TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Cone Penetration Test and Liquefaction

Evaluation for Highway Bridges

Monday, June 24, 2019

2:00-4:00 PM ET
The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and
requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.
Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A
certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered
and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that
may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.
Purpose
To discuss the cone penetration test (CPT), which can provide
data for investigating and characterizing site specific
subsurface conditions.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:
• Describe CPT technology and how to apply it to
design highway bridges
• Describe how to use CPT technology to investigate
subsurface characterization on a highway bridge
• Describe how to use CPT technology to evaluate
liquefaction on a highway bridge
CPT Technology
Gerald Verbeek – Verbeek Management Services
 The disclaimers

• I’m Dutch

• I’m a Conehead

2
What is CPT

3
3
 What is CPT
qt (MPa) fs (kPa) u b (kPa)
0 20 40 60 0 500 1000 -200 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0

4 4 4

8 8 8
Depth (meters)

fs 12 12 12

16 16 16

u2
20 20 20

24 24 24

qt 28 28 28

4
 What is CPT

 Electronic Steel Probes with 60° Apex Tip

 ASTM D5778 Procedures
 Hydraulic Push at 0.8 inch/s
 No Boring, No Samples, No Cuttings, No Spoil
 Continuous readings of stress, friction, pressure

5
 What is CPT

Soil Behavior Type (Robertson et al., 1986; Robertson & Campanella, 1988)
1 – Sensitive fine grained 5 – Clayey silt to silty clay 9 – sand
2 – Organic material 6 – Sandy silt to silty sand 10 – Gravelly sand to sand
3 – Clay 7 – Silty sand to sandy silt 11 – Very stiff fine grained*
4 – Silty clay to clay 8 – Sand to silty sand 12 – Sand to clayey sand*
*Note: Overconsolidated or cemented

6
Reality – Aspect 1

Vs.

7
Why CPT

8
 Reality – Aspect 2
.

For site investigations CPT’s are

usually carried out in combination
with a few boreholes for soil
sampling. Next to an almost
continuous profile is speed
another advantage. Per unit 200 to
300 meter of soil profile can be
collected per day.

9
 Why not CPT (or so people claim)
• It is supposedly a new method … or is it?
1932 -1934
Pieter Barentsen develops the first internationally recognized cone model for Cone Penetration
Testing (CPT). All testing and production was performed at GMF Gouda.
The Dutch Cone was born and also the first patent in CPT history, applied in 1934 and granted in
1938 to Goudsche Machinefabriek and Pieter Barentsen. GMF Gouda became the first
manufacturer of CPT equipment on an industrial scale.
1959
GMF Gouda introduces the first hydraulic pushing rigs for 10 ton and later also 20 ton capacity
setting a new standard for efficient CPT soundings.
1965
H.K.S. Begemann improved the Dutch cone and added an extra sliding shaft for measuring the
sleeve friction, resulting in the Friction Jacket Cone, also known as Begemann Cone.
1971
After a period of testing, failing and improving the electric cone penetrometers with strain
gauged measuring bodies become more reliable and popular. 10
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

One of the first CPT devices (around 1940)

11
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

50 kN hand operated CPT device

12
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

50 kN hand operated CPT device

13
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

Hand operated 50 kN pusher installed on old army truck

14
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

Manual pusher inside a truck

15
 Reality – Aspect 3
“New? It has always been there”

Interior of a
“dated” CPT truck (left)
and HMI screen (right)
16
 Why not CPT (or so people claim)
• It is a supposedly a new method … or is it

