 adjustment for orientation of discontinuities
Strike and dip Slopes Foundations Tunnels

orientations of joints
Very favorable 0 0 0
Favorable -5 -2 -2
Fair -25 -7 -5
Unfavorable -50 -15 -10
Very unfavorable -60 -25 -12
Source: ASTM D5878
10.4.2 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Q-Rating System for Rock Masses

The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) developed a system for rating rock mass formations,
primarily for designing and constructing highway and railroad tunnels (Barton et al. 1974). In this NGI Q-
rating system, six parameters are used:
1. RQD
2. Number of sets of discontinuities or joint sets,
3. Interface roughness of the joints and fissures,
4. Condition of the joints and fractures,
5. Groundwater effects,
6. Stress reduction factor, SRF
The parameters are individually cited in Figure 10-13 with their associated values and criteria. The
Q-rating is calculated from the following:
= ∙ ∙
A number of studies have correlated Q and RMR (e.g., Milne et al. 1998, Palmström A. 2009). For
instance, Barton and Bieniawski (2008) have established an approximate relationship:
≈ 15 ∙ + 50
223

NGI Q-System Rating for Rock Masses  RQD  J r  J w 

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo Q =    
Classification for Rock Masses  J n  J a  SRF 
Q - Value Quality of Rock Mass
< 0.01 Exceptionally Poor 4. Discontinuity Condition & Infilling = Ja
0.01 to 0.1 Extremely Poor 4.1 Unfilled Cases
0.1 to 1 Very Poor Healed 0.75
1 to 4 Poor Stained, no alteration 1
4 to 10 Fair Silty or Sandy Coating 3
10 to 40 Good Clay coating 4
40 to 100 Very Good 4.2 Filled Discontinuities
100 to 400 Extremely Good Sand or crushed rock infill 4
< 400 Exceptionally Good Stiff clay infilling < 0.2 in 6
Soft clay infill < 0.2 in thick 8
PARAMETERS FOR THE Q-Rating of Rock Masses Swelling clay < 0.2 in 12
Stiff clay infill > 0.2 in thick 10
1. RQD = Rock Quality Designation = sum of cored pieces Soft clay infill > 0.2 in thick 15
> 4 inches (100 mm) long, divided by total core run length Swelling clay > 0.2 in 20
*Note: 0.2 inches = 5 mm
2. Number of Sets of Discontinuities (joint sets) = Jn 5. Water Conditions
Massive 0.5 Dry 1
One set 2 Medium Water Inflow 0.66
Two sets 4 Large inflow in unfilled joints 0.5
Three sets 9 Large inflow with filled joints
Four or more sets 15 that wash out 0.33
Crushed rock 20 High transient flow 0.2 to 0.1
High continuous flow 0.1 to 0.05
3. Roughness of Discontinuities* = Jr
Noncontinuous joints 4 6. Stress Reduction Factor** = SRF
Rough, wavy 3 Loose rock with clay infill 10
Smooth, wavy 2 Loose rock with open joints 5
Rough, planar 1.5 Shallow rock with clay infill 2.5
Smooth, planar 1 Rock with unfilled joints 1
Slick and planar 0.5
Filled discontinuities 1 **Note: Additional SRF values given
*Note: add +1 if mean joint spacing > 3 yards (3 m) for rocks prone to bursting, squeezing
and swelling by Barton et al. (1974)
Source: after Barton et al. (1974) and Barton and Bieniawski (2008)
Figure 10-13. Outline and components of the Q systems for RMR
10.4.3 Geological Strength Index

The GSI was originally developed as a hybrid of the RMR and Q systems for evaluating rock mass quality
and the shear strength of fractured rocks. A GSI rating from 0 to 100 is calculated by comparing the rock
mass structure with the conditions of the joints and discontinuities, using a chart as shown in Figure 10-14.
Complete details on the GSI are given by Marinos et al. (2005) and Hoek (2007).
A simple conversion from RMR to GSI rating is given by (Hoek and Diederichs 2006):
= −5
224

VERY GOOD - Very Rough
moderately weathered and

SURFACE CONDITIONS
GOOD - Rough, slightly

weathered, iron-stained
- fresh unweathered
Slickensided with soft

highly weathered with
POOR - Slickensided,
Geological Strength
FAIR - Smooth,
VERY POOR -
Index (GSI)
clay coating
altered
filling
ROCK STRUCTURE
INTACT or MASSIVE
rock with few widely 90 Not applicable
spaced discontinuities
BLOCKY - well interlocked 80

undisturbed rock mass
composed of cubical
blocks with 3 sets of
70
Decreasing Interlocking of Rock Pieces

intersecting discontinuities
VERY BLOCKY - interlocked

partially-disturbed rock
mass with multi-faceted
60
blocks having 4+ joint sets
DISTURBED-BLOCKY-
50
SEAMY: folded with
angular blocks formed by
many intersecting joint 40
sets with bedding planes
or schistocity
DISINTEGRATED ROCK: 30
Poorly interlocked and
heavily broken with mix of
angular & rounded pieces
20
LAMINATED-SHEARED:
lack of blockiness due to Not applicable
close spacing of weak
schistocity or shear planes
10
Decreasing Surface Quality of Discontinuities
Source: after Hoek (2007)

Figure 10-14. Chart for assessing the GSI rating and quality of rock masses
10.4.4 Estimating Quality of Rock Mass from Seismic Velocity

Barton (2002) showed that the Q rating for hard rocks is related to the compression wave velocity ( ),
approximately expressed by:
. ∙ .
≈ 10 where is given in ft/s
.
≈ 10 where is given in km/s
In addition, the relationship was adjusted for weaker rocks by inclusion of the uniaxial compressive
strength ( ) in a modified form of the Q-rating.
225

Using measurements of shear wave velocity ( ) obtained by suspension logging, Cha et al. (2006)
suggested a relationship between rock mass quality and . Figure 10-15 shows data from two sites
indicating the relationship:
= 250 − 67.7 ∙ log(3,600 − 0.3 ∙ ) where > 3,000 ft/s
= 250 − 67.7 ∙ log(3,600 − ) where > 900 m/s
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-15. Correlative trend for RMR in terms of shear wave velocity
Rock Mass Parameters

The RMR, Q, and GSI systems have found use in engineering analyses for tunnels, slope stability,
shallow and deep foundations, excavations, mining, quarry, erosion, and other civil engineering
applications. In terms of rock mass characterization, these ratings are also used to evaluate shear strength
parameters of intact and fractured rock ( and ), elastic modulus, bearing capacity ( ), and unit side
resistance ( ), as well as rippability using construction equipment.
10.5.1 Rock Mass Strength

The rock mass strength is controlled by the composite structure of the intact rock and the discontinuities,
fissures, and jointing. The rock mass strength can be determined in the field using large-scale DS tests, back
calculation from failed slopes or rockslides, or estimated using empirical methods. For the latter, the well-
known Hoek-Brown model (Hoek et al. 2002) has been developed which is based on seven rock parameters:
1. uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock,
2. material constant for the intact rock, (reference Table 10-1)
226

3. geological strength index of the rock mass, GSI

4. material coefficient parameter for the rock mass,
5. variable associated with the rock mass, s
6. exponent parameter for the rock mass, a
7. measure of damage or disturbance to the rock mass caused by blasting or other factors, D
The Hoek-Brown model can be used to represent intact rock or highly fractured rock masses. However,
it should not be used for massive rocks with only one or two joint sets, as indicated by Table 10-7. In the
case of intact rock masses having only one to two joint sets, wedge analyses should be used (Goodman
1989). The Q system provides a direct estimation of the rock joint strengths for these cases (assuming =
0):
= arctan( ⁄ )
Additional details and recommendations on this approach are given by Barton (2002) and Barton and
Bieniawski (2008).
Table 10-7. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown model for intact and fractured rocks
Case Applicability of GSI Remarks

Equations
Intact rock specimen Yes, use s = 1 Use GSI approach to fit laboratory
stress-strain and strength data
Massive rock with 1 joint set No, use strength from Jr/Ja Use in 2D wedge analysis or
ratio (Q-rating) sliding block
Sound rock with 2 joint sets No, use strength from Jr/Ja Use in 2D and 3D wedge analysis
ratio (Q-rating) or sliding block
Jointed rock mass with 3+ Yes, use H-B model for Apply in limit equilibrium or numerical
discontinuity sets estimating and analyses
Heavily jointed rock mass and/or Yes, use H-B model for Apply in limit equilibrium or numerical
partially weathered rock estimating and analyses
The generalized expression of the Hoek-Brown model for rock strength in terms of the major ( ) and
minor ( ) effective principal stresses is given by:
′
= + ∙ ∙ +
where
is a reduced value of the material constant found from:
− 100
= ∙ exp
28 − 14
227

The rock mass terms s and a are obtained from:
− 100
= exp
9 − 3
1 1 20
= + exp − − exp −
2 6 15 3
Finally, the disturbance factor D depends upon the means of care and quality of the rock extraction,
ranging from 0 for undisturbed rock to 1 for completely damaged rock. Table 10-8 provides guidance on
the value of D for certain cases:
Table 10-8. Values of the disturbance factor D for GSI rock mass quality system
Case - Condition of Rock Disturbance Factor, D

Excellent quality rock, tunnel made using tunnel boring machine D = 0.0
Squeezing rock D = 0.5
Good blasting control on small projects D = 0.7
Mechanical excavation for rippable rock D = 0.7
Large open pit mining; poorly controlled blasting D = 1.0

Source: after Hoek et al. (2002)
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Section 10.3.8) can be rearranged to provide the effective principal stresses
in terms of effective friction angle ( ) and effective cohesion intercept ( ):
2 cos 1 + sin
= + ∙ ′
1 − sin 1 − sin
10.5.1.1 Example Calculations for Rock Mass Strength of Fractured Marble

An example set of calculations to evaluate the effective principal stresses using the Hoek-Brown
empirical model for rock mass strength is given here, using fractured marble bedrock that has a measured
uniaxial compressive strength of = 386 tsf (37 MPa) and GSI = 45. Overburden stresses are calculated
up to a depth of 16.4 ft (5 m) below grade with a groundwater table taken at 6.6 ft (2 m). The calculated
GSI parameters and stresses are presented in Figure 10-16. A disturbance factor of D = 0 was used in this
example.
For marble, which is a metamorphic rock, the GSI material index is obtained from Table 10-1 with a
value of = 9. This is used in conjunction with the reduction expression from the GSI rating to obtain a
value of = 1.262 for the fractured marble. The GSI rating also determines the parameter values for s =
0.0022 and exponent a = 0.508. Then the Hoek-Brown equation can be used to produce values for
228

assumed values of . The latter values are taken at the corresponding overburden stresses for selected
depths in the rock formation.
Rock Mass Strength - Hoek - Brown Model (Hoek 2007) - Example Calculation for Marble
PROBLEM DATA Calculated GSI Parameters
GSI = 45 Equivalent RMR= 50
qu (MPa) = 37 mb/mi Reduction = 0.140
mi = 9 s (Rock Mass) = 0.00222
GWT depth(m) = 2 mb (Rock Mass) = 1.262
3
γ (kN/m ) = 25 a (exponent) = 0.508
Depth (m) = 5 D (disturbance) = 0
Effective Principal Stresses MIT Stress Space MOHR-COULOMB CRITERION
Depth σ 3 =σ v σ 1' uo σ 3' σ 1' q p' Ratio Secant Incremental Parameters
z (m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) q/p' φ' c', kPa φ' ID
(degrees) (degrees)
0 0 1966 0 0 1966 983 983 1.000 90.0

1 25 2345 0 25 2345 1160 1185 0.979 78.2 253 61.2 A
2 50 2677 0 50 2677 1314 1364 0.963 74.4 276 59.3 B
3 75 2863 10 65 2863 1399 1464 0.955 72.8 295 58.1 C
4 100 3040 20 80 3040 1480 1560 0.948 71.5 309 57.3 D
5 125 3209 29 96 3209 1556 1652 0.942 70.4 323 56.6 E
MIT Parameters:
q = (σ1 '- σ3 ')/2 Mean = 291 58.5
p' = (σ1 '+ σ3')/2 Values (kPa) (deg)
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-16. Example calculations of rock mass strength of marble using Hoek-Brown model
10.5.1.2 Equivalent Mohr-Coulomb Parameters for Fractured Marble

Five sets of effective principal stresses ( and ) were calculated at each of 3.3-ft (1-m) depth intervals,
as shown in the figure. These can be plotted as Mohr's circles to obtain the strength parameters: and ,
as illustrated by Figure 10-17a. The corresponding values for this example are found as: = 275 kPa and
= 58.9°. Alternatively, values can be calculated incrementally, as indicated in Figure 10-17a.
Alternatively, the Mohr-Coulomb parameters can be obtained from a - plot as shown in Figure 10-16
and plotted in Figure 10-17b.
229

Hoek-Brown Rock Mass Model

4000
========= =========
Shear Stress, τ (kPa)
φ' = 58.9°
3000
c' = 275 kPa
tanφ' = 1.65
2000
1000
c'
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Effective Normal Stress, σ' (kPa)
Source: Paul Mayne

Figure 10-17. Example rock mass strength of fractured marble from Hoek-Brown model to determine
c' and φ' using (a) Mohr's circles and (b) p'-q space
10.5.2 Rock Mass Modulus

The rock mass modulus ( ) can be evaluated in situ using FJTs (Goodman 1989) or borehole
dilatometer (Arsonnet et al. 2014), as well as by back-calculating Young's moduli using elastic continuum
solutions from the measured movements and field performance of large structures (Poulos and Davis 1974).
Alternatively, can be estimated using one or more of the rock mass classification systems.
For the GSI system, Hoek and Diederichs (2006) have recommended a relationship between and the
modulus for the intact rock ( ) that depends on the GSI and disturbance factor D:
1 − /2
= 0.02 +
60 + 15 −
1 + exp
11
A direct relationship for without the need to have the intact rock modulus has also been developed
(Hoek and Diederichs 2006):
1 − ⁄2
(tsf) = 932,385
75 + 25 −
1 + exp
11
1 − ⁄2
(GPa) = 100
75 + 25 −
1 + exp
11
For the RMR and Q systems, methods are also available (e.g., Barton and Bieniawski 2008). For instance,
Figure 10-18 presents a simple relationship between and RMR:
)⁄
(tsf) = 10,440 ∙ 10(
230

)⁄
(GPa) = 10(
Source: after Barton and Bieniawski (2008)

Figure 10-18. Rock mass modulus estimated from the RMR and Q rating systems
10.5.3 Foundation Bearing Resistances

For foundations bearing on rock, the RQD has served for many decades as a simple measure to estimate
an allowable bearing stress, (Peck et al. 1974). While the original source provided a table of
values associated with RQDs, the recommended can be graphed as shown in Figure 10-19, which
is approximately given by the expression:
= ∙ 10 + 0.625⁄ 1⁄( + 1) − 0.0077
where
= 1 atm = 0.101 MPa = 1.058 tsf
231

Source: after Peck et al. (1974)

Figure 10-19. Allowable bearing stress for foundations on fractured rock
A more substantiated approach for bearing capacity was completed by Zhang and Einstein (1998) who
reviewed load test data from 39 drilled shaft foundations. The maximum measured bearing capacity ( )
was found to be related to the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock. Figure 10-20 shows their final
summary trend, which can be expressed for drilled shaft foundations having embedment ratios greater than
three (L/d > 3):
.
= ∙ ∙ (10 ∙ ⁄ )
where
= empirical constant
The mean trend is established with = 4.6 with upper and lower bounds corresponding to = 6.8 and
= 3.0, respectively. Two additional recent values from Osterberg load tests are also included and are
consistent with the mean trend (Thompson et al. 2012).
232

Source: after Zhang and Einstein (1998)

Figure 10-20. Allowable bearing stress for drilled shaft foundations (L/d > 3) on rock
10.5.4 Unit Side Resistance for Socketed Drilled Shafts

For drilled shafts and bored pile foundations that extend into rocks, the unit side resistance ( ) is related
to the shear strength of the rock (Kulhawy and Phoon 1993). Figure 10-21 shows the general relationship
with supporting data from their study plus an additional 64 case studies reported by Ng et al. (2001). The
trends can be expressed by the following relationship:
.
1
= ∙ ∙ ⁄
2
where
Ψ = empirical coefficient that takes on a mean value Ψ = 2 in various rock types and has upper and
lower limits of Ψ = 3 and Ψ = 1, respectively.
Additional details on the behavior of foundations in rock and characteristics of rock masses for the design
and evaluation of drilled shafts may be found in Turner (2006).
233

Source: after Kulhawy and Phoon (1993)

Figure 10-21. Unit side resistance of drilled shaft foundations related to rock strength
10.5.5 Rock Rippability and Earthwork Factor

In the case of massive rock, blasting may be required to excavate rock in highway cuts, tunnels, and
slopes. In some cases, the rock is fractured sufficiently so that construction equipment may be able to
remove the material without need for blasting, vibration monitoring, and damage control. In such cases, the
compression wave velocity ( ) of the rock mass may prove useful in helping to assess whether the
equipment is rippable or not. Figure 4-3 provides an example for a Caterpillar D8R, indicating expected
criteria for rippable rock, marginal conditions, and nonrippable materials.
Stephens (1978) developed empirical relationships between the compression wave velocity and the
earthwork factor (i.e., the ratio of the volume after emplacement and compaction to the volume prior to
excavation) for volcanic, sedimentary, and granitic rocks. The estimated earthwork factors were generally
within ±5 percent of the actual factors.
10.5.6 Other Rock Parameters

Additional parameters may be of concern in the site characterization of rock masses and, yet, are beyond
the scope of this manual. For instance, the Q-rating and RMR systems were originally developed for
tunneling and mining operations and, thus, have design charts for stand-up time and required support
features (e.g., rock bolts, support pressure, shotcrete) on various size tunnels and underground openings
(Barton and Bieniawski 2008). Additional studies have shown the use of Q-rating to estimate water inflow
and hydraulic conductivity characteristics of rock masses (Barton 2002). Blasting and removal of rock has
also been explored in terms of the rock mass quality and its importance in minimizing damage to the rock
formation.
Some rocks tend to weather rapidly and so must be considered in terms of their degradational
characteristics with time, temperature, and exposure to the elements. In such cases, it is prudent to conduct
234

studies regarding disintegration rates, deterioration, and break-down of the materials, using slaking and
abrasion tests, especially shales and mudstones. In addition, certain rocks (e.g., limestones, dolomite,
gypsum) are prone to being water-soluble and can develop erosional and scour problems, leading to
rockfalls, sinkholes, and other features that can cause maintenance problems. Special considerations should
be given for these cases (Hoek 2007).
235

Arsonnet, G., J-P. Baud, M. Gambin, and R. Heintz. 2014. “25 MPa Hyperpac Fills the Gap between the Ménard
Pressuremeter and the Flexible Dilatometer.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1389–1395.
Barton, N.R., R. Lien, and J. Lunde. 1974. “Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support.”
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 189–239.
Barton, N.R. 2002. “Some New Q-Value Correlations to Assist in Site Characterization and Tunnel Design.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 39, pp. 185–216.
Barton, N., and Z.T. Bieniawski. 2008. “RMR and Q - Setting Records.” Tunnels and Tunnelling International, Vol. Feb.
pp. 26–29.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 2011. “Errors in the Application of the Geomechanics Classification System and Its Correction.”
Proceedings, Geotechnical Characterisation of the Terrain, ADIF/GeoControl, Madrid.
Castagna, J.P, M.L. Batzle, and T.K. Kan. 1993. “Rock Physics – The Link Between Rock Properties and AVO Response.”
In Offset-Dependent Reflectivity – Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis. J.P. Castagna and M. Backus, Eds.,
Investigations in Geophysics No. 8, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 135-171.
Cha, Y.H., J.S. Kang, and C-H. Jo. 2006. “Application of Linear-Array Microtremor Surveys for Rock Mass Classification
in Urban Tunnel Design.” Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 37, pp. 108–113.
Cravero, M., D. Gulli, and G. Iabichino. 2003. “Comparative Mechanical Characteristics of Marble by Means of Laboratory
Testing.” Soil & Rock America, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 12th PCSMGE, MIT, pp. 473–478.
FHWA. 2016. Geotechnical Site Characterization (GEC 5). Report FHWA NHI-16-072, National Highway Institute,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Filloy, J.E., M. Giambastiani, A.M. Calcina, and J.L. Rosas. 2015. “Geomechanical Conditions in the Design of General
Mugica Multipurpose Dam, Mexico.” Proceedings of the 9th South American Congress on Rock Mechanics, Buenos
Aires; IOS Press, Amsterdam. pp. 93–100.
Franklin, J.A., and M.B. Dusseault. 1989. Rock Engineering. McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
Gardner, G.H.F., L.W. Gardner, and A.R. Gregory. 1974. “Formation Velocity and Density – The Diagnostic Basics for
Stratigraphic Traps.” Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 770-780.
Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York.
HDR-S&W. 2015. Chehalis Basin Strategy: Reducing Flood Damage & Enhancing Aquatic Species, Phase 1 Site
Characterization. HDR-Shannon and Wilson. Technical Memorandum submitted to State of Washington.
Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum. 2002. “Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion - 2002 edition.” Proceedings of the
5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARM) and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada (TAC)
Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Pp. 267–273.
Hoek, E., and M.S. Diederichs. 2006. “Empirical Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 43, pp. 203–215.
Hoek, E. 2007. Practical Rock Engineering. North Vancouver, British Columbia.
Kulhawy, F.H., and K.K. Phoon. 1993. “Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Clay Soil to Rock.” Design and Performance of
Deep Foundations: Piles & Piers in Soil & Soft Rock, (GSP No. 38), ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 172–183.
Lowson, A.R., and Z.T. Bieniawski. 2013. “Critical Assessment of RMR Based Tunnel Design Practices: A Practical
Engineer's Approach.” Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation & Tunneling Conference, Society of Mining Engineers,
Washington DC. pp. 180–198.
Mackiewicz, S.M., and A. Rippe. 2010. “Prediction of Side Resistance in Poor Quality Rock: RQD vs. GSI.” GeoFlorida
2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling, & Design (GSP 199), ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 264–272.
Marinos, V., P. Marinos, and E. Hoek. 2005. “The Geological Strength Index: Applications and Limitations.” Bulletin of
Engineering Geology & the Environment, Vol. 64, pp. 55–65.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin. 1998. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
236

Mayne, P.W., B. Christopher, R. Berg, and J. DeJong. 2002. Subsurface Investigations - Geotechnical Site Characterization.
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031, National Highway Institute NHI, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Milne, D., J. Hadjigeorgiou, and R. Pakalnis. 1998. “Rock Mass Characterization for Underground Hard Rock Mines.”
Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 383–391.
Ng, C.W.W., Y.L.T. Yau, J.H.M. Li, and W.H. Tang, 2001. “Side Resistance of Large Diameter Bored Piles Socketed into
Decomposed Rocks.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol. 127, No. 8, pp. 642–657.
Olson, R.E. 1974. “Shearing Strengths of Kaolinite, Illite, and Montmorillonite.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division (ASCE), Vol. 100, No. GT11, pp. 1215–1229.
Palmström, A. 2009. “Combining the RMR, Q, and RMi Classification Systems.” Tunnelling & Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 24, pp. 491–492.
Peck, R.B., W.E. Hansen, and T.H. Thornburn. 1974. Foundation Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Pells, P.J., Z.T. Bieniawski, S.R. Hencher, and S.E. Pells. 2016. “Rock Quality Designation: Time to Rest in Peace.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 825–834.
Poulos, H.G., and E.H. Davis. 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pough, F.H. 1988. Peterson Field Guides: Rocks & Minerals, Fourth Edition, Hough Mifflin Company, Boston.
Stephens, E. 1978. Calculating Earthwork Factors Using Seismic Velocities. Report No. FHWA-CA-TL-78-23, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Thompson, W.R., D.A. Brown, and A.B. Hudson. 2012. Load Testing of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Rock,
Lawrenceville, GA. Dan Brown Associates. Jasper, Tennessee.
Turner, J.P. 2006. Rock-Socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations.” NCHRP Synthesis 360, Transportation
Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Wadhwa, R.S., N. Ghosh, and C.S. Rao. 2010. “Empirical Relation for Estimating Shear Wave Velocity from Compressional
Wave Velocity of Rocks.” Journal of the Indian Geophysical Union, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 21–30.
Wyllie, DC. 1992. Foundations on Rock. First Edition, EF Spon Publishers, Chapman & Hall, London.
Zhang, L., and H.H. Einstein. 1998. “End Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock.” Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 7, pp. 574–584.
237

CHAPTER 11
Compiling, Reporting, and Presenting

Geotechnical Information
Introduction
This chapter presents guidelines regarding compiling, reporting, and presenting factual and interpretive
geotechnical information for geotechnical data and baseline reports and discusses the contractual
implications of geotechnical reports for alternative project delivery methods.
Uses of Geotechnical Information
Geotechnical information is used to develop and define the ground model for an area or site of interest.
The ground model is defined as the geotechnical and geological model used for engineering evaluation.
The ground model comprises the spatial distribution of subsurface materials and the engineering properties
of these materials. Geotechnical engineers use the information in the ground model for many tasks during
the planning, design, construction, and long-term maintenance of transportation facilities:
• Engineering analyses
• Developing design recommendations
• Suggesting a construction technology (for design-bid-build projects)
• Estimating material quantities and costs
• Controlling construction quality
• Supporting the bidding process
• Evaluating soil-structure or geotechnical performance
Geotechnical information is also used to avoid or mitigate geohazards (e.g., reroute a road to avoid an
active landslide) and identify geotechnical construction issues, and is frequently referenced during the
design and construction process and during potential claims or operation issues related to subsurface
conditions.
Factual Information
Factual information is typically obtained by subsurface investigation and characterization methods; it is
information that has not been modified or interpreted. It represents the actual geotechnical, geological,
hydrogeological, and geophysical conditions that exist at a specific location and time. The factual
information should be properly mapped and plotted on plans, profiles, or cross sections in reference to
specific features of a project. The current technologies for data integration and management, such as GIS,
are becoming common tools for engineers to present the factual and interpretive information.
Sources of factual information are described in the following subsections.
238

11.3.1 Preexisting Data Resources

As discussed in Chapter 3, preexisting information should be compiled and evaluated prior to developing
a project-specific subsurface exploration program. A qualified engineer should decide whether the
preexisting information is applicable to a project. In making this decision, the engineer should identify the
source of any information and its limitations. For example, the preexisting soil boring logs near a project
site can be considered factual data, but the site condition (e.g., high water table) and the technique used at
the time of data collection (e.g., poorly controlled SPTs) might not be applicable for design.
Sources for preexisting information can include the following publicly available materials:
• USGS quadrangle topographic maps
• USGS geologic maps of surficial geology
• USDA soil survey maps and reports, including descriptions and properties of surficial soils
• USGS hydrologic and groundwater reports and maps
• Historical climate information from NOAA or other local weather stations
• Historical and current aerial and satellite imagery available from local, state, or federal agencies, or
private companies
• Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) information and digital elevation models from the state or federal
agencies
• Geological, hydrological, and geotechnical engineering reports from nearby sites that include
information such as groundwater condition, subsurface conditions, boring logs, and drilled well logs,
available from local government agencies (city, county, state, or federal)
• Published geotechnical databases and public records of problematic geotechnical conditions available
from a State DOT.
Preexisting information also might be related to the existing final construction records for previous
construction activity at the site, including as-built bridge or other structure layouts, existing subsurface
exploration logs, geologic maps, and previous or current geologic reconnaissance results (New York State
DOT 2013). Along with preexisting factual data, the project team may need to collect project-specific
factual data by a variety of means, as described in the following sections.
11.3.2 Remote Sensing Data

There are a variety of remote sensing techniques, including satellite, aerial or land-based digital
photography, video imagery, satellite sensing (e.g., interferometric synthetic aperture radar [InSAR]),
digital scanning (e.g., LiDAR) of the earth surface and features. Publicly available remote sensing data
from airborne or satellite-borne sensors are typically obtained from federal agencies (e.g., USDA, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], USGS, NOAA) or appropriate state agencies.
11.3.3 Geophysical Information

Geophysical data may be acquired and interpreted to identify and characterize contrasts between different
geological materials or subsurface features such as voids. Geophysical data are typically integrated with
subsurface geotechnical exploration data (e.g., that obtained from boring logs) to develop the ground model.
Experienced and qualified personnel should select the most appropriate techniques for the project. While
geophysical data are typically processed and preliminarily interpreted by a qualified geophysicist, the
reporting of these data is considered factual information. If the geophysical data is interpreted to provide
geological context or input in the ground model, the data is considered interpretive information. Chapter 4
of this manual provides details regarding different surface and borehole geophysical methods and their
applications.
239

11.3.4 In Situ Testing

In situ testing of soil or rock can provide representative geotechnical information. In situ testing methods
and details of these tests are provided in Chapter 5 of this manual. Specialized geotechnical field test reports,
such as PMT or CPT, may include an interpretation of the test results rather than just factual test data. These
specialized test interpretations are relatively standardized and, despite the interpretation, are commonly
considered factual data in geotechnical practice.
11.3.5 Hydrogeologic Information

Hydrogeologic information pertains to groundwater levels, pressures, and rate of groundwater flow
through subsurface materials. While some of this information is factual, some aspects may be interpreted
based on groundwater models developed for the site. Methods used to acquire hydrogeological information
are described in Chapter 7.
11.3.6 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing on disturbed and undisturbed soil samples and rock samples provides factual
geotechnical information. Nevertheless, this information will require interpretation by qualified personnel
before being useful for design. Methods for drilling and sampling, and geotechnical laboratory tests
commonly used for transportation projects are described in Chapters 6 and 8, respectively.
11.3.7 Construction-Phase Testing and Monitoring Results

Although geotechnical exploration is usually conducted during the design phase of a project, additional
geotechnical exploration may be conducted during the construction phase depending on the project
complexity and performance requirements. For example, rock structure mapping and visual logging of the
soil strata exposed during construction while excavating or conducting other earthwork can provide
additional geotechnical information that may be used to modify the design or the construction means and
methods. Geotechnical data can also be obtained from load tests (e.g., pile load tests) and instrumentation
(e.g., observation wells, piezometers, inclinometers, settlement measuring devices, extensometers, strain
gauges, load cells, vibration monitoring devices).
Interpretive Information
Interpretive geotechnical information is the modified or interpreted geological, hydrogeological,
geophysical, and geotechnical data as presented in geotechnical reports. This information has been modified
or interpreted by geoprofessionals. The interpretation of factual data helps to develop (i) the ground model,
which includes subsurface stratigraphy and soil and rock design parameters; (ii) performance expectations
or serviceability; and (iii) preliminary and final design and construction recommendations. The interpretive
information represents the opinion of geoprofessionals for planning and constructing a specific project: the
interpretive information prepared for one project is not applicable to another project.
Geotechnical interpretive reports (geotechnical reports for design-bid-built and geotechnical data
memoranda [GDM] or GBR for design-build contracts) document the interpretive information, including
geotechnical analysis and design for transportation-related structures. Components of geotechnical
interpretive reports are described below.
240

11.4.1 Performance Criteria

Performance criteria are the tolerable limits for a structure used to develop the basis of design.
Geotechnical performance criteria typically include tolerable displacements (e.g., settlement, differential
settlement, heave, lateral movement, tilt), tolerable vibration levels, and other local damage and
deterioration that can affect the serviceability of the structure. Interpretive geotechnical reports should
include estimates of performance for various project-specific conditions for comparison with tolerable
limits.
11.4.2 Ground Model

The ground model is the basis of geotechnical interpretive reports. All available geological,
hydrogeological, geophysical, and geotechnical data is integrated into a model that describes the subsurface
conditions (i.e., stratigraphy, material properties) and their variability. The ground model is depicted
through soil and rock maps, soil and rock profiles or cross sections, and maps of potential geohazards.
Knowledge uncertainty in developing the ground model can be conveyed while presenting the model by
providing likely ranges for material properties and parameters as well as likely ranges of contacts between
subsurface materials.
11.4.3 Design Recommendations

