Design and Installation of Deep Benchmarks

in Expansive Soil
Kuo-Chieh Chao, P.E., M.ASCE1; Daniel D. Overton, P.E., M.ASCE2; and John D. Nelson, P.E., F.ASCE3

Abstract: Benchmarks are typically regarded as stable points to provide references for elevations. In areas with expansive soils, special
techniques are necessary to provide benchmarks that are free from ground movements. To prevent the movement of benchmarks due to
heaving of expansive soils, benchmarks must be anchored below the depths where these movements originate. This paper presents a
design and installation procedure for three benchmarks installed to depths of approximately 30–37 m in areas with expansive soils. The
performance of the benchmarks has been monitored since September 2000. The monitoring results of the deep benchmarks indicate that
the deep benchmarks are stable and reliable for elevation surveying.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9453共2006兲132:3共124兲
CE Database subject headings: Bench marks; Expansive soils; Ground motion; Surveys.

Introduction the building movements could be referenced. A deep benchmark

共labeled SMI-BM1兲 was installed in September 1999 at the site,
Benchmarks are long-lasting stable points for which elevations and two additional benchmarks, SMI-BM2 and SMI-BM3, were
have been determined and are used to control other surveys and to installed in July 2000. The performance of the deep benchmarks
monitor movement of and within the earth’s crust. Several phe- has been monitored since September 2000. Elevation readings on
nomena can cause benchmark instability. These include, but are the three benchmarks are used to confirm their stability relative to
not limited to, the following: 共1兲 shrinking and swelling of soil each other.
due to changes in water content; 共2兲 frost heave; 共3兲 slope insta- This paper presents procedures for determining the depth of
bility; 共4兲 soil consolidation; and 共5兲 physical disturbances. For the deep benchmarks, the soil profiles that were observed during
benchmarks installed into areas with expansive soils, swelling of installation, steps followed during installation of the benchmarks,
the soils is the most significant factor that influences the instabil- verification of the benchmark depth, and results of the benchmark
ity of the benchmarks. To prevent the movement of benchmarks monitoring.
due to heaving of expansive soils, benchmarks must be anchored
below depths at which these movements originate. The design and
installation of three “deep benchmarks” installed in an area with Determination of Deep Benchmark Depth
highly expansive soils is presented in this paper. The term “deep
benchmarks” is used because the benchmarks are anchored at The U.S. Department of Commerce 共1978兲 NOAA Manual NOS
depths such that heave of the expansive soil will not cause move- NGS1, “Geodetic Bench Marks,” notes that “benchmarks must be
ment of the benchmarks. anchored below the depths at which these movements originate.”
The benchmarks discussed in this paper were installed at The typical installation procedure is to drill a hole to an appro-
Denver International Airport, which is located east of Denver, priate depth, place a rod in the hole, and grout it into the soil or
Colorado. The site is underlain by deep strata of highly expansive rock below the required depth of anchorage. The rod is isolated
clayshale of the Denver Formation. Buildings at the site are un- from the soil or rock above the point of anchorage.
dergoing movement due to heave of the expansive bedrock. Thus,
stable benchmarks were needed to which elevation monitoring of
Depth of Potential Heave
1
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, Before discussing the depth to which the benchmark should be
Ste. 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525. installed, some review of the theory of heave prediction and be-
2
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, havior of expansive soils is appropriate. Expansive soils are soils
Ste. 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525. that expand when their water content increases. This would in-
3
Ph.D., Professor, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80521; clude a soil that, if confined, would generate a swelling pressure
Corporate Consultant, MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, Ste. 100, when the water content increases. Not uncommonly, expansive
Fort Collins, CO 80525. soils also experience a decrease in volume when the water content
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2007. Separate discussions decreases. These are typically known as shrinking and swelling
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
soils.
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- One common method of testing for expansive soils is the so-
sible publication on March 15, 2004; approved on December 29, 2004. called consolidation-swell test. A diagram of the apparatus used in
This paper is part of the Journal of Surveying Engineering, Vol. 132, this test is shown in Fig. 1. An undisturbed sample of the soil or
No. 3, August 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9453/2006/3-124–131/ rock is placed into a brass or stainless steel ring, and a surcharge
$25.00. load is placed on the soil. After the soil has come to equilibrium

