JOINT TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH PROGRAM
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Development of SPT-Torque Test
Correlations for Glacial Till
Monica Prezzi, Seth Scheilz, Rodrigo Salgado, Nayyar Zia Siddiki
SPR-3317 • Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05 • DOI: 10.5703/1288284315499
RECOMMENDED CITATION
Prezzi, M., Scheilz, S., Salgado, R., & Siddiki, N. Z. (2014). Development of SPT-torque test correlations for glacial till
(Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315499
AUTHORS
Monica Prezzi, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
(765) 494-5034
mprezzi@purdue.edu
Corresponding Author
Seth Scheilz
Graduate Research Assistant
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rodrigo Salgado, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
Nayyar Zia Siddiki, PhD, PE
Geotechnical Operations Manager
Division of Geotechnical Services
Indiana Department of Transportation
This research was funded with the support provided by the Indiana Department of Transportation through the Joint
Transportation Research Program at Purdue University. The authors would like to thank the agency for the support.
The authors are very grateful for the support received from the Project Administrator Samy Noureldin and the Study
Advisory Committee, composed of Athar Khan, Tom Harris, Nayyar Zia, Malek Smadi, and Keith Hoernschemeyer,
throughout the duration of the project and for their valuable comments and suggestions. Special thanks are also
due to Jonathan Paauwe and Joey Franzino and the INDOT drilling crew, Dennis Torrance, Steve Dubac, and Marsell
Smith, for their incredible help and support throughout the duration of this project and for performing the in situ
tests required for this project. Thanks are also due to Nayyar Zia and Athar Khan for their support and valuable
comments and to our students Hector Flores, Jintae Lee, Yanbei Zhang, and Faraz Tehrani for their help with this
research project.
JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education
institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning,
design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html
Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/
NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of
the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2014 by Purdue University. All rights reserved.
Print ISBN: 978-1-62260-462-3
ePUB ISBN: 978-1-62260-463-0
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
Development of SPT-Torque Test Correlations for Glacial Till
June 2014
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Monica Prezzi, Seth Scheilz, Rodrigo Salgado, Nayyar Zia Siddiki
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No.
Joint Transportation Research Program
Purdue University
550 Stadium Mall Drive
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-3317
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Indiana Department of Transportation
State Office Building
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
Torque tests, which are performed immediately after a standard penetration test (SPT), have grown in popularity since its conception in
Brazil during the early 1990s. Purdue University developed the first automated torqueing hardware prototype in 2010. SPT, SPT-Torque
and cone penetration test (CPT) field testing were performed in glacial till soils at four different sites in northern Indiana and one site in
southern Indiana. Index tests were performed for the soil samples collected at each of these sites. Relationships between the torque
ratio (the measured torque divided by the corrected SPT blow count) vs. soil type, and unit side resistance vs. normalized SPT blow count
(N1,60) and normalized CPT cone resistance (qc,1) were explored for these soils. For saturated clay soils, development of a relationship
between unit side resistance and undrained shear strength was also attempted. Reliable correlations based on the torque ratio were not
achieved based on the data collected for all the different soils tested. However, reasonably high coefficients of determination were
obtained for the normalized equations developed for clays and saturated non-plastic silt. Low coefficients of determination were
obtained for saturated and unsaturated sandy soils. The low coefficients of determination values are attributed to the small population
dataset for sandy soils and the difficulty of adequately determining the degree of saturation for unsaturated non-plastic soil types due to
the soil structure destruction with sampling. Overall, it was found that the relationships are strong for clay and saturated non-plastic silt
and it is recommended that further data be collected to continue to strengthen all relationships, especially those for sand and
unsaturated non-plastic silt.
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
SPT, torque, SPT-T, glacial till, field testing, correlations,
undrained shear strength, side resistance
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
176
22. Price
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT OF SPT-TORQUE TEST
CORRELATIONS FOR GLACIAL TILL
operate the fabricated equipment to reduce site investigation,
design, and construction costs to INDOT. The research focused
on the development of SPT-T interpretation methods and shear
strength correlations for glacial tills, beyond development of the
SPT-T equipment itself.
Introduction
Findings
The standard penetration test (SPT) is the most commonly used
in situ test for site investigation. The test procedure consists of
driving a standard split-spoon sampler into the ground and
measuring the number of blows required for penetration of the
sampler at specific depths. Disturbed samples are retrieved and
used for soil identification in the field and for performing index
tests in the laboratory. Over time, many sources of errors were
identified regarding the SPT equipment and testing procedure.
The SPT-Torque test (SPT-T) is a modification of the original
SPT procedure and consists of rotating the standard sampler while
torque is measured after it is driven the required 0.45 meters.
Purdue University developed the first automated torqueing
hardware prototype in 2010 as part of this INDOT/JTRP-funded
research project.
Glacial deposits are found across the majority of the state of
Indiana. Glacial till is a highly variable soil due to the type of
source material that it is composed of and the vast area that it
covers. The developed SPT-Torque equipment was selected by
INDOT for use in glacial till soils found within the state of
Indiana. By performing torque tests, additional in situ data is
collected, thereby improving engineering design.
In this research, data collected from side-by-side field testing
(SPT, SPT-T and CPT) at various sites in the state of Indiana were
used in the development of blow count, torque, and cone
resistance correlations for Indiana soils.
Development of various correlations between the blow count
number, cone resistance, torque ratio, and shear strength were
explored based on the data collected for different Indiana soils.
Reasonably high coefficients of determination were obtained for
the normalized equations developed for clayey soils and saturated
non-plastic silt. Low coefficients of determination were obtained
for saturated and unsaturated sandy soils. The low coefficients of
determination values are attributed to the small population
dataset for sandy soils and the difficulty of adequately determining the degree of saturation for unsaturated non-plastic soil types
due to the soil structure destruction with sampling. Overall, it was
found that the relationships are stronger for clay and saturated
non-plastic silt, and hence it is recommended that further data be
collected to continue to strengthen all relationships, especially
those for sand and unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Study Objectives
The main objectives of the proposed research were to (1)
develop SPT-Torque hardware and software that are compatible
with INDOT SPT equipment; (2) collect in situ SPT-Torque data
for multiple sites composed of glacial till; (3) develop relationships
between laboratory and field test data, including cone penetration
test results; and (4) properly train INDOT personnel on how to
Implementation
Use of the SPT-T equipment is recommended in connection
with SPT site investigations done by INDOT for sites with finegrained soils for which the developed correlations between torque
measurements and shear strength are reliable. Additional data can
be collected in the context of INDOT projects to verify and refine
the correlations provided in this report. If fabrication of other
SPT-T hardware is required by INDOT, improvements can be
made to the current SPT-Torque prototype. Use of a more
expensive but lighter alloy material can be explored in order to
reduce the current size and weight of the hardware while at the
same time keeping it sturdy. A storage box could be fabricated to
safely transport and store the hardware when not in use by the
INDOT drilling crew. A cost-benefit analysis could be done to
determine the cost of production of additional SPT-T units versus
benefits due to better site investigations and geotechnical design.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . .
1.1 Introduction . . . . .
1.2 Organization of the
1.3 Chapter Summary .
......
......
Report.
......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
2
2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 SPT-Torque Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Preliminary SPT-Torque Results (Development of Torque Ratio)
2.3 Development of Soil Setup along Sampler and Pile Interfaces . . .
2.4 Side Shear Resistance Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Factors that Influence the SPT-Torque Testing and Performance .
2.6 Tested Soil Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
3
4
5
7
8
8
3. INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Data Acquisition System Development .
3.2 Hardware Development . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 8
. 8
10
12
4. SITE SELECTION FOR FIELD TESTING
4.1 Indiana Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Site Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
12
13
19
5. LABORATORY TESTING
5.1 Testing Program . . . . . .
5.2 Index Testing . . . . . . . .
5.3 Chapter Summary . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
19
19
20
6. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . .
6.1 Field Test Results and Analysis
6.2 Laboratory Testing Analysis . . .
6.3 Field Test Results . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
22
24
24
36
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.1 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A. SPT-Torque Calibration. . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B. SPT-Torque Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix C. 1-D Consolidation Tests. . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix D. Field and Laboratory Testing Results .
Appendix E. Analysis Plots Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix F. Site SPT Borings and CPT Soundings .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . 43
. . 44
. . 78
. 104
. 113
. 121
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Table 2.1 Published torque ratios for various soil types
4
Table 2.2 Summary of empirical factors as
6
Table 2.3 Data presented in Figure 2.2
7
Table 2.4 a-values of various soil types for blow count versus unit side resistance relationships
7
Table 3.1 Strain gauge, bridge and timing parameters used in the SPT-Torque software
9
Table 6.1 Ranges of peak and residual-state torque ratios for various soil types
23
Table 6.2 Empirical factors for unit side resistance versus standard penetration test N60 values for selected soil types
24
Table 6.3 INDOT 1-D consolidation data for the Koleen site
25
Table 6.4 Fitting parameter, a, and coefficient of determination relating N1,60 and fs shown in Equation 6.2 for various soils
28
Table 6.5 Fitting parameter a and coefficient of determination relating N1,60 and fs shown in Equation 6.3 for various soils
31
Table 6.6 Fitting parameter a and coefficient of determination relating qc,1 and fs shown in Equation 6.5 for various soils
33
Table 6.7 Cone factor, fitting parameter, and coefficient of determination for upper and lower bounds relating su and fs shown in Equation
6.6 for clay soils
35
Table 6.8 Fitting parameters, and coefficient of determination relating su and fs shown in Equation 6.7 for clay soils
36
Table 6.9 Fitting parameter a and coefficient of determination relating qc,1 and fs shown in Equation 6.8 for various soils
38
Table 7.1 Summary of correlations developed for clay, silt and sand
40
Table A.1 SPT-Torque calibration data
43
Table D.1 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 1
104
Table D.2 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 2
104
Table D.3 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 3
104
Table D.4 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 4
104
Table D.5 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Lafayette Maintenance Unit boring 1
104
Table D.6 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 1
105
Table D.7 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 3
105
Table D.8 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4
105
Table D.9 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 5
105
Table D.10 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 6
105
Table D.11 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 7
105
Table D.12 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 8
106
Table D.13 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 1
106
Table D.14 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 2
106
Table D.15 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 3
106
Table D.16 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 4
106
Table D.17 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 5
107
Table D.18 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 6
107
Table D.19 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site boring 1
107
Table D.20 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site boring 2
107
Table D.21 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site boring 3
107
Table D.22 SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site boring 5
107
Table D.23 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit
boring 1
108
Table D.24 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit
boring 2
108
Table D.25 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit
boring 3
108
Table D.26 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit
boring 4
108
Table D.27 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Lafayette Maintenance Unit
boring 1
108
Table D.28 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 1
109
Table D.29 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 4
109
Table D.30 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 4
109
Table D.31 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 5
109
Table D.32 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 6
109
Table D.33 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 7
109
Table D.34 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit
boring 8
110
Table D.35 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 1
110
Table D.36 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 2
110
Table D.37 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 3
110
Table D.38 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 4
110
Table D.39 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 5
111
Table D.40 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit
boring 6
111
Table D.41 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 1
111
Table D.42 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 2
111
Table D.43 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 3
112
Table D.44 Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 5
112
Table E.1 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.3
113
Table E.2 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.4
113
Table E.3 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.5
114
Table E.4 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.6
114
Table E.5 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.7
114
Table E.6 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.8
115
Table E.7 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.9
115
Table E.8 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.10
115
Table E.9 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.11
116
Table E.10 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.12
116
Table E.11 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.13
116
Table E.12 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.14
116
Table E.13 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.15
117
Table E.14 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.16
117
Table E.15 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.17
118
Table E.16 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.18
118
Table E.17 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.19
118
Table E.18 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.20
118
Table E.19 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.25
119
Table E.20 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.26
119
Table E.21 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.27
119
Table E.22 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.28
120
Table E.23 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.29
120
Table E.24 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.30
120
Table E.25 Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.31
120
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 2.1 Unit side resistance versus standard penetration test N60 values for selected soil types
6
Figure 2.2 Unit side resistance versus standard penetration test N60 for various soil
7
Figure 3.1 Software user interface
9
Figure 3.2 SPT-Torque hardware
10
Figure 3.3 Drill rod adaptor
10
Figure 3.4 Full-bridge type III strain gauge configuration
11
Figure 3.5 Original position limit switch engaged
11
Figure 3.6 Ending position limit switch engaged
11
Figure 3.7 SPT-Torque calibration
11
Figure 3.8 Control box exterior
12
Figure 3.9 Control box interior
12
Figure 4.1 Distribution of glacial deposits in the north-central United States
13
Figure 4.2 Glacial boundaries in Indiana
14
Figure 4.3 Map of Indiana counties
15
Figure 4.4 Satellite view of the Flora site from Google Earth
15
Figure 4.5 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at the Flora site
15
Figure 4.6 Satellite view of the Lafayette site from Google Earth. 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at
the Lafayette site
16
Figure 4.7 Satellite view of the Frankfort site from Google Earth. 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at
the Frankfort site
17
Figure 4.8 Satellite view of the Romney site from Google Earth
18
Figure 4.9 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at the Romney site
18
Figure 4.10 Satellite view of the Koleen site from Google Earth
18
Figure 4.11 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at the Koleen site
18
Figure 5.1 Photograph of a sieve set used to determine the soil gradation
19
Figure 5.2 Photograph of the soil before starting the wet sieving process
20
Figure 5.3 Photograph of 50 grams of soil passing a #200 sieve with 5 grams of anti-flocculation agent, Sodium Hexametaphosphate
20
Figure 5.4 A photograph, on the left, of the soil solution being amalgamated with the electric mixer and a photograph, on the right, of the
hydrometer placed in the soil solution
21
Figure 5.5 Photograph of a soil sample in a water content container
21
Figure 5.6 Photograph of water content tests placed in the drying oven
21
Figure 5.7 Photograph of a liquid limit test
22
Figure 5.8 Photograph of a plastic limit test
22
Figure 6.1 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
23
Figure 6.2 INDOT 1-D consolidation data with relationship for the Koleen site
25
Figure 6.3 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay
26
Figure 6.4 Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay
26
Figure 6.5 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt
26
Figure 6.6 Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt
27
Figure 6.7 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand
27
Figure 6.8 Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand
27
Figure 6.9 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay
28
Figure 6.10 Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay
29
Figure 6.11 Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
29
Figure 6.12 Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
29
Figure 6.13 Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand
30
Figure 6.14 Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand
30
Figure 6.15 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay
31
Figure 6.16 Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay
31
Figure 6.17 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt
32
Figure 6.18 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt
32
Figure 6.19 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand
32
Figure 6.20 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand
33
Figure 6.21 Upper bound relating peak unit side resistance to undrained shear strength
34
Figure 6.22 Lower bound relating peak unit side resistance to undrained shear strength
34
Figure 6.23 Upper bound relating residual unit side resistance to undrained shear strength
34
Figure 6.24 Lower bound relating residual unit side resistance to undrained shear strength
35
Figure 6.25 Residual unit side resistance versus undrained shear strength for saturated clay normalized with vertical effective stress
35
Figure 6.26 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay
36
Figure 6.27 Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay
37
Figure 6.28 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
37
Figure 6.29 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
37
Figure 6.30 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand
38
Figure 6.31 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand
38
Figure A.1 Plot of the calibration data
43
Figure B.1 Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
44
Figure B.2 Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
44
Figure B.3 Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
45
Figure B.4 Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
45
Figure B.5 Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
45
Figure B.6 Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
46
Figure B.7 Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
46
Figure B.8 Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
46
Figure B.9 Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
47
Figure B.10 Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
47
Figure B.11 Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
47
Figure B.12 Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
48
Figure B.13 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
48
Figure B.14 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
49
Figure B.15 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
49
Figure B.16 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
49
Figure B.17 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
50
Figure B.18 Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
50
Figure B.19 Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
51
Figure B.20 Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
51
Figure B.21 Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
52
Figure B.22 Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
52
Figure B.23 Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
52
Figure B.24 Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
53
Figure B.25 Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
53
Figure B.26 Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
53
Figure B.27 Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
54
Figure B.28 Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
54
Figure B.29 Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
54
Figure B.30 Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
55
Figure B.31 Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
55
Figure B.32 Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
55
Figure B.33 Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
56
Figure B.34 Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
56
Figure B.35 Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
56
Figure B.36 Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
57
Figure B.37 Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
57
Figure B.38 Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
57
Figure B.39 Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
58
Figure B.40 Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
58
Figure B.41 Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
58
Figure B.42 Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
59
Figure B.43 Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
59
Figure B.44 Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
60
Figure B.45 Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
60
Figure B.46 Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
60
Figure B.47 Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
61
Figure B.48 Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
61
Figure B.49 Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
61
Figure B.50 Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
62
Figure B.51 Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
62
Figure B.52 Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
62
Figure B.53 Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
63
Figure B.54 Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
63
Figure B.55 Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
63
Figure B.56 Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
64
Figure B.57 Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
64
Figure B.58 Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
64
Figure B.59 Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
65
Figure B.60 Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
65
Figure B.61 Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
65
Figure B.62 Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
66
Figure B.63 Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
66
Figure B.64 Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
66
Figure B.65 Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
67
Figure B.66 Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
67
Figure B.67 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
68
Figure B.68 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
68
Figure B.69 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
69
Figure B.70 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
69
Figure B.71 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
69
Figure B.72 Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
70
Figure B.73 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
70
Figure B.74 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
70
Figure B.75 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
71
Figure B.76 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
71
Figure B.77 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
71
Figure B.78 Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
72
Figure B.79 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
72
Figure B.80 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
72
Figure B.81 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
73
Figure B.82 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
73
Figure B.83 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
73
Figure B.84 Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
74
Figure B.85 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters
74
Figure B.86 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters
74
Figure B.87 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters
75
Figure B.88 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters
75
Figure B.89 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters
75
Figure B.90 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters
76
Figure B.91 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 10.21–10.67 meters
76
Figure B.92 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 11.74–12.20 meters
76
Figure B.93 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 13.26–13.72 meters
77
Figure B.94 Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 14.79–15.24 meters
77
Figure C.1 1-D consolidation test for Flora 6 with a depth of 2.08 meters
78
Figure C.2 1-D consolidation test for Flora 6 with a depth of 2.95 meters
78
Figure C.3 1-D consolidation test for Frankfort 9 with a depth of 1.55 meters
79
Figure C.4 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
80
Figure C.5 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
81
Figure C.6 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
82
Figure C.7 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
83
Figure C.8 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
84
Figure C.9 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
85
Figure C.10 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
86
Figure C.11 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
87
Figure C.12 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
88
Figure C.13 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
89
Figure C.14 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
90
Figure C.15 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
91
Figure C.16 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
92
Figure C.17 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
93
Figure C.18 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
94
Figure C.19 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
95
Figure C.20 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
96
Figure C.21 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
97
Figure C.22 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
98
Figure C.23 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
99
Figure C.24 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
100
Figure C.25 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
101
Figure C.26 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
102
Figure C.27 1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT
103
Figure F.1 Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 1
122
Figure F.2 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 10.30 meters
123
Figure F.3 Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 2
124
Figure F.4 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 8.99 meters
125
Figure F.5 Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 3
126
Figure F.6 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 10.52 meters
127
Figure F.7 Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 4
128
Figure F.8 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 11.13 meters
129
Figure F.9 Boring log for Lafayette Maintenance Unit boring 1
130
Figure F.10 Lafayette Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 4.97 meters
131
Figure F.11 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 1
132
Figure F.12 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 6.16 meters
133
Figure F.13 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 3
134
Figure F.14 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 3.17 meters
135
Figure F.15 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4
136
Figure F.16 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 2.74 meters
137
Figure F.17 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 5
138
Figure F.18 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 3.19 meters
139
Figure F.19 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 6
140
Figure F.20 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 6 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 3.93 meters
141
Figure F.21 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 7
142
Figure F.22 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 7 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 9.14 meters
143
Figure F.23 Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 8
144
Figure F.24 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 8 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 8.95 meters
145
Figure F.25 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 1
146
Figure F.26 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 7.99 meters
147
Figure F.27 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 2
148
Figure F.28 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 7.62 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 10.67 meters
149
Figure F.29 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 3
150
Figure F.30 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 9.54 meters
151
Figure F.31 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 4
152
Figure F.32 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 6.95 meters
153
Figure F.33 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 5
154
Figure F.34 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 7.87 meters
155
Figure F.35 Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 6
156
Figure F.36 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 6 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 10.12 meters
157
Figure F.37 Boring log for Koleen Site boring 1
158
Figure F.38 Koleen site SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth of
7.92 meters
159
Figure F.39 Boring log for Koleen Site boring 2
160
Figure F.40 Koleen site SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth of
16.85 meters
161
Figure F.41 Boring log for Koleen Site boring 3
162
Figure F.42 Koleen site SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth of
11.11 meters
163
Figure F.43 Boring log for Koleen Site boring 5
164
Figure F.44 Koleen site SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 15.24 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth of
14.47 meters
165
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The standard penetration test (SPT) is the most
commonly used in situ test for site investigation. The
test procedure consists of counting the number of
hammer blows required for penetration of a split-spoon
sampler into the ground surface at given depths, and
then retrieving disturbed samples that are used for soil
identification in the field and for performing index tests
in the laboratory. Over time, many sources of errors
were identified regarding the SPT equipment and
testing procedure. Correction factors are used to
alleviate concerns regarding normalization of measurements made with different equipment and operators.
