TR8138 JV FS G103 RP GE 000003 DFS - Vol3 - PartB D01

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES OVER THE
RIVER MEGHNA ON SHARIATPUR-CHANDPUR ROAD & GAZARIA-

MUNSHIGANJ ROAD AND PREPARATION OF MASTER PLAN FOR
BANGLADESH BRIDGE AUTHORITY
Contents
Part B: Geotechnical Interpretative Report............................................................................................................................................. 5
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1. Outline............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Background.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Purpose and objective of this report.................................................................................................................................. 5
2. SITE TOPOGRAPHY, REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY........................................................................................... 6
2.1. Site Location and Topography.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Regional Geology........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3. Regional Tectonics and Seismicity..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4. Seismic Zoning.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TEST..........................................................................................13
3.1. General........................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2. Geotechnical Investigation (GI).......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3. Location of boreholes and trial pits.................................................................................................................................. 14
3.4. Subsoil Profile............................................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.5. Laboratory Test and Encountered Ground conditions...........................................................................................19
3.5.1.Moisture Content Test............................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.2.Particle Size Distribution Test............................................................................................................................................. 20
3.5.3.Direct Shear Test...................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.5.4.Specific Gravity Test................................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.5.5.Relative Density Test............................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.6.California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked)......................................................................................................................... 24
3.5.7.Mica Content Test.................................................................................................................................................................... 24
4. DESIGN OF FOUNDATION................................................................................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Pile Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1.Geotechnical Pile Design Philosophy and Design Basis......................................................................................25
4.1.2.Pile Foundation Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Driven Pile Capacity....................................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.1 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesive Soil.............................................................................................................................. 28
Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

Review of Feasibility Study of Barishal-Bhola Bridge Page of
4.2.2 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesionless Soil..................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Bored Pile Capacity........................................................................................................................................................................ 34
4.3.1.Axial load capacity of bored Pile and drilled shaft in cohesive soil..................................................................35
4.3.2.Axial Load Capacity of Bored Pile and Drilled Shaft in Cohesionless Soil....................................................36
4.4 Summary of Pile Bearing Capacity......................................................................................................................................... 38
5 DESIGN OF SOFT GROUND............................................................................................................................................................. 52
5.1 Existing Soft Ground Status........................................................................................................................................................ 52
5.2 Review of geological profile........................................................................................................................................................ 52
5.3 Liquefaction Assessment............................................................................................................................................................. 53
5.3.1 General........................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3.2 Liquefaction Target Section................................................................................................................................................. 53
5.3.3 Liquefaction Criteria................................................................................................................................................................. 54
5.3.4 Factors Affecting Soil Liquefaction................................................................................................................................... 55
5.3.5 Consequences of Liquefaction........................................................................................................................................... 55
5.3.6 Liquefaction Determination and Mitigation Methods for Soil Engineering...................................................55
5.3.7 Liquefaction Assessment using SPT............................................................................................................................... 56
5.3.8 Liquefaction Assessment of Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador And Tentulia
River site........................................................................................................................................................................................ 58
5.3.9 Mitigation method for liquefaction.................................................................................................................................... 68
5.4 Slope Stability Analysis of embankment.............................................................................................................................. 71
5.5 Settlement Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Annex-1: Pile Bearing Capacity................................................................................................................................................................. 74

List of Figures
Figure 2. 1 Site Location Plan.................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. 2 Site Location Plan (Close up)............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2. 3 Surface Geology of Bangladesh....................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. 4 Tectonic Map of Bangladesh........................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. 5 Map of Bangladesh Seismic Zones (Source BNBC 2017)................................................................................12
Figure 3. 1 The location of boreholes and trial pits…………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
Figure 3. 2 Sub-soil profile of Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia river..............................................................17
Figure 3. 3 SPT N value vs Elevation................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3. 4 Moisture Content (%) Vs elevation................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 3. 5 Particle Size Distribution-Sand and Fine (%) Vs elevation................................................................................20
Figure 3. 6 Angle of internal friction Vs elevation........................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3. 7 Specific gravity Vs elevation............................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3. 8 Relative density Vs elevation............................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4. 1 Adhesion values for piles in cohesive soil (Tomlinson 1994)

…………………………………………………………………..30
Figure 4. 2 Adhesion factors for piles in clay (Tomlinson 1994).............................................................................................30
Figure 5. 1 CSR vs Corrected blow count (Seed et al;1983)…………………………………………………………………………………………56
Figure 5. 2 Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Modified penetration Resistance.....................................................................................57

Figure 5. 3 Summary of liquefaction potential analysis.............................................................................................................. 67
Figure 5. 4 Outline of Sand compaction Pile work........................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 5. 5 Layout of Sand compaction Pile.................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5. 6. Slope Stability Analysis Results...................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5. 7 Settlement contour of the Embankment.................................................................................................................... 73
List of Tables
Table 2. 1 Seismic Intensity and Coefficient Bangladesh.......................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. 1 The quantities of the geotechnical investigation 13
Table 3. 2 Boreholes and Trial Pits coordinates and depth...................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. 3 Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked) Test...................................................................................24
Table 3. 4 Summary of Mica content test results.......................................................................................................................... 24

Table 4. 1 Design Parameter Guidelines for Cohesionless Siliceous Soil. (Hannigan et. al., 2016) 34
Table 4. 2 Relationship between ϕ and standard penetration value for sands (Peck et al. 1974).........................34
Table 4. 3 Soil parameters........................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Table 4. 4 Summary of SLS pile capacities..................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4. 5 Summary of ULS pile capacities..................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5. 1 Typical Soil parameter for Slope Stability Analysis 71
Table 5. 2 Input Soil Parameters............................................................................................................................................................ 72
List of Abbreviations
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
JGS Japanese Geotechnical Society
BS British Standards
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
SLS Serviceability Limit State
ULS Ultimate Limit State
EGL Existing Ground Level
BEGL/BGL Below Existing Ground Level
RL Reduced Level
GWT Groundwater Table
WL Water Level
PWD Public Works Department
SPT Standard Penetration Test
D Disturbed Sample
UD Undisturbed Sample
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plasticity Index
RD Relative Density
UCS Unconfined Compression Strength
DST Direct Shear Test
CU Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression
CD Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Compression
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CU Coefficients of Uniformity
CC Coefficient of Curvature
D10 Effective Particle Size
D50 Mean Particle Size
SG Specific Gravity
Cc Compression Index
Cr Recompression Index

Cv Consolidation Coefficient
P’c Pre-consolidation Pressure
eo Initial Void Ratio
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio
σ´v Effective Overburden Pressure
kPa Kilopascal
c’ Effective Cohesion
Φ’ Effective Friction
c Total Cohesion
Φ Total Friction

Part B: Geotechnical Interpretative

Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Outline
Geotechnical investigations provide a baseline to understand the physical soil conditions of a site and help
shape design approach and construction recommendations for future phases of a project. Information
gathered during geotechnical investigations and instrumentation monitoring can be vital for making
technical decisions. It helps moving forward with-cost efficient design for specific conditions encountered
onsite ensuring infrastructure is structurally sound.
One of the most obvious challenges when designing a bridge or elevated structure is to determine the soil
profile of the proposed alignment through geotechnical assessment for the selection of the most suitable
type of foundation for the proposed structure.
1.2. Background
This report is based on the existing geotechnical information from the Ground Investigation report of the
Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador and Tentulia River in June 2023.
1.3. Purpose and objective of this report
The purpose of this report is to present the existing geotechnical information and the available information
from the Ground Investigation, and to establish the ground conditions across the bridge alignment and the
soil design parameters, in particular, for the foundation design of the bridge and road embankment.
2.

3. SITE TOPOGRAPHY, REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
3.1. Site Location and Topography
The site is located in Barishal and Bhola district on the Barishal Bhola road across the river Kalabador and
Tentulia. The site locations are shown in the Figure 2. 1 Site Location Plan and Figure 2. 2 Site Location Plan
(Close up). At the time of investigation, the site was uneven, consisted of river, it’s branches, canals, and
green flooding Islands with some agricultural lands, ground levels are related to Public Works Department
(PWD) datum.
Figure 2. 1 Site Location Plan

Figure 2. 2 Site Location Plan (Close up)
3.2. Regional Geology
From a general and geological point of view, Bangladesh is situated inside the Bengal Basin. The
geological evolution of the Bengal Basin is in relationship with the Himalayan orogenic and the resulting
uplifting movements. From the uplift of the Himalayas, a vast system of rivers was originated, carrying a
huge volume of sediments building up a large deltaic landmass. As the mega delta progressed southward,
accompanied by a rapid subsidence of the basin, a big thickness of deltaic sediments was deposited by
the broad fluvial process of the Ganges – Brahmaputra – Meghna River system. Almost all the surface of
Bangladesh is occupied by this Delta system, which receives the denomination of Ganges – Brahmaputra –
Meghna (GBM) Delta Complex. Surface geology of Bangladesh is presented in Figure 2. 3. Surface Geology
of Bangladesh.

Figure 2. 3 Surface Geology of Bangladesh (Alam et al., 1990).

3.3. Regional Tectonics and Seismicity
Bangladesh is located in a tectonically active region close to the boundaries of the Indian plate and the
Eurasian plate as shown in Figure 2. 4 Tectonic Map of Bangladesh. Tectonically it is divided broadly into
three divisions: Stable Shelf in the northwest.
Bengal Fore deep in the central and Chattogram-Tripura Folded Belt in the East. The effect of the collision
of the Burma sliver plate with the thickest part of the great Ganges-Brahmaputra delta has been the
formation and rapid westward propagation of a great fold and thrust belt. This 500 km long section is noted
as the Dhaka domain, after the city near the fold and thrust belt, within the sediments of the eastern side of
the delta. Close to Dhaka one major fault system accommodate the northward translation of the Indian
plate into Eurasia. This is the northern extension of the Sunda megathrust, which form the western margin
of the Burma Plate (Wang and Sieh et al.)
Dhaka is located in the Bengal Foredeep in the denominated Dhaka Depression. The city has no evidence
of surface folding, although the area had been raised almost at the central region (5.0 meters and above)
due to some faulting and differential movement in the fault blocks. Six active cross faults are identified in
Dhaka city, the corresponding northern and eastern blocks area the up –thrown and the southern and
western blocks are the down-thrown parts of the fault blocks.
Tectonically, Bengal Foredeep can be divided into two major regions- (a) Western Platform Flank and (b)
Eastern Folded Flank. The Western Platform flank is further subdivided into (a) Faridpur Trough (b) Barishal-
Chandpur High (c) Hatiya Trough (d) Madhupur High and (e) Sylhet Trough.
Faridpur Trough situated adjacent to Hinge Zone is characterised by a general gravity low with
development of Neogene sequence. Sylhet Limestone is 6,500 m deep in area south of the confluence of
the Padma and the Bangabangdu. Chalna and Bagerhat are the notable structural highs of very low
amplitude.
Hatiya Trough represents the deepest trough of Bengal Basin, which received highest accumulation of
clastic sediments. The axis of Bengal Foredeep runs through the apex of Hatiya Trough. Shahbazpur
(Bhola), Kutubdia, Sangu and large number offshore structures are located here, of which Sangu is under
production while Shahbazpur and Kutubdia are awaiting development. Madhupur High represented by
Pleistocene terrace of Madhupur Garh separates Faridpur Trough from the Sylhet Trough (Surma basin).
Here, the basement is relatively uplifted as evident from gravity and aeromagnetic data. Morphological
studies reveal a pronounced recent morphological upheaval east of Madhupur. Besides, Nagarpur dome,
south of Tangail and Nandina high showed that these are portions in the basement without deforming the
sedimentary sequence overlying these features.
Barishal-Chandpur High interpreted as a gravity and magnetic anomaly caused by a magmatic body at
great depth. This zone is located between Faridpur trough and Hatiya trough of the Bengal Foredeep. The
width of the zone is about 60 km and apparently corresponds to an uplift of the sedimentary cover. A
number of gravity anomalies are spread over this zone. A paleo-high stretching from Barishal-Chandpur

High in the NE direction has been presumed and the ridge was interpreted to turn south of Barishal-
Chandpur High in north-south direction merging with the Ninety east ridge.
Hatiya Trough east of this zone is the deepest trough of Bengal Basin which opens southwards to the Bay
of Bengal. The sedimentary sequence here is over 20 km thick. Offshore gas fields of Kutubdia and Sangu
and on-shore gas fields at Sahbazpur (Bhola) and Begumganj belong to Hatiya Trough. Likewise, Faridpur
Trough has also great accumulation of sediment fill beyond the Hinge Zone.
Figure 2. 4 Tectonic Map of Bangladesh

3.4. Seismic Zoning
The intent of the seismic zoning map is to give an indication of the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) motion at different parts of the country. In probabilistic terms, the MCE motion may be considered to
correspond to having a 2% probability of exceedance within a period of 50 years. The country has been
divided into four seismic zones with different levels of ground motion. Following Table 2. 1. Seismic Intensity
and Coefficient Bangladesh and Figure 2. 5. Map of Seismic Zone Bangladesh (Source BNBC 2017)
includes a description of the four seismic zones. Our site (Barishal-Bhola Road Bridge site) situated in
Seismic Zone 1 where seismic Intensity classified as Low and the seismic coefficient (g) value is 0.12.
Table 2. 1 Seismic Intensity and Coefficient Bangladesh
Seismic
Seismic Zone Location Coefficient(g)
Intensity
Southwestern part including Barishal,

1 Low 0.12
Khulna, Jashore, Rajshahi
Lower Central and Northwestern part

including Noakhali, Dhaka, Pabna,
2 Moderate 0.2
Dinajpur, as well as Southwestern corner
including Sundarbans.
Upper Central and Northwestern part

3 including Brahmanbaria, Sirajganj, Severe 0.28
Rangpur
Northeastern part including Sylhet,

4 Very Severe 0.36
Mymensingh, Kurigram.
*Source: Bangladesh National Building code, 2017.

Figure 2. 5 Map of Bangladesh Seismic Zones (Source BNBC 2017)

4. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TEST
4.1. General
The purpose of carrying out the geotechnical investigation (GI) is to obtain site and sub-surface ground
data for the design of the Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia River. Project Specific GIs have been
undertaken along the bridge alignment and the nearby banks.
4.2. Geotechnical Investigation (GI)
The Geotechnical Investigation of this study comprise drilling of nine boreholes (BBH-1 to BBH-9) and
th
excavation of two (02) trial pits (BBTP-1 to BBTP-2) during the period between March 19 , 2023 and May
11th, 2023. The main objectives of the GI works are to determine:
 Identify the presence of soft silts and clays on the riverbed;

 The geological stratification along the Bridge alignment;
 The thickness and distribution of the various riverbed sediment layers;
 To derive and determine the engineering properties of each soil type for the purpose of undertaking
design works for the main bridge of the project.
Total nine (9) numbers of boreholes were drilled to determine the profiles and properties of the different soil
strata by the rotary drilling method. The maximum depth of the borehole is 150m from the existing surface
level.
Information on the type of subsoil stratification, geotechnical parameters, and its behaviors are obtained
from a comprehensive soil investigation program that incorporates drilling of boreholes, the geotechnical
investigation was carried out on Barishal-Bhola across the Kalabador and Tentulia River and approach
road of the Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia River. The quantities of the geotechnical investigation
are shown in Table 3. 1 The quantities of the geotechnical investigation.
Table 3. 1 The quantities of the geotechnical investigation
Item Unit Quantity Remarks
Onshore 07 Identify Geological conditions and

Borehole BH No
Offshore 02 characterization
Prediction of soil strength and

SPT Set 09
calculation of design parameters
Field Test G.W. L BH No 09 Recording of Ground Water Level
Borehole Undisturbed Sampling for the mechanical test of

Nos. 10
Sampling clayey soil
Basic Physical Natural Moisture Content Identify basic characteristics of soil

Nos. 73
Test
Atterberg Limit Test Nos. 54

Item Unit Quantity Remarks
Specific Gravity Test Nos 58
Grain Size Analysis Nos 78
Determine the Shear strength of a

Direct Shear Test Nos 25
soil
Determine the state of

Relative density Test Nos 39
compactness
Determine the strength of the

California Bearing Ratio Nos 2
subgrade soil
One-Dimensional Determine the consolidation

Nos 5
Mechanical Consolidation Properties
Tests
Unconfined Compression Determine the compressive
Nos 6
Strength (UCS) strength of soil
Triaxial Test-Consolidated
Nos 4
Undrained (CU)
Determine the shear strength of
the soil
Triaxial Test-Consolidated
Nos 7
Drained (CD)
4.3. Location of boreholes and trial pits
There are 9 boreholes for the bridge and two (02) trial pits for the approach road and engineering facilities
as shown in Figure 3. 1 The location of boreholes and trial pits and the coordinates, elevations, water table
and depths are given in Table 3. 2 Boreholes and Trial Pits coordinates and depths.

