Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

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

SoilEngineering: A Microsoft Excels spreadsheet& program for geotechnical

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

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: SoilEngineering is a user-friendly, interactive Microsoft Excels spreadsheet program for the
Received 25 May 2009 geotechnical and geophysical analysis of soils. The influence of soil behavior on earthquake
Received in revised form characteristics and/or structural design is one of the major elements in investigating earthquake
13 January 2010
forces, and thus the structural response with static and dynamic loads. With its interactive nature, the
Accepted 19 January 2010
program provides the user with an opportunity to undertake soil static and dynamic load analysis. The
program is formed by three main options: (1) Data Preparation, (2) Derived Parameters and (3) Analysis
Keywords: of Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads). The Data Preparation option is divided into four
Excel spreadsheet modules: Seismic Refraction Data, Geoelectrical Data, Borehole and SPT (N) Data and Laboratory Data.
Geotechnical and geophysical analysis
The Derived Parameters option is divided into two modules: Geotechnical Parameters Derived from
Soil mechanics and dynamics
Geophysical Data and Relationships between Vs and SPT (N) Values. The Analysis of Soil Problems (with
Static and Dynamic Loads) option is divided into nine modules: Bearing Capacity for Shallow and Deep
Foundations, Settlement Analysis (Static and Dynamic Loads), Estimation of Subgrade Reaction
Coefficient, Slope Stability Analysis, Seismic Hazard Analysis, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships,
Acceleration/Velocity/Displacement Spectra, Soil Amplification Analysis and Soil Liquefaction Analysis.
Soil engineering also permits plotting geophysical and geotechnical data with analysis.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Many engineering analyses related to soils (bearing capacity,

settlement, liquefaction, amplification, slope stability, earthquake
The natural materials that constitute the earth’s crust are hazards, etc.) make use of geotechnical and geophysical data. As
rather arbitrarily divided by engineers into two categories: soil Keskin (2002) points out, researchers can obtain useful tools for
and rock. Soil is a natural aggregate of mineral grains that can be modelling scientific data by using new techniques and algorithms.
separated by such gentle mechanical means as an agitation in Several useful computer programs have been designed for
water (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967). In a dynamic sense, seismic geophysical and geotechnical analysis of soils, for use by the
waves generated at the source of an earthquake propagate scientific and engineering communities (e.g., EERA, Shake, etc.).
through different soil horizons, until they reach the surface at a In this paper, a new spreadsheet program is presented called
specific site. The travel paths of these seismic waves in the SoilEngineering, designed for analysis of many soil problems
uppermost soil layers strongly affect their characteristics, produ- (bearing capacity, settlement, slope stability, liquefaction, soil
cing different effects on earthquake motion at the ground surface. amplification and earthquake hazard) with geophysical and
Local amplification caused by surficial soft soils is a significant geotechnical data. To execute the calculations for this analysis,
factor in destructive earthquake motion. Frequently, site condi- ’’SoilEngineering’’ uses a Microsoft Excels Workbook, including
tions determine the types of damage from moderate to large interactive connections and enquiries (Figs. 1 and 2).
earthquakes (Bard, 1998; Pitikalis, 2004; Safak, 2001). SoilEngineering is designed for execution in Microsoft Excels.
The design of a foundation, an earth dam, or a retaining wall Special features of ‘‘SoilEngineering’’ are data entry by user,
cannot be made intelligently, unless the designer has at least a record/save, analysis of soil problems, visual/graphical and
reasonably accurate conception of the physical properties of the numerical/computational output. This program could clearly
soils involved. The field and laboratory investigations required to transfer all data and graphical presentations to other Windows
obtain this essential information constitute soil exploration. media. By using the ‘‘SoilEngineering’’ program, soil static and
dynamic analyses can be easily carried out.
$ The architecture of the present study is as follows: some
Code available from server at http://www.iamg.org/CGEditor/index.htm
n
Tel.: + 90 2124737070; fax: + 90 2124737180. information on soil geophysical and geotechnical analysis is
E-mail address: [email protected] given in the first part of the paper. The framework of the

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.01.015
1356 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361

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

Fig. 3. Correlation of equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio and SPT N1,60 value for
events of magnitude Mw ¼ 7.5 for varying fines contents (after Seed et al., 2001).

