Appendix D PMT Report

TBG080713212819SCO

Appendix D In Situ Pressuremeter Testing Report

Final Report of

In Situ Pressuremeter Testing Project Neon Phase 1 Final Design

Clark County, Nevada

Submitted to:

Terracon Las Vegas, Nevada Project #6415029

and

CH2M-Hill, Inc. Santa Ana, CA Project# 424736

In Situ Engineering Project Number: 1033 February, 2012

Testing conducted and report prepared by:

In Situ Engineering 6232 195th Avenue SE

Snohomish, WA 98290 360-568-2807

In Situ Engineering

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 42.0 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 43.0 PRESSUREMETER TESTING ........................................................................................... 4

3.1 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 43.2 Hole Formation ................................................................................................................. 63.3 Test Procedure .................................................................................................................. 73.4 Range and Repeatability of Data ...................................................................................... 83.5 Standard method of Analysis of the Shear Modulus ...................................................... 103.6 Determination of the Limit Pressure and Shear Strength by Log Method ..................... 123.7 Strength Properties Derived from PMT Analysis .......................................................... 143.8 Analysis of Lateral Earth Pressure ................................................................................. 173.9 Pile Pressure Displacement Curves (P/Y) ...................................................................... 18

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 205.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 21

FIGURES Figure 1 Schematic details of the pressuremeter instrument ...................................................... 6Figure 2 Pressuremeter Test Neon26 .......................................................................................... 8Figure 3 Balance Pressure Testing Neon26 ................................................................................ 8Figure 4 Pair of Pressuremeter Tests 100 to 105 feet in B-11-077 ............................................. 9Figure 5 Modulus Analysis of Test Neon26 ............................................................................. 11Figure 6 Unload-Reload Moduli Values with Depth ................................................................ 12Figure 7 Limit Pressure determination for Test Neon26 .......................................................... 13Figure 8 Simple Constant Shear Strength Model Analysis for Neon26 ................................... 15Figure 9 Stress Diagram for Pressuremeter Curve ................................................................... 16Figure 10 Gibson Model Strengths ............................................................................................. 16Figure 11 Balance Pressure Plot of Neon26 ............................................................................... 17Figure 12 Horizontal Stress Evaluation ...................................................................................... 18Figure 13 Spring action acting on a length of pile. ..................................................................... 19Figure 14 Ideal pressuremeter test .............................................................................................. 19Figure 15 Ideal representative family of P/Y curves for the clay ............................................... 20

TABLES Table 1 Pressuremeter Test Depth and Membrane Correction: .................................................. 22Table 2 Pressuremeter Test Modulus and Limit Pressure: .......................................................... 23Table 3A Strength Properties Log Model Analysis .................................................................... 24Table 3B- Strength Properties from Gibson Model ....................................................................... 25Table 4 Balance Pressures and Calculated Ko ............................................................................. 26

In Situ Engineering

3

APPENDICES

Appendix I Pressuremeter Data Tables Appendix II Pressuremeter Data and Standard Model Interpretation Appendix III Balance Pressure Plots Appendix IV P-Y Curves

In Situ Engineering

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report contains the test results for electronic pressuremeter testing (PMT) performed at the proposed NEON Project site in Clark County, Nevada. The project site is located at the interchange of US 95 and I-15. The testing was performed for Terracon under the direction of CH2M HILL. The drilling on the project was performed by WDC Exploration & Wells of Henderson, Nevada using a CME 95 drilling rig. The testing was performed in three holes labeled B-11-064, B-11-077, and B-11-082 at depths ranging from 10 to 123.5 feet below ground surface. The borehole name and test depths are presented in Table 1. The field work was carried out between January 15 and January 25 of 2012. For the purposes of this report, we have taken the average total soil density to be 115pcf. Water table depths for boreholes B-11-064, B-11-077 and B-11-082 were measured at approximately 47, 7, and 29 feet respectively. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of the testing was to determine soil modulus values and material strength properties for the design team. These values were obtained using a pressuremeter and mathematical modeling. Such modeling includes the Hughes Sand Model and the Gibson Clay Model. P-Y curves were developed using empirical relations developed by Dr. John Hughes. 3.0 PRESSUREMETER TESTING A total of 39 pressuremeter tests were attempted in the boreholes, of which 38 produced useable data. The one instance where no data was produced was due to an oversize borehole. Five shields were excessively deformed and four membranes ruptured during field testing. The details of the pressuremeter testing and interpretation are included in the following sections. 3.1 Instrumentation The instrument used for this study was a prebored monocell. The pressuremeter has three electronic displacement sensors; spaced 120 degrees apart and located at the center of the pressuremeter. The flexible membrane is placed over the sensors and clamped at each end. The membrane is covered by a protective sheet of stainless steel strips referred to as a shield. The unit is pressurized using compressed nitrogen to deform the adjacent material. The electronic signals from displacement sensors and the pressure sensor are transmitted by cable to the surface. An electronic circuit board in the instrument converts the analog signal to a digital output. The digital output is sent via the data control wires which are inside and part of the high pressure supply hose. The hose helps protect the fragile data wires and also supplies the high pressure gas for inflation of the instrument. During the test, the average expansion versus pressure is displayed on a computer screen. The pressuremeter is expanded by regulating the flow of compressed nitrogen to the PMT unit with a control panel operated by the field engineer. The

