American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS)

ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402

© Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers
http://asrjetsjournal.org/

Soil Tests Analysis for Raft and Pile Foundations of a 5

Storey Building in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Umeonyiagu. I. E.a*, Agboga. M. A.b*, Okeleke. J. N.c*

a
Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Uli. Anambra State. Nigeria
b
Gbogest Nigeria Limited, Benin City Edo State. Nigeria
c
PFD Consultants Services Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria
a
Email: [email protected]
b
Email: [email protected]
c
Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This work involved the designs and analyses of the foundation of a 5-storey building in Yenagoa, a water-
logged area of Bayelsa State, (Nigeria), using both raft and pile foundations. Preliminary soil tests were carried
out in order to determine the physical properties and the bearing capacity of the soil. These tests were Dutch
cone penetrometer tests, Borehole characteristics test involving standard penetration test, particle size
distribution tests, direct shear test, triaxial tests and consolidation tests. The Dutch cone penetrometer tests
recorded resistance to cone penetration of 345-355kg/cm2. The Borehole characteristic tests showed that the top
soil was dry grayish mottled clay, followed by soft silty/sandy clay up to about 6m depth. Below 6-7m depth
was sand. The clay end bearing minimum pressure was 54kN/m2 and maximum pressure was 68kN/m2. Sand
end bearing minimum pressure was 416kN/m2 and maximum was 697kN/m2. The clay skin friction ranged from
10kN/m2 to 13kN/m2. The sand minimum skin friction was 77kN/m2 and the maximum skin friction was
129kN/m2.The allowable bearing capacity of the soil ranging from 64kN/m2to 71kN/m2 for a shallow depth of
1m – 2m and 177kN/m2 to 517 kN/m2 for a deep depth of 10m to 20m. The pile sizes ranged from 305mm to
500mm. Design of the structural elements (superstructure) as well as the design of the foundations (Raft and
Pile) were executed with ultimate column axial load of 4138 kN and serviceability column axial load of 2164
kN. The cost analysis was also performed. From the cost analysis, the cost of the raft foundation was
N78,884,505.00 (Seventy Eight Million, eight Hundred and eighty four Thousand, five Hundred and five Naira
only) while the cost of the pile foundation was N117,551,700.00 (One Hundred and seventeen Million, five
Hundred and Fifty one Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira only).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Corresponding author.

1
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

This showed that the cost of the pile foundation was greater than that of the raft foundation by 39%. It is
recommended that raft foundation be used on the area in order to minimize cost.

Keywords: Raft; Pile; Foundations; Shear; Designs.

1. Introduction

Foundations are appropriately described as a necessary evil. If a building is to be constructed on an outcrop of

sound rock, no foundation is required. Hence, in contrast to the building itself which satisfies specific needs,
appeals to the aesthetic sense, and fills its matters with pride, the foundation merely serve as a remedy for the
deficiencies of whatever whimsical nature has provided for the support of the structure at the site which has
been selected. On account of the fact that there is no glory attached to the foundations, and that the source of
success or failures are hidden deep in the ground, building foundation have always been treated as step children;
and their acts of revenge for lack of attention can be very embarrassing [15].The comments made by Terzaghi
are very significant and should be taken seriously by all practicing architects and engineers. Since the
substructures are as important as the superstructures, persons who are well qualified in the design of
substructures should always be consulted [11].

All engineering construction resting on the earth are carried by some kind of interfacing element called a
foundation. The term superstructure is commonly used to describe the engineered part of the system bringing
load to the foundation, or substructure. The term superstructure has particular significance for buildings and
bridges; however, foundation also may carry only machinery, support industrial equipment (pipes, towers,
tanks), act as sign bases, and so on. For these reasons, it is better to describe a foundation as that part of
engineered system that interfaces the load- carrying components to the ground. It is evident on the basis of this
definition that a foundation is the most important part of the engineering system [2]. The function of any
foundation is to safely sustain and transmit to the ground on which interests the combined dead, imposed and
wind loads in such a manner as not to cause any settlement or other movement which would impair the stability
or cause damage to any part of the building [8]. Research has shown that the two main types of foundation
usually used in water-logged areas in which the soil is very weak and has a very low bearing capacity are raft
and pile foundations and over the years, these foundations have imposed much concern and difficulties to
engineers and clients in terms of their design and construction in water-logged areas [9] [1]. The aim is to design
raft and pile foundations in a water logged area of Yenagoa for a five storey building and then compare both
foundations and choose the one that is more effective in terms of safety and economy while taking into
consideration the availability of materials.

