1.

SITE/SOIL EXPLORATION/INVESTIGATION
1.0 General:
• Definition of site/soil investigation or exploration:
– The field and laboratory investigation of soils required for a sound and
economical design of the foundation of a given structure.
• Site exploration is a pre-requisite for foundation analysis and
design.
• Comparison of cost with the total project cost
• The extent of exploration depends on:
• importance of the project
• arrangement of the foundations
• complexity of soil stratification
• behavior of existing foundations of structures

by Dr. Tensay 1
 1.1 Purpose of soil exploration/site investigation
• The ultimate goal of the field or site exploration:
– Detailed understanding of the eng’g and geologic properties of the soil
and rock strata
– GW conditions that could impact the proposed development.

• Main purpose of soil explorations are the following:

– to select among alternative sites.
– to decide on the depth of the foundation.
– to select appropriate method of construction.
– to select and locate construction materials.
– to evaluate the safety of existing structures and to decide on the
remedial measure for damaged structures.

by Dr. Tensay 2
 1.1 Purpose of ...
• From a more or less detailed site investigation, one expects the
following pieces of information:
– general topography
– location of buried services
– the general geology and main geological features
– previous use and history of site
– soil profiles in cuts and quarries
– high water marks on old buildings, bridges, abutments etc
– photographs of the site and adjacent structures
– special features
– availability of construction materials
– detailed record of soil and rock strata of the site
– detailed laboratory results of the soil of the site.

by Dr. Tensay 3
 1.2 Planning of site exploration program
• How do we succeed with the above tasks?
• The following steps are generally involved.
1. Document review :
• Basically divided into two phases
Design phase of the project:
a) Available design information
b) Data on the history of the site
c) Data on the design and construction of adjacent property
d) Local building code
e) Special study data
f) Standard specifications that may be applicable for the project
g) Other reference materials
by Dr. Tensay 4
1.2 Planning of ...
Construction phase of the project
a) Reports and plans during the design phase
b) Construction specifications
c) Field change orders
d) Information bulletins used during construction
e) Project correspondence b/n different parties or professionals.

2. Reconnaissance of the site

– site visit and walking over the site to identify important
features on the site.

by Dr. Tensay 5
1.2 Planning of ...
3. Preliminary site investigation:
• What is the purpose?
• to know the index properties of the soil stratum, if
possible estimate the ground water table.

• The important strength and compressibility properties are

estimated based on correlations with the index properties.

• How is this done?

– open test pits
– sinking of few bore holes
– undertaking few sounding tests, &
– few quality samples could byalso
Dr. Tensay
be obtained 6
1.2 Planning of .....
4. Detailed site investigation:
– The extent depends on the results from the preliminary site
investigation.
– The objective is to get as much information as possible for final
design.

• How?
– through the use of digging of more and deeper bore holes
– taking of more quality samples and more field and laboratory
tests.
– the final design should be opened. (Why?)

by Dr. Tensay 7
 1.3 Method of site exploration
1.3.1 Methods of Boring
1. Test pits:

– simple, cheap for shallow foundation.

– provide clear picture of soil stratification down to bottom
– block sample could be taken from which “ undisturbed” samples
for important laboratory tests could be extracted.

• Disadvantages:
– Limited depth
– Occurance of GWT at shallower depth (granular deposits)
– Boulders could be encountered
by Dr. Tensay 8
1.3.1 Method of Boring
2. Bore-holes:
– this is the most common method for deep investigation
– one can extract “undisturbed” samples using any of the varieties
of this method
– mostly done by machine operated equipment
i. Hand-auger boring
Helical and post-hole auger
– Up to 10 m but ….
– Casings (metal) … in granular deposits.
– Recommended to shallow investigations
– Difficult to operate … boulders are in
abundance.

by Dr. Tensay 9
1.3.1 Method of Boring
ii. Power driven Augers
– In many countries the use of power driven continuous flight augers is
the most popular method of soil exploration for boring holes.
–The flights act as a screw conveyor to bring the soil to the surface.

