P

GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ANALYSES

CHAPTER 5

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

The following notation is used in this chapter:

SYMBOL DEFINITION amax c c Cb CN Cr D Dr e emax emin Em F FSL g h N N60 (N1)60 qc qc1 ru su St u Z Peak ground acceleration Cohesion based on a total stress analysis Cohesion based on an effective stress analysis Borehole diameter correction Correction factor to account for the overburden pressure Rod length correction Inside diameter of the SPT sampler Relative density Void ratio of soil Void ratio corresponding to loosest possible state of soil Void ratio corresponding to densest possible state of soil Hammer efficiency Outside diameter of the SPT sampler Factor of safety against liquefaction Acceleration of gravity Depth below ground surface Measured SPT blow count (that is, N value in blows per foot) N value corrected for field testing procedures N value corrected for field testing procedures and overburden pressure Cone resistance Cone resistance corrected for overburden pressure Pore water pressure ratio Undrained shear strength of soil Sensitivity of cohesive soil Pore water pressure Seismic zone factor Friction angle of sand (Sec. 5.4) Friction angle based on a total stress analysis (Sec. 5.5) Friction angle based on an effective stress analysis Drained residual friction angle Total unit weight of soil

r t

5.3

5.4 Total stress Effective stress ( Vertical effective stress

CHAPTER FIVE

u)

v0

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Part 2 of the book describes the different types of geotechnical earthquake engineering analyses. Specific items that are included in Part 2 are as follows:
G G G G G G G

Site investigation for geotechnical earthquake engineering (Chap. 5) Liquefaction (Chap. 6) Settlement of structures (Chap. 7) Bearing capacity (Chap. 8) Slope stability (Chap. 9) Retaining walls (Chap. 10) Other earthquake effects (Chap. 11)

It is important to recognize that without adequate and meaningful data from the site investigation, the engineering analyses presented in the following chapters will be of doubtful value and may even lead to erroneous conclusions. In addition, when performing the site investigation, the geotechnical engineer may need to rely on the expertise of other specialists. For example, as discussed in this chapter, geologic analyses are often essential for determining the location of active faults and evaluating site-specific impacts of the design earthquake. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the site investigation that may be needed for geotechnical earthquake engineering analyses. The focus of this chapter is on the information that is needed for earthquake design, and not on the basic principles of subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. For information on standard subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, see Day (1999, 2000). In terms of the investigation for assessing seismic hazards, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (Division of Mines and Geology 1997) states: the working premise for the planning and execution of a site investigation within seismic hazard zones is that the suitability of the site should be demonstrated. This premise will persist until either: (a) the site investigation satisfactorily demonstrates the absence of liquefaction or landslide hazard, or (b) the site investigation satisfactorily defines the liquefaction or landslide hazard and provides a suitable recommendation for its mitigation. Thus the purpose of the site investigation should be to demonstrate the absence of seismic hazards or to adequately define the seismic hazards so that suitable recommendations for mitigation can be developed. The scope of the site investigation is discussed next.

5.1.1 Scope of the Site Investigation The scope of the site investigation depends on many different factors such as the type of facility to be constructed, the nature and complexity of the geologic hazards that could impact the site during the earthquake, economic considerations, level of risk, and specific requirements such as local building codes or other regulatory specifications. The most

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.5

rigorous geotechnical earthquake investigations would be required for critical facilities. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (1994) states:
Critical facilities are considered parts of a communitys infrastructure that must remain operational after an earthquake, or facilities that pose unacceptable risks to public safety if severely damaged. Essential facilities are needed during an emergency, such as hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency operation centers and communication centers. High-risk facilities, if severely damaged, may result in a disaster far beyond the facilities themselves. Examples include nuclear power plants, dams and flood control structures, freeway interchanges and bridges, industrial plants that use or store explosives, toxic materials or petroleum products. High-occupancy facilities have the potential of resulting in a large number of casualties or crowd control problems. This category includes high-rise buildings, large assembly facilities, and large multifamily residential complexes. Dependent care facilities house populations with special evacuation considerations, such as preschools and schools, rehabilitation centers, prisons, group care homes, and nursing and convalescent homes. Economic facilities are those facilities that should remain operational to avoid severe economic impacts, such as banks, archiving and vital record keeping facilities, airports and ports, and large industrial and commercial centers. It is essential that critical facilities designed for human occupancy have no structural weaknesses that can lead to collapse. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has suggested the following seismic performance goals for health care facilities: 1. The damage to the facilities should be limited to what might be reasonably expected after a destructive earthquake and should be repairable and not life-threatening. 2. Patients, visitors, and medical, nursing, technical and support staff within and immediately outside the facility should be protected during an earthquake. 3. Emergency utility systems in the facility should remain operational after an earthquake. 4. Occupants should be able to evacuate the facility safely after an earthquake. 5. Rescue and emergency workers should be able to enter the facility immediately after an earthquake and should encounter only minimum interference and danger. 6. The facility should be available for its planned disaster response role after an earthquake.

