CHAPTER 3

3. SUBSOIL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATIONS

CONSIDERATIONS
3.1. Introduction
In civil engineering, there are many types of structures ranging from earthen structures to high-rise
buildings. Does not matter the greatness of those structures, all of them are carried by the soil through
the foundation which is a structural element that transmits the load of superstructure to the soil. To
determine which foundation is suitable for the structure, particular care must be given to the knowledge
of the nature of the soil, its properties, the potential problems related to this soil, and the way to deal
with them. Accordingly in the scope of the CTC project, all factors stated above will be presented for the
chosen site located in the Gönyeli zone in North Cyprus.

3.2. Nature and properties of Gönyeli Soil

To determine the nature of the soil and its mechanical properties, many in situ and laboratory tests
should be performed using soil samples. Unfortunately, due to the unavailability of the university
laboratory, it is impossible to do these tasks but referring to the published researches documents about
the same topic, it is possible to get access to the information needed.

According a Standard Penetration Test conducted in the Gönyeli region in the capital Lefkosa of North
Cyprus, the nature of soil encountered in this zone is expansive clay soil. This result obtaining by a
Standard penetration test on which Soil samples were obtained by Rotary core drilling with a borehole
depth of up to 33 m. It was observed two layers of soil; the first one from the depth of 0 to 1.8 m which
is regarded as the topsoil and the second one from 1.8 to 33 m. The penetration from 1.8 to 3.0 m
revealed a uniform type of clay with high plasticity involving the tendency to shrink and swell when
exposed to the meteorological conditions of North Cyprus. In fact, clay soils are made up 40 % of water
and due to the presence of trees in this area, the quantity of water changes seasonally. Furthermore,
due to extreme weather occurs two phenomena called swelling and shrinkage which are respectively an
increasing and decreasing of the volume of clay soil caused by the changes of water content. Here below
are presented the results of SPT test in Gönyeli region and the laboratory results of tests done. Some
correlation will be presented which led to determine further properties of the soil.
Standard penetration test in Gönyeli region
Sieve analysis of soil done for sampling between 0.27 – 0.47 m of depth

Sieve analysis of soil done for sampling between 3.36 – 3.55 m of depth
Results of Atterberg limits test for sampling between 0.27-0.47 m of depth
 Results of Atterberg limits test for sampling between 3.30-3.55 m of depth

For the sieve analysis and the results of Atterberg limits test, the nature of the soil is given by the table
below.

Note:

PL is the plasticity limit of soil

LL is the liquidity limit of soil

PI =¿−PL is the index plasticity of soil

Composition and Atterberg Limits of Gönyeli soil samples

Depth of Material
% Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay PL LL PI
sampling Description
0.27 - 0.47 m 1 55 44 Silty Clay soil 24 58 34
3.36 - 3.55 m 1 48 51 Silty Clay soil 30 71 41
Relationships between the swelling potential and plasticity index of soil proposed by Gibbs and Holtz in
1956 are shown in the table below. The parameters shown in this table enable for finding the swelling
behavior of clay soils

Swelling potential and plasticity index relationships

(Holtz and Gibbs, 1956).
Swelling potential Plasticity index
Low 0 – 15
Medium 10 – 35
High 20 – 55
Very high 35 and above

Holtz and Gibbs relationships led to the followed results for Gönyeli clay soil.

Classification of swelling potential of samples

Depth of Sampling PI Swelling potential

0.27 - 0.47 m 34 High
3.36 - 3.55 m 41 Very High

From now, all results of 0.27 - 0.47 m sampling will be considered for the top layer and those for 3.36 -
3.55 m sampling depth will be considered for the second silty clay layer.

3.2.1. Determination of soil properties by using the SPT results

The first step before computing any engineering property is the correction of SPT value N.

Correction of SPT value for field procedures

On the basis of field observations, it appears reasonable to standardize the field SPT number
as a function of the input driving energy and its dissipation around the sampler around the
surrounding soil. The variations in testing procedures may be at least partially compensated
by converting the measured N to N60 as follows (Skempton, 1986)
η H η B ηs η R N
N 60=
60
Where:

η H : Hammer efficiency in %

η B: Borehole diameter correction

η S: Sampler correction

η R: Role length correction

N : Measurement of SPT N- value in field

Variation of η H ,η B , ηH and η R (Source: Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 9 th edition, pp 86)

Since this correction must be done and due to the lack of information, a guess will be made in order to
do this correction as follows.

