0-1-1905 30 Oct 92 CHAPTER 3 SOIL PARAMETERS 3-1. Methodolegy. A site invessigation and soil exploration program of the proposed construction area should be initially completed to obtain data cequized tor analysis of bearing capacity. Estimates of ultimate and allowable bearing capacity using analytical equations that model the shear failure of the structure along blip surfaces in the soil and methods for analyzing in situ test results that model the bearing pressures of the full size structure in the soil may then be carried out Sescribed in Chapter 4 for shallow foundations and Chapter 5 for deep foundations The scope of the analysis depends on the magnitude of the project and on how itical the bearing capacity of the soil is to the performance of the structure. 8. Soll Parameters. The natural variability of soil profiles requires vealistic assessment of soil parameters by soil exploration and testing Sot parameters required for analysis of bearing capacity are shear strength, depth to groundwater or the pore water pressure profile, and the distribusion of tots vertical overburden pressure with depth. The shear strength parameters required are the undrained shear strength C, of cohesive goils, the effective angle of inrerne? friction §¢ for cohesionless soils, and the effective cohesion ¢’ and angle of internal friction 6* for mixed soils that exhibit both cohesion and frict:on B. Use of Judgment. Sudgment is required to characterize the foundation soils into one or a few layers with idealized parameters. ‘The potential for long- term consolidation and settlement must be determined, eevecially where sofe compressible soil layers are present beneath the foundation. Assumptions made by the designer may significantly influence recomendations of the foundation design c, Acceptability of analysis. Acceptability of the bearing pressures applied Fo the foundation soil is usually judged by factors of safety applied co the ultimate bearing capacity and estimates made of potential settlement for the bearing pressures allowed on the foundation soil. The dimensions of the foundstion or footing may subsequently be adjusted if required 3-2. Site tnvestigation. Initially, the behavior of existing structures supported on similar soil in the sane locality should be determined as well ap tie applied bearing pressures, These findings should be incorporated, usins judgment, sate the foundation design, A detailed subsurface exploration including disturbed ana undisturbed samples cory strength tests should chen be carried out Bearing capacity estima be made from results of in situ soil test Refer to BM 111 08 for formation on site investigation Local Building Codes. Local building codes may give presumptive allowable bearing pressures based on past experience. 7! be used © js of in Gitu teats and analsBW 1120-1-2905 30 dct 92 Rethods discussed subsequently because actual field conditions, and hence bearing Pressures, are rarely identical with those conditions used to determine the Presumptive allowable bearing pressures (2) Sed Exploration Records. Existing records of previous site investigations near the proposed construction area should be examined co determine che General subsurface condition including the types of soils likely to be present Probable depths to groundwater level and changes in groundwater level, shear strength parameters, and compressibility characteristics, b. |Site Characteristics. the proposed construction site should be examined for plasticity and fissures of surface soils, type of vegetation, and drainsse (2) Desiccation cracking. Numerous desiccation cracks, fissures, and even slickensides can develop in plastic, expansive soils within the depth subject ce Seasonal noisture changes, the active zone depth Z,, due to the volume change thar occurs during repeated cycles of wetting and drying (desiccation). These velame changes can cause foundation movenents that contrel the foundation design {2) | Vegetation. vegetation desiccates the foundation soil from cranepiration Ehrough leaves. Heavy vegetation such as trees and shrubs can desiccate touanrion soil ke substantial depths exceeding 50 or 60 ft. Renoval of substantial vegetation nthe proposed construction area may lead to significantly higher water tasies after construction is complete and may influence bearing capacity (3) Prainage. The ground surface should be sloped to provide adequate runoff of gurface and rainwacer fron the construction area to proncte trafficabitity and ts Rininize future changes in ground moisture and soil strength. Minimum slope shoala be 1 percent. (4) Performance of Adjacent structures. Distortion and cracking patterns in Rearby structures indicate soil deformation and the possible presence of expareive or collapsible soils g.