The National Academies Press: Manual On Subsurface Investigations (2019)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25379 SHARE

   
Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2019)
DETAILS
372 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48947-8 | DOI 10.17226/25379
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Glenn J. Rix, Njoroge Wainaina, Ali Ebrahimi, Robert C. Bachus, Maria Limas,
Rodolfo Sancio, Brooke Fait, and Paul W. Mayne; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of
FIND RELATED TITLES Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Manual on

Subsurface Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25379.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Manual on Subsurface Investigations
CHAPTER 3
Subsurface Investigation Processes
Introduction
This chapter presents processes for developing the scope for the subsurface investigations that are
typically conducted to collect subsurface data for planning, designing, constructing, and operating
transportation facilities. The specific motivations may include selecting appropriate foundation types,
determining if specialty construction means and methods are required, or estimating bid quantities. The
scope of a subsurface investigation is typically governed by the types and amount of data that need to be
collected to develop an appropriate ground model for the project to address these requirements. The scope
is optimized by selecting the most appropriate and efficient methods and equipment for collecting and
evaluating the required data. The topics covered in this chapter include the following:
1. Identifying the types of data required to address the anticipated geotechnical risks and performance
issues
2. Determining the required appropriate type of data
3. Selecting the most appropriate investigation equipment for the anticipated site conditions
4. Selecting the appropriate scope for geophysical testing and the appropriate geophysical methods
5. Selecting the appropriate scope for in situ testing and the appropriate in situ tests
6. Selecting the appropriate sampling equipment and borehole advancing methods for the anticipated
subsurface conditions
7. Selecting the appropriate type of measurements to evaluate groundwater conditions
8. Selecting the appropriate scope for laboratory testing and the appropriate laboratory tests
AASHTO R 13 (ASTM D420) contains complementary guidance on developing the scope of a

geotechnical site investigation and selecting the appropriate geophysical, in situ, and laboratory test
methods.
Types of Data Required for Subsurface Investigations

Determining the types of data required for an investigation is a critical step of investigation planning
because the data drives the scope as well as the cost and schedule of the investigation activities. If
inappropriate types of data are obtained or appropriate information is missed, data gaps will occur. The data
gaps may require remobilizing to the field to collect the missing information, which will add to the
investigation cost and could delay a project. An understanding of the primary factors that influence the
types of information needed for an investigation is critical to developing a sound investigation plan. The
remainder of this section discusses the three primary factors that govern the types of data that need to be
collected and analyzed for an investigation:
• Subsurface investigation objectives
• Information that can be obtained from available records
• Information that can be obtained from a site reconnaissance
12
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Reviewing the available records and conducting site reconnaissance provides information that will aid in
understanding the local geology, potential variability in subsurface conditions, likely performance issues
that need to be addressed by the investigation, available pertinent data, and the data gaps that need to be
filled to satisfy the investigation objective(s).
3.2.1 Subsurface Investigation Objectives

The objective(s) of a subsurface investigation must be clearly defined and understood for the project
features being investigated to correctly determine the data requirements. Otherwise the type of data
collected may not be appropriate. Investigation objectives can be broadly grouped into the following four
categories:
1. Project planning
2. Design and construction
3. Performance monitoring during construction and operation
4. Forensic evaluations
3.2.1.1 Project Planning Investigations

Investigations related to project planning are typically conducted during the initial stages of project
development when multiple corridors and alignments within each corridor are being evaluated. This is so
project planning investigation results can be factored into selecting the project corridor and alignments. The
primary objective of a geotechnical investigation during the planning stage is to identify geologic or man-
made constraints that can significantly affect major planning considerations (e.g., public safety during and
after construction, environmental protection, construction costs, operation costs, project delivery schedule).
Acquiring subsurface information to identify geologic or man-made constraints may or may not require an
extensive or costly field effort during the planning stage. Examples of geologic and man-made constraints
that could affect project planning are presented in Table 3-1. To aid in determining the types of information
that may be required during a planning investigation, Table 3-1 also includes the types of information that
are typically required to evaluate each potential constraint.
Table 3-1. Geologic and man-made constraints
Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Made Constraint Performance Issue Requirements
Subsidence (mass Foundation support, Mapping, geophysical Depth, geometry, areal
displacement, open settlement, and ground methods, in situ testing, extent, stratigraphy
voids in roadways) improvement and drilling and
sampling
Landslides in soil and Slope stability, lateral Remote sensing, Geometry of mass,
rock earth pressure and mapping, geophysical definition of driving
excavation support, methods, in situ testing, stresses, shear
dewatering, and and drilling and strength, unit weight,
permanent sampling hydraulic conductivity,
groundwater control groundwater
conditions, and
stratigraphy
Unstable soil and rock Foundation support, Mapping, geophysical Stratigraphy, shear
(e.g., soft or weak soils, settlement, ground methods, in situ testing, strength, groundwater
improvement, conditions, moisture
13

Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Made Constraint Performance Issue Requirements
degradable rock, permanent and drilling and content, Atterberg
expansive soils) groundwater control, sampling limits, organic content,
soil shrink and swell, hydraulic conductivity,
use of materials unit weight, sensitivity,
excavated from the coefficient of
project, and frost consolidation, and
penetration and compression index
freezing
Chemical properties Corrosion of buried Known detrimental Stratigraphy, depth,

metals and use of geologic formations, geometry, and areal
materials excavated mapping, drilling, extent, pH, resistivity,
from the project petrographic, and and mineralogy
laboratory testing
Abandoned landfills Foundation support, Remote sensing, Depth, geometry, areal

settlement, corrosion of mapping, reviewing extent, contents of the
buried metals, and records, geophysical landfill, and chemical
slope stability methods, in situ testing, properties of the landfill
and drilling and materials
sampling
Contaminated sites Deterioration of buried Mapping, reviewing Depth, geometry, areal

structural components, available records, extent, and chemistry
constructability geophysical methods, of waste materials
hazards, and disposal in situ testing, and
of materials excavated drilling and sampling
from the project
Flooding, scour, and Foundation support, Mapping, reviewing Estimation of erosion

erosion settlement, slope available information, susceptibility and
stability, lateral earth geophysical methods, determination of level
pressure, and in situ testing, and or path of flow
excavation support drilling and sampling
Rock structure Slope stability, Mapping, drilling, Orientation and spacing

foundation support, sampling, testing, and of rock discontinuities,
settlement, dewatering, reviewing available rock classification,
and permanent information shear strength, elastic
groundwater control modulus, and unit
weight
Groundwater conditions Impacts most Reviewing available Aquifer and aquitard

geotechnical records, geophysical characteristics,
performance issues methods, in situ testing, groundwater levels,
monitoring wells, and direction and gradient
piezometers of groundwater flow
Stratigraphy Impacts most Geophysical methods, Depth, thickness, and

geotechnical in situ testing, and classification of each
performance issues drilling and sampling strata
Sources: AASHTO and FHWA (2002)
14

