5/13/2013

The 16th Annual Sowers Lecture
George F. Sowers
(1921 – 1996)
 Professor, Civil and Environmental                     
Geotechnics 2013 in the  Engineering, Georgia Tech

Atlantic Piedmont Province  Senior Consultant, Law Engineering Testing Company 
(LETCO →  MACTEC →  AMEC)
 International authority:
Paul W. Mayne, PhD, P.E. • earth and rockfill dams • geotechnical engineering
• foundations • ports and harbors
Georgia Institute of Technology
• soil mechanics • stability
• engineering geology • residual soils
• karst limestone • common sense
07 May 2013

George F. Sowers
George F. Sowers  Law Engineering: 
 1942 – BSCE from Case Institute, Ohio • 1955 – Vice President
 Hydraulics Engineer for Tennessee Valley Authority  • 1967 – Senior VP
 US Navy from 1944 – 1946 in electronics • 1971 – Chairman of Board
• 1980 – Senior Consultant
 Married Frances Lott and together they had 4 
 GT: 1953 – Professor CE;  1965 – Regents Professor
children:  Carol, Janet, Nancy, and George Jr.
 Member:  ASCE, ISSMGE, EERI, NSPE, ASTM, SSA, AEG
 Attended Harvard University with classes under:
 Author of over 150 papers and 8 Books:
• Karl Terzaghi
• Introduction to Soil Mechanics & Foundations 
• Arthur Casagrande (MacMillan: 1951, 1961, 1970, 1979)                         
• Rec’d MS in 1947  – English, Spanish, Chinese
 Moved to Atlanta to begin his professional career • Building on Sinkholes (ASCE 1996)

Awards ‐ George F. Sowers George F. Sowers Quotes:

“Using drilled shafts vs. 
 Engineer of the Year 1973 – GSPE “An earth dam is like driven pilings in karst is like 
 Herschel Prize 1976 – Boston SCE a beautiful woman…….” the difference of being 
hung or being shot. Either 
 ASCE Middlebrooks Award 1977 “Its one dam project way you are screwed”
after another” “Working at the 
 ASCE Terzaghi Lecture 1979
CIA is a huge PIA”
 ASCE Martin Kapp Lecture 1985
Reston Dam, VA CIA, McLean, Virginia Pennfield PA
 Brooks Award in 1990 Concerns after Teton Dam Failed High K0 stresses on basement walls Karst Limestone

 ASCE Middlebrooks Award 1994
 Elected to National Academy of Engineering 1994
 ASCE Terzaghi Award 1995

1
 5/13/2013

LETCO in Thule, Greenland 1984 1952 LETCO in Thule, Greenland

Magnetic North Pole 1984

Satellite Tracking Antenna for Ford Aerospace

Jefferson Accelerator ‐ JLAB Jefferson Accelerator ‐ JLAB

Embankment
(CEBAF) – Newport News, Virginia (CEBAF) – Newport News, Virginia Over Tunnel

Minimize primary
consolidation 
settlements and 
long‐term creep

 Nuclear physics experimental hall for study of hadrons and quarks
 1800 electromagnets in an elliptical ring for high‐energy beam
 Tolerate only 3 mm differential between adjacent units per month

Jefferson Accelerator ‐ JLAB
(CEBAF) – Newport News, Virginia GT Geotechnical Group
"Old Highway Lab"

YORKTOWN
FORMATION

2
 5/13/2013

Georgia Tech Geotechnical Engineering Georgia Tech Geotechs
Mike Jamiolkowski  Co‐Taught CE 6159 Rock Mechanics (1991, 1995)
(2008 Sowers Lecture)
 Textbook:  Goodman, R.E. (Dick gave 3rd Sowers Lecture)
 Classes in Old Highway Lab
 Tour of rock tunnels at Duke Power Energy Station
 Sowers, G.F. (1996):  Building on Sinkholes, ASCE Press 
ASCE Interview with Professor Sowers:  
"How long did it take you to write this book"
George answered:  "My whole life"

GT Geotechnical Engineering Terzaghi Lectures by GT Geotechs

Monie Ferst Award (1994) to J. Mike Duncan
1979 ‐ George F. Sowers  
George
Sowers "There were Giants on the Earth in 
those days"

1994 ‐ G. Wayne Clough
"Soft Ground Tunneling"

2014 ‐ J. Carlos Santamarina
ASCE GeoCongress ‐ Atlanta
Mike Duncan Wayne Clough
2nd Sowers Lecture 1st Sowers Lecture

16

George F. Sowers Geotechnics 2013 in the Piedmont

Famous for:  State‐of‐the‐Art (SOA)  = What we COULD be 
doing:   Guney Olgun
 Case Studies
 Lessons Learned  State‐of‐the‐Practice (SOP)  = what we ARE 
doing:  Ken Been
 Importance of Engineering Geology
 Limited time, so focus on Geocharacterization
 Practical Aspects of Geotechnical Engineering for Foundation Systems in the Piedmont
 Be careful, cautious, and stand your ground
 This talk = part SOA + part SOP → be erment
 Tell it like it is
 Anecdotes Mayne ≠ SOB