124 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006

 Fig. 1. Apparatus of consolidation-swell test

with the stresses applied by the surcharge, the sample is inundated ⬘ v = ␴i⬘ + F ⫻ 共␴sc-s
␴sc- ⬘ − ␴i⬘兲 共1兲
with water and allowed to swell under constant load. When the
soil swelling is completed, the vertical stress on the soil is in- where ␴i⬘= surcharge stress at which the sample was inundated;
creased in increments until the sample has been compressed back and F = 0.6 共Nelson et al. 1998兲.
to its original thickness or less. At this point the test may be Heave of soil in the field occurs as the water content of the soil
terminated or a rebound curve can be determined by recording the increases. Typically, the sources of water to a subsoil profile are
increase in height as the sample is unloaded in increments. The the result of development of the site or neighboring sites. Con-
solid line in Fig. 2 shows the typical results of a consolidation- struction of pavements and structures changes surface runoff pat-
swell test. The amount by which the sample swelled during inun- terns and eliminates evapotranspiration from the soil. Infiltration
dation is noted as the “percent swell.” of surface water due to irrigation or surface runoff will cause
The vertical stress necessary to bring the sample back to its wetting of the soil from the surface downward. Also, if strata of
original thickness is termed the “swelling pressure,” ␴sc-s ⬘ . The more permeable material exist such as sandstone layers or coal
first subscript “s” denotes swelling pressure and the “c-s” denotes seams, they may introduce water from off-site sources into the
that it was measured in a conventional consolidation-swell test. subsoils. Similarly, perched water tables may be developed from
An alternative method of testing is to confine the sample in the off-site or on-site sources. As the subsoils are wetted, swelling
consolidation-swell test apparatus and then measure the stress pressures are generated, and if the vertical overburden stress,
necessary to prevent the sample from increasing in volume. This ␴⬘vo, caused by the weight of the overlying soil is less than the
method of testing is termed a constant-volume consolidation- swelling pressure, ␴s⬘, the soil will heave. At some depth the over-
swell test. Typical test results from this test are shown by the burden pressure, ␴⬘vo, becomes equal to the swelling pressure, ␴s⬘,
dashed line in Fig. 2. The stress required to prevent the sample of the soil, and below that point the soil will not heave, as shown
from swelling is known as the constant volume swelling pressure, in Fig. 3. The maximum depth at which this occurs is called the
⬘ v, where the subscripts “c-v” denote that the results are from a
␴sc- “depth of potential heave, Z p” 共Nelson et al. 2001兲.
constant-volume test. The overburden pressure, ␴⬘vo, can be computed as follows:
Research has shown 共Nelson et al. 1998兲 that typically

冕
n

␴⬘vo = ␥dz or 兺
i=1
␥i⌬zi 共2兲

where ␥=total unit weight of the soil above a particular point and
either may be a function of depth or may be assumed constant in
various strata of thickness ⌬zi; and z=depth below the ground
surface. In this equation, it is assumed that the soil is unsaturated.
By setting the equation for overburden pressure, ␴⬘vo, equal to
the swelling pressure, ␴s⬘, the depth of potential heave can be
computed. Because the material properties are uncertain and the
actual value of F in Eq. 共1兲 is unknown, a conservative assump-
tion should be made in computation of the depth of potential
heave.
The factors that cause wetting of the soil are many and com-
plex. The time for wetting to occur will depend on the soil prop-
erties and the water sources. Many years may be required for the
entire depth of potential heave to become wetted. However, it is
prudent and conservative to assume that the entire depth of
potential heave will eventually become wetted. This is especially
true when establishing a deep benchmark, where even small
Fig. 2. Typical plot of consolidation-swell test data movements are not tolerable.