3.2.1.2 Design and Construction Investigations

Design and construction investigations are typically conducted after the project alignment and grade has
been selected and the locations of structures have been established. The objectives of the design and
construction investigations are to collect data to aid with the following:
• Identifying geotechnical performance issues of concern
• Identifying areas of concern and mapping their three-dimensional (3D) extent (areal and depth)
• Understanding the potential geologic variability of the site
• Developing design recommendations and specifications
Table 3-2 provides a summary of information to aid with selecting which performance issues to evaluate
for each type of project feature and the types of data that may be needed. The data required to identify the
stratigraphy and groundwater conditions is required for most of the project features because these are
important to identifying the geotechnical performance issues of concern, areas of concern, and quantifying
the geologic variability of a site.
Table 3-2. Performance issues and required design properties and parameters
Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

Bridges and viaducts Foundation support, settlement, Index properties, shear strength
lateral earth pressure, seismic (drained and undrained), unit
evaluations, dewatering, weight, coefficient of consolidation,
corrosion or decay potential, compression index,
and construction impacts on preconsolidation pressure,
adjacent structures chemical properties of soil and
rock, lateral stress coefficient,
hydraulic conductivity, artesian
conditions, rock structure, durability
of rock, shear modulus, shear
damping, shrink and swell,
stratigraphy, and groundwater
conditions
Retaining structures Lateral earth pressure, Index properties, lateral stress

foundation support, settlement, coefficient, shear strength (drained
permanent groundwater control, and undrained), elastic modulus,
seismic evaluations, corrosion, unit weight, coefficient of
and construction impacts on consolidation, hydraulic
adjacent structures conductivity, chemical properties of
soil and rock, rock structure, shear
modulus, shear damping,
conditions
Cuts and embankments Slope stability, heave potential, Lateral stress coefficient, shear
permanent groundwater control, strength (drained and undrained),
ground improvement, use of elastic modulus, unit weight,
materials excavated from the coefficient of consolidation,
project, evaluation of material compression index,
sources, and construction preconsolidation pressure,
impacts on adjacent structures hydraulic conductivity, chemical
properties of soil and rock, rock
structure, durability of rock,
15

Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

conditions
Pavements Soil shrink and swell, frost Index properties, compaction

penetration and freezing, characteristics, resilient modulus,
permanent groundwater control, CBR, resistance R-value, hydraulic
ground improvement, use of conductivity, stratigraphy, and
materials excavated from the groundwater conditions
project, and evaluation of
material sources
Tunnels and underground Slope stability, heave potential, Index properties, lateral stress
structures dewatering, permanent coefficient, shear strength (drained
groundwater control, ground and undrained), elastic modulus,
improvement, corrosion, and unit weight, coefficient of
construction impacts on consolidation, hydraulic
adjacent structures conductivity, chemical properties of
soil and rock, rock structure, shear
modulus, shear damping,
conditions
Culverts and pipes Lateral earth pressure, Lateral stress coefficient, shear
excavation support, dewatering, strength (drained and undrained),
foundation support, settlement, index properties, elastic modulus,
heave potential, corrosion, use unit weight, coefficient of
of materials excavated from the consolidation, compression index,
project, and evaluation of preconsolidation pressure,
material sources chemical properties of soil and
rock, rock structure, durability of
rock, stratigraphy, and groundwater
conditions
Poles, masts, and towers Foundation support, corrosion, Index properties, shear strength
and lateral earth pressure (drained and undrained), unit
weight, coefficient of consolidation,
compression index,
preconsolidation pressure,
chemical properties of soil and
rock, lateral stress coefficient,
hydraulic conductivity, artesian
conditions, rock structure, durability
of rock, shear modulus, shear
damping, shrink and swell,
conditions
Sources: AASHTO, FHWA (2002), and FHWA (2017)
3.2.1.3 Performance Monitoring During Construction and Operation

During construction, the investigation objective is usually to monitor performance and guide
construction. For example, settlement plates and piezometers are typically installed while constructing
embankments on soft soils to measure the amount of settlement and monitor dissipation of pore pressures;
16

this information is used to determine when to place the next lift of the embankment fill or when to terminate
waiting periods.
During operation, the investigation objective is to collect information that can help with evaluating the
existing conditions, predicting long-term performance, and identifying geotechnical assets with impending
elevated risk of failure or deficient performance. This information can be used to optimize operation and
maintenance budgets and establish rehabilitation priorities.
The type of information that can be collected during construction and operation include pore pressures,
vertical and horizontal deformations, tilt, crack widths, loads, strains, and changes in groundwater
elevations during dewatering. Additional information regarding performance monitoring during
construction and operation of geotechnical project features is presented in Appendices A and B.
3.2.1.4 Forensic Evaluations

The investigation objective of evaluating failure is to identify the factors that contributed to the failure;
the investigation is usually directed and focused on specific location(s) where failure has occurred. The
type of information that needs to be collected during forensic evaluations depends on the type of failure,
but it is similar to information required for design and construction and could include performance
monitoring.
3.2.2 Review of Available Records

Once the objectives of an investigation are defined, Tables 3-1 or 3-2 can be used to preliminary select
the types of geotechnical issues that may need to be evaluated and the types of data that may need to be
collected. While Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide a good starting point, the information is not site specific, and
additional screening is necessary to obtain refined site-specific information. Fortunately, there are many
readily available data sources that can be used to identify such things as the major geologic processes that
have affected a project site and history of land use at the site and surrounding areas that can reveal
potentially problematic past activities (e.g., mining, waste disposal). For example, historical aerial
photographs can be used to identify areas that have experienced landslides, locations of past mining
activities, and past industrial activities. Reviewing available information from multiple sources is critical
to developing a sound investigation plan because it helps narrow the relevant site-specific geotechnical
issues that need to be evaluated. Reviewing available records also establishes the types and amount of
information that is available which helps identify the data gaps that need to be filled by the investigation.
Table 3-3 provides a listing of the types of documents that contain information relevant to geotechnical
investigations, sources of information included in these documents, and the types of information that can
be found in each type of document.
Table 3-3. Documents and sources of available information
Types of Sources of Type of Available Information Comments

Documents Information
Topographic United States Site topography, physical Maps can be used to
Maps Geological Survey features, and good index map evaluate access issues
and state of site area for field equipment and
geological survey identify areas susceptible
agencies to slope instability.
17


