SOIL MECHANICS ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO IN SITU TEST

METHODS OF SOILS FOUND IN POTRERO CANYON

Richard Fernandez, San Diego State University

University of California at Davis

Dr. Jason T. DeJong, Faculty Advisor
Karina Dahl, Ph.D. Mentor
I. Abstract

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data is widely accepted as the best option for
subsurface investigation in determining sequence of subsurface strata, groundwater
conditions, and mechanical properties of subsurface strata. While the CPT is very useful
for geo-environmental purposes, the significance of widely varying data within a
substrate is still rather unknown. In analyzing the soil properties of Potrero Canyon, this
paper discusses the standard CPT test procedures and compares this data to data obtained
from standard lab test procedures for soil mechanics analysis; the lab tests include visual
description and classification of soils, moisture content, Atterberg limits, hydrometer
analysis, and sieve analysis. Future study for this project includes the susceptibility of
liquefaction in fine-grained soils and those issues are also discussed.

II. Introduction

Site Background

Potrero Canyon is located in the San Fernando Valley and is a 5-km-long, 200-m-
wide, east traveling valley (Winterer and Durham, 1962). During the Northridge
earthquake of 1994, the soil in the canyon was greatly affected by the loading of a large
magnitude (M6.7) (Hall, 1994). In a reconnaissance report by Rymer et. al., liquefaction
in the area had not been verified; however, there were large amounts of ground fractures
as well as sand boils that were noted in the region (2001). The paper also reported that it
was possible that much of the pipe breaks that occurred in the area were possibly caused
by liquefaction. In a preliminary geological and geotechnical report (Allan Seward
engineering geology), the soils in the canyon were described as generally unsuitable for
the support of structures. The reason being that the layering of soil in areas containing
steep slopes is malformed unlike those in the neighboring area of Potrero Mesa.

The presence of soils that are seemingly susceptible to liquefaction combined with the
planning of an approximately 20,000 single-family home development sparked major
interest in the properties of the soil for both engineers and investors. In February 2007, a
seismic mitigation program began to assess the risk of liquefaction occurring in Potrero
Canyon and, if needed, implement an engineering program. This seismic mitigation
program is scheduled to last until November 2007. In this short time, a collaborative
team of engineers and researchers are to perform a heavy regiment of in situ and lab
testing to have an in-depth understanding of the soil strength and its susceptibility to
liquefaction or cyclic failure in the area.

The first set of tests is all part the test fill program portion of the seismic mitigation
program. In this program, there are four procedures: (1) instrumentation monitoring, (2)
laboratory testing, (3) geotechnical review and analysis, (4) and a final written report.
The in situ test data taken for this project is a direct result of the test fill program. Logs
and cone penetration test data were taken from beneath the test fill early in the seismic
mitigation program.
Leighton and Associates Inc. following construction guidelines provided by ENGEO
performed the instrument implementation and drilling. The installed instrumentation
included three settlement plates, four vibrating wire piezometers, one magnetic
extensometer, and one groundwater monitoring well. Upon constructing the test fill pad
at the test site, cone penetration test data was taken to compare readings taken from under
the test pad to adjacent readings taken without fill above them.

Cone Penetration Test

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data is widely accepted as the best option for
subsurface investigation in determining sequence of subsurface strata, groundwater
conditions, and mechanical properties of subsurface strata (Robertson, 2006). However,
while the CPT is very useful for geo-environmental purposes, the significance and
understanding of widely varying data within a substrate is still rather unknown.

The typical design of the cone penetrometer consists of three main components. The
first component is the cone tip, which measures the tip resistance of the cone using strain
gages. This parameter is the most commonly used in engineering applications. The
second main component is the friction sleeve. It uses local friction strain gages to
measure the soil’s texture, which then can be used to calculate the soil behavior. The last
main component of the cone penetrometer is the pore water pressure (CPTU) transducer.
With the measurement of pore water pressure it became apparent that it was necessary to
correct the cone resistance for
pore water pressure effects,
especially in clay (Rowe, 2001).

The CPT is useful for

determining overall soil strength
and behavior indeed; it is
especially useful to classify a
soil using the tip resistance (qc)
and friction ratio (Rf)
(Robertson, 1989). Robertson
et al. developed a simplified
chart shown in Figure 1 to
identify stratigraphic features of
a subsurface stratum using the
two parameters mentioned
above, which is widely used
Figure 1: Soil behavior type classification adapted today in drilling and subsurface
by Robertson et al. (1989)
exploration.
For this research, the CPT data taken from SCPT boring 2a was used as a guide to help
find what depths to further investigate. With a sample tube that had such a widely
varying CPT plot, one of the main objectives was to investigate —by performing
standard lab tests— depths at which the CPT showed large transitions. These depths,
based on the CPT data, were taken to be loose estimates because of the known limitations
of CPT when analyzing at very small increments.

Limitations

There are a few limitations of the cone penetration test, especially when looking
specifically at transitions that are less than 5 cone diameters apart from each other. That
was the case for this instance. The ASTM D 5778 advises that regardless of the type of
CPT probe used, the results are average values of the soil resistance over a length of about

Figure 2: Extrapolated CPT data for SCPT boring Figure 3: Water content
2a - Tube 7 data tested in laboratory
10 cone diameters—about 5 diameters above the tip plus about 5 diameters below the tip
(2000). This “zone of influence” affects the result of the CPT to a relatively small degree
when analyzing soil behavior to get an idea of the average strength and behavior of the
soil; however, when exploring virtually every inch of a standard Shelby tube, these values
really need to be taken as a lead to direct further investigation.

