INFORMATION TO USERS

i
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the qualify of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
3 0 0 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Mf 4 810 6 -1 3 4 6 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 O rd e r N u m b er 9505943

In situ characterization of gravelly soils that liquefied in the

1983 Borah Peak earthquake

Andrus, Ronald D., Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 1994

UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Aibor, MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Copyright

by

Ronald D. Andrus

1994

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 IN SITU CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAVELLY SOILS

THAT LIQUEFIED IN THE 1983 BORAH PEAK

EARTHQUAKE

APPROVED BY
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 IN SITU CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAVELLY SOILS

THAT LIQUEFIED IN THE 1983 BORAH PEAK

EARTHQUAKE

by
RONALD D. ANDRUS, B.S., M.S.

DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

August 1994

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To my Loving

Parents

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by the U.S. G eological Survey (USG S) under

Contract No. 14-08-0001-G1779. I am very grateful for this support.

I would like to thank Professor Kenneth H. Stokoe, II for his support and

enthusiasm throughout the course of this study. Professor Stokoe spent over tw o

w eeks in the field providing valuable guidance to field testing. Thank you for

always treating me with kindness and sharing your insights on many aspects of soil

dynamics.

I am also grateful for the advice and kindness o f Professors Priscilla P.

Nelson, Jose M. Roesset, Clark W ilson, and Stephen G. W right and who served on

my Ph.D. committee.

The efforts o f many fellow graduate students w hose assistance with many

aspects o f this study are sincerely appreciated. Glenn J. Rix, Ignacio Sanchez-

Salinero, Jiun-Chyuan Sheu, and Young-Jin M ok who provided field data from the

1985 investigations. Much thanks goes to James A. Bay for his valuable assistance

w ith m any aspects o f the field investigations in 1990 and 1991, particularly the

seism ic testing. Dong-Soo Kim and Byungski Lee assisted with 1990 field testing

and trench logging. M ark Fuhrim an helped w ith the 1991 field testing. Taebong

Ahn perform ed numerous grain-size analyses. M arwan F. Aouad graciously made

available analytical data for the development o f the sim plified liquefaction potential

procedure based on V si and amax. Norman L. Jones provided a copy of program

GEO SO LID , and w orked w ith me in the developm ent o f the three-dim ensional

sedim ent m odel o f the Pence Ranch site. Sung-Ho Joh, Seon-Keun Hw ang, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Jam es Lee gave technical support in the laboratory. I am grateful for m y friendship

with these and the many other fellow graduate students.

Several persons and organizations also contributed significantly to this

study. T. Leslie Youd of Brigham Young U niversity, Provo, Utah, graciously

provided field notes and first hand information of the sites which liquefied during

the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake. Samuel Velestro o f The University o f Texas at

Austin Radiocarbon Laboratory performed radiocarbon dating o f sediment samples

and gave helpful insight into understanding these dates. The University o f Arizona

provided radiocarbon dating service on a charcoal fragment. Conventional drilling

and cone penetration services in 1990 were contracted with Earth Tech Drilling o f

Salt Lake City, Utah. Becker penetration tests were contracted with B ecker Drills,

Inc. I am grateful to all of these people and organizations for their assistance.

Special thanks are also extended to Mrs. Laura Pence, M r. M arv Goddard,

and M r. G ary Larter who kindly perm itted testing on their property. I am very

grateful to M r. W endell Andersen who pointed out the gravel bar on the Big Lost

R iver w here he was standing at the tim e o f the earthquake and recounted his

experience.

I w ish to thank the G eotechnical Engineering C enter staff, particularly

Teresa Tice-Boggs her managerial assistance. Thanks to Jam es Stewart and Frank

W ise for m achining and wiring the field testing equipment.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and fam ily, friends, and w ife for

their constant love and support.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 IN SITU CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAVELLY SOILS

THAT LIQUEFIED IN THE 1983 BORAH PEAK

EARTHQUAKE

Publication N o ._______________

Ronald D. Andrus, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 1994

Supervisor: Kenneth H. Stokoe, II

A subsurface investigation was made at four sites where liquefaction had

occurred during the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake (M s = 7.3). The four sites

are a lateral spread in a gravelly river terrace (Pence Ranch), a gravel side bar next

to the Big L ost R iver (Goddard Ranch), a gravel bar w ithin the river channel

(Andersen Bar), and a lateral spread at the distal end o f a gravelly alluvial fan

(Larter Ranch).

The stiffness o f subsurface sediments was determ ined in term s o f shear

wave velocity by the Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-W aves and crosshole seismic

methods. A new crosshole procedure was developed for this study and successfully

used to measure compression, vertically polarized shear, and horizontally polarized

shear wave velocities. In addition to seismic testing, sedim ents were investigated

using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and

Becker Penetration Test (BPT). In-place density measurem ents were made in test

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 pits by the water-replacem ent m ethod using a large m etal ring. T renches were

excavated and m apped at Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch to characterize near-
i
1 surface sedim ents and liquefaction features. Radiocarbon dates were obtained for

charcoal and sedim ent sam ples collected at Pence R anch. Tw o and three-

dimensional sedim ent models were constructed from the field data.

Liquefaction at Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar occurred in

fluvial bar sedim ents of Holocene age. Sam ples taken from these loose (low

penetration resistance) bar sedim ents ranged from gravelly sand to sandy gravel

with less than 5 percent fines. Sediments at Larter Ranch are sim ilar to sediments

near W hiskey Springs investigated by Andrus and Youd in 1987. Liquefaction at

these sites occurred in distal fan channel-fill deposits of probable latest Pleistocene

■ age. Sam ples taken from these loose channel-fill sedim ents consisted o f sandy

gravel with greater than 7 percent fines.

Liquefaction analyses using simplified procedures developed for sands were

used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of sedim ents beneath the Idaho sites.

Several o f these procedures correctly predicted high liquefaction and shear

deform ation potential w ithout correction for gravel content. O ther procedures

proposed for gravels were evaluated and several new procedures were developed.

vm

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE....................................................................................... i
COPYRIGHT LEGEND.................................................................................ii
DEDICATION................................................................................................. iii
TITLE PAGE.................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................v
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................xix
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................... ..................................... xxiii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 PU R PO SE...................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 O R G A N IZA TIO N ....................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER TWO
CASE HISTORIES OF GRAVELLY SOILS THAT HAVE LIQUEFIED
2.1 CASE HISTORIES FROM JA P A N ......................................................................... 5

2.2 CASE HISTORIES FROM CH IN A ......................................................................... 6

2.3 CA SE HISTORIES FROM NEW ZEALAND....................................................... 9

2.4 CASE HISTORIES FROM THE UNITED S T A T E S ..........................................10

2.5 SU M M A R Y ................................................................................................................. 17

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER THREE

SETTING OF THE 1983 BORAH PEAK, IDAHO EARTHQUAKE

3.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ...................................................................................................... 18

3.2 GEOLOGICAL SE T T IN G ........................................................................................18

3.3 TECTON IC SE T T IN G ..............................................................................................21

3.4 SEISM OLOGICAL SETTIN G................................................................................ 21

3.5 SU M M A RY ................................................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER FOUR
IN SITU METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ......................................................................................................26

4.2 SPECTRAL-ANALYSIS-OF-SURFACE-W AVES M E T H O D ....................... 28

4.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................28

4.2.2 Field Testing Procedure..................................................................................29

4.2.3 D ata Reduction and A nalysis.........................................................................31

4.2.4 SASW Procedure in 1990 and 1991Idaho Studies.................................... 35

4.2.5 Limitations of the SASW Test...................................................................... 35

4.3 CROSSHOLE SEISM IC M E T H O D ...................................................................... 37

4.3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................37

4.3.2 Crosshole Procedure in 1991 Idaho Studies................................................ 38

4.3.3 Limitations of the Crosshole Test.................................................................46

4.4 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.................................................................... 48

4.4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................48

4.4.2 SPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies.........................................................49

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4.4.3 Limitations of the SPT .................................................................................. 55

4.5 CO N E PENETRATION TEST...............................................................................56

4.5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................56

4.5.2 CPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies......................................................... 57

4.5.3 Limitations of the C P T ...................................................................................59

4.6 BECK ER PENETRATION TEST.........................................................................60

4.6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................60

4.6.2 BPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies.........................................................62

4.6.3 Limitations o f the B P T ...................................................................................62

4.7 M EASUREM ENT OF IN-PLACE UNIT W E IG H T .......................................... 63

4.7.1 In-place Unit W eight by the W ater-Replacement M ethod...................... 64

4.7.2 BPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies.........................................................66

4.8 SA M PLIN G M ETH O D S.......................................................................................... 66

4.8.1 Borehole Sam pling......................................................................................... 66

4.8.2 Test Pit Sam pling.............................................................................................67

4.9 SU M M A R Y ................................................................................................................. 67

CHAPTER FIVE
A REVIEW OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
5.1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ......................................................................................................69

5.2 CY CLIC STRESS R A T IO ....................................................................................... 70

5.2.1 Correction for High Stresses......................................................................... 72

5.2.1.1 Consideration for Gravelly S o il................................................... 72

5.2.2 Correction for Sloping G round..................................................................... 76

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 5.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.................................................................... 78

5.3.1 Correction for Standardization o f SPT Blow Count................................. 80

5.3.2 Correction for Overburden Stress.................................................................82

5.3.2.1 Consideration for Sloping Ground................................................ 85

5.3.3 Correction for SPT in Gravelly S oil............................................................ 88

5.4 BECKER PENETRATION TEST...........................................................................90

5.4.1 SPT-BPT Correlation by H a rd e r..................................................................90

5.4.2 SPT-BPT Correlation by Sy and C am panella........................................... 92

5.5 CONE PENETRATION TEST................................................................................ 96

5.5.1 CPT-Based Assessment from SPT-CPT Correlations..............................96

5.5.1.1 Consideration for Gravelly S o il.................................................... 99

5.5.2 CPT-Based Assessment from Laboratory Test R esu lt........................... 102

5.5.3 CPT-Bsed Assessment from Field Performance D ata............................ 104

5.6 SHEAR W A V E VELOCITY - STRESS BASED PR O C E D U R E.................. 105

5.7 SHEAR W A V E VELOCITY - STRAIN-BASED PR O C E D U R E .................105

5.7.1 Param etric Study............................................................................................ 107

5.7.2 Developm ent of Liquefaction Assessment R elationships......................113

5.8 N O RM A LIZED SHEAR W AVE VELOCITY - STRAIN-BA SED...............124

5.9 SU M M A R Y ............................................................................................................... 137

CHAPTER SIX
INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
AT PENCE RANCH
6.1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................................138

6.2 LIQU EFACTION EFFECTS.................................................................................. 140

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1984,1985, 1990 AND 1991........................ 146

6.3.1 T rench Investigations................................................................................... 151

6.3.1.1 Description of Trench Sediments.................................................151

6.3.1.2 Depositional Environment of Trench Sedim ents....................155

6.3.1.3 Age of Trench Sediments............................................................ 158

6.3.1.4 Description o f Large Fissure and H airline Cracks..................158

6.3.2 Geotechnical Characterization of Subsurface Sedim ents..................... 161

6.3.3 Three-Dimensional Sediment Model of the Hay Yard A rea................172

6.3.4 Seismic Testing Near the Hay Y ard ......................................................... 175

6.3.5 Identification of the Liquefiable M aterial............................................... 180

6.3.6 Identification o f the M ost Likely Failure Z o n e ...................................... 181

6.3.7 Depositional Environment and Age o f S edim ents.................................183

6.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIM PLIFIED PR O C E D U R ES 185

6.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio........................................................................................186

6.4.2 Standard Penetration T est........................................................................... 186

6.4.3 Becker Penetration T est...............................................................................188

6.4.4 Cone Penetration Test.................................................................................. 188

6.4.5 Shear W ave Velocity - Stress-Based Procedure..................................... 191

6.4.6 Shear Wave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure......................................191

6.4.7 Normalized Shear Wave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure............... 191

6.5 SU M M A RY AND C O N C LU SIO N S..................................................................195

xiii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

AT GODDARD RANCH

7.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N .....................................................................................................197

7.2 LIQU EFACTION EFFECTS...................................................................................197

7.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1985 AND 1990................................................ 199

7.3.1 Description o f Trench Sedim ents............................................................... 201

7.3.2 Geotechnical Characterization of Subsurface Sedim ents.......................203

7.3.3 Three-Dimensional Sediment M odel......................................................... 212

7.3.4 SASW Seismic T e stin g ............... 214

7.3.5 Identification of the Liquefiable M a te ria l................................................ 216

7.3.6 Depositional Environm ent and Age of S edim ents..................................218

7.4 LIQU EFACTION ANALYSES USING SIM PLIFIED PR O C E D U R E S 219

7.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio......................................................................................... 219

7.4.2 Standard Penetration T est............................................................................ 220

7.4.3 Becker Penetration T est................................................................................ 220

7.4.4 Cone Penetration T e st................................................................................... 223

7.4.5 Shear W ave Velocity - Stress-Based Procedure...................................... 223

7.4.6 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure...................................... 226

7.4.7 Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure................226

7.5 SU M M A RY AN D C O N C LU SIO N S....................................................................226

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

AT ANDERSEN BAR
8.1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................................230

8.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS..................................................................................231

8.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1991....................................................................232

8.3.1 Description o f Channel Sedim ent...............................................................233

8.3.2 Seismic Testing.............................................................................................. 234

8.3.3 Identification of the Liquefiable M aterial................................................ 240

8.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIM PLIFIED PR O C E D U R ES 240

8.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio.........................................................................................241

8.4.2 Shear W ave Velocity - Stress-Based Procedure...................................... 241

8.4.3 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure...................................... 241

8.4.4 Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure............... 244

4.9 SU M M A RY AND C O N C LU SIO N S..................................................................244

CHAPTER NINE
INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
AT LARTER RANCH
9.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ....................................................................................................246

9.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS..................................................................................248

9.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1985, 1990 AND 1991...................................253

9.3.1 Description o f Sedim ent.............................................................................. 255

9.3.2 Seismic Testing.............................................................................................. 263

xv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 9.3.3 Identification o f the Liquefiable M aterial................................................ 267

9.3.4 Identification o f the M ost Likely Failure Z o n e ....................................... 271

9.3.5 Depositional Environment and Age o f Sedim ents..................................272

9.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIM PLIFIED PR O CED U R ES 273

9.4.1 Cyclic Stress R atio.........................................................................................274

9.4.2 Standard Penetration T est............................................................................ 274

9.4.3 Becker Penetration Test................................................................................277

9.4.4 Cone Penetration T est................................................................................... 277

9.4.5 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure...................................... 280

9.4.6 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure...................................... 282

9.4.7 Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure................282

9.5 SUM M ARY AN D C O N C LU SIO N S................................................................... 289

CHAPTER TEN
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS FROM THE
IDAHO LIQUEFACTION SITES
10.1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ..................................................................................................291

10.2 CHARACTERISTICS O F THE IDAHO LIQUEFACTION S IT E S ........... 291

10.2.1 Clean Gravelly Soils Beneath Gently Sloping G ro u n d ........................292

10.2.2 Dirty Gravelly Soils Beneath M ore Steeply Sloping G ro u n d............ 294

10.3 PENETRATION AND SHEAR W AVE VELOCITY CO RRELATIO NS. 295

10.3.1 SPT-CPT C orrelation............................................................................... 301

10.3.2 SPT-BPT C orrelation............................................................................... 303

10.3.3 SPT-Shear W ave Velocity Correlation.................................................. 311

10.3.4 CPT-Shear W ave Velocity C orrelation.................................................318

xvi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10.4 STATE O F STRESS FROM SEISM IC M E A S U R E M E N T S ...................... 320

10.4.1 Level Ground and an Isotropic Soil Structure....................................... 320

10.4.2 Level Ground and an Anisotropic Soil S tructure..................................323

10.4.3 Sloping Ground and an Anisotropic Soil Structure...............................326

10.5 IN SITU DENSITY FROM SEISM IC M EA SU R E M E N TS.........................329

10.6 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES UL:TN G SIM PLIFIED PROCEDURES ..336

10.6.1 Cyclic Stress R atio...................................................................................... 337

10.6.2 Standard Penetration T est.......................................................................... 338

10.6.3 Becker Penetration T est............................................................................. 339

10.6.4 Cone Penetration T est.................................................................................342

10.6.5 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure.................................... 351

10.6.6 Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure.................................... 351

10.6.7 Normalized Shear W ave Velocity - Strain-Based Procedure............. 352

10.6 SUM M ARY AND C O N C LU SIO N S................................................................. 359

CHAPTER ELEVEN
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
11.1 SU M M A R Y .............................................................................................................362

11.2 CO NCLUSIONS..................................................................................................... 364

11.3 RECOM M EN DA TIO NS...................................................................................... 371

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF 1990 AND 1991 TEST DATA FROM

THE PENCE RANCH LIQUEFACTION SITE..................374

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 1990 TEST DATA FROM

THE GODDARD RANCH LIQUEFACTION SITE...........425
xvii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF 1991 TEST DATA FROM
THE ANDERSEN BAR LIQUEFACTION SITE............... 486

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF 1990 AND 1991 TEST DATA FROM

THE LARTER RANCH LIQUEFACTION SITE...............493

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................521

VITA

xviii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 D am age Caused by the 1964 A laska Earthquake to Railroad

Bridges Related to Foundation Conditions at the B ridges..........................13

2.2 Characteristics o f G ravelly Soils Predicted to have Liquefied

D uring the 1964 A laska E arthquake.....................................................14

3.1 Estimates o f Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration for the

Idaho Liquefaction Sites.................................................................................. 25

4.1 Sum mary o f SPT Energy Calibration M easurem ents for a Pin-
Guided Hammer, 1990 Idaho Studies.......................................................... 54

5.1 R epresentative N um ber of Cycles and Correction Factors for

Earthquakes with Magnitude =£7.5 ................................................................ 80

5.2 Sum m ary o f Perform ance o f the Im perial V alley, C alifornia

L iquefaction Sites D uring Four E arthquakes......................................118

6.1 D escription o f Trench Sediments Near the H ay Y ard at Pence

R anch.................................................................................................................153

6.2 A Facies Scheme for Fluvial D eposits...........................................................156

6.3 Sum mary o f Grain Size and Penetration D ata for U nit C at the
Pence Ranch S ite ............................................................................................. 166

6.4 Summary o f Grain Size and Shear Wave Velocity Data for Unit C
at the Pence Ranch S ite .................................................................................. 167

6.5 Summary o f Grain Size and Penetration D ata for U nit D at the
Pence Ranch S ite .............................................................................................170

6.6 Summary o f Grain Size and Shear Wave Velocity Data for Unit D
at the Pence Ranch S ite .................................................................................. 171

7.1 Summary o f Grain Size and Penetration Data for Subunits C l and
C2 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ...................................................................... 207

7.2 Sum m ary o f G rain Size and Shear W ave V elocity D ata for
Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard Ranch S ite........................................ 208

xix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Table Page

8.1 Sum m ary o f Grain Size and Shear W ave Velocity D ata for the
Critical Zone at the Andersen Bar S ite.........................................................240

9.1 Sum m ary o f Grain Size and Penetration D ata for Key Layers at
the Larter Ranch Site.......................................................................................258

9.2 Sum m ary o f Grain Size and Shear W ave Velocity D ata for Key
Layers at the Larter Ranch S ite .................................................................... 259

10.1 Average Values of M edian Grain Size, Penetration Resistance and

Shear W ave Velocity D ata for the Key Layers at the Pence Ranch,
Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar S ite s .................................................... 294

10.2 Average Values of M edian Grain Size, Penetration Resistance and

Shear W ave Velocity D ata for the Key Layers at the Larter Ranch
and W hiskey S p rin g s S ite s.................................................................. 296

10.3 F 2 Factors for Various Soil T y p e s................................................................ 313

10.4 Sum m ary o f Predicted Liquefaction Potential Based on Several

Sim plified Procedures Applied to the Critical Layer at the Five
Idaho Liquefaction S ites................................................................................ 361

A .l SASW Profile Data for the Pence Ranch Site (Hay Yard), 1990............. 392

A.2 Crosshole Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Array X A -X B...................... 394

A.3 Crosshole D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Array X B -X C ...................... 395

A.4 Crosshole Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Array X D -X E ...................... 396

A.5 CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -A ............................ 399

A.6 CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -B ............................401

A.7 CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -C ............................403

A.8 CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -D ............................405

A.9 CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P-E .......................407

A. 10 CPT Data From the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -F............................409

A. 11 CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -G ............................411

A. 12 CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, S ounding C P -H ............................413

XX

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Table Page

A. 13 CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding C P -I ........................... 415

A. 14 Becker Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -A .....................417

A. 15 Becker Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -B .....................418

A. 16 Becker Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -C .....................419

A. 17 In-Place Density Data from the Pence Ranch S ite ..................................... 420

A. 18 Borehole Sample Data from the Pence Ranch S ite .................................... 421

A. 19 Trench and Test Pit Sample Data from the Pence Ranch S ite................. 423

B.1 SASW Profile Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, 1 9 9 0 ........................ 446

B .2 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -I........................ 450

B.3 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -2 .......................452

B.4 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -3 ....................... 455

B.5 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -4 .......................458

B.6 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -5 ....................... 461

B.7 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -6 ....................... 464

B .8 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -7 ....................... 466

B.9 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -8 ....................... 468

B. 10 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -9 ....................... 471

B . 11 CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -10......................473

B . 12 CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -11......................475

B.13 CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P-12......................476

B. 14 Becker Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -1 ................. 478

B. 15 Becker Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -2 ................. 479

B . 16 Becker Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding B P c -3 ................. 480

xxi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Table Page

B. 17 Becker Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding B P o -4 ................. 481

B .18 In-Place Density Data from the G oddard Ranch S ite .......................... 482

B .19 Borehole Sample Data from the Goddard Ranch Site................................ 483

B .20 Trench and Test Pit Sam ple Data form the Goddard Ranch Site........... 485

C .l SA SW Profile Data from the A ndersen B ar Site.................................490

C.2 Crosshole Test Data from the Andersen Bar S ite........................................491

C.3 In Place Density Data from the Andersen Bar S ite .....................................492

C.4 Test Pit Sample Data from the Andersen Bar S ite ......................................492

D. 1 SASW Profile Data from the Larter Ranch Site, 1990...............................504

D.2 Crosshole Test Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Array X I - X 2 ...............505

D.3 Crosshole Test Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Array X 3 -X 4 ...............506

D.4 CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding C P -1..............................509

D.5 CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding C P-2..............................511

D.6 CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding C P-3..............................513

D.7 Becker D ata from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding B P c-1........................515

D.8 Becker Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding B P c-2 ................516

D.9 Becker Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding B P c-3....................... 517

D. 10 Becker Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding B P c-4 ....................... 518

D. 11 Sample Data from the Larter Ranch Site...................................................... 519

xxii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Regional M ap of the Big L ost R iver and Thousand Springs

Valleys Show ing Geographic Features, A pproxim ate Trace of
Fault Rupture and Locations o f the Five Liquefaction S ites.................. 3

2.1 G radation Curves o f Two Sam ples Taken from the Upstream
Shell o f Shimen Earth Dam, China in the N eighborhood o f the
S l id e .....................................................................................................................7

2.2 Range o f Gradation Curves o f Samples Taken from the Protective

Layer o f the Baihe Earth Dam, China.............................................................. 8

2.3 G radation Curves o f H and-A uger Sam ples Taken from the
Critical Layer at the Karamea and Anderson's Farm Sites, New
Z ealand.......................................................... 9

2.4 G radation Curves o f Two T est Pit Sam ples Taken from the
Source B ed o f a Liquefaction Feature in the W abash Valley,
I n d ia n a - I llin o is .............................................................................................. 10

2.5 R ange o f Six G radation C urves of Sam ples T aken from a

Gravelly Beach Deposit at W est Point, W ashington................................... 11

2.6 Approximate Range o f Gradation Curves of Split-Barrel Samples

Taken from Gravelly Soils Predicted to have Liquefied During the
1964 Alaska Earthquake...................................................................................15

2.7 G radation Curve o f Test P it Sam ple Taken from L ayer that
Liquefied at the W hiskey Springs Site During the 1983 Borah
Peak, Idaho E arthquake...................................................................................17

3.1 T opographic M ap Show ing Locations o f the P ence Ranch,

Goddard Ranch and Andersen Bar Investigation S ite s .............................. 20

3.2 T opographic M ap Show ing Z one o f Fissures G enerated by

Lateral Spreading and Locations o f the Larter Ranch and Whiskey
Springs Investigation Sites..............................................................................22

3.3 Predictive Relationship Between Peak Horizontal Ground Surface

Acceleration and Distance to the 1983 Surface Rupture for Deep
Soil S ite s ............................................................................................................24

xxiii

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

4.1 Approximate Distribution o f Vertical Particle M otion with Depth

for Two Surface Waves of Different W avelength...................................... 29

4.2 General SASW Field Testing Configuration..................................................30

4.3 Typical R ecord Set Obtained During SASW Testing U sing a

Bulldozer as the Source at the Pence Ranch Site, Array S A -A ................ 32

4.4 Com parison o f Experimental and Theoretical Dispersion Curves

from SASW Testing at the Andersen B ar Site, A rray SA -2.................34

4.5 Photograph o f SASW Testing at the Larter Ranch Site, Array SA-
2 Using a Bulldozer as the Seismic Source and 1 H z Geophones
a s the R e c e iv e rs ........................................................................................ 36

4 .6 Conceptual Comparison o f M aterial Sampled During SASW and

Crosshole T esting.............................................................................................37

4.7 Photograph o f P and SV-W ave Crosshole Testing at the Andersen

B ar Site U sing a M etal Punch to Generate Seism ic W aves.................. 39

4.8 Configuration of Seismic Crosshole Testing by Driving AW Steel

C a sin g .................................................................................................................40

4.9 Photograph o f the Source and Receiver Equipment for Crosshole

Testing with AW C asing ................................................................................. 41

4.10 Typical P and SV-W ave Crosshole Record Set Obtained During
Driving AW Casing at the Andersen Bar S i t e ..............................................42

4.11 Typical P and SH-W ave Crosshole Record Set Obtained During
Driving AW Casing at the Andersen Bar Site............................................... 45

4.12 C om parison o f Velocities D eterm ined at the Treasure Island,

California Crosshole Array and Velocities Determined by the New
M odified Crosshole Method Using AW Steel C a sin g ............................... 47

4.13 Split-Barrel Sam pler Assembly for Use in Standard Penetration

Testing................................................................................................................48

4.14 Photograph o f Drill Rig and Pin-Guided Ham mer Used During
the 1990 Field Investigations.........................................................................50

4.15 SPT Load Cell Waveform for the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole SP-
C a t 3 m .....................................................................................................52

xxiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

4 .16 SPT Load Cell W aveform for the Goddard Ranch Site, Borehole
S P -2 at 7 m ............................................................................................... 53

4.17 Electric Friction-Cone Penetrom eter...............................................................57

4 .1 8 Electric Cone Penetration Testing in 1990 at the G oddard Ranch

Site Using the Hydraulic System o f the Drill R ig ....................................... 59

4.19 Photograph of the Becker AP-1000 Drill Rig (Rig No. 57) at the
Pence R anch Site, Sounding B P c-3..................................................... 61

4.20 Photograph o f the Seated 1.2-m Diameter Template (Metal Ring)

at the Pence Ranch Site Used in the W ater-Replacem ent M ethod
for Determ ining In-Place D ensity o f G ravelly Soils............................ 65

5.1 Range o f Values o f Stress Reduction Ratio for D ifferent Soil

P ro files............................................................................................................... 71

5.2 Relationship Between Effective Overburden Stress and Correction

Factor for High S tress..................................................................................... 73

5.3 Effect o f Gravel Particles on Cyclic Strength................................................ 75

5.4 Relationship B etw een a and G round Slope Correction Factor

Recommended For Sands with Results for the W atsonville Gravel
and th e F olsom G ra v e l...........................................................................77

5.5 Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction

and Modified N-Values for Sand and M = 7.5 Earthquakes..................... 79

5.6 Relationship Between Moment Magnitude and Various Magnitude

Scales.................................................................................................................. 81

5.7 Comparison of Recommended Overburden Correction F actors.................84

5.8 Tentative Relationship Between Cm Exponent k and M edian Grain

s iz e .......................... 85

5.9 Tentative Overburden Correction Factors for Relative Density of

50 Percent and Various Median Grain S izes................................................ 86

5.10 T entative correction Factor for the SPT in G ravelly Soils

Compared with Reported Estim ates............................................................... 89

xxv

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

5.11 Chart for Correction o f Bounce Chamber Pressure Measured at an

Elevation o f 1830 m to Bounce Cham ber Pressure at M ean Sea
Level................................................................................................................... 91

5.12 Correction Curves to Correct B ecker Blow Count to Constant

C o m b u stio n C o n d itio n ............................................................................. 93

5.13 C orrelation Betw een N b c and N 60.........................................................94

5.14 Blow Count Ratio verses D epth.......................................................................94

5.15 Proposed SPT-BPT Correlations by Sy and C am panella for

Various Shaft Resistances............................................................................... 95

5.16 Com parison of Five Proposed Liquefaction Potential Charts for

Sands Based on Normalized Cone Tip Resistance..................................... 97

5.17 Two Correlations Between the Ratio of Cone Tip Resistance to

SPT Blow Count and M edian Grain S iz e .................................................... 98

5.18 Relationship Between qc/N60 and M edian Grain Size for Sands
and L o o se G ra v e l.................................................................................... 100

5.19 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment C hart Based on N orm alized

Cone Tip Resistance for Gravelly soils and M = 7.5 Earthquakes......... 101

5.20 Tentative Relationship Between the Cq Exponent n and M edian

Grain S iz e .........................................................................................................103

5.21 Proposed Liquefaction Assessm ent C hart by Robertson e t al.

B ased on N orm alized Shear W ave V elocity....................................... 106

5.22 Soil M odel Used in the P aram etric Studies o f the Sand
Liquefaction Site by Stokoe et al................................................................... 108

5.23 Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Used in the Parametric Studies by

Stokoe et al....................................................................................................... 109

5.24 Variation in Modulus with Strain for Imperial Valley S o ils...................... I l l

5.25 Variation in Damping with Strain for Imperial Valley Soils...................... I l l

5.26 Variation in Cyclic Pore W ater Pressure Ratio with N um ber o f

Cyclic Shearing S train.................................................................................... 112

xxvi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

5.27 Relationship Between Shear Wave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer

and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at S tiff Soil
S ite for 10 Cycles o f S haking............................................................ 114

5.28 Relationship Between Shear Wave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer

and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at S tiff Soil
S ite for 20 C ycles o f S haking............................................................ 115

5.29 Relationship Between Shear Wave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer

and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil
S ite for 30 C ycles o f S haking............................................................ 116

5.30 L ocations o f S trong-M otion S tatio n s and L iq u e fa c tio n

Investigation Sites in Im perial V alley C alifornia w ith Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Accelerations for the 1987 Elm ore
Ranch Earthquake........................................................................................... 119

5.31 L ocations o f Strong-M otion S tatio n s and L iq u e fa c tio n

Investigation Sites in Im perial V alley California w ith Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Accelerations and Location of Rupture
for the 1987 Superstition Hills E arthquake........................................120

5.32 Com parison o f Variation in Peak Horizontal G round Surface

A cceleration w ith D istance fo r the 1979 Im perial V alley
Earthquake, and the Elm ore R anch and Superstition H ills
Earthquake of November 24, 1987............................................................. 122

5.33 Com parison o f Field Perform ance and Predicted B ehavior of

Sand Sites Susceptible to Liquefaction in the Im perial Valley,
California..........................................................................................................123

5.34 R elationship B etw een N orm alized Shear W ave V elocity of

L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal G round S urface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 10 Cycles of Shaking........................... 125

5.35 R elationship Betw een Norm alized Shear W ave V elocity of

L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal G round S urface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 20 Cycles of Shaking........................... 126

5.36 R elationship Betw een N orm alized Shear W ave V elocity of

L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal G round S urface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 30 Cycles of Shaking........................... 127

5.37 Comparison o f Field Performance and Predicted Behavior o f the

Imperial Valley Liquefaction Sites Based on Norm alized Shear
Wave Velocity.................................................................................................129

xxvii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

5.38 R elationship Between N orm alized Shear W ave V elocity o f

L iquefiable L ayer and Extrapolated Peak H orizontal G round
Surface Acceleration at S tiff Soil Site for Thickness, T = 0.3 m
w ith Proposed L iquefaction B oundaries............................................. 130

5.39 P roposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent C hart for 10 C ycles of

Shaking Based on Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity and Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site...................131

5 .40 Proposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent C hart for 20 C ycles o f

Shaking Based on Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity and Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site...................132

5.41 Proposed L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart for 30 C ycles o f

Shaking Based on Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity and Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site...................133

5.42 C om parison o f Field Perform ance o f the Im perial V alley

Liquefaction Sites and the Proposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent
Chart for 10 Cycles of Shaking Based on Normalized Shear W ave
Velocity and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at Stiff
S o il S ite ....................................................................................................... 135

5.43 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment C hart Based on Norm alized

Shear W ave Velocity for 15 Cycles o f Shaking for Evaluation o f
the Borah Peak Idaho Gravelly S o ils ...........................................................136

6.1 Aerial Photograph of the Pence R anch Site and the Big Lost
R iver................................................................................................................. 139

6.2 M ap of the Pence Ranch Site Showing Liquefaction Effects................ 141

6.3 Photograph o f Back o f the Pence H om e............................................. 142

6 .4 View Looking Southeast Showing Fissures at the H ead o f the

Lateral Spread Displacing the Unpaved Farm A re a ...................................143

6.5 Hay Yard Fence Pulled Apart by Lateral Spread M ovem ent.....................144

6 .6 Concrete Boxes Housing Well Pump and W ater T a n k ..............................145

6.7 M ap of the Pence Ranch Site Showing Liquefaction Effects and

the Three Principal Area of T esting..............................................................147

6.8 Location of Testing and Sampling Near the Hay Y ard at Pence
R anch................................................................................................................ 148

xxviii

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

6.9 Location of Testing and Sam pling N ear the Steel-Farm Barn at
Pence R a n c h .....................................................................................................149

6 .10 Location of Testing and Sampling N ear the Pence H o m e ...................... 149

6.11 Sediment Profile Exposed in Trench at Pence R anch.............................. 152

6.12 Photograph and Sketch o f Large Fissure in T rench N ear Hay

Yard at Pence R an ch ....................................................................................... 159

6.13 Photograph and Sketch o f Large Fissure Near Bottom of Trench...... 160

6.14 Cross Section o f the Lateral Spread Near the Hay Yard at Pence
R anch...............................................................................................................162

6.15 Cross Section o f the Lateral Spread N ear the Steel-Fram e B am .........163

6.16 Cross Section of the Lateral Spread Near the Pence H o m e ....................164

6.17 Photograph o f Bulk Sam ple Taken From Unit C at the Pence
Ranch Site, Test Pit T P-C ............................................................................ 169

6.18 Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test-Pit Samples Taken from

U nit C N ear the Hay Yard at the Pence R anch.................................169

6.19 Perspective View o f Discritized CPT Data from the Hay Yard at
the Pence Ranch S ite..................................................................................... 173

6.20 F ence D iag ram o f T h ree-D im en sio n al M odel S how ing

Stratigraphy Based on CPT Beneath the Hay Yard A rea at the
Pence Ranch S ite ............................................................................................174

6.21 Eight SASW Shear W ave Velocity Profiles from the Hay Yard
Test Area at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................................................... 176

6.22 Soil and W ave Velocity Profiles from Test Arrays XA-XB, XB-
XC, XD-XE, and SA-B at the Pence Ranch S ite..............................177

6.23 Com parison o f SV and SH-W ave Velocity Profiles M easured by

Crosshole Testing Between Casing Locations XD and XE at the
Pence Ranch S ite ........................................................................................... 179

6.24 C om parison o f G rain-Size D istribution Curves o f T est-Pit

Sam ples Taken from Unit C and a Gravel Sand B oil Sam ple
Collected Near the Hay Yard Fence at the Pence Ranch Site.............. 181

xxix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

6.25 Sections o f Three-D im ensional M odel Showing R elationship

Between the W ater Table, Low Permeability Cap, Large Fissure,
Loose Gravelly Sediment, and Direction of Lateral M ovement at
the Pence Ranch S ite....................................................................................... 182

6.26 Isopach M ap Show ing T hickness o f V ery Loose, Saturated

Granular Sediment having CPT Tip Resistance Less than 5 M Pa
and Friction Ratio Less than 1.5 Percent Near the Hay Yard at the
Pence Ranch S ite ............................................................................................. 184

6.27 Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified N-Value with

SPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch S ite .......................187

6.28 Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Modified N-Value with

BPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch S ite .......................189

6.29 Proposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent C hart Based on M odified

Cone Tip Resistance for Clean Sands and Clean Gravels w ith
CPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch S ite ....................... 190

6 .30 Proposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent Chart by Robertson et al.

Based on Normalized Shear W ave Velocity with SA SW and SV-
W ave Crosshole Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch
S ite .....................................................................................................................192

6.31 Proposed Liquefaction Potential C hart Based on Shear W ave

V elocity of L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal G round
Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking
with SASW and SV-W ave Crosshole Results from Units C and D
at the Pence Ranch S ite ...................................................................................193

6.32 Proposed Liquefaction Potential C hart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal
G round Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f
Shaking with SA SW and SW -W ave Crosshole R esults from
Units C and D at the Pence Ranch S ite ........................................................194

7.1 Photograph o f the G oddard R anch S ite...............................................198

7.2 M ap o f the G oddard Ranch Site Show ing T opography and

Locations of T e stin g .......................................................................................200

7.3 Sediment Profile Exposed in Trench at the Goddard Ranch S ite .............202

7.4 Cross Section Based on Cone Penetration Resistance M easured at

the Goddard Ranch S ite .................................................................................204

xxx

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

7.5 Cross Section Based on Penetration Resistances M easured at the

G o d d a rd R an ch S ite ............................................................................. 205

7 .6 Photograph o f Gravelly Sediment Taken from Subunit C l at the

G o d d a rd R an ch S ite ............................................................................. 209

7.7 Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test Pit Samples Taken from

Subunit C l at the Goddard Ranch S ite ......................................................209

7.8 Sections o f Three-Dimensional Model o f the Goddard Ranch Site

B ased on CPT Soundings Show ing R elationship Betw een the
W ater Table, Impermeable Cap, and Loose Gravelly Sedim ent............213

7 .9 Five Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Measured by SASW Testing at

the Goddard Ranch S ite ............................................................................... 215

7.10 Isopach M ap o f the Goddard Ranch Site Showing Thickness of

V ery Loose, Saturated G ranular Sedim ent having Cone Tip
R esistance Less than 5 M Pa and a Friction Ratio Less than 1.5
Percent............................................................................................................. 217

7.11 L iq u efactio n A ssessm ent C hart B ased on M odified SPT

Resistance w ith SPT Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the
G o d d ard R an ch S ite ............................................................................... 221

7.12 L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on M odified SPT

Resistance with BPT Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the
G o d d ard R an ch S ite ............................................................................... 222

7.13 Proposed Liquefaction Assessm ent C hart Based on M odified

Cone Tip Resistance with CPT Results from Subunits C l and C2
at th e G oddard R anch S ite ...................................................................224

7.14 Proposed Liquefaction Assessm ent C hart by Robertson et al.

Based on Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity with SASW Results
from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard Ranch S ite .............................. 225

7.15 Proposed Liquefaction Potential C hart Based on Shear W ave

V elocity o f L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal Ground
Surface Acceleration at Still Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking
w ith SASW Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard
Ranch S ite......................................................................................................... 227

xxxi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

7 .16 Proposed Liquefaction Potential Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal
G round Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles of
Shaking w ith SA SW Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the
G o d d ard R an ch S ite ............................................................................. 228

8.1 Photograph Show ing Mr. Andersen at the Location w here He

Stood D uring the Borah Peak Earthquake. M r. A ndersen
W itnessed the L iquefaction o f the Large G ravel B ar in the
Channel o f the Big Lost R iver...................................................................... 231

8.2 M ap o f the Andersen Bar Site Showing the Zone o f Cracks and
Sites o f T esting................................................................................................233

8.3 Photograph o f Gravelly Sedim ent Recovered with the Aid o f a

Backhoe at the Andersen B ar S ite ................................................................ 235

8.4 Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test Pit and Back hoe Samples
Collected at the Andersen B ar S ite ...............................................................235

8.5 Soil and W ave Velocity Profiles for the Andersen Bar S ite .......................236

8 .6 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles Measured by SASW

T esting a t the A ndersen B ar S ite........................................................ 238

8.7 Com parison o f SV and SH-W ave Velocity Profiles M easured

by Crosshole Testing at the Andersen Bar S ite .......................................... 239

8.8 Proposed Liquefaction A ssessm ent Chart by R obertson et al.

Based on N orm alized Shear W ave Velocity w ith SA SW and
Crosshole Results from the Critical Zone Beneath the Andersen
Bar S ite ............................................................................................................. 242

8.9 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity o f L iquefiable L ayer and Peak H orizontal G round
Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking
with Results from the Critical Zone Beneath the A ndersen B ar
S ite .....................................................................................................................243

8 .10 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak H orizontal
Ground Surface Acceleration at Still Soil Site for 15 Cycles of
Shaking w ith R esults from the C ritical Zone B en eath the
Andersen B ar S ite ........................................................................................... 245

xxxii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

9.1 Aerial Photograph o f the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the

Distal End of the Elkhom Alluvial F a n ....................................................... 247

9 .2 A erial Photograph o f the Lateral Spread Near the Lateral Ranch

Investigation Site Showing Liquefaction E ffects....................................... 249

9.3 M ap o f the L a rte r R anch S ite Show ing T opography and

Liquefaction Effects........................................................................................ 250

9.4 Photograph of a M ajor Fissure on the Elkhom Alluvial F a n ..................... 251

9.5 Photograph of a Silty Sand Boil Deposit N ear the T oe o f the

L ateral Spread N ear the L arter Ranch S ite.........................................252

9.6 M ap o f the Larter Ranch Site Showing Topography, Liquefaction

Effects, and Sites o f T esting......................................................................... 254

9.7 C ross Section o f the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the

Larter Ranch S ite ............................................................................................. 256

9.8 Cross Section Along the Toe o f the Lateral Spread (Test Area 1) at
the Larter Ranch S ite.......................................................................................257

9 .9 Photograph of Gravelly Sediment Taken at the Top of Subunit C l

at the Larter Ranch S ite .................................................................................. 261

9 .10 Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test Pit Samples Taken at the

Top o f Subunit C 1 at the Larter Ranch S ite ................................................ 261

9.11 Com parison of Shear W ave Velocity Profiles D eterm ined from
1985 SA SW Tests and 1990 SA SW Tests at the Larter Ranch
S ite ....................................................................................................................,264

9.12 Soil and Shear W ave Velocity Profiles for the Larter Ranch Site.......... 266

9.13 Com parison of SV and SH-W ave Velocity Profiles M easured

by Crosshole Testing at the Larter Ranch Site, Array X 3 -X 4 ................ 268

9.1 4 C ross Section o f the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the

L arter Ranch Site Show ing Zones of Likely Liquefaction and
F a ilu re...............................................................................................................269

9.15 Comparison o f Grain-Size Distribution Curves for Samples Taken

from Five Sand Boil Deposits and Two Test Pit Samples Taken at
the Top of Unit C l at the Larter Ranch Site................................................270

xxxiii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

9.16 L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart Based on M odified SPT

Resistance with SPT Results from the Larter Ranch Site................... 275

9.17 L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on M odified SPT

Resistance with BPT Results from the Larter Ranch S ite ........................278

9.18 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified

Cone Tip Resistance for Sands and Gravels with CPT Results
from the Larter Ranch S ite ........................................................................... 279

9.19 Proposed Liquefaction Assessm ent Chart by Robertson et al.

Based on Norm alized Shear W ave Velocity with SASW and
Crosshole Results from the Larter Ranch S ite........................................... 281

9.20 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity of Liquefiable layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking w ith
SASW and Crosshole Results from Subunit B1 at the L arter
Ranch Site....................................................................................................... 283

9.21 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

V elocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak H orizontal G round
Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking
with SASW and Crosshole Results from U nit C at the Larter
Ranch S ite....................................................................................................... 284

9.22 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

V elocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal G round
Surface Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking
with SASW and Crosshole Results from Unit D at the Larter
Ranch S ite....................................................................................................... 285

9.23 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized

Shear W ave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal
Ground Surface Acceleration at S tiff soil site for 15 Cycles o f
Shaking with Results from Subunit B1 at the Larter Ranch S ite ............286

9.24 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized

Shear W ave Velocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal
Ground Surface Acceleration at S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f
Shaking with Results from Unit C at the Larter Ranch S ite.................... 287

9.25 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized

Shear W ave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal
Ground Surface Acceleration at S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f
Shaking with Results from Unit D at the Larter Ranch Site.....................288

xxxiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

10.1 Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test-Pit Samples Taken from

the Critical Layer which Liquefied at the Five Idaho Liquefaction
S ites...................................................................................................................292

10.2 Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test-Pit Samples Taken from

the Critical Layer which Liquefied at the Five Idaho Liquefaction
Sites and the Range o f D istribution Curves for Gravelly Soils
R e p o rted to have L iq u e fie d ................................................................. 293

10.3 Sum m ary Plot of Corrected SPT Resistance, Ngo, Versus Depth
for Four Idaho Gravel Sites...........................................................................297

10.4 Sum mary Plot of Corrected BPT Resistance, N b c >Versus Depth

for Four Idaho Gravel Sites...........................................................................298

10.5 Sum m ary Plot o f CPT Resistance, qc, V ersus D epth for Four
Id a h o G ravel S ite s ..................................................................................299

10.6 Sum m ary Plot of Shear W ave Velocity, V s, Versus Depth for
Four Idaho Gravel S ites.................................................................................300

10.7 Relationship Between qc/Ngo and M edian Grain Size for Sands
and Loose to Medium Dense G ravels.......................................................... 302

10.8 Com parison o f Estim ates o f Ngo Based on the CPT and Split-
B arrel Sam ples with M easured Values o f N60 for Four Idaho
Gravel S ites..................................................................................................... 304

10.9 Com parison o f Estim ates o f Ngo Based on the CPT and Becker
Sam ples with M easured Values o f Ngo for Three Idaho Gravel
Sites...................................................................................................................304

10.10 Com parison o f Estim ates o f Ngo Based on the CPT and Auger
T ube Sam ples w ith M easured Values o f Ngo for Tw o Idaho
Gravel S ites..................................................................................................... 305

10.11 Com parison of Estimates of Ngo Based on the CPT and Test Pit
Sam ples with M easured V alues o f Ngo for Four Idaho Gravel
Sites...................................................................................................................305

10.12 Relationship Between Nbc» Ngo and Depth for Three Sand S ite s ........ 306

10.13 Comparison o f Estimates of Ngo Based on the BPT and Measured

Values of Ngo for Three Sand Sites............................................................. 307

xxxv

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

10.14 Relationship Between N bc» Ngo and Depth for Four Idaho Gravel
Sites Com pared w ith the SPT-BPT C orrelation Proposed by
H arder for S ands.............................................................................................309

10.15 Comparison of Estimates of N60 Based on the BPT and Measured

Values of N60 for Four Idaho Gravel S ite s ................................................310

10.16 Com parison o f Tentative Relationships Proposed in This Study

for C orrection of SPT in Gravelly Soils with R elationship
Suggested by T okim atsu............................................................................... 312

10.17 Comparison of Estimates o f V s Based on the SPT-Vs Correlation

by Ohta and Goto and M easured Values o f V s for Four Idaho
Gravel S ites......................................................................................................314

10.18 Comparison of Estimates o f Vs Based on the SPT-Vs Correlation

by Seed et al. and M easured Values of V s for Four Idaho Gravel
S ites...................................................................................................................315

10.19 Comparison of Estimates o f Vs Based on the SPT-Vs Correlation

by Sykora and Stokoe and Measured Values o f Vs for Four Idaho
Gravel S ites..................................................................................................... 317

10.20 Comparison of Estimates of V s Based on the SPT-Vs Correlation

D eveloped in This Report and M easured Values o f V s for Four
Id ah o G rav el S ite s ................................................................................. 319

10.21 Comparison of Estimates of V s Based on the CPT-Vs Correlation

Developed in This R eport and M easured Values o f V s for Four
Id a h o G rav el S ite s .................................................................................321

10.22 Estimates o f State o f Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on

SH - and SV -W ave V elocities D eterm ined from C rosshole
Measurements at the Pence Ranch S ite ....................................................... 324

10.23 Estimates o f State o f Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on

SH - and SV -W ave V elocities D eterm ined from C rosshole
Measurements at the Andersen Bar S ite ...................................................... 325

10.24 Estimates o f State o f Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on

SH - and SV -W ave V elocities D eterm ined from C rosshole
Measurements at the Larter Ranch S ite ....................................................... 328

10.25 Estim ates o f (K 2 )max and Two Shear W ave V elocity Profiles
Determ ined from SA SW and SV-W ave M easurem ents at the
Pence Ranch S ite .............................................................................................331

xxxvi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

10.26 Estim ates of (K 2)max and Tw o Shear W ave V elocity Profiles

Determ ined from SASW M easurements at the G oddard Ranch
S ite .....................................................................................................................332

10.27 Estim ates o f (K 2 )max and Two Shear W ave Velocity Profiles
D eterm ined from SA SW and SV -W ave M easurem ents at the
Andersen Bar S ite ........................................................................................... 333

10.28 Estim ates o f (K 2 )max and Tw o Shear W ave Velocity Profiles

D eterm ined from SASW and SV-W ave M easurem ents at the
Larter Ranch S ite .............................................................................................334

10.29 Estim ates o f (K 2 )max and Two Shear W ave Velocity Profiles
D eterm ined from SA SW and SV -W ave M easurem ents at the
W hiskey Springs S ite..................................................................................... 335

10.30 Liquefaction Assessm ent Chart Based on SPT R esistance with

SPT Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction
S ites...................................................................................................................339

10.31 Liquefaction Assessm ent C hart Based on SPT Resistance with

BPT Results Based on the Procedure o f Harder from the Critical
Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction S ites....................................................... 340

10.32 Liquefaction A ssessm ent Chart Based on SPT Resistance with

B PT Results B ased on the SPT-BPT Correlation Proposed in
This Report from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction
S ites................................................................................................................... 341

10.33 P roposed L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on CPT

Resistance for Sands having D 50 of 0.8 mm with Results from the
Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.......................................... 343

10.34 P roposed L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on CPT

Resistance for Gravels having D 50 of 8 mm w ith Results from the
Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.......................................... 344

10.35 P roposed L iq uefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on CPT

R esistance by Robertson and Cam panella D eveloped for Sands
having D 50 greater than 0.25 mm with Results from the Critical
Layer al Four Idaho Liquefaction S ites....................................................... 345

10.36 Proposed L iq uefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on C PT

Resistance by Ishihara Developed for Sands having D 50 Between
0.25 and 0.55 mm w ith Results from the Critical Layer at Four
Idaho Liquefaction Sites.................................................................................346

xxxvii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

10.37 Proposed L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on C PT

Resistance by M itchell and Tseng Developed for Sands having
D 50 = 0.4 m m with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho
Liquefaction S ite s...........................................................................................347

10.38 Proposed L iquefaction A ssessm ent C hart B ased on CPT

Resistance by Shibata and Teparaksa Developed for Sands having
D 50 ^ 0.25 m m with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho
Liquefaction S ite s...........................................................................................348

10.39 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity by Robertson et al. with M inimum Velocity
Values from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites............. 352

10.40 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity by Robertson et al. with Average Velocity
Values from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites............. 353

10.41 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity by Stokoe et al. with M inimum Velocity Values from the
Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction S ite s..........................................354

10.42 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity by Stokoe et al. with Average Velocity Values from the
Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction S ite s................ 355

10.43 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity Developed in this Report with M inim um
Velocity Values from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction
Sites...................................................................................................................357

10.44 Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on N orm alized

Shear W ave Velocity Developed in this R eport w ith A verage
Velocity Values from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction
S ites...................................................................................................................358

A. 1 Composite Profile Near C P-1 at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................. 375

A.2 Composite Profile Near CP-A at the Pence Ranch Site............................. 376

A.3 Composite Profile Near CP-2 at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................. 377

A.4 Composite Profile Near CP-B at the Pence Ranch Site............................. 378

A.5 Composite Profile Near CP-3 at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................. 379

xxxviii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

A .6 Composite Profile Near CP-C at the Pence Ranch S ite............................ 380

A.7 Composite Profile Near CP-D at the Pence Ranch S ite............................ 381

A .8 Composite Profile Near CP-E at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................ 382

A .9 Composite Profile Near CP-F at the Pence Ranch S ite ............................383

A. 10 Com posite Profile Near CP-G at the Pence Ranch S ite..................... 384

A. 11 Com posite Profile Near CP-H at the Pence Ranch S ite..................... 385

A. 12 Composite Profile Near CP-I at the Pence Ranch S ite............................. 386

A. 13 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves for the Pence Ranch Site, Array S A -A ..........................................387

A. 14 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves for the Pence Ranch Site, Array S A -B ..........................................388

A. 15 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves for the Pence Ranch Site, Array S A -C ..........................................389

A. 16 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves for the Pence Ranch Site, Array S A -D ..........................................390

A. 17 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves for the Pence Ranch Site, A rray SA -E.................................. 391

A. 18 P lots o f Penetration P er B low for the Pence R anch Site,

B o re h o le S P -A ..........................................................................................397

A. 19 P lots o f Penetration P er B low for the Pence R anch Site,

B o re h o le S P -B ..........................................................................................397

A .20 P lots o f Penetration P er B low for the Pence R anch Site,

B o re h o le S P -C ..........................................................................................398

A.21 P lots o f Penetration P er B low for the Pence R anch Site,

B o re h o le S P -D ......................................................................................... 398

B .1 Composite Profile Near C P -1 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ........................ 426

B. 2 Composite Profile Near CP-2 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ........ 427

B. 3 Composite Profile Near CP-3 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ........ 428

xxxix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

B .4 Composite Profile Near CP-4 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ....................... 430

B. 5 Composite Profile Near CP-5 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ....... 432

B. 6 Composite Profile Near CP -6 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ....... 434

B .7 Composite Profile Near CP-7 at the Goddard Ranch S ite....................... 435

B. 8 Composite Profile Near CP -8 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ....... 436

B. 9 Composite Profile Near CP-9 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ....... 43 8

B. 10 Composite Profile Near CP-10 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ..................... 439

B . 11 Composite Profile Near C P -11 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ..................... 440

B . 12 Composite Profile Near C P -12 at the Goddard Ranch S ite ..................... 441

B . 13 Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array S A -1.................................. 442

B . 14 Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array S A -2 .................................. 443

B . 15 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array S A -3 .................................. 444

B . 16 Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array S A -4 .................................. 445

B .17 Plots o f Penetration Per Blow for the G oddard R anch Site,
Borehole S P -1 ................................................................................................ 448

B .18 Plots of Penetration Per Blow for the Goddard R anch Site,
Borehole S P -2 ................................................................................................ 448

B .19 Plots o f Penetration Per Blow for the G oddard R anch Site,
Borehole S P -3 ................................................................................................ 449

B .20 Plots of Penetration Per Blow for the G oddard R anch Site,
Borehole S P -4 ................................................................................................ 449

C. 1 Composite Profile o f the Andersen Bar S ite .............................................487

C .2 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the A ndersen B ar Site, Array SA -1.............................. 488

xl

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Figure Page

C .3 Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

C urves from the A ndersen B ar Site, A rray SA -2.............................489

D. 1 Composite Profile Near C P-1 at the Larter Ranch S ite ............................494

D .2 Composite Profile Near CP-2 at the Larter Ranch S ite ............................495

D.3 Composite Profile Near CP-3 at the Larter Ranch S ite ............................496

D.4 Composite Profile for Test Area 2 at the Larter Ranch S ite .................... 497

D.5 Composite Profile for Test Area 3 at the Larter Ranch S ite .................... 499

D. 6 Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Larter Ranch Site, Array S A -1 ,1990...........................501

D.7 Comparison o f Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Larter Ranch Site, Array S A -2 ,1990........................... 502

D .8 Com parison of Experimental and Theoretical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Larter Ranch Site, Array SA-3, 1990........................... 503

D.9 P lots o f Penetration Per Blow from the Larter R anch Site,
Borehole S P -1 ................................................................................................ 507

D .10 P lots o f Penetration P er Blow from the L arter R anch Site,

Borehole S P -2 ................................................................................................ 507

D. 11 P lots o f Penetration P er Blow from the Larter R anch Site,

Borehole S P -3 ................................................................................................ 508

Xli

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

M uch effort has been directed tow ards evaluating the liquefaction

susceptibility of sands since the disastrous Niigata, Japan and A laska earthquakes of

1964. On the other hand, little information has been gathered on the characteristics

and field perform ance o f gravelly soils. This lack o f study o f the liquefaction

potential o f gravelly soils has arisen for various reasons including: 1) the general

feeling of the geotechnical profession that gravelly soils are non-liquefiable, 2 ) the

prevalence of the liquefaction of loose sands during earthquake, and 3) the perception

that gravelly soils performed well during earthquakes, primarily concluded from the

lack o f gravel in surface m anifestations associated with liquefaction. However,

liquefaction o f gravelly soils during a number of earthquakes has been reported in

Japan, China, New Zealand, and the United States. These reports have generally

been sketchy. The reports do indicate, however, that loose gravelly soils can be as

susceptible to liquefaction as sands when they are capped by a low-permeability layer

or when they contain a significant amount of sand and silt.

In the United States, the m ost recent earthquake in w hich liquefaction of

gravelly soils was noted was the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake (surface wave

m agnitude, M s = 7.3). Strong ground shaking during the Borah Peak earthquake

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 caused m any loose granular deposits to liquefy (Youd et al., 1985). Liquefaction

effects included lateral spreading of a low-lying gravelly river terrace on the Pence

Ranch, sand boils in the flood plain on the Goddard Ranch, cracking o f gravel bars

w ithin the channel o f the B ig Lost River, and lateral spreading o f the distal end o f

two gravelly alluvial fans in the Thousand Springs Valley.

Because surficial soils and some sand boils were reported to contain gravel in

the Borah Peak earthquake, sites 1, 2, 4, and 5 shown in Fig. 1.1 were selected for

study in 1984 and 1985. The sites are called Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Larter

Ranch, and W hiskey Springs. As part o f early studies, initial field investigations

were conducted primarily at the Pence Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites. The field

seism ic m easurem ents, penetration testing, drilling, borehole sam pling, and

trenching. The field work at the Goddard Ranch and Larter Ranch sites was limited

to field reconnaissance and seism ic testing by the Spectral-A nalysis-of-Surface-

W aves (SASW ) method. Results from these early studies are presented in project

reports by Andrus and Youd (1987), Harder (1988), and Stokoe et al. (1988a).

1.2 PU RPO SE

T he purpose o f this research, which was sponsored by the U nited States

G eological Survey (USGS), is to add missing data from the Pence Ranch, Goddard

Ranch, and Larter Ranch sites. In addition, a new site (Andersen Bar, site 3 in Fig.

1.1) was investigated. The w ork included seism ic m easurem ents, penetration

testing, sampling, and in-place density tests. Seismic measurements were performed

by the SASW and crosshole methods. Penetration testing included the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and Becker Penetration Test

(BPT; 168-mm [6 . 6 -in.] outside diam eter and closed ended). T renches were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

Liquefaction Sites
1 Pence Ranch
2 Goddard Ranch
3 Andersen Bar

River

Epicenter |
IDAHO October 2 8 ,1983S

Fig. 1.1 - Regional Map of the Big Lost River and Thousand Springs Valleys
Showing Geographic Features, Approximate Trace o f Fault Rupture (after
Youd et al., 1985; Taylor et al., 1985) and Locations o f the Five
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

excavated and mapped at Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch. In-place densities were

determined using the water-replacement method with a large-diameter metal ring and

the sand-cone m ethod. Sam ples w ere obtained during drilling and test pit

exploration. T he objectives o f these investigations were to: 1) delineate the

subsurface sediment layers, obtain samples and locate the water table, 2 ) m easure the

in situ properties (shear wave velocities, penetration resistances, and densities) o f

these hard-to-sam ple materials, and 3) define the layer that liquefied. Sim plified

liquefaction assessm ent procedures developed for sands were then applied to these

gravelly soils. Based on these analyses, guidelines for evaluating the liquefaction

potential o f gravelly soils were proposed.

1.3 ORGANIZATION

This dissertation is organized in the following manner. In Chapter 2 a review

o f case histories o f gravelly soils that have liquefied is presented, including

investigations by Andrus and Y oud (1987) at the W hiskey Springs Site. A

discussion is given in Chapter 3 of the geological, tectonic and seismological setting

o f the Borah Peak, Idaho area and the gravelly liquefaction investigation sites. In

situ test m ethods applied at the Idaho liquefaction sites are described in C hapter 4.

Simplified procedures for liquefaction potential assessment are outlined in Chapter 5.

Chapters 6 through 9 present results of field investigations, laboratory tests, and

liquefaction analyses for the Pence Ranch (Chapter 6 ), Goddard Ranch (C hapter 7),

Andersen B ar (Chapter 8 ) and Larter Ranch (Chapter 9) sites. A synthesis o f data

from the all five Idaho liquefaction sites and proposed guidelines fo r future

assessments o f the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils are provided in Chapter 10.

Conclusions from this study are given in Chapter 11.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER TWO

CASE HISTORIES OF GRAVELLY SOILS THAT HAVE LIQUEFIED

L iquefaction o f gravelly soils has been reported in Japan, China, New

Z ealand, and the U nited States. The reports are review ed in the follow ing

paragraphs. As will be seen below , the information in the reports is generally quite

limited.

2.1 CASE HISTORIES FROM JAPAN

1891 M ino-Owari. Japan Earthquake fmagnitude. M = 7.9V Clean gravelly

sand liquefied at Unum a Town and Ogase Pond near the Kiso R iver (Kishida, 1969;

T okim atsu and Y oshim i, 1983; Seed et al., 1985). Average m odified Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts, (N i) 6o. for the gravelly sand at the Unuma and

Ogase investigation sites are 25 and 17, respectively. Samples taken from the critical

layers [presumably w ith a 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diam eter split-barrel sampler]

exhibit a gravel content of about 25 percent and a median grain size o f about 0.7 mm.

T hese sites are capped by clayey soil that is 2 to 3 m (7 to 11 ft) thick. The peak

horizontal ground surface acceleration experienced at both sites w as estim ated to be

0.32 g.

1948 Fukui. Japan Earthquake I'M = 7.3). Gravelly sand was reported to

have liquefied in an area o f a fan deposit near the epicenter (Ishihara, 1985).

However, this site was not investigated further.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1978 M ivagiken-Oki. Japan Earthquakes CM = 6.7 and 7.41. Gravelly sand

beneath the Yuriage Bridge 2 liquefied during the larger earthquake on July 12

(Iwaski et al., 1978; Tokimatsu and Yoshimi, 1983; Seed et al., 1985). Liquefaction

did not occur during the smaller earthquake on January 20. The average (Ni)go-

value for the gravelly soil is 22. Samples taken from the critical layer [presumably

with a 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel sampler] exhibit a gravel content

o f about 43 percent, a fines content o f 7 percent, and a median grain size o f 1.6 mm.

The peak horizontal ground surface accelerations caused by the larger and sm aller

earthquakes were estimated to be 0.24 and 0.12 g, respectively.

2.2 CASE HISTORIES FROM CHINA

1975 Haicheng. China Earthquake (M = 7.31. The upstream sand-and-gravel

shell o f Shimen dam liquefied (W ang, 1984). The Shimen dam is a central-core

earth dam w ith sand-and-gravel shells on both sides o f the core. Just after the

earthquake, large air bubbles were seen in the reservoir water along the upstream

slope o f the dam. Eighty minutes later, the shell failed and slid into the reservoir.

The slide area extended 10 m (33 ft) from the toe to 2 m (7 ft) above the reservoir

level; maximum thickness of the slide was 4.7 m (15 ft). Tw o grain-size distribution

curves of the sand-gravel shell material taken near the slide area are shown in Fig.

2.1. Com paction o f the shells was lim ited to the moving tractors spreading the fill

material during construction. The earthquake intensity at the dam site was reported to

be VII on the Modified Mercalli Scale.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7

100

CD

Gravel Sand Silt

40

20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.1 - Gradation Curves of Two Samples Taken from the Upstream Shell of
Shimen Earth Dam, China in the Neighborhood of the Slide (Wang,
1984). Liquefaction o f the Sand-Gravel Shell During the 1975 Haicheng
Earthquake (M = 7.3) Caused Part o f the Shell to Slide into the Reservoir.

1976 Tangshan. China Earthquake CM = 7.81. The upstream sand-and-gravel

protective layer of the Baihe dam liquefied and flowed down into the reservoir basin.

Failure occurred during the earthquake according to eyewitnesses. Em bankm ent

characteristics and seismic conditions at the Baihe Dam have been summarized by Liu

e t al. (1979; 1980), Earthquake Engineering and Hazards Reduction D elegation

(1980), Finn (1982), and W ang (1984). The Baihe dam is a sloping-core dam built

betw een 1958 and 1960. The thin core consists of medium to heavy silty loam, with

an upstream slope of 2.25 (H) on 1 (V). The protective granular layer had a

thickness of 3 to 4 m (10 to 13 ft). A rubble revetment set in cem ent mortar formed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 8

the upstream surface of the dam. The upstream surface was 3 to 3.25 (H) on 1 (V).

Sam ples taken from the protective layer contained 40 to 78 percent gravel- and

cobble-size particles, as illustrated by the gradation curves shown in Fig. 2.2. The

design dry density of the gravelly fill material ranged from 16.8 to 20.3 kN/m 3 (107

to 129 lb/ft3). The placement dry densities of the protective layer were reported to

have reached or exceeded this design standard. M axim um ground surface

acceleration measured near the crest and at the downstream toe were 0.16 g and 0.05

g, respectively. Ground m otions were relatively long in duration (60 pulses

exceeding 65 percent of the maximum).

100 m. ■ ■ i » r ri i i i i i | i i i i i i I I I I V I I I

CD 80 Average

£ 60

Grave Silt
u- 40

Q> 20

0 1 ii i » i i i i — li i » .i . i i i i

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.2 - Range of Gradation Curves o f Samples Taken from the Protective Layer o f
the Baihe Earth Dam, China (Liu et al., 1980). Liquefaction of the
Gravelly Protective Layer During the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (M =
7.8) Caused it to Slide into the Reservoir.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 9

2.3 CASE HISTORIES FROM NEW ZEALAND

1929 M urchison. New Zealand Earthquake CM = 7.61. Gravelly sand boils

form ed during this earthquake at the Karamea School and the Anderson's Farm near

the Karamea River (Bienvenu, 1988; Berrill et al., 1988). A 2- to 2.5-m (6 - to 8 -ft)-

thick silt-rich layer caps both areas. Beneath the low-perm eability cap, sedim ents

range from coarse sand to sandy gravel. Two grain-size distribution curves o f hand-

auger samples taken from these gravelly sediments are shown in Fig. 2.3. Although

not shown in the grain-size curves, the maximum particle size recovered is 30 m m

(1.2 in.). The authors describe gravel particles as well-rounded, and from granitic

parent rock.

100

Karam ea School
O) 80

Gravel Sand Silt

40

Anderson's Farm
20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.3 - Gradation Curves of Hand-Auger Samples Taken from the Critical Layer
at the Karamea School and Anderson's Farm Sites, New Zealand
(Bienvenu, 1988). W ater Carrying Gravel and Sand was Ejected onto the
Ground Surface at Both Sites During the 1929 Murchison Earthquake (M
= 7.6).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10

2.4 CASE HISTORIES FROM THE UNITED STATES

Paleoliquefaction Features in Indiana and Illinois. G ravelly sedim ent

liquefied 2500 and 7500 years ago at several locations in the low er W abash Valley

area o f Indiana and Illinois (Oberm eier et al., 1991; 1992). Liquefaction features

include planar vertical to steeply dipping dikes that connect to a gravelly source strata

at depth. Source bed sedim ents include Holocene point-bar and U pper Pleistocene

glacial outwash. Two gradation curves o f test pit samples taken from the source

strata (at Site RF) are shown in Fig. 2.4. Material filling the dikes ranges from silty

to sandy gravel, and fine upward. The dikes cut through low-permeability strata that

overlies the source strata.

100

d> 80

Gravel Sand Silt

20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.4 - Gradation Curves of Two Test Pit Samples Taken from the Source Bed o f
a Liquefaction Feature in the W abash Valley, Indiana-Illinois (Site RF,
Obermeier et al., 1992). Liquefaction Occurred During a Large
Earthquake 2500 to 7500 Year's Ago.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 11

Paleoliquefaction Features Near Seattle. W ashington. Liquefaction features

recently exposed in excavations for the W est Point sew age-treatm ent plant are

evidence of liquefaction of gravelly soils during a large earthquake about 2000 years

ago (Atwater, 1993). The features are intrusions which consist o f dikes, sills, and

irregular m asses w hich extend upward from a gravelly beach deposit, and cut

through an overlying low-permeability strata. Material filling the largest dike grades

upw ard from gravel to sand. The range for grain-size distributions o f six samples

taken from the beach deposit is shown in Fig 2.5. A geotechnical characterization of

this site is underway (Palmer, 1993a).

100

Gravel Sand Silt

p 20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.5 - Range for Six Gradation Curves o f Samples Taken from a Gravelly Beach
Deposit at W est Point, W ashington (Palmer, 1993b). Liquefaction
Occurred in the Beach Deposit During a Large Earthquake about 2000
Years Ago.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1906 San Francisco. California Earthquake fM = 8.31. Liquefaction o f

gravelly soils generated numerous sand boils and ground failures along the low er

reaches of Coyote Creek, near Milpitas (Youd and Hoose, 1978). The Coyote Creek

area is capped a silty sand strata having a thickness o f 1 to 2 m (3 to 7 ft). The low-

perm eability cap overlies a loose sand and gravel deposit that is about 4 m (13 ft)

thick. Based on inform ation reported by B arrow (1983), the gravelly deposit is

characterized by an average measured SPT blow count o f 6 , cone tip resistance o f

2.3 M Pa (24 ton/ft2), and shear wave velocity o f 150 m/sec (490 ft/sec).

1964 A laska Earthquake CM = 8.4V G ravelly sedim ents liquefied at

num erous locations beneath low -perm eability caps of clay, silt, ice and frozen

ground. M any highway and railroad bridges suffered m oderate to severe damage

when the fluvial and glacial-fluvial sediments supporting them liquefied and moved

laterally towards the river channel (Kachadoorian, 1968; M cCulloch and Bonilla,

1970; Ross et al., 1973). Dam age and foundation conditions at railroad bridges

surveyed after the earthquake are related in Table 2.1. Bartlett and Y oud (1990)

evaluated the liquefaction susceptibility o f foundation soils at several highway and

railroad bridges by applying SPT-based sim plified liquefaction procedures. A

summary of data for the gravelly foundation soils predicted to have liquefied is given

in Table 2.2. An approximate range for grain-size distribution curves o f split-barrel

sam ples taken from these gravels and gravelly sands is shown in Fig. 2.6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 13

Table 2.1 - Damage Caused by the 1964 Alaska Earthquake (M = 8.4) to Railroad
Bridges, Related to Foundation Conditions at the Bridges (after
M cCulloch and Bonilla, 1970).

Material Dam age to Railroad Bridges

in which
Piles were
Embedded None Slight Moderate Severe

Silt S M M M D

D D D D
D D D D
Sand M D D D D D
M D D
Enm D D d [d]
m

D D D D
S S S S
Sand S S D D D D
M M M M
and M S M D D D D
m d m m
Gravel M M D D D [d]
m
i i

S © m u ]
Gravel M M
© m EM
Depth of unconsolidated sediment, m
Type of Bridge 0 to 15 15 to 30 > 30

Open Wood Trestle S M D

Wood and Steel Deck or

Steel on Wood and (or) [§] [m | [p]
Concrete Piers

Ballasted Wood Trestle (§)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 14

Table 2.3 - Characteristics of Gravelly Soils Predicted to have Liquefied by Bartlett

and Youd (1990) During the 1964 Alaska Earthquake (M = 8.4).

Location Depth Soil Type S P T -V alu e s

m Range
Average

Knik and Mantanuska Rivers

(amax ~ 0-2)a
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 146.4 upper 17 silty sand, 6 to 35 17
and Glenn Highway Bridge 1121 sand, sandy
gravel
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 147.1 upper 12 sandy gravel, 9 to 24 16
gravel
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 147.4 upper 17 sand and 4 to 30 13
gravel
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 147.5 upper 11 sand and 2 to 18 11
gravel
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 148.3 upper 20 sand and 6 to 32 16
gravel

Southern End of Turnagain Arm

(amax ~ 0-3)
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 64.7, 5 to 14 sand, silty 10 to 32 21
Twenty-Mile River gravel, gravel
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 63.5, 3 to 10 sand to 5 to 28 17
Portage Creek sandy gravel
Highway Bridge 629, Placer River 2 to 10 sandy gravel 17 to 42 30
to gravel

Resurrection River
(amax ~ 0-4)
Railroad Bridge at Milepost 3.0 to 3.3 upper 20 sandy and non-standard
silty gravel to equipment
gravel

aamax = peak horizontal ground surface acceleration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 15

100

■4—»
g> 80 - 35 mm (1-3/8 in.)
0 - I.D. of Split-Barrel
£
£ 60
i—
0
C
Gravel Silt
U- 40
c
0
2
0 20
a.

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.6 - Approximate Range for Gradations Curves of Split-Barrel Samples Taken
From Gravelly Soils Predicted to have Liquefied by Bartlett and Youd
(1990) During the 1964 Alaska Earthquake (M = 8.4).

1983 Borah Peak. Idaho Earthquake fMg = 7.31. Liquefaction o f gravelly

sedim ents caused numerous ground failures along the Big Lost R iver and a 2.1-km

(1.3-m i)-long lateral spread at the distal end of two alluvial fans in the Thousand

Springs Valley (Youd et al., 1985; Andrus and Youd, 1987; Harder, 1988; Stokoe et

al., 1988a). Three sites of liquefaction along the B ig Lost R iver (Pence Ranch,

Goddard Ranch, and Andersen Bar) and two sites on the Thousand Springs lateral

spread (Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs) were selected for investigation. Results

from the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Andersen B ar and Larter Ranch sites are

discussed in Chapters 6 through 9 because they form the bulk o f the field work

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 perform ed in this dissertation. A brief description o f the W hiskey Spring site is

given in the following paragraph since the work was done in earlier projects. These

investigations represent the most comprehensive field study o f gravelly soil to date.

As described by Andrus et al. (1992), the zone o f lateral spreading near

W hiskey Springs was about 75 m (250 ft) wide. Large subparallel fissures

developed on the fan and the soil at the toe of the lateral spread buckled into ridges as

high as 1.2 m (4 ft). Total lateral movem ent was on the order o f 1 m (3 ft). W ater

carrying silt and sand ejected onto the ground surface at several locations. Sediments

in the upper 4 m (13 ft) range from sandy silty gravel to sandy gravel with some silt,

cobbles and even boulder sizes. Liquefaction occurred in the silty sandy gravel

between 1.8 and 4.0 m (6 to 13 ft). The liquefiable layer is characterized by SPT

blow counts betw een 3 and 14; cone tip resistances from 1 to 15 M Pa (1 to 153

to n /ft2); shear w ave velocities o f 172 to 190 m /sec (564 to 630 ft/sec); and

uncorrected Becker blow counts between 4 and 9 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft). Samples

from the critical layer are gap-graded and contain about 18 percent fines, as illustrated

by the grain-size distribution curve shown in Fig. 2.7. The gravel-size particles are

subangular, and m ostly from quartzite parent rock. The fan sedim ents are braided

channel-fill of latest Pleistocene age (10,000 to 15,000 years; Andrus and Youd,

1987). The site lies about 1.6 km (1 mi) w est of the 1983 surface rupture, as shown

in Fig. 1.1. The maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration was about 0.5 g.

The fan slope near Whiskey Springs is about 12 percent.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 17

100

Gravel Sand Silt

20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 2.7 - Gradation Curve o f Test Pit Sample Taken From Layer that Liquefied at
the W hiskey Springs Site During the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho Earthquake
(from Andrus et al., 1992).

2.5 SUM M ARY

W hile gravelly soils have been generally considered non-liquefiable, a careful

review of the literature shows that liquefaction of gravelly soil has occurred in several

earthquakes. Reports indicate gravelly soils can be as susceptible to liquefaction as

sands when they are capped by a low-permeability layer (such as clay, silt, fine sand,

ice, asphalt or concrete) or when they contain a significant am ount o f fine sand and

silt. U pon reviewing these cases, one quickly becom es aware, however, that only

lim ited information has been gathered on the characteristics of gravelly soils which

can liquefy. It is because o f this lack o f inform ation that this research was

undertaken.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER THREE

SETTING OF THE 1983 BORAH PEAK, IDAHO EARTHQUAKE

3.1 INTRODUCTION

On October 28, 1983, the Borah Peak area o f south-central Idaho was shaken

by a m agnitude 7.3 (surface wave magnitude, M s) earthquake. Liquefaction was

generated in saturated granular sediments at numerous locations in the Big Lost River

and Thousand Springs Valleys. Liquefaction effects described in the reconnaissance

report by Youd et al. (1985) included sand boils, lateral spreading failures, cracking

o f pavements, flotation of a buried concrete tank, as well as settlement and distortion

: o f a house and steel-fram e barn. Because surficial soils and sand boils were

reported to contain gravel, the five liquefaction sites shown in Fig. 1. I were selected

for investigation. The sites are called Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Andersen Bar,

Larter Ranch and Whiskey Springs.

3.2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Big Lost R iver and Thousand Springs Valleys form part o f an inter­

m ountain basin that is as much as 16 km (10 mi) wide and about 140 km (90 mi)

i long. The valley floor lies betw een 1520 and 2130 m (5000 and 7000 ft) above
]
i

I m ean sea level. The adjacent mountain peaks range in elevation with Borah Peak

i reaching the highest elevation of 3860 m (12662 ft) above mean sea level. Basin-fill

extends to a depth of about 0.6 to 0.9 km (0.4 to 0.6 mi; Crosthwaite et al., 1970;

; 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 C rone et al., 1987). M uch o f the basin-fill consists o f very coarse alluvial-fan,

glacial-outw ash, and mainstream deposits of Pleistocene age. Valley lowlands are

m antled by about a m eter o f young H olocene fine-grained sedim ents. Older

H olocene sedim ents, ranging from sand to gravel and cobbles, occur w ithin and

adjacent to the modem flood plains (Pierce and Scott, 1982; Scott, 1982).

The 10-km (6-mi) stretch of the Big Lost River above M ackay Reservoir can

be characterized as a non-braided, slightly-sinuous gravel-bed stream having one

m ain, active channel with flat-topped point bars and side bar complexes. Sinuosity

o f the stream channel, the ratio o f the thalweg length (length o f the line joining the

deepest points o f a stream channel) to the down-valley distance, is approxim ately

1.3. M any o f the granular sediments within and adjacent to the 1.5-km (1-mi) wide

m odem flood plain along this section of the Big Lost River liquefied during the 1983

earthquake (Youd et al., 1985), including a low-lying terrace at the Pence Ranch, the

bottom lands at the Goddard Ranch and a gravel bar within the main channel (called

Andersen B ar herein). Locations of these three sites are shown on the topographic

map in Fig. 3.1.

Large quantities o f sedim ents have been carried from the W hite Knob

M ountains into the Thousand Springs Valley by the Big Lost River (see Fig. 1.1).

Som e of these sedim ents rem ain in the form o f a very large fan. Spring waters

leaving the Thousand Springs Valley are confined to a rather narrow channel by this

large fan and by smaller alluvial fans on the opposite side of the valley. As a result

o f this restricted flow, a marsh has formed in the Thousand Springs Valley that is as

much as 1.5 km (1 mi) wide and 13 km (8 mi) long. The 1983 earthquake generated

ground cracks and sand boils on the alluvial deposits along this marsh, including the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rmission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

W OO'

APf>ROllHAI( M£AH
OCCllNAllON. 1900

Tk TPENCE^k "MY/
B r a n c h s it e

GODDARD,
R A N C H SIT

T«o H
T -7 H
ANDERSEN

Nr
I \r£b'-'< '“''s'----- > ii l'~'I MACKAY
^N ((qN i\ s - N ^ /i ^ r e s e r v o ir / ^
IM
ilC
1000 2000 1000 4000 VXO 6000 2000 f t t t

i? V

Fig. 3.1 - Topographic M ap Showing Locations of the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar Investigation
Sites (modified from U.S.G.S. Topographic M aps of the Copper Basin N E and M ackay NW Quadrangles).
to
o,
 distal end of two coalescing alluvial fans at the Larter Ranch and near W hiskey

Springs, as shown in the topographic map in Fig. 3.2.

3.3 TECTON IC SETTING

The 37-km (23-mi)-long surface rupture generated by the 1983 Borah Peak

earthquake occurred along the southwest front o f the Lost River Range, as shown in

Fig. 1.1. The Lost River Range is one of three parallel trending fault-block mountain

ranges that are separated by alluvium-filled basins. The other two ranges, Lemhi and

Beaverhead, are not shown in Fig. 1.1 because they lie northwest o f the Lost River

Range and are off the map. Together these ranges form a basin-and-range structure

(Reynolds, 1979), and normal faults occur along the southw est fronts o f all three

ranges. The Borah Peak earthquake caused repeated surface faulting along a segment

o f the Lost River fault which had experienced sim ilar displacem ents 6000 to 8000

years ago (Hait and Scott, 1978; Scott et al., 1985; and Hanks and Schwartz, 1987).

D isplacem ent was chiefly dip-slip w ith a maximum vertical net throw o f 2.7 m (8.9

ft) and about 17 percent, 0.46 m (1.5 ft), left-lateral slip (Crone et al., 1987).

3.4 SEISM OLOGICAL SETTING

The epicenter o f the main shock lies approximately 14 km south-southwest of

the southern end of the surface faulting, as shown in Fig. 1.1. According to Richins

e t al. (1987), the rupture initiated at a focal depth o f 16 km (10 mi) below the

epicenter and propagated unilaterally to the northwest along a fault zone dipping 45

degrees to the southwest. The great m ajority o f aftershocks initiated at depths

betw een 4 and 12 km (2 and 7 mi), within a 10-km (6-mi)-wide zone parallel to the

surface faulting.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 22

' WHI SKEY S P R I N G S #

V Z O N E OF- * - : r p. ,
28 SECONDARY f 27
^ FISSU R E S^ ft/ A (

LA R T E R R A N C H I
i S IT E 7 m

Ss W"* CtoD * * 0 m i MAChtltC WCM1.

*a u c i ’M tiio * c o m * o f «M ((t

TRAIL C R E E K It O^D
tcmiLY eurrcs

Fig. 3.2 - Topographic Map Showing Zone o f Fissures Generated by Lateral

Spreading and Locations of the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs
Investigation Sites (modified from Andrus and Youd, 1987; after Youd et
al., 1985; U.S.G.S. Topographic M ap of the Elkhom Creek Quadrangle).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 23

The Borah Peak earthquake had a maximum Modified Mercalli intensity of IX

along the surface rupture (Stover, 1985). The town of Mackay, located about 23 km

(14 m i) southw est of the epicenter, experienced a maximum intensity o f VII. As

noted by Stover, "most of the businesses located on M ain Street of M ackay were

dam aged to some degree, eight o f them were condemned as irreparable by building

inspectors...About 90 percent o f the chimneys in the residential area o f M ackay were

dam aged to some extent..."

The nearest strong-motion stations to record the main shock w ere located at

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, INEL, 88 to 110 km (55 to 68 mi)

southeast o f the epicenter. Soil beneath these strong-motion stations is 1 to 22 m (3

to 66 ft) thick and overlies basalt. The m axim um horizontal ground surface

accelerations, amax, recorded at the two free-field INEL accelerographs were 0.05

and 0.078 g. At the INEL basem ent accelerographs, amax ranged from 0.022 to

0.057 g (Jackson and Boatwright, 1985). Based on studies o f the far-field records

and near-field aftershock data, Jackson and Boatwright (1987) concluded the town of

M ackay experienced peak ground surface accelerations during the main shock in the

range o f 0.15 to 0.24 g (p. 737). They also suggest 0.54 and 0.58 g for amax at

"epicentral distance o f 11 and 12 km," presum ably in the vicinity o f the surface

rupture. These measured and estimated values o f amax are plotted with respect to the

shortest distance to the 1983 fault rupture in Fig. 3.3 . Also plotted in Fig. 3.3 is the

predicted range o f amax using the attenuation relationships for deep soil sites by

Joyner and Boore (1982), Crouse (1987), Sadigh (1987), Cam pbell (1988) and

Idriss (1987), as presented in Joyner and Boore (1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 24

0.8 1 I 1 i I I I I J ~i---- 1— i—i—n -

Estim ate near su rface faulting

(Jackson and Boatwright,1987)

CT> 0.6 R an ge for d e e p so ils and M = 7.3

c , earthquakes (b a sed on several
o predictive equations given in
aJ Joyner and Boore, 1988)
.32
CD
o
o
< 0.4
•a Estim ate at Mackay
c (Jackson and
3 Boatwright,1987)
2
0
jxi
cc
CD
DL 0.2
y
R ange m easu red at INEL
strong-motion site s
(Jackson an d Boatwright, 1 985)— I
0.0 -1 I I I I . I . . I . I ___________ I______ I____ I___ I__ I__I—I—L
10 100
Shortest Distance To 1983 Surface Faulting, km

Fig. 3.3 - Predictive Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration and Distance to
the 1983 Surface Rupture for Deep Soil Sites.

Estim ated peak ground accelerations are summarized in Table 3.1 for each

B orah Peak liquefaction investigation site in this study. Analytical studies suggest

(Bierschwale and Stokoe, 1984) that amax at ground surface at sites which liquefy is

som ew hat less than at ground surface at stiff sites. The low er boundary o f the

predicted region shown in Fig. 3.3 was, therefore, used to estimate amax at ground

surface at liquefiable sites and the middle o f the region was used to estimate amax at

ground surface at stiff soil sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 25

Table 3 .1 - Estimates of Peak Ground Surface Acceleration for Liquefaction Sites.

Liquefaction Distance to Surface Approximate Peak Ground

S ite Rupture (km) Acceleration, a max, (g)

Stiff Soil Site3 Liquefiable Siteb

Pence Ranch 8 0.40 0.33

Goddard Ranch 11 0.34 0.28
Andersen Bar 12 0.32 0.27
Larter Ranch 2 0.60 0.50
Whiskey Springs 1.6 0.60 0.50
aMedian value taken from Fig. 3.3.
bLower boundary shown in Fig. 3.3.

3.5 SUMMARY

T he 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake (Ms = 7.3) occurred on a normal

fault dipping 45 degrees. The earthquake generated a 37-km (23-m i)-long surface

rupture having a maximum vertical displacement o f 2.7 m (8.9 ft). Rupture initiated

at a focal depth of 16 km (10 mi). Liquefaction was generated at numerous locations

in the Big Lost River Valley including a low-lying river terrace at the Pence Ranch,

the bottomlands at the Goddard Ranch, and a gravel bar w ithin the main channel of

the Big Lost R iver (called Andersen B ar herein). Liquefaction also occurred at

several locations in the Thousand Springs Valley including the distal end o f two

alluvial fans at the Larter Ranch and near W hiskey Springs. The nearest strong

ground-motion station was located 88 km (55 mi) southeast o f the epicenter. Based

on attenuation relationships for deep soil sites, these areas of liquefaction experienced

peak horizontal ground surface accelerations ranging from 0.27 to 0.60 g.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER FOUR

IN SITU METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Shortly after the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake, Y oud et al. (1985)

conducted a liquefaction reconnaissance survey of the epicentral area. They reported

surficial soils and sand boil deposits which contained gravel. The occurrence o f such

m aterials in areas o f liquefaction is rather rare. Therefore, five sites that liquefied

were selected for detailed study. The five liquefaction sites are: Pence Ranch,

G oddard Ranch, Andersen Bar, Larter Ranch, and W hiskey Springs (see Fig. 1.1).

In 1984 and 1985, field investigations were performed prim arily at the Pence Ranch

and W hiskey Springs sites by the U niversity of C alifornia at B erkeley, The

U niversity o f Texas at Austin, and Brigham Young U niversity (Harder, 1988;

Stokoe et al., 1988a; Andrus and Youd, 1987). Harder also conducted a study of

M ackay D am which did not liquefy. For this study, additional investigations were

perform ed in 1990 and 1991 at the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Andersen Bar and

L arter Ranch sites. The field w ork included seismic m easurem ents, penetration

testing, sampling, trenching, and in-place density tests. A description of the field

methods employed in 1990 and 1991 at these sites is provided in this chapter.

In situ seism ic m easurem ents were performed by the Spectral-Analysis-of-

Surface-W aves (SASW ) method and a new variation of the crosshole method. The

26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 purposes of the seism ic measurements were to characterize the small-strain stiffness

(or shear modulus) and to delineate layering of the subsurface sediments. The shear

m odulus, and its variation w ith shearing strain amplitude, is a key soil property

required in analytical studies. The SASW and crosshole seism ic m ethods are

discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively.

Standard Penetration (SPT), Cone Penetration (CPT), and Becker Penetration

(BPT) Tests were conducted to further characterize the sedim ent density and

layering. Penetration m easurem ents are w idely used to assess liquefaction

susceptibility and to estim ate shear modulus. SPT equipm ent and m ethods are

described in Section 4.4. The CPT procedure is outlined in Section 4.5. BPT

soundings were perform ed following the procedure of Harder and Seed (1986), as

discussed in Section 4.6.

The water-replacement and sand-cone methods were used to determine the in-

place unit weight o f test pit soils. In-place unit weight is an im portant param eter in

influencing both shear m odulus and penetration resistance. It is also needed to

estim ate overburden stresses. In-place unit weight test procedures are described in

Section 4.7.

Samples for classification o f sediments were obtained during drilling and test

pit exploration. Sampling procedures are reviewed in Section 4.8.

Appendices A through D provide velocity, penetration, in-place unit weight

and sample data for investigations conducted in 1990 and 1991.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 28

4.2 SPECTRAL-ANALYSIS-OF-SURFACE-WAVES M ETHOD (SASW )

4.2.1 Introduction

The Spectral-A nalysis-of-Surface-W aves (SASW ) m ethod is an in situ,

seism ic method for determining the shear wave velocity (or shear m odulus) profile.

The SA SW method was selected because it is thought one of the few ways of in situ

evaluation of gravels. It requires no borehole, and thus is well suited for undisturbed

testing of hard-to-sample gravelly soils. As illustrated in Fig 4.1, the SASW method

is based on the principal that high-frequency (short-w avelength) surface w aves

propagate only in near-surface layers, and low-frequency (long-wavelength) surface

waves propagate through the near-surface layers and deeper layers. Surface waves

o f d ifferent frequencies (w avelengths) will, therefore, propagate at different

velocities if stiffness varies with depth. This variation o f velocity with frequency is

called dispersion. Thus, different portions of the soil profile can be tested by using

surface waves over a wide range o f frequencies.

As reviewed in Roesset et al. (1991), surface waves have been used to study

pavements and soils since the late 1940's. These early studies generally consisted of

steady-state harmonic vertical excitation using heavy shakers, progressive movement

o f receivers to determine the resulting surface wave wavelength, and analysis by

sim ple em pirical rules. This method, known as the steady-state Rayleigh wave

technique, did not gain wide acceptance because field equipm ent was bulky, test

procedures were cumbersome and only simple sites could be correctly determined.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 29

Veritcal Vertical
Particle Particle
Motion Motion

Layer 2

'Layer 3 » > ;

Depth

a. Soil Profile b. Shorter Wavelength, A,R1 c. Longer Wavelength, A,R2

Fig 4.1 - Approximate Distribution o f Vertical Particle Motion w ith Depth for Two
Surface W aves o f Different Wavelengths (after Rix and Stokoe, 1989).

During the past decade, however, the method has been greatly improved with the

development o f digital signal analyzers, simplified test procedures and more accurate

com puter m odels. These new techniques are collectively know as the SA SW

method.

4.2.2 Field Testing Procedure

The general configuration o f receivers, source, and recording equipm ent in

the SASW test is show n in Fig. 4.2. As outlined by Stokoe et al. (1988b), two

vertical receivers are placed on the ground at an equal distance (D/2) from a fixed

centerline. The source is used to apply vertical excitation to the ground surface, in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 30

line with the two receivers, at a distance D away from the near receiver. The source

can be a vertical impact, a frequency sweep or a random vibration. A FFT signal

analyzer is used to record the two receiver signals, and then transform ed them into

the frequency domain. From the two frequency-domain records, the coherence and

the phase o f the cross-power spectrum are computed. These four records are saved

on a floppy diskette for later analysis. Next, a reverse test is perform ed w ith the

source on the opposite side of the receiver array. Testing continues by progressively

m oving the receivers away from or toward the fixed centerline. The distance

betw een the source and near receiver is also varied, but alw ays kept at a distance

equal to the receiver spacing, D.

F FT Dynamic N Kl\
Signal Analyzer
y N\l N)
<
>9

Source ] Near Far

0
Receiver
II
V77777777777777777777/77777777Y7777777777777?
n
Receiver

D mlm D --------- ,

Fig. 4.2 - General SASW Field Testing Configuration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 A typical set o f SASW records from testing perform ed in this study is

presented in Fig. 4.3. The phase of the cross-power spectrum (Fig. 4.3a) represents

the phase difference between signals at the receivers as a function of frequency. The

coherence function (Fig. 4.3b), ranging betw een 0 and 1 for two or m ore averages,

gives a general indication o f the quality of the tw o signals. A coherence value near

one indicates a very high signal-to-noise ratio, and good quality data. On the other

hand, a coherence value near zero indicates a low signal-to-noise ratio, and probably

poor quality data. The auto-spectra (Figs. 4.3c and 4.3d) indicate source and

transmission characteristics. According to Richart et al. (1970), about two-thirds of

the energy generated by a vertical source on a half-space is transform ed into surface

waves, while the other third is transformed into body waves (compression and shear

w aves). Body waves attenuate in an elastic half-space at a rate of r 2 (where r =

D/2), whereas surface waves decay at a much slow er rate o f r 0-5 in an elastic half­

space. For the wavelengths o f interest, which are short relative to the long distances,

it is reasonable to assume that the body wave energy is insignificant compared to the

surface wave energy. Thus, the records shown in Fig. 4.3 can be considered to be

mainly measures of the surface or Rayleigh wave energy.

4.2.3 Data Reduction and Analysis

From the phase o f the cross-pow er spectrum , a travel tim e, t, betw een

receivers is obtained for each frequency by:

t = <E»/ (2 tc f) (4.1)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 32

a. Phase of the Cross Power Spectrum

180

Degrees

180
50

b. Coherence Function

0.5

o.o
o 50

c. Receiver 1 Auto Power Spectrum

-4 0

Volts2 -7 0
dB

-100
0 50

d. Receiver 2 Auto Power Spectrum

-4 0

Volts2 -7 0
dB

-100
o Frequency, Hz 50

Fig. 4.3 - Typical Record Set Obtained During SASW Testing Using a Bulldozer as
the Source at Pence Ranch; Array SA-A, Receiver Spacing = 24.4 m.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 33

where O = phase difference in radians, f = frequency in cycles per second, and 71 = a

constant o f about 3.14. A Rayleigh wave phase velocity, V r , is then calculated

using:

Vr = D / 1 (4.2)

The corresponding wavelength, Ar , is determined from:

AR = VR / f (4.3)

These calculations are repeated for each frequency where the data quality is good.

From the results at all receiver spacings, a plot o f V r versus Ar is assembled. This

plot is called the experimental dispersion curve. A sample experimental dispersion

curve is shown in Fig. 4.4.

A shear w ave velocity (Vs) profile for each test array is obtained through an

iterative process o f m atching the experim ental dispersion curve to theoretical

dispersion curves. To begin this iterative process, called forward modeling, initial

elastic properties and layer thicknesses are assumed. A theoretical dispersion curve

is calculated for the assumed horizontally layered profile using two- or three-

dim ensional com puter models (Roesset et al., 1991). The theoretical dispersion

curve is com pared with the experimental dispersion curve. The assum ed elastic

properties and layer thicknesses in the profile are adjusted until satisfactory

agreem ent between the theoretical and experimental dispersion curves is obtained.

T he final theoretical dispersion curve for the sam ple experim ental curve is also

show n in Fig. 4.4. It is assumed that the elastic properties and layer thicknesses for

the final theoretical dispersion curve represent the actual profile of the site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 34

500

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve

400
Wave Velocity, V R, m/sec

300

200
Surface

100

0.1 1 10 100
Wavelength, XR| m

Fig. 4.4 - Comparison o f the Experimental and Theoretical Dispersion Curves from
SASW Testing at the Andersen Bar Site, Array SA-2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 35

4.2.4 SASW Procedure in 1990 and 1991 Idaho Studies

SASW testing were performed following the procedure outlined in the

proceeding paragraphs using geophones having a natural frequency of 1 Hz (Mark

Products M odel L-4). Typical distances between receivers were 0.8, 1.5, 3, 6, 12,

24 and 48.8 m (2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 ft). At close receiver spacings, hand­

held hammers were used. For spacings greater than 3 m (10 ft), sledge hammers, a

dropped weight weighing 0.623 kN (140 lb) and a small bulldozer were employed.

O nly the bulldozer was used at the 48.8-m (160-ft) spacing. A Hewlett-Packard

3562A Dynamic Signal Analyzer was used to record and process the two geophone

signals. A total o f fourteen arrays were tested by the SASW m ethod at the Pence

Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Andersen Bar and Larter Ranch sites. The photograph in

Fig. 4.5 shows SASW testing at the Larter Ranch using a bulldozer as a source.

Forw ard m odeling of the 1990 and 1991 SASW data was perform ed using a

com puter model with three-dimensional wave propagation (Roesset et al., 1991).

Experim ental and theoretical dispersion curves for each SASW test array are

presented in Appendices A through D.

4.2.5 Limitations of the SASW Test

According to Stokoe and Rix (1987), the results obtained by the SASW

m ethod are considered a more averaged measurement than are results from other in

situ seism ic m ethods, such as the crosshole and downhole m ethods. The

"averaging" occurs because relatively wide receiver spacings and long wavelengths

are required by the SASW method to sense material properties at depth, compared to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 36

Fig. 4.5 - Photograph o f SASW Testing at the Larter Ranch Site, Array SA-2, Using
a Bulldozer as the Seismic Source and 1 Hz Geophones as the Receivers.

the small volume of material sampled in the crosshole test. A conceptual view o f this

difference is shown in Fig. 4.6. The two methods will yield sim ilar results if the

material properties do not vary laterally at the site. It is possible, however, that the

two methods may yield different results if the material properties vary laterally.

T he accuracy and resolution o f the SASW m ethod also depend on the

assumed layering (Rix and Leipski, 1991). If the assumed layering coincides with

the actual layering at the site, the forward modeling process will generate an accurate

profile. However, if an assumed layer spans across the actual layer boundary, an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Source Source
Receiver Receiver

Volume of Soil Volume of Soil

Sampled by Sampled by
Crosshole Test S A S W Test

Fig. 4.6 - Conceptual Comparison o f Material Sampled During SASW and

Crosshole Testing, (modified from Stokoe and Rix, 1987)

average velocity will be determined. This limitation can be avoid by using layering

defined by other field methods or by using layers thin enough to reproduce the

variations in the true profile.

4.3 CROSSHOLE SEISMIC METHOD

4.3.1 Introduction

The crosshole seismic method is considered by many engineers as the most

reliable and accurate in situ, seismic method for detailed determination o f small-strain

com pression (P) and shear (S) wave velocity (or shear modulus) profiles. The

crosshole m ethod consists o f measuring P and S waves travel times betw een two

boreholes. By dividing the travel time into the distance traveled, the seism ic wave

velocity is calculated.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Several variations in crosshole testing procedures have been perform ed for

diverse purposes by both engineers and geologists. Initially, crosshole tests were

used to m easure P-w ave velocities over distances of hundreds o f m eters. For

engineering purposes, however, measurements are now performed over distances of

only a few meters. General developments and procedures o f the crosshole seismic

m ethod for engineering studies are reviewed by W oods (1978), and Stokoe and Hoar

(1978). Standardized procedures are outlined in ASTM Standard D-4428-84.

4.3.2 Crosshole Procedure in 1991 Idaho Studies

A new variation o f the crosshole m ethod was developed and successfully

used to m easure P-wave (Vp), SV-wave (V sv), and horizontally polarized S-wave

(V s h ) velocities at the Pence Ranch, Andersen B ar and Larter Ranch sites (Andrus et

al., 1992). Instead o f augering or drilling, two 57-m m (2.25-in.) outside diam eter,

AW steel casings were driven into the ground w ith the aid of a portable tripod, a

cathead, and a 0.623-kN (140-lb) hamm er. T he ham m er w as dropped from a

constant height o f about 0.38 m (15 in.). A record was kept o f the blow count which

provided a crude dynam ic penetration index. One steel casing was used as the

receiver hole and the other casing acted as the source hole.