Equipment errors are due to different hammer type and
efficiency, hammer drop mechanism, sampler type, and
borehole diameter. Operating errors are related to how
operators use the equipment during testing.
The first SPT-Torque (SPT-T) test was developed in
Brazil by Ranzini (1988). Basically, the SPT-T test
modified the original SPT procedure by applying a
torque at the ground surface after the sampler was
driven 0.45 meters. The SPT-T test is similar to the vane
shear test in that the testing device is inserted into the
ground at the desired depth and rotated while torque is
measured at the ground surface. The SPT-T measurements obtained in conjunction with the SPT are used to
calculate at each depth the test is performed the
resistance offered by the soil surrounding the sampler
to the measured torque. When the process of torque
measurement is automated, as is the case with the SPTTorque hardware developed by Purdue University, the
human error is removed from the torque test procedure.
Therefore, this additional measurement is helpful in the
sense that it increases the reliability of the SPT test since
the measurement of torque is independent of operatorrelated factors and of the dynamic processes that
influence blow counts. As a result, measurement of
torque provides some assurance on the quality of the
SPT blow N numbers measured, and permits better
estimation of soil properties. The time required to
perform SPT-T tests is minimal and does not reduce the
productivity of site investigations done using the SPT.
The developed SPT-Torque hardware and software
was selected by INDOT for use in glacial till soils found
within the state of Indiana. Glacial till soils were
formed during the Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary
Period when ice covered up to 30% of the Earth’s
surface (Milligan, 1976). Glaciers cover approximately
10% of the Earth’s surface at the present time. During
cooling trends, glaciers moved toward the Equator
from the North and South Poles and retreated during
warming periods. Most major glacial advances (common names used to identify glacial advances in the
United States: Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and
Wisconsin) depositing glacial till occurred during this
time. Illinoian and Wisconsin advances are found in
Indiana, with the Wisconsin deposits generally being
thicker and overlaying the Illinoian deposits.
Glacial deposits are found across the majority of the
state of Indiana. The Illinoian ice made the greatest
advance southward with the boundary reaching the
Ohio River in southeast Indiana. The Illinoian boundary lies north of Evansville and Bloomington, and east
of New Albany. The Wisconsin boundary is north of
the Illinoian boundary. The Wisconsin boundary lies
north of Terre Haute and Martinsville and south of
Richmond. Indianapolis and West Lafayette, where
Purdue University is situated, are located on the
regionally named Tipton Till Plain, which consists of
glacial till from the Illinoian and Wisconsin advances.
Wisconsin deposits cover the Illinoian deposits across
the Tipton Till Plain. The northern quarter of Indiana
consists of morainal and outwash plains from the Great
Lakes during the retreating of the glaciers during the
warming trends.
Glacial till is a highly variable soil due to the type of
source material that it is comprised of and the vast area
that it covers. Glacial till soil particles vary across many
orders of magnitude, being comprised of soil particles
ranging from clay to cobbles and boulders. The
variability of glacial till particle sizes depends on the
following factors: parent material, distance travelled
from the source, and transportation and depositional
method, including the type of glacier(s) and/or meltwater. As the distance from the parent material
increases, the soil particles begin to transition from
coarse-grained soils to fine-grained soils. Generally, the
natural state of glacial till is over-consolidated due to
the weight of the overlying glacier that is removed at
some point in time, has a low compressibility and is a
hard and dense soil that has a large bearing capacity
(Loiselle & Hurtubise, 1976).
Research on the SPT-T has been very limited, and
there is no data on the SPT-T in connection with glacial
tills. Accordingly, the main goals of the present study
were to develop reliable correlations between blow
count, torque measurements, and cone penetration
resistance for the glacial till found in Indiana. The
correlations proposed in this research can be used to
obtain soil parameters needed in pile design, slope
stability analyses, and many other geotechnical design
applications that INDOT engineers and consultants
face routinely.
1.1.1 Problem Statement
The number of blows, ‘‘blow count’’ or ‘‘NSPT,’’ are
counted and recorded at specified depths in the soil
profile when the split-spoon sampler is driven during
the SPT. The blow count can vary significantly due to
many different factors, some of which were outlined in
the previous section. For example, when the blow count
is recorded as 10 blows and is miscounted by 1 blow the
percent error is 10%. The percent error of miscounting
1 blow increases as the total blow count decreases. The
misrepresentation of the blow count can have significant effects on analyses that use relationships relating
the blow count to the undrained shear strength. By
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
1
performing torque tests, additional in situ data is
collected, thereby reducing the dependency on blow
count measurements for engineering design.
Correlations between SPT blow counts (without
torque measurement) and glacial till properties is at
best limited. In this research, data collected from sideby-side field testing (SPT, SPT-T and CPT) at various
sites in the state of Indiana were used in the
development of blow count, torque and cone resistance
correlations for glacial till soils. With these relationships, the Indiana Department of Transportation
(INDOT) engineers will be able to design deep
foundations more efficiently when glacial till soils are
encountered within the state of Indiana.
1.1.2 Research Objectives
The four main project objectives are listed below:
N
N
N
N
Develop SPT-Torque hardware and software that are
compatible with INDOT equipment.
Collect in situ SPT-Torque data for multiple sites
comprised of glacial till.
Develop relationships between laboratory and field test
data, including cone penetration test results.
Properly train INDOT personnel on how to operate the
fabricated equipment.
1.1.3 Scope of Work
This report presents the results of the research
performed on the development of SPT-Torque correlations. The scope of work includes a detailed literature
review, instrumentation development of SPT-Torque
hardware, data acquisition software development, site
selection and in situ torque field testing and CPT
testing, laboratory testing of disturbed split-spoon and
undisturbed Shelby tube samples, analysis of results,
conclusions and recommendations. Details regarding
these topics are presented in subsequent chapters.
1.2 Organization of the Report
The report consists of seven chapters covering the
equipment development and results from the SPTTorque research.
Chapter 1 is an introduction of the research on the
SPT-Torque.
Chapter 2 is a review of previously published
literature, focusing mainly on previous research projects using results of the SPT-Torque tests.
Chapter 3 pertains to details of the development of
software and SPT-Torque hardware used during field
testing.
Chapter 4 pertains to the five sites that were selected
for field testing. Detail is provided regarding the
number of borings, SPT-Torque tests performed, CPT
soundings, and undisturbed samples collected.
Chapter 5 shows the results of the laboratory tests
that were performed on the disturbed samples from the
2
split-spoon sampler and the undisturbed samples from
Shelby tubes. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were
used to perform index property tests to provide soil
classification.
Chapter 6 contains the analysis of the relationships
developed for the various soils that were encountered
during the field investigations with the results from the
SPT-Torque tests and CPT soundings performed at the
field sites and laboratory testing.
Chapter 7 provides the conclusions of the report and
recommendations for further research.
1.3 Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 presents an overview of the development
of the standard penetration test with and without the
addition of torque measurements and of the main
characteristics of glacial till soils. The research objectives highlight the need for the development of the SPTTorque hardware and software to collect in situ data for
the purpose of developing correlations to better predict
parameters needed for engineering design.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 SPT-Torque Introduction
The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586
(ASTM, 2007b)) has been used in the geotechnical
field for many decades. This test consists of dropping a
63.5 kg hammer from a height of 76 cm to drive a
metal, split-spoon soil sampler 45 cm into the bottom of
a soil boring in three 15-cm increments and recording
the number of blows needed to drive the sampler each
of the three 15 cm increments. The number of blows for
the second and third 15-cm increments is added, and
the resulting number is commonly referred to as the
‘‘blow count or NSPT value.’’ Over time, adjustments
have been made to reduce or minimize the source of
many errors found with the original SPT practice. In
the past two decades, additional data has been obtained
when SPTs are performed by rotating clockwise the
sampler after the sampler has been driven 45 cm into
the ground.
The original concept of torqueing an SPT sampler
was developed in Brazil (Ranzini, 1988) in the late
1980s with manual application of a torque to the string
of drill rods (Bullock, 1999; Bullock & Schmertmann,
2003; Cottingham, 2009; Decourt & Quaresma, 1991;
Hicks, 2001; Lutenegger & Kelley, 1998; Peixoto &
Carvalho, 1999; Rausche et al., 1995; Winter et al.,
2005). All published research performed by the
previously mentioned authors used the same method
of manual rotation for collecting torque data. The
original hardware used by Decourt and Quaresma
(1991) for performing the SPT-Torque consisted of a
mechanical torquemeter with kg-m torque units. The
peak and residual torque values were visually observed
and recorded during the manual rotation of the
torquemeter.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Bullock (1999) developed a data acquisition system
that recorded the measured torque as a function of the
rotation angle. The system used a laptop and a torque
cell that contained two Wheatstone bridge configurations. A Wheatstone bridge configuration allows for a
direct relationship between the strain and the applied
torque using a calibration factor. This system was used
in later research performed by Hicks (2001), Bullock
and Schmertmann (2003), Bullock et al. (2005a, 2005b),
and Cottingham (2009). Most of the testing performed
by these authors used standard drilling methods, but
rotary wash drilling with casing was used for one
project (Bullock et al., 2005b). The reason for using the
rotary wash and casing was to minimize soil disturbance from other boreholes that were open at the same
time a given borehole was being drilled.
There is great uncertainty in SPT measurements.
There are several sources of errors associated with the
SPT procedure and equipment that can be taken into
account before interpretation of test results. The blow
count numbers measured in the field are corrected as
follows:
N60 ~Ch Cr Cs Cd NSPT
ð2:1Þ
where N60 5 blow count for 60% hammer energy
efficiency (Blows), Ch 5 hammer correction (unitless),
Cr 5 rod length correction (unitless), Cs 5 sampler
correction (unitless), and Cd 5 borehole diameter
correction (unitless), NSPT 5 measured in situ blow
count (Blows). Ch corrects for the type of hammer
because different hammers have different energy
efficiency. Cr corrects for the rod length since measured
N values performed with a rod length less than 10
meters has artificially high N values and must be
corrected. Cs corrects for a sampler that accommodates
a sampler liner and is used without the liner. Without
the liner, the sampler allows for internal relief, and the
measured N value is artificially low. Cd corrects for the
diameter of the borehole. As the diameter increases, the
measured N value becomes artificially low due to a
decrease in confinement at the base of the borehole and
must be corrected.
Based on a modification of work performed by
Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
proposed the following N60 vs. undrained shear
strength su correlation:
su
~0:06N60
Pa
qc ~Nk su zsv
ð2:3Þ
Generally, measured N values for soft clayey soils are
low. For example, the percent error for ten blows when
the N value is measured incorrectly by 1 blow is 10%.
ð2:4Þ
where qc 5 CPT tip resistance, Nk 5 Cone factor, su 5
undrained shear strength and sv 5 total vertical stress.
Salgado (2008) provides a table summarizing soil type,
testing method, index properties and cone factor.
Equation 2.4 is the bearing capacity equation used for
in foundation design. Values of the cone factor for
clayey soils range from 9 to 12.
2.2 Preliminary SPT-Torque Results (Development of
Torque Ratio)
In 1991, the first Standard Penetration Test Torque
(SPT-Torque) test was performed in Brazil with no testspecific fabricated equipment (Decourt & Quaresma,
1991). The tests were performed by manually applying
torque to the string of drilling rods using a standard
torquemeter; the same equipment that was typically
used to perform vane shear tests. The authors collected
peak and residual torque values by visual observation
of the torquemeter gauge. The peak torque value was
commonly reached within a visually observed K revolution for the tests performed. The residual torque,
which was visually observed by applying torque for
several continuous revolutions, represents the strength
of the remolded soil at large strains (Decourt &
Quaresma, 1994).
Decourt and Quaresma (1994) defined the torque
ratio TR as:
TR ~
ð2:2Þ
where su 5 undrained shear strength, Pa 5 reference
stress (100 kPa), N60 5 blow count for 60% hammer
energy efficiency. According to Hara et al. (1974), N60
is related to su as:
su
~0:29(N60 )0:72
Pa
As the blow count decreases, the percent error increases. When the N value is used in either Equation 2.2
or 2.3 or a similar relationship, the error is being
compounded, and this may lead to conservative or
unconservative undrained shear strength estimates that
are then used for engineering design. The addition of
torque measurements to the SPT provides further data
that allows engineers to do design for clayey soils
without relying only on potentially questionable blow
count data. The additional step of performing a torque
test minimal time or cost, thus not lengthening the
normal time needed or increasing the proposed budget
for a standard site investigation.
For clay, CPT tip resistance is related to undrained
shear strength as shown:
T
N72
ð2:5Þ
where T 5 measured torque (kgf-m), and N72 5 blow
count for 72% hammer energy efficiency. The torque
ratio is conceptually similar to the friction ratio (sleeve
friction resistance/cone resistance) defined for the Cone
Penetration Test (CPT) and used to categorize soil
behavior type. The similarity results from the fact that
the torque measurement and sleeve friction resistance
capture the soil resistance along the radial surface area
of the split-spoon sampler and cone sleeve, respectively,
and the blow count and cone tip resistance capture the
soil resistance at the split-spoon sampler shoe and cone
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
3
tip, respectively; however, one is a dynamic test while
the other is a quasi-static test. As these authors
collected TR data for different types of soil, the data
were added to the pre-existing TR data to enlarge the
data set. The data can potentially be used to propose
soil behavior charts.
Common practice in Brazil is to adjust the N values
to a corrected hammer efficiency of 72 percent (Decourt
& Quaresma, 1994), while common practice in the
United States is to adjust to a corrected hammer
efficiency of 60 percent (Kelley & Lutenegger, 1999).
Caution should be used when comparing the data set
from Decourt and Quaresma (1994), Decourt (1998),
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999), and Peixoto et al. (2000)
due to the differences in hammer efficiency. Decourt
and Quaresma (1994) introduced the concept of critical
depth defined as the depth at which the weight of the
drilling rods equals the weight of the hammer.
Measured hammer efficiencies tend to increase until
the critical depth is reached because the secondary
waves returning to the surface interfere less with the
primary waves generated by the hammer impact as the
depth increases. Lower hammer efficiencies increase N
values, thus lowering the torque ratios due to the
inverse relationship between the two variables. However, because there is a limited torque ratio data set in
the published literature (see Table 2.1), TR correlations
can only be used for site specific soil types (Peixoto
et al., 2003). Except for a few soil types published by
Decourt (1998), the majority of soils in Table 2.1,
ranging from fine-grained soils to sandy soils, have a
torque ratio that falls within the range of 0.75–2.0.
2.3 Development of Soil Setup along Sampler and
Pile Interfaces
Bullock (1999) performed research for the Florida
Department of Transportation to develop relationships
between soil setup along the split-spoon sampler and
soil setup along driven piles. Setup is the measure of soil
strength gain over time due to pore pressure dissipation
in fine-grained soils. The research consisted of driving
TABLE 2.1
Published torque ratios for various soil types
Soil Type
Fine Sand Above the Water Table
Fine Sand Below the Water Table
Lower Bound Sedimentary Sands
Soil from the Tertiary Sedimentary Basin of Sao Paulo
Saprolitic Soils-SP
Collapsible Porous Clays
Soft Marine Clays of Santos
Upper Bound Sedimentary Sands
Sandy Silty Clay with Organic Material
Sandy Silty Clay without Organic Material
Silty Clay with Organic Material
Silty Clay without Organic Material
Sandy Clay with Organic Material
Sandy Clay without Organic Material
Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel
Sandy Silty Clay without Gravel
Silty Clay with Gravel
Silty Clay without Gravel
Sandy Clay with Gravel
Sandy Clay without Gravel
Sandy Silt with Gravel
Sandy Silt without Gravel
Clayey Sandy Silt with Gravel
Clayey Sandy Silt without Gravel
Sandy Silt with Mica
Sandy Silt without Mica
Clayey Sandy Silt with Mica
Clayey Sandy Silt without Mica
Sandy Clayey Silt with Mica
Sandy Clayey Silt without Mica
Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Clayey Silt
TR72a
TR60b
TR60c
1.02
0.71
,0.3
,1.2
,2.0
2.5–5.0
3.0–4.0
,10.0
1.57–1.65
1.18–1.28
1.12
0.76
1.28
0.91
1.12
1.32
0.68
0.96
1.17
1.20
1.66–1.89
1.27–1.56
1.20–1.32
0.93–1.33
1.27–1.39
1.62–1.68
1.34–2.47
0.92–1.71
1.36–1.87
1.35–1.57
0.8–1.0
1.0–2.0
0.85
0.59
,0.25
,1.0
,1.67
2.1–4.2
2.5–3.3
,8.3
1.31–1.38
0.98–1.07
0.93
0.63
1.07
0.76
0.93
1.10
0.57
0.80
0.98
1.0
1.38–1.58
1.06–1.30
1.0–1.1
0.78–1.11
1.06–1.16
1.35–1.40
1.12–2.06
0.77–1.43
1.13–1.56
1.13–1.31
0.67–0.83
0.83–1.67
8.34
5.80
,2.45
,9.81
,16.35
20.44–40.88
24.53–32.70
,81.75
12.83–13.49
9.65–10.46
9.16
6.21
10.46
7.44
9.16
10.79
5.56
7.85
9.56
9.81
13.57–15.45
10.38–12.75
9.81–10.79
7.60–10.87
10.38–11.36
13.24–13.73
10.95–20.19
7.52–13.98
11.12–15.28
9.24–15.29
6.54–8.18
8.18–16.35
Reference
Decourt and Quaresma (1994)
Decourt and Quaresma (1994)
Decourt (1998)
Decourt (1998)
Decourt (1998)
Decourt (1998)
Decourt (1998)
Decourt (1998)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto and Carvalho (1999)
Peixoto et al. (2000)
Peixoto et al. (2000)
a
Torque Ratio has torque units of kgf-m and energy efficiency of 72%.
