CVEN9000

Assessment Task 3: Site modification and

Geotechnical Design of Foundation

Lecturer
https://pioneerwatertanksamerica.com/water-tank-foundations/ Dr. Rohit Tiwari PhD, MS(Res), B.Tech (Distinction)
Email : [email protected]

Geotechnical Model of Ground

1
 Geotechnical Designs- Opening Remarks
• Foundation is an essential part of water retaining structures which transfers loads to
the ground beneath it.

• Accurate Geotechnical Model of Ground is prime

requirement for geotechnical designs.

• Assessment of safe bearing capacity of foundation-

avoid strength and serviceability failures.

• Site improvement methods needs to be reviewed for effective

site modification.

• Estimation of foundation settlement is a crucial aspect

of modern geotechnical designs.
 Problem statement:

Geotechnical Design of Water Tank Foundations

Available information

1. Site Plan
2. Location of Water Tank Foundation
3. Borehole Locations
4. Site Cross Section
5. Borelogs
6. Triaxial test results 80 m 100 m

3
 Problem statement:

Geotechnical Design of Water Tank Foundations

Today We will focus on:

Geotechnical model of the Ground
 Some Basics of Geotechnical Engineering
Soils and rocks are materials resting below the ground surface

The formation of any soil or rock have a high influence on its behavior under load

Soils tolerates loads mostly due to compression and fails when the acting shear stresses exceeds
soils shear strength

Soils in loose state does not have any tensile strength Ground surface

Soils are generally classified as Cohesionless and Cohesive

Soils strength could be estimated using the Mohr Coulomb Failure Criteria below 𝜎𝜎1′

𝜏𝜏𝑓𝑓 = 𝑐𝑐 ′ + 𝜎𝜎 − 𝑢𝑢 tan ϕ′
𝜎𝜎3′

𝜎𝜎3′
5
 Geotechnical Model of Ground

Why Do we need a ground model?

Baynes et al, 2020

To understand the SUBSURFACE TYPE

To understand the SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (Fissures, fractures, beds, rock conditions)

Idea of WATER TABLE below the ground – PORE PRESSURE/ Aquifers

′ ′
LIQUEFACTION potential of slope site 𝜏𝜏𝑓𝑓 = 𝑐𝑐 + 𝜎𝜎 − 𝑢𝑢 tan ϕ
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/IJGNAI.GMENG-9849

Engineering properties of soils/rocks (Density, Friction Angle, Cohesion)

Site classification (AS 2870) and possible problems

 Investigations for Geotechnical model of the Ground
Site Investigations
SUBSURFACE TYPE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Stratification (Thickness and type)
Identification of joints, fractures, bedding planes, fissures
Presence of water table
Collection of Disturbed and Undisturbed Samples Laboratory Investigations
Density and Moisture
Insitu Testings (SPT, CPT, Vane Shear, Dynamic Cone, Geophysical tests etc.)

Relative Density Particle size distribution

Soil shear strength (Cohesion and Friction Angle) Atterberg limits

Settlements and erosion

Young’s Modulus
Soils shear strength
Pore water pressure
Suction!
SUBSURFACE TYPE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Trenches, Pits, Shaftes, Adits and Tunnels

Drilling for Boreholes and Sampling

Auger drilling continuous flight 60

RPM George Kouretzis
Auger drilling hollow flight (2018)

Cable tool percussion

Rotary drilling – non coring 200

RPM
Rotary drilling – coring

Reverse circulation

Bucket auger
 SUBSURFACE TYPE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Drilling

Cable tool percussion

Used for Sandy and Gravel Ground type with maximum 750 mm hole diameter.

Used for Sandy and Gravel Ground type

Pros:
Can penetrate gravels. Cons:
Can drill large diameter hole. Slow drilling
Simple equipment. Strata mixing in breaking up and
Often available in remote areas used for recovery process
water bores
 Geotechnical model of the Ground

Drilling using coring:

‘NMLC’ 76mm borehole, 52mm core
‘H’ 100mm borehole, 76mm core

Always use triple tube core barrels to maximise recovery

Core is boxed and logged by engineering geologist for

• Rock type
• Weathering
• Faults, partings and fractures
• Shears, limonite
• Special features such as straining on joints, clay infill,
roots, loss of drilling water

Photograph core

Holes should be angled to intersect joints when possible

Systematic boxing of drill core, (a) Empty core box labelled

ready for use, (b) Partly filled box during drilling 10
Engineer should decide
for natural bedding
planes/ faults or a
handling breakage.

