LISTOFFIGURESFigurePage1..5Soil and rock property selection flowchart.2.19Checklist items for site reconnaissance.3.29Large diameter auger boring..4.33Split barrel sampler.5.35Thin walled (Shelby) tube for sampling (with end caps)6.36Stationary piston sampler.7.37Denison sampler.8.38Pitchersampler9.43Single and double tube rock core barrels (after FHWA-HI-97-021, 1997)10.44SPT performed at the back of a drill rig.11.48Stress normalization parameter, Cn,for sands.12.52Coneand piezoconepenetrometers.13.53Cone penetration testing from cone truck.14.54Measurementlocations on cone penetrometers15.55Illustration of unequal end areas of CPT (afterKulhawyand Mayne, 1990)16.57Flat plate dilatometer test equipment17Pre-boredpressuremeterequipment..6118..61Typical curves and characteristic pressures for pre-bored Menard pressuremeter.19.63(a)Rectangular vane; and (b) Parameters used to define vane dimensions..20Typical pressure-dilation graphs for a borehole dilatometer (after ISRM, 1987)....67.21Typical setup for an in-situ direct shear test in an adit (after Saint Simon et al..681979),22.79Disturbance during sampling and trimming (after Ladd and Lambe, 1963).23.80Labandfield consolidation curves.24.84Equipment used for Atterberg limits testing of soil.25..85LocationofclaymineralsontheCasagrandeplasticitychart(Skempton.1953)26.89Components of consolidation test...27.90Incrementalloadoedometer.28Failure of a loose sand specimen in a triaxial cell; and (b)Load frame,pressure.93panel, and computerized data acquisition system..29.94Direct shear testing box.30.95Soil samplemounted indirect sheartestingapparatus31100Rigid wall permeameter.32.101Flexible wall permeameter..33.104Point load strength test equipment.34.107Laboratory direct shear testing equipment for rock.35.109Traditional drilling,sampling,and laboratory testing ofcollected samples36111Variability of SPT N values.37112Comparison of SPT (N,)60 and CPT qt values.38113Soil classification based on qtand FR (Robertson et al., 1986).39113Soil classification based on qt and Bq (Robertson et al., 1986).40115Typical CPTu log.XV
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page xv 1 Soil and rock property selection flowchart. .5 2 Checklist items for site reconnaissance. .19 3 Large diameter auger boring.29 4 Split barrel sampler.33 5 Thin walled (Shelby) tube for sampling (with end caps).35 6 Stationary piston sampler.36 7 Denison sampler.37 8 Pitcher sampler.38 9 Single and double tube rock core barrels (after FHWA-HI-97-021, 1997).43 10 SPT performed at the back of a drill rig. .44 11 Stress normalization parameter, CN, for sands.48 12 Cone and piezocone penetrometers. .52 13 Cone penetration testing from cone truck.53 14 Measurement locations on cone penetrometers. .54 15 Illustration of unequal end areas of CPT (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).55 16 Flat plate dilatometer test equipment.57 17 Pre-bored pressuremeter equipment. .61 18 Typical curves and characteristic pressures for pre-bored Menard pressuremeter.61 19 (a) Rectangular vane; and (b) Parameters used to define vane dimensions.63 20 Typical pressure-dilation graphs for a borehole dilatometer (after ISRM, 1987). .67 21 Typical setup for an in-situ direct shear test in an adit (after Saint Simon et al., 1979). .68 22 Disturbance during sampling and trimming (after Ladd and Lambe, 1963). .79 23 Lab and field consolidation curves. .80 24 Equipment used for Atterberg limits testing of soil.84 25 Location of clay minerals on the Casagrande plasticity chart (Skempton, 1953). .85 26 Components of consolidation test.89 27 Incremental load oedometer.90 28 Failure of a loose sand specimen in a triaxial cell; and (b) Load frame, pressure panel, and computerized data acquisition system.93 29 Direct shear testing box. .94 30 Soil sample mounted in direct shear testing apparatus. .95 31 Rigid wall permeameter.100 32 Flexible wall permeameter.101 33 Point load strength test equipment.104 34 Laboratory direct shear testing equipment for rock.107 35 Traditional drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing of collected samples.109 36 Variability of SPT N values.111 37 Comparison of SPT (N1)60 and CPT qt values. .112 38 Soil classification based on qt and FR (Robertson et al., 1986).113 39 Soil classification based on qt and Bq (Robertson et al., 1986).113 40 Typical CPTu log.115
