Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Foundation Design and Construction 7th Edition

    Uploaded by

    Henra Halim
    6 views579 pages
    Foundation Design and Construction 7th edition

    Original Title

    Foundation Design and Construction 7th edition

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Foundation Design and Construction 7th edition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views579 pages

    Foundation Design and Construction 7th Edition

    Uploaded by

    Henra Halim
    Foundation Design and Construction 7th edition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 579
    ote srl ras nas edtifs informatie Centrum vestiging Nimegen myn) = BC10-1 00642001 01 Foundation Design and Construction 7* edition eigendom van: HF ROYAL HASKOMING BEDRIJFS INFORMATIE CENTRUM HASKONING NEDERLAND BV Vestiging Nijmegen PETTY eT We work with leading authors to develop the strongest educational materials in engineering, bringing cutting-edge thinking and best learning. practice to a global market Under a range of well-known imprints, including Prentice Hall, we craft high quality print and electronic publications which help readers to understand and apply their content, whether studying or at work. To find out more about the complete range of our publishing please visit us on the World Wide Web at: ‘www, pearsonedue.com Foundation Design and Construction Seventh Edition M. J. Tomlinson CEng, FICE, FIStructE with contributions by R. Boorman BSc, MEng, MICE, FiStructE SPron ay ea ot Pearson Education Pearson Education Lid Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 28 England and Associated Companies around the World Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www pearsoneduc.com First published by Pitman Publishing Limited 1963 Second edition 1969 Third edition 1975 Fourth edition 1980 Fifth edition published under the Longman imprint 1986 Sixth edition 1995 Seventh edition 2001 ©M.J. Tomlinson and R. Boorman 1986, 1995 © Pearson Education Limited 2001 ‘The rights of M. J. Tomlinson and R. Boorman to be identified as the authors of this Work have been asserted by them in accordance with the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Al rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agen:y Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London WIP OLP. ISBN 0130-31180-4 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book can be obtained from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ‘Tomlinson, M. J. (Michael John) Foundation design and construction / M.J. Tomlinson ; with contributions by R. Boorman, — 7th ed. pcm, Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-13-031180-4 1. Foundations. 1. Boorman, R. TAT7S .T6 2001, 624.1'5—dea 00051642, 10987654321 05.04.03 02 01 ‘Typeset in 9.5/11pt Times by 35 Printed and bound in Great Britain by ‘TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall Preface to the frst edition ix Preface to the seventh edition xi Site investigations and soil mechanics 1 1.0 Ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 113 114 115 General requirements 1 Information required from a site investigation 2 Site investigations of foundation failures 3 Borehole layout 4 Exploration in soils 5 Exploration in rocks 16 Ground water 18 Borehole records 20 Investigations for foundations of works over water 20 Geophysical methods of site investigation 21 Investigations of filled and contaminated ground) 21 Laboratory tests on soils 22 Laboratory tests on rock specimens obtained by rotary core drilling 26 The foundation engineering report 26 Foundation properties of soil types 29 Foundation properties of rock types 33 References 36 ‘The general principles of foundation design 38 21 22 3 24 Foundation types 38, Foundation design procedures 39 Calculations for ultimate bearing capacity by analytical methods 45 Calculation of ultimate bearing capacity by semi-empirical methods 54 Contents e 25 Estimation of allowable bearing pressures by prescriptive methods 55 26 Settlement of foundations 58 2.7 Settlement of foundations on rocks 81 28 — The applicability of computerized methods to foundation analysis and design 85 29 Examples 92 References 102 Foundation design in relation to ground movements 105 3.1, Soil movements 105 3.2. Ground movements due to water seepage and surface erosion 115 3.3. Ground movements due to vibrations 117 3.4 Ground movements due to hillside creep 117 3.5. Ground movement due to mining subsidence 118 3.6 Foundations on filled ground 128 3.7 Machinery foundations 132 References 136 ‘Spread and deep shaft foundations 137 4.1 Determination of allowable bearing pressures for spread foundations 137 42. Structural design and construction 142 4.3 Foundations to structural stee! columns | 152 44 Grillage foundations 152 4.5. Raft foundations 153 4.6 Deep shaft foundations 156 47° Examples 164 References 174 vi Contents 5 Buoyancy rafts and basements (box foundations) 175 5.1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 5.10 General principles of design 175 Drag-down effects on deep foundations 176 Buoyancy raft foundations 177 Basement or box foundations 181 Piled basements 194 Settlement-reducing piles in piled rafts and basements 197 ‘The structural design of basement rafts and retaining walls 198 ‘The application of computer-based methods to the design of rafts and piled rafts 208 Waterproofing basements 216 Worked example of basement retaining wall 218 References 221 6 Bridge foundations 223 61 62 63 64 Introduction 223 Code of Practice requirements 223 Bridges on land 224 Bridges over water 239 References 274 7 Piled foundations 1: the carrying capacity of piles and pile groups 276 TA 12 13 14 15 16 1 78 79 7.10 7A Taz Classification of piles 276 ‘The behaviour of piles and pile groups under load 277 Definitions of failure load on piles 279 Calculating ultimate loads on isolated driven piles in coarse-grained soils 280 Calculating ultimate loads on driven and cast-in-place soils 289 Calculating ultimate loads on bored and cast-in-place piles in coarse soils 290 Ultimate loads on piles driven into fine-grained soils 291 Driven and cast-in-place piles in fine-grained soils 295 Bored and cast-in-place piles in fine-grained