Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering

Compiled By: Aimable UWIMANA

MEng (Research), Geotechnical Engineering (US)
Bsc, Civil Engineering (NUR)
 Course content
Chapter 1: General introduction to Geotechnical Engineering and
Foundation engineering
Chapter 2: Bearing capacity calculations for shallow foundations
and deep foundations
Chapter 3: Settlement Calculations
Chapter 4: Pile foundations
Chapter 5: Slope Stability and Lateral earth pressure calculations
Chapter 6: Design of Retaining walls (Mainly Gravity Retaining
wall
 Purpose of Geotechnical and Foundation
Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering includes the application of the principles of

soil mechanics to the design of Foundations, retaining structures, and
earth structures. Foundation engineering deals with the design of
various types of substructures under different soil and environmental
conditions.
 Soil Mechanics Review
 Soil Classification: Cohesive and no-cohesive (Gravel>4.75, Sand
4.75<Sand<0.075, Fines (Silt or Clay)<0.075mm
 Mechanical Analysis of Soil: Sieve Analysis, Hydrometer
 LL, PL PI as a soil classification
 Weigh and volume relationship: Unit weigh, proctor (MDD,OMC: Factor
affecting them)
 Shear strength and Settlement
Chapter 1: General introduction
References
Clay C.R.I., Mathiews M.C. and Simons N.E. Site investigation. Second Edition. Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Surrey. UK

Burland, J., 2012. Soils as Particulate Materials. In ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering:
Geotechnical Engineering Principles, Problematic Soils and Site Investigation, Burland. J. et
al., (eds). Thomas Telford, London, UK, vol.1, pp.153-161.

Murphy, V.N.S., 2005. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.CBS Publishers &
Distributors. New Delhi.

Whitlow R., 2001. Basic Soil Mechanics. Pearson

Soil Investigation
 1.1 Objectives of soil investigation
• Site selection
• Planning for the best method of construction
• Design parameters
• Selection of foundation/ construction methods
• Tender preparation
• Construction control
• Adjudication of claims
• Site selection
• Planning for the best method of construction
• Design parameters
• Selection of foundation/ construction methods
• Tender preparation
• Construction control
• Adjudication of claims

Depending of the type of

project such as earth dams or
type of soil, the construction
is dependent on the
availability of a suitable site
• Site selection
• Planning
• Design parameters
• Selection of foundation/ construction methods
• Tender preparation
• Construction control
• Adjudication of claims

Plan has to be conducted to see the best method of construction

in order to avoid delay and difficulties that may occur during
construction
• Site selection
• Planning for the best method of construction
• Design parameters
• Selection of foundation/ construction methods
• Tender preparation
• Construction control
• Adjudication of claims
Two types of parameters
Strength Deformation
 To determine:  To determine:
 Bearing capacity of foundations  Settlement of foundations
 Design condition:  Design condition:
 Ultimate  Serviceability
 From materials:  From materials:
 Potentially involved in the failure  In zone of stress influence of loading
 Geotechnical categories
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Ground conditions: Straightforward, No problematic Complex Difficult

Above water table

Structure: Simple, light Conventional Complex design Large or unusual

Design

Risk: Negligible Low Moderate High

Example House foundations Piles foundations Tunnels, anchored Chapman’s Peak

walls Drive
Chapman’s peak drive
Typical overall ground investigation programme
Programme ( Weeks)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Specification
(after desk study)
Tender

Client decision to
appoint
Mobilisation

Fieldwork

Lab testing

Factual reporting
Draft
Final
What are we expected to do in a geotechnical
project?
• Select appropriate parameters from various methods and
corrections
• Reconcile the parameters
• Represent parameters in a form suitable for foundation
design
Issues in sampling
 Site investigation cost

Type of work % of capital cost of works % of earthworks and foundation

cost
Earth dams 0.89-3.30 1.14-5.20
Embankments 0.12-0.19 0.16-0.2
Docs 0.23-0.50 0.42-1.67
Bridges 0.12-0.50 0.26-1.30
Buildings 0.05-0.22 0.50-2.00
Roads 0.20-1.55 (1.60)?-5.67
Railways 0.60-2.0 3.5
Overall mean 0.7 1.5
1.2 Investigation methods
Methods of Investigation

• Trial pits
Purpose
• Visually examination:
profiling
• Sampling

Test pit
Methods of Investigation

 Collapse of hole
during profiling
 Object falling into
hole from surface
 Profiler being
interred in hole
Methods of Investigation