Another limitation of the CPT is that the penetration is restricted to dense sands.
Evaluation of properties in soft and medium stiff fine-grained soils should be made with
caution (Robertson and Powell, 1989).

Problems

In drilling procedures, the incremental distance can vary widely depending on how
much data is desired by the engineers. In the CPT logs provided by ENGEO, the
incremental distance was 0.164 feet (5 cm). A problem arises when the data that is being
taken in the laboratory is at the one-third inch to one-inch increments, which is at a higher
resolution than the CPT data. Specifically, multiple data points are being gathered in the
lab to represent or correlate to one point on the provided CPT logs. This problem can be
illustrated by comparing the Figures 2 and 3 side by side.

Link to Project

The basis for using the cone penetration test along with a detailed logging of this
standard Shelby tube is to form a deeper understanding of the behavior of soils when
there is a large amount of variability in a small amount of material. Having several sudden
changes in the cone tip resistance (qc) in one soil sample, an analysis of the “zone of
influence” can be made and in this case, check all possible sources for affecting the
parameters of the CPT.

Liquefaction Susceptibility

A field that is gaining continued interest amongst geotechnical engineers is soil

liquefaction. During monotonic and cyclic undrained shear loading, a soil can liquefy-
losing strength and causing damage to structures above it. Although a major cause of
damage during earthquakes, engineering practices are still evolving to deal with the
problems posed by liquefaction.

Today, there are many methods to treat liquefiable soils. When an area is deemed to run
a risk of liquefaction during an earthquake, a mitigation process can take place, which
will usually reduce the risk sufficiently. Current research is attempting to be able to
classify liquefiable soils more easily using simple soil parameters to evaluate liquefaction
susceptibility.
Earlier studies on liquefaction phenomena were on sands and fine-grained soils such as
silts, clayey silts and even sands with fines were considered non-liquefiable (Prakash,
1999). More recently, after such earthquakes as Haicheng (1975), Tangshan (1976)
(Wang, 1979) and Kocaeli in 1999 (Bray, 2006), it was suggested that fine-grained soils
could be liquefiable. Even today, there is little lab test data to be able to determine the
likelihood of a fine-grained soil to be liquefiable.

After analyzing soil that liquefied in China, Wang states that any soil containing less than
15-20% particles by weight, smaller than 0.005 mm, and having a water content (wc) to
liquid limit (LL) ratio greater than 0.9 is susceptible to liquefaction (1979). In response,
using the data from China provided by Wang, Seed and Idriss (1982) stated that clayey
soils could be susceptible to liquefaction only if all three of the following conditions are
met: (1) percent of particles less than 0.005 mm <15%, (2) LL<35%, and (3) wc/LL>0.9.

After the establishment of the Chinese criteria, there was a movement to promote simple
criteria based on “key’ soil parameters to deduce the susceptibility of liquefaction in fine-
grained soils. Andrews and Martin pointed out that because the grain size of silts fall
between that of sand and clay, it is often assumed that the susceptibility of silts must also
fall somewhere between the high susceptibility of sands and non-susceptibility of clays
and that there is added confusion because silts and clays are coupled under the same
“fines” heading (2000).

In a report by Boulanger and Idriss, in order to distinguish the major loss of strength in
soils during undrained cyclic loading, a working definition of liquefaction and cyclic
failure are established. Because strength loss in these fine-grained soils can occur for
different reasons, “the term ‘liquefaction’ is used to describe the onset of excess pore
water pressures and large shear strains during undrained cyclic loading of sand-like soils
and the term ‘cyclic failure’ is used to describe the corresponding behavior of clay-like
soils” (2004). The need for this establishment illustrates the dual properties that fine-
grained soils can display, especially those with a high percentage of silt content. The
report continues to establish the distinctions between sand-like and clay-like fine-grained
soils. They also have recommendations for the evaluation for each of the respective soil
types and discuss them.

III. Methods

In Situ Testing

All of the in situ testing for the Shelby tube utilized in this project was performed
by Leighton and Associates Incorporated according to guidelines provided by ENGEO
Incorporated. The performed detailed logging of borings along with cone penetration test
data provided a strong basis for soil classification prior to lab testing.
 Figure 4: Surface fractures shown in red provided by USGS
United States Geological Survey Reconnaissance

Shortly after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) visited Potrero Canyon to perform a reconnaissance of any geologic
activity following the earthquake. The nature of this mission was one from a geologic
standpoint and not one of an engineering perspective. In a report released by the USGS,
numerous surface fractures were observed in the area and taken note of. This may have
been caused by the canyon being situated in the up-dip projection of the seismographic
rupture plane of the main shock (Winterer and Durham, 1962).

The surface fractures found in this investigation were not associated with primary
faulting or with triggered, secondary, surface faulting on a deep seismographic fault, but
rather the term “surface fractures” was used to describe general ground breakage (Rymer
et al., 2001). These surface fractures can be seen in Figure 4 shown as red lines spread
throughout the canyon. The USGS report also states that several of the fractures were
open or had been filled with loose sand. Normal displacement of up to 0.066 feet (2 cm)
was observed across these fractures within the trenches.

There were also some landslides that occurred during the earthquake. There were
thousands of landslides triggered by the 17 January earthquake (Harp and Jibson, 1995),
including landslides in the Potrero Canyon area. The volume of individual earthquake-
induced landslides in the Potrero Canyon area varied, but most commonly was small, less
than 10 cubic meters (Rymer et al., 2001).

