HKW - 20201007 - FNLM - Geotechnical Parameters - V06 (Incl. Front and Backpage RVO) - F

Geotechnical Parameters
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone

Dutch Sector, North Sea
Client Reference No. WOZ2190152

Fugro Document No. P904711/07
Issue 6
Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO)

Dutch Sector, North Sea
Client Reference No. WOZ2190152

Fugro Document No. P904711/07
Issue 6
Client Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO)

Client Contact F. van Erp
Client Address Croeselaan 15
3521 BJ UTRECHT
The Netherlands
Fugro Project Lead K. Kaltekis - Senior Project Engineer
6 Revised Final 07-Oct-2020

5 Final 02-Oct-2020
4 Draft (largely complete) 11-Sep-2020
3 Draft (largely complete) 31-Jul-2020
2 Interim 29-May-2020
1 Interim 1-May-2020
Issue Document Status Date
Fugro Netherlands Marine B.V.  +31703111444,  fnlminfo@fugro.com,  www.fugro.com

Trade Register No. 27114149 / VAT No. 005621409B07
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WFZ – DUTCH SECTOR, NORTH SEA
CONTENTS
Page
MAIN TEXT:
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of Report 1
1.2 Scope of Report – Geotechnical Parameters 1
1.3 Scope of Report – Seismic Hazard Assessment 2
1.4 Scope of Report – Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion 2
1.5 Report Format 2
1.6 Project Responsibilities and Use of Report 3
2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 4

2.1 General Study Approach 4
ISSUE 94
2.2 Study Approach for Geotechnical Ground Model 5

2.2.1 General 5
2.2.2 Soil Provinces 5
2.2.3 Soil Units 6
2.3 Study Approach for Characteristic Values 8
2.3.1 Limit States and Calculation Models 8
2.3.2 Design Profiles and Design Locations 9
2.3.3 Design Values 11
FNLM-GEO-REP-001
2.3.4 Characteristic Values 11

2.3.5 Derived Values 14
2.4 Study Approach for Data Gap Analysis 18
3. GEOTECHNICAL GROUND MODEL 19

3.1 Overview 19
3.2 Soil Provinces 20
3.3 Soil Unit Classification 21
3.3.1 General 21
3.3.2 Soil Unit A 23
3.3.3 Soil Unit B1 24
3.3.4 Soil Unit B2 25
3.3.5 Soil Unit C1 26
3.3.6 Soil Unit C2 27
© Fugro 1998-2019
3.3.7 Soil Unit D 28

3.3.8 Soil Unit E 30
3.3.9 Soil Unit F 31
3.3.10 Soil Unit G 32
3.4 Seafloor Conditions 33
3.5 Site Use and Geohazards 34
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents Page i of iii

4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETER VALUES 35

4.1 Overview 35
4.2 Calculation Models 36
4.3 Design Locations 39
4.4 Characteristic Values 39
4.4.1 Net Cone Resistance 39
4.4.2 Soil Unit Weight 42
4.4.3 Relative Density 45
4.4.4 Undrained Shear Strength 46
4.4.5 External Axial Strain at Half the Maximum Deviator Stress 55
4.4.6 Peak Effective Angle of Internal Friction 58
4.4.7 Angle of Interface Friction – Steel/ Soil 62
4.4.8 Coefficient of Permeability 66
4.4.9 Shear Modulus at Small Strain 71
4.5 Derived Values 78
4.5.1 Minimum and Maximum Index Void Ratios 78
4.5.2 Yield Stress Ratio 79
4.5.3 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest 81
4.5.4 Constrained Modulus 83
4.5.5 Critical State Line 85
4.5.6 Effective Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain 87
4.5.7 Normalised Shear Modulus 89
4.5.8 Cyclic Strength 92
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100

5.1 General 100
5.2 Marine Geophysical Data 101
5.3 In Situ Testing and Processing 104
5.4 Laboratory Test Data 105
6. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND REFERENCES 107

6.1 Project-specific Information 107
6.2 References in Main Text 107
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents Page ii of iii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX B: STUDY APPROACH
APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL GROUND MODEL
APPENDIX D: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
APPENDIX E: DERIVED VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS PER SOIL UNIT
APPENDIX F: DERIVED VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS PER LOCATION
APPENDIX G: SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX H: MICROBIOLOGICALLY INFLUENCED CORROSION
APPENDIX 1: USE OF REPORT
APPENDIX 2: DESCRIPTIONS OF METHODS AND PRACTICES
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents Page iii of iii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report

The Netherlands Enterprise Agency (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, RVO), henceforth
referred to as ‘client’, has requested Fugro to perform a geotechnical site investigation of the Hollandse
Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (WFZ). The Hollandse Kust (west) WFZ is located in the Dutch Sector of
the North Sea, approximately 51 km from the coastline of Noord-Holland (refer to Plates A1 to A3).
The objective of the geotechnical site investigation and associated laboratory testing programme is to:
■ Further develop and update the geological/geophysical model for the Hollandse Kust (west) WFZ;
■ Determine the vertical and lateral variation in seabed conditions;
■ Provide relevant geotechnical data for the design of the Hollandse Kust (west) WFZ including, but
not limited to, foundations and cables.
This report presents geotechnical parameters for use in pile foundation design of offshore wind turbines
at the Hollandse Kust (west) WFZ. This report is one of a set of Fugro reports (refer to “List of Project
Reports” on Plate A4).
1.2 Scope of Report – Geotechnical Parameters

The scope for geotechnical parameters includes:
■ Geotechnical ground model focusing on monopile and jacket pile foundations;

■ Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters for use in selected calculation models and limit
states (Table 1.1);
■ Derived values of geotechnical parameters (Table 1.1);
■ Conclusions and recommendations, with focus on data gap analysis for geotechnical information.
The geotechnical ground model applies to the same area (Plate A1) as considered for the companion
geological ground model (Plate A4), i.e. Hollandse Kust (west) Geotechnical Investigation Area
(HKW GIA). This area is selected within Hollandse Kust (west) Designated Wind Farm Zone (Plate A1).
In this report, the Hollandse Kust (west) Geotechnical Investigation Area is referred to as the Hollandse
Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (HKW WFZ) or “the site”. The site excludes existing jacket platforms and
the related safety zones.
The geotechnical ground model applies to 50 m below seafloor (BSF). This depth coverage corresponds
broadly with an expected depth range of primary interest for monopiles and jacket piles. It is noted that
interpretations presented in the geological ground model report apply to approximately 100 m below
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), i.e. approximately 60 m to 90 m BSF.
The data gap analysis considers possible input data requirements for the detailed design phase for site
development.
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 1

Table 1.1: Geotechnical Parameters

Parameter Values
Geotechnical Parameter Symbol Soil Type
Sand Transitional Clay
Net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 D+C D+C D+C
Soil unit weight 𝛾 D+C D+C D+C
Minimum and maximum index void ratios 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 D
Relative density 𝐷𝑟 D+C C
Undrained shear strength in triaxial compression 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 D+C D+C D+C
Undrained shear strength in direct simple shear 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 D+C D+C D+C
External axial strain at half the maximum deviator
𝜀50 D+C D+C
stress
Yield stress ratio 𝑌𝑆𝑅 D D D
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest 𝐾0 D D D
Constrained modulus 𝑀 D
Critical state line 𝐶𝑆𝐿 D D
Effective angle of internal friction at large strain 𝜑′𝑐𝑣 D D
Peak effective angle of internal friction 𝜑′ D+C D+C
Angle of interface friction – steel / soil 𝛿 D+C D+C D
Coefficient of permeability 𝑘 D+C D+C
Shear modulus at small strain 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 D+C D+C D+C
Normalised shear modulus 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 D D D
Cyclic strength - D D D
Notes:
− D: Derived values
− C: Characteristic values
− * Soil type is defined by soil description, soil classification charts, soil behaviour type index and percentage fines
1.3 Scope of Report – Seismic Hazard Assessment

This report includes results of a seismic hazard assessment for the HKW WFZ.
1.4 Scope of Report – Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

This report includes recommendations for microbiologically influenced corrosion of steel (mono)piles for
the HKW WFZ.
1.5 Report Format

The principal sections of this report are the Main Text and Appendices A to H. Comments are as follows:
■ Section 2 describes the general study approach for geotechnical parameters;

■ Sections 3 to 5 provide the principal information as outlined in Section 1.2 “Scope of Report”, namely
the geotechnical ground model, characteristic values of geotechnical parameters, derived values of
geotechnical parameters and conclusions and recommendations. These text sections should be
read in conjunction with Appendices A to F, where applicable;

■ Plates in Appendices A to F are numbered to correspond to Main Text sections as follows:

□ Plates in Appendix A belong to Main Text Section 1 (Introduction);
□ Plates in Appendix B belong to Main Text Section 2 (Study Approach and Methodology);
□ Plates in Appendix C belong to Main Text Section 3 (Geotechnical Ground Model);
□ Plates in Appendices D, E and F belong to Main Text Section 4 (Geotechnical Parameter
Values);
■ Appendix G presents the results of the seismic hazard assessment;
■ Appendix H presents recommendations for microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) of steel
(mono)piles;
■ Appendices 1 and 2 provide “Use of Report” information, general practice statements and
terminology. These will be familiar to expert users of the types of information presented in this report.
Geotechnical locations presented within this report include location clusters that combine data from
boreholes, seafloor sampling and specific in situ testing. Plates A5 to A10 titled “Location Overview”
provide an overview of the location clusters.
This specific report has a companion digital deliverable: 3D geotechnical ground model allowing
visualisation by open-access application (SubsurfaceViewer Reader).
1.6 Project Responsibilities and Use of Report

This report presents information according to a project specification determined and monitored by the
client.
This report uses and summarises information from sources listed in Section 6. The reader should consult
the source information for details. Understanding of site conditions improves upon further data analysis
and interpretation. This means that some of the source interpretations may be superseded by
information presented in this report.
The report was prepared in accordance with Contract WOZ2190153 between Rijksdienst voor
Ondernemend Nederland (RVO) and Fugro Netherlands Marine B.V., dated 1 March 2019.
Read this report in its entirety. Particularly, take careful note of Appendix 1 titled “Use of Report”.
This appendix also includes information about report issue control.
Fugro understands that this report will be used for the purpose described in this Main Text section. That
purpose was a significant factor in determining the scope and level of the services. Results must not be
used if the purpose for which the report was prepared or the client’s proposed development or activity
changes. Results may possibly suit alternative use. Suitability must be verified.

2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 General Study Approach

Plates B1 and B2 summarise the general study approach for data interpretation and geotechnical
analysis. The documents titled “Site Characterisation”, and “Geotechnical Analysis” provide background
information. These documents are included in Appendix 2.
The general study approach is according to Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 (CEN, 2004). Eurocode 7 EN
1997-1:2004 is based on an early version of ISO 2394 (ISO, 2015).
This report considers Integration Level 4, geotechnical zonation and analysis, for the specific purpose
of providing input for design of monopiles and jacket piles at the HKW WFZ. Integration levels are
described in the document titled “Site Characterisation”, presented in Appendix 2.
The project phase considered for this report is conceptual design. This matches the current status of
site-specific data acquisition for geotechnical parameters, i.e. borehole, seafloor sampling and CPT
locations specifically selected for general coverage of the HKW WFZ and for confirmation of specific
geological features and interfaces interpreted from marine geophysical investigation data.
This report considers a geotechnical ground model with the following fundamental features:
■ Connection to the geological ground model;

■ Presentation of (geotechnical) soil units that are present across the site within the depth range of
interest, i.e. from seafloor to 50 m BSF;
■ Development of soil provinces for spatial zonation of the site and efficient conceptual design of
monopiles/jacket piles.
The study approach allows clustering of CPT profiles for conceptual design concepts broadly allocated
to parts of the site, i.e. the soil provinces. Design profiles (i.e. soil stratigraphy and characteristic values
of geotechnical parameters) are presented at selected CPT locations per soil province termed “design
locations” (refer to Section 2.3.2). Note that the presented design profiles according to this approach
must not be used for detailed design of piles at a specific location. This is because Eurocode 7 EN 1997-
1:2004 (CEN, 2004) requires incorporation of spatial soil variability within the pile placement area, which
is not incorporated in the design profiles. Also note that none of the monopiles/jacket piles will be
positioned at a design location, except by coincidence.
Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters (Table 1.1) are selected for application in specific limit
states and calculation models (refer to Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.4 and 4.2) for monopiles and jacket piles
installed by impact driving. Derived values of geotechnical parameters are independent of specific limit
states and calculation models.
Derived values, as presented in this report, can serve as input in parameter selection assessments for
(1) design situations other than those considered for the characteristic values and (2) other foundation
concepts, e.g. suction-installed foundations and piles installed by vibratory driving.
Derived values of geotechnical parameters (Table 1.1) are presented per soil unit or generalised per
soil type, independent of soil unit (refer also to Section 2.3.5). For soil units extending to more than one

soil province, potential added value was assessed for presentation per soil unit per soil province. The
assessment showed no evidence of a significant spatial trend of geotechnical characteristics across the
soil provinces (refer also to Section 3.2).
For a selection of geotechnical parameters, derived values are presented for each location cluster that
includes a borehole (refer also to Section 4.1 and Appendix F).
The reference condition for the presented parameter values is the in situ state of the seabed as
applicable at the time of site investigation. This implies exclusion of any later changes to site conditions
by e.g. seabed mobility, installation of scour protection and installation of structures. Furthermore,
seafloor is the primary vertical datum for the presented parameter values.
In most cases, no reliable and affordable geotechnical methods are available for direct and accurate
values of the parameters considered for this report (Section 1). The available database for the HKW
WFZ covers test methods that were typically selected based on industry practice, i.e. based on feasibility
in terms of available technology, economics and schedule. This can limit applicability for the selection
of characteristic values. For example, in situ relative density is defined relative to in situ void ratio and
index void ratios. In situ void ratio can be obtained from laboratory tests on undisturbed, intact soil
specimens. This is technically feasible for a marine setting, but considerations for economics and
schedule lead to substitute, approximate, CPT-based correlations for relative density and their
associated statistical distributions.
2.2 Study Approach for Geotechnical Ground Model
2.2.1 General
The aim for developing a geotechnical ground model is to define spatial zones across the site for efficient
conceptual design of monopiles and jacket piles. The geotechnical ground model includes eight soil
provinces for spatial zonation of the HKW WFZ. For this purpose, the established seismostratigraphic
and lithostratigraphic frameworks of the geological ground model for the HKW WFZ were considered.
The geological ground model covers eight geological soil units based on fairly good correlation between
seismic reflection data and geotechnical data. This geotechnical parameter report defines nine
(geotechnical) soil units, which are identical to the geological units except for refinement of geological
Unit B.
Internal channel features were identified within Unit B. The infill of these internal channels differs in
terms of seismic character and geotechnical properties from the rest of the unit. Geological Unit B
consists predominantly of medium dense to very dense fine and medium sand. The infills of the internal
channels consist predominantly of weaker material exhibiting lower cone resistance than the rest of the
unit, i.e. (silty) loose to medium dense sand or (sandy) silt, locally with laminated clay. Geological
Unit B was thus subdivided into geotechnical Soil Unit B1 (infill of the internal channels) and geotechnical
Soil Unit B2 (areas outside of the internal channels).
2.2.2 Soil Provinces

A soil province delineates a spatial zone within which geotechnical characteristics within a depth range
of interest are similar (Thomas, 2017). Development of a soil province is closely related to the presence
of specific (sequence of) soil units within that zone. Consequently, selection of soil provinces was done

based on the presence of one or more distinguishing soil unit(s) within each soil province and within the
depth range of focus, i.e. a distinct soil unit that is likely to impact pile design.
The soil province boundaries were defined on the basis of spatial soil unit boundaries, i.e. considering
lateral extent and vertical extent. The algorithms for soil province mapping (1) use the gridded spatial
boundaries of the interpreted geotechnical soil units (i.e. depth to base and thickness) and (2) combine
the spatial boundaries for deriving the soil provinces. This procedure implies discontinuous soil
provinces that are locally “patchy”, as per geological setting. Patchy outlines are mainly attributable to
(i) the channelised character of Soil Unit B1, (ii) the discontinuous spatial distribution of Soil Units C1
and C2 and (iii) the definition of Soil Province 5 (refer to Table 3.1) which utilised the 7 m thickness
contour of geological Soil Unit B.
The selected soil provinces include the following fundamental features:
■ Spatial zonation of the site allowing clustering of CPT profiles for efficient conceptual design of
monopiles/jacket piles;
■ A primary depth range of interest (i.e. from seafloor to 20 m BSF), considered as critical for
geotechnical design of monopile and jacket pile foundations;
■ Presence of one or more distinguishing soil unit(s) within the above depth range of primary focus.
Note that any changes to these features and any further data acquisition at the site can potentially lead
to alternate schematisations.
2.2.3 Soil Units
2.2.3.1 Classification
Each soil unit was geotechnically classified for the purpose of overall soil characterisation, i.e.
identification of soil types as per Section 2.2.3.2 below, description of primary and secondary soil
constituents according to ISO (2014) and BSI (2015), and review of soil behaviour types (SBT) according
to Robertson (2016).
Soil unit classification includes presentation of statistical results for various classification parameters. It
should be noted that the site investigation strategy included certain criteria for selection of locations so
that specific features interpreted from the geophysical data were targeted. Consequently, statistical
interpretation of the geotechnical attributes of each soil unit, as presented in Section 3.3, is potentially
and to some extent biased.
2.2.3.2 Soil Types

The soil units distinguish three soil types, i.e. Sand, Transitional soil and Clay:
■ Sand is defined by an upper limit of soil behaviour type index 𝐼𝑐 (which can differ per soil unit, refer
also to Section 3.3) and percentage fines of ≤ 15 %. The term “percentage fines” refers to
percentage dry mass of particles with diameter 𝐷 < 0.063 mm. The default 𝐼𝑐 contour by Robertson
(2009) that defines “clean” sands (i.e. 𝐼𝑐 ≤ 2.05) was checked and further refined, if required, on a
soil unit basis, based on a data pairing process between 𝐼𝑐 and percentage fines (see below for
more details). It is noted that a seamless Ic-percentage fines relationship cannot be derived from the
available data. Hence, final selection of the 𝐼𝑐 boundary for Sand considered also other available

supplementary information, particularly soil descriptions, SBT from soil classification charts
(Robertson, 2016) and engineering judgement. The above definition for Sand implies that some
soils can be described as silty sand or clayey sand, but would not meet the criteria defined for Sand.
■ Clay is defined by a lower limit of 𝐼𝑐 (which can differ per soil unit, refer also to Section 3.3),
percentage fines of > 35 % and percentage clay of > 10 % (the term “percentage clay” refers to
percentage dry mass of particles with diameter 𝐷 < 0.002 mm). The default Ic contour by Robertson
(2009) that defines clayey behaviour (i.e. 𝐼𝑐 ≥ 2.6) was checked and further refined, if required, on
a soil unit basis based on a data pairing process between 𝐼𝑐 , percentage fines, percentage clay and
plasticity data (see below for more details). Note that the above cut-off values for percentage fines
and percentage clay are approximate and were primarily used for selection of the Clay 𝐼𝑐 boundary
according to the data pairing process. Final selection of the 𝐼𝑐 boundary for Clay considered also
other available supplementary information, as for Sand. When assigning a soil type to a laboratory
test result, the above cut-off values for percentage fines and percentage clay were reviewed and
refined further, if required, on a case-by-case basis by assessing available test-specific information
(i.e. classification test results, soil descriptions, etc). This soil type (Clay) can be clean clays, sandy
clays, silty clays and clayey silts.
■ Transitional soil is defined in between Sand and Clay based on application of the above criteria.
Soils defined as Transitional can behave either as Sand (exhibiting frictional behaviour and
responding in a fully drained manner during a CPT), or as Clay (exhibiting cohesive behaviour and
responding in a fully undrained manner during a CPT) or they can respond in a partially drained
manner during a CPT. This soil type (Transitional) can be (very) silty sands, clayey sands, sandy
silts and silts.
2.2.3.3 Soil Groups

Soil units were subdivided into soil groups when all the following conditions were met:
■ Multiple soil types (Sand, Clay and/or Transitional soil) are present and form distinct strata (at least
0.5 m thick) within a soil unit;
■ Soil unit is of considerable (vertical and lateral) extent across the site;
■ Availability of geotechnical (in situ, laboratory) data within the soil group is adequate;
■ Delineation of a soil group based on interpretation of geophysical data is not possible.
Soil groups are denoted with the name of the soil unit they belong to followed by a soil type suffix based
on the identified soil type(s) within the soil unit. For example, Soil Unit G has three soil groups: Soil
Group G-sand, Soil Group G-Transitional and Soil Group G-Clay.
The purpose of defining soil groups is the identification and separate parameterisation of distinct strata
with particular soil types within soil units. This aids selection of characteristic values of geotechnical
parameters at the depth intervals where these soil groups are encountered.
The subdivision into soil groups was done on the basis of the selected soil unit-specific 𝐼𝑐 boundaries.
Soil Units B1, C1, F and G were identified to contain soil groups. Especially for Soil Units F and G, the
nature of their depositional settings and the post-depositional processes that took place make the
internal structure of these units complex. Attempts at spatial delineation proved to be unsuccessful.

2.2.3.4 Data Pairing

Data pairing was carried out between (i) 𝐼𝑐 and percentage fines, (ii) 𝐼𝑐 and percentage clay and (iii)
plasticity chart results (plasticity index 𝐼𝑝 versus liquid limit 𝑤𝐿 ) and percentage clay. For definition of the
Sand-Transitional soil boundary, only pairing results between 𝐼𝑐 and percentage fines were used. For
definition of the Clay-Transitional soil boundary all aforementioned pairing results were used.
Comments on data pairing methodology are as follows:
■ Laboratory values (percentage fines and percentage clay) from the sampling location were paired
with 𝐼𝑐 values from the nearest CPT location;
■ Derived 𝐼𝑐 values were averaged across a depth interval of 0.5 m (i.e. between 0.25 m above the
laboratory test depth and 0.25 m below it), to account for potential bias of selected laboratory test
specimens towards more uniform, homogeneous samples. Mean and standard deviation values
across the average intervals were also recorded and checked in order to provide an indication of
(in-)homogeneity;
■ Paired data were removed from the pairing process by engineering judgement in case of the
following:
□ Interbedded layers, showing non-uniform material or high variation of 𝐼𝑐 ;
□ Distinct strata/layer changes;
□ Build- up of CPT data during the initial phase of CPT penetration in the ground;
□ Multiple CPTs from the same location cluster showing widely different CPT values at the same
depth indicating high spatial variation.
In general, there is inherent uncertainty associated with any data pairing process between CPT values
(e.g. 𝐼𝑐 ) and laboratory values (e.g. percentage fines), since they were derived from nearby but different
locations in space.
Data from the nearby Hollandse Kust (noord) HKN site (Fugro, 2019a) were used to complement HKW
data in the data pairing analyses for soil units that belong to the same geological formation. Particularly,
data pairing used all available data from the HKW and HKN sites, meaning that it was not limited to the
depth range of application for the geotechnical ground models, i.e. 50 m BSF for HKW and 40 m BSF
for HKN. This approach matches the aim of data pairing, i.e. define soil unit-specific 𝐼𝑐 contours, as
explained in more detail above. Compliance to the depth range of application for the geotechnical ground
models is assessed as not pertinent here.
2.3 Study Approach for Characteristic Values
2.3.1 Limit States and Calculation Models

Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters are provided for assessment of (1) lateral resistance
and installation of monopiles and (2) axial/lateral resistance and installation of jacket piles. The
characteristic values are for the purpose of use in conceptual design.

The characteristic values are for a factored resistance (design) approach, i.e. use of characteristic
values (unfactored values of material properties) in a calculation model and subsequent application of
partial material factor(s) to obtain design value(s). Particularly, characteristic values are applicable
to specific limit states and corresponding calculation models (refer to Section 4.2 and Plates D1-8
to D1-9). The selected calculation models are commonly used by industry for pile geotechnical design
and are adequate for use considering the ground conditions at HKW WFZ. Nonetheless, it is recognised
that alternative calculation models can be employed by designers for (conceptual) geotechnical design.
Calculation models are given a rating based on the category of results they produce, i.e. (i) accurate,
predictive, (ii) approximate, thus subject to model uncertainty and/ or bias, or (iii) cautious, thus on the
safe side.
For verification of a particular limit state, a cautious combination of characteristic values for all
geotechnical parameters affecting the occurrence of the limit state must be considered (Clause 6 from
Section 2.4.5.2 of Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004). The characteristic values presented in this report
account for parameter interdependency. This was generally done on the basis of current understanding
of industry practice. However, accounting for interdependency is somewhat limited for this report, as
not all geotechnical parameters required by every calculation model are covered by the report (refer to
Table 4.1 in Section 4). For example, this report considers no specific soil constitutive model for the
PISA numerical-based method (Calculation Model 1 in Table 4.1). Thus, the presented characteristic
values will not cover the whole range of geotechnical parameters required by constitutive models.
Instead, the presented set of basic geotechnical parameters for Calculation Model 1 will probably be an
integral part for any soil constitutive model that will be employed by designers (refer also to Section 4.2).
2.3.2 Design Profiles and Design Locations

Design profiles (soil stratigraphy and characteristic values) are provided for a maximum of 3 CPT
locations (design locations) per soil province per foundation concept (monopile or jacket pile), namely:
■ A location with “favourable” soil conditions for pile design within the soil province;
■ A location with “average (typical)” soil conditions within the soil province;
■ A location with “adverse” soil conditions for pile design within the soil province.
Monopile design locations can differ from jacket pile design locations, for example because of
differences between the important depth ranges for monopile and jacket pile design (i.e. 40 m BSF for
monopiles and 50 m BSF for jacket piles). This means that the number of design locations per soil
province can, in theory, range between 3 and 6. In practice, the monopile and jacket pile design locations
were targeted to coincide per soil province. Additionally, for soil provinces with a limited number of CPT
locations (i.e. 2 to 6), only an average (typical) design location was selected.
Selection of design locations was done according to the following procedure:
i. The deepest seafloor CPT of each location cluster was selected;

ii. Selected seafloor CPTs from Step i that did not reach the required penetration depth (i.e. 40 m BSF
for monopiles and 50 m BSF for jacket piles) were then complemented with downhole CPTs from
the location cluster, if applicable;

iii. In cases that two seafloor CPTs from the location cluster reached the required penetration depth,
then both CPT profiles were considered independently;
iv. Selected seafloor CPTs from Step i that have a penetration depth of less than 35 m BSF and no
complementary downhole CPTs in their location cluster were excluded (i.e. HKW041-PCPT and
HKW116-PCPT);
v. Normalised cone resistance 𝑄𝑡𝑛 was selected as the primary screening parameter;
vi. Mean 𝑄𝑡𝑛 profiles were computed per soil province;
vii. For selection of the average (typical) design location in a soil province, the deviation between the
𝑄𝑡𝑛 of each eligible individual CPT profile (continuous seafloor or combined “seafloor + downhole”,
as per Steps i to iii) within the soil province, and the mean 𝑄𝑡𝑛 profile of the soil province was
computed, for a data point spacing of 0.02 m and for a smoothed profile with 1 m moving average
(resulting in two sets of deviation profiles per CPT profile). The deviation profiles were then divided
into depth segments of 10 m and each segment got a weight factor according to its expected
significance with regards to pile design (see selected weight factors in Table 2.1 below). Lastly, the
CPT profile with the lowest score (i.e. sum of deviation values over penetration depth) was chosen
(both 0.02 m profiles and smoothed profiles were checked). The following formula was used:
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ∑(𝑤𝑖 ∙ 𝑆𝑖 )/𝑁𝑖 , where 𝑤 = weight factor, 𝑆 = sum of deviation values per depth segment,
𝑁 = number of data points per depth segment, 𝑖 = 1 to n with n = total number of depth segments;
viii. For selection of the adverse design location in a soil province, the same procedure was followed as
described in Step vii, with the difference that the 𝑄𝑡𝑛 deviations from zero were computed;
ix. For selection of the favourable design location in a soil province, the same procedure was followed
as described in Step vii, with the difference that the 𝑄𝑡𝑛 deviations from a value of 1000 were
computed;
x. Selection of design locations according to Steps vii to ix was checked for compliance with the
primary feature of each soil province (refer to Section 3.1) and revised if necessary;
xi. If selection of design locations according to Steps vi to viii rendered either a “combined” profile or a
short seafloor CPT profile (i.e. penetration of less than 40 m BSF for monopiles and less than 50 m
BSF for jacket piles), then selection was reviewed again for potential bias of the computed sums
from the above formula towards/against profiles with gaps (i.e. “combined” profiles and short
seafloor CPT profiles), and whether it had an impact on final selection (expected to be low in all
cases).
Table 2.1: Weight Factors for Selection of Design Locations

Pile Segment Weight Factor
[m BSF] Monopiles Jacket Piles

0.5 to 10 0.4 0.3
10 to 20 0.3 0.2
20 to 30 0.2 0.2
30 to 40 0.1 0.2
40 to 50 - 0.1
Note that the above procedure has some inevitable limitations for clayey soils with low 𝑄𝑡𝑛 values
influencing the overall score of the CPT location towards adverse soil conditions. However, uplift axial
shaft resistance of jacket piles is probably governing for push-pull actions in a jacket structure. Pile shaft
is typically significant for the clayey soils of the HKW WFZ and thus soil conditions are not as adverse

as the computed score according to the above procedure suggests. The above considerations were
taken into account in selection with the use of engineering judgement.
The above procedure led to a total of 18 design locations, which are all applicable to both monopiles
and jacket piles (refer to Section 4.2).
Stratigraphic schematisation is based on the stratification at the individual design location, i.e.
characteristic values of stratigraphy are not considered. The design profile stratigraphy considers (i) soil
units, (ii) soil types and soil groups, where applicable, and (iii) significant changes in values and/ or
trends of the cone resistance.
A minimum thickness of 0.5 m was applied to the defined strata/layers of the design profiles. This was
done in order to reduce variations in parameter values over short depth intervals (< 0.5 m), which are
expected to have minimal impact on global pile response.
For cases with thinly bedded strata of various soil types within a certain depth interval, a single layer
was considered when it was assessed that (i) the overall behaviour of the whole layer is relevant for the
global pile response and (ii) the layer can be adequately represented by a single set of geotechnical
parameter values.
2.3.3 Design Values

Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 defines design value of a material property as “value obtained by dividing
the characteristic value by a partial factor 𝛾𝑚 or 𝛾𝑀 , or, in special circumstances, by direct determination”.
The definitions of 𝛾𝑚 and 𝛾𝑀 are, respectively, “partial factor for a soil parameter (material property)” and
“partial factor for a soil parameter (material property), also accounting for model uncertainties”. Model
uncertainties can include general model imperfections, use of a model outside its applicability and/ or
validation range, and consideration of different premises/ assumptions than the ones considered during
development of the model. The rating system for calculation models (Section 2.3.1) provides initial
guidance.
The scope of this report excludes design and thus excludes (i) the provision of design values and (ii) the
assessment of model uncertainties.
2.3.4 Characteristic Values
2.3.4.1 Definition
This report uses characteristic value as defined by Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004, i.e. “value of a material
or product property having a prescribed probability of not being attained in a hypothetical unlimited test
series. This value generally corresponds to a specified fractile of the assumed statistical distribution of
the particular property of the material or product. A nominal value is used as the characteristic value in
some circumstances”.
Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 defines nominal value of a material or product property as “value normally
used as a characteristic value and established from an appropriate document such as a European
Standard or Prestandard”.
Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 requires that “the characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be
selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of a limit state”. This report aligns

with this requirement by only using the term “characteristic value”, i.e. this report does not distinguish
between characteristic value and nominal value. Note that Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 includes no
requirements and guidance on selection of nominal values for geotechnical parameters.
In principle, characteristic values of soil properties are estimated according to an a priori specified fractile
of the statistical distribution of the soil property (including a mean value or some other reference value).
Appropriate judgement is required for calculation models requiring selection of characteristic values for
multiple geotechnical parameters that are (largely) independent of each other and those that are
interdependent.
Characteristic values should be representative of the actual volume of soil or the actual part of the
existing structure to be considered in the design (ISO 2394 Clause 9.3). This means that a characteristic
value should be a function of the geometrical quantities describing the shape, size and overall
arrangement of structures, structural elements and cross-sections (ISO 2394 Clause 6.5). It should also
be a function of the nature (i.e. magnitude, location and geometry) of the actions and possibly also of
the characteristics of the heterogeneity at the location under consideration (ISO 2394 Clause 6.1).
2.3.4.2 Approach
The approach to selection and presentation of characteristic values included the following, where
applicable and appropriate:
■ Definition of each geotechnical parameter for which characteristic values are selected (Table 1.1),
including distinction between Sand, Transitional soil and Clay;
■ Definition of specified principles or general use of parameter values for selection of characteristic
values according to the selected calculation model(s) and limit state(s). This implies a basic
reference method as starting point for selection of characteristic values, for each calculation model
and for each limit state;
■ Selection of multiple methods for derived values for a single parameter, considering integrated
application of a database of test results available for the HKW WFZ supplemented, where deemed
necessary, with data from HKN WFZ;
■ Review of derived values per soil unit, per location cluster and per design location (refer to
Section 2.3.5.2 for more information on the approach for derived values);
■ General comparison of derived values available for the selected multiple methods, including index
and classification parameters;
■ Application of guidance and transformation of derived values to characteristic values according to
the specified principles or general use of parameter values for selection of characteristic values;
■ Judgement and checks for expected ranges of characteristic values considering:
□ The specified principles or general use of parameter values in the selected calculation model;
□ Zone of ground governing the behaviour of the geotechnical structure at a specific limit state,
as per Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 (CEN, 2004);
□ Public domain information;
□ Evaluation and checks based on internally documented experience, the 3-sigma rule, principles
of geology and soil mechanics;
■ Presentation of characteristic values for the depth zone 0 m BSF to 50 m BSF at the selected design
locations.

“Characteristic values can be lower values, which are less than the most probable values, or upper
values, which are greater” (Clause 5 from Section 2.4.5.2 of Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004). Three
examples illustrating fundamental principles that are considered for selection of characteristic values
within this report are given below.
■ Regarding peak angle of internal friction 𝜑′, selection of characteristic values for Calculation Model
′
1 (𝜑𝑘1 ) considered “lower values”, taking account of (i) the extent of the zone of ground governing
the response of the monopile toe under lateral loading, (ii) the type of parameter under consideration
(i.e. strength parameter), and (iii) the context of the corresponding limit states (i.e. ULS for loss of
equilibrium and SLS for pile lateral displacement causing intolerable tilt of the wind turbine).
■ Regarding net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 , different characteristic values were selected for computation of
the end bearing and shaft friction components for Calculation Models 5 and 6 considering, among
others, the extent of the volume of soil influencing each component, i.e. small zone for the end
bearing (𝑞𝑛,𝑘4 ) and large zone for the shaft friction (𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 ) and thus for the particular pile design use
(i.e. installation analysis) 𝑞𝑛,𝑘4 is higher than qn,k3. Both 𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 and 𝑞𝑛,𝑘4 represent “higher values”.
■ Regarding relative density 𝐷𝑟 , selection of characteristic values for Calculation Model 3 considered,
among others, the intermediate character and use of the parameter within the context of the
calculation model, i.e. check of pile plugging behaviour. Therefore, 𝐷𝑟,𝑘 represents “most probable
values”.
The selection of a characteristic value can take account (transformation) of probable differences
between derived values of a geotechnical parameter and the geotechnical parameter that actually
affects the behaviour of a geotechnical structure. In many cases, this is because no reliable and
affordable geotechnical methods are available for direct and accurate characteristic values required for
a calculation model. Other reasons for differences between derived values and characteristic values
can include inhomogeneity of the ground, extent of the zone governing a particular limit state,
uncertainties in geometrical data and analytical model, time effects, brittle or ductile response of the
ground, influence of construction activities. Further background information is included in the document
“Geotechnical Analysis” presented in Appendix 2.
This report splits characteristic values in two types according to the followed approach for selection, i.e.
(i) “prescribed” for which the selection is made considering the specified principles or general use of
parameter values within the calculation model, the mobilised zone of ground, the transformation of
derived values to characteristic values and engineering judgement, or (ii) according to Eurocode 7 EN
1997-1:2004 for which the selection corresponds to a specified fractile of the assumed statistical
distribution of the geotechnical parameter.
Annex D of ISO 2394 considers parameter uncertainty primarily in terms of estimates of coefficient of
variation (COV) and transformation uncertainty. Public domain information provides some indication of
possible values for COV for derived values of some of the parameters covered by this report. Typically,
little information is available on the important topic of transformation uncertainty, particularly systematic
uncertainty (bias) with respect to derived values versus characteristic values (e.g. Van den Eijnden and
Hicks, 2019).
No rigorous uncertainty assessment is feasible. To the knowledge of the authors of this report, rigorous
estimation of uncertainty of geotechnical parameter values has only been demonstrated for the following

parameters: CPT cone resistance, sleeve friction and pore pressure (e.g. Peuchen and Terwindt, 2015;
refer to Section 4.4.1.4).
2.3.5 Derived Values
2.3.5.1 Definition
This report considers Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004, which defines derived value as “value of a
geotechnical parameter obtained by theory, correlation or empiricism from test results”.
This report considers derived value of a geotechnical parameter, i.e. does not distinguish between
derived value, measured value, test results, correlation value, theoretical value and empirical value. In
this regard it can be noted that EN 1997-2:2007 (CEN, 2007) provides two definitions for derived value,
namely the definition of EN 1997-1:2004 and a definition specific to EN 1997-2:2007 (which is almost
the same): “value of a geotechnical parameter obtained from test results by theory, correlation or
empiricism”. EN 1997-2:2007 also defines measured value as “value that is measured in a test”.
EN 1997-2:2007 uses the term measured value only for: (1) ground water measurements, (2) particle
density, (3) pH and (4) undrained shear strength measured in a field vane test. EN 1997-2:2007 appears
to distinguish between derived value and test results, e.g. in Clause 1.6 “test results and derived values
form the basis for the selection of characteristic values…”. No formal definition is given for test results.
Results from borehole geophysical logging, in situ testing, laboratory testing and other relevant data
provide a basis for obtaining derived values of geotechnical parameters. A derived value is specific to a
particular method for data acquisition, data processing and data analysis, as shown in Section 4. For
example, the common geotechnical test method for water content provides two measured values, i.e.
for (1) mass of the soil specimen as provided and (2) mass of the soil specimen after drying at 105 °C .
The test result is a calculated value (which this report defines as a derived value), i.e. a value of water
content according to the specific test method. Note that the mass of the dried soil according to this test
method will include the mass of salt originally dissolved in the pore water and will, possibly, exclude the
mass of organic solids in the soil where lost from the test specimen during the drying process at 105 °C.
A derived value of a geotechnical parameter is not necessarily representative of in situ conditions. For
example, a value of undrained shear strength derived from a triaxial test will depend on the sampling
method, sample handling practice, laboratory test procedure and whether undrained shear strength is
derived from maximum deviator stress or maximum principal effective stress ratio.
Similarly, presented statistics for derived values are not necessarily representative of in situ conditions.
Aleatory uncertainties are covered to some degree. Epistemic uncertainties are not. Furthermore,
presented statistics for derived values can be inappropriate for characteristic values.
Where applicable, this report considers derived values represented by low estimate LE, best estimate
BE and high estimate HE values. In statistical terms, a best estimate value aims to represent a mean
value of a (derived) geotechnical parameter for a ground unit, stratum or multiple soil layers. Low and
high estimates aim for the quantile associated with the 5 % fractile and the 95 % fractile, respectively.

Comments are as follows:
■ LE, BE and HE consider a specific reference test method or procedure. This is because a derived
value depends on the method(s) selected to obtain the parameter value. Alternatively, derived
values from multiple methods can be combined in statistical analysis, with application of appropriate
(1) conversion factors so that all values apply to the same reference scale and, if required, (2) weight
factors that account for potential bias in data according to a specific method or procedure (DNV GL,
2017);
■ LE, BE and HE can include judgement and opinion, particularly for a limited quantity or absence of
derived values. This implies that outliers may be ignored and that a bias may be introduced relative
to the available data. Judgement and opinion consider physically credible values, comparison of
data with results from other tests and a priori knowledge such as geological setting and comparable
experience;
■ A wide spread of data can indicate spatial variability of soil. This means that averaging of derived
values can obscure a weaker or stronger zone.
Table 2.2 shows an overview of the LE, BE and HE values provided in this report per geotechnical
parameter, along with the corresponding test methods.
Table 2.2: LE, BE and HE Values per Geotechnical Parameter

Geotechnical
LE BE HE Test Method
Parameter
𝑞𝑛 √ √ √ Cone penetration testing according to ISO (2014)
- ▪ Lengkeek et al. (2018)
▪ Laboratory water content method on (un)disturbed
sample recovered by downhole push sampling,
𝛾 - √ according to ISO (2014)
▪ Laboratory volume mass method on (un)disturbed
sample recovered by downhole push sampling,
according to ISO (2014)
𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 √ - √ Laboratory methods according to DGI (1996)
𝐷𝑟 √ √ √ Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
▪ Site-specific method for Clay
𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 √ √ √
▪ Site-specific method for Sand and Transitional soil
𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 - - - -
Laboratory consolidated undrained triaxial compression
𝜀50 - √ -
test according to ISO (2014)
𝑌𝑆𝑅 √ √ √ Mayne (2017)
𝐾0 √ √ √ Site-specific method
𝑀 √ √ √ Mayne (2007)
Laboratory consolidated drained triaxial compression test
𝐶𝑆𝐿 - √1) -
Laboratory consolidated drained triaxial compression test
𝜑′𝑐𝑣 √ √ √
𝜑′ √ √ √ Mayne (2007)
▪ Laboratory ring shear test with soil-steel interface
𝛿 √ √ √ according to Jardine (2005) procedures
▪ Jardine et al. (1993)

Geotechnical
LE BE HE Test Method
Parameter
▪ Laboratory permeability test on rigid container
apparatus for constant head test according to
ISO (2014) and ISO (2019a)
▪ Laboratory permeability test on flexible membrane
𝑘 √2) - √2)
triaxial apparatus for constant head test according to
ISO (2014) and ISO (2019a)
▪ Carrier (2003)
▪ Arshad et al. (2020)
▪ Peuchen et al. (2020)
▪ Mayne and Rix (1993)
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 - √ -
▪ Seismic seafloor testing (SCPT) according to ISO
(2014)
𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 - - - -
Laboratory consolidated cyclic direct simple shear test
Cyclic strength - √1) -
Notes:
− 1) BE in this case represents a best fit line based on least squares logarithmic regression
− 2) LE and HE in this case represent the 5th and 95th percentiles of the data set
− Refer to the corresponding parameter sub-section in Section 4 for more information on the test methods
2.3.5.2 Approach
The approach to presentation of derived values included the following, where applicable and
appropriate:
■ Definition of each geotechnical parameter for which derived values are presented (Table 1.1),
including distinction between Sand, Transitional soil and Clay;
■ Selection of multiple methods for derived values for a single parameter;
■ Presentation of derived values, including LE, BE and HE values where applicable, per soil unit and
per location cluster;
■ General comparison of values derived from the selected multiple methods, including index and
classification parameters;
■ Judgement and checks for expected ranges of derived values, trends and possible outliers,
considering:
□ General consideration of uncertainties inherent to each of the selected methods for derived
values;
□ Public domain information;
□ Evaluation and checks based on internally documented experience, the 3-sigma rule, principles
of geology and soil mechanics.
Comments are as follows.
A particular method for obtaining derived values can require separate input parameter values. An
example input parameter would be unit weight of soil for the calculation of derived values for net cone
resistance 𝑞𝑛 . Values close to or equal to BE values are typically selected for such input parameters.

Data pairing can be required for obtaining derived values for some of the geotechnical parameters. For
example, correlation of CPT net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 and laboratory undrained shear strength 𝑠𝑢 for clays
requires consideration of uncertainties related to:
■ Derived values for 𝑞𝑛 ;

■ Derived values for 𝑠𝑢 ;
■ Pairing of 𝑞𝑛 data points and laboratory 𝑠𝑢 data points applicable to a nearby, but not the same,
location in space;
■ Correlation equation such as 𝑁𝑘𝑡 = 𝑞𝑛 /𝑠𝑢 .
Nominal 1 m vertical averaging considering Gaussian smoothing was applied to CPT-derived values
prior to the statistical computations. The LE, BE and HE values typically consider (1) depth intervals of
0.02 m (for CPT-derived parameters), (2) depth intervals of 2 m (for SCPT-derived parameters), except
the first depth interval which is 1.5 m (0.5 m to 2 m BSF) or (3) specific depth intervals, e.g. the whole
depth range of the soil unit (for laboratory parameters). A minimum sample size of 5 data points per
depth interval is considered for statistical computation and hence presentation of LE, BE and HE values.
LE, BE and HE are derived according to Student’s t-distribution, which essentially represents a normal
(Gaussian) distribution which is modified to account for statistical sample size being smaller than
population size. This is in line with recommendations according to DNV GL (2017).
A normal distribution usually provides a reasonable approximation for derived values (e.g. DNV GL,
2017). The use of a normal distribution can lead to negative and/or unrealistic LE and/or HE values, for
example in cases where statistical sample size is small in combination with a wide spread in derived
values.
The distribution of the CPT data at the HKW WFZ was checked and assessed to provide a good fit with
a normal distribution.
BE values in this report represent mean values for which confidence limits are given. Confidence limits
denote an interval estimate for the mean. The interval estimates provide an indication of the statistical
uncertainty for estimation of the mean value. This report considers a confidence interval of 90 %.
The presentation of LE, BE and HE values of geotechnical parameters derived by CPT-based test
methods applies to the depth zone 0.5 m BSF to 50 m BSF. The reason is that the CPT-based
correlations considered in this report do not account for the initial phase of cone penetration in which an
associated deep failure mechanism is not yet developed.
The 3-sigma rule considers a normal distribution of values, whereby values equal to the mean +/- three
standard deviations are assessed to be upper and lower limiting values (Smirnov and Dunin-
Barkovskii, 1969).

2.4 Study Approach for Data Gap Analysis

The approach to data gap analysis for geotechnical information is qualitative and applies to the
geotechnical scope for the detailed design phase of monopiles and jacket piles for wind turbine
generators. The selected approach considers:
■ Guidance provided by DNV GL (2016a and 2016b) and a premise for a minimum scope of one cone
penetration test at each WTG location;
■ Likely input data requirements for the detailed design phase for monopiles and jacket piles, that a
tenderer will perform after award, with focus on geotechnical calculation models and sensitivity of
their input parameter values to the life-cycle economics of a WTG;
■ Potential added value for supplementary data acquisition and analysis, including marine
geophysical investigation, in situ testing and laboratory testing.

3. GEOTECHNICAL GROUND MODEL
3.1 Overview
Plates C1-1 to C1-17 and Tables 3.1 and 3.2 present an overview of soil provinces, soil units and
geotechnical locations for the HKW WFZ.
The geotechnical ground model includes two main features: soil provinces and soil units. In this report,
“soil unit” refers to geotechnical soil unit. Geotechnical soil units are linked directly to geological soil
units (Fugro, 2020a).
Table 3.1: Soil Units per Soil Province

Soil Proportion of Soil Unit Primary Feature/
Province HKW WFZ Comments
[%] A B1 B2 C1 C2 D E F G
1 31.4 √ √ √* (√) Presence of Soil Unit F
2 18.5 √ (√) √* √ (√) Presence of Soil Unit E
3 9.2 √ √ √* √ √ Presence of Soil Unit C2
4 25.8 √ (√) √* (√) (√) √ (√) Presence of Soil Unit C1
Presence of Soil Unit B2
5 7.1 √ √* √ (√)
with at least 7 m thickness
Presence of Soil Unit B1
6 5.2 √ √* (√) (√) (√) √ (√)
(internal channels)
Presence of Soil Units B1
7 1.5 √ √* (√) √* (√) (√) √ √
(internal channels) and C1
8 1.3 √ (√) √ (√) (√) √* √ (√) Presence of Soil Unit D
Notes:
− The above proportions refer to the plan area of each soil province with respect to the plan area of the site
− Soil Unit A can be locally absent, as seismic reflection data cannot detect a top layer thinner than about 0.3 m
− * denotes distinguishing soil unit(s) for the particular soil province
− () denotes partial presence of soil unit within soil province within the depth range of 0 m to 50 m BSF
Table 3.2: Geotechnical Soil Units
Soil Unit Soil Group Unit

General Description Age – Formation
(Geotechnical) (Geotechnical) (Geological)
Holocene – Southern
A silica fine and medium SAND A Bight
silica to calcareous silica fine

and medium SAND
B1-Sand
B1 and
B Holocene - Naaldwijk
B1-Transitional (sandy) silica to calcareous
silica SILT
B2 silica to calcareous silica fine

and medium SAND
C1-Sand calcareous silica fine and

medium SAND
C1 C1-Transitional and C1 Late Pleistocene – Eem
calcareous slightly sandy to

C1-Clay sandy CLAY or SILT

Soil Unit Soil Group Unit

General Description Age – Formation
(Geotechnical) (Geotechnical) (Geological)
C2 silica fine to coarse SAND C2

interbedded silty silica to
calcareous silica fine and
medium SAND
D D Late Pleistocene – Eem

and
sandy calcareous CLAY or

sandy calcareous silica SILT
Late Pleistocene – Eem /
E silica fine and medium SAND E
Egmont Ground
slightly silty to silty silica to
calcareous fine and medium
F-Sand
SAND, with laminae to thick
beds of clay and silt
Early to Mid-Pleistocene
F F
- Yarmouth Roads
and
F-Transitional
calcareous to non-calcareous
SILT, with laminae of sand
slightly silty to silty calcareous
G-Sand silica to silica fine and
medium SAND, with laminae
to thick beds of clay and silt
Early to Mid-Pleistocene
G G-Transitional G
and - Yarmouth Roads
calcareous to non-calcareous
G-Clay CLAY or SILT, with laminae of
sand
Note(s):
− The soil groups of Soil Units B1, C1, F and G are geotechnically (and not volumetrically) defined
− Soil Unit D contains three soil types (refer to Section 3.3.7 below), however it was not subdivided to soil groups because
not all criteria outlined in Section 2.2.3.3 are met, i.e. soil unit is of limited extent across the site with limited availability of
geotechnical data
3.2 Soil Provinces

Comments on the soil provinces of Table 3.1 are given below.
Soil Provinces 1 and 5 have a similar sequence of soil units (i.e. Soil Units A, B2 and F), with the
difference being that Soil Unit B2 is distinctly thicker within Soil Province 5 (minimum thickness > 7 m)
compared to Soil Province 1 (average thickness of approximately 5 m). This differentiation was done on
the basis of the large thickness variation of Soil Unit B2 across the site, i.e. ranging from absent to
approximately 16 m. The large thickness variation is a result of the irregular, undulating and locally
channelised base of (geological) Unit B. Maximum thicknesses are observed where the base forms
incised channels into the underlying strata.
Some areas of the site show a presence of more than one soil unit that is distinguishing for allocation to
a soil province. In these cases, the weaker soil units (i.e. Soil Units B1 and C1) govern the delineation,
as they are considered more critical for pile design optimisation within these areas. For example, location

HKW069 shows the presence of both Soil Units C1 and E. The location is thus grouped in Soil
Province 4, rather than Soil Province 2.
Soil Unit D is a relatively weak soil unit and is very locally present across the site. Therefore, it was
chosen to always govern the delineation (i.e. Soil Province 8) including areas where other weak
distinguishing soil units are present, i.e. Soil Units B1 and C1. In general, the extent of the areas where
Soil Units B1, C1 and D overlap is small and practically negligible with respect to the extent of the HKW
WFZ.
Soil Units A and G were the two out of the nine soil units that did not fit the distinguishing criteria.
Reasons include:
Soil Unit A
■ It is observed site-wide with no specific spatial trend;
■ It is susceptible to considerable influence by mobile seabed conditions.
Soil Unit G
■ Its shallowest occurrence within HKW WFZ is at a depth of approximately 20 m BSF, thus outside
the depth range of primary focus.
The soil units are observed to be similar across the site, displaying no significant spatial trends. This
observation is supported by checks for 𝑄𝑡𝑛 and percentage fines. Particularly, 𝑄𝑡𝑛 and percentage fines
profiles are presented (i) versus depth per soil province (Plates C11-1 and C11-10) and (ii) in the form
of probability density functions (Plates C11-2 to C11-9 and C11-11 to C11-18). Slight differences are
observed in the distribution functions of soil provinces having fewer test locations, which is as expected
due to smaller sample sizes used by the statistical analysis.
3.3 Soil Unit Classification
3.3.1 General
Soil unit classification has site-wide application. Use was made of all relevant available data from the
HKW WFZ within the depth range of application, i.e. to 50 m BSF. An exception is the data pairing
process which used all available data within the whole investigated depth range from both HKW WFZ
and HKN WFZ (refer to Section 2.2.3.4). Data from HKN WFZ (Fugro, 2019a) were used as follows:
■ Data pairing results from Unit A of HKN WFZ were used to complement Soil Unit A of HKW WFZ
(Southern Bight Formation);
■ Data pairing results from Unit B of HKN WFZ were used to complement Soil Unit B1 of HKW WFZ
(Naaldwijk Formation);
■ Data pairing results from Unit D of HKN WFZ were used to complement Soil Units F and G of HKW
WFZ (Yarmouth Roads Formation).
Three SBT charts (Robertson, 2016) were used, i.e. normalised cone resistance versus normalised
friction ratio (Qtn-Fr), normalised cone resistance versus normalised pore pressure (Q tn-U2) and
normalised cone resistance versus small strain rigidity index (Q tn-IG).

The Qtn-Fr chart was primarily used to distinguish soil type and to determine contractive/dilative
behaviour of the soil unit.
The Qtn-U2 classification chart provides good classification of soil behaviour type in cohesive soils with
contractive behaviour at large strains. It considers a limited range of negative 𝑈2 values. Therefore, the
results of the Qtn-U2 chart were used with care in non-cohesive soils that are primarily dilative according
to the Qtn-Fr classification chart. These dilative non-cohesive soils (e.g. silty sands of Soil Unit F) typically
develop CPT 𝐵𝑞 values that are negative. For this type of soils, it can be noted that pore pressure
measurements and consequently the Qtn-U2 chart results are quite sensitive to loss of saturation of the
CPT pore pressure measuring system (refer also to document titled “Cone Penetration Test”, presented
in Appendix 2).
The Qtn-IG chart was used to identify soils with microstructure (i.e. soils that are structured at the particle
scale). Microstructure can be caused by numerous factors such as aging, cementation and thixotropy.
According to Robertson (2016), soils with significant microstructure can be identified from in situ test
results based on the value of the modified normalised small strain rigidity index 𝐾𝐺∗ , i.e. 𝐾𝐺∗ > 330. Note
that 𝐼𝐺 was computed considering values of shear modulus at small strain 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 derived from seismic
cone penetration tests (SCPTs), according to Robertson (2016). The Qtn-IG classification chart results
indicate microstructure for all soil units albeit partly for Soil Unit G. This is assessed plausible for the
following reasons:
■ Aging effects in the predominantly Pleistocene soils of HKW WFZ;

■ Potential differences between onshore soil deposits that were used to construct the classification
chart and offshore deposits that are subject to continuous cyclic loading originating from waves and
tidal fluctuations;
■ Scale effects of averaging 𝑄𝑡𝑛 and data pairing with a corresponding shear modulus interpretation
within a 0.5 m interval over heterogeneous deposits.
Microstructure due to cementation or thixotropy is considered unlikely according to geological setting of

the HKW WFZ.
The method used for measuring carbonate content has a lower detection limit of 2.3 %. Therefore, two
values of statistical mean for carbonate content are presented per soil unit: one in which measurements
indicated by the method as < 2.3 % were taken as 0 % and another in which measurements indicated
by the method as < 2.3 % were taken as 2.3 %.

The format of presentation consists of a Main Text section per soil unit in tabular format and
accompanying plates presented in Appendix C. The following information is presented:
■ Soil type(s) as defined in Section 2.2.3.2;

■ Supplementary information (e.g. particle size, particle type, plasticity, secondary constituents, etc);
■ Soil unit-specific 𝐼𝑐 boundaries, which define the three main soil types according to the data pairing
approach as described in Section 2.2.3.2 (including supporting plates);
■ Results of 𝐼𝑐 and percentage fines, including statistical analyses (including supporting plates);
■ Results from SBT classification charts (Robertson, 2016) (including supporting plates);
■ Plasticity chart (including supporting plates);
■ Statistical values for chemical/mineral composition, i.e. carbonate and organic content.
Note that all supporting plates for soil unit classification present data from the HKW WFZ within the
depth range of application, i.e. until 50 m BSF, except the plates related to the data pairing process that
present all available data within the whole investigated depth range from both HKW WFZ and HKN WFZ.
3.3.2 Soil Unit A

Table 3.3 and Plates C2-1 to C2-4 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit A.
Table 3.3: Soil Unit A Classification

Parameter Attribute Description
Soil type Sand

Supplementary information ■ Silica fine and medium
■ Locally calcareous silica
■ Locally slightly silty to very silty
■ With shells and shell fragments
■ With traces of organic matter
Geology ■ Late Holocene – Southern Bight Formation
■ 6 000 years BP to present
𝐼𝑐 boundaries ■ Sand – Transitional soil boundary: 2.05
■ Transitional soil – Clay boundary: 2.6
𝐼𝑐 distribution functions ■ Normal distribution with mean value of 1.54; median of 1.53;
mode of 1.46; standard deviation of 0.13
■ 100 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05
Percentage fines distribution ■ Right (positive) skewed distribution with mean value of 2.3 %; median of
functions 1.9 %; mode of 1.8 %; standard deviation of 2.5 %
■ 99 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 15 %
■ Count: 339
Plasticity No data available
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-Fr) Sand-like Dilative – 100 %
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-U2) ■ Sand-like Dilative – 99 %
■ Transitional Contractive – 1 %
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-IG) ■ 71 % of data show 𝐾𝐺∗ > 330
■ Count: 38
Organic Content ■ Range: < 1 % to 6 %
■ Mean: < 1 %
■ Median: < 1 %
■ Count: 40

Carbonate Content ■ Range: < 2.3 % to 11 %

■ Mean: 4 % and 5 %
■ Median: 4 %
■ Count: 40
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values
■ Presentation of relevant statistical data including graphical presentation,
where appropriate
Interpretation/ integration ■ General agreement observed on comparison of soil behaviour type using
multiple methods
■ Judgement supported by (1) checks on in situ and laboratory test data
and (2) theoretical considerations related to depositional setting and soil
mechanics principles
3.3.3 Soil Unit B1

Table 3.4 and Plates C3-1 to C3-5 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit B1.
Table 3.4: Soil Unit B1 Classification

Soil type ■ Sand

■ Transitional soil
Supplementary information ■ Silica to calcareous silica
■ Fine and medium (Sand)
■ Sandy (Transitional soil)
■ Locally with thin laminae to medium beds of (organic) clay and/or silt
■ Locally with many shells and shell fragments
Geology ■ Early to Middle Holocene – Naaldwijk Formation
■ 12 000 to 6 000 years BP
𝐼𝑐 distribution functions ■ Right (positive) skewed distribution with mean value of 1.88; median of
1.83; mode of 1.69; standard deviation of 0.30
■ 72 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05 (Soil Group B1-Sand); 26 % of 𝐼𝑐
values fall in between 2.05 and 2.6 (Soil Group B1-Transitional);
remaining 2 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is above 2.6
functions 3 %; mode of 1.5 %; standard deviation of 14.6 %
■ 82 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 15 %; remaining
18 % of data points show percentage fines between 15 % and 58 %
■ Count: 64
Plasticity 4 Atterberg limits test results indicating low plasticity silt (1), intermediate
plasticity silt (2) and silty clay (1), as per ISO (2017)
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-Fr) ■ Sand-like Dilative – 92 %
■ Sand-like Contractive – 3 %
■ Transitional Dilative – 4 %
■ Clay-like Dilative – 1 %
■ Clay-like Contractive – < 1 %


■ Count: 18
■ Mean: 4 %
■ Median: 2 %
■ Count: 4
■ Mean: 11 % and 12 %
■ Median: 17 %
■ Count: 5
where appropriate
multiple methods
3.3.4 Soil Unit B2

Table 3.5 and Plates C4-1 to C4-4 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit B2.
Table 3.5: Soil Unit B2 Classification

Soil type Sand

Supplementary information ■ Silica to calcareous silica fine and medium
■ Locally slightly gravelly
■ Locally with thin beds to medium beds of peat
■ Locally with many shells and shell fragments
Geology ■ Late Pleistocene to Middle Holocene – Naaldwijk Formation (locally
Kreftenheye/Dogger Bight)
■ 115 000 to 6 000 years BP
■ 99 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05 and 1 % of 𝐼𝑐 values fall in between
2.05 and 2.6
2 % of data points show percentage fines between 15 and 50 %
■ Count: 275
■ Transitional Dilative – < 1 %


■ Count: 99
■ Mean: 2 %
■ Median: < 1 %
■ Count: 26
■ Mean: 5 % and 6 %
■ Median: 4 %
■ Count: 31
where appropriate
multiple methods
3.3.5 Soil Unit C1

Table 3.6 and Plates C5-1 to C5-5 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit C1.
Table 3.6: Soil Unit C1 Classification

Soil type ■ Sand

■ Clay
Supplementary information ■ Fine and medium (Sand)
■ Calcareous silica (Sand, Transitional)
■ Slightly sandy to sandy (Transitional soil, Clay)
■ Calcareous (Clay)
■ Locally with thin laminae to thick beds of sand (Transitional soil, Clay)
■ Locally slightly to very organic
■ Locally with shells and shell fragments
Geology ■ Late Pleistocene – Eem Formation
■ 130 000 to 115 000 years BP
𝐼𝑐 distribution functions ■ Bimodal distribution with mean value of 2.34; median of 2.42; mode 1 of
1.87; mode 2 of 2.62; standard deviation of 0.35
■ 25 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05 (Soil Group C1-Sand); 47 % of 𝐼𝑐
values fall in between 2.05 and 2.6 (Soil Group C1-Transitional); 28 % of
𝐼𝑐 values is above 2.6 (Soil Group C1-Clay)
Percentage fines distribution ■ Multimodal distribution with mean value of 49.6 %; median of 50.2 %;
functions standard deviation of 20.5 %
■ 3 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 15 %; 23 % of data
points show percentage fines between 15 % and 35 %; the remaining
74 % of data points show percentage fines above 35 %
■ Count: 39

Plasticity 23 Atterberg limits test results indicating low plasticity clay (19), intermediate
plasticity clay (2) and low plasticity silt (2), as per ISO (2017)
■ Clay-like Contractive – 1 %
■ Count: 30
■ Mean: 5 %
■ Median: 2 %
■ Count: 15
■ Mean: 13 %
■ Median: 16 %
■ Count: 22
where appropriate
multiple methods
Note(s):
− It is worthwhile noting the presence of medium to thick beds of Transitional Contractive soils belonging to Soil Unit C1.
The contractive behaviour of transitional soils at large strains can be an important behaviour attribute for geotechnical
design.
3.3.6 Soil Unit C2

Table 3.7 and Plates C6-1 to C6-4 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit C2.
Table 3.7: Soil Unit C2 Classification

Soil type Sand

Supplementary information ■ Silica fine to coarse
■ Locally slightly silty to silty
■ Locally with thin bed of peat
■ Locally with shells and shell fragments
■ 130 000 to 115 000 years BP

■ 97 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05; remaining 3 % of 𝐼𝑐 values fall in
between 2.05 and 2.6
Percentage fines distribution ■ Multimodal distribution with mean value of 7.5 %; median of 3.8 %; mode
functions of 3.0 %; standard deviation of 7.0 %
18 % of data points show percentage fines between 15 % and 25 %
■ Count: 17
■ Transitional Dilative – < 1 %
■ Count: 22
■ Mean: 5 %
■ Median: < 1 %
■ Count: 7
■ Average: < 2.3 % and 4 %
■ Median: < 2.3 %
■ Count: 8
where appropriate
multiple methods
Note(s):
− Results of the statistical evaluation for percentage fines (refer to Plate C6-3) are less accurate due to the small sample
size, i.e. 16.
3.3.7 Soil Unit D

Table 3.8 and Plates C7-1 to C7-5 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit D.
Table 3.8: Soil Unit D Classification

Soil type ■ Sand

■ Clay
Supplementary information ■ Silica to calcareous silica fine and medium (Sand)
■ Sandy silica to calcareous silica (Transitional soil)
■ Sandy calcareous (Clay)
■ With laminae of organic matter
■ Locally with laminae of clay or silt


■ 130 000 to 115 000 years BP
𝐼𝑐 distribution functions ■ Bimodal distribution with mean value of 2.13; median of 2.05; mode
1 of 1.67; mode 2 of 2.71; standard deviation of 0.43
■ 50 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05; 29 % of 𝐼𝑐 values fall in between 2.05
and 2.60; 21 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is above 2.6
■ Count: 7
plasticity clay (1) and low plasticity silt (1), as per ISO (2017)
■ Transitional Contractive – 66%
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-IG) No data available
Organic Content ■ Range: 3 % to 4 %
■ Mean: 3 %
■ Median: 3 %
■ Count: 3
Carbonate Content ■ Range: 2.3 % to 12 %
■ Mean: 6 %
■ Median: 4 %
■ Count: 3
where appropriate
multiple methods
Note(s):
− Results of the statistical evaluation for percentage fines (refer to Plate C7-3) are less accurate due to the small sample
size, i.e. 7.