Torque Ratio has torque units of kgf-m and energy efficiency of 60%.
c
Torque Ratio has torque units of N-m and energy efficiency of 60%.
b
4
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
precast concrete piles into various Florida soils and
comparing the setup factors from load tests against the
results from SPT-Torque tests. The driven piles were
tested over a set schedule to determine set-up effects.
SPT-Torque tests were performed with staged and
unstaged schedules. A staged test is defined as a
determined number of SPT-Torque tests performed
with a determined timeline that models pile setup over a
logarithmic scale time frame. An unstaged test consists
of only one additional SPT-Torque test performed after
the initial test, which is performed immediately following the SPT driving. The square, prestressed concrete
piles were instrumented along the entire length of the
pile with strain gauges, and an Osterberg Cell (O-Cell)
was cast into the base of the piles (Bullock et al.,
2005a). The data collected from strain gauges placed
along the entire pile length were used to analyze the
transition of the load from the pile onto the in situ soil
layers during the pile load test. The study found that
the SPT-Torque can be used in a practical manner to
estimate setup factors for fine-grained clayey soils. The
research was furthered by Hicks (2001) by comparing
staged tests versus unstaged tests. A limiting factor in
Hicks (2001) is that the staged testing requires many
tests over a period of time that mirrors the logarithmic
time scale currently used for pile setup design. The
logarithmic scale used for the SPT-Torque tests had a
reference time of 5 minutes. The SPT-Torque reference
time was modeled to the results of a driven pile with a
reference time of 1 day (Bullock et al., 2005b). This
staged testing procedure requires that borings at the test
site remain open for at least 18 hours, which reduces
site exploration productivity. The amount of time
needed for staged tests limits the number of tests that
can be performed for any project that has a rigid or
limiting schedule.
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation funded two projects to further understand relationships
between setup along the sampler interface and setup of
piles (Komurka et al., 2003; Winter et al., 2005). Winter
et al. (2005) modified the method used by Hicks (2001)
by reducing the time allowed for setup along the
sampler interface to a maximum of two hours. Results
indicated that the SPT-Torque underestimated the
setup of piles and that the two hour maximum criterion
did not allow enough time to properly capture the setup
effects along the sampler interface, making the SPTTorque a poor site exploration tool for determining
driven pile setup factors.
Lutenegger and Kelley (1998) performed load tests
on steel pipe piles. Open and close-ended steel pipe piles
were tested in tension, and the load tests results were
compared with the unit side resistance results from the
SPT-Torque testing. Setup of 30 days was allowed
before the tensile tests were performed.
2.4 Side Shear Resistance Relationships
Ranzini (1994) proposed the following relationship
between measured torque and unit side resistance:
fs ~
T
(41:226L{0:032)
ð2:6Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), T 5 measured
torque (kN-m), and L 5 penetration length of the splitspoon sampler (m).
Rausche et al. (1995) was the first to perform SPTTorque research in the United States. Lutenegger and
Kelley (1998) performed extensive research testing
the SPT-Torque procedure in New England. These
authors’ research proposed the following relationship
between unit side resistance and torque:
fs ~
2T
pd 2 L
ð2:7Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), T 5 measured
torque (kN-m), d 5 diameter of split-spoon sampler
(m), and L 5 penetration length of the split-spoon
sampler (m). There are two assumptions made in this
relationship. First, unit side resistance relating to the
soil-split-spoon sampler interface located on the inside
of the sampler is neglected based on the idea that many
of the SPT samplers used within the United States can
be driven without a sampler liner, which is the current
Indiana Department of Transportation practice, allowing for internal relief (Lutenegger & Kelley, 1998). The
second assumption neglects any contribution of end
bearing resistance because of the minimal end bearing
area; this is related to the first assumption since due to
the internal relief, there is no soil plugging in the
sampler and thus the end bearing capacity is insignificant (Lutenegger & Kelley, 1998).
From the Lutenegger and Kelley (1998) initial
research, it was found that the unit side resistance
calculated using Equation 2.7 can be related to the blow
count N60 using an empirical factor:
fs ~as N60
ð2:8Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), as 5 empirical
factor (unitless), and N60 5 blow count for 60 percent
hammer energy efficiency. Table 2.2 presents as for
fine-grained, coarse-grained, residual and glacial till
soils from SPT-Torque tests performed at twelve sites.
The relationships for the four different soils at four sites
are plotted in Figure 2.1.
The relationship represented by Equation 2.8 is
dependent on soil type. The unit side resistance is
calculated and then plotted versus the corresponding
energy-corrected blow counts to determine the soil
specific empirical factor as, which can be used for pile
design (Kelley & Lutenegger, 2004). Lutenegger (2009)
found empirical factors for fine-grained soils that are
generally higher than those for coarse-grained soils;
similarly, those for displacement piles are higher than
those for nondisplacement piles.
Similar to Figure 2.1, data from Winter et al. (2005)
are plotted in Figure 2.2 with the relationships published by Kelley and Lutenegger (2004). All data, except
for some organic clay and silt data points, fall near or
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
5
TABLE 2.2
Summary of empirical factors as (Kelley & Lutenegger, 2004)
Site Number
Site
asa
Description of Soil
Fine-Grained
b
NGES, Amherst, MA
NGES,b Houston, TX
NGES,b Evanston, IL
South Deerfield, MA
1
2
3
4
7.4
6.6
6.2
3.7
Varved clay
Montgomery clay over Beaumont clay
Blodgett deposit clay
Varved clay
Coarse-Grained
5
6
7
3
4
Plattsburgh, NY
Plymouth, MA
North Amherst, MA
NGES,b Evanston, IL
South Deerfield, MA
3.6
2.6
5.4
4.2
3.2
Fine to medium sand with trace silt
Fine to medium sand
Silty sand overlain by sandy silt
Fine sand
Sand overlain by silty sand overlain by silt, trace sand
Residual
8
9
10
11
McLean, AL
NGES,b Spring Villa, AL
Atlanta, GA
Rome, GA
5.4
6.9
5.1
8.6
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
silt
silt
silt
silt
to
to
to
to
silty
silty
silty
silty
sand
sand
sand
sand
overlain
overlain
overlain
overlain
by
by
by
by
a
a
a
a
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
layer
layer
layer
layer
of
of
of
of
clayey
clayey
clayey
clayey
silt
silt
silt
silt
to
to
to
to
silty
silty
silty
silty
clay
clay
clay
clay
Glacial Till
12
Cohasset, MA
1.5
Clayey sand and silty clay with some gravel
a
Factor provides fs (kPa) when it is multiplied by N60.
NGES 5 National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites.
b
Figure 2.1 Unit side resistance versus standard penetration test N60 values for selected soil types (after Kelley &
Lutenegger, 2004).
6
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 2.2
Unit side resistance versus standard penetration test N60 for various soils (Winter et al., 2005).
within the relationships published by Kelley and
Lutenegger (2004). Table 2.3 presents the raw data
that is shown in Figure 2.2. Table 2.4 presents the
empirical factors for the Winter et al. (2005) data.
Many different correlations have been developed to
try to capture the relationship between blow count and
unit shaft resistance. There is a large variation among
all of the different correlations due to two factors: pile
data and SPT data (Lutenegger, 2009). The pile data
vary for three reasons. The first reason is the type of
piles, which have different geometries and installation
methods, and are installed in different materials.
TABLE 2.3
Data presented in Figure 2.2 (Winter et al., 2005)
Soil Type
N60
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Organic
Organic
Organic
Organic
Organic
Organic
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
SC
SC
SC
SP
SP
SP
0
1
2
2
12
15
26
23
23
26
28
21
7
32
48
39
11
33
36
59
45
51.90
28.20
49.31
67.79
33.66
43.37
59.27
43.57
55.73
41.70
53.86
37.92
21.06
83.45
148.41
182.07
66.40
58.60
46.25
161.67
209.79
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
CL-ML
Note: CL-ML is silty clay, SC is clayey sand and SP is poorlygraded sand.
Secondly, the chosen method of analysis of load test
results determines important factors, such as the
ultimate load capacity (different methods lead to
different results). The final reason for pile data
variation is due to lack of published data for highly
instrumented pile load tests. Many pile load tests collect
a minimal amount of data along the pile shaft that is
analyzed by interpolating or extrapolating the data. If
along the length of a pile, there is a limited amount of
collected data or potential for data collection at the
soil-pile interface, then, typically, the unit shaft
resistance is calculated as the average value obtained
along the entire pile length. Due to lack of instrumentation and/or soil property data, the assumption of a
homogenous, single soil layer is made. This assumption
can lead to the neglect of contributing soil layer and
lenses with differing unit shaft resistance. Factors that
affect SPT data variation are discussed in Section 2.1.
2.5 Factors that Influence the SPT-Torque Testing
and Performance
Rod length has an insignificant influence on the SPTTorque test (Peixoto et al., 2007). Peixoto et al. (2007)
tested with drill rods in the horizontal and vertical
orientations and determined that the torque loss from
the top of the boring to the bottom of the boring is less
TABLE 2.4
as values of various soil types for blow count versus peak unit side
resistance relationships (Winter et al., 2005)
Soil Type
Organic CL/ML
CL/ML
SC*
SP*
asa
3.4838
2.4465
3.5756
3.0350
*Note: a values based on limited data.
Factor provides fs (kPa) when multiplied by N60.
a
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
7
than the smallest torque increment of mechanical
torquemeters used in common practice. As the torque
increases, the drill rod influence decreases (Peixoto
et al., 2007). Maximum torque values commonly
measured in soft, clayey soils are approximately equal
to the torque loss due to drill rods. Because of this
phenomenon, the torque loss may be significant, and
caution should be taken when using the SPT-Torque
test in soft, clayey soils.
Further research by Peixoto et al. (2010) investigated
the buckling potential of the string of drill rods. Peixoto
et al. (2010) found that the self-weight of the rods is
not the controlling factor related to buckling. The
controlling factor for buckling is the slenderness ratio,
which is the parameter normally used when considering
the design of structural columns. The slenderness ratio
is defined as the effective length divided by the radius of
gyration. A slenderness ratio of 200 is commonly used
for analyses where steel is the material being loaded in
axial compression of the drill rods. Based on this ratio,
buckling can occur at spans of just 2 meters. It may be
necessary to provide supports to prevent the drill rods
from buckling during the SPT-Torque test when
extremely stiff or hard soils are encountered at the
base of the split-spoon sampler and little or no lateral
support for the drill rods is present. Rotation speed is
not an important factor, as long as human mistakes can
be limited (Peixoto et al., 2008).
For site exploration with multiple borings, it is
recommended that the lateral spacing between borings
be at least 3 meters (Hicks, 2001). This distance helps to
reduce any soil disturbance from stress relief, soil
removal, and ground vibrations (Hicks, 2001).
studies, but Peixoto and Carvalho (1999) concluded that
gravel found within clayey soils decreased the torque
ratio for the given data set based on an increase in the
blow count with no increase in the measured torque.
2.7 Chapter Summary
Chapter 2 outlines the development of the SPTTorque testing procedure in Brazil during the late
1980’s (Ranzini, 1988). A manual torque was applied
after a traditional SPT (ASTM D 1586 (ASTM, 2007b))
test was performed in many different soil types. The
data was first analyzed using the Torque Ratio defined
as the measured or observed torque divided by the
recorded blow count. Bullock (1999) and Hicks (2001)
studied and compared setup factors from driven precast
concrete piles and SPT-Torque tests. Winter et al.
(2005) further studied setup factors and concluded that
a two-hour time period did not provide enough time to
properly develop a relationship between the pile and
SPT-T setup factors. Lutenegger and Kelley (1998)
proposed an equation for calculating the unit side
resistance based on the measured torque, split-spoon
sampler diameter and driven penetration length of the
split-spoon sampler. Further research, by Kelley and
Lutenegger (2004), lead to the development of an
empirical equation relating unit side resistance and the
recorded N60 value. Peixoto et al. (2007) found that the
torque loss is minimal and not significant for most soils;
however, in soft clayey soils the maximum torque is
approximately equal to the torque loss and caution
must be taken when soft clayey soils are encountered.
3. INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT
2.6 Tested Soil Types
3.1 Data Acquisition System Development
The testing by Decourt and Quaresma (1991) with the
original SPT-Torque equipment was performed in
residual soils composed of saturated and unsaturated
saprolites of granite and gneiss formations. Additional
testing by Decourt and Quaresma (1994) was performed
in the sedimentary soils of the Tertiary Sedimentary
Basin in Brazil. Peixoto and Carvalho (1999) performed
SPT-Torque tests in Brazilian residual soils and
collapsible soils. Further testing of residual soils was
performed in the Piedmont Province and Southern
Piedmont region located in the Appalachian Mountains
of the Eastern United States (Kelley & Lutenegger,
1999; Cottingham, 2009). Fine sand and silty clay was
studied in Florida by considering the development of
relationships between setup factors for precast concrete
piles and SPT-Torque test results (Bullock, 1999; Hicks,
2001; Bullock & Schmertmann, 2003; Bullock et al.,
2005a). Organic clay, silty clay and silty sand were
studied in Wisconsin by exploring the development of
relationships between setup factors for driven piles and
SPT-Torque test results (Winter et al., 2005). Glacial till
and loess, among others, are lesser studied soils (Kelley
& Lutenegger, 2004; Lutenegger, 2008). Soils comprised
mainly of gravel have not been the primary soil for any
The Data Acquisition System (DAQ System) and its
components described herein were manufactured by
Anita Machine & Tool, Inc. of Lafayette, Indiana and
Stoeller Automation, Inc. of Frankfort, Indiana. The
software was written using C# from the Visual Studio
2010 package. The software interacts with three
National Instrument (NI) modules contained in an NI
chassis via a USB connection. Data from the SPTTorque Hardware are collected by the NI modules and
chassis located in the Control Box Hardware and stored
by the software. The DAQ System records the strain
which is converted to torque using a calibration factor
based on a full-bridge configuration of the strain gauges
(see Appendix A for calibration data relating torque
versus measured strain). A digital encoder is used to
determine the angle of rotation and rotation velocity as
the string of drill rods are rotated by the SPT-Torque
hardware.
8
3.1.1 Software Components and Operation
Figure 3.1 shows the user interface of the SPTTorque software. First the units must be selected. The
software allows for operation using units common in
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 3.1
Software user interface.
the United States or the International Standard. Once
the units have been selected, the General Information
specific to the testing site is recorded. Unless changed by
the operator, this information remains the same for
additional tests performed in a given boring. Next, the
sample depth, blow count, sample type and penetration
length are recorded in the SPT Information section. This
information is specific to the SPT sampler driven at the
current depth interval. The SPT Information (testing
depth, blow count, sample type and penetration length)
is traditionally recorded in the boring log by INDOT
personnel. Then the channel that controls the motor on
the SPT-Torque hardware must be selected from the
drop-down box. The Strain Gauge Parameters, Bridge
Parameters, and Timing Parameters are set based on the
strain gauge type and configuration. These values are
summarized in Table 3.1.
The motor must be jogged before starting a test. The
term jog refers to the process of rotating the SPTTorque shaft counterclockwise to its original position
(See the SPT-Torque Hardware Section 3.2.1 regarding
the functionality of the original and ending positions
and the Control Box Hardware Section 3.2.2 regarding
the jogging procedure). First, the operator selects the
Jog button on the right side of the software interface and then jogs the motor using the Control Box
Hardware. Once jogging is complete, the operator
selects the Stop button on the interface. The hardware
is then ready to perform the torque test. The Start
button is selected next, and the software takes a baseline
reading by averaging the initial strain values for a period
of ten seconds. The net strain is calculated by subtracting the real time strain values from the average baseline
value recorded over the ten-second period. The net
strain is used to calculate the torque. The torque and
other important values are recorded in the Final Results
section. All values in the Final Results section are
directly recorded from the hardware except the unit side
resistance value. The unit side resistance is calculated
based on Equation 2.7, presented in Chapter 2:
fs ~
2T
pd 2 L
ð2:7Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), T 5 measured
torque (kN-m), d 5 diameter of split-spoon sampler (m),
and L 5 penetration length of split-spoon sampler (m).
TABLE 3.1
Strain gauge, bridge and timing parameters used in the SPT-Torque software
Strain Gauge Parameters
Gauge Factor
Poisson Ratio
Nominal Gage Resistance
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Bridge Parameters
2.10
0.30
350.00
0.001
20.001
Strain Configuration
Lead Wire Resistance
Excitation Value
Excitation Source
Initial Bridge Voltage
Full Bridge III
0.00
2.50
Internal
0.00
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Timing Parameters
Sample Rate (Strain)
Sample Rate (Encoder)
1000.00
1000.00
9
The interface contains two figures that present the
data in real time located in the Real-Time Plots section.
The first figure plots time in seconds on the x-axis
versus measured net strain on the y-axis. The second
figure plots rotation angle in degrees on the x-axis
versus torque in pound-feet or Newton-meters, according to the unit selection on the y-axis. After the Stop
button is selected, the current test is saved in XML
format in a temporary file. To perform multiple tests in
the same boring, the Add New Test button located in
the lower left corner of the interface is selected to
perform an additional test after the completion of the
current test. This will clear the SPT Information and
Final Results sections. The temporary output file is
updated after each subsequent test is completed in a
given boring. Once all testing is complete in a given
boring, selecting the Save button on the right side of the
software interface allows the operator to save the data
from all tests in an output file with XML format.
3.2 Hardware Development
The SPT-Torque Hardware was machined by Anita
Machine & Tool, Inc. located in Lafayette, Indiana
under the direction of Purdue University. The Control
Box Hardware was assembled by Stoeller Automation,
Inc. located in Frankfort, Indiana. The SPT-Torque
Hardware is the first known instrumentation that
rotates the string of drill rods in an automated manner.
This process helps to regulate the rotation velocity of
the drill rods and remove any human error that was
incorporated in the torque testing when performed
manually.
3.2.1 SPT-Torque Hardware
The SPT-Torque Hardware shown in Figure 3.2
consists of a 187.5 watt motor from Sterling Electric,
Inc. located in Irvine, California. The motor rotates the
string of drill rods in a clockwise direction by rotating
the SPT-Torque shaft connected to the Drill Rod
Adaptor, as shown in Figure 3.3. The hardware is lifted
by the drilling rig using the overhead cable. Then, the
adjustable clamp, located on the back of the SPT rig,
holds the hardware by the truck mounting rod. The
strain gauges are mounted on the exterior of the SPTTorque shaft at a 45 degree angle from the vertical axis.
This orientation creates an ‘‘X’’ on the rod also known
as a full-bridge type III configuration, as shown in
Figure 3.4. Two gauges measure elongation of the SPTTorque shaft, while the other two gauges measure the
contraction of the shaft. This configuration allows for
the gauges to act as a torque cell, and the output
voltage is directly proportional to the torque.
The Drill Rod Adaptor is a modified drill rod. The
adaptor and SPT-Torque Hardware have matching
connection ends that allow for eight 1.27 mm65.1 mm
coarse threaded bolts to be placed through the SPTTorque connection. Coarse threaded nuts are used to
ensure a tight connection between the SPT-Torque
10
Figure 3.2
SPT-Torque hardware.
Hardware and the Drill Rod Adaptor. It is critical that
the Drill Rod Adaptor is not loosened during the driving
of the split-spoon sampler. The hammer impact can
loosen the drill rod adaptor, leading to poor results
because the hardware will have to tighten the connection before rotation can be applied to the sampler.