LIST OFFIGURES (continued)FigurePage41CPTu log with subsurface stratigraphy interpretation.11642CPTu dissipation test in sand..11743.118Soil classification based on DMT.44.120Summary plot of Atterberg limits data45121Boringlocationplan46121Interpreted subsurface profile.47126DefinitionofCe,Cr,Cs,o'48127Profile of preconsolidation stress.49129Illustration of Casagrande method to evaluate preconsolidation stress.50130Illustration of strain-energy method to evaluate preconsolidation stress.51.133Summary consolidation data showing cy.52.135Evaluationof Ca53.137Correlation of op'with CPT qt data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).54..137Correlation ofo,'withCPTuu,data (afterKulhawyand Mayne, 1990).55..138Correlation of opwith CPTu u2 data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).56Correlation of op' with DMT p。data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)...13857Correlationofop'withselfboringPMTpLdata(afterKulhawyandMayne,1391990)58.139Correlation ofop'withVST su,ysT data (afterKulhawy and Mayne,1990)59.141CPTu2 pore pressure dissipation curves.60142Rigidity index (after Keaveny and Mitchell, 1986).61144Preconsolidation stress from oedometer and DMT.62.146Correlation of cvto LL63.149Strength measured by in-situ tests at peak of stress-strain curve64Stress-strain-strength curves for three geomaterials having the same strength yet149differentstiffness.65150Variationofmoduluswithstrainlevel66.152Field and laboratory methods to evaluate shear wave velocity.67154Seismic dilatometer test..68.155Modulus degradation based on g=0.3.69157Shearwavevelocityprofilefrom seismicconesounding.70Variouslaboratorytestsusedtomeasuresoil strengthshowingtheimposed.158stresses and loading conditions.71.160Drained stress-strain behavior..72.161Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.73Typical ranges of friction angle for rockfills, gravels, and sands (Terzaghi,.164Peck, and Mesri, 1996).74.165Relationship between $' and PI (Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri, 1996).75.166Relationship between c'and op'(Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar, 1993)76166Residual friction angles for clayey soils (after Stark & Eid, 1994)77Stress-strainandMohrcirclerepresentationforfourUUtestsperformedonthesame soil (after Day, 1999)..170xvi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page xvi 41 CPTu log with subsurface stratigraphy interpretation .116 42 CPTu dissipation test in sand.117 43 Soil classification based on DMT.118 44 Summary plot of Atterberg limits data. .120 45 Boring location plan. .121 46 Interpreted subsurface profile. .121 47 Definition of Cc, Cr, Cs, σp′. .126 48 Profile of preconsolidation stress.127 49 Illustration of Casagrande method to evaluate preconsolidation stress.129 50 Illustration of strain-energy method to evaluate preconsolidation stress.130 51 Summary consolidation data showing cv. .133 52 Evaluation of Cα.135 53 Correlation of σp′ with CPT qt data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).137 54 Correlation of σp′ with CPTu u1 data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). .137 55 Correlation of σp′ with CPTu u2 data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). .138 56 Correlation of σp′ with DMT po data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).138 57 Correlation of σp′ with self boring PMT pL data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). .139 58 Correlation of σp′ with VST su,VST data (after Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).139 59 CPTu2 pore pressure dissipation curves.141 60 Rigidity