Design recommendations address the design and construction considerations that should be implemented
to ensure that the project meets the design criteria. Necessary interpretive information for different
considerations of the design recommendations are presented below, and more details are presented in
FHWA (2003) and New York State DOT (2013).
• Interpretive information that should be presented for the general project requirement:
– Environmental axial and lateral loading on the foundation, including static, dynamic, and seismic
loads
– Limits of excavation and dewatering
– Scour depth
• Interpretive information that should be presented for the foundations:
– Foundation type and reason for selection (e.g., drilled piers [shaft], driven piles, caisson, shallow
spread footings, mat foundations, or slab on grade)
– Bearing capacity, side resistance, subgrade modulus, and estimated settlement for shallow foundations
– Frost depth
– Embedment depths for shallow foundations
– Side resistance and tip resistance for deep foundations; lateral resistance of vertical and battered piles;
p-y, t-z, and q-z curves; settlement potential as a function of project-specific load combinations;
suitable pile type; pile tip elevation; group effects; drag load; provisions for scour and corrosion,
among others.
• Interpretive information that should be presented for embankments and approach fills:
– Estimated settlement, unsuitable soils that should be removed, ground improvement or stabilization
requirements, seepage and groundwater issues, pile-supported embankments on soft ground, drag load
on pile, among others.
– Construction sequences (i.e., staged construction and limitations)
– Slope stability
• Interpretive information that should be presented for excavations:
– Rock profile and rippability, boulder contents, shrinkage and swell during excavation, and
development of grading, bulking, or earthwork factor
– Groundwater seepage, dewatering, and underdrain requirements
241

– Slope stability for permanent or temporary slopes with static or dynamic loads
• Interpretive information that should be presented for retaining-walls:
– Selected wall type (e.g., soil-nail walls, mechanically stabilized walls, secant walls, soldier piles and
lagging, anchored or braced, cantilever walls) and the reason for selection
– Lateral earth pressure for braced and cantilever walls, hydrostatic load, surcharge load, and dynamic
loads
– Global stability and the lateral and vertical extent of the earth-retaining structures
– Backfill materials and drainage requirements
• Interpretive information that should be presented for the pavement and roadway:
– Unsuitable materials, frost susceptibility, expansive soils, corrosion of subgrade soils, and potential
excavation and replacement
– Resilient modulus of subgrade soils
– Support capacity (e.g. truck loads, traffic intensity, dynamic conditions)
– Pavement design, thickness, and maintenance
• Interpretive information that should be presented for groundwater and surface water management:
– Groundwater and seepage control requirements (e.g., dewatering systems for excavations)
– Erosion protection and filter materials and fabrics
• Interpretive information that should be presented for the tunnel or underground structures:
– Design considerations, shape, lining, groundwater conditions, constructability, temporary support,
access, materials, groundwater control, and blasting limitations in rocks
11.4.4 Construction Considerations

Geotechnical considerations related to construction should be provided in geotechnical interpretive
reports. The following are some of the construction recommendations and considerations that should be
included:
• Uncertainty in subsurface conditions, quantity estimates, adverse weather, and contractor performance
• Environmental concerns (e.g., noise, vibration, runoff, erosion, dust)
• Unsuitable materials, stabilization, excavation, dewatering, and use of structural fill
• Pile installation requirements, construction issues, and pile load testing
• Excavation support (e.g., shoring, sheeting, bracing)
• Protection of adjacent structures due to excavation, pile or shoring driving, settlement, and drainage
• Quality control roles and responsibilities and testing requirements
11.4.5 Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring

If required, a geotechnical monitoring plan should be provided with the geotechnical interpretive reports
to acquire pertinent geotechnical information to validate the design and check the specified performance
criteria. The geotechnical instrumentation plan during design or construction phase may contain the
following:
• Settlement monitoring devices
• Slope stability monitoring devices (e.g., inclinometers, surface displacement markers)
• Groundwater level monitoring devices (e.g., observation wells, piezometers)
• Bearing pressure and strain monitoring for anchors, soil nails, or pile testing
• Vibration monitoring using seismographs
• Load testing, crosshole logging, pile driving monitoring, among others
242

11.4.6 Geotechnical Information for LRFD

The state agency’s geoprofessional preparing an interpretive report must provide the following
information to the structural design team for LRFD. Required information may change from one state to
the other. Additional information can be found in New York State DOT (2013).
11.4.6.1 Footings
For footings with various depths, the nominal bearing resistance for strength and extreme event limit
states with associated resistance factors should be provided. The settlement-limited nominal bearing
resistance for the service limit state (typically 1 in. [2 cm]) with associated resistance factors should also
be provided. For sliding and eccentricity calculations, the resistance factors for strength and extreme event
limit states should be provided to calculate the shear and passive resistance and active forces. To evaluate
the soil-structure response and develop forces in foundations during seismic events (i.e., extreme event limit
state), the shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil and rock should be provided.
11.4.6.2 Drilled Shafts and Piles

To calculate the bearing resistance for strength and extreme event limit states, the nominal (ultimate) end
bearing, tip resistance, and side resistance as a function of depth, and shaft diameters should be provided.
For the service limit state, the nominal bearing resistance at a specified settlement (e.g., 0.5 to 1.0 in. [1 to
2 cm]) should be provided. Resistance factors for bearing resistance for the various limit states should be
included in the interpretive report. Similar information should be provided to calculate the lateral resistance
for service, strength, and extreme event limit states. Group effects on the end and lateral resistance should
also be evaluated.
For calculating downdrag, the calculation of the neutral axis, the nominal drag load as a function of shaft
diameter, drag load factor, and cause of downdrag should be provided. If drag load is caused by soil
liquefaction, the instructions by FHWA (2010) should be followed.
For the cases where lateral loads are imposed by soil, the nominal lateral load and the load factors should
be provided. For the cases with uplift forces, the nominal uplift load and the load factors should be provided.
For evaluation of the effect of scour, the magnitude and depth of the skin friction loss due to scour should
be provided.
11.4.6.3 Earth-Retaining Structures

For gravity walls, bearing capacity, sliding resistance, and eccentricity calculations should follow the
requirements described for footings. The geotechnical report should provide active and passive earth
pressure calculations for strength and extreme limit states. For nongravity walls, nominal bearing resistance
of walls with depth, lateral active and passive earth pressure distribution, the minimum embedment depth
required for overall stability, the no-load-zone dimensions, ultimate anchor resistance for anchored walls,
and the associated resistance factors should be provided.
Geotechnical Reports
Geotechnical information is compiled, reported, and presented in geotechnical reports. The type of
report(s) required for a project can vary depending on how the project will be contracted: as a design-bid-
build or a design-build. Geotechnical reports for design-bid-build projects are conventionally prepared as
preliminary and final geotechnical reports. For design-build projects there are three main categories of
reports: geotechnical data report (GDR), GBR, and GDM (New York State DOT 2013).
243

11.5.1 Uncertainty of Geotechnical Information

The uncertainty in geotechnical information is related to the unknown subsurface conditions (variation
in the depth and lateral extent of subsurface materials and the properties of the materials), geotechnical
performance, and interpretive and predictive models for engineering analysis. To develop geotechnical
reports, the design team must evaluate the uncertainty in the geotechnical factual and interpretive
information and how it will be addressed throughout the design. The uncertainties in geotechnical
information can be managed by engaging qualified and experienced personnel for the following tasks:
• Acquire and interpret the geotechnical information
• Quantify uncertainty associated with geotechnical data
• Prepare the geotechnical reports
• Select load and resistance factors (LRFD), or factors of safety (ASD)
• Provide the proper design solutions
• Identify the quality management roles and responsibilities
11.5.2 Geotechnical Reports for Conventional Project Delivery Method

For the conventional project delivery method (i.e., design-bid-build), the geotechnical information is
typically presented as a single geotechnical report or combination of geotechnical reports and memoranda.
These geotechnical reports are used by the state agency’s design team to present the analysis, design
recommendations, and construction considerations for footings, drilled shafts, piles, earth-retaining
structures, and other project components. The geotechnical reports are commonly produced in two stages
of design: preliminary and final (New York State DOT 2013).
11.5.2.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Reports

Preliminary geotechnical reports provide preliminary geotechnical input for developing the project scope,
engineering analyses (e.g., temporary earth-retaining structures for structure replacements, preliminary
grading analyses, preliminary foundation analysis), bridge layouts, preliminary route selection and
geohazard evaluation (e.g., landslides, rockfall, structure foundation scour), and environmental permitting.
Preliminary geotechnical reports can be used to address some elements of design and will be incorporated
in the final report. Per New York State DOT (2013), the preliminary geotechnical report should contain the
following elements:
• General project description
• Project constraints, including environmental and permitting requirements
• Summary of regional and site geology
• Summary of available data, field exploration, and laboratory testing
• Description of the project soil and rock conditions
• Summary of geological hazards at the site (e.g., landslides, rockfall, debris flows, liquefaction, soft
ground or otherwise unstable soils, seismic hazards)
• Limitations of factual data and additional data collection requirements
• Preliminary geotechnical recommendations (e.g., how the subsurface conditions can potentially affect
alternative approaches for design and construction)
• Feasibility of proposed alignments with consideration to feasible slopes or need for walls and the
potential effect of the fill or cut slopes and walls on adjacent facilities
• Structure foundation feasibility (including any associated constructability issues that could contribute to
risk and potential impacts to adjacent facilities)
• Feasibility of ground improvement and dewatering, if needed
• Impacts of construction on adjacent structures
244

• Appendices with geophysical test reports, boring logs and laboratory test data, preliminary site-specific
seismic response analysis, liquefaction analysis, and geoenvironmental analysis, as applicable.
11.5.2.2 Final Geotechnical Report

The final geotechnical report is used to provide final geotechnical interpretive information, analysis, and
design for the various elements of the project. The level of detail and information for each report element
varies with the size and complexity of the project. The final geotechnical report should contain the following
elements. More details can be found in New York State DOT (2013):
• General project description
• Surface conditions and current use
• Regional and site geology, including surficial geology and bedrock, site stress history, and deposition
and erosion history
• Regional and site seismicity
• Available preexisting data, summary of the field exploration, and summary of laboratory testing
• Subsurface conditions, including soils and rocks, structural geology, groundwater condition with
identification of any confined aquifers, artesian pressures, perched water tables, potential seasonal
variations, and gradient of groundwater
• Subsurface profile or cross section to illustrate the spatial variation of soil and rock units
• Geological hazards (e.g., landslides, subsidence, scour, liquefaction, soft ground or otherwise unstable
soils, seismic hazards)
• Analysis of unstable slopes, cuts, and fills
• Geotechnical recommendations for earthwork cut and fill, rock slopes and rock excavation, stabilization
of unstable slopes, bridges, tunnels, hydraulic structures, and other structures such as earth-retaining
structures, reinforced slopes, and infiltration and detention facilities
• Long-term performance or construction monitoring
• Construction considerations
Appendices to the final report typically include design charts, subsurface profiles, geophysical test
reports, boring logs, laboratory test results, and instrumentation data. If applicable, other geotechnical
memoranda such as site-specific seismic response analysis, liquefaction analysis, and geoenvironmental
reports can be presented as appendices to the final geotechnical report.
11.5.3 Geotechnical Reports for Alternative Project Delivery Method

Geotechnical reports for design-build contracts include GDR, GBR, and GDM. However, as discussed
later in this section, these reports can be applied to other project delivery methods such as design-bid-build.
11.5.4 Geotechnical Data Reports

The primary objective of the GDR is to document the factual geotechnical information for the project.
The GDR does not include the interpretive information, and it is usually included in the request for proposal
for the design-build bidding process. The GDR contains factual information (described in Section 11.3) and
should include the following (Essex 2007):
• A description of the geologic and seismic setting
• A description of the site exploration program
• The logs of borings, test pits, trenches, and other site investigations
• The measurement results of field tests and geotechnical field instrumentation
• A description of field and laboratory test programs
• The results of all field and laboratory testing
245

11.5.5 Geotechnical Baseline Report

In projects with significant earthwork and subsurface excavation, there are many risks that the owner and
contractor should recognize. The main risk is related to the subsurface materials and their behavior. The
GBR defines and allocates these risks between the owner and contractor by establishing geotechnical
baselines.
11.5.5.1 GBR Purpose

The GBR is an interpretive geotechnical report that establishes a common understanding between the
contractor and the state agencies regarding design and construction issues related to subsurface conditions.
The financial risk associated with conditions consistent with or less adverse than the baseline conditions is
allocated to the contractor, while the financial risk associated with conditions more adverse than the
baseline are accepted by the owner (Essex 2007).
The GBR establishes baselines regarding geotechnical subsurface conditions present within the project
and related to the design and construction. These baselines provide the contractors the basis for developing
their bid price, quantities, and schedule, and allocate risk between the contractor and state agencies. The
baseline statements in the GBR are a contractual commitment by the state agencies that those baseline
conditions will be applied in the administration of the DSC clause. Therefore, state agencies should
contribute to how the GBR is presented and understand the consequences of the information provided in
the GBR. State agencies may allocate some risks and associated costs for potential DSCs to the contractor
by using more adverse baselines. Alternatively, state agencies may share the risks and costs by using less
adverse baselines (New York State DOT 2013, Essex 2007).
The baselines in the GBR can consist of physical and behavioral baselines. The physical baselines are
mainly related to the physical properties of the soil and rock (e.g., type of soil, presence of cobbles, boulders,
obstructions, groundwater table, contamination, and rock type, strength, minerology, hydraulic
conductivity). The behavioral baselines are mainly related to how the ground responds to certain
construction equipment, means, methods, and technology.
11.5.5.2 GBR Organization

GBR should be a concise document that can be read and understood in a short time period. Essex (2007)
suggests a limit of 5 to 10 pages for a deep foundation or pipeline project, up to 30 pages for straightforward
tunneling projects, and up to 50 pages for more complicated projects. The content of the GBR should follow
the general recommendations by Essex (2007) and provide the information summarized below:
• Project introduction, including project name, design team, purpose of the report, etc.
• Project description, including project location, type, key features, and references to drawings or
specifications
• Source of geotechnical and geological information, including reference to GDR
• Project geologic setting, including brief description of geologic and hydrogeologic conditions
• Previous construction experience, including nearby projects and their subsurface conditions and
relevance to this project, as well as a summary of problems during construction and how they were
overcome
• Ground characterization, including physical and mechanical properties of subsurface layers,
groundwater conditions, contaminations, and ranges of values for baseline purposes
• Design considerations, including methods and criteria used for the design; environmental performance
criteria such as settlement and lateral movement; and rationale for geotechnical instrumentation
• Construction considerations, including anticipated ground behavior, construction sequences, anticipated
construction difficulties, rationale for requirements set in the construction specifications, and potential
source of delay
246

The GBR should be prepared by the design team so that the GBR document is consistent with the
developing design, drawings, specifications, and payment items.
11.5.5.3 GBR for Design-Bid-Build Contracts

For design-bid-build contracts, the GBR is typically prepared at 50 to 60 percent completion level (Essex
2007). It is necessary to distinguish between interpretations addressed by the design team during the design
process and interpretations that relate specifically to the design and construction methods addressed in the
contract documents. In design-bid-build contracts, GBR is used for the following:
• Technical construction specifications
• Construction cost estimate for the state agency’s budgeting purposes
• Anticipated subsurface conditions for the bidders and allocation of geotechnical risks
• Contractual baselines for identifying DSC and resolution of disputes
11.5.5.4 GBR for Design-Build Contracts

For design-build contracts, Essex (2007) proposes a three-step process for GBR preparation. In the first
step, the owner’s design team prepares a common basis for bidders. In the second step, the GBR report is
furnished to each design-build team. Each design-build team supplements the GBR with their design-based
information and, if necessary, requests a supplemental subsurface exploration by the bidders to minimize
contingency costs and manage risk. In the third step, the final GBR is developed jointly by the owner and
the preferred design-build team. More details are presented in Essex (2007) and New York State DOT
(2013).
11.5.6 Geotechnical Design Memoranda

After completing the site exploration program and preparing a draft GDR, the design team may prepare
GDM to document interpretive information for evaluating the feasibility of the design approaches,
alternative final design concepts, and geotechnical risks for the project. The GDM is commonly used for
the project team's internal consideration. The GDM can be disclosed to the bidders as available information
but cannot be part of the contract documents. The GDM should include an introductory statement that the
document is preliminary and not for construction purposes and will be superseded by final GBR. The GDM
may be used for the following (Essex 2007, New York State DOT 2013):
• To discuss factual data and additional data collection requirements
• To present initial interpretations of the factual data
• To present how the subsurface conditions can potentially affect the alternative approaches for the design
and construction
• To evaluate project risks for alternative construction approaches
• To assess impacts of construction on adjacent structures and facilities
• To present the feasibility of proposed alignments and consideration for slopes or walls
• To discuss foundation feasibility and constructability issues
• To evaluate seismic hazards, including site-specific ground motion studies and liquefaction analysis
• To assess the potential geologic hazards and the mitigation strategies
• To assess the need for ground improvement to stabilize unstable ground conditions (e.g., soft ground
with excessive settlement)
• To assess the feasibility of site conditions to infiltrate runoff water
• To present the need for dewatering and its potential impact to adjacent structures
• To present preliminary geotechnical design needed to assess risks and set up the baselines for the GBR
247

Contractual Implications of Geotechnical Reports

Factual and interpretive reports should be made available to bidders so their bid price and schedule reflect
a reasonable understanding of subsurface conditions. This is of particular importance for alternative project
delivery methods.
11.6.1 Alternative Delivery Methods

The contracting methods used by state agencies are (i) design-bid-build, (ii) construction manager at risk
(CMAR), (iii) design-build, and (iv) negotiated general contractor. Regardless of the type of project
delivery, geotechnical information is presented in the geotechnical reports that should become part of the
contract documents and should provide a clear basis for development of project cost and schedule.
11.6.1.1 Design-Bid-Build
The conventional design-bid-build delivery method includes engaging the design team to provide all
contracting documents prior to construction bid. The geotechnical information for design-bid-build delivery
methods is typically presented in the final geotechnical reports that are described in this chapter. This type
of project delivery is more appropriate if uncertainty in geotechnical site conditions is relatively high and
insufficient subsurface information exists to pursue a design-build contract.
11.6.1.2 CMAR
CMAR is a method for delivering the project within a guaranteed maximum price. The CMAR typically
fills the role of the owner with the owner’s best interest in mind. The CMAR manages and controls the
construction costs to not exceed the guaranteed maximum price. Therefore, any cost exceedances that are
not the result of changes in contract conditions are the financial liability of the CMAR.
The guaranteed maximum price is based on the contract documents at the time of the guaranteed
maximum price with reasonable assumptions and contingency. Any changes in the contract conditions may
trigger a change order. This project delivery method is based on the construction documents and
specifications; geotechnical reports are part of contract documents. The geotechnical information for this
project delivery method is collected during the preliminary and final design (similar to conventional design-
bid-build projects).
11.6.1.3 Design-Build
Most state agencies are moving toward the design-build method of delivery. The design-build is a
contract with one responsible party (i.e., design-build contractor). This type of contract reduces the project
schedule by combining the design and construction phases and optimizes the financial risks to the project
owner by sharing the risks among the owner and the design-build contractor. The state agencies’ design-
build procurement process requires that the bidder commit to a firm fixed price before the design is
complete. For this type of contract, the geotechnical information can be presented in definition phase,
preliminary design phase, and final design phase. Ideally, the bidders require sufficient subsurface
information to produce conceptual designs for the foundation, embankment, and other features of work that
are dependent on the geotechnical conditions (Gransberg and Loulakis 2012). Insufficient information
would result in either higher initial bid or too much risk for the contractor to bid on the project, which
negatively affects the contracting process. As described earlier, the geotechnical information for design-
build delivery methods is presented typically in GDR, GBR, and GDM.
248

11.6.1.4 Negotiated General Contractor

For negotiated general contractor delivery method, the owner selects the most qualified contractor. The
final construction cost will be provided as either cost plus a markup or guaranteed maximum price. The
project cost for these delivery methods is also developed based on the contract document and geotechnical
reports.
11.6.2 Contractor Briefings

Pertinent geotechnical information and the risks allocated to the contractors are typically set and
described in the geotechnical reports such as GBR or final geotechnical reports. This information is part of
the contract documents or becomes available to the contractors. Also, informational meetings for potential
contractor’s teams are commonly held to disseminate more information about the project and the
procurement process. These meetings provide opportunities for questions and discussions that will
strengthen the partnership and communication between the state agencies, design teams, and contractors
and will help the contractors develop a realistic understanding of the subsurface conditions during the bid
process.
11.6.3 Legal Implications

Because the geotechnical reports are being included as part of the contract or presented to the contractors
for information, it is recommended that a contract clause be included to state the limitations and
applicability of the presented geotechnical information. Despite including disclaimers and exculpatory
clauses in the contracts for use of boring logs and information obtained during the design, the court system
believes that contractors can rely on the geotechnical information available to bidders (Essex 2007). Due
to frequent litigation and escalating construction costs, owners and the construction industry were motivated
to adopt approaches for dispute resolution and use of the DSC clause, which is detailed below. Therefore,
there has been a greater need for clear contract stipulations regarding the purpose of the information and
the obligation of the contractor to draw his own conclusions. Developing the GBR, as described by Essex
(2007), was an important step to balancing the risk allocated to state agencies and contractors.
11.6.4 Differing Site Conditions Clause

The DSC clause was originally developed to remove some of the risk associated with subsurface
conditions from the bidding process and, thereby, reduce bid prices. Without the DSC clause, the owner
would allocate all the risk to the contractor, which results in higher contractor contingency costs for adverse
conditions, whether the adverse conditions were actually encountered or not. Use of DSC clauses in
federally funded construction contracting is encouraged.
A DSC clause is a contract clause designed to give a contractor cost and time relief for (i) subsurface or
other physical conditions encountered at the site that differ from those indicated in the contract or (ii)
unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature that differ from those commonly encountered. The DSC
clause is a standard clause in a contract that involves subsurface construction. Under 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 635.109 Standardized Changed Condition Clause by the 1987 Surface Transportation
and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, the FHWA mandates the use of a DSC clause on federal-aid
highway projects. The FHWA does not mandate the DSC clause for design-build projects (Gransberg and
Loulakis 2012). Instead, it encourages state agencies to use the clause when appropriate for the risk and
responsibilities that are shared with the design-builder. More information about the DSC is presented in
Essex (2007).
249

Essex, R.J. 2007. Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction, Suggested Guidelines. The Technical Committee on
Geotechnical Reports of the Underground Technology Research Council. ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
FHWA 2003. Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications.
FHWA ED-88-053, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2010. Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods. NIH Course No. 132014 U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. May.
Gransberg D.D. and M.C. Loulakis. 2012. Geotechnical Information Practices in Design-Build Projects, a Synthesis of
Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthetics 429. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
New York State DOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual. New York State Department of Transportation.
250

A APPENDIX A
Geotechnical Instrumentation
A.1 Purpose of Geotechnical Instrumentation

Geotechnical instruments can be used in transportation projects before, during, and after construction and
can play an important role in providing real-time or near real-time information on the health and
serviceability of transportation infrastructure. Such information can be used to monitor the behavior or
performance of structures and can be incorporated into an early warning system. This appendix contains
information regarding geotechnical instrumentation that will help geoprofessionals evaluate the potential
effectiveness of an instrumentation program. The information included is intended to assist
geoprofessionals with the following:
1. Identifying potential failure mechanisms where an instrumentation plan may add significant value
2. Understanding the instruments that can be used to measure load, deformation, pore pressure, and
vibration
3. Making a preliminary design of an instrumentation system, including the selection of the appropriate
instruments and data collection system
4. Evaluating, presenting, and managing the data obtained from the instruments
Detailed information regarding the types of geotechnical instruments and their specific applications to
transportation projects is available in many documents and books (e.g., Bartholomew et al. 1987,
Bartholomew and Haverland 1987, Dunnicliff 1993 and 2012, Florida DOT 2000, FHWA 1998, Marr 2013,
Montana DOT 2008, New York State DOT 2013, USACE 1987, USACE 1995, and USACE 2011).
A.2 Potential Failure Mechanisms

Geotechnical structures can fail to perform as planned via several potential failure mechanisms.
Foundations can experience excessive total or differential settlement. Embankments and rock slopes can
experience slope instability caused by precipitation or excessive loading. Retaining walls can fail due to the
development of excessive earth pressure or hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Excavations can fail due
to insufficient bracing, or excessive earth or pore pressures. Additional discussion of the applications of
geotechnical instrumentation is provided in Appendix B.
Monitoring key parameters (e.g., deformation, pore pressure, earth pressure, load, vibration) can provide
decision makers with information needed to take proactive actions to mitigate the potential failure or reduce
the consequences of failure. Therefore, when designing an instrumentation plan, the engineer must identify
which parameters are critical to the anticipated failure mechanism and select the appropriate instruments to
monitor those parameters.
A.3 Instrumentation
Geotechnical instrumentation is the process of designing and installing various mechanical, electrical,
hydraulic, pneumatic, and optical devices to actively or passively monitor and record parameters associated
251

with the performance of geotechnical structures. This section describes basic types of instruments and how
they can be used to measure the parameters identified above.
A.3.1 Terminology
Discussion on geotechnical instrumentation necessitates defining several technical terms. Some of these
terms may have different meanings outside the field of geotechnical instrumentation:
• Range or Full Scale: The range of an instrument is defined as the highest and lowest readings an
instrument can record without permanent damage to the instrument. A range is sometimes called a full
scale. An example of a range is a piezometer that is capable of detecting pressures from 0 to 50 pounds
per square inch (psi).
• Resolution: The resolution (or sensitivity) of an instrument is the smallest change in a geotechnical
parameter that a sensor can detect. The resolution can be expressed in absolute terms (e.g., 0.05 psi of
pore pressure) or as a percentage of the range (e.g., 0.025 percent of full scale). The resolution of an
instrument is related to the resolution of the sensor itself and the resolution of data acquisition or display
system.
• Accuracy: The accuracy of an instrument is the closeness of the measurement to the actual value. The
resolution is distinct from the accuracy of a reading. The accuracy is usually expressed as a plus-minus
value (e.g., ±0.1 psi, ±1 percent of reading, ±1 percent of full scale). The instrument accuracy is
commonly set by a calibration method by the manufacturer.
• Precision: The precision of an instrument is how much the range of repeated readings will differ from
the mean of those readings. The precision is usually expressed as a plus-minus value (e.g., ±0.1 psi, ±1
percent of reading, ±1 percent of full scale). Note that precision and accuracy are not related; one
instrument can be more precise (less variation in measurement) but less accurate than another instrument.
• Stability: The stability of an instrument is the error in measurements of identical parameter values over
time, due to degradation or damage to the instrument. The stability of an instrument is usually expressed
as a maximum time period or number of readings for which an instrument can be used before it is
considered unreliable and must be recalibrated or replaced.
A.3.2 Measurement of Deformation

Soil is a deformable material that can deform both vertically (settlement, heave) and laterally. There are
many types of instruments that can measure ground deformation. Table A-1 provides the attributes of some
of the common instruments used to measure deformation. Accuracy of measurements for these instruments
depends on the proper installation and monitoring, in addition to accuracy of instrument itself.
252

Table A-1. Attributes of several instruments available for measuring deformation
Instrument Application Advantages Disadvantages Comments

Settlement Plate Measures the Relatively Requires regular Useful when anticipated
and Survey settlement of soft inexpensive visits by a surveyor, settlement is large (feet). A
Marker ground under automation process grid of settlement plates
embankments is expensive, can monitor differential
accuracy depends on settlement over an area.
the operator, and
equipment is
susceptible to
damage by
construction
equipment.
Settlement Cell Measures the Can be Accuracy depends on A grid of settlement cells
settlement of soft automated the durability of the can monitor differential
ground under an equipment used and settlement over an area.
embankment is susceptible to Used for large settlements
leaks. (feet).
Single Point Measures ground Has high The range of Used for small settlements
Extensometer settlement resolution, measurement is (inches).
relative to an can be small.
anchor point automated
below ground
Multipoint Measures Has high The range of Used when distribution of

Extensometer settlement at resolution, measurement is settlement with depth is
multiple depths in can be small. needed.
one borehole automated
Manual Measures Has high Requires regular Cost effective when a small
Inclinometers inclination and resolution visits by field staff number of readings are
lateral and equipment is needed.
deformation susceptible to
damage by
construction
equipment.
In-Place Measures Has high Cost of instruments is Cost effective when

Inclinometers inclination and resolution, high for short-term frequent readings are
lateral accuracy not construction needed over a longer
deformation subject to monitoring. duration.
operator
error, can be
automated,
can sustain
large
deformations
before
needing
replacement
253

Instrument Application Advantages Disadvantages Comments

Horizontal Measures Relatively Potential for leaks if Two types: (1) pressure
Inclinometers settlement or inexpensive hydraulic system is sensor based, and (2)
and Settlement heave and can used, potential accelerometer based. Good
Profilers acquire large collapse of the casing for monitoring differential
amount of under embankment settlements across an
data load (durability). embankment.
Tiltmeters (can Measures Can be Unsuitable for areas Can be customized for
be made with inclination over automated prone to electrical range and resolution by
either MEMS or time at a fixed interferences, such selection of sensors,
accelerometers) location (e.g., as lightning. MEMS have small range
used to monitor but high sensitivity,
the inclination of accelerometers have large
retaining wall or range but low sensitivity.
bridge abutment)
Crackmeters Measures Generally Unsuitable for areas Can include crosshairs and
change in inexpensive, prone to electrical a grid for manual
position between can be interferences, such monitoring or electronic
two fixed points automated as lightning. sensor for automated
along one axis, monitoring.
used to monitor
crack movements
Strain Gauges Measures strain Not Requires a deliberate Can be made with vibrating
on surface of a susceptible to installation and wire sensors, however
structure (e.g., electrical protection during vibrating wire strain gauges
piles, tunnels) interference construction. are susceptible to electrical
or interferences.
temperature
swings,
easily
automated
Time Domain Measures slope More cost Limited use because Not frequently used due
Reflectometry deformation in effective than it is only applicable to their limitations.
narrow shear traversing or narrow shear planes.
planes (few in-place
inches wide) inclinometer.
Source: Geosyntec Consultants
Note: MEMS: Microelectromechanical systems
A.3.3 Measurement of Pore Pressure

Instruments commonly used to measure pore pressure are open standpipe or vibrating wire piezometers,
as described in Chapter 7.
A.3.4 Measurement of Load and Earth Pressure

Some of the common types of instruments used to measure load and pressure include (i) pressure cells,
(ii) load cells, and (iii) Osterberg cells. Table A-2 provides a summary of the attributes of several
254

instruments available to measure loads and pressures. In addition to the instruments listed in Table A-2,
strain gauges attached to the soil reinforcement elements (e.g., soil nails, anchors) can be used to monitor
the load indirectly.
Table A-2 Attributes of several instruments available for measuring loads and pressures
Instruments Applications Advantages Disadvantages Comments

Pressure Measures the Cells with Cells with vibrating Not used during
Cells distribution, pneumatic wire sensors are design stage, used
magnitude, and sensors are not susceptible to for monitoring
direction of total stress susceptible to electrical during
electrical interference. construction.
interference.
Load Cells Used to measure Accuracy is not Cells are susceptible Can be used for
compressive or tensile operator to electrical evaluating the
load in geotechnical dependent. interference. structural force in
structural member geostructural
(e.g., tie back or rock systems.
anchors)
Osterberg Measures end bearing These do not Cells are relatively Can be used
Cells and side friction require a load expensive. during design to
resistance of a drilled test frame. evaluate ultimate
shaft strength of the
shaft or during
construction for
performance
testing.
A.3.5 Measurement of Vibration

Vibration, whether naturally occurring (e.g., earthquakes) or man-made (e.g., vibration from pile driving
or blasting), can be harmful both to existing structures and structures under construction. Vibration can be
monitored to gather data that will help with design and is often monitored during construction to ensure
that vibration stays within allowable limits. Table A-3 provides a summary of the attributes of the
instruments commonly used to measure vibrations.
Table A-3. Attributes of several instruments available for measuring vibration

Geophones Measures Relatively inexpensive, Not accurate in
ground accurate in low-noise high-noise
velocity environments environments.
255


Accelerometers Measures Very accurate More expensive Uses
ground measurements of strong than MEMS
acceleration and weak signals even in geophones. sensors.
the presence of noise
Hydrophones Measures Ideal for measuring wave

changes in propagation in fluid-filled
pressure due boreholes
to acoustic
waves in
water
Seismographs Measures Can be programmed to Can be

acceleration, monitor vibrations installed at
frequency, continuously or begin the ground
and duration monitoring at a surface or
of vibrations predetermined trigger at the base
vibration, can transfer data of the
to a remote computer. borehole.
A.4 Instrumentation System Design

An instrumentation system must be designed for the specific monitoring objectives for a project. If a
careful process is not followed in designing an instrumentation system, the data collected may not be useful.
The instrumentation system design should include the following considerations:
• The need for instrumentation
• The geotechnical parameters to monitor
• The types of instruments needed
• The cost of the system
• The methods for installing and protecting the instruments
• The method of data collection
A typical process for designing an instrumentation system is outlined in Table A-4. The data collection
is discussed further in next section.
256