Digital elevation United States Raster grids of elevation values Geographic information
models Geological Survey representing ground surface systems (GIS) can use a
3D Elevation topography and terrain digital elevation model for
Program (3DEP), 3D surface visualization,
United States contouring, slope
Interagency calculations, etc.
Elevation Inventory
(USIEI), and state
and regional data
clearinghouses
Soil survey National Resource Soil classifications using Available information is

reports Conservation AASHTO and Unified Soil for shallow depths (6 ft or
Service and local Classification System methods, less). It can be useful in
soil conservation moisture contents, Atterberg identifying near-surface
agencies limits, organic contents, problematic soils (e.g.,
chemical properties (e.g., pH), soils susceptible to
permeability of soils, climate, swelling and shrinkage)
stratigraphy, and groundwater or identifying potential
conditions borrow sources.
Geologic maps United States Soil and rock formations (rock These documents can be
and reports and Geological survey types, fracture, orientation and used to identify areas
sinkhole and and state approximate age), groundwater susceptible to landslides,
karst maps geological survey flow patterns, and bedrock subsidence, and others.
agencies contours that provide
approximate estimates of rock
depths, and potential geologic
hazards
Aerial Google EarthTM, Man-made structures, geologic Photographs can track

photographs Google MapsTM, and hydrogeologic information, site changes over time to
National Agriculture current and past land use, identify potential
Imagery Program borrow sources, and potential problematic past land use
(NAIP), and aerial geologic and man-made activities or geologic
survey companies hazards events such as
landslides.
Existing State and local Soil and rock classification, Existing subsurface
subsurface DOTs, United stratigraphy, groundwater reports can be useful in
investigation States Geological conditions, engineering identifying geotechnical
reports for survey, state and parameters-shear strength, unit performance issues of
nearby projects local environmental weights, elastic modulus, concern.
agencies, and coefficient of consolidation,
United States compression index, hydraulic
Environmental conductivity, Atterberg limits,
Protection Agency moisture and organic contents,
potential hazards, and locations
of landfills and Superfund sites
Hydrogeological United States Hydrogeological features (e.g., Well maps and logs can
and well maps Geological survey, springs), groundwater hazards, be useful in evaluating
and well logs state natural the need for construction
18


resources and soil stratigraphy, and groundwater dewatering and
survey agencies depths permanent groundwater
control.
Utility maps Utility companies Locations of buried utilities Utility maps are very
and local useful in identifying
government potential locations for in
agencies situ testing, drilling, and
sampling to avoid
impacting utilities or
creating unsafe working
environment. Also, useful
in mapping potential
equipment access routes
to drilling and testing
locations.
Flood insurance Federal Emergency 100- and 500-year floodplains, This information can be
maps Management data for evaluating scour used to ensure that the
Agency, USACE, potential final alignment does not
United States go through 100- and 500-
Geological survey, year floodplains.
State and local
government
agencies
Sanborn fire Library of Environmental hazards and Sanborn maps are

insurance maps Congress, state historical land use available for urban areas.
and university
libraries, and
Sanborn Company
Sources: AASHTO, FHWA (2002), and FHWA (2017)
3.2.3 Site Reconnaissance

Site reconnaissance provides a firsthand account of the actual conditions on the ground and often will
reveal information that would most likely be overlooked without it. Site reconnaissance minimizes the
potential for encountering major unexpected problems during the investigation. It also offers an opportunity
to confirm and further explore issues identified from reviewing available records. Additional objectives for
site reconnaissance include the following:
• Identify and confirm the geotechnical and man-made constraints relevant to the investigation
• Select the appropriate equipment required for geophysical testing, in situ testing, and drilling
• Select locations for geophysical testing, in situ testing, and drilling
• Select viable access routes to testing and drilling locations
• Provide good estimation of the time that will be required to complete the field investigation
• Identify field personnel safety needs
Site reconnaissance activities need to be conducted systematically to avoid missing critical pieces of
information. Table 3-4 includes information that can aid with planning and executing an effective site
reconnaissance.
19

Table 3-4. Items that need to be evaluated during field reconnaissance
Item Things to Note Comments

Access Rank access using one of the following Evaluating access helps determine
criteria: (1) easy, (2) accessible by four- the types of equipment that will be
wheel drive, (3) dozer and grading required.
required, and (4) inaccessible.
Utilities Existing overhead lines, marked gas lines, Utilities information helps select
manholes, sewer outfalls, and power appropriate in situ testing, drilling,
substations. and sampling locations.
Surface soils Presence of fill, debris, pollutants, slope Evaluating surface soils can reveal
instabilities, heave, subsidence, and scour evidence of abandoned landfills,
Superfund sites, subsidence, and
flooding.
Subsurface Visual soil and rock classifications, loose Subsurface materials can provide
materials cobbles, boulders, rock outcrops, rock joint evidence for subsidence, landslide
patterns, faults, discontinuities, activity, unstable soil and rock, and
weathering, planes of weakness, talus, stratigraphy.
karst and sinkholes, and caves
Surface drainage Swampy, ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers Surface drainage information
provides indications of the
groundwater conditions, hydraulic
conductivity of the underlying
materials, potential for flooding,
and others.
Subsurface Major aquifers, water wells, and pumping Subsurface draining information
drainage from deep wells provides indication of the
groundwater conditions.
Terrain Rank terrain in terms of (1) level ground, Evaluating terrain helps with
(2) sloping, (3) hummocky, (4) rolling hills, selecting appropriate field
and (5) mountainous. equipment, assessing the need for
slope stability investigations, and
others.
Past investigations Existing boreholes, core holes, and Past investigations can provide
evidence of past blasting operations information regarding stratigraphy
and groundwater conditions.
Source: AASHTO and FHWA (2002)
After the field reconnaissance study is complete, a field reconnaissance report should be prepared for use
in developing the investigation plan. This report should include the following:
1. A summary of the geologic framework of the site area
2. A summary of the geotechnical issues of concern
3. A stratigraphic listing of soil and rock units expected to be encountered
4. Locations, numbers, and depth ranges for the recommended subsurface investigation methods
5. Locations or areas requiring special attention
6. Opinion relating to potential use of materials excavated from the project and the probability of locating
significant quantities of borrow materials near the project
7. A sketched reconnaissance map
20

Developing a Subsurface Investigation Plan

While Section 3.2 primarily focused on providing guidelines for selecting the appropriate types of
information to collect for each of the four investigation objectives, this section focuses on providing
guidelines for developing subsurface investigation plans only for the planning, design, and construction
objectives. The other two objectives—performance monitoring during construction and operation, and
forensic investigations—are not included because they are usually not part of the typical subsurface
investigation programs conducted for transportation projects. Information on geotechnical instrumentation
for performance monitoring and forensic investigations is presented in Appendices A and B.
As discussed in Chapter 2, a subsurface exploration program is a means to identify and reduce the
uncertainties regarding soil and rock conditions at the project site. In general, confidence in design
parameters increases with increasing quantity and quality of measurements. Design parameters derived
from small number of measurements will have large uncertainty and may be inappropriate regardless of the
methods used for testing or interpretation (Christian 2004). The rest of this section provides guidelines for
developing the scope for a sound, cost-effective investigation plan that has one or more of the following
components:
1. Developing a geophysical testing plan
2. Selecting the number and locations for in situ tests, drilling, and sampling
3. Determining the minimum depth of investigation at each location
4. Determining the required types of samples and the sampling frequency
5. Developing an in situ and laboratory testing plan
6. Developing a plan for evaluating groundwater conditions
The type and overall scope of the project will dictate which of the components are required to develop
an appropriate ground model.
3.3.1 Developing a Geophysical Testing Plan

