pdfs.semanticscholar.org€¦ · Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for liquefaction Hazard...
359
Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for liquefaction Hazard Assessment Geoffrey R. Martin and Bruce J. Douglas Fugro, Inc. 3777 Long Beach Boulevard Long Beach, California 90807 USGS CONTRACT NO. 14-08-0001-17790 Supported by the EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM OPEN-FILE NO.81-284 U.S. Geological Survey OPEN FILE REPORT This report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS.
Transcript of pdfs.semanticscholar.org€¦ · Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for liquefaction Hazard...
Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for liquefaction Hazard Assessment
Geoffrey R. Martinand
Bruce J. Douglas
Fugro, Inc.3777 Long Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90807
USGS CONTRACT NO. 14-08-0001-17790 Supported by the EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM
OPEN-FILE NO.81-284
U.S. Geological Survey OPEN FILE REPORT
This report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS.
Fugro, Inc./Consulting Engineers and Geologists
3777 Long Beach Boulevard PO. Box 7765 Long Beach, California 90807
Phone: (213) 595-6611, 979-1721 Telex: 656338
October 3, 1980
Mr. Gordon GreeneU.S. Department of the InteriorGeological Survey345 Middlefield RoadMenlo Park, California 94025
Dear Mr. Greene:
This letter serves to transmit our final Technical Report for U.S.G.S. Contract No. 14-08-0001-17790. We are submit ting fifteen copies of our report as per contract requirements. The report is titled, "Evaluation of the Cone Penetrometer for Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation". In addition, we are submit ting five copies of our final Management Report to the Contract ing Officer.
We have enjoyed working on this most interesting and valuable project and appreciate the flexibility shown by the U.S.G.S regarding project schedules. We hope this report serves to increase the present capabilities for definition of earthquake induced hazards.
Should you have any questions regarding our report, please contact me.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Bruce J. Douglas Project Engineer,
BDrmv
Enclosures
EVALUATION OF THE CONE PENETROMETER FOR LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of the InteriorGeological SurveyMenlo Park, California 94025
Prepared by:
Fugro, Inc.Consulting Engineers and Geologists3777 Long Beach BoulevardLong Beach, California 90807
Principal Investigators:
Geoffrey R. MartinAssociate and Director of Engineering
Bruce J. DouglasProject Engineer, and Manager In-Situ Testing
October, 1980
CONTRACT NO. 14-08-0001-17790
IGRD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................... 1-1
1.1 CURRENT METHODS OF LIQUEFACTIONPOTENTIAL ASSESSMENT ............ 1-1
1.1 MICROZONATION OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ..... 1-3
1.3 FACTORS AFFECTING LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL,SPT, CPT .................. 1-5
1.4 SCOPE OF RESEARCH .............. 1-8
2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ....... 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................ 2-1
2.2 PROCEDURES ................. 2-1
2.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS .............. 2-4
2.3.1 San Diego, California ........ 2-4
2.3.2 Salinas, California ......... 2-6
2.3.3 Moss Landing, California ....... 2-8
2.3.4 Sunset Beach, California ....... 2-9
2.3.5 San Jose, California ......... 2-10
2.3.6 Edmond, Oklahoma ........... 2-11
2.4 CONCLUSIONS ................. 2-13
3. DATA ANALYSES .................. 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ................ 3-1
3.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ........... 3-2
3.2.1 SPT Research ............. 3-2
3.2.2 CPT Research ............. 3-5
3.2.2.1 CPT Versus Soil Type ..... 3-5
3.2.2.2 CPT Versus OverburdenPressure ........... 3-9
CRO
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
3.2.2.3 CPT Versus SPT ........... 3-10
3.3 CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS ........... 3-14
3.3.1 CPT Classification of Soil Type . . . 3-14
3.3.2 Correlation of CPT Measurementsfor Overburden Pressure ....... 3-21
3.3.3 Correlation of qc to N ....... 3-25
3.3.3.1 qc/N Range Comparisons . . . 3-26
3.3.3.2 qc/N Versus Depth ..... 3-28
3.3.3.3 qc/N Versus N ....... 3-31
3.3.3.4 qc/N Versus qc ....... 3-32
3.3.3.5 qc/N Versus Friction Ratio. . 3-34
3.3.3.6 qc/N Versus MedianGrain Size ......... 3-35
3.3.3.7 qc/N Versus N ........ 3-36
3.3.3.8 Comparison of N andSide Friction ........ 3-42
3.3.3.9 Summary of qc/N Relations . . 3-42
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... .......... 4-1
4.1 SUMMARY .................... 4-1
4.2 CONCLUSIONS .................. 4-3
4.3 RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS ............. 4-7
5. REFERENCES ..................... 5-1
APPENDICES Appendix No.
A ................ (Under Separate Cover)
B ................ (Under Separate Cover)
ii
IGRO
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 2
Figure No.
2.1 Electric Friction Cone Penetrometer
2.2 Mechanical Trip Hammer (Pilcon Engineering)
2.3 San Diego Site Location
2.4 San Diego Site Layout
2.5 San Diego Site, CPT Profile
2.6 San Diego Site, Composite Site Profile
2.7 Moss Landing/Salinas, Site Locations
2.8 Salinas Site Layout
2.9 Salinas Site, CPT Profile
2.10 Salinas Site, Composite Site Profile
2.11 Moss Landing Site Layout
2.12 Moss Landing Site, CPT Profile
2.13 Moss Landing Site, Composite Site Profile
2.14 Sunset Beach Site Location
2.15 Sunset Beach Site Layout
2.16 Sunset Beach Site, CPT Profile
2.17 San Jose Site Locations: Coyote Creek North and Coyote Creek South
2.18 Coyote Creek North and South Site Layout
2.19 San Jose Site: Coyote North, CPT Profile
2.20 San Jose Site: Coyote North, Composite Site Profile
2.21 San Jose Site: Coyote South, CPT Profile
2.22 San Jose Site: Coyote South, Composite Site Profile
2.23 Edmond, Oklahoma Site Location
iii
IGRO
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Chapter 2 (Cont.)
Figure No.
2.24 Oklahoma Site, CPT layout
2.25 San Diego Site, Composite N profile and
2.26 Salinas Site, Composite N profile and NS/NT
2.27 Moss Landing Site, Composite N Profile and
2.28 San Jose Site£: _Coyote North and South, Composite N Profiles and
2.29 Effect of Borehole on Subsequent Adjacent CPT Soundings - Salinas Site
Chapter 3
3.1 Cjvj Factors Versus Effective Overburden Pressue
3.2 Effects of Rod Length on SPT Blowcounts
3.3 CPT Soil Classification, Begemann Method
3.4 CPT Soil Classification, After Schmertmann (1978)
3.5 Effective Overburden Pressure Versus Cp=qc @ lTsf/qc
3.6 Comparison of Cp, C^ and Rod Length
3.7 Previous Correlations: qc = F(SPT), For Pure Sands (After de Mello, 1971)
3.8 Previous Correlations: qc = F(SPT), For Sands (After Sangerlat, 1972)
3.9 Composite: All Sites, qc vs Friction Ratio, Soil Classification Chart
3.10 Continuous Trace Method, Edmond Site, CPT Probe 119
3.11 Soil Type Classifications Using the CPT Continuous Trace Method
3.12 Soil Type Classifications Using the CPT Continuous Trace Method
iv
ICRQ
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Chapter 3 (Cont.)
Figure No.
3.13 Limited Trace Method; Coyote North Site
3.14 Selected Points - Edmond Site, Liquidity Index vs qc and Friction Ratio
3.15 Trends in CPT Soil Classification
3.16 qc vs o-v ' for CPT Measurements in Sands (After Treadwell, 1975)
3.17 Composite: All Sites, <TV ' vs Cpj, Standard Hammer
3.18 Composite: All Sites, <TV ' vs Cpi, Trip Hammer
3.19 Composite: All Sites, trv ' vs Cp^, by Layer Average, Standard Hammer
3.20 Composite: All Sites, (TV ' vs Cpj by Layer Average, Trip Hammer
3.21 Select Points: All Sites, trv i vs Cpj, Standard Hammer
3.22 Select Points: All Sites, trv ' vs Cp i, Trip Hammer
3.23 San Diego Site: qc/N Range Comparison, Standard Hammer
3.24 Salinas Site: qc/N Range Comparisons, Standard Hammer
3.25 Moss Landing Site: qc/N Range Comparison, Standard Hammer
3.26 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N Range Comparisons, Standard Hammer
3.27 San Diego Site: NAS North Island, qc/N Range Comparisons, Trip Hammer
3.28 Salinas Site: qc/N Range Comparisons, Trip Hammer
3.29 Moss Landing Site: qc/N Range Comparisons, Trip Hammer
3.30 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N Range Comparisons, Trip Hammer
3.31 Composite Blowcount -vs Depth, San Diego: North Island
3.32 Composite Blowcount vs Depth, Salinas Site
_,- vTUGRd
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Chapter 3 (Cont.)
Figure No.
3.33 Composite Blowcount vs Depth, Moss Landing Site
3.34 Composite Blowcount vs Depth, San Jose Site: Coyote North
3.35 Composite Blowcount vs Depth, San Jose Site: Coyote South
3.36 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Depth by Layer Averages
3.37 qc/N vs Effective Overburden Pressure (After Schmertmann, 1978)
3.38 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
3.39 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Depth, Trip Hammer
3.40 Composite: All Sites, qc /N~ vs N, by Layer Averages
3.41 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs N, Standard Hammer
3.42 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs N, Trip Hammer
3.43 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs N, for Selected Points, Standard Hammer
3.44 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs N for Selected Points, Trip Hammer
3.45 Composite: All Sites, qc/N" vs q c , by Layer Averaging
3.46 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs qc , Standard Hammer
3.47 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs qc , Trip Hammer
3.48 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs qc , for Select Points, Standard Hammer
3.49 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs qc , for Select Points, Trip Hammer
3.50 Comparison of End Bearing of Mechanical vs Electric Cone (After Schmertmann, 1978)
3.51 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, by Layer Averages
vi
ICRD
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Chapter 3 (Cont.)
Figure No.
3.52 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
3.53 Composite: All Sites, qc /N vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
3.54 Composite: All Sites, q c /N vs Friction Ratio, for Select Points, Standard Hammer
3.55 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, for Select Points, Trip Hammer
3.56 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs 059, Standard Hammer
3.57 Composite: All Sites, qc/N vs 050, Trip Hammer
3.58 Composite: All Sites, qc vs N by Layer Averages
3.59 Composite: All Sites, qc vs N, Standard Hammer
3.60 Composite: All Sites, qc vs N, Trip Hammer
3.61 Composite: All Sites, qc vs N, for Select Points, Standard Hammer
3.62 Composite: All Sites, qc vs N, for Selected Points, Trip Hammer
3.63 Comparison of qc vs N, Standard Hammer and Schmertmann Relation
3.64 Comparison of qc vs N, Trip Hammer and Schmertmann Relation
3.65 Comparison of qc vs N, Trip Hammer and COE Trip Hammer
3.66 Penetration Resistance in Layered Media (after Treadwell (1975)
3.67 Composite: Average Corrected Blowcount vs Plasticity Indices, Edmond Site
3.68 Edmond Site, Range of Average CPT End Bearing for Friction Ratio Bands
VI 1
FUGRO
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Chapter 3 (Cont.)
Figure No.
3.69 Comparison of Edmond Site, SPT with PK3 and CPT with Friction Ratio = 0.8 to 2.25%
3.70 Edmond Site, SPT N to LI, All Borings with Adjacent CPT Soundings
3.71 Composite: All Soundings: Edmond Site, Corrected qc vs Depth for Sand Zone
3.72 Composite: All Soundings and Borings, Edmond Site, qc/N vs Depth for CPT Sand Zones and Blowcounts with Pj<3
3.73 Composite: All Sites, CPT Side Friction vs N, Standard Hammer
3.74 Composite: All Sites, CPT Side Friction vs N, Trip Hammer
3.75 Composite: All Sites, Frequency Histograms by Layer Average
3.76 Composite: All Sites, Frequency Histogram, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
3.77 Composite: All Sites, Frequency Histogram, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
3.78 Composite: All Sites, Frequency Histogram, qc/N
Chapter 4
4.1 Composite: All Sites, N vs qc vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
4.2 Composite: All Sites, N vs qc vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
4.3 Predicted vs Measured N Value Profile: Edmond Site Boring 120
Vlll
flJGRa
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Appendix No.
A.I - A.10 Cone Penetrometer Tests, San Diego
A.11 - A.18 Log of Borings, San Diego
A.19 - A.33 Cone Penetrometer Tests, Salinas Site
A.34 - A.41 Log of Borings, Salinas Site
A.42 - A.50 Cone Penetrometer Tests, Moss Landing Site
A.51 - A.58 Log of Borings, Moss Landing Site
A.59 - A.61 Cone Penetrometer Tests, Sunset Beach
A.62 - A.73 Cone Penetrometer Tests, San Jose:Coyote North
A. 74 - A.83 Cone Penetrometer Tests, San Jose:Coyote South
A.84 - A.89 Log of Borings, San Jose: Coyote North
A.90 - A.93 Log of Borings, San Jose: Coyote South
APPENDIX B
B.I San Diego Site: %/N vs Depth by Layer Averages
B.2 Salinas Site, qc/N vs Depth by Layer Averages
B.3 Moss Landing Site, q^c /N vs Depth by Layer Averages
B.4 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, vs Depth by Layer Averages
B.5 San Diego Site qc /N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
B.6 Salinas Site, qc/N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
ICRD
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX B (Cont.)
Appendix No.
B.7 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
B.8 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
B.9 San Diego Site qc/N vs Depth, Standard Hammer
B.10 Salinas Site, qc/N vs Depth, Trip Hammer
B.ll Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs Depth, Trip Hammer
B.12 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs Depth, Trip Hammer
B.13 San Diego Site, qc/N vs N by Layer Averages
B.14 Salinas Site, qc/N vs N by Layer Averages
B.15 Moss Landing Site, q"c/N vs N by Layer Averages
B.16 San_Jose_Sites: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs N by Layer Averages
B.17 San Diego Site, qc/N vs N, Standard Hammer
B.18 Salinas Site, qc/N vs N, Standard Hammer
B.19 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs N, Standard Hammer
B.20 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs N, Standard Hammer
B.21 San Diego Site, qc/N vs N, Trip Hammer
B.22 Salinas Site, qc/N vs N, Trip Hammer
B.23 Moss Landing, qc/N vs N, Trip Hammer
B.24 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs N, Trip Hammer
B.25 San Diego: qc/N vs qc by Layer Average
B.26 Salinas Site, qc/N vs qc by Layer Average
IGRU
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX B (Cont.)
Appendix No.
B.27 Moss Landing, qc/N vs qc , by Layer Average
B.28 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South,
qc/N vs q c , by Layer Average
B.29 San Diego Site, qc/N vs qc , Standard Hammer
B.30 Salinas Site, qc/N vs qc , Standard Hammer
B.31 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs qc , Standard Hammer
B.32 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs qc , Standard Hammer
B.33 San Diego Site, qc/N vs qc , Trip Hammer
B.34 Salinas Site, qc/N vs qc , Trip Hammer
B.35 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs qc , Trip Hammer
B.36 San_Jose S^te^ Coyote North and South, qc/N vs qc , Trip Hammer
B.37 San Diego Site,~qc7N vs Friction Ratio, by Layer Averages
B.38 Salinas Site, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, by Layer Averages
B.39 Moss Landing, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, by Layer Averages
B.40 San Jose: Coyote North and South, qc/N 'vs Friction Ratio by Layer Averages
B.41 San Diego Site qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
B.42 Salinas Site, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
B.43 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX B (Cont.)
Appendix No.
B.44 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Standard Hammer
B.45 San Diego Site, qc/N vs Friction ratio, Trip Hammer
B.46 Salinas Site, qc N vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
B.47 Moss Landing Site, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
B.48 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc/N vs Friction Ratio, Trip Hammer
B.49 San Diego Site: NAS North Island, q"c vs N", by Layer Averages
B.50 Salinas Site, q"c vs N by Layer Averages
B.51 Moss Landing Site, q"c vs N" by Layer Averages
B.52 S^an Jo£e Site: Coyote North and South, qc vs N by Layer Averages
B.53 San Diego, qc vs N, Standard Hammer
B.54 Salinas Site, qc vs N, Standard Hammer
B.55 Moss Landing Site, qc vs N, Standard Hammer
B.56 San Jose: Coyote North and South, qc vs N, Standard Hammer
B.57 San Diego Site, qc vs N, Trip Hammer
B.58 Salinas Site, qc vs N, Trip Hammer
B.59 Moss Landing Site, qc vs N, Trip Hammer
B.60 San Jose Site: Coyote North and South, qc vs N, Trip Hammer
IGRO
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the activities and results of the
investigations of the correspondence between Cone Penetrometer
Tests (CPT) and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) performed
under USGS Contract No. 14-08-0001-17780. The program involved
performance of CPTs and SPTs at several sites in California and
at one site in Oklahoma. The comparison of the correspondence
between those test results has as a primary goal the development
of a data base facilitating the use of the CPT for use in
liquefaction potential assessments. The scope of investigations
was defined in proposal P78-310 in response to USGS RFP 460W.
1.1 CURRENT METHODS OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
Current methods of liquefaction potential assessment are in
general limited to either extensive field sampling, laboratory
testing, and dynamic analyses, or rely upon the simplified,
empirical SPT-based method developed by Seed (1979). The
former method has the disadvantages of high cost and time
commitment, the need for field borings and sophisticated
laboratory equipment, and advanced computational capabilities.
In addition, taking high-quality samples of liquefiable soils
(loose, saturated, sands and silts) is a difficult procedure,
and almost invariably results in changed sample structure and .
density.
In addition, the idealization of the soil profile based upon
lab test results usually requires selection of some average
or bounding properties for use in subsequent analyses. It
ICRO
1-2
is never known which properties are most important for trans
mission of shear waves and, therefore, parametric studies
usually need be performed.
The second routine method, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT),
avoids the extreme costs of the more analytical approach, yet
still suffers from the need for expensive field operations
and some laboratory work. Although the test is dynamic, and
should therefore provide some direct indication of dynamic soil
properties, the results can be taken as only general indica
tions of site conditions.
It is well known in the geotechnical industry how error-plagued
is the SPT, with some 30 different error sources having been
defined (Fletcher, F. A., 1965; Kovacs, et al, 1975). A survey
of equipment and procedures in use throughout the U.S. reveals
that not only equipment but also procedure suffers from lack of
standardization. Efforts by many, notably Schmertmann (1976)
and Kovacs (1978), to standardize the test have met with only
limited success. One of the major impediments to standardization
results from the importance of maintaining the SPT data base
that has been developed in the last forty years. This data
base is found in publications as well as in design guidelines
for use at national or local levels. Further, most practitioners
have developed a "feeling" for SPT results, and are able to
make valid engineering judgments from such results. Many of
these practitioners feel that by standardization (such as using
controlled-energy, or velocity, mechanical hammers) the data
IGRO
1-3
base developed over the years will be invalidated. This is a
realistic concern, and several researchers have responded by
instituting a nationwide program of hammer-energy measurements.
Once such measurements have been made, it should be possible
to correlate the average energies represented by any particular
data base with the energy of the standardized hammer (Kovacs,
1978).
1.2 MICROZONATION OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
In recent years there has been an effort, in response to
recognized need, to develop procedures for regional-level
microzonation of earthquake hazards, in particular with respect
to liquefaction potential. With regard to liquefaction hazard
assessment, the usual method involves qualitative definition
of two necessary conditions: a sufficient driving source and
susceptible soils (Youd, et al, 1978; Youd and Perkins, 1977;
Kennedy, et al, 1977). Ignoring the delineation of zones
having potential to receive sufficient strong motion shaking,
the delineation of susceptible soil zones has been based upon
existence of high ground water levels (liquefaction is primarily
of concern in the upper 40 feet of a soil profile) in cohesion-
less, young (Holocene age) soils. The delineation of water
letels is usually through records of ground water investiga
tions, and provides adequate information for regional assess
ments. Site specific investigations still need more accurate
definition of water level, but this factor is relatively easily
determined.
IGRO
1-4
The delineation of susceptible soils (young, cohesionless) has
been through recourse to published data. These data are
usually either geologic or soils maps, or boring information
from previous investigations. The shortcoming of using geo
logic maps is their overly generalized nature. Certainly such
generalization is necessary for microzonation efforts covering
hundreds of square miles of land surface; however, the method
provides only an indication of actual extent of susceptible
materials. On a regional basis, it is possible to define zones
of clearly nonsusceptible materials, such as clays or gravels,
as differentiated from susceptible materials such as beach or
river sand. The primary difficulty arises in those intermed
iate and mixed soils: silts, silty sands, clayey sands, sands,
sandy silts, and even silty and sandy clays. The liquefaction
potential of a soil depends, for a given driving energy, upon
the grain size and distribution, and the amount and activity
of any clay size components. In addition, the in-situ stress
conditions and soil density have a significant influence on
liquefaction potential. Although some qualitative estimates
of stress state and density can be made on the basis of geologic
history, it becomes difficult to attach any quantitative
information to such estimates.
The difficulty in quantifying microzonation delineations
reinstates the need for some field measurement. The cost and
time associated with a boring-type measurement likely becomes
prohibitive. This is where the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)
is seen to be of value. The test is very rapid, with up to
1-5
800 feet of measurements being made in a single day, as compared
to a maximum of about 100 feet of comparable SPT measurements
in a like time. Further, the CPT is standardized, is not
operator or technique dependent, and provides a repeatable
set of continuous measurements of soil resistance.
The primary concern in using CPT for microzonation efforts is
establishing some correlation between CPT results and liquefac
tion potential. Such correlation exits for SPT results (Seed,
1979). The SPT-liquefaction potential correlation is based
upon SPT measurements made at sites which subsequently lique
fied during earthquake shaking. The correlation was extended
through use of "shaking-table" tests. Knowledge of the magni
tude and acceleration characterizing the actual or artificial
earthquake allowed development of a set of values, for any
specific earthquake, bounding the soil cyclic strength dividing
liquefiable from non-liquefiable soils. The soil cyclic
strength was then represented by a normalized SPT blowcount.
Because no extensive data base of this type exists for CPT
measurements, a possible approach is to first compare the CPT to
liquefaction potential through the intermediate use of the SPT
data base. Thus the current program is designed to further
study correspondence between the CPT and SPT as a step toward
the eventual goal of a CPT-liquefaction potential correlation.
1.3 FACTORS AFFECTING LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, SPT, CPT
Several questions arise when considering such a correlation
program. First, for any empirical "index" to be valid for
IGRO
1-6
prediction of some other property, such as liquefaction poten
tial, the index and the property should be similarly dependent
upon the same variables. Typical variables include soil type,
stress state and stress history, soil density, and soil structure.
Given the range in parameter variation in-situ, it is not sensible
to try to account for the effect of variations producing only a
small change in the correlation. Rather, major changes should
be investigated. The variables accepted as having major affect
upon liquefaction potential are: soil type, degree of satura
tion, effective overburden pressure, density or relative density,
lateral stress, and soil structure or fabric. It is assumed
that location of permanent ground water can be established, thus
eliminating degree of saturation from concern. This leaves, as
of primary importance, the influences of soil type, structure,
and density and effective stress history.
These variables are not easily rated in terms of their effect
upon either liquefaction potential or SPT measurements. First,
it is in general true that increasing clay content results
in decreased liquefaction potential and decreased blowcounts.
Increased sand content results in increased blowcount and
increased liquefaction potential as compared to clayey soils.
However, for a given soil, an increase in blowcount results
in decrease of liquefaction potential. Further, the effect
of intermediate fines content upon liquefaction potential is
not known. It is generally assumed that some value of Plas
ticity Index (PI) can divide susceptible from nonsusceptible
soils (Donovan and Singh, 1976). This value has been assumed
IGRO
1-7
at from 5 to 12 percent. It is unlikely, however, that the SPT
varies inversely proportional to liquefaction potential as
fines content increases up to this point of low PI. Further,
there is no certainty that the criteria is applicable on other
than a case-by-case level.
The same type of arguments can be advanced relating liquefaction
potential to median grain size (059). Although the trend in
the relation between D^Q and liquefaction potential holds for
comparison of extremes, it is not valid for comparisons within
the range most commonly of concern: sands and silts.
t>
A second primary factor, effective overburden and lateral pres
sures, is likewise difficult to assess. The cyclic strength
of a soil (or liquefaction potential) certainly varies with the
effective stress in the soil in that increased driving energy
is required to generate sufficient shear strains to result in
increased porewater pressure at increased confining pressures.
Thus for a sand at a constant relative density, the blowcount
measured would non-linearly vary proportional to the effective
pressure at the location of the blowcount. In order to elimi
nate the influence of this variable, both cyclic strength and
blowcounts are normalized by either the effective vertical
stress or some measure of that stress. For blowcounts, the
measure is the factor CN , which is intended to normalize a
blowcount to that which would be obtained at an effective
overburden pressure of one ton per square foot. This factor
is appropriate for normally consolidated soils only.
ICRO
1-9
being of different ages. In particular, the correlations are
examined as dependent upon soil type, resistance, and overburden
pressure, as these are the primary, presently quantifiable,
factors affecting liquefaction potential.
Considerable attention is placed upon the method of data
comparison. The primary reason for this attention is the
essential difference between the data of the CPT and SPT.
The CPT provides continuous, repeatable measurements, while
the SPT provides point data dependent upon equipment and
method. The variability of SPT measurements is clearly
evidenced in examination of the data presented in this report.
Such variability further emphasizes the need for SPT hammer
energy measurements, as discussed previously. This need,
as well as other research needs related to field methods of
liquefaction potential assessment, are further discussed in
Chapter 4, Summary and Conclusions.
ICRO
2-1
2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Field investigations supported under this research program
included Standard Penetration Tests and electric Cone Penetrometer
Tests performed at several sites in California. In addition,
data from other projects are also included, in particular, from
a project in Oklahoma. Samples taken from California sites
during the SPT program were returned to the Long Beach soils
laboratory for classification testing. All classification data
and SPT measurements from the Oklahoma site were developed and
provided by the Tulsa District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
who also allowed use of the CPT data from the site. A summary
of field investigations is given in Table 2.1.
2.2 PROCEDURES
The testing procedures used in this program were in general
accordance with those procedures recommended by the ASTM.
Applicable standards used in the program are: D1586 for SPT
procedures, D3441-75T for CPT procedures, and D422 for labora
tory grain size analyses. Corps of Engineers field and
laboratory tests were performed in accordance with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Testing Standards.
The CPT soundings were performed using a truck-mounted electric
cone penetrometer. The electric CPT system consists of a
40,000 pound truck equipped with a hydraulic loading system
capable of applying 40,000 pounds of force onto the end of
1.4 inch diameter, hollow "sounding" rods. The electric
2-2
friction cone tip is mounted on the end of the rod string with
an electrical cable threaded from the cone, through the.trailing
rods, and into the electronics located in the truck.
The electric friction cone tip essentially consists of a strain-
gage-instrumented body enclosed within a cylindrical friction
sleeve of 150 square centimeters surface area, and capped with
a 60-degree apex angle conical tip of 10 square centimeters
projected surface area. An inclinometer is located within the
cylindrical body. A description of this friction cone and the
general CPT methodology is given by de Ruiter (1971); a schematic
diagram of the electric friction cone is shown in Figure 2.1.
The sounding rods with attached friction cone are pushed into
the soil at a constant rate of two cm/sec in one-meter runs.
At the end of each one-meter run, an additional one-meter
length of rod is added, and the sounding continued. This
process is repeated until reaching refusal or a specified
depth. Additional information about the general procedures
used for CPT site investigations are described elsewhere
(Sangerlat, 1972).
A continuous analog record of the forces on the end (cone end
bearing, q c ) and friction sleeve (side friction) of the cone
is taken on a strip-chart recorder located in the penetrometer
truck. The chart recorder is driven by an optical encoder
controlled by the advance of the sounding rods; the length of»
the cone record is directly and exactly proportional to the
length of extended sounding rods. Inclinometer readings (taken
~HJGRO
2-3
during rod breaks) showed inclinations of no more than 3 degrees
during any of the sounding.
The Standard Penetration Tests at California sites were performed
using Failing 750 drill rigs and drill pipe having an I.D. of
1.5 inches and an O.D. of 2.375 inches with a weight of 55
pounds per 10.5 foot long rod section. Drill bits were 5-7/8"
fishtails baffled to prevent any jetting-induced soil disturbance
Particular care was taken to thoroughly flush the hole prior to
slow removal of the drill bit. Drilling mud was maintained at
ground surface in all borings.
SPT hammers were of two types: a rope-around-the-cathead
"donut" hammer provided by the drillers (total weight of 225
pounds), and a "free-fall", mechanical trip hammer (total
weight of 210 pounds) manufactured by Pilcon Engineering
(Figure 2.2). The trip hammer uses a rocker arm cam release
system which provides a constant hammer drop height of 30+ 1
inches. No measurements of the energies delivered by these
hammers were obtained.
Sampling spoons were newly constructed following ASTM guide
lines with the exception that space for liners was provided,
but liners were not used. Schmertmann (1976, 1979) notes that
liner samplers used without liners is the common practice, and
represents a de facto change to ASTM D2586.
The Corps of Engineers SPT procedures follow ASTM guidelines
with the exception of hammer type. The hammer used in this
ICRO
2-4
program is of the type described by Marcuson and Bieganousky
(1977) and is a free-fall hammer with hydraulic drive. More
information about the effects of such free fall hammers is
given in later sections. The rate of application of hammer
blows with this device was about five per minute, while the
rates with both the standard and the Pilcon mechanical hammer
were about 40 blows per minute.
2.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The sites investigated during this program were generally
selected on the basis of having saturated, cohesionless soils.
Sites were located in San Diego, Seal Beach, Salinas, Moss
Landing, and San Jose, California, and Edmond, Oklahoma* The
following sections provide brief description of site geology
and soil profiles based upon the boring, sounding, and labor
atory investigations.
2.3.1 San Diego, California
The site is located at the Naval Air Station near San Diego,
on artificial fill emplaced between North Island and Coronado
Island to connect the islands across the old Spanish Bight.
North Island and Coronado Island are probably remnants of the
Quaternary Nestor or lower marine terrace (Ellis and Lee,
1919). Surficial terrace deposits are chiefly silts and sands
In the Spanish Bight area, hydraulic fill, principally sand
silty sand, and silt dredged from San Diego Bay, occurs at
the surface (Forrest and Ferritto, 1976). Fill in this zone
was placed in 1945.
ICRO
2-5
Bedrock beneath terrace deposits and artificial fill consists
of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine, lagoonal, and fluviatile
clastic rocks, chiefly sandstone, conglomerate, and shale
(Kennedy, 1973). These rocks dip gently northeast on the
northeast flank of a northwest trending anticline with axis
off the coast of San Diego. Planation of these dipping beds
has resulted in removal of upper (Eocene-Pliocene) units
beneath North Island with occurrence of progressively younger
rocks to the east (Kennedy, 1973) . Only the Cretaceous Rosario
Group occurs beneath North Island. In the vicinity of the
Spanish Bight and Coronado Island, rocks of the Eocene La Jolla
Group overlie Cretaceous rocks in the subsurface (Kennedy,
1973) . Further east, marine Pliocene deposits of the San Diego
Formation overlie these Eocene rocks, and may extend into the
test site area (Forrest and Ferritto, 1976).
Basement in the area consists of Cretaceous and older metamor-
phic and intrusive rocks (Kennedy, 1973; Forrest and Ferritto,
1976). The Rose Canyon fault is postulated to occur just west
of the test site forming the eastern edge of North Island
(Forrest and Ferritto, 1976), although others place the south
ern extension of this fault along the east side of San Diego
Bay (Ziony, 1973). Movement on this fault has probably occurred
during late Pleistocene and may be as recently as early Holocene
(Ziony, 1973).
Nine Cone Penetrometer Tests and eight Standard Penetration
Tests were performed at the San Diego site. The location of
ICRO
2-6
the site and of each sounding and boring is given in Figures 2.3
and 2.4. The sounding logs are shown summarized in Appendix A
in Figure A.I, and individually in Figures A.2 through A.10,
and the boring logs in Figures A.11 through A.18. Site profiles
were drawn based on the CPT results, and the SPT logs and
laboratory classification results. These two profiles are
shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6. It should be noted that all of
the CPT profile-series logs have been smoothed, that is,
averaged over a vertical distance of one foot. The effect of
such smoothing can be seen by comparison of the profile-series
logs of Figure 2.5 with the individual logs of Figures A.2
through A.10.
Examination of the profiles shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 reveals
that essentially identical profiles result using either CPT or
SPT methods. The SPT results revealed changes in color indica
tive of a layer transition, while the CPT, being essentially a
strength measurement, shows virtually no layering. However,
the CPT continuous record does reveal the presence of lenses or
pockets of dissimilar materials not found with the SPT method.
2.3.2 Salinas, California
The Salinas site is on the southwest bank of the Salinas River
near the mouth of El Toro Creek. Sediments in the area consist
chiefly of interbedded fluvial silty sand and sand deposited
by the Salinas River, with interbeds of sand and gravel from
the El Toro Creek alluvial fan. These fluvial deposits are
Holocene age and extend to depths of 10-20 m (Tinsley, 1980,
IGRU
2-7
personal communication). They are underlain by delta and
estuarine sediments deposited during higher stands of sea level
when the sea transgressed up the Salinas Valley into the area.
Estuarine deposits are chiefly black muds (organic silty clays)
of Holocene age. These fine-grained deposits interfinger with
delta/fluvial sandy deposits, and generally do not persist to
depths exceeding 30 m (Tinsley, 1980, personal communication).
At these depths, deposits are again predominantly fluvial in
origin and are Pleistocene in age. Beneath these Pleistocene-
age Salinas River fluvial deposits is the Plio-Pleistocene
nonmarine Paso Robles Formation, generally at depths greater
than 300 feet (Tinsley, 1980, personal communication).
Dibblee (1976) has mapped and named the Rinconada-Reliz fault
along the northeastern flank of the Sierra de Salinas, forming
the southwestern edge of the Salinas Valley. The fault would
project very close to the site, between it and the mountain
front 1/4 mile to the west. Movement along the fault was
right-lateral during late Pleistocene times, but has since
shifted to predominantly reverse-slip during Holocene time
(Tinsley, 1980, personal communication).