Table A-4. Steps of instrumentation system design
Steps Considerations
Planning Project conditions
• Anticipated project risks and objectives of the monitoring
• Failure mechanisms or hazards resulting in the risks (e.g., variations in
water table, settlement, deflection)
Need for instrumentation
• Identify critical factors contributing to the anticipated failure mechanisms.
• Are these critical factors quantifiable?
• Can an instrumentation system accurately and quickly measure these
critical factors?
Monitoring critical factors (e.g., water level, earth pressure, settlement)
• These critical factors should be measurable accurately and at an interval
helpful to the project’s risk mitigation plan.
Length of monitoring period
• For construction, this could be construction duration plus an additional
period to monitor residual effects.
• For existing conditions, this depends on parameters to be measured and
the events to which they would respond.
• This could be based on a regulatory or other project-specific requirement.
• Requires a pre-defined end date
257

Instrumentation Instrument layout (type, quantity, and location)
Plan • Select instrument types that measure relevant geotechnical parameters,
with appropriate range, sensitivity, and accuracy.
• Select instruments with stability, reliability, and durability that reflect
project conditions and monitoring duration.
• Consideration of advancements in sensor technology such as fiber optic
or MEMS and communication devices
• Create layout including quantity and location of each instrument.
• Base quantities on expected extent and variability of the project
conditions and the subsurface conditions.
Instrument locations: select based on the following considerations
• Are there critical areas of interest?
• Is there a need for even distribution of the instruments over the site?
• Can you protect instruments from construction or normal operations?
• Will instruments be accessible for regular maintenance or manual
readings?
• Is there a need for a reference instrument in unaffected area?
• Can you collocate instruments measuring related parameters (e.g.,
settlement or lateral deformation)?
System redundancy
• Anticipate some sensors will fail during the monitoring period, and place
multiple instruments in highly sensitive areas.
Design drawings
• Show installed condition of each instrument and termination at the ground
surface.
• Prepare procurement specifications
Specify required procurement submittals (e.g., calibration sheets, specification
sheets for procured instruments
Monitoring Plan Monitoring frequency

• Select monitoring frequency based on how critical the data is, expected
rate of change, and monitoring method (manual or automated).
Define warning levels
• Warning level is set close to the design level of the factor.
• Action limit level is the maximum tolerable level of the factor.
Remedial actions must be predetermined in the monitoring plan design phase.
This could be a part of the project’s risk mitigation plan.
• For warning level, actions should include reviewing monitoring data to
evaluate whether the measured values are reasonable, expected, and
tolerable; if not, mitigative actions, such as change in construction
procedures or design modification or increase in monitoring frequency,
need to be adopted.
• For action limit level, actions could include stopping work, evacuating, or
preparing for failure.
258

System Cost • Include the cost of equipment; monitoring for the entire duration,
maintenance, repairs, and spare instruments to replace damaged units.
• Evaluate the cost comparison between manual and automated monitoring
systems with respect to frequency of monitoring.
• Evaluate the need for short-term or long-term monitoring.
Installation Plan Installation plan should be developed well in advance of mobilizing to the field and
should include the following:
• Detailed list of required instruments and materials
• Site-specific, step-by-step installation procedures which should include
testing prior to and after installation
• Installation schedule (including allowance for the unexpected)
• Quality control procedures
• Careful handling and installation of the instruments onsite (follow
manufacturer’s recommendations)
Instrumentation • A protection plan for the instruments before, during, and after installation
Protection Plan must be developed.
• Selected instruments should be appropriate for the climate with respect to
operating temperature, waterproofness, lightning protection, etc.
• If the instrument cannot withstand a weather event, it can be installed in a
protective case or vault.
A.5 Automated Data Collection

An important decision that must be made when designing an instrumentation is system is whether to use
a manual or automated data collection system. Automated data collection systems are becoming more
popular because data can be automatically collected, analyzed, plotted, and shared. Setting up an automated
data collection system requires an understanding of the electronics involved in the sensors, the collection
system, and the communication and data transmission systems used.
A.5.1 Advantages and Limitations of Automated Data Collection

Automated data collection has many advantages. The primary advantage is eliminating the need for a
technician to be on-site to collect regular readings, although engineers must still visit the site to install the
system and to perform periodic maintenance. In addition, the following are some of the many advantages
of automated data collection:
• Increased data collection frequency
• Increased number of sensors
• Simultaneous reading of multiple sensors
• Automated data transmission
• Real-time automated data analysis
• Real-time automated data presentation
• Real-time automated alert system
• Monitoring of remote, inaccessible, or hazardous areas
• Remote sensor diagnostics
259

There are, however, several limitations to using automated data collection:

• Increased upfront cost
• Potentially increased total cost
• Increased complexity of system
• Increased difficulty of installation
A.5.2 Data Loggers

A data logger is an electronic device that collects, analyzes, and stores data from sensors. A data logger
can be connected to one or more sensors, usually through external cables. Some specialized data loggers
may have sensors integrated directly into their hardware. The data logger collects readings from the
connected sensors at a preset frequency or trigger. The data logger can then, according to its programming,
(i) convert the raw readings to engineering units, (ii) verify the readings by comparing to previous readings
or to preset thresholds, (iii) send out an alert based on the results of the verification, and (iv) upload or send
the data to a database or file transfer protocol (FTP) server. The data logger can also locally store readings
in internal memory or in a memory card. The data logger capabilities can be expanded using measurement
and control peripherals and communication devices. Measurement and control peripherals could include a
multiplexer to increase the number of sensors that can be read. Communication devices could include
external radios, satellite communication terminals, cellular communication terminals, external data storage
devices, or field displays. Figure A-1 shows an installed data logger that is monitoring deformation,
settlement, and pore pressure along a state highway embankment.
Source: Geosyntec Consultants.

Figure A-1. An installed data logger monitoring deformation, settlement, and pore pressure along a
state highway embankment
A.5.3 Data Transmission

Once the data logger collects and analyzes the data, the data must be transmitted to a database or directly
to an end user. The data logger can be directly wired to a computer for communication or can communicate
through a wireless connection using radio, cellular satellite telemetry, or Wi-Fi. Whether the connection is
260

wired or wireless, a user can either manually connect to the computer and download the data or set up a
program to automatically connect to the data logger regularly to download the data.
A.5.4 Data Storage

Data must be stored after being collected. For a small number of readings, the data can be stored locally
on the internal memory or on an external memory card attached to the data logger. However, in many cases,
the number of readings will exceed the storage capacity of the data logger or the external memory card
between periodic visits by a technician to download the data or before the end of the project. Therefore, a
data storage and management system must be designed. This database can be located on a local computer,
on an on-line server, or on a cloud server. The data can either be manually or automatically copied to the
storage database on a regular basis.
A.6 Monitoring Data Management

Whether the installed instrumentation system is manually or automatically monitored, the collected data
must be stored and managed. If the data management system is not carefully designed, the data may not be
readily available for analysis, visualization, troubleshooting, and reporting. In addition to the brief summary
below, Appendix D describes the basic requirements for developing and implementing an effective data
management system in more detail.
A.6.1 Database Setup

The first step in setting up a database is defining the various outputs that will be captured from the
instruments. It might be necessary to convert these raw readings to engineering units. A database should be
created to correctly and efficiently append the raw and converted data as they are transmitted or collected
from the data logger.
A.6.2 Data Analysis

Once data is collected, it must be analyzed. This analysis can be as simple as converting to engineering
units (if needed), or the analysis can be more complex (e.g., calculating the strain induced in a geosynthetic
material from multiple settlement cells, calculating the rate of pore pressure increase from piezometer data).
Data should be analyzed at a frequency required by the project; and the data may not necessarily need to
be analyzed every time a new data point is collected. Depending on how critical the data is and how sensitive
the project is, analysis may need to be performed daily, weekly, or monthly.
A.6.3 Data Presentation

Once the data collected from the instruments is analyzed, it should be plotted to clearly communicate the
measured soil or structural response. Plots may be developed for individual instruments or for groups of
instruments, and data may be plotted versus other relevant external data (e.g., construction activities,
precipitation events).
If multiple instruments are installed, the data can also be plotted in plan view to better understand the
spatial distribution of the soil response. If desired, contour lines can be drawn based on the measured data
as well. These contour lines can represent water level, temperature, settlement, surface elevation, strain,
etc.
261

A.6.4 Data Reporting

At a predetermined frequency, the collected data should be presented and summarized in a data report.
This data report can communicate the results of the instrumentation monitoring to all project stakeholders.
These data reports can include text, tables, and figures summarizing the data, and recommendations for
ongoing construction or operations based on the data.
262

References
Bartholomew, C.L., B.C. Murray, and D.L. Goins. 1987. Embankment Dam Instrumentation Manual. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Bartholomew, C.L., and M.L. Haverland. 1987. Concrete Dam Instrumentation Manual. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation.
Dunnicliff, J. 1993. Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Dunnicliff, J. 2012. “Chapter 95: Types of Geotechnical Instrumentation and Their Usage,” In ICE Manual of Geotechnical
Engineering, Volume II Geotechnical Design, Construction and Verification. Edited by Burland, J., T. Chapman, H.
Skinner, and M. Brown. ICE Publishing: London.
FHWA. 1998. Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual. Federal Highway Association FHWA HI-98-034.
Florida DOT. 2000. “Chapter 7: Field Instrumentation” In Soils and Foundation Handbook. Florida Department of
Transportation. Gainesville, Florida.
Marr, W.A. 2013. “Instrumentation and Monitoring of Slope Stability.” In Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2013, San Diego,
California, pp. 2231–2252.
Montana DOT. 2008. “Chapter 11: Instrumentation.” In Geotechnical Manual. Montana Department of Transportation.
New York State DOT. 2013. “Chapter 23: Instrumentation and Testing.” In Geotechnical Design Manual. New York State
USACE. 1987. Instrumentation for Concrete Structures. Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-4300. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Washington, DC. November.
USACE. 1995. Instrumentation of Embankment Dams and Levees. Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-1908. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Washington, DC. June.
USACE. 2011. “Chapter 14: Instrumentation for Safety Evaluations of Civil Works Structures.” In Safety of Dams – Policy
and Procedures. Engineer Regulation 1110-2-1156, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October.
263

B APPENDIX B
Applications of Geotechnical
Instrumentation
B.1 Introduction
Geotechnical instrumentation applications transcend all phases of a transportation project’s life cycle.
Geotechnical instrumentation data collected during the preconstruction phase contributes to the design of
safe and economical geotechnical infrastructure. During construction, geotechnical instrumentation can be
used to confirm whether the performance of geotechnical infrastructure is consistent with design
expectations to help ensure safe construction of sensitive features. Once construction is complete,
geotechnical instrumentation can monitor long-term performance of the geotechnical infrastructure and
provide objective data for prioritizing maintenance and rehabilitation of the infrastructure. Geotechnical
instrumentation systems can function as early warning systems to provide agencies with time to implement
remedial measures to prevent disruption of services, property damage, or loss of life.
This appendix focuses on applications of geotechnical instrumentation in geotechnical structures, such
as embankments, excavations, dewatering systems, earth-retaining structures, deep foundations, tunnels,
and grouting. Additionally, this appendix highlights the benefits of instrumentation in managing
geotechnical assets and resolving legal disputes.
B.2 Embankments
The most frequent uses of instrumentation in embankment construction are related to monitoring pore
pressure dissipation, settlement, and lateral displacement. The instruments commonly used for monitoring
embankments include piezometers, settlement monitoring systems, and slope inclinometers. Figure B-1
provides an example of an instrumented embankment, and Figure B-2 provides example results from an
instrumented embankment.
264


Figure B-1. Example of an instrumented embankment
-15.0 30
Height of Embankment or
Settlement
-12.5 25
Water Head
Water Head (ft)

-10.0 Height of Embankment 20
-7.5 15
-5.0 10
-2.5 5
0.0 0
Settlement (ft)
2.5 -5
5.0 -10
7.5 -15
10.0 -20
7/23/12 10/31/12 2/8/13 5/19/13 8/27/13 12/5/13 3/15/14 6/23/14 10/1/14
Date

Figure B-2. Example results from an instrumented embankment
B.3 Excavations
Seven parameters are commonly measured during excavation in soil and rock:
1. Lateral displacement of cut slopes or excavation supports
2. Subsidence behind the excavation supports
3. Heaving at the base of excavation
4. Tilt in the support structures
5. Tension crack in rock
6. Load in the retaining structures, braces, and anchors
265

7. Change in pore pressure around the excavation area
Measuring these parameters provides information pertaining to the following:

1. Site conditions prior to and during excavation
2. Lateral deformation
3. Creep behavior
4. Short-term and long-term stability of the excavation
Instruments required to monitor excavations in soils and rock are illustrated in Figure B-3.

Figure B-3. Instruments used for monitoring excavations, dewatering, and earth-retaining
structures
B.4 Dewatering Systems

The parameters impacting the geotechnical dewatering programs include hydraulic conductivity, volume
of water to be removed, subsidence, and heave. Instrumentation for dewatering is typically designed to
monitor two parameters:
1. Changes in water elevation
2. Subsidence or heave
Figure B-3 shows the typical instruments used for dewatering systems. Data from the piezometers and
pumping stations can help define the groundwater regime prior to and during the dewatering activities,
validate the site hydrogeologic model, and verify the adequacy of the dewatering system (e.g., the pump
size and schedule). The ground movement due to an increase in the effective stresses or soil migration to
the sump area for a specific dewatering project can be measured using settlement instruments or optical
surveys.
266

B.5 Earth-Retaining Structures

Earth-retaining structures (e.g., braced excavations, mechanically stabilized earth walls, soil nail walls)
are commonly used as a part of excavation or embankment construction. Instrumentation systems provide
the data needed to evaluate the performance of the earth-retaining structures. Four parameters are
commonly measured during the installation and service life of the earth-retaining structures:
1. Lateral displacement or tilt measurement of the retaining structure
2. Subsidence behind the excavation
3. Load or strain in the retaining structures, braces, and anchors
4. Change in pore pressure beneath and surrounding the wall
Figure B-3 provides an example of an instrumented earth-retaining structure. Excessive lateral

displacement of the earth-retaining walls can cause ground subsidence, an unstable excavation, and damage
to nearby structures or utilities. Properly planned instrumentation, such as inclinometers and piezometers,
can provide early warning systems and identify the cause of the lateral displacements to allow remedial
actions.
Typically, proof and validation load tests are required for externally anchored retaining walls (tiebacks
or soil nails). The proof tests validate the design load capacity of anchors with proper factors of safety and
without excessive movements. Proof tests are also used to evaluate the creep behavior of the anchors and
assess if the anchors are defective. The proof and validation tests typically require instruments, such as load
cell and dial indicators, for measuring load and displacement at the head of the anchor (FHWA 2015).
B.6 Deep Foundations

Deep foundations are used to transfer loads from the structures over problematic subsurface conditions
(e.g., weak, compressible, or liquefiable soils) onto a competent soil or rock stratum. Deep foundations can
be in the form of cast-in-place piers or driven piles. Concerns related to serviceability of deep foundations
are as follows:
• Load carrying capacity
• Structural integrity
• Impact of vibrations generated by installing driven piles on adjacent structures
• Additional loading (down drag) due to embankment settlement after installing a deep foundation
• Impact of installing large-displacement piles on adjacent structures
Deep foundations are tested to determine their load carrying capacity using static pile and dynamic pile
load testing in accordance with ASTM D1143 and D4945, respectively. Static pile load testing requires
measuring the load and deformation behavior of the foundation system. There are a variety of instruments
available to use for these measurements (e.g., load cells, Osterberg cell or O-Cell [for drilled piers], dial
indicators with reference beam, linear variable differential transformers [LVDTs], telltales, strain gauges,
extensometers, optical surveys).
The pile dynamic analyzer (PDA) test is a high-strain test method used to assess the pile capacity by
measuring pile strain and velocity after each impact of the pile by the pile driving hammer. This method
evaluates the drivability of a pile, hammer performance, pile integrity or damage, and mobilized pile
resistance. The instruments used in the PDA test include accelerometers, strain gauges, data acquisition,
and processing systems.
The impacts of construction vibrations on adjacent structures can be monitored using geophones.
Geophones measure the particle velocities at varying distances from the pile. The change in the peak particle
velocities with distance can help determine the rate of vibration attenuation at the site. Figure B-4 is an
example of the test set up.
267

Microphone
Geophone
Data Acquisition

Figure B-4. Example of instrumentation for vibration monitoring and measured response
The potential for down-drag load can be assessed by measuring the relative settlement between soil and
pile, diagnosing ongoing settlement prior to pile driving using piezometers, and monitoring stresses along
the pile (using strain gauge or load cells).
Driven large-displacement piles can cause large displacements, settlements, and high excess pore
pressures during and after driving, which can affect the load carrying capacity of adjacent piles and overall
stability of the site and neighboring structures. Instrumentation systems can assist with planning the pile
installation program and with responding to any adverse effects of pile-driving operations.
B.7 Grouting
The role of instruments in grouting programs is related to the purpose of the grouting program and type
of grouting techniques that are used. For example, the possible uplift or compaction associated with
permeation and fracture, jet, and compaction grouting might affect pore pressures and vertical deformations
of the ground surface. The parameters commonly measured for these techniques include change in pore
pressure during and after grouting, and settlement or heave. Locations and types of instruments for grouting
projects are controlled by the factors affecting the change in pore pressure, settlement, or heave that might
influence adjacent structures.
B.8 Tunnels
Problematic soil conditions can cause unstable conditions while excavating tunnels and installing
structural support systems. The effect of hydrostatic groundwater pressure, soft soils and rock, or high earth
pressure zones in soil and rock can lead to unstable conditions during construction. Instrumentation systems
are widely used in tunneling projects. Typically, four parameters are monitored in tunneling projects:
• Convergence of the opening and deformation of support system
• Pressure between soil (or rock) and the support system
• Groundwater condition beneath and surrounding the tunnel opening
• Ground subsidence due to tunneling activity
268

Various instrumentation systems (e.g., surveying equipment, borehole extensometers, tilt meters, crack
meters, strain gauges, piezometers, inclinometers) can be used to monitor the performance of tunnels during
construction. Figure B-5 shows a schematic of tunnel instrumentation with extensometers, piezometers,
strain gauges, load cells, and inclinometers. For this case, extensometers measure the ground subsidence
within the influence zone of the tunnel that might impact nearby structures; piezometers measure the ground
water conditions around the tunnel; strain gauges and load cell measure the structural loads in the support
system; and inclinometers measure the lateral ground movement and their impact on nearby structures or
underground utilities.

Figure B-5. Example of instrumentations for tunnels
B.9 Preconstruction Monitoring

In cases where geotechnical construction may influence adjacent structures, geotechnical instrumentation
systems can establish a preconstruction baseline. This baseline can be compared to conditions after
construction to determine whether construction activities affected the structures. Monitoring lateral
deformations during excavations, crack opening in a sewer force main below a new highway embankment,
or vibrations during pile driving to assess the impacts of these operations on adjacent structures are
examples of geotechnical instrumentation applications that can be used for preconstruction monitoring
purposes.
B.10 Asset Management

Asset management minimizes the costs of managing and maintaining transportation assets for the entire
life cycle of the asset. Instrumentation and monitoring systems can provide valuable information needed to
(i) evaluate the existing condition and the performance of assets controlled by geotechnical elements, (ii)
269

predict the long-term performance of the geotechnical structures, and (iii) identify structures with
impending higher risks of failure or deficient performance. This information allows resources to be better
allocated for operating, maintaining, and upgrading current systems.
270

References
FHWA. 2010. Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-016,
FHWA GEC 010, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2015. Transportation Planning and Asset Management. Publication No. FHWA-IF-06-046, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
271

C APPENDIX C
Evaluation of Existing Bridge Foundations

for Reuse
C.1 Introduction
Reuse of existing bridge foundations has attracted the attention of State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs) because of the potential for savings in construction time, direct construction costs, and indirect
costs, such as road user costs. In addition to cost savings, there are other additional benefits: reduced
environmental impacts, resource conservation due to reduced demand for new construction materials, and
improvement in bridge replacement construction (Collin and Jalinoos 2014). Nevertheless, there are
impediments to large-scale reuse of the existing bridge foundations:
• Increased foundation loading due to changes in the design criteria over time
• Lack of confidence in the methods currently used to characterize the condition (integrity) of the existing
bridge foundation elements, their load-carrying capacity, remaining service life, and risk
• Additional liability issues for State DOTs, designers, and contractors
• Change in construction and monitoring standards over time
• Lack of federal and state guidelines for the designers responsible for evaluating potential reuse of
existing bridge foundations
This appendix does not address all the impediments identified above. Instead, it focuses on the two items
that require executing a subsurface investigation activity: (i) characterizing the integrity of the existing
bridge foundation elements and (ii) assessing their load-carrying capacity.
C.2 Assessing the Structural Condition of Existing Bridge Foundations

One of the most important considerations in determining whether existing bridge foundation elements
should be considered for potential reuse is their integrity. If their integrity is compromised, their load-
carrying capacity will also be compromised, and there is likely no need for performing additional
evaluation. The methods used to evaluate the integrity of existing bridge foundation elements include the
following:
• Reviewing available records
• Conducting nondestructive geophysical tests
• Excavating
• Conducting concrete core drilling and laboratory testing
C.2.1 Available Records

The number of available records usually depends on the age of the bridge; older bridges will typically
have fewer available records than newer bridges. There are several types of information that will aid in
assessing the integrity of the existing bridge foundation elements:
272

• Biennial bridge inspection reports that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires State
DOTs to perform
• Bridge maintenance history
• Monitoring reports (e.g., for bridge scour)
• Documentation of any extreme loading conditions (e.g., bridge impacts by an errant barge)
C.2.2 Geophysical Testing Methods

The geophysical testing methods typically used to assess the integrity of existing bridges include sonic
echo/impulse response (SE/IR), dispersive flexural wave testing, half-cell potential, and ultraseismic
profiling. All seismic or sonic testing for pile defects or pile length require that the pile element of interest
be accessible. These types of tests cannot be conducted from a pile cap.
C.2.2.1 Sonic Echo/Impulse Response

The SE/IR test is performed on driven concrete and timber piles, drilled piers, and auger-cast piles. The
test identifies potential defects and determines approximate lengths of deep foundation elements. The SE/IR
test is performed by striking the top surface of a deep foundation element with a hammer to generate a
compression wave. The compression wave will propagate downward until it encounters a change in
mechanical impedance due to a defect within the foundation element or bottom of the foundation element
that causes a reflected compression wave that travels upward. By measuring the time required for the
compression wave to return to a receiver mounted on the top surface of the foundation element (Figure C-
1), the depth to the defect or bottom of the foundation element can be estimated. The compressive wave
velocities of concrete and timber elements can be measured (if possible) or estimated based on the values
documented in the literature. The depth to a defect or to the bottom of a pile or drilled pier is calculated by
multiplying the compressive wave speed with the time measured from the SE/IR test and then dividing the
result by two to account for the two-way travel path of the wave.
Some of the advantages of this test are that it can be performed quickly and at low cost. Some of the
disadvantages are that the test cannot be performed on steel piles, cannot detect additional defects below a
major defect, and cannot be performed on foundations socketed in rock (Wightman et al. (2004)).
Source: after Wightman et al. (2004)
273

Figure C-1. SE/IR test setup
C.2.2.2 Dispersive Flexural Wave Test

The dispersive flexural wave test is performed on driven concrete and timber piles, drilled piers, and
auger-cast piles in situations where the top surface of a foundation element is not accessible. This test
identifies potential defects and provides approximate lengths (Holt et al. 1994). It is somewhat like the
SE/IR test, except the foundation elements are struck on their side as shown in Figure C-2, and flexural
waves are measured instead of compression waves. This test has the same advantages and disadvantages as
the SE/IR test, however it has additional limitations pertaining to the maximum pile lengths to which the
test is applicable due to attenuation issues associated with flexural waves.

Figure C-2. Setup for dispersive flexural wave test
C.2.2.3 Half-Cell Potential Test

The half-cell potential test evaluates the corrosion activity of the reinforcing steel in the hardened
concrete bridge foundation elements. The standard testing procedure is described in ASTM C876. This test
is based on the principal that during the electrochemical corrosion reaction, an electric potential difference
is generated in the reinforcing steel.
The half-cell is a hollow tube containing a copper electrode that is immersed in a copper sulfate solution.
The bottom of the hollow tube is porous and is covered with sponge material. The test is performed by
making an electrical connection to the rebar, pressing the sponge soaked with copper sulfate solution over
274

the concrete, and measuring the voltage difference (Figure C-3). The potential difference between the
reinforcing steel (anode) and the copper sulfate half cell (cathode) gives an indication of the presence or
absence of corrosion activity in uncoated reinforcing steel in concrete.
Some of the limitations of this test are that the oxygen, chloride concentration, and resistivity of the
concrete may influence test results. Also, some repair technologies (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, chemical
admixtures, cathodic protection) may impact the results as well.

Figure C-3. Half-cell potential test setup
C.2.2.4 Ultraseismic Profiling

The ultraseismic test evaluates the integrity and determines the lengths of the deep and the thicknesses
of shallow foundation elements. The ultraseismic test can be used to test drilled piers, auger-cast piles, and
driven timber and concrete piles. The ultraseismic test is performed by striking either the horizontal or
vertical surface of a foundation element with a hammer and measuring response time using at least three
receivers (Figure C-4). The ultraseismic test can acquire signals from different wave types rather than a
single wave type as in the SE/IR test. The types of waves typically measured include compressional,
torsional, flexural, and Rayleigh. The ability of the ultraseismic test to measure multiple wave types allows
for a more robust data interpretation and, therefore, results in more accurate results. One disadvantage of
the ultraseismic test is its inability to distinguish defects below a large defect or defects near the bottom of
the foundation element.
275


Figure C-4. Ultraseismic test setup for vertical profiling
C.2.3 Excavation
The excavation method assesses the integrity and determines the lengths of bridge foundation elements.
This method makes visual inspection and direct testing of foundation elements possible. The method has
the advantages of being direct and accurate. However, the method is limited primarily to shallow
foundations because safety and cost considerations limit its use for deep foundations.
C.2.4 Concrete Core Drilling and Laboratory Testing

Concrete core drilling and laboratory testing can be used to assess the integrity of concrete foundation
elements and their lengths or thicknesses. This method is applicable to both shallow and deep concrete
foundations. For shallow foundations, the test is performed by first drilling to the top of the concrete footing
and then coring through it. For deep foundations, the test may require coring through the bridge deck and
the cap before coring through the concrete deep foundation element. Visual inspection of the concrete cores
provides some indication of their integrity. Additionally, laboratory tests such as compressive strength and
chloride penetration tests can be performed to evaluate strength and corrosion of reinforcing steel,
respectively. The core holes can also be used for performing geophysical tests. This method has the
advantage of being accurate, but also it has the disadvantage of being costly.
276

C.3 Information Needed to Evaluate Load-Carrying Capacity

The following information is required to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of bridge foundation
elements:
• Geometric properties of the foundation element (shape, cross section area, and length)
• Structural properties of the deep foundation element (e.g. strength, stiffness)
• Properties of the foundation subsurface materials (e.g., strength, stiffness, compressibility)
Available methods for obtaining information required to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of existing
foundation elements include (i) reviewing available records, (ii) conducting nondestructive geophysical
testing, (iii) characterizing foundation materials, and (iv) conducting load testing.
C.3.1 Available Records

Project records that may contain information regarding load-carrying capacity of existing bridge
foundation elements include project plans, project specifications, geotechnical reports, and construction
records.
C.3.1.1 Project Plans

Project plans include original design and as-built plans. Plan documents usually include the following
information:
• Type of foundation element (deep or shallow)
• Type of material (e.g., concrete, steel, timber)
• Geometry of the foundation elements (e.g., diameter, width, length)
• Listing of design bearing pressures for shallow foundations and design loads for deep foundations
C.3.1.2 Project Specifications

Project specifications will contain the following information:
• Required material properties (e.g., compressive strength of concrete, grade of steel)
• Required geotechnical submittals that could provide information regarding whether any load tests were
required during original construction
• Required driving resistance in case of driven piles and required tip resistance in case of drilled piers
C.3.1.3 Geotechnical Reports

Geotechnical reports will typically have the following information:
• Subsurface boring logs and plans showing stratigraphy
• In situ and laboratory test results
• Design calculations for the original design
C.3.1.4 Construction Records

Construction records will typically include documents such as foundation installation logs of driven piles
and results of any load tests that were performed. Foundation installation logs can provide information
useful to estimating the resistances achieved at the end of driving or after a restrike using pile dynamic
formulas. Load tests results can provide a good estimate of the available ultimate geotechnical resistances.
This can be compared to the anticipated design loads to determine whether the existing foundation elements
can carry the anticipated design loads with an acceptable factor of safety.
277

C.3.2 Geophysical Testing Methods

Nondestructive geophysical tests are primarily used to estimate the lengths of the deep foundation
elements. The following are some of the more common geophysical tests performed:
• SE/IR
• Dispersive flexural wave
• Ultraseismic profiling
• Induction field method
• Parallel seismic method
Information pertaining to the SE/IR, dispersive flexural wave, and the ultraseismic testing methods is
presented in Section C.2.2.
C.3.2.1 Induction Field Method

The purpose of the induction field method is to obtain estimates of the lengths of the in situ steel or
continuously reinforced concrete piles. The testing procedures consist of drilling a borehole deeper than the
foundation element and inserting a magnetic field detector. Two electrodes are then installed to generate a
magnetic field. One of the electrodes is mounted on the pile, and the other one is installed some distance
from the pile (Figure C-5). The detector measures the strength of the magnetic field in terms of voltage
generated. Typically, the magnetic field is very strong along the pile and drastically diminishes below the
bottom of the pile. The test requires a polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-cased borehole because no signal will be
received through a steel-cased borehole. One of the main advantages of the induction field method is that
it is a proven technology for determining the length of in situ steel and continuously reinforced concrete
piles.
278


Figure C-5. Setup for the induction field test method
C.3.2.2 Parallel Seismic Method

The parallel seismic method is primarily used to obtain estimates of the lengths of deep foundation
elements but can also be used to estimate the thickness or depth to the bottom of shallow foundations. The
test is applicable to footings, drilled piers, driven concrete, steel, and timber piles.
The parallel seismic method requires a borehole very close to the foundation element drilled to a depth
of at least 10 to 16 feet (ft; 3 to 5 meters [m]) below the bottom of the foundation element (Figure C-6). A
hydrophone or geophone is then placed in the borehole. If a hydrophone is going to be used, the borehole
must be cased, capped at the bottom, and filled with water. If geophones are going to be used, the borehole
must be cased and grouted to prevent the borehole from caving in during the test. The test is performed by
impacting any exposed surface of either the structure connected to a foundation element or the foundation
element itself with a hammer. The impact generates compressional or shear waves that are measured by the
receivers. At the beginning of the test, the receiver is lowered to the bottom of the borehole, and a test is
performed. When the first test is concluded, the receiver is raised by 1 or 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) and the test is
repeated. This process is repeated until the receiver reaches the top of the borehole. The depth of the
foundation element may be inferred from the change in measured wave velocity with depth.