3.3.8 Soil Unit E

Table 3.9 and Plates C8-1 to C8-4 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit E.
Table 3.9: Soil Unit E Classification

Soil type Sand

Supplementary information ■ Silica fine and medium
■ Locally slightly silty
■ Locally slightly gravelly
■ Locally with traces/laminae of shells and shell fragments
■ Locally with traces/laminae of organic matter
■ 130 000 to 115 000 years BP
■ 100 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.05
■ 100 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 9 %
■ Count: 42
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-Fr) Sand-like Dilative – 100 %
■ Transitional Contractive – < 1 %
■ Count: 65
■ Mean: < 1 %
■ Median: < 1 %
■ Count: 11
■ Mean: < 2.3 % and 4 %
■ Median: < 2.3 %
■ Count: 11
where appropriate
multiple methods

3.3.9 Soil Unit F

Table 3.10 and Plates C9-1 to C9-5 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit F.
Table 3.10: Soil Unit F Classification

Soil type ■ Sand

■ Clay
Supplementary information ■ Slightly silty to silty silica to calcareous silica fine and medium (Sand)
■ Locally slightly gravelly (Sand)
■ Locally clayey and/or with laminae to thick beds of clay and silt (Sand)
■ With laminae of sand (Transitional soil)
■ Calcareous to non-calcareous (Transitional soil)
■ Locally with traces to many organic matter
■ Locally with laminae to thick beds of peat
Geology ■ Early to Middle Pleistocene – Yarmouth Roads Formation
■ 1 500 000 to 400 000 years BP
■ 66 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.0 (Soil Group F-Sand); 29 % of 𝐼𝑐 values
fall in between 2.0 and 2.65 (Soil Group F-Transitional); remaining 5 % of
𝐼𝑐 values is above 2.65 (Soil Group F-Clay)
■ 63 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 15 %; 18 % of
data points show percentage fines between 15 and 35 %; remaining
■ Count: 529
plasticity clay (20), high plasticity clay (7), low plasticity silt (6), intermediate
plasticity silt (4) and silty clay (3), as per ISO (2017)
■ Clay-like Contractive – < 1 %
■ Count: 667
■ Mean: 8 %
■ Median: 2 %
■ Count: 206


■ Mean: 4 % and 5 %
■ Median: 3 %
■ Count: 192
where appropriate
multiple methods
Note(s):
− It is worthwhile noting the relatively large proportion of Transitional Contractive soils according to the Q tn-U2 classification
chart (30 %) in contrast to 1 % according to the Qtn-Fr classification chart. This is mainly attributed to the presence of silty
sand zones within which CPT pore pressure measurements are vulnerable to loss of saturation (refer also to Section
3.3.1). This renders the Qtn-U2 classification results as less reliable.
3.3.10 Soil Unit G

Table 3.11 and Plates C10-1 to C10-5 present soil unit classification results for Soil Unit G.
Table 3.11: Soil Unit G Classification

Soil type ■ Sand

■ Clay
Supplementary information ■ Slightly silty to silty silica to calcareous silica fine and medium (Sand)
■ Locally with laminae of clay and silt (Sand)
■ With laminae of sand (Transitional soil, Clay)
■ Calcareous to non-calcareous (Transitional soil, Clay)
■ Locally slightly sandy to sandy (Clay)
■ Locally slightly organic to organic (Clay)
■ Locally with thin laminae to thick beds of peat
Geology ■ Early Pleistocene – Yarmouth Roads Formation (possibly partly Winterton
Shoal)
■ 2 500 000 to 800 000 years BP
■ 23 % of 𝐼𝑐 values is less than 2.0 (Soil Group G-Sand); 50 % of 𝐼𝑐 values
fall in between 2.0 and 2.65 (Soil Group G-Transitional); 27 % of 𝐼𝑐 values
is above 2.65 (Soil Group G-Clay)
■ 21 % of data points show percentage fines of less than 15 %; 30 % of
data points show percentage fines between 15 and 35 %; remaining
■ Count: 170

plasticity clay (27), high plasticity clay (6), very high plasticity clay (1), low
plasticity silt (1), intermediate plasticity silt (2), high plasticity silt (3), very
high plasticity silt (1) and silty clay (2), as per ISO (2017)
■ Clay-like Contractive Sensitive – 1 %
■ Clay-like Contractive Sensitive – 1 %
Soil Behaviour Type (Qtn-IG) ■ 67 % of data show 𝐾𝐺∗ < 330
■ Count: 167
■ Mean: 6 %
■ Median: 1 %
■ Count: 59
■ Mean: 4 % and 5 %
■ Median: 3 %
■ Count: 74
where appropriate
multiple methods
Note(s):
− It is worthwhile noting the presence of contractive soils (particularly Transitional Contractive and Clay-like Contractive
Sensitive soils) within Soil Unit G. The contractive behaviour of soils at large strains can be an important behaviour
attribute for geotechnical design.
3.4 Seafloor Conditions

Within the HKW WFZ, the water depth varied between approximately 20 m and 34 m relative to LAT
(Plates A2 and A3), at the time of the geophysical survey (Fugro, 2019b). Water depth changes locally
over time as a result of seabed mobility.
The overall seafloor gradient is less than 6 degrees. At the time of marine geophysical investigation, the
slopes of bedforms reached local values of up to about 40 degrees in the western part of the site, related
to lee sides of sand waves.
Seafloor topography is characterised by three scales of bedforms of variable scale: (tidal) sand banks,
sand waves and mega ripples. The largest bedforms are the sand banks, also known as “tidal sand

ridges”. Superimposed on the sand banks and outside the sand banks are sand waves. The bedforms
form part of Soil Unit A.
At the time of geophysical investigation, a sand bank oriented north-north-east to south-south-west is

present in the central part of the HKW WFZ. The difference in height between the sand bank and
surrounding lows was approximately 10 m. The sand banks are relatively stable and assessed to move
0 m/year to 1 m/year (Deltares, 2017).
The sand waves were oriented generally west-north-west to east-south-east, with heights from 1.5 m to
5 m and average wavelengths between 120 m and 700 m. Typical sand wave migration rates in this part
of the North Sea are between 1 m/year to 10 m/year (Deltares, 2016, 2017). The migration distance
may increase in the event of storms or exceptional weather surge, which may also affect the sand wave
morphology (Fugro, 2020a). The sand wave morphology indicates that the dominant migration direction
is to the north-north-east.
Small-scale bedforms (megaripples) are superimposed on the sand waves. At the time of geophysical
investigation, the megaripples’ wavelengths were 10 m to 20 m and heights ranged from 0.5 m to 1.5 m
(Fugro, 2019b).
Existing and future windfarms can act as hydraulic obstructions, which can contribute to changing
seawater current conditions and hence changes in the general scheme of sediment deposition patterns
and scour.
Seafloor conditions are also affected by site use, described further below.
3.5 Site Use and Geohazards

The site includes (local) features that can affect and constrain development of the wind farm. These
features include (1) local effects of past and/or present activities at the site, (2) local geological features
and (3) geohazards.
The geological ground model report (Plate A4) presents detailed information. Particularly, it is
recommended to consider information on constraints for structures, included in the geological ground
model report (Plate A4).

4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETER VALUES
4.1 Overview
Section 4 presents characteristic values and derived values for the geotechnical parameters listed in
Section 1.
The main information is illustrated by:

■ Appendix D, Plates D1-1 to D1-12: design basis information including calculation models, limit
states, list of design profiles and soil units per design location;
■ Appendix D, Plates D2-1 to D9-6: characteristic values of geotechnical parameters for the selected
design locations. Comments are as follows:
□ Two plates per design location are provided, showing parameter plots versus depth BSF:
 Net cone resistance, soil unit weight, relative density, undrained shear strength and external
axial strain at half the maximum deviator stress (first plate);
 Peak effective angle of internal friction, angle of interface friction (steel-soil), coefficient of
permeability and shear modulus at small strain (second plate);
□ For some parameters, e.g. angle of interface friction (steel-soil), additional plates are presented
to support interpretation and selection of characteristic values;
□ Characteristic values are also presented in a tabular format;
■ Appendix E: derived values of geotechnical parameters per soil unit. Comments are as follows:
□ Three plates per soil unit showing parameter plots versus depth BSF are provided:
 Soil behaviour type index, normalised cone resistance, normalised friction ratio, soil unit
weight, minimum and maximum index void ratios (first plate);
 Relative density, undrained shear strength in triaxial compression, undrained shear strength
in direct simple shear, external axial strain at half the maximum deviator stress, yield stress
ratio, coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (second plate);
 Constrained modulus, effective angle of internal friction at large strain, peak effective angle
of internal friction, angle of interface friction – steel/ soil, coefficient of permeability, shear
modulus at small strain (third plate);
□ Presentation is also done per soil group (per soil unit), where appropriate;
□ Derived values for some geotechnical parameters are presented in a different format, e.g.
normalised shear modulus is presented versus shear strain (refer to Plates E4-1 to E4-2);
□ Derived values for some geotechnical parameters additionally consider results from HKN WFZ,
e.g. critical state line;
□ Derived values for some geotechnical parameters are presented per soil type, where
appropriate, e.g. effective angle of internal friction at large strain;
□ Some parameter plots include LE, BE and HE values for particular test methods, where
applicable (refer to Table 2.2 in Section 2.3.5). BE considers a confidence interval of 95 %, thus
it is represented by two lines on the relevant plots;
□ For some geotechnical parameters, supporting information is also presented, e.g. Plates E6-9
to E6-44 present the influence of thin layers on CPT results;
■ Appendix F: derived values of geotechnical parameters that are location-specific consisting of
normalised CPT parameters, CPT net cone resistance, water content, Atterberg limits, soil unit
weights, particle size distribution, relative density, undrained shear strength, shear wave velocity
and shear modulus at small strain, thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. This applies
to location clusters including a borehole.

Sections 4.2 to 4.5 provide supplementary information, in particular:
■ Section 4.2 presents information on the selected calculation models;

■ Section 4.3 presents information on the selected design locations;
■ Section 4.4 presents supplementary information on geotechnical parameters for which both
characteristic values and derived values are provided;
■ Section 4.5 presents supplementary information on geotechnical parameters for which only derived
values are provided.
4.2 Calculation Models

Table 4.1, Plates D1-1 to D1-7 and Plates D1-8 and D1-9 present an overview of the selected calculation
models, limit states, design premises for selection of characteristic values and corresponding design
profiles.
Table 4.1: Overview of Calculation Models and Design Profiles

ID Calculation Model Model Pile Foundation Design Profile Characteristic
Rating Design Concept Value Type
Use
1 PISA numerical- Approximate Lateral Monopile 𝛾𝑘 Mean
based method resistance 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 Prescribed
(Byrne et al., 2017) (toe resistance)
𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 Prescribed
(shaft resistance)
′
𝜑𝑘1 Prescribed
(toe resistance)
′
(shaft resistance)
𝛿𝑘 Prescribed
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 Prescribed
2 PISA rule-based Approximate Lateral Monopile 𝛾𝑘 Mean
method (Byrne et al., resistance
2017): 𝐷𝑟,𝑘 Prescribed
i. PISA design
model for
frictional soils 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 Prescribed
(Burd et al., (toe resistance)
2019) 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 Prescribed
ii. PISA design
(shaft resistance)
model for
cohesive soils 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 Prescribed
(Byrne et al.,
2019)
3 ISO (2016) axial Cautious Axial Jacket pile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘1 5 % fractile
performance: resistance (toe resistance)
i. Simplified ICP- 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 Mean
05 & Offshore (shaft resistance)
UWA-05 CPT- 𝛾𝑘 Mean
based methods 𝐷𝑟,𝑘 Prescribed
for frictional soils
ii. Main Text 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 Prescribed
method for (toe resistance)
cohesive soils 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 Prescribed
(shaft resistance)
𝛿𝑘 Prescribed

ID Calculation Model Model Pile Foundation Design Profile Characteristic

Rating Design Concept Value Type
Use
4 ISO (2016) p-y Cautious Lateral Jacket pile 𝛾𝑘 Mean
method: resistance 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 Prescribed
i. Main Text (shaft resistance)
method for ′
frictional soils (toe resistance)
ii. Main Text ′
method for (shaft resistance)
cohesive soils 𝜀50,𝑘 Prescribed
5 Maynard et al. (2018) Approximate Installation Monopile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 Mean
SRD method analysis (shaft resistance)
𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 95 % fractile
(toe resistance)
𝛾𝑘 Prescribed
′
6 Alm and Hamre Approximate Installation Jacket pile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 Mean
(2001) SRD method analysis (shaft resistance)
𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 95 % fractile
(toe resistance)
𝛾𝑘 Prescribed
′
7 Osman and Randolph Approximate Assessme Monopile/ 𝛾𝑘 Mean
(2012) analytical nt of jacket pile 𝑘𝑘1 Mean
model drainage (low value)
behaviour
𝑘𝑘2 Mean
(high value)
Notes:
− Refer to Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.4.2 for more information on model rating and characteristic value types, respectively
− The specified fractiles mentioned in this table (i.e. 5 % fractile, mean and 95 % fractile) correspond to each design layer
Characteristic values that are the same for more than one calculation model pertain to the same design
′ ′ ′
profile (i.e. 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 , 𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 , 𝛾𝑘 , 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 , 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 , 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 , 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 , 𝜑𝑘1 , 𝜑𝑘2 , 𝜑𝑘3 , 𝛿𝑘 and 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 , refer also to Plates D1-8
and D1-9).
The table above excludes references to limit states (ULS and SLS) for selection of characteristic values,
as the design profiles presented in this report are assessed to be the same for their corresponding limit
state(s) (refer also to Plates D1-8 and D1-9).
Each design profile has a corresponding reference method. The reference method can be (i) the
recommended test method (or inferred from context) of the corresponding calculation model or (ii), in
absence of a recommendation by the calculation model, a selected test method considering specified
principles or general use of parameter values within the calculation model, reliability of test results
against other available laboratory test types, available technology and typical industry practices.
The presentation of design profiles can include derived values, i.e. where the reference method is a
CPT-based method.

Calculation Model 1 (PISA numerical-based method) differs from the rest of the calculation models in
Table 4.1 as it encompasses particular steps to be followed rather than a design method with prescribed
equations. The design framework requires the use of finite element modelling for which a soil constitutive
model must be selected. Although the method does not restrict the soil constitutive model selection, it
is generally recommended that the selected finite element and soil constitutive models must incorporate
(at least) the following features:
■ Geometrical boundaries of the finite element model that are sufficiently far from the monopile for
minimising influence on results;
■ Pile model using shell elements;
■ Explicit modelling of pile-soil interface;
■ Modelling of undrained soil behaviour with either a total stress approach or an effective stress
approach;
■ Modelling of (partially) drained soil behaviour with an effective stress approach;
■ Adequate representation of the non-linear, elasto-plastic and dilational/contractive nature of the soil
response;
■ Adequate representation of small strain stiffness of soil and soil failure conditions.
Within the scope of this report, no specific soil constitutive model is selected for Calculation Model 1.
This means that specific features, limitations and the full set of material parameters required by the
model are (inevitably) not known. The set of geotechnical parameters that is covered by the report (i.e.
𝛾, 𝑠𝑢 , 𝜑′, 𝛿, 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) are considered fundamental to most (advanced) constitutive models that would meet
the above model features. The characteristic values prescribed in this report can serve as initial input
and must be verified for the specific soil constitutive model(s) selected by the designer. In some cases,
the presented characteristic values will require further transformation within the context of the specific
soil constitutive model(s) selected for actual design.
Calculation Model 1 requires characteristic values for geotechnical parameters that are additional to
those within the scope of this report. The characteristic values presented in this report can serve as
initial input and must be verified within the context of the full set of parameters. In some cases, the
presented characteristic values will require further transformation. This comment also applies to the
presented characteristic values for Calculation Model 7.
Calculation Model 3i requires cone resistance 𝑞𝑐 instead of 𝑞𝑛 and Calculation Models 5 and 6 require
corrected cone resistance 𝑞𝑡 instead of 𝑞𝑛 . Recommended conversion equations for 𝑞𝑛 are as follows:
𝑞𝑐 = 𝑞𝑛 + 𝜎𝑣0 − 0.25 ∙ 𝑢0 and 𝑞𝑡 = 𝑞𝑛 + 𝜎𝑣0 , where 𝜎𝑣0 is total in situ vertical stress relative to seafloor
and 𝑢0 is hydrostatic pore pressure at depth BSF, relative to seafloor. Background information is given
in “Cone Penetration Test”, Appendix 2.
Calculation Model 4 considers ISO (2016), which specifically states that the p-y method is applicable for
long piles (i.e. jacket pile within the context of this report, with length over diameter ratio L/D > 10).
However, there are various workarounds in literature with which the ISO p-y method is modified to
account for large diameter effects and for L/D < 10, and subsequently used for (conceptual) monopile
design (e.g. Kallehave et al., 2012). This report provides no guidance on such modifications.

Consideration of model uncertainties is not incorporated in the selection of characteristic values in this
report (refer to Section 2.3.3). Some of the model uncertainties for the selected calculation models
include:
■ Calculation Model 2: Assessment of similarity of soil conditions at the HKW WFZ with the soil
conditions at the PISA sites.
■ Calculation Model 2: Checks that the selected monopile dimensions fall within the geometric
calibration space of the method.
■ Calculation Models 2 to 6: Application to soils other than Sand or Clay, i.e. Transitional soil or highly
interbedded soil, since the methods have been developed for either clean sands or clean clays.
4.3 Design Locations

Table 4.2 presents the selected design locations for both monopiles and jacket piles, for which
characteristic values of geotechnical parameters are provided. Note that Soil Provinces 6, 7 and 8
contain 6, 2 and 3 geotechnical locations, respectively; thus only a typical design location was selected.
Table 4.2: Design Locations

Soil Design Location
Province Adverse Typical Favourable
1 HKW012-PCPT HKW113-PCPT HKW038-PCPT
2 HKW049-SCPT HKW010-PCPT HKW011-PCPT
3 HKW099-PCPT HKW085-PCPT HKW072-PCPT-B
6 - HKW002-PCPT -
7 - HKW048-PCPT -
8 - HKW065-PCPT -
4.4 Characteristic Values
4.4.1 Net Cone Resistance
4.4.1.1 Parameter Definition

Description of geotechnical parameter is as follows:
■ CPT net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 according to ISO (2014);

■ Pertinent to all soil types.
4.4.1.2 Comments on Characteristic Values

Calculation Model 3i
Selection of characteristic values considered the following:
■ Design profile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘1 for computation of the end bearing component of the soil resistance;
□ Low values aiming for the 5 % fractile of 𝑞𝑛 and presence of interbedded soils within each layer,
for selection of 𝑞𝑛,𝑘1 ;
□ Large reductions in 𝑞𝑛 due to presence of weaker material across isolated and relatively short
depth intervals (i.e. < 0.2 m) were mainly ignored;

□ Inspection for corrected 𝑞𝑐 values for thin layer effects according to the procedure described in
Section 4.4.1.5. In cases of a consistent trend of extremely low corrected 𝑞𝑐 values within a
layer, this was broadly taken into consideration in the final selection for 𝑞𝑛,𝑘1 ;
■ Design profile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 for computation of the shaft friction component of the soil resistance;
□ Mean value of 𝑞𝑛 within each layer, for selection of 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 .
Calculation Models 5 and 6

■ Design profile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘2 for computation of the shaft friction component of the soil resistance (same as
for Calculation Model 3i);
■ Design profile 𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 for computation of the end bearing component of the soil resistance;
□ High values aiming for the 95 % fractile of 𝑞𝑛 and presence of interbedded soils within each
layer, for selection of 𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 ;
□ Large peaks in 𝑞𝑛 due to presence of stronger material across isolated and relatively short depth
intervals (i.e. < 0.2 m) were mainly ignored;
□ Inspection for corrected 𝑞𝑐 values for thin layer effects according to the procedure described in
Section 4.4.1.5. In cases of a consistent trend of extremely high corrected 𝑞𝑐 values within a
layer, this was broadly taken into consideration in the final selection for 𝑞𝑛,𝑘3 .
4.4.1.3 Comments on Derived Values

Table 4.3 shows parameter attributes, including references to specific types of information included on
the plates.
Table 4.3: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Net Cone Resistance
Test method ■ Net cone resistance according to ISO (2014)

■ Refer to document “Cone Penetration Test” presented in Appendix 2
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: total in situ vertical stress σv0
■ 𝜎𝑣0 = 𝛾 ∙ 𝑧, where 𝛾 = 20 kN/m3 (soil unit weight) and z is depth BSF
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values versus depth BSF per soil unit
(Appendix E), per soil group (Appendix E) and per location cluster
(Appendix F)
■ Nominal 1 m vertical averaging of derived values for use in statistics, to
account for averaging effects
■ Mean value statistics based on Central Limit Theorem and Student’s t-
distribution, presented per soil unit and per soil group (Appendix E)
LE BE HE values Applicable, refer to corresponding plates in Appendix E
The selected value for 𝛾 (𝛾 = 20 kN/m3) is close to the characteristic values for unit weight, as presented
on the corresponding plates of Section 4. The presented values of 𝑞𝑛 are insensitive to small variations
in 𝛾.

4.4.1.4 CPT Parameter Uncertainty

Plates E6-1 to E6-8 present uncertainty estimates for CPT parameters (i.e. cone resistance 𝑞𝑐 , sleeve
friction 𝑓𝑠 and pore pressure 𝑢2 ) for each of the typical design locations per soil province. The parameter
uncertainty was estimated according to the calculation model by Peuchen and Terwindt (2015),
considering (1) good CPT systems and practices and (2) recommendations included in ISO 19901-8
(2014).
The uncertainty model considers the following uncertainty contributions, where applicable: (1) force and
pressure sensors, (2) geometry of the cone penetrometer, (3) effects from ambient and transient
temperature, (4) non-axial force on cone penetrometer (bending moment), (5) ambient fluid pressure in
soil and (6) zero offsets for 𝑞𝑐 , 𝑓𝑠 and 𝑢2 relative to seafloor. Other sources of uncertainty, e.g. due to
spatial soil variability, are not addressed by the uncertainty model and should be considered separately.
Note that the presented design profiles in this report do not include considerations for spatial soil
variability.
The presented percentage values for uncertainty are relative to the values of 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 . No percentage
values are presented for uncertainty of pore pressure 𝑢2 . This is because 𝑢2 values can be zero and
negative.
Note that the presented uncertainty estimates are for reference purposes. Their impact on other
parameters (e.g. net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 ) is qualitatively addressed in this report and not explicitly (or
probabilistically).
The parameters 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑢2 represent the basis for 𝑞𝑛 .
4.4.1.5 Influence of Thin Layers

Checks were made for the influence of thin layers on CPT results. The selected method was according
to Boulanger and DeJong (2018). This method provides estimates of corrected 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 values based
on an inverse filtering procedure that accounts for thin layer and transitional effects during cone
penetration. The Boulanger and DeJong method was developed for detection and characterisation of
weak zones in soil, i.e. soils with relatively low values of cone resistance.
Multiple CPTs were reviewed according to the Boulanger and DeJong approach. Plates E6-9 to E6-44
present original values and corrected 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 values in a cumulative distribution function format and
per depth for all selected design locations. Note that the influence of thin layers to 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 and the
selected method for quantification are for illustrative purposes and for general support in selection of
characteristic values. It should also be noted that the correction does not apply to pore pressure 𝑢2 , for
which the authors of this report are not aware of any correction method.
The results show that differences between original values and corrected values of 𝑞𝑐 can be
considerable, particularly for soil units or specific depth intervals within soil units with strong layering
(e.g. Plate E6-9). No significant differences are observed between original values and corrected values
of 𝑓𝑠 .

4.4.2 Soil Unit Weight

■ Soil total unit weight 𝛾 = 𝜌 ∙ 𝑔 where 𝜌 is density of soil and 𝑔 is acceleration due to gravity
(𝑔 = 9.81 m/s2);

■ Laboratory γ-w method as the recommended/ inferred reference method from the calculation
models;
■ Selection of 𝛾𝑘 values is per soil unit and based on the mean values from the reference method per
soil unit;
■ Checks against mean derived values of 𝛾 from the minimum index void ratio tests for the Sand part
of the soil units;
□ For the more dense and predominantly sandy soil units (i.e. Soil Unit C2 with mean values of
relative density between 84 % and 106 % and Soil Unit E with mean values of relative density
between 88 % and 98 %), the mean values from the γ-w method were increased by 0.5 kN/m3
so that they fall close to the mean values from the minimum index void ratio tests in these soil
units;
■ General checks for differences between the derived values from the different test methods, which
are within expectations (refer to Section 4.4.2.3 below).
□ Plate D10-1 presents an illustrative example for location cluster HKW072.

the plates.
Table 4.4: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Soil Unit Weight
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based γ-qt-Rf method according to Lengkeek et al. (2018)
5
𝑙𝑜𝑔
■  = 19 − 4.12 ∙ for  in kN/m3, corrected cone resistance 𝑞𝑡 in MPa
𝑞𝑡
30
𝑙𝑜𝑔
𝑅𝑓
and friction ratio 𝑅𝑓

■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝑞𝑡 and 𝑅𝑓
■ Applicable to all soil types
■ Refer to document titled “Cone Penetration Test Interpretation” presented
in Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory γ-w method according to ISO (2014)
■ Physical principles for deriving  from water content
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: density of solid particles 𝜌𝑠
■ Refer to document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in
Appendix 2

Test method (3) ■ Laboratory γ-V method according to ISO (2014)

Appendix 2
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values versus depth BSF (i) per soil
unit for test method (1) (Appendix E), and (ii) per soil unit (Appendix E)
and per location cluster for test method (2) and test method (3)
(Appendix F)
■ Nominal 1 m vertical averaging of CPT-derived values for use in
statistics, to account for averaging effects
■ Mean value statistics based on Central Limit Theorem and Student’s
t-distribution, performed separately for each test method and presented
per soil unit (Appendix E)
■ Data outliers from test methods (2) and (3) excluded from statistics
according to the 3-sigma rule
LE BE HE values ■ Applicable to all test methods for BE, refer to corresponding plates in
Appendix E
Derived values of  for all test methods show no apparent trends with relative density. This is assessed
to be due to:
■ General scatter of results;

■ Limited sensitivity of  to variations in relative density, e.g. a change of 30 % in 𝐷𝑟 will result in a
change in  in the order of 0.5 kN/m3;
■ Limitations of the methods for derived values, further discussed below.
The approach of presenting BE values of  separately for each test method illustrates differences
between the methods that are within expectations. Results from the γ-qt-Rf method are on average 5 %
higher (~1 kN/m3) and 7 % higher (~1.4 kN/m3) than results from the γ-w method and the γ-V method,
respectively. Results from the γ-w method are on average 2.5 % higher (~0.4 kN/m3) than results from
the γ-V method. The latter is mainly attributed to the process of sample handling and testing during
which inevitable loss of saturation leads to an increase in the derived values of  according to the γ-w
method as opposed to a decrease in the derived values of  according to the γ-V method. This difference
generally decreases for clay samples.
It is noted that a value of  = 20 kN/m3 was used as a supplementary parameter value for derivation of
other parameter values, where applicable (e.g. for net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 ). This value is close to BE
values for  across the site. It is assessed that small variations in  have negligible impact on derived
values for other parameters.

CPT-based γ-qt-Rf method

Lengkeek et al. (2018) report an uncertainty for  in the order of +/- 1 kN/m3, compared to laboratory
values considered as reference.
Laboratory γ-w method

Results for the γ-w method are sensitive to the process of sampling, sample handling and testing, as
described in the documents “Geotechnical Borehole” and “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in
Appendix 2. The following considerations apply:
■ The expected sample application class is Class 3 (disturbed) for push sampling of sands in drilling
mode. This class matches suggested minimum requirements for this method;
■ Predominantly dilatant soil behaviour (medium dense to very dense sands at the HKW WFZ) takes
place near the tip and along the interior of the push sampler during sampling, i.e. soil shearing takes
place causing soil to dilate towards constant volume conditions. This means that soil dilation will
cause pore water migration, which can result in a possible increase in water content (or
underestimate of unit weight) of a soil sample compared to in situ conditions.
A value of 𝜌𝑠 = 2.65 Mg/m3 was selected for the soils at the HKW WFZ. The influence of minor variation
of 𝜌𝑠 on  is assessed to be negligible. Note that derived values for 𝜌𝑠 values range between 2.56 Mg/m3
and 2.78 Mg/m3, based on statistical analysis of available particle density test results.
The influence of pore water salinity on derived values of  is assessed to be negligible for the HKW WFZ
(e.g. Kay et al., 2005).
Laboratory γ-V method

The γ-V method requires intact samples. Results for the γ-V method are sensitive to the process of
sampling, sample handling and testing, as discussed for the γ-w method. The following additional
considerations apply, particularly for sandy soils:
■ Predominantly dilatant soil behaviour (medium dense to very dense sands at the HKW WFZ) takes
place near the tip and along the interior of the push sampler during sampling, i.e. soil shearing takes
place causing soil to dilate towards constant volume conditions; thus:
□ Soil dilation will cause pore water migration, as for the γ-w method;
□ Soil dilation will increase soil volume and eventually may (further) reduce derived unit weight for
the γ-V method, compared to in situ conditions;
■ Sample volume changes and loss of lateral confinement due to sample extraction from the sampler
will probably reduce γ and it can be expected that the sample will be partially saturated, i.e. include
air-filled voids;
■ Sub-sampling, required for the γ-V method, will incur further volume changes for the test specimen
which may be positive or negative, depending on the density state of the sample reached by
preceding activities. Partial saturation of the soil specimen will apply. The presented derived values
exclude correction for partial saturation.

4.4.3 Relative Density

■ Relative density 𝐷𝑟 according to ASTM (2016a);

■ 𝐷𝑟 = (𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒) /(𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) where maximum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 is according to ASTM (2016a),
minimum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 according to ASTM (2016b), and void ratio 𝑒 defined as in situ void
ratio;
■ Pertinent to Sand soil type.

■ CPT-based Dr-qt method as the reference method, as recommended in Calculation Model 2i;
■ Mean values of 𝐷𝑟 according to the CPT-based Dr-qt method for Sand layers, in accordance to the
use of the parameter within the context of the calculation model, i.e. determination of a soil state
measure;
■ Application of an equivalent value of 𝐷𝑟 for Transitional soil layers, by a 20 % reduction from the
mean values of 𝐷𝑟 according to the CPT-based Dr-qt method. The reduction is based on engineering
judgement and considers the use of the parameter within the context of the calculation model.;
■ Applicability range of relative densities in Sand as per Calculation Model 2i, i.e. 45 % ≤ 𝐷𝑟 ≤ 90 %.
In layers of Sand where the mean value of 𝐷𝑟 falls outside the applicability range, selection of 𝐷𝑟,𝑘1
was set to the above limits;
■ In Transitional soil, selected 𝐷𝑟,𝑘1 values can be outside the applicability range of the calculation
model, hence they should be used with appropriate caution (refer to Sections 2.3.3 and 4.2 for more
information on model uncertainties).
Selection of characteristic values follows the same considerations as for Calculation Model 2i above,
with the exception that the applicability range of relative densities changes to 0 % ≤ 𝐷𝑟 ≤ 100 %, as per
Calculation Model 3i.
𝐷𝑟 is used within the context of Calculation Model 3i for checking of pile plugging behaviour. Therefore,
during design and depending on the pile tip depth, consideration should be given to some averaging of
𝐷𝑟,𝑘2 along the length of the plug.

the plates.

Table 4.5: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Relative Density

Test method ■ CPT-based Dr-qt method according to simplified version by Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990)
■ 𝐷𝑟 = √𝑄𝑡𝑛∗ /𝑄𝑓 where 𝑄𝑓 is a coefficient taken as 350 and 𝑄𝑡𝑛∗ is
′ 0.5
𝑞 𝜎𝑣0
normalised cone resistance given by 𝑄𝑡𝑛∗ = ( 𝑡 )⁄( ) where 𝑞𝑡 is
𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑎
′
corrected cone resistance, 𝑃𝛼 is atmospheric pressure and 𝜎𝑣0 is effective
in situ vertical stress
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝑄𝑡𝑛∗
■ Applicable to Sand soil type
in Appendix 2
(Appendix E), per soil group (Appendix E) and per location cluster
(Appendix F)
■ Nominal 1 m vertical averaging of derived values for use in statistics, to
account for averaging effects
t-distribution, presented per soil unit and per soil group (Appendix E)
LE BE HE values Applicable, refer to corresponding plates in Appendix E
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) presented an empirical relationship to fit data (CPT data with relative
density) from 24 different sets of (laboratory) calibration chamber test results. The 𝐷𝑟 is based on
′
corrected cone resistance (𝑞𝑡 ), effective in situ vertical stress (𝜎𝑣0 ), a compressibility factor, an aging
factor and an overconsolidation factor. The utilized test method considers a simplified version presented
by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990). The simplified version by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) combines the
compressibility, aging and overconsolidation factors into the coefficient 𝑄𝑓 .
The Dr-qt method considers 𝑄𝑓 = 350. This value matches suggestions by Robertson and Cabal (2015).
This is assessed reasonable, considering (1) the geological setting for the HKW WFZ, (2) the database
that supports the range of 𝑄𝑓 values, and (3) comparison with derived values obtained by other methods,
e.g. Jamiolkowski et al. (2003).
4.4.4 Undrained Shear Strength

■ Peak undrained shear strength 𝑠𝑢 , according to the test methods described in Table 4.7;
■ Monotonic strain rate according to laboratory test methods described in Table 4.7;


Calculation Models 1 and 2ii
■ Laboratory su,TXC-labINT method as the reference method in Clay, as recommended in Calculation

Model 2ii;
■ Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method as the selected reference method in Sand;
■ Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method and su,TXC-labINT method as the selected reference methods in
Transitional soil;
■ For Calculation Model 2ii, the presented design profiles (𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 and 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 ) should be used with
appropriate caution for layers of Transitional soil and must not be used for layers of Sand, as the
model has been developed and intended for use in Clay (model uncertainty, refer also to Sections
2.3.3 and 4.2). The presented 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 and 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 values in layers of Sand apply only to Calculation Model
1;
■ Design profiles that provide 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 and 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 values per layer for each design location, by application
of a CPT-based fitting approach (su,k-qn method further described below);
□ The CPT-based fitting approach allows extrapolation of available laboratory test data to every
design location;
□ Calculation of derived values of 𝑠𝑢 according to the su,k-qn method per soil type, to obtain the
best-fit with the available laboratory values from the reference methods (refer to Plate E7-1);
□ Selection of characteristic values considering calculated uncertainties for the CPT-based fitting
approach, by application of soil type-specific factors;
■ Design profiles 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 for computation of the toe resistance component of lateral soil resistance;
□ Low values aiming for the 5 % fractile of the distribution of values of 𝑠𝑢 (i) in Sand and
′
Transitional soil for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≥ 190 and (ii) in Clay, according to the su,k-qn method,
considering:
▪ An Ic-based rule to distinguish per data point between Sand, Transitional soil and Clay, as
per Section 2.2.3.2;
▪ Statistical fitting uncertainties;
▪ (relatively small) Volume of soil mobilized in lateral toe resistance;
▪ The use of site-wide values to location-specific design profiles;
▪ Presence of interbedded soils within a layer, where applicable;
′ ′
□ A constant low value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 /𝜎𝑣0 in Sand and Transitional soil for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 < 190
according to the su,k-qn method, considering:
▪ For Transitional soil, the low 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 values, the wide scatter and the absence of a significant
trend (𝑅2 = 0.38) between laboratory 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 values and CPT values within the available
database;
′
▪ A probable low value of 𝑠𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 for slightly overconsolidated soil (Sand and Transitional soil)
that would be in the order of magnitude for conventional clays;
▪ Allowance for overestimation of 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 derived from intact Transitional soil specimens due
to sample disturbance and subsequent reduction of water content during reconsolidation
that can lead to soil phase transformation from contractive to dilative (Andersen, 2015);
▪ Engineering judgement;

■ Design profiles 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 for computation of the shaft component of the lateral soil resistance;
□ Selection of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 aims for the 16 % fractile (1 standard deviation below the mean) of the
′
distribution of values of 𝑠𝑢 (i) in Sand and Transitional soil for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≥ 159 and (ii) in
Clay, according to the su,k-qn method, considering:
▪ An Ic-based rule to distinguish per data point between Sand, Transitional soil and Clay, as
per Section 2.2.3.2;
▪ Statistical fitting uncertainties;
▪ Averaging effects along the soil profile/ pile length;
▪ Data spread;
′ ′
□ A constant value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 /𝜎𝑣0 in Sand and Transitional soil for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 < 159 according
to the su,k-qn method, considering:
▪ The data spread and size of the data set;
▪ Averaging effects along the soil profile/ pile length;
′
▪ A probable low value of 𝑠𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 for slightly overconsolidated soil (Sand and Transitional soil)
that would be in the order of magnitude for conventional clays;
■ Selection of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 values considered apparent trends of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 values according to the su,k-qn method
within a layer. To that aim, sublayers were added with a minimum thickness of about 2 m considering
a likely extent of soil zone that will influence the toe lateral resistance. The 2 m thickness value
should be verified for actual design cases;
■ Selection of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 values follows the low values in case of the presence of strongly interbedded soils
within a (sub)layer. In other cases, selection of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 values follows the average 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 value according
to the su,k-qn method within a (sub)layer;
■ Selection of 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 values considers the sublayers as defined above for 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 and follows the average
𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 value according to the su,k-qn method within a (sub)layer;
■ Checks for trends of derived values of 𝑠𝑢 with soil units, yielding no significant trends;
■ General checks for unit weights of laboratory test specimens for the su,TXC-labREC method with site-
wide unit weights, showing specimen reconstitution with good fit to site-wide unit weights.
The equations for the CPT-based fitting method (su,k-qn method) are as follows:
′ ′
𝑎 ∙ 𝑞𝑛 + 𝑏 ∙ 𝜎𝑣𝑜 , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≥𝐴
′ ′
𝑠𝑢 = { 𝑐 ∙ 𝜎𝑣𝑜 , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 <𝐴
′
𝑑 ∙ 𝑞𝑛 + 𝑒 ∙ 𝜎𝑣𝑜 , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦
′
where 𝑠𝑢 is in kPa, 𝑞𝑛 is net cone resistance in kPa, 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress in kPa and
𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑, 𝑒 and 𝐴 are fitting parameters. The equations are a combination of test methods (1) and (2)
(refer to Section 4.4.4.3).
Table 4.6 presents the values of the fitting parameters for the su,k-qn method together with values of the
fitting parameters for derivation of design profiles 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 and 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 .

Table 4.6: Fitting Parameters

Profile Fitting Parameters
𝒂 𝒃 𝒄 𝒅 𝒆 𝑨
Best-fit 0.0096 -0.4823 0.70 0.0275 0.3544 124
𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 0.0096 -1.5150 0.30 0.0275 0.0445 190
𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 0.0096 -1.0987 0.42 0.0275 0.1681 159
Note that the presented values for design profile 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 must not be applied within shallow depth ranges
corresponding to monopile length to diameter ratios of less than about 3.
Calculation Model 3ii

■ Laboratory su,UU-lab method as the reference method in Clay, as recommended in Calculation

Model 3ii;
■ Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method and su,TXC-labINT method as the selected reference methods in
Transitional soil;
■ The presented design profiles should be used with appropriate caution for layers of Transitional soil,
as the model has been developed and intended for use in Clay (model uncertainty, refer also to
Sections 2.3.3 and 4.2);
■ Design profiles 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 for computation of the toe resistance component of axial soil resistance;
□ Application of a ratio for Clay such that 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 = 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 /1.15 considering:
▪ The small database of derived values of 𝑠𝑢 with the reference method for Clay, for the depth
range 0 m to 50 m BSF;
▪ Uncertainties for transformation of derived values of 𝑠𝑢 with the reference method for Clay
to derived values of 𝑠𝑢 with the su,TXC-labINT method;
▪ General expectation that 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 < 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 ;
□ 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 = 𝑠𝑢,𝑘1 for Transitional soil;
■ Design profiles 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 for computation of the shaft resistance component of axial soil resistance;
□ Application of a ratio for Clay such that 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 = 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 /1.15 following the same considerations as
for design profile 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 above;
□ 𝑠𝑢,𝑘4 = 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 for Transitional soil.
Note that the presented values for design profile 𝑠𝑢,𝑘3 must not be applied within shallow depth ranges
corresponding to pile length to diameter ratios of less than about 10.
Calculation Model 4ii

Design profile 𝑠𝑢,𝑘2 applies also to Calculation Model 4ii with the same considerations and uncertainties
as for Calculation Model 2ii (see above).

the plates.

Table 4.7: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Undrained Shear Strength
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based su,TXC-qn-blin method for undrained shear strength 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 in
Sand and Transitional soil according to a bi-linear relationship between
𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 and net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛
𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 𝑞𝑛 𝑞𝑛
■ ′ =𝑎∙ ′ + 𝑏, for ′ ≥ 124
𝜎𝑣0 𝜎𝑣0 𝜎𝑣0
𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 𝑞𝑛
■ ′ = 0.703, for ′ < 124
𝜎𝑣0 𝜎𝑣0
′
■ 𝜎𝑣0 effective in situ vertical stress, 𝑎 and 𝑏 are site-specific empirical
is
values estimated from a best fit relationship between CPT data and
laboratory values from the HKW database, complemented by the HKN
database
■ 𝑎 = 0.0096 and 𝑏 = −0.4823
■ 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 is defined as per test methods (3) and (4)
■ 𝑞𝑛 is derived from a data pairing process, refer to comments below
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝑞𝑛 and 𝜎𝑣0
■ Refer to Plate E7-1
Test method (2) ■ CPT-based su,TXC-qn-lin method for undrained shear strength 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 in
Clay according to a linear relationship between 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 and net cone
resistance 𝑞𝑛
𝑠 𝑞 ′
■ 𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶
′ = 𝑎 ∙ ′𝑛 + 𝑏 where 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress, 𝑎 and 𝑏 are
𝜎𝑣0 𝜎𝑣0
site-specific empirical values estimated from a best fit relationship
between CPT data and laboratory values from the HKW database,
complemented by the HKN database
■ 𝑎 = 0.0275 and 𝑏 = 0.3544
■ 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 is defined as per test method (4)
■ 𝑞𝑛 is derived from a data pairing process, refer to comments below
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝑞𝑛 and 𝜎𝑣0
■ Refer to Plate E7-1
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated undrained triaxial compression on test specimen
of soil reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾
■ (An)isotropic recompression of test specimen to estimated value of
′
effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0 and coefficient of earth pressure at rest
𝐾0
■ Specimen temperature of about 20 °C
■ Stress application 𝜎1′ in vertical direction and 𝜎2′ = 𝜎3′
■ Value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 derived from maximum stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ where 𝑞 = 𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′
and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented by principal stresses; in cases
where peak deviator stress 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 was reached at a smaller strain level
than maximum stress ratio, then 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 was taken at 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝛾, 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝐾0
■ Applicable to Sand and Transitional soil types
■ Refer to documents titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in
Appendix 2
Test method (4) ■ Laboratory su,TXC-labINT method for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated undrained triaxial compression on homogenous
test specimen obtained from intact soil sample (Class 1 or Class 2 of ISO,
2014), recovered by sampler types “thin-walled 3 inch tube” and “thick-
walled 3 inch tube” according to the document titled “Geotechnical
Borehole” presented in Appendix 2
′
𝐾0

■ Stress application 𝜎1′ in vertical direction and 𝜎2′ = 𝜎3′

■ Value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 derived from maximum stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ where 𝑞 = 𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′
and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented by principal stresses; in cases
where peak deviator stress 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 was reached at a smaller strain level
than maximum stress ratio, then 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 was taken at 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: sampling method, 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝐾0
■ Applicable to Transitional and Clay soil types
■ Refer to documents titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” and
“Geotechnical Borehole” presented in Appendix 2
Test method (5) ■ Laboratory su,DSS-labREC method for 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated direct simple shear on test specimen of soil
reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾
■ Axial compression of test specimen to estimated total vertical stress that
′
is equivalent to effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0 ; no control of effective
′
radial consolidation stress 𝜎𝑟𝑐 in the specimen other than by approximate
specimen confinement by test apparatus; no specific measures for
saturation of test specimen
■ Application of shear strain 𝛾 in horizontal direction
■ Value of 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 derived from peak value in shearing force and at specific
strain levels (5 %, 10 % and 15 %), under zero vertical displacement
conditions (constant volume)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: in situ soil unit weight 𝛾 and 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2
Test method (6) ■ Laboratory su,DSS-labINT method for 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated direct simple shear on homogenous test
specimen obtained in horizontal orientation from intact soil sample (Class
1 or Class 2 of ISO, 2014), recovered by sampler types “thin-walled 3
inch tube” and “thick-walled 3 inch tube” according to the document titled
′
′
radial consolidation stress 𝜎𝑟𝑐 in the specimen other than by approximate
specimen confinement by test apparatus; no specific measures for
saturation of test specimen
■ Value of 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 derived from peak value in shearing force or limiting strain
of 30 % (whichever is earlier), under zero vertical displacement conditions
(constant volume)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: sampling method and 𝜎𝑣0
■ Applicable to Clay soil type
Test method (7) ■ Laboratory su,UU-lab method for 𝑠𝑢,𝑈𝑈 according to ISO (2014
■ Laboratory unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression on
homogenous test specimen obtained from intact soil sample (Class 1 or
Class 2 of ISO, 2014), recovered by sampler types “thin-walled 3 inch
tube” and “thick-walled 3 inch tube” according to the document titled
■ Isotropic recompression of test specimen by application of triaxial cell
pressure; no specific measures for saturation of test specimen


■ Value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑈𝑈 derived at maximum deviator stress or limiting strain
(whichever is earlier)
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): sampling method
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values of normalised undrained shear
′ ′
strength 𝑠𝑢 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 versus normalised net cone resistance 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 , for test
methods (1) and (2) (Plate E7-1)
■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test method (3) (Plate E7-2)
■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test method (4) that meet the
homogeneity criterion, refer also to comments below (Plates E7-3 to E7-
5)
■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test method (5) (Plate E7-6)
■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test method (6) that meet the
homogeneity criterion, refer also to comments below (Plate E7-7)
■ Graphical presentation of derived values versus depth BSF per soil unit
(Appendix E) and per soil group (Appendix E); derived values from test
method (5) are plotted at a strain of 5 %
■ Graphical presentation of derived values versus depth BSF per location
cluster (Appendix F); all derived values from test method (4) are plotted
(excluding the homogeneity check, see below); derived values from test
method (5) are plotted at a strain of 5 %
LE BE HE values Applicable to test methods (1) and (2), refer to corresponding plates in
Appendix E
Results from all test methods provide no evidence for trends per soil unit.
The general ground conditions at the HKW WFZ present challenges for all test methods. Particularly:
■ The CPT-based su,TXC-qn-lin method is robust and strongly supported by literature;

■ The CPT correlation for Transitional soil is influenced by uncertainty related to undrained, partially
drained or drained conditions during cone penetration. Any of these conditions may apply, leading
to an uncertainty equivalent to a factor of 1.5 to 3 for 𝑞𝑛 (DeJong and Randolph, 2012);
■ CPT parameter uncertainty for strongly layered soil will be higher than for uniform soil (Peuchen and
Terwindt, 2015). Guidance on CPT parameter uncertainty is included in Section 4.4.1.4;
■ For intact specimens of Clay and Transitional soil, any varying sand content (particularly if a sample
includes sand laminae) will influence derived values of 𝑠𝑢 . For example, a varying sand content can
adversely affect (1) undisturbed sample quality and (2) test processing results for a premise of a
homogeneous laboratory test specimen;
■ For reconstituted specimens of Sand and Transitional soil, considerable uncertainties lie with
selection of the target specimen density based on estimation of the in situ soil density. These
uncertainties increase with increase of percentage fines.

CPT-based su,TXC-qn-blin method

The method allows for CPT-based derived values for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 in Sand and Transitional soil based on a
site-specific correlation between CPT data and laboratory values, via a data pairing process. The bi-
linear relationship applies to both Sand and Transitional soil and considers:
′
■ A best fit relationship for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≥ 124 based on paired values in Sand (𝑅2 = 0.87 where
𝑅2 is a statistical coefficient of determination);
′ ′ ′
■ A constant value of 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 for values of 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 < 124 considering a mean value for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 ⁄𝜎𝑣0
within this range.
Derived values from the CPT-based su,TXC-qn-blin method in Sand correspond to values for cone factor
′
𝑁𝑘𝑡 ranging between 85 and 176 for the range 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≥ 60, which represents more than 95 % of the
′
𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 values in Sand at the HKW WFZ.
Derived values from the CPT-based su,TXC-qn-blin method in Transitional soil correspond to values for
′
cone factor 𝑁𝑘𝑡 ranging between 28 and 107 for the range 20 ≤ 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 ≤ 75, which represents more
′
than 95 % of the 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 values in Transitional soil at the HKW WFZ.
Derived values from the CPT-based su,TXC-qn-blin method are in good agreement with the scatter of
derived values presented in Andersen (2015).
Comments on data pairing for reconstituted soil specimens are as follows:
■ Laboratory test data were considered as primary, because of single data points versus CPT profiling
data;
■ Selection of CPT values for comparison with the laboratory data focused on:
□ Estimation of an equivalent in situ relative density 𝐷𝑟 of the reconstituted soil specimen based
on the specimen density, and estimated values for minimum and maximum (index) dry densities.
Final selection of 𝐷𝑟 involved some engineering judgement, particularly for Transitional soil
specimens, since the estimation of 𝐷𝑟 inevitably involves significant uncertainty, which increases
with increase of percentage fines;
□ Back-calculation of an equivalent value of 𝑞𝑛 based on the CPT-based Dr-qt method (refer to
Section 4.4.3).
Comments on the data pairing for intact soil specimens comprising Transitional soil are the same as for
the CPT-based su,TXC-qn-lin method, below.
CPT-based su,TXC-qn-lin method

The method allows for CPT-based derived values for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 in Clay based on a site-specific correlation
between CPT data and laboratory values, via a data pairing process. The developed linear relationship
has an 𝑅2 value of 0.87, where 𝑅2 is a statistical coefficient of determination.
Derived values from the CPT-based su,TXC-qn-lin method correspond to values for cone factor 𝑁𝑘𝑡 ranging
′
between 7 and 30 for the 𝑞𝑛 ⁄𝜎𝑣0 range between 3 and 60 at the HKW WFZ. This is within expectations
considering the laboratory test uncertainties, data pairing uncertainties and the geological setting which
comprises normally consolidated to overconsolidated clays.

𝑁𝑘𝑡 values from the paired data points at the HKW WFZ show reasonable agreement with 𝑁𝑘𝑡 values
derived from Mayne and Peuchen (2018) with a mean difference of about 12 %, with the 𝑁𝑘𝑡 values from
the paired data points being higher (refer to Plates E7-3 and E7-4). This difference falls within the scatter
of the database used by Mayne and Peuchen (2018).
Comments on data pairing are as follows:
■ Laboratory test data were considered as primary, because of single data points versus CPT profiling
data;
■ Laboratory test specimens are usually selected from the more cohesive, homogeneous parts of
samples, particularly where soil conditions are not uniform;
■ Selection of CPT values for comparison with the laboratory data focused on:
□ CPT/borehole proximity;
□ Use of CPT data showing the lower 𝑞𝑛 values and relatively high 𝐼𝑐 values, thereby accounting
for the expected bias in selection of the laboratory test specimens;
□ Allowance for small (< 1 m) depth offsets between nearby CPT and sample borehole locations.
Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 26 consolidated undrained triaxial compression
tests on reconstituted soil specimens (21 in Sand and 5 in Transitional soil), for the depth range 0 m to
50 m BSF.
The presented laboratory values on Plate E7-2 include 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 for comparison, where 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
represents laboratory undrained shear strength at maximum deviator stress. For the HKW data, it is
generally inconsistent and impractical to use peak deviator stress as a failure criterion. In dilative
specimens of Sand and Transitional soil, large negative pore pressures develop until the end of the test
or until cavitation occurs. Cavitation depends on the back pressure applied to the triaxial test specimen.
Note that cavitation probably occurred in 11 out of the 26 tests. Further types of failure criteria are
discussed in Brandon et al. (2006).
Note that reconstituted samples of Sand and Transitional soil may give lower shear strength than intact
samples (Hoeg et al., 2000).
Laboratory su,TXC-labINT method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 66 consolidated undrained triaxial compression
tests on intact soil specimens from Soil Units C1, F and G, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF. Checks
for soil type and laboratory specimen homogeneity were performed. Particularly, test specimens
containing visible sand laminations, many sand pockets or gravel were excluded. The database is then
reduced to 34 tests in Clay and 5 tests in Transitional soil (Plates E7-3 to E7-5).
The presented laboratory classifications for intact sample quality should be used with caution, as
described in the document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 2. For example,
note that around half of the test specimens are out of range for applicability in terms of total stress
(depth) range.

The presented laboratory values on Plates E7-3 to E7-5 include 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 for comparison, where
𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 represents laboratory undrained shear strength at maximum deviator stress. The application
of this failure criterion typically results in values of 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 that are close to 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 , where 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶
represents laboratory undrained shear strength at maximum stress ratio. The exceptions are for cases
where 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 is largely controlled by development of negative pore pressures within the test
specimen. Such negative pore pressures can be sustained in a laboratory setting with controlled
application of (high) back pressure, but are typically not observed during cone penetration. The issue of
negative pore pressures can also apply to the laboratory strength criterion defined for 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 , but typically
to a lesser degree.
Laboratory su,DSS-labREC method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 10 constant volume direct simple shear tests on
reconstituted soil specimens from batch samples, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF (7 in Sand and
3 in Transitional soil).
Plate E7-6 presents derived values of 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 at the peak shear stress (or limiting strain applied to the
test) and at three shear strain levels, i.e. 5 %, 10 % and 15 %. DSS tests on the predominantly dilatant
soils at the HKW WFZ result in strong dilative-type response throughout the test and do no produce a
clear peak shear stress; thus defining an unambiguous failure criterion for the su,DSS-labREC method
presents challenges. Shear strains between 5 % and 15 % can be used in practice as a failure criterion
(Brandon et al., 2006; Andersen, 2015).
Laboratory su,DSS-labINT method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 2 constant volume direct simple shear tests on
intact soil specimens from Soil Units C1 and F, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
Results from DSS tests depend on which laboratory performed the test programme. This inter-laboratory
dependence is primarily related to differences between DSS laboratory test apparatus and procedures,
particularly radial stress development in the specimen during a test. For normally consolidated and
slightly overconsolidated clays, DSS test results typically show reasonable consistency with the results
from the better controlled, consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests. Little public-domain
information is available on the consistency and interpretation of DSS test results for heavily
overconsolidated clays and silts.
4.4.5 External Axial Strain at Half the Maximum Deviator Stress

■ External axial strain at half the maximum deviator stress 𝜀50, according to the test methods described
in Table 4.8;
■ Pertinent to Transitional and Clay soil types.


Selection of characteristic values for Clay considered the following:
■ Laboratory ε50,TXC method as the reference method, as inferred from Calculation Model 4ii;
■ Selection of 𝜀50,𝑘 values is per soil unit for the applicable soil units containing Clay layers (i.e. Soil
Units C1, D, F and G);
□ A limited number of derived values is available for the laboratory ε50,TXC method;
■ Selection of 𝜀50,𝑘 values is based on mean derived values from the laboratory ε50,TXC method;
□ Statistics for mean derived values per soil unit excluded values higher than 4 % (outliers);
□ Values of 𝜀50,𝑘 > 4 % are potentially due to the effect of high sand and/ or silt content of the
laboratory samples on the test results (refer also to Section 4.4.5.3);
■ General checks for trends of derived 𝜀50 with net cone resistance, yield stress ratio and plasticity
index, yielding no distinguishable trend;
■ Soil Unit D contains only one derived value according to the laboratory ε50,TXC method, thus the site
wide mean value for 𝜀50,𝑇𝑋𝐶 was used;
■ Checks that the selected values for 𝜀50,𝑘 are within the recommended range between 0.5 % and 2 %
given by Matlock (1970) (Calculation Model 4ii).
Characteristic values for Transitional soil layers were cautiously selected as equal to 𝜀50,𝑘 for Clay within
the same soil unit. Note that derived values from both laboratory methods in Transitional soil are limited.
Furthermore, the results are quite scattered at the HKW WFZ (i.e. between 1.2 % and 10.5 %). The
wide scatter is probably due to the contrasting behaviour of Transitional soil specimens while shearing,
i.e. contractive or dilative. Contractive specimens generate positive pore pressures and show a clear
peak of the deviator stress; thus the derived values for 𝜀50 are on the low end of the scatter. In contrast,
dilative specimens show a continuous deviator stress increase (as a result of continuous pore pressure
decrease) until the end of the test; thus the derived values for 𝜀50 are on the high end of the scatter.

the plates.
Table 4.8: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – External Axial Strain at Half the Maximum
Deviator stress
Test method (1) ■ Laboratory ε50,UU method for 𝜀50 from unconsolidated undrained triaxial
compression test according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression on
homogenous test specimen obtained from intact soil sample (Class 1 or
Class 2 of ISO, 2014), recovered by sampler types “thin-walled 3 inch
tube” and “thick-walled 3 inch tube” according to the document titled
■ Isotropic recompression of test specimen by application of triaxial cell
pressure; no specific measures for saturation of test specimen
■ Value of 𝜀50 derived from external axial strain at half the maximum (axial)
deviator stress, with maximum deviator stress defined as peak value or
value at 20 % axial strain, whichever is higher
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): sampling method


Test method (2) ■ Laboratory ε50,TXC method for 𝜀50 from consolidated undrained triaxial
compression test according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated undrained triaxial compression on homogenous
test specimen obtained from intact soil sample (Class 1 or Class 2 of ISO,
2014), recovered by sampler types “thin-walled 3 inch tube” and “thick-
walled 3 inch tube” according to the document titled “Geotechnical
Borehole” presented in Appendix 2
′
𝐾0
■ Value of 𝜀50 derived from external axial strain at half the maximum (axial)
deviator stress, with maximum deviator stress defined as peak value or
value at 20 % axial strain, whichever is higher
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): sampling method, 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝐾0
(Appendix E)
t-distribution, performed separately for each test method and presented
per soil unit and per soil group (Appendix E)
LE BE HE values Applicable for BE, refer to corresponding plates in Appendix E
Derived values of 𝜀50 are generally within expectations considering the geological setting at HKW WFZ.
Derived values from the laboratory ε50,TXC method are on average 2.5 times higher than derived values
from the laboratory ε50,UU method.
The general ground conditions at the HKW WFZ present challenges for both test methods. A
considerable sand and/ or silt content in laboratory samples can adversely affect (1) undisturbed sample
quality and (2) test processing results for a premise of a homogeneous laboratory test specimen. The
latter can be broadly assessed for consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests. The assessment
consists of differences in stress paths can be illustrated by differences between 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 and 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥
(Plates E7-2 and E7-3), where 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 represents laboratory undrained shear strength at maximum stress
ratio and 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 represents laboratory undrained shear strength at maximum deviator stress. Note
that 4 out of the 33 derived values of 𝜀50 in Clay show 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 to be > 50 % higher than 𝑠𝑢,𝑇𝑋𝐶 . These
4 derived values correspond with the higher values of 𝜀50, as expected (i.e. between 3.5 % and 7.0 %).
Laboratory ε50,UU method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 8 unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression
tests on intact soil specimens from Soil Units C1, F and G (7 tests performed on Clay soil type and 1
test on Transitional soil type) in the top 50 m BSF.
Laboratory ε50,TXC method

This method corresponds with the laboratory su,TXC-labINT method (refer to Section 4.4.4).

4.4.6 Peak Effective Angle of Internal Friction

■ Peak, secant effective angle of internal friction 𝜑′ for drained triaxial compression at maximum stress
ratio 𝑞⁄𝑝′ where 𝑞 = 𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′ and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented by principal stresses;
■ Stress application 𝜎1′ in vertical direction and 𝜎2′ = 𝜎3′ ;
■ Monotonic strain rate according to laboratory test methods for consolidated drained triaxial
compression;
■ Pertinent to Sand and Transitional soil types.

Calculation Model 1
■ Laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method as the selected reference method;

■ Design profiles that provide 𝜑𝑘′ values per layer for each design location, by application of a CPT-
based fitting approach (φ’k-qt method further described below);
□ The CPT-based fitting approach allows extrapolation of available laboratory test data to every
design location;
□ Calculation of derived values of 𝜑 ′ according to the φ’k-qt method (i) per soil unit for the
applicable soil types (Sand and Transitional soil) where the laboratory test data set is sufficiently
large (i.e. at least 20 test results from the reference method), i.e. Soil Group F-Sand and Soil
Unit B2, and (ii) per soil type (applicable to Sand and Transitional soil) for the rest of the soil
units, to obtain a reasonable fit with the available laboratory values from the reference method;
□ Selection of characteristic values considering calculated uncertainties for the CPT-based fitting
approach, by application of (i) soil type-specific factors and (ii) soil unit-/ soil group-specific
factors where applicable;
■ Design profiles 𝜑′𝑘1 for computation of the toe resistance component of lateral soil resistance;
□ Low values aiming for the 5 % fractile of the distribution of values of 𝜑 ′ according to the φ’k-qt
method, accounting for (i) statistical fitting uncertainties, (ii) (relatively small) volume of soil
mobilized in lateral toe resistance, (iii) the use of site-wide values to location-specific design
profiles, and (iv) presence of interbedded soils within a layer, where applicable;
■ Design profiles 𝜑′𝑘2 for computation of the shaft component of the lateral soil resistance;
□ Selection of 𝜑′𝑘2 follows the 16 % fractile (1 standard deviation below the mean) of the
distribution of values of 𝜑 ′ according to the φ’k-qt method, accounting for (i) averaging effects
along the soil profile/ pile length, (ii) statistical fitting uncertainties and (iii) data spread;
■ A lower cut-off value of 𝜑′𝑘1 = 𝜑′𝑘2 = 30° , which represents a low estimate of the effective angle of
internal friction at large strain 𝜑′𝑐𝑣 in both Sand and Transitional soil;
■ General checks for unit weights of laboratory test specimens for the φ’-TXC-M1 method with site-
wide unit weights, showing specimen reconstitution with good fit to site-wide unit weights.
The equation for the CPT-based fitting method (φ’k-qt method) is as follows:
0.5
𝜑 ′ = 𝑎 + 11 ∙ log ((𝑞𝑡 ⁄𝑃𝑎 )/(𝜎𝑣0
′ ⁄
𝑃𝑎 ) )

where 𝜑 ′ is in degrees, 𝑞𝑡 is corrected cone resistance in MPa, 𝑃𝑎 is atmospheric pressure in MPa, 𝜎𝑣0
′
is effective in situ vertical stress in MPa and 𝑎 is a fitting parameter that is soil type-specific or soil unit-
specific or soil group-specific (Table 4.9). The equation is the same as that for the CPT-based φ’-qt
method (refer to Section 4.4.6.3) except for the site specific coefficient, 𝑎, which replaces the value of
17.6 of the φ’-qt method.
The data for the CPT-based formulation were within a narrow range of normalized cone resistance with
no distinct trend observed. Values for coefficient 𝑎 were selected such that a best-fit between derived
values of 𝜑 ′ from the above formulation and the laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method was obtained.
Table 4.9: Coefficient 𝒂 and Normalised Statistics of Fitting

Soil Unit/ Soil Group/ Coefficient 𝒂 Normalised Normalised
Soil Type Standard Deviation 5th Percentile
[°] [-] [-]
F-Sand 11.55 0.09 0.15

B2 14.19 0.07 0.12
Rest of site – Sand 12.15 0.07 0.12
Rest of site – 11.97 0.06 0.10
Transitional soil
Note(s):
− The normalised standard deviation represents the ratio of the standard deviation of the absolute value of difference
between the laboratory 𝜑′ and the factored CPT-based 𝜑′, to the mean factored CPT-based 𝜑′
− The normalised 5th percentile represents the ratio of the 5th percentile of the absolute value of difference between the
laboratory 𝜑′ and the factored CPT-based 𝜑′, to the mean factored CPT-based 𝜑′
Note that the presented values for design profile 𝜑′𝑘1 must not be applied within shallow depth ranges
corresponding to monopile length to diameter ratios of less than about 3.
Design profile 𝜑′𝑘2 applies also to Calculation Model 4i.
Calculation Models 5 and 6

■ Design profiles 𝜑′𝑘3 for computation of soil resistance to driving, thus high values of 𝜑′ were selected
considering the following:
□ Relationship between values of 𝑞𝑐 and selected values of 𝜑′ as presented in
Alm & Hamre (1998), recognising that 𝜑′ is broadly proportional to 𝑞𝑐 and inversely proportional
to depth (inferred method);
□ High values of 𝜑′ from the laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 and φ’-TXC-M2 methods;
□ Assessment of trends of derived values of 𝜑′ with depth according to the CPT-based fitting
method, as outlined above;
□ Engineering judgement.


the plates.
Table 4.10: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Peak Effective Angle of Internal Friction
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based φ’-qt method for peak effective angle of internal friction 𝜑 ′
according to Mayne (2007)
′ ⁄ 0.5
■ 𝜑 ′ = 17.6 + 11 ∙ log ((𝑞𝑡 ⁄𝑃𝑎 )/(𝜎𝑣0 𝑃𝑎 ) ) where 𝑞𝑡 is corrected cone
′
resistance, 𝑃𝑎 is atmospheric pressure and 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical
stress
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝑞𝑡 and 𝜎𝑣0
■ Refer document titled “Cone Penetration Test Interpretation” presented in
Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method for 𝜑′ according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated drained triaxial compression on test specimen of
soil reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾
■ Isotropic compression of test specimen to estimated value of effective in
′ ′ ′
situ stress conditions (𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 where 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ
′
vertical stress and 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress, and for
compression values of at least 20 kPa
■ Secant value of 𝜑′ derived from maximum stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ or limiting
axial strain, where 𝑞 = 𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′ and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented
by principal stresses
′ ′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝛾, 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝜎ℎ0
Appendix 2
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory φ’-TXC-M2 method for 𝜑′ according to ISO (2014)
■ Isotropic compression of test specimen to estimated value of two times
′ ′ ′
the effective in situ stress conditions (𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 where 𝜎𝑣0 is
′
effective in situ vertical stress and 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress,
and for compression values of at least 20 kPa
■ Secant value of 𝜑′ derived from maximum stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ or limiting
axial strain where 𝑞 = 𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′ and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented
by principal stresses
′ ′
Appendix 2
Test method (4) ■ Laboratory φ’-DSS method for 𝜑′ according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidated direct simple shear on test specimen of soil
reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾; no specific measures
for saturation of test specimen
′
′ in the specimen other than by approximate
radial consolidation stress 𝜎𝑟𝑐
specimen confinement by test apparatus


■ Secant value of 𝜑′ derived from peak shear stress or limiting shear strain
(whichever is earlier) at constant vertical stress
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: in situ soil unit weight 𝛾 and 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2
and per soil group (Appendix E)
LE BE HE values Applicable to test method (1), refer to corresponding plates in Appendix E
It is noted that results from the laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method are substantially lower than the derived
values from the CPT-based φ’-qt method (9 % to 19 % on average lower in Soil Units/Groups B2, C2, E
and F-Sand, with the exception of Soil Unit A in which they are only 3 % lower on average), for soil units
in which both methods apply. This is within expectations considering (i) the scatter of laboratory values
used for derivation of the original relationship (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990) and (ii) the compressibility
characteristics of the generally silty sands at the HKW WFZ, i.e. increasing percentage fines typically
corresponds to higher compressibility of sands.
The general decreasing trend of derived values of 𝜑′ with depth is within expectations for all test
methods. This is attributed to the increasing confining pressure that suppresses dilation. Note that
relative density generally shows limited variation with depth.
Results from the laboratory φ’-TXC methods show a high dependency on specimen unit weight 𝛾, with
a general upward trend with increasing specimen density. Differences between specimen 𝛾 and in situ
𝛾 can result in differences in 𝜑′ of a few degrees.
Derived values of 𝜑′ according to the laboratory φ’-TXC methods are on average 10 % to 12 % higher
for Sand compared to Transitional soil. This is within expectations and can possibly be attributed to
reasons such as (i) higher percentage fines in transitional soil specimens which leads to higher
compressibility, (ii) underestimation of density of Transitional soil specimens compared to Sand
specimens and (iii) reduced angularity of the finer particles.
The derived values according to the laboratory φ’-TXC methods are generally within the lower range of
laboratory values presented by Andersen and Schjetne (2013).
CPT-based φ’-qt method

The φ’-qt method represents an empirical correlation between CPT data and database results of
laboratory triaxial compression tests. Mayne (2007) reports validation of the correlation against drained
triaxial compression test results obtained from a database of 13 tests on undisturbed (initially frozen,
intact) clean quartz and siliceous sand specimens. The validation possibly has a weak bias towards
loose and medium dense sands that can be prone to earthquake-induced liquefaction.

