REFERENCES

1. AASHTO-T 88, “Determination of Grain Size Analysis of Soil”.

2. AASHTO T-89, “Determination of Liquid Limit of Soil”.
3. AASHTO T-90, “Determination of Plastic Limit of Soil”.
4. AASHTO T-100, “Determination of Specific Gravity of Soil”.
5. AASHTO M-145, “Determination of Classification of Soil”.
6. AASHTO T-203, “Hand Auger for Subsurface Determination”.
7. AASHTO T-207, “Shelby Tube Sampling of Soil”.
8. AASHTO T-208, “Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil”.
9. AASHTO T-215, “Determination of Permeability of Soil”.
10. AASHTO T-216, “Determination of Consolidation Test”.
11. AASHTO T-265, “Determination of Moisture Content”.
12. AASHTO T-267, “Determination of LOI (Loss of Ignition)”.
13. AASHTO T-296, “Determination of Triaxial Testing” (UU).
14. AASHTO T-297, “Determination of Triaxial Testing” (CU).
15. AASHTO T-307, “Determination of Resilient Modulus”.
16. ASTM D-2434, “A Constant Head Test to Determine the Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil”.
17. ASTM D-2976, “Determination of pH Values of Soil”
18. ASTM D-5084, “Flexible Wall Method to Determine the Hydraulic Conductivity of Fine
Soils”.
19. Bowles, J.E., (1998) “Foundation Analysis and Design”, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., New York.
20. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual.
21. Das, B. M. (1988) “Principles of Foundation Engineering”.
22. Das, B. M. (1994) “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”.
23. Malott ,Clyde A. (1922) Physiographic Map of Indiana
24. Driven 1.2 (1998) User’s Manual” Publication No. FHWA-SA-98-074
25. EM 1110-2-1906, “Determination of Unit Weight of Soil”, Engineer Manual of Soil
Laboratory Test. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
26. FHWA Manual (COM 624 Program) of Piles Analysis (FHWA IP-84-11) (Uses Wang and
Reese’s Method).
27. HFHWA-HI-88-009 Workshop Manual on Soils and Foundation, NHI Course No. 13212.
28. FHWA-HI-96-013 and FHWA-HI-97-014 Design and Construction of Driven Pile
Foundations.
29. FHWA-Manual on “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations”, DP-66-1,
January 1996.
30. FHWA-RD-89-043 (1990) “Reinforced Soil Structures”.
31. FHWA-SA-96-071 (1998) “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall”.
32. Gray, Henry H. (1982) Map of Indiana Showing Topography of Bedrock Surfaces
33. Gray, Henry H. (1988) Map of Indiana Showing Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits.
34. Gray, Henry H. (1989) Indiana Geological Survey Quaternary Geological Map of Indiana
35. INDOT Bridge Design Memorandum #213 (1992) for Seismic Design Criteria.
36. Meyerhof, G.G. (1976) “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE Vol. 1.2 No. G13 Proc. Lafer 11962 pp 195 –
228.
37. MN DOT (1991) Weathering Nomenclature for Rocks.
38. Nordlund, R.L. (1963) “Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils”, ASCE
39. Nordlund, R.L. (1979) “Point Bearing and Shaft Friction of Piles in Sand”, 5 th Annual
Fundamentals of Deep Foundation Design. University of Missouri Rolla.
40. NY DOT (1977) “Prescription Values of Allowable Lateral Loads on Vertical Piles”, (Uses
Bron’s Method of Pile Analysis).
41. Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) “Foundation Engineering”, John Wiley and Sons
N,.Y. 2nd Edition.
42. Peck, R. P., et. al., (1953) “Foundation Engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
43. Folk, R. L. (1980) Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks.
44. Rendon-Herrero (1980) “Universal Compression Index Equation”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Vol. 106, GTII, 1979-1200.
45. Schroeder, J.A., (December 1980), “Static Design Procedures for Ultimate Capacity of
Deep Foundations”, prepared for H. C. Nutting (in-house seminar), Cincinnati, OH
46. Skempton, A.W. and Bjerrum, L. (1957) “A Contribution to Settlement Analysis of
Foundations in Clay Geo-technique”, London, England, U.K. V.7, P. 178.
47. Sowers, G.F., “Introductory Soils Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical
Engineering”. MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York, (1979).
48. Tomilson, M.J., (1970) “Some Effects of Pile Driving on Skin Friction”, Conference on
Behavior of Piles, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, pp,. 57-66.
49. Tomilson, M.J. (1980) “Foundation Design and Construction”, Pitman Advanced
Publishing, Boston, MA. 4th edition.
50. Tomilson, M.J. (1985) “Foundation Design and Construction”, Langman Scientific and
Technical, Essex, England.
51. WEAP (1997) “Wave Equation Analysis for Pile Design”.
52. XSTABL (1995) “Version 5 Reference Manual Interactive Software Designs” Moscow,
ID, USA
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 (4.1) Boring Log Example
 Appendix 2 Grain Size Example