Figure C-6. Parallel seismic test setup
279

C.3.3 Characterizing Foundation Materials

Evaluating existing bridge foundations for reuse requires the same types of material parameters as needed
for characterizing foundation materials for the design of new bridge foundations. Therefore, the methods
and procedures presented in Chapters 5 through 8 for new bridge projects are also applicable to evaluating
existing bridge foundations. Some of the more common required parameters include the undrained shear
strength (‫ݏ‬௨ ) in clays, friction angle (߶ ᇱ ) in sands, elastic soil modulus, preconsolidation stress, and lateral
stress coefficient (‫ܭ‬଴ ).
C.3.4 Load Tests

The methods for evaluating load-carrying capacity presented in Sections C.3.1 to C.3.3 are all indirect
methods, and some State DOTs may not be comfortable deciding whether to reuse existing foundation
elements without having direct measurements of the load-carrying capacity. There are two options available
for directly measuring the load-carrying capacity:
• High-strain dynamic load tests
• Static load tests
C.3.4.1 High-Strain Dynamic Load Tests

A brief overview of the high-strain dynamic load test is presented in Section B.2.5 of Appendix B. This
test may be feasible to evaluate existing bridges if the heads of the existing piles can be accessed with
adequate headroom for the pile-driving equipment.
C.3.4.2 Static Load Tests

A brief overview of static load tests was provided in Section B.2.5 of Appendix B. The difficulty with
performing this test on existing bridge foundations depends on the configuration of the existing structure
or nearby infrastructure. However, if performance of these tests is feasible, it may be possible to use the
existing bridge superstructure for reactionary forces, which could eliminate the need for constructing a
reaction frame.
280

References
Collin, J.G., and F. Jalinoos, 2014. Foundation Characterization Program: TechBrief #1 – Workshop Report on the Reuse
of Bridge Foundations. FHWA-HRT-14-072, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Holt, J. D., S. Chen, and R.A. Douglas. 1994. “Determining Lengths of Installed Timber Piles by Dispersive Wave
Propagation,” Design and Construction of Auger Cast Piles and Other Foundation Issues, Transportation Research
Record No. 1447, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington,
DC.
Wightman, W.E., F. Jalinoos, P. Sirles, and K. Hanna. 2004. Application of Geophysical Methods to Highway Related
Problems. FHWA-IF-04-021, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
281

D APPENDIX D
Management of Geotechnical Data
D.1 Introduction
In large measure, historical information from transportation projects is documented on paper and
maintained in project files. But, with the explosive growth of computer usage in engineering, most
information is now being collected and maintained electronically, which should make the information easier
to collect, manage, and use on future projects. This is especially true of the data related to subsurface
characterization, field testing, and laboratory testing, as the original data are often captured and distributed
electronically. Frequently, these electronic records (e.g., boring logs, summary tables, spreadsheets) are
distributed as electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) files. Accordingly, data are managed only as
information due in large part because geoprofessionals are not trained and, generally, have not been very
proficient in (or focused on) data management.
To their credit, geoprofessionals have long recognized the need for and use of geotechnical data, which
usually comes from numerous disparate sources, including historical aerial photos, geologic maps, previous
subsurface investigations, and construction records, as well as the in situ and laboratory testing results from
the current subsurface investigations. Although geoprofessionals recognize the value of data, they do not
usually recognize that the content of PDF files is not really data; it is information. With the rapid
advancement of technology, the geoprofessional is now being inundated with an unprecedented amount of
data that can be beneficial to designers. Techniques are available to facilitate efficient data management,
and this appendix includes information related to managing geotechnical data.
D.1.1 Objectives
There are three objectives for this appendix: (i) describe and highlight the benefits and utility of effective
geotechnical data management to encourage adopting and implementing it in day-to-day practice; (ii)
describe requirements and perceived impediments to adoption; and (iii) demonstrate effective data
management strategies that can be readily implemented by the geoprofessional community.
Benefits of Effective Geotechnical Data Management

The primary benefits of effective geotechnical data management are increased efficiency and time and
cost savings. While all transportation agencies (as well as owners and consultants) routinely collect
immense amounts of data for projects, they historically manage these data as information. The distinction
is relatively simple; if a user has to type, enter, or cut-and-paste project-related facts, numbers, records, or
statistics from one medium to another medium to use it, they are managing information, not data. For
instance, when an agency or user receives a PDF file, word processing file, or spreadsheet table, graph, or
plot as a representation of project-specific data, the PDF of that data is considered information. To reuse
portions of this information in a report or replot it at a different scale, the information in the PDF file must
be copied into a spreadsheet, word processor, drafting software, or database. It would be more efficient if
282

the original electronic data was maintained in a format that allows users to readily access the original data
they need.
This efficient access of original data can be accomplished by using a database to store and retrieve the
data. Additionally, by incorporating data management practices, time and cost savings can be realized by
significantly reducing the effort involved in retyping, reentering, and cutting and pasting information
multiple times from multiple spreadsheets into other application software.
An additional common consequence of poor data management relates to storing and maintaining paper
and electronic files generated for a project. If the results of boring logs, lab tests, and numerical analyses
are stored in file boxes at off-site locations, they will often be forgotten or lost. When a new project develops
that could use these data, it is often found to be easier to simply drill, sample, and test the area again⎯often
in very close proximity to locations where the previous borings or tests were advanced⎯rather than find
and retrieve the original files. The result is that valuable time and financial resources are devoted to an
effort that could be avoided completely if the original data were properly maintained and readily available.
In addition to these tangible advantages for the organization and profession, there are other important
benefits that are realized over time. If personnel no longer spend time reacquiring or retyping data, the
organization’s work flow becomes more efficient. Not only does this bring financial benefits, it also allows
individuals time to devote to critical project needs that may have been previously addressed inadequately
due to budget and schedule constraints. Other benefits of efficient data management include improved
employee training and the opportunity to develop new and advanced capabilities that capitalize on the
availability of robust, easily accessible data. Another important benefit is the ability to easily perform
calculations based on the compiled data and then visualize the data itself or (ideally) the calculation results.
All stakeholders benefit if original geotechnical data are maintained effectively by having all invested
parties adopt and implement data management strategies.
Components Required for Effective Geotechnical Data Management

The technology-related tools necessary to adequately maintain geotechnical data are straightforward: a
computer and data management software (e.g., Access, SQL Server, MySQL, or Oracle). If the data are to
be shared with others and protected for future use, it is beneficial to store (or archive) the data on a dedicated
server hosted by the client, agency, or owner or in the cloud.
One of the most difficult components necessary for effective geotechnical data management is not related
to technology. Rather, effective data management requires the agency, organization, owner, and users to
commit to changing old practices in favor of a new data management strategy. Changing personal habits is
difficult and often requires acquiring new skills through training; it is common for an organization or
individual users to justify resisting change by assuming the cost and time to affect an institutional change
is unnecessary because the current system works fine. Unfortunately, this attitude is short-sighted. As the
geotechnical community rapidly enters the world of “big data,” many of the currently used data and
information management strategies simply will not work. Change is inevitable and needs to be recognized
and addressed. Subsequent sections of this appendix will describe the primary commitments that an
organization must adopt to effectively manage project-related data. The success of a geotechnical data
management system within an organization lies in the following three fundamental factors:
1. Senior management support
2. An internal champion who makes it his or her mission to gain adoption and success
3. A commitment to maintenance to make the system sustainable.
Effective Data Management Strategies

Effective data management starts with recognizing that virtually all relevant project information can be
treated as data if managed appropriately. Effective data management can be facilitated by using forms or
templates that can be deployed on tablet computers, field computers, or smart phones. With these tools, the
283

data are collected in a consistent, standard manner, thus minimizing the opportunities for introducing human
error. Another technique to facilitate data management is to adopt a standard data transfer protocol. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Geo-Institute (G-I) of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) have recently collaborated on the development of a standard data transfer schema that
offers significant promise: Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (DIGGS).
Details regarding DIGGS and example work flows that use the DIGGS format are presented in Section D.7.
D.1.2 Organization
This appendix is organized to provide background regarding basic data management concepts and
guidance for developing and implementing a standardized geotechnical data management system. The
remainder of this appendix consists of the following sections:
• Section D.2 identifies conceptual requirements and focuses on the basic building blocks to facilitate
effective data management. This serves as the foundation for subsequent sections that are organized to
implement these requirements.
• Section D.3 describes the basic requirements for developing and implementing an effective data
management system and focuses on the work flow process that an agency must recognize and adopt
before effective data management can be achieved, including the electronic collection, maintenance, and
presentation of data.
• Section D.4 introduces the various software requirements that must be considered when an organization
or agency decides to implement a geotechnical data management system. This includes the requirements
for collecting, storing, maintaining, managing, and visualizing data and other project-related
information.
• Section D.5 describes sources of transportation-related information that can be collected and managed
as data beyond the obvious boring log and laboratory or field test data.
• Section D.6 explains how geoprofessionals can effectively use the properly managed data while
executing project-related activities and provides guidelines for facilitating this integration.
• Section D.7 introduces the concept of standardized geotechnical data transfer as a new concept that will
facilitate effective data management by introducing the DIGGS format developed as a pooled-fund
initiative by FHWA to facilitate data transfer and, in turn, promote effective data management.
• Section D.8 provides references for the information presents throughout this appendix.
D.2 Basic Features of a Geotechnical Data Management System

This section introduces the conceptual changes that must occur and requirements that are needed when a
data management system is developed. The first requirement is recognizing the basic rules or tenets of
effective data management. This is followed by the notion that data management implies data organization,
which introduces the concept of a database schema. Once these basic building blocks are realized, the next
steps relate to efficient data collection, georeferencing, and decisions related to the type of data that are
included in the database.
D.2.1 Tenets of Effective Data Management

The first and most fundamental issue regarding data management is recognizing the basic concepts
regarding data that must be identified, realized, and implemented. In many cases these tenets require a
fundamental change in the organization’s current practices. The basic tenets are as follows:
1. Single source for data storage
2. Data that are untouched by human hands after entry
3. Use of nonproprietary data software for data use
284

4. Spatial consistency of every data entry

5. Readily transferable data
6. Documentation of specific data management strategies
Single Source for Data Storage

When a geoprofessional receives test results or other forms of data from a third-party (or internal) client
or vendor, they typically save it to the firm’s server and maintain a copy on a local computer. For the current
project, the user typically will manipulate the received file to perform calculations, make edits, and develop
plots, and then save the manipulated file. Simultaneously, another colleague will often retrieve the original
file from the server and perform their own calculations. Unless data management practices are used, there
is no assurance regarding integrity of the original data. Repeat this procedure several times on a project and
allow the project to remain dormant for an extended period of time, and it is easy to see that version control
becomes unmanageable and the original data can be easily misplaced. One way to address the problems of
multiple users and multiple versions is to ensure that the original data in a single location, preferably in a
relational project database (i.e., a database constructed where data in one table relates to the data in another
table). If multiple users are anticipated, it is best to have the database hosted on a server. Once the data have
been entered into the database, the rules for maintaining the integrity of the database are:
• Only authorized individuals are allowed to edit these data
• All edits must be documented so users are aware of the edits and additions
• All users retrieve a copy of the data from the database for use on their local computer.
If these rules are implemented, the original data remains intact and resides in only one location: version
control is no longer a problem.
Data That Are Untouched by Human Hands after Entry

Having data untouched after entry minimizes the risk for human error when manually entering data. If
data are provided electronically, then protocols should be developed to facilitate transfer of these data to
the project database. A subset of this tenet is to require that someone else generate the data. Specifically, if
a lab conducts the test and generates the data, the client or user should dictate that the data be provided in
an electronic format that can be readily uploaded to the project database without manually entering the data.
If data must be manually entered into the database, then a quality control system must be in place: the data
must be reviewed by someone other than the person entering the data for accuracy after entry. Once the
data have been uploaded or manually entered into the database, there should be no reason for these data to
be further touched by human hands. Once the data are in the database, a simple query of the database will
provide a copy of the necessary data that can be downloaded to a local computer and accessed by the user.
Use of Nonproprietary Data Software for Data Use

The database that houses project data should be open and available to all parties. It is not uncommon for
a vendor, consultant, or laboratory to house project data in their own proprietary system. When the original
data is kept in this proprietary system, the user, owner, or client can only get access to the data as long as
they maintain a contract with the vendor, consultant, or laboratory managing the database. This is called
holding the data hostage and should not be tolerated. Data ultimately belongs to the owner of the project
and should be available to the owner (or their designated representative) at any time, by any owner-
authorized user. It is not uncommon for an entity to agree to this open-access policy in principal, but when
the owner, user, or client requests a copy of the data, the entity housing the data only provides a PDF copy
of project information rather than the actual data. A provision should be explicitly required in the project
specifications that at the end of the project, the proprietary software will effectively transfer its data into a
285

nonproprietary data software program of the owner’s discretion. In this way, it is explicitly required as part
of the project specifications that the entity generating and hosting the project data recognizes the rules for
working on the project. Owners have the authority to require that this tenet be adopted by all parties working
on a project.
Spatial Consistency of Every Data Entry

One of unique aspects of geotechnical and geologic data is that they provide information regarding a
specific location on Earth. Because of this, if data are maintained appropriately, it is possible to compile
(and recover) considerable information regarding the specific location (and surrounding areas) over the
long term. Therefore, it is imperative that spatial (i.e., location) data are valid and consistent for all project-
related data. Unfortunately, spatial data may be stored or recorded in the coordinate system preferred by
the owner, contractor, consultant, or vendor. While it is relatively straightforward to convert spatial data
between these systems, the database ideally should have a consistent location reference system. To this end,
the recovered data may be in a project-specific coordinate system, but the project database should also store
the converted data such that there is consistent record of location associated with other data. While most
coordinate systems can be readily converted, the long-held practice for linear transportation projects of
station and offset should never be used exclusively on a project; station and offset information is difficult
to convert to any standard Cartesian (x, y, z) coordinate system.
Readily Transferable Data

One of the benefits of most commercial databases is the ability to readily map data from one database to
another. This mapping facilitates the ability to transfer data when they are needed, as is often the case when
a client selects a different consultant or when a consultant’s project database is different than the agency’s
database, which may include multiple projects and multiple consultants. If a consultant or vendor selects a
nonstandard database system for a project, the owner or client should impose the requirement that the
consultant or vendor ensures data transferability as part of the current project. Additionally, the owner
should not have to incur an additional cost to access data they own. This data transferability tenet can be
easily implemented if a standard data transfer protocol is adopted; however, this requirement is not a
necessity. The concept of standard data transfer is described in detail subsequently in Section D.7
Documentation of Specific Data Management Strategies

The final tenet relates to documenting the specific strategy used by the party to manage its data. There
are numerous decisions that must be made regarding data organization (e.g., what type data are allowed and
how the data are managed, who is authorized to enter and alter the data once it is entered, and how and by
whom can data be corrected or adjusted once in the database). This information should be well documented.
The data management strategies document is essentially a living document; it will constantly must be
updated as new data sources are included.
D.2.2 Data Organization

For most geoprofessionals⎯particularly those that use spreadsheets for any type of recording or
analysis⎯ data organization is an inherent (although unrecognized) attribute. In a spreadsheet, each column
generally includes specific information that is entered in a specific format. Subsequent analysis or
manipulation of this information depends on the format and location of the entered information. When
recording data using a database, it is necessary to not only continue this practice, but to remain consistent
with the format of the specific data fields and data organization. The basic aspects of data organization are
introduced below.
286

Data Organization
Data organization acknowledges the concept that all data ultimately must be recovered and used in some
manner. Therefore, it is imperative to input data in a consistent format and in a specific location in the
database. Consistent format refers to the type and form of the data. For example, if the date is to be recorded
in the third column of a spreadsheet or database table, a decision must be made about the format the date
will be stored (e.g., mm/dd/year, dd/mm/year, month/dd/yr). Similarly, for numerical entries a decision is
necessary regarding whether to store the value in an integer or floating point format.
The database does not need to be perfect or complete from its inception to facilitate data organization.
New fields, tables, and relationships can be established as the database is being developed. However, once
developed and implemented, it is important to acknowledge the specific organization. It is important to
devote time at the beginning of a project to think about what data will be used and how to best manage
these data. To facilitate the organization as well as the communication of the data organization, it is
recommended to develop a data dictionary for the fields in a database. A data dictionary lists the formats
of the collected data. An example of an organized data table and data dictionary is provided as Figure D-1.
Field Type Key Required Relationship Example Description

Name of element or
Location Text(40) PK Y BH2059 instrument
Distance along barrier
wall to centerpoint of
element or instrument (in
centerline defined by
tblLocation.CenterlineID)
Station Float 2058.7 [add units to description]
Offset from centerline
[add sign convention and
Offset Float 0.3 units to description]
Name of centerline to
account for multiple
Centerline_ID Text(20) FK Y vvlCenterline.Centerline stationing schemes
Y coordinate of
centerpoint of element or
instrument [add units
and coordinate system to
Northing Float 49504 description]
X coordinate of
centerpoint of element or
instrument [add units to
Easting Float 78990 description]
Elevation in ft. msl of
ground or platform at
Top_Elevation Float 436 location
Description of
measurement point for
Guide Top_elevation (ground or
Top_Elevation_Datum Text(40) Wall platform)
Classification of element
or instrument (pile,
Location_Type Text(20) FK Y vvlLocationType.LocationType Borehole borehole, etc.)
287

Field Type Key Required Relationship Example Description

User-defined grouping of
locations (e.g., critical
Group Text(40) CA 1 area, line ID, etc.)
Comments Text(255)
Date and time of record
creation (applied
automatically where
Date_Appended DateTime Y possible)
Date and time of last
record modification
(applied automatically
Date_Modified DateTime where possible)
User ID of record creator
(applied automatically
Author_Appended Text(40) Y where possible)
User ID of last record
modifier (applied
automatically where
Author_Modified Text(40) possible)
Source: Geosyntec Consultants, Inc..

Figure D-1 Example of data dictionary
Although it is easier to maintain consistency by storing data in a database, data can be maintained in a
spreadsheet as well. In fact, some of the examples included herein reference spreadsheets, as they are more
familiar to most geoprofessionals. Nevertheless, the concepts presented apply equally to spreadsheets and
databases. While there are similarities between spreadsheets and databases, there is one important
differentiator: Spreadsheets are commonly used to not only store data, but to manipulate the data as well.
Manipulation is common to perform calculations involving one or more columns or fields of data and to
then record the result in another column or field. While many databases can be used to perform relatively
simple data manipulations (e.g., is the value in one column greater or less than the value in another column),
complex numerical manipulations are easier to perform in a spreadsheet, and it is recommended that data
be copied from a database to a spreadsheet for complex calculations. The database is best used to store the
actual data and not the results of numerical operations. Another way of viewing this is to remember one of
the tenets of good data management⎯single source location of data. When a new data interpretation
algorithm is developed and incorporated into practice, it is important to recognize that the derived value is
not data and should not be treated as such.
Introduction to Data Schema

The next step in data management is to formalize the data organization. This formal organization of data
is referred to as a data schema, a database schema, or simply a schema. The data schema references the
structure of the database to formally identify the relationship (if any) between the various fields in the
database. Here again, is one of the primary differences between a spreadsheet and a database. For example,
if data from multiple projects in being stored in a single spreadsheet, the first 10 columns may include
information related to the project itself (e.g., project number, location, funding sources, and responsible
parties). The next 10 columns may contain information about the exploration activities at the site (e.g., the
number of borings during a specific phase, the driller, and type of drilling). The next columns may include
288

specific test results at a specific borehole. Because there may be multiple records that describe these
activities, it will be necessary to keep track of the previous 20 columns for every data record, so that the
data are appropriately referenced and associated with the correct project and drilling activity. To isolate
specific fields of interest, the user must sort and filter the spreadsheet. Alternatively, it may be possible to
integrate various workbooks in the spreadsheet to keep track of the general project information independent
of the geotechnical data, but requires significant organization to be consistent for other users. The database
alternative to this would be to have a table that only includes general project-related information (i.e.,
information from the first 10 columns of the spreadsheet example), while a second table only includes the
exploration-related activities (i.e., information from the next 10 columns of the spreadsheet example). A
third table may only include the specific test results. There is, however, one field in each of the tables to
identify which project and which drilling activity are related to the specific test results. While this creates
multiple tables, the tables are focused on similar types of information, which eliminates the constant
repetition (and potential opportunity for error) associated with a single very large spreadsheet.
Introduction to Parent-Child Relationships and Primary Keys

To gain the advantage of the data schema and multiple data tables from the previous section, the user
needs a technique to relate the data in one table to the data in another. This manner of relating data fields is
the dominant purpose and advantage of a relational database. The parameters that relate the various tables
are primary keys. If each table includes the primary key, the relationship between the various data tables is
maintained. This concept leads to a concept of parent-child relationships. The analogy to domestic
relationships is consistent. Specifically, one set of parents (i.e., a primary key) can be associated with
multiple children (i.e., tables), and a child is associated with only one set of parents (i.e., through the use of
a primary key). In the geotechnical context, this means that the project table can be related to two (or more)
exploration events, which can then, in turn, include multiple borings, piezocone penetration test (CPTu)
soundings, or additional information. The primary keys for the project and the exploration event would be
included in the table that reports boring logs and CPTu soundings. An example of the data schema that
shows multiple parent-child relationships is shown in Figure D-2.

Figure D-2. Example of data schema to show primary keys
289

D.2.3 Data Collection

Once the commitment is made to manage data instead of managing information, the user should
contemplate the best procedures for collecting the requisite data for a project. Following one of the basic
tenets of effective data management, collecting and recording data need only be done once. This section
introduces some ideas that can be used to facilitate data collection.
Efficient Data Collection

When a laboratory analyzes samples or when instrument readings are recorded from the field, the results
(i.e., data) are typically produced and collected electronically. The most efficient way to capture and collect
the data generated from these sources is to simply import the lab data or instrument readings into the project
database with minimum human intervention.
These data might come from a spreadsheet or a text file that includes information that might not
necessarily be included in the database. In these cases, the user needs only electronically map the requisite
fields from the spreadsheet to the relational database. While this not an automated solution, it is a one-time
action and (importantly) does not require any manually typed data entries. This minimizes the potential for
errors, particularly transcription errors.
Form-Based Data Collection

In many applications, laboratory- or field-based electronic data collection is not possible. In these cases,
it is common to capture data using paper and pencil. To facilitate this effort, personnel are encouraged to
use a prepared checklist (or form) to help ensure that no handwritten information is inadvertently omitted
when collecting laboratory or field data. In cases where forms-based data collection is adopted, technology
has allowed the “forms” to be electronically replicated on tablets or field computers. This is a very efficient
technique for data collection and the completed forms are often printed and submitted for review and
documentation. These collected data can be electronically transferred to the project database without need
for manual data entry. It is recognized that efforts are needed to develop effective data transfer procedures;
however, if the field and laboratory forms are developed with an organized data mindset, the resources
devoted to developing data transfer operations are well-worth the effort, because once the procedures are
developed, they can be used numerous time by a simple click of the button. Thus, this is considered a
develop-once-and-use-many-times strategy that is incorporated into many data management practices.
Whenever possible, form-based data collection practices are encouraged when manual data recording
operations are deemed the only feasible data collection alternative.
Automated Data Collection

Historically, when conducting laboratory tests, performing field tests and inspections, and obtaining
surveying records, the user had to use paper and pencil for data collection and recording. Today, many of
these data-collecting operations are facilitated by pushing a “data capture” button in which case the data
are recorded electronically, where it can be recovered as a text file; in many cases, data collection can now
be automated, where the user no longer needs to even push the button. Instead, they simply initiate settings
on the instrument to automatically and electronically record data every few seconds or minutes, depending
on the type of data being captured. Regardless of the data collection frequency, data are captured in a format
that should enable data management without any need for manual entry of any of the collected data. In
some cases, manual intervention by cut-and-paste operations may be necessary, but this is hoped to be a
single-event operation that can evolve into an automated data transfer operation.
While techniques are now available for efficient data collection that minimizes the need for manual data
entry, it is recognized that the evolution to effective data management does involve some effort and the
290

development of new skills. Specifically, personnel will likely must learn new computer skills that require
computer coding strategies to facilitate the evolution. Eventually, as data management becomes more
accepted and endorsed, software will become available to facilitate the operations. In the interim, however,
geoprofessionals should anticipate a learning curve. Regardless, the efforts dedicated to facilitating efficient
data collection and data management is encouraged, as it will result in effective, efficient data transfer and
management.
D.2.4 Data Referencing

One unique aspect of geotechnical data management is the concept of georeferencing. Georeferencing is
a way to express that the data being collected is relevant to a specific location (i.e., the x and y coordinate
or the latitude and longitude location) and in many cases at specific depths (i.e., z coordinate or vertical
elevation). Georeferencing is the process for assigning a specific coordinate to the captured data.
Introduction to Georeferencing
The adoption of smart phone technology, Google Maps™, Google Earth™, and geographic information
system (GIS) concepts into day-to-day life has been a subtle introduction to the idea that every place on
Earth can be uniquely defined by a set of coordinates. Knowing these coordinates opens numerous doors
to many applications (e.g., mapping software to find efficient driving routes, autonomous vehicles that can
efficiently navigate from Point A to Point B, and managers/schedulers being able to track the physical
location of a vehicle). The notion that a geotechnical boring has a unique physical location on the planet
that can be captured is extremely powerful. Recognizing the uniqueness of the location data is
acknowledged as georeferencing and is extremely important attribute for geotechnical data management.
Efforts should be extended to assign a unique x, y, and (often) z location to each data record.
Different Coordinate Systems

There are two decision points in assigning and adopting a georeferencing system for a project: (i)
determining which system is best and (ii) deciding what to do with historical data captured prior to the now-
accepted concepts of georeferencing. Both items can be easily addressed, although it is recognized that
initially there will be some technical barriers to overcome prior to full implementation.
Regarding the appropriate georeferencing system, there is one discussion focused on the x and y
coordinate referencing system and one focused on the vertical referencing system. For the x and y
coordinates, latitude and longitude are perhaps the most common system employed today, largely because
of the near-universal acceptance of the system. The decision regarding degrees/minute/second (i.e.,
N43°38'19.39") versus decimal (e.g., 43.63871944444445) representation is project-specific and can be
easily converted between representations. For many projects, however, a State Plane coordinate system is
adopted by the owner or contractor. As the name implies, these systems are based on planar x-y coordinates
to facilitate surveying and ground measurements. Many states are large enough to require multiple planar
referencing systems. Software programs (e.g., CORPSCON v. 6.0) and websites (e.g.,
http://www.earthpoint.us/convert.aspx) can readily make the coordinate transformation between
geographic, State Plane, Universal Transverse Mercator, and U.S. National Grid on the North American
Datum of 1927 and 1983 (NAD 27 and NAD 83, respectively). Protocols must be established regarding the
x-y coordinate system that is referenced in the database. In some cases, it is convenient to report using more
than one coordinate system.
Regardless of the specific coordinate system that is adopted, a project-specific coordinate system that
references an arbitrary 0,0 coordinate as a reference is not recommended. For many transportation projects
(particularly historic projects), a linear referencing system was adopted, primarily because of the linear
nature of roadways. The notation of a “station” and “offset” references a linear distance from the start of
291

the project (often an arbitrary reference to 0+00) reference along a project centerline and offset left or right
from the centerline. Conversions from this type of reference system are possible, although it is typically
quite labor intensive. Although still used today to facilitate linear measurements and locations, referencing
exclusively by station and offset is not recommended.
With regards to a consistent reference to vertical location or elevation, it is common to reference the
depth below ground surface (bgs) when advancing geotechnical borings and cone-penetration test (CPT)
soundings. To assign a unique location, it is preferred to use elevation when citing a subsurface sample. To
allow reference to elevation (in lieu of depth), two vertical reference datums are common: the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929) or the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD
88). The selected vertical datum must be explicitly referenced. Because the interpreted data in various
assessment applications may depend on depth and other application may require elevation, it is
recommended that both elevation and depth bgs be recorded in the project database.
D.2.5 Computing Infrastructure

As mentioned previously, one fundamental difference between data recording in a spreadsheet and a
relational database, is the relative ease of including calculation results in a spreadsheet. It is better to
complete calculations before entry into the project database. It is recognized that the output of the
geotechnical monitoring and testing equipment used to collect results of laboratory and field tests may be
in millivolts, volts, or frequency. Often, other applications (either internal or external to the data recorder)
perform calculations and represent the data in conventional engineering units of force, displacement, or
pressure. In some cases, the collected data represent the result of calculations performed to calculate
additional information, such as stress, torque, and strain, that are used for the tested interval or specimen.
This section provides a discussion of decisions that must be made regarding this dilemma.
Storing Raw Data or Engineering Values

A decision needs to be made regarding which of the aforementioned data elements are the data that should be
captured and maintained in the database. Generally, data and calculation results are often designated for storage
in the database. With regards to geotechnical monitoring instruments, there are no rules regarding these
decisions. However, it is recommended that the basic engineering units calculated from the instrument readings
themselves are the most appropriate to be recorded in the project database. This may be from the data-capture
instrument itself or as the calculation result from another application. For instance, if a vibrating wire piezometer
is used for data capture, the instrument output will be a frequency that when used in collaboration with calibration
parameters can be converted to a pressure; the calculated pressure is recorded as data. Some instrument
manufacturers recognize this dilemma and provide the opportunity to independently capture the raw data (in the
example case, this would be the frequency) in a separate file that can be stored in a separate folder that can
hyperlinked from the database should there be a need. This dual storage strategy is recommended, particularly
on critical projects where archiving data is deemed critical.
There is another item to consider regarding the data that are collected and stored in the project database.
Because data are critical to current and future project activities, it is best to capture relevant information
regarding the origin of the collected data. This includes information regarding when the data were collected,
how it was collected, and potential information regarding the source of the data. This data about the data is
referenced as metadata and is also stored in the project database. An example metadata file is presented as Table
D-1.
292

Table D-1. Example of Project Metadata
TableName SourceDatabase ObjectType Description Author

vXs_PlanesExport /Features Shapefile Lines in plan R. Bachus
view at GDOT
provided Station
tblAccelerograph prjBlackDMS Table Accelerograph G. Rix

Table
ReportsLibrary AASHTO_3D.gdb GDB Feature Imported from J. Speed

Class LiDAR data
digitized in
MicroStation
Nottley_Lake_Basin Data/Sidescan_Data Raster Raster with L. Leighton

combined .tif files
TblAnchos_AsBuilt AnchodID prjBlackDMS As-built anchor P. Sabatini

installation
details
Calculations Stored in Database

As described above, it must be decided which information is going to be collected and managed in the
database (i.e., raw data, engineering units, or calculation results). While there is no definitive answer, the
general rule is that calculation results should be stored in the project database, while the raw data collected
from the instrument is managed independently in the instrumentation database. How these values are
calculated are captured in the metadata. If the raw data is stored in an external file or database, the metadata
captures this information. Other calculation results may be obtained from a spreadsheet that is also
acknowledged as metadata. It is important to provide comprehensive references regarding any actions taken
to capture the data represented in the project database.
D.3 Guidelines for Implementing a Geotechnical Data Management

System
Once it has been decided that a data management system will be implemented, the next step for the user
or agency is to consider how the data will be used. For example, is it necessary to simply archive
information for later use or will the user use the collected information to generate summary or interpretative
reports? This section will address the considerations that should direct subsequent decisions regarding the
adopted data management system. The first component builds on recognizing that data should be stored
one time in one place and that there are rules for entering and editing the stored data. The agency needs to
also establish how it wants the data to be accessed and used. Since there will now only be a single source
of data, it is critically important that the data in the database be considered valid. Therefore, this section
will also discuss the concepts related to a data dictionary, acceptable values of data, and procedures to
ensure that only valid data are stored in the project database. Finally, the user or agency needs to consider
how the collected data will be used and interpreted. Since the data are always available in a consistent and
293

validated form, it is possible to develop reports, data summary tables, and plots directly from the database.
This section will provide an introduction on the end use of the data.
D.3.1 Project Database

In this section, some basic concepts common to all databases will be introduced and recommended
practices will be provided regarding database management. Questions regarding specific data management
software will be described in Section D.4.
Data Management Practices

Maintaining geotechnical data in a project database is not typically taught at a university, so many of the
concepts introduced thus far are somewhat foreign to the geoprofessional. Therefore, new skill sets will
must be acquired to become proficient data managers. Previous sections introduced the basic tenets
regarding data management, as well as some basic differences between spreadsheets (which are commonly
used by geoprofessionals) and databases. A logical question relates to the basic operations of a database.
Whereas a spreadsheet can be considered a large data table, a database is really a series of related tables,
with each table containing a specific bit of information. Before one considers how to manage that
information, it is necessary to define the type of data that will be captured and maintained.
The first step in effective data management practice relates to organizing the data⎯the way data are
captured, entered, and maintained in the project database and the way the data will ultimately be used. This
process is defined as the project work flow and is a necessary first component of data management. An
example work-flow diagram for a construction project that uses geotechnical data is presented in Figure
D-3. As can be seen in this figure, the diversity of data, the type of data, the methods for data capture,
transfer of data, and data visualization were all considered while developing the project management
strategy.

