FHWA (2017) Geotechnical Site Characterization (001-032)
FHWA (2017) Geotechnical Site Characterization (001-032)
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect policy of the
Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of
this document.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
FHWA NHI-16-072
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION November 2016
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO.5 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Principal Investigator(s): See Acknowledgements for Authors and Contributors 8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
16. Abstract
Characterization of subsurface conditions is one of the most challenging yet important activities required for
successful planning, design, construction, and operation of transportation infrastructure. This manual is intended
to provide a technical resource for geotechnical and highway engineers responsible for planning and performing
subsurface investigations so that project subsurface conditions can be characterized effectively and risks attributed
to ground conditions can be identified and addressed. The manual is organized to reflect the strong emphasis on
interpretation of geotechnical parameters for design and construction. It describes important considerations for
planning and scoping of geotechnical investigations; means and methods for classification of soil and rock based
on index property measurements; identifying and characterizing potentially problematic soil and rock types for
design and construction; guidance for interpretation of soil and rock properties from field and laboratory
measurements; interpretation of geotechnical design parameters from collections of individual measurements;
identification and characterization of geotechnical hazards; and lastly, guidance for documenting and reporting
results from geotechnical investigations.
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
A copy of the SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors table may be found at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/convtabl.cfm
CONVERSION FACTORS
This publication, titled “GEC5 – Geotechnical Site Characterization” is the fifth in the series of
geotechnical engineering guidelines called "Geotechnical Engineering Circulars (GECs)" published by
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) covering geotechnical engineering design and construction.
The document replaces the 2002 version of GEC No.5 “Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties” (FHWA-
IF-02-034) developed by GeoSyntec Consultants and authored by P.J. Sabatini, R.C. Bachus, P.W.
Mayne, J.A. Schneider, and T.E. Zettler. The objective of GEC-5 is to improve site characterization
practices among transportation agencies, private consultants, and contractors involved in the planning,
design, construction, and operation of transportation features. It is intended to be a comprehensive and
practical reference to guide planning and execution of geotechnical investigations, interpretation of the
acquired measurements to develop reliable geotechnical design parameters, and identifying and
characterizing geotechnical hazards. This publication is also intended to serve as the reference manual for
future NHI training products addressing site characterization.
The current GEC5 is considerably different from the previous version it replaces. Most notably, the
current manual does not provide explicit guidance for the type and number of tests required for specific
design parameters. Rather, the manual recommends characterizing important design parameters to
achieve a specific level of reliability and describes methods for quantifying reliability based on available
measurements. This position was adopted because the reliability of geotechnical design parameters
depends on many factors and it is not possible to reduce these effects to simple rules while still
consistently achieving a target reliability at reasonable cost. While the guidance provided may initially
seem ambiguous and unfamiliar, readers will find that they will quickly develop judgment regarding
appropriate quantities of measurements with consistent application of guidance provided in Chapters 3
and 11. Readers unfamiliar with methods for characterizing uncertainty are strongly recommended to
read these chapters carefully, along with the examples provided in Appendix 2. Readers will also find
that these methods can be used to assess the value of different site characterization practices, to place site
characterization activities into context that is meaningful to both technical and non-technical
professionals, and to facilitate effective decision making for geotechnical investigations in light of the
risks and costs involved.
Changes to address load and resistance factor design (LRFD) and more explicit awareness of risk
and reliability for planning, design, construction, and operation of transportation features;
Explicit consideration of “direct” and “indirect” measurements of geotechnical properties;
Updates to address numerous technological advancements to site characterization practice,
including expanded use of remote sensing, data management systems, new and improved testing
devices and methods, geophysical methods, and in situ tests, among others;
Expanded and updated coverage of methods for interpreting measurements from individual field
and laboratory tests;
Updates to reflect changes to project delivery, most notably the expanded use of design-build and
other alternative project delivery mechanisms;
Addition of content on problematic soils including permafrost, pyritic/acid rock, high sulfate
soils, corrosive soils, dispersive soils, and liquefiable soils;
Updates to reflect use of the Geological Strength Index approach for design in rock masses;
Expanded content on investigation of groundwater conditions; and
Specific content for identification and characterization of geotechnical hazards.
