Site exploration and

characterization
•structural engineers know the engineering properties (strength, modulus of
elasticity, etc.) of the material (steel, concrete) they are working with, based on
the material they are using.

•however, geotechnical engineers work with soil, which is a natural material with
unknown engineering properties.

• thats why geotechnical engineers spend most of their time identifying the types
of soils on a site and evaluating their engineering properties (i.e. strength,
consolidation characteristics, compaction characteristics, hydraulic conductivity
etc.)
 Site Exploration
•main goals of a typical site investigation include
1) determination of soil types and thicknesses of various
soil layers,
2) location of groundwater table (gwt),
3) recovering soil samples,
4) observation of special problems specific to the site, if
there are any (e.g. slope instability, performance of
nearby structures etc.)
5) determination of foundation type
6) estimation of probable structure settlement

•but how do we accomplish those goals?

 Site Exploration
 Possible construction problems in advance (sheeting,
dewatering, slope instability etc.)
 Site Exploration
 Possible construction problems in advance (sheeting,
dewatering, slope instability etc.)
 Site Exploration
 Potential geotechnical problems concerning adjacent
structures
 Site Exploration Phases
 Planning
 The desk study and walk-over survey
 Subsurface exploration:
 boring, drilling, probing and trial pitting
 engineering geophysics
 Sampling and sample disturbance
 Laboratory testing
 In situ testing
 Writing a report
Augering
Washboring
 Exploratory Borings
• usually subsurface explorations are performed using a
drilling rig to drill borings.

• these borings typically are

8cm-60cm in diameter, and
3m-30m deep.
 Truck mounted drilling
• caving occurs when the sides of boring fall in (could occur in sandy
soils, hollow stem auger could be used).
• squeezing occurs when the soil moves inward reducing the diameter of
the boring (could occur in soft saturated clays, casing could be used).
Subsurface Exploration: boring, drilling, probing
Subsurface Exploration: boring, drilling, probing
 Determination of Soil Profile
SAND h1

CLAY h2

SAND h3

h4

2~3 m

TP-1
~1 m

· Number of borings
· Coordinates of borings
BH-1 BH-3 · Topographic plan
BH-5
TP-2

BH-2 BH-4
 Location, number and depth of borings
 Where should be the b.h’s drilled?

 Importance of the building

 Shape and size of the structure
 Cost is affordable
 Depends on soil conditions

 General rules for required depth of borings

 Reach to stable layers, penetrate through all stable layers (Be careful
when stiff and dense layers are underlain by soft deposits)

 Bedrock (if accessible) should be differentiated from boulders

(penetrate into bedrock for a minimum depth of 2*3m)
 Location, number and depth of borings
 General rules for required depth of borings?
 To Make a Decision of
Remember that there is not a “unique” answer regarding the number and depth
of borings.
 Depth of bore holes depends on
 type of superstructure
 loads of superstructure
 envisaged type of foundation
 depth of borings are usually selected such that the effective vertical
stress change due to the new construction is insignificant (i.e. less
than 10% of the initial vertical effective stress).
 Number of bore holes depends on
 importance degree of superstructure
 knowledge about site soils (soil variability)
 budget for site investigation
 size of the project
• try to locate the borings where structural loads are expected.
Location, number and depth of borings
For a building with a width of 30m
Subsurface Exploration: engineering geophysics
Geophysical techniques with possible application in
ground investigation;

 Lateral variability
 Vertical profiling
 Sectioning
 Ground classification
 Stiffness determination
Subsurface Exploration: engineering geophysics
Subsurface Exploration: engineering geophysics
During my professional career, I have been intimately
connected with seven geophysical surveys. In every
case the physicists in charge of the exploration
anticipated and promised satisfactory results. Yet
only the first one was a success; the six others were
rather dismal failures.
Terzaghi, 1957

The geophysicist cannot readily appreciate the

engineer’s priorities and requirements, and may not
be sufficiently familiar with the science of soil
mechanics.
 Soil sampling

1) disturbed sampling (bulk or bag

samples): obtained from cuttings
emerged from the drilling operation.