The SPT-Torque original position limit switch is
shown in Figure 3.5, while the ending position limit
switch is shown in Figure 3.6. The rotating shaft has a
slot cut into it. A key is placed in this slot to engage the
two limit switches. Once the jogging process is complete
(counterclockwise rotation), the key applies a normal
compressive force on the limit switch plunger in the
Figure 3.3
Drill rod adaptor.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 3.4
Full-bridge type III strain gauge configuration.
original position. After the clockwise rotation begins,
the shaft can rotate until the ending position is reached.
Again, the key applies a normal compressive force on
the limit switch plunger. The normal forces applied on
the limit switches start and stop the rotation, respectively. The limit switches allow for a maximum shaft
rotation of 310 degrees. The maximum rotation speed is
for a frequency of 60 Hz (5 174 deg/min). A 20 Hz
(558 deg/min) frequency was found suitable for the
soils tested in this research.
3.2.1.1 SPT-Torque hardware calibration. Figure 3.7
demonstrates how to calibrate the strain gauges
mounted on the shaft surface of the SPT-Torque
Hardware. The SPT-Torque Hardware is placed in a
horizontal position, and a lever arm is bolted to the
base of the hardware connection. The weight of the
lever arm, bucket and additional weights placed inside
of the bucket are used to calculate the moments that are
Figure 3.5
Original position limit switch engaged.
Figure 3.6
Ending position limit switch engaged.
applied to the SPT-Torque shaft. As the moments
increase, the strain gage values are recorded. The data
are plotted against the respective moment values to
determine the calibration factor used in the software for
proper torque calculation during field testing. Further
details regarding the SPT-Torque calibration can be
found in Appendix A.
3.2.2 Control Box Hardware
The Control Box Hardware acts as the link between
the SPT-Torque hardware and the computer software.
Figure 3.8 shows the front of the Control Box
Hardware. The Control Box Hardware allows for the
operator to manually control the SPT-Torque hardware. The ‘‘On Button’’ provides power to the SPTTorque Hardware. The ‘‘Emergency Stop Button’’
immediately locks out all power to the SPT-Torque
Hardware should an emergency arise. The four buttons
Figure 3.7
SPT-Torque calibration.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
11
testing. The SPT-Torque Hardware was developed to
be compatible with the INDOT drill rig while rotating
the drill rods 310 degrees after driving the split-spoon
sampler into the ground. The Control Box Hardware
relays real-time data from the SPT-Torque Hardware to
the computer where the data is collected and viewed in
the software. The software records the data in the Final
Results section, and the measured data is plotted in
Real-Time Plots for the operator to better understand
the results as the SPT-Torque test is being performed.
4. SITE SELECTION FOR FIELD TESTING
4.1 Indiana Geology
Figure 3.8
Control box exterior.
below the previously two mentioned buttons can be
controlled by the software. The operator uses the ‘‘Jog
Button’’ simultaneously with the ‘‘Reverse Button’’ to
rotate the motor counterclockwise to its original
position.
The inside of the Control Box Hardware is shown in
Figure 3.9. National Instrument hardware is used to
collect data from the SPT-Torque Hardware. An NI
cDAQ 9172 chassis is used to house the three modules.
The NI 9472 module outputs digital signals and acts as
a power source for the quadrature encoder. The NI
9411 module collects digital input signals from the
quadrature encoder. The encoder measures the rotational velocity and the direction of rotation of the drill
rods. The NI 9219 module collects analog input signals
from the full-bridge III configuration. All data are sent
from the chassis to the computer software via a USB
connection.
3.3 Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 described the SPT-Torque Hardware and
software required for data collection during field
Figure 3.9
12
Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of glacial deposits
across the north-central United States. A non-glaciated
region in southwest Wisconsin and northwest Illinois
can be observed in detail. The geology of Indiana varies
greatly across the state in the north to south direction.
Figure 4.2, a landform map of Indiana, shows the
distribution of glacial deposits found within the state.
The Illinoian glacial ice made the greatest advance
southward, with the boundary located at the Ohio
River in southeast Indiana. The boundary extends from
Evansville north toward Bloomington, and east toward
New Albany. The Wisconsin boundary is located north
of the Illinoian boundary. The Wisconsin boundary
runs north of Terre Haute and Martinsville and south
of Richmond. Indianapolis and West Lafayette (where
Purdue University is located) lie on the regional zone
known as the Tipton Till Plain which consists of glacial
till from the Illinoian and Wisconsin advances.
Wisconsin deposits overlie the Illinoian deposits in the
Tipton Till Plain and vary in thickness from approximately 30 meters near the Illinois-Indiana state line to
approximately 25 meters near Kokomo, Indiana
(Bleuer, 1991). The northern portion of Indiana
consists of morainal and outwash plains from the
Great Lakes deposited by the retreating glaciers during
the warming episodes.
Control box interior.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 4.1
Distribution of glacial deposits in the north-central United States (West, 1995).
4.2 Site Locations
SPT-Torque testing and Cone Penetration Testing
(CPT) were performed at five sites in four counties:
Carroll, Clinton, Greene and Tippecanoe counties
(shown in Figure 4.3, Map of Indiana counties). Two
counties, Carroll and Tippecanoe, are located in northcentral Indiana, one (Clinton) in central Indiana and
one (Greene) in southern Indiana. All field testing in
Carroll, Clinton and Tippecanoe Counties was performed at the Indiana Department of Transportation
maintenance units by the INDOT drilling crew. The
field testing in Greene County was performed along the
expansion of Interstate 69. This allowed for more
detailed planning of boring location, spacing, and other
research considerations relative to the field testing
criteria and eliminated the need for traffic control. Field
testing performed on or near a highway hinders traffic
flow and limits the amount of time available for
SPT-Torque and CPT testing. The time between the
completion of subsequent SPT-Torque tests is approximately twelve to fifteen minutes for tests performed at
1.52 meter intervals. The time period varies slightly for
two reasons: first, the drilling speed of the hollow-stem
augers depends on the soil type and soil properties, such
as density and stiffness; and secondly, the amount of
time needed to reach the maximum torque while
shearing along the sampler interface. All SPT drilling
was performed by the INDOT drilling crew. All SPT
tests were performed using an automatic hammer,
an unlined 50.8 millimeters outer-diameter split-spoon
sampler with hollow-stem augers that have an inner
diameter of 82.55 millimeters and an outer diameter of
165.1 millimeters. The CPT soundings were performed
by Purdue University personnel. Two Hogentogler
analog cones with an outer diameter of 36.6 millimeters
were used for testing. The soundings were pushed with
a penetration rate of 20 mm/s.
The blow count values were correct using Equation
2.1. The values used for each correction are listed
below:
Ch 5 60 percent for Flora and Lafayette
Maintenance Units (personal communication with Jon
Paauwe)
5 70 percent for Frankfort and Romney
Maintenance Units (personal communication with Jon
Paauwe)
5 Measured efficiency was taken before each SPT at
the Koleen site (measured average for all tests was 59.1
percent)
Cr 5 0.75, if rod length , 4 m; 0.85, if 4 m , rod
length , 6 m;
5 0.95, if 6 m , rod length , 10 m; 1.0, if rod length
. 10 m
Cs 5 1.2 (Split-spoon sampler with no liner)
Cd 5 1.0 (standard borehole diameter)
4.2.1 The Flora Maintenance Unit (Carroll County)
The Flora Maintenance Unit (FMU) is located 1.6
kilometers south of the town of Flora on the east side of
Indiana State Route 75. The glacial till deposit at the
site is approximately 45 meters thick consisting of
Wisconsin and Illinoian deposits with bedrock consisting of the Borden Group of Mississippian Age. A
satellite image of the Flora site is shown in Figure 4.4.
A total of 12 SPT-Torque tests were performed at the
Flora Maintenance Unit on August 9, 2011. Figure 4.5
shows the plan view with an approximate spacing of 3
meters between the SPT borings and CPT soundings.
Tests were performed in three intervals of 1.07–1.52
meters, 2.59–3.05 meters, and 4.12–4.57 meters in four
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
13
Figure 4.2
Glacial boundaries in Indiana (West, 1995).
separate borings, FMU borings 1–4. The four boring
logs are presented in Figures F.1, F.3, F.5, and F.7 in
Appendix F. The borings could not be advanced to the
next interval due to heave occurring at the bottom of
the hole. Groundwater was pushing sand upward and
preventing the split spoon sampler from reaching the
necessary depth for the next sample. The area received
approximately 3.8 centimeters of rainfall the night
before drilling. The excess rainfall could affect the
typical groundwater level and contribute to the sand
heave issue. The ground surface elevation is 216.16
meters. The groundwater table, represented with a blue
14
line in Figures F.2, F.3, F.6, and F.8 in Appendix F,
was measured at 2.74 meters below the ground surface.
Previous ground water levels from past years are not
available to verify this observation. Five Shelby tubes
were pushed to collect undisturbed soil samples at
depth intervals that correspond to the SPT-Torque
tests. Two tubes were collected from FMU boring 5 and
three tubes were collected from FMU boring 6. Again
the heave issue was encountered during the collection
of undisturbed samples. Four CPT soundings were
performed to a depth ranging from 8.99 to 11.13 meters
on February 22, 2012. Figures F.2, F.3, F.6, and F.8 in
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 4.5 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT
borings and CPT soundings at the Flora site.
Appendix F present the four SPT borings and CPT
soundings from the Flora Maintenance Unit.
4.2.2 The Lafayette Maintenance Unit
(Tippecanoe County)
Figure 4.3
Map of Indiana counties.
The Lafayette Maintenance Unit (LMU) is located
eight kilometers north of the city of West Lafayette on
the east side of Indiana State Route 43. The glacial till
deposits at the site are approximately 60 meters thick
consisting of Wisconsin and Illinoian deposits with
bedrock consisting of New Albany Shale from the
Devonian Age. However, the site lies near the Wabash
River; therefore, outwash deposits are present in the
vicinity as well. A satellite image of the Lafayette
site is shown in Figure 4.6. Six SPT-Torque tests were
performed in one boring, LMU boring 1 on September
1, 2011. The boring log is presented in Figure F.9 in
Appendix F. The six tests were performed at a depth
interval of 1.52 meters. The ground surface elevation is
175.91 meters. The ground water table, represented by a
blue line in Figure F.10, was observed at 6.71 meters
below the ground surface. The boring was terminated at
9.15 meters. Five Shelby tubes were pushed in five
individual borings, LMU borings 2–6. Figure 4.6 shows
the plan view with an approximate spacing of 3 meters
between of the SPT boring and CPT sounding. Stiff and
dense soil prevented the proper pushing of the Shelby
tubes in one continuous boring, and therefore undisturbed samples were taken at shallow depths not
exceeding 1.83 meters below the ground surface. One
CPT sounding was performed to a depth of 4.97 meters
on February 23, 2012. Figure F.10 in Appendix F
presents the SPT boring and CPT sounding from the
Lafayette Maintenance Unit.
4.2.3 The Frankfort Maintenance Unit (Clinton County)
Figure 4.4
Satellite view of the Flora site from Google Earth.
The Frankfort Maintenance Unit (FRMU) is located
1.6 kilometers west of the city of Frankfort on the south
side of Indiana State Route 28. The glacial till deposit
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
15
Figure 4.6 Satellite view of the Lafayette site from Google Earth. 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT
soundings at the Lafayette site.
at the site is approximately 85 meters thick consisting of
Wisconsin and Illinoian deposits with bedrock consisting of New Albany Shale from the Devonian Age. A
satellite image of the Frankfort site is shown in
Figure 4.7. Twenty-three torque tests were performed
in seven borings in the period from January 4–6, 2012.
Figure 4.7 presents the plan view with an approximate
spacing of 3 meters between the SPT borings and CPT
soundings. Two borings were terminated at a depth of
6.10 meters, and the last five were terminated at a depth
of 4.57 meters due to sand heave preventing the drill
crew from reaching the proper testing depth. The seven
boring logs are presented in Figures F.11, F.13, F.15,
16
F.17, F.19, F.21, and F.23 in Appendix F with a
ground surface elevation of 264.33 meters. The groundwater table, represented by a blue line in Figures F.12,
F.14, F.16, F.18, F.20, F.22, and F.24 in Appendix F,
was observed at 3.81 meters below the ground surface.
All tests were performed at 1.52 meter intervals. Four
Shelby tubes were pushed to collect undisturbed
samples, two tubes in FRMU 2 and 9, respectively.
Seven CPT soundings that were performed to a depth
ranging from 2.74 to 9.14 meters on April 5, 9 and 10,
2012. Figures F.12, F.14, F.16, F.18, F.20, F.22, and
F.24 in Appendix F present seven SPT borings and
CPT soundings from the Frankfort Maintenance Unit.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 4.7 Satellite view of the Frankfort site from Google Earth. 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT
soundings at the Frankfort site.
4.2.4 The Romney Maintenance Unit
(Tippecanoe County)
The Romney Maintenance Unit (RMU) is located
2.4 kilometers south of the community of Romney on
the west side of U.S. Highway 231. The glacial till
deposit at the site is approximately 30 meters thick
consisting of Wisconsin and Illinoian deposits with
bedrock consisting of the Wabash Formation from the
Silurian Age. A satellite image of the Romney site is
shown in Figure 4.8. A total of twenty-five SPT-Torque
tests were performed in six borings from January 9–10,
2012. Figure 4.9 presents the plan view with an
approximate spacing of 3 meters between the SPT
borings and CPT soundings. The six boring logs are
presented in Figures F.25, F.27, F.29, F.31, F.33, and
F.35 in Appendix F with a ground surface elevation of
233.23 meters. The groundwater table, represented by a
blue line in Figures F.26, F.28, F.30, F.32, F.34, and
F.36 in Appendix F, was observed at 5.49 meters below
the ground surface. One boring was terminated at a
depth of 7.62 meters, while the other SPT-Torque
borings were terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters. All
tests were performed at 1.52 meter intervals. Two
Shelby tube samples were taken at the site, one tube
from RMU 8 and one tube from RMU 9. Hard and
dense soils prevented pushing of the Shelby tubes below
the depth of 1.68 meters. Six CPT soundings that were
performed to a depth ranging from 6.95 to 10.67 meters
on March 1, 6, and 26, 2012. Figures F.26, F.28, F.30,
F.32, F.34, and F.36 in Appendix F present the six SPT
borings and CPT soundings from the Romney
Maintenance Unit.
4.2.5 The Koleen Interstate 69 Expansion Site
(Greene County)
The Koleen site (KS) is located 1.1 kilometers south
of the community of Koleen on the west side of County
Road 600 East which intersects County Road 400
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
17
Figure 4.8
Earth.
Satellite view of the Romney site from Google
South. The glacial deposit at the site is approximately
15 meters thick consisting of Illinoian deposits along
the bedrock boundary consisting of the Raccoon Creek
Group from the Pennsylvania Age and the Buffalo
Wallow Group of the Mississippian Age. A satellite
image of the Koleen site is shown in Figure 4.10. A
total of twenty-eight SPT-Torque tests were performed
in four borings from July 16–19, 2012. Figure 4.11
shows the plan view with an approximate spacing of 3
meters between the SPT borings and CPT soundings.
The ground surface is 158.84 meters. No groundwater
table was observed due to the low permeability of the
fine-grained soil present at the site. The boring logs are
presented in Figures F.37, F.39, F.41, and F.43 in
Appendix F. The groundwater table, represented by a
blue line in Figures F.38, F.40, F.42, and F.44 in
Appendix F, is at an approximate depth of 2.29 meters
below the ground surface. This depth was estimated
based on the degree of saturation of the collected soil
samples. Three borings were terminated at a depth of
9.15 meters, and the fourth boring was terminated at
Figure 4.9
18
Figure 4.10
Earth.
Satellite view of the Koleen site from Google
Figure 4.11 3-meter approximate spacing between SPT
borings and CPT soundings at the Koleen site.
3-meter approximate spacing between SPT borings and CPT soundings at the Romney site.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
15.24 meters. All tests were performed at 1.52 meter
intervals. Four Shelby tube samples were taken at the
site from KS 4. Four CPT soundings were performed to
a depth ranging from 7.92 to 16.85 meters on July 17–
20, 2012. Figures F.38, F.40, F.42, and F.44 in
Appendix F present the four SPT borings and CPT
soundings from the Koleen site.
4.3 Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 provided details regarding all SPT-Torque
and CPT field testing performed at the Flora
Maintenance Unit in Carroll County, the Lafayette
and Romney Maintenance Units in Tippecanoe
County, the Frankfort Maintenance Unit in Clinton
County and the Koleen Interstate 69 expansion site in
Greene County. Further field data relating to the five
sites are presented in Appendix D and Appendix F.
5. LABORATORY TESTING
5.1 Testing Program
The laboratory testing was performed in the Geotechnical Soil Laboratories at Purdue University. The
testing program consisted of index testing. The index
testing is comprised of many individual tests. Index
testing is commonly used to classify the type of soil
from a given sample. Disturbed samples from splitspoon samplers or undisturbed samples from Shelby
tubes can be used for index testing. Separation criteria
include soil type (sand, silt, and clay); degree of saturation relating to saturated or unsaturated soil response;
and plasticity which mirrors the division based on soil
type (non-plastic sand, non-plastic silt or plastic clay).
Relationships identifying correlations between the in situ
torque tests (N1,60, qc,1 and fs) are developed according
to soil type, degree of saturation and non-plastic/plastic
divisions. Further details relating the identified relationships between the measured in situ torque and tip
resistance results and laboratory test results are
discussed in Chapter 6, ‘‘Results and Analysis.’’
particle diameter. The amount of sample needed is
dependent on the largest particle size found within the
sample. Individual sieves are selected based on the
desired break points of particles. Commonly, the sieves
are selected to separate soil types such as coarse-grained
soils, gravel and sand, from fine-grained soils, silt and
clay. The sieve set is placed in a mechanical shaker with
a sufficient sample size. Once the soil has been
separated, the amount of soil retained by weight on
each sieve, as a percentage of the total sample weight, is
recorded. These percentages retained are used with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) to classify
the soil sample. The wet sieving method is used if finegrained soil flocculates into peds after the sample has
been air dried. The addition of water will cause the peds
of fine-grained material to break down to single soil
particles and pass through each individual sieve. Once
all sieves have been washed, the sieves are oven dried
and the percentage of coarse-grained and fine-grained
soils are determined as stated above. Refer to ASTM
D6913 (ASTM, 2009) for the detailed procedure
regarding ‘‘Sieve Analysis Testing.’’
Figure 5.1 presents a photograph of a sieve set that
was used for sieve testing. The following sieves were
used for all sieve testing: #10, #20, #40, #60, #100,
#140, #200, and the pan. If it was determined that
gravel was present in the soil sample, a #4 sieve was
placed on top of the #10 sieve before testing began.
Figure 5.2 presents a photograph of the soil sample
placed in the top sieve just before the wet sieving
process began.
5.2 Index Testing
Index testing plays an important role in classifying
soil collected in the field. Index testing is used to
determine the type of soil, the percentages of the coarsegrained and fine-grained material (from sieve analysis
and hydrometer tests) and water content of a given soil
sample. From these tests, grain size distribution curves
can be obtained. Additional tests (Atterberg limits) can
be performed to determine the soil plasticity of finegrained soils. The data from these tests are used in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D2487 (ASTM, 2010b)).
5.2.1 Sieve Analysis Test
The sieve analysis (ASTM D6913 (ASTM, 2009)) is a
composite test that separates soil particles based on the
Figure 5.1 Photograph of a sieve set used to determine the
soil gradation.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
19
values. Refer to ASTM D422 (ASTM, 2007a) for the
detailed procedure regarding hydrometer testing.
