Geotechnical Investigation for

Infrastructure Projects

Dr. Jayamohan.J
Principal
LBS Institute of Technology for Women
Thiruvananthapuram

1
 Contents
• Geotechnical Investigation

• Municipal Shopping Complex for Panmana Grama

Panchayath

• Literacy Building, Thiruvananthapuram

• Design of Canal Protection System for the Third Reach

of Vadakara – Mahi Canal

• Design of a Reinforced Soil Wall with Gabion Facing for

a Slope Failure Site at Kumarapuram

• Rejuvenation of Karimadom Tank

 Geotechnical Investigation

• Geotechnical investigations are performed

by geotechnical engineers

• to obtain information on the physical properties of soil

and rock around a site

• to design earthworks and foundations for proposed

structures and for repair of distress to earthworks and
structures caused by subsurface conditions
Geotechnical Investigation
 Geotechnical Investigation

• A geotechnical investigation will include surface

exploration and subsurface exploration of a site.

• Sometimes, geophysical methods are used to obtain

data about sites.

• Subsurface exploration usually involves soil sampling

and laboratory tests of the soil samples retrieved.
Municipal Shopping Complex for Panmana
Grama Panchayath
Typical Floor Plan
Elevation
Rotary Boring
Rotary Boring
Rotary Boring
Drilling Bit for Rotary Boring
Three Boreholes up to 20 m depth
Borelog
Recommendations
Recommendations
Measurement of Field Density after Densification
Strip Footing
Layout
Section of Footing
Literacy Mission Building, Thiruvananthapuram
 Literacy Mission Building, Thiruvananthapuram

• Four Storied Building

• Three Boreholes were taken up to Bed rock level

 Details of Rock Samples

IS
Depth to weathered rock stratum, classificati

Water table level from existing

on based
Depth to soft rock stratum, m
Details of rock samples
Maximum depth of boring, m

Depth to medium hard rock

on RQD
IS:13365(
1)-1998
Site Location No.

Depth Depth Total Total no of Core Rock recovery RQD, %

ground level, m
Borehole No:

of rock, core pieces lengths(smalle ratio or core

stratum,m

cm length r lengths not recovery, %

Fro To obtain written here),
m ed, cm cm
m

31.0 29.5 30.0 1.20 29.5 30.0 50 28 2++ 15,10,++ 56 50 Fair

0 0 0 0 0
BH-01

30.0 31.0 100 90 7 25,22,12,8.5,8 90 59 Fair

0 0 .5,9,5
35.2 32.2 33.2 1.40 32.2 33.2 100 Nil ++ ++ 0 0 Very Poor
Figure 1

0 0 0 m 0 0
BH-02

33.2 35.2 200 36 7++ 9,3,1,4,7,6,5,+ 18 0 Very Poor

0 0 +
31.5 29.4 30.5 1.40 29.4 30.5 110 Nil ++ 0 0 Very Poor
0 0 0 m 0 0
BH-03

30.5 31.5 100 5 1++ 5,++ 5 0 Very Poor

0 0
Load Carrying Capacity of Piles
Design of Canal Protection System for the
Third Reach of Vadakara – Mahi Canal
Vadakara- Mahi Canal

37
 Vadakara- Mahi Canal
• Part of Vision Vadakara 2025

• Canal will pass through Thiruvallur, Maniyoor, Villiyapilly,

Purameri, and Ayancherry in the in the Kuttiyadi
constituency

• Edacherry in the Nadapuram constituency

• Eramala and Azhiyoor in the Vadakara constituency.

38
 Vadakara- Mahi Canal

• The 17.6-km proposed Mahe-Vadakara canal is viewed

as a link to develop inland water transport in the State
while offering a fuel-efficient and economically viable
alternative to road transport

• It will be connected to the existing navigational link

called West Coast Canal stretching from the southern
end of Thiruvananthapuram district up to Kasaragod
district in the north

39
 Vadakara- Mahi Canal

• The NATPAC, in its techno-economic feasibility study,

said 16.6 per cent of the total goods traffic by road could
be diverted to the inland water transport system.

