1.

1 INTRODUCTION TO GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY REPORTS

▪ In Table 1.1.1 below, ‘Elements of design’ and associated ‘Subjects of interest’ are those
Geotechnical items which are commonly characteristic to Civil and Structural design of PV
plants. This document at least chases the following purposes:
Form an effective notion of geotechnical conditions at project site
Verify scope completeness of the Geotechnical Studies
Verify individual parameters, in-depth cross-checks

Table 1.1.1 Geotechnical Survey areas of interest

SECTION IN
ELEMENT OF SUBJECT OF SOIL
TESTS THIS
DESIGN INTEREST PARAMETERS
DOCUMENT
Lithology and PSD
Soil classification Sieve tests 1.2
formation PI, LL
General view SPT N60 SPT 1.3
of soil Friction ratio
CPT CPT 1.4
characteristics Cone tip resistance
Cu Ring Shear
Soil Strength
φ Triaxial Shear 1.3, 1.4
Properties
c Direct Shear
Oedometer test
Soil deformability E, ks Triaxial Shear 1.7
Shallow
Plate Load test
foundations.
Consolidation
Retaining Cc, Cα, Cv Oedometer test 1.7
effects
walls.
Earth pressure Oedometer test
Ka, Kp, K0 1.11
coefficients Triaxial Shear
Pore pressure
GWL Piezometer, Bores 1.8
and groundwater
Stability factors Sliding / overturning NA 1.13
Ring Shear
Soil Strength Cu
Triaxial Shear 1.9
Properties φ
Direct Shear
Oedometer test
Pile analysis Soil deformability E, k1 1.7, 1.9
Triaxial Shear
Pore pressure
GWL Piezometer, Bores 1.8
and groundwater
Pile drivability N60 SPT 1.3, 1.9
Rafts and Oedometer Test
Spring properties ks 1.7
slabs analysis Plate Load test
Seismicity PGAref and other Local zoning 1.16
Seismicity and
Liquefaction and Local zoning
dynamics SPT, LL, PI 1.17
fatique SPT, PSD
Corrosion Chemical
C,S,W,F Cl, SO4, CaCO3, pH 1.10
protection Analysis
Swelling, Swelling and
SI Swelling Index Test 1.14
shrinkage shrinkage of soils
Grade design
CBR Values and
and
engineering PSD, CBR CBR 1.15
engineering
materials
fills

Definitions of Table 1: N60 - number of blows corrected for field procedures and apparatus;
PI Plasticity Index; LL – Liquid Limit; Cu – undrained shear strength; φ – Internal friction
angle; c – cohesion; E – Young’s Modulus; ks – Subgrade Modulus; Cα – secondary compression
 coefficient; Cc – compression index; Cv – consolidation coefficient; Ka,- active earth pressure; Kp –
passive earth pressure; K0 – neutral earth pressure coefficient; GWL – ground water level; k1 –
Horizontal Subgrade Modulus; PGAref – reference peak ground acceleration; C – chloride ion
exposure class; S – sulfate exposure class; W – water exposure class; F – freeze thaw exposure
class; SI – swelling index.
▪ Geotechnical soil parameters can serve as a direct input to design procedures,
supplementary indirect parameters or could help on forming understanding of those soil
characteristics not given in Geotechnical Report.
1.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION (PROFILE DETAILS)

▪ In geotechnical report, soil classification must be given and reference standard to be

applied. It is recommended to use Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) of ASTM D-
2487 Table 1.2.1. The use of other standards such as EN ISO 14688 Part 2 (see Appendix
1.1), BS5930:1999, US Army Corps of Engineers (USCS/USDA manual) could also be
permitted. Use of AASHTO M 145 must be clarified against RFP package.
▪ For quick reference the following table shows Soil Classification:
Table 1.2.1 Soil classification
Type Symbol Name Classification
COARSE SOILS
GW Well graded gravel Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3
GP Poorly graded gravel Cu<4 and 1>Cc>3
Gravels
GM Silty gravel Fines classify as ML or MH
GC Clayey gravel Fines classify as CL or CH
SW Well-graded sand Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3
SP Poorly graded sand Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3
Sands
SM Silty sand Fines classify as ML or MH
SC Clayey sand Fines classify as CL or CH
FINE SOILS
Silts and clays CL Lean clay PI>7
LL<50 ML Silt PI<4
OL Organic clay or silt LL (oven dried)/LL(not dried)
<0.75
Silts and clays CH Fat clay PI plot above ‘A’ line
LL>50 MH Elastic silt PI plot below ‘A’ line
OH Organic clay or silt LL (oven dried)/LL(not dried)
<0.75
Highly organic soils PT Peat Organic matter, organic colour
NOTE* Uniformity and Curvature Coefficients:
Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2/D10 x D60. PI and LL are Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit accordingly.

▪ Common reference of soil classification is made with regards to number of SPT blows for
that see Section 1.3.
▪ Geotechnical report must clearly indicate ground strata with indication of depth and
thicknesses of layers as well as basic soil characteristics per every borehole and/or trial
pit.

▪ Apart from representation in tabular form, the graphical form in scale is necessary with
indication of:
Borehole (trial pit) coordinate
 Type of boring and sampling
Date
Number of test (e.g. SPT or CPT)
Soil symbol
Thickness and depths of soil layers
Executing party
Ground water level
▪ At PV plant design, particular focus must be applied to upper soil layer of 2-4 meters, as
such for shallow pile and shallow foundation design.

▪ The soil types may be verified additionally by implementation of trial pits excavated to the
depth of 2 meters below envisaged foundation/pile depth as per EN1997-2 cl.2.4.1.3.