5.2.3 Water Content Test
Figure 5.2 Photograph of the soil before starting the wet
sieving process.
5.2.2 Hydrometer Test
Soil particles that are collected in the pan at the bottom
on the sieve set are fine-grained soils, silt and clay. The
particle size of this soil is determined using a hydrometer
(ASTM D422 (ASTM, 2007a)). The soil (50 grams) is
mixed with a dispersing agent, (Sodium Hexametaphosphate) that will prevent the flocculation of individual soil
particles suspended in water, as shown in Figure 5.3. The
mixing equipment and the process of determining the
solution density with the hydrometer are shown in
Figure 5.4. As time passes and the soil settles out of the
solution, the density of the water-soil solution will
decrease. The density is used with correction factors to
determine the particle diameter and percent passing
The water content test (ASTM D2216 (ASTM,
2010a)) is normally performed when other index tests
or shear strength tests are performed. Water content is
defined as the weight of water divided by the weight of
solids and calculated as a percentage. A small sample of
soil is taken from a larger soil specimen. The weight of
the soil sample is recorded both before and after placing
the sample in an oven for a period of 24 hours. The
oven is kept at a temperature of 110uC to evaporate the
water in the soil. The difference of the weight before
and after the test is equal to the weight of water. The
weight of water and weight of solids after the evaporation is used to calculate the water content. Refer to
ASTM D2216 (ASTM, 2010a) for the detailed procedure regarding water content determination. Figure 5.5
presents a photograph of a soil sample in a water
content container. Figure 5.6 presents water content
containers that are placed in the drying oven.
5.2.4 Atterberg Limits Test
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318 (ASTM, 2010c)) are
used to determine different phase limits of a soil sample.
The liquid limit test (Figure 5.7) and the plastic limit
test (Figure 5.8) are the two common limits that are
determined for engineering design. The liquid limit
determines the water content limit at which the soil
begins to act as a liquid when energy is applied to soil
that has been separated by a grooving tool. The plastic
limit determines the water content limit of the soil at
which the soil begins to crack due to lack of plasticity.
In both cases, the water content is determined when
each respective limit is reached. The water content is
determined as previously described in 5.2.3 and shown
in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6. The difference between
these two limits is known as the plasticity index. The
plasticity index and the liquid limit are used to classify
fine-grained soils such as silt and clay by using the
Unified Soil Classification System. Refer to ASTM
D4318 (ASTM, 2010c) for the detailed procedure
regarding Atterberg limit testing.
5.3 Chapter Summary
Figure 5.3 Photograph of 50 grams of soil passing a #200
sieve with 5 grams of anti-flocculation agent, Sodium
Hexametaphosphate.
20
Chapter 5 presented details relating to the index
testing performed on the disturbed and undisturbed
samples collected at the five sites listed in Chapter 4.
The index testing comprised of water content, sieve
analysis, Atterberg limits and hydrometer analysis were
used to classify the soil type of the disturbed samples.
Additionally, index testing provided the percent fines
passing the #200 sieve and the plasticity index is used
to develop the relationships presented in Chapter 6.
Further laboratory data relating to the five sites are
presented in Appendix D.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 5.4 A photograph, on the left, of the soil solution being amalgamated with the electric mixer and a photograph, on the
right, of the hydrometer placed in the soil solution.
Figure 5.5 Photograph of a soil sample in a water
content container.
Figure 5.6 Photograph of water content tests placed in the
drying oven.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
21
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Photograph of a liquid limit test.
Photograph of a plastic limit test.
determined by visual observation and recording of the
corresponding torque value.
6. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
6.1 Field Test Results and Analysis
SPT-Torque and CPT field testing were performed at
five sites located in four counties: Flora in Carroll
County, Frankfort in Clinton County, Koleen in Greene
County, and Lafayette and Romney in Tippecanoe
County. SPT-Torque tests were performed at 1.52 meter
intervals until boring termination. CPT tests were
performed adjacent to the SPT borings either to the
depth of SPT-Torque boring termination or cone
penetration refusal. All SPT, CPT, torque testing and
laboratory testing for the five sites are presented in
Appendix D with the data used for the development of
the relationships presented in Appendix E. Figure 6.1
presents an ideal SPT-Torque curve. The torque increases
until the peak torque is reached and then continues to
decrease until a continuous horizontal critical-state
torque is observed for non-plastic soils or a residualstate torque is observed for plastic soils. The computer
software records the largest torque value as the peak
torque. The critical-state or residual-state torque is
22
6.1.1 Torque Ratio
The torque ratio is defined as the ratio of the
measured torque to the blow count. Torque data has
units of N-m. The measured in situ blow counts are
corrected to N60, as shown in Equation 2.1. Torque
ratios were calculated by dividing the torque by the
respective blow count. Table 6.1 presents ranges of
peak and critical-state torque ratios for non-plastic soils
and peak- and residual-state torque ratios for plastic
soils. Three groupings are shown that represent the
range of torque ratios for all samples, regardless of
the degree of saturation and then by accounting for the
saturated or unsaturated condition.
All torque ratios have the same orders of magnitude
and prevent observable differences between the categories. The calculation of torque ratios does not
adequately capture any differences between the soil
types or the fines percentage found within the soil for
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.1
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
soil classification purposes. Torque ratios were not used
for engineering design due to the overlap of torque ratio
values for various soils.
6.1.2 Standard Penetration Test N60 Values
Recorded blow counts were corrected to a 60 percent
hammer efficiency based on Equation 2.1 from Chapter
2:
N60 ~Ch Cr Cs Cd NSPT
ð2:1Þ
6.1.3 Peak and Critical/Residual Unit Side Resistance
from Torque Tests
The unit side resistance values are calculated using
Equation 2.7, which is shown below. The peak and
critical/residual unit side resistance are selected from the
collected in situ data. The peak unit side resistance is the
largest recorded data point. The critical/residual unit
side resistance is determined by reviewing the data and
identifying the constant unit side resistance at large
deformation strains which develop due to the large
split-spoon sampler rotations.
All N1,60 values are presented in Appendix D with the
corresponding depth, soil classification, qc,1, water
content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis gradation.
fs ~
2T
pd 2 L
ð2:7Þ
TABLE 6.1
Ranges of peak and residual-state torque ratios for various soil types
Soil Type
Peak TRa
Critical/Residual
TRa
Unsaturated Peak
TRa
Saturated Peak
TRa
Unsaturated Critical
or Residual TRa
Saturated Critical or
Residual TRa
CL
CL-ML
ML
SC
SC–SM
SM
SP-SC
SP-SM
SP
SW-SC
SW-SM
GW
4.58–32.96
2.37–10.55
3.52–13.67
13.90
4.09–21.01
1.64–13.24
7.28–31.88
4.50–12.51
7.36–17.00
6.05
9.65
0.63
1.06–27.14
1.96–9.07
3.43–10.10
11.69
3.11–16.02
1.64–11.61
5.15–25.83
2.62–8.99
6.54–15.53
5.15
8.91
0.39
4.58–28.20
6.38
7.93–9.16
13.90
4.09–21.01
1.64–13.24
7.28–10.79
4.50–12.51
N/A
6.05
N/A
0.63
4.99–32.96
2.37–10.55
3.52–13.67
N/A
14.47
6.29–10.06
14.80–31.88
N/A
7.36–17.00
N/A
9.65
N/A
3.19–23.54
5.89
6.46–7.52
11.69
3.11–16.02
1.64–11.61
5.15–10.14
2.62–8.99
N/A
5.15
N/A
0.39
1.06–27.14
1.96–9.07
3.43–10.10
N/A
10.38
2.37–7.44
9.24–25.83
N/A
6.54–15.53
N/A
8.91
N/A
a
Torque has torque units of N-m and Blow count corresponds to N60.
Note: CL is Clay, CL-ML is silty clay, ML is silt, SC is clayey sand, SC-SM is silty clayey sand, SM is silty sand, SP-SC is poorly-graded sand
with clay, SP-SM is poorly-graded sand with silt, SP is poorly-graded sand, SW-SC is well-graded sand with clay, SW-SM is well-graded sand with
silt, GW is well-graded gravel.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
23
6.1.4 Cone Penetration Test Tip Resistance
6.3.1 N1,60 versus Unit Side Resistance Relationships
The cone penetration tip resistance was determined
by averaging the data collected over a 0.45 meter
distance (length of the split-spoon sampler) at the depth
corresponding to the SPT-Torque test in the adjacent boring. All qc,1 are presented in Appendix D with
the corresponding depth, soil classification, N1,60,
water content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis
gradation.
Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2 presents the relationships
between N60 and the unit side resistance originally
published by Kelley and Lutenegger (2004) based on
Equation 2.8 provided in Chapter 2; values of as are
shown in Table 6.2 for fine-grained, coarse-grained,
residual and glacial till soils. Figure 2.2 presents the
relationship based on data for Wisconsin soils published in Winter et al. (2005), provided in Table 2.4.
The laboratory testing was performed in the
Geotechnical Soil Laboratories at Purdue University.
The testing program consisted of index testing. Index
testing is commonly used to classify the type of soil
from a given sample. Disturbed samples from a splitspoon sampler or undisturbed samples from a Shelby
tube can be used for index testing. Index tests help
classify the soil type and develop properties which are
used to separate the various soils. Separation criteria
include soil type (sand, silt, and clay); degree of
saturation relating to saturated or unsaturated soil
mechanics; and plasticity which mirrors the division
based on soil type (non-plastic sand, non-plastic silt or
plastic clay). Relationships identifying correlations
between the in situ torque tests and laboratory results
were developed once the divisions were made.
N60 values can be normalized with respect to the
vertical effective stress as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pa
N1,60 ~N60
ð6:1Þ
s0v
where N1,60 5 normalized blow count with 60 percent
hammer energy efficiency (Blows), N60 5 blow count
for 60 percent hammer energy efficiency (Blows), s’v 5
vertical effective stress (kPa), and Pa 5 reference stress
(100 kPa).
Equation 2.8 was modified by normalizing the unit
side resistance by the vertical effective stress and
incorporating N1,60, therefore creating a unitless
equation for non-plastic silt and sand:
fs
~aN1,60
s0v
6.3 Field Test Results
Traditionally, the blow count, percent recovery of
soil, and soil type are logged at each depth at which an
SPT test is performed. With the addition of the torque
testing, the following data are recorded with the
traditional information: the maximum torque, the unit
side resistance and the rotation angle of the maximum
torque. The peak unit side resistance depends on the
maximum torque, diameter of the split-spoon sampler
and the penetration length, as shown in Equation 2.7.
After the maximum torque, the torque decreases until a
continuous horizontal critical-state torque is observed
for non-plastic soils or a residual-state torque is
observed for plastic soils. The critical/residual torque
is used in Equation 2.7 to calculate the critical/residual
unit side resistance. Relationships are developed
between the peak and critical/residual unit side resistance and more traditional in situ tests, SPT (Section
6.3.1) and CPT (Section 6.3.2), for sand, non-plastic
silt, and clay soil types. Additionally, the undrained
shear strength is estimated using Equation 2.4 and
related to the unit side resistance. The unit side resistance is related to the undrained shear resistance
under a specific loading condition for the clay and silt
relationships due the build-up of excess pore pressures
during the process of applying torque to the sampler.
Since the pore pressure can dissipate immediately in
sand, the unit side resistance is related to its drained
shear resistance.
24
ð2:8Þ
fs ~as N60
6.2 Laboratory Testing Analysis
ð6:2aÞ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless)
and N1,60 5 normalized blow count for 60 percent
hammer energy efficiency (Blows) and a unitless
equation for clay:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fs
~aN1,60 OCR
s0v
ð6:2bÞ
where OCR 5 overconsoliation ratio. OCR values for
the Koleen site were determined from 1-D consolidation tests performed from undisturbed samples collected at the site previously by INDOT. Limited OCR
values are available for the Flora and Frankfort sites
due to the difficulty of obtaining undisturbed samples
in the field. The OCR is incorporated into the
developed equation for clay soils to account for stress
TABLE 6.2
Empirical factors for unit side resistance versus standard
penetration test N60 values for selected soil types (Kelley &
Lutenegger, 2004)
Soil Type
asa
Fine-Grained
Coarse-Grained
Residual Soil
Glacial Till
7.4
3.6
5.4
1.5
a
Factor provides fs (kPa).
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE 6.3
INDOT 1-D consolidation data for the Koleen site
Figure 6.2 INDOT 1-D consolidation data with relationship
for the Koleen site.
history. Figure 6.2 presents the INDOT 1-D consolidation data for the Koleen site, and Table 6.3 lists the
data in tabular form with the 1-D consolidation plots
shown in Appendix C.
Figure 6.3 presents the developed relationship between N1,60 and peak unit side resistance for saturated
clay, and Figure 6.4 presents the developed relationship
between N1,60 and residual unit side resistance for
saturated clay. Figure 6.5 presents the developed relationship between N1,60 and peak unit side resistance for
saturated non-plastic silt, and Figure 6.6 presents the
developed relationship between N1,60 and critical unit
side resistance for saturated non-plastic silt. Figure 6.7
presents the developed relationship between N1,60 and
peak unit side resistance, and Figure 6.8 presents the
developed relationship between N1,60 and critical unit
side resistance for saturated sand. The coefficient of
determination R2 predicts the reliability of the developed
relationships. The previous studies presented in Chapter
2 (Kelley & Lutenegger, 2004; Winter et al., 2005) do not
provide the coefficient of determination for their
relationships between N60 and the peak unit side
resistance. Table 6.4 provides values of the fitting
parameter, a, and the coefficient of determination for
the six plots shown in Figures 6.3–6.8. The data used to
develop the relationships and determine the respective
Depth (m)
OCR
4.27
5.79
6.40
6.71
6.71
7.62
8.84
8.84
9.76
9.76
10.06
10.06
10.67
11.28
11.58
11.58
11.89
12.80
14.33
14.63
15.85
17.38
17.38
19.21
3.13
4.05
2.57
2.17
2.34
1.56
2.11
2.77
1.78
2.11
2.34
3.50
2.34
1.75
1.42
3.08
1.75
1.27
2.66
2.67
2.33
2.41
2.94
2.00
fitting parameters and coefficients of determination are
presented in Appendix E, Tables E.1–E.6.
As stated previously, no coefficient of determination
values were presented with the relationships provided in
Chapter 2 (Kelley & Lutenegger, 2004; Winter et al.,
2005). Cottingham (2009) conducted research that
developed a relationship which used laboratory testing
to predict the peak unit side resistance. The coefficient of determination ranged from 0.338 to 0.554
(Cottingham, 2009). The coefficients of determination
for the clay and non-plastic silt relationships in
Table 6.4 are reasobale (0.676–0.773). The coefficients of determination for the sand relationships are
low (0.127–0.307) and based on a small population of
data. As shown in Figures 6.7 and 6.8, the data
collected for saturated sand indicates that peak fs/s’v
increases with increasing N1,60 (which is a measure of
sand density) since peak strength is a function of soil
density, while the critical-state fs/s’v remains approximately constant at a value of 1.7 regardless of N1,60
values since the critical-state strength is independent of
density. Collection of further data would be helpful to
improve these correlations for sands and to increase
their coefficients of determinations. The developed
relationships with low coefficients of determination
should as their predictions may not be reliable.
Equation 6.3 modifies Equation 6.2 to develop a
relationship which relates N1,60 with the unit side
resistance for unsaturated soils. Matric suction in
unsaturated soils, which acts to increase the effective
stresses, depends on the degree of saturation. The unit
side resistance will increase with increasing effective
stresses. Therefore, an inverse relationship exists
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
25
Figure 6.3
Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay.
Figure 6.4
Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay.
Figure 6.5
Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt.
26
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.6
Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.7
Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand.
Figure 6.8
Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
27
TABLE 6.4
Fitting parameter, a, and coefficient of determination relating N1,60 and fs shown in Equation 6.2 for various soils
Clay-Peak fs
Clay-Residual fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Peak fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Critical fs
Sand-Peak fs
Sand-Critical fs
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of Determination, R2
OCR Range
0.0688
0.0616
0.0490
0.0380
0.0940
0.0739
0.773
0.767
0.676
0.705
0.307
0.127
2.11–3.83
2.11–3.83
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
between the degree of saturation and the unit side
resistance:
fs
N1,60
~a
s0v
S
ð6:3aÞ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless),
N1,60 5 normalized blow count for 60 percent hammer
energy efficiency (Blows) and S 5 degree of saturation
(percent) and:
fs
N1,60 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
0
sv
S
ð6:3bÞ
where OCR 5 overconsolidation ratio.
Figure 6.9 presents the developed relationship between N1,60 and peak unit side resistance for unsaturated
clay. Figure 6.10 presents the developed relationship
between N1,60 and residual unit side resistance for
unsaturated clay. Figure 6.11 presents the developed
relationship between N1,60 and peak unit side resistance
for unsaturated non-plastic silt and Figure 6.12 presents
the developed relationship between N1,60 and critical
unit side resistance for unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.13 presents the developed relationship between
N1,60 and peak unit side resistance for unsaturated sand
and Figure 6.14 presents the developed relationship
between N1,60 and critical unit side resistance for
Figure 6.9
28
unsaturated sand. Table 6.5 presents a summary of the
fitting parameter, a, and the coefficient of determination
for the six plots shown in Figures 6.9–6.14. The data
used to develop the relationships and determine the
respective fitting parameters and coefficients of determination are presented in Appendix E, Tables E.7–E.12.
The coefficients of determination for the clay relationships in Table 6.5 are reasonable (0.551–0.710). The
coefficients of determination for the non-plastic silt
relationships are low (0.115–0.232) and based on a small
population of data. The coefficients of determination for
the sand relationship fall between the stated values for
non-plastic silt and clay. The developed relationships
with low coefficients of determination should not be
used as their predictions may not be reliable.
6.3.2 CPT Tip Resistance versus Unit Side
Resistance Relationships
Cone resistance qc can be normalized with respect to
the vertical effective stress as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pa
qc,1 ~qc
ð6:4Þ
s0v
where qc,1 5 normalized CPT tip resistance (kPa), qc 5
CPT tip resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical effective stress
(kPa), and Pa 5 reference stress (100 kPa).
Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.10
Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay.
Figure 6.11
Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.12
Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
29
Figure 6.13
Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand.
The relationship between unit side resistance and
CPT tip resistance was normalized by the effective
vertical stress and atmospheric pressure to develop a
unitless equation for non-plastic silt and sand:
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
Pa
ð6:5aÞ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless),
qc,1 5 normalized CPT tip resistance (kPa) and Pa 5
atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) and a unitless equation
for clay:
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
0
sv
Pa
ð6:5bÞ
where OCR5 over-consolidation ratio.
Figure 6.15 presents the developed relationship
between qc,1 and peak unit side resistance for saturated
clay and Figure 6.16 presents the developed relationship between qc,1 and residual unit side resistance for
Figure 6.14
30
saturated clay. Figure 6.17 presents the developed
relationship between qc,1 and peak unit side resistance
for saturated non-plastic silt and Figure 6.18 presents
the developed relationships between qc,1 and the critical
unit side resistance for saturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.19 presents the developed relationship between qc,1 and peak unit side resistance for saturated
sand, and Figure 6.20 presents the developed relationship between qc,1 and critical unit side resistance for
saturated sand. No published relationships using tip
resistance to predict the unit side resistance were found
in the literature. Table 6.6 summarizes the fitting
parameter, a, and the coefficient of determination for
the six plots shown in Figures 6.15–6.20. The data used
to develop the relationships and determine the respective fitting parameters and coefficients of determination
are presented in Appendix E in Tables E.13–E.18.
