Geomechanics and Design

Chapter 7
GEOMECHANICS
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL
January 2019
Geotechnical Design Manual GEOMECHANICS
Table of Contents
Section Page
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Geotechnical Design Approach......................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Geotechnical Engineering Quality Control ........................................................ 7-2
7.4 Development Of Subsurface Profiles ................................................................ 7-2
7.5 Site Variability ................................................................................................... 7-2
7.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration............................................. 7-3
7.7 Final Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration ...................................................... 7-4
7.8 Field Data Corrections and Normalization ......................................................... 7-4
7.8.1 SPT Corrections .................................................................................... 7-4
7.8.2 CPTu Corrections.................................................................................. 7-7
7.8.3 Correlations for Relative Density From SPT and CPTu ....................... 7-10
7.8.4 Dilatometer Correlation Parameters .................................................... 7-11
7.9 Soil Loading Conditions And Soil Shear Strength Selection ............................ 7-12
7.9.1 Soil Loading ........................................................................................ 7-12
7.9.2 Soil Response ..................................................................................... 7-13
7.9.3 Soil Strength Testing ........................................................................... 7-21
7.10 Total Stress .................................................................................................... 7-28
7.10.1 Sand-Like Soils ................................................................................... 7-28
7.10.2 Clay-Like Soils .................................................................................... 7-29
7.10.3 Transitional Soils ................................................................................. 7-35
7.10.4 Maximum Allowable Total Soil Shear Strengths .................................. 7-35
7.11 Effective Stress............................................................................................... 7-35
7.11.1 Sand-Like Soils ................................................................................... 7-36
7.11.2 Clay-Like Soils .................................................................................... 7-39
7.11.3 Transitional Soils ................................................................................. 7-47
7.11.4 Maximum Allowable Effective Soil Shear Strength .............................. 7-47
7.12 Borrow Materials Soil Shear Strength Selection.............................................. 7-48
7.12.1 SCDOT Borrow Specifications ............................................................ 7-49
7.12.2 USDA Soil Survey Maps ..................................................................... 7-50
7.12.3 Compacted Soils Shear Strength Selection ......................................... 7-52
7.12.4 Allowable Soil Shear Strengths of Compacted Soils ............................ 7-53
7.13 Soil Settlement Parameters ............................................................................ 7-54
7.13.1 Elastic Parameters .............................................................................. 7-54
7.13.2 Consolidation Parameters ................................................................... 7-56
7.14 Rock Parameter Determination ....................................................................... 7-62
7.14.1 Shear Strength Parameters ................................................................. 7-62
7.14.2 Settlement Parameters........................................................................ 7-63
7.15 Scour .............................................................................................................. 7-64
7.15.1 Soil ...................................................................................................... 7-65
7.15.2 Rock.................................................................................................... 7-65
7.16 Dynamic Properties – General ........................................................................ 7-69
7.17 Soil Dynamic Properties.................................................................................. 7-70
7.17.1 Soil Consistency.................................................................................. 7-70
7.17.2 Shear Wave Velocity/Initial Shear Modulus ......................................... 7-71
7.17.3 Cyclic Stress-strain Behavior............................................................... 7-75
7.17.4 Cyclic Residual Shear Strength ........................................................... 7-85
7.18 Rock Dynamic Properties ............................................................................... 7-85
7.19 Electro-Chemical Properties ........................................................................... 7-85
7.20 References ..................................................................................................... 7-86
January 2019 7-i

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 7-1, Site Variability Defined By COV ........................................................................... 7-3
Table 7-2, Assumed Energy Ratio by Hammer Type (CE) ....................................................... 7-5
Table 7-3, Rod Length Correction (CR).................................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-4, Sampler Configuration Correction (CS) ................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-5, Borehole Diameter Correction (CB)......................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-6, Soil Response Classification ................................................................................ 7-14
Table 7-7, OCR Values ......................................................................................................... 7-19
Table 7-8, Soil Shear Strength Selection Based on Strain Level ........................................... 7-21
Table 7-9, Bridge Foundation Soil Parameters ...................................................................... 7-22
Table 7-10, Earth Retaining Structures & Embankment Soil Parameters .............................. 7-23
Table 7-11, Laboratory Testing Soil Shear Strength Determination ....................................... 7-25
Table 7-12, In-Situ Testing - Soil Shear Strength Determination ........................................... 7-26
Table 7-13, Soil Suitability of In-Situ Testing Methods........................................................... 7-27
Table 7-14, Sensitivity of Cohesive Soils............................................................................... 7-33
Table 7-15, Residual Shear Strength Loss Factor (λτ) .......................................................... 7-34
Table 7-16, Maximum Allowable Total Soil Shear Strengths ................................................. 7-35
Table 7-17, Maximum Allowable Effective Soil Shear Strengths ........................................... 7-48
Table 7-18, Elastic Modulus Correlations For Soil Using SPT N-values ................................ 7-54
Table 7-19, Typical Elastic Modulus and Poisson Ratio Values for Soil ................................ 7-56
Table 7-20, Correction of the e-log p Curve for Disturbance.................................................. 7-57
Table 7-21, Correction of the ε-log p Curve for Disturbance .................................................. 7-58
Table 7-22, Constants m and s based on RMR ..................................................................... 7-63
Table 7-23, Values of Rock Mass Strength Parameter, Ms .................................................... 7-66
Table 7-24, Rock Joint Set Number Jn .................................................................................. 7-67
Table 7-25, Joint Roughness Number, Jr .............................................................................. 7-67
Table 7-26, Joint Alteration Number, Ja ................................................................................. 7-67
Table 7-27, Relative Orientation Parameter, Js ..................................................................... 7-69
Table 7-28, Typical Small-Strain Shear Wave Velocity and Initial Shear Modulus ................. 7-72
Table 7-29, Recommended Values γcr1, α, and k for SC Soils ............................................... 7-79
Table 7-30, Procedure for Computing G/Gmax........................................................................ 7-80
Table 7-31, Recommended Value λmin1 (%) for SC Soils ....................................................... 7-81
Table 7-32, Procedure for Computing Damping Ratio ........................................................... 7-83
Table 7-33, Alternate Correlations for Determining Soil Stiffness Based on Gmax .................. 7-84
Table 7-34, Criteria for Substructure Environmental Classifications ...................................... 7-86
7-ii January 2019

List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 7-1, Schematic of Thin Layer Effects............................................................................ 7-8
Figure 7-2, CPTu Thin Layer Correction (CThin) ....................................................................... 7-9
Figure 7-3, Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Chart Using QT versus Bq ................................... 7-10
Figure 7-4, Drainage Time Required ..................................................................................... 7-15
Figure 7-5, Drained Stress-Strain Behavior ........................................................................... 7-16
Figure 7-6, Shear Strength Sands (Direct Shear-Test) .......................................................... 7-17
Figure 7-7, Shear Strength of Clay Consolidated Drained Triaxial......................................... 7-20
Figure 7-8, Shear Strength of Clay Consolidated Undrained Triaxial ..................................... 7-20
Figure 7-9, Shear Modes for Embankment Stability Shear Failure Surface ........................... 7-24
Figure 7-10, τ of Clays and Shales as Function of Failure Orientation .................................. 7-24
Figure 7-11, Shear Strength Measured by In-Situ Testing ..................................................... 7-26
Figure 7-12, Total Principal Stresses .................................................................................... 7-28
Figure 7-13, Undrained Shear Strength – SPT Relationship ................................................. 7-30
Figure 7-14, Undrained Shear Strength Ratio and OCR Relationship ................................... 7-32
Figure 7-15, Sensitivity based on Liquidity Index and σ’vo...................................................... 7-33
Figure 7-16, Remolded Shear Strength vs Liquidity Index ..................................................... 7-34
Figure 7-17, Effective Principal Stresses ............................................................................... 7-36
Figure 7-18, Effective Peak Friction Angle and SPT (N*1,60) Relationship .............................. 7-37
Figure 7-19, Effective Peak Friction Angle and CPT (qt) Relationship ................................... 7-38
Figure 7-20, Effective Peak Friction Angle and DMT (KD) Relationship ................................. 7-38
Figure 7-21, Overconsolidated Clay Failure Envelope (CUw/pp Triaxial Test) ...................... 7-39
Figure 7-22, Plasticity Index versus Drained Friction Angle for NC Clays .............................. 7-40
Figure 7-23, Plasticity Index versus Drained Shear Resistance for NC Clays ....................... 7-41
Figure 7-24, Plasticity Index versus Drained Shear Resistance for OC Clays ....................... 7-42
Figure 7-25, Undrained Shear Strength versus Drained Shear Resistance for OC Clays ...... 7-43
Figure 7-26, Drained Residual Friction Angle and Liquid Limit Relationship .......................... 7-44
Figure 7-27, Updated Drained Residual Friction Angle and Liquid Limit Relationship ........... 7-44
Figure 7-28, Borrow Material Specifications By County ......................................................... 7-50
Figure 7-29, USDA Soil Map – Newberry County, South Carolina......................................... 7-51
Figure 7-30, USDA Roadfill Source Map - Newberry County, South Carolina ....................... 7-52
Figure 7-31, Corrected e-log p Normally Consolidated Curve ............................................... 7-57
Figure 7-32, Corrected e-log p Overconsolidated Curve ....................................................... 7-57
Figure 7-33, Corrected ε-log p Normally Consolidated Curve ................................................ 7-58
Figure 7-34, Corrected ε-log p Overconsolidated Curve ........................................................ 7-58
Figure 7-35, Secondary Compression Index Chart ................................................................ 7-60
Figure 7-36, Consolidation Coefficient and Liquid Limit Relationship .................................... 7-61
Figure 7-37, Stresses Induced in a Soil Element by Vertical Shear Wave ............................. 7-75
Figure 7-38, Hysteretic Stress-Strain Loop for Uniform Cyclic Loading ................................. 7-76
Figure 7-39, Example Shear Modulus Reduction and Damping Ratio Curve ......................... 7-77
Figure 7-40, λmin1, Small-Strain Damping @ σ’m = 1 atm ........................................................ 7-81
Figure 7-41, (λ – λmin) vs. (G/Gmax) Relationship .................................................................... 7-82
January 2019 7-iii

CHAPTER 7
GEOMECHANICS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter presents the geotechnical design philosophy of SCDOT. This philosophy includes
the approach to the geotechnical investigations of the project and the correlations that link the
field and laboratory work that precedes this Chapter to the engineering analysis that is
subsequent to this Chapter. The approach to the geotechnical investigation of transportation
projects entails the use of preliminary and final explorations and reports. The development of
an understanding of the regional and local geological environment and the effect of seismicity
on the project is required. The geotechnical approach provided in this Chapter is not meant to
be the only approach, but a representative approach of the thought process expected to be
used on SCDOT projects. The GEOR shall develop a design approach that reflects both the
requirements of this Manual as well as a good standard-of-practice. While there is some
flexibility in the approach to the design process, the correlations provided in this Chapter shall
be used unless written permission is obtained in advance. All requests for changes shall be
submitted to the PCS/GDS for review and approval. These correlations were adopted after a
review of the geotechnical state-of-practice within the United States and the experience of
SCDOT.
7.2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN APPROACH
Geotechnical engineering requires the use of science, art, and economics to perform analyses
and designs that are suitable for the public use. The science of geotechnical engineering
consists of using the appropriate theories to interpret field data; develop geologic profiles; select
foundation types; perform analyses; develop designs, plans and specifications; construction
monitoring; maintenance; etc.
The art of geotechnical engineering is far more esoteric and relies on the judgment and
experience of the engineer. This is accomplished by knowing the applicability and limitations of
the geotechnical analytical theories and assessing the uncertainties associated with soil
properties, design methodologies, and the resulting impact on structural performance. The
engineer is required to evaluate the design or analysis and decide if it is “reasonable” and
whether it will meet the performance expectations that have been established. Reasonableness
is a subjective term that depends on the engineer’s experience, both in design and construction.
If the solution does not appear reasonable, the engineer should make the appropriate changes
to develop a reasonable solution. In addition, the engineer should document why the first
solution was not reasonable and why the second solution is reasonable. This documentation is
an important part of the development of the design approach. If the solution appears
reasonable, then the design proceeds to the economics of geotechnical engineering.
The economics of geotechnical engineering assesses the effectiveness of the solution from a
cost perspective. Sometimes geotechnical engineers get caught up in the science and art of
geotechnical engineering and do not evaluate other non-geotechnical solutions that may be cost
effective both in design and construction. For example, alternate alignments could be explored
to avoid poor soils, decreasing vertical alignment to reduce surface loads, placing alternate
designs on the plans to facilitate competitive bidding, etc. The science, art, and economics are
not sequential facets of geotechnical engineering but are very often intermixed throughout the
design process.
January 2019 7-1

7.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING QUALITY CONTROL
A formal internal geotechnical engineering Quality Control plan shall be established for all
phases of the geotechnical engineering process and shall be made available to SCDOT upon
request. The first-line geotechnical engineer is expected to perform analyses with due diligence
and a self-prescribed set of checks and balances. The geotechnical Quality Control plan should
include milestones in the project development where analysis, recommendations, etc. are
reviewed. The review shall be conducted by at least 1 other geotechnical engineer of equal
experience or higher seniority. Formal documentation of the Quality Control process shall be
detectable upon review of geotechnical calculations, reports, etc. All engineering work shall be
performed under the direct supervision of a Professional Engineer (P.E.) licensed by the South
Carolina State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors in accordance
with Chapter 22 of Title 40 of the 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina, latest amendment.
7.4 DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSURFACE PROFILES
The SCDOT geotechnical field exploration process indicated in Chapter 4, allows for a
preliminary and a final geotechnical exploration program for all projects. The primary purpose of
the preliminary exploration is to provide a first glance at the project, while the final exploration is
to provide all of the necessary geotechnical information to complete the final design.
It is incumbent upon the GEOR to understand the geology of the project site and determine the
potential effects of the geology on the project. The GEOR should also have knowledge of the
regional geology that should be used in the development of the exploration program for the
project. In addition to the geologic environment, the GEOR shall be aware of the seismic
environment (see Chapters 11 and 12). The GEOR is also required to know and understand
the impacts of the design earthquake event on the subsurface conditions at the project site (see
Chapters 13 and 14 for the impacts and designs, respectively). The geologic formation and local
seismicity may have a bearing on the selection of the foundation type and potential capacity.
For example, for driven piles bearing in the Cooper Marl formation of the Charleston area,
prestressed concrete piles should penetrate the formation approximately 5 feet, with most of the
capacity being developed by steel H-pile extensions, penetrating into the Marl.
The GEOR shall develop a subsurface profile for both the preliminary and final geotechnical
subsurface explorations. The subsurface profile developed shall take into consideration the site
variability as indicated in Section 7.5. The profile should account for all available data and is
normally depicted along the longitudinal axis of the structure or roadway. The bridge profile shall
extend from 100 feet from either end of the bridge, inclusively. However, in some cases, cross-
sectional subsurface profiles transverse to the axis of the structure or roadway may be required
to determine if a formation is varying (i.e., sloping bearing strata) along the transverse axis.
7.5 SITE VARIABILITY
Keeping in mind the geologic framework of the site, the GEOR shall evaluate the site variability
(SV) or site uniformity. The SV is used in determining the resistance factor, φ, and the required
amount of load testing for deep foundations (see Chapter 9). A site with “Low” SV is more
uniform than a site with “High” SV. A “High” SV shall not be allowed except with review and
approval by the PC/GDS. All “High” variability, unless previously approved, sites shall be
subdivided into smaller “sites” such that the SV is either “Low” or “Medium”. All “sites” shall be
geologically continuous (i.e., shall contain similar soils). The SV shall be determined using
energy corrected SPT N-values (N60) (see Section 7.8.1.6 and Equation 7-6), or the corrected
tip resistance (qt) from the CPT or the RQD for rock cores. Other site factors such as undrained
shear strength, etc., may be used to determine the SV, only with the prior written permission of
7-2 January 2019

the PC/GDS. The Coefficient of Variation (COV) shall be determined on the bearing stratum at
each testing location using the following equation.
𝝈𝝈
𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = �
Equation 7-1
𝒙𝒙
Where,
σ = Standard deviation
x = Mean (average) value
The σ and x shall be determined using statistical equations that are generally recognized. An
average COV ( COV ) shall be developed based on the results of the individual test location
COVs. The COV shall be used to determine the SV using Table 7-1.
Table 7-1, Site Variability Defined By COV

Site Variability (SV) COV
Low < 25%
Medium 25% ≤ COV < 40%
High 40% ≤
7.6 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Prior to the commencement of the preliminary exploration, the GEOR shall visit the site and
conduct a GeoScoping. The GeoScoping consists of the observation of the project site to
identify areas that may impact the project from the geotechnical perspective. These areas shall
be selected for exploration during the preliminary exploration if the site is located within the
existing SCDOT ROW. If the areas of concern are located outside of the existing SCDOT
ROW, then these areas shall be investigated as early as possible in the project development
process. For projects conducted by SCDOT, the results of the GeoScoping shall be reported on
the appropriate forms (see Appendix A). For non-in-house projects, the GEC shall use the form
developed and approved by the GEC firm. The form shall be included in the Appendix to the
preliminary geotechnical report. An engineering professional with experience in observing and
reviewing sites for potential geotechnical concerns shall be responsible for conducting the
GeoScoping.
The preliminary exploration requirements are detailed in Chapter 4, while the contents of the
preliminary geotechnical report are detailed in Chapter 21. The primary purpose of the
preliminary exploration is to provide an initial assessment of the project. Typically, there will be
few project details available prior to conducting the preliminary exploration; however, the most
important details that will be known are what type of project it is (i.e., bridge replacement, new
road, intersection improvement, etc.) and where the project is located. In many cases, the final
alignment and structure locations may not be known. The primary purpose of this type of
exploration is not to provide final designs, but to determine if there are any issues that could
significantly affect the project. These issues should be identified and the potential impacts and
consequences of these design issues should be evaluated by the project design team. Design
issues should be identified and documented for additional exploration during the final
geotechnical exploration. If the project is located completely within the SCDOT ROW, then the
entire exploration may be performed during the preliminary exploration phase of the project;
however, the report prepared shall be a preliminary report that meets the requirements of
Chapter 21.
January 2019 7-3
7.7 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The final geotechnical exploration shall conform to the requirements detailed in Chapter 4, while
the contents of the final geotechnical report shall conform to the requirements detailed in
Chapter 21. The final exploration shall be laid out to use the testing locations from the
preliminary exploration to the greatest extent possible without compromising the results of the
final exploration. The final exploration shall include those areas identified during the preliminary
exploration or during the GeoScoping as requiring additional investigation. If these areas
impact the performance of the project, these impacts shall be brought to the immediate attention
of the Design/Program Manager or the project team leader for consultant designed projects. In
addition, the GEOR shall also include recommended mitigation methods.
7.8 FIELD DATA CORRECTIONS AND NORMALIZATION
In-situ testing methods such as the SPT, the CPTu, and the DMT may require corrections or
adjustments prior to using the results for soil property correlation or in design. These in-situ
testing methods are described in Chapter 5. The SPT and CPTu field data are the most
commonly corrected or normalized to account for overburden pressure, energy, rod length, non-
standard sampler configuration, borehole diameter, fines content, and the presence of thin very
stiff layers. The data obtained from the DMT is corrected for the effects of the instrument
operation on the results of the testing. All corrections for in-situ testing methods that are used in
geotechnical design and analyses shall be documented in the geotechnical report. The
following sections discuss corrections and adjustments in greater detail.
7.8.1 SPT Corrections
Many correlations exist that relate the corrected N-values to relative density (Dr), peak effective
angle of internal friction (f’), undrained shear strength (Su), and other parameters; therefore it is
incumbent upon the designer to understand the correlations being used and the requirements of
the correlations for corrected N-values. Design methods are available for using N-values
directly in the design of driven piles, embankments, spread footings, and drilled shafts. These
corrections are especially important in soil Shear Strength Loss (SSL) potential assessments
(Chapter 13). Design calculations using SPT N-value correlations should be performed using
corrected N-values; however, only the actual field SPT Nmeas-values should be plotted on the
soil test boring logs and profiles depicting the results of SPT borings. Each of the corrections is
discussed in greater detail in the following Sub-sections.
7.8.1.1 Energy Correction (CE)
The type of hammer used to collect split-spoon samples shall be noted on the boring logs.
Typically correlations used between soil parameters and N-values are based on a hammer
system having a transferred energy of 60 percent of the theoretical maximum. A split-spoon
sampler advanced with a manual safety hammer has historically been assumed to have an
approximate transferred energy of 60 percent (ER ≈ 60%); although, the relatively recent ability
to make actual energy measurements has indicated that this assumption is not necessarily
valid. The energy ratio (ER) is the measured energy divided by the theoretical maximum (i.e.,
140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches or 4,200 inch-pounds). The measured energy is
determined as discussed in Chapter 5.
The split-spoon sampler is also advanced with either an automatic hammer (measured ER is
typically greater than 60%); a manual safety hammer (measured ER is typically 60%); or a
manual donut hammer (measured ER is typically less than 60%) [Reminder: The use of the
donut hammer is not permitted]. The corrections for the donut hammer are provided for
7-4 January 2019

information only since some past projects were performed using the donut hammer. N-values
obtained using either the automatic or the manual safety hammer will require correction prior to
being used in engineering analysis. As indicated in Chapter 5, the measured transferred energy
(ER) for each drill-rig and hammer shall be determined. The energy correction factor (CE) shall
be determined using the following equation.
𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬
𝑪𝑪𝑬𝑬 = Equation 7-2
𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 = = Equation 7-3
𝑬𝑬𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝟒𝟒,𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
Where,
Emeas = Measured energy (see Chapter 5 for determination)
ER is expressed as an integer (i.e., 90 percent energy is ER = 90) in Equation 7-2. The CE

values provided in Table 7-2 for each hammer type shall only be used on boring logs where the
hammer energy transfer ratio is not provided. In addition, if the hammer type is not indicated
and the boring was obtained prior to the year 2000, the hammer shall be assumed to be a
manual safety hammer.
Table 7-2, Assumed Energy Ratio by Hammer Type (CE)

Energy Ratio
Hammer Type CE
(ER) %
Automatic 80 1.33
Safety 60 1.00
Donut 45 0.75
7.8.1.2 Overburden Correction (CN)
Nmeas-values in coarse-grained soils will increase with depth due to increasing overburden
pressure. The overburden correction is used to standardize all N-values to a reference
overburden pressure. The reference overburden pressure is 1 ton per square foot (tsf) (1
atmosphere). The overburden correction factor (CN) (Liao and Whitman (1986)) for coarse-
grained soils is provided below. A CN of 1.0 shall be used for fine-grained soils.
𝟏𝟏 𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓
𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 = � ′ � ≤ 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕 Equation 7-4
𝝈𝝈 𝒗𝒗
Where,
σ’v = Effective overburden stress, tsf
7.8.1.3 Rod Length Correction (CR)
Nmeas-values measured in the field should be corrected for the length of the rod used to obtain
the sample. The original N60-value measurements were obtained using long rods (i.e., rod
length greater than 33 feet); therefore, a correction to obtain “equivalent” N60-values for short
rod length (i.e., rod length less than 33 feet) is required. Typically, the rod length will be the
depth of the sample (d) plus an assumed 5 feet of stick up above the ground surface. The rod
length correction factor (CR) equation is provided below with typical values presented in Table 7-
3 (McGregor and Duncan (1998)).
January 2019 7-5