1.3 SPT VALUES

▪ For Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure refer to ISO 22476-3 and ASTM D1586.
SPT test is a basic type of field testing required. Relationship between SPT values and
soil types could be found at Table 1.3.1 below.
Table 1.3.1 Soil classification by SPT (by BS 5930:1999+A2:2010; EN ISO 14688-2:2004)
SANDS CLAYS
(Fairly reliable) (Rather reliable)
Number of blows Relative density Number of blows Consistency
per foot (30 cm), N per foot (30 cm), N
Below 2 Very soft
0-4 Very loose 2-4 Soft
4-10 Loose 4-8 Medium
10-30 Medium 8-15 Stiff
30-50 Dense 15-30 Very stiff
Over 50 Very dense Over 30 Hard

▪ SPT values can be cross-referred for other soil properties if required. See tables below:
Table 1.3.2 Coarse Soils – Relative Density & Friction Angle (by BS 5930:1999+A2:2010;
EN ISO 14688-2:2004)
SANDS
SPT N Value Relative Density Relative Density Angle of Internal
ID (%) Friction (φ)
0-4 Very Loose 0 to 15 <20
4-10 Loose 16 to 35 20 to 30
10-30 Medium Dense 36 to 65 31 to 36
30-50 Dense 66 to 85 37 to 41
>50 Very Dense 86 to 100 >41

Table 1.3.3 Fine Soils – Undrained Shear Strength

CLAYS
Number of Consistency Undrained Shear
blows per foot Strength
(30 cm), N cu (kPa)
Below 2 Very soft <12
 2-4 Soft 13 to 25
4-8 Medium 26 to 50
8-15 Stiff 51 to 100
15-30 Very stiff 100 to 200
Over 30 Hard >200

Table 1.3.4 Rock Strength to UCS (by BS 5930:1999+A2:2010 and Burt, 2004)
Description Field definition SPT definition Unconfined
Compressive
Strength,
UCS (MPa)
Extremely Weak Can be indented by thumbnail. Gravels size 0.6 - 1
lumps crush between finger and thumb.

Very Weak Crumbles under blow of geological <125 1-5

hammer. Peeled by pocket knife.
Weak Can be peeled by pocket knife. 5 – 25
Medium Strong Cannot be scrapped with pocket knife. Can 25 – 50
be fracture by single blow of the geol. 125 - 250
hammer.
Strong Requires more than one blow of geological 50 – 100
250 - 350
hammer to fracture.
Very Strong Requires many blows of geol.hammer to 100 – 250
fracture. >350
Extremely Strong Can only be chipped by geol.hammer >250

▪ SPT advantages in:

soil type simplistic definition
relative density:
Dr = {N60 / [17 + 24(ϭ0/pa)]}0.5

angle of internal friction, empirical correlation in Table 4 or formula below could be

used (Wolf, 1989):
φ (deg) = 27.1 + 0.3N60 – 0.00054(N60)2

undrained shear strength, empirical correlation in Table 1.3.3.

SPT disadvantages in:
ground profile definition
working below groundwater level
consolidation and permeability predictions
inaccuracies in clays, silts and rocks

1.4 CPT VALUES

▪ The SPT test is best suited for granular materials, and blow counts in partially saturated
cohesive materials must be regarded with some degree of skepticism as they may shift
dramatically upon later absorption of moisture. The SPT test allows a first-hand look at
subsurface materials which the CPT does not, and can provide crucial “ground truthing”
as to the type of subsurface material, especially, cohensionless materials with fines.
▪ Cone and skin friction resistances obtained from tests are directly measured from cone
head projected area and surface area of the sleeve. However, in using these values, the
effects of highly concentrated soil compaction under the cone tip must be kept in mind.

▪ If the soil parameters are taken from CPT tests directly or by conversion the following
must be considered for understanding of the accuracy of derivation:

Table 1.4.1 CPT value use for strength parameters (CPT Guide by greggdrilling.com)
Soil Dr φ cu Ko OCR E, G Permeability
type
Sand 2-3 2-3 5 5 2-3 3
Clay 4 1 2 1 2-3 2-3

1 – high; 2 – high to moderate; 3 – moderate; 4 – moderate to low; 5 – low reability

The following types of soil behaviours may be obtained from CPT values:
Figure 1.4.1 and Table 1.4.2 Soil behaviour type definition against CPT values (CPT
Guide by greggdrilling.com). Pressure is in tsf = 100 kPa

Zone Soil Behaviour Type

1 Sensititve, fine grained
2 Organic soils – clay
3 Clay – silty clay to clay
4 Silt mixtures – clayey silt to silty clay
5 Sand mixtures – silty sand to silty sand
6 Sands – clean to dense
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand (heavily
consolidated)
9 Very stiff fine grained (heavily
consolidated)

▪ No single value of undrained shear strength exists, since the undrained response of soil
depends on the direction of loading, soil anisotropy, strain rate, and stress history. In
absence of direct shear or triaxial shear test results, the following formula from CPT value
could be used (CPT Guide by greggdrilling.com):
cu = (qt – ϭv) / Nkt
Nkt varies from 10 to 18 (14 as average). Nkt tends to increase with increasing plasticity.
Qt – total cone resistance, ϭv – effective stress.

▪ Same could be applied for friction angle obtaining [Robertson and Campanella, 1983]:
▪ A major advantage of the seismic CPT (SCPT) is the additional measurement of the shear
wave velocity, Vs. That significantly helps in estimation of soil Shear and Young’s
Modulus:
G0 = ρ V2S
E = 2(1+v) G0

▪ Overconsolidation ratio couls also be estimated from CPT readings:

OCR = 0.25 (qt)1.25 (Robertson, 2009)
OCR = k qt where k=0.33 or [0.2…0.5] (Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

▪ CPT results allow estimation of single pile capacity in a good accuracy, e.g. by the use of
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) technique. See Section 1.9 of this document.