3
 5/13/2013

Surficial Extent of Appalachian Piedmont PA              NJ
Piedmont 
Geologic
Province MD          DE
Atlantic Piedmont
Geologic Province VA‐MD‐DC
VA         

GA‐AL‐SC‐NC NC

GA
SC
AL

Red Top Mountain Stone Mountain
Primary Rock Types by Geologic Origin

Sedimentary Types Metaphorphic Igneous Types

Grain Clastic Carbonate Foliated Massive Intrusive Extrusive

Aspects

Coarse Conglomerate Limestone Gneiss Marble Pegmatite Volcanic 

Breccia Conglomerate Granite Breccia
Lake Lanier VM Quarry, I‐85 PIEDMONT
Medium Sandstone Limestone Schist Quartzite Diorite Tuff
Siltsone Chalk Phyllite Diabase

Fine‐ Shale Calcareous  Slate Amphi‐ Rhyotite Basalt

Grained Mudstone Mudstone bolite Obsidian

Era Period Epoch Time Boundaries

(Years Ago) Piedmont Residuum: a.k.a. “Georgia Red Clay” 
Geologic Holocene - Recent
Quaternary 10,000
Pleistocene
Time Pliocene
2 million
5 million
Cenozoic Miocene
Scale Tertiary Oligocene
26 million
38 million
Eocene
54 million
Paleocene
65 million
Cretaceous
130 million
Mesozoic Jurassic
185 million
Triassic
230 million
Permian
Piedmont Pennsylvanian
265 million
Carboniferous 310 million
Granite Mississippian
355 million
Paleozoic Devonian
413 million
Silurian
425 million
Ordovician
Piedmont Cambrian
475 million
570 million
Gneiss Precambrian
Z‐Age  ≈ 1 billion years ago   3.9 billion
and Schist
Earth Beginning 4.7 billion

4
 5/13/2013

Piedmont Subsurface Profile GT Load Test Site, West Campus

SPT N-values (bpf)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
"Georgia Red Clay" 0
(CL ‐ ML)
10
RESIDUUM  Piedmont Residuum:
20
(ML to SM) Silty Fine Sand (SM)

Depth (feet)
30
SAPROLITE 40

50
Partially‐Weathered 60
Rock (PWR)
PWR
70
Intact Rock: Gneiss GRANITIC GNEISS
Schist, Granite 80

Major Rock Formations in USA In‐Situ Testing in the Piedmont
• SPT = standard penetration testing
• PMT = pressuremeter testing
• DP = dynamic penetrometers
• percussive soundings (air‐track)
• VST = vane shear testing Miller & Sowers (1967). 
Shear characteristics of 
Piedmont • DMT = flat plate dilatometer    Piedmont soils using 
rotating vanes
• CPT =  cone penetration testing
• CPTu = piezocone testing
• Vs = shear wave velocity 
• SCPTu = seismic piezocone
• SDMT = seismic dilatometer

SCPTU in Piedmont residual silts Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia (1984)

Winston‐Salem, NC Case Study: Drilled shaft (L = 65' and d = 3') in Piedmont residuum

5
 5/13/2013

RIGID PILE RESPONSE
Axial Pile Influence Factors (Rigid Pile) Length L and diameter d Pt = load at top = Ps + Pb
Randolph & Wroth (1979); Poulos & Davis (1980)
Poulos & Davis (1980) Solution vs. Randolph Solution
Rigid Pile in an Infinite Elastic Medium Ground Surface Top Displacement, wt
1.00
Randolph 
Homogeneous Soil:  Pt  I  Solution
wt 
Pt  I p
Boundary Elements
Es = Elastic modulus d  Es
wt  Closed Form v = 0.5
Influence Factor, Io

d  Es Closed Form v = 0.2 ' =  Poisson's ratio

Closed Form v = 0

0.10 1
I 
Side Load, Ps 1  (L / d )
 
= Pt ‐ Pb 1 2 (1   ) ln[5( L / d )(1  v)]

Load Transfered to Base:
0.01 Pb I Pb = Base load
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 
Pt 1   2
Slenderness Ratio, L/d

Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia Buildings on Piedmont ‐ Northern Virginia and Washington DC

Pt  I p E'  ≈  ED (ave. 64 DMTs) = 35  MPa =  364 tsf

wt  L  = 65 feet and d = 3 feet
d  Es
Ratio L/d = 21.7 
Ip = 0.076  

DMT‐SPT Correlation in Piedmont Residuum Foundation Systems in the Piedmont
(Mayne & Frost, TRR 1988) Also EPRI Manual (1990)  Spread footings
 Mat foundations
 Augercast pilings
 Drilled shafts
 Micropiles
 Driven pipe piles
 H‐pilings
 Monotubes
 Step‐taper piles
 Franki piles (PIFs)

6
 5/13/2013

Case Study: First American Bank, Northern Virginia Case Study: First American Bank, Northern Virginia

Franki Piles, a.k.a. "Pressure Injected Footings" Case Study:  Lincoln Center, Fairfax County, VA