Figure D-3. Example project work flow diagram
294

User Considerations
A critical component of the project work flow relates to the role of the various users of the data
management system. As shown on the left side of Figure D-3, the user may be engaged in the earliest stage
of data collection, as they may be responsible for populating the forms-based template. User training is
important, to facilitate data entry and minimize the chance for operator error (or missed data). Similarly, as
data will likely be originating from several disparate sources in multiple formats, concepts regarding data
transfer, data storage, and data retrieval must be developed. It is imperative to minimize the chances of
incorrect data being entered or critical measurements being inadvertently missed.
The middle section of Figure D-3 also has a user-consideration component. Specifically, will the user be
involved with storing and managing the data or will this be the domain of the database manager? In more
cases than not, the previously identified database champion will serve as database manager, but as data
management practices are honed and adopted, the reliance on a single person will likely be overwhelming,
so tools and techniques must be considered for developing and optimizing the database structure. This is
where the data dictionary, data schema, and parent-child relationship between the numerous project tables
needs to be established and documented.
The user also figures prominently in the right side of Figure D-3, specifically as the end user. The user
can decide the best way to use the data to serve specific needs. In some cases, it may be a simple output
that can be incorporated into another program or application. The user will most likely want to visually
display the contents of the database in the form of tabulated results, summary, or a plot. Graphical
representations or visual summaries from the database are an ideal way to facilitate assessment of results.
D.3.2 Database Access and Use

Once the data are in the database, the goal is to make the content available to all appropriately authorized
personnel. To accomplish this, some planning is essential. This section provides a discussion regarding the
recorded data and user access to these data.
Enterprise vs. Desktop

Because it is necessary to keep the data in only one location, choosing the most appropriate location of
the physical database is important. For most organizations, sharing the data is the key. This implies that the
data are hosted by a central (i.e., enterprise) server that can be accessed via a computer network by
authorized members of its entire organization from any remote location. For one-off projects or in cases
where there is a single point of contact for data management, hosting the database on an individual computer
may be appropriate. The three primary advantages of the enterprise solution are (i) simultaneous access to
multiple users; (ii) access, data backup, and security protocols often managed by the organization’s
information technology (IT) department; and (iii) version control is relatively easy to maintain.
Version Control
As mentioned in previous sections, data should reside in only one location, and this location should be
under the control and management of a single individual. If this tenet is followed, previously noted problems
related to version control become a thing of the past. When a user needs access to the data, they can copy
relevant tables from the database to their local computer using queries. Alternatively, user-defined queries
of the database can produce reports, tabulated summaries, and other summaries. If individuals need access
to specific data or the entire database, they can download it to a local computer. They will, however, not be
allowed to then upload to the database as there is a chance that the data could have been altered; only the
database manager should have permission to modify the data. Even when changes by authorized personnel
are allowed, the changes and the reasons for the changes must be documented.
295

D.3.3 Data Validation

Just because data are collected and recorded, does not mean that the data are always 100 percent correct.
Errors could be due to transposing numbers or placing data in an incorrect field. In the former case, a project
in Kansas may show up in the database as being in California. In the latter case, the database may be
expecting a date and the entry inadvertently provides temperature or load. To minimize the potential for
these types of errors, there are tools that can facilitate the recording of valid data. Even if there are no errors
in recording the data, there is still a chance that the data are wrong (e.g., test was conducted improperly,
test equipment was not correctly calibrated). These types of errors must be identified in a data quality
assessment by the appropriately trained professional responsible for data collection. The database can be
tested for valid data but cannot be used independently to guarantee accurate or correct data.
Data Dictionary
One of the easiest ways to ensure that valid data are captured is to give some forethought regarding the
content of each field entered into the database. As mentioned previously, some fields will be associated
with location, some regarding dates, and others regarding readings (e.g., load, temperature, displacement,
pressure). In setting up the data schema and potentially the input templates, the developer simply informs
the user regarding the types of data expected and the format for these data. In some cases, typical values
are provided in the data dictionary. An example of a data dictionary was previously presented in Figure D-
1; a data dictionary should be a required project document.
Acceptable Values
Closely following the data dictionary is the consideration of acceptable values. For example, while the
date can be recorded by the user in any number of formats, only one format should be accepted in the
database. Therefore, if an alternate date format is entered by the user, the database will reject the entry, as
the value is unacceptable. Similarly, if ambient air temperature is considered as data, then an air temperature
of 650° F is clearly in error and would be rejected before it is entered into the database. The selection of
acceptable values can be facilitated by use of drop-down menus that provides a priori a list of acceptable
values for select data fields. Again, the benefits by the developer in considering acceptable values will be
helpful to the user.
D.3.4 Data Visualization

Viewing and reviewing project-related data visually can alert users to possible errors in data entry. Data
values that are in error and that may have been inadvertently overlooked in a table or list may be overlooked
when viewed in a tabular format, but would be easily caught by the human eye trained to observe trends.
While data visualization strategies are considered good practice in many arenas, it may well be considered
essential in the world of big data.
End-User Considerations
There are any number of ways to present data in a visually appealing manner. It is recommended that the
database manager (who might not necessarily be a geoprofessional by formal training) collaborate with a
geoprofessional, subject matter expert, or owner to understand how the data may be used and what form of
data representation will be most beneficial. The collaboration between the database developer or database
manager and the end-user is invaluable and is highly recommended. From the end-user’s perspective, the
existence of a suite of data that was previously unavailable allows the end-user to potentially explore new
ways to view the results to gain insight regarding interpretation of the results. Recall that this was one of
296

the big advantages to adopting more efficient techniques for data management. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that data visualization strategies be considered with an end-user interface in mind in the early
stages of project database development.
Reports, Graphs, and Plots

Technology allows data representation to be provided in several different formats and a host of options
should be considered by the user. More importantly is the notion that different users may have a desire to
visualize the same data from a different focused perspective. For example, given a geotechnical
instrumentation program on a critical project, the instrumentation engineer may must see all data from each
instrument on a five-minute interval, whereas the project manager only needs to see the hourly or daily
trends in compiled results. The project director or client may only must see verification that none of the
instruments are in a state of alarm in which the recorded value exceeds a user-defined threshold that is
indicative of performance. Depending on the needs of the various project participants and stakeholders, a
custom report, graph, or plot can be automatically generated and distributed directly from the project
database and e-mailed, as appropriate. This function simply requires that some forethought be given to the
project requirements as part of the database design and database management development.
D.4 Software Requirements for the Data Management System

Once the commitment to data management is made, the next critical decision relates to the requirements
for the data management software. This decision is followed by selecting the various software applications
that will incorporate information in the project database.
D.4.1 Database Software

The software used for the geotechnical database run the gamut from proprietary systems, commercial
systems, and open-source systems. The selected system depends of many factors, to include preferences of
the user and owner, internal software support, number of simultaneous users, and internet accessibility.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each option, so there are no specific recommendations or hard-
and-fast rules. The most important factors to consider are (i) the selected system meets the project or agency
requirements and (ii) if the database selected for the geotechnical data management system is different than
a larger agency-level data management system, the systems should be compatible. This latter suggestion is
because experience has shown that once a data management commitment is made, there will undoubtedly
be a desire to integrate data from various disparate sources.
Software Identification
There are many commercial, proprietary, and open-source software products available to the user, and
the selection of the appropriate database product is often not well researched to identify the most appropriate
system for the project and organization. In reality, the decision is often based on cost, but should also be
governed by the way the agency wants the information and data to be used (e.g., number of simultaneous
users, size of the database, database access). In some cases, it may be possible for a single user to maintain
a database on an individual desktop computer, while in other cases, there may be multiple users accessing
the database for information concurrently. Unless there is a project-specific need for a one-time use, it is
recommended to consider the multiple-user scenario to allow maximum flexibility and anticipated growth.
The important lesson, however, is that regardless of the system being used, there is only one real official
record of the data (i.e., the project database). While copies of the database can be used and manipulated,
the data resides in the project database. Consideration should also be given to compatibility between data
management software. While this is usually not a problem with commercial software and open-source
297

solutions, there may be limited options when using proprietary database programs, primarily because these
software vendors have a commercial interest in limiting the options that users have. Again, this practice is
highly discouraged and when presented with this option, the user should simply decline and look for other
more sustainable solutions.
Advantages, Disadvantages, and Considerations

There are many choices for database management software solutions. As mentioned in the previous
section, these run the gamut of commercial, proprietary, and open-source options. The following
summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each option:
• Commercial: The commercially available database software options are among the most common,
primarily because they were developed to address wide variations in database management
objectives. An example (but not exhaustive) list includes (i) Microsoft Access, (ii) Microsoft SQL
Server, (iii) Oracle SQL Server, and (iv) IBM DB-2. Some of the advantages of these programs
are general flexibility, helpful documentation, available helplines, and a large user community.
Many of these software packages can be purchased, but there are often annual licensing
agreements associated with the programs. When considering commercial alternatives, the user
needs to insist that the software have backward compatibility. This will ensure that migrating data
stored and managed in an earlier version of the program to a new updated version of the program
will be simple and complete. For future reference, the commercial software is often referenced as
the back-end database⎯the end where all the work is being done.
• Proprietary: There are currently many proprietary database alternatives for geotechnical and
geoenvironmental data management. An example (but not exhaustive) list of vendors and their
software packages includes (i) Bentley: gINT; (ii) Keynetix: HoleBase; (iii) Dataforensics: PLog;
(iv) ESCiS: ESdat; (v) EarthSoft: EQuIS; (vi) EnviroData: EnviroData; and (vii) AF Howland:
GeoDASY. While many of these software packages can be purchased, there is an increasing
desire by vendors to lease the programs, where a license for use is renewed each year. This allows
for regular upgrades to the most current version of the program. Although these are referenced as
data management programs, they are typically the front-end to a commercial or open-source
database. The chief benefit of proprietary programs is that they are generally more user-friendly,
as the front-end component includes user-friendly interfaces that automatically populate the back-
end database. This can be very advantageous, as it facilitates the migration to data management.
The downside is usually related to the cost and licensing fees that commonly are derived by the
number of users. Two factors must be explicitly considered: the user should insist on backward
compatibility between new and old versions of the program and probably most importantly, the
user needs to have permanent access to the back-end database if a license is not renewed with a
specific vendor. Failure to insist on this permanent access to the back-end database allows the
vendor to hold data hostage⎯a situation that an agency or owner does not want to find
themselves in.
• Open-source: There is an ever-increasing number of open-source database management options.
An example (but not exhaustive) list includes (i) Firebird, (ii) Oracle MySQL, (iii) PostgreSQL,
and (iv) SQLlite. The term open source implies that the data schema is published and available
for use, modification, and distribution to a user community without the need for a license. The
dominant advantage of these programs is dominantly cost, as well as the satisfaction of
contributing to an entrepreneurial community that provides readily available computer solutions.
298

The disadvantages include the lack of documentation and product support, although a community
of like-minded users generally avail themselves to help support the product. The primary
disadvantage, however, is that the longevity of the product is not guaranteed, so the user will
likely must be computer savvy and have the ability to code as needed to maintain the program and
to increase functionality.
D.4.2 Application Software Used by the Database

With reference to Figure D-3, the database can both receive data from several sources and provide data
to several different applications. The options are near-limitless, particularly in today’s computer-centric
world, and need only be compatible with the database.
Typical Software Identification

Software can be used to provide data to the database. These data can be as simple as comma separated
variable (*.csv) text files or spreadsheets. It is common for data to be imported directly from laboratory or
field instruments as well as field computers in a *.csv format. Data transfer protocols, as discussed in
Section D.7 are also common techniques for data entry. As discussed previously, vendors can provide front-
end application to facilitate data entry.
Application software can also be used to process and visualize data retrieved from the database. Again,
*.csv, spreadsheet, or data transfer protocols can be used to retrieve data from the database in a commonly
used format. Once in a spreadsheet, users are generally well-versed in developing tabulated summaries and
graphs. Additionally, there are numerous commercial and open-source application products available to the
user, depending on the functionality that is desired. As database management practices evolve, it is expected
that the number of available output options will expand significantly over the next several years.
Regardless of the selected method for data input and output, the user should not forget the invaluable
tenet that automated data transfer is much preferred to cut-and-paste actions. Therefore, it may require a
degree of coding to essentially automate the various data mapping activities. Again, experience has shown
that these efforts are well worth the investment of resources.

The advantages of a simple *.csv and spreadsheet data entry is that it is extremely flexible and can
accommodate almost any type of electronic data. The disadvantage is that it may require new skills and
coding experience to facilitate seamless mapping and data entry. The obvious advantage of a vendor-
provided front-end is that the vendor has provided the coding expertise in the application software and
mapping is done automatically as part of the package. The disadvantage is cost and the potential that the
user may have to adapt their data input needs to the specific software offered by the vendor.
On the data output side, again the advantage of *.csv formats and spreadsheets lies in their flexibility,
simplicity, and user familiarity. The disadvantages of these formats are that the graphical outputs may look
rudimentary and unprofessional. Commercial and open-source application generally solve this problem but
may require the acquisition of additional skills to map the data.
D.4.3 Web Viewing and Reporting Alternatives and Options

As stated previously, there are numerous advantages to maintaining the database on a central server in
lieu of an individual computer. One critical advantage is that access to the database can be granted and
provided to multiple simultaneous authorized users over the internet, so physical location and proximity to
the database is not an issue. Before final selection of a project or organization database is made, the
299

capability and functionality of the database should be ensured. An SQL-based database is often selected
because of its demonstrated ability to function in this capacity. Web access can be protected by any number
of security protocols such that only authorized users are entitled access. Depending on the rights granted
by the database administrator, web access can be limited to viewing only or data entry only. It is possible
to provide complete access to authorized users such that data queries can be performed such that the host
of data output options can be provided to authorized users.
Coding Requirement
As the enhanced functions of the database are engaged, experience has indicated that there will be a need
for training and limited amounts of coding expertise. This is often left within the domain of the database
manager or administrator, but as geotechnical data management gains traction, it is anticipated that the
computer coding skills of geoprofessionals will likely must be enhanced. Therefore, the organization should
be prepared to commit time and financial resources to provided training to expand the user’s skill set.

The advantages to web deployment and access are too numerous to categorize. In 2018, geoprofessionals
(and the general population) have accepted and in fact, come to rely on, web access to data. One needs look
no further than to online bill paying, automated airline and hotel reservations, and banking transactions, to
appreciate how dependent we have become to web access of data. It is inconceivable that the
geoprofessionals will not quickly be faced (or forced) to adopt this standard of practice.
Despite the advantages cited, there are disadvantages and hazards related to widely accessible data. Data
security issues are paramount and will continue to be a concern. Organizations are fast recognizing these
challenges and the geoprofessional community will benefit from the protocols that are developed to
safeguard personal data and data breaches. While a geotechnical data breach may not represent a
catastrophe, losing geotechnical data would have severe consequences. For this reason, it is critical that
protocols be established to provide regular electronic backups of the database. For organizations with
established IT departments, this is a routine and required activity. It is imperative that data backup
procedures be developed, implemented, and followed.
D.4.4 Geographic Information Systems

Producing visual representations of georeferenced data (e.g., graphs, maps) are possible because of GIS
technology. Because data are georeferenced, they can be placed in a consistent geographic framework and
displayed on a map. Although the concepts are relatively mature, the power of GIS in data management has
been recognized to the point that the database behind the GIS can be capture, store, manage, analyze, and
visualize data. The concept of a GIS is to represent common data on a georeferenced layer that can be
turned on or off when viewing or analyzing the data. In principal, when one looks a flat map that shows
information (e.g., a road, building, geotechnical boring log locations, groundwater levels), it looks like a
complicated network of data on a single map. In reality, each of these elements (e.g., roads, building, boring
locations, groundwater wells) are represented on individual transparent layers that are compiled through
georeferencing. These different layers allow the users to view all items they need, while hiding the visual
noise of the items they do not must see.
Software Identification
There are currently many commercial and open-source GIS programs available. The geoprofession is but
one minor avenue that uses this technology. In the future, geoprofessionals should expect to see more
interest and utility due to how functional GIS programs are. An example (but not exhaustive) list of vendors
300

offering commercial packages includes (i) Bentley, (ii) Autodesk, (iii) Tableau, (iv) ESRI, (v) Intergraph,
and (vi) MapInfo. There are numerous open-source GIS packages. As with most open-source programs,
these are free to the user and appear to have a well-established support community that is interested in
expanding the use of GIS. An example (but not exhaustive) list of companies offering open-source GIS
packages includes (i) QGIS, (ii) Whitebox GAT, (iii) SAGA GIS, (iv) MapWindow, (v) OpenJump, (vi)
GRASS GIS, and (vii) FalconView. Many of these tend to favor various mapping functions and map
overlays, but are expected to adequately represent geospatial data for geoprofessionals. In addition, there
are map-based systems that are essentially GIS in spirit that have been to represent geotechnical and
geologic boring and testing locations. An example (but not exhaustive) list of products includes (i) Google
Maps, (ii) Bing Maps, (iii) OpenStreetMaps, (iv) Apple Maps, and (v) ArcGIS. The New Zealand
Geotechnical Database, developed in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake in 2011 provides a map
interface for its nationally supported geotechnical database.

It is difficult to note any disadvantages to incorporating GIS technologies into the geotechnical data
management arena. GIS is a compelling and useful tool for aiding in the collection, storage, management,
analysis, and visualization of geotechnical, geologic, and geoenvironmental data. Systems can be deployed
on individual computers, over the web, and through smart phones. GIS is especially relevant for
transportation systems that are most commonly represented and best cataloged on a map. Perhaps the
biggest disadvantage of these systems is that management of GIS data truly requires a dedicated data
management individual or staff because the GIS is essentially a front-end to a relational database with
extensive postprocessing data visualization capabilities. The learning curve can be steep to become truly
proficient in its use. Another disadvantage relates to selecting the program that best suits the needs of the
project or organization. Commercial packages are extremely well supported on the technical front. Open-
source system are fast gaining popularity, but may fall into disfavor for large organization because of the
heavy investment in resources and the uncertainty regarding longevity of the products.
D.5 Data Sources Considered in a Geotechnical Data Management

System
A common question regarding geotechnical data management is “what is considered geotechnical data?”
A more realistic question is “what is not considered geotechnical data?” Once one starts to think of
geotechnical information as data, there are a plethora of data sources that will be invaluable to the
geoprofessional.
D.5.1 Traditional Project Information Inventories Maintained by Agencies

Perhaps the lowest hanging fruit for consideration of geotechnical data involves the traditional data that
are routinely captured by DOTs for use on projects. Examples of how these data are used in a geotechnical
database are discussed below.
Field and Laboratory Test Results

Historically, the geotechnical data State DOTs collect and use for design is most commonly geotechnical
boring logs, followed closely by laboratory test data. With regard to geotechnical boring data, most State
DOTs currently use gINT to record and capture these data. Most DOTs only use the gINT program to
produce boring logs; it has only been in the recent years that the agencies have started to view and manage
the boring logs as data. In most cases, they still only use the back-end to gINT for boring logs and seldom
capture other associated data.
301

Geotechnical laboratory data would be the next most logical candidate for the database. Once these data
are captured and assessed, State and regional characterization assessment could be readily performed. As
mentioned previously, if laboratory data are to be managed in a database, a decision needs to be made
regarding raw data for the laboratory testing equipment or the derived engineering values. It is
recommended that, in fact, both data get captured and stored. Raw data can reside in a laboratory test
database, while the derived engineering results can be managed in the larger geotechnical database where
they will be analyzed and assessed.
Data from Geotechnical Instrumentation

Almost all geotechnical instruments currently record data digitally and electronically. It is common that
these results are exported as *.csv files. Transferring these data to the geotechnical database is the next step.
Once introduced to the database, it will be possible to easily compare laboratory test results and field
performance. There are few obstacles for developing the input algorithms (or templates) to facilitate data
entry.
Geohazards
The transportation and geology community have developed significant data regarding geohazards (e.g.,
landslides, karst, earthquake faults, rockslides.) as these have significant adverse impacts on transportation
infrastructure. Most of the compiled geohazard information is presented on maps, so coupling these data
with those from specific test boring locations using GIS tools can provide powerful capabilities to
geoprofessionals.
Geotechnical Assets
There is currently a significant focus in the transportation community on asset management including
geotechnical assets. Because transportation assets are associated with specific locations, an integrated GIS
database is ideal to manage and analyze these data.
D.5.2 Project Data from Nontraditional Sources

The previous section identified data sources that are logical candidates for a geotechnical data
management system. Experience has shown that there are several nontraditional data sources that can prove
invaluable to making geotechnical decisions. A few of these will be introduced and discussed.
Construction Information
While geotechnical subsurface characterization data can be easily georeferenced and considered in the
database, it is well known that project budgets are dominated not by the cost of the investigation, but rather
by the cost of construction. Yet valuable information is captured by construction managers to assess pay
items, but seldom are these data available to geoprofessionals to inform geotechnical decisions. Recent
experience with projects with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has demonstrated the value in compiling
construction-related data, not only to inform geotechnical decisions but to provide valuable construction
quality assurance (CQA) verification. Once in the database, it would be possible to assess potential changed
site conditions and any impacts of certain geotechnical features on construction progress and compare
construction production rates associated with specific geotechnical settings. All of this is possible if data
are entered in the geotechnical database.
302

Performance Monitoring Information

The geotechnical instrumentation that may be used during site investigation or during construction are
often left in place to monitor performance after construction is complete. If these records are provided in
the database, then performance can be associated with specific geotechnical condition, construction
difficulties, geohazards, or other events. The end use of these compiled data could be extremely powerful
in the hands of managers and planners.
Maintenance Records
While construction costs are critical factors in a State DOT budget, the day-to-day expenses related to
maintenance can quickly accumulate, often without the knowledge of other departments. If inspection and
maintenance records were georeferenced, the data could again be correlated to site characterization
information. Knowing the signs and progression of increased maintenance could lead to developing
preventive maintenance programs across a state level or nationally. This has been observed to reduce
emergency action funding requirement in the United Kingdom and could be an interpreted outcome of the
geotechnical database.
D.5.3 Historical Information for Region

Geotechnical data for transportation projects are often associated with projects, but DOTs typically have
multiple projects within a specific region or district. If projects are viewed as independent elements, then it
is difficult to learn lessons from one project and extend them to others within the region. If data are
maintained in a georeferenced database, the user could query the database for all projects within a specific
geologic formation or geographically similar region or other parameters and compare boring, test results,
construction costs, maintenance requirements, and postconstruction performance.
Geological Information
Geologic information is perhaps the easiest to visualize on a regional basis. Geologic maps are now
georeferenced and readily imported to GIS platforms and used as layers to provide and underlying frame
of reference. Significantly, geologic boundaries do not necessarily honor state borders, so information
compiled in northeast Tennessee may be valuable for a project is western Virginia. If data were compiled
by State DOTs in a consistent manner (an effort that could be suggested at a national level), it would be
possible to beneficially use data throughout a geologic province.
Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Data

Geoprofessionals recognize the critical role that water plays in geotechnical projects and performance.
Water is also a critical subject of study for hydrologists and hydrogeologists. Information from these
disparate groups is commonly georeferenced, but may not be consistently recognized by geoprofessionals.
Once again, if consistently georeferenced, the data can be easily accessed and at least considered by others
in the geoprofession. Similar to geologic information, these data can be made available for multiple uses
by various geoprofessionals by being tracked on separate layers in a GIS map.
D.5.4 Research Data

Geotechnical data may be used for project-related activities and then archived until the next project in
the area requires the use of the data. And these same data can be continuously reviewed, updated, and
subject to various geostatistical assessments to establish state- or region-wide correlations. Thus, the
303

database can be viewed as a tremendous resource to researchers. This is yet another positive attribute and
benefit that comes from a commitment to manage geotechnical data.
Agency-Supported Research Findings

State DOTs often fund research studies focused on specific problems in specific regions (e.g., expansive
soils near Dallas, Texas; pile load tests in New Orleans, Louisiana; liquefiable sands near Columbia, South
Carolina). If researchers had access to geotechnical data from the State DOT districts, local municipalities,
and even private owners and developers in a common georeferenced database, it would facilitate analysis
of the data and minimize the mundane effort (and extensive budget) devoted to locating data files, manually
entering the data, and then compiling the data into a database. Research budgets could be put to better use,
and significant value should be expected.
National Research Findings

What starts at a state level is amplified when one considers national ramifications of a consistent database.
Admittedly, the effort to consider data compilation at a national scale could be overwhelming, but the
benefits are easy to envision. For example, conditions that lead to rockfalls in Colorado could be easily
compared to conditions in Oregon, Tennessee, and North Carolina and the finding, performance, and
lessons in these different geologic conditions could be compared. Similarly, the concept of a national pile
load database would be more easily envisioned if standard templates were used to collect data from all
projects across the country. Geoprofessionals at the state and national level could help influence decisions
regarding data consistency, as they would be the primary beneficiaries of consistently compiled
georeferenced data.
D.5.5 Geoenvironmental Remediation

While State DOTs occasionally encounter adverse geoenvironmental conditions that must be remediated,
these are often considered one-off projects that are thoroughly investigated, remediated, and then closed.
Again, valuable data are often gathered during these investigations. When viewed in companion with other
geotechnical information in the area, geoenvironmental data can be consider valuable supplementary data.
If coupled with geoenvironmental data submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and considered to be in the public domain, geoenvironmental data can be a lost-cost addition to geotechnical
site characterization assessments.
Monitoring Well Construction Records

Geoprofessionals frequently need information regarding water levels. For geoenvironmental projects, it
is common to install numerous groundwater wells that are screened across specific zones. The density of
the wells is typically such that it is possible to assess groundwater flow direction within specific
hydrogeologic units. This level of detail is seldom available for most projects focused exclusively on
geotechnical characterization. Therefore, these data could be used to significantly enhance the geotechnical
characterization of a project site.
Site-Specific Geologic Information

Geologic data is now available electronically and on georeferenced maps. For many geoenvironmental
projects a conceptual site model is developed based on the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. For
these projects, the interpreted geology often far surpasses the presentations made during investigations
304

focused primarily of geotechnical data. Having access to this information in a common reference system,
will likely prove valuable to the geotechnical project.
D.6 Business Processes Considered in a Geotechnical Data

Management System
As referenced in Section D.1, a successful geotechnical data management system requires senior
management support, efforts by a system champion, and commitment to sustainability. This section will
focus on the business-related aspects of data management. Words like support, efforts, and commitment
imply financial resources devoted to making a data management system successful. There is truly a business
component of data management that cannot be overlooked; this component will be addressed in this section.
D.6.1 Data Collection and Management

There are three progressive business elements that must be considered. The first element is the physical
process of data collection and data management. These efforts focus on finding the most efficient
techniques to get valid information and data into a data management system. This work will largely be the
responsibility of the identified champion who can see the link between the collected data, the database, and
the visualized results.
Data Collection
Data collection is time consuming and resource intensive. If efficient techniques are invoked for
collecting the data, the resources responsible for data collection can be reduced, in many cases significantly.
This is facilitated using templates and automated data entry. Most importantly, however, the data that are
collected and conveyed to the database will not now be relegated to the paper files that are stored in boxes
in the basement. These data will be allowed to survive and flourish in the database, where they can be
reused effortlessly for future endeavors. This is a point that needs to be brought to the attention of
management.
Data Management
If data management has not yet been considered, the addition of this component sounds initially as an
additional expense that had not been budgeted. While some of this is true, effective data management
implies that resources are not expended to locate archived files, to manually reenter data into a spreadsheet,
and to cut-and-paste various fields to compile tables and plots of the data. If a conscious effort is made to
account for the time and resource savings, these avoided tasks can offset the cost associated with the new
project task of database manager. In discussions with several agencies who have made the transition, it has
been reported that effective data management is an excellent way to extend project budgets and accomplish
more than had been realized following the traditional information (not data) management activities.
D.6.2 Data Analysis and Visualization

The second element focuses on the end users who will perform analyses and identify the requisite plots,
tables, and visualization requirements. Again, the database management champion will be important, but
well-trained users are inherent to a valuable data management system. New skill sets will often must be
developed.
305

Data Analysis
Historically, geoprofessionals have dedicated much of the allocated time for the project to collect and
compile the data, resulting in less-than-desired time for data analysis. If the data collection and compilation
efforts can be streamlined, then there should be time available for analysis of the data. This is one of the
subliminal benefits of effective data management⎯geoprofessionals are provided more opportunities to do
productive work, rather than devoting extensive time essentially on clerical activities. With this new-found
opportunity comes the potential for better integrating and evaluating data, performing analyses, and
assessing results.
Data Visualization
Preparing summary tables, plots, and graphs have historically been time consuming because it normally
required cut-and-paste efforts from large files. As a result, it is usually the traditional data summary plots
and test results that are generated. While it is recognized that additional benefits could be gleaned from the
data, there is usually insufficient time to perform these functions and assess various “what if” options. A
benefit of effective data management is that data visualization can become much more efficient, thus
allowing additional time to explore other ways to view or interpret that data. For example, using the
database, allows time to perform geostatistical evaluations on the data and generate additional useful graphs
and plots (e.g., probability distribution graphs, cross-correlation plots). These efforts are anticipated to
increase confidence in the test results, improve understanding of the variability of the results, and allow
better assessment of the sensitivity of various parameters on the design. Again, for the time previously
allocated to providing data interpretation, the geoprofessional using the database can be much more
productive. This information is anticipated to have significant benefit in the load and resistance factor
design method adopted by FHWA, as the owner can realize financial advantages when the variability of
parameters is reduced. These benefits must be confirmed and brought to the attention of management.
D.6.3 Integration of Data with other Systems

The third element includes techniques and efforts to demonstrate the value of the geotechnical data to the
nongeotechnical professionals. These may include project managers, construction managers, and owners,
who see the integration of the geotechnical data with other sources of data (e.g., project productivity,
construction costs) as a value-added component of the project that is worthy of their support⎯physically
and financially. These aspects contribute to the value and the sustainability of the data management system.
Data Integration with Business Units

Geotechnical data can often be considered a silo of information that serves a single function on a project
(e.g., specifically to size a footing or pile, assess a safe slope angle). Once completed, it is not unusual for
the geotechnical data (and the geoprofessional) to no longer participate in the project. But, the geotechnical
database can be used to manage other important project data that are related to geotechnical performance,
including construction information, CQA records, and instrumentations records. As such the database can
(and should) become a valuable part of the entire project. Using the database, the geoprofessional can query
other project personnel to understand what type of data can be included in the database that would beneficial
to them. This information will not only strengthen the database, but also keep the geoprofessional engaged
for the duration of the project. As postconstruction performance monitoring may be considered (or required)
and as maintenance records are periodically entered, the geoprofessional will again be able to contribute.
306

Data Integration with Other Technical Units

Within the agency organization, there are other technical units, including hydraulics, pavements, and
structures, that have a need for geotechnical data. The geotechnical database can also store, manage, or
reference geotechnical information that are related to the project success. For example, pavement conditions
and pavement maintenance records are anticipated to be related to subgrade conditions and precipitation
records. Again, storing relevant information or dereferencing this information in a database will not only
allow maximum utility of the geotechnical data, but will keep the geoprofessional engaged.
D.7 Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Specialists (DIGGS) Format
Previous sections of this appendix discussed the relative merits and utility of geotechnical data
management. Once a commitment is made by an organization to implement a data management system,
one focus needs to identify the most efficient way to get information into and out of the database. For most
geoprofessionals who have interacted with FHWA and State DOTs over the past 15 years, they have heard
reference to standardized data and data transfer protocols. During this time, FHWA in collaboration with
the Ohio DOT and the G-I have been working on a data interchange format referenced as DIGGS. DIGGS
is the standardized data transfer protocol for the geotechnical and geoenvironmental data most commonly
used by geoprofessionals. DIGGS is now available to the entire industry and can be accessed through the
DIGGS website1 or at the G-I’s website2. This section provides a brief introduction to DIGGS and shows
how DIGGS can (and should) be incorporated into the routine practice of geoprofessionals
D.7.1 Benefits of Using DIGGS

One of the most important aspects of DIGGS, and one of the hardest for geoprofessionals to comprehend,
is that DIGGS is explicitly not a database, but rather a protocol for getting data into a database. If the
DIGGS development team opted to define a specific database schema or suggest a specific database as a
solution, the decision would have been met with resistance because it would force DOTs, agencies, and
users to adopt a very specific data management strategy. Rather, in the early days of development, the
extensible markup language (XML) was selected as a standard for exchanging data. While not necessarily
being well understood by geoprofessionals, XML is the common data transfer format adopted by the
computer science industry. The user can think of the link between XML and geotechnical data in the same
spirit as the link between HTML and the internet community. In this spirit, it is recognized that a user does
not must understand HTML to be able to browse the internet, because the user understands that the
developers used tools that work in the background to assure that the user can use any browser to perform a
Google search. The goal of DIGGS is to facilitate geotechnical data input and output from the database and
other software applications and products.
Electronic Data Structure for Database Development

The heart of DIGGS is a schema for preparing an electronic file that meets certain requirements such that
it will be universally recognized. As such, a data schema was established during development and
subsequently published at the DIGGS website. Thereafter, if a file is prepared consistent with the DIGGS
schema and if the application (e.g., relational database, plotting software, GIS platform) receiving the
DIGGS file can accept DIGGS files, then any data from any application can be interchanged. This is
1
http://diggsml.org/
2
http://committees.geoinstitute.org/people/diggs-standard/
307

demonstrated in Figure D-4. If users understand the DIGGS schema and the associated rules for identifying
attributes of the schema, then any data can be converted into a valid DIGGS file.
Source: ASCE
Figure D-4. Concept for DIGGS data interchange
User-Friendly Data Dictionary

