Civ4249 1. Site Investigation and Exploration: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University Edition 8/02

Unit CIV4249: Foundation Engineering 1.
1
Topic 1: Site Investigation and Exploration
CIV4249 1. SITE INVESTIGATION AND

EXPLORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL.................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Objectives............................................................................................ 2
1.2. Reasons for investigating Subsurface ................................................. 2
1.3. Sources of Information......................................................................... 3
2. SITE EXPLORATION OBJECTIVES........................................................... 4
3. SITE EXPLORATION MAGNITUDE AND EMPHASIS ............................... 5

3.1. General................................................................................................ 5
3.2. Variables.............................................................................................. 5
3.3. Phases of Exploration.......................................................................... 6
3.4. Economics ........................................................................................... 6
4. SITE EXPLORATION METHODS ............................................................... 7
4.1. Geological Investigations ..................................................................... 7
4.1.1. Surface studies..........................................................................................7
4.1.2. Seismic Surveys refraction (land) or reflection (marine).........................8
4.1.3. Resistivity Surveys ....................................................................................8
4.2. Trial Pits............................................................................................... 8
4.3. Boreholes ............................................................................................ 9
4.3.1. Auger holes ...............................................................................................9
4.3.2. Percussion Borings .................................................................................10
4.3.3. Rotary Wash Boring ................................................................................10
4.3.4. Rotary Core Drilling (also diamond drilling) ............................................11
4.3.5. Borehole Support ....................................................................................11
4.3.6. Borehole Logging ....................................................................................12
4.4. Insitu Testing ..................................................................................... 13
4.4.1. Standard Penetration Test ......................................................................13
4.4.2. Static Cone Penetration Tests ................................................................18
4.4.3. Pressuremeter Tests ...............................................................................24
4.4.4. Dilatometer Tests ....................................................................................30
4.4.5. Vane Tests ..............................................................................................30
4.4.6. Field Permeability Tests ..........................................................................31
4.4.7. Applicability of Test Methods...................................................................31
4.5. Sampling............................................................................................ 32
4.5.1. "Disturbed" Sample .................................................................................32
4.5.2. "Undisturbed" Samples ...........................................................................32
5. SITE EXPLORATION PLANNING............................................................. 33
6. SITE INVESTIGATION REPORTS ............................................................ 34

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University
Edition 8/02
Unit CIV4249: Foundation Engineering 1.2
7. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................... 34
8. REFERENCES........................................................................................... 36
1. GENERAL
1.1. Objectives
The practice of site investigations is undoubtedly one of the most critical aspects of
the soil engineer's work. The broad objective of site investigation is to accumulate
all data for the site in question so that the proposal being considered may be
satisfactorily carried out. It follows that the site in question must be examined
thoroughly so that consequent analyses and design procedures are appropriate to
and representative of the proposal being considered. The type of information
required will depend on the proposal as indicated below.
(a) Investigations for new works: access rights of way other rights and
covenants location of services presence of mine workings likely effect of
works on adjoining properties soil conditions records of performance of
adjacent structures topographic hydrologic and climatologic data (dams)
environmental considerations such as land use population etc.
(b) Investigations of failures (and possibly remedial design measures):

observation of mode of failure past or continuing movements specialized
investigations such as soil conditions or structural data etc. depending on
nature of failure. This group could also include investigations of pollution
problems.
(c) Reports on existing works (perhaps on likely adverse effects from new works
or the possibility of enlargement or modifications): all available records
concerning design and performance of original structure observation of
movements and/or movement records soil conditions relevant to the problem.
(d) Investigation of availability of materials (for fills road bases concrete

aggregate dam core filters or fill etc.): largely reconnaissance and geological
data drilling to estimate extent of deposits and possible laboratory tests to
assess properties and/or suitability for treatment [e.g. lime stabilization etc.].
1.2. Reasons for investigating Subsurface

(a) To establish site suitability;
(b) To enable effective efficient and economic design and construction;
(c) To anticipate immediate and/or future problems and apply appropriate
measures;
(d) To give confidence in the design assumptions;

Edition 8/02
(e) To give insurance against legal actions.
1.3. Sources of Information

(a) Experience general knowledge of locality. (Basis for scientific investigation
may give warning that otherwise might be overlooked etc.).
(b) Existing records e.g. geological survey maps and memoirs; ordinance
survey; municipal and public authority plans; meteorological records borehole
records from adjacent significant areas; aerial photographs.
(c) Personal onsite investigations: inspection of adjoining areas collection of

hand specimens to correlate with geological maps topographical features
especially instability drainage fault evidence vegetation. Talking with locals
especially land owners farmers local builders etc. Terzaghi maintained that
the absolute minimum site investigation was "to sit and stare" - no doubt he
thought as well.
(d) Site Exploration (with field and laboratory testing). This is the investigation of
the subsurface conditions and forms the main part of this course.
Unfortunately its practice is still very much neglected particularly on small
structural projects. Often a site investigation is not ever undertaken. In these
instances problems only become apparent on construction with the result that
delays for remedial measures and/or redesign operations increase costs
quickly often overtaking by considerable amounts the capital which would
have been required for site exploration. In other instances the site
exploration may have been of poor quality with the result that soil
stratification and parameters are not representative of the subsurface
conditions. This situation can lead to two extremes:
• Gross overestimation of suitability of the subsurface soils resulting in

excessive settlements bearing capacity failure in extreme cases, ground
water problems, pile lengths etc. etc. One very serious aspect of this
extreme can occur if the depth of exploration does not extend to a depth
which is significantly stressed by the proposed construction e.g. settlement
of pile groups.
• Gross underestimation of suitability of the subsurface soils resulting in very
conservative hence costly foundation design.
It follows from the above that some form of site investigation is desirable for almost
every form of development. The scope and extent of the exploration will depend
on many variables, but its absolute exclusion can prove to be a very false
economy.
More important it is not just sufficient to undertake any old site exploration as this
can lead to further excessive expenditure whether of the form of remedial
measures for overestimation of site suitability or costly foundations for
underestimation of site suitability. The site exploration should be carefully planned

Edition 8/02
undertaken and supervised in relation to the proposed developments and the

subsurface conditions encountered.
Scott in a review to the 1966 Sydney Symposium on Site Investigation said:
"Every structure that is built because of Newton's Third Law transfers the
dynamic and static reactions it creates into the earth's crust by some path or
other and this makes the foundation a working part of every design which the
engineer should review just as critically as any other part. Now engineers by
training always require a very precise examination of any material they utilise
in a structure. A sample of steel or concrete is tested at all stages of its
processing and the complete history is fully recorded before its use is condoned
as a stress-carrying part of a structure. If an inspector brought a sample of
material and reported it was untold millions of years old; the original
composition was unknown; it had been stressed and strained, sheared and failed
many times in its life under conditions of immense stress and heat; it could never
be statistically representative of the whole; it was nonhomogeneous; it was
intersected in all directions by imperfections; its properties were continually
changing with time; and it was subject to a residual stress field of unknown
value; then most engineers would instantly reject the material. This description
and worse applies to many foundations which are accepted with the most
cursory examination."
2. SITE EXPLORATION OBJECTIVES

The precise objectives of the site exploration will be determined by the nature and
scope of the soil engineers' brief. It should be noted however that any unusual
conditions encountered and not necessarily in the brief should also be reported if
considered relevant.
In general the objectives would be as follows:
• To determine the nature thickness dip and variability of strata to be

affected by the proposed development;
• To determine the physical properties of the strata relevant to design;
• To determine the ground water level (or levels) variation and chemical
composition;
• To obtain the above data in the most economic and technically accurate
way. This requires flexibility in planning and good knowledge of all
available techniques.