index (after Keaveny and Mitchell, 1986).142 61 Preconsolidation stress from oedometer and DMT. .144 62 Correlation of cv to LL.146 63 Strength measured by in-situ tests at peak of stress-strain curve.149 64 Stress-strain-strength curves for three geomaterials having the same strength yet different stiffness. .149 65 Variation of modulus with strain level.150 66 Field and laboratory methods to evaluate shear wave velocity. .152 67 Seismic dilatometer test. .154 68 Modulus degradation based on g=0.3. .155 69 Shear wave velocity profile from seismic cone sounding. .157 70 Various laboratory tests used to measure soil strength showing the imposed stresses and loading conditions.158 71 Drained stress-strain behavior.160 72 Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.161 73 Typical ranges of friction angle for rockfills, gravels, and sands (Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri, 1996). .164 74 Relationship between φ′ and PI (Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri, 1996).165 75 Relationship between c′ and σp′ (Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar, 1993). .166 76 Residual friction angles for clayey soils (after Stark & Eid, 1994).166 77 Stress-strain and Mohr circle representation for four UU tests performed on the same soil (after Day, 1999).170
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)FigurePage78Interpretation of UU test data..17179..173CIUtriaxial compressiontestresults.80..174Effective stress path in undrained shear.81.176Direct shear test results.82177Areacorrectionfordirectsheartest83Typical stress-strain curve and Mohr circle representation of the state of stress178for an unconfined compressiontest.84179Shearmodesfor an embankment slip surface85.181Plasticity based VST correction factors.86.182Example su profile (after Finno and Chung, 1992).87.185Correlationof 'with SPTN6odatain clean sands.88.186Correlation of 'with normalized CPT qt data in clean sands.89.186Correlation of 'with the DMT Kp parameter for clean sands90192Range of hydraulic conductivityvalues based on soil type.91..194Range of hydraulic conductivity based on grain size (after GeoSyntec, 1991).92.196Illustration of geological mapping terms (after Wyllie, 1999).93Listofparametersandcategoriesdescribingrockmasscharacteristics(after.197Wyllie, 1999).94Calculationof corerecoveryand RQD..20195Axialanddiametral stress-straincurvesforintactrocktestedinuniaxial.205compression96Relationship between in situmodulus and rock massrating (afterBieniawski.2071978; Serafim and Pereira, 1983)97.210Pressure-displacement plot for borehole jack.98.210Curve of Etrue versus Ecalc (after ASTM D 4971).99Relationshipsbetween shearstressand normal stress onrupturesurfaceforfive.213different geological conditions (TRB, 1996).100Effect of surface roughness and normal stress on the friction of a discontinuity.214surface.101.216Definitionof jointroughnesscoefficient,JRC(Barton,1973)102Simplified division offilled discontinuities intodisplaced and undisplaced,and.219NCandOCcategories.103Results of direct shear test of filled discontinuity showing measurements of222shear strengthandroughness (afterWyllie,1999)104Typical curved shear strength envelopedefined byHoek-Brown theoryfor rock.224massstrength(Hoek.1983)..105Illustration of use of nonlinear shear strength for three fractured rock mass.226types...106.234Classification chart for swelling potential (after Seed et al., 1962).107Guide to collapsibility,compressibility,and expansion based on in-situ dry235density and liquid limit (after Mitchell and Gardner, 1975 and Gibbs, 1969)..xvi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page xvii 78 Interpretation of UU test data. .171 79 CIU triaxial compression test results. .173 80 Effective stress path in undrained shear.174 81 Direct shear test results. .176 82 Area correction for direct shear test.177 83 Typical stress-strain curve and Mohr circle representation of the state of stress for an unconfined compression