Figure 3. 1 The location of boreholes and trial pits
Table 3. 2 Boreholes and Trial Pits coordinates and depth
Depth of Boring / Ground GWT depth GWT

BH/TP
Northing, m Easting, m Excavation Elevation from EGL Elevation
no.
(m) (PWD, m) (m) (PWD, m)
BBH-01 2510522.825 240732.343 81 +1.919 -1.86 0.06
BBH-02 2509957.911 242346.158 80 +1.792 -0.50 1.29
BBH-03 2509851.401 244278.441 80 +1.541 -1.00 0.54
BBH-04 2510067.923 245070.419 150 -6.254 +6.45 0.20
BBH-05 2510326.288 245933.442 80 +2.127 -0.50 1.63
BBH-06 2510589.837 246897.295 80 +2.037 -0.30 1.74
BBH-07 2510839.113 247789.725 84 +2.293 -1.10 1.19
BBH-08 2511322.324 249202.489 81 +2.511 -1.20 1.31
BBH-09 2512543.609 249888.139 150 -2.150 +2.50 0.35
BBTP-1 2510529.000 240736.000 2.0 +1.923 N/A N/A
BBTP-2 2513661.900 250131.720 2.0 +4.281 N/A N/A

4.4. Subsoil Profile
The soil properties for the soils Layer 1 ~ Layer 6 encountered at the site are presented in subsoil profile
Figure 3. 2 Sub-soil profile of Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador and Tentulia river.
The properties of the soils were determined from a series of field and laboratory tests in order to assess the
site conditions. It is found that sub soil deposits comprise of some cohesive and cohesionless layers from
the soil layers encountered in the project site. The cohesive layers (Layer 3 and 4) are mostly consisting of
low plastic to high plastic, CLAY(CL/CH)/ Silty CLAY/ Lean inorganic CLAY/ Sandy CLAY and SILT (CL/ML)/
Clayey SILT/ Sandy SILT. The layers are combination of cohesionless soil consisting of various types of
SAND with some silt SP/SM/ SP-SM/SC.
The subsoil profile of each layer is presented as follows.
 Layer 1:
The Layer 1 exists from EGL surface El +2.511 m at BBH-08 and river bed EGL El -6.254 m at offshore
borehole BBH-04 to bottom of layer 1 El -18.96 at BBH-03. The encountered materials are very loose to
loose silty sand. The SPT “N” values are N≤10. This layer consisted of a mixture of sand, silt and clay
materials, from the laboratory tests. The angle of internal friction is 25-30 degree and the Specific gravity is
2.67-2.74.
 Layer 2, 3 and 4:
The Layer 2 starts after surface layer (Layer 1). Layer 2 materials are SAND/Silty SAND/Clayey SAND. Layer
2 and 3 both are cohesive localized layers which are not extended to both sides continuously. Layer 3 is
cohesive soil layer mainly SILT and Layer 4 is the CLAY layer. On the strength of the material this layer SPT
“N” ranges 10<N≤30. Layer 2 is the combination of cohesionless and cohesive layer ( layer 3 and 4). In the
zone of BBH-06, BBH-07, BBH-08 and BBH-09 cohesive layers exists in between cohesionless layers.
 Layer 5:
Layer 5 is the continuation of the cohesionless strata. This layer is a sandy layer interbedded with cohesive
layer (layer 3 and 4). This layer strength is dense (30 ≤N≤50), locally limited spots show very dense (>50)
soils. Laboratory test results represented on Figure 3.4 natural moisture Content, Figure 3.5 Particle Size
Distribution, Figure 3.6 Angle of internal friction and Figure 3.8 Relative density.
 Layer 6:
This is exists at the bottom of the boreholes. This layer consisted of very dense (>50) cohesionless soil and
locally cohesive layer (Clay/Silt). The subsoil profile of Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia river were
shown below in Figure 3.2 and SPT N value vs elevation are presented in Figure 3.3.

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES OVER THE RIVER MEGHNA ON SHARIATPUR-CHANDPUR ROAD & GAZARIA-
MUNSHIGANJ ROAD AND PREPARATION OF MASTER PLAN FOR BANGLADESH BRIDGE AUTHORITY
Figure 3. 2 Sub-soil profile of Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia river
Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation 679955914.docx

Review of Feasibility Study of Barishal-Bhola Bridge Page 18 of 78
Figure 3. 3 SPT N value vs Elevation

4.5. Laboratory Test and Encountered Ground conditions
Laboratory tests were undertaken at GIE’s laboratory in Dhaka. All the laboratory test reports are enclosed
in Vol. 3 Part A. Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report.
4.5.1. Moisture Content Test
From the moisture content laboratory test results of all boreholes, we found the maximum moisture content
was 38.1% at elevation -4.581 m in BBH-1 and the minimum moisture content was 15.4% at elevation -
76.081 m in BBH-1. The Moisture Content Tests were carried out in all the boreholes. Test reports are
attached in Volume 3 Geotechnical Investigation in Part A. Factual Report. The test results are presented in
the following Figure 3. 4 Moisture Content (%) Vs elevation.
Figure 3. 4 Moisture Content (%) Vs elevation

4.5.2. Particle Size Distribution Test
The particle size distribution tests were carried out in all the boreholes and trial pits. From the test results,
Sand and Fine materials are presented in Figure 3. 5. Particle Size Distribution-Sand and Fine (%) Vs
elevation. Ground surface elevation to end of borehole elevation (borehole depth max.150m) no Gravel
encountered in any of the boreholes. Test reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation in
Part A. Factual Report.
Figure 3. 5 Particle Size Distribution-Sand and Fine (%) Vs elevation

4.5.3. Direct Shear Test
Direct shear test has been carried out in accordance with ASTM D3080. The method used was
Consolidated Drained (CD) and the box dimensions are 6cm (L) x 6cm (W) x 2.5cm (H) or 90cm 3. The
loading rate used was 1.25 mm/min. Angle of internal friction varies ranges from 20.8-34.1 degrees. Test
reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation in Part A. Factual Report and the test results
are presented in Figure 3. 6. Angle of internal friction Vs elevation.
Figure 3. 6 Angle of internal friction Vs elevation

4.5.4. Specific Gravity Test
The test is carried out in accordance with ASTM D854. Test reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical
Investigation in Part A. Factual Report and the test results are presented in the following Figure 3.7. Specific
gravity Vs elevation.
Figure 3. 7 Specific gravity Vs elevation

4.5.5. Relative Density Test
A total of thirty nine relative density tests were carried out on the selected samples from the boreholes. Test
reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation in Part A. Factual Report and the test results
are presented in the following Figure 3.8. Relative Density Vs elevation.
Figure 3. 8 Relative density Vs elevation

4.5.6. California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked)
To determine the strength of soil subgrades two California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests (soaked) were carried
out at the Trial Pit’s location bridge approach road and engineering facility area. The purpose of a soil
sample soaked in water for 4-days is to find out the strength of the sample after soaking continuously in
water. Test reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation in Part A, Appendix- C11 and Table
3. 3 Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked) Test.
Table 3. 3 Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked) Test
Test Location Sample No. Test depth, m CBR (%)
BBTP-1 B-3 1.00 0.98
BBTP-2 B-3 1.00 1.43
4.5.7. Mica Content Test
A total of ten Mica content tests were carried out at different depths in RBH-04 as shown in Table 3.4
Summary of Mica content test results. The percentage of mica plays an important role in the soil
parameters determination since the presence of mica can reduce the effective angle of shearing
resistance. It may also increase the elastic and plastic compressibility of the sand and reduce the skin
friction between the soil and pile shaft. Test results show minimum 4.23% & maximum. 27.13% mica
content at depth 120.0 m & 51.0 m respectively. Test reports are attached in Volume 3. Geotechnical
Investigation in Part A and a summary of Mica content tests results are presented in the following
Table 3. 4 Summary of Mica content test results
Test Location Sample No. Depth, m Total, Mica %
D-34 51.00 27.13
D-40 60.00 22.44
D-47 70.50 17.23
D-54 80.00 20.13
D-61 91.50 6.360

BBH-04
D-66 99.00 7.150
D-74 111.0 4.960
D-80 120.0 4.230
D-87 130.50 10.14
D-96 144.00 25.71

5. DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
The bridge foundation is particularly essential or critical since they ought to maintain the entire load of the
bridge and the traffic loads that it will pass on. A bridge foundation is the part built under the pier or
abutment and over the fundamental soil or rock. The loads sent by the foundations to the subordinate soil
should not cause soil shear failure or harming settlement of the superstructure.
Foundation is the significant structural piece of bridges and it also the main component or segment part of
the bridge. It gets the loads from the piers or abutments and moves it to the soil. Reason for foundation is to
convey the load of bridge over an enormous bearing region and give solidness of bridge against settlement
and shifting.
Soft soil is very common in many parts of Bangladesh which is not suitable for the construction of a
shallow foundation. Pile foundation provides the best possible solution to transfer the load to the deeper
harder layers of soil. In Bangladesh, driven piles are used in large numbers because of their various
advantages over bored piles; like the high quality of construction, idea of capacity during driving, etc.
Recently large diameter cast in situ piles is also used in large numbers for bridge structures and high-rise
buildings.
4.1 Pile Bearing Capacity
5.1.1. Geotechnical Pile Design Philosophy and Design Basis
Piles are structural members that transmit the superstructure loads to deep soil layers. They are preferred to
be used as a foundation material when the shallow foundation is not practical to use it. Piles and pile
foundations have been in use since prehistoric times. The Roman wooden piles are a classic example of
this. Today piles can be made of wood, concrete, or steel.
There are many conventional methods for calculating pile capacity, but the selection of each method
requires knowledge of soil properties as well as the limitation or applicability of any method in a regional
boundary. Traditionally, pile capacity can be evaluated by using a borehole log of the subsoil investigation
report (Bowles 1997), and then, later it needs to be confirmed by the static load test. As per, static load
testing of the driven pile and bored cast in situ pile is very time-consuming and expensive as well as needs
constant supervision on operation processes. It is often very difficult to ensure the chances of accuracy and
precision. Moreover, the test has several problems like transferring the load to the pile due to frictional
errors. Besides, a manual data collection system introduces human error possibilities. In these
circumstances, a suitable alternative to static load test or cross-checking options were necessary for
foundation engineers. It is difficult to determine pile capacity because several different designs practices
here in Bangladesh and internationally exist, but seldom have given the same computed capacity.
Especially, determining the skin friction component is not an easy thing since the soil is not intact after the
pile is driven or drilled and loses its intact engineering property (strength). So far, the precise determination
of this value has not been possible. Thus, today design offices only believe a load test can only give a
reliable capacity of the pile at the time of the test. After installation, the design values, i.e. the load-carrying

capacities of piles are usually verified using different methods such as pile loading test and dynamic
analysis.
Scientific approaches to pile design have advanced enormously in recent decades and yet, still the most
fundamental aspect of pile design that of estimating capacity relies heavily upon empirical correlations.
Western researchers provided empirical methods based on extensive explorations and investigations for
different types and conditions of soil. Meyerhof (1959) has arranged a speculative relationship between the
corrected standard penetration test data and the ultimate axial capacity of driven pile. He administered
another formula for estimating the capacity of bored cast in situ piles based on the behavior of pile in
granular soil in 1976. Whereas Vesic (1977) modified the bearing capacity factor that Meyerhof (1976)
provided for end bearing of driven pile and bored pile in granular soil founded by the relationship between
rigidity modulus and angle of internal friction of soil. The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides a
static analysis procedure design developed for offshore construction. These projects almost exclusively use
large diameter, open-end, steel pipe piles which are driven by impact hammer to final penetration
(American Petroleum Institute 2003). Recently, large-diameter open-end pipe pile usage has increased
significantly on transportation projects. This has heightened the need for more accurate nominal resistance
estimates on these larger piles. The design method proposed by API has more significance on large
diameter steel piles rather than concrete piles. Tomlinson (1994) studied the behavior of driven piles in
cohesive soil specially and established fascinating improvements of the adhesion or sometimes called the
reduction factor previously provided by (Peck et al. 1974). As with any design method, the one should also
confirm the appropriateness of selected coefficients in a given soil condition with local correlations
between static resistance calculations and load test results. American navy in 1982 provided a guideline for
offshore and onshore piles design named NAVFAC DM 7.2 and modified in 1984.Also, AASHTO time to time
updated their code about pile capacity determination. O’Neill and Reese (1988) studied the behavior of
piles in cohesive and cohesionless soil and established an acceptable theory for pile capacity
determination later in 2005 AASHTO adopted this theory to their code for bored cast in situ piles.
This report focuses only on the capacity of a single pile under compressive loading. Even though single
piles are not used, the capacity of group piles entirely depends on the capacity of a single pile within a
group. A pile foundation is much more expensive than spread footings and is likely to be more expensive
than mat foundation. Therefore, great care should be exercised in determining the soil properties at the site
for the entire depth of possible pile penetration so that it can be accurately determined whether a pile
foundation is needed at all and, if so, the design can be optimized so that neither excessive number nor
excessive lengths are specified. Pile foundation is used when the soil near the surface is not able to support
foundation loads because of either low bearing capacity or the possibility of excessive settlement, so pile’s
main function is to transfer foundations loads to deeper soil strata that are stronger and less compressible.
Piles can be either precast driven or cast in place bored. Large diameter cast in place bored piles which
diameter from 600 mm to 4,800 mm identify as drilled shafts according to AASHTO.
There are numerous equations available for evaluating the pile capacity for engineering professionals
(Bowles, 1997). Several different designs practice here in Bangladesh and internationally exist. The

methods include some simplifying assumptions empirical approaches regarding soil stratigraphy, soil pile
structure interaction, and distribution of soil resistance along with the pile. Therefore, they do not provide
truly quantitative values directly useful in foundation design. Hence for proper judgment, it is necessary to
verify the theoretical axial capacity with a load test. The axial capacity of piles can be determined by
different approaches like static analysis, dynamic testing, static pile load test.
The AASHTO-2020 LRFD specifications were used for estimating single pile capacity and corresponding
settlement.
5.1.2. Pile Foundation Bearing Capacity
Enough emphasis should be given to the accuracy in the estimation of pile capacity; this will lead us not
only to the safer structure but also economic savings. The ultimate axial capacity (Q ult) of piles shall be
determined by sum of the total side friction and total end bearing. The following equation has used to
compute the ultimate capacity or Nominal capacity of a pile.
Qult = Q s x RF + Q p x RF = f s A s RF + q p A p RF
And design load capacity, in other words, service limit bearings capacity is given as
Qult
Qa =
F .S
Where,
Qult = Ultimate pile capacity.
Qs = Shaft friction or side shear
Qp = End bearing at the base or tip
As = Shaft friction area (perimeter area) of the pile = perimeter x length.
fs = Unit shaft friction capacity
Ap = End bearing area of the pile = cross-sectional area of pile tip.
qp = Unit pile tip resistance.
Qa = Allowance pile capacity.
FS = Factor of safety.
RF = Resistance factor
For a layered soil system containing ‘n’ number of layers, end bearings resistance can be calculated
considering soil properties of the layer at which the pile rest and the skin friction resistance considerers all
the penetrating layers calculated as:
n
Q s = ∑ ∆ zi × ( perimeter )i ×( f s )i
i
Where, ∆ z i , represent the thickness of any i th layer, and (perimeter)is the perimeter of the pile in that
layer. fsi is the unit skin friction at the ith layer.