To use this new procedure, the receiver casing was first driven to its final

depth o f about 6 m (20 ft). The source casing was then driven 2 to 2.5 m (6 to 8 ft)

away from the receiver hole. Driving of the source casing was tem porarily stopped

after each 0.30-m (1 -ft) advancement for Vp and V s v measurements. P-waves and

SV-waves were generated in the soil by a vertical downward hit on the source casing

w ith a sm all ham m er or metal punch, as shown in the photograph o f Fig. 4.7 and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 39

Fig. 4.7 - Photograph o f P and SV-W ave Crosshole Testing at the Andersen B ar Site
Using a Metal Punch to Generate Seismic Waves. T he Receiver Casing is
ju st to the Left o f the Photograph.

illustrated schem atically in Fig. 4.8a. Wave arrivals were m onitored by a small

diam eter (42 mm or 1.65 in.), three-com ponent (3-D) geophone that was wedged

against the receiver casing. The geophones used were 28 Hz, Electro-Technical Labs

M odel V T -110/9. The 3-D geophone, shown in Fig. 4.9, was oriented using 1.5-m

(5-ft)-long sections o f plastic orientation rods that extended to the ground surface.

The radial geophone was used to record the P-wave and the vertical geophone was

used to record the SV-wave. It was assumed that the fastest w ave travel path was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 40

FFT Dynamic
Signal Analyzer

Source I p -

0 Orientation Rod •
Trigger
Accelerometer

-7777777 77777777777777777777777777^ 77/ 7777,

-------------------- 2 to 2.5 m 1

13-Component
P and SV-Waves Geophone

Steel Casing -
V

a. Crosshole P and S V-W ave Testing (after Andrus et al., 1992).

FFT Dynamic
Signal Analyzer

Orientation Rod

/ / / / / / , 7
77777777777777777777777777. 7777777.
2 to 2.5 m
Spacer with Trigger
Wedge | y Accelerometer
3-Component
P and SH-Waves Geophone
H a m m e i/
Source
Steel Casing ►
V V

b. Crosshole P and S H -W ave Testing.

Fig. 4.8 - Configuration o f Seismic Crosshole Testing by Driving AW Steel Casing.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 41

L ’ " '

1. Three-Com ponent Geophone (Diam eter = 4 2 mm)

2. Trigger Accelerom eter Epoxied into Mechanical Tapper Spacer
3. Mechanical Tapper--a) Small Hammer, b) Rotating W edge

Fig. 4.9 - Photograph o f the Source and Receiver Equipment for Crosshole Testing
with AW Casing.

dow n the steel casing to the 60° cone tip, and then directly across to the 3-D

geophone. For a zero-time reference, an accelerom eter (PCB M odel 303A 11) was

clam ped to the top of the source casing. W aveforms were recorded using a Hewlett-

Packard 3562A Dynamic Signal Analyzer.

A typical set o f P and SV-wave records are shown in Figs. 4.10a and 4.10b,

respectively. Travel tim es were determined from the initial arrivals identified in the

geophone and accelerom eter records. The geophones were previously calibrated in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 42

Source o
>

At = 2.0 4 msec
0.2

£ 0.1
o
>
E 0.0
Atc = 1.10 msec
Distance = 2.05 m Vp = 1 8 6 9 m /sec
0.1
1 4
Tim e, msec

a. P-W ave Measurement (source: vertically oriented tap with small hammer)

o
>
SV
At = 16.09 msec,
0.4

l2
o
>
E 0.0
Atc = 15.15 msec
Distance = 2.05 m V sv = 136 m/sec
0.2
•4 46
Time, msec

b. S V-W ave Measurem ent (source-vertically oriented tap with metal punch)

Fig. 4.10 - Typical P and SV-W ave Crosshole Record Set Obtained During Driving
AW Casing at the Andersen B ar Site; Test Depth = 3.7 m.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 the laboratory to determine the polarity o f the arrival. Corrections were m ade to the

travel time to account for wave travel down the source casing (-0.20 msec per meter)

and trigger delay (-0.04 msec). Borehole inclination was estim ated at the ground

surface with a carpenter's level and assum ing the casing was straight. Vp and V sv

were calculated by dividing the horizontal distance betw een the near edges of the

source and receiver casings by the corrected travel time.

O nce the source casing had been driven to its final depth, Vp and V s h

m easurem ents were performed at 0.3 m (1 ft) increments using a small mechanical

source connected to 1.5-m (5-ft)-long sections o f alum inum orientation rods, as

illustrated schem atically in Fig. 4.8b. The mechanical source consisted of a small

hammer, a rotating wedge, and two spacers, see photograph in Fig. 4.9. The source

could be low ered to any depth and forced against the sides o f the steel casing by

sim ultaneously pulling up on the rope attached to the rotating wedge and pushing

down on the orientation rods. Pulling up on the orientation rods would loosen the

source, and a small spring would then retract the wedge. The source ham m er was

excited by jerking upwards on a rope attached to the hammer. After each tap, a small

spring would return the hammer to its initial position. P-waves were generated by a

tap on the casing wall in the direction o f the receiver hole. The radial geophone was

used to record the P-wave arrival. Reversed polarized SH-waves were generated

from tapping in both transverse (out-of-plane) directions. SH -w ave arrivals were

recorded with the transverse geophone.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 A typical set of P and SH-wave records are shown in Figs. 4.1 la and 4.1 lb,

respectively. Identification of the exact SH-wave arrival was enhanced by overlaying

the tw o reversed waveform s, as shown in Fig. 4.11b. An accelerom eter (PCB

M odel 303A 11) embedded in one of the spacers provided a tim e-zero reference.

Travel times were determined from the initial arrivals identified in the geophone and

accelerom eter records. Corrections were made to the travel tim e measurements to

account for trigger delay (about +0.035 msec). Vp and V sh were calculated by

dividing the horizontal distance between the near edges o f the source and receiver

casings by the corrected travel times.

P-wave velocity measurements conducted by hitting down on the AW casing

and by tapping with the in-hole mechanical source are in good agreement, as shown

in Figs. 4.10a and 4.11a. This indicates that the assumptions of wave travel paths

and casing inclination are adequate.

Six locations were tested using this new modification of the crosshole seismic

method. The order o f testing was as follows: Pence Ranch, arrays X I-X 2 and X2-

X3; Larter Ranch, array X I-X 2; Andersen Bar, array X I-X 2; Later Ranch, array

X3-X4; and Pence Ranch, array X4-X5. The results are tabulated in Appendices A,

C and D. The procedure followed in the first three arrays tested was somewhat

different from the procedure describe above. In these initial tests, the SV-wave

measurements were made after both casings had been driven to their final depth. SV-

waves were generated by wedging the mechanical source in the steel casing, and then

tapping down on the aluminum orientation rod. SV-wave velocities determined

following this procedure exhibit little variation with depth, suggesting that most of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 45

Source

At = 1.05 msec
o.o

<2 - 0.1
Receiver .°
- 0.2
Atc = 1.08 msec
Distance = 2.05 m Vp = 1 8 9 3 m/sec
-0.3
1 4
Time, msec

a. P-W ave Measurement (source-m echanical tapper)

w
Source
I 0
Northward Tap

-4 " At = 19.57 msec Southward Tap

0.4 -

0.2
Receiver g>o
E 0.0
Atc = 19.61 msec
Distance = 2.05 m Vsh = 1 0 5 m/sec
- 0.2
-4 46
Time, msec

b. SH -W ave Measurement (source-m echanical tapper)

Fig. 4.11 - Typical P and SH-Wave Crosshole Record Set Obtained After Driving
AW Casing at the Andersen Bar Site; Test Depth = 3.7 m.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 the stress wave energy traveled down to the bottom o f the source casing, across to

the receiver casing through the denser soils, and up the receiver casing. Thus these

initial SV-wave measurements are not considered representative.

The effect of soil disturbance caused by casing penetration was investigated

near the Treasure Island Fire Station, California crosshole array. As shown in Fig.

4.12, the results from the new m odified crosshole m ethod are in good agreement

w ith velocities m easured at the Treasure Island crosshole array (Fuhriman, 1993).

This comparison suggests a minimal effect of soil disturbance in loose soils during

casing penetration.

The advantages of this modified crosshole technique include: 1) no drill rig is

needed and 2) both SV- and SH-wave measurem ents are possible. Once a routine

was established, one site could be tested with a three-person crew to a depth o f 6 m

(20 ft) in a 10-hour day. This technique, however, is limited to loose soil sites, and

to depths less than about 10 m (33 ft).

4.3.3 Limitations of the Crosshole Test

Crosshole m easurem ents are significantly affected if travel tim e data are

improperly collected and analyzed (Stokoe and Hoar, 1978). In addition, refraction

o f seism ic waves along the boundary o f a nearby stiffer layer or w ithin a highly

variable layer can cause faster travel times to be measured. Therefore, the crosshole

velocities are view ed as being som ew hat slanted to the high side. To m inim ize

refraction problem s, the distance between boreholes is kept to a few meters and the

layering determined during the boring or driving phase is considered in the analyses.

The w riter is not aw are of any studies discussing the effect o f gravel and

cobbles on the measurement o f seismic travel time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 j,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

S V -W ave Velocity, m/sec S H -W ave Velocity, m/sec P-W ave Velocity, m/sec
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0 700 1400 2100

• • •
New Modified
® o o

O
• CD «o o
Crosshole
• • • using AW
C» O OCE •CD)

O
• o o o Steel Casino
•
«0
•

«cnx>
•
<0)0 •
/
• • •

fCD«
Q
COO)
•
CECDO
•
Tre asure
/' KB
•
O
0ED caco «ooo
• Is land
• •
Cro sshole
OED o n *
A rray c1C D C IC O
» • m
f • •
«GDO •< n o O €00
• • •
03)CD CD CD CD c O CD CD

Fig. 4.12 - Comparison of Velocities Determined at the Treasure Island, California Crosshole Array (Fuhriman 1993)
and Velocities Determined by the New M odified Crosshole M ethod Using AW Steel Casing.
4^
—i
 48

4.4 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

4.4.1 Introduction

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely used dynam ic penetration

m ethod for in situ characterization o f soils. The SPT consists o f driving a 51-mm

(2.0-in.) outside diameter, split-barrel sampler 0.46 m (18 in.) into the ground using

a 0.623-kN (140-lb) hammer dropped from a height of 0.76 m (30 in.). The num ber

o f ham m er drops required to drive the sampler the last 0.30 m (12 in.) is called the

blow count or N-value. A standard split-barrel sampler is shown in Fig. 4.13.

O PEN SH OE HEAD R O L L P IN

H / ) ) / / / 7T?f

// H /TTTTnrn // n ■»V/>HII/A

EfflE BALL VENT

A - 1.0 to 2.0 « . (25 to 50 mm)

B - tS.O to 30.0 in. (0.457 to 0.762 m)
C - 1.375 ±0.005 in. (34.93 ± 0.13 mm)
D - 1.50 ± 0.05 - 0.00 in. (38.1 ± 1.3 - 0.0 mm)
E - 0.10 ± 0.02 in. (2.54 ± 0.25 mm)
F - 2.00 ± 0 .0 5 - 0 .0 0 in. (50.8 ± 1.3 - 0 . 0 rren)
G - 16.0* to 23.0*
The 1 In. (38 mm) inside diameter sp&t barrel may be used with a 16-gage w al thickness spot knor. The penobating end ol the drive shoe may be slightly rounded. Metal
or plastic retoners may bo used to retain sod samples.

Fig. 4.13 - Split-Barrel Sampler Assembly for Use in Standard Penetration Testing,
ASTM Specifications (from ASTM D -1586-84).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 According to Fletcher (1965), Col. Charles R. Gow in 1902 introduced the

m ethod o f driving a 25-m m (1-in.) diam eter pipe into the ground for sam pling

foundation soils. The "2 in. split sample spoon" was designed by L. Hart and G. A.

Fletcher in 1927 at The Gow Company, a subsidiary o f the Raym ond Concrete Pile

Company. From field tests by H. A. M ohr and G. A. Fletcher with the split-barrel

sampler, a standard test m ethod was developed using a 0.623-kN (140-lb) weight

dropped 0.76 m (30 in.). Since the SPT is a sim ple and econom ic m eans for

evaluation of ground conditions, it has since been widely accepted in many different

countries. How ever, equipm ent and procedures very greatly. In recent years,

standard equipm ent and procedures have been recom mended (ASTM Standard D-

1586-84; D ecourt et al., 1988). For variations from these standards, various

correction factors have been recommended (Seed et al., 1985).

4.4.2 SPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies

SPT m easurem ents were conducted follow ing the procedure outlined in

A STM Standard D -1586-84. Boreholes were advanced using hollow-stem augers

with an inside diameter 95 mm (3.75 in.). A pilot bit was used to keep sedim ent out

o f the augers during borehole advancement. W hen the test depth was reached, water

was pum ped into the casing, and the pilot bit was slowly w ithdraw n to prevent

hydrostatic im balance and soil disturbance. A clean 51-m m (2.0-in.) outside

diam eter, split-barrel was then lowered to the bottom o f the hole. These particular

sam plers had space for liners. However, no liners were used. M easurem ents o f

hole depth indicated that no significant amount of sediment was drawn up the casing

during this exchange in any o f the tests. To facilitate SPT measurements, reference

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 m arks at one inch spacings were draw n on the drill rods over a 0.46-m (18-in.)

interval. These marks were used to measure blow count on an inch-by-inch basis.

The contractor used a pin-guided hammer lifted by a conventional rope and

pulley system with the rope wrapped 1-3/4 times in the counterclockwise direction

around a cathead, as shown in the photograph of Fig. 4.14. Since the pin-guided

hammer is not standard equipment, energy calibration measurements were performed

Fig. 4.14 - Photograph o f Drill Rig and Pin-Guided Hammer Used During the 1990
Field Investigations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 following procedures described in ASTM Standard D-4633-86. A PCB piezocrystal

dynam ic load cell m atched to a Binary Instrum ents M odel 102 SPT calibrator

processing instrument was used to measure the energy content o f several ham m er

im pacts. A fter each blow, the calibrator displayed the average impact energy as a

percentage o f the theoretical free fall energy (476 Joules or 4200 in.-lb), called

energy ratio, ER. Several force-tim e waveforms were recorded using a H ew lett-

Packard 3562A Dynamic Signal Analyzer. The recorded force-time waveforms were

used to determine the cut off (or trip) time, as well as provided a way of checking the

ER-value displayed on the calibrator by integrating the force squared-tim e curve.

Sam ple waveforms for rod lengths of 5.7 m (18.8 ft) and 10.3 m (33.8 ft) are shown

in Figs. 4.15 and 4.16, respectively.

As summ arized in Table 4.1, the ER measurem ents were corrected for short

rod lengths (less than 13.7 m [50 ft]) and measured rod compression wave velocities

different from the theoretical rod velocity, c, o f 5120 m /sec (16,800 ft/sec).

M easured rod compression wave velocities ranged from 5500 to 6920 m/sec (18,100

to 22,700 ft/sec). Thus, all velocity correction factors, Kc (= theoretical time / cutoff

tim e), were less than 1.0, and depend on the rod length. Sy and Campanella, 1991,

have published test data with very sim ilar Kc-values. A ccording to the ASTM

Standard D -4633-86, these low Kc-values suggest a reflected com pression wave

returning to the load cell. Under these circumstances the load cell continues to sense

a com pressive force for a time longer than the theoretical tim e, 2L7c (where L' =

length betw een the bottom o f load cell and the bottom of split-barrel), and the

calculated stress wave energy will be much greater than the actual energy in the first

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 150

2
CD 0
£2o
LL
I- cutoff time = ^
1.98 msec

load cell constand = 13 kN/volt

- 150
Time, msec

a. Force, F(t)

400

En(0 = AE F2(t) dt ER = k-. k2 kc = 44 %

En100% 1 ^ c

En = 210 Joules
- 200
cutoff time = 1.98 msec

1 K i = 1.14
c = 5120 m/sec E = 20,000 kN/cm2 K2 = 1.14
A = 7.61 cm2 Enioo% = 476 Joules Kc = 0.79

-1 Time, msec 7

b. Energy, En(t)

Fig. 4.15 - SPT Load Cell W aveform from the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole SP-C at
3 m ; Blow 9. (Note: Based on SPT Calibrator M easurem ent, ER
41% .)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 53

150

cutoff time = 3.62 msec

load cell constand = 13 kN/volt

-150
1 Time, msec 7

a. Force, F(t)

400
ER = p i- k i k2 kc = 56%
En100% 1 * c

En = 277 Joules

- 200
| cutoff time = 3.62 msec

Kt = 1 .0 2
c = 5120 m/sec E = 20,000 kN/cm2 K2 = 1-02
A = 7.61 cm2 En10o% = 476 Joules Kc = 0.93

-1 Time, msec 7

b. Energy, En(t)

Fig. 4.16 - SPT Load Cell W aveform from the Goddard Ranch Site, Borehole SP-2
at 7 m; Blow 23. (Note: Based on SPT Calibrator M easurement, ER =
49% .)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 .1.,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 4.1 - Summary of SPT Energy Calibration M easurements for a Pin-Guided Hammer, 1990 Idaho Studies.

MODEL 102 SPT INTEGRATION OF

CALIBRATOR HP 3562
WAVEFORM
Energy Ratiod Energy Ratio*
Test Drill Cutoff Corrections0 No. Std. No. Std.
Site Hole Depth La L’a Timeb Ki K2 Kc Test Avg. Dev. Test Avg. Dev. Comments9
(m) (ml (m) (msec) (%) <%) (%) . (%)
Pence SP-C 2.7 to 3.2 5.73 4.00 1.97 1.14 1.14 0.79 9 39 3.3 5 41 4.5 N = 10, S
Ranch SP-C 5.8 to 6.2 8.78 7.00 3.18 1.03 1.04 0.86 42 37 2.8 41 40 4.5 N = 50, S
SP-D 1.5 to 2.0 4.21 2.40 1.29 1.33 1.28 0.74 17 49 3.9 39 50 1.5 N = 12, R
SP-D 3.0 to 3.5 5.73 4.00 1.94 1.14 1.14 0.80 16 46 4.2 29 49 2.0 N = 11, R
Goddard SP-2 6.7 to 7.2 10.30 8.50 3.66 1.02 1.02 0.91 20 43 5.2 31 50 6.1 N = 22, S
Ranch SP-2 6.7 to 7.2 10.30 8.50 3.61 1.02 1.02 0.92 1 55 — 1 61 — string-cut
SP-2 6.7 to 7.2 10.30 8.50 3.57 1.02 1.02 0.93 1 naa — 1 67 — string-cut
SP-2 6.7 to 7.2 10.30 8.50 3.60 1.02 1.02 0.93 1 na — 1 82 — string-cut
Larter SP-1 2.9 to 3.6 5.73 4.00 1.90 1.14 1.14 0.82 6 45 3.8 19 43 — N = 5, R
Ranch SP-1 4.2 to 4.9 7.25 5.50 na 1.07 1.07 na 13 41 3.0 na na na N = 13, S
SP-1 5.9 to 6.1 8.78 7.00 na 1.03 1.04 na 15 39 6.8 na na na on cobble, R
SP-2 2.9 to 3.4 5.73 4.00 1.94 1.14 1.14 0.80 17 35 6.5 49 38 6.1 N = 10, R
SP-2 4.2 to 4.9 7.25 5.50 2.58 1.07 1.07 0.83 13 45 6.9 29 46 6.3 N = 10, R
SP-2 6.1 to 6.6 8.78 7.00 3.27 1.03 1.04 0.84 57 46 5.1 39 43 2.4 N = 51, R
Equipment: CME 750 drill rig; hollow-stem augers; pin-guided hammer (0.614 kN or 138 lb); 1-3/4 rope turns around 0.20-m (8-in.)-dia.
cathead (180 rpm); 2 pulleys at top of mast; BW rods above and AW rods below load cell; 25.4-mm (l-in.)-dia. hemp rope, 3 months old.
[a] L = length between hammer impact surface and bottom of split-barrel; L' = length between bottom of load cell and bottom of split-barrel.
[b] Average cutoff or trip time, based on length of first compression pulse in waveform recorded by analyzer, na = not available
[c] K-j and «2 corrections for L < 13.7 m (45 ft; ASTM D4633-89). Kg = (theoretical time)/(cutoff time), assumed compression wave velocity
of steel rod of 5120 m/sec (16,800 ft/sec). If Kc < 0.83, ’data should not be used' (ASTM D 4633-89, p. 857).
[d] Energy normalized to 476 Joules (4200 in.-lb). For energy ratios determined by integration of HP 3562 force squared-time curves,
assumed load 13 kN/volt (10,000 lb/volt) as load cell calibration factor.
[e] N = measured N-vaiue. S = slow hammer drop rate, about 30 sec pause to save waveform; R = regular hammer drop rate for SPT. String-
cut = supporting hammer on a wire, 0.76 m (30 in.) above anvil, and cutting wire to obtain an unimpeded or free fall drop.
[f] Includes several drops, waveforms were stacked or averaged.

Ul
-P>-
 55

com pression wave. According to ASTM Standard D -4633-86, if Kc is less than

0.86, "the data should not be used." Sy and Cam panella (1991) studied load cell

waveforms as well as acceleration waveforms, and found good agreement w ith the

theoretical trip time. Therefore, they suggested IQ to be unnecessary. Schmertmann

(1992) believed the ER-value would be too low if the computed IQ values are used,

and suggested using a value o f 0.92. Considering these opinions and the data shown

in Table 4.1, the pin-guided ham m er system was assum ed to have an ER o f 50

percent. [Note: In Andrus et al. (1991) a value o f 60 percent was assumed. Since

then an error was discovered in the initial evaluation where the depth factor was

considered twice.]

Other corrections recommended for the SPT are discussed in Chapter 5.

4.4.3 Limitations o f the SPT

It is generally believed that the presence of gravel in a soil will increase the N-

value. According to M eyerhof (1956, p. 2): "All penetration tests become unreliable

as the m axim um particle size approaches the diam eter o f the penetrom eter or

sampling spoon..." Gravel pieces often jam the open drive shoe, thus increasing the

area o f the drive point and the num ber o f blows needed to drive the split-barrel

sam pler. In m edium dense and dense soils, gravel is often broken by the sampler.

T he SPT, therefore, has not been recom m ended for liquefaction assessm ent in

gravelly soils (National Research Council, 1985, p. 104).

M any engineers, however, believe the SPT can be a useful m easure in

gravelly soils. From Sanglerat (1972, p. 252):

In gravel deposits the value o f N, if accurately determ ined, is o f great value,

but care m ust be taken to determ ine w hether a large gravel size may have
influence the results. Usually in the case o f gravel, only the lowest values o f N
are taken into account.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 M eyerhof (1956, p. 2), Fletcher (1965, p. 71), and Ishihara (1985) have also

recommended that the lowest penetration resistance be used.

O thers have suggested applying a correction factor to the N-value m easured

in gravelly soils, and are reviewed by Harder (1988, pp. 138-139) and Tokim atsu

(1988). Correction factors ranging from 1.0 to 0.3 have been proposed for various

gravelly soils. From a comparison o f SPT and Becker penetration tests (168-mm

[6.6 in.] outside diameter), Harder (1988, p. 437) concludes the N-values measured

at Pence Ranch and Whiskey Springs are 60 percent too high.

Vallee and Skryness (1979) monitored the num ber o f blows for each inch o f

penetration, plotted the cum ulative penetration verses num ber of blow s, and

discarded tests with nonlinear increasing blow counts. N -values m easured in this

study may have been affected by gravel or cobbles. How ever, such an effect was

not apparent in the plots o f penetration versus blows for the loosest layers which

were essentially uniform at any given site (see Appendices A, B and D). Therefore,

N-values measured in the loose gravelly soils are taken as good.

4.5 CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

4.5.1 Introduction

The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is a quasi-static penetration test for virtually

continuous profiling of soils. The CPT consists of measuring the load on the tip o f a

cone with an apex angle of 60° and the skin friction over a short length o f rod above

the tip during penetration through soil deposits. A typical 10-cm2 electrical cone

penetrom eter is shown in Fig. 4.17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 57

in
m
1 Conical point (10 cms)
2 Load cell
3 Strain gages
4 Friction sleeve (150 cm2)
5 Adjustment ring
6 Waterproof bushing
7 Cable
8 Connection with rods

Fig. 4.17 - Electric Friction-Cone Penetrometer, ASTM Specifications (from ASTM

D-3441-86).

An early form o f the CPT was developed by the Sw edish State Railways

around 1917 for locating firm layers beneath weak soil deposits. General history and

applications o f the CPT are reviewed by Sanglerat (1972). In recent years, the CPT

has become increasingly popular with the standardization of test procedures (ASTM

D-3441-86; De Beer et al., 1988), establishment o f design methods, and increased

availability o f equipment. In addition, various sensors have sometimes been added

to m easure other soil properties such as pore pressure, lateral stress and velocity,

thus increasing the versatility of the CPT (see Mitchell, 1988).

4.5.2 CPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies

The CPT was performed with a 10-cm2 electric cone penetrometer owned and

operated by Earth Tech D rilling, Salt Lake City, Utah. As illustrated in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 photograph of Fig. 4.18, the cone was pushed through the ground using the

hydraulic system o f the drill rig. By hooking the support truck to cable that extended

down from the m ast of the drill rig, as shown in Fig. 4.18, a reactive force greater

than one h alf o f the w eight o f the support truck was possible. For tracking

penetration depth, the contractor used the small wheel device shown in Fig. 4.18

mounted next to the cone rod about 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground surface.

The CPT procedure outlined by ASTM D-3441-86 was followed. P rior to

each sounding, the cone was cooled to the ground tem perature by wrapping it w ith

wet rags. Baseline tip and sleeve m easurem ents were m ade before and after each

sounding. On a few occasions, however, the sleeve reading becam e negative.

Penetration was stopped on these occasions and the baseline was reset after the

sleeve reading had stabilized. This occurred for the following measurements: Pence

Ranch, CP-E at 1.60 m; Goddard Ranch, CP-1 at 3.60 m, and CP-10 at 3.78 m; and

Larter Ranch, CP-1 at 1.65 m. No baseline adjustments were m ade to any o f the

other soundings. Drives were made in 1-m eter increments with a penetration rate of

about 20 mm/sec. Penetration was stopped each tim e a rod was added and when

hard m aterial was encountered. All soundings were term inated when very hard

m aterial was encountered. Penetration through the gravelly soil causes the tip and

sleeve to becom e grooved. A new tip and sleeve were, therefore, used at each

liquefaction site. No attempt was made to remove data fluctuations caused by gravel

and cobble particles. A total o f twenty-four CPT soundings were performed. The

results are provided in Appendices A, B and D.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 59

Fig. 4.18- Electric Cone Penetration Testing in 1990 at the Goddard Ranch Site
Using the Hydraulic System of the Drill Rig.
I
I
I

i 4.5.3 Limitations o f the CPT

i

| Sanglerat (1972, p. 112) has pointed out three situations when the cone point
)

' resistance, qc, and side friction, fs, may be affected by gravel. First, when a particle
i
= with diameter larger than the cone is pushed by the cone in a soft or loose layer, qc is

constant and fs decreases. Second, when the cone is pushing a particle with diameter

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 larger than the cone in a m edium or dense layer, qc increases and fs decreases.

Third, when a larger particle has become wedged against the sleeve that m easures

friction, qc decreases while fs increases.

Schm ertm ann (1978, p. 77) has shown the bulb of influence for static cone

tests can extend five to ten diameters above and below the tip. The diameters o f the

10-cm 2 is 36 m m (1.4 in.). Therefore, the 10-cm2 cone would not fully sense a

layer less than about 0.50 m (1.7 ft). Experienced engineers, however, believe that

isolated sand layers as thin as a centimeter in clay can probably be detected.

4.6 BECKER PENETRATION TEST (BPT)

4.6.1 Introduction

The Becker Penetration Test (BPT), as proposed by Harder and Seed (1986,

p. 112), consists o f driving a 168-mm (6.6-in.) outside diam eter shaft and closed

(plugged) drill bit into the ground using an AP-1000 drill rig and an ICE 180 diesel

pile hamm er at full trottle with blower on. The blow count, N b , and bounce chamber

pressure, BP, are recorded for each 0.3 m o f penetration. A photograph o f such a

Becker Ham m er Drill is shown in Fig. 4.19.

The Becker Ham mer Drill was developed during the late 1950's in Alberta,

Canada, by Becker Drills Ltd. as a m ethod for rapid penetration o f gravel and

cobbles (Harder and Seed, 1986). The principal applications of the Becker in recent

years included exploration for economic minerals, installation o f piezom eters, and

characterization o f general ground conditions. Several relationships between the SPT

and B ecker blow count have been developed. H ow ever, these studies w ere

conducted in gravelly soils using non-standard methods. In an effort to develop a

more accurate correlation and standardized procedures, Harder and Seed performed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 61

careful side-by-side SPT and BPT at three sandy sites. Their correlation is presented

in Chapter 5.

Three clear advantages o f the Becker are: 1) it is fast in gravelly soils, 2) it

has a 168-mm (6.6-in.) outside diam eter and, therefore, large particles should

influence it less than the SPT, and 3) it can provide a sample if an open-end bit is

used.

Fig. 4.19 - Photograph o f the Becker AP-1000 Drill Rig (Rig No. 57) at the Pence
Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 62

4.6.2 BPT Procedure in 1990 Idaho Studies

B PT soundings were conducted following the procedure outlined by Harder

and Seed (1986). Furtherm ore, the operator and the A P-1000 drill rig (see Fig.

4.19) w ere the sam e Harder (1988) used at Pence Ranch, W hiskey Springs, and

M ackay Dam. The plugged bit was advanced in 3.1-m (10-ft) sections. F o r each

0.3 m (1 ft) o f penetration, the blow count, N b , and bounce cham ber pressure, BP,

were recorded. A total of ten plugged-bit B P T soundings were perform ed. The

results are tabulated in Appendices A, B and D. Corrections to N b are discussed in

Chapter 5.

4.6.3 Limitations of the BPT

The BPT is a dynamic penetration test where shaft and point have the same

diam eter. A ccording to S tefanoff et al. (1988), dynamic penetration testing (or

probing) is probably the oldest m ethod of penetration testing. Dynam ic probing is a

side product o f pile driving, with first reports dating back to the late seventeenth

century. It was not until the 1930's, however, that dynamic probing becam e widely

recognized as a m eans o f subsurface exploration in the field o f foundation

engineering, especially in Europe. Because o f the sim plicity o f the test, the

equipm ent varies considerably. However, it has been shown "that dynamic probing

using properly designed equipm ent and an adequate procedure, based on full

understanding o f the mechanism o f driving a cone into the soil, allows measurem ents

to be m ade that are as reliable as those performed with static equipment" (Stefanoff et

al., 1988, p. 55). The recent efforts by the ISSM FE Technical C om m ittee on

Penetration Testing to develop an international reference test procedure are presented

in Stefanoff et al. (1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Two key aspects of the BPT not recommended in the international reference

test procedure are: 1) the diesel pile hamm er and 2) the plugged bit with the same

diam eter as the shaft. It is recom m ended that a drop ham m er be used to drive the

probe, because "dramatic differences in test results" have been observed betw een a

hand-operated hamm er and an air-pressure-powered hamm er (Stefanoff et al., 1988,

p. 59). To m inim ize skin friction along the shaft, it is recom m ended that the probe

have an apex angle of 90° and be larger than the shaft. Friction along the shaft o f the

BPT during penetration would increase the blow count. To account for friction along

the shaft, Sy and Cam panella (1993) have recently developed an alternative BPT

procedure.

As discussed in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.5.3, "all penetration tests becom e

unreliable as the maximum particle size approaches the diameter o f the penetrometer"

(M eyerhof, 1956, p,2). The larger closed-end bit o f the B ecker should be less

affected by gravel.

There is a larger bulb o f stress associated with the BPT. As noted earlier,

Schm ertm ann (1978, p. 77) has shown that the bulb o f influence can extend five to

ten diam eters above and below the tip from static cone tests. Therefore, the BPT

does not fully m easure a layer less than about 2.4 m (7.7 ft.). Schm ertm ann further

notes that dynam ic probes sense "an underlying layer, particularly if w eak, at a

greater vertical distance than when subsequently loaded statically."

4.7 M EASUREM ENT OF IN-PLACE UNIT W EIGHT

The water-replacement and the sand-cone methods were used to determine in-

place unit weight o f test pit soils. Both methods consist of: 1) excavating a volume

o f soil, 2) using either w ater or sand to determined the volum e o f the test hole, 3)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 64

determining the weight and moisture content of the soil removed, and 4) calculating

the dry unit weight of the soil by dividing the volume of the test hole into the dry

w eight of the soil removed. The results of the unit w eight m easurem ents are

summarized in Appendices A, B and C.

4.7.1 In-Place Unit Weight by the Water-Replacement Method

The water-replacement method was used to determine the in-place unit weight

(or density) o f gravelly soils. The procedure outlined in the United States Bureau of

Reclamation (1988) test designation USBR 7221-86 were followed. Preparation of

the test surface consisted o f carefully hand excavating 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) down

to the test level. A 1.2-m (4-ft) diameter template (metal ring) was then placed and

seated on the prepared surface, as shown in the photograph o f Fig. 4.20. Next, the

volume of the space between the test surface and a reference level painted on the

inside of the template was determined by lining the template with 4-mil-thick sheet of

plastic, and then filling the template with water up to the reference level. Prior to

filling the template, the water was weighed in 19-liter (5-gallon) plastic containers.

The volume of water required was calculated assuming a unit weight o f water of 9.81

kN /m 3 (62.4 lb/ft3) and applying a temperature correction factor. After carefully

rem oving the w ater and plastic sheeting, soil from within the boundaries o f the

tem plate was carefully excavated with hand tools, placed in 19-liter (5-gallon)

containers, and weighed. Finally, the template and the test hole were lined with a

new sheet of plastic, and then filled with water to the reference level. The volume of

the test hole was determined by subtracting the first volume measurement from the

volum e required to fill the template and test hole. Over half o f the soil rem oved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Fig. 4.20 - Photograph o f the Seated 1.2-m (4-ft) Diameter Template (Metal Ring) at
the Pence Ranch Site Used in the W ater-Replacement Method for
Determining In-Place Density of Gravelly Soils.

during each test was sealed in 19-liter (5 gallon) containers and shipped to Austin,

Texas for moisture content determination and grain-size characterization. A total o f

nine density tests were perform ed by the w ater-replacem ent m ethod at the Pence

Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar sites.

At two test locations, an attempt was made to lower the w ater table using two

0.30-m (12-in.) nom inal diam eter, perforated PVC pipes and sum p pum ps. The

PV C pipes were installed with the aid o f the backhoe about 3.7 m (12 ft) away from

the center of the tem plate and extended to a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) below the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 w ater table. The m axim um m easured drawdown at the center of the tem plate was

only 0.3 m (1 ft). Therefore, dew atering for density m easurem ent was not

successful.

4.7.2 In-Place Unit W eight bv the Sand-Cone Method

The sand-cone m ethod was used to determine the in-place density o f fine­

grained soils at the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites. General test procedures

outlined in ASTM Standard D-1556-64 were followed. A standard 165-mm (6.5-

in.) diam eter cone was used. A total of four sand-cone tests was perform ed. In

addition, six sand-cone tests were conducted in the gravelly soils to compare with the

densities determined by the water-replacement method.

4.8 SAM PLING METHODS

V arious sam pling m ethods were em ployed during borehole and test pit

exploration. These samples obtained were used for grain-size analysis and classified

a cco rd in g to the U nified Soil C lassification System (A ST M D -2487-85).

Characteristics of each sample are summarized in Appendices A through D.

4.8.1 Borehole Sampling

Borehole samples were retrieved using split-barrel samplers and the Becker

w ith an open-ended bit. A total o f 78 split-barrel tests were perform ed in 1990.

Average recovery with the 35-mm (1.38-in) inside diameter, split-barrel sampler was

0.20 m m (8 in.) from a 0.46 m (18 in.) drive. The entire sample was lost in 11 tests.

Disturbed samples were collected at Goddard Ranch using the Becker drill rig

and a 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside diam eter, open-end bit. Very little m aterial was

recovered in the upper 1.8 m (6 ft). Below about 13 m (43 ft) an enorm ous am ount

m aterial was retrieved, indicating sedim ent flowing towards the borehole. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 67

Becker samples had an average o f about 10 percent more gravel and cobbles by

weight than the split-barrel samples taken at the same depth. Despite this difference,

the B ecker and the split-barrel sam ples yielded sim ilar soil classifications (see

Appendices A, B and D).

4.8.2 Test Pit Sampling

In addition to small bag samples and in-place density samples, large samples

were collected ju st below the water table with the aid of a backhoe. The soil above

the w ater table was first rem oved using a backhoe. N ext, the 1-m (3-ft)-long

backhoe bucket was forced into the ground to retrieve a large sample. The sam ple

was placed on a sheet of plastic, and then shoveled into 19-liter (5-gallon) plastic

containers. A t the Larter Ranch site, the test pit had to be excavated a m eter below

the w ater table to reach the loosest layer. The test pit sides at these sites rem ained

reasonably stable below the water table, and a fairly good sample was retrieved. The

test pit and large ring density sam ples are considered more representative o f the

gravelly soil than the borehole samples.

4.9 SUMM ARY

In 1990 and 1991, seism ic, penetration and in-place density tests were

conducted at the Pence Ranch, G oddard Ranch, Andersen B ar and Larter Ranch

sites. Sam ples for classification w ere collected during drilling and test pit

exploration. A summary of test data is provided in Appendices A through D.

Seism ic m easurem ents w ere perform ed by the SA SW and crosshole

m ethods. Ham m ers, a dropped weight, and a sm all bulldozer were em ployed as

sources in the SASW testing. Shear wave velocity profiles were determine from the

SA SW field data by forw ard m odeling using a com puter m odel w ith three

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 68

dimensional wave propagation. A new crosshole procedure was developed for this

study and successfully used to m easure Vp, V sv , and V s h - This new crosshole

procedure involves driving AW steel casing into the ground.

Penetration tests involved the SPT, CPT, and BPT. The SPT was conducted

using a pin-guided ham m er having an energy ratio o f about 50 percent. T he CPT

was perform ed using a 10 -cm 2 electrical cone penetrom eter pushed through the

ground using the hydraulic system o f the drill rig. The BPT was performed using an

AP-1000 drill rig following the procedure of Harder and Seed (1986).

In-place unit w eight m easurem ents were m ade by the w ater-replacem ent

method using a 1.2-m (4-ft)-diameter ring, and by the sand-cone method.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER FIVE

A REVIEW OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Efforts in assessing the liquefaction potential o f soils have been m ainly

directed towards saturated sands. There are no generally accepted procedures for

evaluating the liquefaction potential of soils containing significant amounts of gravel

or larger size particles. Sim plified procedures developed for sands are, therefore,

initially used in this work to assess the potential of the Borah Peak, Idaho gravelly

soils.

Simplified procedures for assessing the liquefaction potential of sands can be

divided into tw o general categories, stress-based or strain-based assessm ent

procedures. In stress-based procedures, penetration resistance or shear w ave

velocity is related to a parameter which characterizes the cyclic loading o f soil. This

param eter, called the cyclic stress ratio, is discussed in Section 5.2. Stress-based

procedures for sands using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Becker Penetration

Test (BPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and shear wave velocity (V§) are outlined

in Sections 5.3 through 5.6. Considerations for gravelly soils are also discussed in

these sections.

69

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 In strain-based procedures for assessing the liquefaction potential o f sands,

the peak cyclic shearing strain at w hich the pore w ater pressure ratio equals 1.0 is

used as the criterion for liquefaction occurrence. A strain-based procedure for sands

using V s is discussed in Section 5.7. A second strain-based procedure using

normalized shear wave velocity (V si) is developed in Section 5.8.

A summ ary o f all sim plified procedures for liquefaction analyses o f soil is

then given in Section 5.9.

5.2 CYCLIC STRESS RATIO

The cyclic stress ratio of soil at a particular depth in a level soil deposit can be

expressed as the ratio o f average equivalent shear stress on a horizontal plane, Tav, to

initial effective vertical (overburden) stress, a 'v, acting on the horizontal plane. It is

computed using the following expression (Seed and Idriss, 1971):

(xav / ct'v)= 0.65 (amax / g) ( a v / <?'v) r j (5.1)

where amax = m axim um horizontal ground surface acceleration, g = acceleration o f

gravity, a v = total overburden stress, and rd = a shear stress reduction factor. The

factor rd is estimated using the relationship shown in Fig. 5.1. It is shown in Section

5.3 that a higher cyclic stress ratio means greater liquefaction potential. Corrections

to Eq. 5.1, w hich was developed for level ground sites and depths less than about 6

m (20 ft), have been suggested to account for high stresses and sloping ground

conditions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7 1

S tress Reduction Ratio, rd

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
\ ■ , - I------------------------------ L

Average5 V alues v

rd * 1 - 0.0( )0 1 1 6 z i-9 5
for 0 < z <: 6 0 ft
Depth, z, ft

R an ge for Different
Soil Prtjfiles .

l l j t

i l l If
Fig. 5.1 - Range o f Values of Stress Reduction Ratio, rd, for Different Soil Profiles
1 ft = 0 .3 m

(Seed and Idriss, 1971).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 72

5.2.1 Correction for High Stresses

Laboratory cyclic triaxial test results indicate that the cyclic stress ratio

decreases with increasing confinement. For high stress conditions (depths greater

than about 6 m [20 ft]), Seed (1983) proposed that the correction factor Ka be

applied to Eq. 5.1 as:

(Hav / G'v) — K<y 0.65 (amax I g) / ®'v) rd. (5.2)

Test results for seventeen soils compiled by Harder (1988) are shown in Fig. 5.2.

Based on these data, Seed and Harder (1990) recommended the relationship noted in

the figure to estim ate Kc for sandy soils where ct'v ^ 1 ton/ft 2 (96 kPa). This

relationship for can be approximated by:

K a ~ 50 (aV + O.O)-1-6* (5.3)

5.2.1.1 Consideration of Gravelly Soil

The effect of high stress may be more significant for gravelly soils than for

sands. Hynes (1988) performed cyclic triaxial tests on reconstituted specim ens of

gravelly soil from Folsom Dam, California having a maximum particle size of 76 mm

(3 in.), and a m edian grain size, D 50, of about 23 m m (0.9 in.). The results from

these tests are also shown in Fig. 5.2, and can be approximated by:

Kct = 0.85 ( a 'v)-°-58 + 0.15 (5.4a)

for the foundation gravel with D r = 40 percent, and

KCT= 0.69 (tf'v)-0-97 + 0.31 (5.4b)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 73

Correction Factor for High Stress, Kc

o.o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Folsom Embankment Gravel

(Hynes, 1988)
Dr = 64 %, D50 = 40 mm
Ka = 0.69 (o'v)'a97 + 0.31
CM
E
^ 2
D)
Js:

Folsom Foundation Gravel, “ /

% (Hynes, 1988) ^
o 3h Dr = 40 %, D50 = 40 mm p*
> Ka = 0.85 (a'v)‘°-58 + 0.15 / /
"b
CO
CO
2 4
co
c Cyclic Triaxial Data,
CD
T5
u as Compiled by
3 Harder (1988)
•2 5 -D-
CD
>
O
a)
,>
*—»
o
a) 6
4= °
LU
Recommended by
Seed and Harder (1990)
for Sands and o'v > 1 ton/ft2_
KCT= 50 (o'v + 9.6)'1-66

Fig. 5.2 - Relationship Between Effective Overburden Stress, o 'v, and Correction
Factor for High Stress, K<j.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 for the embankment gravel with Dr = 64 percent. The values o f are low er for the

Folsom gravels than most sands at the same overburden stress when a 'v > 1 ton/ft2

(96 kPa). Thus a lower cyclic stress ratio would be estimated for the Folsom gravels

than for sand at the same depth and overburden stress. (A low er cyclic stress ratio

m eans low er liquefaction potential, as shown in Section 5.3.) However, K<j = 1 for

both sands and gravels at o 'v = 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa). W hen a \ < 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa),

although no line is drawn for the sands in Fig. 5.2 in this range, Ka -values for the

Folsom gravels seem to be greater than for sands.

Shake table studies indicate gravelly soils have a higher cyclic strength than

do sands. Haga (1984) performed shake table tests on Fuji river sand having 0, 30,

50 and 70 percent gravel. The test results of Haga, as presented by Ishihara (1985),

are summ arized in Fig. 5.3. Ishihara suggests that a correlation between the cyclic

strength and the gravel content be established and used to correct the cyclic stress

ratio. The relationship shown in Fig. 5.3 can be expressed by:

(Td / o ’v) g / ftd / °'v )s = 1 + 0.0055 CG (5.5)

where ( t d / o 'v) g = cyclic stress ratio of gravelly sand, ( td / o 'v) s = cyclic stress ratio

o f sand w ith zero gravel, and C q = content of gravel in percent. W hile the

overburden stresses during the shake table tests were very low [ a 'v « 1 ton/ft2 (96

kPa)], the results indicate a greater cyclic shear strength for gravelly soil than for

sandy soils without gravel. Since accurate values of relative density were not know,

Ishihara (1985) states that "no definitive conclusion could be drawn from these tests

regarding the effects of density o f the deposit."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 75

2.0 r
JO
I
Shaking Ta ble Tests
J3 0 Fuji River S and
■a Void Ratio: 0.41 to 0.76
"b jj,
Relative De nsity: 27 to 5 8 %
T3
"3 1.5
~o £5
c 0
CO ov_
CO
CD
N
I d .C
>
2 ' I 1.0
o T3 \ fd ! g 'v )g
C
o CO -------------- = 1 -i - 0.0055 CG
x: CO ^d / G'v ) s
O)
e
cu
CO [ ? 0.5 L-'aia putMio aic uaocu uu jjuic waiei
,o 2 pressure build-up curves p resented by
73 CO Ishihara (1985). N ote that the point for
>%
O ,o san d with 7 0 percent gravel is different
73 from the summ ary plot by Ishihara,
>»
O which appears to have b een m iscalculated.
0.0 ' i
25 50 75 100
Content of Gravel, C G, percent

Fig 5.3 - Effect of Gravel Particles on Cyclic Strength (after Ishihara, 1985).

On the other hand, som e cyclic triaxial test results indicate that the cyclic

strength of gravelly soils and sands are equal for a given set o f test conditions. From

cyclic triaxial test result for various sand and gravel mixtures, Evans and Seed (1987,

p. 372) concluded that "...the cyclic loading resistance o f a w ell-graded gravel

specim en, a uniformly-graded gravel specimen and a sand specim en were all found

to be approxim ately equal, provided that the effects o f m em brane com pliance were

elim inated and all o f the specim ens had the same relative density and structure."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 76

Based on cyclic triaxial tests on Oroville and Lake Valley gravels, Siddiqi et al.

(1987, p. 49) concluded that "the generation of pore water pressure during undrained

cyclic loading and the deformation characteristics of the prototype [total] and matrix

m aterials prepared to the same relative density were sim ilar in nature." These

conclusions are in conflict with the shake table test results of H aga (1984). They

also suggest that the average relationship between K<j and o 'v for gravelly soils is

best approximated by the average relationship for sands recommended by Seed and

’ Harder (1990).

; W ithout laboratory test data for the Idaho gravel and because o f the

; conflicting reports, the influence gravel may have on KCTand the cyclic strength is

I ignored in this work. The recommended relationship by Seed and Harder (1990)

1 expressed by Eq. 5.3 is used to estimate K<j in the liquefaction analyses for the Larter

] R anch site when c 'v > 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa). No correction is needed for the Pence

i Ranch, G oddard Ranch and Andersen B ar sites since the effective overburden

stresses in the critical layers at these sites are either less than or very close to 1 ton/ft2

i (96 kPa).

j 5.2.2 Correction for Sloping Ground

; Under sloping ground conditions, an initial static shear stress exists on the

I horizontal plane, Thv- To account for Thv. Seed (1983) proposed that the cyclic stress

ratio be modified by another factor, Ka where a = Thv/o'v- Adding K « to Eq. 5.2,

j the cyclic stress ratio is expressed as:

j C^av I O'v)= Ko K a 0.65 (Umax / g) (Oy / O v) rd. (5.6)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 77

Cyclic triaxial test results indicate Ka depends greatly on relative density, Dr, as

illustrated in Fig. 5.4. Seed and Harder (1990) have only recommended Fig. 5.4 for

conditions where a\> < 3 tons/ft2 (290 kPa).

The test results for the W atsonville gravel at Dr = 43 percent (Evans and

Seed, 1987) and Folsom gravel at Dr = 40 percent (Hynes, 1988) are shown in Fig.

5.4 for comparison. These relationships suggest a greater correction for gravelly

2.0
Watsonville Gravel, Dr = 43 %
(Evans and Seed, 19 8 7 )_ _ j//
3
D, = 55 - 70 %
TJ
§ 1.5
2
C5
O) Folsom Gravel, Dr = 40 %
;■
c
CL (Hynes, 1988) •
_o
CO
1.0
o
H-

o* Jhv
o
CO
LL
c.
o
'•M 0.5
o
2
o
o

[290 KPa)
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
a

Fig. 5.4 - Relationship Between a and Ground Slope Correction Factor, K«,
Recommended for Sands by Seed and Harder (1990) with Results for
the Watsonville Gravel (Evans and Seed, 1987) and the Folsom Gravel
(Hynes, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 soils under sloping ground conditions than recom m ended by Seed and Harder

(1990). This observation is in conflict with the conclusion that the cyclic strength of

gravelly soils and sands are equal for a given set of test conditions, as quoted in

Section 5.2.1.1.

The ground surface at the Larter R anch site slopes about 34 percent.

C onsidering the w ide range o f K a -values possible for loose soils and w ithout

laboratory test data for the Idaho gravel, the influence o f sloping ground is ignored

(i.e. K a = 1, which is within the range o f possible values shown in Fig. 5.4). The

influence o f sloping ground is not a problem for the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch

and Andersen Bar sites, since the ground surface at these sites is less than 5 percent.

5.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

The most w idely used approach for evaluating the liquefaction potential of

sands is the sim plified procedure based on SPT blow count developed by Prof. H.

B. Seed and his colleagues (1979, 1983, and 1985; National Research Council,

1985). T heir recom m ended assessment chart for earthquakes with a magnitude of

7.5 is shown in Fig. 5.5. To use this chart, the cyclic stress ratio is plotted against

the m odified penetration resistance, (NO^o- Liquefaction is predicted if it plots

above the appropriate liquefaction potential boundary. No liquefaction is predicted if

it plots below the boundary. N ote that a higher cyclic stress ratio means a higher

liquefaction potential for a given penetration resistance. Nearly all field performance

data show n in Fig. 5.5 are from shallow (< 6 m) sand sites under level ground

conditions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 79

0.60 ------------------ 037

■» 250

p ercent Rnes = I55 15 s5

5
I !
1| ... I .f

^10

>
Lique action

/
ia 20/
1
/
1
1
> /
CD /
*->

(0
/
/
/
/ / h0
DC 0 3 / «' / /
■20 Lique TaCuOn
w •'2 / /
w a 3(H / /
2 / /
00 / /
o B27 Mm/ ° /
o
>*
60• "n90 -20 &»/®y
O
0.2 AJO
£$/& /
3 0 .^ VA2
73770/67/
/ i * / T £jf2
RNES C 0 N T E N T > f )%
/ a»
0.1 020 MDdified Chinese Code Proposal (day content=5%) ®_
°30
MoraineJl No
Liquefaction Liquetbction Liquefoction
3U / Pan-American dota ■ 0
Japanese data
Chinese data ( •
a
o
(
o
a

10 20 30 40 50

Modified Penetration Resistance, (N^go

Fig. 5.5 - Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction and
M odified N-Values for Sand and M = 7.5 Earthquakes (Seed et al., 1984).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 80

F or earthquakes with magnitudes other than 7.5, the potential boundaries

shown in Fig. 5.5 are modified by applying a scaling factor from Table 5.1 to the

cyclic stress ratio. Idriss (1985, p. 262) recommended using the moment magnitude,

M \y, in engineering practice, since all m agnitudes exhibit a lim iting value, or a

saturation point. The relationship between m oment m agnitude and other m agnitude

scales is shown in Fig. 5.6. According to Idriss, the use of local magnitude, M l , for

magnitudes sm aller than 6, and surface wave magnitude, M s, for magnitudes greater

than 6 but less than 8, is equivalent to using M\y. For great earthquakes (M > 8), it

is important to use M\y. Thus, the scaling factor appropriate for the M s = 7.3 Borah

Peak earthquake is 1.03.

5.3.1 Correction for Standardization o f SPT Blow Count

Since equipm ent and procedures may vary from the standard recom m ended

for the SPT in liquefaction correlations, Seed et al. (1985) have recom m ended

various corrections to the measured blow count, Nm, [number o f blows per 0.3 m (1

Table 5.1 - Representative Number o f Cycles and Correction Factors for Earthquakes
with M agnitude ^ 7.5 (Seed et al., 1985).

Num ber of
Earthquake Representative Magnitude Correction
Magnitude (M) Cycles at 0.65 xmax Factor

8.5 26 0.89
7 .5 15 1.00
6 .7 5 10 1.13
6.0 5-6 1.32
5 .2 5 2-3 1.50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 81

10

6
Magnitude

/M .

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Moment Magnitude, Mw

Fig. 5.6 - Relationship Between Moment Magnitude and Various Magnitude Scales:
M l (local), M s (surface wave), mb (short-period body wave), m s (long-
period body wave), and Mjma (Japan Meteorological Agency), (after
Idriss, 1985; from Heaton et al., 1982)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 82

ft) o f penetration]. The recom m ended rod energy as a fraction o f the theoretical

energy is 60 percent. N m is corrected to a rod energy ratio o f 60 percent by:

N60 - ERm Nm / 60 (5.7)

w here ERm = m easured or estim ated rod energy ratio in percent. From Section

3.3.2, ERm for the safety ham m er and pin-guided hammers em ployed in Idaho are

about 60 and 50 percent, respectively. In addition, Nm-values at depths less than 3

m (10 ft) are m ultiplied by 0.75 to account for loss of driving energy in short rods,

as recom mended by Seed et al. (1985).

The recom m ended split-barrel sam pler may have a 38.1-m m (1-1/2-in.)

inside diam eter "provided it contains a liner of 16-gage wall thickness" (ASTM D-

1586-84). T hus increasing the inside diam eter o f the split-barrel to the same inside

diam eter as the driving shoe, 34.9 mm (1-3/8 in.). M easurements performed without

liners can be som ew hat low er than tests perform ed with liners. A lthough the

sam plers em ployed during the investigations of 1985 and 1990 could be fitted with

liners, no liners were used. Following the recom mendations of Seed et al. (1985),

N m-values are m ultiplied by 1.00 and 1.15 for tests in loose and m edium dense

soils, respectively.

5.3.2 Correction for Overburden Stress

Soil penetration resistance is influenced by effective overburden (vertical)

stress, c 'v (G ibbs and H oltz, 1957). It has been recom m ended that N60 be

normalized to an effective reference overburden stress o f 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa) by:

(N i )60 = C n N6 o (5.8)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 w here (N j )60 = norm alized corrected blow count, and C n = an overburden

correction factor. From the w ork of M arcuson and B ieganousky (1977), Seed

(1979) recom m ended the curves presented in Fig. 5.7 to estim ate C n for sands

h av in g a relativ e density, D r , betw een 40 and 80 percent. As a sim ple

approximation, Liao and W hitman (1985) recommended the following formula:

C N = ( l / a ' v ) 0 .5 (5.9)

w here a 'v is in tons/ft2. For comparison, Eq. 5.9 is also plotted in Fig. 5.7. Liao

and W hitman further suggested a more generalized formula o f the form:

C n = [(o'v)ref/ o'v]^ (5.10)

w here ( o ' v)r e f = a reference stress, and k = a value that depends on relative density,

overconsolidation ratio, particle size, ageing, and possibly other factors. Liao and

W hitm an (1985) believe that there are currently insufficient data to develop a

relationship between k and these different factors.

The test data o f M arcuson and B ieganousky (1977) fo r three sands are

sum m arized in Fig. 5.8 in term s of k, D r, and D 50 . Follow ing the approach o f

H ynes (1988) and Harder (1988), the writer constructed tentative curves for Dr = 30,

60 and 90 percent which are drawn to pass through the limited data and extend into

the gravel range. The tentative curves can be expressed by:

k = [0.95 - 0.0007 D r][(l / D 50) + 0.025]0-13. (5.11)

U sing Eqs. 5.10 and 5.11, a family o f curves sim ilar to Hynes (1988) are shown in

Fig. 5.9 for D r = 50 percent. Note that for c 'v > 1, C n is less for gravelly soils than

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 84

SPT Overburden Correction Factor, Cn

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

%
CO
c
•4o—
'
>
b
CO
CO
<D —Dr= 40 to 60%-
(Seed, 1979)
CO
c
CD
T3
13 Dr = 60 to 80%
JO
(Seed, 1979)
CD
>
o
CD
>
■<—1
o
CD
4=
LLI ~ - C n = ( 1 / o 'u)«-5 .
(Liao and Whitman, 1985)

Fig. 5.7 - Comparison o f Overburden Correction Factors Recommended by Seed

(1979) Based on Data and Analyses from Marcuson and Bieganousky
(1977) with Simple Approximating Relationship Proposed by Liao and
W hitman (1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 85

1.2 1 r 1 r 1 mt 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 II | 1 1 1 1 1 II 1
B a s e d on D a ta F rom 4 0 a R e la tiv e D e n sity ;
M a rcu so n a n d B ie g a n o i j s k y (1 9 7 7 ) a P la tte R iv e r S a n d
bfitaniHarri H n n rrp to fianri
1.0 N
S CFte id -B e d fo r d M o d e l S a n d
30°
\
N
v.
j* 0.8 ,3 0 ^
■*—
*
c
CD |'49 to 52
* 1
p 19 to 3 3 a

§. 0.6
X Dr = 30 %
LU 1 60 15 4 to 58
2
o p , = Ro °/„
0 .4
2
C
O,
/

L
/
/

/
1

C191- ' — — ------- _ _ _ Dr = 9 0 %

J

0.2

k= ( 0 . 9 5 - 0 .0 0 7 Dr) (1 / D5 0 + 0 .0 2 5 ) ° - 13

0. 0 - 1 ! 1 1 I 111 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1M
0.1 1 10 100
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

Fig. 5.8 - Tentative Relationships Between the C n Exponent k and Median Grain
Size.

for sandy soils at the same stress; and for 0 'v < 1, C n is greater for gravelly soils

than for sandy soils. It is also interesting to note that this trend is opposite to the

trend for K0 shown in Fig. 5.2.

More data is needed to varify Fig. 5.8 and Eq. 5.11. Therefore, the curve for

sand given in Eq. 5.9 is initially used to estimate C n in this study.

5.3.2.1 Consideration for Sloping Ground

The overburden corrections discussed above are based on level ground

conditions. Higher lateral stresses would increase penetration resistance. The

quantitative significance of lateral stresses on penetration resistance is still unknown.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 86

S P T Overburden Correction Factor, Cfg

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Based on
• Cjg = [1 / a'v]K where cr'v in tons/ft2 and
1C= [0.95 - 0.007Dr][(1/D50) + 0.025]0-13

>

CO
c
0)
T3
i—
Z3
-Q
i—
CD
>
O
0)
>
o
0)
4=
LU

Fig. 5.9 - Tentative Overburden Correction Factors for Relative Density, Dr, o f 50
Percent and Various M edian Grain Sizes, D 50, As Proposed in this W ork
(after H ynes, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 87

A s an indirect approach to this problem , an equivalent level ground, effective

overburden stress, a 've> can be estim ated from the relationship o f m ean effective

confining stress and elastic theory as described in the following paragraphs (Harder,

1988).

The mean effective confining pressure, a 'm, is defined as:

a'm = 1/3 (cr'v + a 'x + a'y ) (5.12)

w here a 'v = the effective vertical confining stress, a 'x = the effective in-plane

horizontal confining stress, and c 'y = the effective out-of-plane horizontal confining

stress. For an elastic, isotropic m aterial under level ground, conditions, both

horizontal stresses are assumed equal and are expressed as:

a ’y = c ’x = K'o a 'v (5.13)

w here K'0 = v / (1 - v), and v = Poisson's ratio. Equation 5.12 for level ground

conditions can then be rewritten as the familiar:

a ’m = 1/3 (a'v + 2 K'o a ’v). (5.14)

For cases of sloping ground, where the out-of-plane strain is assum ed zero

(Tim oshenko and Goodier, 1970), the out-of-plane stress, a 'y, can be expressed as:

a ’y = v (a'v + a 'x ). (5.15)

B y substituting Eq. 5.15 into Eq. 5.12, a 'm for this plane strain condition is written

as:

a 'm = 1/3 [a'v + a'x + v ( a ’v + a ’x )]. (5.16)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 88

If a'v in Eq. 5.14 is set equal to the equivalent level-ground effective overburden

stress, c've> with K'0 expressed in term s o f Poisson's ratio, and then com bined with

Eq. 5.16, w e obtain the following expression:

a 'Ve = ( l - v) (a'v + a'x). (5.17)

W ithout a better approach, Eq. 5.17 is used in the estimation o f effective overburden

stress and C n for the Larter Ranch site. A value o f v = 0.331 is assumed for the silty

sandy gravel at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites. E lastic solutions

provided in Poulos and D avis (1974) are used to estim ate a ' v and a ' x-

C onsiderations for sloping ground are not needed at the Pence Ranch, Goddard

Ranch and Andersen Bar sites where the slope is less than 5 percent.

5.3.3 Correction for SPT in Gravelly Soil

The SPT has not been recom mended for liquefaction assessm ent in gravelly

soils. According to the National Research Council (1985, p. 104):

It is not possible to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility [of soils containing

gravel] using the SPT; the presence o f a small quantity of gravel can increase
greatly the penetration resistance w ithout having m uch influence upon the
susceptibility to liquefaction.

As discussed in Section 4.4.3, it has been suggested that the SPT blow count

in gravelly soil, N g, be corrected by:

N = Cg N g (5.18)

^Seismic crosshole measurements at two depths above the water table in silty sand at the Later
Ranch site provide values of 0.28 and 0.31 for v. Values of v determined at four depths above the
water table in gravelly soil at the Pence Ranch and Andersen Bar sites ranged from 0.34 to 0.37.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 89

w here Cg = a correction factor that depends on particle size and possibly other

param eters (such as relative density and particle hardness). Tokim atsu (1988)

presented the tentative relationship shown in Fig. 5.10 for correction o f the SPT in

gravelly soil. Also shown in Fig. 5.10 are three estimated values for Cg. Tokimatsu

(1988) estim ated values o f Cg from correlations betw een SPT blow count and

relative density reported for various sands by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) and

Skem pton (1986). The value reported by Harder (1988) is based on a comparison o f

SPT and Becker penetration tests [168-mm (6.6-in.) outside diam eter and closed

ended] at the Pence Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites.

A s is presented in later chapters, the low N -values m easured in the loose

gravelly soils at all Idaho sites suggest a lack o f significant influence o f the gravel

particles which could not have increased the N-values very much. In addition, no

1.5 -------1--------1— 1— I ' l l II -------- 1--------1— i—r m

r ' i -------------- 1--------1— i—r r r r r

Well-Graded Soils Estimated Value:

□ Skempton (1986)
O) o Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983)
O A Harder (1988)
*+o—
» 1.0 □
o N .
(0
Li.
c
0 A
1 0.5 *s

o
O

________ 1_____ 1___ 1__ 1__ L I . 1 1 _________ I_____ 1— 1__ L -t—1..I-L i,, i___ i__ i l . i i i
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

Fig. 5.10 - Tentative Correction Factor for the SPT in Gravelly Soils (Tokimatsu,
1988) Compared w ith Reported Estimates.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 abrupt irregularities occurred in plots o f penetration verses num ber o f blows for the

loosest layer (Unit C in all cases), as shown in the plots provided in Appendices A,

B and D. Based on these findings and without more definite corrective factors, the

influence of gravel on the SPT measured in loose gravelly soils is initially ignored.

5.4 BECKER PENETRATION TEST (BPT)

It has been suggested that a large penetrometer be used to reduce the effect o f

large particles in penetration testing. One such large-scale test is the B ecker

Penetration Test (BPT). The BPT consists o f driving a double-walled steel casing

into the ground using a diesel pile-driving ham m er, as described in Section 4.6.

Since m uch of the geotechnical engineering experience in liquefaction evaluations is

base on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), various SPT-BPT correlations have

been suggested. Two o f the m ost recent correlations are by Harder (1988) and Sy

and Cam panella (1993).

5.4.1 SPT-BPT Correlation bv Harder (1988)

In the BPT procedure o f Harder (1988), a 168-mm (6.6 in.) outside diam eter

shaft and closed (plugged) drill bit is driven into the ground using a Becker AP-1000

drill rig and an ICE 180 diesel pile-driving hammer. The blow count, N g, and the

bounce cham ber pressure, BP, are recorded. The BP-value is corrected to an

equivalent bounce chamber pressure at mean sea level, B P s l - Figure 5.11 is used to

correct the bounce cham ber pressure o f tests conducted at an elevation o f 1830 m

(6000 ft), the approximate elevation of the Idaho liquefaction sites. For instance, if

BPeooo was measured as 15 psig in Idaho, it w ould be corrected to a BP s l value o f

21, as show n in Fig. 5.11. W ith the BPsL-value, the corresponding N g-value is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 91

6000
1 ft = 0.3 m
1 ft-lb = 1.36 Joules
1 psig = 69 millibars gage
5000

_Q
4000

<D
c
LU
.2 3000
o5
c
k
o
CC
Q. 2000
E

1000

25 30
Bounce Cham ber Pressure, BP, psig

Fig. 5.11 - Chart for Correction o f Bounce Chamber Pressure M easured at an

Elevation o f 1830 m (6000 ft), BP6ooo> to Bounce Cham ber Pressure at
M ean Sea Level, BP s l (after Harder, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 corrected to a constant combustion condition (line A-A), as illustrated in Fig. 5.12.

In this case, a BPsL-value of 21 and and N e-value of 40 gives a corrected Becker

blow count, N b c > about 33. If non-standard equipm ent is used, additional

correction factors are required.

H arder (1988) conducted side-by-side SPT and BPT at three sandy sites.

The correlation betw een corrected Becker blow counts, N bcs and corrected SPT

blow counts from the same depth is shown in Fig. 5.13. Based on these data Harder

proposed that the average relationship shown in Fig. 5.13 be used to convert N b c -

values to equivalent N 60-values. Harder (1988) believed that the effect o f casing

friction on the Becker blow count was minimal. However, the data indicate a strong

depth dependency, as shown in Fig. 5.14, w hich suggests side friction to be

important.

5.4.2 SPT-BPT Correlation by Sv and Campanella f 19931

Sy and Campanella (1993) recommended an energy approach for estimating

equivalent SPT N 60-values from BPT blow counts w ith consideration o f casing

friction. T heir procedure is: 1) m onitor strain and acceleration for each hamm er

blow with the Pile Driving Analyzer, 2) correct Nb to a reference energy level o f 30

percent using the waveforms obtained with the Pile Driving Analyzer, 3) estimate the

total shaft resistance, R s, at specific depths using com puter program CA PW A P

(Rausche et al., 1985), and 4) with the energy-corrected blow count, Nb30» and R s,

determine equivalent SPT N60 from Fig. 5.15.

The procedure o f Sy and Campanella (1993) was developed after the Becker

testing had been completed in Idaho. It cannot be applied in this study, since BPTs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 93

1000

Blow count Correction Curves

for Reduced Combustion Efficiencies

100

Constant Combustion ■
Condition Rating Curve
Adopted for Calibration-

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Bounce Chamber Pressure at S ea Level, BP s l , Psi9

Fig. 5.12 - Correction Curves to Correct Becker Blow Count to Constant

Combustion Condition (after Harder, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 94

E 80
co A
o A
CO
5
_o
-Q 60
o
CO
Z
c
13
O 40 A
O / □
_o
£Q A
I— yu □
Q. 20 A A ^, Data rom naraer ( tubo;
CO o
•a D o Salinas (silt and sand)
CD <wJo° n Thermali to (sand)
o a San Diec o (silty sand and sand)
<1)
O ................. I 1
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Corrected Becker Blow Count, NBC, blows/0.3 m

Fig. 5.13 - Correlation Between N b c and N60 (after Harder, 1988)

N bc/N60
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
01 ---------
A o
A
>
* ‘
c
A'O I D
P
£ A o [I
; q. D
CD □ %
D
n
: 10 Dataf rom Hai der (19 B8) o A
s
I O S alinas (ssilt and sand)
II A
□ T lermalit o (sand
A S an Dieg o (silty £sand an d sand) A
15

Fig. 5.14 - Blow Count Ratio verses Depth (after Sy and Campanella, 1993).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 95

100

Rs = 0 kN 45 1 35 180 225
80
m
SPT N60, blows/0.3

60
270

40
315

360
20

0 20 40 60 80 100
B PT Nb 3o. blows/0.3 m

Fig. 5.15 - Proposed SPT-BPT Correlations by Sy and Cam panella (1993) for
Various Shaft Resistances.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 96

were not monitored with the Pile Driving Analyzer. The effect o f side friction during

B eck er testing in Idaho is believe to not be a big problem since the depth o f the

liquefying deposit at nearly all Idaho sites less than about 6 m (20 ft). Therefore,

depth effects are initially ignored. In Chapter 10, a relationship between N b c /N 60

and depth is proposed.

5.5 CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)

Several CPT-based liquefaction assessment procedures have been proposed

for sands. These procedures have been reviewed in Shibata and Teparaksa (1988),

M itchell and Tseng (1990), and M ahm ood-Zadegan et al. (1991). Liquefaction

potential boundaries from five separate assessment studies for sands based on cone

tip resistance, qc, are shown in Fig. 5.16. These studies can b e divided into three

general categories: 1) studies using SPT-C PT correlations, 2) studies using

laboratory cyclic loading test results, and 3) studies using field performance data.

5.5.1 CPT-Based Assessment Developed from SPT-CPT Correlations

The liquefaction potential assessment lines, shown in Fig. 5.16, proposed by

Robertson and Cam panella (1985) and Seed and De Alba (1986) were developed by

converting (Ni)6o-values along the liquefaction potential boundary for clean sand,

show n in Fig. 5.5, to norm alized cone tip resistance, qc i, using the relationships

show n in Fig. 5.17 between qc/N and median grain size, D 50 . This conversion

implies that the values of qc are normalized to 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa) using the expression

(Seed and D e Alba, 1986):

qd = Cn qc (5.19)

where C n = the overburden correction factor for the SPT discussed in Section 5.3.2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 97

0.7
I I
VI = 7 .5 eai ■thquakes
3ercent Fin es < 5

0.6

D50 (mnn) = 0.25 0.4 0.8

0.5
> Seed and
DeA ba (1986) —
.to
>
I ..c ho= 0.2 1 Nlitchell and
03 )50 = 0 . 4 J 7 seng (1990)
H
.2
•+—»
0.4
CO
cc Liquefaction ft
C/3
CO
0)
/ft ! /
M!/ ' ' 1 uqo= u.<£ j
J / / 25 1 Shibata and
ft) 0.3 f
/ ft / ! / 1epar<aksa (1988)“
o Ishihara (19 85) .
"o 0.25 < D50 ;: 0.55 m m /
>.
O /J? Robertson and
v // Campanella (1985)
0.2 u 50 > u.a b mm

*7///
No Liqu efaction
0.1 &

1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2

0.0 I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , M Pa

Fig. 5.16 - Comparison o f Five Proposed Liquefaction Potential Charts for Clean
Sands Based on Normalized Cone Tip Resistance, qC) (after Mitchell and
Tseng, 1990).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 98

10 ■ 1 i 1 i > . 1 | 1 i i f i-r -T " t

1 n
• q c i n t o n / f t 2 ( 1 t o n / f t 2 = 9 6 kPa)
in
W - - in h l n w c / n S m
2 8
"6 / I
cr / C
P
£ 6 □ □
co
cc • □ B *O a n
c
.2 4 g -C T n ^ n n
to □ ______ _
•*—*
0 ]
0 2
0.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ !_ _ I_ _ I_ _ I_ L _L - 1 .. — I— - - 1 1 1- 1 ! 1
0.01 0.1
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

(a) Proposed by Robertson et al. (1983).

10

o ‘ qc in ton/ft2 (1 ton/ft2 = 96 kPa)

CO in hinure/fi '3m
2
"b
O'
£ 6 A
co
CC ■
c
.2 4 AA“ A
2?
0
o 2 A
0.

■ ii i 1 i i i ___ 1 11 1----------- 1 I... . I \J ! 1.

0.01 0.1
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

(a) Proposed by Seed and De A lba (1986).

Fig. 5.17 - Two Correlations Between the Ratio of Cone Tip Resistance, qc, to SPT
Blow Count, N6o, and M edian Grain Size, D 50, (after M itchell and
Tseng, 1990).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 99

5.5.1.1 Consideration for Gravelly Soils

Andrus et al. (1991) have suggested using an extended relationship betw een

9c/N60 and D 50 to construct additional CPT-based assessm ent boundaries for

gravelly soils. Such an extension was proposed by Andrus and Youd (1987) and

later modified by Stokoe et al. (1988a) using 15-cm2 cone data and borehole samples

from the Pence R anch and W hiskey Springs sites, as show n in Fig. 5.18.

Subsequent testing at the Pence Ranch site with a 10-cm 2 cone has shown little

variance in tip resistance with the 15-cm2 cone soundings. Further sampling in test

pits has shown that the sediments are somewhat coarser than previously assum ed

based on borehole samples, as illustrated in Fig. 5.18.

Zervogiannis and Kalteziotis (1988) suggested the relationship between qc/N

and D 50 be modeled as:

qc = a N (D50)b (5.20)

w here a and b are curve fitting param eters. From a least-squares fit o f the data

referenced by Seed and De A lba and the data from Pence R anch and W hiskey

Springs (using only D 50 determined from the test pit samples, the solid circles and

squares show n in Fig. 5.18), Eq. 5.20 can be expressed as:

qc / N 60 = 5.2 (D 50)0-16 (5.21)

w here qc is in tons/ft2. W ith Eq. 5.21 and following the approach of Seed and De

Alba, liquefaction potential boundaries for soils with less than 5 percent fines and

D 50 = 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 mm have been drawn in Fig. 5.19. It should be noted that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

....... 1 "i > 1 1 r.i 1 1 ..

1 1 “i 1 1 1 1 1

S am p le T y p e Loose G ravel
SPT A u a e r T e s t Pit Site
Stokoe et al. (1988a)—
O 0 • Pence Ranch
o
CO
□ 1Z m Whiskey Springs pi--------------
2 ---------- 1a / ___ -
/ /
O- □ --------------

CC
DC
c
- A
cc
i— 16 0 = 5 .2 (D 50)0-16
4-*
CD
C
0 A
a. a /& J
- data referenced by
Seed and De Alba (19 8 6 )
shown in Fig. 5.17 qc in tons/ I2 (1 ton/ft2 = 96 kPa)
_____ 1___ 1__ 1_1 . 1 1 1 1 -------- 1---- ! - 1 ! 1 1 1 1 -------- 1 1 1 1.1 ... i - i ' i i i i i
0.01 0.1 10 100
M ed ian G rain S ize, D 5 0 , m m

Fig. 5.18 - Relationship Between qc/Ngo and M edian Grain Size for Sands and Loose Gravel (modified
from Andrus et al., 1991; after Stokoe e t al., 1988a, and Seed and De Alba, 1986)

100
 101

0.7
M = 7.5 earthquakes
Percent Fines < 5

0.6 Coarse'
G ravel
Sand

0.5

o 0.4

Liquefaction
CO 0.3

0.2 No Liquefaction

0.1
Based on qc/N 60 = 5 .2 (D50)0-16,
qc in tons/ft2, and relationship by
1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2 Seed et al. (1984) shown in Fig 5.5
o.o
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , M P a

Fig. 5.19 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Cone Tip
Resistance for Gravelly Soils and M = 7.5 Earthquakes.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 102

the boundary o f D 50 = 1 mm in Fig. 5.19 is somewhat less conservative than the

boundary for 0.8 mm proposed by Seed and De Alba (1986), as shown in Fig. 5.16.

The boundaries shown in Fig. 5.19 are used to evaluate the liquefaction potential o f

the clean gravelly soils at the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites in Chapters 6

and 7. For the silty gravelly soils at the Larter Ranch site, liquefaction potential

boundaries are constructed in a similiar manner using the potential boundaries shown

in Fig. 5.5 for silty sands.

5.5.2 CPT-Based Assessment Developed from Laboratory Test Results

Ishihara (1985) and M itchell and Tseng (1990) characterize the liquefaction

resistance of various sands using laboratory cyclic loading tests. Ishihara related

cyclic triaxial test results with field CPT data. Mitchell and Tseng correlated cyclic

triaxial and cyclic simple shear test results with predicted values o f cone penetration

resistance based on a modified cavity expansion theory. The proposed liquefaction

potential boundaries for clean sands from these correlations are shown in Fig. 5.16.

It has been recom m ended that qc be normalized to an effective reference

overburden stress of to 1 ton/ft2 (96 kPa) by:

Qcl —Cq qc (5.22)

where Cq = an overburden correction factor for the CPT. The influence o f effective

overburden stress, o 'v, on cone tip resistance has been characterized for various

sands (Schm ertm ann, 1978; B aldi et al., 1981; V illet and M itchell, 1981;

Jamiokowski et al., 1985). Similar to C n , Cq can be expressed by:

Cq = ( l/ o 'v ) » (5.23)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 103

w here a 'v is in tons/ft2, and n = a value that depends on soil grain size, stress

history, and other factors. Values o f n related to D 50 , fo r various norm ally

consolidated sands are plotted in Fig. 5.20. The plotted data have a mean value of

about 0.7. (The m ean for the C n exponent k for sands is about 0.5.) Assum ing that

soil grain size influences k and n in a similar manner, n can be approximated by:

n = 0.61 [(1 / D 50) + 0.025]0 1 3. (5.24)

The graph o f Eq. 5.24 is shown in Fig. 5.20. Calibration tests on coarse sand and

loose to m edium dense gravel are needed to verify Eq. 5.24. W hile som e o f the

1.2 ------- 1-------- 1------ 1— I I I I 1 ---------------1---------1------1— 1— I 'T 'T I j--------------- 1

--------- 1
------ 1
— 1 1 1 11

□ Data reported by
Jami olkowski et al. (1985)
with 11 < Dr < 1 0 0 % ___
1.0
91a Relat ive Density;
aBcildi et al. (1981)
□
?nb bVi let and Mitchell (1981)
0.8
c
o o 80
70
§ 0.6 42r * ^
0
x ■91a
LU
cr
o ... ' " ' r -
0.4
/
n = 0.61 (1/D5 0 -¥ 0 .0 2 5 )0-13

0.2

0.0 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 I___ I __ 1 11 111—L I_____ I____I___L _ I _ ! _ U _

0.1 1 10 100
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

Fig. 5.20 - Tentative Relationsliip Between the Cq Exponent n and M edian Grain
Size.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 104

plotted data suggest that n is also dependent on relative density, D r, the scatter

exhibited in the data prevents developm ent of a general relationship with D r as a

parameter.

These liquefaction assessm ent procedures will be evaluated in Chapter 10

using n = 0.7.

5.5.2 CPT-Based Assessment Developed from Field Performance Data

Shibata and Teparaksa (1988) developed liquefaction assessment lines based

on field perform ance data from five earthquakes and CPT m easurem ents. They

expressed the critical value o f normalized cone tip resistance, (qci)cr. which separates

liquefiable from nonliquefiable conditions by:

(qcl)cr = (D50 / 0.25) /(X / c'v) (5.25

where

/ ( x / a'v) = [5 + 20 (x / a 'v - 0.1) / (x/ a 'v+ 0.1)], (5.26)

(x / aV) = 0.1 (M - 1 ) (amax / g) ( a v / a ’v) (1 - 0.015 z), (5.27)

(<3cl)cr in M Pa, D 50 = m edian grain size, x = amplitude of equivalent uniform shear

stress cycles, a v = initial vertical stress, a ’v = initial vertical effective stress, M =

earthquake magnitude, amax = maximum horizontal acceleration at ground surface, g

= acceleration o f gravity, and z = depth in m eters (for z < 25 m). Shibata and

Teparaksa norm alized cone tip resistances to a reference stress o f 0.1 M Pa (1.04

tons/ft2) using the overburden correction factor Cq expressed by:

C q = 0 .1 7 / ( a 'v + 0.07) (5.28)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 105

w here ct'v is in M Pa. The mean gain size o f sediments investigated ranged from

0.06 to 0.5 mm. Shibata and Teparaksa noted that Eqs. 5.25 and 5.26 w ith D 50 =

0.25 m m provided a good boundary for all data. For gravelly soils, they

recom m ended other in-situ testing m ethods be developed. This liquefaction

assessment procedure will be evaluated in Chapter 10.

5.6 SHEAR W AVE VELOCITY (Vs ) - STRESS-BASED PROCEDURE

A stress-based liquefaction assessment method using normalized, small-strain

shear wave velocity, V$i has been proposed by Robertson et al. (1992). Robertson

et al. used the assum ption that V s is a function of the square root o f the effective

overburden stress, and normalized Vs using the approximate equation:

V S 1 = VS (Pa / a 'v )0-25 (5.29)

w here Pa = reference stress, typically 100 kPa or 1 ton/ft2. Robertson et al. (1992)

chose to norm alized in terms o f ct'v, the traditional way SPT and CPT data are

norm alized, instead o f using the mean effective stress (as show n by H ardin and

D rnevich, 1972) to avoid the assum ption needed to use K'0; hence avoiding the

effective horizontal stress, c'h- The liquefaction potential boundary for 7.5 M

earthquakes shown in Fig. 5.21 was drawn using the field data available from five

earthquakes.

5.7 SHEAR W AVE VELOCITY (Vs ) - STRAIN-BASED PROCEDURE

A nother m ethod relating the liquefaction potential o f sands and V s has

evolved from the cyclic strain approach developed by D obry and his colleagues

(1982). This method is based on the determination of the peak cyclic shearing strain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 106

0.7
I i .... i |
1 EXPLANATION 1
Fines
Earthquake Maanitude Content. %
1 Nigata, 1964 7.5 <10
0.6 d. coran j eaK, naoa f.-i sanay u r avei
3 San Sa Ivador, 1986 6.2 30
4 Imperic I Valley, 198 7 6.6 35
5 Chibak enToho Oki, 1987 6.7 35
• 3
0.5
>
"to
>
to
e i /
CO
DC
«
w
S> 0.3 /
I
CO
_o
o 2. /
>»
O
5 . /
0.2 ino L iq u e T action
4<

0.1

l\A = 7 .5 Ear thquakes

0.0 , I i
50 100 150 200 250 300

N orm alized S h e a r W a v e Velocity, V s i, m /sec

Fig. 5.21 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart by Robertson et al. (1992)

Based on Normalized Shear Wave Velocity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 107

at which the cyclic pore w ater pressure ratio (|i./ct3 C) equals 1.0, called initial

liquefaction. The cyclic strain required for initial liquefaction is used as the criterion

for liquefaction occurrence.

5.7.1 Parametric Study

Stokoe et al. (1988c) applied the cyclic stain approach in a parametric study

of the liquefaction potential of sandy soils in the Imperial Valley, California using the

com puter program SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972). Two general soil profiles were

assum ed in their param etric study. Figure 5.22 presents the first generalized soil

profile which contained a shallow (< 12 m) liquefiable sand layer. T he three

parameters o f the liquefiable sand layer which were varied are: soil stiffness in terms

of small-strain V s, depth, and thickness (see Fig. 5.22). The second soil profile was

simply a 61-m (200-ft) thick clay deposit. Below a depth of 12 m (40 ft), V s o f the

clay deposit in the second profile was the same that used at the liquefaction site.

Above 12 m (40 ft), the stiffness o f the clay in the second profile was stiffer than the

soils used at the liquefaction site, with V s ranging from 152 m /s (500 ft/sec) at the

surface to 183 m/s (600 ft/sec) at a depth o f 12 m (40 ft). According to Stokoe et al.

(1988c), the second profile was "selected to be representative o f a stiff soil site in

Imperial Valley upon which strong-motion accelerographs were placed." The shear

wave velocity profiles for the liquefaction site and clay deposit are shown in Fig.

5.23.

Shear wave velocity, Vs, is related to the small-strain shear modulus, Gmax>

by:

G max = 0'T / g ) V S2 (5.30)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 108

Soil S hear W ave

Depth Profile Velocity, V s
(m) (m/sec)
Clay 105
D
91 to 152 water
table
185
at 1.5 m
15-
215
Parameters of Liquefiable
Sand Layer
S hear W ave Velocity, V s
30- 260
9 1 ,1 0 7 , 122,
Clay 137 and 152 m/sec
Depth to the Bottom
4.6, 6.1, 9 . 1 , 12.2 m

Thickness
305 3.0, 4.6, 6.1 m

Soil Density:

18.9 kN/m 3 (120 lbs/ft3)

60 H
Bedrock 1525

Fig. 5.22 - Soil Model Used in the Parametric Studies of the Sand Liquefaction Site
by Stokoe et al. (1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 109

Shear W ave Velocity, V g, m/sec

100 200 300 400
_JL_
r
water
table
at 1.5 m
10
Vg Profile of the

7 Reference Site
(called "Stiff Soil Site")
20 .V g Profiles of the_
Liquefiable Site
tZZT

Q
JC
4-1
30
Cl
0
Cl I 1

40

50

60

Fig. 5.23 - Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Used in the Parametric Studies by Stokoe
et al. (1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 110

where Yp = total unit weight and g = gravitational acceleration. The variations in the

shear m odulus and m aterial damping ratio w ith shearing stain assum ed for the

liquefiable sand layer and the clay layers are shown in Figs. 5.24 and 5.25.

A relationship betw een peak cyclic shearing strain and |i / a 3C for various

num ber of cycles o f strain was developed by Ladd (1982) from strain-controlled,

cyclic triaxial tests on two Imperial Valley sands, as shown in Fig. 5.26. From this

relationship, initial liquefaction would occur at shearing strains o f about 2 ,1 and 0.5

percent for 10, 20 and 30 cycles of loading, respectively. These shearing strains

were used by Stokoe et al. (1988c) as the criteria for liquefaction occurrence. Since

this criteria is based on undrained tests on sand with a m edian grain size, D 50 , o f

0.13 to 0.14 m m (Ladd, 1982), this work implicitly assumed that no drainage occurs

in the field and predicted behavior is for sand.

A ccording to Stokoe et al. (1988c), m ost of the analyses were perform ed

with the strong-motion accelerogram which was recorded at the Salton Sea station

during the 1981 W estm orland earthquake. The Salton Sea station is located about 7

km north of the 1981 epicenter. This strong-motion record exhibited an amax of 0.20

g and an equivalent num ber of cycles, Nc, o f about 10 (Bierschw ale and Stokoe,

1984). Records o f larger m agnitude were fabricated by sim ply m ultiplying the

Salton Sea record by a preselected factor. Records w ith Nc o f about 20 and 30

cycles were generated by doubling and tripling the strong-m otion portion of the

Salton Sea record (Aouad, 1986).

Using the soil characteristics for the profile with the liquefiable sand layer and

a scaled record as the input motion which excited bedrock at a depth of 61 m (200 ft),

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 111

Imperial Valley Clays

C0
J3
1 0.6
2
co
0
JO 0.4
CO
T3
0
N
'« 0.2 Heber Road Sands
E (D 50 = 0.1 3 to 0.14 mm)
o
2:
0 . 01—
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shearing Strain, y, %

Fig. 5.24 - Variation in Modulus with Strain for Imperial Valley Soils (from Stokoe
et al., 1988c; after Ladd, 1982, and T urner and Stokoe, 1982).

32

d Heber Road Sands

o' 24 (D 50 = 0.13 to 0.14 mm)
CO
oc
o>
c
'q.
E
c0
Q
Imperial Valley Clays

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Shearing Strain, y, %

Fig. 5.25 - Variation in Damping with Strain for Imperial Valley Soils (from Stokoe
et al., 1988c; after Ladd, 1982, and Turner and Stokoe, 1982).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

n 0.8

o
as
DC
£ 0.6
Z>
w
tf>
£
CL

5 0.4
£
o
CL
U
"o
O 0.2 Threshold Strain, Tt

o.o
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0
Peak Cyclic Shearing Strain, %
Fig. 5.26 - Variation in Cyclic Porewater Pressure Ratio with Num ber of Cyclic Shearing Strain
(Stokoe et al., 1988c; after Ladd, 1982).
 1 13

stresses and strains within the soil profile were com puted with program SH AK E

(Schnabel et a l, 1972). (SHAKE is based on an equivalent linear analysis.) These

calculations were repeated with either a larger or smaller m agnitude record until the

estimated strain within the liquefiable sand layer equaled the cyclic strain required for

initial liquefaction. The liquefiable sand layer had been divided into 1.5-m (5-ft)

thick sublayers, each having the same stiffness. The com puted strain within the

bottom sublayer was always greater than the com puted strain in the other sublayers.

Thus, criteria for initial liquefaction was first satisfied in the bottom sublayer. Next,

the scaled record which generated initial liquefaction was applied at bedrock beneath

the second profile to determine amax at the surface of the reference site (called "a stiff

soil site"). These procedures were followed for each set of parameters characterizing

the liquefiable sand layer (V s, depth, and thickness). A total o f forty-six velocity

profiles was considered, as shown in Fig. 5.23.

5.7.2 Development o f Liquefaction Assessment Relationships Based on Vg

Since it seem ed more likely engineers would estim ate amax at the surface of

stiff soil sites than at liquefiable sites, Stokoe et al. (1988c) correlated Vs o f the

liquefiable sand layer with a max estim ated for a stiff soil site at the candidate-site

location. The data from their parametric study are summ arized in Figs. 5.27, 5.28,

and 5.29 for Nc = 1 0 ,2 0 and 30 cycles, respectively.

The following general trends were noted by Stokoe et al. (1988c) in the

plotted data: 1) the higher the V s, the less likely the site is to liquefy for a given

amax, 2) the greater the thickness o f the liquefiable sand layer, the less likely the site

is to liquefy for a given V s, and 3) the greater the depth to the bottom o f the

liquefiable sand layer, the slightly more likely the site is to liquefy at a given Vs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 114

200 ■p. i . • i 11 .i i
Sand (0.13 <C )50 <0.14 mm)
Nc = 10 cycles
NoD rainage
Leve Ground
175

.iquefac ion Like J y

rStokoe e al., 1988 C)
150 v. ' A n \ \ \

No
o Litluefacticin
cd
w 125

CO Liquef action
>

o
_o 100
©
>
CD
>
CO
75
CO
CD
x:
CO

50
Depth. m
12.2 3.1 6.1 4.6 Thic kness

■ • ▲ ♦ 3. 0 m
25
□ O A 4.6 m

Q 9 6.1 m
.........I , . , I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.27 - Relationship Between V s o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax,at Stiff Soil Site for 10 Cycles of
Shaking, Nc, as Determined by Bierschwale and Stokoe (1984) with the
Proposed Assessment Chart o f Stokoe et al. (1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 115

200 i
Sand (0.13 <C 50 <0.14 mm)
Nc = 20 cycles
NoD rainage
Leve Ground
175

Liq uefactio n Likely

(St okoe et al , 1988c)

150 l y w
N0
m
o
Liquef action
€1
CD
C/3
125 ip
cn
> Lique action

o vvX
_o 100 a S \
03
>
0)
>
CO
75
CO
03
•C
CO

50
Depth. m
12.2 5).1 6.1 4.6 Thic kness

■ • ♦ 3.0 m
25
A 4.6 m

a d 6.1 m
i I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.28 - Relationship Between Vs of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax> at Stiff Soil Site for 20 Cycles of
Shaking, Nc, as Determined by Aouad (1986) with the Proposed
Assessment Chart o f Stokoe et al. (1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 116

200 ------------ 1-------------1------------ T------------

Sand (0.13 < D5q 2 0.14 mm)
Nc = 30 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
175

.iquefac ion Like y

N Stokoe el al., 1988 =)
%
Liquef action 1
150 6 K \\\

o
(D
C/5
125

co Liquefc ction
>

8 100
Q)
>
<D
Jo
£ 75
CO
©
■C
CO

50
DeDth. m
12.2 £1.1 6.1 4.6 Thic kness

■ • ♦ 3.0 m
25
A 4.6 m

a (» 6.1 m

I !
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max a * Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.29 - Relationship Between Vs of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax, at Stiff Soil Site for 30 Cycles of
Shaking, Nc, as Determined by Aouad (1986) with the Proposed
Assessment Chart o f Stokoe et al. (1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 117

Stokoe et al. (1988c) created liquefaction assessment charts by dividing Figs.

5.27, 5.28 and 5.29 each into three regions: the region left o f the plotted data, the

region o f the plotted data, and the region right o f the plotted data. Liquefaction is

predicted to not occur left o f the plotted data because the sand is too stiff to liquefy.

W ithin the region o f the plotted data, liquefaction would likely occur, but depends on

layer thickness and depth. R ight of the plotted data, liquefaction is predicted to

occur.

To test the accuracy o f the liquefaction assessment chart for Nc = 10 cycles,

Stokoe et al. (1988c) used the field data from the Imperial Valley liquefaction sites

which did and did not liquefy during the 1979 Imperial V alley (M s = 6.8) and the

1981 W estm orland (M l = 5.6) earthquakes. Characteristics of the critical layer

beneath each liquefaction site along with field performance information for these two

earthquakes are summarized in Table 5.2. Also listed in Table 5.2 by the writer, are

the field perform ance data for the subsequent N ovem ber 24, 1987 Elmore Ranch

(M s = 6.2 at 0154 GM T) and Superstition Hills (M S = 6.6 at 1315 GM T)

earthquakes.

For the 1987 earthquakes, amax at the surface o f stiff soil site for each

Im perial Valley liquefaction site is based on the strong-m otion seism ograph data

published by Porcella et. al. (1987). Earthquake epicenters and values o f amax

recorded at the seismograph stations in the vicinity of the liquefaction sites during the

Elm ore Ranch and Superstition Hills earthquakes are shown in Figs. 5.30 and 5.31,

respectively. Also shown in Fig. 5.31, is the 1987 northwest-trending Superstition

Hills fault ruptured. Additional northeast-trending fault ruptures were observed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 5.2 - Summary of Performance of the Imperial Valley, California Liquefaction Sites During Four Earthquakes.

Critical Layer 3 Earthquake

1979, MS = 6.8 1981, ML = 5.6 1987, Ms = 6.2 1987, MS = 6.6
Soil Range Range
Site Type D T vs Vsi LIQ.3 amaxa LIQ.3 a maxa LIQ.b amax LIQ.b amax
(m) (m) (m/sec) (m/sec) (9) (g) (g) (g)

Wildlife Sand 23 14 103-130 135-141 No 0.15 Yes 0.31 No 0.13 Yes 0.22f
Radio Tower Sand 21 12 85 -104 10 0 -1 1 5 Yes 0.28e Yes 0.18e No 0.10 No 0.18
McKim Sand 16 11 108-134 1 35-182 Yes 0.55 No 0.09 No 0.06 No 0.20
Vail Canal Sand 18 13 8 5 -1 2 0 1 07-174 No 0.13 Yes 0.34 No 0.11 No 0.17
Kornbloom Silt 22 17 9 8 -1 3 0 1 18-143 No 0.08 Yes 0.35 No 0.17 No 0.22
Heber Road
Channel Fill Sand0 5° 3° 1 2 0 - 140d 150-1 7 3 d Yes 0.50 No 0.02 No 0.05 No 0.20
Point Bar Sand0 5° 3° 155 - 192d 190 - 256d No 0.50 No 0.02 No 0.05 No 0.20
Levee Sand0 5° 3° 1 2 6 - 151d 160- 178d No 0.50 No 0.02 No 0.05 No 0.20

D = depth to bottom of liquefiable layer; T = thickness of liquefiable layer; Vs = shear wave velocity;
V s i = normalized shear wave velocity; amax = peak horizontal ground acceleration at stiff soil site;
Ms = surface wave magnitude; M l = local magnitude
aamax at stiff soil site; from data reported by Bierschwale and Stokoe (1984) and Stokoe and Nazarian (1985).
Perform ance based on Holzer (1988); and Holzer et al. (1989).
cYoud and Bennett (1983).
dBased on crosshole data reported by Sykora and Stokoe (1982).
eValues have been reversed from Bierschwale and Stokoe (1984) because of suspected typing error.
f Note, measured amax at the Wildlife site was 0.21 g. From analytical studies by Bierschwale and Stokoe (1984) using the programs
SHAKE and DESRA, amax at a stiff soil site would be about 0.22 and 0.25g, respectively.

oo
 119

115° 45' 115° 30'

33° 15'
EXPLANATION
• Liquefaction
study site
SALTON SEA
O Strong-motion
O S a lto n S e a station, ground
0.18 surface

\O C a lip a tria
9 Vail Canal 0.22
Kornbloon •
Wildlife Os
0 .1 3 '
*
Epicenter
November 24,1987 • Radio Tower
(0154 GMT)
3 3 ° 00'

Brawley O Array
0 .1 3 o
Superstition No 1
0 .1 3 o
Mountain
Parachute
T e st Site O No 2
McKim O No 3

n 11 °-03
°-^1 ONo 4
.0.05 No 5
0.05 \ O N o 6
0 No 7
El Centro 0.06
Building. ONo 8
O M ead ow s
No 9
0.05 0.05
Plaster City
No 10
3 2 ° 45' ' 005
0.05,'O N o 11 .Heber
Road
° - 0 5 O No 12
O N o 13

00®O Comer
10 km
U N ITE D S TA JE S -

Fig. 5.30 - Locations o f Strong-Motion Stations and Liquefaction Sites in Imperial

Valley, California (Bierschwale and Stokoe, 1984; and Porcella and
Mattheisen, 1979) with amax (Porcella et al., 1987) for the 1987 Elmore
Ranch Earthquake, M s = 6.2 at 0154 GMT.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 EXPLANATION
Liquefaction
study site
SALTON SEA
O Strong-motion
OSalton Sea station, ground
0.15 surface

(OCalipatria
q Vail Canal 0.32
Kornbloon •
Wildlife O

Epicenter
November 24,1987
(1315 GMT) • Radio Tower

33” 00 1987 Superstition Hills

Fault Rupture

/ Brawley 0.09q Array

Superstition No 1
Mountain 0.53
Parachute
Test Site 0-12O No 2
McKim 0.11O N o3

0 20 O
1? No 4
0.19 No 5
' O No 6
El Centro
Building ONo 8
O Meadows
0.27
Plaster City
No 10
32° 45’ Heber
0.32O No 11
O No 12
°-19ONo13
0 .2 9 q B ond s
Comer
10 km
u n it e u s t ^ JE s -

Fig. 5.31 - Locations o f Strong-Motion Stations and Liquefaction Sites in Imperial

Valley, California (Bierschwale and Stokoe, 1984; and Porcella and
Mattheisen, 1979) with amax (Porcella et al., 1987) and Location o f
Rupture (Frankel and Wennerberg, 1989) for the 1987 Superstition Hills
Earthquake, M s = 6.6 at 1315 GMT.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 121

extending from the northern end o f the Superstition Hills fault to about the location of

the E lm ore Ranch epicenter. According to Hanks and A llen (1989), "the likely

relationship...is that the Elmore Ranch earthquake activated the northeast-trending

faults, while the Superstition H ills earthquake broke the Superstition Hills fault."

Based on this conclusion, amax determined from the strong-ground records during

the Elmore Ranch earthquake have been correlated to epicentral distance, and values

o f ^max for the Superstition Hills earthquake have been correlated with the shortest

distance between the station and the northwest-trending fault rupture, as shown in

Fig. 5.32. For comparison, the attenuation relationships determ ined by Seed and

Idriss (1982) for the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake are also shown in Fig. 5.32.

The general attenuation trend for all three earthquakes is sim ilar. How ever, the

m edian for the Superstition Hills earthquake data is slightly higher than the m edian

for the 1979 earthquake, and the median o f the Elm ore Ranch data is som ew hat

low er than the 1979 earthquake. Using the relationships shown in Fig. 4.32 and

considering local variations (see Figs. 5.30 and 5.31), values o f amax estim ated for

the 1987 earthquakes for each liquefaction investigation site are listed in Table 5.2.

