QUESTION 1

Answer the following questions as fully as possible:

1) WHAT IS A SITE INVESTIGATION?
Site investigation is a process of site exploration consisting of boring, sampling and
testing so as to obtain geotechnical information for a safe , practical and economical
geotechnical evaluation and design .Generally it is an exploration or discovery of the
ground conditions especially on untouched site. In other words the main purpose of site
investigation is to determine within practical limits, the depth, thickness, extent and
compositions of each subsoil stratum, the depth and type of rock, the depth and
composition of groundwater, the strength, compressibility and hydraulic characteristics
of soil strata required by geotechnical engineers. Sometimes it is also known as
geotechnical investigation.

Surface exploration can include geologic mapping, geophysical methods, and
photogrammetry, or it can be as simple as a geotechnical professional walking around on
the site to observe the physical conditions at the site.

To obtain information about the soil conditions below the surface, some form of
subsurface exploration is required. Methods of observing the soils below the surface,
obtaining samples, and determining physical properties of the soils and rocks include test
pits, trenching (particularly for locating faults and slide planes), boring, and in situ tests.

2) WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO CONDUCT AS SITE INVESTIGATION(STATE
AT LEAST 5 REASONS)

to treat a large area of soil on a once-off basis, and sharing the cost of the required
treatment process ( the impact rolling of a site located on collapsible soil).
To determine the possible difficulties that may be encountered by a specific
construction method for any particular civil project.
To minimise damage that could be caused by these soils could also be communicated
at this stage. At least homedwellers would be alerted to potential problems (and the
associated costs) from the outset, thus enabling them to make informed decisions
regarding the most appropriate foundation system for their homes.
To study the suitability of construction material (soil or rock)
To enable a safe, practical and economic design to be prepared


3) WHAT ARE THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF A SITE INVESTIGATION THAT
WOULD BE INCLUDED MAY SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT?A DIAGRAM
OF THE STEPS AND HOW THEY ARE INTER-RELATED MAY HELP.

Desk study to collect all the relevant data and information
Reconnaissance of site works
Planning program after reviewing the above
Ground or soil exploration includes boring, sampling and testing
Laboratory testing (also field if necessary)
Preparation and documentation of SI report
Engineering design stages
Review during construction and monitoring


4) IN TERM OF THE EXECUTION OF A SITE INVESTIGATION, WHAT STEPS
WOULD BE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE FIELD, IN THE FIED AND POST-
FIELD?

Step 1 Building Design Concept Definition
The first step in a geotechnical investigation is the concept design of the building by the
client and architect/engineer. This information is required for setting the terms of reference
for a geotechnical site investigation and enables the geotechnical consultant to understand
specifics of the proposed structure. Information that should be addressed is: Building
description; location, size, configuration (number or stories), above or on ground. And a
general site plan with the building outline. Magnitude and type of loading Service life of
proposed building Tolerance of building to settlement (total & differential). Ancillary works
(utilities) and structures Schedule limitations

At this stage the building developer and architect/engineer should select a geotechnical
consultant to carry out the geotechnical site investigation in two stages; a) preliminary site
evaluation b) detailed geotechnical site investigation with test holes The reason for
conducting it in two stages is that the first stage may identify more clearly the key
geotechnical condition and this in turn may lead to modifying or alternating the proposed
foundation type. This could result in adjustment of the drilling and testing program and result
in the development of a more effective geotechnical site investigation program.

Step 2 Preliminary Site and Project Evaluation
The geotechnical consultants should gather available information in the clients domain, the
consultants office, published geological reports and maps to prepare a preliminary
assessment of the site and suggest suitable foundation design options for the proposed
structure. The amount of information available will vary with site.


The geotechnical consultant shall summarize and assess the following information:
Surficial soil and bedrock
Likely site stratigraphy and hydrology
Climate, design air temperature and likely climate warming rate and mean annual
ground temperature and annual thaw depth
Surface hydrology and hydrogeology that may impact the building foundation
Availability of granular construction material for foundation base and grading
Potential foundation options and local precedents

This information could be used to either evaluate the favoured foundation design, and if
necessary, advise of alternative design options, or identify a likely foundation design. The
results of this summary and discussion with the building developer and architect/engineer
will lead to the acceptance of a detailed geotechnical site investigation program.


