i

RELATIVE COMPARISON OF FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED ON THE BASIS
OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
TEST AND DIRECT SHEAR TEST

A PROJECT REPORT IS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING OF WORLD UNIVERSITY OF BANGLADESH IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING.


SUBMITTED BY

Md. Zahid Bin Hossen
ID No-10/09/36/1071
Arafat Jahan
ID No-10/09/36/1074
Sonia Akter
ID No-10/09/36/1084
Batch: 36
th

Approval of Thesis Serial No- 124
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh.


SUPERVISOR
S.M TANVIR FAYSAL ALAM CHOWDHOURY
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh


November, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii


CONTENTS
Page no
List of contents I
List of figures iii
List of Table V
Letter of transmittal vii
Declaration viii
Certification Ix
Acknowledgement X
Abstract xi
Notification xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Background 3
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Necessities of soil test 4
1.5 History of soil test 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Definition of soil and bearing capacity 8
2.3 Foundation
2.3.1 Shallow Foundation
2.3.2 Deep Foundation
15
15
16
2.4 Different type of soil test 16
2.4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 17
2.4.2 Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) 22
2.4.3 Direct Shear test 24
2.5 Major Problems and solution of the soil test. 25
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 27
iii

3.1 Introduction 27
3.2 Data source 27
3.3 Project area location Map 27
3.4 Test procedures (with equipment) 30
3.4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 30
3.4.2 Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) 34
3.5 Direct Shear Test 37
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 42
4.1 Evaluation bearing capacity and comparison of Shallow Foundation. 42
4.2 Cost effect on foundation
4.2.1 Standard penetration test cost effect on Foundation.
4.2.2 Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation
4.2.3 Evaluation bearing capacity and comparison of Deep
Foundation.
4.3 Calculation of bearing capacity for the deep foundation from
standard penetration test and unconfined compression test with
comparison:
4.4 Result and discussion
4.5 Direct shear test calculation
51
51
52
54


58
65
69
CHAPTER5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80
5.1 Conclusions 80
5.2 Recommendations 81
REFERENCE'S 83
APPENDIXE'S 84




iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Description Page
Fig:- 1.1.1 General Soil Map 2
Fig:- 2.2.1 Sand 10
Fig:- 2.2.2 Clay soil 10
Fig:- 2.2.3 Silt soil 11
Fig:- 2.2.4 Mica soil 11
Fig:- 2.2.5 Organic soil 12
Fig:- 2.2.6 Cohesive soil 12
Fig:- 2.2.7 Cohesion less soil 13
Fig:- 2.3.1 Shallow foundation 15
Fig :-2.3.2 Deep foundation 16
Fig:-2.4.1.1 Standard penetration test (SPT) 17
Fig:-2.4.1.2 Driving sequence in an SPT 18
Fig:-2.4.1.3 Terzaghis Bearing capacity factors 21
Fig:-2.4.2 Unconfined compression test Machine 23
Fig:-3.3.1 Project area location Map for soil test -1 27
Fig:-3.3.2 Project area location Map for soil test -2 28
Fig:-3.3.3 Project area location Map for soil test -3 28
Fig:-3.3.4 Project area location Map for soil test -4 29
Fig:-3.3.5 Project area location Map for soil test -5 29
Fig:-3.4.1.1 Tri pod & hammer 30
Fig:-3.4.1.2 Spilt spoon 31
Fig:-3.4.1.3 Total Equipment of SPT 32
Fig:-3.4.1.4 Spilt spoon sampler 33
Fig:-3.4.1.5 Disturbed soil sample collection 33
Fig:-3.4.2.1 Unconfined compression test (UCT) 35



v





Figure No Description Page
Fig:-3.4.2.2 Spilt cutting shoe 36
Fig:-3.5.1 Direct shear test 38
Fig:-3.5.2 Denky pump 40
Fig:-3.5.3 Hammer 40
Fig:-3.5.4 Height of fall 41
Fig:-3.5.5 Split spoon 41
Fig:-3.5.6 Soil collection 41
Fig:-3.5.7 Disturb soil sample collection 41
Fig:-4.2.3.1 Cost effect of foundation area 54
Fig:-4.2.3.2 Cost effect of foundation area 55
Fig:-4.2.3.3 Cost effect of foundation area 56
Fig:-4.2.3.4 Cost effect of foundation area 57



vi

LIST OF TABLE
TABLE NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO
Tab.2.2.1 Empirical Values for Consistency of Cohesive Soil 14
Tab.2.4.1.1 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors 21
Tab.2.4.1.2 Approximate Relationship Between N and ¢ for Cohesion
less Soil.
22
Tab.2.4.1.3 Correlation Between Soil Conditions and Standard
Penetration Test N-Value
22
Tab.3.5.1 Physical properties of the tested sample. 39
Tab.4.1.1 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison.
43
Tab.4.1.2 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
43
Tab.4.1.3 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
45
Tab.4.1.4 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
45
Tab.4.1.5 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
47
Tab.4.1.6 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
47
Tab.4.1.7 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison
49
Tab.4.1.8 Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation
from Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression
Test with Comparison.
49
Tab.4.2.1.1 Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation. 51
Tab.4.2.1.2 Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation. 51
Tab.4.2.1.3 Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation. 52
Tab.4.2.1.4 Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation. 52
Tab.4.2.2.1 Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation. 52
Tab.4.2.2.2 Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation. 53
Tab.4.2.2.3 Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation. 53
vii

Tab.4.2.2.4 Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation. 53
Tab.4.2.3.1 Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined Compression Test.
54
Tab.4.2.3.2 Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined Compression Test.
55
Tab.4.2.3.3 Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined Compression Test.
56
Tab.4.2.3.4 Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined Compression Test.
57
Tab.4.3.1 Deep Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration
Test and Unconfined Compression Test.
56
Tab.4.4.1.1 Shallow Foundation results summary. 68
Tab.4.5.1 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart. 69
Tab.4.5.2 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart. 70
Tab.4.5.3 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 70
Tab.4.5.4 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 72
Tab.4.5.5 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 73
Tab.4.5.6 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 74
Tab.4.5.7 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 75
Tab.4.5.8 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 77
Tab.4.5.9 Skin Friction & End Bearing Design Chart 78



viii

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Date: November 16, 2013

To
S.M Tanvir Faysal Alam Chowdhoury
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh
Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Subject: Submission of project paper.

Sir,
It is a great pleasure to submit herewith the project report on Relative Comparison of
Foundations Designed On the Basis of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Unconfined
Compression Test (UCT) And Direct Shear Test (DST). This project report will have
an overview on the current cost effect of foundation area based on soil test in
Bangladesh. It has been great pleasure for us to work on such an important topic. This
project work has been done according to the requirement of the World University of
Bangladesh for the degree of B. Sc in Civil Engineering.

We would be very happy to provide any assistance in interpreting any part of the
paper whenever necessary.


Sincerely yours




Md. Zahid Bin Hossen
ID No. WUB10/09/36/0171

Arafat Jahan
ID No. WUB10/09/36/1074


Sonia Akter
ID No. WUB10/09/36/1084
ix

DECLARATION

We, do hereby, solemnly declare that the work presented in the project report has
been earned out by us and so far know, none has yet submitted similar work in any
University/College/Organization for an academic qualification.

We, hereby guarantee and ensure that the work that has been presented by us, does
not breach any existing copyright.

We, further undertake to indemnify the University against any loss or damage arising
from breach of the foregoing obligation.







Md. Zahid Bin Hossen
ID No. WUB10/09/36/0171

Arafat Jahan
ID No. WUB10/09/36/1074




Sonia Akter
ID No. WUB10/09/36/1084
x





WORLD UNIVERSITY OF BANGLADESH
Department of Civil Engineering


CERTIFICATION



This is to certify that the project report on Relative Comparison of Foundations
Designed On the Basis of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) And Unconfined
Compression Test (UCT), Direct Shear Test is the bonafide record of Project work
done by Md. Zahid Bin Hossen and others for the partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of B. Sc in Civil Engineering from the World University
of Bangladesh (WUB).

This project work has been carried out under my guidance and supervision and is a
record of successful work.


Supervisor


S.M Tanvir Faysal Alam Chowdhoury
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praises and profound gratitude to the Almighty Allah who is the most beneficent
and the most merciful for allowing great opportunity and ability to bring this effort to
fruition safely and peacefully.

We are thankful to Professor Dr. Abdul Mannan Chowdhury, the honorable vice
chancellor of the world University of Bangladesh for creating such opportunity of
higher education.

The author would like to express their deepest gratitude, sincere appreciation and
indebtedness to their supervisor S.M Tanvir Faysal Alam Chowdhury, Lecturer,
Department of Civil Engineering, World University of Bangladesh for his constant
supervision, continuous guidance, helpful criticism, affectionate encouragement and
invaluable suggestions, generous help and unfailing enthusiasm at all stages of their
project work. His active interest in this topic and valuable advice was the source of
the authors inspiration.

The authors are grateful to Prof. A.F.M Abdur Rauf, Advisor, Department of Civil
Engineering, World University of Bangladesh for his suggestions and comments that
have contributed to this project work.

The authors are also grateful and wish to express thanks to Associate Professor Engr.
Rabindra Ranjan Saha P Engr, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, and
Professor Sekandar Ali, Department of Civil Engineering, and Associate Professor
Zahid Husain Khan, World University of Bangladesh for their valuable suggestions,
cooperation and comments that have contributed to this project work.

The authors pay their deepest homage to their parents, whom they believe to be the
cardinal source of inspiration for all their achievements. Their constant support
throughout this project work was phenomenal and exemplary.

Authors
xii

ABSTRACT

For subsurface geotechnical investigations the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT),Unconfined Compression test and Direct Shear test have become industry
standards in small diameter (<8-in. [20-cm]) borings and soundings. Both procedures
have evolved over a period of 100 and 70 years, respectively, and have been adopted
as ASTM standards.

Each procedure has certain advantages over the other, but both can elicit incorrect
data under particular subsurface conditions that are often overlooked, depending on
the experience of field personnel operating or logging the tests. The operative
assumptions employed in both procedures, highlight the various corrections that are
commonly employed, and identify common errors in interpretation. Under most
conditions, the joint employment of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Unconfined
Compression Test (UCT) and Direct Shear Test (DST) together has the greatest
potential for characterizing sites correctly.

At present, many practicing Engineers of Bangladesh are designing foundation and
structure based on Standard Penetration test and Unconfined Compression test report.
So it is very important to control the quality and specification of those tests. Ten soil
test reports from different soil Exploration Company were collected as considering
secondary data. Based on those soil test reports bearing capacity and foundation area
were collected and made a comparison among those bearing capacity and foundation
area. It has found that the cost of foundation based on soil bearing capacity
determined by Unconfined Compression test is more than Standard Penetration Test.
Though the cost of foundation based on Unconfined Compression test is higher than
that of based on Standard Penetration test.