′
The φ’-qt method is relatively insensitive to minor uncertainties in its input parameters 𝑞𝑡 and 𝜎𝑣0 .
′ ′
The physics of the φ’-qt method appear to include a trade-off for simplicity, i.e. the use of 𝜎𝑣0 versus 𝜎ℎ0 .
′ ′
This comment is related to (i) 𝜎ℎ0 affecting 𝑞𝑡 more than 𝜎𝑣0 (e.g. Houlsby and Hitchman, 1988) and
′
(ii) general difficulty in estimating values for 𝜎ℎ0 .
Laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method and φ’-TXC-M2 method

The HKW WFZ database includes laboratory results for a total of 368 triaxial tests on reconstituted
specimens from single samples (187 for test method (2) and 181 for test method (3)), for the depth
range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
′ ′
The φ’-TXC methods are relatively insensitive to minor uncertainties in its input parameters 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝜎ℎ0 .
The method of specimen reconstitution affects the results from the φ’-TXC methods. The triaxial test
data for the HKW WFZ were acquired for specimen reconstitution by moist tamping with
undercompaction according to Ladd (1978). This method of specimen reconstitution typically reduces
derived values of 𝜑′ compared to intact specimens. In general, reconstituted specimens exhibit particle
arrangements (i.e. fabric) which differ from soil fabric of intact specimens. This can be attributed to the
process of in situ deposition which cannot be entirely replicated by moist tamping techniques. For
example, Hoeg et al. (2000) showed contractive and strain softening behaviour for triaxial tests on
reconstituted specimens of silty sand, where comparable intact test specimens showed dilative, strain
hardening behaviour.
Laboratory φ’-DSS method

The HKW WFZ database includes laboratory results for a total of 9 DSS tests on reconstituted
specimens from batch samples, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
′
The φ’-DSS method is relatively insensitive to minor uncertainties in its input parameter 𝜎𝑣0 .
The φ’-DSS method is sensitive to radial stress development in the specimen during a test. Radial stress
development is largely uncontrolled and depends on DSS laboratory test apparatus and procedures.
Results from DSS tests can thus depend on which laboratory performed the test programme.
The φ’-DSS method has a high dependency on specimen unit weight 𝛾, as for the φ’-TXC method.
Comments about specimen reconstitution are similar to the φ’-TXC method. Vaid and Sivathayalan
(2000) present background information.
4.4.7 Angle of Interface Friction – Steel/ Soil

■ Angle of interface friction for drained shear at steel and soil interface 𝛿, for a maximum value of
normalised residual shear 𝜏/𝜎′𝑛 where 𝜏 is residual shear stress (at large strain) and 𝜎′𝑛 is normal
effective stress;

■ Steel roughness 𝑅𝑎 , (approximately 5 μm to 10 μm) defined as centreline average roughness

according to ISO 8503-1:2012 (ISO, 2012), with no significant (chemical) steel-soil bonding;
■ Monotonic strain rate according to laboratory test methods for ring shear with steel-soil interface,
drained conditions;

Calculation Model 1
The selected characteristic values are the same as per Calculation Model 3i, for which considerations
are described below.
Calculation Model 1 differs from the rest of the calculation models, as explained in Section 4.2, hence
there is no specific guidance or recommendations for selection of characteristic values. It is assessed
that the context within which 𝛿 is used in Calculation Model 1 (i.e. computation of the mobilised vertical
shear tractions along the pile-soil interface during lateral loading of the monopile) provides a reasonable
match with the use of 𝛿 in Calculation Model 3i, i.e. computation of the shaft friction resistance during
axial loading of the jacket pile.
It is recommended that steel roughness is verified for use in Calculation Model 1, as the recommended
𝛿𝑘 profiles are for a specific steel roughness (e.g. Han et al., 2018). Note that steel roughness will
typically reduce during pile installation. Also, White and Bolton (2002) observed high particle breakage
in a narrow shear zone surrounding the pile shaft during installation of steel piles. Particle crushing/
breakage can cause local, non-uniform changes to the particle size distribution of soils and thereby the
corresponding 𝐷50 values. In addition, a shear zone can include multiple source materials, for example
by downdrag of clay during pile installation in layered soils. Multiple source materials can result in lower
and higher values of 𝛿, compared to in situ conditions.
■ Laboratory δ-RS method as the reference method, as recommended in Calculation Model 3i;
□ No allowance for influence of pile installation effects on 𝛿, as per Calculation Model 3i;
■ Values of 𝛿𝑘 apply to Sand and Transitional soil;
■ Selection of a single value for 𝛿𝑘 applicable to Sand;
□ Checks for trends of derived values of 𝛿 with soil units and soil provinces, yielding no significant
trends;
□ Selection of 𝛿𝑘 follows the low estimate of the mean value of 𝛿 (5 % fractile of the distribution of
the mean) according to the δ-RS method, accounting for (i) averaging effects along the soil
profile/ pile interface, (ii) the use of the parameter within the calculation model in which both
interface friction angle and normal stress contribute to the frictional component of the axial
resistance and (iii) the use of site-wide values to location-specific design profiles;
■ Selection of a single value for 𝛿𝑘 applicable to Transitional soil;
□ Checks for trends of derived values of 𝛿 with soil units and soil provinces, yielding no significant
trends;

□ Selection of 𝛿𝑘 follows the 16 % fractile of the distribution of values of 𝛿 (1 standard deviation

below the mean) according to the δ-RS method, accounting for (i) averaging effects along the
soil profile/ pile interface, (ii) a higher degree of uncertainty compared to Sand due to smaller
size of data, (iii) cautious approach for use of 𝛿 outside the calculation model’s applicability
(Calculation Model 3i applies to Sand), and (iv) the use of site-wide values to location-specific
design profiles;
□ Comparison of 𝛿𝑘 in Sand and initial 𝛿𝑘 values in Transitional soil in accordance with the above
considerations rendered a slightly lower value in Transitional soil (26.6° versus 26.8°), i.e. very
similar values (see Table 4.11), thus a single value of 𝛿𝑘 was applied to both soil types;
■ General checks for trends of derived values of 𝛿 with effective normal stress, roughness coefficient,
and fines content, yielding no distinguishable trend;
■ General checks for presence of carbonate content.
Table 4.11 presents the selected 𝛿𝑘 value and relevant statistics for derived values of 𝛿 according to the
δ-RS method, for Sand and Transitional soil. Plate D11-1 presents the selected 𝛿𝑘 value combined with
derived values of 𝛿 from all test methods, versus 𝐷50 (particle diameter, where 50 % of the dry mass of
soil has a smaller particle diameter).
Table 4.11: Characteristic value 𝛅𝒌 and statistics for δ-RS method

Parameter Sand Transitional soil
δ𝑘 [°] 26.8 26.8
Count 99 24
Mean [°] 27.1 28.2
LEmean [°] 26.8 27.6
Standard deviation [°] 1.79 1.60
16 % fractile [°] 25.3 26.6

the plates.
Table 4.12: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Angle of Interface Friction – Steel/ Soil
Test method (1) ■ Laboratory δ-RS method for angle of interface friction 𝛿 using a
Bromhead ring shear test apparatus based on Jardine (2005) procedures
■ Steel roughness 𝑅𝑎 , (6 μm to 12 μm) defined as centreline average
roughness according to ISO 8503-1:2012 (ISO, 2012)
■ Coarse grained cohesionless or remoulded fine grained cohesive soil
specimen, reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾; no specific
measures for saturation of test specimen
■ Vertical compression of specimen to estimated values of in situ effective
′
vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0
■ Value of 𝛿 derived from maximum value of 𝜏/𝜎′𝑛 at large strain (residual)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝛾 and 𝜎𝑣0


Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory δ-D50 method for 𝛿 according to Jardine et al. (1993)
−0.15
■ 𝛿 = 22.7 ∙ 𝐷50 where 𝐷50 is particle diameter in mm, where 50 % of the
dry mass of soil has a smaller particle diameter
■ Steel roughness 𝑅𝑎 in the range of 2 μm to 30 μm
■ Upper limit of 𝛿 equal to a high estimate for effective angle of internal
′ ′
friction at large strain 𝜑𝑐𝑣 of soil (𝜑𝑐𝑣 ≈ 34°)
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝐷50
■ Applicable to Sand and Transitional soil
Test method (3) ■ Empirical δ-pile method for 𝛿 according to CUR (2001)
■ Single value for steel pipe piles installed by impact driving in silica soils
■ Applicable to Sand and Transitional soil
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values combined with characteristic
value 𝛿𝑘 versus 𝐷50 (Plate D11-1)
■ Data outliers (𝛿 < 18 °) excluded from statistics
LE BE HE values Applicable to test methods (1) and (2), refer to corresponding plates in
Appendix E
Derived values from the δ-RS method are slightly higher for Clay and Transitional soil, compared to
Sand. This is consistent with the trend of test method (2).
The BE values from the δ-D50 method are approximately 7 % higher for Sand and 21 % higher for
Transitional soil than the BE values from the δ-RS method. However, any direct comparison between
the two methods would be biased, as the narrow range of 𝐷50 values for the δ-RS method (i.e. 0.06 mm
to 0.43 mm) represents a subset of the relevant sample data collected for the HKW WFZ (𝐷50 values
range from about 0.03 mm to 1.6 mm). Data pairing for the δ-RS method and the δ-D50 method involved
the mean particle diameter 𝐷50 being taken from the closest particle size distribution test.
The derived value from the δ-pile method is approximately 6 % higher than the BE values from the
δ-RS method (considering only sands and transitional soils) and is comparable to the δ-D50 method.
No correlations for interface friction angle based on CPT data are considered. Such correlations would
typically require a high accuracy for interpretation 𝜎′𝑛 , which cannot be achieved in practice (e.g. Yu
and Yang, 2012).
Laboratory δ-RS method

The database for the HKW WFZ includes laboratory results for 153 soil-steel ring shear tests on both
reconstituted and remoulded specimens, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF. A total of 149 test results
were finally used and presented (Sand: 100, Transitional soil: 24 and Clay: 25). Derived values on or
very close to a soil unit boundary and/ or without a clear soil type were excluded.

The site-specific database covers 𝜎′𝑛 values ranging from 80 kPa to 500 kPa, with no trend of 𝛿 with 𝜎′𝑛 .
Note that the δ-RS method is designed for testing soils up to a grain size of 0.3 mm. Results from tests
performed on soils that fall outside the specified range should be regarded with caution.
Laboratory δ-D50 method

The δ-D50 method relies on a database of results of direct shear and ring shear tests carried out for
12 types of sands and silts, varying in 𝐷50 (i.e. between 0.025 mm and 1.5 mm) and in angularity, and
for a roughness of steel 𝑅𝑎 as indicated in Table 4.12. The influence of factors such as normal effective
stress (minimal influence), relative density (no significant influence) and particle size was studied.
′
The method includes an upper limit of 𝜑𝑐𝑣 for the 12 types of sands and silts tested
′
(i.e. 𝜑𝑐𝑣 = 34.5° +/−2°).
Empirical δ-pile method

The δ-pile method considers a single value of 𝛿 = 29° for steel pipe piles installed by impact driving in
silica sands and silts, independent of particle size distribution. The roughness of steel is implicit, i.e. that
is commonly applicable to unpainted steel pipe piles after pile installation. A lower value of 𝛿 applies to
gravelly soil.
The δ-pile method is part of a specific calculation model used by industry for design of piles and thus
incorporates influences from pile installation.
4.4.8 Coefficient of Permeability

■ Coefficient of permeability 𝑘 = 𝑣/𝑖, where 𝑣 is discharge velocity and 𝑖 is hydraulic gradient;

■ Pertinent to all soil types; Sand and Transitional soil types are only considered for this report.

■ Laboratory k-chrc method, k-chfm method, k-SF method and k-GC method as the selected reference
methods;
■ Coefficient of permeability is one parameter out of a set of parameters required by Calculation Model
7 which are not all covered by this report. Note also that Calculation Model 7 makes indirect use of
𝑘, i.e. it is implicit within the coefficient of consolidation. A cautious approach was, thus, employed
for selection of 𝑘𝑘1 and 𝑘𝑘2 values taking into account the use of multiple parameters within the
calculation model and acknowledging that a cautious set of parameters will need to be selected for
cautious design;
■ Estimation of in situ values for 𝑘, as implied by Calculation Model 7;
■ Engineering judgement for selection of 𝑘𝑘1 and 𝑘𝑘2 values;
□ A spread in derived values for a laboratory method may not fully represent a spread of 𝑘 values
for in situ conditions;

□ General checks for expected ranges of 𝑘 values for Sand and Transitional soil considering soil
descriptions, geological setting and layering, silt/ clay secondary fractions and inherent
uncertainty of derived values;
■ Selection of values for 𝑘𝑘1 (low values) applicable to Sand, per soil unit;
□ The lowest value of the below derived values (where applicable) was selected:
▪ LE value of from the k-chrc method in Sand within the soil unit;
▪ LE value from the k-chrc method in Sand considering the whole site;
▪ Average of the LE values from the k-SF method and the k-GC method in Sand within the
soil unit;
□ For Soil Group F-Sand, derived values from the k-chfm method within the soil group were
considered. These values correspond to specimens comprising relatively high fractions of fine
sand (> 50 %) and/ or high fractions of fines (> 10 %);
■ Selection of values for 𝑘𝑘1 (low values) applicable to Transitional soil, per soil unit;
□ The lowest value of the below derived values (where applicable) was selected:
▪ LE value of from the k-chfm method in Transitional soil within the soil unit;
▪ LE value from the k-chfm method in Transitional soil considering the whole site;
▪ Average of the LE values from the k-SF method and the k-GC method in Transitional soil
within the soil unit;
■ Selection of values for 𝑘𝑘2 (high values) applicable to Sand, per soil unit;
□ The highest value of the below derived values (where applicable) was selected:
▪ HE value of from the k-chrc method in Sand within the soil unit;
▪ HE value from the k-chrc method in Sand considering the whole site;
▪ Average of the BE values from the k-SF method and the k-GC method in Sand within the
soil unit;
■ Selection of values for 𝑘𝑘2 (high values) applicable to Transitional soil, per soil unit;
□ The highest value of the below derived values (where applicable) was selected:
▪ HE value of from the k-chfm method in Transitional soil within the soil unit;
▪ HE value from the k-chfm method in Transitional soil considering the whole site;
▪ Average of the BE values from the k-SF method and the k-GC method in Transitional soil
within the soil unit.

the plates.
Table 4.13: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Coefficient of Permeability

Test method (1) ■ Laboratory k-chrc method for coefficient of permeability 𝑘 using rigid
container apparatus for constant head test according to ISO (2014) and
ISO (2019a)
■ Applicability range as recommended in BS 1377-5:1990, i.e. soil
specimen with percentage fines ≤ 10 % and derived value of 𝑘 between
10-5 m/s and 10-2 m/s
■ Coarse grained, cohesionless soil specimen reconstituted to estimated
in situ unit weight 𝛾; no specific measures for saturation of test specimen
■ Value of 𝑘 derived from 𝑣/𝑖 where 𝑣 is discharge velocity and 𝑖 is
hydraulic gradient

■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝛾

Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory k-chfm method for 𝑘 using flexible membrane triaxial apparatus
for constant head test according to ISO (2014) and ISO (2019a)
■ Applicability range as recommended in ASTM D5084-16a, i.e. 𝑘 ≤
10−6 𝑚/𝑠
■ Soil specimen reconstituted to estimated in situ unit weight 𝛾
′ ′ ′
situ stress conditions (𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 where 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ
′
vertical stress and 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress
■ Value of 𝑘 derived from 𝑣/𝑖 where 𝑣 is discharge velocity and 𝑖 is
hydraulic gradient
′ ′
Appendix 2
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory k-SF method according to Carrier (2003)
2
100% 1 𝑒3
■ 𝑘 = 1.99 ∙ 104 ( ) ( ) ∙ [(1+𝑒)] for 𝑘 in m/s, where 𝑆𝐹
𝑓𝑖 𝑆𝐹 2
{∑[ ]}
(𝐷𝑙𝑖 0.404∙𝐷𝑠𝑖 0.595 )
is a particle shape factor, 𝑒 is void ratio, and within a particle size

distribution range 𝑖: 𝐷𝑙𝑖 is the larger sieve size in cm, 𝐷𝑠𝑖 is the smaller
sieve size in cm, and 𝑓𝑖 is the fraction dry mass of particles between the
two sieve sizes in %
■ Indirect laboratory method based on use of void ratio, particle shape and
particle size data according to a semi-empirical correlation
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): 𝑆𝐹, 𝑒, 𝐷𝑙𝑖 , 𝐷𝑠𝑖 , 𝑓𝑖
Test method (4) ■ Laboratory k-GC method according to Arshad et al. (2020)
6.7
■ 𝑘 = (𝑒√𝐺𝐶 ) , for 𝑘 in m/s where 𝑒 is void ratio and 𝐺𝐶 is a
characteristic gradation parameter given by
𝐺𝐶 = 0.3𝐷10 + 0.2𝐷30 + 0.3𝐷50 + 0.2𝐷60 where 𝐷10 , 𝐷30 , 𝐷50 , and 𝐷60
are particle sizes in mm corresponding to 10 %, 30 %, 50 % and 60 %
dry mass of material passing, respectively
■ Indirect laboratory method based on use of void ratio and particle size
data according to an empirical correlation
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): 𝑒, 𝐷10 , 𝐷30 , 𝐷50 , and 𝐷60
■ Data outliers (𝑘 > 10−2 𝑚/𝑠 or 𝑘 < 10−9 𝑚/𝑠) excluded from statistics
LE BE HE values Applicable to all test methods for LE and HE, refer to corresponding plates in
Appendix E
Derived values of 𝑘 depend generally on percentage fines, particle size distribution and void ratio.
For Sand, site-wide mean values from the laboratory k-SF method and the laboratory k-GC method are
close (i.e. 1.8·10-4 m/s and 2.4·10-4 m/s, respectively), whereas both are about an order of magnitude
higher than the site-wide mean value from the laboratory k-chrc method (i.e. 3.2·10-5 m/s).

For Transitional soil, site-wide mean values from the laboratory k-SF method and the laboratory
k-GC method are close (i.e. 9.5·10-6 m/s and 1.2·10-5 m/s, respectively), whereas both are more than
one order of magnitude higher than the site-wide mean value from the laboratory k-chfm method (i.e.
3.5·10-7 m/s).
The differences in derived values of 𝑘 between (i) the two direct laboratory methods (k-chrc and k-chfm
methods) and (ii) the two indirect laboratory methods (k-SF and k-Gc methods) are broadly within
expectations and within the expected margin of variation for typical laboratory permeability tests.
Reasons include inherent limitations of the test methods (e.g. partially saturated test specimen,
interpretation of hydraulic flow rates, uncertainties in derivation of index parameters, applicability
constraints, equipment constraints, etc), differences in test procedures and sample preparation
techniques, statistical fitting uncertainties for the indirect methods and theoretical assumptions (e.g.
homogeneous test specimen, isotropic soil permeability). Differences in derived values of 𝑘 between
direct and indirect methods reported in literature (e.g. Chapuis and Aubertin, 2003; Arshad et al., 2020)
give rough predicted variations of up to 300 % to 500 %.
The data scatter for the k-chrc and k-chfm methods shows relatively narrow ranges compared to the other
test methods. This is in line with expectations considering the applicability range limitations for the
k-chrc and k-chfm methods.
Derived values from the k-GC method show a relatively wide scatter compared to the range of derived
values from the k-chrc method, the k-chfm method and the k-SF method.
Laboratory k-chrc method

The HKW WFZ database includes derived values of 𝑘 for 57 laboratory tests meeting the applicability
criteria for the k-chrc method, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF. The criterion for percentage fines of
≤ 10 % was applied by considering particle size distribution results obtained for soil specimens within
1.0 m of the specimen reconstituted for the rigid container method.
The HKW WFZ database includes also derived values of 𝑘 for 21 laboratory tests (18 in Sand and 3 in
Transitional soil) that do not meet the applicability criteria for the k-chrc method, for the depth range 0 m
to 50 m BSF, i.e. soil specimen with percentage fines > 10 % and/ or derived value of 𝑘 < 10−5 𝑚/𝑠.
These values should be used with caution due to the increased likelihood that the limits of the test
apparatus setup have been reached and thus the results might not be representative of the test
specimen.
The use of a rigid container implies an interface zone for soil close to the container. The local
permeability of this zone can differ from the permeability of the specimen away from the interface zone.
It is assessed that this effect is minor, considering the general particle size distributions for the sandy
soils of the HKW WFZ.
The k-chrc method is sensitive to specimen particle size distribution. For example, higher percentage
fines and/ or lower 𝐷10 values should give lower values of 𝑘. Such sensitivity may be obscured by general
scatter of a dataset, as is the case for the database for the HKW WFZ.

The process of sampling, sample handling and specimen preparation will increase the percentage fines
and decrease 𝐷10 values compared to in situ conditions. This effect is assessed to be minor.
The k-chrc method is in theory sensitive to specimen unit weight 𝛾 (or void ratio 𝑒), i.e. 𝑘 values should
be higher for higher values of 𝑒 and lower values of 𝛾. This was not confirmed at the HKW WFZ where
the influence of soil density on permeability is not so prominent.
The method of specimen reconstitution affects the results from the k-chrc method. The test data for the
HKW WFZ were acquired for specimen reconstitution by moist tamping. This method of specimen
reconstitution potentially increases derived values of 𝑘 compared to intact specimens. In general,
reconstituted specimens exhibit particle arrangements (i.e. fabric) which differ from the soil fabric of
intact specimens. This can be attributed to the process of in situ deposition which cannot be sufficiently
replicated by moist tamping techniques.
The k-chrc method includes procedures aimed at achieving a water content of the test specimen that
would approach that for saturated conditions. Saturation will probably not be achieved with these
procedures. It can be expected that a partially saturated test specimen will show a lower 𝑘 value than a
saturated test specimen.
The k-chrc method provides derived values for 𝑘 for a temperature of 20 °C. The effect of temperature
on permeability is assessed to be minor. For example, 𝑘 would reduce by less than 50 % if soil
temperature would reduce from 20 °C to 10 °C, based on viscosity considerations for sea water.
Laboratory k-chfm method

The HKW WFZ database includes derived values of 𝑘 for 14 laboratory tests (8 in Sand and 6 in
Transitional soil) that meet the applicability criterion for the k-chfm method, for the depth range 0 m to
50 m BSF.
The HKW WFZ database includes derived values of 𝑘 for 33 laboratory tests (21 in Sand and 12 in
Transitional soil) that do not meet the applicability criterion for the k-chfm method, for the depth range
0 m to 50 m BSF, i.e. 𝑘 > 10−6 𝑚/𝑠. These values should be used with caution due to the increased
likelihood that the limits of the test apparatus setup have been reached and thus the results might not
be representative of the test specimen.
The applicability criterion for the k-chfm method is based on recommendations from ASTM D5084-16a.
ISO (2019a) does not mention applicability ranges. BS 1377:6-1990 states that the method is for soils
with “low to intermediate” permeability, with no explicit applicability range provided.
Comments regarding sensitivity of the method to (i) specimen particle size distribution, (ii) process of
sampling, sample handling and specimen preparation, (iii) specimen unit weight, (iv) method of
specimen reconstitution and (v) ambient temperature are the same as for the k-chrc method.
Laboratory k-SF method

Carrier (2003) proposed a modified Kozeny-Carman equation for derivation of 𝑘 based on particle size
distribution, void ratio, and a shape factor. The HKW WFZ database includes a total of 591 derived

values of 𝑘 according to the k-SF method, of which 448 were designated as Sand and 143 as
Transitional soil.
Data pairing for the k-SF method involved the void ratio 𝑒 being taken from laboratory unit weight values
(refer to Section 4.4.2) within 0.50 m of the particle size distribution test depth.
The shape factor 𝑆𝐹 can range from 6 to 8.4, depending on particle angularity. A shape factor of 7.5,
representing medium angularity, was utilized. This value approximately represents findings from the
microscopy tests.
The applicability of the k-SF method is limited to sands and non-plastic silts. Results from this method
should be used with caution in cases where the particle size distribution shows a long, flat tail in the
fines fraction (Carrier, 2003).
Laboratory k-GC method

Arshad et al. (2020) proposed an equation for derivation of 𝑘 based on void ratio 𝑒 and a characteristic
gradation parameter 𝐺𝐶 . The HKW WFZ database includes a total of 464 derived values of 𝑘 according
to the k-GC method, of which 335 were designated as Sand and 129 as Transitional soil. Note that 𝐷10
(i.e. particle size in mm corresponding to 10 % dry mass of material passing) needs to be reached within
the particle size distribution test in order for the k-GC method to render a result.
Data pairing for the k-GC method involved the void ratio 𝑒 being taken from laboratory unit weight values
(refer to Section 4.4.2) within 0.50 m of the particle size distribution test depth.
The goal of the k-GC method is the robust prediction of values of k derived from the laboratory
k-chrc method. The applicability of the method is constrained primarily by the limited scope of soil
samples used for the validation of the model. Evaluated specimens included fine to coarse sands, silty
sands and slightly clayey silt. Arshad et al. (2020) recommend that additional studies should be carried
out with more diverse samples for further validation and application of the method.
The wider scatter shown in the k-GC method compared to the k-SF method is attributed to a higher
sensitivity of the method to void ratio. Especially for vibrocore samples in the top 5 m BSF, void ratios
derived from laboratory unit weight methods are more sensitive to sample disturbance during testing
and sample handling.
4.4.9 Shear Modulus at Small Strain

■ Shear modulus at small strain in the vertical plane 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜏/𝛾, where 𝜏 is shear stress and 𝛾 is
shear strain for 𝛾 < 10−6 ;


■ CPT-based Gmax-SCPT method as the reference method, as recommended in Calculation Model 2;

□ No allowance for influence of pile installation effects on 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 , as per Calculation Models 1
and 2;
■ Selection of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 values is based on mean derived values from the Gmax-SCPT method, reduced
by application of soil unit-specific factors to account for statistical fitting uncertainties;
□ Global monopile behaviour is considered (i.e. SLS for monopile rotation as a whole causing
intolerable tilt of the wind turbine) and thus averaging effects along the soil profile;
□ Calculation Model 2 aims at capturing the physics of global monopile behaviour, albeit with
significant differences at a local level;
■ Design profiles that provide 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 values per layer for each design location, by application of a
CPT-based fitting approach (Gmax,k-qc-Bq method further described below);
□ The CPT-based fitting approach allows cautious extrapolation of available SCPT data to every
design location;
□ Calculation of derived values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 per soil unit according to the Gmax,k-qc-Bq method, to obtain
a reasonable fit with the SCPT-based values per soil unit where available;
□ Checks for soil type-specific trends;
□ Checks for presence of clay layers and consideration of derived values from the CPT-based
Gmax-qc method;
□ Selection of characteristic values considering the uncertainties in the CPT-based fitting
approach, by application of soil unit-specific factors.
The equation for the CPT-based fitting method (Gmax,k-qc-Bq method) is as follows:
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑌𝑆𝑅𝑏 ∙ 1.634 ∙ (1 + 4 ∙ 𝐵𝑞 ) ∙ (𝑞𝑐 )0.25 ∙ (𝜎𝑣0

′ )0.375
where 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 is in MPa, 𝐵𝑞 is pore pressure ratio (with 𝐵𝑞 set to 0 when 𝐵𝑞 < 0), 𝑞𝑐 is cone resistance
′
in kPa, 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress in kPa, 𝑌𝑆𝑅 is yield stress ratio as per test method (1) of
Table 4.17 (Section 4.5.2) and 𝑏 is a fitting parameter that is soil unit-specific exponent. The equation is
the same as that for the CPT-based Gmax-qc-Bq method (refer to Section 4.4.9.3) except for the 𝑌𝑆𝑅
term.
The 𝑌𝑆𝑅 term was selected to improve factoring by more specific accounting for the post-depositional
settings of the soil units.
The exponent 𝑏 was selected on a soil unit basis such that a best-fit between derived values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
from the above formulation and the Gmax-SCPT method was obtained. Table 4.14 presents the values
for exponent 𝑏 that produce the best fit with the SCPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 . The table also includes normalised
standard deviation of the fitting, per soil unit.

Table 4.14: Exponent 𝒃 and Normalised Standard Deviation of Fitting

Soil Unit Exponent 𝒃 Normalised Standard
Deviation
A 0.25 0.50
B1 0.25 0.45
B2 0.20 0.35
C1 0.55 0.45
C2 0.25 0.30
D 0.35 0.45
E 0.15 0.20
F 0.40 0.40
G 0.40 0.40
Note(s):
− The normalised standard deviation represents the ratio of the standard deviation of the
absolute value of difference between the SCPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 and the factored CPT-based
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 , to the mean factored CPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
The data scatter between the SCPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 and the factored CPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 (Table 4.14) is
generally according to expectations, i.e. scatter in more homogeneous soil units (e.g. Soil Unit E) is
considerably lower than in soil units comprising interbedded soils (e.g. Soil Unit F). The distribution of
the data scatter (difference between the SCPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 and the factored CPT-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) follows
a normal distribution for soil units with the larger SCPT data sets.
The design profile for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 is one standard deviation (~ 16 % fractile) below the value from the
Gmax,k-qc-Bq method in each layer, assuming a normal distribution for the data scatter in each soil unit
(refer to Plate D3-6 for an illustrative example). The soil unit-specific factor accounts for parameter
uncertainty in factoring (i.e. the spread in the distribution of the soil unit-specific 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 according to the
Gmax,k-qc-Bq method). For layers comprising relatively clean clays, derived 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 from the CPT-based
Gmax-qc method was selected as 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑘 when it gives lower values than the 16 % fractile of the
Gmax,k-qc-Bq method.
Some further considerations for the above approach are outlined below.
■ Values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 were compared in the data pairing process, with the CPT-based values averaged
over the depth interval of the corresponding paired SCPT-based values;
■ Depth-specific weight factors were introduced in the data pairing process to account for reliability of
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values derived according to the SCPT method being relatively low in the upper 5 m BSF and
below 25 m BSF. A low weight factor (0.05) was accorded to SCPT-based values in the upper 5 m
BSF and deeper than 30 m BSF, a slightly higher weight factor (0.1) was assigned to SCPT-based
values between 25 m BSF and 30 m BSF, and the highest weight factor (0.2) was assigned to
SCPT-based values between 5 m BSF and 25 m BSF;
■ No SCPT data are available for Soil Unit D, hence soil unit-specific data pairing was not possible.
Values for the exponent 𝑏 and the normalised standard deviation were, therefore, used considering
all available paired data from the site.


the plates.
Table 4.15: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Shear Modulus at Small Strain
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based Gmax-qc-Bq method for shear modulus at small strain 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
according to Rix and Stokoe (1991) modified for input parameter 𝐵𝑞
according to Peuchen et al. (2020)
′ )0.375
■ 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.634 ∙ (1 + 4 ∙ 𝐵𝑞 ) ∙ (𝑞𝑐 )0.25 ∙ (𝜎𝑣0 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in MPa, pore
pressure ratio 𝐵𝑞 (with 𝐵𝑞 set to 0 when 𝐵𝑞 < 0), cone resistance 𝑞𝑐 in kPa
′
and effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0 in kPa
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝐵𝑞 , 𝑞𝑐 and 𝜎𝑣0
■ Refer document titled “Cone Penetration Test Interpretation” presented in
Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ CPT-based Gmax-qc method for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 according to Mayne and Rix (1993)
■ 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2.78 ∙ (𝑞𝑐 )1.335 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in kPa and 𝑞𝑐 is in kPa
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝑞𝑐
in Appendix 2
Test method (3) ■ CPT-based Gmax-SCPT method for shear wave velocity (𝑣𝑠 ) derived from
SCPT-based seismic seafloor testing according to ISO (2014), combined
with a theoretical model 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣𝑠2 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in kPa, 𝑣𝑠 in m/s and density
of ground 𝜌 in Mg/m3
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝜌
■ Refer to document titled “Seismic Cone Penetration Test and Seismic
Downhole Test in Borehole” presented in Appendix 2
Test method (4) ■ P and S Suspension Logging (PSSL)-based Gmax-PSSL method for shear
wave velocity (𝑣𝑠 ) derived from borehole geophysical logging according to
ISO (2014), combined with a theoretical model 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣𝑠2 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in
kPa, 𝑣𝑠 in m/s and 𝜌 in Mg/m3
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝜌
■ Refer to document titled “Borehole Geophysical Logging” presented in
Appendix 2
Test method (5) ■ Laboratory Gmax-RCREC method for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 from resonant column tests
■ Soil specimen, reconstituted to estimated in situ soil unit weight 𝛾
■ Isotropic compression of test specimen to estimated value of mean
′ ′ ′
effective in situ stress (𝜎𝑣0 + 2𝜎ℎ0 /3), where 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ
horizontal stress
■ Value of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 derived from torsional resonance frequency related to
column stiffness using a theoretical elastic solution, at temperature of
about 20 °C
′ ′
■ Refer to document titled “Cyclic and Dynamic Laboratory Tests” presented
in Appendix 2

Test method (6) ■ Laboratory Gmax-RCINT method for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 from resonant column tests
■ Homogeneous test specimen from intact soil sample
′ ′
■ Recompression of test specimen to estimated values of 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝜎ℎ0
■ Value of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 derived from torsional resonance frequency related to
column stiffness using a theoretical elastic solution, at temperature of
about 20 °C
′ ′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝜎ℎ0
■ Applicable to Clay and Transitional soil types
■ Refer to document titled “Cyclic and Dynamic Laboratory Tests” presented
in Appendix 2
Test method (7) ■ Laboratory Gmax-BEREC,TXC method for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 from piezoceramic bender
elements (BE) on triaxial test specimens, according to ISO (2014)
■ Isotropic compression of test specimen to estimated value of effective
′ ′ ′
in situ stress (𝜎𝑣0 + 2𝜎ℎ0 /3), where 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress
■ Shear wave velocity (𝑣𝑠 ) derived from measurement of time and distance
and from interpretation of first arrivals of acoustic signals at optimal
frequency (𝑓), at specimen temperature of about 20 °C
■ Value of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 derived from 𝑣𝑠 , combined with a theoretical model
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣𝑠2 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in kPa, 𝑣𝑠 in m/s and density of ground 𝜌 in Mg/m3
′ ′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): 𝜌, 𝜎𝑣0 , 𝜎ℎ0 and 𝑓
■ Refer to documents titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” and “Cyclic and
Dynamic Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 1
Test method (8) ■ Laboratory Gmax-BEINT,TXC method for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 from piezoceramic bender
elements (BE) on triaxial test specimens, according to ISO (2014)
■ Homogeneous test specimen from intact sample
′ ′
■ Recompression of test specimen to estimated values of 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝜎ℎ0
■ Shear wave velocity (𝑣𝑠 ) derived from measurement of time and distance
and from interpretation of first arrivals of acoustic signals at optimal
frequency (𝑓), at specimen temperature of about 20 °C
■ Value of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 derived from 𝑣𝑠 , combined with a theoretical model 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝜌 ∙ 𝑣𝑠2 for 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in kPa, 𝑣𝑠 in m/s and density of ground 𝜌 in Mg/m3
′ ′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter(s): 𝜎𝑣0 , 𝜎ℎ0 and 𝑓
■ Applicable to Clay and Transitional soil types
■ Refer to documents titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” and “Cyclic and
Dynamic Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 2
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values versus depth BSF (i) per soil unit
and per soil group for all test methods (Appendix E), and (ii) per location
cluster for test methods (1), (2) and (3) (Appendix F)
■ Derived values from test methods (3) and (4) that are crossing soil unit
boundaries and/or soil group boundaries within a soil unit, are not
presented in the corresponding plates of Appendix E
■ Nominal 1 m vertical averaging of derived values from test methods (1) and
(2) for use in statistics, to account for averaging effects
LE BE HE values Applicable to test methods (1), (2) and (3) for BE, refer to corresponding
plates in Appendix E

The database for the HKW WFZ includes derived values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 according to multiple CPT-based
methods, SCPT data, PSSL data and laboratory methods. The general scatter of derived values is
according to expectations (e.g. Peuchen et al., 2002).
In most soil units and soil groups, laboratory 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values are lower than 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values derived from in situ
acoustic signals (i.e. SCPT and PSSL). This trend is according to expectations (Darendeli, 2001).
PSSL-based 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values are, on average, 20 % lower than the corresponding SCPT-based values,
based on a limited available dataset for comparison (5 locations). A larger scatter of SCPT-based Gmax
values can be noted, compared to the scatter of PSSL-based Gmax values.
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values derived from the Gmax-qc-Bq method are, on average, 10 % to 30 % lower than the
corresponding SCPT-based values. The trend with depth and the quite narrow scatter of derived values
for the Gmax-qc-Bq method suggest a dependency on confining pressure (in situ stress conditions) that
is stronger than the dependency on soil density.
In the upper 5 m BSF for Soil Units A, B1 and B2, it is observed that SCPT-derived 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values are
significantly higher compared to derived values from other methods. This is according to expectations
and it is attributed to factors such as (1) seawater wave interference effects that prevent accurate
interpretation of 𝑣𝑠 and (2) influence from the seafloor template (seabed frame).
The highly non-uniform, heterogenous nature of the clayey deposits within Soil Units F and G (i.e. Soil
Groups F-Clay and G-Clay) is observed in the results of the CPT-based Gmax-qc method. Conversely,
results for Soil Group C1-Clay indicate more clean and uniform clays.
A fairly good agreement between the CPT-based Gmax-qc method and the SCPT method is generally
observed for BE values of Gmax in clayey soils of Soil Units F and G.
The influence of soil type on 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 was checked by comparing SCPT-derived values between different
soil groups within a soil unit (e.g. Soil Units F and G). The comparative results matched expectations for
the HKW WFZ, i.e. derived 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 values were generally higher for Sand compared to Transitional soil
and Clay.
CPT-based Gmax-qc-Bq method

The method is a modified version of the method proposed by Rix and Stokoe (1991) for sands.
′
Rix and Stokoe (1991) proposed an empirical relationship to correlate 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 to 𝑞𝑐 and 𝜎𝑣0 . This
relationship was derived from results of CPTs performed in calibration chambers on a range of
reconstituted specimens of uncemented quartz sands. Rix and Stokoe (1991) suggested a dependency
of approximately +/- 50 % for sand type, for a comparison under reconstituted sample conditions.
A Bq modification was introduced to the Rix and Stokoe (1991) method in order to account for partially
drained or undrained response of cone penetration in transitional soils (Peuchen et al., 2020). The
partially drained or undrained CPT response in transitional soils reduces the influence of soil density on
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 compared to CPT results for sands. The modification provides an approximate correction for this
influence.

CPT-based Gmax-qc method

Mayne and Rix (1993) proposed an empirical relationship to correlate 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 to 𝑞𝑐 for clayey soils.
CPT-based Gmax-SCPT method

The HKW WFZ database includes SCPT results for 30 test locations.
Gibbs et al. (2018) speculated on data scatter related to a fixed 0.5 m spacing for dual SCPT receivers,
versus 1 m spacing. This comment can be compared with Ghose (2012), who reported very good data
quality for tests performed with a seismic cone penetrometer incorporating 7 sets of receivers spaced
at 0.25 m. Note that the SCPT systems for the offshore investigation of the HKW WFZ included a 0.5 m
receiver spacing for 2 sets of receivers.
Gmax-PSSL method
The HKW WFZ database includes PSSL results for five test locations. The PSSL system was used at
depths greater than 6 m BSF for the HKW WFZ to avoid borehole collapse.
Laboratory Gmax-RCREC method

The HKW WFZ database includes resonant column test results for 10 test specimens reconstituted from
Sand (7) and Transitional soil (3) samples recovered from a range of depth intervals and boreholes
(batches) in the top 50 m BSF and corresponding to Soil Units A, B2, C2, D, E and F.
Small strain stiffness is sensitive to specimen reconstitution, in particular to (1) approximation of

specimen density versus in situ soil density, (2) method used for specimen preparation differs from in
situ soil deposition and (3) effect of post-depositional processes, such as aging.
Benz (2007) indicated that the resonant column approach for relating column stiffness to a theoretical
elastic solution for shear modulus 𝐺 should provide satisfactory laboratory values for the small-strain
range.
Laboratory Gmax-RCINT method

The HKW WFZ database includes results for 2 resonant column tests on intact soil specimens from clay
samples, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF, corresponding to Soil Units C1 and F.
Test results are sensitive to undisturbed sample quality. In most cases, a reduction in undisturbed
sample quality will result in lower values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 . Specimen recompression can provide some
compensation for a reduction in undisturbed sample quality, for example by a partial trade-off between
damage to in situ soil structure and an increase in specimen unit weight relative to in situ unit weight.

Laboratory Gmax-BEREC,TXC method

The HKW WFZ database includes bender elements test results for 107 test specimens reconstituted
from Sand (92) and Transitional soil (15) samples recovered from a range of boreholes, for the depth
range 0 m to 50 m BSF, corresponding to Soil Units A, B1, B2, C1, C2, E, F and G.
Hoeg et al. (2000) indicate that the soil fabric of reconstituted specimens with the method of moist
tamping can substantially differ from the fabric of intact specimens, giving 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 differences of about
20 % to 30 % for the Gmax-BEREC,TXC method.
Laboratory Gmax-BEINT,TXC method

The HKW WFZ database includes results for 25 bender elements tests on intact soil specimens from
Clay (21) and Transitional soil (4) samples recovered from a range of boreholes, for the depth range
0 m to 50 m BSF, corresponding to Soil Units C1, D, F and G.
Test results are sensitive to undisturbed sample quality, as discussed for the Gmax-RCINT method.
4.5 Derived Values
4.5.1 Minimum and Maximum Index Void Ratios

■ Minimum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 , according to DGI (1996);

■ Maximum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 , according to DGI (1996);
■ Pertinent to Sand soil type with percentage fines ≤ 15 %, as defined in Section 2.2.3.2.

the plates.
Table 4.16: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Minimum and Maximum Index Void Ratios
Test method – emin ■ Laboratory 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑙𝑎𝑏 method for minimum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 , according
to DGI (1996), small mould
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: density of solid particles 𝜌𝑠 = 2.65
Mg/m3
■ Refer to document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” in Appendix 2
Test method – emax ■ Laboratory 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑏 method for minimum index void ratio 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 , according
to DGI (1996)
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝜌𝑠 = 2.65 Mg/m3
■ Refer to document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” in Appendix 2
(Appendix E)
■ Mean value statistics based on Central Limit Theorem and Student’s t-
distribution, presented per soil unit (Appendix E)
■ Data outliers according to the 3-sigma rule excluded from statistics
LE BE HE values Applicable for LE and HE, refer to corresponding plates in Appendix E

Note that the laboratory 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑙𝑎𝑏 method and the laboratory 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑙𝑎𝑏 method were incorporated in
extensive inter-laboratory studies (e.g. Blaker et al., 2015; Lunne et al., 2019), which included Fugro’s
involvement. The studies indicated that derived values for 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 are sensitive to details in
apparatus and procedures. In addition, the studies indicated dependency on the operator (laboratory
technician) performing the test. These observations possibly apply to many laboratory test types, but
remain mostly unpublished. In this regard it can be noted that laboratory tests for 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 allow
relatively easy inter-laboratory testing according to ISO (2017), particularly as the test methods require
no undisturbed test specimens and no specimen reconstitution procedures.
Derived values of 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 depend on the methods of sampling and sample handling. This is
because of the degree (if any) of particle breakdown during sampling and sample handling. Particle
breakdown or crushing will change the in situ particle size distribution and the roundness/ angularity of
particles. Such changes will affect 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 . The effect of this type of particle breakdown on the
presented results of the laboratory tests is assessed to be negligible for the sands at the HKW WFZ.
The database for the HKW WFZ includes laboratory results for 228 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 tests, for the depth
range 0 m to 50 m BSF. A total of 169 tests met the criterion for the derived values of 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 , i.e.
percentage fines ≤ 15 %.
4.5.2 Yield Stress Ratio

■ Yield stress ratio 𝑌𝑆𝑅 = 𝜎𝑝′ /𝜎𝑣0

′
where 𝜎𝑝′ is effective preconsolidation stress and 𝜎𝑣0
′
is effective in
situ vertical stress;

the plates.
Table 4.17: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Yield Stress Ratio
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based YSR-qn method according to Mayne (2017)

′ ′ ′
■ 𝑌𝑆𝑅 = (0.33 ∙ 𝑞𝑛𝑚 )/𝜎𝑣0 where 𝑞𝑛 is net cone resistance in kPa, 𝜎𝑣0 is
′
effective in situ vertical stress in kPa and 𝑚 is an exponent given by
0.28
𝑚′ = 1 − 25
where Ic is soil behaviour type index
1+(𝐼𝑐 /2.65)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝑞𝑛 , 𝜎𝑣0 and 𝐼𝑐
■ Refer to document titled “Cone Penetration Test Interpretation” in
Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory YSR-CRS method for 𝑌𝑆𝑅 according to ISO (2014)
■ Laboratory consolidation on laterally restrained, homogenous test
specimen obtained from undisturbed sample of fine grained, cohesive
soil; no specific measures for saturation of test specimen
■ Test specimen orientation is such that applied compression of soil is
vertically downwards

■ Compression of test specimen by constant rate of strain (CRS)

■ Values of 𝑌𝑆𝑅 derived from initial recompression of test specimen at
temperature of about 20°C according to Casagrande (1936)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory YSR-INC method for 𝑌𝑆𝑅 according to ISO (2014)
■ Compression of test specimen by incremental loading (INC)
■ Values of 𝑌𝑆𝑅 derived from initial recompression of test specimen at
temperature of about 20°C according to Casagrande (1936)
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2
Data points/ statistics ■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test methods (2) and (3) that
meet the homogeneity criterion, refer also to comments below (Plate E8-
1)
There is in general a reasonably good fit in derived values of 𝑌𝑆𝑅 in Clay between the CPT-based
method and the laboratory methods, with the exception of Soil Unit C1 in which the laboratory methods
give very high values of 𝑌𝑆𝑅. This can potentially be attributed to the high sand fraction of the test
specimens from Soil Unit C1.
CPT-based YSR-qn method

The YSR-qn method provides derived values for 𝑌𝑆𝑅 based on CPT net cone resistance, general
principles of soil mechanics and laboratory test results. Particularly, the YSR-qn method includes a
derived analytical cavity expansion solution for clays. For sands, the method considers statistical
inversion of CPT data acquired in (laboratory) calibration chambers filled with reconstituted sand. The
final expression has been generalised to cover all soil types, including transitional soils.
In general, the YSR-qn method predicts trends of 𝑌𝑆𝑅 values that are assessed to match the geological
setting, e.g. multiple post-deposition overconsolidation mechanisms in which the Pleistocene layers may
have been subjected to desiccation processes. The typical trends are within expectations, with 𝑌𝑆𝑅
values decreasing with depth.

Laboratory methods
The HKW database includes laboratory results from 49 CRS oedometer tests and 20 INC oedometer
tests on fine grained, cohesive soil from Soil Units C1, D, F and G, for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
Checks for soil type and laboratory specimen homogeneity were performed, in particular:
■ Test specimens with soil type other than Clay were excluded;
■ Test specimens containing visible sand laminations, sand pockets or gravel were excluded.
The database of oedometer tests is then reduced to 13 CRS tests and 5 INC tests.
Although oedometer testing provides in general the benchmark for derivation of stress history profiles
for homogeneous, intact clay specimens, significant uncertainties apply (Mayne, 2017; Boone, 2010).
High class samples should be typically used for determination of 𝑌𝑆𝑅, i.e. application class 1 (ISO,
2014). Evaluation of intact sample quality can be performed considering re-compression characteristics
of the soil. Plate E8-1 presents intact sample quality indices according to two methods. In general, the
presented laboratory classifications for intact sample quality should be used with caution, as many of
the test specimens are out of range for applicability in terms of total stress (depth) range and some of
the test specimens are out of range for applicability in terms of yield stress ratio. Applicability is described
in the document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 2. The intact sample
quality is generally according to the selected investigation methods and geological setting for the HKW
WFZ (e.g. 12 out of 18 tests on Plate E8-1 would suggest intact sample quality of class 3 or lower based
on values for ∆𝑒/𝑒0 ). Reasons include:
■ Inevitable sample disturbance due to presence of clays with significant sand and/or silt fraction;
■ Sample storage effects and stress relief.
4.5.3 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest

′ ′ ′
■ Coefficient of earth pressure at rest 𝐾0 = 𝜎ℎ0 /𝜎𝑣0 where 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress and
′
𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress;

the plates.
Table 4.18: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest
Test method (1) ■ CPT-based K0-qn method for coefficient of earth pressure at rest 𝐾0
■ 𝐾0 = 0.45 ∙ √𝑌𝑆𝑅 where 𝑌𝑆𝑅 is yield stress ratio according to the YSR-qn
method (refer to Section 4.5.2)
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝑌𝑆𝑅
Appendix 2

Test method (2) ■ Laboratory K0-CRS method for 𝐾0

■ 𝐾0 = 0.45 ∙ √𝑌𝑆𝑅 where 𝑌𝑆𝑅 is yield stress ratio according to the YSR-
CRS method (refer to Section 4.5.2)
■ Compression of test specimen by constant rate of strain (CRS) at
temperature of about 20°C
Appendix 2
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory K0-INC method for K0
■ 𝐾0 = 0.45 ∙ √𝑌𝑆𝑅 where 𝑌𝑆𝑅 is yield stress ratio according to the YSR-
INC method (refer to Section 4.5.2)
■ Compression of test specimen by incremental loading (INC) at
temperature of about 20°C
Appendix 2
CPT-based K0-qn method

The K0-qn method provides derived values for 𝐾0 based on derived values for 𝑌𝑆𝑅 (refer to
Section 4.5.2).
The equation 𝐾0 = 0.45 ∙ √𝑌𝑆𝑅 provides a good approximation of database values presented by Mayne
(2020). The equation facilitates general use in practice. The influence of this approximation is assessed
to be minor compared to the general uncertainties for estimation of 𝐾0 values.
In general, the K0-qn method predicts trends of 𝐾0 values that are assessed to match the geological
setting, e.g. multiple post-deposition overconsolidation mechanisms in which the Pleistocene layers may
have been subjected to desiccation processes. The typical trends are within expectations, with 𝐾0 values
decreasing with depth to values in the order of 0.5.

Laboratory methods
The equation 𝐾0 = 0.45 ∙ √𝑌𝑆𝑅 represents a schematisation of trend lines for database information
presented by Mayne (2017 and 2020). The influence of this schematisation is assessed to be minor
compared to the general uncertainties for estimation of 𝐾0 values.
Refer to Section 4.5.2.2 for commentary on laboratory methods.
4.5.4 Constrained Modulus

■ Constrained modulus 𝑀 = 𝛿𝜎𝑣′ /𝛿𝜀𝑣 at a stress level equivalent to effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0
′
,
where 𝛿𝜎𝑣′ is small change in effective vertical stress 𝜎𝑣′ and 𝛿𝜀𝑣 is the corresponding change in
vertical strain 𝜀𝑣 for a horizontal strain 𝜀ℎ = 0;
■ Monotonic strain rate equivalent to a change in pore pressure ratio ∆𝑟𝑢 = ∆𝑢⁄𝜎𝑣0 = 0.01 (practically
drained conditions), where 𝑟𝑢 = 𝑢⁄𝜎𝑣0 , ∆𝑢 is change in pore pressure 𝑢 and 𝜎𝑣0 is total in situ vertical
stress;
■ Pertinent to all soil types; Clay soil type is only considered for this report.

the plates.
Table 4.19: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Constrained Modulus

Test method (1) ■ CPT-based M-qn method for constrained modulus 𝑀 according to Mayne
(2007)
■ 𝑀 = 5 ∙ 𝑞𝑛 where 𝑞𝑛 is net cone resistance
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝑞𝑛
Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory M-CRS method for 𝑀 according to ISO (2014)
■ Compression of test specimen by constant rate of displacement
(approximately equal to constant rate of strain CRS)
■ Value of 𝑀 derived from initial recompression of test specimen at
′
approximate stress level equivalent to effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0 ,
at temperature of about 20°C
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2

Test method (3) ■ Laboratory M-INC method for 𝑀 according to ISO (2014)
■ Compression of test specimen by incremental loading (INC)
■ Values of 𝑀 derived from initial recompression of test specimen at
′
approximate stress level equivalent to effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0 ,
at temperature of about 20°C
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: 𝜎𝑣0
Appendix 2
Data points/ statistics ■ Tabular presentation of derived values from test methods (2) and (3) that
meet the homogeneity criterion, refer also to comments in Section 4.5.2.2
(Plate E8-1)
The results from the laboratory methods are between the LE values and the low end of the BE values
from the CPT-based M-qn method.
The results from the M-INC method are generally within the same range as the results from the M-CRS
method.
CPT-based M-qn method

The M-qn method relies on undrained (total stress) soil response during cone penetration in clay soil, for
estimation of drained (effective stress) soil stiffness. This limitation is partially accounted for by the
combination of the CPT parameters 𝑞𝑐 and 𝑢2 , where 𝑢2 provides an approximate indication for effective
stress conditions around the cone penetrometer.
Based on a database including different soil types, Mayne (2007) suggested a general 𝑀 value of 5,
which can however be taken as low as 1 for organic plastic clays and as high as 20 for cemented clays.
Laboratory methods
Refer to Section 4.5.2.2 for commentary on laboratory methods.
The inclusion of sand in laboratory specimens can increase compressibility and adversely affect (1)
undisturbed sample quality and (2) derived values of 𝑀.

4.5.5 Critical State Line

■ Void ratio at critical state (large strain) 𝑒𝑐𝑠 in ecs-p’ space, where 𝑝′ is mean effective stress;
■ Monotonic compression according to laboratory strain rates for consolidated triaxial compression;
■ Values of 𝑝′ between 10 kPa and 2000 kPa;
■ Pertinent to all soil types; Sand and Transitional soil types are only considered for this report.

the plates.
Table 4.20: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Critical State Line
Test method (1) ■ Laboratory ecs-TXC method for effective angle of internal friction 𝜑′
′ ′ ′
situ stress conditions (𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 for stage 1 and two times (𝜎𝑣0 +
′ ′ ′
2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 for stage 2, where 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress and 𝜎ℎ0
is effective in situ horizontal stress
■ Value of 𝑒𝑐𝑠 estimated from stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ at large strain, where 𝑞 =
𝜎1′ − 𝜎3′ and 𝑝′ = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented by principal stresses
′ ′
Appendix 2
Test method (2) ■ Empirical ecs-λc-ξ method according to Li and Wang (1998) for CSL of
Toyoura Sand and Tung-Chung Sand (clean sands)
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: soil density 𝜌
Data points/ statistics Graphical presentation of derived values of 𝑒𝑐𝑠 versus mean effective stress
𝑝′ per soil type, complemented by derived values from HKN WFZ (refer to
Plates E2-1 and E2-2)
LE BE HE values Applicable to test method (1) for BE, for tests meeting the filtering criteria
(see comments below), considering also data from HKN WFZ
The general scatter in derived values for the laboratory methods provides a fair indication of derived
values for the general ecs-p’ space for the HKW WFZ sands and transitional soils. The spread in derived
values will not fully represent a spread in site-wide values for critical state lines (𝐶𝑆𝐿). In this regard it
can be noted that the databases for both HKW WFZ and HKN WFZ exclude test methods specifically
tailored for deriving critical state lines (e.g. Jefferies and Been, 2016).
A weak trend of 𝑒𝑐𝑠 with 𝑝′ is evident, (𝑅2 = 0.15 for Sand and 𝑅2 = 0.04 for Transitional soil where 𝑅2
is a statistical coefficient of determination, refer to Plates E2-1 and E2-2). The 𝑅2 values include data

from the nearby HKN WFZ. In this regard, it can be noted that the derived values for 𝐶𝑆𝐿 apply to a
mean effective stress range of 10 kPa to 2000 kPa. It is common to see a change in 𝐶𝑆𝐿 at high stress
levels, due to particle breakage (Been et al., 1991). At low stress levels (< 10 kPa), a 𝐶𝑆𝐿 would be of
little practical importance.
The database information for the HKW WFZ is not sufficiently extensive for deriving specific
relationships per soil unit.
The curves for the Toyura and Tung-Chung sands (clean sands) show higher 𝑒𝑐𝑠 values at a specific
value of 𝑝′ than the (ecs-TXCREC and ecs-TXCINT) 𝑒𝑐𝑠 values for the generally (slightly) silty sands of the
HKW WFZ and HKN WFZ (Plate E2-1). This agrees with Nguyen et al. (2015), who indicated lower 𝑒𝑐𝑠
values for increasing percentage fines to values up to 15 %.
Observations from various researchers (e.g. Sadrekarimi, 2003; Bouckovalas et al., 2003; Fear and
Robertson, 1995) highlight the influence of percentage fines on the position and slope of the 𝐶𝑆𝐿 in the
ecs-p’ space: (i) the 𝐶𝑆𝐿 shifts downwards with increasing percentage fines to values between 20 % and
30 %, whereas this trend is reversed for higher percentage fines values, and (ii) the slope of 𝐶𝑆𝐿
steepens with increasing percentage fines. Note that the available data for the HKW WFZ and HKN
WFZ show no strong evidence to support the above findings from literature.
Laboratory ecs-TXC method

The ecs-TXC method considers a triaxial compression test method, assessed to provide a fair indication
of possible critical state lines. It is helpful in this regard that a 𝐶𝑆𝐿 does not depend on stress path or
initial soil fabric (e.g. Jefferies and Been, 2016).
The HKW WFZ database includes laboratory results for a total of 368 tests for the ecs-TXC method, for
the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
The presented derived values for the laboratory methods are grouped by triaxial test results meeting
filtering criteria based on Jefferies and Been (2016):
■ Dilation rate 𝐷: tests identified to have reached a critical state by determining a mean dilation rate
𝐷 < 0.01 towards the end of the test:
𝑝
𝑑𝜀𝑣 𝛿𝜀𝑣 (𝜀𝑣,𝑖+1 − 𝜀𝑣,𝑖 )
𝐷= 𝑝 ≈ ≈
𝑑𝜀𝑞 𝛿𝜀𝑞 (𝜀𝑞,𝑖+1 − 𝜀𝑞,𝑖 )
where: 𝛿𝜀𝑣 is change in total volumetric strain, 𝛿𝜀𝑞 is deviatoric strain across each increment
(i to i + 1) used to derive 𝐷, 𝜀𝑣 = 𝜀𝑎 + 2𝜀𝑟 , 𝜀𝑞 = 2/3(𝜀𝑎 − 𝜀𝑟 ), and the subscripts 𝑎 and 𝑟 denote the
axial and radial directions respectively (compression positive);
■ Relative density 𝐷𝑟 : test specimens with an initial estimated 𝐷𝑟 < 75 %, i.e. interpretation of critical
state is not considered reliable for tests performed on initially dense to very dense test specimens,
since excessive shear banding can occur which can cause localisation of stresses;
■ Post-peak softening: test specimens with stress-strain results showing a clear post-peak softening,
i.e. post-peak softening can lead to localised shear band formation.

The triaxial test results meeting the filtering criteria represent the higher quality group of the database,
i.e. 20 tests (13 in Sand and 7 in Transitional soil).
Empirical ecs-λc-ξ method

The ecs-λc-ξ method presents curves for critical state lines of cohesionless soils in e - p’ space, based
on a laboratory database analysed by Li and Wang (1998). The curves are in the form of the following
equation:
𝜉
𝑝′
𝛥𝑒 = − 𝜆𝑐 ( ⁄𝑃 )
𝑎
where 𝑒 is void ratio, 𝑝′ is mean effective stress, 𝑃𝑎 is atmospheric pressure, 𝜆𝑐 and 𝜉 are curve fitting
parameters.
The database covers results of drained and undrained triaxial compression tests carried out on
reconstituted specimens of two types of sands, Toyura Sand (uniform clean sand, subrounded and
subangular) and Tung-Chung Sand (clean sand with no fines).
4.5.6 Effective Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain

′
■ Secant effective angle of internal friction at large strain 𝜑𝑐𝑣 ;
■ Monotonic strain rate according to laboratory test methods described in Table 4.21;
■ Pertinent to Sand and Transitional soil types.

the plates.
Table 4.21: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Effective Angle of Internal friction at Large
Strain
Test method (1) ■ Laboratory φ’cv-TXC method for effective angle of internal friction 𝜑′
′ ′
situ stress conditions (𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 for stage 1 and two times the
′ ′ ′
(𝜎𝑣0 + 2 ∙ 𝜎ℎ0 )/3 for stage 2, where 𝜎𝑣0 is effective in situ vertical stress
′
and 𝜎ℎ0 is effective in situ horizontal stress
′ estimated from stress ratio 𝑞 ⁄𝑝′ at large strain, where
■ Secant value of 𝜑𝑐𝑣
𝑞 = 𝜎1 − 𝜎3 and 𝑝 = (𝜎1′ + 𝜎2′ + 𝜎3′ )⁄3 are represented by principal
′ ′ ′
stresses
′ ′
Appendix 2

Test method (2) ■ Laboratory φ’cv-RS method for 𝜑′ using a Bromhead ring shear test
apparatus in accordance with BS 1377-7: 1990
■ Remoulded fine grained cohesive specimen, compacted to an estimated
in situ soil unit weight 𝛾; no specific measures for saturation of test
specimen
■ Vertical compression of specimen to estimated values of in situ effective
′
vertical stress 𝜎𝑣0
■ Value of 𝜑𝑐𝑣 ′ derived from maximum value of 𝜏⁄𝜎 ′ at large strain
𝑛
(residual), where 𝜏 is residual shear stress (at large strain) and 𝜎𝑛′ is
normal effective stress
′
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝛾, 𝜎𝑣0
■ Applicable to Transitional soil type
Appendix 2
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values from test method (1) in the q-p’
space per soil type, complemented by derived values from HKN WFZ
(Plates E3-1 and E3-2)
t-distribution, presented per soil type (Plates E3-1 and E3-2)
■ Graphical presentation of derived values from all test methods versus
depth BSF per soil unit and per soil group (Appendix E)
LE BE HE values Applicable to test method (1) (Plates E3-1 and E3-2) for tests meeting the
filtering criteria (see comments below), considering also data from HKN
WFZ
′
Comparison of derived values of 𝜑𝑐𝑣 for the φ’cv-TXC method between Sand and Transitional soil shows
very similar results. This is according to expectations and in line with findings from literature (e.g.
Bouckovalas et al., 2003).
The database information for the HKW WFZ is not sufficiently extensive for deriving specific
relationships per soil unit.
The derived values according to the φ’cv-TXC method compare reasonably well with derived values from
a method suggested by Bishop (1971).
The derived values according to the φ’cv-TXC method are generally within the lower range of values
′
presented by Andersen and Schjetne (2013). It can also be noted that the 𝜑𝑐𝑣 values for the HKW WFZ
show no evidence for trends with initial relative density and depth below seafloor, suggested by
Andersen and Schjetne (2013).
Laboratory φ’cv-TXC method

The φ’cv-TXC method considers a triaxial compression test method. This is assessed to be reasonable,
′
as values of 𝜑𝑐𝑣 typically have negligible dependency on stress path and initial soil fabric (e.g. Jefferies
and Been, 2016).
The presented derived values for the laboratory methods are grouped by triaxial test results meeting
filtering criteria based on Jefferies and Been (2016):

■ Dilation rate 𝐷: tests identified to have reached a critical state by determining a mean dilation rate
𝐷 < 0.01 towards the end of the test:
𝑝
𝑑𝜀𝑣 𝛿𝜀𝑣 (𝜀𝑣,𝑖+1 − 𝜀𝑣,𝑖 )
𝐷= 𝑝 ≈ ≈
𝑑𝜀𝑞 𝛿𝜀𝑞 (𝜀𝑞,𝑖+1 − 𝜀𝑞,𝑖 )
where: 𝛿𝜀𝑣 is change in total volumetric strain, 𝛿𝜀𝑞 is deviatoric strain across each increment
(i to i + 1) used to derive 𝐷, 𝜀𝑣 = 𝜀𝑎 + 2𝜀𝑟 , 𝜀𝑞 = 2/3(𝜀𝑎 − 𝜀𝑟 ), and the subscripts 𝑎 and 𝑟 denote the
axial and radial directions respectively (compression positive);
■ Relative density 𝐷𝑟 : test specimens with an initial estimated Dr < 75 %, i.e. interpretation of critical
state is not considered reliable for tests performed on initially dense to very dense test specimens,
since excessive shear banding can occur which can cause localisation of stresses;
■ Post-peak softening: test specimens with stress-strain results showing a clear post-peak softening,
i.e. post-peak softening can lead to localised shear band formation.
Laboratory φ’cv-RS method

The HKW database includes laboratory results from 6 soil-soil ring shear tests (3 in Sand and 3 in
Transitional soil).
Results from this method show a relatively wide scatter. This is within expectations and attributable, to
a certain degree, to the potentially different horizontal stress conditions within the specimen for which
there is no control or information during testing.
4.5.7 Normalised Shear Modulus

■ Normalised shear modulus 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 , where 𝐺 is secant shear modulus at shear strain 𝛾 in the vertical
plane and 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 is shear modulus at small strain in the vertical plane;
■ Monotonic strain rate according to laboratory test method for normalised shear modulus, see below;

the plates.
Table 4.22: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Normalised Shear Modulus
Test method (1) ■ Laboratory G/Gmax-γREC method for normalised shear modulus 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 in
G/Gmax – γ space according to Oztoprak and Bolton (2013)
𝐺 1
■ = 𝛾−𝛾𝑒 𝛼
where 𝐺 is shear modulus at shear strain 𝛾 in %, 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 is
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 1+( )
𝛾𝑟
shear modulus at small strain, 𝛾𝑒 is elastic threshold strain in % beyond

which 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 < 1, 𝛾𝑟 is shear strain in % at 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 and 𝛼 is
curvature parameter
■ Supplementary (main) input parameter: shear strain 𝛾

Test method (2) ■ Laboratory G/Gmax-γINT method for 𝐺/𝐺 in G/Gmax – γ space according
to Vardanega and Bolton (2013)
■ = where 𝐺 is shear modulus at shear strain 𝛾 in %, 𝐺 is
shear modulus at small strain, 𝛾 is reference shear strain in % given by

𝛾 = 37 ∙ 𝐼 , where 𝐼 is plasticity index
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: shear strain 𝛾 and 𝐼
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory G/Gmax-RCREC method for 𝐺 from resonant column tests
effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎 and coefficient of earth pressure at rest
𝐾
■ Values of 𝐺 derived from torsional resonance frequency related to column
stiffness using a theoretical elastic solution, at temperature of about
20 °C
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: soil unit weight 𝛾, 𝜎 and 𝐾
■ Refer to document titled “Cyclic and Dynamic Laboratory Tests”
presented in Appendix 2
Test method (4) ■ Laboratory G/Gmax-RCINT method for 𝐺 from resonant column tests
■ Homogeneous test specimen from intact sample of fine grained, cohesive
soil
■ Recompression of test specimen to estimated value of effective in situ
vertical stress 𝜎 and coefficient of earth pressure at rest 𝐾
■ Values of 𝐺 derived from torsional resonance frequency related to column
stiffness using a theoretical elastic solution, at temperature of about
20 °C
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝜎 and 𝐾
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values of 𝐺/𝐺 versus 𝛾 per soil unit
and per soil type (Appendix E)
■ Derived values for Sand and Transitional soil types are presented
together
■ Derived values from HKN WFZ are presented in the background
LE BE HE values Not applicable
Derived values of 𝐺/𝐺 are presented per soil unit and per soil type. The number of tests included in
the database for the HKW WFZ is insufficient for conclusive trends of derived values of 𝐺/𝐺 with soil
unit.
The general trend of the available derived values for Sand and Transitional soil according to the
G/Gmax-RCREC method at the HKW WFZ follows reasonably well the best-fit line (mean) from Oztoprak
and Bolton (2013) (Plate E4-1). Corresponding derived values for similar soils from the nearby HKN
WFZ are also presented on Plate E4-1 as background data. The HKN WFZ data indicate a trend towards
the upper bound values of the G/Gmax-γREC method.

