JOINT TRANSPORTATION

RESEARCH PROGRAM
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY

GIS-Based Geotechnical Database

for Collaborative GIS

Field/Lab tests

Sandy Soil Variables

1. Unit weight
2. Moisture content
3.Sieve analysis
4. Relative density In Situ Tests
5.Coefficient of lateral earth 1. SPT
pressure at rest 2.CPT
ENGi NEERING ANALYSES 3. Vane shear
TO BE PERFORMED 6. Shear wave velocity
7. Shear strength parameters 4. PMT
Strength Limit States- 8. Interface friction angle 5. SCPT
1. Bearing resistance
2. Uplift resistance
3. Lateral resistance
Clayey Soil Variables Laboratory Tests
Servicability Limit States- 1. Shear strength parameters 1. Sieve analysis
1. Settlements 2. Interface friction parameters 2. Atterberg limits
3. Atterberg Limits 3. Unconfined compression test
4. Hydrometer analysis 4. Triaxial test (CD, UU, CU)
5. Coefficient of lateral earth 5. emax-emin test
pressure at rest 6. Direct shear test
6. Shear wave velocity 7. Loss-on-ignition test
7. Interface friction angle 8.pH test and moisture content

Rameez Ali Raja, Vidushi Toshniwal, Rodrigo Salgado

SPR-4616 • Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 • DOI: 10.5703/1288284317637

RECOMMENDED CITATION
Raja, R. A., Toshniwal, V., & Salgado, R. (2023). GIS-based geotechnical database for collaborative GIS (Joint Transpor-
tation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. https://
doi.org/10.5703/1288284317637

AUTHORS
Rameez Ali Raja
Graduate Research Assistant
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University

Vidushi Toshniwal
Graduate Research Assistant
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University

Rodrigo Salgado, PhD

Charles Pankow Professor of Civil Engineering
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
(765) 494-5030
rodrigo@purdue.edu
Corresponding Author

JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education in-
stitutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning,
design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html

Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/.

NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Depart-
ment of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specifica-
tion or regulation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this paper was funded by the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP) administered by
the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and Purdue University through contract SPR-4616. The support
of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are grate-
fully acknowledged. The authors are very grateful for the support received from the project advisor, Boonam Shin,
the business owner, Athar Khan, and in particular, the support received from the Study Advisory Committee mem-
bers (Sung Min Yoon, Peter Becker, Irfan Alvi, Derek Fuller, and Christa Phelps) is much appreciated. The authors are
thankful to graduate student Daniel Goldstein Fridman for his comments on early draft of the report.
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
GIS-Based Geotechnical Database for Collaborative GIS May 2023
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Rameez Ali Raja, Vidushi Toshniwal, and Rodrigo Salgado FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Joint Transportation Research Program
Hall for Discovery and Learning Research (DLR), Suite 204 11. Contract or Grant No.
207 S. Martin Jischke Drive
SPR-4616
West Lafayette, IN 47907
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Indiana Department of Transportation (SPR) Final Report
State Office Building 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
15. Supplementary Notes
Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract
INDOT spends at least 8 million dollars annually on geotechnical site investigations, not including the amounts spent by
contractors. The laborious and costly job of data collection in geotechnical practice requires the efficient storing and organizing of
this valuable data to develop correlations and trends in spatially varying geotechnical data. INDOT currently uses gINT software
for managing geotechnical data and ArcGIS for storing boring logs and geotechnical reports. The INDOT geotechnical office is
pursuing means to improve the efficiency of their operations by developing a GIS-based geotechnical database for secure storage,
easy retrieval, and flexible sharing of geotechnical data to enhance decision making. SPR-4616 is the first step towards the
development of a geotechnical data management system in which important decisions on the components and structure of the
database were made. The report presents a detailed conceptual layout for the development of a geotechnical database following an
object-oriented programming approach. The report discusses in detail the geotechnical applications, the field, laboratory, and
verification tests that will be included in the database. The geotechnical variables required to perform the engineering analysis in
designing specific applications are logically linked with the geotechnical tests from which they are obtained. Lastly, a detailed
layout of the proposed database structure and a user workflow example is provided in the report and can serve as a guide during
the development of the database system.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
GIS, geotechnical database, data management, geotechnical tests No restrictions. This document is available through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 28
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings
INDOT is currently using gINT software to manage geotechni-
cal data and ArcGIS to store bore log information and
geotechnical reports. An alternative under consideration is the
Introduction development of a custom integrated geotechnical database that
(1) is capable of storing geotechnical data obtained from site
Geotechnical reports contain valuable project information, investigations, and (2) has the functionality to analyze the
including borehole data; laboratory, field, and verification test information efficiently to make the related design decisions. The
data; engineering analyses; and geotechnical design. These reports potential users of the database are geotechnical, pavement, and
are traditionally stored either in hard copy or portable document bridge engineers who may need to search and access existing
format forms, which creates issues with the storage, accessibility, geotechnical information for future engineering design.
and distribution of this valuable information. A preferred and
advantageous way to organize these reports is by using a database
system. The INDOT geotechnical office is planning to develop
relational geotechnical database software. The aim of this project Implementation
is to lay out the conceptual basis for the development of an object-
oriented relational geotechnical database for INDOT. This report This report presents the conceptual basis for organizing a
presents the scope of the geotechnical applications that will be database that provides geotechnical information in a very clear,
included in the database. A complete inventory of geotechnical logical, and efficient manner. The layout of the proposed data-
tests performed by INDOT was developed, and the variables base was thoroughly thought out, so that the data entry and
required for performing design checks of selected geotechnical query interaction operations function effectively. It is recom-
applications are linked to the geotechnical tests from which they mended to start the development of geotechnical database in order
are obtained. Finally, a proposed structure of the database is of priority, such as the applications most frequently used by
presented followed by a user workflow example. INDOT.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. APPLICATIONS COVERED BY THE DATABASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1 Foundation Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Retaining Wall Design . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3 Slope Stability Analysis. . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4 Ground Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5 Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. FIELD, LABORATORY, AND VERIFICATION TESTS PERFORMED BY INDOT . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Field Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Laboratory Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Verification Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. VARIABLES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE AND METHODS OF INTERPRETATION. 9
4.1 Shallow Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 10
4.2 Deep Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 11
4.3 Retaining Wall Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 12
4.4 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 13
4.5 Ground Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 14
4.6 Pavement Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 14
5. PROPOSED DATABASE STRUCTURE AND EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1 Database Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2 User Workflow Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Summary of the field tests performed by INDOT 4

Table 3.2 Summary of the laboratory tests performed by INDOT 4

Table 3.3 Summary of the verification tests performed by INDOT 5

Table 4.1 List of geotechnical variables to be included in the database 10

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Variables required in the engineering analysis and design of shallow foundations and related geotechnical tests 11

Figure 4.2 Variables required in the engineering analysis and design of drilled shaft foundation and related geotechnical tests performed for
deep foundations 12

Figure 4.3 Variables required in the engineering analysis of (a) open-ended pipe pile foundation design under axial loads, (b) closed-ended
pipe pile foundation design under axial loads, and (c) pile foundation design under lateral loads 13

Figure 4.4 Variables required in the engineering analysis of MSE wall design and related geotechnical tests 14

Figure 4.5 Variables required to perform slope stability analysis and related geotechnical tests 14

Figure 4.6 Geotechnical tests required to establish the need for ground improvement and variables related to different ground improvement
techniques 15

Figure 4.7 Variables required in the pavement design and related geotechnical tests 15

Figure 5.1 Proposed structure of the object-oriented relational database 16

Figure 5.2 User workflow example for bearing capacity analysis of a shallow foundation 17