Based on Table 5.1, these four earthquakes generated approxim ately 5 to 10

cy cles o f strong ground shaking. U sing the m inim um value o f V s, field

perform ance data for all four Imperial Valley earthquakes have been plotted on the

liquefaction assessm ent chart for Nc = 10 cycles shown in Fig. 5.33. W ith the

exception o f a few data, the liquefaction and nonliquefaction occurrence is distinctly

separated. Liquefaction behavior predicted by Stokoe et al. (1988c) appears to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 122

"i— i l i i i 1 I I I i i I

Median + 1a
O)
X Median for the 1987
(O 'Median
E Superstition Hills Earthquake
CO
c Median - 1a
o 0.3
2
CD
©
o
o Wildlife Site
< Median for the 1987
CD Elmore Ranch Earthquake °
O
co
3 0.1
CO
T3
C
3 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake
2 (Ms = 6.8; from Seed and Idriss, 1982) °
0
75
c
o o Epicental Distance, 1987 Elmore
N
•§0 .03 Ranch Earthquake (Ms = 6.2; based
IE on data published by Porecella et al.,1987)
CO
CD • Distance From Fault, 1987 Superstition
Q.
Hills Earthquake (Ms = 6.6; based on
acceleration data published by Porecella et al.,1987)
0.01 1 I I— I.,,l-LI.11________ I I I I I I LI
3 10 30 100 300
Closest Horizontal Distance from Zone of Energy Release, km

Fig. 5.32 - Comparison of Variations in amax with Distance for the 1979 Imperial
Valley Earthquake, and the Elmore Ranch and Superstition Hills
Earthquakes of Novem ber 24, 1987.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 123

200
Sand (0.13 < D50 < 0.14
Nc = 10 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
175

150
No Liquefaction Likely
Liquefaction (Stokoe et al., 1988c)
o
CD
JO
125

co
>

o
.o 100
CD Liquefaction
>
©
> 4 4 422
CC

CO
CD
-C
CO

Earthquake Behavior
1 Wildlife
1979 Imperial Valley 2 Radio Tower
McKim
1981 Westmorland 4 Vail Canal
1987 Elmore Ranch 5 Kornbloom
Channel Fill, Heber Rd
1987 Superstition Hills Point Bar, Heber Rd
8 Levee, Heber Rd.

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.33 - Comparison of Field Performance (Based on M inim um value o f Vg) and
Predicted Behavior o f Sandy Sites Susceptible to Liquefaction in the
Imperial Valley, California (after Stokoe et al., 1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 124

provide a reasonable boundary, but exhibits the general tendency to be slightly

under-conservative for lower values of V s (Vs < 105 m/sec) and over-conservation

for higher values of V s (Vs > 140 m/sec).

5.8 NORMALIZED SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY (VSi) - STRAIN-BASED

Normalized shear w ave velocity, V s i, is a basic soil property, which can be

considered to be independent o f confining pressure because o f the normalization. It

m ay be, therefore, desirable to express the liquefaction assessm ent boundaries

discussed earlier in terms o f V si.

Figures 5.34, 5.35 and 5.36 sum m arize the norm alized results o f the

parametric study performed by the writer as part of this research. Normalization was

performed using Eq. 5.29. Since liquefaction of the sand layer was first predicted in

the parametric study in the bottom sublayer, it seemed reasonable to normalized using

c ’v at the base of the liquefiable sand layer. A total unit weight o f 18.9 kN/m 3 (120

lb/ft3) and a water table at a depth o f 1.5 m (5 ft) were assumed to estim ate o 'v. The

region where liquefaction w ould be likely has been drawn in Figs. 5.34, 5.35 and

5.36 to included the plotted data.

I h e following general trends can be observed in Figs. 5.34, 5.35 and 5.36.

First, the scatter in the data is reduced by normalization. Second, the greater the

thickness of the sand layer, the less likely it is to liquefy for a given V si. Third, the

effect o f thickness seem s m ore significant at low er values o f Vs i - Fourth,

liquefaction potential appears to be reasonably independent of depth for N c = 10

cycles, see Fig. 5.34. However, for Nc = 20 and 30 cycles and a thickness of 3 m

(10 ft), the liquefaction potential of the sand layer seems greater at the depths o f 9.1

and 12.2 m (30 and 40 ft) than at the depth o f 4.6 m (15 ft), see Figs. 5.35 and 5.36.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 125

200
Sand (0.13 < D50 <0.14 mm)
Nc = 10 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
175
X \ v l -------
Liquefaction
I Likely

cd 150

No
Liquefaction

>> 125
Liquefaction

100

~o

50
Depth, m
12.2 9.1 6.1 4.6 Thickness

3.0 m
25
4.6 m

6.1 m

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.34 - Relationship Between V si of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax, at Stiff Soil Site for 10 Cycles o f
Shaking, Nc. (Based on Data from Bierschwale and Stokoe, 1984.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 126

200 i
AW KW XV

o
Sand (().1 3 < D 5( im)

VI

fc
uefactio n
Nc = 2() cycles /
.\ Likely
No Dra inage t
Level Ground
175 Y
w

o 150 N0
w
Liquel action 1
E
co
>
>; 125
'o Liq jefactior i
_o
CD
>
0)
> 100
CO

ca
0)
s:
CO
■o 75
d)
N
15 I
E
o 1
z: 50
D.ep.th,.m
12.2 ).1 6.1 4.6 Thic kness
M • ♦ 3.0 m
25
A 4-6 m

a (i 6.1 m
I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.35 - Relationship Between V si of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax, at Stiff Soil Site for 20 Cycles o f
Shaking, N c. (Based on Data from Aouad, 1986.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 127

200 NNW V
uefactio n
< Likely

175 - N P
Lique faction

f
o
0 150
W P

Lique 1action
0)
> tiK x N
^ 125
o
_o
0
>
>
ctj 100

co
0
.c
CD vv Sand (CM 3 < D 5C) < 0.14 rr m)
T3 75 .V Nc = 3C cycles
0
.N No Dra nage
To Level Ground
E f
o 1
50
C)epth. m
12.2 3.1 6.1 4.6 Thickness

■ • ♦ 3.0 m
25
& 4.6 m

a 9 6.1 m

I . -I..
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

amax at s tift Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.36 - Relationship Between V si of Liquefiable Layer and Peka Horizontal

Ground Surface Acceleration, amax > S t i f f Soil Site for 30 Cycles o f
Shaking, Nc. (Based on Data from Aouad, 1986.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 128

The field perform ance data for the four Imperial V alley earthquakes are

plotted on the chart for Nc = 10 cycles as shown in Fig. 5.37. The lowest values of

V si from each site were used to plot the data. As shown in Fig. 5.37, three o f the

data points representing liquefaction occurrence lie outside the region o f predicted

liquefaction. Based on this com parison, the assessment charts in Figs. 5.34, 5.35

and 5.36 appear under conservative. Based on the observation in that liquefaction

potential is dependent on layer thickness, modification o f the liquefaction boundaries

is justified.

An attempt was m ade to estim ate amax, where possible, for very thin layers.

Since the liquefaction potential of the sand layer does not appear to vary linearly with

thickness (see Figs. 5.34, 5.35 and 5.36), the following relationship was chosen to

extrapolate amax for very thin layers:

amax = a (T + l)b (5.31)

where T = thickness in meters; a and b are param eters determ ined by least-squares

fitting techniques. In Eq. 5.31, T + l was seclected to avoid infinite liquefaction

potential at T = 0. The extrapolated data for T = 0.3 m (1 ft) are shown in Fig. 5.38.

Applying least squares techniques to the data for T = 0.3 m (1 ft) and using

judgm ent, the following relationship was established to provide an upper bound:

V Si = 160N cO-25amaxa5 (5.32)

where V si is in m/sec. The relationships given by Eq. 5.32 for Nc = 10, 20 and 30

cycles are also show n in Fig. 5.38. For comparison, these relationships are shown

with the normalized analytical data in Figs. 5.39, 5.40 and 5.41. Low er boundaries

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 129

200
Sand (0.13 < D50 <0.14 mm)
Nc = 10 cycles
No Drainage Liquefaction
Level Ground Likely —
175
Mo
8 Liquefaction

o
Q 150
C/5

co 0 3q 3 C & t P 1
>
>; 125
o
_o
0
> Liquefaction
0
ai 100
£
co
0
sz.
CO
T3
O
N

Earthquake Behavior 1 Wildlife

No LIQ 2 Radio Tower
3 McKim
1979 Imperial Valley A ▲ 4 Vail Canal
25 - 1981 Westmorland 0 • 5 Kornbloom
6 Channel Fill, Heber Rd,
1987 Elmore Ranch O 7 Point Bar, Heber Rd.
1987 Superstition Hills □ ■ 8 Levee, Heber Rd.
I I I
o.o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.37 - Comparison o f Field Performance and Predicted Behavior o f the Imperial
Valley Liquefaction Sites Based on M inimum Value o f V si from Fig.
5.33.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 130

200
No
Liquefaction

o 150

> . 125

Liquefaction

Boundary:
VSi = 160 Nc0-25a max
Sand (0.13 < D50 £ 0.14 mm)
T = 0.3 m by Extrapolation
No Drainage
Level Ground

Number of Cvcles
10 20 30 Depth

■ • ▲ 12.2 m

□ O A 9.1 m

Q 6.1 m

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7

*max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.38 - Relationship Between V si o f Liquefiable Layer and Extrapolated Peak

H orizontal G round Surface A cceleration, amax. at S tiff Soil Site for
Thickness, T = 0.3 m with Proposed Liquefaction Boundaries.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1 31

200

A \
No Liquefaction
— Liquefaction Likely

<D 150

> ; 125

Liquefaction

D e p th , m
1 2 .2 9 .1 6.1 4 .6 T h ic k n e s s

■ • ▲ ♦ 3.0 m

□ o A 4.6 m

a 9 6.1 m

Chart Based on --
Sand (0.13 < D50 £ 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m “
Nc = 10 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.39 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart for 10 Cycles of Shaking, Nc,
Based on V si and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration, amax> at
S tiff Soil Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 132

200
No
Likely
Liquefaction

175
O'
Normalized Shear Wave Velocity, Vsi, m/sec

150

125
Liquefaction

100

75

50

25

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max ^ Stiff Soil Site, 9

Fig. 5.40 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart for 20 Cycles of Shaking, Nc,
Based on V si and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration, amax>at
Stiff Soil Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 133

200
No A Liquefaction V
Liquefaction Likely

175
Normalized Shear Wave Velocity, V s -|, m/sec

150

Liquefaction

125

100

Depth, m
12.2 9.1 6.1 4.6 Thickness
75
3.0 m
* 4.6 m

50 6.1 m

Chart Based on --
Sand (0.13 < D50 <0.14 mm)
25 T > 0.3 m
Nc = 30 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.41 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment C hart for 30 Cycles of Shaking, N c,

Based on V si and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration, amax, at
S tiff Soil Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 134

for the region o f likely liquefaction have been drawn to include the data points from

the parametric study.

The field performance data for the four Imperial Valley earthquakes and the

chart based on Eqs. 5.32 and 5.33 for Nc = 10 cycles are shown in Fig. 5.42. As

show n in Fig. 5.42, all the data corresponding to liquefaction occurrence (solid

sym bols) correctly lie within the regions o f predicted liquefaction. This good

agreement suggests that an upper boundary for liquefaction form ed by Eq. 5.32 with

N c = 10 cycles for T = 0.3 m (1 ft) is an improvement over the region defined by the

analytical data alone.

Additional computer studies are recommended to verify these new assessment

charts. It is recom mended that the param etric study of Stokoe et al. (1988c) be

extended to include liquefiable layers that 1) have V si greater than 180 m /sec and

less than 80 m/sec, 2) extend to depths greater than 12 m (40 ft) and 3) are thinner

than 3 m (10 ft). More importantly, additional field data from sites that have and

have not liquefied during earthquakes are needed to test the accuracy o f these

assessment procedures.

For the Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake (M = 7.3), Nc is approximately equal

to 15 cycles based on Table 5.1. A liquefaction assessment chart based on V si for

N c = 15 cycles using Eqs. 5.32 and 5.33 is shown in Fig. 5.43. Figure 5.43 is used

to assess the potential of the gravelly soils at each Idaho liquefaction site in Chapters

6 through 9.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 135

200

No
Liquefaction Liquefaction X
175

o
CD 150
C/J

CO
>
5; 125
o
_o Liquefaction
<1)
>
CD
> 100
CO

Chart Based on --
CO
CD Sand (0.13 < D50 <0.14 mm)
JZ
CO T > 0.3 m
TJ Nc = 10 cycles
CD
_N No Drainage
"co Level Ground
E
o
2:
Earthquake Behavior Wildlife
Radio Tower
1979 Imperial Valley McKim
Vail Canal
1981 Westmorland Kornbloom
Channel Fill, Heber Rd.
1987 Elmore Ranch
Point Bar, Heber Rd
1987 Superstition Hills 8 Levee, Heber Rd

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 5.42 - Comparison o f Field Performance o f the Imperial Valley Liquefaction

Sites (Based on M inimum Value o f V si) and the Proposed Liquefaction
Assessment Chart for 10 Cycles o f Shaking, Nc, Based on V si and Peak
Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration, amax, at Stiff Soil Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 136

200

175 Liquefaction
X Liquefaction N
J: Likely /
CD 150 ^ \\\\\X \V

Liquefaction

100

TJ

Chart Based on --
Sand (0.13 < D50 £0.14 mm)
25 T > 0.3 m
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

I a max at Stiff Soil Site, g
|
! Fig. 5.43 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on V si for 15 Cycles o f
| Shaking, Nc, for Evaluation of the Borah Peak, Idaho Gravelly Soils.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 137

5.9 SUMMARY

Sim plified liquefaction assessm ent procedures for sands using the SPT,

CPT, and shear wave velocity are reviewed. An assessm ent procedure for sands

using norm alized shear wave velocity and peak ground surface acceleration is

developed. Tentative m ethods and corrections are discussed for soils containing

significant am ounts o f gravel or larger size particles, including two SPT-B PT

correlations. Since the data base of gravelly soils is lim ited and corrections are

tentative, these sim plified procedures developed for sands are initially used in

Chapters 6 through 9 to assess the potential o f the Borah Peak, Idaho gravelly soils.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER SIX

INVESTIGATIONS AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

AT PENCE RANCH

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The Pence Ranch site is located on a low-lying river terrace about 300 m

(1000 ft) southw est of the present-day channel o f the Big Lost River. T his river

terrace, shown in the aerial photograph o f Fig. 6.1, rises 2 m (6 ft) above the m odem

flood plain, to an elevation o f about 1867 m (6125 ft) above m ean sea level. The

southern term inus o f the 1983 surface faulting is approxim ately 8 km (5 mi)

northw est of the site (see Fig. 1.1). Strong ground shaking during the Borah Peak

earthquake caused the loose, saturated sediments beneath the terrace to liquefy.

Liquefaction effects at the Pence Ranch were described in the reconnaissance

report by Youd et al. (1985). A review of reported liquefaction effects is given in

Section 6.2. Subsequent field investigations were conducted at Pence R anch in

1984, 1985, 1990 and 1991. The field work included penetration testing, seism ic

testing, sam pling, in-place density measurements, and trenching. Results from the

1984 and 1985 field studies were presented in project reports by Harder (1988) and

Stokoe et al. (1988a), and sum m arized in publications by Stokoe et al. (1989a),

A ndm s and Y oud (1989), and Andrus e t al. (1991 and 1992). A com prehensive

discussion of the field investigations is presented in Section 6.3, including the recent

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 139

Fig. 6.1 - Aerial Photograph (USDA, July 7, 1961) of the Pence Ranch Site and the Big Lost River.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 140

studies conducted in 1990 and 1991 which are a part of this research. Liquefaction

potential is assessed in Section 6.4 using simplified procedures. A summary of the

findings is provided in Section 6.5.

6.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Liquefaction effects at Pence Ranch include ground failure (lateral spreading)

o f a gently sloping (less than 5 p e rc e n t) river terrace, formation of gravelly sand

boils, and floatation of a partially buried concrete utility box. A map showing the

general layout of the Pence Ranch site and the distribution o f liquefaction effects is

presented in Fig. 6.2. The zone o f extension cracks, called fissures, was over 245 m

(800 ft) long and 30 m (100 ft) wide. Fissures were as wide as 0.3 m (1 ft) with

scarps as high as 0.3 m (1 ft). Youd et al. (1985) described the damage caused by

liquefaction by the following report:

The foundation of the damaged house was constructed o f small spread footings
with wood pillars beneath the interior of the structure and a perimeter footing
with concrete-block walls around the exterior. The foundation was fractured
and split apart several inches by the horizontal displacement, primarily under
the back part o f the house. Figure 4 [Fig. 6.3 in this report] shows the back of
the house where about 5 in. (125 mm) o f horizontal slip occurred between
blocks in the foundation. The wood-frame superstructure remained intact and
essentially undamaged, although it was slightly distorted due to differential
settlement. Nearly all o f the horizontal displacem ent was absorbed by the
slippage that occurred in the perimeter foundation...Eastward from the house,
the fissures passed beneath a steel-frame bam with a dirt floor. The fissures
gave the floor the appearance o f having been plow ed. The horizontal
displacement widened the doorway about 1 ft (0.3 m) at the base and distorted
the frame. The fissures continued eastward from the barn, disrupting farm
roadw ays [see Fig. 6.4] and passing beneath a hay yard. A wire fence
enclosing that yard was pulled apart by 30 in. (0.75 m) [Fig. 6.5 in this
report]. About 50 ft (15 m) behind the house, a water tank and pum p were
housed in two separate but adjacent concrete boxes that extended from about 2
ft (0.6) above to about 4 ft (1.2 m) below ground surface. Liquefaction during
the earthquake caused the box containing the pump to buoyantly rise 3 in (75
mm) while the more heavily loaded box, containing the filled w ater tank,
remained in place [Fig. 6.6 in this report].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EXPLANATION W ater Tank

Gravelly sand boil and Pump

Zone of fissures
Direction of lateral arn
movement
3 0 .5

3 0 .2
2 9 .9
2 9 .6
2 9 .0
2 9 .3
'2 8 . 7 / ^
2 9 .3 / 2 8 .4
/ am
Hay
Yard Marsh

Contour Interval = 0 .3 m
Local Elevation Datum

Fig. 6.2 - Map of the Pench Ranch Site Showing Liquefaction Effects. (M odified from Andrus et al., 1991.)
 142

1. Cinder block wall footing

2. Lateral displacement of about 130 mm (5 in.)
3. South wall of the Pence home (shown in Fig. 6.2)

Fig. 6.3 - Back o f the Pence Home. House was Pulled 130 mm (5 in.) O ff its
Perimeter Footing by Lateral Displacement (after Stokoe et al., 1988a;
Youd et al., 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 143

1. G eneral direction of lateral spreading (north towards the

marsh, on the left-hand side in Fig. 6.2
2. Ground crack with a maximum width of approximately 60 mm
(2.5 in.)
3. Major ground crack with maximum horizontal displacement of
about 0.2 5 m (10 in.) and maximum vertical displacement of
0.15 to 0.20 m (6 to 8 in.)
4. Area of small sand boils

Fig. 6.4 - View Looking Southeast Showing Fissures at the H ead of the Lateral
Spread Displacing the Unpaved Farm Yard Area. These Fissures Extend
into the Hay Yard Located in the Upper Left-Hand Com er o f the
Photograph (after Stokoe et al., 1988a; Photograph by T. Leslie Youd).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 144

1. Haystacks
2. General location of gravelly sand boil (grain-size distribution
shown in Fig. 6.24)
3. Large fissure shown in Fig. 6.2
4. General direction of lateral spreading (north towards the
marsh, see Fig. 6.2)

Fig. 6.5 - Hay Yard Fence Pulled Apart 0.75 m (30 in.) by Lateral Spread M ovement
(after Stokoe et al., 1988a; Youd et al., 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 145

^■■». r *r - ™— ^ g ^ S tliife JC U ia iT f« “'

s w g ^ v -lt*£g***5
» y •^c^ jjg fe ^ C a& g
.^ ^ ^ J0jjjtg

1. Lighter box buoyantly rose up 75 mm (3 in.) due to liquefaction

of surrounding soil
2 . Heavier box (which contained water) stayed in place

Fig. 6.6 - Concrete Boxes Housing Well Pump and W ater Tank (after Stokoe et al.,
1988a; Youd et al., 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 146

M axim um horizontal displacem ent was on the order of 0.75 m (2.5 ft), downslope

tow ards the m arshy flood plain, as indicated by the direction arrows in Fig. 6.2.

W ater carrying sand and gravel was ejected at several locations up through the

fissures onto the ground surface (see Figs. 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5).

6.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1984, 1985, 1990 AND 1991

Field investigations were conducted at three principal testing sites along the

trend o f the fissures. These principal sites, shown in Fig. 6.7, are located near the

hay yard, steel-fram e barn and Pence home. Investigation locations near the hay

yard, shown in Fig. 6.8, are oriented along lines that are parallel to the direction o f

ground displacem ent and perpendicular to the trend of the fissures. Test locations

near the bam and the Pence home are shown in Figs. 6.9 and 6.10, respectively.

D rilling included Standard Penetration (SPT), Cone Penetration (CPT) and

Becker Penetration (BPT) tests. The University o f California at Berkeley, performed

three SPT borings (SP-H1 through SP-H3) and eight BPTs soundings (BP-H1

through BP-H8) in 1984. In 1985, The University o f Texas at Austin perform ed

fo u r SPTs (SP-1, SP-2, SP-4 and SP-5) and the U.S. B ureau o f R eclam ation

(USBR) m ade five soundings with a 15-cm2 cone (CP-1 thru CP-5). An additional

four SPTs (SP-A thru SP-D), eight soundings w ith a 10-cm2 cone (CP-A thru CP-

I), and three BPTs (BP-A thru BP-C) were perform ed near the hay yard by The

University o f Texas at Austin in 1990 as part o f this research.

Seism ic tests with the Spectral-A nalysis-of-Surface-W aves (SASWr) and

crosshole m ethods were perform ed by The University o f Texas at Austin. Five

locations were tested by the SA SW m ethod (SA-1 thru SA-5) using ham m ers and

dropped weights as sources in 1985. Five additional locations near the hay yard

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EXPLANATION W ater Tank

Gravelly sand boil Barn Test Area and Pump
shown in Fig. 6.9
Zone of fissures House/
Direction of lateral
movement

Pence Home
Test Area
shown in Fig. 6.10

Marsh

10 2 0 3 0 M
Contour Interval = 0.3 m
Local Elevation Datum
shown

Fig. 6.7 - Map of the Pench Ranch Site Showing Liquefaction Effects and the Three Principal Areas of Testing.

147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1984,1985 tests are numbered

1990,1991 tests are lettered

SP-1 HA-1 .
© ____ ■-©+■ SA
©SP-A Area 1
CP-D
© TP-A
©
BPo-1 CP-A BPc-A
T rench ©
BPc-3 BPo-2

TP-C
Area 2
pA-C XB © XA CP-2 r SA-2
— —G— ©
CP-I SA-E
® X° ? E SP EXPLAN ATIO N
CP-F 0
SPT boring
jp .Q ©BPc-C
CPT sounding
Area of ■TP-E Becker, closed bit
Solid Model CP-3 0SP' C Becker, open bit
— -© + — — —
SA-3 Spectral-analysis-
of-surface-waves
Area 3 Crosshole
Hollow-stem
auger sampling
Test pit

Fig. 6.8 - Location of Testing and Sam pling N ear the Hay Yard at Pence Ranch.

148
 149

EXPLANATION
SP SPT boring
CP CPT sounding
SA Spectral-analysis-
of-surface-waves
HA Hollow-stem
auger sampling CP-4
SA-4N

0 10 M

Fig. 6.9 - Location o f Testing and Sampling by Stokoe et al. (1988) Near the Steel-
Frame Bam at Pence Ranch.

EXPLANATIO N
' m
SP SPT boring
CP CPT sounding
BPc Becker, closed bit
BPC-H6 BPo Becker, open bit
Pence O
SA Spectral-analysis-
Home / of-surface-waves
©SP-H3 /
SP-H2 HA Hollow-stem
BPo-H8@ / auger sampling
©.
/
BPc-H7© © CP-5 /
BPC-H5 © HA-5
SP-H1/ 0
BP0-H4©
/ SP-5®
/
/SA-5 10 M

Fig. 6.10 - Location of Testing and Sampling by Harder (1988) and Stokoe et al.
(1988) Near the Pence Home.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 150

were tested by the SASW method (SA-A thru SA-E) using a bulldozer as a source in

1990. Crosshole tests were conducted near the hay yard betw een three arrays o f

driven steel casing (XA-XB, XB-XC and XD-XE) in 1991.

Samples were collected by the University of California in 1984 using 35-mm

(1.38-in.) inside diam eter split-barrel sam plers and a 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside

diam eter open ended Becker drill bit. Additional samples were collected by The

University of Texas in 1985 using split-barrel samplers and a 127-mm (5-in.) inside

diam eter, continuous hollow-stem auger sample tube. Bulk samples, considered to

be m ore representative of all sam ples, were collected in the trench and test pits

excavated near the hay yard in 1990 as part of this study.

Trench investigations near the hay yard are presented in Section 6.3.1.

Subsurface sediments are characterized in terms o f their geotechnical properties in

Section 6.3.2. A three-dimensional model o f sediments beneath the hay yard site is

constructed in Section 6.3.3 using CPT soundings and sample data. SA SW and

crosshole test results are discussed in Section 6.3.4. Based on field observations,

sam ple data, penetration resistances, and shear wave velocities, the liquefiable

stratum is identified in Section 6.3.5. The most likely failure zone o f the lateral

spread is located is Section 6.3.6 according to the position of the water table and the

zone having the low est penetration resistance and stiffness. The depositional

environm ent and age o f borehole sedim ents are discussed in Section 6.3.7.

Penetration, velocity and sample data collected in 1984 and 1985 are provided in the

reports by Harder (1988) and Stokoe et al. (1988a). Field data collected in 1990 and

1991 are listed in Appendix A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 151

6.3.1 Trench Investigations

Terrace sediments are characterized in Section 6.3.1.1 in terms of grain-size,

shape, sorting, color, degree of pedogenic carbonate accum ulation, grain-to-grain

arran g em en t, in -place density, grain -to -g rain stru ctu re, and stratification.

D e p o sitio n a l p ro cesses are ev alu ated in S ection 6 .3 .1 .2 by com paring

geom orphology, bedding and grain-size characteristics with other gravel-bed river

deposits. T he age o f terrace sedim ents is estim ated in Section 6.3.1.3 using

radiocarbon dating methods, stratigraphic relationships, and soil development. The

large fissure and hairline cracks are described in Section 6.3.1.4 in term s o f

geom etry, relationship to subsurface sediments, and fill materials.

6.3.1.1 Description o f Trench Sediments

As illustrated in the trench profile show n in Fig. 6.11, a dark brown silty

sand stratum lies immediately beneath the ground surface at the hay yard. This silty

sand stratum , sedim ent Unit A, is as much as 0.8 m (2.6 ft) thick. U nit A, largely a

rew orked loess deposit, overlies fine to coarse-grained sedim ents, sedim ent Units B

and C. Table 6.1 provides a description of each trench sediment Unit.

U nit B can be divided into an upper sandy gravel, Subunit B l, a middle silty

sand, Subunit B2, and a lower sandy gravel, Subunit B3. Subunit B l contains less

than 1 percent fines (material less than 0.075 mm). Stratification within Subunit B 1

is crude, defined by thin (about 20 mm), low-angle (0 to 14 degrees), sandy planer

forsets, as illustrated in Fig. 6.11. Gravel are well-packed, predom inantly in a clast-

sup p o rted structure (gravel in contact w ith other gravel) w ith a sand-filled

fram ew ork. In-places dry densities determined from two large-ring tests are 20.4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
CD
-o
—5
o
Q.
C
o
CD
Q.

■o
CD
,ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SOUTH NORTH
10 20 F eet 30 40
-4— _ ,-i.
i —j—
5 M eters 10
Local Local
Elevation Large Fissure; Hairline crack; Elevation
F ee t M eters filled with grading filled with fine to M eters F eet
98- gravel to sand medium sand r 98

96 -9 6
-2 9 Charcoal 29-
3 4 3 0 + 7 0 yr
94- 94

9 2 - -2 8 28- -9 2
Bottom of Trench
90- -9 0
Soil Planar
Explanation High angle crossbeds
3 1 5 0 + 8 0 yr sand/silt
Stratigraphic contacts and unit crossbeds
designations; contacts dashed
where gradational

Internal stratification

water table, August, 1990

Fig. 6.11 - Sediment Profile Exposed in Trench at Pence Ranch. Ul

to
 153

Table 6.1 - Description of Trench Sediments Near Hay at Pence Ranch (after Andrus
et al., 1991).

Unit A. This unit is a dry to slightly damp silty3 sand with gravel dispersed throughout
(SM)b. The finer fraction is very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2)c, non-plastic, with
strong to moderate reaction with HCI. Deposit has been disturbed by burrowing
animals and man. Thickness is about 0.1 to 0.8 m. Contact with subunits B1 and B3 is
sharp, gently sloping to the north; contact with subunit B2 is gradational and concave-
up. Deposit is largely loess that that been reworked by runoff.
Subunit B1. This subunit is a sandy gravel (GP) consisting of about 56% fine to
coarse, hard, subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 43% fine to coarse, hard,
subangular sand; less than 1% dark grayish brown (1OYR 4/2) fines; less than 1%
subrounded cobbles, maximum dimensions 100 mm. The finer faction in the upper few
feet reacts weakly with HCI. In-situ dry density and moisture content are about 20.8
kN/m3 (132 lb/ft3) and 2.7%. Gravels are clast-supported (gravel in contact with other
gravel) with a sand-filled framework to somewhat matrix-supported (gravel separated
by a little sand), and appear to have more than one mode of imbrication. Internal
stratification is crude, characterized by thin (20 mm), low-angle (0 to 14 degrees),
planer forsets having higher sand content. Contact with lower subunit B2 is sharp and
concave-up. This subunit is likely a longitudinal bar depositd.
Subunit B2. Deposit grades upward from a sand with trace of silt (SW) to a silty sand
(SM) with occasional charcoal fragments. The finer fraction is dark grayish brown
(10YR 4/2), non-plastic, and does not react with HCI. In-situ dry density and moisture
content are about 14.4 kN/m3 (90 lb/ft3) and 14%. Thickness varies from 0 to about
0.8 m. Contact with lower subunit B3 is sharp to gradational and concave-up. This
subunit is channel-fill deposit with facies assemblage consisting of Ss/Sh/Sp/Sh/Sed.
Subunit B3. This subunit is a medium dense sandy gravel (GP) consisting of about
64% fine to coarse, hard, subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 36% fine to coarse,
hard, subangular sand; less than 1% dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fines; maximum
dimensions 100 mm. Gravels are clast-supported to matrix-supported. Unit is massive
to crudely bedded. Contact with lower unit C is gradational and concave-up. This
subunit is a gravel bedform consisting in part of lag materials'^.
Unit C. Deposit is a loose gravelly sand (SP) to sandy gravel (GW-GP). Gravels are
hard, subrounded with low sphericity; sand is hard and subangular; less than 1% dark
grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fines, which react weakly to HCI. In-situ dry density and
moisture are about 17.9 kN/m3 (114 lb/ft3) and 9%. Gravels are sand matrix-supported
to clast-supported; elongated axis of several gravel particles is oriented in an east-west
direction. Internal stratification is crude, defined by very low angle (about 2 degrees)
planer beds with steep planer crossbeds. This unit probably includes linguoid or
modified longitudinal bar materials'^___________________________________________
aParticle size defined according to ASTM D2487-83; cobbles are 75 to 300 mm, gravel
is from 4.75 to 75 mm, sand is from 0.75 to 4.75 mm, and silt and clay (fines) are
< 0.75 mm (< 200 mesh).
bUnified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83.
cColor based on wet specimen and Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma). Color of
dry specimen is generally two value units higher,
interpretation based on facies description of Miail (1978).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 154

and 21.2 kN/m 3 (130 and 135 lb/ft3). The w ater content o f the sam ples collected

during these two large-ring tests are 2.8 and 2.6 percent, respectively. The trench

exposure of Subunit B 1 maintained a nearly vertical slope. W ith thickness exceeding

a m eter and a concave-up lower boundary, Subunit B l can be seen in Fig. 6.11 to

partially overlie Subunit B2.

Subunit B2 grades upward from clean sand to silty sand. In-place dry

densities from tw o sand-cone tests conducted in Subunit B2 are 13.7 and 14.6

kN /m 3 (87 and 93 lb/ft3). W ater contents of samples collected during the two sand-

cone tests are 19.4 and 11.2 percent, respectively. Along the northern boundary,

high angle sand/silt crossbeds disrupt the generally weak planer structure o f Subunit

B2. Trench and test pit exposures maintained vertical slopes. The low er contact of

Subunit B2 with Subunit B3 is sharp to gradational and very irregular, predominately

concave-up.

Subunit B3 is a massive sandy gravel with a trace o f silt below Subunit B2,

and a clean sandy gravel, possibly crudely bedded north of B2. The trench exposure

o f Subunit B3 was stable below B2 and unstable north of B2. The contact with Unit

C is gradational and concave-up.

U nit C grades upward into Subunit B3 from a clean pebbly sand to sandy

gravel. As shown in Fig. 6.11, internal stratification is defined by very low angle (2

degrees) planer beds with steep planer crossbeds. The elongated axis o f several

gravel particles is oriented in a predom inate east-w est direction. Packing o f gravel

ranges from clast-supported w ith sand-filled framework to sand m atrix-supported

(gravel floating in m atrix o f sand). Two large-ring tests provided dry densities o f

17.3 and 18.2 kN /m 3 (110 and 116 Ib/ft3) and w ater contents o f 14.2 and 5.0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 155

percent, respectively. Trench exposures o f Unit C tem porality m aintained steep

slopes, but degraded as the sediment dried.

T he gravel particles o f U nits B and C are hard, and predom inantly

subrounded with low sphericity. Gravel consist o f lim estone, dolomite, quartzite,

and various plutonic and volcanic rock lithologies.

6.3.1.2 Depositional Environment of Trench Sediments

Clearly, Units B and C are of fluvial origin, based on their relationship with

the B ig Lost River, and bedding and grain characteristics. The facies schem e for

fluvial sedim ents by M iall (1978, 1985) listed in Table 6.2 was applied to classify

modes of deposition.

Sedim ents comprising Subunit B 1 are characteristic o f M iall's m assive or

crudely bedded gravel facies (Gm). Subunit B l, therefore, is likely a longitudinal

bar deposit, formed by accretion o f sandy-gravel sheets across the bar surface. The

low angle, planer forsets may indicate convex bar surfaces. The sharp and concave-

up low er boundary o f Subunit B l suggest partial erosion o f Subunit B2 prior its

deposition.

Subunit B 2 is a channel-fill deposit. A thin, discontinuous sheet o f clean

m edium to coarse sand lies at the base o f the channel. This clean sand is scourfill

(Ss), laid down during waning stages of flood flow. A bove the scourfill sand, is

plane-bed sand (Sh) which grades upward with increasing silt content. The high

angle sandy forsets (Sp) along the northern edge o f the channel are a result o f flow

over the adjacent gravel bar, Subunit B3, into the abandoned channel. Subunit B2

grades into the erosional scourfill (Se) of Unit A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 156

Table 6.2 - A Facies Scheme for Fluvial Deposits (after Miall, 1978).

Facies Code Lithofacies Sedimentary Structure Interpretation

Gms Massive, matrix None Debris flow deposits

supported gravel
Gm Massive or crudely Horizontal bedding, Longitudinal bars,
bedded gravel imbrication lag deposits, sieve
deposits
Gt Gravel, stratified Trough crossbeds Minor channel fills
Gp Gravel, stratified Planar crossbeds Linguoid bars or
deltaic growths from
older bar remnants
St Sand, medium to very Solitary (theta) or Dunes (lower flow
coarse, may be pebbly grouped (pi) trough regime)
crossbeds
Sp Sand, medium to very Solitary (alpha) or Linguoid, transverse
coarse, may be pebbly grouped (omikron) bars, sand waves
planar crossbeds (lower flow regime)
Sr Sand, very fine to Ripple marks of all Ripples (lower flow
coarse types regime)
Sh Sand, very fine to very Horizontal lamination, Planar bed flow
coarse, may be pebbly parting or streaming (lower and upper
lineation flow regime)
SI Sand, fine Low-angle (<10°) Scour fills, crevasse
crossbeds splays antidunes
Se Erosional scours with Crude crossbedding Scour fills
intraclasts
Ss Sand, fine to coarse, Broad, shallow scours Scour fills
may be pebbly including eta cross­
stratification
Sse, She, Spe Sand Analogous to Ss, Sh, Eolian deposits
Sp
FI Sand, silt, mud Fine lamination, very Overbank or waning
small ripples flood deposits
Fsc Silt, mud Laminated to massive Backswamp
deposits
Fcf Mud Massive, with fresh­ Backswamp pond
water molluscs deposits
Fm Mud, silt Massive, desiccation Overbank or drape
cracks deposits
Fr Silt, mud Rootlets Seatearth
C Coal, carbonaceous Plants, mud films Swamp deposits
mud
P Carbonate Pedogenic features Soil

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 157

Subunit B3 is a massive to crudely bedded gravel (Gm). It seems reasonable

Subunit B3 is a channel lag deposit below the channel-fill sands. N orth o f the

channel-fill sands, Subunit B3 appears faintly bedded with a moderate dip towards

the channel-fill, suggestive o f surface armoring o f the channel side (Forbes, 1983).

A single layer of gravel and cobbles separating Unit A from U nit C at the north end

o f the trench, is evidence of a buried armored bar surface.

Unit C includes the planer crossbedded, gravel and pebbly sand facies (Gp

and Sp). M iall interprets the Gp and Sp facies as linguoid or transverse bars. Bars

o f this type build into deeper water by sand and gravel cascading down the leeward

face o f the bar slope. The northw ard dipping planar crossbeds and the east-w est

orientation of the elongated axis o f gravel indicate a northward paleocurrent.

In summ ary, sand and gravel o f Unit C were first deposited by bar growth

into deeper water. Unit C was then partially eroded by a stream. Then an arm ored

surface developed along the stream channel, Subunit B3. During the waning stages

o f flow, the channel filled, first with clean sand and then silty sand. R unoff into the

stagnate channel produced high angle silt/sand forsets. Subsequent to channel

filling, part o f the channel-fill was eroded, and then filled during high flows by a

longitudinal bar deposit. Similar facies assemblages have been described for other

w andering gravel-bed rivers by Forbes (1983), Desloges and Church (1987) and

Campbell and Hendry (1987). It is concluded these fluvial sediments were deposited

by a sinuous gravel-bed river, having similarities to the present-day Big Lost River.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 158

6.3.1.3 Age o f Trench Sediments

Radiocarbon dating of the organic compounds bound to the clay fraction o f

Subunit B 2 material and a charcoal fragm ent provide evidence trench sediments are

o f H olocene age. An age o f 3150+80 years B.P. (Tx-7103; corrected for S 13C ,

decreased 30 years) was obtained for the soil sample collected from the locations

shown in Fig. 6.11. A second soil sample, taken from the base o f Subunit B2 in test

pit TP-G , yielded an age o f 2460+60 years B.P. (Tx-7458; corrected for 8 13C ,

increased 10 years). For the charcoal fragm ent collected near the first soil sam ple

(see Fig. 6.11), an age o f 3430+70 years B.P. (AA-8429) was determined. These

dates indicate a maximum age for Subunit B2 of about 3500 years.

Illuvial accumulation of calcium carbonate below Unit A is small. Fines from

U nit A react strongly with a weak solution o f hydrochloric acid (HCl; about 0.1 N

solution). W hile fines from Units B and C exhibit a very weak to no reaction with a

w eak solution of HCl, indicating no significant accumulation o f calcium carbonate.

T he lack o f variation in soil developm ent on top o f Units B and C, suggests

deposition around the same time period, on the order of 3000 years ago.

6.3.1.4 Description of Large Fissure and Hairline Cracks

The large fissure is over 0.60-m (24-in.) wide at the bottom o f the trench,

and narrow s to less than 0.30-m (12-in.) wide near the ground surface, as shown in

the photograph and sketch in Fig. 6.12. Subunit B2 pulled apart into three segments

when the fissure opened. W ater and sedim ent then ejected up through the fissure,

partially eroding Subunit B2 and widening the fissure at the base. As shown in Fig.

6.13, gravel and cobbles, to large to pass through the narrow openings, becam e

w edged betw een segments o f Subunit B2. Sm aller particles flow ed around these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Survery rod in feet (1 ft = 0.3 m)

Loose; displaced, >
gravelly sand A

sandy gravel

Displaced \
Sandy Gravel B2

Loose;
displaced (?)
sandy gravel grave|
and cobbles

Fig. 6.12 - Photograph and Sketch o f Large Fissure in Trench Near Hay Yard at Pence Ranch.
 Displaced
B2 sandy gravel

B2

B2

gravel with
open framework

Loose;
displaced (?) gravel and
sandy gravel cobbles with
open framework

Survey rod in 6 cm (0.2 ft) divisions

Fig. 6.13 - Photograph and Sketch o f Large Fissure N ear Bottom o f Trench.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 large clasts, leaving the void space empty. As pore w ater pressures dissipated,

ejecting sedim ent settled in uniform m anner, grading from gravel to fine sand.

(Grain-size data of som e fissure m aterials are given in Table A. 19 o f Appendix A.)

Fractured clods of Unit A along with ejected gravelly sand now cap the fissure at the

ground surface. No significant vertical displacem ent occurred at this location.

M aximum lateral displacement across the large fissure at this location was about 0.30

m (12 in.).

M inor amounts o f w ater and sand also flowed to the ground surface through

hairline cracks within and around the north side o f Subunit B2 (see Fig. 6.11). The

location o f these cracks and the large fissure are evidence Subunit B2, a fine-grained

channel-fill, contributed to the development of high pore water pressures.

6.3.2 Geotechnical Characterization o f Subsurface Sediments

The generalized cross section in Fig. 6.14 delineates sedim ent layers beneath

the three hay yard test areas along an alignm ent perpendicular to the trend o f the

fissures and parallel to the direction of lateral movement. Many of the SPT, CPT and

SA SW profiles along this north-south test alignm ent are included in Fig. 6.14.

Penetration, velocity, and soil profiles for the bam and Pence hom e test sites are

show n the cross sections in Figs. 6.15 and 6.16, respectively. Sedim ents can be

divided into 5 Units (A through E) on the basis o f penetration resistance and grain-

size data as described below.

A dark brown silty sand, sedim ent U nit A, lies im m ediately beneath the

ground surface. Unit A is less than a m eter thick, and overlies fluvial sedim ents,

Units B and C. In the trench profile (Fig. 6.11), Unit B is divided into Subunits B l,

B2 and B3. Subunit B 1 is a clean, dense sandy gravel (GP) with N -values as much

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A re a 1 A re a 2 A re a 3
SP-1 CP-1 CP-2 SP-B CP-B SP-C CP-3 CP-C
SA-1 SP-A SP-2 SP-D SA-3
SOUTH SA-2 NORTH

Local Limits of Trench Local

Elevation Shown in Fig. 6.9 Elevation
Meters Large Direction of Meters
3 0 —1 Fissure -30

.162 B

Standard Cone Penetration Sounding Shear Wave SP SPT boring

I Silty Sand Penetration, Nm Friction Ratio Tip Resistance Velocity CP Cone Sounding
I | Gravelly, qc <10 MPa 0 30 10 0 20 0 300 SA Spectral-analysis-
r T 1— i of-surface-waves
( | Gravelly, 10 < qc < 25 MPa MPa
m*-] 7-1
m/sec
m/s
1 6 blows/ft %
K \ \ ] Gravelly, qc > 25 MPa 116 2 4 6M

Fig, 6.14 - Cross Section of the Lateral Spread Near the Hay Yard at Pence Ranch. Cone Penetration Sounding CP-A,
Surface W ave Test SA-B, Crosshole Profilies and Becker Penetration Logs have been Omitted for Clarity.
(Modified from Andrus et al., 1991.)

162
 163

SOUTH NORTH
SP-4 Local
Local SA-4
Elevation Elevation
CP-4 HA-4 Meters
Meters
Direction of
Movement
30- -3 0
SFfr
A?/B m
28- -2 8

SP-
GP
26- -2 6

24- -2 4

22 - -2 2

20 - -20
4M
488 m/sec
below EL. 19.5 m

SP SPT boring Silty Sand to Medium Dense

CP Cone sounding Silty Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel
SA Spectral-analysis-
ot-surface-waves Loose Gravelly Sand
HA Hollow-stem auger to Sandy Gravel
sampling

Standard Cone Penetration Sounding Shear Wave

Penetration, Nm Friction Ratio Tip Resistance Velocity
0 15 30 20 40 200
I T 1
18 blows/ft MPa m /sec

115 (1 ft = 0.3 m)

Fig. 6.15 - Cross Section o f the Lateral Spread Near the Steel-Frame Bam . (Data
from Stokoe et al., 1988a)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 164

SOUTHEAST NORTHWEST

Local Local
Elevation __ CP-5 Elevation
SP-H1 SP-5 Meters
Meters
BPO-H4 BPC-H5 SP-H2 SA-5 HA-5

30- -3 0

[8,9 SP-
28- -2 8
[9,9 GP
115,16
26- -2 6
C3W

24- -2 4
? ? —

22 - -2 2

20 - -2 0
‘— 488 m/sec
below EL. 19.6 m
SP SPT boring 0 2 4M
BPc Becker, closed bit
BPo Becker, open bit
sampling Silty Sand to Medium Dense
CP Cone sounding Silty Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel
SA “
Loose Gravelly Sand Dense Sandy
HA Hollow-stern auger to Sandy Gravel Gravel
sampling

Standard Unconected Becker Cone Penetration Sounding Shear Wave

Penetration, Nm Penetration, Ng Friction Ratio Tip Resistance Velocity
100 200
T~| I
8 blows/ft blows/ft MPa m/sec

(1 ft = 0.3 m)

Fig. 6.16 - Cross Section of the Lateral Spread Near the Pence Home. (Profiles
BPo-HA, BPc-H5, BPc-H7, SP-H1 and SP-H2 from Harder, 1988;
Profiles SP-5, CP-5, SA-5 and HA-5 from Stokoe et al., 1988a.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 165

as 62, cone tip resistances as high as 48 M Pa (500 ton/ft2), and in-places dry

densities on the order of 21.2 kN/m3 (135 lb/ft3). Subunit B2 is a channel-fill that

grades upward from clean sand to silty sand (SW to SM). Characteristic of Subunit

B2 are cone profiles with tip resistance decreasing with depth, from about 4 to 0.5

M P a (40 to 5 ton/ft2), and in-place dry densities o f about 14.1 kN /m 3 (90 lb/ft3).

Subunit B2 locally separates Subunit B1 from a clean, m edium dense sandy gravel

(G P), Subunit B3. N -values m easured in Subunit B3 range from 15 to 21; tip

resistances are greater than about 10 M Pa (100 ton/ft2). It is not possible to delineate

these Subunits without more penetration testing or trenching. Therefore, Subunits

B 1 and B3 are grouped as Unit B in the cross sections, and Subunit B2 is lumped

with Unit A.

Beneath Units A and B, a loose gravelly stratum, Unit C, can be delineated.

Penetration and grain-size data for Unit C are tabulated in Table 6.3. SPT N60-

values range from 1 to 18, w ith an average value o f approxim ately 7. Cone tip

resistances, low est near the top of U nit C, vary from 0.4 to 19 M Pa (4 to 201

tons/ft2), w ith an average value of about 6 M Pa (65 tons/ft2). Cone friction ratios

range from 0 to 11 percent, with an average value o f 1.2 percent. Uncorrected

B eck er blow counts (closed bit) range from 7 to 13 blow s per 0.3 m (1 ft).

Equivalent N6o-values determined from the Becker blow counts range from 2 to 8,

w ith an average o f 5. Shear wave velocities for Unit C, summ arized in Table 6.4,

range betw een 91 and 162 m/sec (300 and 520 ft/sec), with an average on the order

o f 120 m/sec (390 ft/sec). The minimum in-place dry density o f Unit C is less than

17.4 kN /m 3 (111 lb/ft3), the lowest measurem ent above the w ater table. Sediments

w ithin Unit C classify as gravelly sand (SP-GP) to sandy gravel (GP) with less than

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 6.3 - Summary of Grain-Size and Penetration Data for Unit C at the Pence Ranch Site

CPTb SPTC and BPTd

Test Area Average Corrected
Grain Size Data3 Tip Resistance, qc Blow count, N60
Sample D5 0 c /g /s /f C on e Depth (MPa) Drill Depth (blows per 0.3 m)
Type (mm) (%) Hole (m) Range Average Hole (m) Range Average
Hay Yard SPT 4 0 /4 9 /4 9 /2 CP-1 1 .8 - 3.6 O- 8 5 .6 SP-1 1 .7- 3.5 5 -1 0 8
Area 1 Auger 5 0 /5 1 /4 7 /2 CP-A 2 .0 - 2.6 3 -1 0 6 .2 SP-A 2 .1 - 3.2 4 -1 0 7
Bulk 11 1/65/33/1 BPc-A 1.5- 3.2 4- 5 5
Area 2 SPT 6 0 /5 0 /4 8 /2 CP-2 1 .5 - 4.1 0 -1 7 6 .4 S P -2 1.7- 3.5 5- 8 6
Auger 9 0 /7 0 /2 7 /3 CP-B 1.2- 3.6 2- 9 5 .4 SP-B 1.4- 3.2 4- 8 7
Bulk 15 1/7 1 /2 5 /4 SP-D 1.7- 3.5 4 -1 1 8
BPc-B 1.5- 3.8 4- 7 5
Area 3 SPT 5 0 /4 0 /5 7 /3 CP-3 1 .4 - 3.1 3 -1 0 6 .6 SP-C -
2 .1 3.7 8- 9 9
Bulk 7 1/54/44/1 CP-C 1.1- 2.4 2 -1 2 6 .6 BPc-C 1.3- 4.4 3- 7 5
Other Becker 7 0 /5 4 /4 2 /4 CP-D 0.9- 3.4 5 -1 9 7 .5 BPC-H3 1.5- 3.7 4- 6 5
Areas CP-E 1.0- 3.5 2-1 1 7 .5
CP-F 1.3- 3.0 2 -1 3 6 .4
CP-G 1.8- 3.5 0- 9 3 .3
CP-H 1.7- 3.3 3 -1 2 8 .0
CP-I 1.6- 3.3 2- 9 5 .2
Barn SPT 3 0/41/58/1 CP-4 2.3- 5.3 0 -1 9 7 .2 S P -4 2 .3 - 5.6 1 -1 8 9
H ouse SPT 6 0 /5 4 /3 8 /8 CP-5 1.1- 3.0 3 - 10 5 .5 SP-H1 2 .0 - 2.3 8 8
Becker 6 0 /5 8 /4 0 /2 SP-H 2 2 .0 - 2.3 9 9
SP-H 3 2 .0 - 3.2 1- 6 4
BPc-H5 1.7- 3.5 2- 7 5
BPc-H 6 1.5- 3.2 6 - 8 6
BPc-H7 1.5- 2.7 3- 6 4
SP -5 1 .2 - 2.4 2- 4 3
a SPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) I.D. split-barrel; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) I.D. auger tube; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) I.D. open bit; Bulk = test pit. D5 0 = median
grain size, c = cobble (75 to 3 00 mm), g = grave! (4.75 to 7 5 mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm).
b 1985 tests (S to k o ee ta l., 1988a): 15 cm 2 cone, CP-1 thru CP-5. 1990 Tests: 10 cm 2 cone, CP-A thru CP-I. 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2.
c 1984 T ests (Harder, 1988): automatic hammer ( E R = 80 %),SP-H1 thru SP-H3; 1985 T ests (Stokoe et al., 1988): safety hammer ( E R = 60 %), SP-1 thru
SP-5; 1990 Tests: "pin hammer" ( E R = 50 %), SP-A thru SP-D. Corrections: 1 9 8 5 ,1990--no liner, x 1.0 (loose) and x 1.15 (medium dense); short
rods, x 0.75 (testing depths < 3 m).
dBPc--Becker closed bit. 1984 T ests (Harder, 1988): BPc-H5 thru BPc-H7. 1990 T e sts: BPc-A thru BPc-C. Ngo based on procedure of Harder (1988).

166
 167

Table 6.4 - Summary of Grain Size and Shear Wave Velocity Data For Units C at the
Pence Ranch Site.

S A S W b and Crosshole 0
Test Average S h ea r W ave
A rea Grain Size Data 3 Velocity, V s d
Sample D50 c /g /s /f Test Depth (m/sec)
Type (mm) (%) Array (m) Ranqe Average
Hay
Yard
Area 1 SPT 4 0/49/49/2 SA-1 1 .8 -3 .7 102 - 104 103
Auger 5 0/51/47/2
Bulk 11 1/65/33/1
Area 2 SPT 6 0/50/48/2 SA-2 1 .5 -4 .3 91- 98 92
Auger 9 0/70/27/3 SA-B 1 .5 -3 .0 1 1 9 -1 3 7 134
Bulk 15 1/71/25/4 XA-XB, SH 1 .5 -3 .0 1 2 3 -1 6 0 146
XB-XC, SH 1 .5 -3 .0 106 - 138 121
XD-XE, SH 1 .5 -3 .0 9 7 -1 1 8 107
XD-XE, SV 1 .5 -3 .0 151 - 162 160
Area 3 SPT 5 0/40/57/3 SA-3 1 .4 -3 .2 9 3 -1 1 2 102
Bulk 7 1/54/44/1
Other Becker 7 0/54/42/4 SA-A 2.0 - 3.7 134 134
Areas SA-C 1 .5 -3 .4 91 -122 117
SA-D 1.5 -3 .2 125 - 137 135
SA-E 1 .7 -3 .2 91 -152 140
b>
00

Barn SPT 3 0/41/58/1 SA-4 1 0 5 -1 1 3 109

1

House SPT 6 0/54/38/8 SA-5 1.5-3.4 121 - 124 123

Becker 6 0/58/40/2
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) inside
diameter auger tube; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside diameter open bit; Bulk = test pit
sample. D50 = median grain size, c = cobble (75 to 300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75
mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm).
bSA--Spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves (SASW); SA-1 through SA-5 performed in 1985
data by Stokoe et al. (1988a), testing with hammers and dropped weights, forward
modeling using a computer model with two-dimensional wave propagation (plane
Rayleigh waves); SA-A through SA-E performed in 1990, testing with hammers and a
bulldozer, forward modeling using a computer model with three-dimensional wave
propagation (Roesset et al., 1991).
cX~Crosshole; performed in 1991 by driving AW casing into the ground; SH = horizontally
polarized shear waves, SV = vertically polarized shear waves.
dValues listed from unit C, between the water table and unit D.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 168

a few percent fines. A photograph of material collected from Unit C with the aid of a

backhoe is shown in Fig. 6.17. Grain-size distribution curves of the bulk sam ple

shown in the photograph and other bulk samples collected from Unit C below the

w ater table are plotted in Fig. 6.18. The amount o f sand contained in these samples

indicate the gravel to be packed in a sand m atrix-supported to a clast-supported

structure. Saturated layers of gravelly sand are likely interbedded w ith sandy

gravelly, as suggested by the ring density samples taken from U nit C above the water

table (see Table A. 19 in Appendix A). The occasional high fiction ratios in the cone

soundings suggest thin, discontinuous layers o f sandy silt w ithin Unit C. The

thickness o f Unit C varies from 1.5 to 2.8 m (5 to 9 ft).

Sediments have much higher penetration and velocity properties (Units D and

E) beneath U nit C. Penetration, velocity and grain-size d ata for U nit D are

sum m arized in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. Unit D is characterized by an average SPT Ngo-

value o f about 22; an average CPT tip resistance o f about 17 M Pa (180 tons/ft2);

uncorrected Becker blow count between 15 and 46 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft); an average

shear wave velocity on the order of 170 m/sec (550 ft/sec). The average equivalent

B ecker N 60 -value is 16. Borehole sam ples from U nit D classify as clean, well-

graded sandy gravel (GW) with cobbles. The thickness of Unit D ranges from 2.7 to

4.2 m (9 to 14 ft).

Below local elevation of 22.3 m (73 ft), the material (Unit E) is characterized

by CPT tip resistance greater than about 40 M Pa (400 tons/ft2); uncorrected Becker

blow count ranging from about 46 to over 140 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft); shear wave

velocities generally exceeding 250 m/sec (820 ft/sec).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 169

Fig. 6.17 - Photograph o f Bulk Sample Taken from Unit C at the Pence Ranch Site,
Test Pit TP-C.

100 'T' "*1 ' TTt 11 1 1 1 imi i r—f 1 i • 1TTTT“‘I" J 1 1

T est Pit £Samples. Unit C
1 TP-' , 1 .8 to 2 .7 m
sz 2 TP-; 2 ,1 .5 to 2 .4 m ____
TO 80
'(D 3 TP-t 5, 1 .5 to 2 .4 m
4 TP-^t, 1 .4 to 2 .4 m
>»
JQ 6 0
k_ 7 5 mm \ \ . N<. 4 .7 5 mm 0 .0 7 5 mm
0) \ 1 i
c 1 V
1 Gravel Sand 1 Silt or Clay
Ll V ' k
•*—»
c 40
0)
S
<D
Q_ 20
____ _

ni i i___ i______ .I.I.I..I.I..I i___ i 1.11. 1 1 I T ^ — m u _ i_ i i___ i_____

100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size, mm

Fig. 6.18 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test-Pit Samples Taken from Unit C
Near the Hay Yard at the Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 6.5 - Summary of Grain-Size and Penetration D ata for Unit D at the Pence Ranch Site

CPTb SPTCand BPTd

Test Area Average Corrected
Grain Size Data3 Tip Resistance, qc Blow count, N60
Sam ple D5 0 c /g /s /f C one Depth (MPa) Drill Depth (blows per 0.3 m)
T ype (mm) (%) Hole (m) .. R an ge Average Hole (m) Range Average
Hay Yard SP T 6 0 /4 4 /5 5 /3 CP-1 3 .6 - 7.6 11 - 2 9 16 SP-1 4 .0 - 5.0 1 8 -2 1 20
Area 1 Auger 12 0 /5 9 /3 9 /2 CP-A 2 .6 - 4.8 3 -3 5 13 SP-A 3 .8 - 6.5 1 4 -3 4 20
BPc-A 3 .2 - 6.9 1 2 -2 3 16
Area 2 SPT 5 0 /5 0 /4 4 /6 CP-2 4 .1 - 7.1 10-20 16 S P -2 3 .8 - 5.0 2 2 -2 3 22
CP-B 3 .6 - 6.7 1 2 -2 9 18 SP -B 3 .8 - 6.6 1 8 -5 0 + 22
BPc-B 3 .8- 7.6 1 4 -2 4 18
Area 3 SP T 5 0 /5 4 /4 2 /4 CP-3 3 .1 - 5.2 1 2 -2 7 17 SP-C 3 .8 - 6.2 1 8 -4 8 29
CP-C 2.4 - 6.3 3 -2 5 14 BPc-C 4 .4 - 6.4 9 -1 5 13
Other Becker 7 0 /5 5 /4 1 /4 CP-D 3 .4 - 7.0 1 0 -3 8 24 BPC-H3 3 .7 - 6.7 1 0 -2 3 17
Areas CP-E 3 .5 - 7.0 6 -3 9 21
CP-F 3 .0 - 7.3 7 -4 1 16
CP-G 3 .5 - 6.5 1 0 -3 1 19
CP-H 3 .3 - 7.0 11 -5 1 17
CP-I 3 .3 - 7.0 9 -4 7 19

IT) cd
CO 0

O 0
Barn CP-4 1 2 -2 8 17
H ouse SPT 5 0 /5 0 /4 6 /4 CP-5 7 -3 1 20 SP-H1 2 .9 - 4.1 12-20 16
Auger 12 0 /6 3 /3 4 /3 SP-H 2 2 .9 - 4.1 1 3 -2 1 17
Becker 8 0 /6 0 /3 6 /4 SP-H 3 3 .8 - 4.1 17 17
BPc-H5 3 .5 - 6.1 10-22 16
BPc-H 6 3 .2 - 8.2 12-20 15
BPc-H7 2 .7 - 8.2 7 -2 2 14
SP -5 2 .7 - 5.0 1 0 -2 5 16
a SPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) I.D. split-barrel; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) I.D. auger tube; B ecker= 109-mm (4.3-in.) I.D. open bit. 0 5 0 = median grain size.
c = cobble (75 to 300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4 .75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm).
^1985 te sts (Stokoe et al., 1988a): 15 cm 2 cone, CP-1 thru CP-5. 1990 T ests: 10 cm 2 cone, CP-A thru CP-I. 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2.
c 1984 T ests (Harder, 1988): automatic hammer (ER = 80 %),SP-H1 thruSP-H3; 1985 T ests (Stokoe e ta l., 1988): safety hammer (ER = 60 %), SP-1 thru
SP-5; 1990 Tests: 'pin hammer” (ER = 50% ), SP-A thru SP-D. Corrections: 1 9 8 5 ,1990--no liner, x 1.0 (loose) and x 1.15 (medium dense); short
rods, x 0.75 (testing depths < 3 m).
dB P c - 8 ecker closed bit. 1984 T ests (Harder, 1988): BPc-H5 thru BPc-H7. 1 9 9 0 T e sts: BPc-A thru BPc-C. Ngo based on procedure of Harder (1988).

170
I
 171

Table 6.6 - Summary of Grain Size and Shear W ave Velocity Data For Units D at the
Pence Ranch Site.

S A S W b and Crosshole 0
Test A verage S h ear W ave
A rea Grain S ize Data 3 Velocity, V s
Sample D50 c /g /s /f Test Depth (m/sec)
Type (mm) (%) Array (m) Range Average
Hay
Yard
Area 1 SPT 6 0/49/49/2 SA-1 3.7 - 7.3 1 3 0 -2 1 5 180
Auger 12 0/51/47/2
Area 2 SPT 5 0/50/48/2 SA-2 4.3 - 7.0 1 1 6 -1 3 6 127
SA-B 3.4 - 7.0 189 189
XA-XB, SH 3.0 - 5.2 161 - 195 173
XB-XC, SH 3.0 - 5.5 1 5 0 -2 0 0 170
XD-XE, SH 3.0 - 4.6 1 45-151 143
XD-XE, SV 3.0 - 4.6 142- 160 150
Area 3 SPT 5 0/40/57/3 SA-3 3.2- 6.4 1 1 2 -1 3 6 120

Other Becker 7 0/54/42/4 SA-A 3.7 - 7.0 210 210

Areas SA-C 3.4 - 7.0 207 207
SA-D 3.2 - 7.0 1 6 2 -2 1 6 192
SA-E 3.2 - 7.0 1 6 5 -2 1 0 198

Barn SA-4 4.6 - 7.6 1 2 2 -1 2 9 126

House SPT 5 0/50/46/4 SA-5 3.4 - 7.6 121 -1 3 5 127

Auger 12 0/63/40/2
Becker 8 0/60/36/4
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) inside
diameter auger tube; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside diameter open bit. D50 =
median grain size, c = cobble (75 to 300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand
(0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = tines (< 0.075 mm).
bSA-Spectral-analysis-of- surface-waves (SASW); SA-1 through SA-5 performed in 1985
data by Stokoe et al. (1988a), testing with hammers and dropped weights, forward
modeling using a computer model with two-dimensional wave propagation (plane
Rayleigh waves); SA-A through SA-E performed in 1990, testing with hammers and a
bulldozer, tow ard modeling using a computer model with three-dimensional wave
propagation (Roesset et al., 1991).
cX--Crosshole; performed in 1991 by driving AW casing into the ground; SH = horizontally
polarized shear waves, SV = vertically polarized shear waves.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 172

Borehole gravel from Units C, D and E are hard, predom inantly subrounded

with low sphericity, and consist of rock lithologies similar to the trench gravel.

T he w ater table at Pence Ranch slopes very gently to the east. N ear the

house, the water table in July, 1985 was at an elevation o f 28.7 m (94 ft). A t the hay

yard, nearly 183 m (600 ft) east of the house, the water table was at a local elevation

o f 27.9 m (91.4 ft). No m easurable elevation difference were observed in the north-

south direction at the three test areas near the hay yard. In A ugust, 1990 the water

table beneath the hay yard site stood at 27.7 m (91.0 ft).

6.3.3 Three-Dimensional Sediment Model o f the Hav Yard Area

A three-dimensional model o f sediments beneath the hay yard test sites (see

Fig. 6.8) was constructed from prim arily ten CPT soundings, borehole sample data,

and trench and test pit profiles. CPT soundings were discretized into the following

five categories:

1) silty sand cap,

2) gravelly soil with qc < 5 MPa,
3) gravelly soil with 5 < qc < 10 MPa,
4) gravelly soil with 10 < qc < 25 MPa, and
5) gravelly soil with qc > 25 MPa.

A perspective view of the discretized CPT soundings is shown in Fig. 6.19. Using a

recently developed solid m odeling program (Jones, 1990), surfaces connecting

com m on points in the discretized soundings were defined by interpolation and

extrapolation contouring techniques. The space between two surfaces was m ade into

a solid layer. Finally, solid layers were assem bled to form a three-dim ensional

model. Figure 6.20 is a fence diagram o f the region modeled.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LEGEND

Silty Sand Cap

Gravelly, qc < 5 M P a
I - I Gravelly, 5 < qG < 10 M Pa
Gravelly, 10 < qc < 25 M P a
Gravelly, qc > 25 M P a

Fig. 6.19 - Perspective View o f Discretized CPT Data from the Hay Yard at the
Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Large
Fissure

LEGEND

Silty Sand Cap

Gravelly, qc < 5 MPa
Gravelly, 5 < q c < 10 MPa
Gravelly, 1 0 < q c < 2 5 M P a
Gravelly, qc > 2 5 M P a

Fig. 6.20 - Fence Diagram of Three-Dimensional M odel Showing Stratigraphy Based on CPT Beneath the Hay
Yard Test Area at the Pence Ranch Site.

174
 175

As illustrated in the fence diagram, the large fissure form ed along the south

side o f a thick silty sand stratum. Very loose gravelly soil, qc < 5 M Pa (50 tons/ft2),

is present primarily north o f the large fissure. Virtually all the test area is underlain

by a loose gravelly layer, 5 < qc < 10 M Pa (50 < qc < 100 tons/ft2). (Unit C

includes the veiy loose and loose gravelly layers.) A m edium dense gravelly layer,

10 < qc < 25 M Pa (100 < qc < 250 tons/ft2), lies beneath U nit C. This m edium

dense layer, Unit D, grades south-eastward into a denser layer, qc > 25 M Pa (qc >

250 tons/ft2). The dense material at the base o f the model is Unit E.

6.3.4 Seismic Testing Near the Hav Y rrd

Eight SASW shear wave velocity profiles for test arrays near the hay yard are

show n in Fig. 6.21. SASW velocity profiles decrease w ith depth down to about 2 m

(6 ft). Below 2 m (6 ft), the velocity profiles exhibit a steady increase. M inim um

velocities were m easured at the w ater table, the location o f low est penetration

resistance. These trends are similar to trends exhibited by the penetration profiles.

Seism ic crosshole test results are shown in Fig. 6.22. Vertically polarized

shear (SV) wave velocities for crosshole array XD-XE vary within a rather narrow

range, 142 to 182 m /sec (467 to 598 ft/sec). The crosshole SV -w ave profile

com pares w ell w ith the nearest SASW profile, SA -B, also show n in Fig. 6.22.

V elocities in the SASW profile, however, are as low as 95 m/sec (310 ft/sec) near the

w a te r table, a variation from the crosshole profile o f 56 m /sec (185 ft/sec).

Penetration logs recorded during the driving o f the crosshole casing are suggestive o f

lateral variability. Blow counts ranged from 10 to 29 blow per 0.3 m (1 ft) near the

w a te r table (see Tables A.2 thru A.4 in Appendix A). A possible alternative

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 176

S hear W ave Velocity, V s, m/sec

0 100 200 300 400 500
0
Test Array

water SA-1
2 table— * SA-2 ■
8/90 ♦ SA-3
■ SA-A
i SA-B
4 • SA-C •
SA-D
SA-E

Q. 6

10

12

Fig. 6.21 - Eight SASW Shear W ave Velocity Profiles from the Hay Yard Test Area
at the Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Soil Profile S V -W ave Velocity, m/sec S H -W ave Velocity, m/sec P -W ave Velocity, m/sec
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 600 1200 1800 2400
Silty Sand
(unit A) _ m B0
Silty Sand and
9 c• O
1 1- Gravel (unit B) i tea ...

m
Cross iole
ho»
•9 (XA-.KB) 0
Sandy Gravel #
- to Gravelly Water _
m 93 9
Table, • > ♦
Sand--loose to
medium dense 8/90 • ■ <* «»♦ ■
(unit C) 9 ■» 9 ■
Q.
©
9 i— 9" ■
Q SASW 4 19 «
Sandy G ravel- W (SA-B) 4 19
medium dense a 4m
ml 19
' (unit D) ^ _
Crc sshole
9 (xB-XC) 9 ■
•

* k\ < **
9B Data Qualitv
Crosshole •►a
(XD-XE) Very Good 9
a 0 Good a
0 Required Interprets tion

Fig. 6.22 - Soil and W ave Velocity Profiles from Test Arrays XA -X B, XB-XC, XD-XE, and SA-B at the Pence Ranch Site.

177
 178

explanation is that the steel casings may have been well coupled to the stiffer soil near

the ground surface, and this permitted seismic waves to travel along a faster ray path

to the receiver casing. However, based on experience with the cone profiles and

trench observations, it is felt that variations between velocities profiles are largely due

to lateral variability of sediments.

H orizontally polarized shear (SH) w ave velocity profiles fo r the three

crosshole arrays are shown in Fig. 6.22. SH -w ave profiles for the tw o arrays

oriented in a north-south direction, X B -X C and X D -X E, exhibit very good

agreement. The profile for the array oriented in an east-west direction, XA-XB, is in

good agreem ent w ith the other tw o profiles. Profile XA -X B, however, exhibits

higher velocities between a depth o f 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft), indicating som e local

lateral variability. These profiles follow the general trend of the penetration profiles,

decreasing from the ground surface to below the water table and then increasing with

depth. T he low est SH-wave velocity, 97 m /sec (319 ft/sec), was m easured ju st

below the water table in the zone o f lowest penetration resistance.

The ratio o f SH to SV -w ave velocity in the principal stress directions is

dependent on in situ state of stress and structural anisotropy (Lee, 1993). If there is

no structural anisotropy, ratios less than 1.0 indicate lower stresses in the horizontal

direction than in the vertical direction. Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate higher stresses

in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction. A comparison o f SV and SH-

wave velocities is shown in Fig 6.23. The SV-wave velocity is greater than the SH-

wave velocity m easured at the same depth, except at a depth o f 0.3 m (1 ft) and at

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 179

Soil Profile Shear W ave Velocity, V s , m/sec V SH / V Sv

0 100 200 300 0.5 1 1.5
i ri i i i i i
Silty Sand A ■ • A
m A.
Silty Sand and B A
" Gravel
t ■ A
• ■
w water
A
Sandy Gravel - table,
to Gravelly ■ 8/90 A
r <
’ Sand (GP to • ■ A
SP), loose to • ■ A
medium dense Q m A
m ik
m tk
medium dense
D m jL
Depth,

A
medium dense Q ■ A
to dense below ■
4.2 m

SV-W?we SH-Wave Data Quality

3 • \ (ery Good
Q (3ood
I i i i i

Fig. 6.23 - Comparison of SV and SH-Wave Velocity Profiles Measured by

Crosshole Testing Between Casing Locations XD and XE at the Pence
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 180

points around a depth o f 3.4 m (11 ft), the top o f Unit D. The ratios o f V sh to V sv

from Unit C are very low (between 0.6 and 0.8) suggesting relatively low horizontal

stresses.

Three com pression (P) wave velocity profiles are also shown in Fig. 6.22.

A bove the water table, P-wave velocities range from 191 to 401 m /sec (626 to 1317

ft/sec). Velocities are over 1600 m/sec (5200 ft/sec) below the water table, indicating

saturated conditions.

6.3.5 Identification o f the Liquefiable Material

Based on the low penetration resistance and low shear w ave velocities,

liquefaction most likely occurred within Unit C (Stokoe et al., 1988a; Andrus et. al.,

1991). T his conclusion is supported by the recent trench studies and three-

dim ensional model. From an examination o f the large fissure exposed in the trench,

ejecting sedim ent flow ed from U nit C (Section 6.3.1.4). A lthough sam ples taken

from Unit C are much coarser than the gravelly sand boil deposits (see Fig 6.24), the

coarser particles became wedged between the narrow openings o f the fissure near the

bottom of the trench while the finer gravel and sand continued to flow upward.

As illustrated by the three-dim ensional model in Fig. 6.20, the loosest

material o f Unit C (qc < 5 MPa) and the large fissure appear geometrically connected.

Pore-w ater pressures may have risen in the m edium dense (10 < qc < 25 M Pa) layer

(Unit D). How ever, since U nit D is present at all test locations and only part o f the

Pence Ranch site experienced lateral spreading, the developm ent o f pore pressures

w ithin U nit D does not appear to have controlled sliding. The low er penetration

resistance and relationship to the large fissure provide strong evidence that U nit C

liquefied.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 181

’T m jr r i "TT I I I 1 1 I i i i 11 i i— i— i--------
T est Pit £janiDles. Unit C
1 TP-' , 1.8 to 2.7 m
? TP-: ’, 1 . 5 to 2 .4 m ____
D)
"<D 3 TP-I3, 1.5 to 2 .4 m
4 TP-' t, 1.4 to 2.4 m
3*
JQ
u 7 5 mm V O v 4 .7 5 mm \ 0 .0 7 5 mm
0) \ > |
g 1
1 G ravel V ' Sand 1 Silt or Clay
Ll
•*—<
c \ ^ Graveslly S a n d Boil
CD
O . \ (Youci e t a l ., 1985)
CD
CL
^ 2^ _____

II I 1 1 I t 1 f 1 II 1 1 I 1 1.1.1. ! I 1 1 * 1 ■ 55n i i i i
100 10 0.1 0.01
Particle Size, mm

Fig. 6.24 - Comparison of Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test-Pit Samples

Taken from Unit C and a Gravelly Sand Boil Sample Collected N ear the
Hay Yard Fence at the Pence Ranch Site.

6.3.6 Identification o f the M ost Likely Failure Zone

The relationship o f the large fissure to the stratigraphy and w ater table

beneath the hay yard site is shown in a series of cross sections in Fig. 6.25. M ost of

the m easurable lateral displacem ent occurred along the large fissure. The silty cap

north of the fissure is as m uch as 1.4 m (4.6 ft) thick. Located close to the w ater

table and the loosest m aterial, the low -perm eability cap m akes that area m ost

vulnerable to liquefaction and shear deform ation. The m ost likely failure zone

extended northward from the large fissure, the direction of lateral movement, passing

ju st below the water table and through the sedim ent most susceptible to liquefaction

(U nit C).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

W ater Table Large

Elevation S F issu re

LE G EN D

Silty Sand Cap

Gravelly, qc < 5 M P a Direction
of Lateral
Gravelly, 5 < qc < 10 M P a
Movem ent
Gravelly, 10 < qc < 25 M P a
Gravelly, qc > 25 M P a
Loosest
Zone

Fig. 6.25 - Sections o f Three-Dimensional M odel Showing Relationship between the W ater Table, Low Permeability
Cap, Large Fissure, Loose Gravelly Sediment, and Direction o f Lateral M ovement at the Pence Ranch Site.

182
 183

Figure 6.26 is an isopach m ap illustrating the thickness of U nit C that is

located below the w ater table, having qc < 5 M Pa (50 tons/ft2) and friction ratio less

than 1.5 percent. Each contour interval represents a thickness o f 0.15 m (0.5 ft).

N early all ground cracks occurred on the ground surface above this very loose

m aterial. The failure zone m ost likely passed through this very loose m aterial

because: 1) this is the loosest, m ost susceptible material to liquefaction, 2) this is the

zone of low est horizontal stresses (Section 6.3.2.3), and 3) this very loose stratum

appears to be geometrically connected to the large fissure and spatially related to the

zone o f ground cracks. Cracks form ed within the hay yard north o f the large fissure

(see Fig. 6.5), indicating the failure zone also extended south o f large fissure, into

some materials now having qc < 10 M Pa (100 tons/ft2).

The m ost likely location for the failure zone beneath the bam and Pence home

test areas is ju st below the w ater table, in the loose gravelly sedim ent (see Figs. 6.15

and 6.16).

6.3.7 Depositional Environment and Age of Sediments

Borehole samples exhibit characteristics (grain-size, grain-shape, sorting and

rock lithologies) similar to the coarse-grained fluvial sediments comprising Units B

and C. Cone soundings CP-2, CP-3 and CP-B shown in the cross section in Fig.

6.14 are suggestive o f a geometrical connection between the loose gravelly sediment

below the w ater table and the loose gravelly sedim ent com prising U nit C in the

trench. B ased on these reasons, the loose sedim ent below the w ater table is also

designated as Unit C. Unit C includes the planer crossbedded, gravel and pebbly

sand facies (Gp and Sp) characteristic o f linguoid and transverse or m odified

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CP-1
Hay CP-D
© 6 cm 12 cm CP-A
Yard
,15'

© 0 cm
601
•CP-E CP-2 ^Approximate Zone
: of Fissures and :
CP-Fj Sand Boils
CP-I,
S® CP-B
105
120
CP-G
CP-3
90

Lateral Movem ent Contour Interval = 15 cm

30w CP-C

Fig. 6.26 - Isopach M ap Showing Thickness of Very Loose, Saturated Granular Sediment having CPT Tip
Resistance, qc, Less than 5 M Pa and Friction Ratio Less than 1.5 Percent N ear the H ay Yard at the
Pence Ranch Site.

184
 185

longitudinal bars (Section 6.3.1.2), and is on the order of 3000 years old (Section

6.3.1.2). Thus, liquefaction occurred in Holocene river sand and gravel. These

findings agree with the criteria relating geologic origin and age o f sedim ent to

liquefaction by Youd and Perkins (1978), where Holocene river deposits have a high

liquefaction susceptibility.

Sedim ents comprising Units D and E are m ore densely packed and possibly

coarser than U nit C, indicative o f higher flow regimes. Unit D may be sim ilar to the

dense Subunit B l, a massive gravel facies (Gm) characteristic o f longitudinal bars.

Unit E could be of late Pleistocene to early Holocene age when the last m ajor episode

o f m ajor gravel deposition by large braided stream s occurred (Pierce and Scott,

1982).

6.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIM PLIFIED PROCEDURES

W ithout established guidelines for evaluating the liquefaction potential of

gravelly soils, sim plified procedures developed for sand are initially applied to

evaluate U nits C and D at the Pence Ranch Site. As outlined in C hapter 5,

assessm ent procedures can be divided into two categories, stress-based or strain-

based procedures. In the stress-based procedures, liquefaction potential is assessed

by correlating the penetration resistance or shear w ave velocity to the cyclic stress

ratio. The parameters assumed in the calculation o f the cyclic stress ratio are given in

Section 6.4.1. Stress-based procedures using the SPT, BPT, CPT, and V s are

applied in Sections 6.4.2 through 6.4.5. In the strain-based procedures, liquefaction

potential is assessed by correlating V s or V si to the peak horizontal ground surface

acceleration at a "reference site" (called stiff soil site). Strain-based procedures using

V s and V si are applied in Sections 6.4.6 and 6.4.7, respectively.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 186

6.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio

Cyclic stress ratios were computed using Eq. 5.1, a peak ground acceleration

o f 0.33 g at a liquefiable site (see Chapter 3), and overburden pressures estim ated

from the in-place density measurements. Since the effective overburden stresses in

Units C and D are less than or close to 96 kPa (1 ton/ft^) and the ground slope is less

than 5 percent, no corrections are needed for high stresses or sloping ground

conditions.

6.4.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The m ost w idely used approach for assessing the liquefaction potential o f

sand is the simplified procedure using the SPT developed by Seed and his colleagues

(Seed et al., 1985). T heir assessment chart for clean sand and M = 7.3 earthquakes

is show n in Fig. 6.27. Average m odified SPT from Units C and D are plotted on

this assessm ent chart. Results from Unit B are not plotted because it lies above the

w ater table. M odified N-values are based on corrections recom mended for sands, as

outlined in C hapter 5. The overburden correction factors used are based on the

sim ple form ula o f Liao and W hitman (1985) given in Eq. 5.9. The effect of gravel

on the N-value is ignored.

N -values from Unit C lie within the liquefiable region, and significant shear

deform ation potential is correctly predicted. Unit D is predicted to have a marginal

liquefaction potential. The SPT has not been recom m ended for liquefaction

assessm ent o f gravelly soil (National Research Council, 1985). N evertheless, by

applying the criteria o f Seed and his colleagues directly, the SPT provides a correct

assessment o f the liquefaction potential of Unit C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 187

0.7
M = 7 .3 Earthquakes
Percent Fines < 5

0.6

0.5

>
.b
J 5 0.4 Liquefactiorr
o'
f5
oc
w
- 0.3

No Liquefaction

0.1 Explanation
C 1 Sediment
D J U n it

o.o
o 10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, ( N i) 6o, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 6.27 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified SPT Resistance (Seed
et al., 1985) with SPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch
Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 188

6.4.3 Becker Penetration Test CBPT-)

Equivalent SPT N -values were determ ined from the B ecker blow count

follow ing the procedure o f Harder (1988), as outlined in C hapter 5. A verage

equivalent N-values from Units C and D are plotted on the assessment chart o f Seed

et al. (1985) show n in Fig. 6.28. N -values from Units C and D lie w ithin the

liquefiable region. Unit C is correctly predicted to have the highest liquefaction and

shear deform ation potential. Unit D is also predicted to have high liquefaction

potential.

6.4.4 Cone Penetration Test fCPT)

The liquefaction potential boundary based on modified cone tip resistance,

qcj, proposed by Seed and D e Alba (1986) for clean sand having a median grain-

size, D 50 , o f 0.8 mm (0.4 in.) is show n in Fig. 6.29. A dditional potential

boundaries proposed in Chapter 5 for clean gravelly soils having D 50 o f 2 ,4 , 8 and

16 m m (0.8, 1.6, 3.1 and 6.3 in.) are also shown. Average qci-values from Units C

and D are plotted on this assessment chart. Since these boundaries are based on the

penetration ratio, cone tip resistances are normalized based on the SPT overburden

correction factor, as discussed in Section 5.5.1.

Using the boundary for D 50 o f 0.8 mm, U nit C is predicted to have a

m arginal liquefaction potential and Unit D is predicted to have a low liquefaction

potential. If the boundaries for D 50 of 8 and 16 mm are used (as shown to be the

range by the test pit samples in Fig. 6.24), an assessment sim ilar to the SPT can be

made, where U nit C is correctly predicted to liquefy and U nit D is predicted to be

marginally liquefiable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 189

0.7
M = 7.3 Earthquakes
Percent Fines < 5

0.6

0.5

>

0.4 Liquefactiorr
O
15
□c
w
- 0.3
co
.2 No Liquefaction
o
° 0.2

0.1 Explanation
C 1 Sedim ent
D J U n it

o.o
o 10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N-| )6o> blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 6.28 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified SPT Resistance (Seed
et al., 1985) with BPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch
Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 190

I 1 I
Proposed in Chapter 5, based on
M = 7.5 Earthquakes
qc/N60 = 5-2 (d 5o)°‘16- % in tons/ft2,
Percent Fines < 5
and relationship by Seed et al. (1984)
shown in Fig. 5.5

D50 (mm) = 0.8 2* 4*

Liquefaction

Seed and DeAlba

(1986

Den = 7 to 15 mm

/ /
No Liquefaction

Explanation
■ C 1 Sediment
1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2 □ D J Unit
I I
5 10 15 20 25
Normalized Cone Resistance, qc1, M P a

Fig. 6.29 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified CPT

Resistance for Clean Sands (Solid Line) and Clean Gravels (Dashed
Lines) with CPT Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 191

6.4.5 Shear Wave Velocity fVV) - Stress-Based Procedure

The liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Robertson et al. (1992) is

shown in Fig. 6.30. Average V si-values from Units C and D are also plotted in Fig.

6.30. Nearly all the velocity data from Unit C lie within the liquefiable region, and a

high liquefaction potential is correctly predicted. The one data point from Unit C

lying outside the liquefaction region represents the SV-wave crosshole. H alf of the

velocity data from Unit D plot outside the region of liquefaction, and half plot inside

the region of liquefaction. Therefore, Unit D is predicted marginally liquefiable.

6.4.6 Shear W ave Velocity fW ) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V s and amax on top o f a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles o f loading (Stokoe et al., 1988c) is shown in Fig. 6.31. Average

V s-values from Units C and D are plotted in Fig. 6.31 verses the estim ated amax-

value on top of a stiff soil at the Pence Ranch site, about 0.40 g (see C hapter 3).

Data from Unit C lies within the zone where liquefaction is predicted to occur which

agrees w ith the field performance. Part o f Unit D lies in the region o f liquefaction

likely and part lies in the region o f no liquefaction. Thus, Unit D is predicted to be

marginally liquefiable.

6.4.7 Norm alized Shear Wave Velocity CVg^) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V si and amax on top o f a stiff soil

site fo r 15 cycles o f loading (developed in Chapter 5) is show n in Fig. 6.32.

Average V si-values from Units C and D are plotted in Fig. 6.32. Data from Unit C

lie w ithin the liquefiable region, except the point representing th e SV -w ave

crosshole. Velocities from Unit D plot in all three regions. U nit C is correctly

predicted to liquefy and Unit D is marginally liquefiable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 192

0.7
M = 7 .5 Earthquakes
Explanation
2 1 Sediment
0.6 2 J Unit

0.5
>
b
>
03
e 0.4
O
CC
IT Liquefaction
w
<n
0
•.—■ 0.3
CO
o
o ■■
>.
O
0.2
No Liquefaction

0.1

o.o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Shear W ave Velocity, V g i, m/sec

Fig. 6.30 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Shear
W ave Velocity (Robertson et al., 1992) with SASW and SV-Wave
Crosshole Results from Units C and D at the Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 193

350
1 1
Explanation
■ C 1 Sediment
300
m
LJ J
r\
L I I i~:4-

o 250
a>
w
E

^ 200
o
_o
0) t Lique faction .ikely
> 1 (Stoke>e et al., 1988c)
CD h0 x
150 —Lique faction
3
5
as
CD
.c
CO 100 lb i u quefactic
X \\> ^ .

Chart 3V Stokoe et al. (19 88c)Base d on--

50 — Sand (0.13 < Ds0 < 0.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
I
... ............................ ............... I !„
.................... I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 6.31 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear Wave Velocity
of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with
SASW and SV-W ave Crosshole Results from Units C and D at the Pence
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 194

350

Explanation
■ C l Sediment
300 — □ D J Unit
Shear Wave Velocity, V g i, m/sec

250
No
^ L iq u e fa c tio n v
Liquefaction
Likely
200

150

Liquefaction

100
Chart Eased on-

50
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: V gi = 160 Nc0-25 amax0-5
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 6.32 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

Wave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles of Shaking (see Chapter 5)
with SASW and SV-Wave Crosshole Results from Units C and D at the
Pence Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 195

6.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Liquefaction at Pence Ranch occurred beneath a river terrace. A silty sand

stratum , less than a m eter thick, mantles terrace sedim ents. Terrace sedim ents

consist o f a dense sandy gravel (Subunit B l), a silty sand channel-fill (Subunit B2),

a m edium dense sandy gravel (Subunit B3), and a loose gravelly sand to sandy

gravel (Unit C). U nit B is unsaturated and above the water table. U nit C extends

below the w ater table, and is underlain by m edium dense to dense sandy gravel

(Units D and E). The w ater table is at a depth o f about 1.5 m (5 ft). Terrace

sedim ents are o f fluvial origin, deposited around 3000 years ago by a wandering

gravel-bed river.

The liquefiable material involved with lateral spreading is Unit C. Unit C is a

loose gravelly sand to sandy gravel with less than a few percent fines and is

characterized by the following average values: SPT N 60-value o f about 7; cone tip

resistance of 6 M Pa (65 tons/ft2); cone friction ratio o f about 1 percent; equivalent

Becker N^o-value o f 5; shear wave velocity of 120 m/sec (390 ft/sec). The degree of

pore w ater pressure generation and sliding were controlled by the lateral extent of the

loosest material within Unit C and a thick silty sand cap, Subunit B2, that lies just

above Unit C and. The m ost likely failure zone extended from the large fissure

northward, the direction of lateral movement, passing ju st beneath the w ater table, at

a depth o f about 1.8 m (6 ft), through the loosest material of Unit C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 196

Four liquefaction assessment procedures developed for sand using SPT, BPT

and V s correctly predicted a high liquefaction and shear deform ation potential for

U nit C. The assessm ent procedure based on CPT for sand predicted m arginal

liquefaction potential for Unit C. However, liquefaction behavior was correctly

predicted using the CPT-based potential boundaries proposed in Chapter 5 for

gravelly soils. Procedures based on SPT, CPT and V s predicted marginal potential

for Unit D. The BPT procedure predicted a high liquefaction potential for Unit D.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

AT GODDARD RANCH

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Goddard Ranch site is located on a gently sloping side bar (about 8

percent slope) o f the B ig Lost River. A photograph o f the site is shown in Fig. 7.1.

The site is approxim ately 11 km (7 mi) southeast o f the southern term inus o f the

1983 surface rupture (see Fig. 1.1). Elevations range from 1852 to 1855 m (6075 to

6083 ft) above mean sea level.

Loose, saturated sedim ents in this general area liquefied during the strong

ground shaking of the Borah Peak earthquake (Youd et al., 1985). Liquefaction

effects are reviewed in Section 7.2. Field investigations were conducted at this side

bar in 1985 and 1990. The results from these investigations are presented in Section

7.3. Liquefaction potential is assessed in Section 7.4 using sim plified procedures.

All findings are summarized in Section 7.5.

7.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Youd et al. (1985) reported eruption of sand boils at sporadic locations in the

flood plain of the Goddard Ranch and cracking o f sediment bars in the channel o f the

Big Lost River. Sand boil deposits were as m uch as 1.8 m (6 ft) in diam eter, and

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 198

ground fissures in the sedim ent bars were as wide as 0.3 m (1 ft). Rem nants o f

these sand boil deposits were observed in the field near the drill rig show n in Fig.

7.1 by Stokoe (1991) during the 1985 field studies. The rancher, M r. M arv

Goddard, stated that hairline cracks may have formed in the side bar, but neither the

gravel road nor the small embankm ents supporting the flat-car bridge (see Figs. 7.1

and 7.2) needed repair after the earthquake. Thus, the side bar did not experience

lateral spreading.

Fig. 7.1 - Photograph o f the Goddard Ranch Site. (Drill Rig at Cone Penetration
Test Location CP-3 Shown in Fig. 7.2.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 199

7.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1985 AND 1990

A map of the Goddard Ranch site showing geographic features and locations

o f the investigations is presented in Fig. 7.2. Investigation locations are oriented

along lines roughly parallel to the slope of the side bar and perpendicular to the flow

o f the river. In July 1985, the Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-W aves (SASW) method

was employed, using hammers and dropped weights as sources, along a single

alignm ent on the bar (SA-1985) to determ ine a shear wave velocity profile of

subsurface sedim ents (Stokoe et al., 1988a). In A ugust 1990, the w ork was

expanded with additional SASW testing, drilling, sampling, trenching, and in-place

density measurements. Four new alignments were tested by the SASW method (SA-

1 through SA-4), using hammers and a bulldozer as sources. Drilling included

Standard Penetration (SPT), Cone Penetration (CPT) and Becker Penetration (BPT)

tests. Samples were collected during drilling with split-barrel samplers. Larger

samples were collected in a trench and test pits.

The findings o f the trench investigations are presented in Section 7.3.1.

Subsurface sediments are characterized in terms o f their geotechnical properties in

Section 7.3.2. A three-dimensional model o f sediments beneath the side bar is

constructed using CPT soundings in Section 7.3.3. The SASW shear wave velocity

profiles are com pared in Section 7.3.4. The m ost likely liquefiable stratum is

identified in Section 7.3.5. In Section 7.3.6, the depositional environment and age of

sediments are discussed. A listing of the 1990 field data is given in Appendix B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Flat Car
Bridge
EXPLANATION
SP SPT boring
CP Cone sounding
BPc Becker, closed bit
BPo Becker, open bit 1853.4
SA Spectral-analysis- 1854.5
SA-3-1 CP-9y sA -4
of-surface-waves
TP Test pit CP-Z. — — / © S P -4 1853/7
SA-1985 - ^ T P -1 - CP-10

©-■©
SP-3 SP-2 1854.3

C P -3 ^ C P -1 2 c p ' 1.1
Wl OWS ©
BPc-3
> > T ren c h !< ^ \kv v v k K Area of
Solid Model

10 15 M
1854.0
Contour Interval = 0.3 M
Wi ows v
Datum is Mean Sea Level
A - A_A AXA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Fig. 7.2 - M ap of the Goddard Ranch Site Showing Topography and Locations of Testing.

200
I
 201

7.3.1 Description of Trench Sediments

As illustrated in the trench profile shown in Fig. 7.3, the side bar is covered

by a gravelly stratum, sediment Unit A, that is as m uch as 1.3 m (4.3 ft) thick. Unit

A consists of clean sandy gravel with cobbles (G P -G W ). Internal stratification is

defined by cut-and-fill gravel w ith varying sand content and by occasional

interbedded lenses of sand to sandy silt. The gravel particles are hard, predominantly

subrounded with low sphericity, and consist of limestone, dolomite, quartzite, and

various plutonic and volcanic rock lithologies. Packing o f the gravel ranges from

clast-supported (gravel in contact with other gravel) with sand-filled or open

framework to sand matrix-supported (gravel floating in a matrix of sand). Maximum

clast size is 100 mm (4 in.). The finer fraction is dark grayish brown, non-plastic,

and does not react with a weak solution o f hydrochloric acid (HC1; about 0.1 N

solution). Vertical exposures o f Unit A are unstable. A log was exposed in the

opposite wall o f the trench just north of the sand lens shown in Fig. 7.3. Unit A

overlies a sandy silt layer, sediment Unit B. Units A and B are interbedded at the

south end of the trench profile, about where the side bar and flood plain meet. The

contact with Unit B is sharp.

Unit B is a very dark grayish brown sandy silt with clay and some gravel

(ML-CL) to silty sand (SM). The silt and clay faction exhibits no reaction with a

weak solution o f HC1. Samples contained wood fragments which are presumed to

be of modern age (say less than 100 years old). Unit B overlies a gravelly stratum,

sediment Unit C. The contact with Unit C is sharp.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 SOUTH
Elevation, Meters

1854!

’ A------

1853

Bottom of Trench 0.5

Explanation
Sandy Silt to
Stratigraphic contacts and
Sandy Silt with clay
unit designations
F~ n Sand to
Internal stratification L J Silty Sand
. Direction of increasing | | Sandy Gravel with cobbles
sand and silt

( 2) Sample location and number

Fig. 7.3 - Sediment Profile Exposed in Trench at the Goddard Ranch Site.
 203

Unit C is a clean sandy gravel (GP-GW) with occasional lenses o f sandy silt.

The gravel particles exhibit similar shape and lithology to the gravel of Unit A. In the

trench exposure, gravel are packed in a clast-supported structure with a partially

sand-filled framework. M axim um clast size is 75 m m (3 in.). The finer fraction is

dark grayish brow n, non-plastic, and does not react with a w eak solution o f HC1.

Vertical exposures o f Unit C are unstable.

If this area o f the side bar had experienced lateral spreading, U nit B would

likely have been fissured and cracked. However, no such features were found. This

observation agrees with M r. Goddard's statement that this area of the bar was not

cracked after the earthquake.

7.3.2 Geotechnical Characterization of Subsurface Sediments

The generalized cross sections shown in Figs. 7.4 and 7.5 contain six CPT

profiles along a north-south alignment perpendicular to the river channel. Several

SPT, BPT, SA SW and sedim ent profiles are included in Fig. 7.5. The subsurface

sedim ents can be divided into 6 Units (A through F) on the basis o f penetration

resistances, shear wave velocity and sample data, as described below.

T he side bar is covered by a m edium dense to dense sandy gravel with

cobbles (GP-GW ), sediment Unit A. Unit A is characterized by N-values o f 39 and

52 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft), and cone tip resistances which range from 2 to as high as

58 M Pa (20 to 605 ton/ft2). In-places dry densities determined from three large-ring

tests in test pits TP-1 and TP-2 shown in Fig. 7.2 range betw een 20.6 and 21.9

k N /m 3 (131 and 139 lb/ft3). The gravel particles are hard, predom inantly

subrounded with low sphericity, and consist o f limestone, dolomite, quartzite, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 SOUTH NORTH

1855 r
CP-5 CP-4 CP-3 CP-6 CP-1 CP-2
Big Lost
River

C 1 ^

<2 1850
C2
C2

D
2.
5
D
o—I □ 1845 Cone Penetration _
o Friction Tip
Ratio Resistance
ibited without permission.

MPa

10 M
1840

Fig. 7.4 - Cross Section Based on Cone Penetration Resistances Measured at the Goddard Ranch Site.

204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SOUTH NORTH
BPc-3 SP-1 CP-1
1855 h. BPc-1 SA-85
BPc-2

Big Lost River

Sandy Silt to
Silty Sand

Loose Gravelly
Sand to
Sandy Gravel

Medium Dense to
Dense Sandy
Gravel
21845
71777? Medium Dense to

i Dense Silty Sandy

Gravel

Cone Penetration
SP SPT boring Standard Uncorrected Becker Friction Tip Shear Wave
BPc Becker, closed bit Penetration, Nm Penetration, Ng Ratio Resistance Velocity
1840 - CP Cone sounding 0 30 60 o 100 0 500
SA Spectral-analysis- ■n T~ H " I " 1 i.i i i i
of-surface-waves blows/ft blows/ft m /se c
116
6M 118
(1 ft = 0 .3 0 m)

Fig. 7.5 - Cross Section Based on Penetration Resistances M easured at the Goddard Ranch Site.

205
I
 206

various plutonic and volcanic rock lithologies. M aximum clast size is 100 m m (4 in).

The fine material is dark grayish brown, non-plastic, and does not react with a weak

solution o f hydrochloric acid (HC1; about 0.1 N solution). Unit A is as m uch as 1.3

m (4.3 ft) thick and overlies a sandy silt layer, sedim ent Unit B. Near CP-4, where

the side bar and flood plain meet, Units A and B are interbedded.

Unit B varies from a very dark grayish brown sandy silt with clay and some

gravel (ML-CL) to a silty sand (SM). It is characterized by a N-value o f 4; cone tip

resistances ranging from 0.05 to about 3 M Pa (0.5 to 30 ton/ft2) and friction ratios

(ratio of sleeve to tip resistance) ranging from about 1 to 13 percent. An in-place dry

density o f 12.9 kN/m3 (82 lb/ft3) was determined for Unit B from a sand-cone test at

sam ple location 7 shown in Fig. 7.3. The sand-cone sample and a borehole sample

taken from U nit B contain 21 and 10 percent clay (material less than 0.005 mm),

receptively. The sand-cone sample exhibits a plastic limit o f 16 percent and a liquid

limit o f 28 percent. The fine material does not reaction with a w eak solution o f HC1.

Unit B overlies a gravelly stratum, sediment Unit C. The boundary between Units B

and C is concave down.

U nit C, a loose to m edium dense clean sandy gravel (GP-GW ), can be

subdivided into a loose upper layer, Subunit C l, and a loose to dense low er layer,

Subunit C2. Penetration, shear w ave velocity and grain-size data for Subunits C l

and C2 are summ arized in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Subunit C l is characterized by SPT

N 60 -values ranging from 4 to 12, with an average value o f 7; cone tip resistances

betw een 0 and 14 M Pa (2 to 141 tons/ft2), with an average value o f 5.4 M Pa (56

tons/ft2); cone friction ratios ranging from 0 to 6 percent, with an average value of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission

Table 7.1 - Summary o f Grain Size and Penetration Data for Subunits C l and C 2 at the Goddard Ranch Site

CPTb S P TC and BPTd

of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Sub­ Average Corrected

unit Grain Size Data 3 Tip Resistance, qc Blow count, N 60
Sam ple D50 c /g /s /f C on e D epth (MPa) Drill D epth (blows per 0.3 m)
T ype (mm) (%) Hole (m) R ange A verage Hole (m) R ange Average

C1 SPT 7 0 /5 7 /4 0 /3 CP-3 1 .5 - 3.4 1-11 5 .5 S P -2 2 .3 - 3.4 5 -1 2 8

Becker 6 0 /5 2 /4 4 /4 CP-5 1 .6 - 3.3 0-11 3 .7 S P -3 1 .5 - 3.4 4- 8 7
Bulk 10 0 /6 3 /3 4 /3 CP -6 1 .4 - 3.1 1 -1 4 7.1 S P -4 1 .7 - 2.0 6 6
CP -8 1 .5 - 3.7 0-11 5 .6 BPc-1 1 .5 - 3.0 4- 5 5
CP-9 1.2 - 2.6 2- 8 4 .4 B P c -2 1 .4 - 3.2 4- 5 4
C P -10 1.8 - 2.8 0 -1 2 6 .3 B P c-3 1 .5 - 3.0 4- 5 4

C2 SPT 9 0 /5 9 /3 6 /6 CP-1 1 .9 - 3.6 3 -2 4 1 2 .7 SP-1 2 .9 - 3.2 15 15

B ecker 11 0 /6 7 /3 1 /2 C P-2 2 .2 - 2.9 4 -1 3 9 .4 S P -2 4 .2 - 4.6 15 15
C P-3 3 .4 - 6.2 1 -1 8 8 .9 S P -3 4 .2 - 4.6 15 15
C P-4 1 .7 - 7.0 3 -2 8 13.1 BPc-1 3 .0 - 3.8 9 -1 2 10
CP-5 3 .3 - 7 .3 4 -2 6 1 3 .4 B P c-2 3 .2 - 4.7 8 -1 5 13
CP -6 3.1 - 5.0 1-19 11.0 B P c-3 3 .0 - 6.9 7-14 11
prohibited without p erm ission.