11
 Collection of Disturbed and Undisturbed Samples
Thin wall tubes
• Most widely used for undisturbed sampling
• Usually 50mm, 63mm or 75mm diameter
• Suitable for cohesive soils
• Significant disturbance in soft clays

Tubes are usually sealed with paraffin wax to prevent

moisture loss after sampling.

Sample disturbance
A perfect sample is one which has not been disturbed by
the boring, sampling and trimming but has been subject to
stress release. This leads to negative pore pressures in
OC –Clay Soft Clay, Loose Soils the sample and this in turn gives the soil ‘unconfined
strength’.

Effective stress remains unchanged.

What will you do with the collected Sample?
12
Collection of Disturbed and Undisturbed Samples
 In-situ testing & interpretation Geotechnical model of the Ground
The standard penetration test - SPT
The steps to be followed are:

Define the site investigation requirements

• What is to be built
• Site location
• What are the loads to be imposed
• What are the critical issues, eg: settlement of a
building, leakage from a dam

Review all available data

• Obtain and correlate all available data
• Topographic maps (old and recent)
• Geological maps
• Reports from earlier site investigations or
investigations at adjacent sites

14
 The Standard Penetration Test - SPT
In-situ testing & interpretation
Test Equipment and Procedure
The main features of a Standard Penetration Test are:
a steel sampler, shown in Figure 2.2, with 50mm outside
diameter, 35mm inside diameter
the sampler is hammered into the soil with a 63.5kg
hammer falling 760mm
Figure 2.1. Schematic the number of blows to drive 3 x 150mm increments are
arrangement of standard
penetration test equipment in counted eg. 6,9,7. The SPT 'N' value is the sum of the
borehole
last two ie. N=16 for this example.

Some additional features are:

where the rods and sampler sink under their own
weight, allow this before driving unless the sinking
exceeds 3 x 150mm = 450mm
where the number of blows for any 150mm is >50,
stop driving and quote actual value eg. 17, 50/100,
N>50 ie. 17 blows for first 150mm, 'N' greater than
50, 50 blows for the next 100mm
when testing in gravelly soils, the open sampler
Figure 2.2. SPT samplers may be replaced by a solid 60° cone. In this case
no sample is recovered.

15
 Sources of Error and Correction Factors
There are several sources of potential inconsistency and error in testing. The following outlines
these, their effect on recorded 'N' value, and where appropriate, correction factors are given.

SPT Sampler

Rod Diameter and Length

Borehole Diameter and Drilling Method

Hammer and Driving Technique

Effects of the Presence of Gravel In the Soil

16
 Sources of Error and Correction Factors
Hammer and Driving Technique

Different Hammer driving techniques = different energy

to be imparted to the rods due to:
• loss of energy in the cathead and winch system - even
depending on the number of turns of the rope around
the winch
• loss of energy between the hammer and anvil
• differences in the drop height - particularly when
using the cathead and winch system where operator
influence is great.
Correction -
N60 = Nm.ERm/60
Nm = SPT 'N' value for the method used in the
investigation
ERm = rod energy ratio for method used in the
investigation
The UK Pilcon trip hammer is similar to the Seismic
Figure 2.4. USA SPT hammers (Skempton, 1986). Figure 2.5. Sketch of cathead and rope Supplies Australian hammer which have ER = 60%, so
(L) Satety Hammer; (R) Donut Hammer setup for SPT testing (Seed et al, 1985). no correction is necessary when that hammer is in
use.
17
 Estimation of the Effective Friction Angle in COHESIONLESS SOILS

Estimation of effective friction angle from SPT test

SPT 'N' Value Consistency Effective Friction Angle
(a) (b) (c)
0-4 Very loose <30 <28 <30
4-10 Loose 30-32 28-30 30-35
10-30 Medium dense 32-35 30-36 35-40
30-50 Dense 35-38 36-41 40-45
>50 Very dense 38 >41 >45
(a) Mitchell and Kalti (1981) (b) Peck, Hansen and Thornburn (1974) (c) Meyerhof (1956)

Effective friction angle of sands as a function of relative density and gain size
(from Douglas, 1983 based on Schmertmann, 1978)

18
 Estimation of relative density of cohesionless soils

Bazaraa and Gibbs

and Holtz methods
for estimating
relative density.