As stated previously, no published relationships
relating CPT tip resistance and unit side resistance
exist in the literature. The coefficients of determination
for the clay and non-plastic silt relationships in
Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE 6.5
Fitting Parameter, a, and coefficient of determination relating N1,60 and fs shown in Equation 6.3 for various soils
Clay-Peak fs
Clay-Residual fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Peak fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Critical fs
Sand-Peak fs
Sand-Critical fs
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of
Determination, R2
Degree of Saturation
OCR Range
0.0553
0.0462
0.0290
0.0218
0.0488
0.0334
0.710
0.551
0.115
0.232
0.413
0.464
0.342–0.950
0.342–0.950
0.698–0.929
0.698–0.929
0.567–0.879
0.567–0.901
2.11–3.83
2.11–3.83
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Figure 6.15
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay.
Figure 6.16
Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
31
Figure 6.17
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.18
Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.19
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand.
32
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.20
Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand.
Table 6.6 are reasonably high (0.527–0.745). The
coefficients of determination for the sand relationships
are low (0.013–0.436) and based on a small population
of data. The developed relationships based on low
coefficients of determination should not be used.
The relationship between unit side resistance and
undrained shear strength was normalized by the
effective vertical stress and atmospheric pressure to
develop a unitless equation:
Table 6.7 summarizes the upper and lower bounds
with the cone factors used and the fitting parameter, a,
with the coefficients of determination for Figures 6.21–
6.24. The data used to develop the relationships and
determine the respective fitting parameters and coefficients of determination are presented in Appendix E,
Tables E.13–E.18.
The relationship between unit side resistance and
undrained shear strength can also be expressed as:
fs
su
~a 0
s0v
sv
fs
su
~a 0 OCRb
s0v
sv
ð6:6Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless),
su 5 undrained shear strength (kPa). The undrained
shear strength was estimated using Equation 2.4 with
cone factors equal to 10 and 14. Then Equation 6.6 was
used to relate the unit side resistance with the undrained
shear strength for saturated clays. Figure 6.21 presents
the upper bound relationship between the peak unit
side resistance and the undrained shear strength.
Figure 6.22 presents the lower bound relationship
between the peak unit side resistance and the undrained
shear strength. Figure 6.23 presents the upper bound
relationship between the residual unit side resistance
and the undrained shear strength. Figure 6.24 presents
the lower bound relationship between the residual unit
side resistance and the undrained shear strength.
ð6:7Þ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless),
su 5 undrained shear strength (kPa), OCR 5 overconsolidation ratio, b 5 fitting parameter (unitless). In
Equation 6.7 the end-of-test undrained shear strength
determined from direct shear tests and the OCR
determined from 1-D consolidation tests were used to
obtain the fitting parameters a and b.
Figure 6.25 presents a relationship between the
residual unit side resistance and the end-of-test
undrained shear strength normalized using vertical
effective stress. Table 6.8 summarizes the values of
fitting parameters, a and b, together with the coefficient
of determination. The data used to determine the fitting
parameters and coefficients of determination are
presented in Appendix E, Table E.19.
TABLE 6.6
Fitting parameter, a, and coefficient of determination relating qc,1 and fs shown in Equation 6.5 for various soils
Clay-Peak fs
Clay-Residual fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Peak fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Critical fs
Sand-Peak fs
Sand-Critical fs
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of Determination, R2
OCR Range
0.0333
0.0309
0.0059
0.0050
0.0498
0.0400
0.665
0.745
0.527
0.582
0.436
0.013
1.79–4.23
1.79–4.23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
33
Figure 6.21
Upper bound relating peak unit side resistance to undrained shear strength.
Figure 6.22
Lower bound relating peak unit side resistance to undrained shear strength.
Figure 6.23
Upper bound relating residual unit side resistance to undrained shear strength.
34
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.24
Lower bound relating residual unit side resistance to undrained shear strength.
TABLE 6.7
Cone factor, fitting parameter, and coefficient of determination for upper and lower bounds relating su and fs shown in Equation 6.6 for
clay soils
Bound
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Bound-Peak fs
Bound-Peak fs
Bound-Residual fs
Bound-Residual fs
Cone Factor, Nk
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of Determination, R2
10
14
10
14
0.491
0.688
0.443
0.620
0.671
0.671
0.729
0.729
Figure 6.25 Residual unit side resistance versus end-of-test undrained shear strength for saturated clay normalized with vertical
effective stress.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
35
TABLE 6.8
Fitting parameters, and coefficient of determination relating su and fs shown in Equation 6.7 for clay soils
Normalization
Fitting Parameter, a
Fitting Parameter, b
Coefficient of Determination, R2
0.703
0.440
0.461
Vertical effective stress
As previously done with Equations 6.2 and 6.3,
Equation 6.5 was modified to develop Equations 6.8
which capture the inverse relationship between the
degree of saturation and unit side resistance due to
matric suction occurring in unsaturated soils:
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
ð6:8aÞ
where fs 5 unit side resistance (kPa), s’v 5 vertical
effective stress (kPa), a 5 fitting parameter (unitless),
qc,1 5 CPT tip resistance (kPa), S 5 degree of saturation
(percent) and Pa 5 atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) and:
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
ð6:8bÞ
where OCR5 over-consolidation ratio.
Figure 6.26 presents the developed relationship
between qc,1 and peak unit side resistance for unsaturated clay, and Figure 6.27 presents the developed
relationship between qc,1 and residual unit side resistance for unsaturated clay. Figure 6.28 presents the
developed relationship between qc,1 and peak unit
side resistance for unsaturated non-plastic silt, and
Figure 6.29 presents the developed relationships
between qc,1 and the critical unit side resistance for
unsaturated non-plastic silt. Figure 6.30 presents the
developed relationship between qc,1 and peak unit side
resistance for unsaturated sand and Figure 6.31 presents the developed relationship between qc,1 and
critical unit side resistance for unsaturated sand. No
published relationships using tip resistance to predict
the unit side resistance were found in the literature.
Figure 6.26
36
Table 6.9 presents a summary of the fitting parameter a
and the coefficient of determination for the six plots
(Figures 6.26–6.31). The data used to develop the
relationships and determine the respective fitting
parameters and coefficient of determinations are
presented in Appendix E, Tables E.20–E.25.
As stated previously, no published relationships
relating CPT tip resistance and unit side resistance
exist in the literature. The coefficients of determination
for the clay-unit side resistance relationship in Table 6.6
need to be improved with more data. The coefficients of
determination for the non-plastic silt and sand relationships are low (0.018–0.272) and based on a small
population of data.
6.4 Chapter Summary
Chapter 6 presented two new relationships relating
N1,60 and qc,1 to the unit side resistance measured in
saturated and unsaturated soils and a new relationship
relating su to the unit side resistance measured in
saturated clay soils. The relationship using N1,60 to
predict the in situ unit side resistance is shown in
Equation 6.2 for saturated soils and in Equation 6.3 for
unsaturated soils. Equation 6.2 is a unitless relationship
between N1,60 and the unit side resistance normalized
by the vertical effective stress. The relationship was
developed based on the data collected for clay, nonplastic silt, and sand groupings shown in Figures 6.3–
6.8. Table 6.4 summarizes the fitting parameters and
coefficients of determination for dataset. Equation 6.3
builds on the form of Equation 6.2 by incorporating the
inverse relationship between the degree of saturation
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure 6.27
Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay.
Figure 6.28
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Figure 6.29
Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
37
Figure 6.30
Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand.
Figure 6.31
Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand.
TABLE 6.9
Fitting parameter, a, and coefficient of determination relating qc,1 and fs shown in Equation 6.8 for various soils
Clay-Peak fs
Clay-Residual fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Peak fs
Non-Plastic Silt-Critical fs
Sand-Peak fs
Sand-Critical fs
38
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of
Determination, R2
Degree of Saturation
OCR Range
0.0161
0.0135
0.0032
0.0030
0.0102
0.0060
0.524
0.395
0.157
0.018
0.272
0.250
0.363–0.950
0.446–0.950
0.698–0.739
0.698–0.739
0.447–0.901
0.447–0.901
1.79-4.23
1.79-4.23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
and the unit side resistance. The relationship was
developed based on the data collected for clay, nonplastic silt and sand groupings shown in Figures 6.9–
6.14. Table 6.5 summarizes the fitting parameters and
coefficients of determination for each dataset.
No relationships for qc,1 and unit side resistance were
found in the literature. This research is the first to
develop relationships between CPT and SPT-T measurements. Equation 6.5 is a unitless relationship that
relates normalized qc and unit side resistance for
saturated soils. The relationship was developed based
on the data presented for clay, non-plastic silt, and sand
groupings shown in Figures 6.15–6.20. Table 6.6 summarizes the fitting parameters and coefficients of
determination for each dataset. Equation 6.6 relates
the unit side resistance with the undrained shear
strength of saturated clays. Equation 6.8 captures the
inverse relationship between the degree of saturation
and the unit side resistance for unsaturated soils. The
relationship was developed based on the clay, nonplastic silt, and sand data presented in Figures 6.27–
6.32. Table 6.9 presents the fitting parameters and
coefficients of determination for each dataset.
In general, the coefficients of determination for the
relationships proposed in this report are reasonably
high for clay, but low for non-plastic silt and sand. The
relationships for non-plastic silt and sand were developed based on limited data. Further data needs to be
collected to improve the preliminary relationships
proposed in this report. In addition, the process of
determining the degree of saturation for silty and sandy
soils is difficult due to the sensitive nature of the soil
structure. The volume can be destroyed during sample
extraction, opening of the split-spoon sampler, placement in the sample jars or extraction from the jars in
the laboratory. Any of these activities can change the
volume thus changing the unit weight which leads to
incorrect estimates of the degree of saturation.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
The method of calculating a torque ratio is a simple
process for data analysis; however, the method does not
provide results that lead to distinct relationships with
soil types. The ranges of torque ratios for various soils
overlap each other leading to unclear results. The
torque ratios may be valid for specific sites but do not
provide useable data relating to soil behavior classification. To better understand if using torque ratios for soil
classification is feasible, more data need to be collected.
Additionally, other variables need to be explored to
determine if a classification system that uses normalized
variables can be developed for soil behavior classification. This process would be similar to that used in the
development of the normalized tip resistance and
friction ratio relations which are used for soil behavior
classification based on CPT results.
Table 7.1 provides all the correlations developed in
this research project. Two different equations were
developed for saturated and unsaturated soils that
relate blow count to unit side resistance. Both equations
are normalized equations that directly relate N1,60 to
unit side resistance; however, the equation for unsaturated soil has the degree of saturation as a variable.
Two other equations were developed for saturated and
unsaturated soils that relate CPT tip resistance to unit
side resistance. Both equations are normalized equations that relate qc,1 directly to unit side resistance. The
equation for unsaturated soils has the degree of
saturation as a variable as well. One additional
equation was developed that indirectly relates su
estimated from CPT measurements with unit side
resistance.
As stated previously, published relationships for
N1,60-unit side resistance did not provide a coefficient
of determination (Kelley & Lutenegger, 2004; Winter
et al., 2005). Cottingham (2009) published coefficients
of determination for relationships between laboratory
testing and unit side resistance ranging from 0.338 to
0.554. Reasonably good correlations were developed
for saturated clay data and non-plastic silt. More data
need to be collected for sand and non-plastic silt to
improve the preliminary relationships proposed in this
report. This occurred for two reasons: first, small data
populations used in the development of the relationships and secondly, difficulty with adequately determining the degree of saturation for non-plastic soils due to
soil structure destruction. The relationships based on
low coefficients of determination should not be used
due to the unpredictable outcome.
Overall, four equations that relate SPT and CPT
measurements with unit side resistance (N1,60-fs and qcfs equations) were developed based on sets of data
collected for clay, non-plastic silt and sand. One
additional equation was developed that can be used
to estimate the su of saturated clay from unit side
resistance. These proposed equations account for the in
situ saturated/unsaturated soil state; coefficients of
determination are provided to allow for the end user
to assess the strength of the relationships. The
developed relationships between CPT tip resistance
and unit side resistance were the first of their nature.
Similar to the method used for developing the two
N1,60-fs equations, the qc-fs equations account for the
saturated/unsaturated soil state and provide the coefficients of determination for assessment of relationship
strength.
7.2 Recommendations
Use of the SPT-T equipment is recommended in
connection with SPT site investigations done by
INDOT for sites with fine-grained soils for which the
developed correlations between torque measurements
and shear strength are reliable. Additional data can be
collected in the context of INDOT projects to verify
and refine the correlations provided in this report. If
fabrication of other SPT-T hardware is required by
INDOT, improvements can be made to the current
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
39
TABLE 7.1
Summary of correlations developed for clay, silt and sand
Soil
fs Condition
Saturation
Clay
Peak
Saturated
Unsaturated
Critical
Saturated
Unsaturated
Silt
Peak
Saturated
Unsaturated
Critical
Saturated
Unsaturated
Sand
Peak
Saturated
Unsaturated
Critical
Saturated
Unsaturated
40
Equations
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fs
~aN1,60 OCR
s0v
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
Pa
Fitting Parameter, a
Coefficient of Determination, R2
0.0688
0.773
0.0333
0.665
fs
su
~a 0
s0v
sv
fs
su
~a 0
s0v
sv
fs
N1,60 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.491
0.671
0.688
0.671
0.0553
0.710
0.0161
0.524
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fs
~aN1,60 OCR
s0v
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
Pa
fs
su
~a 0
s0v
sv
fs
su
~a 0
s0v
sv
fs
su
~a 0 OCRb
s0v
sv
fs
N1,60 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OCR
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.0616
0.767
0.0309
0.745
0.443
0.729
0.620
0.729
a50.703 b50.440
0. 461
0.0462
0.551
0.0135
0.395
fs
~aN1,60
s0v
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
Pa
fs
N1,60
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.0490
0.676
0.0059
0.527
0.0290
0.115
0.0032
0.157
fs
~aN1,60
s0v
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
Pa
fs
N1,60
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.0380
0.705
0.0050
0.582
0.0218
0.232
0.0030
0.018
fs
~aN1,60
s0v
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
Pa
fs
N1,60
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.0940
0.307
0.0498
0.436
0.0488
0.413
0.0102
0.272
fs
~aN1,60
s0v
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
Pa
fs
N1,60
~a
s0v
S
fs
qc,1
~a
s0v
S(Pa )
0.0739
0.127
0.0400
0.013
0.0334
0.464
0.0060
0.250
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
SPT-Torque prototype. Use of a more expensive but
lighter alloy material can be explored in order to reduce
the current size and weight of the hardware while at the
same time keeping it sturdy. A storage box could be
fabricated to safely transport and store the hardware
when not in use by the INDOT drilling crew. A costbenefit analysis could be done to determine the cost of
production of additional SPT-T units versus benefits
due to better site investigations and geotechnical design.
REFERENCES
ASTM. (2007a). Standard test method for particle-size analysis
of soils. ASTM D422-63 (Reapproved 2007). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. (2007b). Standard test method for standard penetration
test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. ASTM D158608a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. (2009c). Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (graduation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM D691304 (Reapproved 2009). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM. (2010a). Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass.
ASTM D2216-10. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM. (2010b). Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (unified soil classification system).
ASTM D2487-10. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM. (2010c). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM D4318-10. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Bleuer, N. K. (1991). The Lafayette Bedrock Valley System of
Indiana; Concept, form and fill stratigraphy. In W. N.
Melhorn & J. P. Kempton (Eds.), Geology and hydrology of
the Teays-Mahomet Bedrock Valley System: Boulder, Colo.,
Geological Society of America Special Paper 258 (pp.
51–77).
Bullock, P. J. (1999). Pile friction freeze: A field and laboratory
study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gainesville:
University of Florida.
Bullock, P. J., & Schmertmann, J. H. (2003). Determining the
effect of stage testing on the dimensionless pile side shear
setup factor. (Florida Department of Transportation
Publication No. BC-354, RPWO 27). Tallahassee:
University of Florida.
Bullock, P. J., Schmertmann, J. H., McVay, M. C., &
Townsend, F. C. (2005a). Side shear setup. I: Test piles
driven in Florida. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(3), 292–300.
Bullock, P. J., Schmertmann, J. H., McVay, M. C. &
Townsend, F. C. (2005b). Side shear setup. II: Results
from Florida test piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(3), 301–310.
Cottingham, M. A. (2009). In situ determination of residual soil
shear strength parameters using the standard penetration test
with torque (Doctoral dissertation). Charlotte: University of
North Carolina at Charlotte.
Decourt, L., & Quaresma Filho, A. R. (1991). The SPT-CF:
An improved SPT. In Proceedings from SEFE II, Vol. I,
Sao Paulo (pp. 106–110).
Decourt, L., & Quaresma Filho, A. R. (1994). Practical
applications of the standard penetration test complemented
by torque measurements, SPT-T: Present stage and future
trends. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (pp. 143–146).
Hicks, J. M. (2001). Determining the effect of stage testing on
the dimensionless pile side shear setup factor (Master’s
thesis). Gainesville: University of Florida.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., & Banno, T.
(1974). Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils.
Soils and Foundation, 14(3), 1–12.
Kelley, S. P., & Lutenegger, A. J. (1999). Enhanced site
characterization in residual soils using the SPT-T and drive
cone tests. In B. Edelen (Ed.), Behavioral characteristics of
residual soils (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 92 (88–
100)). New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Kelley, S. P., & Lutenegger, A. J. (2004). Unit skin friction
from the standard penetration test supplemented with the
measurement of torque. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(5), 540–543.
Komurka, V. E., Wagner, A. B., & Edil, T. B. (2003).
Estimating soil/pile set-up (Wisconsin Highway Research
Program Publication No. 0092-00-14). Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Kulhawy, F. H., & Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on
estimating soil properties for foundation design. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
Lutenegger, A. J. (2008). The standard penetration test—
More than just a one number test. In A-B. Huang & P. W.
Mayne (Eds.), Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization (pp. 481–485). London, UK: Taylor and Francis
Group.
Lutenegger, A. J. (2009). Estimating driven pile side resistance
from SPT-Torque tests. In M. Iskander, D. F. Laefer &
M. H. Hussein (Eds.), Contemporary topics in in situ testing,
analysis, and reliability of foundations (Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 186) (pp. 9–17). New York, NY: American
Society of Civil Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
41022(336)2
Lutenegger, A. J., & Kelley, S. P. (1998). Standard penetration
tests with torque measurements. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Site Characterization, Vol. 2
(pp. 939–945).
Peixoto, A. S. P., Albequerque, P. J. R., & de Carvalho, D.
(2000). Utilization of SPT-T, CPT and DMT tests to
predict the ultimate bearing capacity of precast concrete
pile in Brazilian unsaturated residual soil. In C. D.
Shackelford, S. L. Houston, & N5Y Chang (Eds.),
Proceedings: Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics (pp. 32–
39). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40510(287)3
Peixoto, A. S. P., Antenor, V. B., Montanha, R. K., Nogueira,
J. D. F., & de Oliveria Neto, L. (2008). Influence factors in
torque measurements of SPT-T test. In A-B Huang & P. W.
Mayne (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Site Characterization.
Peixoto, A. S. P., Antenor, V. B., Ramos, T. M., & David, R.
(2007). Rod length influence in torque measurement of
SPT-T test. In Proceedings of sessions of Geo-Denver 2007
Congress: Problematic soils and rocks and in situ characterization, Vol. 225 (pp. 162–170).
