Geotechnical Investigations in Difficult Ground

Conditions – Field Experiences

Workshop on RECENT TRENDS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING,

IGS Trichy

RAVI SUNDARAM
CENGRS GEOTECHNICA PRIVATE LIMITED
ISO 9001: 2015 accredited by JAS-ANZ ISO 17025: 2005 certified geotechnical laboratory (NABL)
Geotechnical Investigation

• A vital part of all geotechnical studies

• Generates important field and laboratory data for
foundation design
• Pre-requisite for economical and safe foundation
design
• Whatever is envisaged at the investigation and
design stage should translate into construction that
is in sync with
 Design concepts
 Assumptions
 Predicted foundation behavior
What is Difficult Ground?

A problem may be difficult for one person, but easily

solved by another

How many of you have solved this puzzle?

World record is < 6 seconds

What is Difficult Ground?

The ground is the same –

It’s all about knowledge and understanding
Knowledge of geology
Information on performance of foundations in the vicinity,
data on past-failures, if any
Understanding engineering properties, behavior of ground
Modeling soil-structure interaction
Expertise in implementing the design concepts in
construction
Detailed geotechnical investigation to clearly define
the soil classification, engineering properties
What is Difficult Ground?

Insufficient knowledge and limited data makes the

problem difficult
• It increases the uncertainty in design
• Design assumptions may or may not be valid
As a consequence
• The design may be conservative leading to
higher foundation cost
• On the other hand, safety of the structure may be
compromised
What is the solution?

So, the solution is

• Improve and acquire knowledge

• Obtain relevant data
• Understand the problem at hand
• Interpret the data in a scientific manner
Levels of Geotechnical Input
As one moves up along the
pyramid from bronze
towards platinum
 Factor of ignorance reduces
 Reliability of design is
enhanced
 Reduction in foundation cost
and construction time
 Minimize possibility of failure
Move towards Gold / Platinum Levels

• Avoid bronze level investigations

• The geotechnical investigation program should
be tailor-made for the project site, as per site /
project requirements
• Involvement of the geotechnical consultant
should continue right up to the construction
stage
Use Advanced Testing Methods

If using SPT, use automatic trip hammer

• Hopefully, SPT will not be the primary penetration
test on important projects soon – SCPT,
Pressuremeter etc. will take precedence
• SPT is increasingly being discarded as a preferred
choice of penetration testing in Europe and USA
Discontinue use of Outdated techniques such as
• Trial pits
• Dynamic cone penetration tests
• Plate load tests
• Block vibration tests, etc.
Use Advanced Testing Methods

Upgrade to
• CPT/CPT-u,
• Pressure meter
• Dilatometer
• vane shear tests (in soft clay)
• seismic methods
• geophysical testing
• remote sensing, etc.
Use advanced sampling and laboratory testing
methods
Use Advanced Testing Methods

 Use results of field instrumentation data for

important structures to update design
parameters
 Observational method of design based on field
observations and instrumentation should be
implemented
 Use advanced analysis methods, software for
analysis
Difficult Ground Conditions – some examples
• Loose soils
• Unstable dune sands
• Soft Clays, under-consolidated deposits
• Filled up ground
• Mine tailings, flyash
• Liquefaction during earthquakes
• Deep excavations in built-up areas
• Unstable hill slopes
• Landslides
• Soft rocks, Fractured rocks
• Shear zones
• Tunnels, solution cavities, voids in rock
• Artesian conditions
• Erosion, floods, cloudburst, scour, etc.
 This presentation includes

Four Case Studies of Geotechnical

Investigations on Difficult Ground
• Soft Clays in Kerala
• Gravel-Boulder deposits in the foothills of the
Himalayas
• Liquefiable sands at a Power Plant in Delhi
• A failed hill-slope on a highway in Uttarakhand
 Case Study - 1
Soft Clays in coastal Kerala
Geotechnical investigation for Kochi Metro
ErnakulamJunction
Ernakulam Junction
to
toVytilla
Vytilla
Section is Geotechnically Challenging

• Passes through area of soft under-consolidated clay

• Sand at shallow depth is prone to liquefaction during
earthquake
• Initial investigations by the owner based on limited
borehole data yielded conservative and
inconclusive pile capacities
• Four piers along the alignment near the railway
station were investigated in detail
 Plan of Investigation