Figure 5.3 Bearing capacity analysis of strip footing (extracted from the geotechnical report of the project: Smith Valley Road over I-69) 18
1. INTRODUCTION 1.3 Report Structure
1.1 Background Section 1 introduces the project and its scope.
Civil engineering projects rely on geotechnical Section 2 presents an overview of the different
reports, which are formulated based on geotechnical geotechnical applications that will be covered by the
data obtained from site investigations, which include database.
both in situ and laboratory testing performed on either Section 3 presents the details of different laboratory
remolded or undisturbed samples. The geotechnical and field tests performed by INDOT.
reports are prepared on a project-by-project basis, and Section 4 presents different geotechnical variables
thus an abundance of geotechnical data is gathered that are obtained from geotechnical testing and their
from a site investigation planned specifically for a project. linkages with the design of selected applications.
These reports are mostly submitted in the form of a hard Section 5 presents the proposed structure of the
copy and, in some cases, electronically in the form of database and an interactive user workflow example.
portable document format (PDF). Storage, archiving,
and transferability of geotechnical reports submitted in 2. APPLICATIONS COVERED BY THE DATABASE
hard copy is challenging and time consuming. Hard
copies of the submitted geotechnical reports are placed in A comprehensive list of services that the INDOT
geotechnical office provides in support of civil engineer-
their respective project files, which are generally disposed
ing projects was formulated to finalize the scope of the
of after a certain time period. When the reports are
applications that will be covered in the database. The
submitted electronically, this is done in the form of file
applications shortlisted for inclusion in the database are
types that are proprietary and display information perti-
discussed below.
nent to the focus of each company, or otherwise not
easily amenable to electronic processing. However, as the
number of files increases, it becomes more advantageous 2.1 Foundation Design
to place all the geotechnical data at one location and use
a database system to manage the reports. An electronic 2.1.1 Shallow Foundation Design
database system provides several advantages over the
conventional reporting system by allowing the users to Shallow foundations are preferred when a competent
store, query, access and distribute geotechnical reports soil layer, which can support the applied loads without
and related documents in a convenient manner. undergoing excessive settlement, exists at a shallow
INDOT spends at least 8 million dollars annually on depth. They are cost effective option as they require
geotechnical site investigations, not including amounts excavation to shallow depths and are also easy to
spent by contractors as part of contracts. The laborious construct. Depending on how dense or stiff the under-
job of data collection in geotechnical practice dictates lying soil layer is, shallow foundations can support not
the need to efficiently store and organize the valuable only building structures but can also be used to support
data to develop correlations and trends in spatially bridges. The different types of shallow foundations
varying geotechnical data. The INDOT geotechnical include spread footings, isolated footings, mat footings,
office is pursuing means to improve the efficiency of and strap footings. The selection of an appropriate type
their operations by developing a geotechnical database of footing depends on site conditions, supporting soil
properties, applied loads and the type of structure that
for secure storage, easy retrieval, and flexible sharing of
is to be supported. Shallow foundations are propor-
geotechnical data to enhance their decision-making. It
tioned and designed in accordance with the Load
is intended to reduce the need to perform investigations
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) framework as
when the data already exists and would also serve as a
prescribed by AASHTO (2020), such that they perform
tool for effective engineering analysis based on which
satisfactorily under all applicable limit states. Design of
design decisions can be made. This one-year project was
foundations at ultimate limit states include considera-
envisioned as the first step towards the development of
tion of the nominal bearing resistance, overturning or
a geotechnical data management system.
excessive loss of contact, and overall stability of the
structure and its part. Foundation design at the service
1.2 Project Overview limit state shall consider all foundation movements
(vertical, horizontal, and rotation) based upon structure
The current research aimed at laying out the tolerance to total and differential movements. The
conceptual basis for the development of an object- geotechnical investigation planned for a shallow
oriented, relational geotechnical database that best fit foundation design should identify the properties and
the current needs of INDOT geotechnical office. In this behavior of the soil and/or rock, the groundwater
project, important decisions such as the types of conditions, and other subsurface conditions that might
geotechnical applications, field and laboratory tests, affect the foundation design and performance. SPT
and variables required for engineering analysis that will and/or CPT results are generally used to obtain the
be covered by the database were made. foundation design parameters through correlations

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 1

with shear strength and compressibility. Laboratory 2.2 Retaining Wall Design
testing is carried out to supplement the data obtained
from the field testing to refine the design properties by Retaining walls are earth retention structures used
assessing the index properties, shear strength, and for the purpose of creating space and providing the
compressibility of soils. The information about the support required to build on ground which is unstable
depth of groundwater table is critical in performing otherwise. They are also employed in projects in which
constructability evaluations and is obtained from the existing facilities are to be widened or replaced, such as
field instrumentation (piezometers) and in situ tests bridge abutments. There are different types of retaining
(pump tests). walls, each requiring different materials, equipment,
and construction procedures. Gravity walls, cantilever
walls, and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
2.1.2 Deep Foundation Design
are common types of walls. Project requirements dictate
Deep foundations are used to safely transfer the type and extensiveness of the field and laboratory
structural loads to deeper rock or firm soil layers. testing to establish properties for the retaining wall
They are the preferred foundation type for a project site design. The design, constructability, and performance
where loose sands or soft clays exist at shallow depth criteria are assessed by determination of in situ and
and cannot provide adequate bearing capacity to backfill material properties, wall geometry, active and
support the applied loads. Piles are the most common passive earth pressures acting on the wall, applied sur-
type of deep foundation. They are made of concrete, charge loads, backslope and toe slope of the embank-
steel, timber, or polymers and they can efficiently ment. The Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
transfer the applied loads through skin friction and end framework as prescribed by AASHTO (2020) is used
bearing. Depending on the method of installation, piles for designing retaining walls. External stability checks
are classified as full-displacement piles, partial-displa- (sliding, overturning, settlement, bearing capacity and
cement piles, and non-displacement piles. Full-displace- global stability) are generally performed for all types
ment pile installation does not require any prior soil of retaining walls while additional internal stability
removal and is installed either by driving or jacking. analysis (reinforcement tensile strength, reinforcement
Nondisplacement piles, on the other hand, are installed pullout capacity, reinforcement-wall connection
in situ by first removing a volume of soil from the strength, and sliding along reinforcement-soil interface)
ground by drilling and then filling the resulting is required for MSE walls.
cylindrical void left in the ground with concrete.
Partial displacement piles lie between these two 2.3 Slope Stability Analysis
extremes and are mostly installed using different types
of auger or drilling tool. The selection of pile type and The stability of a slope is of critical importance in
its installation method is determined by the required geotechnical engineering as any natural or artificial
bearing capacity, pile length, soil conditions, and slope failure can severely damage any infrastructure of
economic consideration. The pile types commonly used which it is part or that is near it. Human casualties are
by INDOT are steel pipe piles, steel H-piles, and drilled not rare. A slope stability failure occurs when the
shafts. Piles are proportioned and designed in accor- available shear strength between the moving and stable
dance with the Load and Resistance Factor Design soil mass is insufficient to prevent sliding. The slope
(LRFD) framework as prescribed by AASHTO (2020). stability analysis is performed by geotechnical and
Engineering analyses are required to assess the pile base foundation engineers to ensure the stability of cut and
resistance and pile shaft resistance. The analyses will fill slopes, embankment stability, global stability of
include loading from the superstructure, but also retaining walls, stability of foundation works carried
downdrag loading if applicable. The design based on out on sloping ground, and assessment of stability due
these analyses aims to prevent excessive foundation to landslides and liquefaction. Limit equilibrium, limit
movement and to assure stability. Geotechnical infor- analysis, finite element analysis, finite difference analy-
mation required for performing engineering analysis sis, and material point method analyses are the main
of deep foundations includes the details of subsurface types of analysis performed for assessing the stability
profile, location of groundwater table, rock type and of a slope. Of all these, the limit equilibrium method
strength, shear strength, the compressibility parameters remains the most commonly used method to assess
of soils, horizontal earth pressure coefficients, and soil- slope stability with the aid of computer programs. Since
pile interface friction parameters. For drilled shafts, the the analysis techniques are sensitive to the input data,
assessment of groundwater seepage, need for dewater- a detailed assessment of soil and/or rock stratigraphy is
ing, and protection against caving are key factors to critical in obtaining material properties and behavior
avoid any constructability issues. In the case of driven for slope stability analysis. Piezometric data at multiple
piles, it is important to identify the presence of very locations and depths, within and below the slope, is also
hard layers or the presence of boulders as they can required to obtain an accurate groundwater profile
cause drivability issues. Pile foundations may cause to check for potential seepage or piping failure. The
damage to the nearby structures due to vibrations and different input parameters needed to perform a slope
ground heaving during pile driving. stability analysis are the soil unit weights, undrained

2 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

shear strength, critical-state friction angle, and mini- respective standards. We briefly discuss below the tests
mum residual friction angle. and the geotechnical design parameters obtained from
each test.
2.4 Ground Improvement
3.1 Field Tests
Ground improvement techniques are employed to
enhance constructability or structure performance The field tests are performed during site investigation
under operational loads. Ground improvement can be to characterize the subsurface profile and obtain soil
broadly classified into four categories: replacement, parameters (e.g., relative density, moisture content, and
drainage, densification, and admixture stabilization. shear strength) in situ. Field tests performed by INDOT
Many ground improvement techniques have been devel- are discussed in this section.
oped and applied when construction occurs in prob-
lematic soils, such as soft clays, highly organic soils, or 3.1.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
loose sand deposits below the water table, which may
be subject to liquefaction. Geotechnical parameters The standard penetration test is performed in
such as strength, compressibility, and permeability accordance with AASHTO T 206 (2022) and ASTM
of the soil should be evaluated first to understand D 1586 (2022) and is best suited for sandy (‘‘cohesion-
the problem and then recommend a suitable ground less’’) soils. In this test the number NSPT of blows
improvement method. The choice of the method is required to drive a split-barrel sampler into the ground
based on the site-specific conditions and project needs. at specified intervals is recorded. The split-barrel
The common ground improvement techniques used by sampler is also used to collect disturbed samples during
INDOT are vibro-compaction, vibro-replacement, the test for the purpose of identification and laboratory
stone columns, geosynthetics, grouting, and wick testing. The test is typically performed at 1.5 m (5 ft)
(PVD) drains. depth intervals or when a significant change of materials
is observed during drilling, unless otherwise specified.
2.5 Pavement Design SPT test results and identification information are used
in subsurface exploration for a wide range of geotech-
In pavement works, geotechnical input parameters nical applications. The obtained NSPT values for the
are required in designing a new roadway alignment and blow counts are corrected for hammer efficiency, rod
in pavement rehabilitation projects. Comprehensive length, borehole diameter, and sampling method. The
subsurface investigation and laboratory testing is NSPT values are correlated with different soil parameters
necessary to ascertain the strength of the subgrade. such as unit weight g, relative density DR, friction angle
The resilient modulus is used to define the stiffness of f, and undrained compressive strength qu. Correlations
the subgrade soil, which characterizes the soil support also exist to relate the NSPT values with the cone
provided by the subgrade. Geotechnical recommenda- resistance qc obtained from the CPT test.
tions on suitable soil stabilization techniques are also
required if the natural soils at the site are unsuitable for 3.1.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
the planned pavement structure. Reason for unsuit-
ability include soils with inadequate strength, inappro- The cone penetration test is performed in accordance
priate gradation, or with potential to swell. Subgrade with ASTM D 5778 (2020). In this test an electronic
stability must be considered both in the short and long probe is pushed into the soil while continuously
term: the subgrade should adequately support the recording the measurements for tip resistance qc, sleeve
heavy equipment during construction and should also friction fs and pore water pressures u. The standard
support the roadway during its design life. Depth of cone penetration rate should not exceed 2 cm/s. The
groundwater table, drainage and climatic conditions continuous nature of CPT results provides a detailed
are also assessed to properly design the stormwater stratigraphic profile which also serves as a guide for
management system and determine the shrinkage/ selective sampling. CPT data can be used to interpret
swelling factors. In addition, the in situ classification subsurface stratigraphy, and, through use of site
of the soils ensures that the slopes of cuts and fills are specific correlations, the results can provide data on
stable while executing the earthwork. engineering properties of soils intended for use in design
and construction of earthworks and foundations. The
3. FIELD, LABORATORY, AND VERIFICATION qc values are correlated with different soil parameters
TESTS PERFORMED BY INDOT such as DR, f, and small-strain shear modulus G0.

