CANADIAN FOUNDATIONMarch 16th 2009 ERRATA ION ENGINEERING MANUAL 4" Edition, 2006 CANADIAN FOUND Corrections to the 4th Edition of the Manual are noted below. Please transfer these corrections to ‘your copy of the Manual. For any future corrections, please refer to the Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS) Website at www.cgs.ca. Page 18, Section 3.1.3.4 Classes of sensitivity may be defined as follows: low sensitivity <2 medium sensitivity 2<8<4 sensitive 4 16 Page 106, Section 6.6.3.2(3) Ee (6.21) should read: na{ 28) =4.——3 _ (6.21 iquation (6.21) should read: <1 = 4! on or Fa =Ge 08+0',,/96 (621) Page 151, Section 10.2.2 See paragraph 1, 1" sentence, which reads: “The values of c and 4! foruse--", change to read as. “The values of ¢ and 6 for use - -” See paragraph 1, 5" sentence, which reads: and 6’ equal to the - -”” change to read as *_ cl and 6 equal to the - -” Page 151, Section 10.2.3, (a) See paragraph 2, 3 sentence; and Brooker (1971). An approximate value of suitable for ¢ > 10° obtained - -” change to read nd Brooker (1971). An approximate value of N, suitable for 6 > 10° obtained --”: (b) Equation (10.5) should read: N, =0.1054e* (10.5) Page 152, Section 10.2.3 See paragraph 1, 1" sentence, which reads: “For the case of undrained stability (c= se, 6" = 0) the bearing capacity- --” change to read: “For the case of undrained stability (¢ = su, 6 = 0) the bearing capacity ---”March 16th 2009 Page 192, Section 13.4.2 Figure caption should read: FIGURE 13.5 Mean freezing index in degree days (°C) for Canada (after Boyd, 1973). Page 266, Section 18.2.1.3, 2" paragraph Furthermore, it is important to instal the toe of the pile... (toe instead of top). Page 272, Section 18.2.3.3 Equation (18.16) should read: (Q,),,, =mNA, +nNA, (18.16) where (Ou = ultimate axial capacity of single pile in granular soils (KN) m = anempirical coefficient equal to 400 for driven piles and to 120 for bored piles N= SPT index at the pile toe A pile toe area (m*) n = anempirical coefficient equal to two for driven piles and to one for bored piles N= average SPT index along the pile A, = pile cmbedded shaft area (m°) where Wis average corrected SPT value = CxN, in which 2000. >25kPa o, inkPa Cy = 0.77108) > °, Page 457, Missing reference Coté, J. and Konrad, J.M. (2005). Thermal conductivity of base course materials. Canadian Geotechnical Jounal, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 61-78.March 16th 2009 Page 388 Section 24.11 Figure 24.10 Note changes in scale on vertical axes (multiplied by a factor of 3) om mm 2 ' 1 owen. 24 ze $3 \VALUES OF Ky’ kPa PER UN m 1 VALUES OF SLOPE ANGLE, DEGREES ‘Circled numbers indicate the folowing S08 typos Clean send and gravel: GW, GR SI SP 2 Ditty sand and gravel of rsticied permeabilly : GM, GM-GP. SM, SH-SP. Sil eskival sits and clays, sty no sands, clayey sands and gravels CL. ML, CH, MH, SM, SGC © Very sof tosoft ly, sity ny, organ it and clay :CL, ML, OL. CH, MH, OH © Medium to sti clay deposited in enunks and protctes (rom nitration» CL. CH. For Type-S materia is reduced by 1.2 m: resultant acts ata height of ( H-1.2 y9 abowe basePage 389 Section 24.11 Figure 24.11 March 16th 2009 Note changes in scale on vertical axes (multiplied by a factor of 3) ‘Add the footnote shown below Figure 24.11, but replace reference to Figure 29.2 with Figure 24.10. SOL TYPE t SOL TYPE 2 SOWLTYPE 3 02 04 06 VALUES OF RATIO HH SOIL TYPE 4 SON TYPE 5 MAX. SLOPE 0 MAX, SLOP: +08 08 VALUES OF RATIO HH ‘os i0 SLOPE a1 ean Doan e 6tReference CANADIAN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL. 2006. Fourth Edition Canadian Geotechnical Society, 488 p. Published and sold by: “The Canadian Geotechnical Society c/o BiTech Publisher Ltd. 173 - 11860 Hammersanith Way British Columbia VIASGL First Prinding January 2007. ISBN 0-920505-28-7 Copyediting and design by Barbara Goulet, Calgary, AB, Canada, Printed and bound in Canada by Friesens Corporation, Altona, MB, Canada,Preface ‘The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual is a publication of the Canadian Geotechnical Society. tis originally ‘based on a manual prepared under the auspices of the National Research Council of Canada Associate Committee on the National Building Code, Subcommittee on Structural Design for the Building Code. A draft manual for public comment was published in 1975. In 1976, the Canadian Geotechnical Society assumed responsibility for the Manual and placed it under the Technical Committee on Foundations. This committee revised the 1975 draft and published in 1978 the first edition of the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, which incorporated suggestions received on the 1975 draft ‘The Socicty solicited comments on the Manual and suggestions for revisions and additions in Seminars across the country. In 1983, the Society requested that the Technical Committee review the comments and suggestions received and prepare a second edition of the Manual published in 1985. A third edition was produced in 1992, including various revisions and additions. Further developments in applied GeoEngincering and Ground Engineering are included in this fourth edition, published in 2006. ‘The Manual is truly produced by the membership of the Canadian Geotechnical Society. The number of individuals who have contributed to the manual — first, the preparation of the 1975 draft, then the 1978 first edition, the 1985 second edition, the 1992 third edition and this 2006 fourth edition ~is very large. Specific individuals who contributed to the fourth edition were: DE. Becker and I, D. Moore (Editors) J. Lafleur (Bditor, French Edition) S.L. Barbour RJ. Bathurst S. Boone R.WIBrachman B. Brockbank M. Diederichs MH. El Naggar J. Fannin D. Fredlund J. Howie D.J. Hutchinson IM. Konrad S. Leroueil K. Novakowski J. Shang, The Manual provides information on geotechnical aspects of foundation engineering, as practiced in Canada, so that the user will more readily be able to interpret the intent and performance requirements of the National Building Code of Canada (the release of this fourth edition coincides with publication of the NBCC, 2005) and the Canadian{¥ Gansoian rounca#en Engneenng rasmus! Highway Bridge Design Code, 2000. The Manual also provides additional material on matters not covered by these Codes. Foundation engineering is not a precise science, but isto a large extent based upon experience and judgement. The Manual assumes that the user is experienced in and understands the specialized field of geotechnical and ground engineering. The Manual is not a textbook, nor a substitute for the experience and judgement of a person familiar with the many complexities of foundation engineering practice. ‘The Manual contains: 1. Acceptable design guidelines for the solution of routine foundation engineering problems, as based on sound engineering principles and practice, 2. An outline of the limitations of certain methods of analysis. 3. Information on properties of soil and rock, including specific conditions encountered in Canada, 4, Comments on construction problems, where these influence the design or the quality of the foundation. ‘The Manual contains suggested rather than mandatory procedures. Its the intention of the Canadian Geotechnical Society to continue the process of review, and to update the Manual as the need arises. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure validity and accuracy of information presented in this Manual, the Canadian Geotechnical Society and its membership disclaim any legal responsibility for such validity or inaccuracy. Layout and design of this Manual were carried out by Barbara Goulet, Calgary, Alberta. Comments and suggestions on the technical contents of the Manual are welcome, Such comments should be addressed to: Canadian Geotechnical Society Vice-President, Technical Emall: egs@egs.ca} — 7 t Preface. . . . 1 ‘ 1 Introduction. . KG THEN Fe ee se ese wc ccm & Sac . 1 i . 2 Definitions, Symbols and Units .........- a a Fema NER . 2 2.1 Definitions a 2.2 Symbols ...... 