There were also sand blows observed following the Northridge earthquake. Also
mentioned by the report released by the USGS, these sand blows formed cones, about one
to three meters in diameter, which locally coalesced into zones tens of meters long.
(2001). While the report did not verify the occurrence of liquefaction they could not cite
anyone who could, the amount of earthquake-induced ground activity was remarkable
and the report did mention the possibility of liquefaction being the cause of multiple pipe
breaks in the area.
Test Fill Compaction Program

Fill compaction is one of the fundamental concepts in geotechnical engineering.

It is the process to increase the density of soil mass by mechanical means (Gue and
Liew). The reason there was a need for a test fill compaction program in Potrero Canyon
was because of the unpredictable behavior of the soil in the area after the 1994
Northridge earthquake. The program began in February 2007 and the testing and
monitoring process is scheduled until September 2007.

As part of the test fill program, dry densities, moisture contents, and compaction of the
fill were all measured. When moisture content gradually increases, the soil skeleton
structures will tend to collapse and rearrange easily to a more compact state under
compaction as the effect of surface tension reduces with increasing water content. When
the dry density of the compacted soil mass reaches a peak, the corresponding moisture
content is called the optimum moisture content (OMC) (Gue and Liew, 2001).

The compaction attained at the end of the test is compared to the compaction required,
which will determine the success of the test and test method.

Cone Penetration Test

As aforementioned, the CPT is widely accepted as a practical means for

subsurface investigation. The type of CPT instrument used in this study was a seismic
cone penetrometer. This penetrometer incorporates a triaxial package of small
seismometers into a standard penetrometer (Campenella et al.). This enables the cone to
read shear wave velocities in situ while obtaining CPT data. A cone of 10 cm2 base area
with an apex angle of 60 degrees is generally accepted as standard and has been specified
in the European and American standards (ASTM, 1979). A friction sleeve, located above
the conical tip, has a standard area of 150 cm. The friction sleeve has the same diameter
as the conical tip, e.g., 35.7 mm.

The tip of the cone is suited with strain gages that enable the cone to measure the
resistance of the soil (qc), or tip resistance. The friction sleeve obtains another reading
(fs). From these two parameters, the friction ratio can be calculated by dividing the
friction sleeve reading by the tip resistance (Rf = fs/qc x 100%). Plotting the friction ratio
versus the cone resistance on the soil classification chart established by Robertson will
establish the soil behavior/classification.

The cone was pushed and a log was taken on 5 April 2007. Readings were taken at 0.164
feet (5 cm) intervals and soil was classified by soil behavior type onsite. The cone was
advanced at the standard rate of 2 cm/s. The boring was then taken on 16 April 2007
utilizing the mud rotary method. The accuracy of the vertical precision of the SCPT cone
reading and the tube sampling is unknown. While it would be possible to attempt to line
up the CPT data to the results of the lab tests of the Shelby tube, it is not recommended
due to the possibility of skewing data to a personal bias.
Laboratory Testing

The bulk of this NEESreu project was spent in the lab

obtaining soil characteristics in order to compare and contrast with
the in situ data that was obtained from various sources. All lab
testing was performed in the soil interactions laboratory at University
of California at Davis.

The objective in performing lab tests on Seismic Cone Penetration

Test Boring 2a - Tube 7 sampled from Potrero Canyon was to obtain
as much soil mechanics data possible for soil mechanics analysis and
to make further use of data taken for future use. This would
ultimately be used as part of a larger study of liquefaction
susceptibility in fine-grained soils. Lab testing was performed under
the specifications pointed out by the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) via the visual manual procedure, moisture
content, Atterberg limits, and hydrometer analysis.

Visual Manual Procedure and Soil Classification

To begin laboratory testing, logging of the tube sample by

means of the visual manual procedure as defined by ASTM
Designation D 2488. This began by cutting small sections of the
Shelby tube (approximately 5 in.) and extruding the soil from the
tube. After extruding the sample, a longitudinal cross section was
created using a wire saw, taking extreme care to minimize any
disturbances to the soil. Detailed photos (Figure 5) and drawings
were made of these cross sections, and the visual description of the
soil was taken.

Descriptive information required in the visual manual procedure

cannot only be used for engineering purposes, but also as a scientific
method to compare different forms of data acquired through different
means. The primary procedure used for this process can be found in
Section 10 and 14 of ASTM Designation D 2488; descriptive
information for soils and the procedure for identifying fine-grained
soils, respectively.

Color was typically the first point made when describing a soil. This
can play an important role when comparing to similar materials in the
area. Also, there were some changes in color, which made some thin
layers visible. The moisture condition of the sample was also made
note of as well as the measured moisture content of the soil later
discussed in this paper. Other soil characteristics notated were Figure 5: Cross
hardness of larger particles, organic material content, and the soil’s section of Shelby tube
sample
reaction to hydrochloric acid (HCl). Actually, much of the soil contained in tube 7
reacted very strong to HCl. This implies that that calcium carbonate is present in high
concentrations since it is a common cementing agent.

More specific to fine grained soils, notes were taken on the dry strength of the soil. This
was done by rolling a small sample into a ball approximately
inch in diameter and
crushing it, then measuring the pressure required to force the ball to crumble. The
dilatancy of the soil was also remarked by applying small forces to the surface of the
sample repeatedly, then describing the amount of water liberated from the soil. This is
useful for visual classification because more silty soils will release more water when
tested then a clay will.

Moisture Content

Moisture content data was taken for every 1/3 inch of the Shelby tube. This
procedure was performed in accordance with the ASTM Designation D 2216: the
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil
and Rock by Mass. This method, most commonly used to test moisture content of soils,
utilizes a drying oven to extract all water from the sample.