Edition 8/02
3. SITE EXPLORATION MAGNITUDE AND EMPHASIS

3.1. General
The aim must always be to provide adequate reliable information. If compromise
is necessary (inadequate funds) obtain reliable information at the expense of
adequacy. Some site exploration is essential in all civil engineering and building
works. The extent depends on information available, relevant variables,
consequences of failure, complexity of foundation, magnitude of loads, geology of
site and ease of interpretation, overall job economics etc.
3.2. Variables
Apart from economics, the major considerations governing the magnitude and
emphasis of the exploration are the types of soil profile and the type of
development.
(a) Two soil profile extremes are possible (and of course everything between).
Profile Very variable mixed soil Very uniform soil
Exploration Much field investigation Little field investigation
Characteristics Simple laboratory tests Considerable lab testing
Little undisturbed testing
(b) Two development extremes are possible:
Development Large areal extent Limited areal extent
Exploration Diffuse Concentrated
Characteristics May be shallow Usually deep
The proportions of disturbed to undisturbed sampling and of field to laboratory

testing will depend on the job and the types of soils encountered.

Edition 8/02
3.3. Phases of Exploration

Particularly with a major development on a limited area it is sometimes advisable
to carry out the exploratory operations in three phases.
(1) Preliminary Explorations to asses the general suitability of the site for the
given development or to select the most suitable site from alternatives. This
phase and its results will enable a preliminary assessment of soil and ground
water characteristics so that subsequent phases of exploration can be
planned - location of boreholes, depth, likely size of boreholes, testing
techniques and equipment necessary. In areas which are well documented
this phase of exploration is not always necessary. For example, see
attached table for the types of foundations commonly used in certain areas of
Melbourne.
(2) General Exploration to select areas of a given site with the most suitable
ground conditions or simply to investigate the ground conditions of a fixed
location.. To obtain the required samples and conduct the appropriate
testing. Usually this phase is sufficient for general construction.
(3) Detailed Explorations generally for use in major, heavy or unusual

developments. Special techniques of testing and explorations may be used
to examine specific soil behaviour when conditions require it. This may
include plate bearing tests, specialised sampling and testing techniques,
large diameter samples, trial embankments etc. etc. Usually this phase can
be quite an expensive operation and is therefore only really applicable to
multimillion dollar projects or projects in which the consequences of failure
could be serious.
3.4. Economics
Frequently a limiting factor on magnitude. However an adequate site investigation
will generally cost between 0.25 and 1% of the gross project cost under average
conditions. The percentage generally goes down as the total project cost up and
can get as low as 0.1% Bridges, wharves and similar structures require relatively
larger investigations than multistorey buildings. In many cases of domestic
constructions a personal inspection of the site, hand augering to a small depth or
even inspection of the deeper stump holes, field identification and classification of
the soil types and soil profile would be sufficient. The lack of detailed information
is compensated by a liberal factor of safety. On large jobs, the cost of thorough
and elaborate investigations is usually small compared with the savings realized
by effective use of the data in both design and construction (e.g. tender process
for below ground work will often be drastically reduced if contractor is confident of
subsurface conditions).

Edition 8/02
4. SITE EXPLORATION METHODS

Exposure of relevant strata for inspection sampling or testing may be by trial pits or
shafts, boreholes or adits. On the other hand, geological methods of investigation
may provide considerable data without even disturbing the ground surface. It is
recommended that some form of boring is undertaken for correlation of results,
and positive identification. The choice of methods will depend on:
• type of information and detail required;

• availability of equipment;
• cost;
• utilization of existing openings or exposures;
• possibility of future utilization of any exploratory exposures e.g. holes for
ventilation shafts or service ducts;
• access to site and working space;
• anticipated ground conditions;
• weather;
• time;
• human factors.
4.1. Geological Investigations

4.1.1. Surface studies
(a) Geological Maps (e.g. Australian Geological Survey) should always be the
first source of information. These give a preliminary indication of what to look
for and what to expect; geological succession and general description;
contact zones; faults dips and strikes.
(b) Field Traverse. On major projects, geologists will be available. The engineer
must understand enough to request a geologist when necessary and to
appreciate the results. On small jobs he must be his own geologist.
(c) Aerial Photography. Photogeology is a rapidly expanding expert field. A

great deal of information can be obtained from such photographs particularly
from stereo pairs e.g. faults and other major zones of weakness, areas of
intense folding and faulting, stream alluvium, alluvial fans and plains, glacial
deposits, sand dunes, major rock outcrops, areas of fill etc. Infrared
photography can also give useful information on areas where water is
present.

Edition 8/02
4.1.2. Seismic Surveys refraction (land) or reflection (marine).
Seismic survey methods are based on placing a string of geophones along the
ground surface, and measuring the time taken for an sonic event (such as a
sledge hammer hitting a metal plate, or a small explosive charge) to be recorded
at each of the geophones. The sonic wave first reaching a geophone may have
travelled through the ground directly below the surface, or may have travelled to a
deeper more competent layer with higher sonic wavespeed and been refracted up
to the geophone. Knowing the distance between each geophone and the event
allows geologists to predict a model of the subsurface profile based on sonic
velocities. Some features of the method are:
• The most accurate and sophisticated of geophysical techniques;

• Somewhat expensive, but valuable as a first brush method of investigation
to establish the main subsurface features;
• Good for areas where vehicle access is difficult.
• Permits location of bedrock and major stratigraphic layering, faults, dip of
strata etc.;
• Can establish the (small strain) elastic modulus;
• Drillholes are essential for calibration, but may be located on the basis of
the inferred seismic results;
• With complex (or even just slightly complex) stratification, interpretation
can be inaccurate;
• A good supplement to conventional exploration techniques, but never
likely to replace these techniques;
4.1.3. Resistivity Surveys
Cheaper than seismic survey but less accurate. For location of bedrock or faults
and determination of groundwater salinity. Generally better for qualitative rather
than quantitative information.
4.2. Trial Pits

• Cheapest method of exploration to shallow depths. Uses backhoe or
maybe dozer;
• Safety is an issue for anyone entering a trial pit greater than 1.5m deep;
• enables hand cut samples with minimum disturbance;
• gives a clear picture of stratification and variability;
• for rocks direct evidence of dip fissuring jointing weathering in joints and
fissures etc.;
• no use below water table in granular soils;

Edition 8/02
• gives good indication of quality of fill size of voids etc. in made ground;
• useful for inspection of old foundations;
• should always be used for examination of surface soils if there is the
slightest doubt or anomaly raised in the borehole logs.
4.3. Boreholes
Boreholes constitute a critical element of exploration. All interpretation and
subsequent testing depends on the quality of sampling and the adequacy of site
logging. Hence all drilling should be under the FULLTIME control of a field
engineer.
4.3.1. Auger holes
4.3.1.1. Hand Auger
Hand augering is used for very simple investigations (e.g. house foundations) or
where access would otherwise be difficult or impossible. The hand auger is simply
a fence-post auger. Different heads are available for different soil conditions.
• Usually a bucket auger 40mm - 200mm diameter;

• Generally to a depth of about 2m depending on diameter;
• Undisturbed sampling possible;
• Almost always in uncased holes (i.e. no equipment required);
• Difficult with granular soils;
• Power augers are also available - these are spiral flight augers with a
small petrol engine mounted above. Penetration is much faster, but
generally two persons are required.
4.3.1.2. Solid Flight Mechanical Auger
These augers are often truck-mounted and penetration to very substantial depths
(many 10’s of metres) is possible by progressive addition of more auger sections.
• With full flight augers a worm flight brings the soil to the surface. With
other types, the auger is withdrawn regularly to inspect soil.
• Depth from which soil is taken can be reasonably estimated.
• 'Undisturbed' sampling possible by withdrawing auger. Disturbance below
bottom of hole very small.
• Advancing in sands can be difficult due to borehole collapse. Advancing in
sands below the water table can be impossible.
• 75mm to 300mm diameter is common for site investigation but up to 1m
sometimes used for inspection bores.