Unconfined Compression test data should be used for designing foundation and direct
shear test data should be used for designing for foundation as it is more reliable and
safe.

xiii

NOTIFICATION

ASTM - American Standard for Testing Materials
SPT - Standard Penetration Test
UCT - Unconfined Compression Test
N - Number of blow
S
u
- Unconfined Compressive Strength
C - Cohesion of soil
¸ - Unit weight of soil
B - Width of footing
N
c
, N
q
, N
r
- Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors
¢ - Soil friction angle
q
a
- Allowable Bearing Capacity
F
S
- Factors of Safety
D
f
- Depth of Foundation
c
- Strain
AL - Change in Length
L
0
- Original specimen length
L - Length
d - Diameter
A
0
- Sample cross-sectional area
A' - Corrected area
S
c
- Specimen stress
w% - Water content in percentage
CN - Correction factor for N-values in standard penetration test
Cw - Groundwater correction factor
DL - Dead load
Dw - Depth of water
Kp - Coefficient of passive earth pressure
Id - Density index of cohesion less soil
PA - Active earth pressure
14

CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
Dhaka is a place at the southern tip of a Pleistocene terrace, the Madhupur Tract. Two
characteristic geological units cover the city and surroundings, viz Madhupur Clay of the
Pleistocene age and alluvial deposits of recent age. The Madhupur Clay is the oldest sediment
exposed in and around the city area having characteristic topography and drainage. The major
geomorphic units of the city are the high land or the Dhaka terrace, the low lands or flood plains,
depressions and abandoned channels. Low lying swamps and marshes located in and around the
city are other major topographic features.
The subsurface sedimentary sequence, up to the explored depth of 300m, shows three distinct
entities: one is the Madhupur Clay of the Pleistocene age, characterised by reddish plastic clay
with silt and very fine sand particles. This Madhupur Clay uncomfortably overlies the dupe tile
formation of the Plio-Pleistocene age, composed of medium to coarse yellowish brown sand and
occasional gravel. The incised channels and depressions within the city are floored by Recent
alluvial floodplain deposits and are further subdivided into Lowland Alluvium and Highland
Alluvium.
In the Geological Map of Bangladesh (1990) the Terrace deposits of the Madhupur Tract and the
Lalmai Hills are however described as the Madhupur clay residuum and those of the Barind
Tract as the Barind clay resium under the map units of the Residual deposits, and recent
floodplain and piedmont alluvial deposits have been described under the map units of Coastal,
Deltaic, Paludal, Alluvial and Alluvial Fan deposits, and these map units have again been
subdivided into numerous soil types, depending on the physical soil characteristics, nature of the
areas of the deposits and the condition of environments at the time of description.
(6)

15



Figure 1.1.1: General Soil Map
(8)


16

1.2 BACKGROUND
Foundation is the important part of Structure. In geotechnical engineering, Foundation is design
on the basis of the soil test report. At present many practicing Engineer of Bangladesh are
designing foundation and structure based on standard penetration test report. So it is very
important to control the quality and specification of Standard Penetration test in field.
Unfortunately quality and specification of Standard Penetration test is not control in field by
procedure of test. Most of the time in Standard Penetration test team labour is not skill and aware
of the test and subsoil investigation firm do not use standard equipment. This region SPT-N
value may be different from actual value and then foundation design will be expensive or unsafe.
Unconfined Compression test is a simple method of determination of shearing strength of soil
which is important to determine the bearing capacity of soil. As the name implies the confining
pressure in an Unconfined Compression test. The procedure of this test must be controlled and
observed accurately in lab. Unconfined Compression test value is more accurate then field test.
Direct shear test is a simple method of determination of shearing strength of soil test. It is the
important to determine the bearing capacity of soil. For this region foundation design will be safe
and accurate.

So it is essential to know how much better and cost effective test between these three tests for
design a foundation.
(5)


1.3 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the present study:
i) To prepare a comparative analysis of soil bearing capacity for foundation based
on Standard Penetration test, Unconfined Compression test and Direct Shear test.
ii) To find out which test is more economical and safe for design foundations.



1.4 NECESSITY OF SOIL TEST
17

Soil testing or a soil analysis is usually required for building permits. During construction, the
soil engineer may need to make further soil tests to make sure subsurface soil conditions are
compatible with those observed in the initial investigation evaluate whether the construction is
completed in compliance with the meaning and intent of the recommendations provided.
A soil analysis can be ordered by a land owner or real estate agent to study of any potential
hazards that could affect their home and investment over both the short and longterm.

1.5 HISTORY OF SOIL TEST
Humans have historically used soil as a material for flood control, irrigation purposes, burial
sites, building foundations, and as construction material for buildings. First activities were linked
to irrigation and flood control, as demonstrated by traces of dykes, dams, and canals dating back
to at least 2000 BCE that were found in ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia and the Fertile
Crescent, as well as around the early settlements of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa in the Indus
valley.
(3)


As the cities expanded structures were erected supported by formalized foundations. Ancient
Greeks notably constructed pad footings and strip-and-raft foundations. Until the 18th century,
however, no theoretical basis for soil design had been developed and the discipline was more of
an art than a science, relying on past experience. Several foundation-related engineering
problems, such as the Leaning Tower of Pisa, prompted scientists to begin taking a more
scientific-based approach to examining the subsurface. The earliest advances occurred in the
development of earth pressure theories for the construction of retaining walls. Henri Gautier, a
French Royal Engineer, recognized the “natural slope” of different soils in 1717, an idea later
known as the soil’s angle of repose. A rudimentary soil classification system was also developed
based on a material’s unit weight, which is no longer considered a good indication of soil type.
The application of the principles of mechanics to soils was documented as early as 1773 when
Charles Coulomb (a physicist, engineer, and army Captain) developed improved methods to
determine the earth pressures against military ramparts. Coulomb observed that, at failure, a
distinct slip plane would form behind a sliding retaining wall and he suggested that the
maximum shear stress on the slip plane, for design purposes, was the sum of the soil cohesionC,
and friction Otan( ) | , where O is the normal stress on the slip plane and | is the friction angle of
18

the soil. By combining Coulomb’s theory with Christian Otto Mohr’s 2D stress state, the theory
became known as Mohr-Coulomb theory. Although it is now recognized that precise
determination of cohesion is impossible because C is not a fundamental soil property, the Mohr-
Coulomb theory is still used in practice today
.(4)


In the 19th century Henry Darcy developed what is now known as Darcy’s Law describing the
flow of fluids in porous media. Joseph Boussinesq (a mathematician and physicist) developed
theories of stress distribution in elastic solids that proved useful for Estimating stresses at depth
in the ground William Rankine, an engineer and physicist, developed an alternative to Coulomb’s
earth pressure theory. Albert Atterberg developed the clay consistency indices that are still used
today for soil classification. Osborne Reynolds recognized in 1885 that shearing causes
volumetric dilation of dense and contraction of loose granular materials.
(5)


Modern geotechnical engineering is said to have begun in 1925 with the publication of
Erdbaumechanik by Karl Terzaghi (a civil engineer and geologist). Considered by many to be
the father of modern soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Terzaghi developed the
principle of effective stress, and demonstrated that the shear strength of soil is controlled by
effective stress. Terzaghi also developed the framework for theories of bearing capacity of
foundations, and the theory for prediction of the rate of settlement of clay layers due to
consolidation. In his 1948 book, Donald Taylor recognized that interlocking and dilation of
densely packed particles contributed to the peak strength of a soil.
(4)


The interrelationships between volume change behavior (dilation, contraction, and consolidation)
and shearing behavior were all connected via the theory of plasticity using critical state soil
mechanics by Roscoe, Schofield, and Wroth with the publication of “On the Yielding of Soils”
in 1958. Critical state soil mechanics is the basis for many contemporary advanced constitutive
models describing the behavior of soil.

Geotechnical centrifuge modeling is a method of testing physical scale models of geotechnical
problems. The use of a centrifuge enhances the similarity of the scale model tests involving soil
because the strength and stiffness of soil is very sensitive to the confining pressure. The
19

centrifugal acceleration allows a researcher to obtain large (prototype-scale) stresses in small
physical models.
(3)
20

CHAPTER-II
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Soil is one of the most important engineering materials. Determination of soil conditions is the
most important first phase of work for every type of civil engineering facility. The geotechnical
properties of a soil such as its grain-size distribution, plasticity, compressibility, and shear
strength can be assessed by proper laboratory testing. In addition, recently emphasis has been
placed on the in-situ determination of strength and deformation properties of soil, because this
process avoids disturbing samples during field exploration. However, under certain
circumstances not all of the needed parameters can be or are determined, because of economic or
other reasons. In such cases, the engineer must make certain assumptions regarding the
properties of the soil. A geotechnical engineer then determines and designs the type of
foundations, earthworks and pavement subgrades required for the intended man-made structures
to be built. Foundations are designed and constructed for structures of various sizes such as high-
rise buildings, bridges, medium to large commercial buildings, and smaller structures where the
soil conditions do not allow code-based design. Foundations built for above-ground structures
include shallow and deep foundations. Retaining structures include earth-filled dams and
retaining walls. Earthworks include embankments, tunnels, dikes, levees, channels, reservoirs,
deposition of hazardous waste and sanitary landfills.
(6)


The purpose of a subsurface exploration program is to investigate those underlying features
suggested by office research and field reconnaissance so as to confirm, modify, or deny the
assumed conditions existing below ground surface. The program of exploration should provide a
reasonable idea as to the underlying geologic structure and geomorphic factors shaping a site.



The overall goal should be to confirm 1.the geologic setting, such as soil development horizons;
2.presence of colluviums, alluvium, terrace deposits, lacustrine sediments, or landslide debris;
3.depth and style of weathering; 4.the underlying stratigraphy of layered units; 5.geologic
21

structures, such as joints, folds, faults, and disconformities; 6.hydrogeologic characterization,
such as groundwater, likelihood of perched groundwater or different ‘‘groundwater
compartments,’’ and surface water hydrologic regimen; and 7.the appropriate soil and rock
parameters that are of interest to engineering evaluations, such as strength, compressibility,
hydrologic conditions, and the likely variability of all the above across the site. Of these,
assessing the future variations in hydrologic regimen is the most difficult and requires the utmost
degree of professional judgment.
(5)


2.2 DEFINATION OF SOIL AND BEARING CAPACITY
The word “Soil” is derived from the Latin word “Sodium”. It means the upper layers of the earn
that may be dug or plowed, specially the surface material of the earth which plants grow. In the
soil engineering soil is defined as an unconsolidated material composed of solid particles
produced by the disintegration of rock with organic matter the void space between the particles
may contain air, water or both which can be separated by such mechanical means. Soil is formed
by weathering of rocks due to mechanical disintegration or chemical decomposition. When a
rock surface gets exposed to atmosphere for an appreciable time, it disintegrates or decomposes
into small particles and thus the soils are formed.
(3)















SOIL CLASSCIFICATION

Sands
(N
1
)
60
0-3 Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very dense
3-8
8-25
25-42
42-58
22

Clays
N
60
0-4 Very soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
4-8
8-25
15-30
30-60
> 60
Weak rock
(except chalk)
N
60
0-80 Very weak
weak
Moderately weak to very
strong
80-200
> 200
Clays
N
60
0-25 Very weak
weak
Moderately weak
Moderately strong to very
strong
25-100
100-250
> 250
Note : N
1
N
60
(N
1
)
60

is SPT N value corrected to 100 kPa effective overburden pressure
is SPT N value corrected to 60% of theoretical free-fall hammer energy
is SPT N value corrected for both vertical effective stress and input energy
..........
(6)


- Classification is the process used during ground investigation to divide soil and rock into a
limited number of groups, each of which contains materials expected to have broadly similar
engineering behaviour.
- The engineering parameters which are of most importance in estimating behaviour are
strength, compressibility and permeability and rate of consolidation.
- The methods most commonly used for classification are sample description, Moisture content
and plasticity testing (for cohesive soils) and particle size distribution (for granular soils).
- Classification with the SPT is made possible because the test combines both a sampler (albeit
of very poor quality and unable to sample coarse granular soils) and a penetrometer.
(8)



Sand:
Sand is a coarse grained soil, having particle size between 0.075mm to 4.75mm. The particle are
visible to naked eye. It is a naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock
and mineral particles. The composition of sand is highly variable.




23


Figure 2.2.1: Sand

Clay soil:
It consists of microscopic and sub-microscopic particles derived from the chemical
decomposition of rocks. It contains a large quantity of clay minerals. It exhibits considerable
strength when dry clay is fine grained soil. It is a cohesive soil. The particle size is less then
0.002mm.



Figure 2.2.2: Clay soil


24

Silt Soil:
Silt is a fine grained soil. It granular material of a size somewhere between grained soil and clay
whose mineral origin is quartz and feldspar. Silt may occur as a soil or as suspended sediment
(also known as suspended load) in a surface water body. It may also exist as soil deposited at the
bottom of a water body. Silt particles range between 0.0039 to 0.0625 mm, larger than clay but
smaller than sand particles. The particles not visible to naked eye.


Figure 2.2.3: Silt Soil

Mica Soil:
The mica group of sheet silicate (phyllosilicate) minerals includes several closely related
materials having close to perfect cleavage, it is explained by the hexagonal sheet like
arrangement of its atoms.


Figure 2.2.4: Mica soil


Silt Soil
Mica Soil
25

Organic Soil:
A sample composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition and has a
fibrous to amorphous texture, a dark-brown to black color, and an organic odor should be
designated as a organic soil.