Pier 750

Four Piers over a

220 m stretch
Pier 751

Pier 751B

Pier 752
Scope of investigation
• Two boreholes at each pier location to 75 m depth
• Field Vane shear test in the soft clay
• One static cone penetration test at each pier location
Borehole in progress

Field Vane Shear

test in progress
Static Cone Penetration test – 20 T

Dead load for reaction

8 anchor augers
Sectional Profile along alignment
Pier 750 Pier 751 Pier 751B Pier 752
Stratigraphy

 Substantial variation in stratigraphy from one

pier to next
– over distance of 50-75 m
 Groundwater level < 1 m depth
 Loose silt sand from GL to 5-11 m depth
Stratigraphy

Soft to firm silt clay to 20-25 m depth

• High moisture content close to liquid limit
• Under-consolidated, SPT values 1 to 5
• Cone tip resistance 0 to 25 kg/cm2
• Low shear strength
•Field Vane shear test:
qu = 0.25 to 0.75 kg/cm2 (undisturbed)
= 0.06 to 0.4 kg/cm2 (remoulded)
•Sensitivity: 4-6
Stratigraphy

Below this, stiff to hard silty clay to 62-65 m depth

• SPT values 30-40+
• Refusal (N>100) below 54 m depth
• Cone tip resistance 30 to >200 kg/cm2
Hard organic peat to 70-75 m depth
• SPT >100
• Low bulk density – 1.4 g/cm3
• High shear strength
Hard white clay to 75 m depth
Pier 750
Pier 751
 Design Profile for Pier 751 Pile COL: 3 m
Depth, m c g SPT qc values
Soil Classification fº
From To T/m2 T/m3 values kg/cm2
0 3 Fill Ignored 1.60 - 0-4
Loose to medium dense silty
3 5 sand (liquefiable)
0 30 1.65 6-18 2-20

5 24 Very soft to soft silty clay 2.5 0 1.55 0-4 3-27

24 32 Firm-stiff silty clay 4.0 4 1.50 5-11 24-36
32 42 Stiff-very stiff silty clay 6.0 5 1.70 13-25 37-65
42 60 Very dense fine sand 0 32 1.85 50-80 -
60 74 Peat 14.0 4 1.40 > 85 -
74 75 Hard clay 20.0 6 1.90 40-60 -

Negative Skin friction considered between 5 and 24 m depth

Skin friction ignored in the liquefiable sand
 Computed Pile Capacities – 1500 mm dia

Computed Safe Pile Magnitude of

Pile
Capacities, Tonnes Negative Skin
Length
Pier Friction (in Remarks
below Compression Uplift ultimate capacity),
COL, m (FS=2.5) (FS=3.0) Tonnes
Pile tip in hard
50 430 277
clay
Pier
81.5
P750
Pile tip in
53 646 307
dense sand

52 561 281
Pier Pile Tip in
96.8
P751 dense sand
55 611 310
 Case Study - 2
Gravel-Boulder Deposits in the
foothills of Himalayas
Bein Bridge Jammu-Pathankot section of NH-1A

Pathankot Jammu
Bridge Details
Bridge Length : 259 m
No. of Spans : 10
No. of Abutments : 2
No. of Piers : 9
Span : 25.9 m
Average bed level of river : RL 368.5 m
Maximum scour level at Piers : RL 366.1 m
Bed protection was planned to limit possibility of scour
Proposed Founding level : RL 364.69 m (approx.
3.8 m below EGL)
View of Existing Bridge
View of River Bed

Note the large size pebbles / boulders on

the river bed

- See soil infilling between the pebbles

Boreholes in Gravel-Boulder Strata

• A driller’s nightmare, challenge to the geotechnical

engineer
• In strata with large size boulders (>150-200 mm),
and if percentage of boulders exceeds 40-50%,
progress of drilling could be very slow, result in
damage to drilling tools
• Collecting representative samples could be difficult
Boreholes in Gravel-Boulder Strata

• Standard methods given in IS: 1892-1979 such

as shell & auger method or rotary drilling may
be extremely slow or even fail
• Engineers have tried various methods or
combination of methods with varying degrees
of success
Various Drilling Methods