Edition 8/02
4.3.1.3. Hollow Flight Mechanical Auger
This is a piece of apparatus which is not commonly used in Australia (if at all)
• Centre post of auger is hollow tube with plug, which can be removed for
sampling.
• Auger (full flight) need not be withdrawn for sampling. Therefore no hole
support required.
• Good access provided to bottom of hole with no disturbed material able to
fall in and low boring disturbance ahead of auger.
4.3.2. Percussion Borings
Percussion boring is a very rapid method of drilling a hole into the ground. The
drill is progressively advanced into the soil / rock, and not withdrawn until the
target depth has been reached. Very disturbed soil and rock cuttings are typically
blasted from the top of the hole from the air pressure used for the percussion.
• A mechanical means of advancing holes which requires relatively light

equipment;
• Lift and thump boring requiring - this is usually achieved by compressed
air, but could also be achieved with high pressure water;
• Percussion allows penetration through even hard rock, but advancing
through soft soils can be difficult;
• Strength of clays or density of sands may be inferred from rate of
penetration;
• Tools vary from open ended steel tube with cutting edge for clays (clay
circle or 'auger') through open-ended steel tube with cutting edge and flap
valve for sands (sand pump or shell) to various types of 'chisel' for gravels
and rock;
• Deep disturbance ahead of hole undesirable hence not recommended for
general investigation work. 'Undisturbed' samples not possible, but
disturbed samples obtained continuously;
• Only general (not detailed) stratigraphy can be established.
4.3.3. Rotary Wash Boring
Rotary wash boring is possibly the most commonly used method of drilling used
for geotechnical site investigations in Australia. It is also the method which causes
least soil disturbance. Principle features of this method are as follows:
• Allows moderate rate of advancement of holes with reasonably light

equipment;

Edition 8/02
• Soil is loosened and removed from the borehole by water which flows
down the washpipe and up inside the borehole (or casing if used);
• Cutting bit on the end of the washpipe assists scouring action of water in
loosening soil;
• Different cutting bits are used in clays (tri-cone bit), sands and gravels
(spade bit);
• Use of drilling mud in sands allows the hole to remain uncased. Casing
not too often necessary in clays.
• Wash borings are settled out in a setting tank and can be identified very
disturbed.
• Soil below bottom of hole very little disturbed.
• Undisturbed sampling possible.
4.3.4. Rotary Core Drilling (also diamond drilling)
Rotary core drilling can be used in association with either augered or rotary wash
bored holes. When competent rock is encountered, these techniques are not able
to advance any further because of the crowd (downward thrust) and torque
limitations of the drill rig. Undisturbed sampling of the rock then requires diamond
coring techniques. With diamond coring, it is possible to establish not only the
rock characteristics, but also evaluate the defects such as joints and fault zones.
Effectively unlimited penetration through the rock is possible, although penetration
rates are very slow (typically 0.5 to 6m per hour depending on rock hardness).
Essential features of this technique are as follows:
• Used for very hard materials;

• Double or triple tube core barrels generally used. Inner (sampling) tube
remains stationary while outer barrel and drilling bit rotate;
• Diamond chips on the bit cut an annulus in the rock or hard clay;
• Spring steel core catchers can be used to ensure core is retained;
• Provides sample as well as making borehole;
• Drilling water or mud cools cutting bit brings chips to surface;
• Core barrels of 1.5m and 3m lengths are most common;
• At end of core run, core barrel is returned to the surface, and the core is
extruded from the barrel into split PVC tubes which are wrapped in plastic
tube before being stored in a core box. Cores are generally
photographed.
4.3.5. Borehole Support
Boreholes will usually stay open in clays which are stiff to hard. However, there is
a likelihood of borehole collapse in soft clays or granular soils, so some means of
Edition 8/02
maintaining the hole open is required. The methods used are either steel casing
or drilling mud.
4.3.5.1. Casing
Casing requires the use of steel tubes in a borehole to support the sides. It can be
installed by driving but is more commonly advanced by hydraulic pushing -
remember - it has to come out again! Casing should never be driven ahead of the
base of the borehole indeed it should be kept as far behind as possible.
Where deep boreholes are to be installed the telescoping of casing may be

required in order to overcome installation resistances. The use of casing has the
disadvantage that it must be carried to site it takes time to install and of course
remove and it involves capital and maintenance costs. However for shallow holes
it is quite efficient and effective.
4.3.5.2. Drilling Mud
A common alternative to casing is drilling mud. The original drilling muds were all
based on natural bentonite clay, which can be mixed in powder form to the drilling
water to create a higher density suspension. Synthetic drilling muds are also
used, and some of these, known as Revert, actually breaks down to harmless
components after a number of days. The use of drilling mud must be evaluated in
terms of its environmental effect on the groundwater regime.
• Usually a bentonite suspension with specific gravity of 1.09 to 1.15 i.e. γ =

10.7 to 11.3 kN/m³;
• High unit weight and viscosity (relative to water) helps removal of cuttings;
• Thixotropic - i.e. relatively fluid whilst moving (in bulk of borehole), but
more viscous at the edges where sidewall support is required;
• Forms thin "filter cake" on walls of hole which stabilises cohesionless soils
against caving;
• Use of mud requires water mixing and circulating equipment and means of
disposal.
4.3.6. Borehole Logging
The means of advancement of the borehole are very important in ensuring that
samples retrieved or tests performed are representative of insitu conditions.
Another key requirement is that the drilling procedure and result of the sampling
and testing be logged accurately and in detail. All holes should preferably be
logged by a professional engineer. Logging should include:
• Drilling contractor;
• Client;
• Location;
Edition 8/02
• Borehole number;
• Type of boring;
• Date;
• Position and elevation of bore;
• Size of casing;
• Rate of progress recovery;
• Water table/s and variations with time;
• Upper boundary of each new stratum (by sampling or examination of
wash);
• Borehole support used;
• Field classification;
• Depth and full description of all samples (soil and water)
• Results of SPT tests or other insitu tests;
• Results of any quick tests;
• Type of tool used;
• Reasons for delay or changes in technique;
• Any unusual occurrences;
4.4. Insitu Testing

Valuable for
• quick reconnaissance and preliminary design data;

• situations where sampling is difficult or gives excessive disturbance (e.g
sands);
• permeability measurements especially in stratified and lensoidal deposits.
4.4.1. Standard Penetration Test
Inevitably students will call this the STP test - rather than the correct SPT. The
following sections describe the mechanics of the SPT test, and some of the many
methods proposed for correlating the results engineering properties.
The SPT is one of the most common forms of in-situ test, and is regularly used to
determine the properties of granular soils. The technique is very crude but has the
major advantage of being cheap and easy to carry out. Also the results it gives
whilst far from rigorous are generally accepted right around the world.