General comparison of derived values according to the G/Gmax-RCREC method at the HKW WFZ
considering dependency of stiffness on various factors such as mean effective stress, void ratio, relative
density, percentage fines and uniformity coefficient, showed reasonable agreement with findings by
Oztoprak and Bolton (2013).
Derived values according to the G/Gmax-RCINT method for Clay follow a trend which is generally within
expectations considering the values of plasticity index for the test specimens (Plate E4-2). This is further
highlighted by comparison with the suggested trends by Vardanega and Bolton (2013) for similar
plasticity index values (Plate E4-2). The available database information for the HKW WFZ shows an
average plasticity index of about 16 % and a range of 5 % to 35 %.
The presented derived values are for laboratory temperatures (typically about 20 °C). Soil temperature
influences viscosity of the pore fluid. Particularly, the influence of temperature on 𝐺/𝐺 increases with
increasing shear strain, when comparing 𝐺/𝐺 values at different temperatures. The influence of
temperature possibly increases with increasing void ratio, due to increasing fluid to solids ratio.
Strain rate effects are possibly significant for values of 𝐺/𝐺 < 1. A higher strain rate for values of
𝐺/𝐺 < 1 implies viscous stiffening and can be expected to result in higher 𝐺/𝐺 values, if
compared to a strain rate of 0.01 s-1. Strain rate effects are typically expected to be more distinct for
plastic (clay) soils (Darendeli, 2001) than for sandy soils. Strain rate effects are probably significant for
values of 𝛾 > 0.001 % (Vardanega and Bolton, 2013).
Laboratory G/Gmax-γREC method

The G/Gmax-γREC method relies on the assessment of G/Gmax – γ values derived from 454 laboratory
tests performed on various types of sandy soils, covering both Sand and Transitional soil types. The
method considers a best-fit empirical relationship including lower and upper bounds.
Laboratory G/Gmax-γINT method

The G/Gmax-γREC method relies on the assessment of G/Gmax – γ values derived from 67 laboratory tests
performed on specimens from 21 fine grained soils.
The presented equation (Table 4.22) includes a so-called “dynamic adjustment” according to a strain
rate of 0.01 s-1 for shear strain 𝛾 (Vardanega and Bolton, 2013).
Vardanega and Bolton (2013) indicated an uncertainty of +/- 50 % in the predicted value of 𝛾 .
Laboratory G/Gmax-RCREC method

The HKW WFZ database includes resonant column test results for 10 test specimens reconstituted from
coarse grained samples recovered from a range of boreholes (7 tests performed on Sand soil type and
3 tests on Transitional soil type), for the depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF. The number of tests included in
the database for the HKW WFZ is insufficient for conclusive trends of derived values of 𝐺/𝐺 with soil
type (Sand versus Transitional soil).
Derived values of 𝐺 and 𝐺 are similar in their factors influencing uncertainties with respect to
specimen reconstitution, in particular to (1) approximation of specimen density versus in situ soil density,

(2) method used for specimen preparation differs from in situ soil deposition and (3) effect of post-
depositional processes, such as aging. Therefore, this limits uncertainties for derived values of 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 .
Laboratory G/Gmax-RCINT method

The HKW WFZ database includes results from 2 resonant column tests on intact soil specimens, for the
depth range 0 m to 50 m BSF.
Derived values of 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝐺 are similar in their factors influencing uncertainties with respect to
undisturbed sample quality. Nevertheless, it is assessed that a reduction in undisturbed sample quality
will typically result in a lower shear strain 𝛾 at 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 . The authors of this report are not aware of specific
studies supporting quantitative estimates for such shift in 𝛾.
4.5.8 Cyclic Strength

■ Cyclic shear strength 𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 defined as 𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 = (𝜏𝑎𝑣 + 𝜏𝑐𝑦 )𝑓 , where (𝜏𝑎𝑣 + 𝜏𝑐𝑦 )𝑓 is the sum of average
shear stress 𝜏𝑎𝑣 and cyclic shear stress amplitude 𝜏𝑐𝑦 at a cyclic shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 of 5 %
for Sand and Transitional soil and a cyclic shear strain amplitude of 15 % for Clay soil;
This report focuses on cyclic strength according to the CSS-cvscτ0stps, CSS-cvscτ0stnps, and CSS-
cvscτ0clay methods (refer to Table 4.23 below). These methods approach a simulation of the effects of
permanent pore pressure on cyclic (lateral) resistance of monopiles (e.g. Andersen, 2015). Note that
the database for the HKW WFZ also includes results for cyclic laboratory tests for other methods, e.g.
cyclic direct simple shear at constant vertical stress and cyclic triaxial test results (Fugro, 2020b). This
report excludes analysis of those results.

the plates.
Table 4.23: Parameter Attributes for Derived Values – Cyclic Strength

Test method (1) ■ Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0stps method for cyclic shear strength according
to ISO (2014)
■ Consolidated cyclic direct simple shear (CSS) on test specimen of soil
■ Consolidation of test specimen by axial compression to total vertical
stress 𝜎𝑣 equivalent to estimated effective in situ vertical stress 𝜎′𝑣0 ; no
control of effective radial consolidation stress in the specimen other than
by approximate specimen confinement by test apparatus
■ Application of 2-way stress-controlled cyclic loading at a loading
frequency of 0.1 Hz at average shear stress 𝜏𝑎𝑣 = 0, under zero vertical
displacement conditions (constant volume), at temperature of about
20 °C

■ Cyclic pre-shearing considering:

□ Constant axial stress conditions
□ Loading frequency of 0.1 Hz
□ 𝜏𝑎𝑣 = 0
□ Cyclic shear stress amplitude 𝜏𝑐𝑦 ≈ 0.05 ∙ 𝜎′𝑣0
□ 𝑁 = 400 where 𝑁 is number of cycles
□ Re-consolidation of test specimen after pre-shear stage (let-go of
constant volume condition)
■ Termination criteria for cyclic test phase, whichever occurs first:
□ Cyclic shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 15 %
□ Average shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑎𝑣 = 10 %
□ 𝑁 = 1500
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: γ, 𝜎′𝑣0 , 𝜏𝑐𝑦 , 𝜏𝑎𝑣
Test method (2) ■ Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0stnps method for cyclic shear strength according
to ISO (2014)
■ Consolidated cyclic direct simple shear (CSS) on test specimen of soil
20 °C
■ No cyclic pre-shearing
□ Cyclic shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 15
■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: γ, 𝜎′𝑣0 , 𝜏𝑐𝑦 , 𝜏𝑎𝑣
Test method (3) ■ Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0clay method for cyclic shear strength according to
ISO (2014)
■ Consolidated cyclic direct simple shear (CSS) on intact test specimen of
fine grained, cohesive soil; no specific measures for saturation of test
specimen
20 °C
■ No cyclic pre-shearing
□ Cyclic shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 15 %

■ Supplementary (main) input parameters: 𝜎′𝑣0 , 𝜏𝑐𝑦 , 𝜏𝑎𝑣 , 𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 , where 𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓
is based on 𝑠𝑢,𝐷𝑆𝑆 (undrained shear strength according to the su,DSS-lab
method presented in Section 4.4.4)
Data points/ statistics ■ Graphical presentation of derived values comprising data points and S-N
curves, where 𝑁 refers to number of cycles and 𝑆 refers to cyclic stress
ratio, per batch sample (Table 4.24)
■ For Sand and Transitional soil, cyclic stress ratio is given by 𝜏𝑐𝑦 ⁄𝜎′𝑟𝑒𝑓 ,
where 𝜎′𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑃𝑎 (𝜎𝑣 ⁄𝑃𝑎 )𝑛 , 𝑃𝑎 is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa), 𝜎𝑣 is
total vertical stress applied to a test specimen immediately before start of
cycling, and 𝑛 is an empirical exponent taken as 𝑛 = 0.9
■ For Clay, cyclic stress ratio is given by 𝜏𝑐𝑦 ⁄𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓
■ Comparison of values with reference curves presented by Andersen
(2009) and Andersen (2015), with reference curves selected by
′ ′
(𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 ⁄𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , i.e. 𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 ⁄𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 at 𝑁 = 10 (Sand and Transitional soil)
𝑁=10
■ Comparison of values with reference curves presented by Andersen
(2004) and Andersen (2015) (Clay)
LE BE HE values Applicable for BE
Sand and Transitional soil

The derived values for batch samples broadly confirm the originally intended laboratory test strategy for
the CSS-cvscτ0stps and CSS-cvscτ0stnps methods defined in Table 4.23. Particularly, the acquisition
of a broad set of results by testing reconstituted soil specimens for a range of soil properties (specimen
density and soil type) and (in situ) stress states, provided an illustration of varying cyclic soil resistance.
For example, medium dense, normally consolidated, (very) silty, fine sand (Batch 7) was expected to
have lower cyclic resistance compared to very dense, normally consolidated clean sand (Batch 10).
The influence of pre-shearing on cyclic shear strength is evident when comparing the individual batch
samples. Test specimens undergone pre-shearing give generally 1 % to 25 % higher cyclic shear
strength normalised at 𝑁 = 10 ((𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 ⁄𝜎′𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 ) compared to test specimens without pre-shear.
Exceptions are Batches 8 and 9 for which test specimens with pre-shear give 35 % and 15 % lower
values of 𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 ⁄𝜎′𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10, respectively, compared to test specimens without pre-shear.
The comments below refer to theoretical/ empirical effective stress conditions, inferred as per usual
practice for direct simple shear testing. For example, effective stress paths and pore pressures are
inferred and not derived from measurement of pore pressure.
A cyclic shear strain amplitude of 5 % was selected as failure criterion. Comments on this selection are
as follows:
■ In most test specimens, the effective stress paths already reached the failure envelope before
reaching 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 5 % and without achieving large strains due to large pore pressures generated during
cyclic loading;
■ Checks were carried out on the shear induced pore pressures for each test; the sample is effectively
considered to have reached liquefaction when the maximum pore pressure ratio (𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝜎′𝑣 , where
𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 is maximum pore pressure) reaches a value of 1 and any additional load applied to the test
specimen beyond this is carried by the pore water pressure;

■ Uncertainties with regards to potential differences in values of pore pressure ratio within the test
specimen were considered for selection of the failure criterion;
■ Application of a set cyclic shear strain amplitude as failure criterion (despite the fact that the onset
of liquefaction differs per test specimen) has practical advantages and aids in derivation of contours
for different values of cyclic shear strain amplitude and pore pressure ratio;
■ Generally, it is expected that specimens with high density and relatively low confining pressure do
not reach 15 % cyclic shear strain amplitude within 1500 loading cycles. Such specimens (found
also in the HKW WFZ) exhibit limited shear strains even though their stress path has reached the
failure envelope after a few cycles, due to their dilative behaviour. In such cases, the shear strength
is defined as the shear stress at a lower cyclic shear strain amplitude, e.g. 5 %. This deviation from
a general failure criterion of 15 % cyclic shear strain amplitude is widely accepted and is believed
to not have any practical consequences (Andersen, 2015);
■ ISO (2014) provides no fixed failure criteria and requires failure criteria for cyclic laboratory tests to
be defined.
Plates E5-1 and E5-4 present an overview of the test results at the selected failure criterion, i.e. at
𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 5 %, and at two alternative failure criteria, i.e. (i) at onset of liquefaction (cycle in which the
maximum pore pressure reaches unity for the first time), and (ii) at test termination according to criteria
listed in Table 4.23. Comments are as follows:
■ Most test specimens reached liquefaction (𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝜎′𝑣 = 1) at a lower number of cycles compared to
the number of cycles at 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 5 %;
■ Some of the test specimens have essentially reached liquefaction but do not obtain an exact
(maximum) pore pressure ratio value of 1 but close to 1 (e.g. 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝜎′𝑣 = 0.9 in Batch 2-CSS22R).
This is due to system compliance of the test equipment;
■ For test specimens that reached liquefaction but did not obtain 𝛾𝑐𝑦 = 5 % after 1500 cycles (e.g.
Batch 1-CSS13), were excluded from further analysis;
■ Test specimens that did not fail, i.e. (maximum) pore pressure ratio was not close to 1 and cyclic
shear strain was very low, i.e. 𝛾𝑐𝑦 < 0.1 % (e.g. Batch 3-CSS108), were excluded from further
analysis.
Plates E5-5 to E5-14 present derived values for cyclic strength contours (S-N curves) for Sand and
Transitional soil per batch sample (Table 4.24).
Plates E5-15 to E5-31 present derived values for cyclic shear strain amplitude and (permanent) pore
pressure ratio for Sand and Transitional soil per batch sample (Table 4.24).
Plates E5-5 to E5-14 include background S-N degradation curves proposed by Andersen (2009). The
′
background curves (normalised with 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝜎′𝑣 , i.e. 𝑛 = 1) provide general trends based on normally
consolidated sands and silts (𝐷𝑟 range 40 % to 100 %; 𝜎′𝑣 range 85 kPa to 710 kPa). The background
′
curves particularly illustrate increase in cyclic stress ratio 𝜏𝑐𝑦 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 with increasing relative density of a
test specimen for a given value of 𝑁.
The CSS tests in Sand and Transitional soil were performed on batch samples as shown in Table 4.24.

Table 4.24: Metadata for CSS Results – Sand and Transitional soil
Batch Borehole(s) Soil Unit/ Depth Test Method Number (𝝉𝒄𝒚,𝒇 ⁄𝝈′ 𝒓𝒆𝒇 )
𝑵=𝟏𝟎
Sample Soil Type of Tests
[m BSF] [-]
Batch 1 HKW053-BH A 0.00 to 4.15 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.52
HKW056-BH
Batch 1 HKW053-BH A 0.00 to 4.15 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 -
HKW056-BH
Batch 2 HKW053-BH B2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS-cvscτ0stps 4 0.32
HKW056-BH
Batch 2 HKW053-BH B2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 -
HKW056-BH
Batch 3 HKW107-BH C2 13.35 to 17.30 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.19
Batch 3 HKW107-BH C2 13.35 to 17.30 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 0.14
Batch 4 HKW065-BH D 11.60 to 17.85 CSS-cvscτ0stps 4 0.16
Batch 5 HKW016-BH E 4.00 to 11.50 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.48
Batch 5 HKW016-BH E 4.00 to 11.50 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 0.49
Batch 6 HKW016-BH E 15.00 to 22.20 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.43
Batch 6 HKW016-BH E 15.00 to 22.20 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 0.34
Batch 7 HKW112-BH F-Transitional 19.50 to 28.80 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.17
Batch 8 HKW062-BH F-Sand 6.85 to 20.05 CSS-cvscτ0stps 5 0.26
HKW113-BH
Batch 8 HKW062-BH F-Sand 6.85 to 20.05 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 0.36
HKW113-BH
HKW113-BH
Batch 9 HKW062-BH F-Sand 24.50 to 34.30 CSS-cvscτ0stnps 3 0.39
HKW113-BH
HKW056-BH
Notes:
■ (𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 ⁄𝜎′𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 is cyclic shear strength normalised at 𝑁 = 10
′
Plates E5-15 to E5-31 present derived values for batch samples, particularly cyclic stress ratio 𝜏𝑐𝑦 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 ,
′
number of cycles 𝑁, cyclic shear strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 and (permanent) pore pressure ratio 𝑢𝑝 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 where
𝑢𝑝 is permanent pore pressure. The plates include background contours given by Andersen (2015) for
normally consolidated sand and silt. The background contours consider specific reference values of
′
(𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 . These values were selected considering proximity to the normalised cyclic shear
′
strength values (𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 for each batch as presented in Table 4.24.
Plates E5-5 to E5-31 include trend lines, where statistically relevant. The statistical best fit power
functions for the S-N curves exclude any data points at 𝑁 = 1 and 𝑁 = 1500, as such data points may
not be representative. Similarly, the statistical best fit power functions for the cyclic shear strain
amplitude and (permanent) pore pressure ratio contours exclude any data points at 𝑁 = 1500. The
results show consistent behaviour with a slower development of cyclic shear strain amplitude
and (permanent) pore pressure ratio at lower cyclic stress ratios and vice versa. Scatter is however
evident. Plates E5-32 and E5-33 present numerical values for generating the S-N curves presented on
Plates E5-5 to E5-31.
Trend lines for 𝛾𝑐𝑦 are fairly comparable with contours presented by Andersen (2015), especially for
′
batches in which the normalised cyclic shear strength values (𝜏𝑐𝑦,𝑓 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 of the batch and the
background curves are similar (e.g. Batch 3 with pre-shear, Batch 8 with pre-shear).

The derived values for (permanent) pore pressure ratio are fairly comparable with reference values
presented by Andersen (2015). Note that the reference contours for pore pressure ratio can show a
complex shape (e.g. Plate E5-15) that will not be captured by statistical representations based on a few
data points. Note that the complex shape may be partly due to assumptions in the model for calculating
equivalent pore pressure from DSS data. This model can be sensitive to minor variations in apparatus
control for zero vertical displacement, in addition to the inherent limited control on horizontal stress
conditions (Van Dijk, 2018).
′
Plates E5-34 and E5-35 present comparisons of cyclic stress ratio (𝜏𝑐𝑦 /𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 )𝑁=10 from laboratory
CSS-cvscτ0stps and CSS-cvscτ0stnps methods with parameters of the test specimen: (1) specimen
relative density, 𝐷𝑟 ; (2) normalized cone resistance, 𝑄𝑡𝑛 ; (3) percentage fines and (4) particle
diameter, 𝐷50 .
Relative density 𝐷𝑟 of test specimens (Plate E5-34) was calculated from (1) specimen void ratio
immediately before start of the cyclic phase of the test and (2) mean values for minimum and maximum
(index) void ratios of the soil unit of the batch sample (Section 4.5.1).
The presented values for normalised cone resistance 𝑄𝑡𝑛 (Plate E5-34) were obtained by averaging
nearby CPT data for the depth ranges of the relevant batch samples (Table 4.24).
Batch 9 specimens were reconstituted from sample material recovered from a depth zone showing
low values of normalised cone resistance 𝑄𝑡𝑛 (~80), compared to other batches from Soil Unit F
(Plate E5-34). The fines content of the Batch 9 samples is 8 %. The low values of 𝑄𝑡𝑛 are assessed to
be due to the presence of interbedded transitional material. The selected dry density of the Batch 9
specimens was about 1.66 Mg/m3. This corresponds to a specimen relative density 𝐷𝑟 of about 105 %
according to the calculation method described above. The combination of a low 𝑄𝑡𝑛 value and high
relative density is clearly evident from the data points on Plate E5-34.
The presented values for percentage fines and particle diameter 𝐷50 (Plate E5-35) were obtained from
the particle size distribution tests on the batch samples.
Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0stps method

Test results at low initial vertical stress levels can be sensitive to minor variations in test conditions, such
as specimen density.
The strategy for batch samples allowed the use of uniform soil material for a suite of tests.
The presented derived values apply to a single type of direct simple shear test apparatus, i.e. lateral
confinement by stack of steel rings. The results thus exclude data scatter related to type of test
apparatus. Note that the background curves presented on Plates E5-5 to E5-31 may have been derived
for multiple types of direct simple shear test apparatus.
Pre-shearing applies to the laboratory CSS-cvscτ0stps method for reconstituted samples of Sand and
Transitional soil. Pre-shearing involves application of small amplitude cyclic loading under constant axial
stress conditions. The level of loading during pre-shear is given in Table 4.23. Pre-shearing can:
■ Provide some measure of simulation of soil loading occurring during the buildup period of a design
storm or during smaller storm events;

■ Reduce the influence on test results of (1) sample preparation methods and (2) apparatus limitations
associated with seating and arching effects on the specimen.
Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0stnps method

Comments about testing are similar to the CSS-cvscτ0stps method.
Clay
Table 4.25 presents metadata for 10 cyclic tests on intact samples recovered from Soil Unit C1 and Soil
Unit F.
Plate E5-36 presents an overview of the test results.
Overall intact sample quality is assessed to be according to expectations, i.e. typically Class 2 according
to the ∆𝑒/𝑒0 criterion and typically Class B according to the SQD criterion. Particularly, varying sand
content (presence of laminae, pockets etc) can make the samples susceptible to intact sample
disturbance. Some comments on this are as follows:
■ Soil Unit C1 – A relatively low value of monotonic undrained shear strength (su,ref = 49 kPa,
Table 4.25) by laboratory DSS for a companion test specimen provides some evidence for limited
intact sample quality, particularly compared to a net cone resistance in the order of 2 MPa;
■ Soil Unit F – Intact sample quality assessment according to ISO (2014) must be used with caution
as it would be outside applicability ranges, particularly with respect to depth range of the test
specimens. Applicability is described in the document titled “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests”
presented in Appendix 1.
Plates E5-37 to E5-38 present derived values for cyclic strength contours (S-N curves) and
Plates E5-39 to E5-40 present derived values for cyclic shear strain amplitude and (permanent) pore
pressure ratio.
The presented cyclic stress ratios 𝜏𝑐𝑦 /𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 consider 𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 according to undrained shear strength
derived from results of a laboratory DSS method. This approach to cyclic strength normalisation is
according to Andersen (2004).
The values of 𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 (Table 4.25) correspond with a single, available laboratory data point per test
location (Section 4.4.4). This strength normalisation possibly (partly) mitigates effects related to limited
intact sample quality.
Table 4.25: Metadata for CSS Results – Clay

Borehole Soil Depth 𝒔𝒖,𝒓𝒆𝒇 Liquid Plastic Number (𝝉𝒄𝒚,𝒇 ⁄𝒔𝒖,𝒓𝒆𝒇 )
𝑵=𝟏𝟎
Unit Limit, 𝑳𝑳 Limit, 𝑷𝑰 of Tests

[m BSF] [kPa] [%] [%] [-]
HKW077-BH C1 7.7 to 8.3 49 44 22 5 0.63
HKW114-BH F 33.4 to 34.4 154 61 30 5 0.80
Notes:
■ Number of tests indicates count of tests for the CSS-cvscτ0clay method
■ (τcy,f ⁄su,ref )N=10 is cyclic shear strength normalised at N = 10

Plates E5-37 and E5-38 include background curves for Drammen Clay (Andersen, 2004) for laboratory
induced overconsolidation ratios (OCR) of 1, 4 and 40. The derived values for S-N curves match
reasonably well with the Drammen curves. Any direct comparison with Drammen Clay should be
considered with caution due to the following reasons:
■ Possible effects from limited intact specimen quality;

■ Tested soil material type differing from Drammen Clay material (marine clay with a plasticity index
of 27 % and clay contents between 45 % and 55 %; Andersen et al., 1980);
■ SHANSEP-type of homogenisation of Drammen Clay specimens (Andersen et al., 1980).
Plates E5-39 and E5-40 present derived values, plotted as cyclic stress ratio 𝜏𝑐𝑦 /𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 , cyclic shear
strain amplitude 𝛾𝑐𝑦 and pore pressure ratio 𝑢𝑝 /𝑠𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑓 versus number of cycles, where up is permanent
pore pressure. The background contours are for Drammen Clay with an induced OCR value of 4 and 1
for Soil Unit C1 and Soil Unit F respectively (Andersen, 2004 and 2015). These values were selected
considering the approximate value of OCR and proximity of the derived values to the specified
background curve.
Plates E5-37 to E5-40 include trend lines, where statistically relevant. The statistical best fit power
functions for the S-N curves exclude any data points at 𝑁 = 1 and 𝑁 = 1500, as such data points may
not be representative. Similarly, the statistical best fit power functions for the cyclic shear strain
amplitude and (permanent) pore pressure ratio contours exclude any data points at 𝑁 = 1500. The
results show consistent behaviour with a slower development of cyclic shear strain amplitude and
(permanent) pore pressure ratio at lower cyclic stress ratios and vice versa.
Table 4.26 presents numerical values for generating the S-N curves presented on Plates E5-37
to E5-40.
Table 4.26: Derived Values – S-N curves for Clay

S-N Curve Parameters
Strain Level for S-N curve Soil Unit C1 Soil Unit F
𝒃 𝒄 𝒃 𝒄
1.0 % 0.57 -0.06 0.66 -0.07
2.5 % 0.61 -0.04 0.75 -0.05
5.0 % 0.66 -0.05 0.91 -0.08
7.5 % 0.69 -0.06 0.96 -0.09
15.0 % 0.73 -0.07 0.98 -0.09
Notes:
■ b and c are S-N curve parameters for τcy,f ⁄su,ref = 𝑏 ∙ 𝑁 𝑐
The CSS results show typical behaviour for lightly overconsolidated clay. The application of cyclic
stresses results in an approximately steady, gradual increase in cyclic shear strain amplitude to failure.
Relatively large changes in vertical stress occur within each cycle and these changes remain fairly
constant with increase in N. Cyclic stiffness reduces with increasing number of cycles N.
Laboratory CSS-cvscτ0clay method

The presented derived values apply to a single type of direct simple shear test apparatus, i.e. lateral
confinement by stack of steel rings. The results thus exclude data scatter related to type of test
apparatus. Note that the background curves presented on Plates E5-37 to E5-40 may have been derived
for multiple types of direct simple shear test apparatus.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
This report provides information for the spatial setting of geotechnical parameters and includes
characteristic values for the more common geotechnical parameters such as effective angle of internal
friction, undrained shear strength and shear modulus at small strain. The characteristic values apply to
limit states and calculation models for design of monopiles and jacket piles installed by impact driving.
The database of geophysical and geotechnical information for the HKW WFZ and the scope of this
report are assessed to meet the requirements of Eurocode 7 EN 1997-1:2004 and ISO 2394:2015 for
site selection and preliminary geotechnical design considerations for monopile and jacket pile
foundations. Furthermore, the integrated spatial zonation of the HKW WFZ (soil provinces, soil units and
associated geotechnical parameter values) should facilitate sustainability considerations for design
concepts.
Supplementary data acquisition and analysis should be performed for the detailed design phase. The
scope of supplementary data acquisition and analysis for detailed design will depend on factors such as
sustainability goals, contractual obligations, regulatory requirements, schedule commitments, added
value (cost-benefit-sustainability), geotechnical calculation models, certification and insurance. The
recommended minimum scope, from a technical perspective, is one cone penetration test at each WTG
location, to a depth exceeding the as-installed penetration of the (mono)pile foundation.
Figure 5.1 provides a perspective on added value for supplementary data acquisition and analysis. The
figure suggests that roughly 80 % of the total (life-time) value could have been achieved to date.
Supplementary data acquisition and analysis for the detailed design phase may add another 15 %.
Figure 5.1: Added value of site characterisation (SC) and costs (Peuchen, 2012)

The link between (1) scope of supplementary data acquisition and analysis and (2) geotechnical
calculation models can consider the sensitivity of the input parameter values and their uncertainties to
the life-cycle economics of a WTG. Comments are as follows:
■ Advanced calculation models (e.g. Peralta et al., 2017; Whyte et al., 2017) typically show a more
complete soil-structure geometry (e.g. 3D versus 1D) and better description of general soil
behaviour. Such models typically consider multiple input parameters that can be interdependent and
for which parameter values may not be readily obtained from the available site-specific information.
Sensitivity analyses can be required to estimate sets of input parameter values that would represent
a cautious design verification;
■ Simplified calculation models can be empirical or theoretical. Such models typically consider basic
input parameters that can be readily estimated from the available site-specific information.
Geotechnical design may benefit from input of derived values from a specific type of laboratory test, e.g.
a monotonic direct simple shear test at constant volume or constant vertical stress on a specimen of
representative sand material reconstituted according to a specified method of specimen preparation and
subsequently compressed (consolidated) by application of a single step or multiple loading/unloading
steps of vertical force. For this case, added value can be achieved by performing a supplementary
laboratory test programme on sand samples acquired per soil province, per soil unit or per WTG location.
On the other hand, the added value of the supplementary laboratory test programme would be limited if
a calculation model requires characteristic values for a large volume of soil under monotonic simple
shear at constant volume conditions. Significant uncertainty would then remain for transformation of
derived values from small-element DSS tests to characteristic values.
The following sub-sections provide results of a data gap analysis for geotechnical parameters for the
detailed design phase for monopiles and jacket piles. The results are grouped per general types of
geodata that are common for design of offshore WTG structures.
5.2 Marine Geophysical Data

The acquisition of WTG-specific geophysical data can enhance the assessment of spatial representation
of geotechnical parameters at each WTG location. This can be achieved by using the seismic reflection
methods discussed in Fugro (2020a).
Consideration can be given to 3D UHR (ultra high resolution) and 3D UUHR (ultra ultra high resolution)
methods for seismic reflection (ISO, 2019b), as illustrated in Figure 5.2. The horizontal axis of Figure 5.2
is between about 100 m and 1900 m. The vertical axis is relative to sea level as zero, so that the seafloor
is at about 32 m and the base of the cross section at about 115 m below sea level. The blue trace
represents CPT cone resistance in MPa.

Figure 5.2: Comparison between 3D UHR seismic reflection data (left) and 2D UHR data (right)
for the Borssele wind farm (Minorenti et al., 2017).
Consideration can also be given to enhanced geotechnical zonation for geotechnical properties (ISO,
2018), according to Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Procedure for site characterisation
An example of enhanced geotechnical zonation is the prediction of CPT profiles (synthetic CPTs) for
the available survey lines of marine seismic reflection data. This can be expanded by (i) prediction of
additional parameters, such as shear modulus at small strain 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 and soil thermal conductivity 𝑘 and

(ii) by further development of the voxel ground model presented as part of this geotechnical parameters
report, using principles of stochastic modelling.
5.3 In Situ Testing and Processing

The recommended minimum scope of supplementary data acquisition and analysis is one CPT at each
WTG location. Consideration can be given to acquiring supplementary data by means of the SCPT
method and pore pressure dissipation testing.
Multiple CPTs at each WTG location can enhance the assessment of spatial representation of
geotechnical parameters. This approach competes with supplementary geophysical data acquisition.
Assessment of potential added value can be based on the available CPT results for the locations with
multiple CPTs (e.g. location HKW002, see Figure 5.4) and the results for the more widely spaced CPTs.
Net Cone Resistance, qn [MPa]

0 20 40 60 80
HKW002-PCPT
5 HKW002-SCPT
10
15
Depth Below Seafloor [m]
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 5.4: Multiple CPT profiles at location HKW002
For CPT profiles with significant layering, thin layer correction techniques can be employed as shown in
Section 4.3.1.5, albeit this should be done with caution. Direct use of corrected data is, to the knowledge
of the report authors, uncommon for offshore foundation design.

5.4 Laboratory Test Data

Added value by supplementary laboratory testing and analysis will probably be closely linked to specific
geotechnical parameters that can dominate the results from the selected calculation models. Parameter
uncertainty can be reduced by:
■ Expanding the existing database of derived values for a specific parameter;

■ Expanding the range of laboratory test types for derived values of interest to the calculation models
selected for geotechnical analysis.
The first approach is primarily related to reducing aleatory uncertainty. The approach to such
supplementary testing can be focused on site-wide application for the HKW WFZ, per soil province, per
soil unit or a specific WTG location.
Selected examples for the second approach are given below.
Example 1
A selected calculation model may require the following specific input: monotonic shear strength of sandy
soil for undrained triaxial extension and for drained triaxial extension. The laboratory database for the
HKW WFZ includes limited information on these types of geotechnical parameters. Added value may
be achieved by acquiring derived values by additional laboratory testing according to these types of
stress paths. This eliminates uncertainty related to, for example, correlation of laboratory triaxial
compression data to laboratory triaxial extension data.
Example 2
A selected calculation model may be sensitive to the soil stiffness in the range of medium strain to large
strain (or 𝐺/𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 between 0.5 and 0.2), as illustrated in Figure 5.5. The laboratory database for the
HKW WFZ excludes specific information for this range of strains. Added value may be achieved by
acquiring derived values by undrained and drained triaxial compression and by undrained and drained
triaxial extension tests that incorporate acquisition of derived values for local radial and axial strains of
the test specimens during shear.
Figure 5.5: Example of laboratory test types for derived values of shear modulus 𝑮, normalised
to shear modulus at small strain 𝑮𝒎𝒂𝒙 (𝑮𝟎 in figure) (after Mair, 1993)

Example 3
Advanced calculation models for sand can incorporate a state parameter approach (e.g. Dafalias and
Manzari, 2004; Taborda et al., 2014; Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas, 2002; Boulanger and Ziotopoulou,
2013). The state parameter represents the difference between the current void ratio 𝑒 and the void ratio
at large strain 𝑒𝑐𝑠 , at the same mean effective stress 𝑝′ (Been et al., 1991). Slightly different approaches
for comparing the current state relative to the critical state line 𝐶𝑆𝐿 can also be used (e.g. Whyte et al.,
2017). However, regardless of the definition adopted, the results of the calculation model will be
sensitive to the 𝐶𝑆𝐿. Figure 5.6 illustrates the sensitivity of predicted stress-strain response to
𝐶𝑆𝐿 input.
The laboratory database for the HKW WFZ includes laboratory data that can be used for derived values
for the 𝐶𝑆𝐿 (Section 4.4.5). However, the laboratory test method was selected for deriving values of
shear strength and not specifically for derived values for the 𝐶𝑆𝐿. Added value may be achieved by
acquiring derived values by laboratory testing according to the following test recommendations:
i. Run triaxial compression tests to an axial strain of 30 %;

ii. Perform tests on 100 mm diameter triaxial specimens;
iii. Use enlarged lubricated end platens in the triaxial test apparatus;
iv. Perform tests on loose to medium dense test specimens to reduce risk of shear banding.
(a) (b)
0.9
3000
CSL 1
0.85
CSL 2 2500
0.8
Deviator stress, q (Kpa)
2000
0.75
ecs
0.7 1500
0.65
1000
0.6
CSL1: CSL2: CSL 2
𝑒c,ref = 0.835 𝑒c,ref = 0.835 500
0.55
c = 0.026 c = 0.049
= 0.6 = 0.44
CSL 1
0.5 0
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 0 2 4 6 8 10
p' (kPa) Axial Strain, εa (%)
Figure 5.6: (a) Critical state lines and (b) corresponding predicted stress-strain curves for
undrained triaxial test with 𝒆𝟎 = 0.66 and 𝒑′𝟎 = 100 kPa for Manzari-Dafalias type model

6. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND REFERENCES
6.1 Project-specific Information

Refer to Section 1 and Plate A4 for project-specific information.
6.2 References in Main Text

Alm, T. and Hamre, L., 2001. Soil Model for Pile Drivability Predictions Based on CPT Interpretations.
In Proc. of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Istanbul, 27-31 August 2001, Vol. 2, Lisse: Balkema, pp. 1297-1302.
Alm, T. and Hamre, L., 1998. Soil model for driveability predictions. In Proc. of the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 4-7 May 1998, OTC 8835.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2016a. ASTM D4253-16 Standard Test Methods for Maximum
Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2016b. ASTM D4254-16 Standard Test Methods for Minimum
Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2016c. ASTM D5084-16a Standard Test Methods for
Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall
Permeameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org.
Andersen, K.H., 2015. Cyclic soil parameters for offshore foundation design. The 3rd McClelland
Lecture. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III, ISFOG'2015, Meyer (Ed). Taylor & Francis Group,
London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7. Proc., 5-82.
Andersen, K.H., 2009. Bearing capacity under cyclic loading—offshore, along the coast, and on land.
The 21st Bjerrum Lecture presented in Oslo, 23 November 2007. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(5),
pp.513-535.
Andersen, K.H., 2004. Cyclic clay data for foundation design of structures subjected to wave loading. In
Proceedings of the international conference of cyclic behaviour of soils and liquefaction phenomena.
AA Balkema Publishers, Bochum, pp. 371-387.
Andersen, K.H. and Schjetne, K., 2013. Database of friction angles of sand and consolidation
characteristics of sand, silt, and clay. In Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, July 2013, 139:1140-1155.
Andersen, K.H., Rosenbrand, W.F., Brown, S.F. and Pool, J.H., 1980. Cyclic and static laboratory tests
on Drammen clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 106(5), pp.499-529.

Arshad, M., Nazir, M.S. and O’Kelly, B.C., 2020. Evolution of hydraulic conductivity models for sandy
soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 173(2): 97–114,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.18.00062.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G. and Hachey, J., 1991. The critical state of sands. Geotechnique 41, No. 3,
pp. 365-381.
Benz, T., 2007. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Stuttgart University,
2007-Mitteilung 55, des Instituts fur Geotechnik, Harausgeber P.A. Vermeer.
Bishop, A.W., 1971. Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and remoulded soil specimens. In Proc.
Roscoe Memorial Symp., Cambridge, 3-58.
Blaker, Ø., Lunne, T., Vestgården, T., Krogh, L., Thomsen, N.V., Powell, J.J.M. and Wallace, C.F., 2015.
Method dependency for determining maximum and minimum dry unit weights of sands. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2015), Vol. 2,
pp. 1159–1166.
Boone, S.J., 2010. A critical reappraisal of “preconsolidation pressure” interpretations using the
oedometer test. Can. Geotech Journal 47(3): pp. 281-296.
Bouckovalas, G.D., Andrianopoulos, K.I. and Papadimitriou, A.G., 2003. A critical state interpretation for
the cyclic liquefaction resistance of silty sands. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 23,
Issue 2, pp. 115-125, ISSN 0267-7261.
Boulanger, R.W. and DeJong, J.T., 2018. Inverse filtering procedure to correct cone penetration data
for thin-layer and transition effects. In Hicks, M.A., Pisanò, F. and Peuchen, J. eds. Cone Penetration
Testing 2018: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT18):
Delft, The Netherlands, 21-22 June 2018. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 25-44.
Boulanger, R.W. and Ziotopoulou, K. 2013. Formulation of a sand plasticity plane-strain model for
earthquake engineering applications. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 53, pp.254-267.
Brandon, T. L., Rose, A. T., and Duncan, J. M., 2006. Drained and undrained strength interpretation for
low-plasticity silts. Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(2), pp. 250-257.
British Standards Institution, 1990. BS 1377-5:1990 British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes. Part 5: Compressibility, permeability and durability tests. London: BSI.
British Standards Institution, 2015. BS 5930:2015 Code of practice for ground investigations. London:
BSI.
Burd, H.J. Taborda, D.M.G., Zdravković, L., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K., Houlsby, G.T., Igoe, D., Jardine,
R.J., Martin, C.M. and McAdam, R.A. and Potts, D.M., 2019. PISA design model for monopiles for
offshore wind turbines: application to a dense marine sand. Géotechnique,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.P.277.

Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., Gavin, K.G., Igoe, D.J.P., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam,
R.A., Potts, D.M., Taborda, D.M.G. and Zdravković, L., 2019. PISA design model for monopiles for
offshore wind turbines: application to a stiff glacial clay till. Géotechnique,
Byrne, B.W., McAdam, R.A., Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., Martin, C.M., Beuckelaers, W.J.A.P.,
Zdravković , L., Taborda, D.M.G., Potts, D.M., Jardine, R.J., Ushev, E., Liu, T., Abadias, D., Gavin, K.,
Igoe, D., Doherty, P., Skov Gretlund, J., Pacheco Andrade, M., Muir Wood, A., Schroeder, F.C., Turner,
S. and Plummer, M.A.L., 2017. PISA: New Design Methods For Offshore Wind Turbine Monopiles. In
Proc. of the 8th International Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics (OSIG), Vol. 1,
12-14 September 2017, London, UK: Society for Underwater Technology, pp. 142-161.
Carrier, W.D., 2003. Goodbye, Hazen; Hello Kozeny-Carman. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(11), pp. 1054-1056.
Casagrande, A., 1936. The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance.
Proceedings 1st International Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Conference, 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 22–26 June 1936, pp. 60-64.
Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes, 2001. Bearing capacity of steel pipe piles., Gouda:
CUR.
Chapuis, R.P. and Aubertin, M., 2003. On the use of the Kozeny–Carman equation to predict the
hydraulic conductivity of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40(3): 616–628,
https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-013.
Dafalias, Y.F. and Manzari, M.T., 2004. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change
effects. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(6), pp.622-634.
Danish Geotechnical Institute (DGI), 1996. Minimum index void ratio, emin (Danish Method). DGI
Product Sheet #00096-07-02.
Darendeli, M.B., 2001. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material
damping curves. Austin: The University of Texas Austin.
DeJong, J.T. and Randolph, M., 2012. Influence of Partial Consolidation during Cone Penetration on
Estimated Soil Behavior Type and Pore Pressure Dissipation Measurements. In Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, July 2012, pp. 777-788.
Deltares, 2017. Geological study Hollandse Kust (noord) Wind Farm Zone. Document No.11200513-
002-BGS-0001, Issue 2, 23 March 2017, reported to RVO.
Deltares, 2016. Morphodynamics of Hollandse Kust (zuid) Wind Farm Zone. Reference No.1230851-
000-HYE-0003, Rev. 2, 22 December 2016, reported to RVO.

DNV GL AS, 2017. DNVGL-RP-C207 Statistical representation of soil data. Oslo: DNV-GL.
DNV GL AS, 2016a. DNVGL-ST-0126 Support structures for wind turbines. Oslo: DNV-GL.
DNV GL AS, 2016b. DNVGL-ST-0437 Loads and site conditions for wind turbines. Oslo: DNV-GL.
European Committee for Standardization, 2007. EN 1997-2:2007 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design –

Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendum EN 1997-2:2007/AC, June
2010).
European Committee for Standardization, 2004. EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design –

Part 1: General Rules. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendum EN 1997-1:2004/AC, February 2009 and
Amendment EN 1997-1:2004/A1:2013).
European Committee for Standardisation, 2002. EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode – Basis of Structural

Design. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendam December 2008 and April 2010).
Fear, C. and Robertson, P.K., 1995. Estimating the Undrained Shear Strength of Sand: A Theoretical
Framework. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 859-870.
Fugro, 2020a. Geological Ground Model, Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone Dutch Sector, North
Sea. Fugro Report No. P904711/06 (3), issued 12 May 2020 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro.
Fugro, 2020b. Geotechnical Report Laboratory Test Data, Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone Dutch
Sector, North Sea. Fugro Report No. P904711/04 (3), issued 14 August 2020 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro.
Fugro, 2020c. Geotechnical Report Investigation Data, Geotechnical Borehole Locations, Hollandse
Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone Dutch Sector, North Sea. Fugro Report No. P904711/03 (6), issued 20
September 2020 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro
Fugro, 2020d. Geotechnical Report Investigation Data, Seafloor In Situ Test Locations, Hollandse Kust
(west) Wind Farm Zone Dutch Sector, North Sea. Fugro Report No. P904711/01 (5), issued 10 February
2020 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro
Fugro, 2020e. Geotechnical Report Investigation Data, Seafloor Sample Locations, Hollandse Kust
(west) Wind Farm Zone Dutch Sector, North Sea. Fugro Report No. P904711/02 (5), issued 10 February
2020 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro
Fugro, 2019a. Geotechnical Parameters, Hollandse Kust (noord) Wind Farm Zone Dutch Sector, North
Sea. Fugro Report No. P903749/06 (7), issued 20 June 2019 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro,
https://offshorewind.rvo.nl/file/view/55040113/Report+-+Geotechnical+Parameters+HKN+-+Fugro.
Fugro, 2019b. Geophysical Results Report – Hollandse Kust (West) Wind Farm Zone Survey 2018,
Report No. P904162, Vol. 3, Revision 4 (Final). Issued 19 August 2019 to RVO, Nootdorp, Fugro.

Gibbs, P., Pedersen, R.B., Krogh, L., Christopher, N., Sampurno, B. and Nielsen, S.W., 2018.
Challenges in marine seismic cone penetration testing. In Hicks, Pisanò & Peuchen (Eds). Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’18), 21/22 June 2018, Delft: Delft
University of Technology, pp. 303-308.
Ghose, R., 2012. A microelectromechanical system digital 3C array seismic cone penetrometer.
Geophysics, 77(3), pp.WA99-WA107.
Han, F., Ganju, E. Salgado, R. and Prezzi, M. 2018. Effects of interface roughness, particle geometry,
and gradation on the sand-steel interface friction angle. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
engineering, 2018 144(12), pp.1215-1217.
Hoeg, K., Dyvik, R. and Sandbækken, G., 2000. Strength of undisturbed versus reconstituted silt and
silty sand specimens. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (7): 606–617.
Houlsby, G.T. and Hitchman, R., 1988. Calibration chamber tests of a cone penetrometer in sand.
Géotechnique, 38(1), pp. 39–44.
International Organization for Standardization, 2019a. ISO 17892-11:2019 Geotechnical investigation

and testing — Laboratory testing of soil — Part 11: Permeability tests. Geneva: ISO.
International Organisation for Standardisation, 2019b. ISO 19900:2019 Petroleum and natural gas
industries – General requirements for offshore structures. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2018. ISO 19901- 10:2018 Petroleum and Natural gas
industries - specific requirements for offshore structures – Part 10: marine geophysical investigations.
https://www.iso.org/standard/77017.html.
International Organization for Standardization, 2017. ISO 14688-2:2017 Geotechnical investigation and
testing – Identification and classification of soil – Part 2: Principles for a classification. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2016. ISO 19901-4:2016 Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries – Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures – Part 4: Geotechnical and Foundation
Design Considerations. Geneva: ISO.
International Organisation for Standardisation, 2015. ISO 2394:2015 General principles on reliability for
structures. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2014. ISO 19901-8:2014 Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries – Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures – Part 8: Marine soil investigations. Geneva:
ISO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2012. ISO 8503-1:2012 Preparation of steel substrates
before application of paints and related products -- Surface roughness characteristics of blast-cleaned

steel substrates -- Part 1: Specifications and definitions for ISO surface profile comparators for the
assessment of abrasive blast-cleaned surfaces. Geneva: ISO.
Jardine, R., 2005. ICP design methods for driven piles in sands and clays. 2nd edition London: Thomas
Telford.
Jardine, R.J., Lehane B.M., Everton S.J., 1993. Friction coefficients for piles in sands and silts. In Ardus
D.A., Clare D., Hill A., Hobbs R., Jardine R.J., Squire J.M. (eds) Offshore Site Investigation and
Foundation Behaviour. Advances in Underwater Technology, Ocean Science and Offshore Engineering,
Vol. 28. Springer, Dordrecht.
Jefferies, M. and Been, K., 2016. Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach. 2nd edition. CRC press,
New York.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D.C.F. and Manassero, M., 2003. Evaluation of relative density and shear
strength of sands from CPT and DMT. Germaine, J.T., Sheahan, T.C. and Whitman, R.V. (Eds.), Soil
behavior and soft ground construction: proceedings of the symposium, October 5-6, 2001, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 119, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, pp. 201-238.
Kallehave, D., LeBlanc Thilsted, C., Liingaard, M.A. 2012. Modification of the API p-y formulation of
initial stiffness of sand. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation
and Geotechnics: Integrated Technologies – Present and Future, September 12-14, London, UK,
pp. 465–472.
Kay, S., Goedemoed, S.S. and Vermeijden, C.A., 2005. Influence of salinity on soil properties. In
Gourvenec, S. and Cassidy, M. Eds., Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics ISFOG 2005: Proceedings of
the First International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, University of Western Australia,
Perth, 19-21 September 2005, London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 1087-1093.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California, 1 vol. (EPRI Report; EL-6800).
Ladd, R.S., 1978. Preparing test specimen using undercompaction. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Lengkeek, A., de Greef, J., and Joosten, S., 2018. CPT based unit weight estimation extended to soft
organic soils and peat. In M. A. Hicks, F. Pisano, & J. Peuchen (Eds.), Cone Penetration Testing 2018:
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’18), 21-22 June,
2018, Delft, The Netherlands (pp. 389-394). London: CRC Press.
Li, X.S. and Wang, Y., 1998. Linear representation of steady-state line for sand. Journal of geotechnical
and geoenvironmental engineering, 124(12), pp.1215-1217.
Lunne, T., Knudsen, S., Blaker, Ø., Vestgården, T., Powell, J.J.M., Wallace, C.F., Krogh, L., Thomsen,
N.V., Yetginer, A.G. and Ghanekar, R.K., 2019. Methods used to determine maximum and minimum dry

unit weights of sand: Is there a need for a new standard?. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 56,
No. 4, pp. 536-553.
Mair, R.J., 1993. Developments in geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep
excavations. Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. ICE,
London, Vol 97 No.1, 27-41.
Matlock, H., 1970. Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. In Second
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970, Houston, Texas, Vol. I, OTC Paper 1204,
pp. 577-594.
Maynard, A.W., Hamre, L., Butterworth, D. and Davison, F., 2018. Improved Pile Installation Predictions
for Monopiles. In 10th International Conference on Stress Wave Theory and Testing methods for Deep
Foundations, June 27-29 2018, San Diego, California.
Mayne, P.W., 2020. The 26th Széchy lecture: use of in-situ geotechnical tests for foundation systems.
In Proc. of Széchy Károly Emlékkonferencia, pp. 12-73, Hungarian Geotechnical Society, Budapest.
Mayne, P.W., 2017. Stress history of soils from cone penetration tests. In Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo,
40(3): 203-216, September-December 2017.
Mayne, P.W., 2007. In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. In Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils – Tan, Phoon, Hight & Leroueil (eds), 2007 Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp. 1601-1652.
Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J., 2018. Evaluation of CPTU Nkt cone factor for undrained strength of clays.
In Hicks, M.A., Pisanò, F. and Peuchen, J. eds. Cone Penetration Testing 2018: Proceedings of the 4 th
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT18) : Delft, The Netherlands, 21-22 June
2018. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 423-429.
Mayne, P.W. and Rix, G.J., 1993. Gmax-qc relationships for clays. Geotechnical Testing Journal. Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp. 54-60.
Minorenti, V., Brouwer, D.R.H. and Van Kesteren, W., 2017. 3D ground model using geophysical and
geotechnical data – a case study from the Netherlands. In Near Surface Geoscience, 3-7 September,
Malmo, Sweden, We 23 A08.
Nguyen, T.-K., Benahmed N., Hicher P.-Y. and Nicolas M., 2015. The Influence of Fines Content on the
Onset of Instability and Critical State Line of Silty Sand. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop
on Bifurcation and Degradation in Geomaterials, Hong Kong, China, 28-30 May 2014. pp.113-120.
Osman, A. and Randolph, M., 2012. Analytical Solution for the Consolidation around a Laterally-
Loaded Pile. International Journal of Geomechanics, American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE),
pp. 199- 208.

Oztoprak, S. and Bolton,, M.D., 2013. Stiffness of sands through a laboratory test database. In
Geotechnique 63, No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Papadimitriou, A.G. and Bouckovalas, G.D., 2002. Plasticity model for sand under small and large cyclic
strains: a multiaxial formulation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(3), pp.191-204.
Peralta, P., Ballard, J.C., Rattley, M. and Erbrich, C.E., 2017. Dynamic and cyclic pile-soil response
curves for monopile design. In 8th International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and
Geotechnics, London, UK, pp. 1054-1061.
Peuchen, J., 2012. Site characterization in nearshore and offshore geotechnical projects. Keynote in
Coutinho, R.Q. and Mayne, P.W. Eds., Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Site Characterization ISC-4, Porto de Galinhas-
Pernambuco, Brazil, 17-21 September 2012, Vol. I, Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 83-111.
Peuchen, J., Kaltekis, K., Klein, M., Murali, M., Van Erp, F.C.W. and Hicks, M.A., 2020. Characteristic
values for geotechnical design of offshore monopiles in sandy soils – case study. Accepted for
publication in the 4th International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2020) to
be held in Austin, Texas.
Peuchen, J. and Terwindt, J., 2015. Measurement uncertainty of offshore cone penetration tests. In
Proc. of Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.), pp. 1209-1214, 2015 Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
Peuchen, J., De Ruijter, M.R., Hospers, B. and Assen, R.L., 2002. Shear wave velocity integrated in
offshore geotechnical practice. In Cook, M. et al. Eds., Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics:
‘Diversity and Sustainability’: Proceedings of an International Conference Held in London, UK, 26-28
November 2002, London: Society for Underwater Technology, pp. 379-388.
Rix, G.J. and Stokoe, K.H., 1991. Correlation of initial tangent modulus and cone penetration resistance.
In Huang, A.B. Ed. Calibration Chamber Testing: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Calibration Chamber Testing ISOCCTI, Potsdam, New York, 28-29 June 1991, New York: Elsevier
Science, pp. 351-362.
Robertson, P.K., 2016. Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification
system – an update. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53: pp. 1910-1927 (2016), Published at
www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 14 July 2016.
Robertson, P.K., 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach. Can. Geotech.
Journal 46: 1337-1355 (2009), Published by NRC Research Press.
Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2015. Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering.
6th ed., Signal Hill: Gregg Drilling & Testing.

Sadrekarimi, A., 2013. Influence of fines content on liquefied strength of silty sands. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering. Volume 55, pp. 108-119, ISSN 0267-7261.
Smirnov N.V. and Dunin-Barkovskii I.V., 1969. Mathematische Statistik in der Technik. Deutsch. Verlag
Wissenschaft (Translated from Russian).
Taborda, D.M.G., Zdravković, L., Kontoe, S. and Potts, D.M., 2014. Computational study on
the modification of a bounding surface plasticity model for sands. Computers and Geotechnics, 59,
pp.145-160.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G., 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Third edition, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Thomas, S., 2017. A phased and integrated data interpretation approach to site characterization.
Keynote in Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics,
London, UK, 12-14 September 2017, London: Society for Underwater Technology, pp. 71-87.
Vaid, Y.P. and Sivathayalan, S., 2000. Fundamental factors affecting liquefaction susceptibility of sands.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37 (3): 592–606.
Van den Eijnden A.P. and Hicks M.A., 2019. On the importance of a complete characterization of site
investigation data uncertainty: a computational example. In Proc. of the 7th International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk (ISGSR 2019) – to be published, Taipei, Taiwan, 11-13 December 2019.
Van Dijk, B., 2018. Design of suction foundations. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A, 19(8),
pp. 579-599.
Vardanega, P.J. and Bolton M.D., 2013. Stiffness of Clays and Silts: Normalizing Shear Modulus and
Shear Strain. In J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1575-1589.
White, D.J. and Bolton, M.D., 2002. Observing friction fatigue on a jacked pile. Centrifuge and
constitutive modelling: Two extremes, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp 347-354.
Whyte, S., Rattley, M., Erbrich, C.E., Burd, H.J. and Martin, C.M. 2017. A practical constitutive model
for offshore foundation problems involving dense sands in partially drained to undrained conditions. In
8th International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, London, UK, pp. 400-407.
Yu, F. and Yang, J., 2012. Improved evaluation of interface friction on steel pipe pile in sand. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 26(2), pp. 170-179.

APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX A: Plate
Vicinity Map A1
Plan Overview and Bathymetry A2 to A3
List of Project Reports A4
Location Overview A5 to A10
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Table of Contents – Appendix A Page 1 of 1

±
53°0'
Latitude [°]
52°0'
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ©

OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
0 25 50 km Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
3°0' 4°0' 5°0'
Longitude [°]
Hollandse Kust (west) - Geotechnical Investigation Area Datum : ETRS89

Hollandse Kust (west) - Designated Wind Farm Zone Spheroid : GRS80
Maritime boundary Projection : UTM Zone 31N
12 nautical mile zone Central Meridian : 3° East
i
Pr ed:17/
nt 201912:
09/ 19
30:
VI
CINI
TY MAP
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Plate A1

3°37'30"E
3°40'0"E
3°42'30"E
3°45'0"E
3°47'30"E
3°50'0"E
3°52'30"E
LEGEND
¹
GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS

( Geotechnical location cluster
% % %6 6 6
Array of vibrocore locations
5852000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

Ó
( Cluster location - TennetT HKW Alpha Platform

Ó
( Cluster location - TennetT HKW Beta Pla tform
GENERAL
Ho llandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (HKW WFZ)
HKW - Designated Wind Farm Zone
Structure
Ó
*
*
HKW001 K Buoyant waterway marking

( Structure 500 m exclusion zone
Chart extent indicato r
52°48'0"N UTM grid

Ð Ð
Ð Ò
HKW002
Ð
Geog ra phical grid
Ð

Ð Ð
Ð
(
5850000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò BATHYMETRY
Water depth
HKW003

[m below LAT]
5
%4
%
6
6
3%
( 20
6
HKW004

2 % 6
(
1 % 6 23
Vibrocore Array 10
26

29
(
HKW005
32
35
HKW006
5848000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò 
( Ò Ò Ò
HKW007

(
Ð 52°46'0"N
Ð Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
HKW008

( HKW009
HKW012 
( HKW010
 
5846000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
(

(
(
HKW011
P6-A
Ó*
HKW013
*

(
NOTES
1) Data aquired by multibeam echosounder (Fugro, 2019b).
2) Resolution of bathymetry grid cells 0.5 m x 0.5 m.

HKW014

3) Areas around platforms P6-B and P6-D are not part of HKW WFZ.
HKW017
( HKW015

( 
(
5
%4
%
6
6
HKW016
% 6

2
5844000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò %
Ò Ò
6
1
%
(
Vibrocore Array 09
6
HKW018
P6-B

(

(
HKW019
Ó
*
*
GEODETIC PARAMETERS
GEODETIC DATUM European Terrestrial Reference System 1989
HKW021 52°44'0"N

ELLIPSOID GRS 1980
HKW020
Ð Ð

Semi-Major Axis 6,378,137.000 m
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð ( Inverse Flattening 298.257222101
Ð
5
(
%4
%
6
PROJECTION ETRS 1989 / UTM Zone 31N (EPSG 25831)

3%
6
Central Meridian (CM)

6
03°00'00'' E
2 % 6 Latitude of Origin 00°00'00'' N
False Easting 500,000 mE
HKW024 HKW022 K

False Northing 0 mN

1 % 6
Scale Factor at CM 0.9996

Vibrocore Array 08 ( (
DATUM TRANSFORMATION ITRF2014 to ETRS89

Source dX=+0.0556 m dY=+0.0531 m dZ=-0.0922 m
5842000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò rX=-0.00247 '' rY=-0.0149 '' rZ=+0.02418 '' Scale=+0.00316 ppm
(
HKW025 VERTICAL DATUM Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
HKW023

(
HKW029

(

(
HKW027 HKW026

( ¹ The red border below indicates the extent
of the presented chart ¹
6000000
5850000
HKW028

(
Ó
*
*
Adjacent keyplan NORTH Ó

*
*
j
5850000
Ó
*
*
5835000
U.K.
The Netherlands
SOUTH
5840000
Ó
*
*
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
5700000
Ó
*
*
HKW030

Ó
*
*
HKW033
5820000

(
HKW031

5
( %4 6
3% Belgium
6
% 6
France
%2 (
P6-D HKW034
6

1% 450000 600000 750000 540000 555000 570000
52°42'0"N
Vibrocore Array 06
6
Ð
Ó* ( Ð
*
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð 5
%4
RVO
6
3 %
6

6
%2 HKW032

6
( Prinses Beatrixlaan 2, 2595 A L Den Haag, Th e Neth erlan ds
HKW035 1 % ( www.rvo.n l
Vibrocore Array 07
6
Fugro
Prismast raat 4, 263 1 RT Noot dorp, The Ne therlan ds
www.fu gro. com
5838000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò PLAN OVERVIEW AND BATHYMETRY

PL AN OVERVIEW AND BATHYMETRY - SOUTH NORTH
Chart No: 2 of 2
HKW040 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
 HKW038 DUTCH SECTOR - NORTH SEA

(
HKW041 HKW036 HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WIND FARM ZONE
 
(
( (
HKW044 Scale 1 : 20,000 at original A0 page size

( TenneT HKWA 0 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 metres
HKW042

Ó
(
HKW039 HKW037

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 nautical mile
(

( 
( Fugro Document No. Chart No. Plate No.
542000
544000
546000
548000
550000
552000
554000
556000
558000
560000

P904711/07 (4) 1 of 2 A2
(
3°35'0"E
3°37'30"E
3°40'0"E
3°42'30"E
3°45'0"E
3°47'30"E
3°50'0"E
HKW040 LEGEND
 HKW038
¹

( GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS
HKW041

HKW036
 
( (
(
HKW044 Array of vibrocore locations

% % %6 6 6
( TenneT HKWA  Cluster location - TennetT HKW Alpha Platform

 Ó
(
HKW042 Ó
(
HKW037 
HKW039

Cluster location - TennetT HKW Beta Pla tform

Ó
(
(

( (
PL AN OVERVIEW AND BATHYMETRY - NORTH GENERAL

Chart No: 2 of 2
( Ho llandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (HKW WFZ)
5 HKW043
%4 HKW - Designated Wind Farm Zone
6
3
%
6
%
6
Structure
Ó
*
*
%2 6
5836000 Ò Ò Ò Ò
HKW050
Ò 1
Vibrocore Array 05
%
6
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò K Buoyant waterway marking
 HKW045 Structure 500 m exclusion zone
 
(
( HKW046 Chart extent indicato r

(
HKW048 ( 52°40'0"N
UTM grid
HKW047
Ð
Ò
HKW054
Ð
 
Ð Ð
Ð
Geog ra phical grid
Ð
Ð
( ( Ð
BATHYMETRY
HKW049

( Water depth
[m below LAT]
HKW055
HKW053

20
(

(
HKW058 HKW051 23

( 
(
HKW056 HKW052 26
5834000 Ò Ò Ò HKW063 Ò Ò 
( Ò Ò Ò Ò 
( Ò

( 29
HKW061 HKW057 32

( 
(
35
HKW059
HKW062 

(
(
HKW060

(
HKW071 HKW065

HKW067

( 5
 (
HKW064

%4
(
6
3 %
%
6
HKW068
6

2
% 6
(
(
HKW072
1%
5832000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

Vibrocore Array 04
6

( Ð 52°38'0"N
( Ð
HKW077 HKW066
Ð Ð

Ð Ð
Ð
HKW080 HKW070 HKW069

(

( HKW081 
( 
(
 HKW073

( HKW082

(
HKW083 HKW078

(

( HKW084
(
HKW074

( HKW085  HKW075

(
HKW092

 HKW076
( (
HKW097 
(

(
(
HKW093  HKW087 NOTES

(
HKW086
5830000
(
HKW094

( HKW088

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò HKW079
Ò Ò Ò 1) Data aquired by multibeam echosounder (Fugro, 2019b).
 ( 5


( %4 ( 2) Resolution of bathymetry grid cells 0.5 m x 0.5 m.
6
%
% 3
6
HKW098 HKW090
6
TenneT HKWB
( 2%
 
3) Areas around platforms P6-B and P6-D are not part of HKW WFZ.
HKW089
PL AN OVERVIEW AND BATHYMETRY - SOUTH
6
HKW104 ( 
Ó
( (
 HKW095 1 P9-A

( % 1-A
Vibrocore Array 03
66
* Ó
*
(
HKW099
 HKW096 HKW091

HKW100

(
HKW107  ( (

(
(
HKW101
HKW108 
Chart No: 2 of 2
 4
5 % 6
(
( 3
% 6
GEODETIC PARAMETERS
%6
HKW102

2 %
6
( GEODETIC DATUM European Terrestrial Reference System 1989
HKW105 HKW103 52°36'0"N
 
ELLIPSOID GRS 1980
Ð
1
Ð
5828000
% Ð
Vibrocore Array 01
6
Ò Ò Ò Ð Ò Ò
Ð
( Ò ( Ò Ò Ò Ò
HKW109
Ð
Ð Inverse Flattening 298.257222101

5
%
%4
6
3
PROJECTION ETRS 1989 / UTM Zone 31N (EPSG 25831)
6
( % 6

2
% 6
03°00'00'' E
Latitude of Origin 00°00'00'' N
HKW110

1
HKW106
6
% False Easting 500,000 mE
Vibrocore Array 02

( False Northing 0 mN
( Scale Factor at CM 0.9996
DATUM TRANSFORMATION ITRF2014 to ETRS89

HKW111 rX=-0.00247 '' rY=-0.0149 '' rZ=+0.02418 '' Scale=+0.00316 ppm

( VERTICAL DATUM Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
HKW112

¹ ¹
(
The red border below indicates the extent
HKW114

of the presented chart
6000000
( HKW115

5850000
HKW113

5826000
(
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ( Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
Ó
*
*

*
*
j
5850000
Ó
*
*
P9-B
5835000
U.K.
Ó*
*
The Netherlands
SOUTH Ó
*
*
HKW118

5700000
Ó
*
*
(
Ó
*
*
HKW116
5820000
HKW117 

( Belgium
France
( 450000 600000 750000 540000 555000 570000
Ð 52°34'0"N
Ð Ð
Ð
Ð Ð
Ð
5824000
RVO
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Prinses Beatrixlaan 2, 2595 A L Den Haag, Th e Neth erlan ds
www.rvo.n l
K
Fugro
Prismast raat 4, 263 1 RT Noot dorp, The Ne therlan ds
www.fu gro. com
PLAN OVERVIEW AND BATHYMETRY

SOUTH
P9-HORIZON
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Ó
*
*
DUTCH SECTOR - NORTH SEA
HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WIND FARM ZONE
Scale 1 : 20,000 at original A0 page size
0 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 metres
5822000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 nautical mile
Fugro Document No. Chart No. Plate No.