(−𝟎𝟎.𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓)
𝑪𝑪𝑹𝑹 = 𝒆𝒆−𝒆𝒆 Equation 7-5
Where,
d = Depth of sample, ft
Table 7-3, Rod Length Correction (CR)

Rod Length
CR
(feet)
< 13 0.75
13 – 20 0.85
20.1 – 33 0.95
> 33 1.00
7.8.1.4 Sampler Configuration Correction (CS)
The sampler configuration correction factor (CS) (Cetin et al. (2004)) is used to account for
samplers designed to be used with liners, but the liners are omitted during sampling. If the
sampler is not designed for liners or if the correct size liner is used no correction is required (i.e.,
CS = 1.0). When liners are omitted there is an increase to the inside diameter of the sampler;
therefore, the friction between the soil and the sampler is reduced. The sampler configuration
correction factor is presented in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4, Sampler Configuration Correction (CS)

Sampler Configuration CS
Standard Sampler not designed for liners 1.0
Standard Sampler designed for and used with
1.0
liners
Standard Sampler designed for liners and
used without liners:
Nmeas ≤ 10 1.1
11 ≤ Nmeas ≤ 29 1 + Nmeas/100
30 ≤ Nmeas 1.3
7.8.1.5 Borehole Diameter Correction (CB)
The borehole diameter affects the Nmeas-value if the borehole diameter is greater than 4.5
inches. Large diameter boreholes allow for stress relaxation of the soil materials. This stress
relaxation can be significant in Sand-Like soils, but has a negligible effect in Clay-Like soils.
Therefore, for Clay-Like soils use CB equal to 1.0. Listed in Table 7-5 are the borehole diameter
correction factors (CB) for Sand-Like soils (McGregor and Duncan (1998)).
Table 7-5, Borehole Diameter Correction (CB)

Borehole Diameter
CB
(inches)
2-1/2 – 4-1/2 1.00
6 1.05
8 1.15
7.8.1.6 Corrected N-values
As indicated previously, the N-values measured in the field (Nmeas) require corrections or
adjustments prior to being used for the selection of design parameters or in direct design
7-6 January 2019

methods. The N-value requirements of the correlations or the direct design methods should be
well understood and known to the GEOR. Please note that the correction for fines content has
been intentionally left out of this Section. The correction for fines content is used only in the
determination of soil SSL (see Chapter 13). Corrections typically applied to the Nmeas-values are
listed in the following equations.
𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑬𝑬 Equation 7-6
𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-7
𝑵𝑵∗𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑹𝑹 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑺𝑺 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑩𝑩 Equation 7-8
𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵∗𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-9
7.8.2 CPTu Corrections
The CPTu corrected tip resistance (qt, see Chapter 6) and sleeve resistance (fs) require
corrections to account for the effect of overburden on the tip and sleeve resistance. The tip
resistance may also be corrected to account for thin stiff layers located between softer soil
layers. These corrections are discussed in the following Sub-sections.
7.8.2.1 Effective Overburden Normalization
The corrected CPTu tip resistance (qt) and sleeve resistance (fs) in sands are influenced by the
effective overburden stress. This effect is accounted for by normalizing the measured
resistances to a standard overburden stress of 1 tsf (1 atm). The normalized and corrected
CPTu tip resistance (qt,1) and sleeve resistance (fs,1), for coarse-grained soils are provided
below. A CN of 1.0 shall be used for fine-grained soils.
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 ∗ 𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 Equation 7-10
𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 ∗ 𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔 Equation 7-11
Where,
qt = Corrected CPTu tip resistance, tsf (1 MPa ≅ 10.442 tsf)
fs = Measured CPTu sleeve resistance, tsf (1 MPa ≅ 10.442 tsf)
CN = Overburden normalization factor is the same for qt,1 and fs,1 as indicated in Equation
7-4.
7.8.2.2 Thin Layer Correction
When the corrected CPTu tip resistance (qt) is obtained in a thin layer of granular soil that is
embedded between softer surrounding soils, the corrected tip resistance (qt) will be reduced due
to the effects of the underlying softer soils. This commonly occurs in fluvial environments where
granular soils are interbedded between layers of fine-grained soils. Granular soils that are
affected by this reduction in corrected tip resistance (qt) are typically sand layers that are less
than 3-1/2 feet (~1,074 mm) thick and where the ratio of the corrected tip resistance of the sand
(qtA) is twice the corrected tip resistance of the cohesive soil (qtB) (see Figure 7-1). This
correction only applies to thin sand layers (i.e., less than 3-1/2 feet thick). The CPTu tip
resistance for this special case is normalized and corrected for the thin layer (qt,1,Thin) and is
computed as indicated in the following equation.
January 2019 7-7
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 ∗ �𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏 � Equation 7-12
Where,
qt,1 = Normalized and corrected CPTu tip resistance, MPa (1 MPa ≅ 10.442 tsf)
CThin = Thin layer correction factor and is determined from the following equation and is
depicted in Figure 7-2.
𝑯𝑯 𝟐𝟐
� �
𝒅𝒅𝒄𝒄
𝐂𝐂𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 �� − 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕� Equation 7-13
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
Where,
H = Thickness of the soil layer less than or equal to 1,074 mm, millimeters (mm)
dc = diameter of cone, mm (35.7 mm for a standard 10 cm2 cone)
Figure 7-1, Schematic of Thin Layer Effects

(Idriss and Boulanger (2008))
7-8 January 2019

Note: KH = CThin
Figure 7-2, CPTu Thin Layer Correction (CThin)
7.8.2.3 Soil Behavior Type and Normalization of CPTu Data
The Soil Behavior Type, Ic, is computed using normalized tip resistance (QT) and normalized
sleeve friction (FR). The normalized corrected CPTu tip resistance (qt,1,Thin,N) is computed by
dividing the corrected CPTu resistance (qt,1,Thin) by the atmospheric pressure (Pa = 1 atm = 1 tsf)
to eliminate units. The following equations should be used.
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 −𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗
𝑸𝑸𝑻𝑻 = Equation 7-14
𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗
𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏
𝑭𝑭𝑹𝑹 = � � ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 Equation 7-15
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 −𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗
(𝒖𝒖𝟐𝟐 −𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 )
𝑩𝑩𝒒𝒒 = Equation 7-16
�𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 −𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗 �
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻,𝑵𝑵 = Equation 7-17
𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂
Where,
qt,1,Thin = Normalized, corrected and thin layer corrected tip resistance, tsf
fs,1 = Where fs is the normalized CPTU cone tip resistance, tsf
σ’v = Effective overburden pressure, tsf
σv = Total overburden pressure, tsf
u2 = Pore pressure measurement located on the tip shoulder, tsf
u0 = Hydrostatic water pressure, tsf
January 2019 7-9

The Soil Behavior Type, Ic, is computed using the following equation.
𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 = �(𝟑𝟑. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 − 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑸𝑸𝑻𝑻 )𝟐𝟐 + (𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 + 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑭𝑭𝑹𝑹 )𝟐𝟐 Equation 7-18
The Ic can be generally correlated to a soil classification as indicated in Chapter 6 and using
Figure 7-3 to relate QT to Bq. The numbers indicated in each zone correspond to the CPTu soil
behavior type indicated in Chapter 6.
Figure 7-3, Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Chart Using QT versus Bq

(Robertson and Cabal (2015))
7.8.3 Correlations for Relative Density From SPT and CPTu
Correlations to compute relative density (Dr) from SPT and CPTu testing may be required for
soil SSL analyses. The correlations proposed by Boulanger (2003) to relate SPT N-values
(N*1,60) and CPTu tip resistance (qt,1,Thin,N) to relative density (Dr) are provided below.
𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓
𝑫𝑫𝒓𝒓 = �� ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% Equation 7-19
𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒
Where,
𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ≤ 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃
Equation 7-20
𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝑫𝑫𝒓𝒓 = �𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ �𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻,𝑵𝑵 � − 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎� ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏%
Where,
7-10 January 2019

𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻,𝑵𝑵 ≤ 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
Where,
N*1,60 = Corrected SPT N-value, blows per foot

qt,1,Thin,N = Normalized, corrected and thin layer corrected tip resistance, unitless
Dr = Relative Density in percent
The relative density correlations (Equations 7-19 and 7-20) for SPT and CPTu results can be
combined to develop an SPT equivalent correlation for normalized CPTu tip resistance as
indicated by the following equation.
𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝟐𝟐
𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ �𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ �𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻,𝑵𝑵 � − 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎� Equation 7-21
Alternatively, Jefferies and Davies (1993) recommend a correlation between qt and N60. This
correlation has modified to the following equation.
𝒒𝒒
�𝒑𝒑 𝒕𝒕 �
𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝒂𝒂 � 𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 Equation 7-22
�𝟖𝟖. 𝟓𝟓 − �𝟏𝟏 − ��
𝟒𝟒.𝟔𝟔
Where,
qt = Corrected CPTu tip resistance, tsf
pa = Atmospheric Pressure (1 tsf = 1 atm), tsf
Ic = Soil Behavior Type, dimensionless
7.8.4 Dilatometer Correlation Parameters
Using the corrected pressure readings, p0, p1 and p2 (see Chapter 6), the horizontal stress index
(KD), the material index (ID), the Dilatometer modulus (ED) and the pore pressure index (UD)
shall be reported for all DMT results. The following equations shall be used.
(𝒑𝒑𝟎𝟎 −𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 )
𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 = Equation 7-23
𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗
(𝒑𝒑 −𝒑𝒑𝟎𝟎 )
𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑫 = (𝒑𝒑𝟏𝟏 Equation 7-24
𝟎𝟎 −𝒖𝒖𝒐𝒐 )
𝑬𝑬𝑫𝑫 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕 ∗ (𝒑𝒑𝟏𝟏 − 𝒑𝒑𝟎𝟎 ) Equation 7-25
(𝒑𝒑 −𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 )
𝑼𝑼𝑫𝑫 = (𝒑𝒑𝟐𝟐 Equation 7-26
𝟎𝟎 −𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 )
Where,
p0 = Corrected A-pressure, bars (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
p1 = Corrected B-pressure, bars (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
p2 = Corrected C-pressure, bars (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
January 2019 7-11

σ’vo = Effective overburden stress, tsf (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)

u0 = Equilibrium pore pressure, bars (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
7.9 SOIL LOADING CONDITIONS AND SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH SELECTION
Geotechnical engineering as presented in this Manual has a statistical (LRFD) and

performance-base design component that requires selection of appropriate soil properties in
order to design within an appropriate margin of safety consistent with Chapter 9 and also to
predict as reasonably as possible the geotechnical performance required in Chapter 10. The
selection of soil shear strengths by the GEOR requires that the designer have a good
understanding of the loading conditions and soil behavior, high quality soil sampling and testing,
and local geotechnical experience with the various geologic formations. This Section provides
guidance in the selection of shear strengths for Clay-Like soils (i.e., clays and plastic silts) and
Sand-like soils (i.e., sands and nonplastic silts) for use in geotechnical design. The selection of
shear strength parameters for rock is covered in Section 7.14.
An in-depth review of the topics addressed in this Section is provided in Sabatini, Bachus,
Mayne, Schneider and Zettler (2002) and Duncan and Wright (2005).
Geotechnical load resisting analyses that are typically performed in the design of transportation
facilities are bearing resistance of a shallow foundation, axial (tension and compression) load
resistance of deep foundations (drilled shafts and piles), lateral load resistance of deep
foundations, stability analyses of hillside slopes and constructed embankments, sliding
resistance of ERSs, and passive soil resistance. Each of these analyses can have various
loading conditions that are associated with the limit state (Strength, Service, and Extreme
Event) under evaluation.
Soil shear strength is not a unique property and must be determined based on the anticipated
soil response for the loading condition being evaluated. This requires the following 3-step
evaluation process:
1. Evaluate the Soil Loading: The soil loading should be investigated based on
the soil loading rate, the direction of loading, and the boundary conditions for the
limit state (Strength, Service, Extreme Event) being evaluated.
2. Evaluate Soil Response: The soil response should be evaluated based on pore
pressure build-up (∆u), the soil’s state of stress, and volumetric soil changes
during shearing, and the anticipated magnitude of soil deformation or strain for
the soil loading being applied.
3. Evaluate Appropriate Soil Strength Determination Method: This consists of
determining the most appropriate soil testing method that best models the
loading condition and the soil response for determination of soil shear strength
design parameters. Also included in this step is the review of the results for
reasonableness based on available correlations and regional experience.
The 3-step evaluation process is discussed in detail in the following Sections.
7.9.1 Soil Loading
The soil loading can be evaluated with respect to loading rate, direction of loading, and
boundary conditions. The loading rate primarily affects the soil’s response with respect to pore
water pressure build-up (∆u). When the loading rate either increases or decreases the pore
water pressure (∆u ≠ 0), the loading is referred to as short-term loading. Short-term loading,
during or immediately after construction, typically occurs in fine-grained soils, because these
7-12 January 2019

soils drain much slower than coarse-grained soils which allows for an increase or decrease in
pore pressures (∆u) during loading. Conversely, if the loading rate does not affect the pore
water pressure (∆u = 0), the loading is referred to as a long-term loading. Coarse-grained soils,
typically, do not build pore pressures, because drainage is relatively rapid. Therefore, long-term
loading conditions would be applicable even immediately after the completion of construction.
The next Section discusses the response of the soil in greater detail.
Short-term loadings typically occur during construction such as when earth-moving equipment
places large soil loads within a relatively short amount of time. The actual construction
equipment (cranes, dump trucks, compaction equipment, etc.) should also be considered during
the evaluation of construction loadings. Construction loadings are typically evaluated under the
Strength limit state. Earthquakes or impacts (vessel or vehicle collisions) that can apply a
significant amount of loading on the soil within a short amount of time are also referred to as
short-term loadings; however, because of the relative transient and infrequent nature of
earthquake and impact loadings, geotechnical design for these types of loadings are performed
under the Extreme Event limit state. It is noted that coarse-grained soils during an Extreme
Event loading may experience an increase in pore pressure (∆u > 0) that may significantly affect
the soil response (see Chapter 13).
Long-term loadings are typically the result of static driving loads placed on the soils when
performing limit state equilibrium analyses such as those that occur with embankments,
retaining walls, or foundations that have been in place for a sufficient length of time that the pore
water pressures have dissipated. These types of loadings are typically evaluated under the
Strength and Service limit states.
The direction of loading is directly related to the critical failure surface and its angle of incidence
with respect to the soil element under evaluation. This becomes important when analyzing the
soil shear strength with respect to a base of a retaining wall sliding over the foundation or during
the analysis of soil stability where the failure surface intersects the soil at various angles within
the soil mass. The shear strength is also affected by plane strain loading condition as is
typically observed under structures such as continuous wall footings. Plane strain loading
occurs when the strain in the direction of intermediate principal stress is zero.
Soil loading boundary conditions result from the soil-structure interaction between the loads
imposed by the structure and the soil. The loadings and soil response are interdependent
based on the stress-strain characteristics of the structure and the soil. Boundary conditions also
include the frictional interface response between the structure and the soil. These boundary
conditions can be very complex and affect the magnitude of the soil loadings, magnitude of the
soil resistance, the distribution of the soil loading (rigid or flexible foundation), and the direction
of the loading.
7.9.2 Soil Response
The application of load to a soil results in a change in either pore pressures (Δu) and/or a
change in soil volume (δv). How the soil responds to these changes in part determines whether
drained or undrained shear strengths are required. Further how fast the load is applied also
affects these changes. The following discussion is based on the assumptions that the soil is
completely saturated (S = 100 percent) and that the load is instantaneously placed. If the load
is placed incrementally, it is assumed that each increment is placed instantaneously. Guidance
will be provided at the end of the Section on how to handle unsaturated soil. The following
paragraphs discuss in greater detail the effects of loading on the soil.
January 2019 7-13

The ability of a soil to behave in an undrained (∆u ≠ 0) or a drained (∆u = 0) condition is

controlled by the percentage of fines and the plasticity of the fines. For the purpose of
determining soil response, the soil behaviors provided in Table 7-6 shall be used. The use of
Sand-Like soils strictly as a frictional material and Clay-Like soils as a strictly cohesive material
is only anticipated when using correlations. The results of actual shear strength testing will
determine shear strength parameters (i.e., ϕ and c) that are to be used in design. In addition,
the Soil Behavior Type, Ic, from CPTu and the material index, ID, from DMT testing is also
included.
Table 7-6, Soil Response Classification
The pore water pressure response (∆u) that allows water to move in or out of the soil over time
is dependent on the soil drainage characteristics (i.e., percent fines) and the drainage path
length. The time for drainage to occur can be estimated by using Terzaghi’s theory of
1-dimensional consolidation where the time required to reach 99% of the equilibrium volume
change, t99, is determined by the following equation.
𝑫𝑫𝟐𝟐
𝒕𝒕𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗 = 𝟒𝟒 ∗ � � Equation 7-27
𝒄𝒄
𝒗𝒗
Where,
D = Longest distance that water must travel to flow out of the soil mass, ft
cv = Coefficient of vertical consolidation, ft2/sec
Typical drainage times for various types of soil deposits based on Equation 7-27 are provided in
Figure 7-4. It can readily be seen that Sand-Like soils (see Table 7-6) drain within minutes to
months while Clay-Like soils drain within months to years. Please note that it is assumed that
Sand-Like soils will behave cohesionlessly (i.e., in frictional manner) and that Clay-Like soils will
behave cohesively. The transitional soils may behave as either Sand-Like or Clay-Like
depending on percent fines and plasticity. The behavior of the transitional soils is anticipated to
be a combination of cohesionless and cohesive. The determination of the behavior of these
soils will be the responsibility of the GEOR. Depending on the percent fines and the plasticity
these soils may drain in days to years. Even though a soil formation may behave in an
undrained condition at the beginning of the load application with excess pore water pressures
(∆u ≠ 0), with sufficient time to allow for pore pressure dissipation, the soils will reach a drained
condition where static loads are in equilibrium and there is no excess pore water pressure (∆u =
0). Because soil layers may have different drainage characteristics and drainage paths within a
soil profile, soil layers may be at various stages of drainage with some soil layers responding in
an undrained condition while other layers respond in a drained condition.
7-14 January 2019

Figure 7-4, Drainage Time Required

(Duncan and Wright (2005))
Volumetric change (δv) during shearing can significantly affect the shear strength behavior of
the soils. When the soil response is a decrease (-δv) in volume during soil shearing the soils are
termed to have contractive behavior. Loose sands and soft clays typically have contractive
behavior. When the soil response is an increase (+δv) in volume during soil shearing these soils
are termed to have dilative behavior. Overconsolidated clays and medium-dense sands
typically have dilative behavior. Soils that do not exhibit volumetric change during shearing (δv
= 0) are termed to have steady state behavior.
For typical Sand-Like or Clay-Like soils, it has been observed that the soil shear stress (τ)
varies as the soil strains or deforms during soil shearing. Selection of the appropriate soil shear
strength to be used in design must be compatible with the deformation or strain that the soil will
exhibit under the loading. This is best illustrated in Figure 7-5, where the drained behavior of 2
stress-strain curves is depicted, with each curve representing a different effective consolidation
stress (σ’v1 and σ’v2) shown. On the left of Figure 7-5 is a shear stress vs. shear strain plot (τ-γs
plot). Because there is a well-defined peak shear stress (τmax) in the plots this would be
indicative of dilative soil behavior of either dense sand or overconsolidated clay. The maximum
shear stress (τmax) is termed the peak shear strength (τPeak = τmax). In overconsolidated clay
soils, as the maximum shear stress (τmax) is exceeded, post-peak strain softening occurs until a
fully-softened strength (τNC) is reached. The fully-softened strength is a post-peak strain
softening strength that is considered to be the shear strength that is equivalent to peak shear
strength of the same soil in the normally consolidated (NC) stress state (τPeak ≈ τNC). For very
large shearing strains in soils (cohesive or cohesionless), the shear stress value is reduced
further to a residual shear strength (τr). The Mohr-Coulomb effective shear strength envelopes
for peak shear strength (τPeak = τmax), fully-softened shear strength (τPeak ≈ τNC), and residual
shear strength (τr) are illustrated on the right side of Figure 7-5.
January 2019 7-15

Figure 7-5, Drained Stress-Strain Behavior

(Sabatini, et al. (2002))
There are various soil models that are used to characterize soil shear strength. The simplest
and most commonly used soil shear strength model is the Mohr-Coulomb soil failure criteria.
More sophisticated soil shear strength models such as critical state soil mechanics and
numerical models (finite element constitutive soil models) exist and are to be used when simpler
models such as the Mohr-Coulomb soil failure criteria cannot accurately predict the soil
response.
7.9.2.1 Soil Response – Sand-Like
The soils included in this category are typically clean to dirty sands and inelastic silts (AASHTO
classifications A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-3 and A-4). Refer to Table 7-6 for the fine contents and
plasticity requirements for Sand-Like soils. The fines content and plasticity of these soils is such
that the effect on the rate of loading will be minimal. An Ic less than or equal to 2.05 (Ic ≤ 2.05)
from CPTu testing is also indicative of sandy type soil behavior. This is a nominal value from
Robertson and Cabal (2015); however, the actual soil behavior shall be determined from the
correlation boring obtained adjacent to the CPTu as required in Chapter 4. If the Ic value for
sandy type soil behavior is shown to be different, then that Ic shall be used for the entire project
site. It is noted that Ic is not a soil classification, but an indication of Soil Behavior Type. In
addition, a material index, ID, of greater than or equal to 1.8 (ID ≥ 1.8) is also indicative of sandy
behavior from the DMT. These soils will have cohesionless behavior. Because of the relatively
rapid drainage anticipated for these soils, less than 100 hours (see Figure 7-4), no excess pore
pressures are anticipated (∆u = 0) (i.e., drained conditions and effective stresses are applicable)
and all changes in volume will occur either during loading or immediately after the completion of
loading (i.e., all settlement will be elastic).
When drained conditions exist (∆u = 0), effective stress parameters are used to evaluate soil
shear strength. Effective stress is characterized by using effective shear strength parameters
7-16 January 2019

(c’, f’) and effective stress, σ’vo, (use total unit weights above the water table and buoyant (total
unit weight minus the unit weight of water) unit weight below the water table). The basic Mohr-
Coulomb soil failure criteria for effective stress shear strength (τ’) is shown in the following
equation.
𝛕𝛕′ = 𝐜𝐜 ′ + 𝛔𝛔′𝐯𝐯𝐯𝐯 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 𝛟𝛟′ Equation 7-28
Where,
c’ = Effective soil cohesion. The effective cohesion for cohesionless soils is typically
assumed to equal zero (c’ = 0), psf.
σ’vo = Effective vertical overburden pressure. Buoyant unit weights (γB= γT - γw) are used
below the water table and total unit weights (γT) are used above the water table,
psf.
f’ = Effective internal soil friction angle. The effective internal soil friction angle (f’) for a
cohesionless soil is typically greater than the total internal soil friction angle (f),
degrees.
The soil behavior of typical Sand-Like soils can be further illustrated by comparing the
stress-strain behavior of granular soils having various densities as shown in Figure 7-6.
Medium and dense sands typically reach a peak shear strength (τPeak = τmax) value and then
decrease to a residual shear strength value at large displacements. The volume of medium and
dense sands initially decreases (contractive behavior) and then increases as the soil grains
dilate (dilative behavior) with shear displacement until it reaches a point of almost constant
volume (steady state behavior). The shear stress in loose sands increases with shear
displacement to a maximum value and then remains constant. The volume of loose sands
gradually decrease (contractive behavior) until it reaches a point of almost constant volume
(steady state behavior).
Figure 7-6, Shear Strength Sands (Direct Shear-Test)