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 125

 Fig. 3. Soil water content changes due to site development

Calculations of Deep Benchmark Depth SMI-BM2, and SMI-BM3 were taken to be approximately 37, 30,
and 30 m, respectively. Subsequent test results from testing of
As part of the soil investigation for the buildings at the Denver
samples taken during installation of the deep benchmarks were
International Airport site, six exploratory boreholes were drilled
used to confirm the required depths of anchorage at the actual
to depths varying from approximately 12 to 18 m. The soils at
installed locations.
the site were observed to consist of a layer of silty/sandy clay
fill, underlain by silty clay, weathered claystone, sandstone, and
claystone bedrock with some coal seams. Laboratory tests in-
cluding water content, dry density, Atterberg limits, and Drilling and Sampling
consolidation-swell tests were conducted on selected samples to
evaluate soil properties. A summary of the laboratory tests is pre- Three boreholes were drilled at selected locations for installation
sented in Table 1. of the deep benchmarks SMI-BM1, SMI-BM2, and SMI-BM3.
As would be expected, soil profiles at the six different bore- The borehole for SMI-BM1 was drilled to a depth of 37 m, and
hole locations varied somewhat. In order to predict the depth of the other two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 30 m. The
potential heave for design of the deep benchmark, a generalized boreholes were advanced using an 8.3 cm inner diameter 共ID兲
soil profile was constructed. Fig. 4 shows the typical soil profile hollow-stem auger powered by a CME-75 drill rig. During drill-
and soil properties interpreted from the data gathered from the ing, 5.1 cm California samples of the soil and bedrock were taken
six boreholes. The soil properties shown in Fig. 4 represent the at 1.5 m intervals. These samples were tested in the laboratory to
most conservative values with respect to soil expansion that were confirm assumptions that were made in the calculations for the
measured. depths of the benchmarks. In addition, continuous samples were
Table 2 shows the computations for depth of potential heave taken using a 5.7 cm diameter CME continuous sampler during
based on the data in Fig. 4. The maximum depth of potential drilling. Upon retrieval from the core barrel, samples were placed
heave at the site was calculated to be 27.2 m. To account for in waxed core sample boxes and then transported to our office for
uncertainties in the calculations as discussed previously, the re- photographing and inspection.
quired depths of anchorage of the deep benchmarks SMI-BM1, A typical soil profile based on shallow boreholes is shown in

Table 1. Summary of Soil and Bedrock Properties for Six Exploratory Boreholes
Consolidation-swell testa
Atterberg limits,
Water content Dry density LL / PL Percent swell Swell pressure
Soil type 共%兲 共g / cm3兲 共%兲 共%兲 共kPa兲
Silty/sandy clay fill 4.0–24.4 1.55–1.92 34/14 0.4–0.8 50–60
Silty clay 19.1–21.1 1.68–1.75 — — —
Weathered claystone 19.9–28.8 1.49–1.76 37–90/18–27 4.3–8.4 290–530
Sandstone 11.5–19.9 1.68–1.91 — — —
Claystone 7.4–31.5 1.30–2.08 57/19–21 3.0–10.2 290–1,200
Coal 23.7–24.3 1.53–1.57 — — —
Note: LL = liquid limit; and PL = plastic limit.
a
Inundation pressure, ␴i⬘ = 24 kPa.