540000
542000
544000
546000
548000
550000
552000
554000
556000
558000
P904711/07 (4) 2 of 2 A3
Report Title Contents

Number
P904711/01 Geotechnical Report - Investigation Data – Seafloor In Situ Geotechnical data including geotechnical logs, results
Test Locations from seafloor cone penetration tests, seafloor seismic
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, cone penetration tests (including seismic velocity tests),
North Sea seafloor temperature cone penetration tests (including
temperature equilibrium tests) and pore pressure
dissipation tests.
P904711/02 Geotechnical Report - Investigation Data – Seafloor Sample Geotechnical data including geotechnical logs for
Locations Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch vibrocore locations and results from geotechnical
Sector, North Sea laboratory tests.
P904711/03 Geotechnical Report - Investigation Data – Geotechnical Geotechnical data including geotechnical logs, results
Borehole Locations from downhole sampling and cone penetration tests,
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, borehole geophysical logging, and results from
North Sea geotechnical and biogeochemical laboratory tests.
P904711/04 Geotechnical Report - Laboratory Test Data Results of static, cyclic and dynamic laboratory tests,
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, results from particle size distribution analyses and
North Sea sample microscopic photographs.
P904711/05 Geotechnical Report - Investigation Data – TenneT Beta Geotechnical data including geotechnical logs, results
Platform from downhole sampling and cone penetration tests and
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, results from geotechnical laboratory tests.
North Sea
P904711/06 Geological Ground Model Geological ground model including stratigraphy,

Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, geological analyses, lateral soil variability, geohazards,
North Sea assessment of geotechnical suitability of selected types
of structures, biostratigraphic analyses.
P904711/07 Geotechnical Report – Geotechnical Parameters Geotechnical parameters, including (1) geotechnical
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone – Dutch Sector, ground model focusing on monopile and jacket pile
North Sea foundations, (2) selection of characteristic values of
geotechnical parameters for use in selected calculation
models and limit states, (3) derived values of
geotechnical parameters, (4) data gap analysis, (5)
seismic hazard assessment and (6) microbiologically
influenced corrosion (MIC) mass loss rate assessment.
LIST OF PROJECT REPORTS

Location Cluster* Borehole/ Test Point/ Sample Point
HKW001 HKW001-PCPT
HKW002-BH
HKW002-PCPT
HKW002
HKW002-SCPT
HKW002-TCPT
HKW003 HKW003-PCPT
HKW004-PCPT
HKW004
HKW004-TCPT
HKW005 HKW005-PCPT
HKW006-BH
HKW006-PCPT
HKW006
HKW006-SCPT
HKW006-TCPT
HKW007 HKW007-PCPT
HKW008 HKW008-PCPT
HKW009-BH
HKW009 HKW009-BH-A
HKW009-PCPT
HKW010 HKW010-PCPT
HKW011 HKW011-PCPT
HKW012 HKW012-PCPT
HKW013 HKW013-PCPT
HKW014-BH
HKW014-PCPT
HKW014
HKW014-SCPT-A
HKW014-TCPT
HKW015 HKW015-PCPT
HKW016-BH
HKW016-PCPT
HKW016 HKW016-PCPT-A
HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT
HKW017 HKW017-PCPT
HKW018 HKW018-PCPT
HKW019-BH
HKW019-PCPT-B
HKW020-PCPT
HKW020
HKW020-PCPT-A
HKW021 HKW021-PCPT
HKW022-PCPT-A
HKW022 HKW022-SCPT
HKW022-TCPT
HKW023-BH
HKW023 HKW023-BH-A
HKW023-PCPT
HKW024 HKW024-PCPT
HKW025 HKW025-BH
HKW025-BH-A
HKW025-BH-B†
HKW025-PCPT
HKW025-SCPT
HKW025-TCPT
LOCATION OVERVIEW

HKW026-BH
HKW026
HKW026-PCPT-A
HKW027 HKW027-PCPT
HKW028 HKW028-PCPT
HKW029 HKW029-PCPT
HKW030 HKW030-PCPT
HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031
HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT
HKW032 HKW032-PCPT
HKW033-BH
HKW033-PCPT
HKW033
HKW033-SCPT
HKW033-TCPT
HKW034 HKW034-PCPT
HKW035-BH
HKW035-PCPT
HKW035
HKW035-SCPT
HKW035-TCPT
HKW036-BH
HKW036-BH-A
HKW036
HKW036-PCPT
HKW036-SCPT
HKW037 HKW037-PCPT
HKW038-BH
HKW038-PCPT
HKW038
HKW038-SCPT
HKW038-TCPT
HKW039-PCPT
HKW039 HKW039-SCPT
HKW039-TCPT
HKW040-BH
HKW040 HKW040-PCPT
HKW040-TCPT
HKW041 HKW041-PCPT
HKW042-BH
HKW042 HKW042-BH-A
HKW042-PCPT
HKW043 HKW043-PCPT
HKW044 HKW044-PCPT
HKW045-BH
HKW045
HKW045-PCPT
HKW046-PCPT
HKW046
HKW046-TCPT
HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047
HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT
HKW048 HKW048-PCPT
HKW049-PCPT
HKW049
HKW049-SCPT
LOCATION OVERVIEW


HKW050-BH
HKW050-PCPT
HKW050
HKW050-SCPT
HKW050-TCPT
HKW051-PCPT
HKW051
HKW051-TCPT
HKW052 HKW052-PCPT
HKW053-BH
HKW053 HKW053-BH-A
HKW053-PCPT
HKW054-BH
HKW054-BH-A
HKW054 HKW054-PCPT
HKW054-SCPT
HKW054-TCPT
HKW055-BH
HKW055-BH-A
HKW055-BH-B
HKW055
HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT
HKW056-BH
HKW056-PCPT
HKW056
HKW056-SCPT-A
HKW056-TCPT
HKW057 HKW057-PCPT
HKW058 HKW058-PCPT
HKW060-BH
HKW060-PCPT
HKW060 HKW060-SCPT
HKW060-TCPT
HKW061-PCPT-A
HKW062-BH
HKW062-PCPT
HKW062
HKW062-SCPT
HKW062-TCPT
HKW063-BH
HKW063
HKW063-PCPT
HKW064 HKW064-PCPT
HKW065-BH
HKW065
HKW065-PCPT
HKW066 HKW066-PCPT
HKW067-PCPT
HKW067 HKW067-SCPT
HKW067-TCPT
HKW068 HKW068-PCPT
HKW069 HKW069-PCPT
HKW070 HKW070-PCPT
HKW071 HKW071-PCPT
HKW072-BH
HKW072 HKW072-PCPT
HKW072-PCPT-B
LOCATION OVERVIEW

HKW073-BH
HKW073-PCPT
HKW073
HKW073-SCPT
HKW073-TCPT
HKW074-PCPT
HKW074
HKW074-TCPT
HKW075 HKW075-PCPT
HKW076 HKW076-PCPT
HKW077-BH
HKW077-BH-A†
HKW077 HKW077-PCPT
HKW077-SCPT
HKW077-TCPT
HKW078-BH
HKW078
HKW078-PCPT
HKW079 HKW079-PCPT
HKW080 HKW080-PCPT
HKW081 HKW081-PCPT
HKW082-BH
HKW082 HKW082-PCPT
HKW082-TCPT
HKW083 HKW083-PCPT
HKW084-PCPT
HKW084
HKW084-SCPT-A
HKW085 HKW085-PCPT
HKW086 HKW086-PCPT
HKW087 HKW087-PCPT
HKW088 HKW088-PCPT
HKW089 HKW089-PCPT
HKW090 HKW090-PCPT
HKW091-BH
HKW091
HKW091-PCPT
HKW092 HKW092-PCPT
HKW093 HKW093-PCPT
HKW094-BH
HKW094 HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT
HKW095 HKW095-PCPT
HKW096-BH
HKW096 HKW096-PCPT
HKW096-SCPT
HKW097-BH
HKW097
HKW097-PCPT
HKW098-BH
HKW098
HKW098-PCPT
HKW099 HKW099-PCPT
HKW100 HKW100-PCPT
HKW101-BH
HKW101-PCPT
HKW101 HKW101-SCPT
HKW101-TCPT
HKW101-TCPT-A
HKW102 HKW102-PCPT
LOCATION OVERVIEW

HKW103-PCPT
HKW103
HKW103-TCPT
HKW104-BH
HKW104-PCPT
HKW104
HKW104-SCPT
HKW104-TCPT
HKW105 HKW105-PCPT
HKW106-BH
HKW106
HKW106-PCPT
HKW107-BH
HKW107
HKW107-PCPT
HKW108 HKW108-PCPT
HKW109 HKW109-PCPT
HKW110-BH
HKW110-PCPT
HKW110
HKW110-SCPT
HKW110-TCPT
HKW111-PCPT
HKW111
HKW111-TCPT
HKW112-BH
HKW112-PCPT
HKW112
HKW112-SCPT
HKW112-TCPT
HKW113-BH
HKW113
HKW113-PCPT
HKW114-BH
HKW114
HKW114-PCPT
HKW115 HKW115-PCPT
HKW116 HKW116-PCPT
HKW117 HKW117-PCPT
HKW118-BH
HKW118-PCPT
HKW118
HKW118-SCPT
HKW118-TCPT
HKWA-CB-SAM
HKWA-CB-SAMA
HKWA-CB-SAMB
HKWA HKWA-NE-CPT
HKWA-NW-CPT
HKWA-SE-CPT
HKWA-SW-CPT
HKWB-CB-SAM
HKWB-NE-CPT
HKWB-NW-CPT
HKWB
HKWB-NW-CPT-A
HKWB-SE-CPT
HKWB-SW-CPT
HKW01-1-VC
HKW01-2-VC
HKW01 HKW01-3-VC
HKW01-4-VC
HKW01-5-VC
LOCATION OVERVIEW


HKW02-1-VC
HKW02-2-VC
HKW02 HKW02-3-VC
HKW02-4-VC
HKW02-5-VC
HKW03-1-VC
HKW03-1-VC-A
HKW03-2-VC
HKW03
HKW03-3-VC
HKW03-4-VC
HKW03-5-VC
HKW04-1-VC
HKW04-2-VC
HKW04 HKW04-3-VC
HKW04-4-VC
HKW04-5-VC
HKW05-1-VC
HKW05-2-VC
HKW05 HKW05-3-VC
HKW05-4-VC
HKW05-5-VC
HKW06-1-VC
HKW06-2-VC
HKW06 HKW06-3-VC
HKW06-4-VC
HKW06-5-VC
HKW07-1-VC
HKW07-2-VC
HKW07 HKW07-3-VC
HKW07-4-VC
HKW07-5-VC
HKW08-1-VC
HKW08-2-VC
HKW08 HKW08-3-VC
HKW08-4-VC
HKW08-5-VC
HKW09-1-VC
HKW09-2-VC
HKW09 HKW09-3-VC
HKW09-4-VC
HKW09-5-VC
HKW10-1-VC
HKW10-2-VC
HKW10 HKW10-3-VC
HKW10-4-VC
HKW10-5-VC
Notes:
Geotechnical logs and cone penetration test results for these locations are presented in Fugro (2020c, 2020d and 2020e).
* : location clusters including test points and boreholes are named ‘HKWxxx’; location clusters including sample points are named
‘HKWxx’; location clusters for TenneT platform locations are named ‘HKWA’ and ‘HKWB’
† : two boreholes (HKW077-BH-A and HKW025-BH-B) were drilled specifically for borehole geophysical logging. These boreholes
excluded geotechnical and geological data.
LOCATION OVERVIEW

APPENDIX B: STUDY APPROACH
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX B: Plate
Study Approach B1 to B2
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Table of Contents - Appendix B Page 1 of 1

GENERAL
Procedure: − Refer to documents titled "Site Characterisation" and “Geotechnical
Analysis” presented in Appendix 2
− Generally according to Eurocode 7 1997-1:2004 (CEN, 2004), ISO
19900 (2019) and ISO 2394 (2015)
− Characteristic values valid for conceptual design use according to
Eurocode 7 1997-1:2004
Premise(s): − Scope of presented geodata, analysis and/or advice according to a
project specification determined and monitored by the client
− Purpose of presented geodata, analysis and/or advice according to
description(s) given in Main Text
− Project phase is "conceptual design" of structure(s)
− Presented information is project-specific and depends on project phase,
structure type(s) and purpose
− Verification of the presented information is recommended for FEED (front
end engineering design) and/or later project phases
Type of Structure(s) and Purpose: Monopiles and jacket piles for support of wind turbine generators
Location: Refer to Main Text for definition of site location and site area
Integration Level for Site Level 4 Geotechnical Zonation and Analysis; refer to document titled “Site
Characterisation: Characterisation” in Appendix 2
Site Use: − Refer to Main Text, section titled “Geotechnical Ground Model”
− Refer to companion report on geological ground model
Seafloor Conditions and Hazards: − Refer to Main Text, section titled “Geotechnical Ground Model”
Stratigraphy and Ground
Parameters: Refer to Main Text
Geotechnical Calculation(s): Not within report scope
DATA COVERAGE
Status of Site-specific Data − Considered final for project phase given under Premise(s) above
Acquisition: − This report includes suggestions and recommendations for data
acquisition for later project phase(s), i.e. after conceptual design of
ISSUE 08
structures
Information on Historic and Current
Site Use: Refer to companion report on geological ground model
Information on Planned Site Use: − Refer to Main Text
Met-ocean Data: Not considered: outside scope of this report
FNLM/GEO/SPE/102
Environmental Baseline: Not considered: outside scope of this report

UXO Information: Refer to companion report on geological ground model
Archaeological Information: Refer to companion report on geological ground model
Seismic (Earthquake) Data: Refer to Appendix G
Geological Data: − Refer to Main Text
© Fugro 2012-2020

Geothermal Data: Not available to report authors
Geophysical Survey Data: − Refer to Main Text
Geotechnical Data: Refer to Main Text and plate(s) titled "Plan Overview and Bathymetry"
Groundwater Data: Salinity data available for groundwater, refer to companion factual data
report(s)
STUDY APPROACH
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Plate B1

Structure/Soil Monitoring Data: None available to the authors of this report

Physical Modelling Data: None available to the authors of this report
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Data Processing: – GeODin® software for geotechnical data processing, management and
presentation
– UNIPLOT software for in situ test data
– General purpose software, including MATLAB and ArcGIS®
– SubsurfaceViewer for 3D visualisation of geotechnical ground model
and presentation of geotechnical data
Data Format(s) for Results: – PDF for viewing and printing
– 3D voxel model for viewing (separate deliverable, secondary to the final
issue of this PDF document)
REFERENCES
– Computer Program ESRI ArcGIS®, Analysis and Presentation of Geo-data, Version 10.3
– Computer Program GeODin®, Recording, Presentation and Analysis of Geo-data
– Computer Program MATLAB, Data Processing and Analysis, Version 2019a
– Computer Program SubsurfaceViewer, Visualisation and Analysis of Geo-data. Version 6
– Computer Program UNIPLOT, Processing, Presentation and Analysis of In Situ Test Data
– European Committee for Standardisation, 2004. EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1:
General Rules. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendum EN 1997-1:2004/AC, February 2009 and Amendment EN
1997-1:2004/A1:2013)
– International Organization for Standardization, 2019. ISO 19900:2019 Petroleum and natural gas industries -
General requirements for offshore structures. Geneva: ISO
– International Organization for Standardization, 2015. ISO 2394:2015 General Principles on Reliability for
Structures. Geneva: ISO
ISSUE 08
FNLM/GEO/SPE/102
© Fugro 2012-2020
STUDY APPROACH
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Plate B2

APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL GROUND MODEL
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX C: Plate
OVERVIEW
Plan Overview of Soil Provinces C1-1 to C1-2
Geotechnical Locations per Soil Province C1-3
Depth to Base of Soil Unit per Soil Province C1-4 to C1-5
Soil Unit Depths and Thicknesses at Geotechnical Location C1-6 to C1-17
SOIL UNIT CLASSIFICATION

SOIL UNIT A
Pairing Graphs C2-1
Soil Behaviour Type Index C2-2
Percentage Fines C2-3
SBT Charts C2-4
SOIL UNIT B1
Pairing Graphs C3-1
Plasticity Chart C3-4
SBT Charts C3-5
SOIL UNIT B2
Pairing Graphs C4-1
SBT Charts C4-4
SOIL UNIT C1
Pairing Graphs C5-1
SBT Charts C5-5
SOIL UNIT C2
Pairing Graphs C6-1
SBT Charts C6-4
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Table of Contents - Appendix C Page 1 of 2

SOIL UNIT D
Pairing Graphs C7-1
SBT Charts C7-5
SOIL UNIT E
Pairing Graphs C8-1
SBT Charts C8-4
SOIL UNIT F
Pairing Graphs C9-1
SBT Charts C9-5
SOIL UNIT G
Pairing Graphs C10-1
SBT Charts C10-5
DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY OF SOIL UNITS

Normalised Cone Resistance versus Depth per Soil Province C11-1
Probability Density Functions for Normalised Cone Resistance per Soil Province C11-2 to C11-9
Percentage Fines versus Depth per Soil Province C11-10
Probability Density Functions for Percentage Fines per Soil Province C11-11 to C11-18
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Table of Contents - Appendix C Page 2 of 2

3°37'30"E
3°40'0"E
3°42'30"E
3°45'0"E
3°47'30"E
3°50'0"E
3°52'30"E
LEGEND
¹
GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS
% % %
6 6 6
Array of vibrocore locations
5852000 Ò

Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
Ó
( Cluster location - TennetT HKW Alpha Platform

Ó
( Cluster location - TennetT HKW Beta Platform
GENERAL
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (HKW WFZ)
Structure
Ó
*
*
HKW001 K Buoyant waterway marking
( Structure 500 m exclusion zone
Chart extent indicator

52°48'0"N
Ð
Ð
Ò UTM grid
Ð
HKW002
Ð
Geographical grid
Ð
Ð Ð
Ð
(
5850000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò SOIL PROVINCES
Soil Province 1
HKW003 5
%4
%
6
Soil Province 2
6
3%
( 6
HKW004 Soil Province 3

2 % 6
( Soil Province 4
1 % 6
Vibrocore Array 10 Soil Province 5
Soil Province 6
Soil Province 7
( Soil Province 8
HKW005
HKW006
5848000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
(
HKW007
(
Ð 52°46'0"N
Ð
Ð Ð
Ð Ð
Ð
HKW008
( HKW009
5846000 HKW012 ( HKW010
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ( Ò Ò
(
(
HKW011
P6-A
Ó*
HKW013
*
(
NOTES
1) Refer to Main Text for details.
HKW014
HKW017 ( HKW015
( (
5
%4
% 6
6
HKW016
% 6
2
%
5844000
6
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò 1% 6
( Ò Ò
Vibrocore Array 09
HKW018
HKW019
P6-B
( (
Ó
*
*
GEODETIC PARAMETERS
GEODETIC DATUM European Terrestrial Reference System 1989
HKW021 52°44'0"N
ELLIPSOID GRS 1980
HKW020
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
( ( Inverse Flattening 298.257222101
5
%4 PROJECTION ETRS 1989 / UTM Zone 31N (EPSG 25831)
6
%
3%
6
Central Meridian (CM) 03°00'00'' E

6
2 % 6 Latitude of Origin 00°00'00'' N

1 % HKW024 HKW022 K False Northing 0 mN
Scale Factor at CM 0.9996
6
Vibrocore Array 08 ( (
DATUM TRANSFORMATION ITRF2014 to ETRS89 for Epoch 2017.4959
5842000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò rX=-0.0023082 '' rY=-0.0139630 '' rZ=+0.0225688 '' Scale=+0.00294455 ppm
(
HKW025 VERTICAL DATUM Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
HKW023
(
HKW029
(
HKW027
(
HKW026
( ¹ The red border below indicates the extent
6000000
5850000
HKW028
( *
Ó
*

*
*
j
5850000
*
Ó
*
5835000
U.K.
The Netherlands
SOUTH
5840000
*
Ó
*
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
5700000
*
Ó
*
HKW030 *
Ó
HKW033
*
5820000
(
( %45 6
HKW031
3% Belgium
6
France
6
%2 (
P6-D HKW034
6
1% 450000 600000 750000 540000 555000 570000

52°42'0"N
6
Vibrocore Array 06
Ð
Ó* ( Ð
*
Ð Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð 5
%4
RVO
6
3 %
%
6
6
%2 HKW032
6
( Prinses Beatrixlaan 2, 2595 AL Den Haag, The Netherlands

HKW035 1 %
6
( www.rvo.nl
Vibrocore Array 07
Fugro
Prismastraat 4, 2631 RT Nootdorp, The Netherlands
www.fugro.com
5838000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò SOIL PROVINCES

NORTH
SOIL PROVINCES - SOUTH
Chart No: 2 of 2 HKW040 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
( HKW038 DUTCH SECTOR - NORTH SEA
HKW041 ( HKW036 HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WIND FARM ZONE
( (
HKW044 Scale 1 : 20,000 at original A0 page size
TenneT HKWA 0 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 metres

(
HKW042 Ó
(
HKW039 HKW037 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 nautical mile
( ( Fugro Document No. Chart No. Plate No.
542000
544000
546000
548000
550000
552000
554000
(
556000
558000
560000
P904711/07 (3) 1 of 2 C1-1
(
3°35'0"E
3°37'30"E
3°40'0"E
3°42'30"E
3°45'0"E
3°47'30"E
3°50'0"E
HKW040 LEGEND
HKW038
¹
( GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS
HKW041 ( HKW036
( (
HKW044 % % % Array of vibrocore locations
6 6 6
TenneT HKWA

Ó Cluster location - TennetT HKW Alpha Platform

( (
HKW042 Ó
(
HKW037 
HKW039 Ó
( Cluster location - TennetT HKW Beta Platform
( ( (
SOIL PROVINCES - NORTH
Chart No: 1 of 2
GENERAL
( Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (HKW WFZ)
5 HKW043
%4
%
6
6
3 %
6
Structure
Ó
*
*
%2 6
5836000 Ò Ò Ò Ò
HKW050
Ò
Vibrocore Array 05
1%
6
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò K Buoyant waterway marking
( HKW045 Structure 500 m exclusion zone
( ( HKW046 Chart extent indicator

HKW048 ( 52°40'0"N
UTM grid
HKW047
Ð
Ð HKW054 Ð
Ð Ð Ò
Geographical grid
Ð
Ð
( ( Ð
SOIL PROVINCES
HKW049
( Soil Province 1
HKW055 Soil Province 2

HKW053
( Soil Province 3
(
HKW058 HKW051 Soil Province 4
( ( Soil Province 5
HKW056 HKW052 Soil Province 6

5834000 (
Ò Ò Ò HKW063 Ò Ò Soil Province 7
Ò Ò Ò Ò ( Ò
( Soil Province 8
HKW061 HKW057
( (
HKW059
HKW062 (
(
HKW060
(
HKW071 HKW065
HKW067
HKW064
( 5
3
%4
%
6
6
( (
%
HKW068
6
2% 6
(
(
HKW072
1%
5832000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
6
Vibrocore Array 04
( Ð 52°38'0"N
( Ð
HKW077 HKW066
Ð Ð
Ð Ð
Ð
HKW080 HKW070 HKW069

(
( HKW081 ( (
HKW073
( HKW082
(
( HKW083 HKW078
(
( HKW084 HKW074
( HKW085 ( HKW075
HKW092 ( ( HKW076
HKW097
(
(
(
HKW093 ( HKW087 NOTES
HKW086
HKW088
5830000
( (
Ò Ò Ò HKW094
Ò Ò Ò 1) Refer to Main Text for details.
HKW079
Ò Ò Ò Ò
( ( %4
%
5 6
(
3
6
%
HKW098 HKW090
6
TenneT HKWB
(
HKW089
2% 6
HKW104 ( 
Ó
( (
HKW095 1 % 1-A P9-A
(
Vibrocore Array 03
66
* Ó
*
(
HKW099
HKW096 HKW091
( HKW100
HKW107 ( (
(
(
HKW101
HKW108 5
% 6
(
4
( 3
% 6
GEODETIC PARAMETERS
%6
2
HKW102
%
6
( GEODETIC DATUM European Terrestrial Reference System 1989
HKW105 HKW103 Ð Ð 52°36'0"N

ELLIPSOID GRS 1980
1 % Ð
5828000
Vibrocore Array 01
6
Ò Ò Ò Ð Ò Ò
Ð
( Ò ( Ò Ò Ò Ò
HKW109
Ð
Ð Inverse Flattening 298.257222101
5
%4
%
6
3 PROJECTION ETRS 1989 / UTM Zone 31N (EPSG 25831)

6
( % 6

2% 6
03°00'00'' E
Latitude of Origin 00°00'00'' N
HKW110
1%
HKW106
6
( Vibrocore Array 02 False Northing 0 mN

( Scale Factor at CM 0.9996
DATUM TRANSFORMATION ITRF2014 to ETRS89 for Epoch 2017.4959

HKW111 rX=-0.0023082 '' rY=-0.0139630 '' rZ=+0.0225688 '' Scale=+0.00294455 ppm
( VERTICAL DATUM Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
HKW112
HKW114
(
¹ The red border below indicates the extent
6000000
( HKW115
5850000
5826000
( HKW113
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò ( Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò
*
Ó
*

*
*
j
5850000
*
Ó
*
P9-B
5835000
U.K.
Ó*
*
The Netherlands
SOUTH *
Ó
HKW118
*
5700000
*
Ó
*
( *
Ó
*
HKW116
5820000
HKW117 ( Belgium
France
( 450000 600000 750000 540000 555000 570000
Ð 52°34'0"N
Ð Ð
Ð Ð
Ð Ð
5824000
RVO
Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Prinses Beatrixlaan 2, 2595 AL Den Haag, The Netherlands
www.rvo.nl
K
Fugro
Prismastraat 4, 2631 RT Nootdorp, The Netherlands
www.fugro.com
SOIL PROVINCES
SOUTH
P9-HORIZON
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Ó
*
*
DUTCH SECTOR - NORTH SEA
HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WIND FARM ZONE
Scale 1 : 20,000 at original A0 page size
0 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 metres
5822000 Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 nautical mile
Fugro Document No. Chart No. Plate No.

540000
542000
544000
546000
548000
550000
552000
554000
556000
558000
P904711/07 (3) 2 of 2 C1-2
Soil Province Geotechnical Location

Soil Province 1 HKW005, HKW006, HKW008, HKW012, HKW013, HKW014, HKW017, HKW019, HKW020,
HKW021, HKW024, HKW025, HKW026, HKW028, HKW034, HKW035, HKW038, HKW043,
HKW100, HKW108, HKW111, HKW112, HKW113, HKW116, HKW118, HKWA, HKWB,
HKW02-1-VC, HKW02-2-VC, HKW02-3-VC, HKW02-4-VC, HKW02-5-VC, HKW03-1-VC(-A),
HKW03-2-VC, HKW03-3-VC, HKW03-4-VC, HKW03-5-VC, HKW08-1-VC, HKW08-2-VC,
HKW08-3-VC, HKW08-4-VC, HKW08-5-VC, HKW09-1-VC, HKW09-4-VC, HKW09-5-VC
HKW076, HKW07-1-VC, HKW07-3-VC, HKW07-4-VC, HKW07-5-VC, HKW10-1-VC, HKW10-
2-VC, HKW10-3-VC, HKW10-4-VC, HKW10-5-VC,
HKW109, HKW04-1-VC, HKW04-2-VC, HKW04-3-VC, HKW06-1-VC, HKW06-2-VC, HKW06-
3-VC, HKW06-4-VC, HKW06-5-VC,
HKW102, HKW104, HKW106, HKW107, HKW110, HKW115, HKW01-1-VC, HKW01-2-VC,
HKW01-3-VC, HKW01-4-VC, HKW01-5-VC, HKW05-3-VC, HKW05-4-VC, HKW05-5-VC
HKW073, HKW117
Soil Province 6 HKW002, HKW022, HKW037, HKW091, HKW096, HKW101, HKW04-4-VC, HKW04-5-VC,
HKW07-2-VC, HKW09-2-VC, HKW09-3-VC
Soil Province 7 HKW048, HKW103, HKW05-1-VC, HKW05-2-VC
Soil Province 8 HKW065, HKW068, HKW114
GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS PER SOIL PROVINCE
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (1) Plate C1-3

Notes:
− Minimum and maximum depths are based on gridded geophysical horizons
− The left hand-side and right hand-side of each profile show the shallowest and the deepest depth to base of each soil unit within the corresponding soil province, respectively; minimum and maximum soil unit
thicknesses within a soil province must not be inferred from the above profiles
− Soil Provinces 4, 6 and 7 show three soil unit settings each (i.e. variations in the succession of soil units)
− Soil Province 8 shows only the dominant soil unit setting (i.e. Soil Units A, B2, C1, D, F and G); the extent of the areas where the rest of the soil unit settings (refer to Plate C1-5) are present is very small
DEPTH TO BASE OF SOIL UNIT PER SOIL PROVINCE

Depth to Base of Soil Unit

Soil [m BSF]
Soil Unit
Province Setting Soil Unit A Soil Unit B1 Soil Unit B2 Soil Unit C1 Soil Unit C2 Soil Unit D Soil Unit E Soil Unit F Soil Unit G
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
1 0.4 12.0 - - 2.0 17.0 - - - - - - - - 23.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
2 0.5 6.0 - - 1.5 15.0 - - - - - - 4.0 45.0 29.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
3 0.5 9.0 - - 3.8 15.0 - - 4.0 21.0 - - - - 21.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
a 0.5 11.0 - - 2.0 14.0 3.0 18.0 - - - - - - 20.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
4 b 0.5 9.0 - - 1.6 12.0 3.0 16.0 5.0 19.0 - - - - 21.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
c 0.5 5.0 - - 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 - - - - 6.0 16.0 31.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
5 1.0 9.0 - - 8.0 19.0 - - - - - - - - 23.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
a 0.5 7.0 1.0 11.0 2.0 14.0 - - - - - - - - 26.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
6 b 0.5 7.0 1.0 9.0 5.0 12.0 - - 7.0 22.0 - - - - 22.0 50.0 > 50 > 50
c 0.5 4.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 - - - - - - 5.0 44.0 35.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
a 0.5 6.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 9.0 4.0 16.0 - - - - - - 26.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
7 b 0.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 8.0 14.0 - - - - 46.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
c 0.5 7.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 11.0 6.0 12.0 - - - - 7.0 15.0 22.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
a 0.5 5.0 - - 5.0 13.0 7.0 13.0 - - 8.0 23.0 - - 25.0 > 50 > 50 > 50
b 0.5 5.0 - - 3.0 9.0 5.0 11.0 7.0 13.0 9.0 22.0 - - 31.0 39.0 > 50 > 50
c 0.5 4.0 - - 4.0 12.0 - - 8.0 11.0 9.0 18.0 - - 33.0 50.0 > 50 > 50
8
d 0.5 8.0 - - 7.0 17.0 - - - - 8.0 20.0 - - 26.0 41.0 > 50 > 50
e 0.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 7.0 9.0 - - - - 8.0 15.0 - - 26.0 31.0 > 50 > 50
f 0.5 2.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 - - 9.0 15.0 - - 26.0 35.0 > 50 > 50
Notes:
− Minimum and maximum depths are based on gridded geophysical horizons
− Based on the geophysical interpretation depths to base are approximated to 1.0 m with the exception of Soil Unit A in which approximation was done to 0.5 m; where applicable,
geotechnical data offer a finer approximation
− Soil unit setting denotes variations in succession of soil units within the particular soil province, where applicable
− > 50 means that base of soil unit is below the depth coverage of the geotechnical ground model (i.e. 50 m BSF)
− Hyphen indicates that soil unit is absent from the particular soil province
DEPTH TO BASE OF SOIL UNIT PER SOIL PROVINCE

Water Soil Unit A Soil Unit B1 Soil Unit B2 Soil Unit C1 Soil Unit C2 Soil Unit D Soil Unit E Soil Unit F Soil Unit G
Geotechnical Depth
Location [m below Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness Depth to Thickness1)
Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base1)
LAT] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m] [m BSF] [m]
1) 1)
HKW001-PCPT 26.8 1.7 1.7 - - 3.8 2.1 - - - - - - 23.4 19.6 >55.4 >32.0 - -
HKW002-BH 27.9 0.5 0.5 7.2 6.7 - - - - - - - - 27.5 20.3 >62.41) >34.91) - -
1) 1)
HKW002-PCPT 27.3 1.0 1.0 7.9 6.9 - - - - - - - - 27.5 19.6 >55.3 >27.8 - -
1) 1)
HKW002-SCPT 27.4 0.6 0.6 7.8 7.2 - - - - - - 26.8 19.0 >54.1 >27.3 - -
HKW002-TCPT 27.5 0.6 0.6 >6.11) >5.51) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW003-PCPT 26.5 2.1 2.1 - - 4.3 2.2 - - - - - - 14.8 10.5 >50.4 >35.6 - -
1) 1)
HKW004-PCPT 26.4 1.5 1.5 - - 4.5 3.0 - - - - - - 31.3 26.8 >54.4 >23.1 - -
HKW004-TCPT 26.5 1.4 1.4 - - 5.3 3.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW005-PCPT 27.0 1.0 1.0 - - 7.1 6.1 - - - - - - - - 49.9 42.8 >55.0 >5.1
HKW006-BH 28.1 0.4 0.4 - - 5.9 5.5 - - - - - - - - 56.5 50.6 >60.9 >4.4
HKW006-PCPT 27.8 0.7 0.7 - - 5.9 5.2 - - - - - - - - >56.51) >50.61) - -

1) 1)
HKW006-SCPT 27.6 0.7 0.7 - - 6.1 5.4 - - - - - - - - >53.9 >47.8 - -
1) 1)
HKW006-TCPT 27.8 0.7 0.7 - - >6.0 >5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW007-PCPT 26.5 2.2 2.2 - - 4.0 1.8 - - - - - - 31.4 27.4 >44.81) >13.41) - -
1) 1)
HKW008-PCPT 27.9 2.2 2.2 - - 4.4 2.2 - - - - - - - - >56.6 >52.2 - -
HKW009-BH-(A)3) 29.0 1.3 1.3 - - 4.5 3.2 - - - - - - 7.0 2.5 54.0 47.0 >65.0 >11
HKW009-PCPT 28.5 1.3 1.3 - - 4.5 3.2 - - - - - - 7.1 2.6 53.2 46.1 >56.1 >2.9
1) 1)
HKW010-PCPT 27.3 2.0 2.0 - - 3.7 1.7 - - - - - - 20.9 17.2 >56.0 >35.1 - -
HKW011-PCPT 27.3 1.2 1.2 - - 4.3 3.1 - - - - - - 36.5 32.2 >51.31) >14.81) - -
HKW012-PCPT 28.0 1.5 1.5 - - 6.0 4.5 - - - - - - - - >55.51) >49.51) - -

1) 1)
HKW013-PCPT 28.6 2.7 2.7 - - 4.1 1.4 - - - - - - - - >56.5 >52.4 - -
HKW014-BH 29.3 0.5 0.5 - - 6.0 5.5 - - - - - - - - 53.3 47.3 >61.9 >8.6
HKW014-PCPT 28.1 0.6 0.6 - - 5.9 5.3 - - - - - - - - 53.5 47.6 >54.6 >1.1
1) 1)
HKW014-SCPT-A 28.8 0.5 0.5 - - 5.9 5.4 - - - - - - - - >44.1 >38.2 - -
HKW014-TCPT 28.7 0.8 0.8 - - >6.001) >5.21) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW015-PCPT 27.4 1.8 1.8 - - 10.6 8.8 - - - - - - - - >54.81) >44.21) - -
SOIL UNIT DEPTHS AND THICKNESSES AT GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS

Geotechnical Depth
HKW016-BH 29.2 1.0 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - 27.9 26.9 59.5 31.6 >60.3 >0.8
HKW016-PCPT 28.7 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - >27.81) >26.61) - - - -

1) 1)
HKW016-PCPT-A 28.7 1.1 1.1 - - - - - - - - - - 28.4 27.3 >45.4 >17.0 - -
1) 1)
HKW016-SCPT 28.8 1.6 1.6 - - - - - - - - - - 27.9 26.3 >43.4 >15.5 - -
HKW016-TCPT 28.8 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - >6.11) >4.91) - - - -
HKW017-PCPT 28.8 1.4 1.4 - - 6.4 5.0 - - - - - - - - 49.0 42.6 >54.6 >5.6
1)
HKW018-PCPT 28.3 1.6 1.6 - - 8.7 7.1 - - - - - - - - >52.7 44.0 - -
HKW019-BH 27.3 3.0 3.0 - - 7.0 4.0 - - - - - - - - >60.31) >53.31) - -

1) 1)
HKW019-PCPT-A 26.9 2.4 2.4 - - 7.2 4.8 - - - - - - - - >50.9 >43.7 - -
1) 1)
HKW019-PCPT-B 26.9 2.6 2.6 - - 7.0 4.4 - - - - - - - - >52.8 >45.8 - -
HKW020-PCPT 29.4 1.2 1.2 - - 7.7 6.5 - - - - - - - - >48.41) >40.71) - -

1) 1)
HKW020-PCPT-A 29.3 1.2 1.2 - - 8.1 6.9 - - - - - - - - >54.5 >46.4 - -
HKW021-PCPT 27.5 2.0 2.0 - - 5.0 3.0 - - - - - - - - 48.8 43.8 >51.6 >2.8
HKW022-PCPT-A 28.5 1.9 1.9 6.9 5.0 - - - - - - - - - - >55.21) >48.31) - -

1) 1)
HKW022-SCPT 28.5 2.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 - - - - - - - - - - >54.4 >48.4 - -
HKW022-TCPT 28.6 1.9 1.9 >6.11) >4.21) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW023-BH-(A) 28.9 1.6 1.6 - - 7.5 5.9 - - - - - - 34.8 27.3 53.1 18.3 >60.6 >7.5
HKW023-PCPT 28.5 1.7 1.7 - - 8.2 6.5 - - - - - - 34.3 26.1 53.1 18.8 >53.7 >0.6
HKW024-PCPT 26.6 2.1 2.1 - - 4.0 1.9 - - - - - - - - 47.0 43.0 >54.9 >7.9
HKW025-BH-(A)3) 26.3 2.0 2.0 - - 6.0 4.0 - - - - - - - - 46.6 40.6 >60.4 >13.8
2)
HKW025-BH-B 26.1
HKW025-PCPT 26.0 2.6 2.6 - - 5.2 2.6 - - - - - - - - 46.8 41.6 >53.9 >7.1
HKW025-SCPT 25.8 2.4 2.4 - - 5.0 2.6 - - - - - - - - 46.8 41.8 >48.2 >1.4
1) 1)
HKW025-TCPT 25.6 2.5 2.5 - - 5.1 2.6 - - - - - - - - >6.1 >1.0 - -
HKW026-BH 29.1 2.0 2.0 - - 7.9 5.9 - - - - - - - - 56.5 48.6 >90.6 >34.1
HKW026-PCPT-A 28.4 1.9 1.9 - - 7.5 5.6 - - - - - - - - >51.81) >44.31) - -

Geotechnical Depth
HKW027-PCPT 27.6 2.1 2.1 - - 9.3 7.2 - - - - - - - - 41.9 32.6 >54.0 >12.1
HKW028-PCPT 28.2 1.9 1.9 - - 6.6 4.7 - - - - - - - - 53.1 46.5 >55.0 >1.9
HKW029-PCPT 26.8 5.0 5.0 - - 7.3 2.3 9.4 2.1 - - - - - - 44.5 35.1 >54.7 >10.2
HKW030-PCPT 29.3 1.2 1.2 - - 8.9 7.7 - - - - - - - - 40.2 31.3 >54.7 >14.5
HKW031-BH 30.1 1.0 1.0 - - 6.0 5.0 - - - - - - 13.9 7.9 40.6 26.7 >80.4 >39.8
HKW031-PCPT 29.2 1.5 1.5 - - 5.8 4.3 - - - - - - 15.2 9.4 40.1 24.9 >53.3 >13.2
HKW031-SCPT 29.5 1.7 1.7 - - 5.4 3.7 - - - - - - 15.7 10.3 40.6 24.9 >50.3 >9.7
HKW031-TCPT 29.3 1.5 1.5 - - 5.6 4.1 - - - - - - >6.31) >0.71) - - - -
HKW032-PCPT 28.3 2.2 2.2 - - 5.5 3.3 - - - - - - 27.9 22.4 51.6 23.7 >53.8 >2.2
HKW033-BH 26.9 4.0 4.0 - - 12.0 8.0 - - 20.5 8.5 - - - - 43.3 22.8 >60.9 >17.6
HKW033-PCPT 26.4 3.8 3.8 - - 11.4 7.6 - - 20.5 9.1 - - - - 43.5 23.0 >55.0 >11.5
HKW033-SCPT 26.2 3.6 3.6 - - 11.6 8.0 - - 20.5 8.9 - - - - 43.7 23.2 >53.0 >9.3
1) 1)
HKW033-TCPT 26.1 3.6 3.6 - - >6.0 >2.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW034-PCPT 28.4 2.2 2.2 - - 8.5 6.3 - - - - - - - - 41 32.5 >54.6 >13.6
HKW035-BH 27.8 3.5 3.5 - - 10.0 6.5 - - - - - - - - 43.1 33.1 >60.5 >17.4
HKW035-PCPT 27.3 3.2 3.2 - - 9.7 6.5 - - - - - - - - 43.0 33.3 >54.7 >11.7
HKW035-SCPT 27.3 3.2 3.2 - - 9.8 6.6 - - - - - - - - 43.3 33.5 >52.9 >9.6
1) 1)
HKW035-TCPT 27.3 2.4 2.4 - - >6.1 >3.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW036-BH-(A)3) 29.0 1.0 1.0 - - 8.9 7.9 - - - - - - - - 37.9 29.0 >61.4 >23.5
HKW036-PCPT 28.7 1.0 1.0 - - 9.0 8.0 - - - - - - - - 37.1 28.1 >48.0 >10.9
HKW036-SCPT 28.8 1.1 1.1 - - 9.1 8.0 - - - - - - - - 37 27.9 >47.5 >10.5
HKW037-PCPT 27.9 2.0 2.0 7.5 5.5 - - - - - - - - 19.3 11.8 39.8 20.5 >53.8 >14.0
HKW038-BH 26.6 4.0 4.0 - - 8.0 4.0 - - - - - - - - 45.2 37.2 >60.9 >15.7
HKW038-PCPT 26.0 4.4 4.4 - - 9.0 4.6 - - - - - - - - 45.2 36.2 >53.2 >8.0
HKW038-SCPT 26.1 4.4 4.4 - - 9.0 4.6 - - - - - - - - 44.3 35.3 >53.3 >9.0
HKW038-TCPT 26.1 3.9 3.9 - - >6.01) >2.11) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Geotechnical Depth
HKW039-PCPT 28.9 1.2 1.2 - - 8.2 7.0 - - - - - - - - 47.1 38.9 >52.9 >5.8
HKW039-SCPT 29.0 1.3 1.3 - - 8.5 7.2 - - - - - - - - 47 38.5 >52.2 >5.2

1) 1)
HKW039-TCPT 28.9 1.4 1.4 - - >6.0 >4.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW040-BH 28.6 2.0 2.0 - - 7.8 5.8 9.5 1.7 13.0 3.5 - - - - 40.0 27.0 >61.0 >21.0
HKW040-PCPT 28.2 1.5 1.5 - - 7.8 6.3 8.8 1.0 13.5 4.7 - - - - 40.3 26.8 >45.4 >5.1
1) 1)
HKW040-TCPT 27.9 1.5 1.5 - - >6.0 >4.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW041-PCPT 30.9 0.8 0.8 - - 5.3 4.5 8.0 2.7 - - - - - - >31.6 >23.6 - -
HKW042-BH-(A)3) 29.9 2.0 2.0 - - 8.5 6.5 - - - - - - - - 38.0 29.5 >61.9 >23.9
HKW042-PCPT 29.4 1.8 1.8 - - 9.0 7.2 - - - - - - - - 37.9 28.9 >54.0 >16.1
HKW043-PCPT 29.3 0.8 0.8 - - 5.8 5.0 - - - - - - - - 37.1 31.3 >53.2 >16.1
HKW044-PCPT 29.2 1.2 1.2 - - 3.3 2.1 7.4 4.1 11.8 4.4 - - - - 33.0 21.2 >53.8 >20.8
HKW045-BH 26.1 5.5 5.5 - - 10.0 4.5 - - - - - - - - 46.3 36.3 >65.1 >18.8
HKW045-PCPT 25.4 5.1 5.1 - - 9.5 4.4 - - - - - - - - 45.7 36.2 >55.2 >9.5
HKW046-PCPT 29.2 1.2 1.2 - - 4.9 3.7 - - - - - - 12.5 7.6 35.8 23.3 >56.1 >20.3
HKW046-TCPT 29.2 1.2 1.2 - - >5.51) >4.31) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW047-BH 26.9 4.5 4.5 - - 8.0 3.5 - - - - - - 20.1 12.1 38.3 18.2 >80.3 >42.0
HKW047-PCPT 26.4 5.5 5.5 - - 8.1 2.6 - - - - - - 21.3 13.3 38.3 17.0 >54.3 >16.0
1) 1)
HKW047-SCPT 26.6 5.6 5.6 - - 8.0 2.4 - - - - - - 21.2 13.2 >36.4 >15.2 - -
HKW047-TCPT 26.6 4.7 4.7 - - >6.01) >1.31) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW048-PCPT 28.2 2.1 2.1 5.3 3.2 9.8 4.5 - - - - - - 47.3 37.5 >53.4 >6.1
HKW049-PCPT 29.5 1.0 1.0 - - 4.7 3.7 - - - - - - 8.8 4.1 36.8 28 >54.5 >17.7
HKW049-SCPT 29.6 1.1 1.1 - - 5.2 4.1 - - - - - - 8.9 3.7 36.8 27.9 >51.8 >15.0
HKW050-BH 28.9 1.2 1.2 - - 1.6 0.4 7.5 5.9 12.6 5.1 - - - - 37.0 24.4 >62.0 >25.0
HKW050-PCPT 28.2 1.1 1.1 - - 1.8 0.7 7.3 5.5 12.5 5.2 - - - - 36.6 24.1 >54.2 >17.6
HKW050-SCPT 28.3 1.0 1.0 - - 1.9 0.9 7.1 5.2 12.6 5.5 - - - - 36.3 23.7 >54.9 >18.6
HKW050-TCPT 28.3 1.2 1.2 - - >1.91) >0.71) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Geotechnical Depth
HKW051-PCPT 27.6 3.3 3.3 - - 6.7 3.4 - - - - - - 8.4 1.7 38.7 30.3 >54.7 >16.0
HKW051-TCPT 27.7 2.8 2.8 - - >6.01) >3.21) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW052-PCPT 26.4 2.5 2.5 - - 5.5 3.0 - - - - - - 11.0 5.5 37.4 26.4 >54.7 >17.3
3) 1) 1)
HKW053-BH-(A) 26.2 4.5 4.5 - - 7.7 3.2 8.9 1.2 - - - - - - >59.5 >50.6 - -
HKW053-PCPT 25.4 4.1 4.1 - - 7.6 3.5 8.9 1.3 - - - - - - >54.61) >45.71) - -
3)
HKW054-BH-(A) 28.5 3.2 3.2 - - 5.5 2.3 10.2 4.7 11.8 1.6 - - - - 35.5 23.7 >59.9 >24.4
HKW054-PCPT 27.8 3.2 3.2 - - 5.6 2.4 10.2 4.6 12.5 2.3 - - - - 35.6 23.1 >54.4 >18.8
HKW054-SCPT 27.9 3.1 3.1 - - 5.4 2.3 10.7 5.3 12.3 1.6 - - - - 34.9 22.6 >55.0 >20.1
1) 1)
HKW054-TCPT 27.7 3.1 3.1 - - >5.3 >2.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW055-BH-(A/B)3) 30.8 1.5 1.5 - - 4.7 3.2 7.7 3.0 - - - - - - 39.4 31.7 >72.0 >32.6
HKW055-PCPT 30.3 0.8 0.8 - - 4.7 3.9 7.5 2.8 9.6 2.1 - - - - 39.5 29.9 >54.4 >14.9
HKW055-SCPT 30.5 0.9 0.9 - - 4.6 3.7 7.4 2.8 9.5 2.1 - - - - 39.5 30.0 >55.2 >15.7
1) 1)
HKW055-TCPT 30.3 0.9 0.9 - - 4.8 3.9 >6.0 >1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
HKW056-BH 28.4 0.5 0.5 - - 4.1 3.6 9.6 5.5 - - - - - - 52.0 42.4 >60.3 >8.3
HKW056-PCPT 27.9 1.1 1.1 - - 4.5 3.4 9.9 5.4 - - - - - - 52.4 42.5 >54.4 >2.0
HKW056-SCPT-A 27.8 1.2 1.2 - - 4.6 3.4 9.9 5.3 - - - - - - 52.4 42.5 >55.3 >2.9
HKW056-TCPT 27.8 2.2 2.2 - - 4.4 2.2 >6.01) >1.61) - - - - - - - - - -
HKW057-PCPT 27.0 3.4 3.4 - - 5.3 1.9 - - - - - - - - 36.9 31.6 >54.0 >17.1
HKW058-PCPT 29.1 1.1 1.1 - - 5.2 4.1 - - 10.8 5.6 - - - - 31.0 20.2 >54.6 >23.6
HKW059-PCPT-A 29.8 1.0 1.0 - - 1.5 0.5 - - - - - - 7.8 6.3 31.8 24.0 >42.9 >11.1
HKW060-BH 27.0 2.5 2.5 - - 10.0 7.5 - - - - - - - - 36.7 26.7 >60.5 >23.8
HKW060-PCPT 26.4 2.2 2.2 - - 9.3 7.1 - - - - - - - - 37.2 27.9 >53.3 >16.1
HKW060-SCPT 26.4 2.5 2.5 - - 9.4 6.9 - - - - - - - - 36.7 27.3 >52.9 >16.2
1) 1)
HKW060-TCPT 26.5 2.3 2.3 - - >6.0 >3.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW061-PCPT-A 29.6 1.1 1.1 - - 5.1 4.0 8.4 3.3 9.3 0.9 - - - - 48.0 38.7 >53.9 >5.9
HKW062-BH 28.3 2.5 2.5 - - 3.9 1.4 6.5 2.6 - - - - - - 38.3 31.8 >60.3 >22.0

Geotechnical Depth
HKW062-PCPT 27.8 2.5 2.5 - - 3.9 1.4 6.3 2.4 - - - - - - 38.5 32.2 >54.7 >16.2
HKW062-SCPT 27.9 2.5 2.5 - - 4.0 1.5 6.2 2.2 - - - - - - 38.5 32.3 >55.3 >16.8
1) 1)
HKW062-TCPT 27.8 2.1 2.1 - - 4.1 2.0 6.3 2.2 - - - - - - >6.4 >0.1 - -
HKW063-BH 29.9 1.0 1.0 - - 4.0 3.0 - - 9.3 5.3 - - - - 33.5 24.2 >60.5 >27.0
HKW063-PCPT 29.2 1.0 1.0 - - 3.8 2.8 - - 8.7 4.9 - - - - 33.2 24.5 >54.9 >21.7
HKW064-PCPT 29.7 1.0 1.0 - - 4.1 3.1 - - - - - - 10.8 6.7 31.6 20.8 >55.1 >23.5
HKW065-BH 26.0 3.4 3.4 - - 8.3 4.9 11.6 3.3 - - 18.0 6.4 - - 52.1 34.1 >70.9 >18.8
HKW065-PCPT 25.6 3.5 3.5 - - 8.3 4.8 11.7 3.4 - - 18.4 6.7 - - >52.01) >33.61) - -
HKW066-PCPT 26.9 3.7 3.7 - - 4.8 1.1 - - - - - - - - 30.5 25.7 >54.8 >24.3
HKW067-PCPT 29.1 3.1 3.1 - - 13.2 10.1 - - - - - - - - 46.7 33.5 >54.0 >7.3
HKW067-SCPT 28.9 3.1 3.1 - - 13.2 10.1 - - - - - - - - 46.9 33.7 >54.8 >7.9
1) 1)
HKW067-TCPT 28.9 2.8 2.8 - - >6.3 >3.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW068-PCPT 26.9 3.3 3.3 - - 6.1 2.8 10.9 4.8 - - 15.1 4.2 - - 52.3 37.2 >54.1 >1.8
HKW069-PCPT 28.9 1.8 1.8 - - 2.5 0.7 3.5 1.0 - - - - 7.5 4.0 33.1 25.6 >54.9 >21.8
HKW070-PCPT 29.5 2.1 2.1 - - 4.7 2.6 5.8 1.1 - - - - - - 49.5 43.7 >54.3 >4.8
HKW071-PCPT 27.4 2.2 2.2 - - 7.7 5.5 - - - - - - - - 24.8 17.1 >50.6 >25.8
HKW072-BH 28.9 1.7 1.7 - - 7.5 5.8 - - 10.0 2.5 - - - - 26.5 16.5 >69.9 >43.4
1) 1)
HKW072-PCPT 28.5 1.3 1.3 - - 7.2 5.9 - - 9.9 2.7 - - - - >21.5 >11.6 - -
HKW072-PCPT-B 28.4 1.2 1.2 - - 7.2 6 - - 9.9 2.7 - - - - 26.5 16.6 >53.3 >26.8
HKW073-BH 25.8 4.3 4.3 - - 13.1 8.8 - - - - - - - - 55.3 42.2 >62.0 >6.7
1) 1)
HKW073-PCPT 25.2 4.3 4.3 - - 12.8 8.5 - - - - - - - - >54.8 >42.0 - -
HKW073-SCPT 25.1 4.2 4.2 - - 12.2 8 - - - - - - - - >55.11) >42.91) - -
HKW073-TCPT 25.1 3.8 3.8 - - >6.01) >2.21) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW074-PCPT 28.8 2.0 2.0 - - 3.1 1.1 5.5 2.4 - - - - - - 41.4 35.9 >54.5 >13.1
HKW074-TCPT 25.1 1.9 1.9 - - 3.2 1.3 5.5 2.3 - - - - - - >6.01) >0.51) - -
HKW075-PCPT 29.1 1.9 1.9 - - - - 3.4 1.5 - - - - 7.1 3.7 38.7 31.6 >54.2 >15.5

Geotechnical Depth
HKW076-PCPT 26.5 2.5 2.5 - - 4.5 2.0 - - - - - - 6.0 1.5 37.7 31.7 >47.2 >9.5
HKW077-BH 30.9 1.0 1.0 - - 3.4 2.4 9.1 5.7 - - - - - - 23.0 13.9 >70.0 >47.0
HKW077-BH-A2) 31.0
HKW077-PCPT 30.3 1.0 1.0 - - 3.4 2.4 9.1 5.7 - - - - - - 22.9 13.8 >50.7 >27.8
HKW077-SCPT 30.3 0.9 0.9 - - 3.5 2.6 8.9 5.4 - - - - - - 23.0 14.1 >55.0 >32.0
1) 1)
HKW077-TCPT 30.1 1.1 1.1 - - 3.4 2.3 >6.5 >3.1 - - - - - - - - - -
HKW078-BH 28.7 2.0 2.0 - - 5.8 3.8 9.7 3.9 - - - - - - 47.3 37.6 >60.0 >12.7
HKW078-PCPT 27.9 1.7 1.7 - - 6.0 4.3 9.8 3.8 - - - - - - 47.1 37.3 >52.9 >5.8
HKW079-PCPT 29.1 2.0 2.0 - - 4.5 2.5 - - - - - - - - 41.7 37.2 >55.0 >13.3
HKW080-PCPT 29.5 1.2 1.2 - - 5.4 4.2 10.4 5.0 - - - - - - 32.4 22.0 >53.5 >21.1
HKW081-PCPT 29.4 0.8 0.8 - - 5.6 4.8 9.1 3.5 - - - - - - 30.2 21.1 >52.7 >22.5
HKW082-BH 29.8 1.7 1.7 - - 2.8 1.1 9.8 7.0 - - - - - - 29.0 19.2 >61.0 >32.0
HKW082-PCPT 29.3 1.6 1.6 - - 2.8 1.2 9.9 7.1 - - - - - - 28.3 18.4 >50.2 >21.9
HKW082-TCPT 29.4 2.0 2.0 - - 2.9 0.9 >6.41) >3.51) - - - - - - - - - -
HKW083-PCPT 29.1 1.8 1.8 - - 5.3 3.5 - - 10.9 5.6 - - - - 28.9 18.0 >50.7 >21.8
HKW084-PCPT 27.1 3.3 3.3 - - 7.9 4.6 - - 10.9 3.0 - - - - 28.5 17.6 >49.3 >20.8
HKW084-SCPT-A 26.9 3.2 3.2 - - 7.8 4.6 - - 10.9 3.1 - - - - 27.8 16.9 >51.7 >23.9
HKW085-PCPT 27.2 3.0 3.0 - - 7.0 4.0 - - 11.0 4.0 - - - - 30.5 19.5 >51.6 >21.1
HKW086-PCPT 26.2 2.5 2.5 - - 8.5 6.0 9.7 1.2 11.1 1.4 - - - - 48.6 37.5 >54.4 >5.8
HKW087-PCPT 23.8 7.1 7.1 - - 9.6 2.5 - - - - - - - - 52.8 43.2 >54.1 >1.3
1) 1)
HKW088-PCPT 26.6 5.2 5.2 - - 6.9 1.7 8.6 1.7 9.2 0.6 - - - - >54.6 >45.4 - -
HKW089-PCPT 28.3 3.4 3.4 - - 6.7 3.3 - - - - - - - - 52.0 45.3 >53.1 >1.1
HKW090-PCPT 26.6 3.9 3.9 - - 6.9 3.0 7.9 1.0 - - - - - - 48.9 41.0 >54.9 >6.0
HKW091-BH 29.8 1.0 1.0 7.0 6.0 - - - - - - - - 8.3 1.3 49.0 40.7 >70.5 >21.5
HKW091-PCPT 29.1 1.0 1.0 7.1 6.1 - - - - - - - - 8.4 1.3 49.2 40.8 >55.0 >5.8
HKW092-PCPT 30.3 1.2 1.2 - - 3.9 2.7 8.4 4.5 9.4 1.0 - - - - 38.1 29.7 >47.1 >9.0

Geotechnical Depth
HKW093-PCPT 30.0 0.7 0.7 - - 4.7 4.0 - - - - - - - - 28.4 23.7 >42.6 >14.2
HKW094-BH 29.7 1.3 1.3 - - 3.8 2.5 6.3 2.5 8.2 1.9 - - - - 29.9 21.7 >82.4 >52.5
HKW094-PCPT 29.2 1.3 1.3 - - 3.8 2.5 5.7 1.9 8.0 2.3 - - - - 30.0 22.0 >46.7 >16.7
1) 1)
HKW094-TCPT 29.1 1.8 1.8 - - 3.7 1.9 5.9 2.2 >6.3 >0.4 - - - - - - - -
HKW095-PCPT 25.8 4.2 4.2 - - 8.7 4.5 9.7 1.0 11.8 2.1 - - - - 48.7 36.9 >54.0 >5.3
HKW096-BH 31.9 2.0 2.0 4.8 2.8 - - - - - - - - - - 39.7 34.9 >61.0 >21.3
HKW096-PCPT 31.2 1.4 1.4 5.0 3.6 - - - - - - - - - - 39.7 34.7 >54.8 >15.1
HKW096-SCPT 31.2 1.2 1.2 5.1 3.9 - - - - - - - - - - 39.6 34.5 >55.7 >16.1
HKW097-BH 29.0 3.1 3.1 - - 7.4 4.3 11.2 3.8 - - - - - - 31.5 20.3 >81.0 >49.5
HKW097-PCPT 28.8 2.5 2.5 - - 7.1 4.6 11.0 3.9 - - - - - - 29.8 18.8 >44.7 >14.9
HKW098-BH 31.0 1.0 1.0 - - 7.0 6.0 - - - - - - - - 31.0 24.0 >60.5 >29.5
HKW098-PCPT 30.5 0.8 0.8 - - 6.7 5.9 - - - - - - - - 30.8 24.1 >34.3 >3.5
HKW099-PCPT 28.8 2.2 2.2 - - 6.6 4.4 - - 7.7 1.1 - - - - 28.7 21.0 >52.6 >23.9
HKW100-PCPT 27.7 4.0 4.0 - - 6.9 2.9 - - - - - - - - 27.9 21.0 >52.3 >24.4
HKW101-BH 27.2 2.5 2.5 7.8 5.3 - - - - - - - - - - 38.6 30.8 >62.0 >23.4
HKW101-PCPT 27.7 2.6 2.6 7.3 4.7 - - - - 9.0 1.7 - - - - 37.7 28.7 >54.7 >17.0
HKW101-SCPT 26.8 2.6 2.6 7.5 4.9 - - - - 8.5 1.0 - - - - 38.0 29.5 >54.7 >16.7
3) 1) 1)
HKW101-TCPT-(A) 26.8 2.7 2.7 >6.6 >3.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW102-PCPT 29.1 4.0 4.0 - - - - 5.0 1.0 6.9 1.9 - - - - 43.9 37.0 >54.7 >10.8
HKW103-PCPT 29.4 1.5 1.5 3.8 2.3 - - 4.9 1.1 - - - - - - 42.8 37.9 >54.8 >12.0
1) 1)
HKW103-TCPT 29.0 1.3 1.3 4.0 2.7 - - 5.2 1.2 - - - - - - >6.3 >1.1
HKW104-BH 27.8 1.0 1.0 - - 3.7 2.7 7.6 3.9 8.7 1.1 - - - - 27.7 19.0 >60.0 >32.3
HKW104-PCPT 31.6 1.0 1.0 - - 3.7 2.7 7.3 3.6 8.6 1.3 - - - - 27.2 18.6 >38.2 >11.0
HKW104-SCPT 31.4 1.1 1.1 - - 3.8 2.7 7.4 3.6 8.6 1.2 - - - - 27.1 18.5 >39.3 >12.2
HKW104-TCPT 31.4 1.5 1.5 - - 3.8 2.3 >6.51) >2.71) - - - - - - - - - -
HKW105-PCPT 24.6 6.9 6.9 - - 8.5 1.6 - - 12.1 3.6 - - - - 41.5 29.4 >54.7 >13.2

Geotechnical Depth
HKW106-BH 29.3 1.7 1.7 - - 3.2 1.5 5.0 1.8 - - - - 8.2 3.2 44.0 35.8 >61.0 >17.0
HKW106-PCPT 28.8 1.2 1.2 - - 3.4 2.2 4.7 1.3 - - - - 8.2 3.5 43.3 35.1 >53.6 >10.3
HKW107-BH 29.8 2.3 2.3 - - 4.4 2.1 12.0 7.6 17.4 5.4 - - - - 32.6 15.2 >71.0 >38.4
HKW107-PCPT 29.0 2.3 2.3 - - 4.6 2.3 11.8 7.2 17.3 5.5 - - - - 32.6 15.3 >48.3 >15.7
HKW108-PCPT 29.3 1.1 1.1 - - 6.5 5.4 - - - - - - - - 30.5 24.0 >47.7 >17.2
HKW109-PCPT 28.3 3.1 3.1 - - 7.9 4.8 - - 10.2 2.3 - - - - 35.5 25.3 >53.4 >17.9
HKW110-BH 30.7 1.1 1.1 - - 3.2 2.1 8.0 4.8 - - - - - - 32.6 24.6 >61.5 >28.9
HKW110-PCPT 30.2 1.0 1.0 - - 3.0 2.0 7.5 4.5 - - - - - - 31.9 24.4 >52.9 >21.0
HKW110-SCPT 30.3 1.1 1.1 - - 3.0 1.9 7.4 4.4 - - - - - - 31.9 24.5 >53.3 >21.4
1) 1)
HKW110-TCPT 30.4 1.2 1.2 - - 3.7 2.5 >7.5 >3.8 - - - - - - - - - -
HKW111-PCPT 22.7 7.9 7.9 - - 11.4 3.5 - - - - - - - - 35.5 24.1 >54.3 >18.8
HKW111-TCPT 22.6 >6.01) >6.01) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW112-BH 31.5 0.7 0.7 - - 3.2 2.5 - - - - - - - - 35.0 31.8 >71.1 >36.1
HKW112-PCPT 31.0 0.9 0.9 - - 3.3 2.4 - - - - - - - - 34.5 31.2 >54.8 >20.3
HKW112-SCPT 31.2 0.8 0.8 - - 3.0 2.2 - - - - - - - - 34.2 31.2 >55.7 >21.5
HKW112-TCPT 31.1 0.6 0.6 - - 3.4 2.8 - - - - - - - - >6.51) >3.11) - -
HKW113-BH 24.9 9.0 9.0 - - 12.0 3.0 - - - - - - - - 34.3 22.3 >60.9 >26.6
HKW113-PCPT 24.0 9.7 9.7 - - 11.5 1.8 - - - - - - - - 35.2 23.7 >53.2 >18.0
HKW114-BH 27.8 5.0 5.0 - - 9.4 4.4 10.7 1.3 - - 18.2 7.5 - - 36.9 18.7 >61.9 >25.0
HKW114-PCPT 27.3 4.0 4.0 - - 9.0 5.0 10.3 1.3 - - 18.1 7.8 - - 37.4 19.3 >52.6 >15.2
HKW115-PCPT 27.6 3.8 3.8 - - 8.3 4.5 10.5 2.2 - - - - - - 32.2 21.7 >53.6 >21.4
HKW116-PCPT 31.2 1.9 1.9 - - 5.8 3.9 - - - - - - - - >13.11) >7.31) - -
HKW117-PCPT 22.0 8.2 8.2 - - 15.2 7.0 - - - - - - - - 33.3 18.1 >53.6 >20.3
HKW118-BH 30.0 3.6 3.6 - - 8.8 5.2 - - - - - - - - 33.6 24.8 >59.9 >26.3
HKW118-PCPT 29.3 3.6 3.6 - - 8.6 5.0 - - - - - - - - 33.2 24.6 >54.9 >21.7
HKW118-SCPT 29.5 3.3 3.3 - - 8.2 4.9 - - - - - - - - 33.0 24.8 >56.0 >23.0

Geotechnical Depth
1) 1)
HKW118-TCPT 29.6 2.6 2.6 - - >6.0 >3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKWA-CB-SAM(A/B)3) 27.8 2.1 2.1 - - 6.3 4.2 - - - - - - - - 40.0 33.7 >80.2 >40.2
HKWA-NE-CPT 27.7 2.3 2.3 - - 7.6 5.3 - - - - - - - - 39.7 32.1 >79.8 >40.1
HKWA-NW-CPT 27.8 2.1 2.1 - - 6.9 4.8 - - - - - - - - 39.1 32.2 >80.0 >40.9
HKWA-SE-CPT 27.8 2.3 2.3 - - 7.2 4.9 - - - - - - - - 39.3 32.1 >79.8 >40.5
HKWA-SW-CPT 27.7 2.6 2.6 - - 7.9 5.3 - - - - - - - - 39.3 31.4 >80.4 >41.1
HKWB-CB-SAM 26.3 5.9 5.9 - - 10.1 4.2 - - - - - - - - 54.7 44.6 >80.5 >25.8
HKWB-NE-CPT 26.3 6.0 6.0 - - 10.1 4.1 - - - - - - - - 55.0 44.9 >80.1 >25.1
3)
HKWB-NW-CPT-(A) 26.2 5.8 5.8 - - 10.1 4.4 - - - - - - - - 54.9 44.8 >79.7 >24.8
HKWB-SE-CPT 26.6 6.0 6.0 - - 10.1 4.1 - - - - - - - - 54.8 44.7 >80.9 >26.1
HKWB-SW-CPT 26.2 6.0 6.0 - - 10.1 4.1 - - - - - - - - 54.9 44.8 >80.9 >26.0
1) 1)
HKW01-1-VC 30.7 1.0 1.0 - - 4.6 3.6 >6.2 >1.6 - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW01-2-VC 28.0 2.8 2.8 - - >6.1 >3.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW01-3-VC 25.8 5.0 5.0 - - >5.51) >0.51) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW01-4-VC 28.8 3.4 3.4 - - >6.0 >2.6 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW01-5-VC 29.5 1.1 1.1 - - >4.71) >3.61) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW02-1-VC 24.0 >4.81) >4.81) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW02-2-VC 23.5 >3.4 >3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW02-3-VC 22.8 >5.11) >5.11) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW02-4-VC 23.5 >3.61) >3.61) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW02-5-VC 24.0 >4.8 >4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW03-1-VC 31.5 0.8 0.8 - - >2.41) >1.61) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW03-1-VC-A 31.4 0.6 0.6 - - >4.41) >3.81) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW03-2-VC 31.4 2.8 2.8 - - 3.4 0.6 - - - - - - - - >4.4 >1.0 - -
HKW03-3-VC 27.3 >5.31) >5.31) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW03-4-VC 29.7 2.0 2.0 - - 5.8 3.8 - - - - - - - - >6.21) >0.41) - -