Geophysical investigations are used to estimate the physical properties of the subsurface by measuring,
analyzing, and interpreting seismic, electrical, electromagnetic, gravitational, and magnetic fields measured
at the ground surface or within boreholes. Surface geophysical methods are well suited to use during the
initial phases of a site investigation program to efficiently gain an understanding of the overall subsurface
conditions, including stratigraphy and the location and size of potential anomalies. The locations of
subsequent borings and soundings can then be optimized to investigate areas of concern identified from the
geophysical survey(s). A geophysical investigation followed by a targeted program of in situ tests, drilling
and sampling, and laboratory tests is a robust approach to developing an accurate conceptual site model for
a project. More information is presented in Chapter 4 regarding the selection and use of geophysical
methods for a geotechnical site investigation.
3.3.2 Selecting the Number and Locations for In Situ Tests, Drilling, and Sampling
There are primary factors that influence the selection of the number and locations for in situ tests and
boreholes for obtaining samples at a site:
• Objective of the investigation
• Project feature(s) being targeted by the investigation
• Subsurface conditions
• Anticipated uncertainty and variability of the subsurface conditions
• Access constraints
21

Investigations conducted for design and construction objectives are much more detailed than planning
objectives and, therefore, require more investigation locations than investigations for planning objectives.
Data required for planning objectives is needed to evaluate global geotechnical issues that can affect the
selection of the project corridor and alignment. This type of information can generally be obtained from
reviewing existing data and conducting a site reconnaissance. The primary purpose of field investigations
done for planning is to verify information obtained from reviewing existing records and site reconnaissance
and collecting data that can be used for preliminary designs, so the investigation locations tend to be farther
apart, which reduces the number of locations required. The guidelines presented in the remainder of this
section apply to design and construction investigations.
The required minimum number of locations for design and construction investigations depends on the
types of project features being targeted by the investigation. For example, the typical maximum spacing
between investigation locations for structures such as bridges and earth-retaining structures is usually
smaller than for the roadway features such as embankments and roadway cuts; therefore, for identical
lengths, the number of required investigation locations for structures is usually greater than for roadway
features. Column 2 of Table 3-5 provides guidelines for determining the minimum number of investigation
locations for each type of project feature. The number of investigation locations may be increased or
decreased depending on the expected variability of subsurface conditions and other project-specific
considerations.
Table 3-5. Guidelines for selecting number of investigation locations and depths of investigation
Project Feature Minimum Number of Investigation Minimum Depth of Investigation

Locations
Bridge - shallow One location per pier if width of pier is 2B for L ≤ 2B
foundations less than 100 ft (30 m)
3B for 2B ≤ L ≤ 5B
Two locations per pier if width of pier is
4B for L ≥ 5B
greater than 100 ft (30 m)
Should extend below any soft
Additional investigation locations
compressible material into competent
should be included if uncertain or
material. Should extend 10 ft (3 m)
highly variable subsurface conditions
into competent rock if rock is
are encountered.
encountered before the above criteria
is met.
Bridge - deep One location per pier if width of pier is In soil: Extend below the anticipated
foundations less than 100 ft (30 m) pile tip elevation a minimum of 20 ft (6
m) or 2x the maximum group
Two locations per pier if width of pier is
dimension whichever is greater.
greater than 100 ft (30 m)
Piles on rock: Extend below
Additional investigation locations
anticipated pile tip elevation a
should be included if uncertain or
minimum of 10 ft (3 m).
highly variable subsurface conditions
are encountered. Shafts on or in rock: Extend below
anticipated shaft tip elevation a
At each shaft location for rock
minimum of 10 ft (3 m) or 3x shaft
socketed shafts.
diameter for isolated shafts or 2x
maximum group dimension whichever
is greater.
22


Locations
Retaining structures A minimum of one location for each Extend below bottom of the wall 2x
wall. If wall is greater than 100 ft (30 the wall height or 10 ft (3 m) into hard
m), spacing should be at intervals of rock. Should extend below any soft
100 to 200 ft (30 to 60 m) with compressible material into competent
locations alternating from in front to material.
behind the wall.
Anchored walls: Additional locations in
the anchorage zone spaced at
intervals of 100 to 200 ft (30 to 60 m)
Soil nail walls: Additional locations
behind the wall at a distance of 1 to
1.5x the wall height. Spacing should be
at intervals of 100 to 200 ft (30 to 60
m).
Temporary structures: The same
recommendations generally apply to
temporary structures. However, the
scope of the subsurface investigation
for temporary structures is usually
within the purview of the contractor.
Roadway - Spacing of 200 ft (60 m) in uncertain or Depth of 2x the embankment height

embankment highly variable conditions to 400 ft (120 unless a hard stratum is encountered
foundations m) in uniform conditions along above this depth.
centerline embankment.
If soft strata are encountered
At critical locations (maximum height extending to a depth greater than 2x
or maximum depth of soft strata): a embankment height, extend below the
minimum of three locations along the soft strata into competent material.
transverse direction.
Bridge approach embankment: a
minimum of one location per abutment.
Roadway cuts Spacing of 200 ft (60 m) in uncertain or Minimum depth of 15 ft (4.5 m) below
highly variable conditions to 400 ft (120 lowest cut elevation unless a hard
m) in uniform conditions along stratum is encountered before the
centerline of cut. minimum depth is achieved.
At critical locations (maximum cut If soft strata are encountered extend
depth or maximum depth of soft depth of investigation to a competent
strata): a minimum of three locations layer.
along the transverse direction.
If base of cut extends below
For cut slopes in rock, perform groundwater level, extend depth of
geologic mapping along the length of investigation to determine the depth
the cut slope. of the underlying pervious strata
Pavements Spacing of 100 to 300 ft (30 to 90 m) Minimum depth of 10 ft (3 m) from the

depending on the subsurface proposed top of subgrade elevation.
conditions. Closer spacing for
uncertain or highly variable conditions
23