In this section, we discuss the inventory that we 3.1.3 Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPT)
compiled of the geotechnical tests that are performed
by the INDOT geotechnical office. We categorize the The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
geotechnical tests into field, laboratory, and verification 7400 (2019) to determine compression (P) and shear (S)
tests. Table 3.1, Table 3.2, and Table 3.3 provide a wave velocity profiles in geotechnical earthquake
consolidated list of these tests along with their engineering investigations. Since certain counties in

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 3

TABLE 3.1
Summary of the field tests performed by INDOT

Test Standard Variables

Standard penetration test (SPT) AASHTO T 206, ASTM D 1586 NSPT

Cone penetration test (CPT) ASTM D 5778 qc, fs, u
Seismic cone penetration test (SCPT) ASTM D 7400 vs
Dynamic cone penetrometer test (DCPT) ITM 509 Blow counts
Light weight deflectometer (LWD) ITM 508, ASTM E 2583 Ed
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) ASTM D 4694 E
Pocket penetrometer (PP) ASTM WK 27337 qu
Dilatometer test (DMT) ASTM D 6635 Lateral stress and stiffness
Pressuremeter test (PMT) ASTM D 4719 EM
Plate load test (PLT) ASTM D 1194 qult, w
Vane shear test AASHTO T 223, ASTM D 2573 su
One-point proctor moisture and density relation ITM 512 in situ wc, cd,max

TABLE 3.2
Summary of the laboratory tests performed by INDOT

Test Standard Variables

Sieve analysis and hydrometer test AASHTO T 88 D50, CU, CC

Atterberg limits AASHTO T 89, AASHTO T 90 LL, PL, PI, LLR
Moisture content determination AASHTO T 265 wc (%)
Unit weight determination AASHTO T 233 cm
Specific gravity test AASHTO T 100 Gs
Constant and falling head test AASHTO T 215 K
Standard and modified proctor test AASHTO T 99, AASHTO T 180 OMC, cd,max
One-dimensional consolidation test AASHTO T 216 e, Cc, Cs, cv, Ca
Triaxial compression tests AASHTO T 296, AASHTO T 297, ASTM D 7181 fc, c, su
Direct shear test AASHTO T 236 c, fc
Ring shear test ASTM D 6467 c, fr, fr,min
Unconfined compressive strength test AASHTO T 208 qu
Uniaxial compressive strength of rocks ASTM D 7012 qu, E, n
Point load strength index of rocks ASTM D 5731 Is
Subgrade resilient modulus AASHTO T 307 MR
pH test AASHTO T 289 pH
Loss-on-ignition test AASHTO T 267 OC (%)
Expansive index of soils ASTM D 4829 EI
Corrosion test AASHTO T 288, T 289, T 290, T 291 pH, resistivity, Su (%),
and Cl (%)
Slake durability index ASTM D 4644 Id
Jar slake test ITM 511 Ij

Indiana fall within the seismic zones, this test is the in situ soil. This test is performed by driving a metal
routinely performed by INDOT. During the test, travel cone into the ground by repeatedly striking it with a
times of the seismic waves are analyzed, and seismic hammer of standard weight dropped from a fixed
velocity is calculated. The P-wave and S-wave velocities height. The use of DCPT fundamentally started with
are directly related to the important geotechnical elastic pavement applications where it was used as a proxy test
constants such as Poisson’s ratio n, shear modulus G, for the determination of the California Bearing Ratio
bulk modulus K, and Young’s modulus E. These (CBR). However, considering the portability of the
parameters are used in analysis of soil behavior under apparatus it is also used as a verification test to check
both static and dynamic loads. The shear wave velocity compaction standards. The DCPT blow count mea-
determined in this test is also used in the liquefaction sured during the test can be correlated with in situ DR, c,
assessment of the soils. resilient modulus MR, and bearing capacity of the soils.

3.1.4 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test (DCPT) 3.1.5 Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD)

The test is performed in accordance with ITM 509 The test is performed in accordance with ITM 508
(INDOT, 2022a) and is used to estimate the strength of (INDOT, 2019a) and ASTM E 2583 (2020) and is used

4 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

TABLE 3.3
Summary of the verification tests performed by INDOT

Test Standard Variables

Static pile load test (SPLT) ASTM D 1143 Load-settlement curve, load-transfer curves, limit unit shaft
resistance vs. depth plot, limit shaft capacity, ultimate
base capacity, ultimate load capacity
Dynamic pile load test (DPLT) ASTM D 4945 Estimated pile load-carrying capacity, estimated shaft
resistance, estimated base resistance, driving/restrike
records, parameters used to describe pile-soil static and
dynamic stress-strain response, pile set
Pile integrity test ASTM D 5882 Discontinuity, consistency, interpreted pile length, pile
diameter vs depth plot, velocity signals
Pile lateral load test ASTM D 3966 Flexural stiffness, lateral deflection, bending moment, shear
force, load and displacement at failure, soil resistance
Proofrolling INDOT Standard Specification, Subgrade deformation and standard acceptance testing
Section 203.26
Light weight deflectometer (LWD) ITM 508, ASTM E 2583 Ed
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) ASTM D 4694 E
Dynamic cone penetrometer test (DCPT) ITM 509 Penetration index, blow count for 6 in. or 12 in. of
penetration

as a quick non-destructive method for determining the sive strength of soils. This lightweight, hand-held, and
stiffness of the subgrade and unbound base layers, direct reading penetration device consists of a cali-
granular layers, and backfilling materials. In this test brated spring and 0.25-in.-diameter piston encased
the deflection of the paved and unpaved pavement inside a metal casing. INDOT uses pocket penetrometer
surfaces is measured under the falling weights to only as a supplementary test to more precise strength
estimate the soil modulus. The deflections are corre- determinations.
lated to pavement performance and in situ material
parameters of the pavement layers. INDOT uses this 3.1.8 Dilatometer Test (DMT)
test for sands, aggregates, and chemically modified
soils. The test data is useful for quality assurance of This test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
compacted layers, structural evaluation of load-carry- 6635 (2001) and is used to determine the strength and
ing capacity and determination of thickness require- deformation characteristics of fine-grained soils. The
ments for highway and airfield pavements. main part of the flat dilatometer consists of a flat
stainless thin steel blade with a circular expandable steel
3.1.6 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) membrane of 60-mm diameter on one side. The test
involves driving the steel blade into the ground, inflate
The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D the steel membrane and measure the corresponding
4694 (2020). The falling weight deflectometer is used to pressure and deformation. The corrected DMT pres-
simulate deflection of a pavement surface in response to sures readings are used to estimate the in situ lateral
an impulse load applied by a fast-moving truck. The stress and lateral soil stiffness.
resulting deflections are measured at the center of the
applied load and at various distances away from the 3.1.9 Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
load. Knowing the thickness of individual pavement
layers the deflection can be related to the stiffness The pressuremeter test is performed in accordance
of the pavement using various computational methods. with ASTM D 4719 (2020). In principle the pressure-
The measured deflections are an indicator of pave- meter test is performed by applying pressure to the side
ment performance and could be used to determine walls of a borehole and observing the corresponding
the modulus of pavement layers and subgrade soils. deformations. In this test, a cylindrical probe is lowered
The result of this test could be used to evaluate into a pre-drilled borehole and then pressure within it is
structural load-carrying capacity and determine over- increased by inflating a flexible membrane in the lateral
lay thickness requirements for highway and airfield direction in about 10 increments. For each increment,
pavements. the change in volume of the measuring cell is recorded
until the volume is equal to twice its initial deflated
3.1.7 Pocket Penetrometer Test (PP) volume. The test is best used for dense sands, hard
clays, and weathered rock. The limit pressure is
This test is performed in accordance with ASTM obtained through which soil shear strength could be
WK 27337 (2010) and is used to determine consistency, estimated using cylindrical cavity expansion analysis.
shear strength, and approximate unconfined compres- The results of this test are used to estimate the soil