Gibbs and Holtz method for estimating

relative density

Summarized results of Marcusson and

Bieganousky, Gibbs and Holtz and
Bazaraa.
 Estimation of the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils

• The SPT is not designed to determine the shear strength of cohesive soils
• It only gives a very rough guide of the undrained shear strength.
• The values determined should not be used for design

Correlation between SPT 'N' value and Cu (Hegedus and

Peterson, 1988)
Correlation between SPT 'N' value and Cu (Schmertmann. 1975)

20
 Estimation of drained deformation
modulus E′ for cohesionless soils
It will be apparent that there is only an
1 Normally loaded
sand and gravel approximate relationship between E' and 'N’.
2 Preloaded sand
It is suggested that Denver's method can be used,
3 unspecified
4 Sand-saturated keeping in mind the potential errors involved by
5 Clay and sand considering the scatter of Denver's data.

Drained Young’s Modulus E' as function of 'N' (Denver, 1982). Denver's E' values were
obtained from pressuremeter or screw plate measurements.
Estimation of undrained deformation modulus Eu for
cohesive soils
There is a very poor correlation between Eu and
Cu.

Drained Youngs Modulus E' versus SPT Undrained Youngs Modulus Eu vs SPT
'N' value (Ohya et al, 1982) 'N' value (Ohya et al, 1982) 21
 The Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
2.2.1 Test Equipment and Procedure

2.2.1.1 Cone Penetration Test - Mechanical Cone

The main features of the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), using a mechanical cone as shown in Figure 3.1, are:
• cone, with dia. 35.7mm, area 10cm2, cone angle 600
• friction sleeve, 150cm2 area, dia 35.7+0.5mm ie. slightly larger than the cone
• inner and outer rods, so the whole instrument, the cone only, and cone and sleeve only can be pushed
• load measuring devices at the surface to measure forces required to push the instrument into the ground

The test procedure for the mechanical cone is:

• move to a new depth by pushing the outer rod
• push inner rod 40mm which measures cone force only
• continue to push inner rod for the next 40mm which measures cone and sleeve force together
• push the outer rods to ‘collapse’ the cone and push it to the next test depth. This is usually at 200mm intervals.

22
23
• Calculate cone resistance qc = Qc/Ac = load on cone/area of cone
• Calculate sleeve resistance fs = Qs/As = load on sleeve/area of sleeve
• Calculate friction ratio FR = fs/qc

The penetration rate is 20mm/second. The penetration capacity depends on the machine and the weight of the truck,
drill rig, or anchor system. Common sizes are 2.5 tonnes which may be pushed by a drill rig, 10 tonnes and 20 tonnes.

The mechanical cone is labour intensive, requiring a three person crew to operate it, and the results have to be
processed, usually in the office, making it costly and unable to give feedback of site conditions during the field work
other than in a qualitative sense. The mechanical cone also has the disadvantage that forces are measured at the
surface, with potential for friction affecting loads.

These factors, and the development of inexpensive and reliable load cells, has led to mechanical cones being replaced
almost completely by electric cones.

24
 For Cohesionless Soil
ϕ′ Friction Angle
𝐸𝐸 ′ Youngs modulus

For Cohesive Soil

𝑐𝑐v Coefficient of Consolidation
𝑐𝑐u Undrained Shear Strength
𝐸𝐸u Undrained Youngs Modulus
𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 Over Consolidation Ratio
Figure 3.7: output from the CPT tests
For All Soil
𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Soil Behavior Type

Figure 3.3. (a) Load cell arrangement for electric

CPT; (b) Electric CPT data acquisition system
(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1988)
25
26
 SOIL CLASSIFICATION FROM CPT

Olsen and Farr (1988) iterative method for soil Olsen and Malone (1988) method of
classification from electric CPT soil classification from CPT 27
 SOIL CLASSIFICATION FROM CPT

Total vertical stress (𝜎𝜎v )