- Hammer type: Japan, Donut-free fall (η H =78)

- Borehole diameter: 60 – 120 mm (η B=1.0 )
- Rod length > 10 m since the depth of borehole is 33 m (η R=1.0 )
- Sampler with liner for sand and clay (η S=0.8 )

( 78 ) ( 1.0 )( 1.0 ) ( 0.8 ) N

Accordingly, N 60= =1.04 N
60
Corrected values of N (N 60 )

Depth of boring SPT value- N (Blows per 30 cm) N 60=1.04 N

0.20 m 24 25
3.00 m 7 7
( N ¿¿ 60)average ¿ 16

Since the soil is clayed, no need to do an overburden pressure correction and due to the lack of water,
there is not any water correction to do for N-values even if N>15 for silt soils.

The correlation between N 60 value, the consistency index and the unconfined compression strength of
clay soils is shown in the table below as follows.
 Penetration Resistance and Soil Properties on the Basis of SPT (Cohesive Soil) (Peck et. al.
1974; Bowles)
16 to
SPT N-value 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 >32
32
very very
Consistency soft medium stiff hard
soft stiff
Unconfined Compressive 25 to 50 to 100 to 200 to
kPa 0 to 25 >400
stress q u 50 100 200 400
Unit Weight Saturated 15.7 to 17.3 to 18.1 to 18.8 to
kN/m3 <15.7 >20.4
γ sat 18.8 19.6 20.4 22.0

For Clay soils, the same authors proposed the following correlation to compute the angle of internal
friction φ and the unconfined compressive stress q u given by:

Φ=27+0.3 ( N 1 ) 60

q u=12.5 N 60

qu
The undrained shear stress c uof cohesive soil can be computed as c u=
2
Moreover, a correlation between the saturated unit weight γ sat of cohesive soil and the SPT- value N 60 is
given as:

γ sat =16.8+0.15 N 60

A summary table shown all those parameters is presented here below:

Summary table of q u , c u , N 60 , ϕ , γ sat and the soil consistency

Depth
Soil
of N 60 Consistency q u (kPa) c u(kPa) ϕ (°) γ sat (kN/m3)
Layer
boring
Top
0.20 m 25 Very stiff 312.5 156.25 34.5 20.55
layer
Bottom
3.00 m 7 Medium 87.5 43.75 29.1 17.85
layer

The observation of undrained cohesive shear stress of both soil layers show that the top soil is stronger
( c u )top layer
than the bottom one since >1 .
( c u )bottom layer
As any test in order to determine the bulk unit weight of soil, a first approximation is going to be made
for this problem.

γ
γ¿ ≈ and knowing that γ ¿ =γ sat −γ w
2
→ γ =2( γ sat −γ w )
Where,

- γ ¿: submerged unit weight of soil

- γ : bulk unit weight of soil
- γ w =9.81 kN/m3: unit weight of water
3
For the top soil layer γ=2 ( 20.55−9.81 ) = 21.48 kN/m3≥ γ sat =20.55 KN / m (No)
3
Since γ ≥ γ sat , the bulk unit weight will be reduced to 20.55 KN/m 3 ( γ=γ sat =20.55 KN /m
3
For the bottom soil layer γ=2 ( 17.85−9.81 ) = 16.08 kN/m3 ≤ γ sat =17.85 K /m (OK)

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested two approximate correlations to compute the over consolidation
'
ratio and the preconsolidation pressure σ c of clay soils.

N 60 pa
OCR=0.58 '
σo
'
σ c =0.47 N 60 p a
Where:

- pa=100 kPa : Atmospheric pressure

σ o=∑ γZ : Effective stress in the soil at a depth Z

'

At the middle of soil layer

Depth of ' '
Soil Layer N 60 γ (kN/m3) σ o (kPa) σ c ( kPa) OCR
layer
Top layer 0-1.8 m 25 20.55 18.495 1175 78.4
Bottom layer 1.8 -33 m 7 16.08 287.838 329 1.4

-Consolidation index C c

Skempton (1944) gave an empirical correlation for the compression index in which

C c =0.009(¿−10)

-Swelling index C s

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) have shown that:

 PI ( %)
C s=
370
- Elasticity modulus of soil

A correlation based on SPT allows to determine the Young modulus of a silty clay is expressed as
follows:

E s=300(N 55 +6)

The author Bowles suggested to multiply this empirical relationship by the factor √ OCR (the root
square of the over consolidation ratio) in order to take in account of the consolidation of the soil
because the formula presented above is intended to compute the Young modulus E s for normally
consolidate soils. Accordingly,

E s=300 ( N 55 +6 ) √ OCR

Knowing the relationship between N 60 and N 55 which is N 55= ( 5560 ) N 60, the modulus of Elasticity of

the Soil can be rewritten as:

E s=300 ( 5560 N +6) √ OCR

60

The results are presented in the table below for both soil layers.