5 1 2.2.1 The International System of Unis (SD. 16 3. Identification and Classification of Soil and Rock .........0eeeeee eee 13 3.1 Classification of Soils. 3.1.1 Introduction. i 3.1.2 Field Identification Procedures .. 3.2. Classification of Rocks . 3.2.1 Introduction : 1 3.2.2 Geological Classification 3.2.3 Structural Features ‘of Rockmasses.. 3.2.4 Engineering Properties of Rock Masses | 4 Site Investigations. ....... s 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Objectives of Site Investigations 43 Background Information. . .. 44 Extent of Investigation 4.4.1 Introduction. . 442 Depth of Investigation. . 44.3 Number and Spacing of Boreholes . 1 4.4.4 Accuracy of Investigation .. 45 In-Situ Testing of Soils 4.5.1 Introduction. ae | 4.52 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 45.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) f 4.5.4 Cone Penetration Test (CPT). p | 4.5.5 Becker Penetration Test (BPT) 4.5.6 Field Vane Test (FVT). . 4.5.7 Pressuremeter Tests (PMT). | 4.5.8 Dilatometer Test (DMT)...+ carmen rounoston enginasnng anus 1 4.5.9 The Plate-Load and Screw-Plate Tests . 46 Boring and Sampling . 4.6.1 Boring. 4.6.2 Test Pits 4.6.3 Sampling 4.6.4 Backfilling 47 Laboratory Testing of Soil Samples . 4.7.1 Sample Selection 4.1.2 Index Property Tests . 4.7.3 Tests for Corrosivity 4.7.4 Structural Properties Tests. 4.7.5 Dynamic Tests 4.7.6 Compaction Tests ..... 4.7.1 Typical Test Properties 4.8 Investigation of Rock ........ 4.8.1 General 4.8.2 Core Drilling of Rock....... 4.8.3 Use of Core Samples. 4.8.4 In-situ Testing . 4.9 Investigation of Groundwater. 4.9.1 General . 4.9.2 Investigation in Borehole 4.9.3 Investigation by Piezometers . 4.10 Geotechnical Report.....0.....0.4 4.11 Selection of Design Parameters «2.0.2... 4.11.1 Approach to Design. 5 4.11.2 Estimation of Soil Properties for Design. .... 4.11.3 Confirmation of Material Behaviour by Construction Monitoring, 4.12 Background Information for Site Investigations . . 5 Special Site Conditions 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Soils .... 5.2.1. Organic Soils, Peat and Muskeg 5.2.2. Normally Consolidated Clays. . 5.2.3 Sensitive Clays 5.2.4 Swelling and Shrinking C 5.2.5 Loose, Granular Soils, 5.2.6 Metastable Soils 5.2.7 Glacial Till 5.28 Fill... 5.3 Rocks 5.3.1 Volcanic Rocks 5.3.2 Soluble Rocks 53.3 Shales . 54 Problem Conditions 5.4.1. Meander Loops and Cutofts 5.4.2 Landslides 5.43 Kettle Holes, se 5.4.4 Mined Areas 2.00.0... 5.4.5 Permafrost Stays.5.4.6 Noxious or Explosive Gas. w- 82 5.4.7 Effects of Heat or Cold o 82 5.4.8 Soil Distortions ...... ee 8 and Groundwater... nn Sit RSS 83 5.4.9 Sulphate Soil Earthquake - Resistant Design ... 6.1 Introduction ......... 84 6.2 Earthquake Size 85 6.2.1 Earthquake Intensity . 85 6.2.2 Barthquake Magnitude = ‘ 85 6.2.3 Barthquake Energy vote seeeteeeeees 86 6.3 Earthquake Statistics and Probability of Occurrence asm ee 86 6.4 Earthquake Ground Motions . - «86 64.1 Amplitude Parameters. 87 6.4.2 Frequency Content 89 64.3 Duration 89 6.5 Building Design : 89 6.5.1 Equivalent Static Force Procedure 90 6.5.2 Dynamic Analysis : va 96 6.6 Liquefaction we - 99 6.6.1 Factors Influencing Liquefaction 100 6.6.2 Assessment of Liquefaction ..... -. 100 6.6.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential 2101 6.6.4 Liquefaction-Like Soil Behaviour. un 6.7 Seismic Design of Retaining Walls . 112 6.7.1 Seismic Pressures on Retaining Walls . 113 6.7.2 Effects of Water on Wall Pressures 115 6.1.3 Seismic Displacement of Retaining Walls us 6.1.4 Seismic Design Consideration 116 68 Seismic Stability of Slopes and Dams 2. 8 6.8.1 Mechanisms of Seismic Effects vee 28 6.8.2 Bvaluation of Seismic Slope Stability... ..... 119 6.8.3 Evaluation of Seismic Deformations of Slopes 120 6.9 Seismic Design of Foundation . 2121 69.1 Beating Capacity of Shallow Foundations .. 2121 6.9.2 Seismic Design of Deep Foundations ' 122 6.9.3 Foundation Provisions. 122 Foundation Design ............. : . 123 7.1 Introduction and Design Objectives 123 7.2 Tolerable Risk and Safety Considerations 123 7.3 Uncertainties in Foundation Design... .. 124 7.4 Geotechnical Design Process . 124 7'5. Foundation Design Methodology... 125 76 Role of Engineering Judgment and Experience . 128 7.7 Interaction Between Structural and Geotechnical Engineers 128 7.7.1 Raft Design and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . 128 Limit States and Limit States Design. ............0005 voce esees 132 132 8.1 Introduction‘Canodian Found Engnccring Marval 10 ll 8.2 What Are Limit States?. 2 133 8.3 Limit States Design (LSD). 2 14 84 LSD Based on Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). - 136 8.5 Characteristic Value. 138 8.6 Recommended Values for Geotechnical Resistance Factors 138 8.7 ‘Terminology and Calculation Examples. . : . 140 8.7.1 Calculation Examples ....... veces . 140 8.8 Working Stress Design and Global Factors of Safety. 141 Bearing Pressure on Rock. 143 9.1 Introduction - 143 9.2. Foundations on Sound Rock. 145 9.3. Estimates of Bearing Pressure 147 9.4 Foundations on Weak Rock . 148 149 9.5 Special Cases . 96 Differential Settlement. . - 149) Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Soil............- avannwe ws 150 150 150 155 157 10.1 Introduction .. 10.2. Conventional Beating Capacity Foundations on Soil. . 10.3 Bearing Capacity Directly from In-Situ Testing, 104 Factored Geotechnical Bearing Resistance at Ultimate Limit States. Settlement of Shallow Foundations ....... 2 ciate nw neater 9 einoninoe a 8 «+. 158 11.1 Introduction. “ 27158 11.2 Components of Deflection . +. 158 11.2.1 Settlement of Fine-Grained Soils . 2. 159 11.2.2 Settlement of Coarse-Grained Soils 159 + 159 113 Three-Dimensional Flastic Displacement Method. . 113.1 Approximating Soil Response as an Ideal Elastic Material 11.3.2 Drained and Undrained Moduli... 11.3.3 Three-Dimensional Elastic Strain Integration. 11.3.4 Blastic Displacement Solutions. " 11.4 One-Dimensional Consolidation Method . 11.42 One-Dimensional Settlement: e-logo’ Method 11.4.3 Modifications to One-Dimensional Settlement 11.5 Local Yield . 2 1166 Estimating Sttess Increments 159 - 160 160 162 165 166 166 - 166 11.6.1 Point Load. - 166 11.6.2 Uniformly Loaded Stip =. 167 11.6.3 Uniformly Loaded Circle 2s. 168 11.6.4 Uniformly Loaded Rectangle - 169 11.7 Obtaining Settlement Parameters 170 118 Settlement of Coarse-grained Soils Direcly from In-Situ Testing. 172 11.8.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) a 172 11.8.2 Cone Penetration Test corn, 213 11.9 Numerical Methods. .......-. 022060004 175 175 11.10 Creep. ere eer11.11 Rate of Settlement = oh 2 176 ILUL.L One-Dimensional Consolidation. = 176 11.11.2 Three-Dimensional Consolidation. 177 1.11.3 Numerical Methods 178 11.12 Allowable (Tolerable) Settlement. 178 12 Drainage and Filter Design . 181 12.1. Introduction : 2181 12.2 Filter Provisions + 181 12.3 Filter Design Criteria . 8 182 12.4 Drainage Pipes and Traps = 183 13 Frost Action. ......... we . 185 13.1 Introduetion ..... sity Spe Hi “ 185 132 Ice Segregation in Freezing Soil... .0..0cccccsssessesetensentenneeeteenees 185 13.3 Prediction of Frost Heave Rate, 187 13.4 Frost Penetration Prediction . 190 13.5 Frost Action and Foundations. . . 195 1.6 Frost Action during Construction in Winter... 197 14 Machine Foundations . 200 14.1 Introduction ~- 200 14.2. Design Objectives 200 14.3 Types of Dynamic Loads = 200 143-1 Dynamic Loads Du to Machine Operation 200 143.2 Ground Transmited Loading - 2201 14.4 Types of Foundations . =. 202 14,5 Foundation Impedance Functions . 202 145.1 Impedance Functions of Shallow Foundations. +. 202 14.5.2 Embedment Effects = 203 14°53 Impedance Functions ofa Layer of Limited Thickness . 205 14.54 Trial Sizing of Shallow Foundations. . 206 14.6 Deep Foundations : 206 14.6.1 Impedance Functions of Piles... = + 206 14.6.2 Pile-Soil-Pile Interaction. . + 208 14.63 Trial Sizing of Piled Foundations 208 14.7 Evaluation of Soil Parameters . . 