4.2 Driven Pile Capacity
The following provides design methodologies used for calculating of axial pile resistance for various pile
and soil types are presented in AASHTO 10.7.3.8.6. For steel pipe and CISS piles larger than 18" in diameter,
the static analysis methods from the American Petroleum Institute (API, 2000) publication RP 2A must be
used for verification with the AASHTO LRFD. The design must also account for geologic hazards such as:
Liquefaction, Lateral spreading scour. Foundations that are constructed in a watercourse must meet
AASHTO guidelines regarding scour depths (AASHTO C2.6.4.4.2). The top of the pile cap must be below the
degradation plus contraction scour depth. The bottom of the pile cap must be below the degradation plus
contraction plus local pier scour depth.
4.2.1 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesive Soil
4.2.1.1 AASHTO LRFD -2020 Recommended Method: TOMLINSON, 1987( Method)
 Side Friction
This approach assumes that the shaft resistance is independent of the vertical effective stress and that the
unit shaft resistance can be expressed in terms of an empirical adhesion factor times the undrained shear
strength. The unit shaft resistance is equal to the adhesion which is the shear stress between the pile
surface and the soil at failure. The total shaft resistance may be expressed in equation form as:
Q s = cu A s
Where,
 = adhesion factor
cu = undrained shear strength of soil (The undrained shear strength and undrained cohesion, c u is
assumed to be equal for calculations.)
AS = embedded surface area of the pile
The adhesion factor, α depends on the nature and strength of the clay, pile dimension, method of pile
installation, and time effects. The values of α vary within wide limits and decrease rapidly with increasing
shear strength. It is recommended that Figure 4.1 generally be used for adhesion calculations unless one of
the special soil stratigraphy cases identified in Figure 4.2 is present at a site. In cases where either Figures
4.1 or 4.2 could be used, the inexperienced user should select and use the smaller value obtained from
either figure. In Figure 4.1 the pile adhesion, α, is expressed as a function of the undrained shear strength, c u
with consideration of both the pile type and the embedded pile length, D, to pile diameter, b, ratio. The
embedded pile length used in Figure 4.1 should be the minimum value of the length from the ground
surface to the bottom of the clay layer or the length from the ground surface to the pile toe. (Hannigan et.
al., 2016)

Figure 4.2 presents the adhesion factor, α, versus the undrained shear strength of the soil as a function of
unique soil stratigraphy and pile embedment. The adhesion factor from these soil stratigraphy cases
should be used only for determining the adhesion in a stiff clay layer in that specific condition. For a soil
profile consisting of clay layers of significantly different consistencies such as soft clays over stiff clays,
adhesion factors should be determined for each clay layer. (Hannigan et. al., 2016). The top graph in Figure
4.2 may be used to select the adhesion factor when piles are driven through sand or sandy gravel layer and
into an underlying stiff clay stratum. The middle graph in Figure 4.1 should be used to select the adhesion
factor when piles are driven through a soft clay layer overlying a stiff clay layer. In this case, the soft clay is
dragged into the underlying stiff clay stratum thereby reducing the adhesion factor of the underlying stiff
clay soils. (Hannigan et. al., 2016)
Last, the bottom graph in Figure 4.2 may be used to select the adhesion factor for piles driven in stiff clays
without any different overlying strata. In stiff clays, a gap often forms between the pile and the soil along the
upper portion of the pile shaft. In this case, the shallower the pile penetration into a stiff clay stratum the
greater the effect the gap has on the shaft resistance that develops. (Hannigan et. al., 2016)
 End Bearing
The net ultimate end bearing capacity can be obtained from the following equation:
Q B = N c cu A B
Where,
AB = cross-section area of pile tip
Nc= bearing capacity factor
The term Nc is a dimensionless bearing capacity factor which depends on the pile diameter and the depth
of embedment. The bearing capacity factor, N c is usually taken as 9 for deep foundations. In the case of
smaller piles in cohesive soils, the toe resistance contribution to the nominal resistance is a low percentage
of the overall resistance and is therefore sometimes ignored. On larger piles, the movement required to
mobilize the toe resistance is several times greater than that required to mobilize the shaft resistance. At the
movement required to fully mobilize the toe resistance, the shaft resistance may have decreased to a
residual value. These factors should be considered when performing nominal resistance assessments of
various pile sections. (Hannigan et. al., 2016).

Figure 4. 1 Adhesion values for piles in cohesive soil (Tomlinson 1994)
Figure 4. 2 Adhesion factors for piles in clay (Tomlinson 1994)
4.2.1.2 American Petroleum Institute (API RP) Method
 Side Friction
For cohesive soil, shaft resistance, QS can be determined from the following equation:
Q s = cu A s
Where,
 = Dimensionless adhesion factor (which is a function of vertical effective stress and undrained
shear strength of soil)
cu = undrained shear strength of soil (The undrained shear strength, s u, and undrained cohesion, c
is assumed to be equal for calculations)

AS = embedded surface area of the pile
The factor  can be computed based on effective stress of soil from equation (a) and (b):
−0.5
¿ 0.5❑ ; when ≤ 1.0 (a)
−0.25
¿ 0.5❑ ; when>1.0 (b)
Where,
cu
¿
'V
cu = undrained shear strength of soil (The undrained shear strength, s u an undrained cohesion, cu is
'
ˊV = effective vertical stress at mid-point of the layer = γh
An α value of 1.0 is recommended for unconsolidated clays. Reductions in resistance may be practical for
very long piles where residual soil strength values are approached due to extended driving and subsequent
soil displacement. For these cases, API (1993) recommends the use of engineering judgment.
 End Bearing
The end bearing capacity in cohesive soil can be determined by the following expression:
QB = 9cuAB
Where,
AB = cross-section area of pile tip
4.2.2 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesionless Soil
4.2.2.1 AASHTO LRFD -2020 Recommended Method: Meyerhof-1976(SPT)
 Side Friction
For coarse-grained soils, the side friction of the pile is given by the following formula. (Meyerhof,1976)
Qs= qsAs
And unit side friction determines by the following equation:
N 160
qs = (ksf) (For Displacement pile)
25

N 160
qs = (ksf) (For Non-displacement pile, such as H pile)
50
Where,
qs= unit side resistance
N160 =Average corrected SPT blow count along the pile side.
As = Area of the shaft in contact with the soil
 End Bearing
End bearing for cohesionless soils is given by the following relation:
QB =q p Ab
And unit toe capacity determines by the following equation:
0.8 X ( N 160 ) L
qp= ≤ ql
D
Where,
qp= unit tip resistance
N160 =Average corrected SPT blow count along the pile toe level.
L=Embedded length
D= Diameter of the pile.
ql=Limited unit tip resistance
= 8X N 160 ksf for sand and 6X N 160 For nonplastic silt.
Ab = Area of the base of the pile
4.2.2.2 American Petroleum Institute (API RP) Method
The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides a static analysis procedure design developed for offshore
construction. These projects almost exclusively use large diameter, open-end, steel pipe piles which are
driven by impact hammer to final penetration (API 1993). Large diameter open end pipe piles can be either
steel pipe piles or concrete cylinder piles. Recently, large-diameter open-end pipe pile usage has increased
significantly on transportation projects. (Hannigan et. al., 2016)
 Side Friction
When installing piles in cohesionless soils, the unit side friction can be determined by following equation
(Hannigan et. al., 2016):

fs = Ks σˈv tanδ
Where,
fS = unit side friction
Ks = coefficient of lateral earth pressure for obtaining K s value API recommended Figure has been
used.
σˈv = vertical effective stress (ksf) at mid-point of layer = γ'h
δ = friction angle between the soil and the pile wall Obtained from Figure 4. 1 Adhesion values for
piles in cohesive soil (Tomlinson 1994).
For obtaining the value of δ from Table 4.1, the density of soil particles is required. Which can be
determined from Figure 4. 2 Adhesion factors for piles in clay (Tomlinson 1994)
API (1993) notes that assuming Ks = 0.8 for both tension and compression loading of unplugged, open-
ended pipe pile is appropriate. Besides, for the plugged or closed-end case the assumption of K s = 1.0 is
recommended. (Hannigan et. al., 2016)
Hence, the side friction is as follows:
Qs = fs As
Where,
Qs = total side friction
fS = unit side friction
As = Shaft surface Area (ft2)
So, the nominal shaft resistance = Sum of Shaft resistance from each layer.
Limiting values of unit toe resistances are applied for each type of cohesionless soil as shown in Figure 4. 2
Adhesion factors for piles in clay (Tomlinson 1994)
 End Bearing
The unit end bearing for piles in cohesionless soils may be determined by the following relationship.
q b=σˈv N q
Where,
σˈ v =¿ Vertical effective stress at the end (ksf)

Nq¿ Dimensionless bearing capacity factor obtained from Figure 4. 1 Adhesion values for piles in
cohesive soil (Tomlinson 1994).
The total end bearing is as follows

QB =q b A b
Ab = Area of end of the pile (ft2)
Table 4. 1 Design Parameter Guidelines for Cohesionless Siliceous Soil. (Hannigan et. al., 2016)
Limiting unit Limiting unit

Soil-Pile friction
Density Soil shaft Nq toe resistance
angle, δ
resistance (ksf) (ksf)
Very Loose Sand

Loose Sand-Silt* 15 1 8 0
Medium Silt
Loose Sand
Medium Sand-Silt* 20 1.4 12 60
Dense Silt
Medium Sand
25 1.7 20 100
Dense Sand-Silt*
Dense Sand
30 2 40 200
Very Dense Sand-Silt*
Dense Gravel
35 2.4 50 250
Very Dense Sand
*In sand silt soils (soils with significant fractions of both sand and silt), the strength values generally
increase with increasing sand fractions and decease with increasing silt fractions.
Table 4. 2 Relationship between ϕ and standard penetration value for sands (Peck et al. 1974)
SPT Penetration, N-Value

Density of Sand ϕ (degrees)
(blows/ foot)
<4 Very loose <29
4-10 Loose 29-30
10-30 Medium 30-36
30-50 Dense 36-41
>50 Very dense >41
4.3 Bored Pile Capacity
 Geometric Constraints

In accordance with AASHTO-2020, article 10.8.1.2, minimum spacing center to center of bored piles shall be
2.5D, where D is a diameter of the bored pile. Distance from bored pile center to edge surface of pile cap
should be 1.0D.
 Design Criteria
This Section refers to provisions for the design of bored pile according to AASHTO-2020.
If the center-to-center spacing of bored pile is less than 2.5D, the interaction effects between adjacent
shafts shall be evaluated.
For drilled shaft foundations, down drag is the ultimate skin friction above the neutral point (the loading
added to the drilled shaft due to settlement of the surrounding soils) minus the live load.
The minimum drilled shaft tip elevation must be the deepest of the minimum elevations that satisfy all axial
capacity and lateral stability requirements for the three limit states (service limit state, strength limit state
and extreme event limit state).
A minimum clear distance between reinforcement of 150 mm to allow for proper concrete consolidation.
Multiple reinforcing cages in drilled shafts create constructability problems and are highly discouraged.
Minimum 300 mm spacing between cages will be required when double cages are proposed for
consideration in lieu of a larger diameter shaft.
For determining the factored axial resistance for bored piles as compression members as per AASHTO-
2020, article 5.6.4.4, reduce the gross area of section, A g to the area bounded by the outside diameter of the
spiral or tie plus 50 mm of concrete cover.
4.3.1. Axial load capacity of bored Pile and drilled shaft in cohesive soil
4.3.1.1 AASHTO LRFD-2020 Recommended Method: α-Method (Brown et. al-2010)
 Side Resistance
Short-term undrained side resistance in cohesive soil layers is evaluated in terms of undrained shear
strength.
Qs = qs As
qs =α Su
Where:
Qs = Nominal side resistance
qs = nominal unit side resistance
α = Adhesion factor

Evaluation of α is as follows:
 α = 0, between the ground surface and depth of 5 ft or to the depth of seasonal moisture
change, whichever is greater
Su
 α = 0.55 along the remaining portion of the shaft for ≤1.5
Pa
Su
 α = 0.55 – 0.1¿) along remaining portions of the shaft 1.5 ≤ ≤ 2.5
Pa
 Pa = atmospheric pressure in the same units as Su (2,116 psf or 14.7 psi)
 End Bearing
Bearing capacity theory applied to the case of a deep foundation bearing on a cohesive soil, in terms of
total stress analysis, yields the following approximate expression which is sufficient for design:
Q B = q p AB
qp =Nc Su (ksf) ≤ 80 ksf
Nc =6[1+0.2(Z/D)] ≤ 9
Where,
Q B= Total End bearing
AB = Area of the toe
Z = penetration of shaft (ft)
D = diameter of drilled shaft (ft)
Su = undrained shear strength (ksf)
4.3.2. Axial Load Capacity of Bored Pile and Drilled Shaft in Cohesionless Soil
4.3.2.1 AASHTO-2020 LRFD Recommended Method: β – Method (Brown et al,2010)
 Side Friction
The nominal side resistance of a drilled shaft in cohesionless soil can be expressed as the frictional
resistance that develops over a cylindrical shear surface defined by the soil-shaft interface. The unit side
resistance is directly proportional to the normal stress acting on the interface. Nominal side resistance is
then given by:
Qs = qs As
And unit side resistance determines using following equations:

qs=β σ’v
in which,
'
β=(1−sin ϕ )¿
φ′ = δ = 27.5+ 9.2 log [N]
m
σ ’ v= pa 0.47( N 60 )
where:
Qs = Nominal side resistance
qs = Unit side resistance
As = Area of the shaft
qs= unit side resistance (ksf)
β = load transfer coefficient

'
ϕ = friction angle of cohesion less soil layer (°)
σ' = effective vertical pre consolidation stress
σv′ = vertical effective stress at soil layer mid-depth (ksf)
N = Field SPT
N60 = Hammer corrected SPT Value
. m = 0.6 for clean quarzitic sands and m = 0.8 for silty sands to sandy silts
Pa= atmospheric pressure in the same units as σ' (Value of Pa 2116 psf)
 End Bearing
Direct empirical correlations between SPT N-values and mobilized base resistance determined from
following equation:
Q B = q p AB
qp=1.20 N60 [N60≤50] ≤ 60 ksf
where,
Q B= Total End bearing
AB = Area of the toe
N60 =Average hammer corrected SPT blow count along the pile toe level.

4.4 Summary of Pile Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of piles are largely influenced by the settlement that the maximum vertical settlement
of single pile kept under 25 mm to determine the ultimate capacities. The different options of axial
compression of pile resistance considering Ultimate Limit State and Services Limit State are described here
for every borehole. The table represents the soil parameters that had been used to calculate the bearing
capacities of pile types. The pile capacities was summarized depend on the pile diameter, pile type,
borehole number, scour, and pile depth as shown in the table 4.4 and ANNEX-1.
 Recommendation
It was found several lean Clay layers from the geological profile with variable depths. Bored/driven pile with
diameter 3.0m were recommend considering bridge type along the alignment. The pile depth 85 m to 90 m
with pile diameter 3.0 m at the riverbed and 80.0 m to 85.0 m with pile diameter 1.80 m to 2.5 m at the
approach bridge.