Fifteen CPTs and eight SPTs were performed at the Salinas
site. The locations of the site and each sounding and boring
are given in Figures 2.7 and 2.8. The sounding and boring
logs are shown in Appendix A Figures A.19 through A.33 and
A.34 through A.41, respectively. It should be noted that
some of the soundings were performed using an oversized cone
2-8
(15 square centimeter projected end area). These soundings are
also shown in Appendix A (identified as F15CKE) along with the
rest of the Salinas soundings. The final site profiles, again
as based on CPT and SPT and laboratory test data are shown in
Figures 2.9 and 2.10.
Comparison of the logs shown in Figures 2.9 and 2.10 reveals
the expected differences. The SPT method provides information
regarding soil grain size, while the CPT method implicitly
provides strength data and more detailed stratigraphic data
than possible using the SPT method.
2.3.3 Moss Landing, California
The site at Moss Landing is underlain by beach sands to prob
able depths of ten meters or more. Eolian sands, derived
from reworking of beach sands, form a thin cover at the surface
and may occur interbedded with beach deposits at depth. Other
deposits in areas adjacent to the site are part of a late
Holocene transgressive sequence consisting of relatively thick
sands offshore and estuarine and fluvial deposits onshore
(Tinsley, 1980, personal communication). The site is near
the mouths of the Salinas and Pajoro Rivers which empty into
Monterey Bay. Sloughs (Elkhorn, Moro Cojo) and tidal channels
occur just east of Moss Landing, forming an area of modern
fine-grained estuarine deposits which thin to the east. These
types of deposits occur at depth near Moss Landing, interbedded
and underlain by sandy fluvial deposits (Tinsley, 1980, personal
communication), and contain gravel lenses, particularly at the
-RjGRO
2-9
base of the Holocene section which extends to about 100 to 180
feet below the surface (Tinsley, 1980, personal communication)
In the immediate site vicinity, deposits are principally
littoral, i.e., deposited in the shoreline environment within
the zone of tidal fluctuation. Sands predominate with some
interbedded silts and clays.
Nine CPTs and eight SPTs were performed at the Moss Landing
site. The site and boring and sounding locations are shown in
Figures 2.10 and 2.11. The sounding logs are given in Figures
A.42 through A.50 of Appendix A, and boring logs in Figures
A.51 through A.58. The final site profile for Moss Landing
based upon the CPT and the SPT and laboratory classification
data is shown in Figures 2.12 and 2.13, respectively.
2.3.4 Sunset Beach, California
The Sunset Beach site lies east of Anaheim Bay along the
principal tidal inlet into Sunset Bay. Sunset Bay is a tidal
marshland which has been closed off by a barrier beach. The
site is on the landward side of the barrier beach adjacent
to the marshlands. Surface materials consist of beach sands
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978), probably reworked to
some extent by man during modification of the beach. Beach
sands at the site probably overlie and interfinger with tidal
marsh deposits (organic sands, silts, and clays) derived from
both marine and continental sources. Immediately inland from
the beach, Holocene deposits generally do not extend to depths
greater than 20 feet (Poland, et al, 1956). Along the beach,
2-10
deposits may be somewhat thicker, consisting of unconsolidated
sand, silt and clay with no known gravels in the area (Poland
et al, 1956; Poland, 1959). Holocene deposits are underlain by
the Pleistocene Lakewood and San Pedro Formations, which extend
to depths greater than 500 feet consisting of loosely to
moderately consolidated sandstone, claystone, siltstone, and
marl (California Department of Water Resources, 1968; Poland
et al, 1956).
Three CPTs were performed at the Sunset Beach site (Figure
2.14) at the locations shown in Figure 2.15. No SPTs were
performed as the site was selected primarily because the
uniformity of the site soils facilitates estimation of the
effect of depth (or pressure) on cone penetrometer readings.
The results of the soundings are shown in Appendix A in Figures
A.59 through A.61 and the interpreted profile is shown in
Figure 2.16.
2.3.5 San Jose, California
Two different sites in the Coyote Creek vicinity near San Jose
were investigated. These sites occur in the gently sloping
alluvial plain of the Santa Clara Valley six to seven miles
south of the southern tip of San Francisco Bay. The surficial
material at the sites is predominantly medium-grained alluvium
(fine sand, silt, and clayey silt) of Holocene age (Helley
and Brabb, 1971; Helley, et al, 1979). This alluvium was
derived from sources to the east and south along the Coyote
Creek drainage. Natural levees deposited during flood stage
ICRD
2-11
occur along the banks of Coyote Creek in which test sites are
located. The site areas are near the southern limit of modern
bay mud and may be underlain at shallow depths by thin bay muds
deposited when the bay extended further southward as recently
as 125 years ago (Helley and others, 1979). At greater depths,
Pleistocene alluvium and Pleistocene bay mud interfinger, but
alluvial deposits probably predominate beneath the site area.
No known faults traverse or underlie the area, although the
historically active Hayward fault occurs about 5 kilometers
to the east. Holocene and Pleistocene beds underlying the
area are generally undeformed, dipping slightly northward
toward the bay in original depositional position.
The locations of the two Coyote Creek sites are shown in Fig
ure 2.17. The north site had eleven CPT soundings (two with
the oversized cone) and six borings, while the south site
had ten soundings (two with oversized cone) and four borings.
The locations of the borings and soundings are shown in Figure
2.18. The sounding logs are presented in Appendix A,in Figures
A.62 through A.73 and A.74 through A.83 for the north and south
sites, and the boring logs in Figures A.84 through A.89 and
A.90 through A.93 for north and south sites, respectively.
The site profiles based on these data are given in Figures 2.19
and 2.20 for the north site, and in Figures 2.21 and 2.22 for
the south site.
2.3.6 Edmond, Oklahoma
The Oklahoma site lies in the valley of the Deep Fork River
ICRO
2-12
northeast of Oklahoma City (Figure 2.23). The area is on
the east flank of the Anadarko Basin, characterized by gently
west-dipping Permian-age sedimentary rocks. The rocks in
the site vicinity are principally sandstone of the Garber
Sandstone and Wellington Formations of Lower Permian age
(Wood and Burton, 1968). These two formations are litho-
logically similar, consisting of lenticular beds of cross-
bedded sandstone interbedded with shale, generally sandy to
silty. Sands are fine- to very fine-grained, and are poorly
cemented (Wood and Burton, 1968). The site lies essentially
along the gradational contact between the two formations
(Bingham and Moore, 1975).
The site is underlain by modern alluvium of the Deep Fork
River Valley. Alluvium consists of sand, silt and clay with
lenticular beds of gravel (Bingham and Moore, 1975). The
thickness of alluvium in the valley overlying the Permian
bedrock varies from several feet to more than 50 feet (Wood
and Burton, 1968; Bingham and Moore, 1975). At the dam
centerline, the alluvium is about 83 feet thick, but upstream
300 feet it is only 14.5 feet thick (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1978). Valley bottom alluvium is Holocene age
and is unconsolidated.
Twenty-three CPTs and twenty-four SPTs were performed at the
Arcadia site at locations shown in Figure 2.24. Because of
the extremely complex nature of the site profile, significant
changes in soil type or resistance were found over distances
ICRO
2-13
of only a few feet in either horizontal or vertical directions.
For this reason, some of the data analyses (discussed in sub
sequent sections) were performed upon average CPT and SPT results
Likewise, only a generalized profile could be developed. This
profile covers several hundred feet both along the dam centerline
and in the upstream-downstream axis and is not shown in this
report. For more information about the characteristics of this
site, the Corps of Engineers Design Memorandum may be consulted.
The complete set of boring and sounding logs from the Arcadia
site are available in that memorandum. Select information
about site characteristics is discussed in a subsequent section
of this report.
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
Primary conclusions that can be drawn based upon the field
investigations focus upon testing procedures, data consistency,
data interpretation, and the degree to which the test methods
provide data representative of site conditions. In regard to
testing procedures, it was noted during the field program that
constant attention was required to keep repeatability of SPT
method, although, only one driller was used. The tendency was
for the rope-around-the-cathead method hammer-drop height to
decrease with increasing number of blowcounts. Further, as the
focus of measurements was on sandy soils, after the first boring
was complete and the location of significant clay layers known,
the driller tended to assume layer continuity without actually
checking the clay layer extent encountered in subsequent borings.
IGRO
2-14
The effect of this assumption can be seen in comparison of the
CPT and SPT profiles where thin interlayers of sands and silts
are apparent in the CPT records but missing from the SPT records
Further comparison of the CPT-SPT profiles reveals that greater
evidence of spatial variability of soil types and layering is
visible with the CPT method. This includes the definition of
interlayers as well as thickness and extent of more massive
layers. However, the CPT method primarily reveals changes in
material type via the intermediary of changes in strength using
the tip measurement and the sleeve measurement, and no visual
fee of material change is obtained. At the sites investi-
this lack of sample presented no difficulties, but
.als were in general fairly common, well behaved sands,
', and mixes. One notable shortcoming is that the CPT
profiles presented in previous sections reveal no information
allowing definition of water table depth.
The potential for use of the piezometric cone penetrometer to
define water levels was to be investigated in this program.
However, due to equipment fabrication problems and because the
location of sensing elements within the tip and the interpreta
tion of measured data are areas of current controversy, no such
investigations were performed. Subsequent investigations in
which the piezometric cone has been used indicate that if the
porous element is saturated with a high viscosity fluid, then
penetration through a dry layer overlying a saturated layer
will not result in loss of saturation to a degree eliminating
pore pressure response upon entering the saturated layer.
IGRO
2-15
Another interesting phenomenon observed during the field
program was the apparent "smoothing" of layer resistances
during SPT penetration using the higher energy free-fall
hammer. Figures 2.25 through 2.28 show average blowcount
versus depth profiles for each hammer type at each site. The
average blowcount values were calculated over three-foot
intervals where layer continuity was present. Also shown in
those figures are the ratios of average blowcounts using the
two hammers.
Further examination of the blowcount ratios by material type
reveals a trend toward increase in blowcount ratio with increas
ing blowcount. A possible explanation for this trend revolves
around the question of the extension wave reflected from the
"free" end of the rod string. As the soil hardens, the free
end becomes progressively more fixed, allowing more of the
available energy to be transmitted by the rod string. The trip
hammer is of a type having a large diameter anvil which acts
as a wave trap, in particular for the free end condition.
Thus with increasing fixity, the trapped energy is more fully
transmitted, with resultant reduction in trip hammer blowcount
as compared with standard hammer blowcounts. This trend is
more fully discussed by Schmertmann (1979b).
As a final examination of field data, a series of CPT soundings
is presented in Figure 2.29. These soundings were performed
adjacent to and after a boring had been placed to determine
how close a sounding could be without showing any effects of
IGRO
2-16
the nearby boring. In Figure 2.29 it can be seen that the
sounding placed one and one-half foot from the boring shows
one anomalously low end-bearing zone. Whether or not this
reduction resulted from the nearby boring cannot be certain
with only one test series; however, based upon this result,
the few soundings performed after a boring was completed were
placed at a distance of from six to twelve feet from the
nearest boring, a distance which is close enough to allow a
high degree of horizontal uniformity without being close
enough to sense any effect of the boring.
ICRD
SITE
SAN DIEGO: MAS NORTH ISLAND
SALINAS SOUTH
MOSS LANDINGS
SUNSET BEACH
SAN JOSE: COYOTE NORTH
SAN JOSE: COYOTE SOUTH
ARCADIA:* EDMOND, OKLAHOMA
SPT
DATE
10/10-12/79
11/6-9,12-13/79
11/13-15/79
-
11/16-17,
20-21/79
11/19-20/79
1/20-5/8/80
TYPE
STANDARD TRIP
STANDARD TRIP
STANDARD TRIP
-
STANDARD
TRIP
STANDARD TRIP
STANDARD TRIP
NUMBER
4
5
4
4
4
4
-
3
3
2
2
24
CRT
NUMBER
9
15
9
3
11
10
23
DATE
4/18-19/79
11/12.14-15/79
11/12-13/79
3/17/80
7/11/80
11/5-16,19/79
11/17-19/79
3/28-4/3/80
*ALL SPT's PERFORMED BY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, DISTRICT ana
PROJECT NO:
USGS
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
79-153
11-80 TABLE 2.1
ELECTRIC CABLE
CABLE CHANNEL-
STRAIN GAGES FOR FRICTION SLEEVE
INCLINOMETER
STRAIN GAGES FOR CONE-
"0" RINGS
CONNECTION ROD
> FRICTION SLEEVE
CONE
rJTJGROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
ELECTRIC FRICTION CONE PENETROMETER
9-80 FIGURE 2.1
AA
AA
1. THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY IS SHACKLED TO THE WINCH ROPE, HOISTED ON TO THE ROD OR PIPE CONNECTION AND SCREWED HOME
2. THE LOCKING PIN IS THEN REMOVED AND THE OUTER TUBE ASSEMBLY - CARRYING WITH IT THE MONKEY - IS RAISED BY THE WINCH
3.ON REACHING A HEIGHT OF 30", THE TRIP CAM OPERATES THE PAWLS, RE LEASING THE MONKEY TO DROP FREELY ON THE ANVIL
4. THE OUTER TUBE IS LOWERED TO RE ENGAGE THE HAMMER
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
MECHANICAL TRIP HAMMER (PILCON ENGINEERING)
9-80 FIGURE 2.2
\~\BRILLO NAT MON
Did lighthouse
\ Light^
SEE FIGURE : NORTH ISLAND
os X . fWate^. -
BORDER FIELD '
FROM USGS 2° TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SAN DIEGO, CA. 1959, REVISED 1978
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN DIEGO SITE LOCATION
9-80 FIGURE 2.3
K.Ul
MAIN STRt 6-LANEJ
en"
8
en"1 en" en"1
CO
en"
3
L
EXPLANATION
X FUG RO ELECTRIC CONE BORINGS
SECTION A
NAS, NORTH ISLAND
PARKING LOT
SCALE: 1"- 100'
ABC,- IBT^ GROUP
1 xxx ^1ASJ 1 AISLE 14
^^. 2AS ^ GROUP
' 2BT J 2XX -^
3AS"! AISLE 13w ^»? 3AS 1 GROUP
^ -3BT ? 3
. 4AT 1 GROUP0 <^L 4BS * AISLE 12 xxx J
! SIGN POSTS AISLE 11~i~
^--"-\ \PO8LH, WOKKS ___Ijnsiui-rES3¥-
y^rssEsr. TTsois-/64«H*OTRACfW*>
TOUCH M/aO STgie 628rszTrtrf
433TNAV,Y:EXCHANGE\ vL
\l^^1
IINO-NASNI- 10713/1 (REV 7-75 )DRAWN BY LEO H. GAUDREAU PW ENGINEERING (PLANNING)
REFERENCE NAVAL AIR STATION. NORTH ISLAND, CA 1975
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
NORTH ISLAND SITE LAYOUT
9-80
79-153
FIGURE 2.4
La Selva Beach'
' I ^ V -1 &"v M I ' " ^*sl^ 4 ,_._,._.._ -_ -, -*p V V . H >^^ -m-. .4-| <». ^r-w*»^ ft,
^^J^p^'^'^io; I" 1 v.^
shu MOSS LANDING
.gQSALINAail 5
Workfield
Point Pinos
IVIONTEREYPHKSIDIO OK
i ^ V-V^Sfe
'ST^C r>
FROM USGS 2° TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SANTA CRUZ, CA. 1965
9-80
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
MOSS LANDING/SALINAS SITE LOCATIONS
79-153
FIGURE 2.7
TO SAUNAS 3 MILES
FUGRO CONE SOUNDINGS
O BORINGST-TRIP HAMMER
S-STANDARD
5X ENLARGEMENT ADAPTED FROM USGS 15" TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OFSALINAS. CA 1947
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAUNAS SITE LAYOUT
9-80 FIGURE 2.8
MOSS LANDING
MOSS LANDING
MARINE LABORATORY
PARKING LOT
MOSS LANDING
MARINE LAB
x FUGRO CONE SOUNDINGS
BORINGS CASTROVlLLE
MOSS LANDrMG
CEMETARY \
JSALINAS
12 MILESSALINAS RIVER STATE BEACH
EXIT
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
MOSS LANDING SITE LAYOUT4X ENLARGEMENT ADAPTED FROM USGS 7%" TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OF MOSS LANDING, CA 1954, PHOTOREVISED 1968
oI o
I
COo
Io
I o
I
in o
i
FRICTION RBTI3
C8NE FRICTI8NRE3I3TRNCE RRTIdCTSH C%)
C8NE FRICTI8NRE3I3TRNCE RRTI8(TSF) (Z)
C8NE FRICT18NRESISTflNCE RRTI8(TSF) (Z)
C8NE RES18TRNCE (TSF)
.ac
2a
IXTURESSILT
SAND (SM-SP)
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
MOSS LANDING SITE CRT PROFILE
9-80
79-153
FIGURE 2.12
HUNTINGTON BEACI
FROM USGS 2° TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF
LONG BEACH, CA 1957. REVISED 1970
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SUNSET BEACH SITE LOCATION
9-80 FIGURE 2.14
FRICTI8N C8NE RHTI8 KESlSTflNCE (X) I CTSF)
0 100 ZOO
L MC818TIWCCI CTSf)
0 100 ZOO
RRTI0 ME818TRNCCCZ) I (T8F)
8 3 0 100 200
CLAY (CL) AND SANDY CLAY
-flJBWOPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SUNSET BEACH SITE CRT PROFILE
9-80 FIGURE 2.16
US Veteran^,, - AdmtrtetratiorK,'&
SEE FIGURECOYOTE CREEK NORTH
SEE FIGURECOYOTE CREEK SOUTH
*$>J X'^, M<^ ^
FROM USGS 2° TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SAN JOSE, CA. 1962, REVISED 1969
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITE LOCATIONS:COYOTE CREEK NORTH AND
COYOTE CREEK SOUTH9-80
79-153
FIGURE 2.17
Co
mp
iled
by
Dra
wn b
y.
. Check
ed b
yA
ppro
ved b
y
^ *
> o
5
mm
^
3D
mo
5>
H
2 O
o «
_>
o'
coC
m
V)
>>
3
m
5 >
vj
CO<0
H
O S
z > "
0
lo 0°
°0 m
H m
m
7;
C I
~ 7fe"%~-^" 7^
~&.^_ j'^ j ;- <;Bj 1 ^otfjflgisjatiart^r
, 3 v_ "-I __ _ _._ ,T_ __^
' .If^^^L.']h , -I n'°oi ^.X li«N
-J - \ ' , i\--. i; ' " i ~ Wateit lowec': " I "f fraokfomi^^?N I " x f '" ' " I '"J ' *^^^ I
v f^nwV" 0!.
-^ T'J T-.rtI lLo..* 1 - ^P
'^^-^^^i-. ^-ito/^ * i L.' ~^ ,\ u
FROM USGS 2° TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF
OKLAHOMA CITY. OK. 1957, LIMITED REVISION 1968
j-flJGflOPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
EDMOND, OKLAHOMA SITE LOCATION
9-80 FIGURE 2.23
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
S
H
coM
*
*
>Z
lH
CO
81
Is Om
c/
?o
HO
21 H
u
rn
30"
02
ZH
0
1
33
D I Zl
in
Zl
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
21
V) I1
O
O O
CO
H mCO
2
1 >
-oE
o2
3)
co
r-co
m
13
2)
CO
33
H
1 ?
Zl
33H
O
I
Zi
- 8
zi
- 8
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by.
Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
3 2
.?!
5
>21
I
o
o
-o o CO mo
§ >co ZH
Dm
Z!
H
Zl I
- § 8
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
Zl
H30
O
I Zl
CO
I1 21
H
O
O
H>
O i 5
: -1
-
§
21
Zl
C/J^ Zl H ro
.-
8
3-1
3. DATA ANALYSES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Because the primary purpose of this research was to investigate
the correspondence between CPT and SPT, facilitating use of
CPT for liquefaction potential assessments, the investigations
were directed mainly at definition of the form of CPT-SPT cor
respondence for soils in which the blowcount method of assessment
is applicable (sands with less than about 30 percent fines).
However, the correlations were examined for all natural soils
encountered. These soils ranged from medium sized clean sands,
to clayey fine sands possessing structural sensitivity. Only
occasionally were pure clays encountered. The reason for
examining these other soils is not only to allow prediction of
particular SPT values but, more importantly, to allow increased
certainty in the assessment of types of soils encountered
in-situ. That is, without being able to differentiate soil
types, it would never be clear when the CPT-SPT conversions
would be valid and, therefore, when the CPT use for simplified
liquefaction potential assessments would be valid.
The second requisite for use of the simplified method of
liquefaction potential evaluation is a means to normalize CPT
data in a manner eliminating the effect of overburden pressure.
Such normalization would be directly comparable to the blow-
count correction factor, C^, which is used to adjust a
blowcount to that expected for the soil if confined under an
effective overburden pressure of one ton per square foot. The
blowcount correction factor, CN , or its equivalent for CPT
~FUGRH
3-2
measurements, Cp, is a function of effective overburden
pressure and, therefore, soil unit density and location of
phreatic surface must be determined or reliably estimated.
Finally, the relation between CPT end bearing, qc , and
SPT blowcount, N, must be determinable from CPT measurements
alone. Although a more satisfying approach to the estimation
of liquefaction potential from CPT measurements would be
through some strength or compressibility related factor, it
is currently necessary to use the already-existing blowcount
relation. Although such correlation may not be satisfactory
for site-specific liquefaction potential assessments for
critical structures, certainly the method is applicable to
regional zonation or site specific screening to the extent of
defining the existence or lack of a problem requiring more
detailed site investigation.
Because the SPT is so widespread in U.S. application, and
because the SPT is recognized as an uncertain measurement,
several researchers have investigated the test, from equipment
and procedures to theory and usage. Likewise, the relation
between SPT and CPT has been investigated, and the CPT alone
has been the subject of controlled studies. It is informative
to review some of those studies.
3.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
3.2.1 SPT Research
When investigating use of an in-situ tool the greatest need is
to establish a reference against which the measurements made
fijGRO
3-3
with the tool may be evaluated. For investigation in sands
the most common reference is the SPT. Thus, not only the CPT
and CPT-SPT correlations need be studied, but also the SPT
alone.
The question of repeatability of the SPT as a result of natural
in-situ spatial variability of soil properties or vagaries of
equipment and procedure has been discussed at length by several
authors (de Mello, 1971; Tavenas, 1971; Fletcher, 1965; Schmert-
mann, 1976; Kovacs, 1978). The message contained in these works
is that although the SPT is beset with equipment and procedural
difficulties, the test does provide useful information. Some
20 potential error sources are mentioned, and some results are
cited showing up to a j^lOO percent error in SPT measurements
under controlled conditions. Such errors tend to be largest at
shallow depths. When such lack of repeatability is compounded
by the use of different hammer energies (Kovacs, 1978; Schmert-
mann, 1976), and different CN adjustments for depth (effective
overburden), it is clear that use of any particular set of N
values with the Seed blowcount method requires considerable
caution. For example, Kovacs notes that the combinations of
rope age, sheave speed, and driller effort also significantly
affect the hammer-delivered energy, while Schmertmann (1976)
shows that average energies delivered to the sampler by the
common rope-around-the-cathead method are about 55 percent of
the theoretical amount and that the actual energy entering the
rods depends not only upon the hammer system but also the rod
type and length.
IGRD
3-4
Following this question of the effect of rod length, and hence,
depth, upon entering and delivered energy is of interest in
that the CPT measurements should depend upon effective overburden
pressure but not upon rod length. Several researchers have
examined the N- effective pressure relation (CN ) proposed
by Gibbs and Holtz (1957) and have presented modifications.
Notable among these are Bazarra (1967), Seed (1976), Peck, et
al (1973), and Marcuson and Bieganousky (1977). These authors
have identified soil type, relative density, and overburden and
lateral pressure as the primary variables influencing blowcount,
although other variables such as soil structure have been
considered. In Figure 3.1, a plot is shown comparing the CN:
relations suggested by these authors. The wide range in values
at any pressure precludes certainty in selection of an appropriate
N value correction factor. Further, it is of interest that the
curves presented by Marcusson and Bieganousky developed using a
free fall hammer with laboratory sands show reasonable agreement
with those developed empirically. The Marcuson-Bieganousky
studies did not include rod length as a control variable, yet
Schmertmann (1976) showed rod length to have a significant
effect upon hammer-rod system efficiency and, presumably, upon
blowcount. In Figures 3.2(A) through 3.2(D) a progression is
shown based upon the Schmertmann (1976) data whereby rod length
is related through energy measurements to N values. The final
figure, 3.2(D) shows a CN curve for rod length alone (CRL)
in which it is noted that because of the lesser delivered
energies at shallow depths, the blowcounts must be adjusted
IGRO
3-5
downward rather than upward as is the usual case for CN
adjustments. It should also be noted that some research
appears to disagree with the Schmertmann data (Steiger, 1980),
and that perhaps the apparent rod length effects are primarily
inertial and may be cancelled by other losses such as stress
wave attenuation or joint energy losses. In summary, it is
found that the overburden correction factor depends upon more
factors than effective overburden pressure, and that published
values of CN factors constitute a range precluding precision.
3.2.2 CPT Research
The two primary factors relating to CPT measurements that are
of concern to this study are the influence of soil type and
overburden pressure upon the CPT measurements.
3.2.2.1 CPT versus Soil Type
The CPT provides two distinct indicators of soil type: the end
bearing record (qc ) and the ratio of side friction to end
bearing expressed as a percentage (friction ratio). Prior to
development of friction cones, the end bearing record alone was
used to identify soil types: high readings indicated sands and
low readings, clays. In addition, the variation of the curve
provided information about soil type and layering. However,
the ability to predict soil types was greatly increased with
the development of the Begemann (1964) friction cone penetrometer
Data compiled by Begemann formed the basis of the soil differ
entiation charts shown in Figure 3.3. In Figure 3.4 is a com
posite of the classification and blowcount versus CPT relations
ICRO
3-6
developed by Schmertmann following Begemann and modified by
data measured in Florida.
Schmertmann (1978) notes that his chart is appropriate primarily
for the mechanical friction cone and that local correlations
are preferable. Further, he notes that structural sensitivity
can produce values not corresponding with the presented delinea
tions, and that friction ratios are undependable at low values
of end bearing.
Alperstein and Leifer (1976) present data in general agreement
with the Begemann-Schmertmann relations, again developed with
the mechanical friction cone. Campanella, et al, (1979) also
show general agreement with those classification guidelines.
It should be noted that disagreement should be encountered
when comparing data measured with the electric friction cone
penetrometer to the mechanical cone penetrometer classifica
tion chart. Several factors contribute to such disagreement.
First, the mechanical cone is not continuously penetrated;
rather, the tip is advanced and then the sleeve is advanced.
Second, the mechanical friction sleeve has a beveled leading
edge which adds some contribution from end bearing to the
measured sleeve values. Although it is widely recognized that
the Schmertmann-Begemann chart is not entirely appropriate for
use with the electric cone, no applicable charts or recognized
relations exist, and so, the -mechanical-cone-based chart is
usually used.
ICRO
3-7
Because the CPT is essentially dependent upon strength and
compressibility of a given soil, information about soil type
is only indirectly known. Soil type is inferred based upon
the two different measurements provided by the electric CPT,
and upon the relation between these measurements. The usual
comparatives are end bearing and friction ratio, equal to ratio
of sleeve resistance to end resistance. To understand the
classification of soils using these factors, the measurements
themselves must be fully understood.
The cone resistance increases in value for sands and gravel
with increasing values of friction angle, in-situ relative
density, or overburden and lateral stress. The relative
density depends primarily upon stress history and method of
deposition while friction angle depends upon mineral type,
particle size and distribution, and relative density. Further,
cone resistance in sands increases approximately as an exponen
tial function of the friction angle. Although the sleeve
friction depends upon the same factors, its resistance increases
roughly as a linear function of the friction angle. Therefore,
the friction ratio for sands should decrease with increased
values of friction angle.
The cone resistance in clays is dependent on the clay type,
in-situ strength, overburden stress and stress history. The
sleeve resistance is dependent on the same items as the cone
with special importance on the in-situ lateral stress (Ko, which
depends on the stress history, soil type and soil activity,)
3-8
and sensitivity. The resistance of the cone and sleeve are
both generally related to a linear function of soil strength
and should, therefore, show an essentially constant friction
ratio with increasing strength.
Further complicating the understanding of penetration resis
tances is the existence of the so called limiting depth, and
the controversy regarding basic failure mechanisms as evidenced
by the use of both bearing capacity and cavity expansion
theories. In addition, cone and sleeve measurements in soil
types such as silts, clayey silts, sandy silts, sandy clays,
and silty clays are even harder to understand because of the
number of variables acting simultaneously. For example, the
intergranular soil matrix in sands has a large effect upon the
behavior of the cone and sleeve. Depending on the condition of
the soil matrix and gradation of the coarse fraction, several
conditions can occur, including dilation, structural breakdown,
pore water pressure generation, transmission of penetration
resistance from sand structure to soil matrix, and grain
crushing.
During penetration of the cone, soil in a zone extending
several cone diameters in front of the tip experience com-
pressive stresses resulting in some pore pressure generation
depending on soil permeability and the speed of cone advance
ment. Soil closer to the front of the cone experiences high
shear strains as it is translated from in front of the cone
to the side of the shaft. Such large deformations result in
IGRO
3-9
rearrangement of the near-field soil structure. If the soil
structure was initally loose and of high permeability, a denser
zone develops in front of the tip. This zone then carries
greater stresses until finally the zone fails and the cone
resistance drops to the lower values indicative of the underly
ing non-densif ied soil, and the process begins anew.
Most of these questions of mixed soil-penetrometer interaction
have been avoided, with research being directed at understand
ing of behavior of purer soils (Levadoux and Baligh, 1980;
Mitchell and Lunne, 1978; Yong and Chen, 1976; Janbu and
Senneset, 1974). Such research has resulted in clearer under
standing of the penetration mechanics, particularly with respect
to end bearing behavior. What is notably lacking is research
into the significance and interpretation of side friction.
3.2.2.2 CPT versus Overburden Pressure
Little information is available quantifying the effect of
increased overburden upon CPT results. What little information
is available relates primarily to end bearing, and the constancy
of friction ratio with increasing overburden is assumed (Schmert-
mann, 1976) . Treadwell (1975) examined the effect of gravity
(or force) upon the CPT penetration including evaluation of the
work of Vesic, while Schmertmann (1976) empirically found a set
of summary curves of qc versus overburden pressure for normally
consolidated, recent, SP sands. By normalizing his curves
(qc at 1 tsf divided by qc at any pressure) a Cp curve is
obtained. This curve is shown in Figure 3.5, where it can be
compared to the more common CN curves shown in Figure 3.1.
3-10
From examination of Figures 3.1 and 3.5, it can be noted that
the Cp relation is within the band of CN relations presented
previously. However, assuming that the CN curve does include
the effect of rod length as well as pressure, the final curve
of Figure 3.2 relating rod length to CN (CRL) can be used to
adjust the Seed et al. (1976) CN relation. The resultant
quotient of these two curves is shown in Figure 3.6 where it is
noted that, perhaps coincidentally, good agreement is obtained
with the Cp developed from the work of Schmertmann. Such
comparisons are of interest, but do not serve to adjust any
actual CN curves , as the effects of relative density and
soil type are certainly larger than that of rod length. At*
this time no quantitative data appears available describing
the effects of soil type, density and stress conditions upon
the Cp appropriate for use with CPT measurements.
3.2.2.3 CPT Versus SPT
Penetrometers of numerous varieties have been used and correla
tion between the types studied (Sangerlat, 1972; Sangerlat,
1974). An early compilation of research results was provided
by de Mello (1971) and is presented in Figure 3.7. A summary
provided by Sangerlat (1972) is shown in Figure 3.8. Alperstein
and Leifer compiled and extended existing comparative data as
shown in Table 3.1. The comparisons found by Campanella, et
al. (1979) are shown added to those of Table 3.1. It should be
noted that many of these tabulations are based upon mechanical
CPT results and that indicated soil types are often defined by
visual classfication only.
ICRO
TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY OF REPORTED qc/N VALUES (from Campanella, et al., 1979)
3-11
Campanella, Alperstein LaCroix Soil Type et al. and Leifer Schmertmann Simons and Horn
Micaceous silty coarse to fine sand, some clay
0-1.5 10 4-6
Micaceous fine sand, trace to some silt
1.5-3.5 5.5 3-4 4-6
Coarse to fine sand, trace to some gravel
3.5-7.0 5-6 4-6
The summation of these results shows that the ratio of qc to
N (for constant equipment and procedures) increases when moving
from plastic (ductile) to nonplastic materials and with grain
size in the latter case. Further, the above-mentioned authors
all note that the q c/N values are not universal and depend
upon site specific characteristics. How much of this range
results from variability in the SPT and how much from soil con
ditions is not known. Further, the mechanical CPT data usually
provides only an average soil resistance over about six inches,
while the electric CPT provides point data representing some
weighted influence of a few inches of soil ahead and behind the
cone. None of the available research defines whether or not
the data was averaged.
IGRO
3-12
The most complete summary of factors affecting the qc-N com
parisons is given by Schmertmann (1976) in which theoretical
considerations of penetration energy are used to relate the
components of penetration resistances for the different tests.
Through consideration of the role of side and tip resistance
in penetration through any soil, an equation relating the
components of resistance was developed (Schmertmann, 1971):
N = (A+B*FR%)*qc
where N equals SPT blowcount, A and B are constants, FR is
friction ratio, and qc is end bearing in tsf. The equation
can be converted to:
qc/N = n = 1/(A+B*FR%),
in which the dependence of the ratio qc/N on friction ratio
is clearly seen. A further modification proposed by Schmert
mann (1976) gives:
qc = N a/(A+B*FR%),
in which form nonlinearity is incorporated to better fit data
obtained in low resistance soils. Schmertmann gives values
for the various parameters as follows: a=4/3, A=0.641, B=0.224
for the case of fifty percent of the theoretical energy avail
able in the SPT. A set of curves showing these relations is
given in Figure 3.63 of a later section. The curves are also
shown, in different form, as contours of constant N value in
Figure 3.4.
ICRO
3-13
The brief preceding discussion is not intended to represent a
thorough review of the state-of-the-art of static and dynamic
penetration. The discussion is designed to illustrate what
specific CPT-SPT research has been performed. Further informa
tion can be found in the 1976 Schmertmann reference. This
reference provides the most complete examination of the q c-N
relations available, and provides theoretical as well as
empirical examinations. Further, some information is available
regarding the relative influences of side friction and end
bearing of the CPT and SPT on the measured results. This is of
great importance in any but the most uniform, artificial soil
deposits. This importance can be seen when examining what is
actually occurring in each test. The SPT sampler is driven six
inches into the soil. The blows required for the next twelve
inches of penetration are the recorded blowcount. At the start
of the final twelve inches of penetration, the sampler is
already subjected to six inches of side friction. By the end
of the test, eighteen inches of side friction are resisting
sampler penetration. The electric CPT on the other hand, has
a constant area throughout the penetration. The situation is
further complicated when the zone of measurement passes through
a change in soil type or resistance. In such case a weighting
of the CPT resistances would probably result in better compari
son with the automatic weighting that occurs naturally during
the SPT. It appears that only little research has been directed
at such non-uniform conditions, although such conditions are
invariably the rule rather than the exception in-situ.
IGRO
3-14
3.3 CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
The following sections provide examination of all of the data
measured during this investigation. The data is subdivided
into three sections: CPT Classification of Soil Type; Correc
tion of CPT Measurements for Overburden Pressure; and Correla
tion of qc to N.
3.3.1 CPT Classification of Soil Type
The sites selected for investigation were primarily sand sites.
Further, only a limited number of samples were obtained when
clayey layers were encountered. For these reasons, the classi
fication data described in the following sections is heavily
weighted toward definition of saturated sand zones by use of
the CPT measurements. As mentioned previously, the CPT provides
two measurements, both of which are predominantly influenced by
soil strength and compressibility. Research has shown strength
of soils dependent upon density or relative density, stress
level, soil structure, grain size shape and distribution, and
physico-chemical characteristics. As combinations of these
numerous variables exist in-situ, and because such combinations
may vary rapidly,, strength-based classifications may not always
agree with other classifications such as those of the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). However, soil classifica
tion is usually used as an index to define potential problems
and their magnitude. These goals of soil classification
are to large degree determinable by the CPT method.
TUGRO
3-15
The program of CPT soil type (or, more appropriately, soil-
behavior type) classification was based, in large part, upon
idealization of the profiles encountered in-s-itu. After
preliminary idealization was complete, laboratory grain size
analyses were performed upon select representative samples.
During this phase two factors became apparent. First, the
boring logs represent an oversimplified view of in-situ condi
tions and, second, the classification names are not necessarily
good indicators of soil behavior. For example, a sand with
95 percent of the material lying between the number 100 and
200 sieve sizes is classified as a SP, while a sand having
95 percent of the material just finer than the number 200 sieve
is classified ML.
Certainly the behavior of these two materials would not be
expected to greatly differ. Further, a mixture of 45 percent
sand, 45 percent silt (or sand finer than the number 200 sieve),
and 10 percent of an active clay is classified as CL, while a
soil having 60 percent material in the clay size range with
low Activity is also classified as CL. For this case, it is
expected that significant differences in behavior should occur.
Three different approaches were used to examine the effect of
changing material type upon the CPT measurements. First, all
SPT samples were classified, either in the laboratory or
visually with reference to adjacent samples that had been
classified in the laboratory. The laboratory classifications
have been compiled in the boring logs shown in Appendix A.
ICRO
3-16
Next, the CPT end bearing and friction ratio from an adjacent
sounding were averaged over the length of the SPT sample. The
points were then plotted, as shown in Figure 3.9. In that
figure some attempt was made to divide the most troublesome
classification, SM, into two groups: SM, having fines content
between 12 and 30 percent, and SM-ML having fines content
between 30 and 60 percent. Examination of the data in Figure
3.9 shows some fairly well defined zones of differing soil
types. It should be recalled that anomalous points may easily
result from spatial variability in-situ, or from the presence
of an interface which would significantly affect the CPT
measurements but may not be reflected in the retrieved sample.
Another method of comparison involved calculation of average
properties and CPT measurements by zone within more or less
well defined layers. This approach was selected to define
trends in data, not the boundaries between soil types. As the
averaging was also used for estimation of the qc/N relation,
those plots are shown in a later section. However, it may be
seen that the indicated soil classification trends fall within
the boundaries shown in Figure 3.9.
Because of the rapid variation in CPT measurements in-situ,
some investigations of measurement variance were performed
to facilitate selection of comparison points in well defined
zones. Variance can be shown by plotting a continuous CPT
sounding on the q c-FR plot. A typical plot of this type
is shown in Figure 3.10. The numbers on the sounding trace
3-17
represent depth in feet. By examination of the boring logs
for depths at which the CPT trace stays in a small zone of the
qc-FR plot, soil classification information can be attached
to those qc-FR zones. Examples of classification by these
zones are shown in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. Again, these zones
compare well with the boundaries shown in Figure 3.9. To
define the complete boundaries of different soil types using
the continuous trace-zone method, several large layers of
different uniform soils at different densities and pressures
would have to be encountered. At present, no such collection
of data is available.
A modification of the continuous trace method is to have the
continuous record traced on the qc-FR plots only over depths
at which a sample was obtained. The behavior of the soil
during CPT penetration is then immediately apparent. An
example of this method is shown in Figure 3.13. In that figure
it can be seen that some depths tend to have CPT measurements
staying in a small zone of the q c-FR plot, while other SPT
depths show extreme changes in CPT. The logic is that compar
ison of points in which the CPT is radically varying will be
futile. An average value calculated for a limited trace
ranging from sand to clay zones would show some intermediate
classification, such as sandy clay. If, for example, the
Schmertmann (1976) method of computing an equivalent CPT side
friction and end bearing from incremental measurements of the
SPT penetration was used with resultant similarity in behavior
to the CPT trace, then neglecting the differences between
ICRD
3-18
static and dynamic behavior would allow comparison of the two
measurements.
The approach used in the limited trace method was to select for
comparison only SPT values where the adjacent CPT measurement
stayed within a small zone. The implicit assumption is that
the SPT measurement would show similar constancy if treated
using the incremental method. As with the layer-average method,
the data from the limited-trace method is also used in compari
son of the qc/N ratio and, therefore, data plots are presented
in subsquent sections. Review of that data does show agreement
with the zones and boundaries shown in Figure 3.9.
As an extension of the classification data already presented,
some select data obtained from the Edmond, Oklahoma site is
presented. The reason for presentation of select data only
is the heterogeneity of the site. Initial attempts at pro
filing of the site showed only the most generalized layers:
from zero to about twenty feet are sandy clays, from twenty
to about 60 feet are mixed soils (clay, silt, sand in varying
percentages), and from 60 to about 80 feet is relatively clean
sand with occasional lenses or stringers of sandy or clayey
silt.
However, at any particular depth, a soil encountered in one
boring or sounding may not be encountered in a second boring
or sounding at the same depth at a distance of only a few
horizontal feet. Even when the same soils are encountered,
the penetration resistances are often quite different.
ICRO
3-19
The CPT sounding logs usually evidenced the most disagreement
with boring logs in the twenty to sixty foot depth zone. The
most common material in which traditional CPT classification
differed from the boring logs was a soil mixture consisting of
about sixty to seventy percent fines with ten to twenty percent
being clay-sized particles with a PI of about four to fifteen.
Further examination of the CPT logs in these soils showed uniformly
low friction ratios (one-half to one percent) with the smooth
end bearing usually associated with plastic soils. It was noted
that the soils typically had water contents close to the measured
liquid limits, thus having a Liquidity Index (water content -
Plastic Limit divided by Plasticity Index) close to unity.
A plot of the Liquidity Index of these CL-ML and CL soils is
shown against measured q c and FR in Figure 3.14. It can be
noted that the apparent trend is for increasing Liquidity Index
with decreasing cone side friction or, with decreasing end
bearing and friction ratio. This fact is particularly impor
tant when recalling that friction ratios this low are generally
associated with clean sands. Also of interest is the location
of the boundary of the zone in which these soils having measur
able Liquidity Index exist. A sand, not having a PI, has an
undefined Liquidity Index. The boundary of soils found to have
a Liquidity Index is very similar to the SM to SM-ML boundary
shown in Figure 3.9.
Examination of the data in Figures 3.9 through 3.14 shows that
general trends in soil type classification using the CPT method
ICRO
3-20
seem to follow lines of constant side friction as well as of
end bearing and friction ratio. That is, soils with a high
specific volume (volume per unit mass) (clays) occupy the zone
of high friction ratio, with increased overburden stresses
(or depth) resulting in higher side friction and slightly
increased friction ratio. Intermediate specific volume soils
occupy the range between the clay zone and the sand zone, again
with increasing side friction and friction ratio resulting from
increased overburden stress. In this zone anomalous behavior
can result because of the different compressibilities of the
coarse and fine fractions. For soils in which the sand content
is high enough (40 percent?) to form a continual interlocked
structure, the application of overburden stress results in
essentially sand-like compression of the structure, leaving
the interstitial clay fraction in an psuedo-underconsolidated
state. The application of large amplitude undrained shear
strains collapses the sand skeleton, with resultant increase
in pore pressure response and decrease in effective stresses,
particularly with respect to the friction sleeve. This behavior
causes the reduction in friction ratio observed for soundings
in a given material as Liquidity Index increases. This use of
Liquidity Index is as a measure of soil structural sensitivity.
Sensitivity in clays is known to reduce friction ratios (Schmer-
tmann, 1978). As lines of constant side friction are followed
into zones of higher end bearing, sands of decreasing relative
density are encountered, again with increasing overburden
causing increasing side friction. A summary of these expected
3-21
trends is given in Figure 3.15. It should be emphasized that
these trends are hypothesized on the basis of limited amounts
of data, and do not rigorously account for the effect of inter
action, of all the shown variables.
3.3.2 Correction of CPT Measurements for Overburden Pressure
Comparison of CPT data with other CPT or SPT data requires some
normalization to account for the effect of overburden stress on
the measurements. Current methods of adjusting SPT blowcounts
make use of the CN factor. This factor is the subject of
continuing research and, at present, is only poorly defined
(that is, a wide range of values have been proposed as appro
priate at any particular pressure). Because it is intended to
relate CPT to SPT, a possible approach is to convert CPT to
the corrected SPT value: N^ = N C^j. The use of a particular
CN relation to adjust CPT data would be appropriate if the
relation of qc to N was constant with increasing overburden.
In the next section it is shown that the relation is not
constant and, therefore, a different correction must be used.
Examining the range of CN shown in Figure 3.1 reveals that
CN uncertainty precludes certainty in prediction of the CPT
correction factor, Cp . Although it is known that relative
density, soil type, stress history, and structural anisotropy
and sensitivity all affect such corrections, the appropriate
weighting to account for each variable is not known.
Three methods were selected for examination of the Cp rela
tion with increasing overburden. The simplest was simply a
3-22
modification of the existing CN curves by quantitative removal
of the influence of rod length. This has been discussed previously
The second approach was to select a site of constant material
type with constant depositional history, thus leaving effective
overburden pressure as the only variable. The third approach
was to correct all N values to the 1 tsf overburden using a
standard CN relation, and to then divide each corrected blow-
count by the uncorrected CPT end bearing, resulting in the
parameter needed to equate qc and N^. This parameter (Cp i) is
equal to an overburden correction to CPT readings (Cp ) divided
by a constant q c/N relation.
Three sites were selected as being most appropriate for examina
tion of the Cp relations: the San Diego Site at North Island,
the Salinas site, and the Sunset Beach site. Although all of
these sites are of essentially constant material type, examina
tion of the CPT records (Appendix A) shows lack of uniformity of
penetration resistance. However, by comparison of select points
an indication of the implicit in-situ Cp behavior is evidenced.
In Figure 3.16 plots are shown of the q c-effective overburden
pressure relation proposed by Schmertmann (1976) as well as
those developed by Treadwell (1975) and Vesic (1972). Super
imposed on that plot are the average relations found at the
Sunset Beach, Salinas and San Diego sites. It is seen that
no relation of the type found by other researchers completely
fits the in-situ measurements. The data in Figure 3.16 suggests
that either Relative Density is constantly changing, or that
ICRO
3-23
the material type is constantly changing. In either case,
it appears that none of the investigated sites had complete
uniformity of soil type and/or density. The normalization of
the curves shown in Figure 3.16 by the value of end bearing
at an effective overburden pressure of 1 tsf produces a Cp
curve differing from that presented by Schmertmann, as would
be expected if Relative Density is constantly changing.
The next method of Cp investigation is based upon the concept
that the qc/N relation is a function of confining stress.
This variance in qc/N is discussed more fully in subsequent
sections. At this point the variance is assumed and a factor
to account for such variance is advanced. If C p were equal
to CN , then qc/N would be constant for constant soil conditions
The appropriate relation is:
N*CN = (qc *cp)/n
where C^ r n, and Cp are all functions of confining stress.
Carrying the relation one step further allows definition of
an equivalent Cpi by which an equivalent N^ may be estimated:
N*CN = NX = qc *Cp/n = qc C pl , or
where Cp ^ = C p/n
In Figures 3.17 and 3.18, plots are shown of N^/qc where q c
is the average end bearing measured over the one-foot depth
interval at which the blowcount was recorded in an adjacent
~RjGRH
3-24
boring. Likewise, the friction ratios shown in those figures
are the average over the one-foot interval. The trend lines
shown in the figures represent the behavior of material with an
average friction ratio less than 2.0 percent (essentially sandy
soils). The scatter in Cp^ with pressure is a probable result
of the variation in relative density at constant pressure, as
was seen in Fig. 3.16.
It is of interest to note that although the trend of the
relation based upon the trip-hammer measurements is similar
to that of the standard hammer, the scatter seems greatly
diminished, a result possibly caused by the inherent "smoothing"
of variable resistance layers when using the higher energy trip
hammer. As the hammer total weights are similar, as were rate
of application of blows, inertial effects or pore pressure
effects were discarded as causative factors.
In hopes of reducing the data scatter, two variants of the
above method were included: the use of average end bearing
and N values selected from well defined layers only, and the
use of points selected on the basis of uniformity of CPT record
as described previously. The results of these investigations
are shown in Figures 3.19 through 3.22. The indicated trends
reveal the increased scatter using the standard hammer, but
also reveal the constancy of the trend regardless of method
used. The trip hammer curves also show the similarity of trend
regardless of method. In addition, the trip hammer curves are
relatively well defined. The comparison of the C^ relation
IGRQ
3-25
to Cp needs estimation of the trend of qc/N with increasing
overburden. Thus, such comparisons are relegated to a subse
quent section.
The practical significance of the data scatter is small when
compared against the scatter that normally results from the
spatial variability of soil type and relative density in-situ.
With such consideration, it is clear that selection of an
overburden correction factor, C p or CN , must invariably
produce only a rough estimate of the actual normalization
factor appropriate for any particular soil.
3.3.3 Correlation of qc to N
The precise correlation of CPT end bearing to SPT blowcount
requires that measurements be performed under similar condi
tions of soil type, stress state, density and fabric, and
particle size, shape, and distribution. Most of these simi
larities will only generally be found in an in-situ comparative
program. For example, Tavenas (1971) shows the range of N
values obtained at single, supposedly uniform site using a
single crew with equipment and procedure carefully controlled.
His explanation for the N value scatter is advanced denying
the repeatability of the test under even ideal conditions,
an explanation which ignores the natural spatial variability
of penetration resistance in even the most uniform of sites.
Review of the CPT logs of Appendix A further reveals this
natural variability, for the CPT is a carefully controlled test
in which equipment, crew, and procedure have been eliminated as
error sources.
"~ GRO
3-26
In fact, the careful elimination of error sources has provided
even more proof of spatial variability in-situ. Any of the
sounding logs presented in Appendix A reveal the presence of
pockets or lenses of dissimilar materials within supposedly
homogeneous layers. This heterogeneity is particularly evident
when examining the sounding traces on the soil classification
chart as presented in Section 3.2.2.1. Further, such inter-
layering can produce arching stresses resulting in non-uniformity
of vertical stresses. As any penetration measurement is depen
dent upon soil type, density, and overburden stress, as well
as stress history and age of the deposit, it is difficult to
isolate the effect of a change in any single variable in-situ.
Several methods of data presentation are used in the qc/N
comparisons in order to well define the trends with changes
in different variables. The range in qc/N possible within
any layer at a site was first examined. Next were comparisons
of all measured N values with corresponding CPT measurements
at the same depths in adjacent soundings . Average values of
N and qc by layer were compared and, finally, the comparisons
were made for select depths at which the end bearing and fric
tion ratio trace showed constant soil conditions. Using each
method, several variables are isolated: qc/N versus friction
ratio; qc/N versus N; qc/N versus q c ; and q c /N versus depth.
3.3.3.1 qc/N Range Comparisons
With a goal of using the CPT for the equivalent blowcount
method of liquefaction potential assessment, it is informative
ICRO
3-27
to examine the range in qc/N that could possibly be encoun
tered at any site. The blowcount method is not a continuous
test in that samples are usually taken at a maximum frequency
of 3.0 feet and the results represent a weighted average of
between 18 and 12 inches of soil resistance. Thus any particular
horizontal and vertical location within a site boundary selected
for testing can have a significantly different resistance than
any other area selected.
The procedure used to investigate this range was to divide the
profile into three foot thick layers and to tabulate the upper
and lower bound of all SPT and CPT measurements made in each
layer. By comparison of the maximum CPT with the minimum SPT a
maximum qc/N is obtained. Likewise, the minimum CPT and maxi
mum SPT gives the minimum possible qc/N. Comparison of maximum
CPT with maximum SPT, and minimum SPT with minimum CPT bound the
probable range. "Probable" is based upon the assumption that
the most significant resistance variations within any horizontal
layer occur at the widest horizontal separation of measurements,
and that site investigations using either method will probably
have similar horizontal distribution of measurements.
The results of these range comparisons are shown in Figs. 3.23
through 3.26 and 3.27 through 3.30 for standard hammer and
trip hammer measurements, respectively. Also shown in those
figures are the soil layers that show continuity of depth
and general material type across the entire site. However, it
should be noted that the layers do include a range of materials
within a general soil classification such as sand or clay.
ICRQ
3-28
It can be seen in Figs. 3.23 through 3.30 that the probable
range for sandy soils using the standard hammer is about 2 to 5
and about 3 to 10 for the trip hammer. This large range for
the trip hammer is surprising in that it would be expected that
because sampling energy is more controlled, the comparisons
would show reduced scatter. However, in this program the
standard hammer measurements were also carefully controlled
with respect to drop height, frequency, rod inclination and
rope obstruction. Composite plots of all blowcounts measured
with each hammer at each site are shown in Figs. 3.31 through
3.35 where the greater variability of the standard hammer
measurements is apparent. Further, examination of the average
blowcount versus depth profiles of Section 2.4 reveals that
the standard hammer profiles show better general agreement with
the CPT profiles than do the trip hammer profiles. The higher
energy of the trip hammer appears to extend the zone of influence
in front of the sampler as compared to the lower energy standard
hammer. This would result in an averaging of thin variations
in penetration resistance. Such an averaging would be much
less pronounced for the CPT measurements, producing the wider
qc/N range for the trip hammer comparisons.
3.3.3.2 qc/N Versus Depth
Examination of the ranges in qc/N versus depth (or effective
overburden pressure) presented in the preceding section indi
cates the need for further refinement. As a first step in such
refinement, the comparisons were performed for average measure
ments within each layer identified as continuous. Thus, if a
IGRO
3-29
layer was dipping in cross section, the averaging procedure
would exclude those zones bounded by the dipping-layer interface.
Figures B.I through B.4 of Appendix B show qc/N versus depth
for each site, and Figure 3.36 presents a composite of all such
data. Again the standard hammer qualitatively shows less scatter
than the trip, and it is apparent that the qc/N ratio tends
to decrease with depth for constant friction ratio materials.
Examination of the behavior of friction ratio with increasing
depth for constant grain size and distribution materials shows
slight increases with depth. However, such an effect is small
for constant materials, and does not appear to be the cause of
the reduction in q c/N with depth (or more appropriately, with
increasing effective overburden pressure). The scatter in
values is not particularly well tracked by the friction ratio;
however, recall that horizontal and vertical averaging was used
within each layer and that the resultant average friction
ratios probably are not weighted in a manner equivalent to the
averaging of the N values.
It is of interest to compare the q c /N versus depth relation
with that predicted by the Schmertmann relations. In Figure
3.37 the effect of increasing effective overburden pressure
on the qc /N ratio is shown for soils having friction ratios
indicative of sands for which Relative Density is an appro
priate parameter. These data are drawn from a variety of
measurements and, therefore, the portrayed behavior should
be regarded qualitatively. It is seen that in all cases the
ICRO
3-30
qc/N relation rapidly increases with increasing pressure,
a trend not supported by the data measured in this program.
Examination of the effect of increasing overburden on qc/N
may also be through comparison of qc/N versus depth plots for
all blowcount measurements. Such an approach will, of course,
produce significant scatter because of the inherent spatial
nonhomogeneity of natural soils. However, trends should be
apparent. In Figures B.5 through B.8 are shown the comparisons
for the standard hammer measurements, and in Figures B.9
through B.12 for the trip hammer measurements. Examination
of those figures reveals the same trends as noted previously:
the qc/N ratio decreases with increasing depth.
Finally, the effect of overburden on the qc/N ratio can be
through examination of the behavior evidenced by points selected
on the basis of the uniformity of the CPT record over the blow-
count depth interval. This approach depends completely on the
assumption of horizontal uniformity of soil type and resistance.
The criteria by which uniformity of CPT measurement is defined
has been described in Section 3.3.2.
The composite plots of qc/N versus depth for select points
from all sites are shown in Figs. 3.38 and 3.39 for standard
and trip hammer measurements, respectively. It can be seen
that as in the other plots, the q c/N ratio decreases with
depth and, therefore, with increasing effective overburden
pressure. The decrease seems to hold for all materials (as
represented by constant friction ratio) and, again, trends
CRD
3-31
are better defined for the standard hammer than for the trip
hammer.
In summary, it has been shown by a variety of comparisons that
the q c/N ratio decreases with depth, and that the tendency
for increasing friction ratio with depth is not large enough
to account for such decreases. This observation is directly
contrary to the relations suggested by Schmertmann (1976).
However, as discussed in subsequent sections, there are equip
ment differences that may account for such discrepancies
between the Schmertmann data and the data presented herein.
3.3.3.3 qc/N versus N
As described in preceding sections, the influence of the N
value upon the qc/N ratio was investigated through examina
tions of layer average values, of all individual measurements,
and of select points. Figures B.13 through B.16 of Appendix B
show the layer average data from each site, and Figure 3.40
shows the composite of all such comparisons. Also shown in
Figure 3.40 is the apparent qualitative trend line through the
data, showing a decrease in q c/N with increasing N.
The presentation of all individual measurements of qc/N
versus N is in Figures B.17 through B.20 and B. 21 through
B.24 for standard and trip hammer, respectively, for each site
and the data is summarized in Figure 3.41 for standard hammer
measurements and Figure 3.42 for trip hammer measurements.
Again the trend line is shown and it is apparent that the
standard hammer comparisons show less scatter than do the trip
ICRQ
3-32
hammer results for the same reasons as discussed previously,
and that the qc/N ratio decreases for sands with increas
ing blowcount.
Finally, the results of the qc/N versus N comparisons for all
sites using select CPT measurements are presented in Figs. 3.43
and 3.44 for standard and trip hammer measurements respectively,
Again, the trend lines are indicated in the figures, and show
generally decreasing ratios with increasing N value.
In summary, the qualitative trends show consistent disagreement
with the Schmertmann (1976) relations in which qc/N increases
with increasing N value. The disagreement between the data
presented herein and the Schmertmann data is expected based
upon the disagreement in trend of qc/N with depth as noted in
the previous section. The correspondence of increasing N with
increasing depth forces such concurrence. However, by exam
ining the relation as dependent upon different variables, more
certainty is obtained that the trends are not just coincidental
to any one set of comparisons. Again, a reason for such
disagreement is advanced in the following section.
3.3.3.4 qc/N versus qc
The results of the same set of comparative measurements as used
previously but applied to qc/N versus qc are shown for layer
averages in Figures B.25 through B.28 and summarized in Figure
3.45; for all individual measurements in Figures B.29 through
B.36 and summarized in Figures 3.46 and 3.47 for standard and
trip hammer measurements, respectively; and in Figures 3.48 and
ICRO
3-33
3.49 for select points with standard and trip hammer measure
ments, respectively. The qualitative trend lines of individual
comparisons all show essentially the same behavior:
qc/N remains essentially constant with increasing qc using
the standard hammer, and increases slightly when using the
trip hammer. Comparison of these summary trends with the
Schmertmann (1976) relation again shows general disagreement,
as would be expected based upon the previous comparisons.
However, in this case Schmertmann shows a definite increase
in q c/N with q c , while the data presented herein shows
either a constant relation or one slightly increasing with
increasing qc . Again, it is expected that as depth increases,
the blowcounts and end bearing should also increase. However,
the values don't necessarily increase at the same rate. In
fact, examination of the CN and Cp curves of Figure 3.6
shows that qc will increase faster than N, particularly at
the low effective pressures studied in this program.
As a further explanation of differences between the data
presented herein and that presented by Schmertmann, Figure
3.50 shows a relation presented by Schmertmann (1978) between
end bearing of a mechanical cone penetrometer and an electric
cone penetrometer. It can be noted that at low values of end
bearing, and hence at shallow depths and low N values, the
mechanical cone shows higher resistance than the electric cone,
an that at higher end bearing values the electric cone measure
ments are higher than the mechanical. Thus, because the
ICRO
3-34
Schmertmann data is primarily based on the mechanical cone,
it follows that his qc/N ratios would be higher than presented
herein at shallow depths, and lower at greater depths.
3.3.3.5 qc/N versus Friction Ratio
As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, previous research has shown
qc/N to be a function of Friction Ratio. Essentially, as
side friction (and thus, friction ratio) increases at a con
stant end bearing, the total penetration resistance, either
SPT or CPT, also increases. Therefore, the dependence of qc/N
on friction ratio is actually just the result of the equality
of total penetration resistance when measured with either
the SPT or CPT. That is, the SPT N value represents total
resistance, while both the CPT end bearing and sleeve friction
must be used to represent total resistance.
The results of the comparisons of qc/N with friction ratio
using the layer average method are shown in Figures B.37
through B.40 of Appendix B, and are summarized in Figure 3.51.
Likewise, the results of the individual point method are shown
in Figures B.41 through B.48 and are summarized in Figures
3.52 and 3.53 for the standard and trip hammer, respectively.
Finally, the results of the select point method are shown in
Figures 3.54 and 3.55 for standard and trip hammer measurements,
respectively. The summary qualitative trends show essentially
the same behavior as indicated by Schmertmann (1978) with
differences probably due primarily to the different cones used
in this study (electric) and by Schmertmann (mechanical). Of
IGRO
3-35
primary concern regarding this data is the scatter evidenced
using either the standard or trip hammer measurements. Again,
however, it must be emphasized that the natural heterogeneity
of the investigated sites precludes certainty that adjacent
CPT and SPT measurements are made in identical soils. Therefore,
the average qc/N versus friction ratio measurements probably
do represent a good indication of the behavior that would be
expected if the measurements were made in identical soils.
3.3.3.6 qc/N Versus Median Grain Size
As was discussed previously, the classification of soil types
using the USCS system is not particularly appropriate for CPT
investigations. The primary reason is that the USCS methodology
divides soils by grain size and distribution and by a more or
less arbitrary set of laboratory strength measurements. Often,
but not always, these indices do provide information about
expected in-situ performance of the soils. However, examination
of the behavior of soils around a penetrometer indicates that
other factors are of importance. In an attempt to provide some
means by which the standard classifications could be subdivided,
median grain size was examined for its effect upon the qc /N
ratio.
Plots of median grain size, 050 r against qc/N are shown
in Figures 3.56 and 3.57 for standard and trip hammer measure
ments, respectively. Essentially, no relation is apparent for
non-clay soils other than that the trip hammer laboratory tests
tended to be performed on a more constant grain size material
3-36
than used for the standard hammer laboratory tests. It is not
particularly surprising that 059 is poorly rated to qc/N, in
that it has been shown that qc/N varies primarily with stress
level, soil type, and equipment types. 050 relates only to
soil types, and then is only useful for extremes, providing no
information helping to define differences between similar soils
such as SM and ML. It is probable that some combination of
grain size information could help distinguish soil types. Such
a combination could be 059 and the coefficient of uniformity
(Cu ), or perhaps, a combination of sphericity, D^Q/ and Cu or
Coefficient of Curvature. Cursory examination of these factors
as a part of the investigations described herein identified no
predictive trends.
3.2.1.7 qc versus N
The most fundamental comparison of the correspondence between
CPT and SPT measurements is necessarily the comparison of qc
to N as a function of friction ratio or side friction. However,
as this relation is the primary goal of the research program,
it is best presented after the trends of the relation with
other factors have been estimated. The summary plots of the
preceding four sections have, in effect, defined the expected
behavior of the qc versus N relation as N, qc , friction
ratio, and depth (or overburden) are varied.
The qc versus N plots for layer averages are shown in Figures
B.49 through B.52 of Appendix B, and a composite summary is
shown in Figure 3.58. The qualitative best fit to the data is
ICRQ
3-37
also shown in Figure 3.58. It should be noted that where
ambiguities exist, the trends from previous sections have been
used to guide the curve fitting.
Following the same methods as used previously, the individual
data comparisons of qc versus N are shown in Figures B.53
through B.60 and are summarized in Figures 3.59 and 3.60.
Again, data trends are indicated in the figures. Finally, the
select point comparisons are presented in Figures 3.61 and 3.62
for standard and trip hammer measurements, respectively.
It can be seen in Figures 3.59 and 3.60 that the expected
relation between qc , N and FR is well defined for the
standard hammer but shows some unexpected trends for the trip
hammer comparisons. In Figure 3.63 the average q c versus N
relations for the standard hammer are shown compared against
the Schmertmann (1976) relation. The trends are similar with
differences probably resulting from differences in cone and
hammer types, as discussed previously. In Figure 3.64 a plot
of the trip hammer qc versus N results is shown. Several
factors of interest emerge in examination of these figures.
First, the ratio of blowcounts for the trip and standard
hammers at a specific qc is not constant but increases with
friction ratio and increasing soil strength. Second, the trip
hammer curves show the same general trend toward decreasing
qc/N with increasing N as do the standard hammer curves.
However, in the low friction ratio zone (less than 2.0 percent)
the trip hammer curves show two curvature reversals, suggesting
ICRO
3-38
either a reduction of qc or an increse in N in the zone of qc
less than about 75 tsf. As no such anomaly is seen in the qc
versus N for the standard hammer, it follows that the N values
are the anomalous data.
Following this trend of trip hammer behavior, qc versus N com
parisons were made for select points from the Edmond, Oklahoma
site. The results of these comparisons are shown in Fig. 3.65,
where it is seen that the Corps of Engineers hydraulically driven
trip hammer provides higher energy than the Pilcon trip hammer
and that again some trend for double curvature of the qc versus
N relation exists.
The use of a high energy hammer probably is the cause of many of
the difficulties in data comparison. As was discussed previously,
it is probable that the greater the hammer energy, the greater
volume of soil ahead of the sampler which will influence the
resistance to penetration. Thus the higher the hammer energy,
the more each measurement represents an average of soil character
istics in the vertical plane. An indication of this effect can
be seen for the lower energy penetrometer data presented by
Treadwell (1975) in Fig. 3.66. Based upon the behavior shown
on Figure 3.66, it was considered that the CPT data could be
iteratively averaged over successively larger vertical extents
until continuity of qc versus N was obtained. However, it
is probable that the CPT vertical averaging would need include
some weighting function, requiring more information about the
interrelation of dynamics of the SPT failure mechanism and the
CPT failure mechanism than is presently known.
3-39
As a further attempt to relate qc and N for the hetreogeneous
Edmond site, data was compared using Plasticity Index (PI) and
FR as control variables. The COE Design Memorandum (1980) for
the Edmond site shows blowcounts tabulated by range of Plasti
city Index. The average corrected blowcount versus depth
relations for ranges in PI are shown in Figure 3.67. It can
be noted that no distinct trends are evident. However, the PI
of a soil is basically a measure of strength potential and may
not indicate anything about the actual strength of the sample
under field conditions.
Next, the CPT measurements were compiled by elevation and then
averaged by friction ratio bands. Thus, the averaging process
excluded all measurements having friction ratios outside of
the range of interest. Preliminary examination of the CPT data
revealed extremely low side friction measurements concurrent
with end bearing behavior indicative of plastic soils. A com
puter run was performed segregating the CPT values into average
profiles for friction ratio bands of 0 to 0.5, 0.5 to 0.8, 0.8
to 2.25, 2.25 to 3.25, and greater than 3.25. Examination of
the range averages shown in Figure 3.68 reveals maximum and
minimum ranges of end bearing for each select friction ratio
band increasing with friction ratio, behavior contrary to usual.
It can be noted in Figure 3.68 that in the 0.0 to 0.5 friction
ratio band the average profile has a very low magnitude of end
bearing. Thus for soils supposedly non-plastic, extremely low
strengths are evidenced. However, for friction ratios in the
0.8 to 2.25 range (still typically sands based upon the literature)
ICRO
3-40
the end bearing values increase substantially. Thus, it appears
that this FR range best compares with the blowcounts taken in
the non-plastic soils. However, when examining the qc (adjusted
for overburden pressure) over N^ ratio for this friction ratio
band and blowcounts in materials of PI less than 3, only an ill
defined ratio is found, as shown in Figure 3.69.
Further examination of the blowcount data revealed a trend in
blowcount and side friction for a given material as a function
of increasing Liquidity Index (LI). The effect of LI on side
friction was shown in Figure 3.14. The trend of N^ versus LI
is shown for select points in Figure 3.70. Note, however, that
the LI of a sandy soil with only 10 to 20 percent clay sized
particles may not always be a good indicator of in-situ strength,
Further, as shown previously, it appears the LI increases for
constant end bearing and decreasing side friction. Thus, it
would be expected that low side friction soils would have high
structural sensitivity. Because the LI of a soil essentially
indicates degree of consolidation, and because these data points
were in general from a depth of 30 to 60 feet, it follows that
the clay size interstitial material is underconsolidated, being
prevented from fully consolidating by by the sand fraction
skeleton, which in turn is supported by the clay particles
against any vibration induced densification. However, when
sheared to large strains by the passage of a cone or split
spoon sampler, the interstitial underconsolidated, high water
content soils allow overriding shear of the granular phase
without the sliding and interlocking resistance encountered
~fuGRD
3-41
in cleaner sands. This behavior, then, is similar to the
flowing of cleaner sands after the onset of liquefaction.
Examination of soil grain size distribution corresponding to
high LI revealed some pattern. Typically, all material was
finer than the number 40 sieve, was classed as CL-ML or CL with
PI about 4 to 15, had about 60 to 80 percent material finer
than the number 200 sieve, and had about 10 to 25 percent clay
sized particles. However, no boundary was found for grain size
distribution figures dividing "flowing" and nonflowing mixed
soils.
The existence of soils with PI as high as 20 in the zero to
2.0 percent friction ratio band invalidates the comparison of
N values for PI less than 3 soils with end bearings for the
0.8 to 2.25 percent friction ratio band. Rather, the classifi
cation of soil types by combinations of end bearing and friction
ratio is necessary. This is in agreement with the classifica
tion boundaries shown previously in Figure 3.9. These criteria
were then used to select sands and the CPT data again segregated
by bands of qc and FR. This average corrected end bearing
curve, Figure 3.71, was then compared against the less than PI
equal 3 blowcounts. The results of these comparisons are shown
in Figure 3.72. It can be seen in that figure that the scatter
in q c/N is reduced. However, it is still apparent that the
qc/N relation is erratic, particularly in the deep-sands zone.
Recall that the indicated reduction in qc/N for these high
resistance sands was noted in examination of the double curvature
IGRO
3-42
and resultant decrease in qc/N shown previously in Figure 3.65,
and may be the result of transition between compressive and
dilative-structure with resultant pore water pressure effects.
3.3.3.8 Comparison of N and CPT Side Friction
As a final comparison, all N values were plotted against the
average side friction measured in an adjacent CPT sounding at
the same depth. The results of this comparison are shown in
Figures 3.73 and 3.74 for standard and trip hammer measurements,
respectively. The trend in N with increasing side friction is
apparent in both measurements; however, no attempt was made to
refine the correlation through cross plots of side friction and
qc or FR versus N value.
3.3.3.9 Summary of qc/N Relations
In order to examine the total range of qc/N values described
in the preceding sections, frequency histograms were prepared,
as shown in Figures 3.75 through 3.78. In Figure 3.75 the
layer-average data is presented for trip and standard hammer
measurements. In Figure 3.76 and 3.77 the compilation of all
individual comparisons is by hammer type and friction ratio
band, while in Figure 3.77 all data is composited by hammer
type alone.
ICRO
o
MARCUSON - BIEGANOUSKY, 1977
C N
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
C N FACTORS VERSUS
EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
9-80 FIGURE 3.1
10 -
u] 20ill
I- 30az111_Ja o 40CC
50-
60I I I *
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
INCIDENT ENERGY Ei
THEORETICAL ENERGY = E*
(A)
1.0
10 -
20
30 -
O 40QC
50
60I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6
INCIDENT ENERGY
MAXIMUM INCIDENT ENERGY Ei'
(B)
1.0
Ei
7.0
6.0 -
5.0 -
4.0 -
3.0-
2.0 -
1.0
1.0I
0.8\
0.40.6
INCIDENT ENERGY
MAXIMUM ENERGY
(C)
0.2
EiEi*
FROM SCHMERTMAN (1976)
ID-
30-
40-
50-
60
0.6I
0.8I
1.0
N @ 16.7'
1.2 1.4 1.6
N @ ANY DEPTH
(D)
'NRL
"flJCROPROJECT NO : 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
EFFECT OF ROD LENGTH ON SPT BLOWCOUNTS
9-80 FIGURE 3.2
O
PERCENT PARTICLES < 16 u
100 -
uT HozCC
ssCO 10 -QZ HI
1 -
0 5 15 25 35 45 65 85 95
WITH GRAVEL
SAND
Q HI
HI
CC
O O
C 2 < (/
Jw '
>-
_J W
QZ
>-"
-1 O
-1
s o0 >--J <
o
><
C
»
(J J
1 2 3 4 56
FRICTION RAT 10, %
r y. ' ' 1 PROJbCT NO.: /9-1b3
CRT SOIL CLASSIFICATIONBEGEMAN METHOD
9'80 FIGURE 3.3
200
INSENSITIVE. NON FISSURED
INORGANIC
ORGANICCLAYS AND
MIXED SOILS
FRICTION RATIO,
I-RJQROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
CRT SOIL CLASSIFICATION AFTER SCHMERTMANN (1978)
9-80 FIGURE 3.4
0.5 -
1.0 -
1.5 -
o
LUcc
Lit CC CL.Z Lit Q QC D CO DC Lit > O at
o 2.0at
ai
2.5 -
J3C
3.0
0.5I
1.0I
Cp (FROM SCHMERTMANN)
1.5 2.0 2.5I
3.0
FROM SCHMERTMANN (1976)
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
9-80
EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
VERSUS
Cp=qc @1TSF/qcFIGURE 3.5
0.2 0.6
I
C N , Cp, C RL, Cp'
1.0 1.4 1.8
I _______I____________I
2.2
I
2.6
10 -
20 -
uu uu
X
o.LUO
30 -
40 -
O
50 -
60 -
70
SCHMERTMANN Cp (1974)
EFFECT OF ROD LENGTH = CRL
ASSUME Cp'XCRL
CN/CRL
a
JASSUMES UNSATURATED SITE
rfuoRaPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPARISON OF Cp, C N AND ROD LENGTH
9-80 FIGURE 3.6
300
200
CME o
a. tr
100
20 40
SPT
60 80
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
PREVIOUS CORRELATIONS: qc = f(SPT)FOR PURE SANDS
(AFTER deMELLO, 1971)9-80 FIGURE 3.7
350
300
250
GO
zo
O
IV)UJ CC
Oo o
I
onn 2O°
150
100
50
10 20 30 40
N, SPT (BLOWS PER FOOT)
50 60 70
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
V
A
A
O PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
PREVIOUS CORRELATIONS: qc = f(SPT)
FOR SANDS (AFTER SANGERLAT, 1972)
9-80 FIGURE 3.8
o
300-
200-
100-
80-
60-
40
6 cr
20-
10-
8-
6-
4-
I 3
FRICTION RATIO,
O GPV SP-GP
O SP
A SP-SM
O SM ( 30% FINES)
SM-ML (30-60% FINES)
ML (>60% FINES)
CL
A SC
V ML-CL
NUMBERS ON SYMBOLS INDICATE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
9-80
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc VS FRICTION RATIO
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
79-153
FIGURE 3.9
1000800
600
400 -
LL. CO
LU CJ
crh- CO
CO LU
CD CJ
200 -
10080
60
40 -
20 -
108
6
4 H
2 -
2 3
FRICTI456
RRTI0 (7.)8
NUMBERS INDICATE DEPTH OF SOUNDING
|-flJCi»0PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
CONTINUOUS TRACE METHOD ARCADIA DAM CRT PROBE 119
9-80 FIGURE 3.10
1000800
600
400 -
200 -
CO
UJ CJ 2ccI COI I
00 LU 0£
LU 2CD CJ
10080
60
40 -
108
6
4 J
2 -1
SAND & GRAVEL (SP), 24-44', CN-7
SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP), 35-45', CN-13
SILTY CLAY (CD, 45-60', CN-7
SANDY GRAVEL (GP). 20-25', CS-1
SAND (SP-SM), 23-30', CN-13
SILTYSAND (SM-SP), 20-28', CN-7
SANDY SILT(ML-SM), 0-10', CN-7
SILTYSAND (SM-ML), 0-10', CN-13
SILTYSAND <SM) 0-8', CS-1
SILTY CLAY (CD, 50-60', CS-1
SILTY CLAY (CD, 11-18', CN-13
CLAYEY SILT (ML), 9-17', CS-1
CLAYEY SILT (ML), 10-15', CN-7
23456
FRICTIQN RflTIQ (X)8
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SOIL TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS USING THE CPT CONTINUOUS TRACE METHOD
9-80 FIGURE 3.11
1000 800 -600 -
400 -
U_ CO
UJ CJ Zcri CO i i
CD LU C£
UJ ZCD CJ
200 -
100 - 80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
10 J
8
6
4 H
o _
<SAND (SP), 37-47', CS-5
SILTY SAND (SM), 10-40', SD
-SAND & GRAVEL (SP), 18-23', CS-5
SILTY SAND (SP-SM), 15-35'. SS-9
SAND (SP)29-33', ML-3
SANDY SILT(ML-SM) 1-5', CS-5
CLAY(CH). 46-47', SS-9
CLAY (CL-CH), 36-39', 45-46', SS-9
SANDY SILT (ML) 8-12', SS-9
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), 33-37', CS-5
CLAYEY SILT(ML-CL), 6-13', CS-5
SILTY CLAY (CD 6-10', ML-3
2 3
FRICTI456
RRTI0 (X)8
|-ffJJGI»0PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SOILTYPE CLASSIFICATION USING THE CONTINUOUS TRACE METHOD
9-80 FIGURE 3.12
FRICTI RRTI0 (7.)
SYMBOLS INDICATE LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION BASED ON SIEVE SIZE ANALYSIS WITH THE LINE INDICATING THE qc TO FRICTION RATIO TRACE FOR V
SN - SP-SM MC- ML-CL
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
LIMITED TRACE METHOD COYOTE NORTH SITE
9-80 FIGURE 3.13
300
200 -
100 -
50 -
u_CO
oO"
20 -
10
5 -I
UL CO
z"oo
UJ
9CO
0.1
FRICTION RATIO,
NUMBERS REPRESENT VALUES OF LIQUIDITY INDEX
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SELECT POINTS - EDMOND SITE LIQUIDITY INDEX VS qc AND FRICTION RATIO
9-80FIGURE 3.14
300
200 -
FRICTION RATIO,
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
TRENDS IN CRT SOIL CLASSIFICATION
9-80 FIGURE 3.15
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
C
heck
ed b
yA
ppro
ved
by
PO
INT
RE
SIS
TA
NC
E,
qc T
SF
s
> o
3H
m ^
3J
mH
>
3}
COm
C
D
m
m
[0
COCO CO
H
O cn 33 m
en
en
3.0
2.0-
*>
1.0
<bo
D D
AD
AA
1.85
1.61
2.35
0. 0.2 0.4 0.6
CP
0.8 1.0 1.2
a
I
O < 0.75
A 0.75- 1.25
D 1.25-1.75
1.75-2.25
A 2.25 - 3.25
3.25 <
9-80
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES Ov VSCp
STANDARD HAMMER
79-153
FIGURE 3.17
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by,
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
CTv
(T
SF
)
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
>
D
>
O
U
M
_.
_,
p
AM
M
si
M
-JOl
Ol
Ol
Ol
Ol
P.
i
i -J
A
u
JO
_.
_.
Ol
K) M
*>l M
Ol
01
01
01
O
O ^ O m
oT
3
C/) H
m CO
O
P.T3
O)
O
D
o
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by.
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
0>v'
(T
SF
)
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
CO
[O
-»
-»
fo
to
*-vi
iocj
i en
yi
cj
i
O o
Z 0
3 O
O
-<
CO
>r-
H
33 >
m05-
x m
>
m m
\
33 3
3 m
> c
oCD
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
q
CTv
' (T
SF
)
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
. %
(71
(71
(71
O
m>
:D< ? S
m
3.0-
2.0-
u. w
1.0-
0.5 1.0 1'PI
a
I
O < 0.75
A 0.75-1.25
D 1.25-1.75
1.75-2.25
A 2.25 - 3.25
> 3.25
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SELECT POINTS: ALL SITESCTv'VS Cp,
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.21
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
OV
(T
SF
)
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
,
>
0
>
O
O)
O1
m
O1
O a
C/5 m r-
m
OH = i 1 15
<
C/5 H
m
c/)
SOIL PROFILE
10 -
20 -
\- LJJ UJ
±: 30IQL UJ Q
40 -
O
50 -
60
10
I15
I
20
SM,ML
SP-SM
SP, SP-SM
SM,SC,CL,ML
qc/N
PROBABLE RANGE
POSSIBLE RANGE
a
J
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITE
qc/N RANGE COMPARISONS
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.24
SOIL PROFILE
10 -
20 -
LU UJ U_
f= 30 -
tUJ Q
40 -
SP-SM, SM
CL
SP, SP-SM
50 ~
60
CL
SM
I I
10 15
Qc/N
I
20
PROBABLE RANGE
POSSIBLE RANGE
a
I
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
9-SO
MOSS LANDING SITE
qc/N RANGE COMPARISONSSTANDARD HAMMER
FIGURE 3.25
SOIL PROFILE
10 -
20 -
1X1 1X1
£ 30 -I a.1X1a
40 -
50 -
60
ML,SM-ML
SM, SP-SM,SM-ML
SP,SP-SM,GP
CL
10
I15
I
20
PROBABLE RANGE
POSSIBLE RANGE
a
I
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH & SOUTHqc/N RANGE COMPARISONS
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.26
.0C
a
I
o -
10 -
20 -
H 30 -ill illUL
z
t111
0 40-
50 -
60 -
70 -
C
SOIL PROFILE
I
I I
I H
h-i I
H H
I I I) 5 10 15
qc/N
I PROBABLE RANGE
I | POSSIBLE RANGE
I
SP-SM
SM
SM
SM
I
20
Jjjjjfr
JECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLANDqc/N RANGE COMPARISONS
TRIPHAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.27
0 -i
10 -
20 -
30 -
UJ UJu_z IQ.UJQ 40 -
50 -
60 -
70 -
SOIL PROFILE
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 10 5 10 15
qC/N
PROBABLE RANGE
I 1 POSSIBLE RANGE
1
SM, ML
SP-SM
SP, SP-SM
SM,SC,CL, ML
120
fjjjjjj^JECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITEqc/N RANGE COMPARISONS
TRIPHAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.28
SOIL PROFILE
10 -
20 -
UJ UJ
t LJJ Q
30 -
40 -
50 -
60
JOc
I10
I
15
SP-SM, SM
CL
SP-SM
CL
20
PROBABLE RANGE
POSSIBLE RANGE
a
I
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
9-80
MOSS LANDING SITEqc/N RANGE COMPARISONS
TRIPHAMMERFIGURE 3.29
SOIL PROFILE
10 -
20 -
01
I
a.UJ
30 -
ML,SM-ML
SM, SP-SM, SM-ML
' SP, SP-SM, GP
40 -
50 -
60\
10
I
15 20
PROBABLE RANGE
POSSIBLE RANGE
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
Qc/N RANGE COMPARISONSTRIPHAMMER
9-80 FIGURE 3.30
O
a
I
Qc/N
0246
0 -
10 -
20 -
111111u_z:xQ.LU
° 40 -
50 -
60 -
70 -
1 1 1
1.55
V 0.25 0.25
A A
.132 1 '32 0.35 v T
A A 0.35
0.36 0.36A 1.59 A 1-59
V T
0.30 054 °'30A 0 A
1.13 1.13
V °'33 0.90 0^3 O- 70
1.00 A ° A.oo *
1-05 A A 0.36
0.40 °-72^6 A OA0.90 °"
8 10 12
I I
1.55w 0.80 o 80
oAT 16
0.54*
0.7236 ^
0.81 ' 0.81 A v A 051 T
D0.66
O
0.49 0.49A V A
342 0.67 0.55
V T 05° 0.50 O 3.42 A A ° 45a
0 49 0.49 0.50A A 0
0.59^ 2.56 A 2.56 ^
^7 ^0:81 0.81
0 +
COYOTE SOUTH O STANDARD TRIP
COYOTE NORTH D STANDARD TRIP
MOSS LANDING O STANDARD^ TRIP
SAN DIEGO A STANDARDA TEJIPI ri Ir
SALINAS V STANDARDT TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
0.51
g0.66
00.67T
0.55
* 0.45
B0.50
*
0.59
^
'
P
[-fvicsna ] PROJECTNO - : 79-153
LM B_^__|__^J
HflHHB USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS DEPTH BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE 3.36
300
200 -
100 -
F R = 0.5%
300
200 -
V)
uCT
100 -
D R = 100%
qc/N
I I I I0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(Tv, TSF
3.0
2.5 -
2.0 -
FR = 2.0%
FR= 0.5%
1.0 -
0.5 -
D R = 20%D R = 40% D R = 60% D R = 80%
100%
qc/N
a
3
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
9-80
qc/N VS EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
(AFTER SCHMERTMANN, 1978)FIGURE 3.37
qc/N
0246
0 -
10 -
20 -
j_ 30 -LU LU U_
z
tLU
Q 40 -
50 -
60 -
70 - _________________________
1 1 1
1.81
321 * 0.26
1.14
2.73
*
8
I
1.37
1.37
10 12
I
0.58
0.19 0.89 0.71 9
^J4
0.56
0.52 0.76
0.99 0.35
0.47
0.46 *
0.64
0.51
*
4.11
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
1.25
hfijOROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES qc/N VS DEPTH FOR SELECT POINTS
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.38
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
.a
o C/)
O
~ X m
m
HH
c/)
i
01
»
120
100
IZ h-*
zD O O
CO LU
DC LU
80 -
60 -
40 -
20
SANDS; STANDARD HAMMER
0.50
o-59
3.40VV
3.40
0.59 0.50
0.88
0.51
0.74
0.66
0.86 0.67
T1.32 0.83AT 16
0.45
I
10
COYOTE SOUTH
COYOTE NORTH
MOSS LANDING
SAN DIEGO
SAUNAS
AA VV
STANDARDTRIPSTANDARDTRIPSTANDARDTRIPSTANDARDTRIPSTANDARDTRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
_COMPOSITE: ALL SITES qc/N VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE 3.40
120 -
158
SANDS: FRICTION RATIO< 2.0%
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
13.91 <>
00
gH
K <z o
O < 0.75
D 0.75-1.25
A 1.25-2.0
2.0 - 3.0
A > 3.0
I
10 12
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES
qc/N VS N STANDARD HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE 3.41
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
%
>
D
O
O
O O CO
co > CO H
m
co
01
01
o Z
a
I
140 -
120
100 -
80 -
Z
60 -
40 -
20 -
00.46
00.50
00.50
00.71
00.52
00.47 00.64
0.35000.56 00.50
°- 19 00.58 4.11 00.28
00 26 ^ 00.99 00.76 01.25
0 0.89
0.25
1.040* 1 ' 37
3.210 1-810 01.14
02.73 01.37
U 1 1 1 1
0246
NUMBERSON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
I
8
["fJJORO nil
I
10 12
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES
qc/N VS N FOR SELECT POINTS
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.43
o
140 .
120 -
100 -
80 -
2
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
0.46
0.71
0.39 0.84
0.36 *
1.10
0.73*
1.47 0.53
1 1R * 1 - 111 - 16 _ 1.51 » 4.08 g , 32 * ' 1.67 4
1.80
I I I
0246
qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
I I
16
8 10 12
f_C ~~1 PROJfcCI NO.: 79-153
UHMH USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES q c /N VS N FOR SELECT POINTS
TRIPHAMMER
9-80 FIGURE 3.44
300 -
250 -
uTenH, 6CT
(r, 200
zCC
LLIffl
QZ HI
S 150 ~DCHI >
100 -
50 -
0
0.50O
0.59
0 0.45D
- 0.51
0 00.55
0.66O
°'49 0.49A A
0.46 0.46A A
A A A« £> ^ A A 0.49 0.72 0.49 0.50 o.50 O
0.38 n oo
0.50
0.59
0.45
"
°'^ 0.519 m
0.66
0.72
A 0.70 ^ 0.70 I0
1 o5 °- 54 1 i5o
0.81 A 0.36 ^
o
°^° 0.54 0.88, ^
^ -,^ ^ AT 1 61^0.36
A 0.810.33 0.25 0.33 0.25 "
°'81 0A30 A O.to 0.81 0-67V T
0.86 ' o 83V QV 2.56 T
1.00 0.36 1 00 0V A T A
1-13
0.36 1 5g 0.36 T 1 5
A b * ir
w T
0.86 0.83T
36k
1.55 2.59 1.32 1-32 1 - 55 2.59
^ Q V T
3.40 3J.9 3^9V T
3.40
I I
024
T
0.45 A
I I I I
6 8 10 12
"qc/N
COYOTE SOUTH O STANDARD
TRIP
COYOTE NORTH D STANDARD
TRIP
MOSS LANDING O STANDARD
TRIP
SAN DIEGO A STANDARDA. TRIP ^ 1 r\ Ir
SALINAS V STANDARD
V TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
f ~" 1 PHOJbCI NO.: V9-1b3
" MB USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS qc
BY LAYER AVERAGES9-80 FIGURE 3.45
300 -
250 -
200 -
u. C/3
0CT
150
100
50
0
IA
A
° AAA
AD D D* Jf A£
*%&
0
S?o"
| < O
t£
G 0
SANDS: FRICTION RATIO <2.0%
cO
O
o
0
0 0
o oo
0 C
0 °
O 9D
D o
A A °A
a a
& oa
o i
n LJ -*°DD°
Q
° D A OQDA %> A
D A AA A 'i A A 9
O 0 0
o
o0 0
°°
t
> 0° 0
5 ° 0o
D O
O
(
oO O
o o o oo _ a
D0 0 0° 0 0£°
. °0 DnQ
O~_ oo
O
o oo(P
D^ D 0° A ° °
A A D 0 A
A A °
k St) A .A A O&
AA * A ° A
1 1 1 246
O < 0.75
D 0.75-1.25
A 1.25-2.0
2.0 - 3.0
L.A > 3.0
O
A
D
00
)
i
j
I 18 10 12
( J_ \PROJECT NO.: 79-153
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS qc
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.46
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
TS
F
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
>
D
O-*
P
w
io
'-J
Ao
01
01
o
o
o
mC/
3 H
m CO
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
qc,
TS
F
_
i^
rvr
*gy
vv
§ o
§ 8
S 8
S 8
S03 rn
o
JD CO O Z o o z H CO JD m -0
N)
JD m CO m Z
H n JD n \ JD H 5 a?
C
0)
_>**"
(0 <b 0
JD 2 0
co
< 0
H
CO
<;
2 o
O
O
TI
CO>
0
H
33
33
mO
CO
"
"^
^n
^.m
L_!
^
>
m jl
13«
m
-D
H
33 o
m
CO
n
2.
5 7
ic
v>JD m CO fe 00
JD O m n zc
Po 00 o -o 0
0 -o H
vl (p 01 CO
00
_j o
*
1 1
1 1
1 1
A ^
O-»
to
-*
<o
0
*
°v!
P
°
o
A"8
p g
o
2 »
sJ*
* -«
Ij>
- '2
P
o
rj
co
o
.
" s
"
A
A
**
r*
P
p^
0)
OS
0
01
P
?
g
o
_i
Ji;
oy
. <n
.
3 S
ro
01
.
N)
I'a
300 -
250 -
^ 200 -LL
0a
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
G
NUM
°'*6 0.71
0.73Aw
0.86
0.36
0.39^
1.10*
1 16 1 ' 28
* 1.32
4.08
I I I
246
qc/N
BERSON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
0.53
1.47
1.11
1.51 1.674
.80
16
I I
8 10 12
f ^,- " '" "\ PHOJbCI NO.:
HI^H^H USGS CPT-SPT
,,3
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES qc/N VS qc FOR SELECT POINTS
TRIPHAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.49
2.0
oQC
O 111_l 111uT
O
< I O UJ
oCT
1.5-
1.0-
TRENDLINE
0.5-I
50o
100
qc MECHANICAL,KSC
I 150 200 250
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPARISON OF END BEARINGOF MECHANICAL VS ELECTRIC CONE
(AFTER SCHMERTMANN, 1978)
9-80 FIGURE 3.50
a
I
3 e;
3.0 -
2.5 -
# 2.0 -
g
enz goa: 1.5 ~u_
1.0 -
0.5 -
VT
O
aV V
v v T
v v
V Vo
V V
v o ^ **0 A 0 *
A ° D D££** A A rj A
* A ^ AA A A AA A^
A A AA A A
V
^ AT 16
*
* * «
j
>-»-
h
0 ~~l I I I I I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
CJc/N
COYOTE SOUTH O STANDARD
TRIP
COYOTE NORTH O STANDARD
TRIP
MOSS LANDING O STANDARD
+ TRIP SAN DIEGO A STANDARD
A TRIP
SAUNAS V STANDARD
V TRIP
f y- I PROJECT NO.: 7 9-153^I^JBW^^
UHHH USGSCPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESQc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE 3.51
A . *
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
STANDARD HAMMER
3.5
2:0-J
5ccz gi- occ 1.5
1.0-
0.5- *- NT «* * . >s . . ; .; * . :
I10
Qc/N
'5.
I
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
TRIP HAMMER
79-153
FIGURE 3.53
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
,
c 0
0
CO
O,
3D
6
CO
>P
in
; O
2 h
i Z
DO
CO
m
H >
DO
coH
O
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
.0
m 01 m
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
,
en
b
I_____________I
4.0
8
ts
1.0 -
i
-
I- 0
C? 0.1 -
t
i
4
0.01 -<4
t
1
1.58 O0.60
2.54
0.56o
0.52 A*7A
0.88 1.160 0
1 80k1.40 Q
n Q/I 0.93 0.84 ogg
A 0.45A
0.89 0.92
A0.52
1.32 0.71 2.01
o ' 1.62 °-45 0.79 0.31
0.350.46 0.46
0 1.27 °'39 0 , 50 0 OM o
4.17 1.81O
0.97
3.21D
1.39O
, 4.70
k 3.75
k 4.89A 2.17
6.15 A1.60' A 3.08k4.11
k 3.30
0.75O
0.58O
0.82A 0.64 A A
0.76 A 1 - 691.04 *
1.25 0.26 O
°'68 137 *^k 1 .O /
1.37
1.14 O
0.97 < )
I I I I I
234 567
QC/N
SM
O SM-ML
SC
D ML
* GP
O SPA CL
A SP-SM
NUMBERSON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
f y- 1 PROJECT NO.: 7<M53
LJU^U^U HBBB USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc/N VS D50
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.56
!
'
1.0 -
I
4
8 0.1 -Q
0.01 -
i
O0.71
O2.28 .
0.63 A0.53
1.29 A A 0.24 °-73 0.95
M ' 64 '-21 147 02R A ° 0.19 1>* / °-26 0?9
1.21 °^5 A *A O 0.73 1.42 9
1 0.46 0.28 W* 1 '28 *0.19 0.34 0.58
1.98 LSI 1.500.53 0.50 '
0.38 1-7 21.7
0 48 ^^1-16 O1-11 1.73
O 0
°1.80 01-37
D D 2.48
1.474
3.604.08 D
0 2.70D
A 3.60
k 6.18
i I I I I
I
>
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
qc/N
SM.
O SM-ML
m sc
D ML
*( ,- ^ PROJECT NO.: 79-153
o s? I~ GWCMA CL Hi^^HiH USGS CPT-SPT
^ SP-SM
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESNUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, % g /|\| VS Den
TRIPHAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.57
350
300 -
250 -
u?C/J
o"
'5 20° ~~ZCC
UJCO
QZUJ
UJ 150 -
CCUJ
^
100 -
50 -
0.50*
0.59
0.50O
0.59
0.45 * 0.45 O A
0.51 _ *0 -_ 0;! 1 0 U.oo rj0.55
0.66*
0.67 o
T
0.49
0.46 A^
0.66O
T
0.49
A 0.46A
0 49 A 0.89 0.87 ~0.72 0.72 'AA050* O
0.38A 0.38 A
* O0.70 0.70
0.80 0.80 1-05 1-05+ 0 0.54 O
^ 0.36 ^A A 0.36
* 0.33 0.25A A A o.33
0.67 A0.30 A °-30^70.86^ Q.67V V0.81
0.83 ^83 0.86V1 ' 59
B D ^2. 56V 2. 56
0.36 036AT A v 1 .00
1.13 1 -°° T V1-13
1.55 A 0.36T V
1.552 59T D 2.590.45 « .-
A 0 3'423.19 3.19 T v
A A
0 I I II
0 20 40 60 80 100 12 0
AVERAGE BLOWCOUNT, N
COYOTE SOUTH O STANDARD
TRIPCOYOTE NORTH D STANDARD
TRIP
MOSS LANDING O STANDARD
TRIP
SAN DIEGO A STANDARD
A TRIPSALINAS V STANDARD
T TRIPNUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
f ^^ 1 PROJECT NO.: 79- 153l~1^JBRa|jH HHUHHI ^ ^^ i USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESQc VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE 3.58
a
8
300 -
250 -
IT 200 -C/J
ocr
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
C
0.64
0.26* 00.19 0.28
0.76
1.37
1 - 04 00.58
1.141 37 °'89' LSI o.gg
3.21 *4.11
2.73
I
) 20 4
0.50
0.47
0.56
0.52
0 60
0.71
8
*
0 1(
*
0.50
X) 1:>o
N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
hfi^m 1 PROJECT NO.
79-153
5GS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESqc VS N FOR SELECT POINTS
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.61
300 -
250
200 -
LJL
OCT
150 -
100
50 -
o -
C
0.71 0.46
0.73
0.84
0.36 0.53
0.39
1.67
1.10 1.11
1.67 01.51
O 1.28
*1.32 4.08
I I I
) 20 40 60
N
NUMBERSON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
I I
so 100 1:
IF
M
f M __ N PROJECT NO.: 79-153
COMPOSITE: ALL SITES qc VS N FOR SELECT POINTS
TRIPHAMMER9-80 FIGURE 3.62
J3
I o
Pu
cr
USGS STANDARD HAMMER
SCHMERTMANN (1976)
1 '5.
I
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
9-80
COMPARISON OFqc VSN STANDARD HAMMER AND
SCHMERTMANN RELATIONFIGURE 3.63
-S
UL
P
6cr
1'5.
USGS TRIP HAMMER
SCHMERTMANN (1976)
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
9-80
COMPARISON OF qc VS NTRIPHAMMER AND
SCHMERTMANN RELATIONFIGURE 3.64
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
60
m
H
O3
2
1°
2 A
m r
2
> O
O
HO
DO
m
o O
-"1
T
-U
5
>
COT3
^
OX
S
2
>
m o
^
> £
m z °
ID
O
^
CO
>u
2 I
50
-
40
-
N
30J
20-
10-
25
\ 5075
I10
012
515
017
5
TS
F
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
UN
IT P
EN
ET
RA
TIO
N R
ES
IST
AN
CE
, qf
(kN
/m2
)
m
H»
33
-CH
m m
f-\
>33
§
Om
^
$03
3
co>
>"J
z
S
o m
20 -
O.
LJJ
Q Z
O < QC
111 z LJJ
O.
40
~
60 -
80
-
20
00
I
40
00
MO
NT
ER
EY
NO
. 0
SA
ND
(P
LU
VIA
L C
OM
PA
CT
ION
)
RA
NG
E I
N R
ES
IST
AN
CE
FO
R U
NIF
OR
ML
Y D
EN
SE
DE
PO
SIT
60
00
I
LOO
SE
DE
NS
E
LO
OS
E
TE
ST
RE
SU
LT
FO
R L
AY
ER
ED
DE
PO
SIT
RA
NG
E I
N R
ES
IST
AN
CE
FO
R U
NIF
OR
ML
Y L
OO
SE
DE
PO
SIT
DE
NS
E
LO
OS
E
VE
RY
DE
NS
E
400
300 -
200 -
100
CT
10 -
FRICTION RATIO, %
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
EDMONDSITERANGE OF AVERAGE CRT END BEARING
FOR FRICTION RATIO BANDS9-80 FIGURE 3.68
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
^
O
I i
o H00 o
33
-0
CO O JO to Ul
m CO H
m
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by. C
heck
ed b
yA
pp
rove
d b
y
LIQ
UID
ITY
IN
DE
X,
LI
z -»
-»
p
pc
01
b
bi
b00
m W m -D m m
Z 5? A Z o N)
0 O W m
m
do 0
CO
o ij
>
Ha
°Z
'
pi
o£!
"°
r~
O"~
i __
co
ro 2
0 0
Dc 5
co
z ^
jO
CD
rn
CD ^
CO -]
n
"~1
5
^CC m u 0
0 O t_ m
O H
c
§CD CO 0
T3
7! 3
(C U1 w
1 1
1 i
10
°°
~J
°°
~i
H
CO
CJ
C35
"^
_J
^""o
o0
0*0
7
.
M
^
""
~"
roC
Qo!
0^*'"'
0 '
0
*°
oi^*^
CJ1
M0
'^
SS
»
Scoooco
£
01
01
*°
ro
oi
en
UI
o>CD
cocn
0°a>
<£>
oso
o
,^^1
.
01
^
»
-i
K>
fo
<=>
CD
-j
^
^j"
5 "
SJ01
S
01
""
°
"^
*
->
en
y,
"""
01
co03
"^
S^j
00
0*
en
.^
~4-j
e3
'o
o
oo
°'e
n
Sen
*00
Se°!S
CI'"a
»^"'»
00
"^
co
~"co
"'°
oo
CD
CD
» °
00
00
~
* _
01
01
C
O
01
,
~J
00
IS
J
°J!S
co
0S
"0
cr>
10
co
01
M
j,.
«°
~J
»
0oo
~*
oo
c7! "S n
to
o
2
a.
«"_
0
1
^oo
^
co
2
^
01
SO
l 0
1
oo
oo 0]
co
S
CO
oo 0
OO
O
O
CO
CO
C
D
o ro
O
0
3D m q m o CO
H
o
Z
o ..w
. o
FRICTI0N RESISTflNCE, TSF
CQNE
RESISTRNCE, TSF
75
150
225
FRICTIQN RRTI0
, X
6.0
0
GR
OP
RO
JE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
PR
OF
ILE
AV
ER
AG
EC
OM
PO
SIT
E:
ALL S
OU
ND
ING
SE
DM
ON
D S
ITE
CO
RR
EC
TE
Dq
c V
S D
EP
TH
FO
R S
AN
D Z
ON
EIN
ST
RU
ME
NT
:S
OU
ND
ING
:F
IGU
RE
3.7
1
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n b
y
O
O o
^ O
(n
PP
gsi?
O 3
3c/jr-
O
O -
J JO
c T
> m
2
ll ^ N
m
o 2
w
/T J
JJ w
co
*"
CO
CO
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
120
100 -
80 -
Z
O «n O 60
OCQ
40
20 -
O O
oo
A-bV V<^* *
I
0.2
I I
0.4 0.6
CRT SIDE FRICTION, TSF
0.8
I
1.0 1.2
I(3
SITES
O SAN DIEGO
A MOSS LANDING
COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
A SALINASPROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESCPTSIDE FRICTION VSN
STANDARD HAMMER
79-153
9-80 FIGURE 3.73
120
100 -
80
DO 60O
OCO
40 -
20 -
I
0.2
I I
0.4 0.6
CRT SIDE FRICTION, TSF
0.8 1.0 1.2
I<3
SITES
O SAN DIEGO
A MOSS LANDING
A COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
SALINASPROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESCRT SIDE FRICTION VS N
TRIPHAMMER
79-153
9-80 FIGURE 3.74
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES
NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES
m "si
r-C
%>
mo
-<Z
co
m
o
>C
Dco
CO
^ H
2
33
>Z
^ £
m I
17
" £
°
en
m
coIn
33
CO
00
>
O >
2 I Z
1 >
Oco
g c
obi
2
M m 3
3
Co
mp
iled
by
Dra
wn
by
. Ch
ecke
d b
yA
pp
rove
d b
y
00 o
COMPOSITE:
ALL
SITES
FREQUENCY
HISTOGRAMS
qc/N
VS
FRICTION
RATIO
STANDARD
HAMMER
F|GUP m
w ' si o>
^^r~
~^i
E4
C
zCO
O
o CO o
-o CO -o
si Jp en
u
c
XJ
^.
0)
2
00
CD
o
NU
MB
ER
OF
OC
CU
RR
EN
CE
S
> 0
8
&
I 1
Tl
On
<1
OZ
2
1
>>
d2
0
II W
CO
_»b
< 10 in
S?
! c
0
XJ 2
00
CD
o
10
NU
MB
ER
OF
OC
CU
RR
EN
CE
S
5 8
£ i
i
1 j]
n
3
o
H
^0
m 3
3
n 5
CO
CO
s?
) >
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
.Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES
NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES
COMPOSITE:
ALL
SITES
FREQUENCY
HISTOGRAMS
qc/N VS
FRICTION
RATIO
TRIPHAMMER
Ti 3)
#3
1§
S
THm c:
J
to
FRICTION RATIO
S 0
- 1
%
qc/N
MEAN = 6.05
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
Ap
pro
ved
by
NU
MB
ER
OF
OC
CU
RR
EN
CE
SN
UM
BE
R O
F O
CC
UR
RE
NC
ES
COMPOSITE: ALL
SITES
FREQUENCY
HISTOGRAMS
qc/N
2 3
>S
T>
£
m
T
'>
>
£
2
S |
11 S
D
p1
rn
c/)cr>
30
J
» >
0
w
2 w
4-1
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this section is to summarize the findings of this
research, to provide some conclusions regarding the reliability
of CPT.-SPT correlation for use in liquefaction potential
analyses, and to suggest some needs for additional research.
4.1 SUMMARY
The data presented-in the previous sections has been organized
to meet the three basic requirements for use of a CPT-SPT-lique-
faction potential assessment. These needs are the estimation
of liquefiable soils, the normalization of CPT measurements,
and the conversion of CPT measurements into SPT measurements.
As no direct rule is available regarding when the SPT can be
used to provide information for the empirical method, it is
assumed that the SPT is valid for sands and a small range of
silty sands, with fines content up to about 30 percent. An
estimated boundary between the zone of 30 percent fines content
and the 30 to 60 percent zone was shown in Figure 3.9. Also
shown in that figure are the boundaries for other soil categories
as interpreted from the data presented in the preceding sections.
Although it is seen that friction ratio alone does not completely
define soil-type boundaries, for the purposes of providing
conservative estimates of susceptible soils it is acceptable
to select a constant friction ratio as the boundary. Soft CL
and CL-ML soils may also fall in the band, but such soft or
sensitive soils may present their own hazard under earthquake
loading. A suggested friction ratio band for use with the
electric cone penetrometer is zero to 2.25 percent.
IGRO
4-2
It was shown in Section 3.3.3.2 that a C p relation to account
for the effect of overburden pressure upon field investigations
shows a considerable degree of scatter. Development of a
parameter, Cp ^ f by which CPT measurements could be directly
converted to corrected equivalent blowcounts was also described.
cpl could be defined for a particular friction ratio band,
such as the sand range. The q c/N versus depth relation could
then be defined for the same band, and by multiplication of the
two relations, a new Cp relation would be found. This Cp
could then be used as an adjustment on the basis of constant
material type with associated assumption of a constant qc/N
for that material. The trend in Cp would then automatically
include the effect of the variable q c/N relation. Because
these field-based Cp ^ methods rely to large degree upon the
particular CN relation selected, and because the scatter in
CN relations is large and encompasses available Cp relations
determined under controlled circumstances, it is most appropriate
to use the available Cp relation shown in Figure 3.5.
Finally, the most appropriate means to convert qc and FR into
equivalent N values is discussed. It has been shown that
qc/N is primarily a function of soil type and in-situ stress
conditions. Thus, the conversion of qc to N for liquefaction
potential assessments must also depend upon these factors.
In Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are shown plots of N value ranges on
the qc -FR charts for standard and trip hammer measurements,
respectively. Lines showing conservative definition of the
constant N value trends are also shown on those figures. It
ICRO
4-3
can be seen that those lines are essentially just the relations
shown in previous section. For example, the qc/N relation
decreases with increasing N, but begins to show rapid increases
with q^, at end bearing pressures above 100 tsf. The effect
of changing soil type on qc/N is also clearly visible.
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions regarding the use of a CPT-SPT conversion with
subsequent use of the SPT-liquefaction potential relation focus
upon the method of CPT data analysis and the reliability of the
CPT-SPT correlation.
Figures 3.9 and 4.1 and 4.2 present composite plots of CPT
versus soil type and CPT versus N value data. Likewise, Figure
3.15 presents a summary of the classification trends as based
upon CPT data. It is noted that the Friction Ratio is a primary
variable used in all of the plots. Although many of the trends
in Figure 3.15 are speculative, it can be seen that estimation
of soil characteristics is dependent upon both of the primary
CPT measurements: end bearing and side friction. Thus, although
the normalized form of the data as represented by friction ratios
is convenient, the actual measured side frictions should be
routinely analyzed when using CPT data. The importance of side
friction is also seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. These figures
reveal the similarity of constant N value lines and lines of
constant side friction. Such agreement suggests that graphical
relations between the desired soil characteristic and end bearing
4-4
and side friction may be preferable to the use of friction ratio
relations, and should be further investigated.
Although friction ratio indirectly accounts for side friction,
there are difficulties in its practical use. For example, the
end bearing penetration behavior in layered media was previously
shown to depend upon some weighted average of soil resistance
within several diameters in front and back of the tip. The
effect of layers on sleeve measurements is different, and it
appears that the influence of underlying layers is felt by the
sleeve much later than the influence is felt by the cone tip.
This often results in erratic calculated friction ratios in the
near vicinity of layer interfaces.
This rapid fluctuation in friction ratio is not as apparent
with the mechanical CPT as used by most previous researchers.
The reason is that the typical mechanical cone procedure
automatically averages measurements over the depth of the
sounding increments. Thus, the rapid changes in resistance
leading to erratic friction ratios are not as pronounced.
However, by the same reasoning, it is apparent that this use
of the mechanical penetrometers leads to an inability to
distinguish the occurrence of sudden resistance changes as
caused by a changed material type, and that resistances
measured in thin layers will represent average values or may
be entirely in error, as in the usual determination of side
friction in a zone of rapidly increasing or decreasing end
bearing.
ICRD
4-5
Several methods of smoothing the friction ratio curve were
investigated. These included moving averages of either of or
both the end bearing and sleeve measurements, variable adjust
ments .of the lead distance between sleeve zone of influence and
tip zone of influence, and filtering of high frequency components
of the friction ratio record. Although such devices are of use
-for investigation of the phase difference in response of the
tip and sleeve, it appears that direct use of the sleeve measure
ment itself holds more promise than artificial adjustment of
the friction ratio. Although the sleeve readings are erratic
when passing through dense or interlayered soils, they are
smoother than the calculated friction ratios. Further, soil
types, stress conditions, and index characteristics and N
values seem to bear a closer relationship to sleeve readings
than to friction ratios.
Because little research has been focused on direct use of
sleeve measurements, current methods still must rely upon the
friction ratio method. That method as applied to N value
prediction has been well explained by Schmertmann. A major
concern, however, is still related to equipment. It has been
shown that different hammer energies not only produce different
N values, but also produce different shapes of the qc versus
N curve. Further, it appears that the ratio of N values relating
two different hammer energies is not necessarily constant, but
varies depending upon soil type and/or resistance. It is also
known that the use of electrical versus mechanical cones
results in different qc versus N relations.
4-6
Therefore, in order to advance a set of qc versus N relations,
it is necessary to make an accurate assessment of the "average"
hammer energy represented in the blowcount method. It is also
necessary to specify the type of cone penetrometer for which
the relations are valid. It should be noted that this problem
of equipment standardization is everpresent but usually ignored
in routine use of the N value method.
A set of functional relations between qc , N, friction ratio
and overburden pressure is not presented in this report. Until
the standardization of SPT methods and equipment is complete,
or until the SPT hammer energy implicit in the blowcount method
is defined, the presentation of another set of equations for
use by practitioners unaware of the inherent assumptions that
must be accepted to use the equations seems inappropriate.
This is not to suggest that the CPT method is not valid for
prediction of N values or liquefaction potential, for it
certainly is. The profiling of a site using the CPT provides
more information, faster, more reliably and at a lower cost
than any other method now available. Likewise, the qualitative
determination of. strength variation throughout the site profile
is immediately obtained from the field records. Further, the
scatter in the CPT relation with another test measurement,
such as the SPT, stems primarily from the scatter in the other
test results or from the finite measurement intervals of the
other test as compared to the essentially continuous CPT
measurements. Even with the scatter in comparative relations,
4-7
the CPT method is so rapid that a large statistical data base
can be developed, allowing precise definition of average site
characteristics.
An example of CPT estimation of SPT blowcounts can be drawn
from the Edmond site data. The q c versus N relations for
that site (Figure 3.65) were simplified (double curvature
removed), and fit with equations relating to q c and FR. The
relations were then applied to the CPT records from the site.
A plot of CPT predicted, corrected N value for a typical
sounding is shown in Figure 4.3 compared against the corrected
N value measured at the same location, wherein the accuracy
of the CPT prediction is self-evident. However, it must be
recalled that a hammer-specific blowcount is predicted in that
figure, and it is not known how well that hammer compares with
the hammers implicit in the empirical blowcount method. Thus,
considering the variability of SPT measurements, the use of
precise correlations of CPT and SPT measurements may be of
little use. That is, the precision of the CPT-SPT correlation
should be of the same order as the precision of the SPT and
SPT-liquefaction potential correlation.
4.3 RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS
Three areas of needed research are suggested by this report.
These areas deal with standardization of the SPT, analysis of
the CPT, and further investigation of relations between the CPT
and liquefaction potential.
ICRO
4-8
The standardization of the SPT has been underway for many years
and the only specific concern indicated in this report is the
selection of standardization energy. It appears that resolution
of soil type changes depends upon the energy delivered to the
sampler per blow of the hammer.
Needs in analysis of the CPT are many, and include research
into failure mechanism and the measurement process. Regarding
the measurement process, it appears that the value of direct
use of side friction measurements may be facilitated by reloca
tion of the side friction sleeve to a location in which the
pore pressure field is less variable than at its present
location immediately behind the cone tip. In addition, some
reanalysis of CPT data in terms of side friction and end bear
ing without dependence upon friction ratio may yield worthwhile
results.
The use of the CPT for liquefaction potential analyses requires
several related investigations. In the indirect approach, such
as presented in this report, measurements of SPT hammer energy
should be made. In fact, the hammers used in this study should
be so calibrated.. Direct approaches to the problem of CPT-lique-
faction potential evaluations should be pursued. These include
the use of piezometric (pore pressure measuring) cones, and the
performance of cone penetrometer tests at previously liquefied
sites.
IGRO
300
200-
100-
80-
60 -
40 -
c/J
uCT
20 -
10-
8 -
6 -
4 -
= 0-3
O
A
D
O
0-3
4-7
8-12
13-18
19-30
31 -40
41 -60
60 <
FRICTION RATIO,
[ filCROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
COMPOSITE: ALL SITESN VS qc VS FRICTION RATIO
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE 4.1
Co
mp
iled
by
Dra
wn b
y. C
he
cke
d b
yA
pp
rove
d b
y
, TS
F
BL
OW
CO
UN
T S
YM
BO
LS
__
__
__
__
~
^
>
*
<0
Q
D>
O
^
CA>
<
O
CO
CO
"O
Tl
~|
I
33
m
m 30C
O
*.
o
O 6 2
88
g i
i
CORRECTED BLOW COUNT, N
10
J_
15 20I
25I
30I
35I
40I
45I
50 I
55
_J
20 -
O
UJ UJ
f= 40 -
tUJ Q
60 -
80 -
MEASURED
PREDICTED FROM CRT
a
I
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
9-80
PREDICTED VS MEASURED N VALUE PROFILE
EDMONDSITE: BORING 120FIGURE 4.3
5. REFERENCES
Alperstein, R., and Leifer, S. A., 1976, "Site Investigation with Static Cone Penetrometer," Journal of the Geotech- nical Engineering Division, ASCE, GT5, May.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1975, "DeepQuasi-static, Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil," ASTM Tentative Standards, Part 19, Designation: D3441-75T, December, and ASTM D 1586, D422 and D1586.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 1978, "General Design, Phase II, Project Design: Arcadia Lake Design Memorandum #3."
Bazaraa, A.R.S.S., 1967, "Use of the Standard PenetrationTest for Estimating Settlements of shallow foundations on sand," Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana.
Begemann, H. K., 1965, "The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aidin Determining the Soil Profile," Proc. 6th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Volume 1, pp. 17-20.
Bingham, R. H., and Moore, R. L., 1975, "Reconnaissance of the Water Resources of the Oklahoma City Quadrangle, Central Oklahoma," U.S. Geol. Survey and Oklahoma Geo logical Survey, Hydrologic Atlas 4 (HA-4).
California Department of Water Resources, 1968, Bolsa-Sunset Area, Orange County: CDWR Bull. 63-2.
Campanella, R. G., Berzins, W. E., and Shields, D. H., 1979, "A Preliminary Evaluation of Menard Pressuremeter, Cone Penetrometer, and Standard Penetration Tests in the Lower Mainland, British Columbia," Soil Mechanics Series No. 40, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, VGT 1W5, May.
de Mello, Victor, F. B., 1971, "The Standard Penetration Test," 4th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico r Vol. I, p. 43.
de Ruiter, J., 1971, "Electric Penetrometer for Site In vestigations," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun dation Division, ASCE, SM-2, February.
Dibblee, J. W., Jr., 1976, "Rinconada and Related Faults in the Southern Coast Ranges, California, and Their Tectonic Significance," U.S. Geol. Survey Professional Paper 981 r 55 p.
IGRO
5-2
Donovan, N. C., and Singh, S., 1976, "Liquefaction Criteriafor the Trans-Alaska Pipeline," ASCE National Convention, Sept. 27-Oct. 1, Philadelphia, PA., pp. 139-168.
Ellis, A. J., and Lee, C. H., 1919, "Geology and GroundWaters of the Western Part of San Diego County, CA," U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 446, 321 p.
Forrest, J., and Ferritto, J., 1976, "An Earthquake Analysis of the Liquefaction Potential at the Naval Air Station, North Island," Port Hueneme, California, Civil Engineer ing Lab, Technical Report R847.
Fletcher, G. F. A., 1965, "SPT: It's Uses and Abuses," ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, July.
Gibbs, H. J., and Holtz, W. H., 1957, "Research on Determining the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing," 4th ICSMFE, London, Vol. I.
Helley, E. J., and Brabb, E. E., 1971, "Geologic Map of Late Cenozoic Deposits, Santa Clara County, California," U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Field Invest. Map MF-335.
Helley, E. J., LaJoie, K. R., Spangle, E. E., and Blair, M. L., 1979, "Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning," U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 943, 88 p.
Janbu and Senneset, 1974, "Effective Stress Interpretationof In Situ Static Penetration Test," European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stockholm, June, Vol. 2.2.
Kennedy, M. P., Welday, E. E., Borchardt, G., Chase, G. W., and Chapman, R. H., 1977, "Studies on Surface Faulting and Liquefaction as Potential Earthquake Hazards in Urban San Diego, California," Final Technical Report, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Sacra mento, California, October.
Kennedy, M. P., 1973, "Bedrock Lithologies, San Diego area, California," in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R. J. (eds.), Studies on the geology and geologic hazards of the greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Associa tion of Geologists.
Kovacs, William D., 1975, "A Comparative Investigation of the Mobile Drilling Company's Safe-T-Driver with the Standard Cathead with Manila Rope for the Performance of the Standard Penetration Test."
ICRO
5-3
Kovacs, William D. r 1978, "An Alternative to the Cathead and Rope for the Standard Penetration Test," ASTM, GTJODJ, Vol. l r No. 2. June.
Levadoux, J. N., and Baligh, M. M., 1980, "Pore PressureDuring Penetration in Clays," Publication No. R80-15, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Constructed Facilities Division, April.
Marcuson, William F. Ill, and Bieganousky, Wayne A., 1977, "SPT and Relative Density in Coarse Sands," ASCE, GTJ, Vol. 1302, No.GT 11 November.
Mitchell, J. K., and Lunne, T. A., 1978, "Cone Resistanceas a Measure of Sand Strength," Journal of the Geotech- nical Engineering Division, ASCE, GT-7, July.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W., E., Thornburn, T. H., 1973, Founda tion Engineering, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 514 p.
Poland, J F., 1959, "Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California," U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1471, 257 p.
Poland, J. F., Piper, A. M., and others, 1956, "Ground-Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California," U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1109, 162 p.
Sangerlat, G., 1972, The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publishing Company, New York.
Sangerlat, G., 1974, "European Symposium on PenetrationTesting," Stockholm, June, Vol. 2.2, State-of-the-Art Reports.
Schmertmann, J. H., "Discussion of the Standard Penetration Test," 4th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Vol. III.
Schmertmann, J. H., 1976, "Predicting the qc/N Ratio,"Final Report D-636, Engineering and Industrial Experi ment Station, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, October.
______ , 1978, "Guidelines for Cone Penetration TestPerformance and Design," U.S. Department of Transpor tation, Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209.
ICRD
5-4
Schmertmann, J. H., 1979, "Statics of SPT," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, GT5, May.
________, 1979b, "Energy Dynamics of SPT," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, GT 8, August.
Seed, Bolton H., 1976, "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground During Earthquakes," ASCE National Convention, Sept. 27-Oct.l, Philadelphia, PA.
Seed, H. B., Mori, K., Chan, C. K., 1977, "Influence of Seismic History on Liquefaction of Sands," ASCE, GT Vol. 103, No. GT4, April.
Seed, H. B., 1979, "Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic MobilityEvaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechical Engineering Division, ASCE, GT2, February.
Steiger, F., 1979, "A Technical Report on the SPT Workshop Held During ASTM's June 1979 Committee Week," Geotech nical Testing Journal, ASTM, Volume 2, Number 3, September.
Tavenas, F. A., 1971, "Discussion of the Standard Penetration Test," 4th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Vol. III.
Tinsley, J. C. Ill, 1975, "Quaternary Geology of Northern Salinas Valley, Monterey County, California," Unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Treadwell, Donald D. 1975, "The Influence of Gravity, Pre-stress, Compressibility, and Layering on Soil Resistance to Static Penetration," Dissertation for Ph.D. in Engineering, Graduate Division of the University of Calif. Berkeley.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1978, Soil Survey of Orange County and western part of Riverside County, California.
Vesic, A. S., 1963 "Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations in Sand," Highway Research Board, Highway Research Record No. 39.
Wood, P. R., and Burton, L. C., 1968, "Ground-Water Resources, Cleveland and Oklahoma Counties," Oklahoma Geologic Survey Circular 71.
Yong, R. N., and Chen, C. K., 1976, "Cone Penetration ofGranular and Cohesive Soils," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, No. EM2, April.
ICRO
5-5
Youd, T. L., and Perkins, D. M. , 1977, "Mapping of Liquefac tion Potential Using Probability Concepts," Annual Con vention of the ASCE, Oct., San Francisco, California.
Ziony, J. I., 1973, "Recency of Faulting in the GreaterSan Diego Area, California," in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R. J. (eds.), "Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California," San Diego Association of Geologists, p. 68-75.
ICRO
APPENDIX A
FRICTI
8N RE
SIST
RNCE
, TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
flTI8
.
7.
cb.O
O
3.0
0
o
o to.
LU
O.
I
1/3.
UJ
Q
O o o.
CO o o
10.
r-
6.0
0
PR
OF
ILE
S R
EP
RE
SE
NT
AV
ER
AG
E A
ND
+ O
NE
ST
AN
DA
RD
DE
VIA
TIO
N.
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.7
9 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
PR
OF
ILE
AV
ER
AG
E
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SA
N D
IEG
OF
IGU
RE
A.1
FRICTI0N RESISTRNCE,
TSF
C0NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
, TS
F
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
I8N
R
RT
I8
* X
Sb.o
o 3.
00
o
o o-j
-O
I
U3
bJ
C
D
o
o o CO o
o
n
1
»
1
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5K
C2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SO
-C-1
A
FIG
UR
E A
.2
FRICTI8N RESISTflNCE. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTflNCE, TS
F
75
150
225
FRIC
TI8N
RflTI8
. %
300
« nn
oO
-OO
3.0
06.0
0
o
o
ID
Ujo
LL
.CO o
I-ID
UJ
O
O o o CD O
O
ID,!
1
»
1
'
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5K
C2-4
O
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-1
B
FIG
UR
E A
.3
FRIC
TI8N
RE
SIST
flNC
E, TSF
1.5
0
C8NE RESISTflNCE. TS
F
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
flTie
.
%
§).
00
3
.00
6.0
0
o
o \r>
UJ
Ujo
UJ oo
o o CO o
o 10
L \
{
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5K
C2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-1
C
FIG
UR
E A
.4
FRIC
TION
RESISTANCE,
TSF
1.5
0
C9NE RESISTANCE,
TSF
75
150
225
FRICTI9N RR
TIQ
, X
300
a., o
o o" o
o ID.
UJO
.
Xo
I-
to.
LU
ao
o o
.(O o
o to.
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5K
C2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-2
A
FIG
UR
E A
.S
FRICTI8N RE
SIST
RNCE
, TSF
1.5
0
C8NE RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
75
150
225
FRICTI9N Rf
lTie
.
7.
30
0nn
cj
Q.O
Oo o o ID
3.0
0
UJ
Ujo o
X
°H
- l/D
UJ
CD
O
O o CO o
o
»
!
'
6.0
0
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79
-15
3
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
KC
2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C.3
A
FIG
UR
E A
.6
o3
o
FRIC
TI8N
RESISTRNCE*
TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RESISTflNCE. TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
RT
I8
* %
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
KC
2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-3
B
FIG
UR
E A
.7
FRIC
TI0N
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
300
FRICTI0N RRTI8
.
§3.00
3.00
o
o 10
UJ UJO
I U
D
UJ
O
o
o o CO o
o 1
0 r-
f % i»« '
>
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
KC
2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-4
A
FIG
UR
E A
.8
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I0N
R
RT
I8
, %
.00
3.0
0
6..00
o
o to.
UJ
. U
Jo
.
oX
°
h-u
x
UJ
Q
o
o o.
(O o
o
10.
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
KC
2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-4
B
FIG
UR
E A
.9
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
FCO
NE RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
flTIO
.
%
Sb.O
O
3.0
0
6.0
0
o
o u>
UJO
LJ
O
O
o o CO o
o to
/^"
»
s
l
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
FB
KC
2-4
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SD
-C-4
C
FIG
UR
E A
.10
DEPTH IN
FEET0
10
20
30
50
60
80
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ , RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
27
12
27
27
44
89
92
111
V
<^
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'
fs\ STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
[7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £
PERCENT | !_
SON. TYPE 2O 40
SAND (SP-SM), brown, fin*, non-plastic, shell fragments
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown to brown, fin* no n -plastic
-----------
|!--
SILTY SAND (SM), yellowish brown, fine sands, occesionel f trace of low plasticity, fines, very micaceous, brown colored. |_less mica at 40' J
L........
FT _ "._._. .BORING TERMINATED AT 51* ._.... _j_ - . . .
LLED: 101279 t _. NPROJECTNO.; MgJgR^M
f^nnrvr *^^ USGSCPT-J
T PASSING 1 |
SO SO
1
79-163
>PT
o.oo2mm LOG OF BORING NO. 1A
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGUREA.11
DEPTH IN
FEET0 |
10
20
30
40
50
70
80
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION | RESISTANCE MOISTURE
T
T"
T
T
T
T
T
21
15
21
33
43
69
63
V
t^
DENSITY/ CONSISTENCY
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5 '
fs"| STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
PERCEN | 1_
SOW. TYPE 20 40
SAND (SP-SM), brown, fin* sands, non-plastic, shall ' LL... .......fragments M^ k
ft
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown to brown, fin* sands, non-plastic, micaceous " "
SILTY SAND (SM), yellowish brown, fine sands, non-plastic with occasional trace of low plasticity, fines, heavy mica .___..___ ..content, less mica at 38'
=|---
BORING TERMINATED AT 51'
LLED; 101279 f ^ \ PROJECT NO. =
I7tm~irvr m^^^B USGSCPT-S
T PASSING 1 |
eo M
79-153
»PT
o.oozmm LOG OF BORING NO. 1B
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.12
DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE
'* PENETRATION DENSITY/ H i , RESISTANCE f MOlSTUftE CONSlSTENCY(
-
20
in _
-
50
60
70
80
S
s
S
_s_
T
s
s
s
s
s
£_
s
20
15*
17
2H
24
26
27
60
68
77
81
142
V
«,
ELEVATION: DATE DRI
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 5'
\S\ STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
SAND (SP-SM). brown, fin* si fragments
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish b plastic micaceous
SILTY SAND (SM), yellowish with occasional seams of low content, brown, colored less ri medium sand
PERCEN I H-
SOIL TYPE 20 40
nds, non-plastic, shell ' ..._..___...
urown to brown, fine sands, non- II
brown, fine sands, nonplasticplasticity, fines, heavy mica nica at 45 '-49' occasional
::::::::BORING TERMINATED AT 5V JT
LLED: 10-11-79
Ijonn QIFWC
0.002 mm
/ s PROJECT NO.:
MmgR^*^^^^^ USGS CPT-J
T PASSING I |
60 60
i
79-153
>PT
LOG OF BORING NO. 2A SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
g-80 FIGURE A.13
DEPTH IN
FEET 0 L.
10
-
20
40
-
50;
60
70
80
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
T
_J_
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
J_
T
16
10
11
1
18
17
20
32
39
52
48
62
JT
\
SAND (SP'SM), brown, fina < micaceous
son. TYPE
land, non-plastic, shall fragments
PERCENT PASSING | | | ,
20 40 60 SO
TT
WnSILTY SAND (SM). grayish brown to brown, fina sands, [T f non-plastic, micacaous 1 1 1
SILTY SAND (SM), yellowis plastic, very micacaous, betw less mica content, lass silt cor
n brown, fine sands, non- een 45 -49' brown colored.itent
T '^
T" 1
,;:::
FBORING TERMINATED AT 51'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 101279
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 5'
[s] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ 0200SIEVE SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f O.O02 mm
HRjBR^J
i k
2 r
NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 2B SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.14
DEPTH IN
FEET 0 1
10
-
20
30
40
5O
en
70
SO
1 SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION i 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE
S
S
S
S
jS_
_s_
S
J_
S
S
S
S
43
24
14
13
1
26
37
28
49
112
55
89
66
V
*,
DENSITY/ CONSISTENCY
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEU 5'
\S\ STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
|T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £
SOIL TYPE
SAND (SP-SM), brown, fin* to medium, micaceous withshall f ragments
SILTY SAND (SM), brown to grayish brown, fine sands, non-plastic, mica
PERCENT PASSING | | | ,
20 40 60 SO
non-plastic, locally having mica content
m 4
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine sands, occasional medium
BORING E BORING TERMINATED AT SO'
LLED: 10-11-79 r V- * PROJECTMrojBR^J
n
k
NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 3A SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.15
DEPTH | SAMPLE TVP£
IN 1cecT PENETRATION DENSITY/ FEET 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
-
««*»
40
50
AA
70
80
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
22
18
10
7
1
2O
22
22
29
41
55
48
47
V
^
SAND (SP-SM), light brown, shall fragments
SILTY SAND (SM), brown to poorly graded, non-plastic, m
SILTY SAND (SM), yellow b locally heavy mica content
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, f micaceous
SOIL TYPE
> grayish brown, fina sands.cacaous
rown. fine sands, non-plastic,
PERCENT PASSING | | . 1
20 40
....
>,- TL
ine sands, non-plastic,
BORING TERMINATED AT 50*
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 10-11-79
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 5'
[i] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE SAMPLE
(Tj TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ O.OO2 mm
i t
tO M
i
{
NO.: 79-163
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 3B SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.16
DEPTH IN
FEET0 1
10
-20
30
40
50
60
80
r»
T
T
T
T
T
T
T.
T
T_
T
: SAMPLE TYPE
ENETRATION RESISTANCE MOISTURE
13
10
1
15
23
29
32
31
38
76
T
DENSITY/ CONSISTENCY
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'
fs"| STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
[f] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
SOIL TYPE
SAND (SP-SM), brown to dark brown, fine , sands, non-plastic, mica, some shell fragments
non-plastic, micaceous
mica content, non-plastic, occasional silt pockets I
f
[
micaceous
BORING TERMINATED AT 47'
LLED: 10-1079 ,-._.. .-. -^PROJECT
PERCENT PASSING
<r
l"i
v
20 40 60
A L.
k--
MO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
80
i
1
t
i 1
79-153
o.ooamm LOG OF BORING NO. 4A
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.17
DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE
IM'"_ PENETRATION DENSITY/
PCtI ,, RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY0 M-« i " -
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
S
s
S
s
^_
s
s
s
s
s
23
17
1
.22
35
44
64
79
60
97
V
*%
SAND (SP-SM(, brown, fin* « hell fragments
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish b nonplastic, micaceous
BOH. TYPE
nds, nonplastic, micaceous.
SILTY SAND (SM), yellowish brown, fina sands, nonplastic.heavy mica content
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, f
PERCENT PASSING I | - 1
20 40
............flr 1 1P fl !fL..x_._. .. -i
BORING TERMINATED AT 46'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 101079 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'[i] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ 020OSIEVE
SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ O.OO2 mm
nmgwj^............
60 «0
i
_ji
NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 4B SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
9-80 FIGURE A.18
FRICTI6N RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
1.5
0
CONE
RE
SIST
flNC
E, TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I6N
R
RT
I8
. %
.00
3
-00
6
.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.
79
-15
3
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-1
F
IGU
RE
A.1
9
FRICTION RESISTRNCE.
TSF
1.5
0
CGNE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
75
150
225
300
§b.oo
FRICTION RflTIO
, X
3.0
0
6.0
0
o o in.
LU
O.
I- in
.
UJ
Q
o
o o
o «
LO.
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-2
F
IGU
RE
A.2
0
FRICTI0N RESISTRNCE.
TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
RT
I8
, %
3.0
0
6.0
0§
3.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-3
F
IGU
RE
A.2
1
DEPTH IN FEET75.00 60.00 45.00 30.0015.00
o oz mTJ rnz rn H DO O 5 m H mDOH m
CO
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.0015.00
FRICTI0N RE
SIST
RNCE
, TS
F
o3
o1.
5
C9NE RESISTRNCE,
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I0N
R
RT
I0
. 7.
.00
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-5
F
IGU
RE
A.2
3
FRIC
TION
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
o3
o
1.5
C0NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
75
150
225
FR
ICT
I6N
R
RT
I8
. X.
30
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CPT
-SPT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-4
FIG
UR
E A
.24
o3
o
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
C0NE
RE
SIST
flNC
E, TS
F
75
150
225
FRICTIQN Rf
lTIQ
.
7.
300
a.3.0
06.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79
-153
US
GS
CPT
-SPT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TRO
ME
TER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
FB
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-7
P
IQU
A!
A.8
8
75.0060.00DEPTH IN FEET
45.00 30.00
mTJm
m m31H
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.0015.00
COz20 3)H
o3
o
FRICTION RE
SIST
flNC
E, TS
F
1.5
0
C6NE RE
SIST
flNC
E. TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
flTIO
3-0
06
.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F6
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-9
__
__
_P
IPU
BE
A.2
7
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
RNCE
, TSF
1.5
0
C0NE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IO
.00
3-0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-1
0 F
IGU
RE
A.2
8
FRIC
TION
RESISTflNCE, TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE RE
SIST
flNC
E. TSF
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
flTIO
,
%
§3
.00
3
-00
6
.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-
SP
T
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
S8-
C-1
1 F
IGU
RE
A.2
9
FRICTI0N RESISTANCE, TS
F
1.5
0
C0NE
RESISTANCE, TS
F
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
I0
. %
.00
3
.00
6
.00
o
o LO
.
LU LU
Q
O o O.
CO O
O
LO.
r-
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79
-153
USG
SCPT
-SPT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TRO
ME
TER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F8C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
S8-
C-1
2 P
tOU
RE
A.3
0
o3
o
FRIC
TI8N
RESISTflNCE. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE RESISTflNCE. TSF
75
150
225
300
FRICTI6N RR
TI8
. %
§3.0
0 3.
00
6.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79
-1 S
3
US
GS
CPT
-SPT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T;
FB
CK
-230
S
OU
ND
ING
; S
S-C
-13
ffQ
UR
E A
.31
FRIC
TI6N
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
1.5
0
CONE
RESISTflNCE. TSF
75
150
225
300
FRICTION RR
TIO
. %
§3.00
3.00
6.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-1
4 P
IOU
RE
A.3
2
FRIC
TI8N RE
SIST
ANCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTANCE.
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
flTIO
.
'/.
.00
3
.00
6
..0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SS
-C-1
5 F
IGU
RE
A.3
3
DEPTH p SAMPLE TYPE
e»r PENETRATION DENSITY/ FEET 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
20
3O
40
en __
70
80
J_
S
s"s"
s
s
s s"
s
s
*vIT
s
s
s
13
7
13
8
16
IB
14
33
18
27
44
19
31
43
40
^r
«,
SON. TYPE
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, fine sands, non-plastic
PERCENT PASSING | , | . 1
20 40 SO
SILTY SAND (SM-ML), brown, fin*, non-plactfc ^
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, Ic trace of clay
tt .>w plasticity, wood chips,
SILTY SAND (SP-SM), brown, fin* to coarse
F--SAND (SP-SM), gray, medium to coarse sands
SAND (SP), gray, coarse sands, trace of fin* gravels
GRAVELLY SAND (SP). gray, coarse sands, flna gravels
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
SANDY SILT (SM-ML), brown, low plasticity, occasional fin* sands
CLAY (CH). gray, high plasti
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), gra^
city
SILTY CLAY (CL-CH), high plasticity
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-779 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20'[i] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE
SAMPLE
[r] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f 0.002mm
60'
i \ PROJECT
["fijCR^
i\
\
i\.
----- --I -
NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
SO
\
1
79-163
LOG OF BORING NO. 1 SAUNAS SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.34
DEPTH | SAMPLE TYPE
IN_ " PENETRATION DENSITY/ P6fcr t , RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
-
20
30
50
60
80
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T"
T
6
6
IK
6
9
12
10
12
11
12
15
7
14
16
V
«,
ELEVATION: DATE DRI
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 20'
fs"| STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
|T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
PERCEti 1 1-
SOM. TYPE 2O 4O
SILTY SANO (SM). brown, tine sends, non-pleetic
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, f
SILTY SAND (SM-ML), brow micaceous
...........
I"""-ne sands LL .........
n. fine sends, non-ptaetic, 11M.... -- iE .-t --~SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine sands
SAND (SP & SP-SM), brown to gray, medium to coarse sands
GRAVELLY SAND (SP). gray, coarse sands, fine gravels ...........
CLAY (CH). gray, high plasticity ._-..-._...
CLAYEY SILT (ML-CL). bro medium sands
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasti
wn, low plasticity, trace of ._-...._...
CLAYEY SAND (SO, gray, coarse sands, low plasticity
SILTY CLAY (CL-CH), gray, chips and roots
high plasticity, some wood
BORING TERMINATED AT 62'
LLED: 11-6 & 7-79
#2OO SIEVE
0.002 mm
t N PROJECT NO.:
^^^^^* USGS CRT-
IT PASSING I |
0 SO
|
79-153
SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 2 SAUNAS SITE
9.80 FIGUREA.35
DEPTH r SAMPLE TYPE
'" PENETRATION DENSITY/ rtcl 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
20
30
40
70
80
S
s
S
S
S
_S_
S
S
~s~
s
s
9
8
15
18
19
24
25
25
20
19
18
V
«.
SANDY SILT -SILTY SAND ( plastic, micaceous
SOIL TYPE
SM-ML). brown, fine, non-
t
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine, non-plattk
SILTY SAND (SM-ML), brow some fine sands
rn. trace of low plastic fines, with
PERCENT PASSING 1 | '
20 40
rITSAND (SP-SM), brown, medium, trace of non-plastic silts
SAND (SP), gray, medium to coarse sands
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), gray, coarse sands, fine gravels
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
CLAYEY SILT (ML-CL), brown, low plasticity, some fine M"d« ________________________________________
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
SILTY SAND (SM-ML) & CL sands, low to medium plastic
CLAY (CL-CH), gray, mediur leaves and wood chips
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-8-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20
[si STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVESAMPLE
[7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f 0.002mm
AYEY SAND (SC). gray, coerse ty
n to high plasticity, some
60'
f ^^ \ PROJECT
T
- -
t i
I C
o to
NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 3
SAUNAS SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.36
DEPTH 1 «M«« TYPE
'* PENETRATION DENSITY/ *" T 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
20
50
70
80
T
T
T
T
T
T MBB
T
T
2_
T
T
T
4
4
7
6
7
7
11
13
12
8 .
19
28
V .
«.
SOIL TYPE
SANDY SIUT (SM-ML), brown, low plwtlelty, tr*o» of fin*sands
SILTY SAND (SM) & SAND 1 medium sands, micaceous
SAND (SP), gray, coarse sand poorly graded
PERCENT PASSING | t . . 1
20 40
I..........
| -4 £...f SILT (SM-ML), brown, fine to W~ ' r ~ ~ ~
LL.....J.....
ff
s, occasional medium sands.
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
CLAYEY SILT (ML), brown, fine sands
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasti
low plasticity, traca of
city
1
n ^CLAYEY SANO (SO, gray, medium sands 1
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasti laavas
i
BORING TERMINATED AT 60'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-8-79
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 20'
[¥] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE SAMPLE
[?] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ 0.002mm
60 90
I ki
1
] E
NO.: 79-163
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 4
SAUNAS SITE
9-80 FIGURE A. 37
DEPTH I" SAMPLE TYPE
«er PENETRATION DENSITY/ FEET f | RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
-
20
-
40
ftfk ,_.,
70
80
S
s
8
IT
s
s
T
s
_s_
A
s
s
13
6
IS
9
21
26
29
45
27
22
9
27
V
*.
SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT tow plasticity
SANDY SILT (SM-ML). brow sands
SAND (SP-SM), brown, fin* t
SAND (SP), brown to gray, rr fina gravels
SON. TYPE
(SM-ML), brown, fin* sands.
i
»n. low plasticity, trace of fin* CT " "
Fo medium, non-plastic
tedium to coerse, occasional
GRAVELLY SAND (SP). gray, coarse, sands, fine gravels
CLAY (CH), grey, high plasticity
CLAYEY SILT (ML), brown,
CLAY (CH). grey, high plasti
CLAYEY SAND (SO, grey, c
CLAY (CH), gray, high plestii
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-9-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20'Hs] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE
SAMPLE
[r] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ 0.002mm
low plasticity, micaceous
city - - - -i
.oerse sands ~
:ity
60' - - - -
[ "RjGW^J
esl.B.B.Bi US
PERCENT PASSING H | | |
20 40 «0 M
i k
1
79-163
GS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 5 SAUNAS SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.38
DEPTH f "AMPLE TYPE
recr PENETRATION DENSITY/ PEfcT 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
0 "-*- i '
1O
20
30
40
50
70
80
T
IHMI*
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
!»
T
T
T
4
4
6
7
14
10
12
16
13
17
18
6
14
24
V
«.
8ILTY SANO (SM). brown, fi of none to tow plastic tilt (ML
SAND (SP & SP-SM), brown i sands, occasional fine gravels
CLAY (CL-CH), gray, mediun sands
SILT (ML), gray, low plastich
PERCEN1 | H-
80H. TYPE 20 4O
n* sands, non-plastic finct, tone.) at 2'-6' ............
.......
|...,,...
o gray, medium to coarse ._....__....
n to high plasticity, some fine
........in
y, uniform TT" - -
SAND (SP), gray, fine to medium
CLAY (CH), gray, high plastic
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-9 a 12-79
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 20'
[i] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ 0.002mm
:ity .___..___...
60' .__...___...
i v PROJECT NO.:
MRiGRI^
^^^^^^ USGS CPT-S
r PASSING | |
to so
.
1
I
i
79-153
PT
LOG OF BORING NO. 6 SAUNAS SITE
g.00 FIGURE A.39
DEPTH I 8AMM TYPE
e«r PENETRATION DENSITY/ F"T 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCYo -*-* «
10
-
*%t\ _______
M
30
40
70
80
S^
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
~s~
7
4
7
11
16
9
18
19
33
24
32
28
23
T
^
SI LTV SANO (SM), brown, fl micaceous, occasional, silt poi
SILTY SAND (SM). gray. fin« sands, non-plastic
SAND (SP & SP-SM). gray, fit some coarse sands and fine gr
CLAY (CD gray, medium to
CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray, f plastic fines
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasti at 64' -65'
SOU. TYPE
*et*
PERCENT PASSING | | | ,
20 40 SO SO
' P!
iIE Lr
i to medium,occasional coarse f i
.>e to medium, non-plastic, k velsat31.0'-36.5' FT
high plasticity
ine to medium sands, low
city, lens of low plastic silt (ML)
BORING TERMINATED AT 65'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-12-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20[s] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ *2OO SIEVE
SAMPLE
(T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ O.OO2 mm
i s PROJECT
H^Bg^
i
i
I--"---'
'
i
1i
NO.: 79-163
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 7 SALINASSITE
9-80 FIGURE A. 40
DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE
e«T PENETRATION DENSITY/ *""' , RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
20
40
50
60
70
80
T
T
T
T_
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T"
3
5
3
6
11
10
12
6
13
17
12
5
14
V
+,
ON. TYK
SILTY SANO (SM), brown, fina, uniform, non-plastic, mica
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, f plastic
SAND (SP), light brown to gr plastic
GRAVELLY SAND (SP) & S coarse sands, fine gravels
;. '
na to madlum sands, non-
ay, fina to medium, non-
|AND (SP-SM). gray, fina to k
tCLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
CLAYEY SAND (SC). grey, f ne to coarse, low plastic fines
CLAY (CH), gray, high plasticity
BORING TERMINATED AT 60'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-1 3-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/a» ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20'[T] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON 02OOSIEVE
SAMPLE
[f] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f O.O02 mm
i \ PROJECT f
HQJGR^J
PERCENT PASSING I | "
20 40
i k
i1 -----------
:;::::::::::i...h....
0 00
JO.: 79-163
USGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 8 SAUNAS SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.41
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
o o noi __o Z * m g -D o m
8m
m m30
? H * m
DEPTH IN FEET
o-i >-+CD
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
30.0015.000.00
oim-o rnZ
m m
m
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.0015.00
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
O
o ozmTJm
m30
m23
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.00
FRICTION RESISTRNCE,
TSF
1.5
0
C8NE RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
RT
I8
. %
.00
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
ML
-C-4
F
IOU
Rt
A.4
8
FRIC
TI0N
RESISTflNCE. TSF
1.5
0
C6NE
RESISTflNCE. TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
flTIO
,
7.
§3.0
0
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
79-1
53
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
FS
CK
-230
SO
UN
DIN
G:
ML
-C-5
P
IOU
RC
A.4
6
FRIC
TION
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
o3
o1.5
C0NE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
FRICTI0N RRTI6
. %
§0.00
3.00
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.70-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
ML
-C*
FIG
UR
E A
.47
FRICTI8N RESISTRNCE,
TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RESISTflNCE. TS
F
75
150
225
300
FRIC
TI8N
RRTI8
. 7.
§3.00
3.00
6.
00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
WL
-C-7
P
lOU
ftl
A.4
*
FRICTI0N RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I6N
R
flT
ia
, 7.
§3
.00
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:70-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
ML
-C-8
F
IGU
RE
A.4
9
o3
o
FRICTI8N RESISTRNCE.
TSF
1 .5
0
CONE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IQ
. 7.
cb. 0
0
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79-1
53
USG
S C
PT-S
in'
CO
NE
PE
NE
TRO
ME
TER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:F
15C
KE
-070A
8O
UN
D|N
O:
ML
-C-9
F
IGU
RE
A.5
0
DEPTH IN
FEET 0
10
-
30
40
.50
-
-
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ | RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
s
s
s-'
s
s
s
s
s
T
s
s
s
s
¥^
s
T
ITT"
13
0
0
20
22
65
42
54
13
6
49
5
18*
9
95
24,
23
31
5
V
\
ELEVATION: DATE DRI
EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 5'
[sT| STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON -^ SAMPLE
[r] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE m
OIL TYPE
SAND (SP), brown, tend to medium sands, uniform
SILTY CLAY (CL). dark 0r«V, medium plasticity l
SAND (SP & SP-SM). light brown, fina to medium sand, occasional coarsa sand, nonplastlc. occasionaly with silt
SILTY CLAY (CL). dark gray, medium plasticity
predominantly coarse sands, occasional shall fragments
SANDY SILT SILTY SAND (SP-SM), dark gray, fine sends.
of silt
PERCENT PASSING | | . . 1
20 40
...........
* -
:,:::::,:::p::::3::
CLAY & SAND (CL & SP), interbedded zone, predominantly clay materials, dark gray silty clay low PI, dark gray sand.fine to coarse
SILTY SAND (SM-ML). dark gray silty sand, occasional mica^occasional shell fragments ____________________________SILTY CLAY (CL), dark gray, medium plasticity, shell frag. j
--JsL. .-__, k-
SILTY SAND (SP), dark gray, fine to coarse send, uniform, fjf
clay pockets with low plasticity
SILTY CLAY (CL), dark pray, medium plasticity.occasional sand pockets, occasional shell fragments
BORING TERMINATED AT 60'
_LLED: 11-13-79 ..-.--_ ,....,,- PROJECT
Mfijeijo
O
to so
1
1
^
NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 1 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.51
DEPTH IN
FEET0 i
10
<M
20
30
40
50
70
80
i SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION ( | RESISTANCE MOISTURE
"T"
T
T
T
T
T
"r~
T
T"
T
6
t«
27
25
4
31
55
12
17
10
V
\
DENSITY/ CONSISTENCY
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'
fs"| STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
SOIL TYPE
SAND (SP), light brown, sand, fin* to medium
PERCENT PASSING | ,____, , 1
20 40
r1
SAND (SP-SM), light brown sand, medium coarse, some layers of fines, totdark gray, fine sand, some clay lanses,occasional shall fragments
CLAY & SAND (CL-SP), interbedded zona, dark gray, finemedium sand, occasional shell fragments, clay layers at 35.5' and 37.5'
SAND (SP), dark gray fine to coarse sand, shell fragments, gravel layer at 47.5'
SILTY CLAY (CD, dark gray, medium plasticity
SILTY SAND (SP & SM), dark gray, fine to medium, trace fines, low plasticity, occasional shell fragments, occasionalthin clay layers
BORING TERMINATED AT 56'
LLED: 11-14-79 f , N PROJECTrlftiBg^J
1 1
60 60
NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 2
MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.52
DEPTH | 'SAMPLE TYPE
>«T PENETRATION DENSITY/ F"T 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
*
10
30
7O
8O
S
_s_
s
sni
S
S
T
s
s"s"
s
11
10
44
24
33
3
158
23
20
38
21
V
«.
SON. TYPE
S AN D (SP) , brown, fine to medium tend, clean
CLAY (CD, dark gray clay, medium plasticity
SAND (SP), light brown, fine to coarse sand, to dark gray fine sand, uniform mica
SILTY CLAY (CD, dark gray, medium plasticity | |SILTY SAND & SAND (SP-S uniform dark gray sand at 26
M), dark gray silty sand, fine A , fine to coarse L|_ _
CLAYEY SANDY SILT (SM-ML), dark gray, low plasticity jSANDY SILT (SM-ML). dark
CLAY & SAND (CL & SP). Interbedded zone, occasional sandpockets
SILTY CLAY (CL)
SAND (SP-SM), fine to coarse, shell fragments
SILTY CLAY (CL) with mica, medium elasticity
SAND & SILTY SAND (SM), shall fragments, vertically int» fine, trace of low plasticity f i
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-13-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'[s] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ #200 SIEVE
SAMPLE [7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ O.O02 mm
Idark gray sand, fine, medium I
nes ^
T
^ |
/ \ PROJECT NO.
rfucit^ a^a^a^a^B y
PERCENT PASSING | | | |
20 40 SO-SO
:::::::::,
4 i
A
: 79-153
SGS CPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 3 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.53
DEPTH IN
FEET0
J
10
«
M
M
60
70
80
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ t j RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
T
T"
T^
T
"T"
~T~
T
T
1O
12
12
26
19
58
18
15
11
V
«.
ELEVATION: DATE DPI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'[il STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^
SAMPLE
[7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £
on. TYPESAND (SP), brown, fin* sand, uniform mica
CLAY (CL), dark gray, madium plasticity
gravals at 17', to dark gray sand, fina, uniform ( \
CLAY (CL)
SAND (SP), dark gray, fina to madium sands, occasionalcoarse sand, some shall fragments
wCLAY (CL & SP), intarbaddad zona, dark gray clay, madium plasticity, sand, fine to coarse
SILTY CLAY (CL), dark graySAND & SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, fina to medium sand,
silt clay pocket, gravel layer at 48.5'
BORING TERMINATED AT 56'
_ .___LLED: 11-14-79 f"""Vr \pnojccr r<
MRjcm^
PERCENT PASSING | J___H . 1
20 40 «0
f 1
tO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
0
79-153
0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 4
MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.54
DEPTH IN
FEET0
10
30
40
60
80
| SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ { , RESISTANCE. MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
_T_
T
JT_
jr_
T
T
T
T
11
43
12
30
44
68
21
17
50
V
\
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'fs] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON A
SAMPLE
|Tj TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £
Oft. TYPE
SAND <SP). Hgrn brown aand. fin* to madtum eand, tmiform
i '
CLAY (CL). dark gray, medium plasticity
SAND (SP). light brown, firm to coarsa sand, soma firm gravels, layer of dark gray sand, uniform fine at 21'
CLAY (CL)
SAND (SP). light gray, fine to coarsa sand fl
_|1
CLAY & SAND (CL & SP), interbedded zone, dark gray silty ciay, medium plasticity; dark gray sand, fina to coarse
SAND (SP), light gray, fina to coarse sand, some fine gravel and shell fragments
CLAY (CL). gray sandy silty clay, low plasticity
BORING TERMINATED AT 55'
_ ii-< i-LLED:1 1-1 5-79 J.M."- >PnOJCCTI>
Mugn^
PERCENT PASSING | II
20 40 SO
!-
tO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
so
70-163
0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 5 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.55
DEPTH IN
FEET
10
-
20
40
50
ftA
70
80
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ i J i RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
T
T
T
T
T
_J_
T
T
11
S
28
9
41
34
14
22
7
V
«,
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'
[si STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ SAMPLE
[7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
OH. TYPE
SAND (SP), brown, fin* to medium «md
content
SAND (SP-SM), light brown, fine to coarse tend, some finegravels, layer of dark gray, fine sands at 20*
,CLAY (CD 1
CLAY & SAND (CL & SP), predominantly sand with thin X clay layers |
SAND (SP-SM), gray sand, fine to medium
CLAY & SAND (CL & SP). inter bedded zone, dark gray silty clay, medium plasticity; dark gray sand, medium to
SAND (SM), light gray sands, fine to coarse, occasionalsilty clay pockets, some shell fragments, gravels, dark gray fine sand with shell fragments
SILTY CLAY (CL-CH), dark gray, medium plasticity
BORING TERMINATED AT 57'
LLED: 11-14 79 r >pnoJccTKMraBRi^
PERCENT PASSING | | l 1
20 40 «
M k
f"
iO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
1 SO
79-153
o-oo2 """ LOG OF BORING NO. 6 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGUREA.56
DEPTH IN
FEET0
10
20
30
nn
70
80
t
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION RESISTANCE MOISTURE
22
25
23
57
31
90
36
28
69
V_
«.
DENSITY/ CONSISTENCY
ELEVATION: DATE DR» EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5'[s] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ u~^ SAMPLE
[]F] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
PERCEN | 1_
I
Oft. TYPE 10 40
SAND (SP), light brown, sand, fina to medium, uniform
CLAY (CL), dark gray, clay, medium plasticity
.
II
CLAY & SAND (CL-SP). interbedded zona; dark gray ............ silty clay, medium plasticity, dark gray sand medium tocoarse, some shall fragments ............
SAND (SP & SP-SM), dark gray, fine to coarse sand, finegravels, some shell fragments, occasional clay pockets
BORING TERMINATED AT 55' ._._..__....
LLED: 11-15.79 f «-. NPROJCCTNO.. MRjggJjM
ff^ ...... ^^ USGSCPT-S
T PASSING
o to
.............79-153
JPT
0002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 7 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.S7
DEPTH IN
FEET0 f-
10
20
-
40
50
60
70
80
| SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
S
S
j^
S
S
~s~
S
S
S
12
21
30
13
60'
82
29
24
77
V
SAND (SP). light brown sand
SOIL TYPE
fine to medium
CLAY (CD, dark gray clay, medium plasticity
SAND (SP), light brown, fine to coarse sand, soma f gravels; change to dark gray, fine to coarse sand, pre dominantly coarse sand; change to light gray, fine to sand, occasional shell fragments
CLAY & SANO (CL-SP), interbedded zone; dark gra clay, medium plasticity, dark gray sand, medium to some shell fragments
SAND (SP & SM), light gray, fine to coarse sand, sor fragments to dark gray sand, fine, occasional silty cli pocket, to light gray sand, fine with shell fragments
BORING TERMINATED AT 55'
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11 -15-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 5.fsl STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ *200 S«EVB " SAMPLE
[f] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f O.OO2 mm
HRjcwo
PERCENT PASSING
20 4O 60 80
ne
medium
y silty coarse.
ne shellIV
2 L
|-i »--
PROJECT NO.:
USGSCPT-SPT
79-163
LOG OF BORING NO. 8 MOSS LANDING SITE
9-80 FIGURE A.58
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.00
mZ m H 33 O
mH m33
m
15.00
75.0060.00DEPTH IN FEET
45.00 30.0015.000-&0
O 30 O '
G>
o o
o
3D-I
O
CD * OO
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
o3
o1
.50
C0NE RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
I8N
R
flTI0
.
X
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.
79
153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SB
-C-3
F
IGU
RE
A.6
0
FRICTI0N RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RESlSTflNCE, TS
F
75
150
225
FRICTION RRTI6
. X
300
So.oo
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
,79-1
53
USG
SCPT
-SPT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F6
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SB
-CM
FIG
UR
E A
.61
FRICTION RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
CONE RESISTflNCE. TS
F
75
150
225
300
FRICTION RRTI8
, 7.
§3.0
0 3.
00
6.00
o
o in.
^
LU
L
UO
.
LU
O
o
o o.
CO o
o
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:
USG
S C
PT-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
MS
CK
E-0
70«O
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-1
79-1
53
A.8
2
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.0015.00
O O 2m
M mi - I i p m
s 52
75.0060.00DEPTH IN FEET
45.00 30.0015.00
FRIC
TION
RESISTflNCE, TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTflNCE, TSF
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
flT
IO
. 7.
§3
.00
3
.00
6
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79-1
63
US
GS
CP
T-S
ft
CO
NE
PE
NE
TRO
ME
TER
TE
ST
f
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F6
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-3
P
jtf&
tlE
A.6
4
FRICTI0N RESISTRNCE.
TSF
1.5
0
C0NE RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
FRICTION RflTIO
. 7.
Sb.OO
3*00
6.0
0
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-4
F
lOU
RE
A.6
6
FRIC
TI8N
RESISTRNCE,
TSF
1.5
0
CONE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
ISO
225
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IO
300
SO
.00
o o ID
.
bjo
.
l-w
.
bJ
Q
o
o o,
CO o
o to.
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79
-153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-6
P
lOU
RE
A.6
6
FRIC
TION
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
C0NE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
I0
. %
3.0
0
6.0
0cb
.OO
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79
153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-7
F
IGU
RE
A.6
7
FRICTieN RESISTRNCE.
TSF
C8NE
RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
75
ISO
225
30
0
FR
ICT
I8N
R
flT
ie
§3
,00
3
.00
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T.
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-9
F
IGU
RE
A.6
8
FRICTI8N RESISTRNCE.
T8F
C8NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. T8
F
75
150
225
300
FRICTI8N RR
TI8
. %
§3.00
3.00
6.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79
153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-1
0
FIG
UR
E A
.69
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
6.0.00 45.00 30.0015.000.00
c z oz oo z6
O Ozm T3m2 m
mH m3D
H m
c(AO(A O
75.0060.00DEPTH IN FEET
45.00 30.00O.ftO
oH i iCD
FRICTI8N RE
SIST
RNCE
, TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
FRIC
TI8N
RRTI8
, %
300
SO.00
3.00
6.00
CONE PENETROMETER TEST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-1
3
FIG
UR
E A
.71
FRICTI8N RE
SIST
ANCE
. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
I8N
R
RT
I8
. %
3.0
0
6.0
0§
3.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.79 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CN
-C-1
4
FIG
UR
E A
.72
FRICTI0N RESISTRNCE, TS
F
LO
1 -5
0
C0NE
RESISTRNCE, TSF
75
150
225
300FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
I0
, %
)0
3.0
0
6.0
0
PR
OF
ILE
S R
EP
RE
SE
NT
AV
ER
AG
E A
ND
+ O
NE
ST
AN
DA
RD
DE
VIA
TIO
N.
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79
-153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
PR
OF
ILE
AV
ER
AG
E
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
SO
UN
DIN
G:
SA
N J
OS
EC
N F
IGU
RE
A.7
3
FRIC
TIBN
RE
SIST
RNCE
, TS
F
o3
o
C0NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
75
150
225
FRIC
TION
RRTI8
. 7.
30
0ftft
cfl.O
O3
.00
o
o ID
.
UJo.
LU
o
o o,
CO o
o
ID.
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79
-153
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-1
F
IGU
RE
A.7
4
FRIC
TI8N
RESISTflNCE. TS
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
F
75
ISO
225
FRICTI0N Rf
lTIQ
.
'/.
30
0rt
rt
cO. 0
03.0
06.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-2
F
IGU
RE
A.7
5
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.00 - 15.00
OO m2 mZ m
mH m3D
H mCO
cGOO GOo 3GO
5
75.00DEPTH IN FEET
60.00 45.00 30.00 15-00
FRIC
TI8N
RESISTflNCE, TSF
C0NE
RESISTflNCE. TSF
75
ISO
225
300
FRICTI8N RflTIS.
, 7.
3.00
6.00
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.
79
15
3
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-4
F
IGU
RE
A.7
7
FRIC
TI0N
RE
SIST
flNC
E. TS
FC8
NE RESISTflNCE. TSF
75
150
225
FRIC
TI0N
Rf
lTie
.
7.
300
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.7
9 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-5
F
IGU
RE
A.7
8
FRIC
TI8N
RE
SIST
flNC
E, TS
F
1-5
0
C0NE RE
SIST
flNC
E* TSF
75
150
225
FR
ICT
I0N
R
fiT
I0
. 7.
300
cO.O
O3..00
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:79 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-6
F
IGU
RE
A.7
9
o3
o
FRIC
TION
RESISTRNCE.
TSF
1.5
0
CONE RESISTRNCE.
TSF
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IO
.00
3
.00
6.0
0
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-7
F
IGU
RE
A.8
0
FRICTI8N RE
SIST
RNCE
. T5
F
1.5
0
C8NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TS
F
75
150
225
FRIC
TI8N
RR
TI8
. %
6.0
0
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79
-15
3
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5C
K-2
30
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-8
F
IGU
RE
A.8
1
FRICTIBN RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
C8NE
RE
SIST
RNCE
. TSF
75
150
225
300
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IO
3.0
0§
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
F5
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-9
F
IGU
RE
A.8
2
FRIC
TieN
RESISTflNCE. TSF
CBNE RE
SIST
flNC
E, TS
F
75
150
225
30
0
FR
ICT
ION
R
RT
IO
. X
3.0
06
.00
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
9 1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
TE
ST
INS
TR
UM
EN
T:
FS
CK
-23
0
SO
UN
DIN
G:
CS
-C-1
0
FIG
UR
E A
.83
DEPTH IN
FEETo
10
-
20
30
70
80
| SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ | RESISTANCE ( MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
s
T
s
s
s 1~
s
s
s
s
s "s~
s
s
s
V
s
T
s
s
6
10
22
20
24
12
15
14
14
47
46
30
44
73
33
39
21
32
23
25
V
ELEVATION: DATE ORI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEU 20-
FS] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^" SAMPLf
[f] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE |
SOIL TYPE
SANDY SILT (ML) & SILTY SAND (SM). brown, uniform.
dark brown
SILTY SAND (SP-SM). dark brown, fine to coarse, nonplastic. ( some fine gravels
SILTY CLAY (CL). light brown, medium plasticity, some
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine sands, uniform, mica
sands, wet
SILTY SAND (SP-SM), dirk brown with dark gray from 35' to 41'. fine to coarse sands, fine gravels with a layer of sandy
SANDY GRAVEL (GP). brown, fine to medium gravels.medium to coarse sands
SILTY CLAY (CL), brown, medium plesticity, occasional
SILTY SAND - SANDY SILT (SM-ML), brown, fine sands, uniform, nonplastic
BORING TERMINATED AT 61*
LLED: 11-16-79 f v PROJECThmGR^J
PERCENT PASSING
20
1
1
|
I....
...
40 60 80
I"'
V
1
----!»
ir--
A
-k
NO.: 79-153
USGSCPT-SPT
> o.ommm LOG OF BORING NO. 1
SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
9-80 FIGURE A.84
DEPTH IN
FEET
0 f-
10
20
30
KA
70
80
| SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ , RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
T
T
T_
T_
T
T
T
"T"
T
T
IK
1
6
7
11
24
23
26
26
29
20
17
V
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20-f?j STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ w SAMPLE
frj TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE (
SOIL TYPE
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, uniform, fine sands, non-plastic
SILTY CLAY (CL), dark brown, medium plasticity
t kSILTY SAND (SM), brown, uniform fine sands
SAND (SP-SM), brown to dark brown, fine to medium sands.
SANDY G RAVEL (GP), dark brown to dark grey, fine to
SILTY CLAY (CL), brown, medium plasticity, occasional fine sands
4
-
SJLTY SAND - SANDY SILT (SM-ML), brown, uniform. f|n«
BORING TERMINATED AT 61*
LLED: n-i/-/» ( »» ^PROJECT*
PERCENT PASSING
20 40 60
Ti1
^
i k
-I-....
80
4
4O.: 79-163
USGSCPT-SPT
o.oo2mm LOG OF BORING NO. 2 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
9-80 FIGURE A.8S
DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE
-'_ PENETRATION DENSITY/ee " . RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY0 L-i-1 ' ' '
10
20
30
nr>
60
70
SO
S
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
11
27
19
54
55
38
59
101
45
V
SANDY SILT (ML) & SILTY non-plastic
SILTY CLAY (CL). brown, m sands
SOIL TYPE
SAND (SM), brown, fine lands
edium plasticity, some fine
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine sands, non-plastic
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dart sands, fine gravels
SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dark fine to coarse sands
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-17-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASHWATER LEVEL: 20* t
fsl STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ *200 SIEVE *-* SAMPLE
[f| TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ 0.002mm
PERCENT PASSING | | 1
20 40
......... ---I- ------
c brown, medium to coarse I
45'
\
.
/ \ PROJECT
HRjog^J
60 80
1
MO.: 79-153
USGSCPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 3 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
940 FIGURE A.86
DEPTH I SAMPLE TYPE
IN I _ " PENETRATION DENSITY/ 1-661 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCYo L.LJ i i i
10
20
30
-
40
50
80
T_
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
2
1*
8
23
34
39
36
19
36
9
V
SOIL TYPE
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, fine sands, uniform non-plastic
SILTY CLAY (CL), brown, m
SILTY SAND (SM), brown tc graded, some medium sands a
1
> dark brown, fine sands, poorlyt 26' . . _,
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dark brown, fine to coarse sands, fine gravels
SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dark gravels, fine to coarse sands
gray to dark brown, fine
BORING TERMINATED AT 45
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-15-79 EQUIPMENT USED: 9 7/9" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: W [si STAND ARO HAMMER SPLIT SPOON A #20O SIEVE1 1 SAMPLE
[f] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE £ 0.002mm
1
_
^^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^v u
PERCENT PASSING 1 1 1 I
20 4O 60 SO
SGSCPT-SPT
1
79-163
LOG OF BORING NO. 4 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
9-80 FIGURE A.87
DEPTH p SAMPLE TYPE
ccer PENETRATION DENSITY/ F" T | RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
10
20
-
40
fin
70
80
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
4
2
1
1
11
15
10
31
30
38
46
19
13
T
SANDY SILT (ML) & SILTY uniform, non-plastic
CLAYEY SANDY SILT (ML) plasticity, fine sands
SILTY SAND (SM). brown w fine sands, trace of low plastic
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dar coarse sands, fine gravels to 1
GRAVELLY SAND-SANDY
SOIL TYPE
SAND (SM), brown, fin».
. brown with gray mottled, low
: fines
'size
GRAVEL (SP-GP). dark graymedium to coarse sands, fine gravels.
SILTY CLAY (CL). brown, nr trace of fine sands
BORING TERMINATED AT
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-20-79 EQUIPMENT USED*. 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: 20 [51 STAND AMD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ *2OO SIEVEv-1 SAMPLE
[7] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f O.OO2 mm
tedium to high plasticity.
1
.
57'
/ <t PROJECT »>
MbjBR^M
PERCENT PASSING
20 40 60 80
3K
it------
==
tO.:
USGSCPT-SPT
--- --ii-
79-1 S3
LOG OF BORING NO. 6 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
9-80 FIGURE A.88
DEPTH ( SAMPLE TYPE
IN !CCCT PENETRATION DENSITY/*" ttr 1 RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCYo L-L-^ '
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
S
S
S
S
S
S
"s~
S
IT
S
S
S
7
6
0
1H
16
8
18
11
82
38
46
53
V
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, f medium sands
PERCE | t
SOIL TYPE 20 4(
ine sands, non-plastic occasional
:,::::::::CLAYEY SANDY SILT (ML), brown to gray, low plasticity ......--.. fine sands, occasional medium sands
SILTY SAND (SM), gray, fini plastic fines above 20'
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), da to coarse sands, fina gravels tc
GRAVELLY SAND-SANDY coarse sands, fine gravels
BORING TERMINATED AT
»
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED; 11-2179 EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: *& [i] STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON A f 200 SIEVE
SAMPLE
|T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f 0.003 mm
rk brown to dark gray, medium»1"size ..........
A
GRAVEL (SP-GP), dark gray.
44.6' ..........
'»
-
hmoR^ ^^^^^* USGSCPT
NT PASSING 1 ,
) 60 80
ft
I
79-153
SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 8 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH
9-80 FIGURE A.89
DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE
ecer PENETRATION DENSITY/ pttl , RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCYo. -2-1 ' ' '
10
20
30 -
4Q
_
50
*
80
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
"s~
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
7
8
4
0
0
13
33
50
12
11
58
96
55
54
69
16
25
33
23
V
SILTY SAND (SM), dark bro* PI fines at 8'
CLAYEY SILT (ML), dark br fine sands
SOIL TYPE
nin, fine, uniform, trace af low
own, low plasticity, trace of
SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY SILT (ML), dark brown fine, nonplastic
SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dark medium to coarse sands
brown, fine to medium gravels
CLAYEY SILT (ML-CL). brown, low plasticity
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dar to medium gravels
k brown, coarse sands, fine
<
SAND (SP-SM). dark gray, fine, occasional fine gravels ^
SANDY GRAVEL (GP). dark coarse sands
SILTY CLAY (CL), brown, m fine sands.
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 6O*
ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED: 11-19-79 EQUIPMENT USED: S 7/8" ROT ARY WASH WATER LEVEL: ***f?| STANDARD HAMMfR SPLIT SPOON A f2OOSIEVE -1 SAMPLI :ii _
[?] TRIP HAMMfR SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 0 0.002mm
PERCENT PASSING | | . I
20 40 ::f
iyTfl
iiii
i
1
1
O- -------
._......
60 80
i
...... _
1
\.
NO.: 79-163
USGSCPT-SPT
LOG OF BORING NO. 1 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE SOUTH
9-80 FIGURE A.9O
DEPTH IN
FEET_
10
20
-
4O
.
60
m
80
r SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
T
T
T~
T
T
T
T
T
0
9
21
23
7
25
33
43
18
V
ELEVATION: DATE DRI EQUIPMENT USED: 5 7/8" ROTARY WASH WATER LEVEL: ir
LH **>ANO ARO HAMME R SPLIT SPOON *
1 QTI«P HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE (
SOIL TYPE
SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, non-plastic, fine sands
SILT (ML), brown with fine sands, low PI, color change to
SILTY SAND (SM). dark brown, fine, nonplastic
SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dark brown to dark gray, fine tomedium gravel, medium to coarse sands
CLAYEY SILT (ML-CL), brown, low plasticity
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dark grayish brown, medium tocoarse sands, fin* gravels
SAND (SP), dark gray, uniform fine to medium sands
SANDY G RAVEL (GP & GP-SP). dark grayish brown todark gray, fine to medium gravels, medium to coarse sand
BORING TERMINATED AT 46'V
-
,
LLED: 11-19-79 f p. % PROJECT N
PERCENT PASSING I I I |
20 40 60 80
;
O.:
USGSCPT-SPT
A
79-153
I o.oo2mm LOG OF BORING NO. 2 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE SOUTH
9-80 FIGURE A.91
DEPTH IN
FEET
0
10
20
30
40
RA
aft
70
80
1 SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T
"s~
s
T
s
s
T
s
6
6
43
54
14
100
62
77
V
ELEVATION: DATE DRIEQUIPMENT USED: ft 7/8" ROTARY WASH
WATER LEVEL: 18*
[¥1 STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON ^ U- ' SAMPLE
[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE (
SOIL TYPE
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, uniform, fine sands, non-plasticsilt
CLAYEY SILT (ML & ML-CL), dark brown, low plasticity, trace of fine sands
SILTY CLAY (CL), dark gray, medium plasticitySAND (SP), dark grayish brown, fine to coarse sands, , I some fine gravels 'SANDY GRAVEL - GRAVELLY SAND (SP-GP), dark gray, medium to coarse sands, fine to medium gravels
SILTY CLAY (CL), dark grayish brown, trace of fine sands.
SANDY GRAVEL (SP). dark brown, fine to medium gravels medium to coarse sands
SAND (SP- SM), dark grayish brown, fine uniform 4 1
SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dark greyish brown, fine to medium .gravels, medium to coarse sands
BORING TERMINATED AT 45'
<
.
LLED: 11-19-79 r"r """ 1 PROJECT *
PERCENT PASSING | . . . 1
20
:......
....,,1
40 60
10.:
USGSCPT-SPT
80
i k
.....|_
A\.
i
79153
> 0.002 mm LOG OF BORING NO. 7 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE SOUTH
9-80 FIGURE A.92
DEPTH IN
FEET 0
JO
20
30
40
50
6O
70
80
| SAMPLE TYPE
PENETRATION DENSITY/ j RESISTANCE MOISTURE CONSISTENCY
T_
T
T
T_
T
T
T
T
4
4
26
15
12
37
27
40
T
ELEVATION: DATE DRIEQUIPMENT USED: 6 7/»" ROT A^V WASH
WATER LEVEL: ta
rsi STANDARD HAMMER SPLIT SPOON & ^ * SAMPLE[T] TRIP HAMMER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE f
SOIL TYPE
SANDY SILT (ML), brown, fine sands, non-plastic
o0-
CLAYEY SILT (ML), dark brown, low plasticity, trace of
SILTY CLAY (CD, dark gray, medium plasticity
SANDY SILTY SAND (SP-SM), dark brown, fine to medium
n ^
SILTY CLAY (CD, brown, low plasticity, occasional finesands
SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, fine sands, trace of low PI fines
GRAVELLY SAND (SP), dark brown, fine to medium Ol" gravels, medium to coarse sands
SAND (SP-SM). dark grayish brown, fine to medium
SANDY G RAVEL (GP). dark brown, fin* to medium gravels, . . . Jmedium to coarse sends
BORING TERMINATED AT 45' '--"
<
LLED: 11-20-79 r~r: \PROJECTNO.: l-ftiORO 1
HUH
PERCENT PASSING H , . . I
20 40 60 80
GSCPT-SFT
1
79-1 S3
> o.ooa mm LOG OF BORING NO. 8 SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE SOUTH
9-80 FIGURE A.93
APPENDIX B
0.2 4 6
o , 1 1 1
10 -
20 -
30 -
LU LU U.
z
a.LU Q 40 -
50 -
60 -
70 -
0.25 0.25 O
o 0.36 °'35 0.36 a35 0
0.30 0.30 0
0.33 0.33 O
0.36 0.36 0
0.4O ' 0.4O0
0.46 0.46 O
0.49 0.49 0
0.5O o soo
0.49 0.49 0
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBE RS ON POINTS REPRESENT F RICTION RATIO, %
8 10 - 12
1 1
SP-SM
0.4S <
SM
SM
.^
-'
SM
r~ \PHOJECTNO.: 79-163
LJUHJIHB JLJSGS CPT-SPT
SAftDIEGOSITE: N AS NORTH ISLAND VN VS DEPTH BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-8O FIGURE B.I
1
« 2 4 6
0 -
10 -
20
H ^ ~~1LI1LI U_
z
tUJ0 40
50 -
60 -
I 11
1.65
0
1.32 1.32o
1.59 1.690
1.13 1.13O
1.00 1.00o
ft 10 12I 1
V
1.55
SM&ML
SM
0.86 0.86
o i
0.81 0.81O
*% O3.42 Q.67O A
3.42
> SP, SP-SM
« SP0.67 QL
ML
CL
2.56 2.56 0 SC&SP
CL
70
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
/ - NPROJbCT NO.: 79-lb3
rj^^^^^M
V^HIH USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITEQc/N VS DEPTH BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.2
£ 1
£
I 3
0 2 * *
0 -
10 -
20 -
UJ UL
z
UJ
50 -
60 -
70 -
1 I 1
8 to taI I
0.80 SP Qjo
0 ATie'
CL
0.54
O
0.70 0.70 O
0.54
SP,SP-SM
CL
0.72 O
°J2 SP, SP-SM
CL&SP
0.59
O
0.81 Q.81 0
CL
0.59
SM
CL
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
»-*
f""^ "' " "" "\ PROJECT NO.: /9-1b3r"l^[OW^MUHlliHI USGS CPT-SPT
MOSS LANDING SITE qc/R VS DEPTH BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.3
0 2 4 6
0 -
10 -
20 -
h- 3°UJ UJu_z
iUJ
0 40 -
50 ~
60 -
1 1 1
2.69
3.19 A 3.19
o
- " |V$v. ''^ ' "' ' f '
1 '
2.69
A
ML
SM
A
o ° 83 1.O5 1.O5
A 0.83
SM
CL
0.51 A
0.66 O
«.
0.55 0
A 0.45
0.50 0
0.51A
0.66 SP
) 0.45 SP n
A
°J° SP
CL
70 -
SOUTH NORTH
O STANDARD A
TRIP A
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
f "'^.'" ""~^ PROJECT NO.: /9-1b3
MB^HB USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH AND SOUTH
qc/R VS DEPTH BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.4
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by
.Che
cked
by
.App
rove
d by
z c Z CD m a W O z o
O z V) 3)
m o 3)
m
(/)
m Z g m
O
O
2X
3 H
X
DE
PT
H I
N F
EE
T
* -
$ I
w
b I
P
p
g
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by
.Che
cked
by
. App
rove
d b
y
^
I-
<
z
m 33
.O 2
DE
PTH
IN
FE
ET
I ?
a
I
0
10-
20-
H 30-01 01u_zIa. 01 O
40
50-
60-
0.96 0.76
0.67
0.58
0.54^
° 0 0.44 « 0.56
1 32 00.70
1.69 0.87 ° 6°*
00.79
1.40
0.78
1.62
* 0.53
0.88 0 °- 72
* 1.92 0 1.01 £
1.6 1 '22 1 '30
1.17 . 0°" W 01.22
1.62 2.38 0 0 .93 0.84
1.69 0
03.08
1 1 1 1 0246
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
"
0.58
0.52
|0.55
0.81
0.97
I I 8 10 1 2
HlHi'^^^LsCPT-SPT
79-153
MOSS LANDING SITE qc/NVS DEPTH
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE B.7
o-
ID-
20
l_ 30 HI01UL
zIH-QuHI
° 40-
50-
60-
70 "I 1 1 I"
1.81 1.26
^ 3.87 *
4.17 2.72 **3'21 1i37
3.14 1.80
* 2ff 217 0.82
6.24
5.83 1.86
2.34 1.39
0.56 3.98 0.49
0.44 0.93 2' 19 *
* * 0.740.78
0.68
2.36 0.48
0.42 A
2.54^B ^^
°13 00.751.41 . 1.33 *
4.89 075
* °i° 0.69 *^ °-39 0.44
* 0.64 *?0.48 * y .45
1.58 0.49
0.45
2.34 1.23 *
3.30 6-1 5*
2.53 3.75
3.21 05.40
4.11 3.04
0246
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
0.49
0.25
0.61<
0.43
0.43
AT 13.9> >
I I 8 10 12
|-puoiio ] PROJECT Na: 79-153
MHBM1 USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
Qc/N VS DEPTHSTANDARD HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.8
0
10-
20-
H30- UJ UJu_Z
1 UJ Q
40-
50-
60-
0.29
0.240.27 ^
0.26 . 0.29
0.34
0.46 °'30 «£ 0.39 0
^0.55
0.28
0.58 <0.32 .* 0-19
* 0.20 0.16 *
0.18 ^0.19
0.28 _ 0.31 0.27
0-39 o.36
0.46^
^0.30
_ 0.39
0.47 0.50
0.51
0.46 «. 0.53
0.53 0.53
0.48* 0.50
0.46 "J4
f ?
1 1 \ 1 0246
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
^ 0.52
18.8 »
AT 0.40
I i 8 10 12
f r- 1 PROEJCT NO.:LTJJOg^M
79-153
USGSCPT-SPT
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLANDqc/N VS DEPTHTRIPHAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.9
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d b
y
DE
PTH
IN
FE
ET
m 3
°
to O Z o 0 i H
to X m o
..,
3
Mm W m z
H n
3
O O Z
*
21 ^ H 0
#
JO "y«o CD O
H §
co
3D ^ >
"^
<
ZCO
sT
O
CO
p
m
com
H
H
33
i
m
n 5 C m
CD o
o 3
0 m
O H
C
Z(/
) O
o
:-
0 do a H
ID Ul u
00
o-
1 1
1 II
1
^ -* > §
^* nM
">
«b7*
2
_ n
P
»
§£
+j &
^ ^
M
^P
K
*
S09
09
03
±
(O
«
.5
^
!
, '
«5 8
P o*g
.°*i!
b
* ^2
* S
"
b
A >
l -»
p -^ s
i
?
p
=
.-?§
§ s
o
,':
*i
s
g
P
a«
W
"
209
w
^
^j
S
^3
^
s u
P
«w
10 -
20 -
30 -
111 LU
I
a. Ill D 40
50
60
1.030.96
0.68
0.47
1.14
0.62
0.75 0.73 0.74 A
0.62
0.47
0.52
0.53
0.63
0.45
AT 24.18
2.28
2.26
0.63
0.85
0.74
1.S41.21
1.01
0.58 0.54
1.03
0.60
1.41 1.29
0.78
0.711.20 1.03
0.79
1.072.15
I
10 12
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
-fJJOROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
9-80
MOSS LANDING SITE
Qc/N VS DEPTH
TRIPHAMMERFIGURE B.11
o-
10-
20 -
. 30 UJUlu.zIQ.Ul
0 40-
50-
60-
70-
2.37 2.70 3.60
v2.83 2.16 w
" 1.45
.
1.81
1.98
2.47
1-£0 0.95 1
2.83
3-^2 ,.50
0.62
0.49 *^ _ _ .
\ 0.91J" °?0.59
n *7ftW 0.97A A
* « 0"68 0.680.40
1.630
2
2.55
A.70 0.78 » °^1
0.41 0.390 0
3.032.94
6.18
2.94 7.99
1 I 10246
qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
V
0.49 i. 170.54 ^
* 0.50
Q Tfl 0.30 i? 0.4 100
.60 0.59
°'50 °^1 0.50 '
* 0.49 i 02
°-55 < 0.82 0.66
«f>,O.OA
0.38 0.52
* 0.39
1 1
AT 15.55
)* __J^^-
AT21.70
) *
)
AT 16.24
) >
AT14.68
>
8 10 12
f a """"") PROJECT NO.: 79-153
LT^2S^^
HflHIB USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
qc/N VS DEPTHTRIPHAMMER
980 FIGURE B.12
120
100 -
80 -
I-
D O
-I CDUJO <DC UJ
60 -
40 -
20 -
0.46 O
cP0.49
0.49
0.50 O
.0.49
0.38 O 0.50
0.33 O
0.25 °
0.30 O
0.36 0.36o o
0.45
0.38
Q0.36
0.33
0.30
0.35
0.36
0.25
0.36
0.45
10 12
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
PROJECT NO.:
USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN DIEGO_SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND qc/N VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.13
70
60 H
50 -
40 -
D O'
CO LU
3ocLU
30
20 -
10 -
3.40 O
3.40
0.810.86 O
O
2.56O
1.00 O
1.13 O
0.67 O
2.56
1.55 O
0.81
0.86
1.59 O
1.13 I'00
0.67
1.32 O
1.59
.1321.55
10 12
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
|-fLlCROPROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
_SALINASSITE qc/N VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.14
70 -
60 -
50 -
IZ
H Z 40 -D O
iCO
AVERAGEg 1
20 -
10 -
0 -
0.59
O
0.70
O
0.81
O 0.72O
0.59
* 0.54
° 0.70
0.72 0.81 *^
I I
V
0.80
O
0.54
0.80<
AT 16
I I
)-*
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Qc/N
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, % ( ^ ~ \ PHOJbCI NO.: V9
M^UOR^^
UIHIH USGS CPT-SPT
-153
MOSS LANDING SITEqc/N VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.15
120
100 -
80 -
D Oo
Im LLI (D <ccLLI
60 -\
40
20
0.66 O
0.50 O
0.55 0.45 O A
0.51 A
1.05 O
0.50
0.55
1.05
0.51
0.83 A
3.19 O
3.19
2.59
0.51
0.66
2.59 AA
0.83
I
10 12
SOUTH NORTH
O STANDARD £
TRIP A
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITES:COYOTE NORTH AND SOUTH
qc/N VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
980 FIGURE B.16
140 -I m
120 -
100 -
80 -
Z
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
C
N
0.45
0.53
*0.47 00.44
0.54 0 0.43
0.400F
0.46
0.38
0.3900
0.45
0.35 0.28 0 0.19
1.2 0 0.25
0.25 Q.I9 °'21 5-03 0.430m* * 0.19
0.27* 0.23 0. 026
046 0.21 0.31 °' 15 *
0.38 *0 Q
0.32 '
0.58
I I I
) 2 4 6
qc/N
UMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
.
»
° 5;.°"
I I
8 10 12
r J_ "" '"1 PROJECT NO.:
yHIIIHH USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
q c/N VS N STANDARD HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.17
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
2
60 -
40 -
20 ~
0 -
n "7c 0.90 ° * ft .0.58
254 0.44 *0.97 /°-77
' / ,1.47 / /I -57
0.93 0.97 1.03 / / 0077 / / 1-16
0.81 t Q5 ~J-5 2/ / / / 0 2.01
0-92 , 05 o' - 00.73^ * '800.63 0.69 1.09^-^i^k 0.43 ^. ^ 0.43
0.89 _______ AA I- 70 /
1-50 /Tn3.49* 3.0*/ /b.9fj
1.32 1
I
0 2
|0.69 O 42 00.76 A 01.36
2.41 1 -88 2.21
1.60 *14 '-O0 « ,s 112 1 - 2b .36 1 ' 1 ''
1 1
4 6
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, X
1.25
1 39
1.37
1 1
8 10 12
Bliii"'OJECTNUSOSCPT.SPT 79-153
SALINASSITE Qc/N VS N STANDARD HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.18
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
N
n Z
CO 00CO
CO 11 O
O
>5 13 m
86
p-
«01
«0
M
o ^
«
u
AO
p
in
bi
o '(
O
a
J
140 -,
120 _
100 _
80
Z
60 -
40 -
20 ~
0 -
(
0.39
0.60
0.75
0.45
1.58
1.23
0.48
1.33 °-44
0.44 '* 053 * 0. 42 0.49 0.64
0 * ° 45
- 0.18 w 0.47
1.41 A 0.69
0.56 * °i4
0.43
3.30 0.75
2.34 0.49 ^3.21
0.432.53
05.83 3.04 4.11 0 ^
3.150 0.68
2 19 °- 74 '=»
"""" 234 2' 36 1 - 340* 254 *
3 ' 14«* 4.17 * * °«01
398 2P3-212.17 1 01 * A 2.51 * ! 80 l^e
18 3.87 ^
I I I
) 2 4 6
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
0.43
0.25
0.61 AT
.37 .049
4
13.91> "
I I
8 10 12
vLHIHHi USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
qc/NVSN STANDARD HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.20
a
I
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
Z
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
C
0.46
00.53
00.42
_0.55 0.53
00.48
0.54 0 0 0.50
0.51
0.50
0.53 *0.46
0.46 0.39^0.47 Q ^
0.39000.36
^jj8 0.31 °-27 024 0.18^ ^.27 03° 0
°A9 el0.32 0.29 026 00.16 0».^o
* n .«= 0.30 0 29 0.46 *0.28
0.39 0.34
0 0.55
I I I
) 2 4 6
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, X
18 - 8 a4o! >>
I I 18 10 12
Biii^TsCSCPT.SPT
79-153
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
qc/N VSN TRIP HAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.21
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
cn
IE I m
CO
8
u
u
- " §
, g«jg
jl
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d b
y
N
120 -
100 -
80 -
z
60 -
40 -
2O -
0.58
0.74
0.71
0.63*
1.21
0.85 o.749 £
0.54A1.64 1.14 0.75 w ) )
1 .031.01 0
0.78 1.41
*. ,q , ~n 1.03 1.07 1 - 29 1 20 ^
2.15 0 228 *
2.26*
1 1 I
0246
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
0.60*
0.730
0.62
0.52
0.47 0.79 A
n A.I ~ °£7 0.52
0.530.95 , i0.631 AT 24.18
1 1
8 10 12
tSSirJTsGSCPT.SPT
79-153
MOSS LANDING SITEqc/N VSN TRIPHAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.23
140 -
120-
100 -
80-
Z
60 -
40 -
20 -
*
0.41 0.39
* 0.38
°-70 o.78 0 , 00*8 4 °J 1 _ 0.50
m 0.66 9 0.41 0
0.50 0^0.30 Q84
0.62 * 0 0.43 0.59
0490.68V49 097 ^ 0.64 1*'02 < 3.03 * 0-50 o 52 06 18 0.55^ AT 1
0.76 2.94 0?3
2.97 255 * * 0 0.59 O68 034
7.99 i 63^ 1 - 17 Tfl f 091 *
8 - 12 283 4 - 08 970 I^S 2.60
*2*37*!2 . 16 0V65 3 - 60 »V 9 2*3 V7 'J0 392 °AT,
° 1 I 1 1 1 1 AT~|
0 2 4 6 8 10 1
Nl
>
15.55
21.70
2
qc/N
JMBERSON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, % / ~ \ PROJECT NO
rjmgRaIJBHBB USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTHQc/N VSN TRIP HAMMER
**0 FIGURES. 24
300
250 -
uT 200
£ < m mOz111111
socUJ
5
150 -
100 _
50 -
0.49 0.49
0.5000
0.49
0.500.46
I 0.49
0.38 O
0.38
0.36 O
0.33 0 25
0 %0.30
0.36 O
0.33
0.30
0.36
0.25
0.36
0.36 O
0.36
0.45
I 10 12
Qc/N
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND
qc/NVSqc BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.25
a
I
350 -i
300 -
250 -
IT
H
'| 200-ZccHICO
QZHI
S 15° ~CCHI
§
100 -
50 -
0 -
C
*
0.81 0.67 0.81o o
0.67
0.86 0.86o 256O 2.56 0
1.00 1.00o
1.13 1.13
O 1.59 1.59O
1.55 1.32 1.32
O O
3.4000
3.40
I I I
) 2 4 6
qc/N
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
0
1.55
I 8
rfiiaiiokmim
BY9-80
I
10 1 2
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITE
Qc/N VS qc
LAYER AVERAGESFIGURE B.26
300 -
250 -
15" 200 -ZCC
UJ CO0zUJ
S 15° ~ccUJ>
100 -
50 -
o -(
0.59O
*
0.72 O
0.70 o 70
0
«.
O.54 O
0.81 0.810
1 1 1 3246
Qc/N
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
0.59
*
0.72
°1° 0.54 0.80 AT16
I I 8 10 1
) »
2
( j_ \PROJECT NO.:
HflHHH USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
MOSS LANDING SITE
q~c/NVSqc
BY LAYER AVERAGES9-80 FIGURE B.27
a
I
tPA
300 -
250 -
UL en
_» 200-
EUJ CO
QZUJUJo 150 - <CC UJ
<
100 -
50 -
0.50O
0.45 A
~ O.51 0 A
0.55 0.66 O
1.05 1.05o
0.83
A
2.59
A3.19 3.19O
°-1 i i r0246
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO %
0.50
0.45A
0.55 A
0.57 0.66
O.83
A
2.59
A
I I 8 10 12
1N
(~ j \PROJECTNO.: 79
Ljl^££l5£j^
HJHH^H USGS CPT-SPT
-153
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH AND SOUTH
qc/N VSqc9.80 BY LAYER AVERAGES FIGURE B .28
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
qc. T
SF
08
88
88
88
z C
0
CD m 3 O Z o O Z w
to
3 m TJ 3 m
w
m Z H
n 3 O
*
O z_ 3 H 5 *0.
o> -
to
do
o
C/)
Z g
m~H
£5
z
^O
J-3
H^>
v^r
n33
Z
"o <
zI
C/)
^
N^
t/)
1
°33
^
5
^
a
>m
2
P
OK
)1C
E 3 O m O H ZC
0
CO
:.
CO
O CO -o H
(C 01 u
CO
o
""
^,
1 1
1 1
1 1
°
O
n»^w
_
r* °
pop
0
U1
O ^
O
p Q
s«
§;
"O
) ^k
*
^P
f\
oA
ui
A ^
o
A
A O
A
W
s«
«S
.s
" »
6
feo
H
8
2 °
W
o
o
wo
w®
A
.!>
to
<c
""
0
1 P
**
P
00
^ P
00
10
O
10
-
.u
^
o
_.
uCO
tO
0
*00
_
?*
01
_ p
0*
Uto
O
G
)* 0
)
0
oJ2
to
to
350 i
300 -
250 -
200 -
u_
Po
150 -
100 -
50 -
0.97 °^90.46 A 90.90
2.01 0
0 75 ° '16 0 77 * ° 85
1.57 * \ 'i 0.76 0.77_^ 1 0.43
1.03^* 1 05A«0.83 0.42
2 SA "^ **" .^ ^B f\ Tt0 0.920 *°-73
0.970 1.36J^p.6g 1.36 ^^ '^
0.90 0.92_*T43 1 -
1 04 1.19*°5* ^32«1^36 014? ^5
*99 J* At f 1 ' 7 ° 1 - 7-»V41 1-12
093^5?! U 3 00 *1-»
3.49 J0 V|4
0 111
0246
Qc/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
'
1.250
$9
1.37
I I
8 10 1 2
/" - "» . pROJhCI NO.:
MrooRou79-153
^HHBBI USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITEQc/N VS qc
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE B.30
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
. App
rove
d b
y
qc,T
SF
C/) rn
DOrn
o
o 5
v
l 00
p is
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
, TS
F
O Ei*§
*£
z9
oV
D
S
RE
SITE
TH
&S
S
qc
HAM
OU
o
P 2
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
u.
p.CT
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
0.50
0.55
0.48. °-80
0.52
. 0.47
0.54 0.39 0.53
. 0.51
0.46 °"24
0.42 0.27
* 0.53
0.46 0.53
.0.46
0.36
0.31 0.27
0.30 00.19
.0.26
n 4 a
0.18 0 °' 16
0.29
A
0.30
0.39
0.55
1 1 1
0246
PC/N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
28 0.34
0.40 AT 18.8 <
0.58 <
I I
» *
>
8 10 12
HHir^'IGSCPT.SPT
70-153
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLANDQc/N VS qc
TRIPHAMMER9"80 FIGURE B.33
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
qc, T
SF
oS
8glg§8
c o
2 CD m 3 (/> O Z -g O Z H
10
m -q
.3 m m Z H n 3
A
n H 5 z 3 H 5
o 2
o>
«0 o
H
CO33
« ^
^o
r~^~
»*~*
T Z
^
*
*
5^55
m°
H33
m
n O C 3
m CD u *
-o
3 0 t_
m 0 H Zc
o0
0 o CO o
-o H CO -o H
-J ip U1 CJ
00
o
"~
1 I
1 1
1 f
u 5
*
* i
A
S~
r"
SK
)
s
*
-4 b *
-«
->
b
'«
(fl
Ol
^O
* -*
*
io
^bi
"*
*
__t.
^)
b ^^^
O)
Ol -
S
P -
°
"_.
03
*
'*
^
!°-J
O
A
-^
A0>
0
o
"J
u
5
bo
8 £
V
° "
P
8 o
A
CJ
w*"
A
W?
" A
''
^J
J»
b
"*
0
o
'" °
^
»o
>P
-.
*
>
"
" |
0$
§
" -
-
P
«*
^fc
' O
l o
*
^
^^
o t
o
^) bo
^Pw M
_* 9 i
0
_, a P
^M
*00
ro w
- -
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
oggggggS
2 C z0
0) m 3 (A O 2 TJ 0 2 H M
(0
3 m TJ 3 m m 2 H -n 0 O 2 > 6 "
X] 3*
~~(0 do o
^ O SS
LANDING
Qc/N VS
qc TRIPHAM
ME
3
CO H
m n o C m
P
PROJECT
NO.:
US Q CO o H CO «^
o< u
00
o
1 1
1 1
1 1
jiro 01
_>
A
O)
."*
^O
_.
P
*io
*-
* *
^P
^ -M
io
_,
^Jj
O)
ik -
P
'-S
»
-*
_ p
o
_^
.4
-*
__
01
*-J
^B
O
*
°
w
- -
^
p b
S
P
S
o»*
*2
p
_.
w b w
_ o g
S w
p
S
«.
o-1
«
o
10
8 0
P 0
§
p>
w
o
Pjg
yg
w
p01
_
?*
O)
^
jo
u 1
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
O
O
C/)
-°en
m
O"
C
H
Qc,
TSF
.5o
8
8
. g
-.
OH
H
-.
p
->
O
£ s
£ « i i
> o
I<
3.5 -
3.0 -
2.5 -
* 2.0 -0K
OC
g0CC 1.6 - u_
1.0 -
0.5 -
o -
c
«.
£00
O ° o ^ * *
0
I I I) 2 4 6
Qc/N
O STANDARD
TRIP
4 >
I I
8 10 12
UHHH USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND qc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.37
3.5 -,
3.0 -
2.5 -
* 2.0 -g
CC
z goa: 1.5 -u.
1.0 -
0.5 ~
0 -
0*
0
-
0 °
0
o
0
o0
o
I I I0246
q~cO STANDARD
TRIP
/f
^
*
I
8
4
fJJBilO
I10 12
PROJECT NO.: 79 153
USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITEqc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.38
3.5 -
3.0 -
2.5 -
* 2.0 -O
QC
Z 0
ben 1.5 -LL
1.0 -
0.5 -
o -
(
**
0 0 t
0 °
o o
16
II I I) 2 4 6 8 10 12
O STANDARD
TRIP r ... 1 PROJECT NO.: 79
UHl^Hl USGS CPT-SPT
-153
MOSS LANDING SITEqc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
BY LAYER AVERAGES
9'80 FIGURE e.39
a
I
3.5
3.0 -
2.5 -
* 2.0-g
trz goE ' *-
1.0
0.5 -
o -
(
0
A
''
o
A
O
O0 A A
I I I
3246
A
A
AA
I I
8 10 12
qc/N
SOUTH NORTH
O STANDARD A
TRIP A
tSHi'ROJECTNusascPT.sPT 9-153
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH qc/N VS FRICTION RATIO
BY LAYER AVERAGES 9-80 FIGURE e.4o
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
O
.Q
m
2 c
o H
P
-n
rn
X
c/>
rn >
H
30 ^
H
-I.L- > D
r
^ «
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by. C
heck
ed b
yA
ppro
ved
by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
><
cn
2 c
o >
O -
n r-
>
30 ^
s 0 CO
O CO
H
V
\
.
?
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by. C
heck
ed b
yA
ppro
ved
by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
JD a
jQ
,<L
><
CO
2
CO
CO0
-n r
- >
3 >
4.7
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
oq
ajco
£1A
T 4
.1
AT
6
.2
AT
5.
8
AT
5.4
AT
3
.9
AT
4.0
Co
mp
iled
by
Dra
wn
by.
. Ch
ecke
d b
yA
pp
rove
d b
y
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
CO O
>Q
z2
co
m Z
z
Oil CO > D
.* «
'
»j>
«|H
£ 1
iv-
3.0-
2.5-
* 2.0 -
g
OCz opoa: 1.5-u.
1.0 -
0.5 -
i
ou>
0-j
0
* *
I i I246
Qc/N
** * *
** ^
>
I I 8 10 12
f I PROJECT NO.: /»-153MmoM^ HHB USGS CPT-SPT
SAUNAS SITEqc/NVS FRICTION RATIO
TRIPHAMMER
9-80 FIGURE B.46
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
O
-*
-*
IO
K>
CO
t>>
o
in
b
in
b
in
b
ino
ro
v ^
2
~~
MOSS
LANDING
SI"
qc/N VS
FRICTION
R
TRIP
HAMMER
9-80
^ H m
n
0O c m 09 JU -g
3D
O m o
s g
0
P
CO O CO -a H
vl ip U1 u
00
o "
~
-*
1 1
1 1
1 1
^t
:
^i
0A
A
MT> 1
Com
pile
d b
yD
raw
n by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
, %
AT
4.1
IV
>
T3
O
I
0.
I
icn __^_
300 -
250 -
1
AVERAGE END BEARING Sc,cn O 1 1
100 -
50 ~
0 "I T I I I I I
*
0.49
0.46 *
0.49
(3.50
0.38 0 38
6
0.36 0.36
0
0.25 0.330.25
00 0
0.30 0.30
0.36 o.36
0
0.45
-
0.49
0 0.46
0 50 0.49 O
0 °
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
AVERAGE BLOWCOUNT, N
O STANDARD
TRJP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, % ( - " ' 1 PROJECT NO.: 7! ["^LlOlilO |
M53
KJHUH USGS CPT-SPT
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLAND q c VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9 80 FIGURE B.49
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
.Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
AV
ER
AG
E E
ND
BE
AR
ING
9c,
(TS
F)
2
o o
S o
8 8
8 8
z 0
0z
>T>
3)
0
0Z -1 M 3) m
01
3) m m Z
H n 31 0 H
O
0
Z 31
>
H m
° g
*
0 m 00 r-
-«o do o
O CO 21 co
co"^
^i-
E^
^ "
^^
*^*
^^
mco
33 C
O^
> 1
<m
m 33
n
J>
I S
31
COm 09 U
lO
^
^ll
p
jl
P
H'
!L 31 0 m O H
r-
Zc/5
o
0
en O o 00 H
(O U1 u
O
"
0 O c
z H zl
to
_01 to
1 1
1 1
1
*
b
i 01j* CO
VN ^ io
O
-
go
a
t_»
>i
O w
-j
A b
*°
wo
-*
0
*O
b,
o
o01
O
lu N
Q
CO
w w
O^
w
W
0)
^»^
§
M
°g
oS
oSo>
o
O
b
o
^
'"""
" "
"
»-
.,,
..,.,.
,
a
I
te?M
300 -
250 -
u7
ICT0 200 -ZQC
UJ COOZ UJ
AVERAGE 8 1
100 -
50 -
o -
0.59
*
0.72 0.72 0
0.70 0.70
0
0.80 0.80 o °-54
O 0.54
0.81 0.81 0
I I I
0.59
O
I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
AVERAGE BLOWCOUNT, N
O STANDARD
TRIP
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
ffiBi^^lsCPT-SPT
3-153
MOSS LANDING SITEQc VS N BY LAYER AVERAGES
9-80 FIGURE B.51
ODU
300 -
250 -
ITCOH
0ICT ^y,o 20°ZQC
HICOOZHI
g 150 -
QCHI
100 -
50 -
0.5O*
0.50O
0.45 0.45A A
°'5lA 0.55 A 0.550.66
-
*
1.05 1-05 0
0.83 0.83A A
2.59 2.59A A
O3.19 3.19
o - \ I I r
0 20 40 60 80
0.66O
1
100 120
AVERAGE BLOWCOUNT, N
SOUTH NORTH
O STANDARD A
TRIP A
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %"fijORO
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SAN JOSE SITE:COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
QcVSN
9-80
BY LAYER AVERAGES
FIGURE B.52
a
I
350 -i
300 -
250 -
200 -
u_
6CT
150 -
100 -
50 -
o -
0
*
0.390
0.450
°' 19 0.50
0.28 0 3g
*
00.35
0.190 00.30
00.210.15 n ?R
0.26 00 0V "0.25 0o.25
0.19 *0.43
0.23 0.27
0.26 0.25
0.31 1 - 2
0-320 0 021
0.46
0.38
0.58
i/0.270.54
1 1 1
20 40 60
N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO. %
0.44
0.46
0.43 0.45*
a48* 0.54 0
0.38
* 0
0.45 (
1 1
so 100 1:
>
20
HIIHHIH USGS CPT-SPT
79-153
SAN DIEGO SITE: NAS NORTH ISLANDQcVSN
STANDARD HAMMER9-80 FIGURE B.53
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
z 8
-
CO H
> 2
O
CO >
< >
00
00
m 33
QC.TS
Fw
o
PP
P:
o g a
s«0
0
-vl
P
P^
to01
o
a
3
300 -
250 -
200 -
UL
r-
6CT
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -^
*
0.68
0.720.58
0.53 <
0.710.60*
0.58 0.52
0.54 0.56
0.52 00.44 0.81 *
0.55* 1-01
0.76 * 0.700.58 1.32 1.30 °13
1.22* .°" *
0.67 1.22£ £
*-°* 0.78
1.170.96
1.92 1-40
0.97 1.69 1 60 079 ' 2.38
Jp 1.69 ^ 1.62 ^4.7 r
3.08 1.60 ' I I0 20 40 60
N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
<»
0.84
1.62
I80
glu^
0.88
I
158|
100 120
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
MOSS LANDING SITE
QcVSN
STANDARD HAMMER9 80 FIGURE B.55
0.43350 1 '-- - A
300 -
250 -
200 -
u.
H0cr
150 -
100 -
50 -
1.80
419
0.45
0.66
0.49
0.75 0.60
0.45
0.39
O.44
0.75 048
' A 0.42 0.44 V 0.69
0.61
* 0.47
O.49
** 0.53
nm 133 O.2o A
0.78 J. 44 0.82 *
0.74 0.68 0.93
- 1.37J'48» 2.19
0.49 *
1.81 236 3.04 A w 6.15 /
1.260W 375» 583 5 40~ ~^ 4' 17 624^L« 3.21* %3.30 3 8? 9IU °-"*** W -- W ^2.34 ' 2.53 2.34
° "1 2.72 \ 3.93 1 1 0 3.14 20 40 60
N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
1.58
1.23
I I
80 100 1 20
( ^- \ PROJECT NO.: 79-153
SAN JOSE SITE: COYOTE NORTH & SOUTH
qc VSNSTANDARD HAMMER
9 80 FIGURE B.56
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
C/)
2
D
m O H m
qc, T
SF
§-
8-
8g
^
o
o kj
Lt
<O
Vp.0
350 f
300 -
250 -
200 -
U.
H-
6CT
150 -
100 -
50 -1.37 1-511.80 v. i1.45 ^*-
1.70-1.47-1.37
3.33 3.44o -
*
0.72
0.73 °^0.87 W 0.211.42 0.811.47
0.44 ^ _ 0.59 0-84 0.89 0-87- .^0.83 217
0.87^ >X]^^--^' 0.890.78* V*^^*^
1.11 0.97
\.73\& 1.24
.4^* 0.84
~-^ 1.06 101 2.1846 A
*> * m^^***^ 9^.'\6~^t ^Sx"^ 2 43~~* ^^x^- 1 28 1 - 35
?*x ^^ ' 1 - 28 3.09 1 - 16 1.15
4.99 0.97
1.05 ' ! '0 20 40 60
N
NUMBERS ON POINTS REPRESENT FRICTION RATIO, %
!80
"fJJQMO
9-80
!100 120
PROJECT NO.: 79-153
USGS CPT-SPT
SALINASSITE
qc VSNTRIPHAMMER
FIGURE B.58
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by,
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
Qc,
TS
F
o
§ -
m
JJH
m
o
o
oo
.1
o u
s u
P
Com
pile
d by
Dra
wn
by.
. Che
cked
by
App
rove
d by
qC,
TS
F
8S
§ -
m 30
CO > Z c_
O CO m CO O
O H
m Z o 30 CO
O
C/) n -o in -o
8
.
o
3
p ' J
°
/2
00
0
sy-x
x
I o I o (O
I o to
o o I o (O
Csl I o I o
CC
CO I o I o
CD
CO I o I o
to
I o I o (O
t o I a C
O
o ** I o J o (O
FIU
CT
19N
I C
WE
FR
ICTI
BW
! CB
ME
FRIC
TIB
N
CBM
Etf
lTIB
R
E8I
*Tfl
HC
C
RR
T18
KC
8IST
RN
CC
R
RT1
6 «E
£16T
AN
CE
CZ)
I
CT
1F)
tZ)
I C
T8F
) (Z
J I
(T8F
)
FRIC
T19
NI
CTM
E M
TtB
K
E818
TRN
CE
(Z)
I (T
8FJ
FlIC
TlB
Wl
CBN
E FR
1CT1
8N
C8N
ER
RT
ie
KE8
18TR
NC
E R
RT
I6
KE
SI8T
RN
CE
tX)
I tT
8F)
tZ)
I tT
BF
)0
160
300
I 1
0 ISO
300
RfiTlB"
'(Z)
I fTSF)
t 1
0 150
300
IFR1C
TI6
N
C8H
E R
flT
lfl
tZ)
I (T
8F)
FRlC
TIB
NJ
CBM
E IW
TI8
te
E
(Z)
I (T
8FJ
0 IS
O 30
0 t
150
900
_i_
NO
. uBG
Scr
r-sr
r
SAN
DIE
GO
SIT
E C
PT P
RO
FILE
D-S
-1A
S
D-T
-1B
OR
ING
LO
GS
9O-S
-2A
S
D-T
-2B
S
D-S
-3A
S
D-T
-3B
9O-T
-4A
S
D-S
-4B
AV
ER
AG
Eer
r FR
AV
ER
AG
E
BLO
WC
OU
NT
to 30
J; :
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
.ML
TY
AN
D S
AN
DY
CL
AY
(C
D
SA
ND
(S
P-S
M),
bro
wn
» c
tark
b
ne
k,
no
np
twti
cr
mka
oro
ut,
LJ
41
J
16.7
46J
X 100
00
OJ6
0.46
OJO
.26.
0
31-5
tD 17 J
22.5
SJL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M),
0r»
ywh
bro
wn
to
bro
wn
,' ftn*
Mn
dt
0r*d
«nQ
tH
tiw
wtth b
apth
, no
n-
pta
rtk.
mic
aceo
us
in 179.7
300
19
0.7
190.
3
175.
7
OJ6
0.40
0.46
0.46
0.49
O.S
O
S4L
TY
SA
ND
(S
M).
yrt
ow
fer,
bro
wn,
fin
* w
xk,
no
np
iart
k, o
ccas
ion*
! tr
act
of l
ow
p
Urt
idty
fin
as, kx»
l he
avy
mic
a eo
nta
nt,
oc
casi
onal
alh
and
aan
d p
ock
ati.
9BJ
79.6
38-6
201.
70.
49 1J
§13
104.
0
SIL
TY
SA
ND
KM
), b
row
n,
fin
t a
vtd
t.
cca
eio
na
t m
adiu
m a
md
t, n
on
pla
rtic
.
SB
.5
tAN
DY
GR
AV
EL
(O
P, O
IV)
v
I'
"' '
'-
.1*
v ^A
t*-a
J
j M
LT
tML
.CL
.MU
|H
\ M
LT
Y S
AN
D I
tM)
-
1 ...
Cl/.T
EY
SA
ND
(S
O
f
TA
MD
Aft
O H
AM
ME
R
x
T*T
RIP
HA
MM
ER
f ^
' " iP
fKX
IfcC
TM
O.:
T
»»ft
3{"
JR
jOM
Rl^
l
Js
lSI^
B
uscs
cpTr
Srr
SA
N D
IEG
O S
ITE
: N
AS
NO
RTH
IS
LAN
DC
OM
PO
SIT
E S
ITE
Pr^
lLE
|
A_^
wB
j ^j
^^E
jjEjf'
o f CO
CO
rule
new
! CS
NE
mrr
is
RESI
STAN
CEtl
) I
CT
SF
)
4
0 16
0 50
0
O>
O I 0 I CO
C
O
I CJ I
CO
CO
CM I o I C
O
CO
o I CJ
CO
CO
! CT
NE
Firm
s*
CBNE
FR
ICTI
ONw
rrie
RE
SIST
ANCE
err
IB
RESI
STAN
CE
RAT I
BIX
I I
(TS
F)
flJ
I (T
8F
) (Z
)
C8N
E
FR
1CT
I8N
C
8NE
RE
SIS
TA
NC
E
ftflT
lB
RE
SIS
TAN
CE
C
T8F
) (Z
) I
(T8F
)
0 16
0 300
0 IS
O
3003
-^ 1 < _
j f ^> ( 1 y
t
} \t
f V
SA
ND
Y S
ILT
TO
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(M
L-S
M)
<
/ > \
SA
ND
TO
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
P-S
M^
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
D
^>
S
AN
D (
SP
)
J
SIL
TfM
L)^
^
SA
ND
CS
P)
T
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M-M
L)
SIL
TY
CLA
Y (
CL-M
L)
SA
ND
Y C
LA
Y (
CL
)
^
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L)
P S
ILT
Y S
AN
D (
SM
)
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L)
{
to
o I o I CO
CO l C
8NE
RR
Tie
(R
ES
ISTA
NC
E
CZ)
I
(TS
F)
0 16
0 300
PR
OJE
CT
MO
.
SA
UN
AS
SIT
E
CP
TP
RQ
FllE
-1*3
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
SIL
TY
AN
D S
AN
DY
CL
AY
(C
L)
CL
AY
(C
H)
SIL
T (
ML
. C
L-M
L)
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
* .
-
*
SS
-T-8
S
S-T
-*
-
^
" i
:::/
::" '. i I i\
mm
'
* »"
'
v .- ;
v:::
"-v
'-*. '
'
//. %
/ / / te /. / ^ 1-
- - .
-
-"" "
^^^^ ^
1 ::: .- :> / ^^ / / / ? '/
:-!: .'. . '; V-. : ( / /
m*m
/ /
/ /
j : / m / / / ^
& i~'
^-
**
^ .
AV
ER
AG
EC
RT
\ 28
2?'
37
37
48
57
76
90
12
.3
.70
FR
1.5
5
1.3
2
1.5
9
1.6
8
1.1
3
1 . W
0.8
6
0.81
3.4
2
,2.5
6
AV
ER
AG
EB
LOW
CO
UN
T
NS
11.8
6.8
10.0
15
.3
18
.8
22.3
28.0
28
.7
17.0
24.1
NT 3.7
4.7
5
7.3
10.7
10
.2
10.4
11
.9
15
.2
13
.0
18.7
L/C
wV
»nir
1 IV
^iv
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
and S
AN
DY
SIL
T (
ML
),b
row
n,
fine,
no
np
last
ic t
o l
ow
pla
stic
.occ
asi
onal
mic
ace
ou
s.
SA
ND
{S
P &
SP
-SM
), b
row
n t
o g
ray,
me
diu
mto
co
ars
e,
som
e fin
e,
occ
asi
on
al
fine
gra
vels
.nonpla
stic
.
- CL
AY
(C
L),
gra
y, m
ed
ium
pla
sticity,
som
e
sand
s.
SA
ND
Y C
LA
YE
Y S
ILT
(M
L),
bro
wn
, lo
wpla
sticity.
CL
AY
(C
L),
gra
y, l
ow
to
me
diu
m p
lasticity
CLA
YE
Y S
AN
D (
SC
) a
nd
SA
ND
(S
P),
gra
y,-
fine t
o c
oars
e.
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L-C
H),
gra
y, m
ed
ium
to
- h
igh
pla
sticity,
som
e w
ood c
hip
s.
AN
D (
SP
, S
P-S
M)
^VE
L (
GP
,G
W)
ND
(S
C)
RD
HA
MM
ER
MM
ER
f_
_
"'""»
P
RO
JbC
T
NO
.:
I jL
i G
R O
|
fclte^^lttj
1 fS
^iS
TP
T-S
PT
T
78
-15
3
SA
LIN
AS
sU
s -:;
'I/.
CO
MP
OS
ITE
SIT
JK
IBC
lkfc
P
w
i __
±2
2 »
^r.
.GU
RE
2.1
0
AV
ER
AG
E
BLO
WC
OU
NT
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
SA
ND
(S
P>,
lig
ht
bro
wn t
o b
row
n,
fin
e t
o
me
diu
m s
and,
occ
asi
on
al
mic
a.
CL
AY
(C
D,
dark
gra
y, m
ediu
m p
lasticity,
occ
asi
on
al
mic
a.
SA
ND
(S
P &
SP
-SM
), l
ight
bro
wn t
o b
row
n,
fin
e t
o c
oars
e sa
nd,
som
e fin
e g
rave
l, gra
din
g
to d
ark
gra
y, f
ine
san
d, o
cca
sio
na
l sh
ell
fra
gm
en
ts,
som
e m
ica.
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
D,
da
rk g
ray,
mediu
m
pla
stic
ity.
SA
ND
(S
P &
SP
-SM
), d
ark
gra
y, f
ine t
o
coar
se,
som
e silt
y d
ay l
aye
rs,
som
e m
icace
ous
occ
asi
onal
she
ll fr
ag
me
nts
.
CL
AY
& S
AN
D (
CL &
SP
), i
nte
rbe
dd
ed
zo
ne
, dark
gra
y, s
ilty c
lay,
me
diu
m p
lasticity,
me
d
ium
to
coa
rse
sand,
occ
asi
onal
shel
l fr
agm
ents
.
| S
ILT
Y C
LA
Y (
CL
). d
ark
gra
y, m
ed
ium
p
lasticity,
she
ll fr
ag
me
nts
.
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M).
lig
ht
to d
ark
gra
y, f
ine
to c
oars
e sa
nd,
som
e s
he
ll fr
ag
me
nts
, occ
asi
onal sik
y c
lay
pock
et, l
ow
pla
sticity.
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L).
da
rk g
ray,
mediu
m
pla
sticity,
occ
asi
onal
she
ll a
nd
san
d p
ock
ets
.
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
SIL
TY
AN
D S
AN
DY
CL
AY
(C
L)
CL
AY
(C
H)
SIL
T (
ML
. C
L-M
L)
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
UN
IFO
RM
SA
ND
(S
P,
SP
-SM
)
SA
ND
Y G
RA
VE
L <
GP
. G
W)
CL
AY
EY
SA
ND
(S
O
S - S
TA
ND
AR
D H
AM
ME
R
T-T
RIP
HA
MM
ER
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:7
8-1
53
MO
SS
C
OM
PO
SIT
E S
ITE
|p
,FIL
E
9-8
0F
IGU
RE
2.1
3
o I o ! z
o
<N t I O r
o i o i Z
O
LO O I CJ I
o I CJ I
CO o I 0 I Z
O
- CS
Jo
I CJ r z
o
00 I CJ I z
o
FRIC
TIO
N
RA
TIO
m8
4
CONE
FRICTION
RESISTRNCE
RRTIO
(T8F)
0
160 300 8
(2) 4
CONE
FRICTION
RESISTRNCE
RRT18
(TSF)
0 150 300 8
(X) 4
CBNE
RESISTRNCE
fTSF)
0
150 300
FRICTION
RRTI0
mCONE
FRICTION
RESISTRNCE
RRTIO
CT8F)
0 160
300 8
CONE
FRICTION
R£S1STRNCE
RRTIO
(T3F)
0 16
0 30
0 8
C8NE
FRICTION
RESISTRNCE
RHTI8
CT8F
) (t
J
I 150 300 8
4
C8NE
RESISTRNCE
(T8F)
0
160 300 8FRICT18N
RRTIO
CZ) 4
C8NE
RESISTRNCE
(T8F)
0 150
300
O
I
CJ
.I z
o
FRICTION!
CONE
RRT1
8 RESISTRNCE
fZ)
I C
T8F
)
80
160
300
SA
ND
Y S
ILT
(M
L)
AN
D
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
-fit
G F
t a.P
RO
JE
CT
NO
.:7
9-1
63
US
GS
a'T
-SP
T
SA
N J
OS
E S
ITE
: C
OY
O
^ P
RO
FIL
E
9-«0
«TH
FIGURE 2.19
AV
ER
AG
E
8LO
WC
OU
NT
.TY
AN
D S
AN
DY
CL
AY
IC
U
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
SA
ND
Y S
ILT
(M
L)
and
occ
aBio
nai
SIL
TY
S
AN
D I
SM
), b
row
n,
few
ian
d^
un
ifo
rm,
no
np
iait
ic.
occe
eion
al «
nad
it*n
ten
d*.
SU
grttt
y S
ILT
Y S
AN
D (
SP
-SM
). da
rk b
row
n,
fine
to e
oane
, nonpta
ttk,
tom
e fin
e g
rave
b.
SIL
TY
CLA
Y (
CD
and
CL
AY
EY
SA
ND
Y
SIL
T (
ML
), d
ark
bro
wn
to
gra
y, m
ediu
m to
low
pta
rtcrt
y.
tom
e A
nt
andt.
' S
ILT
Y S
AN
D (
SM
), d
wk
bro
wn to g
r»y
fine
»»n
di,
om
e lo
w p
lart
ic t
)r*M
, oc
casi
onal
mic
a.
SA
ND
(S
P)
and
slig
htly
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
P-S
M),
b
row
n t
o d
ark
bro
wn
with
gra
y m
ottle
d,
fine t
o m
ediu
m t
andt. t
orn
* fin*
grav
alt.
GR
AV
EL
LY
SA
ND
(S
P)
and
sft
ghtt
y S
ILT
Y
SA
ND
(S
P-S
M).
dar
k b
row
n t
o d
»rk
gra
y.
fin
e to
co
ane
sand
* an
d f
ine
to m
ediu
m
rav
els,
lay
er o
f aa
nd
y gr
ave!
K5P
).
SA
ND
Y G
RA
VE
L (
GP
). d
ark
bro
wn t
o da
rk
gra
y, 4
ne
to
med
ium
gja
naU
and
fin
* to
eo
arvt
aand
s.
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
D.
bro
wn
, m
ediu
m p
)e«t
icit
y oc
oaet
onal
ftn
eta
nd
i.
1
SIL
T I
ML
. C
L-M
D
IL
TY
SA
MO
iSM
)
SA
AIO
Y Q
PIA
VE
L f
fOP
. O
W)
CLA
YEY
BA
No
t - V
TA
ND
AK
D H
AM
Mf R
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:
,SA
NX
)SE
SIT
E:
CO
C
OM
PO
SIT
E S
ITE
E N
OR
TH
vte
O I O I in o
FRIC
TION
C8NE
CNJO I O I (O o
o i o
.1 CO o
o i o CO o
10 O I o I CO o
CO o t o t CO o
r*
o i o iCO o
CD o I o I CO o.
I o 1 (O o
RHT1
8 RES15TRNCE
IZ)
I ITSF)
8 4
0 150
300
8FRICT19N
C8NE
FRICT1BK
C8KE
FR1CTI8N
CBNE
RHTI8
RES15TRNCE
(II
I (T
ST
J8
4 P
160
300
8
RE
515T
RN
CE
(T
SF
)R
HT1
8 W
ESl
STfl
NC
E
RR
119
(T5
F)
tZJ
I IT
3F1
IZ)
0 15
0 3
00
84'
J60
300
8 4
ff
RE
SlST
flN
CE
(T
SF
)
0 1E
O
300
(TS
F)
0
150
300
8(T
SF
)
0 15
0 3
00
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M-M
LL
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L)
CL
AY
EY
SIL
T (M
L-S
M)
CL
AY
EY
SIL
T (
ML
)
SIL
TY
S
AN
D (S
M)
SIL
TY
C
LA
Y (C
L)
TO
SIL
T (M
L)
_
SA
ND
(S
P)
| C
LA
YE
Y S
ILT
(M
L-C
L)
SA
ND
A
ND
"
GR
AV
EL
S
SA
ND
TO
S
ILT
Y S
AN
D (
SP
-SM
)
SA
ND
Y G
RA
VE
L (
GP
J
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L-M
L)
CL
AY
EY
S
ILT
(M
L)
CL
AY
EY
SIL
O S
ILT
Y C
LA
Y
JJ
(ML
-CL
)
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L-M
L)
CL
AY
EY
SIL
T (M
L)
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
L:M
Ll
PR
OJ
EC
T N
O.:
79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
SA
N J
OS
E S
ITE
: C
ON
£ S
QU
TH
C
PT
PR
OF
IlS
^V
9-80
FIG
UR
E 2
.21
y
60-
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S
CS
-T-2
CS-S
-1
AV
ER
AG
E
CP
T
16.4
11.6
131
246
263.3
31
6
FR
3.1
9
4.2
6
1.0
5
.0.6
6
0.5
5
0.5
0
AV
ER
AG
E
BL
OW
CO
UN
T
NS
6.7
5
13
41
.5
84
.7
58.5
67.0
23.3
23
.0
29.0
34
.0
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
and
SA
ND
Y S
ILT
(M
L),
d
ark
bro
wn
, fi
nd
, u
nif
orm
, no
to
lo
w p
last
ic
fin
es.
CL
AY
EY
SIL
T (
ML
), d
ark
bro
wn
. Jo
w
pla
sti
cit
y,
trac
e fi
ne s
and
.
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M).
dar
k b
row
n,
fine
, no
n-
pla
stic
, so
me
SP
and
GM
.
SIL
TY
GR
AV
EL
LY
SA
ND
(S
M).
dar
k b
row
n
to d
ark
gra
y, m
ediu
m t
o c
oars
e sa
nds,
fin
e to
m
ediu
m g
rave
ls.
SIL
TY
CLA
Y (
CD
and
CL
AY
EY
SIL
T (
ML)
bro
wn
, lo
w t
o m
ediu
m p
last
icity
, tr
ace
fine
sand
s.
GR
AV
ELLY
SA
ND
(S
P).
dark
bro
wn,
me
diu
m to c
oars
e sa
nds,
fin
e t
o m
ediu
m
grav
els.
SA
ND
(S
P-S
M),
da
rk g
ray,
fin
e,
occa
sion
al
fine g
rave
l.
GR
AV
EL
LY
SA
ND
(S
P),
dark
gra
y, c
oars
e fin
e to m
ed
ium
gra
vel.
SIL
TY
CL
AY
(C
D.
bro
wn
, m
ediu
m p
last
icit
y o
ccas
ion
al f
ine
san
ds.
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
SIL
TY
AN
D S
AN
DY
CL
AY
(C
D
CL
AY
(C
H)
SIL
T (
ML
. C
L-M
L)
SIL
TY
SA
ND
(S
M)
O 9
UN
IFO
RM
SA
ND
(S
P,
SA
ND
Y G
RA
VE
L (
GP
. G
W)
CL
AY
EY
SA
ND
(S
O
S - S
TA
ND
AR
D H
AM
ME
R
T- T
RIP
HA
MM
ER
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
7»-1
53
SA
N J
OS
E S
ITE
: C
O
CO
MP
OS
ITE
SIT
SO
UT
H
OF
ILE
9-8
0F
IGU
RE
2.2
2
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
X
FU
GR
O C
ON
E S
OU
ND
ING
S
A
SP
T B
OR
ING
S
O
DE
NN
ISO
N B
OR
ING
S
100
100
200
FE
ET
RE
FE
RE
NC
E F
IGU
RE
1 O
F "
CO
NE
PE
NE
TR
OM
ET
ER
IN
VE
ST
IGA
TIO
NS
OF
TH
E A
RC
AD
IA D
AM
SIT
E,
FU
GR
O.
INC
.. A
UG
US
T 1
980
-flJ
GF
tO
PR
OJE
CT
NO
::
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
OK
LA
HO
MA
'SIT
E
CR
T L
AY
OU
T
79
-15
3
8-8
0F
IGU
RE
2.2
4
v-V-
IC8
NERHTIB
(T8FJ
(Z)
300 250
200
ISO
100
60
l I I l I i
UJ
k. *s g g
C8HE RESI3TRMCC
(T8F)
300 250 200 ISO
100
SO
l t I I l I
FR1CTIBM RHTIC
(Z)
C8HE RESISTRNCC
CTSF
)
8 300 2S
O 200 15
0 100
SO
-J
l l l I l l
FRlCTIiM KHTI8
(Z)
C6HE KE3I3TRNCC
tTSF
)
6 300 2SO 200 150 100 50
i___J__J I I L_
RHTI
B
SIT
E L
AY
OU
T
X C-4
6.0
'1
.5'
1.5'
9.CT
B-5
C
-12
C-1
1C
-9
(Z)
3
U
-
PR
OJE
CT
NO
.:
^,,
US
GS
Gf T
-SP
T
EF
FE
CT
OF
BO
RE
W©
LE O
NS
UB
SE
QU
EN
T A
DJA
CE
NT
ItT
SO
UN
DIN
GS
SA
LIN
AS
SIT
E9,8
0F
IGU
RE
2.2
9
X
.60 50
.
40H
-U
JU
J u.I 0
._U O
30 20 10 0
- _
__
__
__
__
- _
___________________________________________________ ; _
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
- _
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_ - ___________________ ~
- _
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_
II
I 1 II
1 1
1 II
A>
D
0
- 0
^
o
oA
'
A ,
0^
°M
D
A
A^
°
°
0
OA
. .
A
O
O
0A
A
D
a
o o
o
A
A
. .
._
;-.-..
. ..
D
A
A
OA
A
~
O
0
0
,A
A
A
*
A
0°
1 II II
1 II
1 1
1
0
10;
20;
.30
40
: 50
,6
0
70:
80:
90^
'loo'f
J1
0*
ST
AN
DA
RD
SP
T T
RIP
SP
T
:BLO
WC
OU
NT
,N
D
BO
RIN
G I
A'
BO
RIN
G I
B
A
BO
RIN
G 2
A
A
BO
RIN
G 2
8
».,,
:
O
BO
RIN
G 3
A
BO
RIN
G 3
8
O
BO
RIN
G 4
B
' 0
B
OR
ING
4A
'
1
i-_a
1
A
120:
13
0^
' fm.
A
PK
UJb
CI
^iO
.:
79-1
53
flF
: 'S
- ' flJ
U
SG
SC
I^S
PT
CO
MP
OS
ITE
BL
OW
CO
lMry
S D
EP
TH
'S
AN
DIE
GO
SIT
E:
NO
P*H
"lS
LA
ND
'
9-8
0
r F
IGU
RE
3.3
\
0
f
10 20
Ul
LU ~
30
1 LU
O
40
50
60
( T
~
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I.I
V o*
8
-
AA
.
* A
°
09 A
A
D
A
O
0(S
D
A
Q
D
A
^
o
o
A.
o A
o D
(^
D
A
O
* .
»A
° o
A
D
D
A
O
~ ,
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1
) .10
20
30
40
.50
; 60
70
&0
.90
10
G;
110
rBL
OW
CO
UN
T,
N
' ;S
TA
ND
AR
DS
PT
-T
RIP
. S
ET
D
BO
RIN
G 1
BpR
ING
2_
A
BO
RIN
GS
A
B
OR
ING
4
O
BO
RIN
G 5
BO
RIN
G 6
, -
O
BO
RIN
G 7
.BO
RIN
GS
1
-
-
1
12O
13
10
( '"
^.
' »
PR
OJE
CT
N
L4 ti
5f^
-f:4
i£sj
--S
P
I *"
O.:
79-1
53
ISG
S C
PT
-SP
T
CO
MP
OS
ITE
BLO
WC
OU
NT
VS
DE
PT
H
SA
LIN
AS
SIT
E
9-8°
FIG
UR
E 3
.32
u
C
10C
20
"t UJ u. -~
30I H o- U
J D
40 50 60
1 i
i 1 II
1 I
i 1
1
*°
o
DA
-
O
o °
_ D
-
oO
A
n
OA
D
0
o
Do
D
D
D
D
°
*
"A
o
D
^ °A
O
0
D
Yf
°
cP
*
0D
1 1 II
1 1
1 1
1 1
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
BL
OW
CO
UN
T,
N
'ST
AN
DA
RD
SP
T'
TR
IP S
PT
D
BO
RIN
G 1
BO
RIN
G 2
A
BO
RIN
G 3
*
BO
RIN
G 4
O
BO
RIN
G 7
.
BO
RIN
G 5
O
BO
RIN
G 8
4f
r B
OR
ING
6
'
1
- ~ _
O »
~158
1
120
130 (
hfi
iGR
o J
PROJ
ECTN
O.:
79-1
53
R l
"..:
;:.;;'
'-'-':
. '::
-:-'
""^
|
CO
MP
OS
ITE
BL
OW
CO
UN
T V
S D
EP
TH
M
OS
S L
AN
DIN
G S
ITE
9-8
0
FIG
UR
E 3
.33
0 10
[ c
20H
UJ u_ X Q_
UJ °
30 40 50 60 (
s
1 i
i I
i I
! !
i I
I
D
A
A
-
D
J )
D
A
A
"
D
A
A
A
D
D
~
D
a
A
A
*
A
D
A A
A
A
*
°
A
D
D
D
D
D1
1 i
1 \
1 i
1 1
1 1
D 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
,1
00
110
BLO
WC
OU
NT
. N
ST
AN
DA
RD
SP
T T
RIP
SP
T
O
BO
RIN
G 1
BO
RIN
G 2
A
BO
RIN
G 7
A
B
OR
ING
S
1
_ B
1
120
130
ni! B-B
O
_
1 P
RO
Jfc
CI
NU
GR
O J
.;;
:£-. J
tO
-:
*~
79
-15
3
JS
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
MP
OS
ITE
BL
OW
CO
UN
T V
S D
EP
THS
AN
JO
SE
SIT
E:
CO
YO
TE
NO
RT
H
FIG
UR
E 3
.34
40
FR
- 3
.5%
FR
-1.5
%F
R-1
.0%
FR
- 0
.5%
35
30
25
h- 8 »
-I§
15
10
10n
r20
30
"T"
40
~r
50
~T 60
70-
T 80
T"
9010
011
0
r~
12
0
T"
13
0
-1 140
SY
MB
OL
FR
ICT
ION
RA
TIO
0 -
0.7
5
0.7
5-
1.25
1.2
5 -
2.0
2.0
3
.0
> 3
.0
QC.T
SFP
RO
JEC
T N
O.:
jT
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
79
-15
3
CO
MP
OS
ITE
: A
LL
SIT
ES
q
cV
SN
ST
AN
DA
RD
HA
MM
ER
9-8
0F
IGU
RE
3.5
9
»v7
<>
<--
/ -.^
L>
/
0
1 W
f
20
UJ
UJ 1
30o. U
J O
40 50
1 1
1 II
| |
i |
1 |
m
O
A ?
1 A
O
D
A
6 '
D
at o
D0
^
AA
o
QA
A
0
0
A
A
D
A
A
O
D"
A
A
0
A
A
'
°»
0
A
oA
D
^
--.-- .'
D
D
*
D1
-
1 n,
1 1
1 I
1 1
I.I
1
0.
10
20
30
4
0
50
60
7
0
,80
9
0
100
110
BLO
WC
OU
NT
. N
ST
AN
DA
RD
SP
T T
RIP
SP
T
D
BO
RIN
G 1
BO
RIN
G 2
A
BO
RIN
G 3
A
B
OR
ING
4
O
BO
RIN
GS
BO
RIN
G 6
-
1 <v
112
0 13
0
| |~
1
PR
OJE
C-
Bfe
^^Jiil
.
r N
O.:
7
9-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
MP
OS
ITE
BL
OW
CO
UN
T V
S D
EP
TH
SA
N J
OS
E S
ITE
: C
OY
OT
E S
OU
TH
9"8
°
FIG
UR
E 3
.35
1
40
FR
-1.0
%
35
30
FR
- 3
.5%
25
I- O
20
o OQ
15 10
0.5%
1 -
4 |
1 °
10
I S
YM
BO
L
' i
I I II
1 I
T
" 1
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
110
FR
ICT
ION
R
AT
IO
_
yg
p
O -
0.7
6
0.7
6-
1.2
S
"
1.2
5-2
.0
v -
"
2.0
-3.0
>3.0
1 1
12
0
13
0
t _ .
~\ P
RO
JE
CT
NO
.:
Elliiit
eja
O
uses
CPT
-SPT
CO
MP
OS
ITE
: A
LL
SIT
ES
q
cV
SN
T
RIP
HA
MM
ER
9-8
0
414
0 79 1
63
FIG
UR
E 3
.6O
CO
RR
EC
TE
D B
LO
WC
OU
NT
'N«
CO
RR
EC
TE
D B
LO
WC
OU
NT
'C
OR
RE
CT
ED
BLO
WC
OU
NT
'
20 -
40 -
UJ
UJ X a.
ui a60
-
80
-
100
-J
10 I
15
I
20
t
25
0
J
0 20
-
60 -
80
-
100
-
10
_L
15 120
I
25
J
60
-
80
-
100
-
10
I
15 !
20 I
25
I
20 -
40
-
60 -
80
100
-
CO
RR
EC
TE
D B
LO
WC
OU
NT
'N
',
1O
I
15
I
20
I
25 i
CO
RR
EC
TE
D B
LO
WC
OU
NT
'N
30
J
10
15
20
25
20
-
40
-
6O -
80 -
100
-J
0 <
P
I <
3
3
<
PI
<
77
^
PI
< 1
2P
I »
12A
LL P
I
j-fJ
JG
EH
JP
RO
JE
CT
NO
.:
79-1
53
US
GS
CP
T-S
PT
CO
MP
OS
ITE
: A
VE
RA
GE
CO
RR
EC
TE
DB
LO
WC
OU
NT
S V
S P
LA
ST
ICIT
Y I
ND
ICE
SE
DM
ON
D S
ITE
»-8
O
FIG
UR
E 3
.67