Figure 2.2.5: Organic Soil

Cohesive Soil:
Cohesive soils are fine-grained materials consisting of silts, clays, and organic material. These
soils exhibit low to high strength when unconfined and when air-dried depending on specific
characteristics. Most cohesive soils are relatively impermeable compared with cohesion less
soils. Some silts may have bonding agents between particles such as soluble salts or clay
aggregates. Wetting of soluble agents bonding silt particles may cause settlement.








Figure 2.2.6: Cohesive Soil


Cohesion less Soil:
Organic Soil
Cohesive Soil
26

Cohesion less soil is composed of granular or coarse grained materials with visually detectable
particle sizes and with little cohesion or adhesion between particles. These soils have little or no
strength, particularly when dry, when unconfined and little or no cohesion when submerged.
Strength occurs from internal friction when the material is confined. Apparent adhesion between
particles in cohesion less soil may occur from capillary tension in the pore water. Cohesion less
soils are usually relatively free draining compared with cohesive soils.









Figure 2.2.7:Cohesion less Soil
Cohesion of Soil (c):
Cohesive soils are clay type soils. Cohesion is the force that holds together molecules orlike
particles within a soil. Cohesion (c) is usually determined from the laboratory. Unconfined
Compressive Strength S
u
can be determined in the laboratory using the Unconfined Compressive
Strength Test. There are also correlations for S
u
with shear strength as estimated from the test.
Cohesion of Soil (c)= S
u
/2
Where,
c = Cohesion (kN/m
2
, lb/ft
2
).
S
u
= Unconfined Compressive Strength (kN/m
2
, lb/ft
2
).



Empirical Values for Consistency of Cohesive Soil, (from Foundation Analysis, Bowels)
Table 2.2.1:- Empirical Values for Consistency of Cohesive Soil, (from Foundation Analysis,
Bowels)
(3)

SPT Penetration (blows/ foot) N Estimated Consistency S
u
(kips/ft
2
)
Cohesive less Soil
27

0-2 Very Soft 0-0.5
2-4 Soft 0.5-1.0
4-8 Medium 1.0-2.0
8-16 Stiff 2.0 - 4.0
16-32 Very Stiff 4.0 - 8.0
>32 Hard >8

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q
u
):
Ultimate bearing capacity is the theoretical maximum pressure which can be supported without
failure.
Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q
a
):
The allowable bearing capacity (q
a
) is the ultimate bearing capacity (q
u
) divided by an
appropriate factor of safety (F
S
).
q
a
=q
u
/F
S

Where,
q
a
= Allowable Bearing Capacity
q
u
= Ultimate Bearing Capacity
F
S
= Factors of Safety
F
S
is often determined to limit settlements to less than 1 inch and it is often in the range of 2 to 4.
Factor of Safety:
Factors of Safety's are conservative and will generally limit settlement to acceptable values, but
economy may be sacrificed in some cases.

(a) F
S
selected for design depends on the extent of information available on subsoil
characteristics and their variability. A thorough and extensive subsoil investigation may permit
use of smaller F
S
.
(b) F
S
should generally be >2.5 and never less than 2.
Christopher, Barry R., et al., Reinforced Soil Structures, Volume I: Design and Construction
Guidelines, FHWA-RD-89-043, 1990.
(10)

28

2.3 FOUNDATION
A foundation is the lowest and supporting layer of a structure. Foundations are generally divided
into two categories.
1.Shallow foundation
2.Deep foundation.
2.3.1. Shallow Foundation:
A foundation is shallow if its depth (d) is lets than or equal to its width later investigators,
However have suggested. That foundation with (d) equal to 3 to 4 times width may be defined as
shallow foundation.
Shallow foundations, often called footings, are usually embedded about a meter or so into soil.
One common type is the spread footing which consists of strips or pads of concrete (or other
materials) which extend below the frost line and transfer the weight from walls and columns to
the soil or bedrock.
Another common type of shallow foundation is the slab-on-grade foundation where the weight of
the building is transferred to the soil through a concrete slab placed at the surface. Slab-on-grade
foundations can be reinforced mat slabs, which range from 25 cm to several meters thick,
depending on the size of the building, or post-tensioned slabs, which are typically at least 20 cm
for houses, and thicker for heavier structures.







Figure 2.3.1: Shallow Foundation

2.3.2 Deep Foundation:
A deep foundation is used to transfer the load of a structure down through the upper weak layer
of topsoil to the stronger layer of subsoil below. There are different types of deep footings
including impact driven piles, drilled shafts, caissons, helical piles, and earth stabilized columns.
Shallow Foundation
29

The naming conventions for different types of footings vary between different engineers.
Historically, piles were wood, later steel, reinforced concrete, and pre-tensioned concrete.







Figure2.3.2: Deep Foundation
2.4 DIFFERENT TYPE OF SOIL TEST
Soil tests are performed to determine specific soil properties and how the soil responds to
imposed conditions. Types of behavior depend on the strength, compressibility, permeability,
corrosively, and index properties. Geotechnical policies and procedures manual to determine the
desired properties, depending on the soil type and application. The Geotechnical engineer should
observe the quality of Standard penetration test N-value and undisturbed samples when they are
extruded from the sampling tubes in the laboratory. The geotechnical engineer determines the
number, types, and requirements of needed tests. The geotechnical engineer should be familiar
with each test procedure and should verify that the tests are being performed according to his/her
directions. Familiarity with testing procedures and the soil samples helps the geotechnical
engineer to appropriately apply the test results in his/her subsequent geotechnical analyses.
(6)

Tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D3441 (mechanical cones) and ASTM D
5778 (electronic friction cones andpiezocones).

Deep Foundation
30

2.4.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT):
Around 1902 Colonel Charles R. Gow, owner of the Gow Construction Co. in Boston, began
making exploratory borings using 1-inch diameter drive samplers. Up until that time, contractors
used wash borings with cuttings, similar to the methods presently used in advancing water wells.
During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the procedure was standardized by Harry Mohr, one of
Gow’s engineers, then with Raymond Concrete Pile Co. (H.A. Mohr, 1940, Exploration of Soil
Conditions and Sampling Operations: Bull 269, Graduate School of Eng’g, Harvard University).
Mohr developed a slightly larger diameter split-spoon drive sampler and recorded the number of
blow counts per foot of penetration on an 18-inch deep sample round, using a 140-lb hammer
dropping 30 inches, pushing a 2-inch outside diameter sampler, while recovering a 1-3/8 inch
diameter sample. The value recorded for the first round of advance is usually discarded because
of fall-in and contamination in the borehole. The second pair of numbers are then combined and
reported as a single
value for the last 12 inches (1 foot). This value is reported as the SPT blow count value,
commonly termed “N”.
(4)






















Figure2.4.1.1: Standard penetration test (SPT)

31

Not everyone used Gow’s sampler, which originated in the Boston area, but Karl Terzaghi liked
it. Terzaghi and Arthur Casagrande vigorously sponsored adoption of the split spoon sampling
procedure through the auspices of ASCE’s Committee on Sampling and Testing of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division of ASCE, formed in 1938. The work of this committee was
carried out at Harvard by JuulHvorslev, and pretty much standardized by 1940, when Hvorslev
wrote “The Present Status of the Art of Obtaining Undisturbed Samples of Soils”, included as an
88-page appendix to the Purdue Conference on Soil Mechanics and Its Applications.
Terzaghi’s concept of using “standard” blow counts to estimate soil properties was not realized
until 1947, when he sat down with Harry Mohr and developed correlations between allowable
bearing pressure and [SPT] blow counts in sands, while completing his draft of Soil Mechanics
in Engineering Practice.
(8)

Later that year Terzaghi christened the 2-inch Gow sampler the “Standard Penetration Test”, in a
presentation titled “Recent trends in subsoil exploration”, which he delivered to the 7th
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at the University of Texas. The first
published SPT correlations appeared in Fig. 177 on p. 423 of Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice (First Ed.) by Terzaghi and Peck, published in 1948.

Figure 2.4.1.2: Driving sequence in an SPT


The “standard drive sampler” test was subsequently adopted by ASCE and The Corps Engineers
in Hvorslev’s “Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes”,
which appeared in November 1949 (reprinted by The Engineering Foundation in 1962 and
Hammer
Tri Pod
Height of Fall
32

1965). Sprague and Henwood began producing the Mohr 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler in
the early 1950s and it became a nation-wide standard in 1958 when the apparatus and procedures
were officially adopted by ASTM as Test Method D1586 (and last revised in 1984)
Baseline References on the SPT procedure Many of the SPT correlations have been explored,
and there exist no small number of problems, requiring considerable judgment.
(4)


Most of these problems are discussed in the following articles:
For evaluation of liquefaction potential, raw SPT blow counts must be corrected to (N
1
)
60
values,
as described in the following sections. Burmister’s (1948) input energy correction. Despite all
the encouragement to adopt Terzaghi’sSPT test, most people went on using whatever devices
they had previously, until more and more of Casagrande’s students infiltrated the ranks of
foundation engineering. In the New York area the favored device was the 3.625-inch diameter
Moran & Proctor, or M & P Sampler; which had been developed by Carlton Proctor for the
firm’s exploration of the San Francisco Bay Bridge project (C. S. Proctor, 1936, The
Foundations of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: Proceedings of the Int’l Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harvard Univ., v.3 p. 183-193). The M & P
sampler allowed recovery of a much larger 3-inch diameter samples, using 5000 in-lbs. per blow
in lieu of the SPT 4200 in-lbs. Moran & Proctor engaged Professor Don Burmister of Columbia
University to develop a scheme for correlating M & P sampler blow counts with those of Mohr’s
SPT sampler, This could be rewritten to provide input energy and diameter correction for other
tests to correlate with the SPT (ASTM D-1586).
(4)


[N* = NR (W 1bs) (H in) [ (2.0 in)
2
- (1.375 in)(1401b)(30in)(D
0
)
2
-(D
i
)
2

Where W is the hammer weight, H is the height of the drop, D
0
is the outside diameter of the
sample barrel, D
i
is the diameter of the drive sample, N
r
is the raw blow count, and N* is the
blow count reported as the equivalent SPT value. The Bur mister energy correction takes the raw
“SPT” blow count value and multiplies it by an appropriate fraction, derived from the
relationship above. The corrected blow count value is usually denoted by an asterisk (*) on the
boring log, with a note explaining that the blow counts have been adjusted. If we apply
Burmister’s simple equation to the Modified California sample barrel, with an outside diameter
of 3.0 inches and a sample diameter of 2.4 inches, the calculated correction would be 0.65. This
33

means the equivalent SPT N values would be about 65% of those recorded with the Modified
California apparatus. Most workers cite Burmister’s 1948 “correction” for adjusted blow counts
recorded with larger diameter drive samplers, or for lower energy hammers (such as the 70-lb
hammer used with Mobile Drilling’s Minuteman portable drilling rig).
(6)


Formula for Standard Penetration Test:
Karl von Terzaghi was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. This theory states that a foundation is
shallow if its depth is less than or equal to its width. Later investigations, however, have
suggested that foundations with a depth, measured from the ground surface, equal to 3 to 4 times
their width maybe defined as shallow foundations (B.M. Das, 2007).Terzaghi developed a
method for determining bearing capacity for the general shear failure case in 1943.(
5
)
Terzaghi’s Bearing capacity equations: Where,
Strip footings:C: Cohesion of soil,
qu = cNc+¸ DNq + 0.5¸ BN¸ * 1.1¸ : unit weight of soil,
Square footings:D: depth of footing,
qu=1.3cNc+¸ DNq + 0.47¸ BN¸ * 1.2B: width of footing
Circular footings:
qu=1.3cNc+¸ DNq + 0.3 ¸ BN¸ * 1.3
Nc, Nq, N¸ : Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle, |



Teraghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors:
Table 2.4.1: Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors
|
Nc Nq N¸
0 5.7 1 0
5 7.3 1.6 0.5
10 9.6 2.7 1.2
15 12.9 4.4 2.5
20 17.7 7.4 5
34

25 25.1 12.7 9.7
30 37.2 22.5 19.7
35 57.8 41.4 42.4
40 95.7 81.3 100.4

















Figure2.4.1.3:Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors.