Geotechnical Meeting
• Dames & Moore
• Law Engineering
• Woodward-Clyde
• Schnabel Engineering
• ASCE National
Pipe  Geotechnical Section
Casing
Concrete  • No more PIFs in NoVA
Shaft • Also, no law suit

Mat Foundation (raft)

Compacted Bulb
of Zero‐Slump Base Load Test → 5" settlement
Concrete
150 Franki Piles Installed

22-story Bank Building - Mat Foundation

First American Tysons Corner, Virginia

200
Wachovia/Wells Fargo
Bank Mat  150
Foundation Perimeter Tysons Corner, VA
North Side (feet)

Bank Tower: 100 Structural Reinforced

Total Q = 73,400k Concrete Mat
Foundation:
Bearing Elev = +495 feet msl 50
t = 4.5 feet

Mat Thickness, t = 4.5 ft
Applied Stress: q = 3.47 ksf 0
0 50 100 150 200

West Side (feet)

PREDICTED
Corner
Edge
Center

Georgia Tech

7
 5/13/2013

GSU Dormitory B Settlements Elastic Solution for Foundation Displacement
www.geoengineer.org
(Mayne and Poulos, JGGE 1999, 2001)
10" mat settlements DMT ED = 85 tsf
2 c/d

q  d e  I GH  I F  I E (1  2 )
Harr (1966) 10

Influence Factor, IH
Approximation 5
3

scenter 
2
1.5
1
1

c d
Es 0
c
0
0 1 2 3
Finite Layer Thickness, h/d
4 5 6
 q  = applied surface stress

Center Deflection :  c 
q  d  I H (1   2 )  de = equiv. footing width
Es
 IGH = displacement influence factor
Dormitory B Settlement Contours Distance (meters)

100 mm 120 mm 140 mm 160 mm North 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
 IF = foundation rigidity factor
180 mm 200 mm 220 mm 240 mm SW-NE Diagonal
NW-SE Diagonal

 IE = embedment factor
50
DMT Calculated (h = 12 m)
Settlement (mm)

Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundation: c = 105 m; d = 18.3 m, thickness t = 1.07 m DMT Calculated (h = 18 m)
DMT Calculated (h = 24 m)
Harry Poulos
Width Distance (m)

100

  = Poisson’s ratio
15

10
150
(2002 Sowers Lecture)
5 200

0 250  Es0 = soil modulus (bearing elev)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Breadth Distance (m) 300

Georgia Tech

Closed‐Form Solution for Finite Gibson Soil (Elhakim, 2005) ADSC‐ASCE‐FHWA Load Test Program 
  2  2h *  2 2   2h * 8 3   1  1  1  4 h * 
 Georgia Tech, Atlanta 
I G   ln  
  2  2h *  4h * 1 
2

 
4 2  1 (4 2  1) 4h *2 1 (4 2  1)1.5  
 sinh 1   sinh  2   2h *  
 2    

1 h/d > 30
Mayne & Poulos, 1999 - dots h/d = 10
h/d = 5
Displacement Influence Factor, IG

0.9
Closed-Form Solution - lines
0.8 h/d = 2
qdI o (1   2 )
0.7 s h/d = 1
E so
0.6

0.5
h/d = 0.5
0.4

0.3
h/d = 0.2
Load Tests
0.2

0.1
 End‐bearing drilled shaft:   d = 0.76 m    L = 19.2 m
0  Friction‐type drilled shaft:  d = 0.76 m    L = 16.9 m
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
 Deep plate load test:   d = 0.61 m   z = 16.9 m
Normalized Gibson Modulus,  =E o /(k E d)

GT End‐Bearing Shaft C1: d = 2.5' by L = 70'  Elastic Continuum Response ‐ GT Shaft C1

Axial Load Transfer Distribution Axial Load, Q (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Axial Load, Q (tons) LOAD Q 0
Top Deflection, wt (mm)

0 200 400 600 800 1000

50 tons
0
100 tons
10 10
200 tons

20 300 tons
Depth (feet)

400 tons
30
500 tons
20
40
600 tons

50 700 tons

800 tons
60
900 tons
30
70 Bas
Base 1000 tons Qtotal = Qs + Qb Pred. Qs Pred. Qb
80 Meas. Total Meas. Shaft Meas. Base

8
 5/13/2013

GT Friction Shaft C2:  d = 2.5' by L = 55' Elastic Continuum Response ‐ Shaft C2

Axial Load Transfer Distribution Axial Load, Q (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Axial Load, Q (tons) 0

Top Deflection, wt (mm)

LOAD Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
25 tons
0
50 tons 50
10
75 tons
Depth (feet)

20 100 tons
100
150 tons
30
200 tons
150
40 300 tons

350 tons
50
450 tons 200
BASE
Base
60 500 tons Qtotal = Qs + Qb Pred. Qs Pred. Qb
Meas. Total Meas. Shaft Meas. Base

Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) at GT West Campus
qt (MPa) fs (kPa) FR = fs/qt (%)
Continuous 
CPT
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 100 200 300 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Readings at • Current Phase Tranformer • Cell Prepartion Tube
0 0 0
20 mm/s • Cross Product Team • Central Payment Tool
2 2 2
• Cellular Paging Teleservice • Certified Proctology Technologist
4 4 4 • Chest Percussion Therapy • Cockpit Procedures Trainer
• Crisis Planning Team • Cone Penetration Test
6 6 6
• Consumer Protection Trends • Color Picture Tube
8 8 8
• Computer Placement Test • Critical Pitting Temperature
Depth (m)

10 10 10 • Current Procedural Terminolgy • Certified Phelbotomy Technician

12 12 12 • Cost Per Treatment • Control Power Transformer

14 14 14
fs • Choroid Plexus Tumor •
•
Cost Production Team
Channel Product Table
• Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy
16 16 16
• Corrugated Plastic Tubing • Conditional Probability Table
• Cumulative Price Threshold • Command Post Terminal
18

20
18

20
18

20
qt

ADSC Load Test at West GT Campus GT Load Test Program

Effective Stress Friction Angle,  ' (deg) ADSC‐FHWA‐ASCE
20 30 40 50 60
 McKinney Drilling
0  Coastal Caisson
 Long Foundation  Allied Fence Company
2  Georgia Tech  Chatham Brothers 
 ADSC  McLean‐Behm
4
CPT qc  FHWA
(K&M'90)  R.H. Harris Inc.
Depth (meters)

 Russo Corporation  Stan Agee Company
6 Triaxial  Georgia DOT
Tests  Thomas Concrete Inc.
 Law Engineering‐MACTEC‐AMEC  Vulcan Materials
8  Golder Associates  ATEC Consultants (ATC)
 GeoSyntec Consultants  Georgia Power
10
 Johnson Drilling  Tensar Corporation
 AT&E (QORE)  Turner Engineering
12
 Dames & Moore (URS)  W.T. Mayfield & Sons
14  CH2M‐Hill  Brainerd‐Kilman

9
 5/13/2013

CPT‐SPT Trend in Piedmont Residuum CPT‐SPT Interrelationship in Piedmont 

Penetration Value

qt /N60 (atm/bpf)     
0 10 20 30 40
0
2 Kulhawy & 
SPT-N (bpf)
Mayne 1990
DEPTH (meters)

4
CPT: 3 qt (MPa)
6

8 Alabama
Georgia
10
12
qt (bars)  3.3 N
14
16 Mean Grain Size, D50 (mm)

Opelika National Geotechnical
CPT‐DMT Interrelationships in Piedmont 
50000
0
10000
0
50000
Experimentation Site, Alabama
DMT Modulus, ED (kPa)

GA
40000
AL
NC
30000

20000

10000
ED = 5 qt

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

CPT Tip Stress, qt (kPa)

Preconsolidation Stress from Consolidometer Generalized Pc' Method for CPT in all soils

Piedmont Silt, Opelika, Alabama (Mayne & Brown 2003) mp 1 m p
 p '  0.33  (q t   vo )  (  atm / 100) Amherst, MA
Washington DC
Atchafalyala LA
Boston Blue Clay, MA
Colebrook Road BC
10000 Empire LA
Evanston IL
SF Bay Mud, CA
Apparent Yield Stress, p' (kPa)

Lower 232rd St BC
Intact clays: m = 1.00 Port Huron MI
St. Alban, Quebec
Organic clays: m = 0.90 NRCC, Ontario
Yorktown VA
St.Jean Vianney, QE
Silts: m = 0.85 Surry, VA
Baton Rouge, LA
Silty Sands: m = 0.80 Strong Pit, BC
Ottawa STP, Ontario
1000 Clean Sands: m = 0.72 Varennes, QE
Taranto, Italy
Brent Cross UK
Madingley UK
Surrey UK
Canons Park UK
Cretaceous DC
Bothkennar
Trend
Stockholm Sand
Po River Sand
Holmen Sand
100 North Sea Sand
Hibernia Sand
Trend 2
Opelika Sandy Silt
Trend 3
General Trend: Rio de Janeiro
Atlanta Silty Sand

? p' = 0.33(qt-vo)
m
Pentre Silt
Dutch Peat
Euripides Silty Sand
Trend 4
Trend
10
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Net Cone Resistance, qt - vo (kPa)

10
 5/13/2013

Apparent OCR Profiles at Opelika Cone Trucks at Opelika NGES
silts:  p' = 0.33(qtnet)0.85 (0.1∙atm) 0.15
Apparent Yield Stress, y' (kPa) Yield Stress Ratio, YSR

0 100 200 300 400 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3
Depth (meters)

4 4
A.P. Van Den Berg (Morris Shea) Hogentogler (Williams Earth Sciences)
5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9
Oedometer
10 10
Groundwater Lowered to 20 m
11 Disturbed sample
11
CPTU
12 12
Fugro Geosciences Pagani Rig  (WPC) GeoStar (Georgia Tech)