C P-7 3 .0 - 4.3 5-17 1 0 .5

CP -8 3 .7 - 4.7 2-13 8.1
CP-9 2 .6 - 3.1 6-13 9. 0
C P-10 2 .8 - 4.5 3 - 17 9 .7
C P-12 2 .4 - 5.1 5-20 1 2 .4

a SPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside diameter open bit; Bulk = test pit sam ple.
D50 = median grain size, c = cobble (75 to 3 0 0 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm).
d10 cm 2 con e. 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2
c ”pin hammer"; corrections b a sed on procedure of S e e d et al. (1985): energy ratio about 5 0 % (s e e Chapter 4); no liner, x 1.0 (loose
sand) and x 1.15 (medium d en se sand); short rods, x 0.75 (testing depths < 3 m).
dBPc--Becker closed bit; converted to equivalent SPT N 60 following procedure of Harder (1988).

207
 208

Table 7.2 - Summary of Grain Size and Shear Wave Velocity Data For Subunits C l
and C2 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

SASW b
Sub­ Average Shear W ave
unit Grain Size Data 3 Velocity, Vs
Sample D50 c/g/s/f Test Depth (m/sec)
Type (mm) (%) Array (m), Range Average

C1 SPT 7 0/57/40/3 SA-1985 1.8- 2.4 122 122

Becker 6 0/52/44/4 SA-2 1.4- 3.7 1 0 7 -1 3 7 123
Bulk 10 0/63/34/3 SA-4 1.4- 3.7 101 -1 1 0 105

C2 SPT 9 0/59/36/6 SA-1985 2.4- 3.7 137 137

Becker 11 0/67/31/2 SA-1 1.7- 7.0 14 9 -2 1 3 184
SA-2 3.7- 5.0 183 183
SA-3 1.8- 3.4 10 4 -1 2 8 120
SA-4 3.7- 5.0 204 204
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside
diameter open bit; Bulk = test pit sample. D50 = median grain size, c = cobble (75 to
300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075
mm).
bSA-Spectral-analysis-of- surface-waves (SASW); 1985 data from Stokoe et al. (1988a),
testing with hammers and dropped weights, forward modeling using a computer model
with two-dimensional wave propagation (plane Rayleigh waves); 1990 testing with
hammers and a bulldozer, forward modeling using a computer model with three-
dimensional wave propagation (Roesset et al., 1991).

1.1 percent; uncorrected Becker blow counts (closed bit) varying from 6 to 15 blows

per 0.3 m (1 ft), with and average value o f 8. Equivalent N 60-values determ ined

from Becker blow counts range from 4 to 5, with an average value of 5. Shear wave

velocities range from 101 to 137 m/sec (330 to 450 ft/sec), with an average o f 120

m/sec (390 ft/sec). A photograph of material collected from Subunit C l with the aid

o f a backhoe is shown in Fig. 7.6. Grain-size distribution curves of this sample with

a second sample from Subunit C l are plotted in Fig. 7.7. The gravel particles are

hard, predominantly subrounded with low sphericity, and consist o f rock lithologies

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 209

Fig. 7.6 - Photograph o f Gravelly Sediment Taken from Subunit C l at the Goddard
Ranch Site.

100
Test Pit Samples. Subunit C1
1 T P -1 ,1.6 to 2.4 m
D> 80 2 T P -2 ,1.8 to 2.7 m

75 mm 4.75 mm 0.075 mm

Gravel Sand Silt or Clay

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 7.7 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves of Test Pit Samples Taken from Subunit
C l at the Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 210

sim ilar to Unit A. The amount of sand contained in these sam ples suggests that the

gravel particles are packed in a sand matrix-supported to a clast-supported structure.

The fine material is dark grayish brown, non-plastic, and does not react with a weak

solution of HC1. The occasional high fiction ratios in the cone profiles indicate thin

interbedded layers o f sandy silt. Subunit C l has a maximum thickness o f 2 m (6 ft).

Subunit C2 is characterized by SPT N6o-values o f 15; cone tip resistances

ranging 1 to 28 M Pa (10 to 290 tons/ft2), with an average value o f 11 M Pa (112

tons/ft2); cone friction ratios between 0 and 10 percent, with an average value o f 1.3

percent; uncorrected Becker blow counts ranging from 15 to 27 blows per 0.3 m (1

ft), w ith an average value o f 20. Equivalent Ngo-values determ ined from B ecker

blow counts range from 7 to 15, with an average value of 11. Shear wave velocities

range from 104 to 213 m/sec (340 to 700 m/sec), with an average value of 170 m/sec

(560 ft/sec). The gravel particles are sim ilar to U nit A and Subunit C2. T he finer

faction is dark grayish brown, non-plastic, and does not react w ith a weak solution

o f HC1. The thickness of Subunit C2 ranges from about 0.5 to 5.3 m (2 to 17 ft).

Beneath Subunit C2 lies a silty gravel stratum, sediment Unit D.

Sam ples taken from Unit D classify as sandy gravel w ith silt (GW -GM ).

Characteristic o f Unit D are measured SPT N-values ranging from 18 to 65; C PT tip

resistances ranging from about 10 to 58 M Pa (100 to 605 tons/ft2); uncorrected

B ecker blow count ranging from 5 to 59 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft). Shear wave

velocities generally exceed 180 m/sec (600 ft/sec). The gravel particles are hard,

subangular to subrounded, and consist prim arily o f sedim entary rock lithologies

(unlike Units A and C which also consist o f various lithologies rock lithologies).

The fine material is grayish brown, slightly plastic, and reacts m oderately to strongly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 211

with a weak solution of HC1. Some o f the gravel particles from borehole samples are

partially coated with calcium carbonate. The upper boundary o f Unit D exhibits

about a 15 percent slope to the south. Unit D overlies a fine-grained stratum ,

sediment Unit E.

Unit E is a dark grayish brow n sandy silt with clay (M L). U nit E is

characterized by CPT tip resistances as low as 1.7 M Pa (18 tons/ft2) and uncorrected

B ecker blow count ranging from 4 to about 11 blow s per 0.3 m (1 ft). The fine

m aterial is slightly plastic. Two borehole samples taken from U nit E contain 9 and

13 percent clay (material less than 0.005 mm). These samples exhibit plastic limits

o f 17 and 12 percent, and liquid limits about 1 percent greater than the plastic limits.

The fine material reacts moderately with a weak solution of HC1. Unit E lies between

elevations 1843 and 1844 m (6045 and 6048 ft) above mean sea level. The upper

and low er boundaries o f U nit E slopes very gently (about 2 and 1 percent,

respectively) to the south. Below Unit E lies a clean gravelly stratum, Unit F.

B ecker samples from U nit F classify as clean sandy gravel (GP). The gravel

particles are hard, predom inantly subrounded with low sphericity, and consist of

both sedimentary and igneous rock lithologies, similar to Units A and C gravel. Unit

F is generally characterized by CPT tip resistances greater than 10 M Pa (100

tons/ft2); uncorrected Becker blow counts over 20 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft); shear wave

velocities exceeding 300 m/sec (1000 ft/sec).

Below an elevation o f about 1837 m (6024 ft), uncorrected Becker blow

counts exceed 100 blow per 0.3 m (ft), and shear w ave velocities are greater than

490 m/sec (1600 ft/sec).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 212

The w ater table in A ugust 1990 sloped from an elevation of 1853.0 m

(6077.7 ft) at the edge of the Big Lost R iver to an elevation of 1852.4 m (6076.0 ft)

at SP-2, about 13.4 m (44 ft) south o f the river.

7.3.3 Three-Dimensional Sediment Model

A three-dim ensional model o f subsurface sedim ents w as constructed from

prim arily the CPT and borehole sample data. CPT soundings were discretized into

the following five categories:

1) sandy silt,
2) gravelly soil with qc < 10 MPa,
3) gravelly soil with 10 < qc < 25 MPa,
4) silty and gravelly soil with qc > 10 MPa, and
5) gravelly soil with qc > 10 MPa.

Using the solid modeling program GEOSOLID (Jones, 1990), layer boundaries were

defined by interpolation and extrapolation contouring techniques. The space between

two layer boundaries was defined as a solid layer. Layers were assembled to form a

three-dimensional model. Sections o f the modeled region are shown in Fig. 7.8.

As illustrated in Fig. 7.8, a m edium dense to dense gravelly stratum , 10 < qc

< 25 M Pa (100 < qc < 250 tons/ft2), covers the site. This gravelly stratum (Unit A)

is underlain by a sandy silt layer (Unit B) and a loose to medium dense gravelly layer

(Unit C). Unit B varies in thickness and is not present in all the cone profiles. A

zone o f loose gravelly soil (primarily Subunit C l), qc < 10 M Pa (qc < 100 tons/ft2),

is show n to have lim ited lateral extent. A m edium dense to dense silty gravelly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

W ater Table
Elevation

Big Lost
River

.• \ • S • % • %• V * V*
. ^a/ ai'a/ ai,a/ ai*a/ a«*a/ a«,a«
/
. . . , ’•• ••• • • • .• *» •* . - •* •- ■■ -V»«•
• •«
a *, a / a », a « ' a / a *, a #, a ^ a «a a ^ a •* ••••/»■••••••
.* «V•
•••
••• %•%» v • %• %• sV *.
/;/■ ■vW-vVW.'■
■■■
iWifiy&fiy&y&y::
LEG EN D ‘ • • • a ^ , ^ a / a / a / a / » * ' a ^ a / a «, a *, a ^ a , a a / « » a i
-%••••%••••%v«/v*V
a•*;*v.••••.*;*•*%
/ •/" ■/•%
a»%• •*.
*'*• •••%*%a<»*'••i*.■*»■i%•%
; *V .■ ■V• V *.***• •*; **.*
;•
Sandy Silt
Gravelly, qc < 10 M Pa
Gravelly, 10 < qc < 25 M P a
Silty and Gravelly, qc > 10 M Pa
Gravelly, qc > 10 M Pa

Fig. 7.8 - Sections of Three-Dimensional M odel of the Goddard Ranch Site Based on CPT Soundings Showing
Relationship Between the W ater Table, Impermeable Cap, and Loose Gravelly Sediment. to
t—»
 214

stratum , qc > 10 M Pa (qc > 100 tons/ft2), lies beneath Unit C. This silty gravelly

stratum (Unit D) overlies a fairly continuous sandy silt layer (Unit E). Sedim ent

beneath Unit E consists of well-washed, m edium dense to very dense sandy gravel

(U nit F).

7.3.4 SASW Seismic Testing

In July 1985, Stokoe et al. (1988a) applied the SASW m ethod using

ham m ers and dropped weights as sources along one alignm ent (SA-1985) at the

G oddard Ranch site, as shown in Fig. 7.2. The V s-profile for test array SA-1985

w as determ ined using a com puter m odel based on tw o-dim ensional w ave

propagation (plane Rayleigh waves) and the Haskel-Thomson matrix solution. Four

additional alignments were tested in August 1990 using hammers and a bulldozer as

sources. Vs-profiles were determined from the 1990 data using a three-dimensional

w ave propagation solution developed by Roesset and his students (Roesset et al.,

1991) which include all seismic waves. The theoretical and experimental dispersion

curves for the 1990 SASW tests are given in Appendix B. All five SA SW shear

wave velocity profiles are shown in Fig. 7.9.

There is reasonable agreement between the five shear wave velocity profiles

m easured by SASW testing, with all profiles exhibiting a low er velocity layer

(generally less than about 150 m/sec [490 ft/sec]) extending from near the ground

surface down to a depth of 3.2 m (12 ft). The 1990 profiles are considered better

estimates, since layer thicknesses are based on the 1990 penetration test results and a

m ore com prehensive com puter model was used to perform the back calculations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 215

0
B\A water Test Array
table ■ SA -1985
SA-1
2
SA-2
• SA-3
SA-4
C2
4

10
■o-

12
0 100 200 300 400 500

Shear W ave Velocity, V s , m/sec

Fig. 7.9 - Five Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Measured by SASW Testing at the
Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 216

E ffects due to different sources are considered insignificant. W hile there is

considerable variation between profiles at the same depth, ju st as m uch variation is

exhibited in the CPT, SPT and Becker profiles.

7.3.5 Identification o f the Liquefiable Material

Liquefaction most likely occurred within Subunit C l, the granular stratum o f

low est penetration resistance and shear wave velocity. Pore-w ater pressures may

have risen in the looser zones o f Subunit C2. Units D and F, having even higher

penetration resistances and shear wave velocities, are considered to be even m ore

resistant to liquefaction. Although Units B and E also exhibit low penetration

resistances, they contain more than 9 percent clay. Since no clayey sand boil

deposits were reported by Youd et al. (1985), it is unlikely Units B and E liquefied.

The low penetration resistances measured in the clean sandy gravel o f Subunit C l

suggests this to be the most likely layer to have liquefied.

As shown in Fig. 7.8, U nit B is located close to the w ater table and the

loosest material, Subunit C l. U nit B is assumed to have a low permeability because

o f its high clay content. The location o f U nit B and its low perm eability m ake

Subunit C l most vulnerable to liquefaction, because of the adverse effect Unit B has

on the dissipation of pore pressures developed in Subunit C l.

T hree reasons that explain why the side bar at G oddard Ranch did not

experience lateral spreading are: 1) Unit B is not continuous. Pore-w ater pressures

may have dissipated by water flowing around Unit B. 2) Subunit C l has limited

lateral extend. Figure 7.10 is an isopach m ap showing the thickness o f U nit C

(primarily Subunit C l) that is located below the w ater table, having qc < 5 M Pa (50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 217

Lost River Flat C ar

Bridge
CP-2

0 cm

CP-9
CP-1 '5 5 cm
CP-7
0 cm
6 cm 30
34 cm
© C P -1 0
CP-6, ,60

,30

CP-11
(CP-12
0 cm

30
CP-4

15 M

CP-5 Contour Interval = 15 cm

Fig. 7.10 - Isopach Map of the Goddard Ranch Site Showing Thickness of Very
Loose, Saturated Granular Sediment having Cone Tip Resistance Less
than 5 M Pa (50 tons/ft2) and a Friction Ratio Less than 1.5 Percent.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 218

tons/ft2) and a friction ratio less than 1.5 percent. Each contour interval represents a

thickness of 0.15 m (0.5 ft). The isopach map illustrates the limited lateral extent of

very loose granular material. 3) The loosest zone thins in the downslope direction.

Thus creating a geometry unfavorable to sliding.

7.3.6 Depositional Environment and Age of Sediments

B ased on the geom orphology o f the area and the above sedim ent

descriptions, Unit A is a side bar gravel, deposited on the upstream half of the side

bar. Unit B includes flood plain and marsh sediments. The interbedding o f Units A

and B is indicative o f a weak natural levee or bank. Subunits C l and C2 are fluvial

bar sedim ents. Sedim ents com prising Unit D are characteristic o f alluvial fan

deposits. Unit E likely includes flood plain sediments. Sediments o f U nit F exhibit

characteristics similar to Units A and C, suggesting a fluvial origin.

Follow ing the facies scheme for fluvial sedim ents by M iall (1978, 1985)

listed in Table 6.2, U nit A includes the m assive or crudely bedded gravel (Gm),

trough stratified gravel (Gt), and sand, silt and m ud (FI) facies. U nit B includes

sand, silt and mud (FI, Fsc) facies. Unit C includes the m assive or crudely bedded

gravel (Gm) facies. Sedim ents in U nit D likely include the m assive, m atrix

supported gravel (Gms) and massive gravel (Gm) facies.

Based on the close proximity of the Goddard Ranch site to the present-day

Big Lost River, sediments o f Units A, B and C are believed to be much younger than

the 3000-year-old terrace sediments at the Pence Ranch. The terrace at Pence Ranch

is located over 300 m (1000 ft) from the river (see C hapter 6). Furtherm ore, the

surface o f the gravel side bar at the Goddard Ranch site is not present in 1961 USD A

aerial photographs, and has formed since 1961. It is concluded that liquefaction in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 219

the vicinity of the Goddard Ranch site occurred in Holocene river sand and gravel.

These findings agree with the criteria relating geologic origin and age o f sediment to

liquefaction, where Holocene river deposits have a high liquefaction susceptibility

(Youd and Perkins, 1978).

7.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES

G uidelines for liquefaction assessm ent o f gravelly soils are not well

established. Sim plified procedures developed for sand are initially applied to

Subunits C l and C2 at the G oddard R anch site. As outlined in C hapter 5,

assessm ent procedures can be divided into tw o categories, stress-based or strain-

based procedures. In the stress-based procedures, liquefaction potential is assessed

by correlating the penetration resistance or shear wave velocity to the cyclic stress

ratio. The parameters assumed in the calculation of the cyclic stress ratio are given in

Section 7.4.1. Stress-based procedures using the SPT, BPT, CPT, and V s are

applied in Sections 7.4.2 through 7.4.5. In the strain-based procedures, liquefaction

potential is assessed by correlating V s or V si to the peak horizontal ground surface

acceleration at a "reference site" (called stiff soil site). Strain-based procedures using

V s and VSi are applied in Sections 7.4.6 and 7.4.7, respectively.

7.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio

Cyclic stress ratios were computed using Eq. 5.1, a peak ground acceleration

o f 0.28 g at a liquefiable site (see Chapter 3), and overburden pressures estim ated

from the in-place density measurements. No corrections are needed for high stresses

or sloping ground conditions, since the effective overburden stresses in Subunits C l

and C2 are less than or close to 96 kPa (1 ton/ft^) and the ground slope is less than 5

percent.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 220

7.4.2 Standard Penetration Test fSPT)

The m ost widely used approach for assessing the liquefaction potential of

sand is the simplified procedure using the SPT developed by Seed and his colleagues

(Seed et al., 1985). Their assessment chart for clean sand and M = 7.3 earthquakes

is show n in Fig. 7.11. Average m odified N-values from Subunits C l and C2 are

plotted on this assessm ent chart. M odified N -values are based on corrections

recom mended for sands, as outlined in Chapter 5. The overburden correction factors

used are based on the simple form ula of Liao and W hitman (1985) given in Eq. 5.9.

The effect of gravel on the N-value is ignored.

N -values from Subunit C l lie w ithin the liquefiable region, and a high

liquefaction potential predicted. Subunit C2 is also predicted liquefiable, but exhibits

a low er potential than Subunit C l. Although the SPT has not been recommended for

liquefaction assessm ent o f gravelly soil (N ational Research C ouncil, 1985), it

provides a correct assessment o f the liquefaction and shear deformation potential o f at

the G oddard Ranch.

7.4.3 Becker Penetration Test (BPT1

Equivalent SPT N -values were determ ined from the B ecker blow count

follow ing the procedure of H arder and Seed (1986), as outlined in C hapter 5.

Average equivalent N-values from Subunits C l and C2 are plotted on the assessment

SPT-based chart o f Seed et al. (1985) shown in Fig. 7.12. All equivalent N-values

plotted lie within the liquefiable region, and a high liquefaction and shear deformation

is predicted. Since the site did not experience lateral spreading, this method seems to

over predict the sliding potential.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 221

0.7
M = 7 .3 Earthquakes
Percent Fines < 5

0.6

0.5

>
Cyclic Stress Ratio, xav/o',

0.4 Liquefaction-

0.3

□0 No Liquefaction

0.2

0.1 Explanation

C11 Sediment
C2J Unit

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N i )60, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 7. 11 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Modified SPT Resistance (Seed

et al., 1985) with SPT Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 222

0.7
M = 7.3 Earthquakes
Percent Fines < 5

0.6

0.5

>
b
0.4 Liquefaction-
o
oc
<n
2
- 0.3
CO
, 0
No Liquefaction
"b
° 0.2

0.1 Explanation
C1 "1 Sedim ent
C 2 J Unit

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N-j )60, blows per 0 .3 m

Fig. 7.12 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified SPT Resistance (Seed
et al., 1985) with BPT Results from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 223

7.4.4 Cone Penetration Test ('CPT')

The liquefaction potential boundary based on modified cone tip resistance,

qcl, proposed by Seed and De Alba (1986) for clean sand having a m edian grain-

size, D 5 0 , of 0.8 m m (0.4 in.) is shown in Fig. 7.13. A dditional potential

boundaries proposed in Chapter 5 for clean gravelly soils having D 50 o f 2 ,4 , 8 and

16 m m (0.8, 1.6, 3.1 and 6.3 in.) are also shown. A verage qc i-v a lu e s from

Subunits C l and C2 are plotted on this chart. Cone tip resistances are norm alized

based on the SPT overburden correction factor (Eq. 5.9), since these boundaries are

based on the penetration ratio, as discussed in Section 5.5.1.

Using the line for D 50 of 0.8 mm, Subunit C l is predicted to have a moderate

liquefaction potential and Subunit C2 is predicted to have a low potential. If the

approximate boundary for D 50 of 10 mm is used (as shown to be the value by the test

pit sam ples in Fig. 7.7), an assessm ent sim ilar to the SPT can be m ade, where

Subunit C l is predicted to liquefy and Subunit C2 is predicted to be liquefiable to

marginally liquefiable.

7.4.5 Shear Wave Velocity ("VM - Stress-Based Procedure

The liquefaction potential line proposed by Robertson et al. (1992) is shown

in Fig. 7.14. Average V s r v a lu e s from Subunits C l and C2 are plotted on this

chart. Data from Subunit C l lie within the liquefiable region, and a high liquefaction

potential is predicted. H alf o f the data from Subunit C2 plot outside the region of

liquefaction, and half plot inside the region of liquefaction. Therefore, Subunit C2 is

predicted marginally liquefiable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 224

0.7 T --- - r ............... r ................

I ’roposed in C hapter 5, bassed on
M = 7.5 Earthquak es ^
c/N60 = 5 .2 ( =>5o)a1 6 . dc n tons/ft2 ,
Percent Fines < 5
a nd relationsh p by S e e d et al. (1984)
s low n in Fig. 5.5.
0.6

D50 (mm) = 0 .8 2* 4* 8* 16*

0.5
I I
> 1 1 '
' 1 1 1 1
> 1 1 1 1
CO
(r>
S e e d and E e Alba / 1 1 1 1
.O 0.4
•*-* (1986 ) \ . i r " I 1
CO /
oc i i / /
w / / >’ /
cn Liquefciction
0 / p / /
CD 0.3 / / \ /
o / cd1-
"o Xr / '
D50= 10 mm _
O
0.2 ■ V / / /
No Liaue faction

/
A
0.1
Explanation
■ C1 1 Sediment
1 MPa = 1C(.4 ton/ft2
□ C2J Unit
0.0 I 1 1
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qc-|, M P a

Fig. 7.13 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified CPT for
Clean Sands (Solid Line) and Gravels (Dashed Lines) with CPT Results
from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 225

0.7
M = 7.5 Earthquakes
Explanation
C11 Sediment
0.6 C2J Unit

0.5

0.4

Liquefaction

0.2
No Liquefaction

0.1

o.o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Shear W ave Velocity, V g i, m/sec

Fig. 7.14 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Shear
W ave Velocity (Robertson et al., 1992) with SASW Results (Based on
Average V s) from Subunits C l and C2 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 226

7.4.6 Shear W ave Velocity fW ) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V s and amax on top of a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles of loading (Stokoe et al., 1988c) is shown in Fig. 7.15. Average

V s-values from Subunits C l and C2 are plotted in Fig. 7.15 verses the estim ated

a m a x - value on top o f a stiff soil at the Pence Ranch site, about 0.34 g (see Chapter

3). Subunit C l lies within the zone o f liquefaction likely. Part o f Subunit C2 lies

w ithin the region o f liquefaction likely and part lies w ithin the region o f no

liquefaction. Thus, Subunit C2 is predicted to have a marginal liquefaction potential.

7.4.7 Normalized Shear W ave Velocity fVcu ~) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V si and amax on top of a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles o f loading (developed in C hapter 5) is show n in Fig. 7.16.

Average V si-values from Subunits C l and C2 are plotted on this chart. Subunit C l

lies within the liquefiable likely region. Subunit C2 lies in the regions o f liquefaction

likely and no liquefaction. Similar to the previous Vs-based assessment, Subunit C l

is correctly predicted to liquefy and Subunit C2 is marginally liquefiable.

7.5 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A side bar o f the Big Lost River, where liquefaction likely occurred, was

investigated. This side bar, located on the Goddard Ranch, is covered by a medium

dense to dense sandy gravel (Unit A). Unit A is about a meter thick, and overlies a

very dark grayish brown sandy silt with clay (Unit B). Unit B is about 0.3-m (1 -ft)

thick, but is not present at all test locations. A loose to m edium dense, clean sandy

gravel (Unit C) lies below Unit B. Unit C, a Holocene-age fluvial bar deposit, can

be subdivided into an upper loose sandy gravel (Subunit C l) and a low er loose to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 227

350
I I
Explanation
■ C 1 1 Sediment
n r^n f i 1*%:*
300

250
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/sec

□
200
Q
Liqttefactiori Likely
IV0 (Sto koe et al. 1988c)

IP
150 Lique faction sX N V nN

100 1 if^uefactic

Chart 1)v Stokoe et al. f19 B8cLBased o n -

50 — Sand (0.13 < D50 < 0.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
0 I I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 7 .1 5 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave Velocity

o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with
SASW Results (Based on Average V s) from Subunits C l and C2 at the
Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 228

350

Explanation
■ C1 1 Sediment
300 □ C2J Unit

o
0 250
cn
i^LiquefactiorK^
CO ''N Likelv \N
> Liquefaction
200
o
c>
0)
>
0
>
(0 150

CO Liquefaction
0
x:
CD
100 £
Chart Eased on-
(0.13 < D 5 0 < 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m
Nc = 15 cycles _
50
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: V g i = 160 Nc0-25 amax0-5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 7.16 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Shear
W ave Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (see Chapter 5)
with SASW Results (Based on Average V si) from Subunits C l and C2
at the Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 229

m edium dense sandy gravel (Subunit C2), B eneath Subunit C2, sedim ent layers

include a m edium dense to dense silty sandy gravel (Unit D), a sandy silt with some

clay (Unit E), and a dense to very dense sandy gravel (Unit F). The w ater table lies

within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the ground surface.

Liquefaction most likely occurred in Subunit C l, the layer containing the

loosest material. Subunit C l is characterized by the following average values: SPT

N 60-value o f about 7, cone tip resistance o f 5.4 M Pa (56 tons/ft2), cone friction ratio

o f 1.1 percent; equivalent Becker N 60-value o f 4, and shear w ave velocity o f 120

m /sec (390 ft/sec). This side bar did not experience lateral spreading because 1) pore

w ater pressures may have dissipated by flowing around Unit B, 2) Subunit C l has

limited lateral extent, and 3) Subunit C l thins in the downslope direction, creating an

unfavorable geometry for sliding.

Liquefaction assessm ent procedures developed for sand based on SPT and

V s correctly predict liquefaction and a m oderate shear deform ation potential for the

G oddard Ranch site. The BPT-based procedure predicts liquefaction and a high

sliding potential. The assessm ent procedure based on CPT for sand predicts

m arginal liquefaction. How ever, using the CPT-based boundaries proposed in

Chapter 5 for gravelly soils, liquefaction behavior is correctly predicted.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

AT ANDERSEN BAR

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Strong ground shaking generated by the Borah Peak earthquake caused many

sedim ent bars in the channel o f the Big Lost R iver above M ackay R eservoir to

liquefy and crack (Youd et al., 1985). Mr. W endall Andersen o f Arco, Idaho, was

out fishing on the m orning o f the 1983 earthquake. H e had waded across a small

channel o f the Big Lost River to the gravel sandbar near where he is shown standing

in the photograph o f Fig. 8.1. Upon his reaching this location, the earthquake struck

and the saturated sediments liquefied beneath the larger gravel bar to Mr. Andersen's

right.

This gravel bar (called the Andersen B ar site, herein) is located about 200 m

(700 ft) above the confluence o f the B ig Lost R iver and Parsens Creek. The

Andersen Bar site is approximately 1.2 km (0.7 miles) downstream o f the Goddard

Ranch site, and 12 km (7 miles) southeast o f the 1983 surface rupture (see Fig. 1.1).

General elevation is 1848 m (6062 ft). Liquefaction effects are described in Section

8.2. Results of the field investigations conducted in 1991 were partially reported in

the publication by Andrus et al. (1992). A complete discussion o f the investigations

at the A ndersen B ar site is presented in Section 8.3. Sim plified liquefaction

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Fig. 8.1 - Photograph Showing M r. Andersen at the Location W here H e Stood
During the Borah Peak Earthquake. Mr. Andersen W itnessed the
Liquefaction of the Large Gravel Bar to His Right, in the Channel of the
Big Lost River.

assessm ent procedures based on shear wave velocity are applied in Section 8.4, and

j all findings are summarized in Section 8.5.

j 8.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

i
M r. Andersen gave the following account to Dr. G len R eagor of the U.S.
i

i Geological Survey (Reagor and Baldwin, 1984; Youd et al., 1985):

I was standing on a gravel sandbar when the quake struck. Cracks appeared in
the bar and began to gurgle water. Then three or four w ater spouts with 3 to 4
in. [75 to 100 mm) holes opened up and w ater shot up to 3 ft [0.9 m] in the air.
T he gravel bar shook like a marshmallow, and it was very difficult to stand.
Som e o f the w ater spouts spewed black water; others spewed clear water.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 232

A m ap show ing the location o f M r. A ndersen during the earthquake, the

general zone of cracks, and channel morphology on October 1, 1991 is presented in

Fig. 8.2. According to Mr. Andersen, the zone o f cracks extended from near where

he was standing to the middle of the m ain channel. The cracks were wide enough for

him to be concerned where he stepped as he w aded back to higher ground. The

water level in the small channel was about calf-high when he waded to the bar. After

the shaking subsided, the w ater becam e muddy and driftw ood began to float by.

W hen he waded back to the bank, the water was waist-high. M r. Andersen, w ho is

about 1.58 m (62 in.) tall, estimated that the w ater had risen nearly 0.25 m (10 in.).

U pon reaching higher ground, he also saw num erous w ater spouts in the

surrounding marsh areas.

8.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1991

Spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves (SASW ) and crosshole seism ic tests were

perform ed at the locations shown in Fig. 8.2, within the zone o f cracks identified by

M r. A ndersen. In a test pit near the crosshole location, two 1.2-m (4-ft)-diam eter

ring density tests were conducted at depths o f 0.5 to 0.7 m (1.6 and 2.4 ft) beneath

the bar surface, and a large sample was taken from the sedim ent layer ju st below the

w ater table at a depth of 0.8 m (2.6 ft).

Bar sedim ents are described in Sections 8.3.1. Test results from seism ic

testing are discussed in Section 8.3.2. The sedim ent layer m ost likely to have

liquefied is identified in Section 8.3.3. Sample and seismic test data are tabulated in

Appendix C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 233

8.3.1 Description o f Channel Sediment

In October 1991, a large gravel bar filled much of the channel of the Big Lost

R iver at the Andersen Bar site. Bar sediments generally consisted of sandy gravel,

grading to coarse sand at the southern tip o f the bar. (T he river is flow ing

approxim ately north to south in Fig. 8.1.) W ater flowed along two small channels

on both sides of the bar. Near the location o f Mr. Andersen, the river channel turned

90 degrees, as illustrated in Fig. 8.2. The local elevation o f the river varied from

29.5 to 29.0 m (96.8 to 95.1 ft).

E XPLAN ATIO N
Approximate zone
of cracks 30.5 .30.2 29.9'
SA Spectral-analysis- Location of
of-surface-waves Mr. Andersen
During Earthquake
Crosshole casing
TP Test pit

SA-2 ■29.6-

Big Lost River

(October 1,1991)
.29.0,
29.3

15 m
30J
Contour Interval = 0.3 m
Local Elevation Datum

Fig. 8.2 - M ap of the Andersen Bar Site Showing Zone of Cracks and Sites of
Testing.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 234

The m orphology o f the channel has changed som ew hat since 1983.

A ccording to Mr. Andersen, the gravel bar was covered with a gravelly sand at the

tim e o f the earthquake. The river level near his crossing in 1983 was at a local

elevation o f about 30.3 m (see Fig. 8.2), a m eter above the O ctober 1991 level. The

channel profile was also about a m eter higher in 1983. In addition, at least the upper

0.3-m (1 -ft) o f the 1991 bar was deposited during the waning flood flows earlier in

that year. It does not seem likely, however, that sediments below about 2 m (6 ft)

were disturbed by the river between 1983 and 1991. Additionally, any new sediment

was probably deposited by processes very sim ilar to sediment present at the tim e of

the earthquake.

At the test pit location shown in Fig. 8.2, bar sedim ent consists o f clean

sandy gravel (GP-GW) with occasional sandy silt layers, less than 70-m m (2.7-in.)

thick. The gravel particles are hard and subrounded with low sphericity. The gravel

particles are generally separated by a small amount of coarse to m edium sand, but are

som etim es in direct contact w ith other gravel-size particles (m atrix-supported

structure). In-place dry densities o f 19.3 and 18.5 kN/m 3 (123 and 118 lb/ft3) were

determ ined for depths of 0.5 and 0.7 m (1.6 and 2.5 ft), respectively. A photograph

of the material collected just below the water table with the aid o f a backhoe is shown

in Fig. 8.3. Grain-size distribution curves for the two ring-density samples and the

backhoe sample are shown in Fig. 8.4. The maximum particle size is 100 m m (4 in).

8.3.2 Seism ic Testing

Seismic crosshole and SASW tests were conducted near the test pit. Soil and

wave velocity profiles are shown in Fig. 8.5. Low velocities for vertically polarized

shear (SV) waves, ranging from 87 to 131 m/sec (285 to 431 ft/sec), were m easured

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Fig. 8.3 - Photograph of Gravelly Sediment Recovered with the A id o f a Backhoe at
the Andersen B ar Site from Depth o f 0.8 to 2 m (2.5 to 6.5 ft).

100
Test Pit Samples
Percent Finer by Weight

80 1 0.4 to 0 .6 m-
2 0.7 to 0.8 m
3 0.8 to 2 .0 m
60
7 5 mm 4 .7 5 mm .0 7 5 mm

Gravel Sand Silt

40

20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 8.4 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test Pit and Backhoe Samples Collected
at the Andersen Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Soil Profile* S V -W ave Velocity, m/sec S H -W ave Velocity, m/sec P-W ave Velocity, m/sec
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 600 1200 1800 2400
Sandy Gravel
(GP-GW), • 9
loose; • 9
—• — water
.subrounded • a
1 able, -
gravel, max.
size is 100 mm. 3/91 9 •
Thin sandy silt 4i 9 •
layers at 34, 67 4i • •
“ and 79 cm. • <► •
» t •
e • •
s£ •
Cl • '• .
CD loose to •
Q * Cr osshole •
medium dense
• SA!3W i► 0<1-X2) •
(Sfic-1) if y m
<> / •
• 9 •
medium dense <> 9 •
• 9 Data Qualitv •
• Very Good
Q Good
i i
Extent of sam pling is 2 m; layers b a se d on penetrom eter sou nd in g during c ro ssh o le c a ssin g installation.

Fig. 8.5 - Soil and W ave Velocity Profiles for the Andersen B ar Site.

236
II
 betw een the bar surface and a depth o f 3.2 m (10.5 ft) using the portable crosshole

equipment. Crosshole SV-wave velocities range from 135 to 216 m/sec (444 to 710

ft/sec) below 3.2 m (10.5 ft). The SASW shear wave velocity profile, array SA-1, is

in excellent agreement w ith the crosshole SV-wave profile, as shown in Fig. 8.5.

Both profiles indicate a steady increase in sediment stiffness with depth.

A second alignment, array SA-2, was measured upstream of array SA-1 with

the SA SW method. Both SASW velocity profiles are shown Fig. 8.6. Sedim ent

beneath array SA-2, where the river channel is straight, exhibits higher shear wave

velocities than sediment beneath array SA-1, where the channel bends 90 degrees.

H orizontally polarized shear (SH) wave velocities, as shown in Fig. 8.5,

range from 82 to 120 m/sec (270 to 392 ft/sec) between depths o f 0.6 and 4.3 m (2

and 14 ft). SH-wave velocities greater than 128 m/sec (422 ft/sec) were m easured at

depths o f 0.3 and 0.6 m (1 and 2 ft), and below 4.3 m (14 ft).

The ratio o f SH to SV -w ave velocity in the principal stress directions is

dependent on in situ state of stress and structural anisotropy (Lee, 1993). A

com parison of SH and SV-wave velocities measured by crosshole testing is shown

in Fig. 8.7. The SH-wave velocity is less than the SV-wave velocity measured at the

sam e depth, except at the depths o f 0.6 and 2.1 m (2 and 7 ft). The m ean and

standard deviation for ratios of SH to SV-wave velocities below 0.6 m (2 ft) are 0.88

and 0.09, respectively.

Com pression (P) wave velocities shown in Fig. 8.5 are greater than 1690

m /sec (5550 ft/sec) below 0.8 m (2.5 f t ). These high values indicate saturated

conditions below the water table.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 238

S hear W ave Velocity, Vs, m/sec

0 100 200 300 400

' "I
I
_ water -
I
table,
8/91 L

I
I
ri
i
- S A -2 -

n
I
jr i

s / t-i -

- -

Fig. 8.6 - Comparison o f Shear W ave Velocity Profiles M easured by SASW Testing
at the Andersen Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 239

Soil Profile* Shear W ave Velocity, Vs , m /sec VS h / V sv

0 100 200 300 0.5
i i i i 1 i i i 1.5
i
•
Sandy Gravel • ▲
(GP-GW), ▲
'loose. Thin water ▲
sandy silt table,
layers at 34, 67 8/91 <3l I A
m ▲
and 79 cm.
■ i► A
m A
•u A
A
loose to • ■ A
medium dense • ■ A
ip ■ A
Depth

Q ■ A
9 ■ A
_medium dense 9 1 A
-
9 ■ A

* Extent of
sampling is 2 m;
layers based on
• penetrometer
SV-W;ive SH-Wave Data-Qu.alily
sounding during ■ • \/ery Good
crosshoie
cassing B Q 3ood
installation ii ii ..1

Fig. 8.7 - Comparison o f SV and SH-W ave Velocity Profiles M easured by

Crosshole Testing at the Andersen Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 240

8.3.3 Identification of the Liquefiable Material

Based on the low shear wave velocities, the clean sandy gravel betw een the

water table and a depth o f about 3.2 m (10.5 ft) m ost likely liquefied (Andrus et al.,

1992). Grain-size and SV-wave velocity data for this critical zone are summarized in

Table 8.1. The thin, interbedded layers o f silty sand probably contributed to the

build up o f pore water pressures.

Table 8.1 - Summary of Grain Size and Shear W ave Velocity Data for the Critical
Zone at the Andersen Bar Site.

Depth G rain-Size D ata3 S hear W ave Velocity,

D50 c/g/s/f Test Vs, m/sec
(m) (mm) (%) Arrayb Range Average

0.8 - 3.2 15 4/66/28/2 SA-2 1 1 0 -1 2 2 119

SA-1 8 8 -1 1 6 107
X1-X2, SV 87-131 109
X1-X2, SH 82 -1 2 0 99

aD5o = median grain-size; c = cobbles (75 to 300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm); s = sand
(0.075 to 4.75), f = fines (<0.075).
bX = seismic crosshole; SA = spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves.

8.4 SIMPLIFIED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES BASED ON V s

Liquefaction assessment procedures based on shear wave velocity, V s, have

been proposed only for sands. These procedures involve either a stress or strain-

based approach, as outlined in Chapter 5. The parameters used in the calculation of

the cyclic stress ratio are given in Section 8.4.1. In Section 8.4.2, a stress-based

approach using Vs is applied to the gravelly sediment beneath the Andersen B ar site.

In Sections 8.4.3 and 8.4.4, two strain-based approaches using V s are applied.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 241

8.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio

Cyclic stress ratios were estimated using Eq. 5.1 and a maximum horizontal

ground surface acceleration, amax, at a liquefiable site o f 0.27 g (see C hapter 3).

Overburden pressures were estim ated using a density of 20.4 kN /m 3 (130 lb/ft3).

No corrections are need for high stresses or sloping ground, since the critical layer is

shallow and the channel surface is gently sloping.

8.4.2 Shear W ave Velocity ("Vo) - Stress-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessm ent chart by R obertson et al. (1992) based on

norm alized shear wave velocity, V s i, is shown in Fig. 8.8. Average V si-v a lu e s

betw een depths o f 0.8 and 3.2 m (2.5 and 10.5 ft) are plotted on this chart. The

plotted data lie within the region of predicted liquefaction which agrees with observed

field behavior.

8.4.3 Shear W ave Velocity ('Vgl - Strain-Based Procedure

Stokoe et al. (1989b) proposed liquefaction assessm ent charts based on Vs

; and amax estimated for a stiff soil site at the candidate-site location for 10,20 and 30

; cycles o f loading, as discussed in Chapter 5. A chart appropriate for the Borah Peak

■ earthquake, 15 cycles o f loading, is shown in Fig. 8.9. Plotted on this chart are
i
! average V s-values for depths o f 0.8 to 3.2 m (2.5 to 10.5 ft). For a stiff soil at the

] Andersen B ar site, amax would have been about 0.32 g (see C hapter 3). The data
j
| plot within the region of likely liquefaction, and lie close to the region of liquefaction.
i
j Thus, liquefaction is correctly predicted by this method.
|

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 242

0.7
M = 7.5 Earthquakes

0.6

0.5
Cyclic Stress Ratio, Tav/ a ’

Liquefaction

0.3

0.2

No Liquefaction

0.1

o.o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized S hear W ave Velocity, V Si, m/sec

Fig. 8.8 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart by Robertson et al. (1992)

Based on Normalized Shear W ave Velocity with SASW and Crosshole
Results (Average Vsi-values) from the Critical Zone Beneath the Andersen
Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 243

350
1 1 1 1
Chart bv Stokoe et al. f1988c') Based o n -
Sand (0.13 < D50 < 0.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
300 NC urainag<2
Level Groun d

250
Shear Wave Velocity, Vg, m/sec

200

0 Liqu efaction Likely

Lique faction (Stok:oe et al., 1988c)
150

100
\ \ \ ^
Liqi jefactior

50

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 8.9 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave Velocity
o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with SASW
and C rosshole R esults (A verage V s-values) from the C ritical Zone
Beneath the Andersen Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 244

8.4.4 Normalized Shear Wave Velocity fVgf) - Strain-Based Procedure

Strain-based charts using V si were proposed in Chapter 5. The chart for 15

cycles is shown in Fig. 8.10. Norm alized velocity data from the Andersen Bar site

lie within the region of likely liquefaction, and liquefaction is correctly predicted.

8.5 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Investigations were conducted at a gravel bar (called the Andersen Bar site)

located in the channel of the Big Lost River, ju st above M ackay Reservoir. M r.

Andersen w itnessed the liquefying and cracking o f the bar during the B orah Peak

earthquake. Sediment beneath the bar consists of clean sandy gravel (GP-GW ) with

a few thin, interbedded silty sand layers. Liquefaction m ost likely occurred in the

upper 3.2 m (10.5 ft) o f the bar, the zone of low est shear w ave velocity. The few

thin, interbedded silty sand layers probably contributed to the build up of pore water

pressures. Shear wave velocities m easured in this critical zone by the SA SW and

crosshole methods are on the order of 110 m/sec (360 ft/sec). T he minimum in-place

dry density is less than 18.5 kN/m 3 (118 lb/ft3), the lowest m easurem ent above the

w ater table. C rosshole SV-wave velocities are generally greater than SH -w ave

velocities measured at the same depth, suggesting a coefficient o f earth pressure less

than one. The m ean and standard deviation for ratios o f SH- to SV-wave velocity

below 0.6 m (2 ft) are 0.88 and 0.09, respectively. Three liquefaction assessm ent

procedures developed for sand based on shear w ave velocity correctly predict

liquefaction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 245

350

300
Shear Wave Velocity, V S1, m/sec

250
No
^ L iq u e fa c tio q v
Liquefaction
'S Likely N
200

150

Liquefaction

100

50
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: VS1 =160 Nc0-25 amax0-5
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
i
; a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

j Fig. 8.10 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear W ave

I Velocity of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (Proposed in
i Chapter 5) with SASW and Crosshole Results (Average V s i-values)
from the Critical Zone Beneath the Andersen B ar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 247

Highway
93

Thousand
Springs
Creek

Elkhom
Alluvial
Fan
| j f Larter
| | Ranch
p Site

Fig. 9.1 - Aerial Photograph o f the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the Distal
End of the Elkhom Alluvial Fan. Liquefaction Caused the Distal End of
the Fan to M ove about One M eter Towards The Thousand Springs Creek.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 248

An aerial photograph of the L arter R anch site taken shortly after the

earthquake is shown in Fig. 9.2. T he site is located approxim ately 2 km (1.2 mi)

southwest o f the 1983 fault rupture (see Fig. 1.1). Elevations at the site range from

1910 to 1925 m (6260 to 6315 ft) above mean sea level. The ground slope at the fan

front is on the order of 34 percent and decreases significantly as one moves up the

fan. Liquefaction effects at this site are described in Section 9.2. The results o f the

field investigations are then discussed in Section 9.3. Sim plified liquefaction

assessment procedures are applied to the field data in Section 9.4, and all findings are

summarized in Section 9.5.

9.2 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Locations o f liquefaction effects as shown by surface m anifestations are

noted on the photograph in Fig. 9.2 and on the topographic map shown in Fig. 9.3.

The subparallel fissures m ark the head o f the lateral spread. In m any areas these

fissures intersect at an angle roughly 10 degrees to the trend o f the set as a whole,

suggesting movement in the downslope (perpendicular to the fan front) and slightly

downstream (towards the bottom o f Fig. 9.1) direction. The larger fissures, like the

one show n in the photograph o f Fig. 9.4, are filled by blocks o f soil that have

dropped vertically downward. These graben-type structures are as wide as 2.4 m (8

ft). A t the edge o f the m arsh, the soil buckled in com pression, form ing ridges as

high as 1.2 m (4 ft). The buckled sod marks the toe o f the lateral spread.

The movem ent was prim arily horizontal, as indicated by the large tension

cracks and the buckled sod. The maximum horizontal displacem ent was about 1 m

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

E XPLA N A TIO N
S -4 Sand boil location
and sample number

IBuckled Sod

Thousand Springs Creekj

Fig. 9.2 - Aerial Photograph o f the Lateral Spread Near the Larter Ranch Investigation Site Showing Liquefaction
Effects. (Sand Boil S -l is Located about 150 m South o f the Area Shown. Photograph by Ed L. Harp.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EXPLANATION
Sand boil location,
no sample taken

Small S-3 Sand boil location,

sample number
Cracks
•3 1 .6

3 0 .4 3 0 .4

2 9 .8

2 8 .0
‘ Major
!6.8 • 2 9 .2 ' Fissure

Direction of • 2 8 .0 -
M ovem ent!
■ 2 6 .8 .
[S-2
• 2 4 .4 - S-4J ■ 2 5 .6 - S-3J
3 2 5 .6 .
TFffl
Buckled Sod
Contour Interval = 0.6 m ' " 2 4 .4 -
Local Elevation Datum Thousand Springs Creek

Fig. 9.3 - M ap o f the Larter Ranch Site Showing Topography and Liquefaction Effects. (Sand Boil S -l is Located
about 180 m South o f the Area Shown in the M ap.)
N3
U1
o
 251

Fig. 9.4 - Photograph of a M ajor Fissure on the Elkhom Fan. M an (Mr. Stokoe) in
Photograph is Standing on a Block of Soil that has Dropped Vertically
Dow nward about 1.5 m (5 ft), (from Stokoe e t al., 1988a.)

; (3 ft). Som e vertical m ovem ent did occur, as indicated by the discontinuous

j elevation contours across several fissures. Vertical offsets across these fissures were
{
! as m uch as 0.3 m (1 ft).
1
W ater carrying silt and sand erupted up through cracks along the lower areas

o f the lateral spread, as noted in Fig. 9.3. A photograph of a silty sand boil deposit

j near the Larter Ranch site is shown in Fig. 9.5. Mr. Gary L arter, who lived about

j 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the slide area, saw a huge dust cloud rising up along the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 252

Fig. 9.5 - Photograph of a Silty Sand Boil Deposit Near the Toe o f the Lateral
Spread Near the Larter Ranch Site. (Photograph of M r. Stokoe Viewing
Boil Material by Dr. Kenneth H. Stokoe, H )

Thousand Springs Creek ju st after the earthquake. W ondering w hat had happened,

he drove to the area of the dust cloud. Upon reaching the area, he saw numerous

w ater spouts flowing up to 0.90 m (3 ft) into the air along the toe o f the slide.

W anting to take a picture, Mr. Larter hurried back to the house to get his camera. By

the tim e he returned to the slide area, however, the water had stopped flowing. Mr.

L arter estim ates that the w ater spouts flow ed for nearly 30 m inutes after the

earthquake. This account suggests sliding occurred during or very shortly after the

earthquake, but significant pore water pressures persisted for several minutes after

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 253

m ovem ent had ceased. Based on the w ater level in the Thousand Springs Creek and

the m axim um elevation of sand boil deposits, pore w ater pressures m ust have

exceeded 2.6 m (8.5 ft) of head.

9.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN 1985, 1990, and 1991

Investigations at the Larter Ranch site were conducted at three principal

testing areas: near the buckled sod at the toe of the lateral spread (Area 1), below the

m ajor fissures at the head o f the lateral spread (A rea 2), and above the zone of

fissures (Area 3), as shown in Fig. 9.6. In July 1985, the Spectral-A nalysis-of-

Surface-W ave (SASW ) method using hammers and dropped weights as sources was

applied at each test area tb determine shear wave velocity profiles o f subsurface

sedim ents (Stokoe et al., 1988a).

In August 1990, each area was retested by the SASW m ethod using hammers

and a bulldozer as sources. In addition, the work was expanded to include Standard

Penetration (SPT), Cone Penetration (CPT), and B ecker Penetration (BPT) tests.

Sam ples were collected in boreholes with split-barrel samplers and in test pits with

the aid of a backhoe. In Septem ber 1991, crosshole seismic tests were perform ed at

two locations in test A rea 1. Locations o f the seism ic test arrays, drill holes,

penetration soundings, and test pits are shown in Fig. 9.6.

Generalized cross sections delineating sedim ent layers beneath the Larter

Ranch site were constructed using the penetration, sample and shear wave velocity

data. A description o f sedim ents is given in Section 9.3.1. Seism ic measurements

are discussed in Section 9.3.2. The liquefiable m aterial and m ost likely zone of

failure are identified in Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4, respectively. T he depositional

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EXPLANATION
SPT boring
CPT sounding
Becker, closed b it
Small
Spectral-analysis-
Cracks
Area 3 of-surface waves
Crosshole testing
Test pit
Sand boil location,
no sam ple taken
Sand boil location
sam ple number

Fissure

Direction
Movement

. _ Area 1 ' r 'n

^ \M,
10 15 m Buckled Sod
Contour Interval = 0 .6 m
Local Elevation Datum Thousand Springs Creek

Fig. 9.6 - M ap o f the Larter Ranch Site Showing Topograph, Liquefaction Effects, and Sites o f Tesing. (Sand Boil
S -l is Located about 180 m South of the A rea Shown in the Map.)

254
 255

environm ent and age of the key sediments are discussed in Section 9.3.5. A detailed

listing of the 1990 and 1991 field and laboratory data is given in Appendix D.

9.3.1 Description of Sediments

Figures 9.7 and 9.8 are generalized cross sections delineating sediment layers

beneath the Larter Ranch site. Several penetration and shear wave velocity profiles

are shown on these cross sections. A 1-m (3-ft)-thick, non-plastic, dark grayish

brown silty sand with gravel lies below the ground surface at test Area 1 (see Fig.

9.8). This organic-rich silty sand, sediment Unit A, grades laterally (eastward) into a

w eak humic silty sand that is less than about 0.3 m (12 in.) thick at test Area 2. Unit

A has formed on top o f a coarse-grained alluvial fan deposit, sedim ent Unit B. A

weak calcic soil horizon has developed at the top o f Unit B.

U nit B is a medium dense to dense sandy gravel with silt and cobbles (GM-

GW ). It is characterized by shear wave velocities, V s, generally exceeding 200

m /sec (650 ft/sec), N-values as high as 94, and corrected B ecker blow counts as

m uch as 49 blows/0.3 m (blows/ft). The gravel praticles are packed in a clast-

supported structure (stone-on-stone) with a filled-fram ew ork o f silty sand to

som ew hat matrix-supported (clast separated by a small amount o f silt and sand), as

view ed in the opened fissures and test pit TP-3. The maximum particle size is 250 x

180 x 130 mm (10 x 7 x 4 in.). The silty sand fraction is pale to yellowish brown,

non- to slightly-plastic, and reacts moderately to a w eak hydrochloric acid solution

(HC1; about 0.1 N solution). Unit B is nearly 6 m (20 ft) thick beneath Area 3, and

is less than 1.4 m (4.6 ft) thick beneath Area 1. Properties o f Unit B at Area 1

(called Subunit B1 because of low er penetration resistances and V s-values) are

sum m arized in Tables 9.1 and 9.2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

E A ST W E ST

A rea 3 A rea 2 A rea 1

S A -3 ,1990 S P -3 S A -2, 1 9 9 0 S A -1 , 1 9 9 0
BPc-1 B P c-2 B P c-3 C P -2
32 r- M — Z o n e of F issu r e s—►! S P -2
B P c-4
Map* F issu re Direction of
M ovem ent
28
Buckled T h ou san d
2
© Sod Sp rin gs
CD C reek
E
c 24
c
0
IS
Silty Sand
1 20 • / • / i witn Gravel
V-V-%
co
o
o L o o se t o M edium
Dense Silty
16- Sandy Gravel

v* w Medium Dense
to Dense Silty
12 Sandy Gravel
Standard C o n e P en etration S o u n d in g C orrected B eck er Shear W ave
P enetration, N m Tip R e sista n c e , q c V elocity, V g
SP SPT boring
P en etration , N b c
CP Cone sounding
0 20 40 0 50 0 300 BPc Becker, closed bit
41 ~ l— I i i SA Spectral-analysis-
94 blows/0.3 m MPa blow s/0.3 m m/sec
39
of-surface-waves
27
23 8m
45

Fig. 9.7 - Cross Section of the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the Larter Ranch Site
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

NORTH SOUTH
CP-2
X3-X4 CP-3 SP-2 S A -1 ,1990 BPc-1 SP-1 CP-1
26 r-

24 - water
in table,
CD 8/90
1 22
c

I 20
CO
>
LU
m 18 -
o
o
SPT boring
16 - Cone sounding
Becker, closed bit
Spectral-analysis- Sand
14 - of-surface-waves 427 m/sec Gravel
Crosshole
Loose to Medium
Standard Cone Penetration Sounding Corrected Becker Shear Wave Dense Sandy
Penetration, Nm Friction Ratio Tip Resistance, qc Penetration, Nbc Velocity, V$ Gravel with Silt
0 30 10 o 20 40 o 0 300 Medium Dense
— i— i— i r
to Dense Sandy
blows/0.3 m blows/0.3 m m/sec Gravel with Silt

A™ ) 2 4m

Fig. 9.8 - Cross Section Along the Toe o f The Lateral Spread (Test Area 1) at the Larter Ranch Site.

257
 I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 9.1 - Summary of Grain Size and Penetration D ata For Key Layers at the Larter Ranch Site.

Test CPTb SPTC and BPTd

Area, Average Corrected
Unit Grain Size Data3 Tip Resistance, qc Blow count, N 60
Sample D50 c /g /s /f Cone Depth (MPa) Drill Depth (blows per 0.3 m)
Type (mm) (%) Hole (m) Range Average Hole (m) Range Average
1, B1 SPT 3 0/42/47/11 CP-1 0.7- 2.1 3-11 6.8 SP-1 1.5- 1.8 8 8
Bulk 10 4/58/31/7 CP-2 0.8 - 2.2 5 -1 7 10.7 SP-2 1.5- 1.8 8 8
CP-3 1.0 - 2.2 1- 9 6.1 BPc-4 0.9- 2.1 5- 6 6
1, C1 SPT 4 0/47/42/11 CP-1 2.1 - 3.5 1 -1 0 4.3 SP-1 2.3- 3.4 4-11 8
Bulk 9 3/57/33 17 CP-2 2.2- 3.5 2- 8 4.4 SP-2 2.3- 3.4 8 -11 10
CP-3 2.2- 3.5 1- 7 4.6 BPc-4 2.1- 3.4 3- 5 4
1,C2 SPT 2 0/39/44/17 CP-1 3.5- 5.8 1 -16 6.5 SP-1 3.8- 5.6 8 -17 12
CP-2 3.5- 6.3 1 -21 7.2 SP-2 3.8- 5.6 8 -1 2 9
CP-3 3.5- 6.4 1 - 17 5.3 BPc-4 3.4- 5.8 4- 8 6
2, C SPT 6 0/49/40/11 SP-3 6.2 - 8.8 2 2 -4 3 32
BPc-2 5.7-10.4 8-14 12
BPc-3 5.2-10.4 4- 9 7
3, C/D BPc-1 6.1 - 11.0 9 -23 16
1,D SPT 8 0/58/24/18 CP-1 5.8- 8.9 3 -4 2 17.3 SP-2 6.2 - 6.6 49 49
CP-2 6.3- 6.4 2 -41 14.6 BPc-4 5.8-11.6 10-33 20
CP-3 6.4- 8.4 3 - 40 10.1
2, D BPc-2 10.4-14.6 14-31 21
2,D BPc-3 9.1 -14.6 10-31 21
3, D BPc-1 11.0-14.6 21 -31 29
aSPT = 35-mm (1 -3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Bulk = test pit sample. D50 = median grain size, c = cobble (75 to 300 mm),
g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand (0.075 to 4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm),
b l 0 cm2 cone. 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2
c"pin hammer"; corrections based on procedure of Seed et al. (1985): energy ratio about 50 % (see Chapter 4); no liner, x 1.0 (loose
sand) and x 1.15 (medium dense sand); short rods, x 0.75 (testing depths < 3 m).
d8 Pc--Becker closed bit; converted to equivalent SPT N60 following procedure of Harder (1988).
 259

Table 9.2 - Summary o f Grain Size and Shear Wave Velocity Data For Key Layers at
the Larter Ranch Site.

Test S A S W b and Crosshole0

Area, Average S hear W ave
Unit Grain Size Data3 Velocity, V s
Sample D50 c /g /s /f Test Depth (m/sec)
Type (mm) (%) Array (m) Range Average
1, B1 SPT 3 0/42/47/11 SA-1, 1985 0.9- 2.3 13 7 -2 5 6 210
Bulk 10 4/58/31/7 SA-1, 1990 0.9- 2.3 2 1 3 -2 4 4 232
X3-X4, SV 0.9- 2.3 203 - 230 219
X3-X4, SH 0.9- 2.3 149 - 275 223
X1-X2, SH 0.9- 2.3 1 6 0 -2 1 7 183
1,C1 SPT 4 0/47/42/11 SA-1, 1985 2.3- 3.5 128-211 151
Bulk 9 3/57/33/7 SA-1, 1990 2.3- 3.5 183 183
X3-X4, SV 2.3- 3.5 1 5 9 -1 9 4 176
X3-X4, SH 2.3- 3.5 1 4 8 -1 6 9 159
X1-X2, SH 2.3- 3.5 1 4 8 -1 8 0 160
1, C2 SPT 2 0/39/44/17 SA-1, 1985 3.5- 5.6 211 -265 245
SA-1, 1990 3.5- 5.6 18 3 -2 7 4 209
X3-X4, SV 3.5- 5.6 1 6 2 -2 2 5 185
X3-X4, SH 3.5- 5.6 156-201 173
X1-X2, SH 3.5- 5.6 1 5 3 -1 9 8 169
2 ,C SPT 6 0/49/40/11 SA-2, 1985 5.0- 9.0 2 7 4 -3 1 9 285
SA-2, 1990 5.0- 9.0 1 8 0 -2 4 4 214
3, C/D SA-3, 1985 6.1 - 10.4 355 - 404 375
SA-3, 1990 6.1 - 10.4 293- 302 300
1,D SPT 8 0/58/24/18 SA-1, 1985 5.6 - 9.0 2 4 8 -4 1 4 320
SA-1, 1990 5.6- 9.0 274 274
2, D SA-2, 1985 9.0- 13.6 355 - 404 375
SA-2, 1990 9.0- 13.6 293 - 302 300
3, D SA-3, 1985 10.4 - 14.6 355 - 433 378
SA-3, 1990 10.4 - 14.6 360 360
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Bulk = test pit sample. D50 = median
grain size, c = cobble (75 to 300 mm), g = gravel (4.75 to 75 mm), s = sand (0.075 to
4.75 mm), f = fines (< 0.075 mm).
bSA-Spectral-analysis-of- surface-waves (SASW); 1985 data from Stokoe et al. (1988a),
testing with hammers and dropped weights, forward modeling using a computer model
with two-dimensional wave propagation (plane Rayleigh waves); 1990 testing with
hammers and a bulldozer, forward modeling using a computer model with three-
dimensional wave propagation (Roesset et al., 1991).
CX = crosshole seismic test, new method, 1991; SV = vertically polarized shear wave;
SH = horizontally polarized shear wave.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 260

A loose to medium dense silty sandy gravel with few cobbles (GM -GW ),

sediment Unit C, lies beneath Unit B. Grain size, penetration and V s data for Unit C

are sum m arized in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. Unit C at A rea 1 can be divide into two

subunits (C l and C2), as illustrated in Fig. 9.8. Subunit C l is characterized by Neo­

values ranging from 4 to 11, with an average value of 9; cone tip resistances between

1 and 10 M Pa (8 and 106 tons/ft2), with an average value of 4.4 M Pa (46 tons/ft2);

cone fiction ratios between 0 and 5 percent, with an average value o f 1.2 percent;

uncorrected Becker blow counts (closed bit) varying from 5 to 13 blows per 0.3 m (1

ft), w ith an average value o f 8. The equivalent N6o-values determined from Becker

blow counts range from 3 to 5, with an average value o f 4. Vs-values range between

148 and 211 m /sec (484 and 692 ft/sec), with an average value of about 170 m/sec

(540 ft/sec). A photograph of a test pit sample taken from the top o f Subunit C l in

TP-1 is presented in Fig. 9.9. As illustrated by the grain-size distribution curves

show n in Fig. 9.10, Subunit C l sedim ents are gap-graded, and contain about 7

percent silt and clay. The finer fraction is yellowish brow n, non to slightly-plastic,

and exhibits a w eak reaction to a weak hydrochloric acid solution. The top o f

Subunit C l in A rea 1 lies at a local elevation of about 23.4 m (76.6 ft). Subunit C l

is about 1.4 m (4.4 ft) thick.

Subunit C 2, a silty sandy gravel (GM ), exhibits a higher penetration

resistance and a greater fines content (silt and clay) than Subunit C l. Subunit C2 is

characterized by Ngo-values ranging from 8 to 17, with an average value o f 10; cone

tip resistances betw een 1 and 21 M Pa (1 and 216 tons/ft2), with an average value o f

6.3 M Pa (66 tons/ft2); cone fiction ratios between 0 and 28 percent, with an average

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 261

Fig. 9.9 - Photograph o f Gravelly Sediment Taken from the Top o f Subunit C l at the
Larter Ranch Site, Test Pit TP-1, Depth = 2 to 3 m (6 to 9 ft).

100
Test Pit Samples
Percent Finer by Weight

1 TP-1 1.8 to 2.7 m _

2 TP-2 1.8 to 2.4 m

60

Gravel Sand Silt

40

20

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 9 .1 0 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test Pit Samples Taken from the Top
o f Subunit C l at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 262

value o f 2.7 percent; uncorrected Becker blow counts (closed bit) varying from 6 to

17 blows per 0.3 m (1 ft), with and average value of 12. Equivalent N 60 -values

determ ined from Becker blow count (Harder, 1988) range from 4 to 8, with an

average value of 6. Average Vs-values range from 153 and 274 m/sec (500 and 900

ft/sec), with an average of about 200 m/sec (660 ft/sec). Split-barrel samples taken

from Subunit C2 contain about 17 percent fines. The finer faction o f Subunit C2 is

gray to light brownish gray, slightly-plastic, and exhibits a weak reaction to a weak

HC1 solution. Subunit C2 is about 2.7 m (8.7 ft) thick in test Area 1.

Beneath Areas 2 and 3, sediment between local elevations of 20 and 25 m (66

and 82 ft) seems related to Unit C beneath Area 1 (see Fig. 9.7). At A rea 2, N60-

values range from 22 to 43, with an average value of 32. A t A reas 2 and 3,

uncorrected Becker blow counts (closed bit) ranged from 6 to 44 blows per 0.3 m (1

ft), with an average value o f 24. The equivalent N6o-values determined from Becker

blow count range from 4 to 23, with an average value o f 12. V s-values range

between 180 and 404 m/sec (590 and 1330 ft/sec), with an average value of 290

m/sec (960 ft/sec). These average values of penetration and shear wave velocity for

Unit C at Areas 2 and 3 are higher than average values for Unit C at Area 1, because

of increase confinement as well as increase stiffness, as shown in Section 9.4.

Below U nit C, sedim ent is m edium dense to very dense. This dense

m aterial, sedim ent U nit D, is characterized by uncorrected Becker blow counts

(closed bit) exceeding 18 blows per~0.3 m (1 ft) and Vs-values greater than 248

m/sec (812 ft/sec). The properties for the upper 5 m (15 ft) of Unit D are provided in

Tables 9.1 and 9.2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 263

The water table beneath Area 1 in August 1990 stood at a local elevation of

24.8 m (81.3 ft), the approximate elevation of the Thousand Springs Creek. Beneath

Area 2, the water table stood at an elevation of 24.9 m (81.8 ft). The rancher, Mr.

Larter, said that the water level in the Thousand Springs Creek might have been a

little higher at the time o f the earthquake in October 1983.

9.3.2 Seismic Testing

In July 1985, Stokoe et al. (1988a) applied the SASW m ethod at the Larter

Ranch site using hammers and dropped weights as sources. V s-profiles for these

initial tests were determined using a computer model based on two-dimensional wave

propagation (plane Rayleigh waves) and the Haskel-Thomson matrix solution. Each

SASW alignm ent was retested in August 1990 using ham m ers and a bulldozer as

sources. Vs-profiles were determined from the 1990 data using a three-dimensional

wave propagation solution developed by Roesset et al. (1991) w hich include all

seism ic waves. (The theoretical and experimental dispersion curves for the 1990

SA SW tests are given in Appendix D.) Vs-profiles from both sets o f SASW tests

are shown in Fig. 9.11. There is reasonable agreement between the profiles from the

1985 and 1990 testing, with m ost velocities within about 20 percent. The 1990

profiles are considered better estimates, since layer thicknesses are based on the 1990

penetration test results and a more comprehensive com puter m odel was used to

perform the back calculations. Effects due to different sources are considered

insignificant. Effects due to variations in exact test location could not be evaluated.

In Septem ber 1991, the new variation of the crosshole m ethod described in

Chapter 4 was used to determine shear (S) wave and compression (P) wave velocity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Shear W ave Velocity, m/sec Shear W ave Velocity, m/sec Shear W ave Velocity, m/sec
200 400 600 0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
32

EXPLANATION

L , 1985

LJr 1990

26 B—

?
C—

C2
20 ?

SA-3 SA-2 SA-1 “ 1

Fig. 9.11 - Comparison of Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Determ ined from 1985 SASW Tests (Stokoe et al., 1988a) and

264
1990 SASW Tests at the Larter Ranch Site.
 265

profiles at test Area 1. Both vertically polarized shear (SV) wave and horizontally

polarized shear (SH) wave velocities were determined. The velocity profiles for

crosshole testing at array X3-X4 are shown in Fig. 9.12. The SV-wave velocity

profile is in very good agreement with the shear wave velocity profile for the nearest

SASW test array (SA-1, 1990), also shown in Fig. 9.12. A zone o f low SV-wave

velocity exists between 2 and 5 m (7 and 17 ft). (The SV-wave velocity profile for

test array X I-X 2 is not shown, because the initial test procedure provided poor time

records, as discussed in Chapter 4.)

SH-wave velocity profiles for both crosshole test arrays are also shown in

Fig. 9.12. The profiles are in very good agreement. Both profiles indicate a

somewhat higher SH-wave velocity zone (177 to 275 m /sec [580 to 901 ft/sec])

between the ground surface and a depth o f 1.5 m (5 ft). Below 1.5 m (5 ft), SH-

wave velocities vaiy within the narrow range of 148 to 178 m/sec (484 to 583 ft/sec)

to a depth o f 5.2 m (17 ft). Both profiles exhibit an increase in SH-wave velocity

below 5.2 m (17 ft).

P-wave velocities from the two crosshole arrays are in excellent agreement,

as illustrated in Fig. 9.12. P-wave velocities are less than 670 m/sec (2200 ft/sec)

above a depth o f 5.2 m (17 ft). These low values indicate unsaturated conditions

(say 99 percent saturated) between the water table and a depth of 5.2 m (17 ft). The

soil below 5.2 m (17 ft) is saturated, as shown by the P-wave velocities greater than

1500 m/sec (5100 ft/sec). The excellent agreement exhibited betw een profiles is

evidence that measurements are repeatable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Soil Profile S V-W ave Velocity, m/sec S H -W ave Velocity, m/sec P-W ave Velocity, m/sec
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 600 1200 1800 2400
Silty Sand with i ...i
gravel (SM to m
GM-GP).
(Unit A)
K ■ •
■ •
Q
m
Data Qualitv
• Very Good
Q Rnnd
Sandy Gravel water
with cobbles & table,
i • a O Requir 3d
Interprrstation
silt (GM-GW), 8/90 a 9 cs
medium dense.
• (Subunit B1) m
m <a
Sandy Gravel m
with silt (GM- <a
GW), loose to <a
Q. 3 - ' medium dense. QM
<D (Subunit C1)
Q m a
Silty Sandy
. Gravel (GM),
m Cros ;hole €2
(X1-X -) g} (xa X4)
loose to — SA€ w — • n
medium dense. (SA-1 90) •a
(Subunit C2)
J m o
Q 2
• 0 L1
i »
9 l•

Fig. 9.12 - Soil and W ave Velocity Profiles for the Larter Ranch Site. (The SV-wave velocity profile for test array X I-X 2
is not shown, because the initial test procedure provided poor SV-time records, as discussed in Chapter 4.)

266
 267

The ratio o f SH to SV -w ave velocity in the principal stress directions is

dependent on in situ state o f stress and structural anisotropy (Lee, 1993). A

com parison o f SV and SH-wave velocities is shown in Fig. 9.13. The SV-wave

velocity is greater than the SH -w ave velocity m easured at the same depth, except

above the depth of 1.6 m (5.2 ft) and at one point around a depth o f 4 m (13 ft). The

m ean velocity ratio is 1.20 betw een the depths o f 0.6 and 1.5 m (2 and 5 ft),

evidence o f a zone o f compression. The m ean and standard deviation for the ratios

of SH- to SV-wave velocities below 1.6 m (5.2 ft) are 0.90 and 0.10, respectively.

9.3.3 Identification of the Liquefiable Material

Based on the low penetration resistances and low shear w ave velocities,

liquefaction and shear deform ation m ost likely occurred w ithin U nit C, as is

illustrated in Fig. 9.14. Subunit C l is consider the m ost likely to have liquefied,

because it exhibits the low est penetration resistances and shear w ave velocities.

Liquefaction may also be possible within parts of Subunit B1 having low penetration

resistances.

Sand boil material can sometimes be used to identify the liquefiable layer, if

each sedim ent layer exhibits unique characteristics (such as grain-size distribution,

color, or chemical composition). Grain-size distribution curves o f samples collected

from five sand boil deposits along the toe o f the lateral spread are shown in Fig.

9.15, w ith the curves for two test pits taken from the top o f Subunit C l included for

com parison. A lthough the test pit sam ples are much coarser than the sand boil

sam ples, one w ould expect the coarser particles to segregate out during upward

transport through narrow fissures and cracks. Perhaps the gap-graded character o f

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 268

Soil Profile Shear W ave Velocity, V s , m/sec V sh / Vs\l

------------------------ 0 100 200 300 0.5
- r r T T
1
' M i l
1.5
Silty Sand a J
with gravel A ■ • A
(SM to GM-GP) water A
■ •
table,
Sandy Gravel ■ • A
8/90
with cobbles & B □ O A
silt (GM-GW), • l A
-medium dense
• fl ▲
Sandy Gravel t ■ ▲
with silt (GM- • ■ ▲
C1
-GW), loose to A —
medium dense m iL
m A
iL.
Depth

Silty Sandy ■ 0 A
Gravel (GM), • ■ A
loose to
C2 • B A
medium dense • ■ A
i» ■ A
Qm A

Silty Sandy D
Gravel (GM),
medium dense SV-Wave SH-Wave Data Qualitv
to dense
■ • Very Good
E2 Q Good
I -L U L L

Fig. 9.13 - Comparison of SV and SH-W ave Velocity Profiles M easured by

Crosshole Testing at the Larter Ranch Site, Array X3-X4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

EA ST W EST

N —Z o n e of F issu re s—H
32 r-
— — _______ Major F issu re Direction of
M ovem ent

Buckled T h ousand
Sod Springs
C reek
?_ -B -
M ost Likely
Failure Z o n e
M ost Likely
® 20 Liquefaction
Z on e

8m

Fig. 9.14 - Cross Section of the Thousand Springs Lateral Spread at the Larter Ranch Site Showing Zones o f Likely
Liquefaction and Failure.
 270

100 1 1 ' Mi l l 1 mi i i---- 1--------j r m i i—i-----;------

\ \ N, Sand Boil Samples

■ § 80
V\ 34

\ \ \
2

\
1,2,3,4,5

1eJ
st Pit SamDles
0 \ \ \ \ \ 6 TP-1 1.8 to 2.7 m
£ 6 7 \ \ \ \ \ 7 TP-2 1.8 to 2.4 m
>> 60
ja
0
c
, Gravel
V S\ ss ^ Sand
v\\ \ \
\ \ \ \ Silt
LL 40
c \
0

1 20
Q.

in 11 i i i 111 i i i i i 111 i i i i i 1111 i i i i

100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size, mm

Fig. 9.15 - Comparison o f Grain-Size Distribution Curves for Samples Taken from
Five Sand Boil Deposits (Stokoe et al., 1988a) and Tw o Test Pit Samples
Taken from the Top o f Subunit C l at the Larter Ranch Site. Locations of
Sand B oil Samples 2 Through 5 are Shown in Fig. 9.2. Sam ple 1 is
Located about 50 m (500 ft) South o f the Area Shown in the Photograph.

Unit C also contributed to the transport o f only the finer grain sizes. The grain-size

curves of the test pit samples exhibit a gap between particle sizes of 0.4 and 3 mm, as

illustrated in Fig. 9.15. Sand boil samples consist of material finer than 3 mm. The

sand boil material and the finer fractions of Subunits B l, C l and C2 are pale brown,

pale brow n, yellow ish brow n and gray, respectively. I f Subunits C l and C2

liquefied, m aterials from each could have m ixed together to produce a pale brown

color. Subunit C l materials could have mixed with Subunit B l m aterials during

upward transport. Variations o f color may also be explained by exposure to the sun.

S and boil deposits were exposed to the sun for two years prior to sam pling.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 271

M aterials from sand boils and Subunits C l and C2 effervesce slightly when a weak

hydrochloric acid solution is applied, indicating sim ilar quantities of calcium

carbonate.

Pore-w ater pressures m ay have risen in Unit D. The finer m aterial within

layer D also m atches the sand boil material. However, sim ilar m edium dense to

dense material lies beneath test Area 3 (see Fig. 9.7), but this area is above the zone

o f significant lateral movement. The low penetration resistances and geometrical

relationship to the lateral spread are strong evidence that U nit C liquefied.

U nfortunately, sand boil m aterial could not be used to conclusively identify the

liquefiable material.

9.3.4 Identification o f the Most Likely Failure Zone

As illustrated in Fig. 9.14, the most likely failure zone lies below the water

table, and passes through the top o f Unit C, the zone of lowest penetration resistance

and shear wave velocity. The failure zone connects the zone o f fissures at the head

o f the slide to the buckled sod at the toe. Penetration resistances and shear wave

velocities m easured in U nit C increase betw een Areas 2 and 3 (see Fig. 9.7),

providing an explanation for the location of the fissures. (The increase in penetration

resistance and shear wave velocity at Areas 2 and 3 can be explained by increase

confinem ent and material stiffness, as shown in Section 9.4.) N ear the toe o f the

slide, ratios o f SH to SV-wave velocity are greater than 1 (see Fig. 9.13) between the

depths o f 0.6 and 1.5 m (2 and 5 ft), indicating a state of horizontal compression.

The failure zone most likely passes just below this zone of compression, through the

top o f Subunit C l.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 272

9.3.5 Depositional Environment and Age of Sediments

Sedim ents at the Larter Ranch site are sim ilar to sediments at the W hiskey

Springs site investigated by Andrus and Youd (1987). A dense gravelly alluvial fan

deposit overlies a loose gravelly layer (U nit C) at both sites. U nit C can be

subdivided into an upper sandy gravel with silt (Subunit C l) and a low er layer

containing m ore silt and clay (Subunit C2). Subunit C l at the L arter R anch and

W hiskey Springs sites contains about 7 and 18 percent fines, respectively. Subunit

C2 at W hiskey Springs consists of m ore clay. Sedim ents at both sites are gap-

graded (sand mode clearly separate from the gravel mode), with subangular quartzite

gravel and cobble particles. (The m ountain adjacent to these fans consists of an

isolated quartzite outcrop.) Subunit C l at W hiskey Springs is a braided channel-fill

characteristic o f proximal regions o f alluvial fans in south-central Idaho (Funk, 1976;

Pierce and Scott, 1982). Based on the similarities between sites, it is presum ed that

Subunit C l at the Larter Ranch is a braided channel-fill deposit. Subunit C l likely

form ed w hen heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt m obilized loess and coarse fan

materials for a short distance (say less than a few kilometers).

Andrus and Youd (1987) studied stratigraphic relationships, thicknesses o f

carbonate coats on stones, and radiometric dates of pedogenic carbonate and charcoal

at the W hiskey Springs site. They concluded the fan sedim ents at the W hiskey

Springs site are o f probable latest Pleistocene age (10,000 to 15,000 years). Fan

sediments at the Larter Ranch site might be o f similar latest Pleistocene age, since the

site is located on an adjacent fan at about the same elevation. However, significantly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 273

less calcium carbonate has accumulated in the fan gravels at the Larter Ranch site,

suggesting a younger age or less favorable conditions for pedogenic carbonate

accumulation.

Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits should have a low liquefaction susceptibility

(Y oud and Perkins, 1978). Andrus and Youd (1987) suggested three reasons for

liquefaction at the W hiskey Springs site. First, alluvial fans can be dom inated by

either debris flows or stream flow s. Liquefaction has been reported in areas

associated with distal fan environments dominated by stream flows. Therefore, fans

dom inated by stream flows should be considered as having a higher liquefaction

susceptibility than do fans deposited by debris flows. Second, conditions during the

H olocene m ay not have allow ed significant com paction nor cem entation o f

sediments. Unit C contains very little cementing agents, as indicated by only a slight

reaction to weak hydrochloric acid solution. Third, evidence in the trenches near

W hiskey Springs (exposed roots follow the 1983 fissures) suggest Unit C sediments

were disturbed during a pre-1983 earthquake, probably by liquefaction with small

horizontal displacem ent. Such disturbance could destroy cem entation and loosen

sediments.

9.4 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES USING SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES

L iquefaction assessm ent procedures for gravelly soils are not w ell

established. Sim plified procedures developed for sand are initially applied to

Subunits B l, C l and C2, and Unit D at the Larter Ranch site. As outlined in Chapter

5, assessment procedures can be divided into two categories, stress-based or strain-

based procedures. In the stress-based procedures, liquefaction potential is assessed

by correlating the penetration resistance or shear wave velocity to the cyclic stress

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 274

ratio. The parameters assumed in the calculation of the cyclic stress ratio are given in

Section 9.4.1. Stress-based procedures using the SPT, BPT, CPT, and V s are

applied in Sections 9.4.2 through 9.4.5. In the strain-based procedures, liquefaction

potential is assessed by correlating V s or V si to the peak horizontal ground surface

acceleration at a "reference site" (called stiff soil site). Strain-based procedures using

V s and V si are applied in Sections 9.4.6 and 9.4.7, respectively.

9.4.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio

Cyclic stress ratios for soil beneath the Larter Ranch site were determ ined

using Eq. 5.6 for high stresses and sloping ground conditions. A peak horizontal

ground surface acceleration of 0.50 g (see C hapter 3), and overburden pressures

estimated from the approximate in-place densities listed in Table D. 1 (see Appendix

D) w ere used in approxim ating the cyclic stress ratios. T he relationship

recom m ended by Seed and Harder (1990) was used to estimate the correction factor

for high stresses, Ka . Values of K<y ranged from 0.8 to 1.0. Based on the wide

range possible for Ka in the recom m ended relationship shown in Fig. 5.4, a factor

o f 1.0 was assumed No corrections were applied for gravelly soil.

9.4.2 Standard Penetration Test ('SPT')

The m ost widely used approach for assessing the liquefaction potential of

sand is the simplified procedure using the SPT developed by Seed and his colleagues

(Seed et al., 1985). Their assessm ent chart for sands containing <5, 15 and 35

percent fines, and m agnitude 7.3 earthquakes is show n in Fig. 9.16. A verage

m odified N-values from Test Area 1, and from Unit C at Test Area 2 are plotted on

this assessment chart. M odified N-values are based on recommended corrections for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 275

0.7
M = 7.3 Earthquakes

0.6

Percent Fines = <5

0 .5

>
b
0 .4

CO
co
Liquefaction No Liquefaction—
2
CD
o
o
>. Explanation
° 0.2 Unit Fines’

B C1 o rC 11
O C2 17
0.1
'%, B ased on split-barrel sa m p le s
'•Number rep resen ts T est Area
given in Fig. 9 .6 .
0.0
0 10 20 30 40

Modified S PT Resistance, (N-^eo, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 9.16 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Modified SPT Resistance (Seed
et al., 1985) with SPT Results from the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 276

sands, as outlined in Chapter 5. Overburden correction factors used are based on the

sim ple form ula of Liao and W hitman (1985) given in Eq. 5.9. For sloping ground

conditions, equivalent level ground overburden pressures were estim ated using Eq.

5.17. O verburden correction factors estim ated using equivalent level ground

overburden pressures are 1.07 to 1.17 tim es greater than correction factors

determined directly using the vertical overburden pressures. The effect o f gravel on

the N-value is ignored.

The fines content (percent silt and clay) o f each unit is needed to select the

appropriate potential boundary in Fig. 9.16. The average fines content for Subunits

B l and C l is about 7 percent based on the large test pit sam ples, and 11 percent

based on the sm aller, less representative split-barrel samples. The average fines

content is about 17 percent for Subunit C2 and Unit D based on the split-barrel

samples. If only the finer fraction o f the gravelly soil liquefied, the fines content of

the split-barrel samples may be a better estimate. Without any established guidelines,

the fines content from the split-barrel sam ples is assum ed in the follow ing

assessm ent.

N -values from Subunits B l, C l and C2 at Test A rea 1 plot w ithin the

liquefiable region, and a high liquefaction potential is predicted. Unit C at Test Area

2 is predicted non-liquefiable. U nit D at Test Area 1 is predicted non-liquefiable.

Field evidence suggests U nit D did not liquefy. Although the SPT has not been

recom m ended for liquefaction assessm ent in gravelly soils (N ational Research

C ouncil, 1985), it provides a correct assessm ent o f liquefaction and shear

deform ation in this case.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 277

9.4.3 Becker Penetration Test fBPT)

Equivalent SPT N-values were determ ined from the Becker blow count

following the procedure o f Harder and Seed (1986). Overburden correction factors

were determined using the same assumptions used in the SPT.

Average equivalent N-values from Subunit B l, and Units C and D are plotted

on the assessment SPT-based chart of Seed et al. (1985) shown in Fig. 9.17. All

equivalent N-values from Subunit B l and U nit C plotted lie w ithin the liquefiable

region, and a high liquefaction and shear deform ation is predicted. Unit D is

predicted marginally liquefiable. It is interesting to note that Units C and D have a

higher liquefaction and sliding potential based on the BPT than predictions made with

the SPT.

9.4.4 Cone Penetration Test fCPT)

The susceptibility boundary based on normalized cone tip resistance, qc i,

proposed by Seed and De A lba (1986) for clean sand (less than 5 percent fines)

having a m edian grain size, D 50 , o f 0.8 mm is shown in Fig. 9.18. A dditional

boundaries are shown in Fig. 9.18 for sand with D 50 o f 0.8 mm, and fines content

o f 15 and 35 percent. (These additional boundaries were constructed using Eq. 5.21

and the SPT-based assessment chart shown in Fig. 5.5.) Average qcj-values from

Test Area 1 are plotted in Fig. 9.18. Since these boundaries are based on the

penetration ratio, overburden correction factors were estimated using the assumptions

outline for the SPT.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 278

0.7
M = 7.3 Earthquakes

0.6
Percent Fines = 35 <5

0.5

0.4

co
w
CD 0n .3<3 No Liquefaction—

Liquefaction

Explanation
0.2 Unit Fines’

0.1
'%, B ased on split-barrel sa m p le s
’•Number rep resents T e st Area
given in Fig. 9.6.

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N-j )60, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 9.17 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Modified SPT Resistance (Seed
et al., 1985) with BPT Results from the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 279

0.7 i \ " 1j
M = 7.5 EarthquakeIs Proposed in Chapter 5, ba sed on
qc/N60 = 5 .2 (D50)°-16, qc in tons/ft2,
and relationship by S e e d 3t al. (1984)
show n in Fig. 5.5.
0.6

Per sent F ines = 35 15 < 5 ^

35 15 <5

0.5 n f. iB n . „ 1
> m
r 1
.b 1 i /
> i /
CO

i
o ' 0.4 V J 3
CO
1 ■ ! i
ir Liquefac ion / / i
w D50 = 3 mm***
to / /
2 ' /
D50 = D.8 mm / S I /
<8 0.3 (See< 1 and / J
g
"o
d e / tlba,
19 Be) / 7 :
lW// /// / / /
/ N(d Liquefact on

O
/ / / 7 ' / Explanatiori
/ / / A s
0.2 / / / / Un t Fines, % D50 i mm
/ / / /
□ B1 11* 10“
■ C1 orC 11* 9“
0.1 A PI C2 17* 2* _
□ D 18* 8*

‘Based sn split-barrel samples

1 MPa = 1C>.4 ton/ft2 “Based on test pit samples
0.0 I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , MPa

Fig. 9.18 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on M odified Cone Tip
Resistance for Sands (Solid Lines) and Gravels (Dashed Lines) with CPT
Results from Area 1 at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 280

Applying the boundaries for sandy soil (solid curves), Subunits C l and C2

are predicted liquefiable, and Subunit B l and Unit D are predicted non-liquefiable.

Subunit C l exhibits the greatest potential, which agrees with field behavior.

CPT-based potential boundaries for clean gravelly soils w ere proposed in

C hapter 5. The boundary for clean gravelly soil with D 50 o f 8 mm is also shown in

Fig. 9.18. Additional boundaries are shown for gravelly soil with D 50 of 8 mm,

and fines content o f 15 and 35 percent. If the boundaries for gravel with D 50 = 8

mm (dashed curves) are applied, Subunits C l and C2 are predicted liquefiable, and

Subunit B l and Unit D are predicted marginally liquefiable. This assessment is more

conservative than predictions m ade with the 0.8 mm boundaries.

9.4.5 Shear W ave Velocity rVV)--Stress-Based Procedure

The liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Robertson et al. (1992) is

show n in Fig. 9.19. Average V si-values from Larter Ranch are plotted on this

chart. Vs-values were normalized to a reference stress of 100 kPa using Eq. 5.29

and the vertical overburden pressure directly.

Subunit C l exhibits the greatest potential, and is predicted liquefiable to

m arginally liquefiable. Subunit C2 is predicted marginally liquefiable based on the

crosshole V si-values, and non-liquefiable based on the SASW V si-values. U nit C

at Test Area 2 is predicted m arginally liquefiable, and non-liquefiable at Test Area 3.

Subunit B l and Unit D are predicted non-liquefiable. This assessm ent is less

conservative than the SPT and CPT (D 50 o f 8 mm)-based assessments.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 281

0.7

Explanation
Crosshole SASW Unit Fines’

0.6
C1 o rC 11
C2 17

%, B a se d on split-barrel sa m p le s
0.5 'N um ber represents T est Area
given in Fig. 9.6.
>
b
as
>
H 0.4
cf 2U
OS
oc Liquefaction
w
CO
0
*-» 0.3
CO
_o

No Liquefaction
0.2

0.1

M = 7.5 Earthquakes
o.o
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Shear W ave Velocity, V q i , m/sec

Fig. 9.19 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

Wave Velocity (Robertson et al., 1992) with SASW and Crosshole
Results from the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 282

9.4.6 Shear W ave Velocity ('VcV-Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V s and amax on top o f a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles o f loading (Stokoe et al., 1988c) is shown in Figs. 9.20, 9.21 and

9.21. Average Vs-values from Larter Ranch are plotted on these chart. A max is

estim ated to have been 0.60 g on top o f stiff soil at the location of the Larter Ranch

site (see Chapter 3).

If the region o f likely liquefaction is extended past 150 m/sec (500 ft/sec),

Subunit B1 is predicted marginally liquefiable, as shown in Fig. 9.20. Subunits C l

and C2 at Test Area 1 are correctly predicted liquefiable. as show n in Fig. 9.21.

Unit C at Test Area 2 is predicted marginally liquefiable, and non-liquefiable at Test

A rea 3. As shown in Fig. 9.22, U nit D is predicted non-liquefiable. This

assessm ent is more conservative than the assessm ent m ade w ith the procedure o f

Robertson et al, (1992). As a prelim inary estim ate, the upper boundary o f the

liquefaction likely region shown in Fig. 9.20 could be extended to V s of 260 m/sec

(850 ft/sec) and amax o f 0.7 g.

9.4.7 Normalized Shear W ave Velocity fVgj )--Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V si and amax on top of a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles of loading (developed in Chapter 5) is shown in Figs. 9.23, 9.24

and 9.25. Average V si-values from Subunits B l, Unit C, and U nit D are plotted on

these chart, respectively. Vs-values were normalized to a reference stress o f 100 kPa

using Eq. 5.29 and the vertical overburden pressure directly.

As show n in Fig. 9.23, Subunit B l in predicted non-liquefiable. In Fig.

9.24, Subunit C l is predicted liquefiable. Subunit C2 is predicted liquefiable based

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 283

350
1 1 1
Explanation
Crosshole SASW Unit Fines*
A 0 Bl 11
300
*%, Based on spli -barrel sarnples

250
Shear Wave Velocity, Vg, m/sec

[J

Ia
200

Liquef action L kely

(Stokoesetal., 1J 88c)
ISO X x^
150 Lique faction VOOOv

H
100 1_IL uefactio n -

Chari bv Stoko e et al. (1 988ci Bas ed on--

50 sand (u.13 < U50 < u.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
0 ..... 1..... 1 , J. J,
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.20 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave Velocity
o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles of Shaking (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with
SASW and Crosshole Results from Subunit B l at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 284

350
"1 f.. ..... 1 ■■■' 375 m/sec »3---------
Explanation
Crosshole SASW Unit Fines*
▲ ■ C1 orC 11 3“
300
A H C2 17
*%, Based on split-barrel samples
“ Number represents Test Area
given in Fig. 9.6.
250
Shear Wave Velocity, V s , m/sec

!
h
12
‘1
200

Liquef action L kely 4 1

IS 0 (Stokos et al., 1S 88c) I
\ \ \ \ \ >
150 Lique faction 1

H
100 L IC uefactic n
or
CO

Char eetal. f1 388cl Bas ed on--

PC
o
o
<

50 Sand (u.13 < u50 £ 0.14 mm)

Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
0 .... I . _L ... L _ . J ......
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.21 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave Velocity
of Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
S tiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles of Shaking (Stokoe e t al., 1988c) with
SASW and Crosshole Results from Unit C at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 350
1 I 1 359 to 346 m/sed ?2,2,3,3
Explanation
SASW Unit Fines* 31
□ D 18
300
*%, Ba sed on spl t-barrel samples
“ Number repressjntsTest Area
given in Fig. £.6. I Jr .

o 250
<D
,w
E
co
>
200
o
o
d) Liquef action L kely
> (Stokoes et al., 1£ 88c)
CD ISO \

& 150 Lique faction

£
CO
CD
HI
sz
CD 100 LIC uefactic n
\\N > ^

Chari bv Stoko a etal. f1 388cl Bas ed on--

50 Sand (0.13 < Dso s u.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
I I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.22 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave Velocity
o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface Acceleration at
Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles of Shaking (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with
SASW and Crosshole Results from Unit D at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 286

350 ! 1 1----------
Explanation
Crosshole SASW Unit Fines*
A E B1 11
300
*%, Based on split-barrel samples

o
<D 250
CO

CO No
> _ Liquefaction
< 200
o
JD
CD ^Liq u efactio n s >>
> g ; Likely *
(D \\\K \y
> 150
CO

CO
CD Liquefaction
-C
CO
100
Chart Based on-
Sand (0.13 < DgQ < 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: VS1 = 160 Nc0-25 amax0-5

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.23 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

Wave Velocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (see Chapter 5)
with Results from Subunit B 1 at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 287

350 ------------ 1-------------1------------ r

Explanation
Crosshole SASW Unit Fines*
A ■ C1 o rC 11
3 0 0 1- A D C2 17
*%, Based on split-barrel samples
"Number represents Test Area
given in Fig. 9.6.
8 250

No
CO
> Liquefaction
C 200
o <<\
o
0 ^NLiquefactiorb
> Likely *
0
> 150
0

cc Liquefaction
0
-C
CO 100

Chart Based o n -
Sand (0.13 < D50 ^ 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m
50 Nc = 15 cycles “
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: VS1 = 160 Nc0-25 amax0-5
J_______ I_______ !_______ L
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.24 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

W ave Velocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (see Chapter 5)
with Results from Unit C at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 288

350
Explanation
SASW Unit Fines*
□ D 18
300
*%, B a sed on split-barrel sa m p le s
Number rep resen ts T est Area
given in Fig. 9.6 .
Shear Wave Velocity, Vgi, m/sec

250

No
Liquefaction
200

<<\Liquefaction^

150

Liquefaction

100
Chart Based on-
Sand (0.13 < D50 < 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m
50 Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: VS1 = 160 Nca25 amax0-5
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 9.25 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Shear
W ave Velocity o f Liquefiable Layer and Peak Horizontal Ground Surface
Acceleration at Stiff Soil Site for 15 Cycles o f Shaking (see Chapter 5)
with Results from U nit D at the Larter Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 289

on the crosshole Vs i-values, and marginally liquefiable based on the SASW V s i-

values. Unit C beneath Area 2 is predicted marginally liquefiable, and beneath Area

3 non-liquefiable. Unit D are predicted non-liquefiable, as shown in Fig. 9.25.

These predictions are very sim ilar to predictions m ade using assessment procedures

proposed by Stokoe et al. (1988c).

9.5 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Liquefaction at the Larter Ranch site occurred beneath the steeply sloping

(about 34 percent) distal end of the Elkhom alluvial fan. Liquefaction caused the

distal end o f the Elkhorn fan to m ove laterally downslope about 1 m (3 ft).

N um erous sand boils erupted along the toe of the slide. A lthough m ovem ent

occurred during or shortly after the earthquake, sand boil eruption persisted for

nearly 30 minutes after the strong ground shaking based on the eye-witness account

o f M r. Larter. Pore w ater pressures exceeded 2.6 m (8.5 ft) o f head, based on the

maximum elevation o f sand boil formation and the elevation of the water table.

Liquefaction occurred in a loose to medium dense gravelly soil, Unit C. Unit

C is about 4 m (13 m) thick. At the toe of the slide Unit C can be divided into two

sublayers, Subunits C l and C2. Subunit C l classifies as a sandy gravel with about

7 percent fines (GM -GW ), and is characterized by the following average values:

N 60 -value o f 9; cone tip resistance of 4.4 MPa (46 ton/ft2); cone friction ratio of 1.2

percent; shear wave velocity of 170 m/sec (540 ft/sec); Becker equivalent Ngo-value

o f 4. Subunit C l is about 1.3 m (4 ft) thick. Subunit C2 classifies as a silty sandy

gravel (GM), and is characterized by somewhat higher penetration resistances, shear

wave velocities, and cone friction ratios. Unit C beneath the zone o f fissures at the

head of the lateral spread exhibits higher penetration resistances and shear wave

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 290

velocities, providing an explanation for the location o f the fissures. The most likely

failure zone lies below the water table, and passes through the top of Unit C. The

degree of pore water pressure generation appears to have been controlled by the high

fines content o f the gravelly sediments and the silty sand cap, U nit A. Subunit C l is

a braided channel-fill deposit of late Pleistocene or younger age.

Seismic tests were performed by the SASW and crosshole methods. SASW

and vertically polarized crosshole shear wave velocities exhibit good agreem ent.

Ratios of horizontally polarized shear wave velocities to vertically polarized shear

w ave velocities are 1.20 in the zone of compression at the toe of the slide. The mean

and standard deviation for ratios of SH- to SV-wave velocities in Subunits C l and

C2 are 0.90 and 0.10, respectively.

Five sim plified liquefaction assessment methods developed for sands based

on SPT, CPT, and V s were directly applied to the field data. A ll five m ethods

correctly predicted a high liquefaction potential for Subunit C l. Predictions based on

equivalent N-values from B PT blow counts are more conservative than predictions

based on SPT N-values. Predictions made using Vs i-based methods are similar.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER TEN

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS FROM THE

IDAHO LIQUEFACTION SITES

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Since limited information has been gathered on the characteristics and field

perform ance of saturated gravelly soils during earthquakes, data from the Idaho

liquefaction sites provide a unique opportunity to evaluate correlations and

procedures considered tentative for gravelly soils. Characteristics of the Idaho

liquefaction sites, including the W hiskey Springs site, are sum m arized in Section

10.2. Penetration and shear wave velocity data from primarily Units C and D at the

Idaho sites are used in Section 10.3 to evaluate existing relationships and develop

new ones for gravelly soils. In Sections 10.4 and 10.5, seism ic m easurem ents in

prim arily Units C and D are used to estim ate state of stress and soil density,

respectively. Various simplified liquefaction assessment procedures are evaluated in

Section 10.6, and guidelines for future assessments o f the liquefaction potential of

gravelly soils are proposed. A summary of findings is provided in Section 10.7.

10.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IDAHO LIQUEFACTION SITES

Grain-size distribution curves of test pit samples taken from the critical layer

which liquefied at each site are shown in Fig. 10.1. These distribution curves all lie

291

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 292

w ithin the range o f grain-size distributions for gravelly soils reported to have

liquefied in other earthquakes, as shown in Fig. 10.2.

The Idaho liquefaction sites can be divided into two categories: 1) clean

gravelly soils o f H olocene-age (less than 10,000 years) beneath gently sloping

ground, and 2) dirty gravelly soils o f probable latest Pleistocene-age (10,000 to

15,000 years) beneath more steeply dipping ground.

10.2.1 Clean Gravelly Soils Beneath Gently Sloping Ground

Sediments comprising the key layers at the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and

A ndersen B ar sites range from gravelly sand to sandy gravel, w ith less than a few

percent fines (silt and clay). These fluvial sedim ents are quite variable w ith

occasional silt and sand lenses. The gravel-size particles are hard, predom inantly

subrounded with low sphericity, and consist of both sedim entary and igneous rock

100
T e st Pit S a m p le s
I- 1 1 Pence Ranch (TP-3), 1.5 to 2.4 m
2 Goddard Ranch (TP-1), 1.6 to 2.4 m
3 Andersen Bar, 0.8 to 2.0 m
4 Larter Ranch (TP-1), 1.8 to 2.7 m
5 Whiskey Springs, 1.8 to 2.4 m

75 mm 4.75 mm 0.075 mm

Gravel Sand Silt or Clay

UL

100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Particle Size, mm

Fig. 10.1 - Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test-Pit Samples Taken from the
Critical Layer which Liquefied at the Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 293

100 pm ~i~i ~i
T e st Pit S a m p le s
P e n c e Ranch (TP-3), 1 .5 to 2 .4 m
Goddard R anch (TP-1), 1.6 to 2 .4 m
A ndersen Bar, 0 .8 to 2 .0 m
Larter R anch (TP-1), 1 .8 to 2 .7 m
W hiskey Springs, 1 . 8 to 2 .4 m

0 .0 7 5 mm

G rave Silt or Clay

R an ge of Gravelly
Reported to h a v e
Liquefied (Chapter 2)
n 11 i i i i
0.01
Particle Size, mm

Fig. 10.2 - Comparison of Grain-Size Distribution Curves o f Test-Pit Samples

Taken From the Critical Layer which Liquefied at the Five Idaho
Liquefaction Sites and the Range of Distribution Curves for Gravelly
Soils Reported to have Liquefied.

lithologies. Depending on the amount o f sand, the gravel occur floating in a matrix

of sand (matrix-supported) or in contact with other gravel (clast-supported) with sand

partially filling the space between the gravel particles. The fine material does not

react with a weak solution o f hydrochloric acid (about 0.1 N solution), indicating no

calcium carbonate cementation. Average values of median grain size, penetration

resistance, and shear wave velocity from the key layers are sum m arized in Table

10.1. Unit C and Subunit C l are the critical layers which liquefied at the Pence

Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites, respectively. The ground slope at these three sites

is less than 5 percent (rise/run x 100 percent).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 294

Table 10.1 - Average Values of M edian Grain Size, Penetration Resistance and Shear
Wave Velocity Data from the Key Layers at the Pence Ranch, Goddard
Ranch and Andersen B ar Sites.