1.5 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

▪ Laboratory tests are performed on samples from the drilled boreholes and excavated test
pits in order to identify the physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the
encountered soils.
Table 1.5.1 Sample taking accuracy categories (Bond, 2008)
Category Sampling method Comment Sample quality class
A Tube samplers, U100 samplers are 1-5
rotary coring, block not appropriate for
sampling soft soils
B SPT plit spoon, 3-5
Mostap samples
C Bulk bag samples Fabric of soil is 5
totally destroyed

Table 1.5.2 Applicability of sampling categories to obtain parameters (Bond, 2008)

Sampling Sample Applica Soil or Rock type
method quality bility ROCK COARSE SOIL FINE SOIL
and classes
Category 1-5 H Rock type Soil type Soil type
A Extension of Extension of Extension of
layers layers layers
Particle size Particle size Particle size
Water content Water content Water content
Density Chemical tests Density
Shear Strength Shear Strength
Compressibility Compressibility
Permeability Permeability
Chemical tests Chemical tests
M - Density -
Shear Strength
Compressibility
Permeability
Category 3-5 H Rock type Extension of Extension of
B Extension of layers layers
layers Particle size Particle size
Particle size Chemical tests Chemical tests
 Water content Atterberg
Density Limits
M - Water content Water content
L - Density Density
Category 5 H - - -
C M Rock type Soil type Soil type
Extension of
layers
Particle size

L - Extension of Extension of
layers layers
Water content Water content
Applicability: H – high, M – medium, L - low

Table 1.5.3 Test applicability to soil parameters (Bond, 2008)

Soil types
Laboratory test
COARSE FINE (Si) FINE (CI)
Bulk density determination ρ ρ ρ
Oedometer EOED, Cc EOED, Cc, Cv EOED, Cc, Cv
k (partially)
Particle Size Distribution k
Direct Simple Shear cu cu
Ring Shear c’R/φR c’R/φR c’R/φR
Translational Shear c’/φ c’/φ c’/φ
Strength Index cu cu
Triaxial Tests E, G, c’/φ E, G, c’/φ, cu, Cv E, G, c’/φ, cu, Cv
Definitions:
EOED – Oedometer modulus; Cc – compression index; Cv – coefficient of consolidation; k –
permeability; c’R/φR – residual shear strength; c’/φ – drained effective shear strength.

Table 1.5.4 Laboratory test references

Classification and Index Tests: Proctor and CBR Tests :

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216-05 Proctor Compaction ASTM D 1557-09

Particle Size ASTM D 422-63 (2007) CBR ASTM D 1883-07
Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318-10
Bulk Density ASTM D 7263-09

Strength Tests: Chemical Tests:

Uniaxial Compression ASTM D 7012-10 pH value BS 1377: Part 3, Clause 9

Point Load ASTM D 5731-08 Sulphate Content BS 1377: Part3; ACI 318;
Direct Shear ASTM D 3080-04 ASTM C1580;
Triaxial Shear Chloride Content BS 1377: Part3; ACI 318;
ASTM C1218
Carbonate Content BS 1377: Part3; ACI
318; ASTM C1797
Organic Matter D 2974-87
1.6 SOIL BEARING CAPACITY

▪ For shallow foundations in Geotechnical Report, soil bearing capacity is provided to

specific foundation size and settlement value. The soil bearing capacity does not always
govern in foundation analysis, however the following values may be listed just for
indication of soil strength:

▪ Applicable to shallow isolated foundations clays and sands (of width <3m, burial depth
between 1.5 and 2 m) and 50 mm settlement limits.
Table 1.6.1 Allowable bearing pressure of soil for shallow foundations
Allowable bearing pressure (kPa)
Very low <120
Low 120<q<200
Medium 200<q<350
High >350
`

▪ Raft foundation design implies obtaining high values of soil bearing capacity, but those do
not govern the design. Right application of modulus of subgrade reaction and differential
settlement become critical in that case. Please see Sections 1.7 and Table 1.7.2 of this
document for that subject.

▪ Estimation of soil ultimate bearing capacity in most of the times done by formula (using ɸ
and c):

(𝑞 × 𝑠𝑞 × 𝑁𝑞 ) + (0.5 × 𝐵 × 𝑠𝑦 × 𝑦 ′ × 𝑁𝑦′ )
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 = − (𝑦′ × 𝐷𝑓 )
𝐹𝑆

FS =2 for full geotechnical data availability; FS =3 for scarce geotechnical data availability;

▪ However, for the sake of verification, two approaches below can be used, in following
order by accuracy:
Use of cu (undrained shear strength) from CPT and FS=3:
(CPT Guide by greggdrilling.com)

𝑁𝑐 × 𝑐𝑢
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 =
𝐹𝑆

Use of N60 values from SPT (Bowles, 1977):

(𝑁60 ) (𝐵 + 0.3)2 𝑆𝑒
𝑞𝑛𝑒𝑡 = × × 𝐹𝑑
0.08 𝐵2 25

Depth factor: Fd = 1 + 0.33 (Df/B)

Df – depth of foundation
Figure 1.6.1 Allowable soil pressure to SPT curves

1.7 SOIL DEFORMATIONAL PROPERTIES

▪ For shallow foundations design, settlement criteria often principle. In Geotechnical

Report, deformational characteristics are expressed in:
Elastic modulus, E
Poisson’s ratio v
Subgrade modulus, k for FEM
▪ Deformability of soil with relation to Elastic modulus can be expressed as:
Table 1.7.1 Elastic modulus and types of foundations
Elastic Modulus (MPa) Recommendations on
foundations
Extremely deformative <5 Piling or rafts are advised
Highly deformative 5 < E < 10 Piling or rafts are advised
Medium 10 < E < 50 Isolated foundations
Lowly deformative >350 Isolated foundations

▪ Most of the times, E value is present in Geotechnical Reports. However, if that data is
scarce, SPT N values could approximately be used (by Bowles, 1996):
E = 1200 (N+6) for gravel
E = 320 (N+15) for silty sand
E = 500 (N+15) for sand with silt
E = 300 (N+6) for silt
▪ Elastic subgrade modulus Ks could be obtained from Plate Load Test or Dilatometer test.
With careful consideration though, for preliminary calculations values could be taken from
the following tables (Bowles, 1982):
Table 1.7.2 Typical subgrade moduli
Type of soil Ks (kPa/m)
Loose sand 4 800 – 16 000
Medium dense sand 96 000 – 80 000
Dense sand 64 000 – 128 000
Clayey medium dense sand 32 000 – 80 000
Silty medium dense sand 24 000 – 48 000
Clayey soil: qu<200 kPa 12 000 – 24 000
200<qu<400 kPa 24 000 – 48 000
qu<800 kPa >48 000

