Geotechnical Engineering Design

Practice
Dr. Sunil Khuntia
Assistant Professor
NIT Rourkela
Interpretation and use of In-situ tests (SPT, PLT)
for design of foundations
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Interpretation from SPT
• Terzaghi and Peck (1967) have recommended the following additional
correction where the soil is fine sand or silty sand below the water
table: N field  15  0.5N field  15 , for N field  15

Effective overburden pressure (CN)

• Liao and Whitman (1986)
pa
CN  , where  o  effective overburden pressure, kPa
o


Hammer efficiency (ηh)

Interpretation from SPT

 H  b  s  r
N 60  N field 
60
Interpretation  
 N 60  0.23 
0.06 
1.7

  

1
2

  D 50 
 1 
• Cubrinovisky and Ishihara Dr %     
9    
 o

(1999)   Pa 

0.34
 
 N 60 
'  
• Kulhawy and Mayne 12.2  20.3     
Pa  
o
 
(1990)
Interpretation from SPT: IS 2131 (1981)
• Due to Overburden – The N
value for cohesionless soil shall
be corrected for overburden as
per the figure shown. ----(N’)
• Due to Dilatancy – The value
obtained from the above
section shall be corrected for
dilatancy if the stratum consists
of fine sand and silt below
water table for values of N’>15

N   15 
1
N   15, for N   15
2 Fig.1 Correction due to overburden
Numerical
A standard penetration test was performed in a 150 mm diameter borehole at
a depth of 9.5 m below the ground surface. The driller used a rope pulley
donut hammer, a standard SPT sampler and a 10m drill rod. The actual blow
count Nfield was 19. The soil is normally consolidated fine sand with a unit
weight of 18 kN/m3 and D50 = 0.4 mm. The ground water table is at a depth of
15 m. Compute (a) N60, (b) N’60, (c) Dr, (d) ϕ, and (e) denseness of the fine
sand.
Plate Load Test (PLT) IS:1888-1982
Interpretation from PLT
Ultimate bearing capacity
• Clay qult,footing  qult,plate

• Housel (1929) Q  mAp  nPp

 Bfooting 
• Sand qult,footing  qult,plate  
 B 
 plate 

• Footing settlement
 Bfooting 
• Clay S footing  S plate  
 
 Bplate 
 Bfooting Bplate  0.3
2
• Sand S footing  S plate  
B 
 plate footing
B  0.3
Numerical
Two plate-load tests on a sandy soil were performed using plates 0.3× 0.3m
and 0.6× 0.6m. For a 20mm settlement, the loads were 30 and 72kN,
respectively. Find dimension B of a square footing required to carry a 200 kN
column load with an allowable settlement of 20 mm, use Housel’s method.

A standard plate-load test was conducted on a clay soil using a plate of 0.6 ×
0.6 m. Under the ultimate vertical load of 96 kN the plate settlement was 5
mm. If the clay supports a square footing, what will be its net safe bearing
capacity net qsafe with a safety factor SF = 3? What size of square footing is
required to carry a column load Q of 550 kN and what will be the settlement?
Geotechnical Engineering
Design Practice
Dr. Sunil Khuntia
Assistant Professor
NIT Rourkela
Interpretation and use of In-situ tests
(CPT, PMT, DMT) for design of
foundations
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
• IS:4968 (Part III)-1976
• Can be used to determine the soil profile and estimate the
engineering properties continously.
• To determine penetration resistance of soil.
• Cone dimension : Apex angle = 600
Overall diameter = 35.7 mm
End area = 10 cm2

• The friction ratio, Fr is defined as .

frictional resistancec qs
Fr (%) = = 100
cone resistance qc
Details of procedure
Interpretation from CPT
qc −  v
For Clay: cu =
Nk
cu = undrained shear strength of soil
σv = total vertical stress at depth of penetration
qc = cone tip resistance
Nk = cone factor = 15 – electric cone
= 20 – mechanical cone

For Sand:   qc  
 = tan 0.1 + 0.38  log 
−1

   v 
where ϕ = angle of friction
qc = cone tip resistance
σv’ = effective stress at penetration level
• Dr, OCR and qc are correlated by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
as
 