test. .178 84 Shear modes for an embankment slip surface.179 85 Plasticity based VST correction factors.181 86 Example su profile (after Finno and Chung, 1992).182 87 Correlation of φ′ with SPT N60 data in clean sands. .185 88 Correlation of φ′ with normalized CPT qt data in clean sands.186 89 Correlation of φ′ with the DMT KD parameter for clean sands. .186 90 Range of hydraulic conductivity values based on soil type. .192 91 Range of hydraulic conductivity based on grain size (after GeoSyntec, 1991).194 92 Illustration of geological mapping terms (after Wyllie, 1999). .196 93 List of parameters and categories describing rock mass characteristics (after Wyllie, 1999). .197 94 Calculation of core recovery and RQD.201 95 Axial and diametral stress-strain curves for intact rock tested in uniaxial compression. .205 96 Relationship between in situ modulus and rock mass rating (after Bieniawski, 1978; Serafim and Pereira, 1983). .207 97 Pressure-displacement plot for borehole jack.210 98 Curve of Etrue versus Ecalc (after ASTM D 4971).210 99 Relationships between shear stress and normal stress on rupture surface for five different geological conditions (TRB, 1996).213 100 Effect of surface roughness and normal stress on the friction of a discontinuity surface.214 101 Definition of joint roughness coefficient, JRC (Barton, 1973).216 102 Simplified division of filled discontinuities into displaced and undisplaced, and NC and OC categories. .219 103 Results of direct shear test of filled discontinuity showing measurements of shear strength and roughness (after Wyllie, 1999). .222 104 Typical curved shear strength envelope defined by Hoek-Brown theory for rock mass strength (Hoek, 1983). .224 105 Illustration of use of nonlinear shear strength for three fractured rock mass types. .226 106 Classification chart for swelling potential (after Seed et al., 1962).234 107 Guide to collapsibility, compressibility, and expansion based on in-situ dry density and liquid limit (after Mitchell and Gardner, 1975 and Gibbs, 1969).235
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)PageFigure108Values of natural water content and compression index for peats, clays, and silts.240(after Mesri, Stark, Ajlouni, and Chen, 1997).A-1.A-4BoringlogBlA-2.A-5Summary data for samples from Borings B1, B2, and B3.A-3A-6SubsurfacesoillayeringbasedonCPTdataandfrictionratio.A-4A-7Classification of soil type based on qt and FR.A-5.A-8Subsurface soil layering based on CPTu data, friction ratio, andBgparameter.A-6A-8Classification of soil type based on qt and B.A-7A-10Subsurface soil layering based on DMT index values.A-8A-10Classification and consistency of soil layers based on DMT data.A-9A-12Indexpropertiesand“P."diagramforBoringB-A-10.A-14Evaluation of o,'using the Casagrandemethod.A-11A-16Evaluation of o,using the strain energymethodA-12..A-17Profile ofop'based on correlations with in-situtesting devices.A-13.A-19Samplegraphical evaluationfor Cand C,A-14A-20Empirical correlations of Ceand Cce.A-15Secondary compression results for Connecticut Valley varved clays.A-21investigation.A-22A-16Laboratory-measuredCsvs.depthA-17A-23CyvaluesfromlaboratoryconsolidationtestsA-18.A-25CPTu2 pore pressuredissipation curves...A-25A-19Normalized CPTu2 dissipation curves.A-20A-28Cas values from laboratory consolidation tests.A-21..A-28Comparison of Cae and Ce for laboratory consolidation tests.A-22A-29K, value calculated using in-situ testing devices.A-23A-31P。diagramdevelopedfrom1-Dconsolidationdata.A-24Stress - strain curve and stress path for a UU test on a Connecticut Valley.A-32varved clay specimen..A-25Stress-straincurveandstresspathforaCIUCtestonaConnecticut Valley..A-33varved clay specimen...A-26A-34Effective stress properties from CIUC test data.A-27A-35P,diagram with OCR and su vs. depthA-28A-35Normalized strength property relationships for various shear modes.A-29Estimation of shear strength from in-situ tests: (a)VST;(b)empirical CPT,CPTu, & DMT based on correlations in table 33; and (c) based on EquationA-39A-14withΦ'=18.2°A-30Residual soil classification and typical gneiss and schist weathering profileA-40(after Sowers and Richardson, 1983).A-31A-42BoringlogforAlabama site.A-32Summary indextestdataforsamplesfrom boringsB-1,B-3,B-4,andB-6atA-43Alabama siteA-33A-45Subsurfacelayeringbased on CPTudata.xvili