(Das (1997))
January 2019 7-17

The soil response is influenced significantly by the soils pore water pressure response (∆u)
resulting from the rate of loading as the soils attempt to reach a state of equilibrium. The
undrained condition is a soil response that occurs when there is either an increase (+) in pore
water pressure (∆u > 0) or a decrease (-) in pore water pressure (∆u < 0) within the soil during
soil loading. The drained condition is a soil response that occurs when there is no change in
pore water pressure (∆u = 0) as a result of the soil loading.
7.9.2.2 Soil Response – Clay-Like
The soils in this category are typically elastic silts and fat (plastic) clays (AASHTO classifications
A-2-7, A-7-5, and A-7-6). Clay-Like soils will have more than 20 percent fines. Refer to Table
7-6 for the plasticity requirements for Clay-Like soils. Where the rate of loading and plasticity
can have a significant impact on how these soils perform. An Ic greater than or equal to 2.6 (2.6
≤ Ic) from CPTu testing is also indicative of clayey type soil behavior. This is a nominal value
from Robertson and Cabal (2015); however, the actual soil behavior shall be determined from
the correlation boring obtained adjacent to the CPTu as required in Chapter 4. If the Ic value for
clayey type soil behavior is shown to be different, then that Ic shall be used for the entire project
addition, an ID of less than or equal to 0.6 (ID ≤ 0.6) is also indicative of clayey behavior from the
DMT. These soils will have cohesive behavior. Typically, these soils will have drainage times
measured in months to years, pore pressures are anticipated to change (∆u ≠ 0) and any
changes in volume (±δv) will occur over time. Undrained shear strengths and total stress
conditions are applicable to these types of soils for short-term loading conditions. Under long-
term loading conditions, drained shear strengths and effective stress conditions are applicable.
See the previous Section for the discussion on the development of drained shear strengths and
effective stress conditions.
When undrained conditions exist (∆u ≠ 0), total stress parameters are used to evaluate soil
shear strength. The total stress condition is characterized by using total shear strength
parameters (c, f) and total stress, σvo, (total unit weights). The basic Mohr-Coulomb soil failure
criteria for total stress shear strength (τ), also referred to as the undrained shear strength (Su),
is shown in the following equation.
𝝉𝝉 = 𝒄𝒄 + 𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝝓𝝓 Equation 7-29
Where,
c = Total soil cohesion, psf.
σvo = Total vertical overburden pressure. Total unit weights (γT) are used, psf.
f = Total internal soil friction angle. The total internal soil friction angle for cohesive soils
is typically assumed to equal zero (f = 0). Total internal soil friction angle (f) for
a cohesionless soil is typically less than the effective internal soil friction angle
(f’), degrees.
Another factor that affects soil response of these soils is the in-situ stress state. The stress
state is defined by either total (σvo) or effective (σ’vo) vertical stress, total (σho) or effective (σ’ho)
horizontal stress, and the effective preconsolidation stress (σ’p or p’c). The effective
preconsolidation stress is the largest state of stress that the soil has experienced. The state of
stress is often quantified by the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) as indicated by the following
equation.
7-18 January 2019

𝝈𝝈′𝒑𝒑
𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = Equation 7-30
Clay-Like soils are often defined by the in-situ state of stress as indicated in Table 7-7:
Table 7-7, OCR Values

Description State of Stress OCR
Underconsolidated, UC σ’p < σ’vo < 1.0
Normally Consolidated, NC σ’vo = σ’p 1.0
Overconsolidated, OC σ’vo < σ’p 1.1 - 4.0
Heavily Overconsolidated, OC σ’vo << σ’p > 4.0
The soil behavior of typical Clay-Like soils can be further illustrated by comparing the
stress-strain behavior of normally consolidated clays (OCR = 1) with the stress-strain behavior
of overconsolidated clays (OCR > 1) for consolidated drained and undrained Triaxial tests in
Figures, 7-7 and 7-8, respectively. The stress-strain behavior for overconsolidated clays
(OCR > 1) indicates that they are subject to strain softening, similar to medium-dense sands
shown in Figure 7-6, and that normally consolidated clays (OCR = 1) increase in strength,
similar to loose sands also shown in Figure 7-6. Overconsolidated (drained or undrained) clays
typically reach peak shear strength (τPeak = τmax) and then decrease to a fully-softened strength
that is approximately equal to the peak shear strength of a normally consolidated clay (τPeak ≈
τNC). The volume change of overconsolidated clays in a drained test is very similar to the
volume change in medium-dense sand; the volume initially decreases (contractive behavior)
and then increases (dilative behavior). The pore pressures in an undrained test of
overconsolidated clays initially increase slightly and then become negative as the soil begins to
expand or dilate. The shear stress (drained or undrained test) of a normally consolidated (OCR
= 1) clay increases with shear displacement to a maximum value (τPeak = τNC). The volume of
normally consolidated clays in a drained test gradually decreases (contractive behavior) as it
reaches a point of almost constant volume (steady state behavior). The pore pressure in an
undrained test of normally consolidated clay increases until failure and remains positive for the
entire test.
January 2019 7-19

Figure 7-7, Shear Strength of Clay Figure 7-8, Shear Strength of Clay
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Consolidated Undrained Triaxial
(Das (1997)) (Das (1997))
7.9.2.3 Soil Response – Transitional Soils
As indicated in Table 7-6, these soils can behave either as Sand-Like or Clay-Like depending
on the plasticity of the soil. The GEOR will be responsible for determining whether these soils
will behave as Sand-Like or Clay-Like and determining whether undrained or drained shear
strengths are to be used. These soils will typically have more than 20 percent fines and will
classify as sands with fines to elastic silts and clays (AASHTO classification A-2-5, A-2-6, A-5,
and A-6). An Ic greater than 2.05 and less than 2.6 (2.05 < Ic < 2.6) from CPTu testing is also
indicative of soil behavior between cohesionless and cohesive. This is nominal value from
Robertson and Cabal (2015); however, the actual soil behavior shall be determined from the
correlation boring obtained adjacent to the CPTu as required in Chapter 4. If the Ic value for
silty type soil behavior is shown to be different, then that Ic shall be used for the entire project
addition, the ID will range from greater than 0.6 to less than 1.8 (0.6 < ID < 1.8). See the
previous Sections for a discussion of drained and undrained shear strengths.
7.9.2.4 Soil Response – Unsaturated Soils
The preceding Sections assume that the soils are 100 percent saturated. For unsaturated soils
(S < 100 percent), the GEOR should be aware of the impacts that unsaturated soils can cause.
First, there could be volumetric change (-δv) without an associated increase in pore pressure
(+Δu). For Clay-Like soils, the air in the soil voids will eventually be squeezed out and the
sample will become fully saturated and should be treated accordingly. The time required for this
to occur is not easily determined. Further the determination of when to use undrained or
drained shear strengths will not be clear. Therefore, SCDOT recommends that all soils are
assumed to 100 percent saturated and that all design analysis be based on this assumption.
7-20 January 2019

7.9.3 Soil Strength Testing
Selection of soil shear strengths should be made based on laboratory testing and soil strain
level anticipated from analyses. Table 7-8 provides a summary of published stress-strain
behavior from Holtz and Kovacs (1981), Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri (1996), and Duncan and
Wright (2005) for various soils types. This table is provided for “general” guidance in the
selection of shear strengths and soil strain level anticipated from equilibrium analyses.
Table 7-8, Soil Shear Strength Selection Based on Strain Level

Strain Level 1
Sand-Like ±5% 15–20% Large Strains
Strains Strains >20%
Med. To Dense Sand τPeak τr τr
Non-Liquefying
Loose Sands τPeak τPeak τr
Strain Level 1
Clay-Like ±2% 10–15% Large Strains
Strains Strains >15%
Clay (OCR = 1) τPeak = τNC τPeak = τNC τPeak = τNC
Clay (OCR >1) τPeak ≈ τNC τr
Shear Strength Nomenclature:
τPeak = Peak Soil Shear Strength τNC = Normally Consolidated Soil Shear
τr = Residual Soil Shear Strength Strength
1
Strain levels indicated are generalizations and are dependent on the stress-strain characteristics of
the soil and should be verified by laboratory testing.
Once the soil loading and soil response has been evaluated, the next step is to select the
method of evaluating the soil shear strength. The shear strength can be evaluated by one of
the following methods:
1. Soil shear strength determined by geotechnical laboratory testing.

2. Soil shear strength correlations with in-situ field testing results.
3. Soil shear strength correlations based on index parameters.
The laboratory testing should be selected based on shear strength testing method and the
testing parameters best suited to model the loading condition and the soil response. Shear
strength laboratory testing methods are described in Chapter 5. A summary of the design
parameters that should be used in selection of the appropriate testing method and procedure is
provided below:
1. Total or Effective Stress: Selection of soil shear strength parameters based on

total or effective stress state (drained or undrained). Guidance for typical
geotechnical analyses for each limit state (Strength, Service, and Extreme Event)
being analyzed is provided for bridge foundations in Table 7-9 and for earth
retaining structures and embankments in Table 7-10. Total and effective shear
strength determination guidelines for laboratory and in-situ testing are provided in
Sections 7.10 and 7.11, respectively.
2. Soil Shear Strength: Soil shear strength parameters (τPeak or τr) selection
should be based on strain level anticipated from equilibrium analyses. See Table
7-8 for guidance. Seismic soil shear strengths used to design for the Extreme
Event I limit state are discussed in Chapter 13.
January 2019 7-21

3. Loading Direction: The shearing direction should be compatible with how the
soil is being loaded or unloaded and the angle of incidence with respect to soil
normal stress. Figure 7-9 illustrates test methods that would be appropriate for
shear modes for embankment instability shear surface. Figure 7-10 provides
undrained strength (UU Triaxial) of typical clays and shales as a function of
stress orientation.
Table 7-9, Bridge Foundation Soil Parameters

Strength Limit State
Service Extreme Event
Strength I, Service
Load Combinations Extreme Events I & II2
II, III, IV, V I
Seismic Event N/A FEE & SEE
During Earthquake
Loading Condition Static Post-Earthquake
Shaking
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Total (1)
Soil
Total 1
Total
Shear Strength
Stress State
Soil Bearing
√ √ --- √ √ √ ---
Resistance
Sliding
Shallow Foundation Design
Frictional √ √ --- √ √ √ ---

Resistance
Sliding
Passive √ √ --- √ √ √ ---
Resistance
Structural
√ √ --- √ √ √ ---
Capacity
Lateral
√ √ √ √ √ √ ---
Displacement
Vertical
√ √ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇
Settlement
Overall
--- --- √ √ √ √ ---
Stability
√ • √ √
Deep Foundation
Axial Capacity --- --- ---

Structural
√ √ √ √
Design
--- --- ---

Capacity
Lateral
√ √ √ √ √ √ ---
Displacements
Vertical
√ √ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇
Settlement
1
Residual soil shear strengths of liquefied soils must include effects of strain softening due to
liquefaction.
2
For Extreme Event II use During Earthquake Shaking – Total.
Soil Stress State Legend:

√ Indicates that soil stress state indicated requires analysis
--- Indicates that soil stress state does not require analysis
• Indicates that soil stress state may need to be evaluated depending on method of analysis
∇ Indicates that soil stress state transitions from undrained to drained (i.e., consolidation)
7-22 January 2019

Table 7-10, Earth Retaining Structures & Embankment Soil Parameters

Limit State Strength Service Extreme Event
Strength I, II,
Load Combinations Service I Extreme Events I & II2
III, IV, V
Seismic Event N/A FEE & SEE
During
Post-
Loading Condition Static Earthquake
Earthquake
Shaking
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Total (1)
Soil
Total 1
Total
Total
Shear Strength
Stress State
Soil Bearing
√ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Earth Retaining Structure Design
Resistance
Sliding Frictional
√ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Resistance
Sliding Passive
√ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Resistance
Structural
√ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Capacity
Lateral Load
Analysis (Lateral √ √ √ √ √ √ --- √
Displacements)
Settlement √ √ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇
Global Stability --- --- √ √ √ √ --- √

Soil Bearing
√ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Resistance
Embankment Design
Lateral Spread √ √ --- --- √ √ --- √
Lateral Squeeze √ √ --- --- √ √ --- √

Lateral
--- --- √ √ √ √ --- √
Displacements
Vertical
√ √ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇
Settlement
Global Stability --- --- √ √ √ √ --- √
1
Residual soil shear strengths of liquefied soils must include effects of strain softening due to
liquefaction
2
For Extreme Event II use During Earthquake Shaking – Total.
Soil Stress State Legend:

√ Indicates that soil stress state indicated requires analysis
--- Indicates that soil stress state does not require analysis
• Indicates that soil stress state may need to be evaluated depending on method of analysis
∇ Indicates that soil stress state transitions from undrained to drained (i.e., consolidation)
January 2019 7-23

Figure 7-9, Shear Modes for Embankment Stability Shear Failure Surface
β = 0°
Figure 7-10, τ of Clays and Shales as Function of Failure Orientation

(modified from Duncan and Wright (2005))
The undrained and drained shear strengths of soils can be obtained from laboratory testing.
The laboratory testing procedures are described in Chapter 5. A summary of laboratory testing
methods suitable for determining the undrained and drained shear strengths of cohesive and
cohesionless soils is provided in Table 7-11.
7-24 January 2019
Table 7-11, Laboratory Testing Soil Shear Strength Determination

Undrained Shear Strength Drained Shear Strength
Laboratory Cohesive Cohesionless Cohesive Cohesionless
Testing Method
τPeak τr τPeak ’
τr ’
τ Peak
’
τr’
τ Peak τr
Unconfined Compression
√ √ --- --- --- --- --- ---
(UC) Test
Unconsolidated
√ √ --- --- --- --- --- ---
Undrained (UU) Test2
Direct Simple Shear

--- --- --- --- --- --- √ √
(DS) Test2
Consolidated Drained
--- --- --- --- √1 √1 √ √
(CD) Test2
Consolidated Undrained
(CU) Test with Pore √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Pressure Measurements2
√ - Indicates laboratory method provides indicated shear strength
√ – Test not considered practical due to time required to perform test
1
2
– Confining stress for triaxial tests and the normal stress for direct shear test shall be determined by
GEOR
--- - N/A
Definitions:
τPeak = Peak Undrained Shear Strength τ’Peak = Peak Drained Shear Strength
τr = Residual Undrained Shear Strength τ’r = Residual Drained Shear Strength
In-situ testing methods (Chapter 5), such as the SPT, the CPTu, the DMT, and the FVST, can
be used to evaluate soil shear strength parameters by the use of empirical/semi-empirical
correlations. Even though the torvane (TV) or the pocket penetrometer (PP) are soil field testing
methods, their use is restricted to only qualitative evaluation of relative shear strength during
field visual classification of soil stratification. The major drawback to the use of in-situ field
testing methods to obtain soil shear strength parameters is that the empirical/semi-empirical
correlations are based on a limited soil database that is typically material or soil formation
specific and therefore, the reliability of these correlations must be verified for each project site
until sufficient substantiated regional experience is available. Poor correlation between in-situ
testing results and soil shear strength parameters may also be due to the poor repeatability of
the in-situ testing methods. The CPTu, in all versions, has been shown to be more repeatable
while the SPT has been shown to be highly variable. Another source of variability is the
sensitivity of the test method to different soil types with different soil consistency (very soft to
hard cohesive soils) or density (very loose to very dense cohesionless soils). In-situ penetration
testing values correspond to the peak of the stress-strain shear strength curve as indicated in
Figure 7-11. Since deformations induced from penetration tests are close to the initial stress
state, correlations have been developed for the soil modulus.
January 2019 7-25

Figure 7-11, Shear Strength Measured by In-Situ Testing

A summary of in-situ testing methods suitable for determining the undrained and drained shear
strengths of cohesive and cohesionless soils is provided in Table 7-12. The suitability of in-situ
testing methods to provide soil shear strength parameters is provided in Table 7-13.
Table 7-12, In-Situ Testing - Soil Shear Strength Determination

Undrained Shear Strength Drained Shear Strength
In-Situ Cohesive Cohesionless Cohesive Cohesionless
Testing Method
τPeak τr τPeak ’
τr ’
τ Peak’
τr τ Peak
’
τr
Standard Penetrometer
√ --- --- --- --- --- √ ---
Test (SPT)
Piezocone with pore

pressure measurements √ √ --- --- --- --- √ ---
(CPTu)
Flat Plate Dilatometer Test

√ --- --- --- --- --- √ ---
(DMT)
Field Vane Shear Test

√ √ --- --- --- --- --- ---
(FVST)
√ - Indicates in-situ method provides indicated shear strength

--- - N/A
Definitions:
τPeak = Peak Undrained Shear Strength τ’Peak = Peak Drained Shear Strength
τr = Residual Undrained Shear Strength τ’r = Residual Drained Shear Strength
7-26 January 2019

Table 7-13, Soil Suitability of In-Situ Testing Methods

(Modified from Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006) and Holtz and Kovacs (1981))
In-Situ Test Suitable Unsuitable
Correlated Properties Remarks
Method Soils 1 Soils
Sand and residual soil SPT repeatability is
Sand,
Standard effective peak internal highly variable.
Clay,
Penetrometer Gravel friction angle, clay Disturbed samples. Very
Residual
Test (SPT) undrained peak shear variable Su correlations
Soils
strength, soil modulus. are available for clays.
Sand, silt, and residual
Sand,
Piezocone with soil effective peak Continuous evaluation of
Silt,
pore pressure internal friction angle, soil properties. CPT is
Clay, Gravel
measurements clay and residual soil very repeatable. No
Residual
(CPTu) undrained peak shear samples recovered.
Soil
strength, soil modulus.
Sand, silt, and residual
soil effective peak
Sand, internal friction angle, Unreliable results may
Flat Plate Clay, clay and undrained occur with very dense
Dilatometer and Gravel peak shear strength, sand, cemented sand,
Test (DMT) Residual overconsolidation and gravel. No samples
Soil ratio, at-rest pressure recovered.
coefficient, soil
modulus.
May overestimate shear
strength. Very soft clays
need to be corrected.
Unreliable results may
occur with fissured
Sand,
Field Vane clays, varved clays, and
Residual Clay undrained peak
Shear Test Clay highly plastic clays,
Soil, and shear strength.
(FVST) sand, residual soil, and
Gravel
gravel. FVST
repeatability may be
variable with rate of
rotation. No samples
recovered.
1
The suitability of testing Piedmont residual soils should be based on Mayne et al. (2002). Residual
soils frequently have a dual USCS description of SM-ML and behave as both cohesive soils and
cohesionless soils because the Piedmont residuum soil is close to the opening size of the U.S. No. 200
Sieve (0.075 mm).
Shear strength of cohesive and cohesionless soils can also be estimated based on effective
overburden stress (σ’vo), effective preconsolidation stress (σ’p or p’c), the overconsolidation ratio
(OCR), and index properties such as grain-size distribution (Fines Content – FC), moisture
content (w), and Atterberg Limits (LL, PI). Index properties are described in Chapter 6. Unless
indicated otherwise, these correlations are used only for preliminary analyses or for evaluating
reasonableness of laboratory or in-situ shear strength results.
January 2019 7-27

7.10 TOTAL STRESS
Total stress is the force per unit area carried by both the soil grains and the water located in the
pores between the soil grains. The total stress state uses undrained soil shear strengths (∆u ≠
0) and is typically used to resist short-term loadings (i.e., construction loading, earthquake
loadings, etc.). The Mohr-Coulomb undrained shear strength equation (τ = Su) is defined as
follows:
𝝉𝝉 = 𝒄𝒄 + 𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝝓𝝓 Equation 7-31
The deviator compression stress at failure (∆σf) for unconfined compression tests (σ3 = 0) on
clays is equal to the unconfined compression strength (σ1 = qu = c). The deviator compression
stress at failure (∆σf) for undrained triaxial testing (unconsolidated or consolidated) is equal to
the total major principal stress (σ1) minus the total minor principal stress (σ3) (see Figure 7-12).
Shear Stress τ
Δσf = σ1 – σ3
σ3 σ1
Nornal Stress σ
Figure 7-12, Total Principal Stresses
7.10.1 Sand-Like Soils
Undrained shear strengths for Sand-Like soils (cohesionless soils) should be used when the
rate of loading is so fast that the soil does not have sufficient time to drain such as in the case of
rapid draw-down (specifically not addressed in this Manual), cyclic loadings (typically caused by
machine loading and are not anticipated on SCDOT projects), and earthquake loadings. Based
on Table 7-6 Sand-Like soils are not anticipated to require undrained shear strengths; therefore,
no undrained shear strengths will be used or provided. The only exception is during earthquake
loadings; see Chapter 13 for the development of undrained shear strengths for use during
seismic events. Undrained residual shear strength ratio of liquefied soils (τrl /σ’vo) as proposed
by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) are presented in Chapter 13.
7-28 January 2019

7.10.2 Clay-Like Soils
The τ for Clay-Like soils should be determined using UC tests, UU triaxial tests, or CU triaxial
tests of undisturbed samples. The undrained shear strength for these soils should be
compatible with the level of strain anticipated under Service conditions (see Table 7-8).
Undrained shear strengths are used for short-term loading conditions, the length of time to
reduce pore pressures induced by loading may require months to years, in a total stress
analysis. Typically the total internal friction angle is negligible and assumed equal to zero (f =
0) and the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation for the τ of cohesive soils can be expressed
as indicated by the following equation.
𝚫𝚫𝛔𝛔𝐟𝐟
𝛕𝛕 = 𝐜𝐜 = Equation 7-32
𝟐𝟐
The undrained shear strength of Clay-Like soils may also be determined by in-situ testing such
as the SPT, the CPTu, the DMT, or the FVST as described in Chapter 5. As stated previously,
in Section 7.9.3, the biggest drawback to the use of in-situ field testing methods to obtain
undrained shear strengths of Clay-LIke soils is that the empirical correlations are based on a
soil database that is material or soil formation specific and therefore the reliability of these
correlations must be verified for each project site by substantiated regional experience or by
conducting laboratory testing and calibrating the in-situ testing results.
The SPT can provide highly variable results in Clay-Like soils as indicated in Table 7-13.
However, the following correlations may be used if laboratory undrained shear strengths are
correlated to the corrected N60 value obtained from the SPT. Peak undrained shear strength (τ
= (Su)SPT), in units of ksf, for Clay-Like soils (McGregor and Duncan (1998)) can be computed
for low plasticity clays using Equation 7-33 and medium to high plasticity clays using Equation
7-34. Plasticity is defined in Chapter 6.
𝝉𝝉 = (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 Equation 7-33
𝝉𝝉 = (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 Equation 7-34
January 2019 7-29