Percussion Drilling: Mechanized shell and auger

using heavy chisel to pulverize large boulders
• Slow, particularly if boulder size is large or hard to break
• Drilling problems related to advancing casing, withdrawal
of tools
• Excessive wear & tear, damage of equipment, tools
Rotary Drilling using TC / Diamond bits:
• If boulders slip or move under the drill bit, borehole may
not advance.
• Grouting has been reasonably successful, but requires a rest
period after every 2-4 m of drilling required to allow grout
to set
Various Drilling Methods

Large diameter holes (400-500 mm dia) using

piling equipment
• Cleaning hole effectively may be difficult
• Refusal in boulder strata
• High Cost
DTH Odex Drilling (Down-the-hole vibratory
hammer with simultaneous advancing of casing)
• Air flushing used to clean hole
• Progress is fast
• Boulders are pulverized, so representative sample is
not obtained
IS: 10042-1981 states that:

• Performance of boulder deposits under load is

a matter of intelligent guess
• It depends upon the size and quantity of gravel-
boulder, state of packing and also the nature
and amount of the filler
Behavior of Boulder Deposits under Load

• If quantum of filler material is less, the load carrying

capacity is high and the compressibility is low
• If there is substantial filler material in the interstices
of the boulders/gravel
• There is an initial high compression stage followed by
low compression stage when the load carrying capacity
is high
• After initial rapid settlement, the settlement decreases
considerably as the boulders take over the load-
carrying function
Investigation Methods

• Combination of boreholes and geophysical tests as

well as load tests can provide reasonable evaluation
of
• Site stratigraphy and
• Foundation behavior
• A fair assessment of safe bearing capacity can be
made
• Judicious selection of the testing methods can yield
substantial saving in cost of investigation and the
time required
Investigation method adopted

• Combination of DTH (odex) and percussion methods

• DTH to advance the hole with simultaneous
advancement of casing
• Percussion with chiseling to obtain representative
disturbed samples and to conduct SPT
• Supplement with electrical resistivity test
• Footing Load test (2.5 x 2.5 m size) to assess load
settlement behavior and SBC
Geotechnical Investigation - DTH & Percussion

Percussion DTH Odex

Drilling Rig Rig
Odex Drilling & Percussion Drilling

Percussion: Bailer being

DTH Drilling: Odex Bit and lowered to clean hole prior
casing being lowered in hole to sampling
Typical Borehole Data
• Site in the Foothills zone of
the Himalayas
• Alluvial deposition,
boulders / rounded
pebbles rolled down from
hills along with the river
and polished by water
action
• Stratigraphy: Boulders &
pebbles in sand matrix
with a clayey silt layer
between 7 and 9~13 m
depth
Geophysical Tests

• Geophysical tests can be used to assess continuity

of strata
• Electrical Resistivity Tests done at this site
• In boulders - soil matrix, cost & time saving can be
substantial - No. of bore holes, their depth can be
reduced
• Can be an effective investigation tool in conjunction
with borehole data to evaluate the stratigraphy
Schematic of Resistivity Test
Soil Resistivity Unit

Volt
Current Meter For Wenner
Meter Configuration,

Wenner Electrode
Battery Apparent Resistivity,

Configuration
ra = 2 p a V / I

I1 P1 I2
P2
a a a I1 and I2 are current
GL GL electrodes
A M N B
P1 and P2 are
potential electrodes
 Inverse Slope Method: Identification of Layers
 The range of resistivity
values could vary even for
r1 h1
similar nature of soils
depending upon
r2 h2  moisture content
r3  salinity
 level of groundwater
a / ra

Slope=1/ρ3  degree of compactness

Slope=1/ρ2
 mineralogy and other factors

Slope=1/ρ1
 Exercise caution in
interpretation
h1 h2
a  Compare and match with
available borehole data
Electrical Resistivity Test
a/
a/
a/
Footing Load Test - 2.5 x 2.5 m
Footing Load Test - 2.5 x 2.5 m
Analysis of Test Results

• Ultimate Bearing capacity exceeds 6.5 kg/cm2 (=

65T/m2), maximum applied test load
• Back calculated f value > 42º
• E value interpreted from footing load test = 8875
T/m2
• Consolidation parameters of clay stratum selected
from lab tests
 Analysis of Test Results
• Settlement of prototype foundation is computed using
Terzaghi’s equation
2
Sf  Bf ( Bp  0.3) 
  Bp ( Bf  0.3) 
Sp  
• Modulus of subgrade reaction computed from test
used to calculate E as per the equation