soils 295 Calculation of the carrying capacity of piles in soils intermediate between sand and clay, layered soils, and uncemented calcareous sands 297 The settlement of a single pile at the working load 298 ‘The carrying capacity of piles founded fon rock | 298 713 714 1A5 116 TAT 718 719 7.20 7 72 Piles in fill-negative skin friction 304 ‘The carrying capacity of pile groups 306 ‘The design of axially loaded piles considered as columns 311 Piles resisting uplift 312 Piles subjected to horizontal or inclined loads 314 ‘The behaviour of piles under vibrating loads 321 Computerized methods for predicting the oad /deformation behaviour of the single pile and pile groups under axial and lateral loading 321 Calculation of carrying capacity and pile driveability by dynamic formulae 327 Procedure in correlating static methods of calculating pile resistance with driving records 332 Examples 332 References 343 Piled foundations 2: structural design and construction methods 345 81 82 83 84 8S 86 87 88 89 8.10 Bul 8.12 8.13 8.14 B15 816 8.17 818 Classification of pile types 345 Pile-driving equipment 346 Jetting piles 351 Pile driving by vibration 352 Pile driving over water 352 Pile driving through difficult ground 353, Test piling 353 Timber piles 359 Precast concrete piles 361 Jointed precast concrete piles 365 Prestressed concrete piles 366 Steel piles 369 ‘Types of driven and cast-in-place pile 373 ‘Types of bored pile 374 Types of composite pile 382 ‘The design of pile caps and capping beams 383 ‘The economics of piled foundations 385, The choice of type of pile 387 References 389 Foundation construction 390 91 92 93 94 95 Site preparation 390 Excavation methods 391 Stability of slopes to open excavations 392 Trench excavation 398 Support of excavations 401 10 u 96 97 98 99 9.10 Structural design of supports to excavations 416 Overall stability of strutted excavations 424 Inward yielding and settlement of the ground surrounding excavations 425 ‘The use of finite clement techniques for predicting deformations around deep excavations 428 Example 433 References 435 2 Cofferdams 436 10.1 10.2 103 104 105 10.6 107 108 10.9 Geotechnical processes 481 na 2 13 na Cofferdam types 436 Design of single-wall sheet pile cofferdams 444 Construction of single-wall sheet pile cofferdams 451 Double-wall sheet pile cofferdams 459 Cellular sheet pile cofferdams 460 Concrete-walled cofferdams 461 Movable coffexdams 464 Underwater foundation construction 464 Examples 470 References 479 13 Contents vii 11.5. Ground water under artesian head beneath excavations 509 11.6 The use of geotechnical processes for ground improvement 510 References 516 Shoring and underpinning 518 12.1 Requirements for shoring and underpinning 518 12.2 Methods of shoring 518 12.3 Methods of underpinning 522 12.4 Moving buildings 533 References 535 Protection of foundation structures against attack by soils and ground water 537 13.1 Causes of attack 537 13.2 Soil and ground-water investigations 537 13.3 Protection of timber piles 538 13.4 Protection of steel piling against corrosion S41 13.5 Protection of concrete structures 542 References 547 Appendix A Properties of materials 549 Ground improvement by geotechnical Appendix B Ground movements around excavations 550 processes 481 Appendix C Conversion tables 552 Ground water in excavations 481 Author Index 555 Methods of ground-water control 489 Subject Index 560 ‘The settlement of ground adjacent to excavations caused by ground-water lowering 507 ‘The author's aim has been to provide a manual of foun- dation design and construction methods for the practis- ing engineer. The book is not intended to be a textbook (on soil mechanics, but it does include examples of the applications of this science to foundation engineering. ‘The principles of the science are stated only briefly; the reader should refer to the relevant textbooks for explanations of its theory. It is hoped that the limita- tions and pitfalls of soil mechanics have been clearly set out — undue reliance on soil mechanics can be danger- us if foundation designs are based on inadequate data or on the use of wrong investigational techniques. Professor Peck has listed tice attributes necessauy the practice of subsurface engineering; these are a know- ledge of precedents, familiarity with soil mechanics, and a working knowledge of geology. He believes the first of these to be by far the most important. Regand- ing soil mechanics, he states: ‘The everyday procedures row used to calculate bear- ing capacity, settlement, or factor of safety of a slope, are nothing more than the use of the framework of soil mechanies to organize experience. Ifthe tech- niques of soil testing and the theories had not led to results in accord with experience and field observa- tions, they would not have been adopted for practical, widespread use. Indeed, the procedures are valid and justified only to the extent that they have been verified by experience, In this sense, the ordinary procedures of soil mechanics are merely devices for interpolating among the specific experiences of many engineers in order to solve our own problems, ‘or which we recognize to fall within the limits of previous experience. ‘The author has included information on ordinary foundations, including the economic design of house foundations, as a help to architects and builders in the Preface to the first edition use of the present-day techniques of investigation and construction. The application of soil mechanics science to the carrying capacity of pile foundations of all types is a comparatively new development, but is coming to be recognized as having advantages over older meth- ods using dynamic formulae, and this subject is fully treated. It is hoped that the information given on large- diameter bored-pile foundations will be helpful in aiding the design of foundations of tall multi-storey buildings. Experience in recent years has shown the economies which these high-capacity piles can give over the more conventional types where heavy foundation Toads ate w be eautied. ‘The background information on soil mechanics has been mainly drawn from Terzaghi and Peck’s Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (John Wiley). For examples of constructional