• Not specified … but things are changing

• Too hard … or is it

17
 Why not CPT (or so people claim)
• It is a supposedly a new method … or is it

• Not specified … but things are changing

• Too hard … or is it

• No samples …. why not

18
 Why not CPT (or so people claim)
• It is a supposedly a new method … or is it

• Not specified … but things are changing

• Too hard … or is it

• No samples …. why not

• Boulders or debris … yes, that’s a problem

19
CPT Technology Bridge Site Investigation

Sharid K. Amiri Caltrans

Highway Bridge- Subsurface
Exploration
Subsurface explorations shall be performed to provide the
information needed for the design and construction of foundations.
The extent of exploration shall be based on variability in the
subsurface conditions, structure type, and any project
requirements that may affect the foundation design or
construction. The exploration program should be extensive
enough to reveal the nature and types of soil deposits and/or rock
formations
encountered, the engineering properties of the soils and/or rocks,
the potential for liquefaction, and the groundwater conditions. The
exploration program should be sufficient to identify and delineate
problematic subsurface conditions such as karstic formations,
mined out areas, swelling/collapsing soils, existing fill or waste
areas, etc.
Ref: AASHTO Bridge Design Specification

2
Variability in
Subsurface
Conditions

3
LIQUEFACTION
AFFECT ON
FOUNDATION
DESIGN

4
LIQUEFACTION
AFFECT ON
FOUNDATION
DESIGN

5
LIQUEFACTION
AFFECT ON
FOUNDATION
DESIGN

6
LIQUEFACTION
AFFECT ON
FOUNDATION
DESIGN

7
• Highway Bridge- (Existing)-
1965
• Highway Bridge- (Existing)-
Seismic Retrofit-1995
• Highway Bridge-
(Replacement)
 Highway Bridge
Foundation- (Existing)

• Driven Reinforced Concrete

Piles at the Abutments and
Bents

• Vertical & Battered Piles

• ( 2nd row) at the
Abutments
 Highway
Bridge
Foundation-
(Replacement)

• 24 inch Diameter Driven Pipe Piles at the Abutments & H Piles at the
Bent

• Battered Piles Not Allowed

Battered Piles Not Allowed Due to Liquefaction Potential at the Bridge Site 12
 Highway
Bridge-
Original(1959)
Subsurface
Investigation-

13
 Highway
Bridge
(Replacement)-
CPT Based
Subsurface
Investigation

14
 Highway
Bridge
(Replacement)-
CPT Based
Subsurface
Investigation

15
 Highway
Bridge
(Replacement)-
CPT Based
Subsurface
Investigation

16
 Highway
Bridge- CPT
Based
Subsurface
Investigation-
Abutment 1

17
 Highway
Bridge- CPT
Based
Subsurface
Investigation-
Bent 2

18
 Highway
Bridge- CPT
Based
Subsurface
Investigation-
Abutment 3

19
Highway Bridge-
CPT Based
Subsurface
Investigation for
Liquefaction

Blue Zones: Liquefiable Layers 20

CPT Technology Bridge Site
Characterization

Sharid K. Amiri Caltrans

 CPT
Correlation
Chart

Soil Classification Using The Cone Penetration Test

P.K. Robertson
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2
 Cone Tip Resistance (tsf) vs Depth (ft)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0

CPT Tip 20

Resistance
Profile 40

60

80

100

120

3
 Cone Sleeve Friction (tsf) vs Depth (ft)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0

CPT Sleeve 20

Friction
Profile 40

60

80

100

120

4
 Cone Friction Ratio vs Depth (ft)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0

CPT Friction 20

Ratio Profile
40

60

80

100

120

5
 Effective Friction Angle (Kulhawy and
Mayne, 1990)
CPT Based
Friction Ǿ = 17.6 + 11 log (Qtn)
Angle
Qtn= Normalized Cone Tip Resistance,
where
Qtn = [( qt /σatm)/(σ΄v0 /σatm)]0.5

qt: Cone tip resistance

σatm : 1 atm = 100kPa
σ΄v0 : Vertical effective stress
Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design

6
 CPT Based Undrained Shear Strength ( Robertson
undrained and Cabal, 2015)
Shear
Strength Su = ( qt –σv0)/Nkt
qt = Cone tip resistance
σv0= Vertical total stress
Nkt = Empirical cone factor

Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering

7
 CPT
Correlated Liquefied Soil Residual Strength ( Kramer and Wang, 2015)
Post
Liquefaction
Residual Sr (psf) = 2116.exp[{-8.444+0.109(N1)60 +5.379(σ’vo/2116 )0.1}]
Shear
Strength

Empirical Model for Estimation of the Residual Strength of

Liquefied Soil, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering

8
 SPT (N1) relationship with CPT
CPT
Correlated
Post
Liquefaction
Residual
Shear
Strength

Evaluation of Soil Properties for Seismic Stability Analyses of Slopes, Martin. G.R., 1992

9
 CPT Based
Soil Behavior
Type: Ic

Guide to Cone Penetration Testing For Geotechnical Engineering,

Robertson, P.K. & Cabal, K.L., 2015

10
 Spatial
Variability

11
12
SPT vs CPT

13
14
CPT & Bridge
Subsurface
Lateral
Continuity

15
16
CPT-Boring
Calibration-
Side by Side
Per Bridge
Structure

17
 CPT derived N60 can be compared with the
CPT-Boring actual N60
Calibration-
Side by Side
Per Bridge
SPT based liquefaction is compared with the
Structure CPT based liquefaction
Laboratory samples for liquefaction analysis
are taken by targeting specific layers

Very important for creating, calibrating and

building on a CPT based data base

18
 CPT-
Permissible
Horizontal
Distance from
the Bridge
Foundation

19
20
 Depth (ft) vs Pore Pressure ( tsf)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0

20

CPTU(Pore
Pressure) 40

60

80

100

120

21
 CPT-
Liquefiable
Soils& Impact
on Bridge
Foundation

22
 CPT: a very powerful tool for site investigation at sites prone to
CPT- liquefaction
Site CPT : a very effective tool for site characterization at sites subject
Investigation to liquefaction
&Site
Characterization It is essential to conduct a side by side CPT-Boring for bridge
foundation subject to liquefaction

It is essential that adequate investigation is performed to capture

spatial variability for liquefaction, which makes CPT an ideal tool

CPT offers superior data for bridge foundation design subject to

liquefaction

23
 Site Characterization
using Downhole Seismic
Testing
Gerald Verbeek – Verbeek Management Services
 What is SCPT

Seismic source

Shear wave

Seismic sensor You push the cone with a seismic adapter into
the soil; at each test depth the seismic source is
triggered and the response of the seismic sensor
is recorded.
2
 Why Near Surface Site Characterization?
Building Code requires estimation of Vs
Site Class Description Mean Shear Wave
Velocity to 30m (VS30)
m/sec
SA or A Hard Rock > 1500
SB or B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1500
SC or C Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 360-760
SD or D Stiff Soil Profile 180-360
SE or E Soft Soil (Clays) Profile < 180
SF or F Special Study Soils (e.g.,
liquefiable soils, sensitive clays,
organic soils, soft clays > 36 m
thick)
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program-Uniform Building Code (NEHRP-UBC)
3
Why Near Surface Site Characterization?

Liquefaction Assessment (Vs is influenced by many of the

variables that influence liquefaction, such as void ratio, soil
density, confining stress, stress history, and geologic age)

Analyses on the catastrophic

liquefaction in Christchurch,
New Zealand in 2010 and 2011
showed very clearly that near
surface rather than deep
liquefaction resulted in
extensive foundation damage.