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 5

stiffness, strength, and at-rest horizontal earth pressure, tion curve for the soil samples. Sieve analysis is perfor-
which are used in the design of foundation. med in accordance with AASHTO T 88 (2020) for
quantitative determination of the distribution of
3.1.10 Plate Load Test (PLT) particle sizes present in the soil sample. The test is
coupled with the hydrometer analysis to obtain the full
The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D gradation curve for a soil when more than 20% of the
1194 (2003). In this test, the plate is placed at the soil sample passing the No. 200 sieve in sieve analysis.
desired depth and loaded incrementally. The settlement
for each load increment is measured to plot the 3.2.2 Atterberg Limits and Plasticity Index
corresponding load-settlement curve. The test gives
information about the soil up to the depth of about two This test is performed to check the consistency of
diameters of the bearing plate. It is performed to fine-grained soils by determining the Atterberg limits.
evaluate the load-settlement curve and estimate the The liquid limit (LL) is determined in accordance with
ultimate bearing capacity of a soil that will be used in AASHTO T 89 (2022), while the plastic limit (PL) and
the design of foundations. In pavement design applica- the plasticity index (PI) are determined in accordance
tions the plate load test is normally used to measure the with the AASHTO T 90 (2020). These limits describe
short-term settlement of pavement subgrade. the water content at which the behavior of the fine-
grained soil changes from a ‘‘solid’’ state to a ‘‘liquid’’
3.1.11 Vane Shear Test state. The Atterberg limits are correlated with the soil’s
engineering behavior properties, such as strength,
The vane shear test is performed in accordance with compressibility, permeability, and density–moisture
ASTM D 2573 (2018) and AASHTO T 223 (1996). The relationships.
test is performed in soft, saturated clayey (‘‘cohesive’’)
soils to estimate their undrained shear strength su. The 3.2.3 Liquid Limit Ratio Test (LLR)
test is relatively simple, quick, and provides a cost-
effective way of estimating the soil shear strength. The The liquid limit ratio (LLR) of the soil is defined as
vane shear test apparatus consists of a four-blade the ratio of the liquid limit of the soil obtained after the
stainless steel vane attached to a steel rod that is pushed loss on ignition test AASHTO T 267 (1986) to the
into the ground. The vane is then rotated at a slow rate liquid limit of the natural soil. The values obtained for
of 6u per minute until a maximum torque is reached and the liquid limit ratio are related to the organic content
the vane rotates rapidly for several revolutions. The present in the soil.
peak torque measured is related to the peak undrained
shear strength. This test method is used extensively in a 3.2.4 Moisture Content Determination
variety of geotechnical explorations for total stress
analysis of saturated fine-grained clays and silts. This test is performed in accordance with AASHTO
T 265 (2015) and is used to determine moisture content
3.1.12 One-Point Proctor Moisture and Density Relation of soil samples. If the content of fines (, 0.075 mm) is
less than 35% then this test may not be required. The
The test is performed in accordance with ITM 512 moisture content is an important soil property which is
(INDOT, 2019b) and is used to obtain the corrected related to the soil shear strength, compressibility, and
maximum dry density and optimum moisture for other engineering properties.
compaction control in cohesive soils. The standard
provides relationships for density-moisture and 3.2.5 Unit Weight Determination
Atterberg limits to estimate maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. The test is used to ensure This test is performed in accordance with procedures
quality control during compaction. outlined in AASHTO T 233 (2022). This test is intended
to determine the density of natural or compacted soil
3.2 Laboratory Tests by measuring the weight and volume of undisturbed
samples.
Field testing is complemented by laboratory testing
to ensure that soil properties selected for design are 3.2.6 Specific Gravity Test
realistic. The laboratory tests performed by INDOT on
disturbed and undisturbed soil samples obtained from The specific gravity of the solids Gs is the ratio of
the field are discussed below. the unit weight cs of the solids to the unit weight cw of
water. This test is performed in accordance with
3.2.1 Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis AASHTO T 100 (2022) and provides useful relation-
ships between void ratio, degree of saturation, and
A combination of sieve analysis and hydrometer water content. For most soils the value of Gs is of the
analysis is performed to obtain the grain size distribu- order of 2.6–2.7.

6 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

3.2.7 Constant Head and Falling Head Hydraulic dation test is the amount of swelling or rebound that
Conductivity Test can occur when the load is removed. This test provides
important parameters that are used in the estimation of
This test is performed in accordance with AASHTO settlements of foundations and embankments.
T 215 (2022) to obtain the hydraulic conductivity K,
defined as the ratio of the specific discharge to the
3.2.11 Triaxial Test
hydraulic gradient. The test is performed on an un-
disturbed sample and is used to determine the drainage A triaxial test is used to determine the shear strength
properties of the soil. The constant head permeability parameters of a soil. There are three types of triaxial
test is used to determine the permeability of water tests according to the possibility of drainage during the
through granular (cohesionless) soils in a steady-state consolidation or shearing stages of the test: unconso-
condition. The test is recommended for soils with K . lidated undrained (UU), consolidated undrained (CU),
1 6 10-3 cm/sec. The falling head permeability test is and consolidated drained (CD). These tests are
used to determine the permeability of fine-grained soils performed in accordance with AASHTO T 296
with intermediate and low permeability such as silts and (2010), AASHTO T 297 (1994), and ASTM D 7181
clays. A temperature correction may need to be incor- (2020), respectively. The test is performed in two stages.
porated into the calculations as the hydraulic con- The first stage is the consolidation stage (although the
ductivity obtained through this standard, for which the soil may or may not undergo volume change, depend-
standard temperature is 68uF. ing on whether water is allowed to drain from or come
into the sample); the second is the shearing stage. Tests
3.2.8 Standard Proctor Test in which drainage is allowed during the consolidation
stage are referred to as consolidated or C tests; when
The standard proctor test is performed in accordance drainage is prevented, they are known as unconsoli-
with AASHTO T 99 (2022). This test is used to dated or U tests. Tests in which drainage is allowed
determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) and during the shearing stage are known as drained (D);
maximum dry density (cd,max) of a soil. It provides otherwise, tests are referred to as undrained (U). The
the curve for standard moisture density relations. undrained shear strength su of clay determined from the
A minimum of 4 points with at least 2 on each side of UU test results is commonly used in foundation design,
the curve are required. These values of OMC and cd,max earth pressure calculations, and embankment stability
obtained from the test are used as a guideline to set the analysis. In CU test, total stresses and pore-water
compaction standards in the field. pressures are typically measured, allowing the calcula-
tion of effective stresses through the shearing stage of
3.2.9 Modified Proctor Test the test. Axial deformation is also measured. The
loading path in a triaxial test can be further categorized
The test is similar to the standard proctor test and is as TXC (triaxial compression) or TXE (triaxial exten-
performed in accordance with AASHTO T 180 (2020). sion). In a TXC test, the sample is compressed axially
The main difference between the two tests is the amount while the radial pressure is kept constant. In contrast, in
of compaction effort: it is higher for the modified a TXE test, the sample is pulled or extended axially
proctor test because of the use of a heavier hammer while the radial pressure is kept constant.
with an increased drop height. A direct consequence of
this increased compaction effort is the greater compac- 3.2.12 Direct Shear Test
tion energy, which results in higher unit weights at a
lower moisture content. When specifying compaction This test is performed in accordance with AASHTO
standards, there is a need to clearly indicate whether the T 236 (2008). The test consists of determining the
standard or the modified proctor test was used to consolidated drained shear strength parameters of soil
obtain the maximum dry density values. using a shear box by measuring the shear stress required
to shear the sample along the horizontal plane separat-
3.2.10 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test ing the upper and lower halves of the box. The test can
be performed on undisturbed or remolded soil samples.
The one-dimensional consolidation (or oedometer This test is used to obtain information about the shear
test) is performed in accordance with AASHTO T 216 resistance of soils to calculate the soil’s bearing capacity,
(2007). Consolidation is defined as a process in which slope stability, lateral earth pressures on retaining
water is slowly forced out of the soil under the structures, or to perform pavement designs.
application of external loads, leading to a reduction in
the void ratio of the soil. The test is called one- 3.2.13 Ring Shear Test
dimensional because, during the test, the soil sample is
restrained laterally by a metal ring, and pressure The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
increments are applied axially. The rate of consolida- 6467 (2022a). Ring shear tests are the recommended
tion is indicative of soil compressibility and hydraulic method for developing the baseline values for drained
conductivity. Another factor evaluated by the consoli- residual strength because of the ability of the ring shear