__ Tn Situ Soil Teste. In the absence cf laboratory shear strength vests, goil strength parameters required for bearing capacity analysis ay be estinacea from results of in situ teste using enpirical correlation factors. snpirical correlation factora should be verified by comparing estimated values with shear strengths determined from laboratory tests. The effective angle of incernar friction 9° of cohesionless soil is frequently eatimated from field test reaults because of difficulty in cbtaining undieturted cokesionless so!l samples for laboratory soil tests | 4) Relative Density and Gradation. Relat y and gradation can be fon angie of cohesicnless soils, Table 3-1a. Releciv compared with dense a sani um dense:EM 1110-2-2905 30 dct $2 TABLE 3 Angle of Internal Friction of sands, 6 a. Relative Density and Gradation (ata from Schmertmann 1978) Relative Fine Grained Medium Grained Density a Dy, Percent Uniform Well-graded Uniform well-graded Coarse Grainea Uniform Well-graded 40 34 36 36 38 38 a 60 36 28 38 4a a 3 80 38 a1 a 2 a 4a x00 42 a3 a2 44 4a 46 b. Relative Density and In Situ Soil Tests Standard Cone Friction Angle 9", deg Sot Relative Penetration Penetration ————-— Type Pensity [Resistance Resistance Meyerhof eck, Hanson Meyernot De Mey (Terzaghi a, ket (1974) and Thorburn (2974) Percent and Peck 1967) (Meyevhof 1974) (2374) Very Loose < 20 <4 <= 30 <= 29 < 30 Loose 20 = 40 4-10 30-35 29-30 © 30 35 Medium = 40-69 10 - 30 35-38 30-36 35 - a0 Dense 60 - 8030-50 38-4200 36-4140 as Very Dense > 60 > 50 41-48 342 > 45 (a) ASTM D 653 defines relative density as the cre arene t onesionless soil in the loosest state at any given void sect co she Citerence between the void ratios in the loosest and inthe denoses sence’) A rere sne epaand has a relative density of 0 percent and 100 percent in the aenveot seeeiey® State. Extremely loose honeyconbed sands may have a negative relacies 1@ difference in (b) Relative density may be cal ulated using standard test methods ASTM d the void ratio of the in aitu echesicnless soil ° a gravity density, kips/te = unit weight of watEM 1120-1-1905 30 Oct 32 The specific grav: he mineral solids may be determined using standard test method ASTM D ase ity of soils that may be excavated can be devermined Ang standard test method ASTM b 1556 @) Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The standard penetration resistance TETee, egg often zetersed to as che blowcount, Le frequently used Co cocisete the sea We Geustty of cohesionleas soil. Ny» is the number of blows seseised co Samples ae ugazd pLitepocn sampler (2.42" 1.D., 2.00" 0.D.) 2 fe. The split epoon se encnen a eriven BY @ 140-1b hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is driven standard methon geeycouneed for the last 12 inches. Wi, may be devernined ueing standard methed AST D 1586, wy arte, Nez value ay be normalized to an effective energy delivered to the rill rod at 60 percent of theoretical free-fall en: G2 where Me * penetration resistance normalized to an effective energy delivered ro ‘Re Gzsl1 rod at 60 percent of theoretical free-fall energy, blows/tt Gin = tod energy correction factor, Table 3-24 Ce = overburden correction factor, Table 3-ap Ber cua ave an effective energy delivered to the drill rod 50 to 55 percent of Cheoretical tree fall energy ce aneable 3:2, illustrates sone relative density and Ne correlations with the Table eaimtermal friction. Relative density may also be related with Nu through Table 3-26 ee Hane welative density of sands may be estinated from the N,, by (Data from Gibbe and Holtz 1957) D, = 1000, (3-3a) jm percent and o”,, is the effective verrical overburden pressure, ve Gensity of sands may also be estimated from N,, b. | 88, Skempton 2586) y be estimated (Bowles i9¢8)county Japan usa Europe china awethods used b. Correction Fact (bata from Jamiolkowski et al sand Very Locae Loose Medium ity of ical correlations ble to the SPT. satery Donut, Donut, Dont Donut in USA tor Cy & Or Cen Erom Tokinatau and Seed 1987) Hanmer Release Cu, Free-rall 1 Rope and Pulley 