Table 4. 3 Soil parameters
Internal
Layer Undrained
Borehole Layer Cumulative. Soil Average Corrected SPT Unit Weight Angle Of Shear Elastic Shear Poisson
Thickness Soil Types 3
Cohesion
ID ID Depth (m) Types Field SPT N N (KN/m ) Friction Velocity M/S Modulus kPa Modulus Kpa Ratio
(m) (KN/m2)
(Degree)
1 7.50 7.50 CL Cohesive Soil 3.00 1.95 12.59 - 18.75 155.73 2700.00 1151.08 0.17
2 4.00 11.50 SM Cohesionless soil 11.00 7.15 15.98 30.00 - 184.33 6500.00 2590.19 0.25
3 2.00 13.50 CL Cohesive Soil 2.00 1.30 12.47 - 12.50 152.15 2400.00 1029.86 0.17
5 1.50 25.00 CL Cohesive Soil 10.00 6.50 13.37 - 62.50 180.75 4800.00 1957.51 0.23
7 1.50 32.50 CL Cohesive Soil 10.00 6.50 13.37 - 62.50 180.75 4800.00 1957.51 0.23
BBH-01
9 7.50 41.50 CL Cohesive Soil 15.00 9.75 13.93 - 93.75 198.63 6300.00 2491.94 0.26
10 4.50 46.00 SC Cohesionless soil 32.00 20.80 17.38 33.00 - 259.40 11750.00 4445.30 0.32
12 4.50 77.50 CH Cohesive Soil 14.00 9.10 13.82 - 87.50 195.05 6000.00 2387.64 0.26
13 1.50 79.00 CL Cohesive Soil 22.00 14.30 14.71 - 137.50 223.65 8400.00 3188.32 0.32
1 4.00 4.00 CL Cohesive Soil 1.00 0.65 12.36 - 6.25 148.58 2100.00 907.05 0.16
3 1.50 17.50 ML Cohesive Soil 9.00 5.85 13.26 - 56.25 177.18 4500.00 1846.62 0.22
5 5.00 40.00 CL Cohesive Soil 22.00 14.30 14.71 - 137.50 223.65 8400.00 3188.32 0.32
BBH-02
9 2.50 75.50 CL Cohesive Soil 25.00 16.25 15.05 - 156.25 234.38 9300.00 3469.83 0.34
10 4.95 80.45 ML Cohesive Soil 33.00 21.45 15.94 - 206.25 262.98 11700.00 4175.69 0.40
2 1.50 20.50 CL Cohesive Soil 6.00 3.90 12.92 - 37.50 166.45 3600.00 1505.48 0.20
BBH-03 4 15.00 49.00 SM Cohesionless soil 35.00 22.75 17.58 33.00 - 270.13 12500.00 4695.10 0.33

Internal
Layer Undrained
Thickness Soil Types Cohesion
ID ID Depth (m) Types Field SPT N N (KN/m3) Friction Velocity M/S Modulus kPa Modulus Kpa Ratio
(m) (KN/m2)
(Degree)
5 3.00 55.00 ML Cohesive Soil 27.00 17.55 15.27 - 168.75 241.53 9900.00 3652.23 0.36
8 1.50 68.50 CL Cohesive Soil 42.00 27.30 16.95 - 262.50 295.15 14400.00 4899.93 0.47
10 3.00 74.50 CL Cohesive Soil 22.50 14.63 14.77 - 140.63 225.44 8550.00 3235.91 0.32
11 4.50 79.00 CH Cohesive Soil 30.00 19.50 15.61 - 187.50 252.25 10800.00 3918.30 0.38
12 1.50 80.50 CL Cohesive Soil 28.00 18.20 15.38 - 175.00 245.10 10200.00 3741.91 0.36
BBH-04
14 1.50 97.00 ML Cohesive Soil 50.00 32.50 17.84 - 312.50 323.75 16800.00 5489.30 0.53
16 6.00 106.00 CH Cohesive Soil 29.00 18.85 15.49 - 181.25 248.68 10500.00 3830.59 0.37
17 4.50 110.50 CL Cohesive Soil 32.00 20.80 15.83 - 200.00 259.40 11400.00 4090.83 0.39
19 2.45 150.45 CL Cohesive Soil 39.00 25.35 16.61 - 243.75 284.43 13500.00 4666.13 0.45
3 1.50 22.00 CL Cohesive Soil 11.00 7.15 13.48 - 68.75 184.33 5100.00 2067.03 0.23
5 1.50 37.00 CL Cohesive Soil 19.00 12.35 14.38 - 118.75 212.93 7500.00 2896.88 0.29
10 3.00 62.50 ML Cohesive Soil 40.50 26.33 16.78 - 253.13 289.79 13950.00 4783.94 0.46

Internal
Layer Undrained
(m) (KN/m2)
(Degree)
15 1.45 80.45 CL Cohesive Soil 36.00 23.40 16.28 - 225.00 273.70 12600.00 4424.84 0.42
1 2.50 2.50 CL Cohesive Soil 2.00 1.30 12.47 - 12.50 152.15 2400.00 1029.86 0.17
5 1.50 32.50 ML Cohesive Soil 23.00 14.95 14.82 - 143.75 227.23 8700.00 3283.23 0.32
6 4.50 37.00 CL Cohesive Soil 12.33 8.02 13.63 - 77.08 189.09 5500.00 2210.98 0.24
BBH-06 9 1.50 52.00 CL Cohesive Soil 26.00 16.90 15.16 - 162.50 237.95 9600.00 3561.54 0.35
11 3.00 56.50 CL Cohesive Soil 35.00 22.75 16.16 - 218.75 270.13 12300.00 4342.68 0.42
13 1.50 59.50 CL Cohesive Soil 40.00 26.00 16.72 - 250.00 288.00 13800.00 4744.88 0.45
15 1.50 64.00 ML Cohesive Soil 31.00 20.15 15.72 - 193.75 255.83 11100.00 4005.04 0.39
17 2.95 80.45 CL Cohesive Soil 38.00 24.70 16.50 - 237.50 280.85 13200.00 4586.55 0.44
2 6.00 13.00 ML Cohesive Soil 7.50 4.88 13.09 - 46.88 171.81 4050.00 1677.66 0.21
4 3.00 22.00 ML Cohesive Soil 5.00 3.25 12.81 - 31.25 162.88 3300.00 1388.86 0.19
5 4.50 26.50 CL Cohesive Soil 7.67 4.98 13.11 - 47.92 172.41 4100.00 1696.59 0.21
6 4.50 31.00 ML Cohesive Soil 13.67 8.88 13.78 - 85.42 193.86 5900.00 2352.59 0.25
8 1.50 35.50 ML Cohesive Soil 15.00 9.75 13.93 - 93.75 198.63 6300.00 2491.94 0.26
9 1.50 37.00 CL Cohesive Soil 19.00 12.35 14.38 - 118.75 212.93 7500.00 2896.88 0.29
10 4.50 41.50 ML Cohesive Soil 18.00 11.70 14.26 - 112.50 209.35 7200.00 2797.44 0.29
11 13.50 55.00 CL Cohesive Soil 28.11 18.27 15.39 - 175.69 245.50 10233.33 3751.81 0.36
12 3.00 58.00 ML Cohesive Soil 29.00 18.85 15.49 - 181.25 248.68 10500.00 3830.59 0.37

Internal
Layer Undrained
(m) (KN/m2)
(Degree)
14 9.00 68.50 ML Cohesive Soil 39.67 25.78 16.69 - 247.92 286.81 13700.00 4718.72 0.45
16 3.00 74.50 CL Cohesive Soil 33.00 21.45 15.94 - 206.25 262.98 11700.00 4175.69 0.40
17 1.50 76.00 ML Cohesive Soil 50.00 32.50 17.84 - 312.50 323.75 16800.00 5489.30 0.53
19 1.50 79.00 ML Cohesive Soil 34.00 22.10 16.05 - 212.50 266.55 12000.00 4259.64 0.41
20 4.00 83.00 CL Cohesive Soil 24.00 15.60 14.93 - 150.00 230.80 9000.00 3377.06 0.33
2 1.50 4.00 ML Cohesive Soil 3.00 1.95 12.59 - 18.75 155.73 2700.00 1151.08 0.17
5 3.00 26.50 CL Cohesive Soil 11.50 7.48 13.54 - 71.88 186.11 5250.00 2121.28 0.24
6 1.50 28.00 ML Cohesive Soil 14.00 9.10 13.82 - 87.50 195.05 6000.00 2387.64 0.26
8 3.00 32.50 CL Cohesive Soil 10.50 6.83 13.42 - 65.63 182.54 4950.00 2012.44 0.23
10 12.00 49.00 ML Cohesive Soil 18.00 11.70 14.26 - 112.50 209.35 7200.00 2797.44 0.29
11 6.00 55.00 CL Cohesive Soil 24.75 16.09 15.02 - 154.69 233.48 9225.00 3446.73 0.34
13 4.50 62.50 ML Cohesive Soil 39.33 25.57 16.65 - 245.83 285.62 13600.00 4692.47 0.45
14 12.00 74.50 CL Cohesive Soil 30.25 19.66 15.63 - 189.06 253.14 10875.00 3940.07 0.38
15 1.50 76.00 MH Cohesive Soil 26.00 16.90 15.16 - 162.50 237.95 9600.00 3561.54 0.35
16 4.50 80.50 CL Cohesive Soil 33.67 21.88 16.02 - 210.42 265.36 11900.00 4231.76 0.41
2 1.50 8.50 CL Cohesive Soil 6.00 3.90 12.92 - 37.50 166.45 3600.00 1505.48 0.20
4 1.50 17.50 CL Cohesive Soil 2.00 1.30 12.47 - 12.50 152.15 2400.00 1029.86 0.17
6 2.00 27.00 CL Cohesive Soil 7.00 4.55 13.03 - 43.75 170.03 3900.00 1620.63 0.20

Internal
Layer Undrained
(m) (KN/m2)
(Degree)
8 3.00 31.00 MH Cohesive Soil 16.00 10.40 14.04 - 100.00 202.20 6600.00 2594.99 0.27
9 13.50 44.50 CL Cohesive Soil 16.36 10.64 14.08 - 102.27 203.50 6709.09 2632.16 0.27
10 3.10 47.60 ML Cohesive Soil 28.00 18.20 15.38 - 175.00 245.10 10200.00 3741.91 0.36
12 6.00 58.00 CL Cohesive Soil 41.50 26.98 16.89 - 259.38 293.36 14250.00 4861.47 0.47
14 4.50 65.50 ML Cohesive Soil 33.00 21.45 15.94 - 206.25 262.98 11700.00 4175.69 0.40
16 7.50 80.50 CL Cohesive Soil 24.00 15.60 14.93 - 150.00 230.80 9000.00 3377.06 0.33
BBH-09
18 1.50 100.00 CL Cohesive Soil 36.00 23.40 16.28 - 225.00 273.70 12600.00 4424.84 0.42
20 1.50 127.00 ML Cohesive Soil 50.00 32.50 17.84 - 312.50 323.75 16800.00 5489.30 0.53
22 1.50 139.00 MH Cohesive Soil 50.00 32.50 17.84 - 312.50 323.75 16800.00 5489.30 0.53
23 4.50 143.50 CL Cohesive Soil 50.00 32.50 17.84 - 312.50 323.75 16800.00 5489.30 0.53

Table 4. 4 Summary of SLS pile capacities
D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
BH ID Pile ID Depth (m) Scour Depth (m) Scour Depth (m) Scour Depth (m) Scour Depth (m) Scour Depth (m)
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
60 7,200 - 2,213 - - 8,400 - 2,750 - - 9,600 - 3,200 - - 12,300 - 4,600 - - 15,400 - 6,000 - -
11,40
70 9,650 - 3,600 - - - 4,500 - - 13,050 - 5,200 - - 16,950 - 7,000 - - 20,800 - 9,000 - -
Bore Pile 0
13,50
80 11,350 - 4,688 - - - 6,000 - - 15,300 - 6,900 - - 20,250 - 9,200 - - 25,200 - 12,000 - -
0
BBH-
13,80 12,00
01 60 11,250 11,100 6,170 5,300 2,050 14,400 9,900 6,600 2,800 19,200 17,200 8,250 3,400 23,100 23,750 17,250 11,600 5,100 29,750 32,550 23,450 15,750 6,800
0 0
Driven 17,40 15,00

70 13,650 12,900 9,700 7,400 4,550 16,500 12,540 9,800 6,000 20,000 19,400 11,500 7,000 27,600 27,500 20,000 16,000 9,900 36,050 36,400 28,000 21,250 13,400
Pile 0 0
19,80 20,85 17,10

80 15,450 15,300 13,200 11,000 7,850 19,650 17,700 14,400 10,200 22,800 22,000 17,100 12,000 31,400 32,000 29,250 24,000 41,160 42,700 39,200 31,750 23,200
0 0 0
60 6,000 - 2,213 - - 7,400 - 2,850 - - 8,100 - 3,200 - - 10,500 - 4,400 - - 13,200 - 5,800 - -
70 7,900 - 3,300 - - 9,600 - 4,050 - - 10,800 - 4,700 - - 13,500 - 5,200 - - 17,400 - 8,000 - -
Bore Pile
10,60
80 8,800 - 3,825 - - - 4,650 - - 12,000 - 5,200 - - 15,000 - 6,800 - - 18,150 - 8,400 - -
0
BBH- 14,70 10,20
60 11,200 9,500 6,500 4,000 1,700 12,600 8,600 5,600 2,200 17,250 14,850 6,400 2,800 23,500 20,800 14,600 9,450 4,000 31,800 28,500 20,000 12,800 5,700
02 0 0
Driven 16,20 14,10

70 12,600 10,800 9,200 6,700 4,200 14,100 12,000 8,900 5,400 18,900 16,650 10,600 6,400 26,500 23,600 20,200 15,450 9,400 34,500 31,250 27,250 20,800 12,900
Pile 0 0
11,99
80 9,800 8,100 6,200 4,950 3,300 9,900 7,600 6,000 4,100 12,900 10,950 8,400 6,600 4,800 16,750 13,800 10,800 8,550 6,050 20,100 16,750 13,500 10,600 7,500
0
60 7,500 - 2,213 - - 9,000 - 2,655 - 10,200 - 3,009 - - 13,200 - 3,894 - - 16,000 - 4,720 - -
11,60
70 9,500 - 3,300 - - - 4,029 - 13,050 - 4,533 - - 16,500 - 5,732 - - 20,000 - 6,947 - -
Bore Pile 0
14,40
80 11,900 - 4,650 - - - 5,627 - 16,200 - 6,330 - - 20,550 - 8,030 - - 24,800 - 9,691 - -
0
BBH-
03 15,00 10,50
60 11,600 9,800 6,800 4,000 1,750 12,900 8,900 5,600 2,300 17,200 15,000 6,440 2,800 24,500 21,200 15,400 9,600 4,200 31,800 28,800 20,500 12,400 5,400
0 0
Driven 16,50 14,40

70 12,900 11,200 9,300 6,800 4,100 14,400 12,100 8,900 5,400 19,400 17,100 10,440 6,600 26,500 23,800 20,400 15,100 9,600 35,100 31,500 27,500 20,800 13,200
Pile 0 0
18,30 16,05 15,30

80 14,400 12,400 10,600 9,300 6,750 16,200 14,000 12,100 8,800 21,200 18,600 14,440 10,600 29,250 26,000 22,800 20,400 37,800 34,800 30,250 26,800 20,700
0 0 0
BBH- Bore Pile 60 7,200 - 2,560 - - 9,000 - 3,200 - - 10,200 - 3,627 - - 13,650 - 4,750 - - 16,650 - 5,920 - -
04
11,00
70 9,600 - 4,189 - - - 4,800 - - 13,200 - 5,760 - - 17,500 - 7,000 - - 20,700 - 9,033 - -
0
80 10,200 - 4,420 - - 12,00 - 5,200 - - 13,800 - 5,980 - - 17,850 - 7,250 - - 20,700 - 8,970 - -
0