In Situ Engineering

5

prebored pressuremeter is placed down a prebored hole before expansion commences. All testing performed on this project was with our instrument number 5. Figure 1 presents the essential details of the pressuremeter. The instrument readings on the soil and rock include effects of the response due to the strength and compressibility of the rubber membrane. To correct for these effects, membrane correction tests are run each time a membrane is replaced on the instrument. To correct for the strength of the membrane, an air correction test is performed. The air test is run with the instrument in a vertical position with no lateral constraint. Thus the strain verses pressure is a record of only the amount of resistance to expansion caused by the membrane. The instrument is cycled several times from zero strain to near the maximum strain limit of the instrument which is about 16%. To correct for the compressibility of the membrane and the effect of pressure on the electronics, a tube test is performed. This test is run with the instrument placed horizontally on the ground inside a thick walled steel tube. The instrument is cycled several times up to a high pressure which is usually between 1500 and 2000 psi. The applicable membrane correction files are noted on Table 1.

In Situ Engineering

6

Figure 1 Schematic details of the pressuremeter instrument 3.2 Hole Formation Formation of the hole was accomplished by using mud rotary drilling techniques. An oversize bit was used to deepen the hole to just above the test level. At this point, the larger bit was replaced with a 2-15/16 inch diameter tricone bit which was used to drill a 5 foot long test pocket. After completion of testing the test zone was re-drilled using the larger diameter bit.

In Situ Engineering

7

3.3 Test Procedure The membrane was expanded by controlling the flow of compressed gas into the pressuremeter, increasing the pressure in small steps until the membrane starts to expand against the borehole wall. Once the instrument has picked up considerable load from the borehole sidewall the pressure is reduced to no more than 40% of the maximum past pressure, then increased again forming an unload-reload loop. The resulting unload-reload loop can be used to evaluate the elastic behavior of the material. In materials which behave in a plastic manner, the loops will exhibit a hysteretic behavior. That is, the unloading path will follow the mirror image of the reloading path. In linear materials such as sands the loops will be very tight exhibiting little hysteretic behavior. The pressure is then advanced in steps until the stress has increased significantly before completing a second unload-reload cycle. If the disturbance is small, the slope of the loops will tend to be parallel. Figure 2, Test Neon26, is a typical example of a test from the pre-bored pressuremeter. The unload-reload loops were initiated at about 136, 221, and 319 psi. The test was shifted 2%. This shift is caused by a considerable amount of slough in the hole. The quality of the test pocket is directly related to the quality of drilling. Note the shift of 2% in the lower right hand corner of the graph. The instrument total expansion is 12.5% including the 2% shift. After the strain exceeds about 14% or the stress reaches the limit of the pressure source (1500 2300 psi), the pressure is reduced to zero. The exact maximum stress or strain at which the pressure is reduced is in general a judgment call from the operator based on the behavior of the three arms, instrument response and other limiting conditions. Tests may terminated before the failure of the material if the limit of any one strain arm is reached, if the maximum pressure of the pressure bottle is reached, the membrane ruptures or instrument response is such that membrane rupture may be imminent. Balance pressure testing is conducted on the unloading portion of the test. The pressure is dropped to a point below what is assumed the insitu lateral stress. The readout is observed to confirm that the pressure acting on the instrument is higher than the hold pressure. The pressure is then raised to a point above the anticipated lateral pressure and the instrument is observed to creep outward, confirming pressure greater than the outside forces. This can be done iteratively to narrow down the area of balance pressure. Balance pressure testing was conducted on tests Neon04, Neon18, Neon19, Neon26, and Neon29. Tests Neon18 and Neon19 seemed to give the best results whereas tests Neon04 and Neon29 are of lower quality. Figure 3 shows balance pressure testing on Neon26 between 129 and 144 psi.