4
 Why not SCPT (or so people claim)
• It is a supposedly a new method … or is it Interval Arrival
Depth Time
• Not specified … but things are changing (m) (ms)
0-0.5 28.00
• Too hard … or is it
0.5-2.5 27.46
• No samples …. why not 2.5-3.5 33.51
3.5-4.5 43.09
• Boulders or debris … yes, that’s a problem 4.5-5.5 51.40
5.5-6.5 58.54
• Near surface estimates are difficult to 6.5-7.5 66.23
obtain and subsequent interval velocity
7.5-8.5 70.84
estimates are inaccurate … but only if you
don’t test or analyze the data correctly 8.5-9.5 75.83
5
 SCPT in the field
SH-wave “point sources” should be utilized:
• Source location can be quantified.
• It is preferable to excite a small area so
that irregular and complex source waves
are not generated. Seismic source
di-1, ti-1
• A point source mitigates the concern of
proper coupling between the beam and
the soil underneath along the entire
length of the beam.

di, ti
 SCPT in the field
Relatively large radial sensor source offsets should be used:
• This minimizes both the "rod" noise.
• The near-field particle motions can be ignored.
The near-field terms tends to decay as 1/r2 where r is the distance from the
source, while the far-field terms decay as 1/r due to geometrical spreading.
• It increases the characterization of the layer or depth under
analysis due to the fact that the source wave refracts and travels
within stratigraphic layers for a longer period of time

7
 SCPT Data Processing
During data processing it is commonly assumed that seismic ways
travel in straight lines.
This straight ray geometry is only applicable if there is no radial
seismic source offset, but that is not practical (e.g. rod noise).
When there is an offset this geometry does not necessarily adhere
to Fermat’s principle, which means that the raypath travels along
the trajectory which requires minimum time between points.

8
 SCPT Data Processing
Data processing requires Iterative Forward Modeling (IFM) that assumes:
•Laterally homogeneous medium.
•Refraction at layer boundaries (Snell’s Law).
•Fermat’s principle of least time.
Depth Velocity Δ
Interval T Estimate
(m) (ms) (m/s) (%)
SRA IFM
0 - 1.5 22.98 112 112 0
1.5 - 2.5 24.26 536 181 196
2.5 - 3.5 27.31 267 209 28
3.5 - 4.5 36.69 94 101 -7
4.5 - 5.5 40.70 230 214 7
5.5 - 6.5 44.54 246 232 6
6.5 - 7.5 52.12 126 128 -2 9
Possible Use of SCPT Data Analysis Results

Liquefaction Potential Assessment 10

CPT Technology Bridge Site Liquefaction
Evaluation

Sharid K. Amiri Caltrans

 • 2 span cast In place (CIP) overcrossing bridge
structure
Proposed
Bridge • Prestressed cast in place box girder
Structure
• Close-end cantilever seat type abutment 1

• Open-end seat type abutment 3

• 7 feet diameter round columns at the bent 2

• Proposed bridge deck : 130 feet wide & 472 feet

long

2
 • 4 borings ( 2 hollow stem auger + 2 rotary wash)

Geotechnical • 2 Cone penetration tests (CPT)- Maximum Depth: 99 feet

Subsurface
Investigation: • CPT cross sectional area: 1.55 inch2
CPT + Boring
• CPT cylindrical friction sleeve surface area: 23.25 inch2

• CPT penetration rate: 0.79 inch/sec

• CPT data recorded every 1.967 inch

• CPT truck : 25 ton

3
 Cone tip resistance (tsf) vs Depth (ft)
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0
0.00

CPT tip 20.00

resistance: qc
profile 40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

4
 Cone sleeve friction (tsf) vs Depth (ft)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
0.00

CPT sleeve 20.00

friction : fs
profile 40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

5
 Cone friction ratio (%) vs Depth (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

0.00

CPT friction 20.00

ratio : fs/qc
profile 40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

6
 Normalized Cone tip resistance vs Depth (ft)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0.00
Normalized
cone tip 20.00

resistance
(Q) profile
40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Q = (qc – σv0)/((σ΄v0)n)
n : 0. 5 (clean sand) to 1.0 (Clays)
7
 Normalized friction ratio vs Depth (ft)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0.00
CPT
normalized 20.00

friction ratio
(F) profile
40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