40
 Vadakara- Mahi Canal
• Connects Kuttiady river in South and Mahe river in North

• The formation of this Canal under the above reach has

been arranged utilizing the financial assistance under
13th F.C.

• But the work in deep cut portion between Ch: 458.470 to

459.270 Km is held up due to the loose nature of soil
and collapsing sides.

• As the alignment of canal in this reach passes through

hillocks and elevated terrains , the depth of cutting
involved is very high having a max. depth of 24 m.
41
Vadakara- Mahi Canal

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Location of Bore holes

51
52
53
Option 1 – Multi-level Anchored Secant Pile

54
Option 1 – Multi-level Anchored Secant Pile

55
Option 1 – Multi-level Anchored Secant Pile

56
Failure due to less passive pressure

57
Option 1 – Geobags in front of Secant Pile

58
Deformation 3.9 cm

59
Option 1 – Multi-level Anchored Secant Pile

60
Factor of Safety 2.6

61
Option 2 –Anchored Secant Pile at Lower Level and Gabion Wall at
Higher level

62
Option 2 –Anchored Secant Pile at Lower Level and Gabion Wall at
Higher level

63
Option 2 –Anchored Secant Pile at Lower Level and Gabion Wall at
Higher level

64
Option 2 –After Discretization

65
Option 2 –Maximum Deformation 5.6cm

66
Option 2 –Anchored Secant Pile at Lower Level and Gabion Wall at
Higher level

67
Option 2 –Bending Moment Diagram of Secant Pile

68
Option 2 –Shear Force Diagram of Secant Pile

69
Option 2 –Horizontal Force in Strut

70
Option 2 –Factor of Safety =2.4

71
Option 2 –Anchored Secant Pile at Lower Level and Gabion Wall at
Higher level

72
Secant Pile

73
Design of a Reinforced Soil Wall with Gabion Facing for a Slope
Failure Site at Kumarapuram

74
• A case study of the design of stabilization of a failed
slope by installing soil nails and constructing a
Reinforced Soil Wall with Gabion Facing.
• A 17 m high slope failure was triggered by the collapse
of an RCC Cantilever Retaining wall which occurred due
to a deep excavation made near to it in the adjacent
land.
• The existing house on the top of the slope was severely
damaged due to this failure.
• The design of slope stabilization was entrusted to the
Department of Civil Engineering, LBSITW.

75
Failure of Slope

76
Collapsed RCC Retaining Wall

77
Site Visit

78
 Introduction

• The existing house on the top of the slope was severely

damaged due to this failure.

• The design of slope stabilization was entrusted to the

Department of Civil Engineering, LBSITW.

79
Damaged House

80
Damaged House

81
82
 Geometric Profile

• The geometrical profile of the failure zone was mapped

by carrying out survey with total station

• Contours were plotted using the software LISCAD.

83
Surveying

84
Profile of Slope

85
Profile of failed Slope

86
Slope Profile

87
 Profile of failed Slope

• The failure surface was linear and vertical near the top
and parabolic towards the bottom.
• The collapsed loose soil was lying over the failure
surface at an angle of repose.
• The boundary of the land passed almost midway through
the failure surface
• Stability analysis carried out with the finite element
software PLAXIS 2D indicated that excavation for the
construction of Retaining Wall would trigger another
slope failure.

88
Geotechnical Investigation

89
 Geotechnical Investigation

• Geotechnical Investigation was carried out to determine

the details of various soil strata and its properties.

• Three boreholes were drilled; one at the top of the slope

and two at the bottom.

• Rotary Boring Method

90
91
92
Finite Element Analysis

93
 Design Considerations

• The failure surface needs to be stabilized by driving soil

nails

• The soil nail installation and removal of loose soil lying

on the failure surface must be carried out simultaneously
in stages of one metre depth till the boundary of the land.