As previously mentioned, in addition to the type of facility, the scope of the investigation may be dependent on the requirements of the local building codes or other regulatory specifications. Prior to initiating a site investigation for seismic hazards, the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist should obtain the engineering and geologic requirements of the governing review agency. For example, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (Division of Mines and Geology 1997) states that geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists:
May save a great deal of time (and the clients money), and possibly misunderstandings, if they contact the reviewing geologist or engineer at the initiation of the investigation. Reviewers typically are familiar with the local geology and sources of information and may be able to provide additional guidance regarding their agencys expectations and review practices. Guidelines for geologic or geotechnical reports have been prepared by a number of agencies and are available to assist reviewers in their evaluation of reports. Distribution of copies of written policies and guidelines adopted by the agency usually alerts the applicants and consultants about procedures, report formats, and levels of investigative detail that will expedite review and approval of the project.

The scope of the investigation for geotechnical earthquake engineering is usually divided into two parts: (1) the screening investigation and (2) the quantitative evaluation of the seismic hazards (Division of Mines and Geology 1997). These two items are individually discussed in the next two sections.

5.6

CHAPTER FIVE

5.2 SCREENING INVESTIGATION

The first step in geotechnical earthquake engineering is to perform a screening investigation. The purpose of the screening investigation is to assess the severity of the seismic hazards at the site, or in other words to screen out those sites that do not have seismic hazards. If it can be clearly demonstrated that a site is free of seismic hazards, then the quantitative evaluation could be omitted. On the other hand, if a site is likely to have seismic hazards, then the screening investigation can be used to define those hazards before proceeding with the quantitative evaluation. An important consideration for the screening investigation is the effect that the new construction will have on potential seismic hazards. For example, as a result of grading or construction at the site, the groundwater table may be raised or adverse bedding planes may be exposed that result in a landslide hazard. Thus when a screening investigation is performed, both the existing condition and the final constructed condition must be evaluated for seismic hazards. Another important consideration is off-site seismic hazards. For example, the city of Yungay was devastated by an earthquake-induced debris avalanche that originated at a source located many miles away, as discussed in Sec. 3.5.2 (see Fig. 3.44). The screening investigation should be performed on both a regional and a site-specific basis. The first step in the screening investigation is to review available documents, such as the following: 1. Preliminary design information: The documents dealing with preliminary design and proposed construction of the project should be reviewed. For example, the structural engineer or architect may have design information, such as the building location, size, height, loads, and details on proposed construction materials and methods. Preliminary plans may even have been developed that show the proposed construction. 2. History of prior site development: If the site had prior development, it is also important to obtain information on the history of the site. The site could contain old deposits of fill, abandoned septic systems and leach fields, buried storage tanks, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, and other artificial and subsurface works that could impact the proposed development. There may also be old reports that document seismic hazards at the site. 3. Seismic history of the area: There may be many different types of documents and maps that provide data on the seismic history of the area. For example, there may be seismic history information on the nature of past earthquake-induced ground shaking. This information could include the period of vibration, ground acceleration, magnitude, and intensity (isoseismal maps) of past earthquakes. This data can often be obtained from seismology maps and reports that illustrate the differences in ground shaking intensity based on geologic type; 50-, 100-, and 250-year acceleration data; and type of facilities or landmarks. Geographical maps and reports are important because they can identify such items as the pattern, type, and movement of nearby potentially active faults or fault systems, and the distance of the faults to the area under investigation. Historical earthquake records should also be reviewed to determine the spatial and temporal distribution of historic earthquake epicenters. 4. Aerial photographs and geologic maps: During the screening investigation, the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer should check aerial photographs and geologic maps. Aerial photographs and geologic maps can be useful in identifying existing and potential slope instability, fault ground rupture, liquefaction, and other geologic hazards. The type of observed features includes headwall scarps, debris chutes, fissures,

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.7

grabens, and sand boils. By comparing older aerial photographs with newer ones, the engineering geologist can also observe any artificial or natural changes that have occurred at the site. Geologic reports and maps can be especially useful to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist because they often indicate seismic hazards such as faults and landslides. Geologic reports and maps may indicate the geometry of the fault systems, the subsoil profile, and the amplification of seismic waves due to local conditions, which are important factors in the evaluation of seismic risk. For example, Fig. 5.1 presents a portion of a geologic map, and Fig. 5.2 shows cross sections through the area shown in Fig. 5.1 (from Kennedy 1975). Note that the geologic map and cross sections indicate the location of several faults and the width of the faults, and often state whether the faults are active or inactive. For example, Fig. 5.2 shows the Rose Canyon fault zone, an active fault having a ground shear zone about 300 m (1000 ft) wide. The cross sections in Fig. 5.2 also show fault-related displacement of various rock layers.