Approximate Relationship Between N and ¢ for Cohesion less Soil:
Table2.4.2:Approximate Relationship Between N and ¢ for Cohesion less Soil.
N Value* Relative Consition of Soil
Approximate Value of ¢
0-4 Very Loose 25
0
-32
0

4-10 Loose 30
0
-40
0

10-30 Medium 35
0
-45
0

30-50 Dense 40
0
±
Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Factors
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Friction Angle
N
c
,

N
q
,

N
r
Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Factors
N
c
.

N
q
.

N

35

50 very dense
* Values in this table refer to soil sampling procedures where the efficiency of the drop hammer
is approximately 60%.

Correlation Between Soil Conditions and Standard Penetration Test N-Value:
Table2.4.3: Correlation Between Soil Conditions and Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Soil Designation N Blows
Sand and Silt Loose 0-10
Medium 11-30
Dense 31-50
Very dense Over 50
Clay Very soft 0-2
Soft 3-5
Medium 6-15
Stiff 16-25
*Based on results for drive hammers with 60 percent efficiency.
Source: Acker Drill Company.
(7)


2.4.2 Unconfined Compression Test (UCT):
The Unconfined Compression Test is still used as a means of rapidly evaluating the shear
strength of cohesive soils although it is gradually losing favors. The Unconfined Compression
strength is the maximum load attained per unit area or the load at 15%axial strain, whichever
occurs first on a cylindrical sample tested in compression. The shear is taken as equal to 1/2 the
Unconfined Compressive Strength. In practice the test specimens are usually obtained by
extruding thin-wall tube samples. The lengthto of the specimen should be between 2 and 3. Two
types of loading devices are permitted, either strain controlled or stress controlled. In practice
strain controlled is now almost universally used for this test. In the strain controlled test the rate
of loading is controlled so as to produce a uniform axial strain. In the stress controlled test the
rate of loading is controlled so as to produce a uniform increase in axial load. In this laboratory,
strain control will be used and the compression machines will be adjusted to a rate of loading
which will provide 15% axial strain on the sample in approximately 10 minutes. Sensitivity of a
36

cohesive soil is defined as the undisturbed strength of the soil divided by the remolded strength.
The sensitivity cannot be less than 1. For most local clays, the sensitivity is between 1 and 3. For
some highly sensitive clays it can exceed 10 and, in some cases, be so high that it cannot even be
accurately measured. The most accurate method of determining sensitivity involves use of the
laboratory vane shear apparatus. Two devices used to check the unconfined strength or shear
strength in the field are the torvane and the pocket penetrometrer. You will use both and compare
the results with that obtained from the unconfined test. The results of this lab will also be
compared to the results of a triaxial compression test performed in a later lab. It is therefore
necessary to retain a copy of all the results from this lab.
(7)












Figure2.4.2: Unconfined Compression Test Machine


Formula for Unconfined Compression Test:
The primary purpose of this test is to determine the unconfined compressive strength, which is
then used to calculate the unconsolidated untrained shear strength of the clay under unconfined
conditions. According to the ASTM standard, the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) is
defined as the compressive stress at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in
a simple compression test. In addition, in this test method, the unconfined compressive strength
is taken as the maximum load attained per unit area, or the load per unit area at 15% axial strain,
whichever occurs first during the performance of a test.
(7)


Significance:
37

For soils, the untrained shear strength (S
u
) is necessary for the determination of the bearing
capacity of foundations. The untrained shear strength (S
u
) of clays is commonly determined from
an Unconfined Compression Test. The untrained shear strength (S
u
) of a cohesive soil is equal to
one-half the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) when the soil is under the f = 0 condition (f =
the angle of internal friction). The most critical condition for the soil usually occurs immediately
after construction, which represents untrained conditions, when the untrained shear strength is
basically equal to the cohesion (c). This is expressed as:
S
u
= c (or cohesion) = q
u
/2 the value c put in equation for calculation Bearing capacity.
(7)

2.4.3 Definition of Direct Shear Test
A direct shear test is a laboratory or field test used by geotechnical engineers to measure the
shear strength properties of soil or rock material, or of discontinuities in soil or rock masses. A
detailed description of the testing equipment and procedure can be also found on
geotechdata.info direct shear test page.
The U.S. and U.K. standards defining how the test should be performed are ASTM D 3080 and
BS 1377-7:1990, respectively. For rock the test is generally restricted to rock with (very) low
shear strength. The test is, however, standard practice to establish the shear strength properties of
discontinuities in rock.
The test is performed on three or four specimens from a relatively undisturbed soil sample.A
specimen is placed in a shear box which has two stacked rings to hold the sample; the contact
between the two rings is at approximately the mid-height of the sample. A confining stress is
applied vertically to the specimen, and the upper ring is pulled laterally until the sample fails, or
through a specified strain. The load applied and the strain induced is recorded at frequent
intervals to determine a stress-strain curve for each confining stress. Several specimens are tested
at varying confining stresses to determine the shear strength parameters, the soil cohesion (c) and
the angle of internal friction (commonly friction angle) ( ). The results of the tests on each
specimen are plotted on a graph with the peak (or residual) stress on the x-axis and the confining
stress on the y-axis. The y-intercept of the curve which fits the test results is the cohesion, and
the slope of the line or curve is the friction angle.
(6)

Direct shear tests can be performed under several conditions. The sample is normally saturated
before the test is run, but can be run at the in-situ moisture content. The rate of strain can be
38

varied to create a test of untrained or drained conditions, depending whether the strain is applied
slowly enough for water in the sample to prevent pore-water pressure buildup.
The advantages of the direct shear test over other shear tests are the simplicity of setup and
equipment used, and the ability to test under differing saturation, drainage, and consolidation
conditions. These advantages have to be weighed against the difficulty of measuring pore-water
pressure when testing in untrained conditions, and possible spuriously high results from forcing
the failure plane to occur in a specific location.
(6)

2.5 MAJOR PROBLEM AND SOLUTION OF THE SOIL TEST
According to our study we see the allowable bearing capacity of Standard penetration Test is
better than Unconfined Compression Test. Some time the following problem are occur in
Standard Penetration Test, Unconfined Compression Test and Direct Shear Test.
(12)





39

1) Height of fall: Labors of Standard Penetration Test team can not control the height of fall for
there unskillness. Most of the time they are not aware of importance of height of fall. For these
cases height of fall is more or less than the specified height of fall (30 inch = 76cm). When the
height of fall is more or less then 30inch, the SPT N-value is more or less than actual value. The
ultimate result is Allowable bearing capacity increases or decreases and foundation size will be
unsafe or costly. For controlling this problem must be take right stapes likes marking and using
nut on top of the guide rod, using auto trip hammer and providing skill labors in Standard
Penetration test Team.
(9)

2) SPT Spoon cutting shoe Thickness: In Bangladesh SPT spoon cutting shoe thickness is
usually does not comply with ASTM most of the cases. Always conventional spoon is more or
less sharper than the Standard spoon. If cutting shoe of SPT spoon is sharp, N-value will be less
than actual value. So Allowable Bearing capacity decreases and foundation will be unsafe. For
controlling this problem must be take right stapes likes must be use in SPT standard spoon,
Before use should be check thickness and sharpeners of cutting spoon.
(9)

3) Non Standard Shelby Tube: In field test non- standard Shelby tubes used by Soil
Exploration Company in Bangladesh, if Shelby tube is not comply with standard- soil sample
will be disturbed, disturbed soil sample looses shear strength and Finally Unconfined
Compressive Test result vary from actual strength. For this is case Foundation design cost will be
increases or decreases. For Controlling this problem must be use ASTM standard Shelby tubes.
(9)

4) Collection, Preservation and Carrying sample: Some time undisturbed soil sample is not
collection, preservation and carrying with standard procedure. So for Unconfined Compressive
Test result is deferent from actual desirable result. This problem can be reducing by fowling
standard sample collection, preservation and carrying procedure.
(9)


40

CHAPTER-III
METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In conformation with the objectives, the following procedure was followed:-
- Collection of soil test report from Soil Exploration Company.
- Study and data analysis.
- Calculation of bearing capacity based on Standard Penetration test, Unconfined Compressive
test and Direct Shear Test.
- Comparison among those bearing capacity and cost effect of foundation area
3.2 DATA SOURCE
1.Imakas Engineering Limited.(Mirpur-10,Dhaka)
2.Nila Engineering Limited.(Darussalam, Kallanpur, Dhaka)
3.3 LOCATION MAP

Figure 3.3.1:Project area location Map for soil
(House#66, Road#05, Monsurabad, Mohammadpur, Dhaka)

41


Figure 3.3.2:Project area location Map for soil
(House#59, Siddheswari circular road, Dhaka)

Figure 3.3.3:Project area location Map for soil
(House#550, Road#10, Adabor, Mohammadpur, Dhaka)


42



Figure 3.3.4:Project area location Map for soil
(House#64, Siddheswari circular road, Dhaka)


Figure 3.3.5:Project area location Map for soil
(House#37, Road#18, Sector#13, Uttara, Dhaka)

43

3.4 TEST PROCEDURES (With Equipment):
3.4.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT):
Apparatus and Materials:

(i) Drilling equipment: Any drilling equipment is acceptable that provides a reasonably
clean hole, which is at least 5 mm larger than the sampler or sampling rods, and less than
170 mm diameter.
(ii) Sampling rods steel a rod is used to connect the sampler to the drive weight assembly. A
rod should be used unless otherwise directed.
(iii) Split-barrel sampler consists of 3 main parts, head, split-barrel and shoe. A core catcher
should be installed to prevent loss of sample. Shoes which have been damaged should be
replaced or repaired.
(iv) Hammer63.5 kg weight driving head (anvil)
(v) Jar - for sample collection,
(vi) Tri Pod


Tri pod Hammer
Figure3.4.1.1:Tri pod & Hammer




44


Test Procedures:

Test Hole: The desired sampling depth has cleaned out by the drill. If a wet drill is used, flush
out all cuttings.
Assembling Equipment:
Attach the split-barrel sampler to the A-rod and lower into the hole until it is sitting on the
undisturbed material. Attach the drive weight assembly. Lift the 63.5 kg hammer approximately
0.76 m and allow it to fall on the anvil delivering one seating blow. Mark the drill rod in 3
successive

0.15m increments to observe penetration. Mark the drive weight assembly to indicate a 0.76 m
hammer lift.
(3)

Fig.-3.4.1.2: Diagram of standard split-spoon (split-barrel) sampler.
BS 1377 split-barrel samplers (a) BS 1377: 1975, (b) BS 1377: 1990

45


46

Penetration Testing:
Raise and drop the hammer 0.76 m successively by means of the rope and cathead, using no
more than 2 .25 wraps around the cathead. The hammer should be operated between40 and 60
blows per minute and should drop freely.

Continue the driving until either 0.45 m has been penetrated or 100 blows has been applied.

Record the number of blows for each 0.15 m of the penetration. The first 0.15 m increments the
“seating” drive. The sum of the blows for second and third increment of 0.15 penetration is
termed “penetration resistance” or “N-value”.

If the blow count exceeds 100 in total, terminate the test and record the number of blows for the
last 0.30 m of penetration as the N-value. If less than 0.30 m is penetrated in 100blows, record
the depth penetrated and the blow count.

If the sampler advances below the bottom of the hole under its own weight, note this condition
on the log.
GEO 1997.Interim review of the standard penetration test procedures with reference to Hong
Kong practice.
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong SAR.










Figure:3.4.1.3: Total Equipment of SPT

47

Handing Sample
Bring the sample to the surface and open it. Remove any obvious contamination from the ends or
sides and drain excess water. Carefully scrape or slice along one side to expose fresh material
and any stratification.

Figure3.4.1.4: A split-spoon sampler barrel must be recovered from the hole detached
from the drill rod, and mechanically broken down, as shown at left.(Ireland)

A split-spoon sampler barrel must be recovered from the hole, Assessment of vegetation and soil
water regimes in partial canopies with optical remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of
Environment, v. 32, 1990, p. 155-167.Detached from the drill rod, and mechanically broken
down, as shown at left. The two halves of a typical Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler with
entrained soil are shown at right.