M edian Grain S iz e 3 SPT B PT C PT

S it e Unit D ep th D 5 0 . mm N60 Nbc qc V Sb
m SPT Becker Auger Bulk blows/0.3 m MPa m/sec
PENCE RANCH
Hay Yard c 2.5 4 nac 5 11 8 5 6 100
-t
I

D 4.9 6 na 12 na 20 16 14 180
Hay Yard C 2.6 6 na 9 15 7 5 6 130
O
C.

D 5.5 5 na na na 22 18 17 160
Hay Yard C 2.4 5 na na 7 9 5 7 100
O
O

D 4.8 5 na na na 29 13 16 120
Hay Yard C 2.4 na 7d na na na 5d 6 130
Other D 5.2 na 7d na na na 17d 19 200
Barn C 3.5 3 na na na 9 na 7 110
D 6.2 na na na na na na 17 130
House C 2.3 6 6d na na 6 5d 6 120
D 5.3 5 8d 12 na 16 15d 20 130

GODDARD RANCH
C1 2.3 7 6 na 10 7 4 5 120
C2 3.9 9 11 na na 15 11 11 170

ANDERSEN BAR
2.0 na na na 15 na na na 110
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in.) inside
diameter bit; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) inside diameter auger tube; Bulk = test pit sample.
bBased on shear wave velocities determined from spectral-analysis-of-surface-wave
(SASW) and vertically polarized shear wave crosshole measurements.
cna = not available.
dData from Harder (1988).

10.2.2 Dirty Gravelly Soils Beneath More Steeply Sloping Ground

Sedim ents beneath the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites range from

sandy silt with gravel to sandy gravel with som e silt, cobbles and even boulder sizes.

These sediments are also quite variable, deposited at the distal end of alluvial fans of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 probable latest Pleistocene age (10,000 to 15,000 years). The gravel and cobble-size

particles are hard, predominantly subangluar quartzite, and packed in a matrix of silt

and sand to clast-supported structure. A weak solution of hydrochloric acid (about

0.1 N solution) weakly to moderately effervesces when added to the fine m aterial,

indicating the presents o f some calcium carbonate. Subunit C l is the critical layer

which liquefied at both sites. Subunit C l contains about 7 percent fines at the Larter

Ranch site, and 18 percent fines at the W hiskey Springs site, as determined from test

pit samples. Average values o f median grain size, penetration resistance, and shear

wave velocity from the key layers at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites are

summarized in Table 10.2. The ground slope at the fan front on the Larter Ranch is

on the order of 34 percent (rise/run x 100 percent) and decreases to about 6 percent

as one moves up the fan. At the W hiskey Springs site, the ground slope is about 12

percent.

10.3 PENETRATION AND SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY CORRELATIONS

Various correlations have been proposed between shear wave velocities (Vs)

and measurements performed by the Standard Penetration (SPT), Cone Penetration

(CPT) and Becker Penetration (BPT) tests. Data from Tables 10.1 and 10.2 are used

in this section to evaluate a few o f these correlations. In som e instances,

modification to an existing relationship or a new relationship is proposed.

The penetration resistances and shear wave velocities listed in Tables 10.1

and 10.2 are plotted versus depth in Figs. 10.3 through 10.6. In all four figures, a

general increase in penetration resistances or shear wave velocity w ith depth is

exhibited by the plotted data. However, penetration resistances m easured at Larter

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 296

Table 10.2 - Average Values of M edian Grain Size, Penetration Resistance and Shear
Wave Velocity Data from the Key Layers at the Larter Ranch and
W hiskey Springs Sites.

M edian Grain S iz e 3 SPT BPT CPT

S it e Unit D epth
m SPT
D 5 0 , mm N 60 Nbc qc vsb
Becker Auger Bulk blows/0.3 m MPa m/sec
LARTER RANCH
Area 1 B1 1.5 3 nac na 10 8 6 8 220
C1 2.8 4 na na 9 9 4 4 170
C2 4.7 2 na na na 10 6 6 210
D 7.0 8 na na na 49 16 14 300
Area 2 C 7.4 6 na na na 32 10 na 250
D 11.8 na na na na na 22 na 340

Area 3 C 8.4 na na na na na 17 na 340

D 12.8 na na na na na 33 na 370

WHISKEY SPRINGS'1
Area 1 C1 2.9 3 na 10 15e 8 41 6 2009
D 6.0 4 na 34 na 25 23f 24 2709
Area 2 C1 3.4 na na 2 na na na 5 3209
C3 5.1 na na 2 na na na 13 2809
D 7.6 na na 16 na na na 16 2809
Area 3 C1 7.2 na na 13 na na 6f 7 3709
C3 8.5 4 21f na na 14 9f 14 3709
D 10.9 4 10f na na 25 14f 21 3509
Area 4 C3 9.5 6 na na na 15 na na na
D 11.3 4 na na na 24 13f na 4009
aSPT = 35-mm (1-3/8-in.) inside diameter split-barrel; Becker = 109-mm (4.3-in. j inside
diameter bit; Auger = 127-mm (5-in.) inside diameter auger tube; Bulk = test pit sample.
bBased on shear wave velocities determined from spectral-analysis-of-surface-wave
(SASW) and vertically polarized shear wave crosshole measurements.
cna = not available.
dData from Andrus and Youd (1989).
eThis report.
fData from Harder (1988).
9Data from Stokoe et al. (1988a).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 297

Corrected SPT Resistance, N6o> blows/0.3 m

0,0 10 20 30 40
1 50

Idaho Gravel Sites

• Pc■nee Ranch
V ♦ Gc)ddard Ranch
V La rter Ranch
D Wliskey Springs
□v

•
♦

t « •
•
•
□

V
7

□
□

Fig. 10.3 - Summary Plot o f Corrected SPT Resistance, N6o, Versus Depth for Four
Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 298

Corrected BPT Resistance, N Bc, b!ows/0.3 m

0 10 20 30 40 50
0i-------------------- 1--------------------
Idah o Gravel Sites
• Pe>nce Ranch
V £ Gc)ddard Ranch
v La rter Ranch
□ W liskey Springs

V • •
*•
•

□
<

□
<
4

□
□
V

Fig. 10.4 - Summary Plot of Corrected BPT Resistance, Nbcs Versus Depth for
Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 299

C P T Resistance, qc, M Pa
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ol-------------------- I
r "
Idah o Gravel Sites
• Pemce Ranch
V ♦ GcDddard Ranch
V La rter Ranch
□ W liskey Springs

V D
V •
♦

V • •
u •, »
•
□
•

V
Depth,

□
□

Fig. 10.5 - Summary Plot o f CPT Resistance, qc, Versus Depth for Four Idaho
Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 300

S hear W ave Velocity, V q , m/sec

0 100 200 300 400 500
0| 1--------------------
Idah o Gravel Sites
• P£;nce Ranch
V ♦ G()ddard Ranch
A Ar idersen Bar
▲
V La rter Ranch
□ W liskey Springs
• V Ii
• □
♦

• • V
• > u
•
□
•

’
□
Depth,

v □

V O
□

I
u
>

>

Fig. 10.6 - Summary Plot of Shear W ave Velocity, Vs, Versus Depth for Five Idaho
Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 301

R anch and W hiskey Springs are generally equal to or less than penetration

resistances m easured at the same depth at Pence Ranch and G oddard Ranch, as

show n in Figs 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5. On the other hand, shear wave velocities

m easured at Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs are generally greater than velocities

measured at the same depth at Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, and Andersen Bar, as

shown in Fig. 10.6. Thus, correlations between penetration resistance and V s will

be more site dependent than correlations between types o f penetration resistances.

10.3.1 SPT-CPT Correlation

A SPT-CPT correlation for sands and gravels was proposed in Section 5.5.1
Al
iiavnig,
L
uiw f/N
ivsiui.
rv fU /% <

qc / N 60 = 5.2 (D 50)0-16 ( 10 . 1a)

where qc = cone tip resistance in tons/ft2, or

qc / N 60 = 0.50 (D 50)0-16 ( 10 . 1b)

where qc is in MPa, Ngo = energy-corrected SPT blow count, and D 50 = m edian

grain size in mm. Equation 10.1a, drawn in Fig. 10.7, is based on data referenced

by Seed and D e Alba (1986) and data from Pence Ranch and W hiskey Springs,

using only the values o f D 50 determined from test pit samples (the solid circles and

squares). Values of D 50 determined from the test pit sam ples are considered more

representative o f the actual value o f D 50 than values determ ined from borehole

samples. Penetration and grain-size data from Goddard Ranch and Larter Ranch are

show n in Fig. 10.7 for com parison. Additional data from Pence Ranch are also

shown. The new data compare well w ith the proposed relationship expressed by Eq.

10.1. Thus, the relationship is re-verified.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 Ii I 1 1—I—r-T"! ri “I 1--- 1—i—i"i i ii

S a m p le T yp e G ravel
_ S P T B e c k e r A u aer T e st Pit S ite
12 “O---- S — 0 -
0 © 0 • Pence Ranch
o 0 $ ♦ Goddard Ranch
CD
Z V T Larter Ranch
Or □ H 0 ■ Whiskey Springs

as
QC
c
o
%
—*
2
©
c ^ 0 /^ 6 0 = 5-2
©
Q.
V
data referenced by
Seed and De Alba (1986)
shown in Fig. 5.17 qc in tons/ft2 (1 ton/ft2 = 96 kPa)
I ! _ J I— 1_1 ' ' i—i-i 1 mI_____ 1___ 1__ 1_i i ' ' '
100
M edian Grain S iz e , D 50, m m

Fig. 10.7 - Relationship Between qc/Ngp and M edian Grain Size for Sands and Loose to M edium Dense
Gravels (modified from Andrus et al., 1991)

302
 303

It should be emphasized that Eq. 10.1 is based on the best estimate of D 50. If

the value of D 50 from samples taken with a 35-mm (1-3/8-in) inside diam eter split-

barrel sampler, a 109-mm (4.3-in) inside diam eter Becker bit, or a 127-mm (5-in)

inside diam eter auger tube are used in Eq. 10.1, estim ates of N 60 would have an

average value, ji, o f 0.81 to 0.93, as shown in Figs. 10.8, 10.9 and 10.10. Thus

the estimates o f N 60 would be about 5 to 20 percent too high.

10.3.2 SPT-BPT Correlation

On the basis o f measurements at three sandy sites, Harder (1988) presented

the relationship shown in Fig. 10.12a between energy-corrected BPT blow count,

N Bc , and corrected SPT blow count, N60- The data from the three sites used to

derive the relationship are also shown in Fig. 10.12a. Sy and Cam panella (1993)

pointed out that these data exhibit a strong dependency on depth, as shown in Fig.

10.12b. The dependency on depth is believed to be an effect o f friction along the

side of the steel casing during the BPT.

As part o f this research, the w riter developed the follow ing SPT-B PT

relationship for the three sand sites:

N 60 = 1 .7(N Bc ) ( D )-°-34 ( 10 .2 )

w here D = depth in meters. Estimates of N60 determined using Eq. 10.2 compare

w ell with m easured values, as shown in Fig. 10.13a, and the dependency on depth is

elim inated, as shown in Fig. 10.13b. Therefore, Eq. 10.2 is an im provem ent o f the

relationship proposed by Harder (1988). The ratios of measured to estimated values

o f N60 for the sands exhibit an average value, |i, of 1.03 and a standard deviation, a ,

o f 0.26, as noted in Fig. 10.13b.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 304

Measured N 60 / Estimated N 6q
o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(fi+ a ) = 1.04

CL
CD
□ Estimated N60 based on:
10 Idaho Gravels
N60 = (qc)7[0.5 (D50)0-16]
• Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch where D50 from samples taken with
▼Larter Ranch 35-mm inside diameter split-barrel
■ Whiskey Springs sampler; qc in MPa.
15

Fig. 10.8 - Comparison o f Estimates o f Ngo Based on the CPT and Split-Barrel
Samples with M easured Values o f Ngo for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Measured N 60 / Estimated N 60
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

(jl+ o ) = 0.98

II = 0.81
Q .
CD
Q Estimated Ngp based on:
10
Idaho Gravels N6o = (qC)/[0-5(D 5o)0-16]
• Pence Ranch where D50 from samples taken with
♦ Goddard Ranch 109-mm inside diameter Becker bit;
* Whiskey Springs qc in MPa.
15

Fig. 10.9 - Comparison of Estimates of Ngo Based on the C PT and Becker Samples
with Measured Values o f Ngo for Three Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 305

Measured N6o / Estimated N6o

o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

(p + a ) = 1.02
<

1
St
V- = 0.93
Estimated N60 based on:
1 N60 = (qc)/[O .5 (D50) ]
Idaho Gravels where Dgg from samples taken with
• Pence Ranch 127-mm inside diameter auger tube;
■ Whiskey Springs qc in MPa.
.... 1

Fig. 10.10 - Comparison o f Estimates o f N6o Based on the CPT and Auger Tube
Samples with Measured Values of N6o for Two Idaho Gravel Sites

Measured N60 / Estimated N 6o

0.5 1.0 1.5

(|I+ a ) = 1.30

|I = 1,02v

Cl
cd
Q
Idaho Gravels Estimated based on:
• Pence Ranch N60 = (qc) / [0.5 ( D 5 0 ) 0 - 1 6 3
♦ Goddard Ranch where Dgg from samples taken in
▼Larter Ranch
■ Whiskey Springs test pit; in MPa.
15 _____ L.

Fig. 10.11 - Comparison of Estimates o f N6o Based on the CPT and Test Pit
Samples with M easured Values o f N60 for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 306

80
m
Blow Count, N60, b!ows/0.3

Relationship proposed
for sands
60 by Harder (1988)

40
Corrected SPT

20
Data from Harder 119881
o Salinas (silt and sand)
n Thermalito (sand)
A San Diego (silty sand and sand)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Corrected Becker Blow Count, NBc, blows/0.3 m

N bc / N60
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

A b.

^ (
! *
AO r n
Depth, m

(
A r oD

□D *
n
Sands 0 A
o Salinas
□ Thermalito A
A San Diego
A

Fig. 10.12 - Relationship Between N b c . N6o and Depth for Three Sand Sites (after
Harder, 1988; Sy and Campanella, 1993).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 307

Data from Harder (19881

o Safinas (silt and sand)
□ Thermalito (sand)
a San Diego (silty sand and sand)

Estimated Ng^ based on:

n 60 = 1-7 (Nbc ) (D)-°-34
where NBC = corrected Becker blow
count and D = depth in meters.

Measured S P T N60, blows/0.3 m

Measured N60 / Estimated N 60

o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Estimated Ngg based on: b.
N60 = 1.7 (Nb c ) (D)-0-34
where D = depth in meters.
Depth,

10
Data from Harder (1988Y
o Salinas (silt and sand) (p+Cj) = 1.29
□ Thermalito (sand)
a San Diego (silty sand and
15 _______________i______ ■

Fig. 10.13 - Comparison of Estimates o f N&) Based on the BPT and M easured
Values o f Ngo for Three Sand Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 308

SPT and B PT data listed in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 at four o f the Idaho

liquefaction sites are plotted in Fig. 10.14a. BPT tests were not perform ed at the

fifth site, Andersen Bar. The Idaho data lie above the relationship proposed by

H arder (1988) for sands, suggesting that, even in loose gravelly soils, gravel

particles increased the SPT blow count. The ratios of N b c to N60 shown in Fig.

10.14b for Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch also exhibit dependency on depth.

Although the ratios shown in Fig. 10.14b for Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs do

not exhibit dependency on depth, it is possible that gravel particles in the deeper,

m edium dense strata increased the SPT blow count more than gravel particles in the

shallower, loose strata. Thus, friction along the side of the steel casing during the

BPT in these gravelly deposits could be on the same order as side friction in the sand

deposits.

Assuming that side friction during the BPT is the same in sands and gravels,

a m ore general form o f Eq. 10.2 can be expressed as:

N 60 = 1.7 (Nb c ) (D)-°-34 (Fn ). (10.3)

where F n = a factor dependent on soil type and density. For sands, F n = 1-0. The

best-fit value o f F n is 1.2 for the loose (N b c < 10) clean gravelly soils, 1.6 for the

loose dirty gravelly soils, 1.4 for the medium dense (N bc - 10) clean gravelly soils,

and 2.6 for the m edium dense dirty gravelly soils. The standard deviations

corresponding to these best-fit values are 0.2 for the loose and 0.5 for the m edium

dense clean gravels, and 0.4 for the loose and 1.0 for the m edium dense dirty

gravels. These FN-factors provide good estimates of N60, as shown in Figs. 10.15a

and 10.15b.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 309

Corrected SPT Blow Count, Ngo, blows/0.3 m

1 1
Idaho Gravel S ite s 1 a.
• P en ce Ranch (gravelly sand to san dy gravel)
f Goddard Ranch (sandy gravel)
v Larter Ranch (sandy gravel with silt)
■ W hiskey S pn ngs (silty san dy grave I) /

▼ Relationship |proposed
• for sa n ds
■/ by Harder 1988)

7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Corrected Becker Blow Count, NBC, blows/0.3 m

N bc / ^60
o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

T b.
▼
♦
• ▼ m
Depth, m

m
10 Idaho Gravel Sites
ji • P en ce Ranch (gravelly sar id to san d y gravel)
♦ Godda rd Ranch (sandy greivel)
v Larter Ranch (sandy grave I with silt)
■ Whiske y Springs (silty sa n dy gravel)
15

Fig. 10.14 - Relationship Between N b c . N 6 0 and Depth for Four Idaho Gravel Sites
Com pared with the SPT-BPT Correlation Proposed by H arder (1988)
for Sands.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 310

80 1 1
Estimated N^ q based on: a.
Neo = i.7 (Nb c ) (D)-°-3 4 (Fn )
E where NBC = corrected Becker
CO
o blow count and D = depth in meters.
60
1/5
5 □
o
X3
o
co
2 .0*

1
40
I—
CL
C/D
Factor
TJ j f
0) n bc
05 20 o V V >10 Idahc3 Gravels -
E o
• 1.2 o 1.4 Penc e Ranch
co
LU ♦ 1.2 O 1.4 Godclard Ranch
▼ 1.6 V 2.6 Larte r Ranch
■ 1.6 i n 2.6 Whis key Springs
20 40 60 80 100
Measured S P T N 60, blows/0.3 m

Measured N6o / Estimated Ngo

0.5 1.0 1.5

( u -K j) = 1.29

[1 = 1.03^
Depth,

Factor
n bc
> 10 Idaho Gravels
o 1.4 Pence Ranch N \ Estimated N^q based on:
0 1.4 Goddard R a n c h \v v N60= 1 .7 (N b c )(D)-0-34(Fn)
v 2.6 Larter Ranch K \ ] \ where D = depth in meters.
□ 2.6 Whiskey SpringsN
t IN N V sN N M I____________________

Fig. 10.15 - Comparison o f Estimates o f Ngo Based on the BPT and M easured
Values o f Ngo for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 311

Tokimatsu (1988) suggested a tentative corrective relationship, shown in Fig.

10.16, for the SPT in gravelly soils. For comparison, correction factors, Cg (=

I/F n), determined from the SPT-BPT correlation developed in the preceding pages

are also shown in Fig. 10.16. The estimates of Cg based on the SPT and BPT are

less than Tokim atsu's relationship. On the basis of data from the Idaho sites,

tentative correction curves for SPT in two loose gravelly deposits and two medium

dense gravelly deposits are drawn in Fig. 10.16. The curves are drawn to extend to

the value of D 50 considered most representative of each deposit.

10.3.3 SPT-Shear Wave Velocity Correlation

Several correlations between SPT blow count, N, and shear wave velocity,

Vg, have been proposed (Sykora, 1987). The data listed in Tables 10.1 and 10.2

from four Idaho gravel sites are used in this section to evaluate the correlations by

Ohta and Goto (1976), Sykora and Stokoe (1983), and Seed et al. (1986).

On the basis of SPT and Vs measurements in soil deposits in Japan, Ohta and

Goto (1976) developed the following relationship:

Vs = 69 (Nj)0-17 (D)0-20 (F j ) (F2) (10.4)

where Vs in m/sec, Nj = SPT blow count measured in Japanese practice, D = depth

in meters, Fj = a factor depending on the age o f the deposit, and F 2 = a factor

depending on the soil type. The best-fit values of F i are 1.00 for Holocene-age soils

and 1.31 for Pleistocene-age soils. The best-fit values of F 2 are given in Table 10.3.

Assuming rod energy in Japanese SPT tests is 67 percent of the theoretical

free-fall energy (Seed et al., 1985), Eq. 10.4 can be expressed as:

VS = 68 (N 6o)0-17 (D)0.20 (F 0 (F2) (10.5)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 312

Sample Type ----------------- Clean sandy gravel;

SPT Becker Auger Test Pit subrounded gravel
particles (Pence
Ranch and Goddard
Ranch sites).
Dirty silty sandy
gravel with cobbles;
subangular gravel
particles (Larter
Ranch and Whiskey
Springs sites)

P$e C60=m>

0—
Suggested by
Tokimatsu (1988)
for well-graded soils

1 10 100
Mean Grain Size, D50, mm

Fig. 10.16 - Comparison of Tentative Relationships Proposed in This Study for

Correction of SPT in Gravelly Soils with R elationship Suggested by
Tokimatsu (1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3 13

Table 10.3 - F 2 Factors for Various Soil Types (Ohta and Goto, 1976).

Soil Type Factor F 2

Clay 1.00
Fine Sand 1.09
Medium Sand 1.07
Coarse Sand 1.14
Sandy Grave! 1.15
Gravel 1.45

where V s is in m /sec, N60 = blow count measured in SPT test delivering 60 percent

of the theoretical free-fall energy to the drill rods, and D = depth in meters.

Estim ates of Vs were determined from Eq. 10.5 and the SPT m easurem ents

at four Idaho liquefaction sites. The values o f F 1F 2 used for H olocene and

Pleistocene-age sandy gravel were 1.15 and 1.51, respectively. As shown in Fig.

10.17a, estimates of V s for the Goddard Ranch and Larter Ranch sites compare very

well with measured values of V s. Estimates of Vs average about 15 percent too high

for the Pence Ranch site, and 15 percent too low for the W hiskey Springs site. As

noted in Fig. 10.17b, the ratios of estimated to m easured values of V s exhibit an

average value, |i, of 1.00 and a standard deviation, a , o f 0.23.

Assum ing Fj = 1.15 and F 2 = 1.1, Seed et al. (1986) proposed that Eq. 10.5

for sands and sandy gravel deposits be reduced to

V s = 8 5 (N 6o)°-17(D)0-2 ( 10.6)

where V s is in m /sec, and D = depth in meters. Estimates o f V s based on Eq. 10.6

and m easured values of V s for four Idaho sites are compared in Fig. 10.18a. T he

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 314
Estimated Shear Wave Velocity, V s , m/sec

300
’ n b
Idaho Gravel Sites
• Pence Ranc:h V / a.
♦ Goddard Rainch /n
V Larter Ranc h □
o Whiskey Sp rings
200
i
*•
V
• /

100
A
f i
Estimate d Vg based on (Ohta and Goto. 1976):
J
/L/s VS =Gr8 (Ngo)0-17 (D)c*-2 ...Holocene sandy gravel
v u vs = 03 (Ngo)0"17 (D °-2 ...Pleistoce ne sandy gravel
A where Vg in m/sec anc D = Depth in m eters.
A t 1
100 200 300 400 500
Measured Shear W ave Velocity, Vg, m/sec

Measured V g / Estimated V s
0.5 1.0_____ 1.5
Idaho Gravel Sites
• Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch
v Larter Ranch
□ Whiskey Springs (U-KJ) = 1.23
Depth, m

Estimated based on (Ohta and Goto. 19761:

= 78 (Ngo)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Holocene sandy gravel
VP Vg = 103 (Ng0)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Pleistocene sandy gravel
where Vg in m/sec and D = Depth in meters.
■Jg mi ■i. ....................... ,L ■■■■>— -■—11. ■■-fc.iYi.'S ^ . .......... ..

Fig. 10.17 - Comparison o f Estimates of V s Based on the SPT (O hta and Goto,
1976) and M easured Values o f V s for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 315

o 300
\
CD
w Idaho Gravel Sites
• Pence Ranc*h
♦ Goddard Ra nch
a.
to 7 Larter Ranc / \r
> □ Whiskey Sp rings □ i
/ V
® / □ n
a
_o 200
© * X
> 7
© 1
> 1
© ' t y * 1
7
© 100
©
.£=
C/D A

CO
00
O)
-a Estimated Vo based on (Seed
©
© V s = 85 (N60)0.17 (0)0.2
E where Vg in m/sec and D = depth in meters.
« i i
LU 100 200 300 400 500

Measured Shear W ave Velocity, Vg, m/sec

Measured Vg / Estimated Vg

Idaho Gravel Sites

• Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch
7 Larter Ranch
□ Whiskey Springs (u + a ) = 1.45

Estimated Vo based on (Seed et al

VS = 85 ^60)0-17(0)0.2
where Vs in m/sec and D = depth in meters

Fig. 10.18 - Comparison of Estimates o f V s Based on the SPT (Seed et al., 1986)
and M easured Values of V s for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 316

estim ates o f V s are about 20 percent too high for the Holocene-age sandy gravels

(Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch), and 30 percent too low for the Pleistocene sandy

gravels (Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs). The ratios o f estim ated to m easured

V s fo r all for sites shown in Fig. 10.18b have an average value o f 1.08 and a

standard deviation o f 0.37.

Sykora and Stokoe (1983) analyzed SPT and Vs data from granular soil

deposits throughout the United States, and present the following relationship:

V s = 1 0 7 ( N 6o)0-27 (10.7)

where V s is in m/sec. Equation 10.7 provides good estimates o f V s for the Larter

Ranch site and fair estimates for the W hiskey Springs site, but overestim ates values

of V s by about 35 percent for the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites, as shown

in Fig. 10.19a. T he ratios of estimated to m easured V s for all for sites show n in

Fig. 10.19b have an average value o f 0.89 and a standard deviation o f 0.35. It is

interesting to note that the data shown in Fig. 10.19b above 7 m (23 ft) do not exhibit

much variability with depth.

Based on the com parisons shown in Figs. 10.17, 10.18 and 10.19, the

relationship presented by Ohta and Goto (1976) provides the best estimates of V s for

the four Idaho sites. Value o f V s for the latest Pleistocene-age, sedim ents at the

Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites are about 1.6 tim es greater than values for

the H olocene-age sedim ents at the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites having

sim ilar penetration resistances. The higher values o f V s at the Larter Ranch and

W hiskey Springs sites may be due to slight cementation by calcium carbonate. Thus

the Idaho data supports the need for a factor dependent on age or soil chemistry when

estimating V s from the SPT.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 317
Estimated Shear Wave Velocity, V s , m/sec

Est. = 306 m/sec

v / a.
•
/□ a ]
• •
• ♦ p

!• J . * SA' 1 V

Idahc Gravel Sites

• Peiice Ranch
A& ♦ Go ddard Ranch
V Ldlltil nctllUl
f 0 Whiskey Springs
A

/ Est mated Vo based on fSvkora and Stokoe. 19831:

Vg = 107 (Ngo)0-27 where Vs in m/sec.
i ~ i ..... i
0 100 200 300 400 500
Measured Shear W ave Velocity, Vg, m/sec

Measured V s / Estimated Vg
o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

(|I+ g ) = 1.24 b.
Depth, m

Idaho Gravel Sites

• Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch
10 - v Larter Ranch
□ Whiskey Springs

Estimated based on fSvkora and Stokoe. 19831:

Vs = 107 (N60)0-27 where Vg in m/sec.
15

Fig. 10.19 - Comparison of Estim ates of V s Based on the SPT (Sykora and Stokoe,
1983) and M easured Values o f V s for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 318

A better SPT-Vs relationship for the Idaho data can be expressed as:

V S = 58 (N60)0.17 (0)0-20 (F l) (f 2) (10.8)

w here V s is in m/sec, and D is in meters. The value o f F] is 1.0 for Holocene-age

sedim ent and about 1.6 for latest Pleistocene-age sedim ent. The value o f F 2 for

sandy gravel is 1.15. Equation 10.8 is based on best-fit values using only the data

from depths less than 8 m (26 ft). Differences betw een best-fit values for the loose

gravels and the medium dense gravels were not significant. Estim ates of V s using

Eq. 10.8 compare very well with measured values o f V s, as shown in Fig. 10.20.

The ratios of m easured V s to estim ated V s exhibit a mean o f 1.04 and a standard

deviation o f 0.18, low er than a standard deviation of 0.23 determined for the ratios

based on the relationship o f O hta and Goto (1976).

10.3.4 CPT-Shear W ave Velocity Correlation

By com bining Eqs. 10.1 and 10.8, CPT tip resistance, qc, can be related to

VS by:

V S = 67 (q c)0-17 (D)0-2 (D 5o)-°-027 (Fi) (F2) (10.9)

where V s is in m/sec, qc is in M Pa, D = depth in meters, D 50 = m edian grain size in

mm, F j = a factor equaling 1.0 fo r Holocene-age Idaho sedim ent and 1.6 for latest

Pleistocene-age Idaho sedim ent, and F 2 is a factor dependent on soil type. It is

desirable to express the factor F 2 in terms o f D 50 . B ased on the values given in

Table 10.3, a reasonable expression for factors of F 2 is:

F 2 = 1.1 (D5o)0-02. ( 10. 10)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 319

o
a) 400
E
C/)
Idaho Gravel Sites
• Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch
i
a.
05
> v Larter Ranch
5^300
D W h is k e v S n r in n s T
4- V /
o
o
0)
a
>
(1)
> 200 1 Measured = Estirnated -
C O
£ V
C O
d> • /
-C
a) 100 ---- Fctimnto V....

"D Vg = 68 (N6o)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Holocene sandy gravel

Cl)
cd y n Vg = 109 (Ng0)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Pleistocene sandy gravel
E
where Vs in m/sec and D = Depth in meters.
CO
111 0 ----------------------1---------------—....i - .... i
100 200 300 400 500
Measured Shear W ave Velocity, V s, m/sec

Measured Vo / Estimated Vq
o.o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Idaho Gravel Sites |1 = 1.04
• Pence Ranch b.
♦ Goddard Ranch
v Larter Ranch
□ Whiskey Springs

((I+c) = 1.22
Q.
Q)
Q □

10
Estimated Vc; based on:
Vs = 68 (N60)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Holocene sandy gravel
VQ Vg = 109 (N6o)0-17 (D)0,2 ...Pleistocene sandy gravel
where Vs in m/sec and D = Depth in meters.
15 — n. ■ ■ i. —. , I , i I V Y.-’U A t A —\ ■ ,, i

Fig. 10.20 - Comparison o f Estimates o f V s Based on the SPT (This Report) and
M easured Values of Vs for Four Idaho Gravel Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 320

Substituting Eq. 10.10 into Eq. 10.9, the relationship reduces to:

V S = 72 (qc)0.17 (0)0-2 (D50)-0-007 (F l). (10.11)

For practical purposes, Eq. 10.11 can be reduced to:

V S = 72 (qc)0-17 (D)0-2 (F l). n o . 12)

B ased on the data given in Tables 10.1 and 10.2, estimates of V s based on Eq.

10.12 and m easured values o f V s are shown in Fig. 10.21. As expected, the data

shown in Figs. 10.20 and 10.21 exhibit sim ilar distributions.

10.4 STATE OF STRESS FROM SEISMIC MEASUREMENTS

The ratio o f horizontal to vertical normal stress, called the coefficient o f earth

pressure, is an important parameter in many geotechnical engineering problems. An

attempt was made to estimate this coefficient in the critical layer at three o f the Idaho

sites.

10.4.1 Level Ground and an Isotropic Soil Structure

W hen lateral strains are zero, earth pressures are said to be at rest. The at-rest

coefficient o f effective earth pressure, K'0) can be defined as:

c j'x — o " y — K 'o o 'v (10.13)

w here a 'v = effective vertical confining pressure, and a ' x and a 'y = effective

horizontal confining pressures which are assum ed equal. Soil deposits under level

ground conditions are typically in an at-rest state o f stress and a 'v, <T'X and a 'y can

be considered to be principal effective stresses.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 321
Estimated Shear Wave Velocity, V s , m/sec
1
Idaho Gravel Sites »«__ sured = Estimate
• Pence Ranch a.
♦ Goddard Ranch
v Larter Ranch
P Whiskev Snrinas j X
Djy/'
n
/ p □

□
v / V
i

Estimated V$ based on:

-A \/ -7e /~ \0 .1 7 /r-i\0.2
VP Vs = 118 (qc)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Pleistocene
where Vs in m/sec, qc in MPa,
and D = depth in meters.
i i

0 100 200 300 400 500

Measured Shear W ave Velocity, V s , m/sec

Measured Vo / Estimated Vo
0.5 1.0 1.5
Idaho Gravel Sites
Pence Ranch
♦ Goddard Ranch
V Larter Ranch
□ Whiskey Springs

(li-Ky) = 1.27
Depth, m

U. = 1.06
xW X X K W W J
Estimated Vo based on P
Vq = 72 (qc)°-17 (D)0-2 ...Holocene
VP Vs = 118 (qc)0-17 (D)0-2 ...Pleistocene
where Vs in m/sec, qc in MPa, and D = depth in meters

Fig. 10.21 - Comparison of Estimates o f V s Based on the CPT and M easured Values
of V s for Four Idaho Gravels.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 322

According to Hooke's law , strain in an elastic, isotropic m aterial can be

expressed as:

e v = 1/E [a'v - v (a'x + a'y)] (10.14a)

e x = 1/E [ a ’x - v (a'y + a'y)] (1 0 .14b)

£y = 1/E [a'y - v ( a ’v + a ’x)] (1 0 .14c)

w here £v = strain in the vertical direction, £x and £y = strains in the horizontal

directions, E = Young's m odulus, and v = Poisson's ratio. For at-rest conditions

(i.e. £x = £y = 0), K'o can be shown from Eqs. 10.14b and 10.14c to be:

K '0 = v / (1 - v). (10.15)

Based on elastic relationships, v can be estimated from crosshole velocity

measurements by:

v = [ 1 - 0.5(VP2 / VS2)] / [ 1 - (VP2 / VS2)] (10.16)

where Vp = compression wave velocity, and Vs = shear wave velocity.

By substituting Eq. 10.16 into Eq. 10.15, K'0 is simply

K'o = 1 - 2(V S2 / VP2). (10.17)

Equation 10.17 represents a first-order approximation for K'0 in level soil deposits.

From crosshole measurements above the water table at the Pence Ranch and

Andersen Bar sites, both nearly level ground sites, values of K'0 based on Eq. 10.17

range from 0.52 to 0.59. Here, V s is assumed equal to the vertically polarized shear

wave velocity, Vsv-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10.4.2 Level Ground and an Anisotropic Soil Structure

S. H. Lee (1986) and N. Y. Lee (1993) have shown in large-scale calibration

cham ber tests that a com bination o f com pression and/or shear wave velocities

measured on principal planes can be used to estimate K'0 in dry sand. For materials

with an anisotropic skeleton, these investigators showed that shear wave velocity can

be related to at-rest in situ stresses by:

V SH = A (G 'x)2n (10.18a)

V Sv = B (o 'v )n (G ’x)n (10.18b)

where V sh = horizontally polarized shear wave velocity, n = a stress exponent, and

A and B are parameters that depend on soil structural. An approximate value of n is

0.125.

The ratio o f V sh to V sv can be written as:

V SH / VSV = A / B (o*x / o ’v)n = A / B (K'o)". (10.19)

where A/B = a structural anisotropic ratio for the soil skeleton.

Ratios o f V sh to V sv determined from crosshole measurements at the Pence

Ranch and A ndersen B ar sites are plotted in Figs. 10.22 and 10.23. U sing Eq.

10.19 and n = 0.125, regions for K'0 of 0.2, 0.5 and 1.5 are drawn in these figures.

Values of 0.95, 1.00 and 1.05 were assumed for the structural anisotropic ratio,

A/B.

At the Pence Ranch site, a high ratio of V sh to V sv near the ground surface,

suggests a high K'0-value (on the order o f 3.0) in the silty sand layer (Unit A), as

shown in Fig. 10.22. Below Unit A, velocity ratios indicate K'0 o f 0.5 in the silty

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 324

Soil Profile VSH! Vsv

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
0
Silty Sand.
0.& 1.S
(Unit A)

Silty Sand
and Gravel.
1 ' (Unit B)

water
— table,
Sandy Gravel 8/90
to Gravelly
Sand (GP to
2 SP)--loose
to medium
dense.
(Unit C)
Depth,

Sandy Gravel
(G W )-
medium
4 ‘ dense
(Unit D)

Regions based on:

5 V SH
= A/B (K'o)0.125
V SV A/B
----------------0 .9 5
1.00
----------------1.05
6

Fig. 10.22 - Estimates of State o f Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on SH-
and SV-Wave Velocities Determined from Crosshole Measurements at
the Pence Ranch Site, Test Array XD-XE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 325

Soil Profile* V SH ! V SV
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Sandy Gravel K'o = [0.21 CO.5^ E 1 .K

(GP-GW)-
loose. Thin
sandy silty
layers at
. 0.34, 0.67 water
and 0.79 m. table,
8/91

-C
•*—
*
Q.
CD
Q loose to
medium
dense

medium * Extent of j Regions based on:

sam pling is
2 m; layers | ^ = A / B (K'0)°-12&
b a s e d on
penetrom eter I V sv A/B
sounding
during ------------------0 .9 5
c ro ssn o le 1.00
c a ssin g
installation. ------------------ 1.05
E 3

Fig. 10.23 - Estimates o f State of Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on SH-
and SV-W ave Velocities Determined from Crosshole Measurements at
the Andersen Bar Site, Test Array X1-X2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 326

sand and gravel layer (Unit B). In the most likely layer to have liquefied (Unit C),

ratios of V sh to V sv are less than 0.75. These very low values suggest greater

structural stiffness in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction, and

possibly K'o less than 0.5. (Also, the gentle slope should possibly be taken into

account.) Perhaps the horizontal stiffness decreased when sediments liquefied and

flow ed laterally. Ratios o f V s h to V sv at the contact of U nit C and Unit D are

slightly greater than 1.00, suggesting greater stiffness in the horizontal direction

and/or K'0 greater than 0.5.

At the Andersen B ar site, the ratio of V s h to V sv near the surface o f the

sandy gravel bar is greater than 1.4, suggesting either a high K'0-value (on the order

o f 3.0) or greater horizontal stiffness than vertical stiffness, as shown in Fig. 10.23.

Between the depths of 0.9 and 3.2 m (3 and 10.5 ft), the most likely zone to have

liquefied, the ratio is about 0.89, suggesting K'0 o f 0.5.

10.4.3 Sloping Ground and an Anisotropic Soil Structure

Under 2-D sloping ground conditions, as is the case at the Larter Ranch and

W hiskey Springs sites, strain parallel to the dip o f the slope (in-plane) may not be

zero and horizontal confining stresses may not be equal. The coefficients o f earth

pressures for sloping ground conditions can be expressed as:

a ' x = K'x a'v (10.20a)

a ' y = K'y a'y (10.20b)

where a 'x = in-plane effective horizontal confining stress, a 'y = effective horizontal

confining stress parallel to strike of the slope (out-of-plane), and K'x and K'y = the

stress coefficients.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 327

According to Hooke's law, confining stresses for plane-strain conditions (ey

= 0) are related by:

a 'y = v ( a 'v + a 'x ) . (1 0 .2 1 )

A t the Larter Ranch site, values of v are 0.28 and 0.31 based on velocity

m easurem ents at two depths above the water table and Eq. 10.16 . Note that the

crosshole test array was aligned parallel to the elevation contour lines. Values of v

are likely different in the direction of the dip.

Assum ing waves are polarized along principal stress directions, shear wave

velocities determined from crosshole measurements can be generally related to in situ

stresses as follows (Lee, 1993):

VsH = A ( a 'a)" (o 'b )n (10.22a)

V SV = B ( a 'v)n (a'a)n (10.22b)

where a 'a = effective horizontal confining stress parallel to crosshole test array (in

direction o f wave propagation), and a'b = the effective horizontal confining stress

orthogonal to crosshole test array.

For the Larter Ranch crosshole array, oriented along the toe o f the slope and

parallel to elevation contour lines, the ratio of V sh to V sv can be written as:

V sh / V Sv = A / B ( a ’b / a ’v)n = A / B (a 'x / a 'v)n = A / B (K'x)" (10.23)

Ratios o f V sh to V sv determined from crosshole measurements at the Larter

Ranch site are plotted in Figs. 10.24. Using Eq. 10.23 and n = 0.125, regions for

K 'x o f 0.2, 0.5 and 1.5 are drawn in Fig. 10.24. Values o f 0.95, 1.00 and 1.05

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 328

Soil Profile V SH 1 V SV
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Silty Sand
with gravel K'v = (0.21 i t s
(SM to
GM-GP). water
(Unit A)
— table,
8/90
Sandy Gravel
with cobbles &
silt (GM-GW)-
medium
dense.
(Subunit B1)
2

Sandy Gravel
with silt (GM-
P GW)--loose
to medium
■f. ~ . dense.
H . 3 (Subunit C1)
CD
a

Silty Sandy
Gravel (GM)-
loose to
medium
dense. Regions based on:
(Subunit C2)
|^ h = A /B (K 'x)0-125-
!V SV a /B
---------------------0.95
1.00
! ---------------------1.05

Fig. 10.24 - Estim ates of State o f Stress and Structural Anisotropy Based on SH-
and SV-W ave Velocities Determined from Crosshole Measurements at
the Larter Ranch Site, Test Array X3-X4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 329

w ere assumed for the structural anisotropy ratio, A/B. The ratio of V s h to V s v

betw een 0.6 and 1.5 m (2 and 5 ft) has a m ean value of 1.20, indicating a zone of

com pression at the toe o f the lateral spread where K 'x is about 4. At the base of

S ubunit B l, shear wave velocity ratios are less than 0.75, suggesting greater

stiffness in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction and possibly K'x less

than 0.5. Perhaps m aterial stiffness decreased in the horizontal direction when

liquefaction and lateral spreading occurred. Ratios of V sh to V sv for the most likely

layer to have liquefied (Subunit C l) suggest K'x = 0.5.

10.5 IN SITU DENSITY FROM SEISMIC M EASUREM ENTS

Seed and Idriss (1971) and Seed et al. (1986) have suggested an em pirical

constant, (K2)max> as a qualitative m easure o f in situ density. (K2)max is related to

the low-amplitude shear modulus, Gmax, as follows:

G max = 1000 (K2)max (C m)0-5 (10.24)

w here Gmax is expressed in lb/ft2 (1 lb/ft2 = 48 Pa) and a 'm = the mean effective

confining stress in lb/ft2. The mean effective confining stress is defined as:

a ’m = 1/3 (a'v + a 'x + a ’y) (10.25)

w here a ’v = the effective vertical confining stress, and g 'x and a 'y = the effective

horizontal confining stresses.

Low-amplitude shear wave velocity, V s, is directly related to G max by:

G max= ( Y /g ) ( V S)2 (10.26)

where y = the total unit weight and g = gravitational acceleration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 330

By combining Eqs. 10.24 and 10.26, Vs can be expressed as:

V S = [1000 (K2)max (g / Y)]0 5 (o'm)0'25 (10.27)

where V s is in ft/sec, g = 32.2 ft/sec2, y is in lb/ft3, and a 'm is in lb/ft2.

The variation o f Vs with (K2)max and depth can be calculated for each site

using Eq. 10.27, as show n in Figs. 10.25 through 10.29. A s a first-order

approxim ation, the value o f a 'm was estimated by assum ing level ground conditions

and both effective horizontal confining stresses equal to 0.5 c \ .

Two shear wave velocity profiles determined from SASW and crosshole SV-

w ave testing at the Pence Ranch site are plotted in Fig. 10.25. The layer m ost likely

to have liquefied (Unit C) exhibits the low est values o f V s and (K2)max- The

m inim al and average values of (K2)max of nil V s-values determ ined for U nit C,

including the profiles not shown, are 15 and 30, respectively.

Tw o V s profiles determined from SASW testing at the G oddard Ranch site

are show n in Fig. 10.26. Subunit C l , the layer m ost likely to have liquefied,

exhibits the lowest values o f V s and (K2)max in granular material below the water

table. The minimal and average values of (K2)max o f all V s-values determ ined for

Subunit C l are 20 and 30, respectively.

Shear wave velocity profiles determined from SASW and crosshole SV-wave

testing at the Andersen B ar site are plotted in Fig. 10.27. As shown by the V s and

(K 2)max profiles, the loosest material lies between the depths of 0.6 and 3.2 m (2 and

10.5 ft). The minimal and average (K 2)max-values for the loosest zone are about 15

and 25, respectively.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 331

Soil Profile SV-Wave Velocity, m/sec

0 100 200 300 400

Silty Sand.
(Unit A)

Silty Sand
. and Gravel.
(Unit B)

Water
Table,
Sandy 8/90
. Gravel to
Gravelly
Sand (GP to
SP)--loose
to medium
dense. SASW
_ (Unit C) (SA-B)
Q .
a)
a

Sandy Gravel
(GW)~
' medium
dense.
(Unit D)
Crosshole
(XD-XE)

(^ 2 )m ax — 50 70

Fig. 10.25 - Estimates of (K2)max and Tw o Shear W ave Velocity Profiles

Determined from SASW and SV-Wave Measurements at the Pence
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Soil Profile SV-Wave Velocity, m/sec
100 200 300 400

Sandy Gravel
(GP-GW)-
medium \
dense. \
(Unit A) \ \
\
y water
■JH" table,
Silty Sand with — 8/90
clay (ML-CL)
(Unit B) I I \
30 50 70 = ( K 2)max
Sandy
^ Gravel (GP- T
I
\GW)--loose.
\ (Subunit
\ C 1) SASW
(SA-2)
\
Depth,

Sandy
Gravel \ SASW-
(G P -G W )--\ (SA-4)
medium »
dense.
(Subunit
C2)

Sandy
Gravel with
silt (GW-GM)-
-medium
dense to
dense.
(Unit D)

Fig. 10.26 - Estimates o f (K2)max and Two Shear W ave Velocity Profiles
Determined from SASW Measurements at the Goddard Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 333

Soil Profile* S V-W ave Velocity, m/sec

100 200 300 400

Sandy Gravel \ \ \
(GP-GW)- \ \
loose. Thin y water
sandy silty \ \
— table,
layers at \ \ \
0.34, 0.67 -8/91 -
and 0.79 m.

1 1 \
1 ' \
i \ \
■30 50 7 0 = ( K 2)max-
4 \ '
Depth,

loose to
medium
dense
\
Crosshole 1 SASW
_ (X1-X2) (SA-1)
I

medium
Extent of I
sam pling is
dense .2 m; layers
b a sed on
penetrom eter
sounding
during
r
i
crossn ole
c a ssin g
installation.

Fig. 10.27 - Estimates of (K2)max and Tw o Shear W ave Velocity Profiles

Determined from SASW and SV-W ave Measurements at the Andersen
Bar Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 334

Soil Profile S V-W ave Velocity, m /sec

100 200 300 400

Silly Sand
with gravel \ \ •
(SM to GM- K \
GP). (Unit A)
\ VT V water
table,
\ \ \ \ 8/90
Sandy \ \ ^ r
\ •
Gravel with \
^ V
cobbles & silt \ \ \
(GM-GW)-- (K2)max = 30 5 0 7 0 \|
medium \
dense.
- (Subunit B1) ' 1 ^ \
A.

\ \
Sandy Gravel \ \
with silt (GM-
GW)-loose 9 0 110 = (K2)max
to medium
a. dense. I T
0
a (Subunit C1)
\ 1
I \
I 1
Silty Sandy
_ Gravel (GM)~ 1 1
loose to
medium SASW
dense. (SA-1,90)
(Subunit C2) Crosshole
(X3-X4)
'’ \ J (
rr-r
\" \

•i i \
!• I I
1 1

Fig. 10.28 - Estimates o f (K2)max and Two Shear W ave Velocity Profiles
Determined from SASW and SV-W ave Measurements at the Larter
Ranch Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 335

Soil Profile SV-Wave Velocity, m/sec

100 200 300 400
Silty Sand
with gravel
(SM). \ \ \ \v
(Unit A) \ \ \ \ \
Silty S andy
.Gravel witn
co b b les (GM)
\
\ \ N\
\ \ ' N L ~
▼ water
table,
-medium \ 7/85
d e n se . i \
(Unit B) \ i » * \
(K2)max = 30 50 70 \
Silty S andy \ 1
.Gravel with \ \
few cob b les
-V- I A -
(G M )--loose \ \
to medium \ \
d e n se .
\
90 110 = (K2)max
(Subunit C1) \
\ \
D. 3
0) \ \
Q
\ ' SASW
\ \ (S A -1 ,9 0 )

Silty Clay
■nr
(CL-ML) to l \
C rosshole
C layey I I
Gravel with I 1
san d (GC)--
soft. I 1
(Subunit C2) 111
i •» I
I 1
I 1
I 1
1 -L

Fig. 10.29 -Estimates of (K2)max and Two Shear W ave Velocity Profiles Determined
from SASW and SV-W ave Measurements at the W hiskey Springs Site
(Stokoe et al., 1988c).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 In Fig. 10.28, V s profiles determined from SASW and crosshole SV -w ave

testing at the toe of the lateral spread at the Larter Ranch site are shown. The loosest

materials below the w ater table are Subunit C l and Subunit C2, as shown by the V s

and (K2)max profiles. The minimal and average (K 2)max_values for these m aterials

are about 40 and 60, respectively.

Shear wave velocity profiles determined from SASW and crosshole SV-wave

testing at the toe of the lateral spread at the W hiskey Springs site are plotted in Fig.

10.29. Liquefaction and shear deformation m ost likely occurred in Subunit C l, the

layer exhibiting the low est values o f V s and (K2)max below the w ater table. The

m inim al and average (K 2 )max-values for Subunit C l are about 55 and 70,

respectively.

Seed et al. (1986) have suggested values o f (K2)max on the order o f 30 for

loose sands and 75 fo r dense sands. For gravels, they suggested (K ^m ax-values

1.35 to 2.5 times higher. Values o f (K2)max determined for the clean sandy gravel at

the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen Bar sites are the same as very loose

sands. T he higher values o f V s and (K2)max at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey

Springs site may be due to slight cementation and not increase density, as indicated

by the presence o f calcium carbonate (Chapter 9; Andrus and Youd, 1987).

10.6 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS USING SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES

Guidelines for evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils are not

well established. Simplified procedures developed for sands were initially applied in

Chapters 6 through 9 to evaluate the liquefaction potential o f key layers. In this

section, liquefaction assessm ent for the critical layer at all Idaho sites, including

W hiskey Springs, are compared. For simplicity, only the results from Area 1 at the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 L arter R anch and W hiskey Springs sites are considered. In additional, other

proposed CPT-based procedures for sands are evaluated. The tentative corrections

proposed for soils containing significant amounts o f gravel are evaluated, and

recommendations for their future use are given.

As outlined in Chapter 5, liquefaction assessment procedures can be divided

in tw o categories, stress-based or strain-based procedures. In the stress-based

procedures, liquefaction potential is assessed by correlating penetration resistance or

Vs to cyclic stress ratio. The cyclic stress ratio is calculated based on the parameters

given in Section 10.6.1. Stress-based procedures using the SPT, BPT, CPT, and

V s are evaluated in Section 10.6.2 through 10.6.5. In the strain-based procedures,

liquefaction is assessed by correlating Vs or normalized shear wave velocity, V si, to

peak horizontal ground surface acceleration at a "reference site" (called a "stiff soil

site"). Strain-based procedures using Vs or V s i are evaluated in Sections 10.6.6

and 10.6.7, respectively.

The assessment methods based on penetration resistance are applied to the

critical layer at critical layer at the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch, Larter Ranch and

W hiskey Springs sites. The SPT, CPT and BPT were not perform ed at the

Andersen Bar site.

10.6.1 Cyclic Stress Ratio

Cyclic stress ratios were estimated using Eq. 5.1 and peak horizontal ground

surface accelerations listed in Table 3.1. Overburden pressures were calculated from

in-place densities given in the appendices. No correction for high stresses was

needed since all key layers considered in this section lie at shallow depths, depths

less than about 7 m (23 ft). Based on the w ide range of slope correction factors

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 338

possible for loose gravel (see Fig. 5.4), no correction was applied in the calculations

o f the cyclic stress ratio for soil beneath Area 1 at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey

Springs sites. The effect o f gravel on the cyclic stress ratio was ignored.

10.6.2 Standard Penetration Test fSPTI

The liquefaction assessm ent chart developed by Seed and his colleagues

(Seed et al., 1985) for sands is shown in Fig. 10.30. M odified SPT resistances

from the four Idaho liquefaction sites are plotted on the chart versus cyclic stress

ratio. M odified N -values are based on recom m ended procedures fo r sands, as

outlined in C hapter 5, w ithout correction for gravel content. The overburden

correction factors are based on Eq. 5.9. The effect o f sloping ground on penetration

resistance is not significant in the key layer beneath Area 1 at the Larter Ranch and

W hiskey Springs sites.

To select the appropriate potential boundary in Fig. 10.30, the fines content

(percent silt and clay) is needed. The fines content determined from test pit samples

taken from the critical layer at each site are given in Fig. 10.30.

Average values of N from the layers most likely to have liquefied at each site

p lo t well w ithin the liquefiable region, as shown in Fig. 10.30. Thus, the SPT

provides a correct assessment of high liquefaction potential in all cases. Based on

this evaluation, the SPT-based procedure for sands may be used w ith caution for

liquefaction assessment in loose gravelly soils.

10.6.3 Becker Penetration Test ('BPT)

Estim ates o f SPT resistance determ ined from the B ecker blow count are

plotted on the SPT-based liquefaction assessment chart (Seed et al., 1985) for sands

show n in Figs. 10.31 and 10.32. In Fig. 10.31, estim ates o f N are based on the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 339

0.7
M = 7.3 Earthquakes Note: only data from Area 1 at Larter
Ranch and W hiskey Springs are show n.

0.6

Percent Fines = 35 15

0.5

>
>
CO
0.4
CB Liquefaction
DC
CO
CO
CD
4-* 0.3 No Liquefaction
CO
,o
"o
>»
O Approximate
0.2 -range of
most data

D50* Gravel* Fines*

mm % %
0.1 .• Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3 _
4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
*Based on test pit samples.
0.0 ________ I_______________ L
10 20 30 40
Modified SPT Resistance, (N-j)eoi blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 10.30 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on SPT Resistance (Seed et al.,
1985) with SPT Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 340

0.7 i ■■■ r ......... ....... —

M = 7 .3 Earthc uakes Note: only d ata frc m A rea 1 at Larter
Ranch and W hiske y Springs are show n.

0.6

F>ercent Fines = f55 15 < 5

0.5 i j
> ■T i '
.b
>
CO
t4
- 0.4 ■
L.iquefaction jI 1
CO
I : /
cr / /
CO
CO
Approximate / / /
range o f /
2 0.3
CO
/ y/ Mr
I'jt ) Liquefaction —
_o / /
"o " "" W / /
>. / / .
O
/ / /
0.2 / / /
// ’ / /
/
/ y D, 50* Gravel* Fines*
/ / / Site, Unit mm % %
/ /
0.1 / / s' • Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
j Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
‘ Based on test pit samples.
0.0 .............. I ............... I ....
10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N i )60, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 10.31 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on SPT Resistance (Seed et al.,
1985) with BPT Results Based on the Procedure of Harder (1988) from
the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 341

M = 7 .3 Earthquakes Note: only data from A rea 1 at Larter

Ranch a n a W hiskey Springs are sh ow n

Percent Fines = 35

Liquefaction

Approximate
range of
most data

-iquefaction

Dgg Gravel Fines*

Site, Unit mm % °A
Pence Ranch, C
4 Goddard Ranch, C1
▼ Larter Ranch, C1
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
‘ B a se d on te st pit sam p les.

10 20 30 40
Modified S P T Resistance, (N i )60, blows per 0.3 m

Fig. 10.32 - Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on SPT Resistance (Seed et al.,
1985) with BPT Results Based on the Proposed SPT-BPT Correlation
(This Report) from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 342

SPT-B PT relationship proposed by Harder (1988). These data lie well within the

region of liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential is correctly predicted. In Fig.

10.32, the estimates o f N are based on the SPT-BPT relationship proposed in this

report, Eq. 10.2. These data also lie well within the region o f liquefaction, and a

high potential is also predicted. From a com parison o f Figs. 10.30, 10.31 and

10.32, the estimates of N based on the Becker predict a greater liquefaction potential

w hich seem s more consistent with field behavior. Based on these findings, the

B ecker may be used for liquefaction assessment in gravelly soils.

10.6.4 Cone Penetration Test fCPT)

Six liquefaction assessment charts based on CPT and cyclic stress ratio for

m agnitude 7.5 earthquakes are shown in Figs. 10.33 through 10.38.

Three CPT-based liquefaction potential boundaries for sands having D 50 =

0.8 m m (Seed and De Alba, 1986) are shown in Fig. 10.33. Average values of

normalized tip resistance, qcj, from the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in

Fig. 10.33 versus estim ates o f cyclic stress ratio. N orm alization o f qc was

perform ed using Eq. 5.9. The data for Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs plot

w ithin the region o f liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential is correctly

predicted. The data for Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch plot w ithin the region of

liquefaction, but close to the potential boundary. Thus, a high to m arginal potential

is predicted.

The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundaries for gravels having D 50 = 8

mm (developed in Chapter 5) are shown in Fig. 10.34. Average values o f qci from

the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in Fig. 10.34 versus estimates o f cyclic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 343

0.7
M = 7.5 Earthquakes Note: only data from Area 1 at Larter
Ranch and W hiskey Springs are show n.

0.6

Percent Fines = 35 15 <5

0.5

D5o = 0.8 mm
(Seed and
de Alba,
o 0.4 1986)
Liquefaction

Approximate No Liquefaction-
range of
most data

0.2

D50* Gravel* Fines’

Site, Unit mm % %
• Pence Ranch, C 1 64
0.1 4 Goddard Ranch, C1 1 63
▼ Larter Ranch, C1
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 1
*Based on test pit samples.
1 MPa =10.4 ton/ft2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Normalized Cone Resistance, qc1> M P a

Fig. 10.33 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance for
Sands having D 50 o f 0.8 mm (Seed and De Alba) with Results from the
Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 344

I |
0.7
M = 7.5 Earthquakes 'Proposed in Chapter 5, based on
qc/N60 = 5 -2 (D5o)0-16. he in tons/ft2,
and relationship by Seed et al. (1984)
shown in Fig. 5.5.
0.6

Percent Fines = 35 15 <5

0.5
I T i
>
I I i
ro I
t->
I I
I D50 = 8 mm***
.o ' 0.4 (This Report)
03
t ~ r~
OC Liquefaction / /
w / /
CO
2 / /
Approximate_ -£— J- z—
CO 0.3 range of "No Liquefaction—
o most data
/
"o /
O V / /

0.2
D50* Gravel* Fine
/ Site, Unit mm % %
/' • Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
0.1 ▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
B a se d on te st pit sa m p le s.

Note: only data from Area 1 at Larter

Ranch and W hiskey Springs are shown. 1 MPa =10.4 ton/ft2
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , M Pa

Fig. 10.34 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance

Developed for Gravels having D 50 of 8 mm (Chapter 5) with Results
from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 345

0.7 r ...... i i 1
M = 7.5 Earthquake5S Note: onlyc lata from Area 1 at Larter
Ranch and \Whiskey Sprim3s are shown.
Percent Fines < 5 p ercent

0.6

0.5
> ■
[b L _______ _tobertson an i
> ^ cJampanella ( 1985)
CO
e c)50 > 0.25 mim
,o‘ 0.4 1Jquefactio n /
to " I
tr 1
m
w
2> 1
Appro>cimate / No Liquefactic\n
CO 0.3 range of
o most c ata
15
>> r - /
O
s r /
0.2
/
s/ D50* ®r‘ ivel* Fines*

/
sy •
Site, Unit
Pence Ranch, C
mm
11 64
% %
3
0.1 f Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
‘ Based on test pit samples.
1 MPa = 1C.4 ton/ft2
0.0 I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , M P a

Fig. 10.35 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance

(Robertson and Campanella, 1985) Developed for Sands having D 50
greater than 0.25 mm with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 346

0.7
D50* Gravel* Fines* 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2
Site, Unit mm % %
• Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
_t Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
0.6
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
*Based on test pit samples.

0.5
>
> ▼
CO

.2 0.4 Liquefaction
03
cc
</> Ishihara (1985)
CO
2> 0.25 < D50 < 0.55 mm
.Approximate,
CO 0.3 range of
,o most data
73
>>
O
0.2 -No Liquefaction

0.1

M = 7.5 Earthquakes
Note: onlydata fromArea 1at Larter
Ranch ana WhiskeySprings areshown. Percent Fines < 5 percent
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qci , M Pa

Fig. 10.36 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance

(Ishihara, 1985) Developed for Sands having D 50 Between 0.25 and
0.55 mm with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction
Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 347

0.7
1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2
D50* Gravel* Fines*
Site, Unit mm % %
• Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
0.6 - 4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
‘ B a se d on test pit sam p les.

0.5
>
Jo Mitchell and
W- Tseng (1990),
rt
Dg0 = 0.4 mm
O 0.4 'Liquefaction-
tr /
w /
w
8> /
Approximate_
CD 0.3 "range of
o most data /
"o
O V -------/
/
/
0.2 -7^- -No Liquefaction-
/
✓
/
0.1

M = 7 .5 Earthquakes
Note: only data from Area 1 at Larter
Ranch and W hiskey Springs are show n. Percent Fines < 5 percent
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qc1, M P a

Fig. 10.37 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance

(Mitchell and Tseng, 1990) Developed for Sand having D 50 equal to 0.4
mm with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction
Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 348

i
1 1 1 1 MPa = 10.4 ton/ft2
D50* Gravel* Fines*
Site, Unit mm % %
• Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
A rSnHriarrt Ranrh d 10 R3 3
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whisk*ay Springs, C 1 15 64 18
*Base d on test pit sa mples.
Cyclic Stress Ratio, xav/a '

■
Shibata and
- a r l eparaksa (198
Liquefaction / d 50 > 0-25

/
>
Approx imate /
range )f
most d ata --------# - /

/
NO Liquefactic>n
/
/
X

M = 7 .5 Earthqu akes
Note: onlyd ata from Area at Larter Percesnt Fines < 5 percent
Ranch ana V\/hiskey Spring s are shown.
’ O 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normalized Cone Resistance, qc1, M P a

Fig. 10.38 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on CPT Resistance

(Shibata and Teparaksa, 1988) Developed for Sands having D 50 > 0.25
mm with Results from the Critical Layer at Four Idaho Liquefaction
Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 349

stress ratio. Norm alization of qc was performed using Eq. 5.9. The data plot well

w ithin the region o f liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential is correctly

predicted for the four sites.

The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Robertson and

Cam panella (1985) for clean sand having D 50 > 0.25 mm is show n in Fig. 10.35.

Average values of qcj from the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in Fig.

10.25 versus estim ates o f cyclic stress ratio. N orm alization o f qc was also

perform ed using Eq. 5.9. The data for Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs plot

w ithin the region o f liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential is correctly

predicted. The data for Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch plot within the region of

liquefaction, but close to the potential boundary. Thus, a high to marginal potential

is predicted.

The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Ishihara (1985)

for clean sand having 0.25 < D 50 ^ 0.55 mm is shown in Fig. 10.36. Average

values o f qc i from the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in Fig. 10.36

versus estimates o f cyclic stress ratio. Normalization o f qc was performed using Eq.

5.23 and an exponent, n = 0.7. The data points representing the Pence Ranch and

Goddard Ranch sites lie on the boundary, and a marginal to low liquefaction potential

is incorrectly predicted. The data points representing the Larter Ranch and W hiskey

Springs sites lie within the region o f liquefaction, and high liquefaction potential is

correctly predicted.

T he CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by M itchell and

Tseng (1990) for clean sand having D 50 = 0.4 m m is shown in Fig. 10.37. Average

values o f qc i from the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in Fig. 10.37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 350

versus estimates o f cyclic stress ratio. Normalization of qc was performed using Eq.

5.23 and n = 0.7. The data for Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs plot within the

region of liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential is correctly predicted. The

data for Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch plot within the region of liquefaction, but

close to the potential boundary. Thus, a high to marginal potential is predicted.

The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Shibata and

Teparaksa (1988) for clean sand having D 50 ^ 0.25 mm is shown in Fig. 10.38.

Average values o f qci from the critical layer at four Idaho sites are plotted in Fig.

10.38 versus estimates of cyclic stress ratio. Normalization o f qc and calculation of

cyclic stress ratio were performed following the procedure outlined in Section 5.5.2.

The plotted data lie witnin the region o f liquefaction, and a high liquefaction potential

is correctly predicted for the four sites.

From a com parison o f Figs. 10.33 through 10.38, the liquefaction

assessment procedure developed in Chapter 5 for gravelly soils, predicted the highest

liquefaction at the four sites. Therefore, the procedure developed in Chapter 5 may

be used for liquefaction assessment in gravelly soils. High to marginal liquefaction

potential was also predicted using the m ethods proposed by Seed and De A lba

(1986), Robertson and Campanella (1985), M itchell and Tseng (1990), and Shibata

and Teparaksa (1988). Since these procedures did not predict a potential as high as

the m ethod developed in Chapter 5 for gravels, they should be used with caution.

The chart by Ishihara (1985) for clean sand incorrectly predicted m arginal to low

liquefaction at the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch. Therefore, it appears that it

should not be used to assess gravel deposits.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 351

10.6.5 Shear W ave Velocity fVgT) - Stress-Based Procedure

A liquefaction assessm ent chart based on V si and cyclic stress ratio for

m agnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Robertson et al., 1992) is show n in Figs. 10.39 and

10.40. M inim um values o f V si from the critical layer at the five Idaho liquefaction

sites are plotted in Fig. 10.39 versus estimates o f cyclic stress ratio. Norm alization

o f V s was perform ed using effective vertical confining stress and Eq. 5.29. The

plotted data for four sites plot well within the region of liquefaction, and a high

liquefaction potential is correctly predicted. Although the d ata point for W hiskey

Springs lies within the region of liquefaction, it lies very close to the boundary, and a

high to marginal liquefaction potential is predicted.

Average values of V si from the critical layer at each site are plotted in Fig.

10.40 versus estim ates o f cyclic stress ratio. These data lie w ithin the region o f

likely liquefaction, except the point representing W hiskey Springs which lies in the

region of no liquefaction. Thus a low liquefaction potential is incorrectly predicted

for W hiskey Springs. Therefore, it is recom mended that the m inim um value of V si

be used when evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravels with this procedure.

10.6.6 Shear W ave Velocity fVg) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V s and amax on top of a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles o f loading (Stokoe et al., 1988c) is shown in Figs. 10.41 and

10.42. Based on the results o f Chapters 6 through 9, a proposed extension of the

upper boundary o f likely liquefaction is also shown. M inim um values o f V s from

the critical layer at the five liquefaction sites are plotted in Fig. 10.41 versus estimates

o f amax on top o f stiff soil (see Chapter 3). Since all the data plot within the region

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 352

Site, Unit Gravel* Fines*

% °A
9 Pence Ranch, C
4 Goddard Ranch, C1
A Andersen Bar
Larter Ranch, C1
Whiskey Springs, C1
B a se d on test pit sam p les.

No Liquefaction
Liquefaction

Note: only data from A rea 1 at Larter M = 7.5 Earthquakes

Ranch and W hiskey Springs are show n.

50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Shear W ave Velocity, V q i , m/sec

Fig. 10.39 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

W ave Velocity, V si, (Robertson et al., 1992) with Results (Based on
Minimum Values of V s) from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 353

0.7
Site, Unit D50* Gravel* Fines*
mm % %
9 Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
_4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
0.6
A Andersen Bar 15 70 2
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
* B a sed on te st pit sam p les.

No Liquefaction
Liquefaction

Note: only data from Area 1 at Larter M = 7.5 Earthquakes

Ranch and W hiskey Springs are show n.
0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300

Normalized Shear W ave Velocity, V s i, m/sec

Fig. 10.40 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

W ave Velocity, V s i, (Robertson et al., 1992) with Results (Based on
Average Values o f Vs) from the Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 354

350 i i r
Site, Unit D50* Gravel* Fines*
mm % %
9 Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
/
300 ~A. Andersen Bar 15 70 2 /
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7 /
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18 /
/
‘ B a se d on test pit sam p les.
o 250
CD
w
E Proposed Extension /
of Upper Boundary /
>
CO /
c 200 Z.
o /
_o
Q) / Liquefaction
> / Likely
Q) No
£ 150 'Liquefaction
£
u.
CO
d>
sz
CO 100 Liquefaction—

Chart bv Stokoe et al. (1988c1 Based on--

50 Sand (0.13 < Dso < 0.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
I_______ I_______ I____
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 10.41 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity, V s, (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with Results (Based on M inim um
Values of V s) from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 355

350 i
Site, Unit D g0* Gravel* Fines*
mm % %
6 Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
300 A Andersen Bar 15 70 2 /
T Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7 /
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18 /
‘ B a se d on te st pit sam p les.
/
/
o 250
a>
Proposed Extension /
of Upper Boundary /
co /
2 -
% 200
'o /
.o
CD / Liquefaction
> / Likely
Q)
Jo 150 Liauefaction
£
v—
CO
CD
JZ
CO 100 Liquefaction—

Chart bv Stokoe et al. f1988cf Based on-

50 Sand (0.13 < D50 ^ 0.14 mm)
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
______ I_______ I_______ I______
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 10.42 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Shear W ave

Velocity, V s, (Stokoe et al., 1988c) with Results (Based on Average
Values of Vs) from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 356

o f liquefaction or liquefaction likely, a high liquefaction potential is correctly

predicted for all sites.

Average values of V s from the critical layer at each site are plotted in Fig.

10.42 versus estimates of amax on top o f stiff soil. These data lie within the region

o f liquefaction likely. Thus, a high liquefaction potential is also predicted for all

sites. Since the assessment using m inimum V s-values is m ore conservative than

using average values, it is recommended that the minimum value o f Vs be used when

applying this procedures to gravels.

10.6.7 Normalized Shear W ave Velocity (VoT) - Strain-Based Procedure

The liquefaction assessment chart based on V si and amax on top o f a stiff soil

site for 15 cycles of loading (developed in Chapter 5) is shown in Figs. 10.43 and

10.44. M inimum values of V si from the critical layer at the five liquefaction sites are

plotted in Fig. 10.43 versus estimates o f amax on top o f a stiff soil (see Chapter 3).

Norm alization of V s was performed using effective vertical confining stress and Eq.

5.29. The data plot within the region of liquefaction or liquefaction likely, and a high

liquefaction potential is correctly predicted for all sites.

Average values of V s i from the critical layer at each site are plotted in Fig.

10.44 versus estimates o f amax on top o f a stiff soil. These data lie within the region

o f liquefaction likely, except the point representing W hiskey Springs which lies on

the boundary o f likely liquefaction and no liquefaction. Thus, a marginal liquefaction

potential is incorrectly predicted for W hiskey Springs. From these findings, it is

recom m ended that the m inim um value of V s i be used w hen evaluating the

liquefaction potential o f gravels with this procedure.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 357

350
Site, Unit
iD50* Gravel*
i Fines*r
mm % %
0 Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
300 “ ▲ Andersen Bar 15 70 2
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 i5 64 16
‘ B a sed on test pit sa m p le s.
o
Q) 250
W

No
co Liquefaction
>
C 200 <Liquefac
O
JO
CD
>
<D
5j 150
£
L .
co 0 Liquefaction
0
sz
CO 100

Chart Based on--

Sand (0.13 < D50 ^ 0.14
T > 0.3 m
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: V o i = 160 Nc0-25 max

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 10.43 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Norm alized Shear
W ave Velocity, V si, (Developed in Chapter 5) with Results (Based on
M inimum Values of V si) from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 358

350
Site, Unit D50* Gravel* Fines*
mm % %
# Pence Ranch, C 11 64 3
_4 Goddard Ranch, C1 10 63 3
300 A Andersen Bar 15 70 2
▼ Larter Ranch, C1 9 60 7
■ Whiskey Springs, C1 15 64 18
*Based on test pit samples.
0) 250

No
Liquefaction
200 jquefactiorKV?
< \\ Likelv
Likely O:

£
Liquefaction

Chart Based on--

Sand (0.13 £ D50 £ 0.14 mm)
T > 0.3 m __
Nc = 15 cycles
No Drainage
Level Ground
Upper Boundary: VS1 = 160 Nc0-25 amax0-5

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7

a max at Stiff Soil Site, g

Fig. 10.44 - Proposed Liquefaction Assessment Chart Based on Normalized Shear

W ave Velocity, V si, (Developed in Chapter 5) with Results (Based on
Average Values of Vs i) from the Critical Layer at Five Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 359

10.7 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Grain-size distribution curves of test pit samples taken from the critical layer

assum ed to have liquefied at the five Idaho liquefaction sites lie within the range of

grain-size distributions for gravelly soils reported to have liquefied in other

earthquakes. Liquefaction at Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar all

occurred in fluvial bar sedim ents o f Holocene Age. Samples taken from the critical

layer at these sites range from clean gravelly sand to sandy gravel. Sediments at the

Larter Ranch site are similar to sediments at the W hiskey Springs site investigated by

Andrus and Youd (1987). Liquefaction at these two sites occurred in distal alluvial

fan sedim ents o f probable latest Pleistocene age. Sam ples taken from the critical

layer in the loose (low penetration resistance) fan sediments consist o f sandy gravel

with varying amounts of silt and cobbles.

SPT and CPT data from Goddard Ranch and Larter R anch support the

correlation betw een qc/N go and D 50 proposed in C hapter 5. A new relationship

between the SPT and BPT for sands and gravels suggests that gravel particles caused

the SPT blow count to increase 20 to 40 percent in the fluvial bar sediments and 60 to

150 percent in the fan sediments. The SPT-Vs correlation by O hta and Goto (1976)

provides better estim ates o f V s for the Idaho liquefaction sites than do the

correlations proposed by Seed et al. (1986) and Stokoe and Sykora (1983). Using

the proposed SPT-CPT correlation and a SPT-Vs correlation modified from Ohta and

Goto, a new CPT-V s correlation was derived.

From the SV -w ave and SH -w ave crosshole m easurem ents at the Pence

Ranch, Andersen B ar and Larter Ranch sites it was inferred that a) liquefaction and

lateral spreading cause soil stiffness and probably confining stress to decrease in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 360

horizontal direction near the top o f the liquefiable layer at Pence Ranch and Larter

Ranch, b) the effective confining stress is about half the effective vertical confining

stress in the critical layer at Andersen Bar, and c) the horizontal confining stress is

about four times the vertical stress in the zone of compression at the toe of the lateral

spread at Larter R a n c h .

M inim um values of (K2)max determ ined for the key liquefaction layer at

Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar are 15, 20 and 16, respectively.

These values are the same as values reported for very loose sands. M inim um values

of (K2)max determined for the key layer at Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs are

about 40 and 55, respectively. It is the w riter's opinion that these higher values

reflect the effects o f aging and slight cementation by calcium carbonate, rather than an

increase in soil density.

Table 10.4 provides a summary o f predicted liquefaction potential based on

several simplified liquefaction assessment procedures that were applied to the critical

layer at the five Idaho liquefaction sites. The procedures that predicted high

liquefaction potential are in agreement with field behavior. Although the SPT has not

been recommended for liquefaction assessment in gravelly soils, the method correctly

predicted high liquefaction potential in these veiy loose materials Assessments using

the BPT predicted a higher liquefaction potential than did the m easured SPT blow

count. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundaries proposed in this report

predicted the highest liquefaction potential of the CPT-based methods. All Vs-based

charts correctly predicted high liquefaction when minimum values of V s were used.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 361

Table 10.4 - Summary o f Predicted Liquefaction Potential Based on Several

Simplified Procedures Applied to the Critical Layer at the Five Idaho
Liquefaction Sites.

Procedure Site
P en ce Goddard A n d ersen Larter W hiskey
Ranch Ranch Bar Ranch Sprinqs

S P T -B ased
S e e d et al. (1985)
san d s high high na 1 high high

Becker-Based
Harder (1988) high high na high high
This Report high high na high high

C P T-B ased
S e e d and D e Alba (1986) high to high to na high high
san d s, D 50 = 0.8 mm marginal marginal
This Report high high na high high
sa n d s and gravels
Robertson and Campanella high to high to na high high
(1985) san d s, D50 > 0.25 mm marginal marginal
Ishihara (1985) marginal marginal na high high
san d s, 0 .2 5 < D50 2 0 .55 mm to low to low
Mitchell and T sen g (1990) high to high to na high high
san d s, D 50 = 0.4 mm marginal marginal
Shibata and Teparaksa (1988) high high na high high
san d s, D 50 s 0.25 mm

V s-B ased
R obertson et al. (1992)
a. using minimum V§1 -value high high high high high to
marginal
b. using average V si-valu e high high high high low
S to k o e e t al. (1988c)
san d s, D 50 = 0 .14 mm
a. using minimum Vs-value high high high high high
b. using average Vs-value high high high high high
This Report
san d s, D 5o = 0.14m m
a. using minimum V si -value high high high high high
b. using average V si-valu e high high high high marginal
to low
1na = not available.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 SUM M ARY

L iquefaction effects caused by the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho (M s = 7.3)

earthquake include a lateral spread in a gravelly river terrace on the Pence Ranch,

sand boils in the gravelly flood plain on the Goddard Ranch, cracks and water spouts

in gravel bars within the channel of the Big Lost River, and a lateral spread at the

distal end o f tw o gravelly alluvial fans on the Larter R anch and near W hiskey

Springs (Youd et al., 1985). The locations of these areas of liquefaction are shown

in Figs. 1.1, 3.1 and 3.2. Field investigations were conducted in 1984 and 1985,

prim arily at the Pence Ranch lateral spread and the Thousand Springs lateral spread

near W hiskey Springs (Andrus and Youd, 1987; Harder, 1988; and Stokoe et al.,

1988).

In 1990 and 1991, additional field investigations were conducted to add

m issing data from the Pence R anch, G oddard Ranch and L arter R anch sites.

Investigations were also conducted at a new site, a gravel bar w ithin the channel of

the B ig L ost R iver (called Andersen Bar). The field w ork included seism ic

m easurem ents, penetration tests, in-place density tests, sam pling, and trenching.

Seism ic m easurem ents were performed by the Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-W aves

(SASW ) and crosshole methods. A new crosshole procedure was developed for this

362

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 363

study and successfully used to measure compression wave (Vp), vertically polarized

shear w ave (V s v ), and horizontally polarized shear w ave (V s h ) velocities.

Crosshole tests were only perform ed at Pence Ranch, A ndersen B ar and Larter

Ranch. Penetration m ethods em ployed include the Standard Penetration (SPT),

Cone Penetration (CPT), and Becker Penetration (BPT; 168-mm [6.6-in.] outside

diam eter bit and shaft, closed ended) tests. However, these penetration tests were

not em ployed at the Andersen B ar site. In-place densities were determ ined by the

water-replacem ent method, using a 1.2-m (4-ft) diam eter m etal ring, and the sand-

cone method at the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and A ndersen B ar sites. The

objectives of these investigations were to: 1) delineate the subsurface sedim ent

layers, obtain samples, and locate the water table, 2) measure the in situ properties o f

these hard-to-sample materials, and 3) define the layer that liquefied.

Simplified liquefaction assessment procedures developed for sands based the

SPT, BPT, CPT, and shear w ave velocity (V s) were initially applied, w ithout

correction for gravel content, to assess the liquefaction potential o f the gravelly soils

at the Idaho liquefaction sites. A new assessment procedure based on norm alized

shear wave velocity (V si) and peak ground surface acceleration was developed as

part o f this study and successfully applied to assess the liquefaction potential of the

Idaho gravels. Tentative corrections for soils containing gravel or larger size

particles were proposed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 364

11.2 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions may be drawn based on the studies described in

this report.

1. Pence Ranch Site-L iquefaction and shear deformation occurred in a loose

(low penetration resistance) gravelly sand (SP-GP) to sandy gravel (GP) with less

than a few percent fines (Unit C). Unit C m aterials are characterized by the

follow ing average values: SPT N 60-value o f 7; cone tip resistance o f 6 M Pa (65

tons/ft2); cone friction ratio o f about 1.2 percent; equivalent Becker N6o-value o f 5;

and shear w ave velocity o f 120 m/sec (390 ft/sec). The m inim um in-place dry

density o f Unit C is less than 17.4 kN /m 3 (111 lb/ft3), the low est m easurem ent

above the w ater table. Unit C extends from near the water table, at a depth o f about

1.5 m (5 ft), to a depth of about 3.5 m (12 ft). The degree o f pore w ater pressure

generation and sliding were controlled by a thick silty sand cap (Subunit B2) that lies

ju s t above U nit C. The m ost likely failure zone extended from a large fissure

northw ard, the direction of lateral movement, passing just beneath the w ater table

through the loosest material of Unit C. Unit C consist o f fluvial sediment deposited

by bar grow th into deeper water. Radiocarbon dates o f a charcoal fragm ent and

sedim ent samples suggest a maximum age of 3500 years for Unit C.

2. Goddard Ranch Site-Liquefaction mostly likely occurred in a loose sandy

gravel (GP) with less than a few percent fines (Subunit C l). Subunit C l materials

are characterized by the following average values: SPT Ngo-value o f 7; cone tip

resistance o f 5 M Pa (56 tons/ft2); cone friction ratio of about 1.2 percent; equivalent

Becker N6o-value o f 4; and shear wave velocity o f 120 m/sec (390 ft/sec). Subunit

C l varies in thickness from 0 to 2 m (0 to 7 ft). The site did not experience lateral

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 365

spreading because 1) pore w ater pressures may have dissipated by flowing around

the overlying sandy silt stratum (Unit B), 2) Subunit C l has lim ited lateral extent,

and 3) Subunit C l thins in the downslope direction, creating an unfavorable

geom etry for sliding. Subunit C l is a fluvial bar deposit, m uch younger than

sediments at the Pence Ranch site.

3. Andersen Bar Site-L iquefaction mostly likely occurred in the upper 3.2 m

(10.5 ft) o f the bar, the zone o f lowest shear wave velocity. B ar sediments consist of

clean sandy gravel (GP-GW ) with a few thin, interbedded silty sand layers. Shear

wave velocities m easured in this critical zone are on the order o f 110 m /sec (360

ft/sec). The m inim um in-place diy density is less than 18.5 kN /m 3 (118 lb/ft3), the

low est m easurem ent above the w ater table. The interbedded silty sand layers

probably contributed to the build up o f pore w ater pressures. B ar sedim ents are

m odem age.

4. L arter Ranch S ite-L iq u e fac tio n and shear deform ation m ost likely

occurred in a loose to m edium dense gravelly soil (Unit C). At the toe o f the lateral

spread, Unit C can be divided into two sublayers, Subunits C l and C2. Subunit C l

m aterials classify as sandy gravel with about 7 percent fines (GM -GW ), and are

characterized by the follow ing average values: SPT NgQ-value o f 9; cone tip

resistance of 4 M Pa (46 tons/ft2); cone friction ratio of 1.2 percent; equivalent Becker

N6 o-value of 4; shear wave velocity of 170 m/sec (540 ft/sec). Subunit C2 materials

classify as silty sandy gravel (GM ), and are characterized by som ew hat higher

penetration resistances, cone friction ratios, and shear wave velocities. B eneath the

zone o f fissures at the head o f the lateral spread, Unit C exhibits higher penetration

resistances and shear wave velocities, providing an explanation for the location o f the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 366

fissures. The most likely failure zone lies below the water table, and passes through

the top o f U nit C. The degree o f pore water pressure generation appears to have

been controlled by the high fines content and the silty sand cap (Unit A). Subunit C l

is a braided channel-fill deposit o f probable latest Pleistocene age (10,000 to 15,000

years).

5. Sediments at the Pence Ranch, Goddard Ranch and Andersen B ar sites

can be categorized as clean gravelly soils of fluvial origin and Holocene age. The

gravel-size particles are hard, subrounded, and consist of both sedim entary and

igneous rock lithologies. Depending on the amount o f sand, the gravel occur floating

in a m atrix o f sand or in contact with other gravel. The fine m aterial contains little

calcium carbonate, as evidence by a very weak reaction with a w eak solution of

hydrochloric acid. The ground slope at these three sites is less than 5 percent.

6 . Sediments at the Larter Ranch site are similar to sediments at the W hiskey

Springs site described by Andrus and Youd (1987). These sediments were deposited

at the distal end o f two coalescing alluvial fans of probable latest Pleistocene age.

The gravel and cobble-size particles are hard, subangular quartzite, and occur in a

m atrix o f silty sand or in contact with other gravel. Calcium carbonate is present in

the fine m aterial at both sites, although more visible at the W hiskey Springs site.

Sediments at the W hiskey Springs site also contain more silt and clay. T he slope of

the ground is more steeply dipping at these two sites, in the range of 12 to 34 percent

(rise/run x 100 percent).

7. Large samples taken from test pits provide the m ost accurate grain size

data for the gravel deposits. Samples taken from these gravelly deposits w ith the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 367

standard split-barrel sampler provided estim ates o f the gravel content and m edian

grain size that were too high, and estimates of fines content that were too low.

8 . Grain-size distribution curves of test pit samples taken from the critical

layer at each site lie within the range o f grain-size distributions for gravelly soils

reported to have liquefied in other earthquakes.

9. The SPT, CPT, BPT and V s test m ethods all proved useful in the

characterization o f the gravelly sediment at the Idaho liquefaction sites.

10. The relationship between SPT and CPT for sands and gravels can be

approximated by:

q c /N 6 0 = 0 .5 0 (D 5o)0-16 (11.1)

w here qc = cone tip resistance in M Pa, N 6o = corrected SPT blow count, and D 50 =

median grain size in mm.

11. The relationship between SPT, BPT and Depth for sands can be related

by:

N 6 0 = 1 .7 ( N b c ) ( D )-0-34 ( 11 .2 )

w here N b c = corrected Becker blow count based on the procedure by H arder

(1988), and D = depth in meters.

12. Assum ing that side friction during the BPT is the sam e for sands and

gravels, a SPT-BPT correlation for gravelly soils may have the form:

N 60= 1.7(N b c )(D)-0-34(F) (11.3)

w here F = a factor dependent on soil type and density. Estim ates o f F range from

1.2 to 1.6 for the loose Idaho gravels, and 1.4 to 2.6 for the m edium dense gravels.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 368

These estimates suggest that gravel particles caused the SPT blow count to increase

by 20 to 150 percent.

13. The SPT-Vs correlation by Ohta and Goto (1976) provides better

estimates of V s for the Idaho liquefaction sites than do the correlations proposed by

Seed et al. (1986) and Stokoe and Sykora (1983). A best-fit SPT-Vs relationship for

the Idaho data can be expressed as:

V S = 58 (N 6o)0-17 (D)O-2 (F i ) (F2) (11.4)

w here Fj = 1.00 for Holocene-age sediments and 1.6 for latest Pleistocene-age

sediments, F 2 = 1.15 for sandy gravel deposits, and D is in meters.

14. Based on Eqs. 11.1 and 11.4, V s can be approxim ated from cone tip

resistance, qc, by:

V s = 7 2 (q c)0-17(D )0.2(F l) (11.5)

where qc is in MPa.

15. Based on the crosshole measurements at the Pence Ranch, Andersen

Bar, and Larter Ranch sites, the following can be inferred about state o f stress and

structural anisotropy: a) liquefaction and lateral spreading appear to cause soil

stiffness and probably confining stress to decrease in the horizontal direction near the

top o f the liquefiable layer at Pence Ranch and Larter Ranch, b) the effective

horizontal confining stress is about half the effective vertical confining stress in the

critical layer at Andersen Bar, and c) the horizontal confining stress is about four

times the vertical confining stress in the zone of compression at the toe o f the lateral

spread at Larter Ranch.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 369

16. The m inim um and average values o f (K 2 )max determ ined from shear

wave velocity measurements in the critical layer at each site are: 15 and 30 at Pence

Ranch, 20 and 30 at Goddard Ranch, 15 and 25 at Andersen Bar, 40 and 60 at Larter

Ranch, and 55 and 70 at W hiskey Springs. The values determined at Pence Ranch,

Goddard Ranch and Andersen Bar show that (K 2)max-values can be the same as veiy

loose sands. The higher (K 2)max at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites may

reflect the effects o f aging and slight cementation by calcium carbonate, rather than an

increase in soil density.

17. A lthough the SPT has not been recom m ended for liquefaction

assessment in gravelly soils (National Research Council, 1985), the N-value is still

o f great value in gravel deposits. The SPT-based liquefaction assessment procedure

developed by Seed and his colleagues (Seed et al., 1985) for sands applied directly

(no correction for gravel content) to gravel deposits at four Idaho liquefaction sites

correctly predict high liquefaction potential at all sites where SPT blow counts are

available.

18. Liquefaction assessment using estimates o f SPT blow count determined

from Becker blow count predicts a greater liquefaction potential than the SPT.

19. Estimates of SPT blow count based on Eq. 11.2 are about 10 percent

higher than estimates determined using the relationship proposed of Harder (1988)

for depths around 2.5 m (8 ft), and about 15 percent lower for depths around 6 m

(20 ft).

20. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundaries for sands with D 50 =

0.8 m m (Seed and De Alba, 1986) correctly predict high liquefaction potential at the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 370

L arter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites. H ow ever, at the Pence R anch and

Goddard Ranch sites, a high to marginal liquefaction potential is predicted.

21. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundaries proposed in Chapter 5

for gravels with D 50 = 10 m m correctly predict high liquefaction at four Idaho

liquefaction sites.

22. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Robertson

and Cam panella (1988) for clean sand with D 50 > 0.25 mm correctly predict high

liquefaction potential at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites. However, at

the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites, a high to marginal liquefaction potential

is predicted.

23. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by Ishihara

(1985) for clean sand with 0.25 < D 50 ^ 0.55 m m incorrectly predicts m arginal to

low liquefaction at the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites.

24. The CPT-based liquefaction potential boundary proposed by M itchell

and T seng (1990) for clean sand with D 50 = 0.4 mm correctly predict high

liquefaction potential at the Larter Ranch and W hiskey Springs sites. However, at

the Pence Ranch and Goddard Ranch sites, a high to marginal liquefaction potential

is predicted.

25. The CPT-based liquefaction assessm ent procedure by Shibata and

T eparaksa (1988) for clean sand w ith D 50 ^ 0.4 mm correctly predicts high

liquefaction potential at four Idaho liquefaction sites.

26. The V s-based liquefaction assessm ent procedure by Robertson et al.

(1992) using average values of V s correctly predicts liquefaction at four Idaho

liquefaction sites. However, at the W hiskey Springs, site a m arginal liquefaction

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 371

potential is incorrectly predicted. W hen minimal values of Vs are used, liquefaction

is correctly predicted.

27. The liquefaction assessm ent procedure proposed by Stokoe et al.

(1988c) based on V s and peak ground surface acceleration correctly predicts

liquefaction at five Idaho liquefaction sites.

28. The liquefaction assessment procedure proposed in Chapter 5 based on

normalized shear w ave velocity, V si, and peak ground surface acceleration predicts

liquefaction at four Idaho liquefaction sites. However, at the W hiskey Springs, site a

marginal liquefaction potential is incorrectly predicted. When minimal values of V si

are used, liquefaction is correctly predicted.

11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The follow ing recom mendations are provided to assist the practitioner in

evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravelly soils.

1. Loose saturated gravelly soils should b e considered susceptible to

liquefaction and shear deformation.

2. Since gravel deposits can be quite variable, close test spacings m ay be

needed to identify and delineate problem layers.

3. Samples taken from gravel deposits with the standard split-barrel sam pler

are useful, but should not be considered representative. W hen the critical layer is

near the ground surface, it is recom mended that large representative samples be

collected in test pits. For sampling deeper gravel layers, large samplers (127-mm [5-

in.] I.D. or larger) should be considered.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 372

4. The SPT -based assessm ent charts m ay be used for liquefaction

assessm ent in loose gravelly soils. Until more case histories are available, it is

recommended that correction to blow count be considered in medium dense gravelly

soils. Further research is needed to quantify the effects of gravel content on blow

count, overburden correction, and cyclic stress ratio. It is recom mended that the

tentative factors for overburden pressure and cyclic stress ratio correction in gravelly

soils not be used until they are better quantified.

5. Estimates o f SPT blow count using Eq. 11.2 or the relationship o f Harder

(1988) m ay be used for liquefaction assessment o f shallow (say depths less than 7 m

[20 ft]) gravel deposits. Future research o f the BPT should a) investigate side

friction in various sand and gravel deposits, b) consider a bit with diam eter greater

than the shaft, and c) improve measurem ent of energy delivered by the diesel pile

hammer.

6 . The CPT-based liquefaction assessm ent chart proposed in Chapter 5,

using the SPT-CPT correlation expressed in Eq. 11.1, may be used for liquefaction

assessment in gravelly soils. Liquefaction assessment procedures proposed by Seed

and D e Alba (1986), Robertson and Campanella (1985), Mitchell and Tseng (1990),

and Shibata and Teparaksa (1988) for sands should be used with caution. The

liquefaction potential boundaries proposed by Ishihara (1988) for clean sands should

not be used to assess gravel deposits. Further research is needed to quantify the

effects o f gravel content on tip resistance, overburden correction, and cyclic stress

ratio. It is recommended that the tentative factors for overburden pressure and cyclic

stress ratio correction in gravelly soil not be used until they are better quantified.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 373

7. It is recom mended that minimal values of V s be used when assessing

liquefaction potential of sands and gravels. The effects gravel content and calcium

carbonate content have on shear wave velocity should be studied. More analytical

studies are needed to verify the assessm ent charts based on V s and peak ground

surface acceleration for materials with Vs greater than 150 m/sec (500 ft/sec) and less

than 90 m/sec (300 ft/sec), depths greater than 12.2 m (40 ft), and layer thickness

less than 3 m (10 ft).

8 . Additional well-documented case histories o f gravelly soils that have and

have not liquefied during earthquakes should be compiled.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 A P P E N D IX A

SU M M A R Y O F 1990 AN D 1991 T E S T D A TA

FROM TH E

P E N C E R A N C H L IQ U E F A C T IO N S IT E

374

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain Augers SPTc CPT(CP-1) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S ize (HA-1) (SP-1) friction tip sleeve (SA-1) (BPc-A)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount Pressure
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Silty Sand with som e gravel. “ l— r 8 7
Sandy Gravel (GP)a- dense; hard 13 7
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 12 8
subangular sand; fines-weak to no 0/52/47/1 TP-A f
reaction with HCf, dark grayish brown 0/42/53/5 SP 13 8
5-. (10YR4/2)b;max. = 100 mm; In-place 1/60/39/0 TP-A 10 7
dry density = 2.16 and 2.08 g/cm3. 0/39/58/3 SP 11 7
- 2 Sandy Gravel (G P)- loose; hard 10 7
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 1/65/33/1 TP-A 10 7
hard subangular sand; fines-no 0/35/64/1 SP
reaction witn HCI, dark grayish brown 10 8
10 - (10YR 4/2); max. size = 1 0 0 mm; thin 12 8
tayer(s) of silty sand (1OYR 3/1). 0/53/46/1 SP 10.0% 15 9
20 10
Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace 13.3°/
of silt (GW)~ medium dense; hard 24 10
subrounded gravel with low sphericity;
0/42/54/4 SP (5/8/10 21 10
hard subangular sand; fines-no 0/3/88/9 HA 20 10
15-. reaction witn HCI, dark grayish brown
(10YR 4/2). 29/31/39/1 HA 570 19 10
...at 4.4 m silty sand 22 11
...max. size recoved. = 140 mm 23 11
28 12
- 6 14/50/33/3 HA 705 37 11
20 -
..grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fines. 37 12
41 12
554 46 12
46 14
13/41/43/3 HA 60 14
25- T O Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace 6.77 tsf
of silt (G P)- dense; hard subrounded 56 14
gravel; hard subangular sand; max. 582 49 14
size recoverd = 1 2 0 mm. 49 13
54 13
30- 9, 54 13
Local Site El. 96.6 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; K2/3/6=
Water Table El.: 91.4 ft, 7/85 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 ition.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and [d] Layer designation,
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A .l - Com posite Profile N ear CP-1 at the Pence Ranch Site.

375
i I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

G rain A u ger^ SPTc C P T (C P -A ) SA SW BPT

D e p th L og D e s c ip tio n S iz e ( h a - 1 ) (SP-A) friction tip s le e v e (SA-1) (BPc-A)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount P ressure
c / g / s / f ______ 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Silty Sand with some gravel. i— r 8 7
Sandy Gravel with trace ot silt (GP)a-- 467 13 7
1
dense; subrounded gravel; _452_ 12 8
- - subangular sand; fines-weak reaction 0 /4 7 /4 9 /4 SP* | 1 6/2 8 /3 4 .25S_ 13 8
with HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR
4 /2 )b; max. = 100 mm; In-place dry
0 /4 7 /5 3 /0 HA 509 tsf 35 0 10 7
5-
density = 2.16 and 2.08 g/cm3. 11 7
2 341 10 7
- Sandy Gravel with trace of silt (GP)-- 0 /6 1 /3 7 /2 S P
loose; hard subrounded gravel; hard 10 7
subangular sand; fines-weak reaction 0 /4 4 /5 4 /2 HA 10 8
10-
/ with HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2); max. size recovered = 40 mm.
Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace
of silt (GW)-- medium dense; hard
0 /4 6 /5 1 /3 S P
0 /5 8 /4 2 /2 HA
336 12
15
20 10
8
9

subrounded gravel; hard subangular 0 /5 8 /3 9 /3 S P 24 10

- 4 sand; fines-no reaction with HCI, dark
grayish brown (10YR 4/2); max. size 0 /3 /8 8 /9 HA 21 10
15- recovered = 1 4 0 mm. 20 10
0 /6 9 /2 9 /2 S P
...at 4.4 m silty sand. 29.1% 6.79 ts 19 10
29/31/39/1 HA I
22 11
Ql 2/19/16 23 11
28 12
- 6 14/50 /3 3 /3 HA 705 37 11
20-
..grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fines. 0 /5 5 /3 7 /8 S P ■8/9/11 37 12
41 12
554 46 12
46 14
13/41 /4 3 /3 HA 60 14
25- Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace
of silt (GP)-- dense; hard subrounded 56 14
- 8 gravel; hard subangular sand; max. 49 14
size recoverd = 1 2 0 mm. 582
49 13
54 13
30. - 9 54 13
Local Site El. 96.5 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83: r 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: 91.4 ft, 7/85 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 ifion.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kba to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4)75, and silt and [d] Layer designation,
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A.2 - Composite Profile N ear CP-A at the Pence Ranch Site.

376
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain Auger0 SPT° C P T (CP- 2 ) SA SW BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size (ha -1) (SP-2) friction tip s le e v e (SA -2) (BPc-B)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/se c Blowcount P ressu re
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Silty Sand with trace of gravel (SM)a~ —r i— r ~i— r t— r
0/1/4 9 /5 0 HA* 8 6
very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2)b._
0 /1 /6 7 /3 2 T P -C l Ad 10 7
Silty Sand (SM) to Sand (SW )-loose, 0 /2 /7 5 /2 3 T P -C l 11 7
weak to no reaction with HCI, dark
grayish brown (10YR 4/2). 0 /1 /9 4 /5 TP-C |5 / 6 / 4 B2 9 7
5- 0 /6 8 /2 9 /3 HA 7 5
Sandy Gravel with trace of silt (GP)~ 0/48 /5 0 /2 S P 305 8 6
loose to medium dense; hard § 4 /4 /4
• 2 subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 1 /71 /2 5 /4 TP-C I 9 6
hard subangular sand; fines-no § 3 /3 /4 8 6
reaction witn HCI, dark grayish brown 300
(10YR 4/2); max. size recovered = 90 9 7
1 0 -- 3 mm. 13 7
...grading to a medium fine gravelly 0/48 /5 0 /2 S P § 3 /2 /5 10,1 303 13 8
sand. 11 8

Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace § 9 /1 0 /1 0 16 9

320 28 10
of silt (GP)- medium dense; hard
15- subrounded gravel; hard subangular 27 10
sand.
0/47/48/5 SP § 7 /9 /1 0 32 10
381
35 11
33 11
...cobbles(?) at about 5.5 m.
30 11
- 6 427 29 11
20-
28 11

*6.03 tsf 4 4 7 23 10
-- 7 ...dense below 7.1 m. 27 11
46 12
25- 44 12
47 12
- 8
1630 58 13
61 13
51 13
30. - 9 _1 L J I I L 67 14
J L
Local Site El. 96.1 ft [c] Unshaded section - no recovery: 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: 91.4 ft, 7/85 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa /a m um , &= s a M 'j ua uum u .u r o 10 a n a sm a [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A.3 - Composite Profile N ear CP-2 at the Pence Ranch Site.