Grian Size Analysis

#4 # 10 # 40 # 200 Class 'C' Fly ash

100
loess
90

80
Percent Finer By Weight

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
B G Grain Size (mm)
C

Sand Cla
Boulders Gravel Silt
Coarse Fine y

Sample
Station / Offset / Line Dept, meters Elev. USCGS
Identification.
RB-5 SS-3 2+300 3.0m Lt. "A" 1.2 - 1.7 258.8 + 258.1
Spec. % % MC
Lab # Class pH % Silt % Clay LL PL PI
Gravity Gravel Sand %
Loam
N/A
A-4(1)
 Appendix 3 Consolidation Test
(Specimen Data)

Date:

Project:

Boring No:

Classification:

Before Test After Test

Specimen Trimmings Specimen
Tare No. Ring and Plates
Tare plus wet soil
Weight in

Tare plus dry soil

grams

Water WW WW WWF
Tare
Dry Soil WS
W W
Water Content W O % % F

Consolidometer No. Area of specimen A, sq. in.

Weight of ring, g Height of specimen, H, in.
Weight of plates, g Specific gravity of solids, GS

HS  WS
AG W
HWF
Degree of saturation after test, Sr   %.
Hf  Hs

Net change of height of specimen at end of test, ∆H= in.

Height of specimen at end of test, Hr = H - ∆H= in.

Remarks:

Hf - Hs
Void ratio after tests   =
Hs
Hw
Degree of saturation before test,So    %
H - Hs
Ws
Dry Density   lb/cu ft.
Hs x A
Technician: Computed by: Checked by:
 Appendix 4 Consolidation Test
(Time-Consolidation Data)

Date:
Subject:

Boring No: Sample No: Consolidation No:

Elapsed Dial Elapsed Dial

Date & Temp. Date & Temp.
Time time, Rdg. o Time time, Rdg. o
Pressure C Pressure C
min. 10-4 in. min. 10-4 in.

Technician:
 Appendix 5 E-Log P Curve
Consolidation Test

Boring No: Sample No: Depth:

Soil Description:

Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: % Fines:

Wet Density, t: Water Content, W%: Initial Void Ratio, ℓo:

Cc: Cr: Pc: Cv:

 Appendix 6 Strain Percentage Worksheet
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

8000

7000

6000

5000
Pcf/kPa

4000

3000

2000

1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Strain Percent

Sample Location:

Depth: Moisture Content

Strain Rate: Dry Unit Weight

1

Soil Description:

Soil Description:

Soil Description:

Project #: Des. #:

Road: County:

Location:
 Appendix 7 Triaxial Compression Test

(Specimen Data)

Date:
Project:
Boring No: Sample No:
Type of Test: Confining Pressure tons/sq ft
Test No. Classification:
Before test
Specimen Trimmings Specimen
Tare No:
Tare plus wet soil
Tare plus dry soil
Weight,q