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
16,00
90 12,880 - 6,279 - - - 7,800 - - 18,000 - 8,775 - - 23,100 - 11,500 - - 27,900 - 13,601 - -
0
18,20 12,00
100 15,600 - 8,914 - - - 10,400 - - 21,000 - - - 27,300 - 14,980 - - 33,300 - 19,029 - -
0 0
19,75 12,03
110 16,100 - 8,967 - - - 11,000 - - 21,600 - - - 27,650 - 15,000 - - 32,400 - 18,046 - -
0 0
22,80 17,76
120 19,200 - 12,632 - - - 15,000 - - 27,000 - - - 33,600 - 21,500 - - 41,850 - 27,533 - -
0 3
26,75 19,98
130 21,600 - 14,535 - - - 18,000 - - 29,700 - - - 37,450 - 26,250 - - 45,900 - 30,886 - -
0 5
30,00 23,32
140 24,000 - 16,960 - - - 21,200 - - 33,000 - - - 42,000 - 30,000 - - 51,300 - 36,252 - -
0 0
32,00 24,58
150 25,800 - 18,544 - - - 23,000 - - 34,200 - - - 43,750 - 32,000 - - 53,100 - 38,166 - -
0 1
16,00 12,90
60 15,750 12,000 8,200 5,250 3,600 15,750 11,200 7,000 4,800 18,300 18,500 8,500 5,750 25,200 25,760 18,550 9,920 8,400 33,750 34,200 24,000 15,840 12,000
0 0
19,00 20,25 18,30

70 18,500 14,040 13,000 11,970 7,650 18,500 16,800 16,000 10,800 21,900 21,000 19,250 12,500 29,750 29,890 29,050 26,800 38,250 39,150 39,600 39,040 25,200
0 0 0
15,75 11,50
80 15,750 11,320 9,000 6,900 4,950 13,500 11,000 8,600 6,000 17,700 15,000 9,900 6,500 22,750 19,600 15,400 12,010 9,300 27,450 24,300 18,800 16,000 11,200
0 0
22,50 24,25 30,00

90 22,500 16,800 16,000 14,850 12,900 21,500 20,440 19,200 17,200 25,800 25,000 22,250 20,750 34,860 34,650 33,950 31,000 44,550 44,550 44,000 42,240 40,800
0 0 0
23,50 24,90 31,20

100 23,500 17,600 17,000 15,600 14,400 22,250 21,400 20,400 18,800 26,400 25,750 24,000 22,000 35,280 34,930 34,300 32,000 44,910 44,910 44,400 43,200 42,000
Driven 0 0 0
Pile 20,10 17,50 16,20
110 20,100 13,600 13,000 11,400 9,150 18,500 15,800 13,400 11,400 22,500 20,000 15,000 13,000 28,280 25,200 21,630 18,600 34,200 30,150 26,400 23,200 18,800
0 0 0
26,25 27,25 33,60

120 26,000 20,000 18,800 17,940 16,500 25,000 23,800 22,800 21,200 29,700 28,750 26,000 24,750 38,500 37,800 36,960 33,800 48,150 47,700 47,200 46,400 45,600
0 0 0
27,00 28,50 35,10

130 27,000 21,000 19,920 18,750 17,400 26,250 24,600 23,600 22,200 31,200 29,750 26,750 25,500 40,250 39,550 37,450 36,160 50,400 48,600 48,000 47,040 46,400
0 0 0
29,00 29,50 36,00

140 29,000 22,200 20,800 19,950 18,600 27,000 25,200 24,400 23,400 32,400 30,750 28,250 26,500 42,000 40,250 38,850 37,000 52,650 50,400 48,400 47,920 46,800
0 0 0
28,50 26,50 29,10

150 28,250 21,800 19,960 18,150 16,800 26,250 24,000 22,400 20,000 31,800 29,750 25,000 22,900 40,600 37,450 34,650 31,200 49,050 45,450 42,000 39,040 34,400
0 0 0
BBH- Bore Pile 60 7,600 - 2,850 - - 9,400 - 3,700 - - 10,950 - 4,350 - - 14,100 - 6,300 - - 17,600 - 8,300 - -
05
11,90
70 9,400 - 3,900 - - - 5,000 - - 13,260 - 5,850 - - 17,250 - 8,000 - - 21,600 - 10,600 - -
0
80 10,900 - 4,650 - - 13,40 - 5,800 - - 15,000 - 6,650 - - 18,900 - 8,600 - - 23,400 - 11,000 - -
0

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
15,75
60 12,600 9,900 6,400 4,000 1,600 12,300 8,000 5,400 2,000 18,200 14,100 9,150 5,900 2,400 24,750 19,000 12,300 8,100 3,300 30,800 24,300 16,000 10,800 4,200
0
Driven 18,45 12,90

70 14,550 12,100 8,800 6,600 4,000 15,300 11,200 8,400 5,100 21,200 17,700 9,500 5,900 28,500 24,000 17,100 12,900 7,900 36,750 30,300 21,600 16,800 10,200
Pile 0 0
17,10 13,50 11,40

80 13,800 12,200 9,900 8,100 6,100 15,000 12,000 10,000 7,550 19,200 16,950 11,600 8,700 24,500 21,500 17,700 14,850 29,750 26,400 21,400 18,600 14,400
0 0 0
60 7,200 - 2,625 - - 8,600 - 3,300 - - 10,050 - 3,980 - - 13,050 - 5,400 - - 16,050 - 7,300 - -
11,40
70 9,200 - 3,075 - - - 4,800 - - 12,750 - 5,500 - - 16,500 - 7,600 - - 20,200 - 9,700 - -
Bore Pile 0
13,80
80 11,600 - 5,025 - - - 6,200 - - 15,300 - 7,000 - - 19,650 - 9,400 - - 24,000 - 11,900 - -
0
BBH-
18,80 14,40
06 60 14,550 13,500 9,200 5,900 2,300 17,600 12,000 7,950 3,200 21,200 20,800 9,000 3,800 29,700 29,700 20,000 13,200 5,700 38,400 39,600 26,950 16,800 7,600
0 0
Driven 20,00 19,20 12,60

70 15,600 14,850 12,200 9,300 5,700 19,400 16,200 12,000 7,500 22,800 22,400 14,100 8,800 30,000 31,200 26,500 19,800 40,000 40,800 36,050 26,400 16,800
Pile 0 0 0
17,20 14,40 11,85

80 14,400 12,150 10,200 8,500 6,200 15,000 12,600 10,500 7,800 19,800 16,800 11,850 9,000 25,200 22,200 18,500 15,200 31,200 27,200 22,750 19,200 14,800
0 0 0
60 3,300 - 1,498 - - 4,030 - 1,875 - - 4,600 - 2,175 - - 6,000 - 2,900 - - 7,400 - 3,700 - -
Bore Pile 70 4,450 - 2,500 - - 5,500 - 3,188 - - 6,300 - 3,675 - - 8,300 - 4,900 - - 10,400 - 6,400 - -
80 5,450 - 3,150 - - 6,600 - 3,975 - - 7,300 - 4,500 - - 9,600 - 5,800 - - 11,900 - 7,250 - -
BBH- 60 5,400 4,000 2,600 1,800 1,013 6,600 5,100 3,200 2,300 1,250 7,200 5,550 3,600 2,600 1,500 9,750 7,200 5,000 3,450 2,250 11,880 8,700 6,000 4,400 2,940
07
14,10 11,60
Driven 70 10,800 9,600 7,300 5,200 3,375 12,600 9,800 7,400 4,500 16,500 14,850 8,500 5,350 23,000 21,200 17,200 12,000 7,900 31,200 28,200 23,000 17,000 11,100
0 0
Pile
10,20
80 8,600 7,200 5,600 4,400 3,300 9,000 6,700 5,400 4,150 11,850 9,900 7,700 6,300 4,850 15,000 12,800 9,800 8,100 6,400 18,600 16,200 12,000 10,200 8,100
0
60 5,000 - 2,475 - - 6,150 - 3,150 - - 6,700 - 3,600 - - 8,800 - 4,800 - - 11,200 - 6,000 - -
Bore Pile 70 5,900 - 3,413 - - 7,250 - 4,300 - - 8,000 - 4,850 - - 10,400 - 6,300 - - 12,800 - 8,000 - -
80 6,800 - 4,335 - - 8,300 - 5,400 - - 9,400 - 6,050 - - 11,900 - 7,900 - - 14,600 - 9,800 - -
BBH- 60 8,000 5,400 3,400 2,350 1,500 9,800 6,800 4,150 3,000 1,875 11,100 7,800 4,800 3,500 2,300 14,000 10,050 6,300 4,800 3,200 19,000 12,600 8,000 6,200 4,400
08
12,40
Driven 70 10,000 7,400 4,950 3,700 2,475 9,200 6,000 4,700 3,113 13,950 10,200 6,900 5,200 3,750 17,600 13,200 9,100 6,800 4,950 21,200 16,200 11,400 8,600 6,400
0
Pile
14,60
80 12,100 9,400 6,700 5,200 3,750 11,600 8,200 6,350 4,688 16,200 12,900 9,300 7,220 5,350 20,800 16,800 10,000 9,400 7,050 25,200 20,550 12,600 11,900 8,800
0
BBH- Bore Pile 60 6,400 - 3,600 - - 7,000 - 4,400 - - 9,000 - 5,063 - - 11,200 - 7,200 - - 14,400 - 8,100 - -
09
10,00
70 8,000 - 4,100 - - - 5,600 - - 11,400 - 5,843 - - 14,400 - 8,400 - - 18,000 - 9,225 - -
0
80 8,050 - 4,100 - - 10,10 - 5,800 - - 11,500 - 5,857 - - 14,450 - 8,700 - - 18,000 - 9,168 - -

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
14,50 10,61
90 11,600 - 7,600 - - - 9,000 - - 16,200 - - - 21,200 - 13,200 - - 25,200 - 16,510 - -
0 4
17,00 13,58
100 14,200 - 9,600 - - - 11,400 - - 20,100 - - - 25,200 - 17,280 - - 31,050 - 20,992 - -
0 9
20,10 16,01
110 16,800 - 11,800 - - - 14,000 - - 22,800 - - - 29,600 - 20,400 - - 36,000 - 25,286 - -
0 4
24,25 19,03
120 19,200 - 14,000 - - - 17,200 - - 26,100 - - - 33,600 - 24,600 - - 41,400 - 30,188 - -
0 1
26,50 22,96
130 21,600 - 16,600 - - - 20,200 - - 29,880 - - - 37,600 - 29,100 - - 46,800 - 35,967 - -
0 3
29,25 24,46
140 23,920 - 18,400 - - - 22,800 - - 31,800 - - - 40,640 - 31,800 - - 49,500 - 38,077 - -
0 2
31,75 29,03
150 26,200 - 21,200 - - - 25,800 - - 35,880 - - - 45,200 - 36,300 - - 55,620 - 45,005 - -
0 3
16,75 10,75
60 13,200 11,200 6,800 4,400 1,800 14,900 9,000 6,000 2,800 19,800 17,400 6,750 3,250 27,200 24,500 15,400 9,800 4,900 37,000 33,300 20,700 13,500 7,020
0 0
17,50 15,25 10,85

70 13,800 12,400 9,800 7,600 5,000 16,250 13,000 10,000 6,800 20,400 19,200 11,750 7,500 27,300 26,600 22,400 16,800 37,000 35,550 30,600 22,050 15,300
0 0 0
15,00 10,00
80 12,010 9,600 7,200 6,400 4,800 11,750 8,750 7,500 5,800 16,800 13,200 8,500 6,250 21,200 16,450 12,950 10,850 8,400 27,000 20,250 16,200 13,500 10,800
0 0
22,50 23,00 23,10

90 17,800 16,200 14,800 13,200 10,800 21,000 19,750 17,500 13,800 25,800 24,000 20,250 16,250 34,400 33,600 32,550 28,490 45,000 44,100 42,750 38,250 30,150
0 0 0
23,50 24,50 29,40

100 18,800 17,200 16,000 15,800 13,800 21,750 21,000 20,400 17,600 26,700 25,200 23,750 21,000 35,000 34,300 33,600 33,600 45,500 44,550 44,550 44,820 39,150
Driven 0 0 0
Pile 24,95 25,01 33,95
110 20,000 18,200 17,200 17,000 16,000 22,750 21,750 21,500 20,720 28,200 25,800 25,150 24,000 36,200 35,000 34,650 34,860 47,000 45,000 45,000 45,450 45,000
0 0 0
25,75 26,00 35,17

120 20,800 18,800 18,000 17,400 17,200 24,000 22,750 22,500 22,000 29,400 27,000 25,750 25,500 38,400 35,700 35,050 35,280 48,000 45,720 45,050 45,900 45,900
0 0 5
26,50 27,00 35,70

130 22,000 20,000 18,800 18,800 18,200 24,750 23,500 23,500 23,000 30,600 28,200 26,750 26,500 40,000 37,100 36,400 36,120 50,000 47,250 45,900 46,800 46,530
0 0 0
27,00 25,00 28,70

140 22,600 20,080 18,400 17,600 16,600 24,500 22,500 21,000 20,000 30,600 27,900 24,250 22,500 39,200 35,010 32,900 30,800 47,500 43,200 39,600 38,250 35,980
0 0 0
31,00 31,00 40,25

150 26,200 23,920 22,800 21,600 21,200 29,250 27,500 26,750 26,800 35,880 32,100 31,000 30,250 46,000 42,700 40,600 40,250 57,000 53,100 51,300 51,120 51,750
0 0 0

