See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232382180

SoilEngineering: A Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet program for geotechnical and
geophysical analysis of soils
Article in Computers & Geosciences October 2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.01.015 Source: DBLP

CITATIONS

READS

10

3,352

1 author:
Ferhat Ozcep
Istanbul University
49 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Ferhat Ozcep

Retrieved on: 08 November 2016

Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

SoilEngineering: A Microsoft Excels spreadsheet& program for geotechnical

and geophysical analysis of soils$
Ferhat Ozcep n
Department of Geophysical Engineering, School of Engineering, Istanbul University, 34320 Avcilar Yerleskesi, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e in fo

abstract

Article history:
Received 25 May 2009
Received in revised form
13 January 2010
Accepted 19 January 2010

SoilEngineering is a user-friendly, interactive Microsoft Excels spreadsheet program for the

geotechnical and geophysical analysis of soils. The inuence of soil behavior on earthquake
characteristics and/or structural design is one of the major elements in investigating earthquake
forces, and thus the structural response with static and dynamic loads. With its interactive nature, the
program provides the user with an opportunity to undertake soil static and dynamic load analysis. The
program is formed by three main options: (1) Data Preparation, (2) Derived Parameters and (3) Analysis
of Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads). The Data Preparation option is divided into four
modules: Seismic Refraction Data, Geoelectrical Data, Borehole and SPT (N) Data and Laboratory Data.
The Derived Parameters option is divided into two modules: Geotechnical Parameters Derived from
Geophysical Data and Relationships between Vs and SPT (N) Values. The Analysis of Soil Problems (with
Static and Dynamic Loads) option is divided into nine modules: Bearing Capacity for Shallow and Deep
Foundations, Settlement Analysis (Static and Dynamic Loads), Estimation of Subgrade Reaction
Coefcient, Slope Stability Analysis, Seismic Hazard Analysis, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships,
Acceleration/Velocity/Displacement Spectra, Soil Amplication Analysis and Soil Liquefaction Analysis.
Soil engineering also permits plotting geophysical and geotechnical data with analysis.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Excel spreadsheet
Geotechnical and geophysical analysis
Soil mechanics and dynamics

1. Introduction
The natural materials that constitute the earths crust are
rather arbitrarily divided by engineers into two categories: soil
and rock. Soil is a natural aggregate of mineral grains that can be
separated by such gentle mechanical means as an agitation in
water (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967). In a dynamic sense, seismic
waves generated at the source of an earthquake propagate
through different soil horizons, until they reach the surface at a
specic site. The travel paths of these seismic waves in the
uppermost soil layers strongly affect their characteristics, producing different effects on earthquake motion at the ground surface.
Local amplication caused by surcial soft soils is a signicant
factor in destructive earthquake motion. Frequently, site conditions determine the types of damage from moderate to large
earthquakes (Bard, 1998; Pitikalis, 2004; Safak, 2001).
The design of a foundation, an earth dam, or a retaining wall
cannot be made intelligently, unless the designer has at least a
reasonably accurate conception of the physical properties of the
soils involved. The eld and laboratory investigations required to
obtain this essential information constitute soil exploration.
$
n

Code available from server at http://www.iamg.org/CGEditor/index.htm

Tel.: + 90 2124737070; fax: + 90 2124737180.
E-mail address: ferozcep@istanbul.edu.tr

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.01.015

Many engineering analyses related to soils (bearing capacity,

settlement, liquefaction, amplication, slope stability, earthquake
hazards, etc.) make use of geotechnical and geophysical data. As
Keskin (2002) points out, researchers can obtain useful tools for
modelling scientic data by using new techniques and algorithms.
Several useful computer programs have been designed for
geophysical and geotechnical analysis of soils, for use by the
scientic and engineering communities (e.g., EERA, Shake, etc.).
In this paper, a new spreadsheet program is presented called
SoilEngineering, designed for analysis of many soil problems
(bearing capacity, settlement, slope stability, liquefaction, soil
amplication and earthquake hazard) with geophysical and
geotechnical data. To execute the calculations for this analysis,
SoilEngineering uses a Microsoft Excels Workbook, including
interactive connections and enquiries (Figs. 1 and 2).
SoilEngineering is designed for execution in Microsoft Excels.
Special features of SoilEngineering are data entry by user,
record/save, analysis of soil problems, visual/graphical and
numerical/computational output. This program could clearly
transfer all data and graphical presentations to other Windows
media. By using the SoilEngineering program, soil static and
dynamic analyses can be easily carried out.
The architecture of the present study is as follows: some
information on soil geophysical and geotechnical analysis is
given in the rst part of the paper. The framework of the

1356

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

Fig. 1. General view of SoilEngineering Microsoft Excels Workbook.