▪ For preliminary calculations, the subgrade modulus could be obtained from net bearing
capacity:

K = 40 qnu

▪ For preliminary calculations, the subgrade modulus could be obtained from Young’s
Modulus (Meyerhof and Bayke, 1965):
𝐸
𝑘𝑠 =
𝐵(1 − 𝑣 2 )
v – poisson’s ratio for: clays v = 0.25 (LL<0); v = 0.35 (LL=0.25); v = 0.45 (LL<1)

▪ Alternative to the formula above (Boit, 1989):

0.108
0.95 𝐸 𝐵4 𝐸
𝑘𝑠 = [ ]
(1 − 𝑣 2 ) 𝐸𝐼 (1 − 𝑣 2 )

▪ Consolidation and creep are necessary components of total foundations settlement. The
parameters are:
- Coefficient of secondary consolidation Cα
- Compression Index Cc
- Void ratio ep
- OCR
The values above can only be obtained from Oedometer Test.

1.8 GROUNDWATER AND PORE PRESSURE CONDITION

▪ Groundwater measurements are covered by International Standard EN ISO 22475.

▪ The soil bearing capacity is based on effective stress analysis, hence position of the
groundwater table affects the value of the soil unit weight:
If depth to the water table, dw = 0, use γ' in both terms
If dw = D (depth of footing), use γ' in width term and γ in depth term.
▪ Groundwater levels correspond to the ones observed at the time of survey. However, in
order to make an account for potential groundwater fluctuations, readings from
piezometers or Hydrology Study information to be used along with soil permeability data
to envisage the effect of groundwater levels rise, especially in soils with low permeability.

▪ Highly reliable groundwater level can be observed from CPT log. Values of pore pressure
can be obtained from CPT and permeability test. In addition, readings from piezometer
installations is a good practice on accurate groundwater levels investigation.

▪ Groundwater level is not a governing criteria in corrosion measures, chemical laboratory

tests are performed to establish exposure classes for concrete and steel. The subject is
covered in Section 1.10 of this document.

1.9 PILE TESTS

▪ Pile load test procedures, particularly with respect to the number of loading the duration
of these steps and the application of load cycles, shall be such that conclusions can be
drawn about the deformation behaviour, creep and rebound of a piled foundation from the
measurements on the pile.

▪ Types of tests: Static (mandatory to min. 1% of piles) and Dynamic

▪ Type of tested piles: Trial and Working piles (both mandatory)

▪ If one pile load test is carried out, it shall normally be located where the most adverse
ground conditions are believed to occur.

▪ Characteristic pile resistances (tension/compression/lateral) can be directly be taken from

pile tests by further application of Safety Factors in calculations with minimum value of 2.

For overall information, the following safety factors(for driven piles) are implied by codes:
Dynamic testing: IBC200: 2; AASHTO: 2.25; ASCE20-96: 2-4;
Static testing: IBC200: 2; AASHTO: 2; ASCE20-96: 2-4;
Wave equation: AASHTO: 2.75; ASCE20-96: 2-4;

▪ Some pile test reports may be produced using Limit States design, which may cause
confusion in terms of applying factors to every effect and resistance item. However, the
summation of LRFD factors give approximately the same value in the end as of a Global
Safety Factor. Example can be taken from EN1997-1 approach, on applying load and
resistance factors:

in which yi = 1.4 and Фk=0.7 giving equivalent effect of FS = 2. Or yi could be equal to 1.7,
FS = ~ 3 then.

▪ Insignificant difference between profile section size used in testing and actual design is a
normal practice. Thus, shaft resistance and skin friction values obtained in testing can be
directly used in actual pile design, however reduction factors and the lowest resistance
values are advised to be used [Tomlinson, 2008].
▪ For axial load tests, if the Load-Settlement curves are provided, it is also recommended
to determine the pile capacity limited by a settlement equal to 10% pile diameter or any
other required value [Terzhagi,1942].

▪ In the absence of pile load tests, the formulae given below can be used for pile
compression and tension capacity derivation:
1) Shaft friction:
𝑞𝑠 = 𝜎𝑣 𝛽𝐴𝑠 for shaft in sand (Eff.Stress Approach) (Burland, 1973)
𝑞𝑠 = 𝛼 𝑐𝑢 𝐴𝑠 for shaft in clay (Total Stress Approach)
β equals: 0.3 (silt); 0.5 (loose sand); 0.8 (medium sand); 1 (dense sand); 1.3 (gravel).
2) Base resistance:
𝑞𝑃 = 𝜎𝑏 𝑁𝑞 for base in sand (Eff.Stress Approach) (Burland, 1973)
Nq equals 20 (silt); 40 (loose sand); 70 (medium sand); 100 (dense sand); 120 (gravel).
𝑞𝑝 = 𝑐𝑢 𝑁𝑡 𝐴𝑏 for base in clay (Total Stress Approach)
Nt equals 9, could be 6 – 9 depending on pile depth see Caquot and Kerisel (1956);
α (adhesion factor) equals: very soft soils 1; soft soils 0.92; medium stiff 0.7; Stiff 0.36;
Very stiff 0.2.

▪ Direct use of CPT values on base and skin resistance must be carefully considered, and
only with good knowledge. However, for preliminary calculations pile axial capacity
[Bustamante and Gianeseli, 1982] can be obtained:
𝑞𝑝 = 𝑘𝑐 𝑞𝑐𝑎

𝑞𝑐
𝑓𝑝 =
𝛼𝐿𝐶𝑃𝐶

The values of kc and αLCPC can be found in Appendix 1.2.

▪ Another use of CPT, as of EN1997 methodology is given in Appendix 1.3.