Geotechnical Depth
1) 1)
HKW03-5-VC 30.9 1.0 1.0 - - 4.0 3.0 - - - - - - - - >5.9 >1.9 - -
HKW04-1-VC 30.0 0.5 0.5 - - >5.11) >4.61) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW04-2-VC 28.5 2.6 2.6 - - 5.6 3.0 - - >6.0 >0.4 - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW04-3-VC 26.3 4.6 4.6 - - >5.6 >1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW04-4-VC 29.3 1.4 1.4 >5.61) >4.21) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW04-5-VC 29.7 0.8 0.8 >5.4 >4.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW05-1-VC 30.2 0.8 0.8 6.1 5.3 - - >6.4 >0.3 - - - - - - - - - -
HKW05-2-VC 29.0 2.0 2.0 >5.11) >3.11) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW05-3-VC 26.9 4.8 4.8 >5.3 >0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW05-4-VC 29.6 1.7 1.7 - - >6.0 >4.3. - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW05-5-VC 30.2 1.0 1.0 - - >5.91) >4.91) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW06-1-VC 27.1 4.2 4.2 - - >6.1 >1.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW06-2-VC 25.1 >3.3 >3.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW06-3-VC 24.8 >4.21) >4.21) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW06-4-VC 26.7 4.5 4.5 - - >5.3 >0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW06-5-VC 26.8 >3.61) >3.61) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW07-1-VC 29.6 0.7 0.7 - - >5.91) >5.21) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW07-2-VC 28.1 1.8 1.8 >5.9 >4.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW07-3-VC 26.0 4.0 4.0 - - >5.51) >1.51) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW07-4-VC 28.7 1.2 1.2 - - >5.81) >4.61) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW07-5-VC 29.3 0.5 0.5 - - >6.0 >5.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW08-1-VC 26.4 2.4 2.4 - - >5.51) >3.11) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW08-2-VC 25.1 4.0 4.0 - - >6.11) >2.11) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW08-3-VC 23.5 >5.8 >5.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW08-4-VC 26.2 2.5 2.5 - - >4.21) >1.71) - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW08-5-VC 26.8 2.0 2.0 - - >4.81) >2.81) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Geotechnical Depth
1) 1)
HKW09-1-VC 28.7 1.2 1.2 - - >4.6 >3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW09-2-VC 28.0 1.5 1.5 >4.31) >2.81) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW09-3-VC 27.0 2.9 2.9 >6.2 >3.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW09-4-VC 26.2 1.8 1.8 - - >6.1 >4.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW09-5-VC 28.9 1.0 1.0 - - >5.71) >4.71) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW10-1-VC 28.4 1.0 1.0 - - 3.4 2.4 - - - - - - >6.1 >2.7 - - - -
1) 1)
HKW10-2-VC 27.0 2.4 2.4 - - >4.5 >2.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
HKW10-3-VC 25.6 3.6 3.6 - - >5.31) >1.71) - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) 1)
HKW10-4-VC 26.6 2.5 2.5 - - >3.6 >1.1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) 1)
HKW10-5-VC 27.9 0.8 0.8 - - 4.0 3.2 - - - - - - >6.0 >2.0 - - - -
Notes:
- Hyphen indicates that the associated soil unit or the soil unit’s base boundary has not been identified at the particular geotechnical location
- 1) The base of soil unit and/or thickness is below the geotechnical depth of penetration
- 2) Geotechnical location for borehole geophysical logging; location not considered for depths and thicknesses of soil units
- 3) Combines data from initial borehole location and supplementary adjacent location(s)

HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WFZ - DUTCH SECTOR, NORTH SEA
100 100
Data from HKW WFZ Data from HKW WFZ
Data from HKN WFZ Data from HKN WFZ
80 80
Percentage Fines [%]
60 60
Plasticity Index [%]

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Soil Behaviour Type Index, Ic [-] Liquid Limit [%]
100
Percentage Clay [%]
Percentage Silt - HKW WFZ
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage Silt - HKN WFZ 0
Percentage Clay - HKW WFZ Silt - HKW WFZ
Percentage Clay - HKN WFZ Silt - HKN WFZ
80
Silty clay - HKW WFZ
Percentage Silt & Percentage Clay [%]
Silty clay - HKN WFZ

20 Clay - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKN WFZ
60
40
40
60
GeODin/4 graphs - fines vs Ic.GLO/2020-08-11 18:16:20
20
80
Note(s):
0 - Data from HKN WFZ correspond to HKN Unit A
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 - The dashed lines represent the soil unit-specific Ic contours for the following soil types:
Ic < 2.05: Sand, 2.05 < Ic < 2.6: Transitional soil, Ic > 2.6: Clay (refers to the left hand-side plots)
Soil Behaviour Type Index, Ic [-] - The terms "Silt","Silty clay" and "Clay" in the bottom right plot are according to the plasticity chart results in
the top right plot
- Percentage Fines refers to percentage dry mass of particles with diameter D < 0.063 mm, Percentage Silt
refers to percentage dry mass of particles with diameter 0.002 mm < D < 0.063 mm and Percentage Clay
SOIL UNIT CLASSIFICATION refers to percentage dry mass of particles with diameter D < 0.002 mm
Soil Unit A

Soil Behaviour Type Index, Ic [-] Soil Behaviour Type Index, Ic [-]
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
4.0 1.0
3.6 0.9
5
3.2 0.8
Cumulative Distribution Function

Probability Distribution Function
10 2.8 0.7
2.4 0.6
15
2.0 0.5
1.6 0.4
20
1.2 0.3
25 0.8 0.2
0.4 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
GeODin/Ic vs depth+pdf and cdf.GLO/2020-04-23 17:55
35
40
Note(s):
- The dashed black lines represent the soil unit-specific Ic contours for the following soil types:
45 Ic < 2.05: Sand, 2.05 < Ic < 2.6: Transitional soil, Ic > 2.6: Clay
50
SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPE INDEX

Soil Unit A

Percentage Fines [%] Percentage Fines [%]

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.40 1.0
0.36 0.9
5
0.32 0.8

10 0.28 0.7
0.24 0.6
15
0.20 0.5
0.16 0.4
20
0.12 0.3
25 0.08 0.2
0.04 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
GeODin/FC vs depth+pdf and cdf.GLO/2020-08-10 15:33
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit A


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
80

20 Clay - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKN WFZ
60
40
40
60
20
80
Note(s):
0 - Data from HKN WFZ correspond to HKN Unit B
the top right plot
Soil Unit B1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
2.0 1.0
1.8 0.9
5
1.6 0.8

10 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6
15
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
20
0.6 0.3
25 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit B1


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.20 1.0
0.18 0.9
5
0.16 0.8

10 0.14 0.7
0.12 0.6
15
0.10 0.5
0.08 0.4
20
0.06 0.3
25 0.04 0.2
0.02 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit B1

BS: L I H V E
ISO: L I H V
120 ASTM: Low plasticity High plasticity
100
U-line
80
A-line
60
40
20
0
GeODin/Plasticity Chart ASTM_BS_ISO 0-140% (Single location).GLO/2020-08-10 11:12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid Limit [%]
Atterberg limits
ASTM CL-ML zone
L Low plasticity
I Intermediate plasticity
H High plasticity
V Very high plasticity
E Extremely high plasticity
BS British Standard 5930:2015
ISO ISO 14688-2:2017
ASTM ASTM D2487-17
PLASTICITY CHART
Soil Unit B1


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage Clay - HKW WFZ 0
Silt - HKW WFZ
80 Silty clay - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKW WFZ
20

60
40
40
60
GeODin/4 graphs - fines vs Ic - no HKN.GLO/2020-04-29 23:03:54
20
80
0 Note(s):
- The dashed lines represent the soil unit-specific Ic contours for the following soil types:
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Ic < 2.05: sand, 2.05 < Ic < 2.6: transitional soil, Ic > 2.6: clay (refers to the left hand-side plots)
the top right plot
Soil Unit B2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
4.0 1.0
3.6 0.9
5
3.2 0.8

10 2.8 0.7
2.4 0.6
15
2.0 0.5
1.6 0.4
20
1.2 0.3
25 0.8 0.2
0.4 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit B2


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.40 1.0
0.36 0.9
5
0.32 0.8

10 0.28 0.7
0.24 0.6
15
0.20 0.5
0.16 0.4
20
0.12 0.3
25 0.08 0.2
0.04 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit B2


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Silt - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKW WFZ
20

60
40
40
60
20
80
0 Note(s):
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
the top right plot
Soil Unit C1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
2.0 1.0
1.8 0.9
5
1.6 0.8

10 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6
15
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
20
0.6 0.3
25 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit C1


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.10 1.0
0.09 0.9
5
0.08 0.8

10 0.07 0.7
0.06 0.6
15
0.05 0.5
0.04 0.4
20
0.03 0.3
25 0.02 0.2
0.01 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit C1

BS: L I H V E
ISO: L I H V
100
U-line
80
A-line
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid Limit [%]
Atterberg limits
ASTM CL-ML zone
L Low plasticity
H High plasticity
ISO ISO 14688-2:2017
ASTM ASTM D2487-17
PLASTICITY CHART
Soil Unit C1


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Silt - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKW WFZ
20

60
40
40
60
20
80
0 Note(s):
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
the top right plot
Soil Unit C2

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
4.0 1.0
3.6 0.9
5
3.2 0.8

10 2.8 0.7
2.4 0.6
15
2.0 0.5
1.6 0.4
20
1.2 0.3
25 0.8 0.2
0.4 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit C2


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.40 1.0
0.36 0.9
5
0.32 0.8

10 0.28 0.7
0.24 0.6
15
0.20 0.5
0.16 0.4
20
0.12 0.3
25 0.08 0.2
0.04 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit C2


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Silt - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKW WFZ
20

60
40
40
60
20
80
0 Note(s):
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
the top right plot
Soil Unit D

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
2.0 1.0
1.8 0.9
5
1.6 0.8

10 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6
15
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
20
0.6 0.3
25 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit D


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.20 1.0
0.18 0.9
5
0.16 0.8

10 0.14 0.7
0.12 0.6
15
0.10 0.5
0.08 0.4
20
0.06 0.3
25 0.04 0.2
0.02 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit D

BS: L I H V E
ISO: L I H V
100
U-line
80
A-line
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid Limit [%]
Atterberg limits
ASTM CL-ML zone
L Low plasticity
H High plasticity
ISO ISO 14688-2:2017
ASTM ASTM D2487-17
PLASTICITY CHART
Soil Unit D


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Silt - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKW WFZ
20

60
40
40
60
20
80
0 Note(s):
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
the top right plot
Soil Unit E

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
4.0 1.0
3.6 0.9
5
3.2 0.8

10 2.8 0.7
2.4 0.6
15
2.0 0.5
1.6 0.4
20
1.2 0.3
25 0.8 0.2
0.4 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit E


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.40 1.0
0.36 0.9
5
0.32 0.8

10 0.28 0.7
0.24 0.6
15
0.20 0.5
0.16 0.4
20
0.12 0.3
25 0.08 0.2
0.04 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit E


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
80

20 Clay - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKN WFZ
60
40
40
60
20
80
Note(s):
0 - Data from HKN WFZ correspond to HKN Unit D
the top right plot
Soil Unit F

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
2.0 1.0
1.8 0.9
5
1.6 0.8

10 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6
15
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
20
0.6 0.3
25 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit F


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.10 1.0
0.09 0.9
5
0.08 0.8

10 0.07 0.7
0.06 0.6
15
0.05 0.5
0.04 0.4
20
0.03 0.3
25 0.02 0.2
0.01 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit F

BS: L I H V E
ISO: L I H V
100
U-line
80
A-line
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid Limit [%]
Atterberg limits
ASTM CL-ML zone
L Low plasticity
H High plasticity
ISO ISO 14688-2:2017
ASTM ASTM D2487-17
PLASTICITY CHART
Soil Unit F


100 100
80 80
60 60

CLAY
40 40
SILTY CLAY
SILT
20 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
100
Percentage Clay [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
80

20 Clay - HKW WFZ
Clay - HKN WFZ
60
40
40
60
20
80
Note(s):
0 - Data from HKN WFZ correspond to HKN Unit D
the top right plot
Soil Unit G

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 1 2 3 4
2.0 1.0
1.8 0.9
5
1.6 0.8

10 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6
15
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
20
0.6 0.3
25 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
30
0.0 0.0
35
40
Note(s):
50

Soil Unit G


0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.10 1.0
0.09 0.9
5
0.08 0.8

10 0.07 0.7
0.06 0.6
15
0.05 0.5
0.04 0.4
20
0.03 0.3
25 0.02 0.2
0.01 0.1
30
0.00 0.0
35
40
45
50
PERCENTAGE FINES
Soil Unit G

BS: L I H V E
ISO: L I H V
100
U-line
80
A-line
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid Limit [%]
Atterberg limits
ASTM CL-ML zone
L Low plasticity
H High plasticity
ISO ISO 14688-2:2017
ASTM ASTM D2487-17
PLASTICITY CHART
Soil Unit G


SOIL PROVINCE 1 SOIL PROVINCE 2 SOIL PROVINCE 3 SOIL PROVINCE 4 SOIL PROVINCE 5 SOIL PROVINCE 6 SOIL PROVINCE 7 SOIL PROVINCE 8
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0
2.5
5.0
© FEBV/CDE/FIG/043 ISSUE 03
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
.0 36.5
0
Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations:

HKW005, HKW006, HKW008, HKW012, HKW001, HKW003, HKW004, HKW007, HKW033, HKW058, HKW063, HKW072, HKW029, HKW040, HKW041, HKW044, HKW015, HKW018, HKW027, HKW030, HKW002, HKW022, HKW037, HKW091, HKW048, HKW103 HKW065, HKW068, HKW114
HKW013, HKW014, HKW017, HKW019, HKW009, HKW010, HKW011, HKW016, HKW083, HKW084, HKW085, HKW099, HKW050, HKW053, HKW054, HKW055, HKW036, HKW039, HKW042, HKW060, HKW096, HKW101
HKW020, HKW021, HKW024, HKW025, HKW023, HKW031, HKW032, HKW046, HKW105, HKW109 HKW056, HKW061, HKW062, HKW069, HKW067, HKW073, HKW117
HKW026, HKW028, HKW034, HKW035, HKW047, HKW049, HKW051, HKW052, HKW070, HKW074, HKW075, HKW077,
HKW038, HKW043, HKW045, HKW057, HKW059, HKW064, HKW076 HKW078, HKW080, HKW081, HKW082,
HKW066, HKW071, HKW079, HKW087, HKW086, HKW088, HKW090, HKW092,
HKW116, HKW118, HKWA, HKWB HKW115
NORMALIZED CONE RESISTANCE VERSUS DEPTH PER SOIL PROVINCE

Fugro Document No. P904711/07(1) Plate C11-1
0.012 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010 0.010


0.008 0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-] Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-] Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-]
Site-wide Soil Province 1 Locations: 36 Site-wide Soil Province 2 Locations: 19 Site-wide Soil Province 3 Locations: 10
0.012 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010 0.010


0.008 0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
GeODin/PDFs-Qtn.GLO/2020-04-24 12:29:34
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-] Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-]
Site-wide Soil Province 7 Locations: 2 Site-wide Soil Province 8 Locations: 3
PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTIONS FOR Qtn

SOIL UNIT A

0.015 0.015 0.015
0.012 0.012 0.012


0.009 0.009 0.009
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.003 0.003 0.003
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.015 0.015 0.015
0.012 0.012 0.012


0.009 0.009 0.009
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.003 0.003 0.003
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.015 0.015
0.012 0.012
0.009 0.009
0.006 0.006
0.003 0.003
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT B1

0.012 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010 0.010


0.008 0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.012 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010 0.010


0.008 0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT B2

0.012 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010 0.010


0.008 0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.025 0.012 0.012
0.010 0.010
0.020

0.008 0.008
0.015
0.006 0.006
0.010
0.004 0.004
0.005
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.025 0.025
0.020 0.020
0.015 0.015
0.010 0.010
0.005 0.005
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT C1

0.008 0.008 0.008


0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.008 0.008 0.008

0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT C2

0.010 0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008 0.008


0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.010 0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008 0.008


0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT E

0.010 0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008 0.008


0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.010 0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008 0.008


0.006 0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT F

0.025 0.025 0.025
0.020 0.020 0.020


0.015 0.015 0.015
0.010 0.010 0.010
0.005 0.005 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.025 0.025 0.025
0.020 0.020 0.020


0.015 0.015 0.015
0.010 0.010 0.010
0.005 0.005 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.025 0.025
0.020 0.020
0.015 0.015
0.010 0.010
0.005 0.005
0.000 0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOIL UNIT G

SOIL PROVINCE 1 SOIL PROVINCE 2 SOIL PROVINCE 3 SOIL PROVINCE 4 SOIL PROVINCE 5 SOIL PROVINCE 6 SOIL PROVINCE 7 SOIL PROVINCE 8
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
.0 36.5
0
Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations: Locations:

HKW006, HKW014, HKW019, HKW025, HKW009, HKW016, HKW023, HKW031, HKW033, HKW063, HKW072, HKW040, HKW050, HKW053, HKW054, HKW036, HKW042, HKW060, HKW073 HKW002, HKW091, HKW096, HKW101, HKW05-1-VC, HKW05-2-VC HKW065, HKW114
HKW026, HKW035, HKW038, HKW045, HKW047, HKW07-1-VC, HKW07-3-VC, HKW04-1-VC, HKW04-2-VC, HKW055, HKW056, HKW062, HKW077, HKW04-4-VC, HKW04-5-VC,
HKW098, HKW112, HKW113, HKW118, HKW07-4-VC, HKW07-5-VC, HKW04-3-VC, HKW06-1-VC, HKW078, HKW082, HKW094, HKW097, HKW07-2-VC, HKW09-2-VC,
HKWA, HKWB, HKW02-1-VC, HKW10-1-VC, HKW10-2-VC, HKW06-2-VC, HKW06-3-VC, HKW104, HKW106, HKW107, HKW110, HKW09-3-VC
HKW02-2-VC, HKW02-3-VC, HKW10-3-VC, HKW10-4-VC, HKW06-4-VC, HKW06-5-VC HKW01-1-VC, HKW01-2-VC,
HKW02-4-VC, HKW02-5-VC, HKW10-5-VC HKW01-3-VC, HKW01-4-VC,
HKW03-1-VC(-A), HKW03-2-VC, HKW01-5-VC, HKW05-3-VC,
HKW03-3-VC, HKW03-4-VC, HKW05-4-VC, HKW05-5-VC
HKW03-5-VC, HKW08-1-VC,
HKW09-5-VC
PERCENTAGE FINES VERSUS DEPTH PER SOIL PROVINCE

0.56 0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49 0.49


0.42 0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage Fines [%] Percentage Fines [%] Percentage Fines [%]
0.56 0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49 0.49


0.42 0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49
0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14
GeODin/PDFs_FC.GLO/2020-08-12 16:26:57
0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTIONS FOR PERCENTAGE FINES

Soil Unit A

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit B1

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit B2

0.56 0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49 0.49


0.42 0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.56 0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49 0.49


0.42 0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.56 0.56
0.49 0.49
0.42 0.42
0.35 0.35
0.28 0.28
0.21 0.21
0.14 0.14
0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit C1

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit C2

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35 0.35


0.30 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.40 0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit E

0.16 0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14 0.14


0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.16 0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14 0.14


0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14
0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit F

0.16 0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14 0.14


0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.16 0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14 0.14


0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.16 0.16
0.14 0.14
0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Soil Unit G

APPENDIX D: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX D: Plate
OVERVIEW
Design Premises for Selection of Characteristic Values D1-1 to D1-7
Overview of Design Profiles per Calculation Model D1-8 to D1-9
Soil Units per Design Location D1-10 to D1-12
DESIGN PROFILES
SOIL PROVINCE 1
Characteristic Values versus Depth – HKW113-PCPT D2-1 to D2-4
SOIL PROVINCE 2
Characteristic Values versus Depth – HKW049-SCPT D3-5 to D3-8
SOIL PROVINCE 3
Characteristic Values versus Depth – HKW072-PCPT-B D4-9 to D4-12
SOIL PROVINCE 4
SOIL PROVINCE 5
SOIL PROVINCE 6
SOIL PROVINCE 7
SOIL PROVINCE 8
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents - Appendix D Page 1 of 2

SUPPORTING PLATES
Soil Unit Weight versus Depth – HKW072 D10-1
Steel-Soil Interface Friction Angle versus Particle Diameter D11-1
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents - Appendix D Page 2 of 2

DESIGN SITUATIONS
Purpose: − Permanent monopile foundation for offshore wind turbine
− Permanent foundation element (jacket pile) for support of offshore wind
turbine by jacket/ tripod structure
− Refer to Main Text
Premise(s): − Conceptual - design basis verification required for detailed design
− Scope limited to selected limit states and calculation models
− Scope limited to selected ground/ pile parameter values; no calculation
results
− According to project specification determined by client; refer to Main
Text
Location and Site Conditions: − Selected CPT locations (design locations) within the Hollandse Kust
(West) Wind Farm Zone
− Refer to Main Text for site conditions
Vertical Datum: − Seafloor, applicable at the time of CPT data acquisition
Pile (Group) Arrangement: − Single pile design
− No pile interaction with adjacent structure(s) considered
Pile Type: Tubular steel
Pile Material/Finish: − Steel, Group II, specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) from 275 MPa
to 395 MPa (ISO, 2007)
− Unfactored dynamic stresses during pile driving should be less than
SMYS (ISO, 2007)
− No coating
Pile Head Fixity: − Not applicable (monopile)
− Fixed at seafloor (jacket pile)
Pile Length: − Length to diameter ratio 3 < L/D < 10 (in-ground, monopile)
− Length to diameter ratio L/D > 10 (in-ground, jacket pile)
− Maximum (mono)pile tip depth of 50 m BSF
Outer Diameter/Wall Thickness: − Flush, 5 m < OD < 10 m (in-ground, monopile)
− Flush, 0.8 m < OD < 2.5 m (in-ground, jacket pile)
ISSUE 96
− Uniform wall thickness (in-ground), as required for installation, structural

integrity and durability
Tip Condition: Open-ended
Driving Shoe and Bevel of Pile − No inner or outer driving shoe considered
Annulus: − Straight cut of pile annulus, i.e. no inward or outward bevel
Pile Inclination: Vertical
Pre-drilling of Under-sized
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
Borehole: Not considered

Removal of Internal Soil Plug in
Pile: Not considered
Pile Performance – Single Pile − Limited scope
Design: − Refer to Lateral Performance – Monopile Design, below
− Refer to Axial Performance – Single Jacket Pile Design, below
© Fugro 1997-2020
− Refer to Lateral Performance – Single Jacket Pile Design, below

Pile Performance – Pile Group
Design: Not applicable
Pile Structural Integrity: Not within report scope
Pile Interaction with Adjacent
Foundation(s): Not within report scope
DESIGN PREMISES FOR SELECTION OF CHARACTERISTIC VALUES
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (3) Plate D1-1

Pile Installation: − Semi continuous impact driving

− Hammer impact at pile top
− Refer to Blow Count Prediction, below
Pile Driving Noise: Not within report scope
Pile Driving Back-analysis: Not within report scope
Construction Practice: − According to ISO (2016) for jacket pile
− According to DNVGL-ST-0126 (2016) for monopile
LATERAL PERFORMANCE - MONOPILE DESIGN

Limit State(s): − ULS ultimate limit state for loss of equilibrium, where pile is structural
component
− SLS serviceability limit state for pile lateral displacement causing
intolerable tilt of the wind turbine
General Procedure: − Refer to document titled “Geotechnical Analysis” presented in
Appendix 1
− Eurocode 7 1997-1:2004 (CEN, 2004) for general design approach,
including definition of characteristic values
− 3D finite element (FE) model in combination with 1D FE model (PISA
numerical-based method - Byrne et al., 2017)
− 1D FE model (PISA rule-based method - Byrne et al., 2017; Burd et al.,
2019; Byrne et al., 2019a)
− Application to layered soils (Byrne et al., 2019b)
Regional Scour Model: Not applicable: seafloor is considered as scour resistant by protective
measures
General Scour Model: Not applicable, as for Regional Scour Model (above)
Local Scour Model: Not applicable, as for Regional Scour Model (above)
Pile-Soil Slotting: Not considered
Loading Condition(s): Static or equivalent static, refer to Main Text
Load Application: Centric, horizontal load (and bending moment) applied at a point above
ISSUE 96
the seafloor
Safety Factor(s): − Partial factors according to EN 1990 (CEN, 2002) and EN 1997-1 (CEN,
2004)
− Other provisions than those in EN 1990 and EN 1997-1 might be
necessary, as the design of the offshore structures can be considered
as "special construction works" according to Clause 1.1 of EN 1990
Pile Model: − Linear elastic plate (steel), comprises shell elements, with Young’s
modulus of 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 (3D FE model)
− Linear elastic Timoshenko beam (steel), with Young’s modulus of 200
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
GPa (1D FE model)

Ground/Pile Response: − Four soil reaction components modelled as independent non-linear
elasto-plastic springs:
▪ Distributed lateral load versus pile lateral displacement (p-y)
▪ Distributed moment versus pile rotation (m-ψ)
▪ Base horizontal force versus lateral displacement at pile base (HB-
© Fugro 1997-2020
yB)
▪ Base moment versus rotation at pile base (MB-ψB)
− Refer to Main Text
Frictional (Coarse-grained, − According to general premises and recommendations of the method
Cohesionless) Soil Method: (PISA numerical-based method - Byrne et al., 2017; Taborda et al.,
2019)
− Refer to Main Text Section 4.2 for general features of the soil
constitutive model
− PISA design model (PISA rule-based method - Burd et al., 2019)

Cohesive (Fine-grained) Soil − According to premises and recommendations of the method (PISA
Method: numerical-based method - Byrne et al., 2017; Zdravković et al., 2019)
− Refer to Main Text Section 4.2 for general features of the soil
constitutive model
− PISA design model (PISA rule-based method - Byrne et al., 2019a)
(Soft) Rock Method: Not applicable
Layered Ground Adjustment: − Not required for the PISA numerical-based method
− Can be considered for the PISA rule-based method; not required
according to Byrne et al. (2019b)
Ground/Pile Parameter Values: Refer to Main Text Section 4
AXIAL PERFORMANCE – SINGLE JACKET PILE DESIGN

component
− SLS serviceability limit state for pile top displacement causing
intolerable tilt of the wind turbine
Appendix 1
− Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004) for general design approach, including
definition of characteristic values
− ISO 19901-4:2016 (ISO, 2016) for calculation model(s)
measures
Load Application: − Centric, compressive and uplift
− Weight of pile steel (submerged in water, where applicable) to be
ISSUE 96
considered as action
− No contribution of internal soil plug to mass of pile in tension
− Later than 50 days after pile installation, for maximum axial pile
resistance
2004)
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024

Pile Model: Elastic beam (steel), simplified to uniform cross section over embedded
pile length, with Young's modulus of 210 GPa
Ground/Pile Model – Skin Summation of unit skin friction along embedded length of pile and end
Friction/End Bearing: bearing resistance at pile toe
Ground/Pile Model – Truncated
© Fugro 1997-2020
Conical Block for Tension: Should be considered; calculation model is not within report scope
Reversed End Bearing for Tension: Can be considered; calculation model is not within report scope

Plugged/Unplugged Resistance: Lower of:

− Plugged resistance:
▪ Equal to (a) pile outer skin friction + (b) end-bearing over complete
base area
▪ Should not be less than unplugged resistance (Simplified ICP-05
Method, ISO 2016)
− Unplugged resistance:
▪ Equal to (a) pile outer skin friction + (b) inner skin friction for internal
plug filling ratio (soil plug) of 0.9 + (c) end-bearing over pile annulus
area
▪ Not applicable (Offshore UWA-05 Method, ISO 2016)
Frictional (Coarse-grained,
Cohesionless) Soil Method: ISO (2016) CPT-based Methods, Simplified ICP-05, Offshore UWA-05
Cohesive (Fine-grained) Soil
Method: ISO (2016) Main Text
Pile End Bearing Mobilisation: − Considered over equivalent distance of 2 pile diameters
− If applicable, use of 4D/8D method according to Lehane et al. (2005)
for CPT-based methods
Pile Tip Punch-through in Weak − Considered over equivalent distance of 3 pile diameters
Layer: − If applicable, use of 4D/8D method according to Lehane et al. (2005)
for CPT-based methods
Skin Friction Response (t-z) − Independent non-linear elasto-plastic springs
Ground/Pile Model: − Peak skin friction applies at or beyond a z-value equivalent to 1 % of
pile diameter
− Pile length effects apply to CPT-based methods
Residual Skin Friction (t-z): − Residual adhesion ratio tres/tmax considered for cohesive soil model
− Not applicable for frictional soil model
End Bearing Response (Qp-z) − Independent non-linear elasto-plastic spring; reducing stiffness with
Ground/Pile Model: increasing stress
ISSUE 96
− Ultimate end bearing applies beyond a z-value equivalent to 10 % of

pile diameter
− Applicable to compressive resistance
LATERAL PERFORMANCE - SINGLE JACKET PILE DESIGN

component
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
− SLS serviceability limit state for pile top lateral displacement; low
estimate soil stiffness
Appendix 1
© Fugro 1997-2020
− ISO 19901-4:2016 (ISO, 2016) for calculation model(s)

measures
Load Application: Centric, horizontal load and bending moment applied at seafloor

2004)
Pile Model: Elastic beam (steel), simplified to uniform cross section over embedded
pile length, with Young's modulus of 210 GPa
Ground/Pile Response (p-y): Independent non-linear elasto-plastic springs
Frictional (Coarse-grained,
Cohesionless) Soil Method: ISO (2016) Main Text
Cohesive (Fine-grained) Soil
Method: ISO (2016) Main Text
Layered Ground Adjustment: Applicable
Base Shear: Not applicable for pile lengths exceeding critical length (15D to 20D)
BLOW COUNT PREDICTION

Limit State(s): Failure to reach target penetration
General Procedure: − Refer to document titled "Geotechnical Analysis", presented in
Appendix 1
− Published methods for calculation models
Loading Condition(s): – Self-weight of pile/hammer system
– Dynamic impact from pile driving hammer
Load Application: − Centric, compressive
− No allowance for inclination of pile/hammer system
Pile Material Fatigue: Not within report scope
ISSUE 96
Pile Sleeve/Guide Resistance: Not within report scope

2004)
Ground/Pile Model (SRD): − According to Maynard et al. (2018) for monopile
− According to Alm and Hamre (2001) for jacket pile
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
− “Coring” of soil inside of pile (no plugging)

− Best estimate SRD based on continuous driving
− High estimate SRD based on continuous driving and including factor
that accounts for soil variability
SRD Unit Shaft Resistance - − Unit shaft resistance is a function of CPT corrected cone resistance qt,
Frictional: effective in situ vertical stress σ’vo and angle of shearing resistance
© Fugro 1997-2020
between pile and soil δ

− Parameter values: refer to Main Text Section 4
SRD Unit Shaft Resistance - − Unit shaft resistance is a function of CPT sleeve friction fs, CPT
Cohesive: corrected cone resistance qt and effective in situ vertical stress σ’vo
− Parameter values: refer to Main Text Section 4
SRD Unit Toe Resistance - − Unit toe resistance is a function of CPT corrected cone resistance qt
Frictional: − Parameter values: refer to Main Text Section 4
SRD Unit Toe Resistance - − Unit toe resistance is 60 % of CPT corrected cone resistance qt
Cohesive: − Parameter values: refer to Main Text Section 4

Set-up Effects: Method considers continuous driving, i.e. no allowance for set-up effects
for driving interruptions
Ground/Pile/Hammer Model: − Lumped-mass wave equation, one-dimensional, single blow analysis
(GRLWEAP, 2010)
− Selection of parameter values incorporates empirical allowance for
(dynamic) pile plug behaviour
− Static weight of pile, helmet and hammer incorporated in wave equation
analysis, as applicable
Pile Material Damping: Viscous damping incorporated for steel
Soil Damping: According to Alm and Hamre (2001)
Parameter Values for
Ground/Pile/Hammer Model: Not within report scope
REFERENCES
− Alm, T. and Hamre, L. 2001. Soil Model for Pile Drivability Predictions Based on CPT Interpretations. In
Proc. of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul,
27-31 August 2001, Vol. 2, Lisse: Balkema, pp. 1297-1302.
− Burd, H.J. Taborda, D.M.G., Zdravković, L., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K., Houlsby, G.T., Igoe, D., Jardine, R.J.,
Martin, C.M. and McAdam, R.A. and Potts, D.M., 2019. PISA design model for monopiles for offshore wind
turbines: application to a dense marine sand. Géotechnique, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.P.277.
− Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G. T., Burd, H. J., Gavin, K. G., Igoe, D. J. P., Jardine, R. J., Martin, C. M., McAdam,
R. A., Potts, D. M., Taborda, D. M. G. & Zdravković, L., 2019a. PISA design model for monopiles for
offshore wind turbines: application to a stiff glacial clay till. Géotechnique,
− Byrne, B.W. Burd, H.J., Zdravković, L., Abadie, C.N., Houlsby, G.T., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam,
R.A., Pacheco Andrade, M., Pedro, A.M.G., Potts, D.M. and Taborda, D.M.G., 2019b. PISA Design
Methods For Offshore Wind Turbine Monopiles. In Proc. Of Offshore Technology Conference 2019, OTC-
29373-MS, 6-9 May 2019, Houston, Texas, USA.
− Byrne, B.W. McAdam, R.A., Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., Martin, C.M., Beuckelaers, W.J.A.P., Zdravković, L.,
Taborda, D.M.G., Potts, D.M., Jardine, R., Ushev, E., Liu, T., Abadias, D., Gavin, K., Igoe, D., Doherty, P.,
ISSUE 96
Skov Gretlund, J., Pacheco Andrade, M., Muir Wood, A., Schroeder, F.C., Turner, S. and Plummer, M.A.L.,
2017. PISA: New Design Methods For Offshore Wind Turbine Monopiles. In Proc. of the 8th International
Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics (OSIG), Vol. 1, 12-14 September 2017, London, UK,
pp. 142-161.
− Det Norske Veritas, 2016. DNVGL-ST-0126 Support structures for wind turbines. DNV GL AS, April 2016,
Oslo, Norway.
− European Committee for Standardisation, 2004. EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1:
General Rules. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendum EN 1997-1:2004/AC, February 2009 and Amendment
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
EN 1997-1:2004/A1:2013).
− European Committee for Standardisation, 2002. EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode – Basis of Structural
Design. Brussels: CEN. (With Corrigendam December 2008 and April 2010).
− GRLWEAP (2010). Computer Program for Wave Equation Analysis.
− International Organization for Standardization, 2016. ISO 19901-4:2016 Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries - Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures - Part 4: Geotechnical and Foundation Design
© Fugro 1997-2020
Considerations. Geneva: ISO.

− International Organization for Standardization, 2007. ISO 19902:2007 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
– Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. Geneva: ISO.
− Lehane, B.M., Schneider, J.A. and Xu, X. 2005. A Review of Design Methods for Offshore Driven Piles in
Siliceous Sand. Perth: University of Western Australia, UWA Report, GEO:05358.

− Maynard, A.W., Hamre, L., Butterworth, D. and Davison, F., 2018. Improved Pile Installation Predictions for
Monopiles. In 10th International Conference on Stress Wave Theory and Testing methods for Deep
Foundations, June 27-29 2018, San Diego, California.
− Taborda, D.M.G., Zdravković, L., Potts, D.M., Burd, H.J., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K.G., Houlsby, G.T., Jardine,
R.J., Liu, T., Martin, C.M. and McAdam, R. A., 2019. Finite element modelling of laterally loaded piles in a
dense marine sand at Dunkirk. Géotechnique, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.006.
− Zdravković, L., Taborda, D.M.G., Potts, D.M., Abadias, D., Burd, H.J., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K.G., Houlsby,
G.T., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam, R.A. and Ushev, E., 2019. Finite element modelling of laterally
loaded piles in a stiff glacial clay till at Cowden. Géotechnique, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.005.
ISSUE 96
FNLM/GEO/SPE/024
© Fugro 1997-2020

Geotechnical Parameter Limit State Calculation Design Profile Reference Method

Model
Net cone resistance, qn ULS 3 qn,k1 Net cone resistance according to ISO 19901-8
SLS [toe axial (2014)
resistance] [recommended method]
ULS 3 qn,k2
SLS [shaft axial
ULS 5, 6 resistance]
ULS 5, 6 qn,k3
[toe axial
resistance]
Soil unit weight, γ ULS 1 to 7 γk Laboratory γ-w method
SLS [recommended/ inferred method]
Relative density, Dr ULS 2 Dr,k1 CPT-based Dr-qt method
SLS [recommended method – Calculation Model 2]
ULS 3 Dr,k2 [selected method – Calculation Model 3]
SLS
Undrained shear strength, su ULS 1, 2 su,k1 Laboratory su,TXC-labINT method
SLS [toe lateral [recommended method – Clay]
resistance] [selected method – Transitional soil]
1, 2, 4 su,k2 Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method
[shaft lateral [selected method – Sand & Transitional soil]
resistance]
ULS 3 su,k3 Laboratory su,UU-lab method
SLS [toe axial [recommended method – Clay]
resistance] Laboratory su,TXC-labINT method
su,k4 [selected method – Transitional soil]
[shaft axial Laboratory su,TXC-labREC method
resistance] [selected method – Transitional soil]
External axial strain at half ULS 4 ε50,k Laboratory ε50,TXC method
the maximum deviator stress, SLS [inferred method]
ε50
Peak effective angle of ULS 1 φ’k1 Laboratory φ’-TXC-M1 method
internal friction, φ’ SLS [toe lateral [selected method]
resistance]
ULS 1, 4 φ’k2
SLS [shaft lateral
resistance]
ULS 5, 6 φ’k3 Derived value of peak secant effective angle of
internal friction based on example values of qc
and φ’ presented in Alm and Hamre (1998,
2001)
[inferred method]
Angle of interface friction ULS 1, 3 δk Laboratory δ-RS method
(steel-soil), δ SLS [recommended method]
OVERVIEW OF DESIGN PROFILES PER CALCULATION MODEL

Geotechnical Parameter Limit State Calculation Design Profile Reference Method

Model
Coefficient of permeability, k Assessment 7 kk1 Laboratory k-chrc method,
of drainage
[low value] Laboratory k-chfm method,
behaviour
Laboratory k-SF method &
kk2
Laboratory k-GC method
[high value]
[selected methods]
Shear modulus at small SLS 1, 2 Gmax,k CPT-based Gmax-SCPT method
strain, Gmax [recommended method]
Notes:
− ULS: Ultimate Limit State
− SLS: Serviceability Limit State
− Selection of characteristic values does not differentiate between ULS and SLS, i.e. design profiles are independent of limit state
− Calculation model 1: PISA numerical-based method (Byrne et al., 2017)
− Calculation model 2: PISA rule-based method including PISA design model for friction soils (Burd et al., 2019)) and cohesive soils (Byrne et
al., 2019)
− Calculation model 3: ISO (2016) axial performance including Simplified ICP-05 & Offshore UWA-05 CPT-based methods for frictional soils
and Main Text method for cohesive soils
− Calculation model 4: ISO (2016) Main Text p-y method
− Calculation model 5: Maynard et al. (2018) SRD method
− Calculation model 6: Alm and Hamre (2001) SRD method
− Calculation model 7: Osman and Randolph (2012) analytical model
− The addition of subscript k in the symbol of each geotechnical parameter denotes characteristic value
− The reference method can be (i) the recommended test method (or inferred from context) of the corresponding calculation model or (ii), in
absence of a recommendation by the calculation model, a selected test method considering specified principles or general use of parameter
values within the calculation model, reliability of test results against other available laboratory test types, available technology and typical
industry practices
OVERVIEW OF DESIGN PROFILES PER CALCULATION MODEL

SOIL UNITS PER TYPICAL DESIGN LOCATION

SOIL UNITS PER ADVERSE DESIGN LOCATION

SOIL UNITS PER FAVOURABLE DESIGN LOCATION

HOLLANDSE KUST (WEST) WIND FARM ZONE - DUTCH SECTOR, NORTH SEA
External Axial Strain Soil Behaviour Soil Unit -

Net Cone Resistance, qn [MPa] Soil Unit Weight, γ [kN/m3] Relative Density, Dr [%] Undrained Shear Strength, su [kPa] at Half Max. Deviator Stress, ε50 [-] Type Index, Ic [-] Soil Type
0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
A-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
B2-Sand
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 25 F-Sand
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
G-Clay
45 45 45 45 45 45
GeODin/Characteristic Plate 1.GLO/2020-09-02 13:35:22
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50 G-Transitional
Design Profile, qn,k1 Design Profile, γk Design Profile, Dr,k1 Design Profile, su,k1 Design Profile, ε50,k
Design Profile, qn,k2 Design Profile, Dr,k2 Design Profile, su,k2
Design Profile, qn,k3 Derived value from Dr-qt-method Design Profile, su,k3
DerivedLow Estimate
value of qn Design Profile, su,k4
CPT-based su,k-qn method - shaft
CPT-based su,k-qn method - toe
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES VERSUS DEPTH

HKW113-PCPT

Soil Behaviour Soil Unit -

Peak Effective Angle of Internal Friction, φ' [°] Soil-Steel Interface Friction Angle, δ [°] Coefficient of Permeability, k [m/s] Shear Modulus at Small Strain, Gmax [MPa] Type Index, Ic [-] Soil Type
20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
A-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
B2-Sand
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 F-Sand
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
G-Clay
45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 G-Transitional
Design Profile, φ'k1 Design Profile, δk Design Profile, kk1 Design Profile, Gmax,k
Design Profile, φ'k2 Design Profile, kk2 CPT-based Gmax,k-qc-Bq method - 16 % fractile
Design Profile, φ'k3 Derived value from Gmax-qc method
CPT-based φ'k-qt method - 16 % fractile Derived value from Gmax-SCPT method
CPT-based φ'k-qt method - 5 % fractile
Low Estimate

HKW113-PCPT

Depth Soil Unit Soil Type Net Cone Resistance Soil Unit Relative Density Undrained Shear Strength External Axial Strain
Weight at Half the Maximum
Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
qn,k1 qn,k2 qn,k3 γk Dr,k1 Dr,k2 su,k1 su,k2 su,k3 su,k4 ε50,k
0.0 1.5 3.5 7.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.0 1.5 3.5 7.0 20.0 70 70 65 70 - - -
1.0 11.0 14.0 16.5 20.0 85 85 110 125 - - -
A Sand
4.4 13.9 16.9 19.4 20.0 85 85 110 125 - - -
4.4 13.9 16.9 19.4 20.0 85 85 70 90 - - -
A Sand
9.7 18.5 21.5 24.0 20.0 85 85 80 115 - - -
9.7 24.0 26.5 29.5 20.0 85 85 80 120 - - -
B2 Sand
11.5 24.0 26.5 29.5 20.0 85 85 80 120 - - -
11.5 27.0 32.0 36.0 19.5 90 90 95 145 - - -
F Sand
14.0 27.0 32.0 36.0 19.5 90 90 95 145 - - -
14.0 14.5 20.0 25.0 19.5 65 65 40 60 - - -
F Sand
22.8 14.5 20.0 25.0 19.5 65 65 70 95 - - -
22.8 9.0 13.0 17.0 19.5 50 50 70 95 - - -
F Sand
26.8 9.0 13.0 17.0 19.5 50 50 80 115 - - -
26.8 18.0 21.5 26.5 19.5 60 60 80 115 - - -
F Sand
31.1 18.0 21.5 26.5 19.5 60 60 95 130 - - -
31.1 10.0 15.0 22.0 19.5 40 40 95 130 95 130 1.4
F Transitional
35.2 10.0 15.0 22.0 19.5 40 40 105 150 105 150 1.4
35.2 9.0 17.5 26.5 19.5 40 40 105 150 105 150 1.1
G Transitional
41.2 9.0 17.5 26.5 19.5 40 40 125 175 125 175 1.1
41.2 - 9.5 14.5 19.5 - - 125 190 109 165 1.1
G Clay
45.1 - 9.5 14.5 19.5 - - 135 215 117 187 1.1
45.1 14.0 18.0 23.0 19.5 60 60 135 190 - - -
G Sand
48.8 33.0 37.0 41.0 19.5 60 60 145 205 - - -
48.8 15.0 18.5 22.0 19.5 45 45 145 205 145 205 1.1
G Transitional
50.0 15.0 18.5 22.0 19.5 45 45 150 210 150 210 1.1

HKW113-PCPT

Depth Soil Unit Soil Type Peak Effective Angle of Angle of Coefficient of Permeability Shear Modulus at
Internal Friction Interface Friction Small Strain
(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
φ’k1 φ’k2 φ’k3 δk kk1 kk2 Gmax,k
0.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.0 34.0 36.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 55
A Sand
9.7 34.0 36.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 80
9.7 35.5 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 104
B2 Sand
11.5 35.5 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 104
11.5 32.0 35.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 160
F Sand
14.0 32.0 35.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 160
14.0 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
F Sand
22.8 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
22.8 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 90
F Sand
26.8 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 90
26.8 30.0 31.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
F Sand
31.1 30.0 31.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
31.1 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
F Transitional
35.2 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
35.2 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 105
G Transitional
41.2 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 105
41.2 - - - - - - 105
G Clay
45.1 - - - - - - 105
45.1 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 105
G Sand
48.8 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 155
48.8 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120
G Transitional
50.0 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120

HKW113-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30 30 F-Sand
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW012-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30 F-Sand
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
40 40 40 40 40
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW012-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.0 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.5 2.0 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 65 70 - - -
1.5 5.0 6.0 7.5 20.0 55 55 15 25 - - -
B2 Sand
6.0 5.0 6.0 7.5 20.0 55 55 15 25 - - -
6.0 7.5 9.5 11.0 19.5 55 55 20 25 - - -
F Sand
14.1 7.5 9.5 11.0 19.5 55 55 40 60 - - -
14.1 20.0 28.0 35.0 19.5 80 80 60 105 - - -
F Sand
19.5 20.0 28.0 35.0 19.5 80 80 60 105 - - -
19.5 7.0 13.5 30.0 19.5 40 40 60 80 60 80 1.4
F Transitional
27.9 7.0 13.5 30.0 19.5 40 40 85 120 85 120 1.4
27.9 22.5 26.0 30.0 19.5 65 65 85 115 - - -
F Sand
31.6 22.5 26.0 30.0 19.5 65 65 95 135 - - -
31.6 15.0 20.0 25.5 19.5 45 45 95 135 95 135 1.4
F Transitional
35.7 15.0 20.0 25.5 19.5 45 45 105 150 105 150 1.4
35.7 22.0 35.5 55.0 19.5 70 70 105 150 - - -
F Sand
45.9 22.0 35.5 55.0 19.5 70 70 140 195 - - -
45.9 11.0 17.0 23.0 19.5 50 50 140 195 140 195 1.4
F Transitional
50.0 26.5 32.5 38.5 19.5 50 50 150 210 150 210 1.4

HKW012-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.5 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.5 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 40
B2 Sand
6.0 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 60
6.0 30.0 30.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 85
F Sand
14.1 30.0 30.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 85
14.1 31.5 33.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145
F Sand
19.5 31.5 33.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145
19.5 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 90
F Transitional
27.9 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 90
27.9 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
31.6 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
31.6 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
35.7 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
35.7 31.0 33.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 155
F Sand
45.9 31.0 33.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 155
45.9 30.5 32.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 115
F Transitional
50.0 30.5 32.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 140

HKW012-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 25 F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW038-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW038-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.0 5.5 9.0 20.0 90 90 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.0 2.0 5.5 9.0 20.0 90 90 90 100 - - -
1.0 15.0 17.5 22.0 20.0 90 100 130 140 - - -
A Sand
4.4 15.0 17.5 22.0 20.0 90 100 130 140 - - -
4.4 13.0 15.5 20.0 20.0 75 75 50 75 - - -
B2 Sand
9.0 13.0 15.5 20.0 20.0 75 75 50 75 - - -
9.0 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 25 60 - - -
F Sand
12.8 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 200 250 - - -
12.8 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 40 65 - - -
F Sand
14.6 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 40 90 - - -
14.6 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 135 200 - - -
F Sand
16.6 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 135 200 - - -
16.6 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 50 75 - - -
F Sand
22.0 20.0 30.5 44.0 19.5 85 85 65 140 - - -
22.0 48.5 51.0 55.0 19.5 90 100 125 220 - - -
F Sand
26.7 48.5 51.0 55.0 19.5 90 100 125 220 - - -
26.7 8.0 13.0 19.0 19.5 50 50 80 110 80 110 1.4
F Transitional
33.7 24.0 30.5 37.0 19.5 50 50 100 140 100 140 1.4
33.7 50.0 56.0 62.0 19.5 80 80 100 160 - - -
F Sand
39.6 22.0 28.0 34.0 19.5 80 80 120 170 - - -
39.6 18.0 21.5 25.5 19.5 45 45 120 165 120 165 1.4
F Transitional
45.2 18.0 21.5 25.5 19.5 45 45 135 190 135 190 1.4
45.2 14.0 21.5 27.0 19.5 45 45 135 190 135 190 1.4
F Transitional
50.0 14.0 21.5 27.0 19.5 45 45 150 210 150 210 1.4

HKW038-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 60
A Sand
4.4 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 60
4.4 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 80
B2 Sand
9.0 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 80
9.0 32.0 34.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
F Sand
22.0 32.0 34.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 165
22.0 33.0 35.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 200
F Sand
26.7 33.0 35.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 200
26.7 30.0 30.5 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
F Transitional
33.7 31.0 33.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 140
33.7 33.5 35.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 210
F Sand
39.6 30.0 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
39.6 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120
F Transitional
45.2 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120
45.2 31.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120
F Transitional
50.0 31.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120

HKW038-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
E-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15 15
E-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Clay
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45 F-Clay
F-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW010-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
E-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15
E-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
F-Clay
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 F-Clay
F-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW010-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
2.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 20.0 70 70 60 70 - - -
2.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 20.0 85 85 90 100 - - -
B2 Sand
3.7 11.5 14.0 16.5 20.0 85 85 90 100 - - -
3.7 12.0 17.0 22.0 20.5 90 95 100 115 - - -
E Sand
11.5 30.0 35.0 40.0 20.5 90 95 170 215 - - -
11.5 30.0 35.0 40.0 20.5 90 90 135 200 - - -
E Sand
20.9 30.0 35.0 40.0 20.5 90 90 60 115 - - -
20.9 17.5 22.5 27.0 19.5 65 65 60 85 - - -
F Sand
24.6 17.5 22.5 27.0 19.5 65 65 75 105 - - -
24.6 8.5 17.5 25.0 19.5 45 45 75 105 75 105 1.4
F Transitional
30.6 8.5 17.5 25.0 19.5 45 45 90 130 90 130 1.4
30.6 22.0 27.0 35.0 19.5 65 65 90 130 - - -
F Sand
36.8 22.0 27.0 35.0 19.5 65 65 110 155 - - -
36.8 12.0 18.0 26.0 19.5 45 45 110 155 110 155 1.4
F Transitional
41.2 12.0 18.0 26.0 19.5 45 45 125 175 125 175 1.4
41.2 - 6.0 9.5 19.5 - - 175 225 152 196 1.4
F Clay
42.6 - 6.0 9.5 19.5 - - 175 225 152 196 1.4
42.6 16.0 20.0 26.0 19.5 40 40 130 180 130 180 1.4
F Transitional
43.8 16.0 20.0 26.0 19.5 40 40 130 180 130 180 1.4
43.8 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 125 180 109 157 1.4
F Clay
44.5 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 125 180 109 157 1.4
44.5 27.0 31.5 39.0 19.5 65 65 135 185 - - -
F Sand
50.0 27.0 31.5 39.0 19.5 65 65 150 210 - - -

HKW010-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.5 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 25
A Sand
2.0 32.5 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 40
2.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 65
B2 Sand
3.7 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 65
3.7 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 80
E Sand
11.5 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 145
11.5 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 145
E Sand
20.9 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 145
20.9 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
F Sand
24.6 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
24.6 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
30.6 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
30.6 30.5 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
F Sand
36.8 30.5 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
36.8 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
41.2 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
41.2 - - - - - - 95
F Clay
42.6 - - - - - - 95
42.6 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 115
F Transitional
43.8 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 115
43.8 - - - - - - 170
F Clay
44.5 - - - - - - 170
44.5 31.5 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145
F Sand
50.0 31.5 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145

HKW010-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
E-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10 F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40 40 G-Sand
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Clay
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW049-SCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
E-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
35 35 35 35 35
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40 G-Sand
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
G-Clay
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW049-SCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 20.0 50 50 5 8 - - -
A Sand
1.1 0.5 1.5 2.5 20.0 50 50 5 8 - - -
1.1 5.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 80 80 75 90 - - -
B2 Sand
5.2 13.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 80 80 75 90 - - -
5.2 29.0 35.0 40.0 20.5 90 100 200 230 - - -
E Sand
8.9 29.0 35.0 40.0 20.5 90 100 200 230 - - -
8.9 10.0 15.0 20.0 19.5 75 75 30 95 - - -
F Sand
10.2 10.0 15.0 20.0 19.5 75 75 30 95 - - -
10.2 3.5 7.5 14.5 19.5 35 35 35 50 35 50 1.4
F Transitional
11.3 3.5 7.5 14.5 19.5 35 35 35 50 35 50 1.4
11.3 24.0 31.0 39.0 19.5 80 80 80 135 - - -
F Sand
17.0 12.0 19.0 27.0 19.5 80 80 50 70 - - -
17.0 8.0 11.0 15.5 19.5 35 35 50 70 50 70 1.4
F Transitional
24.5 8.0 11.0 15.5 19.5 35 35 75 105 75 105 1.4
24.5 12.5 20.0 27.5 19.5 60 60 75 100 - - -
F Sand
36.8 12.5 20.0 27.5 19.5 60 60 110 155 - - -
36.8 - 6.0 9.0 19.5 - - 140 185 122 161 1.1
G Clay
37.9 - 6.0 9.0 19.5 - - 140 185 122 161 1.1
37.9 18.0 25.0 33.0 19.5 60 60 115 160 - - -
G Sand
41.8 18.0 25.0 33.0 19.5 60 60 125 175 - - -
41.8 5.0 15.5 24.5 19.5 35 35 125 195 125 195 1.1
G Transitional
44.1 5.0 15.5 24.5 19.5 35 35 135 205 135 205 1.1
44.1 - 4.5 8.0 19.5 - - 130 190 113 165 1.1
G Clay
50.0 - 4.5 8.0 19.5 - - 130 190 113 165 1.1

HKW049-SCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 20
A Sand
1.1 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 20
1.1 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 50
B2 Sand
5.2 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
5.2 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 120
E Sand
8.9 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 120
8.9 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
F Sand
10.2 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
10.2 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
F Transitional
11.3 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
11.3 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 165
F Sand
17.0 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
17.0 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
F Transitional
24.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
24.5 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
F Sand
36.8 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
36.8 - - - - - - 185
G Clay
37.9 - - - - - - 185
37.9 31.0 32.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 125
G Sand
41.8 31.0 32.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 125
41.8 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 125
G Transitional
44.1 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 125
44.1 - - - - - - 140
G Clay
50.0 - - - - - - 140

HKW049-SCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 E-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 25
E-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Sand
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Sand
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW011-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10 E-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25
E-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40
F-Sand
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45
F-Sand
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW011-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.5 4.5 7.5 20.0 75 75 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.2 2.5 4.5 7.5 20.0 75 75 70 75 - - -
1.2 3.0 4.5 6.5 20.0 75 75 25 30 - - -
B2 Sand
4.3 15.0 16.5 18.5 20.0 75 75 90 110 - - -
4.3 18.5 22.5 26.0 20.5 90 100 150 170 - - -
E Sand
14.2 41.0 46.0 49.0 20.5 90 100 220 275 - - -
14.2 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 235 295 - - -
E Sand
24.0 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 95 195 - - -
24.0 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 95 195 - - -
E Sand
32.0 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 110 230 - - -
32.0 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 95 145 - - -
E Sand
36.5 44.0 50.0 60.0 20.5 90 95 110 150 - - -
36.5 20.0 26.0 32.5 19.5 60 60 110 155 - - -
F Sand
40.9 20.0 26.0 32.5 19.5 60 60 125 170 - - -
40.9 42.0 51.5 65.0 19.5 85 85 125 175 - - -
F Sand
42.5 42.0 51.5 65.0 19.5 85 85 125 175 - - -
42.5 20.0 24.5 31.5 19.5 60 60 130 180 - - -
F Sand
45.3 20.0 24.5 31.5 19.5 60 60 135 190 - - -
45.3 30.0 34.5 45.0 19.5 70 70 135 190 - - -
F Sand
47.8 30.0 34.5 45.0 19.5 70 70 145 200 - - -
47.8 10.5 21.5 30.0 19.5 45 45 145 220 145 220 1.4
F Transitional
50.0 10.5 21.5 30.0 19.5 45 45 150 230 150 230 1.4

HKW011-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.2 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.2 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 40
B2 Sand
4.3 35.5 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
4.3 35.5 37.5 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 95
E Sand
14.2 35.5 37.5 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 160
14.2 35.0 37.0 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 160
E Sand
36.5 35.0 37.0 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 205
36.5 31.0 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
40.9 31.0 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
40.9 32.0 34.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 195
F Sand
42.5 32.0 34.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 195
42.5 31.0 32.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
45.3 31.0 32.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
45.3 31.0 32.5 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 155
F Sand
47.8 31.0 32.5 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 155
47.8 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 130
F Transitional
50.0 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 130

HKW011-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
C2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Transitional
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW085-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
C2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
G-Transitional
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW085-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 0.5 2.5 4.5 20.0 80 80 0 0 - - -
A Sand
3.0 12.5 14.5 16.5 20.0 80 80 110 120 - - -
3.0 14.5 16.0 18.0 20.0 80 80 75 95 - - -
B2 Sand
7.0 14.5 16.0 18.0 20.0 80 80 75 95 - - -
7.0 25.0 33.0 40.0 20.5 90 100 155 180 - - -
C2 Sand
11.0 40.0 48.0 55.0 20.5 90 100 340 385 - - -
11.0 19.0 25.0 31.0 19.5 75 75 65 110 - - -
F Sand
16.5 19.0 25.0 31.0 19.5 75 75 65 110 - - -
16.5 19.0 25.0 31.0 19.5 75 75 50 70 - - -
F Sand
23.2 19.0 25.0 31.0 19.5 75 75 70 95 - - -
23.2 10.0 16.0 21.0 19.5 55 55 70 95 - - -
F Sand
30.5 10.0 16.0 21.0 19.5 55 55 90 130 - - -
30.5 4.0 10.5 20.0 19.5 30 30 90 150 90 150 1.1
G Transitional
42.0 4.0 10.5 20.0 19.5 30 30 125 220 125 220 1.1
42.0 9.5 18.0 30.0 19.5 40 40 125 195 125 195 1.1
G Transitional
48.0 9.5 18.0 30.0 19.5 40 40 145 225 145 225 1.1
48.0 22.0 29.0 37.0 19.5 60 60 145 200 - - -
G Sand
50.0 22.0 29.0 37.0 19.5 60 60 150 210 - - -

HKW085-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.5 35.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
3.0 33.5 35.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 55
3.0 35.0 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
B2 Sand
7.0 35.0 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
7.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 140
C2 Sand
11.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 140
11.0 31.0 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
F Sand
23.2 31.0 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
23.2 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 100
F Sand
30.5 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 100
30.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 110
G Transitional
42.0 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 110
42.0 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120
G Transitional
48.0 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120
48.0 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 135
G Sand
50.0 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 135

HKW085-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
C2-Sand
F-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20 F-Transitional
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30 30
G-Transitional
G-Sand
G-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45 G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW099-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
C2-Sand
F-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 F-Transitional
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30
G-Transitional
G-Sand
G-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW099-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 0.5 1.5 3.0 20.0 80 80 0 0 - - -
A Sand
2.2 12.0 14.0 15.5 20.0 80 80 105 115 - - -
2.2 13.0 16.5 22.5 20.0 85 85 90 110 - - -
B2 Sand
6.6 13.0 16.5 22.5 20.0 85 85 90 110 - - -
6.6 15.0 23.5 44.0 20.5 90 100 140 165 - - -
C2 Sand
7.7 15.0 23.5 44.0 20.5 90 100 140 165 - - -
7.7 6.0 13.0 25.0 19.5 60 60 40 60 - - -
F Sand
10.0 6.0 13.0 25.0 19.5 60 60 40 60 - - -
10.0 29.0 38.0 50.0 19.5 90 100 180 230 - - -
F Sand
14.6 29.0 38.0 50.0 19.5 90 100 180 230 - - -
14.6 19.0 23.0 28.0 19.5 70 70 45 70 - - -
F Sand
19.5 19.0 23.0 28.0 19.5 70 70 60 80 - - -
19.5 4.0 5.5 7.0 19.5 30 30 60 105 60 105 1.4
F Transitional
20.3 4.0 5.5 7.0 19.5 30 30 60 105 60 105 1.4
20.3 23.0 31.0 38.0 19.5 80 80 60 100 - - -
F Sand
24.3 23.0 31.0 38.0 19.5 80 80 75 100 - - -
24.3 4.5 10.0 16.0 19.5 30 30 75 130 75 130 1.4
F Transitional
26.5 4.5 10.0 16.0 19.5 30 30 80 140 80 140 1.4
26.5 3.5 6.5 10.0 19.5 30 30 95 125 95 125 1.4
F Transitional
28.7 3.5 6.5 10.0 19.5 30 30 275 310 275 310 1.4
28.7 3.5 8.0 15.5 19.5 30 30 85 130 85 130 1.1
G Transitional
31.5 3.5 8.0 15.5 19.5 30 30 95 160 95 160 1.1
31.5 20.0 26.5 35.0 19.5 70 70 95 135 - - -
G Sand
32.8 20.0 26.5 35.0 19.5 70 70 95 135 - - -
32.8 4.5 12.0 22.0 19.5 35 35 100 150 100 150 1.1
G Transitional
34.8 4.5 12.0 22.0 19.5 35 35 100 150 100 150 1.1
34.8 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 120 160 104 139 1.1
G Clay
36.8 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 120 160 104 139 1.1
36.8 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 95 140 83 122 1.1
G Clay
39.7 - 4.5 7.0 19.5 - - 175 225 152 196 1.1
39.7 5.5 15.5 30.0 19.5 35 35 120 175 120 175 1.1
G Transitional
50.0 5.5 15.5 30.0 19.5 35 35 150 245 150 245 1.1

HKW099-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.5 35.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 25
A Sand
2.2 33.5 35.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 50
2.2 35.5 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 65
B2 Sand
6.6 35.5 37.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 85
6.6 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 125
C2 Sand
7.7 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 125
7.7 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 75
F Sand
10.0 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
10.0 33.5 36.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 175
F Sand
14.6 33.5 36.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 175
14.6 30.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
19.5 30.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
19.5 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
20.3 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
20.3 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150
F Sand
24.3 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150
24.3 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
26.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
26.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
28.7 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 260
28.7 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
G Transitional
31.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
31.5 32.0 34.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 125
G Sand
32.8 32.0 34.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 125
32.8 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
G Transitional
34.8 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
34.8 - - - - - - 120
G Clay
39.7 - - - - - - 120
39.7 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120
G Transitional
50.0 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 120

HKW099-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
C2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Clay
G-Clay
30 30 30 30 30 30
G-Clay
35 35 35 35 35 35
40 40 40 40 40 40
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW072-PCPT-B


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
C2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
F-Clay
G-Clay
30 30 30 30 30
G-Clay
35 35 35 35 35
40 40 40 40 40
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW072-PCPT-B

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 1.5 3.5 6.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.2 1.5 3.5 6.0 20.0 70 70 55 60 - - -
1.2 14.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 85 85 55 60 - - -
B2 Sand
4.0 14.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 85 85 150 165 - - -
4.0 14.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 85 85 145 160 - - -
B2 Sand
7.2 14.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 85 85 35 65 - - -
7.2 44.0 50.0 62.0 20.5 90 100 260 290 - - -
C2 Sand
9.9 44.0 50.0 62.0 20.5 90 100 395 440 - - -
9.9 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 85 120 - - -
F Sand
14.0 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 360 420 - - -
14.0 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 110 170 - - -
F Sand
19.7 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 110 170 - - -
19.7 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 70 140 - - -
F Sand
22.0 22.0 39.0 54.0 19.5 90 90 70 140 - - -
22.0 - 5.0 9.0 19.5 - - 95 125 83 109 1.4
F Clay
23.3 - 5.0 9.0 19.5 - - 95 125 83 109 1.4
23.3 12.0 22.5 30.0 19.5 50 50 70 100 70 100 1.4
F Transitional
26.5 12.0 22.5 30.0 19.5 50 50 80 110 80 110 1.4
26.5 - 4.0 5.5 19.5 - - 115 150 100 130 1.1
G Clay
29.2 - 4.0 5.5 19.5 - - 115 150 100 130 1.1
29.2 - 7.5 16.0 19.5 - - 90 135 78 117 1.1
G Clay
36.0 - 7.5 16.0 19.5 - - 110 160 96 139 1.1
36.0 10.0 16.0 25.0 19.5 45 45 110 150 110 150 1.1
G Transitional
50.0 16.0 27.0 36.0 19.5 45 45 150 210 150 210 1.1

HKW072-PCPT-B

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.2 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.2 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
B2 Sand
7.2 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
7.2 37.5 39.5 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 155
C2 Sand
9.9 37.5 39.5 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.4E-04 155
9.9 33.0 35.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 170
F Sand
22.0 33.0 35.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 170
22.0 - - - - - - 100
F Clay
23.3 - - - - - - 100
23.3 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
26.5 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 150
26.5 - - - - - - 100
G Clay
29.2 - - - - - - 100
29.2 - - - - - - 100
G Clay
36.0 - - - - - - 100
36.0 31.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
G Transitional
50.0 31.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 135

HKW072-PCPT-B


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
C1-Clay
C1-Sand
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10 10 C1-Transitional
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Transitional
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Clay
30 30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW078-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
C1-Clay
C1-Sand
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10 C1-Transitional
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
F-Transitional
20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Clay
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW078-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.5 5.5 10.0 20.0 75 75 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.7 2.5 5.5 10.0 20.0 75 75 85 95 - - -
1.7 8.5 12.0 16.5 20.0 75 75 60 75 - - -
B2 Sand
6.0 8.5 12.0 16.5 20.0 75 75 60 75 - - -
6.0 - 2.0 6.0 19.0 - - 30 35 26 30 1.7
C1 Clay
6.5 - 2.0 6.0 19.0 - - 30 35 26 30 1.7
6.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 19.0 60 60 20 35 - - -
C1 Sand
7.3 10.5 11.5 12.5 19.0 60 60 20 35 - - -
7.3 - 2.5 3.5 19.0 - - 40 50 35 43 1.7
C1 Clay
8.8 - 2.5 3.5 19.0 - - 40 50 35 43 1.7
8.8 4.5 7.5 13.5 19.0 35 35 30 40 30 40 1.7
C1 Transitional
9.8 4.5 7.5 13.5 19.0 35 35 30 40 30 40 1.7
9.8 22.0 26.5 35.5 19.5 85 85 120 165 - - -
F Sand
14.8 22.0 26.5 35.5 19.5 85 85 40 80 - - -
14.8 10.0 13.0 18.5 19.5 40 40 45 65 45 65 1.4
F Transitional
15.8 10.0 13.0 18.5 19.5 40 40 45 65 45 65 1.4
15.8 13.0 17.5 22.0 19.5 60 60 45 65 - - -
F Sand
26.8 13.0 17.5 22.0 19.5 60 60 80 115 - - -
26.8 - 3.0 5.0 19.5 - - 85 120 74 104 1.4
F Clay
28.6 - 3.0 5.0 19.5 - - 85 120 74 104 1.4
28.6 12.0 20.5 32.5 19.5 45 45 85 120 85 120 1.4
F Transitional
47.1 12.0 20.5 32.5 19.5 45 45 140 200 140 200 1.4
47.1 25.0 29.5 37.0 19.5 60 60 140 200 - - -
G Sand
50.0 25.0 29.5 37.0 19.5 60 60 150 210 - - -