Figure3.4.1.5: Disturbed Soil Sample Collection (Adabor Mohammadpur, Dhaka).
48

Record the length, composition, color, stratification and condition of sample. Remove sample
and wrap it or seal in a plastic bag to retain moisture. If the sample can be removed relatively
intact, wrap it in several layers of plastic to strengthen it and seal ends with tape. Mark the
sample “top” and “bottom” if applicable and label it with an identification number.

Reporting Results:
Prepare a log of the bore hole, in the field, on the “Field Bore Hole Log” report form and show:
(i) Name and location of job.
(ii) Date, start and finish.
(iii) Hole number.
(iv) Elevation and stationing.
(v) Sample number and depth.
(vi) Drilling method and type of bit.
(vii) Description of soil.
(viii) Number of blows for each 5ft. penetration or partial increment. .
(ix) Type of drilling equipment.

3.4.2. Unconfined Compression Test (UCT)
The primary purpose of the Unconfined Compression Test is to quickly determine a measure of
the unconfined compressive strength of soils that possess sufficient cohesion to permit testing in
the unconfined state. This measure is then used to calculate the unconsolidated untrained shear
strength of the clay under unconfined conditions. In the Unconfined Compression Test, the
sample is placed in the loading machine between the lower and upper plates. Before starting the
loading, the upper plate is adjusted to be in contact with the sample and the deformation is set as
zero. The test then starts by applying a constant axial strain of about 0.5 to 2% per minute. The
load and deformation values are recorded as needed for obtaining a reasonably complete load-
deformation curve. The loading is continued until the load values decrease or remain constant
with increasing strain, or until reaching 20% (sometimes 15%) axial strain. At this state, the
samples is considered to be at failure. The sample is then removed for measurement of the water
content. As for the results, the axial stress is usually plotted versus the axial strain. The
49

maximum axial stress, or the axial stress at 20% (sometimes 15%) axial strain if it occurs earlier,
is reported as the unconfined compressive strength Su
.(12)

The untrained shear strength then reads S
u
= q
u
/2Dr.K.R. Arora. Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 2003, Standard Publishers Distributors, Sixth Edition.










Figure 3.4.2.1: Unconfined Compression Test (UCT)
Equipment:
(i) Compression device,
(ii) Load and deformation dial gauges,
(iii) Sample trimming equipment,
(iv) Balance,
(v) Moisture can.
(vi) Oven
(vii) Stop Watch
(viii) Split Mould
(iv) Sample extractor
(x) Knife
(xi) venire Calipers

50

Test Procedures:
(1) Extrude the soil sample from Shelby tube sampler. Cut a soil specimen so that the ratio
(L/D) is approximately between 2 and 2.5. Where L and d are the length and diameter of
soil specimen, respectively.








Figure: 3.4.2.2: Split Cutting Shoe
(2) Measure the exact diameter of the top of the specimen at three locations 120° apart. and
then make the same measurements on the bottom of the specimen. Average the
measurements and record the average as the diameter on the data sheet.
(3) Measure the exact length of the specimen at three locations 120° apart, and then average
the measurements and record the average as the length on the data sheet.
(4) Weigh the sample and record the mass on the data sheet.
(5) Calculate the deformation ( AL) corresponding to 15% strain (
c
). Strain (e) = AL/L
0

Where L
0
= Original specimen length (as measured in step 3).
(6) Carefully place the specimen in the compression device and center it on the bottom plate.
Adjust the device so that the upper plate just makes contact with the specimen and set the
load and deformation dials to zero.
(7) Apply the load so that the device produces an axial strain at a rate of 0.5% to 2.0% per
minute, and then record the load and deformation dial readings on the data sheet at every
20 to 50 divisions on deformation the dial.
(8) Keep applying the load until 1.the load (load dial) decreases on the specimen
significantly,2.the load holds constant for at least four deformation dial readings, or 3.the
deformation is significantly past the 15% strain that was determined in step 5.
(9) Draw a sketch to depict the sample failure.
Split Cutting Shoe
51

(10) Remove the sample from the compression device and obtain a sample for water content
determination.
Analysis:
(1) Convert the dial readings to the appropriate load and length units, and enter these values
on the data sheet in the deformation and total load columns. (Confirm that the conversion
is done correctly, particularly proving dial gage readings conversion into load)
(2) Compute the sample cross-sectional area, A
o
= (
t
d
2
)/4
(3) Compute the strain, e = AL/L
o

(4) Computed the corrected area, A' = A
o
/(l - e)
(5) Using A, compute the specimen stress, S
c
= P/ A'
(Be careful with unit conversions and use constant units).
(6) Compute the water content, w%.
(7) Plot the stress versus strain. Show q
u
as the peak stress (or at 15% strain) of the test. Be
sure that the strain is plotted on the abscissa. See example data.
(8) Draw Mohr’s circle using q
u
from the last step and show the untrained shear strength, S
u

= c (or cohesion) = q
u
/2.
(6)

3.5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Assessments of the stability of slopes, earth pressures on retaining walls, and the bearing
capacity of foundations are often carried out using a Mohr-Coulomb strength model, based on
the strength parameters
c
and | .
In free draining materials or situations where the rate of soil failure is likely to be slow, the
effective strength parameters, c' and |'
are used. These strength parameters are usually
estimated from laboratory testing of representative sample.

Direct shear testing is a standard testing method employed for the estimation of soil shear
strength parameters. An important advantage of this test is that it is possible to test larger soil
samples with relative case, and so soils with large particle sizes can be tested under conditions
that more closely approximate those in the field.
(7)


52

Methods for carrying out direct shear tests for geotechnical engineering purposes are well
established in practice. These methods have been formalized into testing standard documents
such as ASTM D 3080-98 (1998) Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under
Consolidated Drained Conditions and AS 1289-9.2.2 (1998) Soil Strength and Consolidation
Tests-Determination of the Shear Strength of a Soil-Direct Shear Test using a Shear Box.
(9)



Figure 3.5.1: Direct Shear Test
Apparatus, Materials, and Sample Preparation:
All direct shear testing for this study was carried out using multi-speed direct shear equipment.
The equipment was instrumented for automatic logging of both shear load and displacements.
All instrumentation data were digitally displayed during the test, and outputs were interfaced
with a personal computer. The large shear box tests were carried out using a Prolab machine with
a shear box of 300 mm by 300 mm by 190 mm deep. The small shear box tests were carried out
using a “WykehamFarrence” direct shear machine, with a shear box of 60 mm by 60 mm by 50
mm deep.
(10)


Q181C (2002) gives guidance as to the maximum particle size of samples that may be tested in a
shear box of a given size. For the large shear box with a depth of 190 mm, a maximum particle
size up to 19 mm was considered permissible, noting that after consolidation of the sample, the
sample height is often reduced to around 130 mm. The bulk sample, prepared to a maximum size
of 19 mm, could thus be tested directly. For the small shear box of 50 mm depth, a maximum
particle size up to 5 mm was permissible.
(10)

The material employed in this testing program was a ripped silt-stone rock, slightly weathered,
taken from the excavated overburden of an open-cut coalmine in the Hunter Valley. This
material was selected as, at one time, it was proposed to use it as RE wall backfilling an
Direct Shear Test Machine
53

infrastructure development at the mine. In its delivered state, the sample was described as silty
sandy gravel, and it contained gravels up to cobble size. Before testing commenced, the bulk
sample was screened to remove all particles greater than 19 mm (about 10 % of the raw sample).
These were crushed to pass the 19 mm sieve, and they were then returned to and blended evenly
through the sample. Small box testing was carried out on a sample that had been modified by the
removal of all material retained on the standard 4.75 mm sieve.
The particle size distribution curves for each of the prepared samples are shown in Figs. 1 (a) and
1 (b). According to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the prepared coarse samples
are classified as (CM) silty sandy GRAVEL, fine to medium, pale gray siltstone gravels, fine to
coarse sand, low liquid limit silt, and a trace of pale gray clay of low plasticity.
After removal of the 4.75-19 mm fractions, the sample was modified to (SM) silty gravelly
SAND.
Physical properties of the tested sample.
Table 3.5.1:Physical properties of the tested sample.
Atterberg limits (-4.75 µ m fraction)
Standard compaction (whole
soil)
9.5 – 19 mm
Soil size,
mm
Liquid
limit, %
Plastic
limit, %
Plasticity
index, %
Maximum dry
density, g/m
3

Optimum water
content, %
Los Angeles
abrasion value, %
dry mass
<4.75 28.7 19.4 9.3 1.83 13.6 36
<19.0 1.86 14.8

The grain-size distribution curves of the soil were obtained using a sieve analysis of the coarse
fractions and by using a Malvern laser diffraction particle sizing device for the sub-150 /(in frac-
tion. From Figs. l(a) and 1 (b), it is found that D
50
=1.2 mm, C
U
=92.1 for the large shear box
sample, and D
50
=0.33 mm, C
U
=44.3 for the small shear box sample.
Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the soil. The dry density and optimum water
content values were determined according to the AS 1289.5.1.1 (2003) Test Method. The Los
Angeles value was determined on a “B” grading (9.5-13.3 mm and 13.2-19 mm fractions) using
the AS 1141.23 (1999) Test Method. The Los Angeles value was determined on a “B” grading
(9.5-13.3 mm and 13.2-19 mm fractions) using the AS 1141.23 (1999) test method. While not
54

strictly a “soft” rock (LAV > 40), an LAV of 36 is greater than that generally accepted in
engineering applications such as pavement gravels and aggregates (LAV< 30), confirming its
status as a marginal material (Lay 1985).
In general, soils exhibit maximum strength when compacted at a moisture content that is slightly
wetter than optimum moisture content and this approach is usually adopted in earthworks
construction. This means that conditions are usually unsaturated during construction of
compacted earth structures.
However, after construction, it may happen that moisture contents approach the saturated state
because of rain, groundwater, poor drainage, etc. Therefore, the shear box tests were performed
in accordance with Q181C, under conditions that simulated the worst likely conditions that might
be encountered under field conditions; that is, under effectively saturated conditions.
Photographic View of Site Visit (Location- House # 550, Road #10, Adabor
Mohammadpur, Dhaka.)










Figure 3.5.2: Denky Pump
Handle
Denky Pump
Figure 3.5.3: Hammer
Hammer
55















Figure 3.5.4: Height of Fall Figure 3.5.5: Soil Collection












Figure 3.5.6: Split Spoon






Figure 3.5.6: Split Spoon Figure 3.5.7: Disturb Soil Sample Collection




Soil Collection
Height of Fall
Split Spoon
Disturb Soil Sample
Collection
Cutting Shoe
56

CHAPTER-IV
ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 EVALUATION BEARING CAPACITY AND COMPARISON:

Geotechnical Engineers and soil exploration firms of Bangladesh use the Terzaghi’sBearing
capacity equations for calculation bearing capacity of soil. But they use the equation in following
form-
Equation for Standard Penetration Test:
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Circular or square footing,
q
a
= (1.3CN
c
)/FS
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Strip or Continuous footing,
q
a
= (CN
c
)/FS
Where,
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors, N
c
= 5.7
Factors of Safety, FS=3
C= Cohesion of Soil, tsf.
Equation for Unconfined Compression Test:
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Circular or square footing,
q
a
= (CxN
c
)/FS
Where,
Cohesion of soil, C=Q
u
/2 Tsf.
N
c
=6.8 (J.E. Bowles,1988)
Factors of Safety, FS=3
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Strip or Continuous footing,
q
a
= (CxN
c
)/FS
Where,
Cohesion of soil, C=q
u
/2 Tsf.
N
c
=5.5 (J.E. Bowles,1988)
Factors of Safety, FS=3


57

Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration
Test an Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison.
Soil test-1
Bore Hole-2
Table 4.1.1:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison.
Bore
Hole
Depth in
(ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field SPT
N-value
Cohesion
C=N/16t
sf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing Capacity
(tsf)
For circular
or Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3C
N
c
)/FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For
Circular or
square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
2
5 8 0.5 1.235 0.950 1.024 1.133 0.916 0.102 0.034
10 12 0.75 1.852 1.425 1.536 1.700 1.375 0.152 0.050
15 13 0.81 2.000 1.539 1.664 1.836 1.485 0.164 0.054
20 15 0.94 2.321 1.786 1.920 2.130 1.723 0.191 0.063
25 17 1.06 2.618 2.014 2.176 2.402 1.943 0.216 0.071


Bore Hole-10
Table 4.1.2:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison.