▪ In the absence of pile test loads, pile bearing capacity against lateral loads must be
estimated by use of spreadsheets or software. However, for preliminary calculations, the
Brom’s approach [Brom, 1964] or Tomlinson’s approaches [Tomlinson, 2008] can be
used. The most important aspect there is related to obtaining of a horizontal subgrade
modulus. The table below gives such modulus stated by Tomlinson:
Table 1.9.1 Horizontal subgrade modulus ranges for clays only:
Consistency Firm to stiff Stiff to very stiff Hard
Undrained shear strength cu kN/m2 50-100 100-200 >200
Range of k1 MPa/m 15-30 30-60 >60

▪ The PV plant piling is considered as short and rigid, rarely semi-rigid. That principle may
immediately dictate the calculation methodology to follow.
Figure 1.9.1 Short and long pile deformational behaviour solely under lateral load

▪ Best value of a pile drivability is taken from Wave Equation Analysis, which is done by
specialised software. If such is not present, dynamic and static pile test results may show
a good drivability indication.

▪ In the absence of any data mentioned above, pile drivability can be approximately
assessed by using SPT values:
Table 1.9.2 SPT based drivability tables on sheet pile experience
SPT value Ramming Vibro-drive
0-10 Pile runaway Very easy
10-20 Easy Easy
21-30 Suitable Suitable
31-40 Suitable Suitable
41-50 Difficult Not possible
>50 Not possible Not possible

Table 1.9.3 SPT based drivability tables on sheet pile experience

cu value Ramming Vibro-drive
0-15 Pile runaway Easy
16-25 Easy Suitable
26-50 Suitable Difficult
51-75 Difficult Not possible
>100 Not possible Not possible

▪ Pile structural checks on bending, shear and axial forces are intentionally omitted in this
document, as expected to be a separate procedure of PV tracker structure verification.
Same applies to stress checks during pile driving.

▪ Pile can be driven in soft, weak rocks and soils with certain bolders size and content,
however precaution to be taken at assessing in-situ testing results and Wave-equation
analysis. Normally, pile drivability factors are:
Pile geotechnical resistance
Pile type and length
Installation method and equipment
Effects of relaxation and pore pressure
1.10 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

▪ Main focus of the chemical analysis is on identifying the corrosion measures to concrete
and steel. The outcome will be:
Chemical contents: Chloride (Cl-) / Sulphate (SO4) / Calcium (CaCO3) / pH
Exposure class: C, S, W and F (ACI 318-19)
Specify concrete mix and its components (ASTM C150, C595, C1157)

Table 1.10.1 Definition of Exposure Classes as per ACI 318

Exposure Class Sub - class
F0 (Not applicable): For concrete not exposed to cycles of freezing
and thawing
F1 (Moderate): Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing
F occasional exposure to moisture (no deicing salts)
Freezing and thawing F2 (Severe): Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing an in
continuous contact with moisture
F3 (Very severe): Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing and in
continuous contact with water and exposed to de-icing salts
SO SO4 < 0.10 % (soil)
(not applicable) SO4 < 150 ppm (water)
0.10 ≤ SO4 < 0.20 % (soil)
S1 (Moderate)
S 150 ≤ SO4 < 1500 ppm (and sea water)
Sulfate 0.20 ≤ SO4 < 2.00 % (soil)
S2 (Severe)
1500 ≤ SO4 < 10 000 ppm (water)
SO4 > 2.00% (soil)
S3 (Very severe)
SO4 > 10 000 ppm (water)
C0 (Not applicable): Concrete that will be dry and protected in
service
C C1 (Moderate): Concrete exposed to moisture but not to external
Corrosion source of chlorides in service
C2 (Severe): Concrete exposed to moisture and an external source
of chlorides
P P0: (Not applicable): Concrete where low permeability to
Permeability water is not required
P1: Concrete required to have low permeability to water
Percent of mass definition is in ASTM C1580
PPM definition ASTM D516; ASTM D4130

▪ Recommendations for the concrete mix to different exposure classes are given below:
Table 1.10.2 Concrete mix to Exposure Classes
Minimum Limits on
Exposure Maximum
f’c (psi) Additional requirements cementitious
class w/cm
(cylinder) materials
F0 N/A 2500 N/A N/A
F1 0.55 3500 Table 19.3.3.1 N/A
F2 0.45 4500 Table 19.3.3.1 N/A
F3 0.40 5000 Table 19.3.3.1 26.4.2.2 (b)
Cementitious materials - Types Calcium
ASTM C150 ASTM C595 ASTM chloride
C1157 admixture
S0 N/A (2500) No type No type No type No restriction
restriction restriction restriction
S1 0.50 31(4000) II Types IP, IS MS No restriction
or IT with
 (MS)
designation
S2 0.45 31(4500) V Types IP, IS HS Not permitted
or IT with
(HS)
designation
S3 0.45 31(4500) V plus pozzolan Types IP, IS HS plus Not permitted
or slag cement or IT with pozzolan
(HS) or slug
designation cement
plus
pozzolan or
slug cement
W0 N/A 2500 None
W1 0.5 4000 None
Maximum water soluble chloride Additional provisions
ion (CL-) content in concrete,
percent by weight of cement
Non-prestressed Prestressed
concrete concrete
C0 N/A 2500 1 0.06 None
C1 N/A 2500 0.3 0.06
C2 0.40 34.5(5000) 0.15 0.06 Concrete cover

▪ Depending on an individual project, some local regulations or company specifications may

apply for concrete mix, cement type, reinforcement, cover thickness and concrete coating.