In Situ Engineering

8

Figure 2 Pressuremeter Test Neon26

Figure 3 Balance Pressure Testing Neon26

3.4 Range and Repeatability of Data In general, the goal of the testing is to conduct PMT in pairs as close together as possible. After the 5 ft long and 3 inch diameter test pocket is drilled, the pressuremeter is lowered down the hole

In Situ Engineering

9

and a test conducted. The pressuremeter is raised approximately 1.5 ft, and a second test is performed. In this manner, two tests are performed as close together as possible. If the results of the two tests are similar, and follow the anticipated form for ideal materials rather than slough, then there is reason to believe that the results are representative of the formation. If the two tests are distinctly different, however, then either one of the tests is influenced by disturbance, or there is a geological reason for the difference.

Figure 4 Pair of Pressuremeter Tests 100 to 105 feet in B-11-077 Figure 4, shown above, is a pair of tests, Neon24 and Neon25, which were performed adjacent to each other. The results are very similar. Hence, in this situation, the tests probably reflect consistent material behavior at that level. As a further indication of the quality of each individual test, the slope of the unload-reload loops should be parallel. In both tests, the slopes are relatively parallel, resulting in a shear modulus in the range of 5,300 and 5,400 psi. However, the pair of tests above is an anomaly for the testing performed on the site. When comparing adjacent tests and the overall range of tests from top to bottom, it is clearly evident that the materials on the site are highly variable within a short vertical distance. For instance, tests Neon32, Neon33, Neon34, and Neon35 were all performed in the same bore hole, B-11-064, at depths 63.5, 62.0, 77.0, and 75.5 feet respectively. The unload-reload shear moduli for these four tests are 11,000, 4,500, 55,000, and 19,000 psi respectively. This indicates the extreme variability on the site, particularly in caliche cemented zones.

In Situ Engineering

10

3.5 Standard method of Analysis of the Shear Modulus If the material surrounding the pressuremeter is assumed to extend to infinity, and assumed to behave as an idealized linear elastic, homogeneous material, which does not fail under shear or tension, then the displacement on the boundary of the pressuremeter, ua, for a given pressure, P, is given by:

1)

where E is the Youngs Modulus, a the radius of the pressuremeter cavity, and the Poissons ratio. As the shear modulus, G, and the Youngs modulus, E, are related by the following relationship:

2)

Equation 1 reduces to: 3)

Hence, the shear modulus G is given by: G = 0.5 * Pressure/ (radial displacement/radius) 4) The shear modulus for the average slope of the initial part of the pressuremeter expressed as a Youngs modulus (assuming a Poisson's ratio of 0.33) is the same as the pressuremeter modulus defined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D4719, Section 9.5 (Modulus line 1 of Figure 4),. In many tests a straight section in this part of the curve is not sufficiently well defined to enable the modulus to be determined. The modulus determined from the unload-reload loops (Modulus lines 2,3 & 4 of Figure 5), which is often higher than the initial loading modulus, is more accurately defined and is probably more representative of the modulus for the in-situ material. This data is summarized in Table 2 at the end of the report.

ua = P(a) (1+) / E

E=2(G)(1+ )

ua =0.5P(a) / G

In Situ Engineering

11

Figure 5 Modulus Analysis of Test Neon26 Typically by performing multiple unload-reload loops during a test, two or more of the loops tend to be parallel, confirming a particular shear modulus value. However, if the test pocket is disturbed, parallel loops can be difficult to obtain. Figure 6, shown below, is a plot of final unload-reload shear modulus values with respect to depth. Note there is no discernible trend for modulus values.

In Situ Engineering

12

Figure 6 Unload-Reload Moduli Values with Depth 3.6 Determination of the Limit Pressure and Shear Strength by Log Method From a visual inspection of the typical pressuremeter curve shown in Figure 2, the pressure tends to reach a limit. If test Neon26 had been taken out to much higher strains then this limit pressure might be estimated to be around 500 - 550psi. However, to make this limit pressure a quantitative measurement, the limit pressure is defined as that pressure which occurs when the volume of the pressuremeter has doubled. However, few pressuremeter tests ever actually expand this far before reaching the limit of the strain sensing system. The pressuremeters used in this investigation will only expand to about 20% before the displacement limit is reached.

If the material being tested is assumed to behave as an elastic cohesive material, then the equation governing the pressure-displacement curve is given by:

P = PL + (c)log e (ua/a) 5)

Where:

PL = Po+ c + (c)log e [G/c] 6)

In Situ Engineering

13

PL is the theoretical limit pressure at infinite expansion c is the undrained cohesive strength,

PO is the total in-situ lateral stress, and G is the shear modulus.

