CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA

Transcription

1 CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA Proposed Logan Water Treatment Plant Addition Logan, Utah January 25, 203 Prepared for: IGES, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared by: ConeTec, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah January 27, 203

2 ConeTec, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Site Investigation Contractors 3750 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 8404 PO Box 22082, Salt Lake City, UT 8422 Tel: (80) Fax: (80) Web: January 27, 203 Job No.: Mr. Jared Hawes Tel: (80) IGES, Inc. Fax : (80) Commerce Drive jaredh@igesinc.com Salt Lake City, UT 8407 Re: Cone Penetration Test Data Proposed Logan Water Treatment Plant Addition Logan, Utah Dear Jared, Per your request, we have completed the CPT investigation for the above referenced project. This report presents conventional CPT plots with non-normalized SBT classifications, pore pressure dissipation plots, seismic CPT plots with non-normalized SBT classifications and shear wave velocity calculations in PDF format. Additionally, the CPT data, pore pressure dissipation data, CPT interpretations and shear wave velocity calculations are provided in Excel format. The following table summarizes the CPT portion of the work completed at the site. CPT Location CPT Filename Maximum Depth (ft.) PPD Depth (ft.) PPD Time (sec) Ueq (ft.) Apparent Water Table (ft.) Comments CPT _SP Seismic CPT _CP All CPT testing was completed with a 5-cm 2 cone penetrometer advanced using our 25-ton, truck mounted CPT rig. The CPT testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D and industry standard practices. The coordinates shown on the plots are for location reference only and generally have an accuracy of ±30 feet. Salt Lake City, UT West Berlin, NJ Richmond, VA Raleigh, NC Vancouver, BC Edmonton, AB Toronto, ON Fort McMurray, AB

3 Mr. Jared Hawes Job No.: IGES, Inc. January 27, 203 Page Two Many correlations have been developed for design parameters based on CPT data. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully scrutinized for consideration in any geotechnical design. Assumptions have been made regarding soil unit weights, groundwater level and interpretational methods, which may or may not apply to this site. The pore pressure profile used in the CPT interpretations is based on a linear interpolation between the pore pressure dissipation tests performed in each sounding. The pore pressure profile is shown as an orange line on the CPT plots. Additionally, the following table summarizes the values assigned to the specific soil behavior type zones that are used in the interpretations. Zone SPT qt/n Unit Wt. (kn/m 3 ) Unit Wt. (pcf) Drainage Condition Description Neither Undefined Undrained Sensitive Fines Undrained Organic Soil Undrained Clay Undrained y Clay Undrained Clayey Both Drained y Drained y / Drained Drained Gravelly Drained Stiff Fine Grained Drained Cemented We appreciate the opportunity of providing these services to you. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed material or if, we can be of additional assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, ConeTec, Inc. Pete Bowen Pete Bowen, EIT Staff Engineer Reviewed By: Shawn Steiner Shawn D. Steiner, P.E. Regional Manager Salt Lake City, UT West Berlin, NJ Richmond, VA Raleigh, NC Vancouver, BC Edmonton, AB Toronto, ON Fort McMurray, AB

4 CPT PLOTS With Non-Normalized SBT Classifications

5 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Rf (%) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U500 SBT y / Clay 5 y Clay Clayey Clayey y Clay 0 5 Clayey y Clay Clayey y Clay Clayey y Clay Clayey 20 y Clay Depth (feet) Ueq=24.3' Clayey Clayey y y / y y / 45 y 50 y / Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

6 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Rf (%) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U500 SBT Gravelly y / y 60 Clayey 65 Clayey y / y / 70 Depth (feet) Ueq=92.6' Clayey y Clay Clayey y y / Clayey Stiff Fine Grained y y / Gravelly Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

7 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Rf (%) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U500 SBT y Depth (feet) Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

8 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 :4 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Rf (%) Sounding: CPT-02 Cone: 55:T500F5U500 SBT y / Clay Clay y Clay Clayey y Clay 0 5 Clayey Clayey 20 Clayey Depth (feet) y Clay Clayey Clay y Clay Ueq=27.6' Clayey y / 45 y / y / y 50 y Clayey Max Depth: m / ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones Ueq=49.' SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

9 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 :4 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Ueq=49.' Rf (%) Sounding: CPT-02 Cone: 55:T500F5U500 SBT Clayey y / y / Gravelly y / y Ueq=66.2' y Depth (feet) Max Depth: m / ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