Edition 8/02
4.4.1.1. The mechanics of the SPT test
W a te r p o rt
H ead P in 465m m 60m m
35 mm
50 mm
D r iv in g
D rillin g B a ll S p lit shoe 20m m
ro d v a lv e b a rre l T h re a d s
C o u p lin g
The equipment consists of a 50 mm outside diameter open-ended tube (not just a

tube but a special spilt tube sampler) with all other dimensions standard. This tube
is placed at the bottom of a borehole and is connected to the surface by means of
a set of drill rods. The tube is then driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole
by means of a hammer arrangement which is attached to the top of the drill rods.
The hammer applies a standard force per blow provided by a mass of 63.5 kg
dropped through 760 mm.
The number of blows required to drive the tube for 3 successive distances of 150
mm (450 mm in total) are counted. These are generally reported as x/y/z. The
blows for the first 150 mm (x) are discounted on the basis that the soil at the base
of the borehole was disturbed. The number of blows to drive the tube through the
next two lengths of 150 mm (yz) (300 mm in total) are added together to give the
"N" value for the SPT. By conducting a reasonable number of these tests in the
granular formation a reasonable average N can be obtained.
4.4.1.2. Correlations - Relative Density and Friction Angle
There are many correlations

Loose
Very loose
0
M edium D ense Very D ense
between N and φ such as , ,
Thorburn (1963) and Parry
10 (1971). However it is suggested
that the simple correlation of is
Standard Penetration Test
20 used.
N blows / ft.
30
This chart relates N directly to φ'.
40 Note however that this
relationship is generally
50 considered to be conservative.
60
70
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
A ngle of Internal Friction, φ

Edition 8/02
While there are many different opinions as to how the N value is influenced by
various factors it seems that there are two correction factors which should be
applied to the measured N value before it is used for the purposes of design.
These are described in the following sections.
4.4.1.2.1. Correction for fine or silty sands below the water table
Time The reason for this correction is that for a

measured N greater than 15 the sand is
medium dense or denser. This means that
pwp when the hammer is dropped to drive the
(-ve) tube the penetration of the tube causes the
sand to dilate. Where water is present this
Cleansand
dilation causes negative porewater pressures
SPTblows
to be developed.
For relatively clean sand these porewater

Time pressures are fully dissipated by the time the
next blow is applied. For sand which has its
Buildupin pore space partly blocked by silts or clays or
pwp negative pwp is a very fine sand the rate at which these
(-ve) negative porewater pressures dissipate may
be very much lower. Therefore they may not
Fine sandor be fully dissipated by the time the next blow
silty/clayey is applied a second or so later. This may
sand
mean that there is a build up in negative
porewater pressures as the blows are
applied.
Since there has been no change in total stress a reduction of porewater pressure
(even though it is temporary) must lead to a temporary increase in effective stress.
Since the greater the effective stress the greater is the strength of the material
being tested. Therefore as the strength increase has only been caused temporarily
because of dilation effects it must be accounted for by some means. Hence the
application of the above correction to reduce the measured N value.
Note that for this correction to apply the sand being tested must
• be below the water table

• have an N > 15
• have reduced permeability.

Edition 8/02
4.4.1.2.2. Correction for shallow SPT results - Gibbs and Holtz
c o r r e c t e d 'N ' v a l u e When correlations were

C o rre c tio n =
1 2
m e a s u r e d 'N ' v a l u e
3 4
originally made between SPT
0 N values and various
engineering properties a
Effective overburden pressure , kPa
50
major oversight (error?) was
made. This oversight
involved N values obtained at
100 shallow depths. It was found
that predictions of soil
150
strength were unrealistically
low and compressibility high.
Therefore in order to correct
200 this developed a correction
factor which depended on the
effective overburden
250
pressure at the depth at
C o r r e c t io n fa c t o r s fo r s t a n d a r d
p e n e tra tio n te s t
which the test was carried
( A ft e r G ib b s a n d H o ltz ) out.
This factor could then be

used with the original correlations (such as the correlation given above) to provide
a more realistic value of N. Note that the correction factor is greater than 1
implying that the strength is greater than is suggested by the measured N value. It
may also be worth noting that for effective overburden pressures greater than
about 250 kPa the correction factor is 1 (i.e. the original correlation is reasonably
accurate).
4.4.1.2.3. Kulhawy and Mayne Method
proposed an alternative method to interpret the results of SPT tests. This

method establishes friction angle indirectly through sand relative density. This
approach is recommended.
CERCBCSCRCN N
Dr2 = , where
CP C ACOCR
CER = , CB = , CS = , CR = , CN = , CP = , CA = , COCR = Two
possible correlations between friction angle, φ, and relative density are shown in
Kulhawy and Mayne.

Edition 8/02
4.4.1.3. Directly estimating settlement
Once N has been established, settlements can be (very approximately) estimated

using the empirical Terzaghi and Peck curves to the left. It is important the curves
are used for the following conditions.
• The allowable bearing pressure is for 25mm settlement with the water
table below 2B for shallow strips and bases.
• For the water table immediately below the foundation the settlement is
50mm.
For a raft and water table below 2B depth, the graph is for 12mm settlement.
600
Very dense
N = 60
Allowable pressure kPa for 25 mm total settlement.
500
N = 50
Water table below depth 2B
400
N = 40
300 Dense
N = 30
200
Medium
N = 20
100
N = 10
Loose
N=5
0
1.5 2 3 4 5 6
Width of foundation B- metres
Chart for estimating allowable bearing pressure for foundations in sand
on basis of results of standard penetration test (Terzaghi & Peck)
4.4.1.4. SPT correlations - Drained modulus
Empirical correlations between the (failure) SPT test and drained modulus for
sands must be treated with caution. Nevertheless, these correlations can be used
as primary estimators. Atmospheric pressure, pa can be assumed as 100 kPa.
The value is the N value corrected to an average energy ratio of 60 percent (of
rated energy).

Edition 8/02
E p a ≈ 5N 60 sands with fines

E p a ≈ 10N 60 clean NC sands
E p a ≈ 15N 60 clean OC sands
tabulates some correlations of elastic parameters for granular soils based on N.
4.4.1.5. SPTs and undrained cohesion
SPT tests are generally performed in sands and gravels, however, there is no
reason that they can’t be conducted in clays or silts. Correlations with undrained
shear strength have been postulated - typically cu varies between 3N and 12N.
See also for a very comprehensive summary of all the factors that can affect SPT
tests, and recommendations for interpretation based on the work of others.
4.4.2. Static Cone Penetration Tests
A site investigation technique which has been extensively used in Europe and
Australia since the 1970’s is the Cone Penetrometer Test. Its acceptance in the
USA has been only limited. In this test, a probe is jacked into the ground at a
constant penetration rate. This section briefly describes the test, its advantages
and disadvantages, and its interpretation.

