LEARNING UNIT 6: SOIL AND ROCK PARAMETERS

FOR DESIGN INPUT

Table of Contents Page no.

1 Introduction and General Overview ................................................................................... 1
2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit ....................................................... 2
3 Definitions and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 3
4 Readily Available Sources and Student Guidance .............................................................. 3
5 Understanding the Problem, Level of Investigation and Expected Outcome .................... 4
6 How Engineering Works Affect the Ground ....................................................................... 6
7 Soil or Rock Classification, Shear Strength and Stiffness .................................................... 8
7.1 Soil Strength Parameters............................................................................................. 8
7.2 Soil Stiffness Parameters ........................................................................................... 10
7.3 Rock Strength Parameters ........................................................................................ 11
7.4 Rock Stiffness Parameters ......................................................................................... 11
8 Parameters, Testing and Evaluation Methodologies for Typical Engineering Works ...... 11
8.1 Seismicity (Site Response) ......................................................................................... 13
8.2 Seismicity (Geologic Hazards Evaluation) ................................................................. 14
8.3 Seismicity (Input for Structural Design) .................................................................... 15
8.4 Shallow Foundations ................................................................................................. 16
8.5 Driven Pile Foundations ............................................................................................ 17
8.6 Drilled Shaft (Pile) Foundations................................................................................. 18
8.7 Embankments and Embankment Foundations ......................................................... 19
8.8 Excavations and Cut Slopes ....................................................................................... 20
8.9 Fill Walls / Reinforced Soil Slopes ............................................................................. 21
8.10 Cut Walls ................................................................................................................... 22
9 Dr Evert Hoek Notes on Practical Rock Engineering ......................................................... 23
10 Worked Examples of Parameter Identification for Typical Basic Geotechnical
Assessments ............................................................................................................................. 23
10.1 Basic Ultimate Bearing Capacity Assessment ........................................................... 24
10.1.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Cohesion Soil (Clay)................................................. 24
10.1.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Friction Soil (Sand) .................................................. 26
10.2 Basic Settlement Calculation ..................................................................................... 27
10.2.1 Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundation (Janbu et al., 1956) ......................... 28
10.2.2 Elastic Settlement in Granular Soil (Bowles, 1987)............................................ 29
10.3 Basic Heave Assessment ........................................................................................... 30
10.4 Basic Pile Design ........................................................................................................ 33
10.5 Slope Assessments .................................................................................................... 37
10.6 Basic Retaining Wall Assessment .............................................................................. 38
11 Guidance on Field and Laboratory Techniques to Obtain Target Parameters for
Geotechnical Design ................................................................................................................ 40
12 Self‐Assessment Activities ................................................................................................ 44
13 Further Reading ................................................................................................................ 44
14 Informative Website Links ................................................................................................ 44
15 References ........................................................................................................................ 44
List of Tables Page no.
Table 1: Ground Actions, Response and Induced Effects of Selective Engineering Works (Modified
from source) (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011) ................................................................................................ 7
Table 2: Seismic Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Site Response) (WSDOT,
2011) ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Seismic Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Geologic Hazards Evaluation)
(WSDOT, 2011)...................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4: Seismic Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Input for Structural Design)
(WSDOT, 2011)...................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Shallow Foundations) (WSDOT,
2011) ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Driven Pile Foundations)
(WSDOT, 2011)...................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 7: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Drilled Shaft Foundations)
(WSDOT, 2011)...................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 8: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Embankments and Embankment
Foundations) (WSDOT, 2011) ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Excavations and Cut Slopes)
(WSDOT, 2011)...................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 10: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Fill Walls/Reinforced Soil
Slopes) (WSDOT, 2011) ......................................................................................................................... 21
Table 11: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Cut Walls) (WSDOT, 2011) ..... 22
Table 12: Guide to Planning a Soils Investigation in Stable Soil Profiles above the Water‐table (usually
Residual Soils or Cohesive Transported Soils) (Franki, 2008, p. 7) ....................................................... 42
Table 13: Guide to Planning a Soils Investigation in Saturated, Variable Soils (usually encountered in
Coastal Areas or Adjacent to Watercourses) (Franki, 2008, p. 8) ......................................................... 43

List of Figures Page no.

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 6) .................................................................. 1
Figure 2: Phased Approach ‐ Site Investigation Good Practice – SAICE 2010 (SAICE, 2010, p. 2) .......... 5
Figure 3: Visual Illustration for Calculation of the Nett Bearing Pressure (qnett) .................................. 26
Figure 4: Average Elastic Settlement Below Flexible Foundation on Saturated Clay (Das B. M., 2016,
p. 300) ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Elastic Settlement of Flexible and Rigid Foundations (Das B. M., 2016, p. 303) ................... 30
Figure 6: Illustration of the Integral (Van der Merwe’s Total Heave Estimation)................................. 32
Figure 7: Potential Expansiveness Chart (Van der Merwe, 1964) ........................................................ 33
Figure 8: Single Pile Ultimate Load Capacity Basics Illustration ........................................................... 35
Figure 9: Retaining Wall Conditions to Satisfy (Das B. M., 2010, p. 656) ............................................. 39
1 Introduction and General Overview
This is Learning Unit 6 of 11 units in this module (see Figure 1). The module consists of ten
structured learning units and one unit that will be one (or more) geological engineering
project(s). The focus of this learning unit is on “Soil and Rock Parameters for Design Input”
for the prospective engineer.

Basic Geology
(Learning Unit 1)
Basic Fundamentals
Geological
and Introduction to
Engineering Projects
Structural Geology
(Learning Unit 11)
(Learning Unit 2)

Geological Factors
Discontinuities and
Affecting Construction
“Properties of Rock”
Projects
(Learning Unit 3)
(Learning Unit 10)

Civil
Engineering
Design
Slopes Construction Geomorphology
(Learning Unit 9) (Learning Unit 4)

Engineering Geological Hazards

Geophysics and Problem Soils
(Learning Unit 8) (Learning Unit 5)

Soil and Rock

Geotechnical Site Parameters for
Investigations
Design Input
(Learning Unit 7)
(Learning Unit 6)

Figure 1: Outline of the Module (Focus on Learning Unit 6)

To conduct a focused geotechnical investigation, the evaluator needs a sound understanding

of geology, mineralogy, geomorphology, proposed engineering works, actions on the ground,
the ground response and subsequent effects. Once any problems are identified, suitable
evaluation methodologies can be selected that will provide clarification on the soil and/or rock
parameters required for evaluating the specific works.
You have been introduced to geology, mineralogy, geomorphology, geological hazards and
problem soils. The focus of this learning unit is on providing guidance on the thought

1
processes behind planning a focused geotechnical investigation. Emphasis will be placed on
the importance of understanding the problem, as well as the level of investigation and
expected outcome of the geotechnical assessment before an investigation is conducted to
obtain the necessary parameters for either conceptual design or design input.
We will be reviewing some of the basics and making use of a number of worked examples, to
illustrate the process behind parameter selection. Guidance will also be provided on field
and/or test methodologies that can be considered to obtain the identified parameters required
for design input.
This unit serves as an introduction to soil and rock parameter identification, testing
methodologies to obtain the required parameters and the though process behind the planning
phase, prior to conducting an engineering geological investigation.

2 Purpose and Expected Outcome of the Learning Unit

This unit is considered an introduction to soil and rock parameter selection as well as the
identification of field and laboratory testing methodologies in order to obtain the identified
parameters for the prospective engineer.
The main objectives of this learning unit are to:
a) Emphasise the importance of understanding the problem before planning the
geotechnical investigation, with iteration of the importance of a phased investigation
approach.
b) Provide an introduction to actions on the ground and ground response with associated
effects for typical engineering problems.
c) Provide guidance on the critical parameters and analysis methods used for general
geotechnical problems, including slopes, foundations (shallow and deep), retaining
walls, dams, shallow civil engineering excavations and deep, hard rock excavations.
d) Provide guidance on field and laboratory techniques that can be considered, to obtain
the required parameters.
At the end of this learning unit, you should be able to:
Illustrate an understanding of how typical engineering works affect the ground and
associated actions, ground response and induced effects (i.e., the structure-ground
interaction and effects);
Illustrate the importance of understanding the problem, before scoping a geotechnical
investigation;
Illustrate your understanding of the importance of a phased geotechnical investigation
approach;
Identify the soil and/or rock parameters required from the geotechnical investigation
for different engineering problems situated in or on either rock and/or soil formations;
Compile a basic scope of works for a phased geotechnical investigation, in order to
obtain information – from hazard identification to layout planning up to detailed design.
For the purposes of this learning unit, the phased investigation approach for all non-

2
 residential structures should be aligned with the SAICE 2010 site investigation code
of practice. (Note: The detailed scope of works for geotechnical/engineering geological
investigations will be covered in Learning Unit 7, “Site Investigations”).
This is an introductory learning unit to the units which follow, including “Unit 7: Geotechnical
Site Investigations” and “Unit 9: Slopes”.

3 Definitions and Abbreviations

Definitions and abbreviations are provided and clarified in the relevant sections in the learning
unit. Where there is uncertainty, refer to the original source, article or publication, or conduct
your own research to ensure that you are familiar with the definitions associated with this
learning unit.