Fig. 3. Correlation of equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio and SPT N1,60 value for
events of magnitude Mw 7.5 for varying nes contents (after Seed et al., 2001).

Fig. 2. Main options of SoilEngineering Microsoft Excels Program.

SoilEngineering program is given in the second part. The third

part of the paper focuses on the operational mechanism of the
program. An application example is given in the last part to clarify
the analysis.

2. Geophysical and geotechnical analysis of soils

As the load on a given soil increases, a foundation settlement
problem occurs. If the load becomes great enough, the increment
of settlement may be excessively or uncontrollably large, and the
foundation is said to have broken into the ground or to have
undergone a bearing-capacity failure. Obviously, the distinction
between excessive settlement and failure by breaking into the
ground is arbitrary in many cases.
Bearing-capacity equations for shallow foundations were given
by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1961) and Vesic (1964). From
in situ tests, bearing capacities were obtained by Bowles (1996)
and Meyerhof (1956) from standard penetration tests (SPT) and
Tezcan et al. (2006) for shear waves. Craig (1992) proposed a
ground-water correction for bearing-capacity results. Seismic
bearing capacity was carried out by Richards et al. (1993). For
soil settlement analysis for static and dynamic loads, several
approaches were proposede.g., Burland and Burbridge (1985);
Janbu (1954) with laboratory data, Meyerhof (1961), Terzaghi and
Peck (1967) with SPT tests, Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992),
Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) and Krinitsky et al. (1993) with
dynamic loads.

Slope stability analysis includes the analysis of the static and

dynamic stabilities of soil and rock in natural and articial forms.
The stability of a slope is governed by slope angle, shear resistance
parameters (cohesion and internal friction angles) and agitation
parameters such as water, earthquake, articial loads, etc. Several
analyses for static and dynamic soil stabilities were performed by
several researchers (Siyahi and Ansal, 1999; Wilson et al., 1979;
Das, 1993). In these analyses, the safety factors of slope stability
were estimated by slope parameters.
Seismic hazard analysis is the computation of probabilities of
occurrence per unit of time for certain levels of ground shaking
caused by earthquakes. This analysis is often summarized with a
seismic hazard curve, which shows an annual probability of
exceedence versus ground motion amplitude. Earthquake occurrence probability was given by using
Rm 1-e-NM:D

where Rm is the risk value (%); D, duration; and N(M) earthquake

frequency for M, magnitude. N(M) values were estimated by
magnitudefrequency relation (recurrence relationships) or the
GutenbergRichter relation. The attenuation relationship of
strong earthquake ground motion was dened by several
attenuation models. From a set of attenuation relationships, the
design acceleration values of regions could be estimated
(e.g., Joyner and Boore, 1981; Campbell, 1997).
The ground-motion level of a region is the basis for dynamic
analysis (i.e., liquefaction and soil amplication).
Soil liquefaction resistance can be estimated by an in situ test
or a laboratory test. Standard penetration, cone penetration and
shear wave tests are most of those used for the estimation of
liquefaction susceptibility. Methods based on SPT were developed
by Seed and Idriss (1971), Seed et al. (2001), Iwasaki et al. (1978),
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1984).
Methods in using the Conic Penetration Test (CPT) include those
developed by Seed and De Alba (1986) and Robertson and
Campanella (1985). For engineering purposes, data obtained from

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

site investigation, including boring and laboratory tests, need to

be used besides the methods based on SPT and CPT (1993; Ansal,
1991). Methods using the shear waves were developed by Stokoe
et al. (1988) and Andrus and Stokoe (1997, 2000). State-of-the-art
liquefaction analysis is evaluated by Youd et al., 2001.
The second type of factors controlling ground motion characteristics during earthquakes could be considered local site conditions.
Soil conditions could be very different, owing to variations in

1357

thickness and properties of soil layers, depth of bedrock and the

water table and could have signicant effects on the characteristics
of earthquake ground motions at the ground surface. Thus soil
conditions could amplify or deamplify the earthquake forces in
different regions. The upper 30 m of the soil prole plays an
important role in soil amplication, and equivalent shear wave
velocity can be used as one parameter for estimating the site
amplication (Joyner and Fumal, 1984; Ansal et al., 2001).

Fig. 4. (a) Input parameters ground water level (G.W.L.), earthquake magnitude, acceleration (g), nes content, unit weights for the liquefaction analysis. (b) Output
parameters for liquefaction analysis by shear wave velocity. (c) Output parameters for liquefaction analysis by an SPT (N) value.