Slope stability analysis includes the analysis of the static and

dynamic stabilities of soil and rock in natural and artificial forms.
The stability of a slope is governed by slope angle, shear resistance
parameters (cohesion and internal friction angles) and agitation
parameters such as water, earthquake, artificial loads, etc. Several
Fig. 2. Main options of SoilEngineering Microsoft Excels Program. analyses for static and dynamic soil stabilities were performed by
several researchers (Siyahi and Ansal, 1999; Wilson et al., 1979;
Das, 1993). In these analyses, the safety factors of slope stability
‘‘SoilEngineering’’ program is given in the second part. The third were estimated by slope parameters.
part of the paper focuses on the operational mechanism of the Seismic hazard analysis is the computation of probabilities of
program. An application example is given in the last part to clarify occurrence per unit of time for certain levels of ground shaking
the analysis. caused by earthquakes. This analysis is often summarized with a
seismic hazard curve, which shows an annual probability of
exceedence versus ground motion amplitude. Earthquake occur-
2. Geophysical and geotechnical analysis of soils rence probability was given by using
Rm ¼ 1-e-ðNðMÞ:DÞ ð1Þ
As the load on a given soil increases, a foundation settlement
problem occurs. If the load becomes great enough, the increment where Rm is the risk value (%); D, duration; and N(M) earthquake
of settlement may be excessively or uncontrollably large, and the frequency for M, magnitude. N(M) values were estimated by
foundation is said to have broken into the ground or to have magnitude–frequency relation (recurrence relationships) or the
undergone a bearing-capacity failure. Obviously, the distinction Gutenberg–Richter relation. The attenuation relationship of
between excessive settlement and failure by breaking into the strong earthquake ground motion was defined by several
ground is arbitrary in many cases. attenuation models. From a set of attenuation relationships, the
Bearing-capacity equations for shallow foundations were given design acceleration values of regions could be estimated
by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1961) and Vesic (1964). From (e.g., Joyner and Boore, 1981; Campbell, 1997).
in situ tests, bearing capacities were obtained by Bowles (1996) The ground-motion level of a region is the basis for dynamic
and Meyerhof (1956) from standard penetration tests (SPT) and analysis (i.e., liquefaction and soil amplification).
Tezcan et al. (2006) for shear waves. Craig (1992) proposed a Soil liquefaction resistance can be estimated by an in situ test
ground-water correction for bearing-capacity results. Seismic or a laboratory test. Standard penetration, cone penetration and
bearing capacity was carried out by Richards et al. (1993). For shear wave tests are most of those used for the estimation of
soil settlement analysis for static and dynamic loads, several liquefaction susceptibility. Methods based on SPT were developed
approaches were proposed—e.g., Burland and Burbridge (1985); by Seed and Idriss (1971), Seed et al. (2001), Iwasaki et al. (1978),
Janbu (1954) with laboratory data, Meyerhof (1961), Terzaghi and Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1984).
Peck (1967) with SPT tests, Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992), Methods in using the Conic Penetration Test (CPT) include those
Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) and Krinitsky et al. (1993) with developed by Seed and De Alba (1986) and Robertson and
dynamic loads. Campanella (1985). For engineering purposes, data obtained from
 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361 1357

site investigation, including boring and laboratory tests, need to thickness and properties of soil layers, depth of bedrock and the
be used besides the methods based on SPT and CPT (1993; Ansal, water table and could have significant effects on the characteristics
1991). Methods using the shear waves were developed by Stokoe of earthquake ground motions at the ground surface. Thus soil
et al. (1988) and Andrus and Stokoe (1997, 2000). State-of-the-art conditions could amplify or deamplify the earthquake forces in
liquefaction analysis is evaluated by Youd et al., 2001. different regions. The upper 30 m of the soil profile plays an
The second type of factors controlling ground motion character- important role in soil amplification, and equivalent shear wave
istics during earthquakes could be considered local site conditions. velocity can be used as one parameter for estimating the site
Soil conditions could be very different, owing to variations in amplification (Joyner and Fumal, 1984; Ansal et al., 2001).

Fig. 4. (a) Input parameters ground water level (G.W.L.), earthquake magnitude, acceleration (g), fines content, unit weights for the liquefaction analysis. (b) Output
parameters for liquefaction analysis by shear wave velocity. (c) Output parameters for liquefaction analysis by an SPT (N) value.
1358 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361

3. Program structure and how the program works Refraction Data, Geoelectrical Data, Borehole and SPT (N) Data and
Laboratory Data). The Derived Parameters option is divided into two
The SoilEngineering program (Fig. 2) comprises three main modules (Geotechnical Parameters Derived from Geophysical Data
options: (1) Data Preparation, (2) Derived Parameters and and Relationships between Vs and SPT (N) values). The analysis of
(3) Analysis of Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads). The Soil Problems (with Static and Dynamic Loads) option is divided into
Data Preparation option is divided into four modules (Seismic nine modules (Bearing Capacity for Shallow and Deep Foundations,