2. Materials and Method

2.1 Materials

Preliminary soil tests were carried out in order to determine the physical properties and the bearing capacity of
the soil in accordance with BS1377 [7]. These tests were Dutch cone penetration tests, Borehole characteristics
test involving standard penetration test, particle size distribution tests, direct shear test, triaxial tests and

2
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

consolidation tests.

2.1.1 Site Description

The proposed project site was situated along Tenbia Road, It located at about 2km from the proposed central
processing facilities (CPF) are along the Crushed Rock Industries Road and about 500m of the Road. The area is
topographically low lying seasonally flooded and located within dense vegetation

2.1.2 Field Work

The coordinates of the test location are presented in table 2.1

Table 2.1: Co-ordinates of Boreholes and CPT Test Positions

POINTS NORTHING EASTING

BH 1 110932 425821
BH 2 110983 425224
BH 3 110953 425138
BH 4 111004 425075
CPT 1 110953 425832
CPT 2 110880 425821
CPT 3 110969 425582
CPT 4 110911 425229
CPT 5 111025 425201
CPT 6 110985 425170
CPT 7 110899 425170
CPT 8 111031 425130
CPT 9 110956 425111
CPT 10 111027 425090
CPT 11 110940 425069
CPT 12 111060 425058

LEGEND: Bore Hole, Cone Penetration Test

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Cone Penetration Test

The CPT data were acquired using mechanical static cone Penetrometer of the following specifications: cone
base = 10cm2, apex angle = 60o and friction sleeve = 150cm2. A total of twelve (12) Nos. Dutch Cone Tests
(CPT) was performed with a 10 Ton Dutch Cone Penetrometer machine up to the depths at which the machine
capacity or anchorage strength could allow. The cone and the sleeve are pushed into the ground for 25cm then

3
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

the cone is pushed ahead of the sleeve for 3.5cm at a uniform rate of 2cm/sec.The Dutch Cone Penetrometer
tests recorded resistance to penetration of the cone at intervals of 20cm by means of pressure gauges mounted
on the hydraulic sounding head.

2.2.2 Bore Hole Characteristics/Standard Penetration Test

Four (4) Boreholes were drilled. A light cable percussion rig was used for the drilling operation. Representative
samples were collected at 0.75m intervals of depths and also at changes in soil type. Undisturbed samples of
suspected critical soils were also obtained from the clay layers in the boreholes. Standard penetration tests were
performed in sandy layers at I .5m intervals of depths in each of the Boreholes. The number of blows required to
drive the standard sampling spoon 300mm penetration after an initial 150mm penetration represents the SPT (N)
value.

2.2.3 Particle Size Distribution Tests

Particle size analysis was carried out by wet sieving before dry sieving. Fine analysis was also carried out.
Suspected soils were tested for organic content. The particle size analysis was carried out in accordance with
BS1377 [7] — Methods of tests for soil for Civil Engineering purpose.

2.2.4 Direct Shear Tests

Quick unconsolidated undrained shear box test was performed on the soil samples to determine undrained
strength all the direct shear box tests were performed in accordance with BS1377 [7].

2.2.5 Triaxial Tests

Quick unconsolidated undrained triaxial test was performed on the soil sample in accordance with BS1377 [7].

2.2.6 Consolidation Test

One dimensional Oedometer test was carried out on the undisturbed clay samples in order to determine the
consolidation characteristics. The consolidation test was carried out in accordance with BS1377 [7].

2.3 Design

Structural analysis and designs were carried out in accordance with BS 8110 – 1997[4], BS 6399 – 1984 [5], CP
1-3, 1972 and CP, 2004 [6]. For the purpose of estimation of forces and moments of the structure as well as the
design of raft and pile foundations both at the serviceability and ultimate limit states, with the ultimate column
axial load of 4138KN and serviceability column axial load of 2164KN [12,13,16].