4 Readily Available Sources and Student Guidance

Geotechnical design parameters are covered in various textbooks, codes of practice and
relevant national standards. You can obtain and refer to any textbook (or alternative reliable
source/s) that covers the sections addressed in this learning unit. For the purposes of this unit,
you will be directed to readily available sources. You should obtain the sources listed. All
questions or potential projects will be based on information contained in the compulsory
reading sources and/or covered in other learning units.
The compulsory sources include (refer to download links under the reference section of the
learning unit):
 Code of Practice: SAICE 2010, Site Investigation Code of Practice, The Geotechnical
Division of SAICE, January 2010 (SAICE, 2010).
 Publication 293 – Geotechnical Engineering Manual, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, April 2018 (PDOT, 2018).
 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 (August 2011), Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT, 2011).
 Practical rock engineering notes by Evert Hoek, Chapter 2 – When is a rock
engineering design acceptable (Hoek, 2006).
Suggested textbooks may include:
 Geological Engineering (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011).
 A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Arica (Franki, 2008).
 Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (Das B. M., 2010).
 Principles of Foundation Engineering (Das B. M., 2016).
You are not required to obtain any of the suggested textbooks. It is expected that alternative
or relevant textbooks will form part of the obligatory reference books required in other soil
mechanics or geotechnical modules to follow. The suggested textbooks may, however, be
valuable additions to your geotechnical toolbox.

3
5 Understanding the Problem, Level of Investigation
and Expected Outcome
A sound understanding of the geotechnical problem, together with the expected outcome, is
of outmost importance when planning a focused geotechnical site investigation and field
and/or laboratory testing programme. Aligning the investigation into the required design
parameters requires a sound understanding of the engineering works considered, the actions
of the works on the ground, the associated ground response and the induced effects. To
further align the investigation, an understanding of the analysis methodologies to be applied
in the design process, is vital. Once you understand the planned structure/works, the effects
and extent of the structure/works on the ground, the ground response, induced effects and the
analysis method that will be applied by the design team, you can properly plan and align your
geotechnical investigation methodology to target the required parameters. Without the
aforementioned, you may just be conducting a general investigation, targeting parameters and
investigation depths that may not be of any value to the proposed works.
It is fairly easy to plan your investigation to target the required soil or rock parameters if you
know what the geological model looks like for a specific site. The geological model is, however,
rarely available. This is where your knowledge of geology, mineralogy, weathering and
depositional environments (geomorphology) comes in handy. You can apply your knowledge
of geology, mineralogy, weathering and geomorphology to conceptualise a geological model.
However, even with a sound understanding of geology and geomorphology, your level of
confidence in the model will probably be low to fair.
The only way to optimise an investigation is to take a phased investigation approach. Such an
approach generally starts with a desk study, which is usually followed by a site visit and
walkover survey. Based on the information obtained during the aforementioned, more detailed
investigation phases can be provided. For each level of investigation, you increase your level
of confidence in the geological model and material parameters. Each investigation phase thus
provides the basis for the next. The level of accuracy of your geological model and material
properties/parameters should increase with each investigation phase. This investigation
methodology enables investigators/planners to optimise or adapt the geotechnical
investigation, and allows for layout or structural changes where and if needed. This
investigation methodology is referred to as a phased investigation approach (see Figure 2).

4
 Note: No testing.
Mainly available
data and
expected
constraints and
properties.

Note: (Generally,
no or very limited
testing to
classify
materials.
Information used
is mainly from
available data
and publications)

Note: (Mainly
testing to
classify the
materials. No to
very limited
testing to
characterise
materials)

Tender Design:
Mainly
classification
testing with
possibly some
testing to
characterise
materials.
Dependent on
expectations.

Detailed Design:
Mainly testing to
characterise.

Figure 2: Phased Approach – Site Investigation Good Practice (SAICE, 2010, p.

2)

5
With reference to the SAICE 2010 Site investigation code of practice, read through section 1
(Introduction), section 2 (Planning) and section 4.2.4 (Investigation for detailed design).
Pay special attention to the following:
 Figure 1: Site investigation good practice (note the different levels of investigation and
the expected outcome of each phase) (section 1.1).
 The scope of the code (section 1.2).
 Factors affecting the planning of an investigation (section 2.1).
 The objectives of an investigation, with specific reference to the investigation stages
(section 2.2).
 Development classes or categories (section 2.3).
 Typical levels of geotechnical investigation (section 2.4). Compare the indicated levels
to the levels presented in Figure 1 in the code of practice. Take note of the two design
levels presented in section 2.4.
 Client expectations or requirements (section 2.7).
 Extent of the investigation (understand the problem) (section 2.8). The extent of the
investigation is covered in detail in Learning Unit 7.
 The difference between material classification and material characterisation. In
which investigation levels will you use classification and characterisation? Take note
of the typical classification and characterisation parameters (section 2.9).
 Note that there are different design philosophies: The basic working stress approach,
limit state approach and probabilistic evaluation approach (section 4.2.4 a).
 Note the two classes of geotechnical parameters. Acknowledge the implications of
reporting a non-fundamental parameter. Acknowledge the importance of
understanding the project and ensuring continuous liaison between the engineering
geologist and/or geotechnical engineer and other players on the design team
(generally the pavement engineer, civil engineer and/or structural engineer) (section
4.2.4 b).
It should be clear at this stage that it is crucial to understand the problem, level of investigation
and expected outcome of each investigation phase, before undertaking a geotechnical
investigation of any nature. It should also be clear that the engineer can adopt different design
philosophies. The input parameters used for the different philosophies may or will differ. The
engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer should also be clear on what parameters are
presented in the geotechnical or engineering geological site investigation reports.

6 How Engineering Works Affect the Ground

A summary of the actions, ground response and induced effects of typical engineering works
is presented in Table 1. Understanding the actions, response and induced effects will assist
you in planning the investigation and targeting the parameters required for evaluation/design.

6
Table 1: Ground Actions, Response and Induced Effects of Selected
Engineering Works (Modified from Source) (de Vallejo & Ferrer, 2011)

Engineering Works Actions on Ground Ground Response Induced Effects

Static and dynamic loads Stresses and Failures
Foundations Excavations deformations Settlements
Water table changes Flow path changes
Excavations Failures
Excavations
Slopes and quarries Instabilities
Water table changes
Stress relief Alterations
Tunnels and Excavations Deformations Stress relief
underground mines Changes in state of Flow path changes Instabilities
stress Seepages
Water table changes
Hydraulic and Maritime Seepage
Works Static and dynamic loads Stresses and Internal erosion
Dams Hydrostatic pressures deformations Failures, settlements
Canals Uplift water pressures Flow path changes Instabilities
Maritime works
Seepage
Hydraulic loads
Instability of slopes
Water table changes
Sedimentation
Reservoirs
Dissolution
Dam reservoirs Stresses and
Excavations Instability
deformations
Static and hydraulic Seepage
Storage and waste Flow path changes
loads Chemical-physical
reservoirs
Percolation of chemical changes in soils and
substances, fluids, etc. water
Water table changes
Stresses and Instability
Loads
Earth Works deformations
Water table changes
Flow path changes

From the table, you will note that foundations may be static or dynamic in nature. The actions
of the foundation on the ground will include static and/or dynamic loads, excavations and, in
some instances, changes in the water table. The ground response will be induced stresses
and resulting deformation, and even possibly water flow path changes.
The induced effects may be failure or settlement. By understanding the actions on the
ground, ground response and induced effects, the required parameters for evaluating or
assessing the specific problem, can be obtained. In the case of a statically loaded foundation,
the following may have to be assessed as a minimum:
1. Excavatability;
2. Sidewall stability of the excavation;
3. Potential for excavation flooding (water seeping into the excavation);
4. Ultimate bearing capacity of the soil/material on/in which the foundation is founded;
5. Settlement of the soil/material that will be subject to the induced stress.
Assuming that the planned foundation is on soil with a deep water table (below the zone of
influence of the works or structure), the critical aspects to consider in a design will be 1) the

7
stability of the excavation for the foundation and 2) the allowable bearing capacity of the
soil. The allowable bearing capacity, however, consists of two aspects, namely ultimate
bearing capacity and allowable settlement (or settlement limit). The allowable bearing
capacity of a soil may be exceeded long before the ultimate bearing capacity (actual ground
failure) is reached. Exceeding the shear strength of the soil may, for example, occur at an
induced stress of 500 kN/m2 (load of foundation footing on the soil). This is termed the “ultimate
limit”. However, the allowable settlement for the structure may be exceeded when 10 mm of
total or differential settlement occurs. This is termed the “serviceability limit”. The settlement
is dependent on the stress distribution in the soil, which is in turn dependent on the foundation
size and induced load. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil should thus consider the
ultimate bearing capacity of the soil/rock, as well as the specified maximum settlement the
foundation may undergo.
We have now identified “what” and “why” to investigate. The next section deals with the actual
critical parameters that should be targeted in the geotechnical investigation used for design
input.