FIGURE 5.1

Geologic map. (From Kennedy 1975.)

5.8

CHAPTER FIVE

FIGURE 5.2

Geologic cross sections. (From Kennedy 1975.)

A major source for geologic maps in the United States is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS prepares many different geologic maps, books, and charts; a list of USGS publications is provided in Index of Publications of the Geological Survey (USGS 1997). The USGS also provides an Index to Geologic Mapping in the United States, which shows a map of each state and indicates the areas where a geologic map has been published. 5. Special study maps: For some areas, special study maps may have been developed that indicate local seismic hazards. For example, Fig. 5.3 presents a portion of the Seismic Safety Study (1995) that shows the location of the Rose Canyon fault zone. Special study maps may also indicate other geologic and seismic hazards, such as potentially liquefiable soil, landslides, and abandoned mines. 6. Topographic maps: Both old and recent topographic maps can provide valuable site information. Figure 5.4 presents a portion of the topographic map for the Encinitas Quadrangle, California (USGS 1975). As shown in Fig. 5.4, the topographic map is drawn to scale and shows the locations of buildings, roads, freeways, train tracks, and other civil engineering works as well as natural features such as canyons, rivers, lagoons, sea cliffs, and beaches. The topographic map in Fig. 5.4 even shows the locations of sewage disposal ponds, and water tanks; and by using different colors and shading, it indicates older versus newer development. But the main purpose of the topographic map is to indicate ground surface elevations or elevations of the seafloor, such as shown in Fig. 5.4. This information can be used to determine the major topographic features at the site and to evaluate potential seismic hazards. 7. Building codes or other regulatory specifications: A copy of the most recently adopted local building code should be reviewed. Investigation and design requirements for ordinary structures, critical facilities, and lifelines may be delineated in building codes or

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.9

FIGURE 5.3

Portion of Seismic Safety Study, 1995. (Developed by the City of San Diego.)

other regulatory documents. For example, the Uniform Building Code (1997) provides seismic requirements that have been adopted by many building departments in the United States. These seismic code specifications have also been incorporated into the building codes in other countries. 8. Other available documents: There are many other types of documents and maps that may prove useful during the screening investigation. Examples include geologic and soils engineering maps and reports used for the development of adjacent properties (often available at the local building department), water well logs, and agricultural soil survey reports. After the site research has been completed, the next step in the screening investigation is a field reconnaissance. The purpose is to observe the site conditions and document any recent changes to the site that may not be reflected in the available documents. The field reconnaissance should also be used to observe surface features and other details that may not be readily evident from the available documents. Once the site research and field recon-

5.10

CHAPTER FIVE

FIGURE 5.4

Topographic map. (From USGS 1975.)

naissance are completed, the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer can then complete the screening investigation. The results should either clearly demonstrate the lack of seismic hazards or indicate the possibility of seismic hazards, in which case a quantitative evaluation is required. It should be mentioned that even if the result of the screening investigation indicates no seismic hazards, the governing agency might not accept this result for critical facilities. It may still require that subsurface exploration demonstrate the absence of seismic hazards for critical facilities.

5.3 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

The purpose of the quantitative evaluation is to obtain sufficient information on the nature and severity of the seismic hazards so that mitigation recommendations can be developed. The quantitative evaluation consists of the following:

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

G

5.11

Geologic mapping: The first step is to supplement the results of the field reconnaissance (see Sec. 5.2) with geologic mapping, which can be used to further identify such features as existing landslides and surficial deposits of unstable soil. Subsurface exploration: The results of the screening investigation and geologic mapping are used to plan the subsurface exploration, which could consist of the excavation of borings, test pits, or trenches. During the subsurface exploration, soil samples are often retrieved from the excavations. Field testing could also be performed in the excavations. Subsurface exploration is discussed in Sec. 5.4. Laboratory testing: The purpose of the laboratory testing is to determine the engineering properties of the soil to be used in the seismic hazard analyses. Laboratory testing is discussed in Sec. 5.5. Engineering and geologic analyses: An important parameter for the engineering and geologic analysis of seismic hazards is the peak ground acceleration. This is discussed in Sec. 5.6. Report preparation: The results of the screening investigation and quantitative evaluation are often presented in report form that describes the seismic hazards and presents the geologic and geotechnical recommendations. Section 5.7 presents guidelines on the report content for seismic hazards.

5.4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

There are many different aspects of subsurface exploration. The most important part of the subsurface exploration typically consists of the excavation of borings, test pits, and trenches. Soil samples are usually retrieved from these excavations and then tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering properties. In addition, field tests, such as the standard penetration test (SPT) or cone penetration test (CPT) could also be performed. These aspects of the subsurface exploration are individually discussed in the following sections. In addition, App. A (Glossary 1) presents a list of field testing terms and definitions.