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Cone Penetration Test Results

4
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

The Dutch Cone Penetrometer tests recorded resistance to penetration of the cone at intervals of 20cm by means
of pressure gauges mounted on the hydraulic sounding head. The result are shown in fig. 3.1-3.12

Figure 3.1: ConePenetrometer Figure 3.2: ConePenetrometer Test 2

Figure 3.3: Cone Penetrometer Test 3 Figure 3.4: Cone Penetrometer Test 4

5
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.5: Cone Penetrometer Test 5 Figure 3.6: Cone Penetrometer Test 6

Figure 3.7: Cone Penetrometer Test 7 Figure 3.8: Cone Penetrometer Test 8

6
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.9: Cone Penetrometer Test 9 Figure 3.10: Cone Penetrometer Test

Figure 3.11: Cone Penetrometer Test 11 Figure 3.12: Cone Penetrometer Test 12
7
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

3.2 Bore Hole Characteristics/Standard Penetration Test Results

The results of the bore hole characteristics/standard penetration test are shown in figures 3.13 to 3.16. The tests
showed that the top soil was dry grayish mottled clay, followed by soft silty/ sandy clay up to 6m depth. Below
6 to 7m was sand. The clay end bearing minimum pressure was 54kN/m2 and its maximum pressure was
68kN/m2. The sand end bearing minimum pressure was 416kN/m2 and its maximum bearing pressure -
697kN/m2. The clay skin friction ranged from 10 – 13kN/m2. The sand minimum skin friction was 77kN/m2 and
the maximum was 129kN/m2. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil ranged from 64kN/m2 to 71kN/m2 for a
shallow depth of 1m – 2m and 177kN/m2 – 517kN/m2 for a deep depth of 10m – 20m. The soil water quality is
shown in table 3.1

Table 3.1: Water Quality

Borehole No Temperature (oC) pH Sulphate (mg/I) Chloride (mg/I)

1 27.6 6.1 142 10.4
2 27.6 5.9 145 8.9
3 27.5 6.0 144 11.5
4 27.4 6.0 140 11.2

Soil Water Quality

Figure 3.13: Bore Hole No.1 Characteristics With Ground Figure 3.14: Bore Hole No.1 Characteristics With Ground
Water Depth 9.5m Water Depth 8.5m

8
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.15: Bore Hole No.1 Characteristics With Ground Water Figure 3.16: Bore Hole No.1 Characteristics With Ground
Depth 9.0m Water Depth 9.2m

3.3 Particle Size Analysis

The results of the particle size analysis are summarized in Table 3.1 and presented below in figs. 3.17 to 3.32.
The sands classify as poor graded material (mfc). Organic matters identified were mainly root fibers varying
from 0% to 3% in content.

Figure 3.17: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Figure 3.18: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Depth
Depth 2m 3.25m
9
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.19: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Figure 3.20: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Depth
Depth 4m 6.2m

Figure 3.21: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At

Figure 3.22: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution
Depth 6.75m
At Depth 7.5m

10
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.25: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Figure 3.26: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Depth
Depth 12.75m 16m

Figure 3.27: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Depth Figure 3.28: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution At Depth
15m 15.25m

11
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.31: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution at Depth Figure 3.32: Bore Hole No. Particles Size Distribution at
25.25m Depth 27.25m

3.4 Shear Box Test Results

The results from the shear box test are shown in Table 3.2 (soil characteristics) and table 3.3 (summary of soil
properties). The direct shear tests graphs are shown

Table 3.2: Soil Characteristics (Shear/ Consolidation Test Result)