Edition 8/02
4.4.2.1. General
The static cone penetration test (or

7
quasi-static or Dutch cone test) is
widely used throughout the world for
8 site investigations and for bearing
2
1 Conical point (10 cm ) capacity and settlement estimations. It
2 Load cell basically involves the hydraulic jacking
6 3 Strain gauges of a 10 cm² cone with a 60° tip into the
4 Friction sleeve soil and the separate measurement of
5 5 Adjustment ring the cone and sleeve resistances. The
6 Waterproof bushing cone resistance is measured
7 Cable
electronically with strain gauges
8 Connection with rods
located behind the cone. This
3
resistance is usually identified as qc.
In addition a friction sleeve behind the
4 cone is independently strain gauged to
measure the sleeve friction fs. The
3
rate of advancement of cone
penetrometers is by default 2cm/sec.
2 Rod lengths are generally 1m, and the
continuous penetration must be halted
1 every 1m to screw on a new length of
rod. As the test is very rapid, it is an
ideal method to get a wide coverage of
35.7mm
site conditions, however, as there is no
sample retrieval, it is important that it
be combined with some drilling unless the site area is well known from previous
investigations nearby.
The type and consistency of the soil is determined primarily by the cone resistance
(the greater the cone resistance, the denser the sand or stiffer the clay), and the
ratio between the friction and cone resistances (called the friction ratio, fr). In
general terms, cohesive soils have a high friction ratio (say >5%), whereas sands
have low friction ratios (<2%). Many researchers have proposed empirical
correlations between cone resistance, friction ratio and soil type. Prominent
among these are . Their results are published widely (e.g. in ), however, presents
several others. See .
In the 1980’s a variety of cone penetrometers have been manufactured which

additionally measure pore pressure using a porous stone located at or behind the
tip of the cone. The purpose of the pore pressure measurements is to allow
improved identification of soil type : in sands, excess pore pressures (∆u) from
insertion of the cone obviously dissipate rapidly, whereas in more fine-grained
materials, pore pressures will dissipate more slowly. It has been shown that the
location of the porous stone on these piezo-cone devices is extremely critical, and
results for different devices cannot be directly compared.

Edition 8/02
Original mechanical cone penetrometer systems involved the advancement of the

cone with the sleeve static to measure qc and then the advancement of the sleeve
to rejoin the cone to measure fs. This type of penetrometer is still referred to in
texts, however, such devices are not used any more.
In summary, the CPT has the following advantages:
• It is quick and cheap to use. Many tests to quite reasonable depth may be
accomplished in a day.
• It provides a continuous profile very quickly and therefore is an excellent
method of obtaining detailed information between boreholes or identifying
problem areas.
However it does have the disadvantages as follows:
• No soil sample seen.

• Usually should be calibrated alongside boreholes.
• Equipment can be costly.
• Troublesome with gravel and boulders.
4.4.2.2. CPT results
The results of cone penetrometer testing (qc, fs, fr and even ∆u) are typically
plotted in real-time on paper tape, and may also be stored digitally. This method
therefore allows a very quick appraisal of subsurface conditions

Edition 8/02
INTERPRETED
SOIL PROFILE
SLEEVE CONE FRICTION
DEPTH RELATED TO GROUND LEVEL IN METRES

FRICTION fs RESISTANCE qc RATIO FR
(MPa) (MPa) (%)
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 20 1O 5 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
LEGEND:
CLAY SAND
SILT GRAVEL
4.4.2.3. Interpretation of cone penetrometers - soil type
Numerous CPT interpretations have been proposed. Two of the most widely
accepted, and most recent are shown here:

Edition 8/02
4.4.2.3.1. Robertson and Campanella
This interpretation has been proposed by Robertson and Campanella:
400
Sands
a
Cone Tip Resistance , q / p
Silty
100 sands
c
Sandy
40 silts Clayey
and silts silts and
silty clays
Clays
10
8
6
4 Peat
1
0 2 4 6
Friction Ratio, f s /q c (%)
4.4.2.3.2. Olsen and Farr
This interpretation has been proposed by Olsen and Farr.

Cone Tip Resistance, ( qc / pa ) / (σvo / pa )n
400
N orm ally consolidated
G ravel
and sand CR
n=0
.5 gO
n g a s in
asi cr
e
100 I n c rset a b l e In
m e ta io n
t
C lean to condi
silty sand
40 .6 5
n = 0 d, CR
ey sa n O
c l a y g
to s in
S ilty s ilt
sa n d y = 0 .8 5 c r ea
n y In
10 la y e 1
8 d y to c 1 n>
S a n n =
6
s ilt silt y
Increasing
4 y
y e c la sensitivity
l
C ilta y C lay
o s Peat
2 t
0.1 1
C one Side R esistance, f sn = f s / σ vo

Edition 8/02
4.4.2.4. Bearing Capacity
As the cone failure is a bearing capacity failure, the cone resistance, qc has a
direct relationship to the ultimate bearing capacity. However, care must be
exercised as scale can have a very large influence, especially if the soil contains
fabric or other scale factors.
For shallow footings on sand, rather than use qc directly, it is more usual to use
some of the existing correlations with friction angle, φ, and then establish bearing
capacity by normal methods. in Figure 3-19 presents such an empirical
relationship for uncemented quartz sands. Friction angle can also be determined
indirectly through relative density and soil type using a number of empirical
relationships summarized by .
For deep (piled) foundations in sand, it is usual to directly adopt weighted

minimum values of qc within a distance of 8 diameters above the pile toe to 2
diameters below the pile toe. A number of such methods have been suggested,
and some of these are detailed in . It should be noted that it is common to adopt a
maximum end-bearing of 1.2 MPa for pile end bearing and 120 kPa for shaft
resistance. For piles, the method of installation has a profound influence on pile
capacity.
For shallow footings in clay, it is common to infer a value of undrained shear

strength from the qc values and the total overburden stress, po. The following
expression is used:
q c − po
cu =
Nk
where Nk = cone factor (varies between 5 and 75, with values between 10
and 30 most common, and 15 to 20 most favoured).
The appropriate value for Nk for a particular site should be determined by

correlation with undrained triaxial tests on clay samples.
4.4.2.5. Interpretation of cone penetrometers - settlement
There are many proposed methods for determination of settlement from CPT data.
It must be emphasized that all must be empirical generalisations because the
penetrometer by its very nature fails the soil, and therefore cannot measure
anything other than parameters which relate to the ultimate condition. On the
Edition 8/02
other hand, structural settlement is related to a serviceability condition, and occurs

hopefully long before failure occurs. The estimation of settlement from CPT results
must therefore necessarily involve empirical correlation between the failure
parameters and the likely settlement parameters such as modulus, Poisson's ratio
etc.
One such method involves the estimation of a compressibility coefficient which is

given by
qc
C=α
po′
The value α of is a function of many variables including the soil type. For sands, α
is about 1.5, but for clays α is generally higher and in the range of about 1 to 8.
This coefficient is in turn used in the Buisman equation :
H  p ′ + ∆p ′ 
ρ= ln  o 
C  po′ 
where H is the thickness of the layer (or sub-layer) and ∆p′ is the change in
effective stress in the layer caused by foundation loading.
4.4.2.6. CPT - SPT correlation
A useful correlation between SPT N value and qc has been proposed by Meyerhof
as follows:
qc
N = where qc is in kg/cm2
4
Later studies indicated that the ratio is actually dependent on the grain size of the
material. proposes the following alternative relationship:
q c pa F
= 4.25 −
N 413.
where F = percent passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075mm or fine sand)
also presents a similar relationship after .
4.4.3. Pressuremeter Tests
The pressuremeter is a probe which can be inserted in the ground and then
inflated. It was originally developed in 1956 by as a relatively sophisticated
Edition 8/02
instrument for measuring the in-situ properties of soils. Both elastic properties of
the ground and strength can be determined by measurement of the applied
pressure and volume increase. Although the equipment is relatively expensive, its
use in the field can be very economic with many tests being made in a working
day. Also it can be used in a wide range of soils and rocks. There are basically
two forms of the pressuremeter. One is installed in a prebored hole while the
other is a self boring device.
4.4.3.1. Menard Pressuremeter
For the Menard