▪ Potential hydrogen (pH) measurement is a part of soil chemical analysis. Values are
roughly characterised as the following:
Table 1.10.3 pH values and mitigations
pH value Characteristic Measures
Clay backfill
3 – 5.5 Very acidic
Calcareous backfill
 Barrier material
Silica fume in mortar
Coating of concrete

Maximum water-to-
cementitious material
ratio of 0.40

Cement types II or V may

be required

Epoxy coats not advised

Maximum water-to-
5.6 - 7 Acidic cementitious material
ratio of 0.40
Non-aggressive No measures
7 - 8.5
environment
Concrete cover
8.5 -14 Alkaline Coating of reinforcement
Galvanisation is not allowed

▪ Corrosion categories of steel in soil and water as per EN12994:

Table 1.10.4 EN12994 Underground steel structures corrosion categories
Category Environment Example of environments and structures
Im1 Fresh water River installations, hydro-electric power plants
Sea or brackish Harbour areas with structures like sluice gates, locks,
Im2
water jetties, offshore structures
Im3 Soil Buried tanks, steel piles, steel pipes

▪ Soil resistivity against steel corrosion values indication:

Table 1.10.5 Soil resistivity to NACE and ASTM categories
Soil resistivity Soil resistivity
NACE ASTM
(Ω.cm) (Ω.m)
>10 000 >100 Negligible Very mildly corrosive
5000 – 10 000 50 – 100 Mildly corrosive Mildly corrosive
2000 – 5000 20 – 50 Mildly corrosive Moderately corrosive
1000 – 2000 10 – 20 Moderately corrosive Severely corrosive
500 – 1000 5 – 10 Corrosive Extremely corrosive
0 - 500 0-5 Very corrosive Extremely corrosive

▪ There is no such generalised rules for selection of coating system for steel in soils
according to corrosion category. However, for preliminary investigations of corrosion
losses in hot-dip galvanised steel piles, the figure below can be used [British Corrosion
Journal, 1977].

Figure 1.10.1 Hot-dip galvanised steel coating corrosion loss

▪ Thermal conductivity is used in the design of underground cables and pipelines so as to
control their temperature against overheating and potential combustion.
1.11 EARTH PRESSURE COEEFICIENTS

▪ Earth pressure coefficients characterise horizontal components of earth pressure at rest

of the soil or when horizontal effects are applied (active and passive pressure).

▪ Earth pressure coefficients are given in Geotechnical Report in the form of: K0, Ka, Kp.

▪ Governing parameter of earth pressure coefficients is a friction angle. Lower angles

(unstable ground) result in higher active pressures, and lower passive pressures. And
vice versa.

▪ In the absence of data, the following formulae could be used for preliminary calculations.
At Rest
Ko = 1-sinφ
Active Pressure
Ka = (1-sinφ) / (1+sinφ)
 Passive Pressure
Kp = (1+sinφ) / (1-sinφ)

1.12 ALLOWABLE SETTELEMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS

▪ Maximum allowable elastic settlements must be limited to:

For shallow foundations – 25 mm (isolated foundations); - 50 mm (rafts)

Tilt for shallow foundations – L/500

▪ For short piles – 5 mm (vertical)

Maximum allowable horizontal deflection of short and medium piles must be limited to ¼
inch = 6.4 mm

1.13 STABILITY FACTORS

▪ The following stability factors to be applied in the design of foundations:

Overturning stability ratio = 2.0
Minimum stability ratio against foundation sliding of ground bearing foundations shall
be 1.5.
▪ The coefficient of friction of concrete on soil should be taken as 0.4.

▪ Earth pressure at rest acting on the foundation may be used in calculating the stability
ratio against sliding.

▪ The factor of safety against floatation shall be a minimum of 1.1 calculated taking ground
water level at grade.

1.14 SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE OF SOILS

▪ Swelling and shrinkage are physical properties causing soil deformation due to changes
in moisture and individual chemical content of clay in soil.

▪ Swelling soils are often called expansive. The swelling pressures may reach high values
over 1000 kPa (Rogers et al.). Shrinkage in soils sometimes termed as subsidence.

▪ Swelling can be expressed in:

Swelling Index (SI) = h/H
where h – expansion of soil; H - specimen height (soil layer thickness).
free swell percentage in % = h/H x 100%

Table 1.14.1 Interpretation of Expansion Index Test Results by ASTM D4829-11

EI Potential Expansion
0 – 20 Very low
21 – 50 Low
51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
>130 Very high
▪ Soil strains related to swelling deformation could be calculated based on formuli
represented in Appendix 1.4.

1.15 CBR VALUES AND ENGINEERING MATERIALS

▪ Subgrade suitability is a subject of grade design. For quick reference, CBR values
obtained in Geotechnical Survey may be used for the grade and pavement design.

▪ For gravel roads in industrial sites, preliminary thickness selection (South Dakota Catalog
Design Method):
Table 1.15.1 Gravel road thickness estimation
Estimated daily traffic Subgrade Support Condition Medium Gravel Layer
In heavy trucks Thickness (mm)
Low 215
5 to 10 Medium 180
High 140
Low 290
10-25 Medium 230
High 180
Low 370
25-50 Medium 290
High 215
Definitions:
Low subgrade support CBR < 3%
Medium subgrade support 3 < CBR < 10%
High subgrade support CBR > 10%

▪ For asphalt thickness (base and surface asphalt courses):

Figure 1.15.1 CBR values for asphalt and subgrade design
1.16 SEISMICITY

▪ For most of the applications of EN 1998, the hazard is described in terms of a single
parameter, i.e. the value of the reference peak ground acceleration, αgR, on type A
ground (ground type A corresponds to rock or other rock-like geological formation,
including at most 5m of weaker material at the surface). This information is to be included
in the National Annex, some may specify soil type and importance factors.

▪ For each seismic zone the reference peak ground acceleration, αgR, corresponds to the
reference probability of exceedance in 50 years, PNCR, of the seismic action for the no-
collapse requirement.

▪ Within the scope of EN 1998 the earthquake motion at a given point of the surface is
represented by an elastic ground acceleration response spectrum. The horizontal seismic
action is described by two orthogonal components assumed as being independent and
represented by the same response spectrum. The selection of the values of the
parameters defining the shape of this elastic response spectrum in a Country may be
found in its National Annex. However, EN 1998 also stipulates that time-history
representations of the earthquake motion may be used, too.