5.4.1 Borings, Test Pits, and Trenches Objectives of the Excavations. The main objectives of the borings, test pits, and trenches are to determine the nature and extent of the seismic hazards. In this regard, the Division of Mines and Geology (1997) states:
The subsurface exploration should extend to depths sufficient to expose geologic and subsurface water conditions that could affect slope stability or liquefaction potential. A sufficient quantity of subsurface information is needed to permit the engineering geologist and/or civil engineer to extrapolate with confidence the subsurface conditions that might affect the project, so that the seismic hazard can be properly evaluated, and an appropriate mitigation measure can be designed by the civil engineer. The preparation of engineering geologic maps and geologic cross sections is often an important step into developing an understanding of the significance and extent of potential seismic hazards. These maps and/or cross sections should extend far enough beyond the site to identify off-site hazards and features that might affect the site.

Excavation Layout. The required number and spacing of borings, test pits, and trenches for a particular project must be based on judgment and experience. Obviously the more test excavations that are performed, the more knowledge will be obtained about the subsurface

5.12

CHAPTER FIVE

conditions and the seismic hazards. This can result in a more economical foundation design and less risk of the project being impacted by geologic and seismic hazards. In general, boring layouts should not be random. Instead, if an approximate idea of the location of the proposed structure is known, then the borings should be concentrated in that area. For example, borings could be drilled at the four corners of a proposed building, with an additional (and deepest) boring located at the center of the proposed building. If the building location is unknown, then the borings should be located in lines, such as across the valley floor, in order to develop soil and geologic cross sections. If geologic or seismic hazards may exist outside the building footprint, then they should also be investigated with borings. For example, if there is an adjacent landslide or fault zone that could impact the site, then it will also need to be investigated with subsurface exploration. Some of the factors that influence the decisions on the number and spacing of borings include the following:
G

Relative costs of the investigation: The cost of additional borings must be weighed against the value of additional subsurface information. Type of project: A more detailed and extensive subsurface investigation is required for an essential facility as compared to a single-family dwelling. Topography (flatland versus hillside): A hillside project usually requires more subsurface investigation than a flatland project because of the slope stability requirements. Nature of soil deposits (uniform versus erratic): Fewer borings may be needed when the soil deposits are uniform as compared to erratic deposits. Geologic and seismic hazards: The more known or potential geologic and seismic hazards at the site, the greater the need for subsurface exploration. Access: In many cases, the site may be inaccessible, and access roads will have to be constructed. Creating access roads throughout the site can be expensive and disruptive and may influence decisions on the number and spacing of borings. Government or local building department requirements: For some projects, there may be specifications on the required number and spacing of borings.

Often a preliminary subsurface plan is developed to perform a limited number of exploratory borings. The purpose is just to obtain a rough idea of the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions and the potential geologic and seismic hazards at the site. Then once the preliminary subsurface data are analyzed, additional borings as part of a detailed seismic exploration are performed. The detailed subsurface exploration can be used to better define the soil profile, explore geologic and seismic hazards, and obtain further data on the critical subsurface conditions and seismic hazards that will likely have the greatest impact on the design and construction of the project. Depth of Excavations. (1991) states: In terms of the depth of the subsurface exploration, R. B. Seed

Investigations should extend to depths below which liquefiable soils cannot reasonably be expected to occur (e.g., to bedrock, or to hard competent soils of sufficient geologic age that possible underlying units could not reasonably be expected to pose a liquefaction hazard). At most sites where soil is present, such investigation will require either borings or trench/test pit excavation. Simple surface inspection will suffice only when bedrock is exposed over essentially the full site, or in very unusual cases when the local geology is sufficiently well-documented as to fully ensure the complete lack of possibility of occurrence of liquefiable soils (at depth) beneath the exposed surface soil unit(s).

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.13

Down-Hole Logging. For geologic hazards such as landslides, a common form of subsurface exploration is large-diameter bucket-auger borings that are down-hole logged by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Figure 5.5 shows a photograph of the top of the boring with the geologist descending into the hole in a steel cage. Note in Fig. 5.5 that a collar is placed around the top of the hole to prevent loose soil or rocks from being accidentally knocked down the hole. The process of down-hole logging is a valuable technique because it allows the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to observe the subsurface materials as they exist in place. Usually the process of excavation of the boring smears the side of the hole, and the surface must be chipped away to observe intact soil or rock. Going down-hole is dangerous because of the possibility of a cave-in of the hole as well as bad air (presence of poisonous gases or lack of oxygen) and should only be attempted by an experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The down-hole observation of soil and rock can lead to the discovery of important geologic and seismic hazards. For example, Figs. 5.6 and 5.7 provide an example of the type of conditions observed down-hole. Figure 5.6 shows a knife that has been placed in an open fracture in bedrock. The open fracture in the rock was caused by massive landslide movement. Figure 5.7 is a side view of the same condition. Trench Excavations. Backhoe trenches are an economical means of performing subsurface exploration. The backhoe can quickly excavate the trench, which can then be used to observe and test the in situ soil. In many subsurface explorations, backhoe trenches are used to evaluate near-surface and geologic conditions (i.e., up to 15 ft deep), with borings being used to investigate deeper subsurface conditions. Backhoe trenches are especially useful for performing fault studies. For example, Figs. 5.8 and 5.9 show two views of the excava-