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 7

device to apply large shear displacements without any corrosion testing. The prepared soil samples are mixed
reversal in the direction of shear. This allows for with distilled water to create a soil-water suspension,
complete particle orientation along the shearing plane, which is then stirred and allowed to settle for a period.
and a more accurate measurement of the drained After the settling period, a pH meter is used to measure
residual strength than would be achieved in traditional the pH of the soil-water suspension.
direct shear or triaxial tests. Generally, three or more
normal stresses are applied to a test specimen to 3.2.19 Loss on Ignition Test
determine the drained residual failure envelope.
This test is performed in accordance with AASHTO T
3.2.14 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test 267 (1986). This method determines the quantitative
oxidation of organic matter in soils and gives a valid
This test is performed in accordance with AASHTO estimate of organic content. Soils with high organic
T 208 (2015) and is used to determine the unconfined content such as peat and those containing relatively
compressive strength of clayey (‘‘cohesive’’) soils in undecayed or undecomposed vegetative matter or fresh
undisturbed, remolded, or compacted states. The plant materials have low shear strength and high moisture
sample is loaded, at a constant rate, to the load at content. They are also susceptible to settlement due to
which it fails, or the load corresponds to 15% strain, decomposition/decaying of the organic matter over time.
whichever occurs first. This test method provides an
approximate value of the strength of cohesive soils in 3.2.20 Expansive Index of Soils
terms of total stresses. The shear strength of a clayey
sample is given by half of the unconfined compressive The test is done in accordance with ASTM D 4829
strength measured. (2021) and allows for determination of expansion
potential of soils when inundated with distilled water.
3.2.15 Uniaxial Compression Test of Rock The method measures the expansion index (EI) of the
soil, which provides an indication of its swelling
This test is performed in accordance with ASTM D potential. The EI value is used by engineers and other
7012 (2023), Method C, and is used to determine the professional to determine the suitability of soil for
uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen. The construction projects. It is used to determine design
results of test are also used to estimate both the elastic requirements for foundations, site selection, and
modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of an intact rock core. material selection to mitigate the potential for damage
to structures caused by soil movement.
3.2.16 Point Load Strength Index of Rocks
3.2.21 Corrosion or Electrochemical Classification Tests
The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
5731 (2016). Point load testing is used to determine rock Corrosivity testing is used to help predict the
strength indexes to classify the rock strength. It is used likelihood of corrosion or degradation of a material
to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of (metal or concrete) in contact with ground. INDOT
rock using index-to-strength conversion factors. The Standard Specifications (INDOT, 2022) require that
strength index IS of a rock is also used to assess the the structural backfill also be tested for corrosion
degradation potential of shale. potential. Different parameters that define the corro-
sion potential of the soil are pH values (AASHTO T
3.2.17 Resilient Modulus 289, 1991), organic content (AASHTO T 267, 1986),
resistivity values (AASHTO T 288, 2012), Su (%)
The resilient modulus (MR) of subgrade soil is (AASHTO T 290, 1995), and Cl (%) (AASHTO T 291,
determined in accordance with AASHTO T 307 (1999). 1994). The corrosion potential of a soil is critical in
The resilient modulus is a measure of the stiffness of the assessing the design life of an underground structure
soil and is an important parameter in the pavement and is useful in decisions as to whether any coating or
design procedure to predict undesirable pavement beha- cathodic protection measure is required.
viors such as cracking and rutting. The test can be
performed either on remolded soils from the embankment 3.2.22 Slake Durability Test
fill or on Shelby tube samples from the subgrade soil.
The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
3.2.18 pH Test 4644 (2016). The main purpose of the test is to evaluate
the weathering resistance of shales and other weak
The test is performed in accordance with AASHTO rocks. The test method is used to estimate qualitatively
T 289 (1991) and on soil samples prepared in the durability of weak rocks through weakening and
accordance with AASHTO T 87 (2004). The pH test disintegration resulting from a standard two cycles of
measures soil acidity or alkalinity and is commonly wetting and drying. A quantitative durability index
used to supplement soil resistivity measurements in Id value is then assigned to the tested rock.

8 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

3.2.23 Jar Slake Test 3.3.4 Pile Integrity Test

This test is performed in accordance with ITM 511 The pile integrity test is performed in accordance
(INDOT, 2013). It is used to determine the reaction of with ASTM D 5882 (2016). This non-destructive, low-
weak rock material to water during a certain time strain pile testing method is used for the assessment of
period. A quantitative jar slake index Ij value is then the integrity of piles and reveals potential pile defects,
assigned to the tested rock. The index Ij has implica- such as major cracks, necking, soil inclusions or voids.
tions on the porosity, grains, interactions, and density In this test the velocity induced on the pile by an impact
of the weak rock. device is measured. The impact device is usually applied
axially and perpendicularly to the pile head surface.
3.3 Verification Tests During the test, the accelerometer attached to the test
pile measures a plot of acceleration versus time that can
The verification tests performed by INDOT to be integrated to produce a plot of velocity versus time.
comply with their quality control procedures relevant This plot reveals any significant changes in cross-
to different geotechnical applications are discussed section that may exist along the pile shaft. If major
below. defects exist, test results may be interpreted to estimate
their magnitude and location. The test results help
3.3.1 Static Pile Load Test (SPLT) determine pile integrity and continuity; consistency of
pile materials and pile cross-sectional area; and length.
The test is performed in accordance with ASTM D
1143 (1994). Static load tests are performed during the 3.3.5 Proof Rolling
test phase of each contract to verify the design assump-
tions and the load carrying capacity of piles. During the Proof rolling is performed in accordance with
test, a static load is applied on the test pile using INDOT Standard Specifications 2022, Section 203.26
a hydraulic jack and measured using a load cell. (INDOT, 2022b). The test results are used to check the
A reaction frame sufficient to take the pile load test subgrade compaction and to locate soft areas. The
to the desired load or settlements must be designed. deformation of subgrade is measured during the test by
Loads are applied in increments and each increment driving a dump truck weighing at least 15 tons at a
is held for a predetermined time interval. The pile maximum speed of 2 mph over designated areas of the
response to the applied load is measured throughout soil surface. Proof rolling has the potential to reveal
the test to determine the pile capacity and ultimate issues with subgrade drainage. There is no ASTM
failure load. standard for this procedure.

3.3.2 Static Pile Lateral Load Test 3.3.6 Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD)

This test is performed in accordance with ASTM D The LWD test described above under the field tests is
3966 (2022). This test measures the lateral deflection also used by INDOT as a verification test.
of an individual pile or group of piles when subjected
to static lateral loading. The test results provide a 3.3.7 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
relationship between the static lateral load applied to a
deep foundation and the resulting lateral movement. The FWD test described above under the field tests is
The results could be useful to assess the distribution of also used by INDOT as a verification test.
lateral resistance along the element and the long-term
load-deflection behavior. The test results could be 3.3.8 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)
analyzed to evaluate pile-soil interaction properties
such as coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction to The DCPT test described above under the field tests
estimate bending stresses and flexural stiffness. is also used by INDOT as a verification test.

3.3.3 Dynamic Pile Load Test (DPLT) 4. VARIABLES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE

DATABASE AND METHODS OF
This test is performed in accordance with ASTM D INTERPRETATION
4945 (2017). Sensors (strain gauges and accelerometers)
are attached directly to the pile. Readings from these This section presents the geotechnical design para-
sensors allow measurement of velocity and stress due to meters that are obtained as result of the site investiga-
each hammer blow, from which shaft resistance and tion through various field and laboratory tests. We
base resistance can calculated using suitable relation- discuss these variables below by providing their
ships for energy dissipation along the pile-soil interface. relationships with the engineering analysis of geotech-
The test also allows evaluation of the shape and nical applications discussed in Section 2 and provide a
integrity of the foundation element. consolidated list of all the variables in Table 4.1.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 9

TABLE 4.1 TABLE 4.1
List of geotechnical variables to be included in the database (Continued)