The GEC5 is not intended to provide prescriptive procedures, nor to dictate methods for collection of
field or laboratory measurements. Guidance for performing specific tests and executing investigations for
site characterization is available from numerous other sources, including state, federal, and international
standards and procedures, as well as the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations that is currently
being revised and updated to reflect changes to practice since it was last published in 1988. This
publication is intended for use in conjunction with these sources. Where appropriate, standard methods
for executing site characterization investigations are cited throughout the manual.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of numerous individuals and groups who helped
with preparation of this document. The authors appreciate the reviews and recommendations provided by
members of the Technical Working Group for this update:
Additional technical review was also provided by Ray Castelli and Taehong Kim from Parsons
Brinckerhoff, as well as by anonymous industry reviewers affiliated with several TRB committees and the
Subsurface Characterization Committee of the Deep Foundations Institute. In addition, the Principal
Investigators wish to extend their gratitude for the support provided by a number of professionals at
Parsons Brinckerhoff, including Damian Okon, Kirsten Vaughn and Steve Dorneles. Assistance from
Grace Jao of No Boundaries is also greatly appreciated.
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………...……………….....….xv
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….....…….…xxxiii
Chapter 2 Objectives, Uses, and Products of Site Characterization Investigations ................................... 2-1
Chapter 3 Planning and Scoping For Site Characterization Activities ...................................................... 3-1
3.11 Development of Scope for Laboratory and Field Testing ......................................................... 3-40
3.12 Special Considerations for Alternative Contracting Methods ................................................... 3-42
3.13 Communication and Execution of Site Characterization Activities .......................................... 3-43
4.1 Objectives for Identification and Classification of Soil and Rock .............................................. 4-1
4.2 Boring and Sampling Requirements for Index Testing ............................................................... 4-1
4.3 Fundamental Concepts for Identification and Classification ...................................................... 4-2
4.4 Grain-Size Distribution ............................................................................................................... 4-3
4.19 Characterization of soil and Rock Using Drilling Parameters .................................................. 4-43
Chapter 5 Identification and Characterization of Problematic Soil And Rock .......................................... 5-1
6.6 Evaluation of Preconsolidation Stress from Laboratory Consolidation Tests .......................... 6-13
6.11 Evaluation of Coefficient of Secondary Compression From laboratory Consolidation Tests .. 6-26
6.12 Evaluation of Preconsolidation Stress from In Situ Tests ......................................................... 6-27
6.13 Evaluation of Coefficient of Lateral Consolidation from In Situ Tests .................................... 6-35
Chapter 7 Measurement and Interpretation of Shear Strength Properties of Soil ...................................... 7-1
7.1 Uses for Shear Strength Properties in Design and Construction ................................................. 7-1
7.2 Fundamental Concepts of Soil Shear Strength ............................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Boring and Sampling Requirements for Laboratory Strength Tests ......................................... 7-20
7.4 Evaluation of Undrained Shear Strength................................................................................... 7-21
7.5 Evaluation of Total Stress Strength Parameters for Unsaturated Soils ..................................... 7-46
7.6 Evaluation of Effective Stress Strength Parameters .................................................................. 7-48
7.6.1 Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Tests with Pore Pressure Measurements .................... 7-48
7.6.2 Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Tests ............................................................................... 7-49
7.6.3 Direct Shear Tests ............................................................................................................ 7-50
7.6.4 Effects of Sample Disturbance ......................................................................................... 7-50
7.6.5 Selection of Samples for Measurement of Effective Stress Strength Parameters ............ 7-51