Bore
Hole
Depth
in (ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing Capacity
(tsf)
For circular or
Square Footing
qa=(1.3CN
c
)/F
S
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
qa=(CN
c
)/FS
For Circular
or square
footing qa=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip
or
Continuou
s footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)
/ (2×FS)
For Circular or
Square footing
(tsf) (SPT-
UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
10
5 7 0.437 1.079 0.830 0.896 0.991 0.801 0.089 0.029
10 14 0.875 2.161 1.662 1.792 1.983 1.604 0.178 0.058
15 16 1.00 2.470 1.900 2.048 2.266 1.833 0.204 0.067
20 17 1.062 2.623 2.017 2.176 2.407 1.947 0.216 0.070
25 20 1.250 3.087 2.375 2.561 2.833 2.291 0.254 0.084
NB: Others bore hole calculation is similar.
58

Bore Hole-2
From the above calculation allowable bearing capacity for circular or square footing based on
Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined Compression Test is 1.852 TSF and 1.700 TSF.
Allowable bearing capacity of Standard penetration Test is 0.152 TSF more than Unconfined
Compression Test. Accordingly the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard
Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test for Strip or Continuous footing 0.05 TSF.
Bore Hole-10
The allowable bearing capacity in this bore hole is more than bore hole 02. Allowable bearing
capacity for circular or squire footing based on Standard Penetration Test an Unconfined
Compression Test is 2.161 TSF and 1.983 TSF. Allowable bearing capacity difference between
Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test is 0.178 TSF. For strip or
continuous footing the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined compression Test for Strip or Continuous footing is 0.058 TSF.

59

Soil test-2



Bore Hole-1
Table 4.1.3:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison
Bore
Hole
Depth
in (ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressiv
e strength,
tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular or
Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)/F
S
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For Circular
or square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing
(tsf) (SPT-
UCT)
1
5 5 0.312 0.771 0.592 0.640 0.707 0.572 0.064 0.020
10 14 0.875 2.161 1.662 1.792 1.983 1.604 0.557 0.058
15 12 0.750 1.85 1.425 1.536 1.700 1.375 0.152 0.050
20 16 1.000 2.470 1.900 2.048 2.266 1.833 0.204 0.067
25 18 1.125 2.778 2.137 2.304 2.550 2.062 0.228 0.075




Bore Hole-3
Table 4.1.4:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison

Bore
Hole
Depth in
(ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular
or Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)/
FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For
Circular or
square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
3
5 8 0.500 1.235 0.950 1.024 1.133 0.916 0.102 0.034
10 12 0.750 1.852 1.425 1.536 1.700 1.375 0.152 0.050
15 14 0.875 2.161 1.662 1.792 1.983 1.604 0.178 0.058
20 15 0.940 2.321 1.786 1.920 2.130 1.723 0.191 0.063
25 21 1.312 3.240 2.492 2.688 2.973 2.405 0.267 0.087
NB: Others bore hole calculation is similar.

60


Bore Hole-1
For Circular or square footing the allowable bearing capacity based on Standard Penetration Test
and Unconfined Compression Test is 2.161 TSF and 1.9830 TSF. Unconfined compression Test
based bearing capacity is 0.557 TSF more than Standard Penetration Test. The allowable bearing
capacity difference between based on Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression
Test for Strip or Continuous footing is 0.058 TSF.
Bore Hole-3
The allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.152 TSF. The allowable bearing capacity
between based on Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test for Strip or
Continuous footing is 0.05 TSF.

61

Soil test-3


Bore Hole-1
Table 4.1.5:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison
Bore
Hole
Depth
in (ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular or
Square Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)
/FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For Circular
or square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
1
5 10 0.625 1.543 1.187 1.280 1.416 1.145 0.127 0.042
10 12 0.750 1.852 1.425 1.536 1.700 1.375 0.152 0.050
15 14 0.875 2.161 1.662 1.792 1.983 1.983 0.557 0.058
20 17 1.062 2.623 2.017 2.176 2.407 2.407 0.216 0.070
25 20 1.250 3.087 2.375 2.560 2.833 2.833 0.254 0.084



Bore Hole-2
Table 4.1.6:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison
Bore
Hole
Depth in
(ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field SPT
N-value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular
or Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)/
FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For Circular or
square footing
q
a
= (q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
2
5 9 0.562 1.388 1.067 1.152 1.273 1.030 0.115 0.037
10 13 0.813 2.005 1.542 1.664 1.840 1.488 0.165 0.054
15 17 1.062 2.623 2.017 2.176 2.407 1.947 0.216 0.070
20 19 1.187 2.931 2.255 2.432 2.690 2.176 0.241 0.079
25 22 1.375 3.396 2.612 2.816 3.116 2.520 0.280 0.092
62

NB: Others bore hole calculation is similar.




Bore Hole-1
Form the above calculation the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard
Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.152 TSF
and Strip or Continuous footing is 0.05 TSF.
Bore Hole-2
The allowable bearing capacity difference between based on Standard Penetration Test and
Unconfined Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.165 TSF. and Strip or
Continuous footing is 0.054 TSF.

















63

Soil test-4

Bore Hole-1
Table 4.1.7:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison
Bore
Hole
Depth
in (ft)
Standard penetration test Unconfined Compression Test Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/16
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressive
strength, tsf
Bearing Capacity (tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular
or Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)
/FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For Circular
or square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)/
(2×FS)
For Circular
or Square
footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
1
5 9 0.562 1.388 1.067 1.152 2.273 1.030 0.115 0.037
10 15 0.940 2.321 1.786 1.920 2.130 1.723 0.191 0.063
15 17 1.062 2.623 2.017 2.176 2.407 1.947 0.216 0.070
20 20 1.250 3.087 2.375 2.560 2.833 2.291 0.254 0.084
25 22 1.375 3.396 2.612 2.816 3.116 2.520 0.280 0.092


Bore Hole-5
Table 4.1.8:Calculation of Bearing Capacity for the Shallow Foundation from Standard Penetration Test an
Unconfined Compression Test with Comparison

Bore
Hole
Depth in
(ft)
Standard penetration test
Unconfined Compression
Test
Comparison
Field
SPT N-
value
Cohesion
C=N/1
6
tsf
Bearing capacity tsf
Unconfined
Compressiv
e strength,
tsf
Bearing Capacity
(tsf)
Difference Bearing
Capacity (tsf)
For circular
or Square
Footing
q
a
=(1.3CN
c
)/
FS
For Strip or
Continuous
Footing
q
a
=(CN
c
)/FS
For
Circular or
square
footing q
a
=
(q
u
×N
c
) /
(2×FS)
For Strip or
Continuous
footing
q
a
=(q
u
×N
c
)
/ (2×FS)
For
Circular or
Square
footing
(tsf) (SPT-
UCT)
For strip or
Continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
5
5 8 0.500 1.235 0.950 1.024 1.133 0.916 0.102 0.034
10 13 0.812 2.005 1.542 1.664 1.840 1.488 0.165 0.054
15 15 0.940 2.321 1.786 1.920 2.130 1.723 0.191 0.063
20 18 1.125 2.778 2.137 2.304 2.550 2.062 0.228 0.075
25 22 1.375 3.396 2.612 2.816 3.116 2.520 0.280 0.092
NB: Others bore hole calculation is similar.

64


Bore Hole-1
Form the above calculation the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard
Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.191 TSF
and Strip or Continuous footing is 0.062 TSF.
Bore Hole-5
The allowable bearing capacity difference between based on Standard Penetration Test and
Unconfined Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.165 TSF and Strip or
Continuous footing is 0.054 TSF.


65

4.2 COST EFFECT ON FOUNDATION:

4.2.1:Using the above evaluated bearing capacity (Chapter 4.1) footing size is Standard
penetration test cost effect on foundation:
Soil Test-1

Table 4.2.1.1: Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation
Size of Footing for SPT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hole
SPT N-
Value
C=N/16
(tsf)
q
net

=1.3CN
c

q
a
=
(q
net
/3)
Load (F)
Area,
B
2
(ft
2
)=F/q
a

B (ft) Size of Footing
2 12 0.750 5.55 1.85 100.00 54.05 7.35 7'-6ª×7'-6ª
10 14 0.875 6.48 2.16 100.00 46.29 6.80 7'-0ª×7'-0ª

Soil Test-2

Table 4.2.1.2: Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation
Size of Footing for SPT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hole
SPT N-
Value
C=N/16
(tsf)
q
net

=1.3CN
c

q
a
=
(q
net
/3)
Load (F)
Area,
B
2
(ft
2
)
= F/q
a

B (ft)
Size of
Footing
1 14 0.875 6.480 2.16 100.00 46.29 6.80 7'-0ª×7'-0ª
3 12 0.750 5.550 1.85 100.00 54.05 7.35 7'-6ª×7'-6ª

66

Soil Test-3

Table 4.2.1.3: Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation
Size of Footing for SPT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hole
SPT N-
Value
C=N/16
(tsf)
q
net

=1.3CN
c

q
a
=
(q
net
/3)
Load (F)
Area,
B
2
(ft
2
)
= F/q
a

B (ft)
Size of
Footing
1 12 0.750 5.55 1.85 100.00 54.05 3.35 7'-6ª×7'-6ª
2 13 0.812 6.01 2.00 100.00 50.00 7.07 7'-0ª×7'-0ª

Soil Test-4

Table 4.2.1.4: Standard penetration test cost effect on foundation
Size of Footing for SPT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hole
SPT N-
Value
C=N/16
(tsf)
q
net

=1.3CN
c

q
a
=
(q
net
/3)
Load (F)
Area,
B
2
(ft
2
)
= F/q
a

B (ft)
Size of
Footing
1 15 0.94 6.96 2.32 100.00 43.10 6.56 6'-9ª×6'-9ª
5 13 0.81 6.00 2.00 100.00 50.00 7.07 7'-0ª×7'-0ª
:

4.2.2: Using the above evaluated bearing capacity (Chapter 4.1) footing size is Unconfined
compression test cost effect on foundation:
Soil Test-1

Table 4.2.2.1:Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation.
Size of Footing for UCT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hoe
Unconfined
compression
Strength. q
u

(tsf)
C=
(q
u
/2)
q
net
=
CN
c

q
a
=
q
net
/3
Load
(F)
Area
B
2

(ft
2
)=F/q
a

B
(ft)
Size of
footing
2 1.536 0.768 5.22 1.74 100.00 57.47 7.58 7'-6ª×7'-6ª
10 1.792 0.896 6.09 2.03 100.00 49.26 7.01 7'-0ª×7'-0ª

67

Soil Test-2
Table 4.2.2.2:Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation.
Size of Footing for UCT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hoe
Unconfined
compression
Strength. q
u

(tsf)
C=
(q
u
/2)
q
net
=
CN
c

q
a
=
q
net
/3
Load
(F)
Area
B
2

(ft
2
)=F/q
a

B
(ft)
Size of
footing
1 1.792 0.896 6.09 2.03 100.00 49.26 7.01 7'-0ª×7'-0ª
3 1.536 0.768 5.22 1.74 100.00 57.47 7.58 7'-6ª×7'-6ª

Soil Test-3
Table 4.2.2.3:Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation.
Size of Footing for UCT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hoe
Unconfined
compression
Strength. q
u

(tsf)
C=
(q
u
/2)
q
net
=
CN
c

q
a
=
q
net
/3
Load
(F)
Area
B
2

(ft
2
)=F/q
a

B
(ft)
Size of
footing
1 1.536 0.768 5.22 1.74 100.00 57.47 7.58 7'-6ª×7'-6ª
2 1.664 0.832 5.65 1.88 100.00 53.19 7.29 7'-6ª×7'-6ª

Soil Test-4
Table 4.2.2.4:Unconfined compression test cost effect on foundation.
Size of Footing for UCT (Depth = 10'-0ª)
Bore
Hoe
Unconfined
compression
Strength. q
u

(tsf)
C=
(q
u
/2)
q
net
=
CN
c

q
a
=
q
net
/3
Load
(F)
Area
B
2

(ft
2
)=F/q
a

B
(ft)
Size of
footing
1 1.920 0.960 6.528 2.176 100.00 45.95 6.77 7'-0ª×7'-0ª
5 1.664 0.832 5.650 1.885 100.00 53.05 7.28 7'-6ª×7'-6ª

68

4.2.3:Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression Test:
Soil Test-1
Table4.2.3.1: Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test:
Bore
Hoe
Footing Area
for-
Unconfined
Compression
Test
Footing Area
for-Standard
Penetration
Test
Difference
Footing Area
Unconfined Compression Test
based footing cost increase than
Standard Penetration Test based
footing (%)
2 57.47 54.05 3.42 6.327
10 49.26 46.29 2.97 6.416
























Figure 4.2.3.1: Cost effect of foundation area

69


Bore Hole- 2
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

Bore Hole- 10
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.416% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Soil Test- 2
Table4.2.3.2: Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test:
Bore Hoe
Footing Area
for-
Unconfined
Compression
Test
Footing Area
for-Standard
Penetration
Test
Difference
Footing Area
Unconfined Compression Test based
footing cost increase than Standard
Penetration Test based footing (%)
1 49.26 46.29 2.97 6.416
3 57.47 54.05 3.42 6.327


















Figure 4.2.3.2: Cost effect of foundation area

70

Bore Hole- 1
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.416% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Bore Hole- 3
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.