Table 4. 5 Summary of ULS pile capacities
D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
60 9,000 - 2876 - - 11,400 - 3,575 - - 12,600 - 4,160 - - 16,500 - 5,980 - - 21,000 - 7,800 - -
Bore Pile 70 12,400 - 4680 - - 15,600 - 5,850 - - 17,400 - 6,760 - - 22,500 - 9,100 - - 28,200 - 11,700 - -
80 14,600 - 6094 - - 18,300 - 7,800 - - 20,400 - 8,970 - - 26,750 - 11,960 - - 33,900 - 15,600 - -
BBH- 60 12,600 12,450 8021 5,600 3,800 16,200 16,400 12,870 7,200 5,560 18,800 19,400 15,600 8,550 6,500 25,800 27,600 22,425 12,000 9,900 34,000 36,800 30,485 16,500 13,600
01
1261
Driven 70 15,450 14,250 8,000 5,150 19,600 18,600 16,302 10,650 6,600 23,200 22,000 19,500 12,000 8,000 31,200 30,600 26,000 17,200 10,950 40,000 40,000 36,400 22,800 14,800
0
Pile
1716
80 17,550 17,100 12,050 8,650 22,400 22,200 23,010 15,900 11,400 25,800 25,400 27,105 18,600 13,400 35,700 36,050 38,025 25,800 18,750 47,200 48,000 50,960 34,800 25,200
0
60 8,400 - 2876 - - 10,200 - 3,705 - - 11,850 - 4,160 - - 15,400 - 5,720 - - 19,000 - 7,540 - -
Bore Pile 70 11,200 - 4290 - - 13,500 - 5,265 - - 15,300 - 6,110 - - 19,800 - 6,760 - - 24,250 - 10,400 - -
80 12,600 - 4973 - - 15,150 - 6,045 - - 17,100 - 6,760 - - 21,400 - 8,840 - - 26,250 - 10,920 - -
BBH-
60 14,850 12,600 8450 5,400 2,100 19,200 16,500 11,180 7,100 3,000 22,600 19,600 13,260 8,850 3,600 31,200 27,500 18,980 12,400 5,400 41,600 37,100 26,000 17,000 7,600
02
Driven 1196
70 17,250 14,400 8,800 5,400 21,400 18,900 15,600 11,900 7,300 24,800 22,000 18,330 14,100 8,700 34,800 31,000 26,260 20,000 12,600 45,600 41,300 35,425 27,500 17,200
Pile 0
80 12,900 10,650 8060 6,400 4,500 15,600 12,900 9,880 8,000 5,600 17,400 14,800 10,920 9,000 6,200 22,200 18,500 14,040 11,200 8,100 26,800 23,100 17,550 14,000 9,800
60 10,200 - 2876 - - 12,300 - 3,452 - - 13,600 - 3,912 - - 18,250 - 5,062 - - 22,500 - 6,136 - -
Bore Pile 70 12,900 - 4290 - - 15,750 - 5,238 - - 17,600 - 5,893 - - 23,250 - 7,451 - - 28,500 - 9,032 - -
80 15,900 - 6045 - - 19,650 - 7,315 - - 21,600 - 8,229 - - 28,250 - 10,439 - - 34,500 - 12,598 - -
BBH- 60 15,000 12,900 8840 5,400 2,100 19,800 17,000 11,570 7,200 2,800 23,250 19,800 13,650 8,850 3,600 31,800 28,200 20,020 12,500 5,700 42,800 38,400 26,650 17,700 7,500
03
1209
Driven 70 17,250 14,850 8,800 5,400 22,000 19,000 15,730 11,990 7,200 25,500 22,400 18,720 14,100 8,600 35,400 31,800 26,520 20,000 12,300 46,400 42,000 35,750 27,600 17,000
0
Pile
1378
80 18,900 16,800 12,200 8,900 24,400 21,600 18,200 16,200 11,900 28,500 25,000 20,865 18,750 14,000 38,100 34,800 29,640 27,000 20,100 50,400 45,600 39,325 36,300 27,000
0
BBH- Bore Pile 60 11,900 - 3328 - - 14,000 - 4,160 - - 16,200 - 4,715 - - 20,000 - 6,175 - - 25,000 - 7,696 - -
04
70 14,700 - 5446 - - 18,400 - 6,240 - - 20,250 - 7,488 - - 27,000 - 9,100 - - 32,000 - 11,743 - -
80 16,100 - 5746 - - 19,200 - 6,760 - - 21,150 - 7,774 - - 27,200 - 9,425 - - 32,080 - 11,661 - -
90 19,600 - 8163 - - 24,050 - 10,140 - - 27,450 - 11,408 - - 35,000 - 14,950 - - 43,000 - 17,682 - -
1158
100 23,100 - - - 28,800 - 13,520 - - 32,850 - 15,600 - - 41,800 - 19,474 - - 50,500 - 24,737 - -
9
1165
110 25,200 - - - 29,100 - 14,300 - - 33,300 - 15,639 - - 41,850 - 19,500 - - 50,500 - 23,459 - -
7
1642
120 30,100 - - - 36,200 - 19,500 - - 40,950 - 23,092 - - 51,800 - 27,950 - - 63,000 - 35,793 - -
1
130 33,600 - 1889 - - 40,800 - 23,400 - - 45,450 - 25,981 - - 58,000 - 34,125 - - 70,050 - 40,152 - -
5

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
2204
140 37,100 - - - 44,900 - 27,560 - - 51,300 - 30,316 - - 64,000 - 39,000 - - 78,500 - 47,128 - -
8
2410
150 39,550 - - - 46,650 - 29,900 - - 53,550 - 31,956 - - 67,800 - 41,600 - - 81,000 - 49,615 - -
7
1066
60 19,735 15,036 6,578 4,511 20,048 19,735 14,560 8,771 6,014 22,930 23,181 16,770 10,651 7,205 31,576 32,277 24,115 12,430 10,525 42,289 42,853 31,200 19,848 15,036
0
1690
70 23,181 17,592 14,998 9,585 23,807 23,181 21,840 20,048 13,532 27,441 26,313 26,325 24,120 15,663 37,277 37,452 37,765 33,580 22,930 47,927 49,055 51,480 48,917 31,576
0
1170
80 19,735 14,184 8,646 6,202 19,735 16,916 14,300 10,776 7,518 22,178 18,795 14,950 12,405 8,145 28,506 24,559 20,020 15,049 11,653 34,395 30,448 24,440 20,048 14,034
0
2080
90 28,193 21,050 18,607 16,164 28,193 26,940 26,572 24,058 21,552 32,327 31,325 31,525 27,879 26,000 43,680 43,416 44,135 38,843 37,590 55,821 55,821 57,200 52,927 51,122
0
2210
100 29,446 22,053 19,547 18,043 29,446 27,879 27,820 25,561 23,556 33,079 32,265 32,370 30,072 27,566 44,206 43,767 44,590 40,096 39,094 56,272 56,272 57,720 54,130 52,626
Driven 0
Pile 1690
110 25,185 17,041 14,284 11,465 25,185 23,181 20,540 16,790 14,284 28,193 25,060 22,750 18,795 16,289 35,435 31,576 28,119 23,306 20,299 42,853 37,778 34,320 29,070 23,556
0
2444
120 32,578 25,060 22,479 20,675 32,891 31,325 30,940 28,568 26,564 37,214 36,024 35,425 32,578 31,012 48,241 47,363 48,048 42,351 42,101 60,332 59,768 61,360 58,139 57,137
0
2589
130 33,831 26,313 23,494 21,802 33,831 32,891 31,980 29,571 27,817 39,094 37,277 37,050 33,518 31,952 50,433 49,556 48,685 45,308 43,980 63,151 60,896 62,400 58,941 58,139
6
2704
140 36,337 27,817 24,997 23,306 36,337 33,831 32,760 30,573 29,320 40,597 38,530 38,350 35,397 33,205 52,626 50,433 50,505 46,361 45,108 65,970 63,151 62,920 60,044 58,640
0
2594
150 35,397 27,315 22,742 21,050 35,711 32,891 31,200 28,067 25,060 39,845 37,277 34,450 31,325 28,694 50,872 46,925 45,045 39,094 36,462 61,460 56,949 54,600 48,917 43,103
8
60 12,000 - 3705 - - 15,200 - 4,810 - - 17,200 - 5,655 - - 22,500 - 8,190 - - 28,350 - 10,790 - -
Bore Pile 70 15,300 - 5070 - - 18,800 - 6,500 - - 21,200 - 7,605 - - 27,500 - 10,400 - - 34,300 - 13,780 - -
80 17,700 - 6045 - - 21,200 - 7,540 - - 24,000 - 8,645 - - 30,250 - 11,180 - - 37,800 - 14,300 - -
BBH- 60 16,600 12,900 8320 5,400 5,850 20,750 16,200 10,400 6,600 8,000 23,600 18,800 11,895 7,950 8,600 32,550 25,500 15,990 10,400 14,000 41,400 32,000 20,800 13,500 20,700
05
1144
Driven 70 19,200 15,900 8,800 12,750 24,750 20,000 14,560 10,900 17,120 27,750 23,200 16,770 12,450 20,300 37,800 31,500 22,230 16,800 30,800 47,700 40,000 28,080 21,500 42,300
0
Pile
1287
80 18,400 15,850 10,600 8,160 21,750 19,800 15,600 13,400 10,000 25,000 22,600 17,550 14,940 9,600 32,200 28,200 23,010 19,400 15,050 39,150 34,800 27,820 24,250 18,450
0
BBH- 60 10,650 - 3413 - - 13,050 - 4,290 - - 15,000 - 5,174 - - 19,750 - 7,020 - - 24,000 - 9,490 - -
06
Bore Pile 70 13,800 - 3998 - - 17,100 - 6,240 - - 19,200 - 7,150 - - 25,000 - 9,880 - - 30,000 - 12,610 - -
80 16,800 - 6533 - - 20,550 - 8,060 - - 23,000 - 9,100 - - 29,500 - 12,220 - - 36,000 - 15,470 - -
Driven 1196
60 19,000 16,900 7,200 2,800 24,000 22,250 15,600 9,750 4,000 28,200 26,400 18,720 11,200 4,800 37,600 37,600 26,000 16,000 8,900 50,300 50,000 35,035 21,350 9,500
Pile 0
70 20,000 18,100 1586 11,850 7,400 26,000 24,750 21,060 15,150 9,400 29,400 28,800 24,960 18,000 11,100 40,000 40,000 34,450 25,050 16,000 52,500 52,500 46,865 32,900 21,000

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
1326
80 18,400 14,850 10,950 8,000 22,000 19,500 16,380 13,050 10,000 25,200 21,600 18,720 15,200 11,550 32,210 27,600 24,050 19,750 14,800 40,000 34,000 29,575 24,500 19,000
0
60 4,600 - 1947 - - 5,600 - 2,438 - - 6,400 - 2,828 - - 8,100 - 3,770 - - 10,050 - 4,810 - -
Bore Pile 70 6,150 - 3250 - - 7,600 - 4,144 - - 8,700 - 4,778 - - 11,400 - 6,370 - - 14,250 - 8,320 - -
BBH- 80 7,350 - 4095 - - 9,000 - 5,168 - - 10,300 - 5,850 - - 13,400 - 7,540 - - 16,350 - 9,425 - -
07 60 7,200 5,400 3380 2,400 1,300 8,800 6,800 4,160 3,000 1,600 9,990 7,200 4,680 3,600 2,000 12,100 9,600 6,500 4,800 5,850 15,300 12,000 7,800 6,000 4,000
Driven
70 14,400 12,600 9490 7,200 4,400 18,800 16,800 12,740 9,400 6,000 21,500 19,600 15,080 11,100 7,100 30,900 28,200 22,360 16,000 10,500 40,500 37,600 29,900 22,000 14,400
Pile
80 11,400 9,600 7280 6,000 4,300 13,800 12,000 8,710 7,200 5,400 15,750 13,200 10,010 8,100 6,200 19,800 16,800 12,740 10,800 8,100 24,300 21,600 15,600 13,500 10,400
60 7,200 - 3218 - - 8,600 - 4,095 - - 9,900 - 4,680 - - 12,600 - 6,240 - - 15,600 - 7,800 - -
Bore Pile 70 8,400 - 4437 - - 10,200 - 5,590 - - 11,400 - 6,305 - - 14,700 - 8,190 - - 18,090 - 10,400 - -
BBH- 80 9,600 - 5636 - - 11,700 - 7,020 - - 13,200 - 7,865 - - 16,500 - 10,270 - - 20,850 - 12,740 - -
08 60 10,500 7,400 4420 3,100 1,875 12,900 9,100 5,395 4,000 2,500 15,000 10,200 6,240 4,600 3,105 19,000 13,200 8,190 6,300 4,200 22,800 16,500 10,400 8,100 5,600
Driven
70 13,200 9,900 6435 4,950 3,225 15,900 12,000 7,800 6,100 4,100 19,000 13,500 8,970 7,000 4,875 23,000 17,600 11,830 9,200 6,350 28,200 21,500 14,820 11,700 8,400
Pile
80 15,900 12,600 8710 6,950 4,950 18,900 15,800 10,660 8,400 6,200 22,000 17,400 12,090 9,600 7,223 28,000 22,000 13,000 12,400 9,400 34,200 27,000 16,380 15,600 9,900
BBH- 60 8,400 - 4680 - - 10,800 - 5,720 - - 12,150 - 6,581 - - 17,000 - 9,360 - - 20,100 - 10,530 - -
09
70 11,700 - 5330 - - 14,400 - 7,280 - - 16,200 - 7,595 - - 20,900 - 10,920 - - 27,000 - 11,993 - -
80 12,000 - 5330 - - 14,500 - 7,540 - - 16,500 - 7,614 - - 21,000 - 11,310 - - 27,000 - 11,918 - -
90 16,800 - 9880 - - 21,200 - 11,700 - - 23,850 - 13,798 - - 30,000 - 17,160 - - 38,000 - 21,463 - -
1248
100 20,400 - - - 24,800 - 14,820 - - 28,800 - 17,665 - - 37,000 - 22,464 - - 45,000 - 27,289 - -
0
1534
110 24,000 - - - 30,400 - 18,200 - - 33,300 - 20,819 - - 43,000 - 26,520 - - 52,000 - 32,871 - -
0
Bore Pile
1820
120 28,200 - - - 34,400 - 22,360 - - 37,800 - 24,741 - - 49,500 - 31,980 - - 60,000 - 39,244 - -
0
2158
130 31,800 - - - 39,200 - 26,260 - - 42,300 - 29,852 - - 55,000 - 37,830 - - 68,000 - 46,757 - -
0
2392
140 34,800 - - - 41,600 - 29,640 - - 46,800 - 31,800 - - 59,700 - 41,340 - - 72,000 - 49,500 - -
0
2756
150 38,100 - - - 46,800 - 33,540 - - 52,200 - 37,742 - - 67,000 - 47,190 - - 81,000 - 58,507 - -
0
Driven 60 18,480 15,680 8840 6,160 2,520 23,450 20,860 11,700 8,400 3,920 27,720 24,360 13,975 9,450 4,550 38,080 34,300 20,020 13,720 6,860 51,800 46,620 26,910 18,900 9,828
Pile
1274
70 19,320 17,360 10,640 7,000 24,500 22,750 16,900 14,000 9,520 28,560 26,880 19,825 16,450 10,500 38,220 37,240 29,120 23,520 15,190 51,800 49,770 39,780 30,870 21,420
0
80 16,814 13,440 9360 8,960 6,720 21,000 16,450 11,375 10,500 8,120 23,520 18,480 13,000 11,900 8,750 29,680 23,030 16,835 15,190 11,760 37,800 28,350 21,060 18,900 15,120
90 24,920 22,680 1924 18,480 15,120 31,500 29,400 25,675 24,500 19,320 36,120 33,600 29,900 28,350 22,750 48,160 47,040 42,315 39,886 32,340 63,000 61,740 55,575 53,550 42,210

D=1.5 m D=1.8 m D=2.0 m D=2.5 m D=3.0 m
0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50 0 15 30 40 50
2080
100 26,320 24,080 22,120 19,320 32,900 30,450 27,300 28,560 24,640 37,380 35,280 31,850 33,250 29,400 49,000 48,020 43,680 47,040 41,160 63,700 62,370 57,915 62,748 54,810
0
2236
110 28,000 25,480 23,800 22,400 34,930 31,850 28,275 30,100 29,008 39,480 36,120 32,513 35,210 33,600 50,680 49,000 45,045 48,804 47,530 65,800 63,000 58,500 63,630 63,000
0
2340
120 29,120 26,320 24,360 24,080 36,050 33,600 29,575 31,500 30,800 41,160 37,800 33,800 36,050 35,700 53,760 49,980 45,565 49,392 49,245 67,200 64,008 58,565 64,260 64,260
0
2444
130 30,800 28,000 26,320 25,480 37,100 34,650 30,550 32,900 32,200 42,840 39,480 35,100 37,450 37,100 56,000 51,940 47,320 50,568 49,980 70,000 66,150 59,670 65,520 65,142
0
2392
140 31,640 28,112 24,640 23,240 37,800 34,300 29,250 29,400 28,000 42,840 39,060 32,500 33,950 31,500 54,880 49,014 42,770 43,120 40,180 66,500 60,480 51,480 53,550 50,372
0
2964
150 36,680 33,488 30,240 29,680 43,400 40,950 35,750 37,450 37,520 50,232 44,940 40,300 43,400 42,350 64,400 59,780 52,780 56,350 56,350 79,800 74,340 66,690 71,568 72,450
0

 Pile settlement
- The total settlement was calculated 41.3mm in case of Maximum ULS load, 17,500 kN on the pile
cap of bored pile diameter 3.0m, length 90m due to exist stiff clay layer from 100m to 115m depth.
- The total settlement was calculated 33.9mm in case of Maximum ULS load, 57,500 kN on the pile
cap of driven pile diameter 3.0m, length 90m due to exist stiff clay layer from 100m to 115m depth.
- Total settlement meet the design requirement less than 50mm