10 PPD Plots

11 IGES Job No: Date: 25-Jan :47:4 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55 Cone Area: 5 sq cm Pore Pressure (ft) Time (s) Trace Summary: Filename: _SP0.PPD Depth: m / ft Duration: s U Min: 24. ft U Max: 32.9 ft WT:.790 m / ft Ueq: 24.3 ft

12 IGES Job No: Date: 25-Jan :47:4 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55 Cone Area: 5 sq cm Pore Pressure (ft) Time (s) Trace Summary: Filename: _SP0.PPD Depth: m / ft Duration: s U Min: 4.8 ft U Max: 93.9 ft WT: m / -.72 ft Ueq: 92.6 ft

13 IGES Job No: Date: 25-Jan-203 :4:04 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant Sounding: CPT-02 Cone: 55 Cone Area: 5 sq cm Pore Pressure (ft) Time (s) Trace Summary: Filename: _CP02.PPD Depth: 0.00 m / ft Duration: s U Min: 2.9 ft U Max: 27.9 ft WT:.692 m / 5.55 ft Ueq: 27.6 ft

14 IGES Job No: Date: 25-Jan-203 :4:04 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant Sounding: CPT-02 Cone: 55 Cone Area: 5 sq cm Pore Pressure (ft) Time (s) Trace Summary: Filename: _CP02.PPD Depth: 6.50 m / ft Duration: s U Min:. ft U Max: 49.5 ft WT:.83 m / 3.88 ft Ueq: 49. ft

15 IGES Job No: Date: 25-Jan-203 :4:04 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant Sounding: CPT-02 Cone: 55 Cone Area: 5 sq cm Pore Pressure (ft) Time (s) Trace Summary: Filename: _CP02.PPD Depth: m / ft Duration: s U Min: 47.2 ft U Max: 69.7 ft WT: m / ft Ueq: 66.2 ft

16 Shear Wave Velocity Calculations (V s Calcs)

17 Shear Wave Velocity Calculations Job No.: Client: IGES, Inc. CPT No.: CPT-0 Location: Logan Water Treatment Plant Date: January 25, 203 Geophone Offset: 0.66 (ft) Source Offset:.50 (ft) Test Geophone Ray Incremental Time Interval Interval Interval Interval Depth Depth Path Distance Interval Velocity Depth Velocity Depth (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ms) (m/s) (m) (ft/s) (ft)

18 Seismic CPT Plots (SCPT Plots)

19 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Vs (ft/s) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U SBT y / Clay 5 y Clay Clayey Clayey y Clay 0 5 Clayey y Clay Clayey y Clay Clayey y Clay Clayey 20 y Clay Depth (feet) Ueq=24.3' Clayey Clayey y y / y y / 45 y 50 y / Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

20 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Vs (ft/s) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U SBT Gravelly y / y 60 Clayey 65 Clayey y / y / 70 Depth (feet) Ueq=92.6' Clayey y Clay Clayey y y / Clayey Stiff Fine Grained y y / Gravelly Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

21 IGES qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Job No: Date: 0:25:3 09:47 Site: Logan Water Treatment Plant u (ft) Vs (ft/s) Sounding: CPT-0 Cone: 55:T500F5U SBT y Depth (feet) Max Depth: m / 05.5 ft Depth Inc: m / 0.64 ft Avg Int: 0.50 m File: _SP0.COR Unit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 997 Coords: Lat: Long: Equilibrium Pore Pressure from Dissipation

22 References

23 CONETEC INTERPRETATION METHODS A Detailed Description of the Methods Used in ConeTec s CPT Interpretation and Plotting Software Revision SZW-Rev 05A April 8, 20 Prepared by Jim Greig