Undrained Peak Shear Strength, Su (ksf)

7 s)
Cla y
y
ti c it
6 las
ig hP
-H
5 iu m
Med
(
4 60
5N ys )
Cla
0.1 cit y
= l a sti
Su wP
3 (Lo
N 60
075
= 0.
2 Su
0
5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT Blowcount - N60 (blows/foot)
Note: N60 = N*60
Figure 7-13, Undrained Shear Strength – SPT Relationship
(modified from McGregor and Duncan (1998))
The peak undrained shear strength (τ = (Su)cpt) of cohesive soils can also be obtained from the
CPTu (Mayne (2007)) as indicated by the following equation.
(𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 −𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 )
𝝉𝝉 = (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = Equation 7-35
𝑵𝑵𝒌𝒌
Where,
qt = Corrected CPT tip resistance, tsf (see Chapter 5)
σvo = total overburden pressure at test depth, tsf
Nk = cone factor (see Chapter 6)
According to Robertson and Cabal (2015), Nk can vary between 10 and 18 and is typically set at
14. Nk tends to increase with increasing plasticity and decrease with increasing soil sensitivity.
Nk will be determined on a site-specific basis and reported as required in Chapter 6. As the
parameter Bq increases Nk decreases such that is very sensitive fine-grained soils as Bq
approaches 1.0, Nk can be as low as 6. As can be seen from Equation 7-35 an accurate
determination of Nk is required, especially in soft fine-grained (Clay-Like) soils. The use of the
typical value could under estimate the shear strength.
The peak undrained shear strength (τ = (Su)DMT) of Clay-Like soils can also be obtained from the
DMT (Marchetti, Monaco, Totani, and Calabrese (2001)) as indicated by the following equation.
𝝉𝝉 = (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 ∗ (𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓 ∗ 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 )𝟏𝟏.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 Equation 7-36
Where,
σ’vo = effective overburden pressure at test depth, psf
KD = horizontal stress index
7-30 January 2019
The peak undrained shear strength (τ = (Su)FVST) and the remolded shear strength (Surem)FVST of
Clay-Like soils can also be obtained from the FVST (Mayne, Christopher and DeJong (2002))
using Equation 7-37. (Surem)FVST is substituted for (Su)FVST after the 10 revolutions have been
completed.
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑻𝑻𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏
𝝉𝝉 = (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 = 𝑫𝑫 𝑫𝑫
Equation 7-37
𝝅𝝅𝑫𝑫𝟐𝟐 � + +𝟔𝟔∗𝑯𝑯�
𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝒊𝒊𝑻𝑻 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝒊𝒊𝑩𝑩
Where,
Tnet = Net torque, inch-pounds (see Chapter 5)
D = Diameter of the field vane, inches (see Chapter 5)
H = Height of the field vane, inches (see Chapter 5)
iT and iB = Taper angle, degrees (see Chapter 5)
Correction of (Su)FVST is required prior to use in engineering design to account for rate effects in
the test. Mayne, et al. (2002) recommends using the following equations to correct the
undrained shear strength for testing rate effects based on plasticity (PI > 5):
𝝉𝝉𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝝁𝝁𝑹𝑹 ∗ (𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 )𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 Equation 7-38
𝝁𝝁𝑹𝑹 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷)𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓 Equation 7-39
Where,
PI = Plasticity Index
Empirical correlations based on SHANSHEP (Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering
Parameters) laboratory testing results can be used for preliminary designs and to evaluate the
peak undrained shear strength (Su) obtained from laboratory testing or in-situ testing. This
method is only applicable to clays without sensitive structure where undrained shear strength
increases proportionally with the effective overburden pressure (σ’vo). The SHANSHEP
laboratory test results of Ladd, Foot, Ishihara, Schlosser, and Poulos (1977) revealed trends in
undrained shear strength ratio (Su / σ’v) as a function of overconsolidation ratio as indicated in
Figure 7-14.
January 2019 7-31

Figure 7-14, Undrained Shear Strength Ratio and OCR Relationship

(Ladd, et al. (1977))
The average peak undrained shear strengths (τ) shown in Figure 7-14 can be approximated by
an empirical formula developed by Jamiolkowski, Ladd, Germaine, and Lancellotta (1985) as
indicated by the following equation.
𝝉𝝉 = (𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶)𝟎𝟎.𝟖𝟖 ) ∗ 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 Equation 7-40
Where,
τ = Undrained shear strength, tsf
OCR = Overconsolidation ratio
σ’vo = Effective overburden pressure at test depth, tsf
The τ can be compared to the remolded shear strength (τrem) or τr to determine the sensitivity
(St) of cohesive soils. Sensitivity is the measure of the breakdown and loss of interparticle
attractive forces and bonds within Clay-Like soils. Typically in dispersed Clay-Like soils the loss
is relatively small, but in highly flocculated structures the loss in strength can be large.
Sensitivity is determined using the following equation.
𝝉𝝉 𝝉𝝉
𝑺𝑺𝒕𝒕 = = Equation 7-41
𝝉𝝉𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 𝝉𝝉𝒓𝒓
Sensitivity may also be estimated directly from CPT results using the following equation,
(𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 −𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 )
𝑺𝑺𝒕𝒕 ≅ Equation 7-42
𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔 ∗ 𝑵𝑵𝒌𝒌
The description of sensitivity is defined in the following table.
7-32 January 2019

Table 7-14, Sensitivity of Cohesive Soils

(Modified from Spangler and Handy (1982))
Sensitivity Descriptive Term
<1 Insensitive
1-2 Slightly Sensitive
3-4 Medium Sensitive
5-8 Sensitive
9 - 16 Very Sensitive
17 - 32 Slightly Quick
33 - 64 Medium Quick
>64 Quick
The τrem of Clay-Like soils can be determined from remolded triaxial specimens or from in-situ
testing methods (CPTu or FVST). Triaxial specimens should have the same moisture content
as the undisturbed sample as well as the same degree of saturation and confining pressure.
Sensitivity can also be related to the liquidity index using the following figure.
Figure 7-15, Sensitivity based on Liquidity Index and σ’vo

The Liquidity Index (LI) can also be related to remolded shear strength (τrem = curem = Surem) as
indicated in the following.
January 2019 7-33

1 kPa = 0.0209 ksf = 20.89 psf

Figure 7-16, Remolded Shear Strength vs Liquidity Index
(Mitchell (1993))
The Liquidity Index (LI) is the relationship between w, PL, and the LL. The LI is a measure of
the relative softness of a Clay-Like soil as indicated by the closeness of the w to the LL. The LI
can be determined by the following equation.
(𝒘𝒘−𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷)
𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 = (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳−𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷) Equation 7-43
An LI equal to 1 is general indication that a Clay-Like soil is normally consolidated and an LI

equal to 0 is a general indication that a Clay-Like soil is overconsolidated.
The undrained residual shear strength of Clay-Like soils (St < 2) can be estimated for
preliminary design and to evaluate the τr (Sur) obtained from laboratory testing or in-situ testing.
In addition, the τr (Sur) can be estimated by reducing τPeak by a residual shear strength loss
factor (λτ) as indicated in the following equation.
𝝉𝝉𝒓𝒓 = 𝝀𝝀𝝉𝝉 ∗ 𝝉𝝉 Equation 7-44
The λτ factor typically ranges from 0.50 to 0.67 depending on the type of clay soil. The λτ
factors recommended in Table 7-15 are based on the results of a pile soil set-up factor study
prepared by Rausche, Thendean, Abou-matar, Linkins and Goble (1997)
Table 7-15, Residual Shear Strength Loss Factor (λτ)

Soil Type Residual Shear Strength
USCS Description Loss Factor (λτ)
Low Plasticity Clay CL-ML 0.57
Medium to High Plasticity Clay CL & CH 0.50
7-34 January 2019

7.10.3 Transitional Soils
The undrained shear strength of transitional materials may have both f and c components
which should be determined in the laboratory using the appropriate testing methods. However,
if samples for this type of testing have not been obtained (e.g., during the preliminary
exploration), then the GEOR should review the percent fines and the plasticity of the soil to
determine whether the soil will behave Sand-Like or Clay-Like. If transitional soils are identified
in the preliminary exploration, obtaining undisturbed samples of these materials should be
attempted during the final exploration. For soils that are difficult to determine the approximate
classification, the undrained shear strength parameters for both Sand-Like and Clay-Like soils
should be determined and the more conservative design should be used.
7.10.4 Maximum Allowable Total Soil Shear Strengths
SCDOT has established maximum allowable peak (c, f) and residual (cr, fr) undrained soil
shear strength design parameters for in-situ soils shown in Table 7-16, for use in design. These
soil shear strength design parameters may be exceeded with appropriate laboratory testing
results (see Table 7-11). Alternately, these shear strengths may be exceeded using
correlations with field testing results (see Table 7-12) and the express written permission of the
PC/GDS.
Table 7-16, Maximum Allowable Total Soil Shear Strengths

Peak Residual
Soil Type
c f cr fr
USCS Description (psf) (degrees) (psf) (degrees)
ML, MH, SC Silt, Clayey Sand, Clayey Silt 1,500 15 1,200 6
SM, ML Residual Soils 900 14 700 6
CL-ML NC Clay (Low Plasticity) 1,500 0 900 0
CL, CH NC Clay (Med-High Plasticity) 2,500 0 1250 0
CL-ML OC Clay (Low Plasticity) 2,500 0 1400 0
CL, CH OC Clay (Med-High Plasticity) 4,000 0 2000 0
7.11 EFFECTIVE STRESS
Effective stress is the force per unit area carried by the soil grains. The effective stress state
uses drained soil shear strengths (∆u = 0). The Mohr-Coulomb drained shear strength equation
is defined as follows.
𝝉𝝉′ = 𝒄𝒄′ + 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗 ∗ 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 𝝓𝝓′ Equation 7-45
The deviator compression stress at failure (∆σf) for undrained triaxial testing (consolidated) is
equal to the total or effective major principal stress (σ1) minus the total or effective minor
principal stress (σ3). The effective major and minor principal stresses are the total major and
minor principal stresses minus the pore pressure at failure (uf) (see Figure 7-17).
January 2019 7-35

Shear Stress τ
Δσ’f= σ’1 – σ’3
uf = σ1 – σ’1
σ’3 σ3 σ’1 σ1
Normal Stress σ, σ’
Figure 7-17, Effective Principal Stresses
7.11.1 Sand-Like Soils
Drained shear strengths for Sand-Like soils should be used when there is relatively no change
in pore water pressure (∆u ≈ 0) as a result of soil loading. The drained shear strength for these
soils should be compatible with the level of strain anticipated under service conditions (see
Table 7-8). Sand-Like soils that are subjected to construction loads and static driving loads
typically use peak or residual drained shear strengths due to the relatively rapid (minutes to
hours) drainage characteristics of granular soils as indicated in Section 7.9.2. The peak or
residual drained soil shear strength parameters can be obtained from CD triaxial tests, CU
triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements, or DS tests. Typically the effective cohesion (c’)
is negligible and assumed to be equal to zero (c’ = 0) and the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength
criteria for drained shear strength of Sand-Like soils can then be expressed as indicated in the
following equation.
𝝉𝝉′ = 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗 ∗ 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝝓𝝓′ Equation 7-46
The peak drained shear strength of Sand-Like soils may also be determined by in-situ testing
methods such as the SPT, the CPTu, or the DMT. As stated previously, in Section 7.9.3, the
biggest drawback to the use of in-situ field testing methods to obtain drained shear strengths of
Sand-Like soils is that the empirical correlations are based on a soil database that is material or
soil formation specific and therefore the reliability of these correlations must be verified for each
project site by either using substantiated regional experience or conducting laboratory testing
and calibrating the in-situ testing results.
The effective peak friction angle, f′, of Sand-Like soils can be obtained from the SPT. Most
SPT correlations were developed for clean sands and their use for micaceous sands/silts, silty
soils, and gravelly soils may be may be unreliable as indicated below:
• SPT blow counts in micaceous sands or silts may be significantly reduced producing
very conservative correlations.
• SPT blow counts in silty soils may produce highly variable results and may require
verification by laboratory triaxial testing depending on a sensitivity analysis of the
impact of the variability of results on the analyses and consequently the impact on
the project.
7-36 January 2019

• SPT blow counts in gravelly soils may overestimate the penetration resistance.
Conservative selection of shear strength parameter or substantiated local experience
should be used in lieu of laboratory testing.
The effective peak friction angle, f′, of Sand-Like soils can be estimated using the relationship
of Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) for corrected N-values (N*1,60) as indicated below or using
Figure 7-18:
𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓
𝝓𝝓′ = �𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟒𝟒 ∗ 𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 � + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° Equation 7-47
Where,
4 blows per foot ≤ N*1,60 ≤ 50 blows per foot
55
Effective Peak Internal Friction Angle (f')
50
45
40
35
30
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT Blowcount - N*1,60
Figure 7-18, Effective Peak Friction Angle and SPT (N*1,60) Relationship
(Based on Hatanaka and Uchida (1996))
The effective friction angle, f′, of Sand-Like soils can also be estimated by the CPTu based on
Robertson and Campanella (1983). This method requires the estimation of the effective
overburden pressure (σ’vo) and the corrected tip resistance (qt) using the relationship in Figure
7-19. This relationship may be approximated by the following equation.
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕
𝝓𝝓′ = 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭−𝟏𝟏 �𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 � �� Equation 7-48
January 2019 7-37

Figure 7-19, Effective Peak Friction Angle and CPT (qt) Relationship
(Robertson and Campanella (1983))
The effective friction angle, f′, of Sand-Like soils can also be estimated by the DMT using the
Marchetti (1997) relationship shown in Figure 7-20. The Marchetti (1997) relationship may be
approximated by the following equation.
𝝓𝝓′ = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° + 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔° ∗ 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 − 𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏° 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝟐𝟐 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-49
Figure 7-20, Effective Peak Friction Angle and DMT (KD) Relationship
7-38 January 2019

7.11.2 Clay-Like Soils
Drained shear strengths for Clay-Like soils should be used when there is relatively no change in
pore water pressure (∆u ≈ 0) as a result of soil loading such as static driving loads. The drained
shear strength for these soils should be compatible with the level of strain anticipated under
service conditions (see Table 7-8). Drained shear strengths are used for long-term loading
conditions, geotechnical analyses for these types of loadings are based on effective stress
analyses. The peak or residual drained soil shear strength parameters can be obtained from
CD triaxial testing (this test is normally not performed because of the time requirements for
testing), or CU triaxial testing with pore pressure measurements. It is noted that use of the
following methods should only be used if the appropriate laboratory testing for shear strength
has not been performed and that preference is that the testing should be performed. Typically
for normally consolidated (OCR = 1; see Table 7-7) Clay-Like soils the effective cohesion (c’) is
negligible and is assumed to be equal to zero (c’ = 0) and the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength
equation for drained shear strength for Clay-Like soils can be expressed as indicated in the
following equation.
𝝉𝝉′ = 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗 ∗ 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 𝝓𝝓′𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-50
Typically for overconsolidated Clay-Like soils the effective cohesion is greater than zero with the
effective friction angle less than that determined for normally consolidated Clay-Like soils.
When the preconsolidation pressure (σ’p or p’c) is exceeded the overconsolidated Clay-Like soil
becomes normally consolidated (see Figure 7 -21).
𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 < 𝝓𝝓′𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵
Figure 7-21, Overconsolidated Clay Failure Envelope (CUw/pp Triaxial Test)
The effective peak and residual drained shear strength of Clay-Like soils should not be
evaluated using in-situ testing methods. Drained shear strengths should be developed using
appropriate laboratory testing. However, SCDOT recognizes the fact that this type of testing
may not be practicable; therefore, the correlations provided in the following paragraphs may be
used.
Correlations have been developed between drained shear strengths of Clay-Like soils and index
parameters such as plasticity index (PI or IP), LL, clay fraction (CF) and effective overburden
pressure (σ’vo = effective normal stress). Similarly to relationships developed for in-situ testing
methods, these relationships for drained shear strengths of Clay-Like soils were developed
January 2019 7-39
based on a soil database that is typically material or soil formation specific and may require
verification by laboratory triaxial testing depending on a sensitivity analysis of the impact of the
variability of results on the analyses and consequently the impact on the project. These
relationships should be used to evaluate the validity of laboratory testing results and to improve
the relationship database for regional soil deposits by SCDOT.
In normally consolidated Clay-Like soils (OCR = 1.0) the shear strength test will result in a peak
effective friction angle (f′). Terzaghi, et al. (1996) proposed the relationship in Figure 7-22
between peak effective friction angle (f′) for normally consolidated clays and the plasticity index
(IP or PI). For plasticity indices above 60 percent, the peak effective friction angle (f′) should
be determined from laboratory testing. The Terzaghi, et al. (1996) relationship between peak
effective friction angle (f′) for normally consolidated clays and the plasticity index (IP or PI) may
be estimated by the following equation.
𝝓𝝓′𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕° − [𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° ∗ (𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷)] + [𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎° ∗ (𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷)𝟐𝟐 ] ± 𝟒𝟒° Equation 7-51
Figure 7-22, Plasticity Index versus Drained Friction Angle for NC Clays
(Terzaghi, et al. (1996))
As an alternate to Terzaghi, et al. (1996), Sorensen and Okkels (2013) may be used. Sorensen
and Okkels (2013) have developed 2 equations for obtaining the drained friction angle for
normally consolidated Clay-Like soils (ϕ’NC) using PI and CF. These equations apply for CF less
than 90 percent (CF < 90%) because the available data from which this equation is based did
not have any samples with CFs greater than about 90 percent. However, it is noted that PI has
a greater influence on ϕ’NC then does CF. Figure 7-23 depicts the data set used by Sorensen
and Okkels (2013) to develop these equations. As can be seen in Figure 7-23, a mean
equation and a lower bound equation have been developed. The lower bound equation should
have no more than 5 percent of the data points below the lower bound line. SCDOT
recommends that the lower bound curve be used first to develop the normally consolidated
drained shear strength for use in design. The mean equation should be used if the lower bound
equation does not achieve the required resistances.
7-40 January 2019

Lower Bound Equation
𝝓𝝓′𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑° − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-52
Mean Equation
𝝓𝝓′𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒° − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-53
Note: IP = PI
Figure 7-23, Plasticity Index versus Drained Shear Resistance for NC Clays
(Sorensen and Okkels (2013))
Sorensen and Okkels (2013) have also developed procedures for determining the drained shear
strength (c’OC and ϕ’OC) for overconsolidated Clay-Like soils (OCR ≥ 1.1). For overconsolidated
Clay-Like soils the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation for drained shear strength can be
expressed as indicated in the following equation.
𝝉𝝉′ = 𝒄𝒄′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 + 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗 ∗ 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 Equation 7-54
Sorensen and Okkels (2013) have demonstrated that drained shear strength of
overconsolidated Clay-Like soils are related not only to PI but also the CF of the material.
Similarly to the development of drained shear strength for normally consolidated Clay-Like soils,
Sorensen and Okkels have developed 2 equations based on both best fit of the drained shear
strength data for overconsolidated Clay-Like soils as well as a lower bound equation for which
approximately 95 percent of the available data points are above the lower bound line (see
Figure 7-24). SCDOT recommends that the lower bound curve be used first to develop the
overconsolidated drained shear strength for use in design. The best fit equation should be used
if the lower bound equation does not achieve the required resistances.
January 2019 7-41

Note: IP = PI
Figure 7-24, Plasticity Index versus Drained Shear Resistance for OC Clays
As can be seen from the lower bound curve in Figure 7-24, both the lower bound and best fit
curves kink at a PI of approximately 50 percent (50% < PI); therefore 2 equations will be
required to describe each curve based on PI.
Lower Bound Equations
𝟒𝟒 < 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒° − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-55
𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ≤ 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑° − 𝟔𝟔° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-56
Bet Fit Equations
𝟒𝟒 < 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒° − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-57
𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ≤ 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝝓𝝓′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐° − 𝟑𝟑° ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 Equation 7-58
These equations are for soils that CFs less than 80 percent (CF < 80%). These equations may
be used for soils with CFs greater 80 percent (CF ≥ 80%); however, extreme caution should be
exercised in the use of these equations at greater CFs. Soils with greater CFs were not part of
the data set used to develop these equations.
As indicated previously, overconsolidated Clay-Like soils can have a drained cohesion (c’OC).
Sorensen and Okkels (2013) have developed equations relating c’OC to PI; however, since c’OC
is more related to soil structure than ϕ’OC the use of their equations may not be appropriate.
Considering the fact that ϕ’OC is based on soil mineralogy, which is partially based on PI, while
c’OC is more based soil structure which is lost during the sample preparation for PI
determination. Therefore, Sorensen and Okkels (2013) recommends using a relationship
between c’OC and Su (see Figure 7-25). This relationship is applicable for clays having PIs
greater than or equal to 7 (PI ≥ 7). For clays with PI less than 7 (PI < 7), Sorensen and Okkels
(2013) recommend c’OC be assumed to be 0 psf.
7-42 January 2019

.
Note: cu = Su
Figure 7-25, Undrained Shear Strength versus Drained Shear Resistance for OC Clays
𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟕𝟕 𝒄𝒄′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟎𝟎 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 Equation 7-59
𝟕𝟕 ≤ 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 < 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝒄𝒄′𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏 ∗ 𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖 ≤ 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 Equation 7-60
It is noted that the c’OC has a maximum value of 630 psf.
The preceding paragraphs discussed the development of the peak drained shear strength for
normally (ϕ’NC) and overconsolidated (ϕ’OC and c’OC) Clay-Like soils. The following paragraphs
discuss the development of drained residual shear strength. Stark and Eid (1994 and 1997)
developed a graphical relationship between PI, CF and σ’vo (effective normal stress) to obtain
the drained shear strength of Clay-Like soils (see Figure 7-26). This graph was used for heavily
overconsolidated (OCR > 4) Clay-Like soils. This method for determining drained residual
shear strength has been updated by Stark and Hussain (2013) (see Figure 7-27). The Stark
and Hussain (2013) procedure shall be used to determine the drained residual shear strength
(ϕ’r). Stark and Hussain (2013) have developed 3 sets of equations based on CF with individual
equations based on LL (surrogate for PI) and σ’vo.
• CF ≤ 20%
• 25% ≤ CF ≤ 45%
• CF ≥ 50%
Each set of equations also has a range of LL over which the equations apply. The limitations
imposed by the LL are a result of the testing results used to develop the equations.
January 2019 7-43

Figure 7-26, Drained Residual Friction Angle and Liquid Limit Relationship
(Stark and Eid (1994) with permission from ASCE)
Figure 7-27, Updated Drained Residual Friction Angle and Liquid Limit Relationship
(Stark and Hussain (2013) with permission from ASCE)
7-44 January 2019