5 DESIGN OF SOFT GROUND
A soft ground can be defined as a ground with weak strength that causes a lot of displacement by an
applied load change. In other words, soft ground is generally clay or silt quantitatively which has low
bearing capacity, causing major problems in the safety of the embankment and structure due to excessive
settlement and lateral displacement. However, it varies depending on the thickness and area of the soft
layer of the ground, and even the same soil layer may or may not be uniformly defined soft ground
depending on the type, size, required characteristic or construction method of the structure built on the
ground.
The structure constructed on a soft ground should be reviewed in detail the effect of bearing capacity and
settlement generated in the ground on the structure due to the applied load. Therefore, the engineering
characteristics of the soft ground were identified based on the former records of distribution status of this
project route and the results of geotechnical investigations and laboratory tests.
5.1 Existing Soft Ground Status
Subsoil stratification along the proposed Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road alignment was thus
established through the results of deep exploratory boreholes and Trial Pits. It is found that sub soil deposits
comprise of some cohesive and cohesionless layers from the soil layers encountered in the project site.
The cohesive layers (Layer 3 and 4) are mostly consisting of low plastic to high plastic, CLAY(CL/CH)/ Silty
CLAY/ Lean inorganic CLAY/ Sandy CLAY and SILT (CL/ML)/ Clayey SILT/ Sandy SILT. The layers are
combination of cohesionless soil consisting of various types of SAND with some silt SP/SM/ SP-SM/SC.
The Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador And Tentulia River subsoil profile is presented in
Figure 3. 2. Sub-soil profile of Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia river. The SPT N value was trended
to increase with depth as shown in in Figure 3. 3 SPT N value vs Elevation.
5.2 Review of geological profile
 Topsoil
As much of Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador And Tentulia River approach roads are to
be constructed on earth-fill embankment sections of 2 m or greater in height above existing soils, topsoil
will generally remain in situ to preserve the existing strength of the upper desiccated alluvial ‘crust’. In areas
where soft-soil deposits are of shallow depth and recommended ground improvement measure by
excavating and replacing is considered appropriate.
 Made Ground
The made ground may exist in localized areas along the route. The deposits are generally associated with
existing flood protection bund or local drainage training works, in which case they are most probably
reworked alluvial soils, or they are associated with existing highways and are predominantly re-worked

local fill soils. Limited laboratory testing data exists for these localized deposits. The parameters for design
associated with these deposits will be considered on a specific basis where they occur if required.
 Alluvium
Only alluvial soil deposits have been encountered along the bridge and its approach road alignment
consisting of a mixture of alluvial silts / sandy silts, intermediate discontinuous medium dense sandy Silt.
Continuous clayey Silt and silty Clay layers encountered from Veduria Bhola side towards Barishal side.
 Sand
Grey color fine sand deposits of varying degrees of relative density (SPT ‘N’) are predominant subsoil strata
encountered at the boreholes of Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador And Tentulia River.
SPT ’N’ Vs depth plot is presented in Figure 3. 3 SPT N value vs Elevation. The degree of relative density
varies from very loose to loose sand at shallow depths and dense to very dense at deeper depths.
5.3 Liquefaction Assessment
5.3.1 General
Liquefaction is the phenomena when there is loss of strength in saturated and cohesionless soils because
of increased pore water pressures and hence reduced effective stresses due to dynamic loading. It is a
phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid
loading. One of the main risks in low densified sandy soils with the presence of water and an external force
such as the earthquake is the generation of liquefaction. This phenomenon was studied for the first time in
1964 after the earthquake in Niigata, Japan. The experience of different researchers shows that the most
suitable methods of analysis are those that are based on in situ tests.
5.3.2 Liquefaction Target Section
Liquefaction for soil engineering is a process in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by
earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for
tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world. Liquefaction occurs in
saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water.
This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are
pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking
can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with
respect to each other.
According to the National Research Council’s Committee on Earthquake Engineering (1985), soil
liquefaction is defined as the phenomena in which there is a loss of shearing resistance or the
development of excessive strains as a result of transient or repeated disturbance of saturated cohesionless
soils. Sladen et al (1985) stated that “Liquefaction is phenomena wherein a mass of soil loses a large
percentage of its shear resistance, when subjected to monotonic, cyclic, or shocking loading, and flows in a
manner resembling a liquid until the shear stresses acting on the mass are as low as the reduced shear

resistance”. After initial liquefaction if large deformations are prevented because of increased undrained
shear strength then it is termed, “limited liquefaction” (Finn et al. 1994). When dense saturated sands are
subjected to static loading they have the tendency to progressively soften in undrained cyclic shear
achieving limiting strains which is known as cyclic mobility (Castro 1975). Cyclic mobility should not be
confused with liquefaction. Both can be distinguished from the very fact that a liquefied soil displays no
appreciable increase in shear resistance regardless of the magnitude of deformation (Seed 1979). Ground
failures associated with the phenomena of liquefaction under cyclic loading can be classified in a broader
sense as follows (Robertson et al. 1992): (1) Flow failures-It is observed when the liquefaction of loose,
contractive soils (i.e. the soils where there is no increase in strength at larger shear strains) results in very
large deformations., (2) Deformation failures-It is observed when there is a gain in shear resistance of the
liquefied soil at larger strain, resulting in limited deformations but no loss of stability.
5.3.3 Liquefaction Criteria
Soil particles are loose and cohesionless and will move closer together when shaken. Soil particles are
sized between coarse silt to fine sand approximately 0.01–1.00 mm in diameter. (The effect has been
observed in other soils under specific conditions.) Ground is saturated (particularly material that is below
the water table). Sufficient shaking occurs (the level of shaking to cause liquefaction depends on several
site-specific factors).
When all four conditions are present, the loose material begins to compress under the force of gravity,
closing the spaces between the grains. However, the water already occupying the spaces resists the
change, and pressure begins to build in the material. Eventually, the pressure rises enough that the grains
become buoyant and float in the water. At this point, the strength of the soil is completely, and it begins to
act like a liquid. Soil can remain liquefied for several hours after the earthquake shaking has stopped,
although it will gradually solidify and regain bearing strength as the pressure within the material disperses.
The parameters that need to be considered for the assessment of liquefaction are as follows;
 Geological age and origin

 Fluvial, lacustrine or aeolian deposits of Holocene age (young deposits) have greater potential for
liquefaction compared to till, residual deposits or older deposits.
 Fineness content and Plasticity Index
 Lower fine content and lower plasticity of soil increases liquefaction potential.
 Saturation
 Generally, saturation of 80 to 85 percent is considered as condition necessary for liquefaction.
 Depth below ground surface
 Soil layers within about 15m of the ground surface are considered more likely to liquefy.
 Soil penetration resistance
 Soil layers with less than 25 to 30 SPT values and cone resistance less than 15 MPa have potential
to liquefy.

(Note: If three or more of the above criteria indicate that liquefaction is not likely, the potential for
liquefaction may be dismissed. Otherwise, a more rigorous analysis is required. However, historic evidence
and study of sample data from subsurface investigation would be appropriate as well).
5.3.4 Factors Affecting Soil Liquefaction
 Soil Type
 Grain size and its distribution
 Initial relative density
 Vibration characteristics
 Location of drainage and dimension of deposit
 Surcharge load
 Method of soil formation
 Period under sustained load
 Previous strain history
 Trapped Air
5.3.5 Consequences of Liquefaction
The effects of soil liquefaction on the built environment can be extremely damaging. Buildings whose
foundations bear directly on sand which liquefies will experience a sudden loss of support, which will result
in drastic and irregular settlement of the building causing structural damage, including cracking of
foundations and damage to the building structure itself, or may leave the structure unserviceable
afterwards, even without structural damage. Bridges and large buildings constructed on pile foundations
may lose support from the adjacent soil and buckle, or come to rest at a tilt after shaking. Earth
embankments such as flood levees and earth dams may lose stability or collapse if the material comprising
the embankment or its foundation liquefies. The major effects of liquefaction are:
 Settlements
 Lateral spreads
 Lateral flows
 Loss of lateral support
 Loss of bearing support
 Flotation of bearing supports
5.3.6 Liquefaction Determination and Mitigation Methods for Soil Engineering
Standard penetration test (SPT): The most accepted field method to evaluate susceptibility to liquefaction is
the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Youd and Idriss (1997) proposed a simplified semi-empirical
procedure for the determination of the susceptibility to the phenomenon of liquefaction in saturated loose
sands. It is based on observation and recording of cases where this phenomenon has occurred, in addition
to the evaluation of the results of standard penetration tests (SPT) and shear stresses induced in soil during

a seismic event. This method consists in finding a safety factor (FOS). Soil strata that have FOS<1.2 is
liquefiable, that is if CRR < CSR the soil will be liquefy.
5.3.7 Liquefaction Assessment using SPT
Liquefaction potential based on SPT have been determined by Seed et al;1997. This method has been
described step by step below.
 Step 1
From the SPT test the available data are SPT value (N). Then we can find out in situ stress (σv, σv’). Where σv
and σv’ are the overburden pressure and effective overburden pressure respectively
 Step 2
Stress reduction factor:
r = 1.0-0.00765z (for z<=9.15 m)
1.174-0.0267z (for 9.15 m <z<=23.0 m)
0.744-0.008z (for 23.0 m<z<=30 m)
0.5 (for z>30.0 m)
here z= depth from ground level.
Critical stress ratio induced by earthquake:
CSReq = 0.65 x (amax/g) x rd x (σv/σ'v)
Correction for SPT (N) value for overburden pressure:
(N)60 = CN * N60
CN = 9.79* (1/ σv’)1/2
Critical stress ratio resisting liquefaction:
CSR7.5 has been found from the following graph (Fig. 5.1). Figure 5.2 shows the relation between cyclic
Stress Ratio and modified penetration Resistance.

Figure 5. 1 CSR vs Corrected blow count (Seed et al;1983).
Figure 5. 2 Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Modified penetration Resistance
Corrected Critical Stress Ratio Resisting Liquefaction
CRR=CSR7.5 x km x kα x ks

km : Correction factor for earthquake magnitude other than 7.5

kα : Correction factor for initial driving static shear
ks : Correction factor for stress level larger than96 Kpa
 STEP 3:
Factor of safety against liquefaction
FS = CRR/CSR

5.3.8 Liquefaction Assessment of Bhola Bridge on Barishal-Bhola Road over Kalabador And Tentulia River site
 BBH-01: Liquefiable layers exist up to 15.0 m from the existing soil layer
Review of Feasibility Study for Bhola Bridge over Kalabador Borehole

Project : 100 mm
and Tentulia River Diameter:
Seismic Zone: 1 BH ID BBH-01 Peak ground acceleration (m/s )
2
1.18
Liquefaction Assessment Graph
Cyclic
Overburden Pressure Resistance
Stress
Field Total Effective Cyclic Ratio
Unit Wt. Correction Factor, CN = Corrected Reduction Factor of Liquefaction
Depth SPT N Overburden overburden 0.5 Stress (CRRL) Remarks (With
Soil Type of soil SPT N Coefficient Safety, Probability
(m) Value, Pressure σ'v pressure σ'v (1/σv') where Ratio (for FSL=1.0)
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
(KN/m ) σv' is in kg/cm (1 kg/cm = Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
2 2
Nf (KN/m ) (CSReq) M=7.5,
98.1 kPa) 97), rd
from
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
graph)
1
3
1.50 Cohesive 3 16.49 24.74 10.03 1.60 5.0 0.989 0.191 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable
3.00 Cohesive 4 17.28 50.66 21.23 1.60 6.7 0.977 0.182 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 5
4.50 Cohesive 1 15.71 74.22 30.08 1.60 1.7 0.966 0.186 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 7 Mw=7.5
6.00 Cohesive 4 17.28 100.14 41.28 1.52 6.7 0.954 0.181 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw= 6.5
9 Mw = 6.0
7.50 Cohesive 6 18.85 128.42 54.84 1.32 10.0 0.943 0.173 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw=5.5
9.00 Cohesionless 13 18.85 156.69 68.40 1.18 19.6 0.931 0.167 0.211 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 11
10.50 Cohesionless 10 18.06 183.79 80.79 1.09 14.1 0.894 0.159 0.138 0.9 13.48% Liquefiable
13
13.50 Cohesionless 4 15.71 228.56 96.13 1.00 5.3 0.814 0.151 0.069 0.5 54.09% Liquefiable 15
Depth(m)
16.50 Cohesionless 15 18.85 283.93 122.07 0.89 17.6 0.733 0.133 0.180 1.4 0.00% Non-Liquefiable
29


Project : 100 mm
2
1.18
Cyclic
Stress
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%) Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
(KN/m ) σv' is in kg/cm (1 kg/cm =
2 2
98.1 kPa) 97), rd
from
graph) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
1
4.50 Cohesionless 5 16.49 71.87 27.72 1.60 8.6 0.966 0.196 0.090 0.5 53.85% Liquefiable Mw=7.5
7 Mw= 6.5
6.00 Cohesionless 7 17.28 97.79 38.93 1.57 13.2 0.954 0.187 0.128 0.7 31.43% Liquefiable Mw = 6.0
7.50 Cohesionless 9 18.06 124.88 51.31 1.37 15.2 0.943 0.179 0.151 0.8 16.08% Liquefiable 9 Mw=5.5
Depth(m)
23
29
35


Project : 100 mm
2
1.18
Cyclic
Stress
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
2 2
Nf (KN/m ) (CSReq) M=7.5, Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
98.1 kPa) 97), rd
from
graph) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
1
4.50 Cohesionless 15 18.85 82.00 37.85 1.59 25.8 0.966 0.164 0.341 2.1 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw=7.5
7
6.00 Cohesionless 10 18.06 109.10 50.24 1.38 16.6 0.954 0.162 0.167 1.0 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw= 6.5
7.50 Cohesionless 5 16.49 133.84 60.26 1.26 7.8 0.943 0.164 0.085 0.5 48.28% Liquefiable 9 Mw = 6.0
13
Depth(m)
19


Project : 100 mm
2
1.18
Cyclic
Stress
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
2 2 Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
98.1 kPa) 97), rd
from 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
graph) 1
Mw=7.5
3 Mw= 6.5
1.50 Cohesionless 18 18.85 91.55 76.84 1.12 20.1 0.989 0.092 0.220 2.4 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw = 6.0
5
4.50 Cohesionless 12 18.54 145.27 101.13 0.97 12.6 0.966 0.108 0.123 1.1 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 7 Mw=5.0
15
Depth(m)
19
29


Project : 100 mm
2
1.18
Cyclic
Stress
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
2 2 Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
98.1 kPa) 97), rd 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
from
1
graph) Mw=7.5
3 Mw= 6.5
7
Depth(m)
21
35


Project : 100 mm
2
1.18
Cyclic
Stress
(kN/m )
3 2 2 Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
2 2
98.1 kPa) 97), rd
from Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
graph) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
1
5
7 Mw=7.5
6.00 Cohesionless 5 16.49 98.96 40.10 1.55 9.3 0.954 0.184 0.095 0.5 48.45% Liquefiable Mw= 6.5
11 Mw=5.0
Depth(m)
15
17

Project : Review of Feasibility Study for Bhola Bridge over Kalabador and Tentulia River Borehole Diameter: 100 mm