In this procedure, a test specimen is selected to be representative of the entire sample. By

taking samples every 1/3 of an inch, a precise representation of the sample can be
assumed. These test specimens were also taken from the center of the tube, where the
soil is the most undisturbed, in its natural state.

After a test specimen is selected, the mass of a clean and dry tare is determined and
recorded. The moist test specimen is placed into the tare, and the combined mass is
determined and recorded. The moist sample and the tare are placed in the oven at
approximately 110° C and dried for a minimum time of 12 to 16 hours or until the mass
remains constant. The sample and container are then removed from the oven and allowed
to cool to room temperature so as to not affect the mass reading due to convection
currents.
The water content can now be calculated using all of the recorded data using the formula
as follows:

Mw
w = [Mcws – Mcs)/(Mcs – Mc)] x 100 = x 100 (Eq. 1)
Ms
where:
w = water content, %,
Mcws = mass of container and wet specimen, g,
Mcs = mass of container and oven dry specimen, g,
Mc = mass of container, g,
Mw = mass of water, g, and
Ms = Mass of solid particles, g.
All of the preceding data is reported by including everything in a data sheet. In the data
sheet, the sample is identified by including the boring number, sample number, test
number, container number, etc in the header and tables. For this project, water contents
were calculated the nearest 0.1%

Atterberg Limits

While initially developed for use in ceramics, this seemingly arbitrary test has
come to be very useful in geotechnical engineering uses. The Atterberg limits consist of
the liquid limit and the plastic limit. These two limits can then be used to determine the
plasticity index, which in turn gives us the ability to classify the soil sample’s behavior
type. Because the test results of this test can somewhat vary depending on the experience
of the operator, it is appropriate and important to adhere to the ASTM Designation D
4318.

The liquid limit apparatus is consisted of a hard rubber base, rubber feet, a brass cup, a
mechanical cam, and a flat grooving tool. The hard rubber base is located beneath the
brass cup and the cup is dropped from a height of 10 mm onto it. This rubber should
have a D Durometer hardness of approximately 80 to 90. The rubber feet attached to the
underside of the hard rubber base provide support and isolation of the base from the work
surface. The brass cup of the liquid limit apparatus carries the grooved specimen and
should weigh approximately 185 to 215 grams including the hanger but not the specimen.
The rotating cam connected to the crank of the device and the cup hanger provides a
smooth ascension and drop for the specimen. Finally, the flat grooving tool imprints a
groove in the specimen and has the dimensions as specified by the ASTM.

When sampling, extra care needs to be taken as to not mix stratum. In this project, the
Shelby tube was mostly silt throughout, but it did have many very think layers that could
not have been extracted from the sample and tested. Also, any gravel pieces or course
sand particles should be removed prior to testing. This is because these larger particles
may influence the test and are not accurately measured with the testing apparatus. Any
tested specimen should have never dried below its natural moisture content and should be
prepared at least 16 hours before testing to a blow count of 25 to 35.

In obtaining the first of the two Atterberg limits, the liquid limit, Method A in the ASTM
was performed. In this method, multiple blow counts are obtained and the moisture
contents corresponding to those blow counts are recorded. In this experiment, two blow
counts were taken between 12 and 25, and two more blow counts were taken between 25
and 40. Using linear regression analysis, the best-fitted line to these points was taken and
valued at a blow count of 25. The moisture content at this blow count is considered the
liquid limit of the specimen. In order to obtain these blow counts, a soil pat was placed
into the brass cup of the liquid limit device and dropped from a height of 10 mm and the
drop that closes the groove, made by the flat grooving tool. The blow that closes the
groove at least 13 mm is the recorded blow count and moisture content. If it is necessary
to add water to the specimen to manipulate the blow count, only distilled water is to be
used.
The second Atterberg limit, the plastic limit, the only required test equipment is consisted
of a ground glass plate, a spatula, and a wash bottle containing distilled water. In this
procedure, a specimen weighing approximately 5 g is rolled on to the glass plate between
the palm and fingers with sufficient pressure to force the ball into a cylindrical shape.
The rolled thread should be rolled to a diameter of 3.2 mm. After this is performed, the
piece(s) are combined together into a ball once again and the procedure is repeated until
the specimen crumbles at 3.2 mm. The water content of the specimen at this occurrence
is considered the plastic limit.

The plasticity index is then calculated from the liquid limit and the plastic limit. The
calculation is as follows:

PI = LL – PL (Eq. 2)
where:
LL = liquid limit, and
PL = plastic limit.

Both the plastic limit and liquid limit are to be taken as whole numbers, and if either the
liquid limit or plastic limit could not determined by the test procedure, then the soil is to
be considered nonplastic, denoted NP.

Hydrometer Analysis

This project also used hydrometer analysis to further correlate the soil mechanics
properties to the cone penetration test. This method applies Stokes’ law of free falling
spherical particles in a continuous viscous fluid. Because the hydrometer procedure is
only useful for distinguishing the percentage of silts and clays, sieve analysis is also
necessary in this project, especially because there are some relatively large percentages of
fine and medium sands in the Shelby tube tested. The purpose of this test is to determine
the percentage of soil passing a particular particle diameter.
For the preparation of the sample to be tested, a dispersing agent, sodium
hexametaphosphate (NaPO3)6,was applied to the sample at a concentration of 125 g per
liter of distilled water and was allowed to soak overnight. The purpose of the dispersing
agent and the soaking is to force the clay particles apart by neutralizing the Van der Waal
forces that keep them grouped together. If the dispersing agent is not applied, the
grouped clay particles will be considered one large particle in this experiment.