The first set of equations (CF ≤ 20%) for determining the drained residual shear strength are
presented below. These equations should be used for soils that have 30% ≤ LL < 80%;
however, these equations may be used with extreme caution on soils having LLs outside of this
range.
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + [𝟔𝟔. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 ] Equation 7-61
Equation 7-62
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + [𝟔𝟔. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 −𝟒𝟒
∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 ]
=𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + [𝟏𝟏. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 ] Equation 7-63
Equation 7-64
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌 = 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + [𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 −𝟑𝟑
∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 ]
Note 1 kPa is equal to approximately 20.89 psf.
The second set of equations (25% ≤ CF ≤ 45%) for determining the drained residual shear
strength are presented below. These equations should be used for soils that have 30% ≤ LL <
130%; however, these equations may be used with extreme caution on soils having LLs outside
of this range.
Equation 7-65
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓
= 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟒𝟒 − 𝟔𝟔. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟑𝟑 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟏𝟏. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖
∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
Equation 7-66
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟖𝟖 − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟑𝟑 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟏𝟏. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖
∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
Equation 7-67
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒
= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟒𝟒 − 𝟓𝟓. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟐𝟐. 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟑𝟑 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕
∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
Equation 7-68
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕
= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟖𝟖. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟗𝟗. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟔𝟔
∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
The third set of equations (CF ≥ 50%) for determining the drained residual shear strength are
presented below; however, a review of Figure 7-27 indicates that the 2 equations for each curve
January 2019 7-45

will be required. For soils that have 30% ≤ LL < 120% a third-degree polynomial will be
required to describe this portion of the curve, while for soils having 120% ≤ LL < 300% a linear
equation may be used. For each effective overburden pressure, the third-degree polynomial is
provided first followed by the linear equation. Extreme caution should be used when applying
these to soils having LLs outside of this range.
30% ≤ LL < 120%

Equation 7-69
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟓𝟓 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + 𝟑𝟑. 𝟗𝟗 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟒𝟒. 𝟒𝟒 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟔𝟔 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
120% ≤ LL < 300%

(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) Equation 7-70
30% ≤ LL < 120%

Equation 7-71
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
= 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟖𝟖. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎
∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟔𝟔 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟑𝟑
120% ≤ LL < 300%
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) Equation 7-72
30% ≤ LL < 120%

Equation 7-73
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒
= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) − 𝟒𝟒. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟖𝟖. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟔𝟔
120% ≤ LL < 300%
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 = 𝟖𝟖. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) Equation 7-74
30% ≤ LL < 120%

Equation 7-75
(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕
= 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟕𝟕 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) + 𝟐𝟐. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟒𝟒 (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳)𝟐𝟐 + 𝟕𝟕. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏−𝟔𝟔
120% ≤ LL < 300%

(𝝓𝝓′𝒓𝒓 )𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗=𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 = 𝟓𝟓. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳) Equation 7-76
As indicated previously the above approach for developing drained residual shear strength is for
heavily overconsolidated Clay-Like soils. Typically most heavily overconsolidated Clay-Like
soils are indurated (hard) and aggregated (i.e., the clay particles stick together) additional
processing of the samples is required to get accurate CFs and LLs. Using the appropriate
ASTM procedures, the samples will be processed using a mortar and pestle with the sample
being passed through a No. 40 sieve. The CF and LL for the material passing the No. 40 sieve
7-46 January 2019

is then determined (CFNo. 40 and LLNo. 40). The equations presented above are typically based on
some of the samples being processed using ball milling to completely disaggregate the sample
and then pass the sample through the No. 200 sieve. The material passing the No. 200 sieve is
then tested for CF and LL (CFNo. 200 and LLNo. 200) using the appropriate ASTM testing method.
Typically, the CFNo. 200 and LLNo. 200 are greater than the CFNo. 40 and LLNo. 40. The use of ball
milling is not a typical testing preparation method. Stark and Hussain (2013) have developed
based on the available data correlations between CFNo. 40 and CFNo. 200; and LLNo. 40 and LLNo. 200.
These correlations shall only be used with this procedure.
𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 )𝟐𝟐 + 𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 Equation 7-77
Equation 7-78
𝑪𝑪𝑭𝑭𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 )𝟑𝟑 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 )𝟐𝟐 + 𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ (𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 )
Please note that these equations have been slightly rearranged from the way Stark and Hussain
(2013) presented.
7.11.3 Transitional Soils
The drained shear strength of transitional soils may have both f′ and c’ components; these
components should be determined in the laboratory using the appropriate testing methods.
However, if samples for this type of testing have not been obtained (e.g., during the preliminary
exploration), then the GEOR should review the percent fines and the plasticity of the soil to
determine whether the soil will behave Sand-Like or Clay-Like. If transitional soils are identified
in the preliminary exploration, obtaining undisturbed samples of these materials should be
attempted during the final exploration. For soils that are difficult to determine the approximate
classification, the undrained shear strength parameters for both Sand-Like and Clay-Like soils
should be determined and the more conservative design should be used.
7.11.4 Maximum Allowable Effective Soil Shear Strength
SCDOT has established maximum allowable peak (c, f) and residual (cr, fr) undrained soil
shear strength design parameters for in-situ soils shown in Table 7-17, for use in design. These
soil shear strength design parameters may be exceeded with appropriate laboratory testing
results (see Table 7-11). Alternately, these shear strengths may be exceeded using
correlations with field testing results (see Table 7-12) and the express written permission of the
PC/GDS.
January 2019 7-47

Table 7-17, Maximum Allowable Effective Soil Shear Strengths

Peak 1 Residual
Soil Description
c’ f’ c’ f’
USCS Description (psf) (degrees) (psf) (degrees)
GW, GP, GM, GC Stone and Gravel 0 40 0 34
SW Coarse-grained Sand 0 38 0 32
SM, SP Fine-grained Sand 0 36 0 30
SP Uniform Rounded Sand 0 32 0 32
ML, MH, SC Silt, Clayey Sand, Clayey 0 30 0 27
Silt
SM, ML Residual Soils 0 27 0 22
CL-ML NC Clay (Low Plasticity) 0 35 0 31
CL, CH NC Clay (Med-High 0 26 0 16
Plasticity)
CL-ML OC Clay (Low Plasticity) 0 34 0 31
CL, CH OC Clay (Med-High 0 28 0 16
Plasticity)
1
The same maximum peak effective shear strength parameters shall be used for peak effective internal
friction angle of normally consolidated cohesive soils and to the fully-softened internal friction angle of
overconsolidated cohesive soils.
7.12 BORROW MATERIALS SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH SELECTION
This Section pertains to the selection of soil shear strength design parameters for borrow
materials used in embankments or behind retaining walls (other than MSE walls or Reinforced
Soil Slopes (RSSs)). Soil shear strength selection shall be based on the soil loading and soil
response considerations presented in Section 7.9. The soil shear strength design parameters
selected must be locally available, cost effective, and be achievable during construction. The
selection of soil shear strength design parameters that require the importation of materials from
outside of the general project area should be avoided. To this end, bulk samples will be
obtained from existing fill embankments or from proposed cut areas and tested as indicated in
Chapter 4. The purpose of sampling and testing the existing fill is the assumption that similar fill
materials will be available locally. The purpose of sampling and testing proposed cut areas is to
determine the suitability of the material for use as fill. The selection of design soil shear
strengths required for borrow sources should take into consideration the construction borrow
specifications as indicated in Section 7.12.1.
The procedure for selecting soil shear strength design parameters varies depending on the type
of project as indicated below:
1. Traditional Design-Bid-Build W/Existing Embankments: This type of project

can occur when existing roads are being improved by widening the existing
embankment. An investigation of locally available materials should be made to
confirm that the existing embankment soils are still locally available. If the
existing embankment soils are available, the selection of soil shear strength
design parameters for these types of projects will be based on using laboratory
testing from composite bulk sample obtained from the existing embankment as
required in Chapter 4 and appropriately selecting the drained and undrained soil
shear strength design parameters for the borrow material. The plans and
contract documents may specify the minimum required soil shear strength
parameters for the borrow sources based on the existing embankment soils, if
necessary. If the existing embankment soils are not locally available, the borrow
7-48 January 2019

material shear strength parameters will be determined as if the project were on a

new alignment.
2. Traditional Design-Bid-Build On New Alignment: This type of project requires
the pre-selection of soil shear strength design parameters without performing any
laboratory testing. The preliminary subsurface investigation may need to identify
locally available soils (or borrow sources) and appropriately select soil shear
strength design parameters for the borrow materials. Locally available soils can
be investigated by using USDA Soil Survey maps as indicated in Section 7.12.2.
The plans and contract documents may specify the minimum required soil shear
strength parameters for the borrow sources, if necessary.
7.12.1 SCDOT Borrow Specifications
The SCDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (latest edition), Section 203,
provides the requirements for borrow material. Embankment material must not have optimum
moisture content greater than 25.0% as defined in accordance with SC-T-29. Acceptable soils
for use in embankments and as subgrade vary by county indicated by the following 2 Groups.
Group A: Includes the following counties: Abbeville, Anderson, Cherokee, Chester,

Edgefield, Fairfield, Greenville, Greenwood, Lancaster, Laurens, McCormick,
Newberry, Oconee, Pickens, Saluda, Spartanburg, Union, and York. Below the
upper 5 feet of embankment, any soil that does not meet the description of muck
may be used provided it is stable when compacted to the required density.
Group B: Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun,
Charleston, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester,
Florence, Georgetown, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lee, Lexington,
Marion, Marlboro, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter, and Williamsburg. The soil
material below the upper 5 feet of embankment is soil that classifies as A-1, A-2,
A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6.
Groups A and B are shown graphically on a South Carolina map in Figure 7-28.
January 2019 7-49

Figure 7-28, Borrow Material Specifications By County
A brief geologic description of the surface soils in Groups A and B are provided below and for
more detail see Chapter 11.
Group A: This group is located northwest of the “Fall Line” in the Blue Ridge and
Piedmont physiographic geologic units. The Blue Ridge unit surface soils
typically consist of residual soil profile consisting of clayey soils near the surface
where weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
There may be colluvial (old land-slide) material on the slopes. The Piedmont unit
has a residual soil profile that typically consists of clayey soils near the surface,
where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
The residual soil profile exists in areas not disturbed by erosion or the activities of
man.
Group B: This group is located south and east of the “Fall Line” in the Coastal Plain
physiographic geologic unit. Sedimentary soils are found at the surface
consisting of unconsolidated sand, clay, gravel, marl, cemented sands, and
limestone.
7.12.2 USDA Soil Survey Maps
Locally available borrow sources can be researched by using the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Maps. A listing of USDA Soil Surveys that are available can be
obtained by selecting “South Carolina” at http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/ and
reviewing results by county. Soil surveys can be obtained as either printed documents, CD-
ROM, downloading online .pdf documents, or generated using USDA Web Soil Survey (WSS)
Internet application.
7-50 January 2019

The USDA Soil Surveys typically indicate Soil Map Units that are described based on USDA
textural classification system. Recent USDA Soil Survey manuscripts contain tables with
equivalent material descriptions for the AASHTO and the USCS soil classification systems.
When only the USDA textural classification is indicated in the maps, the GEOR will need to
correlate the USDA textural classifications to the AASHTO and the USCS soil classification
systems.
The USDA WSS Internet application can be accessed at:

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. The USDA WSS is an online web application that can
provide soil data and natural resource information produced by the National Cooperative Soil
Survey. The web site is under constant development and being updated with new information.
Soil survey maps and maps of Roadfill sources for project specific locations can be generated
as shown in Figure 7-29 and Figures 7-30, respectively.
Figure 7-29, USDA Soil Map – Newberry County, South Carolina

(USDA Web Soil Survey)
January 2019 7-51

Figure 7-30, USDA Roadfill Source Map - Newberry County, South Carolina
(USDA Web Soil Survey)
7.12.3 Compacted Soils Shear Strength Selection
Compacted soils are used to construct roadway embankments, bridge approaches, and backfill
behind retaining walls. This Section does not govern the selection of backfill soil properties for
MSE walls or RSSs. The method of selecting soil shear strength parameters for compacted
soils will be either:
• Measured using appropriate laboratory shear strength tests or

• Conservatively selected based on drained soil shear strength parameters typically
encountered in South Carolina soils.
The method to be used for selection will be dependent on the type of project as discussed
previously.
SCDOT experience with borrow materials typically found in Group A are Piedmont residual
soils. These borrow materials are typically classified as micaceous clayey silts and micaceous
sandy silts, clays, and silty soils in partially drained conditions. These soils may have USCS
classifications of either ML or MH and typically have LL greater than 30. Published laboratory
shear strength testing results for Piedmont residual soils (Sabatini, et al. (2002), Appendix A,
page A-40) indicate an average effective friction angle of 35.2ο with a ±1 standard deviation
range of 29.9ο < f’ < 40.5ο. A conservative lower bound of 27.3ο is also indicated.
SCDOT experience with borrow materials typically found in Group B are Coastal Plain soils that
are typically uniform fine sands that are sometimes difficult to compact and behave similar to
silts. When these soils are encountered, caution should be used in selecting effective soil shear
strength friction angles since values typically range from 28ο < f’ < 32ο.
7-52 January 2019

7.12.4 Allowable Soil Shear Strengths of Compacted Soils
SCDOT has determined, through a research project, the effective and total soil strength
parameters (i.e., c’ and f’ or c and f) that are typically available for each South Carolina
County. The results of this research and the allowable parameters are available on the SCDOT
website (http://www.scdot.org/doing/geoTech_Design.aspx). If the results of the on-site soil
testing or the selected shear strength parameters are less than the shear strength parameters
provided on the SCDOT website then shear strength verification testing during construction
should not be required during compaction. However, the GEOR may select a project-specific
soil classification (i.e., AASHTO and USCS Classifications (see Chapter 6)) in order to assure
that the borrow materials meet the shear strength requirements. This project-specific soil
classification shall be provided on the project plans. The required testing for this verification, is
not anticipated to be different than the classification testing already currently being performed
during construction. If the on-site soil has a shear strength greater than the allowed for the
county, the GEOR may elect to use this higher shear strength without the requirement for shear
strength verification testing during construction. However, a project-specific classification (i.e.,
AASHTO and USCS Classifications) shall be required to be indicated on the project plans. If
the GEOR’s design needs to exceed the on-site shear strength parameters and the county
shear strength values, the GEOR shall use the proposed plan notes (see Chapter 22) to convey
the required soil strength properties to the Contractor. The following testing shall be required to
confirm the anticipated revised shear strength parameters:
• Moisture-density Relationship (Standard Proctor)

• Grain-size Distribution with wash No. 200 Sieve
• Moisture-Plasticity Relationship Determination (Atterberg Limits)
 Performed only on samples with more than 20 percent passing #200 sieve
• Natural Moisture Content
• Direct Simple Shear Test
 Performed only on samples with less than or equal to 20 percent passing
#200 sieve
 Sample remolded to 95 percent of Standard Proctor value
 Sample moisture content shall be between -1 percent to +2 percent of
optimum moisture content
• Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear Test with pore pressure measurements
 Performed only on samples with more than 20 percent passing #200 sieve
 Sample remolded to 95 percent of Standard Proctor value
 Sample moisture content shall be between -1 percent to +2 percent of
optimum moisture content
Once a borrow source achieving the required shear strength parameters has been located,
additional shear strength testing during construction will be required every approximate 50,000
CY. Classification testing performed at the intervals required by the SCDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition, will be required to assure that the borrow
materials continue to be similar to the materials used in the shear strength testing. The GEOR
shall determine when and if additional shear strength testing is required if the classification
testing indicates a change in classification.
If stone (e.g., Nos. 57, 67, 789 or No. 4 ballast) is selected as the borrow material, large scale
direct shear (minimum size of direct shear box of 12 inches square by 8 inches deep) should be
required. However, to avoid the cost and time for testing these materials a maximum ϕ’ of 46°
shall be assumed for all of the stones. If a ϕ’ greater than this value is required, then testing will
be required. However, prior to testing the GEOR shall obtain approval from the appropriate
January 2019 7-53

PC/GDS for the increased ϕ’ and will provide the name of the laboratory performing the tests. It
is noted that this ϕ’ does not apply to MSE wall design. See Supplemental Technical
Specification (STS) Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls, SC-M-713, for the ϕ’ that
applies to MSE wall design.
7.13 SOIL SETTLEMENT PARAMETERS
Settlements are caused by the introduction of loads (stresses, +Δσ) on to the subsurface soils
located beneath a site. These settlements can be divided into 2 primary categories, elastic and
time-dependent settlements (consolidation). Settlements (strains) are a function of the load
(stress) placed on the subsurface soils. Elastic settlements typically predominate in Sand-Like
soils or soils with 0 to 20 percent fines regardless of the plasticity of the fines. Time-dependent
settlements predominate in Clay-Like soils or soils with more than 20 percent fines and with LL
greater than 40 (LL > 40) and PI greater than 10 (PI > 10). The GEOR should evaluate soils
with either LL greater than 40 (LL > 40) or PI greater than 10 (PI > 10) as to whether the soils
will behave elastically or have time-dependent settlement characteristics. The GEOR is
responsible for making this determination for these soils (see Table 7-6 for guidance).
Settlement parameters can be developed from high quality laboratory testing (triaxial shear for
elastic parameters and consolidation testing for time-dependent parameters). However, for
cohesionless soils, obtaining high quality samples for testing can be extremely difficult.
Therefore, in-direct methods (correlations) for measuring the elastic parameters are used. Time-
dependent settlement parameter correlations for cohesive soils also exist. These correlations
should be used for either preliminary analyses or for evaluating the reasonableness of
laboratory consolidation testing.
7.13.1 Elastic Parameters
Elastic settlements are instantaneous and are considered recoverable. These settlements are
calculated using elastic theory. The determination of elastic settlements is provided in Chapter
17. In the determination of the elastic settlements the elastic modulus, E, (tangent or secant)
and the Poisson’s ratio, ν, are used. Since E and ν are both dependent on the laboratory
testing method (unconfined, confined, undrained, drained), the overconsolidation ratio, water
content, strain rate and sample disturbance, considerable engineering judgment is required to
obtain reasonable values for use in design. Provided in Table 7-18 are elastic modulus
correlations with N*1,60 values. Table 7-19 provides typical values of soil elastic modulus and
Poisson’s ratio for various soil types.
Table 7-18, Elastic Modulus Correlations For Soil Using SPT N-values
(AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
Elastic Modulus, Es
Soil Type
(psi)
Silts, sandy silts, slightly cohesive mixtures 56*(N*1,60)
Clean fine to medium sands and slightly
97*(N*1,60)
silty sands
Coarse sands 139*(N*1,60)
Sandy gravels and gravels 167*(N*1,60)
The elastic modulus of soil may also be correlated to corrected tip resistance (qt) and the soil
behavior type (Ic) according to Robertson and Cabal (2015), using the following equations:
𝑬𝑬𝒔𝒔 = 𝜶𝜶𝑬𝑬 ∗ (𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 − 𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 ) Equation 7-79
7-54 January 2019

𝜶𝜶𝑬𝑬 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ �𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏(𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓∗𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄+𝟏𝟏.𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔) � Equation 7-80
Where,
qt = Corrected tip resistance (see Chapter 5)
σvo = Total overburden stress at depth of qt (see Chapter 5)
Ic = Soil behavior type (see Chapter 5)
Es = Elastic modulus, same units as qt and σvo
According to Marchetti, et al. (2001), the elastic modulus of soil, Es, may be correlated from the
DMT using the constrained modulus, MDMT.
(𝟏𝟏+𝝂𝝂)∗(𝟏𝟏−𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐)
𝑬𝑬𝒔𝒔 = � (𝟏𝟏−𝝂𝝂)
� ∗ 𝑴𝑴𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-81
Where,
ν = Poisson’s ratio
MDMT = constrained modulus (bars) (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
𝑴𝑴𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 = 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴 ∗ 𝑬𝑬𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-82
Where,
ED = Dilatometer modulus (bars) (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)
The term RM is a function of the Material Index and the Horizontal Stress Index (f(ID,KD)). RM is
determined using the following equations when KD is less than or equal to 10 (KD ≤ 10).
𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑫 ≤ 𝟎𝟎. 𝟔𝟔 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 + 𝟐𝟐. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-83
𝟎𝟎. 𝟔𝟔 < 𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑫 < 𝟑𝟑 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴 = 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴,𝟎𝟎 + �𝟐𝟐. 𝟓𝟓 − 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴,𝟎𝟎 � ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-84
𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴,𝟎𝟎 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ [𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑫 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟔𝟔] Equation 7-85
𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑫 ≥ 𝟑𝟑 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓 + 𝟐𝟐 ∗ 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-86
If KD is greater than 10 (KD > 10), then use the following equation:
𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-87
If RM determined using the above equations is less than 0.85, set RM equal to 0.85.
For soils with a Poisson’s ratio, ν, ranging from 0.25 to 0.30, the following equation may be
used. A Poisson’s ratio in this range is typical of coarse-grained soils (see Table 7-19).
𝑬𝑬𝒔𝒔 ≈ 𝟎𝟎. 𝟖𝟖𝑴𝑴𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 Equation 7-88
January 2019 7-55

Table 7-19, Typical Elastic Modulus and Poisson Ratio Values for Soil
(AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
Typical Elastic Modulus Values,
Soil Type
E (ksi) Poisson’s Ratio, ν
Clay:
Soft sensitive 0.347 – 2.08 0.4 – 0.5
Medium stiff to stiff 2.08 – 6.94 (Undrained)
Very stiff 6.94 – 13.89
Silt 0.278 – 2.78 0.3 – 0.35
Fine Sand:
Loose 1.11 – 1.67
0.25
Medium dense 1.67 – 2.78
Dense 2.78 – 4.17
Sand:
Loose 1.39 – 4.17 0.20 – 0.36
Medium dense 4.17 – 6.94 0.25 – 0.40
Dense 6.94 – 11.11 0.30 – 0.40
Gravel:
Loose 4.17 – 11.11 0.20 – 0.35
Medium dense 11.11 – 13.89 0.25 – 0.40
Dense 13.89 – 27.78 0.30 – 0.40
7.13.2 Consolidation Parameters
Consolidation settlement involves the removal of water from the interstitial spaces (pores)
between soil grains and the rearrangement of the soil grains. Typically, Clay-Like soils are
considered to undergo consolidation settlements. However, soils with either LL greater than 40
(LL > 40) or PI greater than 10 (PI > 10) also undergo consolidation settlements depending on
the moisture-plasticity relationship. Clay-Like soils are typically more impervious and therefore
will require more time to settle. Further these soil types may also undergo more settlement than
Sand-Like soils because of the volume of water within these soils. To determine the amount of
consolidation settlement that a soil will undergo, the following soil parameters are required:
compression (Cc or Cεc), recompression (Cr or Cεr), and secondary (Cα or Cεα) compression
indices, coefficient of consolidation (cv) and the effective preconsolidation pressure (σ’p or p’c).
These parameters are normally determined from consolidation testing (see Chapter 5).
Prior to obtaining the parameters indicated previously, the curves obtained from the
consolidation test require correction by the GEOR. Curve correction is applied to the test
results presented as e-log p and ε-log p curves. Duncan and Buchignani (1976) provide
methods for correcting both e-log p and ε-log p for both normally consolidated and
overconsolidated soils. The procedures for correcting the e-log p curves (normally consolidated
and overconsolidated) are presented in Table 7-20 and for the ε-log p curves (normally
consolidated and overconsolidated) are presented in Table 7-21.
7-56 January 2019