Symbol Quantity represented Symbol Quantity represented

A Cross-sectional area Qann Annulus capacity

Ab Area of pile base Qplug Soil plug capacity
Asi Pile shaft area interfacing with layer i qb Design bearing pressure
B Foundation width/diameter qb,ult Ultimate unit base resistance
b Width of MSE wall reinforcement qc Cone resistance
Cl (%) Chloride content qsL Limit unit shaft resistance
Ca Secondary compression index qu Unconfined compressive strength
CC Coefficient of curvature qult Ultimate unit bearing capacity
Cc Compression index qw Discharge capacity of PVD
Cs Swelling index q0 Surcharge
CU Coefficient of uniformity RF Resistance factor
c Cohesive intercept RR Recovery ratio
cv Coefficient of consolidation RMR Rock mass rating
D Embedment depth RQD Rock quality designation
DD Ultimate downdrag load Rc Coverage ratio
DR Relative density rs Radius of smear zone
D50 Mean particle size Su (%) Sulfate content
E Young’s modulus sh Horizontal spacing between reinforcement/
EI Expansive index PVDs
Ec Strip thickness corrected for corrosion su Undrained shear strength
Ed Dynamic elastic modulus sv Vertical spacing between reinforcement/
EM Menard pressuremeter modulus PVDs
E Load eccentricity T Time factor
emax Maximum void ratio Tult Ultimate tensile strength
emin Minimum void ratio t Thickness of reinforcement
e0 Initial void ratio u Pore water pressure
F* Pullout friction factor vs Shear wave velocity
FS Factor of safety wc (%) Water content
fs Sleeve friction w Settlement
fy Yield stress of steel wtol Tolerable settlement
GWT Groundwater table y Lateral deflection
NGWT No groundwater table Z Depth of the soil layer
Gs Specific gravity bi Slope inclination with horizontal
H Height of retaining wall/ slope d Interface friction angle
I Moment of inertia c Soil unit weight
IFR Incremental filling ratio cd,max Maximum dry unit weight
Ic Collapse potential cfn Unit weight of foundation soil
Id Slake durability index cm Moist unit weight of soil
Ie Collapse index crf Unit weight of reinforced fill
Ij Jar slake index crt Unit weight of retained backfill
Is Point load strength index n Poisson’s ratio
K Hydraulic conductivity fc Critical-state friction angle
k Coefficient of subgrade reaction ffn Friction angle of foundation soil
K0 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at-rest fr Residual friction angle
L Foundation length fr,min Minimum residual friction angle
LF Load factor frf Friction angle of reinforced fill
LL Liquid limit frt Friction angle of retained backfill
LLR Liquid limit ratio s9v Vertical effective stress
Ld Length of PVD
Lr Length of reinforcement
MR Resilient modulus 4.1 Shallow Foundation Design
Myield Yield stress of pile material
NSPT SPT blow count The design of shallow foundations is done in
OC (%) Organic content accordance with LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
OCR Overconsolidation ratio as prescribed by AASHTO (2020), according to which
OMC Optimum moisture content the foundation geometry is proportioned such that the
PI Plasticity index factored resistance is not less than the effects of the
PL Plastic limit
factored loads considered for serviceability and ulti-
pc Soil compressive resistance
pL Limit unit lateral resistance
mate limit states. In the LRFD method, the foundation
ps Soil shear resistance may be evaluated for a number of load combinations,
including those for normal strength and extreme-event

10 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

loading requirements. Ultimate limit states in founda- approach (LRFD) as prescribed in the LRFD Bridge
tion design include checks for bearing capacity failure, Design Specifications, as prescribed by AASHTO
overturning of the footing, sliding of the footing base, (2020). Foundations must be able to sustain axial and
and global (overall) stability of the structure and its lateral loads without suffering structural damage,
parts. Serviceability limit states in foundation design failing in bearing capacity, or undergoing excessive
relate to foundation settlement and rotation that are settlements or deflections. Subsurface explorations are
marginally intolerable. performed to provide the information needed for the
Figure 4.1 shows in schematic form the engineering design and construction of foundations. The extent of
analysis and design required to prevent shallow foun- exploration is based on variability in the subsurface
dations from attaining strength and serviceability limit conditions, structure type, and any project require-
states. The required geotechnical investigation is sepa- ments that may affect the foundation design or
rated into field and laboratory tests that are performed construction. The exploration program should be
to obtain the engineering properties and design vari- extensive enough to reveal the nature and types of soil
ables that are required to perform the engineering deposits and/or rock formations encountered, the
analysis. The SPT is the most common field test. SPT engineering properties of the soils and/or rocks, the
results are used to design shallow foundations through potential for liquefaction, and the groundwater condi-
correlations to shear strength and compressibility. tions. Common types of deep foundations include
Other field and verification tests that INDOT may drilled shafts, driven piles, and micropiles. The capacity
perform while designing a shallow foundation are the of the foundation to support the loads is determined
CPT, pressuremeter test, vane shear test and plate load by performing engineering calculations based on soil
tests. In the case of shallow foundations bearing on properties, pile type, and other factors. Individual
rocks, the strength and consistency of the rock mass is foundation elements are designed based on load-
verified by determining the rock quality designation carrying capacity calculations. Two general types of
RQD and recovery ratio RR. Index tests such as soil deep foundations are typically considered: drilled shaft
gradation, water content, Atterberg limits, and organic foundations and pile foundations.
content may also be performed to obtain the input
variables for some aspects of foundation design. In 4.2.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations
addition, these basic laboratory tests also serve as
confirmatory tests to verify any classification of soils For drilled shaft foundations, it is especially critical
based on the field tests. Laboratory strength tests are that the groundwater regime is well defined at each
conducted on undisturbed soil samples to assess the foundation location because of constructability issues.
shear strength and compressibility parameters of the Drilled shaft foundations are designed against both
foundation soil. service and strength limit states. Along the drilled shaft,
unit shaft resistance (unit ‘‘skin friction’’) or downdrag
4.2 Deep Foundation Design loadings are calculated using suitable analyses. The
load at the top and the base resistance (calculated using
Designing a deep foundation is a complex process a suitable method of design), along with the pile top
that requires expertise in geotechnical engineering, and base settlements, are also key variables. Additional
structural engineering, and construction. It is done in database variables may be needed to describe con-
accordance with the load and resistance factor design structability, scour, seepage, and potential for caving.

Figure 4.1 Variables required in the engineering analysis and design of shallow foundations and related geotechnical tests.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 11

Figure 4.2 Variables required in the engineering analysis and design of drilled shaft foundation and related geotechnical tests
performed for deep foundations.

Figure 4.2 describes the site investigation tests and Laterally loaded piles are usually analyzed using the p-y
lab tests performed by INDOT and the obtained soil method. In this method, the horizontal soil resistance
variables and their use in engineering design. Founda- along the piles is modeled using suitable p-y curves, as
tion design relies upon the SPT and/or qc results shown in Figure 4.3c.
obtained during the field exploration and also on
independent data obtained by visual descriptions of the 4.3 Retaining Wall Design
soil/rock encountered, possibly laboratory tests and
general knowledge of local geology. The design of retaining walls is done in accordance
with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications as
4.2.2 Driven Pile Foundations prescribed by AASHTO (2020). In Figure 4.4 the design
of MSE walls is shown as an example for retaining
A pile derives its load-carrying capacity from the walls as they are designed as any conventional retaining
shear stress that develops along the pile shaft with the wall but have some additional design considerations to
surrounding soil—known as the unit shaft resistance— meet the internal stability requirements. Furthermore,
and from the compressive resistance that develops at in current design practice, MSE walls are an important
the contact of the pile base with the underlying soil. component of transportation infrastructure that can
Driven piles may be open-ended or closed-ended. The serve not only as a retaining structure but also as bridge
performance of open-ended driven pile foundation abutments and wing walls. The main components
depends on the plugging response during pile driving. of MSE wall are the retained backfill, reinforced fill,
Figure 4.3a and Figure 4.3b discuss variables reinforcing elements (e.g., steel strips, steel grids, or
required for limit state design of open-ended and planar geosynthetics), wall facing (e.g., precast concrete
closed-ended steel pipe piles. Engineering analysis of panels, modular blocks, and welded wire mesh) and
pile foundation is a crucial step in ensuring the stability foundation soil. MSE walls are designed for external
and safety of the structure. It is necessary to ensure that stability (bearing capacity failure, overturning, sliding,
the foundation does not reach its limit states— and global stability) of the wall as well as internal
serviceability limit states (SLS) and ultimate limit states stability (reinforcement rupture, reinforcement pullout,
(ULS). SLS includes excessive deformation or settle- and reinforcement-facing connection strength) of the
ment that affects the performance of the structure, and reinforced soil mass behind the facing.
an ULS is reached when a pile foundation is no longer Figure 4.4 shows the details of the engineering ana-
able to support the load of the structure due to bearing lysis required in the design of MSE walls. The variables
capacity failure or excessive settlement. Engineering required to perform the design checks are linked with
analyses are performed to evaluate bearing capacity the geotechnical tests from which they are obtained.
and settlement for pile foundation. It is also essential to A thorough classification of the foundation soil,
consider the effects of downdrag (DD) and scour when retained soil, and reinforced soil is required as engi-
designing piles to ensure their stability and safety over neering properties of each of these soils to perform
time. Downdrag load is the load applied on the pile by various design checks. Considering that INDOT
soil consolidating around it. Scour, on the other hand, typically uses metallic strips as reinforcement, soil cor-
refers to the erosion of soil around the pile due to water rosiveness is also analyzed thorough different physio-
flow, which can cause the pile to become unstable. chemical parameters. The values obtained from these

12 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

Figure 4.3 Variables required in the engineering analysis of (a) open-ended pipe pile foundation design under axial loads,
(b) closed-ended pipe pile foundation design under axial loads, and (c) pile foundation design under lateral loads.

tests are needed to take preventive measure against ple locations and depths. Selection of soil shear strength
long-term corrosion and degradation of the reinforce- parameters used as input to the analysis will vary
ment being exposed to corrosive and contaminated depending on whether short-term or long-term stability
environment. analysis must be performed. For short-term analysis,
undrained shear strength parameters are required; for
4.4 Slope Stability long-term stability analysis, drained shear strength
parameters are required.
Detailed assessment of soil and rock stratigraphy is Slope stability is mostly performed using limit
critical to the proper assessment of slope stability. The equilibrium methods—modified Bishop, simplified
site investigation and laboratory tests carried out for Janbu, or Spencer method being the most common.
slope stability analysis are listed in Figure 4.5. The key The factor of safety calculation resulting from the
in situ tests often used in analysis are the standard analysis requires that the slope geometry be completely
penetration test, cone penetration test, and vane shear defined, and the soils in the slope adequately char-
test. The groundwater regime beneath the slope will acterized. Figure 4.5 shows the field and laboratory
also be determined through piezometric data at multi- tests performed to obtain the soil parameters used in

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 13

Figure 4.4 Variables required in the engineering analysis of MSE wall design and related geotechnical tests.