Locations
and longer spacing for uniform
conditions.
Culverts and pipes One boring at each end of the culvert. Same criteria as for bridge
foundations for large culverts.
Additional borings between the end of
culvert spaced at 100 to 300 ft (30 to Small culverts: Minimum of 10 ft (3 m)
90 m) depending on the variability of below anticipated invert elevation
the subsurface conditions
For culvert extensions, one boring
every 50 to 100 ft (15 to 30 m) with a
minimum of one boring.
Poles, masts and One boring at each foundation 30 ft (9 m) below the anticipated top
towers location. of foundation in soil or 10 ft (3 m) of
rock coring whichever is shallower.
Source: FHWA (2002), FHWA (2017), New York State DOT (2013), and South Carolina DOT (2010)
B: Footing width
L: Footing length
The nature of subsurface conditions also influences the number of in situ tests and borings that can be
conducted within the available schedule and budget for the site investigation. For example, if ground
conditions are suitable for using CPTs, it is likely possible to conduct a larger number of tests than for sites
where extensive rock coring is needed to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The anticipated uncertainty
and variability in subsurface conditions is another consideration for selecting the number of investigation
locations. A larger number of locations should be planned for sites with uncertain or highly variable
subsurface conditions to reduce the knowledge uncertainties and to more accurately estimate the natural
variability associated with soil and rock conditions at the project site.
Finally, access constraints at a site drive the equipment selection. Costs associated with mobilizing and
using equipment are a large component of the investigation cost. For a project with a fixed budget, if the
site has easy access and as such a lower equipment cost, the budget can include a larger number of
investigation locations. For example, drilling over water is typically much more expensive than drilling on
land because it requires using barges. Mobilization costs for barges are generally high, and set up times and
time required to move between investigation locations on water are much longer than drilling on land; so
drilling over water is a much slower investigation process than drilling on land. This slower process means
that for the same budget and schedule, fewer investigation locations will be selected when drilling over
water. Table 3-6 presents information that can aid with selecting the appropriate equipment for the
anticipated access conditions. Additional information on equipment for conducting borings and soundings
is presented in Chapters 5 and 6.
Table 3-6. Investigation equipment and their applications
Rig Type Application

Truck-mounted drill rigs Areas with easy access
All-terrain vehicles drill rigs Sites with soft ground and rugged terrain
Track-mounted drill rigs Sites with swampy and very soft ground
24

Skid drill rigs Sites with steep terrain
Wireline drill rigs Rock sampling
Hydraulic direct-push rigs Fast, continuous sampling, cleaner (no spoils)
Sonic rigs Continuous sampling of soil and rock
Barges – regular Over water drilling for shallow water depths (10 ft [3 m] or
less)
Jack up platform barges Over water drilling for areas with deep water (up to 40 ft
[12 m])
Source: Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee (2015)
3.3.3 Determining the Minimum Depth of Investigation at Each Location

The minimum required depth of investigation at each location usually depend on (i) the type of
anticipated subsurface conditions and (ii) the type of feature being investigated. Column 3 of Table 3-5
provides guidelines on the criteria that should be used to select the minimum depth of investigation for each
type of project feature. The criteria for bridge foundations works best in projects where a preliminary
investigation has been completed and there is some site-specific subsurface information that can be used to
select the most likely foundation type and approximate depth to the bottom of the foundation element. If a
preliminary investigation has not been completed, some assumptions regarding the subsurface conditions
need to be made based on available records and knowledge of the local geology to start the investigation;
adjustments should be made during the investigation in consultation with the geotechnical design engineer
when the actual site conditions differ from the assumed conditions.
3.3.4 Determining the Required Types of Samples and Sampling Frequency

Once the investigation locations and the depths of investigation at each sampling location have been
selected, the next step includes determining the required types of samples (disturbed and undisturbed) and
the required sampling frequency. Disturbed samples are used to conduct index tests that are required for (i)
classifying soil and rock, (ii) developing stratigraphy, and (iii) identifying problematic soil or rock
conditions. Disturbed samples and index tests are more economical, so they are typically used more
frequently. Undisturbed samples are used to run performance tests that are required to measure specific
design parameters for fine-grained soils. Undisturbed samples and performance tests are more expensive,
so they are used less frequently than disturbed samples. The required sampling frequency for each type of
sample varies depending on the variability of the subsurface conditions at the site, the type of project feature
being investigated, and the required design properties. In general, a lower sampling frequency is required
for sites with more uniform subsurface conditions. An additional consideration for undisturbed samples is
difficult sampling conditions that can induce sample disturbance. In these situations, the sampling
frequency should be higher to offset the samples that may be unsuitable for laboratory testing due to a high
degree of disturbance.
FHWA (2002) recommends the following minimum sampling frequencies for disturbed and undisturbed
samples:
• Two disturbed samples per 5-ft (1.5-m) interval in the top 10 ft (3 m)
• One disturbed sample per 5-ft (1.5-m) interval for depths from 10 to 100 ft (3 to 30 m)
• One disturbed sample per 10-ft (3-m) interval for depths greater than 100 ft (30 m)
• One undisturbed sample in each layer of fine-grained soil
• For layers of fine-grained soil thicker than 10 ft (3 m), one undisturbed sample for every 10 to 20 ft (3
to 6 m)
25

These guidelines should be considered as a starting point and may need to be adjusted during the
investigation depending on the results of the investigation. If the results show that the subsurface conditions
are uncertain or highly variable, additional samples will likely be required.
3.3.5 Developing an In Situ and Laboratory Testing Plan

Once the types of samples and sampling frequency have been determined, the next step is selecting the
combination of in situ and laboratory tests that will provide reliable measurements of design parameters.
Both types of tests have advantages and disadvantages. Laboratory tests usually offer the opportunity to
make direct measures of design parameters (e.g., strength, compressibility), and it is often possible to
control the boundary conditions precisely (e.g., confining pressure, drainage). However, laboratory tests
are conducted on small specimens that may not be representative of the properties of the entire stratum in
the field, and the test results will be affected by sample disturbance. On the other hand, in situ tests often
involve minimal disturbance and, by definition, measure soil and rock properties at the in situ stress state.
Some in situ tests, such as the CPT, allow for continuous profiling with depth. The disadvantage of many
in situ tests is that they make an indirect measurement of design parameters. The desired parameter must
be obtained from empirical correlations or via the solution of an appropriate boundary value problem. This
introduces an additional source of uncertainty, which Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) called transformation
uncertainty, due to the method being used to estimate the design parameter.
In situ and laboratory tests complement one another well. In situ tests are often a large component of the
subsurface exploration program because tests can usually be conducted at lower cost. Laboratory tests
provide direct measurements of design parameters that can either be used for design or to evaluate the
accuracy of the values estimated from in situ tests. On larger projects, sufficient laboratory tests can be
conducted to develop site-specific empirical correlations that can reduce transformation uncertainties
associated with in situ tests.
3.3.5.1 In Situ Testing