 1   qc / p a 
Dr =  
1.8 

 305  Qc  OCR     v  
0.5

  pa  

where Qc = compressibility factor; using 0.91, 1.0 and 1.09 for

high, moderate and low compressibility of sand, respectively
Interpretation of Dr and ϕ from CPT
Soil classification from CPT
A static cone penetration test was conducted in a
deposit of normally consolidated and moderately
compressible dry sand. The test results were as given
below:

Assume the dry unit weight of the sand deposit = 16

kN/m3. Estimate its average peak friction angle ϕ and
relative density Dr.
Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
• ASTM D 4719
• Cylindrical device designed to apply a
uniform radial pressure to the sides of a
borehole .
• Consists of a cylindrical rubber cell, usually of
58 mm in diameter and 535 cm3 in volume.
• Central measuring cell is expanded against
the borehole wall by means of water
pressure, measurements of the applied
pressure and the corresponding increase in
volume being recorded
Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
 vo + v f 
vm =  
 2 
 p 
Esp = 2(1 +  s )(Vo + vm ) 
 v 
p h p0
Ko = 
 0  0

where:
Esp = pressuremeter modulus
Ko = at-rest earth-pressure
coefficient.
σo = effective vertical stress
• A pressuremeter test (PMT) was conducted in a
soft saturated clay. Given: corrected Vo = 535 cm3,
vo = 46 cm3, po = 42.4 kN/m2, pf = 326.5 kN/m2,
and vf = 180 cm3. Assuming Poisson’s ratio μs =
0.5, calculate the pressuremeter modulus Esp.
Dilatometer Test (DMT)
• ASTM D6635 – 15
• Consists of a flat plate measuring 220 mm (L) 95 mm (B) 14 mm (t).
• Thin, flat, circular expandable steel membrane with dia. of 60 mm.
Dilatometer Test (DMT)
DMT is conducted as in the following steps:
(1) Apply nitrogen gas pressure to the expandable membrane
so as to move it 0.05 mm into the soil and record the
required pressure (termed “liftoff” pressure) as p1.
(2) Increase the probe pressure until the membrane expands
Δd = 1.1 mm into the adjacent soil and record this pressure as
p2.
(3) Decrease the pressure and take a reading when the
membrane has returned to the liftoff position. Record this
pressure as p3.
(4) The probe is then pushed to the next depth position,
which is normally from 150 to 300 mm further down into the
ground, and the test is repeated. The probing is continued
until the desired depth is reached.
Dilatometer Test (DMT)
A given test data are reduced to obtain the following parameters:
(1) Dilatometer modulus ED: 2 D( p2 − p1 )  1 −  2 
d =  
  Es 
where Δd = 1.1 mm, D = 60 mm (membrane diameter)

= 34.7( p2 − p1 )
Es
ED =
1−  2

Es, p1 and p2 are in kN/m2

(2) The lateral stress index KD is defined as
p1 − u
KD =
 0
(3) The material or deposit index ID is defined as
p − p1
ID = 2
p2 − u
Dilatometer Test (DMT)
0.47
K 
K0 =  D  − 0.6
 1.5 
OCR = (0.5K D )
1.6

cu
= 0.22; (for normally consolidated clay)
 0
 cu  c 
  =  u  (0.5K D )1.25
  0 OC   0  NC
(
Es = E D 1 −  2 )
where
K0 = coefficient of at-rest earth pressure
OCR = overconsolidation ratio
OC = overconsolidated soil
NC = normally consolidated soil
Es = modulus of elasticity
• Table shows a set of SPT data that includes N values for every 1.5 m,
and energy efficiencies (%) from field measurements in a silty sand.
The groundwater table is at 4.5 m below ground surface. The soil
unit weight (γ) above groundwater table is 17 kN/m3, saturated soil
unit weight (γsat) below groundwater table is 19 kN/m3. Calculate
the effective overburden stress (σ′o) corresponding to each N value
and determine the (N1)60 values, plot the result of (N1)60 versus
depth. Also determine the corresponding relative density, Dr (%) and
peak friction angle, ϕ′.
Geotechnical Engineering
Design Practice
Dr. Sunil Khuntia
Assistant Professor
NIT Rourkela
Design of shallow footing
• IS:6403-1981
Basic criteria for design of foundation
• Shear failure or Bearing capacity criteria
• Settlement criteria
Details of procedure
Shear failure or Bearing Capacity Criteria :
• The foundation should be design such that the soil below does not
fail in shear
Qg = Qs + W f + Ws
• Qs = weight of superstructure
• Wf = weight of footing
• Ws = weight of soil/fill
• The gross pressure or the gross load intensity (qg)
qg
qg =
A
• Ultimate bearing capacity (qu): The maximum gross
intensity of loading that soil can support before it fails in
shear.