FIGURE 5.5 hole logging.

Down-hole logging. Note that the arrow points to the top of the steel cage used for the down-

5.14

CHAPTER FIVE

FIGURE 5.6 Knife placed in an open fracture in bedrock caused by landslide movement. The photograph was taken down-hole in a large-diameter auger boring.

FIGURE 5.7

Side view of the condition shown in Fig. 5.6.

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.15

FIGURE 5.8

Backhoe trench for a fault study.

tion of a trench that is being used to investigate the possibility of an on-site active fault. Figure 5.9 is a close-up view of the conditions in the trench and shows the fractured and disrupted nature of the rock. Note in Fig. 5.9 that metal shoring has been installed to prevent the trench from caving in. Often the fault investigations are performed by the engineering geologist with the objective of determining if there are active faults that cross the site. In addition, the width of the shear zone of the fault can often be determined from the trench excavation studies. If there is uncertainty as to whether a fault is active, then often datable material must be present in the trench excavation in order to determine the date of the most recent fault movement. Krinitzsky et al. (1993) present examples of datable materials, as follows:
G G G G G

Displacements of organic matter or other datable horizons across faults Sudden burials of marsh soils Killed trees Disruption of archaeological sites Liquefaction intrusions cutting older liquefaction

5.4.2 Soil Sampling To study the potential seismic hazards of a soil deposit, the ideal situation would be to obtain an undisturbed soil specimen, apply the same stress conditions that exist in the field, and then subject the soil specimen to the anticipated earthquake-induced cyclic shear stress. The resulting soil behavior could then be used to evaluate the seismic hazards. The disadvantages of this approach are that undisturbed soil specimens and sophisticated laboratory equipment would be required. Usually in engineering practice, this approach is not practical or is too expensive, and other options are used as described below.

5.16

CHAPTER FIVE

FIGURE 5.9

Close-up view of trench excavation.

Cohesive Soils. Although undisturbed cohesive soil samples can often be obtained during the subsurface exploration, the usual approach in practice is to obtain the soil engineering properties from standard laboratory tests. In terms of the undrained shear strength of the soil, the unconfined compression test (ASTM D 2166-98, 2000) or the consolidated undrained triaxial compression test (ASTM D 4767-95, 2000) is usually performed. Typically standard soil sampling practices, such as the use of thin-walled Shelby tubes, are used to obtain undisturbed cohesive soil specimens (see Day 1999). Section 5.5.1 describes the interpretation of this data for use in geotechnical earthquake engineering analyses. Granular Soils. There are three different methods that can be used to obtain undisturbed soil specimens of granular soil (Poulos et al. 1985, Ishihara 1985, Hofmann et al. 2000): 1. Tube sampling: Highly sophisticated techniques can be employed to obtain undisturbed soil specimens from tube samplers. For example, a fixed-piston sampler consists of a piston that is fixed at the bottom of the borehole by a rod that extends to the ground surface. A thin-walled tube is then pushed into the ground past the piston, while the piston rod is held fixed. Another approach is to temporarily lower the groundwater table in the borehole and allow the water to drain from the soil. The partially saturated soil will then be held together by capillarity, which will enable the soil strata to be sampled. When brought to the ground surface, the partially saturated soil specimen is frozen. Because the soil is only partially saturated, the volume increase of water as it freezes should not significantly disturb the soil structure. The frozen soil specimen is then transported to the laboratory for testing.