24 ConeTec Environmental and Geotechnical Site Investigation Contractors ConeTec Interpretations as of April 8, 20 ConeTec s interpretation routine provides a tabular output of geotechnical parameters based on current published CPT correlations and is subject to change to reflect the current state of practice. The interpreted values are not considered valid for all soil types. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully scrutinized for consideration in any geotechnical design. Reference to current literature is strongly recommended. ConeTec does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the program and does not assume liability for any use of the results in any design or review. Representative hand calculations should be made for any parameter that is critical for design purposes. The end user of the interpreted output should also be fully aware of the techniques and the limitations of any method used in this program. The purpose of this document is to inform the user as to which methods were used and what the appropriate papers and/or publications are for further reference. The CPT interpretations are based on values of tip, sleeve friction and pore pressure averaged over a user specified interval (e.g. 0.20m). Note that q t is the tip resistance corrected for pore pressure effects and q c is the recorded tip resistance. Since all ConeTec cones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to sleeve friction, f s, are not required. The tip correction is: q t = q c + (-a) u 2 where: q t is the corrected tip resistance q c is the recorded tip resistance u 2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u 2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the cone (typically 0.80 for ConeTec cones) The total stress calculations are based on soil unit weights that have been assigned to the Soil Behavior Type zones, from a user defined unit weight profile or by using a single value throughout the profile. Effective vertical overburden stresses are calculated based on a hydrostatic distribution of equilibrium pore pressures below the water table or from a user defined equilibrium pore pressure profile (this can be obtained from CPT dissipation tests). For over water projects the effects of the column of water have been taken into account as has the appropriate unit weight of water. How this is done depends on where the instruments were zeroed (i.e. on deck or at mud line). Details regarding the interpretation methods for all of the interpreted parameters are provided in Table. The appropriate references cited in Table are listed in Table 2. Where methods are based on charts or techniques that are too complex to describe in this summary the user should refer to the cited material. The Soil Behavior Type classification charts (normalized and non-normalized) shown in Figures and 2 are based on the charts developed by Dr. Robertson and Dr. Campanella at the University of British Columbia. These charts appear in many publications, most notably: Robertson, Campanella, Gillespie and Greig (986); Robertson (990) and Lunne, Robertson and Powell (997). The Bq classification charts shown in Figures 3a and 3b are based on those described in Robertson (990) and Lunne, Robertson and Powell (997). The Jefferies and Davies SBT chart shown in Figure 3c is based on that discussed in Jefferies and Davies, 993. Where the results of a calculation/interpretation are declared invalid the value will be represented by the text strings or In some cases the value 0 will be used. Invalid results will occur because of (and not limited to) one or a combination of:. Invalid or undefined CPT data (e.g. drilled out section or data gap). 2. Where the interpretation method is inappropriate, for example, drained parameters in an undrained material (and vice versa).

25 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 2/9 3. Where interpretation input values are beyond the range of the referenced charts or specified limitations of the interpretation method. 4. Where pre-requisite or intermediate interpretation calculations are invalid. The parameters selected for output from the program are often specific to a particular project. As such, not all of the interpreted parameters listed in Table may be included in the output files delivered with this report. The output files are provided in Microsoft Excel XLS format. The ConeTec software has several options for output depending on the number or types of interpreted parameters desired. Each output file will be named using the original COR file basename followed by a three or four letter indicator of the interpretation set selected (e.g. BSC, TBL, NLI or IFI) and possibly followed by an operator selected suffix identifying the characteristics of the particular interpretation run. Table CPT Interpretation Methods Interpreted Parameter Depth Mid Layer Depth Description Equation Ref (where interpretations are done at each point then Mid Layer Depth = Recorded Depth) Depth (Layer Top) + Depth (Layer Bottom) / 2.0 Elevation Elevation of Mid Layer based on sounding collar elevation supplied by client Elevation = Collar Elevation - Depth Avgqc Averaged recorded tip value (q c) n Avgqc q c n i n= when interpretations are done at each point Avgqt Averaged corrected tip (q t) where: q q ( a u t c ) n Avgqt q t n i n= when interpretations are done at each point Avgfs Averaged sleeve friction (f s) AvgRf Avgu Averaged friction ratio (Rf) where friction ratio is defined as: fs Rf 00% qt Averaged dynamic pore pressure (u) n Avgfs fs n i n= when interpretations are done at each point Avgfs AvgRf 00% Avgqt n= when interpretations are done at each point n Avgu ui n i n= when interpretations are done at each point AvgRes AvgUVIF AvgTemp Averaged Resistivity (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module) Averaged UVIF ultra-violet induced fluorescence (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module) Averaged Temperature (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test) n Avgu RESISTIVITY i n i n= when interpretations are done at each point n Avgu UVIFi n i n= when interpretations are done at each point n Avgu TEMPERATUR Ei n i n= when interpretations are done at each point ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