• Net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu): The maximum net

intensity of loading at the base of the foundation that the
soil can support before fail in shear.
qnu = qu – γDf

• Net safe bearing capacity (qns): The maximum net

intensity of loading that soil can safely support without
the risk of shear failure.
qns = qnu/F
Gross safe bearing capacity (qs): The maximum gross
intensity of loading that soil can carry safely without failing
in shear.
qnu
qs = +  Df
F
qu −  D f
qs = +  Df
F
Settlement Criterion
Safe bearing pressure: The maximum net intensity
loading that can be allowed on the soil without the
settlement exceeding the permissible value.
Allowable bearing pressure (qnet): The maximum net
intensity of loading that can be imposed on the soil with no
possibility of shear failure or the possibility of excessive
settlement. It is the smaller of the net safe bearing capacity
(shear failure criterion) and safe bearing pressure
(settlement criterion)
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory
• The depth of the foundation is less than or equal to the width.
• The soil is a homogeneous, infinite half-space.
• The load on the foundation is concentric and vertical.
• The foundation has a horizontal base on a level ground surface.
• General shear failure is the failure mode for the foundation.
• For strip foundations:
1
qult = cN c + qN q + BN 
2
• For square foundations:
qult = 1.3 cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN 

• For circular foundations:

qult = 1.3 cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN 
General Bearing Capacity Equation:

1
qult = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + BN  Fs Fd Fi
2

c = cohesion
q = effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation
γ = unit weight of soil
B = width of foundation (= diameter for a circular foundation)
Fcs, Fqs, Fγs = shape factors
Fcd, Fqd, Fγd = depth factors
Fci, Fqi, Fγi = load inclination factors
Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factors
Bearing capacity factors:
   tan 
2
N q = tan  45 +  e N c = (N q − 1)cot  N  = 2 (N q + 1) tan 
 2
Shape factors:

Inclination factors:
Depth factors
Water Table Effect
Case – I
q = effective surcharge

= D1γ + D2(γsat – γw)

Replace γ by γ’ = γsat – γw
Case – II
 =+
d
( −  )
B
Case – III
When the water table is
located so that d ≥ B, the
water will have no effect on
the ultimate bearing capacity.
IS Code method
Uplift Capacity of Foundations
Foundations in granular
Soil (c = 0)
Qu
Fq =
AD f

* breakout factor is a
function of ϕ and Df/B.

  Df  D f 
Fq = 1 + 21 + m    K u tan  ........for shallow square and circular footing
  B  B 
  Df  B    D f 
Fq = 1 + 1 + 2m    + 1   K u tan  ........for shallow rectangular footing
  B  L    B 
A square foundation (B x B) has to be constructed at a site
with γ = 16.5 kN/m3, γsat = 18.5 kN/m3, ϕ = 34°, Df = 1.2 m,
and water table is present at a depth of 0.6 m from ground
level. The gross allowable load, Qall, with FS = 3 is 670 kN.
Determine the size of the foundation. Also compare result
with IS code method. Find out its pull out capacity.
A square column foundation of width 1.3 m and
embedment depth 0.7 m has to be constructed on a sand
deposit having unit weight γ = 18 kN/m3. The load is
inclined at an angle β = 20° with the vertical. The standard
penetration numbers N60 obtained from the field are as
follows. Find the allowable bearing capacity.
Depth (m) N60
1.5 3
3.0 6
4.5 9
6.0 10
7.5 10
9.0 8
Geotechnical Engineering Design
Practice
Dr. Sunil Khuntia
Assistant Professor
NIT Rourkela
Design of pile foundation
• IS:2911-Part 1 to 4
• Static pile load formulae
The ultimate load capacity of the pile (Qu)
Qu = Qb + Qf
Qb = Ultimate base/point load resistance of the pile
Qf = Ultimate skin friction