After the dispersing agent is allowed to soak overnight into a thick slurry , the sample is
then poured into a dispersing cup along with 125 mL of distilled water and is mixed
vigorously for about 1 to 2 minutes. The slurry sample is then poured into a cylinder that
is filled water until it reaches 1 liter. The temperature of the water in the cylinder should
be allowed to cool or reach the room temperature that will be prevalent throughout the
experiment since the hydrometer readings can be affected by temperature.
The cylinder should then be turned upside down, then upright repeatedly for about 1
minute or until the soil sample inside is distributed evenly throughout the volume of the
cylinder. The cylinder should then be placed right side up on a hard surface while
simultaneously starting time at 0. Readings are then taken from an ASTM hydrometer at
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc. until readings are obtained for at least 48 hours. Any
error in temperature and in the meniscus of the slurry can be corrected by having a
separate cylinder containing only distilled water and the dispersing agent in the same
proportions as the cylinder with the soil sample. After every reading taken from the
hydrometer, a second reading should be taken from the control solution. The difference
between these two readings is the corrected hydrometer reading.

Once all hydrometer readings are taken, the soil solution is passed through a No. 200
sieve. All particles not passing the No. 200 sieve are considered to be sand based on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The sample not passing the No. 200 sieve is
then passed through a No. 40 sieve. The sample passing the No. 40 sieve is considered to
be fine sand particles and the particles not passing are medium sand particles. The
separated soil samples are collected into different tares and oven dried. The dry masses
are then taken and the total mass of the sample is recorded.

To calculate what percentage of soil passes a particular particle diameter, the percentage
of soil remaining in the solution at each time interval needs to be calculated. This
percentage of soil remaining in suspension at which the hydrometer is measuring the
density of the suspension can be calculated by the following equation:

P = (Ra/W)
100 (Eq. 3)

where:
a = correction factor to be applied to the reading of hydrometer 152H. (Values shown
on the scale are computed using a specific gravity of 2.65.
P = percentage of soil remaining in suspension at the time at which the hydrometer
measures the density of the suspension.
R = hydrometer reading with composite correction applied
W = oven-dry mass of soil in a total test sample

Next, in order to obtain the diameter of the particles corresponding to the percentage
indicated by a given hydrometer reading, we apply Stokes’ law assuming that a particle
of this diameter was at the surface of the suspension at t = 0 and had settled at the level at
which the hydrometer is measuring the density. According the Stokes’ law:

D = [30n /980(G
G1)]  L /T (Eq. 4)

where:
D = diameter of particle, mm
n= coefficient of viscosity of the suspension medium (in this case water) in poises
(varies with changes in temperature of the suspending medium),
L= distance form the surface of the suspension to the level at which the density of the
suspension is being measured, cm
T= interval of time from beginning of sedimentation to the taking of the reading, min
G= specific gravity of soil particles (taken to be 2.65), and
G1 = specific gravity (relative density) of suspending medium (value may be used as
1.000 for all practical purposes)

The above calculation can be simplified for convenience in the form as follows:

D = K L /T (Eq. 5)
where:
K= constant depending on the temperature of the suspension and the specific gravity
of the soil particles.

The above calculation can be graphed on a plot with

particle diameter versus percent passing with the
respective units in mm and %. In order to determine
the percent passing the particle diameter at which the
USCS considers clay particles, the value at 0.002 mm
is evaluated. This value is the percentage of total soil
sample passing that is considered clay.

The percentage of the total soil sample that is

considered by the USCS to be medium-grained and
fine-grained sand can be computed more directly.
After oven-drying the samples, the masses of the
sample retained by the No. 200 and No. 40 sieves
separately. The percentage passing each can be
calculated by the following equations:

PS = M<200/MS - PC (Eq. 6)
PFS = M<40/MS (Eq. 7)
PMS = M>200/MS – PFS (Eq. 8)
where:
PS =percentage of soil sample considered to be silt
by USCS,
PFS = percentage of soil sample considered to be
fine sand by USCS,
PMS = percentage of soil sample considered to be
medium sand by USCS,
PC = percentage of soil sample considered to be
clay by USCS,
M<200 = mass of soil sample having a particle
diameter less than a No. 200 sieve, g,
M>200 = mass of soil sample having a particle
diameter greater than a No. 200 sieve, g,
M<40 = mass of soil sample having a particle
diameter less than a No. 40 sieve, g, and Figure 6: Plot of CPT data
MS = mass of total soil sample, g, provided with transition at
~22.9 ft
 In reporting all of these parameters in a data sheet, all
background of the soil should be included such as the boring
number, sample number, sample depth, dispersing agent
(either sodium hexametaphosphate or sodium
metaphosphate), date of testing, a soil description, and
hydrometer number. An example of a data sheet is included
in Appendix 1.

IV. Results

The first of all the test methods, the cone penetration test
results, had a fair amount of variability in it. When
classifying the soil based on normalized CPT data, the tube
sample varies in the top three-quarters of the tube changing
from “silty clay to clay” to “ clayey silt to silty clay.” Just by
looking at the CPT lo provided by ENGEO, it visually looks
like there is much more changes in soil behavior type, but
when classifying the soil based in the normalized Robertson
chart, that portion of the tube is still fairly consistent. The
bottom quarter of the tube; however, is classified as “sandy
silt to clayey silt” and “silty sand to sandy silt.” While still
not a major definitive change in strata, this is where the most
dramatic change in CPT data occurs for this tube sample.
This change occurs where readings were at taken at 22.80 ft
and 22.97 ft. The corresponding Qt values were 12.01 and
36.59, respectively. This can be seen in Figure 6. All CPT
data provided for this study can be found in Appendix 2. This
change in CPT data would dictate the location in the soil
mechanics investigation of the Shelby tube.