To facilitate the use of DIGGS and to understand the data schema, a user-friendly data dictionary has
been developed for geotechnical boring logs, CPTu soundings, and the most common geotechnical tests. A
working knowledge of the DIGGS schema will allow developers (or sophisticated users) to generate valid
DIGGS files for other tests or activities. The data dictionary is published on the DIGGS website. Open-
source programs are available to facilitate development of valid DIGGS files (e.g., oXygen, XML Notepad,
Adobe FrameMaker). As part of the Ohio DOT and G-I development, an online DIGGS Feedback Tool
was developed to assist with developing valid DIGGS files from an Excel spreadsheet. Information
regarding access to this feature is provided on the DIGGS website.
Rules for Managing Metadata

Although not officially part of the DIGGS file, the developers provided guidelines for preparing the
metadata used to develop the valid DIGGS file. These guidelines are consistent with the computer science
community guidelines.
Automatic Data Validation through Independent Software

As a component of the G-I development efforts, a DIGGS Validator was developed to assure that a user’s
DIGGS file is consistent with the DIGGS schema. If a template is developed for a specific test and the
template is initially validated, it is not necessary to validate each DIGGS file generated using the template.
308

Tools to Facilitate Data Input, Output, and Exchange

The DIGGS developers are working to develop tools that can be used to facilitate data input, output, and
interchange. These tools will be posted on the DIGGS and G-I website to promote use of the DIGGS
standard, at least until software developers (either commercial or open-source) embrace the DIGGS format
and include provisions for DIGGS import and DIGGS output in existing software applications.
D.7.2 Requirement for DIGGS Sustainability

DIGGS has been developed and demonstrated to work and perform as designed. While the schema has
been developed, the tools for modifying existing software packages to import and export valid DIGGS files
require case-by-case coding. Currently, the DIGGS developers are continuing to work with the G-I to
develop and post tools that can facilitate DIGGS file development. Ultimately, it is hoped that geotechnical
software developers will incorporate the DIGGS format as supported data input and output formats.
User-Friendly Data Input and Output

One of the functional attributes developers adopted is to develop user-friendly templates and guidelines
that users can follow to create user-defined templates. This is accomplished by generating templates in
spreadsheets that can generate valid DIGGS files automatically with a click of the button. The back-end to
the spreadsheet is the DIGGS Feedback Tool. The developers believe that until software developers
implement the DIGGS schema, facilitating DIGGS file generation is an important contribution in the
interim.
Sustainable Business Model

It is G-I’s goal to develop a sustainable business model that can support the geoprofessional community
by providing an array of tools that generate and use DIGGS files. This model may come in the form of
individual licenses, voluntary financial or in-kind contributions, or sustaining government grants. There are
models currently available for this type sustainable development, including (i) the Association of
Geotechnical Specialists (AGS) format developed in the United Kingdom for AGS, (ii) the New Zealand
Geotechnical Database (NZGD) developed and supported by the government in New Zealand, and (iii) the
Pipeline Open Data Standards (PODS) developed in support of the oil and gas pipeline industry.
Required Use by Agencies

The ultimate success of DIGGS can be assured when software vendors develop the capabilities to import,
export and interchange DIGGS files. This will require costs for coding that will be absorbed by the software
developers. The G-I is actively working on strategies to have the software deployment community support
this initiative. One way to virtually guarantee success of DIGGS is for notable government agencies (e.g.,
United States Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, AASHTO, EPA), owners, or industry organization (e.g.,
Deep Foundations Institute, Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors) require its use and adoption. Again,
the G-I development team is actively engaged in soliciting support from these organizations.
309

E APPENDIX E
Quality Assurance Systems
E.1 Introduction
Quality assurance (QA) systems consist of processes that evaluate and monitor a product or service to
ensure compliance with established norms or standards. The goal of QA systems in the context of this
manual is to maintain an acceptable level of quality and consistency of the geotechnical services being
performed for the State Departments of Transportation (DOTs).
The following are the components of a QA system, sometimes referred as total quality management
(TQM):
• A quality plan
• A QA process
• A quality control (QC) process
A quality plan for geotechnical services should be developed by each State DOT and should include the
standards and practices that must be used when providing geotechnical services.
The State DOT management should develop the QA process. The QA process monitors and determines
if the geotechnical services are being performed in accordance with the quality plan. The QA process must
integrate management principles that include identifying authority and organizational structure,
consistently evaluating and monitoring the quality plan, measuring and reporting the adherence to the
quality plan, routinely evaluating and improving the quality plan.
The geotechnical service providers should implement the QC process. The QC process ensures that
geotechnical service providers are adhering to the requirements of the quality plan when executing
geotechnical work.
While implementing the QA system, geotechnical service providers should not lose the perspective that
the goal of the QA system is to maintain a level of quality and consistency of the geotechnical services
being performed that is consistent with the goals of the State DOT and its responsibilities. The QA system
is a tool for improving the quality plan and for exposing deficiencies in meeting the requirements of the
quality plan. It should not be used as a tool for punitive reprimands or unconstructive criticism as this will
degrade the ability of the QA system to evaluate the quality and consistency of the geotechnical services
being provided.
This appendix includes guidelines for developing a quality plan that will define the State DOT standards
and establish how the QA process is to be used by the State DOT when geotechnical services are being
provided. The guidelines included in this appendix address the following topics:
• QA plan key components
• QA/QC plan
• Subsurface investigation prequalification
• Instrumentation prequalification
• Policy and procedures
• Standards
• QA performance monitoring and improvement process
310

Additional information and guidance to develop a QA system can be obtained from the U.S. Office of
Personal Management (USOPM) Federal Total Quality Management Handbook (USOPM 1991), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction (FHWA 2002),
and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-68A Best Practices in Quality
Control and Assurance in Design (NCHRP 2011).
Several State DOTs have developed QA plans for geotechnical services, but currently the plans vary
greatly in the scope and detail provided. Some QA plans encompass the entire geotechnical scope of
services, and others are specific to geotechnical design, subsurface investigation, field testing, and
laboratory testing. The State DOT QA plan for geotechnical services is sometimes contained in the State
DOT geotechnical design manual or the materials procedures manual. The following are some of the State
DOTs that have notable geotechnical QA plans:
• California DOT Geotechnical Manual (CALTRANS 2012)
• New York State DOT Geotechnical Design Manual (New York State DOT 2013)
• South Carolina DOT Geotechnical Design Manual (South Carolina DOT 2010)
• Utah DOT Geotechnical Manual of Instruction (Utah DOT 2014)
• Virginia DOT Manuals of Instruction (Vermont DOT 2015)
• Washington State DOT Materials Quality Assurance Program (Washington State DOT 2016) and
Geotechnical Manual (Chapter 1 – QA) (Washington State DOT 2017)
E.2 Quality Assurance Plan Key Components

The State DOT should develop a QA plan document that provides guidance and expectations to the State
DOT and consultants that provide geotechnical services. The QA plan should include guidelines for
geotechnical services provided during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of a geotechnical
feature.
The QA plan should contain the following key components:
• Introduction
• Purpose
• QA/QC policy
• Roles and responsibility
• QA/QC plan
• Prequalification requirements
• Policies and procedures
• Standards
• QA performance monitoring and improvement process
E.2.1 Introduction
The introduction lists the overall objectives of the QA system and describes the program mechanisms
necessary to accomplish the objectives stated.
E.2.2 Purpose
The purpose describes the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identifies the required
documentation and resources to be used.
311

E.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Policy

The QA/QC policy is the State DOT policy statement to obtain geotechnical services that meet the state
and federal acceptable levels of quality and consistency.
E.2.4 Roles and Responsibilities

The roles and responsibility of the State DOT upper management, project managers or supervisors, and
geotechnical personnel are defined with respect to implementing the QA plan.
E.2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan

The QA/QC plan defines the protocols necessary to manage, conduct, and evaluate if geotechnical
services are being completed at an acceptable level of quality and consistency. This requires establishing a
systematic process that is accountable and traceable. The success of the QA/QC plan is based on having
QC documentation standardized and the roles and responsibilities of all personnel involved clearly defined
and traceable throughout each step of conducting the geotechnical services. The QA/QC plan must
document the geotechnical services to be used on State DOT projects during design, construction, and
maintenance. A subsurface investigation QA/QC plan can be developed based on ASTM International
(ASTM) D3740 as the minimum requirements for testing and inspecting soil and rock for use in engineering
design and construction. An example of a quality management program is presented in the CALTRANS
Geotechnical Services Quality Management Program (CALTRANS 2012).
Guidelines of items that should be included in the QA/QC plan for subsurface investigation and
geotechnical instrumentation are provided below. The QA/QC plan requirements should distinguish
between the distinct types of subsurface investigation programs (preliminary and final).
E.2.5.1 Field Testing

The field testing plan establishes communication protocols, roles and responsibility, scope of work,
anticipated effort required, and deadlines for completing the geotechnical services.
The field testing QA/QC plan should address the State DOT policies, procedures, specifications, and QC
documentation for the following geotechnical services:
• Soil drilling
• Soil and rock sample retrieval
• Transport soil and rock samples
• In situ testing
• Instrumentation
• Geophysical testing
The QA/QC plan should standardize the format of reporting field data (i.e., logs) that document field
testing and the type of deliverables to maintain consistency and facilitate the evaluation of quality.
E.2.5.2 Laboratory Testing

The laboratory testing plan establishes the QA/QC expectations of the geotechnical services being
performed. The plan establishes communication protocols, roles and responsibility, scope of work, special
instructions, and deadlines for completing the geotechnical laboratory testing services.
The laboratory testing QA/QC plan should address the State DOT policies, procedures, specifications,
testing standards, and QC documentation for the following geotechnical services:
• Storing soil and rock samples
312

• Handling samples
• Selecting test specimens
• Calibrating equipment
• Specifying and referencing laboratory testing standards and manuals
The QA/QC plan should standardize the format of conducting and reporting all laboratory testing and
type of deliverables to maintain consistency and facilitate the evaluation of quality.
E.2.5.3 Instrumentation
The instrumentation QA/QC plan requirements should distinguish between the distinct types of
geotechnical instrumentation programs. Instrumentation programs are typically undertaken because of
either poor field performance of a geotechnical structure after construction or during construction to verify
that the structure performance meets the design requirements or when unacceptable performance is
observed during construction.
A geotechnical instrumentation monitoring plan establishes communication protocols, roles and
responsibility, scope of work, anticipated effort required, reporting expectations, and deadlines for
completing the geotechnical services. A subsurface investigation plan may also need to be prepared to
facilitate the installation of the geotechnical instrumentation and to provide additional subsurface
information to assist with the interpretation of the subsurface site conditions.
The instrumentation QA/QC plan should address the State DOT policies, procedures, specifications, and
QC documentation. The instrumentation QA/QC plan should also standardize the format for collecting and
reporting all instrumentation monitoring data and types of required deliverables to maintain consistency
and facilitate the evaluation of the quality.
E.2.6 Prequalification and Verification

The prequalification requirements are defined for State DOT and consultants providing geotechnical
services. Prequalification verifies that the geotechnical services providers have the equipment and qualified
personnel to perform the required geotechnical services. The verification process includes inspections,
certification, training, and experience. Prequalification requirements pertaining to field testing, laboratory
testing, and instrumentation are provided below:
E.2.6.1 Field Testing

A prequalification requirement helps to ensure that State DOT and consultants have the training,
knowledge, and skills to provide the subsurface investigation services required. Prequalification should
include reviewing personnel qualifications, project experience, and site inspections, as well as requiring
specific training courses to be able to perform specialized geotechnical services. The National Highway
Institute (NHI) courses 132084 (Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration) and 132079 (Subsurface
Investigation Qualification) or similar courses should be required as part of the prequalification process for
geotechnical managers, inspectors, and field personnel. The National Institute for Certification in
Engineering Technologies (NICET) has also developed a certification program for engineering technicians
engaged in soil investigation. Most states require that the drilling crew have water well licenses. The
prequalification process should be periodically performed to ensure that all QA/QC plan requirements are
being met. The State DOT should clearly define the prequalification process with respect to prequalification
for specific geotechnical services, minimum requirements, and documentation of these items for (i)
subsurface drilling and sample collection, (ii) in situ testing, and (iii) geophysical testing.
313

E.2.6.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing services can be prequalified by using the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory
(AMRL) certification program for specific laboratory tests using either the AASHTO or ASTM laboratory
standards or as required by the State DOT. NICET has also developed a certification program for
engineering technicians engaged in laboratory testing. The laboratories should only conduct those tests for
which that specific laboratory is certified. If certification is not available for a specific laboratory test, then
a QA/QC plan for that test shall be developed and approved by the State DOT as given and included in the
State DOT material testing procedures manual. The prequalification for laboratory testing should be
periodically performed to ensure that all QA/QC plan requirements are being met.
E.2.6.3 Instrumentation
A prequalification requirement for instrumentation certifies that State DOT internal staff and consultants
have the training, knowledge, and skills to provide the geotechnical instrumentation services required.
Instrumentation prequalification should include reviewing personnel qualifications, project experience, and
site inspections, as well as requiring specific training courses to perform specialized geotechnical
instrumentation services. The NHI course 132041 (Geotechnical Instrumentation) or similar course should
be required for managers and supervisors as part of the prequalification process for geotechnical
instrumentation services.
E.2.7 Policies and Procedures

A QA system requires that State DOTs develop policies and procedures to establish the geotechnical
standard of practice that promotes an acceptable level of quality and consistency of the geotechnical
services being performed. The policies and procedures provide the basis for QA evaluation and QC
verification. The policies and procedures are typically documented by State DOT in geotechnical design
manuals, materials testing procedures manuals, and specifications. These documents typically address the
following:
• Administrative processes
• Subsurface investigation planning
• Field subsurface investigation
• Laboratory testing
• Material description, classification, and logging
• Field instrumentation
• Design criteria
• Design procedures
• Reporting
Some examples of noteworthy geotechnical design manuals that have been prepared by State DOTs
include Florida DOT Soils and Foundation Handbook (Florida DOT 2018), Minnesota DOT Geotechnical
Manual (MNDOT 2017), South Carolina DOT Geotechnical Design Manual (South Carolina DOT 2010),
and Washington State DOT Geotechnical Manual (Washington State DOT 2017).
E.2.8 Standards
The State DOT policies and procedures should adopt accepted nationwide standards for field testing,
laboratory testing, and instrumentation equipment, whenever possible. State DOTs typically use AASHTO
and ASTM standards for acceptability of geotechnical services.
314

Many State DOTs have specialized laboratory testing standards that either modify existing nationally
recognized standards or have laboratory testing procedures that have been developed specifically for the
State DOT’s use. These specialized laboratory testing procedures must be formally documented by
developing an in-house standard testing procedure.
E.2.9 Geotechnical Data Management

The State DOT should establish geotechnical data management policy, procedures, and protocols for
collecting and storing geotechnical data obtained during subsurface investigations or geotechnical
instrumentation monitoring. The State DOT should standardize the electronic format to be used for
geotechnical service deliverables. Additional information regarding geotechnical data management is
presented in Appendix D.
E.2.10 Quality Assurance Performance Monitoring and Improvement Process

The State DOT should establish policy and procedures to monitor the QA system by evaluating
established metrics that asses the quality and consistency of the geotechnical services being performed by
the State DOT and consultants. For each established QA performance monitoring metric, the following
should be specified:
• Required data
• Frequency of data collection
• Target goals
• Data collection responsibilities
• How and when data is collected
The following are examples of resources that can be used to obtain data for evaluating the selected
metrics:
• Documented results of laboratory participation in proficiency sample testing, methods used, on-site
inspection programs, and laboratory testing reporting
• Documented results of field testing methods, on-site inspection programs, and field reporting
documentation
• Documented results of independent QA review of QC and QA documents for geotechnical service for
completeness
• Documented cycle times for geotechnical services from initiation to completion and determine
production rates on a per unit basis
• Documented number of days early or late in meeting deliverable deadlines
• Documented number of corrective actions or audit cycles for geotechnical services to be of acceptable
quality
• Documented number of data entry errors
Areas that are found to be deficient based on the established metric documentation need to be reported,
and the State DOT group that oversees the area where a deficiency has been identified needs to develop a
QA/QC improvement plan. Additional metrics may be implemented to track the improvement plan and
determine if the deficiency has been corrected.
315

References
CALTRANS. 2012. Caltrans Geotechnical Manual. Geotechnical Services Quality Management Program. California
FHWA. 2002. FHWA Regulation 23 CFR 637, “Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction.” Federal Highway
Association.
Florida DOT. 2018. Soils and Foundation Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation Gainesville, Florida.
Minnesota DOT. 2017. Geotechnical Manual. Minnesota Department of Transportation.
NCHRP. 2011. Best Practices in Quality Control and Assurance in Design. NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 09-01. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program. July.
NCHRP. 2012. Geotechnical Information Practices in Design-Build Projects. NCHRP Synthesis 429. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program.
New York State DOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual. New York State Department of Transportation.
South Carolina DOT. 2010. Geotechnical Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation.
USOPM. 1991. Federal Total Quality Management Handbook, Introduction to Total Quality Management in the Federal
Government. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Quality Institute, Washington, DC. May.
Utah DOT. 2014. Geotechnical Manual of Instruction. Utah Department of Transportation.
Vermont DOT. 2015. “Chapter III - Geotechnical Engineering.” In Manuals of Instruction. Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Washington State DOT. 2017. Geotechnical Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation.
Washington State DOT. 2016. Materials Quality Assurance Program. Washington State Department of Transportation.
316

F APPENDIX F
Health and Safety
F.1 Introduction
Improper and unmanaged fieldwork activities during a geotechnical site investigation program may pose
risks to human health and safety. For example, working around heavy equipment, such as drill rigs and
cone penetration testing rigs, contains safety risks. If these risks are not properly managed, they might cause
serious injury, property damage, or even loss of life. Improper use of field equipment can also cause damage
to the environment. This appendix provides a summary of commonly accepted safe operating practices to
protect human health and the environment.
F.2 General Health and Safety Guidelines

This section outlines basic safety procedures for personal hygiene, project work site sanitation, and
housekeeping practices that should be implemented and followed while at the drilling site.
• Use required personal protective equipment (PPE): Level D affords the minimum protection required.
• Be aware of potential contaminants. Upgrade PPE and follow appropriate decontamination procedures.
• Do not touch or go near moving parts; do not wear loose-fitting clothing or jewelry. Keep long hair tied
back.
• Know the location of emergency shut off switches. Shut off switches should be tested regularly.
• Allow personnel who are properly equipped and protected to respond to an accident.
• Do not smoke or use spark-producing equipment around drilling operations.
• Do not work around a drill rig during a thunderstorm.
• Maintain orderly housekeeping on and around the drill rig. Store tools, materials, and supplies to allow
safe handling by drill crewmembers. Proper storage on racks or sills will prevent rolling or sliding.
• Keep working surfaces free of obstructions or potentially hazardous substances.
• Store gasoline only in containers specifically designed or approved for such use.
• Be sure to exchange all information regarding special hazards or ongoing work that may affect the safety
of the crew during driller shift changes.
• Check rigging material equipment for material handling prior to use on each shift and as often as
necessary to ensure it is safe. Defective rigging should be removed from service.
• Be sure passengers are only allowed in vehicles designed for passenger use.
F.3 Responsibilities
Employers must furnish a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause
death or serious physical harm. Site supervisors are to review any necessary records of field personnel to
ensure that all medical and training requirements (e.g., 40-hour HAZWOPER, respirator fit test) have been
met. Field personnel should comply with the health and safety procedures and the site safety plan. The drill
rig operator is responsible for drill rig safety and maintenance.
317

F.4 Site Investigation Permit

Before any investigation can begin, the proper permits need to be obtained, where applicable. State and
local regulations may require subsurface drilling permits. Safety-related permits, such as the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hot work permit, should also be considered before drilling
occurs. A construction stormwater permit may be required for land clearing activities. A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be required for discharges of drilling fluids and
cuttings to surface waters. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection
should be contacted for floating drilling or barge operations in navigable waters to determine if any permits
or restrictions (inspections, marine pollution) exist in the area of proposed work.
F.5 Administrative Requirements
F.5.1 OSHA Poster

Each field office and project site should have the appropriate state or federal OSHA posters1 (e.g.,
“OSHA Job Safety and Health: It's the Law” poster and posters providing information on minimum wage
and worker’s compensation) posted in a conspicuous location. Poster requirements vary by state. Be sure
to check for the proper state listing.
F.5.2 Personnel Safety Certificate

Site supervisors should review records of each field personnel assigned to work on projects involving
hazardous substances to ensure all requirements pertaining to health and safety (such as medical clearance
certificates and training certificates) comply with 29 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1910.120.
F.6 Site Inspection

Prior to bringing field equipment to the job site, conduct a site walk survey to identify overhead electrical
hazards, potential subsurface hazards, and terrain hazards. Document possible hazards and communicate
them to the drilling crew. The initial site inspection should address the following criteria:
• Are utility plans or maps available on-site for review?
• Has any irregular access, including difficult terrain, narrow roads/bridges, steep access roads, tight
spaces (e.g., between buildings), water crossings, and soft ground, been described and sketched?
• Has the grade and slope of drilling or digging location (e.g., level, gently sloping to the south) been
described.
• Is the location within 20 feet (ft; 6 meters [m]) of any building or structure?
• Are there any locked gates? If so, obtain combination or key location.
• Is the location in a roadway, parking lot, or other public/paved area?
• Are there any manhole covers, water valve covers, concrete Christy boxes, or other flush-mounted
monuments denoting electrical or other utilities in the vicinity?
• Are there any fire hydrants, transformers, propane tanks, streetlights, sprinkler systems, backflow
prevention devices, or other surface features proximal to the location that may be connected to
underground lines?
• Are there any visible surveyor’s flags denoting buried natural gas or other pipelines?
• Is there old paint on paved surfaces denoting utilities in the vicinity?
1 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/poster.html
318

• Are there visible repaved asphalt or concrete patches, trenches, or other road cuts? If location is in an
unpaved area, is there any displaced grass or dirt, or evidence of recent digging?
• Are overhead power lines, tree limbs, building eaves, overhangs, or other obstructions within 20 ft (6 m)
of the location or access route that may impair access or the ability to raise the mast or cause safety
concerns?
F.6.1 Utilities and Overhead Utilities

When damaged or struck, overhead or subsurface utilities can injure personnel, damage equipment,
disrupt community services, or create environmental hazards. The location of overhead and buried utility
lines must be determined before drilling begins, and locations should be noted on boring plans. The site
supervisor should contact the One-Call Center for the state in which drilling is to be performed to obtain
written clearance. All utilities should be identified and communicated to drilling and drill support personnel.
Additional utility clearance may be required using geophysical locating services, air knife excavation,
vacuum excavation system, or post hole digging.
F.6.2 Clearing the Work Area

Before a drill rig is positioned to drill, the area should be cleared of removable obstacles, and if the area
is sloped, it should be leveled. The cleared or leveled area should be large enough to accommodate the rig
and supplies. Field personnel engaged in site clearing should be protected from hazards of irritant and toxic
plants and suitably instructed in the first aid treatment available. Mechanized equipment used in site
clearing operations should be equipped with rollover guards and overhead and rear canopy guards in
compliance with 29 CFR 1926.604(a)(2)(i). Only trained personnel should operate heavy equipment.
F.7 Health and Safety Plan

The health and safety plan (HASP) should be in writing and detail the site's health and safety hazards,
job tasks and operations, and the specific control measures used to safeguard personnel. The HASP should
address the site’s organizational structure, lines of authority, accountability, and communication. Projects
performed under 29 CFR 1910.120, HAZWOPER standard incorporate additional elements: site-specific
requirements for training, PPE, medical surveillance, air monitoring, site control, decontamination,
emergency response plan, and a spill containment program.
F.7.1 General Safe Work Practices

This section provides general work practices that can be implemented by each of the on-site field
personnel to support safe working conditions:
• No one shall knowingly be permitted or required to work while field personnel’s ability or alertness is
impaired by fatigue, illness, or other causes such that it might unnecessarily expose the field personnel
or others to injury.
• Anyone known to be under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, or drugs shall not be allowed on the job
while.
• Horseplay, scuffling, and other acts that tend to have an adverse influence on the safety or well-being of
the field personnel are prohibited.
• Work should be preplanned and supervised to prevent injuries while handling materials and working
with equipment.
• No equipment shall be operated unless all appropriate guards and safety devices are in place and properly
adjusted.
319

• To the extent practical, mechanical or powered equipment will be used to handle, lift, or move heavy
objects weighing more than 49 lbs. Manual handling of heavy objects shall be kept to a minimum. When
field personnel handle heavy objects or awkward lifts, the lifts should be planned, and assistance will be
obtained to minimize the risk of injury.
• Footwear worn on-site must comply with current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or
ASTM International (ASTM) specifications; ASTM F2413-05 must be indicated in or on footwear.
• Field personnel should wash using soap and water thoroughly before eating, drinking, smoking, or
leaving the job site. When hazardous materials or hazardous waste are involved, field personnel will go
through appropriate decontamination.
• All sources of ignition should be eliminated from the work area when using flammable liquids. Gasoline
should not be used for cleaning.
• Appropriate gloves should be worn when handling materials that may present exposure hazard(s).
– Leather work gloves are usually sufficient when handling wood and sharp debris. Special gloves are
also available for handling broken glass and other especially sharp objects.
– If the materials are contaminated, personnel will wear chemical-protective gloves to protect against
the contamination under the work gloves. The chemical-protective gloves must also be protected
against puncture wounds to the skin.
• If necessary, translations of safety data sheets (SDSs) and the HASP should be provided for non-English-
speaking field personnel.
F.7.2 Personal Protective Equipment

PPE should adhere to 29 CFR 1910.132 – Personal protective equipment. Items listed below should be
worn by all members of the drilling team while engaged in drilling activities:
• Hard hat
• Safety footwear (shoes or boots with safety toes⎯steel or composite⎯and shanks)
• Safety glasses
• Hearing protection
• High-visibility vest
Safety harness and lifelines (Safety harness and lifelines should be worn by all field personnel working
on top of an elevated derrick beam. The lifeline should be secured at a position that will allow a person
to fall no more than 8 ft [2.4 m].)
F.7.3 Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and First Aid

At least one person qualified in the administration of first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
should be present at each field office or work site. The American Red Cross and the American Heart
Association are recognized agencies providing training and qualification in first aid and CPR.
Provisions should be made prior to commencement of a project for prompt medical attention in case of
serious injury, and these provisions should be detailed in the HASP. These provisions should include
vehicles for prompt transportation of the injured person to a physician or hospital or a communication
system for contacting necessary ambulance service. The emergency numbers should be included in the
HASP and posted prominently by the site supervisor especially in areas where 911 service is not available.
At a minimum, a Type III first aid kit should be provided at each project and field office. Each kit should
be stored in a durable water-resistant storage case and meet the specific performance requirements as
specified in Section 5.4.4 of ANSI/SEA Z308.1-2009. Contents of the first aid kits should be checked
weekly by the site supervisor in field offices and on job sites.
320

F.7.4 Task Hazard Analysis

A task hazard analysis is a technique that focuses on job tasks to identify hazards before they occur. It
focuses on the relationship between the worker, the task, the tools, and the work environment and includes
the following:
• A description of the site and its current condition
• A description of the tasks and operations that will be performed at the site
• The chemical, physical (e.g., heat and cold stress, fire, traffic, rain, lightning), and biological hazards
(e.g., rodents, snakes, insects, poisonous plants) associated with or may be encountered during those
tasks and operation
Some common hazards are listed below with guidelines to assist in mitigating the outcome or occurrence
of the hazards.
F.7.4.1 Traffic Hazard

There are a variety of traffic-related hazards that should be recognized and addressed to help ensure the
safety of jobsite personnel.
Routine Work Travel. Use safe and defensive driving practices (seat belts, safe speeds, eyes ahead, no
tailgating, limit distractions, safe cell phone use, no texting, clear windows, account for weather and road
conditions, adequate sleep, other measures as appropriate).
Unfamiliar Location. Plan travel route before driving (assemble maps, enter destination into global
positioning system [GPS])
Long Distance or During Sleep Hours. Minimize fatigue: rest breaks, light snacks (avoid heavy meals),
stay hydrated, fresh air, no loud music, clean windshield.
Unfamiliar Vehicle. Become familiar with vehicle operational controls and handling characteristics
before operating vehicle.
Special Driving Hazard. Off-road driving or use of nontypical vehicle, heavy vehicle, van, golf or utility
cart, all-terrain vehicle (ATV):
• For off-road driving, do not exceed capability of vehicle, beware of wet conditions, speed low, avoid
unsafe on orientation on slopes.
• Follow ATV specific procedures for training, safety equipment, operation, manufacturer’s instructions.
Special Skills Required for Vehicle Type. For vehicles requiring special skills (such as windowless
van, heavy work vehicle, utility vehicle, similar) ensure operator is provided training and has appropriate
operator skills through experience.
Work Site Traffic Hazards

• Wear reflective vests where exposed to traffic hazards.
• Where possible, park vehicles as protective shield from oncoming traffic.
• Configure work area and support vehicles to minimize worker exposure to traffic hazards.
• Use Department of Transportation (DOT) signal devices to reroute vehicles around work area and site
entrances and exits.
• Use DOT-trained flaggers or police detail where appropriate or required.
321

F.7.4.2 Manual Materials Handling

Handling materials manually can be hazardous, and those hazards are increased if personnel do not follow
the right precautions. The following are a list of procedures that personnel should follow to reduce the risk
of injury while manually handling materials:
• Use proper lifting techniques. Do not lift too fast, too often, or too long; do not lift with back bent or
while twisting or reaching too far; do not lift while sitting or kneeling.
• Do not manually move material over long distances.
• Be sure to take appropriate rest breaks and provide for sufficient recovery time.
• Be careful if performing a combination of different handling tasks together (e.g. lifting, carrying and
lowering).
Site conditions can also contribute to the hazards when manually handling materials:
• Walking surfaces can be uneven, sloping, wet, icy, slippery, unsteady, etc.
• There can be differences in floor levels or walking surfaces.
• If housekeeping is poor, it can cause slips, trips, and fall hazards.
• Lighting needs to be adequate.
• Work should not be performed at a fast pace.
• Movement can be restricted because of clothing or PPE or because the space is small or posture is
constrained.
F.7.4.3 Fire Hazard

Fire hazards at the work site need to be addressed and mitigated in two ways: protection and prevention.
• Fire protection
– Personnel will report any damaged or spent portable fire extinguishers to appropriate supervisor.
– Access to fire extinguishers or other fire protection equipment will not be blocked or restricted.
– Personnel will not use fire extinguishers and other fire protection equipment unless they are trained
and designated to do so.
• Fire prevention
– Personnel will be familiar with site procedure for reporting and responding to a fire.
– Field personnel and site supervisor will have training that has been approved by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and will know how to recognize and report hazardous conditions and
fire hazards associated with the materials and processes to which field personnel are exposed.
– Good housekeeping will be practiced in all site areas and vehicles to prevent the accumulation of
flammable material.
– All flammable liquids will be kept in containers approved by Factory Mutual (FM) or Underwriter
Laboratory (UL), properly labeled, and stored in designated cabinets or storage areas away from
ignition sources.
– Smoking will only be allowed in areas designated by the site supervisor and marked with appropriate
signage.
– Flammable liquids will not be transferred into containers unless the nozzle and container are
electrically interconnected (bonded).
– Flammable liquids will not be dispensed by gravity from tanks, drums, barrels or similar containers
except through a listed self-closing valve or self-closing faucet.
F.7.4.4 Environmental Hazard

All personnel working at HAZWOPER sites must meet the medical monitoring and training requirements
specified in 29 CFR 1910.120. The medical monitoring and training procedures set forth below meet or
322

exceed those requirements set forth in 1910.120. Additional medical monitoring and training may be
required based on site activities.
• Medical monitoring
– Field personnel with a potential for contact with contaminated materials should have OSHA 40-hour
training, current 8-hour refresher.
– Specific HAZWOPER medical examination protocols developed to meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.120(f). To be medically qualified to perform HAZWOPER work, personnel need to receive the
following medical examinations:
 Initial (Baseline) Examination: The initial examination is a part of employment requirements and
must be completed (with results received) prior to the field personnel’s start of work date.
 Biennial Examination – HAZWOPER: Qualified field personnel should complete a medical
examination every two years.
 Exit Physical: At the conclusion of employment at the company or when reassigned to non-
HAZWOPER duties, field personnel should be provided with the opportunity to receive an exit
physical examination.
 Special Examinations: Determine the need for special examinations due to unusual exposure
conditions, in response to possible overexposures, and in response to field personnel health
concern(s).
The medical professional should determine the medical protocol elements for each of these examinations
based on exposure information provided. The medical professional should evaluate the results of each field
personnel’s examination and will provide a medical clearance clearly stating medical compliance with the
HAZWOPER regulatory standard (29 CFR 1910.120(f)).
• Training
– All personnel assigned to work at a hazardous waste site must be evaluated by their site supervisor to
determine their appropriate training needs and then participate in the applicable training meeting the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120(e). The training requirements vary depending upon the individual’s
activities and duration of those activities at HAZWOPER sites.
• Exposure Monitoring
– Air monitoring at HAZWOPER sites may be conducted to monitor, control, and document field
personnel exposures to chemical contaminants and to regulate controlled work area boundaries for the
protection of non-HAZWOPER field personnel and the public.
F.7.4.5 Heat and Cold Stress