▪ In EN 1998 it is recommended that the reference peak ground acceleration on type A

ground, αgR, for the purpose of seismic zonation, corresponds to a reference probability
of exceedance PNCR=0.10 in TL=50 years, or equivalently to a reference return period
of TNCR≈ 475 years.
Table 1.16.1 Typical values and relationships of reference probabilities of exceedance
and corresponding return periods for a specific site.
Probability of Time span TL Mean return period TR
exceedance PR
20% 10 years 45 years
10% 10 years 95 years
 20% 50 years 224 years
10% 50 years 475 years
5% 50 years 975 years
10% 100 years 949 years
5% 100 years 1950 years

1.17 SOIL LIQUEFACTION

▪ Soil liquefaction potential could be assessed based on soil parameters obtained in

Geotechnical Survey.

▪ Tsuchida (1970) gave a boundaries on separating liquefiable soils from non-liquefiable

based on PSD. However, that cannot be solely used for liquefaction potential definition.
Figure 1.17.1 CBR soil type liquefaction boundaries

▪ For preliminary designs, it is advised to use two techniques for potential estimation:
SPT based approach by Seed and Idriss
Susceptability Rating Factor (SRF) derivation
Shear Strain Concept

▪ SPT based approach, so called “simplified procedure” (Seed and Idriss, 1971) which
derives so called Safety Factor from CRR and CSR values:
FS = CRR7.5 MSF / CSR
Detailed description of methodology is given in Appendix 1.4.

▪ Susceptability Rating Factor (SRF) derivation - technique could also be used for the
estimation of liquefaction potential. It implies application of historical, geological, structural
and groundwater occurrence at the site.

SRF = F hist x F geology x F comp x FGW

Table 1.17.1 SRF values criteria
SRF Site Susceptibility
0-5 Very Low
5 – 10 Low
10 – 25 Moderate
25 - 50 High
>50 Very High

For detailed description of the methodology please refere to Appendix 5 of this document.

▪ Shear Strain Concept - if the peak shear strain induced by an earthquake does not exceed
the strain of 0.01, the shaking will not cause a buildup of excess pore pressure regardless
of the number of loading cycles, and, therefore, liquefaction cannot occur (Dobry et al.,
1980). The peak shear strain caused by an earthquake ground motion may be estimated
with reasonable accuracy using the following equation:
r = 1.2 a Z / Vs2

▪ where r equals strain, a equals peak acceleration at ground surface, Z equals depth, and
Vs equals shear wave velocity.

▪ Relative density effects - initial void ratio or relative density is one of the most important
factors controlling liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs principally in saturated clean sands
and silty sands having a relative density less than 50%. For dense sands, however, their
tendency to dilate during cyclic shearing will generate negative pore water pressures and
increase their resistance to shear stress. The lower limit of relative density beyond which
liquefaction will not occur is about 75% (GDP-9 Revision #3 State Of New York
Department Of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Bureau).

▪ Effective stress effects - from field observations it has been concluded by a number of
investigators that saturated sands located deeper than 50 to 60 feet (15 to 18 m) are not
likely to liquefy. These depths are in general agreement with Kishida (1969) who states
that a saturated sandy soil is not liquefiable if the value of the effective overburden
pressure exceeds2 tsf (190 kN/m2).

▪ Layer thickness of soil - if a subbase is formed by sand layer under the surface clayey
soil, a thickness of sand layer may affect in liquefaction effects. See figure below given
(Ishihara, 1985):
Figure 1.17.2 Non-liquefiable soil on liquefiable soil layer interpretations
APPENDIX 1.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO EN ISO 14688-2:2018
APPENDIX 1.2 TO GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS – PILE DESIGN BY CPT
Kc – values for pile design as per CPT

αLCPC – values for pile design as per CPT

APPENDIX 1.3 TO GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS – PILE DESIGN BY CPT EN1997
METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 1.4 TO GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS - SWELLING INDEX RELATED STRAIN
CALCULATION TECHNIQUES
APPENDIX 1.4 TO GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS - SEED AND IDRISS, 1971 ‘SIMPLIFIED
APPROACH’ FOR ESTIMATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
APPENDIX 1.5 SUSCEPTABILITY RATING FACTOR (SRF) DERIVATION
2. HYDROLOGICAL SURVEY REPORTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO HYDROLOGICAL SURVEY REPORTS

▪ Hydrological Reports for PV plant design are of importance on: ensuring effective drainage
approach, mitigate flooding event, risk assessment of floods.

▪ This document at least chases the following purposes:

Form an effective notion of hydrological conditions at project site
Verify scope completeness of the Hydrological Studies
Verify individual parameters, in-depth cross-checks
▪ Minimum structure of hydrological report must at least contain the following elements:
Data collection & Site visit
Watershed delineation
Watershed morphology
Rainfall analysis
Peak flow calculation
Hydraulic modelling
Risk assessment
Engineering solutions
2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND SITE VISIT

▪ Regardless of the project stage, hydrological survey requires a site visit. As none of the
existing satellite mapping systems can consist of site data for required extent.

▪ Requirements for general site description:

Coordinates and area of the site
Closest natural landmarks: mountains, hills, water bodies etc.
Closest artificial landmarks: cities, towns, dams, roads etc.
Situation map
▪ Requirements for terrain and topography description:
Main direction of slopes on site and neighbouring areas contributing to hydrology
Satellite mapping system and its resolution (accuracy)
Supplementary high-level maps from local sources (government, codes etc.)
High-level determination of run-off sources e.g. hills, mountains, river vallyes, wadis etc.
Main elevations to be provided
Topographical map from satellite software (1:10 000, 1:50 000, 1:100 000 etc.)
▪ Requirements for geology (necessary for run-off coefficients and curve numbers)
Geological map to be provided with surface geological features (could be available in
local authorities and organisations 1:100 000, 1:250 000 etc.)

▪ Requirements for rainfall data

Meteostation(s) and record periods must be clearly stated
Meteostations locations, distances to site and names to be given.
▪ Requirements for site visit
Must confirm hydrological features of area (direction of slopes, streams, wadi etc.)
 Show existing hydraulic structures (culverts, drains, streams etc.)
Local site specifics such as soil erosion, thick vegetation, wet zones.