2 209 14.7.1 Shear Modulus 209 14.7.2. Material Damping Ratio - 209 14.7.3 Poisson’s Ratio and Soil Density = 209 14.8 Response to Harmonic Loading 210 18-1 Response of Rigid Foundations in One Degiee of Freedom. -210 14.8.2 Coupled Response of Rigid Foundations ...... 22 1483 Response of Rigid Foundations in Six Degrees of Freedom . 212 14.9 Response to Impact Loading bine 3 212 14.9.1 Design Criteria 212 14.9.2 Response of One Mass Foundation. 2213 14.9.3 Response of Two Mass Foundation 213 2213 14,10 Response to Ground-Transmitted Excitation2X _Ganaotan rounaaton Engering Mana! 15 Foundations on Expansive Soils............ oh S98 Sdn 2H sodeed Boeke 215 15.1 Introduction . 21s 15.2 Identification and Characterization of Expansive Soils 217 15.2.1 Identification of Expansive Soils: Clay Fraction, Mines, Aterberg Limits, Cation Exchange Capacity .. ae 5 218 15.2.2 Environmental Conditions «2... 222 15.2.3 Laboratory Test Methods : 222 153. Unsaturated Soil Theory and Heave Analyses. 225 15.3.1 Prediction of One-Dimensional Heave. sevens 227 15.3.2 Example of Heave Calculations 229 15.3.3 Closed-Form Heave Calculations... .. 230 15.4 Design Altematives, Treatment and Remediation . 231 15.4.1 Basic Types of Foundations on Expansive Soils. 231 15.4.2 Shallow Spread Footings for Heated Buildings . 231 c 232 16 ‘Near or Slightly Below Grade on Shallow Foundations . 15.44 Pile and Grade-Beam System . = 232 15.4.5 Stiffened Slabs-on-Grade : : 233 15.4.6 Moisture Control and Soil Stabilization. 234 Site and Soil Improvement Techniques ....... ae «. 237 16.1 Introduction 2 237 16.2 Preloading. . cts 2. 237 16.2.1 Introduction 237 16.2.2 Principle of Preloading - 237 238 16.2.3 Design Considerations 16.3 Vertical Drains 163.1 Introduction. . 16.3.2 Theoretical Background . : 240 16.33 Practical Aspects to Consider in Design .. 5 oe 2A2 16.4 Dynamic Consolidation . , 2 245 16.4.1 Introduction, 2. 245 16.4.2 Methodology 245 16.4.3 Ground Response : cece 246 16.5 In-Depth Vibro Compaction Processes. .. cece 249 16.5.1 Introduction. 249 16.5.2 Equipment. = 249 16.5.3 Vibro Processes 2 249 16.6 Lime Treatment. .... 2251 16.6.1 The Action of Lime in Soil 5 +. 251 16.6.2 Surface Lime Treatment . 20 251 16.6.3 Deep Lime Treatment : . +251 16.7 Ground Freezing. : arse = 252 16.7.1 The Freezing Process . nese 252 16.7.2 Exploration and Evaluation of Formations to be Frozen 252 16.7.3 References. . 2. 253 16.8 Blast Densification . 253 16.9 Compaction Grouting . 2 254 16.10 Chemical Grouting... 254 16.11 Preloading by Vacuum : 255 16.12 Blectro-Osmotic and Blectro-Kinetic Stabilization - 256om pm pm te { . 260 17 Deep Foundations - Introduction ........ 17.1 Definition . - 260 17.2 Design Procedures = 260 17.3 Pile-Type Classification = 260 174 Limitations 260 18 Geotechnical Design of Deep Foundations. .......... 262 18.1. Introduction ARKOUNG Meso ‘Summation sign T Y ® x ¥ Planar joint dip Q ere a avkomerenece 200 mm‘14 cansoan rounaaton engnestng Manual The silt, sand, and gravel fractions are further divided into fine, medium, and coarse proportions, as follows: Silt: Fine 0,002 - 0,006 mm Medium 0.006 - 0.020 mm_ Coarse 0.020 - 0.060 mm. Sand: Fine 0.06 - 0.20 mm, Medium 0.20 - 0.60 mm Coarse 0.60 - 2.00 mm, Gravel: Fine 2.0 -6.0 mm, Medium 6.0- 20.0 mm Coarse 20.0 - 60.0 mm, Other physical properties of soils that may influence engineering characteristics should also be identified. They are: + Grading describes particle size distribution. A soil thathas a predominance of particles of one size is ‘poorly graded’, whereas soil that has particles of a wide range of sizes with no dominating size is ‘well graded”. + Shape and surface conditions of grains: particles may be platy, elongated, or equidimensional, and they may bbe angular, sub-angular, sub-rounded, or rounded. * A qualitative term describing the compactness condition of a cohesionless soil is often interpreted from the results of Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This test is described in more detail in Subsection 4.5.2. Compactness and penetration values are often related according to Table 3.1, which was proposed by ‘Terzaghi and Peck (1967). Notice that the term “compactness condition” replaces the earlier term “relative density” used in the past. TABLE 3.1 Compactness Condition of Sands from Standard Penetration Tests Coe Saas Condition (blows per 0.3 m) Very loose 0-4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 ‘ Very dense Over 50 Other relationships between the SPT N-index and the compactness condition attempt to take into account the magnitude of the overburden pressure at the sampling depth to be taken into consideration. Three sets of such correlations are now available: the most commonly used set was proposed by Gibbs and Holtz (1957), but it has been modified by Schultze and Melzer (1965). To be of practical value, the split-spoon sampling method of indirectly determining the compactness of cohesionless soil must satisfy three conditions: 1. the SPT N-index must be independent of the operator and the boring method; 2. the correlation between the SPT N-index and the compactness condition must be accurate to within acceptable limits; and— es ee entcation an Cassfieaton of Slland Rock 15 3. the same correlation between the SPT N-index and the compactness condition must be used by all None of these conditions is fully satisfied. It must be recognized, therefore, that the SPT is a very subjective test, and different operators can report substantially different N-values without the differences necessarily corresponding to actual variables in soil condition. A recent improvement in the testing method has been the adoption by some countries of a free-failing trip-hammer. 3.1.2.1 Fine-Grained Soils or Fractions ‘These procedures are to be performed on the soil fraction passing sieve No. 40, the openings of which are about 0.4 mm in diameter. For field classification purposes screening is not required because the coarse particles that interfere with the tests are simply removed by hand. 3.4.2.2(1) _Dilatancy (reaction to shaking) ‘After removing particles larger than No. 40 siove size, prepare a pat of moist soil with a volume of about 10 em. If necessary, add enough water to make the soil soft but not sticky. Then, place the pat in the open palm of one hand and shake horizontally, striking vigorously against the other hand several times. A positive reaction consists of the appearance of water on the surface of the pat, which changes to a livery consistency and becomes glossy. When the sample is squeezed between the fingers, the water and gloss disappear from the surface, the pat stiffens, and finally cracks or crumbles. The rapidity of appearance of water during shaking and of its disappearance during squeezing assist in identifying the character of the fines in a soil. Very fine, clean sands give the quickest and most distinct reaction, whereas a plastic clay has no reaction. Inorganic silts, such as a typical rock flour, show a moderately quick reaction. 3.1.2.2(2) Dry Strength (crushing characteristics) After removing particles larger than No. 40 sieve size, mould a pat of soil to the consistency of putty, adding water if necessary. Allow the pat to dry completely by oven, sun, or air drying, and then test its strength by breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This strength is a measure of the character and quantity of the clay fraction contained in the soil. The dry strength increases with increasing plasticity. High dry strength is characteristic for inorganic clays of high plasticity. Typical inorganic silt possesses only very slight dry strength. Silty fine sands and silts have about the same slight dry strength, but can be distinguished by the feel when powering the dried specimens. Fine sand feels gritty, whereas typical silt has the smooth feel of flour. 