1.12 with special throw release Rope and Fulley 1.00% Rope and Pulley 0.75 Free-Pall 200+ Free-Fall 200+ Rope and Pulley 0.83 (Data fron Tokimaceu and Seed 1984) On8, ket effective overburden pressure Relative Density versua ¥, 1968) Cone penetration test (CPT). bless soil and un The CPT ne CPT may be performed using ASTM D 3442 » Percent nay be used trained etrengi oils is especially suitablEW 1110-1-2905 30 dct 92 (a) the relative density of several different sands can be estimated by (amiclkowski et al. 1988) D. = ~74466-10g.5 where the cone penetration resistance g. and effective vertical overburden Pressure ’,, are in units of kef. The effective angle of internal friction 9° can be estimated from D, using Table 3-1a. Table 3-1b provides a direct correlation of q, with 9° (b) The effective angle of internal friction decreases with increasing for a given g. as approximately shown in Figure 3-1. Increasing confining pressure reduces 6" for a given gq. because the Nohr-Coulomb shear strengh envelope is nonlinear and has a stialler slope with increasing confining pressare. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ajo, KSF 700 800 300406 500 G00 700" G00 300 Tboo CONE BEARING RESISTANCE qo, KSF °o ne undrained strength Schrertmann 1978)ese sacks, ond the total vertical overburden pressure @, are in ef unies. sesecone facter should be determined using comparisons of G, fron taeec ee y Paeeciee a eeTensth teats with the correspondiag value of -q. obtained tres ome oes, depth nen Sgit USSELL Eo determina the distribution of undrained atvength win depth when only @ few laboratory undrained strength teste have been pecternea often varies from 14 to 20 \a) | Dilatometer Test (DMT). The DMT can be used to estimate the coed sa eaeaation ratio (Ock) distribution in the foundation soil. The OCR ean be dereee indus Mping the undrained strength, The OCR is estimated from the hosisortal ssreas index K, by (Baldi et al 1986; damiolkowski et al 1908) ork = 10 122.2 (2-78) (3-7) (3-76) where Bez intemal pressure causing lift-off of the ailatoneteter menbrane, keé \. = in situ hydrostatic pore pressure, ket B. = internal pressure required to expand the central point of the Gilatonecer membrane by = 1.2 millimeters X = horizontal stress index T, = material deposit index ee ycR typically varies from 1 to 3 for Lightly overconsolidated gofl and 6 to 8 for heavily overconsclidated soil CP ,urenmurencter Test (PHT). The PAT can be used to estimate the undrainea strength and the OCR, The PNT may be performed using ASIN D 4715 so anent damit Pressure p, estimated from the PMT can be used to estimate the undrained strength by (maiz and Wood 1987) (3-88) tein (3-8b) where lus, ke solve may be initially estimated as Value from 3 to § such as 6. The undrained strength is then decor yp 30Ga and the result substituted inte Equation 3-ab. One or cae iterations should be sufficient to evaluate C from Equat:BX 1110-1-1905 30 det 8: (b) Gy can be used to estimate the OCR from G'.,/0’, if the pore water pressure and total vertical pressure distribution with depth ave known or estimated. (61 Field Vane Shear Test (PVT). The FVT is conmonly used to estimate the in situ undrained shear strength C, of soft to fixm cohesive soils. This test onoula be used with other tests when evaluating the soil shear strength. The test may be performed by hand or may be completed using sophisticated equipment. Details of the test are provided in ASTM D 2573 la) The undrained shear strength ¢, in ksf unite (as) where T, > vane torque, kips- ft K = constant depending on the dimengions and shape of the vane, ft’ (b) The constant K, nay be estimated for a vectangular vane causing a cylinder in a cohesive soil of uniform shear strength by Ke . (3-208) where measured diameter of the vane, in. heasured height of the vane, in. K, for a tapered vane is ae (3-208) where d, is the rod diameter, in (c) Anisotropy can significantly influence the torque measured by the vane 4. Water Table. Depth to the water table and pore water pressure distributions should be known to determine the influence of soil weigne and surcharge on the bearing capacity as discussed in 1-44. Chaps: (1) Bvaluation of Groundwater Table (Gir) . sands, silty sands, and sandy silts by measuring water prescure distribution may depths. Flacenene depth shoutd Fluctuations in GWT. Large seasonal fluctuations in Gat influence bearing capacity. Rising