From Equation 5, a plot of pressure P against the log of ua/a will be a straight line, provided the shear strength remains constant with strain. The slope of this line will provide a measure of the undrained shear strength, c. The Limit Pressure, as defined by the ASTM D4719, Section 10.6, is the pressure at which the cavity has doubled in size. This doubling in size occurs when ua/a is equal to 41%. (The origin of the strain used in the log/normal plots is the assumed origin at the in-situ stress state). If any disturbance is present, the above method of determining the cohesive strength usually provides an overly optimistic value. In Figure 7, Neon26 is plotted in the above manner. The above method applies to cohesive materials and is not appropriate in granular materials. However it can be used in granular materials to give an indication of the maximum or limit pressure that can be applied to the ground for the design of foundations.

Figure 7 Limit Pressure determination for Test Neon26 The limit pressure and the shear strength derived from the log plot are presented in Table 3A.

In Situ Engineering

14

3.7 Strength Properties Derived from PMT Analysis The PMT data can sometimes be used directly to determine the in-situ material properties such as the cohesive strength and the friction angle. To do so, a material model and failure mechanism must be assumed. Three models were evaluated with the pressuremeter response. Two of these models were for cohesive materials and one model was a friction analysis. It was quickly determined that the friction model does not fit most of the data very well, although may be useable in some of the caliche cemented material. The cohesive models include the Gibson model and the Arnold model. The Arnold model assumes a constant volume but not constant shear strength with strain. This model could fit the data well in some instances, but the derived strengths often exceeded the strength determined from log plot analysis and it is our recommendation not to use this method as it provides an unconservative number which is not supported by other means. The Gibson model assumes that the material is purely cohesive and fails at constant shear strength and at constant volume. If this is true, then the material parameters required for this model are the shear strength, lateral stress, and shear modulus. Adjustments can be made to those three parameters until a mathematical curve can be fitted to the field data. The shear modulus is usually assumed to be the slope of the unload reload loops based on the assumption of elasto-plastic behavior. The two unknowns or variables then are total lateral stress and shear strength. A series of combinations of these two parameters could be used to define the strength. In other words, if the field data fit the assumptions stated above, then numerous varying combinations of shear strength and lateral stress that could fit the curve. Normally there is a range of stress and strength that fit the curve well and if the one of the parameters is too far off it is immediately obvious. In many instances, the lateral stress can be determined from the pressuremeter, thus leaving the only variable strength. The lateral stress can be determined either from balance pressure testing (see section 3.8) or examination of the pressuremeter curves, particularly if the curves are developed in material which is undisturbed. Balance pressure testing provided horizontal stresses which provided reasonable results near the surface but resulted in unrealistic low strengths below 50 feet. A straight line horizontal stress analysis was used from the surface down to derive material strengths(see next section). The Gibson method is applied to the upper curve on test Neon26, shown below in Figure 8. Judgment is required to adjust the three parameters to determine the best fit to the data, particularly if there is disturbance present.

In Situ Engineering

15

Figure 8 Simple Constant Shear Strength Model Analysis for Neon26 The strength for a cohesive material can also be determined from the unloading section of the pressuremeter curve. The shear strength determined from the unloading section will be approximately twice the loading shear strength. The reason for this is on unloading the shear stress has to completely reverse. This is illustrated in Figure 9 below. The left hand sketch is the ideal stress path followed during the test. The principal stresses are the radial stress (the pressure on the boundary) and the circumferential stress. The ideal pressuremeter curve is shown to the right. The test starts at the in-situ stress, point A then moves elastically to point B. At point B the shear strength becomes constant and shear failure occurs at constant shear strength. With further loading the peak stress is reached at point C. On unloading the stress path follows from C to D, elastically, then at D the soil shears at a constant value. Determining the shear strength using this method will often produce conservative values due to the fact that the soil has been disturbed by the movement of the pressuremeter prior to unloading.

In Situ Engineering

16

Figure 9 Stress Diagram for Pressuremeter Curve The lower curve on Figure 8 demonstrates the modeling of unloading path on Test 26. Shear strength values determined using both the loading and unloading curve are recorded in Table 3B and presented below in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Gibson Model Strengths