126 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006

 Fig. 4. Typical soil profile and properties

Fig. 4. The actual deep soil/bedrock profile encountered at SMI- The testing of the samples requires 2–3 weeks for completion.
BM1 is shown in Fig. 5. The profiles at the other two benchmark It is not practical to keep the drill hole open for that length of time
locations were similar. It can be seen that, in the deep holes, in order to wait for verification of the benchmark depth from the
additional strata of claystone, sandstone, and coal were observed. test results. Therefore, it is very important that an experienced
After testing the samples, the computed required depth of the engineer or geologist be on site to observe the core that is recov-
benchmark was verified as discussed subsequently. ered and note any particular deviations from the assumptions used
in determining the depth of the benchmark. Also, it is important to
be conservative in selecting the depth of anchorage. A general
Table 2. Calculation of Depth of Potential Heave knowledge of the properties of the local bedrock is essential. It
Step Description Notes must be kept in mind that, although a stratum of material with low
expansive potential may be encountered, this may not be the stra-
1 Assuming Z p = depth of potential heave —
tum that controls the depth of potential heave. A lower stratum of
below ground surface
material with higher expansion potential may govern the depth of
2 Calculating overburden pressure, ␴⬘vo: Refer to Eq. 共2兲
potential heave, and, therefore, the depth of anchorage.
␴⬘vo = 共1.2− 0兲 ⫻ 2.03⫻ 9.81+ 共2.6− 1.2兲 for ␴⬘vo and Fig. 4
⫻2.08⫻ 9.81+ 共5.5− 2.6兲 ⫻ 2.10⫻ 9.81 for soil profile
+共10.5− 5.5兲 ⫻ 2.10⫻ 9.81+ 共11.9− 10.5兲
⫻1.91⫻ 9.81+ 共Z p − 11.9兲 ⫻ 2.10⫻ 9.81 Installation of Deep Benchmarks
=关241.4+ 共Z p − 11.9兲 ⫻ 20.6兴 kPa
3 Obtaining constant volume swelling Refer to Fig. 4 Following the drilling, the deep benchmarks were installed into
⬘ v: ␴sc−
pressure, ␴sc− ⬘ v = 556 kPa from for swelling the boreholes. The installation procedure of the deep benchmarks
claystone 2 pressure
was based on the procedure for a class A rod mark established
4 Solving for Z p: — by the National Geodetic Survey 共U.S. Department of Com-
⬗␴⬘vo = ␴sc-
⬘ v; thus, Z p = 27.2 m merce 1978兲 but modified for the expansive soil conditions. The

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 127

 Fig. 5. SMI-BM1 soil profile and construction of deep benchmark

construction of the deep benchmarks is shown in Fig. 5. As SMI-BM2 and SMI-BM3. A sleeve made from 2.54 cm schedule
shown in Fig. 5, a rod was assembled from 3.7 m sections 80 polyvinyl chloride 共PVC兲 pipe was placed over the steel
of 1.43-cm-diameter type 316 stainless steel. Type 316 stainless rod. The purpose of the sleeve is to isolate the rod from soil
steel has excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance. The coeffi- movements occurring above the stable stratum. The annular space
cient of thermal expansion of the type 316 stainless steel is between the rod and the sleeve was filled with multipurpose
15.9 ␮m / m / ° C within a temperature range of 0–100° C. grease made by Lubriplate Division, Fiske Brothers Refining
The rod was anchored in concrete at depths between 34 Company, Newark, N.J. A two-percent bentonite grout was trem-
and 37 m for SMI-BM1 and at depths between 26 and 30 m for ied between the annulus of the boring wall and the PVC sleeve.

128 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006

Fig. 6. Type 316 stainless steel rod and steel plate attached to the Fig. 7. Completion of completed deep benchmark
bottom of rod