by Dr. Tensay 10
1.3.1 Method of Boring
iii. Wash boring

by Dr. Tensay 11
1.3.1 Method of Boring
iv. Rotary Drilling

by Dr. Tensay 12
1.3.1 Method of Boring
v. Percussion Drilling
– For exceptionally hard strata
– Rising and falling of a heavy chisel + water
– High impact-disintegrated rock flour or soil
– Slurry is formed
– Bailing operation
– High disturbance
– Operation is stopped at appreciably high level for sampling

by Dr. Tensay 13
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling
• Soil samples are generally classified as disturbed and
“undisturbed” samples.
Disturbed samples
• natural structure is modified or destroyed

a) Representative:
Used for identification and classification
• Samples partially deformed
• Engineering properties are changed but other properties are
same
• Usually obtained from - - SPT split spoon
- Auger blade (in clays) above GWT
- Trial pits (hand samples)
- Collecting excavated samples
by Dr. Tensay 14
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling
b) Non-representative:
– Complete destruction of fabric and structure
– Useful for finding change in strata
– Under water using auger the fines are lost or washed out
– Bailer under water or slurry
– Wash boring samples

‘Undisturbed’ samples
– Structure and properties are preserved
(e, , soil skeleton are the same as in field).

– Taken from: block samples, pushing or driving tubes, core cutter

– Engineering properties are unchanged

- shear strength
- permeability by Dr. Tensay 15
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling
• Disturbed samples
• Disintegrated or rock flour, from wash boring or from
percussion drilling is infact a disturbed sample, & yet not
representative enough for even the simplest tests to determine
properties.

• Representative disturbed sample should be good enough for

determination of index properties.

• Certain minimum care should be made for extracting such

samples; which can be used for Atterberg limit, grain-size
analysis, specific gravity of soil solids, chemical tests, ...

by Dr. Tensay 16
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling ... Cont‘d
• Correlations with these results could be used to make
preliminary estimation of the more important strength,
compressibility and permeability properties.

• To extract such samples in any of the above discussed boring

operations, the boring is stopped and the so called split spoon
sampler is attached pressed or driven in to the soil.

by Dr. Tensay 17
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling ... Cont‘d
• ’Undisturbed’ samples are those which are of good quality:

– for compression, shear strength, and permeability tests.

• Such samples are retained by means of a thin walled samples

• The sample should be extracted by applying static pressure and

if possible without rotation.

• There are a number of factors that influence the quality of soil

samples during recovery.
– type of force used for advancement of sampler
• Rate of advancement.
by Dr. Tensay 18
 do

SAMPLING
di TUBE

CUTTING
EDGE

Di

Do
by Dr. Tensay 19
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling ... Cont‘d
• The ratio of the contact area of the driving shoe to that of the
internal cross-sectional area of the sampler is defined as:
𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝐴𝑟 =
𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙
𝐷02 −𝐷𝑖2
= × 100%
𝐷𝑖2
2
𝐷0
⟹ 𝐴𝑟 % = − 1 × 100%
𝐷𝑖
• Keeping other factors constant, the smaller the values of 𝐴𝑟 ,
the better the quality of the sample.
• With all the care made to recover an ‘undisturbed’ sample it is
a requirement that 𝐴𝑟 < 10%,

by Dr. Tensay 20
 𝑑𝑖
Inside clearance, 𝐶𝑖 % = − 1 × 100%
𝐷𝑖
• This value should be between 1 to 3%.

• This reduces the frictional resistance between the tube and

the sample.

• It also allows the elastic expansion of the soil sample on

entering the tube.
𝐷0
Outside clearance, 𝐶0 % = − 1 × 100%
𝑑0
• This value should not be much greater than the inside
clearance

• It helps in reducing to force required to withdraw the tube.

by Dr. Tensay 21
1.3.2 Methods of Sampling ... Cont‘d
Remarks during the process of sampling:

 Core tubes ends should be sealed with wax and capped to

preserve the loss of moisture content ,

 Core tubes should properly be labeled to indicate the number

of bore holes and the depth at which they are taken.