Qb >> Qf; point bearing pile

Qf >> Qp; friction pile

Qu = Qu + W = Qb + Qs + W

 1 
Qb =  cN c + qo N q +  d N   Ab
 2 
• For cohesionless soil

Qu = qo N q Ab + As qo K s tan 

• For 28°< ϕ <36.5°

Lc/d = 5+0.24(ϕ°-28°)

• For 36.5°< ϕ <42°

Lc/d = 7 + 2.35(ϕ°-36.5°)
 Values of Ks and δ (Broms, 1966)
Values of Ks
Pile Material δ
Loose Sand Dense Sand
Steel 20 0.5 1.0
Concrete 0.75 ϕ 1.0 2.0
Wood 0.67 ϕ 1.5 4.0
• For cohesive soil
Qu = cN c Ab + Q f
= cN c Ab + As cu

cu (kPa) Consistency
α - values
0-12.5 Very soft
12.5-25 Soft Consistency N-values Driven cast
Bored Pile
in situ piles
25-50 medium
50-100 Stiff Soft to very soft <4 0.7 1
medium 4-8 0.5 0.7
100-200 very stiff
stiff 8-15 0.4 0.4
>200 hard stiff to hard >15 0.3 0.3
IS Code method (Sand)
 1  n
Qu = Ab  qo N q +  B N   +  K i qoi tan  Asi
 2  i =1
Driven pile Bored pile

ϕ° Nγ
0 0
5 0.45
10 1.22
15 2.65
20 5.39
25 10.88
30 22.4
35 48.03
40 109.41
45 271.76
Note:
• For driven piles: φ varying between 30° and 40°, Ki values in the range of 1 to 2
may be used.
• For bored piles: φ varying between 30° and 40°, Ki values in the range of 1 to
1.5 may be used.
• δ, the angle of wall friction may be taken equal to the friction angle of the soil
around the pile stem.
• The maximum effective overburden at the pile tip should correspond to the
critical depth, which may be taken as 15d for φ ≤ 30°and increasing to 20d for φ
≥ 40°.
Uplift Capacity of Pile Foundation

Pul = W p + As f r

where Pul = uplift capacity of pile

Wp = weight of pile
fr = unit resisting force
As = effective area of the embedded length of pile
Uplift Resistance of pile in clay
Pul = W p + As  cu
where cu = avg. undrained shear
strength of clay along the pile shaft
α = adhesion factor = ca/cu
ca = average adhesion

Uplift Resistance of pile in sand

2/3rd of side friction generated in downward movement.
A pile of 300 mm diameter and 15m long was driven in a uniform sand (ϕ = 40°).
Average unit weight of soil is 19 kN/m3. Calculate the safe load capacity of the pile
(a) without water table and (b) if water table is located at 5m below the ground level.

If the above pile was driven in a homogeneous clay with unconfined compressive
strength of 100 kPa. Calculate the allowable load carrying capacity of the pile.
A concrete driven pile having diameter 300 mm is shown in figure. Find the allowable bearing capacity
as per IS code method.

0m

Loose sand,
ϕ = 30°,
3m
γ = 16 kN/m3
5m
Medium sand,
ϕ = 35°,
γ = 18 kN/m3
10m

Dense sand,
ϕ = 40°,
γ = 20 kN/m3
15m
A concrete driven pile having diameter 300 mm is shown in figure. Find the allowable bearing capacity as
per IS code method.