Table 7-20, Correction of the e-log p Curve for Disturbance

(modified from Duncan and Buchignani (1976))
Step Description
Normally Consolidated Soil (σ’vo = σ’p) (Figure 7-31)
1 Locate point A at the intersection of eo and σ’p (Pp)
2 Locate point B on the virgin curve or extension where e = 0.4eo
3 Connect points A and B with a straight line – this is the corrected virgin curve
Overconsolidated Soil (σ’vo < σ’p) (Figure 7-32)
1 Locate point A at the intersection of eo and σ’vo (Po’)
Draw a line from point A parallel to the rebound curve and locate point B where this
2
line intersects σ’p (Pp)
3 Locate point C on the virgin curve or extension where e = 0.4eo
4 Connect points B and C with a straight line – this is the corrected virgin curve
Figure 7-31, Corrected e-log p Normally Consolidated Curve

(Duncan and Buchignani (1976))
Figure 7-32, Corrected e-log p Overconsolidated Curve

January 2019 7-57

Table 7-21, Correction of the ε-log p Curve for Disturbance

(modified from Duncan and Buchignani (1976))
Step Description
Normally Consolidated Soil (σ’vo = σ’p) (Figure 7-33)
1 Locate point A at the intersection of ε = 0 and σ’p (Pp)
2 Locate point B on the virgin curve or extension where ε = 0.4
3 Contact points A and B with a straight line – this is the corrected virgin curve
Overconsolidated Soil (σ’vo < σ’p) (Figure 7-34)
1 Locate point A at the intersection of ε = 0 and σ’vo (Po’)
Draw a line from point A parallel to the rebound curve and locate point B where this
2
line intersects σ’p (Pp)
3 Locate point C on the virgin curve or extension where ε = 0.4
4 Contact points B and C with a straight line – this is the corrected virgin curve
Figure 7-33, Corrected ε-log p Normally Consolidated Curve

Figure 7-34, Corrected ε-log p Overconsolidated Curve

The compression (Cc or Cεc) and recompression (Cr or Cεr) indices are determined from the
corrected curves. The compression (Cc or Cεc) index is the slope of the virgin portion of the
corrected curve, either e-log p (Cc) or ε-log p (Cεc), over a full logarithmic cycle. The
7-58 January 2019

recompression index is the slope of the recompression portion of the corrected curve, either e-
log p (Cr) or ε-log p (Cεr) over a full logarithmic cycle. If the slope of either portion of the curve
does not extend over a full logarithmic cycle extend the line in both directions to cover a full
logarithmic cycle.
For preliminary estimates and to verify the results of the consolidation testing the correlations
listed in the following Sections may be used. These correlations should not be used for final
design, except where the GEOR considers the results of the consolidation testing to be
questionable. The GEOR shall document the reason for the use of the correlations. In addition,
all of the consolidation parameters shall be clearly provided in the geotechnical report.
7.13.2.1 Compression Index
Similarly to the other consolidation parameters, the Cc is best determined from consolidation
testing. The Compression Index (Cc) has been related to the Atterberg Limits by Tiwari and
Ajmera (2012); however, this correlation should only be used for either preliminary analyses
(first order estimates) or for evaluating the reasonableness of laboratory consolidation testing.
𝑪𝑪𝒄𝒄 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ (𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷) Equation 7-89
Where,
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
The Compression Index may also be related to strain as indicated below.
𝑪𝑪
𝑪𝑪𝜺𝜺𝜺𝜺 = (𝟏𝟏+𝒆𝒆𝒄𝒄 Equation 7-90
𝒐𝒐 )
Where,
eo = Initial void ratio
Cc = Compression Index
7.13.2.2 Recompression Index
The Recompression Index (Cr) can be correlated to the Cc values. Ladd (1973) indicates the Cr
value is approximately 10 to 20 percent of the Cc value. The Recompression Index may also be
related to strain as indicated by the following equation.
𝑪𝑪
𝑪𝑪𝜺𝜺𝜺𝜺 = (𝟏𝟏+𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒓 Equation 7-91
𝒐𝒐 )
Where,
Cr = Recompression Index
7.13.2.3 Secondary Compression Index
Secondary compression occurs after the completion of elastic and primary consolidation
settlements. The amount of secondary compression settlement should be determined and
included in the estimate of total settlement for a given project. The Secondary Compression
Index (Cα) like the other consolidation settlement parameters is best determined from
consolidation testing; however, correlations exist that may be used to provide a preliminary
January 2019 7-59

estimate of secondary compression settlement. In addition, these correlations may be used to

verify the results of the consolidation testing. Provided in Figure 7-35 is a chart of Cα versus the
natural moisture content of soil.
Figure 7-35, Secondary Compression Index Chart

(NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982))
The Secondary Compression Index may also be related to strain as indicated below.
𝑪𝑪
𝑪𝑪𝜺𝜺𝜺𝜺 = (𝟏𝟏+𝒆𝒆𝜶𝜶 Equation 7-92
𝒐𝒐 )
Where,
Cα = Secondary Compression Index
For normally consolidated soils, the ratio of the coefficient of secondary compression to the
compression index (Cα/Cc = Cεα/Cεc) is relatively constant for a given soil. On average, the
value of Cα/Cc is 0.04±0.01 for inorganic clays and silts. For organic clays and silts the value
averages 0.05±0.01. For peats, the value averages 0.06±0.01. These values may be used to
assess actual values from laboratory tests or for preliminary analyses. If the final effective
stress in the ground is less than the preconsolidation stress, the Cr should be used instead of Cc
to estimate the coefficient of secondary compression.
7.13.2.4 Consolidation Coefficient
The preceding Sections dealt with the parameters required to determine the amount of
settlement that could be anticipated at a project location; while this Section provides a means to
estimate the time for consolidation settlement. As indicated previously, elastic settlements are
anticipated to occur relatively instantaneously (i.e., during construction) while consolidation
settlements are anticipated to occur at some time after the structure has been completed. The
rate of consolidation is directly related to the permeability of the soil. As with the consolidation
7-60 January 2019

parameters, the coefficient of consolidation (cv) should be determined from the results of
consolidation testing. Correlations exist that may be used to provide a preliminary estimate of
cv. In addition, these correlations may be used to verify the results of the consolidation testing.
Provided in Figure 7-36 is a chart of cv versus the LL of soil.
Figure 7-36, Consolidation Coefficient and Liquid Limit Relationship

(NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982))
7.13.2.5 Effective Preconsolidation Stress
The effective preconsolidation stress (σ’p or p’c) in soils is used to determine whether to use the
Compression or Recompression Index. The effective preconsolidation stress (σ’p) is the
maximum past pressure that a soil has been exposed to since deposition. Similarly to the other
consolidation parameters the σ’p is best determined from consolidation testing. Correlations
also exist; however, these correlations should only be used for either preliminary analyses (first
order estimates) or for evaluating the reasonableness of laboratory consolidation testing. The
effective preconsolidation stress (σ’p or p’c) can be correlated to total cohesion, c (NAVFAC
DM-7.1 (1982)). As with the other consolidation parameters the correlated σ’p should be used
for preliminary estimates only.
𝒄𝒄
𝝈𝝈′𝒑𝒑 = (𝟎𝟎.𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏+𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎∗𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷) Equation 7-93
The σ’p can also be estimated from the CPTu using the following equations (Sabatini, et al.
(2002)).
January 2019 7-61

𝝈𝝈′𝒑𝒑 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ (𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 − 𝝈𝝈𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗 ) Equation 7-94
CPT Piezocone (shoulder element):
𝝈𝝈′𝒑𝒑 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝒖𝒖𝟐𝟐 − 𝒖𝒖𝟎𝟎 ) Equation 7-95
𝝈𝝈′𝒑𝒑 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ (𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 − 𝒖𝒖𝟐𝟐 ) Equation 7-96
7.14 ROCK PARAMETER DETERMINATION
While the shear strength of individual rock cores is obtained from unconfined axial compression
testing, the shear strength of the entire rock mass should be used for design. Therefore, the
shear strength and consolidation parameters for the rock mass shall be developed using both
the GSI and the RMR methods as defined in Chapter 6. In addition, the GEOR should consider
the time rate of rock coring, since typically harder rock masses will take longer to core through
than weaker rock masses. There are many factors besides the strength of the rock that will
affect the time rate of rock coring including condition of the core barrel, the condition of the drill
rig, experience of the driller rig operator in rock operations, etc. The GEOR should be aware of
all of these conditions when developing a profile of the rock encountered at a site.
7.14.1 Shear Strength Parameters
7.14.1.1 GSI
The rock mass shear strength from the GSI should be evaluated using the Hoek-Brown failure
criterion (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum (2002)). The shear strength of the rock mass is
represented by a curved envelope that is a function of the unconfined (uniaxial) compressive
strength of the intact rock, qu, and 2 dimensionless factors. The rock mass compressive shear
strength, τ is defined as indicated below. This rock mass compressive shear strength is used in
design, provided there is no structural defect in the rock mass that would predominate over the
rock mass compressive shear strength.
𝝉𝝉 = 𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖 ∗ 𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒂 Equation 7-97
𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮−𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
� �
𝒔𝒔 = 𝒆𝒆 𝟗𝟗−𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 Equation 7-98
𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏 �− � �− �
𝒂𝒂 = + ∗ �𝒆𝒆 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 − 𝒆𝒆 𝟑𝟑 � Equation 7-99
𝟐𝟐 𝟔𝟔
Where,
qu = Unconfined compressive strength of intact rock specimen
GSI = Geological Strength Index (see Chapter 6)
D = Disturbance factor (see Chapter 6)
e = Mathematical constant (i.e., Euler’s number)
7.14.1.2 RMR
The rock mass shear strength should be evaluated using the Hoek and Brown criterion as
presented in AASHTO LRFD Specifications. The shear strength of the rock mass is
represented by a curved envelope that is a function of the unconfined (uniaxial) compressive
7-62 January 2019

strength of the intact rock, qu, and 2 dimensionless factors. The rock mass shear strength, τ, (in
ksf) is defined as indicated below.
𝐪𝐪𝐮𝐮
𝛕𝛕 = (𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛟𝛟′𝐢𝐢 − 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛟𝛟′𝐢𝐢 ) ∗ 𝐦𝐦 ∗ Equation 7-100
𝟖𝟖
−𝟏𝟏
−𝟑𝟑 � �
� � 𝟐𝟐
𝝓𝝓′𝒊𝒊 = 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭−𝟏𝟏 �𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝟐𝟐 �𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬−𝟏𝟏 �𝒉𝒉 𝟐𝟐 �� − 𝟏𝟏� Equation 7-101
[𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏∗(𝒎𝒎∗𝝈𝝈′𝒏𝒏 +𝒔𝒔∗𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖 )]
𝒉𝒉 = 𝟏𝟏 + Equation 7-102
𝟑𝟑∗𝒎𝒎𝟐𝟐 ∗𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖
Where,
f′i = instantaneous friction angle of the rock mass (degrees)
qu = average unconfined rock core compressive strength (ksf)
σ′n = effective normal stress (ksf)
m and s = Constants, from Table 7-22
Table 7-22, Constants m and s based on RMR

((AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
Rock Type:
A = Carbonate rocks with well-developed crystal cleavage –
dolomite, limestone and marble
B = Lithified argillaceous rocks – mudstone, siltstone, shale and
slate (normal to cleavage)
Constants
C = Arenaceous rocks with strong crystals and poorly developed

Rock Quality crystal cleavage – sandstone and quartzite
D = Fine-grained polyminerallic igneous crystalline rocks –
andesite, dolerite, diabase and rhyolite
E = Coarse-grained polyminerallic igneous and metamorphic
crystalline rocks – amphibolite, gabbro, gneiss, granite, norite,
and quartz-diorite
A B C D E
Intact rock samples m 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
RMR = 100 s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Very good quality rock mass m 2.40 3.43 5.14 5.82 8.567
RMR = 85 s 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
Good quality rock mass m 0.575 0.821 1.231 1.395 2.052
RMR = 65 s 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293
Fair quality rock mass m 0.128 0.183 0.275 0.311 0.458
RMR = 44 s 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009
Poor quality rock mass m 0.029 0.041 0.061 0.069 0.102
-6 -6 -6 -6 -6
RMR = 23 s 3*10 3*10 3*10 3*10 3*10
Very poor quality rock mass m 0.007 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.025
-7 -7 -7 -7 -7
RMR = 3 s 1*10 1*10 1*10 1*10 1*10
7.14.2 Settlement Parameters
Rocks will primarily undergo elastic settlements. The elastic settlements will be instantaneous
and considered recoverable. These settlements are calculated using elastic theory. The
determination of elastic settlements is provided in Chapter 17. In the determination of the
elastic settlements, the elastic modulus of the rock mass, Em, is required.
January 2019 7-63

7.14.2.1 GSI
The elastic modulus of a rock mass, Em, is the lesser of modulus determined from intact rock
core testing, ER, or from the equations below (Turner (2006)).
𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮−𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖 � �
𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖 ≤ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎 = �� ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 � Equation 7-103
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮−𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
� �
𝒒𝒒𝒖𝒖 > 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 Equation 7-104
𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮
𝑬𝑬𝑹𝑹 � �
𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎 = ∗ �𝒆𝒆 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐.𝟕𝟕 � Equation 7-105
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
Where,
qu = unconfined (uniaxial) compressive strength of the intact rock, MPa
Em = elastic modulus of rock mass, GPa
ER = elastic modulus of intact rock, GPa
1MPa = 10.44 tsf = 20.88 ksf
1GPa = 145 ksi
7.14.2.2 RMR
The elastic modulus of a rock mass is the lesser of modulus determined from intact rock core
testing or from the equations below (AASHTO LRFD Specifications).
RMR ≤ 85
𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹−𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
� �
𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∗ �𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 � Equation 7-106
60 < RMR < 85
𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎 = (𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹) − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏, 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 Equation 7-107
Where,
Em = Elastic modulus of rock mass, ksi
RMR = Adjusted Rock Mass Rating from Chapter 6
For RMR greater than or equal to 85 (RMR ≥ 85), use either the modulus determined from intact
rock core testing or 10,150 ksi whichever is less.
7.15 SCOUR
This Section of the GDM is concerned with the soil and rock properties that are provided to the
HEOR for use in scour analysis and design. According to the AASHTO Transportation Glossary
(2009) scour is defined as:
The washing away of streambed material by water channel flow. General

(contraction) scour occurs as a result of a constriction in the water channel
openings; local scour occurs as a result of local flow changes in a channel due to
constrictions caused by the presence of bridge piers or abutments.
7-64 January 2019

Scour is typically determined during 2 different hydraulic events; typically the 100-year flow
(design flood) event and the 500-year flow (check flood) event. The scour caused by the design
flood is used in the Strength and Service limit state checks; while the check flood is part of the
Extreme Event II limit state check (see Chapter 8 for more discussion on limit states).
Regardless of the flow event used to determine scour, certain soil and rock properties are
required to be provided to the HEOR for use in analysis and design. According to the SCDOT
Requirements for Hydraulic Design Studies (HDS) (2009), “Scour analysis will be performed
for all bridge type (bridge, wall and culverts) structures that are exposed to storm event
waters, utilizing USGS envelope curves and methods found in HEC-18.”
7.15.1 Soil
As required in Chapter 4, grain-size analyses including hydrometers are to be conducted on

samples within the potential scour zone both at the interior bents of the bridge as well as at the
end bents of the bridge. For each grain-size test performed, the D50 shall be reported in
millimeters to the HEOR.
7.15.2 Rock
In addition to classifying rock using the RMR and GSI systems, rock should also be classified in
regards to the erosion potential of the rock to flowing water. Fortunately, most of the information
previously used to describe the rock using the RMR and GSI systems is used to describe the
erodibility of the rock. Arneson, Zevenbergen, Lagasse, and Clooper (2012) use the Erodibility
Index to describe this erodibility of rock. The Erodibility Index, K, is determined using the
following equation. The GEOR shall coordinate with the HEOR to determine when K is required
and how K will be communicated between the GEOR and HEOR.
𝑲𝑲 = (𝑴𝑴𝒔𝒔 ) ∗ (𝑲𝑲𝒃𝒃 ) ∗ (𝑲𝑲𝒅𝒅 ) ∗ (𝑱𝑱𝒔𝒔 ) Equation 7-108
Where,
Ms = Intact rock mass strength parameter
Kb = Block size parameter
Kd = Shear strength parameter
Js = Relative orientation parameter
The intact rock mass strength parameter, Ms, is related to the unconfined compressive strength
as indicated in Table 7-23.
According to Arneson, et al. (2012):
Joint spacing and the number of joint sets within a rock mass determines the
value of Kb for rock. Joint spacing is estimated from borehole data by means of
the rock quality designation (RQD) and the number of joint sets is represented by
the joint set number (Jn). The values of the joint set numbers (Jn) are found in
Table 7-24. As seen in the table, Jn is a function of the number of joint sets,
ranging from rock with no or few joints (essentially intact rock), to rock formations
consisting of one to more than 4 joint sets. The classification accounts for rock
that displays random discontinuities in addition to regular joint sets. Random joint
discontinuities are discontinuities that do not form regular patterns. For example,
rock with two joint sets and random discontinuities is classified as having 2 joint
January 2019 7-65

sets plus random. Having determined the values of RQD and Jn, Kb is calculated
as:
𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
𝑲𝑲𝒃𝒃 = Equation 7-109
𝑱𝑱𝒏𝒏
The discontinuity or shear strength number (Kd) is the parameter that represents
the relative strength of discontinuities in rock. In rock, it is determined as the ratio
between joint wall roughness (Jr) and joint wall alteration (Ja), where Jr
represents the degree of roughness of opposing faces of a rock discontinuity,
and Ja represents the degree of alteration of the materials that form the faces of
the discontinuity. Alteration relates to amendments of the rock surfaces, for
example weathering or the presence of cohesive material between the opposing
faces of a joint. Values of Jr and Ja can be found in Tables 7-25 and 7-26. The
values of Kd calculated with the information in these tables change with the
relative degree of resistance offered by the joints. Increases in resistance are
characterized by increases in the value of Kd. The shear strength of a
discontinuity is directly proportional to the degree of roughness of opposing joint
faces and inversely proportional to the degree of alteration.
𝑱𝑱𝒓𝒓
𝑲𝑲𝒅𝒅 = Equation 7-110
𝑱𝑱𝒂𝒂
Table 7-23, Values of Rock Mass Strength Parameter, Ms

(Arneson, et al. (2012))
Mass
Unconfined
Strength
Strength/Hardness Recognition Compressive
Number,
Strength (psi)
Ms
Material crumbles under firm
Extremely Weak
Very Soft Rock (moderate) blows from sharp < 250 0.87
Rock
end of geological pick
Very Weak Rock Very Soft Rock Can be peeled with knife 250 – 480 1.86
Can just be scraped and
Weak Rock Soft Rock 480 – 950 3.95
peeled with a knife
Indentations up to 3/16-inch in
Medium Strong
Soft Rock specimen with firm (moderate) 950 – 1,915 8.39
Rock
blows of pick point
Cannot be scraped or peeled
with knife; specimen can be
Strong Rock Hard Rock broken with hammer end of 1,915 – 3,825 17.70
geological pick with a single
firm (moderate) blow
Specimen breaks with
3,825 – 7,685 35.0
Very Strong Rock Very Hard Rock hammer end of pick under
7,685 – 15,300 70.0
more than 1 blow
Many blows with geological
Extremely Strong Extremely Hard
pick to break through intact > 30,750 280.0
Rock Rock
material
7-66 January 2019

Table 7-24, Rock Joint Set Number Jn

Number of Joint Sets Joint Set Number, Jn
Intact, no or few joint/fissures 1.00
One joint/fissure set 1.22
One joint/fissure set plus random 1.50
Two joint/fissure sets 1.83
Two joint/fissure sets plus random 2.24
Three joint/fissure sets 2.73
Three joint/fissure sets plus random 3.34
Four joint/fissure sets 4.09
Multiple joint/fissure sets 5.00
Table 7-25, Joint Roughness Number, Jr

Joint Roughness Number,
Condition of Joint
Jr
Stepped Joints/fissures 4.0
Rough or irregular, undulating 3.0
Smooth undulating 2.0
Slickensided undulating 1.5
Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
Smooth planar 1.0
Slickensided planar 0.5
Joints/fissures either open or containing relatively soft gouge of sufficient
1.0
thickness to prevent joint/fissure wall contact upon excavation
Shattered or micro-shattered clays 1.0
Table 7-26, Joint Alteration Number, Ja

Joint Alteration Number, Ja for Joint
Description of Gouge Separation (mm)
1 2 3
1.00 1.01 – 5.00 > 5.01
Tightly healed, hard, non-softening impermeable filling 0.75 - -
Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1.0 - -
Slightly altered, non-softening, non-cohesive rock mineral
2.0 2.0 4.0
or crushed rock filling
Non-softening, slightly clayey non-cohesive filling 3.0 6.0 10.0
Non-softening, strongly over-consolidated clay mineral
3.0 6.0** 10.0
filling, with or without crushed rock
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings and small
4.0 8.0 13.0
quantities of swelling clays
Softening moderately over-consolidated clay mineral
4.0 8.0** 13.0
filling, with or without crushed rock
Shattered or micro-shattered (swelling) clay gouge, with
5.0 10.00** 18.0
or without crushed rock
1
Joint walls effectively in contact.
2
Joint walls come into contact after approximately 100 mm shear.
3
Joint walls do not come into contact at all upon shear.
**Also applies when crushed rock occurs in clay gouge without rock wall contact.
Relative orientation, in the case of rock, is a function of the relative shape of the
rock and its dip and dip direction relative to the direction of flow. The relative
January 2019 7-67

orientation parameter Js represents the relative ability of earth material to resist

erosion due to the structure of the ground. This parameter is a function of the dip
and dip direction of the least favorable discontinuity (most easily eroded) in the
rock with respect to the direction of flow, and the shape of the material units.
These 2 variables (orientation and shape) affect the ease by which the stream can
penetrate the ground and dislodge individual material units.
Conceptually, the function of the relative orientation parameter Js incorporating

shape and orientation is as follows. If rock is dipped against the direction flow, it
will be more difficult to scour the rock than when it is dipped in the direction of
flow. When it is dipped in the direction of flow, it is easier for the flow to lift the
rock, penetrate underneath and remove it. Rock that is dipped against the
direction of flow will be more difficult to dislodge. The shape of the rock,
represented by the length to width ratio r, impacts the erodibility of rock in the
following manner. Elongated rock will be more difficult to remove than equi-sided
blocks of rock. Therefore, large ratios of r represent rock that is more difficult to
remove because it represents elongated rock shapes. Values of the relative
orientation parameter Js are provided in Table 7-27.
7-68 January 2019

Table 7-27, Relative Orientation Parameter, Js

Dip Angle
of Closer
Dip Direction of Closer Spaced Joint Set Spaced Ratio of Joint Spacing, r
Joint Set
(degrees)
Ratio Ratio
Dip Direction Dip Angle Ratio 1:1 Ratio 1:2
1:4 1:8
180/0 90 1.14 1.20 1.24 1.26
In direction of stream flow 89 0.78 0.71 0.65 0.61
In direction of stream flow 60 .050 0.46 0.42 0.40
0/180 0 1.14 1.09 1.05 1.02
Against direction of stream flow -1 0.78 0.85 0.90 0.94
180/0 -90 1.14 1.20 1.24 1.26
Notes:
1. For intact material take Js = 1.00
2. For values of r greater than 8 take Js as for r = 8
3. If the flow direction, FD, is not in the direction of the true dip, TD, the effective dip, ED, is determined by
adding the ground slope, GS, to the apparent dip AD: ED = AD + GS
7.16 DYNAMIC PROPERTIES – GENERAL
Soil and rock dynamic properties are required in developing the site characterization model.
The site characterization model is used in the development of the site response analysis under
the EE I limit state. Chapter 12 provides details on conducting a site response analysis. The
static site characterization model (i.e., subsurface profile) has been developed in Section 7.4.
This static model forms the basis for the dynamic site characterization model. The dynamic site
characterization model consists of the following soil parameters:
• Initial (small strain) dynamic shear modulus.