Water WW WWO Wwf

Tare
Wet Soil WS
Dry Soil W
Water W % wO % wf %
Content
Initial Condition of Specimen
Diameter, inch (cm) Do Top Center Bottom Average
Height, cm Ho Volume of solids, in. 3 Vs
Area sq inch = 7.854 D2 Ao Void ratio = (Vo - Vs) ÷ Vs eo
Volume = in.2 Vo Saturation, % S
Specific gravity of solids G Dry Density, lb/cu ft d
Condition of Specimen After Consolidation (R and S Tests)
Change in height during
consolidation, in. δHo Volume, in. = AcHc Vc
Height, = Ho -δHoin. Hc Void Ratio = (Vc - Vs) ÷ Vs ec
Area, sq. in. Ac Saturation, % Sc
Condition of Specimen After Test (R and S Tests)
Diameter, cm Dr Top Center Bottom Average
Change in height during Shear
Tests, in. ∆H Volume, in.3 = AfHf Vf
Height, in. = Hc - ∆ H Hr Void Ratio = (Vr - Vs) ÷ Vs er
Area, sq inch Af Saturation, % Sr
wo ws wc ws
x x
W Ws 100 yw 100 yw
Ws  , vs  , So  x100, sc  x100,
w YwGs Vo  Vs Vc  Vs
wf ws
x
100 w ws Ho  H
Sr  x 100,  x 62.4, Ac  Ao
Vf  Vs Vo Ho
w  water content
Remarks:

Technician: Computed by: Checked by:

 Appendix 8 Triaxial Compression (Q) and Test
Axial Loading Data

Date:

Project:

Boring No: Sample No: Test No:

Type Test: Confining Pressure: lb/sq ft:

Deviator
P Axial ^corr =
Elapsed Dial Cumulative Stress =
P Axial Strain * A**
Time Time Reading Change (Δ H) ε P x 0.465
Load lb ΔH 1 - ε sq
min. 10-2 10- 2 in Corr tons/sq
H in.
ft

* Use Ho for Q tests and Hc for R tests Ho inch (cm) in Ao

sq in
**Use Ho for Q tests and Hc for R tests Ho inch (cm) in Ao
sq in
Test time to failure min. Type Failure:
.
Technician:
.
Appendix 9 Resilient Modulus Test Data Sheet OMC
 Appendix 10 Subgrade Evaluation (example)
Boring No.

In-situ Max. In-situ

Nat. Opt %

AASHTO
Sample Depth SPT Dry Dry %

Class.
Sta Offset Line Soil Type Moisture iMoisture Moi
No (ft.) (N) Density Density Comp
(%) (%) Diff
(pcf) (pcf) action
RB-06 276+00 20’ Lt “A” SS-1 2.0-3.5 Loam A-6 5 110.9 110.0 100.8 14.5 17.8 -3.3
Silty Clay
RB-09 290+00 20’ Rt “A” SS-2 3.5-5.0 A-6 13 111.5 110.0 101.4 17.6 17.8 -0.2
Loam
Silty Clay
RB-11 303+00 30’ Rt “A” SS-1 1.5-3.0 A-6 7 109.1 110.0 99.2 17.8 17.8 0.0
Loam
Silty Clay
RB-16 322+50 35’ Lt “A” SS-1 2.0-3.5 A-6 9 108.3 110.0 98.4 16.0 17.8 -1.8
Loam
RB-22 343+00 20’ Lt “A” SS-1 2.0-3.0 Loam A-6 9 119.5 110.6
Silty Clay
RB-27 385+00 35’ Lt “A” SS-1 2.0-3.0 A-6 10 109.8 110.0 99.8 12.7 17.8 -5.1
Loam
Silty Clay
RB-36 440+00 15’ Lt “PR-A” SS-2 1.5-3.5 A-6 12 108.2 110.0 98.3 18.7 17.8 0.9
Loam
 Appendix 11: Peat Unit Weight (example)