F = (fs /(qc - σv0)) x 100%

8
 Soil behavior type index vs Depth (ft)

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

0.00

CPT soil 20.00

behavior type
index : Ic 40.00

profile 60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

I c= [(3.47- log Q)2 + (1.22+log F)2]0.5

9
 Normalized cone penetration resistance vs Depth (ft)

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00

Normalized 0.00

cone
penetration 20.00

resistance
corrected for 40.00

overburden :
qc1N profile 60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

qc1N= CQ(qc/Pa)
CQ = (Pa/σ’v0)n
Pa = 1.04 tsf 10
 CPT correction factor vs Depth (ft)

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
0.00

CPT correction 20.00

factor for grain

characteristics 40.00

: kc profile
60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Kc= 1.0 for Ic ≤ 1.64

Kc= -0.403 Ic4 + 5.581 Ic3 - 21.63 Ic2 + 33.75 Ic - 17.88 for Ic > 1.64
11
 Normalized clean sand cone penetration resistance vs Depth (ft)

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00

0.00
CPT
Normalized
clean sand 20.00

cone
penetration 40.00

resistance :
(qc1N)cs profile 60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

(qc1N)cs = Kcqc1N

12
 Cyclic resistance ratio (for magnitude 7.5) vs Depth (ft)

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

0.00

Cyclic
resistance ratio 20.00

for magnitude 40.00

7.5 : CRR7.5
profile 60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

If (qc1N)cs < 50 CRR7.5 = 0.833[(qc1N)cs/1000]+0.05

If 50≤ (qc1N)cs< 160 CRR7.5 = 93 [(qc1N)cs/1000]3 + 0.08
13
 Stress reduction coefficient vs Depth (ft)

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
0.00

Stress 10.00

reduction
20.00

30.00

coefficient : rd 40.00

profile 50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

14
 Earthquake magnitude vs Magnitude scaling factor

4.50

4.00

Magnitude 3.50

scaling factor 3.00

: MSF 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

MSF: Idriss ( NCEER 1997)

15
 Cyclic stress ratio vs Depth (ft)

0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50
0.00

10.00

Cyclic stress 20.00

ratio: CSR
30.00

40.00

profile 50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

CSR = 0.65 (amax/g)(σv0/σ’v0)rd

16
 Factor of Safety vs Depth (ft)

0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90
0.00

Factor of 10.00

20.00
safety: FS 30.00

profile 40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

FS = (CRR7.5/CSR)MSF

17
 • Determine Ground Water Elevation :

( Design GW elevation may be different from the actual GW

CPT Based elevation encountered during the subsurface investigation)
Liquefaction
• Identify the soil layer for quantitative liquefaction analysis
Analysis
• Obtain the CPT data

• Evaluate soil unit weight

• Calculate/Determine the CPT soil behavior type index

• Normalize cone penetration resistance

• Calculate clean sand equivalent normalized cone

penetration resistance

18
19
 • Evaluate liquefaction potential at the soil Layer: depth of 15.26 feet
• Earthquake Magnitude, Peak Ground Acceleration at the site:
• M : 7.0
CPT Based • PGA : 0.6
Liquefaction • Design Ground water elevation: 0 feet ( depth: 15 feet)
Analysis • Obtain cone tip bearing and sleeve friction values from the CPT data:.
• Cone Tip bearing: qc = 40.2 tsf (depth 15.26 feet)
& Cone sleeve friction: fs = 0.6 tsf

• Soil Unit Weight

Determine soil unit weight = 120 pcf = 0.06 tcf

20
 Calculate/Determine the CPT Soil Behavior Type Index

Ic = [(3.47 – log Q)2 + (1.22 + Log F)2]0.5 = 2.30

CPT Based
Liquefaction Where
Analysis Q = [(qc – σv0)/Pa][(Pa/σ΄ vo)n] = 43.16
and
F = [fs/qc – σvo)] x 100% = 1.48 %

n : Exponent = 1.0 (clay)

First calculate Soil Behavior Index (Ic) with n=1 . If the calculated Ic
is greater than 2.6, the soil behavior is clayey and is not
liquefiable. If the calculated Ic is less than 2.6, the soil is most
likely granular in nature and Q should be recalculated using an
exponent, n = 0.5 .