problems the author has drawn freely on his experiences with George Wimpey & Co, Ltd, and he is indebted to Dr L. J. Murdock, DSc, MICE, manager of their Central Laboratory, for permission to publish this information, together with illustrations and photographs. General information on current design practice in Great Britain has been obtained from the Institution of Civil Engineers Code of Practice No. 4 (1954): Foundations, with the kind permission of the Institution. The author gratefully acknowledges the help and criticism of his colleagues in the preparation of the book, and in particular of A. D. Rae, BSc, for checking the manuscript and proofs. Thanks are especially due to Professor H. O. Ireland, of the University of linois, for critical reading of the manuscript and advice on its application to American engineering practice. The illustrations are the work of Mrs W. Alder and Mrs P. Payne. Amersham 1963 In this edition all chapters have been brought up-to- date with recent developments in foundation design and construction techniques. These include the recent re~ search undertaken by the Construction Industry Research and Development Association (CIRTA) leading to revi- sions of the current methods fer determining allowable bearing pressures of shallow foundations and the ulti- mate resistance of piles bearing in chalk. Also included in a new method for determining the resistance of piles driven to a deep penetration into sands. This develop- ment is based on research undertaken at Imperial Col- lege, London, primarily for the foundations of offshore structures. However, the method has useful applic: tions for structures on land wherever piles are required to be driven to a deep penetration to mobilize the re- quired resistance in shaft friction. In recent years, much attestion has been given to observations of ground movements around tunnels and deep excavations, and to the measurement of forces in bracing members supporting excavations. These obse vations led to the conclusion that current methods for calculating earth pressures on excavation supports were unduly conservative. Co-operative research between engineers and contractors under the leadership of CIRIA hhas resulted in the establishment of new design rules described in this edition, ‘The requirements of the draft Eurocode 7: Founda- tions, were the subject of comment in the previous edition. Subsequently a revised draft has been published by the British Standards Institution in the form of a Draft for Development with the title Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design. The code requirements as they apply to the geotechnical design of shallow founda- tions, retaining walls and piles are discussed in this edition together with examples comparing the limit state design methods of the code with permissible. stress ‘methods in general use. Preface to the seventh edition The author is grateful to Drs Fiona Chow, David Hight, and Richard Jardine for helpful discussions and correspondence concerning the behaviour of piles driven into sands and clays; to Mr Malcolm Brittain, late of Wimpey Group Services, for revising illustrations of reinforced concrete raft foundations; and to Mr Roger Boorman for once again revising his contributions on computer-aided design, for his assistance with worked examples, and for providing new examples of computer based design. In the previous edition I paid tribute to the help and encouragement of my wife in the preparation of the sixth and all earlier editions of this book over a period of 30 years since the first edition was written. Sadly, she died in 1999 after helping me with the early stages Of this present work Grateful acknowledgement is made to the follow- ing firms and individuals who have given permission to reproduce illustrations, photographs and other information: American Petroleum Institute ~ Table 7.1. Reproduced courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute. American Society of Civil Engineers ~ Figs 1.4, 2.14, 2.28, 2.45, 2.55, 5.23(a), 6.31, 7.16, 7.26, 7.44, 7.46, 7.50, 945, 10.12, 11.33, Bachy Ltd ~ Figs 8.28, 10.30 Baumaschine und Bautechnik ~ Fig. 6.53 Dr M. D. Bolton ~ Figs 6.13, 6.14, 6.15 Boston Society of Civil Engineers ~ Table 2.9 BSP International Foundations Ltd ~ Figs 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 88 Building Research Establishment ~ Figs 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9, 4.34, 13.1 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd ~ Figs 2.16, 2.51, 10.31, Table 13.1 Burlington Engineers Ltd — Figs 8.2, 8.4, 8.7 xii Preface to the seventh edition Cementation Piling and Foundations Ltd - Figs 8.31, 11.40 Construction Industry Research and Information Association - Figs 5.25, 5.27, 5.30, 5.35, 5.36, 5.40, 7.14, 9.16, 9.18, 9.19, 9.35, 9.36, 11.7, 11.9 repro- duced by kind permission of CIRIA ‘Columbia University Press ~ Fig. 10.6 Corus UK Ltd ~ Tables 8.4 and 10.1 Construction Research Communications ~ Tables 3.1, 53, Fig. 5.28 The late W. K. Cross Esq ~ Figs 6.38, 6.39 Crown Copyright, Controller of HM Stationery Office ~ Figs 3.1, 33, 3.4, 3.5 CSIRO, Australia - Fig. 3.7 Danish Geotechnical Institute ~ Figs 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 737 D*Appolonia Consulting Engineers Inc — Fig. 9.42 Edmund Nuttall Ltd ~ Figs 6.51, 6.52, 9.33 Engineering News Record ~ Figs 6.41 Fugro-McClelland Limited ~ Fig. 7.8 Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority — Fig, 6.56 Indian Roads Congress ~ Figs 6.32, 6.35 Institution of Structural Engineers — Figs 4.36, 5.12, 12.1, 12.4, 12.25, 12.26 Japan Society ISSMFE - Fig. 9.42 Jim Mackintosh Photography — Figs 5.7, 12.20 David Lee Photography — Fig. 6.43 ‘The Marine Technology Directorate Ltd ~ Fig. 7.4 Mabey Hire Limited — Fig. 9.32 Metropolitan Expressway Public Corporation, Yoko- hhama — Fig. 6.49 Nanyang Technological Institute ~ Figs 10.13, 10.24, 10.25 National House Building Council ~ Fig. 3.6 National Research Council of Canada ~ Figs 2.37, 2.46, 7.18, 121,722 Director of Technical Services, Northumberland County Council - Figs 6.19, 6.20, 6.21 Norwegian Gectechnical Institute ~ Fig. 2.31 Offshore Technology Conference — Figs 7.11, 7.47, 7.48, 7:53 Pearson Education Ltd ~ Fig. 6.51 Professor Osterberg - Fig. 7.16 ‘Ove Arup and Partners ~ Figs 4.38, 12.8 Ove Arup Computing Systems ~ Fig. 9.10 Pentech Press ~ Figs 2.20, 2.36, 3.2, 3.4 J.B. S. Pryke Esq — Figs 12.12, 12.24 Ronald White ~ Fig. 1.16 S. Serota Esq - Fig. 10.31 Roger Bullivant Ltd — Fig. 8.29 Professor I. M. Smith — Figs 2.51, 2.52 Soil Mechanics Limited ~ Fig. 8.24 ‘Speed-Shore (UK) Ltd - Fig. 9.17 Dr S. M. Springman — Figs 6.13, 6.14. 