Dielectric Piezocone Sounding at Opelika Piezocone Response in the Piedmont

qt (MPa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) DEM, e Cone Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Porewater Pressure Porewater Pressure
0 10 20 0 300 600 -100 200 500 0.5 1 qt (MPa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) u1 (kPa)
0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 0 500 1000 1500
0 0 0 0

DEM Height of
5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1
Capillarity
2 2 2 2

10 10 10 10
Depth BGS (m)

3 3 3 3
Depth (meters)

15 15 15 15 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5
20 20 20 20
Control Panel 6 6 fs
fs 6 6

25 25 25 25 7
7
Nitrogen Tank 7 7
u2
u2
8 8
30 30 30 30 8 8

Digital Oscilloscope 60
o
9 9 u1
9 9
35 35 35 35 qc 10 10 10 10
qt

Opelika NGES, Alabama ‐ Piedmont Residuum
Piezo‐Dissipation in Piedmont Residuum
LAB TESTING IN‐SITU TESTING and GEOPHYSICS
 Grain size  Standard penetration tests (SPT)
 Hydrometer  Full‐displacement  pressuremeter (FDPMT)
 Plasticity indices  Menard pre‐bored pressuremeter (PMT)
 Unit weights  Flat plate dilatometer tests (DMT)
 Triaxial shear (CIUC, CIDC)
 Cone penetration tests (CPT)
 Direct shear, UU, and UC
 Fixed wall permeameter  Piezocone tests with dissipations (CPTù)
 Flex‐wall permeability  Seismic dilatometer tests (SDMT)
 Resonant column tests  Dual element piezocones (CPTu1u2)
 One‐dim consolidation  Resistivity cones (RCPTu)
FULL‐SCALE LOAD TESTS  Seismic piezocones (SCPTu)
 Drilled shaft foundations  Dielectric cones (DCPTu)
 Axial tests on drilled shafts  Borehole shear tests (IBST)
 Lateral tests on drilled shafts  Geophysical crosshole tests (CHT)
 Time and construction effects studies  Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW)
 Driven pipe piles at varied rates  Torque measurements following SPT
 De Waal piles  Penetration rate effects studies
 Lateral loading testing of pile groups  Frequent interval  Vs profiling
 Shafts with self‐compacting concrete
 Surface resistivity surveys

11
 5/13/2013

CPTu in Piedmont PWR‐ Atlanta, GA

qT (MPa) fs (MPa) u2 (MPa)
Combo CPT‐Drill Rig
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
SPT

CPT
0
N60
23 Residuum:
silty fine
Drill/SPT
2
34 sand 

71
4
Saprolite
34 (hard fine 
6 sandy silt)
Depth (m)

56

67
8

50/6" Partially‐
10
Weathered 
50/6" Rock 
(gneiss)
50/2"
12

50/3"

14

SCPTU in Piedmont residual silts Geotechnics 2013 in the Piedmont

Winston‐Salem, NC

More Measurements
is
More Better

Mas Mejor

Seismic Piezocone (SCPTu) Ken Stokoe

2004 Sowers
Piedmont silts in Marietta, GA Lecture

Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Porewater Pressure Shear Wave Velocity

In‐Situ QA/QC 
0
0
qT (MPa)
10 20 30 0
fs (kPa)
200 400 600 -100 0
u2 (kPa)
100 200 0 100
Vs (m/s)
200 300 400 500 Testing for 
2

4
Vs Dynamic 
6

fs
Compaction 
8

10
Depth (m)

u2
12
Hartsfield Airport 
Runway 5
14

16
qt
18

20

22
u0
24

12
 5/13/2013

SCPTù at Atlanta Airport Runway 5 Equivalent Modulus for Static Loading

Five Independent Readings of  Emax = 2Gmax(1+)
Soil Behavior:   qt, fs, ub, t50, Vs
qT (MPa) fs (kPa) ub (kPa) t50 (seconds) Vs (m/s) Gmax = t Vs2
0 5 10 15 20 0 200 400 600 -100 0 100 200 300 1 10 100 1000 0 100 200 300 400
0
1
2 t = t/g
3
4
5
6
Depth (m)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Modulus Reduction from Laboratory Data Modulus Reduction Scheme (Fahey & Carter 1993)
1
1
NC S.L.B. Sand Open Dots = Drained 0.9 E / Emax  1  f (q / qmax ) g
Modulus Reduction, G/G max or E/Emax

0.9 OC S.L.B. Sand

Hamaoka Sand Closed Dots= Undrained
0.8
Hamaoka Sand Modulus Reduction, E/E max 0.8 Note: f = 1
Toyoura Sand e = 0.67
Toyoura Sand e = 0.83
0.7
0.7
Ham River Sand
g = 1.0
Ticino Sand
0.6 Kentucky Clayey Sand 0.6 g = 0.4
Kaolin  Resonant Column
0.5 Kiyohoro Silty Clay
 Torsional Shear 0.5 g = 0.3
Pisa Clay

0.4
Fujinomori Clay  Triaxial Shear with  0.4
g = 0.2
Pietrafitta Clay
Thanet Clay local strain 
0.3 0.3
London Clay
Vallericca Clay
measurements
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0