7 Soil or Rock Classification, Shear Strength and

Stiffness
Of key interest to the engineer is the allocation of representative geotechnical design
parameters to the soil or rock model. Soil or rock is generally classified into various
categories/classes. Each category/class indicates potential problems or patterns of behaviour
that can be expected from the material (refer to Figure 2). Once the soil or rock has been
classified, the next most important design parameters required are the soil/rock shear strength
(compressive and shear) and stiffness values (Franki, 2008, p. 44). This is termed the
“categorisation of the material” (refer to Figure 2). You will note from Figure 2 that material
classification is generally considered adequate in the initial basic investigation phases, for
identifying potential problems and expected material properties. Material categorisation is
required in more detailed investigations, such as tender design and design investigations.
This phased approach is considered in order to optimise the investigations/layouts/designs
and identify which critical parameters should be assessed during the next investigation phase.
Strength parameters are generally used to determine the degree of safety against ultimate
failure (shear through the soil). Stiffness (deformation) parameters are important for
determining the performance of the structure under serviceability conditions (i.e., the
settlement/deformation) thereof.
In this section we will cover the strength and stiffness/deformation basics, together with the
required input parameters. We will also identify typical field and laboratory test methods that
can be considered in order to obtain the individual parameters.

7.1 Soil Strength Parameters

You should be familiar with the shear strength formula covered in detail in Learning Unit 3:
Properties of Rock):

8
 𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑
Equation 7.1
Where:
𝜏 is the shear strength of the soil
𝑐 is the cohesion of the soil
𝜎 is the normal stress on the shear surface
𝜑 is the angle of internal friction.
In the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we have a cohesive component and a frictional
component (see below).

Cohesive Frictional
component component

For c (pure cohesive soils, such as clay) we consider a zero angle of internal friction for the
soil and the frictional component becomes zero. The shear strength is thus equal to the
cohesion. The cohesion (c = cu) is simply 0.5 × UCS (unconfined compressive strength) that
you will remember from your Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion plots.
For φ (friction soils with no cohesion, such as sand), the cohesion component becomes
zero and we consider the input parameters for the frictional component only.
For c-φ (cohesion-friction, such as clayey sand), we consider both the cohesion and
frictional components. Water conditions and associated pore water pressures affect the shear
strength, as the cohesion, friction and stress scenarios change when water is present in the
soil. Due to this phenomenon we need to consider the effective stress scenario, as opposed
to the cohesive soil where we evaluate the total stress scenario.
From the soil mechanics learning units, total stress is defined by:

𝜎 𝜎 µ Equation 7.2

Where:
𝜎 is the total stress
𝜎 is the effective stress
µ is the pore water pressure.
The effective stress is thus defined by:

𝜎 𝜎 µ Equation 7.3

For the stress and pore water pressure components, we require the following:
 Unit weight of the soil (dry and saturated) kN/m3
 Unit weight of water (we know this and, for all practical purposes, you can consider
this to be constant)
 Water level.

9
This forms the basis for the shear strength analysis of all soils.
For the purposes of this learning unit we will not address matric suction that can and does
affect the shear strength and stiffness properties of a soil significantly. This phenomenon will
be covered in more advanced learning units.

7.2 Soil Stiffness Parameters

The soil stiffness enables the engineer to evaluate the performance of a structure under
serviceability level conditions, thus the deformation of the soil under an induced load or a
change in ground conditions. Stiffness has two components, namely shear stiffness and
stiffness in compression, that can be determined via various in-situ measurements, laboratory
tests and geophysical methods.
There are different elastic models you can consider for predicting soil behaviour. The
relationship between stress (loading) and strain (deformation) for a linearly elastic constitutive
model can be given by Hooke’s Law, where:
1 Equation 7.4
𝜀 𝜎 𝑣𝜎
𝐸
1 Equation 7.5
𝜀 𝜎 𝑣𝜎
𝐸

Where:
𝜀 strain in x direction (lateral spread)
𝜀 strain in y direction (axial compression)
𝐸 is the soil stiffness (Young’s modulus or modulus of deformation) that is the normal stress
divided by the normal strain
𝑣 is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil that is defined as the ratio of strains in the two
perpendicular directions under uniaxial loading (𝑣 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝜎 , 𝜎 0 .

For an isotopically elastic material (i.e., uniform behaviour in all directions), the elastic material
constants are related by:
𝐸
𝐺 Equation 7.6
2 1 𝑣
Where:
G is the small strain stiffness.
It is therefore only necessary to know any two of the elastic properties (G, E, 𝑣). The third can
be determined using the above relationship (Equation 7.6).
It is important to note that the stiffness of the soil is not a constant, but varies with both the
magnitude and frequency at which a load is applied. G is, however, constant for drained or
undrained conditions. It is thus preferable to obtain parameters G and 𝑣.

10
For stiffness/deformation analysis we thus require two of the three parameters, namely 𝑣
(Poisson’s ratio), E (Young’s modulus [also known as the stiffness modulus or modulus of
deformation]) and G (small strain stiffness).

7.3 Rock Strength Parameters

Rock strength parameters were covered in detail within Learning Unit 3: Properties of Rock.
Do you remember intact rock, discontinuities and rock mass? Do you remember the different
strength criteria?

7.4 Rock Stiffness Parameters

Rock stiffness parameters were covered in detail in Learning Unit 3: Properties of Rock. Do
you remember how to obtain the stiffness of the rock and rock mass? Refer to the detailed
worked examples in Learning Unit 3.

8 Parameters, Testing and Evaluation Methodologies

for Typical Engineering Works
In sections 5 and 6 of this learning unit we established the engineering problem, the level of
investigation required, the client’s expectation of the geotechnical assessment and how the
planned engineering works affect the ground. From the aforementioned we were able to
identify the induced effects that need to be investigated.
In our foundation example, we established that sidewall stability, ultimate bearing capacity and
settlement below the foundation or structure are the minimum critical effects that need to be
assessed.
In section 7 we covered the basics of both the strength and deformation (stiffness) parameters
required to evaluate the shear strength and deformational behaviour of soil and rock.
In this section we focus on the required geotechnical evaluation for seismically active
zones, as well as a number of typical engineering problems, together with the information
(geomechanical parameters) and tests required to conduct the evaluations.
This section concludes the general processes behind planning a geotechnical site
investigation with reference to the necessary evaluation for typical problems, target
parameters and test methods to obtain these target parameters for geotechnical design input.
A number of basic assessment examples will follow, to illustrate/demonstrate the parameter
selection process before you plan/conduct a geotechnical site investigation with a field and/or
laboratory test program.
For this section of the learning unit, obtain and refer to the following freely downloadable
source:
 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 (August 2011), Washington State
Department of Transportation. Download link:
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M46-03/M46-
03.05Complete.pdf (WSDOT, 2011).

11
The following typical engineering works are covered in this section:
1) Shallow foundations;
2) Driven pile foundations;
3) Drilled shaft (pile) foundations;
4) Embankments and embankment foundations;
5) Excavations and cut slopes;
6) Fill walls/reinforced soil slopes; and
7) Cut walls.
The tables provided summarise the required evaluations which are generally associated with
each of the engineering works, together with the information and test methods that can be
considered in order to obtain the necessary parameters to conduct the required evaluations.
The tables presented are modified from the Geotechnical Design Manual WSDOT M 46-03.05
(WSDOT, 2011).
The site response, required evaluations, required information and test methods for obtaining
the required parameters to evaluate the effects of seismic activities are not covered in this
learning unit. This will form part of the self-study portion of this unit. Refer to the learning
unit on geotechnical hazards and problem soils (Learning Unit 5, section 5.2.1 on Earthquakes
[Seismicity]) and to the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (Chapter 6, section 6.2.2, with
specific reference to pp. 8–11).
Familiarise yourself with the importance of liaising with the design and/or structural engineer
to obtain the required parameters for assessing the site response, hazards and structural
design in seismically active zones (WSDOT, 2011, p. 8) and with the soil parameters generally
required for seismic input or design (WSDOT, 2011, p. 9). You may be tested on this self-
study portion.

12
8.1 Seismicity (Site Response)
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for seismic/site response analysis, are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Seismic-Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Site Response) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations
Issues
 Source characterisation and
ground motion attenuation
 Site response spectra
 Time history
Site Response
Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
 Subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, depth to  SPT*  Atterberg limits
rock)
 CPT*  Grain-size distribution
 Shear wave velocity
 Seismic cone  Specific gravity
 Shear modulus for low strains
 Geophysical testing  Moisture content
 Relationship of shear modulus with increasing (shear wave velocity)

 Unit weight
shear strain, OCR* and PI*
 Piezometer
 Resonant column
 Equivalent viscous damping ratio with increasing
shear strain, OCR and PI  Cyclic direct simple shear
test
 Poisson’s ratio
 Torsional simple shear test
 Unit weight
 Cyclic triaxial tests
 Relative density

 Seismicity (design earthquakes – source,

distance, magnitude, recurrence).

* OCR=Over Consolidation Ratio, PI is Plasticity Index, SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test.