Natural Max. Dry

Boring Sample Depth AASHTO SPT
Station Offset Line Soil Type Moisture Density
No. No. (feet) Class. (N)
(%) (pcf)
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-17B 326+00 98’Rt “A” ST-2 16.0-18.0 A-7-5 0 82.6 91.8
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-17B 326+50 98’Rt “A” SWT-9 33.5-35.0 A-7-5 0 103.6 90.2
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-17B 326+50 98’Rt “A” ST-3 36.0-38.0 A-7-5 0 71.5 81.0
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Traces of
RB-18 326+50 54’Lt “A” SS-1 0.5-2.0 A-6 2 55.4 92.3
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-18 326+50 54’Lt “A” SS-4 8.5-10.0 A-7-5 0 65.0 93.2
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-18 326+50 54’Lt “A” SS-9 21.0-22.5 A-7-5 0 119.1 88.8
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Little
RB-18B 328+00 51’Lt “A” SS-2 3.0-4.5 A-7-5 1 89.1 105.2*
Organic Matter
Silty Clay w/Traces of
RB-19 332+15 35’Rt “A” SS-1 1.0-2.0 Visual 25 35.4 110.3*
Organic Matter
Average of Peat Unit Weight 89.5*
RB-18D 326+50 30’Lt “A” SS-4 8.5-10.0 Loam A-7-6 16.3 16.3 120.9*
Clay w/Little Organic
RB-18E 326+45 54’Lt “A” ST-1 5.0-7.0 Visual 75.6 75.6 119.8
Matter
* Not included in average
 Appendix 12: MSE Wall Design Parameter and Geotechnical Check Table

MSE Wall Design Parameter and Geotechnical Check Table

Design Parameter Value (area 1)*
Maximum Calculated Settlement "x" inches
Maximum Differential Settlement "y" inches
Time for settlement completion "z" days
Maximum wall height XX ft

Design Recommendations
Minimum Reinforcement Length/Height Ratio 0.75H (example)
Undercut required yes/no
Undercut depth X feet
Undercut area from Sta. XX to XX line "XX"
Undercut Backfill Material XXXXXXX

Seismic recommendation
Site Class
Seismic Zone
Peak Ground Acceleration As

Geotechnical Analysis Checks CDR

Sliding >=1.0
Eccentricity >=1.0
Factor of safety/
Global Stability resistance factor
Factored Bearing Resistance 5400 psf (example value)

Foundation Soils Strength Parameters**

Cohesion
internal friction angle

Notes:
*more sheets can be added to include recommendations for each area of concern.
**if varying soil conditions encountered underneath the MSE wall, the table can be expanded to
include all soil profile information
 Appendix 13: Example Pavement Core Report

PAVEMENT CORE REPORT

Des No.:
Location:

Road Core No. Date Cored Core Dia. Station Offset Line

Photo of Core next to Photo of Core Location

measurement tape looking down the roadway

Photo inside the hole Photo of the base stones at the

where core was extracted base of the pavement core

Depth (inches) Pavement Type Notes

Recovered Core In-hole Depth Recovery (%)

Length (inches) (inches)
 Location Core No. Date Cored Core Dia. Station Offset Line
SR 29 PC-2 10/17/2018 4 34+75 6 ft Lt CL

Depth (inches) Pavement Type Notes

13 Asphalt

Recovered Core In-hole Depth Recovery (%)

Length (inches) (inches)
13 100
 Appendix 14: Performance Criteria Report

Geotechnical Engineering

Report Completion
Schedule Schedule

Did the consultant meet the delivery schedule?

Exceeds - An acceptable final product was delivered more than 30 calendar days ahead of schedule.

Above Average - An acceptable final product was delivered more than 14 but less than 30 calendar days ahead of
schedule.

Satisfactory - An acceptable final work product was delivered within the scheduled time.

Improvement Required - An acceptable final work product was delivered up to two months behind schedule.

Unsatisfactory - An acceptable final work product was delivered more than two months behind schedule.

Not Applicable - Not Applicable

Budget Budget

Did the consultant deliver the services cost effectively?

Exceeds - The consultant improved the operations budget more than 10%.

Above Average - The consultant improved the operations budget more than 5%.

Satisfactory - The consultant maintained the operations budget within 5%.

Improvement Required - The consultant had budget slippage of 5% to 10%.

Unsatisfactory - The consultant exceeded the budget by more than 10%.

Not Applicable - Not Applicable

Drilling Procedure Quality

Were samples collected in accordance with INDOT standards?

Exceeds - All samples were collected in accordance with INDOT standards also additional samples were collected to
accommodate any change in the scope of the project.

Above Average - All samples were collected in accordance with INDOT standards also additional samples were
collected to accommodate only one change in the scope of the project.

Satisfactory - All samples were collected in accordance with INDOT standards .