pressuremeter the
equipment consists of
two basic parts. The
probe which is installed
in a borehole is made
of a cylindrical metal
body with rubber
membranes stretched
over it and attached in
such a manner as to
form three independent
cells. The central
measuring cell contains
a liquid under pressure
from a gas and the
upper and lower guard cells are pressurised with gas only.
The deformations are measured by the central measuring cell where conditions of
plane strain exist due to the presence of the guard cells.
In order to minimise the possibility of the rubber membrane being punctured by

sharp aggregates they are sometimes protected by a sheath of overlapping
longitudinal metal strips. The probes are available in various diameters to suit the
standard borehole dimensions.
The volumeter is a water filled cylindrical reservoir with pressure gauges and
regulators. It permits the controlled injection of water and gas into the measuring
and guard cells respectively. The volume changes are read directly from the
graduated sight-tube on the reservoir. However for high accuracy readings the
sight-tube may be isolated to increase the reading sensitivity considerably. The
volumeter is connected to the probe by means of two plastic tubes; one arranged
inside the other. The inner tube carries the water to the measuring cell while the
space between the two tube walls carries the gas for the two guard cells. This
method prevents the expansion of the inner tubing which would lead to erroneous
readings of the amount of water injected.

Edition 8/02
4.4.3.2. Self-boring pressuremeter
The self-boring
pressuremeter is in
principle the same as
the Menard device, but
in addition it has a
specially designed
cutting head at the
bottom end of the
device. This consists of
a rotating cutter which
cuts the soil and this
soil is in turn brought to
the surface by means
of circulating water.
The principle advantage of this device is that the soil disturbance is minimized.
For a Menard pressuremeter it is necessary to drill an oversized hole into which
the pressuremeter is placed; between drilling and installation, the borehole my
relax or even collapse. The self-boring pressuremeter avoids these problems.
4.4.3.3. Mode of Operation
For the Menard pressuremeter there are three main testing procedures according
to the soil type allowed.
(a) For free standing soils in which the sides of the borehole do not cave in the
borehole is advanced by the appropriate method and the probe is lowered to
the testing location. Usually tests are conducted at one metre intervals.
(b) For soft clays and granular soils the borehole may be advanced and kept
open with bentonite. The tests are conducted as above. According to
Menard (1957) the effect of the bentonite is negligible, however, others may
reasonably consider this to be an optimistic view.
(c) For the same soft or granular soils a special casing may be used. It consists
of conventional casing which has narrow longitudinal slots machined into it.
The casing will support the borehole walls but also allows the expansion of
the pressuremeter. However it is obvious that the expansion characteristics of
the slotted casing must first be measured, and appropriate correction applied
to the results. The use of bentonite is preferred.
Self-boring pressuremeters advance to the test depth from the base of a borehole
drilled to just above that depth.

Edition 8/02
4.4.3.4. Phases of the test
Once the pressuremeter has been installed at its test location the zero readings
are taken with the pressuremeter sides just touching the soil. Then the pressure in
the cells is increased to a preselected value, a small fraction (2.5% to 10%) of the
estimated maximum. Once the pressure has been achieved the volume readings
at 15, 30 and 60 seconds are taken. The pressure is then progressively
increased, with the same readings being taken at each pressure. The volume
changes at 60 seconds are plotted against pressure during the test, and the net
result is effectively a stress/strain curve, as shown.
Expansion of probe
Pseudo elastic Plastic
behaviour behaviour
CELL VOLUME
INCREASE ∆v
1 2 3
Po
Pl
Pf
CORRECTED CELL PRESSURE, P
There are three basic stages involved in the deformation of the soil.
Stage 1 (up to Po ) consists of the recompression of the soil to the in-situ stress
before the borehole was made.
Stage 2 (Po to Pf ) consists of the elastic deformation of the soil adjacent to the
measuring cell. This is characterised by a straight line plot of the pressure/volume
curve. The elastic modulus E is usually derived from this section of the curve.
Stage 3 (Pf to Pl ) is equivalent to the plastic deformation of the soil in which the
volume change increases until at the limit pressure Pl the soil fails.
By plotting the volume change between 30 and 60 seconds the "creep curve" is
obtained. It represents the tendency of the material to creep. The point at which a
definite upward break occurs is referred to as the creep pressure Pf and it
generally corresponds to the upper limit of the elastic deformation range.

Edition 8/02
4.4.3.5. Determination of elastic parameters
The pressuremeter may be used to evaluate the properties of most soil and soft
rock types. However because the test is relatively quick, the analysis is usually
based on undrained parameters for cohesive soils and drained parameters for
granular soils. Obviously for soils containing a significant portion of silt sized
particles or for rocks containing significant porous fabric such as fissures and
joints, it may not be clear what type of parameter is being derived by the test.
The appropriate elastic modulus (drained or undrained) of the soil or rock is

evaluated from the linear portion of the pressure-volume curve. The modulus is
given by the expression:
∆P
E = 2 (1+ ν)Vo
∆V
where ν= Poissons ratio
Vo = Volume at pressure Po
∆P
and = slope of linear portion
∆V
It is important to remember that the elastic properties determined by
pressuremeter tests are lateral values, and that unless the soil is isotropic, the
derived values will be different from the vertical values because of the manner in
which soils are laid down over time. As the elastic values needed for footing
settlement calculations are vertical, these values may be inappropriate.
Pressuremeter results are more appropriate for piles which may be laterally
loaded. Poisson’s ratio is by definition 0.5 for undrained loading, but must be
estimated for drained loading.
4.4.3.6. Determination of strength parameters
The strength of soils may also be estimated from the pressuremeter test result.
However in simple terms it is only possible to evaluate cu for undrained cohesive
soils and φ' for drained granular soils. When a soil possesses both c' and φ' (e.g.
rocks or mixed soils) a variety of complex testing procedures must be undertaken.
For cohesive soils tested in undrained conditions the undrained cohesion may be
approximated by the expression
Pl − Po
cu =
Np
where N p = 1 + ln(E 3cu )
report that Np may vary between 2 and 20, however it is generally in the range 5
to 12, with an average of 8.5.
Edition 8/02
For granular soils, fully drained conditions are assumed and φ' is evaluated.
According to the original Gibson and Anderson (1961) analysis, at failure the ratio
of circumferential stress to radial stress is given by
σ θ′ 1 − sin φ
= =N
σr′ 1 + sin φ
[N.B. Not the N as applies to SPT tests.]
The pressure-volume relationship is given by
1/ 2(1−N )
 2P ′   E  1 + N  ∆V 
P′= o    1 − N  V 
1+ N   2Po′ (1 + ν)  
Therefore when plotting log (∆V/V) against log P′ a reasonably straight line is
obtained for the plastic region. The slope of this line is 1/2(1-N) and therefore φ'
may be calculated.
An alternative approach for determination of φ' after is presented in .
4.4.3.7. Closing comments
While the above simple treatment of the pressuremeter analysis has been
presented, there are still a great number of factors which influence the test results
and which are not fully understood yet.
These factors include the following:
• The influence of soil dilation;

• The influence of tensile stresses in the circumferential direction especially
with regard to tensile cracking;
• The influence of porewater pressures;
• Drainage conditions;
• Soil variability and anisotropy;
• Loading in a horizontal plane.
The pressuremeter was initially seen as the answer to all geotechnical problems,
but over time it has taken a more sensible position as one of a number of less than
perfect tools which are available to the geotechnical engineer. Pressuremeter
tests are used quite extensively for larger projects where the cost of this type of
test can be justified.