 Store away from extremes environmental changes.

• Example: #1. Compare the area of standard split spoon sampler

and thin-walled sampler of outer diameter equal to 50.8 mm
by Dr. Tensay 22
1.3.3 Field Tests
• In most granular deposits and sensitive clays in-situ tests are
more preferable than lab tests on specimens.

• Most field methods are developed for such soils after realizing
that small specimens do not sufficiently represent the natural
conditions.

• After longtime use of many field tests their applications have

been extended even to the less-sensitive soils.

by Dr. Tensay 23
1.3.3 Field Tests
1.3.3.1 Sounding Tests
• The group of sounding tests we are going to discuss are all used
to measure the soundness of soil strata.

• All the methods are based on the principle that a soil exhibiting
more resistance to the penetration of a standard device is more
sound.

• Thus all sounding tests involve the deriving or pushing of a

certain device into the soil and measuring the resistance.
• The resistance recorded is then correlated with important
parameters of the soil.

by Dr. Tensay 24
1.3.3.1 Sounding Tests … cont’d
• The advancement of the device may be accomplished either by
static push or dynamic impact.
– static sounding tests
– dynamic sounding tests
Static sounding (Penetration) Test
Dutch Cone Penetration test
Cone penetration Test (CPT)
• This method is developed at Delft-University- the Netherlands
• Found originally convenient for silty sand and fine sand
deposits of the locality.
• Widely used in the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian
countries.
• It is also standardized in ASTM.
by Dr. Tensay 25
• The method has gone through a number of modifications.
• However, the basic procedure in the test method includes,
pushing a conical metallic wedge into the soil.
• The wedge has an apex of angle of 600 and base area of
10 𝑐𝑚2 (=3.56 cm).
• The wedge is connected to a deriving rod encased in a metal
tube (Sleeve) with external diameter equal to the base
diameter of the cone.
• The earlier version of this device pushing the cone first for a
depth of 13 cm at a rate of 25 𝑐𝑚 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒.
• This is then followed by the pushing down of the sleeve by the
same depth.
• Finally both the cone and the sleeve are pushed together by a
depth of 7cm (totally 20cm).by Dr. Tensay 26
• The pressures needed for penetration are read from connected
dial gauges. This device is also called mechanical friction cone
penetrometer.

by Dr. Tensay 27
• Another modern version is the so called electric friction-cone
penetrometer.
• It involves only pushing both the cone and the sleeve together.
• The total resistance is directly measured and the resistance
from the cone is measured by means of strain gauges
connected to it.
• The difference provides the frictional resistance.
• The point resistance is commonly denoted by 𝑞𝑐 and the
frictional resistance as 𝑞𝑠 .

by Dr. Tensay 28
• The frictional resistance has a direct application for friction-pile
design. It is; however, less reliable as compared to the point
resistance, 𝑞𝑐 .
• The more reliable data, the point resistance, is correlated with
eng’g properties of soil.
• Lancellota (1983) and Jamilkawiski et al (1985) suggested for
the relative density of sand, 𝐷𝑟
𝑞𝑐
𝐷𝑟 % = 𝐴 + 𝐵 log10
𝜎 ′𝑣
𝐴 = −98, 𝐵 = 66
• 𝑞𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎′𝑣 [ unit ??]
• Where 𝜎′𝑣 = effective vertical pressure at the depth under
consideration .
by Dr. Tensay 29
 Correlations with properties of cohesive soils
• Mayne and Kemper (1988) suggested correlations of 𝑞𝑐 with
undrained cohesion, 𝑐𝑢 , precompression pressure 𝑝𝑐 , over
consolidation ratio, OCR for clayey soils.
Undrained Cohesion
𝑞𝑐 −𝛿𝑣
𝐶𝑢 = ; where 𝛿𝑣 = total vertical stress
𝑁𝑘
𝑁𝑘 is ‘’bearing capacity factor’’, (why in bracket??)
= 15 for electric cone and
=20 for mechanical cone
• How is the unit of 𝑞𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝛿𝑣 ??