• The small strain viscous damping ratio.
• Shear modulus reduction and strain-dependent hysteretic damping characteristics.
January 2019 7-69

• Dynamic shear strength.

• Liquefaction (SSL) resistance parameters.
• Post-liquefaction (post-SSL) residual shear strength.
These parameters may be developed using the standard geotechnical exploration as indicated
in Chapter 4. Further these parameters may be developed using more advanced in-situ testing
techniques or from geophysical surveys. The CPTu is beneficial in the development of the
dynamic site characterization because the CPTu can identify thin (~3-inch thick) layers that
might be missed in the standard soil test boring. However, it is possible to discover these thin
layers in standard soil test borings using continuous sampling techniques and careful logging of
each sample obtained. These thin layers, if continuous, could consist of weak or potentially
liquefiable soils that could lead to slope instability issues.
The ideal dynamic site characterization profile should extend to competent bedrock. Competent
bedrock is defined as having a shear wave velocity of at least 2,500 feet per sec (ft/s), which is
indicative, of the B-C Boundary (see Chapter 12). The physical properties (static and dynamic)
of the soil should be known over the entire interval from the ground surface to the top of the
competent rock. However, in most of the South Carolina, this will not be possible because of
the depth of the B-C Boundary. Therefore, the physical properties (static and dynamic) shall be
developed for the deepest testing location within the project limits. Because the B-C Boundary
is typically found at deeper depths in the Coastal Plain (see Chapter 11), the profile from
beneath the deepest boring to the top of the B-C Boundary may be established using previously
obtained data. Contact the PC/GDS for this additional data.
7.17 SOIL DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
The same parameters used to describe soil properties used in static analyses are the same for
seismic analyses. During a geotechnical subsurface investigation conducted in accordance with
this Manual, the following information should be obtained for each soil layer of interest:
• Soil classification.
• Index parameters (LL, PL, PI, w, etc.).
• Unit weight of the soil (γd, γmax, etc.).
• Compressibility parameters (Cc, Cr, σ’p, etc.).
• Shear strength parameters (f, c, f’, c’, etc.).
For a site response analysis the following seismic parameters will be required:
1. Consistency of the soil (e.g., relative density, Dr, or overconsolidation ratio, OCR).
2. Shear wave velocity, Vs, or initial (small strain) shear modulus, Gmax.
3. Cyclic stress-strain behavior.
4. Residual shear strength, τr.
7.17.1 Soil Consistency
The consistency of the soil is composed of 2 indicators, relative density, Dr, for Sand-Like soils
and the overconsolidation ratio, OCR, for Clay-Like soils. The Dr can be determined from the
following equation,
𝜸𝜸
𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎−𝒆𝒆𝒐𝒐 𝟏𝟏− 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅
𝜸𝜸𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅
𝑫𝑫𝒓𝒓 = =� 𝜸𝜸𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅 � ∗ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% Equation 7-111
𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 −𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝟏𝟏−
𝜸𝜸𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅
7-70 January 2019

Where,
emax = Maximum void ratio
emin = Minimum void ratio
eo = In-situ void ratio
γdmax = Maximum dry unit weight
γdmin = Minimum dry unit weight
γdo = In-situ dry unit weight
The information required to develop the Dr using Equation 7-111 must be obtained through
relative density testing and consolidation testing (see Chapter 5); therefore, the Dr is normally
correlated to the SPT N-value or the CPTu tip resistance (see 7.8.3). The Dr is normally used
on cohesionless (coarse-grained) soils.
As discussed previously, the OCR is the ratio of the past effective overburden to the existing
overburden and is typically used for Clay-Like (fine-grained) soils. Table 7-7 indicates that soils
with OCRs greater than 1 are overconsolidated; however, in addition to the OCR, the sensitivity,
St, is also required. St and OCR are used in Chapter 13 in the selection of the residual shear
strength to be used in design. Soils with a St less than 5 use a cyclic residual shear strength,
while soils with a St greater than or equal to 5 use the remolded shear strength.
7.17.2 Shear Wave Velocity/Initial Shear Modulus
One of the required soil properties needed to perform a soil response analysis is the soil
stiffness. Soil stiffness is characterized by either small-strain shear-wave velocity, Vs, or
small-strain shear modulus, Gmax. The measurement of Vs is required in Chapter 4 and is
measured in the field as indicated in Chapter 5 and reported as indicated in Chapter 6. The
small-strain shear wave velocity, Vs, is related to small-strain shear modulus, Gmax, by the
following equation.
𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝝆𝝆 ∗ 𝑽𝑽𝟐𝟐𝒔𝒔 Equation 7-112
𝜸𝜸𝒕𝒕
𝝆𝝆 = Equation 7-113
𝒈𝒈
Where,
Vs = Shear wave velocity of the soil, feet per sec (ft/s)
ρ = Mass density of the soil, (pound*second squared) per square foot ((lb*s2)/ft2)
γt = Total unit weight, pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3)
g = Acceleration due to gravity, 32.174 feet per second squared (ft/s2)
The Theory of Elasticity relates Gmax to the small strain Young’s modulus, Emax, as a function of
the Poisson’s ratio, ν, using the following equation:
𝑬𝑬𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝟏𝟏 + 𝝂𝝂) ∗ 𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 Equation 7-114
Poisson’s ratio for uncemented Sand-Like materials may be assumed to be approximately 0.35
and for Clay-Like materials Poisson’s ratio may be assumed to be approximately 0.48. For
transitional materials, review the PI as indicated in Table 7-6 and determine whether the soil will
behave as either a Sand-Like material or a Clay-Like material. Alternately, the Poisson’s ratio
may be determined from the results of geophysical testing using the following equation:
January 2019 7-71

𝟏𝟏
𝝂𝝂 = 𝟏𝟏 − � 𝟐𝟐 � Equation 7-115
𝑽𝑽
𝟐𝟐∗�𝟏𝟏−� 𝒔𝒔 � �
𝑽𝑽𝒑𝒑
Where,
Vs = Shear wave velocity, ft/sec
Vp = Compression wave velocity, ft/sec
Typical values of small-strain shear wave velocity, Vs, and small-strain shear modulus, Gmax, for
various soil types are shown in Table 7-28.
Table 7-28, Typical Small-Strain Shear Wave Velocity and Initial Shear Modulus
(Based on Hunt (2005) and Kavazanjian, Matasovic, Hadj-Hamou, and Wang (1998))
Mass Total Unit
Density, Weight, Small-strain Shear Initial Shear Modulus,
Soil Type Wave Velocity, VS Gmax
ρ γt
3
kg/m pcf m/s ft/s kPa psi
130 – 2,600 – 400 –
Soft Clay 1,600 100 40 – 90
300 13,000 2,000
210 – 7,000 – 1000 –
Stiff Clay 1,680 105 65 – 140
500 33,000 5,700
420 – 28,400 – 4,000 –
Loose Sand 1,680 105 130 – 280
920 131,700 19,200
Dense Sand and 650 – 70,400 – 10,000 –
1,760 110 200 - 410
Gravel 1,350 300,000 43,300
Residual Soil 1,000 – 180,000 – 27,000 –
2,000 125 300 - 600
(PWR, IGM) 2,000 720,000 108,000
Piedmont
Metamorphic and
Igneous Rock 760 – 2,500 –
(Highly – 3,000 10,000
Moderately
1,400,00 – 209,000 –
Weathered) 2,500 155
22,500,000 3,400,000
0 <RQD < 50 600 2,000
(1)
RQD = 65 760 2,500
(1)
RQD = 80 1,500 5,000
(1)
RQD = 90 2,500 8,000
(1)
RQD = 100 3,400 11,000
Basement Rock
(Moderately 2,600 165 > 3,400 > 11,000 > 30,000 > 4,300,000
Weathered to Intact)
(1)
Typical Values, Linear interpolate between RQD values
When site-specific shear wave velocities, Vs, are not available or need to be supplemented, an
estimation of the shear wave velocity, Vs, can be made by the use of correlations with in-situ
testing such as the SPT or the CPTu. Procedures for estimating dynamic properties of soils
have been developed by Andrus, Hayati, and Mohanan (2009). The procedures for correlating
SPT and CPTu results with shear wave velocity, Vs, have been summarized in Sections
7.17.2.1 and 7.17.2.2, respectively. These correlated Vs are for Holocene age clean sands. In
addition, Vs is also normalized to 1.0 tsf overburden (Vs1). Therefore, (Vs)meas requires
correction for fines content and normalization for overburden using the following equations.
�𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 �𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 ∗ 𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 ∗ (𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔 )𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 Equation 7-116
7-72 January 2019

𝟏𝟏 𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 = � ′ � ≤ 𝟏𝟏. 𝟒𝟒 Equation 7-117
𝝈𝝈 𝒗𝒗
�𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏 �𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 ∗ (𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔 )𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 Equation 7-118
Kcvs should only be applied to Vs less than or equal to 1,300 ft/sec. For Vs greater than 1,300
ft/sec, set Kcvs equal to 1.0.
Where,
σ’vo = Effective normal stress, tsf
𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 ≤ 𝟓𝟓%
𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 Equation 7-119
𝟓𝟓% < 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 < 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑%

𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = 𝟏𝟏 + (𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 − 𝟓𝟓) ∗ 𝑻𝑻 Equation 7-120
𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑% ≤ 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭
𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = 𝟏𝟏 + 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝑻𝑻 Equation 7-121
Where,
𝟐𝟐
�𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏 �𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 �𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏 �𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
𝑻𝑻 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ � � + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 � � Equation 7-122
𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑
7.17.2.1 SPT - Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, Estimation
Andrus, et al. (2009) have developed a correlation for determining Vs,1,CS from N1,60,CS, where
N1,60,CS is the standard penetration resistance normalized for overburden pressure and corrected
for energy and fines content. N1,60 is obtained from Equation 7-6. N1,60,CS is obtained from the
following equation.
𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 𝜶𝜶 + 𝜷𝜷 ∗ �𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 � Equation 7-123
Where,
𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 ≤ 𝟓𝟓%
𝜶𝜶 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎 𝜷𝜷 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 Equation 7-124
𝟓𝟓% ≤ 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 ≤ 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑%

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
�𝟏𝟏.𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕− � 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝟏𝟏.𝟓𝟓
𝜶𝜶 = 𝒆𝒆 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝟐𝟐 𝜷𝜷 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗 + Equation 7-125
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
January 2019 7-73

𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑% ≤ 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭
𝜶𝜶 = 𝟓𝟓. 𝟎𝟎 𝜷𝜷 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐 Equation 7-126
Where,
𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
�𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 �𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ �𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 � Equation 7-127
Where,
(Vs,1,CS)SPT = Corrected and normalized shear wave velocity based on SPT N-values for
uncemented, Holocene age sands, ft/sec
7.17.2.2 CPTu - Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, Estimation
Similarly to the N-value correlation presented previously for Vs, Andrus, et al. (2009) have
developed a correlation between Vs and qt,1,N,CS. Use Equation 7-9 to develop qt,1.
Normalization of qt,1 is required and determined using the following equation.
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑵𝑵 = Equation 7-128
𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂
Where,
qt,1 = Corrected tip resistance, tsf
Pa = Atmospheric pressure, assumed to be 1.0 tsf
Therefore, qt,1,N,CS is determined using the following equation.
𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑵𝑵,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄 ∗ 𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-129
Where,
𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 ≤ 𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔

𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 Equation 7-130
𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 > 𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 Equation 7-131

𝑲𝑲𝒄𝒄 = −𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 ∗ (𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 )𝟒𝟒 + 𝟓𝟓. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 )𝟑𝟑 − 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ (𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 )𝟐𝟐 + 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ∗ (𝑰𝑰𝒄𝒄 )
− 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖
Where,
Ic = Soil Behavior Type (see Equation 7-17)
Once qt,1,N,CS is determined the (Vs,1,CS)CPT may be determined using the following equation.
𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐
�𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 �𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ �𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑵𝑵,𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 � Equation 7-132
Where,
(Vs,1,CS)CPT = Corrected and normalized shear wave velocity based on CPT tip
resistances for uncemented, Holocene age sands, ft/sec
7-74 January 2019

7.17.3 Cyclic Stress-strain Behavior
An additional requirement of the site response analysis is an understanding of how the cyclic
loading of the design seismic event (EE I limit state) affects the stress-strain behavior of the
soil. This stress-strain behavior of soil is complex due to the cyclic ground motions induced by
the design seismic event (i.e., strong motion). Figure 7-37 provides a schematic of this
complexity. In Step 1, the soil element is sheared toward the right, while in Step 2, the soil
element is sheared toward the left. While the soil element is sheared right and left, the shear
wave that causes this shearing is considered to be vertically propagating and is considered to
be normal to the ground surface.
Figure 7-37, Stresses Induced in a Soil Element by Vertical Shear Wave

(Kavazanjian, et al. (2011))
The cyclic shearing stress and strain, τc and γc, is generally considered to be the source of most
of the damage caused by a seismic event. The response of the soil to cyclic shear stress and
strain is commonly characterized by hysteresis. Figure 7-38 shows a hysterical loop for uniform
cyclic loading. This hysteretic loop would apply to soil that is perfectly elastic, but soils are not
perfectly elastic and will deform (strain) under the induced shear loading. Therefore, the
hysteretic loop “leans” toward increasing shear strain, both positive and negative. A line drawn
through the tips of each hysteretic loop is called a “backbone curve” (see Figure 7-38). This
“backbone curve” further indicates that under cyclic loading soils will behave non-linearly (i.e.,
inelastically), but for easier understanding and modeling of the soil in these loading conditions
an equivalent linear model is used. The following equation shows that the shear modulus, G, of
the soil is related directly to the cyclic shear stress and strain:
𝝉𝝉𝒄𝒄
𝑮𝑮 = Equation 7-133
𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄
January 2019 7-75

Where,
τc = Cyclic shear stress
γc = Cyclic shear strain
As can be seen in Figure 7-38, Gmax occurs at zero shear strain (γc = 0) at least theoretically.
However, in reviewing Equation 7-133 at γc = 0, Gmax has no solution; therefore, Gmax is normally
determined at very small shear strains, γc = 10-4 or smaller.
Figure 7-38, Hysteretic Stress-Strain Loop for Uniform Cyclic Loading

According to Kavazanjian, et al. (2011):
The equivalent-linear model represents non-linear hysteretic soil behavior using

an equivalent shear modulus, G, equal to the slope of the line connecting the tips
of the hysteresis loop and an equivalent viscous damping ratio, λ, proportional to
the enclosed areas of the loop. … The shear strain dependence of the equivalent
modulus and damping ratio are described by the modulus reduction and damping
curves shown in Figure 7-39.
7-76 January 2019

Figure 7-39, Example Shear Modulus Reduction and Damping Ratio Curve
7.17.3.1 Shear Modulus Reduction Curves
Shear modulus reduction curves are typically presented as normalized shear modulus, G/Gmax
versus cyclic shear strain (γc). These curves are used for performing site-specific response
analyses. These shear modulus reduction curves are primarily influenced by the strain
amplitude, confining pressure, soil type, and plasticity. The shear modulus reduction curve is
typically obtained by using a hyperbolic model. A modified hyperbolic model by Stokoe,
Darendeli, Andrus and Brown (1999) has been used by Andrus, et al. (2003) to develop shear
modulus reduction curves for South Carolina soils. The hyperbolic model by Stokoe, et al.
(1999) is shown in the following equation.
𝑮𝑮� 𝟏𝟏
𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟏𝟏+� 𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄 �𝜶𝜶 Equation 7-134
𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
Where,
α = Curvature coefficient
γc = Cyclic shear strain
γcr = Cyclic reference shear strain
The curvature coefficient, α, and cyclic reference shear strain, γcr, have been estimated by
Andrus, et al. (2003) to provide the most accurate values for South Carolina Soils. Because it
was found that the cyclic reference shear strain, γcr, varied based on effective confining
pressure, γcr values are computed using cyclic reference shear strain at 1 tsf (100 kPa, 1 atm),
γcr1, as shown in the following equation.
𝒌𝒌
𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎
𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 = 𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 ∗ � � Equation 7-135
𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂
January 2019 7-77

The mean confining pressure, σ’m, at depth (Z) is computed as shown in Equation 7-136 in units
of kPa, where Pa is the reference pressure of 100 kPa, and k is an exponent that varies based
on the geologic formation and PI. Laboratory studies by Stokoe, Hwang, Darendeli, and Lee
(1995) indicate that the mean confining pressure, σ’m, values of each layer within a geologic unit
should be within ±50 percent of the range of σ’m for the major geologic unit.
𝟏𝟏+𝟐𝟐∗𝑲𝑲𝒐𝒐
𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎 = 𝝈𝝈′𝒗𝒗 ∗ � � Equation 7-136
𝟑𝟑
Where,
σ’v = Vertical effective pressure, kPa
Ko = At-rest earth pressure coefficient
The Ko is defined as the ratio of horizontal effective pressure, σ’h, to vertical effective pressure,
σ’v and is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 18. Values for the reference strain at 1 tsf (100
kPa, 1 atm), γcr1, curvature coefficient, α, and k exponent are provided for South Carolina soils
based on Andrus, et al. (2003) in Table 7-29.
7-78 January 2019

Table 7-29, Recommended Values γcr1, α, and k for SC Soils

(Andrus, et al. (2003))
Geologic Age and Soil Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Location of Variable
(1) 0 15 30 50 100 150
Deposits
γcr1 (%) 0.073 0.114 0.156 0.211 0.350 0.488
α
(2)
Holocene 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.01 1.04
(2)
k 0.385 0.202 0.106 0.045 0.005 0.001
γcr1 (%) 0.018 0.032 0.047 0.067 0.117 0.166
Pleistocene
(Wando) α 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.13 1.19
k 0.454 0.402 0.355 0.301 0.199 0.132
γcr1 (%)
(2) (2)
Tertiary --- --- 0.030 0.049 0.096 ---
α
(2)
Ashley Formation --- --- 1.10 1.15 1.28 ---
(Cooper Marl) k --- --- 0.497
(2)
0.455 0.362
(2)
---
γcr1 (%)
(2)
--- --- 0.023 0.041 --- ---
Tertiary
α
(2)
--- --- 1.00 1.00 --- ---
(Stiff Upland Soils) (2)
k --- --- 0.102 0.045 --- ---
γcr1 (%)
(2)
Tertiary 0.038 0.058 0.079 0.106 0.174 ---
(All soils at SRS
α
(2)
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---
except Stiff Upland
(2)
Soils) k 0.277 0.240 0.208 0.172 0.106 ---
γcr1 (%)
(1)
Tertiary 0.029 0.056 0.082 0.117 0.205 ---
α
(1)
(Tobacco Road, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---
Snapp) k 0.220 0.185 0.156 0.124 0.070
(1)
---
γcr1 (%)
(1)
Tertiary 0.047 0.059 0.071 0.086 0.125 ---
(Soft Upland Soils,
α
(1)
Dry Branch, Santee, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---
Warley Hill, (1)
Congaree) k 0.313 0.299 0.285 0.268 0.229 ---
γcr1 (%)
(1) (1)
0.040 0.066 0.093 0.129 --- ---
Residual Soil and
α
(1)
0.72 0.80 0.89 1.01 --- ---
Saprolite (2)
k 0.202 0.141 0.099 0.061 --- ---
(1)
SRS = Savannah River Site
(2)
Tentative Values – Andrus et al. (2003)
The procedure for computing the G/Gmax correlation using Equation 7-134 is provided in Table
7-30.
January 2019 7-79

Table 7-30, Procedure for Computing G/Gmax

Step Procedure Description
1 Perform a geotechnical subsurface exploration and identify subsurface soil geologic units,
approximate age, and formation.
2 Develop soil profiles based on geologic units, soil types, average PI, and soil density.
Subdivide major geologic units to reflect significant changes in PI and soil density. Identify
design ground water table based on seasonal fluctuations and artesian pressures.
3 Calculate the average σ’m and determine the corresponding ±50% range of σ’m for each major
geologic unit using Equation 7-136.
4 Calculate σ’m for each layer within each major geologic unit. If the values for σ’m of each layer
are within a geologic unit’s ±50% range of σ’m (Step 3) then assign the average σ’m for the
major geologic unit (Step 3) to all layers within it. If the σ’m of each layer within a geologic unit
is not within the ±50% range of σ’m for the major geologic unit, then the geologic unit needs to
be “subdivided” and more than one average σ’m needs to be used, provided the σ’m remain
within the ±50% range of σ’m for the “subdivided” geologic unit.
5 Select the appropriate values for each layer of cyclic reference strain, γcr1, at 1 tsf (1 atm),
curvature coefficient, α, and k exponent from Table 7-29. These values may be selected by
rounding to the nearest PI value in the table or by interpolating between listed PI values in the
table.
6 Compute the cyclic reference strain, γcr, based on Equation 7-135 for each geologic unit (or
“subdivided” geologic unit) that has a corresponding average σ’m.
7 Compute the design shear modulus reduction curves (G/Gmax) for each layer by substituting
cyclic reference strain, γcr, and curvature coefficient, α, for each layer using Equation 7-134.
Tabulate values of normalized shear modulus, G/Gmax with corresponding cyclic shear strain,
γc, for use in a site-specific response analysis.
7.17.3.2 Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio Curves
Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio curves are presented in the form of a Soil Damping Ratio, λ1
vs. Shear Strain, γ. The Soil Damping Ratio represents the energy dissipated by the soil and is
related to the stress-strain hysteresis loops generated during cyclic loading. Energy dissipation
or damping is due to friction between soil particles, strain rate effects, and nonlinear behavior of
soils. The damping ratio is never zero, even when soils are straining within the linear elastic
range of the cyclic loading. The damping ratio, λ, is constant during the linear elastic range of
the cyclic loading and is referred to as the small-strain material damping, λmin. The small-strain
material damping, λmin, can be computed using the equations developed by Stokoe, et al.
(1995).
−𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓∗𝒌𝒌
𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎
𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ∗ � � Equation 7-137
𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂
Where λmin1 is the small-strain damping at σ’m of 1 tsf (1 atm). The mean confining pressure,
σ’m, at depth (Z) is computed as shown in Equation 7-136 in units of kPa. The k exponent is
provided for South Carolina soils based on Andrus, et al. (2003) in Table 7-29. A relationship
for λmin1 based on soil plasticity index, PI, and fitting parameters “a” and “b” for specific geologic
units has been developed by Darendeli (2001) as indicated in Figure 7-40. Values for λmin1,
1
Editor’s Note: In the previous versions of this Manual, the Soil Damping Ratio was identified using “D”,
as indicated in Andrus, et al. (2003). The Soil Damping Ratio has also been identified using “ξ” in Kramer
(1996) and “λ” in Kavazanjian, et al. (2011). To be consistent with current NHI standards “λ” will be used
to identify Soil Damping Ratio in this version of the GDM.
7-80 January 2019
small-strain damping @ σ’m = 1 atm are provided for South Carolina soils based on Andrus, et
al. (2003) in Table 7-33.
Note: Dmin1 = λmin1