In situ testing programs are designed to provide the information required to accomplish the following:
1. Classify soil and rock
2. Develop stratigraphy
3. Establish variability of the subsurface conditions
4. Identify problematic soils and rock
5. Provide measurements of the required parameters for design and construction
Because it is possible to collect abundant data via in situ tests, they allow for a more comprehensive
definition of soil strata, zones, layering, and stratigraphy, as well as the identification of lenses, weak zones,
and inclusions. In situ tests also allow an investigation of vertical and horizontal variability to evaluate the
heterogeneity across a site.
The selection of the most appropriate in situ tests for a site depends on the (i) anticipated subsurface
conditions, (ii) ability of the in situ tests to provide reliable estimates of the required design parameters, and
(iii) cost. Anticipated subsurface conditions tend to rule out certain in situ tests. For example, in situ test
methods that require direct push into the ground are usually not appropriate for sites with hard soil deposits
or rock, while in situ tests that requires a borehole may be appropriate for a wide variety of subsurface
conditions. Table 3-7 provides a summary of information that should aid in selecting the appropriate in situ
tests for the anticipated subsurface conditions and data requirements. Additional information pertaining to
in situ tests is provided in Chapter 5.
26

Table 3-7. Summary of in situ tests and associated design parameters

In Situ Tests Design Parameters Advantages Disadvantages
Estimated
SPT Drained shear strength of Most widely used in situ test, SPT is unreliable for
sands and over- economical, can be soils containing course
consolidated clays conducted in a wide variety gravels, cobbles,
of materials including boulders, silts, or soft
partially weathered rock, and sensitive clays.
allows recovery of samples
Piezocone Drained and undrained Fast and continuous profiling Piezocone

Penetrometer Test shear strength, coefficient (excellent for stratigraphy), penetrometer test is
of consolidation, and test is fast (economical and unsuitable for very stiff
hydraulic conductivity; productive), results are not to hard clays, gravel,
compression and shear operator dependent boulder, and boulder
wave velocity can be deposits, and there is
measured via a seismic no sample recovery.
downhole test using the
piezocone penetrometer
test
Dilatometer Elastic modulus and Good for predicting elastic A dilatometer may be
lateral stress coefficient settlements; can be used in difficult to push in very
sands, silts, and clays; can stiff to hard clays and
be run with either drilling or very dense sands, and
direct-push equipment there is no sample
recovery.
Vane shear test Undrained shear strength Most accurate in situ test for This test is not
and sensitivity determining undrained shear applicable for stiff and
strength for soils with an hard clays and there is
undrained shear strength of no sample recovery.
500 pounds per square foot
(24 kilopascals) or less
Pressuremeter Elastic modulus, shear Can be used for both soil This is a slow test that
modulus, lateral stress and weathered rock, can be requires a very
coefficient, and drained run with either drilling or experienced operator.
and undrained shear direct-push equipment, The results are affected
strength excellent for design of by quality of borehole
shallow foundations and and there is no sample
evaluating lateral capacity of recovery.
deep foundations
Rock PLT Elastic modulus of rock Measures rock mass This test requires a
mass and lateral stress properties and is good for specialized operator.
coefficient evaluating settlement
Field rock DS test Drained shear strength Can be used along joints This test requires a
and shear planes to specialized operator.
measure strength of
discontinuities, good for
slope stability analysis
27

In Situ Tests Design Parameters Advantages Disadvantages

Estimated
Rock dilatometer Elastic modulus of rock Good for predicting This test requires a
mass settlement of rock mass specialized operator.
Rock borehole Drained shear strength Robust, measures shear This test requires a
shear test strength directly, and is good specialized operator
for evaluating slope stability and may not be readily
and foundation design of available.
drilled shaft socketed in rock
Acoustic and Location and orientation Economical method for This test requires a
optical televiewer of rock joints and other evaluating rock mass specialized operator.
discontinuities properties
Source: Clayton et al. (2008) and FHWA (2002)
Information pertaining to stratigraphy and groundwater conditions is needed for most situations (Tables
3-1 and 3-2). One in situ test that is very efficient in developing stratigraphy and determining the
approximate depth to groundwater is the piezocone penetrometer test (CPTu). Therefore, if the subsurface
conditions are suitable for CPTu testing, it may be advantageous to conduct CPTu tests first and follow up
with a more targeted in situ testing and sampling program. CPTu tests will help (i) establish the uniformity
or heterogeneity of the subsurface conditions, which should help develop the scope of the sampling program
(i.e., if uniform conditions are encountered, the required number of samples may be reduced), (ii) identify
the types of soils in terms of coarse or fine grained, and (iii) quantify the consistency of fine-grained soils
in terms of soft to hard, which should help with selecting the layers that require more targeted in situ testing
and acquiring undisturbed samples. This information will also aid with determining the most appropriate
in situ test(s). For example, if very soft to soft fine-grained soil layers are identified and shear strength is
one of the required design parameters, vane shear tests (VSTs) can be conducted in those layers.
The performance of geotechnical features founded in rock or constructed in rock depends on the
composite strength of the rock mass rather than the strength of the intact rock. Therefore, in addition to
obtaining cores for laboratory testing, field mapping and evaluating rock discontinuities should be included
in the in situ evaluation program. Field mapping includes collecting information such as spacing of the
discontinuities, continuous lengths of discontinuities, alignment of the discontinuities relative to the
direction of loading, condition of the discontinuities in terms of roughness, and hardness. This information
is needed to classify the rock mass and calculate its properties. Appropriate in situ tests on rock should be
included to supplement the field mapping and evaluation efforts.
3.3.5.2 Sampling Equipment and Methods

A summary of information pertaining to available sampling equipment for subsurface investigations,
along with their applications, advantages, and disadvantages, is included in Table 3-8 to aid with selecting
the most appropriate sampling equipment for an investigation. Additional information is presented in
Chapter 6. Most of the sampling equipment presented in Table 3-8 requires a borehole. Therefore, selecting
sampling equipment also requires selecting an appropriate borehole advancing method. To facilitate the
selection of the most appropriate borehole advancing method for the anticipated subsurface conditions,
information pertaining to borehole advancing methods and their applications is summarized in Table 3-9.
Chapter 6 also contains information on methods for soil borings and rock corings.
28

Table 3-8. Sampling equipment and their applications
Sampling
Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Equipment
Split barrel Obtaining disturbed soil Robust and Results in poor or no
samples and partially economical recovery in loose
weathered rock sands, gravels, and
cobbles; cannot
obtain undisturbed
samples.
Sonic Obtaining continuous Excellent for These cannot obtain

disturbed samples of soil stratigraphy, fast, and undisturbed samples.
and rock produces less spoils
Vibracore Obtaining continuous Excellent for These cannot obtain

disturbed samples of soil stratigraphy undisturbed samples.
at the bottom of a body of
water, requires a minimum
of 20 ft (6 m) of water
above the mudline
Shelby tube Obtaining undisturbed Can obtain high-quality Tubes are easily
samples of soft to stiff silt undisturbed samples damaged if very stiff
and clay soils in cased clays are
boreholes encountered; cannot
sample granular
materials (e.g., sands,
gravel).
Laval Obtaining undisturbed Obtains very high- These are more

samples of soil in cased quality samples due to expensive than
boreholes its large diameter, can Shelby tubes.
sample a wide variety
of soils
Piston Obtaining high-quality Ability to sample in These are

undisturbed samples in uncased boreholes complicated, time
uncased boreholes consuming, and
costly.
Osterberg Obtaining high-quality Excellent for sampling These are unsuitable

undisturbed samples of in swampy areas and for sampling hard,
soft and potentially areas with difficult dense, or gravelly
sensitive soils in uncased access due to its soils.
boreholes portability, ability to
sample in uncased
boreholes
Denison Obtaining high-quality Excellent sample These are unsuitable

undisturbed samples of recovery for sampling loose
sand soils, gravel soils, sands and soft clays.
hard clays, partially
29