6.15 Steen Consultants ~ Fig. 4.41 Structural Engineers Trading Organisation Ltd ~ Figs 4.39, 6.10, 12.1, 12.4, Table 2.8 Swedish Geotechnical Institute - Fig. 1.5 ‘Thomas Telford Publications (and Institution of Civil Engineers) ~ Figs 1.6, 1.7, 2.21, 2.22, 2.26, 2.27, 2.33, 2.43, 2.44, 2.53, 3.2, 4.1, 4.34, 4.35, 5.8, 5.9, 5.43, 5.44, 6.18, 6.24, 6.44, 6.48, 6.55, 6.57, 741, 915, 9.39, 9.47, 9.48, 10.22, 10.23, 1032, 10.33, 10:34, 11.14, 11.42, 12.21, 12.22, 12.23, Tables 5.5, 5.6, 10.2 Trafalgar House Technology ~ Fig. 6.28 ‘Transport Research Laboratory ~ Figs 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, ‘Tudor Engineering Company — Fig. 631 Turner Visual Group Limited ~ Fig. 97 USS. Army, Waterways Experiment Station — Figs 7.45, lr US. National Committee, ISSMFE Westpile Limited — Fig. 8.27 John Wiley & Sons Inc — Figs 2.13,'2 15(a), 11.12 ohn Wiley and Sons Limited - Figs 2.51, 2.52, 5.23(b) ‘Wimpey Group Services Limited — Figs 1.16, 5.7, 5.16, 5.17, 8.20, 94, 9.7, 10.10, 11.21, 11.22, 12.20 Zablin Sperialtiefoau GmbH — Fig. 8.11 ig. 2.34 Extracts from British Standards are reproduced with the permission of BSI under licence rumber SK2000/ 0490. Complete copies of the standard can be obtained by post from BSI Customer Services, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL. Figs 2.34, 4.37, 4.38, and 7.17 are reproduced with permission from A. A. Balkema, PO Box 1675, NL- 3000 BR. Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Fig. 7.4 is reproduced with kind permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. ‘M.1.T. 2001, Richmond-upon-Thames 1.0 General requirements A site investigation in one form or another is always required for any engineering or building structure. The investigation may range in scope from a simple exam- ination of the surface soils with or without 2 few shallow trial pits, to a detailed study of the soil and ground water conditions to a considerable depth below the surface by means of boreholes and in-situ and laboratory tests on the materials encountered. The extent of the work depends on the importarce and foundation arrangement of the structure, the complexity of the soil conditions, and the information which may be available on the behaviour of existing foundations on similar soils. The draft of Eurocode 7, Geotechnical Design™ places structures and eanhworks into three “geotechnical categories’. Light structures such as buildings with col- umn loads up to 250 KN or walls loaded to 100 kN/m, Jow retaining walls, and single or two-storey houses are placed in geotechnical category 1. Provided that the {ground conditions and design requirements are known from previous experience and the ground is not sloping to any significant degree, the qualitative investigations in this category can be limited to verifying the design assumptions al the Tates( during super vision of construc tion of the works. Verification is deemed to consist of visual inspection of the site, sometimes with inspection of shallow trial pits, or sampling from auger borings. Category 2 structures include conventional types on sites where there are no abnormal risks or unusual or exceptionally difficult ground or loading conditions. Conventional substructures such as shallow spread footings, rafts, and piles are included in this category, as well as retaining walls, bridge piers and abutments, ‘excavations and excavation supports, and embankments. Quantitative geotechnical information is required, but Site investigations and soil mechanics routine procedures for field and laboratory testing and for analysis and design are deemed to be satisfactory. Structures in category 3 are very large or unusual types or those involving abnormal risks, or unasual or exceptionally difficult ground or loading conditions. Structures in highly seismic areas are included in this category. ‘The investigations required for category 3 are those deemed to be sufficient for category 2, together with any necessary additional specialized studies. If west pro- cedures of a specialized or unusual nature are required, the procedures and interpretations should be documented with reference to the tests. ‘Thorough investigations are necessary for buildings and engineering structures founded in deep excavations. ‘As well as providing information for foundation design, they provide essential information on the soil and ‘ground-water conditions to contractors tendering for the work. Thus, money is saved by obtaining realistic and competitive tenders based on adequate foreknowledge of the ground conditions. A reputable contractor will not gamble on excavation work if its cost amounts to 1 substantial proportion of the whole project; ¢ corres- pondingly large sum will be added to the tender to cover for the unknown conditions. Henve te sayings, *You pay for the borings whether you have them or not” It follows that contractors tendering for excavation work must be supplied with all the details of the site investigation. tis not unknown for the engineer to with- hold certain details such as ground-water level observa- tions under the mistaken idea that this might save money in claims by the contractor if water levels are subse- quently found to be different from those encountered in the borings. This is a fallacy: the contractor will either allow in his tender for the unknown risks involved or Site investigations and soil mechanics will take a gamble. If the gamble fails and the water conditions turn out to be worse than assumed, then a claim will be made. ‘An engineer undertaking a site investigation may engage local labour for trial pit excavation or hand auger boring, or may employ a contractor for boring and soil sampling. If laboratory testing is required the boring contractor can send the samples to his own or to an independent testing laboratory. The engineer then