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.17

Although the soil specimen may be considered to be an undisturbed specimen, there could still be disruption of the soil structure during all phases of the sampling operation. The greatest disturbance will probably occur during the physical pushing of the sampler into the soil. 2. Block sampling: Another approach for near-surface soil is to temporarily lower the groundwater table. Then a test pit or trench is excavated into the soil. Because the groundwater table has been lowered, the partially saturated soil will be held together by capillarity. A block sample is then cut from the sides of the test pit or trench, and the block sample is transported to the laboratory for testing. If the soil does not have enough capillarity to hold itself together, then this method will not work. In addition, the soil could be disturbed due to stress relief when making the excavation or when extracting the soil specimen. 3. Freezing technique: The essential steps in the freezing technique are to first freeze the soil and then cut or core the frozen soil from the ground. The freezing is accomplished by installing pipes in the ground and then circulating ethanol and crushed dry ice or liquid nitrogen through the pipes. Because water increases in volume upon freezing, it is important to establish a slow freezing front so that the freezing water can slowly expand and migrate out of the soil pores. This process can minimize the sample disturbance associated with the increase in volume of freezing water. From a practical standpoint, the three methods described above are usually not economical for most projects. Thus laboratory testing is not practical, and the analyses of earthquake hazards (such as liquefaction) are normally based on field testing that is performed during the subsurface exploration. The two most commonly used field tests are the standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT), as discussed in the next two sections.

5.4.3 Standard Penetration Test Test Procedure. The standard penetration test can be used for all types of soil, but in general the SPT should only be used for granular soils (Coduto 1994). The SPT can be especially valuable for clean sand deposits where the sand falls or flows out from the sampler when retrieved from the ground. Without a soil sample, other types of tests, such as the standard penetration test, must be used to assess the engineering properties of the sand. Often when a borehole is drilled, if subsurface conditions indicate a sand stratum and sampling tubes come up empty, the sampling gear can be quickly changed to perform standard penetration tests. The standard penetration test consists of driving a thick-walled sampler into the granular soil deposit. The test parameters are as follows:
G

Sampler: Per ASTM D 1586-99 (2000), the SPT sampler must have an inside barrel diameter D 3.81 cm (1.5 in) and an outside diameter F 5.08 cm (2 in), as shown in Fig. 5.10. Driving hammer: The SPT sampler is driven into the sand by using a 63.5-kg (140-lb) hammer falling a distance of 0.76 m (30 in). Driving distance: The SPT sampler is driven a total of 45 cm (18 in), with the number of blows recorded for each 15-cm (6-in) interval. N value: The measured SPT N value (blows per foot) is defined as the penetration resistance of the soil, which equals the sum of the number of blows required to drive the SPT

FIGURE 5.10

Standard penetration test sampler. (Reprinted with permission from the American Society for Testing and Materials 2000.)

5.18

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.19

sampler over the depth interval of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18 in). The reason the number of blows required to drive the SPT sampler for the first 15 cm (6 in) is not included in the N value is that the drilling process often disturbs the soil at the bottom of the borehole, and the readings at 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18 in) are believed to be more representative of the in situ penetration resistance of the granular soil. Factors That Could Affect the Test Results. The measured SPT N value can be influenced by the type of soil, such as the amount of fines and gravel-size particles in the soil. Saturated sands that contain appreciable fine soil particles, such as silty or clayey sands, could give abnormally high N values if they have a tendency to dilate or abnormally low N values if they have a tendency to contract during the undrained shear conditions associated with driving the SPT sampler. Gravel-size particles increase the driving resistance (hence increased N value) by becoming stuck in the SPT sampler tip or barrel. A factor that could influence the measured SPT N value is groundwater. It is important to maintain a level of water in the borehole at or above the in situ groundwater level. This is to prevent groundwater from rushing into the bottom of the borehole, which could loosen the granular soil and result in low measured N values. Besides the soil and groundwater conditions described above, many different testing factors can influence the accuracy of the SPT readings. For example, the measured SPT N value could be influenced by the hammer efficiency, the rate at which the blows are applied, the borehole diameter, and the rod lengths. The different factors that can affect the standard penetration test results are presented in Table 5.1. Corrections for Testing and Overburden Pressure. Corrections can be applied to the test results to compensate for the testing procedures (Skempton 1986): N60 where N60 Em Cb Cr N 1.67EmCbCr N (5.1)

standard penetration test N value corrected for field testing procedures hammer efficiency (for U.S. equipment, Em is 0.6 for a safety hammer and 0.45 for a doughnut hammer) borehole diameter correction (Cb 1.0 for boreholes of 65- to 115-mm diameter, 1.05 for 150-mm diameter, and 1.15 for 200-mm diameter hole) rod length correction (Cr 0.75 for up to 4 m of drill rods, 0.85 for 4 to 6 m of drill rods, 0.95 for 6 to 10 m of drill rods, and 1.00 for drill rods in excess of 10 m) measured standard penetration test N value

For many geotechnical earthquake engineering evaluations, such as liquefaction analysis, the standard penetration test N60 value [Eq. (5.1)] is corrected for the vertical effective stress v0 . When a correction is applied to the N60 value to account for the vertical effective pressure, these values are referred to as (N1)60 values. The procedure consists of multiplying the N60 value by a correction CN in order to calculate the (N1)60 value. Figure 5.11 presents a chart that is commonly used to obtain the correction factor CN. Another option is to use the following equation: (N1)60 where (N1)60 CN CN N60 (100/ v0 )0.5 N60 (5.2)

standard penetration test N value corrected for both field testing procedures and overburden pressure correction factor to account for overburden pressure. As indicated in Eq. (5.2), CN is approximately equal to (100/ v0 )0.5, where v0 is the vertical

5.20

CHAPTER FIVE

N60

effective stress, also known as the effective overburden pressure, in kilopascals. Suggested maximum values of CN range from 1.7 to 2.0 (Youd and Idriss 1997, 2001) . standard penetration test N value corrected for field testing procedures. Note that N60 is calculated by using Eq. (5.1).