In Situ Engineering

17

3.8 Analysis of Lateral Earth Pressure As described previously in section 3.3, the balance pressure is an iterative approach to find the pressure at which the instrument moves neither in nor out. If compressed gas is used as the medium to inflate the instrument, then the force acting on the instrument includes the strength of the membrane, the water pressure and the soil pressure. A correction is applied to the field data to zero out the effect of the membrane thus leaving the formation water pressure and the earth pressure as applied forces. Figure 11 below is an enlargement of balance pressure testing in Figure 3 for test Neon26. From visual observation, we can see that the balance pressure is about half way between where the instrument moved in at 129 psi and where it went out at 142 psi or about 135psi. By drawing lines through the beginning and end of each of the creep tests, a balance pressure of 137psi is derived adjusts for the relative magnitude of each displacement. Plots of the balance pressure results are presented on Figure 12. The five tests shown in Figure 12 result in K0 varying from 3.19 at 39.5 feet to 1.14 at a depth of 123.5 feet (Table 4). There is a good trend in the first 4 data points. However, when using lateral stresses from this correlation, we derive very low shear strengths from the Gibson model. After extensive observation and curve fitting to the Gibson model, we have arrived at a trend shown by the straight line of points shown on Figure 12. This trend was derived from best fit curves of the Gibson model and lift off pressures for better quality tests in primarily clay material. We believe the straight line interpretation when used in the Gibson model, better reflects the in situ soil strength.

Figure 11 Balance Pressure Plot of Neon26

In Situ Engineering

18

Figure 12 Horizontal Stress Evaluation . The plots of the balance pressure testing are shown in the Appendix. The results of our lateral earth pressure analysis are presented in Table 4. 3.9 Pile Pressure Displacement Curves (P/Y) The design of laterally loaded piles can be considered in two ways. Firstly the ground can be considered as a continuum with some ideal material properties. That is each element in the surrounding soil is influenced by neighboring elements in three dimensions. A simple model would include a stiffness strength and lateral stress. Finite element or FLAC models are useful for that approach. Alternatively the soil can be divided up into discrete horizontal layers with each layer acting as a spring against the pile. (Figure 13) However in this case the layers do not interact with each other. This is a much simpler approach from an analytical point of view. The pile is considered as a continuous elastic member with known properties and the lateral resistance of the soil is considered as a series of independent springs. From back calculation of lateral loading tests (Briaud 1986) it has been found that in medium clays the spring stiffness of the soil is geometrically similar to the loading stage of a pressuremeter tests. However some adjustment to the pressuremeter curve is necessary. If a section of pile, some distance below the ground surface (at least 4 diameters) is pushed laterally the ultimate resistance will be approximately 9 * the cohesive strength. (Figure 13) In contrast the Limit Pressure from the pressuremeter test is approximately 5 * the cohesive strength + the static lateral pressure (Figure 14). Hence the P/Y curve can be developed from the ideal

In Situ Engineering

19

pressuremeter curve by increasing the pressure (less the lateral pressure) by a factor. For clays this factor is 2 and for sands it is 1.5. A representative set of P/Y curves for the material in Hole B-11-064 are presented in Figure15. Figure 13 Spring action acting on a length of pile. Figure 14 Ideal pressuremeter test

In Situ Engineering

20

Figure 15 Ideal representative family of P/Y curves for the clay 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The materials tested consist of clay with varying amounts of sand and caliche layers. Material descriptions have not been provided in this report because of the highly variable soil layers. Sampling was performed before and after each test pocket to help clarify the material being tested. Unfortunately, these samples do not accurately represent the material being tested. The material variability is illustrated in Fig 6. Dealing with materials that are continuous or have small variation between tests within a test pocket, a lower bound modulus trend can be demonstrated by plotting the modulus values with respect to depth. However, this is not the case on this site. The soil strength and stiffness is highly variable with depth which is evidenced by the large spread in values, even in closely matched pairs of testing.

In Situ Engineering

21

The quality of the testing is a direct result of the quality of test pocket formation. Where the drillers were able to produce a tight test pocket with little disturbance, high quality tests were obtained. The strength of the material and modulus appears to increase with increased amounts of sand and caliche cementation. We believe the presence of the sand and caliche results in a material which behaves as a cohesive material with frictional properties and dilation during shear. Shear strength analyzed by the log method is higher than by the Gibson model. Shear strength analyzed from the unloading portion of the test correlates reasonably well with the loading portion. In many cases the unloading strength is higher. We surmise that this higher strength is due to strain hardening because of the sands present. The layers of continuous intact caliche are very strong and stiff and did not fail under the pressures achieved with the instrument. The horizontal coefficient of at rest lateral earth pressure (K0) determined from balance pressure testing appears to be near 3.19 at 39.5 feet depth and decreases to approximately 1.14 at a depth of 123.5 feet. The lateral pressure distribution derived from balance pressure testing derives unreasonably low strengths using the Gibson strength model and a straight line pressure distribution was used to derive strengths. It is unclear why the balance pressure testing derived high lateral stresses at lower depths and whether this is realistic or some other phenomena is occurring. Deflection of drilled shafts or piles will be dominated by the caliche layers which are much stiffer than the clay or clayey sand material. Materials on the site are extremely variable with a general trend of stiffer, more cemented material nearer the surface. 5.0 REFERENCES Mair, R.J. and Wood, D.M. 1987. Pressuremeter testing: methods and interpretation. CIRIA Ground Engineering Report. Butterworths, London. ASTM D4719. 2007. Standard tests method for pressuremeter testing in soils. Clarke, B.G.; 1995. Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, UK