Figure 7-40, λmin1, Small-Strain Damping @ σ’m = 1 atm
Table 7-31, Recommended Value λmin1 (%) for SC Soils

Soil Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Geologic Age and Location of Deposits
0 15 30 50 100 150
(1)
Holocene 1.09 1.29 1.50 1.78 2.48 3.18
Pleistocene (Wando) 0.59 0.66 0.73 0.83 1.08 1.32
Tertiary (1) (1) (1)
--- --- 1.14 1.52 2.49 ---
Ashley Formation (Cooper Marl)
Tertiary (1)
--- --- 0.98 1.42 --- ---
(Stiff Upland Soils)
Tertiary (1)
0.68 0.94 1.19 1.53 2.37 ---
(All soils at SRS except Stiff Upland Soils)
Tertiary (1)
0.68 0.94 1.19 1.53 2.37 ---
(Tobacco Road, Snapp)
Tertiary
(1)
(Soft Upland Soils, Dry Branch, Santee, 0.68 0.94 1.19 1.53 2.37 ---
Warley Hill, Congaree)
(1) (1) (1) (1)
Residual Soil and Saprolite 0.56 0.85 1.14 1.52 --- ---
(1)
Tentative Values – Andrus, et al. (2003)
January 2019 7-81

Data compiled by the University of Texas at Austin (UTA) for (λ – λmin) vs. (G/Gmax) is plotted in
Figure 7-41.
Note: D = λ
Figure 7-41, (λ – λmin) vs. (G/Gmax) Relationship
Equation 7-137 represents a best-fit equation (UTA Correlation) of the observed relationship of
(λ – λmin) vs. (G/Gmax) indicated below:
Equation 7-138
𝟐𝟐
𝑮𝑮 𝑮𝑮
𝝀𝝀 − 𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐 ∗ � � − 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟐𝟐 ∗ � � + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟎𝟎
𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
If we substitute Equation 7-134 into Equation 7-138 and solve for the damping ratio, λ, the
Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio curves can be generated using the following equation.
Equation 7-139
𝟐𝟐
𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏
𝝀𝝀 = 𝝀𝝀𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 + 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐 ∗ � 𝜶𝜶 � − 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟐𝟐 ∗ � � + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟎𝟎
𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄 𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄 𝜶𝜶
𝟏𝟏 + � � 𝟏𝟏 + � �
𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜸𝜸𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
Where values of reference strain, γcr, are computed using Equation 7-135.
The procedures for using Equation 7-139 are provided in Table 7-32.
7-82 January 2019

Table 7-32, Procedure for Computing Damping Ratio

Step Procedure Description
1 Perform a geotechnical subsurface exploration and identify subsurface soil geologic units,
approximate age, and formation.
2 Develop soil profiles based on geologic units, soil types, average PI, and soil density.
Subdivide major geologic units to reflect significant changes in PI and soil density. Identify
design ground water table based on seasonal fluctuations and artesian pressures.
3 Calculate the average σ’m and determine the corresponding ±50% range of σ’m for each major
geologic unit using Equation 7-136.
4 Calculate σ’m for each layer within each major geologic unit. If the values for σ’m of each layer
are within a geologic unit’s ±50% range of σ’m (Step 3) then assign the average σ’m for the
major geologic unit (Step 3) to all layers within it. If the σ’m of each layer within a geologic unit
is not within the ±50% range of σ’m for the major geologic unit, then the geologic unit needs to
be “subdivided” and more than one average σ’m needs to be used, provided the σ’m remain
within the ±50% range of σ’m for the “subdivided” geologic unit.
5 Select appropriate small-strain material Damping @ σ’m = 1 atm, λmin1, from Table 7-31 for each
layer within a geologic unit.
6 Compute the small-strain material Damping, λmin, for each layer within a geologic unit using
Equation 7-137.
7 Select the appropriate values for each layer of cyclic reference strain, γcr1, @ σ’m = 1atm ,
curvature coefficient, α, and k exponent from Table 7-29. These values may be selected by
rounding to the nearest PI value in the table or by interpolating between listed PI values in the
table.
8 Compute the cyclic reference strain, γcr, based on Equation 7-135 for each geologic unit that
has a corresponding average σ’m.
9 Compute the design equivalent viscous damping ratio curves (λ) for each layer by substituting
cyclic reference strain, γcr, and curvature coefficient, α, and small-strain material Damping, λmin,
for each layer using Equation 7-139. Tabulate values of Soil Damping Ratio, λ, with
corresponding cyclic shear strain, γc, for use in a site-specific site response analysis.
7.17.3.3 Alternate Dynamic Property Correlations
7.17.3.3.1 Soil Stiffness
The SPT and CPTu shear wave, Vs, correlations provided in Sections 7.17.2.1 and 7.17.2.2 are
based on studies performed by Andrus, et al. (2009) for South Carolina soils. If the Andrus, et
al. (2009) shear wave correlations are not appropriate (i.e., embankment fill) for the soils
encountered at a specific project site, the GEOR can use alternate correlations. Documentation
is required explaining the use of the alternate correlation and that the correlation is nationally or
regionally recognized. Acceptable correlations for Gmax that can be used are listed in Table 7-33
and may be substituted into rearranged Equation 7-112.
January 2019 7-83

Table 7-33, Alternate Correlations for Determining Soil Stiffness Based on Gmax
Reference Correlation Equation Units Comments
(K2)max ≈ 30 for loose sands
Seed, Wong,
Idriss and 𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ (𝑲𝑲𝟐𝟐 )𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ∗ (𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎 )𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓 and 75 for very dense sands;
𝟎𝟎.𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 kPa ≈ 80-180 for dense well
Tokimatsu (𝑲𝑲𝟐𝟐 )𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ≈ 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 ∗ �𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 � graded gravels; Limited to
(1986)
cohesionless soils
Imai and
Tonouchi 𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏, 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 )𝟎𝟎.𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 kPa Limited to cohesionless soils
(1982)
𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = � � ∗ (𝜥𝜥)𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓 ∗ 𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒌𝒌 Limited to cohesive soils
Hardin (1978)
𝝌𝝌 kPa
(1) Pa = atmospheric pressure
𝝌𝝌 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟑𝟑 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟕𝟕 ∗ 𝒆𝒆𝟐𝟐𝒐𝒐 Pa and σ’m in kPa
𝜥𝜥 = (𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂 ∗ 𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎 )𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓
Jamiolkowski, 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
Leroueil, and 𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = � 𝟏𝟏.𝟑𝟑 � ∗ 𝜥𝜥 ∗ 𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒌𝒌 Limited to cohesive soils
𝒆𝒆𝒐𝒐
(1)
kPa
Lo Presti Pa and σ’m in kPa
(1991) 𝜥𝜥 = (𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂 ∗ 𝝈𝝈′𝒎𝒎 )𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓
Mayne and 𝒒𝒒𝟎𝟎.𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝒄𝒄 Limited to cohesive soils
𝑮𝑮𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 = 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗. 𝟓𝟓 ∗ (𝑷𝑷𝒂𝒂 )𝟎𝟎.𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 ∗ � 𝟏𝟏.𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 � kPa
Rix (1993) 𝒆𝒆𝒐𝒐 Pa and qc in kPa
(1)
The parameter k is related to the plasticity index, PI, as follows:
PI k PI k
0 0.00 60 0.41
20 0.18 80 0.48
40 0.30 >100 0.50
7.17.3.3.2 Shear Modulus Reduction Curves
The shear modulus reduction curves provided in Section 7.17.3.1 are based on studies
performed by Andrus, et al. (2009). If the Andrus, et al. (2009) shear modulus reduction curves
are not appropriate (i.e., embankment fill) for the soils encountered at a specific project site, the
GEOR may use alternate shear modulus reduction curve correlations. Documentation is
required explaining the use of the alternate curve and that the alternate curve is nationally or
regionally recognized. Acceptable correlations that may be used are listed below:
• Andrus, Zhang, Ellis and Juang (2003)

• Seed and Idriss (1970)
• Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
• Ishibashi and Zhang (1993)
• Idriss (1990)
• Seed et al. (1986)
7.17.3.3.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratio Curves
The equivalent viscous damping ratio curves provided in Section 7.17.3.2 are based on studies
performed by by Andrus, et al. (2009). If the by Andrus, et al. (2009) equivalent viscous
damping ratio curves are not appropriate (i.e., embankment fill) for the soils encountered at a
project site the GEOR may use alternate equivalent viscous damping ratio curves.
Documentation is required explaining the use of the alternate curve and that the alternate curve
is nationally or regionally recognized. Acceptable correlations that may be used are listed
below:
• Andrus, Zhang, Ellis and Juang (2003)
7-84 January 2019

• Seed et al. (1986)

• Idriss (1990)
• Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
7.17.4 Cyclic Residual Shear Strength
Cyclic residual shear strengths are an important element in the evaluation of seismic slope
stability. Two different residual shear strengths may be developed depending on whether the
soils are susceptible to soil shear strength loss or not. The use of residual shear strengths in
the Service or Strength limit states is not anticipated for slope stability analysis. However, the
residual shear strengths discussed previously in this Chapter should be used for those soils that
are not susceptible to soil shear strength loss, but are anticipated to undergo significant
movement (typically greater than 10 inches) caused by the induced seismic motion. Typically
these soils are anticipated to be above the groundwater level. Chapter 13 provides the methods
for determining the residual shear strength of soils that will undergo shear strength losses.
Chapter 14 provides the discussion of when to use these residual shear strengths.
7.18 ROCK DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
According to Kavazanjian, et al. (2011):
In a seismic analysis, rock may be treated as either a linear elastic material with
a constant shear modulus and no damping or as an equivalent linear material
with an initial small strain modulus, a slight potential for modulus degradation,
and a small amount of damping. The elastic modulus for the rock mass is
generally based upon either shear wave velocity measurements or, in cases
where the value of the modulus is not critical (i.e., when the modulus is merely
used to characterize the impedance contrast at the bottom of a soil column),
using typical properties. Modulus reduction and damping typically based upon
generic equivalent linear modulus reduction and damping curves (e.g., the
generic curves for soft rock from Silva, et al. (1996)).
7.19 ELECTRO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
The GEOR is required to test soil and water, both surface and subsurface as required, to
determine the electro-chemical properties of the respective materials. Two general
environments are established:
• Aggressive
• Non-aggressive
The SCDOT BDM (2006) defines the substructure “as any component or element located below
the bearings.” The superstructure is defined as the “bearings and all of the components and
elements resting upon them.” For superstructures the environmental classification will be
determined by the SEOR. Substructures are classified as indicated in Table 7-34.
January 2019 7-85

Table 7-34, Criteria for Substructure Environmental Classifications

Environmental Electro-Chemical
Units Soil Water
Classification Component
pH - < 5.5 < 5.5
Aggressive (if any
Cl ppm1 N.A. > 500
of these conditions
SO4 ppm1 > 1,000 > 500
exist)
Resistivity Ohm-cm < 2,000 N.A.
This classification must be used at all sites not meeting the requirements
Non-aggressive
for Aggressive Environments
pH = acidity (-log10H+; potential of hydrogen); Cl = chloride content; SO4 = sulfate content
1
ppm (part per million) = mg/L (milligram per liter)
These criteria do not apply to MSE walls, RSSs or reinforced embankments; see the
appropriate STS.
7.20 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (2017), LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Customary U.S. Units, 8th Edition, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (2009), Transportation

Glossary, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
Arneson, L. A., Zevenbergen, L. W., Lagasse, P. F., and Clooper, P. E., (2012), Evaluating
Scour at Bridges, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18, (Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-003), 5th
Edition, US Department of Transportation, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Andrus, R. D., Hayati, H., and Mohanan, N. P., (2009), "Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for
Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Volume 135, Issue 6, pp. 735-744.
Andrus, R. D., Zhang, J., Ellis, B. S., and Juang, C. H., (2003), "Guide for Estimating the
Dynamic Properties of South Carolina Soils for Ground Response Analysis", South Carolina
Department of Transportation, SC-DOT Research Project No. 623, FHWA-SC-03-07.
Boulanger, R. W. (2003), "Relating Ka to a Relative State Parameter Index." Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 770-773.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, (2006), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Kayen, R. E. and
Moss, R. E. S., (2004), “Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic
Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, Issue 12, pp. 1314-1340.
Darendeli, M. B., (2001), Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and
Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Das, B. M., (1997), Advanced Soil Mechanics, 2nd Edition, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC.
7-86 January 2019

Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

(1986), Soil Mechanics – Design Manual 7.1, (Publication No. NAVFAC DM-7.01), Alexandria,
Virginia.
Duncan, J. M. and Buchignani, A. L., (1976), An Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Duncan, J. M. and Wright, S. G., (2005), Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New Jersey.
Hardin, B. O., (1978), "The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior of Soils", Proc. Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, California, Vol. 1, pp. 3-89.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A., (1996), “Empirical Correlation Between Penetration Resistance
and Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils”, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical
Society, Volume 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Hoek, E., (2007), Practical Rock Engineering, Rocscience, Available at:

http://www.rocscience.com/education,hoeks_corner.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B., (2002), “Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – 2002
Edition,” Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity: Proceedings of the 5th North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada
Conference : NARMS-TAC 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D., (1981), An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice

Hall, New Jersey.
Hunt, R. E., (2005), "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Handbook”, 2nd Edition, Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Idriss, I. M., (1990), "Response of Soft Soil Sites During Earthquakes", H. Bolton Seed Memorial
Symposium Proceedings, Volume 2, BiTech, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., (2008), “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.” Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), EERI Monograph MNO-12.
Imai, T. and Tonouchi, K., (1982), "Correlation of N-Value with S-Wave Velocity and Shear
Modulus", Proc. 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 67-72.
Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X. J., (1993), “Unified Dynamic Shear Moduli and Damping Ratios of
Sand and Clay”, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Volume 33, No. 1, pp. 182-191.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J., and Lancellotta, R., (1985), “New Developments in
Field and Lab Testing of Soils”, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Engineering Proceedings, Volume 1.
Jamiolkowski, M., Leroueil, S. and Lo Presti, D. C. F. (1991), "Theme Lecture: Design

Parameters from Theory to Practice", Proc. Geo-Coast '91, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-41.
January 2019 7-87

Jefferies, M. G. and Davies, M. P., (1993), “Use of CPTu to Estimate SPT N60,” Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, Volume 16, Number 4, pp. 458-468.
Kavazanjian, E., Wang, J-N. J., Martin, G. R., Shamsabadi, A., Lam, I., Dickenson. S. E., and
Hung, C. H., (2011), LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical
Features and Structural Foundations, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3, (Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-11-032), US Department of Transportation, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Kramer, S. L., (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Ladd, C. C., (1973), “Settlement Analysis of Cohesive Soils,” Research Report 71-2, No. 272,
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Ladd, C. C., Foot, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. G. (1977). “Stress Deformation
and Strength Characteristics.” Proceedings 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Volume 2, Tokyo, Japan.
Liao, S. S. C. and Whitman, R. V., (1986), “Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp. 373-377.
Marchetti, S. (1997). “The Flat Dilatometer: Design Applications.” Proceedings, 3rd International
Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Research Laboratory,
Cairo University, Egypt.
Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., Totani, G., and Calabrese, M., (2001) “The Flat Dilatometer Test
(DMT) in soil investigations, A Report by the ISSMGE Committee TC16,” Proceedings In-Situ
2001, International Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Bali, Indonesia.
Marinos, P. and Hoek, E., (2000), “GSI: A Geologically Friendly Tool for Rock Mass Strength
Estimation,” Proceedings, Geo-Engineering 2000, International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.
Mayne, P. W. (2007), Cone Penetration Testing, NCHRP Synthesis 368, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Mayne, P. W. and Rix, G. J., (1993), "Gmax-qc, Relationships for Clays", Geotechnical Testing
Journal, ASTM, Volume 16, No. 1, pp. 54-60.
Mayne, P. W., Christopher, B. R., and DeJong, J., (2002), Subsurface Investigations -
Geotechnical Site Characterization, (Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-031), US Department of
Transportation, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
McGregor, J. A. and Duncan, J. M., (1998) Performance and Use of the Standard Penetration
Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Mitchell, J. K., (1993), Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Munfakh, G., Arman, A., Samtani, N., and Castelli, R., (1997), Subsurface Investigations,
(Publication No. FHWA-HI-97-021), US Department of Transportation, National Highway
Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.
7-88 January 2019

Munfakh, G., Kavazanjian, E., Matasovic, N., Hadj-Hamou, T., and Wang, J., (1998),
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Reference Manual, NHI Course No. 13239, (Publication
No. FHWA HI-99-012), U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Institute, Federal
Highway Administration, Arlington, Virginia.
Rausche, F., Thendean, G., Abou-matar, H., Linkins, G. E., and Goble, G. G., (1997),
Determination of Pile Driveability and Capacity from Penetration Tests – Volume I: Final
Report, (Report No. FHWA-RD-96-179), U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of
Engineering R&D, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G., (1983), Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 718-745.
Roberston, P. K. and Cabal (Roberston) K. L., (2015), Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for
Geotechnical Engineering, 6th Edition, Gregg Drilling and Testing, Signal Hill, California.
Sabatini, P. J., Bachus, R. C., Mayne, P. W., Schneider, J. A., and Zettler, T. E., (2002),
Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, (Publication
No. FHWA-IF-02-034). US Department of Transportation, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., (1970), “Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response
Analysis”, Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idirss, I. M., and Tokimatsu, K., (1986), “Moduli and Damping Factors
for Dynamic Analysis of Cohesionless Soils”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Volume 112, Issue 11, pp. 1016-1031.
Silva, W., Abrahamson, N. A., Toro, G. R., and Constantino, C., (1996), “Description and
Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model”, Report prepared for the Engineering
Research and Applications Division, Department of Nuclear Energy, Pacific Engineering and
Analysis, El Cerrito, California.
Sorensen, H. K. and Okkels, N., (2013), “Correlation between drained shear strength and
plasticity index of undisturbed overconsolidated clays”, Challenges and Innovations in
Geotechnics, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France.
South Carolina Department of Transportation, (2009), Requirements for Hydraulic Design

Studies, South Carolina Department of Transportation,
http://www.scdot.org/doing/technicalPDFs/hydraulic/requirements2009.pdf.
Spangler, M. G. and Handy, R. L., (1982), Soil Engineering, 4th Edition, Harper & Row.
Stark, T. D. and Eid, H. T., (1994), “Drained Residual Strength of Cohesive Soil”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 120, Issue 5, pp. 856-871.
Stark, T. D. and Eid, H. T., (1997), “Slope Stability Analyses in Stiff Fissured Clays”, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Volume 123, Issue 4, pp. 335-343.
January 2019 7-89

Stark, T. D. and Hussain M., (2013), “Empirical Correlations: Drained Shear Strength for Slope
Stability Analyses”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Volume
139, Issue 6, pp. 853-862.
Stokoe, K. H., II, Hwang, S. K., Darendeli, M. B., and Lee, N. J., (1995), “Correlation Study of
Nonlinear Dynamic Soils Properties”, final report to Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Stokoe, K. H., II, Darendeli, M. B., Andrus, R. D., and Brown, L. T., (1999). “Dynamic Soil
Properties: Laboratory, Field and Correlation Studies”, Proceedings, 2nd International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, Lisbon, Portugal, 811-845.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G., (1996), Soil Mechanics In Engineering Practice, 3rd
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Tiwari, B. and Ajmera, B., (2012), “New Correlation Equations for Compression Index of
Remolded Clays”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Volume
138, Issue 6, pp. 757-762.
Turner, J., (2006), Rock-Socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations, NCHRP
Synthesis 360, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R., (1991), “Dynamic Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 117, No. 1, pp. 89-107.
7-90 January 2019

Geomechanics and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geomechanics and Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Geomechanics and Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 7

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL

January 2019 7-i

7-ii January 2019

January 2019 7-iii

7.2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN APPROACH

January 2019 7-1

7.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING QUALITY CONTROL

7.4 DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSURFACE PROFILES

7.5 SITE VARIABILITY

7-2 January 2019

Table 7-1, Site Variability Defined By COV

7.6 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

7.7 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

7.8 FIELD DATA CORRECTIONS AND NORMALIZATION

7.8.1 SPT Corrections

7.8.1.1 Energy Correction (CE)

7-4 January 2019

ER is expressed as an integer (i.e., 90 percent energy is ER = 90) in Equation 7-2. The CE

Table 7-2, Assumed Energy Ratio by Hammer Type (CE)

7.8.1.2 Overburden Correction (CN)

7.8.1.3 Rod Length Correction (CR)

January 2019 7-5

Table 7-3, Rod Length Correction (CR)

7.8.1.4 Sampler Configuration Correction (CS)

Table 7-4, Sampler Configuration Correction (CS)

7.8.1.5 Borehole Diameter Correction (CB)

Table 7-5, Borehole Diameter Correction (CB)

7.8.1.6 Corrected N-values

7-6 January 2019

𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑬𝑬 Equation 7-6

𝑵𝑵𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-7

𝑵𝑵∗𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑹𝑹 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑺𝑺 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑩𝑩 Equation 7-8

𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = 𝑵𝑵∗𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ∗ 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 Equation 7-9

7.8.2 CPTu Corrections

7.8.2.1 Effective Overburden Normalization

𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 ∗ 𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕 Equation 7-10

𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔,𝟏𝟏 = 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵 ∗ 𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒔 Equation 7-11

7.8.2.2 Thin Layer Correction

𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏,𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 = 𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 ∗ �𝒒𝒒𝒕𝒕,𝟏𝟏 � Equation 7-12

Figure 7-1, Schematic of Thin Layer Effects

7-8 January 2019

7.8.2.3 Soil Behavior Type and Normalization of CPTu Data

January 2019 7-9

Figure 7-3, Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Chart Using QT versus Bq

7.8.3 Correlations for Relative Density From SPT and CPTu

𝑵𝑵∗𝟏𝟏,𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 ≤ 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃

7-10 January 2019

N*1,60 = Corrected SPT N-value, blows per foot

7.8.4 Dilatometer Correlation Parameters

𝑬𝑬𝑫𝑫 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑. 𝟕𝟕 ∗ (𝒑𝒑𝟏𝟏 − 𝒑𝒑𝟎𝟎 ) Equation 7-25

January 2019 7-11

σ’vo = Effective overburden stress, tsf (1 bar ≈ 1 tsf)

7.9 SOIL LOADING CONDITIONS AND SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH SELECTION

Geotechnical engineering as presented in this Manual has a statistical (LRFD) and

The 3-step evaluation process is discussed in detail in the following Sections.

7.9.1 Soil Loading

7-12 January 2019

7.9.2 Soil Response

January 2019 7-13