GEOTECHNICAL

C
PARAMETERS:
T INFLUENCING FOUNDATION SYSTEMS

2
0
GUIDED BY: PROF PAVNI PANDYA AND

2 PROF CHANDRESH SOLANKI

TUTOR ASSISTANT: ANJAN PAREKH AND
KHUSHI SHAH

[Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

PREPARED BY: HERIL JAIN I UG190554

 GEOTECHNICAL CONCEPTS - MINDMAPS
Theoretical study of various
topics was done to get an
overview into the subject.
The topics which are studied
in mind map form are as
listed below:
1. Index properties of
soil
2. Soil classification
3. Atterberg’s limits
4. Geotechnical
investigation
5. Geophysical test
6. Geotechnical
exploration method
7. Field test
8. Penetration test

s
 SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE BORELOG:
FIELD BORE LOG SHEET (GROUP A)
Site Details: Dipen Bricks Village: Sanand Water table at depth: 2.75 m
Total drilled depth from EGL(m): 10 District: Ahmedabad Dia. Of Borehole: 200 mm
Co-Ordinate: 22°58'04.5"N 72°24'49.2"E State: Gujarat Day: Monday

Sr. No. Depth(m) Sample Type Observed N value Recovery (cm) Visual Description of Soil Strata

1 1.5 SPT 5 50-28=22 Brown colour, Silty sand with gravels

2 3 UDS - 50-13=37 Light brown colour, sand with gravel
3 4.5 SPT 4 50-14=36 Light brown colour, sand with gravel
4 6 UDS - No recovery Light brown colour, sand with gravel
5 7.5 SPT 35 50-13=37 Brown color, Clay with white gravels
6 9 UDS - 50-32=18 Brown colour, clay with white gravels, hard strata
7 10 UDS - 50-42=8 Brown colour, clay with white gravels, hard strata

1 2

Drilling of a borehole up to Tools used to do a bore

10 m using rig pulley system hole on site.
attached to bailer.

3 4 5

White gravels mixed with Lime mixed with soil found Removing the wax sealant
soil found from on-site at from on-site at 10 m depth. from shelby tube to
10 m depth. proceed upcoming tests.
 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
8 9 10

Triaxial Unconsolidated Performing out of wet sieve Taking out of soil from
Undrained test on a analysis to perform dry Shelby tube for performing
remould specimen to sieve analysis after 24 consolidation test.
obtain C-∅ parameters. hours.

6 7

Liquid limit test using Specific gravity test done

Casagrande method. using sand bath method.

LABORATORY RESULT:

LL: 30-35%, Ip: 10-15%

G: 2.5-2.6, Moisture content: 14-20%

CL- Low plasticity clay
C: 0.28 kg/cm2 , ∅: 15°
Depth: 0-3 m

LL: 25-30%, Ip: 10-15%

SC- Clayey sand
G: 2.5-2.6, Moisture content: 14-17%
Depth: 3-7.5 m

LL: 25-32%, Ip: 10-13%

G: 2.5-2.6, Moisture content: 14-21% CL- Low plasticity clay

C: 0.4-0.75 kg/cm2 , ∅: 9.2-26°, Cc: 0.32
Depth: 7.5-10 m
SOIL PROFILE
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
Diagram for shear criteria
Diagram for Settlement criteria.
Size of footing (L×B) (m) = 2×2
Depth of footing = 2m
FOR SHEAR CRITERIA:
Load 640
Pressure = Area = 2×2
= 160 kN/m2
C” = Cohesion kN/m2 Bearing capacity factors = Nc”, Nq”, Ny”, Shape factor = Sc, Sq, Sy
Depth factor = Dc, Dq, Dy, Inclination factor = Ic, Iq, Iy
Qu = (C" × Nc" × Sc × Dc × Ic) + (q × (Nq" − 1) × Sq × Dq × Iq) + (0.5 × B × γ × Ny" × Sy × Dy × Iy × W′) = 1136.8 kN/m2
Qu 1136.8
Factor of safety = 2.5 = 2.5
= 454.72 kN/m2 = Safe ultimate bearing capacity
Safe ultimate bearing capacity > Pressure applied therefore footing is safe for shear criteria.
FOR SETTLEMENT CRITERIA:
1−µ2
SI = 𝑞 × 𝐵 ( )I
𝐸𝑎𝑣𝑔 f
q = Applied pressure (160 kN/m2 ), B= width of footing (2 m), µ= Poisson’s ratio 0.32),
Eavg= Young’s modulus (8900 kN/m2 ), If= influence factor (0.95)
SI = 30.66 mm
H Δσ01 +σ01
Sc = Cc1 ∗ ∗ log( ) (for strata- CI)
1+e1 σ01
Cc = Compression index (0.32), H = Height of strata (1 m), e1 = void ratio of strata (0.58),
Δσ01 = Applied pressure (126.4 kN/m2 ), σ01= Over burden pressure (26.4 kN/m2 ) As per IS 1904 permissible
settlement limit for
Sc1= 77.22 mm = 77.22 mm (Including λ correction as is 1)
Isolated foundation for RCC
Depth factor =0.74, Rigidity factor = 0.8 structures in plastic clay is
75 mm so, this design is
Total settlement = (SI + Sc) × rigidity factor × depth factor = 63.87 mm
Safe from settlement.
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR SHEAR CRITERIA:
Load 10915
Pressure = = = 19.81 kN/m2
Area 19×29

Qu = (C" × Nc" × Sc × Dc × Ic) + (q × (Nq" − 1) × Sq × Dq × Iq) + (0.5 × B × γ × Ny" × Sy × Dy × Iy × W′) = 818.14 kN/m2
Qu 818.14
Factor of safety = 2.5 = 2.5
= 327.26 kN/m2 = Safe ultimate bearing capacity

Safe ultimate bearing capacity > Pressure applied therefore footing is safe for shear criteria.

FOR SETTLEMENT CRITERIA:

1−µ2
St = 𝑞 × 𝐵 (𝐸𝑎𝑣𝑔) If

q = Applied pressure (19.81 kN/m2 ), B= width of footing (19 m), µ= Poisson’s ratio (0.37),

Eavg= Young’s modulus (20800 kN/m2 ), If= influence factor (2.16)

Overburden at layer 1- CL
St = 33.73 mm

H Δσ01 +σ01
Sc = Cc ∗ 1+e ∗ log( σ01
)

For CL strata,

Cc = 0.25, H = 3.5 m, e1 = 0.877, Δσ01 = 17.11 kN/m2 , σ01= 56.51 kN/m2

Sc1= 55.68 mm

For CI strata,
As per IS 1904 permissible
Cc = 0.29, H = 3 m, e1 = 0.86, Δσ01 = 13.78 kN/m2 , σ01= 77.28 kN/m2 settlement limit for raft
foundation for RCC structures
Sc2= 32.8, (Sc1 + Sc2 × λ correction) = 87.6 mm
in plastic clay is 100 mm so,
Depth factor =0.97, Rigidity factor = 0.8 this design is Safe from

Overburden at layer 1- CI Total settlement = (SI + Sc1 + Sc2 ) × rigidity factor × depth factor = 94.15 mm settlement.
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR PILE IN ROCKY STRATA:

Considering pile size:

Diameter (m) = 0.45 m

Length (m) = 31 m

Type of piles: Driven cast in – situ

Q s = qc Nj Nd AP + qc πDLS αβ = 4784.4 kN = Net safe pile load capacity = Qb

n= 2, As load carried by group of piles > Load given, therefore its safe
As load carried by group of
Spacing between piles = 2.5 D = 1.13 m, n = 2, m = 1, 𝜃 = 21.8, ƞ = 0.88 piles > Load given, 8410 kN >
3400 kN, therefore its safe
Load carried by group of piles, Qug = 8410 kN

FOR PILE IN SOIL STRATA:

For High Plastic clay - CH – Layer 1,

Layer Depth = 7 m

Q f1 = αi × ci × As + K i × Pdi × Asi × tanθ (For granular + cohesive)

Coefficient of earth pressure K: 1 (∅ = 9.3°), Effective over burden pressure=

50.45 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 = σvf

σ𝑛 = 𝐾 × σvf = 50.45 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 , fs = σn × tan ∅ = 8.26 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2, AS = 9.89

m2

Q f1" = 81.7 kN (for granular)

fs = α × Cu = 44.5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 (α = 0.76), As = 9.89 𝑚2