undertakes the soil mechanics analysis for foundation design. Alternatively a specialist organization offering comprehensive facilities for boring, sampling, field and laboratory testing, and soil mechanics analysis may un- dertake the whole investigation. A single organization has an advantage of providing the essential continuity and close relationship between field, laboratory, and office work. It also permits the boring and testing pro- gramme to be readily modified in the light of informa- tion made available as the work proceeds. Additional samples can be obtained, as necessary, from soil layers shown by laboratory testing to be particularly signifi- cant, In-situ testing can be substituted for laboratory testing if desired. In any case, the engineer responsible for the day-to-day direction of tke field and laboratory work should Keep the objective of the investigation Closely in mind and should make a continuous appraisal of the data in the same way as is done at the stage of preparing the report. In this way vital information is not overlooked; the significance of such features as weak soil layers, deep weathering of rock formations, and sub-artesian water pressure can be studied in such greater detail, as may be required while the fieldwork is still in progress. Whatever procedure the engineer adopts for carrying ‘out his investigation work it is essential that the indi- viduals or organizations undertaking the work should bbe conscientious and completely reliable, The engineer has an important responsibility to his employers. in selecting a competent organization and in satisfying himself by checks in the field and on laboratory or office work that the work has been undertaken with accuracy and thoroughness. 1.1 Information required from a site investigation For geotechnical categories 2 and 3 the following in- formation should be obtained in the course of a site investigation for foundation engineering purposes: (a) The general topography of the site as it affects foundation design and construction, e.g. surface configuration, adjacent property, the presence of watercourses, ponds, hedges, trees, rock outcrops, etc., and the available access for construction veh- icles and plant. (b) The location of buried services such as electric power, television and telephone cables, water mains, and sewers. (©) The general geology of the area with particular ref- erence to the main geological formations underly- ing the site and the possibility of subsidence from mineral extraction or other causes. (d) The previous history and use of the site including information on any defects or failures of existing or former buildings attributable to foundation condi tions, and the possibility of contamination of the site by toxic waste materials. (©) Any special features such as the possibility of earth- quakes or climatic factors such as flooding, seasonal swelling and shrinkage, permafrost, or soil erosion. (8) The availability and quality of local constructional materials such as concrete aggregates, building and road stone, and water for constructional purposes, (g) For maritime or river structures information on normal spring and neap tide ranges, extreme high and low tidal ranges and river levels, seasonal river levels and discharges, velocity of tidal and river currents, wave action, and other hydrographic and meteorological data, (h) A detailed record of the soil and rock strata and ground-water conditions within the zones affected by foundation bearing pressures and construction operations, or of any deeper strata affecting the site conditions in any way. (J) Results of field and laboratory tests on soil and rock samples appropriate to the particular foundation design or constructional problems. (k) Results of chemical analyses on soi, fill materials, and ground water to determine possible deleterious effects on foundation structures. (Results of chemical and bacteriological analyses ‘on contaminated soils, fill materials, and gas emis- sions to determine health hazard risks. Items (a)=(g) above can be obtained from a general reconnaissance of the site (the ‘walk-over’ survey), and from a study of geological memoirs and maps and other published records. A close inspection given by walking ‘over the site area will often show significant indications of subsurface features. For example, concealed swallow holes (sink holes) in chalk or limestone formations are often revealed by random depressions and marked irregularity in the ground surface; soil creep is in- dicated by wrinkling of the surface on a hillside slope, or leaning trees; abandoned mine workings are shown by old shafts or heaps of mineral waste; glacial deposits may be indicated by mounds or hummocks (drumlins) in a generally flat topography; and river or lake de- posits by fat low-lying areas in valleys. The surface indi- cations of ground water are the presence of springs or wells, and marshy ground with reeds (indicating the presence of a high water table with poor drainage and the possibility of peat). Professional geological advice should be sought in the case of large projects covering extensive areas. Information should be sought on possible long-term ‘changes in ground-water levels, cessation of abstraction of ground water for industrial purposes from bored wells, or pumping from deep mine-shafts can cause a slow rise in ground water over a wide area. ‘On extensive sites, aerial photography is a valuable aid in site investigations. Photographs can be taken from model aircraft or balloons. Skilled interpretations of aerial photographs can reveal much of the geomor- phology and topography of a site. Geclogical mapping from aerial photographs as practised by specialist firms is a well-established science. Old maps as well as up-to-date publications should bbe studied, since these may show the previous use of, the site and are particularly valuable when investigating backfilled areas. Museums or libraries in the locality often provide much information in the form of maps, memoirs, and pictures or photographs of a site in past times. Local authorities should be consulted for details of buried services, and in Britain the Geological Survey for information on coal-mine workings. Some parts of Britain were worked for