Correlations between SPT Results and Soil Properties. Commonly used correlations between the SPT results and various soil properties are as follows:
G

Table 5.2: This table presents a correlation between the measured SPT N value (blows per foot) and the density condition of a clean sand deposit. Note that this correlation is

FIGURE 5.11 Correction factor CN used to adjust the standard penetration test N value and cone penetration test qc value for the effective overburden pressure. The symbol Dr refers to the relative density of the sand. (Reproduced from Seed et al. 1983, with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers.)

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.21

FIGURE 5.12 Empirical correlation between the standard penetration test N60 value, vertical effective stress, and friction angle for clean quartz sand deposits. (Adapted from de Mello 1971, reproduced from Coduto 1994.)

very approximate and the boundaries between different density conditions are not as distinct as implied by the table. As indicated in Table 5.2, if it only takes 4 blows or less to drive the SPT sampler, then the sand should be considered to be very loose and could be subjected to significant settlement due to the weight of a structure or due to earthquake shaking. On the other hand, if it takes more than 50 blows to drive the SPT sampler, then the sand is considered to be in a very dense condition and would be able to support high bearing loads and would be resistant to settlement from earthquake shaking.
G

Table 5.3: This table is based on the work by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and is similar to Table 5.2, except that it provides a correlation between (N1)60 and the relative density.

5.22
G

CHAPTER FIVE

Figure 5.12: This figure is based on the work by de Mello (1971) and presents an empirical correlation between the standard penetration test N60 value [Eq. (5.1)], the vertical effective stress v0, and the friction angle of clean, quartz sand.

Popularity of SPT Test. Even with the limitations and all the corrections that must be applied to the measured N value, the standard penetration test is probably the most widely used field test in the United States. This is because it is relatively easy to use, the test is economical compared to other types of field testing, and the SPT equipment can be quickly adapted and included as part of almost any type of drilling rig.

5.4.4 Cone Penetration Test The idea for the cone penetration test is similar to the standard penetration test except that instead of driving a thick-walled sampler into the soil, a steel cone is pushed into the soil. There are many different types of cone penetration devices, such as the mechanical cone, mechanical-friction cone, electric cone, and piezocone (see App. A, Glossary 1, for descriptions). The simplest type of cone is shown in Fig. 5.13 (from ASTM D 3441-98, 2000). First the cone is pushed into the soil to the desired depth (initial position), and then a force is applied to the inner rods which moves the cone downward into the extended position. The force required to move the cone into the extended position (Fig. 5.13) divided by the horizontally projected area of the cone is defined as the cone resistance qc. By continually repeating the two-step process shown in Fig. 5.13, the cone resistance data are obtained at increments of depth. A continuous record of the cone resistance versus depth can be obtained by using the electric cone, where the cone is pushed into the soil at a rate of 10 to 20 mm/s (2 to 4 ft/min). Figure 5.14 (adapted from Robertson and Campanella 1983) presents an empirical correlation between the cone resistance qc , vertical effective stress, and friction angle of clean, quartz sand. Note that Fig. 5.14 is similar in appearance to Fig. 5.12, which should be the case because both the SPT and the CPT involve basically the same process of forcing an object into the soil and then measuring the resistance of the soil to penetration by the object. For many geotechnical earthquake engineering evaluations, such as liquefaction analysis, the cone penetration test qc value is corrected for the vertical effective stress v0. When a correction is applied to the qc value to account for the vertical effective pressure, these values are referred to as qc1 values. The procedure consists of multiplying the qc value by a correction CN in order to calculate the qc1 value. Figure 5.11 presents a chart that is commonly used to obtain the correction factor CN. Another option is to use the following equation: 1.8qc qc1 CN qc (5.3) 0.8 v0 /100 where qc1 CN qc corrected CPT tip resistance (corrected for overburden pressure) correction factor to account for overburden pressure. As indicated in Eq. (5.3), CN is approximately equal to 1.8/(0.8 v 0 /100), where v 0 is the vertical effective stress in kilopascals. cone penetration tip resistance

A major advantage of the cone penetration test is that by using the electric cone, a continuous subsurface record of the cone resistance qc can be obtained. This is in contrast to

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.23

TABLE 5.1 Factors That Can Affect the Standard Penetration Test Results Factors that can affect the standard penetration test results Inadequate cleaning of the borehole Not seating the sampler spoon on undisturbed material Driving of the sample spoon above the bottom of the casing Failure to maintain sufficient hydrostatic head in boring Attitude of operators

Comments SPT is only partially made in original soil. Sludge may be trapped in the sampler and compressed as the sampler is driven, increasing the blow count. This may also prevent sample recovery. Incorrect N value is obtained.