In Situ Engineering

22

Appendix I Pressuremeter Data Tables

Table 1 Pressuremeter Test Depth and Membrane Correction: Test Date Boring Depth Elevation Membrane Correction

(ft) (ft) Air Tube Neon01 1/15/12pm B11082 25.0 2045.8 M5A0115A M5T0115ANeon02 1/15/12pm B11082 23.5 2047.3 M5A0115A M5T0115ANeon03 1/16/12am B11082 41.0 2029.8 M5A0115A M5T0115ANeon04 1/16/12am B11082 39.5 2031.3 M5A0115A M5T0115ANeon05 1/16/12am B11082 58.0 2012.8 M5A0115A M5T0115ANeon06 1/16/12am B11082 56.5 2014.3 M5A0116A M5T0115ANeon07 1/16/12pm B11082 69.5 2001.3 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon08 1/17/12am B11082 81.0 1989.8 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon09 1/17/12am B11082 79.5 1991.3 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon10 1/17/12am B11082 95.0 1975.8 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon11 1/17/12am B11082 93.5 1977.3 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon12 1/17/12pm B11082 115.0 1955.8 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon13 1/17/12pm B11082 113.5 1957.3 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon14 1/18/12pm B11077 10.0 2029.6 M5A0116A M5T0117ANeon15 1/19/12am B11077 22.0 2017.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon16 1/19/12am B11077 43.0 1996.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon17 1/19/12am B11077 41.5 1998.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon18 1/19/12pm B11077 67.0 1972.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon19 1/19/12pm B11077 65.5 1974.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon20 1/19/12pm B11077 75.5 1964.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon21 1/19/12pm B11077 74.0 1965.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon22 1/20/12am B11077 85.0 1954.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon23 1/20/12am B11077 83.5 1956.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon24 1/20/12am B11077 105.0 1934.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon25 1/20/12am B11077 103.5 1936.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon26 1/22/12pm B11077 113.0 1926.6 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon27 1/22/12pm B11077 111.5 1928.1 M5A0119A M5T0117ANeon28 1/23/12am B11077 125.0 1914.6 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon29 1/23/12am B11077 123.5 1916.1 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon30 1/24/12am B11064 39.0 2034.3 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon31 1/24/12am B11064 37.5 2035.8 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon32 1/24/12 B11064 63.5 2009.8 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon33 1/24/12 B11064 62.0 2011.3 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon34 1/24/12 B11064 77.0 1996.3 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon35 1/24/12 B11064 75.5 1997.8 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon36 1/25/12 B11064 98.0 1975.3 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon37 1/25/12 B11064 96.5 1976.8 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon38 1/25/12 B11064 110.0 1963.3 M5A0124A M5T0117ANeon39 1/25/12 B11064 108.5 1964.8 M5A0124A M5T0117A

In Situ Engineering

23

Table 2 Pressuremeter Test Modulus and Limit Pressure:

Test Test Depth (ft) Initial Modulus

(psi) Unload-Reload Shear Modulus (psi)

1 2 3 4 Neon01 25.0 900 1400 1500 Neon02 23.5 600 1300 2700 Neon03 41.0 4000 6400 7600 6800 Neon04 39.5 1850 3900 3530 3850 Neon05 58.0 106000 176000 Neon06 56.5 3000 11200 31700 57400 Neon07 69.5 NoDataholewashedoversizedNeon08 81.0 7300 14000 51000 Neon09 79.5 82600 90000 210000 250000 Neon10 95.0 1600 5400 OversizeholeNeon11 93.5 1300 13600 OversizeholeNeon12 115.0 1300 4200 4200 3600 Neon13 113.5 2300 6600 10500 10000 Neon14 10.0 34000 169000 Oversizehole,unevenarmmovementNeon15 22.0 7700 33000 97000 85000 Neon16 43.0 3100 16000 16000 UndersizeholeNeon17 41.5 3000 5800 5800 5800 Neon18 67.0 2700 15200 16600 Neon19 65.5 1200 4200 5300 Neon20 75.5 3000 5300 3400 Neon21 74.0 1500 5000 8500 12400 Neon22 85.0 3600 7600 4500 Neon23 83.5 5000 23000 22000 22000 Neon24 105.0 1400 5300 4000 3100 Neon25 103.5 830 3700 4300 5400 Neon26 113.0 4720 15500 15700 17700 Neon27 111.5 21000 274000 Neon28 125.0 9100 18000 25000 Neon29 123.5 3500 9000 5200 5200 Neon30 39.0 4100 8900 19000 26600 Neon31 37.5 7000 20000 41000 61000 Neon32 63.5 1400 11000 Neon33 62.0 600 2700 4500 Neon34 77.0 8000 53300 53300 55000 Neon35 75.5 1700 19000 18000 Neon36 98.0 900 2800 1630 2900 Neon37 96.5 3900 15400 11500 Neon38 110.0 1200 5000 5600 Neon39 108.5 2900 6300 14400 13900