In the visual-manual procedure portion of the testing of the

Shelby tube, it seems as though the soil visually seemed to be
sandier than the CPT revealed. There is definitely some
agreement between the CPT and the visual description in the
cases where clay is identified. In spite of this, because the
soil was being analyzed visually at a higher resolution that the
CPT took readings, understandably, there are sandy silt areas
where clay is identified and vise-versa in clayey silt areas
where sand is identified. Examples of these cases arises at
Figure 7: Grain Size approximately 23.27 ft and 22.5 ft, respectively.
distribution results
When observing the trends in the water content results taken
from every 1/3 inch of the tube, the first thing that can be seen is the range of water
contents; these water contents range from about 20% to the middle 40% scope. In
analyzing the water contents and comparing the results to the CPT data in Appendix 3, in
the area of interest — approximately 22.9 ft, the water contents take a noteworthy drop in
water content. Again, at this point the CPT reads the soil to transition from a clayey silt
to a sandy silt, so this may be caused by a change in dilatancy in the soil. The sandier
soil is not capable of retaining as much water as its clayey counterpart. So it can be
assumed that there is agreement in the CPT results and the laboratory tested water
contents.

The hydrometer test results were much less dramatic than expected by only looking at the
CPT test results. In total, 11 hydrometer labs were conducted, and they all determined
that the tube was silt in majority. In agreement with both the CPT and the visual
description of the sample, there was a large increase in the percentage of sample
containing sand at approximately 22.9 ft. Not enough sample was available for testing
the entire zone of influence (10 cone diameters above and below CPT reading) of the
transition point of the CPT log. The grain size distribution can be seen in Figure 7.

The most interesting correlation to be examined in this project is that of the Atterberg
limits to the CPT. Atterberg test results classified the bottom 1/3 portion of the tube as
nonplastic. The range of nonplastic behavior according to the Atterberg limit tests
performed in the laboratory, is slightly above the transition point in the CPT data. This
can be caused by a number of things. One possibility is the zone of influence of the CPT
as discussed earlier. If the soil progressively gets sandier below the Shelby tube, then we
can expect an overestimation of sand behavior type at the recorded transition point.
Another possibility is that the CPT results and Shelby tube depth are slightly skewed. In
this case, if the CPT data were to be shifted up slightly, then the tests would tend to agree
more. For the latter, it would behoove the party anxious for a conclusion to perform a
shift in the data; however, this can be an incorrect assumption and skewing data to match
desired results is not in scientific interest.

V. Discussion and Conclusions

In this project, multiple soil mechanics parameters were tested and compared to
the most common in situ test method used today for subsurface investigation, the cone
penetration test. Although there were very few inconsistencies between the CPT data and
the laboratory test results, all tests, being the cone penetration test, visual-manual
description, hydrometer analysis, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, and water content
seemed to be in overall agreement. The transition in CPT data that occurs at
approximately 22.9 ft was also near any transition in data in all laboratory tests.

Future Study

As previously discussed, the remodeling of the “Chinese criteria,” which is most

commonly used today, liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils first introduced by
Wang has been underway in the recent years. As part of current research being
conducted at he University of California at Davis, the soils of Potrero Canyon have been
chosen as a practical candidate for this research, mainly because of the soft and silty
geology of the area. The soils tested in this project did fill most of the criteria specified
by Seed based on data obtained from subsurface investigation after the Adapazari
earthquake in Turkey presented by Bray. In the criteria, the zone on the Atterberg
plasticity chart in Figure 8, labeled as potentially liquefiable, is noted that the water
content of the soil must be greater than 0.8 times the liquid limit; in this project all of the
soil tested from boring SCPT 2a Tube 7 met that criteria. The chart also specifies that the
criteria established is only applicable for soils with a fines content of less than or equal to
20% or 35% depending on the soil’s plasticity index. The clay content of these soils was
consistently about 10%;
however, the “fines” content,
that is including clay and silt
content, averaged for the
entire tube sample is about
80%.

While the fines content of the

soils tested in this study are
well over the criteria
established by Seed, the data
from this NEES project can
still be used in order to further
investigate the correlation of
Figure 8: Plasticity chart with zones recommended by percent silt in a soil to its
Seed et al. with Atterberg results plotted susceptibility to liquefy or
experience cyclic failure under
cyclic loading. In Figure 8, points from laboratory tests from this project have been
plotted to illustrate how practical these soils pertain to its future study. The data provided
by this NEES project can also be used to distinguish, if it is susceptible to liquefaction,
whether the soil liquefies (that is it behaves like a sand under cyclic loading) or if it
experiences cyclic failure (meaning that the soil behaves like a fine-grained soil under
cyclic loading).

Acknowledgments

The opportunity for this project would not be possible without the National
Science Foundation and the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES). Faculty advisor, Dr. Jason T. DeJong, Associate Professor at the
University of California at Davis and Ph.D. mentor, Karina Dahl, provided direct
supervision and guidance. Dr. Ross W. Boulanger provided additional assistance. Chad
Justice and graduate students Brian Martinez and Brina Mortensen gave technical
assistance throughout the project.