Effective vertical stress (𝜎𝜎v′ )

n= 0.5- 0.8 (Sands)

n= 1 for Clay

Gregg Drilling Website (CPTeT) 28

 ESTIMATING RELATIVE DENSITY FROM CPT

. ViIlet and Mitchell (1981) method for estimating

relative density from CPT

Schmertmann's (1978) method for

estimating relative density from CPT. This
chart would have been based on
mechanical cone.
29
 ESTIMATING RELATIVE DENSITY FROM CPT

Comparison of different relative density Baldi et al method for estimating relative density of
relationships (Campanella and Robertson (1988) normally consolidated moderately compressible
quartz sands

30
Estimation of the Effective Friction Angle of Cohesionless
Soil

The effective friction angle φ' of cohesionless soil can be

estimated from the relative density using Schmertmann's
chart in Figure 2.11 or directly from the CPT or CPTU
results using Robertson and Campanella’s method
(Figure 3.25).
Campanella and Robertson (1988) indicate that the method
• applies to normally consolidated, uncemented,
moderately incompressible, predominantly quartz sands
but can be used for soils 7,8,9 and 10 in Fig. 3.16
• for highly overconsolidated sands φ' may be up to 2°
lower than predicted from Figure 3.25
• for highly compressible sand the chart predicts
conservatively low friction angles. For the sands included
in Robertson and Campanella's analysis the effect could
be up to 3°.

Robertson and Campanella's (1984) method

for estimating φ' for cohesionless soils from
CPT
31
Estimation of the Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Soil

The undrained shear strength of cohesive soils can be estimated from the CPT and CPTU with reasonable
accuracy. Several authors have presented data in the form of
Cu = (qc - σvo)/Nk
where σvo = total overburden stress
Nk = cone factor

The Nk factor is like a bearing capacity factor, which has been determined theoretically but in practice is
determined empirically by correlation of cone resistance to undrained strength measured by vane shear or
laboratory tests. Since the undrained shear strength is dependent on the test method, it is important to state what
strength is being estimated – eg. field vane shear strength, triaxial compression etc. Yu and Mitchell (1998) give a
good summary of theoretically determined Nk values (see Table on next slide).

32
Theoretically determined values of Nk for different values of G/Cu (Yu and Mitchell, 1998)

33
 Aas et al (1986) method for relating
cone factor Nk to plasticity index for
CPT

Summary of constrained modulus

factor an

34
Estimation of Drained Young’s Modulus E’ and Constrained Modulus M for Cohesionless Soil

Relationship between qc and constrained Relationsliip. between qc and drained

Modulus M for normally consolidated Youngs Modulus E' for normally
uncemented quartz sands (Campanella and consolidated uncamented quartz sands
Robertson, 1988). (Campanella and Robertson, 1988).

35
In assignment, you will be given this marked
classification chart, which might be useful for
estimating engineering properties of different
layers (with given borehole data)

36
 Laboratory testing & interpretation Triaxial Shear Test for Effective Stress Parameters
Test Procedure and application
For obtaining the peak strength parameters 𝑐𝑐′ 𝜙𝜙′

Not suitable for finding residual strength parameters

as high input strain levels are required.
𝜎𝜎𝑑𝑑′ = 𝜎𝜎1′ - 𝜎𝜎3′
Triaxial Compression
Consolidated Drained –
- Saturated, Drainage allowed during shearing
Consolidated Undrained–
- Saturated, Drainage not allowed during shearing
- Pore pressure measurement
- Faster than CD test
- Sometimes CU test Mohr circles falls closure
𝜙𝜙 = ?0 which requires CD test for a wide enough range
of Mohr circles
𝜎𝜎1′
More Interested in Triaxial Testing?
Head (1985), Bowles (1978), Bishop and Hemkel (1971),
𝜎𝜎3′ Lade (1986) and Saada and Townsend (1981)

𝜎𝜎3′
C’
How to Draw Mohr’s Circle
For Triaxial Test Results (Watch video)
37/20
 Drained Strength 2. REVIEW OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODS
Peak Strength
OF STABILITY ANALYSIS

Shear Stress (𝜏𝜏)