Fig. 5. (a) For seismic hazard analysis, input parameters (Ni: occurrence numbers of earthquakes) and year interval. (b) For seismic hazard analysis, output parameters
(probability for D year, and design magnitude and design acceleration for any D year and any probability of occurrence).
 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361 1359

Settlement Analysis (Static and Dynamic Loads), Estimation of 4. Some application examples
Subgrade Reaction Coefficient, Slope Stability Analysis, Seismic
Hazard Analysis, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships, Accel- 4.1. Soil liquefaction analysis
eration/Velocity/Displacement Spectra, Soil Amplification Analysis
and Soil Liquefaction Analysis). Each module contains one sheet. 0
The safety factor for soil liquefaction can be calculated by the
Except for the cells that are used for setting the parameters and simple equation
storing data, most cells on these sheets are write-protected in order
to maintain the integrity of the program. SF ¼ CRRðSÞ=CSRðEÞ ð2Þ

Fig. 6. (a) Input and output parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations from laboratory data and by in situ (SPT) tests. (b) Input and output
parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations from shear wave data.
1360 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361

where CRR is cyclic resistance ratio of soils and CSR is cyclic stress and engineers can easily analyze soil static and dynamic problems
ratio of earthquakes. for geotechnical engineering projects. The program is also capable
In the liquefaction analysis, the most widely used simplified of obtaining a high-quality graphic output for the academic and
SPT (the N method was proposed by Seed et al. (2001). This engineering communities.
method calculates the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio in a This program is practical, functional, useful, serviceable,
soil layer via the simplified equation below: manageable and operable in an interaction between geophysical
CSRðcyclic stress ratioÞ ¼ 0:65ðAmax=gÞðso=souÞrdðzÞ=MSFðMÞ ð3Þ and geotechnical data and their integrated analyses.