3.1.2.2(3) Toughness (consistency near plastic limit) After removing particles larger than the No. 40 sieve size, a specimen of soil about 10 cm in volume is molded to the consistency of putty. Iftoo dry, water must be added and, ifsticky, the specimen should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose some moisture by evaporation. Then the specimen is rolled out by hand on a smooth surface or between the palms into a thread about 3 mm in diameter. The thread is then folded and rolled repeatedly. During the manipulation, the moisture content is gradually reduced and the specimen stiffens, until itis no longer malleable and crumbles. This indicates that the plastic limit has been reached. After the thread has crumbled, the pieces should be lumped together and a slight kneading action continued until the lump crumbles. The tougher the thread near the plastic limit and the stiffer the lump when it finally crumbles, the more active is the colloidal clay fraction in the soil ‘Weakness of the thread at the plastic limit and quick loss of coherence of the lump below the plastic limit indicate either inorganic clay of low plasticity, or materials such as kaolin-type clays and orgenic clays (which occur below the A-line in the plasticity chart; see Figure 3.116 Canodian Fountain Engossing Manus 4 mioR@ANte cLays OP HIGH PLASTICITY : yop lorowc | : laseee — MEDIUM E 30 [PLASTICITY 4 E | amnawec a} anger oxouacsuzsor | AR Shnary fon cory Monon cons ot ZL \ ot 6 0 woaaNc sits” woraaNicstLrs or OFLow (MEDIUM COMPRESSIBILITY COMPRESSIBILITY AND ORGANICSILTS FIGURE 3.1 The plasticity chart (after Casagrande, 1948) Highly organic clays have a weak and spongy feel at the plastic limit. Other physical properties of fine-grained sojls, which may influence their engineering characteristics, should also be identified. Typical such properties are as follows: 3.1.2.2(4) Consistency of Cohesive Soil at Natural Water Content i TABLE 3.2 Approximate Consistency of Cohesive Soils Coos Field Identi Yeysot | ai pected sv coniets bythe st | Soft Easily penetrated several centimeters by the thumb Firm Can be penetrated several centimeters by the thumb with moderate effort suit Readily indented by the thumb but penetrated only with great effort Very stist Readily indented by the thumb nail Hard Indented with difficulty by the thumbnail, a The consistency notations given qualitatively in Table 3.2 are similar to those defined by values of shear strength in Table 3.3, below. However, the field identification methods in Table 3.2 are not suitable for the quantitative determinations of soil strength 3.1.2.2(5) Discontinulties Discontinuities of the undisturbed soil should be identified, such as bedding, the presence of joints, cracks, fissures, ¢ or slickensides, and evidence of weathering or cementation, and thickness, orientation, and distortion.at at 3.4.2.2(6) Colour Colour may be described by the Munsell system (Goddard, 1979) 3.4.2.2(7) Odour Odour, if any, can provide evidence of the presence of organic material 3.1.2.2 Organic Solls ‘These are readily identified by colour, odour, spongy feel and frequently by fibrous texture. 3.1.3 Laboratory Identification Tests 3.4.34 Grain-Size Tests In the laboratory, grain-size tests are carried out according to a test method, which includes procedures for analysis, of coarse-grained soils (i, fractions larger than 0.075 mm) by sieving, and the analysis of fine-grained soils by the hydrometer test (ASTM D422). ‘The results of the grain size test are used to classify the soil beyond the rough separation into fine grained and coarse grained, The classification is based on amounts by weight within the respective grain-size fractions, as follows: noun gravel, sand, silt, clay > 35 % and main fraction “and” and gravel, and silt, etc. >35% adjective gravelly, sandy, silty, clayey, etc. 20% =35% “some” some sand, some silt, etc. 10%- 20% “trace” trace sand, trace silt, etc. 1%-10% A soil with 30 % clay, 45 % silt, 18 % sand, and 7 % gravel would thus be named “clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel.” However, the clay fraction in such a soil forms the dominant matrix, and a soil of this composition will behave geotechnically much like a clay soil. Some classification systems base the description on the plasticity chart For example, if the I, and w, for the soil were to plot above the A-Line, the description would be silty clay, some sand trace gravel. 3.4.3.2 Atterberg Limits The range of water content, called plasticity index, I, = w, ~ w,, over which a fine-grained soil is plastic, is an important indicator of its probable engineering behaviour. The Atterberg limits, w, = plastic limit and w, = liquid limit, defining these water contents are determined in accordance with the standard ASTM methods (ASTM D423, and ASTM D424, respectively). The liquid limit can also be determined by the Swedish fall-cone test (Gameau and Lebihan, 1977). The preparation of soil samples for these tests should be deter ed according to Procedure B of the ASTM Standard Method for “Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Grain-Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants” (ASTM D2217). ‘The liquid limit, w,, is used to classify clays and silts as to degree of plasticity, as follows: Low degree of plasticity — w, <30 Medium degree of plasticity 30 200 >30 3.1.3.4 Classification by Sensitivity Sensitivity is an important characteristic of fine-grained soils. It is defined as the ratio of intact to remoulded undrained shear strength, and is measured in the laboratory by means of the Swedish fall-cone test or in the field by ‘means of the vane test. Classes of sensitivity may be defined as follows: ow sensitivity s.<10 medium sensitivity 10<8,<40 high sensitivity 4010 | Reenipped ina] th acer, iba ® ological hammer | E86 ranite, a \ Specimen requires | Amphibolite, sandstone, 9 | mmy>blows ofa} basal, gabbro, gnciss, ws Yeysions, 1095290. 4-10 | geological hammer to | granodiorite, peridotite, l fracture it rhyolite, tuft Specimen requires I ‘more than one blow of | Limestone, marble, Re Strong 5010 2-4 | geological hammer | sandstone, schist to fracture it \ Cannot be sraped or posed wits pocket I Mesum knife, specimen can | Concrete, phyllite, schist, S strong ai be fractured with a siltstone single iow from @ I scological hammer Can be pected with i a pocket knife with diffcuity, shallow | Chalk, claystone, potash, R Weal 5-25 s+ [indentation made by | marl siltstone, shale, afin blow with the | rocksalt A point of a geological ; hammer i i Crumbles under fim bows with point of | 5,415 weathered orate : Ri | Veryweek 1-s sve | geological hammer, | Hghly weatheredor altered can be peeled with a | ‘°° pocket knife Extremely wee RO rem 025-1 Indented by thumbnail | Stiff faut gouge , * Grade according to ISRM (1981). + Allrock types exhibit a broad range of uniaxial compressive strengths reflecting heterogeneity in composition and anisotropy in structure. Strong rocks are characterized by well-interlocked crystal fabric and few voids. w+ Rocks with a uniaxial compressive strength below 25 MPa are likely to yield highly ambiguous results under point load testing, ar Some natural materials, which geologically may be referred to as rock, should be treated from an engineering point of view as soils. Some examples of materials that fall into this category include: r\denfetlon and Ciaclicatn of Sol nd Rock 23 + Soft or weakly cemented rocks with unconfined or uniaxial compressive strength < 1 MPa; + Any material that can be dug by hand with a shovel; + Cemented sands and gravels, in which the cementing is discontinuous; and Rocks such as: marl and volcanic tuff, highly altered or crushed rocks, rocks with closely spaced continnous joints, and residual soils containing rock fragments. The strength of sedimentary rocks derived from clay and silt sized particles, such as shale or mudstone, generally degrades when exposed to repeated cycles of wetting and drying. The slake durability test can be used to determine ‘whether the rock will degrade, and if so, how rapidly this will occur. Standards for the slake durability test are provided by the ISRM (1979). 