Mobilized Strength, /max or

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
q/qmax = 1/FS
Mobilized Stress Level, q/qmax = 1/FS

Randolph Compressible Pile [1] : w  Pt  I p

Equivalent Modulus for Static Monotonic Loading t
d  EsL
[2] Ip = x1/x3
 1 8  tanh(L ) L  AXIAL PILE Pt Pt  I Where Ip = displacement
x1  4  (1  )  1       DISPLACEMENTS wt 
• Initial Stiffness from Shear Wave Velocity (Vs)   (1  )  L d d  EsL
Influence factor from
elastic continuum theory
4  1 Diameter d
  
 Shear Modulus: Gmax =  Vs2 x2
(1  )  cosh( L)
Eso(surface)
Es = Equivalent Elastic
Soil Layer 1 Soil Modulus
4  4 E tanh( L ) L
 Young's Modulus: Emax = 2 Gmax(1+)       x3  
(1  ) 



L

d Length
L

0.20 at small strains
EsM (mid-length)

 The proportion of load transferred from the top to base:

[3] Pb/Pt = x2/x3

• Modified Hyperbola for Modulus Reduction (Fahey  The proportion of load carried in side shear is:
EsL (along side at tip/toe/base)

Soil or Rock Layer 2

& Carter, 1993; Mayne 2007):  E/Emax = 1 – (Q/Qult)g [4] Ps/Pt = 1 - Pb/Pt Eb (base geomaterial
Modulus of layer 2)

The displacement at the pile toe/base is given by: z = Depth

• Factor of Safety, FS = Qult /Q [5] wb = wt/cosh(L)

[6]  = db/d = eta factor (Note: db = base diameter, so that  = 1 for straight shaft piles)
[7]  = EsL/Eb = xi factor (Note:  = 1 for floating pile;  < 1 for end-bearing pile)
• For uncemented, unstructured soils:   g  0.3 [8] E = Esm/EsL = rho term. The parameter can be evaluated from: E = ½(1+Es0/EsL).
[9]  = 2(1+)Ep/EsL = lambda factor
[10]  = ln{[0.25 + (2.5 E(1- ) - 0.25)] (2L/d)} = zeta factor
[11] L = 2(2/)0.5  (L/d) = mu factor

13
 5/13/2013

Drilled Shaft C2, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Opelika NGES
Axial Load, Q (MN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
Top Deflection, wt (mm)

10

20

30

40

50

60
D = 0.76m
Qtotal = Qs + Qb Pred. Qs Pred. Qb L = 16.9 m
Meas. Total Meas. Shaft Meas. Base

Mean SCPTu Profiles
Load Tests: Opelika, Alabama (Brown 2002)
Opelika NGES, Alabama
Axial Load, Q (MN)
Q (total)
0 1 2 3
0
Drilled Shaft 
5
No. 01
(cased)
Top Deflection (mm)

d = 0.91 m
10 L = 11.0 m

15 Q shaft
Qtotal = Qs + Qb
Pred. Qs
20
Pred. Qb
Meas. Total

Q base
25 Meas. Shaft
Meas. Base

30

Drilled Shaft Load Tests: Opelika, Alabama (Brown 2002) Load Test at I‐85 Bridge, Coweta County, GA
Opelika NGES Q (total)
Applied Load, Q (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 4 Drilled 
0
Shafts 
Shaft S02
d = 0.91 m
Shaft S04
Displacement, s (mm)

20
Shaft S07
L = 11.0 m GDOT Drilled 
40
Shaft S09 Shaft Load Test: 

60
Q shaft D = 0.91 m
L = 20.1 m 
80

Load Test
100
Directed by
Q base
120 Mike O'Neill

14
 5/13/2013

SCPTu at I‐85 Bridge, Newnan, GA Axial Load Response of Coweta Shaft

qT (MPa) Ub (kPa) Vs (m/s)

Axial Load, Q (kN)
fs (kPa)
0 2 4 6 8 0 100 200 300 -100 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 0 0 0
0 Qtotal = Qs + Qb

Top D eflection, wt (mm)

2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4 10 Pred. Qs

6 6 6 6 Pred. Qb
20
Depth (m)

8 8 8 8
Meas. Total
10 10 10 10
30
Meas. Shaft
12 12 12 12

14 14 14 14
40 Meas. Base

16 16 16 16
50
18 18 18 18

RHYMES Class “A” Prediction of Axial Pile Response
WITH
ORANGE Jackson County, Georgia
by Hilary Price
Turbine Foundations,
Plant Dahlberg Power Station
Southern Companies

Courtesy Marty Meeks

Saprolitic
 Gmax from SCPTu for dynamically‐loaded 
block foundations
 Switched to driven 273 mm diameter 
closed‐ended steel pipe piles:  8 < L < 18 m.
 CPT qt, fs and u2 used for axial capacity and 
Vs for initial stiffness.  
Rock → Stone →  Sand  = Formation of Residuum  

Seismic Piezocone Sounding, Jackson County, GA Axial Pile Response from SCPTu, Jackson County, GA