In Situ Engineering

24

Table 3A Strength Properties Log Model Analysis

Test Depth Elevation Log shear Strength

(psi)

Limit Pressure (psi)

Neon01 25.0 2045.8 14 100Neon02 23.5 2047.3 8 78Neon03 41.0 2029.8 47 320Neon04 39.5 2031.3 55 292Neon05 58.0 2012.8 220 1214Neon06 56.5 2014.3 157 698Neon07 69.5 2001.3 BoreholedisturbedNeon08 81.0 1989.8 107 601Neon09 79.5 1991.3 2400 9890Neon10 95.0 1975.8 70 374Neon11 93.5 1977.3 BoreholedisturbedNeon12 115.0 1955.8 50 317Neon13 113.5 1957.3 71 415Neon14 10.0 2029.6 860 3268Neon15 22.0 2017.6 363 1595Neon16 43.0 1996.6 98 501Neon17 41.5 1998.1 43 251Neon18 67.0 1972.6 46 348Neon19 65.5 1974.1 53 262Neon20 75.5 1964.1 32 215Neon21 74.0 1965.6 60 375Neon22 85.0 1954.6 40 325Neon23 83.5 1956.1 105 650Neon24 105.0 1934.6 40 255Neon25 103.5 1936.1 43 288Neon26 113.0 1926.6 110 605Neon27 111.5 1928.1 1450 5824Neon28 125.0 1914.6 145 919Neon29 123.5 1916.1 41 338Neon30 39.0 2034.3 168 784Neon31 37.5 2035.8 280 1257Neon32 63.5 2009.8 29 235Neon33 62.0 2011.3 38 208Neon34 77.0 1996.3 130 766Neon35 75.5 1997.8 55 304Neon36 98.0 1975.3 35 240Neon37 96.5 1976.8 94 490Neon38 110.0 1963.3 60 323Neon39 108.5 1964.8 53 348

In Situ Engineering

25

Table 3B- Strength Properties from Gibson Model Test H Loading Model Unloading Model **

(psi) (psi) Gs (psi) (psi) Gs (psi) Neon01 25 14 1500 10 10000Neon02 25 9 2000 7 9000Neon03 64 42 7600 66 15000Neon04 63 39 3900 30 9000Neon05 69 100 176000 MembraneruptureNounloadNeon06 69 55 57400 75 57400Neon07 BoreholetoodisturbedtoberepresentativeNeon08 77 55 51000 43 51000Neon09 76 400 250000 200 700000Neon10 81 48 5400 45 6000Neon11 BoreholetoodisturbedtoberepresentativeNeon12 88 38 4200 38 4200Neon13 87 46 10500 30 50000Neon14 53 88 169000 80 160000Neon15 57 130 97000 MembraneruptureNounloadNeon16 64 59 16000 50 40000Neon17 64 28 5800 25 14000Neon18 72 39 16300 38 35000Neon19 72 24 5300 25 15000Neon20 75 26 3400 40 6000Neon21 74 43 12400 55 12400Neon22 78 42 7600 38 14000Neon23 78 90 18000 68 25000Neon24 85 28 5300 32 5300Neon25 84 35 3700 30 8000Neon26 87 72 18000 75 18000Neon27 87 180 274000 MembraneruptureNounloadNeon28 91 130 25000 UnusableunloadcurveNeon29 91 50 5000 50 6500Neon30 63 73 26600 70 50000Neon31 62 134 61000 105 61000Neon32 71 20 11000 28 11000Neon33 70 15 4500 22 14000Neon34 75 100 55000 125 55000Neon35 75 30 19000 50 19000Neon36 82 30 2900 31 6000Neon37 82 56 15400 55 15400Neon38 86 32 5600 45 6000Neon39 86 34 14400 43 14400

See notes on symbols below. ** Unload shear strength divided by 2.