Layer Depth SPT value N 60 OCR E s (KPa)

Top layer 0-1.8 m 25 78.4 76 812
Bottom layer 1.8 -33 m 7 1.4 4 407

Summary table of N 60, PL, LL, PI, C c, C s and E s parameters of soil layers

Soil Layer N 60 PL LL PI Cc Cs E s (kPa)

Top Layer 24 24 58 34 0.432 0.092 76 812
Bottom Layer 7 30 71 41 0.549 0.111 4 407

The allowable bearing capacity of the soil will be determined while the designing of foundation of CTC
building will be done.

3.3. Considerations in design of foundation in expansive clay soil

The soil encountered in the site is a silty clay soil which is problematic, a judicious choice of foundation
has to be done in order to avoid failure of building after construction due to the cycle of swelling-
shrinkage leading to an important differential settlement causing the occurrence of cracks all over the
building. This phenomenon can also lead to the heave of light buildings. However, the CTC is 4 story
building and no matter to be scared about a potential lifting of building.
The solution of foundation choice is not just to find a suitable foundation which satisfies only both
geotechnical and structural requirements but it must be an economical solution. In the study [ Special
Considerations in Design of Foundation in Problematic Soils by Kenechi Kurtis
Onochie, Alireza Rezaei] conducted in the Haspolat region at Nothern Cyprus shown that raft
foundation is an effective solution to use when a building is to be constructed in expansive soil since it
can withstand large differential settlement of building. However, this solution not economical. The
author of this study explained that pad foundation can also be used with an expectation of small
differential movement of building. In the case where the expansive soil has a high plasticity, pile
foundation can be used as solution. In fact, these recommendations can be followed too for the design
of a foundation in Gonyeli region due to the same nature of soil encountered in this area.

Indeed, in this step of the project, it is not possible to decide the type of foundation. The choice and the
design of foundation will be made after determining the load transmitted by the superstructure to the
foundation. In the section which is going to be dedicated to this task, first a geotechnical analysis of the
foundation will be carried out followed by the structural design of the foundation.

3.4. Soil and foundations requirements according the Turkish Standard

Before designing the foundation, it is mandatory to define an approach to do it. Actually, the chosen site
being located in the North Cyprus, buildings are to be design in accordance to Turkish Standard which is
the design code used in this area.

The type of construction adopted for CTC building is a reinforced concrete building, accordingly the
Turkish Standard part which deals with such a structure is the TS500 and for loading considerations for
the design purpose the TS498 will be used. As recall, North Cyprus is an Earthquake zone accordingly
TS500 specifies that the SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT IN DISASTER AREAS must be
used in addition of TS500. In fact, the Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas is the
third part of the Turkish Earthquake code which is provided by the Ministry of Public Works and
settlement.

3.4.1. Earthquake resistant design requirements for foundation soils conditions

The design of foundation according the Turkish Earthquake Standard require that certain requirements
be satisfied. Each requirement is presented below one after another below.

3.4.1.1. Seismic zone of site location

The first requirement in order to start the design process in accordance the Turkish Earthquake code is
the definition of the seismic zone of the site location. In the picture shows below is the seismic zoning
map of Cyprus on which Lefkosa, the capital of North Cyprus where is located the building site is in the
yellow area that is the seismic zone 2.
 Figure 3.5: Seismic zoning map of Cyprus

3.4.1.2. Soil group and local site class

Based on the results obtained from the soil analysis of soil, the soil group and the local site class have to
be defined in accordance of Turkish Earthquake code. The table below figures out the criteria that a soil
must satisfied in order to belong to a soil group. Based on the average number of blows obtained by SPT
test N average =16 and the nature of the soil which is a silty clay, the soil is classified in Group B.