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page xviii 108 Values of natural water content and compression index for peats, clays, and silts (after Mesri, Stark, Ajlouni, and Chen, 1997). .240 A-1 Boring log B1. A-4 A-2 Summary data for samples from Borings B1, B2, and B3. A-5 A-3 Subsurface soil layering based on CPT data and friction ratio. A-6 A-4 Classification of soil type based on qt and FR. . A-7 A-5 Subsurface soil layering based on CPTu data, friction ratio, and Bq parameter. A-8 A-6 Classification of soil type based on qt and Bq. A-8 A-7 Subsurface soil layering based on DMT index values. A-10 A-8 Classification and consistency of soil layers based on DMT data. A-10 A-9 Index properties and “Po” diagram for Boring B-1. A-12 A-10 Evaluation of σp′using the Casagrande method. A-14 A-11 Evaluation of σp′ using the strain energy method. A-16 A-12 Profile of σp′ based on correlations with in-situ testing devices. A-17 A-13 Sample graphical evaluation for Ccε and Crε. A-19 A-14 Empirical correlations of Cc and Ccε. A-20 A-15 Secondary compression results for Connecticut Valley varved clays investigation. A-21 A-16 Laboratory-measured Ccε vs. depth. A-22 A-17 cv values from laboratory consolidation tests. . A-23 A-18 CPTu2 pore pressure dissipation curves. A-25 A-19 Normalized CPTu2 dissipation curves. . A-25 A-20 Cαε values from laboratory consolidation tests. A-28 A-21 Comparison of Cαε and Ccε for laboratory consolidation tests. A-28 A-22 Ko value calculated using in-situ testing devices. A-29 A-23 Po diagram developed from 1-D consolidation data. . A-31 A-24 Stress - strain curve and stress path for a UU test on a Connecticut Valley varved clay specimen. A-32 A-25 Stress - strain curve and stress path for a CIUC test on a Connecticut Valley varved clay specimen. A-33 A-26 Effective stress properties from CIUC test data. . A-34 A-27 Po diagram with OCR and su vs. depth. . A-35 A-28 Normalized strength property relationships for various shear modes. . A-35 A-29 Estimation of shear strength from in-situ tests: (a) VST; (b) empirical CPT, CPTu, & DMT based on correlations in table 33; and (c) based on Equation A-14 with φ′=18.2o . A-39 A-30 Residual soil classification and typical gneiss and schist weathering profile (after Sowers and Richardson, 1983). A-40 A-31 Boring log for Alabama site. A-42 A-32 Summary index test data for samples from borings B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-6 at Alabama site. A-43 A-33 Subsurface layering based on CPTu data. A-45
LIST OFFIGURES (continued)PageFigureA-47A-34Soil classification charts with CPTu data from Alabama site (signature 1)A-35A-50Soil stratigraphy from DMT index values.A-36.A-50Classification and consistency of soil at Alabama site based on DMT dataA-37Comparisonof Alabama sitedata topublishedtrendbetween CPTtipA-37resistance and N-value as a function of mean grain size (Kulhawy & Mayne,A-521990)A-38Comparison of Opelika, Alabama data to published trend between dilatometerA-52modulus and N-value in Piedmont sandy silts (Mayne & Frost, 1989).A-39Comparison of Opelika, Alabama data to published trends between PMTA-39A-53modulus and N-Value in Piedmont soils (Martin, 1977).A-40Laboratory 1-D consolidation curves (a) Stress -Strain; (b) Stress-Strain..A-54Energy..A-41A-56Menard pressuremeter data for the Alabama site.A-42A-57Full displacement pressuremeter data for the Alabama site.A-59A-43DilatometermodulusEp comparedtopressuremetermodulus,Ep.A-44Calculation of elastic modulus from shear wavevelocitydata.A-60A-45Stress-strain curve for CIUC tests on samples B2-1-1 at 15 m and B7-1 at 4A-62mA-46..A-65Effective stress paths