7.6.6 Selection of Laboratory Testing Method ......................................................................... 7-52
7.6.7 Measurement of Effective Stress Strength Parameters Using Borehole Shear Test ........ 7-53
7.6.8 Estimation of Effective Stress Strength Parameters from Indirect Measurements .......... 7-53
7.6.9 Estimation of Effective Stress Strength Parameters from Empirical Correlations........... 7-57
7.7 Evaluation of Residual and Fully-Softened Shear Strength Parameters ................................... 7-59
7.8 Evaluation of Shear Strength Parameters for Compacted Soils ................................................ 7-64
8.6.1 Estimation of Small-Strain Shear Modulus from Soil Index Properties .......................... 8-15
8.6.2 Estimation of Small-Strain Shear Modulus from Indirect In situ Measurements ............ 8-18
8.7 Evaluation of Modulus Degradation Curves from Laboratory Measurements ......................... 8-22
8.8 Estimation of Modulus Degradation from Empirical Relationships ......................................... 8-23
8.9 Modulus Values at Intermediate Strain Levels for Settlement Analysis................................... 8-24
9.1 Uses for Rock Properties in Design and Construction ................................................................ 9-1
9.2 Fundamental Concepts in Rock Behavior ................................................................................... 9-2
9.3 Boring and Sampling Requirements for Characterization of Intact Rock and Rock Masses ...... 9-6
9.4 Measurement and Interpretation of Intact Rock Properties ........................................................ 9-7
9.7.1 Evaluation of Rock Mass Modulus from in situ Test Measurements .............................. 9-38
9.7.2 Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus from ................................................................ 9-46
9.7.3 Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus from Rock Mass Rating ........................................... 9-47
9.7.4 Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus from Geological Strength Index .............................. 9-48
10.1 Uses for Hydraulic Properties and Groundwater Conditions for Design and Construction...... 10-1
10.2 Fundamental Concepts of Seepage through Soil and Rock ...................................................... 10-2
10.2.1 Temporal Changes in Pore Water Pressures and Water Levels ....................................... 10-3
10.2.2 Water Flow and Hydraulic Conductivity ......................................................................... 10-4
10.2.3 Fundamental Means for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity .................................. 10-5
10.7 Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions Using In situ Test Measurements ............................. 10-19
10.8 Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions Using Geophysical Measurements ........................... 10-22
10.9 Methods for Evaluating Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Rock ........................................ 10-24
10.10 Factors Affecting Hydraulic Conductivity from Laboratory Tests ......................................... 10-25
10.14 Evaluation of Hydraulic Conductivity Using In situ Field tests ............................................. 10-52
Chapter 11 Development of Design Models and Selection of Design Parameters .................................. 11-1
11.5 Calculation of Variability and Uncertainty for Design Parameters ........................................ 11-17
11.5.1 Calculation of Variability and Uncertainty for Direct Measurements ........................... 11-18
11.5.2 Calculation of Variability and Uncertainty for Indirect Measurements ......................... 11-25
11.5.3 Calculation of Variability & Uncertainty for Combined Direct &
Indirect Measurements................................................................................................... 11-29
11.9.1 Interpretation of from UU Triaxial Tests and Unconfined Compression Tests ........ 11-43
11.9.2 Interpretation of from Consolidated-Undrained Tests .............................................. 11-44
11.9.3 Interpretation of Undrained Shear Strength from Indirect Laboratory and Field Tests . 11-47
11.11.1 Interpretation of Effective Stress Strength Parameters from Laboratory Tests ............. 11-49
11.11.2 Interpretation of Effective Stress Friction Angle from In Situ Tests ............................. 11-51
12.1 Objectives for Identification and Characterization of Geotechnical Hazards ........................... 12-1
12.2 Karst Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 12-1
12.3.1 Implications of Underground Mine Hazards for Transportation Projects ...................... 12-14
12.3.2 Identification and Characterization of Underground Mine Hazards .............................. 12-14
12.6.1 Implications of Landslide and Rockfall Hazards for Transportation Projects ............... 12-27