The site of construction is classified in the Group Z2 since the topmost thickness layer hl is 1.8 m and the
soil group of soil is Group C. Accordingly, the site chosen for the CTC project is classified in the local site
class Z2 referring to the requirement given in the table referred to as Local site classes.

Soil Groups
 Local site classes

Local Site Soil Group according to soil group table and

Class Topmost Soil Layer Thickness (h1)
Group (A) soils
Z1
Group (B) soils with h1 £ 15 m
Group (B) soils with h1 > 15 m
Z2
Group (C) soils with h1 £ 15 m
Group (C) soils with 15 m < h1 £ 50 m
Z3
Group (D) soils with h1 £ 10 m
Group (C) soils with h1 > 50 m
Z4
Group (D) soils with h1 > 10 m
- Importance factor

Based on the Turkish standard code for earthquake, the CTC which is a commercial building has an
importance factor I = 1.2 (Intensively but short occupied buildings).

- Structural system behavior factor R

CTC is a casting-in site reinforced concrete building which the structural system comprises only frames.
As specified, the importance factor of CTC I is 1.2 and the location of CTC is the Gonyeli region which is in
the seismic zone 2 of Cyprus and the CTC’s height is less than 16 m. Based on these characteristics, the
building can be categorized according the Turkish standard code for earthquake building as a system of
nominal ductility level. Accordingly, based on the table below the structural system behavior factor R for
CTC building is 4 (R= 4).

Structural system behavior factor R

Kenechi Kurtis Onochie, Alireza Rezaei, “ Special Considerations in Design of Foundation in

Problematic Soils”, May 2016, 3rd International Balkans Conference on Challenges of Civil Engineering, 3-
BCCCE, Epoka University, Tirana, Albania, pp 326-333
4. Foundation design
4.1. Geotechnical design of foundation
The design of foundation is an important step in a construction project which come after the design of
columns, beams, slabs and others structural elements. When the design of all those structural elements
done, the structural analysis of the structure is performed, this leads to the determination of support
reactions which will be use as input parameters for the design of the foundation.

Based on engineering properties computed while the soil analysis, the bearing capacity and the
settlement of the building will be computed, accordingly, the safe bearing pressure will be determined
for foundation and this parameter will be important in the choice of the type of the foundation to be
used.

To start, an analysis will be performed by considering a spread footing as chosen. The maximum and
minimum service load of foundation will be determined, following by the estimation of the depth of
foundation. Those preliminary steps done, an analysis of settlement will be performed on the foundation
by using the maximum service load, this analysis will lead to the calculation of the bearing capacity. After
this step, a bearing capacity analysis will be performed to determine the allowable bearing capacity by
using this time the minimum service load. At the end of this analysis the minimum value of bearing
capacity computed by those methods will be considered as safe bearing pressure for the structural
design of foundation. The safe bearing pressure will help to compute the section of footing of all
columns, if the total of area of all footing is greater than 50 % of the footing area, then mat foundation
could be used instead of spread or isolated footing.

4.2. Spread footing (Isolated foundation)

4.2.1. Determination of the foundation depth
The first task here, is to determine the maximum and the minimum axial load (service load) of columns.
From Etabs 19.1 software, the details of loads are presented as follows:

- SERVICE LOAD: (DL+LL)

 - Design load (1.4 DL +1.6 LL)

The column which has the maximum axial (F ¿¿ z )¿ load (service load) is the column 101:

Pservice =3968.1249 KN

Pdesign =5801.3808 KN

Service load Design load

Fx 7.7093 KN 10.659 KN
Fy 48.6045 KN 72.3447 KN
Fz 3968.1249 KN 5801.3806 KN
Mx -75.1926 KN-m -112.0101 KN-m
My 14.5816 KN-m 20.5001 KN-m
Mz 0.3678 KN-m 0.5363 KN-m

The column which has the minimum axial (F ¿¿ z )¿ load (service load) is the column 17:
 Pservice =721.4676 KN

Pdesign =1042.259 KN

Load Service load Design load

Fx -10.5229 KN -15.3054 KN
Fy -7.9202 KN -11.5676 KN
Fz 721.4676 KN 1042.259 KN
Mx 10.1116 KN-m 14.7681 KN-m
My -14.0079 KN-m -20.3835 KN-m
Mz 0.0265 KN-m 0.0387 KN-m

Column 97 and 1677 are not considered because their axial loads are too low compared to others
columns.
MINIMUM DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT FOR
SQUARE AND RECTANGULAR FOOTINGS

Based on the table above from Foundation design: principles and practices book (Donald P Coduto,
William A. Kitch and Man-Chu Ronald Yeung), the depth of the foundation can be estimated for a spread
footing based on the range of loads. The range of load for CTC building is 721.4676 KN -3968.1249 KN,
accordingly the depth of foundation D f can be estimated to 1m.