Sampling
Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Equipment
cemented soils, and
partially weathered rock
Core barrel Obtaining high-quality rock Can sample a wide These are unsuitable
core samples variety of rock for sampling badly
materials fractured rock.
Table 3-9. Borehole advancing methods and their applications
Borehole Method Application Comments

Solid flight auger Good for advancing soil borings to Sampling can only be done in
shallow depths (20 ft [6 m] or less) soils (e.g., stiff clays, silts) that
can allow the borehole to remain
open (no cave in).
Hollow-stem auger (HSA) Good for advancing deep soil borings The augers may get stuck in the
(depths can exceed 100 ft [30 m]), may ground at sites with groundwater
not work for sites with shallow depths to at shallow depths.
groundwater
Rotary drilling Good for advancing shallow and deep This is the most common
soil borings, especially good for sites exploration method (economical)
with groundwater at shallow depths and works for most materials.
Test pits and trenches Good for mapping stratigraphy, This is expensive but excellent for
(excavated by backhoes) determining depth to rock, presence of evaluating slope stability in
faults, degree of weathering, and projects with major cuts and
groundwater inflow where the geologic structure
controls slope stability. It allows
recovery of large block samples
for laboratory testing.
Exploratory shafts Good for mapping rock structure to This is expensive but excellent for
adequately assess nature, elevation, and obtaining design information for
spacing of rock discontinuities design of tunnels and
underground structures.
Manual methods (hand Used for shallow depth exploration in These methods are slow (low
probes and hand augers) wetland areas and areas with very soft productivity) but can be
soils that are difficult to access with economical for small projects.
equipment, excellent for mapping
thicknesses and lateral extent of soft
clays and compressible organic soils
In planning and executing an in situ testing and sampling program, it is very important to minimize the
number of equipment mobilizations and demobilizations to control cost and schedule. Therefore, in
developing an in situ testing and sampling program, it is prudent to try to group together activities that can
be efficiently conducted with the same equipment. For example, if in situ tests that require a borehole are a
30

part of the in situ testing program, they should be conducted during sampling and in the same borehole if
possible. Also, it is important to provide regular updates to the geotechnical design engineer to facilitate
adjustments in the testing and sampling program, especially if unanticipated subsurface conditions are
encountered. For example, if CPTu test results identify fine-grained soil layers prone to consolidation,
CPTu pore-pressure dissipation tests may need to be added to the testing program to evaluate time rate of
consolidation parameters; if pore-pressure dissipation tests are necessary, the tests should be conducted
before demobilizing the CPTu equipment.
3.3.5.3 Laboratory Testing Program

Laboratory tests offer the capability to systematically characterize the behavior of soil and rock in a
controlled environment. This capability allows laboratory tests to be used to model existing in situ
conditions as well as conditions that will exist at various stages of project development. A typical laboratory
testing program usually includes index and performance tests. Index tests provide general information
regarding the material and include such tests as grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, moisture content,
and organic content. Performance tests measure specific material parameters that are required for design
and assessment of constructability, such as shear strength, coefficient of consolidation, compression index,
and elastic modulus.
The objective in developing the scope of a laboratory testing program is to select the types and quantities
of laboratory tests that should be conducted to provide reliable estimates of the required design parameters.
The selection of the requited types of tests is usually governed by (i) anticipated performance issues that
need to be addressed, (ii) predominant material types anticipated at the site (i.e., coarse-grained soil, fine-
grained soils, or rock), and (iii) anticipated subsurface conditions (e.g., soft, hard). Determining the
quantities of each type of test that should be conducted is usually based on the anticipated variability of the
subsurface conditions (e.g., a site with highly variable subsurface conditions would require more tests than
a site with more uniform conditions) and the scope of the planned in situ testing program (e.g., if the scope
of the in situ testing program is small, a large number of laboratory tests may be required). Table 3-10
provides some guidelines for selecting the appropriate laboratory tests for the required parameters.
Additional information pertaining to laboratory testing is included in Chapter 8.
Table 3-10 Guidelines for selecting laboratory tests
Geotechnical Issue Pertinent Parameters that Applicable Lab Tests

Can Be Obtained from Lab
Tests
Foundation support Shear strength, particle size Index tests
distribution, unit weight, and DS test (drained shear strength of soil and shear
durability of rock strength of rock)
UU Triaxial (undrained shear strength)
CU Triaxial (undrained and drained shear strength)
CD Triaxial (drained shear strength)
Triaxial or uniaxial tests on rock (compressive
strength)
Point-load strength test (shear strength index of rock)
Slake durability test (durability of rock)
Settlement Elastic modulus, coefficient Index tests

of consolidation, One dimensional consolidation test to obtain
compression index, coefficient of consolidation, compression index,
preconsolidation pressure, preconsolidation pressure
31

Geotechnical Issue Pertinent Parameters that Applicable Lab Tests

Can Be Obtained from Lab
Tests
particle size distribution, Triaxial or uniaxial tests on rock (elastic modulus)
Atterberg limits, moisture
content, and organic content
Seismic evaluations Shear modulus, shear Index tests
damping, particle size Resonant column (shear modulus and material
distribution, and Atterberg damping ratio vs. shear strain)
limits Cyclic triaxial (cyclic strength for liquefaction
evaluations)
Dewatering Hydraulic conductivity Index tests
Flexible-wall or rigid-wall permeameter tests
(hydraulic conductivity)
Permanent Hydraulic conductivity Index tests

groundwater control Flexible-wall or rigid-wall permeameter tests
(hydraulic conductivity)
Corrosion of buried pH and resistivity pH

metals Resistivity
Soil swell and shrink Particle size distribution, Index tests

moisture content, and 1D consolidation (swell potential)
Atterberg limits
Use of excavated Particle size distribution, Index tests