Edition 8/02
4.4.4. Dilatometer Tests
The dilatometer is a blade which can be hydraulically jacked into the base of a
borehole, or pushed with a CPT rig. The test was developed by . The blade
contains a 60mm diameter membrane which is expanded laterally by 1.1mm
against the soil. Pressures at “lift-off” at full expansion and again when flush with
the blade surface are taken. These pressures are variously combined to give a
dilatometer modulus index, ED, a lateral stress index, KD, and a material or
deposit index, ID.
According to Marchetti, the test can be used to determine the full range of strength
and compressibility parameters (E, Ko, OCR, cu, φ, and mv). However, it must
always be borne in mind that insertion of the probe causes soil disturbance and
failure, and the derivation of elastic parameters and peak strength parameters are
therefore indirect and empirically based.
Dilatometer testing has been available in Australia since the late 1980’s.
Interpretation of dilatometer tests is covered in , and . Proponents of this method
claim that it can be used to establish both strength and compressibility parameters,
however, it must be remembered that like all in-situ tests, insertion of the device is
actually failing and changing the soil.
4.4.5. Vane Tests
The vane shear test is a method used predominantly in soft clays to estimate in-
situ shear strength. The cruciform section vane is generally pushed into the soil at
the base of the borehole, however, it can also be pushed from the surface with a
protective sheath. The vanes can be of different widths and lengths to allow a
broad range of soil strengths to be tested. Once in place, the vane is rotated at a
constant rotational speed of 6°/minute, and the maximum and residual torque
achieved is recorded.
The applied torque or moment, T, to turn the vane is related to the undrained
strength of a soft clay, su by
T = su πd 2 ( h2 + a d4 )
where h is the height of the vane, d is the diameter and a is a constant for the
user-assumed end shear. It is usually taken as 2/3 for uniform end shear, but can
be as low as 1/2 for a triangular assumption, or 3/5 for parabolic end shear.
Insensitive clays do not display substantial differences between peak and residual
torque. Conversely, these values may be an order of magnitude or more different
for highly sensitive clays.

Edition 8/02
4.4.6. Field Permeability Tests
Foundation permeability tests include both in-situ permeability tests and

permeability tests on samples retrieved from the boreholes for laboratory testing.
Although the in-situ tests have advantages in that tests encompass the global
response of the soil, with soil fabric relatively undisturbed, interpretation can be
confused when the soil is distinctly layered, or boundary conditions do not match
the simplified model in some other way.
By contrast, laboratory permeability tests can isolate the permeability of a

particular soil, however, the effect of soil fabric is often lost in the necessarily small
samples.
Some in-situ tests include the and the . Permeability tests are not an issue with
foundations unless the foundations require an excavation below potential water-
table level. In-situ test are:
• Necessary in variable or stratified soils.

• Generally not difficult to perform but difficult to interpret.
4.4.7. Applicability of Test Methods
The previous sections have described a number of in-situ testing methods that are
available to the geotechnical engineer. This is by no means an exhaustive list of
possible tools, but covers the principle tools used for typical site investigations.
tabulated an extensive range of geotechnical tests and their applicability to the
determination of the following - see Table 3-2.
• Soil identification
• Establish vertical profile
• Relative Density
• Angle of friction
• Undrained shear strength
• Pore pressure
• Stress history and Ko
• Modulus
• Compressibility parameters
• Consolidation parameters
• Permeability
• Stress-strain response
• Liquefaction resistance

Edition 8/02
Not surprisingly, the self-boring pressuremeter, which Wroth developed, emerges

as one of the best investigation tools in all categories. The piezo-cone devices
also rate highly. It must be remembered that both devices, but particularly the self
boring pressuremeter are highly specialized pieces of equipment that are not
readily available, and are expensive to use. Their use must be consistent with the
available budget and the criticalness of the structure.
4.5. Sampling
Samples fall into two broad categories - disturbed and undisturbed. The key
features of each of these categories will be discussed hereafter.
4.5.1. "Disturbed" Sample
• A by-product of most operations.

• Structure and often moisture content considerably altered from insitu state.
In certain cases, contamination from different strata occur (e.g. flight
auger).
• Give some definition of changes in strata.
• Used in laboratory for visual classification and mechanical analysis index
determination (e.g. liquid and plastic limit).
• The amount of disturbance varies. The returned wash from the wash
boring process is extremely disturbed; the sample obtained during an SPT
is significantly disturbed.
• Handling is important. When obtained samples should be placed
immediately in airtight jars tins plastic bags etc. labelled to identify the job
number, locality, bore no. depth and date of sampling and sent to lab.
4.5.2. "Undisturbed" Samples
• Samples in which the insitu structure and moisture content have been as
far possible completely preserved.
• No sample truly "undisturbed" because of stress release on sampling.
• In stiff and over-consolidated clays, sampling not likely to significantly
affect the 'design properties' of soil.
• In soft and sensitive clays sampling disturbance considerably reduces
measured strength, E etc. and increases compressibility.
• In sands, usually significantly alters voids ratio (undisturbed samples are
rarely attempted in sands);
• Simplest method of obtaining undisturbed samples is pressing a thin
walled tube into the soil i.e. an open drive sampler.
• Sampler should not be driven into the soil but pressed in, preferably at a
constant rate of penetration.
Edition 8/02
• Open drive samplers commonly around 50 mm and 75 mm inside

diameter. L/D ratios vary from about 6 to 18.
• To avoid disturbing soil the borehole should be cleaned out before
sampling (e.g. with auger or by jetting). Sample ahead of earlier boring.
Also maintain ground water balance. In soft and sensitive soils the thin
walled piston sampler gives best samples. Floating or stationary types of
piston. Tube forced into ground with piston blocking off end. At required
depth piston is released from ground level and sampler advanced over the
piston. Enables samples to considerable depths in soft clays without
casing. In variable or very hard soils above types no use. Use coring triple
tube barrel etc. See CSIRO Soil Mechanics Section Technical Report No.
2.
• In order to obtain "undisturbed" samples construction of sampler must be
appropriate. Critical parameter is the area ratio which is defined as :
2 2
D max − D min
2
D min
• Large area ratio gives large disturbance. However strength requirement
defines minimum area ratio. AS1726 states that area ratio must not
exceed 10% with a cutting edge not exceeding 5° to the axis of the
sampler.
5. SITE EXPLORATION PLANNING

Depends on many previously mentioned variables such as existing knowledge
anticipated site conditions and accessibility type of structure and its sensitivity to
ground movements proposed means of construction financial limitations etc.
In general it will be necessary to specify at least the following information:
• number and type of holes (bores or penetrometers etc.);

• their required locations and depth;
• frequency and type of sampling in each hole;
• subsequent treatment of samples handling and transport precautions;
• field and laboratory testing required;
• extent of supervision of drilling and testing.