Figure 4.5 Variables required to perform slope stability analysis and related geotechnical tests.

slope stability analysis calculations. The resistance In general terms, there are three typical modes of soil
factors and load factors are required to perform the improvement: densification, reinforcement, and drain-
design check specified in LRFD Bridge Design age enhancement. The selection of methods is based on
Specifications AASHTO (2020). Slope stability checks site conditions, improvement objectives, equipment
may also be done using the finite element method or availability, cost, construction period, skills, and past
other more sophisticated methods. experiences.
Depending on the ground improvement method
4.5 Ground Improvement adopted, there are certain variables that are directly asso-
ciated with the method. In Figure 4.6, as an example,
One of the major tasks a geotechnical engineer may we show three methods for ground improvement. When
have to undertake is to design, evaluate, and implement wick drains (PVDs) are used as a ground improvement
ground modification schemes for infrastructure pro- method in a project, variables of interest associated are
jects. Before the start of any construction project, the size, shape, and length of the PVDs, the vertical and
properties of the soil on site are evaluated to check its horizontal spacing between the PVDs, vertical and
suitability for construction. Ground improvement is horizontal drainage, and the total discharge rate of the
necessary when poor soil conditions are encountered. PVDs. These details should be included in the database.
Ground improvement is carried out for various In addition, pertinent details such as information regard-
objectives, including improving bearing capacity, redu- ing the smear zones, well resistance, and splicing may also
cing settlement of soft ground, preventing soil liquefac- be included in the database.
tion, controlling groundwater flow, stabilizing
excavations, preventing deformation of surrounding 4.6 Pavement Works
ground, or mitigating erodibility. There are many
different ground improvement systems adaptable to a Pavement works include subgrade modification and
wide array of site conditions, soils, and structure types. stabilization to improve the strength and stability of the

14 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

Figure 4.6 Geotechnical tests required to establish the need for ground improvement and variables related to different ground
improvement techniques.

Figure 4.7 Variables required in the pavement design and related geotechnical tests.

subgrade to improve performance and longevity of the parameters of soil, hydraulic conductivity, Atterberg
pavement structure. Proper characterization and eva- limits, minimum and maximum void ratio.
luation of the subgrade soil is crucial to ensure the
overall stability and durability of pavement structures. 5. PROPOSED DATABASE STRUCTURE AND
The properties of the subgrade soil are also used as EXAMPLE
input parameters for other pavement layers. The site
investigation and laboratory tests carried out by 5.1 Database Structure
INDOT for the same are listed in Figure 4.7. The Figure 5.1 shows the proposed database structure,
FWD and the LWD are the important in situ tests. The designed following the object-oriented paradigm. It will
resilient modulus measures the stiffness of the subgrade be a user-friendly web-based GIS application helpful
and is an important parameter used in the design of for engineers using the database. The purpose of the
pavement structures. Other important lab tests to obtain database is to organize the data in a structured manner
pavement design input parameters include strength for easy retrieval of information associated with any
tests, consolidation test to assess the compressibility design step of any INDOT project. This would allow

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 15

Figure 5.1 Proposed structure of the object-oriented relational database.

for remote access without operating robust GIS soft- The Test table has fields describing a geotechnical
ware. It is a fully integrated relational database. The test such as test name, test type, test standard and
database is organized in the form of tables and output soil type, and soil variables from the test. The
associated relations between them. Each table in the variable field in the Test table can be used to query its
database corresponds to a separate class and the detailed description from the Variable table. This table
different entries in the table will be the various objects stores the information related to the soil variables and
of the respective class. For example, the applications has corresponding fields—name, identification if it is a
table is responsible for storing the Application class. state variable or profile variable, and relevant tests. The
The fields of the table are the class attributes, and each test field in the Variable table also acts as a foreign key
row of the table is a separate Application object. Each into the Test table. The variables required would vary
table also has a primary key that uniquely identifies an depending on the analysis being performed. The soil
object of that table. This primary key is used to profile variables would be, for example, ground surface
establish relations between tables. For example, the elevation, depth to water table, depth to bedrock,
design analysis field in Application table holds the list of number of soil layers, layer thickness and soil type for
design checks to be performed. These names can be each layer. The soil state variables would store the soil
directly used to query the detailed description in the properties like void ratio, relative density, unit weight,
Design Analysis table. and hydraulic conductivity. Variables are direct input
We identified the basic building blocks for identify- for design analysis to be performed for any given
ing the geotechnical applications design in a project as application.
follows: Project, Application, Test, Variable, and Design The Design Analysis table has fields describing a
Analysis. The Project table has fields for project des- design method. These include, for example, name,
cription (project name, number, location, county, AASHTO/INDOT standard it follows, soil type it is
contract, consultant, engineer) and the associated applicable for, and the soil variables required to
applications based on the project scope. The applica- perform the analysis. The soil variable field in the
tions field in the project table acts as a foreign key into design analysis table acts as a foreign key into the
the Application table. Variable table to find the description and tests
The Application table has fields for its description performed to obtain the required soil variable for an
(name, location, geometry), the design analysis to be engineering analysis. There are complex relationships
performed, and the tests required (gives details about existing between all the classes but defined rigorously in
site investigation and laboratory tests performed for a logical manner.
an application). The test field in the application table One of the ways in which the database will be useful
acts as a foreign key into the Test table and the will be when the user is looking for specific type of
design analysis field acts as a foreign key into the data in a certain area. This database design will enable
Design Analysis table. the users to make complex queries on the design of

16 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

geotechnical applications corresponding to a project. 5.2 User Workflow Example
See the following examples.
Figure 5.2 shows an example of the proposed user
N ‘‘Get all variables required for design of shallow workflow for the database. The selected example is a
foundation for project number 123.’’ shallow foundation bearing capacity analysis in which a
N ‘‘Get all variables required for axial load capacity
strip footing is designed for an interior bridge pier. The
analysis for pile foundations that can be obtained by
performing site investigation tests.’’
example corresponds to a completed INDOT project.
N ‘‘Get all tests needed to perform settlement checks for Figure 5.3 shows the factored resistances obtained
deep foundations.’’ using the calculation methods proposed by Terzaghi
(1943), Meyerhof (1963), and Vesic (1973), precisely as
Note that the above queries can give deterministic reported in the geotechnical report of the project.
answers for even incomplete queries by the user. For Additional information such as project description, soil
example, query 1 above did not identify a specific properties, footing geometry, and applicable resistance
design analysis, and query 3 did not have specified soil factor is also included in the figure.
variables. We believe this database design will be useful Figure 5.2 illustrates how the information from a
in answering most of the queries made by geotechnical geotechnical report of a project is organized in different
engineers and optimize their time and improve the classes or tables according to the proposed database
storage and handling of large amounts of data corres- structure. The Project table stores project details such
ponding to design of various geotechnical applications. as the project name, number, location, and county. The
The database will reduce the need for performing name of the consultant and the engineer responsible for
investigations if the data already exists. the project are also entered in the same class along with
We have conceptualized the database to include all the geotechnical applications that are part of the
different types of geotechnical applications, the corre- project. The applications field in the Project table acts
sponding field and laboratory tests that need to be per- as a foreign key into the Application table. In Figure
formed along with the applicable variables, and which 5.2, we present workflow for one of the specific appli-
interpretation method(s) will be used. The database will cations of the project i.e., shallow foundation design for
comprise several classes linked together in a logical an interior pier. The Application table has fields that
manner to input, store or extract information from the contain information regarding footing elevation, GIS
database. And hence could allow storing and organiz- coordinates, borehole information, and footing geome-
ing this information in an efficient way for the later use. try parameters (footing shape, width, length, and
That use can consist of planning or designing new footing embedment depth). The test and design analysis
structures, or revisiting a completed project to view fields in Application table act as a foreign key into the
what was done. Test and Design Analysis table. The information

Figure 5.2 User workflow example for bearing capacity analysis of a shallow foundation.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 17

Figure 5.3 Bearing capacity analysis of strip footing (extracted from the geotechnical report of the project: Smith Valley Road
over I-69).