water tables reduce the effe. n adversely cobesicnless soil and reduce the ultinate bearing capacity calculated using Equation 1-1BM an20- 30 00 nic, SgitgEeplotation. Soil classification and index reste uch aa Atterberg Hic, \Sradations, and water content should be performed on disturbed soli eed results plotted as a function of depth to characterize che types of crear scree ,tetribution of shear strength with depth and the lateral variseion of shear strength across the construction site should be determined troy laboratory rengch tests on undisturbed boring samples. Soil classifications snd 5 fay Pe checked and correlated with results of in situ testa. Refec com 1907 and BM 110-1-1804 for further information 25, qitteral Distribution of Field Tests. soil campling, test pits, and in be nose seiensie toe Pextorned at different locations on the proposed sice that ay be mest suitable for construction of the struccare gy Accenaibility. Accessibility of equipment to the construction site and the aoeee sit the construction area should be considered. Tt ie not unusual to crete cre segasion of the proposed structure on the construction site during sett sear, Zaation of Borings. optimm locations for sofl exploration nay be near ponte eg Agees and corners of the proposed structure. A gufticiens muber oe borings should be performed within the areas of proposed construction fon laboratory signiticane Teer ee Serengeh Parameters C, and of each soil layer and ap vyete ea wetral variation sn soil strength paraneters tor bearing capacity analveig and consolidation ana compressibility characteristics for stchmare aera eesamiate bering holes nay alo be used to measure water table desens and Enalyeie, Nee £9F determination of effective stresses required in bearing capscity analysis. exploration should require two or three borings within each seotee ra gbotential building locations. air photos and geological conaitnnns propsed 1 eeeermining location and spacings of borings along the alignment ce Proposed levees. tnitial spacings usually vary from 200 co lose 19 the alignment of levees. Pion etailed exploration depends on the results of the preliminary Smloration. Bight co ten test borings within the proposed buildine sect for tees borage ares are often requized. Large and complex facilities may require Tontnes 2850 Property define subsurface soil parenevers. Refer to TN Scie 0 for *her information on soil exploration for buildings and EM 1110-21900 b- Depth of Soil Exploration. The depth of exploration depends the proposed structure and should be ou. A has adequace hea: able undstion purposes su sible claysBM 1110-1-2905, 30 Oct 92 (A) 20 Percent Rule. The depth of soi) exploration for at least one test boring should be at the depth where the increase in vertical stress caused by the feructure is equal to 10 percent of the initial effective vertical overburden, sceess Beneath the foundation, Figure 3-2. Critical depth for bearing capacity anelyste De Should be at least twice the minimun width of shallow equare foundations ce ac least 4 times the minimum width of infinitely long footings or embankments, depth of additional borings may be less if soll exploration in the irmeaicte RESEEY OF the general stzatigraphy of the area indicate that the proposed bearing strata have adequate thickness or are underlain by atronger formations aroun, TNCRERSING STRESS FOUNDATION, STRESS om eon, O-Earconeriow st INCREASING DEPTH Figure 3-2. Estimation of the critical depth of soil exploration (2) Depth to Primary Formation. Depth of exploration need not exceed the Tapeh of the primary formation where rock or soil of exceptional bearing capacity is located, {a) 2 the foundation 1s to be in soil or rock of exceptional bearing capacity, then at least one boring (or rock core) should be extended 10 or a0 ft inte the stratum of exceptional bearing capacity to assure that bedrock ond not boulders have been encountered. 