21
 Since Ic < 2.6, Q is recalculated, with n= 0.5

CPT Based Q = [(qc – σv0)/Pa][(Pa/σ΄ vo)n] = 37.8 x1.07 = 40.48

Liquefaction
n : Exponent = 0.5 (sand)
Analysis
Pa = Atmospheric Pressure = 1.04 tsf

σv0 : Total Overburden Pressure = 15.26 x 0.06 = 0.92 tsf

σ΄ vo : Effective Overburden Pressure = (15.26 -15) x (0.06 - 0.031) +

(15 x 0.06) = 0.91 tsf

22
 Normalize Cone Penetration Resistance

Cone penetration resistance is corrected for overburden stress as

CPT Based follows:
Liquefaction
qc1N = CQ (qc/Pa)
Analysis in this case = 41.42

where

CQ = (Pa/σ΄vo)n
in this case =1.07

CQ is a normalizing factor for cone penetration resistance.

23
 Calculate Clean Sand Equivalent Normalized Cone Penetration Resistance

correct the normalized penetration resistance, (qc1N), of sands with fines

CPT Based to an equivalent clean sand value, (qc1N )cs:
Liquefaction
Analysis (qc1N )cs = Kcqc1N = 84.16

Where the CPT correction factor for grain characteristics, Kc , is defined by:

For Ic ≤ 1.64 Kc =1.0

For Ic > 1.64 Kc = -0.403 Ic4 + 5.581 Ic3 -21.63 Ic2 + 33.75 Ic -17.88

In this case Ic = 2.3 and Kc = 2.03

24
 Calculate Cyclic Resistance Ratio : CRR

CPT Based If (qc1N )cs < 50 CRR7.5 = 0.833 [(qc1N )cs/1000]+0.05

Liquefaction
If 50 ≤ (qc1N )cs < 160 CRR7.5 = 93 [(qc1N )cs/1000]3 +0.08 = 0.14
Analysis

25
 Determine Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

CSR = 0.65 amax(σo /σ’o)rd

CPT Based
Liquefaction Where:
Analysis σo and σ’o are total and effective vertical overburden stresses,
respectively.
amax is peak horizontal acceleration (PGA) in g.
rd is a stress reduction coefficient.

amax = 0.6g

Determine Stress Reduction Coefficient, rd.

Depth (z) is 15.26’= 4.65 m
rd=1.0-0.00765 · z

rd =1.0-0.00765 · 4.65 = 0.96

26
 Calculate the Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)

Mw = 7.0
CPT Based
Liquefaction MSF = 102.24/Mw2.56
Analysis MSF = 102.24/7.02.56
= 1.19

Calculate the Factor of Safety against Liquefaction

FS = (CRR7.5/CSR) x MSF

FS = (.14/.38) x 1.19
= .42

27
28
 Today’s Speakers
• Kenneth Fishman, McMahon & Mann
Consulting Engineering and Geology,
kfishman@mmce.net
• Sharid Amiri, California Department
of Transportation,
sharid.amiri@dot.ca.gov
• Gerald Verbeek, Verbeek
Management Services,
gverbeek@verbeekservices.com
 Get Involved with TRB
• Getting involved is free!
• Join a Standing Committee (http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6)
• Become a Friend of a Committee
(http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)
– Networking opportunities
– May provide a path to become a Standing Committee
member
• Sponsoring Committees: AFF50, AFS30
• For more information: www.mytrb.org
– Create your account
– Update your profile
 Receiving PDH credits

• Must register as an individual to receive

credits (no group credits)
• Must attend entire webinar (including Q&A)
to receive credits
• Credits will be reported two to three
business days after the webinar
• You will be able to retrieve your certificate
from RCEP within one week of the webinar