In Situ Engineering

26

Notes on symbols for Table 3B Symbol Explanation H Total horizontal stress Shear strength

Gs Shear Modulus

Table 4 Balance Pressures and Calculated Ko Test Depth Elev. V u V' H H' Ko

(ft) (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)Neon04 39.5 2031.3 31.5 4.5 27.1 98 93.5 3.45Neon18 67.0 1972.6 53.5 25.8 27.7 93 67.2 2.43Neon19 65.5 1974.1 52.3 25.2 27.2 91 65.8 2.42Neon26 113.0 1926.6 90.2 45.6 44.7 137 91.4 2.05Neon29 123.5 1916.4 98.6 50.1 48.5 117 66.9 1.17

Total and effect vertical stresses were based upon a soil unit weight of 115pcf.

In Situ Engineering

27

Appendix II Pressuremeter Data and Standard and Model Interpretation

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTerraconProject Neon Phase 1 Final DesignHole No: B-11-082 Test: Neon01 Depth: 25FT 1/15/2012

DATALOADING

Shear Strength = 14 psi

In Situ Stress = 25 psi

Shear Modulus = 1500 psi

UNLOADINGShear Strength = 20 psi


0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 1

Field DataGibson ModelUndrained Strain Stress Curve

Gibson's Clay Model

Radial Displacement / Radius (%) (Shear Strain/2)

Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA


Limit Pressure = 100 psi

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 1

Logarithm Plot

Log Radial Displacement / Radius (%)

Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA#1 Shear Modulus = 900 psi

#2 Shear Modulus = 1400 psi


0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot

Radial Displacement / Radius (%)

Pres

sure

(psi

)

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTerraconProject Neon Phase 1 Final DesignHole No: B-11-082 Test: Neon02 Depth: 23.5FT 1/15/2012

DATALOADING






0 162 4 6 8 10 12 140

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Shift = 6


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Shift = 6

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 162 4 6 8 10 12 140

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 162 4 6 8 10 12 140

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 162 4 6 8 10 12 140

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0.1


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING




0 2.50.5 1.0 1.5 2.00

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0.1


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




0 2.50.5 1.0 1.5 2.00

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 8.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 8.3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


0 81 2 3 4 5 6 70

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 122 4 6 8 100

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4.1


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4.1

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 122 4 6 8 100

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 40.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.50

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Shift = 2.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Shift = 2.3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 40.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.50

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 8


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 8

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




0 142 4 6 8 10 120

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 6


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 6

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 1.20.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 7.5


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



6.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 7

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




6.5 97.0 7.5 8.0 8.50

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING




0 81 2 3 4 5 6 70

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 4


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 4

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 81 2 3 4 5 6 70

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 122 4 6 8 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = -0.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 122 4 6 8 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTerraconProject Neon Phase 1 Final DesignHole No: B-11-077 Test: Neon18 Depth: 67FT 1/19/2012Balance Pressure

DATALOADING






0 122 4 6 8 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2.4


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2.4

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 122 4 6 8 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTerraconProject Neon Phase 1 Final DesignHole No: B-11-077 Test: Neon19A Depth: 65.5FT 1/19/2012

DATALOADING






0 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 7


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 7

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 122 4 6 8 100

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 5.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 5.3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = -0.8


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = -0.8

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 122 4 6 8 100

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 1.5


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 1.5

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 122 4 6 8 100

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 81 2 3 4 5 6 70

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 7


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 7

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 162 4 6 8 10 12 140

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 2

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING




0 1.60.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 2.1


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 2.1

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




0 40.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.50

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING




0 61 2 3 4 50

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 61 2 3 4 50

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTerraconProject Neon Phase 1 Final DesignHole No: B-11-077 Test: Neon 29 Depth: 123.5FT 1/23/2012

DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4.4


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 4.4

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 40.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.50

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 7.4


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 8

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 122 4 6 8 100

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 81 2 3 4 5 6 70

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 5


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 5

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 4.50.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.00

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 13.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 13.3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)




0 182 4 6 8 10 12 14 160

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 61 2 3 4 50

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 14.3


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 14.3

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)





0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 2


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 2

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)






0 142 4 6 8 10 120

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Shift = 0

Shear Modulus Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATALOADING






0 202 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 6


Gibson's Clay Model


Pres

sure

(psi

)


DATA



0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

300

250

200

150

100

50

Shift = 6

Logarithm Plot


Pres

sure

(psi

)

In Situ Pressuremeter DataTer

Documents

Appendix D PMT Report