377
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTC SPTC C P T (C P -B ) BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP-B) (SP -D ) friction tip s le e v e (BPc-C)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf Blowcount P ressure
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Siltv Sand fSM)a~dark cravish brown. -------------------------1— r r i »Ad i t— r
0/64/35/1 TP-Df 3 4
Sandy Gravel (G P)- medium dense; B3 7 7

5-
fines-moderate to weak reaction with
HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2).__
...grading upwards with more gravel:
in-place dry density of 1.85 and 1.72
0 /8 /6 8 /2 4
0/5 0 /4 4 /6
0/38/61/1
0 /5 5 /4 2 /3
SP
SP
TP-D
SP
| l 0/9/6

1 3 /4 /3
§ 12/ 11/10 I 10
9
8
7
6
5
g/cm 3 (116 and 108 lb/ft3). § 5 /6 /6 9 5
- 2 Gravelly Sand (SP) to Sandy Gravel 8 5
(GP) with trace of silt- loose; hard |G /6 /5 7 5
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; § 5 /3 /3
hard subangular sand; fines-no 9 7
reaction witn HCI, dark grayish brown 0/47/52/1 S P §2/3/6 11 7
10-- 3 (10VR 4/2); crudley stratified.
§ 5 /5 /6 7 6
13 7
Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)~ 13 7
- 4 medium dense; hard subrounded 0 /5 4 /4 3 /3 S P §5 /1 1 /8
gravel with low sphericity; hard 8 6
subangular sancf; fines-no reaction 18 8
15- wHh HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR § 1 4 /1 5 /1 4 19 8
26 9
...cobbles(?) 5.3 to 6 m.
§ 1 7 /5 0 + 24 9
22 10

20 - - 6 30 10
...grading with more fines.
0/5 7 /3 4 /9 S P § 1 1 /9 /1 3 32 10
55 12

Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)~ 66 13

dense: hard subrounded gravel with 74 13
low sphericity; hard subangular sand; 76 13
25- fines-moderate reaction with HCI,
grayish brown (10YR 5/2). 0 /4 7 /4 8 /5 S P § 1 9 /2 8 /4 2 84 13
82 13
81 13
76 12
3 0. J L 86 1?
Local Site El. 95.2 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6:
Water Table El.: 91.0 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96kP a to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A.4 - Composite Profile N ear CP-B at the Pence Ranch Site.

378
i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

G rain SPTC C P T (C P -3 ) SA SW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S iz e (SP -C ) friction tip s le e v e (SA -3) (BPc-C )
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/se c Blowcount P ressure
c / g / s / f ___________________ 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
0-
Siltv Sand (SMta-dark aravish brown. 3 4
Sandy Gravel (G P)- medium dense; 7 7
fines-moderate to weak reaction with 0 /4 1 /5 5 /4 SP f 1 6/9/12
HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2). 10 7
Sandy Gravel with trace of sill(GPP 9 6

5- lo o se ; hard subrounded gravel with 0 /5 8 /3 8 /4 S P 1 9/7/9 8 5

low sphericity; hard subangular sand; 9 5
fines-no reaction with HCI, dark 1/54/44/1 TP-E
2 grayish brown (10YR 4/2); max. size 8 5
recovered = 1 0 0 mm. 0 /5 8 /4 0 /2 S P 1 5/6/7 7 5
9 7
...gravelly sand with som e silt at 2.7 m. 0 /1 /9 2 /7 S P 11 7
10 - 0/43/56/1 S P |s/5/5
Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)~ 9.7 tsf 3 6 9 7 6
medium dense; hard subrounded 13 7
gravel with low sphericity; hard 0 /5 3 /4 4 /3 S P 1 10/15/7 13 7
subangular sand; fines-no reaction
with HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR 8 6
15- 9.1 tsf 18 8
0/64/35/1 S P 1 7/8/11 19 8
26 9
24 9
22 10

20 - - 6 ...grading with more fines, grayish 0 /4 4 /4 8 /8 S P 1 3 6 /3 2 /1 8 30 10

brown (fOYR 5/2). a 32 10
...dense below 6.5 m. 55 12
66 13
74 13
25- 76 13
84 13
82 13
81 13
76 12
30. - 9 8R 1?
Local Site El. 95.7 ft (al Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: 91.0 ft, 8/90 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetrafion.
1 ft = 0.3m ; 1 tsf = 96 kha
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar
c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75
to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.076 to 4 7 5 . and silt and
clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh).
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).
B
P
rd] Layer designation.
" Sample type.

Fig. A.5 - Composite Profile N ear CP-3 at the Pence Ranch Site.

379
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPTfCP-C)
D e p th D e s c ip tio n friction tip s le e v e
ft 01 ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf
200 400 0
Silty Sand (?).

Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose .

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense.

15-

...dense below 6.3 m. .1 2 tsf

25

Local Site HI. 94.5 ft [a] Layer designation.

Water Table El.: - 9 1 .0 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa

Fig. A .6 - Composite Profile N ear CP-C at the Pence Ranch Site.

380
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTc CPT(CP-D) SASW

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP-1) friction tip sleeve (SA-1)
ft m % ratio, % ft/sec
c/g/s/f 10 C 200 400 0
Silty Sand with som e gravel. i i "l— r AhZ-
Sandy Gravel (GP)a~ medium dense; 467
max. size = 100 mm; In-place dry 453
density = 2.16 and 2.08 g/cm3. 0/52/47/1 TP-Af 358
Sandy Gravel (GP1- loose; hard 0/42/53/5 SP |9/12/9 350
5- / subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 1/60/39/0 TP-A
hard subangular sand; fines-no 0/39/58/3 SP 16/6/5
2 reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown
341
(10YR 4/2); max. size = 10D mm; thin 1/65/33/1 TP-A
fayer(s) of silty sand (10YR 3/1). 0/35/64/1 SP §4/4/3 J
336
10 -
0/53/46/1 SP §3/4/4 j 333
Sandy Gravel with cobbles and trace
of silt (GW)- medium dense; hard
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 0/42/54/4 SP §5/8/10 j 425
hard subangular sand; fines-no
15- reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown
(10YR4/2). Q7/9/7 570
...medium dense to dense.

400 tsf 6 .0 2 tsf

- 6 705
20 -

554

25-
- 8
582

30. - 9 J L J I I L J L.
Local Site El. 96.2 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; fc] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: - 91.0 ft. 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 . and silt and [d] Layer designation.
clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A.7 - Composite Profile N ear CP-D at the Pence Ranch Site. GO
00
h—*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain C P T (C P -E ) SA SW Crosshole
Depth Log Desciption Size friction tip s le e v e (SA-CXSA-B) (XA-XB) (XB-XC) (XD-XE)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec ft/se c ft/sec
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 SH SH SV SH
Silty Sand with som e of gravel (SM)a- 580 580
very dark grayish brown (10YR 3 / 2 )b. 7 2 7 59 8 7 1 3
0 /1 /6 7 /3 2 TP-C 460
Silty S an d- loose, dark grayish brown. 500 —— 401 4 9 5 571 550
0 /2 /7 5 /2 3 TP-C
Sandy Gravel (GP) to Gravelly Sand 0 /1 /9 4 /5 TP-C 350 470 432 543 499
(S P )- loose to medium dense; hard 427 412 500 422
5 -- subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 4 6 0 /3 0 0 3 1 0
405 383 530 348
hard subangular sand; fines-no 300 400
!j- 2 reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown 1/71 /2 5 /4 TP-C 4 5 5 3 4 9 532 3 1 9
(10YR 4/2); max. size recovered = 90 5 2 4 3 7 0 49 5 3 5 4
mm.
400 440 513 425 530 355
10-- 3 494 453 530 386
561 5 0 2 46 7 4 7 7
58 2 502 48 8 4 9 6
..medium dense. 56 3 491 47 9 491
54 0 5 0 3 50 6 4 5 8
..medium dense to dense below 4.2 m. 5 8 0 5 7 4 526 421
15- t 8.99 tsf 54 0 5 7 4 49 3
- 5 52 8 605
6 6 0 64 0 639 606
657

20 - - 6

25-
- 8 850 880

30 - 9 13 5 0 1350 below 10 m
J I I L J L
Local Site El. 96.2 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: 91.4 ft, 7/85 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A .8 - Composite Profile N ear CP-E at the Pence Ranch Site.

382
i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTC C P T (C P -F ) SASW Crosshole

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP -B ) friction tip s le e v e (SA-D) (XB-XC) (XC-XE)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/se c ft/se c
c/g/s/f 101— r 0 200 400 0 6 SH SV SH
Silty Sand (SM)a--dark grayish brown. T i "1600
727 598 713
Sandy Gravel (GP)~ medium dense; 0 /8 /6 8 /2 4 SP f 600
fines-moderate to weak reaction with 0 /5 0 /4 4 /6 S P 11 0 /9 /6 49 5 571 550
HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2). 432 54 3 499
410
41 2 500 42 2
5- : Gravelly Sand (SP) to Sandy Gravel 0 /5 5 /4 2 /3 S P 38 3 530 34 8
(GP) with trace of silt-- loose; hard
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 34 9 532 31 9
hard subangular sand; fines-no 370 495 354
reaction witn HCI, dark grayish brown 42 5 530 35 5
(10YR 4/2); crudley stratified.
45 3 530 386
10-- 3 0/47/52/1 S P
Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)-- 502 467 477
medium dense; hard subrounded 502 488 496
gravel with low sphericity; hard 491 479 491
subangular sand; lines-no reaction 0 /5 4 /4 3 /3 S P 53 0
with HCI, dark grayish brown (10YR 503 506 458
574 526 421
15-. |1 4/15/14 574 493
- 5 605
...cobbles(?) 5.3 to 6 m. 430 tsf 606
1 17/50+ 657

20- ' ...grading with more fines. 710

0 /5 7 /3 4 /9 S P | l 1/9/13

-- 7
Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)--
dense; hard subrounded gravel with
25- low sphericity; hard subangular sand;
fines-moderate reaction wifh HCI, 0 /4 7 /4 8 /5 S P | l 9 /28/42 9 00
■ - 8 grayish brown (10YR 5/2).

30-1- 9. 1400 below 10 m

Local Site El. 95.4 ft (a) Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: -9 1 .0 ft. 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kf*a to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 /7 5 . and silt and [d] Layer designation.
clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. A.9 - Composite Profile N ear CP-F at the Pence Ranch Site.

383
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT(CP-G)
Depth Desciption friction tip sleeve
ft m ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf
10 0 200 400 0 6
Silty Sand with some of gravel (?).

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense.

5-
Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose.

10-

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense.

15-
...medium dense to dense 4.6 to 5.5 m.

20 -
482 tsf
...dense at 6.4 m.

25-

30 J r. J_ _ L
Local Site El. 95.4 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: -9 1 .0 ft. 8/90

Fig. A. 10 - Composite Profile N ear CP-G at the Pence Ranch Site.

384
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain C PT(CP-H ) BPTC

Depth Log Desciption0 Size0 friction tip s le e v e (B P c-3)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf Blowcount
c/g/s/f 200 400 0 blows/ft
5 2 2 SHt, Sand and gravel.___

0 /4 6 /4 7 /7 BP o-2
Sandy Gravel with some silt--medium
dense; non-plastic fines.

Sandy Gravel with some silt (GW- 0 /5 7 /3 9 /4 BPo-1

GM)a~ loose to medium dense; non­
plastic fines; D5 0 - 7 mm, Cu - 42. 0 /5 0 /4 4 /6 B P o-2

0/6 1 /3 5 /4 BPo-1
32
0/5 0 /4 6 /4 B P o-2
Sandy Gravel with trace of silt (GW)~ 37
medium dense; non-plastic fines; 33
D5 0 - 7 mm, Cu - 3o. 528 tsf
0 /6 1 /3 6 /3 BPo-1
0 /4 7 /4 9 /4 B P o-2 35

37
0 /7 1 /2 6 /3 BPo-1
0/6 0 /3 5 /5 BP o-2
Sandy Gravel with som e silt (GW)~ 70
dense; plastic fines, liquid limit - 21
PI - 5; D5 0 - 9 mm, Cu - 34.

0/5 9 /3 6 /5 BPo-1 103

0/5 3 /3 9 /8 B P o-2 114
102
104
Local Site El. 96.1 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; Layer designation.
Water Table El.: 91.0 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 Data from Harder (1988).
1ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kha to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4775. and silt and
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh).

Fig. A .l 1 - Composite Profile Near CP-H at the Pence Ranch Site.

385
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT(CP-I) SASW
Depth Desciption friction tip s le e v e (SA-E)
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
200 400 0
Silty Sand with som e of gravel (?). -580

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense. 400

5- 350 --------
Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose. 300

500

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense

to dense. 540

15" 490 tsf

690
20 -

25-
900

1200 below 10 m
Local Site El. 96.8ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table EL: -91.0 ft. 8/90
1ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 k^a

Fig. A. 12 - Composite Profile N ear CP-I at the Pence Ranch Site.

386
 387

2000

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve

1500
Surface Wave Velocity, VSi ft/sec

1000

500

1 10 100

Wavelength, A.Ri ft

Fig. A. 13 - Comparison o f Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Pence Ranch Site, Array SA-A. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 388

2000

Experimental Dispersion Curves

Theorectical Dispersion Curve

1500
Surface Wave Velocity, VS) ft/sec

1000

500

1 10 100

Wavelength, kRi ft

Fig. A. 14 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Pence Ranch Site, Array SA-B. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 389

2000

Experimental Dispersion Curves

Theorectical Dispersion Curve

1500
Surface Wave Velocity, ft/sec

1000

6 O O O oa~
500 L . °000

0
1 10 100

Wavelength, XRift

Fig. A. 15 - Comparison o f Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Pence Ranch Site, Array SA-C. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 390

2000

Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve

1500

in

1000

500

1 10 100

Wavelength, A,R) ft

Fig. A. 16 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Pence Ranch Site, Array SA-D. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 391

2000

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve

1500
Surface Wave Velocity, VSt ft/sec

1000

500 -O ° ° (

100

Wavelength, A,Ri ft

Fig. A. 17 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Pence Ranch Site, Array SA-E. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 392

Table A .l - SA SW Profile Data from the Pence Ranch Site (Hay Yard), 1990.

Assumed Values SASW b

Layer Layer Layer Depth P -W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity W eight Velocity
(ft)a (ft) (ft/sec) (lb/ft3)a (ft/sec)
Site SA-A
Local El. -96.6 ft
1 1.0 o.o to 1.0 1120 103 560
2 0.5 1.0 to 1.5 640 103 320
3 2.5 1.5 to 4.0 1120 135 560
4 1.5 4.0 to 5.5 1040 135 520
5 1.0 5.5 to 6.5 5000 135 490
6 5.5 6.5 to 12.0 5000 135 440
7 11.0 12.0 to 23.0 5000 138 690
8 10.0 23.0 to 33.0 5000 142 810
9 30.0 33.0 to 63.0 5000 145 1300
10 Half-Space 5000 148 1700

Site SA-B
Local El. -•96.1 ft
1 1.0 0.0 to 1.0 1160 103 580
2 1.5 1.0 to 2.5 920 103 460
3 1.0 2.5 to 3.5 700 103 350
4 1.5 3.5 to 5.0 620 122 310
5 1.5 5.0 to 6.0 5000 132 400
6 5.0 6.0 to 11.0 5000 135 440
7 12.0 11.0 to 23.0 5000 138 640
8 10.0 23.0 to 33.0 5000 142 880
9 30.0 33.0 to 63.0 5000 145 1350
10 Half-Space 5000 148 1700

Site SA-C
Local El. - 96.1 ft
1 1.0 0.0 to 1.0 1160 103 580
2 3.0 1.0 to 4.0 1000 103 500
3 0.3 4.0 to 4.3 920 122 460
4 0.7 4.3 to 5.0 600 122 300
5 1.0 5.0 to 6.0 5000 132 300
6 5.0 6.0 to 11.0 5000 135 400
7 12.0 11.0 to 23.0 5000 138 660
8 10.0 23.0 to 33.0 5000 142 850
9 30.0 33.0 to 63.0 5000 145 1350
10 Half-Space 5000 148 1700

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.

[bj Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 393

Table A .l (cont.) - SASW Profile Data from the Pence Ranch Site (Hay Yard),
1990.

Assumed Values SASW b

Layer Layer Layer Depth P-W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity W eight Velocity
(ft)a (ft) (ft/sec) (lb/ft3)a (ft/sec)

Site SA-D
Local El. -96.1 ft
1 1.0 0.0 to 1.0 2000 103 1000
2 1.0 1.0 to 2.0 1200 103 600
3 3.0 2.0 to 5.0 820 122 410
4 1.0 5.0 to 6.0 5000 132 410
5 4.5 6.0 to 10.5 5000 135 450
6 5.5 10.5 to 16.0 5000 138 530
7 7.0 16.0 to 23.0 5000 140 710
8 10.0 23.0 to 33.0 5000 142 900
9 30.0 33.0 to 63.0 5000 145 1400
10 Half-Space 5000 148 1700

Site SA-E
Local El. -96.8 ft
1 1.0 0.0 to 1.0 1160 103 580
2 4.0 1.0 to 5.0 800 122 400
3 0.7 5.0 to 5.7 700 122 350
4 1.0 5.7 to 6.7 5000 134 300
5 3.8 6.7 to 10.5 5000 135 500
6 3.5 10.5 to 14.0 5000 138 540
7 9.0 14.0 to 23.0 5000 140 690
8 10.0 23.0 to 33.0 5000 142 900
9 30.0 33.0 to 63.0 5000 145 1200
10 Half-Space 5000 148 1700

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.

[b] Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A.2 - Crosshole Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Array XA-XB.

Local El. 9 6 .0 ft P-Wave SV-Wave SH-Wave P en etra tio n 3

Travel Time0 Travel Time Travel Tim e0 V elocity AW C asing
D epth D istan ce15 M easured C orrected vP M easured C orrected Vsv M easured C orrected VSH Ratio, XA XB
(ft) (ft) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) S H /SV blow s/ft
1 9 .6 0 nae na na pr^ pr na na
pr nae na 18 19
2 9 .6 2 9 .7 5 9 .7 9 983 pr pr pr 2 3 .9 7 2 4 .0 0 401 na 18 8
3 9 .6 3 1 0 .6 4 1 0 .6 8 902 pr Pr 2 0 .4 5 2 0 .4 9 470
pr na 17 17
4 9 .6 5 8 .5 0 8 .5 4 1131 pr pr 2 2 .5 6 2 2 .6 0 427
Pr na 34 17
5 9 .6 7 2 .6 2 2 .6 6 3641 pr pr 2 3 .8 3 2 3 .8 6 405 na
Pr 24 21
6 9 .6 8 1 .4 0 1 .4 4 6749 pr pr pr 2 1 .2 3 2 1 .2 7 455 na 18 24
7 9 .7 0 1 .3 8 1 .4 2 6856 pr pr pr 1 8 .4 8 1 8 .5 1 524 na 28 28
8 9 .7 2 1 .4 9 1 .5 3 6373 Pr pr 1 8 .9 3 1 8 .9 6 513
pr na 44 27
9 9 .7 4 1 .5 0 1 .5 4 6343 pr Pr 1 9 .6 9 1 9 .7 3 494
Pr na 39 33
10 9 .7 5 1 .6 6 1 .7 0 5754 Pr pr 1 7 .3 7 1 7 .4 0 561 na
pr 40 44
11 9 .7 7 1 .4 7 1 .5 1 6492 Pr pr 1 6 .7 6 1 6 .7 9 582 na 41
Pr 31
12 9 .7 9 1 .4 4 1 .4 8 6636 pr pr 1 7 .3 6 1 7 .4 0
pr 563 na 42 40
13 9 .8 1 1 .5 9 1 .6 3 6034 pr pr 1 8 .1 3 1 8 .1 6 540 na
pr 57 45
14 9 .8 2 1 .4 6 1 .5 0 6571 Pr 1 6 .9 0
pr pr 1 6 .9 3 580 na 78 45
15 9 .8 4 1 .5 2 1 .5 6 6329 Pr pr 1 8 .2 1 1 8 .2 4 540
pr na 74 45
16 9 .8 6 1 .4 7 1.51 6551 pr pr 1 8 .6 4 1 8 .6 7 528
Pr na 78 68
17 9 .8 8 1 .41 1 .4 5 6835 Pr Pr 1 5 .4 3 1 5 .4 7 639
pr na 95 74
18 9 .8 9 na na na na na na na na na na 134 72

[a] Number of blows/ft (1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m) to a d van ce AW casing; 140 lb (6 3 .5 kg) weight, 15 inch (38 cm ) drop.
[b] N e ar-ed ge-to-n ear-ed ge sp a cin g . D ista n c e s b a s e d on n e a r-ed g e-to -n ea r-ed g e m easu rem en t at th e ground su rface with approxim ate
ca sin g inclination correction.
[c] T e st perform ed using in-hole m ech anical tapper. Tim e is th e a v e ra g e of th e travel tim es m easu red from the two w aveform s q en erated by
im pacts in op p osite directions. Tim e correction for trigger (+ 0.035 m se c).
[d] Poor records. T est perform ed by w ed gin g in-hole m ech anical tapper and hitting dow n on th e orientation rods, after both ste e l c a sin q s
w ere dnven to final depth (18 ft).
[e] Not available.

394
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A.3 - Crosshole Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Array XB-XC.

Local El. 9 6 .0 ft P-Wave SV-Wave SH-Wave P en etra tio n 3

Travel Time0 Travel Time Travel Time0 V elocity AW Casing
D epth Distance*3 M easured C orrected Vp M easured C orrected Vsv M easured C orrected VsH Ratio, XB XC
(ft) (ft) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) S H /SV blow s/ft
1 6 .9 9 6 .1 3 6 .1 7 1133 pr^ pr Pr 9 .5 7 9 .6 1 727 na 19 28
2 6 .9 8 8 .2 3 8 .2 7 845 pr pr pr 1 4 .0 8 1 4 .1 2 495 na 8 36
3 6 .9 8 9 .9 6 1 0 .0 0 698 pr pr pr 1 6 .1 3 1 6 .1 7 432 na 17 31
4 6 .9 7 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .1 5 626 pr Pr Pr 1 6 .8 8 1 6 .9 1 412 na 17 30
5 6 .9 7 1 .8 8 1 .9 2 3640 pr pr pr 1 8 .1 6 1 8 .2 0 383 na 21 14
6 6 .9 6 1 .2 5 1 .2 9 5419 pr pr pr 1 9 .9 2 1 9 .9 6 349 na 24 13
7 6 .9 6 1 .2 3 1 .2 7 5501 Pr pr pr 1 8 .7 5 1 8 .7 9 370 na 28 16
8 6 .9 5 0 .9 7 1.0 1 6920 pr pr pr 1 6 .3 3 1 6 .3 6 425 na 27 15
9 6 .9 5 0 .9 5 0 .9 9 7056 pr pr pr 1 5 .3 1 1 5 .3 5 453 na 33 17
10 6 .9 5 1 .0 3 1 .0 7 6522 pr Pr pr 1 3 .7 9 1 3 .8 3 502 na 44 28
11 6 .9 4 1 .0 4 1 .0 8 6457 pr pr pr 1 3 .7 9 1 3 .8 3 502 na 31 40
12 6 .9 4 0 .9 8 1 .0 2 6834 pr pr pr 1 4 .1 0 1 4 .1 4 491 na 40 66
13 6 .9 3 0 .9 7 1.0 1 6898 Pr pr Pr 1 3 .7 5 1 3 .7 9 503 na 45 51
14 6 .9 3 0 .9 3 0 .9 7 7179 pr pr pr 1 2 .0 3 1 2 .0 7 574 na 45 48
15 6 .9 2 0 .9 7 1.01 6889 pr pr pr 1 2 .0 3 1 2 .0 7 574 na 45 61
16 6 .9 2 0 .9 9 1 .0 3 6750 Pr pr pr 1 1 .4 1 1 1 .4 5 605 na 68 63
17 6 .9 1 0 .9 7 1.01 6880 pr pr pr 1 1 .3 7 1 1 .4 1 606 na 74 55
18 6 .9 1 1 .0 2 1 .0 6 6550 Pr pr pr 1 0 .4 9 1 0 .5 3 657 na 72 62

[a] Num ber of blows/ft (1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m) to a d van ce AW casing; 140 lb (63.5 kg) weight, 15 inch (38 cm ) drop.
[b] N e ar-ed ge-to-n ear-ed ge sp a cin g . D ista n ce s b a s e d on n e a r-ed ge-to-n ear-ed ge m easu rem en t at the ground su rface with approxim ate
c a sin g inclination correction.
[c] T e st perform ed using in-hole m ech anical tapper. Tim e is th e a v e ra g e of th e travel tim es m easu red from the two w aveform s gen erated by
im pacts in opp osite directions. Tim e correction for trigger (+ 0.035 m se c).
[d] P oor records. T est perform ed by w ed g in g in-hole m ech anical tapper and hitting dow n on the orientation rods, after both ste e l c a sin g s
w ere driven to final depth (19 ft).
[e] Not available.

395
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A.4 - Crosshole Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Array XD-XE.

Local El. 9 5 .8 ft P-Wave SV-Wave SH-Wave P en etra tio n 3

Travel Time0 Travel Time0 Travel Tim ed Velocity AW Casing
D epth Distance*5 M easured C orrected vP M easured C orrected Vsv M easured C orrected VsH Ratio, XD XE
(ft) (ft) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) (m sec) (m sec) (ft/sec) SH /SV blow s/ft
1 7 .5 7 6 .0 9 5 .7 5 1317 13.01 1 2 .6 7 598 1 0 .5 9 1 0 .6 3 713 1 .1 9 47 22
2 7 .5 7 6 .8 7 6 .5 2 1160 1 3 .5 9 1 3 .2 5 571 1 3 .7 1 1 3 .7 5 550 0 .9 6 41 39
3 7 .5 6 6 .7 8 6 .4 4 1173 1 4 .2 6 1 3 .9 2 543 1 5 .1 2 1 5 .1 6 499 0 .9 2 27 51
4 7 .5 5 6 .1 2 5 .7 8 1306 1 5 .4 3 1 5 .0 9 500 1 7 .8 5 1 7 .8 9 422 0 .8 4 19 42
5 7 .5 4 4 .7 5 4 .4 1 1709 1 4 .5 7 1 4 .2 3 530 2 1 .6 4 2 1 .6 8 348 0 .6 6 14 21
6 7 .5 3 2 .0 8 1 .4 4 5228 1 4 .8 0 1 4 .1 6 532 2 3 .5 8 2 3 .6 2 319 0 .6 0 10 17
7 7 .5 2 1 .9 6 1 .3 2 5697 1 5 .8 2 1 5 .1 8 495 2 1 .2 0 2 1 .2 4 354 0 .7 1 13 29
8 7 .5 1 1 .9 2 1 .2 8 5868 1 4 .8 0 1 4 .1 6 530 2 1 .1 0 2 1 .1 4 355 0 .6 7 23 41
9 7 .5 0 1 .8 2 1 .1 8 6358 1 4 .8 0 1 4 .1 6 530 1 9 .3 9 1 9 .4 3 386 0 .7 3 22 59
10 7 .4 9 1 .7 9 1 .1 5 6516 1 6 .6 8 1 6 .0 4 467 1 5 .6 9 1 5 .7 3 477 1 .0 2 34 54
11 7 .4 8 2 .1 1 1 .1 7 6397 1 6 .2 9 1 5 .3 5 488 1 5 .0 4 1 5 .0 8 496 1 .0 2 34 52
12 7 .4 8 2 .1 7 1 .2 3 6077 1 6 .5 6 1 5 .6 2 479 1 5 .2 0 1 5 .2 4 49 1 1 .0 3 47 65
13 7 .4 7 2 .0 7 1 .1 3 6607 1 5 .7 0 1 4 .7 6 506 1 6 .2 7 1 6 .3 1 458 0.91 50 69
14 7 .4 6 2 .0 9 1 .1 5 6484 1 5 .1 2 1 4 .1 8 526 1 7 .6 7 1 7 .7 1 42 1 0 .8 0 52 55
15 7 .4 5 2 .0 9 1 .1 5 6477 1 6 .0 5 1 5 .1 1 493 nae na na na 62 95

[a] Num ber of blows/ft (1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m) to ad van ce AW casing; 140 lb (6 3 .5 kg) w eight, 15 inch (38 cm ) drop.
[b] N e a r-e d g e -to -n e a r-e d g e sp a cin g . D ista n ce s b a s e d on n e a r -ed g e-to -n e a r -e d g e m easu rem en t at th e ground su rface with approxim ate
c a sin g inclination correction.
[c] T e st perform ed by hitting dow n on s te e l ca sin g . Tim e corrections for travel tim e dow n s te e l rod (0 .3 0 m se c /1 .5 2 m) and trigger (-0.04
m se c).
[d] T e st perform ed usin g in-hole m ech anical tapper. Tim e is the a v e ra g e of th e travel tim es m ea su red from th e two w aveform s gen erated by
im pacts in op p osite directions. Tim e correction for trigger (+ 0.035 m se c).
[e] Not available.

396
 397

0
c
c" 9
.2
03
1 12
0
CL

15

18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. A. 18 - Plots o f Penetration Per Blow from the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-A. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

1 i i | ii i i 1 11 1
Depth, ft U n it"
1 1.5- 3.0 B “
2 4 .0 - 5.5 C J
3 6 .5 - 8.0 C “
4 9 .0 -1 0 .5 C "
5 12.0-13.5 D “
6 14.5-16.0 D “
7 17.0-18.5 D "
(0 8 20.0-21.5 D “
9 25.0 - 26.5 E “

15 -

24 3 51 8
ii i i i A i I i \ \ i i " Ni l i i I x i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Num ber of Blows
Fig. A. 19 - Plots o f Penetration Per Blow from the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-B. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 398

o
c

CO

1 12
CD
D.
15

18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. A.20 - Plots o f Penetration Per Blow from the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-C. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

r r r r i ■ ■ p rrn rp rr T l | 1 1 11 | 1 1r i p i r r j n T T

Depth, ft U n it"
-IK 1 2.5 - 4.0 B “
“ \\ 2 5.0- 6.5 c ~
5I
w 3 7.5- 9.0 c “
® 6 4 10.0-11.5 c “
o
_c
- 'ft
c 9
0 a
’■ M
CO

1 12
CD
a.
- -
15
\3 \4\'2 1
\ n\ 1

18 i i m |\i A \ . 1 . . 11 1 i\i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. A.21 - Plots o f Penetration Per Blow from the Pence Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-D. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 399

Table A.5 - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-A.

Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 96.5 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -7 +0.21
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(»)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.23 6.89 49.28 -0.02 -0.05
0.66 0.26 7.05 51.32 0.58 1.13
0.82 120.52 0.39 0.32 7.22 61.79 0.68 1.11
0.98 124.35 0.48 0.38 7.38 56.43 0.89 1.57
1.15 123.33 0.32 0.26 7.54 36.51 0.37 1.03
1.31 132.52 0.32 0.24 7.71 50.56 0.85 1.69
1.48 150.90 0.37 0.25 7.87 51.58 0.06 0.11
1.64 171.84 0.58 0.34 8.04 59.75 0.56 0.94
1.80 191.50 0.51 0.27 8.20 74.56 0.05 0.07
1.97 205.80 0.60 0.29 8.36 101.11 1.12 1.11
2.13 235.93 0.35 0.15 8.53 84.26 0.65 0.77
2.30 235.42 0.64 0.27 8.69 106.73 1.15 1.07
2.46 269.64 1.18 0.44 8.86 139.16 1.94 1.40
2.62 252.02 1.33 0.53 9.02 135.33 2.43 1.79
2.79 268.10 1.41 0.52 9.18 133.03 0.92 0.69
2.95 322.49 1.11 0.34 9.35 136.86 1.88 1.37
3.12 351.86 2.42 0.69 9.51 130.73 1.64 1.26
3.28 353.13 1.48 0.42 9.68 140.95 0.58 0.41
3.44 355.43 2.75 0.77 9.84 121.80 2.09 1.72
3.61 378.67 3.13 0.83 10.00 90.90 1.27 1.40
3.77 392.71 2.03 0.52 10.17 89.11 0.01 0.01
3.94 412.11 3.06 0.74 10.33 154.99 1.83 1.18
4.10 430.24 1.74 0.40 10.50 39.58 2.47 6.24
4.26 422.58 1.97 0.47 10.66 114.14 1.79 1.56
4.43 509.40 2.94 0.58 10.82 89.88 3.28 3.65
4.59 458.59 1.85 0.40 10.99 117.46 1.40 1.19
4.76 427.95 2.92 0.68 11.15 140.18 1.52 1.08
4.92 444.29 3.18 0.72 11.32 127.16 0.77 0.60
5.08 421.82 2.99 0.71 11.48 118.73 -0.02 -0.02
5.25 451.69 4.64 1.03 11.64 130.73 0.61 0.46
5.41 327.60 3.04 0.93 11.81 142.22 1.20 0.84
5.58 313.81 1.92 0.61 11.97 169.80 0.48 0.28
5.74 303.34 1.10 0.36 12.14 141.71 0.40 0.28
5.90 247.93 0.75 0.30 12.30 125.63 3.12 2.48
6.07 166.74 0.08 0.05 12.46 201.46 -0.07 -0.03
6.23 137.88 0.34 0.25 12.63 114.90 0.67 0.59
6.40 110.31 0.91 0.82 12.79 257.64 2.84 1.10
6.56 87.58 0.28 0.32 12.96 367.94 5.83 1.58
6.72 82.22 0.18 0.22 13.12 266.32 3.66 1.37
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 400

Table A.5 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-A.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/tt2)_____ (%)
13.28 297.72 3.22 1.08
13.45 267.34 1.50 0.56
13.61 278.06 3.29 1.18
13.78 84.26 2.43 2.88
13.94 123.33 0.47 0.38
14.10 96.01 0.44 0.46
14.27 55.41 0.41 0.74
14.43 28.85 0.46 1.59
14.60 31.15 0.60 1.93
14.76 14.30 0.56 3.94
14.92 8.17 0.59 7.26
15.09 8.43 2.45 29.09
15.25 73.79 6.79 9.20
15.58 250.00

a] 1ft= 0.305 m; 1ton/ft2= 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 401

Table A.6 - CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-B.

Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 95.2 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton /ft2 ) (to n /ft2 ).
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -4 -0.17
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.71 6.89 65.37 0.34 0.53
0.66 0.90 7.05 74.30 0.46 0.61
0.82 96.77 1.21 1.25 7.22 66.39 1.18 1.78
0.98 105.20 1.22 1.16 7.38 86.56 1.26 1.46
1.15 130.22 1.56 1.20 7.54 89.11 0.52 0.58
1.31 92.43 0.81 0.88 7.71 72.52 0.08 0.11
1.48 97.79 0.66 0.68 7.87 57.71 0.14 0.24
1.64 107.75 0.71 0.66 8.04 74.30 0.35 0.47
1.80 110.31 0.63 0.57 8.36 51.07 0.01 0.01
1.97 94.47 0.53 0.56 8.53 62.81 -0.03 -0.04
2.13 90.39 0.39 0.44 8.69 45.19 0.41 0.92
2.30 86.81 0.40 0.46 8.86 47.24 0.22 0.47
2.46 85.03 0.37 0.44 9.02 33.19 0.59 1.76
2.62 85.79 0.61 0.71 9.18 36.77 0.32 0.88
2.79 89.62 1.07 1.19 9.35 63.83 0.19 0.30
2.95 91.92 0.55 0.60 9.51 56.17 0.30 0.53
3.12 83.75 0.55 0.66 9.68 75.84 0.77 1.02
3.28 77.88 0.48 0.61 9.84 63.32 1.13 1.78
3.44 74.05 0.40 0.54 10.00 79.41 0.94 1.19
3.61 72.01 0.44 0.61 10.17 67.66 0.59 0.87
3.77 75.58 0.17 0.23 10.33 90.39 0.60 0.66
3.94 65.11 0.08 0.12 10.50 70.98 1.11 1.57
4.10 63.32 0.02 0.02 10.66 68.94 1.29 1.87
4.26 40.09 0.41 1.03 10.82 65.62 0.57 0.87
4.43 42.90 0.05 0.11 10.99 61.28 0.10 0.16
4.59 25.02 0.02 0.06 11.15 67.41 0.39 0.58
4.76 38.05 0.03 0.07 11.32 78.90 0.89 1.13
4.92 40.34 0.14 0.34 11.48 77.11 0.39 0.51
5.08 35.24 0.11 0.30 11.64 98.56 1.92 1.95
5.25 27.32 0.06 0.23 11.81 129.46 1.13 0.87
5.41 26.30 0.16 0.62 11.97 169.54 1.90 1.12
5.58 45.96 0.14 0.31 12.14 199.42 4.92 2.47
5.74 43.92 0.20 0.45 12.30 181.80 2.58 1.42
5.90 33.96 0.27 0.79 12.46 141.20 1.06 0.75
6.07 32.68 0.26 0.78 12.63 144.27 1.30 0.90
6.23 34.98 0.58 1.67 12.79 148.86 1.76 1.18
6.40 35.75 0.32 0.89 12.96 199.16 2.63 1.32
6.56 33.45 0.39 1.18 13.12 200.95 1.70 0.85
6.72 77.11 0.60 0.77 13.29 236.95 0.70 0.29
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 402

Table A.6 (cont.) - CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-B.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(«)a (ton/ft2 )a J to n /ft2 ) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2 ) (ton/ft2 ) (%)

1 3 .4 5 2 3 0 .5 7 0 .6 4 0 .2 8 2 1 .3 2 2 1 8 .5 7 0.71 0 .3 2
13.61 2 0 5 .0 4 0 .3 2 0 .1 5 2 1 .4 8 23 7.21 0 .8 3 0 .3 5
1 3 .7 8 1 8 3 .5 9 1.03 0 .5 6 2 1 .6 5 2 6 0 .1 9 1 .3 2 0.51
1 3 .9 4 21 8.31 1.10 0 .5 0 21.81 2 7 7 .0 4 1 .8 4 0 .6 6
1 4 .1 0 2 3 9 .2 5 1 .1 6 0 .4 8 2 1 .9 8 3 0 2 .5 8 0 .0 4 0.01
1 4 .2 7 2 4 1 .8 0 1 .3 6 0 .5 6 22.31 5 3 0 .0 0
1 4 .4 3 2 0 1 .9 7 1 .3 4 0 .6 6
1 4 .6 0 2 4 7 .6 8 2 .2 6 0.91
1 4 .7 6 2 0 8.61 1 .2 3 0 .5 9
1 4 .9 2 2 0 8 .8 7 1.28 0 .6 2
1 5 .0 9 1 6 4 .9 5 1 .0 3 0 .6 2
1 5 .2 5 1 7 6 .1 8 1.3 2 0 .7 5
1 5 .4 2 1 6 2 .6 5 1.4 6 0 .8 9
1 5 .5 8 1 4 7 .5 9 0.71 0 .4 8
1 5 .7 5 1 4 9 .3 7 1.11 0 .7 4
15.91 1 5 6 .2 7 0 .4 5 0 .2 9
1 6 .0 8 1 3 4 .0 5 1.0 6 0 .7 9
1 6 .2 4 1 2 9 .2 0 1.2 7 0 .9 8
16.41 1 4 2 .2 2 1.9 6 1.38
1 6 .5 7 1 7 3 .8 8 2 .0 6 1 .1 8
1 6 .7 3 1 6 7 .7 6 3 .2 8 1.96
1 6 .9 0 1 9 7 .8 9 1.76 0 .8 9
1 7 .0 6 1 8 7 .6 7 2.81 1 .5 0
1 7 .2 3 2 3 2 .8 7 2 .2 7 0 .9 7
1 7 .3 9 2 0 7 .8 4 1 .4 7 0.71
1 7 .5 5 1 6 9 .2 9 0 .7 7 0 .4 6
1 7 .7 2 196.61 3.01 1.53
1 7 .8 8 1 7 5 .1 6 2 .5 6 1.46
1 8 .0 5 1 9 8 .6 5 1.81 0.91
18.21 2 0 1 .7 2 2 .1 8 1 .0 8
1 8 .3 7 2 1 1 .9 3 2 .6 0 1.23
1 8 .5 4 2 3 7 .9 7 1.52 0 .6 4
1 8 .7 0 1 7 4 .6 5 1 .3 4 0 .7 7
1 8 .8 7 2 2 3 .9 3 0 .8 4 0 .3 7
1 9 .0 3 2 0 3 .5 0 2 .3 2 1 .1 4
1 9 .1 9 1 9 1 .5 0 2 .2 5 1.18
1 9 .3 6 1 6 8 .2 7 1.57 0 .9 3
1 9 .5 2 1 8 8 .4 4 0 .5 8 0.31
1 9 .6 9 1 3 5 .5 8 1.85 1.36
1 9 .8 5 1 7 8 .2 3 3 .7 6 2.11
20.01 2 2 2 .6 5 4 .3 9 1.97
2 0 .1 8 1 4 3 .7 6 2.91 2 .0 2
2 0 .3 4 1 5 8 .5 6 1.00 0 .6 3
20.51 1 5 5 .2 5 0 .4 7 0 .3 0
2 0 .6 7 172.61 2 .5 8 1.50
2 0 .8 3 1 4 1 .2 0 1.73 1.23
2 1 .0 0 1 4 3 .2 4 1.95 1.36
2 1 .1 6 1 9 7 .6 3 1.32 0 .6 7
a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft^ = 9 5 .7 6 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 403

Table A.7 - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-C.
Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2
Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 94.5 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2} (ton/ft21
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -6 +0.23
Baseline Adjust: No___________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.41 6.89 101.37 1.99 1.96
0.66 0.30 7.05 94.47 2.27 2.41
0.82 54.39 0.17 0.31 7.22 111.07 1.12 1.01
0.98 42.64 0.16 0.38 7.38 69.96 0.78 1.11
1.15 36.77 0.14 0.38 7.54 81.71 0.71 0.86
1.31 31.66 0.13 0.40 7.71 76.09 0.71 0.94
1.48 30.90 0.13 0.41 7.87 135.33 0.94 0.70
1.64 30.90 0.14 0.45 8.04 153.97 0.91 0.59
1.80 30.90 0.15 0.48 8.20 139.93 0.36 0.26
1.97 31.66 0.10 0.31 8.36 199.16 0.68 0.34
2.13 29.87 0.08 0.27 8.53 150.39 1.67 1.11
2.30 26.56 0.08 0.31 8.69 190.74 3.64 1.91
2.46 22.73 0.02 0.08 8.86 150.65 1.55 1.03
2.62 19.41 0.09 0.44 9.02 139.67 1.35 0.97
2.79 13.28 0.13 0.98 9.18 128.18 2.75 2.14
2.95 11.49 0.12 1.03 9.35 155.76 2.85 1.83
3.12 11.49 -0.05 -0.46 9.51 192.01 1.89 0.99
3.28 23.75 0.22 0.92 9.68 135.84 1.40 1.03
3.44 40.09 0.70 1.75 9.84 170.82 2.28 1.33
3.61 39.07 0.86 2.20 10.00 190.23 0.63 0.33
3.77 23.75 0.38 1.59 10.17 185.89 1.50 0.81
3.94 20.43 0.07 0.34 10.33 231.59 1.50 0.65
4.10 23.49 0.03 0.11 10.50 223.42 2.02 0.91
4.26 27.58 0.08 0.27 10.66 229.29 2.79 1.22
4.43 36.77 0.16 0.43 10.82 205.55 1.88 0.91
4.59 83.24 0.84 1.01 10.99 210.65 0.58 0.27
4.76 76.86 0.83 1.09 11.15 143.50 1.90 1.33
4.92 33.70 0.95 2.80 11.32 218.82 1.56 0.71
5.08 53.11 1.85 3.49 11.48 163.93 2.37 1.45
5.25 79.92 1.07 1.34 11.64 152.44 1.41 0.93
5.41 95.50 2.30 2.40 11.81 124.86 1.09 0.88
5.58 57.96 1.50 2.59 11.97 110.56 0.68 0.62
5.74 88.35 1.25 1.41 12.14 56.43 1.07 1.90
5.90 120.26 1.20 1.00 12.30 41.11 0.49 1.19
6.07 100.60 0.12 0.11 12.46 54.13 0.21 0.39
6.23 93.20 0.27 0.29 12.63 43.41 0.19 0.45
6.40 73.79 0.31 0.42 12.79 40.34 0.04 0.10
6.56 78.39 -0.17 -0.21 12.96 34.73 0.63 1.80
6.72 60.00 0.01 0.02 13.12 43.66 0.42 0.97
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 404

Table A.7 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-C.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 46.47 1.38 2.96 21.33 512.00
13.45 78.13 0.69 0.89
13.61 51.07 0.51 1.00
13.78 74.05 0.58 0.78
13.94 79.67 -0.32 -0.41
14.10 87.84 1.17 1.33
14.27 77.37 1.77 2.29
14.43 115.67 1.02 0.88
14.60 102.65 0.42 0.41
14.76 99.33 0.98 0.99
14.92 170.05 0.96 0.56
15.09 136.86 1.30 0.95
15.25 147.59 0.92 0.63
15.58 183.59 3.30 1.80
15.58 206.06 4.50 2.18
15.75 207.08 3.19 1.54
15.91 151.93 1.72 1.13
16.08 170.05 1.34 0.79
16.24 151.42 1.89 1.25
16.41 144.27 2.33 1.61
16.57 117.20 2.03 1.73
16.73 134.82 0.64 0.48
16.90 158.56 0.90 0.57
17.06 140.18 0.42 0.30
17.23 161.12 1.30 0.81
17.39 170.57 1.03 0.60
17.55 114.39 0.82 0.71
17.72 101.11 1.60 1.58
17.88 130.48 1.62 1.24
18.05 170.82 1.60 0.94
18.21 196.61 1.87 0.95
18.37 152.69 2.63 1.73
18.54 185.89 2.41 1.30
18.70 145.29 1.54 1.06
18.87 228.02 1.22 0.53
19.03 182.31 2.30 1.26
19.19 195.59 2.38 1.22
19.36 159.08 2.88 1.81
19.52 146.05 2.36 1.62
19.69 225.97 2.28 1.01
19.85 192.78 1.31 0.68
20.01 213.46 1.24 0.58
20.18 172.10 0.58 0.33
20.34 137.37 1.22 0.89
20.51 182.31 1.66 0.91
20.67 265.30 3.95 1.49
20.83 464.97 3.69 0.79
21.00 440.20 0.15 0.03

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 405

Table A.8 - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-D.
Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2
Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 96.2 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2, 10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) fton/ft2!
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -8 +0.30
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.14 6.89 83.75 0.11 0.14
0.66 0.26 7.05 73.03 0.61 0.84
0.82 118.48 0.51 0.43 7.22 71.49 0.61 0.85
0.98 122.56 0.29 0.24 7.38 73.28 0.57 0.78
1.15 133.80 0.39 0.29 7.54 75.32 0.55 0.72
1.31 161.63 0.42 0.26 7.71 54.13 0.28 0.52
1.48 159.33 0.30 0.19 7.87 61.79 0.01 0.02
1.64 160.10 0.31 0.19 8.04 63.83 0.30 0.47
1.80 160.10 0.24 0.15 8.20 69.45 0.71 1.02
1.97 147.84 0.96 0.65 8.36 75.58 0.19 0.25
2.13 141.97 0.56 0.39 8.53 58.98 0.43 0.73
2.30 127.92 0.70 0.55 8.69 60.77 1.03 1.70
2.46 118.22 0.02 0.02 8.86 73.54 1.70 2.31
2.62 110.82 0.33 0.30 9.02 103.41 0.25 0.24
2.79 106.22 0.20 0.18 9.18 69.45 1.45 2.09
2.95 91.67 0.18 0.19 9.35 60.77 0.73 1.20
3.12 84.01 0.60 0.71 9.51 63.58 1.12 1.77
3.28 78.90 0.26 0.33 9.68 110.31 0.75 0.68
3.44 73.54 0.21 0.28 9.84 100.60 1.46 1.45
3.61 74.05 0.16 0.21 10.00 85.03 1.15 1.35
3.77 68.18 0.18 0.26 10.17 88.35 1.43 1.62
3.94 71.49 -0.15 -0.21 10.33 94.99 0.34 0.36
4.10 78.39 0.54 0.69 10.50 201.21 1.02 0.51
4.26 7.15 0.65 9.14 10.66 72.52 1.69 2.33
4.43 43.15 0.74 1.71 10.82 75.58 1.12 1.48
4.59 70.22 0.50 0.72 10.99 65.62 0.76 1.15
4.76 68.94 0.62 0.90 11.15 48.00 2.37 4.94
4.92 80.94 0.69 0.85 11.32 100.86 3.45 3.42
5.08 39.83 0.32 0.80 11.48 106.48 2.17 2.04
5.25 87.58 1.44 1.64 11.64 132.78 1.47 1.11
5.41 57.20 0.57 0.99 11.81 148.35 1.62 1.09
5.58 53.88 0.38 0.70 11.97 160.61 1.18 0.73
5.74 60.52 0.36 0.59 12.14 201.72 0.96 0.48
5.90 56.68 1.03 1.82 12.30 162.91 0.88 0.54
6.07 74.05 1.56 2.10 12.46 152.95 1.19 0.78
6.23 130.99 1.01 0.77 12.63 169.80 0.77 0.45
6.40 59.24 1.39 2.35 12.79 146.82 2.12 1.45
6.56 77.62 1.10 1.42 12.96 171.59 0.80 0.47
6.72 80.18 0.50 0.62 13.12 229.29 1.72 0.75
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 406

Table A.8 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-D.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 164.95 1.75 1.06
13.45 195.08 1.32 0.68
13.61 191.50 3.41 1.78
13.78 319.68 1.88 0.59
13.94 147.33 3.39 2.30
14.10 218.82 0.38 0.18
14.27 251.00 1.60 0.64
14.43 197.63 1.77 0.90
14.60 241.80 0.84 0.35
14.76 272.45 1.58 0.58
14.92 380.20 1.22 0.32
15.09 356.20 1.61 0.45
15.25 328.36 1.66 0.51
15.58 287.00 1.35 0.47
15.58 303.85 1.39 0.46
15.75 310.49 2.16 0.70
15.91 284.45 1.77 0.62
16.08 248.70 2.96 1.19
16.24 290.06 2.40 0.83
16.41 301.81 1.82 0.60
16.57 335.26 1.91 0.57
16.73 363.35 1.96 0.54
16.90 333.98 1.97 0.59
17.06 336.53 1.79 0.53
17.23 362.83 2.26 0.62
17.39 366.66 3.13 0.85
17.55 293.38 1.11 0.38
17.72 253.81 2.58 1.02
17.88 338.32 2.23 0.66
18.05 326.07 6.02 1.85
18.37 400.00

a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft* = 9 5 .7 6 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 407

Table A.9 - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-E.

Date: August 7, 1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 96.2 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
5.25 ft 0 0.00 Rezero
Final: -2 -0.09
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.37 6.89 36.00 0.80 2.23
0.66 0.34 7.05 58.98 1.67 2.84
0.82 57.20 0.28 0.49 7.22 48.51 1.45 3.00
0.98 48.77 0.21 0.43 7.38 70.98 1.23 1.74
1.15 43.41 0.18 0.42 7.54 88.86 0.72 0.81
1.31 39.83 0.15 0.37 7.71 75.84 0.66 0.88
1.48 34.98 0.12 0.34 7.87 81.71 1.25 1.53
1.64 30.64 0.07 0.23 8.04 75.84 0.25 0.33
1.80 25.53 0.09 0.33 8.20 105.97 0.61 0.58
1.97 23.24 0.04 0.17 8.36 63.32 1.84 2.91
2.13 18.89 -0.03 -0.13 8.53 62.30 0.36 0.58
2.30 14.55 -0.02 -0.14 8.69 97.54 1.67 1.71
2.46 13.28 -0.02 -0.13 8.86 79.67 0.69 0.86
2.62 11.49 -0.01 -0.11 9.02 82.73 1.82 2.20
2.79 8.94 0.05 0.59 9.18 114.39 0.27 0.24
2.95 7.66 0.06 0.72 9.35 80.69 1.44 1.79
3.12 8.68 0.05 0.52 9.51 102.14 1.68 1.64
3.28 12.51 0.03 0.20 9.68 94.99 0.98 1.03
3.44 14.55 0.02 0.10 9.84 80.43 0.22 0.28
3.61 17.36 0.05 0.28 10.00 78.64 0.55 0.70
3.77 22.47 0.07 0.29 10.17 101.37 0.69 0.68
3.94 20.68 0.06 0.28 10.33 78.64 0.15 0.19
4.10 15.58 0.01 0.03 10.50 76.60 0.58 0.76
4.26 15.58 0.05 0.31 10.66 110.82 0.46 0.41
4.43 17.62 0.02 0.10 10.82 82.98 0.33 0.40
4.59 15.58 0.02 0.10 10.99 72.26 0.19 0.26
4.76 18.13 -0.03 -0.17 11.15 69.96 0.22 0.32
4.92 16.34 0.02 0.09 11.32 63.83 0.44 0.69
5.08 17.87 -0.05 -0.25 11.48 92.69 0.17 0.19
5.25 16.09 -0.12 -0.77 11.64 127.41 0.14 0.11
5.41 45.19 0.38 0.85 11.81 95.75 0.08 0.08
5.58 46.98 0.52 1.10 11.97 132.52 0.84 0.64
5.74 49.28 0.73 1.48 12.14 125.12 0.37 0.30
5.90 36.51 0.81 2.22 12.30 115.92 0.63 0.54
6.07 58.98 0.46 0.78 12.46 130.73 0.72 0.55
6.23 118.99 0.34 0.29 12.63 105.20 0.58 0.55
6.40 43.66 0.87 1.99 12.79 123.58 0.57 0.46
6.56 63.83 0.23 0.36 12.96 117.71 0.78 0.66
6.72 40.09 0.12 0.29 13.12 144.01 0.31 0.21
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 408

Table A.9 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-E.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 97.28 0.20 0.20
13.45 66.13 1.37 2.07
13.61 186.14 1.73 0.93
13.78 204.01 2.02 0.99
13.94 247.93 3.10 1.25
14.10 312.79 5.28 1.69
14.27 246.15 4.08 1.66
14.43 310.49 5.29 1.70
14.60 363.09 8.99 2.47
14.76 316.62 2.93 0.93
14.92 311.51 2.72 0.87
15.09 278.32 0.29 0.10
15.25 292.11 0.66 0.23
15.58 201.46 1.48 0.73
15.58 234.14 0.51 0.22
15.75 270.40 0.32 0.12
15.91 280.87 2.47 0.88
16.08 250.23 1.54 0.62
16.24 245.12 1.87 0.76
16.41 279.85 2.78 0.99
16.57 259.17 2.83 1.09
16.73 268.10 2.87 1.07
16.90 263.51 4.11 1.56
17.23 410.00

a] 1 tt= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 409

Table A. 10 - CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-F.

Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 95.4 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -7 +0.15
Baseline Adjust: No___________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.55 6.89 24.51 0.31 1.26
0.66 0.32 7.05 26.04 0.68 2.60
0.82 136.35 1.75 1.29 7.22 33.96 0.81 2.38
0.98 118.73 2.13 1.80 7.38 47.24 0.35 0.75
1.15 115.67 0.72 0.62 7.54 33.96 0.29 0.87
1.31 136.09 0.56 0.41 7.71 58.73 0.20 0.33
1.48 173.12 0.67 0.39 7.87 42.64 0.35 0.81
1.64 201.21 1.09 0.54 8.04 72.01 0.37 0.52
1.80 204.01 1.63 0.80 8.20 87.33 0.30 0.34
1.97 164.18 1.04 0.63 8.36 87.84 0.31 0.36
2.13 171.59 0.86 0.50 8.53 81.71 0.71 0.87
2.30 195.59 1.53 0.78 8.69 78.90 0.79 1.00
2.46 190.74 0.81 0.42 8.86 92.69 0.42 0.46
2.62 165.46 0.26 0.16 9.02 82.47 0.89 1.08
2.79 140.69 1.19 0.85 9.18 132.01 1.09 0.83
2.95 141.20 0.61 0.43 9.35 130.48 0.76 0.59
3.12 127.92 1.08 0.84 9.51 84.26 0.30 0.35
3.28 114.65 0.39 0.34 9.68 63.32 0.20 0.32
3.44 114.90 0.60 0.52 9.84 89.62 0.70 0.78
3.61 97.54 0.29 0.30 10.00 123.84 0.19 0.15
3.77 100.09 1.16 1.16 10.17 104.94 0.62 0.59
3.94 124.60 0.79 0.64 10.33 113.88 0.68 0.60
4.10 114.39 1.22 1.06 10.50 105.71 0.67 0.64
4.26 120.26 1.17 0.97 10.66 115.67 1.45 1.25
4.43 85.28 0.80 0.94 10.82 172.10 1.35 0.78
4.59 85.03 1.02 1.19 10.99 125.63 1.99 1.58
4.76 67.92 1.94 2.85 11.15 131.75 0.29 0.22
4.92 102.65 0.83 0.81 11.32 134.56 0.83 0.61
5.08 118.99 2.89 2.43 11.48 141.20 1.68 1.19
5.25 79.92 1.20 1.50 11.64 160.86 3.80 2.36
5.41 81.45 0.24 0.29 11.81 173.88 2.57 1.48
5.58 42.64 0.84 1.96 11.97 135.84 0.46 0.34
5.74 34.98 0.60 1.72 12.14 150.14 1.67 1.11
5.90 39.07 0.26 0.67 12.30 203.76 2.69 1.32
6.07 49.02 0.26 0.53 12.46 142.73 3.50 2.45
6.23 43.15 0.22 0.52 12.63 77.88 3.16 4.05
6.40 42.64 0.06 0.14 12.79 75.07 3.12 4.15
6.56 25.28 0.03 0.11 12.96 131.75 2.65 2.02
6.72 27.58 0.14 0.49 13.12 110.31 5.21 4.72
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 410

Table A. 10 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-F.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2 ) (%)

13.28 150.14 6.01 4.00

13.45 111.58 4.84 4.34
13.61 180.27 3.21 1.78
13.78 189.97 1.95 1.03
13.94 185.38 0.78 0.42
14.10 181.03 2.15 1.19
14.27 164.18 1.69 1.03
14.43 164.69 1.22 0.74
14.60 143.24 1.41 0.98
14.76 138.39 0.56 0.41
14.92 156.01 0.98 0.63
15.09 158.56 0.43 0.27
15.25 156.52 0.44 0.28
15.58 237.21 -0.10 -0.04
15.58 193.80 0.15 0.08
15.75 243.08 0.86 0.35
15.91 237.21 2.09 0.88
16.08 222.65 2.61 1.17
16.24 232.61 4.27 1.84
16.41 255.08 2.90 1.14
16.57 306.15 3.00 0.98
16.90 430.00

[a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kP~a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 411

Table A .l 1 - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-G.

Date: August 7,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 95.4 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
{ton/ft2) {ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -7 +0.15
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.06 6.89 45.45 0.48 1.05
0.66 0.33 7.05 35.24 0.13 0.38
0.82 89.88 0.64 0.71 7.22 26.04 0.08 0.30
0.98 119.50 0.77 0.65 7.38 24.77 0.07 0.26
1.15 96.01 0.65 0.68 7.54 24.26 0.06 0.26
1.31 75.58 0.46 0.60 7.71 24.51 -0.01 -0.02
1.48 69.20 0.33 0.48 7.87 24.51 0.04 0.14
1.64 74.30 0.42 0.57 8.04 24.26 0.02 0.09
1.80 84.52 0.41 0.49 8.20 25.02 0.02 0.06
1.97 75.58 1.06 1.41 8.36 25.79 0.02 0.07
2.13 97.03 1.22 1.26 8.53 25.28 0.01 0.04
2.30 144.52 1.01 0.70 8.69 22.21 0.02 0.07
2.46 120.77 0.53 0.44 8.86 18.13 0.00 0.01
2.62 121.03 0.18 0.15 9.02 13.02 0.00 -0.02
2.79 116.94 0.51 0.44 9.18 10.98 -0.05 -0.41
2.95 122.82 0.51 0.42 9.35 8.94 -0.06 -0.68
3.12 104.18 0.30 0.28 9.51 3.32 -0.06 -1.82
3.28 96.52 0.35 0.37 9.68 10.47 -0.14 -1.34
3.44 98.30 0.15 0.15 9.84 16.09 -0.19 -1.20
3.61 109.80 0.41 0.37 10.00 19.41 0.10 0.53
3.77 125.12 0.82 0.65 10.17 28.34 0.19 0.68
3.94 138.39 1.01 0.73 10.33 30.90 0.06 0.20
4.10 127.16 0.93 0.73 10.50 41.62 0.02 0.04
4.26 121.29 0.69 0.57 10.66 38.05 0.27 0.71
4.43 123.58 0.77 0.63 10.82 45.45 0.22 0.49
4.59 128.18 0.45 0.35 10.99 45.45 0.47 1.03
4.76 129.71 0.91 0.70 11.15 68.94 -0.06 -0.08
4.92 148.61 0.66 0.44 11.32 55.92 0.09 0.17
5.08 131.50 1.57 1.19 11.48 112.86 0.75 0.67
5.25 103.16 1.87 1.81 11.64 124.35 1.01 0.81
5.41 127.67 2.74 2.15 11.81 126.14 1.19 0.95
5.58 205.29 2.61 1.27 11.97 101.37 5.54 5.47
5.74 138.14 1.69 1.22 12.14 218.82 5.59 2.56
5.90 145.29 0.68 0.47 12.30 165.20 3.91 2.36
6.07 83.75 0.91 1.09 12.46 210.14 2.51 1.20
6.23 97.54 0.15 0.16 12.63 318.92 2.32 0.73
6.40 57.20 0.11 0.19 12.79 126.90 1.45 1.14
6.56 59.75 0.26 0.43 12.96 152.44 1.56 1.02
6.72 54.90 0.49 0.89 13.12 172.61 0.79 0.46
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 412

Table A. 11 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-G.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 151.16 1.26 0.83 21.16 138.39 0.86 0.62
13.45 144.52 0.96 0.66 21.49 482.00
13.61 148.35 1.42 0.96
13.78 163.16 0.73 0.45
13.94 160.61 1.37 0.85
14.10 175.93 0.70 0.40
14.27 153.71 1.25 0.82
14.43 185.38 2.44 1.32
14.60 144.01 2.52 1.75
14.76 113.88 2.00 1.75
14.92 122.05 1.89 1.54
15.09 224.19 1.28 0.57
15.25 194.82 2.04 1.05
15.58 229.29 4.05 1.77
15.58 312.02 3.09 0.99
15.75 242.57 3.66 1.51
15.91 287.00 1.50 0.52
16.08 225.21 1.94 0.86
16.24 248.44 1.17 0.47
16.41 241.29 3.66 1.52
16.57 308.70 0.88 0.29
16.73 239.76 1.23 0.51
16.90 249.72 0.74 0.30
17.06 247.42 1.12 0.45
17.23 257.12 3.02 1.18
17.39 257.38 2.94 1.14
17.55 225.72 4.34 1.92
17.72 247.42 5.56 2.25
17.88 249.72 3.91 1.57
18.05 181.03 2.04 1.13
18.21 200.95 0.81 0.40
18.37 192.27 0.78 0.40
18.54 199.42 1.47 0.74
18.70 205.80 0.30 0.15
18.87 203.50 5.47 2.69
19.03 317.13 5.85 1.85
19.19 278.32 2.13 0.76
19.36 122.56 4.91 4.00
19.52 164.69 3.91 2.38
19.69 192.01 0.68 0.36
19.85 167.25 0.80 0.48
20.01 176.44 1.18 0.67
20.18 162.91 0.45 0.27
20.34 138.65 0.39 0.28
20.51 153.46 0.61 0.40
20.67 149.88 1.28 0.85
20.83 158.05 1.07 0.68
21.00 119.50 0.92 0.77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 413

Table A. 12 - CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-H.

Date: August 9, 1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 95.9 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2! (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -2 -0.02
Baseline Adjust: No___________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.19 6.89 100.60 1.00 1.00
0.66 0.23 7.05 64.35 1.40 2.18
0.82 73.79 0.22 0.29 7.22 84.77 0.86 1.01
0.98 77.37 0.38 0.49 7.38 94.22 0.52 0.55
1.15 79.92 0.25 0.31 7.54 90.90 0.49 0.54
1.31 72.52 0.20 0.27 7.71 97.28 1.49 1.53
1.48 83.24 0.26 0.31 7.87 96.52 0.94 0.98
1.64 93.45 0.28 0.30 8.04 76.35 0.59 0.78
1.80 94.47 0.81 0.86 8.20 79.92 0.65 0.81
1.97 89.11 1.11 1.24 8.36 75.32 1.07 1.42
2.13 86.30 0.51 0.59 8.53 71.24 1.09 1.53
2.30 78.90 0.58 0.74 8.69 64.09 0.49 0.76
2.46 95.24 0.42 0.44 8.86 82.47 0.63 0.76
2.62 109.03 0.21 0.19 9.02 92.43 0.29 0.32
2.79 96.77 0.29 0.30 9.18 93.45 0.45 0.48
2.95 88.86 0.21 0.24 9.35 84.26 0.26 0.30
3.12 96.01 0.54 0.56 9.51 120.52 0.37 0.30
3.28 97.28 0.63 0.65 9.68 82.73 0.27 0.33
3.44 95.75 0.69 0.72 9.84 84.77 0.43 0.50
3.61 104.43 0.23 0.22 10.00 90.13 1.47 1.63
3.77 114.14 0.68 0.59 10.17 100.09 0.93 0.93
3.94 126.65 0.91 0.72 10.33 93.96 0.95 1.01
4.10 124.09 1.14 0.92 10.50 111.58 0.63 0.56
4.26 125.88 0.96 0.76 10.66 48.51 0.91 1.88
4.43 124.35 0.22 0.18 10.82 97.28 1.37 1.41
4.59 141.97 0.40 0.28 10.99 142.48 0.83 0.59
4.76 180.01 0.85 0.47 11.15 148.61 2.05 1.38
4.92 222.65 1.97 0.89 11.32 166.22 1.55 0.93
5.08 104.94 3.22 3.07 11.48 145.54 1.81 1.24
5.25 116.69 1.79 1.53 11.64 159.08 1.53 0.96
5.41 97.28 0.97 0.99 11.81 179.76 1.18 0.65
5.58 111.58 0.69 0.62 11.97 151.42 3.16 2.09
5.74 72.01 0.57 0.79 12.14 184.35 1.20 0.65
5.90 66.64 0.90 1.35 12.30 187.42 1.04 0.55
6.07 52.60 0.77 1.47 12.46 140.44 0.56 0.40
6.23 107.50 0.51 0.47 12.63 154.73 1.74 1.12
6.40 86.56 2.30 2.66 12.79 148.10 1.27 0.86
6.56 30.13 2.95 9.80 12.96 185.63 0.85 0.46
6.72 58.47 1.43 2.44 13.12 119.75 1.90 1.59
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 414

Table A. 12 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-H.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip S le e v e Friction
D epth R esista n ce Friction Ratio Depth R esista n ce Friction Ratio
<ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2 ) (%)

13.28 177.97 1.52 0.85

13.45 156.01 0.88 0.56
13.61 177.20 3.77 2.13
13.78 179.76 2.13 1.18
13.94 166.22 4.02 2.42
14.10 176.44 3.23 1.83
14.27 119.50 2.60 2.18
14.43 117.97 2.56 2.17
14.60 156.27 3.03 1.94
14.76 115.16 2.69 2.34
14.92 266.32 1.93 0.73
15.09 184.86 1.89 1.02
15.25 151.93 0.30 0.20
15.58 528.00

a] 1 1t= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 415

Table A. 13 - CPT D ata from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-I.

Date: August 9,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 96.8 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
|tgn/ft2l fton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -3 +0.08
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.20 6.89 36.51 0.04 0.10
0.66 0.21 7.05 31.92 -0.07 -0.22
0.82 86.81 0.24 0.28 7.22 29.11 0.21 0.72
0.98 87.58 0.15 0.18 7.38 55.15 0.24 0.44
1.15 83.24 0.19 0.22 7.54 74.30 0.18 0.24
1.31 77.62 0.16 0.20 7.71 60.00 0.55 0.91
1.48 57.45 0.13 0.22 7.87 47.49 0.15 0.31
1.64 56.68 0.23 0.40 8.04 62.05 0.28 0.46
1.80 81.96 0.86 1.06 8.20 71.75 0.15 0.20
1.97 134.05 0.92 0.69 8.36 59.24 1.24 2.09
2.13 148.35 0.53 0.36 8.53 83.50 0.96 1.14
2.30 165.97 0.55 0.33 8.69 82.98 0.67 0.81
2.46 173.12 0.01 0.01 8.86 64.09 0.25 0.38
2.62 163.16 0.45 0.28 9.02 61.79 0.10 0.16
2.79 166.99 0.28 0.17 9.18 56.17 0.07 0.12
2.95 163.42 0.35 0.22 9.35 46.98 0.37 0.79
3.12 169.29 1.52 0.90 9.51 44.17 1.00 2.27
3.28 194.82 1.03 0.53 9.68 62.56 1.20 1.92
3.44 183.84 0.99 0.54 9.84 44.17 0.93 2.09
3.61 155.25 2.46 1.59 10.00 49.02 0.55 1.12
3.77 189.97 1.56 0.82 10.17 54.64 0.71 1.30
3.94 153.20 1.66 1.09 10.33 61.79 0.50 0.81
4.10 132.52 1.63 1.23 10.50 74.81 0.08 0.10
4.26 133.29 0.89 0.67 10.66 76.35 0.32 0.42
4.43 116.18 0.40 0.35 10.82 113.63 1.95 1.71
4.59 112.09 0.18 0.16 10.99 141.20 1.23 0.87
4.76 80.18 -0.02 -0.02 11.15 171.84 2.11 1.23
4.92 169.80 1.07 0.63 11.32 172.35 1.64 0.95
5.08 50.81 1.40 2.75 11.48 145.03 1.13 0.78
5.25 94.99 0.83 0.88 11.64 135.58 1.03 0.76
5.41 37.02 0.36 0.97 11.81 119.75 0.45 0.38
5.58 50.81 0.34 0.66 11.97 141.97 1.09 0.77
5.74 48.26 -0.04 -0.07 12.14 126.90 0.62 0.49
5.90 50.05 0.11 0.22 12.30 94.22 2.40 2.54
6.07 39.83 0.28 0.69 12.46 107.24 3.39 3.16
6.23 38.81 0.23 0.59 12.63 186.65 5.68 3.04
6.40 34.73 0.19 0.56 12.79 237.46 1.77 0.74
6.56 37.79 0.16 0.42 12.96 174.14 3.34 1.92
6.72 21.70 -0.02 -0.10 13.12 223.42 2.84 1.27
a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9 5 .7 6 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 416

Table A. 13 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding CP-I.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2 ) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 217.80 2.40 1.10
13.45 189.21 0.76 0.40
13.61 189.21 1.47 0.78
13.78 187.42 0.60 0.32
13.94 228.78 3.01 1.32
14.10 331.43 1.52 0.46
14.27 245.12 1.51 0.62
14.43 348.28 3.80 1.09
14.76 490.00

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 417

Table A. 14 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-A.

Date: Aug. 23, 1990 Elevation: -6120 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 95.4 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. B o u n ce Corr. Equiv. No. B o u n ce Corr. Equiv.

Depth B low s Chamber B low s SP T D epth Blows Chamber B low s SPT
lnt.a Nb P re ssu r e N bc n 60c Int. Nb P re ssu r e Nb c N6o
(blow s/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) (») (blows/ft) ... (PS'9) (blows/ft)
(“ )
1 3 4 2 2
2 7 7 4 4
3 10 7 5 5
4 9 6 4 4
5 8 5 4 4
6 9 5 4 4
7 8 5 4 4
8 7 5 3 3
9 9 7 4 4
10 11 7 5 5
11 7 6 5 5
12 13 7 7 7
13 13 7 7 7
14 8 6 5 5
15 18 8 9 9
16 19 8 9 9
17 26 9 13 13
18 24 9 12 12
19 22 10 13 13
20 30 10 15 15
21 32 10 15 15
22 55 12 31 27
23 66 13 42 34
24 74 13 43 34
25 76 13 43 34
26 84 13 45 36
27 82 13 45 36
28 81 13 44 35
29 76 12 42 34
30 86 12 42 34
31 82 12 41 33
32 90 12 43 34
33 97 12 44 35
34 90 12 43 34
35 10 4 13 50 39
36 128 13 52 40
37 111 13 51 39
38 122 13 52 40

a] D epth interval; 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m.
bj 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 6 8 .9 5 millibar.
c] B a se d on proced ures proposed by Harder and S e e d (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 418

Table A. 15 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-B.

Date: Aug. 23,1990 Elevation:-6120 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 96.0 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. B ou n ce Corr. Equiv. No. B o u n ce Corr. Equiv.

Depth B low s Chamber Blow s SPT Depth Blows Cham ber B low s SPT
lnt.a nb P ressu re N bc N6o° Int. Nb P r e ssu r e n bc N6o
(blow s/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) («) (blows/ft) (psig) (blow s/ft)
(«>
1 8 6 4 4
2 10 7 5 5
3 11 7 5 5
4 9 7 5 5
5 7 5 3 3
6 8 6 4 4
7 9 6 4 4
8 8 6 4 4
9 9 7 5 5
10 13 7 5 5
11 13 8 7 7
12 11 8 7 7
13 16 9 9 9
14 28 10 15 15
15 27 10 15 15
16 32 10 16 16
17 35 11 19 19
18 33 11 18 18
19 30 11 17 17
20 29 11 16 16
21 28 11 16 16
22 23 10 14 14
23 27 11 16 16
24 46 12 27 24
25 44 12 26 24
26 47 12 28 25
27 58 13 38 31
28 61 13 39 32
29 51 13 33 28
30 67 14 44 35
31 70 14 44 35
32 74 14 48 38
33 79 14 50 39
34 111 14 60 45
35 95 14 58 44
36 97 15 60 45
37 113 15 69 51
38 122 16 80 58

a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m.
b] 1 p sig = 5 .171 cm of mercury = 6 8 .9 5 millibar.
c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 419

Table A. 16 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Pence Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-C.

Date: Aug. 23, 1990 Elevation: -6120 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 96.4 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. B o u n ce Corr. Equiv. No. B o u n ce Corr. Equiv.

D epth B low s Chamber B low s SP T Depth Blows Chamber B low s SPT
lnt.a nb P re ssu r e N bc Neoc Int. Nb P r e ss u r e n bc N6o
(ft) (blows/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) («) (blow s/ft) (p sig) (blow s/ft)
1 8 7 4 4
2 13 7 5 5
3 12 8 6 6
4 13 8 6 6
5 10 7 5 5
6 11 7 5 5
7 10 7 5 5
8 10 7 4 4
9 10 8 5 5
10 12 8 5 5
11 15 9 9 9
12 20 10 12 12
13 24 10 14 14
14 21 10 13 13
15 20 10 12 12
16 19 10 12 12
17 22 11 15 15
18 23 11 16 16
19 28 12 17 17
20 37 11 20 20
21 37 12 21 20
22 41 12 24 23
23 46 12 28 25
24 46 14 32 28
25 60 14 42 34
26 56 14 40 33
27 49 14 34 29
28 49 13 34 29
29 54 13 35 29
30 54 13 35 29
31 56 14 40 33
32 76 15 53 41
33 98 15 60 45
34 87 15 57 43
35 79 15 54 41
36 143 16 82 59
37 149 16 90 64

a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m.
b] 1 p sig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 6 8 .9 5 millibar.
c] B a se d on proced u res proposed by Harder and S e e d (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A. 17 - In-Place Density Data from the Pence Ranch Site.

Trench Local Depth Layer Soil Volume Wet Soil Moisture Dry Unit Sample Datab Soil Type
El. Weight Weight
Location (ft)a (ft) (ft3) (lb)a (%) (lb/ft3) c g s f

4 ft Dia. Ring
STA2ft 93.4 3.1 B1 3.33 462.9 2.6 135 0 52 47 1 GP
S TA 2ft 92.2 4.3 B1 3.15 422.4 2.8 130 1 60 39 <1 GP
STA 50 ft 91.7 3.7 C 2.98 362.7 5.0 116 0 38 61 1 SP
STA 50 ft 91.3 4.1 C 1.92 242.3 14.3 110 0 38 62 <1 SP

Sand Cone
STA 2 ft 92.7 3.8 B1 0.0326 4.32 3.0 129 0 59 41 <1 GP
STA 2 ft 91.6 4.9 B1 0.0242 3.02 5.2 119 0 56 43 1 GP
STA 50 ft 91.7 3.7 C 0.0258 3.01 9.9 106 0 34 65 1 SP
STA 50 ft 91.3 4.1 C 0.0302 3.85 9.0 117 0 35 64 1 SW
STA 25 ft 94.5 1.6 A 0.0297 3.04 13.0 91 0 1 67 32 SM
STA 25 ft 92.8 3.3 B2 0.0229 2.38 19.4 87 0 2 75 23 SM
STA 25 ft 92.1 4.0 B2 0.0390 4.03 11.2 93 0 1 94 5 SW
[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.
b] Based on the Unified Soil Classification System --- c = cobbles, > 76.2 mm; g = gravel, 4.75 to 76.2 mm; s = sand, 0.075 to
4.75 mm; f = fines, < 0.075 mm.

420
I
 CD
-o
—i
O
Q.
C
Q.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A.18 - Borehole Sample D ata from the Pence Ranch Site.

Grain S iz e D atab A tte r b e r g 0 C o lo i^ R e a c tio n

G ravel Sand Silt C lay Limits of W et o f F in e s
D e p th R ecovery Cu Cc d 50 c m f c m f c m f % W ater F in e s with HCI
(ft)a (in/in)a (mm) 60 20 3 2 .6 .2 .0 6 .0 2 .0 0 6 .002 mm Wp Wl

SPA
Local El. 9 6 .9 ft
3 .0 - 4.5 1 2/18 20 0 .8 3 4 .5 — 11 31 21 19 12 3 3 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
6 .5 - 8.0 3 /1 8 20 0 .7 4 7 .4 . . .
28 28 15 18 8 1 2 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
9 .0 -1 0 .5 8 /1 8 19 0 .4 9 3 .9 — 19 24 17 23 12 2 3 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
1 2 .0 - 1 3 .5 7 /1 8 32 1.23 6 .9 — 26 28 19 14 8 2 3 np 10Y R 4/2 none
1 4 .5 - 1 6 .0 7 /1 8 10 1.41 9.3 . . . 15 48 22 8 4 1 2 np 10Y R 4/2 none
17.0 - 1 8 .5 0 /1 8 nae na na na na na na na na na na na na
2 0 .0 - 2 1 . 5 11/18 39 2 .5 9 6 .3 — 16 35 23 12 5 2 7 np 10Y R 5/2 none

SP B
Local El. 9 5 .8 ft
1 .5 - 3.0u 1 2/18 na na 0.31 — 0 7 10 19 24 17 23 np 10Y R 3/2 m oderate
1 .5 - 3.0I 47 0 .8 3 4 .8 — 17 30 14 17 11 6 np 10Y R 3/2 m oderate
4 . 0 - 5.5 8 /1 8 19 0 .7 4 5.8 . . . 11 38 17 19 11 1 3 np 10Y R 4/2 none
6 .5 - 8.0 1/18 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10Y R 4/2 none
9 .0 -1 0 .5 9 /1 8 12 0 .7 9 4 .3 — 20 23 24 22 8 1 np 10Y R 4/2 none
1 2 .0 - 1 3 .5 7 /1 8 27 1 .4 9 5 .8 . . .
12 37 21 14 10 3 3 np 10Y R 4/2 none
1 4 .5 - 1 6 .0 4 /1 8 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10Y R 4/2 none
1 7 .0 - 1 8 .5 3/1 8 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10Y R 4/2 none
2 0 .0 -2 1 .5 9 /1 8 26 0 .9 3 4 .4 . . . 6 39 19 18 10 2 np 10Y R 4/2 none
2 5 .0 - 2 6 .5 1 4/18 97 2 .5 4 7 .2 20 34 15 11 8 4 8 np 10Y R 5/2 moderate
I
[a] 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 in. = 2 .5 4 cm, 4 /1 8 = 4 in. sam p le/18 in. penetration. [dj M unsell color chart; (hue value/chrom a).
[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D 5 0 = m edian grain siz e . [ej Not available.
[cj Wp = w ater content at plastic limit; Wl = water content a^ " , " np = non-plastic.

4^
to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A. 18 (cont.) - Borehole Sample Data from the Pence Ranch Site.

Grain S iz e D a ta b A tte r b e r g 0 C olord R e a c tio n

G ravel Sand Silt C lay Lim its of W e t o f F in e s
D e p th R ecovery Cu Cc D5 0 c m f c m f c m f % W ater F in e s with HCI
(ft)a [in/in)a (mm) 6 0 20 3 2 .6 .2 .0 6 .0 2 .0 0 6 .002 mm Wp Wl

SPC
Local El. 9 6 .9 ft
1 .5 - 3.0 1 0/18 22 0 .5 4 3 .0 ... — 35 2 2 16 18 5 ■ np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
4 . 0 - 5.5 6 /1 8 35 0 .6 8 8 .3 — 28 2 7 15 16 8 2 4 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
6 . 5 - 8.0 8 /1 8 23 0.91 7 .4 ... 25 29 16 16 10 2 2 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
9 .0 - 10.5u 10/18 5 1 .4 3 0 .4 6 . .. — 1 4 34 44 10 7 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
9 .0 -1 0 .5 1 11 0.91 3 .7 — — 38 2 5 24 10 2 1 np 10YR 4/2 non e
1 2 .0 - 1 3 .5 9 /1 8 25 0 .8 9 5 .4 — 11 3 7 16 14 16 3 3 np 10YR 4/2 non e
1 4 .5 - 1 6 .0 10/18 9 1 .2 9 7 .3 . .. 16 41 2 6 12 3 1 1 np 10YR 4/2 non e
1 9 .0 - 2 0 .5 8 /1 8 38 1 .6 8 3 .7 --- 13 2 7 21 19 9 4 7 np 10YR 5/2 n on e

S P Df
Local El. 9 5 .5 ft
2 . 5 - 4.0 10/18 na na na — 18 35 22 16 6 3 na np 10Y R 4/2 none
5 .0 - 6.5 8 /1 8 na na na --- 22 40 21 8 6 3 na np 10YR 4/2 non e
7 . 5 - 9.0 3 /1 8 na na na --- 33 12 21 23 9 2 na np 10Y R 4 /2 non e
1 0 .0 - 1 1 .5 6 /1 8 na na na 27 34 14 11 11 3 na np 10Y R 4/2 none
I
[a] 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 in. = 2 .5 4 cm , 4 /1 8 = 4 in. sam p le/18 in. penetration. [d] M unsell color chart; (hue value/chrom a).
[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; C c = coefficient of curvature; D 5 0 = m edian grain siz e . [ej Not available.
jcj Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = w ater content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic. [f] Accidentally w a sh e d before weighing.

422
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table A. 19 - Trench and Test Pit Sample Data from the Pence Ranch Site.

G rain S i z e Datab A tte r b e r g 0 Color*1 R e a c tio n

G ravel Sand Silt C lay Lim its of W e t o f F in e s
STA D e p th U nit Cu Cc °5 Q c m f c m f c m f % W ater F in e s with HCi
(ft)a (ft) (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .0 6 .0 2 .0 0 6 .002 mm Wp Wl

T ren ch
19 0 .5 to 1.3 A na na 0 .2 5 ... — 2 6 14 39 21 18 np 10Y R 3/2 strong
21 1.8 to 2 .2 Fissure 1.8 1.01 0 .3 8 — — — — 23 70 6 1 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
21 2 .2 to 2 .4 F issure 7 1 .0 0 3 .0 ... ... 27 33 29 7 2 2 np 10Y R 4/2 n on e
21 2 .5 to 3 .0 F issure 5 1 .7 7 1 6 .9 . .. 39 47 8 2 2 1 1 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
3 6 0 .0 to 1.6 A na na 0 .2 7 ... . .. 4 9 15 30 18 24 np 10Y R 3/2 m oderate
3 6 4 .2 to 4 .5 B3/C 9 1 .3 8 7 .2 . .. 13 44 26 12 4 1 <1 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
4 0 1 .2 to 2 .0 B3 22 0 .9 5 1 0 .2 — 29 32 13 17 8 1 <■ np 10Y R 4 /2 w eak
4 3 2 .0 to 3 .0 C 5 0 .5 8 1.1 — 7 21 11 34 26 1 <1 np 10Y R 4/2 non e
4 3 3 .0 to 3 .8 C 2 .4 0 .9 4 0 .6 0 --- 1 2 4 43 48 2 <‘ np 10Y R 4 /2 n on e

T P -A (STA 2 ft)
Local El. 9 6 .7 ft
4-ft Dia. Ring
3 .3 to 4 .3 B1 16 0 .7 3 5 .4 --- 16 32 20 19 12 1 <1 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
4 .5 to .5 .0 B1 21 0.81 8 .4 5 24 27 15 18 10 1 < np 10Y R 4/2 non e
S an d C on e
3 .3 to 4 .3 B1 20 0 .6 6 7 .4 — 24 31 15 18 11 1 <1 np 10Y R 4/2 w eak
4 .5 to .5 .0 B1 21 0 .4 4 7 .2 — 22 31 13 21 12 1 < np 10Y R 4 /2 non e
B ackhoe
6 .0 to 9 .0 C 29 1 .1 4 1 1 .3 5 30 27 12 15 9 1 1 np 10Y R 4 /2 non e
I
[a] 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m [d] M unsell color chart; (hue value/chrom a).
[b] C u = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D sq = m edian grain siz e . [ej Not available.
[c] Wp = w ater content at plastic limit; Wl = w ater content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic.

423
Reproduced with permission

Table A. 19 (cont.)- Trench and Test Pit Sample Data from the Pence Ranch Site.

Grain Size Datab Atterberg0 Colord Reaction

of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines

Depth Unit Cu Cc D50 c m f c m f c m f %Water Fines with HCI
<ft)a (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .06 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl
TP-B (STA18ft)
Local El. 96.2 ft
Backhoe
5.0 to 8.0 C 26 2.60 15.8 12 31 30 13 6 6 1 ' np 10YR4/2 moderate

TP-C (STA28ft)
Local El. 96.1 ft
SandCone
1.6 to2.0 A/B2 na na 0.16 ... ... 1 2 8 29 31 29 np 10YR3/2 strong
3.3 to.3.8 B2 na na 0.19 — — 1 2 3 42 32 20 np 10YR4/2 none
4.0 to.4.5 B2 3.7 1.11 0.42 — — 1 6 33 46 10 4 np 10YR4/2 none
Backhoe
5.0 to8.0 C 59 4.71 15.2 1 40 29 9 7 9 2 3 np 10YR4/2 none

TP-D (STA50 to60ft)

Local El. 95.5 ft
prohibited without p erm ission.

4-ft Dia. Ring

3.8 to4.2 C 8 0.42 2.0 1 17 18 14 35 14 1 <1 np 10YR4/2 none
4.2 to.4.6 c 9 0.38 1.7 <1 13 22 11 31 21 1 <1 np 10YR4/2 none
SandCone
3.8 to4.2 c 8 0.42 1.6 — 11 20 12 32 23 1 1 np 10YR4/2 none
4.2 to.4.6 c 14 1.48 3.3 — 11 19 34 14 18 3 I np 10YR4/2 none

TP-E
Backhoe
5.0 to9.0 c 28 0.38 7.1 3 25 24 12 19 14 2 I np 10YR4/2 weak
I
[a] 1ft = 0.305 m [d] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).
[b] Cu= coefficient of uniformity; Cc= coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [ej Not available.
[c] W p = w a t e r c o n te n t a t p la s tic limit; W l = w a t e r c o n t e n t a t liquid limit; n p = n o n -p la s tic .

424
 A P P E N D IX B

S U M M A R Y O F 1990 T E S T D A TA

FROM TH E

G O D D A R D R A N C H L IQ U E F A C T IO N S IT E

425

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission

Grain SPTc CPT(CP-1) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP-1) friction tip sleeve (SA- (BPc-l)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tst 1985) Blowcount Pressure
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

c /g /s /f 400 0 f t/s e c blows/ft psig

0
S andy Gravel (G W )a- m edium d e n s e 1 I 6 0 tT 9 6
to d e n s e ; hard su b ro u n d ed gravel;
fines-no reaction with HCI, dark 2/65/33/0TP-1f 11 8
0/60/38/2 SP na/13/na 9 6
grayish brown (10YR 4/2)&; m ax. =
100 mm; dry density = 2.2 g/cm3. 2/71/27/0 TP-1 8 6
5 S an d y Silt with clay (ML-CL) to Silty 0/1/46/53 SP 8 6
S a n d (S M,)- very.dark
very dark grayish
(10YR 3/1); w ood fragm erits.
grayisr brown 8 6
2 0/5/77/18 SP 9 6
S an d y G ravel (GW)-- m edium d e n se ;
0/0/74/26 SP 1/1/13 400 10 6
h ard su b ro u n d ed gravel with low
sphericity; hard su b a n g u lar sa n d ; fines 0/66/32/2TP-1 9 7
10
no reaction with HCI, dark grayish
0/63/33/4 SP 11 8
brown (10YR 4/2); m ax. siz e = 75 mm; 450 18 8
yellowish brown mottling a t 3 .5 m.
23 10
A S an d y Gravel with silt (GM)-- m edium 2/8/10
"Sa/y
S* d e n s e to d e n s e ; hard su b a n g u lar to
30 12
su b ro u n d ed gravel; h ard su b a n g u lar 41 12
sa n d ; fines-m oderate to strong 47 12
15 reaction with HCI, grayish brown 0/47/40/13 SP 18/21/15 53 13
wv (10YR 5/2); partial c a rb o n a te c o a ts on
- 5 »%»%• se v era l gravel particles; distal alluvial 500 tsf 59 13
<?*?/ fan. 0/44/48/8 SP 21/40/25 55 12
0/42/42/16 SP 46 13
/W/j
20 46 12
AW 0/46/40/14 SP 5/14/17 39 12
prohibited without p erm ission.

30 11
1600 23 11
20 10
25 17 10
25 11
27 12
28 12
29 12
30 - 9 28 1?
S ite El. 6079.5 ft [a] Unified Soil C lassification S y stem , ASTM D2487-83; [c] U n sh ad ed section - n o recovery; 2/3/6 =
W ater T able El.: 6077.6 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 3 0 0 m m , g = gravel is from 4.75 blow count for e a c h 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 k P a to 75 mm , s = sa n d is from 0 .0 7 5 to 4i75, a n d silt an d rd] Layer designation.
1 p sig = 5 .2 cm of m urcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) a re < 0 .0 7 5 m m (< 2 00 m esh). t f S am p le type.
[b] Munsell color of w et fines (h u e value/chrom a).

Fig. B .l - Com posite Profile N ear CP-1 at the Goddard R anch Site.

426
Reproduced with permission

CPT (CP-2) SASW

Depth Desciption friction tip s le e v e (SA-3)
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

10 0 200 400 0 6
800/200
290
- 1 Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense. 280
5-
- 2 340

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense. C2

1 0 -r 3 420

Sand and Gravel with silt (?)-- dense

•- 4 to medium dense. 528 tsf

15- 526 tsf, 830

20-
prohibited without p erm ission.

25-
-- 7
i
<
1000

- 8
<

30.1- 9 ..Gravelly Silt with sand (7) 9 to 9.5 m. J ___ I

Site El. 6077.7 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: 6077.7 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3m ;1 tsf = 96 kPa
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. B.2 - Composite Profile N ear CP-2 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

427
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTc SPTC CPT(CP-3) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP-2) (SP-3) friction tip sleeve (SA-4) (BPc-2/-3)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount Pressure
c / g / s / f _____________ 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Sandy Gravel (GW)a- medium dense •1050/370/1803/ 5 4/
to dense; fines-no reaction with HCI, 0/63/na/na SP-2* — 10/10 4/
dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2P; dry 0/60/36/4 SP-3 420 13/11 8/
density at 0.9 m = 2.1 g /c m 3 ; fluvial. 0/66/33/1 TP-2 I 6' 29'23 | )2/23/,6 5 10/ 8 7/
S an d y Silt with clay. 0/52/41/7 TP-2
0/0/38/62 SP-3 9/ 6 7/
Sandy Gravel (GP-GW)-- loose to 0/61/37/2 SP-2 |6/7/13 |l/6 /5 330 8/11 6/ 6
medium dense; hard subrounded 0/45/51/4 SP-3
gravel with low sphericity, includes 7/ 9 6/
various igneous rock types; hard
0/60/36/4 TP-2 6/ 8 4/
subangular sand; fines-weak reaction 0/73/26/1 SP-2 §4/5/3 Q3/3/4
with HCI. dark grayish brown (10YR
7/14 8/
IQ- 4/2); likely interbeaded len ses of 0/56/41/3 SP-2 §4/7/5 360 6/15 8/
sandy silt; fluvial. §4/4/5 16/15 8/
0/67/31/2 SP-3
22/18 10/10
23/17 10/ 9
- 4 26/20 10/ 9
0/52/41/7 SP-2 §9/ 10/6 §10/9/7 670
15- ...grading with more silt; yellowish 27/20 10/10
0/62/33/5 SP-3 1 1 32/20 11/ 9
brown and reddish brown mottling.
- 5; Sandy Gravel with silt (GM)- medium
40/20 12/ 9
dense to dense; hard subangular to 0/53/36/11 SP-2 Jp9/22/19 llO/Q/Q 45/24 2/10
subrounded gravel; hard subangular 0/50/38/12 SP-3 |10/9/9 850 38/19 13/10
sand; fines-moderate to strong
20 - - 6}: reaction with HCI, grayish brown 30/16 12/10
(10YR 5/2); partial carbonate coats on 0/49/36/15 SP-3 39/18 12/10
0/40/29/31 SP-3 §14/5/15
several gravel particles; distal alluvial 32/21 12/ 9
fan. 0/51/34/15 SP-3 ■
- - 1: 0/50/42/8 SP-2 §11/11/11 28/19 11/10
28/21 11/10
25- 32/21 11/10
1200 28/21 11/10
0/42/42/16 SP-2 §2/3/7
28/19 12/10
29/ 9 12/10
29/ 5 12/ 8
30. 30/ 6 12/ 8
Site HI. 6080.9 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; fc] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: -6076 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. B.3 - Com posite Profile N ear CP-3 at the Goddard Ranch Site. 4^
to
00
 i

Reproduced with permission

Grain SPTc C P T (C P -3 ) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S ize (S P -2) friction tip s le e v e (SA -4) (BPC-2/-3)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount P ressure
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

c /g /s /f 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig

30- !— | t— r
Sandy Gravel (GW)a- medium dense 0 /5 2 /3 8 /1 0 S P -2f § 6 /5 /7 24/ 9 11/ 8
to dense; subangular to subrounded 1200 14/16 10/10
gravel; fines-moderate reaction with

35- :
-10 HCI, grayish brown (10YR 5/2)b; some
carbonate coats; distal alluvia'fan.
Sandy Silt with clay ( M L ) - d a r k
grayish brown (10YR 5/2).
0/4 9 /1 6 /3 5 B P o-4 450 tsf C 6.44 tsf
5/20
4/15
11/ 8
14/28
7/10
6/10
7/ 8
9/12
-11 0/1 /3 1 /6 8 S P -2 16 /6 /1 3
0/5 4 /4 2 /4 BP o-4 28/38 11/12
31/32 12/12
32/30 12/11
12 33/34 12/12
4 0 --
32/33 12/12
19/34 10/12
.-1 3 1000 g/28 8/10
38/75 14/14
Sandy Gravel to Gravelly Sand (GP-
45- : SP)-- medium dense to dense; hard 70/68 14/14
• -14
subrounded gravel with low sphericity, 82/66 14/14
includes various igneous rock types; 70/61 14/14
hard subangular sand; fines-moderate 0/3 4 /6 4 /2 B P o-4
reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown 54/58 13/14
(10YR 4/2); no carbonate coats on 49/53 13/12
•-1 5 gravel particles; fluvial.
50- 47/59 13/13
49/55 13/12
prohibited without p erm ission.

r 16
49/62
65/84
59/79
13/12
13/13
13/13
5 5 -- 59/85 13/13
-17 foon 69/128 14/14
1800103/152 14/14
97/ 15/
--1 8
60- - J 1 I L
Site El. 6080.9 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83: [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: -6076 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetrafion.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4775, and silt and Id] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. B.3(cont.) - Com posite Profile N ear CP-3 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

429
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT (C P-4) SASW BPT

Depth Desciption friction tip sleeve (SA-1) (BPc-3)
ft m ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount Pressure
200 400 0 blows/ft psig
Silt, Sand and Gravel (?) 2 9 0 /2 5 0
(silt. S an d with clay (?) 410
Sand and Gravel (?)—loose to 35 0
medium dense; fluvial.
Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose to 570
medium dense; fluvial.

49 0

C2
20
20
20
20
24
700

Silt, Sand and Gravel (? )- dense;

1300
[08 tsf

6 J 5 tsf
30
Site El. 6081.6 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: -6 0 7 6 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. B ,4 - Com posite Profile N ear CP-4 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

430
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT (CP-4) SASW BPT

Depth Desciption friction tip sleeve (SA-1) (BPc-3)
ft m ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount Pressure
200 400 0 blows/ft psig
30
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense
to dense.
-10 1300 20

3 5 -: Silt and Sand with some clay (?).

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense 480 tsf 38
to dense. 32
-12 34
33
34
-13 28
75
1050
66
58

59

62
84

128
152
1800

Site El. 6081.6 ft [a] Layer designation.

Water Table El.: -6076 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3m ; 1 tsf = 96 kPa
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. B.4(cont.) - Composite Profile N ear CP-4 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

431
 I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT (CP-5) SASW

Depth Desciption friction tip sleeve (SA-1)
ft m ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
200 400 0
Sandy Silt with clay (?) 290/250
410
13.0 %;
11.0 70- 350
Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose to
medium dense; fluvial. 570
C1

490
10 Sand and Gravel (?)-- loose to
medium dense; fluvial.

15-
C2

6.39 tsf 70 0

20 -

Silt. Sand and Gravel (?)-- dense; 1300

Site El. 6081.2 ft [a] Layer designation.

Water Table El.: -6076 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa

Fig. B.5 - Composite Profile N ear CP-5 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

432
I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

C P T (CP-5) SA SW
D e p th D e s c ip tio n friction tip s le e v e (SA-1)
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
30 200 400 0
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense

-10 1300

3 5 -: Silt and Sand with clay (?)._________

Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense 520 tsf

to dense.

-1 3

45- 1050
--1 4

50-

-16

55
-1 7

1800
--1 8

Site El. 6081.2 ft [a] Layer designation.