94
 Design Considerations

• After the completion of soil nailing and removal of loose

soil, a three tier reinforced soil retaining wall with Gabion
facing is proposed to be constructed.

• The backfill is of locally available lateritic soil compacted

to 90% Proctor Density and will be reinforced with
uniaxial geogrid

95
 Design of Soil Nails

• Initial Soil Nail Wall Considerations

• Preliminary Design

• Final Design

96
 Initial Soil Nail Wall Considerations

• Wall Layout – wall height, Length of wall, back slope, wall face
batter

• Soil Nail spacing- vertical and horizontal – 1.25 to 2 m

• Soil Nail pattern on wall face – square, staggered, irregular

• Soil Nail inclination – 10 to 20 degrees – 15 degrees

• Soil nail length

• Soil Nail Materials

97
 Preliminary Design

• For the specific drilling method and soil condition –

choose the ultimate bond strength

• Determine tensile force developed in nails at each depth

• Diameter of steel bar

• Minimum soil nail length

98
Maximum axial force in each nail
Depth of Nail, Axial Force developed
Nail No.
Z(m) in Nail, T(kN)
1 0.75 20.96
2 1.75 26.90
3 2.75 32.84
4 3.75 38.78
5 4.75 44.72
6 5.75 50.66
7 6.75 56.60
8 7.75 62.54
9 8.75 68.48
10 9.75 74.42
11 10.75 80.36
12 11.75 86.30
13 12.75 92.24
14 13.75 98.18
15 14.75 104.12
16 15.75 110.06
17 16.75 116.00
18 17.75 121.94
99
Allowable axial force carrying capacity of nails at different levels

Allowable axial
Effective Pull- Nail Pull-out Nail Tensile
Nail Depth of force carrying
out Capacity, Capacity,
No. Nail, Z(m) capacity of nail,
Length,Lp(m) Rp(kN) RT(kN)
Tall(kN)

1 0.75 2.115 51.82 245.44 51.82

2 1.75 2.615 64.07 245.44 64.07
3 2.75 3.115 76.32 245.44 76.32
4 3.75 3.615 88.57 245.44 88.57
5 4.75 4.115 100.82 245.44 100.82
6 5.75 4.615 113.07 245.44 113.07
7 6.75 5.115 125.32 245.44 125.32
8 7.75 5.615 137.57 245.44 137.57
9 8.75 6.115 149.82 245.44 149.82
10 9.75 6.615 162.07 245.44 162.07
11 10.75 7.115 174.32 245.44 174.32
12 11.75 7.615 186.57 245.44 186.57
13 12.75 8.115 198.82 245.44 198.82
14 13.75 8.615 211.07 245.44 211.07
15 14.75 9.115 223.32 245.44 223.32
16 15.75 9.615 235.57 245.44 235.57
17 16.75 10.115 247.82 245.44 245.44
18 17.75 10.615 260.07 245.44 245.44
100
 Final Design

• Check for External Failure – Global Stability, Sliding

Stability, Basal heave or bearing Capacity

• Check for internal failure – Soil-nail pullout failure, Nail

tensile failure

• Facing Design

101
 Design Results

• Spacing of nails – 1m, horizontal and vertical

• Inclination 15 degrees
• Length 10.5m
• Diameter of drill hole 130mm
• Diameter of steel rod 25mm
• Grout for soil nail -cement grout with water cement ratio
ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 - with min 28days characteristic
compressive strength of 20MPA
• Cibex100 or equivalent shall be added to reduce
bleeding and grout shrinkage.