Soil Test- 3
Table4.2.3.3: Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test:
Bore Hoe
Footing Area
for-
Unconfined
Compression
Test
Footing Area
for-Standard
Penetration
Test
Difference
Footing Area
Unconfined Compression Test based
footing cost increase than Standard
Penetration Test based footing (%)
1 57.47 54.05 3.42 6.327
2 53.19 50.00 3.19 6.380



Figure 4.2.3.3: Cost effect of foundation area
71

Bore Hole- 1
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Bore Hole- 2
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.380% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

Soil Test- 4
Table4.2.3.4: Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test:
Bore Hoe
Footing Area
for-
Unconfined
Compression
Test
Footing Area
for-Standard
Penetration
Test
Difference
Footing Area
Unconfined Compression Test based
footing cost increase than Standard
Penetration Test based footing (%)
1 45.95 43.10 2.85 6.612
5 53.05 50.00 3.05 6.100



Figure 4.2.3.4: Cost effect of foundation area

72

Bore Hole- 1
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.612% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Bore Hole- 5
Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.100% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

4.3 CALCULATION OF BEARING CAPACITY FOR THE DEEP
FOUNDATION FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AND
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST WITH COMPARISON:

B.H-No-3Skin friction &End Bearing Calculation.(AP-1 Soil test-5 Bore-2)
For, 5'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 3)
Total u = 28.20×0.75=21.15
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×DepthAvg÷ 2000)
= Tan 21.15 {(5 + 10) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00145 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 5× (9 -1) ÷ 100
= 0.4 TSF
For, 10'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 4)

Total u = 28.40×0.75=21.3
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 21.3 {(10+ 15) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00244 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 10× (10 -1) ÷ 100
= 0.9 TSF

73

For, 15'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 5)
Total u = 28.50×0.75=21.375
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 21.350 {(15+ 20) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00342 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 15× (10 -1) ÷ 100
= 1.35 TSF
For, 20'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 11)
Total u = 30.20×0.75=22.65
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 22.65 {(20+ 25) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00469 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (17 -1) ÷ 100
= 3.2 TSF
For, 25'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 14)
Total u = 31.50×0.75=23.63
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 23.63 {(25+ 30) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00602 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (25 -1) ÷ 100
= 6 TSF
For, 30'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 23)
Total u = 33.80×0.75=25.35
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 25.35 {(30+ 35) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0077 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 30× (37 -1) ÷ 100
74

= 10.8 TSF
For, 35'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 27)
Total u = 35×0.75=26.25
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 26.25 {(35+ 40) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00924 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 35× (50 -1) ÷ 100
= 17.15 TSF

For, 40'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 32)
Total u = 36.20×0.75=27.15
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 27.15 {(40+ 45) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0011 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 40× (63 -1) ÷ 100
= 24.8 TSF
For, 45'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 34)
Total u = 36.80×0.75=27.6
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 27.6 {(45+ 50) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0124 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 45× (70 -1) ÷ 100
= 31.50 TSF
For, 50'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 42)
Total u = 39.20×0.75=29.4
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 29.4 {(50+ 55) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
75

= 0.0.0147 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 50× (120 -1) ÷ 100
= 59.5 TSF
For cost in Situ pile :

50'-0ª length & 18ªDia
Total Skin friction ×5× ×dia
=0.07306×5×3.1416×
12
18
ª

=1.72
&,

× E.B =
(

)

× End Bearing
=

× 59.5
= 105.145 TSF
Corty per S.F =
Skin friction + End Bearing
2

=
2
145 . 105 72 . 1 +

= 53.43 TSF = 53 TSF
50'-0ª Length & 20ªDia
Total Skin friction ×5× ×
12
|

=0.07306×5×3.1416×1.667
=1.913 TSF
&,

× End Bearing
()

× 59.5
=129.86 TSF
Carry per S.F =
2
86 . 129 913 . 1 +

= 65.88 TSF

B.H-4: Skin friction & End Bearing Calculation : (AP-1 Soil test-5 Bore-4)

For, 5'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 3)
Total u = 28.20×0.75=21.15
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
76

= Tan 21.15 {(5 + 10) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00145 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 5× (9 -1) ÷ 100
= 0.4 TSF
For, 10'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 4)
Total u = 28.40×0.75=21.3
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 21.3 {(10+ 15) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00244 TSF

End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 10× (10 -1) ÷ 100
= 0.9 TSF
For, 15'-0ª (Where SPT N Value =7)
Total u = 28.80×0.75=21.6
Skin friction = Tan 21.6 × (Depth Avg.) {(15+20) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= tan 21.6 × 17.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.00346 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 15× (12 -1) ÷ 100
= 1.65 TSF
For, 20'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 11)
Total u = 30.20×0.75=22.65
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 22.65 {(20+ 25) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00469 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (17 -1) ÷ 100
= 3.2 TSF
77


78

For, 25'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 15)
Total u = 31.80×0.75=23.85
Skin friction = Tan 23.85 ×{(25+ 30) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00607 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (26 -1) ÷ 100
= 6.25 TSF
For, 30'-0ª(Where SPT N Value = 23)
Total u = 33.80×0.75=25.35
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 25.35 {(30+ 35) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0077 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 30× (37 -1) ÷ 100
= 10.8 TSF
For, 35'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 27)
Total u = 35×0.75=26.25
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 26.25 {(35+ 40) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.00924 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 35× (50 -1) ÷ 100
= 17.15 TSF
For, 40'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 32)
Total u = 36.20×0.75=27.15
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 27.15 {(40+ 45) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0011 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 40× (63 -1) ÷ 100
= 24.8 TSF
79


80

For, 45'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 35)
Total u = 37×0.75=27.75
Skin friction = Tan 27.75× {(45+ 50) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0125 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 45× (73 -1) ÷ 100
= 32.4 TSF
For, 50'-0ª (Where SPT N Value = 42)
Total u = 39.20×0.75=29.4
Skin friction = (tan u× 22.4×Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 29.4 {(50+ 55) ÷ 2} ÷ 2000
= 0.0.0147 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 50× (120 -1) ÷ 100
= 59.5 TSF
For, Cast in Situ pile:
50'-0ª Length & 18ªDia

Total Skin friction ×5× ×
12
18
ª

=0.0774×5××1.5
= 1.823 TSF
&,

×59.5
=1.5.145 TSF
Carry over load per S.F =
Skin friction + End Bearing
2

=
1.823+105.145
2

= 53.48 TSF




81

Length 50'-0ª&Dia 18ª
Total Skin friction ×5××
12
20
ª

= 0.0774×5××1.667
= 2.026 TSF
&,

× End Bearing

× 59.5
=129.86 TSF

Carry over load per S.F =
Skin friction + End Bearing
2

=
2.026+129.86
2

= 65.94 TSF
= 66

Allowable carrying capacity of R.C.C castin situ pile (with F.S = 2.50 Values in ton)

Table4.3.1:Deep Foundation cost Effect between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test:
Bore hole No.
Length of pile from
(E.G.L)
Pile Size
45cm/18ªu 50cm/20ªu
B.H-3 50'-0ª 53(TSF) 65 (TSF)
B.H-4 50'-0ª 53 (TSF) 66 (TSF)


4.4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

4.4.1.From the above information we have found the following results:

Soil test Report- 1

Bore Hole-2
- The allowable bearing capacity for circular or square footing based on Standard Penetration
Test and unconfined Compression test is 1.852 TSF and 1.700 The allowable bearing
capacity of Standard penetration Test is 0.152 TSF more than Unconfined Compression test.
Accordingly the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard penetration test and
Unconfined Compression Test for Strip or Continuous footing is 0.05 TSF.
82

- Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined
Compression Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Bore Hole- 10
- The allowable bearing capacity in this bore hole is more than bore hole 01.The allowable
bearing for circular or square footing based on Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression test is 2.161 TSF and 1.983 TSF. The allowable bearing capacity of Standard
penetration Test is 0.178 TSF more than Unconfined Compression test. Accordingly the
allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard penetration test and Unconfined
Compression Test for Strip or Continuous footing is 0.058 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.416% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Soil test Report-2

Bore Hole- 1
- For circular or square footing the allowable bearing capacity based on Standard Penetration
Test and Unconfined Compression test is 2.161 TSF and 1.983 TSF.Unconfined Compression
test based bearing capacity is 0.557 TSF more than SPT. The allowable bearing capacity
difference between based on Standard penetration test and Unconfined Compression Test for
Strip or Continuous footing is 0.058 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.416% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

83

Bore Hole- 3
- The allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compressive Test for Circular or square footing is 0.152 TSF. The allowable bearing capacity
difference based on Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined Compressive test for Strip or
Continuous footing is 0.05 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Soil test Report-3

Bore Hole- 1
- From the above calculation the allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard
Penetration Test and Unconfined Compression Test for Circular of square footing is 0.152 TSF
and Strip or Continuous footing is 0.05 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.


Bore Hole- 2
- The allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.165 TSF and Strip or Continuous footing is
0.054
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.380% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

84

Soil test Report-4
Bore Hole- 1
- The allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.191 TSF and Strip or Continuous footing is
0.063 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.327% than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.
Bore Hole- 5
- The allowable bearing capacity difference between Standard Penetration Test and Unconfined
Compression Test for Circular or square footing is 0.191 TSF and Strip or Continuous footing is
0.063 TSF.
-Unconfined Compression Test based foundation area increased 6.100 % than Standard
Penetration Test based foundation area. So the cost will increase for Unconfined Compression
Test based foundation than Standard Penetration test based foundation.

Shallow foundation results summary:
Table 4.4.1.1: Shallow foundation results summary.