12.6.2 Identification and Characterization of Landslide and Rockfall Hazards ....................... 12-28
12.7.1 Implications of Landfill and Geoenvironmental Hazards for Transportation Projects .. 12-32
12.7.2 Identification and Characterization of Landfill and Geoenvironmental Hazards .......... 12-33
Chapter 13 Documentation, Reporting, and Communication for Site Characterization .......................... 13-1
13.1 Objectives for Documentation and Reporting of Site Characterization .................................... 13-1
13.2 Documentation and Reporting of Laboratory and Field Test Measurements ........................... 13-1
13.3 Documentation and Reporting for Design Parameters .............................................................. 13-3
13.4 Geotechnical Baseline Reports ................................................................................................. 13-5
13.5 General Forms of Documentation for Site Characterization ..................................................... 13-6
LIST OF APPENDICES
FIGURE 3-1 CORROSION-RISK RATINGS FROM THE NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY INTERACTIVE TOOL
(NRCS, 2016). ..................................................................................................................................... 3-6
FIGURE 3-2 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (NRCS, 2016). ............................................................................. 3-6
FIGURE 3-3 AREAS OF KNOWN DAMAGE FROM 1993 MIDWEST FLOODS
(COURTESY COMMUNITY COMMONS). ................................................................................................ 3-7
FIGURE 3-4 KARSTIC CONDITIONS AND LOCATIONS OF KNOWN SINKHOLES
(COURTESY COMMUNITY COMMONS). ................................................................................................ 3-7
FIGURE 3-5 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (LEFT) AND ASSOCIATED “BARE-EARTH” LIDAR IMAGE
(RIGHT) OF VEGETATED AREA (FROM ANDERSON, 2013). ................................................................... 3-9
FIGURE 3-6 ALTERNATIVE SAMPLES OF SIZE =4 FROM POPULATION OF SIMULATED Su MEASUREMENTS:
(A) POPULATION, (B) SUBSAMPLE ONE, (C) SUBSAMPLE TWO, AND (D) SUBSAMPLE THREE. ............ 3-14
FIGURE 3-7 ALTERNATIVE SAMPLES OF SIZE =20 FROM POPULATION OF SIMULATED Su MEASUREMENTS:
(A) POPULATION, (B) SUBSAMPLE ONE, (C) SUBSAMPLE TWO, AND (D) SUBSAMPLE THREE. ............... 3-14
FIGURE 3-8 HISTOGRAMS OF MEAN Su FROM SUBSAMPLES OF SIZE: (A) =5, AND (B) =20. ................. 3-16
FIGURE 3-9 INTERPRETED MEAN FROM SUBSAMPLES OF DIFFERENT SIZES: (A) RELATIVELY UNIFORM
SITE, AND (B) HIGHLY VARIABLE SITE (ADAPTED FROM LOEHR, ET AL., 2015)................................. 3-17
FIGURE 3-10 SIMULATED POPULATIONS OF Su MEASUREMENTS FOR: (A) RELATIVELY UNIFORM SITE AND
(B) HIGHLY VARIABLE SITE................................................................................................................ 3-18
FIGURE 3-11 RANGES OF COVμsu TERMINED FROM SUBSAMPLES OF DIFFERENT SIZES FOR:
(A) RELATIVELY UNIFORM SITE AND (B) HIGHLY VARIABLE SITE
(ADAPTED FROM LOEHR, ET AL., 2015). ............................................................................................ 3-20
FIGURE 3-12 PERCENTAGES OF SPREAD FOOTINGS THAT PRACTICALLY ACHIEVE TARGET PROBABILITY
OF FAILURE WHEN DESIGNED USING AASHTO LRFD PROVISIONS FOR A RELATIVELY UNIFORM SITE:
FIGURE 5-8 CHARACTERIZATION OF SWELLING SEVERITY FROM HOLTZ AND GIBBS (1956). ................ 5-16
FIGURE 5-9 FINAL VOLUME FROM FREE SWELL TEST FOR KAOLINITE (LEFT) AND MONTMORILLONITE
(RIGHT). ............................................................................................................................................. 5-17
FIGURE 5-10 EXAMPLE MEASUREMENTS FROM ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL TEST ON HIGHLY PLASTIC
CLAY. ................................................................................................................................................. 5-18
FIGURE 5-11 RELOADING TEST ON SPECIMEN FROM FIGURE 5-10 TO DETERMINE SWELL PRESSURE. ... 5-19
FIGURE 5-12 COMPARISON OF SWELL BEHAVIOR BETWEEN UNDISTURBED AND REMOLDED SOIL. ....... 5-20
FIGURE 5-13 IDEALIZED SHRINKAGE CURVE FOR AN INITIALLY SATURATED SOIL. ............................... 5-21
FIGURE 5-14 MEASURED SHRINKAGE CURVES USING SHRINKAGE LIMIT DISH AND LINEAR SHRINKAGE
MOLD (FROM CERATO AND LUTENEGGER, 2006). ............................................................................. 5-22
FIGURE 6-1 IDEALIZED CONSOLIDATION TEST PLOTTED IN TERMS OF VOID RATIO. ................................. 6-2
FIGURE 6-2 COMMON ALTERNATIVE PRESENTATIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION TESTS: (A) LOG OF EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL STRESS VS. VERTICAL STRAIN, AND (B) NATURAL LOG OF EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS VS.