regarding the field and laboratory tests performed data stored in the database would be beneficial for the
during the project and the geotechnical variables engineer in making any preliminary design decisions
obtained from the tests are stored in Test table. The and planning a geotechnical investigation.
soil variables obtained from the geotechnical tests are
used as input to perform the required design analysis. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Design Analysis table has fields describing the
standard and calculation methods used to perform The scope of the proposed geotechnical database was
the engineering analysis and the output obtained from discussed in the context of the geotechnical applications,
the design analysis. The proposed database structure is tests, and variables that will be included in the database.
designed to separately store the information regarding In addition, the proposed database structure and user
the design checks for ultimate limit states and service- workflow was presented. The proposed database struc-
ability limit states. ture is designed following the object-oriented paradigm.
In Figure 5.2, an ultimate bearing capacity analysis It is organized in a manner that enables the user to retrieve
is performed to check the bearing capacity of a strip specific information related to a particular project in an
footing in sand using LRFD Bridge Design efficient manner. The database classes include project,
Specifications as prescribed by AASHTO (2020) with application, test, variable, and design analysis. The
a resistance factor of 0.45. The required soil variables associated relations between the classes provide a clear
are also included in the design analysis table and are understanding of the data flow. The primary objective
linked with the geotechnical tests from which they are of the proposed database is to reduce the need to
obtained. Three different methods (Terzaghi (1943), perform geotechnical investigations when the data
Meyerhof (1963), and Vesic (1973)) are used to already exists. If implemented, this approach will save
calculate the factored bearing resistance which is stored time, resources, and improve the efficiency of INDOT
as the design output in the Design Analysis table. geotechnical office operations. Moreover, the database
As the information in the database is distributed into can also serve as a tool for effective engineering analysis
several classes that are linked in a logical manner, and decision-making. It can provide significant benefits
a database user can easily extract the required to geotechnical engineers, geologists, and other pro-
information by querying the database. In this form, fessionals who deal with geotechnical data regularly.
the user can retrieve desired geotechnical data or use By providing a centralized location for storing and
some criteria (county, applications, project ID, work accessing data, the database can improve collaboration,
type) to narrow down the search. Such an interface is consistency, and accuracy of geotechnical data, leading
useful when a user is just looking for a specific type of towards better design solutions.
data available in a certain area. If a future project is While this project has provided the conceptual basis
planned in the vicinity of a previous project, the existing for the design of a geotechnical database system that

18 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

would provide a user-friendly platform for storing and AASHTO T 296. (2010). Standard method of test for
organizing valuable data, it is recommended that the unconsolidated, undrained compressive strength of cohesive
INDOT geotechnical office consider the development soils in triaxial compression. American Association of State
of the database in steps, starting with higher-priority Highway and Transportation Officials.
items. It is also recommended that, in the initial phase AASHTO T 297. (1994). Standard method of test for
consolidated, undrained triaxial compression test on cohesive
of the development/implementation process, only major
soils. American Association of State Highway and Trans-
geotechnical applications be included in the database;
portation Officials.
later, depending on user feedback, the database can be
AASHTO T 307. (1999). Standard method of test for
expanded and refined. determining the resilient modulus of soils and aggregate
materials. American Association of State Highway and
REFERENCES Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 87. (2004). Standard method of test for dry
AASHTO. (2020). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifica- preparation of disturbed soil and soil aggregate samples for
tions (9th ed.). American Association of State Highway and test. American Association of State Highway and Trans-
Transportation Officials. portation Officials.
AASHTO T 100. (2022). Standard method of test for specific AASHTO T 88. (2020). Standard method of test for particle
gravity of soils. American Association of State Highway size analysis of soils. American Association of State
and Transportation Officials. Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 180. (2020). Standard method of test for moisture– AASHTO T 89. (2022). Standard method of test for determin-
density relations of soils using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) rammer and ing the liquid limit of soils. American Association of State
a 457-mm (18-in.) drop. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO T 90. (2020). Standard method of test for determin-
AASHTO T 206. (2022). Standard method of test for ing the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils. American
penetration test and split-barrel sampling of soils. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO T 99. (2022). Standard method of test for moisture–
AASHTO T 208. (2015). Standard method of test for density relations of soils using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) rammer and
unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. American a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop. American Association of State
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 215. (2022). Standard method of test for ASTM D 1143. (1994). Standard test method for piles under
permeability of granular soils (constant head). American
static axial compressive load. ASTM International.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D 1194. (2003). Standard test method for bearing
AASHTO T 216. (2007). Standard method of test for one-
capacity of soil for static load and spread footings. ASTM
dimensional consolidation properties of soils. American
International.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D 1586. (2022). Standard test method for standard
AASHTO T 223. (1996). Standard method of test for field vane
penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils.
shear test in cohesive soil. American Association of State
ASTM International.
Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D 2573. (2018). Standard test method for field vane
AASHTO T 233. (2022). Standard method of test for density of
shear test in saturated fine-grained soils. ASTM Inter-
soil in-place by block, chunk, or core sampling. American
national.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM D 3966. (2022). Standard test methods for deep
AASHTO T 236. (2008). Standard method of test for direct
shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. foundation elements under static lateral load. ASTM Inter-
American Association of State Highway and Transpor- national.
tation Officials. ASTM D 4644. (2016). Standard test method for slake
AASHTO T 265. (2015). Standard method of test for durability of shales and other similar weak rocks. ASTM
laboratory determination of moisture content of soils. International.
American Association of State Highway and Transpor- ASTM D 4694. (2020). Standard test method for deflections
tation Officials. with a falling-weight-type impulse load device. ASTM
AASHTO T 267. (1986). Standard method of test for International.
determination of organic content in soils by loss on ignition. ASTM D 4719. (2020). Standard test method for prebored
American Association of State Highway and Transpor- pressuremeter testing in soils. ASTM International.
tation Officials. ASTM D 4829. (2021). Standard test method for expansion
AASHTO T 288. (2012). Standard method of test for index of soils. ASTM International.
determining minimum laboratory soil resistivity. American ASTM D 4945. (2017). Standard test method for high-strain
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. dynamic testing of deep foundations. ASTM International.
AASHTO T 289. (1991). Standard method of test for deter- ASTM D 5731. (2016). Standard test method for determination
mining pH of soil for use in corrosion testing. American of the point load strength index of rock and application to
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. rock strength classifications. ASTM International.
AASHTO T 290. (1995). Standard method of test for deter- ASTM D 5778. (2020). Standard test method for electronic
mining water-soluble sulfate ion content in soil. American friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils.
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ASTM International.
AASHTO T 291. (1994). Standard method of test for deter- ASTM D 5882. (2016). Standard test method for low strain
mining water-soluble chloride ion content in soil. American impact integrity testing of deep foundations. ASTM Inter-
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. national.

Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14 19

ASTM D 6467. (2022). Standard test method for torsional ring INDOT. (2019a). Field determination of deflection using light
shear test to determine drained residual shear strength of weight deflectometer (ITM No. 508-19). Indiana Depart-
cohesive soils. ASTM International. ment of Transportation, Division of Materials and Tests.
ASTM D 6635. (2001). Standard test method for performing INDOT. (2019b). Field determination of maximum dry density
the flat plate dilatometer. ASTM International. and optimum moisture content of soil (ITM No. 512).
ASTM D 7012. (2023). Standard test methods for compressive Indiana Department of Transportation, Division of
strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens Materials and Tests.
under varying states of stress and temperatures. ASTM INDOT. (2022a). Dynamic cone penetrometer test (ITM No.
International.
509). Indiana Department of Transportation, Division of
ASTM D 7181. (2020). Standard test method for consolidated
Materials and Tests.
drained triaxial compression test for soils. ASTM Inter-
national. INDOT. (2022b). INDOT standard specifications: Section
ASTM D 7400. (2019). Standard test methods for downhole 203.26, Proofrolling. Indiana Department of Transportation.
seismic testing. ASTM International. Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing
ASTM E 2583. (2020). Standard test method for measuring capacity of foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
deflections with a light weight deflectometer. ASTM Inter- 1(1), 16–26.
national. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley &
ASTM WK 27337. (2010). New test method for pocket Sons.
penetrometer test. ASTM International. Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow
INDOT. (2013). Jar slake test (ITM No. 511-13). Indiana foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Department of Transportation, Division of Materials and Division, 99(1), 45–73.
Tests.

20 Joint Transportation Research Program Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14

About the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
On March 11, 1937, the Indiana Legislature passed an act which authorized the Indiana State
Highway Commission to cooperate with and assist Purdue University in developing the best
methods of improving and maintaining the highways of the state and the respective counties
thereof. That collaborative effort was called the Joint Highway Research Project (JHRP). In 1997
the collaborative venture was renamed as the Joint Transportation Research Program (JTRP)
to reflect the state and national efforts to integrate the management and operation of various
transportation modes.

The first studies of JHRP were concerned with Test Road No. 1 — evaluation of the weathering
characteristics of stabilized materials. After World War II, the JHRP program grew substantially
and was regularly producing technical reports. Over 1,600 technical reports are now available,
published as part of the JHRP and subsequently JTRP collaborative venture between Purdue
University and what is now the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Free online access to all reports is provided through a unique collaboration between JTRP and
Purdue Libraries. These are available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp.

Further information about JTRP and its current research program is available at
http://www.purdue.edu/jtrp.

About This Report

An open access version of this publication is available online. See the URL in the citation below.

Raja, R. A., Toshniwal, V., & Salgado, R. (2023). GIS-based geotechnical database for collaborative
GIS (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2023/14). West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317637