Driven Steel Pipe Pile No. P22 (L = 9.45 m)
Axial Load, Q (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
Predicted by SCPTu
2 in Advance
(mm)

4
t

6
Deflection, w

Measured
8

10

12

14

15
 5/13/2013

Axial Pile Response from SCPTu, Jackson County, GA Pile Load Tests

Driven Steel Pipe Pile No. P33 (L = 17.8 m)
Axial Load, Q (kN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0

2
(mm)

4 Dead Weight Reaction Frame
www.hindu.com www2.dot.ca.gov
t

6
Deflection, w

Measured from Load Test

8

10 Predicted in advance
from SCPTU data
12

14 Statnamic Load Test Osterberg Cell

www.statnamiceurope.com www.fhwa.dot.gov 92

GDOT Viaduct at International Boulevard  GDOT Load Test for  Constructed Dimensions

near CNN, Atlanta Viaduct at CNN of Drilled Shaft

2.9 m d = 1.68 m

Residual Soils
(ML/SM) d = 1.59 m
11.8 m

Drilled Shaft Load Test Stage 2 O-cell

by multi‐stage O‐Cells Partially-Weathered
d = 1.44 m
Rock (PWR) 6.2 m
GT Class “A” Prediction
March 2003 Stage 1 O-cell

Geotechnical Site Characterization GT Seismic Piezocone Sounding (SCPTu)

GDOT ‐ International Blvd. GDOT ‐ International Blvd.
Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Porewater Pressure Shear Wave velocity
GDOT Viaduct at CNN-International Blvd Boring Log Record
qT (MPa) fs (kPa) u2 (kPa) Vs (m/s)
B-5 Sta 30+306
Equivalent N-value (bpf) 0 10 20 30 0 200 400 600 800 -100 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 Fill: silty sand 2
Brown-pink sandy
SILT, v. stiff hard, soft 4
5
SAND, some silt, gray 6
medium dense, dense
10
8
Depth (m)

PARTIALLY-
Depth (m)

15 WEATHERED 10
ROCK (sand, some silt)
trace mica, dark gray to
12
20 grayish brown

SAND, some silt, gray 14

25
16
CPT equivalent N PARTIALLY-
WEATHERED
30 ave CPT N 18
ROCK (sand, some silt)
SPT N trace mica, gray to
grayish white 20
35
22

16
 5/13/2013

Class A Prediction ‐ GDOT Bridge at CNN O‐cell load tests in Piedmont rocks

GDOT International Blvd. at CNN Drilled shafts ‐ Lawrenceville, GA (2011)
Axial Load, Q (MN)
(kN)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
Top Deflection, wt (mm)

10

20

30 Qt Predicted
O-cell top down
40 O-cell Creep Limit

50

Axial Pile Capacity:  Qtotal = Qsides + Qbase Unit Side Friction in Drilled Shafts

(Kulhawy and Phoon 1993)
Qt 100

Geomaterial
Unit Side resistance, fp/atm

ROCKS
10
unit side
friction, fp  =  3
IGM
2
1
1
Qs = ∫ fp dAs Clay
Shale & Mudstone
SOILS Sandstone & Limestone

Qb =  qb ∙ Ab Fred Kulhawy 0.1

(2005 Sowers Lecture 0.1 1 10 100 1000
TC equivalent shear strength,  su/atm or   ½ qu/atm
unit base resistance, qb

Unit Side Friction in the Piedmont O‐Cell Elastic Solution
Drilled Shafts in Residuum, PWR, and Rock Rigid pile shaft under upward loading
Diameter
upper
100 d1 = 2r1
segment Length P1 2  L1
Open Symbols (Kulhawy & Phoon, 1993) L1  
G s1ro1 w 1  1 r01
Unit Side resistance, fp/atm

10
Rigid pile or plate under compression loading
O‐Cell P1 = P2
P2 4 2 L 2
PWR Diameter   
lower 
segment
d2 = 2r2
Length
G s 2 ro 2 w 2 (1  )  2 ro 2
1 L2
Lawrenceville O‐Cells
SILTS
ADSC at GT P  = applied force w  = pile displacement
L = pile length l = Ep/GsL = soil‐pile stiffness ratio
Opelika NGES
ro = pile radius  = Gs2/Gsb (Note:  floating pile:  = 1)
0.1 Ep = pile modulus Gsb = soil modulus below pile base/toe
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Gs = soil side shear modulus  = ln(rm/ro) = soil zone of influence
TC equivalent shear strength,  su/atm or   ½ qu/atm  =  Poisson's ratio of soil rm = L{0.25 +  [2.5 (1‐) – 0.25]}  = magic radius

17
 5/13/2013

O‐cell tests ‐ ADSC/ASCE Lawrenceville, GA Recommendations to

Application of Randolph Elastic Solution
Geotechnical Practice
Test Shaft 1 in Rock Test Shaft 2 in PWR
Upper Segment Base Response Upper Segment Base Response

‐1.0
Elastic Pred Upward Elastic Down Pred Elastic Pred Upward Elastic Down Pred Site Characterization
in the Piedmont
‐1.0
Displacement, w (inches)

Displacement, w (inches)
‐0.5 ‐0.5

0.0
0.0
E' = 3500 tsf 0.5
E' = 1050 tsf
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0

2.0 2.5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Applied Load, Q (tons) Applied Load, Q (tons)

NON‐INVASIVE  DIRECT‐PUSH TECHNOLOGY Direct Push Borehole Methods

GEOPHYSICS Continuous Push Sampling 
(Resistivity, Radar,   Steel mandrel with inner plastic lining (d = 35 to 70 mm)
Conductivity)  Hydraulic and/or percussive push in 3‐m strokes
Sonic Drilling
 Vibrations at resonant frequency of drill pipe
loose  Fast and continuous sampling of soil and rock
DENSE sand SCPTù www.geoprobe.com www.ams‐samplers. com boartlongyear.com
SAND Vs  
fs SDMTà
t50 Vp
u2 Vs
FIRM qt tflex
soft p1
CLAY clay p0

Calibration of SPT Energy ‐ Auto Hammers O‐cell load tests in Piedmont rocks

Drilled shafts ‐ Lawrenceville, GA (2011)
Manufacturer Type ID No. Mean Energy Ratio (%) Reference
Diedrich D‐120 ID 26 46 UDOT
Diedrich D‐50 321870551 56 GRL
CME 850 ID 21 62.7 UDOT
BK‐81 w/ AW‐J rods B2 68.6 ASCE
Mobile B‐80 ID 18 70.4 UDOT
SK w/ CME hammer B6 72.9 ASCE
Diedrich D50 UF5 76 UF
CME 55 UF2 78.4 Factor FDOT
CME 850 296002 79 GRL
CME 45 UF1 80.7 of 2.1 UF
CME 85 UF4 81.2 UF
CME 75 w/ AW‐J rods A3 81.4 ASCE
CME 75 UF3 83.1 UF
CME 750 ID 4 86.6 UDOT
Mobile B‐57 DR‐35 93 GRL
CME 75 rig ID 10 94.6 UDOT

18
 5/13/2013

Methods for Rating Rock Masses Shear Wave Velocity Profile in Piedmont 
VC Summer Power Station, South Carolina
 Core Recovery (CR)
 Rock Quality Designation (RQD); Deere et al. (1966) Dick Goodman Shear Wave, Vs (fps) Shear Wave, Vs (fps)
 Rock Mass Rating (RMR);  Bieniawski (1976, 1989) 3rd Sowers
Lecture
 Q‐System by NGI;  Barton et al. (1976, 1991) Vs from suspension 
logging in boreholes
 Geological Strength Index (GSI); Hoek (1995, 2009)

Elevation (feet msl)
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Intact Rock
 Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu CR   =  98 ‐ 100%
 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) RQD = 97 ‐ 100%
 Spacing of Joints Vs = 10,100 fps = 3078 m/s
 Condition of joints and/or infilling
qu = 25 ksi =  170 MPa
 Groundwater conditions
t = 180 pcf = 28 kN/m3

Field Geophysics ‐ Mechanical Wave Methods
Seismograph DHT
Oscilloscope
Spectral Combined MASW Arrays for 2D
SFLS + Source SFRS Analyzer

Receivers Geophones
Cased 
+ Source
VsRW
+ Source Mapping Subsurface Heterogeneity
Boreholes

Vp high 
VsHH frequencies
UHT
medium  Shear Wave, Vs (m/s)
VsVH frequency Surface Distance (m)
content

SRFS = Surface Refraction Survey Vertical CHT low

SFLS = Surface Reflection Survey VsHV
Source frequency
SASW = Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves
MASW = Modal Analysis (Rayleigh Waves) content
Depth (m)

CSW = Continuous Surface Waves
VsHH RCHT
PSW = Passive Surface Wave Testing
ReMi =  Reflection MicroSeis Rotary
SLP = Suspension Logger Problng Source
CHT = Crosshole Test Rayleigh Wave Methods
RCHT = Rotary Crosshole
DHT = Downhole Test BTSD  SASW
Torsional SLP
UHT = Uphole Test  MASW
SCPTu = Seismic Piezocone Test Source VsHH  CSW
SDMT = Seismic Flat Dilatometer Test  PSW
VsVV
BTSD = Borehole Torsional Shear Device  ReMi courtesy:  Illmar Weemees ‐ ConeTec

ReMi Mapping of Subsurface Geomaterials Geotechnics 2013 in the Piedmont

(Cha, Kang, and Jo, 2006: Exploration Geophysics) • Beyond conventional SPT and PMT, showed 
advent and value of DMT, CPT, + SCPTu, SDMT
ReMi = Reflection Microtremors
(passive Rayleigh wave survey)
• Elastic continuum solution for pile foundations
 Static top down loading
 Bi‐directional O‐cell load tests
• Fundamental soil stiffness:  Gmax = Vs2
• Presented case studies in Piedmont
• Use of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) 
• Recommended more use of geophysics for site 
characterization, particularly Vs profiling  

19
 5/13/2013

thanks

20