Water Table El.: -6076 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3m ; 1 tsf = 96 kPa

Fig. B.5(cont.) - Composite Profile Near CP-5 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

433
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

G rain SPTc SPTc C P T (C P -6 ) SA SW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S ize (S P -1 ) (S P -3) friction tip s le e v e (SA -2) (B Pc-2)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount P ressure
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
S andy Gravel (GW )a~ m edium d e n s e 0/60 /3 6 /4 SP -3. 3 4
to d en se; hard subro u n d ed gravel; 10 4
fines-no reaction with HCI, dark 2/65 /3 3 /0 T P-1f . ■ , >
grayish brown (10YR 4/2)b; m ax. = 0/60 /3 8 /2 SP-1 1 1 3 /n a /n a 1 1 2 /2 3 /1 6 I 45 0 13 8
100 mm; dry density = 2.2 g/cm3. 2 /7 1 /2 7 /0 TP-1 1 10 7
0/0/38/62 S P -3 7
S andy Silt with clay (CL) to Silty S a n d 0 /1 /4 6 /5 3 SP-1 1 3/2 /2 |l /6 / 5 9
5- (S M I- very dark grayish brow n (10YR 0 /4 5 /5 1 /4 S P -3 8 6
3/1 to 3/2); w oo d frag m en ts._________ 35 0
0/5/77/18 SP-1 7 6
S an d y Gravel (GW)~ loose to m edium 1 1 /1/13 fl 3 /3 /4 6 6
d en se: hard subrounded gravel with 0/0/7 4 /2 6 SP-1
tow sphericity, includes various 0 /6 6 /3 2 /2 TP-1 7 8
igneous rock types; hard su b a n g u lar 0/67/31/2 S P -3 6 8
10 - san d ; fines-no reaction with HCI, dark 1 8 /7 /9 | 4/4/5 45 0
0/63/33/4 SP-1 16 8
grayish brown (10YR 4/2); m ax. siz e
recovered = 75 mm; fluvial. 22 10
■2/8/10 23 10
0/63/33/4 S P -3 l l 0/9/7 26 10
0/67/31/2 B P o-4 * 600
15- 27 10
...reddish brown a n d yellowish brown 0/4 7 /4 0 /1 3 S P -1 |1 8 /2 1 /1 5
mottling. 32 11
- 5 S andy Gravel with silt (GM)~ m edium 0/50/3 8 /1 2 S P -3 _ | , n ,Q(Q 40 12
4 9 5 tsf
d e n s e to d e n se ; hard su b a n g u lar to 0/44/48/8 SP-1 | 2 i / 4 n /p r 1 10/9/9 42 tsf 45 12
subrounded gravel; hard su b a n g u lar 0/4 2/42/16 S P - 1 I 2 l/4 0 /2 5 600 38 13
sa n d ; fines-m oderate to strong
20 - - 6 reaction with HCI, grayish brown 0/49/36/151 30 12
(10YR 5/2); partial carb o n ate c o a ts on I 44/5/15 39 12
several gravel particles; distal alluvial 0 / 4 6 ^ 1 4 b p - l|5 /1 4 / 1 7
; fan. 0/51/3 4 /1 5 S P -3 32 12
-- 7 28 11
28 11
25- 1400 32 11
0 /6 1 /3 5 /4 B P o-4 28 11
28 12
29 12
29 12
30. 30 1?
S ite El. 6080.2 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification S y stem , ASTM D2487-83; [c] U nsh ad ed section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
W ater T able El.: 6076.4 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 3 00 m m , g = gravel is from 4.75 blow count for e a c h 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0 .3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kP a to 75 m m , s = sa n d is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , a n d silt an d [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) a re < 0.075 m m (< 200 m esh). [f] S am p le type.
[b] Munsell color of w et fines (hue value/chrom a).

Fig. B.6 - Composite Profile N ear CP-6 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

434
I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT (C P -7) SA SW
Depth Desciption friction tip s le e v e (SA-
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf 1985)
200 400 0 ft/sec
600
300
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense. ~450
450
5- 50 0

400

Sandy Silt with som e clay (?).

450
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense. C2
90 0
6.61 tsf
15- Sand and Gravel with silt (?)-- dense. 1300
560 tsf

20 - ;

1600

Site El. 6079.3 ft [a] Layer designation.

Water Table El.: -6077.6 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. B.7 - Com posite Profile Near CP-7 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

435
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTc CPT(CP-8) SASW

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP-3) friction tip sleeve (SA-2)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6
0
S an d y Gravel (GW)a-- m edium d e n se ; 1 1 850/450/200
hard subrounded gravel; fines-no
reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown 0/60/36/4 SP-3* | l 2/23/16 450
(10YR 4/2)b.

S an d y Silt with clay (ML-CL)-- very 0/0/38/62 SP-3 §1/6/5

5 dark grayish brow n (10YR 3/2’). 0/45/51/4 SP-3
350
S an d y Gravel (GW)-- loose to m edium
d e n s e : hard su b ro u n d ed gravel with [] 3/3/4
low sphericity, includes various
igneous rock fypes; hard su b a n g u lar
10 - - 3 sa n d ; fines-no reaction with HCr, dark 0/67/31/2 SP-3 §4/4/5
grayish brown (10YR 4/2); fluvial. 450

- 4
0/63/33/4 SP-3 §10/9/7 600
15 ...reddish brown a n d yellowish brown
mottling._____
- 5
% S an d y Gravel with silt (GM)~ m edium 0/50/38/12 SP-3 110/9/9
w v d e n s e to d e n se ; hard su b a n g u la r to
•V % i
600
subro u n d ed gravel; hard su b a n g u lar
20 6 w y sa n d ; fines-strong reaction with T-iCI,
w v grayish brow n (10YR 5/2); partial 0^40^29/30 IP-3 | l 4/5/15
W d1cparticles;
arb o n ate c o a ts on se v e ra l gravel 0/51/34/15 SP-3 "
distal alluvial fan.
Wf/i 6.54 tsf
A/?/,
25 /y V 1400
w j/i
/•/V
<?/
AM
30 - 9 /■A
S ite El. 6 0 80.5 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification S ystem , ASTM D 2487-83; [c] U n sh ad ed sectio n - n o recovery: 2/3/6 =
W ater T able El.: -6 0 7 6 .2 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 3 0 0 mm, g = gravel is from 4.7£> blow count for e a c h 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0 .3 m ; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a to 75 mm , s = sa n d is from 0.075 to 4775, a n d silt an d [d] Layer designation.
1 p sig = 5.2 cm of m urcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) a re < 0.075 m m { < 20 0 m esh). [f] S am p le type.
[b] Munsell color of w et fines (hue value/chrom a).

Fig. B.8 - Composite Profile N ear CP-8 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

436
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CPT (CP-8) SASW

Depth Desciption friction tip sle e v e (SA -2)
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec
10 0 200 400 0 6
30- t— r
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense
to dense. 1400
+10
Silt and Sand with clay (?).
3 5 -:
: 11 Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense 400 tsf
to dense.

40 T"12

-13

45-
1200
+•14

■15
50-

5 5 --
-17

1800
--1 8
60. J L
Site El. 6080.5 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: 6076.2 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa

Fig. B.8(cont.) - Com posite Profile Near CP-8 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

437
IF I I I
Reproduced with permission

Grain SPTc C P T (C P-9) SA SW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S ize (S P -4) friction tip s le e v e (SA- (BPc-1)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf 1985) Blowcount P ressure
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 ft/sec blows/ft psig

F
T 600.
Sandy Gravel-- medium dense; hard 9 6
subrounded gravel. 11 8
9 6
- 1 S an d y Silt with clay. 8 6
5- S an d y Gravel with so m e silt (GW-GM) 8 6
to Gravelly S a n d ( S P ) a - lo o se to 0/5 5 /3 6 /9 S P -4f 8 6
m edium d e n s e ; hard su b ro u n d ed 0/2 8 /6 8 /4 S P -4 6/5/5
2 gravel with low sphericity; h ard 9 6
su b an g u lar sa n d ; fines-no reaction 40 0
10 6
with HCI, dark grayish brow n (10YR
9 7
10- 11 8
450 18 8
Sandy Gravel with silt (?)-- medium 23 10
dense to dense. 30 12
- 4 900 41 12
15- 4 7 0 tsf ao7tsf 1300
47 12
53 13
- 5 570 ts 59 13
55 12
46 13
20- 6 46 12
39 12
prohibited without p erm ission.

30 11
-- 7 1600 23 11
20 10
25- 17 10
25 11
27 12
28 12
29 12
30. - 9 J L 28 1?
S ite El. 6 0 79.6 ft fa) Unified Soil Classification S ystem , ASTM D 2487-83; Ic] U n sh ad ed section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
W ater T able El.: -6 0 7 7 .6 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravei is from 4.75 blow count for e a c h 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a to 75 mm , s = sa n d is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , a n d silt an d [d] Layer designation.
1 p sig = 5 .2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clav (fines) a re < 0.075 m m (< 200 m esh). [f] S am p le type.
[b] M unsell color of w et fines (hue value/chrom a).

Fig. B.9 - Composite Profile N ear CP-9 at the Goddard Ranch Site.

438
i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTc CPTICP-10) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size (SP -4) friction tip s le e v e (SA- (BPC-1/-2)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf 1985) Blowcount P ressi
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 0 6 ft/sec blows/ft psig
T 6 0 0 --------
Sandy Gravel (GP-GW)a-- medium 9/ 3 6/ 4
dense to dense; hard subrounded 300 11/10 8/ 4
gravel; fines-no reaction with HCI, dark
grayish brown (10YR 4/2)b; fluvial. “ 3oo 9 /1 3 6/ 8
450 8 /1 0 6/ 7
Sandy Silt with som e clay-- very dark 8/ 9 6/ 7
5 -: grayish brown. ________________ 0 /5 5 /3 6 /9 SP-4* | c / c „- 500
81 8 6/ 6
2 Sandy Gravel (GW) to Gravelly Sand 0 /2 8 /6 8 /4 S P -4 ■ 6/5/5 9/ 7 6/ 6
(SP)-- loose to medium dense; hard 400
subrounded gravel with low sphericity, 0/5 2 /4 4 /4 B P o-4 10/ 6 6/ 4
includes various igneous rock types; 9/ 7 7/ 8
hard subangular sand: fines-no 11/ 6 8/ 8
IQ - reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown 45 0
(10YR 4/2); fluvial. 18/16 8/ 8
2 3 /2 2 10/10
3 0 /2 3 12/10
90 0
4 1 /2 6 12/10
Vf>; 0 /6 7 /3 1 /2 B P o-4 4 7 /2 7 12/10
15-- w y Sandy Gravel with silt (GW-GM)-- 1300 5 3 /3 2 13/11
- 5 /■vs* medium dense to dense; hard 605 tsf
y y
■ V H * subangular to subrounded gravel; hard
5 9 /4 0 13/12
5 5 /4 5 12/12
/■vs*
y y subangular sand; fines-strono reaction
/ y y with HCI, grayish brown (10Yh 5/2);
partial carbonate coats on several
4 6 /3 8 13/13
20 6 ^yy, gravel particles; distal alluvial fan. 4 6 /3 0 12/12
■•yy 3 9 /3 9 12/12
/•s*s*
yy 3 0 /3 2 11/12
/y
•s*s*y 2 3 /2 8 11/11
/y y 1600
2 0 /2 8 10/11
25- 17/32 10/11
0/6 1 /3 5 /4 B P o-4 2 5 /2 8 11/11
/• /y
•s*s* 2 7 /2 8 12/11
/y y
/y y j 2 8 /2 9 12/12
•% « S a
2 9 /2 9 12/12
30. <£££.-? J L 2 8 /3 0 12/12
Site El. 6080.1 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83: [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: -6077.6 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

439
Fig. B.10 - Composite Profile N ear CP-10 at the Goddard Ranch Site.
 i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CP7{CP-11) SASW BPT

Depth Desciption friction tip sleeve (SA-2) (BPC-2/-3)
ft m ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/sec Blowcount P ressure
n- 10 0 200 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Sand and Gravel (?)-- medium dense
to dense. 850/450/200 31 5 4/ 4
10/10 4/ 6
- 1 450 13/11 8/ 7
600 tsf 6.86 tsf 10/ 8 7/ 6
5- . 9/ 6 7/ 4
8/11 6/ 6
350
■7 2 7/ 9 6/ 5
6/ 8 4/ 6
7/14 8/ 6
10- 7 3 6/15 8/ 6
450 16/15 8/ 7
22/18 10/10
. .... 1 23/17 10/ 9
- 4
• “ 26/20 10/ 9
600 27/20 10/10
15- -
*- 5 32/20 11/ 9
"" 40/20 12/ 9
. 45/24 12/10
600 38/19 13/10
20- - 6 30/16 12/10
39/18 12/10
32/21 12/ 9
- 7 28/19 11/10
* 28/21 11/10
25- 1400 32/21 11/10
- 8 28/21 11/10
28/19 12/10
29/ 9 12/10
29/ 5 12/ 8
30.” - 9 J L J I I L J L 30/ 6 12/ 8
Site El. 6080.8 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: -6077.6 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

440
Fig. B . l l - Com posite Profile Near C P -11 at the Goddard Ranch Site.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTc CPHCP-12) SA SW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S ize (SP -2) friction tip s le e v e (SA -2) (BPC-2/-3)
ft m % ratio, % r esistan ce, tsf friction, tsf ft/se c Blowcount P ressure
c/g/s/f 10 400 0 6 blows/ft psig
Sandy Gravel (GW)a~ medium dense —r T T 1 1
> ' 1 8 5 0 /4 5 0 /2 0 0 3/ 5 4/ 4
to dense; hard subrounded gravel, 1 0 /1 0 4/ 6
includes various igneous rock types; 0/63/n a/n a SP-2* 1 8 /2 9 /2 3 ^420 ts C ^ 6 .9 6 tsf
hard subangular sand: fines-no 450 13/11 8/ 7
reaction with HCI, dark grayish brown 0/66/33/1 T P -2 " g
10/ 8 7/ 6
(10YR 4/2)b; max. size = 100 mm; dry 5>>S04 ts t* £L24 tsf --------
0 /5 2 /4 1 /7 T P -2 9/ 6 7/ 4
5- density at 0.9 m = 2.1 g/cm3; fluvial. 0 /6 1 /3 7 /2 S P -2 |6 / 7 /1 3
...grading with more silt at 1.5 m. Ad
< 350
8 /1 1 61 6
: 2\ 7/ 9 6/ 5
0 /6 0 /3 6 /4 T P -2
Sandy Gravel (GP-GW)-- loose to 0/73/26/1 S P -2 |4 / 5 /3 6/ 8 4/ 6
medium dense; hard subrounded 7 /1 4 8/ 6
gravel with low sphericity, includes 0 /5 2 /4 4 /4 B P o-4 r —
10 - various igneous rock types; hard 6 /1 5 8/ 6
subangular sand; fines-weak reaction 0 /5 6 /4 1 /3 S P -2 |4 / 7 / 5 ^ 450 1 6/15 8/ 7
with HCI. dark grayish brown (10YR 2 2 /1 8 1 0 /1 0
4/2); likely lenses of sandy silt; fluvial. C2 , —^ --------- 2 3 /1 7 10/ 9
..yellowish brown mottling.__________ 2 6 /2 0 10/ 9
0 /5 2 /4 1 /7 S P -2 |9 / 1 0 /6 S 600 2 7 /2 0 1 0 /1 0
15- Sandy Gravel with silt (GW-GM)--
medium dense to dense; hard 3 2 /2 0 11/ 9
subangular to subrounded gravel; hard 0 /6 7 /3 1 /2 B P o-4
4 0 /2 0 12/ 9
subangular sand; fines-moderate
reaction with HCI, grayish brown 0 /53/36/11 S P -2 § 2 9 /2 2 /1 9 4 5 /2 4 1 2 /1 0
(10YR 5/2); partial carbonate coats on f 600 3 8 /1 9 13/10
several gravel particles; distal alluvial
2 0 -:- 6 fan. 5 7 0 ‘tSf 3 0 /1 6 1 2 /1 0

D 3 9 /1 8 1 2 /1 0
32/21 12/ 9
• - 7 '. 0 /5 0 /4 2 /8 S P -2 | l 1/11/11 2 8 /1 9 1 1 /1 0
28/21 1 1 /1 0
0 /6 1 /3 5 /4 B P o-4 32/21 1 1 /1 0
25-- 1400
0 /4 2 /4 2 /1 6 S P -2 § 2 /3 /7 28/21 1 1 /1 0
■- 8 ,
2 8 /1 9 1 2 /1 0
29/ 9 1 2 /1 0
29/ 5 12/ 8
30. J L 1 1 1. 1 .... 30/ 6 12/ 8
SiteEI. 6081.0 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83: [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6:
Water Table El.: -6077.6 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 9 6 k P a to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Munsell color of wet fines (hue value/chroma).

Fig. B.12 - Composite Profile Near C P -12 at the Goddard Ranch Site. ^
 442

1500

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve
Surface Wave Velocity, VS( ft/sec

1000

500

oo,

100

Wavelength, XRi ft

j
]
] Fig. B. 13 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion
I Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array SA-1. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)
j

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 443

1500

Experimental Dispersion Curves

Theorectical Dispersion Curve

o
CD 1000
H-
in
>
&
o
_o
a)
>
a)
is
5
a)
o
aJ
'tz
500
CO

100

Wavelength, XRi ft

j Fig. B. 14 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SA SW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, A rray SA-2. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 444

1500

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve
Surface Wave Velocity, VSi ft/sec

1000

500

100
Wavelength, A,Rj ft

Fig. B.15 - Comparison o f Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array SA-3. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 445

1500

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve
Surface Wave Velocity, Vs> ft/sec

1000

.o

500

' ° o o Q 0 m fm m i

100
Wavelength, XR) ft

Fig. B.16 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Goddard Ranch Site, Array SA-4. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 446

Table B .l - SASW Profile D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, 1990.

Assumed Values SASW b

Layer Layer Layer Depth P-W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity W eight Velocity
(ft)a (ft) (ft/sec) (lb/ft3)a (ft/sec)

Test Array SA-1

El. 6081.6 ft
1 0.7 0.0 to 0.7 580 106 290
2 0.6 0.7 to 1.3 500 106 250
3 1.2 1.3 to 2.5 820 116 410
4 2.0 2.5 to 4.5 700 122 350
5 1.0 4.5 to 5.5 1140 135 570
6 8.0 5.5 to 13.5 5000 135 490
7 9.5 13.5 to 23.0 5000 138 700
8 12.0 23.0 to 35.0 5000 142 1300
9 20.0 35.0 to 55.0 5000 142 1050
10 Half-Space 5000 145 1800

Test Array SA-2

El. 6080.2 ft
1 0.2 0.0 to 0.2 1700 122 850
2 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 900 116 450
3 0.6 0.4 to 1.0 400 116 200
4 2.8 1.0 to 3.8 900 132 450
5 4.2 3.8 to 8.0 5000 132 350
6 4.0 8.0 to 12.0 5000 135 450
7 4.0 12.0 to 16.0 5000 138 600
8 4.0 16.0 to 20.0 5000 138 600
9 13.0 20.0 to 33.0 5000 142 1400
10 23.0 33.0 to 56.0 5000 142 1200
11 Half-Space 5000 145 1800

Test Array SA-3

El. 6078.6 ft
1 0.3 0.0 to 0.3 1600 122 800
2 0.7 0.3 to 1.0 400 116 200
3 1.0 1.0 to 2.0 5000 132 290
4 2.0 2.0 to 4.0 5000 132 280
5 4.0 4.0 to 8.0 5000 132 340
6 4.0 8.0 to 12.0 5000 135 420
7 6.0 12.0 to 18.0 5000 142 830
8 15.0 18.0 to 33.0 5000 142 1000
9 22.0 33.0 to 55.0 5000 142 1300
10 Half-Space 5000 145 1800

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.

[b] Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 447

Table B. 1 (cont.) - SASW Profile Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, 1990.

Assumed Values SASW b

L ayer Layer Layer Depth P -W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity Weight Velocity
(ft)a (ft) (ft/sec) (lb/ft3)a (ft/sec)
Test Array SA-4
El. 6080.2 ft
1 0.25 0.0 to 0.25 2100 122 1050
2 0.15 0.25 to 0.4 740 116 370
3 0.5 0.4 to 0.9 360 116 180
4 2.9 0.9 to 3.8 830 132 420
5 4.2 3.8 to 8.0 5000 132 330
6 4.0 8.0 to 12.0 5000 135 360
7 4.0 12.0 to 16.0 5000 138 670
8 4.0 16.0 to 20.0 5000 138 850
9 13.0 20.0 to 33.0 5000 142 1200
10 23.0 33.0 to 53.0 5000 142 1000
11 Half-Space 5000 145 1800

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.

[b] Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).

I
i

i
i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 448

r n | r i i i | 11 i i 11 i i i | i i 11 | i 11 i i i i 11 11 11 i

Depth, ft Unit
1 4 .0 - 5.5 B1
2 6 .5 - 8.0 B1/C
3 9 .0 -1 0 .5 C
4 11.5-13.0 C/D
5 14.5-16.0 D
6 17.0-18.5 D

L 1 <2 ‘t ° DV
ii ill I iViXl i\ i i I i i i i I i i i i INi i i I i i i i IXi J L _ L
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. B.17 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Goddard R anch Site,
Borehole SP-1. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

r r r r p r T i i 11 11 i
Depth, ft Unit
1 1 .5 - 3.0 A
2 4.5 - 6.0 A
V) 3 7.0 - 8.5 C
o 6 4 9 .5 -1 0 .0 C
o 5 13.5-15.0 C
_c
6 17.0-18.5 D
c 9
.2 7 25.0 - 26.5 D
03 8 3 0 .0 -3 1 .5 D

|
0
12
9 3 5 .0 -3 6 .5 E

a.
15 -
7 3 4 8 9^2'5
18 LLUL I l \ l \ I M \l I I-I-U . l L i.I.I |J .I - U ^ - I .L . u NL
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. B. 18 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Goddard R anch Site,
Borehole SP-2. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 449

0 i r n 11-| i i i 11 i i i i 11 i r i | i i i i | i i i i j"i i 11 | r n - rj
Depth, ft Unit
1 2.0- 3.5 A -
2 4.5- 6.0 B/C “
3 7.0- 8.5 C “
4 9.5-11.0 c -
5 13.5-15.0 C "
6 17.0-18.5 C/D “
7 20.0-21.5 D ~

5te 7\
M i l rAi i 1 1 i i ^ i 1 1\ I I I I I I I N M I I I I I I I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. B. 19 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Goddard Ranch Site,
Borehole SP-3. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

0
Depth, ft Unit
3

c 12

15

18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. B.20 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Goddard Ranch Site,
Borehole SP-4. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 450

Table B.2 - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-1.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6079.5 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2^
Initial: 0 0.00
11.81 ft +1 -0.08
11.81 ft 0 0.00 Rezero
Final: +1 -0.02
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.35 6.89 196.35 1.40 0.71
0.66 0.78 7.05 79.41 2.49 3.14
0.82 62.56 1.08 1.73 7.22 180.78 2.02 1.12
0.98 184.35 0.65 0.35 7.38 171.33 2.52 1.47
1.15 220.10 1.98 0.90 7.54 199.42 3.15 1.58
1.31 253.55 2.46 0.97 7.71 129.71 1.95 1.50
1.48 254.32 3.15 1.24 7.87 164.44 2.49 1.51
1.64 259.42 2.07 0.80 8.04 247.17 2.65 1.07
1.80 252.27 2.29 0.91 8.20 167.25 1.68 1.00
1.97 224.95 1.66 0.74 8.36 143.24 0.91 0.64
2.13 197.38 0.87 0.44 8.53 142.73 1.11 0.78
2.30 194.06 1.40 0.72 8.69 168.78 0.49 0.29
2.46 218.82 0.85 0.39 8.86 96.01 0.76 0.79
2.62 194.82 0.75 0.38 9.02 75.07 0.57 0.76
2.79 204.27 0.39 0.19 9.18 76.60 0.66 0.86
2.95 188.18 -0.03 -0.02 9.35 45.71 0.85 1.86
3.12 194.82 0.67 0.34 9.51 36.51 3.48 9.53
3.28 161.37 1.65 1.02 9.68 182.31 4.25 2.33
3.44 120.52 0.29 0.24 9.84 103.67 2.07 2.00
3.61 108.01 0.19 0.18 10.00 98.05 1.37 1.40
3.77 97.79 0.03 0.03 10.17 131.50 1.73 1.32
3.94 102.65 0.96 0.94 10.33 112.09 0.77 0.69
4.10 57.20 0.47 0.82 10.50 121.29 1.23 1.01
4.26 21.96 0.16 0.73 10.66 93.20 1.22 1.31
4.43 16.60 0.21 1.27 10.82 103.16 1.44 1.40
4.59 7.92 0.11 1.39 10.99 147.33 2.27 1.54
4.76 7.92 0.22 2.78 11.15 156.52 2.94 1.88
4.92 13.79 1.18 8.56 11.32 139.93 0.59 0.42
5.08 18.13 0.98 5.41 11.48 149.37 1.48 0.99
5.25 13.53 0.98 7.24 11.64 109.80 3.66 3.33
5.41 18.38 0.56 3.05 11.81 230.83 4.70 2.04
5.58 27.58 0.52 1.89 11.97 284.45 2.02 0.71
5.74 12.26 0.46 3.75 12.14 273.98 2.70 0.99
5.90 24.26 1.31 5.40 12.30 109.80 3.34 3.04
6.07 45.96 1.16 2.52 12.46 172.10 2.64 1.53
6.23 116.18 1.04 0.90 12.63 247.93 3.19 1.29
6.40 87.84 0.58 0.66 12.79 254.32 1.46 0.57
6.56 147.07 0.55 0.37 12.96 213.46 1.63 0.76
6.72 159.84 2.64 1.65 13.12 247.68 1.73 0.70
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 451

Table B.2 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-1.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 233.12 2.49 1.07
13.45 255.34 3.63 1.42
13.61 242.57 3.23 1.33
13.78 280.36 2.58 0.92
13.94 330.66 1.97 0.60
14.10 339.60 2.68 0.79
14.27 366.15 3.47 0.95
14.43 339.85 2.21 0.65
14.60 339.34 3.17 0.93
14.76 337.30 2.76 0.82
14.92 202.48 1.39 0.69
15.09 261.21 1.76 0.67
15.25 283.68 2.03 0.72
15.42 309.98 1.82 0.59
15.58 262.74 1.17 0.45
15.70 500.

[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 452

Table B.3 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-2.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 3

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6077.7 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) {ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -3 +0.36
Baseline Adjust: No________________ ___
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.10 6.89 74.05 1.00 1.35
0.66 0.55 7.05 67.66 1.15 1.70
0.82 31.15 0.78 2.50 7.22 55.92 2.08 3.72
0.98 48.77 -0.21 -0.43 7.38 70.47 0.64 0.91
1.15 66.13 0.07 0.11 7.54 95.75 0.94 0.98
1.31 57.96 0.25 0.43 7.71 129.20 0.42 0.33
1.48 72.01 0.22 0.31 7.87 130.22 1.47 1.13
1.64 97.54 1.24 1.27 8.04 108.01 3.08 2.85
1.80 57.96 0.70 1.21 8.20 130.22 0.88 0.68
1.97 88.60 0.87 0.98 8.36 132.26 0.58 0.44
2.13 84.52 0.70 0.83 8.53 57.71 1.99 3.45
2.30 108.52 2.75 2.53 8.69 105.97 2.72 2.57
2.46 108.26 0.85 0.79 8.86 61.79 2.62 4.24
2.62 159.33 0.89 0.56 9.02 88.09 1.67 1.90
2.79 158.05 1.70 1.08 9.18 70.98 0.56 0.79
2.95 167.25 1.75 1.05 9.35 36.51 1.55 4.25
3.12 235.42 3.45 1.47 9.51 181.03 1.36 0.75
3.28 161.63 3.20 1.98 9.68 158.31 1.57 0.99
3.44 168.01 2.69 1.60 9.84 156.78 1.26 0.80
3.61 137.37 1.97 1.43 10.00 112.60 1.14 1.01
3.77 165.20 2.17 1.31 10.17 139.93 0.57 0.41
3.94 150.14 2.86 1.90 10.33 127.16 1.07 0.84
4.10 231.34 1.98 0.86 10.50 169.29 1.07 0.63
4.26 132.78 0.34 0.26 10.66 193.80 1.55 0.80
4.43 128.95 2.41 1.87 10.82 232.61 1.06 0.46
4.59 206.06 0.94 0.46 10.99 254.83 1.38 0.54
4.76 96.52 1.11 1.15 11.15 251.00 1.79 0.71
4.92 124.60 1.39 1.12 11.32 252.53 1.41 0.56
5.08 116.94 -0.35 -0.30 11.48 307.68 6.07 1.97
5.25 104.94 0.34 0.32 11.64 301.81 4.36 1.44
5.41 173.12 1.50 0.87 11.81 265.81 4.15 1.56
5.58 179.50 2.93 1.63 11.97 271.68 1.94 0.71
5.74 135.33 2.75 2.03 12.14 295.94 2.25 0.76
5.90 81.96 1.96 2.39 12.30 392.71 2.00 0.51
6.07 99.33 0.63 0.63 12.46 528.04 1.61 0.30
6.23 98.56 0.78 0.79 12.63 471.35 1.61 0.34
6.40 91.16 1.18 1.29 12.79 498.93 1.52 0.30
6.56 106.22 0.57 0.54 12.96 463.69 1.03 0.22
6.72 76.09 0.18 0.24 13.12 479.01 1.78 0.37
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9576 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 453

Table B.3 (cont.) - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-2.

Sheet 2 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 463.44 1.04 0.22 21.16 186.14 0.58 0.31
13.45 371.01 3.28 0.88 21.32 155.76 0.59 0.38
13.61 326.07 2.77 0.85 21.48 108.01 0.80 0.74
13.78 308.96 2.58 0.84 21.65 99.07 -0.23 -0.23
13.94 402.41 1.10 0.27 21.81 148.86 0.93 0.62
14.10 390.16 2.82 0.72 21.98 185.38 1.76 0.95
14.27 356.20 3.92 1.10 22.14 186.65 0.90 0.48
14.43 331.68 1.88 0.57 22.30 192.52 1.13 0.59
14.60 311.77 1.87 0.60 22.47 192.78 0.95 0.49
14.76 339.85 1.52 0.45 22.63 220.10 1.38 0.63
14.92 388.62 1.06 0.27 22.80 212.44 1.25 0.59
15.09 426.41 1.88 0.44 22.96 228.78 2.20 0.96
15.25 360.54 1.50 0.42 23.12 217.29 1.69 0.78
15.42 368.71 3.07 0.83 23.29 186.65 1.59 0.85
15.58 347.51 3.41 0.98 23.45 225.21 1.40 0.62
15.74 357.98 2.54 0.71 23.62 224.19 2.15 0.96
15.91 297.98 2.84 0.95 23.78 211.16 3.04 1.44
16.07 307.94 2.30 0.75 23.94 234.91 1.42 0.60
16.24 316.36 1.79 0.57 24.11 203.76 0.64 0.31
16.40 302.83 2.33 0.77 24.27 181.80 1.08 0.59
16.56 319.17 2.12 0.66 24.44 224.95 0.70 0.31
16.73 285.21 1.74 0.61 24.60 236.44 0.81 0.34
16.89 284.96 2.21 0.78 24.76 233.89 0.62 0.27
17.06 318.66 1.70 0.53 24.93 218.06 0.88 0.40
17.22 358.75 3.58 1.00 25.09 240.02 2.59 1.08
17.38 324.53 1.63 0.50 25.26 263.51 1.45 0.55
17.55 276.02 0.69 0.25 25.42 289.55 0.92 0.32
17.71 289.81 0.46 0.16 25.58 226.48 1.22 0.54
17.88 253.29 0.46 0.18 25.75 218.06 1.04 0.48
18.04 214.48 0.59 0.28 25.91 217.04 1.52 0.70
18.20 141.46 0.72 0.51 26.08 236.70 0.40 0.17
18.37 146.82 0.23 0.16 26.24 243.34 0.63 0.26
18.53 111.07 1.18 1.06 26.40 251.76 1.15 0.46
18.70 110.31 0.85 0.77 26.57 382.75 1.58 0.41
18.86 91.67 1.06 1.16 26.73 248.95 1.01 0.41
19.02 101.11 0.59 0.58 26.90 256.10 1.71 0.67
19.19 104.18 0.37 0.36 27.06 223.68 1.97 0.88
19.35 104.94 0.78 0.74 27.22 184.35 3.74 2.03
19.52 108.77 0.95 0.87 27.39 239.25 2.00 0.84
19.68 116.69 1.04 0.89 27.55 230.83 1.73 0.75
19.84 136.09 1.08 0.79 27.72 261.21 1.16 0.44
20.01 140.44 1.36 0.97 27.88 289.04 1.89 0.65
20.17 148.35 1.11 0.75 28.04 274.49 1.71 0.62
20.34 125.88 0.86 0.68 28.21 292.87 2.26 0.77
20.50 139.93 1.48 1.06 28.37 242.57 2.83 1.17
20.66 164.18 0.97 0.59 28.54 228.78 1.86 0.81
20.83 176.44 1.11 0.63 28.70 235.42 1.07 0.45
20.99 182.82 0.94 0.51 28.86 249.72 1.37 0.55
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPf.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 454

Table B.3 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-2.

Sheet 3 of 3
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
29.03 193.29 2.52 1.30
29.19 169.29 2.85 1.68
29.36 122.56 2.75 2.24
29.52 58.73 2.53 4.31
29.68 61.54 1.84 2.99
29.85 69.96 1.97 2.82
30.01 62.05 1.56 2.51
30.18 45.71 1.49 3.26
30.34 43.41 1.59 3.66
30.50 46.22 1.94 4.20
30.67 74.81 1.76 2.35
30.83 60.52 1.75 2.89
31.00 45.71 2.28 4.99
31.16 61.03 3.08 5.05
31.32 99.07 3.74 3.78
31.49 115.16 3.78 3.28
31.65 114.65 3.32 2.90
31.82 137.12 3.38 2.46

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 455

Table B.4 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-3.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 3

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6080.9 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
{ton/ft2} (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: 0 +0.04
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.41 6.89 36.00 0.54 1.50
0.66 0.61 7.05 48.00 0.29 0.60
0.82 64.35 0.43 0.67 7.22 57.45 0.25 0.44
0.98 124.60 0.35 0.28 7.38 50.05 0.17 0.34
1.15 124.60 1.80 1.44 7.54 64.86 0.75 1.16
1.31 159.08 1.76 1.11 7.71 51.07 0.42 0.82
1.48 136.61 1.31 0.96 7.87 64.35 0.33 0.51
1.64 139.16 1.40 1.01 8.04 84.52 0.40 0.47
1.80 187.67 0.66 0.35 8.20 61.28 0.11 0.18
1.97 232.36 0.82 0.35 8.36 56.43 0.25 0.44
2.13 260.96 1.21 0.46 8.53 81.71 0.16 0.20
2.30 212.44 0.27 0.13 8.69 71.49 -0.09 -0.13
2.46 199.93 0.06 0.03 8.86 75.07 0.56 0.75
2.62 195.59 1.14 0.58 9.02 82.73 1.17 1.41
2.79 205.29 1.41 0.69 9.18 68.43 2.07 3.02
2.95 222.65 2.83 1.27 9.35 101.88 1.52 1.49
3.12 173.88 1.41 0.81 9.51 91.16 1.80 1.97
3.28 128.43 0.97 0.76 9.68 86.30 0.62 0.72
3.44 117.71 1.55 1.32 9.84 112.09 1.16 1.03
3.61 69.96 1.40 2.00 10.00 100.86 0.45 0.45
3.77 33.19 0.71 2.14 10.17 107.75 0.71 0.66
3.94 19.92 0.30 1.51 10.33 82.47 1.06 1.29
4.10 16.60 0.10 0.60 10.50 56.43 0.86 1.52
4.26 15.32 0.06 0.39 10.66 35.49 0.39 1.10
4.43 13.02 0.08 0.61 10.82 24.26 0.13 0.54
4.59 11.49 0.09 0.78 10.99 35.75 1.59 4.45
4.76 11.49 0.1 0.87 11.15 62.56 1.15 1.84
4.92 11.49 0.04 0.35 11.32 138.14 1.14 0.83
5.08 40.09 0.19 0.47 11.48 111.58 1.12 1.00
5.25 59.75 -0.56 -0.94 11.64 110.82 0.69 0.62
5.41 56.94 0.37 0.65 11.81 109.54 0.79 0.72
5.58 47.24 0.28 0.59 11.97 83.75 0.50 0.60
5.74 34.22 0.15 0.44 12.14 63.07 0.60 0.95
5.90 20.17 0.08 0.40 12.30 63.07 0.18 0.29
6.07 17.11 0.04 0.23 12.46 66.13 0.47 0.71
6.23 18.13 0.21 1.16 12.63 72.01 0.48 0.67
6.40 20.68 0.16 0.77 12.79 82.73 0.40 0.48
6.56 29.62 0.05 0.17 12.96 73.79 1.28 1.73
6.72 35.75 0.37 1.03 13.12 99.33 1.63 1.64
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 456

Table B.4 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-3.

Sheet 2 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)3 (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 142.48 2.80 1.97 21.16 153.46 0.69 0.45
13.45 89.62 1.65 1.84 21.32 126.14 1.31 1.04
13.61 102.14 1.01 0.99 21.48 126.39 1.71 1.35
13.78 105.97 3.34 3.15 21.65 147.84 0.82 0.55
13.94 140.44 1.39 0.99 21.81 118.73 0.55 0.46
14.10 147.84 2.75 1.86 21.98 130.48 0.28 0.21
14.27 185.63 1.79 0.96 22.14 131.75 0.71 0.54
14.43 144.27 3.89 2.70 22.30 112.86 0.76 0.67
14.60 151.16 2.73 1.81 22.47 115.16 0.10 0.09
14.76 109.80 2.31 2.10 22.63 131.50 0.94 0.71
14.92 133.29 1.15 0.86 22.80 158.56 2.08 1.31
15.09 137.12 1.11 0.81 22.96 181.55 1.47 0.81
15.25 136.35 1.54 1.13 23.12 157.80 1.39 0.88
15.42 106.99 0.81 0.76 23.29 209.89 1.57 0.75
15.58 117.71 1.25 1.06 23.45 209.12 1.86 0.89
15.74 147.59 0.82 0.56 23.62 215.25 0.97 0.45
15.91 127.92 2.60 2.03 23.78 246.66 2.93 1.19
16.07 164.18 1.65 1.00 23.94 317.64 4.90 1.54
16.24 142.99 2.31 1.62 24.11 395.52 4.56 1.15
16.40 115.67 1.67 1.44 24.27 350.32 1.94 0.55
16.56 99.33 1.52 1.53 24.44 321.21 1.07 0.33
16.73 80.69 0.93 1.15 24.60 320.19 1.33 0.42
16.89 95.75 1.85 1.93 24.76 307.17 2.01 0.65
17.06 93.20 1.01 1.08 24.93 261.21 2.40 0.92
17.22 99.84 0.69 0.69 25.09 272.96 1.29 0.47
17.38 96.52 0.15 0.16 25.26 220.61 0.84 0.38
17.55 102.90 0.52 0.51 25.42 201.46 0.79 0.39
17.71 27.83 0.70 2.52 25.58 269.38 1.12 0.42
17.88 62.05 0.32 0.52 25.75 265.81 1.17 0.44
18.04 31.92 0.26 0.81 25.91 259.68 1.17 0.45
18.20 34.22 0.26 0.76 26.08 264.02 1.51 0.57
18.37 28.85 0.10 0.35 26.24 242.57 1.56 0.64
18.53 24.77 0.27 1.09 26.40 279.85 1.31 0.47
18.70 48.26 0.65 1.35 26.57 297.21 2.02 0.68
18.86 88.86 -0.02 -0.02 26.73 282.40 2.85 1.01
19.02 105.45 0.42 0.40 26.90 295.43 0.72 0.24
19.19 73.03 0.38 0.52 27.06 246.40 1.26 0.51
19.35 55.15 0.53 0.96 27.22 246.40 1.51 0.61
19.52 31.41 0.13 0.41 27.39 199.42 1.13 0.57
19.68 23.49 0.06 0.26 27.55 192.01 0.24 0.12
19.84 14.55 0.10 0.69 27.72 193.80 0.43 0.22
20.01 22.21 0.29 1.31 27.88 208.10 1.13 0.54
20.17 99.58 0.12 0.12 28.04 232.61 2.08 0.89
20.34 116.18 2.51 2.16 28.21 226.23 1.76 0.78
20.50 280.62 1.88 0.67 28.37 181.80 2.79 1.53
20.66 255.85 1.31 0.51 28 54 126.65 2.66 2.10
20.83 197.12 0.91 0.46 28.70 78.39 2.54 3.24
20.99 163.67 0.72 0.44 28.86 79.41 2.86 3.60
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 457

Table B.4 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-3.

Sheet 3 of 3
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)

29.03 129.46 1.86 1.44

29.19 139.41 3.87 2.78
29.36 237.72 2.84 1.19
29.52 182.31 1.85 1.01
29.68 224.70 1.50 0.67
29.85 293.89 3.29 1.12
30.01 289.81 2.48 0.86
30.18 298.75 1.81 0.61
30.34 296.96 2.01 0.68
30.50 298.75 2.11 0.71
30.67 287.77 2.49 0.87
30.83 267.08 1.92 0.72
31.00 295.68 1.61 0.54
31.16 306.92 1.10 0.36
31.32 294.91 2.05 0.70
31.49 260.19 1.31 0.50
31.65 265.04 1.78 0.67
31.82 290.57 0.88 0.30
31.98 261.98 1.12 0.43
32.14 276.53 1.19 0.43
32.31 276.02 2.33 0.84
32.47 269.64 1.90 0.70
32.64 267.85 0.93 0.35
32.80 322.75 0.73 0.23
32.96 298.49 1.02 0.34
33.13 326.32 1.20 0.37
33.29 321.73 1.13 0.35
33.46 355.94 4.03 1.13
33.62 342.92 4.91 1.43
33.78 422.58 5.11 1.21
33.95 449.39 6.44 1.43
34.00 450.

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 458

Table B.5 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-4.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 3

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6081.6 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -4 +0.08
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.43 6.89 101.11 -0.01 -0.01
0.66 0.48 7.05 104.69 0.66 0.63
0.82 25.02 0.30 1.20 7.22 126.14 1.67 1.32
0.98 35.49 0.11 0.31 7.38 142.22 0.89 0.63
1.15 31.41 0.08 0.25 7.54 136.61 1.23 0.90
1.31 24.51 0.14 0.57 7.71 134.56 0.78 0.58
1.48 20.17 0.19 0.94 7.87 124.60 0.97 0.78
1.64 19.15 0.26 1.36 8.04 123.58 0.45 0.36
1.80 22.21 0.08 0.36 8.20 122.05 0.46 0.38
1.97 31.92 0.16 0.50 8.36 135.58 1.94 1.43
2.13 27.58 0.44 1.60 8.53 161.37 1.64 1.02
2.30 21.70 0.47 2.17 8.69 112.60 0.53 0.47
2.46 23.49 0.80 3.41 8.86 133.54 0.96 0.72
2.62 23.75 0.77 3.24 9.02 185.12 1.67 0.90
2.79 14.55 0.59 4.05 9.18 120.26 0.96 0.80
2.95 36.00 0.67 1.86 9.35 110.05 0.62 0.56
3.12 95.24 0.86 0.90 9.51 119.50 0.39 0.33
3.28 144.01 1.03 0.72 9.68 133.80 3.18 2.38
3.44 106.22 1.07 1.01 9.84 131.50 2.22 1.69
3.61 98.05 0.98 1.00 10.00 290.06 2.37 0.82
3.77 87.84 0.72 0.82 10.17 187.67 2.44 1.30
3.94 70.47 0.32 0.45 10.33 158.82 2.89 1.82
4.10 62.56 0.37 0.59 10.50 141.71 2.76 1.95
4.26 57.96 0.23 0.40 10.66 157.03 0.94 0.60
4.43 53.37 0.28 0.52 10.82 108.52 0.84 0.77
4.59 46.98 0.21 0.45 10.99 131.75 0.79 0.60
4.76 37.02 0.10 0.27 11.15 100.60 0.84 0.83
4.92 36.77 -0.04 -0.11 11.32 103.16 0.95 0.92
5.08 64.35 0.45 0.70 11.48 93.96 0.88 0.94
5.25 114.14 0.78 0.68 11.64 92.43 1.04 1.13
5.41 75.07 1.19 1.59 11.81 132.52 1.40 1.06
5.58 105.71 3.30 3.12 11.97 93.71 0.61 0.65
5.74 125.37 2.00 1.60 12.14 93.71 0.48 0.51
5.90 109.80 0.38 0.35 12.30 77.62 1.10 1.42
6.07 137.37 2.38 1.73 12.46 63.07 0.79 1.25
6.23 113.63 1.62 1.43 12.63 49.28 0.77 1.56
6.40 98.56 1.83 1.86 12.79 33.96 0.31 0.91
6.56 124.35 0.51 0.41 12.96 40.85 0.12 0.29
6.72 110.82 0.60 0.54 13.12 44.17 0.13 0.29
aj 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 459

Table B.5 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-4.

Sheet 2 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft^) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 40.60 0.44 1.08 21.16 187.16 2.83 1.51
13.45 45.96 1.13 2.46 21.32 197.38 1.82 0.92
13.61 74.05 1.27 1.72 21.48 266.06 1.57 0.59
13.78 72.77 0.35 0.48 21.65 195.08 1.46 0.75
13.94 88.35 0.40 0.45 21.81 196.61 2.64 1.34
14.10 90.13 0.34 0.38 21.98 173.12 1.21 0.70
14.27 73.28 2.17 2.96 22.14 178.99 1.31 0.73
14.43 96.26 0.18 0.19 22.30 199.16 1.84 0.92
14.60 101.11 0.63 0.62 22.47 166.74 1.52 0.91
14.76 79.15 1.17 1.48 22.63 178.74 0.96 0.54
14.92 67.66 0.73 1.15 22.80 140.95 1.46 1.04
15.09 93.96 0.43 0.46 22.96 198.65 0.71 0.36
15.25 84.77 0.97 1.14 23.12 239.25 1.03 0.43
15.42 100.09 0.67 0.67 23.29 262.23 1.99 0.76
15.58 104.18 0.67 0.64 23.45 243.59 1.09 0.45
15.74 109.54 1.16 1.06 23.62 221.12 1.40 0.63
15.91 122.31 1.02 0.83 23.78 221.38 1.47 0.66
16.07 109.28 1.16 1.06 23.94 251.25 1.30 0.52
16.24 83.50 1.05 1.26 24.11 240.78 1.62 0.67
16.40 87.84 1.16 1.32 24.27 254.83 1.93 0.76
16.56 111.84 2.02 1.81 24.44 259.42 1.11 0.43
16.73 109.54 0.53 0.48 24.60 232.61 1.96 0.84
16.89 111.07 0.39 0.35 24.76 216.53 1.24 0.57
17.06 143.76 0.66 0.46 24.93 203.50 0.58 0.29
17.22 98.05 0.96 0.98 25.09 193.55 0.61 0.32
17.38 117.20 0.91 0.78 25.26 218.31 1.72 0.79
17.55 156.27 1.59 1.02 25.42 285.98 3.44 1.20
17.71 173.37 3.02 1.74 25.58 275.51 2.61 0.95
17.88 192.27 4.09 2.13 25.75 239.00 3.82 1.60
18.04 254.57 2.50 0.98 25.91 257.64 2.99 1.16
18.20 145.29 1.68 1.16 26.08 268.36 1.70 0.63
18.37 165.71 0.81 0.49 26.24 282.15 3.05 1.08
18.53 159.84 2.53 1.58 26.40 366.66 1.98 0.54
18.70 168.27 1.92 1.14 26.57 408.80 3.16 0.77
18.86 160.61 2.66 1.66 26.73 346.24 4.61 1.33
19.02 204.53 2.31 1.13 26.90 260.70 2.71 1.04
19.19 215.25 1.58 0.73 27.06 301.81 2.33 0.77
19.35 158.05 1.74 1.10 27.22 344.20 0.70 0.20
19.52 204.27 1.68 0.82 27.39 330.66 2.95 0.89
19.68 193.80 1.92 0.99 27.55 359.77 1.26 0.35
19.84 178.23 1.47 0.82 27.72 357.98 2.11 0.59
20.01 183.08 1.25 0.68 27.88 331.94 1.47 0.44
20.17 205.55 1.69 0.82 28.04 334.49 1.76 0.53
20.34 232.10 2.13 0.92 28.21 353.13 6.95 1.97
20.50 265.81 1.39 0.52 28.37 355.17 6.64 1.87
20.66 224.70 0.89 0.40 28.54 299.00 2.01 0.67
20.83 219.33 1.41 0.64 28.70 342.92 1.05 0.31
20.99 204.78 1.69 0.83 28.86 264.27 0.71 0.27
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 460

Table B.5 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-4.

Sheet 3 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
29.03 256.10 0.28 0.11
29.19 245.89 1.29 0.52
29.36 266.57 3.70 1.39
29.52 252.78 4.41 1.74
29.68 311.26 2.73 0.88
29.85 272.45 0.83 0.30
30.01 249.21 1.98 0.79
30.18 189.72 0.73 0.38
30.34 236.70 1.64 0.69
30.50 232.61 4.36 1.87
30.67 246.40 3.66 1.49
30.83 390.67 2.60 0.67
31.00 361.81 3.91 1.08
31.16 336.28 2.12 0.63
31.32 287.77 1.09 0.38
31.49 269.89 1.12 0.41
31.65 238.74 0.81 0.34
31.82 233.89 1.25 0.53
31.98 250.49 1.79 0.71
32.14 250.23 0.65 0.26
32.31 289.81 0.80 0.28
32.47 295.43 2.43 0.82
32.64 284.19 1.64 0.58
32.80 305.13 1.00 0.33
32.96 313.81 1.74 0.55
33.13 329.39 0.80 0.24
33.29 332.96 2.03 0.61
33.46 323.51 1.47 0.45
33.62 329.13 0.48 0.15
33.78 269.89 0.44 0.16
33.95 216.02 1.05 0.49
34.11 141.71 0.93 0.66
34.28 77.62 1.58 2.04
34.44 51.32 0.87 1.70
34.60 44.17 0.79 1.79
34.77 48.77 0.49 1.00
34.93 40.60 0.77 1.90
35.10 38.81 2.05 5.28
35.26 46.73 1.65 3.53
35.42 49.79 2.05 4.12
35.59 110.31 2.27 2.06
35.75 144.27 2.61 1.81
35.92 87.33 4.85 5.55
36.08 186.40 2.69 1.44
36.40 480.

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 461

Table B .6 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-5.

Date: August 4, 1990 Sheet 1 of 3

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6081.2 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2! (ton/ft2^
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: +2 -0.08
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (torVft2)3 (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.41 6.89 22.73 0.18 0.79
0.66 0.46 7.05 15.83 0.16 1.01
0.82 15.06 0.41 2.72 7.22 14.30 0.09 0.63
0.98 12.26 0.40 3.26 7.38 18.13 0.10 0.55
1.15 12.77 0.50 3.92 7.54 8.68 0.10 1.15
1.31 14.81 0.60 4.05 7.71 4.85 0.11 2.27
1.48 12.77 0.67 5.25 7.87 2.04 0.07 3.43
1.64 11.23 0.62 5.52 8.04 3.57 -0.06 -1.68
1.80 9.70 0.56 5.77 8.20 14.81 0.22 1.49
1.97 7.40 0.44 5.95 8.36 35.75 0.28 0.78
2.13 5.11 0.30 5.87 8.53 22.21 0.17 0.77
2.30 2.55 0.21 8.24 8.69 26.30 0.02 0.08
2.46 1.79 0.16 8.94 8.86 27.32 0.63 2.31
2.62 1.02 0.12 11.76 9.02 14.30 0.10 0.70
2.79 0.77 0.10 12.99 9.18 18.38 0.14 0.76
2.95 1.02 0.13 12.75 9.35 32.68 0.97 2.97
3.12 0.51 0.01 1.96 9.51 25.28 0.16 0.63
3.28 5.36 0.59 11.01 9.68 22.73 1.57 6.91
3.44 39.07 0.46 1.18 9.84 110.31 0.29 0.26
3.61 123.33 -0.12 -0.10 10.00 99.07 1.36 1.37
3.77 164.95 0.62 0.38 10.17 48.26 1.52 3.15
3.94 128.95 1.20 0.93 10.33 84.52 1.91 2.26
4.10 115.16 1.31 1.14 10.50 58.47 4.45 7.61
4.26 108.01 0.84 0.78 10.66 25.02 1.54 6.16
4.43 108.77 0.16 0.15 10.82 48.26 0.47 0.97
4.59 105.20 0.60 0.57 10.99 67.66 0.78 1.15
4.76 105.71 0.32 0.30 11.15 108.77 1.05 0.97
4.92 96.52 0.20 0.21 11.32 139.41 2.17 1.56
5.08 73.79 0.34 0.46 11.48 171.08 0.88 0.51
5.25 80.43 0.40 0.50 11.64 181.29 1.12 0.62
5.41 65.11 0.45 0.69 11.81 160.35 1.91 1.19
5.58 81.45 0.47 0.58 11.97 124.86 0.88 0.70
5.74 89.62 0.77 0.86 12.14 201.46 1.31 0.65
5.90 43.41 0.19 0.44 12.30 169.80 2.08 1.22
6.07 50.30 0.13 0.26 12.46 211.67 1.89 0.89
6.23 37.02 0.25 0.68 12.63 205.55 0.33 0.16
6.40 35.24 0.38 1.08 12.79 185.89 2.69 1.45
6.56 28.85 0.13 0.45 12.96 220.87 1.32 0.60
6.72 23.49 0.39 1.66 13.12 218.31 2.35 1.08
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 462

Table B.6 (cont.) - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-5.

Sheet 2 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 215.25 4.12 1.91 21.16 76.09 0.18 0.24
13.45 177.20 2.31 1.30 21.32 71.75 0.48 0.67
13.61 173.63 1.83 1.05 21.48 91.67 0.62 0.68
13.78 210.14 3.51 1.67 21.65 121.03 1.23 1.02
13.94 160.35 4.18 2.61 21.81 110.31 0.42 0.38
14.10 108.01 0.82 0.76 21.98 104.18 0.81 0.78
14.27 128.43 0.85 0.66 22.14 107.50 0.30 0.28
14.43 102.39 0.65 0.63 22.30 102.14 0.42 0.41
14.60 85.79 0.46 0.54 22.47 77.37 0.59 0.76
14.76 79.67 2.58 3.24 22.63 92.69 0.50 0.54
14.92 164.44 1.86 1.13 22.80 98.30 0.41 0.42
15.09 42.90 2.60 6.06 22.96 80.69 0.43 0.53
15.25 71.75 0.75 1.05 23.12 80.94 1.13 1.40
15.42 74.30 0.35 0.47 23.29 85.79 0.58 0.68
15.58 94.73 0.98 1.03 23.45 71.24 0.53 0.74
15.74 111.58 1.94 1.74 23.62 87.58 1.93 2.20
15.91 89.37 1.65 1.85 23.78 93.96 1.54 1.64
16.07 137.88 1.58 1.15 23.94 137.37 2.93 2.13
16.24 90.39 2.12 2.35 24.11 152.18 1.19 0.78
16.40 116.94 0.57 0.49 24.27 170.05 0.72 0.42
16.56 179.76 1.28 0.71 24.44 156.78 1.62 1.03
16.73 177.46 2.39 1.35 24.60 219.59 1.95 0.89
16.89 214.99 2.09 0.97 24.76 203.50 1.69 0.83
17.06 247.68 3.32 1.34 24.93 231.08 2.82 1.22
17.22 135.84 3.09 2.27 25.09 383.77 4.17 1.09
17.38 172.61 6.39 3.70 25.26 316.11 3.36 1.06
17.55 253.29 4.18 1.65 25.42 275.51 4.16 1.51
17.71 221.89 1.76 0.79 25.58 209.89 1.72 0.82
17.88 250.49 2.41 0.96 25.75 239.76 1.19 0.50
18.04 279.34 1.46 0.52 25.91 228.02 1.16 0.51
18.20 229.80 1.00 0.44 26.08 238.49 1.26 0.53
18.37 209.63 0.82 0.39 26.24 255.34 1.00 0.39
18.53 203.76 0.27 0.13 26.40 281.13 0.79 0.28
18.70 204.01 1.55 0.76 26.57 352.62 0.53 0.15
18.86 191.50 1.64 0.86 26.73 289.81 0.46 0.16
19.02 167.76 2.05 1.22 26.90 337.56 1.01 0.30
19.19 195.08 3.89 1.99 27.06 317.13 2.13 0.67
19.35 231.08 2.90 1.25 27.22 385.82 1.12 0.29
19.52 192.27 1.54 0.80 27.39 464.71 1.02 0.22
19.68 202.74 1.85 0.91 27.55 313.55 2.00 0.64
19.84 188.44 2.94 1.56 27.72 299.00 1.39 0.46
20.01 206.06 1.91 0.93 27.88 299.77 0.57 0.19
20.17 214.23 1.98 0.92 28.04 334.24 2.85 0.85
20.34 194.82 1.69 0.87 28.21 361.81 3.80 1.05
20.50 196.10 1.67 0.85 28.37 426.41 2.24 0.53
20.66 62.56 0.78 1.25 28.54 356.71 2.97 0.83
20.83 122.82 0.31 0.25 28.70 295.94 1.10 0.37
20.99 96.26 0.16 0.17 28.86 301.04 2.19 0.73
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 463

Table B.6 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-5.

Sheet 3 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
29.03 329.90 1.35 0.41
29.19 395.01 1.45 0.37
29.36 371.77 0.99 0.27
29.52 345.73 0.72 0.21
29.68 331.94 0.61 0.18
29.85 297.47 0.97 0.33
30.01 301.30 1.93 0.64
30.18 281.64 2.24 0.80
30.34 308.96 1.21 0.39
30.50 281.64 0.91 0.32
30.67 269.89 0.55 0.20
30.83 243.08 1.35 0.56
31.00 248.70 0.78 0.31
31.16 254.57 1.70 0.67
31.32 244.61 0.92 0.38
31.49 214.99 1.08 0.50
31.65 248.44 0.48 0.19
31.82 327.34 0.93 0.28
31.98 293.38 2.00 0.68
32.14 333.47 0.64 0.19
32.31 329.39 2.39 0.73
32.47 267.85 1.73 0.65
32.64 313.55 0.68 0.22
32.80 352.62 2.70 0.77
32.96 269.64 3.64 1.35
33.13 303.85 4.35 1.43
33.29 266.06 2.45 0.92
33.46 255.59 0.77 0.30
33.62 207.08 0.83 0.40
33.78 156.01 0.45 0.29
33.95 155.25 0.56 0.36
34.11 114.90 0.73 0.64
34.28 76.60 0.80 1.04
34.44 52.60 0.98 1.86
34.60 36.51 0.93 2.55
34.77 38.05 0.56 1.47
34.93 25.53 1.48 5.80
35.10 59.75 2.35 3.93
35.26 94.73 2.68 2.83
35.42 175.16 1.71 0.98
35.59 244.36 3.68 1.51
35.75 226.23 0.31 0.14
36.08 520.

[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 464

Table B.7 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-6.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6080.2 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: +2 -0.01
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.29 6.89 140.69 1.65 1.17
0.66 0.23 7.05 88.86 0.91 1.02
0.82 64.86 0.22 0.34 7.22 97.54 1.48 1.52
0.98 77.11 1.77 2.30 7.38 99.58 1.04 1.04
1.15 128.95 2.47 1.92 7.54 101.37 1.63 1.61
1.31 214.48 3.00 1.40 7.71 81.71 0.81 0.99
1.48 221.89 1.85 0.83 7.87 101.11 1.20 1.19
1.64 200.95 2.25 1.12 8.04 65.62 0.80 1.22
1.80 234.66 3.23 1.38 8.20 61.54 1.22 1.98
1.97 279.08 3.01 1.08 8.36 89.37 0.60 0.67
2.13 296.70 3.36 1.13 8.53 89.37 1.12 1.25
2.30 323.26 4.07 1.26 8.69 86.30 0.55 0.64
2.46 294.66 2.26 0.77 8.86 94.99 0.48 0.51
2.62 277.81 1.24 0.45 9.02 89.62 0.52 0.58
2.79 234.66 0.49 0.21 9.18 98.82 0.80 0.81
2.95 235.68 1.28 0.54 9.35 90.13 0.42 0.47
3.12 189.72 0.56 0.30 9.51 82.73 0.52 0.63
3.28 161.12 0.98 0.61 9.68 64.60 0.63 0.98
3.44 153.20 1.19 0.78 9.84 84.01 1.16 1.38
3.61 126.90 0.03 0.02 10.00 53.11 0.70 1.32
3.77 110.31 -0.23 -0.21 10.17 96.77 1.09 1.13
3.94 72.01 -0.03 -0.04 10.33 127.41 0.73 0.57
4.10 61.54 -0.07 -0.11 10.50 98.30 1.36 1.38
4.26 58.22 0.91 1.56 10.66 106.73 0.88 0.82
4.43 40.34 0.89 2.21 10.82 108.52 0.39 0.36
4.59 11.49 0.09 0.78 10.99 91.92 0.51 0.55
4.76 5.87 -0.57 -9.71 11.15 68.43 0.41 0.60
4.92 8.68 -0.02 -0.23 11.32 82.22 0.87 1.06
5.08 8.68 0.02 0.23 11.48 47.24 0.55 1.16
5.25 10.47 0.07 0.67 11.64 45.71 0.72 1.58
5.41 8.68 0.22 2.53 11.81 33.45 0.40 1.20
5.58 74.05 0.38 0.51 11.97 9.70 0.33 3.40
5.74 80.94 1.58 1.95 12.14 39.32 3.22 8.19
5.90 96.01 1.25 1.30 12.30 138.39 0.60 0.43
6.07 105.20 0.24 0.23 12.46 132.01 1.52 1.15
6.23 76.60 0.81 1.06 12.63 202.48 4.70 2.32
6.40 84.01 0.75 0.89 12.79 196.10 2.92 1.49
6.56 45.19 1.90 4.20 12.96 120.52 2.07 1.72
6.72 110.05 1.85 1.68 13.12 149.88 0.76 0.51
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 465

Table B.7 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-6.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)

13.28 159.59 1.71 1.07

13.45 162.65 1.88 1.16
13.61 150.39 2.39 1.59
13.78 141.97 1.78 1.25
13.94 147.07 0.90 0.61
14.10 142.99 0.96 0.67
14.27 149.63 0.85 0.57
14.43 126.39 0.58 0.46
14.60 111.33 1.01 0.91
14.76 100.60 0.55 0.55
14.92 99.58 1.20 1.21
15.09 108.77 0.17 0.16
15.25 105.71 0.26 0.25
15.42 114.65 0.59 0.51
15.58 111.07 0.72 0.65
15.74 105.45 1.57 1.49
15.91 106.22 2.48 2.33
16.07 156.52 2.23 1.42
16.24 150.90 2.17 1.44
16.40 336.79 6.22 1.85
16.56 461.14 5.50 1.19
16.73 491.01 5.81 1.18
16.89 459.10 6.42 1.40
17.06 487.44 3.02 0.62
17.22 495.35 3.72 0.75
17.38 402.92 2.49 0.62
17.55 436.37 2.25 0.52
17.71 420.54 1.62 0.39
18.04 470

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 466

Table B.8 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-7.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6079.3 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -2 -0.04
Baseline Adiust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.24 6.89 141.71 1.78 1.26
0.66 0.19 7.05 70.98 1.34 1.89
0.82 76.60 0.60 0.78 7.22 222.40 0.84 0.38
0.98 101.37 0.81 0.80 7.38 162.39 2.87 1.77
1.15 187.93 1.26 0.67 7.54 110.82 3.59 3.24
1.31 231.59 1.07 0.46 7.71 145.29 4.42 3.04
1.48 201.97 3.98 1.97 7.87 152.18 4.15 2.73
1.64 233.63 2.50 1.07 8.04 91.92 -0.05 -0.05
1.80 123.33 2.67 2.16 8.20 182.06 1.08 0.59
1.97 115.92 1.56 1.35 8.36 76.86 5.25 6.83
2.13 132.01 0.32 0.24 8.53 79.41 4.36 5.49
2.30 151.67 1.76 1.16 8.69 81.45 4.10 5.03
2.46 137.63 2.04 1.48 8.86 38.56 3.32 8.61
2.62 179.76 0.24 0.13 9.02 62.30 0.69 1.11
2.79 212.70 2.30 1.08 9.18 33.96 0.64 1.88
2.95 232.61 0.75 0.32 9.35 22.98 0.19 0.83
3.12 94.47 1.39 1.47 9.51 10.98 0.17 1.55
3.28 153.46 2.62 1.71 9.68 68.43 2.06 3.01
3.44 171.33 1.41 0.82 9.84 112.60 0.91 0.81
3.61 132.26 0.86 0.65 10.00 87.07 0.06 0.07
3.77 195.84 0.65 0.33 10.17 52.34 0.24 0.46
3.94 82.98 2.90 3.49 10.33 77.11 0.57 0.74
4.10 154.99 2.04 1.32 10.50 76.86 1.56 2.03
4.26 248.70 1.66 0.67 10.66 150.14 2.72 1.81
4.43 152.95 1.30 0.85 10.82 94.73 1.72 1.82
4.59 198.14 0.76 0.38 10.99 77.11 1.01 1.31
4.76 235.93 1.16 0.49 11.15 111.07 1.04 0.94
4.92 221.63 0.68 0.31 11.32 90.64 1.07 1.18
5.08 157.80 1.47 0.93 11.48 104.43 0.96 0.92
5.25 172.61 -0.41 -0.24 11.64 101.62 0.93 0.92
5.41 180.27 1.02 0.57 11.81 109.54 0.52 0.47
5.58 190.23 2.52 1.32 11.97 112.35 0.54 0.48
5.74 131.75 3.24 2.46 12.14 121.54 0.76 0.63
5.90 86.30 0.99 1.15 12.30 109.80 1.60 1.46
6.07 119.50 1.69 1.41 12.46 135.33 1.12 0.83
6.23 135.33 0.88 0.65 12.63 86.30 2.13 2.47
6.40 152.95 2.89 1.89 12.79 111.58 1.38 1.24
6.56 105.71 1.25 1.18 12.96 140.18 1.71 1.22
6.72 98.82 2.92 2.95 13.12 84.01 1.70 2.02
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 to n # = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 467

Table B.8 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-7.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio D epth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 116.43 6.61 5.68
13.45 176.44 2.18 1.24
13.61 66.39 3.46 5.21
13.78 173.88 4.15 2.39
13.94 172.10 3.22 1.87
14.10 109.03 3.33 3.05
14.27 183.84 2.29 1.25
14.43 203.76 2.14 1.05
14.60 301.04 2.27 0.75
14.76 314.58 2.11 0.67
14.92 331.17 2.68 0.81
15.30 560.

[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 468

Table B.9 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-8.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 3

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6080.5 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -2 +0.17
Baseline Adjust: No___________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(fi)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.10 6.89 88.60 0.45 0.51
0.66 0.65 7.05 92.43 0.51 0.55
0.82 87.07 0.49 0.56 7.22 83.24 1.40 1.68
0.98 65.37 0.26 0.40 7.38 85.79 0.79 0.92
1.15 82.73 0.36 0.44 7.54 72.52 1.24 1.71
1.31 105.97 0.72 0.68 7.71 55.92 0.58 1.04
1.48 136.35 1.44 1.06 7.87 73.03 0.21 0.29
1.64 200.70 3.29 1.64 8.04 58.98 0.14 0.24
1.80 195.08 2.98 1.53 8.20 38.81 -0.01 -0.03
1.97 174.91 1.49 0.85 8.36 47.24 0.29 0.61
2.13 209.63 1.75 0.83 8.53 45.96 0.17 0.37
2.30 259.42 1.80 0.69 8.69 36.77 0.23 0.63
2.46 236.19 2.33 0.99 8.86 46.22 0.57 1.23
2.62 291.08 1.64 0.56 9.02 85.54 0.70 0.82
2.79 262.49 2.33 0.89 9.18 76.86 1.53 1.99
2.95 235.68 2.00 0.85 9.35 116.94 0.50 0.43
3.12 209.89 2.26 1.08 9.51 94.47 0.35 0.37
3.28 176.69 3.07 1.74 9.68 33.45 1.20 3.59
3.44 191.76 2.89 1.51 9.84 66.90 0.72 1.08
3.61 163.42 2.21 1.35 10.00 51.32 0.95 1.85
3.77 165.46 1.01 0.61 10.17 69.96 0.22 0.31
3.94 120.01 0.72 0.60 10.33 71.75 0.24 0.33
4.10 116.18 0.70 0.60 10.50 64.35 0.62 0.96
4.26 99.33 0.83 0.84 10.66 63.32 0.77 1.22
4.43 109.03 0.65 0.60 10.82 77.37 0.87 1.12
4.59 43.66 0.53 1.21 10.99 60.26 0.88 1.46
4.76 38.56 0.75 1.95 11.15 27.83 0.50 1.80
4.92 46.22 0.40 0.87 11.32 22.73 0.21 0.92
5.08 50.56 0.26 0.51 11.48 12.51 0.14 1.12
5.25 53.37 0.57 1.07 11.64 8.68 0.15 1.73
5.41 39.07 0.70 1.79 11.81 5.36 0.27 5.04
5.58 46.98 0.29 0.62 11.97 3.06 -0.01 -0.33
5.74 61.79 0.78 1.26 12.14 17.87 0.28 1.57
5.90 55.15 0.65 1.18 12.30 39.32 1.00 2.54
6.07 60.26 0.38 0.63 12.46 70.98 0.58 0.82
6.23 66.64 0.28 0.42 12.63 74.30 1.56 2.10
6.40 67.41 0.33 0.49 12.79 49.79 0.90 1.81
6.56 74.30 0.78 1.05 12.96 41.36 1.46 3.53
6.72 80.43 0.93 1.16 13.12 80.69 1.35 1.67
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 469

Table B.9 (cont.) - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-8.

Sheet 2 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft^) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 108.26 0.46 0.42 21.16 282.15 2.37 0.84
13.45 133.29 2.81 2.11 21.32 285.98 1.59 0.56
13.61 103.67 1.58 1.52 21.48 318.92 2.05 0.64
13.78 127.41 1.41 1.11 21.65 326.83 1.93 0.59
13.94 88.60 0.60 0.68 21.81 357.47 1.66 0.46
14.10 81.71 1.12 1.37 21.98 313.04 1.20 0.38
14.27 66.90 1.79 2.68 22.14 311.26 0.75 0.24
14.43 72.01 1.25 1.74 22.30 279.85 1.25 0.45
14.60 114.39 0.64 0.56 22.47 288.02 1.48 0.51
14.76 80.69 1.22 1.51 22.63 285.21 1.06 0.37
14.92 76.60 1.50 1.96 22.80 251.25 1.07 0.43
15.09 102.39 1.22 1.19 22.96 258.40 2.47 0.96
15.25 96.77 1.98 2.05 23.12 291.85 6.54 2.24
15.42 135.84 2.38 1.75 23.29 363.09 3.55 0.98
15.58 206.31 0.11 0.05 23.45 366.41 2.35 0.64
15.74 153.46 1.20 0.78 23.62 316.11 1.36 0.43
15.91 151.42 1.48 0.98 23.78 347.26 3.01 0.87
16.07 121.03 0.62 0.51 23.94 387.86 2.09 0.54
16.24 149.88 1.00 0.67 24.11 337.56 2.14 0.63
16.40 133.80 2.37 1.77 24.27 284.96 0.52 0.18
16.56 146.31 0.78 0.53 24.44 274.23 1.33 0.48
16.73 131.75 0.71 0.54 24.60 281.89 2.17 0.77
16.89 160.86 0.72 0.45 24.76 254.83 2.26 0.89
17.06 168.01 2.01 1.20 24.93 246.15 1.35 0.55
17.22 165.71 1.70 1.03 25.09 223.42 1.43 0.64
17.38 133.80 2.60 1.94 25.26 196.87 1.09 0.55
17.55 116.69 1.90 1.63 25.42 123.84 1.49 1.20
17.71 137.37 2.07 1.51 25.58 76.86 3.60 4.68
17.88 144.27 1.84 1.28 25.75 78.90 2.97 3.76
18.04 173.12 1.65 0.95 25.91 50.56 2.17 4.29
18.20 184.35 1.88 1.02 26.08 79.15 1.77 2.24
18.37 224.44 1.70 0.76 26.24 93.45 2.14 2.29
18.53 217.55 1.42 0.65 26.40 113.63 2.04 1.80
18.70 276.02 0.92 0.33 26.57 157.29 2.15 1.37
18.86 273.47 0.83 0.30 26.73 140.44 1.90 1.35
19.02 257.38 1.10 0.43 26.90 153.71 0.96 0.62
19.19 219.59 1.76 0.80 27.06 143.24 1.07 0.75
19.35 193.55 2.35 1.21 27.22 127.92 1.19 0.93
19.52 180.52 1.44 0.80 27.39 124.35 0.91 0.73
19.68 160.61 2.08 1.30 27.55 146.05 0.94 0.64
19.84 188.18 0.63 0.33 27.72 165.71 3.14 1.89
20.01 222.65 1.42 0.64 27.88 149.37 3.21 2.15
20.17 243.59 1.34 0.55 28.04 161.63 1.72 1.06
20.34 249.98 2.31 0.92 28.21 206.31 0.64 0.31
20.50 264.27 3.26 1.23 28.37 150.90 0.58 0.38
20.66 279.34 1.60 0.57 28.54 72.77 0.51 0.70
20.83 262.74 2.89 1.10 28.70 126.39 1.09 0.86
20.99 281.13 2.30 0.82 28.86 119.75 0.68 0.57
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft^ = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 470

Table B.9 (cont.) - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-8.

Sheet 3 of 3
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2 )a (ton/ft2 ) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2 ) <%)
2 9 .0 3 1 2 8 .9 5 0 .7 2 0 .5 6
2 9 .1 9 1 2 9 .9 7 1 .6 6 1.28
2 9 .3 6 1 7 8 .2 3 1 .8 0 1.01
2 9 .5 2 1 2 5 .6 3 1 .7 2 1.37
2 9 .6 8 1 6 5 .9 7 2 .1 3 1.28
2 9 .8 5 1 4 9 .6 3 2.41 1.61
3 0 .0 1 1 8 5 .8 9 2 .0 0 1.08
3 0 .1 8 1 9 4 .5 7 1 .6 5 0 .8 5
3 0 .3 4 2 1 6 .5 3 0 .9 3 0 .4 3
3 0 .5 0 1 8 5 .8 9 1 .4 6 0 .7 9
3 0 .6 7 2 0 1.21 1 .1 6 0 .5 8
3 0 .8 3 2 2 5 .9 7 1.51 0 .6 7
3 1 .0 0 2 2 5.21 1.51 0 .6 7
3 1 .1 6 2 5 8 .4 0 1 .6 5 0 .6 4
3 1 .3 2 2 3 9 .0 0 2 .1 3 0 .8 9
3 1 .4 9 2 4 7 .4 2 2.01 0.81
3 1 .6 5 2 8 1 .3 8 2 .6 6 0 .9 5
3 1 .8 2 2 7 0 .9 1 2 .3 8 0 .8 8
3 1 .9 8 2 1 0 .9 1 1 .6 8 0 .8 0
3 2 .1 4 1 6 3 .6 7 1 .3 4 0 .8 2
3 2 .3 1 9 0 .6 4 1 .2 9 1.42
3 2 .4 7 6 9 .9 6 1.11 1 .59
3 2 .6 4 45.71 1 .2 9 2 .8 2
3 2 .8 0 3 8 .8 1 1 .3 3 3 .4 3
3 2 .9 6 5 4 .6 4 1 .3 9 2 .5 4
3 3 .1 3 2 2 .9 8 0.81 3 .5 2
3 3 .2 9 1 7 .6 2 0.61 3 .4 6
3 3 .4 6 1 8 .8 9 0 .4 5 2 .3 8
3 3 .6 2 1 9 .6 6 0 .8 2 4 .1 7
3 3 .7 8 26.81 1 .2 9 4.81
3 3 .9 5 6 5 .3 7 1 .7 9 2 .7 4
3 4 .1 1 7 3 .5 4 1 .6 9 2 .3 0
3 4 .2 8 7 1 .7 5 1 .8 7 2.61
3 4 .4 4 7 6 .6 0 1 .7 8 2 .3 2
3 4 .6 0 3 7 .2 8 1 .4 0 3 .7 6
3 4 .7 7 2 8 .3 4 1.36 4 .8 0
3 4 .9 3 3 2 .1 7 1 .8 2 5 .6 6
3 5 .1 0 4 4 .1 7 1 .9 0 4 .3 0
3 5 .2 6 2 0 1 .4 6 1 .8 0 0 .8 9
3 5 .4 2 3 4 4 .7 1 2 .1 4 0 .6 2
3 5 .8 0 400.

a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9 5.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 471

Table B.10 - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-9.

Date: August 4,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6079.6 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2} (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: +2 +0.08
Baseline Adjust: No___________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.02 6.89 56.17 0.30 0.53
0.66 0.16 7.05 29.87 0.23 0.77
0.82 58.98 0.64 1.09 7.22 29.87 0.25 0.84
0.98 61.03 0.71 1.16 7.38 20.68 0.43 2.08
1.15 115.16 2.89 2.51 7.54 25.28 0.46 1.82
1.31 168.52 1.08 0.64 7.71 31.66 0.51 1.61
1.48 183.59 2.32 1.26 7.87 43.66 0.65 1.49
1.64 211.42 2.28 1.08 8.04 55.92 1.36 2.43
1.80 213.21 3.40 1.59 8.20 46.47 2.24 4.82
1.97 250.23 2.69 1.08 8.36 66.64 0.92 1.38
2.13 250.49 3.79 1.51 8.53 74.05 2.71 3.66
2.30 225.21 1.41 0.63 8.69 100.09 2.16 2.16
2.46 184.35 1.30 0.71 8.86 69.45 2.29 3.30
2.62 165.71 0.43 0.26 9.02 134.82 1.94 1.44
2.79 111.07 0.34 0.31 9.18 90.64 2.70 2.98
2.95 121.54 0.38 0.31 9.35 80.18 0.90 1.12
3.12 43.41 1.00 2.30 9.51 88.09 0.67 0.76
3.28 40.60 0.83 2.04 9.68 95.50 1.39 1.46
3.44 23.24 0.41 1.76 9.84 99.58 0.97 0.97
3.61 21.70 0.36 1.66 10.00 86.05 1.38 1.60
3.77 17.11 0.30 1.75 10.17 130.73 1.41 1.08
3.94 21.45 0.36 1.68 10.33 139.16 1.74 1.25
4.10 27.32 0.18 0.66 10.50 154.48 1.70 1.10
4.26 29.87 0.18 0.60 10.66 178.48 2.10 1.18
4.43 31.15 0.12 0.39 10.82 211.67 1.22 0.58
4.59 33.70 0.57 1.69 10.99 223.17 1.04 0.47
4.76 40.34 0.34 0.84 11.15 245.12 3.63 1.48
4.92 40.60 0.24 0.59 11.32 303.60 3.84 1.26
5.08 37.79 0.11 0.29 11.48 258.91 4.23 1.63
5.25 43.15 0.05 0.12 11.64 330.66 2.19 0.66
5.41 51.32 0.14 0.27 11.81 318.92 1.50 0.47
5.58 65.37 0.24 0.37 11.97 254.32 1.58 0.62
5.74 66.13 0.64 0.97 12.14 290.06 2.10 0.72
5.90 83.24 1.20 1.44 12.30 311.51 1.22 0.39
6.07 84.01 0.76 0.90 12.46 328.62 1.79 0.54
6.23 48.00 0.72 1.50 12.63 259.68 1.58 0.61
6.40 44.94 0.12 0.27 12.79 267.85 1.69 0.63
6.56 41.88 0.29 0.69 12.96 206.82 1.97 0.95
6.72 40.34 0.72 1.78 13.12 200.70 2.33 1.16
a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9 5.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 472

Table A. 10 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-9.

S h e e t 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip S le e v e Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth R e s is ta n c e Friction R atio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)

13.28 194.82 2.36 1.21

13.45 172.86 1.03 0.60
13.61 173.37 0.72 0.42
13.78 158.82 1.27 0.80
13.94 174.40 1.78 1.02
14.10 236.70 2.13 0.90
14.27 312.28 1.84 0.59
14.43 375.86 2.20 0.59
14.60 406.50 2.89 0.71
14.76 421.05 2.75 0.65
14.92 407.52 2.04 0.50
15.09 470.08 6.07 1.29
15.25 467.27 4.01 0.86
15.42 393.99 2.91 0.74
15.58 378.67 2.47 0.65
15.74 418.24 1.97 0.47
16.10 570.

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 473

Table B .l 1 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-10.

Date: August 6,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6080.1 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) fton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
12.14 ft -1 -0.12
12.14 ft 0 0.00 R
Final: +6 +0.08
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.10 6.89 105.20 0.13 0.12
0.66 0.74 7.05 129.20 0.25 0.19
0.82 57.45 0.65 1.13 7.22 5.11 0.28 5.56
0.98 125.12 0.14 0.11 7.38 50.05 -0.01 -0.03
1.15 152.95 0.70 0.46 7.54 51.07 0.08 0.16
1.31 199.67 1.24 0.62 7.71 48.77 0.39 0.80
1.48 214.23 1.28 0.60 7.87 52.60 0.42 0.80
1.64 212.19 1.23 0.58 8.04 55.41 0.28 0.51
1.80 228.02 2.12 0.93 8.20 37.79 0.19 0.50
1.97 309.72 2.02 0.65 8.36 38.30 0.01 0.03
2.13 349.81 2.39 0.68 8.53 31.92 -0.19 -0.61
2.30 384.28 1.03 0.27 8.69 33.96 -0.14 -0.41
2.46 353.90 1.43 0.40 8.86 42.90 0.12 0.28
2.62 352.88 1.58 0.45 9.02 57.20 -0.02 -0.04
2.79 380.71 1.71 0.45 9.18 16.60 0.93 5.60
2.95 318.15 1.51 0.47 9.35 32.17 0.17 0.54
3.12 274.49 2.25 0.82 9.51 33.96 0.75 2.20
3.28 247.17 1.74 0.70 9.68 52.60 0.55 1.04
3.44 244.36 1.04 0.43 9.84 63.58 0.32 0.50
3.61 257.89 1.68 0.65 10.00 69.71 0.69 0.99
3.77 265.81 0.99 0.37 10.17 61.79 0.05 0.08
3.94 255.34 1.57 0.62 10.33 60.00 0.35 0.58
4.10 233.38 1.57 0.67 10.50 84.77 0.10 0.12
4.26 183.33 1.20 0.66 10.66 80.94 1.10 1.36
4.43 169.29 0.66 0.39 10.82 122.05 0.97 0.79
4.59 141.71 0.99 0.70 10.99 82.73 -0.03 -0.04
4.76 159.84 1.02 0.64 11.15 124.09 3.17 2.55
4.92 149.37 1.05 0.70 11.32 86.81 1.91 2.20
5.08 198.65 0.54 0.27 11.48 132.26 -0.02 -0.01
5.25 149.12 1.74 1.17 11.64 77.62 0.32 0.41
5.41 181.55 3.42 1.88 11.81 112.60 1.85 1.64
5.58 182.82 2.58 1.41 11.97 159.33 2.12 1.33
5.74 117.20 1.42 1.21 12.14 172.61 1.48 0.86
5.90 122.82 0.11 0.09 12.30 137.37 0.36 0.26
6.07 106.73 0.12 0.11 12.46 141.97 0.42 0.30
6.23 93.45 0.26 0.28 12.63 137.12 0.55 0.40
6.40 98.05 0.35 0.35 12.79 113.37 0.49 0.43
6.56 113.11 0.51 0.45 12.96 112.60 0.37 0.33
6.72 95.75 0.57 0.60 13.12 71.49 0.57 0.80
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 474

Table A .l 1 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -10.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a :i2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/fl2) (%)

13.28 56.17 0.66 1.18

13.45 85.28 1.61 1.89
13.61 105.45 1.43 1.36
13.78 103.92 1.26 1.21
13.94 102.90 1.11 1.08
14.10 118.48 1.97 1.67
14.27 135.58 1.35 1.00
14.43 176.18 1.18 0.67
14.60 139.67 0.80 0.58
14.76 181.80 1.84 1.01
14.92 241.29 1.32 0.55
15.09 250.74 1.00 0.40
15.25 276.53 1.52 0.55
15.42 350.83 1.23 0.35
15.70 605.

a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 475

Table B. 12 - CPT D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P-11.

Date: August 6,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6080.8 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (lon/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: 0 - 0.10

Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2 ) (ton/ft2 ) (%)
0 .4 9 0 .1 4
0 .6 6 0 .2 4
0 .8 2 7 0 .4 7 0 .3 5 0.5 0
0 .9 8 7 9 .9 2 0 .4 4 0 .5 5
1 .1 5 7 8 .6 4 0 .3 3 0 .4 2
1.31 1 0 4 .6 9 0 .4 7 0 .4 4
1 .4 8 9 1 .1 6 0 .4 8 0 .5 2
1 .6 4 8 8 .3 5 1 .2 6 1.43
1 .8 0 127.41 1.03 0.81
1 .9 7 1 6 8 .7 8 3 .1 9 1.89
2 .1 3 194.31 0 .8 5 0 .4 4
2 .3 0 2 2 9 .8 0 2 .0 3 0 .8 9
2 .4 6 2 8 4 .9 6 0 .0 4 0.01
2 .6 2 4 0 6 .7 5 5.21 1.28
2 .7 9 5 8 8 .0 4 6 .8 6 1.17
3 .1 0 600.

a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 476

Table B.13 - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding CP-12.

Date: August 6,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Elevation: 6081.4 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
fton/ft2) to n /ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -1 +0.01
Baseline Adjust: No____________________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2 )a (ton/ft2 ) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2 ) (ton/ft2 ) (%)

0 .4 9 0.51 6 .8 9 2 8 8 .7 9 1 .70 0 .5 9
0 .6 6 1 .1 2 7 .0 5 2 6 7 .8 5 2 .9 0 1 .0 8
0 .8 2 1 0 4 .9 4 0 .7 4 0 .7 0 7 .2 2 194.31 2 .4 4 1 .2 6
0 .9 8 1 0 7 .2 4 0.81 0 .7 5 7 .3 8 1 4 7 .8 4 0 73 0 .4 9
1 .1 5 1 0 4 .4 3 0 .6 9 0 .6 6 7 .5 4 1 5 1 .4 2 2 .0 ! 1 .3 3
1.31 8 6 .5 6 0 .2 0 0 .2 4 7.71 1 4 9 .1 2 0 .6 3 0 .4 2
1 .4 8 8 2 .2 2 0.11 0 .1 3 7 .8 7 9 6 .5 2 0 .6 4 0 .6 7
1 .6 4 9 6 .5 2 1 .2 3 1.27 8 .0 4 9 6 .5 2 0.21 0.21
1 .8 0 160.61 2 .0 9 1.30 8 .2 0 8 8 .8 6 -0 .2 2 -0 .2 4
1 .9 7 1 9 1 .5 0 0 .5 6 0 .2 9 8 .3 6 9 4 .9 9 0 .7 6 0 .8 0
2 .1 3 2 2 2 .6 5 0 .5 7 0 .2 6 8 .5 3 1 8 2 .5 7 0 .4 6 0 .2 5
2 .3 0 3 1 2 .2 8 0 .7 2 0 .2 3 8 .6 9 9 5 .2 4 0 .1 8 0 .1 9
2 .4 6 3 1 7 .9 0 1 .1 2 0 .3 5 8 .8 6 1 6 6 .2 2 1.43 0 .8 6
2 .6 2 3 8 7 .6 0 2 .5 9 0 .6 7 9 .0 2 1 1 0 .0 5 -0 .1 9 -0 .1 7
2 .7 9 4 1 2 .8 8 2 .9 3 0.71 9 .1 8 1 6 9 .0 3 0 .3 4 0 .2 0
2 .9 5 4 2 0 .2 9 6 .9 6 1.66 9 .3 5 1 6 4 .6 9 1.21 0 .7 4
3 .1 2 3 6 9 .2 2 2 .3 6 0 .6 4 9.51 1 1 3 .3 7 1 .2 9 ' 1 .1 4
3 .2 8 3 6 4 .3 7 5.41 1.48 9 .6 8 8 8 .0 9 1 .9 6 2 .2 2
3 .4 4 5 0 4 .2 9 8 .2 4 1.63 9 .8 4 79.41 0 .7 2 0.91
3.61 3 2 3 .2 6 1 .6 3 0.51 1 0.00 8 4 .2 6 0 .4 3 0.51
3 .7 7 2 6 0 .7 0 1 .8 6 0.71 1 0 .1 7 9 7 .2 8 0 .1 6 0 .1 6
3 .9 4 3 3 6 .5 3 0 .9 5 0 .2 8 1 0.33 1 1 6 .6 9 0 .9 6 0 .8 2
4 .1 0 3 1 9 .9 4 1.23 0 .3 9 1 0.50 1 59.08 0.31 0 .2 0
4 .2 6 2 8 3 .6 8 1.03 0 .3 6 1 0.66 1 2 3 .5 8 0 .2 2 0 .1 8
4 .4 3 2 5 6 .1 0 1.35 0 .5 3 1 0.82 1 4 2.99 0.81 0 .5 7
4 .5 9 2 5 8 .6 6 0 .6 5 0 .2 5 1 0.99 148.61 2 .0 9 1.41
4 .7 6 2 5 0 .7 4 1.02 0.41 1 1.15 2 0 1 .9 7 3.01 1 .4 9
4 .9 2 2 4 1 .8 0 0 .4 7 0 .1 9 1 1 .3 2 1 3 3 .5 4 3 .7 0 2 .7 7
5 .0 8 2 2 3 .1 7 0 .0 4 0 .0 2 1 1.48 1 6 6 .4 8 2 .7 8 1 .6 7
5 .2 5 2 1 6 .2 7 3 .0 5 1.41 1 1 .6 4 213.21 1.21 0 .5 7
5 .4 1 2 8 1 .3 8 3 .6 6 1.30 11.81 1 9 5 .8 4 5 .2 4 2 .6 8
5 .5 8 2 2 6 .7 4 2 .3 4 1.03 1 1.97 1 4 8 .3 5 5.41 3 .6 4
5 .7 4 270.91 1.74 0 .6 4 1 2 .1 4 1 4 7.33 3 .7 9 2 .5 7
5 .9 0 2 61.21 1 .1 3 0 .4 3 1 2 .3 0 2 1 2 .9 5 3.11 1 .4 6
6 .0 7 2 4 1 .8 0 2 .4 7 1.02 1 2 .4 6 1 5 3 .9 7 1 .1 6 0 .7 6
6 .2 3 2 6 8 .3 6 1 .6 6 0 .6 2 1 2.63 1 3 9.67 1 .1 3 0.81
6 .4 0 2 3 4 .1 4 1 .6 7 0.71 1 2 .7 9 1 3 0 .9 9 0 .7 9 0 .6 0
6 .5 6 2 2 1 .8 9 0.81 0 .3 6 1 2.96 117.71 0.11 0 .0 9
6 .7 2 2 2 7 .7 6 0 .7 9 0 .3 5 1 3.12 1 1 1 .5 8 1 .1 3 1.01
[a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9 5 .7 6 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 All

Table A. 13 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding C P -12.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Frictior Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(«)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2 ) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2 ) (% )

1 3 .2 8 8 3 .7 5 1.66 1.99
1 3 .4 5 5 1 .8 3 0 .9 5 1.82
13.61 7 3 .2 8 0 .8 0 1.09
1 3 .7 3 9 9 .8 4 0.81 0.81
1 3 .9 4 117.71 0 .6 0 0.51
1 4 .1 0 9 2 .4 3 1.7 4 1.88
1 4 .2 7 1 3 5 .3 3 1.99 1.47
1 4 .4 3 1 2 3 .8 4 1.7 4 1.40
1 4 .6 0 1 1 2 .3 5 1.38 1.22
1 4 .7 6 1 3 8 .1 4 0 .8 5 0.61
1 4 .9 2 1 4 5 .8 0 1 .1 8 0.81
1 5 .0 9 1 5 9 .0 8 0 .8 2 0.5 2
1 5 .2 5 1 4 7 .3 3 0 .6 3 0 .4 3
1 5 .4 2 129.71 0 .8 5 0 .6 5
1 5 .5 8 1 2 7 .1 6 0 .3 0 0 .2 4
1 5 .7 4 1 1 9 .2 4 0.81 0 .6 8
15.91 1 1 4 .1 4 0 .0 7 0.0 6
1 6 .0 7 1 1 1 .8 4 0 .1 7 0 .1 5
1 6 .2 4 1 3 1 .5 0 0 .8 7 0 .6 6
1 6 .4 0 1 2 2 .8 2 1 .9 2 1.56
1 6 .5 6 1 4 0 .1 8 1.40 1.00
1 6 .7 3 1 8 1 .0 3 0.61 0.3 3
1 6 .8 9 2 0 6 .8 2 3 .4 8 1.68
1 7 .0 6 2 5 7 .8 9 1 .7 0 0.6 6
1 7 .2 2 3 3 5 .0 0 4 .0 5 1.21
1 7 .3 8 3 3 9 .0 9 2 .7 0 0 .7 9
1 7 .5 5 3 3 5 .2 6 2 .6 6 0.7 9
17.71 3 1 4 .3 2 2 .7 4 0 .8 7
1 7 .8 8 3 2 7 .6 0 1 .6 8 0.51
1 8 .0 4 2 6 0 .7 0 1 .1 8 0 .4 5
1 8 .2 0 2 6 3 .7 6 1.57 0 .6 0
1 8 .3 7 2 5 7 .3 8 0 .7 8 0.3 0
1 8 .5 3 2 5 2 .2 7 1 .1 4 0 .4 5
1 8 .7 0 2 7 3 .7 2 0 .8 9 0 .3 2
1 8 .8 6 3 1 7 .9 0 0 .5 4 0.1 7
1 9 .2 0 570.

a] 1 ft= 0 .3 0 5 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 9 5 .7 6 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 478

Table B.14 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-1.

Date: Aug. 2 3 ,1 9 9 0 Elevation: 6 0 7 9 .8 ft

Operator: K. Arnold
Drill Rig: Becker A P-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6 .6 -in. O.D. C losed 8 -tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
lnt.a nb Pressure Nbc Ngoc Int. nb Pressure Nbc n 6o
(«) (b!ows/ftT (psig)?.... (blows/ft) (ft) (blows/ft) J esIsL . (blows/ft)
1 9 6 4 4 41 35 13 25 23
2 11 8 5 5 42 25 11 16 16
3 9 6 4 4 43 50 14 35 29
4 8 6 4 4 44 65 14 44 35
5 8 6 4 4 45 53 13 35 29
6 8 6 4 4 46 43 12 28 25
7 9 6 4 4 47 35 12 24 22
8 10 6 5 5 48 29 13 21 21
9 9 7 5 5 49 31 12 20 20
10 11 8 5 5 50 34 12 21 21 '
11 18 8 9 9 51 34 12 21 21
12 23 10 12 12 52 41 13 30 26
13 30 12 19 19 53 50 13 32 27
14 41 12 27 24 54 58 13 38 31
15 47 12 30 26 55 64 14 44 35
16 53 13 34 29 56 98 14 58 44
17 59 13 38 31 57 90 15 60 45
18 55 12 34 29 58 80 14 55 42
19 46 13 31 27 59 130 14 65 48
20 46 12 30 26 60 223 13 81 58
21 39 12 24 23 61 207 13 79 57
22 30 11 17 17 62 210 13 80 58
23 23 11 15 15
24 20 10 12 12
25 17 10 12 12
26 25 11 16 16
27 27 12 17 17
28 28 12 18 18
29 29 12 19 19
30 28 12 20 20
31 25 11 16 16
32 9 6 6 6
33 6 7 5 5
34 20 10 13 13
35 61 14 42 34
36 53 13 35 29
37 47 13 31 27
38 46 13 30 26
39 37 13 27 24
40 34 13 24 23
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[b] 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 479

Table B. 15 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-2.

Date: Aug. 2 3 ,1 9 9 0 Elevation: 6 0 8 0 .6 ft

Operator: K. Arnold
Drill Rig: Becker A P-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6 .6 -in. O.D. Closed 8 -tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
lnt.a nb Pressure Nbc n 6oc Int. nb Pressure Nbc N(3o
(«) (blows/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) (ft) (blows/ft) (psig) (blows/ft)
1 3 4 2 2 41 32 12 20 20
2 10 4 4 4 42 19 10 12 12
3 13 8 6 6 43 9 8 7 7
4 10 7 5 5 44 38 14 29 26
5 9 7 5 5 45 70 14 45 36
6 8 6 4 4 46 82 14 51 39
7 7 6 4 4 47 70 14 45 36
8 6 6 4 4 48 54 13 36 30
9 7 8 4 4 49 49 13 32 28
10 6 8 4 4 50 47 13 31 27
11 16 8 8 8 51 49 13 32 28
12 22 10 13 13 52 49 13 32 28
13 23 10 14 14 53 65 13 41 33
14 26 10 15 15 54 59 13 39 32 ■
15 27 10 15 15 55 59 13 39 32
16 32 11 18 18 56 69 14 44 35
17 40 12 24 22 57 103 14 61 46
18 45 12 29 26 58 97 15 61 46
19 38 13 28 25
20 30 12 18 18
21 39 12 13 13
22 32 12 20 20
23 28 11 17 17
24 28 11 16 16
25 32 11 18 18
26 28 11 17 17
27 28 11 17 17
28 29 12 19 19
29 29 12 19 19
30 30 12 20 20
31 24 11 16 16
32 14 10 10 10
33 5 7 5 5
34 4 6 4 4
35 11 7 6 6
36 14 9 9 9
37 28 11 17 17
38 31 12 20 20
39 32 12 20 20
40 33 12 21 20
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[b] 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 480

Table B.16 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-3.

Date: Aug. 2 3 ,1 9 9 0 Elevation: 6081.1 ft

Operator: K. Arnold
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6 .6 -in. O.D. C losed 8 -tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
lnt.a NB Pressure Nbc Ngoc Int. Nb Pressure Nbc N6o
(blows/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) («) (blows/ft) (psig) (blows/ft)
(«)
1 5 4 3 3 41 33 12 21 21
2 10 6 5 5 42 34 12 21 21
3 11 7 5 5 43 28 10 16 16
4 8 6 4 4 44 75 14 45 36
5 6 4 3 3 45 68 14 44 35
6 11 6 4 4 46 66 14 43 34
7 9 5 4 4 47 61 14 42 34
8 8 6 4 4 48 58 14 41 33
9 14 6 5 5 49 53 12 32 28
10 15 6 5 5 50 59 13 37 31
11 15 7 7 7 51 55 12 32 28
12 18 10 11 11 52 62 12 38 31
13 17 9 10 10 53 84 13 45 36
14 20 9 11 11 54 79 13 43 34
15 20 10 12 12 55 85 13 45 36
16 20 9 11 11 56 128 14 67 49
17 20 9 11 11 57 152 14 80 58
18 24 10 14 14
19 19 10 12 12
20 16 10 12 12
21 18 10 12 12
22 21 9 11 11
23 19 10 12 12
24 21 10 13 13
25 21 10 13 13
26 21 10 13 13
27 19 10 12 12
28 9 10 8 8
29 5 8 5 5
30 6 8 6 6
31 9 8 7 7
32 16 10 11 11
33 20 10 14 14
34 15 10 11 11
35 8 8 6 6
36 28 12 17 17
37 38 12 22 21
38 32 12 19 19
39 30 11 17 17
40 34 12 20 20
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[b] 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 481

Table B. 17 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Goddard Ranch Site, Sounding BPo-4.

Date: Aug. 2 3 ,1 9 9 0 Elevation: 6080.0ft

Operator: K. Arnold
Drill Rig: Becker A P-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6 . 6-in. O.D. Open 8 -tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
lnt.a nb Pressure Nbc N(5oc Int. nb Pressure Nbc N(jo
(blows/ft) (psiq)b (blows/ft) («) (blows/ft) (psiq) (blows/ft)
W
1 8 5 4 4 41 24 9 12 12
2 6 42 27 9 14 14
3 9 6 4 4 43 18 8 10 10
4 5 44 53 12 30 26
5 5 45 54 13 36 30
6 7 4 3 3 46 23 12 18 18
7 8 4 3 3 47 0 0 0 0
8 10 5 4 4 48 1 5 1 1
9 11 5 4 4
10 12 4 4 4
11 19 7 8 8
12 19 9 11 11
13 23 10 12 12
14 23 10 12 12
15 28 10 14 14
16 31 10 17 17
17 28 10 16 16
18 51 11 25 23
19 31 10 17 17
20 14 8 8 8
21 29 10 15 15
22 26 10 13 13
23 29 10 15 15
24 32 10 16 16
25 26 11 16 16
26 26 11 16 16
27 26 11 16 16
28 26 11 16 16
29 19 10 13 13
30 21 11 14 14
31 23 10 13 13
32 11 8 7 7
33 4 5 4 4
34 7 4 4 4
35 17 6 6 6
36 15 6 6 6
37 33 10 16 16
38 39 12 21 21
39 27 11 16 16
40 20 8 10 10
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[b] 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table B.18 - In-Place Density D ata from the Goddard Ranch Site.

Ground D epth Layer Soil Volume Wet Soil Moisture Dry Unit Sam ple Datab Soil Type
El. W eight W eight
Location (ft)a (ft) (ft3) (lb)a (%) (lb/ft5)

4 ft Dia. Ring
TP-2 6 0 8 0 .7 1 .9 -2 .7 A 3 .2 0 4 2 7 .4 2.1 131 0 38 33 1 GW
TP-1 6 0 7 9 .8 1 . 3 - 2.1 A 3 .4 4 4 7 2 .4 2.2 134 2 60 33 <1 GP
TP-1 6 0 7 9 .8 3 .2 - 4 .0 A 3 .1 9 4 6 7 .0 5 .6 139 2 71 27 <1 GW

S an d C one
Trench 5 6 0 8 0 .7 3 .0 A 0 .0 3 1 2 3.61 2 .7 113 0 62 38 <1 GP
Trench 6 6 0 8 0 .7 3 .6 A 0 .0 2 7 8 3 .0 7 4 .6 106 0 54 46 <1 GP
Trench 7 6 0 8 0 .7 4.1 B 0 .0 1 7 6 2.00 2 8 .2 82 0 16 16 68 CL
a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4 .4 5 N.
’b] B ased on the Unified Soil Classification S ystem — c = cob b les, > 7 6 .2 mm; g = gravel, 4 .7 5 to 7 6 .2 mm; s = sand, 0 .0 7 5 to
4.75 mm; f = fines, < 0.075 mm.