where so and so are the effective and total vertical overburden

0

pressures at a specified depth; Amax is the peak horizontal References

ground acceleration; rd (z) is the stress reduction factor at depth z
and MSF (M) is a magnitude scaling factor that considers the Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., 1997. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave
duration effect of different earthquake magnitudes. In Eq. (2), so0 velocity. In: Proceedings of the National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National
and so are directly computed from boring log and laboratory test
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York, 89–128.
data, and can therefore be regarded as deterministic values with Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., 2000. Liquefaction resistance based on shear-wave
no variance; The rd (z) and MSF (M) vary with depth and velocity. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 126 (11), 1015–1025.
Ansal, A.M., 1991. Evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. In: Proceedings of the
earthquake magnitude.
Fifth International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Criteria for evaluating liquefaction resistance based on SPT, Karlsruhe, Germany, 303–312.
CPT or shear wave data are largely embodied in the CRR versus Ansal, A.M., Iyisan, R., Yildirim, H., 2001. The cyclic behavior of soils and effects of
N1,60, Vs1 and CPT plot (Youd et al., 2001). This procedure is geotechnical factors in microzonation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 21, 445–452.
based on the relationship of SPT (N) values, corrected for both Bard, P.Y., 1998. Microtremor measurements: a tool for site effect estimation? In:
effective overburden stress and energy, equipment and procedur- Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Effects of Surface
al factors affecting SPT testing (to N1,60 values) versus intensity Geology on Seismic Motion—ESG98, Yokohama, Japan, 1251–1279.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
of cyclic loading, expressed as magnitude-weighted equivalent Singapore 1004pp.
uniform cyclic stress ratio (CSReq). The correlation between Burland, J.B., Burbridge, M.C., 1985. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel.
corrected N1,60 values and the intensity of cycling, required to In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 78 (1), 1325–1381.
Campbell, K.W., 1997. Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for
trigger liquefaction, is also a function of the fines content, as horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground
shown in Fig. 3 (Seed et al., 2001). velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological
To run the SoilEngineering program for soil liquefaction Research Letters 68 (1), 154–179.
Craig, R.F., 1992. Soil Mechanics. ELBS with Chapman & Hall, London 427pp.
analysis, if input parameters are ground water level (G.W.L.),
Das, B.M., 1993. Principles of Soil Dynamics. PWS Kent Publishing Company,
earthquake magnitude, acceleration (g), fines content, unit Boston 570pp.
weights and N1(6 0 9) and/or Vs1 values (Fig. 4a), then output Ishihara, K., Yoshimine, M., 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations 32 (1), 73–188.
parameters (Fig. 4b and c) are safety factors that depend on CSR
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K., Yasuda, S., 1978. A practical method for
and CRR. assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in
Japan. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Microzona-
tion, San Francisco, 885–896.
4.2. Seismic hazard analysis Janbu, N., 1954. Application of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis.
Proceedings European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes Stockholm 3,
Earthquake occurrence probabilities (for Poisson’s probability 43–49.
Joyner, W.B., Boore, D.M., 1981. Peak acceleration and velocity from strong motion
distribution) were given by using Eq. (1), where Rm is the risk records including records from the 1979 imperial valley California earthquake.
value (%); D, duration; and N(M), earthquake frequency for M, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71, 2011–2038.
magnitude. The N(M) values were estimated by the magnitude– Joyner, W.B., Fumal, T., 1984. Use of measured shear-wave velocity for predictive
geological site effects on strong motion. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World
frequency relations (recurrence relationships) or Gutenberg– Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 777–783.
Richter relation. To run the SoilEngineering program for seismic Keskin, M., 2002. FC-modeler: a Microsoft Excels spreadsheet program for
hazard analysis, the input parameters are Ni (occurrence numbers modeling rayleigh fractionation vectors in closed magmatic systems. Compu-
ters & Geosciences 28, 919–928.
of earthquakes) and the year interval (Fig. 5a). Output parameters
Krinitzsky, E.L., Gold, J.P., Edinger, P.H., 1993. Fundamentals of Earthquake
are illustrated in Fig. 5b (probability for D year, and design Resistant Construction. John Wiley and Sons, New York 298pp.
magnitude and design acceleration for any D year and any Meyerhof, G.G., 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils.
probability of occurrence). In: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Stockholm 82, SM1,
Paper 866, 1–9.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1961. The ultimate bearing capacity of wedge-shaped foundations.
4.3. Bearing-capacity analysis for shallow foundations In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Paris, vol. II, 105–109.
Pitikalis, G., 2004. Site effects. In: Ansal, A. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Earthquake
Bearing-capacity analyses for shallow foundations were performed Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
from laboratory data by Terzaghi (1943) and Meyerhof (1961), and by Netherlands, pp. 139–197.
Richards, R., Elms, D.G., Budhu, M., 1993. Seismic bearing capacity and settlements
in situ tests by Bowles (1996) and Meyerhof (1956) by using the SPT of foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (4), 662–674.
test and by Tezcan et al. (2006) by using shear waves. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., 1985. Liquefaction potential of sands using the
Input and output parameters of bearing-capacity analysis for CPT. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (3), 384–403.
Safak, E., 2001. Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and
shallow foundations are illustrated in Fig. 6a and b.
Earthquake Engineering 21 (5), 453–458.
Seed, H.B., De Alba, P., 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the
liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of the American Society of
5. Conclusions Civil Engineers Specialty Conference In-Situ’86: Use of In-Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, VI, USA, 281–302.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
The goal of ‘‘SoilEngineering’’ as a Microsoft Excels spread- potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations 97 (9), 249–1273.
sheet program is the geotechnical and geophysical analyses of Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pesatana, J.M., Riemer,
soils with visual/graphical and numerical/computational pro- M.F., 2001. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic site
response evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
ducts. The program could be operated on Excel 2003 or newer Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering and
versions under Windows media. By using this program, scientists Microzonation Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper no. SPL-2.
 F. Ozcep / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 1355–1361 1361

Siyahi, B.G., Ansal, A., 1999. Manual for zonation on seismic geotechnical hazards. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Technical 130pp.
Committe 4. International Society of Soil Mechnics and Geotechnical Tokimatsu, K., Yoshimi, Y., 1983. Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on
Engineering, 68–70. SPT-N value and fines content. Soils and Foundation 30 (3), 153–158.
Stokoe, K.H., Roeset, J..M., Bierschwalle, J.G., Aouad, M., 1988. Liquefaction Vesic, A.S., 1964. Investigation of bearing capacity of piles in sands. Publication no:
potantial of sands from shear wave velocity. In: Proceedings of the Ninth 3, Duke University Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Durham, NC.
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 213–218. Wilson, R., Wieczorek, G., Harp, E., 1979. Development of criteria for regional
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York mapping of slope stability. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
349pp. Geological Society of America, San Diego, USA, 30.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice Second ed. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R.,
Wiley International Edition, New York 321pp. Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C.,
Tezcan, S., Keceli, A., Özdemir, Z., 2006. Allowable bearing capacity of shallow Marcuson, W.F., III., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S.,
foundations based on shear wave velocity. Geotechnical and Geological Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H., II, 2001. Liquefaction resistance of
Engineering 24 (1), 203–218. soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops
Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H.B., 1984. Simplified procedures for the evaluation of on evaluation of liquefacton resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical
settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Report no. UBB/EERC-84/16, Engineering 127(10), 817–833.