Softened Strength
2.1 The General Principles (from Duncan 1996).
Residual Strength
Concept of Factor of safety
𝜎𝜎1′
Shear Strain
2% to 4% • 𝒄𝒄′ 𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 𝝓𝝓′
𝜎𝜎3′ • Drained strength parameters
𝜎𝜎3′ 10% to 30% • Effective stress strength parameters
100% or more
𝑐𝑐p′ and 𝜙𝜙p′ 𝑐𝑐s′ and 𝜙𝜙s′ 𝑐𝑐r′ and 𝜙𝜙r′
for peak for Softened for Residual
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
• Three different samples Strength Envelope 𝜏𝜏 = 𝑐𝑐p′ + 𝜎𝜎 ′ tan 𝜙𝜙p′ 𝜏𝜏 = 𝑐𝑐u
• Three different confining pressure(𝜎𝜎3′ )
• How will you decide the confining pressure? 𝜎𝜎 ′ = 𝜎𝜎 − 𝑢𝑢 Pore water pressure
Total stress
𝜙𝜙p′ Effective stress can be obtained for drained / undrained
𝜙𝜙s′ condition.
𝜙𝜙r′
Shear Stress

𝜎𝜎3′
𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝′ 𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠′
𝑐𝑐u
𝜎𝜎
Shear Strain 𝜎𝜎 ′ Cohesionless Cohesive
38
Geotechnical model of the Ground
Steps to achieve geotechnical model of the Ground
Available information
1. Use borelogs and SPT N values to identify different strata and their depths
1. Site Plan 2. Use SPT and Triaxial Test results to Estimate Soil Density, Friction Angle and
2. Location of Water Tank Foundation Youngs Modulus
3. Borehole Locations 3. Draw different strata using a graph paper.
4. Site Cross Section
5. Borelogs
6. SPT N Values
7. Triaxial test results

39
 Example
Geotechnical model of the Ground
For this example, only – I am assuming that the ground is plane, and
its profile is same everywhere so it can be represented using one
bore hole (Do not follow same in Task 2)

Mark the ground surface and assume suitable scale

Now Mark Different strata's

Ground surface
Top Soil (0.3 m from ground surface)

Sand (0.9 m from ground surface)

Clay, you need to find strata thickness using SPT Data Mark piezo line (1.5 m from ground)
(SPT 15 is high for clay and 10 is suitable) Choose a higher clay thickness
In this case 1.8 m from ground surface

Estimate the missing strata using SPT Results (3.8 m from ground surface )

Sand Stone (4.57 m from ground surface)

 Example
Geotechnical model of the Ground

Scale 2 box = 0.5 m in the ground (better you choose cm to m scale in task 3)

Ground surface
Top Soil (0.3 m)
Sand (Thickness = 0.6 m) N=4
Clay (Thickness = 0.9 m) N = 10

Claystone (Thickness = 2 m) N = (2*15)+(1*30)/(2+1) = 20

Sandstone (Thickness = 0.77 m) N = 50

 Example
Geotechnical model of the Ground

Strata Starting Thickness SPT “N” Friction Friction Angle Cohesion Cohesion Density
Name Depth (m) Angle from Lab Test from SPT from Lab Estimation
below from SPT (kPa) (kPa) (kg/m3)
Ground
(m)
Sand 0.3 0.6 4 <280 250 - 0 1500 (Dr = 60 %)

Clay 0.9 0.9 10 0 - 20 - 1800

Claystone 1.8 2 20 280 400 100 Find it 1950

Sandstone 3.8 0.77 >50 >440 - >100 - 2100

• You can also choose different properties of soils and rocks from other relations and values guided in the literature
• Please careful with the cohesive and cohesionless correlations
• Cite the source for any adopted value and justify your choices
 Example
Geotechnical model of the Ground

Scale 2 box = 0.5 m in the ground (better you choose cm to m scale in task 3)

Ground surface
Top Soil (0.3 m)
Sand (Thickness = 0.6 m) Very loose 𝐶𝐶 = 0 , 𝜙𝜙 = 200 , 𝜌𝜌dry = 1400 kg
�m3
kg
Clay (Thickness = 0.9 m) Medium dense 𝐶𝐶 = 20 kPa , 𝜙𝜙 = 00 , 𝜌𝜌𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 1600 �m3

Claystone (Thickness = 2 m) 𝐶𝐶 = Find it ∶) , 𝜙𝜙 = 280 , 𝜌𝜌sat = 1950 kg

�m3
Dense (OC, Bedding, Joints, Fissures?)

Sandstone (Thickness = 0.77 m) Very Dense

kg
𝐶𝐶 = 100 kPa, 𝜙𝜙 = 440 , 𝜌𝜌sat = 2100 �m3