102
Factor of Safety against Pull-out Failure (FSP) and
Tensile Failure (FST)
Nail Pull-out Nail Tensile Axial Force
Nail No. Capacity, Capacity, developed in FSP FST
Rp(kN) RT(kN) Nail, T(kN)

1 51.82 245.44 20.955 2.47 11.71

2 64.07 245.44 26.895 2.38 9.13
3 76.32 245.44 32.835 2.32 7.47
4 88.57 245.44 38.775 2.28 6.33
5 100.82 245.44 44.715 2.25 5.49
6 113.07 245.44 50.655 2.23 4.85
7 125.32 245.44 56.595 2.21 4.34
8 137.57 245.44 62.535 2.20 3.92
9 149.82 245.44 68.475 2.19 3.58
10 162.07 245.44 74.415 2.18 3.30
11 174.32 245.44 80.355 2.17 3.05
12 186.57 245.44 86.295 2.16 2.84
13 198.82 245.44 92.235 2.16 2.66
14 211.07 245.44 98.175 2.15 2.50
15 223.32 245.44 104.115 2.14 2.36
16 235.57 245.44 110.055 2.14 2.23
17 247.82 245.44 115.995 2.14 2.12
18 260.07 245.44 121.935 2.13 2.01
103
 FE Analyses to check Global Stability

 Stage 1:

Without Nail With Nail

FoS – 1.607 FoS – 1.910

104
 FE Analyses to check Global Stability

 Stage 2:

With Nail
Without Nail
FoS – 2.218
FoS – 1.228
105
 FE Analyses to check Global Stability

 Stage 3:

Without Nail With Nail

FoS <1 FoS – 2.592

106
 FE Analyses to check Global Stability

 Stage 4:

Without Nail With Nail

FoS <1 FoS – 2.746

107
 FE Analyses to check Global Stability

 Stage 5:

Without Nail With Nail

FoS <1 FoS – 2.407

NB: Coordinates of each stage and nails - ..\coordinates.xlsx

108
Design Section

109
Soil Nails

110
Gabion Faced Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls

111
 Gabion Walls
• To reclaim the land – Three tiered Wall

• External Stability
• Outward Sliding,
• Overturning,
• Bearing Pressure

• Internal Stability
• Tension in Geogrid,
• Pullout (Wedge Stability

112
 Design Considerations

• Uniaxial Geogrid
• Tensile Strength 200 kN/m
• Spacing 50 cm

113
 Designed
Gabion Wall

114
Stability calculations for Tier-1

115
Stability calculations for Tier-2

116
Stability calculations for Tier-3

117
Gabion Wall
– Tier 1

118
 Gabion
Wall- Tier
2&3

119
Connection between Geogrid and Soil Nail

120
Finite Element Analyses

121
122
Axial Force in Soil Nail

123
Bending Moment Diagram of Soil Nail

124
Shear Force in Soil Nail

125
Axial Force in Geogrid

126
Normal Stresses at Interface between Geogrid and Backfill

127
Shear Stresses at Interface between Geogrid and Backfill

128
Deformation of Lower tier Gabion Wall

129
Deformation of Mid tier Gabion Wall

130
Deformation of Upper tier Gabion Wall

131
 Estimate

• Soil Nails – 800 nos, 10.5 m each

• Gabion Wall – 680 Cu.m

• Geogrid – 7876 Sq.m

• Soil filling and Compacting – 3435 Cu.m

• Total Cost – 2.64 Crore

132
Rejuvenation of Karimadom Tank

133
 Study on Flood
Mitigation of
Thiruvananthapuram
by RITES

134
 Karimadom Colony

• Six acres in area – 3.5 acres only usable for habitation

• Remaining area – Drainage and Pond

• Severely affected during Floods

• Families are temporarily shifted to nearby Government

School during floods

135
 Karimadom Tank
• Designed as a Flood Cushion during floods
• But lost its characteristics due to unplanned settlements

136
137
138
Cost Estimate of Sheet Pile Wall

139
 Alternate Proposal

• The most economical and feasible solution would be

• To provide a stable slope to the banks and

• To reinforce it with Coir Geosynthetics for stability and

slope protection.

140
Alternate Proposal

141
 Questions are welcome
Thank you for your interest

Presented by:
Dr. Jayamohan.J
Principal
Lal Bahadur Shasthri Institute of Technology for Women
Thiruvananthapuram

142