13
8.2 Seismicity (Geological Hazards Evaluation)
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for “geological hazards due to seismicity” are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Seismic-Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Geological Hazards Evaluation) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Liquefaction susceptibility  Subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, rock)  SPT  Grain-size distribution

 Liquefaction triggering  Shear strength (peak and residual)  CPT  Atterberg limits
Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, Slope
Geological Hazards Evaluation (e.g.,

 Liquefaction-induced settlement  Unit weights  Seismic cone  Specific gravity

 Settlement of dry sands  Grain-size distribution  Becker penetration test  Organic content
Stability and Faulting)

 Lateral-spreading flow failure  Plasticity characteristics  Vane shear test  Moisture content

 Slope stability and deformations  Relative density  Piezometers  Unit weight

 Penetration resistance  Geophysical testing  Soil shear strength tests

(shear wave velocity) (static and cyclic)
 Shear wave velocity
 Post-cyclic volumetric strain
 Seismicity (PGA, design earthquakes,
deaggregation data, ground motion time
histories)

 Site topography

 (Add geometrical information such as surface

topography/angle of cuts/excavations/
embankments, etc.)

* PGA is Peak Ground Acceleration, SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test.

14
8.3 Seismicity (Input for Structural Design)
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for structural design input due to seismicity, are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4: Seismic-Related Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Input for Structural Design) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Soil stiffness for shallow  Subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, rock)  CPT  Grain-size distribution
foundations (e.g., springs)
 Shear strength (peak and residual)  SPT  Atterberg limits
 P-Y (load-deflection) data for
 Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction  Seismic cone  Specific gravity
deep foundations
 Seismic horizontal earth pressure coefficients  Piezometers  Moisture content
 Down-drag on deep foundations
Input for Structural Design

 Shear modulus for low strains or shear wave  Geophysical testing  Unit weight
 Residual strength
velocity (shear wave velocity,
 Resonant column
 Lateral earth pressures resistivity, natural
 Relationship of shear modulus with increasing
gamma)  Cyclic direct simple shear
 Lateral spreading/slope shear strain
test
movement loading  Vane shear test
 Unit weight
 Triaxial tests (static and
 Post-earthquake settlement  Pressuremeter
 Poisson’s ratio cyclic)
 Kinematic soil-structure
 Seismicity (PGA, design earthquake, response  Torsional shear test
interaction
spectrum, ground motion time histories)
 Direct shear interface tests
 Site topography

 Interface strength

 (Add geometrical information such as surface

topography/angle of cuts/excavations/
embankments, etc.)

* PGA is Peak Ground Acceleration, SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test.

15
8.4 Shallow Foundations
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “shallow foundations”, are summarised in Table 5.
Table 5: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Shallow Foundations) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Bearing capacity  Subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, rock)  SPT (granular soils)  1-D Oedometer tests

 Settlement (magnitude and rate)  Shear strength parameters  CPT  Soil/rock shear tests

 Shrink/swell of foundation soils  Compressibility parameters (including  PMT  Grain-size distribution

(natural or embankment fill) consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and elastic
 Dilatometer  Atterberg limits
modulus)
Shallow Foundations

 Frost heave
 Rock coring (RQD)  Specific gravity
 Frost depth
 Scour
 Plate load testing  Moisture content
 Stress history (present and past vertical effective
 Liquefaction
stress)  Geophysical testing  Unit weight
 Depth of seasonal moisture change  (Point load strength  Organic content
test can be added to
 Unit weights  Collapse/swell potential
field testing methods)
tests
 Geological mapping, including orientation and
characteristics of rock discontinuities  Intact rock modulus
 (Add geometrical information such as surface  Point load strength test
topography/slope angle, angle of cut face in
excavated foundation, etc.)

* SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test, PMT is Pressure Meter Test, RQD is Rock Quality Designation.

16
8.5 Driven Pile Foundations
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “driven pile foundations”, are summarised in Table 6.
Table 6: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Driven Pile Foundations) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Pile end-bearing  Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  SPT (granular soils)  Soil/rock shear tests

 Pile skin friction  Shear strength parameters  Pile load test  Interface friction tests

 Settlement  Horizontal earth pressure coefficients  CPT  Grain-size distribution

 Down-drag on pile  Interface friction parameters (soil and pile)  PMT  1-D Oedometer tests
Driven Pile Foundations

 Lateral earth pressures  Compressibility parameters  Vane shear test  pH, resistivity tests

 Chemical compatibility of soil and  Chemical composition of soil/rock (e.g., potential  Dilatometer  Atterberg limits
pile corrosion issues)
 Piezometers  Specific gravity
 Drivability  Unit weights
 Rock coring (RQD)  Organic content
 Presence of boulders/very hard  Presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin friction)
 Geophysical testing  Moisture content
layers
 Geological mapping, including orientation and
 Unit weight
 Scour (for water crossings) characteristics of rock discontinuities
 Collapse/swell potential
 Vibration/heave damage to  (Add geometrical information such as surface
tests
nearby structures topography/slope angle, etc.)
 Intact rock modulus
 Liquefaction
 Point load strength test

* SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test, PMT is Pressure Meter Test, RQD is Rock Quality Designation.

17
8.6 Drilled Shaft (Pile) Foundations
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “drilled shafts/pile foundations”, are summarised in Table 7.
Table 7: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Drilled Shaft Foundations) (WSDOT, 2011)
Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations
Issues
 Shaft end bearing
 Shaft skin friction
 Constructability
 Down-drag on shaft
Drilled Shaft (Pile) Foundations
 Quality of rock socket
 Lateral earth pressures
 Settlement (magnitude & rate)
 Groundwater seepage/
dewatering/potential for caving
 Presence of boulders/very hard
layers
 Scour (for water crossings)
 Liquefaction
* SPT is Standard Penetration Test, CPT is Cone Penetration Test, PMT is Pressure Meter Test, RQD is Rock Quality Designation.
Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
 Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  Installation technique  1-D Oedometer
test shaft
 Shear strength parameters  Soil/rock shear tests
 Shaft load test
 Interface shear strength friction parameters (soil  Grain-size distribution
and shaft)  Vane shear test
 Interface friction tests
 Compressibility parameters  CPT
 pH, resistivity tests
 Horizontal earth pressure coefficients  SPT (granular soils)
 Permeability tests
 Chemical composition of soil/rock  PMT
 Atterberg limits
 Unit weights  Dilatometer
 Specific gravity
 Permeability of water-bearing soils  Piezometers
 Moisture content
 Presence of artesian conditions and shrink/swell  Rock coring (RQD)
 Unit weight
soils (limits skin friction)
 Geophysical testing
 Organic content
 Geological mapping, including orientation and
characteristics of rock discontinuities  Collapse/swell potential
tests
 Degradation of soft rock in presence of water
and/or air (e.g., rock sockets in shales)  Intact rock modulus
 (Add geometrical information such as surface  Point load strength test
topography/slope angle, etc.)
 Slake durability
18
8.7 Embankments and Embankment Foundations
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “embankments and embankment foundations”, are summarised in Table 8.
Table 8: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Embankments and Embankment Foundations)
(WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Settlement (magnitude & rate)  Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  Nuclear density  1-D Oedometer

 Bearing capacity  Compressibility parameters  Plate load test  Triaxial tests

Embankments and Embankment Foundations

 Slope stability  Shear strength parameters  Test fill  Unconfined compression

 Lateral pressure  Unit weights  CPT (with pore  Direct shear tests
pressure
 Internal stability  Time-rate consolidation parameters  Grain-size distribution
measurement)
 Borrow source evaluation  Horizontal earth pressure coefficients  Atterberg limits
 SPT
(available quantity and quality of
 Interface friction parameters  Specific gravity
borrow soil)  PMT
 Pull-out resistance  Organic content
 Required reinforcement  Dilatometer
 Geological mapping, including orientation and  Moisture-density
 Liquefaction  Vane shear
characteristics of rock discontinuities relationship
 Delineation of soft soil deposits  Rock coring (RQD)
 Shrink/swell/degradation of soil and rock fill  Hydraulic conductivity
 Potential for subsidence (karst,  Geophysical testing
 (Add geometrical information such as surface  Geosynthetic/soil testing
mining, etc.)
topography/slope angle, angle of embankment  Piezometers
 Shrink/swell
 Constructability and/or embankment foundation, etc.)
 Settlement plates
 Slake durability
 Slope inclinometers
 Unit weight

 Relative density

19
8.8 Excavations and Cut Slopes
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “excavations and cut slopes”, are summarised in Table 9.
Table 9: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Excavations and Cut Slopes) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Slope stability  Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  Test cut to evaluate  Hydraulic conductivity
stand-up time
 Bottom heave  Shrink/swell properties  Grain-size distribution
 Piezometers
Excavations and Cut Slopes

 Liquefaction  Unit weights  Atterberg limits

 CPT
 Dewatering  Hydraulic conductivity  Triaxial tests
 SPT (granular soils)
 Lateral pressure  Time-rate consolidation parameters  Direct shear tests
 Vane shear
 Soil softening/progressive failure  Shear strength of soil and rock (including  Moisture content
discontinuities)  Dilatometer
 Pore pressures  Slake durability
 Geological mapping, including orientation and  Rock coring (RQD)
 Rock uniaxial compressive
characteristics of rock discontinuities
 In-situ rock direct test and intact rock modulus
 (Add geometrical information such as surface shear test
 Point load strength test
topography/slope angle, angle of cut face, etc.)
 Geophysical testing

20
8.9 Fill Walls/Reinforced Soil Slopes
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “fill walls or reinforced walls”, are summarised in Table 10.
Table 10: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Fill Walls/Reinforced Soil Slopes) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Issues
 Internal stability  Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  SPT  1-D Oedometer