Works Cited

ASTM, (1979). Designation: D 3441, American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard
method for deep quasi-static cone and friction-cone penetration tests of soil.
ASTM, (2000). Designation D 2488, American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard
practice for description and identification of soils.
ASTM, (2000). Designation D 5778, American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard test
method for performing electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils.
ASTM, (2002). Designation D 1557, American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard test
methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort.
ASTM, (2005), Designation D 2216, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and
rock by mass.
ASTM, (2005), Designation D 4318, American Society for testing and Materials, Standard test
methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils.
Andrews, D.C.A., & Martin, G.R. (2000). Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. Proceedings
from the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand,
NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 0312.
Boulanger, R.W., & Idriss, I.M. (2004). Evaluating the potential for Liquefaction or cyclic
failure of silts and clays. Center for Geotchnical Modeling, University of California at
Davis. Davis, California. Report No. UCD/CGM-04/01.
Bray, J.D., & Sancio, R.B. (2006). Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 132 Issue 9,
pp. 1165-1177.
Guo, T., & Prakash, S. (1999). Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay mixtures. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 125 Issue 8, pp. 706-710 .
Hall, J.F., ed., 1994, Northridge earthquake January 17, 1994: Preliminary reconnaissance report:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, v. 94-01, 96 p.
Leighton and Associates. (2007). Report of observation and testing test fill pad Potrero Canyon,
County of Los Angeles, California
Robertson, P.K. (1989). Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada, T6G 2G7
Robertson, P.K. (2006). Guide to in situ testing, Gregg Drilling and testing Incorporated. Signal
Hill, California.
Rowe, R.K. (Eds.). (2001). Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Handbook. Boston
– Dodrecht – London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Rymer, M.J., Treiman, J.A., Powers, T.J., Fumal, T.E., Schwartz, D.P., Hamiltion, J.C., Cinti,
F.R. (2001). Surface fractures formed in the Potrero Canyon, Tapo Canyon, and McBean
Parkway areas in association with the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake. United
States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, Menlo Park,
California.
Seed, H.B., & Idriss, I.M. (1982). Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Wang, W. (1979). Some findings in soil liquefaction. Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric
Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China.
Winterer, E.L., & Durham, D.L. (1962). Geology of southeastern Ventura basin, Los Angeles
County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 334, pp. 275-366.
 APPENDIX 1

Example of a hydrometer data sheet with proper headings

 University of California Davis
Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory
Hydrometer Test

Project: Potrero Canyon Date: 7/30/2007

Boring No.: SCPT 2a Tested By: RMF
Sample No.: H-11 S-23 Soil Description: SANDY SILT (ML)
Sample Depth: 21.69 ft. (6.61 m)
Specific Gravity: Hydrometer Number: 529488
Dispersing Agent: (NaPO3)6 Meniscus Correction:

Table 1: Sieve Analysis

Wt. Dry Soil + Wt. Dry Soil
Tare # Tare (g) Wt. Tare (g) (g)

Wt. Dry Soil >

#200 Sieve (g) C3 204.26 198.45 5.81
Wt. Dry Soil <
#200 Sieve (g) B 294.42 252.27 42.15
Total Wt. Dry
Soil (g) 47.96
Wt, Dry Soil <
#40 Sieve (g) P1 210.32 204.79 5.53

Table 2: Experimental Results

Soil Reference Corrected
Hydrometer Liquid Hydrometer
Time (min) Reading Reading Reading, R
1 36 4 32
2 32 4 28
4 28 4 24
8 24 4 20
16 20 3.5 16.5
32 18 2 16
64 16 2 14
96 14 2.5 11.5
128 12.5 2 10.5
256 12 2 10
610 9 3.5 5.5
1440 8 3.5 4.5

Table 3: Experimental Calculations

Particle
Effective Diameter, D Percent
Time (min) Depth, L (cm) (mm) Passing, P
1 10.4 0.04160125 66.7222686
2 11.1 0.03039038 58.381985
4 11.7 0.02206239 50.0417014
8 12.4 0.01606037 41.7014178
16 13 0.0116279 34.4036697
32 13.3 0.0083165 33.3611343
64 13.7 0.00596843 29.1909925
96 14 0.00492627 23.9783153
128 14.25 0.0043042 21.8932444
256 14.3 0.00304886 20.8507089
610 14.8 0.00200935 11.4678899
1440 15 0.0013166 9.38281902
*K value taken to be 2.65

Table 4: Grain Size Classification

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% Cobbles
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.6% 11.5% 76.4% 11.5%
 40

35

30
Hydrometer Reading

25 Hydrometer Reading

Reference Liquid
20
Reading
Log. (Hydrometer
Reading)
Log. (Reference
15
Liquid Reading)

10

0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)

Figure 1: Plot of hydrometer readings

80

70
Percent passing, P (%)

60

50

40

30
0.075 0.002
0.075 0.002
20
0.075 0.002
0.075
10
0.002
0.075 0.002
0.075
0 0.002
0.075 0.002
0.001 0.01 0.1
0.075 0.002
0.075 0.002 Particle Diameter, D (mm)
0.075 0.002
P values USCS Clay Particel Diameter USCS Silt Particle Diameter

Figure 2: Grain Size Distribution

 APPENDIX 2

CPT data and boring log provided by ENGEO Inc.