0m

Loose sand,
ϕ = 30°,
γ = 16 kN/m3
5m
Soft clay,
γ = 18 kN/m3,
cu = 30 kN/m2
10m

Dense sand,
ϕ = 40°,
γ = 20 kN/m3
15m
Geotechnical Engineering Design
Practice
Dr. Sunil Khuntia
Assistant Professor
NIT Rourkela
Design of Well foundation
Design of Well foundation
• IS 3955 (1967)
• IRC 45 (1972)
• SCOUR DEPTH—MINIMUM DEPTH OF WELLS
1/ 3
 Qf 
d s = 0.473   f = 1.76 s
 f 
Qf = design discharge m3/sec
f = Lacey’s silt factor
s = mean diameter of particles in mm
Grip length
• Depth of foundation should not be less than 1.33 times the deepest scour
depth at HFL.
1
d max  2.0 m when they support arches
3
1.2 m when they support other types of superstructure
Bearing Capacity of Wells

 (
Qa = 5.4 N B + 16 100 + N D 
2 2 1
100
)  (kN/m 2 )

Qa = allowable bearing capacity in kN/m2

N = corrected SPT value
B = smaller dimension of well in meter
D = depth of well foundation below scour level in meter
Forces acting on Wells
1. Vertical loads
– Self-weight of well
– Buoyancy
– Dead load of superstructure and substructure
– Live load
2. Horizontal forces
– Braking and tractive effort of vehicles
– Forces due to resistance of bearings
– Forces due to water current or waves
– Centrifugal forces for bridges on curves
– Wind forces or seismic forces
– Earth pressures
– Other horizontal or uplift forces
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
1. Check the stability of well under working loads, assuming elastic
theory.
2. Find the factor of safety of the well against ultimate failure using
ultimate load theory.
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
Elastic Analysis
W = total load acting downward (self weight)
H = Horizontal force acting on the well at scour level
M = Total applied moment about the base of the well
IB = moment of inertia at the base acting about an axis passing through the
 4 CG and perpendicular to the horizontal resultant force
IB = B
64 B = diameter of the well (circular)
= width of base perpendicular to the direction of horizontal force
(rectangular)

LD 3 Iv = moment of inertia of projected vertical area L x D about its horizontal CG

Iv = D = depth of well below scour level
12
L = projected width of wall x shape factor
shape factor = 0.9 (circular)
= 1.0 (rectangular or square)
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
I = I B + m I v (1 + 2  '  )
Kh
m=
Kv

m = kh/kv = ratio of horizontal to vertical modulus of sub-grade reaction.

 = tan  ,  ' = tan 

μ = base friction
μ' = side friction
diameter or width ( B)
 =
2D
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
Check 1: Check whether the base friction βμ is safe.

H
M
(1 +   ) −  W
r ID
r=
H
M
(1 −   ) +  W 2mI v
r

Check 2: Check whether direction of rotation is correct, (i.e. β should not be negative)
 
K p = tan 2  45 + 
  (K p − K a ) 
M 2
m
I 2 
K a = tan  45 − 
 2
γ = submerged unit weight of soil (if it is below water)
δ = 2/3ϕ, with maximum of 22.5º
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
Check 3: Soil reaction at the sides should not exceed the net earth pressures at failure.

W −  P MB
q1, 2 = 
A 2I
q1,2 = maximum base soil pressure
A = area of the base of the well
P = total horizontal reaction from the side = M/r
B = width of base of the well
qmin>0 and qmax<qallowable
 IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
Ultimate resistance analysis:

W qu

A 2
W = Net vertical load acting
qu = Ultimate load carrying capacity of soil
Mb = Resisting moment at the base
Ms = Resisting moment due to passive soil resistance
Mf = Resisting moment due to friction

MR = 0.7 x (Mb+Ms+Mf)
MR > M(applied)
IRC Method (IRC: 45-1972)
Mb = Q W B tanϕ

D/B 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Q 0.41 0.45 0.5 0.56 0.64