 External stability  Horizontal earth pressure coefficients  CPT  Triaxial tests

 Global and compound stability  Interface shear strengths  Dilatometer  Unconfined

compression
 Limitations on rate of construction  Foundation soil/wall fill shear strengths?  Vane shear
 Direct shear tests
 Settlement  Compressibility parameters? (including  Piezometers
Fill Walls/Reinforced Soil Slopes

consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and elastic  Grain-size distribution

 Horizontal deformation  Test fill?
modulus)
 Atterberg limits
 Lateral earth pressures  Nuclear density?
 Chemical composition of fill/ foundation soils?
 Specific gravity
 Bearing capacity  Pull-out test
 Hydraulic conductivity of soils directly behind
(MSEW/RSS)  pH, resistivity, chloride,
 Chemical compatibility with soil, wall?
and sulfate tests?
groundwater, and wall materials  Rock coring (RQD)
 Time-rate consolidation parameters?
 Moisture content?
 Pore pressures behind wall  Geophysical testing
 Geological mapping, including orientation and
 Organic content
 Borrow source evaluation (available characteristics of rock discontinuities?
quantity and quality of borrow soil)  Moisture-density
 Design flood elevations
relationships
 Liquefaction
 Seismicity
 Hydraulic conductivity
 Potential for subsidence (karst, mining,
 (Add geometrical information such as surface
etc.)
topography/face angle, angle between fill and in-
 Constructability situ material, etc.)

 Scour

21
8.10 Cut Walls
The required engineering evaluations, information/parameters and general field and laboratory techniques that can be considered in order to
obtain the required parameters for a geotechnical analysis of “cut walls”, are summarised in Table 11.
Table 11: Foundation Evaluation, Required Information and Testing (Cut Walls) (WSDOT, 2011)

Geotechnical
Engineering Evaluations
Issues
 Internal stability
 External stability
 Excavation stability
 Global and compound stability
 Dewatering
 Chemical compatibility of wall/soil
Cut Walls
Required Information Field Testing Laboratory Testing
 Subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock)  Test cut to evaluate  Triaxial tests
stand-up time
 Shear strength of soil  Unconfined compression
 Well pumping tests
 Horizontal earth pressure coefficients  Direct shear
 Piezometers
 Interface shear strength (soil and reinforcement)  Grain-size distribution
 SPT
 Hydraulic conductivity of soil  Atterberg limits
 CPT
 Geological mapping, including orientation and  Specific gravity
characteristics of rock discontinuities  Vane shear

 Lateral earth pressure  pH, resistivity tests

 Seismicity  Dilatometer
 Down-drag on wall  Organic content
 (Add geometrical information such as surface  Pull-out tests (anchors,
 Pore pressures behind wall  Hydraulic conductivity
topography/face angle, etc.) nails)
 Obstructions in retained soil  Moisture content
 Geophysical testing
 Liquefaction  Unit weight

 Seepage

 Potential for subsidence (karst,

mining, etc.)

 Constructability

22
9 Dr Evert Hoek Notes on Practical Rock Engineering
For this section of the learning unit, obtain and refer to the following freely downloadable
source:
 Notes of Dr Evert Hoek on “Practical Rock Engineering, Chapter 2 – When is a Rock
Engineering Design Acceptable”. Download link:
https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/Practical-Rock-
Engineering-Full-Text.pdf (Hoek, 2006).
Refer to Chapter 2, “When is a Rock Engineering Design Acceptable”. Read through the
introduction and familiarise yourself with the four tables indicating typical problems, critical
parameters, methods of analysis and acceptability criteria for:
1) Slopes (Hoek, 2006, pp. 2-2, Table 1);
2) Dams and foundations (Hoek, 2006, pp. 2-3, Table 2);
3) Underground civil engineering excavations (Hoek, 2006, pp. 2-4, Table 3); and
4) Underground hard rock mining excavations (Hoek, 2006, pp. 2-5. Table 4).
In this self-study section, take note of the following:
Appreciate that each design is unique and that an understanding of the problem is
required for proper planning, investigation and design.
The typical problems associated with the structures/works listed.
The critical parameters listed for assessing the problems associated with the
structures.
Analysis methods listed for each structure/work of interest.
The information provided in sections 8 and 9 should serve as an initial guide to identify typical
problems associated with certain types of engineering works, as well as the critical parameters
that should be targeted in the geotechnical investigation.

10 Worked Examples of Parameter Identification for

Typical Basic Geotechnical Assessments
Required parameters for a number or typical basic assessments are presented in the following
worked examples.
The examples include the identification of input parameters for the following assessments:
1) Basic ultimate bearing capacity assessments;
2) Basic elastic settlement assessments;
3) Basic heave assessments;
4) Basic pile capacity assessments;
5) Basic slope assessments (only an introduction is provided in this learning unit. Worked
examples will be provided in Learning Unit 9: “Slopes”); and

23
 6) Basic retaining wall assessments (introduction provided).

10.1 Basic Ultimate Bearing Capacity Assessment

As discussed earlier, a foundation needs to satisfy two conditions:
1) It has to be safe against shear failure (ultimate bearing capacity where the shear
strength of the soil/material is exceeded); and
2) The settlement of the foundation/footing needs to be within the allowable
predetermined tolerance limits specified for the proposed structure/footing under
consideration.
In this section we consider two basic bearing capacity calculations for:
1) Normally consolidated clay (cohesion soil with total stress analysis, thus φ=0);
2) Cohesion-friction soil such as a clay-sand or silt-sand (with effective stress analysis,
thus with c’ and φ’).
It is important to note that there is a difference in methodologies for bearing capacity
estimations for cohesive soils (the total stress analysis, where the frictional component of the
shear strength criteria is ignored) and friction soils (effective stress analysis, where the
cohesion and frictional components are considered). There are also different calculation
methodologies (theories) for estimating bearing capacity. Basic methods are considered in the
worked examples, to illustrate the methodology behind typical soil parameter identification.

10.1.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Cohesion Soil (Clay)

For the purposes of this section, we focus on the required parameters for a basic shallow
ultimate bearing capacity calculation for an axially (centric) statically loaded square footing (no
vibrations or dynamic loading) founded in a normally consolidated clay (cohesive soil).
Settlement will be ignored, and dealt with in a separate section of the learning unit.
In this first worked example, we consider Skempton’s theory (1951) in order to estimate the
ultimate bearing capacity (𝑞 ) (bearing capacity at failure) that can be expressed as:

𝑞 𝑐 𝑁 𝑞 Equation 10.1

Where:
𝑐 is the undrained shear strength of the clay in kPa or kN/m2
𝑁 is a foundation shape factor
𝑞 is the overburden pressure (vertical pressure in ground at founding level)

𝑞 𝑦∙𝑧 Equation 10.2

Where:
𝑦 is the unit weight of the soil in kN/m3
𝑧 is the depth of the footing below ground level, in metres.

24
We can thus identify the critical parameters for this example, to estimate the bearing capacity
(or ultimate bearing pressure) 𝑞 , as:

 𝑐 is the undrained shear strength of the clay (𝑐 𝐶𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 0.5 𝑈𝐶𝑆 in kN/m2
 To obtain the foundation shape factor, we need to know whether the foundation is
circular, rectangular or square. With this we also require the ratio between the depth
of placement and the size. We thus need the radius/diameter or length and width of
the foundation.
 To calculate 𝑞 , that is the overburden pressure, we simply need 𝑦 (the unit weight of
the soil in kN/m3) and the depth in metres to the base of the foundation.
The only soil parameters required are the undrained shear strength and the unit weight of the
clay (for unit weight, we require the density kg/m3, water level, density of water and
gravitational attraction that is considered “constant” in these evaluations).
For factor of safety calculation (as used in basic working load designs), the nett effective stress
(or the nett bearing pressure) is required (difference between the self-weight of the soil
excavated to place the footing and the nett weight added that will be the weight of the concrete
footing plus the foundation load). We simply have to put back what was taken out before we
placed the foundation (see Figure 3).
The gross bearing pressure (q) (i.e., pressure exerted by foundation on underlying soil) is:
𝑃 𝑊 𝑊 Equation 10.3
𝑞
𝐿∙𝐵
Where:
 P is the load exerted by the foundation in kN
 𝑊 is the weight of the soil placed above the footing (ysoilfill × z) in kN/m2
 𝑊 is the weight of the footing (yconcrete× z) in kN/m2.

𝑞 𝑞 𝑞 Equation 10.4

𝑞 𝑞
𝐹𝑜𝑆 Equation 10.5
𝑞 𝑞

25
 (Working Load Design Only)

P
(Foundation Load)
Ground Level
Excavation (removal of soil, thus removal
of initial overburden pressure)
Ws Ws

q0
z

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3

(Initial overburden (Removed initial overburden (Gross bearing pressure, thus

pressure. This is the pressure due to removal of the pressure exerted by
vertical pressure in ground soil) foundation itself and backfilled
at founding level) soil on underlying ground)

(q = Gross bearing pressure)

Figure 3: Visual Illustration for Calculation of the Nett Bearing Pressure (qnett)

Note: We have now identified all the input parameters required for estimating the ultimate
bearing capacity of the specific works and soil conditions. The settlement portion in the bearing
assessment is considered in a separate section.