HKW078-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
A Sand
1.7 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
1.7 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 65
B2 Sand
6.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 65
6.0 - - - - - - 40
C1 Clay
6.5 - - - - - - 40
6.5 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.1E-04 95
C1 Sand
7.3 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.1E-04 95
7.3 - - - - - - 50
C1 Clay
8.8 - - - - - - 50
8.8 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 70
C1 Transitional
9.8 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 70
9.8 32.0 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
F Sand
14.8 32.0 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
14.8 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
F Transitional
15.8 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
15.8 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
F Sand
26.8 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
26.8 - - - - - - 85
F Clay
28.6 - - - - - - 85
28.6 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120
F Transitional
47.1 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 120
47.1 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 135
G Sand
50.0 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 135

HKW078-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5 C1-Clay
F-Transitional
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Transitional
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25 25
G-Clay
30 30 30 30 30 30
G-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW082-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B2-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 C1-Clay
F-Transitional
10 10 10 10 10
F-Transitional
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25
G-Clay
30 30 30 30 30
G-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
G-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW082-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 3.0 5.0 8.5 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.6 3.0 5.0 8.5 20.0 70 70 75 80 - - -
1.6 6.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 70 70 45 55 - - -
B2 Sand
2.8 6.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 70 70 45 55 - - -
2.8 - 2.0 3.5 19.0 - - 10 10 9 9 1.7
C1 Clay
6.5 - 2.0 3.5 19.0 - - 20 40 17 35 1.7
6.5 2.0 4.0 6.0 19.0 30 30 20 35 20 35 1.7
C1 Transitional
9.9 2.0 4.0 6.0 19.0 30 30 30 40 30 40 1.7
9.9 3.0 6.0 9.5 19.5 30 30 30 45 30 45 1.4
F Transitional
11.3 3.0 6.0 9.5 19.5 30 30 35 60 35 60 1.4
11.3 12.0 22.0 31.5 19.5 70 70 35 75 - - -
F Sand
20.2 12.0 22.0 31.5 19.5 70 70 60 90 - - -
20.2 5.0 8.5 17.0 19.5 40 40 60 85 60 85 1.4
F Transitional
24.1 14.0 18.5 27.0 19.5 40 40 70 100 70 100 1.4
24.1 - 8.5 12.0 19.5 - - 70 115 61 100 1.1
G Clay
28.3 - 8.5 12.0 19.5 - - 85 135 74 117 1.1
28.3 15.0 18.5 21.5 19.5 35 35 85 120 85 120 1.1
G Transitional
32.1 3.0 5.5 8.5 19.5 35 35 95 165 95 165 1.1
32.1 11.0 21.5 35.0 19.5 50 50 95 135 95 135 1.1
G Transitional
45.7 11.0 21.5 35.0 19.5 50 50 140 200 140 200 1.1
45.7 25.0 35.0 42.0 19.5 70 70 140 195 - - -
G Sand
50.0 25.0 35.0 42.0 19.5 70 70 150 210 - - -

HKW082-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
A Sand
1.6 33.0 35.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
1.6 34.5 36.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 50
B2 Sand
2.8 34.5 36.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 50
2.8 - - - - - - 45
C1 Clay
6.5 - - - - - - 45
6.5 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 50
C1 Transitional
9.9 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 50
9.9 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 70
F Transitional
11.3 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 70
11.3 30.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
F Sand
20.2 30.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
20.2 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
F Transitional
24.1 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
24.1 - - - - - - 90
G Clay
28.3 - - - - - - 90
28.3 30.0 30.5 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
G Transitional
32.1 30.0 30.5 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 100
32.1 31.0 32.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 105
G Transitional
45.7 31.0 32.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 130
45.7 32.5 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 150
G Sand
50.0 32.5 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 150

HKW082-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
F-Clay
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35 35
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW053-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
F-Clay
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW053-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 1.0 4.0 6.5 20.0 90 90 5 5 - - -
A Sand
4.1 18.0 20.5 22.5 20.0 90 90 160 175 - - -
4.1 12.0 17.0 21.0 20.0 80 80 130 150 - - -
B2 Sand
7.6 12.0 17.0 21.0 20.0 80 80 20 50 - - -
7.6 - 2.0 3.5 19.0 - - 25 45 22 39 1.7
C1 Clay
8.9 - 2.0 3.5 19.0 - - 30 60 26 52 1.7
8.9 21.0 28.0 35.0 19.5 85 85 150 190 - - -
F Sand
11.7 21.0 28.0 35.0 19.5 85 85 60 95 - - -
11.7 18.0 21.0 24.0 19.5 70 70 35 55 - - -
F Sand
15.7 18.0 21.0 24.0 19.5 70 70 45 75 - - -
15.7 45.0 55.0 60.0 19.5 90 95 235 335 - - -
F Sand
19.6 20.0 25.0 35.0 19.5 90 95 60 80 - - -
19.6 18.0 20.0 24.0 19.5 70 70 60 80 - - -
F Sand
23.6 30.0 33.0 36.0 19.5 70 70 70 100 - - -
23.6 - 5.0 7.5 19.5 - - 90 120 78 104 1.4
F Clay
24.4 - 5.0 7.5 19.5 - - 90 120 78 104 1.4
24.4 11.5 19.5 27.5 19.5 60 60 75 100 - - -
F Sand
33.2 11.5 19.5 27.5 19.5 60 60 100 140 - - -
33.2 8.0 16.0 35.0 19.5 50 50 100 140 100 140 1.4
F Transitional
45.7 18.0 34.0 50.0 19.5 50 50 135 190 135 190 1.4
45.7 - 9.5 12.5 19.5 - - 225 280 196 243 1.4
F Clay
46.3 - 9.5 12.5 19.5 - - 225 280 196 243 1.4
46.3 13.0 30.5 45.0 19.5 50 50 140 205 140 205 1.4
F Transitional
50.0 13.0 30.5 45.0 19.5 50 50 150 225 150 225 1.4

HKW053-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 34.5 36.5 39.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
A Sand
4.1 34.5 36.5 39.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 65
4.1 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 80
B2 Sand
7.6 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 80
7.6 - - - - - - 45
C1 Clay
8.9 - - - - - - 45
8.9 32.5 35.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145
F Sand
11.7 32.5 35.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 145
11.7 30.5 33.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
F Sand
15.7 30.5 33.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
15.7 35.0 37.5 42.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 170
F Sand
19.6 30.5 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 170
19.6 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
F Sand
23.6 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
23.6 - - - - - - 100
F Clay
24.4 - - - - - - 100
24.4 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 110
F Sand
33.2 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 110
33.2 30.5 32.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
45.7 30.5 32.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 145
45.7 - - - - - - 145
F Clay
46.3 - - - - - - 145
46.3 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 145
F Transitional
50.0 31.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 145

HKW053-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30 30 F-Sand
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW039-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
15 15 15 15 15
F-Sand
20 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30 F-Sand
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
F-Transitional
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW039-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.0 3.5 6.5 20.0 60 60 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.2 2.0 3.5 6.5 20.0 60 60 60 65 - - -
1.2 10.0 12.0 14.0 20.0 85 85 95 115 - - -
B2 Sand
8.2 21.0 23.0 25.0 20.0 85 85 95 115 - - -
8.2 18.0 29.5 41.0 19.5 85 85 150 195 - - -
F Sand
13.2 18.0 29.5 41.0 19.5 85 85 150 195 - - -
13.2 18.0 29.5 41.0 19.5 85 85 40 95 - - -
F Sand
23.0 18.0 29.5 41.0 19.5 85 85 70 105 - - -
23.0 6.5 15.0 24.0 19.5 40 40 70 105 70 105 1.4
F Transitional
28.3 6.5 15.0 24.0 19.5 40 40 85 130 85 130 1.4
28.3 18.5 25.5 31.5 19.5 65 65 85 120 - - -
F Sand
30.5 18.5 25.5 31.5 19.5 65 65 90 130 - - -
30.5 7.0 9.0 10.5 19.5 30 30 90 150 90 150 1.4
F Transitional
33.3 7.0 9.0 10.5 19.5 30 30 100 165 100 165 1.4
33.3 10.0 16.0 24.0 19.5 40 40 100 140 100 140 1.4
F Transitional
45.1 10.0 16.0 24.0 19.5 40 40 135 190 135 190 1.4
45.1 - 7.5 11.0 19.5 - - 200 255 174 222 1.4
F Clay
47.1 - 7.5 11.0 19.5 - - 200 255 174 222 1.4
47.1 7.5 12.5 18.0 19.5 30 30 195 250 195 250 1.1
G Transitional
50.0 7.5 12.5 18.0 19.5 30 30 200 260 200 260 1.1

HKW039-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.2 32.0 34.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.2 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 50
B2 Sand
8.2 36.0 38.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 95
8.2 31.5 34.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
F Sand
23.0 31.5 34.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
23.0 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
28.3 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
28.3 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
30.5 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
30.5 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
33.3 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
33.3 30.0 30.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
45.1 30.0 30.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
45.1 - - - - - - 160
F Clay
47.1 - - - - - - 160
47.1 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 130
G Transitional
50.0 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 130

HKW039-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40 40
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW042-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
F-Transitional
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
G-Clay
40 40 40 40 40
G-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW042-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.5 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.8 2.5 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 60 70 - - -
1.8 4.0 7.5 12.0 20.0 75 75 45 55 - - -
B2 Sand
9.0 18.0 22.0 26.5 20.0 75 75 75 110 - - -
9.0 19.0 26.0 32.5 19.5 80 80 70 115 - - -
F Sand
15.0 19.0 26.0 32.5 19.5 80 80 70 115 - - -
15.0 3.5 10.5 18.0 19.5 35 35 45 65 45 65 1.4
F Transitional
27.0 3.5 10.5 18.0 19.5 35 35 80 115 80 115 1.4
27.0 13.5 19.5 23.5 19.5 55 55 80 115 - - -
F Sand
30.4 13.5 19.5 23.5 19.5 55 55 90 130 - - -
30.4 8.5 12.0 17.5 19.5 35 35 90 130 90 130 1.4
F Transitional
32.9 8.5 12.0 17.5 19.5 35 35 100 140 100 140 1.4
32.9 20.0 26.0 35.0 19.5 65 65 100 140 - - -
F Sand
37.9 20.0 26.0 35.0 19.5 65 65 115 160 - - -
37.9 - 6.0 8.0 19.5 - - 170 220 148 191 1.1
G Clay
38.7 - 6.0 8.0 19.5 - - 170 220 148 191 1.1
38.7 7.0 14.5 20.0 19.5 35 35 140 185 140 185 1.1
G Transitional
42.1 7.0 14.5 20.0 19.5 35 35 150 200 150 200 1.1
42.1 17.0 35.5 53.0 19.5 70 70 125 175 - - -
G Sand
50.0 17.0 35.5 53.0 19.5 70 70 150 210 - - -

HKW042-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
A Sand
1.8 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 30
1.8 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 45
B2 Sand
9.0 34.5 36.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 95
9.0 31.5 34.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
F Sand
15.0 31.5 34.0 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 140
15.0 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
F Transitional
27.0 30.0 30.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 80
27.0 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 110
F Sand
30.4 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 110
30.4 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 90
F Transitional
32.9 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 90
32.9 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
F Sand
37.9 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 125
37.9 - - - - - - 230
G Clay
38.7 - - - - - - 230
38.7 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 110
G Transitional
42.1 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 110
42.1 32.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 150
G Sand
50.0 32.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 150

HKW042-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
A-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10
B2-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35 35
G-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW117-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
A-Sand
10 10 10 10 10
B2-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
G-Sand
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
G-Sand
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW117-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 20.0 90 100 0 0 - - -
A Sand
2.0 23.0 26.0 29.0 20.0 90 100 250 260 - - -
2.0 26.5 29.0 31.5 20.0 90 100 240 245 - - -
A Sand
8.2 26.5 29.0 31.5 20.0 90 100 160 195 - - -
8.2 15.0 22.0 30.0 20.0 75 75 75 115 - - -
B2 Sand
15.2 15.0 22.0 30.0 20.0 75 75 45 75 - - -
15.2 21.5 30.5 45.5 19.5 80 80 75 125 - - -
F Sand
20.0 21.5 30.5 45.5 19.5 80 80 110 195 - - -
20.0 21.5 30.5 45.5 19.5 80 80 60 85 - - -
F Sand
24.9 21.5 30.5 45.5 19.5 80 80 75 105 - - -
24.9 8.5 18.5 28.5 19.5 55 55 75 105 - - -
F Sand
33.3 8.5 18.5 28.5 19.5 55 55 100 140 - - -
33.3 14.5 20.5 26.0 19.5 55 55 100 140 - - -
G Sand
40.3 14.5 20.5 26.0 19.5 55 55 120 170 - - -
40.3 10.0 13.0 19.0 19.5 55 55 120 170 - - -
G Sand
50.0 16.0 29.0 37.0 19.5 55 55 150 210 - - -

HKW117-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 37.0 39.0 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
A Sand
2.0 37.0 39.0 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 70
2.0 37.0 39.0 42.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 80
A Sand
8.2 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 80
8.2 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 100
B2 Sand
15.2 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 100
15.2 31.5 33.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150
F Sand
24.9 31.5 33.5 40.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150
24.9 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
F Sand
33.3 30.0 31.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
33.3 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 110
G Sand
40.3 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 110
40.3 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 100
G Sand
50.0 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.3E-04 135

HKW117-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B1-Transitional
5 5 5 5 5 5
B1-Transitional
10 10 10 10 10 10
B1-Transitional
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
E-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Clay
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 40 F-Sand
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Sand
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50 F-Sand
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW002-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B1-Transitional
5 5 5 5 5
B1-Transitional
10 10 10 10 10
B1-Transitional
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
E-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30
F-Transitional
35 35 35 35 35
F-Clay
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 F-Sand
F-Sand
45 45 45 45 45
F-Sand
F-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 F-Sand
Low Estimate

HKW002-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 1.5 3.0 5.5 20.0 60 60 0 0 - - -
A Sand
1.0 1.5 3.0 5.5 20.0 60 60 35 40 - - -
1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 20.0 35 35 5 5 5 5 1.3
B1 Transitional
7.2 5.5 7.0 8.5 20.0 35 35 20 30 20 30 1.3
7.2 3.5 4.5 6.0 20.0 30 30 20 30 20 30 1.3
B1 Transitional
7.9 3.5 4.5 6.0 20.0 30 30 20 30 20 30 1.3
7.9 20.0 25.0 30.0 20.5 90 95 140 190 - - -
E Sand
17.0 39.0 44.0 47.0 20.5 90 95 140 190 - - -
17.0 39.0 44.0 47.0 20.5 85 85 160 255 - - -
E Sand
21.6 33.0 38.0 41.5 20.5 85 85 65 110 - - -
21.6 33.0 38.0 41.5 20.5 85 85 65 90 - - -
E Sand
27.5 25.0 30.0 34.0 20.5 85 85 85 115 - - -
27.5 14.0 20.0 25.0 19.5 60 60 85 115 - - -
F Sand
29.1 14.0 20.0 25.0 19.5 60 60 85 120 - - -
29.1 7.0 11.0 17.0 19.5 40 40 85 120 85 120 1.4
F Transitional
34.2 11.0 18.5 25.0 19.5 40 40 100 145 100 145 1.4
34.2 - 6.5 9.0 19.5 - - 100 185 87 161 1.4
F Clay
36.0 - 6.5 9.0 19.5 - - 110 185 96 161 1.4
36.0 28.0 34.5 42.0 19.5 75 75 110 150 - - -
F Sand
37.8 28.0 34.5 42.0 19.5 75 75 115 160 - - -
37.8 21.0 24.0 27.0 19.5 65 65 115 160 - - -
F Sand
41.2 38.0 41.0 46.0 19.5 65 65 125 175 - - -
41.2 35.0 52.5 67.0 19.5 85 85 125 175 - - -
F Sand
45.2 35.0 52.5 67.0 19.5 85 85 135 190 - - -
45.2 26.0 28.5 30.5 19.5 60 60 135 190 - - -
F Sand
46.6 26.0 28.5 30.5 19.5 60 60 140 195 - - -
46.6 10.0 20.5 35.0 19.5 40 40 140 275 140 275 1.4
F Transitional
48.7 10.0 20.5 35.0 19.5 40 40 145 275 145 275 1.4
48.7 28.0 33.5 44.0 19.5 65 65 145 205 - - -
F Sand
50.0 28.0 33.5 44.0 19.5 65 65 150 210 - - -

HKW002-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 25
A Sand
1.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 25
1.0 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 25
B1 Transitional
7.2 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 50
7.2 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 45
B1 Transitional
7.9 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 45
7.9 35.0 37.0 41.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 115
E Sand
17.0 35.0 37.0 41.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 160
17.0 34.0 36.0 41.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 160
E Sand
27.5 34.0 36.0 41.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.7E-04 160
27.5 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
F Sand
29.1 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
29.1 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 105
F Transitional
34.2 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 105
34.2 - - - - - - 120
F Clay
36.0 - - - - - - 120
36.0 31.0 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 160
F Sand
37.8 31.0 33.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 160
37.8 30.5 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
F Sand
41.2 30.5 32.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 170
41.2 32.5 35.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 190
F Sand
45.2 32.5 35.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 190
45.2 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
F Sand
46.6 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
46.6 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 150
F Transitional
48.7 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 150
48.7 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150
F Sand
50.0 30.0 32.0 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 150

HKW002-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B1-Transitional
B1-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
C1-Transitional
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
F-Clay
35 35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW048-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
B1-Transitional
B1-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
C1-Transitional
C1-Clay
10 10 10 10 10
F-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
20 20 20 20 20
F-Sand
25 25 25 25 25
F-Transitional
30 30 30 30 30
F-Sand
F-Clay
35 35 35 35 35
F-Sand
40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
F-Transitional
G-Transitional
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW048-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 1.5 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 0 0 - - -
A Sand
2.1 1.5 4.5 8.0 20.0 70 70 55 65 - - -
2.1 0.8 1.3 1.8 20.0 25 25 5 10 5 10 1.3
B1 Transitional
3.0 0.8 1.3 1.8 20.0 25 25 5 10 5 10 1.3
3.0 6.0 8.5 11.0 20.0 60 60 25 40 - - -
B1 Sand
5.3 6.0 8.5 11.0 20.0 60 60 25 40 - - -
5.3 3.5 5.5 8.0 19.0 30 30 15 25 15 25 1.7
C1 Transitional
8.4 1.0 2.0 3.0 19.0 30 30 25 40 25 40 1.7
8.4 - 1.8 2.5 19.0 - - 40 55 35 48 1.7
C1 Clay
9.8 - 1.8 2.5 19.0 - - 40 55 35 48 1.7
9.8 21.0 25.0 31.5 19.5 80 80 90 125 - - -
F Sand
14.5 21.0 25.0 31.5 19.5 80 80 50 110 - - -
14.5 21.0 25.0 31.5 19.5 80 80 45 70 - - -
F Sand
17.1 21.0 25.0 31.5 19.5 80 80 50 70 - - -
17.1 7.0 18.0 32.0 19.5 60 60 50 70 - - -
F Sand
25.3 7.0 18.0 32.0 19.5 60 60 75 105 - - -
25.3 9.0 14.0 19.0 19.5 40 40 75 105 75 105 1.4
F Transitional
29.2 9.0 14.0 19.0 19.5 40 40 90 125 90 125 1.4
29.2 14.5 20.0 25.5 19.5 60 60 90 125 - - -
F Sand
32.5 14.5 20.0 25.5 19.5 60 60 100 135 - - -
32.5 - 4.0 6.0 19.5 - - 110 150 96 130 1.4
F Clay
33.6 - 4.0 6.0 19.5 - - 110 150 96 130 1.4
33.6 10.0 14.0 22.5 19.5 65 65 100 145 - - -
F Sand
38.8 40.0 47.0 55.5 19.5 65 65 115 165 - - -
38.8 9.0 12.0 20.0 19.5 40 40 115 165 115 165 1.4
F Transitional
45.8 14.0 26.0 35.0 19.5 40 40 135 195 135 195 1.4
45.8 13.0 17.0 21.0 19.5 40 40 135 195 135 195 1.4
F Transitional
47.3 13.0 17.0 21.0 19.5 40 40 140 200 140 200 1.4
47.3 13.0 23.5 34.0 19.5 40 40 140 200 140 200 1.1
G Transitional
50.0 13.0 23.5 34.0 19.5 40 40 150 210 150 210 1.1

HKW048-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
A Sand
2.1 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 35
2.1 30.0 30.0 33.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 25
B1 Transitional
3.0 30.0 30.0 33.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 25
3.0 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.5E-04 50
B1 Sand
5.3 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 1.5E-04 50
5.3 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 50
C1 Transitional
8.4 30.0 30.0 34.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 50
8.4 - - - - - - 50
C1 Clay
9.8 - - - - - - 50
9.8 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
F Sand
17.1 31.5 34.0 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 135
17.1 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
F Sand
25.3 30.0 31.5 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 105
25.3 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
F Transitional
29.2 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 95
29.2 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
F Sand
32.5 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
32.5 - - - - - - 110
F Clay
33.6 - - - - - - 110
33.6 30.5 32.5 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 108
F Sand
38.8 30.5 32.5 39.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 175
38.8 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 102
F Transitional
45.8 30.0 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 125
45.8 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 125
F Transitional
47.3 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 125
47.3 30.5 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 125
G Transitional
50.0 30.5 31.5 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 8.3E-06 125

HKW048-PCPT


0 40 80 120 12 16 20 24 0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 10 C1-Transitional
C1-Clay
D-Sand
15 15 15 15 15 15
D-Transitional
D-Clay
20 20 20 20 20 20 F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Clay
25 25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 30 F-Clay
F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Sand
F-Clay
40 40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
50 50 50 50 50 50
DerivedLow Estimate

HKW065-PCPT


20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 1.0E-8 1.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4
A-Sand
A-Sand
5 5 5 5 5
B2-Sand
10 10 10 10 10 C1-Transitional
C1-Clay
D-Sand
15 15 15 15 15
D-Transitional
D-Clay
20 20 20 20 20 F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Clay
25 25 25 25 25
F-Sand
30 30 30 30 30 F-Clay
F-Sand
F-Transitional
F-Sand
F-Clay
40 40 40 40 40
F-Transitional
45 45 45 45 45
F-Clay
50 50 50 50 50
Low Estimate

HKW065-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
0.0 0.5 2.0 4.5 20.0 90 100 0 0 - - -
A Sand
2.0 17.0 20.0 24.5 20.0 90 100 195 205 - - -
2.0 21.0 23.0 24.5 20.0 90 100 180 190 - - -
A Sand
3.5 21.0 23.0 24.5 20.0 90 100 180 190 - - -
3.5 13.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 75 75 110 135 - - -
B2 Sand
8.3 13.0 16.5 21.0 20.0 75 75 25 50 - - -
8.3 2.5 6.5 11.0 19.0 30 30 25 50 25 50 1.7
C1 Transitional
10.3 2.5 6.5 11.0 19.0 30 30 30 50 30 50 1.7
10.3 - 2.5 8.5 19.0 - - 50 60 43 52 1.7
C1 Clay
11.7 - 2.5 8.5 19.0 - - 50 60 43 52 1.7
11.7 16.0 19.5 25.0 19.5 70 70 40 75 - - -
D Sand
14.0 16.0 19.5 25.0 19.5 70 70 45 75 - - -
14.0 3.5 10.5 20.0 19.5 40 40 40 65 40 65 1.3
D Transitional
16.8 3.5 10.5 20.0 19.5 40 40 50 80 50 80 1.3
16.8 - 5.0 10.0 19.5 - - 75 95 65 83 1.3
D Clay
18.4 - 5.0 10.0 19.5 - - 75 95 65 83 1.3
18.4 16.0 24.0 35.0 19.5 70 70 55 75 - - -
F Sand
21.0 16.0 24.0 35.0 19.5 70 70 65 95 - - -
21.0 9.5 11.5 15.0 19.5 40 40 65 90 65 90 1.4
F Transitional
22.4 9.5 11.5 15.0 19.5 40 40 65 95 65 95 1.4
22.4 - 5.0 7.0 19.5 - - 115 145 100 126 1.4
F Clay
23.2 - 5.0 7.0 19.5 - - 115 145 100 126 1.4
23.2 12.5 21.0 30.0 19.5 60 60 70 100 - - -
F Sand
29.2 12.5 21.0 30.0 19.5 60 60 85 120 - - -
29.2 - 8.5 13.5 19.5 - - 90 140 78 122 1.4
F Clay
30.2 - 8.5 13.5 19.5 - - 90 140 78 122 1.4
30.2 10.5 22.0 31.0 19.5 60 60 90 130 - - -
F Sand
32.0 10.5 22.0 31.0 19.5 60 60 95 135 - - -
32.0 6.5 9.0 11.0 19.5 30 30 95 160 95 160 1.4
F Transitional
33.4 6.5 9.0 11.0 19.5 30 30 100 165 100 165 1.4

HKW065-PCPT

Deviator Stress
[m] [MPa] [kN/m3] [%] [kPa] [%]
33.4 22.0 26.0 32.0 19.5 55 55 100 140 - - -
F Sand
34.1 22.0 26.0 32.0 19.5 55 55 100 145 - - -
34.1 10.0 13.5 17.0 19.5 40 40 100 145 100 145 1.4
F Transitional
35.1 10.0 13.5 17.0 19.5 40 40 105 150 105 150 1.4
35.1 - 6.0 7.5 19.5 - - 175 220 152 191 1.4
F Clay
38.2 - 6.0 7.5 19.5 - - 175 220 152 191 1.4
38.2 11.0 22.0 34.0 19.5 45 45 115 160 115 160 1.4
F Transitional
45.8 11.0 22.0 34.0 19.5 45 45 140 195 140 195 1.4
45.8 - 7.0 10.0 19.5 - - 150 250 130 217 1.4
F Clay
50.0 - 12.5 16.0 19.5 - - 160 250 139 217 1.4

HKW065-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
0.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 20
A Sand
2.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 70
2.0 36.5 38.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 70
A Sand
3.5 36.5 38.5 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.6E-04 70
3.5 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
B2 Sand
8.3 35.0 37.0 40.0 26.8 1.2E-05 3.6E-04 75
8.3 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 55
C1 Transitional
10.3 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 2.5E-05 55
10.3 - - - - - - 50
C1 Clay
11.7 - - - - - - 50
11.7 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.1E-04 100
D Sand
14.0 32.5 34.5 38.0 26.8 1.2E-05 2.1E-04 100
14.0 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 75
D Transitional
16.8 30.0 31.5 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 75
16.8 - - - - - - 70
D Clay
18.4 - - - - - - 70
18.4 30.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
21.0 30.5 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
21.0 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 85
F Transitional
22.4 30.0 31.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 85
22.4 - - - - - - 105
F Clay
23.2 - - - - - - 105
23.2 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
F Sand
29.2 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 115
29.2 - - - - - - 100
F Clay
30.2 - - - - - - 100
30.2 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
F Sand
32.0 30.0 32.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 120
32.0 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100
F Transitional
33.4 30.0 30.0 35.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 100

HKW065-PCPT

(Steel-Soil)
[m] [o ] [o ] [m/s] [MPa]
33.4 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
F Sand
34.1 31.0 33.0 38.0 26.8 4.8E-07 1.2E-04 130
34.1 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 105
F Transitional
35.1 30.0 30.0 36.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 105
35.1 - - - - - - 145
F Clay
38.2 - - - - - - 145
38.2 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 110
F Transitional
45.8 30.5 32.0 37.0 26.8 3.9E-08 1.1E-05 130
45.8 - - - - - - 165
F Clay
50.0 - - - - - - 115

HKW065-PCPT

Soil Unit/
Soil Unit Weight, γ [kN/m³] Soil Group
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
A
B2
6
C2
12
F-Sand
18
F-Clay
24
F-Transitional
G-Clay
30
G-Clay
36
42
G-Transitional
48
GeODin/Unit Weight versus Depth.glo/2020-07-23 10:33
54
Design Profile, γk Location(s):

Derived value according to γ-qt-Rf method HKW072-PCPT-B
Derived value according to γ-w method HKW072-BH
Derived value according to γ-V method
Note(s):
- HKW072-PCPT-B is the favourable design location for Soil Province 3
SOIL UNIT WEIGHT VERSUS DEPTH

50
45
40
35
Angle of Interface Friction, δ [°]
30
25
20
15
10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
GeODin/deltacv_characteristic and derived.GLO/2020-08-19 11:11
Particle Diameter, D50 [mm]
Characteristic value Derived value from δ-RS method - Sand

(Sand and Transitional soil) Derived value from δ-RS method - Transitional
Derived value from δ-D50 method Derived value from δ-RS method - Clay
Derived value from δ-pile method
STEEL-SOIL INTERFACE FRICTION ANGLE VERSUS PARTICLE DIAMETER

Characteristic Values and Derived Values

APPENDIX E: DERIVED VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS PER SOIL UNIT
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX E: Plate
DERIVED VALUES VERSUS DEPTH

Soil Unit A E1-1 to E1-3
Soil Unit B1 E1-4 to E1-6
Soil Group B1-Sand E1-7 to E1-9
Soil Group B1-Transitional E1-10 to E1-12
Soil Unit B2 E1-13 to E1-15
Soil Unit C1 E1-16 to E1-18
Soil Group C1-Sand E1-19 to E1-21
Soil Group C1-Transitional E1-22 to E1-24
Soil Group C1-Clay E1-25 to E1-27
Soil Unit C2 E1-28 to E1-30
Soil Unit D E1-31 to E1-33
Soil Unit E E1-34 to E1-36
Soil Unit F E1-37 to E1-39
Soil Group F-Sand E1-40 to E1-42
Soil Group F-Transitional E1-43 to E1-45
Soil Group F-Clay E1-46 to E1-48
Soil Unit G E1-49 to E1-51
Soil Group G-Sand E1-52 to E1-54
Soil Group G-Transitional E1-55 to E1-57
Soil Group G-Clay E1-58 to E1-60
DERIVED VALUES – OTHER

CRITICAL STATE LINE
Critical State Line for Sand E2-1
Critical State Line for Transitional Soil E2-2
EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION AT LARGE STRAIN

Effective Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain for Sand E3-1
Effective Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain for Transitional Soil E3-2
NORMALISED SHEAR MODULUS

Normalised Shear Modulus versus Shear Strain for Sand and Transitional Soil E4-1
Normalised Shear Modulus versus Shear Strain for Clay E4-2
CYCLIC STRENGTH E5-1 to E5-40
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Table of Contents - Appendix E Page 1 of 2

SUPPORTING PLATES
Cone Penetration Test – Parameter Uncertainty E6-1 to E6-8
Thin Layer Correction E6-9 to E6-44
Net Cone Resistance versus Undrained Shear Strength E7-1

Undrained Shear Strength – Triaxial Compression – Reconstituted Soil Specimens E7-2
Undrained Shear Strength – Triaxial Compression – Clay E7-3 to E7-4
Undrained Shear Strength – Triaxial Compression – Transitional Soil – Intact Soil Specimens E7-5
Undrained Shear Strength – Direct Simple Shear – Reconstituted Soil Specimens E7-6
Undrained Shear Strength – Direct Simple Shear – Clay E7-7
Oedometer Test Results – Summary Table E8-1
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents - Appendix E Page 2 of 2

Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-] Soil Behaviour Type Index, Ic [-] Normalised Friction Ratio, Fr [-] Net Cone Resistance, qn [MPa] Soil Unit Weight,  [kN/m3] Minimum and Maximum Index Void Ratio, emin & emax [-]
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Best Estimate -qt-Rf method emin,lab method

Low & High Estimate -w method emax,lab method
-V method Low & High Estimate - emin,lab method
Best Estimate - -qt-Rf method Low & High Estimate - emax,lab method
Best Estimate - -w method
Best Estimate - -V method

Soil Unit A
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Plate E1-1
Relative Density, Dr [%] Undrained Shear Strength in Triaxial Compression, su,TXC [MPa] Undrained Shear Strength in Direct Simple Shear, su,DSS [MPa] Ext. Axial Strain at Half the Max. Dev. Stress, 50 [%] Yield Stress Ratio, YSR [-] Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest, K0 [-]
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Dr-qt method su,TXC-qn-blin method su,TXC-labREC method su,DSS-labREC method 50,UU method YSR-qn method K0-qn method
Best Estimate - Dr-qt method su,TXC-qn-lin method su,TXC-labINT method su,DSS-labINT method 50,TXC method YSR-CRS method K0-CRS method
Low & High Estimate - Dr-qt method su,UU-lab method Best Estimate - 50,TXC method YSR-INC method K0-INC method
Best Estimate - su,TXC-qn-blin method Best Estimate - YSR-qn method Best Estimate - K0-qn method
Low & High Estimate - su,TXC-qn-blin method Low & High Estimate - YSR-qn method Low & High Estimate - K0-qn method
Best Estimate - su,TXC-qn-lin method
Low & High Estimate - su,TXC-qn-lin method

Soil Unit A
Constrained Modulus, M [MPa] Eff. Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain, 'cv [o] Peak Eff. Angle of Internal Friction, ' [o] Angle of Interface Friction (Steel-Soil),  [o] Coefficient of Permeability, k [m/s] Shear Modulus at Small Strain, Gmax [MPa]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
M-qn method  cv-TXC method '-qt method -RS method k-chrc method Low & High Estimate - k-chrc method Gmax-qc-Bq method Gmax-qc method
' '
M-CRS method  cv-RS method  -TXC-M1 method -D50 method k-chfm method Low & High Estimate - k-chfm method I Gmax-SCPT method Gmax-PSSL method
'
M-INC method  -TXC-M2 method -pile method k-SF method Low & High Estimate - k-SF method Gmax-BEREC,TXC method Gmax-RCREC method
'
Best Estimate - M-qn method  -DSS method Best Estimate - -RS method k-GC method Low & High Estimate - k-GC method Gmax-BEINT,TXC method Gmax-RCINT method
Low & High Estimate - M-qn method Best Estimate - '-qt method Low & High Estimate - -RS method k-chrc method (a) Best Estimate - Gmax-qc-Bq method
Low & High Estimate - '-qt method Best Estimate - -D50 method k-chfm method (a) Best Estimate - Gmax-qc method
Low & High Estimate - -D50 method (a) outside applicability Best Estimate - Gmax-SCPT method

Soil Unit A
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit B1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit B1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit B1
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Best Estimate - laboratory methods

Soil Group B1-Sand
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group B1-Sand
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group B1-Sand
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group B1-Transitional
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit B2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit B2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit B2
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit C1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit C1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit C1
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group C1-Sand
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group C1-Sand
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group C1-Sand
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group C1-Transitional
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group C1-Clay
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group C1-Clay
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group C1-Clay
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit C2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit C2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit C2
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit D
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit D
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit D
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit E
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit E
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit E
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit F
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit F
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit F
Constrained Modulus, M [MPa] Eff. Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain, 'cv [o] Peak Eff. Angle of Internal Friction, ' [o] Angle of Interface Friction (Steel-Soil),  [o] Coefficient of Permeability, k [m/s] Shear Modulus at Small Strain, Gmax [MPa] *103
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit F
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Plate E1-39a
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group F-Sand
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group F-Sand
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group F-Sand
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group F-Transitional
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group F-Clay
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group F-Clay
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group F-Clay
Constrained Modulus, M [MPa] Eff. Angle of Internal Friction at Large Strain, 'cv [o] Peak Eff. Angle of Internal Friction, ' [o] Angle of Interface Friction (Steel-Soil),  [o] Coefficient of Permeability, k [m/s] Shear Modulus at Small Strain, Gmax [MPa] *103
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group F-Clay
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Plate E1-48a
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Unit G
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Unit G
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Unit G
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group G-Sand
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group G-Sand
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group G-Sand
1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group G-Transitional
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

1 10 100 1000 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50


Soil Group G-Clay
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Soil Group G-Clay
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 20 25 30 35 40 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
'
' '
'
'

Soil Group G-Clay
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Void Ratio at Critical State, ecs [ - ]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
GeODin/CSL- mean eff stress vs e - Derived.GLO/2020-09-01 14:43
10 100 1000 10000

Mean Effective Stress, p' [kPa]
Best Estimate (R2 = 0.15) Triaxial drained compression (HKW WFZ)

Derived values for Toyoura Sand Triaxial drained compression, test meeting
Derived values for Tung Chung Sand filtering criteria (HKW WFZ)
Triaxial drained compression, test meeting
filtering criteria (HKN WFZ)
Note(s):
- Refer to Main Text Section 4.5.5.2 for filtering criteria
- Data from HKN WFZ are also plotted to complement the data from HKW WFZ
CRITICAL STATE LINE FOR SAND

Derived Values

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Void Ratio at Critical State, ecs [ - ]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
GeODin/CSL - mean eff stress vs e - Derived - Trans.GLO/2020-09-01 14:44
0.1
10 100 1000 10000

Best Estimate (R2 = 0.04) Triaxial drained compression (HKW WFZ)

filtering criteria (HKW WFZ)
filtering criteria (HKN WFZ)
Note(s):
- Data from HKN WFZ are also plotted to complement the data from HKW WFZ
CRITICAL STATE LINE FOR TRANSITIONAL SOIL

Derived Values

2500
2000
1500
Deviator Stress, q [kPa]
1000
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Best Estimate Triaxial drained compression (HKW WFZ)
GeODin/CSL- p vs q - Derived.GLO/2020-09-01 14:58
Low & High Estimate Triaxial drained compression, test

meeting filtering criteria (HKW WFZ)
Triaxial drained compression, test
meeting filtering criteria (HKN WFZ)
Note(s):
- φ'cvBE = 31.7° to 32.5°
- φ'cvLE = 30.0°
- φ'cvHE = 34.1°
EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION AT LARGE STRAIN FOR SAND

Derived Values

2500
2000
1500
Deviator Stress, q [kPa]
1000
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Best Estimate Triaxial drained compression (HKW WFZ)
GeODin/CSL- p vs q - Derived.GLO/2020-09-01 14:56
Low & High Estimate Triaxial drained compression, test

meeting filtering criteria (HKW WFZ)
Triaxial drained compression, test
meeting filtering criteria (HKN WFZ)
Note(s):
- φ'cvBE = 31.5° to 32.5°
- φ'cvLE = 30.0°
- φ'cvHE = 33.9°
EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION AT LARGE STRAIN FOR TRANSITIONAL SOIL

Derived Values

1.1
1.0
0.9
Normalised Shear Modulus, G/Gmax [-]
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
GeODin/E3-1 G_Gmax vs shear strain- Sand & Trans_Derived.GLO/2020-06-09 21:46
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

Shear Strain, γ [%]
Lower Bound & Upper Bound Derived value from HKW WFZ according to G/Gmax-RCREC method
(according to G/Gmax-γREC method) Batch 1 - Soil Unit A (Sand) Batch 6 - Soil Unit E (Sand)
Mean Batch 2 - Soil Unit B2 (Sand) Batch 7 - Soil Unit F (Transitional soil)
(according to G/Gmax-γREC method) Batch 3 - Soil Unit C2 (Transitional soil) Batch 8 - Soil Unit F (Sand)
Batch 4 - Soil Unit D (Transitional soil) Batch 9 - Soil Unit F (Sand)
Derived value from HKN WFZ Batch 5 - Soil Unit E (Sand) Batch 10 - Soil Unit F (Sand)
according to G/Gmax-RCREC method
NORMALISED SHEAR MODULUS VERSUS SHEAR STRAIN FOR SAND AND TRANSITIONAL SOIL
Derived Values

1.1
1.0
0.9
Normalised Shear Modulus, G/Gmax [-]
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
GeODin/E3-2 G_Gmax vs shear strain- Clay_Derived.GLO/2020-06-23 09:37
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

Shear Strain, γ [%]
Derived value according to G/Gmax-γINT method Derived value from HKW WFZ according to G/Gmax-RCINT method
(IP = 5 %) RC02 - Soil Unit C1 (IP = 20 %)
Derived value according to G/Gmax-γINT method RC12 - Soil Unit F (IP = 31 %)
(IP = 35 %)
Derived value from HKN WFZ according to
G/Gmax-RCINT method (IP = 20 %)
NORMALISED SHEAR MODULUS VERSUS SHEAR STRAIN FOR CLAY
Derived Values

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5)

Sample Depth Test ID Total Cyclic Onset of liquefaction Cyclic shear strain Test termination
ID vertical stress ratio (maximum pore pressure ratio ~1) amplitude of 5 %
stress Cycle Cyclic Maximum Maximum Cycle Maximum Maximum Cycle Cyclic shear

number shear pore pore number pore pore number strain
strain pressure pressure pressure pressure amplitude
amplitude ratio ratio
[m BSF] v [kPa] cy / ’ref [-] N cy [%] umax [kPa] umax v [-] N umax [kPa] umax v [-] N cy [%]
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS106 19.7 0.49 4 1.3 20 1.00 33 22 1.12 1500 14.7
TEST RESULTS - CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEAR – WITH PRE-SHEAR
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS12 19.8 0.16 137 0.2 20 1.01 - - - 1500 2.0
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS13 20.0 0.24 135 0.5 20 0.97 - - - 1500 3.2
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS140R 20.0 0.28 22 0.3 20 0.99 101 22 1.08 1500 10.6
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS93 19.8 0.32 3 0.6 21 1.04 71 20 0.99 1500 9.7
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS107b 44.7 0.09 257 0.3 43 0.97 1314 44 0.98 1500 13.6
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS21 44.9 0.16 9 1.0 44 0.98 69 45 1.00 1500 15.4
Cohesionless specimens
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS22R 45.0 0.26 10 2.0 42 - 24 42 0.94 1500 13.1
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS149 44.9 0.39 - - - - 6 42 0.94 26 15.1
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS01 146.2 0.18 3 23.9 143 0.98 2 127 0.87 3 15.0
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS02 145.7 0.29 4 4.9 142 0.97 5 143 0.98 24 5.2
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS108 145.9 0.06 - - - - - - - 1500 12.8
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS108B 146.0 0.10 237 1.9 143 0.98 244 144 0.98 298 12.5
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS94 146.4 0.24 3 4.8 143 0.98 4 146 1.00 5 15.0 (23.9)*
Batch 4 11.60 to 17.85 CSS109 144.70 0.05 - - - - - - - 1500 15.2

Batch 4 11.60 to 17.85 CSS30 144.4 0.19 3 5.4 141 0.98 3 141 0.98 7 0.0
Batch 4 11.60 to 17.85 CSS31 144.7 0.29 2 9.3 147 1.01 2 147 1.01 3 15.0
Batch 4 11.60 to 17.85 CSS95 145.0 0.10 47 12.7 141 0.98 46 139 0.96 48 15.0 (16.9)*
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS110 80.1 0.37 6 1.8 78 0.98 32 82 1.02 260 0.0
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS141 80.2 0.14 29 3.8 72 - 40 73 0.91 1500 15.0 (17.4)*
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS32 80.0 0.18 6 2.3 80 1.00 12 82 1.02 194 15.0 (36.3)*
Notes:
 σ′ = P (σ ⁄P ) , P is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa), σ is total vertical stress immediately before start of cycling, and n is an empirical exponent taken as n = 0.9
 “-“ indicates no data available, i.e. test specimen did not reach specified criteria
Plate E5-1
 “*“ test reached a cyclic shear strain amplitude > 15 % within the last cycle


Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS33 79.9 0.28 11 1.7 78 0.97 135 80 1.00 1500 21.4
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS96 80.0 0.23 15 0.9 78 0.97 94 81 1.02 1500 15.0
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS111 190.3 0.65 6 5.2 186 0.98 6 186 0.98 31 8.7
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS142 190.1 0.10 649 0.9 184 0.97 733 191 1.00 1500 15.0
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS41 189.7 0.21 9 2.0 186 0.98 41 190 1.00 1500 11.5
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS42 190.1 0.31 7 3.2 185 0.97 15 189 0.99 742 8.6
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS97 189.7 0.44 5 3.1 185 0.98 10 191 1.01 629 15.0 (15.7)*
Batch 7 19.50 to 28.80 CSS113 249.9 0.21 6 17.9 243 0.97 5 242 0.97 6 10.5
Batch 7 19.50 to 28.80 CSS138 250.4 0.11 157 14.0 243 0.97 154 240 0.96 158 13.9
Batch 7 19.50 to 28.80 CSS147 250.2 0.16 10 5.1 243 0.97 10 243 0.97 14 15.0
Batch 7 19.50 to 28.80 CSS165 250.0 0.14 31 12.1 244 0.97 29 241 0.96 33 15.0
Batch 7 19.50 to 28.80 CSS191 250.1 0.09 - - - - 511 248 0.99 518 15.3
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS114 150.0 0.10 - - - - - - - 1500 17.9
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS139R 150.4 0.25 7 3.6 146 0.97 9 149 0.99 18 15.0 (16.0)*
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS48R 150.1 0.20 20 1.6 146 0.97 41 151 1.01 444 15.0 (15.7)*
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS49 150.0 0.30 7 3.3 146 0.97 17 148 0.99 1025 15.0 (16.6)*
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS98 149.5 0.34 1 10.7 149 1.00 1 149 1.00 2 0.1
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS57 149.9 0.20 107 1.8 146 0.97 140 150 1.00 207 15.2
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS58 150.3 0.30 8 2.9 146 0.97 18 148 0.99 89 15.1
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS99R 150.4 0.10 - - - - - - - 1500 15.0
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS99Rb 150.2 0.40 8 6.6 146 0.97 5 141 0.94 21 15.0 (15.6)*
Notes:
Plate E5-2


Batch 10 14.25 to 26.65 CSS112 250.1 0.21 21 2.6 243 0.97 55 247 0.99 1500 15.1
Batch 10 14.25 to 26.65 CSS137 250.4 0.43 - - - - 1 226 0.90 2 15.0

Batch 10 14.25 to 26.65 CSS146 250.0 0.16 74 1.9 243 0.97 118 248 0.99 1500 0.1
Batch 10 14.25 to 26.65 CSS164 250.1 0.27 8 4.5 243 0.97 10 245 0.98 50 15.0 (15.5)*
Batch 10 14.25 to 26.65 CSS189 249.8 0.13 - - - - 792 250 1.00 1500 12.4
Notes:
Plate E5-3


TEST RESULTS - CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEAR – WITHOUT PRE-SHEAR
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS101 19.5 0.65 4 1.3 19 0.99 43 22 1.14 1500 13.4
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS20 19.6 0.16 - - - - - - - 1500 3.5
Batch 1 0.00 to 4.15 CSS87 20.0 0.32 2 0.6 20 1.01 575 20 0.99 1500 7.0
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS103R 45.1 0.34 2 2.2 44 0.97 6 46 1.01 368 15.0
Batch 2 1.70to7.60 CSS150 45.1 0.21 15 2.7 44 0.97 21 44 0.98 1500 13.4
Batch 2 1.70 to 7.60 CSS29R 44.6 0.17 37 0.5 44 0.97 - - - 1500 4.2
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS03 146.0 0.18 2 11.8 142 0.97 2 142 0.97 3 37.1
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS104 145.4 0.07 540 2.2 142 0.98 544 143 0.99 553 15.0 (16.1)*
Batch 3 13.35 to 17.30 CSS88 146.1 0.10 55 5.3 142 0.97 55 142 0.97 57 15.0 (15.6)*
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS130 79.9 0.56 4 4.0 78 0.97 7 80 1.00 44 15.1
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS40 79.9 0.18 13 1.1 78 0.98 102 79 0.98 1500 8.7
Batch 5 4.00 to 11.50 CSS92 77.7 0.28 10 1.8 76 0.98 38 78 1.00 1500 9.4
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS152R 190.2 0.10 43 1.7 185 0.97 63 189 0.99 1500 11.2
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS47 189.5 0.21 5 1.9 184 0.97 19 193 1.02 1500 12.6
Batch 6 15.00 to 22.20 CSS47R 190.2 0.20 148 12.7 190 0.97 36 189 0.99 976 15.0
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS154 150.1 0.15 244 1.7 146 0.97 259 152 1.01 306 14.9
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS56R 150.0 0.20 45 1.8 146 0.97 79 149 0.99 820 15.0
Batch 8 6.85 to 20.05 CSS89R 149.7 0.41 4 3.8 146 0.98 7 149 0.99 27 15.1
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS120 149.7 0.41 9 5.3 146 0.97 9 146 0.97 21 15.0 (15.5)*
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS65 150.0 0.20 20 1.6 146 0.97 65 152 1.01 623 15.0
Batch 9 24.50 to 34.30 CSS90 150.0 0.30 10 2.8 146 0.97 22 149 0.99 84 15.0
Notes:
Plate E5-4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
Cyclic Stress Ratio, 
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Number of Cycles, N [-]
GeODin/S-N plot per unit - 1 batch.GLO/2020-09-09 13:43
S-N curve - with pre-shear Derived value - with pre-shear

S-N curve - without pre-shear Derived value - without pre-shear
Background S-N curve
Note(s):
- Presented values are for cyclic shear strength cy,f at 5 % cyclic shear strain amplitude (refer to Main Text)
- Background S-N curves are according to Andersen (2009)
NUMBER OF CYCLES VERSUS CYCLIC STRESS RATIO

Soil Unit A - Batch 1

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):

Soil Unit B - Batch 2

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Cyclic Stress Ratio, cy,f/'ref [-]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):

Soil Unit C2 - Batch 3

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):

Soil Unit D - Batch 4

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):
- Two derived value data points (with pre-shear) are considered outliers and not included in the trendline

Soil Unit E - Batch 5

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):


1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):

Soil Unit F - Batch 7

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):


1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):


1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
[-]
ref
/'
cy,f
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


Note(s):


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
Cyclic Stress Ratio, cy/'ref [-]
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0 Failure Line; γcy=15%
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
GeODin/CC - stress ratio 0_6.GLO/2020-09-09 14:22
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Contour line for specific cyclic shear Derived value at γcy = 0.1 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.25
strain amplitude, γcy, or pore pressure Derived value at γcy = 0.25 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.50
ratio, up/σ'ref Derived value at γcy = 0.5 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.75
Contour line for (τcy,f/σ'ref)N=10 = 0.6, Derived value at γcy = 1 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.90
Andersen (2015) Derived value at γcy = 2.5 %
Derived value at γcy = 5 %
CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE AND PORE PRESSURE RATIO - WITH PRE-SHEAR

2.0
1.8 15 = γcy [%]
1.6
10
1.4 7.5
1.2 5
1.0
2.5
0.8
0.6
1
0.4 0.5
0.25
0.2 0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

2.0
Pore Pressure Ratio

1
1.6 -0.5 = up/σ'ref

Failure Line; γcy=15%

-0.25
1.2
0
0.1
0.25
0.8 0.35
0.5
0.75
0.9
0.4
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE AND PORE PRESSURE RATIO - WITHOUT PRE-SHEAR

0.5
0.4
15 = γcy [%]
Cyclic Stress Ratio,  /'ref [-]
7.5
5
cy
0.3 2.5
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.5
Pore Pressure Ratio
0.4
1 = up/σ'ref
0.75
cy

0.3
0.5
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
GeODin/CC - stress ratio 0_25 (0_5 y scale).GLO/2020-09-29 14:59
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Soil Unit B2 - Batch 2

0.4
15 = γcy [%]
7.5
5
0.3 2.5
1
cy
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.4
1 = up/σ'ref Pore Pressure Ratio
0.75
0.3
0.5
cy
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Soil Unit B2 - Batch 2

0.3
15 = γcy [%]
7.5 Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1 0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.3

0.5
Failure Line; γcy = 15 %

0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.05
0.025
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


0.3
15 = γcy [%]
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1 0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.3

0.5

0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.05
0.025
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


0.3
15 = γcy [%]
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1 0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.3

0.5

0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.05
0.025
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Soil Unit D - Batch 4

1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
cy
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
[-]
0.3
ref
Cyclic Stress Ratio,  /'
cy
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
cy
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
cy
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


0.3
15 = γcy [%]
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.2
cy
0.25
0.1 0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.3

0.5

0.25
0.2
cy
0.1
0.1 0.05
0.025
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


0.4
15 = γcy [%]
7.5
5
0.3 2.5
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.4
0.75
0.3
0.5
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


1.0
15 = γcy [%]
0.9
10
0.8
7.5
0.7
5
0.6 2.5
0.5
1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
1 = up/σ'ref
Pore Pressure Ratio
-0.1
0.8 0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.75
0.4
0.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000


0.5
0.4
15 = γcy [%]
7.5
5
cy
0.3 2.5
0.5
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

0.5
Pore Pressure Ratio
0.4
1 = up/σ'ref
0.75
cy

0.3
0.5
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
GeODin/CC - stress ratio 0_25 (0_5 y scale).GLO/2020-09-29 11:17
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000



Cyclic Shear Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Batch 7 Batch 8 Batch 9 Batch 10
Strain Amplitude
for S-N Curve
cy [%] b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c
0.10 0.32 -0.14 - - - - 0.19 -0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.25 0.38 -0.15 0.27 -0.21 - - 0.23 -0.23 0.26 -0.19 - - 0.20 -0.13 - - - - 0.28 -0.13
0.50 0.45 -0.16 0.31 -0.25 0.24 -0.17 0.25 -0.26 0.32 -0.19 0.28 -0.16 0.22 -0.15 0.29 -0.14 - - 0.31 -0.15
1.00 0.52 -0.17 0.39 -0.28 0.26 -0.17 0.26 -0.25 0.40 -0.21 0.37 -0.21 0.24 -0.16 0.32 -0.14 0.37 -0.14 0.34 -0.17
2.50 0.66 -0.18 0.59 -0.34 0.27 -0.18 0.28 -0.27 0.65 -0.26 0.56 -0.28 0.24 -0.17 0.35 -0.15 0.43 -0.16 0.38 -0.18
5.00 0.82 -0.20 0.61 -0.28 0.28 -0.17 0.30 -0.27 0.87 -0.26 0.96 -0.33 0.25 -0.17 0.37 -0.15 0.53 -0.19 0.42 -0.19
S-N CURVE PARAMETERS – WITH PRE-SHEAR
Pore Pressure Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Batch 7 Batch 8 Batch 9 Batch 10
Ratio for S-N
Curve
up ’ref [-] b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c
0.25 - - - - 0.23 -0.19 - - 0.32 -0.62 - - 0.22 -0.21 - - - - - -
0.50 - - - - 0.27 -0.18 - - 0.45 -0.59 - - 0.23 -0.17 - - - - - -
0.75 - - - - 0.29 -0.19 - - 0.64 -0.55 - - 0.24 -0.17 - - - - - -
0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
 and are S-N curve parameters for = ∙
Plate E5-32
 CSR is cyclic stress ratio defined as ⁄ ′ , where is the cyclic shear stress at a specified cyclic shear strain amplitude or pore pressure ratio and ′ is a reference value dependent on total vertical
stress ( ), atmospheric pressure ( ) and an empirical exponent ( = 0.9); ′ = ( ⁄ )

Cyclic Shear Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Batch 7 Batch 8 Batch 9 Batch 10
Strain Amplitude
for S-N Curve
cy [%] b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c
0.10 - - - - 0.17 -0.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.25 - - 0.30 -0.22 0.18 -0.15 - - - - 0.22 -0.23 - - 0.35 -0.20 - - - -
0.50 0.54 -0.41 0.33 -0.20 0.18 -0.15 - - 0.50 -0.50 0.27 -0.25 - - 0.39 -0.20 - - - -
1.00 0.86 -0.34 0.36 -0.19 0.20 -0.17 - - 0.57 -0.44 0.36 -0.32 - - 0.41 -0.20 0.39 -0.26 - -
2.50 1.82 -0.36 0.37 -0.16 0.20 -0.17 - - 0.75 -0.39 0.46 -0.36 - - 0.51 -0.23 0.64 -0.34 - -
S-N CURVE PARAMETERS – WITHOUT PRE-SHEAR
5.00 - - - - 0.20 -0.17 - - 1.28 -0.42 0.75 -0.40 - - 0.68 -0.28 0.92 -0.37 - -
Pore Pressure Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Batch 6 Batch 7 Batch 8 Batch 9 Batch 10
Ratio for S-N
Curve
up ’ref [-] b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c b c
0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
 and are S-N curve parameters for = ∙
Plate E5-33
 CSR is cyclic stress ratio defined as ⁄ ′ , where is the cyclic shear stress at a specified cyclic shear strain amplitude or pore pressure ratio and ′ is a reference value dependent on total vertical
stress ( ), atmospheric pressure ( ) and an empirical exponent ( = 0.9); ′ = ( ⁄ )
1.0
Cyclic Stress Ratio, (cy/'ref)N=10 [-]
20 (Batch 1)
79 (Batch 5) 80 (Batch 5)
190 (Batch 6)
150 (Batch 9)
150 (Batch 8)
190 (Batch 6)
45 (Batch 2)
150 (Batch 9)
250 (Batch 10)
150 (Batch 8)
146 (Batch 3)
250 (Batch 7)
145 (Batch 4)
146 (Batch 3)
0.1
40 60 80 100 120 140

Relative Density, Dr [%]
1.0
20 (Batch 1) 79 (Batch 5)
80 (Batch 5)
190 (Batch 6)
150 (Batch 9)
150 (Batch 8)
150 (Batch 9) 190 (Batch 6)
45 (Batch 2)
250 (Batch 10)

150 (Batch 8)
146 (Batch 3)
145 (Batch 4)
250 (Batch 7) 146 (Batch 3)

GeODin/CC - CSR vs Dr&Qtn.GLO/2020-09-29 09:00
0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500

Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn [-]
Best fit line (R² = 0.60) Derived value - with pre-shear

Best fit line (R² = 0.49) Derived value - without pre-shear
Note(s):
The numerical value of a data point label refers to total vertical stress (in kPa) applied to the specimen
immediately before start of the cycling phase.
CSR VERSUS RELATIVE DENSITY AND NORMALISED CONE RESISTANCE

Derived Values

1.0
20 (Batch 1)
79 (Batch 5)
80 (Batch 5)
190 (Batch 6)
150 (Batch 9)
150 (Batch 8)
150 (Batch 9)
190 (Batch 6)
45 (Batch 2)
250 (Batch 10)

150 (Batch 8)
146 (Batch 3)
250 (Batch 7) 145 (Batch 4)
146 (Batch 3)
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.0
20 (Batch 1)
79 (Batch 5)
80 (Batch 5) 190 (Batch 6)
150 (Batch 9)
150 (Batch 8)
150 (Batch 9) 190 (Batch 6)
45 (Batch 2)
250 (Batch 10) 150 (Batch 8)
146 (Batch 3)
250 (Batch 7)
145 (Batch 4)
146 (Batch 3)
GeODin/CC - CSR vs fc&D50.GLO/2020-09-28 16:52
0.1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Particle Diameter, D50 [mm]
Best fit line (R² = 0.64) Derived value - with pre-shear

Best fit line (R² = 0.56) Derived value - without pre-shear
Note(s):
The numerical value of a data point label refers to total vertical stress (in kPa) applied to the specimen
immediately before start of the cycling phase.
CSR VERSUS PERCENTAGE FINES AND PARTICLE DIAMETER

Derived Values


Borehole Sample ID Depth Test ID Total e / e0 Intact Volumetric Intact Undrained Cyclic Cyclic shear strain Test termination
vertical sample strain sample shear stress ratio amplitude of 15 %
 stress quality quality – strength*
Cycle Maximum Maximum Cycle Cyclic
class – SQD
number pore pore number shear
e / e0 pressure pressure strain
ratio amplitude
[m BSF] v [kPa] [-] [-] v [%] su,ref [kPa] cy / su,ref [-] N umax [kPa] umax v [-] N cy [%]
HKW077-BH 09WAXC 8.35 DSS03 79.0 0.02 1 1.0 A 49 - - - - - -
HKW077-BH 08WAXF 7.75 CSS118 74.0 0.02 1 1.1 B - 0.30 - - - 1500 0.2
HKW077-BH 08WAXF 7.95 CSS151 76.0 0.09 3 4.7 D - 0.55 61 69 0.90 61 15.2
HKW077-BH 09WAXB 7.75 CSS202 78.2 0.03 2 1.5 B - 0.47 744 66 0.84 744 15.0
TEST RESULTS - CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEAR
HKW077-BH 09WAXB 8.30 CSS84 78.0 0.02 1 0.9 A - 0.20 - - - 1500 0.1
HKW077-BH 09WAXC 8.40 CSS205 79.0 0.04 2 1.7 B - 0.56 68 69 0.87 69 17.3
HKW114-BH 36WAXD 33.40 DSS21 335.0 0.03 2 1.2 B 154 - - - - - -

Cohesive specimens
HKW114-BH 36WAXD 33.40 CSS119 334.6 0.02 1 0.8 A - 0.41 - - - 1500 0.6
HKW114-BH 36WAXD 33.50 CSS153 334.9 0.05 2 2.0 C - 0.61 180 248 0.74 180 15.2
HKW114-BH 37WAXB 34.40 CSS190 340.4 0.07 3 3.0 C - 0.50 1407 270 0.79 1407 15.2
HKW114-BH 37WAXB 34.40 CSS200 340.0 0.05 2 2.0 B - 0.56 695 258 0.76 695 15.2
HKW114-BH 37WAXB 34.10 CSS85 340.2 0.12 4 4.7 D - 0.21 - - - 1500 0.1
Notes:
 “*” indicates data from direct simple shear test
Plate E5-36
 Intact Sample Quality -e / e0 is according to ISO (2014)
 Intact Sample Quality – SQD is according to Terzaghi et.al. (1996); SQD refers to Sample Quality Designation
1.0
0.8
/su,ref [-]
cy,f
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

GeODin/SN plate COHESIVE.GLO/2020-09-28 09:26
S-N curve Derived value

Background S-N curve - OCR = 1
Note(s):

Soil Unit C1

1.0
0.8
/su,ref [-]
cy,f
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

GeODin/SN plate COHESIVE.GLO/2020-09-29 11:08
S-N curve Derived value

Note(s):

Soil Unit F

1.0
15 = γcy [%]
3 Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude
0.9
0.8
Cyclic Stress Ratio,  /su,ref [-]
0.7 1
cy
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4
0.25
0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
Pore Pressure Ratio

0.8
Cyclic Stress Ratio, cy/su,ref [-]
0.6
-0.18
0.35
0.4 0 = up/σ'ref
0.18
0.2
GeODin/CC - stress ratio clay OCR 4.GLO/2020-09-25 11:21
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Contour line for OCR = 4, Derived value at γcy = 1 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.90
Derived value at γcy = 7.5 %
CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE AND PORE PRESSURE RATIO

Soil Unit C1

1.0
1 3 15 = γcy [%]
0.9 0.5
0.8
0.7
cy
0.25
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

1.0
Pore Pressure Ratio
0.8 0.50
0.25 Failure Line; γcy=15%

cy
0.6
0.10
0.4
0.05 = up/σ'ref
0.2
GeODin/CC - stress ratio clay OCR 1.GLO/2020-09-25 14:26
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Contour line for OCR = 1, Derived value at γcy = 1 % Derived value at up/σ'ref = 0.90
Derived value at γcy = 7.5 %
CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE AND PORE PRESSURE RATIO

Soil Unit F

qc [MPa] Uqc [MPa] fs [MPa] Ufs [kPa] u2 [MPa] Uu2 [kPa] Ic [-]
0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]
Cone resistance, qc Uncertainty, Uqc [MPa] Sleeve friction, fs Uncertainty, Ufs [kPa] Pore pressure, u2 Uncertainty, Uu2 [kPa]
Uncertainty band, qc Uncertainty, Uqc [%] Uncertainty band, fs Uncertainty, Ufs [%] Uncertainty band, u2
Notes: - Uncertainty calculation using parameter values for "good" penetrometer, according to Peuchen & Terwindt (2015)
- Ic: soil behaviour type index
- HKW113-PCPT is the typical design location for Soil Province 1
CONE PENETRATION TEST - PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY

HKW113-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW010-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW085-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW078-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW039-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW002-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW048-PCPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 .0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Uqc [%] Ufs [%]

HKW065-PCPT

Cone Resistance, qc [MPa]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
GeODin/Thin layer correction - qc.GLO/2020-07-21 08:02
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- Corrected cone resistance values are according to Boulanger and DeJong (2018)
THIN LAYER CORRECTION - CONE RESISTANCE

HKW113-PCPT

Sleeve Friction, fs [MPa]

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
GeODin/Thin layer correction - fs.GLO/2020-07-21 08:05
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- Corrected sleeve friction values are according to Boulanger and DeJong (2018)
THIN LAYER CORRECTION - SLEEVE FRICTION

HKW113-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- HKW012-PCPT is the adverse design location for Soil Province 1

HKW012-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW012-PCPT


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
GeODin/thin_layers_qc(140_120).GLO/2020-07-21 09:15
35
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- HKW038-PCPT is the favourable design location for Soil Province 1

HKW038-PCPT


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW038-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW010-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW010-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- HKW049-SCPT is the adverse design location for Soil Province 2

HKW049-SCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50
- HKW049-SCPT is the adverse design location for Soil Province 2

HKW049-SCPT


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW011-PCPT


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW011-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW085-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW085-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW099-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW099-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW072-PCPT-B


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW072-PCPT-B


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW078-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW078-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW082-PCPT


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW082-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW053-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW053-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW039-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW039-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW042-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW042-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW117-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW117-PCPT


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW002-PCPT


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW002-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW048-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW048-PCPT


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

0.6
15
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW065-PCPT


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.0
0.9
5
0.8
10
0.7

15 0.6
0.5
20
0.4
25 0.3
0.2
30
0.1
35
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

40
Test Value
45
Corrected Value
Note(s):
50

HKW065-PCPT

10
6
su/σ'v0 [-]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
qn/'v0 [-]
GeODin/Su_s'v vs qn_s'v - Derived.GLO/2020-08-25 15:29
Best Estimate - Clay Paired values - Clay (HKW WFZ)

Best Estimate - Sand Paired values - Transitional soil (HKW WFZ)
and Transitional soil Paired values - Sand (HKW WFZ)
Paired values - Clay (HKN WFZ)
Paired values - Transitional soil (HKN WFZ)
Paired values - Sand (HKN WFZ)
NET CONE RESISTANCE VERSUS UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Derived Values