FIGURE 6-4 INFLUENCE OF SAMPLING METHOD ON CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS (BOZOZUK, 1970). . 6-8
FIGURE 6-5 COMPARISON OF CONSOLIDATION TESTS FOR SPECIMENS ACQUIRED FROM BLOCK SAMPLES,
FIXED PISTON SAMPLES FOR BORINGS ADVANCED USING DRILLING MUD, AND FREE PISTON SAMPLES
FOR BORINGS ADVANCED WITHOUT DRILLING MUD (FROM LANDON, ET AL., 2007). ......................... 6-9
FIGURE 6-6 RESULTS FROM CONSOLIDATION TESTS FOR SAMPLES OF STIFF GLACIAL TILL OF VARYING
QUALITY (FROM HOLTZ AND KOVACS, 1981; AFTER SODERMAN AND KIM, 1970). ......................... 6-10
FIGURE 6-7 SCHEMATIC OF INCREMENTAL LOAD OEDOMETER CELL (FROM GERMAINE AND
GERMAINE, 2009). ............................................................................................................................. 6-11
FIGURE 6-8 MEASURED RESPONSE FROM AN INCREMENTAL LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST. ................... 6-11
FIGURE 6-9 SCHEMATIC OF CRS OEDOMETER CELL (ASTM D4186, 2012). .......................................... 6-12
FIGURE 6-10 MEASURED RESPONSE FROM A CRS CONSOLIDATION TEST. ............................................. 6-13
FIGURE 6-13 INFLUENCE OF STRAIN RATE ON INTERPRETED PRECONSOLIDATION STRESS FOR SEVERAL
CLAYS (SOGA AND MITCHELL, 1996). ............................................................................................... 6-17
FIGURE 6-14 VARIATION IN PRECONSOLIDATION STRESS WITH TEMPERATURE FOR SEVERAL CLAYS
(FROM LEROUEIL AND MARQUES, 1996). .......................................................................................... 6-17
FIGURE 6-15 CONSOLIDATION TEST MEASUREMENTS PLOTTED AS STRESS VERSUS STRAIN USING:
(A) LOGARITHMIC SCALE, AND (B) ARITHMETIC SCALE (ADAPTED FROM KARLSRUD AND
HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, 2013)......................................................................................................... 6-18
FIGURE 6-16 TANGENT MODULUS VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS SHOWING ESTIMATE FOR PRECONSOLIDATION
STRESS (ADAPTED FROM KARLSRUD AND HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, 2013). ..................................... 6-19
FIGURE 6-17 SCHMERTMANN (1955) METHOD TO OBTAIN FIELD CONSOLIDATION CURVE FOR
NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS (FROM HOLTZ ET AL., 2011). ...................................................... 6-21
FIGURE 6-18 SCHMERTMANN (1955) METHOD TO OBTAIN FIELD CONSOLIDATION CURVE FOR
OVERCONSOLIDATED SOILS (FROM HOLTZ ET AL., 2011).................................................................. 6-22
FIGURE 6-19 CASAGRANDE’S LOG TIME METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE COEFFICIENT OF
CONSOLIDATION. ............................................................................................................................... 6-24
FIGURE 6-20 TAYLOR’S SQUARE ROOT OF TIME METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE COEFFICIENT OF
CONSOLIDATION. ............................................................................................................................... 6-24
FIGURE 6-21 COEFFICIENTS OF CONSOLIDATION DETERMINED USING THE LOG TIME AND SQUARE ROOT
TIME METHODS FOR DIFFERENT APPLIED EFFECTIVE STRESS. ........................................................... 6-25
FIGURE 6-23 TRANSFORMATION FROM CORRECTED NET CONE TIP RESISTANCE TO PRECONSOLIDATION
STRESS, OR “YIELD STRESS” (FROM MAYNE, 2014)........................................................................... 6-29
FIGURE 6-30 TRANSFORMATION FROM SPT N60 TO σ'p (FROM MAYNE, 1995).................................... 6-35
FIGURE 6-31 PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION MEASUREMENTS FROM CPTU IN SOFT, CLAYEY SILT......... 6-36
FIGURE 6-32 NORMALIZED PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION FOR MEASUREMENTS IN FIGURE 6-31. ......... 6-38
FIGURE 6-33 RELATION BETWEEN RIGIDITY INDEX AND OCR
(FROM MAYNE, 2007) ........................................................................................................................ 6-39
FIGURE 6-34 ROBERTSON ET AL. (1992) CHART FOR DETERMINING ch FROM t50
(FROM SCHNAID, 2009)...................................................................................................................... 6-39
FIGURE 6-35 MEASUREMENTS FROM DMTA AND DMTC DISSIPATION TESTS IN CLAY FOR TWO
DIFFERENT DEPTHS. ........................................................................................................................... 6-40
FIGURE 6-36 CORRELATION BETWEEN PLASTICITY INDEX AND RECOMPRESSION AND COMPRESSION