Edition 8/02
Tables such as the ones provided can give a useful guide to planning the most
effective site exploration.
It should be emphasised however that there should be effective communication

between the field engineer, the design engineer and the client so that should any
modifications to the exploration programme be necessary they can be made
without undue waste of time or confusion.
6. SITE INVESTIGATION REPORTS

It is of considerable importance that the report which is produced at the
culmination of site investigation is complete and comprehensive and conveys the
information required in clear and effective terms.
It is vitally important that all significant aspects of the site investigation are covered
in relation to the proposed development so that the next phase of the development
(probably the design work) may be satisfactorily carried out. Remember that the
report is generally a legal document and any gross misinterpretation of data may
lead to legal proceedings!
The report will also be a record for use in the future should any defect or
unfavourable condition develop during the life of the development. The report may
also be used for assessing any future extensions or modifications to the original
development.
Should any possible source of concern appear during the investigations this
should also be reported and any recommendation as to its solution should be
included.
A clear distinction between factual data and interpretations should be maintained

throughout the report.
It is also important that the report contains a clear identification of the site and the
location of the boreholes test pits etc. All borehole logs and tests results should
also be included preferably in standard tabular form. Cross-sections are always a
good way of illustrating the soil stratification.
A good report should include plenty of diagrams and figures which always speak
louder than words.
Remember that the report is the final and probably the only product of the site
investigation and generally since it represents a considerable amount of time
energy and cost it is worth doing well.
7. GLOSSARY
Aging Correction Factor
For SPTs = 1.2 + 0.05 log (t/100) , where t is age of deposit in years.
Edition 8/02
Borehole Diameter Correction Factor
For SPT tests

= 1.0 for 65 to 115 mm diameter boreholes
= 1.05 for 150 mm diameter boreholes
= 1.15 for 200 mm diameter boreholes
Energy Ratio Correction Factor
For SPTs:
= 0.9 for safety hammer
= 0.75 for donut hammer (usu. in U.S.)
Fixed-head Packer Tests
Field permeability tests in which a section of borehole is isolated with inflatable

packers, and subjected to a constant pressure head. The volume of flow required
to maintain the pressure can be used to determine in-situ permeability.
Overburden Stress Correction Factor
’
For SPTs = 2 / (1 + σ o / pa ) , where pa= atmospheric pressure (in kPa)
Overconsolidation Correction Factor
For SPTs = OCR0.18
See
Overconsolidation Ratio
Abbreviated as OCR. The ratio of maximum past effective to the current effective
overburden stress. Greater than or equal to 1.
Particle Size Correction Factor
For SPTs = 60 + 25 log D50 , where D50 is in mm.
Pumping Tests
Pumping tests are a form of in-situ permeability test in which water is pumped out
at a constant rate from a borehole with a perforated (PVC) casing. The rate of
drawdown of water level in adjacent observation wells is used to determine
average permeability. See pp. 109-112.
Rod Length Correction Factor

Edition 8/02
For SPTs
= 1.0 for rod length > 10m
= 0.95 for rod length 6 to 10m
Sampling Method Correction Factor
For SPTs
= 1.0 for a standard sampler
= 1.2 for a sampler without a liner
8. REFERENCES
Bowles, J.E., (1988)
Foundation analysis and design. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill.
Das, B.M., (1990a)
Principles of geotechnical engineering. 2nd ed. PWS-Kent Publishing Company,

Boston.
Das, B.M. (1990b)
Principles of Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed. PWS-Kent Publishing Company,

Boston.
Clayton C.R.I. Simons N.E. and Matthews M.C. (1982)
Site Investigation A Handbook for Engineers" Granada Publishing 1982.
Ervin M.C. (1983)
Insitu testing for geotechnical investigations. A.A.Balkema (ed),1983.
Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G. (1957)
Research on determining the density of sands by spoon penetration testing. 4th

ICSMFE, Vol. 1 : 35 - 39.
Hughes, J.M.O., Wroth, C.P. and Windle, D. (1977)
Pressuremeter tests in sands. Geotechnique. Vol. 27 No. 4 : 455 - 477.
Kulhawy, F.H. (1990)

Edition 8/02
Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Report EPRI EL-6800
for Electric Power Research Institute.
Mair, R.J. and Wood, D.M. (1987)
Pressuremeter Testing. Butterworths, London.
Marchetti, S. (1980)
In-situ tests by flat dilatometer. Jnl. Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol.
106, GT3, March : 299 - 321.
Menard, L. (1956)
An apparatus for measuring the strength of soils in place. M.Sc Thesis, University
of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956)
Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. JSMFD, ASCE Vol
82, SM 1 : 1-19.
Olsen, R.S. and Farr, J.V. (1986)
Site characterization using the cone penetrometer test. Use of in-situ tests in
Geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6, Ed. S.P.
Clemence, ASCE : 854 - 868.
Peck, R.B., Hansen, W.E. and Thorburn, T.H. (1974)
Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York, 514 pp.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1983)
Interpretation of cone penetrometer tests, Part 1 : sand. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 : 718 - 733.
Rowe, P.W. (1972)
The relevance of soil fabric to site investigation practice. Geotechnique June 1972
Terzaghi, K. And Peck, R.B. (1967)
Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Edition 8/02

Civ4249 1. Site Investigation and Exploration: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University Edition 8/02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Civ4249 1. Site Investigation and Exploration: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University Edition 8/02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civ4249 1. Site Investigation and Exploration: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University Edition 8/02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit CIV4249: Foundation Engineering 1.

CIV4249 1. SITE INVESTIGATION AND

3. SITE EXPLORATION MAGNITUDE AND EMPHASIS ............................... 5

6. SITE INVESTIGATION REPORTS ............................................................ 34

(b) Investigations of failures (and possibly remedial design measures):

(d) Investigation of availability of materials (for fills road bases concrete

1.2. Reasons for investigating Subsurface

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

(e) To give insurance against legal actions.

1.3. Sources of Information

(c) Personal onsite investigations: inspection of adjoining areas collection of

• Gross overestimation of suitability of the subsurface soils resulting in

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

undertaken and supervised in relation to the proposed developments and the

Scott in a review to the 1966 Sydney Symposium on Site Investigation said:

2. SITE EXPLORATION OBJECTIVES

In general the objectives would be as follows:

• To determine the nature thickness dip and variability of strata to be

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

3. SITE EXPLORATION MAGNITUDE AND EMPHASIS

Profile Very variable mixed soil Very uniform soil

Exploration Much field investigation Little field investigation

Characteristics Simple laboratory tests Considerable lab testing

Little undisturbed testing

(b) Two development extremes are possible:

Development Large areal extent Limited areal extent

Exploration Diffuse Concentrated

Characteristics May be shallow Usually deep

The proportions of disturbed to undisturbed sampling and of field to laboratory

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

3.3. Phases of Exploration

(3) Detailed Explorations generally for use in major, heavy or unusual

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

4. SITE EXPLORATION METHODS

• type of information and detail required;

4.1. Geological Investigations

(c) Aerial Photography. Photogeology is a rapidly expanding expert field. A

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

4.1.2. Seismic Surveys refraction (land) or reflection (marine).

• The most accurate and sophisticated of geophysical techniques;

4.1.3. Resistivity Surveys

4.2. Trial Pits

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

4.3.1. Auger holes

4.3.1.1. Hand Auger

• Usually a bucket auger 40mm - 200mm diameter;

4.3.1.2. Solid Flight Mechanical Auger

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

4.3.1.3. Hollow Flight Mechanical Auger

4.3.2. Percussion Borings

• A mechanical means of advancing holes which requires relatively light

4.3.3. Rotary Wash Boring

• Allows moderate rate of advancement of holes with reasonably light

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University

4.3.4. Rotary Core Drilling (also diamond drilling)

• Used for very hard materials;

4.3.5. Borehole Support