 LOG OF BORING SCPT-2a
Newhall Land DATE DRILLED: 4/16/2007 CPT PUSHED: 4/5/2007 LOGGED / REVIEWED BY: P. Lam / PJS
Potrero Canyon HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 70¼ ft. CPT CONTRACTOR: Holguin, Fahan & AssociatesDRILLING CONTRACTOR: WDC Exploration
Los Angeles County, CA HOLE DIAMETER: 2.0 in. CPT DEPTH: 64 ft. DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
6538.1.001.01 SURF ELEV (FT): 1017 ft. WATER LEVEL: 7 ft. HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Auto Trip

Atterberg Limits

Remolded (Points)
Field Vane Shear

Unconfined Strength
(% passing #200 sieve)
Cone Velocity

Blow Count/Foot or
60% Hammer
Soil Behavior Type

Friction Ratio
(Robertson, 1990)

Moisture Content

(tsf) *field approx

Sample Number

Peak (Lines)

Additional Tests
Dry Unit Weight
Fs/Qt (%)

Plasticity Index

(% dry weight)
Depth in Meters
Depth in Feet
DESCRIPTION

SPT N1

Sample Type
(feet/s)

Fines Content
Water Level

Plastic Limit
KIPS/ft2
Normalized

Liquid Limit
(TSF)
Qc1n
Ic

PSI#

(pcf)
1 2 3 4 50 100 150 2 4 6 8 10 20 30 500 1000 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

SILT (CL/ML), pale brown, dry, fine- to coarse-grained sand on

shaker table
1 1 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark brown, driller reports soft push

2 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark brown, fine-grained sand at bottom of

2 32 18 14 79 0.0 / 2.5 / 18.3 /
sampler, hole in bottom of sample that drained water
32 16 16 68 60.7 / 18.5
30 20 10 73 (Co/M/F/S/Cl)
1.8 / 7.0 / 19.3 /
50.2 / 17.7
10 3 3 (Co/M/F/S/Cl)
SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark brown, coarse-grained sand in shaker 1.0 / 7.4 / 17.8 /
table 63.1 / 10.2
(Co/M/F/S/Cl)

4 4 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark brown, with fine- to medium-grained 33 17 16 80 0.1 / 2.0 / 17.8 /
sand, stiffer pushing than previous, recovery in the middle of the 24 16 8 70 61.3 / 18.8
run 34 17 17 89 (Co/M/F/S/Cl)
15 0.0 / 0.3 / 30.0 /
57.3 / 12.4
5 SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, trace gravel, may be compressed, (Co/M/F/S/Cl)
5 sampler continued to advance on own weight after pushing 0.0 / 2.2 / 8.8 /
72.4 / 16.6
(Co/M/F/S/Cl)
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL 11X17 6538100101-POTRERO SUBSURFACE DATA.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 6/7/07

6
20
6 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark yellowish brown

7
SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, with fine-grained sand, driller
7 reports increased push resistance

8 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark yellowish brown

25

8
9 SILTY CLAY,CL/ML,DARK,YELLOWISH,BROWN (CL/ML), dark
yellowish brown, last 2" fell out, very soft, driller instructed to
inspect check valve
9
30
10 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark yellowish brown, very soft, with 45 17 28 86 1.1 / 1.9 / 10.5 /
fine-grained sand 58.5 / 27.6
(Co/M/F/S/Cl)
10
11 SILTY CLAY (CL/ML), dark yellowish brown

35
11
SILTY SAND (SM), dark yellowish brown, refusal during push,
12 sample allowed to drain

12 Subrounded gravel up to 1 cm-diameter in shaker table

40

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR

 APPENDIX 3

Extrapolated CPT data and boring log for SCPT 2a – Tube 7

 Date Drilled: 4/16/2007 CPT Pushed: 4/5/2007

Hole Depth: Approx. 70.25 ft Water Level: 7 ft.

Log of Boring SCPT 2a Tube 7 Hole Diameter: 2.0 in. Drilling Method: Mud Rotary

Surf Elevation (ft): 1017 ft. Hammer Type: 140 lb. Auto Trip

Logged/Reviewed by: P. Lam/PJS Lab Tests Performed by: R. M. Fernandez

Content, (%)
Depth (feet)

Distribution
Grain Size

Limits (%)
Atterberg
Fs/Qt (%)
Behavior

Hammer
Qt (TSF)

Friction
Fs (TSF)

SPT N*

Water
Description

Ratio
Type

60%
Soil

0 10 20 30 40 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15 0% 100% LL PL PI 0 20 40 60

21.1
21.2
21.3 SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, lower moisture with rust modeling,
top disturbed
21.4
21.5
21.6
SANDY SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown with lighter stripe through sample,
21.7 38.9 23.9 15.0
dark “smearing throughout
21.8
21.9 SANDY SILT, dark yellowish brown, seemingly more wet 29.3 19.3 10.4

22.0
32.0 22.6 9.4
22.1
22.2 Darker SILT with CLAY (CL-ML)T 35.5 23.6 12.0
22.3
22.4 CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML), dark yellowish brown 41.2 22.6 18.6
22.5 SANDY SILT (ML), dark yellowish brown, large black organic chunk present
30.1 22.8 7.3
22.6
CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML), dark yellowish brown
22.7
CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) and SANDY SILT, dark yellowish brown with sandier areas 39.7 23.5 16.2
22.8
noticeably darker than clayey material NP 20.8 NP
22.9
23.0 SANDY SILT (ML), traces of organics
NP 23.2 NP
23.1
SANDY SILT with CLAYEY SILT regions, small rocks present ~1/16”
23.2
NP 24.2 NP
23.3 CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML), dark yellowish brown
23.4
SANDY SILT (ML) with CLAYEY SILT(CL-ML), dark yellowish brown, NP 20.7 NP
23.5 large void ~0.75 inches in diameter, small clcium deposits present
1 silty clay to clay 3 sandy silt to clayey silt Silt/Clay Boundary
2 clayey silt to silty clay 4 silty sand to sandy silt Fine Sand/Silt Boudary
Med Sand/Fine Sand Boundary