Peixoto, A. S. P., & de Carvalho, D. (1999). Standard
penetration test with torque measurement (SPT-T) and
some factors that affect the T/N ratio. In Panamerican
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
XI, Vol. 3 (pp. 1605–1612).
Peixoto, A. S. P., de Carvalho, D., & Giacheti, H. L. (2003). SPTT and CPT tests to predict bearing capacity of piles in Brazilian
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
41
practice. In Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1 (pp. 381–386).
Peixoto, A. S. P., & de Oliveria Neto, L. (2010). Theoretical
and experimental evaluation of the influence of the
length of drill rods in the SPT-T tests. Soils & Rocks, 33,
23–31.
Ranzini, S. M. T. (1988). SPTF. Technical note. Solos
e Rochas, 11, 29–30.
Ranzini, S. M. T. (1994). SPTF: 2a parte. Solos e Rochas, 17,
189–190.
Rausche, F., Thendean, G., Abou-matar, H., Likins, G. E., &
Gobel, G. G. (1995). Investigation of dynamic and static pile
behavior from modified standard penetration tests. Presented
at the 1995 PDA Users Day, Heidelberg, Germany.
42
Retrieved from http://www.pile.com/reference/PDAUsers
Day1995Cleve/InvestigationOfDynamicAndStaticPileBehavior
FromModifiedStandardPenetrationTests.pdf.
Salgado, R. (2008). The engineering of foundations. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
West, T. R. (1995). Geology applied to engineering, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Winter, C. J., Wagner, A. B., & Komurka, V. E. (2005).
Investigation of standard penetration torque testing (SPT-T)
to predict pile performance (Wisconsin Highway Research
Program Publication No. 0092-04-09). Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
APPENDIX A. SPT-TORQUE CALIBRATION
Table A.1 presents the data for the calibration process of the strain gages located on the SPT-Torque shaft.
TABLE A.1
SPT-Torque calibration data
Dead Load
Load (lb)
Load (kg)
Distance (m)
Torque (N.m)
Total Dead Torque (N.m)
Bucket
Lever Arm
2.14
9.44
0.97
4.28
0.51
0.23
4.86
1.76
6.62
Trial
Recorded Strain
Loading/Unloading
Sequence (lb)
Total Net Load (kg)
Lever Arm
Distance (m)
Applied Torque
(N.m)
Total Net Torque
(N.m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25.04E-05
25.76E-05
27.50E-05
29.16E-05
21.08E-04
21.43E-04
21.68E-04
21.93E-04
22.18E-04
22.43E-04
22.67E-04
22.45E-04
22.20E-04
21.94E-04
21.70E-04
21.45E-04
21.08E-04
29.16E-05
27.68E-05
25.77E-05
25.41E-05
24.92E-05
2.52
2.52
8.90
7.95
7.94
16.55
12.17
11.61
12.05
12.04
12.05
212.05
212.04
212.05
211.61
212.17
216.55
27.94
27.95
28.90
22.52
22.52
1.14
2.29
6.32
9.93
13.53
21.04
26.56
31.82
37.29
42.75
48.22
42.75
37.29
31.82
26.56
21.04
13.53
9.93
6.32
2.29
1.14
0.00
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
5.72
11.44
31.63
49.68
67.70
105.25
132.87
159.22
186.56
213.89
241.23
213.89
186.56
159.22
132.87
105.25
67.70
49.68
31.63
11.44
5.72
0.00
12.33
18.05
38.25
56.29
74.31
111.87
139.49
165.83
193.18
220.50
247.85
220.50
193.18
165.83
139.49
111.87
74.31
56.29
38.25
18.05
12.33
6.62
Figure A.1 presents the calibration data presented in Table A.1 with a calibration factor of 1,088,433.87.
Figure A.1
Plot of the calibration data.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
43
APPENDIX B. SPT-TORQUE PLOTS
FIGURES B.1 THROUGH B.12
Figures B.1 through B.12 present SPT-Torque test data from the Flora Maintenance Unit (Carroll County, Indiana) collected on August
9, 2011.
Figure B.1
Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.2
Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
44
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.3
Flora yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.4
Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.5
Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
45
Figure B.6
Flora yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.7
Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.8
Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
46
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.9
Flora yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.10
Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.11
Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
47
Figure B.12
Flora yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
FIGURES B.13 THROUGH B.18
Figures B.13 through B.18 present SPT-Torque test data from the Lafayette Maintenance Unit (Tippecanoe County, Indiana) collected on
September 1, 2011.
Figure B.13
48
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.14
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.15
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.16
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
49
Figure B.17
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Figure B.18
Lafayette yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
50
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
FIGURES B.19 THROUGH B.41
Figures B.19 through B.41 present SPT-Torque test data from the Frankfort Maintenance Unit (Clinton County, Indiana) collected from
January 4–6, 2012.
Figure B.19
Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.20
Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
51
Figure B.21
Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.22
Frankfort yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.23
Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
52
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.24
Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.25
Frankfort yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.26
Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
53
Figure B.27
Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.28
Frankfort yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.29
Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
54
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.30
Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.31
Frankfort yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.32
Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
55
Figure B.33
Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.34
Frankfort yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.35
Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
56
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.36
Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.37
Frankfort yard boring 7 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.38
Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
57
Figure B.39
Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.40
Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.41
Frankfort yard boring 8 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
58
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
FIGURES B.42 THROUGH B.66
Figures B.42 through B.66 present SPT-Torque test data from the Romney Maintenance Unit (Tippecanoe County, Indiana) collected
from January 9–10, 2012.
Figure B.42
Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.43
Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
59
Figure B.44
Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.45
Romney yard boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.46
Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
60
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.47
Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.48
Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.49
Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
61
Figure B.50
Romney yard boring 2 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Figure B.51
Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.52
Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
62
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.53
Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.54
Romney yard boring 3 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.55
Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
63
Figure B.56
Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.57
Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.58
Romney yard boring 4 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
64
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.59
Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.60
Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
Figure B.61
Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
65
Figure B.62
Romney yard boring 5 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.63
Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.64
Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
66
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.65
Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.66
Romney yard boring 6 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
67
FIGURES B.67 THROUGH B.94
Figures B.67 through B.94 present SPT-Torque test data from the Koleen Interstate 69 expansion site (Greene County, Indiana) collected
on July 16–19, 2012.
Figure B.67
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.68
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
68
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.69
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.70
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.71
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
69
Figure B.72
Koleen site boring 1 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
Figure B.73
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.74
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
70
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.75
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.76
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.77
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
71
Figure B.78
Koleen site boring 2 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
Figure B.79
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.80
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
72
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.81
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.82
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.83
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
73
Figure B.84
Koleen site boring 3 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
Figure B.85
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 1.07–1.52 meters.
Figure B.86
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 2.59–3.05 meters.
74
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.87
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 4.12–4.57 meters.
Figure B.88
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 5.64–6.10 meters.
Figure B.89
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 7.16–7.62 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
75
Figure B.90
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 8.69–9.15 meters.
Figure B.91
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 10.21–10.67 meters.
Figure B.92
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 11.74–12.20 meters.
76
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure B.93
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 13.26–13.72 meters.
Figure B.94
Koleen site boring 5 test performed at a depth of 14.79–15.24 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
77
APPENDIX C. 1-D CONSOLIDATION TESTS
Figure C.1
1-D consolidation test for Flora 6 with a depth of 2.08 meters.
Figure C.2
1-D consolidation test for Flora 6 with a depth of 2.95 meters.
78
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.3
1-D consolidation test for Frankfort 9 with a depth of 1.55 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
79
Figure C.4
80
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.5
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
81
Figure C.6
82
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.7
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
83
Figure C.8
84
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.9
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
85
Figure C.10
86
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.11
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
87
Figure C.12
88
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.13
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
89
Figure C.14
90
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.15
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
91
Figure C.16
92
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.17
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
93
Figure C.18
94
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.19
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
95
Figure C.20
96
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.21
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
97
Figure C.22
98
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.23
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
99
Figure C.24
100
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.25
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
101
Figure C.26
102
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure C.27
1-D consolidation test from the Koleen site performed by INDOT.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
103
APPENDIX D. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
TABLE D.1
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
SP-SC
SP
15.5
22.0
31.5
428.9
6375.2
19976.6
29.1
20.9
16.7
45.1
N/A
N/A
27.1
N/A
N/A
40.0
92.2
97.8
33.0
6.4
,1
27.0
1.4
,1
TABLE D.2
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 2
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
SP
SP
13.0
13.7
25.8
469.4
2689.1
2333.6
17.0
19.8
21.3
29.1
N/A
N/A
17.9
N/A
N/A
52.1
99.5
97.7
30.8
,0
,1
17.1
,0
,1
TABLE D.3
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SP-SC
SP
18.5
13.7
14.7
1269.5
3602.8
2525.3
17.5
21.6
17.6
23.6
28.7
N/A
18.5
21.6
N/A
54.6
94.1
95.2
30.1
,3
,2.5
15.3
,3
,2.5
TABLE D.4
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SP-SC
SC-SM
14.8
13.7
13.5
222.8
1355.4
2570.0
13.5
21.6
20.9
23.9
N/A
N/A
18.0
N/A
N/A
64.6
89.8
83.2
25.6
7.3
12.5
9.8
2.9
4.3
TABLE D.5
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Lafayette Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL
SP-SC
SP-SC
SP-SC
CL-ML
ML
25.2
9.1
19.9
26.8
21.1
50.1
3623.5
991.7
1857.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
16.0
6.8
5.8
3.9
23.4
20.5
46.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
21.8
NP
25.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
16.8
NP
N/A
N/A
26.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
45.0
89.6
61.7
91.1
10.7
46.6
28.0
,5
8.0
8.0
78.1
49.1
27.0
,5
3.9
0.9
11.2
4.2
104
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE D.6
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
CL
SC-SM
ML
SW-SM
13.7
16.8
24.0
30.3
1698.0
3423.5
4789.2
28744.7
26.5
11.0
18.2
15.4
34.7
15.5
19.1
NP
13.7
11.0
17.0
NP
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.9
35.5
52.7
31.0
78.3
52.0
41.0
61.7
10.5
12.5
6.3
7.3
1.3
TABLE D.7
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SM
SP-SC
SM
26.1
19.1
33.1
4148.0
17119.1
N/A
12.7
16.8
20.4
NP
19.2
NP
NP
12.3
NP
N/A
19.3
N/A
54.3
70.5
53.1
40.5
8.4
44.5
5.2
1.8
2.4
TABLE D.8
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SM
SM
19.6
50.1
23.4
3382.6
49304.7
N/A
13.6
8.5
16.2
18.5
17.6
NP
12.0
N/A
NP
51.9
51.7
68.0
40.7
41.0
26.7
7.4
7.3
5.3
TABLE D.9
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 5
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SM
SM
13.0
39.8
33.1
2327.0
27870.8
N/A
14.6
11.7
23.4
19.2
14.8
15.5
14.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.6
N/A
54.1
55.9
64.6
36.7
22.5
33.4
9.2
4.0
2.0
TABLE D.10
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 6
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SM
SM
ML
36.9
58.9
43.8
1845.8
17848.0
N/A
18.7
12.9
12.1
20.3
15.1
11.4
17.6
N/A
N/A
3.1
N/A
N/A
56.1
71.7
47.9
33.8
25.1
44.4
7.0
3.2
7.7
TABLE D.11
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 7
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
CL-ML
CL-ML
18.2
13.8
46.9
1829.9
2485.2
20129.7
15.3
19.1
14.4
25.4
21.6
21.2
16.8
16.3
15.6
N/A
5.1
N/A
48.0
42.1
43.1
41.3
41.9
46.6
10.7
10.9
10.3
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
105
TABLE D.12
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 8
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
CL
CL
CL-ML
SM
18.2
16.9
59.6
16.4
2262.0
3176.8
12093.6
2557.3
21.4
18.4
13.0
13.4
28.0
27.9
19.6
17.3
19.7
20.7
15.8
14.0
N/A
N/A
1.5
3.5
14.7
47.6
42.8
49.7
68.4
42.3
47.9
40.6
16.9
10.1
7.8
6.2
TABLE D.13
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SC
SW-SC
ML
SM
30.4
45.3
18.6
14.0
1117.0
6126.0
2624.7
2548.6
4.5
4.7
21.7
22.2
N/A
N/A
NP
NP
N/A
N/A
NP
NP
24.1
35.3
N/A
N/A
69.1
55.5
31.2
77.4
,3.5
,4.5
66.2
21.7
,3.5
,4.5
2.6
0.9
TABLE D.14
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 2
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
GW
ML
SM
ML
ML
42.8
16.8
20.9
16.0
38.1
21710.5
20630.8
11304.8
10328.5
16033.1
6.6
22.4
20.6
22.0
15.7
N/A
NP
NP
NP
NP
N/A
NP
NP
NP
NP
52.0
N/A
N/A
0.5
N/A
45.7
4.1
75.1
31.5
30.7
,1
88.4
23.4
64.5
65.7
,1
7.5
1.5
3.5
3.6
TABLE D.15
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
ML
50.0
25.0
22.9
19.9
11009.3
6874.5
5268.3
1549.7
5.1
15.2
20.3
20.9
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
28.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
61.0
66.0
65.4
39.6
9.1
32.2
32.8
55.7
1.1
1.8
1.8
4.7
TABLE D.16
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
SM
34.8
20.6
21.5
19.9
23318.7
23927.8
19459.4
12091.2
5.3
9.4
19.4
27.3
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
28.9
N/A
0.3
N/A
63.8
59.5
58.8
63.4
,3.5
37.6
38.0
34.0
,3.5
2.9
2.9
2.6
106
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE D.17
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 5
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
ML
SM
ML
45.6
29.6
25.8
24.7
16206.0
14529.1
14399.9
20377.3
4.9
21.5
19.5
21.9
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
25.0
11.0
N/A
N/A
68.6
19.8
63.8
8.5
,3
65.2
34.3
84.3
,3
4.0
1.9
7.2
TABLE D.18
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 6
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
wc (%)
LL (%)
PL (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
ML
21.7
25.0
21.5
21.1
2314.2
53666.2
20968.7
12318.4
5.6
7.6
20.0
23.3
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
17.3
37.9
N/A
N/A
73.5
48.8
66.1
28.6
,4.5
11.3
32.6
68.7
,4.5
2.0
1.3
2.7
TABLE D.19
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site
boring 1
TABLE D.21
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site
boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
20.5
8.7
8.4
10.2
3.2
5.8
7619.1
2199.8
618.6
621.7
721.3
N/A
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
22.3
9.1
5.5
4.4
12.8
7.6
13928.8
2237.7
579.7
1007.3
2048.6
739.1
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
TABLE D.22
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site
boring 5
TABLE D.20
SPT, CPT and laboratory testing results from Koleen site
boring 2
Depth (m)
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL
CL
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
16.5
13.6
6.5
3.2
2.2
3.1
6833.1
2509.5
969.5
874.5
4099.8
722.1
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
Depth (m)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
10.21–10.67
11.74–12.20
13.26–13.72
14.79–15.24
Soil Type
N1,60
qc,1 (kPa)
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
ML*
ML*
16.6
11.4
3.9
3.4
4.6
3.2
3.2
4.0
6.2
11.5
5405.7
2164.8
663.5
577.0
904.2
836.4
666.8
716.5
4227.0
N/A
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
107
TABLE D.23
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
SP-SC
SP
110.71
123.47
182.59
115.1
71.7
106.0
89.30
84.36
159.81
178.7
180.3
180.6
TABLE D.24
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 2
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
SP
SP
47.59
79.95
86.17
152.9
62.9
102.9
40.10
73.14
75.85
180.8
181.3
180.8
TABLE D.25
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL-ML
SP-SC
SP
50.75
100.11
113.46
160.9
123.6
233.0
50.46
91.43
103.75
180.6
155.0
300.8
TABLE D.26
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Flora Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SP-SC
SC-SM
82.49
171.92
88.38
78.0
145.8
170.4
62.82
139.19
63.30
120.0
252.1
252.3
TABLE D.27
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Lafayette Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL
SP-SC
SP-SC
SP-SC
CL-ML
ML
131.37
34.71
87.32
161.67
137.16
116.34
45.1
212.2
140.5
106.7
60.2
214.6
121.05
28.59
65.90
139.21
118.22
112.27
125.0
250.8
230.0
276.0
180.7
295.0
108
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE D.28
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
CL
SC-SM
ML
SW-SM
63.24
54.34
81.05
150.57
260.1
161.8
136.8
132.0
58.41
49.39
70.66
139.69
280.0
190.0
180.5
201.0
TABLE D.29
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SM
SP-SC
SM
34.09
54.63
124.67
185.2
59.6
149
28.67
38.40
116.91
202.6
150.9
199.7
TABLE D.30
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SM
SM
29.16
90.24
7.09
197.7
40.0
41.8
23.06
67.14
59.75
216.0
145.0
150.8
TABLE D.31
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 5
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SC-SM
SM
SM
14.17
117.48
157.94
158.7
65.1
85.1
10.62
83.56
113.10
250.0
180.2
149.8
TABLE D.32
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 6
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
SM
SM
ML
17.86
93.69
219.12
110.3
237.9
144.5
16.11
68.79
181.22
155.0
291.2
198.7
TABLE D.33
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 7
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
CL
CL-ML
CL-ML
21.16
32.94
51.66
107.3
267.6
49.1
14.86
30.49
41.66
192.9
308.1
144.0
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
109
TABLE D.34
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 8
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
CL
CL
CL-ML
SM
52.95
67.65
110.83
84.21
240.6
42.1
38.3
104.5
52.17
61.18
94.49
60.56
300.0
165.0
197.1
175.0
TABLE D.35
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SC
SW-SC
ML
SM
73.73
108.01
72.05
24.75
48.7
134.6
265.8
171.9
56.77
91.10
68.99
18.70
175.0
207.3
275.0
223.0
TABLE D.36
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 2
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
GW
ML
SM
ML
ML
62.09
63.10
138.31
69.56
165.36
31.6
58.7
95.3
127.9
95.9
38.79
45.81
121.16
66.81
142.49
270.0
175.0
197.1
155.0
165.0
TABLE D.37
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
ML
86.99
121.75
78.61
87.23
88.3
31.0
28.4
42.3
58.00
102.87
73.63
74.07
190.0
200.6
145.0
240.0
TABLE D.38
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 4
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
SM
45.62
79.38
84.64
69.71
54.2
26.4
242.1
27.4
23.88
65.21
72.54
53.29
175.0
170.0
301.0
150.0
110
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE D.39
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 5
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
ML
SM
ML
54.43
103.51
88.95
81.10
139.6
107.9
82.3
80.6
43.56
74.45
81.10
73.35
220.0
182.3
190.0
260.0
TABLE D.40
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Romney Maintenance Unit boring 6
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
SP-SM
SM
SM
ML
71.91
97.38
83.25
62.67
183.5
74.2
98.2
38.3
51.83
63.93
75.16
47.02
295.5
237.3
185.0
250.6
TABLE D.41
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 1
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
111.50
85.36
95.61
69.32
59.12
72.00
160.1
289.4
148.6
77.3
22.7
192.9
109.50
83.94
74.16
54.05
48.68
62.49
297.2
289.0
290.0
264.4
288.4
270.5
TABLE D.42
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 2
Depth (m)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
Soil Type
CL
CL
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
63.58
86.03
55.68
38.78
30.11
22.26
60.0
31.2
31.2
57.3
19.7
41.9
35.53
83.09
52.70
34.01
28.35
12.95
288.8
271.6
285.4
183.9
209.6
255.0
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
111
TABLE D.43
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 3
Depth (m)
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
112.60
66.35
57.55
41.51
54.82
37.49
305.6
181.2
222.4
43.0
304.0
13.7
110.32
64.45
53.21
33.36
54.82
34.62
298.3
297.2
293.5
254.1
304.0
294.6
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
TABLE D.44
Peak and critical/residual unit side resistance results and corresponding rotation angles from Koleen site boring 5
Depth (m)
1.07–1.52
2.59–3.05
4.12–4.57
5.64–6.10
7.16–7.62
8.69–9.15
10.21–10.67
11.74–12.20
13.26–13.72
14.79–15.24
Soil Type
Peak Unit Side
Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Peak Unit
Side Resistance (deg)
Critical/Residual Unit
Side Resistance (kPa)
Rotation at Critical/Residual
Unit Side Resistance (deg)
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
CL*
ML*
ML*
54.63
21.74
48.59
35.57
37.44
17.47
40.31
21.16
55.82
83.59
46.7
72.5
122.8
121.0
63.8
35.6
202.8
73.8
86.8
79.6
32.07
4.51
34.77
26.50
26.99
15.41
21.84
9.70
41.22
55.73
299.6
296.5
296.5
204.7
289.6
289.6
293.3
288.0
158.6
288.0
*Note: Visual classification during field testing (ASTM D 2488).