Ms = 0.1 γ D3 (Kp-Ka) L
Mf = 0.11 γ (Kp-Ka) D2 B2 sinδ

MR > M
A bridge pier in a sand deposit with external diameter d = 8.5 m and the depth of well
below scour level D = 15 m is subjected to the following loads: W = 14,000 kN; H = 2000
kN, moment about base level = 42,000 kN. The value of ϕ of the sand = 30°, wall friction δ
= 20°, allowable bearing 60 t/m2; and kh/kv = m = 1. Check the lateral stability of the well
under the above forces according to IRC 45 (1972) recommendations. Assume the weight
of soil is 20 kN/m3.
 Sessional 6
Design of soil slopes
Types of Slopes
Infinite slope Finite slope
Basic Concepts of Slope Stability Analysis
The stability analysis of slopes is based on two aspects:
1. Finding the most severely stressed internal surface and the associated
shearing stress (mobilized shear strength) along the surface.
2. Finding the shear strength along the above surface.
All the methods of analysis are based on the following assumptions:
1. The shear stress (mobilized shear strength) along the assumed surface is the
same at all points.
2. Coulomb shear strength relationship is applicable.
3. The seepage and water pressure are uniform and known all along the surface.
4. Depending on the method of analysis, an assumption regarding the
distribution of stresses has to be made to make the problem a determinate
one.
Factor of Safety
• If the mobilized strength is less than the available strength (τf) of the soil,
then the slope is said to be stable.
• Thus, the factor of safety may be defined as the ratio of the shearing
resistance available along a slip surface to the total mobilized shearing
resistance.
Available shear strength  f M Re sisting
Fs   
Mobilized shear strength  M Driving
c   n tan  
 Fs 

c  n tan  
  
Fs Fs
Analysis of Infinite Slope
W  Vol. of soil element  Unit wt. of soil
 LH
Na LH cos 
    H cos 2 
Area of base L
cos 
Ta LH sin 
   H sin  cos 
Area of base L
cos 

 f  c   n tan  
  f  c  H cos 2  tan  

 f c  H cos 2  tan   c cos  tan   c tan  

Fs      
 H sin  cos  H sin  cos  sin  H sin  cos  tan 
Analysis of Finite Slope
Modes of failure of finite
slope: (a) slope failure;
(b) shallow slope failure;
(c) base failure
Types of Stability Analysis Procedures
1. Mass procedure: In this case, the mass of the soil above the surface of
sliding is taken as a unit. This procedure is useful when the soil that
forms the slope is assumed to be homogeneous, although this is not
the case in most natural slopes.

2. Method of slices: In this procedure, the soil above the surface of

sliding is divided into a number of vertical parallel slices. The stability
of each slice is calculated separately. This is a versatile technique in
which the non-homogeneity of the soils and pore water pressure can
be taken into consideration. It also accounts for the variation of the
normal stress along the potential failure surface.
Slopes in Homogeneous Clay Soil with ϕ = 0
W1   Area of FCDEF
W2   Area of ABFEA 
The moment of the driving force
about O to cause slope instability is
M d  W1 l1  W2 l2
where l1 and l2 are the moment arms.

the moment of the resisting forces

about O is
M R  c  AEDarc 1 r  cr 2
MR cr 2
Fs  
M d W1 l1  W2 l2
Method of slices (c-ϕ soil)
 Considering the moment of forces Tr and Wn about the centre of rotation,
n N r Wi cos  i
M d   Wi  r sin  i i 
A

Li
i 1

The resisting shear force can be expressed as

M R   T f  r    f Li  r   c    tan   Li  r
n n n

i 1 i 1 i 1

The factor of safety can be expressed as

 n
Wi cos  i 

n n
   cL  W cos  tan  
MR 
c     tan    L  r 
 c   tan     Ln  r
i
i 1  L 
i i i
Fs   i 1 n
 n
i
 i 1
n

Wi  r sin  i Wi  r sin  i W sin 

Md
i i
i 1 i 1 i 1
Determine the factor of safety against sliding for the slip surface shown in the accompanying
sketch. The properties of soil are c = 15 kN/m2, ϕ = 32° and γ = 20 kN/m3. Use Swedish method
of slices.
A natural slope is shown in Figure. It contains two soil strata. The slope configuration
and the soil characteristics are shown in the figure. A potential toe circle with radius
of 70.0 m passes the coordinate of (65 m, 30 m). The toe is at the origin (0,0). Use
the ordinary method of slices to determine the factor of safety for this potential
failure circle.
 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Slice area Slice area Slice
Slice Wi sinαi c'∆Li+Wi
bi (m) di (m) αi (deg) in layer 1 in layer 2 weight Li (m)
number (kN/m) cosαi tanϕ′
(m2) (m2) (kN/m)
1
2
-
-
-
∑ ∑