3.24.2 Characteristics of Discontinuities ‘The structural integrity of a rockmass will be affected by the presence of discontinuities. Major, discrete, through- ‘going structures such as shears, faults or other major weakness zones will dominate the rockmass behaviour where they are present. Ubiquitous (present everywhere) structure will also affect the behaviour of the rockmass. Systems of extension joints and minor shear structures will have formed under historical stress fields, which were relatively consistent over a local region. As a result, there are usually several distinct groups of similarly oriented structures, within a rockmass, termed joint sets or joint families. Ungrouped joints are defined as random. Both discrete and ubiquitous features should be measured, characterized and analysed. Full characterization of a rockmass requires measurement of a number of characteristics of the discontinuities, including discontinuity orientation (Section 3.2.4.3), discontinuity strength (Section 3.2.4.4) and discontinuity spacing (Section 3.2.4.5). Guidance for description of discontinuities in rockmasses is provided by the ISRM (1978). 3.243 Discontinuity Orientation Discontinuities are considered to be adversely oriented if they provide minimal or limited resistance to sliding under the applied load. Joint orientation can be found from logging drill cores, surveying boreholes and/or from mapping surface exposures of the rockmass. To determine joint orientation ftom core logging, measurements must be made on oriented core. It is essential that the orientation of the borehole be recorded. It is then necessary to take two measurements of orientation for each Joint or discontinuity: alpha, the minimum angle between the maximum dip vector of the discontinuity and the core axis, and beta, the dip direction of the plane, measured clockwise from north or the reference line for the core. The ‘rue orientation of the discontinuities with respect to north can then be calculated following procedures defined by Priest (1985). Joint orientation can also be found by surveying the drill holes. Surveys can be conducted by inspecting the holes with borehole cameras, periscopes or probes. Generally, the orientation of each feature can be determined by examining the angle the feature makes with the hole, and the length of the inscribed circle or oval created by the discontinuity around the perimeter of the borehole. The calculation of the true orientation of the feature depends 'upon both the orientation and the diameter of the drill hoe. Mapping of joint characteristics can also be carried out on exposures of the rockmass on outcrops, or in other excavations where the rock is exposed, such as shafts, trenches and adits. In these locations, the dip and dip direction of each discontinuity can be measured directly on surface exposures of each structure, using a geological compass. It is important when mapping rockmass exposures that the length of the sampling window, or scanline, is of sufficient length to sample enough features to provide a statistically valid basis for analysis. A minimum of 100 local measurements are normally required to define the structure in a localized zone of rock (Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996).Priest and Hudson (1976) suggest that between 150 and 350 measurements should be taken at a number of sample locations, selected to provide data about different lithologies, or about highly variable discontinuity characteristics. ‘When establishing a mapping program it is important to consider the following issues: + Increased numbers of measurements improve the data precision as well as confidence in the output. + Increased length of sampling or scan lines leads to increased precision in the data +. Measurements taken from scan lines of similar orientation will be subject to data bias. Therefore it is advisable to orient successive scantines in different orientations where possible, and to correct for bias (Terzaghi, 1965) Where the rockmass quality and nature are variable, itis important to separate the data into sub-sets, on the basis, of distinct geological conditions, if possible. Por example, where discontinuities have been measured in a rockmass comprising two distinct and substantial lithologies, the structural analysis should be carried out on the full data set, and then on sub-sets divided on the basis of lithology, to determine if the structural patterns are different. As noted previously, it is important to distinguish between discrete and ubiquitous structures in analysis of the rockmass stability and strength. The ubiquitous structures can generally be grouped into one or more sets with similar orientation Random joints may also be present in the rockmass. The visual examination and statistical grouping of structural data into sets is best accomplished using a stereonet. The outcome of this work is generally 1 representative (mean) orientation for each cluster or set of joint data. Further information regarding information plotting and data analysis on stereonets is provided by Hoek et al (1995) and Priest (1993). 3.2.4.4 Discontinuity Strength Discontinuity strength can be’defined using several distinct formulations. These include the strength criterion proposed by Barton and Choubey (1977) and further discussed by Hoek at al (1995), as well as the simplified Mobr- Coulomb analysis, requiring input parameters of friction, 9, and cohesion, c, discussed by Wyllie (1992). The most accurate measurement of discontinuity strength is made by performing direct shear tests, which can be cartied out in the laboratory or in-situ on undisturbed samples. Guidelines for performing these tests are given by Wyllie (1992) and the ISRM (1974). The strength of a discontinuity depends upon the roughness, persistence, and aperture, as well as upon the presence of any infilling or water. Each of these parameters, defined below, should be measured during any geotechnical mapping program. Roughness of a discontinuity adds to its resistance to shear, especially when the asperities on one side of the discontinuity interlock with those on the other side. ‘The importance of surface roughness declines as the aperture, filling thickness and previous displacement along the discontinuity increase. Roughness is generally measured by comparing observations to published surface profiles providing an estimate of the Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) (Barton, 1973; Barton and Choubey, 1977; Hoek ct al, 1995), Roughness can be divided into small-scale and larger-scale roughness. The small-scale roughness, measured over a sample distance of up to 10 om, is defined as rough, smooth or polished (slickensided). Roughness at the metre scale is termed stepped, undulating or planar. Joint persistence is an estimate of the length of each individual joint. Joints may range from non-persistent or not continuous, through to highly persistent or fully continuous. Joints, which are highly persistent (long), are more likely to combine with other structures to form large free blocks of rock, than are short joints. Joint aperture is the perpendicular distance separating the adjacent walls of an open discontinuity, which may\eertteston end Caticaton of Sol and Rock 25 be water filled. Other fillings of the discontinuity should be described separately, as discussed in the next point “Aperture provides an indication of the secondary permeability of the rockmass as well as some idea of its looseness. Unfortunately, apertures that can be observed directly are usually disturbed by blasting, excavation and weathering. Observations of the less disturbed rockmasses exposed within boreholes, using a borehole camera or periscope, can be very useful Where possible, the joint aperture should be measured using feeler gauges, or a measuring tape, and classified as shown in Table 3.6. Impression packer testing can also be used to provide a measurement of the aperture as well. TABLE 3.6 Classification of Joint Aperture ened ES <0.5 mm Closed 05 to 10mm Gapped > 10mm Open Where permeability of the joints is of importance, in-situ permeability testing should be carried out. During the mapping program, observations of any