PARAMETERS (FROM KULHAWY AND MAYNE, 1990). ...................................................................... 6-44
FIGURE 7-1 MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM SHOWING MOHR’S CIRCLES REPRESENTING FAILURE AND
STABLE STATE OF STRESS .................................................................................................................... 7-2
FIGURE 7-2 MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM SHOWING STATES OF STRESS AT FAILURE FOR TESTS
PERFORMED AT DIFFERENT EFFECTIVE CONFINING STRESS................................................................. 7-3
FIGURE 7-3 MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM SHOWING STATE OF STRESS AT FAILURE AND
STABLE STATE OF STRESS. ................................................................................................................... 7-4
FIGURE 7-5 STRESS-STRAIN RESPONSE FOR KAOLINITE SPECIMENS SHOWING TWO ALTERNATIVE
FAILURE CRITERIA: (A) NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CONDITION AND (B) OVERCONSOLIDATED
FIGURE 7-7 MOHR’S CIRCLE AT FAILURE SHOWING ALTERNATIVE VALUES OF SHEAR STRESS USED TO
DEFINE SHEAR STRENGTH. ................................................................................................................... 7-8
FIGURE 7-8 MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM SHOWING DRAINED STRESS PATHS AND
DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTHS FOR TRIAXIAL EXTENSION, DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR, AND TRIAXIAL
FIGURE 7-9 MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAMS SHOWING UNDRAINED STRESS PATHS AND SHEAR
STRENGTHS FOR TRIAXIAL EXTENSION, DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR, AND TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTS:
(A) NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CONDITION AND (B) OVERCONSOLIDATED CONDITION. ................. 7-11
FIGURE 7-10 SHEARING MODES ALONG DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF A POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACE FOR AN
EMBANKMENT ON A SOFT FOUNDATION. ........................................................................................... 7-13
FIGURE 7-11 TOTAL STRESS STRENGTH ENVELOPES FOR UNSATURATED SOILS: (A) MOHR-COULOMB
DIAGRAM AND (B) MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM. .............................................................. 7-14
FIGURE 7-12 TOTAL STRESS STRENGTH ENVELOPES FOR SATURATED SOILS (ϕ = ): (A) MOHR-
COULOMB DIAGRAM AND (B) MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM. ............................................. 7-15
FIGURE 7-13 STRESS-STRAIN RESPONSE FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED KAOLINITE: (A) MEASURED
RESPONSE, AND (B) NORMALIZED RESPONSE..................................................................................... 7-16
FIGURE 7-14 MEASURED su/σ'vc FOR KAOLINITE SPECIMENS AT DIFFERENT . ............................... 7-17
FIGURE 7-15 STRESS-INDUCED ANISOTROPY FOR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF NORMALLY
CONSOLIDATED CLAYS (LADD, 1991). .............................................................................................. 7-18
FIGURE 7-16 MEASURED INHERENT ANISOTROPY FOR SEVERAL STIFF CLAYS AND SHALES
(DUNCAN, ET AL., 2014). ................................................................................................................... 7-19
FIGURE 7-17 INFLUENCE OF STRAIN RATE ON LABORATORY Su FROM DIFFERENT TEST METHODS
(KULHAWY AND MAYNE, 1990). ....................................................................................................... 7-19
FIGURE 7-18 REDUCTION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR SILTY CLAY WITH NUMBER
OF LOADING CYCLES (SEED AND WILSON, 1967) .............................................................................. 7-20
FIGURE 7-21 INTERPRETATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE FROM TESTS ON FIVE IDENTICAL SPECIMENS
OF SATURATED KAOLINITE: (A) MOHR-COULOMB DIAGRAM AND (B) MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB
FIGURE 7-34 COMPARISON OF Su INTERPRETATIONS FROM: (A) SHANSEP USING CIUC TRIAXIAL,
(B) UU- TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION, (C) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION, AND (D) TORVANE TESTS. ....... 7-43
FIGURE 7-35 COMPARISON OF RELATIVE Su VALUES DETERMINED FROM DIFFERENT TESTING METHODS:
(A) UNCORRECTED VALUES AND (B) VALUES CORRECTED FOR STRAIN RATE AND SECONDARY
COMPRESSION. ................................................................................................................................... 7-43