for CIUC tests shown in figure A-45...A-47A-65Effective stress failure envelopes based on triaxial testdata..A-48Estimate of effective stress friction angle at Alabama site using in-situ testA-68dataA-49.A-71Rock core log.SA-50A-73Unconfined compression test results (sampledepth 18ft).A-51.A-73Unconfined compression test results (sampledepth 40ft).A-52A-73Direct shear test results on rock joint (sample depth 74 ft).A-53A-76Boring Log UHSPT1.A-54A-77SummarytestdatafromsamplesacrosssiteA-55Atterberg limits results for soil samples.A-77A-56Results ofCPT measurements at site.A-78A-57.A-79Classification of soils using CPT derived parameters.A-58A-80Results of DMT measurements at site.A-59A-81Classificationof soilsusingDMTderivedparametersA-60Evaluation of Cce, Cre, and op'using oedometer test results for sample at.A-82depthof7m.A-61A-83op' and OCR with depth from laboratory and in-situ tests.A-62Calculated K。with depth from in-situ tests..A-84A-63A-85K,correlated with Kp from DMT data (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)..A-85A-64K,correlated with qt from CPT data (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).A-65A-86Undrained shear strength, su, from laboratory and in-situ testingA-66Guide to expansion and collapse potential (adapted from Holtz and Kovacs,A-881986),xix
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page xix A-34 Soil classification charts with CPTu data from Alabama site (signature 1). . A-47 A-35 Soil stratigraphy from DMT index values. . A-50 A-36 Classification and consistency of soil at Alabama site based on DMT data . A-50 A-37 Comparison of Alabama site data to published trend between CPT tip A-37 resistance and N-value as a function of mean grain size (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990). . A-52 A-38 Comparison of Opelika, Alabama data to published trend between dilatometer modulus and N-value in Piedmont sandy silts (Mayne & Frost, 1989). A-52 A-39 Comparison of Opelika, Alabama data to published trends between PMT A-39 modulus and N-Value in Piedmont soils (Martin, 1977). A-53 A-40 Laboratory 1-D consolidation curves (a) Stress – Strain; (b) Stress – Strain Energy. A-54 A-41 Menard pressuremeter data for the Alabama site. . A-56 A-42 Full displacement pressuremeter data for the Alabama site. . A-57 A-43 Dilatometer modulus ED compared to pressuremeter modulus, EP. . A-59 A-44 Calculation of elastic modulus from shear wave velocity data. A-60 A-45 Stress-strain curve for CIUC tests on samples B2-1-1 at 15 m and B7-1 at 4 m. A-62 A-46 Effective stress paths for CIUC tests shown in figure A-45. A-65 A-47 Effective stress failure envelopes based on triaxial test data. A-65 A-48 Estimate of effective stress friction angle at Alabama site using in-situ test data. A-68 A-49 Rock core log. . A-71 A-50 Unconfined compression test results (sample depth 18 ft). . A-73 A-51 Unconfined compression test results (sample depth 40 ft). . A-73 A-52 Direct shear test results on rock joint (sample depth 74 ft). . A-73 A-53 Boring Log UHSPT1. . A-76 A-54 Summary test data from samples across site. A-77 A-55 Atterberg limits results for soil samples. . A-77 A-56 Results of CPT measurements at site. A-78 A-57 Classification of soils using CPT derived parameters. . A-79 A-58 Results of DMT measurements at site. . A-80 A-59 Classification of soils using DMT derived parameters. A-81 A-60 Evaluation of Ccε, Crε, and σp ′ using oedometer test results for sample at depth of 7 m. . A-82 A-61 σp′ and OCR with depth from laboratory and in-situ tests. . A-83 A-62 Calculated Ko with depth from in-situ tests. . A-84 A-63 Ko correlated with KD from DMT data (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). A-85 A-64 Ko correlated with qt from CPT data (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990). . A-85 A-65 Undrained shear strength, su, from laboratory and in-situ testing. A-86 A-66 Guide to expansion and collapse potential (adapted from Holtz and Kovacs, 1986). . A-88