coal long before records of workings were Kept, but it is sometimes possible to obtain information on these from musetms and libraries. If particular information on the history of a site has an important bearing on foundation design, for example the location of buried pits or quarries, every endeavour should be made to cross-check sources of information especially if they are based on memory or hearsay. People’s memories are notoriously unreliable on these matters, Items (h), (j), and (k) of the list ate obtained from boreholes or other methods of subsuriace exploration, together with field and laboratory testing of soils or rocks. Its important to describe the type and consistency of soils in the standard manner laid down in standard codes of practice. In Britain the stancard descriptions and classifications of soils are set out in the British Standard Code of Practice: Site Investigations, BS 5930. Rocks should be similarly classified in accordance with the standard procedure of codes of practice; BS ‘5930 requires rocks to be described in the following sequence: Information required from a site investigation Colour Grain size (the grain size of the mineral or rock fragments comprising the rock) Texture (e.g. crystalline, amorphous, ete.) Structure (a description of discontinuities, e. laminated, foliated, etc.) State of weathering ROCK NAME Strength (based on the uniaxial compression test) Other characteristics and properties Of the above descriptions, the four properties of par- ticular relevance to foundation engineering are the structure, state of weathering, discontinuity spacing, and uniaxial compression strength. The discontinuity spacing is defined in two ways: (1) The rock quality designation (RQD) which is the percentage of rock recovered as sound lengths which are 100 mm or more in length. (2) The fracture index which is the number of natural fractures present over an arbitrary length (usually 1m) ‘The structure is of significance from the aspect of ease of excavation by mechanical plant, and also the frequency and type of discontinuity affects the com- pressibility of the rock mass. The state of weathering, discontinuity spacing, and uniaxial compression strength can be correlated with the deformation characteristics of the rock mass and also with the skin friction and cend-bearing of piles. In stating the description of rock strength in borehole records the classification adopted in BS 5930 should be followed. Thus: Classification Uniaxial compressive strength (MNin?) Very weak Under 1.25 Weak 125-5 Moderately weak 5-125 Moderately trong Strong Very strong 1.2 Site investigations of foundation failures From time to time it is necessary to make investiga tions of failures or defects in existing structures. The approach is somewhat different from that of normal site investigation work, and usually takes the form of trial pits dug at various points to expose the soil at foundation level and the foundation structure, together 3 Site investigations and soil mechanics ‘with deep trial pits or borings to investigate the full depth of the soil affected by bearing pressures. A care- ful note is taken of all visible cracking and movements in the superstructure since the pattern of cracking is indicative of the mode of foundation movement, e.g. by sagging or hogging. Itis often necessary to make long- continued observations of changes in level and of move- ment of cracks by means of tell-tales. Glass or paper tell-tales stuck on the cracks by cement pats are of little use and are easily lost or damaged. The tell-tales should consist of devices specially designed for the purpose or non-corrodible metal plugs cemented into holes drilled in the wall on each side of the crack and so arranged that both vertical and horizontal movements can be measured by micrometer gauges. Similarly, points for taking levels should be well secured against removal or displacement. They should consist preferably of steel bolts or pins set in the foundations and surrounded by a vertical pipe with a cover at ground Jevel. The levels should be referred to a well-established datum point at some distance from the affected structure; ground move- ments which may have caused foundation failure should not cause similar movement of the levelling datum, ‘The Building Research Establishment in Britain has developed a number of devices such as tiltmeters and borehole extensometers for monitoring the movements of structures and foundations. A careful study should be made of adjacent struc- tures to ascertain whether failure is of general occur- rence, as in mining subsidence, or whether itis due to localized conditions. The past history of the site should be investigated with particular reference to the former existence of trees, hedgerows, farm buildings, or waste dumps, The proximity of any growing trees should be noted, and information should be sought on the seasonal occurrence of cracking, for example if cracks tend to open or close in winter or summer, or are worse in dry years or wet years. Any industrial plant in which forging ihammers or presses cause ground vibrations should be noted, and inquiries should be made about any construc- tion operations such as deep trenches, tunnels, blasting, or piling which may have been carried out in the locality. 1.3 Borehole layout Whenever possible boreholes should be sunk close to the proposed foundations. This is important where the bearing stratum is iregular in depth, For the same reason the boreholes should be accurately located in position and level in relation to the proposed structures. ‘Where the layout of the structures has not been decided at the time of making the investigation a suitable pattern of boreholes is an evenly spaced grid of holes. For extensive ateas it is possible to adopt a grid of borehctes, with some form of in-situ probes, such as dynamic or static cone penetration tests, at a closer spacing within the borehole grid. EC 7 recommends, for category 2 investigations, that the exploration points forming the grid should normally be at 2 mutual spacing of 20- 40 m. Trial pits for small foundations, such as strip foundations for houses, should not be located on or close to the intended foundation position because of the ‘weakening of