joints, the rod was finger tightened and then an additional

The grout provides a low permeability backfill so as to minimize one-quarter turn was applied using wrenches.
downward migration of water along the borehole. The bentonite 5. Two sections of the augers were pulled up with no rotation to
serves to minimize shrinkage of the grout. The top of the steel rod keep the hole clean and to prevent caving of the borehole.
serves as the datum point. At the surface, a locking cover with a 6. A temporary PVC pipe was placed over the steel rod. The
watertight seal was installed in a concrete pad to protect the purpose of the temporary PVC pipe was to prevent the con-
benchmark from disturbance. crete that was poured at the next step from adhering to the
The step-by-step procedure for installing the deep benchmarks steel rod.
is as follows: 7. Concrete was prepared and tremied through the hollow stem
1. The proposed boring location was staked out and utility of the auger string to the bottom of the hole to anchor the
clearance was conducted to prevent any damage of the elec- steel rod. A total of approximately 3 m of concrete was filled.
trical, gas, water, and sewer lines at the site. The concrete was allowed to cure overnight to provide good
2. After positioning the drill rig, a 30.5-cm-diameter hole was anchorage for the steel rod.
drilled to a depth of 0.6 m. This hole was filled with soil 8. The sleeves that were to be placed over the steel rod were
during subsequent operations, but the objective was to loosen filled with multipurpose grease. The temporary PVC pipe
the soil in preparation for placing the locking cover. was pulled out of the borehole and the grease-filled sleeves
3. The exploratory boring was drilled with a 18.4 cm outer di- were then placed over the steel rods and pushed down to the
ameter 共OD兲 and 8.3 cm ID hollow stem auger to the re- point where they rested on the concrete anchor.
quired deep benchmark depth. Continuous core and CA 9. The grease was pressurized into the annular space between
samples were taken during drilling for laboratory testing. Re- the rod and sleeve. The sleeve was lifted slightly to minimize
sults of the laboratory testing were used to verify the selected air voids at the bottom and then positioned into place. When
deep benchmark depths. the sleeve and the grease were placed, a 1.43 cm ID and
4. After the completion of drilling, a 1.43-cm-diameter type 2.54 cm OD O-ring was placed around the rod, just below
316 stainless steel rod was assembled and lowered through the top of the sleeve.
the hollow stem of the auger string to the bottom of the 10. Two more sections of the augers were pulled up and 0.6 m of
borehole, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Additionally, a 7-cm- silica sand followed by 1.5 m of a silica sand/bentonite pellet
diameter plate was attached to the bottom of the rod to assist mixture were placed into the annular space between the
in centering the rod and to provide anchorage. To obtain tight sleeve and the outside of the hole. These materials were

Table 3. Summary of Soil and Bedrock Properties from Boreholes SMI-BM1 through SMI-BM3
Consolidation-swell test
Atterberg limits,
Water content Dry density LL / PL Percent swell Swell pressure
Soil type 共%兲 共g / cm3兲 共%兲 共%兲 共kPa兲
Silty/sandy clay fill 25.5 1.57 — — —
Silty clay — — — — —
Weathered claystone 21.6–29.0 1.46–1.70 71/24 4.4 240
Sandstone 16.0–27.3 1.57–1.86 — — —
Claystone 13.4–31.0 1.44–1.94 33–69/17–35 0.2–9.9 37–1,340
Coal 42.0–48.6 1.00–1.10 — — —