evidence of current or previous water flow along the joints should be recorded. Classification of the joints based on these observations can be made using Table 3.7. TABLE 3.7 Classification of Discontinuities depending upon Water Flow Eis 1 | Water low not possible 2 | No evidence of water flow 3 | Bvidonce of water flow (e.g, rust staining) 4 | Dampness 5 | Seepage 6 | Flow (volume per unit of time) Joint infiting is the material separating the adjacent rock walls of discontinuities, It may be formed by the in-situ weathering or alteration of the rock adjoining the discontinuity, or it may be transported. It may be described by the methods used for the field identification of soils (see Section 3.1). The width of the filled discontinuity, the mineralogy of the infilling, and the roughness of the discontinuity walls will all affect the strength and deformability of the discontinuity and should be examined and described. Water flow can be described in terms of the classes shown in Table 3.8. TABLE 3.8 Classification of Filled Discontinuities depending upon Water Flow Proposed by the ISRM (1981) Pen 1 Filling is dry and has low permeability Filling is damp; no free weter is present Filling is wet; drops of free water are present Filling shows outwash; continuous flow of water is present Filling is locally washed out and there is considerable water flow along channelsCanaan Foundation Engineering Manust 4.5 Discontinuity Spacing continuity spacing is important because closely spaced joints result in a smaller block size, increasing the ntial for internal shifting and rotation as the rockmass deforms, and thereby reducing stability. ~ontinuity spacing is defined by Priest (1993) as the distance between a pair of discontinuities measured along € of specified location and orientation (or scanline). He defines three main types of discontinuity spacings as ws: !. Total spacing is the spacing between a pair of immediately adjacent discontinuities measured along a line of any specified orientation, 1. Set spacing is the spacing between a pair of immediately adjacent discontinuities from a particular discontinuity set, measured along a line of any specified orientation. ‘Normal set spacing is the set spacing measured parallel to the mean normal to the set. pacing of discontinuities can vary from extremely wide to extremely close, as shown in Table 3.9. In this case, istance between adjacent discontinuities is measured over a sampling length not shorter than 3 meters, The ling length should be greater than ten times the estimated discontinuity spacing, if possible (ISRM, 1981). TABLE 3.9 Classification of Rock with Respect to Discontinuity Spacing (ISRM, 1981) ‘Spacing Classification Extremely close Very close 0.02 10 0.06 Close 0.06 to 0.20 Moderately close 0.20 t0 0.6 Wide 0.6 t0 2.0 Very wide 2.010 6.0 Extremely wide >60 uality Designation, or RQD, originally proposed by Deore et al. (1967) is an indirect measure of the number vtures within a tockmass. The method provides a quick and objective technique for estimating rockmass ’ during diamond drill core logging, as shown in Table 3.10. s calculated as follows: RQD (*%) = E Length of core pieces > 10 cm x 100 Total length of core run TABLE 3.10 Classification of Rock with Respect to ROD Value Rad Value (%) ‘Very poor quality <25 Poor quality 251050 Fair quality 50 to 75 Good quality 750.90 ellent quality 90 t0 100— oa oe oniicslin and Clssifeaton of Sol and Rock 27 Ifthe core is broken by handling or during drilling (i.e, the fracture surfaces are fresh, irregular breaks rather than natural joint surfaces), the fresh, broken pieces should be fitted together and counted as one piece. Some judgment is necessary in the case of thinly bedded sedimentary rocks and foliated metamorphic rocks, and the method is not as precise in these cases as itis for igneous rocks or for thickly bedded limestones or sandstones. The system has been applied successfully to shales, although itis necessary to log the cores immediately upon removing them from the core barrel, before air-slaking and cracking can begin. ‘The procedure obviously penalizes rockmasses where recovery is poor. This is appropriate because poor core recovery usually reflects poor quality rock. Poor drilling equipment and techniques can cause poor recovery. For this reason, double-tube core bartels of at least NX size (54 mm in diameter) must be used, and proper supervision of drilling is imperative, It is noted that the original definition for RQD Index was based on N size core, Philosophically, RQD provides a crude estimate of the percentage of the rockmass which can be expected to behave in a fashion similar to a laboratory sample (typically 10 em long). Rockmass with a low RQD (< 50%) has few intact blocks larger than 10 cm. In such rockmasses, joints and fractures dominate the rock’s response to stress. The strength and stiffiness of the rock, as determined in the lab, has little relevance here. On the other hand, rockmasses with RQD > 95% possess strength and stiffness much closer to the values obtained in the lab. Joints may still dominate behaviour, especially in the low stress environments of most foundations. A semi-empirical technique for evaluating rockmass strength and deformability is discussed in the following section. A great deal of work has been done to correlate RQD with joint frequency, rockmass stiffness and other properties, Tae interested reader is refeared to Deere and Miller (1966), Deere and Deere (1988), Cording and Deere (1972), Coon and Merritt (1970) and Bieniawski (1979). 3.2.4.4 Jointed Rockmass Strength and Deformability ‘The strength of the rockmass will depend on such factors as the shear strength of the surfaces of the blocks defined by discontinuities, their continuous length, and their alignment relative to the load direction (Wyllie, 1992). If the loads are great enough to extend fractures and break intact rock, or if the rockmass can dilate, resulting in loss of interlock between the blocks, then the rockmass strength may be diminished significantly from that of the in-situ rock. Where foundations contain potentially unstable blocks that may slide from the foundation, the shear strength parameters of the discontinuities should be used in design (Section 3.2.4.4), rather than the rockmass strength. Direct measurements of rockmass deformability are best conducted in-situ for foundations carrying substantial loads, for example major bridge footings. The tests available include borehole jacking tests, plate load tests and radial jacking tests for the rockmass modulus. Direct shear tests are used to determine the shear strength of the fractures. Further details regarding these tests and the use of the data so derived are provided by Wyllie (1992). He also notes that the test results should be checked against values calculated from the performance of other foundations constructed in similar geological conditions. Strength and deformation properties of jointed rockmasses can be estimated using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1997) from three parameters (Hoek and Marinos, 2000; Marinos and Hoek, 2001): + The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock elements contained within the rockmass (see Section 3.2.4.1), + Acconstant, mi, that defines the frictional characteristics of the component minerals within éach intact rock element. + The Geological Strength Index (GSI) which relates the properties of the intact rock elements to those of the overall rockmass (Table 3.12). ‘The generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion is defined as: o}4 of S4,] GD28 Canadian Foundaton Englneorng Manu where o’, and o', are the maximum and minimum effective stresses at failure 2, i the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock pieces 1m, is the value of the Hoek-Brown constant m for the rockmass, and exp ( GL —100 eliza ‘m, is the Hoek-Brown constant for the intact rock (Table 3.11) and a are constants which depend upon the rockmass characteristics, m= GSI For GSI<25, s=0, and a= 0.65-25! ‘or , and 200 ‘The deformation modulus for weak rocks (0,, < 100 MPa), can be estimated from the following equation (Marinos and Hoek, 2001): , [oa pg @%0) 62 100 Marinos and Hoek (2001) caution that this criterion is only applicable to ‘isotropic’ rockmasses, wherein the strength of the whole mass controls its behaviour. In anisotropic rockmasses, such as a strong, blocky sandstone, where the blocks are separated by clay coated and sickensided bedding surfeces, the rockmass behavior is controlled by the discontinuities. ‘The Hock-Brown constant, m, can be determined from triaxial testing of core samples, using the procedure discussed by Hock et al (1995), or from the values given in Table 3.11. Most of the Values provided in the table have been derived from triaxial testing on intact core samples. The tanges of values shown reflect the natural variability in the strength of earth materials, and depend upon the accuracy of the lithological description of the rock. For example, Marinos and Hoek (2001) note that the term granite describes a clearly defined rock type that exhibits very simiilar mechanical characteristics, independent of origin. As 2 result, m, for granite is defined as 32+3. Oxi the other hand, volcanic breccia is not very precise in terms of minéral coraposition, with the result that m, is given as 195, denoting a higher level of uncertainty. The ranges of values depend upon the granularity and interlocking of ‘the crystal structure. The higher values are associated with tightly interlocked and more frictional characteristics. Values for the Geological Strength Index (GSN), which relates’ the properties of the intact rock elements to those of the overall rockmass, are provided in Table 3.12. A similar table, developed for heterogeneous rockmasses, is provided by Marinos and Hoek (2001). 3.2.4.2 Rockmass Classification A number of classification systems have been developed to provide the basis for engineering characterization of rockmasses. An excellent overview of these techniques is provided by Hoek et al. (1995). Most of the classification systems incorporating a number of parameters (Wickham et al., 1972; Bieniawski, 1973, 1979, 1989; Barton et al., 1974), were derived from civil engineering case histories in which all components of the engineering geological ‘character of the rockmass were considered. More recently, the systems have been modified to account for the conditions affecting rockmass stability in underground mining situations, While no single classification system has been developed for or applied to foundation design, the type of information collected forthe two more commion civil engineering classification schemes; Q (Barton et al, 1974) and RMR. (Bieniawski, 1989) should be considered, These techniques have been applied to empirical design situations, where previous experience plays a large part in the design of the excavation in the rockmass. Empirical techniques are not used in foundation engineering, where a more concentrated expenditure of effort and resources is required and possible, due to the much smaller spatial extent of the work, and the relatively high external loads applied to the rockmass.‘ q i \aentcaton and Cieeteaton of Stans Rock 29, TABLE 3.11 Values of Hoek-Brown Constant m, for Intact Rock, by Rock Group (after Marinas and Hoek, 2001) Claystone Sitstone 22) ar Conglomerate | Sandstone 72 Stale fastic Breccia * Viet Greywacke (642) (1893) Mar 2) rl Crystalline ‘Spartic Micritic Dolomite Carbonates Limestone Limestone Limestone “os3) 7 (123) (10:2) 022) oe Non-casie. |-— — —— Gypaum | Aniyate Eveporites rp — Chal Organic " Horafels . (ives) vite Non-folisted a Meta — eS Sansone (933) Ces ~ - Slightly Migiatite | Amphibole | Gae foliated (2953) 2686 ass a Schist Phyl Sate Bollated | 1243 (733) 1d Granite 13243 Diorite Light Granodiorite (2545) 383) Plutonig = — - Gabbro m3 Doterte Dark Norite (1645) 2035 Ue 7 ; Porphyry Diabase | Peidtite yeaa (205) (1545) (2545) Riyolte Dacite | : (2535) 2513) si Andesite Basalt Volcanic 2585 (2585) AAgglomerate | Breccia tut Pyroclastic, (1943) (195) (1345) Notes: Values in parentheses are estimates. Conglomerates and breccias may have a wide range of values, depending on the nature of the cementingmaterial and the degree of cementation. Values range between those of sandstone and those of fine-grained sediments, ** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. Values of m, will be siwnificantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.30 CanodanFoundston Enghsoring Manual TABLE 3.12 GSI Estimates for Rockmasses, from Hoek and Marinos (2000) i z GEOLOGICAL STRENGTH INDEX ! é i 2 From the letter codes describing the stucture 2 i i s| 2 fed alace ef the osk mao (rom Tae 9) ck Pla] ae thesppvoprne borin chart Etinte he HE ‘average value of the Geological strength index z/ 8/2 | gs] {Gan tom he contours Dene atemgt tbe oo i P| By EF prodlse. Quoting range Gl fom S60 2a z| 7% i tore realistic than stating that GSI = 38, gl ele B | ae K | a] 2/2 | fp} #3 Hell eld | allel gis 2), z e8|_ eae i 3 88 |. gles (82 |g28 BLE DECREAS! QUALITY 3 S BLOCKY - very well interlocked undisturbed rock maes consisting of cubleal blocks formed by three ‘orthogonal discontinuity sets 70) VERY BLOCKY - interlocked, partially disturbed rook maes with ‘multifaceted anguler blocks formed by four or more discontinuity sets, BLOCKY/DISTURBED - folded and/or faulted with angular Blocks formed by many intorsecting discontinuity sets DECREASING INTERLOCKING OF ROCK PIECES DISINTEGRATED - poorly interlocked, ‘heavily broken rock mase with a mixture of angular and rounded rook pleoes‘te ivesigations 34 Site Investigations 4. Site Investigations 44 Introduction A site investigation involves the appraisal and characterization of the general subsurface conditions by analysis of information gained by such methods as geological and geophysical surveys, drilling boreholes, and sampling, in- situ testing, laboratory testing of samples of the subsurface materials, groundwater observations, visual inspection, and local experience. ‘The site investigation is one of the most important steps in any foundation design, and should be carried out under the direction of a person with knowledge and experience in planning and executing such investigations, Drilling crows should be experienced specifically in borings for geotechnical explorations. A valuable guide is provided by ASCE (1976). 42 Objectives of Site Investigations / ‘An engineer requires sufficient knowledge of the ground conditions at a site to estimate the response of the soils or rocks to changes induced by the site works. Peck (1962) noted that the three factors of most importance to the successful practice of subsurface engineering were: + Knowledge of precedents + A working knowledge of geology + Knowledge of soil mechanics. A knowledge of precedents in similar ground conditions helps to ensure that no surprises are encountered in the design and construction of the works; knowledge of geology should enable the engineer to anticipate the range of possible variations in ground conditions between the locations of any borings; and knowledge of soil or rock mechanics should minimize the chances of inadequate performance of the ground during and after construction. A site characterization should be carried out for all projects. The level of detail of any characterization should be appropriate to the proposed site use and to the consequences of failure to meet the performance requirements The engineer should be able to prepare a design that will not exceed ultimate and serviceability limit states (see Chapters 7 and & for further discussion). This means that there should be no danger of catastrophic collapse and deformations and other environmental changes should be within tolerable limits. Depending on the particular nature ofthe proposed development, the site characterization may or may not involve field exploration. Once the scope of work has been established for the proposed engineering works, the site characterization should comprise