10.1.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Friction Soil (Sand)

For the purposes of this section, we focus on the required parameters for a basic shallow
ultimate bearing capacity calculation for an axially (centric) statically loaded square footing
founded in a friction soil in a flat topography with a deep water table. The settlement
component will be dealt with in the next section.
In this first worked example, we consider Terzaghi’s (1943) bearing capacity theory, in order
to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity (𝑞 ) which can be expressed as:
1 Equation 10.6
𝑞 𝑐𝑁 𝑞 𝑁 𝑦𝐵𝑁
2
Where:
𝑐 is the effective cohesion of the soil
𝑞 is the nett bearing pressure in kN/m2
𝐵 is the width of the footing

𝑁 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 𝐾 1 Equation 10.7

26
 𝑁 𝐾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 Equation 10.8

1 Equation 10.9
𝑁 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 𝐾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 1
2
Where:
Kc, Kq and Ky are earth pressure coefficients that are functions of the soil friction angle 𝜑
𝑞 is the difference between gross bearing pressure and overburden pressure.
We can thus identify the critical parameters for this example as:
 𝑐 is the effective cohesion of the soil (kPa or kN/m2)
 𝜑 is the effective friction angle of the soil (degrees)
 To calculate 𝑞 we require the unit weight of the in-situ soil, unit weight of the footing
that will be placed and the unit weight of the soil that will be backfilled on top of the
foundation and the load exerted by the foundation.
In more complex evaluations, we can add parameters such as:
 Depth to groundwater;
 Saturated and unsaturated unit weights;
 Inclination of the ground surface; and
 Moments that act on the footing that will reduce the effective footing size, etc.
NB: The width and depth of placement of the footing are variables in the bearing
capacity calculation. The same soil thus does not have a fixed bearing capacity. A soil
may have a bearing capacity of ~100 kPa for a 1 m by 1 m footing placed at surface. The
same soil with the same footing size will have a bearing capacity of ~370 kPa if the
same footing is placed at a depth of 1 m below ground level. The same soil will have a
bearing capacity of ~560 kPa if placed at 1 m below ground level; however, with an
increased footing size of 2 m by 2 m. Note that the bearing capacity of the soil is not a
fixed number.

10.2 Basic Settlement Calculation

Note that the settlement of a shallow foundation can be divided into two major categories,
namely 1) elastic (immediate) and 2) consolidation settlement. The elastic settlement portion
takes place during and immediately after the placement of the foundation. Consolidation
settlement occurs over time, as pore water is extruded from the intergranular voids.
Consolidation settlement consists of two components, namely primary and secondary
consolidation. Total settlement of a foundation is thus the sum of elastic and consolidation
settlement. The consolidation settlement component is generally insignificant in sands or
coarse material, as the pore water drains as soon as a load is placed. This settlement is thus
generally rapid. In fine-grained soils, the consolidation settlement can be significant and can
take place over a long period, depending on the load and hydraulic properties of the soils.

In this section we only consider the basic elastic settlement calculations:

27
 1) Elastic settlement of shallow foundation on saturated clay for a flexible foundation, as
presented by Janbu et al. (1956); and
2) Elastic settlement in granular soil based on the theory of elasticity of Hooke’s Law, as
presented by Bowles (1987).
It is important to note that there are different methods that one can consider in estimating
elastic settlement.
Consolidation settlement is not covered in this learning unit. Refer to any soil mechanics
textbook to obtain the input parameters for consolidation settlement calculations. A very
important soil parameter not considered in the two elastic settlement examples is the
coefficient of permeability (k), which is used in consolidation calculations.

10.2.1 Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundation (Janbu et al., 1956)

Janbu et al. (1956) propose an equation for evaluating the average settlement below a flexible
foundation saturated on clay (material with Poisson’s ratio µ of 0.5):
𝑞 𝐵
𝑆 𝐴 𝐴 Equation 10.10
𝐸
Where:
𝐴 is f(H/B, L/B)
𝐴 is f (Df/B)
L is the length of the foundation
B is the width of the foundation
Df is the depth to the bottom of the foundation
H is the depth of the bottom of the foundation to a rigid (incompressible) layer
𝑞 is the nett applied pressure on the foundation
𝐸 is the modulus of elasticity of the soil.
The founding scenario is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Average Elastic Settlement Below Flexible Foundation on Saturated

Clay (Das B. M., 2016, p. 300)

We can thus identify the critical soil parameters for this example, in order to estimate the
elastic settlement below a flexible foundation 𝑆 , as:

28
  µ that is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil (considered to be 0.5)
 𝐸 that is the modulus of elasticity of the soil in kN/m2
 To calculate 𝑞 (as per the bearing capacity example) we require the unit weight of
the in-situ soil, of the footing that will be placed and of the soil that will be backfilled on
top of the foundation and the load exerted by the foundation.

10.2.2 Elastic Settlement in Granular Soil (Bowles, 1987)

Theoretically, if a foundation is perfectly flexible, the elastic settlement Se can be expressed
by the following equation (Bowles, 1987):
1 µ Equation 10.11
𝑆 𝑞 𝛼𝐵 𝐼𝐼
𝐸
Where:
𝑞 is the nett applied pressure on the foundation
𝛼 is a factor that depends on the location on the foundation where settlement is being
calculated
𝐵 = B/2 for consideration of calculation below centre of foundation and 𝐵 = B for corner of
foundation. B is the foundation width
µ is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil (symbol “𝑣” is also typically used)
𝐸 is the modulus of elasticity of the soil
𝐼 and 𝐼 are shape and depth factors that consider the foundation width (B), length (L),
thickness of elastic horizon down to incompressible material (H) and Poisson’s ratio of
the soil µ .
The founding scenario is presented in Figure 5.

29
Figure 5: Elastic Settlement of Flexible and Rigid Foundations (Das B. M.,
2016, p. 303)

We can thus identify the critical soil parameters for this example, in order to estimate the
elastic settlement below a flexible foundation 𝑆 , as:
 µ (or 𝑣 that is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil [unitless])
 𝐸 that is the modulus of elasticity of the soil in kN/m2
 To calculate 𝑞 (as per the bearing capacity example) we require the unit weight of
the in-situ soil, of the footing that will be placed and of the soil that will be backfilled on
top of the foundation and the load exerted by the foundation.
It is important to note and consider the relationship between E, v and G (Equation 7.6) and
that Young’s modulus (stiffness modulus or modulus of deformation, E) is not a material
constant. You can thus also target parameters 𝑣 and G to obtain E, by making use of the
relationship.

10.3 Basic Heave Assessment

From the self-study section in Learning Unit 5: Geological Hazards and Problem Soils, you
should be familiar with the basic concept of heave potential calculations presented by Van Der
Merwe (1964).
The mathematical expression for calculating total heave (Van der Merwe’s method) is provided
in the following equation:

30
 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝐹𝐷 ∙ 𝑃. 𝐸. 𝐷 Equation 10.12

Where:
F is a depth factor (reduction in heave with depth due to overburden pressures and
moisture)
𝐷 20 log 𝐹
D is the negative depth in feet
P.E is the potential expansiveness.
Solving for F:

𝐹 10
Equation 10.13

The area below the graph of factor F (Figure 6) can be calculated by an integer:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝐹 ∙ 𝑃. 𝐸. ∙ 𝑑𝐷 Equation 10.14

Where D is the depth in feet. D of 30 feet is assigned as a limit due to the insignificance of the
F factor below 30 ft. As F is solved and the P.E. can be determined from laboratory testing,
the following equation can be provided:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒 10 ∙ 𝑃. 𝐸. ∙ 𝑑𝐷 Equation 10.15

The calculation of the potential expansiveness of the entire layer of clay or heave between
specified depths x=a and x=b can be expressed in Figure 6.

31
Figure 6: Illustration of the Integral (Van der Merwe’s Total Heave Estimation)

You will note that the only soil parameter required for this total heave prediction method is the
potential expansiveness (P.E.) of the horizons underlying the foundation.
The potential expansiveness is obtained from the plot of the plasticity index (PI) of the whole
sample (later referred to as the weighted plasticity index or WPI) and the clay fraction of the
whole sample. The clay fraction is the particle size smaller than 2 microns (0.002 mm), as
determined by means of the hydrometer tests.

32
Figure 7: Potential Expansiveness Chart (Van der Merwe, 1964)

We can thus identify the critical soil parameters for this example, in order to estimate the total
surface heave, using Van Der Merwe’s (1964) method, as:
 The plasticity index of the whole sample (WPI = PI x % passing 0.425 mm sieve) (and
you know that PI = liquid limit (LL) – plastic limit (PL)).
 Clay fraction of the whole sample (% smaller than 0.002 mm).
It is important to note that this method is a basic heave prediction, as you have learned
from your self-study section in Learning Unit 5. Note that there are numerous other
heave estimation methodologies. You can identify the required parameters for each
method considered.