Soil Test
Number
Bore Hole
no.
SPT
For circular
or square
Footing
qa=(1.3
CNc)/FS
UCT
For circular or
square Footing
qa=(qu×Nc)
/(2×FS)
Comparison
Unconfined
Compression
Test based
footing cost
increase than
Standard
Penetration
Test based
footing (%)
Difference Bearing Capacity
(tsf)
For circular
or square
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
For Strip or
continuous
Footing (tsf)
(SPT-UCT)
Soil Test-1
2 1.852 1.700 0.152 0.050 6.327
10 2.161 1.983 0.178 0.058 6.416
Soil Test-2
1 2.161 1.983 0.557 0.058 6.416
3 1.852 1.700 0.152 0.050 6.327
Soil Test-3
1 1.852 1.700 0.152 0.050 6.327
2 2.005 1.542 0.165 0.054 6.380
Soil Test-4
1 2.321 1.786 0.191 0.063 6.612
5 2.005 1.840 0.165 0.054 6.100
4.5:DIRECT SHEAR TEST:

85

|
|
|
|
|


|
|
|
|
|





Skin friction

End bearing



Figure4.5.1: Direct Shear Test

Table 4.5.1: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

N
u
Nq N
u
Nq N
u
Nq
3 28.20 9.00 19 33.00 34.00 35 37.00 73.00
4 28.40 10.00 20 33.00 34.00 36 37.80 78.00
5 28.50 10.00 21 33.40 35.00 37 38.00 83.00
6 28.60 11.00 22 33.60 36.00 38 38.20 90.00
7 28.80 12.00 23 33.80 37.00 39 38.50 100
8 29.00 13.00 24 34.00 40.00 40 38.80 110
9 29.50 13.50 25 34.20 42.00 41 39.00 115
10 30.00 15.00 26 34.60 44.00 42 39.20 120
11 30.20 17.00 27 35.00 50.00 43 39.50 125
12 30.40 20.00 28 35.20 52.00 44 39.70 130
13 31.00 23.00 29 35.50 55.00 45 39.90 135
14 31.50 25.00 30 35.80 58.00 46 40.00 140
15 31.80 26.00 31 36.00 61.00 47 40.30 145
16 32.00 30.00 32 36.20 63.00 48 40.60 150
17 32.40 32.00 33 36.50 67.00 49 40.80 155
18 32.80 33.00 34 36.80 70.00 50 41.00 160
N.B: Cohesive layer only when N Value up to (15 SPT)


86

Soil test-1

Bore Hole-1

Table 4.5.2: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

25 20 33 34
Skin friction & End Bearing calculation :

Total u = 33× 0.75 = 24.75
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg.÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.75 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.129 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (20-1) ÷ 100
= 4.75 TSF

Bore Hole-10
Table 4.5.3: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

15 17 32.40 32.00
20 18 32.80 33.00
25 20 33.00 34.00

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:

- Height - 15'
Total u = 32.40 × 0.75= 24.3
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.3 × 22.4 × 17.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.088 TSF
87

End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 15× (32-1) ÷ 100
= 4.65 TSF
Again

- Height - 20'
Total u = 32.80 × 0.75= 24.6
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.6 × 22.4 × 22.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.115 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (33-1) ÷ 100
= 6.4 TSF
Again

- Height - 25'
Total u = 33 × 0.75= 24.75
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.75 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.129 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (20 -1) ÷ 100
= 4.75 TSF
Bore hole-1
- The allowable bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing
calculation 0.129 TSF & 4.75 TSF When cohesive layer N value up to 25 ft.


88

Bore hole- 10
- The allowable bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing
calculation 0.129 TSF & 4.75 TSF & 4.65 FSF. When cohesive layer N - value up to 15
ft.

- The allowable bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing
calculation 0.115 TSF & 6.4 TSF & 4.65 FSF. When cohesive layer N - value up to 20 ft.

- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.129
TSF & 4.75 TSF. When cohesive layer N- value up to 25 ft.

Soil Test-1
Bore hole- 1
Table 4.5.4: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

20 19 33 34
25 21 33.40 35.00

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 20'
Total u = 33 × 0.75= 24.75
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.75 × 22.4 × 22.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.116 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (34 -1) ÷ 100
= 6.6 TSF

89

Again
- Height - 25'
Total u = 33.40 × 0.75= 25.05
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.05 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.130 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (35 -1) ÷ 100
= 8.5 TSF


Bore hole- 3
Table 4.5.5: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

25 28 35.20 52

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 25'
Total u = 35.20 × 0.75= 26.4
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 26.4 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.138 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (52 -1) ÷ 100
= 12.75 TSF


90

Bore hole- 1
- The allowable bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing
calculation 0.116 TSF & 6.6 TSF & 4.65 FSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 20 ft.
- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.130
TSF & 8.5 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 25 ft.
Bore hole- 3
- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.138
TSF & 12.75 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 25 ft.

Soil test-3

Bore hole- 1
Table 4.5.6: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

20 19 33 34
25 22 33.60 36

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 20'
Total u = 33 × 0.75= 24.75
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.75 × 22.4 × 22.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.116 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (34 -1) ÷ 100
= 6.6 TSF


91

Again
- Height - 25'
Total u = 33.60 × 0.75= 25.2
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.2 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.131 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (34 -1) ÷ 100
= 8.25 TSF
Bore hole- 2
Table 4.5.7: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

15 20 33.00 34.00
20 23 33.80 37.00
25 28 35.20 52.00

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 15'
Total u = 33 × 0.75= 24.75
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)
= Tan 24.75 × 22.4 × 17.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.090 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 15× (34 -1) ÷ 100
= 4.95 TSF

92

Again,
- Height - 20'
Total u = 33.80 × 0.75= 25.35
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.35 × 22.4 × 22.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.119 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (37 -1) ÷ 100
= 7.2 TSF
Again
- Height - 25'
Total u = 35.20 × 0.75= 26.4
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 26.4 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.138 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (52 -1) ÷ 100
= 12.75 TSF
Bore hole- 1
- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.116
TSF & 6.6 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 20 ft.

- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.131
TSF & 8.25 TSF & 4.65 FSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 25 ft.

93

Soil test-4
Bore hole- 1
Table 4.5.8: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

15 18 32.80 33.00
20 25 34.20 42.00
25 28 35.20 52.00

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 15'

Total u = 32.80 × 0.75= 24.6
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 24.6 × 22.4 × 17.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.089 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 15× (33 -1) ÷ 100
= 4.8 TSF
Again
- Height - 20'
Total u = 34.20 × 0.75= 25.65
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.65 × 22.4 × 22.5.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.121 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (42 -1) ÷ 100
= 8.2 TSF
94

Again ,
- Height - 25'
Total u = 35.20 × 0.75= 26.4
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 26.4 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.138 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (52 -1) ÷ 100
= 12.75 TSF
Bore hole- 5
Table 4.5.9: Skin friction & End Bearing Design Chart.

Height
(ft)
N
u
N
q

20 24 34.00 40.00
25 26 34.60 44.00

Skin friction & End Bearing calculation:
- Height - 20'
Total u = 34 × 0.75= 25.5
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.5 × 22.4 × 22.5 ÷ 2000
= 0.120 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 20× (40 -1) ÷ 100
= 7.8 TSF



95

Again,
- Height - 25'
Total u = 34.60 × 0.75= 25.95
Skin friction = (Tan u× 22.4 × Depth Avg÷ 2000)

= Tan 25.95 × 22.4 × 25 ÷ 2000
= 0.136 TSF
End Bearing = Depth × (Nq-1) ÷100
= 25× (44 -1) ÷ 100
= 10.75 TSF

Bore hole- 1
- The allowable bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing
calculation 0.089 TSF & 4.8 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 15 ft.
- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.121
TSF & 8.2 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 20 ft.
- Skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.138 TSF & 12.75 TSF. When cohesive layer N
value up to 25 ft.
Bore hole- 5
- Bearing capacity for pile foundation base skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.120
TSF & 7.8 TSF. When cohesive layer N value up to 20 ft.
- Skin friction & End Bearing calculation 0.120 TSF & 7.8 TSF. When cohesive layer N
value up to 25 ft.

96

CHAPRTER-V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is currently the most popular and economical means of
obtaining subsurface information. Although great effort has been put into standardizing the SPT
procedure (ASTM D 1586), variability is inherent in present procedures. The Standard
Penetration Resistance is, in fact, conventionally measured using different kinds of hammers,
drilling types, drill rod lengths, drill rod types, hammer blow rates, different energy delivery
systems with different degrees of efficiency, different borehole fluids, and different kinds of
sampling tubes. Consequently, the Consistency of the SPT N Values is Questioned, i.e., the
ability of the test to reproduce blow counts using different drill rig systems under the same
site/soil conditions.
In order to reduce the significant variability associated with the SPT N value, it was
recommended that N values be standardized to N60. This Standardization was to be achieved by
correcting the measured field N values by the ratio of that SPT system's energy transfer to the
Standard 60% energy of a free fall hammer. This requires knowing the Performance
Characteristics of the SPT system.
In this research, SPT energy measurements were made using the Pile Dynamic, Inc.
manufactured SPT Analyzer for 3 SPT hammer systems, one donut, one safety, and one
automatic hammer. All tests were performed under field conditions with the normal operating
procedure. The tests were performed in three borings at the same location so that similar soil
conditions would be encountered, and the effect of different soil types on the measured energy
would be eliminated.
Allowable bearing capacity of foundation based on Standard Penetration test is more than the
Unconfined Compression test. The cost of foundation based on Unconfined Compression test is
higher than the standard Penetration test and direct shear test. Unconfined Compression test data
is more realistic and safe for design of foundation.
A proper soil test report is essential for safe housing. If the foundation is not selected properly
according to the test information of soil that may be the cause of huge loss. Standard Penetration
97

test this study we have collected there soil test reports from different soil Exploration Company,
as Considering secondary data. Based on those soil test reports we have calculated bearing
capacity, Foundation area and we have made Comparison among those bearing capacity and
Foundation area. From this study it is found that the cost of foundation based on Unconfined
Compression test is more than the Standard Penetration test and Direct Shear Test.
The present study covers the comparative analysis and cost of foundation area based on Standard
Penetration test Unconfined Compression test and Direct Shear Test. As per our study, allowable
bearing capacity of Standard Penetration test and Direct Shear Test is more than Unconfined
Compression test. Standard Penetration test and Direct Shear Test value based foundation is
more economical but unsafe. Unconfined Compression test based result is better for design of
foundation and is more realistic.
(12)


5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made from the study:
- Most of the corrections to the SPT N value are somewhat minor, however, the corrections
for the use of different hammer systems have a large impact. For this reason we
recommend that.
- The State measure the transferred energy efficiency of the driller-rig-hammer system and
determine a correction factor that is based on a standard energy ratio of 60% (rig
calibration for both equipment and operator is highly recommended).
- Energy measurements should be done on a periodic basis that will act to verify that the
rigs are functioning properly and that the effect of the wear and tear on the equipment is
being considered.
- The energy measurements should also be undertaken under different environmental
conditions, such as different weather conditions and at different times of day so that
operator fatigue can be considered.
- Testing should be accomplished in several borings in varying soil conditions so that the
effect of type of soil on energy measurements can be determined.
- More tests and analysis on soil parameters are needed for better comparative analysis and
cost analysis of shallow foundations and Deep foundation for Dhaka city.
98

- Guidelines should be established to ensure correct results of Standard Penetration test
Unconfined Compression test and DST.
- By performing extensive analysis a standard guideline for soil test of Dhaka city may be
done, So that the land owners and developers get proper idea about the tests.
- Standard Penetration test and unconfined compression test comparison are possible but
direct shear test are not comparison. Because that result show that of direct shear test is
angle and friction.


99

REFERENCES:
ACKER, W. L., III, 1974, Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling and Core Drilling: Acker
Drill Co., Scranton, PA, 246 p.

ASTM, 1984, Designation: D 1586-84 Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-
Barrel Sampling of Soils: American Society for Testing and Materials: Annual Book of
Standards, Vol. 4.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420–D-4914, pp. 137–141.

ASTM, 1994, Designation: D 1558-94 Standard Test Method for Moisture Content
Penetration Resistance Relationships of Fine-Grained Soils: American Society for Testing
and Materials: Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420–D-4914, pp.
134–136.

ASTM, 1994, Designation: D 3441-94 Standard Test Method for Deep, Quasi-Static, Cone
and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests:

American Society for Testing and Materials: Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08 Soil and
Rock (I): D 420–D-4914, pp.348–354.

B. M. Das. Principles of Foundation Engineering, 2004, Thomson, Sixth Edition.

CLAYTON, C. R. I.; MATTHEWS, M. C.; AND SIMONS, N. E., 1995, Site Investigation,
2nd ed.: Halstead Press, New York, 424 p. Online version, available at
http://www.geotechnique.info.

CAMPANELLA, R. G. AND ROBERTSON, P. K., 1988, Current status of the piezocone
test, Penetration Testing 1988, Vol. 1: Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 93–
116.CLAYTON, C. R. I., 1990,

Dr.K.R. Arora. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2003, Standard Publishers
Distributors, Sixth Edition.

J.E. Bowles. Foundation Analysis and Design, 1988, McGraw-Hill, Fifth Edition.

M.Z.H khan. Journal of Innovation & Development Strategy (JIDS), 2012, Canada.

Measurement and significance: Ground Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp. 35–43.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.