three components: + Desk Study and Site Reconnaissance + Field Exploration32 Canadlan Foundation Englnowing Manual + Reporting, ‘The first component is the most critical, It consists of a review of existing information about the site including the geology. Attention to detail in this phase in conjunction with a site reconnaissance to review existing surface conditions will minimize the potential for surprises during subsequent field exploration and construction. The extent of this phase of the work will depend on the experience of thé engineer in the particular geological environment and with similar foundation systems or soil structures Upon completion of this phase, a preliminary sub-surface model of the site should have been established, enabling consideration of foundation design issues and preliminary selection of foundation options. The engineer may te field exploration. proceed to plan an approp: ‘The primary objectives of field exploration are to determine as accurately as may be required: + the nature and sequence of the subsurface strata; + the groundwater conditions at the site; + the physical properties of the soils and rock underlying the site; and + other specific information, when needed, such as the chemical composition of the groundwater, and the characteristics of the foundations of adjacent structures. Site investigations should be organized to obtain all possible information commensurate with project objectives for 4 thorough understanding of the subsurface conditions and probable foundation behaviour. Additional information on the objectives, planning and execution of site investigations is provided by Becker (2001) Atthe very least, the field exploration should confirm the preliminary subsurface model developed during the planning phase and should provide sufficient characterization of material properties to allow estimation of the response of the site to the proposed engineering works. In many cases, the macrostrudture of the ground such as jointing and fissuring will contro! the site and foundation performance during and after construction. An understanding of site geology will allow the engineer to anticipate suck casés and field exploration should determine the presence of any layers or zones likely to cause difficulty during vonstrubtion or operation of the facility. For example, thin weak layers may be critical for stability or thin permeable layers may be critical in excavations. The selection of an appropriate exploration technique should be based on a clear understanding of the critical failure modes and on the types of layers likely to be present. ‘Upon completion of the stratigraphic logging and material classification, appropriate design parameters can be selected. This can be done on the basis of one or a combination of the following: + Experience with similar foundations in similar ground conditions, + Correlation with the known properties of soils ot rocks from other sites with similar classification properties, 5 + Sampling and laboratory testing In-situ testing. 43 Background Information Before the actual field investigation is started, information should, whenever possible, be collected on: + the type of structure to be built, its intended use, characteristics of the structure, intended construction method, starting date, and estimated period of construction; : + the behaviour of existing structures adjacent to the site, as well as information available through local experience; and + the probable soil conditions at the site by analysis of geological and geotechnical reports and maps, aerial photographs, and satellite photographs.‘te nvesegatons 58 44 Extent of Investigation 444 Introduction The extent of the ground investigation is determined by the soil type and variability of soil and groundwater, the type of project, and the amount of existing information. It is important that the general character and variability of the ground be established before deciding on the basic principles of the foundation design of the project. ‘The combination of each project and site is likely to be unique, and the following general comments should therefore be considered as a guide in planning the site investigation and not as a set of rules to be applied rigidly in every case. ‘The greater the natural variability of the ground, the greater will be the extent of the ground investigation required to obtain an indication of the character of the ground. The depth of exploration is generally determined by the nature of the project, but it may be necessary to explore to greater depths at a limited number of locations to establish the overall geological conditions, ‘The investigation should provide sufficient data for an adequate and economical design of the project. It should also be sufficient to cover possible methods of construction and, where appropriate, indicate sources of construction materials, The lateral and vertical extent of the investigation should cover all ground that may be significantly affected by the project and construction, such as the zone of stressed ground beneath the bottom of « group of ples, and the stability of an adjacent slope, if present. ‘The boreholes should be located so that a general geological view of the whole site can be obtained with adequate details ofthe engineering properties ofthe soils and rocks and-of groundwater conditions. More detailed information should be obtained at the location of important structures and foundations, at locations of special engineering ‘ifficulty or importance, and where ground conditions are camplicated, such as suspected buried valleys and old landslide areas. Rigid, preconceived patterns of boreholes should be avoided. In some cases, it will not be possible to locate structures until much of the ground investigation data has-been obtained. In such cases, the program of investigations should be modified accordingly. In the case of larger projects, the site investigation is often undertaken in stages. A preliminary stage provides general information and this is followed by a second stage and, if required, additional stages as the details of the project and foundation design develop. Reference is made to boreholes as the means of site investigation. However, in some cases, borcholes can be replaced by, or supplemented by, test pits, test trenches, soundings or probe holes. Regardless of the type of investigation, it is essential that the locations and ground levels for all exploration points be established, if necessary, by survey. Information and recommendations on the extent of site investigations, both depth and number of bareholes, can be found in various references. The references that have served as the basis for Some of the comments presented in this section include ASCE (1976), British Standards Institution, BS 5930 (1981) and Navfac DM 7.01 (1986). Robertson (1997) suggested the risk-based approach to characterization shown on Figure 4.1. For low risk projects (small to medium sized jobs with few hazards and limited consequences of failure), it is only necessary to classify the soils visually and, perhaps, by index testing to allow selection of design parameters. Design may then be based ‘on presumptive bearing pressures. For medium risk projects, some form of in-situ testing will be necessary. The in-situ testing conventionally consists of penetration testing from which some estimate of the soil properties can be obtained by correlation. Design methods are also available where in-situ test results are used directly to select design values of bearing pressure, Where the consequences of unexpected ground response result in an unacceptable level of risk, a much more elaborate field and laboratory program should be carried out. Suggestions for the depth of boreholes and spacing of boreholes are considered in, the follawing sections. The suggestions for minimum depth of boreholes can be more definitive since there is a logical analytical basis. The minimum depth is related to the depth at which the increase in soil stress caused by foundation loads is small and