2
1.18
Cyclic
Overburden Pressure Rod Resistance
Stress
Field Total Effective Length Borehole Cyclic Ratio
Unit Wt. Correction Factor, CN = Hammer Sampler Corrected Reduction Factor of Liquefaction
Depth SPT N Overburden overburden 0.5 N1 = Correctio diameter Stress (CRRL) Remarks (With
Soil Type of soil (1/σv') where efficiency, correction, SPT N Coefficient Safety, Probability
(m) Value, Pressure σ'v pressure σ'v Nf*CN n (From correction, Ratio (for FSL=1.0)
(kN/m )
3 2 2 EH CS Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
2 2
Nf (KN/m ) Graph), CB (CSReq) M=7.5,
98.1 kPa) 97), rd Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
CR from
graph) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
#NAME? 1
1.50 Cohesionless 4 15.71 23.56 8.85 1.60 6.40 0.75 0.80 1.0 1.0 6.4 0.989 0.206 0.076 0.4 63.12% Liquefiable 3
3.00 Cohesionless 7 17.28 49.48 20.05 1.60 11.20 0.75 0.80 1.0 1.0 11.2 0.977 0.189 0.110 0.6 41.55% Liquefiable
4.50 Cohesionless 7 17.28 75.40 31.26 1.60 11.20 0.81 0.80 1.0 1.0 12.1 0.966 0.182 0.118 0.6 35.15% Liquefiable 5 Mw=7.5
Mw= 6.5
Mw = 6.0
7.50 Cohesionless 6 16.49 126.06 52.49 1.35 8.11 0.93 0.80 1.0 1.0 10.0 0.943 0.177 0.101 0.6 43.14% Liquefiable 9 Mw=5.5
9.00 Cohesionless 7 17.28 151.98 63.69 1.23 8.58 0.95 0.80 1.0 1.0 10.9 0.931 0.174 0.108 0.6 37.98% Liquefiable Mw=5.0
11
13.50 Cohesionless 23 19.64 234.45 102.02 0.97 22.29 0.99 0.80 1.0 1.0 29.3 0.814 0.146 0.449 3.1 0.00% Non-Liquefiable
Depth(m)
15
17
18.00 Cohesionless 18 18.85 316.45 139.87 0.83 14.90 0.99 0.80 1.0 1.0 19.7 0.693 0.123 0.213 1.7 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 19
23
22.50 Cohesive 9 20.42 396.57 175.84 0.74 6.64 1.00 0.80 1.0 1.0 15.0 0.573 0.101 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable
24.00 Cohesive 6 18.85 424.84 189.40 0.71 4.27 1.00 0.80 1.0 1.0 10.0 0.552 0.097 - 1.3 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 25
29

Review of Feasibility Study for Bhola Bridge over Borehole

Project : 100 mm
Kalabador and Tentulia River Diameter:
2
1.18
Overburden Cyclic
Pressure Correction Resistance
Stress
Unit Wt. Factor, CN = Corrected Reduction Factor of Liquefaction
Soil Type of soil (1/σv') SPT N Coefficient Safety, Probability
(m) Value, Pressure σ'v pressure σ'v Ratio (for FSL=1.0)
(kN/m )
3
2 2 where σv' is in Value, (N1)60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
Nf (KN/m ) (KN/m ) (CSReq) M=7.5,
2
kg/cm (1 kg/cm =
2 97), rd
98.1 kPa) graph)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
1
Mw=7.5
10.50 Cohesionless 16 18.85 183.32 80.32 1.09 22.6 0.894 0.159 0.266 1.7 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 11 Mw= 6.5
12.00 Cohesionless 21 19.64 212.77 95.05 1.00 27.7 0.854 0.149 0.395 2.6 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw = 6.0
13 Mw=5.5
13.50 Cohesionless 16 18.85 241.05 108.61 0.94 19.8 0.814 0.141 0.214 1.5 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw=5.0
Depth(m)
15.00 Cohesionless 22 19.64 270.50 123.35 0.88 25.6 0.774 0.133 0.336 2.5 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 15 FS=1
27
33

Review of Feasibility Study for Bhola Bridge over Borehole

Project : 100 mm
Kalabador and Tentulia River Diameter:
2
1.18
Overburden Cyclic
Pressure Resistance
Stress
Field Total Effective Correction Factor, Cyclic Ratio
Unit Wt. Corrected Reduction Factor of Liquefaction
Soil Type of soil CN = (1/σv') SPT N Coefficient Safety, Probability
(m) Value, Pressure σ'v pressure σ'v Ratio (for FSL=1.0)
(kN/m )
3
2 2 where σv' is in Value, (N )
1 60 (NCEER,19 FSL (%)
Nf (KN/m ) (KN/m ) (CSReq) M=7.5,
2
kg/cm (1 kg/cm
2 97), rd
= 98.1 kPa) graph)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
4.50 Cohesionless 14 18.85 105.82 61.67 1.25 18.8 0.966 0.130 0.199 1.5 0.00% Non-Liquefiable 5 Mw=7.5
6.00 Cohesionless 12 18.54 133.62 74.76 1.13 16.3 0.954 0.133 0.164 1.2 0.00% Non-Liquefiable Mw= 6.5
7 Mw = 6.0
9 Mw=5.5
10.50 Cohesionless 7 17.28 207.85 104.84 0.96 8.6 0.894 0.139 0.090 0.7 34.80% Liquefiable 11 FS=1
Depth(m)
21
35

Figure 5. 3
Liquefaction potential analysis

Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction, (FSL)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

0
10
15
Depth in m
BBH-01
20
BBH-02
BBH-03
25 BBH-04
BBH-05
30 BBH-06
BBH-07
BBH-08
35
BBH-09
FS = 1
40
Summary of liquefaction potential analysis
 Sample Calculation of Liquefaction BBH-03 Depth -1.5 m
amax σ 0
CSR = γ n × × ' × rd
g σ0
γn = 0.65 (Conversion factor of peak cyclic stress to the equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress)
amax = 1.18 m/s2 (zone -1)
g =9.81 m/s2
z = depth 3.0 m

rd = 1.0-0.00765*1.5 (for z<=9.15 m)
=0.988525
γsat = 17.28 (SPT-8)
Total overburden Pressure, σ0 = 17.28*1.5 = 25.92 (KN/m2)
Water Level at EGL,
Effective overburden pressure σ'0= 1.5*(17.28-9.81) = 11.205 (KN/m2)
CSR = 0.65*(1.18/9.81)* (25.92/11.205)*0.988525
=0.17878
Correction for SPT (N) value for overburden pressure:
 (N)60 = CN * N60
 CN = 10* (1/ σv’)1/2 =10*(1/12.11)1/2=2.87
1 ( N 1 ) 60
o CRR= + +50/[10(N1)60 +45]2 -1/120 =1/(34-12.8) +12.8/135
34−( N 1 ) 60 135
+50/[10*12.8 +45]2 -1/120 =0.13
 Factor of Safety = CRR/CSR = 0.13/0.18 = 0.7 < 1, Hence Liquefiable
5.3.9 Mitigation method for liquefaction
5.3.9.1 General
Methods to mitigate the effects of soil liquefaction have been devised by earthquake engineers and include
various soil compaction techniques such as sand compaction pile and dynamic compaction. Ground
improvement measures are required where the subsoil stratum is found incompetent to build the road
embankments safely and or in order to avoid post-construction settlements which could potentially impair
the performance of the roadway.
Considering the fact that soil compaction and consolidation are primary methods to improve the ground
performance, these methods have evolved into more sophisticated techniques involving mechanical
vibrators for densification and replacement of loose deposits (Vibro-compaction), dropping of large weights
for deposits requiring a high amount of compaction energy (deep dynamic compactions), installation of
vertical drains to expedite consolidation of cohesive soils (wick/sand drains) and grouting to densify
loosened ground far below ground surface (compaction grouting), etc.
Based on the results of geotechnical investigation and subsoil stratification of Bhola-bridge approaches,
the subsoil strata are found incompetent and unstable that need to densify using ground improvement
work like sand compaction pile and pre-compression of soil may be used to minimize postconstruction

settlement. For small stretches, the most economical ground improvement would be the excavation of
soft/loose soil and replacement of the same either by good earth compacted in layers or if the excavated
soil material is found suitable and recompact back the same soil in layers.
5.3.9.2 Ground Improvement for Embankments:
Areas of soft, highly compressible, or organic ground are unlikely to be suitable as foundations for the
embankments and culverts. In such circumstances, consideration will be given to ground improvement
measures such that a solution is developed in line with the standard construction requirements and
methods, for the settlement and stability consideration of earthworks.
The method of ground improvement must also consider the construction program and the available time
for completion or phasing of the works and the influence on the secondary settlement rate.
The selection of ground improvement methods depends primarily on the depth of the soft loose sand
stratum, its engineering characteristics, available time scale of construction, and any other project-specific
requirements.
a) Excavate and Replace Method
Where the extent and depth of soft or organic soils are limited to less than 1 m deep, it is recommended
that the most economical solution is excavation and replacement with compacted acceptable fill. The class
of fill to be used as replacement material will depend upon the prevalent groundwater table locally.
Wherever depth of soft to very soft compressible strata (SPT ‘N’ value less than 4) is of the order of 1m or
less from the average existing ground levels, the most economical method of ground improvement method
is to excavate and replace with compacted good earth in layers in order to improve the stability and post-
construction settlement performance of the earthen embankments. While analyzing the requirement of a
suitable ground improvement measure for approach embankments, the primary criteria considered for the
necessity of improvement are the existence of a soft (or loose to very loose) soil stratum and the height of
the embankment and accordingly depth of ground improvement have been recommended.
Broadly the following methods of ground improvement measures have been considered for the approach
embankments of BHOLA Bridge::
 Excavate the soft to very soft stratum lying at shallow depths (thickness < 1 m) and replace it with
good earth compacted in layers to more than 95% of its modified Proctor’s density.
b) Sand Compaction Pile (SCP)
Sand Compaction Method is the method to stabilize soft soil ground, in which sand is fed into the ground
through a casing pile and has been compacted by vibration, dynamic impact, or static excitation to
construct a compacted sand pile in the soft ground soil. This method has been applied in order to increase

the density of loose sand ground, to improve its stability or compressibility and/or to prevent liquefaction
failure. To soft clay ground, it assures stability and/or reduces ground settlement.
Figure 5. 4 Outline of Sand compaction Pile work
The casing pipe has been driven into the ground with the help of vertical vibratory excitation by the Vibro-
hammer on the top of the casing pipe. During the penetration, the casing pile has been filled with SCP
material is supplied through the hopper at the upper end of the casing pile by the lifting bucket. After
reaching the prescribed depth, the casing pipe has been retrieved to feed the sand in the casing pipe into
the ground with the help of compressed air. The sand fed into the ground has been compacted to expand
the diameter by the vibratory excitation of the casing pile in the vertical direction. The degree of compaction
has been controlled so that the diameter of the sand pile becomes the designed value (φ700mm). After
compacting the sand to the designed degree, the casing pile has been retrieved again and the sand is fed
into the ground. The sand has been compacted again by the vibratory excitation. The retrieving and
penetrating length has been determined to construct 1.0m of SCP in each cycle.
The piles are usually 0.46 to 0.76 m (1.5 to 2.5 ft) in diameter and are placed at about 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft)
center to center. The pattern of layout of SCP are shown in Figure 5. 4

Figure 5. 5 Layout of Sand compaction Pile
c) Pre-compression
When highly compressible, normally consolidated clayey soil layers lie at a limited depth and large
consolidation settlements are expected as the result of the construction of large buildings, highway
embankments, or earth dams, pre-compression of soil may be used to minimize postconstruction
settlement. The principles of pre-compression are best explained by reference to Figure 5.6.
Figure 5. 6 Principles of pre-compression
5.4 Slope Stability Analysis of embankment
The slope stability analysis for the weak zone Barishal-Bhola approach road high embankment with soil
parameters as shown in Table 5.1 was carried out using GeoStudio software. The results of analysis are
presented as stable state with FS = 1.338 in rainy season over than design criteria 1.25 as shown in Figure 5.
6. Slope Stability Analysis Results
Table 5. 1 Typical Soil parameter for Slope Stability Analysis
Unit Weight Cohesion Internal Friction Angle

Item 2
(kN/㎥) (kN/m ) (deg)
Fill 19.0 5 20
Loose sand 17.0 0 30

Figure 5. 6. Slope Stability Analysis Results
5.5 Settlement Analysis
The soil deposit of Barishal-Bhola is basically fine to coarse silty sand and silty clay from existing ground
level to 25 m deep depth as shown in Table 5.2. In this case elastic settlement has occurred due to
possibility of consolidation settlement is very rare. The typical cross section of the approach road
embankment was analysed using Plaxis-2D. The maximum settlement was calculated 58.8 cm at the
centre of embankment as shown in Figure 5.7. The Linear- Elastic Perfectly Plastic Mohr’s-Coulomb model
has been used in FEM analysis.
Table 5. 2 Input Soil Parameters
Internal Modulus of
Unit Weight Cohesion Poisson’s
Item 2
Friction Angle Elasticity, E
(kN/㎥) (kN/m ) Ratio
(deg) (MPa)
Embankment Fill Material 19.0 5 20 22 0.2
Existing Soil up to 25 m 19 10 18 28 0.25

Figure 5. 7 Settlement contour of the Embankment

Annex-1: Pile Bearing Capacity


TR8138 JV FS G103 RP GE 000003 DFS - Vol3 - PartB D01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TR8138 JV FS G103 RP GE 000003 DFS - Vol3 - PartB D01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR8138 JV FS G103 RP GE 000003 DFS - Vol3 - PartB D01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES OVER THE

RIVER MEGHNA ON SHARIATPUR-CHANDPUR ROAD & GAZARIA-

1.3. Purpose and objective of this report.................................................................................................................................. 5

2. SITE TOPOGRAPHY, REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY........................................................................................... 6

2.1. Site Location and Topography.............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2. Regional Geology........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3. Regional Tectonics and Seismicity..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4. Seismic Zoning.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TEST..........................................................................................13

3.2. Geotechnical Investigation (GI).......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Location of boreholes and trial pits.................................................................................................................................. 14

3.4. Subsoil Profile............................................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.5. Laboratory Test and Encountered Ground conditions...........................................................................................19

3.5.1.Moisture Content Test............................................................................................................................................................ 19

3.5.2.Particle Size Distribution Test............................................................................................................................................. 20

3.5.3.Direct Shear Test...................................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.5.4.Specific Gravity Test................................................................................................................................................................ 22

3.5.5.Relative Density Test............................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.6.California Bearing Ratio (CBR Soaked)......................................................................................................................... 24

3.5.7.Mica Content Test.................................................................................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Pile Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1.Geotechnical Pile Design Philosophy and Design Basis......................................................................................25

4.1.2.Pile Foundation Bearing Capacity.................................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Driven Pile Capacity....................................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.1 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesive Soil.............................................................................................................................. 28

Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

4.2.2 Driven Pile Capacity in Cohesionless Soil..................................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Bored Pile Capacity........................................................................................................................................................................ 34

4.4 Summary of Pile Bearing Capacity......................................................................................................................................... 38

5 DESIGN OF SOFT GROUND............................................................................................................................................................. 52

5.1 Existing Soft Ground Status........................................................................................................................................................ 52

5.2 Review of geological profile........................................................................................................................................................ 52

5.3 Liquefaction Assessment............................................................................................................................................................. 53

5.3.2 Liquefaction Target Section................................................................................................................................................. 53

5.3.3 Liquefaction Criteria................................................................................................................................................................. 54

5.3.4 Factors Affecting Soil Liquefaction................................................................................................................................... 55

5.3.5 Consequences of Liquefaction........................................................................................................................................... 55

5.3.6 Liquefaction Determination and Mitigation Methods for Soil Engineering...................................................55

5.3.7 Liquefaction Assessment using SPT............................................................................................................................... 56

5.3.9 Mitigation method for liquefaction.................................................................................................................................... 68

5.4 Slope Stability Analysis of embankment.............................................................................................................................. 71

5.5 Settlement Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Annex-1: Pile Bearing Capacity................................................................................................................................................................. 74

Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

Figure 3. 1 The location of boreholes and trial pits…………………………………………………………………………………………………………15

Figure 4. 1 Adhesion values for piles in cohesive soil (Tomlinson 1994)

Figure 4. 2 Adhesion factors for piles in clay (Tomlinson 1994).............................................................................................30

Figure 5. 1 CSR vs Corrected blow count (Seed et al;1983)…………………………………………………………………………………………56

Figure 5. 2 Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Modified penetration Resistance.....................................................................................57

Table 3. 1 The quantities of the geotechnical investigation 13

Table 3. 2 Boreholes and Trial Pits coordinates and depth...................................................................................................... 15

Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

Table 5. 1 Typical Soil parameter for Slope Stability Analysis 71

Table 5. 2 Input Soil Parameters............................................................................................................................................................ 72

Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

Draft Feasibility Study Report. Volume 3. Geotechnical Investigation

Part B: Geotechnical Interpretative