E
k=
B(1-m 2 )
 Design Profile - Foundation Analysis
Bearing capacity analysis: c = 0 f = 40º

Depth, m
Soil g, E, pc,
e0 cc1 cc2
Classification T/m3 T/m2 T/m2
From To

Boulders / gravel
0 5.0 1.90 6000 - - - -
with sand

Clayey silt,
5.0 8.0 2.00 1200 30 0.68 0.015 0.20
medium plastic

Boulders / gravel
8.0 15.0 2.20 9000 - - - -
with sand
Foundation Design

• Foundation safe for Design Bearing Pressure of

25 T/m2

• Estimated Settlement for 8-10 m size foundation:

24.3 mm
 Case Study - 3
Liquefaction of Loose Sands at
a Power Plant in Delhi
108 MW Gas Based Power Plant

• Site in northern part of Delhi city

• Alluvial Plains of River Yamuna
• Earthquake Zone IV as per IS 1893-2002
• Facilities planned include STG, GTG, Steam
Turbine, Boiler, Chimney, Cooling Water System,
Switchyard, etc.
• Loose sands to 8 m depth prone to liquefaction
during major earthquakes
Detailed Geotechnical Investigation

• 15 boreholes – 30 m depth
• 6 static cone penetration tests
• SASW tests along 8 lines
• 3 cross-hole seismic tests
Layout Plan

Exploratory Boreholes
Electrical Resistivity Test
Cone Penetration Test
Cross-hole Seismic Test
Typical Borehole Data

• Loose surficial fill to 1-

2 m depth
• Natural deposits
primarily fine sand /
silty sand with
intermediate layers of
sandy silt
• Groundwater at 5.2–6.4
m depth
SPT using Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT Profile

N<15
11 m
SCPT Profile

Loose
11 m

0 - 10 m depth qc = 8-10 MPa

10 - 14 m depth qc = 8-16 MPa
14 - 16 m depth qc = 4-8 MPa
16 - 18 m depth Refusal
Schematic: Cross-Hole Seismic Test
CHST in progress – Data Acquisition
SASW test in progress

Sledgehammer as source Receiver Geophone

Shear Wave Velocities
Shear Wave Velocity: Design Profile

• Vs = 135-180 m/s to 5 m depth

= 200-240 m/s to 10 m depth
= 250-315 m/s to 30 m depth
• Vs from SASW were 10-20%
higher than from CHST
• Both methods indicate
relatively lower velocities to
8~9 m depth
Liquefaction Analysis

• Youd & Idriss (2001) – NCEER Summary Report

• Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)
• Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
• IS: 1893 (Part 1) - 2016
• Factor of Safety = CRR / CSR
• For this project, Factor of Safety against liquefaction
specified as 1.2
CSR & CRR – SPT
CSR & CRR – SCPT
CSR & CRR – Vs
Factor of Safety against Liquefaction
Engineering Solutions

• For critical / heavily-loaded facilities such as TG,

Boiler, Chimney, etc.
• Bored Piles – 600 mm diameter, extending well
below the liquefiable zone
• For medium-loaded facilities such as
Clariflocculator, Cooling Towers, etc.
• Ground Improvement by vibro-replacement
(stone columns)
Safe Pile Capacities – 600 mm diameter

• Pile cut off level: 3 m Pile Length: 18 m

• Normal Condition
• Compression : 810 KN
• Uplift : 480 KN
• Seismic Condition
• Compression : 740 KN
• Uplift : 420 KN
• Factor of Safety : 2.5
• For seismic condition, skin friction in liquefiable
zone was ignored
Vibro-Replacement

• Dry Vibro Stone columns installed by bottom-feed

method
• 500 mm dia extending to 10 m depth
• Centre-to-centre spacing: 1.5 m
• Design Net Bearing Pressure: 160 kPa
Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests

After Compaction
• Blow Counts exceed 15
below 2 m depth
• Substantial improvement in
penetration resistance
• Medium dense to 5 m depth
• Dense below 5 m depth
• Improved soils not
likely to liquefy during
earthquake
Load Test on Vibro-Column
Load Test on Improved Ground