2.3 WATERSHED DELINEATION

▪ Watershed generation is done like in following manner:

SATELLITE MAPPING SYSTEM WATERSHED GENERATION

SOFTWARE

AVAILABLE TOPOSURVEYS
SITE VISITS
GOOGLE MAPS
ETC.

▪ Requirements for watershed delineation:

Each watershed to be defined and numbered
All watersheds to be shown on high-level map and direction of flows (streams) shown by
arrows
Internal and external watersheds to be defined
Watersheds intersecting the project site to be given (those contributing the project area to be
stated)
Grouping of watersheds depending on significance of contribution
Grouping and/or numbering of watersheds based on common input/outlet points
Link existing functioning of hydrological features (dams, culverts, streams etc.) to watershed
delineations
Watershed number, area size, critical stream length and slopes to be provided

2.4 WATERSHED MORPHOLOGY

▪ Watershed morphology must include:

Time of concentration estimation for watershed
Geology and land use information

▪ Time of concentration can be estimated by a conventional formula (though there could be

alternatives).

(3.28𝐿)0.77
𝑇𝑐 =
𝑆 0.385

▪ Geology and land use information must clearly indicate geological groups for Curve
Number (CN) and run-off coefficients as per Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS).

▪ For CN numbers please refer to standard SCS TR-55 Table 2-2a.

2.5 RAINFALL ANALYSIS AND PEAK FLOWS

▪ The statistical program must be used to develop probabilistic distributions of the rainfall
data relative to assignated meteostation by using several methods.

▪ For meteostation chosen, rainfall depth against return periods (e.g. 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100)
should be provided.

▪ Using Bell’s ratio method Rainfall Intensities for each return period and rainfall duration
must be provided – IDF curve (station name could be given). Based on the curve and times
of concentration of each watershed, rainfall intensities are obtained to every watershed.

▪ Rainfall intensities of watersheds are further utilised to obtain peak flow values to given
return periods.

▪ Most commonly Rational Method or Hydrograph methods are used for estimation of the
peak flows. Rational Method formula as follows:
Q = CIA / 360
Where: Q – peak flow (m3/s); C – runoff coefficient; A – surface of watershed (hectare)
I – rainfall Intensity (mm/Hour); the rainfall intensity is calculated based on the time of
concentration of each watershed.

▪ Use of Rational method shall be limited to the 150 sq. km watershed area limit.
2.6 HYDRAULIC MODELLING

▪ Hydraulic modelling defines boundaries of floodplains of streams that affect the project
area in a given return period. Watershed run-offs form the streams, to which hydraulically
input and output boundary conditions are defined during modelling. The result of any
hydraulic modelling is depths of flood and velocities derived.

▪ Modelling softwares such as HEC-RAS, MODFLOW, TUFLOW and Python are

considered as reliable tools.
Table 2.6.1 Typical Manning’s coefficients
Floodplain Manning’s Coefficient
n
Grass 0.03
Cultivated areas 0.04
Brush – heavy weeds 0.1
Medium to dense brush 0.07
Light brush 0.05
Trees 0.12

▪ Apart from depths, velocities and channels geometry, hazard identification must be
performed. Hazard identification in the form of ‘risks to people method’ (supporting UK
flood hazard rating) is a composition of 3 components: Flood Hazard, Area vulnerability,
People vulnerability which is in the end depend on number of people affected.
Ninj = f (Nz, Hazard Rating, Area Vulnerability, People Vulnerability)
Where,
Ninj = number of injuries within a particular hazard ‘zone’
Nz = number of people within the hazard zone (at ground/basement level);
 Flood Hazard Rating = function of flood depth/velocity (withing hazard zone being
considered) and debris factor;
Area Vulnerability = function of effectiveness of flood warning, speed of onset of flooding
and nature of area (including types of buildings);
People Vulnerability = function of presence of people who are very old and/or
infirm/disabled/long term
Flood Hazard Rating expresses ‘people’s ability to walk and escape on flooded waters’.

▪ For exact methodology of calculation please see attached Appendix 2.1

2.7 ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS

▪ It may be required to check the culvert design against flood flow. Minimum size of the
culvert could be found as:
D = 1.548 (nQ/s1/2)3/8
In which: n – Mannings coefficient; Q – flow rate; s – slope.

2.8 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

▪ It may be required to check if at the given flow, the sediment (soil surface) motion may
occur. For the preliminary purposes, the following figure could be used based on Soulsby
[1997] approach which is fairly common. It is advisable to follow ‘Suspension’ limits, as to
PV plant structures it is acceptable to go beyond ‘Motion Initiation’.

▪ A simple expression for initiation of motion (movement of particles along the bed):

D0 – particle d50 size;

Figure 2.8.1 Threshold values for initiation of motion and particle suspension
▪ Another more simplistic criteria for erosion occurrence in soils at different velocities:
Table 2.8.1 Threshold of velocities for erosion to soil surface type
Type of soil surface Velocity of water
Fine sand 0.6
Loam 0.9
Clay 1.2
Gravel 1.5
Soft shale 1.8
Hard shale 2.4
Hard rock 4.5

2.9 SCOUR PROTECTION

▪ In the flooded areas where foundations, bunds, dykes or any other considerable protrusion
from ground surface are present, ground scouring may occur.

▪ For that, the following equation could be used for estimation of the scour depth Ds (m).
Based on that value, the depth of subgrade depth could be designed:
𝑄
Ds = 0.473 x ( 𝑓 )1/3
Q – peak discharge, m/s3
f – Silt Factor

Table 2.9.1 Threshold of velocities for erosion to soil surface type

Grain size (mm) Silt factor (f)
0.08 0.5
0.16 0.7
0.23 0.85
0.50 1.0
0.72 1.5
1.0 1.75
1.3 2.0
APPENDIX 2.1 FLOOD HAZARD RATING DERIVATION

Flood Hazard Rating definition:

As per UK flood hazard rating

Area Vulnerability expresses risk dependency on the type of the inhabited area.
People vulnerability expresses flood risk consequences depending on the social, physical,
economical, lingual, ethnical and religious division of groups of people.