the ground caused by these relatively large and deep trial excavations. The required number of boreholes which need to be sunk on any particular location is a difficult problem which is closely bound up with the relative costs of the investigation and the project for which it is undertaken, Obviously the more boreholes that are sunk the more is known of the soil conditions and greater economy can be achieved in foundation design, and the risks of meet- ing unforeseen and difficult soil conditions which would greatly increase the costs of the foundation work be- come progressively less. However, an economic limit is reached when the cost of borings outweighs any sav- ings in foundation costs and merely adds to the overall cost of the project. For all but the smallest structures, at Teast two and preferably three boreholes should be sunk, so that the true dip of the strata can be established Even so, false assumptions may still be made about stratification. ‘The depth to which boreholes should be sunk is gov- cemed by the depth of soil affected by foundation bear- ing pressures. The vertical stress on the soil at a depth of one and a half times the width of the loaded area is still one-fifth of the applied vertical stress at foundation level, and the shear stress at this depth is still appreci able. Thus, borings in soil should always be taken to a depth of at least one to three times the width of the loaded area. In the case of narrow and widely spaced strip or pad foundations the borings are comparatively shallow (Fig. 1.1(a)), but for large raft foundations the borings will have to be deep (Fig. 1.1(b)) unless rock is present within the prescribed depth, Where strip or pad footings are closely spaced so that there is overlapping of the zones of pressure the whole loaded area becomes in effect a raft foundation with correspondingly deep borings (Fig. 1.1(c)). In the case of piled foundations the ground should be explored below pile-point level to cover the zones of soil affected by loading trans- mitted through the piles. EC 7 recommends a depth of five shaft diameters below the expected toe level. It is usual fo assume that a large piled area in uniform soil behaves as a raft foundation with the equivalent raft at a depth of two-thirds of the length of the piles (Fig. L.1(@)). 3B. Ts| @ i > NAY Sar 7 D ase. 7D 4 — c) 18k Figure 1.1. Depths of boreholes for various foundation conditions. ‘The ‘rule-of-thumb’ for a borehole depth of one and a half times the foundation width should be used with caution. Deep fill material could be present on some sites and geological conditions at depth could involve a risk of foundation instability. ‘Where foundations are taken down to rock, either in the form of strip or pad foundations or by piling, itis necessary to prove that rock is in fact present at the assumed depths. Where the rock is shallow this can be done by direct examination of exposures in trial pits or trenches; but when borings have to be sunk to locate and prove bedrock it is important to ensure that boul- ders or layers of cemented soils are not mistaken for bedrock. This necessitates percussion boring or rotary diamond core drilling to a depth of at least 3 m in bed- rock in areas where boulders are known to occur. On sites where it is known from geological evidence that boulders are not present a somewhat shallower penetra- tion into rock can be accepted. In some areas boulders larger than 3 m have been found, and itis advisable to core the rock to a depth of 6 m for important structures. Mistakes in the location of bedrock in boreholes have in many cases led to costly changes in the design of structures and even to failures It is sometimes the practice, when preparing borehole records, to define rockhead or bedrock as the level at which auger or percussion boring in weak rock has ceased and coring in stronger rock hes commenced. This practice is quite wrong. The decision to change to core drilling may have nothing to do with the strength of the rock. It may depend on the availebility of a core drill at any given time or on the level at which the Exploration in soils borehole has reached at the end of the morning or after- noon’s work. Rockhead or bedrock should be defined as the interface between superficial deposits and rock, irrespective of the state of weathering of the latter. Direct exposure of rock in trial pits or trenches is, preferable to boring, wherever economically possible, since widely spaced core drillings do not always give a ‘true indication of shattering, faulting, or other struc tural weakness in the rock. Where rock lies at some depth below ground level, it can be examined in large- diameter boreholes drilled by equipment described in Section 8.14. Because of the cost, this form of deep exploration is employed only for important structures. EC 7 recommends that where the possibility of base uplift in excavations is being investigated the pore- water pressures should be recorded over a depth below ‘ground-water level equal to or greater than the excava- tion depth. Even greater depths may be required where ‘the upper soil layers have a low density. When boreholes are sunk in water-bearing ground which will be subse- quently excavated, it is important to ensure that they are backfilled with concrete or well-rammed puddled clay. If this is not done the boreholes may be a source of considerable inflow of water into the excavations In a report on an investigation for a deep basement structure in the Glasgow area the author gave a warning about the possibility of upheaval of clay at the bottom of the excavation, due to artesian pressure in the under- lying water-bearing rock. After completing the base- ment the contractor was asked whether he had had any trouble with this artesian water. The answer was that “the only trouble we had with water was up through your borehole’. In another case, large bored piles with enlarged bases were designed to be founded within an impervious clay layer which was underlain by sand containing water under artesian pressure. The risks of somewhat greater settlement due to founding in the compressible clay were accepted to avoid the difficulty ‘of constructing the piles in the underlying, less com- pressible sand. However, considerable difficulty was experienced in excavating the base of one of the piles because of water flowing up from the sand strata through an unsealed exploratory borehole. 