26 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 3/9 Interpreted Parameter Description Equation Ref AvgGamma SBT U.Wt. T. Stress v E. Stress v Averaged Gamma Counts (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module) Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson and Campanella Unit Weight of soil determined from one of the following user selectable options: ) uniform value 2) value assigned to each SBT zone 3) user supplied unit weight profile Total vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth. A layer is defined as the averaging interval specified by the user. For data interpreted at each point the Mid Layer Depth is the same as the recorded depth. Effective vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth n Avgu GAMMAi n i n= when interpretations are done at each point See Figure 2, 5 See references 5 TStress where n i ihi I is layer unit weight h i is layer thickness Estress = Tstress - u eq Ueq Equilibrium pore pressure determined from one of the following user selectable options: ) hydrostatic from water table depth 2) user supplied profile For hydrostatic option: u where eq w D D wt u eq is equilibrium pore pressure w is unit weight of water D is the current depth D wt is the depth to the water table Cn N 60 SPT N 60 overburden correction factor SPT N value at 60% energy calculated from qt/n ratios assigned to each SBT zone. This method has abrupt N value changes at zone boundaries. Cn=( v ) -0.5 where v is in tsf 0.5 < C n < 2.0 See Figure 4, 5 (N ) 60 SPT N 60 value corrected for overburden pressure (N ) 60 = Cn N 60 4 N 60I c SPT N 60 values based on the Ic parameter (qt/pa)/ N 60 = 8.5 ( Ic/4.6) 5 (N ) 60Ic SPT N 60 value corrected for overburden pressure (using N 60 I c). User has 2 options. ) (N ) 60Ic= Cn (N 60 Ic) 2) q cn/ (N ) 60Ic = 8.5 ( Ic/4.6) 4 5 ) (N ) 60csIc = α + β((n ) 60Ic) 2) (N ) 60csIc = K SPT * ((N ) 60Ic) 3) q cncs)/ (N ) 60csIc = 8.5 ( Ic/4.6) (N ) 60csIc Clean sand equivalent SPT (N ) 60Ic. User has 3 options. FC 5%: α = 0, β=.0 FC 35% α = 5.0, β=.2 5% < FC < 35% α = exp[.76 (90/FC 2 )] β = [ (FC.5 /000)] Su Su Undrained shear strength based on q t Su factor N kt is user selectable Undrained shear strength based on pore pressure Su factor N Δu is user selectable qt v Su, 5 N kt u2 u eq Su, 5 N u k Coefficient of permeability (assigned to each SBT zone) 5 ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

27 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 4/9 Interpreted Parameter Description Equation Ref u Bq qt v Bq Pore pressure parameter where: u u u eq and u = dynamic pore pressure u eq = equilibrium pore pressure, 5 Q t F r Normalized q t for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson, 990 Normalized Friction Ratio for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson, 990 qt v Qt ' 2, 5 v fs Fr 00% 2, 5 qt v Net qt Net tip resistance qt v qe Effective tip resistance qt u2 qenorm Normalized effective tip resistance ' SBTn Normalized Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson and Campanella qt u v 2 See Figure 2 2, 5 SBT-BQ Non-normalized Soil Behavior type based on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5 SBT-BQn Normalized Soil Behavior based on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5 SBT-JandD Soil Behaviour Type as defined by Jeffries and Davies See Figure 3 7 SBT-BQn Normalized Soil Behavior base on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5 Ic = [(3.47 log 0Q) 2 + (log 0 Fr +.22) 2 ] 0.5 I c Soil index for estimating grain characteristics FC Apparent fines content (%) Where: Q qt P a2 And Fr is in percent P a = atmospheric pressure P a2 = atmospheric pressure n varies from 0.5 to.0 and is selected in an iterative manner based on the resulting I c v P a ' v FC=.75(Ic 3.25 ) FC=00 for Ic > 3.5 FC=0 for Ic <.26 FC = 5% if.64 < Ic < 2.6 AND F r<0.5 n 3, 8 3 Ic Zone This parameter is the Soil Behavior Type zone based on the Ic parameter (valid for zones 2 through 7 on SBTn chart) Ic <.3 Zone = 7.3 < Ic < 2.05 Zone = < Ic < 2.60 Zone = < Ic < 2.95 Zone = < Ic < 3.60 Zone = 3 Ic > 3.60 Zone = 2 3 Friction Angle determined from one of the following user selectable options: PHI a) Campanella and Robertson b) Durgunoglu and Mitchel c) Janbu d) Kulhawy and Mayne See reference ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