Step 3 Geotechnical Site Investigation and Laboratory Testing
The actual geotechnical field investigation is the most critical and costly part of the work.
Therefore, it should be based on information prepared in steps 1 and 2

Step 4 Analyses and Geotechnical Report Preparation
























5) WHAT RESOURCES WOULD ONE AQUIRE DURING THE DESK STUDY
PORTION OF THE SITE INVESTIGATION?

SOURCE (Contaminant) a substance which is located in, on or under the land and has the
potential to cause harm to human, health, water resources including controlled waters or the
wider environment.

Phase 1 contamination assessments comprise the collation of desk based research together
with the understanding gained from a site walkover. This phase of investigation provides an
initial overview of the nature and extent of geotechnical or contamination hazards that may
exist.







The desk study typically includes a review of historical maps and aerial photographs,
consideration of the geological and hydrogeological setting of the site from published
sources, contact with regulatory authorities and retrieval of ground information from database
resources. Desk studies are critical in revealing potential ground hazards such as mining
hazards, landfill operations, nearby pollution incidents, naturally occurring radon gas,
potentially contaminating land uses and pollution incidents. Desk studies also help to
understand the wider environmental setting of the site so that potential receptors to
contamination, such as groundwater resources, are identified.




The site walkover survey (also known as site reconnaissance) allows the site and its
immediate surroundings to be inspected first hand. Potential ground problems, for example
significant cracking of nearby structures, can be identified during the walkover. Indicators of
potential contamination include distressed vegetation, discoloured soils, polluted water and
waste materials. Asbestos containing materials may also be tentatively identified in any
structures at the site. An important source of information can also be interviews with people
who have worked at the site or live nearby.

The information from the Phase 1 assessment is used to develop a textual and/or graphical
model of likely ground conditions. This conceptual model is critical in designing an
appropriate Phase 2 intrusive investigation. However, it should be recognised that both
phases of investigation are commonly combined into a single contract by BRD in order to
save time and reporting expenses for our clients.

Historical research and review of available information from sources such as archives, plans
and records, databases and regulatory authorities to discover the past and current activities at
a site and in the surrounding area and to assess them for potentially contaminative processes,
to determine the potential for the presence of contamination.

The Phase 1 Desk Study identifies any potential sources of contamination resulting from the
current and/or historical activities at the site and in the surrounding area.

The report will also identify any potentially sensitive receptors, e.g. humans, surface
watercourses, aquifers, buildings or ecological receptors and collate the information relating
to the sites environmental setting i.e. geology, hydrogeology, industrial activity, location of
controlled waters (canals, estuaries, lakes, ponds, rivers, springs, aquifers), pollution
incidents and proximity to open/closed landfill sites.




This information is then used to undertake a qualitative risk assessment through the
development of a conceptual model for the site. Theconceptual model identifies any
Significant Pollutant Linkages which may be present.

If Significant Pollutant Linkages are present then a Phase 2 site investigation may be required
to quantify the risk and also to assess the potential for environmental liability associated with
the site.


The Phase 1 desk study, offered by Hydrogeo comprises a thorough desk study review of
available site environmental data, which is supplemented with additional on-line information.
This desk study is further supported, (where appropriate) by discussion with the statutory
consultees so as to provide a detailed baseline for the site and surrounding area.
Following the desk study, where required a visit and walkover with the site operator / owner
can be undertaken in order to view the site, discuss current and historical operations and
identify environmental risks and liabilities.


QUESTION 2

1) DESCRIBE THE SURFACE AND DOWN-HOLE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
TO CONDUCT EACH TEST.


Standard penetration test (SPT)













surface equipment required to conduct standard penetration
Although information on the soil and rock conditions exposed at the ground surface is very
valuable, geotechnical engineers also need to evaluate the subsurface (underground)
conditions. The geophysical methods descibed earlier can provide some insight, but we
primarily rely on soil and rock samples obtained by digging exploratory trenches or pits.
these subsurface exploration activities usually are the heart of a site characterization program,
and typically are the most expensive part because they require the mobilization of both
equipment and labor.