1358

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

3. Program structure and how the program works

The SoilEngineering program (Fig. 2) comprises three main
options: (1) Data Preparation, (2) Derived Parameters and
(3) Analysis of Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads). The
Data Preparation option is divided into four modules (Seismic

Refraction Data, Geoelectrical Data, Borehole and SPT (N) Data and
Laboratory Data). The Derived Parameters option is divided into two
modules (Geotechnical Parameters Derived from Geophysical Data
and Relationships between Vs and SPT (N) values). The analysis of
Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads) option is divided into
nine modules (Bearing Capacity for Shallow and Deep Foundations,

Fig. 5. (a) For seismic hazard analysis, input parameters (Ni: occurrence numbers of earthquakes) and year interval. (b) For seismic hazard analysis, output parameters
(probability for D year, and design magnitude and design acceleration for any D year and any probability of occurrence).

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

Settlement Analysis (Static and Dynamic Loads), Estimation of

Subgrade Reaction Coefcient, Slope Stability Analysis, Seismic
Hazard Analysis, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships, Acceleration/Velocity/Displacement Spectra, Soil Amplication Analysis
and Soil Liquefaction Analysis). Each module contains one sheet.
Except for the cells that are used for setting the parameters and
storing data, most cells on these sheets are write-protected in order
to maintain the integrity of the program.

1359

4. Some application examples

4.1. Soil liquefaction analysis
0
The safety factor for soil liquefaction can be calculated by the
simple equation

SF CRRS=CSRE

Fig. 6. (a) Input and output parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations from laboratory data and by in situ (SPT) tests. (b) Input and output
parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations from shear wave data.

1360

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

where CRR is cyclic resistance ratio of soils and CSR is cyclic stress
ratio of earthquakes.
In the liquefaction analysis, the most widely used simplied
SPT (the N method was proposed by Seed et al. (2001). This
method calculates the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio in a
soil layer via the simplied equation below:
CSRcyclic stress ratio 0:65Amax=gso=sourdz=MSFM

where so and so are the effective and total vertical overburden

pressures at a specied depth; Amax is the peak horizontal
ground acceleration; rd (z) is the stress reduction factor at depth z
and MSF (M) is a magnitude scaling factor that considers the
duration effect of different earthquake magnitudes. In Eq. (2), so0
and so are directly computed from boring log and laboratory test
data, and can therefore be regarded as deterministic values with
no variance; The rd (z) and MSF (M) vary with depth and
earthquake magnitude.
Criteria for evaluating liquefaction resistance based on SPT,
CPT or shear wave data are largely embodied in the CRR versus
N1,60, Vs1 and CPT plot (Youd et al., 2001). This procedure is
based on the relationship of SPT (N) values, corrected for both
effective overburden stress and energy, equipment and procedural factors affecting SPT testing (to N1,60 values) versus intensity
of cyclic loading, expressed as magnitude-weighted equivalent
uniform cyclic stress ratio (CSReq). The correlation between
corrected N1,60 values and the intensity of cycling, required to
trigger liquefaction, is also a function of the nes content, as
shown in Fig. 3 (Seed et al., 2001).
To run the SoilEngineering program for soil liquefaction
analysis, if input parameters are ground water level (G.W.L.),
earthquake magnitude, acceleration (g), nes content, unit
weights and N1(6 0 9) and/or Vs1 values (Fig. 4a), then output
parameters (Fig. 4b and c) are safety factors that depend on CSR
and CRR.

and engineers can easily analyze soil static and dynamic problems
for geotechnical engineering projects. The program is also capable
of obtaining a high-quality graphic output for the academic and
engineering communities.
This program is practical, functional, useful, serviceable,
manageable and operable in an interaction between geophysical
and geotechnical data and their integrated analyses.

4.2. Seismic hazard analysis

Earthquake occurrence probabilities (for Poissons probability
distribution) were given by using Eq. (1), where Rm is the risk
value (%); D, duration; and N(M), earthquake frequency for M,
magnitude. The N(M) values were estimated by the magnitude
frequency relations (recurrence relationships) or Gutenberg
Richter relation. To run the SoilEngineering program for seismic
hazard analysis, the input parameters are Ni (occurrence numbers
of earthquakes) and the year interval (Fig. 5a). Output parameters
are illustrated in Fig. 5b (probability for D year, and design
magnitude and design acceleration for any D year and any
probability of occurrence).
4.3. Bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations
Bearing-capacity analyses for shallow foundations were performed
from laboratory data by Terzaghi (1943) and Meyerhof (1961), and by
in situ tests by Bowles (1996) and Meyerhof (1956) by using the SPT
test and by Tezcan et al. (2006) by using shear waves.
Input and output parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for
shallow foundations are illustrated in Fig. 6a and b.