Cohesion
Moisture Bulk unit Dry unit Coeff. Of Coeff of
BH Depth Friction (Direct Compression
content weight weight consolidation Vol. Comp
NO (m) 3 3
(Degree) shear) Index 2 2
(%) (KN/m ) (KN/m ) (Cm /Sec) (m /kN)
(KN/m2)
4.5 41 17.76 12.60 7 17 0.17 1.1x10-3 6.2x10-4
1.
16.0 17 18.21 15.56 44 0 - - -
-3
3.0 38 16.22 11.75 5 19 0.13 1.4x10 5.0x10-4
2.
11.0 20 17.72 14.77 43 0 - - -
-3
4.0 43 15.52 10.85 2 20 0.41 0.28x10 7.8x10 -4
3
14.0 22 18.87 15.47 43 0 - - -
-3
2.0 44 15.29 10.62 3 19 0.17 1.0x10 6.1x10-4
4.
12.0 21 18.36 15.17 44 0 - - -

12
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Table 3.3: Summary of Soil Properties (Shear/ Consolidation Test Result)

Clay Silty Sand

Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average
Friction (degrees) 2 7 4 43 44 44
2
Cohesion (kN/m ) 17 20 19 0 0 0
Bulk density (kN/m3) 15.29 17.76 16.20 17.21 18.87 18.16
3
Dry density(kN/m ) 10.62 12.6 11.46 14.77 15.56 15.24
Moisture content (%) 38 41 42 17 22 20
Liquid limit (%) 36 65 45 - - -
Plasticity Index (%) 14 34 20 - - -
Compression index 0.13 0.41 0.22 - - -
Coeff of Comp (m2/kN) 5.0x10-4 7.8x 10-4 6.3x10-4 - - -
Coeff Of consol
2
0.28x10-3 1.4x10-3 0.95x10-3 - - -
(cm /sec)
Specific gravity 2.58 2.61 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.62
%Passing200 25 30 28 1 5 3
Coeff Of curvature 0.07 1.3 0.8
Coeff Of uniformity 0.38 4.0 2.8

Figure 3.33: Shear Box Test For Borehole No.1 Figure 3.34: Shear Box Test For
BoreholeNo.2

13
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.35: Shear Box Test For

BoreholeNo.3 Figure 3.36: Shear Box Test For
BoreholeNo.4

3.3 Triaxial Test Results

The results obtained are presented against their corresponding soil layers in each of the Boreholes. The data
were analyzed following Mohr — Coulomb failure criterion, as shown in figs. 3.37 to 3.40.

Figure 3.37: Triaxial Test for Borehole No.1 Figure 3.38: Triaxial Test for Borehole No.2

14
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.39: Triaxial Test for BoreholeNo.3

Figure 3.40: Triaxial Test for
BoreholeNo.4
3.4 Consolidation Test Results

The void ratio versus load curves of the consolidation test are shown Figs. 3.41 to 3.44.

Figure 3.41: Borehole 1. Consolidation test at depth, 4.5m

Figure 3.42: Borehole 2. Consolidation test at depth, 3m

15
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Figure 3.43: Borehole 3. Consolidation test at depth, Figure 3.44: Borehole 4. Consolidation test at depth, 2m
3.75m

3.5 Quantities and Cost Analysis of Raft Foundation

The quantities and cost analysis of the raft foundation based on Building and Engineering Standard Method of
Measurement (BESMM3), 1998. Is presented in table 3.4.

16
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Table 3.4: Bills of Quantities for the Raft Foundation

S/N Description Qty Unit Rate (N) Amount (N)

Element No. 1

Excavation and Filling

A. Excavate foundation starting from the top level to a depth not

exceeding 5.00metres. 5240 m3 2,000.00 10,480,000.00

B. Remove surplus excavated materials from site.

5240 m3 1,000.00 5,240,000.00
In Situ Concrete

C. Plain in situ concrete (1:2:4-19mm aggregate) for building.

629 m3 25,000.00 15,725,000.00
In Situ Concrete

Reinforced concrete raft foundation with thin form thickness of

D. 600mm mix ratio (1:1:2).
629 m3 30,000.00 18,870,000.00
Form Work

Sawn form work at the edges of bed 600mm.

E.
Reinforcement 286 m 850.00 243,100.00

12mm diameter high tensile reinforcement to BS 4449.

F.
63 Ton 390,000.00 24,570,000.00
SUB TOTAL 75,128,100.00
ADD 5% Contingencies 3,756,405.00
GRAND TOTAL 78,884,505.00

3.6 Quantities and Cost Analysis of Pile Foundation

The quantities and cost analysis of the pile foundation based on Building and Engineering Standard Method of
measurement (BESMM3), [14] 1998.