4.2.2. Analysis of foundation based on settlement

In this step, the analysis of footing has done based on the maximum load service column and by
considering the limit of allowable total settlement and the allowable differential settlement. The purpose
of this section is to determine the stress of the foundation at which the total settlement is reached and
the differential settlement keep in the tolerable limits. For this task, the software GEO5 2022 has been
used to performed this analysis. The input data have been already presented while the soil analysis was
done. However, the inputs on the software will be shown.

The total allowable settlement for office building foundation is estimated between 25 and 50 mm but in
this analysis for isolated footing, 25 mm which is the common value (see the table below) will be used
has total allowable settlement.
 TYPICAL ALLOWABLE TOTAL SETTLEMENTS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

For the settlement calculations, the Poisson ratio ν is estimated to be 0.35 and the initial void ratio
e o=0.80 for the silty clay soil.

Analysis of spread footing by GEO 5

-Setting parameters
-Definition of methods of analysis for spread footing and settlement
-Setting of soil profile
-Setting of top soil layer information

-Setting of bottom soil layer information

-Assigning of soil to different layers

-Setting of foundation type

-Setting of load case (service and design loads)

-Settlement analysis

-Geometry of footing
-Bearing capacity analysis

After analysis, a total settlement equal to 25 mm is reached for a square foundation of width B = 28 m
which is unacceptable. Don’t need to performed more analysis in order to determine the safe bearing
pressure for isolated footing. Accordingly, spread footing can’t be used for the CTC building. The
alternative of foundation to be used is a mat foundation.

4.3. MAT/RAFT FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

- Foundation Dimensions

The structural plan of the CTC building has been provided below:

B= 29.14 m + 0.40 m = 29.54 m (width of the foundation)

L= 29.15 m + 0.40 m = 29.55 m (length of the foundation)

At the edges of foundation 40 cm are added in order to allow to the edges and corners columns to be
inside the foundation.

- Foundation Loads
Pservice =¿ 48074.3675 KN (Total service load)

Pdesign =¿ 69918. 9391 KN (Total design load)

- Settlement of mat foundation

The total allowable settlement used in the design of raft foundation (O’Brien, 2012, Skempton and
MacDonald 1956) in clay soil is 100 mm which is greater than the one provided by Terzaghi and Peck
(1948) i.e 50 mm for raft foundation. For this project the total allowable settlement which will be used is
δ a=100 mm . Beyond the total settlement, the differential settlement needs to be checked while the
design.

- Bearing capacity of mat foundation

In order to check to compute the safe bearing pressure of the mat foundation and the settlement, the
software GEO5 2022 will be used for this task. Unless the load case (this time the analysis is performed
by considering only axial force columns on the foundation) and the geometry of foundation, all the input
data stay the same in GEO5. The results of the analysis are presented as follows:

Setting of load case

Setting of geometric parameters of mat foundation

Bearing capacity analysis

 Settlement analysis of mat foundation

The above analysis showed:

The vertical ultimate bearing capacity of mat foundation q ult =319.45 kPa

The vertical allowable bearing capacity of mat foundation q all =101.63 kPa

The Factor of safety for the vertical bearing capacity FS = 3.12

The settlement of mat foundation δ=514.3 mm ≥ δ a=100 mm (Not acceptable)

Depth of influence zone = 18.40 m.

This analysis showed an excessive settlement of the soil due to the building is carried by a strong silty
clay soil underlayed by a weak silty clay soil. Due to the size of foundation the influence zone extents to
the weak soil layer reducing the bearing capacity of the soil and increasing excessively the settlement.
Accordingly, the mat foundation is not a suitable foundation for the building. One solution to be used in
order to reduce the settlement is to use the pile foundation. The skin pile foundation is an excellent
alternative because the weak soil layer is thick and according to the soil analysis, any bedrock is observed
under the silty clay soil layers for transferring the foundation load to this strong stratum.