Sample Test Depth Soil Soil Type γ σ’ac σ’rc su,TXC su,TXC Dr qn Nkt
Borehole Unit qmax
Location
[m] [kN/m3] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [%] [MPa] [-]
Batch 1 0.0 to 4.2 A Sand 19.7 20 20 1133 162 100 15.6 96.4
Batch 2 1.7 to 7.6 B2 Sand 19.6 45 45 928 93 85 16.9 182.4
Batch 3 13.4 to 17.3 C2 Transitional soil 19.3 146 146 61 58 55 12.5 204.9
Batch 4 11.6 to 17.9 D Transitional soil 19.8 145 145 118 111 65 17.5 149.1
Batch 5 4.0 to 11.5 E Sand 19.8 80 80 1672 384 110 37.7 98.2
Batch 6 15.0 to 22.2 E Sand 20.2 190 170 1576 400 105 52.8 132.2
Batch 8 6.9 to 20.1 F Sand 20.0 150 120 1048 333 95 38.4 115.4
Batch 9 24.5 to 34.3 F Sand 19.9 150 105 747 181 80 27.1 150.3
HKW002-BH 18.8 to 19.4 E Sand 19.9 190 170 1444 335 100 47.9 143.4
HKW023-BH 34.5 E Sand 19.9 350 350 959 388 90 52.3 134.9
HKW025-BH 8.2 to 8.7 F Sand 19.7 80 65 1328 304 95 28.1 92.4
HKW026-BH 2.9 to 4.0 B2 Sand 19.3 35 35 713 72 70 10.1 139.9
HKW026-BH 28.5 to 29.5 F Sand 20.6 290 205 2031 478 110 71.5 149.7
HKW031-BH 8.3 to 9.8 E Sand 20.2 90 80 1438 261 110 40.0 153.2
HKW031-BH 11.5 E Sand 19.9 110 110 1141 208 95 32.9 158.2
HKW035-BH 20.8 F Sand 20.1 200 140 85 77 55 14.6 189.3
HKW035-BH 21.8 F Sand 20.1 200 140 373 182 75 27.4 150.8
HKW035-BH 29.6 F Transitional soil 19.7 300 210 268 223 55 17.7 79.7
HKW050-BH 12.0 C2 Sand 20.0 118 130 1039 259 95 34.1 131.8
HKW053-BH-A 10.3 to 10.7 F Sand 20.1 105 85 964 261 105 39.3 150.6
HKW063-BH 13.7 F Transitional soil 19.8 130 105 42 35 60 14.1 339.9
HKW073-BH 11.3 to 13.3 B2 Sand 19.5 110 110 325 94 75 20.4 218.5
HKW073-BH 22.4 F Sand 19.9 220 175 791 285 85 37.1 130.3
HKW078-BH 33.5 to 34.5 F Transitional soil 19.5 329 230 91 63 50 15.2 168.1
HKW113-BH 7.3 A Sand 19.7 75 75 1354 270 100 30.2 111.9
HKW114-BH 3.5 A Sand 19.6 35 35 1072 120 95 18.6 155.1
Key:
γ = Total unit weight

σ’ac / rc = Axial / radial effective consolidation stress
suTXC qmax = Undrained shear strength at maximum deviator stress
suTXC = Undrained shear strength at maximum stress ratio
Dr = Relative density (according to data pairing procedure outlined in Main text Section 4.4.4.3)
qn = Net cone resistance (according to data pairing procedure outlined in Main text Section 4.4.4.3)
Nkt = Cone factor between qn and su
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Reconstituted Soil Specimens

Sample Borehole Test Soil γ Δe/e0 εv σ’ac σ’rc 50 su,TXC su,TXC
Location Depth Unit qmax
[m] [kN/m3] [-] [%] [kPa] [kPa] [%] [kPa] [kPa]
HKW006-BH 23.0 F 19.1 0.14 7.02 230 230 0.9 151 138
HKW025-BH 20.6 F 20.2 0.12 5.25 205 205 2.2 196 141
HKW031-BH 41.2 G 19.8 0.05 2.09 393 275 1.0 176 173
HKW036-BH-A 40.2 G 20.9 0.00 0.27 378 266 1.1 231 222
HKW045-BH 47.8 G 18.4 0.03 1.53 483 338 3.3 267 254
HKW053-BH-A 8.4 C1 20.6 0.12 5.00 85 85 2.6 108 73
HKW055-BH 5.7 C1 19.5 0.03 1.37 54 70 0.9 89 89
HKW055-BH 6.7 C1 19.9 0.07 2.83 85 85 1.8 118 88
HKW060-BH 37.2 G 20.5 0.02 0.67 364 255 0.3 127 120
HKW062-BH 4.7 C1 19.3 0.03 1.21 45 45 1.3 82 57
HKW062-BH 6.2 C1 19.9 0.05 2.18 59 77 0.6 91 65
HKW065-BH 10.7 C1 21.5 0.10 3.57 105 105 3.5 166 101
HKW072-BH 28.7 G 19.3 0.06 2.70 267 267 1.6 229 216
HKW072-BH 32.0 G 19.9 0.02 0.87 318 254 0.4 212 178
HKW077-BH 7.2 C1 18.1 0.02 1.16 68 96 1.4 88 78
HKW077-BH 23.5 G 18.3 0.02 0.76 225 225 0.2 134 130
HKW077-BH 30.7 G 20.8 0.15 6.49 289 222 4.9 249 152
HKW078-BH 7.7 C1 18.4 0.05 2.37 80 80 1.0 75 63
HKW082-BH 5.3 C1 19.2 0.10 4.62 48 68 1.1 97 65
HKW094-BH 37.7 G 18.5 0.04 1.98 355 230 0.2 163 162
HKW097-BH 10.7 C1 21.1 0.09 3.44 110 110 1.0 102 84
HKW097-BH 22.7 F 20.0 0.02 0.69 231 185 0.5 206 180
HKW097-BH 37.3 G 19.6 0.01 0.50 384 269 0.3 182 182
HKW098-BH 31.4 G 21.2 0.03 1.13 321 219 4.3 467 294
HKW098-BH 37.6 G 18.9 0.06 3.70 373 224 2.2 172 167
HKW101-BH 46.9 G 20.4 0.23 10.23 461 322 2.3 208 207
HKW104-BH 4.3 C1 19.3 0.10 4.65 45 45 3.1 71 49
HKW106-BH 23.3 F 19.9 0.09 3.77 230 230 3.0 188 157
HKW107-BH 38.0 G 19.7 0.12 5.50 371 260 0.6 188 184
HKW110-BH 32.7 G 19.6 0.03 1.43 319 255 0.3 200 197
HKW114-BH 17.5 D 19.7 0.06 2.30 175 175 0.6 180 149
HKW114-BH 33.1 F 19.9 0.04 1.75 334 267 1.3 216 195
HKW114-BH 35.6 F 19.1 0.10 4.74 350 245 0.6 177 174
HKW114-BH 37.3 G 21.4 0.12 4.37 375 263 7.0 656 354
Key:

Δe/e0 = Ratio of change in void ratio from an initial laboratory value (e0) at atmospheric conditions to the specimen void ratio
upon re-compression to estimated in situ effective stress conditions Δe over initial void ratio e0 (used for estimation of
intact sample quality class according to ISO (2014) as described in the document “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests”
presented in Appendix 2)
εv = Volumetric strain derived from an initial laboratory specimen volume and the specimen volume upon re-compression to
estimated in situ stress conditions (used for estimation of intact sample quality class according to Terzaghi et al. (1996)
as described in the document “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 2)
50 = External axial strain at half the maximum deviator stress
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION - CLAY

CPT Location Laboratory Distance from qn Nkt Bq Ic Nkt*

Test Depth Sample Borehole
[m] [m] [MPa] [-] [-] [-] [-]
HKW006-PCPT 23.0 4.5 4.0 29.1 0.10 2.6 17.9

HKW025-PCPT 20.6 3.6 4.0 28.4 0.05 2.6 19.2
HKW031-SCPT 41.2 5.6 5.0 28.9 0.04 2.8 19.5
HKW036-SCPT 40.2 8.6 5.0 22.6 0.03 3.0 20.1
HKW045-PCPT 47.8 6.7 2.7 10.6 0.50 3.3 12.8
HKW053-PCPT 8.4 6.6 2.0 27.4 0.02 2.7 20.3
HKW055-SCPT 5.7 6.3 1.6 18.1 0.13 2.6 17.3
HKW055-SCPT 6.7 6.3 2.0 22.9 0.12 2.6 17.5
HKW060-SCPT 37.2 5.9 4.1 34.2 0.05 3.1 19.2
HKW062-PCPT 4.7 4.9 1.1 19.3 0.02 2.6 20.3
HKW062-PCPT 6.2 4.9 1.7 26.2 0.05 2.6 19.4
HKW065-PCPT 10.7 8.4 1.5 14.9 0.25 2.9 15.3
HKW072-PCPT-B 28.6 7.9 2.9 13.5 0.40 3.0 13.7
HKW072-PCPT-B 32.0 7.9 2.5 14.1 0.40 2.9 13.7
HKW077-PCPT 7.2 6.2 1.8 23.1 0.40 2.7 13.7
HKW077-PCPT 23.5 6.2 2.5 19.2 0.30 3.0 14.7
HKW077-PCPT 30.7 6.2 2.3 15.2 0.54 3.0 12.6
HKW078-PCPT 7.7 7.2 1.5 23.8 0.05 2.8 19.2
HKW082-PCPT 5.2 7.4 1.5 23.1 0.05 2.7 19.2
HKW094-PCPT 37.7 7.0 2.8 17.3 0.37 3.1 14.0
HKW097-PCPT 10.7 6.5 1.5 17.9 0.35 2.7 14.2
HKW097-PCPT 22.7 6.5 2.7 15.0 0.21 2.9 15.9
HKW097-PCPT 37.2 6.5 2.5 13.8 0.00 3.3 21.1
HKW098-PCPT 31.4 7.5 4.0 13.6 0.00 3.1 21.1
HKW098-PCPT* 37.6 - - - - - -
HKW101-SCPT 46.9 3.6 4.0 19.4 0.15 2.8 16.9
HKW104-PCPT 4.3 6.5 1.1 22.4 0.15 2.7 16.9
HKW106-PCPT 23.3 7.7 3.0 19.1 0.10 2.9 17.9
HKW107-PCPT 38.0 7.1 3.5 19.1 -0.06 2.9 25.3
HKW110-SCPT 32.7 5.6 3.9 19.8 0.23 2.9 15.6
HKW114-PCPT 17.5 7.4 2.8 18.9 0.15 2.7 16.9
HKW114-PCPT 33.1 7.4 2.8 14.4 0.29 3.0 14.8
HKW114-PCPT 35.6 7.4 2.7 15.6 0.28 3.1 15.0
HKW114-PCPT 37.3 7.4 4.0 11.3 0.05 2.9 19.2
Notes:
* No data pairing performed due to absence of CPT data within the corresponding depth interval
Key:
qn = Net cone resistance

Bq = Pore pressure ratio
Ic = Soil behavior type index
Nkt* = Cone factor between qn and su, derived from Nkt = 10.5 - 4.6 · ln(Bq + 0.1) (Mayne and Peuchen, 2018)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION - CLAY

Sample Borehole Test Soil γ Δe/e0 εv σ’ac σ’rc 50 su,TXC su,TXC
Location Depth Unit qmax
[m] [kN/m3] [-] [%] [kPa] [kPa] [%] [kPa] [kPa]
HKW023-BH 38.1 F 19.7 0.17 8.07 382 268 1.2 166 160
HKW040-BH 30.5 F 19.3 0.02 1.10 303 242 7.0 789 349
HKW050-BH 3.1 C1 19.6 0.05 2.05 30 30 2.2 41 23
HKW094-BH 30.7 G 20.2 0.04 1.52 320 225 10.5 801 352
HKW104-BH 21.4 F 19.0 0.08 3.69 215 215 1.9 253 181
CPT Location Laboratory Test Depth Distance from Sample qn Nkt

Borehole
[m] [m] [MPa] [-]
HKW023-PCPT 38.1 6.9 12.5 78.4

HKW040-PCPT 30.5 5.1 12.5 35.8
HKW050-SCPT 3.1 7.1 4.0 177.8
HKW094-PCPT 30.7 7.0 14.0 39.8
HKW104-PCPT 21.4 6.5 6.0 33.2
Key:

50 = External axial strain at half the maximum deviator stress
qn = Net cone resistance
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION – TRANSITIONAL SOIL

Intact Soil Specimens

Sample Test Depth Soil Soil Type γ σac su,DSS su,DSS su,DSS su,DSS
Borehole Unit γ* = 5 % γ* = 10 % γ* = 15 % peak stress or
Location limiting strain
[m] [kN/m3] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
Batch 1 0.0 to 4.2 A Sand 20.1 20 66 216 416 822

Batch 2 1.7 to 7.6 B2 Sand 20.0 45 61 188 369 780
Batch 3 13.4 to 17.3 C2 Transitional soil 19.7 146 41 48 48 50
Batch 4 11.6 to 17.9 D Transitional soil 20.0 145 54 63 65 66
Batch 5 4.0 to 11.5 E Sand 20.3 80 55 188 328 800
Batch 6 15.0 to 22.2 E Sand 20.5 190 268 650 836 836
Batch 7 19.5 to 28.8 F Transitional soil 20.0 250 122 240 400 736
Batch 8 6.9 to 20.1 F Sand 20.5 150 64 152 279 664
Batch 9 24.5 to 34.3 F Sand 20.2 150 177 368 561 731
Batch 10 14.3 to 26.7 F Sand 20.7 250 187 488 849 866
Key:

σac = Axial total stress
su,DSS = Undrained shear strength
γ* = Shear strain
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR

Reconstituted Soil Specimens

Sample Test Soil Unit Soil Type γ Δe/e0 εv σac su,DSS

Borehole Depth
Location
[m] [kN/m3] [-] [%] [kPa] [kPa]
HKW077-BH 8.4 C1 Clay 18.8 0.02 0.98 79 50

HKW114-BH 33.4 F Clay 20.3 0.03 1.22 335 158
Key:

σac = Axial total stress
su,DSS = Undrained shear strength
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH – DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR - CLAY

Sample Borehole Test Soil Unit Test Type σ’v0 Δe/e0 εv σ’p YSR M
Location Depth
[m] [kPa] [-] [%] [kPa] [-] [MPa]
HKW031-BH 41.2 G CRS 412 0.03 1.16 1504 3.7 24.1

HKW045-BH 47.6 G CRS 476 0.27 7.68 1684 3.5 15.9
HKW045-BH 47.6 G INC 476 0.05 2.11 1937 4.1 15.6
HKW053-BH-A 8.7 C1 CRS 87 0.05 1.47 895 10.3 11.6
HKW053-BH-A 8.7 C1 INC 87 0.07 3.30 - - 3.4
HKW054-BH-A 44.7 G CRS 447 0.14 5.17 2145 4.8 32.4
HKW055-BH 6.8 C1 CRS 68 0.03 1.38 587 8.6 30.4
HKW055-BH 6.8 C1 INC 68 0.10 4.16 637 9.4 4.1
HKW065-BH 15.7 D CSR 157 0.05 2.24 894 5.7 11.2
HKW065-BH 15.7 D INC 157 0.05 2.05 699 4.5 7.6
HKW072-BH 28.6 G CRS 286 0.08 4.42 944 3.3 12.8
HKW077-BH 30.9 G CRS 309 0.10 3.87 1361 4.4 16.3
HKW077-BH 30.9 G INC 309 0.16 5.76 1275 4.1 11.3
HKW098-BH 31.4 G CRS 314 0.25 6.22 1032 3.3 15.2
HKW098-BH 37.6 G CRS 376 0.13 5.29 1314 3.5 9.8
HKW107-BH 38.0 G CRS 380 0.15 7.54 809 2.1 8.9
HKW110-BH 32.7 G CRS 327 0.05 2.68 955 2.9 27.6
HKW114-BH 33.1 F CRS 331 0.07 3.39 1175 3.5 15.4
Key:
- Not sufficient loading stages to perform an estimate of the Effective preconsolidation stress, Yield stress ratio and Constrained modulus
CRS/INC = Constant rate of strain (CRS) / incremental loading (INC) as described in the document “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests”
σ’v0 = Effective in situ vertical stress
Δe/e0 = Ratio of change in void ratio from an initial laboratory value (e0) at atmospheric conditions to the specimen void ratio upon
re-compression to estimated in situ effective stress conditions Δe over initial void ratio e0 (used for estimation of intact
sample quality class according to ISO (2014) as described in the document “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in
Appendix 2)
estimated in situ stress conditions (used for estimation of intact sample quality class according to Terzaghi et al. (1996) as
described in the document “Geotechnical Laboratory Tests” presented in Appendix 2)
’p = Effective preconsolidation stress derived using Casagrande graphical method
YSR = Yield stress ratio
M = Constrained modulus
- = Specified oedometer loading steps do not allow for a reasonable estimation of YSR at the estimated σ’v0
OEDOMETER TEST RESULTS – SUMMARY TABLE

APPENDIX F: DERIVED VALUES OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS PER LOCATION
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES IN APPENDIX F: Plate
Normalized CPT Parameters versus Depth F1-1 to F1-51

Net Cone Resistance versus Depth F2-1 to F2-51
Water Content and Atterberg Limits versus Depth F3-1 to F3-51
Unit Weight, Dry Unit Weight and Submerged Unit Weight versus Depth F4-1 to F4-51
Particle Size Distribution versus Depth F5-1 to F5-51
Relative Density versus Depth F6-1 to F6-51
Undrained Shear Strength versus Depth F7-1 to F7-51
Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus at Small Strain versus Depth F8-1 to F8-51
Thermal Conductivity and Volumetric Heat Capacity versus Depth F9-1 to F9-26
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Table of Contents - Appendix F Page 1 of 1

Soil Behaviour Non-normalised
Type Index, Soil Behaviour Normalized Ground
Ic [-] Type Index, ISBT [-] Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn [-] Friction Ratio, Fr [-] Model
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
GeODin/01 Normalized CPT vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-01 15:42:48
72
Location(s):
HKW002-BH
HKW002-PCPT
HKW002-SCPT
HKW002-TCPT
NORMALIZED CPT PARAMETERS VERSUS DEPTH
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Plate F1-1

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW006-BH
HKW006-PCPT
HKW006-SCPT
HKW006-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW009-BH-A
HKW009-BH
HKW009-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW014-BH
HKW014-PCPT
HKW014-SCPT-A
HKW014-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW016-BH
HKW016-PCPT
HKW016-PCPT-A
HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW019-BH
HKW019-PCPT-A
HKW019-PCPT-B

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW023-BH-A
HKW023-BH
HKW023-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW025-BH-A
HKW025-BH
HKW025-PCPT
HKW025-SCPT
HKW025-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW033-BH
HKW033-PCPT
HKW033-SCPT
HKW033-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW035-BH
HKW035-PCPT
HKW035-SCPT
HKW035-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW036-BH-A
HKW036-BH
HKW036-PCPT
HKW036-SCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW038-BH
HKW038-PCPT
HKW038-SCPT
HKW038-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW040-BH
HKW040-PCPT
HKW040-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW042-BH-A
HKW042-BH
HKW042-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW045-BH
HKW045-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
G
72 G
Location(s):
HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW050-BH
HKW050-PCPT
HKW050-SCPT
HKW050-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW053-BH-A
HKW053-BH
HKW053-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW054-BH-A
HKW054-BH
HKW054-PCPT
HKW054-SCPT
HKW054-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW055-BH-B
HKW055-BH-A
HKW055-BH
HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW056-BH
HKW056-PCPT
HKW056-SCPT-A
HKW056-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW060-BH
HKW060-PCPT
HKW060-SCPT
HKW060-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW062-BH
HKW062-PCPT
HKW062-SCPT
HKW062-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW063-BH
HKW063-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW065-BH
HKW065-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW072-BH
HKW072-PCPT
HKW072-PCPT-B

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW073-BH
HKW073-PCPT
HKW073-SCPT
HKW073-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW077-BH
HKW077-PCPT
HKW077-SCPT
HKW077-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW078-BH
HKW078-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW082-BH
HKW082-PCPT
HKW082-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72
Location(s):
HKW091-BH
HKW091-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW096-BH
HKW096-PCPT
HKW096-SCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW098-BH
HKW098-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW101-BH
HKW101-PCPT
HKW101-SCPT
HKW101-TCPT
HKW101-TCPT-A

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24
F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW104-BH
HKW104-PCPT
HKW104-SCPT
HKW104-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW106-BH
HKW106-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW107-BH
HKW107-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW110-BH
HKW110-PCPT
HKW110-SCPT
HKW110-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW112-BH
HKW112-PCPT
HKW112-SCPT
HKW112-TCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW113-BH
HKW113-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW114-BH
HKW114-PCPT

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 10 100 10000
1000 2 4 6
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW118-BH
HKW118-PCPT
HKW118-SCPT
HKW118-TCPT

Ground
Net Cone Resistance, qn [MPa] Model
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
72
GeODin/02 qn vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-01 15:43:01
Location(s):
HKW002-BH
HKW002-PCPT
HKW002-SCPT
HKW002-TCPT
NET CONE RESISTANCE VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW006-BH
HKW006-PCPT
HKW006-SCPT
HKW006-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW009-BH-A
HKW009-BH
HKW009-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW014-BH
HKW014-PCPT
HKW014-SCPT-A
HKW014-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW016-BH
HKW016-PCPT
HKW016-PCPT-A
HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW019-BH
HKW019-PCPT-A
HKW019-PCPT-B

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW023-BH-A
HKW023-BH
HKW023-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW025-BH-A
HKW025-BH
HKW025-PCPT
HKW025-SCPT
HKW025-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72
Location(s):
HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW033-BH
HKW033-PCPT
HKW033-SCPT
HKW033-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW035-BH
HKW035-PCPT
HKW035-SCPT
HKW035-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW036-BH-A
HKW036-BH
HKW036-PCPT
HKW036-SCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW038-BH
HKW038-PCPT
HKW038-SCPT
HKW038-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW040-BH
HKW040-PCPT
HKW040-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW042-BH-A
HKW042-BH
HKW042-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW045-BH
HKW045-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G
Location(s):
HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW050-BH
HKW050-PCPT
HKW050-SCPT
HKW050-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW053-BH-A
HKW053-BH
HKW053-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW054-BH-A
HKW054-BH
HKW054-PCPT
HKW054-SCPT
HKW054-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW055-BH-B
HKW055-BH-A
HKW055-BH
HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW056-BH
HKW056-PCPT
HKW056-SCPT-A
HKW056-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW060-BH
HKW060-PCPT
HKW060-SCPT
HKW060-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW062-BH
HKW062-PCPT
HKW062-SCPT
HKW062-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW063-BH
HKW063-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW065-BH
HKW065-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW072-BH
HKW072-PCPT
HKW072-PCPT-B

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW073-BH
HKW073-PCPT
HKW073-SCPT
HKW073-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW077-BH
HKW077-PCPT
HKW077-SCPT
HKW077-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW078-BH
HKW078-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW082-BH
HKW082-PCPT
HKW082-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72
Location(s):
HKW091-BH
HKW091-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW096-BH
HKW096-PCPT
HKW096-SCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
Location(s):
HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW098-BH
HKW098-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW101-BH
HKW101-PCPT
HKW101-SCPT
HKW101-TCPT
HKW101-TCPT-A

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24
F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW104-BH
HKW104-PCPT
HKW104-SCPT
HKW104-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW106-BH
HKW106-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW107-BH
HKW107-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
Location(s):
HKW110-BH
HKW110-PCPT
HKW110-SCPT
HKW110-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW112-BH
HKW112-PCPT
HKW112-SCPT
HKW112-TCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW113-BH
HKW113-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW114-BH
HKW114-PCPT

Ground
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
Location(s):
HKW118-BH
HKW118-PCPT
HKW118-SCPT
HKW118-TCPT

Ground
Water Content and Atterberg Limits [%] Model
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
6
B1
3
8
16
E
24
F
32 13
16 F
40
F
48 F
10
56
64
72
GeODin/03 MC_AL vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-01 15:43
Water content Location(s):

Plastic limit HKW002-BH
Liquid limit HKW002-PCPT
Plasticity index HKW002-SCPT
HKW002-TCPT
WATER CONTENT AND ATTERBERG LIMITS VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
16
24 16
33 F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
16
G
64
72

HKW006-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
E
8
F
16 6
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
14
16 F
56
G
13
64
72

Plastic limit HKW009-BH-A
Liquid limit HKW009-BH
Plasticity index HKW009-PCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
14
8 14 F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

Plasticity index HKW014-SCPT-A
HKW014-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
3
56
64
72

Plasticity index HKW016-PCPT-A
HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
10
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
15 F
48
F
56
64
72

Liquid limit HKW019-PCPT-A
Plasticity index HKW019-PCPT-B

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24 E
32
8
20
40 F
10
11
48 F
16
F
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
13
18 F
24
F
32 15
7 F
8
40
F
48
G
56
64
72

HKW025-SCPT
HKW025-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
F
24
F
32
27
F
40 23
17
17
48 F
F
56
12
G
64
16
G
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
16
17 G
18
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24
32
F
12
40
32
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
32 G
26
G
16
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
15
16 G
48
G
56
64
72

HKW033-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16 F
13
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
19 G
64
72

HKW035-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
F
16
16
F
24
F
32
12
23
40
18 G
14
14
48
56
G
64
72

HKW036-SCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW038-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
9
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
14
64
72

Plasticity index HKW040-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
22 F
24
F
32
F
11
40
G
11
48 G
G
56
21
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16
F
13
24
F
32
40
14 F
48 41
18 G
56
17
G
9
G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
17 F
32
F
40 9
G
17
10
48 G
56
G
13
64 G
G
20
G
72 G

HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
16 B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
19
20
G
20
56
64
72

HKW050-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 11
C1
F
16
F
24 24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
12
40 G
21
G
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW054-SCPT
HKW054-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
11 C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Plastic limit HKW055-BH-B
Liquid limit HKW055-BH-A
Plasticity index HKW055-BH
HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
9
8 C1
10
16
24
F
32 F
15
40 F
12
48
F
56
G
64
72

Plasticity index HKW056-SCPT-A
HKW056-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24 F
11
32 F
38
11 G
40 8
14
15 G
17
48
56 8
11
G
64
72

HKW060-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
8
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
9
48
56
64
72

HKW062-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
13 C1
C1
D
16 22
D
24
F
32
15
F
16
40
17
48
F
56
G
64
21
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
C2
16
24 10
13 F
27
23 26
21 33 G
6
32
12 G
12
G
40
48
56
G
64
72

Plasticity index HKW072-PCPT-B

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

HKW073-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
15
C1
8 22
16
24 34
14
G
10
32
40
8 G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW077-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
10
8 9 C1
16
24
19
23 F
32
F
40
48
56 20
17 G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
9
11
9 C1
8
15 F
16 F
12
F
24
14
10
F
32 26 G
40
48 G
56
19
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
15
F
32
F
40
F
48
26
26
56 G
23
64
G
G
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8 C1
9
F
F
16
9
24
F
11
16
32 18
16 G
25
25
G
26
40
22
25
28 G
11
48 29
G
56
22 G
64 5
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B1
16
26
11
7 F
24
32 F
40
48
G
26
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 13
11
C
11
16
F
11
24 32
8
21
F
F
32
7 G
22 G
40
G
48
G
24
56 G
64
23
G
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16 F
24 22
25 F
32
11 F
32 10
35
40 G
16
48
56
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
13
4 B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
18
13
G
48 14
56
17
G
G
64
72

HKW101-TCPT
HKW101-TCPT-A

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
9
C1
8
F
16
17
24
F
28
9
G
32
40
48
56 G
34
G
64
72

HKW104-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
8 B2
C1
E
8
16 F
16
24
12 F
F
32 F
F
17
40
F
15 23
G
48 12
11
G
56
11
G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
13
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
9
G
13
30
40
48
56
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
F
6
24 F
12
F
32
11
21
G
9
29
40
12
G
48
56
64
72

HKW110-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
7
24
F
32
G
40
24
11
19
G
48
16
56
G
64
72

HKW112-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
25
25
56 G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
11
C1
12
7 D
16
14
24
F
32
31
F
11
G
40
G
48
35
56
G
64
72

Plasticity index

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
17
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
17
20
56 G
24
64
72

HKW118-TCPT

Ground
Soil Unit Weight, γ [kN/m³] Model
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
72
GeODin/04 UW vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-02 16:23:40
Derived total soil unit weight from γ-w method Location(s):

Derived total soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW002-BH
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-w method HKW002-PCPT
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW002-SCPT
Derived dry soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW002-TCPT
UNIT WEIGHT, DRY UNIT WEIGHT AND SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
56
64
72

Derived total soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW009-BH-A
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-w method HKW009-BH
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW009-PCPT
Derived dry soil unit weight from γ-V method

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW014-SCPT-A

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW016-PCPT-A
Derived dry soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-w method HKW019-PCPT-A
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW019-PCPT-B

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72

HKW025-TCPT

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW040-TCPT

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW054-TCPT

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Derived total soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW055-BH-B
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-w method HKW055-BH-A
Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW055-BH
Derived dry soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW056-SCPT-A

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72

Derived submerged soil unit weight from γ-V method HKW072-PCPT-B

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW101-TCPT-A

Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24
F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72


Ground
Particle Size Distribution [%] Model
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
72
GeODin/05 PSD vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-02 12:07:49
Mass percentage of material passing 2 µm sieve Location(s):

Mass percentage of material passing 63 µm sieve HKW002-BH
Mass percentage of material passing 2 mm sieve HKW002-PCPT
HKW002-SCPT
HKW002-TCPT
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72

HKW006-SCPT
HKW006-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
56
64
72

Mass percentage of material passing 63 µm sieve HKW009-BH-A
Mass percentage of material passing 2 mm sieve HKW009-BH
HKW009-PCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

HKW014-SCPT-A
HKW014-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72

HKW016-PCPT-A
HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72

Mass percentage of material passing 2 mm sieve HKW019-PCPT-A
HKW019-PCPT-B

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72

HKW023-PCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72

HKW025-PCPT
HKW025-SCPT
HKW025-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

HKW031-SCPT
HKW031-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72

HKW033-SCPT
HKW033-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72

HKW035-SCPT
HKW035-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

HKW036-PCPT
HKW036-SCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW038-SCPT
HKW038-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72

HKW040-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72

HKW042-PCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G

HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

HKW047-SCPT
HKW047-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72

HKW050-SCPT
HKW050-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

HKW053-PCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW054-PCPT
HKW054-SCPT
HKW054-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Mass percentage of material passing 63 µm sieve HKW055-BH-B
Mass percentage of material passing 2 mm sieve HKW055-BH-A
HKW055-BH
HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72

HKW056-SCPT-A
HKW056-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72

HKW060-SCPT
HKW060-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

HKW062-SCPT
HKW062-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72

HKW072-PCPT-B

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

HKW073-SCPT
HKW073-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW077-SCPT
HKW077-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72

HKW082-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72

HKW094-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

HKW094-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72

HKW096-SCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW101-SCPT
HKW101-TCPT
HKW101-TCPT-A

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24
F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72

HKW104-SCPT
HKW104-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

HKW110-SCPT
HKW110-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW112-SCPT
HKW112-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72


Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW118-SCPT
HKW118-TCPT

Ground
Relative Density, Dr [%] Model
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
72
Very Loose Medium Dense Very
GeODin/06 Dr vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-02 14:22:16
loose dense dense
Derived from Dr-qt method Location(s):

HKW002-BH
HKW002-PCPT
HKW002-SCPT
Note(s):
- Relative density is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.3.3 HKW002-TCPT
RELATIVE DENSITY VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW006-BH
HKW006-PCPT
HKW006-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW009-BH-A
HKW009-BH
HKW009-PCPT
Note(s):
- Relative density is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.3.3

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW014-BH
HKW014-PCPT
HKW014-SCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW016-BH
HKW016-PCPT
HKW016-PCPT-A
Note(s):
- Relative density is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.3.3 HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW019-BH
HKW019-PCPT-A
HKW019-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW023-BH-A
HKW023-BH
HKW023-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW025-BH-A
HKW025-BH
HKW025-PCPT
Note(s):
HKW025-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
loose dense dense

HKW026-BH
HKW026-PCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72
loose dense dense

HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
loose dense dense

HKW031-BH
HKW031-PCPT
HKW031-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW033-BH
HKW033-PCPT
HKW033-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW035-BH
HKW035-PCPT
HKW035-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW036-BH-A
HKW036-BH
HKW036-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW038-BH
HKW038-PCPT
HKW038-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW040-BH
HKW040-PCPT
HKW040-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW042-BH-A
HKW042-BH
HKW042-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW045-BH
HKW045-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G
loose dense dense

HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
loose dense dense

HKW047-BH
HKW047-PCPT
HKW047-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW050-BH
HKW050-PCPT
HKW050-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW053-BH-A
HKW053-BH
HKW053-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW054-BH-A
HKW054-BH
HKW054-PCPT
Note(s):
HKW054-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW055-BH-B
HKW055-BH-A
HKW055-BH
Note(s):
- Relative density is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.3.3 HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW056-BH
HKW056-PCPT
HKW056-SCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW060-BH
HKW060-PCPT
HKW060-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW062-BH
HKW062-PCPT
HKW062-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW063-BH
HKW063-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW065-BH
HKW065-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW072-BH
HKW072-PCPT
HKW072-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW073-BH
HKW073-PCPT
HKW073-SCPT
Note(s):
-Relative density is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.3 HKW073-TCPT

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW073-BH
HKW073-PCPT
HKW073-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW078-BH
HKW078-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW082-BH
HKW082-PCPT
HKW082-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72
loose dense dense

HKW091-BH
HKW091-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
loose dense dense

HKW094-BH
HKW094-PCPT
HKW094-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW096-BH
HKW096-PCPT
HKW096-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144
loose dense dense

HKW097-BH
HKW097-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW098-BH
HKW098-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW101-BH
HKW101-PCPT
HKW101-SCPT
Note(s):
HKW101-TCPT-A

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24 F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW104-BH
HKW104-PCPT
HKW104-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW106-BH
HKW106-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW107-BH
HKW107-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW110-BH
HKW110-PCPT
HKW110-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW112-BH
HKW112-PCPT
HKW112-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW113-BH
HKW113-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW114-BH
HKW114-PCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72
loose dense dense

HKW118-BH
HKW118-PCPT
HKW118-SCPT
Note(s):

Ground
Undrained Shear Strength, su [kPa] Model
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
72
GeODin/07 Su vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-04 10:01:19
Pocket penetrometer CU-triaxial (intact specimen) Location(s):

Torvane CU-triaxial (reconstituted specimen) HKW002-BH
Fallcone DSS (intact specimen) HKW002-PCPT
Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW002-SCPT
UU-triaxial Derived from CPT HKW002-TCPT
Note(s):
- Undrained shear strength derived from CPT is calculated and plotted as described in Main
Text Section 4.4.4.3
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
F
56
64
72

Torvane CU-triaxial (reconstituted specimen) HKW009-BH-A
Fallcone DSS (intact specimen) HKW009-BH
Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW009-PCPT
UU-triaxial Derived from CPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW014-SCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
8 E
16
E
24
32
40
48
56
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW016-PCPT-A
UU-triaxial Derived from CPT HKW016-SCPT
HKW016-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72

Fallcone DSS (intact specimen) HKW019-PCPT-A
Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW019-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72

HKW025-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen)
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
72

Note(s):
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Plate F7-9a

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
8 B2
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW040-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

HKW054-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Torvane CU-triaxial (reconstituted specimen) HKW055-BH-B
Fallcone DSS (intact specimen) HKW055-BH-A
Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW055-BH
UU-triaxial Derived from CPT HKW055-PCPT
HKW055-SCPT
Note(s): HKW055-TCPT

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW056-SCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72

Laboratory vane DSS (reconstituted specimen) HKW072-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72

HKW101-TCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24
F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
Shear Wave Velocity, vs [m/s] Shear Modulus at Small Strain, Gmax [MPa] Model
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B1
16
E
24
F
32
40
F
48 F
56
64
GeODin/08 Shear Wave vs Depth.GLO/2020-09-08 17:22:35
72
vs derived from dual array geophones Location(s):

Gmax derived from vs measured HKW002-BH
vs and Gmax derived from CPT HKW002-PCPT
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW002-SCPT
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on reconstituted specimen HKW002-TCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on reconstituted specimen
vs and Gmax derived from P and S suspension logging
Note(s):
- vs derived from CPT is based on Robertson and Cabal (2015)
- Gmax derived from CPT is calculated and plotted as described in Main Text Section 4.4.9.3
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AND SHEAR MODULUS AT SMALL STRAIN VERSUS DEPTH

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
B2
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48 F
F
56 F
G
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
F
56
64
72

Gmax derived from vs measured HKW009-BH-A
vs and Gmax derived from CPT HKW009-BH
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW009-PCPT
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on reconstituted specimen
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
E
8
F
16
F
24
F
32
40 F
48
F
F
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW014-SCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
8 F
16 F
24
F
32
F
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
8 E
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW016-PCPT-A
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on reconstituted specimen HKW016-SCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen HKW016-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
8 E
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW016-PCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16
F
F
24
F
32
F
40
F
48
F
56
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from CPT HKW019-PCPT-A
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW019-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
16
24 E
32
40 F
48 F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
F
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
G
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48 F
F
56
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
80
88
G
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
16
24
32
F
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
G
G
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
B2
16
C2
24
F
32
40 F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32
40
F
G
48
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16 F
24
F
F
32
40
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
G
56
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW040-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16
24
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
G
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
8 B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
G
48 G
56
G
64 G
G
72 G

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
C2
16
F
F
24
F
F
32
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
C1
F
16
F
24
F
32
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8 C1
C2
16
F
24
F
32
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Gmax derived from vs measured HKW055-BH-B
vs and Gmax derived from CPT HKW055-BH-A
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW055-BH
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on reconstituted specimen HKW055-PCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen HKW055-SCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on reconstituted specimen HKW055-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Gmax derived from vs measured HKW055-BH-B
vs and Gmax derived from CPT HKW055-BH-A
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW055-BH
vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on reconstituted specimen HKW055-PCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen HKW055-SCPT
Gmax values derived from resonant column test on reconstituted specimen HKW055-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32 F
40 F
48
F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
16 F
24 F
32 F
G
40
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
C1
8
F
16
24
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C2
8
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48
G
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
C1
C1
D
16
D
24
F
32
40
48
F
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
8
C2
16
24
F
G
32
G
G
40
48
56
G
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW072-PCPT-B
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
8
B2
16
F
24
F
32
F
F
40
48
F
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24
G
32
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8 C1
16
24
F
32
F
40
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
16 F
F
24
F
32 G
40
48 G
56
64
72

vs and Gmax derived from bender element test on intact specimen HKW082-TCPT
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B1
B1
8 E
16
F
24
F
F
32
F
40
F
48
56 G
64
G
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
C1
8 C1
F
16
24
F
32
G
G
40
48
G
56
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
G
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B1
16
F
24
32 F
40
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
C
16
F
24
F
F
32
G
40
G
48
G
56 G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
80
G
88
96
104
112
120
128
136
144

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
16 F
24
F
F
32
40 G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72

Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen HKW101-TCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B1
8
16
24
32 F
40
G
G
48
56
G
64
72

Gmax values derived from resonant column test on intact specimen HKW101-TCPT-A
Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24 F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
C1
8
F
16
24 F
G
32
40
48
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
C1
E
8
16 F
24
F
F
32 F
40
F
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
8
C1
C2
16
24
F
32 F
40
48
56
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
C1
8
16
24 F
F
32
40
G
48
56
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
A
B2
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
G
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
16
F
24
F
32
40
G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
8 B2
C1
D
16
24
F
32
G
40
G
48
56
G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Ground
0 200 400 600 0 400 800 1200
B2
8
16 F
24
F
32 F
40 G
48 G
56 G
64
72

Note(s):

Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] Volumetric Heat Capacity [MJ/m3K]

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3
Thermal conductivity derived from TCPT temperature equilibrium test

PPPWIN 04.02.01/HKW002-TCPT_HC_TC.ppp/2020-09-24 15:23:12
Thermal conductivity derived from laboratory transient plane heat source test
Thermal conductivity derived from laboratory single needle probe test
Thermal conductivity derived from CPT
Volumetric heat capacity derived from TCPT temperature equilibrium test
Volumetric heat capacity derived from laboratory transient plane heat source test
Volumetric heat capacity derived from CPT
Notes:
- Thermal conductivity from CPT is based on Vardon & Peuchen (2020) [k-CPTL method, Qtn_lim = 100]
- Volumetric heat capacity from CPT is based on Vardon & Peuchen (2020) [C-CPTL method]
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY AND VOLUMETRIC HEAT CAPACITY VERSUS DEPTH

Location HKW002


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW006


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW014


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW016


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW031


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW033


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW035


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW038


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW040


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW047


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW050


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW054


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW055


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW056


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW060


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW062


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW073


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW077


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW082


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW094


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW101


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

PPPWIN 04.02.01/HKW101-TCPT-A_HC_TC.ppp/2020-09-24 16:26:12
Notes:

Location HKW101-A


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW104


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW110


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW112


0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
0
3

Notes:

Location HKW118

APPENDIX G: SITE-SPECIFIC PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Table of Contents - Appendix G Page 1 of 1

Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the Hollandse Kust (west)
Wind Farm Zone
Final Report | Dutch Sector, North Sea
P904711/SHA 02 | 1 October 2020
Final
Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland
Document Control
Document Information
Project Title Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone
Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm
Document Title
Zone
Fugro Project No. P904711
Fugro Document No. P904711/SHA
Issue Number 02
Issue Status Final
Fugro Legal Entity Fugro France SAS
Issuing Office Address 115 Avenue de la Capelado, 34160 CASTRIES - France
Client Information
Client Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland
Client Address Croeselaan 15 3521 BJ UTRECHT, The Netherlands
Client Contact F. van Erp
Revision History
Prepared Checked Approved
Issue Date Status Comments on Content
By By By
MLA, SMA,
01 30 March 2020 For Review Awaiting client comments BWH RSE
SDR, DCA
Project Team
Initials Name Role
DCA David CARBON Senior Geologist
SDR Stéphane DROUET Senior Seismologist, Project Manager
MLA Manel LABIDI Geologist
SMA Saroj MAHARJAN Seismologist
RSE Ramon SECANELL Senior Seismologist
BWH Beau WITHNEY Senior Geologist
P904711/SHA 02 | Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone
Executive Summary
Fugro was requested to conduct a Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment study for the
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone. The aim of the study is to perform a seismic hazard
assessment for the geotechnical investigation area (about 300 km²), in order to define the seismic
actions that could be considered for the verification of the seismic design of turbines and/or other
structures in the offshore wind farm.
A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is performed, using a methodology

consistent with current international practice and in agreement with EC8 recommendations. In
particular, uncertainties are accounted for and propagated in the hazard calculation through the use
of a logic-tree approach combined with Monte-Carlo sampling.
The hazard model includes:
 Three (3) seismotectonic models;

 Five (5) Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs);
 Two hundred (200) samples for the seismic activity parameters.
The site conditions have been estimated from a micro-zonation analysis. Using shear wave velocity
profiles from geotechnical investigations (Fugro report P904711/01), a representative VS30 for the area
of interest has been computed: VS30 = 300 m/s.
Based on EC8 and ISO standards, four return periods of interest for the project are defined:
 95 years corresponding to the ‘damage limitation’ requirement of EC8;

 475 years corresponding to the ‘no-collapse’ requirement of EC8;
 624 years corresponding to the ELE level of ISO;
 3 000 years corresponding to the ALE level of ISO.
Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS) are computed for the 4 selected return periods. Mean,
median and centiles 16 % and 84 % are computed in order to assess uncertainties in the ground-
motions. The PSHA results lead to the following mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values:
 0.0043 g for 95 years return period;

 0.0614 g for 3 000 years return period;
A deaggregation analysis is also performed to identify the magnitude-distance scenarios that

contribute most to the seismic hazard at the site. The general conclusion is that moment magnitudes
(Mw) from 4.50 to 5.75 and distances lower than 30 km dominate for relatively long return periods
and short spectral periods, while magnitudes Mw from 5.5 to 6.5 at long distances (greater than 60
km) dominate for short return periods and long spectral periods.
Page 3 of 132
Finally, the spectral shapes defined in EC8 standards are used and adjusted to define design spectra
enveloping the site-specific UHRS at the different return periods.
Page 4 of 132
Contents
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Scope and purpose 9
1.2 Organisation of the report 10
2. Review of previous seismic hazard assessment studies 12
2.1 Seismic zoning map conforming to Eurocode 8 for the Netherlands (Crook, 1996) 12
2.2 Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program 14
2.3 The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: Key Components and Results (SHARE Project) 16
2.4 Global Earthquake Model 17
3. Methodology 19
3.1 Methods for determining ground motions 19
3.2 Probabilistic approach 19
3.3 Treatment of uncertainties in the probabilistic approach 21
4. Regional geological and structural context 24
4.1 Geodynamic context 24
4.2 Regional structures and geology 26
4.3 Region geodetics and crustal stress regime 31
4.4 Main structures in the near region 32
5. Seismological database 37
5.1 Data compilation 37
5.2 Removal of duplicate events 37
5.3 Induced seismicity 38
5.4 Magnitude homogenization 39
5.5 Final compiled catalogue 41
5.6 Declustering 43
5.7 Completeness analysis 45
6. Seismotectonic models 48
6.1 Method for developing the seismic source models 48
6.2 Model 1 in areal sources 51
6.2.1 Geometry of the areal seismic source zones 51
6.2.2 Definition of the seismic parameters for the areal sources of Model 1 54
6.3 Model 2 in areal source zones 60
6.4 Model 3 in areal source zones 66
Page 5 of 132

7. Seismic activity model 71
7.1 Presentation 71
7.2 Gutenberg-Richter adjustment 72
7.2.1 Seismotectonic Model 1 72
8. Ground Motion Prediction Equations 78
9. Evaluation of ground motion hazard 83

9.1 Soil conditions 83
9.2 Design Return Periods 84
9.3 Global Probabilistic Logic Tree 85
9.4 Common hypotheses 86
9.5 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Results 87
9.5.1 Seismic Hazard Curves HKW WFZ 87
9.5.2 UHRS at the HKW WFZ project site for the horizontal component 88
9.5.3 Deaggregation of the seismic hazard 95
10. Definition of design response spectra following EC8 100
10.1.1 EC8 spectral shape 100
10.1.2 EC8 reference response spectrum for 475-year return period 101
10.1.3 EC8-based design response spectrum for the T1 design level (95-year return period) 102
10.1.4 EC8-based design response spectrum for the T2 design level (475-years return period)
103
11. Conclusion 105
12. References 107

A.1 GR fittings for Seismotectonic Model 1 115
B.1 Definition of completeness periods 130
Page 6 of 132
1. Introduction
Fugro was requested to conduct a site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
(PSHA) study covering the offshore Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone (in advance HKW
WFZ) in the Dutch sector of the North Sea (Figure 1-1).
The aim of the study is to perform a seismic hazard assessment for the project area (about
300 km²) approximately (Figure 1-1), in order to define the seismic actions that could be
considered for the seismic design of turbines and/or other structures in the offshore wind
farm. For the PSHA, one calculation point was used. It corresponds roughly to the central
point of the HKW WFZ.
Coordinates of the calculation point used for the PSHA are specified in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Coordinates of the calculation point for the PSHA.
Coordinates (WGS 84)
Latitude (°) Longitude (°)
52.667891°N 3.756173°E
The HKW WFZ is located in an area of low seismic activity according to GSHAP seismic hazard
maps (Giardini et al., 1999), with Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ranging from 0.2 m/s2 to
0.3 m/s2, for rock conditions and 475-year return period. Moreover, the area of interest is far
from active seismic sources and far from induced seismic sources of the Netherlands.
The ground motion for seismic design is typically characterized by response spectra and
associated time histories, as it is indicated in many seismic codes. Most of them provide
parameters to compute generic design spectra or suggest performing site-specific seismic
hazard assessment to compute design spectra.
A site-specific seismic hazard assessment is performed in this report. The results are
compared to the design spectra defined in EC8 standard that are considered relevant for the
project.
Page 7 of 132
Figure 1-1: Location of the offshore Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone.
Page 8 of 132
1.1 Scope and purpose

For this study, a broad understanding of the seismotectonic context at regional scale is
developed and a detailed probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) at the HKW WFZ is
conducted, which is the most appropriate approach considering the low activity
seismotectonic context of the region. Uncertainties related to the seismicity, local geology,
tectonic processes, delineation of seismic sources, ground motion models, maximum
magnitudes and depth of the seismogenic layer, are considered according to state-of-the-art
methods, and propagated in the probabilistic approach through logic trees and Monte Carlo
techniques.
The seismic hazard assessment depends on the soil conditions. Regarding the offshore HKW
WFZ project, the area of the project measures around 300 km2. To evaluate variations of site
conditions within the project area, a micro-zonation is developed. Variability of the average
shear wave velocity over the top 30 m (VS30 parameter) is examined based on shear wave
velocity profiles obtained from geotechnical/geophysical investigations. Due to the quite
homogeneous seismotectonic context, only one calculation point is considered (center of the
project extension area) and the micro-zonation (average VS30 for the Area Of Interest, AOI) is
used to define the soil conditions for PSHA calculation.
Typically, the seismic ground motions are defined by response spectra for given specific
seismic levels (or return periods) defined for the project. For offshore wind farms, no specific
return periods are defined, and the seismic design is usually performed using a 475-year
return period (see Kayniaa, 2019).
The EC8 standard defines two seismic levels: ‘no-collapse’ and ‘damage limitation’
requirements. They are associated with 475-year return periods and 95-year return periods. In
addition, depending on the type of building, an importance factor is defined in EC8.
Return periods for the different importance classes can be estimated from the importance
factors using the following formula:
𝑅𝑃 = 𝑅𝑃 ×𝛾
where 𝑅𝑃 is the reference 475-year return period and 𝛾 is the importance factor. This
equation leads to return periods of 820 and 1 303 years for importance classes II and III,
respectively.
Similarly, two design levels are also defined in ISO: the Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE) and
the Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE). ELE is defined as: “The structure shall be designed such
that an ELE event will cause little or no damage’ and ALE as ‘The ALE can cause considerable
damage to the structure; however, the structure shall be designed such that overall structural
integrity is maintained to avoid structural collapse causing loss of life and/or major
environmental damage”.
Page 9 of 132
When a site-specific seismic hazard assessment is performed, the ISO standard provides a
procedure to compute the ALE return period from the seismic hazard curve computed for the
site. One has first to determine an exposure level for the project associated to a probability of
failure as indicated in ISO standard.
An exposure level L1 (see Table 2 of ISO guidelines) was assumed for the project. The slope
of the site-specific hazard curve for the spectral period corresponding to the dominant
frequency of the structure (or for the spectral period 1.0 s if the dominant frequency is
unknown) is then computed around the probability of failure selected. From the slope, a
correction factor is determined which is then multiplied by the acceleration read from the
hazard curve at the probability of failure leading to the acceleration associated to the ALE
level. Finally, the probability associated with the ALE acceleration is read from the hazard
curve. The inverse of this probability gives the return period. This procedure leads HKW WFZ
to a return period of 3 000 years for the ALE level. The acceleration associated to the ELE level
is then defined from the acceleration associated with the ALE using a “seismic capacity
reduction factor” which cannot be greater than 2.8 for the L1 exposure level. The ELE
probability (and return period) is then read from the hazard curve. The ELE return period
computed for the HKW WFZ is 624 years.
Due to the large differences in return period defined by the EC8 and ISO standards, the
site-specific ground motion in this study is defined for 4 seismic levels or return
periods: 95, 475, 624 and 3 000 in agreement with the client.
The PSHA is conducted to provide the probabilistic Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS)
assuming a 5 % damping ratio, and the design response spectra for four seismic levels for the
horizontal component. Mean accelerations as well as 16th, 50th and 84th centiles are computed
in order to provide an estimation of the uncertainties on the computed ground-motions.
Deaggregation of the seismic hazard is also performed to appreciate the contribution of the
different types of seismic sources on the seismic hazard at the site. The deaggregation is
conducted for three return periods (95, 475 and 3 000 years) and two spectral periods (PGA
and 1.0 s).
Finally, site-specific design response spectra are determined using the generic spectral
shapes defined in EC8 and ISO but adjusted to the site-specific response spectra for each
seismic level: 95 and 475 years return period following the spectral shapes provided in the
EC8, and 624 and 3 000 years return period following the spectral shapes provided in ISO.
1.2 Organisation of the report

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis. It is organized as follows:
 Chapter 2 concerns the review and evaluation of previous seismic hazard studies by
others;
Page 10 of 132
 Chapter 3 describes the methodology for determining the seismic ground motions and
the treatment of uncertainty;
 Chapter 4 introduces the regional geological and structural context of the area, and the
main characteristics of the seismic activity;
 Chapter 5 presents the compilation of seismological databases resulting in an
earthquake catalogue homogenized in moment magnitude and the analysis for
completeness;
 Chapter 6 describes the alternative seismotectonic models aimed at capturing the
uncertainty in defining the seismic source zones;
 Chapter 7: presents the methodology to derive the seismic activity parameters for all the
zones of each seismotectonic model;
 Chapter 8: presents the process of selection of ground motion prediction equations
(GMPEs) and description of final GMPEs selected for this study;
 Chapter 9 presents the assessment of the soil conditions of the area of interest (HKW
WFZ) to derive the final VS30 to be considered for the PSHA calculation, the description of
design return periods considered in this study, the description of the logic tree and
global parameters for PSHA calculation and the computed ground motions;
 Chapter 10 presents the definition of the site-specific design response spectra following
the EC8 standards;
 Chapter 11 provides a conclusion of this study;
 Chapter 12 includes the references of the bibliography used for the study;
 Appendix A includes the GR determinations of the selected seismotectonic models.
Page 11 of 132
2. Review of previous seismic hazard assessment studies

In general, the PSHA results at the HKW WFZ are quite similar for all the publications
analysed. The region where the wind farm will be situated corresponds to a low seismicity
region, a so called ‘Stable Continental Region’ (SCR). The Wind Farm is located offshore the
Netherlands in the Broad Fourteens Basin in northwestern Europe, which is part of the stable
European platform. Deformation within this platform is low to very low compared to the
Alpine mountain ranges and Plio-Quaternary rifting zones surrounding the Mediterranean
Sea.
The studied site is located in the Dutch sector of the North Sea and no seismic hazard
assessment has been published for the offshore domain of the Netherlands. Consequently,
the ground acceleration values mentioned in the following sections are an extrapolation of
the maximum acceleration values given as closely as possible in the onshore domain.
In terms of PGA, the results previously published are generally below 0.03 g, for rock
conditions and a return period of 475 years. Nevertheless, all these projects are regional (as
opposed to site-specific studies) and, therefore, the uncertainties remain significant and local
site conditions are not considered. The seismic hazard analysis performed in this study is
based on a probabilistic approach, similar to all the studies analysed in the next sections.
2.1 Seismic zoning map conforming to Eurocode 8 for the Netherlands (Crook,
1996)
References:
CROOK, Th. de, (1996), A seismic zoning map conforming to Eurocode 8, and practical
earthquake parameter relations for the Netherlands, Geologie en Mijnbouw, 75, pp 11-18.
BROUWER J.W.R. (2010). The meaning of Eurocode 8 and Induced Seismicity For Earthquake
Engineering in the Netherlands. Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, May 24-29, 2010, San Diego,
California.
De Crook (1996) performed the latest seismic hazard study for the Netherlands, based on the
earthquake catalogue up to 1993. Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 show the maps of seismic hazard
zones in the Netherlands based on this study. These maps are used as the current hazard
zonation map in the Netherlands. An update of this study using a revised and extended
catalogue of earthquakes and new ground motion prediction relations is being prepared at
the KNMI (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut). Ground motions are used instead
of intensities, which is more convenient for engineering purposes and can be compared with
actual measurements (Brouwer, 2010).
The seismic zonation map of the Netherlands is based on a seismic hazard study with a 10 %
probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 475 years).
Page 12 of 132
Four seismic zones are defined, where for stiff soil type, the PGAs are respectively:
 Seismic zone A: PGA = 0.10 m/s² (0.01 g);

 Seismic zone B: PGA = 0.22 m/s² (0.022 g);
 Seismic zone C: PGA = 0.50 m/s² (0.05 g);
 Seismic zone D: PGA = 1.00 m/s² (0.1 g).
On this seismic hazard map, the HKW WFZ is located in a region associated to an estimated
PGA value lower than 0.1 m/s2 (zone A) along the western coast of the Netherlands, at
the return period of 475 years (Figure 2-2). This seismic level corresponds to a very low
seismic hazard, which is consistent with the low seismicity area of the North Sea, offshore the
Netherlands.
Figure 2-1: Currently available seismic hazard Figure 2-2: Seismic zonation map of the Netherlands
zonation in the Netherlands in terms of intensity based on a seismic hazard study with a 10% of
(Crook, 1996). exceedance in 50 years (return period 475 years). The
ground motions for the zones A, B, C and D are 0.1, 0.22,
0.50, and 1 m/s², respectively for the return period of 475
years.
Page 13 of 132
2.2 Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program

References:
GRÜNTHAL, G., BOSSE, C., SELLAMI, S., MAYER-ROSA, D. & GIARDINI, D. (1999). Compilation of
the GSHAP regional seismic hazard for Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/GSHAP/index.html
A seismic hazard map was published by GSHAP (Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program)
for the region (Grünthal et al., 1999). The objective of the GSHAP program was to propose a
global seismic hazard map at the world scale, based on homogenized and coordinated
probabilistic approach.
Figure 2-3 is an extract of the global GSHAP hazard map focusing on the project region. This
map shows the PGA expected with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. It was
obtained by combining the results of independent regional and national projects. Therefore,
seismic sources are considered at a regional scale and do not use local data (i.e., faults in the
vicinity of the site).
A regional catalogue was completed in 1996 with the addition of the database for
Fennoscandia and of the SIRENE catalogue for France, as well as a shallow seismic source
zonation. One hundred ninety six (196) zones were defined. It must be noted that this study
does not account for the uncertainties and their propagation in the probabilistic approach.
The area of interest of the Wind Farm project corresponds on the GSHAP map to a region
where estimated PGA values range from 0.2 m/s2 and 0.3 m/s2 along the western coast
of the Netherlands , at the return period of 475 years (Figure 2-3). This seismic level
corresponds to a very low seismic hazard, which is consistent with the low seismicity area of
the Dutch Sector of the North Sea.
The results of the GSHAP program only provide a preliminary estimate of the seismic hazard
and must be limited to a qualitative comparison of the hazard from one region to another.
The hazard model used in GSHAP does not fully account for uncertainties and uses GMPEs
that are outdated. These results are not appropriate for the seismic design of site-specific
projects.
Page 14 of 132
Figure 2-3: Seismic hazard map for a return period of 475 years according to GSHAP (Grünthal et al., 1999)
(data and plotting tool from http://gmo.gfz-Potsdam.de/) and location of the HKW WFZ.
Page 15 of 132
2.3 The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: Key Components and Results
(SHARE Project)
References:
GIARDINI, D., J. WOESSNER, L. DANCIU (2014) Mapping Europe’s Seismic Hazard. EOS, 95(29): p.
261-262.
WOESSNER, J., DANCIU L., D. GIARDINI and the SHARE consortium (2015), The 2013 European
Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results, Bull. Earthq. Eng., doi:10.1007/s10518-
015-9795-1.
The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13) results from a community-based
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment supported by the EU-FP7 project “Seismic Hazard
Harmonization in Europe” (SHARE, 2009–2013). The ESHM13 is a consistent seismic hazard
model for Europe and Turkey which overcomes the limitation of national borders and
includes a thorough quantification of the uncertainties. It corresponds to the first completed
regional effort contributing to the “Global Earthquake Model” initiative.
The ESHM13 represents a significant improvement compared to previous efforts as it is based

on (1) the compilation of updated and harmonized versions of the databases required for
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (2) the adoption of standard procedures and robust
methods, especially for expert elicitation and consensus building among hundreds of
European experts, (3) the multi-disciplinary input from all branches of earthquake science and
engineering, (4) the direct involvement of the CEN/TC250/SC8 committee in defining output
specifications relevant for Eurocode 8 and (5) the accounting for epistemic uncertainties of
model components and hazard results.
For the scope of the project:
 Three alternative earthquake source models were considered, relying on different

assumptions and providing a diverse description of the earthquake activity: an areal
source model, a smoothed seismicity model and a fault source model included in a
background model;
 A new homogeneous earthquake catalogue at a European scale was compiled (SHEEC—
the “SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue”; Stucchi et al., 2013; The European-
Mediterranean earthquake catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium, Grünthal et al.,
2013);
 A European database of seismogenic faults (EDSF, Basili et al., 2013) was specifically
designed to fulfill the project requirements in terms of exploiting the wealth of geologic,
tectonic and paleoseismic knowledge available in the scientific community;
 A logic-tree for GMPEs was developed using a new approach that combines the
elicitation of key European experts with objective data testing through an iterative
procedure that attempts to capture the full distribution of possible ground motion
expected from future earthquakes (Delavaud et al., 2012).
Page 16 of 132
Seismic hazard calculations were computed with the GEM Openquake engine, for a standard
rock condition (i.e., VS30= 800 m/s, Pagani et al., 2014). Several maps at different return
periods (i.e., 475, 975, 2 475 and 4 975 years) were produced.
In this publication, and at the return period of 475 years (10 % exceedance in 50 years),
the PGA is lower than 0.02 g along the western coast of the Netherlands. Note that, as
explained in the publication, although the results provided by this project constitute a
reference for Europe, they do not replace the existing national design regulations that are in
place for seismic design and construction of buildings.
Figure 2-4: Extract from SHARE map showing the PGA at 475-year return period (10% chance of exceedance
in 50 years) and location of the Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm project (HKW WFZ).
2.4 Global Earthquake Model

References:
M. PAGANI, J. GARCIA-PELAEZ, R. GEE, K. JOHNSON, V. POGGI, R. STYRON, G. WEATHERILL, M.

SIMIONATO, D. VIGANÒ, L. DANCIU, D. MONELLI (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM)
Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 - December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-
SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) is a non-profit foundation that works to develop and
disseminate global earthquake hazard information to inform the public and policy makers.
The most recent global seismic hazard map (version 2018.1) was created by collating and
aggregating a global database of regional and national probabilistic seismic hazard models.
Page 17 of 132
These models are then used to calculate hazard values for the globe for reference rock
conditions (VS30 of 760-800 m/s) using the OpenQuake engine.
The GEM approach is to emphasize the latest models available for each region of the globe.
It incorporates a smoothing function to blend the hazard across model boundaries. In order
to maintain a uniform reference condition, some ground motion prediction equations had to
be modified for some of the models.
Similar to the GSHAP model, the GEM hazard map presents an overview of hazard variability
at large scale. It integrates furthermore the results obtained directly from the SHARE project
(Giardini et al., 2014, Woessner et al., 2015). It provides a valuable and dynamic tool for
visualizing hazard variability of larger regions. Nevertheless, and as for the previous seismic
hazard studies analyzed, the model outputs are not suitable for the seismic design of site-
specific projects.
In this publication, the PGA at the return period of 475 years is lower than 0.02 g along
the western coast of the Netherlands, which is consistent with a region of low
seismicity (Figure 2-5).
Figure 2-5: Extract from GEM 2018 showing the 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years (PGA) and location of the
Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm project (HKW WFZ).
Page 18 of 132
3. Methodology
3.1 Methods for determining ground motions
Two methods are commonly applied in seismic hazard assessment studies: deterministic and
probabilistic methods. These two approaches provide complementary results. The
deterministic approach usually focuses on a single earthquake scenario, ‘worst-case scenario’,
while the probabilistic approach combines all possible scenarios taking into account their
probabilities of occurrence. The two approaches can lead to different results depending on
the seismotectonic environment of the site of interest. International guidelines and standards
nowadays recommend the probabilistic approach since it allows for a better treatment of the
uncertainties. However, the deterministic approach is still used to complement the
probabilistic results and is still the reference method in a couple of national regulations.
For this study, a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment has been conducted.
3.2 Probabilistic approach

The probabilistic method follows the traditional calculation process developed by Cornell
(1968) (Figure 3-1) and improved to include and propagate the epistemic and aleatory
uncertainties (Figure 3-2). The basic assumptions are that the seismicity in a region can be
modeled by a set of independent sources and a Poisson occurrence of events with time.
The estimated annual rate at which the ground motion, A, will exceed a particular value, a, is
computed by (Cornell 1968):
𝜆[𝐴 > 𝑎] = 𝑁(𝑀 ) 𝑃[𝐴 > 𝑎|𝑚, 𝑟] 𝑓 (𝑚) 𝑓 (𝑟) 𝑑𝑚 𝑑𝑟
where Nsource is the total number of sources, N(Mmin) is the annual rate of earthquakes with
magnitude greater than or equal to Mmin, 𝑃[𝐴 > 𝑎|𝑚, 𝑟] is the probability of the ground
motion, A, exceeding the threshold value a, given the earthquake magnitude m and distance
r from the source, and 𝑓 (𝑚) and 𝑓 (𝑟) are probability density functions describing
magnitude and distance. Integration over all the magnitudes and distances is performed. The
computation of this integral is carried out numerically. Under the Poissonian assumption, the
probability of exceedance in a specified exposure period t (typically corresponding to the
useful life of a project) 𝑃[𝐴 > 𝑎, 𝑡] is related to the annual rate of exceedance 𝜆[𝐴 > 𝑎] by:
[ [ ] ]
𝑃[𝐴 > 𝑎, 𝑡] = 1 − 𝑒
Seismic sources can be modeled as:
 Are

HKW - 20201007 - FNLM - Geotechnical Parameters - V06 (Incl. Front and Backpage RVO) - F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

HKW - 20201007 - FNLM - Geotechnical Parameters - V06 (Incl. Front and Backpage RVO) - F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Parameters

Hollandse Kust (west) Wind Farm Zone

Client Reference No. WOZ2190152

Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO)

Client Reference No. WOZ2190152

Client Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO)

Fugro Project Lead K. Kaltekis - Senior Project Engineer

6 Revised Final 07-Oct-2020

Fugro Netherlands Marine B.V.  +31703111444,  fnlminfo@fugro.com,  www.fugro.com

2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 4

2.2 Study Approach for Geotechnical Ground Model 5

2.3.4 Characteristic Values 11

3. GEOTECHNICAL GROUND MODEL 19

3.3.7 Soil Unit D 28

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents Page i of iii

4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETER VALUES 35

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100

6. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND REFERENCES 107

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (4) Table of Contents Page ii of iii

1.1 Purpose of Report

1.2 Scope of Report – Geotechnical Parameters

■ Geotechnical ground model focusing on monopile and jacket pile foundations;

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 1

Table 1.1: Geotechnical Parameters

1.3 Scope of Report – Seismic Hazard Assessment

1.4 Scope of Report – Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

1.5 Report Format

■ Section 2 describes the general study approach for geotechnical parameters;

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 2

■ Plates in Appendices A to F are numbered to correspond to Main Text sections as follows:

1.6 Project Responsibilities and Use of Report

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 3

2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 General Study Approach

■ Connection to the geological ground model;

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 4

2.2 Study Approach for Geotechnical Ground Model

2.2.2 Soil Provinces

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 5

The selected soil provinces include the following fundamental features:

2.2.3 Soil Units

2.2.3.2 Soil Types

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 6

2.2.3.3 Soil Groups

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 7

2.2.3.4 Data Pairing

Comments on data pairing methodology are as follows:

2.3 Study Approach for Characteristic Values

2.3.1 Limit States and Calculation Models

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 8

2.3.2 Design Profiles and Design Locations

Selection of design locations was done according to the following procedure:

i. The deepest seafloor CPT of each location cluster was selected;

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 9

Table 2.1: Weight Factors for Selection of Design Locations

[m BSF] Monopiles Jacket Piles

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 10

2.3.3 Design Values

2.3.4 Characteristic Values

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 11

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 12

Fugro Document No. P904711/07 (5) Main Text Page 13

2.3.5 Derived Values