Down-hole equipment required to conduct standard penetration test
Sometimes it is useful to drill large-diameter (500-900mm) borings so the subsurface
conditions can be observed by downhole logging. A geologist desceds into such holes on a
specially fabricated cradle and inspects the exposed wells. This allows thorough mapping of
soil and rock types, attitudes of various contects and bedding planes, etc, and thus is much
more reliable and informative than relying solely on samples. Of course, this method is
suitable only above the ground water table in holes not prone to caving or squeezing.

Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)
































Surface equipment required to conduct Cone Penetration Test
Cone penetration testing (CPT) permits rapid exploration of shallow (less than 30 metres)
subsurface conditions while minimizing retrieval of subsurface materials, an incovenient and
occasionally expensive by product of conventional drilling. This exploration method employs
sensors that are pushed into the ground to infer the properties of both soils and pore fluids.
Known as direct-push technology, this method can map out the vertical and lateral extent of
stratigraphic layers, as well as the distribution of subsurface contaminants. By using standard
engineering correlations, the geotechnical properties of stratigraphic layers can also be
inferred. In 1997, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), under the PG&E - U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA),
contributed funds for the CPT truck. The PG&E - USGS CRADA was created to conduct
earthquake-hazard investigations and improve earthquake notifications needed for reducing
earthquake-hazard investigations and improve earthquake notification needed for reducing
earthquake risks in the San Fransico Bay Region. Since 1998, the USGS CPT truck has
provided data for a broad variety of USGS earthquake-hazard, geologic, and hydrologic
investigations that require detailed subsurface information.
A CPT sounding is made by pushing a small probe into the ground. Typically, a 3.6-
centimeter-diameter probe (cone) is pushed into the ground to depths ranging from 15 to 30
metres. The cone is advanced downward at a constant velocity of 2 centimeterb per second,
using hydraulic rams that apply the full 23-ton weight of the CPT truck to push the probe
rods to depth. In typical CPT sounding, the resistance to penetration is measured. Continuous
measurement are made of the resistance to penetration of the tip and the frictional sliding
resistance of the sleeve of the cone. The penetration resistance, which is digitized at 5-
centimeter depth intervals, permits detailed inferences about stratigraphy and lithology. Soil
type is inferred from a chart that compare these two measurements with the known physical
properties of various soils.
CPT is a much more rapid and cost effective approach than conventional drilling for shallow
subsurfacce exploration. Typically, four to five 15- to 30-meter-deep sounding.















2) DETAIL THE PROCEDURES OF HOW TO CONDUCT EACH TEST.

STANDARD PENETRATION TESTPROCEDURE (SPT)


Test Procedure

1. Test Hole
Drill the hole to the desired sampling depth and clean out all disturbed material.
If a wet drill is used, flush out all cuttings.

2. Assembling Equipment
Attach the split-barrel sampler to the A-rod and lower into the hole until it is
sitting on the undisturbed material.
Attach the drive weight assembly.
Lift the 63.5 kg hammer approximately 0.76 m and allow it to fall on the anvil
delivering one seating blow.
Mark the drill rod in 3 successive .15 m increments to observe penetration.
Mark the drive weight assembly to indicate a 0.76 m hammer lift.

3. Penetration Testing
Raise and drop the hammer 0.76 m successively by means of the rope and
cathead, using no more than 2 1/4 wraps around the cathead. The hammer should
be operated between 40 and 60 blows per minute and should drop freely.
Continue the driving until either 0.45 m has been penetrated or 100 blows has
been applied.
Record the number of blows for each .15 m of the penetration. The first 0.15 m
increment is the "seating" drive. The sum of the blows for second and third
increment of 0.15 m penetration is termed "penetration resistance or "N-value".
If the blow count exceeds 100 in total, terminate the test and record the number of
blows for the last 0.30 m of penetration as the N-value.
If less than 0.30 m is penetrated in 100 blows, record the depth penetrated and the
blow count.
If the sampler advances below the bottom of the hole under its own weight, note
this condition on the log.

4. Handling Sample
Bring the sampler to the surface and open it. Remove any obvious contamination
from the ends or sides and drain excess water. Carefully scrape or slice along one
side to expose fresh material and any stratification.
Record the length, composition, colour, stratification and condition of sample.
Remove sample and wrap it or seal in a plastic bag to retain moisture. If the
sample can be removed relatively intact, wrap it in several layers of plastic to
strengthen it and seal ends with tape. Mark the sample "top" and "bottom" if
applicable and label it with an identification number.








Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)

Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. carries out all Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) using an
integrated electronic cone system, Figure CPT. The soundings were conducted using a
20 ton capacity cone with a tip area of 15 cm2
and a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2
.
The cone is designed with an equal end area friction sleeve and a tip end area ratio of
0.85.

The cone takes measurements of cone
bearing (qc), sleeve friction (fs) and
penetration pore water pressure (u2) at 5-
cm intervals during penetration to provide
a nearly continuous hydrogeologic log.
CPT data reduction and interpretation is
performed in real time facilitating on-site
decision making. The above mentioned
parameters are stored on disk for further
analysis and reference. All CPT
soundings are performed in accordance
with revised (2002) ASTM standards (D
5778-95).

The cone also contains a porous filter
element located directly behind the cone
tip (u2), Figure CPT. It consists of porous
plastic and is 5.0mm thick. The filter
element is used to obtain penetration pore
pressure as the cone is advanced as well
as Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests
(PPDTs) during appropriate pauses in
penetration. It should be noted that prior
to penetration, the element is fully
saturated with silicon oil under vacuum
pressure to ensure accurate and fast
dissipation.

When the soundings are complete, the test holes are grouted using a Gregg In Situ
support rig. The grouting procedures generally consist of pushing a hollow CPT rod
with a knock out plug to the termination depth of the test hole. Grout is then pumped
under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled from the hole. Disruption or further
contamination to the site is therefore minimized.



3) ILLUSTRATE THE QUANTITIES MEASURED IN EACH TEST. PROVIDE
TYPICAL VALUES.

Standard Penetration Test Procedure (SPT)

Accuracy and precision
Accuracy expressed as calibration non-linearity of strain gauges.
Typically 0.2 % of the full scale output (qc and fs) and 0.5% of full scale for pore pressure.
Precision is one of the hallmarks of CPT. Considering strata heterogeneity, remarkable
repeatability is achieved in side-by-side comparison soundings.
Precision of the tip readings is most reliable. Tip readings generally have the greatest design
significance.







































4) LIST AND DISCUSS THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
EACH TEST.

Standard penetration test (SPT)


ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
CPT: Advantages over SPT


Newer technology =less populated
database than SPT.
Another common source of
interpretive error in the
SPT procedure is when the sampler
encounters rocks
slightly larger than the sample
barrels sleeve diameter.









The cone penetration test (CPT)

ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

Continuous data
Elimination of operator error
Reliable, repeatable test results
CPT: Advantages over SPT
provides much better resolution,
reliability
versatility; pore water pressure,
dynamic soil

Inability to penetrate through gravels
and cobbles
Newer technology =less populated
database than SPT
Lack of sampling
Does not give a sample
Will not work with soil with gravel
Need to mobilize a special rig












5) COMMENT ON THE RIABILITY AND REPEATABILITY OF EACH TEST

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT can provide useful and reliable data with good maintenance of the equipment and
quality control in the performance of the test. It can also provide very unreliable data. Efforts
should focus on making the test more reliable.

The classification of uncertainties shown in the paper aims to provide a framework for the
practicing
engineer to recognize the uncertainties of the SPT and take measures to minimize them.
There are not sufficient data to adequately quantify most of the sources of uncertainty.

Design philosophy for the bearing capacity criterion shows inconsistencies that affect the
system reliability for small foundation widths. The design philosophy should not only take
into consideration the theoretical basis of the mathematical model but also consider the
variability and the uncertainties involved in the data that are used as input to this model i.e.
the quality of the data. Ignoring the uncertainty in the input can result in unconservative
design or at best at irrational design procedure.

The current practice in shallow foundation design using factors of safety provides the
engineer with a false impression of a certain degree of safety in the design. Foundations
designed with a factor of safety of 2 may be safer than foundations designed with a factor of
safety of 3 in different ground conditions. The reliability-based approach provides a more
accurate assessment of the degree of conservatism and rational design criteria. The profession
should specify the socially and economically acceptable probabilities of failure in the design.