Heat stress is caused by several interacting factors, including environmental conditions, clothing, and
workload, as well as the physical and conditioning characteristics of the individual. Cold stress normally
occurs in temperatures at or below freezing or under certain circumstances in temperatures of 40°F (4.4°C).
However, cold stress can occur at warmer temperatures (especially if it is rainy or windy) if personnel are
underdressed and working on or near water or outdoors and inactive for extended periods of time.
Heat Stress Instruction. Heat stress can be a significant field-site hazard, especially for field personnel
wearing chemically protective clothing. The site supervisor must instruct field personnel on how to
recognize heat stress symptoms, what the first aid treatment procedures are for severe heat stress, and how
to prevent heat stress injuries. Field personnel must be encouraged to immediately report any heat stress
that they may experience or observe in fellow field personnel. Supervisors must use such information to
adjust the work-rest schedule to accommodate such problems.
Heat Stress Breaks. Wherever possible, a designated break area should be established in an air-
conditioned space or in shaded areas if air conditioning is impractical. The break area should be equipped
323

to allow field personnel to loosen or remove protective clothing, and sufficient seating should be available
for all field personnel. During breaks, field personnel must be encouraged to drink plenty of water or other
liquids, even if not thirsty, to replace lost fluids and to help cool off. Cool water should be available at all
times in the break area and in the work area itself unless hygiene or chemical exposure issues prevent it.
Heat Stress Signs and Symptoms. Field personnel who exhibit any signs of significant heat stress (e.g.,
profuse sweating, confusion, irritability, pale, clammy skin), should be relieved of all duties at once, made
to rest in a cool location, and provided with large amounts of cool water. Anyone exhibiting symptoms of
heat stroke (red, dry skin, unconsciousness) must be taken immediately to the nearest medical facility,
taking steps to cool the person during transportation (e.g., remove clothing, wet the skin, expose to air
conditioning). Severe heat stress (heat stroke) is a life-threatening condition that must be treated by
competent medical authority.
Heat Stress Rest Schedule. Heat stress is best prevented through supervisor observation of field
personnel and routine heat stress awareness training activities. However, it is also necessary to implement
a work routine that incorporates adequate rest periods to allow field personnel to remove protective
clothing, drink fluids (vital when extreme sweating is occurring), rest, and recover. The frequency and
length of work breaks must be determined by the site supervisor based upon the ambient temperature,
amount of sunshine, humidity, the amount of physical labor being performed, the physical condition of the
field personnel, and protective clothing being used.
Cold Stress Protective Clothing. Workers must be provided adequately insulating, dry clothing to
maintain core temperatures above 96.8°F (36°C) if work is performed in air temperatures below 40°F
(4.4°C). Wind chill cooling rate and the cooling power of air are critical factors. The higher the wind speed
and the lower the temperature in the work area, the greater the insulation value of the protective clothing
required.
Cold Stress Freezing Tissue. Superficial or deep local tissue freezing will occur only at temperatures
below 32°F (0°C) regardless of wind speed. However, older field personnel or field personnel with
circulatory problems require special precautionary protection against cold injury. Using extra insulating
clothing and reducing the duration of the exposure period are among the special precautions that should be
considered.
Cold Stress Exposed Skin. For exposed skin, continuous exposure should not be permitted when the air
speed and temperature results in an equivalent chill temperature of -25°F (-31°C) or below. At air
temperatures of 40°F (4.4°C) or less, it is imperative that field personnel whose clothing becomes wet be
immediately provided a change of clothing and be treated for hypothermia. If the available clothing does
not give adequate protection to prevent hypothermia or frostbite, work should be modified or suspended
until adequate clothing is made available or until weather conditions improve.
Cold Stress Work Warming Regimen. If work is performed continuously in the cold at an equivalent
chill temperature at or below -15°F (-26°C), heated warming shelters (e.g., tents, cabins, rest rooms) should
be made available nearby. The field personnel should be encouraged to use these shelters at regular
intervals, the frequency depending on the severity of the environmental exposure. The onset of heavy
shivering, minor frostbite (frostnip), the feeling of excessive fatigue, drowsiness, irritability, or euphoria
are indications for immediate return to the shelter. When entering the heated shelter, the outer layer of
clothing should be removed; the remainder of the clothing should be loosened to permit sweat evaporation,
or a change of dry work clothing should be provided. A change of dry work clothing should be provided as
necessary to prevent field personnel from returning to work with wet clothing.
324

F.7.4.6 Rain and Lightning

Adverse weather conditions, such as rain and lightning, present hazards to the job site. These hazards can
include reduced visibility, slippery surfaces, and even being struck by lightning. The following are
guidelines for reducing hazards associated with adverse weather.
Rain. During periods of rain, fog, or other adverse weather conditions, vehicle headlights should be used.
Stop work should be considered due to rain but is at the discretion of the site supervisor and dependent on
the severity of the rain.
Lightning. Lightning strikes carry up to 100 million volts of electricity and leap from cloud to cloud or
cloud to ground and vice versa. Lightning tends to strike higher ground and prominent objects, especially
good conductors of electricity such as metal. Because light travels at a faster speed than sound, you can see
a lightning bolt before the sound of thunder reaches you. For lightning, follow the guidelines below adapted
from the 30-30 rule:
• If you count less than 30 seconds between the lightning flash and thunder, stop work and take shelter,
preferably in an enclosed building or trailer, an enclosed vehicle, or in a low-lying area avoiding wide
open areas or tall isolated objects, such as trees or power poles.
• Wait at least 30 minutes after storm has passed or dissipated before resuming work activities.
• Note that lightning may strike several miles away from the parent cloud. Precautions should be taken
even if the thunderstorm is not directly overhead. If you see a flash or lightning but do not hear the
thunder, the lightning was probably too far away to hear. Thunder from lightning discharged 15 or more
miles away is not usually heard.
• The site supervisor is responsible for monitoring the weather and stopping work when required due to
weather.
F.7.4.7 Chemical Hazard

Each project site should have an identified responsible person to implement the requirements of the
Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the hazard communication program. All hazardous substances
found in the workplace should be listed on a hazardous substance inventory (HSI). New hazardous
substances entering a workplace (e.g., project-specific materials) should be added to the HSI upon receiving
and reviewing the SDSs. Field personnel are required to report any hazardous substance found at the project
site that is not on the list of hazardous substances. The report is to be made to the site manager.
The HSI includes the following information:
• Product name
• Chemical name (if different from product name)
• Manufacturer's name
• Approximate typical quantity
• Location of substance (i.e., work area)
An SDS should be available for every hazardous substance used or stored on each job site. Copies of all
SDSs should be maintained on-site in either a dedicated folder or binder or as part of the project-specific
health and safety documentation. Employers must ensure that SDSs are readily accessible to field personnel.
All field personnel should be briefed as to where SDSs are kept and should have immediate access to any
SDS at any time during their work shift. If no SDS accompanies a hazardous substance, the manufacturer,
distributor, or importer should be immediately notified and asked to provide one.
For ongoing projects, each SDS associated with a material no longer in use should be marked as obsolete
and the date it became obsolete. At the completion of any project, the accumulated SDSs should be
maintained as part of the project records. Never destroy SDSs associated with any project.
325

F.7.4.8 Biological Hazards

Biological hazards include insects, spiders, ticks, rodents and wild or stray animals, snakes, and
poisonous plants.
• Insects, spiders, and ticks
– Protect yourself from biting and stinging insects by wearing long pants, socks, and long-sleeved shirts.
 Use insect repellents that contain DEET or Picaridin.
– Treat bites and stings with over-the-counter products that relieve pain and prevent infection.
– Avoid fire ants; their bites are painful and cause blisters. Severe reactions to fire ant bites (chest pain,
nausea, sweating, loss of breath, serious swelling or slurred speech) require immediate medical
treatment.
• Rodents and wild or stray animals
Dead and live animals can spread diseases (e.g., rat bite fever and rabies). To reduce the hazards
associated with animals at the job site, follow these guidelines:
– Avoid contact with wild or stray animals, especially those which appear ill, agitated, or disoriented.
Report such wildlife sightings to the appropriate local officials, such as Conservation or Wildlife
Enforcement Officers. Some wildlife (e.g., foxes, skunks, raccoons, other mammals) commonly
contract diseases or illness such as rabies or mange and may lose their natural fear of humans.
– Avoid contact with rats or rat-contaminated buildings.
– Wear protective gloves and wash your hands regularly if you can’t avoid contact.
– Get rid of dead animals as soon as possible.
– If bitten or scratched by any animal, get medical attention immediately.
• Snakes
– Wear heavy gloves and watch where you place your hands and feet when removing debris. If possible,
don’t place your fingers under debris you are moving.
– Wear boots that cover ankles and lower calves (at least 10 inches [25 centimeters] high).
– Watch for snakes sunning on fallen trees, limbs, or other debris.
– Watch for moving snakes as well. If you see a snake, step back and allow it to proceed.
– Be aware that a snake’s striking distance is about one-half the total length of the snake.
– Keep bite victims still and calm to slow the spread of venom in case the snake is poisonous and note
the color and shape of the snake’s head to help with treatment. Seek medical attention as soon as
possible.
– Do not cut the wound or attempt to suck out the venom.
– Apply first aid: lay the person down so that the bite is below the level of the heart, and cover the bite
with a clean, dry dressing.
• Dangerous plants
– The most common adverse reactions to plants (e.g., poison ivy, oak, sumac) are skin
irritation/inflammation.
– The best prevention is avoiding contact with the plants, being aware of local dangerous plants native
to the area, and wearing proper PPE and barrier creams. Protective clothing that prevents skin contact
should be used when there is unavoidable contact or when working in areas where there is a high
likelihood of contact.
– About 10 minutes are required for the cutaneous penetration of the allergen.
– Washing with running water is recommended but avoid using soap. Soap removes protective skin oils
and may cause or hasten penetration of the allergen.
– Nonpolar solvents, such as alcohol, should be avoided because they may spread the allergen over a
wider area.
– Early application of topical steroids minimizes the severity of the dermatitis.
– If the face or genitalia are involved, seek professional medical help within six hours of the exposure.
– Other objects, such as tools or clothing, may carry the allergen.
– Avoid touching the face with unwashed hands.
326

F.7.5 Evacuation Plan

An evacuation plan is the site-wide procedure to be executed when an emergency that requires an
evacuation occurs. This section provides general guidelines to be referenced when an evacuation is
required. When developing an evacuation plan, it is important to determine the following:
• Conditions under which an evacuation would be necessary
• Conditions under which it may be better to shelter-in-place
• A clear chain of command and designation of the person in the workplace authorized to order an
evacuation or shutdown
• Specific evacuation procedures, including routes and exits
• Specific evacuation procedures on construction sites or facilities that are not fixed in place
• Designation of which, if any, field personnel will remain after the evacuation alarm to shut down critical
operations or perform other duties before evacuating
• A process of accounting for workers after an evacuation
• Appropriate PPE, including special equipment for field personnel (e.g., appropriate respiratory
protection)
• Procedures that address special needs workers, such as those that may have physical limitations
• Any special actions for evacuation during an active shooter or other workplace violence situation
F.7.6 Emergency Action Planning and Prevention

This section provides minimum guidelines for immediate actions in case of an emergency. Site supervisor
will develop a site-specific emergency action plan (EAP) to be included in the HASP. The emergency
preparedness plan assigns responsibilities, accountability, and detailed procedures to be followed in the
event of fire, weather, and other natural emergencies. Additional details and information can be found in
29 CFR 1910.38 – emergency action plans.
In the event of any emergency incident at a project, the following general requirements apply:
• Work activities should cease, and all field personnel should be evacuated from the work location. The
evacuation should proceed in a direction opposite the critically affected area, with all field personnel
assembling in a predesignated location outside of the site property.
• A headcount should be taken of the assembled field personnel, and first aid should be administered to
any injured individuals.
• If not present at the work location, the site supervisor should be contacted immediately.
• In the event of a chemical spill, send the site supervisor to meet the responders outside the area to direct
them to the scene and provide information about the conditions that may exist, including appropriate
SDSs for hazardous material. The fire department may have spill containment dikes, absorbents,
neutralizing chemicals, and other means of mitigating spills or leaks.
• Without endangering field personnel, make a quick assessment of the situation. Call the emergency
services agency (e.g., fire department) immediately and, if there are injuries, ask for medical assistance.
Next, contact the site supervisor. When calling in the emergency, give your location, describe the nature
of the emergency, and provide your name.
F.7.7 Injury Action Planning and Prevention

This section provides guidelines to assist in preventing injuries while performing tasks on the job site.
Mechanical equipment or assistance such as dollies, carts, come-alongs, or rollers are to be used whenever
possible. Mechanical assistance must be of proper size, have wheels sized for the terrain, and be designed
to prevent pinching or undue stress on wrists. Objects to be moved must be secured to prevent falling and
properly balanced to prevent tipping.
The following guidance should be observed:
327

• General tips for lifting:

– Check to see if mechanical aids such as hoists, lift trucks dollies, or wheelbarrows are available.
– Be sure that the load is free to move.
– Check that the planned location of the load is free of obstacles and debris.
– Be sure that the path to the planned location of the load is clear. Grease, oil, water, litter, and debris
can cause slips and falls.
– Be aware that proper handling and lifting techniques may differ for different kinds of loads or
materials being handled.
– Do not lift if you are not sure that you can handle the load safely.
– Stand close to the load and face the way you intend to move.
– Use a wide stance to gain balance.
– Be sure you have a good grip on the load.
– Keep arms straight.
– Initiate the lift with body weight.
– Lift the load as close to the body as possible.
– Lift smoothly without jerking. Avoid twisting and side bending while lifting.
• Hazardous noise
– High noise areas should be avoided. Ear plugs or muffs or both should be worn in high noise areas
that must be entered or where engineering controls are unable to reduce exposure.
F.7.8 Specific Considerations

This section provides guidelines that can be referenced when mobilizing the drill rig and some of its
smaller components, drilling and sampling, and drilling on water.
Driving drill rigs along the sides of hills or embankments should be avoided; however, if sidehill travel
becomes necessary, the operator must conservatively evaluate the ability of the rig to remain upright while
on the hill or embankment and take appropriate steps to ensure its stability. Logs, ditches, road curbs, and
other long and horizontal obstacles should be approached normally and driven over squarely, not at an
angle. When close lateral or overhead clearance is encountered, a person on the ground should guide the
driver of the rig.
Loads on the drill rig and truck must be properly stored or secured while the truck is moving, and the
mast must be in the fully lowered position. After the rig has been positioned to begin drilling, all brakes
and locks must be set before drilling begins. If the rig is positioned on a steep grade and leveling the ground
is impossible or impractical, the wheel of the transport vehicle should be blocked, and other means of
preventing the rig from moving or tipping over should be employed.
F.7.8.1 Mobilizing Drill Rig

Take the following precaution prior to and during mobilization of the drill rigs:
• Lower drilling mast before moving rig.
• Secure all loads to rig prior to off-road mobilization.
• Inspect the route of travel prior to moving the drill rig off-road. Be aware of holes, rocks, trees, erosion,
and uneven surfaces.
• Remove all passengers from the cab before moving drill rig onto rough or sloped terrain.
• Engage multiple drive power trains (when available) on rig vehicle when mobilizing off-road.
• Travel directly up or down grade on slopes when feasible. Avoid off-camber traverse approaches to drill
sites.
• Approach changes in grade squarely to avoid shifting loads or unexpected unweighting.
• Use a spotter (person at grade) to provide guidance when vertical and lateral clearance is questionable.
• Use parking brake and chock wheels, when applicable, when grades are steep.
328

Raising Derrick (Mast). Prior to raising the derrick, take the following precautions:
• The overhead utilities should be located visually prior to raising the mast.
• The drill rig mast should not be raised when overhead power lines are close unless the distance between
the rig and the nearest power line is at least 20 ft (6 m) for power lines up to 350 kV. Consult OSHA
Table A of 1926.1408 for higher voltages where minimum distances may be increased to 45 ft (14 m)
for power lines up to 1,000 kV. Additional clearance distances may be needed during high-wind
conditions.
• The appropriate utility agency needs to be contacted so they can manipulate and deactivate overhead
service in areas that interfere with drilling operations.
• The derrick must not be raised until the rig has been blocked and leveled (leveling jacks down).
• The mast must be secured and locked according to manufacturer’s recommendations prior to drilling.
• If required to perform work on the mast at heights above 6 ft (1.8 m), a full body safety harness and
lanyard should be worn accordingly.
F.7.8.2 Drilling and Sampling

Only authorized and trained drill rig operators should operate a drill rig. Drill rigs should be set up and
operated according to manufacturer’s specifications. If field personnel perform drilling (e.g., direct push,
Geoprobe®), the manufacturer’s operational or field manual’s safety guidelines and specifications should
be followed. The following are additional guidelines that should be followed:
• Set up and delineate appropriate work zones. This may include an exclusion zone, contamination-
reduction zone, and a support zone. When feasible, work zones should be cleared of obstructions and
leveled to provide a safe working area.
• Establish a communication system between driller, helpers, and other field support personnel for
responsibilities during drilling operations.
• Instruct all field personnel to stand clear prior to and during startup. Field personnel should stay as far
away as possible from operating equipment; especially if rig is located on unstable terrain (drilling
operations should not proceed on unstable ground).
• Begin auger borings slowly with the drive engine operating at low speed.
• Keep hands and feet clear of rotating augers and direct-push equipment.
• Do not place hands or feet under auger sections during hoisting over hard surfaces.
• Do not remove spoil cuttings with hands or feet.
• Ensure drill rig is in neutral and the augers are not rotating before cleaning augers.
• Be sure operators and field personnel maintain a safe distance to moving parts. All those working near
moving or rotating parts should secure loose equipment.
• Guard spinning parts of the rig when possible, avoid wearing loose clothing near the rig.
• Pay close attention to foot placement; slow deliberate movement—don’t hurry
• Don’t overfill sample coolers; consider using the buddy system for lifting heavy items.
• Use a five-gallon bucket and a rope to raise equipment, tools, and sample containers up to the work area;
ensure hands are free when climbing a ladder.
• Wear protective gloves when handling soils.
• Use dust masks if site conditions are dusty and windy.
F.7.8.3 Drilling over Water

Drilling over water is requires special precautions to ensure the safety of jobsite personnel.
• Training
– Certification Requirements: All boat operators are required to complete a boating safety course and
have experience piloting a motorized vessel within the past two years.
329

– Boat safety training and education may be obtained through a recognized outside source such as the
United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.
– Certified proof of course completion from one of these outside sources must be kept on record.
– Before departure, each passenger not holding certification must be briefed by the certified operator or
captain as to the safety equipment and procedures onboard the vessel.
• Operations on and near water may require some or all of the following PPE:
– United States Coast Guard-approved personal flotation device (PFD), sized and adjusted to the wearer,
should be worn by all when danger of drowning exists. To be immediately effective in an overboard
situation, the straps must be buckled. Vests should have a rescue light during night, low-light, and
severe weather conditions.
– Foul-weather gear should be available and used, as necessary, during wet conditions.
• Rescue line
– Ring buoys with at least 90 ft (27 m) of line should be provided and readily available for emergency
rescue operations. Distance between ring buoys should not exceed 200 ft (61 m), adapted from 29
CFR 1915.158.
– At least one lifesaving skiff or boat should be immediately available at locations where field personnel
are working over or adjacent to water.
• Transfer between boats
– Transferring between boats and barges can be dangerous, particularly in rough weather. Be extremely
cautious every time you transfer. Never become complacent about this. Getting caught between
vessels, even in calm seas, can be deadly.
• Deck hazards
– Deck hazards are everywhere on vessels and barges. Rigging, wire, fittings, welding, lead, and stored
materials are just some of the many trip and snagging hazards. Also watch for slippery decks
particularly when muddy, wet, layered with ice, or if there are any fuel and lubricant spills. This is
especially hazardous during rolling deck conditions.
• Overhead hazards
– Overhead hazards are always a threat. Never stand under a hanging load, empty bucket hook, or crane
boom.
– Crane operators are not allowed to swing loads over other field personnel.
– Personnel need to stand clear of tag lines and other rigging suspended from above.
• Weather
– Full account should be given to existing weather conditions and forecast during planning for specific
project operations.
– Boat handling will cease when winds reach sustained speed of 20 knots. Launching, recovering, or
otherwise handling a boat is unsafe when wind speed reaches 20 knots.
F.7.8.4 Hand Tools and Electrical Devices

OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.301 regarding hand tools should be observed in addition to the guidelines
provided below:
• Each tool should be used only to perform tasks for which it was originally designed.
• Damaged tools or equipment should be removed from service and tagged "Defective."
• Safety goggles or glasses should be worn when using a hammer or chisel. Nearby coworkers and
bystanders should be required to either wear safety goggles or glasses also or move away.
• Tools should be kept cleaned and stored in an orderly manner when not in use.
• Electric cords should not be exposed to damage from vehicles.
• Only knives with retractable blades designed for commercial use are to be used for work. Using a
personal jackknife or hunting knife is prohibited.
330

• When a knife is not in use, the blade should be retracted and set off to the side. Be cautious of which
side is the sharpened side. Make sure the proper gloves are worn to reduce any injury.
F.8 On-Site Activities
F.8.1 Daily and Weekly Safety Briefing

A safety kick-off meeting should occur prior to starting field activities and then daily for the duration of
the project. These meetings allow the project field personnel an opportunity to maintain a high degree of
safety awareness through timely safety education. This daily safety meeting should be used to discuss
specific safety topics and obtain field personnel feedback. Topics to be discussed should include safety
hazards noted and explanation of job safety procedures unique to the project. Other items open for
discussion may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Field personnel PPE and decontamination protocol
• Project safety rules, safe work practices, and control measures
• Field personnel accidents and incident reviews
• Applicable standard operating procedures (SOPs) to job-specific activities
Records of attendance at all field personnel safety orientation and training provided as part of this
procedure should be documented.
F.8.2 Daily Equipment Inspection

Equipment that is used regularly should be examined daily for any damage or signs of stress that may
impede work tasks. All equipment must be of good construction, adequate strength, and well maintained.
F.8.3 Drill Rig Inspection Checklist

Prior to the start of site work each day, the drill rig operator should inspect all drilling equipment. The
inspection should be documented in the field records, and the records should be maintained at the site. The
drilling equipment inspection should be repeated daily. Defective equipment should be repaired prior to
use.
At a minimum, elements of a good drilling rig inspection should include checking the fluid hose lines
(hydraulic system, fuel lines etc.) and control levers for leaks, loose fittings, excessive wear, and kinked or
bent hoses, as well as confirming fluid levels are full and controls are operable. The drill rig operator should
also check that gauges are functioning and that shear pins and drive chains are in place and are not broken
and have no signs of wear or defective links. The derrick should be locked in place, and the drill rig operator
should check that hoists are properly spooled and rated to lift loads, necessary safety equipment is accounted
for, and vehicle aspects are operational (e.g., back-up alarm, lights, windshield wipers).
F.8.4 Stop Work Authority

If any hazards exist that poses an immediate danger to life or health, take immediate action to protect the
personnel. All field personnel have the right and authority to stop work when conditions are unsafe and to
assist in correcting these conditions. Field personnel should implement corrective actions so that operations
may be safely resumed, as deemed appropriate by the site supervisor.
331

F.8.5 Communication
The site supervisor should ensure that all field personnel have provided the proper contact information
and that information is organized into a coherent list that contains field personnel name, cell phone number,
emergency contact number, and information to emergency services such as fire, ambulance, and police.
Routes and location information to the nearest hospital should be displayed on a map.
F.8.6 Housekeeping
All work areas should be kept clean to the extent that the nature of the work allows. Every work area
should be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used or weather
conditions present precipitation, drainage should be maintained, and platforms, mats, or other dry standing
places should be provided (where practicable) or appropriate waterproof footgear should be provided.
Hazards from protruding objects or materials placed on paths or foot-traffic areas present a problem with
slips, trips, falls, and puncture wounds. Field personnel should keep slip, trip, fall, and puncture hazards to
a minimum by keeping objects and materials off paths and foot-traffic areas. Excess debris and trash should
be collected and stored in an appropriate container (e.g., plastic trash bags, garbage can, roll-off bin) prior
to disposal.
F.8.6.1 Personal Hygiene

Field personnel should wash hands and face after completing work activities and prior to breaks, lunch,
or completion of workday (especially prior to eating and drinking). At a minimum, personal cleaning
supplies at project sites should consist of soap, water, and disposable paper towels or items of equal use
and application (e.g., antibacterial gels, wipes).
Eating and drinking should be permitted only in areas that the site supervisor has designated for such
activities. While actively engaged in field activities, personnel should not be permitted to smoke, eat, drink,
or use smokeless tobacco except during breaks.
Water supplies should be available for use on-site and should comply with the following requirements:
• Potable Water. An adequate supply of drinking water should be available for field personnel
consumption. Potable water can be from an approved well or city water or bottled water. Individual-use
cups should be provided as well as adequate disposal containers. Potable water containers should be
properly identified to distinguish them from nonpotable water sources.
• Nonpotable Water. Nonpotable water may be used for hand washing and cleaning activities. Nonpotable
water should not be used for drinking. All containers and supplies of nonpotable water used should be
properly identified and labeled as such.
F.8.6.2 Toilet Facilities

Toilet facilities should be available for field personnel, clients, and visitors. Should subcontractor
personnel be located on-site for extended periods, it may become necessary to obtain temporary toilet
facilities. Exceptions to this requirement should apply to mobile crews where work activities and locations
permit transportation to nearby toilet facilities.
Adapted from 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i), a minimum of 1 toilet should be provided for every 20 site
personnel, with separate toilets maintained for each sex, except where there are less than 5 total personnel
on-site. For mobile crews where work activities and locations permit transportation to nearby public toilet
facilities (e.g., gas station, restaurant, rest stop), on-site facilities are not required.
332

F.8.6.3 Sanitation
Work areas should be kept free of dirt and debris that may impact the safety of field personnel and
visitors. All trash receptacles should be readily visible, accessible, and routinely emptied.
• All food and drink items should be properly covered, sealed, or stored when not in use.
• All waste food containers should be discarded in trash receptacles.
• All tables, chairs, sinks, and similar surfaces should be kept clean, and food containers stored at all times.
F.8.6.4 Additional Requirements

The site supervisor should ensure that work area cleanliness and sanitation are evaluated weekly. Based
on project-specific activities associated with the work activities and trash or waste generated, additional
safety precautions may be required.
333

G APPENDIX G
Contracting Subsurface Investigations
G.1 Introduction
A recent trend is that transportation agencies, for a variety of reasons (e.g., reduction in in-house
personnel, increased work load), have increased their use of private engineering firms in conducting
geotechnical investigations. Therefore, information pertaining to the best practices for contracting
geotechnical services is essential to the current operations of the agencies. The references reviewed to
develop the guidance provided herein include past solicitations for geotechnical services from North
Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT), South Carolina DOT, Virginia DOT, and Louisiana DOT,
as well as geotechnical manuals developed by Connecticut DOT (2005), Commonwealth of Kentucky
(2005), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2002) and Washington State DOT (2013).
Agencies typically use two types of contracting methods: on-call (or limited services) contracts and
project-specific contracts. The on-call contracts are usually used for the design-bid-build project delivery
method, while the project-specific contracts are used for projects that are programmed to be delivered using
an alternative project delivery method, such as the design-build or public private partnership. Typically,
agencies do not have direct project-specific contracts with the geotechnical firms, because under the
alternative project delivery methods, the geotechnical firms usually contract directly with either the prime
general contractor or the prime engineering consultant. Therefore, only the on-call contracting method is
discussed in greater details in this appendix.
The process for an agency to enter into an on-call contract with a firm and assign work to that firm usually
consists of the following:
• Selecting the firm(s) that will be eligible to receive work from the agency
• Negotiating contracts and processing awards
• Assigning work orders and executing the contracted tasks
Each of the processes identified above is critical to developing a successful contracting relationship
between the agency and the firm. Additional information pertaining to each process is presented in the
remainder of this appendix.
G.2 Selecting Firms

The selection process usually starts with the agency solicitating geotechnical services by means of a
request for proposal (RFP) or a request for letter of interest (RFLOI). The RFP or RFLOI includes most of
the information that the firms needs to successfully respond to the solicitation, but there is usually a
provision for the firms to submit questions or seek clarification during the solicitation period. Since the
RFP or RFLOI is the only form of communication allowed between the agency and potential firms during
the solicitation period, it is important that the RFP and RFLOI be comprehensive to ensure that the firms
understand the agency’s expectations. This section provides information regarding the following topics that
can aid the agencies with preparing RFPs or RFLOIs for geotechnical services:
• Prequalification requirements
• Description of the anticipated scope of services
334

• Requirements for licensing, professional registration, or certification

• Permitted roles of subconsultants
• Submittal requirements for the RFP or RFLOI
• Selection process and selection criteria
• Submission schedule and key dates
G.2.1 Prequalification
Prequalifying private engineering firms is one criteria agencies use to select firms that have the expertise,
equipment, and experience to provide the geotechnical services that meet the agency’s minimum acceptable
quality. Prequalification requirements typically specify the following:
• Qualification requirements for personnel performing geotechnical investigations, analysis, and
reporting: This usually includes the minimum education and experience requirements as well as
professional registrations and certifications.
• Qualification requirements for the firms performing geotechnical investigations, analysis, and reports:
This usually include requirements for the firm’s registration with the secretary of state and applicable
professional registration boards. There is also a requirement for the firm to provide a list of similar
projects it has worked on during a specified period (e.g., during the previous five years) and a list of
professional references with their contact information.
• Financial and insurance requirements.
• Requirements for the types of in situ and laboratory testing equipment the firm must have and the
required minimum quantities of each.
G.2.2 Scope of Services

The description of the scope of services should be broad and include all the services the agency
anticipates it may have a need to contract out in the areas of geotechnical investigations, geotechnical
design, performance monitoring, and performance testing. The description of scope of services may also
specify the software required for analysis, design, drafting or other activities, as well as quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) requirements for personnel and equipment.
G.2.3 Requirements for Licensing and Registration

Licensing and registration requirements for the firm and its subconsultants should be clearly spelled out
and can include being registered with the secretary of state and the State boards of registration for engineers
and geologists. Additionally, the requirements for professional registration of engineers and geologists with
the applicable boards of registration, and certification of drillers and technicians should also be clearly
spelled out.
G.2.4 Permitted Roles of Subconsultants

Agencies will most likely need a diverse scope of geotechnical services. This makes it unlikely that any
single firm will have the capability to provide all the services without involving a subconsultant. Therefore,
the RFPs and RFLOIs should include provisions allowing the use of subconsultants. If an agency wants to
control the use of subconsultants, they should include pertinent stipulations in the contract, such as requiring
the prime firm to perform the engineering analysis and design but allowing the firm to subcontract
laboratory testing services provided the prime firm is responsible for developing the laboratory testing
program and providing oversight during the execution of the laboratory testing program.
335

G.2.5 Submittal Requirements for RFP or RFLOI

The submittal requirements for the RFP or RFLOI should, at a minimum, include the following:
• The maximum page limitation for the RFP or RFLOI document
• The breakdown of the services that will be provided by the prime firm and those that will be provided
by the subconsultants
• Method of submission of the document (i.e., electronic only, by mail only, or both)
G.2.6 Selection Criteria and Selection Process

The RFPs or RFLOIs should list the factors the agency will use to evaluate whether the firms that respond
to the solicitation meet the minimum requirements listed in the solicitation. The RFP or RFLOI should
indicate percentage weight assigned to each evaluation factor. The weighting should reflect the order of
importance of the evaluation factor (i.e., evaluation factors the agency considers more important should be
assigned a higher percentage than the less important ones). The following are some of the evaluation factors
typically included in RFPs and RFLOIs:
• Quality of similar work the firm has done for the agency or similar organizations in the past
• Experience of the staff that will be working on the project (more weight should be placed on experience
that coincides with projects that have scopes similar to the agency’s projects or similar organizations)
• Capabilities of the laboratories in terms of the type of equipment, quantity of equipment, and personnel
expertise
• Types and quantities of the field exploration and in situ testing equipment
• Any specialty expertise the firm may have that will benefit the agency
An agency will usually set up a selection committee made up of the agency’s experienced geotechnical
professionals. The selection process starts with each member of the selection committee independently
reviewing and scoring each proposal or letter of interest and then submitting their evaluation to the State
contracting officer without discussing the results of their review with any other member of the selection
committee. The State contracting officer compiles all the evaluations from all the members of the selection
committee and ranks the firms in terms of their total scores. The State contracting officer then convenes a
meeting of the selection committee members to discuss the overall results of the evaluation and to select
the firms they wish to recommend for selection.
G.2.7 Submission Schedule and Important Dates