• 300 mm thick sand pad placed

over the vibrio stone columns
• Test plate size 1.5 m x 1.5 m
with stiffeners
• Load applied cyclically
• 1st cycle to 250 kPa
• 2nd cycle to 500 kPa
• FOUNDATIONS SAFE FOR
160 kPa
 Case Study - 4
Stabilization of a Failed Hill-slope in
Uttarakhand
Cloudburst in 2013

• Triggered several landslides along the Rudraprayag-

Badrinath section of NH-58
• Case Study of one landslide along the highway on
the bank of River Alaknanda
• Scope includes
• Boreholes
• Seismic Refraction Tests
• Geotechnical Characterization of the landslide
• Engineering solutions to mitigate distress and to
ensure safety of the highway
Satellite Image of Site & Test Locations

• Two boreholes and one SRT conducted along the existing highway
• One SRT conducted over overburden on the valley slope
Geological Setting

• The area belongs to the Lesser Himalayas - the

Central Crystalline Group
• It lies in a tectonic fore-deep
• It is sandwiched between North Almora Thrust and
Main Central Thrust
• Rocks comprise gneisses and quartzites which are
extremely deformed
• Rugged topography
• Moderate to steep slopes
• Intervening narrow valleys
• Overburden soils and fractured laminated rocks
• Area prone to landslides during heavy rains
Landslide - Soil & Gabion Wall movement

View of Hill slope showing landslide and movement of soil and gabion wall
View of River and Toe of Slope

Note the unfavorable dip of the rock erosion at the toe

Hill Slope Prone to Failure

• Landslide is located on the valley side of the highway

• High velocity and current of Alaknanda River
continuously erodes the toe of slope towards the
valley side
• This worsens the overall stability of the area inducing
conditions favorable for slide
• Main Central Thrust passes through the area in the
vicinity, making the region seismically active.
Boreholes in progress
Borehole Data

• Overburden:
• Boulders mixed with soil
(colluvial deposit) to 14-16
m depth below road level
• Mostly landslide material

• Rock: Quartzitic Mica Schist

Seismic Refraction Tests

Geophone

Data Acquisition
 Seismic Profile

• Three Layer Geophysical Model

• Layer 1: Overburden soils with boulders to 14-16 m depth – slide zone
• Layer 2: Fractured rock
• Layer 3: Hard Rock
 Seismic Profile
Elevation

Layer-1: Overburden with boulders (Vp= 400-600 m/s)

Layer-2: Fractured Rock

(Vp= 1200-1400 m/s)

• SRT performed on Valley side

Distance

• Layer 1: Overburden soils with boulders – slide zone

• Layer 2: Fractured rock
Rock Dip - Schematic
• Unfavorable dip of the rock
• Build-up of pore water
pressure behind the gabion
wall
• Movement of the rock mass
along the weak planes
• resulted in increased
instability of the area
• Erosion of the river bank
toe during heavy rains
• caused movement of
overburden along
slope
Displaced Gabion Wall
The landslide talus
Damaged Culvert on Valley side
Erosion on Toe Side
Remedial Measures

• Drainage: Improve drainage on hill-side and valley

side, channelize water flow effectively to limit build-
up of pore water pressure
• Strategically located culverts, catch-water drains, chute
drains
• Reinforced Soil Wall: Replace gabion wall on valley
side with properly designed RE wall
• Apron for Toe Wall: Gabion wall on toe shall protect
exposed toe and control erosion. Gabion mattress
shall protect the wall against scour and lowing debris
Concluding Remarks

• Geotechnical investigation in difficult ground

requires thorough understanding of the site
conditions
• Thorough knowledge of local conditions is essential
for proper assessment / interpretation
• If the ground condition throws up surprises, the
strata condition should be evaluated to work out a
solution
• May have to go beyond the conventional methods
and IS codes
Concluding Remarks

• In conjunction with boreholes, in-situ tests, load tests

and geophysical tests can confirm continuity of
strata, evaluate stratigraphy, and relevant
parameters
• The testing program should aim on saving on time
and cost of investigation while improving reliability
of data
• Ingenuity and careful planning, including
appropriate tests to evaluate the problem -should
make the investigation site-specific
Thank You for your kind attention

CENGRS GEOTECHNICA PVT LTD