material Atterberg limits, maximum Compaction tests
dry unit weight, optimum Resilient modulus test (estimating resilient modulus
moisture content, modulus, of subgrade soils for pavement design)
shear strength, moisture CBR (estimating strength of subgrade soils for
content, and organic pavement design)
contents Resistance R-value (estimating strength of subgrade
soils for pavement design)
Source: information from AASHTO (2018), ASTM Standards, Clayton et al. (2008), and FHWA (2002)
Notes:
UU: Unconsolidated-Undrained
CU: Consolidated-Undrained
CD: Consolidated-Drained
The predominant material type(s) anticipated at a site plays a significant role in determining the types of
laboratory tests that may be required. If the anticipated predominant material type happens to be granular
soils, performance laboratory tests on undisturbed samples may not be required, and the laboratory testing
program may consist of conducting laboratory index tests to confirm stratigraphy and performance tests on
compacted disturbed samples to obtain parameters needed for pavement design. If the anticipated
predominant material type is fine-grained soils, performance tests on undisturbed samples may be required
when the consistency of the materials is in the range of very soft to stiff. Furthermore, index tests and
performance tests on compacted disturbed samples may be required to confirm stratigraphy and facilitate
evaluating the use of excavated material, the shrink and swell potential, and the parameters needed for
32

pavement design. If the anticipated predominant material is rock, the focus of the laboratory testing program
should be on obtaining parameters that are needed for evaluating rock mass properties (e.g., the strength of
intact rock specimens, durability of rock).
The quantities of samples that should be tested for each type of required test is typically finalized after
the field testing and sampling program is completed. This provides an opportunity to review all the available
in situ test results and visually classify the collected samples prior to determining the final quantity of the
samples that need to be tested. Reviewing and evaluating the in situ test results and samples can assist with
developing a preliminary stratigraphy that can be used to (i) quantify the variability of the subsurface
conditions, (ii) identify soil strata of concern that should be targeted for laboratory testing, and (iii) assess
the appropriateness and adequacy of the completed in situ testing program to identify any data gaps that
should be filled by the laboratory testing program.
3.3.6 Developing a Plan for Evaluating Groundwater Conditions

Hydrogeology plays a significant role in the geotechnical analysis, design, and performance of the
subsurface features of the transportation infrastructure. Thus, a hydrogeologic characterization to gain an
understanding of the distribution, thickness, composition, and continuity of the lithologic units that
influence groundwater flow is critical to most subsurface investigation programs. Results of hydrogeologic
characterizations are specifically used to address issues such as slope failures, landslides, piping erosion,
subsidence, subgrade pumping, heave in excavations, and uplift of structures due to buoyancy.
A comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization should include information on (i) geology and
hydrogeology, (ii) aquifer characteristics, (iii) aquitard characteristics, (iv) groundwater levels, and (v) the
direction and gradient of groundwater flow. Knowledge of the site geology and stratigraphy is essential to
define the hydrogeologic framework and identify pathways for groundwater flow. It is necessary to define
water-bearing zones that allow groundwater movement (i.e., aquifers) and zones that may restrict
movement of groundwater (i.e., aquitards), as well as any geologic features that may affect groundwater
movement, such as faults, folds, fractures, buried channel deposits, or solution features. Aquifer
characteristics that should be evaluated include the (i) hydraulic conductivity, (ii) porosity, (iii)
permeability, (iv) transmissivity, and (v) storage coefficient. Aquitards are confining layers that limit the
vertical movement of water. Some aquitards have poor integrity due to secondary permeability in the form
of fractures, rootlets, or other features, and thus the hydraulic conductivity may vary considerably.
Therefore, characterizing aquitards is a critical element of site investigations. Groundwater levels (i.e.,
potentiometric information) may be obtained from soil borings, monitoring wells, and piezometers and used
to estimate the direction and gradient of groundwater flow. Additional information pertaining to
hydrogeological site characterization for evaluating groundwater conditions is presented in Chapter 7.
33

Chapter 3 References
AASHTO. 2018. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, and AASHTO
Provisional Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee. 2015. The Drilling Manual - 5th Edition. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis,
Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9781439814208.
Clayton, C.R.I., N.E. Simons, and M.C. Matthews. 2008. Site Investigations, Second Edition. Halsted Press, Technology &
Engineering, London.
Christian, J.T. 2004. “Geotechnical Engineering Reliability: How Well Do We Know What We Are Doing?” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 10, pp. 1556–1571, DOI: 1061/(ASCE) 1090-
0241(2004)130:10(985).
FHWA. 2017. Geotechnical Site Characterization. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Publication No. NHI-16-072.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
FHWA. 2002. Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties. Publication No. IF-02-034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
New York State DOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual. Albany, New York.
Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy. 1999. “Evaluation of Geotechnical Property Variability.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 625–639.
South Carolina DOT. 2010. Geotechnical Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, South
Carolina.
34

The National Academies Press: Manual On Subsurface Investigations (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Manual On Subsurface Investigations (2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Manual On Subsurface Investigations (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25379 SHARE

Manual on Subsurface Investigations (2019)

372 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Manual on

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Subsurface Investigation Processes

AASHTO R 13 (ASTM D420) contains complementary guidance on developing the scope of a

Types of Data Required for Subsurface Investigations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3.2.1 Subsurface Investigation Objectives

3.2.1.1 Project Planning Investigations

Table 3-1. Geologic and man-made constraints

Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Geologic or Man- Geotechnical Evaluation Methods Information

Chemical properties Corrosion of buried Known detrimental Stratigraphy, depth,

Abandoned landfills Foundation support, Remote sensing, Depth, geometry, areal

Contaminated sites Deterioration of buried Mapping, reviewing Depth, geometry, areal

Flooding, scour, and Foundation support, Mapping, reviewing Estimation of erosion

Rock structure Slope stability, Mapping, drilling, Orientation and spacing

Groundwater conditions Impacts most Reviewing available Aquifer and aquitard

Stratigraphy Impacts most Geophysical methods, Depth, thickness, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3.2.1.2 Design and Construction Investigations

Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

Retaining structures Lateral earth pressure, Index properties, lateral stress

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Project Feature Performance Issues Data Required

Pavements Soil shrink and swell, frost Index properties, compaction

Sources: AASHTO, FHWA (2002), and FHWA (2017)

3.2.1.3 Performance Monitoring During Construction and Operation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3.2.1.4 Forensic Evaluations

3.2.2 Review of Available Records

Table 3-3. Documents and sources of available information

Types of Sources of Type of Available Information Comments

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Types of Sources of Type of Available Information Comments

Soil survey National Resource Soil classifications using Available information is

Aerial Google EarthTM, Man-made structures, geologic Photographs can track

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Types of Sources of Type of Available Information Comments

Sanborn fire Library of Environmental hazards and Sanborn maps are

3.2.3 Site Reconnaissance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 3-4. Items that need to be evaluated during field reconnaissance

Item Things to Note Comments

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Developing a Subsurface Investigation Plan

3.3.1 Developing a Geophysical Testing Plan

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Project Feature Minimum Number of Investigation Minimum Depth of Investigation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Project Feature Minimum Number of Investigation Minimum Depth of Investigation

Roadway - Spacing of 200 ft (60 m) in uncertain or Depth of 2x the embankment height

Pavements Spacing of 100 to 300 ft (30 to 90 m) Minimum depth of 10 ft (3 m) from the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.