482
Reproduced with permission

Table B.19 - Borehole Sample Data from the Goddard Ranch Site.

Grain Size Datab Atterberg0 Coloi^ Reaction

of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits Of Wet of Fines

Depth Recovery Cu Cc D50 c m f c m f c m f % Water Fines with HC!
(ft)a (in/in)a (mm) 60 20 3 2 .6 .2 .06 .02 .006 .002 mm W p Wl
SP-1
El. 6079.9 ft
1.5- 3.0 13/18 31 1.-39 8.0 -- 18 38 18 13 9 2 i• np 10YR4/2 none
4.0- 5.5 8/18 24 1.62 0.06 -- — 1 3 6 19 22 25 13 5 ‘ 6 sp 10YR3/1 none
6.5- 8.0u 8/18 nae na 0.20 — ... 4 6 9 31 35 15 sp 10YR3/2 none
6.5- 8.0I na na 0.24 ---- — — 2 14 40 19 25 sp 10YR 3/2 none
9.0 -10.5 8/18 75 1.41 10.5 ---- 31 28 12 8 12 5 4 np 10YR4/2 none
11.5- 13-Ou 8/18 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10YR4/2 none
11.5-13.0m na na na na na na na na na na na sp 10YR3/2 none
11.5-13.01 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10YR4/2 moderate
14.5 -16.0 13/18 na na 4.2 — 11 31 19 12 9 6 12 np-sp 10YR5/2 strong
17.0 - 18.5u 7/18 47 0.70 3.4 — --- 38 20 14 14 6 8 np 10YR5/2 moderate
17.0 -18.51 na na 3.6 — — 36 24 11 8 6 15 np-sp 10YR4/2 moderate
20.0-21.5 11/18 na na 3.9 — 10 32 18 13 8 6 1:3 np-sp 10YR 5/2 strong

SP-2
El. 6080.7 ft
1.5- 3.0 10/18 43 2.78 9.4 16 44 14 11 na na
prohibited without p erm ission.

— naf np 10YR4/2 none

4.5- 6.0 6/18 19 1.12 8.0 — 18 38 17 16 8 1 . ? np 10YR4/2 none
7.0- 8.5 4/18 21 3.96 12.3 — 13 58 13 7 7 1 1 np 10YR4/2 weak
9.5-11.0 5/18 28 1.73 6.2 — 6 45 21 12 10 3 3 np 10YR4/2 weak
13.5-15.0 7/18 52 1.49 5.1 — 17 30 18 14 10 4 7 np 10YR4/2 moderate
17.0-18.5 8/18 190 4.70 5.6 — 11 38 17 12 8 4 10 np 10YR4/2 moderate
22.0 - 23.5 9/18 56 2.76 4.7 ... 19 24 23 12 8 6 8 np 10YR5/2 moderate
25.0 - 26.5 8/18 na na 3.2 — 6 31 20 11 9 7 16 np-sp 10YR5/2 moderate
30.0-31.5 9/18 119 6.31 5.1 — 3 43 31 11 6 6 10 np-sp 10YR 5/2 moderate
35.0 - 36.5 18/18 25 3.63 0.04 — — — 1 1 4 29 37 14 4 10 17.4 17.5 10YR 5/2 moderate

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm, 4/18 = 4 in. sample/18 in. penetration. [d] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).
[b] C(j = coefficient of uniformity; Cc= coefficient of curvature; D50 = mediangrainsize. [e] Not available.
[cj Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wi = water content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic; [f] Accidentally washed through #40 seive.
sp = slightly plastic.

483
I
Reproduced with permission

Table B.19 (cont.) - Borehole Sample Data from the Goddard Ranch Site.
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Grain Size Datab Atterberg0 Colord Reaction

Grave! Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines
Depth Recovery Cu Cc D50 c m f c m f C m f % Water Fines with HCI
(ft)a (in/in)a (mm) 60 20 3 2 .6 .2 .06 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl
SP-3
El. 6080.7 ft
2.0- 3.5 8/18 50 1.59 7.6 — 29 26 16 12 8 5 t np 10YR3/2 none
4.5- 6.0u 11/18 nae na na — — — 1 6 14 20 59 sp 10YR3/2 none
4.5- 6.0I 19 0.48 3.4 ... 6 35 16 24 12 3 4 np 10YR4/2 weak
7.0- 8.5 0/18 na na na na na na na na na na na na na na
9.5-11.0 2/18 7 1.21 7.8 ... 28 30 29 9 2 1 1 np 10YR4/2 none
13.5-15.0 3/18 75 0.56 12.8 — 46 14 10 12 11 3 4 np 10YR4/2 weak
17.0-18.5 10/18 na na 4.7 — 6 39 18 11 9 5 12 np 10YR4/2 strong
20.0- 21.5u 9/18 na na 4.4 — 15 29 17 10 8 6 15 sp 10YR5/2 strong
20.0-21,5m na na 1.2 ... 11 26 11 5 6 12 29 sp 10YR5/2 strong
20.0-21.51 na na 5.1 — 13 33 15 8 7 10 1' i sp 10YR5/2 strong

SP-4
El. 6079.8 ft
5.0- 6.5u na/18 100 2.88 6.0 — 12 38 18 11 7 6 3 np 10YR4/2 none
prohibited without p erm ission.

5.0- 6.51 9 0.66 1.11 — 5 18 18 27 24 4 i 1 np 1CYR4/2 none

BPo-4
El. 6080.4 ft
0.0- 9.0f 33 0.26 5.6 1 23 25 14 16 15 U 4
4 np 10YR3/2 weak
9.0-19.0 26 1.78 11.1 5 27 32 14 12 7 2 1 np 10YR4/2 moderate
19.0-29.0 26 2.23 7.4 3 18 35 20 11 6 3 4 np 10YR4/2 strong
29.0 - 39.0 35 0.49 6.2 ... 24 27 14 15 13 4 3 np 10YR4/2 moderate
-33 >99 0.07 4.1 — 22 24 9 5 3 5 11 10 5 6 11.5 13.3 10YR4/2 moderate
45.0- 49.0f 11 0.47 1.75 — 13 18 16 27 21 3 2 np 10YR4/2 moderate
i
[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm, 4/18 = 4 in. sample/18 in. penetration. [d] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).
[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [e] Not available.
[cj Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = water content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic; [f] Little sample recovered above 6 ft;
sp = slightly plastic. a lot of sample recovered 40 to 50 ft.

484
Reproduced with permission

Table B.20 - Trench and Test Pit Sample Data from the Goddard Ranch Site.

Grain Size Datab Atterberg0 Coloi^ Reaction

of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines

Sample Depth Unit Cu Cc D50 c m f c m f C m f % Water Fines with HCI
No. (ft)a (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .06 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl
Trench
1 0.0- 0.5 A nae na 0.18 — 12 5 6 1 22 29 25 np-sp 10YR3/1 none
2 1.4 - 2.0 B na na na — 3 3 6 9 12 14 53 np-sp 10YR3/1 none
3 2.8- 3.0 B na na 0.23 ... ... 9 4 12 31 27 17 np-sp 10YR3/1 none
4 3.4- 3.7 B na na 0.20 — 7 13 8 8 14 17 33 np-sp 10YR3/1 none
Sand Cone
5 3.0 A 22 0.77 9.8 — 17 42 13 19 8 1 <1 np 10YR4/2 none
6 3.6 A 22 0.15 6.0 ... 17 34 10 22 16 1 <1 np 10VR 4/2 none
7 4.1 B 33 1.24 0.04 — 14 2 1 1 5 11 27 16 11 12 16.3 27.9 10YR3/1 none

TP-1
El. 6079.8 ft
4-ft Dia. Ring
1.3- 2.1 A 30 0.87 10.4 11 30 23 11 17 8 0 0 np 10YR3/2 none
3.2- 4.0 A 31 1.87 16.3 8 37 25 12 11 7 0 D np 10YR4/2 none
Backhoe
5.4- 8.0 C1 30 1.61 11.0 2 30 30 14 12 8 2 1 I np 10YR3/2 none
prohibited without p erm ission .

TP-2
El. 6080.7 ft
4-ft Dia. Ring
1.9- 2.7 A 23 1.30 11.2 3 29 31 14 15 7 1 < np 10YR4/2 none
Backhoe
4.0- 5.0 A 41 0.67 5.6 — 25 24 14 19 8 2 8 np 10YR2/2 none
.
6.0- 9.0 C1 28 0.94 8.7 1 27 29 15 15 8 2 3 np 10YR3/2 none
...

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m . [d] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).

[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [e] Not available.
[c] Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = water content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic;
sp = slightly plastic.

485
 APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF 1991 TEST DATA

FROM THE
ANDERSEN BAR LIQUEFACTION SITE

i
I

486

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission

Grain SA SW C rosshole Blowcount SASW

Depth Log Desciption S iz e 3 (SA-1) (X1-X2) AW C asing (SA-2)
ft m % ft/sec ft/sec blows/ft ft/sec
c/g/s/f SV SH
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

Sandy Gravel (GP-GW)a--loose; hard 0/57/43/0

320/180 8 4 '3257150
subrounded gravel with low sphericity; 476
28 16
hard subangular sand; fines-very dark 0/54/46/0 300 312 444
brown (10 YR 2/2)b; max. size =100 0/65/33/2 22 22 360
mm; dry density at 0.5 and 0.7 m was 308 270
13 18
1.97 and 1.89 g/cm3, respectively; 290 316 283 24 22
sand matrix- to clast supported 3/67/28/2 322 292
structure. 22 22
...Silty sand (SP to MH) at 35, 67 and 380 325 291
-2 25 34
79 cm. 285 328 31 32 400
393 374
...lo o se to medium d e n se 39 42
360 431 392
57' 58
10 - -3 413 376
69 46
412 354
82 30
...m edium d en se 445 344
490 52 44 600
444 338
41 52
496 422
51 42
prohibited without p erm ission.

15- 574 474

54 49
664 519
-5 74 62
710 617
790 120 87 790

20' - 6
Local Site El. 97.1 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; c = cobble is lb] Color based on wet specimen of fines and
Water Table EL: 94.6 ft, 8/91 from 75 to 300 mm. g = gravel is from 4.75 to 75 mm, s = sand is from Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).
1 ft= 0 .3 m 0.75 to 4.75, and silt ana clay (fines) are <: 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh).

Fig. C .l - Com posite Profile o f the Andersen B ar Site.

487
 488

1500

• Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve
Surface Wave Velocity, VS) ft/sec

1000

500

1 10 100
Wavelength, XR> ft

Fig. C.2 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Andersen Bar Site, Array SA-1. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 489

1500

Experimental Dispersion Curves

Theorectical Dispersion Curve

o
0} 1000

<n
>
>;
'o
_o
<13
>
CU
£
<i
<u
o
as
3 500
CO

1 10 100
Wavelength, A.R) ft

Fig. C.3 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SA SW Dispersion

Curves from the Andersen B ar Site, Array SA-2. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 490

Table C .l - SASW Profile Data from the Andersen Bar Site.

Assumed Values SASW b

Layer Layer Layer Depth P-W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity Weight Velocity
(ft)a . (ft) (ft/sec) (ib/ft3)a (ft/sec)

Test Array SA-1

Local El. 96.9 ft
1 0.20 0.00 to 0.20 520 119 320
2 0.30 0.20 to 0.50 310 130 180
3 2.50 0.50 to 3.00 600 130 300
4 1.50 3.00 to 4.50 5000 130 290
5 3.00 4.50 to 7.50 5000 132 380
6 3.00 7.50 to 10.50 5000 132 360
7 4.00 10.50 to 14.50 5000 134 490
8 13.00 14.50 to 27.50 5000 135 790
9 30.00 27.50 to 57.50 5000 138 1050
10 Half-Space 5000 145 1500

Test Array SA-2

Local El. 97.3 ft
1 0.20 0.00 to 0.20 520 119 320
2 0.30 0.20 to 0.50 310 130 180
3 4.00 0.50 to 4.50 600 130 360
4 6.00 4.50 to 10.50 5000 132 400
5 4.00 10.50 to 14.50 5000 134 600
6 13.00 14.50 to 27.50 5000 135 790
7 30.00 27.50 to 57.50 5000 138 1100
8 Half-Space 5000 145 1500

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.454 kg force.

[b] Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).

i
i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table C.2 - Crosshole Test Data from the Andersen Bar Site.

Local El. 96.9 ft P-Wave SV-W ave SH-W ave Penetration3

Travel Time0 Travel Time0 Travel Timed Velocity AW Casing
Depth Distance15 Measured Corrected VP Measured Corrected Vsv Measured Corrected Vsh Ratio, X1 X2
(ft) (ft) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) SH/SV blows/ft
1 7.23 9.88d 9.92d 729d na na na 15.14 15.18 476 __ 8 4
2 7.18 11.37 11.03 651 23.38 23.04 312 16.13 16.17 444 1.43 28 16
3 7.14 1.50 1.16 6154 23.48 23.14 308 26.43 26.47 270 0.87 22 22
4 7.09 1.49 1.15 6169 22.81 22.47 316 25.04 25.08 283 0.90 13 18
5 7.05 1.46 1.12 6295 22.23 21.89 322 24.14 24.18 292 0.91 24 22
6 7.01 1.74 1.10 6369 22.19 21.55 325 24.05 24.09 291 0.89 22 22
7 6.96 1.73 1.09 6388 25.04 24.40 285 21.21 21.25 328 1.15 25 34
8 6.92 1.70 1.06 6527 18.24 17.60 393 18.44 18.48 374 0.95 31 32
9 6.87 1.70 1.06 6486 16.60 15.96 431 17.50 17.54 392 0.91 39 42
10 6.83 1.75 1.11 6154 17.19 16.55 413 18.12 18.16 376 0.91 57 58
11 6.69 2.06 1.12 6060 17.42 16.48 412 19.12 19.16 354 0.86 69 46
12 6.74 2.04 1.10 6131 16.09 15.15 445 19.57 19.61 344 0.77 82 30
13 6.70 2.00 1.06 6321 16.02 15.08 444 19.80 19.84 338 0.76 52 44
14 6.66 1.92 1.98 6792 14.37 13.43 496 15.74 15,78 422 0.85 41 52
15 6.61 1.95 1.01 6547 12.46 11.52 574 13.91 13.95 474 0.83 51 42
16 6.57 2.31 1.07 6140 11.13 9.89 664 12.62 12.66 519 0.78 54 49
17 6.53 2.22 0.98 5559 10.43 9.19 710 10.55 10.59 617 0.87 74 62
18 6.47 nae na na na na na na na na na 120 87

[a] Number of blows/ft (1 ft = 0.305 m) to advance AW casing; 140 lb (63.5 kg) weight, 15 inch (38 cm) drop.
[bj Near-edge-to-near-edge spacing. Distances based on near-edge-to-near-edge spacing and casing inclination measurements made at
the ground surface.
[c] Test performed by hitting down on steel casing. Time corrections for travel time down steel rod (0.30 msec/1.52 m) and trigger (-0.04 msec).
[d] Test performed using in-hole mechanical tapper. Time is the average of the travel times measured from the two waveforms generated
by impacts in opposite directions. Time correction for triqger (+0.035 msec).
[e] Not available.

491
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table C.3 - In Situ Density Data from the Andersen Bar Site.

Method Local El. Depth S oil W et Soil Moisture Dry Unit Sam ple D atab Soil
Volum e W eight W eight Type
(ft)a «t)a (ft3) (lb)a (%) (lb/ft3) c g s f

4 ft Dia. Ring 95.9 - 95.0 1.2 - 2.1 3.09 398.4 4.7 123 0 54 46 <1 GP
94.8 - 94.5 2.3 - 2.6 1.93 249.4 9.2 118 0 65 33 2 GW
[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.454 kg force.
[b] Based on the Unified Soil Classification System — c = cobbles, > 76.2 mm; g = gravel, 4.75 to 76.2 mm; s = sand, 0.075 to 4.75
mm; f = fines, < 0.075 mm.

Table C.4 - Test Pit Sample Data from the Andersen Bar Site.

Grain Size D atab

Atterberg® Colord Reaction
Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines
Depth Cu Cc d 50 c m f c m f c m f % Water Fines with HCI
<ft)a (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .06 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl
' T ..........
0 .0 -1 .0 19.31 0.61 6.63 ___ 15 37 16 18 13 1 0 np 10 YR 3/2 weak
1 .0 -1 .0 na® na na — — — 3 2 9 19 67 59.1 70.6 10 YR 2/2 none
1 .0 -1 .2 2.45 0.81 0.50 — - 5 5 32 51 4 ,
3 np 10 YR 3/1 none
1 .2-2.1 2.76 0.51 6.09 — 20 32 13 17 16 2 3 np 10 YR3/2 none
2.1 - 2.2 na na 0.11 — - 2 2 4 15 44 33, 32.3 32.3 10 YR 3/2 na
2.2 - 2.3 1.81 0.93 0.24 — — — — 2 66 29 3 np na na
2.3 - 2.6 25.74 1.20 10.85 — 35 26 16 14 6 2 1 np 10 YR 2/2 none
3.0 - 6.5 32.02 1.51 15.30 7 36 24 12 13 6 1 1 np 10 YR 3/2 none
1
[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m. Local ground surface El. 97.1 ft. [d ] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma),
[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [e] Not available.
[c] Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = water content at liquid limit.

492
 A P P E N D IX D

S U M M A R Y O F 1990 AND 1991 T E S T D A TA

FROM TH E

L A R T E R R A N C H L IQ U E F A C T IO N S IT E

493

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTC CPT(CP-1) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption Size3 (SP-1) friction tip sleeve (SA-1, (BPc-4)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf 1990) Blowcount Pressure
c/g/s/f ft/sec blows/ft psig
0
ilty Sand with gravel (SM to GM- 1 4
P)a~dark grayish br. (10YR 3/2)t> 3 4
0/67/26/7 1 3/3/6 4 5
Sandy Gravel with silt and cobbles
(GM-GW)--loose to medium 18 7
dense; subangular gravel (mostly 4/58/31/7 TP-1< 18 7
5 (5/4/7
quartzite); grayish to yellowish 0/48/40/12 19 6
brown (10YR 5/2 to 5/4) fines. 14 6
Sandy Gravel with silt (GM-GW)-- 5/57/31/7 TP-1 1 5/10/5 13 6
loose to medium dense; 0/44/45/11 9 5
subangular gravel; yellowish br. 6 4
10 - - 3 (10YR 5/4), yellow mottling at 2.4 0/45/45/10 (2/2/3
m; 5 cm silty sand at about 3 m. 5 4
14 6
Sandy Gravel with silt and some 16 6
cobbles (GM)-- loose to medium P 8/8/10
600 17 7
dense; subangular gravel (mostly 13 6
15 quartzite) and sand; gray (10YR 0/47/39/14 [6/8/5
5/1), slightly plastic fines, weak 10 5
reaction with HCI; grades with 9 5
more fines. 0/37/41/22 [4/4/5 9 5
6 6
20 ...cobble or boulder at 6.1 m; 0/35/47/17 ■5/11+ 18 9
medium dense to dense. 18 9
26 11
-- 7 900 21 9
26 10
25 31 11
37 11
33 11
35 11
63 11
430 tsf
30 - 9 65 10
Local Site El. 83.6 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; [c] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6
Water Table El.: 81.3 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kha to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4175, and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh). [f] Sample type.
[b] Color based on wet specimen of fines and Munsell
color chart; (hue value/chroma).

Fig. D .l - Composite Profile Near CP-1 at the Larter Ranch Site.

494
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain SPTC CPT (CP-2) SASW BPT

Depth Log Desciption S iz e 3 (SP-2) friction tip sleeve (SA-1, (BPc-4)
ft m % ratio, % resistance, tsf friction, tsf 1990) Blowcount Press
c/g/s/f 10 0 200 400 o 6 ft/sec blows/ft psig
iilty Sand with gravel (SM to GM- T T— I— 300 1 4
iP)a.-dark grayish br. (10YR 3/2)t>. 500 3 4
4 b
Sandy Gravel with silt and cobbles 18 7
(GM-GW)--medium dense; 800
subangular gravel; grayish to pale 0/37/52/11 18 7
5- '
brown (10YR 5/2 to 6/3) fines. 19 6
700 14 6
Sandy Gravel with silt (GM-GW)-- 0/51/37/12 13 6
loose to medium dense; gravel 600 9 5
(mostly quartzite) subangular; 6 4
1 0 -- 3 yellowish brown (10YR 5/4). 5 4
14 6
Sandy Gravel with silt and few 16 6
r 4 cobbles (GM)--loose to medium 600 17 7
dense; subangular gravel (mostly 13 6
15- quartzite); light brownish gray 0/42/45/13
(10YR 6/2), slightly plastic fines, 10 5
5 weak reaction with HCI; grades 9 5
with more silt, 0/33/49/18 9 5
cobble or boulder at 5.8 m. 6 6
20- 6 .medium dense to dense. 18 9
0/58/24/18 ■ 19/35/16 18 9
26 11
425 tsf 21 9
•- 7 900
26 10
25- 31 11
37 11
- 8 33 11
35 11
63 11
30. I L 65 10
Local Site El. 83.8 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487-83; fc] Unshaded section - no recovery; 2/3/6 =
Water Table El.: 81.3 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 mm, g = gravel is from 4.75 blowcount for each 0.5 ft of penetration.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kha to 75 mm, s = sand is from 0.075 to 4775, and silt and [d] Layer designation.
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay/fines) are < 0.075 mm (< 200 mesh).
[b] Color based on wet specimen of fines and Munsell
color chart; (hue value/chroma).

495
Fig. D.2 - Composite Profile N ear CP-2 at the Larter Ranch Site.
 T3
—i
O
Q.
C
o
CD
Q.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Grain CPT (CP- 3 ) SASW C rosshole

Depth Log Desciption S iz e 3 friction tip s le e v e (SA -1, (X3-X4) (X1-X2)
ft m % ratio, % resistan ce, tsf friction, tsf 1990) ft/sec
c/g/s/f 0 200 400 0 6 ft/sec SV SH SH
Silty Sand with gravel--dark i— r 300
grayish brown to pale brown; 60 0 589 638
67 7 804 713
strong reaction with HCI. 736 872 71 3
- 1
Sandy Gravel with cobbles and 756 897 642
5- silt--loose to medium dense; 73 9 901 580
grayish to yellow brown fines, 667 489 525
2 weak reaction with HCI._______ 700
0/57/36/7 TP-2d 696 498 534
San dy Gravel with silt an d few 63 7 555 591
c o b b le s (GM-GW )a~ lo o se to 624 532 497
10 - - 3 m edium d e n se; subangular gravel;
523 486 484
yellowish brown (10YR 5 / 4 )b.
52 0 519 522
...loose to medium dense. 532 511 539
- 4 600 533 544 516
543 591 503
15- 59 0 533 531
- 5 63 6 525 569
685 583 576
737 659 649
28% 77 5 723 694
20 - - 6

...medium dense to dense.

-- 7 900

25-

40 6 tsf
30. I-9
Local S ite El. 83.8 ft [a] Unified Soil C lassification S ystem , ASTM D2487-83; Layer designation.
W ater T able El.: 81.3 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 m m , g = gravel is from 4.75 Sam ple type.
1 ft = 0.3 nr 1 tsf = 96 kha to 75 m m , s = sa n d is from 0.075 to 4 7 5 , a n d silt an d
1 psig = 5.2 cm of m urcury = 69 millibar clayjfines) a r e < 0.075 mm (< 200 m esh).
[b] Color b a s e d on w et specim en of fines a n d Munsell
color chart; (hue value/chrom a).
Fig. D.3 - Composite Profile Near CP-3 at the Larter Ranch Site.

496
.il
 I

Reproduced with permission

Grain SPT SASW BPT BPT

Depth Log Desciption Sb.e (SP-3) (SA-2, (BPc-2) (BPc-3)
ft m % 1990) Blowcount Pressure Blowcount Pressure
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction

c/g/s/f f t/s e c blows/ft psig blows/ft psig

...upper 15 cm weak humic soil A^ —
horizon; underlain by weak calcic 20 7
soil horizon. 42 8
- - 1 86 10
Sandy Gravel with silt and
cobbles (GM-GW)a-dense; 1 19/25/24c 73 12
5- 0/54/38/8
72 12
subangular gravel (mostly
quartzite) and sand; pale brown 68 13
(10YR 6/3)b to light yellowish 66 13
brown (10YR 6/4) fines, non- to 56 13
slightly plastic, moderate reaction l40/58/n a
10 - 57 12
with HCI; max. size 25 cm x 18 47 12
cm x 13 cm. Gravel are densely 42 12
packed with a little silty sand 37 12
matrix to clast-supported (stone- 0/47/43/10 1 23/26/23 1160
on-stone) with filled framework. 27 11
15' Poorly stratified. Thin, partial 32 11
carbonate coats on bottom of 0/46/37'17 1 14/17/24 44 9 30 10
many stones. 59 8 25 9
34 9 10 8
0/39/53/8 1 11/35/59 31 9 6 5
Sandy Gravel with silt and cobbles 20 10 9 5
20 - (GM-GW)-medium dense; 0/9/72/19 16/13/26 590 16 10 21 7
prohibited without p erm ission.

subangular gravel (mostly 0/42/36/22 23 9 16 8

quartzite) and sand; brown (10YR 25 10 13 8
5/3) to yellowish brown (1OYR 5/6) 0/50/44/6 1 15/15/12 15 8
fines, non-plastic, moderate to 16 9
25- weak reaction with HCI; 13 cm 17 8 14 8
silty sand at 6.3 m. 0/64/26/10 1 11/13/10 32 9 10 7
30 9 14 7
800 17 8
0/55/35/10 26 9
1 20/22/23 21 10 14 8
30. ...cobble or boulder at 9.1 m. 16 10 12 8
Local S ite El. 9 6 .4 ft [a] Unified Soil Classification S y stem , ASTM D2487-83; [b] Color b a s e d o n w et sp ecim en of fines an d
W ater T ab le El.: 81.8 ft, 8/90 c = cobble is from 75 to 300 m m , g = gravel is from 4.75 Munsell color chart; (hue value/chrom a).
1 ft = 0 .3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kP a to 7 5 m m , s = sa n d is from 0.075 to 4T75. a n d silt an d [cl 2/3/6 = blow count for e a c h 0.5 ft of penetration,
1 psig = 5 .2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar clay (fines) a re < 0.075 m m (< 2 0 0 m esh). [dj L ayer designation.

497
Fig. D.4 - Composite Profile for Test Area 2 at the Larter Ranch Site.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SASW BPT BPT

Depth Log Desciption (SA-2, (BPc-2) (BPc-3)
ft m 1990) Blowcount Pressure Blowcount Pressure
30- ft/sec blows/ft psig blows/ft psig
.medium dense. Ca 21 10 11 9
28 8 17 10
-10 800 20 10
.medium dense to dense. 21 8 19 9
35- 34 9 22 9
-11 68 9 29 10
69 9 36 11
1000 83 9 43 12
46 11 43 12
40- 68 10 54 12
57 10 41 12
88 8 41 11
-13 73 9 30 10
94 9 38 11
45- 80 8 65 12
--14 114 8 48 12
123 8 32 11
1500 244 8 70 13
-15 75 13
50-- 88 13
469 8 89 13
-16 115 14 101 13
122 14 120 13
113 14
55- 118 14 140 14
-17

1800
■18
60-L
Local Sits El. 96.4 ft [a] Layer designation.
Water Table El.: 81.8 ft, 8/90
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kha
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. D.4(cont.) - Com posite Profile for Test Area 2 at the Larter Ranch Site.

498
r i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SA SW BPT
Depth Log Desciption (SA -3, (B P c-1)
ft m 1990) Blowcount P ressu re
ft/sec blows/ft psig
°H ■
A a _____ 2 8 0 -------- 13 6
...m edium d e n s e to d e n s e . 650 25 8
•L 1 42 9
860 58 10
5- ; 52 11
63 11
- 2 64 12
1050
60 13
73 13
10- 7 3 B 86 13
- 91 12
- 74 12
...d en se.
• 1300 78 13
-7 4 86 12
15- 91 13
. 83 12
-- 5 84 12
- 58 12
31 11
20 - - 6
--------9 960 25 10
15 9
. ...m edium d e n s e . 12 10
1 7 28 11
- 40 11
25- C? 40 12
■- 8 40 12
990
34 12
• 27 12
22 12
3 0 ,' - 9 27 11
Local Site El. 102.5 ft [a] Layer designation.
1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kPa
1 psig = 5.2 cm of murcury = 69 millibar

Fig. D.5 - Composite Profile for Test Area 3 at the Larter Ranch Site.

499
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SASW BPT
Depth Log Desciption (SA-3, (BPc-1)
ft m 1990) Blowcount Pressure
't/sec
...medium dense. Ca 16 10
. 990 27 10
. -10 44 12
- . ...medium dense to dense. 40 12
35- ■ 19 11
-11 24 10
. D 39 12
-. 44 13
. • 55 12
40- : 12 54 13
- • 56 13
61 13
- r 13 69 12
1180 78 11
45- • 77 11
-14 99 12
-• 139 9
49 12
- 98 12
50- r 15 171 9
• 172 9
230 9
- -16 231 9
250 9
55- 240 9
. -17 234 9
. 225 10
- 1860 172 9
-18
60."
Local Site EM 02.5 ft [a] Layer designation.
1 ft = 0 .3 m; 1 tsf = 96 kP a
1 psig = 5 .2 cm of m urcury = 69 millibar

Fig. D.5(cont.) - Composite Profile for Test Area 3 at the Larter Ranch Site.

500
 501

2500 i i 1 1 1 --------- 1----- 1— i—i i m 11--------- 1----- 1

— i— i i i 11 [----------1---- 1— ^

Experimental Dispersion Curves

o Theorectical Dispersion Curve o .

2000 -

6
/•

;d
Surface Wave Velocity, VSj ft/sec

P
15001- p

1000 -

s> , $
,|V O,'*
£ »-.V O/
-V o
'* 'o ° '
Q ppO O «
500 - / H
no
o>v
OOQP'. /

o l-L-l.l. 1.1_____ I-----1__I I I I 1.1 I_____ I___I__I I I » t I I_____ I ■ I

1 10 100
Wavelength, A,Ri ft

Fig. D.6 - Comparison o f Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the L arter Ranch Site, Array S A -1 ,1990. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2500 T
O
Experimental Dispersion Curves
/*•
O Theorectical Dispersion Curve .CV
•, V
*<S
2000

&
-

* •

.5 ’
o
0)
3
C/>
> 1500 -

o
o
0
>
CD
>
CO

0 1000 -

o Mn ' ' '■

CO ■_r*<
'£:
3
CO ct. / *»
.JO *•
$ / ?
'o '# ?
500 -

0 1-1.1 I.JL.l.. -1 - I I-I I, J.,1.1.1 ■J

I 1 I l l l lI _l I L.
10 100
Wavelength, A,Ri ft

Fig. D.7 - Comparison o f Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Larter Ranch Site, Array SA-2, 1990. (1 ft = 0.3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 503

2500 i i iij 1 -------- 1— i— I I m 11--------------- 1-------- 1— i— 1 1 I M I

Experimental Dispersion Curves

O Theorectical Dispersion Curve Q'
/
2000
Surface Wave Velocity, VS| ft/sec

O!
1500

1000

500

■I I L.
10 100
W avelength, kRl ft

Fig. D.8 - Comparison of Experimental and Theorectical SASW Dispersion

Curves from the Larter Ranch Site, Array SA-3, 1990. (1 ft = 0.3 m.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 504

Table D .l - SASW Profile Data from the Larter Ranch Site, 1990.

Assumed Values SASW b

L ayer Layer Layer Depth P-W ave Total Unit S -W a v e
No. Thickness Velocity W eight Velocity
(ft)a (ft) (ft/sec) (lb/ft3)3 (ft/sec)

Test Array S A -1 ,1990

Local El. 83.8 ft
1 1.00 0.00 to 1.00 520 129 300
2 1.00 1.00 to 2.00 870 132 500
3 3.00 2.00 to 5.00 1385 132 800
4 2.00 5.00 to 7.00 5000 132 700
5 3.00 7.00 to 10.00 5000 132 600
6 6.00 10.00 to 16.00 5000 135 600
7 20.00 16.00 to 36.00 5000 138 900
8 20.00 36.00 to 56.00 5000 145 1400
9 25.00 56.00 to 81.00 5000 145 1850
10 Half-Space 5000 145 2600

Test Array S A -2 ,1990

Local El. 94.9 ft
1 1.50 0.00 to 1.50 987 129 570
2 4.50 1.50 to 6.00 1386 133 800
3 11.00 6.00 to 17.00 2009 138 1160
4 5.00 17.00 to 22.00 5000 133 590
5 11.00 22.00 to 33.00 5000 138 800
6 6.00 33.00 to 39.00 5000 138 1000
7 14.00 39.00 to 53.00 5000 142 1500
8 24.00 53.00 to 77.00 5000 148 1800
9 25.00 77.00 to 102.00 5000 148 2200
10 Half-Space 5000 148 2500

Test Array S A -3 ,1990

Local El. 102.7 ft
1 0.65 0.00 to 0.65 485 126 280
2 2.00 0.65 to 2.65 1126 132 650
3 2.35 2.65 to 5.00 1490 135 860
4 4.00 5.00 to 9.00 1819 138 1050
5 8.00 9.00 to 17.00 2252 138 1300
6 5.00 17.00 to 22.00 1663 138 960
7 12.00 22.00 to 34.00 5000 138 990
8 20.00 34.00 to 54.00 5000 138 1180
9 40.00 54.00 to 94.00 5000 142 1860
10 Half-Space 5000 148 2400

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 4.45 N.

[b] Based on 3-D computer model described by Roesset et al. (1991).
I
i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table D.2 - Crosshole Test Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Array X1-X2.

Local El. 83.9 ft P-Wave SV-Wave SH-W ave Penetration

Travel Time0 Travel Time Travel Time0 Velocity AW Casing3
Depth Distance13 Measured Corrected Vp Measured Corrected Vsv Measured Corrected Vsh Ratio, X1 X2
(ft) (ft) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) SH/SV blows/ft
1 7.94 8.38 8.42 944 pri* pr pr 12.42 12.46 638 na 14 11
2 7.93 7.54 7.58 1046 pr pr pr 11.09 11.13 713 na 29 16
3 7.91 5.96 6.00 1320 pr pr Pr 11.06 11.09 713 na 25 20
4 7.90 6.54 6.58 1201 pr pr pr 12.27 12.30 642 na 50 60
5 7.88 8.36 8.40 939 pr Pr pr 13.56 13.59 580 na 64 50
6 7.86 9.26 9.30 846 pr Pr pr 14.94 14.98 525 na 72 38
7 7.85 8.44 8.48 926 Pr pr pr 14.67 14.70 534 na 46 35
8 7.83 8.44 8.48 924 pr pr pr 13.23 13.27 591 na 49 23
9 7.82 8.15 8.19 955 pr pr Pr 15.69 15.72 497 na 40 26
10 7.80 8.36 8.40 929 Pr pr pr 16.08 16.11 484 na 35 24
11 7.79 7.13 7.17 1087 Pr pr pr 14.88 14.92 522 na 32 19
12 7.77 6.39 6.43 1209 pr pr pr 14.40 14.43 539 na 44 17
13 7.75 4.79 4.83 1607 pr pr pr 14.98 15.02 516 na 30 24
14 7.74 4.81 4.85 1597 pr Pr pr 15.35 15.39 503 na 50 32
15 7.72 4.61 4.65 1663 pr pr pr 14.52 14.55 531 na 34 30
16 7.71 3.61 3.65 2115 pr pr pr 13.52 13.55 569 na 35 42
17 7.69 1.91 1.95 3955 pr pr pr 13.31 13.35 576 na 36 29
18 7.68 1.46 1.50 5135 pr pr pr 11.80 11.83 649 na 22 22
19 7.67 1.30 1.34 5742 Pr Pr pr 11.02 11.05 694 na 25 22
20 7.66 nae na na na na na na na na na >100 39

[a] Number of blows/ft (1 ft = 0.305 m) to advance AW casing; 140 lb (63.5 kg) weight, 15-inch (38-cm) drop.
[b] Near-edge-to-near-edge spacing. Distances based on near-edge-to-near-edge spacing and casing inclination measurements made at the
ground surface.
[c] Test performed using in-hole mechanical tapper. Time is the average of the travel times measured from the two waveforms generated by
impacts in opposite directions. Time correction for trigger (+0.035 msec).
[d] Poor records. Test performed by wedging in-hole mechanical tapper and hitting down on the orientation rods, after both steel casings
were driven to final depth (20 ft).
[e] Not available.

505
- i i
 I . 1,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table D.3 - Crosshole Test Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Array X3-X4.

Local El. 83.7 ft P-Wave SV-W ave SH-W ave Penetration

Travel Time0 Travel Time0 Travel Timed Velocity AW Casing3
Depth Distance15 Measured Corrected v P Measured Corrected Vsv Measured Corrected Vsh Ratio, X3 X4
_ ®) («) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) (msec) (msec) (ft/sec) SH/SV blows/ft
1 8.35 7.99 7.65 1091 14.26 13.92 600 14.14 14.18 589 0.98 8 12
2 8.36 6.86 6.52 1283 12.70 12.36 677 10.37 10.40 804 1.19 26 29
3 8.38 6.07 5.73 1462 11.72 11.38 736 9.57 9.60 872 1.18 46 58
4 8.39 6.91 6.57 1278 11.45 11.11 756 9.32 9.36 897 1.19 73 87
5 8.41 7.87 7.53 1117 11.72 11.38 739 9.30 9.34 901 1.22 61 66
6 8.43 9.40 8.76 962 13.28 12.64 667 17.19 17.22 489 0.73 35 48
7 8.44 10.66 10.02 843 12.77 12.13 696 16.91 16.94 498 0.72 35 32
8 8.46 9.63 8.99 941 13.91 13.27 637 15.20 15.24 555 0.87 20 39
9 8.47 10.45 9.81 864 14.22 13.58 624 15.90 15.94 532 0.85 27 39
10 8.49 10.90 10.26 827 16.87 16.23 523 17.42 17.46 486 0.93 60 26
11 8.51 10.43 9.49 896 17.30 16.36 520 16.37 16.40 519 1.00 40 40
12 8.52 10.37 9.43 904 16.95 16.01 532 16.64 16.68 511 0.96 51 44
13 8.54 9.77 8.83 967 16.95 16.01 533 15.66 15.70 544 1.02 86 58
14 8.55 8.71 7.77 1101 16.68 15.74 543 14.45 14.48 591 1.09 56 39
15 8.57 7.54 6.60 1299 15.47 14.53 590 16.05 16.08 533 0.90 51 41
16 8.59 7.60 6.36 1350 14.73 13.49 636 16.33 16.36 525 0.82 27 34
17 8.60 8.48 7.24 1188 13.79 12.55 685 14.73 14.76 583 0.85 39 41
18 8.62 2.88 1.64 5255 12.93 11.69 737 13.05 13.08 659 0.89 46 69
19 8.63 2.63 1.39 6212 12.38 11.14 775 11.91 11.94 723 0.93 44 42
20 8.65 nae na na na na na na na na na 52 45

[a] Number of blows/ft (1 ft = 0.305 m) to advance AW casing; 140 lb (63.5 kg) weight, 15-inch (38-cm) drop.
[b] Near-edge-to-near-edge spacing. Distances based on near-edge-to-near-edge spacing and casing inclination measurements made at the
ground surface.
[c] Test performed by hitting down on steel casing. Time corrections for travel time down steel rod (0.30 msec/1.52 m) and trigger (-0.04
msec).
[d] Test performed using in-hole mechanical tapper. Time is the average of the travel times measured from the two waveforms generated by
impacts in opposite directions. Time correction for trigger (+0.035 msec).
[e] Not available.

506
 507

II II I I II I I ' T T 'H" I I II I I I I II I I I II

Depth, ft Unit
1 1.5- 3.0 A/B1
2 4 .5 - 6.0 B1
3 7 .0 - 8.5 C1
4 9 .5 -1 1 .0 C1
5 12.0-13.5 C2
6 14.5-16.0 C2
7 17.0 -18.5 C2

4 7 1 2 6J3 5
I I \ i \ l \ i \ M i i \ _ i_L l i I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I. II I I I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. D.9 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Larter Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-1. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

0 n I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I' l | 1 I I I | I I I I | I I I i| i i i i

Depth, ft Unit
1 1 .5 - 3.0 A/B1 -
2 4 .5 - 6.0 B1
3 7 .0 - 8.5 C1
e R 4 9 .5 -1 1 .0 C1
5 12.0-13.5 C2
6 14.5-16.0 C2
7 17.0-18.5 C2
8 2 0 .0 -2 1 .5 D

l.l.l.l 11 11 11 11 M 11 11 11 11 i iN-i_i.t-.i-
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows

Fig. D. 10 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Larter Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-2. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 508

o II II j I M I | I I I I

Depth, ft Unit
3 4.0 - 5.5 B
8.0 - 9.5 B
12.0-13.5 B
15.0-16.5 B
17.5-19.0 B
c 6 20.0-21.5 C
d g 7 22.5 - 24.0 C
o s 8 25.0 - 26.5 C
cfl 9 27.5 - 29.0 C?
|
d)
12
Q.

15 8. \7 , X 9v 1

18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Blows
Fig. D.l 1 - Plots of Penetration Per Blow from the Larter Ranch Site, Borehole
SP-3. (1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 509

Table D.4 - CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-1.

Date: August 9,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 83.6 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
Initial: 0 0.00
5.41 ft -3 +0.12
5.41 ft 0 0.00 Rezero
Final: -2 +0.00
Baseline Adjust: No
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
<ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.10 6.89 71.24 1.12 1.57
0.66 0.28 7.05 57.20 0.27 0.47
0.82 16.09 0.43 2.66 7.22 56.94 0.56 0.98
0.98 25.02 0.76 3.05 7.38 75.58 0.64 0.84
1.15 35.49 0.62 1.74 7.54 51.58 0.36 0.70
1.31 30.64 0.48 1.58 7.71 53.37 0.56 1.06
1.48 43.15 0.50 1.16 7.87 40.09 0.59 1.48
1.64 46.22 0.60 1.30 8.04 37.79 0.33 0.86
1.80 56.68 0.91 1.60 8.20 44.43 0.50 1.13
1.97 38.56 0.79 2.06 8.36 34.73 0.67 1.93
2.13 41.88 0.65 1.56 8.53 35.49 0.39 1.10
2.30 30.13 2.33 7.74 8.69 30.64 0.52 1.69
2.46 87.58 1.01 1.15 8.86 34.22 0.33 0.97
2.62 46.98 1.10 2.34 9.02 80.69 1.41 1.75
2.79 75.32 0.60 0.79 9.18 85.03 1.18 1.38
2.95 48.77 0.82 1.68 9.35 105.71 0.79 0.74
3.12 36.26 0.24 0.67 9.51 28.85 1.38 4.77
3.28 31.41 1.18 3.76 9.68 43.92 0.74 1.69
3.44 62.30 2.33 3.74 9.84 62.81 0.61 0.97
3.61 106.73 1.92 1.80 10.00 57.20 0.87 1.52
3.77 62.05 1.08 1.73 10.17 54.39 0.56 1.03
3.94 85.79 1.15 1.34 10.33 34.22 0.36 1.07
4.10 62.81 0.67 1.07 10.50 21.19 0.20 0.93
4.26 63.32 0.57 0.90 io!66 20.43 0.21 1.03
4.43 61.03 0.81 1.33 10.82 12.77 0.09 0.71
4.59 63.58 . 0.46 0.72 10.99 8.43 0.08 0.98
4.76 69.20 0.49 0.70 11.15 13.79 0.17 1.24
4.92 73.28 0.61 0.83 11.32 23.24 -0.01 -0.05
5.08 79.15 0.46 0.58 11.48 29.62 -0.30 -1.02
5.25 89.11 0.54 0.60 11.64 119.50 0.70 0.59
5.41 81.71 0.88 1.08 11.81 64.86 1.43 2.20
5.58 74.56 1.90 2.55 11.97 93.20 1.54 1.65
5.74 82.22 1.94 2.36 12.14 79.67 0.64 0.80
5.90 117.71 2.35 2.00 12.3° 66.64 0.72 1.08
6.07 55.66 1.07 1.92 12.46 56.94 1.11 1.94
6.23 70.47 1.35 1.92 12.63 85.03 1.76 2.08
6.40 51.83 1.21 2.33 12.79 48.77 1.01 2.08
6.56 92.69 0.58 0.02 12.96 119.24 2.31 1.93
6.72 51.32 1.47 2.86 13.12 165.46 1.91 1.16
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 510

Table D.4 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-1.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.28 40.85 1.71 4.19 21.16 65.62 3.72 5.66
13.45 51.83 1.79 3.44 21.32 103.67 2.91 2.81
13.61 88.86 1.25 1.41 21.48 161.63 2.12 1.31
13.78 58.47 1.17 2.00 21.65 113.37 1.44 1.27
13.94 68.18 0.74 1.08 21.81 124.09 0.77 0.62
14.10 70.98 0.42 0.60 21.98 94.99 1.46 1.54
14.27 79.15 0.16 0.20 22.14 48.00 0.81 1.69
14.43 56.94 0.41 0.72 22.30 79.41 1.35 1.70
14.60 61.03 1.03 1.69 22.47 109.80 1.45 1.32
14.76 80.18 3.93 4.90 22.63 130.22 3.11 2.39
14.92 130.99 2.82 2.16 22.80 167.25 5.34 3.19
15.09 98.05 1.61 1.64 22.96 142.22 3.35 2.36
15.25 47.75 1.90 3.97 23.12 82.98 0.47 0.56
15.42 77.88 1.54 1.98 23.29 76.86 0.55 0.72
15.58 63.58 1.12 1.77 23.45 62.30 2.63 4.22
15.74 65.88 1.14 1.73 23.62 193.80 2.92 1.51
15.91 66.90 1.09 1.63 23.78 133.80 3.43 2.56
16.07 88.35 2.35 2.66 23.94 135.84 2.36 1.74
16.24 81.45 1.57 1.93 24.11 192.52 2.43 1.26
16.40 64.86 1.36 2.09 24.27 186.14 2.76 1.48
16.56 42.13 1.13 2.68 24.44 258.91 2.41 0.93
16.73 14.55 0.44 3.01 24.60 176.18 1.69 0.96
16.89 9.96 0.20 2.05 24.76 198.40 2.47 1.24
17.06 55.66 0.46 0.82 24.93 233.12 1.81 0.78
17.22 129.97 0.73 0.56 25.09 274.49 5.11 1.86
17.38 50.05 0.83 1.67 25.26 318.41 5.17 1.62
17.55 42.90 1.15 2.67 25.42 212.19 2.85 1.34
17.71 78.64 0.92 1.16 25.58 213.46 0.81 0.38
17.88 49.54 0.94 1.89 25.75 221.12 1.94 0.38
18.04 30.64 0.84 2.75 25.91 247.93 1.76 0.71
18.20 53.11 1.14 2.14 26.08 148.61 1.81 1.22
18.37 42.64 0.81 1.91 26.24 184.10 2.01 1.09
18.53 33.96 0.57 1.68 26.40 208.36 1.99 0.96
18.70 36.00 0.22 0.62 26.57 205.29 2.27 1.11
18.86 33.45 1.22 3.64 26.73 437.39 4.65 1.06
19.02 59.24 1.13 1.91 26.90 241.55 4.97 2.06
19.19 25.28 1.22 4.82 27.06 207.84 5.85 2.81
19.35 23.49 0.87 3.70 27.22 195.59 4.61 2.36
19.52 16.09 0.51 3.16 27.39 98.05 2.28 2.33
19.68 41.36 0.37 0.90 27.55 158.56 1.89 1.19
19.84 65.62 0.64 0.97 27.72 173.12 2.48 1.43
20.01 38.05 1.11 2.91 27.88 144.52 4.33 3.00
20.17 90.90 0.75 0.83 28.04 299.00 2.25 0.75
20.34 81.96 2.30 2.80 28.21 337.56 2.48 0.73
20.50 154.99 3.24 2.09 29.19 430.
20.66 55.92 2.71 4.84
20.83 62.56 1.01 1.62
20.99 30.90 2.35 7.60
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft^ = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 511

T a b le D .5 - C P T D ata from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-2.

D a te : A u g u s t 9, 1990 Sheet 1 of 2
O p e ra to r: D . Seibeck Local Elevation: 83.8 ft
C o n e T y p e : 10-cm 2, 10-Ton Electric
B a s e lin e : Tip Friction
fton/ft2) (ton/ft2)
In itial: 0 0.00
F in a l: -3 +0.27
B a s e lin e A d ju s t: No________ __________
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
D e p th R esistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 0.20 7.22 46.47 0.88 1.89
0.66 0.56 7.38 47.24 0.49 1.03
0.82 22.98 0.57 2.46 7.54 30.64 0.30 0.98
0.98 21.96 0.46 2.07 7.71 32.17 0.4B 1.49
1.15 35.24 0.58 1.66 7.87 15.83 0.28 1.75
1.31 34.22 0.64 1.88 8.04 41.11 0.46 1.12
1.48 26.30 0.63 2.39 8.20 56.94 0.54 0.95
1.64 17.87 0.28 1.55 8.36 47.24 0.33 0.71
1.80 12.00 0.51 4.23 8.53 49.28 0.29 0.59
1.97 23.75 1.43 6.02 8.69 45.96 0.32 0.70
2.13 40.34 1.25 3.09 8.86 43.92 0.22 0.50
2.30 59.49 1.79 3.00 9.02 48.26 0.12 0.26
2.46 48.26 0.44 0.91 9.18 41.36 0.25 0.60
2.62 116.43 0.67 0.57 9.35 36.00 0.31 0.87
2.79 113.88 1.40 1.23 9.51 28.85 0.21 0.73
2.95 67.92 0.88 1.30 9.68 25.79 0.25 0.96
3.12 84.01 0.96 1.15 9.84 56.94 0.43 0.76
3.28 123.84 2.13 1.72 10.00 33.96 0.23 0.68
3.44 171.59 2.94 1.72 10.17 48.77 0.56 1.15
3.61 181.03 2.23 1.23 10.33 40.34 0.63 1.56
3.77 140.95 1.20 0.85 10.50 46.22 0.42 0.91
3.94 137.37 1.54 1.12 10.66 58.47 0.75 1.28
4.10 147.33 1.32 0.90 10.82 48.00 0.75 1.57
4.26 137.88 0.85 0.62 10.99 62.05 0.52 0.83
4.43 116.94 0.71 0.61 11.15 60.26 -0.06 -0.09
4.59 124.09 0.48 0.38 11.32 57.71 0.40 0.69
4.76 105.97 2.00 1.89 11.48 85.28 2.79 3.27
4.92 102.90 0.85 0.83 11.64 136.09 2.91 2.14
5.08 119.50 0.55 0.46 11.81 95.75 0.12 0.12
5.25 121.03 0.81 0.67 11.97 187.93 0.91 0.48
5.41 93.96 0.07 0.07 12.14 177.97 0.38 0.22
5.58 105.45 1.76 1.67 12.30 215.50 5.04 2.34
5.74 127.16 0.63 0.50 12.46 142.48 3.17 2.23
5.90 89.11 0.46 0.52 12.63 65.11 1.65 2.53
6.07 83.24 0.53 0.63 12.79 85.54 1.76 2.06
6.23 90.13 1.40 1.55 12.96 110.56 0.84 0.76
6.40 71.49 2.15 3.01 13.12 36.00 1.17 3.26
6.56 79.92 0.79 0.99 13.28 70.47 1.55 2.19
6.72 64.86 0.54 0.83 13.45 48.51 1.64 3.39
6.89 58.98 0.27 0.46 13.61 49.28 1.57 3.18
7.05 57.71 0.35 0.61 13.78 73.03 1.28 1.75
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 512

Table D.5 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-2.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
13.94 147.59 1.54 1.04
_ 14.10 163.16 1.32 0.81
- 14.27 140.18 0.71 0.50
14.43 104.94 0.91 0.87
_ 14.60 73.79 2.85 3.86
14.76 84.01 0.73 0.87
14.92 79.92 0.51 0.64
15.09 156.01 4.48 2.87
15.25 45.19 2.00 4.42
15.42 39.58 1.98 5.01
15.58 45.19 0.53 1.18
— 15.74 50.56 0.90 1.78
15.91 101.62 2.26 2.22
16.07 79.15 1.92 2.43
16.24 24.26 1.58 6.50
- 16.40 8.43 0.42 5.04
- 16.56 8.17 0.33 4.06
16.73 5.36 0.25 4.59
16.89 6.13 0.12 1.89
17.06 20.17 0.43 2.12
17.22 41.36 0.09 0.21
17.38 73.03 -0.01 -0.01
17.55 98.30 -0.21 -0.21
17.71 57.71 1.37 2.38
17.88 64.86 1.62 2.50
18.04 49.54 1.24 2.50
- 18.20 26.56 0.60 2.25
18.37 36.00 0.65 1.80
_ 18.53 36.77 0.61 1.66
18.70 21.70 1.10 5.07
18.86 12.77 1.93 15.12
19.02 61.03 2.24 3.67
19.19 50.05 1.80 3.59
19.35 8.68 0.24 2.75
19.52 1.02 -0.10 -9.60
19.68 18.38 1.72 9.35
19.84 37.53 1.66 4.43
20.01 75.32 0.25 0.33
i
20.17 38.81 0.92 2.37
j 20.34 94.99 3.64 3.83
I 20.50 41.11 2.18 5.31
1 20.66 116.43 3.87 3.32
] 20.83 68.94 5.39 7.82
1 20.99 324.02 4.78 1.47
J 21.16 25.02 2.88 11.51
1
21.32 158.56 1.51 0.95
1 21.48 140.95 -0.04 -0.03
i
y 21.81 425.
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft2 = 95.76 kPa
I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 513

Table D.6 - CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-3.

Date: August 9,1990 Sheet 1 of 2

Operator: D. Seibeck Local Elevation: 83.8 ft
Cone Type: 10-cm2,10-Ton Electric
Baseline: Tip Friction
(ton/ft2! {ton/ft2}.
Initial: 0 0.00
Final: -2 +0.02
Baseline Adjust: No________ _______
Tip Sleeve Friction Tip Sleeve Friction
Depth Resistance Friction Ratio Depth Resistance Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2) (%)
0.49 -0.01 7.22 7.66 0.27 3.48
0.66 0.06 7.38 15.06 0.54 3.55
0.82 8.68 0.23 2.66 7.54 43.66 0.47 1.07
0.98 8.17 0.17 2.09 7.71 30.39 0.54 1.79
1.15 12.51 0.39 3.11 7.87 37.79 0.68 1.80
1.31 15.58 0.47 3.00 8.04 61.79 1.30 2.11
1.48 12.00 0.32 2.70 8.20 68.43 1.24 1.81
1.64 12.51 0.45 3.56 8.36 64.86 0.94 1.44
1.80 14.30 1.02 7.16 8.53 55.15 0.53 0.96
1.97 31.92 0.80 2.51 8.69 32.43 0.56 1.74
2.13 9.70 0.50 5.10 8.86 64.60 0.73 1.14
2.30 19.66 0.39 2.01 9.02 69.20 0.72 1.05
2.46 13.79 0.22 1.59 9.18 40.09 0.83 2.07
2.62 8.68 0.23 2.61 9.35 41.62 1.17 2.81
2.79 8.94 0.32 3.63 9.51 54.39 1.59 2.92
2.95 12.00 0.38 3.18 9.68 73.28 1.54 2.10
3.12 13.02 0.74 5.66 9.84 61.54 0.83 1.35
3.28 36.26 0.93 2.55 10.00 46.98 0.69 1.48
3.44 52.09 0.94 1.81 10.17 53.88 0.25 0.46
3.61 93.2 0.61 0.65 10.33 48.51 0.62 1.29
3.77 96.26 0.54 0.56 10.50 48.26 1.02 2.12
3.94 87.84 0.73 0.83 10.66 39.32 0.48 1.21
4.10 79.41 1.84 2.31 10.82 19.15 0.30 1.58
4.26 85.03 1.18 1.39 10.99 9.45 0.07 0.75
4.43 60.52 1.15 1.90 11.15 8.68 0.10 1.16
4.59 68.43 0.57 0.84 11.32 31.15 0.31 1.00
4.76 60.77 0.81 1.33 11.48 91.92 -0.08 -0.08
4.92 76.60 0.52 0.68 11.64 66.64 0.13 0.20
5.08 68.18 0.60 0.88 11.81 96.26 1.03 1.07
5.25 71.24 1.14 1.60 11.97 43.66 0.63 1.43
5.41 76.09 0.68 0.90 12.14 29.62 1.12 3.79
5.58 61.79 0.24 0.39 12.30 26.04 0.49 1.89
5.74 62.81 -0.04 -0.06 12.46 14.3 0.35 2.48
5.90 93.71 0.53 0.56 12.63 37.53 0.36 0.97
6.07 56.43 0.75 1.33 12.79 70.22 3.47 4.94
6.23 45.19 0.77 1.71 12.96 57.71 3.54 6.13
6.40 54.39 0.87 1.60 13.12 71.49 2.01 2.81
6.56 31.41 0.19 0.62 13.28 52.60 1.22 2.32
6.72 24.00 0.32 1.33 13.45 82.73 0.90 1.09
6.89 13.53 0.24 1.80 13.61 65.62 0.46 0.70
7.05 5.87 0.32 5.52 13.78 59.24 1.38 2.32
[a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 514

Table D.6 (cont.) - CPT Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding CP-3.

Sheet 2 of 2
Tip S le e v e Friction Tip S le e v e Friction
D epth R esistan ce Friction Ratio Depth R esista n ce Friction Ratio
(ft)a (ton/ft2)a (ton/ft2) (%) (ft) (ton/ft2) (ton/ft2 ) (%)
13.94 28.60 1.48 5.17 21.81 78.64 0.59 0.75
14.10 73.54 1.59 2.16 21.98 81.96 0.21 0.26
14.27 180.01 0.12 0.07 22.14 89.88 1.15 1.28
14.43 143.24 0.59 0.41 22.30 65.11 0.16 0.25
14.60 150.90 1.66 1.10 22.47 70.98 0.40 0.56
14.76 137.37 1.63 1.18 22.63 117.97 0.49 0.41
14.92 80.69 2.55 3.16 22.80 64.60 0.72 1.12
15.09 74.30 3.20 4.30 22.96 44.68 0.55 1.23
15.25 43.92 1.91 4.34 23.12 40.09 0.54 1.35
15.42 53.88 3.80 7.05 23.29 31.92 2.59 8.11
15.58 89.37 1.38 1.54 23.45 66.13 1.26 1.90
15.74 57.20 1.77 3.09 23.62 80.94 1.40 1.72
15.91 32.68 0.89 2.72 23.78 29.36 1.36 4.63
16.07 20.17 0.53 2.63 23.94 78.39 2.55 3.26
16.24 13.79 0.45 3.28 24.11 112.86 2.37 2.10
16.40 14.55 0.33 2.26 24.27 77.11 1.70 2.20
16.56 15.06 0.14 0.92 24.44 30.39 2.24 7.36
16.73 10.21 0.82 8.07 24.60 103.41 1.63 1.58
16.89 32.43 0.75 2.32 24.76 86.30 0.77 0.89
17.06 9.19 0.60 6.48 24.93 96.52 0.06 0.06
17.22 14.55 0.17 1.16 25.09 83.24 0.43 0.51
17.38 18.64 0.32 1.70 25.26 72.52 0.49 0.68
17.55 43.41 0.66 1.53 25.42 87.84 0.48 0.55
17.71 44.17 0.05 0.12 25.58 87.33 0.19 0.22
17.88 37.02 0.02 0.06 25.75 105.97 0.85 0.81
18.04 46.22 0.00 0.00 25.91 125.37 1.18 0.94
18.20 51.83 0.99 1.91 26.08 135.33 1.18 0.87
18.37 56.17 0.54 0.96 26.24 151.93 2.95 1.94
18.53 41.11 0.48 1.17 26.40 177.71 3.07 1.73
18.70 44.68 0.60 1.35 26.57 192.52 3.64 1.89
18.86 52.09 1.16 2.23 26.73 215.50 2.18 1.01
19.02 38.30 0.94 2.46 26.90 180.52 1.79 0.99
19.19 3.57 0.56 15.68 27.06 203.25 0.73 0.36
19.35 1.02 0.29 28.06 27.22 166.22 0.77 0.46
19.52 4.09 0.16 3.94 27.39 240.53 3.29 1.37
19.68 6.64 0.22 3.29 27.72 406.
19.84 12.26 0.32 2.63
20.01 17.87 0.97 5.44
20.17 18.89 1.23 6.49
20.34 17.36 0.81 4.65
20.50 20.17 0.42 2.09
20.66 24.00 2.02 8.42
20.83 52.34 0.96 1.84
20.99 173.63 1.64 0.95
21.16 99.58 2.22 2.23
21.32 71.75 2.03 2.83
21.48 84.26 0.82 0.98
21.65 75.32 1.06 1.41
a] 1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 ton/ft* = 95.76 kPa
i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Table D.7 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-1.

Date: Aug. 21,1990 Elevation: -6280 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 102.5 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
Int.3 nb Pressure Ngc Ngoc Int. nb Pressure NBc n60
(blows/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) (ft) (blows/ft) (psig) (blows/ft)
(f‘)
1 13 6 5 5 41 56 13 34 29
2 25 8 8 8 42 61 13 38 31
3 42 9 12 12 43 69 12 38 31
4 58 10 17 17 44 78 11 34 29
5 52 11 17 17 45 77 11 34 29
6 63 11 23 22 46 99 12 48 38
7 64 12 24 23 47 139 9 33 28
8 60 13 29 25 48 49 12 31 27
9 73 13 32 27 49 98 12 43 34
10 86 13 36 30 50 171 9 40 33
11 91 12 43 34 51 172 9 40 33
12 74 12 38 31 52 230 9 38 31
13 78 13 43 34 53 231 9 42 34
14 86 12 42 34 54 250 9 39 32
15 91 13 49 38 55 240 9 38 31
16 83 12 42 34 56 234 9 38 31
17 84 12 42 34 57 225 10 47 37
18 58 12 32 28 58 172 9 37 31
19 31 11 17 17
20 25 10 14 14
21 15 9 9 9
22 12 10 9 9
23 28 11 17 17
24 40 11 19 19
25 40 12 23 22
26 40 12 22 21
27 34 12 20 20
28 27 12 18 18
29 22 12 16 16
30 27 11 13 13
31 16 10 12 12
32 27 10 15 15
33 44 12 25 23
34 40 12 23 22
35 19 11 13 13
36 24 10 11 11
37 39 12 22 21
38 44 13 30 26
39 55 12 31 27
40 54 13 33 28
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[b] 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 516

Table D.8 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-2.

Date: Aug. 21,1990 Elevation:-6280 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 96.5 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. Bounce Corr. Equiv. No. Bounce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
lnt.a Nb Pressure Nbc N(jOc Int. nb Pressure Nbc n 6o
(blows/ft) (psiq)b (blows/ft) («) (blows/ft)_ (psig) (blows/ft)
(«)
1 nr0 nr nr nr 41 57 10 22 21
2 nr nr nr nr 42 88 8 19 19
3 nr nr nr nr 43 73 9 21 21
4 nr nr nr nr 44 94 9 21 21
5 nr nr nr nr 45 80 8 18 18
6 nr nr nr nr 46 114 8 20 20
7 nr nr nr nr 47 123 8 27 24
8 nr nr nr nr 48 244 8 38 31
9 nr nr nr nr 49 na na na na
10 nr nr nr nr 50 na na na na
11 nr nr nr nr 51 469 8 40 33
12 nr nr nr nr 52 115 14 63 47
13 nr nr nr nr 53 122 14 65 48
14 nr nr nr nr 54 113 14 62 46
15 nr nr nr nr 55 118 14 64 48
16 44 9 17 17
17 59 8 16 16
18 34 9 14 14
19 31 9 14 14
20 20 10 13 13
21 16 10 12 12
22 23 9 12 12
23 25 10 14 14
24 16 9 10 10
25 17 8 8 8
26 32 9 14 14
27 30 9 14 14
4I Oft
28 26 9 13
29 21 10 13 13
30 16 10 10 10
31 21 10 13 13
32 28 8 11 11
33 na® na na na
34 21 8 9 9
35 34 9 14 14
36 68 9 19 19
37 69 9 19 19
38 83 9 25 23
39 46 11 23 22
40 68 10 28 25
[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0.305 m.
[bj 1 psig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] Based on procedures proposed by Harder and Seed (1986).
[d] Not representative measurement, too close to fissures.
[e] Not available.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 517

Table D.9 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-3.

Date: Aug. 23, 1990 Elevation: -6280 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 95.1 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. B ou n ce Corr. Equiv. No. B ou n ce Corr. Equiv.

D epth Blows Chamber B low s SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blow s SPT
nb P ressu re Nb c N(soc Int. Nb P re ssu r e Nb c n 6o
lnt.a
(blows/ft) (psig)b (blow s/ft) (ft) (blows/ft) (psig) (blows/ft)
(«)
1 20 7 6 6 41 41 11 23 22
2 42 8 11 11 42 30 10 16 16
3 86 10 23 22 43 38 11 20 20
4 73 12 29 26 44 65 12 38 31
5 72 12 29 26 45 48 12 28 25
6 68 13 29 26 46 32 11 18 18
7 66 13 29 26 47 70 13 41 33
8 56 13 26 23 48 75 13 42 34
9 57 12 23 22 49 88 13 46 36
10 47 12 19 19 50 89 13 46 36
11 42 12 24 23 51 101 13 51 39
12 37 12 22 21 52 120 13 62 46
13 27 11 17 17 53 nad na na na
14 32 11 17 17 54 114 14 64 48
15 30 10 16 16
16 25 9 13 13
17 10 8 7 7
18 6 5 4 4
19 9 5 5 5
20 21 7 8 8
21 16 8 9 9
22 13 8 8 8
23 15 8 9 9
24 14 8 9 9
25 10 7 6 6
26 14 7 7 7
27 17 8 9 9
28 14 8 8 8
29 12 8 7 7
30 11 9 8 8
31 17 10 10 10
32 20 10 12 12
33 19 9 11 11
34 22 9 11 11
35 29 10 15 15
36 36 11 19 19
37 43 12 27 24
38 43 12 27 24
39 54 12 32 28
40 41 12 24 23
[a] D epth interval; 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m.
[b] 1 p sig = 5.171 cm of mercury = 6 8 .9 5 millibar.
[c] B a se d on procedures proposed by Harder and S e e d (1986).
[d] N ot available.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 518

Table D.10 - Becker (BPT) Data from the Larter Ranch Site, Sounding BPc-4.

Date: Aug. 23,1990 Elevation:-6280 ft

Operator: K. Arnold Local Elevation: 83.8 ft
Drill Rig: Becker AP-1000 (Rig No. 57)
Bit Type: 6.6-in. O.D. Closed 8-tooth Crowd-out

No. B ou n ce Corr. Equiv. No. B ou n ce Corr. Equiv.

Depth Blow s Chamber Blows SPT Depth Blows Chamber Blows SPT
Int.3 Nb P ressu re Nb c Ngo° Int. nb P ressu re N bc Nso
(«) (blows/ft) (psig)b (blows/ft) («) (blows/ft) (psig) (blows/ft)
1 1 4 1 1
2 3 4 2 2
3 4 5 2 2
4 18 7 6 6
5 18 7 6 6
6 19 6 5 5
7 14 6 5 5
8 13 6 5 5
9 9 5 4 4
10 6 4 3 3
11 5 4 4 4
12 14 6 7 7
13 16 6 7 7
14 17 7 8 8
15 13 6 6 6
16 10 5 5 5
17 9 5 5 5
18 9 5 5 5
19 6 6 4 4
20 18 9 11 11
21 18 9 10 10
22 26 11 16 16
23 21 9 11 11
24 26 10 14 14
25 31 11 18 18
26 37 11 20 20
27 33 11 19 19
28 35 11 21 21
29 63 11 32 28
30 65 10 25 23
31 61 11 31 27
32 63 13 40 33
33 53 12 30 26
34 43 11 22 21
35 32 11 18 18
36 18 9 10 10
37 30 11 16 16
38 63 13 40 33

[a] Depth interval; 1 ft = 0 .3 0 5 m.

[b] 1 psig = 5 .171 cm of mercury = 68.95 millibar.
[c] B a se d on procedures proposed by Harder and S e e d (1986).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I | . 1 i i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table D .l 1 - Sample Data from the Larter Ranch Site.

Grain Size Datab

Atterberg0 Color^ Reaction
Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines
Depth Recovery Cu Cc D50 c m f c m f c m f % Water Fines with HCI
........(ft)3 <in/rn)a (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .C6 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl

SP-1
Local El. 83.6 ft
1.5- 3.0 4/18 115 5.32 13.37 — 23 41 9 6 8 6 ■ np 10YR 5/2 strong
4.5- 6.0 10/18 na8 na 4.30 — — 43 19 11 10 5 12 np 10YR5/4 weak
7.0- 8.5 9/18 94 0.63 3.36 — — 40 16 12 15 7 10 sp 10YR5/6 weak
9.5-11.0 6/18 79 0.44 3.11 ... 24 17 13 13 15 9 9 sp 10YR4/6 none
12.0-13.5 0/18 na na na na na na na na na na na na na
14.5-16.0 5/18 na na 3.83 ... 27 18 11 13 10 7 14 np 10YR 5/1 weak
17.0-18.5 10/18 na na 1.44 — 6 28 12 12 11 10 21 np 10YR 5/1 weak
19.5-20.0 6/ 6 na na 1.65 — — 37 10 13 12 11 1"' sp 10YR 5/1 weak

SP-2
Local El. 83.8 ft
1.5- 3.0 6/18 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10YR5/2 strong
4.5- 6.0 6/18 185 2.48 2.24 — 6 25 21 16 15 6 11 np 10YR 6/3 weak
7.0- 8.5 8/18 na na 5.00 . . . 11 36 14 12 10 4 13 np 10YR 5/4 weak
9.5-11.0 0/18 na na na na na na na na na na na na na na
12.0-13.5 2/18 na na na na na na na na na na na np 10YR5/4 none
14.5-16.0 8/18 na na 2.66 . . . 10 27 17 15 12 6 13 np 10YR6/2 none
17.0-18.5 7/18 na na 1.39 . . . 8 23 14 16 15 7 17 sp 10YR5/4 none
20.0-21.5 9/18 na na 8.23 — 23 32 10 7 5 5 18 sp 10YR6/2 weak
I
[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm, 4/18 = 4 in. sample/18 in. penetration. [d] Munsell color chart; (hue value/chroma).
[b] Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [ej Not available.
[c] Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = water content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic,
sp = slightly plastic.
«•
't
K —l

t 'O
 i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table D .l 1 (cont.) - Sample Data from the Larter Ranch Site.

Grain Size Datab

Atterberg0 Color-1 Reaction
Gravel Sand Silt Clay Limits of Wet of Fines
Depth Recovery Cu Cc d 50 c m f c m f c m f % Water Fines with HCI
. _ «‘)a (in/in)a (mm) 60 20 6 2 .6 .2 .C6 .02 .006 .002 mm Wp Wl

SP-3
Local El. 98.4 ft
4.0- 5.5 11/18 62 2.60 5.95 ... 11 39 19 11 9 4 ■ np 10 YR 6/3 moderate
8.0- 9.5 1/12 nae na na na na na na na na na na na na na
12.0-13.5 11/18 101 1.32 4.08 — 11 32 18 13 11 6 9 sp 10 YR 6/4 moderate
15.0-16.5 8/18 na na 3.60 ... 11 32 13 10 11 6 17 np 10 YR 6/4 moderate
17.5-19.0 7/18 35 0.92 2.85 — 4 31 21 17 14 6 7 np 10 YR 6/4 moderate
20.0 - 20.8 5/~9 7 1.89 0.19 ... ... 7 4 7 30 36 16 np 10 YR 5/3 moderate
20.8-21.5 6/~9 na na 2.23 ... 12 26 12 9 10 10 21 np 10 YR 5/4 moderate
22.5 - 24.0 6/18 44 1.22 4.68 ... 15 31 17 19 8 4 6 np 10 YR 6/6 moderate
25.0 - 26.5 4/18 304 2.55 10.78 — 36 23 14 5 7 6 9 np 10 YR 5/4 moderate
27.5 - 29.0 7/18 194 0.82 7.94 ... 29 24 11 11 10 6 3 np 10 YR 5/6 weak

TP-1
Local El. 83.6 ft
4.0- 6.0 72 lb* 79 2.41 10.15 5 29 25 12 10 9 3 r 18.7 20.0 10YR5/4 weak
6.0- 9.0 244 lbf 107 1.29 11.37 10 28 22 10 9 9 5 3 1 1 2 Sp9 10YR5/4 weak

TP-2
Local El. 83.8 ft
6.0 - 8.0 125 lb1 112 0.99 7.58 6 24 24 13 6 10 10 1 1 2 3 Sp9 10YR 5/4 moderate

[a] 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm, 4/18 = 4 in. sample/18 in. penetration. [d] Munseli color chart; (hue value/chroma),
[bj Cjj = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of curvature; D50 = median grain size. [e] Not available.
Icj Wp = water content at plastic limit; Wl = water content at liquid limit; np = non-plastic, [f] 1 lb (mass) = 454 g; dry weight of sample,
sp = slightly plastic. [g] Attempted atteberg.

520
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D -1556-64, "Standard
Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method," Annual Book
of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.08.

ASTM Standard D -1586-84, "Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel
Sampling of Soils," Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.08.

ASTM Standard D-2487-85, "Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes," Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.08.

ASTM Standard D-3441-86, "Standard Method for Deep Quasi-Static, Cone and
Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil," Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol.
4.08.

ASTM Standard D-4428-84, "Standard Test Method for Crosshole Seismic Testing,"
Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.08.

ASTM Standard D-4633-86, "Standard Test Method for Stress Wave Energy
Measurement for Dynamic Penetrometer Testing Systems," Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. Vol. 4.08.

Andrus, R.D. and Youd, T.L., (1987), "Subsurface Investigation of a Liquefaction-

Induce Lateral Spread, Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho," U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Geotechnical Laboratory Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-8. 131 p.

Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II and Roesset, J.M., (1991), "Liquefaction of

Gravelly Soil at Pence Ranch During the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho Earthquake,"
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering. Karlsruhe, Germany, Sept. 1991, pp. 251-262.

Andius, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, Bay, J.A. and Youd, T.L., (1992), "In Situ VS of
Gravelly Soils Which Liquefied," Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Madrid, Spain, July 1992, pp. 1447-1452.

Andrus, R.D. and Youd, T.L., (1989), "Penetration Tests in Liquefiable Gravels,"
Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 679-682.

Aouad, M.F., (1986), "Analytical Investigation of the Relationship between Shear

Wave Velocity and the Liquefaction Potential of Sands," M.S. Report. Geotechnical
Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at
Austin, 87 p.

521

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 522

Atwater, B.F., (1993), "Liquefaction Features at West Point, Seattle," Summaries

from Conference on Large Earthquakes and Active Faults in the Puget Sound
Region. University of Washington, May 13-15.

Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pasqualini, E., (1981),
"Cone Resistance in Dry NC and OC Sands," Proceedings Cone Penetration Testing
and Experience. ASCE, St. Louis, M I, pp. 145-177.

Barrow, B.L., (1983), "Field Investigation of Liquefaction Sites in Northern

California," Geotechnical Engineering Thesis GT83-1. Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 213 p.

Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L., (1990), "Case Histories of Lateral Spreads Caused
by the 1964 Alaska Earthquake," Technical Report NCEER. 127 p.

Bienvenu, V.C., (1988), "Studies of Liquefaction in 1929 Murchison and 1968

Inangahu New Zealand Earthquakes," Research Report 88-15. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 161 p..

Berrill, J.B., Bienvenu, V.C., and Callaghan, M.W., (1988), "Liquefaction in the
Buller Region in the 1929 and 1968 Earthquakes," Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 21, No. 3, Sept., pp. 174-189.

Bierschwale, J.G., and Stokoe, K.H., II, (1984), "Analytical Evaluation of

Liquefaction Potential of Sands Subjected to the 1981 Westmorland Earthquake,"
Geotechnical Engineering Report GR-84-15. The University of Texas at Austin,
231 p..

Campbell, J.E. and Hendry, H.E., (1987), "Anatomy of a Gravelly Meander Lobe
in the Saskatchewan River, Near Nipawin, Canada," Recent Developments in Fluvial
Sedimentology. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special
Publication No. 39, pp. 179-189.

Campbell, K.W., (1988), "Predicting Strong Ground Motion in Utah," in Evaluation

of Regional and Urban Earthquake Hazards and Risk in Utah. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper, W.W. Hays and P.L. Gori, editors.

Crone, A.J., Machette, M.N., Bonilla, M.G., Lienkaemper, J.J., Pierce, K.L.,
Scott, W.E., and Bucknam, R.C., (1987), "Surface Faulting Accompanying the
Borah Peak Earthquake and Segmentation of the Lost River Fault, Central Idaho,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 739-770.

Crosthwaite, E.G., Thomas, C.A., and Dyer, K.L., (1970), "Water Resources in
the Big Lost River Basin, South-Central Idaho," U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File
Report. 109 p.

Crouse, C.B., (1987), written communication.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 523

De Beer, E.E., Goelen, E., Heynen, W.J., and Jonstra, K., (1988), "Cone
Penetration Test (CPT): International Reference Test Procedure," in J. De Ruiter
(ed.), Proceedings of the hirst International Symposium on Penetration Testing.
Orlando, Florida, Vol. I, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, pp. 27-51.

Decourt, L., Muromachi, T., Nixon, J.K., Schmertmann, J.H., Thorburn, S., and
Zolkov, E., (1988), "Standard Penetration Test (SPT): International Reference Test
Procedure," in J. De Ruiter (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium
on Penetration Testing. Orlando, Florida, Vol. I, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Brookfield, pp. 3-26.

Desloges, J.R. and Church, M., (1987), "Channel and Floodplain Facies in a
Wandering Gravel-Bed River," Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentologv.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 39,
pp. 99-108.

Dobry, R., Ladd, R.S., Yokel, F.Y., Chung, R.M., and Powell, D., (1982),
"Prediction of Pore Water Pressure Buildup and Liquefaction of Sands During
Earthquakes by the Cyclic Strain Method," N.B.S. Bldg. Science Series 138. U.S.
Department of Commerce.

Earthquake Engineering and Hazards Reduction Delegation, (1980), Earthquake

Engineering and Hazards Reduction in China. Jennings, P.C. (editor), National
Academy of Science, CSCPRC Report No. 8, 189 p.

Evans, M.D. and Seed, H.B., (1987), "Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Testing of
Gravels—The Effect of Membrane Compliance," Earthquake Engineering Research
Center Report No. UCB/EERC-87/08. University of California, Berkeley, 403 p.

Finn, W.D.L., (1982), "Soil Liquefaction Studies in the People's Republic of

China." Soil Mechanics—Transient and Cyclic Loads. Pande, G.N. and
Zienkiewicz, O.C. editors, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 609-626

Fletcher, G.F.A., (1965), "Standard Penetration Test: Its Uses and Abuses,"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM4,
pp. 67 - 75.

Frankel, A., and Wennerberg, L., (1989), "Rupture Process of the MS 6.6
Superstition Hills Earthquake Determined from Strong-Motion Recordings:
Application of Tomographic Source Inversion," Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America. Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 515-541.

Fuhriman, M.D., (1993), "Crosshole Seismic Tests at Two Northern California

Sites Affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake," M.S. Thesis. Geotechnical
Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at
Austin, 516 p.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 524

Forbes, (1983), "Morphology and Sedimentology of a Sinuous Gravelbed Channel

System: Lower Babbage River, Yukon coastal Plain, Canada," Modern and Ancient
Fluvial Systems. International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 6,
Blackwell Scientific, pp. 195-206.

Gibbs, H.J., and Holtz, W.G., (1957), "Research on Determining the Density of
Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing," Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. London, England, Vol.
1, pp. 35-39.

Haga, K., (1984), "Shaking Table Tests for Liquefaction of Gravel-Containing

Sand," Bachelor Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, (in
Japanese).

Hait, M.H., Jr., and Scott, W.E., (1978), "Holocene Faulting, Lost River Range,
Idaho," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program. Vol. 10, No. 5, p.
217.

Hanks, T.C., and Schwartz, D.P., (1987), "Morphologic Dating of the Pre-1983
Fault Scarp on the Lost River Fault at Doublespring Pass Road, Custer County,
Idaho," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 837-
846.

Hanks, T.C., and Allen, C.R., (1989), "The Elmore Ranch and Superstition Hills
Earthquakes of 24 November 1987: Introduction to the Special Issue," Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 231-238.

Harder, L.F., Jr., (1988), "Use of Penetration Tests to Determine the Liquefaction
Potential of Soils During Earthquake Shaking," Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
California, Berkeley, 456 p.

Harder, L.F., Jr., and Seed, H.B., (1986), "Determination of Penetration

Resistance for Coarse-Grained Soils Using the Becker Hammer Drill," Report No
UCB/EERC-86/06. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, California, 126 p.

Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P., (1972), "Shear Modulus and Damping of Soils,
Measurement and Parameter Effects," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division. ASCE, Vol. 98, SM7, pp. 667-692.

Heaton, T.H., Tajima, F. and Mori, A.W., (1982), "Estimating Ground Motions
Using Recorded Accelerograms," Report by Dames & Moore to Exxon Production
Res. Co.. Houston.

Holzer, T.L., (1988), written communication.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 525

Holzer, T.L., Youd, T.L., and Bennett, M.J., (1989), "In Situ Measurement of Pore
Pressure Build Up During Liquefaction," Proceedings of the 20th Joint Meeting of
the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program in the Natural Resources. Panel on Wind and
Seismic Effects, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Hynes, M.E., (1988), "Pore Pressure Generation Characteristics of Gravel Under

Undrained Cyclic Loading," Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley,
CA.

Idriss, I.M ., (1985), "Evaluating Seismic Risk in Engineering Practice,"

Proceedings Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Vol. 1, pp. 255-320.

Idriss, I.M., (1987), "Earthquake Ground Motions," Lecture Notes. Course on

Strong Ground Motion. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Pasadena,
California, April 10-11.

Ishihara, K., (1985), "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes,"

Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. San Francisco, California, August, pp. 321-376.

Iwaski, T., Kawashima, K. and Tokida, K., (1978), "Report of the Miyagiken-Oki
Earthquake of June, 1978," Public Works Research Institute. Ministry of
Construction. Report No. 1422. (in Japanese).

Jackson, S.M., and Boatwright, J., (1985), "The Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake of
October 28, 1983—Strong Ground Motion," Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
51-69.

Jackson, S.M., and Boatwright, J., (1987), "Strong Ground Motion in the 1983
Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake and its Aftershocks," Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America. Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 724-738.

Jamiolkowski, M., Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., and Pasqualini, E., (1985),
"Penetration Resistance and Liquefaction of Sands," Proceedings of Eleventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. San
Francisco, CA, Vol. 4, pp. 1891-1896.

Jones, N.L., (1990), "Solid Modeling of Earth Masses for Application in

Geotechnical Engineering," Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.

Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., (1988), "Measurement, Characterization, and

Prediction of Strong Ground Motion," Ear thquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
II—Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 20. pp. 43-102.

Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., (1982), "Prediction of Earthquake Response

Spectra," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977. 16 p.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 526

Kachadoorian, R., (1968), "Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964, on the
Alaska Highway System," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 545-C. pp.
C1-C66.

Kishida, H., (1969), "Characteristics of Liquefied Sands During Mino-Owari,

Tohnankai, and Fukui Earthquakes," Soils and Foundations. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 75-
92.

Ladd, R.S., (1982), "Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Program for Study and
Evaluation of Liquefaction Ground Failure Using Stress and Strain Approaches:
Heber Road Site, October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, Wayne, New Jersey, February, 1982.

Lee, N.J., (1993), "Experimental Study of Body Wave Velocities in Sand Under
Anisotropic Conditions," Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin,
503 p.

Lee, S., (1985), "Investigation of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity in

Anisotropic Material," Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, 395 p.

Liao, S.S.C., and Whitman, R.V., (1986), "Overburden Correction Factors for SPT
in Sand," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, March, pp.
373-377.

Liu, L., Li, K., and Bing, D., (1979), "Earthquake Damage of Baihe Earth Dam and
Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand and Gravel Materials," Report, Research
Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power, Beijing, August, pp. 1-11.

Liu, L., Li, K., and Bing, D., (1980) ."Earthquake Damage of Baihe Earth Dam and
Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand and Gravel Materials," Proceedings of the
Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Istanbul, Turkey,
September, Vol. 3, pp. 171-178.

Mahmood-Zadegan, B., Juran, I., and Tumay, M.T., (1991), "Cone Penetration
Testing for In-Situ Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sands," Geotechnical
Engineering Congress 1991, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 27. ASCE, Vol.
II, pp. 776-787.

Marcuson, W.F., III, and Bieganousky, W.A., (1977), "SPT and Relative Density
in Coarse Sands," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 103,
No. 11, Nov., pp. 1295-1309

McCulloch, D.S. and Bonilla, M.G., (1970), "Effects of the Earthquake of March
27, 1964, on the Alaska Railroad," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
545-D. pp. D1-D161.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 527

Meyerhof, G.G., (1956), "Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless

Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division. ASCE, Vol. 82, No.
S M I, pp. 1-19.

Miall, A.D., (1978), "Lithofacies Types and Vertical Profile Models in Braided River
Deposits: A Summary," in A.D. Miall (ed.), Fluvial Sedimentology. Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologist Memoir 5, pp. 597-604.

Miall, A.D., (1985), "Architectural-Element Analysis: A New Method of Facies

Analysis Applied to Fluvial Deposits," Earth-Science Reviews. Vol. 22, pp. 261 -
308.

Mitchell, J.K., (1988), "New Developments in Penetration Tests and Equipment," in

J. De Ruiter (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Penetration
Testing. Orlando, Florida, Vol. I, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, pp. 245-
261.

Mitchell, J.K., and Tseng, D.J., (1990), "Assessment of Liquefaction Potential by

Cone Penetration Resistance," In J.M. Duncan (ed.), H. Bolton Seed. Volume 2
Memorial Symposium Proceedings. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, pp. 335-350.

National Research Council, (1985), Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes,

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 240 p.

Nazarian, S., (1984), "In Situ Determination of Elastic Moduli of Soil Deposits and
Pavement Systems by Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Wave Method," Ph.D.
Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, 446 p.

Obermeier, S.F., Bleuer, N.R., Munson, C.A., Munson, P.J., Martin, W.S.,
McWilliams, K.M., Tabaczynski, D.A., Odum, J.K., Rubin, M., and Eggert, D.L.,
(1991), "Evidence of Strong Earthquake Shaking in the Lower Wabash Valley from
Prehistoric Liquefaction Features," Science. Vol. 251, March 1, pp. 1061-1062.

Obermeier, S.F., Martin, J.R., Frankel, A.D., Youd, T.L., Munson, P.J., Munson,
C.A. and Pond, E.C., (1992), "Liquefaction Evidence for Strong Holocene
Earthquake(s) in the Wabash Valley of Southern Indiana-Illinois, with a Preliminary
Estimate of Magnitude," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-406. 57p.

Ohta, Y., and Goto, N. (1976), "Estimation of S-Wave Velocity in Terms of

Characteristics Indices of Soil," Butsuri-Tanko ('Geophysical Exploration). Vol. 24,
No. 4, pp. 34-41 (in Japanese).

Palmer, S.P., (1993a), "Paleoliquefaction Features and Ground Shaking at West

Point," Summaries from Conference on Large Earthquakes and Active Faults in the
Puget Sound Region. University of Washington, May 13-15.

Palmer, S.P., (1993b), written communication.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 528

Pierce, K.L., and Scott, W.E., (1982), "Pleistocene Episodes of Alluvial-Gravel

Deposition, Southeastern Idaho," in Cenozoic Geology of Idaho. Idaho Bureau of
Mines and Geology Bulletin 26, Bill Bonnichsen and R. M. Breckenrioge, editors,
pp. 685-702.

Porcella, R.L., and Matthiesen, R.B., (1979), "Preliminary Summary of the U.S.
Geological Survey Strong-Motion Records from the Oct. 15, 1979 Imperial Valley
Earthquake," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1654. 41 p.

Porcella, R.L., Etheredge, E., Maley, R., and Switzer, J., (1987), "Strong Motion
Data from the Superstition Hills Earthquakes 0154 and 01315 (GMT), Nov. 24,
1987," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-672. 56 p.

Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H., (1974), Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock
Mechanics. Wiley, New York, 411 p.

Rausche, F., Goble, G.G. and Likins, G.E., Jr., (1985), "Dynamic Determination
of Pile Capacity," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 111,
No. 3, pp. 367-383.

Reagor, G., and Baldwin, F.W., (1984), "Intensity Survey of the Borah Peak,
Idaho, Earthquake of October 28, 1983," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
84-166. 79 p.

Reynolds, M.W., (1979), "Character and Extent of Basin-Range Faulting, Western

Montana and East-Central Idaho," in Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists and
Utah Geological Association 1979 Basin and Range Symposium, pp. 185-193.

Richart, F.E., Jr., Hall, J.R., Jr., and Woods, R.D., (1970), Vibrations of Soils
and Foundations. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 414 p.

Richins, W.D., Pechman, J.C., Smith, R.B., Langer, C.J., Goter, S.K., Zollweg,
J.E., and King, J.J., (1987), "The 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake and its
Aftershocks," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 77, No. 3, pp.
694-723.

Rix, G.J. and Leipski, E.A., (1991), "Accuracy and Resolution of Surface Wave
Inversion," in S.K. Bhatia and G.W. Blaney (eds.) Recent Advances in
Instrumentation, Data Acquisition and Testing in Soil Dynamics, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 29. pp. 17-32.

Rix, G.J. and Stokoe, K.S., II, (1989), "Stiffness Profiling of Pavement
Subgrades," Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington D.C.,
held January 1989.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 529

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., and Wightman, A., (1983), "SPT-CPT

Correlations," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 109,
No. 11, pp. 1449-1459.

Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G., (1985), "Liquefaction Potential of Sands

Using the CPT," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol.
I l l , No. 3, pp. 384-403.

Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J. and Finn, W.D.L., (1992), "Seismic Cone
Penetration Test for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential Under Cyclic Loading,"
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 29, pp. 686-695.

Roesset, J.M., Chang, D.W. and Stokoe, K.H., II, (1991), "Comparison of 2-D
and 3-D Models for Analysis of Surface Wave Tests" Proceedings Fifth International
Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Karlsruhe, Germany,
pp. 111-126.

Ross, G.A., Seed, H.B., and Migliaecio, R.R., (1973), "Performance of Highway
Bridge Foundations," The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. National Academy of
Science, Washington D.C., pp. 190-242.

Sadigh, K., (1987), written communication.

Sanglerat, G., (1972), The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
464 p.

Schmertmann, J.H., (1978), "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and
Design," Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 145 p.

Schmertmann, J.H., (1992), personal communication on July 20, 1992.

Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. (1972), "SHAKE: A Computer
Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,"
Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC-72-12. University
of California, Berkeley.

Scott, W.E., (1982), "Surficial Geologic Map of the Eastern Snake River Plane and
Adjacent Areas, 111o to 115o West, Idaho and Wyoming," U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I- 1372. scale 1:250,000.

Scott, W.E., Pierce, K.L., and Hait, M.H., Jr., (1985), "Quaternary Tectonic
Setting of the 1983 Borah Peak Earthquake, Central Idaho," Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America. Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1053-1066.

Seed, H.B., (1979), "Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level
Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE,
Vol. 105, No. 2, Feb., pp. 201-255.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 530

Seed, H.B., (1983), "Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth Dams," Proceedings.

Symposium on Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns. ASCE, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, pp. 41-64.

Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., (1971), "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
Liquefaction Potential," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol.
97, No. 3, pp. 458-482.

Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., (1983), "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using
Field Performance Data," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division.
ASCE, Vol. 109, No. SM9, pp. 1249-1273.

Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R., (1984), "The Influence
of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Report No.
UBC/EERC-84/15. University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R., (1985), "Influence of
SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. I l l , No. 12, pp. 1425-1445.

Seed, H.B., and De Alba, P., (1986), "Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating
the Liquefaction Resistance of Sands," Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6. pp. 1249-1273.

Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M., and Tokimatsu, K., (1986), "Moduli and
Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1016-1032.

Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F., (1990), "SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore
Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength," In J.M. Duncan (ed.), H.
Bolton Seed. Volume 2 Memorial Symposium Proceedings. BiTech Publishers Ltd.,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 351-376.

Shibata, T., and Teparaksa, W., (1988), "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potentials of

Soils Using Cone Penetration Tests," Soils and Foundations. Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.
49-60.

Siddiqui, F.H., Seed, R.B., Chan, C.K., Seed, H.B. and Pyke, R.M., (1987),
"Strength Evaluation of Coarse-Grained Soils," Earthquake Engineering Research
Center Report No. UCB/EERC-87/22. University of California, Berkeley, 53 p.

Skempton, A.W., (1986), "Standard Penetration Test Procedure and the Effects in
Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing and
Overconsolidalion," Geotechnique, No. 3, pp. 425-447.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 531

Stefanoff, G., Sanglerat, G., Bergdahl, U. and Melzer, K.J., (1988), "Dynamic
Probing (DP): International Reference Test Procedure," in J. De Ruiter (ed.),
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Orlando,
Florida, Vol. I, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, pp. 53-70.

Stokoe, K.H., II, (1991), personal communication.

Stokce, K.H., II and Hoar, R.J., (1978), "Variables Affecting In Situ Seismic
Measurements" Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division
Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. ASCE, Vol. II,
pp. 919-939.

Stokoe, K.H., II, Andrus, R.D., Rix, G.J., Sanchez-Salinero, I., Sheu, J.C. and
Mok, Y.J., (1988a), "Field Investigation of Gravelly Soils Which Did and Did Not
Liquefy During the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake," Geotechnical Engineering
Center Report GR87-1. The University of Texas at Austin, 206 p.

Stokoe, K.H., II, and Nazarian, S., (1985), "Use of Raleigh Waves in Liquefaction
Studies," Proceedings. Measurement and Use of Shear Wave Velocity for Evaluating
Dynamic Soil Properties. GED, ASCE, Denver, CO.

Stokoe, K.H., II, Nazarian, S., Rix, G.J., Sanchez-Salinero, I., Sheu, J.C. and
Mok, Y.J., (1988b), "In Situ Testing of Hard-to-Sample Soils by Surface Wave
Method," in J.L. Von Thun (ed.), Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20. pp. 264-278.

Stokoe, K.H., II and Rix, G.J., (1987), "Evaluation of Compaction Treatment of

Foundation Soils at Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming, by Surface Wave (SASW)
Method," Geotechnical Engineering Center Report GR87-8. The University of Texas
at Austin, 51 p.

Stokoe, K.H., II, Roesset, J.M., Bierschwale, J.G., and Aouad, M., (1988c),
"Liquefaction Potential of Sands from Shear Wave Velocity," Proceeding of Ninth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo, Japan, Vol. Ill, pp. 213-218.

Stover, C.W., (1985), "The Borah Peak, Idaho Earthquake of October 28, 1983-
Isosesimal Map and Intensity Distribution" Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 2, No. 4, on.
11-16.

Sy, A. and Campanella, R.G., (1991), "An Alternative Method of Measuring SPT
Energy," in S. Prakash (ed.), Proceedings Second International Conference on
> Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. St.
Louis, Missouri, March, pp. 499-505.

; Sy, A. and Campanella, R.G., (1993), "BPT-SPT Correlations with Consideration

\ of Casing Friction," Proceedings of 46th Canadian Geotechnical Conference.
■ Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Sept. 27-29.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 532

Syed, H.N., (1992), "Field Measurements of Changes in Body Wave Velocities Due
to Unloading," M.S. Thesis. The University of Texas at Austin, 320 p.

Sykora, D.W. (1987), "Examination of Existing Shear Wave Velocity and Shear
Modulus Correlations in Soils," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Geotechnical
Laboratory Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-22. 101 p.

Sykora, D.W., and Stokoe, K.H., (1982), "Seismic Investigation of Three Heber
Road Sites After the Oct. 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," Geotechnical
Engineering Report GR82-24. The University of Texas at Austin.

Sykora, D.W., and Stokoe, K.H., (1983), "Correlations of In Situ Measurements in

Sands with Shear Wave Velocity," Geotechnical Engineering Report GR83-33. The
University of Texas at Austin.

Taylor, C.L., Cline, K.M., Page, W.D., and Schwartz, D.P., (1985), "The Borah
Peak Earthquake of October 28, 1983—Surface Faulting and Other Phenomena,"
Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 23-49.

Timoshenko, S.P., and Goodier, J.N., (1970), Theory of Elasticity. Third Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 567 p.

Tokimatsu, K., (1988), "Penetration Tests for Dynamic Problems," in J. De Ruiter

(ed.) Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Penetration Testing
(ISOPT-1), Orlando, Florida, Vol. I, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, pp.
117-136.

Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., (1983), "Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction

Based on SPT N-Value and Fines Content," Soils and Foundations. Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 56-74.

Turner, E. and Stokoe, K.H., II, (1982), "Static and Dynamic Properties of Clayey
Soils Subjected to the 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake." Geotechnical Engineering
Report GR82-26. The University of Texas at Austin, 208 p.

United States Bureau of Reclamation, (1988), Designation USBR 7221-86,

"Procedure for Determining Unit Weight of Soils In-Place by the Water Replacement
Method in Test Pit," Laboratory and Field Test Procedures for Soils Engineering.
U.S. Department of The Interior, pp. 153-169.

Vallee, R.P. and Skryness, R.S., (1979), "Sampling and In-Situ Density of a
Saturated Gravel Deposit," Geotechnical Testing Journal. Vol. 2, No. 3, September.

Villet, W.C.B. and Mitchell, J.K., (1981), "Cone Resistance, Relative Density and
Friction Angle," Proceedings Cone Penetration Testing and Experience. ASCE, St.
Louis, MI, pp. 178-207.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 533

; Wang, W.S., (1984), "Earthquake Damages to Earth Dams and Levees in Relation to
Soil Liquefaction and Weakness in Soft Clays," Proceedings of the International
Conference on Case Histories In Geotechnical Engineering. S. Prakash Editor, held
! at St. Louis, Missouri, Vol. I, pp. 511-521.

' Woods, R.D., (1978), "Measurements of Dynamic Soil Properties" Proceedings of

; the Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. ASCE, Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. I, pp. 91-178.

Youd, T.L., and Bennett, M.J., (1983), "Liquefaction Sites, Imperial Valley,
California," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3,
pp. 440-457.

Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L„ Keefer, D. K., and Wilson, R. C., (1985), "The Borah
Peak, Idaho Earthquake of October 28, 1983-Liquefaction," Earthquake Spectra.
Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 71-89.

Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N., (1978), "Historic Ground Failures in Northern
i California Triggered by Earthquakes," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
993. 177 p.

Youd, T.L., and Perkins, D.M., (1978), "Mapping Liquefaction-Induced Ground

Failure Potential," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. Vol. 104, No.
GT4, pp. 433-446.

Zervogiannis, C.S., and Kalteziotis, N.A., (1988), "Experiences and Relationships

from Penetration Testing in Greece," Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Penetration Testing (ISOPT-1), Vol. 2, Orlando, pp. 1063-1071.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 VITA

Ronald D. Andrus was born in Denver, Colorado, on December 8, 1958, the

son of Ruby McDonald Andrus and Clair W. Andrus. After graduating from Palmetto

High School, Miami, Florida in 1977, he attended the fall semester at Ricks College in

Rexburg, Idaho. During 1978 and 1979, he served as missionary for The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Madrid, Spain and Detroit, Michigan. Upon

completing his missionary service, he returned to Ricks College and completed the

degree of Associate of Arts and Science in April 1981. Following a summer of work

as an assistant geologist for All Minerals Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, he entered

Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He received the degree of Bachelor of

Science with a double major in Geology and Mathematics from Brigham Young

University in August 1983. In September of 1983 he entered the Graduate School of

Brigham Young University. During the summer of 1984, he was employed as a junior

engineer/geologist at Rollins, Brown, and Gunnell, Inc., Provo, Utah. His thesis,

"Subsurface Investigations on a Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spread Thousand Springs

Valley, Idaho," was supervised by Dr. T. L. Youd. He received the degree of Master

of Science in Civil Engineering from Brigham Young University in August of 1986.

From April 1986 to August 1987, he was employed as a staff geotechnical engineer at

PRC Engineering, Inc. and Bingham Engineering, Salt Lake City, Utah. In September

of 1987 he entered the Graduate School of The University of Texas. On March 12,

1994 he married Suzette Isaacson.

Permanent address: 1270 Apple Avenue

Provo, Utah 84604

This dissertation was typed by the author.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.