28 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 5/9 Interpreted Parameter Description Equation Ref Dr Relative Density determined from one of the following user selectable options: a) Ticino b) Hokksund c) Schmertmann 976 d) Jamiolkowski - All s See reference 5 OCR Over Consolidation Ratio a) Based on Schmertmann s method involving a plot of S u/ v /( S u/ v ) NC and OCR where the Su/p ratio for NC clay is user selectable 9 State Parameter The state parameter is used to describe whether a soil is contractive (SP is positive) or dilative (SP is negative) at large strains based on the work by Been and Jefferies See reference 8, 6, 5 Es/qt Intermediate parameter for calculating Young s Modulus, E, in sands. It is the Y axis of the reference chart. Based on Figure 5.59 in the reference 5 Young s Modulus E Young s Modulus based on the work done in Italy. There are three types of sands considered in this technique. The user selects the appropriate type for the site from: a) OC s b) Aged NC s c) Recent NC s Each sand type has a family of curves that depend on mean normal stress. The program calculates mean normal stress and linearly interpolates between the two extremes provided in the Es/qt chart. Mean normal stress is evaluated from: where ' m 3 ' v ' h ' 3 h v = vertical effective stress h = horizontal effective stress and h = K o v with Ko assumed to be q c q t normalized for overburden stress used for seismic analysis q c = q t (Pa/ v ) 0.5 where: Pa = atm. Pressure q t is in MPa 3 q cn q c in dimensionless form used for seismic analysis q cn = (q c / Pa)(Pa/ v ) n where: Pa = atm. Pressure and n ranges from 0.5 to 0.75 based on Ic. 3 K SPT Equivalent clean sand factor for (N )60 K SPT = + ((0.75/30) (FC 5)) 0 K CPT Equivalent clean sand correction for q cn K cpt =.0 for I c.64 K cpt = f(i c) for I c >.64 (see reference) 0 q cncs Clean sand equivalent q cn q cncs = q cn K cpt 3 CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio (for Magnitude 7.5) q cncs < 50: CRR 7.5 = [(q cncs/000] q cncs < 60: CRR 7.5 = 93 [(q cncs/000] ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

29 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 6/9 Interpreted Parameter Description Equation Ref CSR = ( av/ v ) = 0.65 (a max / g) ( v/ v ) r d CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio r d = z z 9.5m r d = z 9.5 < z 23m r d = z 23 < z 30m r d = 0.50 z > 30m 0 MSF Magnitude Scaling Factor See Reference 0 FofS Factor of Safety against Liquefaction FS = (CRR 7.5 / CSR) MSF 0 Liquefaction Status Statement indicating possible liquefaction Takes into account FofS and limitations based on I c and q cncs. 0 Cont/Dilat Tip Contractive / Dilative qc Boundary based on (N ) 60 ( v ) boundary = 9.58 x 0-4 [(N ) 60] 4.79 qc is calculated from specified qt(mpa)/n ratio 3 Cq Normalizing Factor Cq =.8 / (0.8 + (( v /Pa)) 2 qc (Cq) Normalized tip resistance based on Cq q c = C q * q t (some papers use q c) 2 Su(Liq)/s v Liquefied Shear Strength Ratio Su(Liq) v = (q c) 3 ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

30 Normalized Cone Resistance Cone Bearing (bar), qt CPT Interpretation Methods Page 7/ Zone qt / N Soil Behavior Type sensitive fine grained organic material clay silty clay to clay clayey silt to silty clay sandy silt to clayey silt silty sand to sandy silt sand to silty sand sand gravelly sand to sand very stiff fine grained * sand to clayey sand * * overconsolidated or cemented Friction Ratio (%), Rf Figure Non-Normalized Behavior Type Classification Chart qt - vo ' vo Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type sensitive fine grained organic material clay to silty clay clayey silt to silty clay silty sand to sandy silt clean sands to silty sands gravelly sand to sand very stiff sand to clayey sand very stiff fine grained Normalized Friction Ratio f s x 00% q - t vo Figure 2 Normalized Behavior Type Classification Chart ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

31 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 8/9 Figure 3 Alternate Soil Behaviour Type Charts ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised

32 CPT Interpretation Methods Page 9/9 Table 2 References No References Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 986, Use of Piezometer Cone Data, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia. Robertson, P.K., 990, Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27. Robertson, P.K. and Fear, C.E., 998, Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 998, Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation Based on SPT and CPT, NCEER Workshop Paper, January 22, 997 Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 997, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Blackie Academic and Professional. Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P. and Jefferies, M.G., 992, CPT Based Screening Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Susceptibility, 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ontario, October Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P., 993. Use of CPTu to Estimate equivalent N 60, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 6(4): Been, K. and Jefferies, M.P., 985, A state parameter for sands, Geotechnique, 35(2), Schmertmann, 977, Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design, Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-TS , U.S. Department of Transportation 0 Proceedings of thenceer Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt LakeCity, 996. Chaired by Leslie Youd. 2 3 Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W.,990, Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report No. EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August 990, 306 p. Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D., 2002, Liquefied strength ratio from liquefied flow filaure case histories, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: Oslon, Scott M. and Stark, Timothy D., 2003, Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of Slopes and Embankments, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, August ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised