Report No. UT-11.XX

Hyperbolic Model Parameters and Settlement Modeling for the I-15 Reconstruction Project

Prepared For:

Utah Department of Transportation Research and Development Division

Submitted By:

University of UtahCivil & Environmental Engineering

Authored By:

Steven F. BartlettBret N. LingwallEvert C. LawtonMichelle Cline

1

August 31, 2011

2

DISCLAIMER

The authors alone are responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the information,

data, analysis, discussions, recommendations, and conclusions presented herein. The

contents do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, endorsements, or policies of the

Utah Department of Transportation or the US Department of Transportation. The Utah

Department of Transportation makes no representation or warranty of any kind, and

assumes no liability therefore.

3

1. Report No. UT-11.??? 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and SubtitleHyperbolic Model Parameters and Settlement Modeling for the I-15 Reconstruction Project

5. Report Date

AUGUST, 20116. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Steven F. Bartlett, Bret N. Lingwall, Evert C. Lawton, Michelle Cline

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and AddressDepartment of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Utah110 Central Campus Drive, Suite 2000Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

10. Work Unit No. Project Number

11. Contract No. Contract Number

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressUtah Department of TransportationResearch Division4501 South 2700 WestSalt Lake City, Utah 84114-8410

13. Type of Report and Period CoveredResearch from 1999 - 2011

14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project ID Code No.

15. Supplementary NotesPrepared in cooperation with the Utah Department of Transportation or U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

16. AbstractA series of laboratory triaxial tests were performed on specimens of Bonneville clay sampled from sites along I-15 at North and South Temple Streets. The purpose of the triaxial tests was to determine the HNLE properties of Bonneville clays. Triaxial tests were performed drained on the majority of specimens, while undrained tests were performed on several specimens. The triaxial test data were examined to determine the required soil parameters for the HNLE model. The laboratory test results of HNLE parameters for the Bonneville clays were compared with the back calculated values determined from surface settlements during and after I-15 reconstruction. The laboratory and back calculated values of various HNLE model parameters compared very well. A summary of the HNLE model parameters found in this report for the Bonneville clays is presented.

17. Key Wordsembankment settlement, numerical modeling, triaxial testing

18. Distribution StatementUDOT Research Division4501 South 2700 West – Box 148410Salt Lake City, UT 84114

23. Registrant’s Seal

19. Security Classification (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages???

22. Price

4

Page Left Blank Intentionally

5

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................5

Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................7

Table of Tables ....................................................................................................................9

Abstract ..............................................................................................................................10

Introduction ........................................................................................................................11

Background ....................................................................................................................11Purpose ..........................................................................................................................12

The Hyperbolic Constitutive Model for Soils ...................................................................12

Theory ............................................................................................................................13Soil Parameters for Hyperbolic Model ..........................................................................16

Friction Angle ............................................................................................................17

Cohesion Intercept .....................................................................................................17

Poisson’s Ratio ..........................................................................................................17

Initial Tangent Modulus Number and Exponent .......................................................18

Unloading and Reloading Modulus Number .............................................................20

Bulk Modulus Number and Exponent .......................................................................21

Failure Ratio ..............................................................................................................22

Application ....................................................................................................................22Limitations .....................................................................................................................23Advantages ....................................................................................................................23

Bonneville Clays ................................................................................................................24

Site Description .............................................................................................................24Soil Profile .....................................................................................................................24

Triaxial Testing ..................................................................................................................27

Test Apparatus ...............................................................................................................27Procedures ......................................................................................................................31Data Reduction ..............................................................................................................36Triaxial Test Results ......................................................................................................37

Back Calculation from Embankment Settlements .............................................................43

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................54

6

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................55

References ..........................................................................................................................56

Appendix ............................................................................................................................59

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................2

Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................3

Table of Tables ....................................................................................................................3

Abstract ................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................5

Background ......................................................................................................................5Purpose ............................................................................................................................6

The Hyperbolic Constitutive Model for Soils .....................................................................6

Theory ..............................................................................................................................7Soil Parameters for Hyperbolic Model ............................................................................9

Friction Angle ............................................................................................................10Cohesion Intercept .....................................................................................................10Poisson’s Ratio ..........................................................................................................10Initial Tangent Modulus Number and Exponent .......................................................11Unloading and Reloading Modulus Number .............................................................13Bulk Modulus Number and Exponent .......................................................................13Failure Ratio ..............................................................................................................14

Application ....................................................................................................................15Limitations .....................................................................................................................15Advantages ....................................................................................................................16

Bonneville Clays ................................................................................................................16

Soil Profile .....................................................................................................................16Site Description .............................................................................................................17

Triaxial Testing ..................................................................................................................17

Test Apparatus ...............................................................................................................18Procedures ......................................................................................................................20Data Reduction ..............................................................................................................25Triaxial Test Results ......................................................................................................26

Back Calculation from Embankment Settlements .............................................................31

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................35

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................36

References ..........................................................................................................................37

7

Appendix ............................................................................................................................40

8

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – Stress-Strain Curves - After Duncan and Wong (1974) ...................................14Figure 2 - Generalized Nonlinear Stress-Strain Curve ......................................................16Figure 3 - Derivation of Modulus Number and Exponent - From Geo-Slope International (2004) .................................................................................................................................20Figure 4 - South Temple CPT Layering ............................................................................26Figure 5 - GEOCOMP Control Box ..................................................................................28Figure 6 - GEOCOMP Load Frame with Assembled Specimen .......................................29Figure 7 - GEOCOMP FLOWTRACK II Flow Pumps ....................................................31Figure 8 - Cut Shelby tube ready for specimen extraction ................................................32Figure 9 - Bottom of triaxial cell .......................................................................................33Figure 10 - Assembled triaxial cell ....................................................................................34Figure 11 - Flow Line Connections ...................................................................................35Figure 12 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for Upper Bonneville Clays .............................40Figure 13 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for the Interbeds ...............................................41Figure 14 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays .......................41Figure 15 - Bulk Modulus plot for the Upper Bonneville Clays .......................................42Figure 16 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Interbeds ...............................................................42Figure 17 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays ......................................43Figure 18 - 200 South Embankment - From Flint and Bartlett (2005) .............................44Figure 19 - 200 South Settlement Data and Estimates - After Flint and Bartlett (2005) . 46Figure 20 - Existing I-15 Embankment Analysis Comparison ..........................................49Figure 21 - Phase I of Reconstruction Analysis Comparison ............................................50Figure 22 - I-15 Reconstruction Phase II Analysis Comparison .......................................52Figure 23 - Comparison of Measured Data and HNLE Models ........................................53Figure 24 - General Trend of all Initial Tangent Modulus Data ........................................60Figure 25 - General Trend of all Bulk Modulus Data .......................................................61Figure 26 - Comparison of Triaxial Test data to Calibrated HNLE values .......................62Figure 27 - Comparison of Triaxial Test Results to Calibrated HNLE .............................63Figure 28 - North Temple CPT Data .................................................................................64Figure 29 - South Temple CPT Data .................................................................................65Figure 30 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 -14.00 ......................................................................66Figure 31 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.46 ........................................................................67Figure 32 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.48 ........................................................................68Figure 33 - Stress;Strain Plot for B1 17.22 ........................................................................69Figure 34 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 10.2 ..........................................................................70Figure 35 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 13.3 ..........................................................................71Figure 36 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 14.8 ..........................................................................72Figure 37 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.1 ............................................................................73Figure 38 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.315 ........................................................................74Figure 39 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.7 ............................................................................75Figure 40 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.69 ..........................................................................76Figure 41 - Stress:Strain plot for B3 11.56 ........................................................................77Figure 42 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 16.00 ........................................................................78

9

Figure 43 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.260 ......................................................................79Figure 44 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.68 ........................................................................80Figure 45 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 18.532 ......................................................................81Figure 46 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 19.11 ........................................................................82Figure 47 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 6.25 ..........................................................................83Figure 48 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.98 ..........................................................................84Figure 49 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 11.07 ........................................................................85Figure 50 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 13.945 ......................................................................86Figure 51 - Stress:Strain Plot for B6 16.84 ........................................................................87Figure 52 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 17.00 ........................................................................88Figure 53 - SIGMA/W In-Situ Stress Analysis .................................................................89Figure 54 - SIGMA/W Existing Embankment Analysis ...................................................90Figure 55 - SIGMA/W Phase I Analysis ...........................................................................91Figure 56 - SIGMA/W Phase II Anlysis ............................................................................92Figure 1 - Stress:Strain Curves - After Duncan and Wong (1974) .....................................9Figure 2 - Generalized Non-Linear Stress:Strain Curve ....................................................10Figure 3 - Derivation of Modulus Number and Exponent - From Geo-Slope International (2004) .................................................................................................................................13Figure 4 - South Temple CPT Layering ............................................................................19Figure 5 - GEOCOMP Control Box ..................................................................................21Figure 6 - GEOCOMP Load Frame with assmebled Specimen ........................................22Figure 7 - GEOCOMP FLOWTRACK II Flow Pumps ....................................................23Figure 8 - Cut Shelby tube ready for specimen extraction ................................................24Figure 9 - Bottom of triaxial cell .......................................................................................25Figure 10 - Assembled triaxial cell ....................................................................................26Figure 11 - Flow Line Connections ...................................................................................27Figure 12 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for Upper Bonneville Clays .............................31Figure 13 - Inital Tangent Modulus Plot for the Interbeds ................................................32Figure 14 - Inital Tangent Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays ........................32Figure 15 - Bulk Modulus plot for the Upper Bonneville Clays .......................................33Figure 16 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Interbeds ...............................................................33Figure 17 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays ......................................34Figure 18 - 200 South Embankment - From Flint and Bartlett (2005) .............................35Figure 19 - 200 South Settlement Data and Estimates - After Flint and Bartlett (2005) . 36Figure 20 - Existing I-15 Embankment Analysis Comparison ..........................................39Figure 21 - Phase I of Reconstruction Analysis Comparison ............................................40Figure 22 - I-15 Reconstruction Phase II Analysis Comparison .......................................41Figure 23 - General Trend of all Initial Tangent Modulus Data ........................................46Figure 24 - General Trend of all Bulk Modulus Data .......................................................46Figure 25 - Comparison of Triaxial Test data to Calibrated HNLE values .......................47Figure 26 - Comparison of Triaxial Test Results to Calibrated HNLE .............................48Figure 27 - North Temple CPT Data .................................................................................49Figure 28 - South Temple CPT Data .................................................................................50Figure 29 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 -14.00 ......................................................................51Figure 30 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.46 ........................................................................52Figure 31 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.48 ........................................................................53

10

Figure 32 - Stress;Strain Plot for B1 17.22 ........................................................................54Figure 33 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 10.2 ..........................................................................55Figure 34 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 13.3 ..........................................................................56Figure 35 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 14.8 ..........................................................................57Figure 36 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.1 ............................................................................58Figure 37 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.315 ........................................................................59Figure 38 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.7 ............................................................................60Figure 39 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.69 ..........................................................................61Figure 40 - Stress:Strain plot for B3 11.56 ........................................................................62Figure 41 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 16.00 ........................................................................63Figure 42 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.260 ......................................................................64Figure 43 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.68 ........................................................................65Figure 44 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 18.532 ......................................................................66Figure 45 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 19.11 ........................................................................67Figure 46 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 6.25 ..........................................................................68Figure 47 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.98 ..........................................................................69Figure 48 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 11.07 ........................................................................70Figure 49 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 13.945 ......................................................................71Figure 50 - Stress:Strain Plot for B6 16.84 ........................................................................72Figure 51 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 17.00 ........................................................................73Figure 52 - SIGMA/W In-Situ Stress Analysis .................................................................74Figure 53 - SIGMA/W Existing Embankment Analysis ...................................................75Figure 54 - SIGMA/W Phase I Analysis ...........................................................................76Figure 55 - SIGMA/W Phase II Anlysis ............................................................................77

11

Table of Tables

Table 1- Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Summary ....................................................38Table 2 - Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results .......................................................39Table 3 - Typical HNLE Properties for 200S ....................................................................45Table 4 - Calibrated HNLE Properties ..............................................................................45Table 5 - Laboratory Triaxial HNLE Properties ................................................................47Table 6 - Comparison of Triaxial and Back Calculated Parameters .................................47Table 1 - Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Summary ...................................................26Table 2 - Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results .......................................................27Table 3 - Typical HNLE Properties for 200S ....................................................................33Table 4 - Calibrated HNLE Properties ..............................................................................34Table 5 - Laboratory Triaxial HNLE Properties ................................................................34Table 6 - Comparison of Triaxial and Back Calculated Parameters .................................35

12

Abstract

In order to evaluate the determine appropriate foundation stability of accelerated

embankment construction and to predictestimate the subsequent foundation soil

deformationsconsolidation settlement from large embankment construction, the use of

finite element modeling is proposed using nonlinear soil properties. Such a method is

preferred over over traditional limit equilibrium techniques because . Ffinite element

modeling is a type of numerical modeling which can better estimate the model both

theinduced stresses change and deformations of subsurface soils in a more realistic

manner. A numerical model requires an appropriate soil constitutive relationship model

for the soils located mass underneath the future embankment. One of the potentialse soil

constitutive models is the Hyperbolic Non-Linear Elastic (HNLE) model developed by

Duncan et.al (1980). This model includes volumetric changes and their effects on soil

deformations under induced stress. It is a relatively simple, sophisticated constitutive

relationship which includes the stress dependency of both shear and volumetric

deformation in a non-linear framework.

A series of laboratory triaxial tests were performed on specimens of Bonneville clay

sampled from sites along I-15 at North and South Temple Streets. The purpose of the

triaxial tests was to determine the HNLE properties of Bonneville clays. Drained

tTriaxial tests were performed drained on the majority of specimens. The results of these

tests , while undrained tests were performed on several specimens. The triaxial test data

were examined to determine the required soil parameters for the HNLE model.

Lastly, Tthe laboratory test results of HNLE parameters for the Bonneville clays were

compared with the back- calculated values determined from surface settlement

monitorings during and afterfrom the I-15 Rreconstruction Project. The laboratory and

back- calculated values of various HNLE model parameters compared very wellwell. A

summary of the HNLE model parameters found in this report for the Bonneville clays is

presented in addition to the numerical modeling that was done with the applied HNLE

parameters.

13

Introduction

Background

The I-15 Reconstruction Project, completed in 2001 in Salt Lake City, Utah,,

incorporated several innovative embankment and foundation treatments as part of a fast-

paced, 4-year, $1.5 billion design-build project. In many cases, these treatments were

required to facilitate construction over compressible clayey foundation soils present along

much of the alignment. ForemostPrinciple among the clayey foundation soils are the

Bonneville Formation lacustrine deposits (primarily silt and clay with sandy interbeds).

Prefabricated vertical (PV) drains were used in conjunction with surcharge preloading

(i.e., surcharging) at soft soil sites to accelerate primary consolidation settlement and

reduce secondary consolidation settlement. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam was

used as an extremely lightweight fill material in some utility corridors, so as not to trigger

large and damaging settlement to underground lines (Bartlett et.al, 2001). Also, at one

location, lime cement columns (LCCs) were employed to improve the foundation soils of

a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall. Details on these innovative technologies are

presented in other technical reports.

To monitor the performance of foundation soil treatments, various types of

instrumentation were installed at select sites to collect field performance data during and

after construction. Installed instrumentation included horizontal and vertical

inclinometers, magnet extensometers, strain gages, open and closed-ended piezometers,

14

total pressure cells and survey settlement points. These instrument arrays were installed

by the design-build contractor to monitor construction performance and by the UDOT

Research Division to monitor construction and post-construction performance.

Performance has been monitored since construction began in 1998 and continued through

2011 at some locales s today (Bartlett and Farnsworth, 2004). The data from these

instrument arrays have been reported, in part, in various publications and technical

reports. The data from the instrumentation, as well as laboratory soil testing, will bring

insights into innovative accelerated construction methods.

Purpose

The purpose of the research for this report is to determine via, through laboratory testing ,

suitable hyperbolic non-linear elastic (HNLE) model parameters using methods

developed by Duncan and Chang (1977) and Duncan et.al (1980). These parameters will

be hyperbolic non-linear elastic (HNLE) model parameters for used in a finite element

numerical model to evaluates of t the settlement and stability of the Bonneville clays

under undrained embankment loading. Also, this report provides is to develop guidance

for designers regarding thein selection of suitable hyperbolic model parameters from a

laboratory test programing. Finally, this report is to demonstrates the effectiveness of

back-calculation of hyperbolic model parameters in estimating settlement by comparison

with from field instrumentation.

The Hyperbolic Constitutive Model for Soils

There are several constitutive models that can be used in finite element analysis (FEA) or

finite difference analysis (FDA) to numerically simulate the stress-strain behavior of

soils. For example, the stress-strain relationship employed in the numerical model might

be linear-elastic, bi-linear-elastic, elastic-plastic with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria or

a variety of other constitutive relations, depending on the anticipated strain range or

15

required complexity of the problem. One of the most popular advanced constitutive

models is the ‘hyperbolic’ model, where the stress-strain relationship is elastic-plastic and

non-linear.

The nonlinear at the stress-:strain relationship of soils is non-linear hashas been been

observedstudied for many years. Konder (1963) proposed that the non-linear shape of the

stress-:strain relationship is approximately hyperbolic for some soils, particularly for

clays in particular, and he . As a result, a proposed a ‘hyperbolic’ model to explain the

nonlinearity was proposed by Konder (1963). Subsequently, Tthe hyperbolic

mathematical model was further developed by Duncan and Chang (1970) and Duncan et

.al. (1980), who addressed by addingthe stress dependency and volumetric nonlinearity.

For soil-structure interaction problems, Clough and Duncan (1971) showed that a

‘hyperbolic’ model can be used to simulate the soil-structure interaction for lateral earth

pressures on retaining walls. Duncan and Mokwa (2001) demonstrated that the

hyperbolic model can accurately predict passive earth pressures in numerical model/test

comparisons. They also noted the suitability of using the hyperbolic model for clayey

soils. The Duncan and Chang (1977) and the Duncan et.al (1980) models are referred to

as the Hyperbolic Non-Linear Elastic model (HNLE model) since they are non-linear

models (the hyperbolic shape of the stress-:strain curve) and elastic (perfectly hysteretic

unloading is assumed) prior to reaching a failure condition. For both of these models and

aAfter the a failure condition has been reached, for both relationships is reached tthe

models treat the soil as is perfectly plastic, following the formulation of the classic Mohr-

Coulomb constitutive relationship for plastic flow.

TheoryKonder (1963) noted that the stress-:strain relationship for soils, though hyperbolic in

shape when plotted arithmetically, is approximately linear when transforming by plotting

strain divided by stress against stress transformed as shown in Figure 1. Equation (1)

shows the Konder arithmetic stress-:strain mathematical relationship, which is non-linear

and hyperbolic in shape. Equation (2) shows the transformed mathematical relationship

that is linear. The transformation is done by dividing the strain of a material by the

16

deviator stress (principle stress difference) that induced that strain. This is plotted against

strain to find a line with the form of Equation (2). Equations (1) and (2) are shown

graphically in Figure 1 from Duncan and Wong (1974).

(1)

(2)

Figure 1 -– Stress-:Strain Curves - After Duncan and Wong (1974)

17

Duncan and Chang (1970) added a stress dependency relationship to the hyperbolic

form.relationship stress dependency. In their formulation, tThe modulus of a soil is

dependant on the confining stress acting on it. In general, the higher the confining stress,

the stiffer the material; hence (the greater the modulus). This allows the estimated values

from thes the user to model to the cchange inwith modulus to better represent the

material behavior with the change in with increasing depth below ground surface.

accurately and continuously.

The advantage of the Duncan et.al (1980) HNLE model is itsthe addition of the bulk

modulus parameter, which was lacking from the previous hyperbolic models of Konder

(1963) and Duncan and Chang (1970). The bulk modulus parameter is important in that it

provides a volumetric parameter to explain volumetric change to accompany to go along

with the non-linear distortional shear deformation parameters of the previous models. A

volumetric deformation parameter that can changes with stress and strain conditions is

important since the strength of a soil can change significantly when accompanied by

contraction or dilation of the soil skeleton (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981). In addition, tThe

bulk modulus is also a more fundamental soil property than Young’s Modulus for the

deformation characteristics of a soil under partially to fully drained conditions (Wood,

1990 and Itasca, 2005).

18

Soil Parameters for Hyperbolic Model

There are nine required sSoil parameters used in the HNLE which . They include strength

and volumetric parameters. The parameters required for analysis are: K, Kur, Kb, n, m, c,

φ’, Δφ’, and Rf which are the: mModulus nNumber, uUnloading-rReloading mModulus

nNumber, bBulk mModulus nNumber, mModulus eExponent, bBulk mModulus

eExponent, internal apparent cohesion, initial friction angle, change in friction angle with

stress, and fFailure rRatio. There parameters will be explained in the following sections.

These parameters are found most commonly from laboratory triaxial testing or from the

library of 150 soils in the Duncan et.al (1980) report. The generalized stress-:strain

relationship for the HNLE model is shown in Ffigure 2, which shows that definitions of

initial tangent and tangent moduli in the numerical implementation of the model

graphically.

Figure 2 - Generalized Nonl-Linear Stress-:Strain Curve

19

Friction AngleThe HNLE model uses the drained or undrained internal friction angle of the soil being

modeled. For a large range of confining pressures, it is appropriate to use a value of φ

that varies with confining pressure in accordance with the following equation:

(3)

where o = value of when σ3 is equal to the reference stress Pa; and Δ = change in φ

for a 10-fold increase in σ3. The term PPa term is the reference pressure in, 100 kPa (i.e.,

1 tsf). The Duncan et.al (1980) report tabulates the friction angle of 150 soils. For

cohesive soils with a very curved failure envelope, or one with a distinct over-

consolidated failure envelope that differs from the normally consolidated envelope,

Duncan et.al (1980) recommend using two sets of strength parameters ( and c) for the

appropriate range of normal stresses on the soil. For cohesionless soils, Eequation (3) is

recommended to account for a curved failure envelope.

Cohesion InterceptThis value of the cohesion intercept is usually zero for drained conditions in un-cemented

soils except those that are highly over-consolidated. The use of a cohesion intercept

should be chosen carefully depending on the triaxial test the cohesion comes from. The

unconsolidated-undrained ( UU) and consolidated-undrained ( CU) tests will give

different values of cohesion intercept. Duncan et.al (1980) shows that for consolidated

drained tests (CD), the cohesion intercept is nearly zero for many of theall soils tested.

However, for the the undrained tests, Tthe cohesion for the undrained testsvalues ranged

from 0 to 200 kPa tsf in the library of 150 soils tested for HNLE properties.

Poisson’s RatioThough not included in the Duncan et.al (1980) formulation of the HNLE model except

for the bulk modulus, Poisson’s rRatio is included in the finite element implementation of

the model in most computer programs. It is also a part of the Duncan and Chang (1970)

and the Duncan and Wong (1974) formulations of the HNLE model. Poisson’s rRatio is

calculated directly from drained triaxial tests with volumetric strain measurements. For

20

an undrained triaxial test, or other saturated soil sheared in undrained conditions,

Poisson’s Ratio is equal to 0.5. Poisson’s rRatio is calculated from test data by the

equation:

(4)

where is the volumetric strain of the specimen under triaxial shear, and is the axial

strain of the soil specimen under triaxial shear. Values of ν are restricted to lower and

upper limits of 0.1 and 0.49, respectively, for most finite element analyses. A value of 0.5

indicates that there is no volume change (i.e., no volumetric strain) and is used to model

perfectly “undrained” soil conditions in most LE analyses. (Note that a ν of 0.49 must be

used in many numerical models, including Sigma/W, to model “undrained” conditions.

Sigma/W and other computer codes will not reach a solution if 0.5 is used.) Values of

Poisson’s Ratio less than 0.5 indicate that a soil undergoes volume change during strain,

and those values of PPoisson’s rRatio are called obtained from drained triaxial testing

and are commonly referred to as “drained” values.

Initial Tangent Modulus Number and ExponentThe initial tangent modulus used in the HNLE is also obtained from triaxial testing. (It is

important to note that it is not the not the very small strain Young’s Modulus, Emax,

which isobtained from geophysical testing the normal stress counterpart to Gmax obtained

from shear wave velocity measurements for soils. The very small strain values of

modulus from shear wave velocitiesgeophysical testing are 50% to 250% morehigher

than the values of initial tangent modulus available from routineegular triaxial testing.) In

the HNLE model, theThe HNLE model requires the initial tangent modulus from triaxial

testing, which is the theoretical slope of the initial linear portion of the stress-:strain curve

(Figure 2). The Duncan et .al. (1980) documentreport provides guidance on selection of

the initial tangent modulus appropriate for the HNLE model. They also Duncan et.al

(1980) showed that graphical tangent line methods of determining the initial tangent

modulus are unreliable. They recommend fitting the hyperbolic shape of the stress-:strain

21

curve at 70% and 95% of the failure stress level. The initial tangent modulus is then

estimated from the functional form of the hyperbola.

Once the initial tangent modulus has been determined for a soil at a variety of confining

stresses, the modulus number can be calculated. This is done by first normalizing the

initial tangent modulus to the reference pressure, Pa. The reference pressure is defined as

by definition 100kPa. The normalized modulus is plotted on a log-log plot against

normalized confining stress, σ’3 / Pa. A power regression fit to the data is used to find the

modulus number and exponent. The intercept at unity on the log-log scale is the modulus

number. The exponent of the power fit to the data is the modulus exponent. This is also

the slope of the line in log-log space. The equation of the power fit is shown in Eequation

5:.

(5)

wWhere Eit is the initial modulus, K is the modulus number and n is the modulus

exponent. An example of the graphical determination of the modulus number and

exponent is shown in Figure 3. In Eq. (5), K and n are unit-lessunit less, and Eit, Pa, and

σ3 are in consistent units. Duncan et al. (1980) report conservative values of n ranging

from 0.25 to 0.6 for various types of soil.

22

Figure 3 - Derivation of Modulus Number and Exponent - From Geo-Slope International (2004)

For the modulus of the soil beyond the initial linear range of the stress-:strain curve, the

tangent modulus is used. The tangent modulus at any stress is calculated using Equation

(6).

(6)

In Equation (6), Rf = failure ratio; φ = soil friction angle; ( σ1 - σ3 ) = deviator stress; and

c = soil internal cohesion intercept. The failure ratio symbolizes the ratio between the

asymptote to the hyperbolic curve and the maximum shear strength, and typically ranges

from 0.5 to 0.9 for most soils. Equation. (6) indicates that Et is dependent on confining

pressure and the percentage of shear strength mobilized.

Unloading and Reloading Modulus NumberIn the HNLE model, the modulus of a soil in unloading and reloading are assumed to be

identical. They are found from triaxial testing,, and an example is shown in Figure 2. The

23

uUnloading and rReloading mModulus nNumber (Kur) is found by normalizing the

unloading and reloading modulus of a soil to the confining stress and plotting on a log-

log scale against the normalized confining stress as is shown in Figure 3. There is no

unloading and reloading modulus exponent in the HNLE model. It is assumed to be

identical to the Modulus Exponent (n). The form of the uUnloading and rReloading

Modulus in the HNLE model is the same as for the mModulus nNumber and is shown in

Eequation (7).

(7)

Equation. (7) accounts for the fact that strains occurring during primary loading are only

partially recoverable on reloading, a common characteristic of inelastic soil behavior. For

soil reloading, Kur is always greater than K. Often, unloading data is not available and

thus Kur is assumed. For stiff soils, such as dense sands, Kur is approximately equal to

1.2K. For softer soils including loose sands, Kur is approximately equal to about 3K.

Bulk Modulus Number and ExponentThe bBulk modulus represents the constant change in volume of a specimen with no

change in shape (Wood, 1990). In contrast, Tthe shear modulus represents the change in

shape of a soil with no change in volume. The HNLE model uses the bBulk mModulus,

represented by the bBulk mModulus nNumber and eExponent, to show a change in

volume and its effects on the stiffness and strength of the soil. The bulk modulus at a

given confining stress is calculated from triaxial drained test data. It is not calculable

from undrained triaxial test data, since the undrained test is constant volume in nature.

The bBulk mModulus is related to sShear mModulus, Young’s mModulus and Poisson’s

rRatio by elastic theory. It can be calculated directly from test data by use of volumetric

measurements from the triaxial test as shown by Equation (8).

(8)

In Equation (8), is the deviator stress at the 70% stress level or where the volumetric

change curve reaches a horizontal tangent. The volumetric strain in Equation (8) is the

volumetric strain that corresponds to the 70% stress level or tangent level. Note that the

24

Bulk mModulus at a given stress lelvel is related to the sSecant Young’s mModulus at

the same stress level and Poisson’s rRatio by Eequation (9). If the bulk modulus is

variable, Equation (9) allows for both the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s rRatio to vary

with stress level.

(9)

The Bulk mModulus number (Kb) and exponent (m) are calculated similar to the modulus

number and exponent by normalizing the bulk modulus with confining stress and plotting

on a log-log scale against confining stress normalized to the reference pressure. See

Figure 3 for plotting details. The Bulk mModulus nNumber (Kb) is the normalized bulk

modulus at unity, and the Bulk mModulus eExponent (m) is the slope of the normalized

log-log curve. For most soils, m is in the range of 0.0 to 1.0. Equation (10) shows the

HNLE equation for bulk modulus.

(10)

Failure RatioThe fFailure rRatio is a calculated parameter which represents the ratio of failure

compressive strength of a soil to the asymptote of its stress-:strain curve (the ultimate

strength, or critical state). The Duncan et.al (1980) document provides methodology on

calculation of this parameter from the failure and ultimate states of stress on a purely

dilative specimen. Equation (11) shows the calculation of the fFailure rRatio (Rf).

(11)

The fFailure ratio is always less than unity, and ranges from 0.5 to 0.95 according to

Duncan et.al (1980). The failure compressive strength of a soil is defined by Eequation

(12).

(12)

25

ApplicationThe HNLE model is used in nonlinear incremental analysis of soil deformations. In each

increment of the numerical modeling, the small piece of the analysis is treated as a linear

material with the stress-:strain behavior governed by the generalized Hooke’s lLaw.

Hooke’s lLaw describes the relationship between stress-strain in the elastic behavior of

materials, and can be used in an incremental manner for including soils. Numerical

models such as finite element methods use Hooke’s lLaw in the formation of stiffness

matrices for calculation of incremental stress-:strain response. The fundamental stiffness

matrix of Hooke’s’ lLaw for soils in the HNLE model is represented for plane-strain

conditions by:

(13)

This equation is used in FEA or FDA so solve for the deformations of a soil element

under a load. The variable E in Eequation (13) denotes Young’s mModulus, B is bBulk

mModulus. Note that bBulk mModulus and Young’s mModulus are the key parameters.

As has been noted before, these parameters are stress dependant, non-linear and elastic in

the HNLE Model. The computer varies the values of modulus used in each increment as

the stresses vary.

LimitationsDespite its advantages over simpler elastic models, there are several limitations of the

HNLE model. The HNLE relationships may not realistically predict soil behavior at or

beyond the failure condition due to its lack of a specific plastic flow rule. Thus, In

computer software implementation, the Mohr-Coulomb flow rule is used (Itasca, 19XX).

Tthe HNLE stress-:strain relationships developed are primarily developed applicable for

stable earth masses where the post-failure condition is not important. For earthen

structures that reach failure or post-failure This means that earth structures at or beyond

failure are not modeled accurately with the plastic flow rule used in FEA. In addition,

Earthsoil masses with inherent anisotropy are not addressed. Further, tThe HNLE model

26

only accounts for volume change resulting from normal stresses; it does not account for

volume changes due to shear stress, which may be important in complex three

dimensional analyses, only normal stresses. which may be important in complicated three

dimensional analyses.

AdvantagesThere are several advantages for use of the HNLE model rather than alternative other

models such as the Modified Cam Clay mModel. The HNLE model is simpler than

Modified Cam Clay model. It requires fewer inputs, and the inputs are easier to obtain,

than those needed in the Modified Cam Clay model. The HNLE model also has

advantages over simpler constitutive models such as the linear-elastic model. These

advantages include a non-linear stress-:strain relationship more realistic for (which soils

really have) and volumetric change and its subsequent influence on shear strength. It also

allows for a variation of stiffness with additional confinement, which is not allowed in

older and simpler models. The HNLE model is also a proven method for numerical

modeling. Another advantage of the HNLE model is that it’s parameters are easily

obtained from drained or undrained triaxial testing. which is the standard strength test for

clayey soils.

Bonneville Clays

Site DescriptionNorth and South Temple Streets cross the I-15 alignment at approximately 700 West in

Salt Lake City, Utah. At the North Temple site, drilling, sampling, and CPT testing was

done on the east side of the I-15 embankment just north of North Temple Street. At the

South Temple site, drilling, sampling, and CPT testing was done underneath the I-15

mainline overpass. The terrain at these locales is flat, and the groundwater table varies

from 8 feet to 15 feet below ground surface.

27

Soil ProfileFoundation soils below the embankment at the North and South Temple sites consist of

about 5 to 8 m (16 to 26ft) of interbedded, alluvial clays, silts and sands. This upper

alluvium was deposited during the Holocene epoch by stream channels extending from

the canyons of the nearby Wasatch Mountains and from the floodplain of the Jordan

River. The upper alluvium is underlain by a 10-m (33-ft) to 13-m (43-ft) sequence of soft,

compressible lacustrine soils commonly referred to as Lake Bonneville deposits. This

Pleistocene sequence consists of interbedded clayey silt and silty clay, with thin beds of

silts and fine sand near the middle of the unit. Beneath the Lake Bonneville deposits are

about 3 m (10 ft) of interbedded Pleistocene alluvial and lacustrine sediments consisting

of sands, silts, and clays. These interbedded deposits are in turn underlain by the Cutler

Dam Lake sequence. These Pleistocene lacustrine deposits are about 4-m (13-ft) to 9-m

(30-ft) thick and consist of clay with occasional seams and layers of silt and sand. Dense,

alluvial sands and gravels underlie the Cutler Dam Lake sediments. Typically,

groundwater is encountered within a depth of about 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface

in this area. For purposes of this study, groundwater was assumed to be located at a depth

of 3 m (10 ft). The Lake Bonneville deposits are commonly referred to as the Bonneville

cClays, and that will continue in this report. Other reports detail the various

granulometry, plasticity, and consolidation properties. Ozer (2004) and Farnsworth

(2008) detail these properties further. Strength parameters for the undrained shear

strength of the Bonneville clays are available for the SHANSEP technique in Bay et.al

(2005).

Cone Penetration Test data for the North and South Temple sites are presented in the

appendix. CPT data from I-15 Rreconstruction and University of Utah research projects

from 2001 to 2005 are shown in the CPT plots in this report. Figure 4, below, shows the

use of the Cone Penetration Test to determine the layering of the South Temple site.

28

Sands

Culter

Dam

C

laysD

eep Sand

sA

luviumU

pper B

onnivilleInterbeds

Lower

Bonneville

06-SC-128

1255

1257.5

1260

1262.5

1265

1267.5

1270

1272.5

1275

1277.5

1280

1282.5

1285

1287.5

1290

0.0 10000.0 20000.0 30000.0

Qt (kPa)

Ele

vat

ion

(m

)

06-SC-128

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275

1280

1285

1290

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rf (%)

Ele

vat

ion

(m

)

06-SC-128

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275

1280

1285

1290

0 250 500 750 1000

U (kPa)

Ele

vat

ion

(m

)

06-SC-128

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275

1280

1285

1290

2 3 4 5 6 7

SBT

Ele

vat

ion

(m

)

Figure 4 - South Temple CPT Layering

29

Triaxial Testing

A series of isotropically consolidated drained axial compression (CIDC) and Ko

consolidated undrained (CKoUC) triaxial tests were performed on specimens of

Bonneville sediments from North Temple Street and South Temple Street in Salt Lake

City. Drilling was done using hollow stem continuous flight augers. The soil samples

were retrieved using Shelby tubes and piston sampling to reduce sample disturbance

(Santaga and Germaine, 2002) and to increase laboratory testing reliability (Bay et.al,

2003). The Shelby tubes were sealed and stored in a 100% humidity room until samples

were to be tested to preserve the in-situ moisture condition as closely as possible (Bishop

and Henkel, 1962).

Test ApparatusTesting was done using GEOCOMP Corporation’s triaxial system. The GEOCOMP

system is fully automated. The triaxial test cell used was rated to 1000 kPa. The system

consists of 4 parts. The first part of the system is a PC computer that has the control

software installed. This PC communicates with the other components of the system to run

the test. The second part of the system is the load frame. This device holds the triaxial

cell, applies the vertical load to the specimen, and monitors the force and displacements

of the load piston. The GECOMP load frame is shown in Figure 6. The load frame

interfaces with the rest of the triaxial compression system using a control box with an

LCD display. This control box can be used to operate the load frame independently of the

software if needed. The control box for the GEOCOMP load frame is shown in Figure 5.

Note the numeric keypad used to operate the load frame. The control box also interfaces

the load frame with the control software in the PC.

30

Figure 5 - GEOCOMP Control Box

31

Figure 6 - GEOCOMP LLoad FFrame with assmebledAssembled SSpecimen

32

LVDT

S-Type Load Cell

Assembled Triaxial Cell with Specimen in Latex Membranes

The third and fourth components are the FLOWTRACK II flow pumps that apply the

pressures for the triaxial cell. Flow lines connect the two pumps to the triaxial cell. One

pump is for the cell pressure and the other pump is for the specimen. Each pump has a

250cc bladder that is pressurized as controlled by the computer. The use of two pumps is

needed so that the specimen can be pressurized to a different pore pressure than the total

stress applied from the cell. Each flow pump contains a calibrated pressure gauge to

monitor the pressures continuously throughout the test. The pumps also adjust

automatically to keep the pressures constant as required by the user. To keep the

pressures constant, a volume of water flows in or out of the pump. This change in volume

is monitored and allows for volumetric strain measurements on the specimen. The force

applied to the specimen from the load piston is monitors using an S-type load cell. An

LVDT measures displacements of the specimen in the vertical direction. The load cell

and LVDT can be seen in Figure WW on the top of the GEOCOMP Load frame.

Drainage of the specimen is allowed through the top and bottom pore stones. The

GEOCOMP FLOWTRACK II flow pumps are shown in Figure 7.

33

Figure 7 - GEOCOMP FLOWTRACK II Flow Pumps

ProceduresNo ASTM test method exists for the consolidated drained triaxial test of a soil. ASTM

standards D4746 and D2850 are test standards for undrained tests. A working standard is

being developed and is designated as standard WK3821. The standard D4746 was

followed as closely as possible for specimen preparation.

Care was taken to minimize any sample disturbance during specimen preparation. For

details on careful sampling and specimen preparation of Bonneville clays, see Bay et.al

(2003). Each specimen was extruded from the Shelby tube after the tube had been

trimmed to length using an electric ban saw. The Ccut Shelby tube ready for extraction of

specimen is shown in Figure 8.

34

Figure 8 - Cut Shelby tube ready for specimen extraction

Specimens were extruded slowly from the Shelby tube, using a nearly constant rate. The

specimens tested in the triaxial device were trimmed to 120 mm to 150 mm in length to

meet a height to diameter ratio of 2 to 2.5. Each specimen was weighed, measured, and a

moisture sample was taken from the cuttings to aid in the data reduction. After the

specimen was measured, it was placed on the triaxial device base cap, with its saturated

pore stone and filter paper. One or two latex membranes were place gently over the

specimen to separate the specimen from the cell water. A top cap, and its pore stone and

filter paper, was place on the top of each specimen. The triaxial cell was then assembled,

filled with distilled water, and placed in the loading frame. Figures 9 to 11 show the

assemblage of the triaxial cell. Figure 9 shows the base of the triaxial cell. Connections

for flow lines are mounted on the bottom of the cell. The plastic bottom cap is also

shown.

35

Figure 9 - Bottom of triaxial cell

36

Plastic Bottom Cap for Specimen

Connections for flow lines to the flow pumps.

Figure 10 - Assembled triaxial cell

After the cell is assembled (Figure 10), it is placed on the load frame as shown in Figure

3. All flow lines were purged of air, connected to the triaxial cell, and the cell was lifted

into place. The instrumentation was zeroed out and a very small vertical load was applied

to seat the load piston. Flow lines are then attached as shown in Figure 11.

37

Internal Flow Lines to allow top and bottom drainage of the specimen

Clay Specimen in latex membranes

O-rings to isolate specimen and cell

Figure 11 - Flow Line Connections

To begin the triaxial test, an initialization stage was first undergone. The initialization

phase consists of application of a nearly equal vertical stress, horizontal stress, and pore

pressure to the specimen to check for leaks and compliance issues before the test

proceeded. After the initialization pressure was held for a short time, the saturation phase

was begun. All specimens were backpressure saturated to a Skempton’s porewater

pressure B value greater than 0.95 (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981( (Skempton, 19XX). The

GEOCOMP system automatically measures the pore pressure changes during the

saturation phase and calculates the Skempton B parameter continuously. Pore pressures

for the backpressure saturation ranged from 200kPa to 500kPa depending on the

specimen, its hydraulic conductivity, and the initial level of saturation. Air in the system

goes into solution at around 200kPa (Black and Lee, 1973).

38

Connection to the cell

Specimen Bleed-off

Connection to the Specimen

After the specimen has reached a B value greater than 0.95 (which does not guarantee full

saturation), a phase of consolidation is undertaken. The cell and vertical stresses are

increased incrementally, while keeping the pore pressure constant to achieve an effective

stress condition chosen for consolidation. Consolidation can be either isotropic or to an

anisotropic Ko condition. Isotropic consolidation is always recommended in the literature

for drained tests. Isotropic or Ko consolidation can be used for undrained test. This

consolidation phase lasts until at least 95% consolidation has been achieved using the

square root of time method. The GEOCOMP system monitors this automatically. After

the specimen has consolidated, the test is paused for a short time to age the specimen at

the stress level. This aging is recommended by several researchers (Bay et.al, 2005),

especially for consolidation pressures that exceed the in-situ field conditions the

specimen was taken from conditions for the specimen. Once the aging is complete, the

specimen is then sheared.

The shearing phase of the triaxial test is done either drained or undrained. Undrained tests

a conducted at higher strain rates, with no drainage of the specimen allowed. Drained

tests are conducted at slow strain rates based on the consolidation properties of the

specimen. The slow strain rates allow for drainage. Several authors have noted that

despite being drained, increasingly slow strain rates of loading lead to higher strengths in

triaxial testing (Reference, 19MM). Strain rates were determined using the method

recommended by Bishop and Henkel (1962) and Gibson and Henkel (1954) which is

based on the coefficient of consolidation of the soil (Cv or t90).

The GEOCOMP software monitors the force, displacement, stresses, and strains

continuously thought the shear phase of the test. The specimen is sheared from 20% to

30% axial strain to assure that the critical state has been reached before end of shear.

After the shear phase is completed, the specimen is removed from the triaxial cell and a

final moisture specimen is obtained.

39

Data Reduction Data from a triaxial test is used to calculate the parameters for the HNLE model as was

discussed in previous sections of this report. As with any test on real materials, the data

does not plot to a perfect hyperbola, or transformed line when normalized by strain. Also,

on some occasions the load rod was not initially placed snug into the load cap, and some

displacement of the platform occurred as the load rod seated completely in the load cap

before any load was applied to the specimen. This extra displacement had to be removed

from several of the data files. This seating displacement problem was recognized by

Duncan et.al (1980) in their formulation of the HNLE model from triaxial test data. They

recommend the adjustments made to the test data to remove it from the data file and

recalculate the strains from the adjusted displacements.

In addition to the seating issue of the load rod and top cap, there are small strain non-

linearities of the stress-:strain relationship in clay soils that make an estimation of Initial

tTangent mModulus (Eit) difficult by a visual or extrapolation method from triaxial test

data (Santaga, Ladd and Germaine, 2007). For this reason the HNLE model uses a fit at

70% and 95% (of the peak stress) of the stress-:strain data to estimate Eit. If the 70%

stress-level fit needs to be verified, plotting the strain divided by stress against stress, as

shown in Ffigure 1, the intercept of the transformed stress-:strain curve is the inverse of

the initial tangent modulus. For complete details on the reduction of the triaxial test data

for the HNLE model, see Duncan et.al (1980).

Triaxial Test ResultsA summary of triaxial tests is found in Table 1RR. A summary of the results to the

triaxial tests is found in Table 2RS. Stress-:sStrain plots for each test are shown in the

appendix. HNLE model parameters were calculated as shown previously in this report.

Included in the summary of results is the drained friction angle of the soil assuming zero

cohesion and a linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. It should be noted that the

confining consolidation pressure for the tests vary in order to calculate the HNLE stress

range. Tests were performed at various confining stresses, which included: (1) in-situ

40

confining stress, (2) the pPreconsolidation stress times Ko, (3) the horizontal stress from

a 15-m high embankment, and (4) at 500 kPa for each layer.

41

Table 1- Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Summary

Site Boring Depth Elevation Layer σ'ff σ'3 σ'3/Pa σ'df σ'50 σ'70 φ'c=0 εaf ε50 ε70

ST B4 6.25 1282.07 Upper Bonn 200.6 60.5 0.6 140.1 70.1 98.1 32.5 19.0 3.5 7.3

ST B3 7.10 1281.22 Upper Bonn 201.6 45.0 0.5 155.5 77.8 108.9 39.1 10.0 1.6 3.5

ST B3 7.32 1281.01 Upper Bonn 1334.0 450.0 4.5 884.0 442.0 618.8 29.7 17.5 2.1 4.8

ST B4 7.98 1280.34 Upper Bonn 381.7 125.0 1.3 256.7 128.4 179.7 30.4 18.5 4.0 6.5

ST B3 8.69 1279.63 Upper Bonn 635.0 240.0 2.4 395.0 197.5 276.5 26.8 20.0 4.8 8.8

ST B3 8.70 1279.62 Upper Bonn 512.0 165.0 1.7 347.0 268.5 300.0 30.8 12.5 2.0 5.3

NT B2 10.20 1279.31 Upper Bonn 268.0 98.0 1.0 170.0 85.0 119.0 27.7 14.0 3.5 6.2

NT B1 11.00 1278.51 Upper Bonn 154.0 60.0 0.6 94.0 47.0 65.8 26.1 12.0 2.5 4.6

ST B4 11.07 1277.25 Interbeds 175.0 55.0 0.6 120.0 60.0 84.0 31.4 8.0 2.5 3.5

ST B3 11.56 1276.76 Interbeds 1618.0 450.0 4.5 1168.0 584.0 817.6 34.4 12.0 2.8 4.7

NT B2 13.30 1276.21 Interbeds 533.3 125.0 1.3 410.0 205.0 287.0 38.5 16.0 2.4 3.8

NT B1 14.00 1275.51 Interbeds 248.0 80.0 0.8 168.0 84.0 117.6 30.8 11.5 1.6 2.8

NT B2 14.80 1274.71 Interbeds 659.3 220.0 2.2 439.3 219.7 307.5 30.0 19.0 5.0 8.0

ST B3 13.80 1274.52 Interbeds 235.0 70.0 0.7 165.0 82.5 115.5 32.8 16.0 3.3 5.5

ST B4 13.95 1274.37 Interbeds 315.6 73.0 0.7 242.6 121.3 169.8 38.6 12.0 3.5 5.5

NT B1 15.46 1274.05 Interbeds 1429.0 500.0 5.0 929.0 464.5 650.3 28.8 16.0 2.5 6.0

NT B1 15.48 1274.03 Interbeds 210.0 80.0 0.8 128.5 64.3 90.0 26.3 7.7 1.5 2.5

ST B3 16.00 1272.32 Lower Bonn 222.0 110.0 1.1 112.0 56.0 78.4 19.7 14.8 3.3 7.4

NT B1 17.22 1272.29 Lower Bonn 647.0 240.0 2.4 407.0 203.5 285.0 27.3 20.0 4.5 8.5

ST B4 16.84 1271.48 Lower Bonn 220.0 95.5 1.0 124.5 62.3 87.2 23.2 22.0 5.5 8.0

ST B4 17.00 1271.32 Lower Bonn 334.0 113.0 1.1 221.0 110.5 154.7 29.6 16.0 5.0 7.5

ST B3 17.50 1270.82 Lower Bonn 247.0 136.7 1.4 110.3 55.2 77.2 16.7 18.0 1.9 5.4

ST B3 17.68 1270.65 Lower Bonn 289.0 89.0 0.9 186.0 93.0 130.2 29.5 6.0 1.8 3.0

ST B3 18.53 1269.79 Lower Bonn 1233.0 500.0 5.0 733.0 366.5 513.1 25.0 18.0 4.7 7.5

ST B3 19.11 1269.21 Lower Bonn 264.0 100.0 1.0 164.0 82.0 114.8 26.8 15.0 4.0 6.7

42

Table 2 - Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results

Site Boring Depth Elevation Layer ν B B / Pa 1 / sult Rf Eit-eqn Eit / pa

ST B4 6.25 1282.07 Upper Bonn 0.35 2230 22 5.23E-03 0.73 2,758 27

ST B3 7.10 1281.22 Upper Bonn 0.35 2210 22 4.95E-03 0.77 6,738 67

ST B3 7.32 1281.01 Upper Bonn 0.31 8000 79 9.51E-04 0.84 31,638 312

ST B4 7.98 1280.34 Upper Bonn 0.31 1550 15 2.99E-03 0.77 5,977 59

ST B3 8.69 1279.63 Upper Bonn 0.31 3125 31 1.69E-03 0.67 6,666 66

ST B3 8.70 1279.62 Upper Bonn 0.31 4890 48 2.55E-03 0.88 5,680 56

NT B2 10.20 1279.31 Upper Bonn 0.30 1585 16 3.88E-03 0.66 3,565 35

NT B1 11.00 1278.51 Upper Bonn 0.40 1750 17 7.76E-03 0.73 2,899 29

ST B4 11.07 1277.25 Interbeds 0.18 1350 13 5.56E-03 0.67 3,333 33

ST B3 11.56 1276.76 Interbeds 0.25 11000 109 6.20E-04 0.72 35,275 348

NT B2 13.30 1276.21 Interbeds 0.30 4750 47 2.12E-03 0.87 14,285 141

NT B1 14.00 1275.51 Interbeds 0.25 1600 16 5.13E-03 0.86 10,000 99

NT B2 14.80 1274.71 Interbeds 0.30 2350 23 1.57E-03 0.69 7,418 73

ST B3 13.80 1274.52 Interbeds 0.35 1670 17 4.70E-03 0.78 4,594 45

ST B4 13.95 1274.37 Interbeds 0.36 3700 37 2.63E-03 0.64 5,574 55

NT B1 15.46 1274.05 Interbeds 0.25 7310 72 8.00E-04 0.74 22,580 223

NT B1 15.48 1274.03 Interbeds 0.25 1190 12 6.18E-03 0.79 8,099 80

ST B3 16.00 1272.32 Lower Bonn 0.40 2800 28 5.15E-03 0.58 2,420 24

NT B1 17.22 1272.29 Lower Bonn 0.40 3333 55 1.68E-03 0.68 10,310 102

ST B4 16.84 1271.48 Lower Bonn 0.35 1180 12 6.07E-03 0.76 3,500 35

ST B4 17.00 1271.32 Lower Bonn 0.42 2950 29 2.81E-03 0.62 3,653 36

ST B3 17.50 1270.82 Lower Bonn 0.40 2170 21 7.39E-03 0.81 4,000 39

ST B3 17.68 1270.65 Lower Bonn 0.40 8700 86 3.07E-03 0.57 7,233 71

ST B3 18.53 1269.79 Lower Bonn 0.27 4890 48 9.47E-04 0.69 13,303 131

ST B3 19.11 1269.21 Lower Bonn 0.40 2700 27 3.99E-03 0.65 4,132 41

43

From Table 1, it can be seen that the drained friction angle increases in the Iinterbedss

that are found overlying the predominantly clay layers. The upper Bonneville sediments

tends to have higher friction angles than the lower Bonneville clays. The data from

Tables 1 and 2 were plotted on log-log scales to determine the appropriate HNLE

parameters. Figures 12 to 14 show the iInitial tTangent mModulius plots for the three

primary Bonneville claysediment layers.

Upper Bonneville Ei / Pa

y = 51.135x0.7657

R2 = 0.5986

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01s

3 / Pa

Ei /

Pa

Figure 12 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for Upper Bonneville Clays

44

Interbeds Ei / Pa

y = 75.357x0.784

R2 = 0.7376

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01s

3 / Pa

Ei /

Pa

Figure 13 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for the Interbeds

Lower Bonneville Ei / Pa

y = 38.722x0.7716

R2 = 0.6026

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01s

3 / Pa

Ei /

Pa

Figure 14 - Initial Tangent Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays

45

In the regression equations shown in Figuresplots 12 to 14, the y value is the Iinitial

tTangent mModulus from the triaxial test reduction normalized to the reference pressure.

The x value is the confining stress normalized to the reference pressure. There is some

scatter in the data due to the variability of the clay deposits and sites. The bBulk

mModulus plots are shown in Ffigures 15 to 17.

Upper Bonneville B / Pa

y = 24.156x0.5696

R2 = 0.5762

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

s3 / Pa

B /

Pa

Figure 15 - Bulk Modulus plot for the Upper Bonneville Clays

Interbeds B / Pa

y = 23.242x0.7822

R2 = 0.6786

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

s3 / Pa

B /

Pa

Figure 16 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Interbeds

46

Lower Bonneville B / Pa

y = 28.648x0.3543

R2 = 0.1161

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

s3 / Pa

B /

Pa

Figure 17 - Bulk Modulus Plot for the Lower Bonneville Clays

In these figuresFrom figures 15 to 17, there is more scatter in the lower Bonneville clays

than the other layers considered in the triaxial testing. This may be due in part to the

definition of the The bBulk mModulus as given in the is also more arbitrary in the

HNLE guidelines from Duncan et.al (1980). The use of the 70% stress level bulk

modulus may introduce have more variability than the functional form used to define the

initial tangent modulus. For the unloading and reloading modulus, only three tests were

conducted, and it was found that the ratio of K to Kur is approximately 2.4 for the three

primary layers of the Lake Bonneville deposits.

Back Calculation from Embankment Settlements

Settlement data has been collected using settlement points, horizontal inclinometers, and

magnet extensometers along the I-15 rreconstruction alignment since construction began

in 1998. This data is presented and interpreted detailed in several publications and

47

reports available from UDOT. This report relies on the settlement profile measured at

200 South Street in Salt Lake City.

Flint and Bartlett (2005) have used the settlement data to back calculate HNLE model

parameters for the Bonneville clays at 200 South and I-15 and the Lime-Cement treated

site at I-80 and I-15. In this report, tThey back calculated the drained HNLE parameters

using soil layering properties and geophysical measurements only. No triaxial laboratory

testing was available for their evaluation. The FEA program Sigma/W was used to model

the surface settlement resulting from the determine the various soil properties from

tfoundation layers and calibrated to that settlementhe settlement data. The

sequencingstaging of the embankment construction was included in the analysis Figure .

Figure 18 shows the embankment geometry and stagingsequencing used in the

evaluationsanalysis by Flint and Bartlett (2005).

Figure 18 - 200 South Embankment - From Flint and Bartlett (2005)

The measured settlement dataprofile at the end of primary consolidation was plotted for

the 200 South Street Array and compared to thesettlement estimates made with linear

elastic (LE) Limit Equilibrium mmethods and consolidation properties developed for the

during design of the I-15 Rreconstruction Project. These soil data and constructiondesign

estimates appear in the following tables and figures, as well as the results of their

calibrationback-calculation of HNLE parameters by Flint and Bartlett (2005). Figure 19

48

also shows Notice that only the Sigma/W analysis of Flint and Bartlett (2005), which

included the calibrated calibrated HNLE model parameters. This Sigma/W analysis with

the HNLE model provided the best matched to the actualmeasured settlement dataprofile.

from the Sigma/W analysis.

Table 3 shows the typical HNLE soils properties from the Duncan et.al (1980) library

that Flint and Bartlett (2005) used to begin their FEA. The soil profile was divided into 6

layers, as was done in this report for the North and South Temple Street sites along I-15.

Table 3 - Typical HNLE Properties for 200Sfrom Flint and Bartlett (2005)

Layer K Kb Kur m n Rf

Upper Alluvium 100 50 200 0.60 0.5 0.7

Upper Bonneville 60 50 120 0.45 0.2 0.7

Interbeds 150 75 300 0.60 0.5 0.7

Lower Bonneville 90 80 180 0.45 0.2 0.7

Deeper Alluvium 300 250 600 0.25 0.0 0.7

Cutler Dam 120 110 240 0.45 0.2 0.7

After a series of iterations, Flint and Bartlett developed calibrated model properties that

are shown in Table 4. Note that the failure ratio is the same for each soil. This is because

the settlement data did not need strength parameters to do the calculations, which the

failure ratio is dependant on. Figure 19 shows the results of the analysis re-run using the

calibrated soil parameters.

Table 4 - Calibrated HNLE Properties from Flint and Bartlett (2005)

49

Layer K Kb Kur m n Rf

Upper Alluvium 60 40 240 0.60 0.5 0.7

Upper Bonneville 30 20 120 0.45 0.2 0.7

Interbeds 50 40 220 0.60 0.5 0.7

Lower Bonneville 50 40 190 0.45 0.2 0.7

Deeper Alluvium 110 120 430 0.25 0.0 0.7

Cutler Dam 70 50 300 0.45 0.2 0.7

50

Figure 19 - 200 South Settlement Data and Estimates - After Flint and Bartlett (2005)

51

The HNLE model parameters developed directly from the triaxial testing done as part of

this report can be input into the Sigma/W models constructed by Flint and Bartlett to

show how well the laboratory testing represents the real worldmeasured field behavior of

the soils. The summary of the HNLE parameters to be inputted into the Flint and Bartlett

Sigma/W model is found in Table 5. These revised values were used to re-run the

settlement analysis of the staged embankment at 200 South and compared with the

measured settlement profile..

Table 5 - Laboratory Triaxial HNLE Properties

Layer K Kur Kb m n Rf

Upper Bonneville 50 120 24 0.77 0.57 0.70

Interbeds 75 180 23 0.78 0.78 0.70

Lower Bonneville 39 100 29 0.77 0.35 0.70

Table 6 shows a comparison of the HNLE parameters developed by this report and those

used by from Flint and Bartlett (2005). The results from of this report are presented in the

first column for each parameter. The results from Flint and Bartlett (2005) are shown

second column for comparison. For plots of the triaxial test data regression, see the

appendix of this document.

Table 6 - Comparison of Triaxial and Back Calculated Parameters

K Kb m n Rf

Upper Alluvium 50 60 30 40 0.6 0.60 0.57 0.5 0.7 0.7

Upper Bonneville 50 30 24 20 0.77 0.45 0.57 0.2 0.7 0.7

Interbeds 75 50 23 40 0.78 0.60 0.78 0.5 0.7 0.7

Lower Bonneville

39 50 29 40 0.77 0.45 0.35 0.2 0.7 0.7

Deeper Alluvium NA 110 NA 120 NA 0.25 NA 0.0 NA 0.7

Cutler Dam NA 70 NA 50 NA 0.45 NA 0.2 NA 0.7

52

The information in Table 6, was input into the finite element computer program

SIGMA/W for analysis of the embankments. The embankment loading was modeled

sequentially to simulate construction loading of the Bonneville deposits. The first

analysises have several phases, each phase divided into embankment construction steps.

Figure 18 demonstrates the phases and geometry. The analysis begins with an elastic

analysis with no embankment to determine the in-situ stress state. The analysis then

continues with the loading from the original 1960’s I-15 embankment. The first phase of

I-15 reconstruction at 200 South is next, noted as “Phase I”. Finally, the second phase of

I-15 reconstruction is modeled. This modeling progression is done for each set of HNLE

model parameters.

Figure 20, shows the comparison of the HNLE model parameter results for the original I-

15 embankment at 200 South prior to the I-15 reconstruction. In Figures 20 through 22,

the “matched” settlement profile is from Flint and Bartlett (2005). The “lab” settlement

profile is the results from this report using the laboratory determined values for the

HNLE model. It can be seen that the two analyses match quite well. From Figure 20, the

two analyses match well. Figure 21 shows the comparison of the HNLE model

parameters results for the Phase I I-15 reconstruction at 200 South Street. Once again,

From Figure 21, the two analyses match well.

53

Existing I-15 Embankment Settlement Profile

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Distance (m)

Set

tle

men

t (m

)

Matched

Lab

Figure 20 - Existing I-15 Embankment Analysis Comparison

54

I-15 Phase I Embankment Settlement Profile

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Distance (m)

Set

tlem

ent

(m)

Matched

Lab

Figure 21 - Phase I of Reconstruction Analysis Comparison

55

From Figure 21, it can be seen that the laboratory triaxial HNLE parameters provide a

good estimate of the measured field settlements at the 200 South Street array. In addition,

observed. Thethe HNLE results from this report compare well with to the calibrated

parametersthe modeling developed by Flint and Bartlett (2005). However, except that

the maximum settlement at the toe of the embankment is slightly less for the analysis

performed in this report using run with the laboratory-determined HNLE hyperbolic

model parameters. This latter e lab parameter analysis was reanalyzedre-run with the

HNLE parameters for the Upper Alluvium altered to better agree align with the HNLE

parameters found for the underlying layers. The assumption is that some parameters, such

as K and m, will be different than those for the Bonneville deposits, but not significantly

differentso. This result is shown as the “parametric” profile in Figure 22. Table 6

includes the parameters for the Upper Alluvium used in the re-analysis. Figure 22 shows

that altering the HNLE model parameters, from those found in the calibration done by

Flint and Bartlett to those that align with the laboratory testing, the surface settlements

match the observed settlements much closer.

Finally, the results of the HNLE model analysis from laboratory triaxial testing can be

compared to the actual measured surface settlement data for the 200 South site for the I-

15 reconstruction. Figure 23 shows a plot of the measured surface settlements (black line)

compared to the HNLE analysis results for this report (red line).

56

I-15 Phase II Embankment Settlement Profile

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Distance (m)

Set

tlem

ent

(m)

Matched

Lab

Parametrics

Figure 22 - I-15 Reconstruction Phase II Analysis Comparison

57

-1.2-1.1-1.0-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

DISTANCE (M)

DE

FO

RM

AT

ION

(M

)

-42-38-34-30-26-22-18-14-10-6-22610

EL

EV

AT

ION

(M

)

MEASURED DATA

CALIBRATED HNLE ANALYSIS

TYPICAL HNLE PROPERTIES

Laboratory HNLE Properties

ORIGINAL EMBANKMENT

PHASE 1 PHASE 1 W/ SURCHARGE

REMOVEDEXISTING

HOUSE

PHASE 2

Figure 23 - Comparison of Measured Data and HNLE Models

58

Conclusions

Laboratory triaxial testing of carefully sampled specimens of Bonneville clay from the

locations of the I-15 bridges over North and South Temple Streets in Salt Lake City were

conducted to determine appropriate Duncan et al. (1980). Hypberbolic mModel

parameters for estimating settlements from new embankment and MSE wall construction.

The laboratory test data was used to develop the parameters, and finite element modeling

of the 200 South Street case history from the I-15 Reconstruction settlement monitoring

was done. This finite element modeling showed that the use of laboratory determined

HNLE model parameters reasonably matched the observed settlements at the 200 South

Street array..

59

Acknowledgements

The authors of this report wish to express thanks to the following individuals:

Clifton Farnsworth for his I-15 settlement data and .

Kleinfelder Inc. for use of their constant humidity room to store Shelby tubes of clay

samples.

60

References

Bartlett, S., and Farnsworth, C. (2004). “Monitoring and modeling of innovative

foundation treatment and embankment construction used on the I-15 Reconstruction

Project, Project Management Plan and Instrument Installation Report,” Report No. UT-

04.19, Utah Department of Transportation Research Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bartlett, S.F., Farnsworth, C., Negussey, D., and Stuedlein, A.W. (2001),

“Instrumentation and Long-Term Monitoring of Geofoam

Embankments, I-15

Reconstruction Project, Salt Lake City, Utah.” Proceedings of the 3rd

International EPS

Geofoam Conference, December 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bay, J.A., Anderson, L.R., Colocino, T.M., and Budge, A.S. (2005), “Evaluation of

SHANSEP Parameters for Soft Bonneville Clays,” Utah Department of Transportation,

Salt Lake City, Utah, Report No. UT-03.13. Utah State University Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering.

Bay, J. A., L. R. Anderson, J. C. Hagen, and A. S. Budge. (2003). “Factors affecting

sample disturbance in Bonneville clays”. Report No. UT-03.14, Utah Department of

Transportation, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bishop, A.W., and Henkel, D.J (1957). The measurement of soil properties in the triaxial

tests. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, England.

Bishop, A.W., and Henkel, D.J (1962). The measurement of soil properties in the triaxial

tests. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, England.

Black, D.K., and Lee, K.L. (1973), “Saturating laboratory samples by back pressure”. J.

of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 99(1), 75-93.

61

Clough, G.W., and Duncan, J.M. (1971). “Finite element analysis of retaining wall

behavior.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE., 97(12), 1657-

1673.

Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C.Y. (1970), “Non-linear analysis of stress and strain in soils”.

J. of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 96(5), 1629-1953.

Duncan, J.M, and Wong, K.S. (1974), “Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters for Non-

Linear Finite Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses”. Report TE-

74-3 National Science Foundation, University of California, Berkeley.

Duncan, J.M., Bryne P., Wong K.S., and Chang, C.Y. (1980), “Strength, stress-strain,

and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analysis of soils”. Report UCB/GT/80-02,

University of California, Berkeley.

Duncan, J.M., and Mokwa, R.L. (2001). “Passive earth pressures: theories and tests.”

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, (127)-3, 248-257.

Farnsworth, C. (2008).

Geo-Slope. (2004). SIGMA/W version 5 user’s guide. Geo-Slope International Ltd.,

Calgary, Canada.

Gerber, T. M. (1995). “Seismic ground response at two bridge sites on soft-deep soils

along Interstate 15 in the Salt Lake Valley, Utah,” Masters thesis, Dept. of Civil and

Envir. Engrg., Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Gibson, R.E., and Henkel, D.J. (1954), “Influence of duration of tests at constant rate of

strain on measured drained strength”. Geotechnique., London, England, 4(1), 6-15.

62

Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,

Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Itasca (2005). FLAC version 5.0 user’s guide. Itasca Consulting Group Inc, Minneapolis

Minnesota.

Kondner, R. L. (1963). “Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive

soils.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., (98-1), 115–143.

Ozer, A.T., and Bartlett, S.F. (2004). “Estimation of Consolidation Proerties from In-Situ

and Laboratory Testing”. Report No. Ut-03. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt

Lake City, Utah.

Santaga, M., Germaine, J.T., Ladd, C.C. (2007). “Small-strain nonlinearity of normally

consolidated clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.

(??)-?, 72-82.

Santaga, M., Germaine, J.T. (2002). “Sampling disturbance effects in normally

consolidated clays.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.

(??)-?,997-1006.

Skempton, A.W. (1954), “The pore pressure coefficients A and B”. Geotechnique.,

London, England, 4(3), 143-147.

Skempton, A.W., and Bjerrum, L. (1957), “A contribution to the settlement analysis of

clays”. Geotechnique., London, England, 7(4), 168-178.

Wood, D.M. (1990). Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

63

Appendix

64

Ei / Pa

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01s

3 / Pa

Ei /

Pa

UB

IB

LB

Figure 24 - General Trend of all Initial Tangent Modulus Data

65

B / Pa

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

s3 / Pa

B /

Pa

UB

IB

LB

Figure 25 - General Trend of all Bulk Modulus Data

66

Initial Tanget Modulus

1

10

100

1000

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

Sigma 3 / Pa

Ei /

Pa

UB - Calibrated

IB - Calibrated

LB - Calibrated

Tx Drained

Figure 26 - Comparison of Triaxial Test data to Calibrated HNLE values

67

Bulk Modulus

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01

Sigma 3 / Pa

Eb

/ P

a

UB - Calibrated

IB - Calibrated

LB - Calibrated

Triaxial

Figure 27 - Comparison of Triaxial Test Results to Calibrated HNLE

68

2 = sensitive and soft clays3 = clays4 = silt mixtures5 = sands mixed with silts6 = sands7 = gravels and dense sands

LayerRecent AlluviumUBInterbedsLB

North Temple Tip Resistance

1264

1266

1268

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

1286

1288

1290

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

qt (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)CPTu - 1

RC -12

SC - 31

SC - 32

SC - 33

SC - 34

SC - 35

North Temple Sleeve Friction

1264

1266

1268

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

1286

1288

1290

0 50 100 150 200

fs (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 1

RC -12

SC - 31

SC - 32

SC - 33

SC - 34

SC - 35

North Temple Pore Pressures

1264

1266

1268

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

1286

1288

1290

0 200 400 600 800

Uexcess (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 1

RC -12

SC - 31

SC - 32

SC - 33

SC - 34

SC - 35

North Temple Normalized Friction Ratio

1264

1266

1268

1270

1272

1274

1276

1278

1280

1282

1284

1286

1288

1290

0 3 6 9 12 15

Fr

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 1

RC -12

SC - 31

SC - 32

SC - 33

SC - 34

SC - 35

Figure 28 - North Temple CPT Data

69

2 = sensitive and soft clays3 = clays4 = silt mixtures5 = sands mixed with silts6 = sands7 = gravels and dense sands

LayerRecent AlluviumUBInterbedsLB

South Temple Tip Resistance

1264.00

1266.00

1268.00

1270.00

1272.00

1274.00

1276.00

1278.00

1280.00

1282.00

1284.00

1286.00

1288.00

1290.00

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

qt (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 2

SC - 128

SC - 130

SC - 131

SC - 139

SC - 140

SC - 143

SouthTemple Sleeve Friction

1264.00

1266.00

1268.00

1270.00

1272.00

1274.00

1276.00

1278.00

1280.00

1282.00

1284.00

1286.00

1288.00

1290.00

0 50 100 150 200

fs (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 2

SC - 128

SC - 130

SC - 131

SC - 139

SC - 140

SC - 143

South Temple Pore Pressures

1264.00

1266.00

1268.00

1270.00

1272.00

1274.00

1276.00

1278.00

1280.00

1282.00

1284.00

1286.00

1288.00

1290.00

0 200 400 600 800

Uexcess (kPa)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 2

SC - 128

SC - 130

SC - 131

SC - 139

SC - 140

SC - 143

South Temple Normalized Friction Ratio

1264.00

1266.00

1268.00

1270.00

1272.00

1274.00

1276.00

1278.00

1280.00

1282.00

1284.00

1286.00

1288.00

1290.00

0 3 6 9 12 15

Fr

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

CPTu - 2

SC - 128

SC - 130

SC - 131

SC - 139

SC - 140

SC - 143

70

Figure 29 - South Temple CPT Data

B1 - 14.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 30 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 -14.00

71

B1 15.46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 31 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.46

72

B1 - 15.48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 32 - Stress:Strain Plot for B1 15.48

73

B1 17.22

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 33 - Stress;Strain Plot for B1 17.22

74

B2 10.2

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 34 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 10.2

75

B2 13.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 35 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 13.3

76

B2 14.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain %

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 36 - Stress:Strain Plot for B2 14.8

77

B3 7.1 - Stress-Strain

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 37 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.1

78

B3 7.315

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 38 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.315

79

B3 8.7

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Axial Strain (%)

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Figure 39 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.7

80

B3 8.69

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 40 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 8.69

81

B3 11.56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 41 - Stress:Strain plot for B3 11.56

82

B3 16.00 - Stress-Strain

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 42 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 16.00

83

B3 17.260m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 43 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.260

84

B3 17.676 - Stress Strain Plot

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 44 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 17.68

85

B3 18.532

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 45 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 18.532

86

B3 19.11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 46 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 19.11

87

B4 6.25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 47 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 6.25

88

B4 7.98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 48 - Stress:Strain Plot for B3 7.98

89

B4 11.07

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Axial Strain

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 49 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 11.07

90

B4 - 13.945m

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Vertical Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s

';l

Figure 50 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 13.945

91

B-4 16.840 Stress-Strain Plot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Axial Strain (%)

Eff

ecti

ve D

evia

tor

Str

ess

(kP

a)

Figure 51 - Stress:Strain Plot for B6 16.84

92

B-4 17.00m

114

134

154

174

194

214

234

254

274

294

314

334

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Axial Strain (%)

Eff

ecti

ve V

erti

cal S

tres

s (k

Pa)

Figure 52 - Stress:Strain Plot for B4 17.00

93

Figure 53 - SIGMA/W In-Situ Stress Analysis

94

Figure 54 - SIGMA/W Existing Embankment Analysis

95

Figure 55 - SIGMA/W Phase I Analysis

96

97

Figure 56 - SIGMA/W Phase II Anlysis

98