Support the
sides of the hole
Methods of Investigation

 Soil sampling
1. Disturbed sample
2. Undisturbed sample
Methods of Investigation

1. disturbed sample
Purpose: soil identification

grading Atterberg Limit

Methods of Investigation

• 2. Undisturbed sample
Purpose: determine the soil strength, consolidation

Triaxial test result

Methods of Investigation

Result

Direct shear test (disturbed and

undisturbed)
Methods of Investigation

Consolidation test Results

  Borings
Methods of Investigation

Auger

Percussion drilling
Washing boring
disposition of bore holes
Minimum requirements for boring depths
This is a subjective process that involves many factors, including:
-How large is the site?
• -What kinds of soil and rock conditions are expected?
• -Is the soil profiles erratic (small building, large building. Bridge. Etc.)
?
-How critical is the proposed project (i.e., what would be the -
consequences of a failure?)?
-How large and heavy are the proposed structures?
-Are all areas of the site accessible to drill rigs?
Disposition of bore holes

Area of investigation Recommended boring depth

Bridge Foundations* Highway Bridges

1. Spread footing

For isolated footings of breadth Lf and width ≤ 2Bf, where Lf ≤ 2Bf, borings shall extend a minimum of two footing widths
below the bearing level.

For isolated footings where Lf≥ 5Bf, borings shall extend a minimum of four footing widths below the bearing level.

For 2Bf ≤ Lf ≤ 5Bf, minimum boring length shall be determined by linear interpolation between depths of 2Bf and 5Bf below
the bearing level.
 of bore holes
of Investigation

In soil, borings shall extend below the anticipated pile or shaft tip
2. Deep footings
elevation a minimum of 6 m, or a minimum of two times the maximum
pile group dimension, whichever is deeper.

For piles bearing on rock, a minimum of 3 m of rock core shall be obtained

at each boring location to verify that the boring has not terminated on a
Disposition

boulder. For shafts supported on or extending into rock, a minimum of 3 m

of rock core, or a length of rock core equal to at least three times the shaft
Methods

diameter for isolated shafts or two times the maximum shaft group
dimension, whichever is greater, shall be extended below the anticipated
shaft tip elevation to determine the physical characteristics of rock within
the zone of foundation influence.
 of bore holes
of Investigation

3. Retaining walls Extend borings to depth below final ground line between 0.75 and 1.5 times the
height of the wall. Where stratification indicates possible deep stability or
settlement problem, borings should extend to hard stratum.

For deep foundations use criteria presented above for bridge foundations.
4. Roadways Extend borings a minimum of 2 m below the proposed subgrade level.

5. Cuts Borings should extend a minimum of 5 m below the anticipated depth of the cut at
the ditch line. Borings depths should be increased in locations where base stability
Disposition

is a concern due to the presence of soft soils, or in locations where the base of the
cut is below groundwater level to determine the depth of the underlying pervious
Methods

strata.
6. Embankments Extend borings a minimum depth equal to twice the embankment height unless a
hard stratum is encountered above this depth. Where soft strata are encountered
which may present stability or settlement concerns the borings should extend to
hard material.
 • Groundwater observation
Two types of instrumentation are used to measure groundwater:
standpipes and piezometers.
 • In situ testing
-SPT
In situ testing

-DPT
-CPT
Methods of Investigation

• Standard penetration test (SPT)

Advantages
 obtain a sample & a number
 Simple
 Suitable in many soil types
 Can perform in a weak rock
Disadvantages
 Disturb sample (index tests
only)
 Crude number for analysis
 Not applicable in soft clays &
silts
 High variability and uncertainty
In situ testing
 Types of SPT hammers
In situ testing
 Hydraulic drilling machine
In situ testing
Methods of Investigation

Factors that affect the SPT N values:

 variations in the height of fall of the drop weight (hammer)
 number of turns of rope around the cathead, and the condition of
the rope
 Length and diameter of drill rod
 Overburden pressure
 Energy deliver to SPT split spoon
E=W*h
In situ testing

W=weight or mass of the hammer (kg)

H=Height of fall
Coefficient of correction
Actual hammer energy to sampler,Ea
Re=
Input energy,Ein
Bowles Re =70%
Terzaghi Re =60%
 Three types of corrections applied to SPT N:
• Hammer efficient correction
In situ testing

• Drillrod sampler and borehole correction

• Correction due to overburden pressure
 • Hammer efficient correction
• Drillrod sampler and borehole correction
In situ testing

• Correction due to overburden pressure

 Donut hammer with a hammer efficient Eh=0.45 (c)