5. Conclusions
The goal of SoilEngineering as a Microsoft Excels spreadsheet program is the geotechnical and geophysical analyses of
soils with visual/graphical and numerical/computational products. The program could be operated on Excel 2003 or newer
versions under Windows media. By using this program, scientists

References
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., 1997. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave
velocity. In: Proceedings of the National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York, 89128.
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., 2000. Liquefaction resistance based on shear-wave
velocity. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 126 (11), 10151025.
Ansal, A.M., 1991. Evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. In: Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Karlsruhe, Germany, 303312.
Ansal, A.M., Iyisan, R., Yildirim, H., 2001. The cyclic behavior of soils and effects of
geotechnical factors in microzonation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 21, 445452.
Bard, P.Y., 1998. Microtremor measurements: a tool for site effect estimation? In:
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Effects of Surface
Geology on Seismic MotionESG98, Yokohama, Japan, 12511279.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Singapore 1004pp.
Burland, J.B., Burbridge, M.C., 1985. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel.
In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 78 (1), 13251381.
Campbell, K.W., 1997. Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for
horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground
velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological
Research Letters 68 (1), 154179.
Craig, R.F., 1992. Soil Mechanics. ELBS with Chapman & Hall, London 427pp.
Das, B.M., 1993. Principles of Soil Dynamics. PWS Kent Publishing Company,
Boston 570pp.
Ishihara, K., Yoshimine, M., 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations 32 (1), 73188.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K., Yasuda, S., 1978. A practical method for
assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in
Japan. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, 885896.
Janbu, N., 1954. Application of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis.
Proceedings European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes Stockholm 3,
4349.
Joyner, W.B., Boore, D.M., 1981. Peak acceleration and velocity from strong motion
records including records from the 1979 imperial valley California earthquake.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71, 20112038.
Joyner, W.B., Fumal, T., 1984. Use of measured shear-wave velocity for predictive
geological site effects on strong motion. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 777783.
Keskin, M., 2002. FC-modeler: a Microsoft Excels spreadsheet program for
modeling rayleigh fractionation vectors in closed magmatic systems. Computers & Geosciences 28, 919928.
Krinitzsky, E.L., Gold, J.P., Edinger, P.H., 1993. Fundamentals of Earthquake
Resistant Construction. John Wiley and Sons, New York 298pp.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils.
In: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Stockholm 82, SM1,
Paper 866, 19.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1961. The ultimate bearing capacity of wedge-shaped foundations.
In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Paris, vol. II, 105109.
Pitikalis, G., 2004. Site effects. In: Ansal, A. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, pp. 139197.
Richards, R., Elms, D.G., Budhu, M., 1993. Seismic bearing capacity and settlements
of foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (4), 662674.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., 1985. Liquefaction potential of sands using the
CPT. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (3), 384403.
Safak, E., 2001. Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 21 (5), 453458.
Seed, H.B., De Alba, P., 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the
liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers Specialty Conference In-Situ86: Use of In-Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, VI, USA, 281302.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1971. Simplied procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations 97 (9), 2491273.
Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pesatana, J.M., Riemer,
M.F., 2001. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic site
response evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering and
Microzonation Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper no. SPL-2.

F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 13551361

Siyahi, B.G., Ansal, A., 1999. Manual for zonation on seismic geotechnical hazards.
Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Technical
Committe 4. International Society of Soil Mechnics and Geotechnical
Engineering, 6870.
Stokoe, K.H., Roeset, J..M., Bierschwalle, J.G., Aouad, M., 1988. Liquefaction
potantial of sands from shear wave velocity. In: Proceedings of the Ninth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 213218.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York
349pp.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice Second ed.
Wiley International Edition, New York 321pp.
zdemir, Z., 2006. Allowable bearing capacity of shallow
Tezcan, S., Keceli, A., O
foundations based on shear wave velocity. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 24 (1), 203218.
Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H.B., 1984. Simplied procedures for the evaluation of
settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Report no. UBB/EERC-84/16,

1361

Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,

130pp.
Tokimatsu, K., Yoshimi, Y., 1983. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on
SPT-N value and nes content. Soils and Foundation 30 (3), 153158.
Vesic, A.S., 1964. Investigation of bearing capacity of piles in sands. Publication no:
3, Duke University Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Durham, NC.
Wilson, R., Wieczorek, G., Harp, E., 1979. Development of criteria for regional
mapping of slope stability. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Geological Society of America, San Diego, USA, 30.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R.,
Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C.,
Marcuson, W.F., III., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S.,
Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H., II, 2001. Liquefaction resistance of
soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops
on evaluation of liquefacton resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 127(10), 817833.