10.4 Basic Pile Design

As far as shallow foundations are concerned, piles should be evaluated for the ultimate limit
state as well as the serviceability limit state.
The ultimate limit state includes:
 Ground (bearing capacity, lateral capacity and resistance to uplift);
 Piles (this is the pile itself, which can fail in compression, tension, bending and shear);
 Structure (this is the structure on the pile or pile group that may be damaged due to
excessive pile movements);
 Loss of overall stability (this may be the global slope failure or overall bearing capacity
of the pile or pile group).

The serviceability limit states include:

 Excessive settlement, uplift or lateral movement;

33
  Excessive vibrations.
We will not go into detailed calculations in this section. SANS10160-5, Appendix C.3, deals
with axially loaded piles and EN1997-1 (or later versions) can be used as a reference for
detailed design.
The geotechnical capacity of piles can be based on numerous methods, or ideally
combinations of these methods, such as:
 Results obtained from static load tests;
 An analysis of pile-driving records;
 Calculations using in-situ test results; and
 Calculations using soil strength parameters determined in the laboratory.
The calculation methodology of pile capacity can further be divided into four main soil
categories:
 Cohesive soils (clay);
 Non-cohesive soils (sand);
 c-φ soils (cohesion and friction soils); and
 Rock.
In this worked example we introduce the basic concept of pile capacity, and focus on
calculations using soil strength parameters determined in the laboratory and the field.
For a pile to experience ultimate failure, the resistance between the shaft of the pile and soil,
as well as the resistance at the base of the pile, needs to be exceeded. In other words, we
need an estimation of the shear strength between the shaft and soil, and the shear strength
of the soil below the pile base. The basic concept is visually illustrated in Figure 8.

34
 Applied Load P

Ground Level

Shaft resistance Ps

Where: Self weight of the pile W

is ultimate load capacity of the pile.
is the ultimate shaft resistance.
is the ultimate base resistance.
is the weight of the pile.

Shaft resistance Ps

Figure 8: Single Pile Ultimate Load Capacity Basics Illustration

The ultimate load capacity of a pile at failure (Pu) can be expressed by the following equation:

𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑊 Equation 10.16

Where:
𝑃 is ultimate load capacity of the pile at failure
𝑃 is the ultimate shaft resistance
𝑃 is the ultimate base resistance
𝑊 is the weight of the pile.
The shaft resistance component Psu is merely the integral of the pile/soil shear strength
along the shaft using the shear strength equation. You should be familiar with the general
shear strength formula.

𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 Equation 10.17

Where:
𝑐 is the cohesion component
𝜎 is the normal force (in this case, the force normal to the pile shaft)
𝜑 is the frictional component.

In the same way, the pile/soil strength can be expressed as:

35
 𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑 Equation 10.18

Where:
𝜏 is the pile/soil shear strength at a particular point on the shaft
𝑐 is the pile shaft adhesion
𝜎 is the normal stress between pile and soil 𝜎 𝐾 ∙𝜎
𝜑 is the angle of friction between pile and soil.
The ultimate base capacity Pbu is calculated using the bearing capacity theory, as expressed
in the following formula:
1 Equation 10.19
𝑃 𝐴 𝑐 𝑁 𝜎 𝑁 𝑦𝑑𝑁
2
Where:
𝐴 is the area of the base of the pile
𝑐 is the cohesion of the soil
𝜎 is the vertical stress in soil at the pile base
𝑦 is unit weight of the soil
𝑑 is the pile diameter
𝑁 , 𝑁 , 𝑁 are bearing capacity factors which are dependent on soil properties and pile
geometry.
Does this formulation look familiar? Refer back to section 10.1.2, Equation 10.6 and see
whether you can identify the similarities.
We can thus identify the critical soil parameters for this example, in order to estimate the pile
shaft and base resistance by means of soil strength parameters as:
 For the shear strength of the soil (φ-c soil) we need the effective cohesion (𝑐 ) and
effective friction (𝜑 ) for all soil horizons;
 For the shear strength of the cohesion soil (clay) we need the shear strength of the
clay that is simply the cohesion, that is 0.5 × UCS of the clay;
 For the horizontal loading on the pile due to the self-weight of the soil, we look at earth
pressures that require the friction angle of the soil;
 For effective vertical stress 𝜎 along the pile shaft we require the unit weight of the soil
(density) and the level of the groundwater;
 For the bearing capacity factors we require the friction angle of the soil;
 We also require details on the pile, such as the length and the diameter of the pile, in
order to calculate the area of the shaft (for shaft friction) and the area of the base (for
base resistance).

36
To conduct a basic evaluation of the uplift of a pile in clay, we need to be able to predict the
heave and shear strength. We thus require:
 For heave: The plasticity index of the whole sample (also referred to as the weighted
PI or WPI) and percentage of clay of the whole sample;
 For shear strength: The undrained shear strength of the clay cu (0.5 × the UCS).
There are various methods for calculating the pile capacity in rock. The methods are
generally based on a percentage of the UCS (unconfined compressive strength) of the intact
rock for base and socket capacity (shaft skin friction for portion of pile in rock). For more detail,
refer to Poulos and Davis (1980) and Pells and Turner (1980). Socket friction can also be
estimated from RQD and fracture frequency (FF), as presented by Tomlinson (1993). A
general rule of thumb is that the allowable socket friction capacity is approximately 0.05 × UCS
and that the allowable end-bearing capacity is approximately 0.5 × UCS. The guide is intended
for piles socketed in clean and rough joint sockets without base debris.
The critical rock parameters for a basic pile assessment for a pile socket in rock are thus:
 UCSsat (saturated uniaxial compression strength);
 RQD (%) (rock quality designation or fracture frequency per metre);
 Details on the roughness of the sidewalls of the rock socket.

10.5 Slope Assessments

Slope assessment can be for rock or soil slopes.
Failure of a rock slope can be 1) through the rock itself, for which we require the shear
strength of the intact rock, 2) along a plane of weakness (discontinuity surface) for which we
require the shear strength of the discontinuity or 3) through the rock mass, which requires the
shear strength parameters of the rock mass. The different failure mechanisms, evaluation
criteria and input parameters for the aforementioned were covered in detail in Learning Unit
3: Properties of Rock, together with a number of worked examples.
A soil slope can be 1) a cohesive soil (clay), 2) a friction soil (sand) or 3) a c-φ (cohesion
friction soil that is a clay/silt and sand mix). The analysis methods can be undrained (total
stress) or drained (effective stress analysis). (Slopes are covered in more detail in Learning
Unit 9.)
For a limit state equilibrium analysis of a clay slope, the following basic parameters are
required as a minimum, for a basic slope stability assessment:
 Undrained shear strength of the clay (cu = Cohesion = 0.5 × UCS) in kN/m2;
 Unit weight of the soil (kN/m3);
 Information on the groundwater and overburden pressure.

37
For a limit state equilibrium analysis of a friction or c-φ soil, the following parameters are
required for a basic assessment:
 Effective cohesion (c’) (kPa or kN/m2);
 Effective angle of internal friction (φ’) (degrees);
 Unit weight of the soil (kN/m3);
 Information on the groundwater and overburden pressure.
Together with the basic soil parameters, geometrical input will be required (e.g., height of the
slope, slope angle, failure surface under consideration, etc). This is covered in more detail in
Learning Unit 9.
Note: We introduced peak and residual shear strengths in Learning Unit 3. For this we use
the peak friction angle or the residual friction angle. We consider different friction angles for
different stability calculations, as will be clarified in Learning Unit 9: Slopes.

10.6 Basic Retaining Wall Assessment

In evaluating a retaining wall, we need to ensure that the design satisfies the following
conditions, as a minimum:
a) Overturning of the wall around the toe;
b) Sliding along the base;
c) Bearing capacity of the supporting base;
d) Deep-seated shear failure;
e) Excessive settlement.
For the purposes of this learning unit, we will not consider the internal stability of the wall. The
focus is on the effects and parameters required to evaluate the effects.
The first four conditions are illustrated in Figure 9.

38
Figure 9: Retaining Wall Conditions to Satisfy (Das B. M., 2010, p. 656)

Note: We covered bearing capacity and (elastic) settlement in earlier sections of the learning
unit. You will also note that deep-seated shear failure is nothing more than a slope stability
assessment.
For an evaluation of sliding along the base, we need to confirm that the sum of the resisting
forces is greater than the sum of the activating forces.
∑𝐹
𝐹𝑜𝑆 Equation 10.20
∑𝐹
Where:
∑𝐹 is the sum of the horizontal resisting forces
∑ 𝐹 is the sum of the horizontal driving forces.
The shear strength below the base of the wall is calculated by means of the shear strength
formula:

𝜏 𝑐 𝜎 ∙ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛿 Equation 10.21

Where:
𝛿 is the angle of friction between the soil and the base slab (friction). 𝛿 is generally
considered two thirds of the friction angle of the soil (𝛿 φ’)

𝑐 is the adhesion between the soil and the base slab (cohesion). The material below a wall
is generally non-cohesive and, in this case, the cohesion factor can be ignored.