2) undisturbed sampling: intact soil

samples in terms of soil fabric, obtained
by shelby tubes shown in the figure.
 Sampling and Sample Disturbance
Generally, samples of two types are specified
 Undisturbed samples; generally taken by cutting blocks of
soil or rock, or by pushing or driving tubes into the ground.
 Disturbed samples; are taken from cuttings produced by the
drilling process.
Soil disturbance can occur during
 drilling
 sampling
 transportation and storage
 preparation for testing
The mechanisms associated with this disturbance can be classified as
 changes in stress conditions
 mechanical deformation
 changes in water content and voids ratio
 chemical changes
 Sampling and Sample Disturbance
Undisturbed sampling techniques
 Drive samplers are pushed into the soil without rotation,
displacing the soil as they penetrate.
 They generally have a sharp cutting edge at their base.
 In contrast, rotary samplers have a relatively thick and blunt
cutting surface, which has hard inclusions of tungsten or
diamond set into it.
 The sampler is rotated and pushed gently downwards,
cutting and grinding the soil away beneath it.
 Undisturbed sampling is generally not possible in granular
soils.

Shelby type tube

 Laboratory Testing
 Classification Tests
 Particle size distribution test
 Hydrometer test
 Plasticity test
 Specific gravity determination
 Strength and Stiffness Tests
 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
 Franklin point load test
 Laboratory vane test
 Direct shear test
 Unconfined compression test
 Triaxial test
 Consolidation Tests
 the oedometer (Terzaghi 1923; Casagrande 1936)
 the triaxial apparatus (Bishop and Henkel 1962)
 the hydraulic consolidation cell (Rowe and Barden 1966)
 Determination of gwt

•location of gwt is very important in

foundation design.

•you can simply install an observation well,

once gwt level becomes stable, lower a probe
and determine the gwt depth.
 Laboratory Testing
 Classification Tests

Casagrande Fall cone Plastic limit

cup apparatus apparatus test

Set of sieves

Drying oven Specific Gravity test Precision balance

 Laboratory Testing
 Strength and Stiffness Tests

Point load test

Laboratory vane test

CBR test

Direct shear test Unconfined compression test

 Laboratory Testing
 Triaxial Tests
Shear Strength of Soils
Shear Strength of Soils
Shear Strength of Soils
Shear Strength of Soils
 Shear Strength of Soils

 L 
Direct Shear Test  A  A0 1  
 L 

 V 
1 
Triaxial Test  A  A0  V 
 L 
 1 
 L 

A0
Unconfined Compressio n Test  A
L
1
L
Shear Strength of Soils
Permeability Test
Permeability Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
Consolidation Test
 In-Situ Testing
•there is always the question of which is better, laboratory testing or in-situ testing
for geotechnical investigation of a site. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

• advantages of in-situ testing:

1) even though we called “undisturbed”, there is some amount of sample
disturbance depending on the type of soil during sampling for lab tests. e.g.
for sandy soils it is very difficult or very expensive to obtain “undrained”
samples.
2) in-situ testing is usually less expensive compared to lab tests.

•disadvantages of in-situ testing:

1) variable or unknown boundary conditions such as drainage conditions, and
confining pressure.
2) in-situ test results are most frequently converted to geotechnical parameters
such as internal friction angle, unit weight etc. via empirical (tecrubeye dayanan,

gozlemsel) correlations that may not be accurate.

 FIELD TESTS
MAJOR FIELD TESTS

 Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

 Cone Penetration Test (CPT).
 The Plate Load Test (PLT).
 Vane shear test (VST).
 The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT).
 The Pressure-meter Test (PMT).
 The Borehole Shear Test (BST).
FIELD TESTS
 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
•one of the most commonly used in-situ test, but also one of the least accurate due
to the variations in procedure and poor workmanship.

• procedure for the SPT:

1) drill a 60mm to 200mm hole to the depth of interest,
2) attach the SPT sampler (see figure below) to the drill rods and lower it to the bottom of
the hole,
3) 63.5kg hammer is raised 76cm and allowed to repeatedly fall freely to drive the
sampler into the bottom of the hole. Record the number of hammer blows to drive the
sampler in to the ground for 15cm, 30cm and 45cm,
4) compute the N value by subtracting the blow counts for the first 15cm from the total
number of blow counts (for 45 cm),
5) remove the SPT sampler from the bore hole and save the soil sample. Note that samples
obtained by SPT sampler are considered as “disturbed” samples.
6) drill the boring to the next test depth and repeat the procedure.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

SPT spoon
 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The boring log shows refusal and the test is halted if

1. 50 blows are required for any 150-mm increment.
2. 100 blows are obtained (to drive the required 300 mm).
3. 10 successive blows produce no advance.
 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The standard blow count N’ can be computed from the
measured N as follows:

N   N  C N E  N  1 2 3 4

 CN is used to correct SPT-N values by normalizing it to a 1 tsf
(95.5 kPa) overburden in situ state:

where σv´is the effective overburden pressure of the test location (in kPa)

 N is the measured (field) SPT value,

 i are adjustment factors
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
it has become clear that SPT N values should be
converted, where possible, to an equivalent standard
penetration resistance (N) equivalent to a delivered energy
of 60%, using the equation
Emeasured
E
E60

where E60 = 60% of the free-fall hammer energy

[0.6 x (63.5kg · 0.76m · 9.81m/sn2] = 284.0 J
Emeasured is the measured rod energy
 Uses of SPT data and
correlations

• remember that SPT is an in-situ test,

which does not directly measure any
of the engineering properties or design
parameters for a soil.