The N value is increased in sands and reduced in cohesive soil.

The water table in the borehole must be at least equal to the piezometric level in the sand; otherwise the sand at the bottom of the borehole may be transformed to a loose state. Blow counts for the same soil using the same rig can vary, depending on who is operating the rig and perhaps the mood of operator and time of drilling. Higher blow counts usually result from overdriven sampler. Higher blow counts result when gravel plugs the sampler. The resistance of loose sand could be highly overestimated. High N values may be recorded for loose sand when sampling below the groundwater table. Hydrostatic pressure causes sand to rise and plug the casing. Low blow count may result for dense sand since sand is loosened by overwashing. Drilling technique (e.g., cased holes versus mud-stabilized holes) may result in different N values for the same soil. Energy delivered per blow is not uniform. European countries have adopted an automatic trip hammer not currently in use in North America. Using more than 1.5 turns of rope around the drum and/or using wire cable will restrict the fall of the drive weight. Driller frequently supplies drive hammers with weights varying from the standard by as much as 10 lb. Impact energy is reduced, increasing the N value.

Overdriven sample Sampler plugged by gravel Plugged casing

Overwashing ahead of casing Drilling method Not using the standard hammer drop Free fall of the drive weight is not attained Not using the correct weight Weight does not strike the drive cap concentrically Not using a guide rod Not using a good tip on the sampling spoon

Incorrect N value is obtained. If the tip is damaged and reduces the opening or increases the end area, the N value can be increased.

TABLE 5.1 Factors That Can Affect the Standard Penetration Test Results (Continued) Factors that can affect the standard penetration test results Use of drill rods heavier than standard Not recording blow counts and penetration accurately Incorrect drilling

Comments With heavier rods, more energy is absorbed by the rods, causing an increase in the blow count. Incorrect N values are obtained.

The standard penetration test was originally developed from wash boring techniques. Drilling procedures which seriously disturb the soil will affect the N value, for example, drilling with cable tool equipment. A borehole correction is required for large-diameter boreholes. This is because larger diameters often result in a decrease in the blow count. Frequently a sampler will be impeded by gravel or cobbles, causing a sudden increase in blow count. This is often not recognized by an inexperienced observer. Accurate recording of drilling sampling and depth is always required. The sample is not described correctly. Too high a pump capacity will loosen the soil at the base of the hole, causing a decrease in blow count.

Using large drill holes Inadequate supervision

Improper logging of soils Using too large a pump

Source: NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982).

TABLE 5.2 Correlation between Uncorrected SPT N Value and Density of Clean Sand Uncorrected N value (blows per foot) 04 410 1030 3050 Over 50

Sand density Very loose condition Loose condition Medium condition Dense condition Very dense condition

Relative density Dr , percent 015 1535 3565 6585 85100

Note: Relative density Dr 100(emax e)/(emax emin), where emax void ratio corresponding to the loosest possible state of the soil, usually obtained by pouring the soil into a mold of known volume (ASTM D 4254-96, 2000), emin void ratio corresponding to the densest possible state of the soil, usually obtained by vibrating the soil particles into a dense state (ASTM D 4253-96, 2000), and e the natural void ratio of the soil. Sources: Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and Lambe and Whitman (1969).

TABLE 5.3 Correlation between (N1)60 and Density of Sand (N1)60 (blows per foot) 02 25 520 2035 Over 35 Sand density Very loose condition Loose condition Medium condition Dense condition Very dense condition Relative density Dr , percent 015 1535 3565 6585 85100

Source: Tokimatsu and Seed (1987).

5.24

SITE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

5.25

FIGURE 5.13 Example of mechanical cone penetrometer tip (Dutch mantle cone). (Reprinted with permission from the American Society for Testing and Materials 2000.)

the standard penetration test, which obtains data at intervals in the soil deposit. Disadvantages of the cone penetration test are that soil samples cannot be recovered and special equipment is required to produce a steady and slow penetration of the cone. Unlike the SPT, the ability to obtain a steady and slow penetration of the cone is not included as part of conventional drilling rigs. Because of these factors, in the United States, the CPT is used less frequently than the SPT.

5.5 LABORATORY TESTING

As discussed in Sec. 5.4.2, soil engineering properties that are used in earthquake analyses are usually obtained from field tests (SPT and CPT) or from standard laboratory tests (see Day