The RFP or RFLOI should include a schedule showing important dates, such as the deadline for
questions, deadline for submitting the RFP or RFLOI, and the date the agency anticipates notifying the
firms whether they have been selected or not.
G.3 Contract
Once the selection process is completed, the next step is to award the on-call or limited services contract.
These contracts are usually set up for a specified contract duration and have a maximum contract dollar
value for the contract duration. Work under on-call contracts is usually assigned to the firm based on the
agency’s needs, and no minimum volume of work is guaranteed to the firm. Work is also assigned by work
orders that include very specific and detailed scopes of work. While the actual content of on-call contracts
will vary from agency to agency, there are certain contract provisions that are common to most on-call
contracts. These provisions that are frequently included in most contracts are presented below:
• A broad scope of work should be included in on-call contracts to give the agency more flexibility in
using these contracts without having to engage too many firms. The scope of work should highlight what
336

services the agency expects the firm to be able to perform in the areas of geotechnical investigations,
laboratory testing, geotechnical design, performance monitoring, and performance testing. The general
scope of work should also specify the terms and conditions governing the use of subconsultants, work
standards that should be followed (e.g., agency’s geotechnical manual, AASHTO, American Standard
for Testing and Materials [ASTM]), required deliverables, and the types of services and data that will be
provided by the agency (e.g., a dedicated project manager and available data pertinent to the detailed
scope of work).
• The contracts should include the maximum not-to-exceed contract dollar value for the contract duration
and the types of expenditures that count toward meeting the maximum contract value (e.g., direct salary
costs, other direct costs, overhead, operating margin, per diem costs). Since these contracts are for
professional services, some of the costs for nonprofessional services (e.g., dozer services for clearing
access roads to investigation locations) may not count toward the maximum contract dollar value.
• Protocols for managing the project schedule should be included in these contracts. This typically includes
requiring the firm to provide progress reports on a specified frequency (e.g., weekly, monthly) depending
on the project size. The progress reports should include percentage of tasks completed, current and
updated project schedule, outstanding issues, and anticipated problems.
• The contract must include payment terms. The payment terms usually stipulate that payments are based
on the percentage of work completed as documented in the progress reports, invoices, and other
supporting documents (e.g., time sheets, invoices from subconsultants). Payment terms also include the
requirement for the firm to pay their subconsultants within a specified period after they are paid by the
agency.
• Because the duration of these contracts is typically longer than one year, it is good practice to include
provisions for inflation adjustments in the contract. The contract should specify the frequency of
adjustment (e.g., annual, biennial) depending on the duration of the contract and the required
documentation (e.g., amended payroll registers) to justify the request for inflation.
• To avoid the possibility of exceeding the contract value in the middle of a project, provisions for
supplemental agreements should be included in the contract. Supplemental agreements should be
considered when a specified percentage of the contract value is exceeded (e.g., 80 percent). The contract
should also include procedures for evaluating the need for a supplemental agreement (e.g., the review of
work progress, potential for cost overrun, reevaluation of scope).
• Provisions for maintenance of documents by the firm and their subcontractors should be included. The
contract should specify the types of documents that must be maintained by the firm and its subconsultants
and for how long.
• The contract should include a provision for terminating the contract for any reason as well as guidelines
regarding the process for terminating the contract while preserving any valuable work that had been
accomplished.
• The contract should include provisions for dispute resolution and the course of actions available to each
party if they cannot resolve the dispute.
• The contract should specify laws, ordinances, and regulations that the firm should comply with (e.g.,
laws pertaining to nondiscrimination in the selection of employees, subconsultants, and overall
employment practices).
• The contract should include a listing of the nature and types of personal and business relationships that
may have the potential for creating conflicts of interest.
G.4 Work Order Assignment and Execution of Tasks

Once the agency has completed negotiations and awarded the on-call contracts to the firm(s), it is ready
to start assigning work to the contracted firm(s). For on-call contracts, work is usually assigned by project-
specific work orders. The process for assigning work typically starts with the agency sending out an RFP
337

to the firm they have decided to assign the work to. The RFP usually requires the firm to develop a cost
estimate for the anticipated work. The RFP typically highlights issues that may have an impact on the cost
(e.g., the need for traffic control during the investigations, required deliverables, project schedule,
requirements to attend scoping meetings, property owner contacts, QA/QC). To develop a cost estimate,
the firm usually needs to develop and submit a detailed scope of work to the agency. The agency typically
reviews the scope of work and cost estimate and either concurs or negotiates a mutually acceptable scope
and cost. Once there is an agreement on the scope and cost, the work order assignment phase concludes
with the agency issuing a notice to proceed. The notice to proceed typically includes a not-to-exceed dollar
amount.
During the execution phase, the firm implements the investigation work as specified in their proposal.
The role of the agency during the execution phase is to provide oversight, QA, and contract administration.
For project-specific contracts used for alternate delivery methods, the agency develops the scope of work
that is included in the RFP.
The remainder of this section provides guidelines for developing the scope of work by the firm and by
the agency, QA/QC, and contract administration.
G.4.1 Scope of Work for On-Call Contracts

Although it is the firm that develops the scope of work for on-call contracts, the agency usually provides
pertinent information to help the firm develop a sound scope of work. This information sharing is necessary
to avoid potential contract disputes and will save the agency money because the firm will not have to spend
time and energy gathering information that the agency already has. The following are the types of
information and data that is valuable for developing a sound scope of work and should be provided by the
agency:
• The type of feature(s) that need to be investigated (e.g., bridge, retaining wall, embankment)
• Site access constraints, if known
• Types of permits that will be required
• Anticipated project-specific issues that could affect the health and safety of the workers
• Available pertinent records (e.g., subsurface investigation reports from nearby projects, preliminary
plans, geotechnical investigations, project surveys)
• Any known geologic or manmade constraints
• Site reconnaissance requirements
• Minimum equipment requirements, if any
• Any specific drilling, sampling, and testing standards that must be followed (e.g., AASHTO, ASTM)
• Types of drilling (exploration) methods that must be used (if the agency has preferences)
• Types and minimum quantities of samples that need to be obtained
• Types and minimum quantities of in situ and laboratory tests that must be performed
• Guidelines for classifying soils and rock
• Procedures for managing unanticipated subsurface conditions
• Sample transportation protocols and shipping frequency
• Minimum qualifications for the project personnel
• Guidelines for preparing geotechnical investigation reports and plans
• QA/QC requirements
• Guidelines for developing cost estimates for subsurface investigations
Once the firm and the agency have agreed upon the purpose or objectives of the investigation and the
firm has received the pertinent available information from the agency, the firm will prepare a detailed scope
of work. The detailed scope of work should identify the types and amount of information and data that is
338

needed to address the anticipated geotechnical issues and the design requirements as outlined in Chapter 3.
The detailed scope of work should include the rationale used to make the following decisions:
• Selection of the investigation equipment for the anticipated site conditions
• Selection of the number of investigation locations
• Selection of the depth of investigations at each investigation location
• Selection of the required types of samples and the sampling frequency for each type of sample
• Selection of the sampling equipment and borehole advancing methods
• Selection of the in situ and laboratory testing program
• Anticipated project schedule
• Estimated cost for performing the investigation
In summary, the deliverable for this phase of the work should include a detailed boring plan, sampling
and testing program, anticipated project schedule, and estimated cost for performing the investigation.
G.4.2 Scope of Work for Alternate Delivery Contracting Method

Projects let under the alternative delivery contracting method usually consist of three phases:
• Qualification
• Proposal
• Execution
During the qualification phase, firms are required to submit a statement of qualification (SOQ). The SOQ
includes information pertaining to the qualification of the team members, experience of the firm in similar
projects, etc. The agency will use this information to shortlist the top two to five firms from the list of SOQ
submitters. During the proposal phase, shortlisted firms are required to develop a cost and technical
proposal. Each proposal is scored separately, and the final selection is based on a combined score of
technical and cost proposals. The combined score is calculated using a predetermined formula. Only the
selected firm participates in the execution phase.
The scope of work is usually prepared by the agency prior to issuing the RFP and is included in the RFP
to help the shortlisted firms prepare their technical and cost proposals. Typically, an agency only conducts
limited subsurface investigations prior to issuing the RFP for inclusion in the RFP. The limited subsurface
investigations are designed to establish the general geologic framework of the site so the proposing firms
can determine the most likely geologic and manmade constraints and geotechnical issues they may
encounter. Therefore, the purpose of the agency’s scope of work is to ensure that the proposing firms
acquire the minimum amount of data the agency considers acceptable for the project. The types of
information that the agency should include in their detailed scope of work are as follows:
• Prequalification requirements for geotechnical firms participating in alternate delivery contracts
• Professional registration and certification requirements for personnel
• Applicable standards of specifications, guidance manuals, policy documents, etc.
• QA/QC requirements
• Guidelines for selecting the minimum number of required investigation locations, spacing of
investigation location, depths of investigations, etc.
• Any requirements for the types of software required for processing, analyzing, and presenting data
• Performance requirements for each geotechnical feature being investigated
• Performance monitoring requirements and the types of instrumentation that are acceptable to the agency
• Requirements for performance testing and the types of performance tests that are acceptable
339

G.4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Geotechnical data is used to make decisions that affect the performance of the transportation
infrastructure for a very long period. Therefore, it is imperative for the firm to use sound QA/QC practices
in executing geotechnical investigations for the transportation infrastructure as discussed in Appendix E.
The firm has the primary role for incorporating sound QA/QC practices in their investigation practices; the
agency provides guidance and oversight.
G.4.3.1 Role of the Private Engineering Firm in Quality Assurance/Quality Control Implementation
The engineering firm should establish their QA/QC plan based on ASTM D3740 and the guidelines
contained in Appendix E.
G.4.3.2 Role of the Agency in Quality Assurance/Quality Control Implementation

The following are mechanisms an agency should use to provide QA/QC guidance and oversight during
the execution of subsurface investigations by the firm:
• Establish field and laboratory equipment calibration requirements.
• Conduct random and routine inspections of the field and laboratory equipment.
• Arrange random field visits by experienced agency personnel to observe field activities.
• Arrange random visits to laboratories by experienced agency personnel to observe laboratory technicians
perform tests.
• Require laboratories to be accredited by a national accreditation body, such as American Materials
Reference Laboratory (AMRL).
• Require minimum training and certification for the field and laboratory technicians.
• Engage in timely review of submittals provided by the contractor.
Consequences for not maintaining acceptable QA/QC practices should be clearly spelled out in the contract.
G.4.4 Contract Administration

The primary objectives for implementing effective contract administration protocols is to minimize the
potential for contract disputes, facilitate prompt resolution of contract disputes, and ensure fairness to both
the firm and the agency. The following are some elements of effective contract administration protocols:
• Use clear contract language
• Choose the appropriate contract type
• Select the appropriate methods of compensation
• Implement clear processes for resolving contract disputes
• Engage in comprehensive invoicing
• Conduct random accounting audits
G.4.4.1 Compensation
The issues regarding compensation usually revolve around whether the payment should be a lump sum
or be based on unit of work and when mark ups for subconsultants are allowed. Therefore, the process for
determining the following should be very clear from the onset:
• Identifying when and what nature of work will trigger payment based on unit of work.
• Identify when and what nature of work will trigger payment on a lump-sum basis.
• Identify the conditions that will allow mark ups for subconsultants and other direct expenses.
340

G.4.4.2 Invoicing
The agency should provide the firm with guidelines for preparing invoices to comply with the agency’s
policies and requirements. The guidelines should spell out the types of documentation (e.g., time sheets,
receipts, subconsultant’s invoices) that must be attached to the invoices.
341

References
Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 2005. Geotechnical Guidance Manual, Frankfort, Kentucky.
Connecticut DOT. 2005. Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Connecticut Department of Transportation, Hartford,
Connecticut.
FHWA. 2002. Subsurface Investigation-Geotechnical Characterization. Publication number FHWA NHI-010131. Federal
Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Washington State DOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia,
Washington.
342

H APPENDIX H
Technology Transfer Strategies
H.1 Introduction
In addition to the guidance provided in this manual, there are numerous resources available to assist
geoprofessionals with planning and executing a sound geotechnical site investigation program; using the
results to develop a ground model for planning, designing, constructing, and managing assets of a project;
and reporting the results in a manner that facilitates peer review, communication with stakeholders, and
potential future uses. This appendix provides a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, summary of these
resources, including (i) technical manuals and reports from federal and state agencies and professional
organizations, (ii) standards and guides, (iii) information on relevant websites, (iv) classroom and web-
based training materials, and (v) workshops and conferences.
H.2 Technical Manuals and Reports

A traditional source of information is the wealth of technical manuals and reports available from federal
agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Institute (NHI), as
well as individual State Departments of Transportation (DOTs).
H.2.1 Federal Highway Administration

The FHWA resources listed below are accessible via the following website:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/library_listing.cfm
H.2.1.1 Manuals and Guidelines

• Geotechnical Site Characterization - Reference Manual - Subsurface Investigations. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031. NHI course No. 13231. May 2002.
• Soils and Foundations – Reference Manual. Federal Highway Administration. Publications No. FHWA
NHI-06-088 and FHWA NHI-06-089. NHI Course No. 132012. December 2006.
• Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements – Reference Manual. Federal Highway Administration.
Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-037. NHI Course No. 132040. May 2006.
• Determination of Unknown Subsurface Bridge Foundations. Federal Highway Administration.
Geotechnical Guideline No. 16. August 1998.
H.2.1.2 Geotechnical Engineering Circulars

• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 – LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation
Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundations – Reference Manual. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-11-032. August 2011.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 – Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-015. June 1999.
343

• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 - Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-IF-02-034. April 2002.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 - Geotechnical Site Characterization. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-072. NHI Course No. 132031. April 2017.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6 – Shallow Foundations. Federal Highway Administration.
Publication No. FHWA-SA-02-054. September 2002.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-14-007. NHI Course No. 132085. February 2015.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 8 – Design and Construction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles.
Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HIF-07-039. April 2007.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10 - Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design
Methods. Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-016. NHI Course No.
132014. May 2010.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11 - Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes. Federal Highway Administration. Publications No. FHWA-NHI-10-
024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025. NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043. November 2009.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 12 - Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations.
Federal Highway Administration. Publications No. FHWA-NHI-16-009, FHWA-NHI-16-010, and
FHWA-NHI-16-064. NHI Courses No. 132021 and 132022. July 2016.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 13 Ground Modification Methods Reference Manual. Federal
Highway Administration. Publications No. FHWA-NHI-10-027 and FHWA-NHI-10-028. NHI Course
No. 132034. April 2017.
• Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 14 - Assuring Quality in Geotechnical Reporting Documents.
Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HIF-17-016. August 2016.
H.2.2 Transportation Research Board

• Transportation Research Record - Journal of the Transportation Research Board:
https://trrjournalonline.trb.org/loi/trr
– Geological, Geoenvironmental, and Geotechnical Engineering. Volumes 2578 (2016), 2579 (2016),
2580 (2016), 2655 (2017), 2656 (2017), 2657 (2017).
– Geology and Properties of Earth Materials. Volumes 1755 (2001), 1786 (2002), 1821 (2003), 1874
(2004), 1913 (2005), 1957 (2006), 2016 (2007), 2053 (2008), 2101 (2009), 2170 (2010), 2253 (2011),
2282 (2012), 2349 (2013), 2433 (2014), 2510 (2015).
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis Reports.
http://www.trb.org/Publications/PubsNCHRPSynthesisReports.aspx
H.2.3 State Departments of Transportation

Alabama: https://www.dot.state.al.us/mtweb/Testing/testing_manual/testing_manual_geotechnical.html
• ALDOT Guidance for Preconstruction Activities. Alabama Department of Transportation. Procedure
No. 398. February 2005.
• Procedure for Conducting Soil Surveys and Preparing Materials Reports. Alabama Department of
Transportation. Procedure No. 390. February 2012.
Alaska: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcspubs/index.shtml
• Alaska Geotechnical Procedures Manual. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
May 2007.
344

Arizona: https://www.azdot.gov/business/standards-and-guidelines
• Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report Presentation. Arizona Department
of Transportation. December 1991.
Arkansas: https://www.arkansashighways.com/manuals/manuals.aspx
• Manual of Field Sampling and Testing Procedures. Arkansas Department of Transportation, Materials
Division. April 2018.
• Design-Build Guidelines and Procedures. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
September 2015.
California: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/manual.html
• Caltrans Geotechnical Manual – Geotechnical Investigations. California Department of Transportation.
Revised July 2017.
• Caltrans Geotechnical Manual – Borehole Location. California Department of Transportation. Revised
March 2012.
• Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual. California Department of
Transportation. 2010.
Colorado: https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/matgeo/manuals/cdot-geotechnical-design-
manual
• Geotechnical Design Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation. April 2017.
Connecticut: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublications/gtman_3-05.pdf
• Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Connecticut Department of Transportation. Revised February 2009.
Delaware: https://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/mat_research/index.shtml
• Materials and Research Manual. Delaware Department of Transportation. March 2005.
• Bridge Design Manual. Delaware Department of Transportation. 2017
District of Columbia: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/design-and-engineering-manual

• Design and Engineering Manual. District Department of Transportation. July 2017.
Florida: http://www.fdot.gov/geotechnical/publications.shtm
• Soils and Foundations Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. 2018.
Georgia: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/DesignManuals/DesignGuides
• Bridge Foundation Investigations– Drilling, Sampling and Special Notes. Geotechnical Engineering
Bureau Foundation Drilling and Sampling Guidelines. Department of Transportation State of Georgia.
Revised January 2012.
• Soils Surveys – Drilling, Sampling and Special Notes. Geotechnical Engineering Bureau Foundation
Drilling and Sampling Guidelines. Department of Transportation State of Georgia. Revised February
2012.
• Retaining Wall Foundation Investigations – Drilling and Sampling. Geotechnical Engineering Bureau
Foundation Drilling and Sampling Guidelines. Department of Transportation State of Georgia. Revised
November 2017.
Indiana: https://www.in.gov/indot/2804.htm
• Geotechnical Design Manual. Indiana Department of Transportation. 2018.
345

Idaho: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/manualsonline.html
• Materials Manual. Idaho Transportation Department. January 2018.
• Design-Build Manual. Idaho Transportation Department. January 2014.
Illinois: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/doing-business/material-approvals/soils/index
• Geotechnical Manual. Illinois Department of Transportation. December 2015.
Iowa: https://iowadot.gov/design/design-manual
• Design Manual – Chapter 200 – Geotechnical Design. Iowa Department of Transportation. January
2014.
Kansas: https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burStructGeotech/default.asp
• KDOT Geotechnical Manual. Kansas Department of Transportation. 2007
Kentucky: https://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational-Resources/Pages/Policy-Manuals-Library.aspx
• Geotechnical Guidance Manual. Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. June 2005.
Maine: http://www.maine.gov/mdot/bdg/
• Bridge Design Guide. Maine Department of Transportation. August 2003 (Revised July 2017).
Maryland: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=43
• Standard Specifications for Subsurface Explorations. Maryland State Highway Administration.
Massachusetts:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/LRFDBridg
eManual2013Edition.aspx
• LRFD Bridge Manual – Chapter 1 – Bridge Site Exploration. Massachusetts Department of
Transportation. June 2013.
Michigan: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9623_26663_27303-111063--,00.html
• Geotechnical Investigation and Analysis Requirements for Structures. Michigan Department of
Transportation. March 2004 (updated December 2017).
Minnesota: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/geotmanual.html
• Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Minnesota Department of Transportation. January 2017.
Mississippi: http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Materials/Pages/Material's-Division-Administration.aspx
• Materials Division Inspection, Testing, and Certification Manual. Mississippi Department of
Transportation. April 2010.
Missouri: http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines
• Engineering Policy Guide – Chapter 321.2 – Geotechnical Guidelines. Missouri Department of
Transportation.
Montana: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/manuals.shtml
• Geotechnical Manual. Montana Department of Transportation. July 2008.
Nebraska: https://dot.nebraska.gov/business-center/materials/
346

• Geotechnical Policies and Procedures Manual. Nebraska Department of Roads. April 2002.
Nevada:
https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/operations/materials-
section/materials-test-manual
• Materials Tests Manual – Aggregates and Soils. Nevada Department of Transportation. Numerical
Sequence T102H-T239B.
• Materials Tests Manual – Geology Foundation Products. Nevada Department of Transportation.
Numerical Sequence T600B.
https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/engineering/structures/structures-
manual
• Geotechnical Policies and Procedures Manual. Nevada Department of Transportation – Geotechnical
Division. February 2005.
• NDOT Structures Manual. Nevada Department of Transportation – Structures Division. 2008.
New Hampshire:
https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/specifications/index.htm
• Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. New Hampshire Department of
New Jersey
• Soil Boring Data Submission Standards. State of New Jersey Department of Transportation. November
2005. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/geologic/download.shtm
• Design Manual for Bridges and Structures, Sixth Edition. New Jersey Department of Transportation.
2016. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/BSDM/
New Mexico: http://dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/Infrastructure.html

• Design Manual, Chapter 600: Investigation of Soils, Rock, and Surfacing Materials. New Mexico
Department of Transportation. October 2016.
New York: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-engineering-

bureau/gdm
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 4: Geotechnical Field Investigation. New York State
Department of Transportation. Revised December 2013.
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 5: Soil and Rock Classification and Logging. New York State
Department of Transportation. June 2013.
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 6: Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock. New York State
Department of Transportation. June 2013.
North Carolina:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Geological/Pages/Geotech_Requirements_References.aspx
• Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations Manual. North Carolina Department of
Transportation. March 2016.
North Dakota: https://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/design/designmanual/designmanual.htm
347

• Design Manual – Chapter VII – Geotechnical Studies and Design. North Dakota Department of
Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Geotechnical/Geotechnical_Documents
• Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations. Ohio Department of Transportation. July 2017.
Oklahoma: https://www.ok.gov/odot/Doing_Business/Pre-Construction_Design/Consultant_Contract/
• Geotechnical Specification for Roadway Design. Oklahoma Department of Transportation. June 2011
(revised July 2015).
Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/GeoEnvironmental/Pages/Geotech-Manual.aspx
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 3: Field Investigation. Oregon Department of Transportation.
December 2016.
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 4: Soil and Rock Classification and Logging. Oregon
Department of Transportation. December 2016.
• Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 5: Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock. Oregon Department
of Transportation. December 2016.
Pennsylvania: http://www.penndot.gov/_layouts/pa.penndot.formsandpubs/formsandpubs.aspx
• Geotechnical Investigation Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Publication 222.
April 2018.
• Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Publication 293. April
2018
Rhode Island: http://www.dot.ri.gov/about/who/research_studies.php

• Guidelines for Geotechnical Site Investigations in Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island,
Narragansett, and Rhode Island Department of Transportation. Final Report RIDOT Study – 0103.
March 2003.
South Carolina:
• Geotechnical Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2010.
http://www.scdot.org/business/geotech.aspx
• Bridge Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006.
http://www.scdot.org/business/structural-design.aspx
South Dakota: http://www.sddot.com/business/certification/forms/default.aspx

• Materials Manual. South Dakota Department of Transportation. 2016.
• Earthwork Manual. South Dakota Department of Transportation. 2016.
Tennessee: https://www.tn.gov/tdot/materials-and-tests/geo-technical-operations.html
• TDOT Geotechnical Manual. Tennessee Department of Transportation. Version 2.0. October 2016.
Texas: http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/geo/index.htm
• Geotechnical Manual. Texas Department of Transportation. March 2018.
Utah: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4977,
• Geotechnical Manual of Instruction. Utah Department of Transportation. September 2017.
348

Vermont: http://vtrans.vermont.gov/highway/construct-material/geotech/engineering
• Geotechnical Guidelines for the Subsurface Investigation Process. Vermont Agency of Transportation.
Publication MREI 11-01. March 2011.
• Geotechnical Engineering Instruction on Soil Slope Stability Investigation and Evaluation. Vermont
Agency of Transportation. Publication GEI 14-01. October 2014.
Virginia: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/materials-download-docs.asp
• Manual of Instructions, Chapter 3: Geotechnical Engineering. Virginia Department of Transportation.
July 2016.
Washington:
• Design Manual, Chapter 610: Investigation of Soils, Rock, and Surfacing Materials. Washington State
Department of Transportation. Publication M 22-01.10. July 2013.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm
• Geotechnical Design Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation. Publication M 46-
03.11. May 2015. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M46-03.htm
West Virginia: https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Pages/Manuals.aspx

• Bridge Design Manual, Chapter 2.3 - Geotechnical Investigations. West Virginia Department of
Transportation. March 2016.
Wisconsin:
• Geotechnical Manual. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. March 2017.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/eng-consultants/cnslt-rsrces/geotechmanual/default.aspx
• Bridge Manual, Chapter 10 - Geotechnical Investigation. Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
January 2017. http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/eng-consultants/cnslt-rsrces/strct/bridge-
manual.aspx
Wyoming:
http://www.dot.state.wy.us/home/engineering_technical_programs/manuals_publications/road_design_m
anual.html
• Road Design Manual. Wyoming Department of Transportation. December 2017.
H.3 Standards and Guides

AASHTO and ASTM provide standards and guides to assist geoprofessionals with performing many
geophysical, in situ, and laboratory tests in a manner that helps to ensure accurate, reproducible results.
H.3.1 American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

• AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing,
and AASHTO Provisional Standards. https://bookstore.transportation.org
H.3.2 ASTM International

• ASTM Geotechnical Engineering Standards. https://www.astm.org/Standards/geotechnical-
engineering-standards.html
349

H.4 Geotechnical Websites

Websites maintained by federal agencies and organizations, and State DOTs also contain valuable
information to assist geoprofessionals plan and conduct geotechnical site investigations.
H.4.1 Federal Agencies and Organizations

• Federal Highway Administration – Geotechnical Engineering
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/
• Transportation Research Board (TRB) http://www.trb.org
• Transportation Research Board – Geotechnical Site Characterization
http://www.trb.org/AFP20/AFP20.aspx
• Transportation Research Board, Strategic Highway Research Program – Geotechtools
http://www.geotechtools.org/
H.4.2 State Departments of Transportation

• Alabama Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Division
https://www.dot.state.al.us/mtweb/geotechnical_division.html
• Alaska Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Services
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desmaterials/mat_geotech_services/mat_gam.shtml
• Arizona Department of Transportation – Geotech Service https://www.azdot.gov/business/engineering-
and-construction/bridge/guidelines/geotech-service
• Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department – Materials Division – Geotechnical Section
https://www.arkansashighways.com/materials_division/geotechnical_section.aspx
• Colorado Department of Transportation – Soils and Geotechnical Program
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/matgeo/programs/geotech/drilling-operations.html
• Connecticut Department of Transportation – Soils and Foundations
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3195&q=300866
• Florida Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Engineering http://www.fdot.gov/geotechnical/
• Hawaii Department of Transportation – Materials Testing and Research Branch
http://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/other/materials-testing-and-research-branch/
• Illinois Department of Transportation – Soils http://www.idot.illinois.gov/doing-business/material-
approvals/soils/index
• Indiana Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Services https://www.in.gov/indot/2804.htm
• Kansas Department of Transportation – Bureau of Structures and Geotechnical Services
https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burStructGeotech/default.asp
• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Materials Division – Geotechnical Resources
https://transportation.ky.gov/StructuralDesign/Pages/Geotechnical-Resources.aspx
• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development – Pavement and Geotechnical
http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Pavement_Geotechnical/Pages/defa
ult.aspx
• Massachusetts Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Section
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/GeotechnicalSection.aspx
• Mississippi Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Operations
http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Materials/Pages/Geotechnical-Operations.aspx
• Nevada Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Section https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-
business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/operations/materials-section/geotechnical-section
• New York State Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Engineering Bureau
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau
350

• North Carolina Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Engineering

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Geological/Pages/default.aspx
• Ohio Department of Transportation – Office of Geotechnical Engineering
https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Geotechnical/Pages/default.aspx
• Oklahoma Department of Transportation – Bridge Division Geotechnical Branch
https://www.ok.gov/odot/Doing_Business/Pre-
Construction_Design/Bridge_Design/GeoTech_Services/
• Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. GINT Library and Data template (software to manage
report, and database geotechnical information)
http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Construction/Pages/gINT.aspx
• South Carolina Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Design
http://www.scdot.org/business/geotech.aspx
• Tennessee Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Operations https://www.tn.gov/tdot/materials-
and-tests/geo-technical-operations.html
• Texas Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Field Testing https://www.txdot.gov/inside-
txdot/division/bridge/specifications/geo-testing.html
• Utah Department of Transportation – Geotechnical
https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:2643,
• Vermont Agency of Transportation – Geotechnical Engineering
http://vtrans.vermont.gov/highway/construct-material/geotech
• Washington State Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Services
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Business/MaterialsLab/GeotechnicalServices.htm
• West Virginia Department of Transportation – Geotechnical Group
https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/geotech/Pages/default.aspx
H.4.3 Professional Organizations and Associations

• ASTM International – Geotechnical Engineering Standards
https://www.astm.org/Standards/geotechnical-engineering-standards.html
• ASTM International - Committee D18 on Soil and Rock
https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/D18.htm
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Geo-Institute https://www.geoinstitute.org/
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Transportation and Development Institute
http://www.asce.org/transportation-and-development-engineering/transportation-and-development-
institute/
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Geotechnical Engineering
https://www.asce.org/geotechnical-engineering/geotechnical-engineering/
• International Society for Soils Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE)
https://www.issmge.org/
H.5 TRAINING
Classroom and web-based training courses and numerous workshops and conferences are available to
geoprofessionals who would like to further develop their professional skills with respect to geotechnical
site characterization.
351

H.5.1 Classroom and Web-based Training

• National Highway Institute (NHI): Web-based and instructor-led training:
https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/course-search
• American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) – Geo-Institute: Webinars, Seminars, Online Courses,
Exam Reviews, and Certificate Programs: http://mylearning.asce.org/diweb/catalog
H.5.2 Workshops and Conferences

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – State Geotechnical Workshops and Conferences:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/conferences.cfm
− Southeastern Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Conference (STGEC)
− Highway Geology Symposium (HGS)
− Northeast States Geotechnical Engineers (NESGE) Workshop
− Northwest Geotech Workshop (NWGW)
− Southeast Transportation Geotechnical Engineers Conference (STGEC)
− Southwest Geotechnical Engineers Conference (SWGEC)
• American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) – Geotechnical Conferences and Events
http://www.asce.org/geotechnical-engineering/conferences-and-events/
• International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE):

https://www.issmge.org/events
− International Conferences on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site characterization
− International Conferences on Geotechnical Research and Engineering
− International Conferences on Unsaturated Soils
− European Conferences on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
− International Conferences on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
− Panamerican Conferences on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
352

Soil Investigation Manual-25379

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Investigation Manual-25379

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25379 SHARE

Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2019)

372 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Manual on

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Manual on Subsurface Investigations

Glenn J. Rix Paul W. Mayne

Final Report for NCHRP Project 21-10

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 258

NCHRP PROJECT 21-10 PANEL

Leo L. Fontaine, Connecticut DOT, Newington, CT (Chair)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xii

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................... xvi

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... xvii

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. xviii

GEOTECHNICAL UNCERTAINTY AND RISK .............................................................. 7

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROCESSES ............................................................ 12

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................... 35

IN SITU TESTING OF SOIL AND ROCK ....................................................................... 66

DRILLING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL AND ROCK .................................................... 94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6.3.2 Test Pits ................................................................................................................................. 96

HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................. 117

LABORATORY TESTING OF SOIL AND ROCK ....................................................... 130

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8.3.2 Moisture Content ................................................................................................................. 136

EVALUATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES ........................................................................ 164

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

9.2.2 In Situ Tests ......................................................................................................................... 166

EVALUATION OF ROCK MASS PROPERTIES ......................................................... 206

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10.3.2 Unit Weight..................................................................................................................... 210

COMPILING, REPORTING, AND PRESENTING GEOTECHNICAL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Contractual Implications of Geotechnical Reports .................................................................. 248

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 3-1. Geologic and man-made constraints

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 5-23. Rock borehole shear test in sandstone

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Organization of the Manual

1.2.1 Planning the Investigation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2.2 Executing the Investigation

Chapter 7 describes the methods available to perform a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2.3 Interpreting the Results of the Investigation

1.2.4 Reporting and Presenting the Results of the Investigation

1.2.5 Supplemental Investigative Information