39
For the purposes of this learning unit we will not go into details on the forces and corresponding
moments acting on the wall, but take note that the driving and resisting forces result from the
weight of the soil and structure and the forces acting downward (resisting forces that add to
the shear strength of the base), and the horizontal components of the earth pressures
(activating forces). The resisting and activating forces thus arise from the unit weight of all the
materials as well as earth pressures.
The critical parameters we require, include:
 Unit weight of the soils and structure materials (kN/m3);
 Friction angle of the soil behind the structure (degrees);
 Friction angle of the soil below the structure (degrees);
 Cohesion of the soils (kN/m2);
 Water levels;
 Geometrical input, such as height of the wall and the slope behind the wall that will
affect the earth pressures;
 The soil/wall and soil/foundation interface friction.

11 Guidance on Field and Laboratory Techniques to

Obtain Target Parameters for Geotechnical Design
You have been introduced to shear strength and deformation together with other material
properties required for geotechnical design. We have also worked through a number of typical
geotechnical problems to illustrate parameter targeting in practice. The aforementioned should
enable you to properly plan a site investigation and laboratory testing program, in order to
obtain the geotechnical design parameters required for typical problems/works.
It should be evident that the required parameters are mainly:
 Undrained shear strength of clay (or cohesion) cu for shear strength evaluation that is
0.5 × UCS (unconfined compression strength);
 Effective angle of internal friction (φ’), for friction and friction-cohesion soils;
 Effective cohesion (c’) of friction-cohesion soils;
 Density and moisture content information or the unit weight of the soil (kg/m3 or kN/m3);
 Groundwater information;
 Hydraulic conductivity or the permeability of the soil (k) (consolidation calculations);
 Modulus of compressibility (stiffness or Young’s modulus);
 Poisson’s ratio (generally symbol “𝑣” or sometimes “µ ”);
 Small strain stiffness (G);
 Expansiveness of the soil.

40
Before conducting any investigation, it is essential to understand the works, the actions on the
ground, the ground response and the effects. Only then can you properly plan the fieldwork
and laboratory testing program, to obtain the critical input parameters for conducting a
geotechnical design.
Some general guidance for planning soil investigations in stable soil profiles above the water-
table and for soil profiles below the water table, to obtain the different geotechnical
parameters, is summarised in Table 12 andTable 13.

41
Table 12: Guide to Planning a Soils Investigation in Stable Soil Profiles above
the Water-table (usually Residual Soils or Cohesive Transported Soils) (Franki,
2008, p. 7)
Parameter
Description of the Soil Profile
Consistency of the Soil Profile
Undrained Shear Strength (cu)
Drained Shear Strength:
Effective angle of friction – φ’
Effective cohesion – c’
Modulus of Compressibility
(stiffness at appropriate strain
level)
Index Property Test
Permeability Test
Collapse
Heave
Level of Water-table
Soil Suction Pressures
Modified from source.
Field Test / Requirement
Auger trial holes
Test pits
Boreholes with SPT
Seismic survey
In-situ tests
(DPSH/CPT/SPT/CPTu)
In-situ profiling of trial holes/test pits
Sand replacement tests
Recover undisturbed samples from
auger trial hole, test pit or borehole
Vane shear test in borehole or trial
hole
Recover undisturbed samples from
auger trial hole, test pit or borehole
Cross-hole jacking test
Plate load test
Pressuremeter test
Small strain stiffness – SASW
Dilatometer
Recover disturbed samples from
auger trial hole, test pit or borehole
Recover undisturbed samples from
auger trial hole, test pit or borehole,
CPTu, Lugeon test.
Recover undisturbed samples from
auger trial hole, test pit or borehole
Recover undisturbed and/or disturbed
samples from auger trial hole, test pit
or borehole
Drill a trial hole or a borehole, leave
for a period of time for the water-level
to stabilise in the hole and then
measure the level
Tensiometer. Electrical/thermal
conductivity sensors. Contact filter
paper methods. Non-contact filter
paper method. Thermocouple
psychrometers.
42
Laboratory Test
n/a
Density of undisturbed samples
(oedometer)
Undrained unconsolidated
triaxial test (referred to as
Triaxial UU test)
Unconfined compression test
(referred to as UCS test)
Drained triaxial test (triaxial CD)
Drained shear box test (care
should be taken with slow shear)
Undrained triaxial test with
measurement of pore water
pressure (Triaxial UU with PWP
measurement)
Oedometer test (referred to as
single oedometer)
Triaxial test with local strain
measurement
Bender element
Grading analysis (sieve and
hydrometer)
Atterberg limits
Moisture content
Falling or constant head
permeability
Flexible wall permeability test in
triaxial cell
Double oedometer
Collapse potential test
Double oedometer
Swell under load test
Index property test
Degree of saturation
Tensiometer. Axis translation
techniques. Electrical/thermal
conductivity sensors. Contact
filter paper methods. Non-
contact filter paper method.
Thermocouple psychrometers.
Table 13: Guide to Planning a Soils Investigation in Saturated, Variable Soils
(Usually encountered in Coastal Areas or Adjacent to Watercourses) (Franki,
2008, p. 8)
Parameter
Description of the Soil Profile
Consistency of the Soil Profile
Undrained Shear Strength
Drained Shear Strength:
Effective angle of friction – φ’
Effective cohesion – c’
Modulus of Compressibility
(stiffness at appropriate strain
level)
Index Property Test
Permeability Test
Collapse
Heave
Level of Water-table
Soil Suction Pressures
Modified from source.
Field Test / Requirement
Boreholes with SPT
Seismic survey
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DPSH)
Cone Penetrometer Test
(CPT/CPTu)
Boreholes with SPT
Recover undisturbed samples from
borehole, Vane shear test in
borehole, correlate with in-situ
penetrometer tests
Recover undisturbed samples from
borehole, correlate with in-situ
penetrometer tests (sandy soils only)
Pressuremeter test, correlate with in-
situ penetrometer tests, Small strain
stiffness – SASW
Recover disturbed samples from
borehole
Recover undisturbed samples from
borehole, CPTu, Lugeon test
Recover undisturbed samples from
borehole
Recover undisturbed and/or disturbed
samples from borehole.
Drill a trial hole or a borehole, leave
for a period of time for the water-level
to stabilise in the hole and then
measure the level
Tensiometer. Electrical/thermal
conductivity sensors. Contact filter
paper methods. Non-contact filter
paper method. Thermocouple
psychrometers.
43
Laboratory Test
n/a
n/a
Undrained unconsolidated
triaxial test (referred to as
Triaxial UU test)
Unconfined compression test
(referred to as UCS test)
Drained triaxial test (triaxial CD)
Drained shear box test (care
should be taken with slow shear)
Undrained triaxial test with
measurement of pore water
pressure (triaxial UU with PWP
measurement)
Oedometer test (referred to as
single oedometer)
Triaxial test with local strain
measurement
Grading analysis (sieve and
hydrometer)
Atterberg limits
Moisture content
Falling or constant head
permeability.
Flexible wall permeability test in
triaxial cell.
Double oedometer
Collapse potential test
Double oedometer
Swell under load test
Index property test.
Degree of saturation
Tensiometer. Axis translation
techniques. Electrical/thermal
conductivity sensors. Contact
filter paper methods. Non-
contact filter paper method.
Thermocouple psychrometers.
12 Self-Assessment Activities
Refer to the purpose and expected outcome of this learning unit (section 2). Make sure that
you meet the expectations. Refer to the compulsory reference documents, sections
referenced in those documents, and important points to take note of, as listed under the
relevant individual headings throughout the learning unit.
It is important to note which investigation methods, and field and laboratory techniques, can
be considered to obtain target soil/rock parameters in the two different soil profiles (dry stable
vs. investigation below the groundwater level). Refer to Table 12 andTable 13.

13 Further Reading
Further reading will be beneficial to you. Address the topics introduced in this learning unit.
You can refer to the obligatory sources listed in this learning unit, and there may be very
valuable information in these freely available sources for future planning and design-input
purposes.

14 Informative Website Links

You may consult any reliable sources on the web. The links for the compulsory sources are
provided in the reference section. Where not provided, conduct a search on the web page of
the relevant body/authority or do a general search for the document. All the listed compulsory
sources for this learning unit are readily available/accessible on the web.

References
Das, B. M. (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (7th ed.). Stamford, USA: Cengage
Learning.

Das, B. M. (2016). Principles of Foundation Engineering (8th ed.). Boston, USA: Cengage
Learning.

de Vallejo, L., & Ferrer, M. (2011). Geological Engineering. Oxford: CRC Press; Taylor &
Francis.

Franki. (2008). A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in Southern Africa (4th ed.).
<<location>>: FRANKI.

Hoek, E. (2006). RockScience. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from www.rockscience.com:

https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/Practical‐Rock‐
Engineering‐Full‐Text.pdf

PDOT. (2018). Publication 293 ‐ Geotechnical Engineering Manual. Pensylvania Department

of Transportation. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/Pub%20293.pdf

44
SAICE. (2010). Site Investigation Code of Practice. The South African Institution of Civil
Engineering ‐ The Geotechnical Division of SAICE. <location: publisher>

van der Merwe, D. (1964, June). The prediction of heave from the plasticity index and
percentage clay fraction of soils. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, <volume, issue>,
pp. 103‐229.

WSDOT. (2011, August). Geotechnical Design Manual, M 46‐03.05. Washington State

Department of Transportation, Environmental and Engineering Programs,
Geotechnical Services. Retrieved 02 10, 2020, from
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M46‐03/M46‐
03.05Complete.pdf

45