2) For a building foundation carried to rock 3 to 5 rock corings are usually Fequired to determine whether piles or drilled shafte should be used. the percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) value should be determined for each nack eerie tied shafts axe often preferred in stiff bearing soil and rock of sed quality. (3) Selection of Foundation Depth. The tyre of foundation, whether shallow oe deeb, and the depth of undercutting for an enbanknent depends on the depthe to acceptable bearing strata as well as on the type of structure co be suspostes (a) Dense sands ana volume change provide the best bearil rela and firm co at 1g strata ff clays with sndard penetration resistance values from the SPT and cone resistance from fhe Ce? should be devermined at a nurber of different lateral locations wichin site. These tests should be performed to depthe of abou: ‘of the proposed foundation, ninimam widen0-1-1905 30 Oct 92 depth requirements should be determined by such factore as depth of Erost action, potential scour and erosion, sectlenent Limitations, and bearise capaci ¢. Selection of Shear Strength Parameters. Test data such as undrained she strength C, for cohesive soils and the effective angle of internal friction o- for cohesionless sands and gravels should be plotted as a function of depth co Setermine the distribution of shear strength in che soil. Measurements or estinates of undrained shear strength of cohesive soils ¢, are usually characteriatic of the worst temporal case in which pore preasures build up in impervious foundation soli amnediately following placement of atructural loads. soil congolidates with tine Under che applied foundation leads causing Cc, to increase, Bearing capacity therefore increases with time. (3) Evaluation from Laboratory Tests. Undrained triaxial tests shovid be performed on specinens trom undisturbed samples whenever possible to estimate strength paraneters. The confining stresses of conesive soils should be similar to at which will occur near potential failure planes in situ. (a) Befective stress parameters c’, 4’ may be evaluated from consolidated: undrained ¢riaxial strength tests with pore pressure measurements (R) perforred oa undisturbed specimens according to EM 1110-2-1906. These specimens mine be saturated, o ne undrained shear strength C, of cohesive foundation soila may be garimared from results of unconsolidated-undrained (0) triaxial tests according te EM 1210-2-1906 or standard test method ASTM D 2850. ‘These teste should be perforsed op undrained undisturbed cohesive soil specimens at isctropic confining pressure similar to the total overburden pressure of the soil. specimens shoula be caken from the center of undisturbed samples (2) jostimates from Correlations. Strength parameters may be estimated by correlations with other data such as relative density, OCR, or the nanime past pressure. (a) The effective friction angle § of cohesionless soil may be estimated 4 tests as described in section 3-26 from in {p) |The Gisteibution of undrained shear strength of cohesive soile may he Toughly estimaced from maximum past pressure soil data using the procedure extiined in Table 3-3. Pressure contributed by the foundation and in this table, which increases conservatism of the shear strengths and aveide unnecessary complication of this approxizate analys G., refers to the Pressure in the soi] excluding ural ucture are act included | ‘al pressure found by sub 2BM 1110-1-1905 30 Oct 92 TABLE 3-3 of S012 From Max. Refer to Figure 3.3 Description Estimate the distribution of total vertical soil overburden pressure 9. with depth and make a plot as illustrated in Figure 3-24 Estimate depth to groundwater table and plot the distribution of pore water pressure y, with depth, Subtract pore water pressure distribution from the o,, distribution to determine the effective vertical soil pressure distribution o%, and plot with depth, Figure 3-38 Determine the maximum past pressure oj from results of laboratory consolidation tests, in situ pressuremater or other tests and plot with depth, Figure 3-35 Calculate the everconsclidation ratio (OCR), ¢i/s',, and plot with depth, Figure 2-2 Estimate C,/o;, from ge 7 28 10cR)e# aay where C, = unérained shear strength and plot with depth, Figure 3-30. Calculate ¢, by multiplying the ratio ¢,/ay, by of, and plot with depth, Figure 3-34 an alternative approximation is ¢, = 0.26%. For normally consolidated soils, C/o; = 0.11 + 0.0037 PI where PI is the Plasticity index, percene (Terzaghi and Peck 1967)DEPTH, FT VERTICAL PRESSURE, KSF a. VERTICAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION MAXIMUM BAST PRESSURE Cueto RATIO + * * 76 2 VERTICAL PRESSURE, KSF OVERCONSOLIDATION ©. OVERCONSOLIDATTON AND UNDRAINED COHESION RATIOS 23 he s y es Ey ae) RATIO (OCR) UNDRAINED COHESION Cy, KSF trom max ¢. UNDRAINED COHESION DISTRIBUTION imum past pressure