Pile in rocky strata
Q f1′ = 440.2 kN (for cohesive)
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
Q f1 = Q f1′ + Q f1" = 440.2 + 81.7 = 521.7 kN

For Medium Plastic clay – CI – Layer2, Q f2 = Q f2′ + Q f2" = 517.31 kN

For Sandy clay – SC – Layer3, Q f3 = Q f3′ + Q f3" = 1630 kN

For Silty sand – SM – Layer4, Q f4 = Q f4′ + Q f4" = 776.1 kN

Q f = (81.7 + 440.2) + (154.23 + 363.08) + (1222.95 + 406.9) + 776.1 = 3564 kN

𝑄𝑓 3564
Factor of safety = 2.5 = 2.5
= 1425.7 𝑘N = Safe ultimate bearing capacity

End bearing in SM strata,

Q 𝑏 = AP (0.5 × D × y × Ny + Pd × Nq ) = 1590.8 kN

= Q 𝑏 + Q 𝑓 = 3016.5

Total safe ultimate load bearing capacity of piles = no. of piles ×Safe ultimate bearing capacity

=2× 3016.5 = 6033 kN

As load carried by group of piles > Load given, 6033 kN > 3400 kN, therefore its safe

Spacing between piles = 2.5 D = 1.13 m

Number of rows = 2

Number of piles in a row = 1

𝜃 = 21.8, ƞ = 0.88

Load carried by group of piles, Q ug = 5302.3 kN

Pile in soil strata

 SOIL IMPROVEMENT
SOIL IMPROVEMENT USING RICE HUSK ASH - RHA:

Literature study on Identifying Identifying

soil using RHA as an properties of soil properties of soil
additive without additive with additive

A literature study was It was observed through

carried out on the use different papers that 9% of RHA
of RHA as a chemical added in to total soil sample
admixture for soil mass changes the properties of
improvement. Based on The soil sample used for soil soil. All the conclusions were
study of multiple improvement was obtained noted down and it was observed
research papers % of from a site at Surat, Gujarat. that some properties showed
additives were finalized Experiments like UCS, Standard increment while some didn’t.
proctor test, CBR, Atterberg’s
limit, free swell, specific gravity
were carried out

3 4

Unconfined compression Unsoaked- California

test on a remould specimen bearing ratio
to find cohesion.

1 2 5
Using a hammer 25 blows Specific gravity test done Soaked- California bearing
are given to a soil filled in 3 using sand bath method. ratio for 4 days
layers in standard proctor
` test.
 SOIL IMPROVEMENT RESULTS
CONCLUSION: COMPARISON WITH AND
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: In case of grain size analysis the percentage remains same
WITHOUT ADDITIVE:
only before and after adding additives.

STANDARD PROCTOR TEST: In case of standard proctor test, OMC decreases and
MDD increases as RHA is added the quantity of free silt and clay decreases. The
coarse sand has larger surface area and these process needs water take place.
According to it more water is required to compact the soil and its admixture. The
other reason behind decrease of MDD is lower specific gravity of RHA.

FREE SWELL INDEX TEST: The free swell value decrease when RHA is added as RHA Comparison for specific gravity test Comparison for Free swell index test
reduces the possibility of crack formation on foundation surface.

ATTERBERG’S LIMITS: The plastic limit, liquid limit and shrinkage limit increases as
RHA is added to soil, as for improvement attribute RHA requires more water to
make it fluid due to its pozzalonic characteristic.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY: The specific gravity decreases in RHA as compared to normal as

due to low specific gravity of RHA participating RHA as compared to soil.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST: The C value increases when RHA is added to soil Comparison for water content v/s dry density for standard proctor test
as RHA acts as binder particle which makes soil change from clay to silt and which
makes it more suitable to use.

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: The CBR value increases when RHA is added as clay
has mainly cohesion against deformation but addition of RHA increases as RHA also
contribute to resistance against deformation which increase load carrying capacity.

Comparison for water stress v/s strain for Unconfined compressive strength test