Improvement Required - Some samples were not collected in compliance with INDOT standards .

Unsatisfactory - Most samples were not in compliance with INDOT standards. As a result the consultant was
instructed to remobilize and collect the required samples.

Appropriate Equipmment Quality

Was the appropriate equipment mobilized for the work assignment?

Exceeds - Equipment mobilized was adequate and very good operating condition.

Above Average - Equipment mobilized was adequate and in good operating condition.

Generated Date: 2/21/2019 Page 1 of 3

 Performance Criteria Report

Geotechnical Engineering

Satisfactory - Equipment was generally adequate but needed some adjustment during the field operation.

Improvement Required - Some equipment mobilized was not adequate and required an adjustment in the scope of
work.

Unsatisfactory - Correct equipment was not mobilized causing delays, change in scope, and change in boring
locations.

24 Hour Water Levels Quality

Were 24 hour water levels recorded for boreholes at the appropriate time?

Above Average - 24hr water level readings were recorded in boreholes, some readings were taken after 72 hours or
more.

Satisfactory - 24hr water level readings were recorded.

Improvement Required - 24hr water level readings were not recorded in boreholes.

Unsatisfactory - No 24hr water level readings were recorded.

Backfilling Boreholes Quality

Were boreholes appropriately backfilled?

Exceeds - All boreholes were backfilled and re-backfilled after the settlement period.

Above Average - All boreholes were backfilled and some were re-backfilled after the settlement period.

Satisfactory - All boreholes were backfilled but not checked for settlement.

Improvement Required - Some boreholes backfilled correctly, consultant requested to go back and fill unfilled holes.

Unsatisfactory - None of the boreholes were backfilled. Consultant was required to go back and fill the holes.

Traffic Control Quality

Were appropriate traffic control measures followed?

Exceeds - Met all requirements and exceeded expectations.

Above Average - Met all requirements and expectations.

Satisfactory - Met all requirements with no minor adjustments.

Improvement Required - Was incomplete and required major revisions.

Unsatisfactory - Consultant did not have traffic control when it was required .

Laboratory Procedures Quality

Were laboratory tests performed in accordance with requirements?

Exceeds - Laboratory tests performed in accordance with requirements and provided additional graphs and plots of test
data.

Above Average - All tests were performed in accordance with standards and requirements, some with additional
graphs and plots of test data.

Generated Date: 2/21/2019 Page 2 of 3

 Performance Criteria Report

Geotechnical Engineering

Satisfactory - All tests were performed in accordance with standards and requirements.

Improvement Required - Some tests were not performed in accordance with standards and requirements.

Unsatisfactory - None of the tests were performed in accordance with the standards and requirements.

Engineering Recommendations Quality

Were engineering recommendations technically correct and economically effective?

Exceeds - Engineering recommendations were both technically correct and presented the most economical
engineering solutions. No revisions were required to the original submittal.

Above Average - Engineering recommendations were technically correct and presented the most economical
engineering solutions. Minor revisions were required to the original submittal.

Satisfactory - Engineering recommendations were adequate. Revisions were required to the original submittal.

Improvement Required - Initial engineering recommendations were inadequate. Revisions were required to the
original submittal.

Unsatisfactory - Initial engineering recommendations were inadequate and inappropriate. Multiple revisions were
required and multiple submittals were required to achieve an acceptable report.

Operations Responsiveness Responsiveness

Willingness to answer questions and make appropriate changes to plans/documents.

Exceeds - Willingness to answer questions and make requested changes exceeded expectations and was proactive in
addressing project issues.

Above Average - The consultant revised plans/documents in accordance with comments and made additional
improvements that had not been suggested but resulted in an improved product. Readily explained revisions and
answered all questions.

Satisfactory - The consultant did revise the plans/documents in accordance with the comments and/or explained why
revisions were not made and showed a willingness to answer questions.

Improvement Required - The Consultant did not revise some of the plans/documents in accordance with the
comments and did not explain why some of the revisions were not made. Consultant showed some cooperation in
answering questions but required several requests.

Unsatisfactory - The consultant did not comply with any of the above.

Generated Date: 2/21/2019 Page 3 of 3