 Safety hammer with a hammer efficient as follows (b):
1. Ropepulley or cathead=0.7-0.8
2. Trip or automatic hammer=0.8-1.0
 • Hammer efficient correction
• Drillrod sampler and borehole correction
• Correction due to overburden pressure
In situ testing

a) Drill rod length correction factors Cd b) Sampler correction factor, Cs

Length (m) Correction factor (Cd)
Without liner Cs=1.00 (not recommended)
>10 m 1.0
With liner,
4-10 m 0.85-0.95 Dense sand, clay Cs =0.80
Loose sand Cs =0.90
<4.0 m 0.75

c. Bore hole diameter correction factor ,Cb

Bore hole diameter Correction factor, (Cb)

60-120 mm 1.0

150 mm 1.05

200 mm 1.15
 • Hammer efficient correction
• Drillrod sampler and borehole correction
In situ testing

• Correction due to overburden pressure

65.76 1/2
CN= by Liao and Whitman (1986)
𝜌′𝑜

Where 𝜌′𝑜 = effective overburden pressure in kN/m2

 SPT “N” value corrected will be expressed as
N=CNNoEhCdCsCb
In situ testing

N60=(CNNoEhCdCsCb)/0.6

Where No is the observed value

SPT “N” value corrected will be used used in bearing capacity
calculation.
 Empirical correlation between N60 and φ’ for uncemented
sands ( Adapted from Demello, 1971, After Coduto, 2001)
In situ testing
In situ testing
 • Dynamic Probing (Penetrometer) Test (DPT)
Factor DPL or DPT

Hammer mass, kg 10±0.1

In situ testing

Height of fall, m 0.5±0.01

Mass of anvil and guide rod (max), kg 50

Rod length, m 1±0.1%

Mass of rod (max), kg 3

Cone area (norminal) A, cm2 10

Cone diameter new (D), mm 35.74±0.3

Number of blows per x cm penetration (Nx) N10:10

Standard range of blows 3-50

Specific work per blow (Mgh/A), kj/m 50

 The probing results are recorded as blows for 10 cm (N10) or 20 cm
(N20) penetration
In situ testing

𝑀
qd= 𝑟𝑑
𝑀+𝑀′

𝑀𝑔ℎ
rd=
𝐴𝑒
h is the height of fall of hammer in metres
Where: rd and qd are resistance values in Pa,
A is the projected area of the cone in m2
M is the mass of hammer in kg e is the average penetration in metres per
g is the acceleration due to gravity m/s2 blow (0.1/N10 or 0./N20)
M’ is the total mass of the extension rods, the
anvil, and the guiding rods in kg
In situ testing
DPL
 • Cone penetration test (CPT)
In situ testing
 Disadvantages of CPT
• no Sample
In situ testing

• Expensive
 Advantages
In situ testing

• data is collected every 2 cm even 1cm

• Offers a rapid and continuous soil profile
• Measures actual in-situ stress conditions
• Piezocone test (CPTU)
 The main limitations of the CPT are:
• Penetration depth limitations due to machine reaction capacity
• Technique is rarely effective in gravels and boulder horizons, and also not suited to weathered
In situ testing

rock profiles
• No samples are recovered

The data obtained from the cone penetration test may be employed
to:
• Assist in evaluating the soil profile
• Interpolate ground conditions between control boreholes
• Evaluate engineering parameters of soils ( relative density, shear strength, compressibility
characteristics, liquefaction potential)
• Assess driveability, bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations
 Cone penetration resistance qc is obtained by dividing the total force Qc acting on the cone by the
base area Ac of the cone.
𝑄𝑐
qc=
In situ testing

𝐴𝑐
In the same way, the local friction fc is
𝑄𝑓
fc=
𝐴𝑓

Where, Qf=Qt-Qc= force required to push the friction jacket,

Qt= the total force required to push the cone and friction jacket together in the case of a
mechanical penetrometer
Af= surface area of the friction jacket.
 Friction ratio, Rf is expressed as
𝑓𝑐
Rf=
In situ testing

𝑞𝑐
Where fc and qc are measured at the same time depth. Rf is
expressed as a percentage. Friction ratio is an important parameter
for classifying soil.
In situ testing
 Relationship between qc, relative density Dr and friction angle ϕ
In situ testing
 Relationship between qc and undrained shear strength, Cu of clay
𝑞𝑐+𝑝𝑜
qc= NkCu+po or Cu=
In situ testing

𝑁𝑘
Type of clay Cone factor Nk

Where, Nk= cone factor, Normally consolidated 11 to 19

po=γz= overburden pressure Overconsolidated

At shallow depths 15 to 20

At deep depths 12 to 18

Lunne and Kelven (1981)