112
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
APPENDIX E. ANALYSIS PLOTS DATA
TABLE E.1
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay
Site
Flora 4
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
OCR
4.34
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
8.92
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
10.44
11.97
88.38
85.36
95.61
69.32
59.13
72.00
86.03
55.68
38.78
30.11
22.26
66.36
57.55
41.51
37.49
48.59
35.57
37.44
17.47
40.31
21.16
65.24
55.43
70.16
87.02
104.65
120.33
48.46
65.11
82.05
96.16
109.78
48.63
63.74
78.08
107.12
61.98
74.76
88.83
103.70
115.70
128.85
13.52
8.71
8.37
10.18
3.19
5.83
13.59
6.48
3.23
2.22
3.12
9.13
5.50
4.41
7.56
3.94
3.38
4.62
3.21
3.20
4.04
2.12
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.57
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
2.33
2.11
TABLE E.2
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4 Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated clay
Site
Flora 4
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Residual fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
OCR
4.34
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
8.92
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
10.44
11.97
63.30
83.94
74.16
54.05
48.68
62.49
83.09
52.70
34.01
28.25
12.95
64.45
53.21
33.36
34.62
34.77
26.50
26.99
15.41
21.80
9.70
65.24
55.43
70.16
87.02
104.65
120.33
48.46
65.11
82.05
96.16
109.78
48.63
63.74
78.08
107.12
61.98
74.76
88.83
103.70
115.70
128.85
13.52
8.71
8.37
10.18
3.19
5.83
13.59
6.48
3.23
2.22
3.12
9.13
5.50
4.41
7.56
3.94
3.38
4.62
3.21
3.20
4.04
2.12
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.57
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
2.33
2.11
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
113
TABLE E.3
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.5
Figure 6.5 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt
Site
Flora 4
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 3
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 6
Frankfort 8
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 2
Romney 3
Romney 4
Romney 5
Romney 6
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
5.87
5.87
7.39
5.87
5.87
5.87
5.87
13.49
15.02
88.38
81.05
124.67
70.09
157.94
219.12
84.21
24.75
69.56
165.36
87.23
69.71
81.10
62.67
55.82
83.59
65.24
68.06
71.43
71.86
71.16
72.36
84.91
100.28
103.29
119.49
99.21
98.66
97.92
98.99
142.92
147.92
11.16
20.23
28.56
20.23
28.56
38.08
15.47
14.28
16.66
42.56
20.23
20.23
24.99
21.42
7.60
14.74
TABLE E.4
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.6
Figure 6.6 Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated non-plastic silt
Site
Flora 4
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 3
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 6
Frankfort 8
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 2
Romney 3
Romney 4
Romney 5
Romney 6
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.34
5.87
5.87
7.39
5.87
5.87
5.87
5.87
13.49
15.02
63.30
70.66
116.91
59.75
113.10
181.22
60.56
18.70
66.81
142.49
74.07
53.29
73.35
47.02
41.22
55.73
65.24
68.06
71.43
71.86
71.16
72.36
84.91
100.28
103.29
119.49
99.21
98.66
97.92
98.99
142.92
147.92
11.16
20.23
28.56
20.23
28.56
38.08
15.47
14.28
16.66
42.56
20.23
20.23
24.99
21.42
7.60
14.74
TABLE E.5
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.7
Figure 6.7 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand
Site
Flora 1
Flora 1
Flora 2
Flora 3
Flora 3
Frankfort 1
114
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
2.82
4.34
2.82
2.82
4.34
5.87
123.47
182.60
79.95
100.11
113.46
150.57
45.94
62.25
49.63
49.47
65.54
85.00
21.96
31.45
13.67
13.70
14.71
30.31
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE E.6
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.8
Figure 6.8 Critical unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for saturated sand
Site
Flora 1
Flora 1
Flora 2
Flora 2
Flora 3
Flora 3
Frankfort 1
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
2.82
4.34
2.82
4.34
2.82
4.34
5.87
84.37
159.81
73.14
75.85
91.43
103.75
139.69
45.94
62.25
49.63
65.48
49.47
65.54
85.00
21.96
31.45
13.67
25.75
13.70
14.71
30.31
TABLE E.7
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.9
Figure 6.9 Peak unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay
Site
Flora 1
Flora 2
Flora 3
Flora 4
Lafayette 1
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 7
Frankfort 7
Frankfort 8
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
OCR
S (%)
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.83
2.83
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
110.71
47.59
50.75
82.49
131.37
63.24
54.34
29.16
14.17
21.16
32.94
67.65
111.50
63.58
112.60
54.63
20.35
22.38
22.38
22.38
20.35
20.35
45.122
22.38
22.38
20.35
44.70
44.70
28.61
24.36
24.52
23.12
15.53
12.96
18.51
14.81
25.24
13.67
16.83
19.55
13.03
18.22
13.83
16.90
20.45
16.51
22.29
16.59
4.91
4.47
4.47
4.47
2.50
1.97
1.88
1.79
1.79
1.97
1.90
1.90
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
36.3
72.8
58.6
43.2
34.2
44.6
85.3
74.0
93.2
90.4
95.0
73.8
95.0
80.1
82.9
64.9
TABLE E.8
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.10
Figure 6.10 Residual unit side resistance versus N1,60 values for unsaturated clay
Site
Flora 1
Flora 2
Flora 3
Flora 4
Lafayette 1
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 1
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 7
Frankfort 7
Frankfort 8
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Residual fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
OCR
S (%)
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.83
2.83
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
89.30
40.10
50.46
62.82
121.05
58.41
49.39
23.06
10.62
14.86
30.49
61.18
109.50
35.53
110.32
32.07
20.35
22.38
22.38
22.38
20.35
20.35
45.122
22.38
22.38
20.35
44.70
44.70
28.61
24.36
24.52
23.12
15.53
12.96
18.51
14.81
25.24
13.67
16.83
19.55
13.03
18.22
13.83
16.90
20.45
16.51
22.29
16.59
4.91
4.47
4.47
4.47
2.50
1.97
1.88
1.79
1.79
1.97
1.90
1.90
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
36.3
72.8
58.6
43.2
34.2
44.6
85.3
74.0
93.2
90.4
95.0
73.8
95.0
80.1
82.9
64.9
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
115
TABLE E.9
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.11
Figure 6.11 Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
Site
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
3
4
5
6
6
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
S (%)
1.30
2.82
2.82
1.30
2.82
34.09
90.24
117.49
17.86
93.69
22.38
48.71
48.71
22.38
48.71
26.06
50.05
39.75
36.72
58.88
78.2
73.9
69.8
92.9
70.9
TABLE E.10
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.12
Figure 6.12 Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
Site
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
3
4
5
6
6
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
S (%)
1.30
2.82
2.82
1.30
2.82
28.67
67.14
83.56
16.11
68.79
22.38
48.71
48.71
22.38
48.71
26.06
50.05
39.75
36.72
58.88
78.2
73.9
69.8
92.9
70.9
TABLE E.11
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.13
Figure 6.13 Peak unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand
Site
Frankfort 3
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 3
Romney 5
Romney 6
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
S (%)
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
54.63
73.73
62.09
86.99
54.43
71.91
48.71
22.38
25.43
22.38
22.38
22.38
19.14
30.40
42.78
49.95
34.61
21.72
56.7
69.2
79.5
58.1
87.9
71.5
TABLE E.12
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.14
Figure 6.14 Critical unit side resistance N1,60 values for unsaturated sand
Site
Frankfort 3
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 3
Romney 5
Romney 6
116
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
N1,60
S (%)
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
38.40
56.78
38.79
58.00
23.88
43.56
48.71
22.38
25.43
22.38
22.38
22.38
19.14
30.40
42.78
49.95
34.61
21.72
56.7
69.2
79.5
58.1
87.9
71.5
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE E.13
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.15
Figure 6.15 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay
Site
Flora 4
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
OCR
4.34
2.82
5.87
7.39
2.83
4.34
5.87
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
10.44
11.97
88.38
85.36
69.32
59.13
86.03
55.68
38.78
22.26
66.36
57.55
41.51
54.82
37.49
48.59
35.57
37.44
17.47
40.31
21.16
65.24
55.43
87.02
104.65
48.46
65.11
82.05
109.78
48.63
63.74
78.08
92.20
107.12
61.98
74.76
88.83
103.70
115.70
128.85
2570.02
2199.82
621.71
721.25
2509.50
969.54
874.52
722.07
2237.71
579.73
1007.33
2048.61
739.14
663.50
577.03
904.15
836.36
666.79
716.45
2.12
3.83
3.14
2.84
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
2.33
2.11
TABLE E.14
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.16
Figure 6.16 Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay
Site
Flora 4
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Residual fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
OCR
4.34
2.82
5.87
7.39
2.83
4.34
5.87
8.92
2.82
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
4.34
5.87
7.39
8.92
10.44
11.97
63.30
83.94
54.05
48.68
83.09
52.70
34.01
12.95
64.45
53.21
33.36
54.82
34.62
34.77
26.50
26.99
15.41
21.84
9.70
65.24
55.43
87.02
104.65
48.46
65.11
82.05
109.78
48.63
63.74
78.08
92.20
107.12
61.98
74.76
88.83
103.70
115.70
128.85
2570.02
2199.82
621.71
721.25
2509.50
969.54
874.52
722.07
2237.71
579.73
1007.33
2048.61
739.14
663.50
577.03
904.15
836.36
666.79
716.45
2.12
3.83
3.14
2.84
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.57
3.83
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
3.47
3.14
2.84
2.57
2.33
2.11
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
117
TABLE E.15
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.17
Figure 6.17 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt
Site
Romney 1
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 4
Romney 5
Romney 6
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
5.87
5.87
7.39
5.87
5.87
5.87
13.49
24.75
69.56
165.36
69.71
81.10
62.67
55.82
100.28
103.29
119.49
98.66
97.92
98.99
142.92
2548.64
10328.47
16033.11
12091.17
20377.30
12318.35
4226.97
TABLE E.16
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.18
Figure 6.18 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated non-plastic silt
Site
Romney 1
Romney 1
Romney 2
Romney 4
Romney 5
Romney 6
Koleen 5
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
5.87
5.87
7.39
5.87
5.87
5.87
13.49
18.70
66.81
142.49
53.29
73.35
47.02
41.22
100.28
103.29
119.49
98.66
97.92
98.99
142.92
2548.64
10328.47
16033.11
12091.17
20377.30
12318.35
4226.97
TABLE E.17
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.19
Figure 6.19 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand
Site
Flora
Flora
Flora
Flora
Flora
1
2
2
3
3
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
2.82
2.82
4.34
2.82
4.34
123.47
79.95
86.18
100.11
113.46
45.94
49.63
65.48
49.47
65.54
6375.16
2689.07
2333.63
3602.82
2525.30
TABLE E.18
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.20
Figure 6.20 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated sand
Site
Flora
Flora
Flora
Flora
Flora
118
1
2
2
3
3
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
2.82
2.82
4.34
2.82
4.34
84.37
73.14
75.85
91.43
103.75
45.94
49.63
65.48
49.47
65.54
6375.16
2689.07
2333.63
3602.82
2525.30
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
TABLE E.19
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.25
Figure 6.16 Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for saturated clay
Site
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
Koleen
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Depth (m)
Residual fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
su (kPa)
OCR
9.25
9.25
9.25
11.75
11.75
17.75
17.75
17.75
66.35
66.35
66.35
58.83
58.83
36.96
36.96
36.96
53.97
53.97
53.97
68.56
68.56
103.56
103.56
103.56
56.94
67.84
94.93
43.25
91.94
40.84
53.02
79.34
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.79
3.79
3.36
3.36
3.36
TABLE E.20
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.26
Figure 6.26 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay
Site
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
1
1
4
5
6
7
7
8
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
OCR
S (%)
1.30
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.82
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
63.24
54.34
29.16
14.17
17.86
21.16
32.94
67.65
111.50
63.58
112.60
54.63
20.35
45.12
22.38
22.38
22.38
20.35
44.70
44.70
28.61
24.36
24.52
23.18
1698.03
3423.54
3382.59
2327.02
1845.77
1829.93
2485.24
3176.79
7619.12
6833.09
13938.82
5405.68
1.88
1.97
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.97
1.90
1.90
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
44.6
85.3
44.6
74.0
93.2
92.9
90.4
95.0
80.1
82.9
82.9
64.9
TABLE E.21
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.27
Figure 6.27 Residual unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated clay
Site
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Frankfort
Koleen 1
Koleen 2
Koleen 3
Koleen 5
1
1
4
5
6
7
7
8
Depth (m)
Residual fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1 (kPa)
OCR
S (%)
1.30
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.82
2.82
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
58.41
49.39
23.06
10.62
16.11
14.86
30.49
61.18
109.50
35.53
110.32
32.07
20.35
45.12
22.38
22.38
22.38
20.35
44.70
44.70
28.61
24.36
24.52
23.18
1698.03
3423.54
3382.59
2327.02
1845.77
1829.93
2485.24
3176.79
7619.12
6833.09
13938.82
5405.68
1.88
1.97
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.97
1.90
1.90
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
44.6
85.3
44.6
74.0
93.2
92.9
90.4
95.0
95.0
80.1
82.9
64.9
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
119
TABLE E.22
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.28
Figure 6.28 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
Site
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 6
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
S (%)
2.82
2.82
2.82
90.24
117.49
93.69
48.71
48.71
48.71
49304.74
37870.76
17848.02
73.9
69.8
70.9
TABLE E.23
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.29
Figure 6.29 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated non-plastic silt
Site
Frankfort 4
Frankfort 5
Frankfort 6
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
S (%)
2.82
2.82
2.82
67.14
83.56
68.79
48.71
48.71
48.71
49304.74
37870.76
17848.02
73.9
69.8
70.9
TABLE E.24
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.30
Figure 6.30 Peak unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand
Site
Romney
Romney
Romney
Romney
2
3
4
5
Depth (m)
Peak fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
S (%)
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
62.09
86.99
45.63
54.43
25.43
22.38
22.38
22.38
21710.46
11009.27
23318.70
16205.95
79.5
44.7
90.1
60.1
TABLE E.25
Raw data used to develop relationship shown in Figure 6.31
Figure 6.31 Critical unit side resistance versus qc,1 values for unsaturated sand
Site
Romney
Romney
Romney
Romney
120
2
3
4
5
Depth (m)
Critical fs (kPa)
s’v (kPa)
qc,1
S (%)
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
38.79
58.00
23.88
43.56
25.43
22.38
22.38
22.38
21710.46
11009.27
23318.70
16205.95
79.5
44.7
90.1
60.1
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
APPENDIX F. SITE SPT BORINGS AND CPT SOUNDINGS
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
121
Figure F.1
122
Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 1.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.2 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 10.30 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
123
Figure F.3
124
Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 2.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.4 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 8.99 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
125
Figure F.5
126
Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 3.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.6 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 10.52 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
127
Figure F.7
128
Boring log for Flora Maintenance Unit boring 4.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.8 Flora Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 11.13 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
129
Figure F.9
130
Boring log for Lafayette Maintenance Unit boring 1.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.10 Lafayette Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 4.97 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
131
Figure F.11
132
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 1.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.12 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 6.16 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
133
Figure F.13
134
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 3.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.14 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 3.17 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
135
Figure F.15
136
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 4.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.16 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 2.74 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
137
Figure F.17
138
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 5.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.18 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 3.19 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
139
Figure F.19
140
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 6.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.20 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 6 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 3.93 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
141
Figure F.21
142
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 7.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.22 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 7 terminated at a depth of 4.57 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 9.14 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
143
Figure F.23
144
Boring log for Frankfort Maintenance Unit boring 8.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.24 Frankfort Maintenance Unit SPT boring 8 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 8.95 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
145
Figure F.25
146
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 1.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.26 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 7.99 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
147
Figure F.27
148
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 2.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.28 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 7.62 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 10.67 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
149
Figure F.29
150
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 3.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.30 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 9.54 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
151
Figure F.31
152
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 4.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.32 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 4 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 6.95 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
153
Figure F.33
154
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 5.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.34 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 7.87 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
155
Figure F.35
156
Boring log for Romney Maintenance Unit boring 6.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.36 Romney Maintenance Unit SPT boring 6 terminated at a depth of 6.10 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding
terminated at a depth of 10.12 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
157
Figure F.37
158
Boring log for Koleen Site boring 1.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.38 Koleen site SPT boring 1 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 7.92 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
159
Figure F.39
160
Boring log for Koleen Site boring 2.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.40 Koleen site SPT boring 2 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 16.85 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
161
Figure F.41
162
Boring log for Koleen Site boring 3.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.42 Koleen site SPT boring 3 terminated at a depth of 9.15 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a depth
of 11.11 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
163
Figure F.43
164
Boring log for Koleen Site boring 5.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
Figure F.44 Koleen site SPT boring 5 terminated at a depth of 15.24 meters with the adjacent CPT sounding terminated at a
depth of 14.47 meters.
Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2014/05
165
About the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
On March 11, 1937, the Indiana Legislature passed an act which authorized the Indiana State
Highway Commission to cooperate with and assist Purdue University in developing the best
methods of improving and maintaining the highways of the state and the respective counties
thereof. That collaborative effort was called the Joint Highway Research Project (JHRP). In 1997
the collaborative venture was renamed as the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
to reflect the state and national efforts to integrate the management and operation of various
transportation modes.
The first studies of JHRP were concerned with Test Road No. 1 — evaluation of the weathering
characteristics of stabilized materials. After World War II, the JHRP program grew substantially
and was regularly producing technical reports. Over 1,500 technical reports are now available,
published as part of the JHRP and subsequently JTRP collaborative venture between Purdue
University and what is now the Indiana Department of Transportation.
Free online access to all reports is provided through a unique collaboration between JTRP and
Purdue Libraries. These are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp
Further information about JTRP and its current research program is available at:
http://www.purdue.edu/jtrp
About This Report
An open access version of this publication is available online. This can be most easily located
using the Digital Object Identifier (doi) listed below. Pre-2011 publications that include color
illustrations are available online in color but are printed only in grayscale.
The recommended citation for this publication is:
Prezzi, M., Scheilz, S., Salgado, R., & Siddiki, N. Z. (2014). Development of SPT-torque test correlations for glacial till (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP2014/05). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315499