17
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Table 3.5: Bills of Quantities for the Pile Foundation

S/N Description Qty Unit Rate (N) Amount (N)

Element No. 1

Concrete Work

In Situ Concrete

A. Reinforced concrete pile foundation with 6 piles in a cap, 250 m3 30,000.00 7,500,000.00
each pile is 15m deep. 36 numbers of pile caps. Concrete
mix (1:1:2).

Form Work

B. Sawn form work to reinforced concrete pile foundation to 720 m3 850.00 612,000.00
vertical sides of pile cap 36 numbers.

Reinforcement

16mm diameter high tensile reinforcement to BS 4449.

C. 15 Ton 390,000.00 5,850,000.00
12mm diameter high tensile reinforcement to BS 4449.

D. Pilling 12 Ton 390,000.00 4,680,000.00

6 pile in a cap, 15m deep.

E. 36 Nr 2,592,000.00 93,312,000.00
SUB TOTAL 111,954,000.00
ADD 5% Contingencies 5,597,700.00
GRAND TOTAL 117,551,700.00

4. Limitations

The limitations of the research include:

1. Difficulty in obtaining permission from the local community leaders before carrying out soil

18
 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

investigation.
2. It also involves a lot of financial implications to get suitable equipment to work on swampy
environment

4. Conclusion

From the cost analysis, the cost of the raft foundation was N78,884,505.00 (Seventy Eight Million, eight
Hundred and eighty four Thousand, five Hundred and five Naira only) while the cost of the pile foundation was
N117,551,700.00 (One Hundred and seventeen Million, five Hundred and Fifty one Thousand, Seven Hundred
Naira only). This showed that the cost of the pile foundation was greater than that of the raft foundation by 39%.
It is recommended that raft foundation be used on the area in order to minimize cost.

References

[1]Balla, A, (1962)., “Bearing Capacity Of Foundations”, JSMFD. Proc. ASC

[2]Bowles, J. E., (1996) Foundation Engineering and Design, (Fifth Edition), McGraw-Hill, 1996.

[3]Bowles J. E. Foundation Analysis and Design (1997), (Fifth Edition) McGraw-Hill International
Editions.

[4]British Standards 8110. (1997) Code Of Practice for Design and Construction Part 1, 2 and 3 Publish By:
British Standard Board

[5]British Standards 6399. (1984): Designs Loading for Buildings, Part: Code of Practice for Dead and
Imposed Loads, Published By: British Standards Institution, London.

[6]British Standard 8004. (1986)Code of Practice for Foundations (Formerly CP (2004) published by:
British Standards Institution Board, London.

[7]British Standards,1377. (1990) Method of test for soil for civil engineering purposes, published by:
British Standard Board.

[8]Chudley, R. and Greeno R. (1998), Buildings Construction Handbook, (Sixth Edition, Elsevier publisher,
London.

[9]Jha, J. and Sinha, S.K (2009) Construction And Foundation Engineering (Seventh Edition) Khanna
Publishers, New Delhi.

[10]Murthy V.N.S. (2007), Advanced Foundation Engineering – Geotechnical Engineering Series (first
Edition), Statish Kumar Jain: New Delhi

[11]Murthy V.N.S. (2007), Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering-Geotechnical

19
American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 52, No 1, pp 1-20

Engineering Series (First Edition), Statish Kumar Jain: New Delhi, Pvt.

[12]NainanP.K. (2014) Design of Foundation Systems principles and practies” (Sixth Edition) Narosa
Publishing house.

[13]Oyenuga V.O. (2009), Design & Construction of Foundation (A Partised Approach) (Second Edition)
Asros Limited.

[14]The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Construction Confederation, (1998) Building and
Engineering Standard Method of Measurement, Published by Construction Confederation.

[15]Terzaghi, K (1951). “The Influence Of Modern Soil Studies On The Design And Construction Of
Foundation” Bldg. Research congr., London, 1951, div. 1, par III

[16]Tomlinson M. J. (1994), Pile Design and construction Practice (Form Edition) E &FnSpon

20