• but there are empirical correlations

available between SPT blow count
and different soil properties such as Dr
or f' .

•suspect and be cautious when using

SPT correlations, especially in clayey
soils. Remember that all of such
correlations are very approximate.
 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT has been used in correlations for unit weight g, relative density
Dr , angle of internal friction f, and undrained compressive strength qu.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
•developed in Europe in early 20th century and becoming increasingly popular,

•a truck-mounted cone is pushed into the

ground at constant rate.
•two things are measured
1) cone resistance (qc)
2) cone side friction (fsc)
3) pore pressures (u) can also be
measured with a “piezo cone”

• in practice side friction could be

expressed in terms of friction ratio, Rf

Rf (%)= fsc /qc .100

•note that no soil sample is recovered during CPT, hence inspection of soil
samples is not possible.

•can not be used in gravelly soils.

 The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
The cone penetration test is carried out in its simplest form by
hydraulically pushing a 60° cone, with a face area of 10cm2
(35.7mm dia.), into the ground at a constant speed (2 ± 0.5 cm/s)
whilst measuring the force necessary to do so.

Both electrical and mechanical means of measuring cone resistance

and side friction are currently used, with the shape of the cone
differing considerably according to the method in use. The cone is
driven from ground surface, without making a borehole, using a
special mobile hydraulic penetrometer rig.

CPT is an invasive soil test that defines soil strata type, soil properties,
and strength parameters. It is highly repeatable, insensitive to
operators, and best suited for uncemented soils, sands, or clay.
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
 correlations with CPT data
•the good thing about CPT is that you can take continuous measurements through
different soil profiles (unlike SPT)
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
 The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

CPT data correlated to soil type and equivalent SPT-N.

(After Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.E.,
1983,Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4)
 Uses of CPT data and
correlations

• similar to SPT, CPT is an in-situ

test, which does not directly
measure any of the engineering
properties or design parameters for
a soil.

• but there are empirical

correlations available between CPT
resistance and different soil
properties such as Dr , f' , soil
classification.

•CPT data can also be used in deep

foundation design as well.
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
 The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
In cohesive soils, the CPT is routinely used to determine both
undrained shear strength and compressibility. In a similar way to the
bearing capacity of a foundation, cone resistance is a function of both
overburden pressure (σv) and undrained shear strength (cu):

Nk is not a constant, but depends upon cone type, soil type,

overconsolidation ratio, degree of cementing
The Nk value in an overconsolidated clay will be higher than in the
same clay when normally consolidated. Therefore it is normal to use
area-specific values of Nk to calculate cu. Typically, Nk varies from
15 to 20 (Bowles, 2002).
 Field Vane Test
Early geotechnical engineers found difficulty in determining the
shear strength of very soft and sensitive clays by means of
laboratory tests, as a result of the disturbance induced by poor-
quality samplers. These difficulties led to the development of the
vane shear test. This device made it possible for the first time to
determine the in situ shear strength and sensitivity of a soft clay.

Once the vane has been pushed into the ground, it is rotated at a
slow rate. Torsional force is measured, and is then converted to
unit shearing resistance by assuming the geometry of the shear
surface, and the shear stress distribution across it.
Field Vane Test
 Field Vane Test

Sensitivity; St
St = cuv-maks / cuv-reziduel
Undrained shear strength from vane test; cuv
cuv = 6 Tmaks/ 7π D3

cuv-design = l . cuv
Field Vane Test
Field Vane Test
 Pressuremeter Test
The pressuremeter was developed in France in the early 1950s
(Ménard 1957). In its earliest form it was (and remains today) a
simple, robust mechanical tool, well-adapted to use in routine
investigations.

Pressuremeter tests can be carried out both in soils and in rocks. The
pressuremeter probe, which is a cylindrical device designed to apply
uniform pressure to the ground via a flexible membrane, is normally
installed vertically, thus loading the ground horizontally.

The aim of a pressuremeter test is to obtain information on the

stiffness, and in weaker materials on the strength of the ground, by
measuring the relationship between radial applied pressure and the
resulting deformation.
Pressuremeter Test
Pressuremeter Test
Pressuremeter Test