1.4 Exploration in soils 1.4.1 Investigation methods ‘Methods of determining the stratification and engineer- ing characteristics of subsurface soils are as follows: ‘Trial pits Hand auger borings 6 Site investigations and soil mechanics Mechanical auger borings Light cable percussion borings Rotary open hole drilling Wash borings Wash probings Dynamic cone penetration tests Static cone penetration tests Vane shear tests Pressuremeter tests Dilatometer tests Plate bearing tests Detailed descriptions of the above methods as used in British practice are given in BS 5930: Site Investiga- tions. Brief comments on the applicability of these methods to different soil and site conditions are given in the following Sections 1.4.2-1.4.5 1.4.2 Trial pits and borings Trial pits are generally used for geotechnical category 1 investigations. They are useful for examining the quality of weathered rocks for shallow foundations. Trial pits extended to trenches provide the most reliable means of assessing the state of deposition and characteristics of filled ground (see Section 1.10). Hand and mechanical auger borings are also suit able for category 1 investigations in soils which remain stable in an unlined hole. When carefully done augering causes the least soil disturbance of any boring method. Light cable percussion borings are generally used in British practice. The simple and robust equipment is well suited to the widely varying soi conditions in Britain, including the very stiff or dense stony glacial soils, and weathered rocks of soil-like consistency. arge-diameter undisturhed samples (up to 250 mm) can be recovered for special testing. Rotary open hole drilling is generally used in USA, Middle East, and Far Eastern countries. The rotary drills are usually tractor or skid-mounted and are capable of rock drilling as well as drilling in soils. Hole diameters are usually smaller than percussion-drilled holes, and sample sizes are usually limited to 50 mm diameter. Bentonite slurry or water is used as the drilling fluid, ‘but special foams have been developed to assist in obtaining good undisturbed samples. Wash borings are small-diameter (about 65 mm) holes drilled by water flush aided by chiselling. Sampling is by 50 mm internal diameter standard penetration test equipment (see below) or 50-75 mm open-drive tubes. Wash probings are used in over-water soil investiga- tions. They consist of a small-diameter pipe jetted down and are used to locate rock head or a strong layer over- lain by loose or soft soils, for example in investigations for dredging, There is no positive identification of the soils and sampling is usually impracticable. 1.4.3 Soil sampling ‘There are two main types of soil sample which can be recovered from boreholes or trial pits: (@) Disturbed samples, as their name implies, are samples taken from the boring tools: examples are auger parings, the contents of the split-spoon sampler in the standard penetration test (sce Section 1.4.5), sludges from the shell or wash-water return, or hand samples dug from trial pits (b) Undisturbed samples, obtained by pushing or driv- ing a thin-walled tube into the soil, represent as closely as is practicable the in-situ structure and ‘water content of the soil. It is important not to over- drive the sampler as this compresses the contents. It should be recognized that no sample taken by driving a tube into the soil can be truly undisturbed. Disturbance and the consequent changes in soil prop- erties can be minimized by careful attention to main- taining a water balance in the borehole. That is, the head of water in the borehole must be maintained, while sampling, at a level corresponding to the piezometric pressure of the pore water in the soil at the level of sampling. This may involve extending the borehole casing above ground level or using bentonite slurry instead of water to balance high piezometric pressures The care in sampling procedure and the elaborateness of the equipment depends on the class of work which is being undertaken, and the importance of accurate results on the design of the works. RS $930 recommends five quality classes for soil sampling following a system developed in Germany. The classification system, the soil properties which can be determined reliably from each class, and the appro- priate sampling methods are shown in Table 1.1. In cohesive soils sensitive to disturbance, quality classes 1 and 2 require a good design of sampler such as a piston or thin-walled sampler which is jacked or pulled down into the soil and not driven down by blows of @ hammer. Class 1 and 2 sampling in soils insensi- tive to disturbance employs open-drive tube samplers which are hammered into the soils by blows of a sliding hammer or careful hand-cut samples taken from trial pis. There is a great difference in cost between piston and open sampling, but the engineer should recognize the value of good quality if this can result in economies in design; for example, good-quality sampling means higher indicated shear strengths, with higher bearing ‘Table 1.1. Quality classification for soil sampling Quality class | Soil properties that | Sampling method (as BS 5930) | can be determined reliably (BS 5830) 1 Chassfiation, | Soils sensitive 10 ‘moisture content, density, strength, disturbance: thin wall piston sampler deformation, and | Soils insensitive to consolidation | disturbance: ‘characteristics | thick or thin wall open sampler Soils containing discontinuities (fabric) affecting strength, deformation, and ‘consolidation: large-diameter thin or thick wall sampler (piston or open) 2 Classification, | Thin- of thck-wall open moisture content, | sampler density 3 ‘Classification and | Disturbed sample of moisture content | cobesive soils taken from clay cutter or auger in dry borchole 4 Classification | Disturbed sample of cohesive soils taken from clay cutter or auger in borcholes where water is present Disturbed samples of non- cohesive soils taken from shell in eable percussion boring or recovered as, debris flushed from rotary

    You might also like