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 129

 Fig. 8. SMI-BM2 deep benchmark monitoring results

Fig. 9. SMI-BM3 deep benchmark monitoring results

130 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006

 above the concrete anchor to prevent bonding between the Deep Benchmark Monitoring
concrete and bentonite grout that was put in at the next step.
11. The remaining sections of the augers were pulled out of the The deep benchmarks have been monitored by Zylstra Baker
borehole at this step. A 2% bentonite grout was prepared on Surveying, Inc. 共ZBSI兲, since September 2000. A Zeiss digital
site and tremied between the sleeve and the outside of the barcode leveling system was implemented in monitoring the
borehole up to the ground surface. benchmarks. A Zeiss DiNi 11 automatic digital level with either a
12. The soil was cleaned out of the 30.5-cm-diameter surface one-piece 3 m alloy invar bar code rod, a one-piece 2 m alloy
hole around the benchmark sleeve to a depth of 0.6 m. A invar bar code rod, or a 1 / 2 m invar strip was used to take survey
locking cover with a watertight seal was installed in place readings. The digital bar code leveling system can measure pre-
cisely to 0.01 mm and has a standard deviation of 0.3 mm per
with concrete. The joint between the cover and the concrete
1 km of double run measurements. A tripod stabilizer was used
was sealed.
as the turning points. For purposes of this monitoring, bench-
13. The completed benchmark and cover were set approximately
mark SMI-BM1 has been taken as the primary reference point
0.2 m above the existing ground surface. A 1 m square con- because of its installed depth and the soil expansion properties at
crete pad was placed to surround the benchmark cover 共see that location. The performance of benchmarks SMI-BM2 and
Fig. 7兲. The surface of the concrete pad was finished with a SMI-BM3 were evaluated relative to SMI-BM1. The accuracy of
10% slope to drain water away from the benchmark cover. the monitoring was evaluated from least square adjustment by
The surface was regraded to a 10% slope such that it sloped ZBSI using the standard deviations computed from the adjust-
back to the original ground surface. The removed sod was ment. Values of the accuracy of the monitoring ranged from 0 to
replaced and the site was cleaned up. 0.05 cm within one standard deviation or within a 95% confi-
dence level.
Figs. 8 and 9 present the results of the deep benchmark moni-
Verification of Deep Benchmark Depth toring from September 2000 to December 2004 for benchmarks
SMI-BM2 and SMI-BM3, respectively. The actual accuracy of
the measurements calculated by ZBSI using the least squares ad-
Laboratory tests including water content, dry density, Atterberg
justment is included in Figs. 8 and 9. As indicated in Figs. 8 and
limits, and consolidation-swell tests were conducted on selected
9, benchmark SMI-BM2 was stable, whereas benchmark SMI-
samples from the boreholes to verify the depths of the bench- BM3 showed a potential movement 共about 0.11 cm兲 during the
marks. The soil and bedrock properties for the selected samples monitoring period.
are summarized in Table 3. The samples taken from the boreholes
swelled by various amounts. The samples from the deepest depths
swelled by amounts up to about 10% when inundated at a seating Conclusions
pressure of 24 kPa, and swelling pressures as high as 1,340 kPa
were observed. The monitoring results indicate that the deep benchmarks were
The anchorage depths of the benchmarks were verified on the stable during the monitoring period and are reliable to function as
basis of test results of consolidation-swell tests on the selected good references for elevation monitoring. It is concluded that the
design and installation procedure for deep benchmarks proposed
samples. The depths of potential heave at the actual locations
herein provides an ideal opportunity to upgrade the quality of
where the benchmarks were installed were calculated following
benchmarks installed in expansive soil areas. More precise sur-
the procedure shown in Table 2. The calculated depths of poten-
veys can be performed in the future, providing deep benchmarks
tial heave for benchmarks SMI-BM1 through SMI-BM3 are ap-
are properly designed and installed.
proximately 13.1, 16.5, and 27.3 m, respectively.
For benchmarks SMI-BM1 and SMI-BM2, the depths of the
anchorages are 34–37 m and 26–30 m, respectively. The anchor- References
age for SMI-BM1 is in sandstone and claystone and that for SMI-
BM2 is in claystone. The depths of the anchorages are both Nelson, J. D., Durkee, D. B., and Bonner, J. P. 共1998兲. “Prediction of
greater than the depth of potential heave; consequently, bench- free field heave using oedometer test data.” Proc., 46th Annual Geo-
marks SMI-BM1 and SMI-BM2 are considered to be anchored at technical Engineering Conf., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.
stable datum points. Nelson, J. D., Overton, D. D., and Durkee, D. B. 共2001兲. “Depth of
The anchorage for benchmark SMI-BM3 is in interbedded wetting and the active zone.” Proc., Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation
and Soil Properties Committee Sessions, ASCE 2001 Civil Engineer-
silty claystone, siltstone, and sandstone at depths from 26 to
ing Conf., ASCE, Reston, Va., 95–109.
30 m. The effective overburden stresses are greater than the ef- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
fective swelling pressures of the bedrock units, except for the Administration. 共1978兲. “Geodetic bench marks.” NOAA Manual NOS
claystone bedrock at depths between 26 and 27.3 m. NGS 1, Washington, D.C.

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 131