by Dr. Tensay 30
• Precmpression pressure, 𝑃𝑐
𝑃𝑐 = 0.243(𝑞𝑐 )0.96 , where 𝑃𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑞𝑐 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑃𝑎

• Over consolidation ratio (OCR)

1.01
𝑞𝑐 − 𝛿𝑣
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = 0.37
𝛿 ′𝑣

by Dr. Tensay 31
• Rough estimation of  and Es of granular deposits can also be
made using the following table:
𝑞𝑐 (M𝑃𝑎 ) Qualitative (deg) 𝐸𝑠 (M𝑃𝑎 )
compactness
<5 Very loose 30 15 to 30

5 to 10 Loose 30 30 to 50
10 to 15 Med. Dense 35 50 to 80
15 to 20 Dense 37.5 80 to 100
> 20 Very dense 40 100 to 120

by Dr. Tensay 32
• Dynamic Sounding (Penetration) Test
• The principle underlying dynamic sounding tests is that the
soundness of the soil stratum is directly proportional to the
resistance if offers against the penetration of a device into it by
means of a deriving dynamic impact.

• There are a number of varieties, whose difference is lying in the

mass of the hammer inducing the impact, height of fall, the
cross-sectional area of the penetrating element of the device
and the time of the penetrating element.

• Based on these differences we can identify four types of

dynamic sounding tests, as compared using the table below.
by Dr. Tensay 33
Type Mass of Drop Ht Area of tip (𝑐𝑚2 )
hammer (cm)
(kg)
Light Penetrometer 10 50 10 (conical wedge)

Media Penetrometer 30 50 10 (conical wedge)

Heavy Penetrometer 50 50 15 (conical wedge)

SPT 63.6 76.2 Tip open (why??)

by Dr. Tensay 34
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
• Recommended by EBCS-7 (1995), widely used in the U.S.A
• The method consists of deriving a standard split-spoon
sampler of 50.8 mm outer diameter and the length 60.96
cm into the soil.
• The number of blows required for the penetration of the
middle 30.48 cm length of the sampler is regarded as the
penetration resistance or commonly called N-value.
• Test is conducted intermittently with boring operation.
• The method, besides providing the soundness of the soil,
has also the advantage of sample recovery for tests on
index properties.
• It is also found to be economical items of cost per unit
information. The equipment has also a long life eqpmnt.35
by Dr. Tensay
by Dr. Tensay 36
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Adjustments to SPT Results
• Blow counts from adjacent borehole at the same depth are
seldom equal.
• This discrepancy would be magnified if other conditions
are different like eqpmnt type.
• This lack of reproducibility of blow counts may be
attributed to:
– input deriving energy
– dissipation of the input energy
• The input deriving energy, 𝐸𝑖𝑛 , for standard and properly
functioning equipment, can be found as:
𝐸𝑖𝑛 = 𝑊 × ℎ = 63.5𝑘𝑔 9.81 𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑐 2 0.762𝑚
⟹ 𝐸𝑖𝑛 = 475𝑗𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠
by Dr. Tensay 37
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• The actual input energy, 𝐸𝑎 is only a certain portion of 𝐸𝑖𝑛 , and
is equipment and operator dependent.
• Kovacs and Solomone (1982) found that
𝐸𝑎 = (30 𝑡𝑜 80 %)𝐸𝑖𝑛
• Riggs et at (1983) obtained
𝐸𝑎 = (70 𝑡𝑜 100%)𝐸𝑖𝑛
• It is apparent from the above findings that there exists
discrepancies in the input energy 𝐸𝑎 .
• This can be attributed to the following factors.
– Difference in eqpmnt, drilling rig, hammer type and skill of operator.
– Whether a liner is inserted in the split barrel (its presence results in
exaggerated N-values)
– Amount of overburden pressure (larger overburden pressure
results in larger below count.)
by Dr. Tensay 38
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
– Length of drill rod (for L < 10m and N<30, then N-values are over-
estimated)
– Borehole diameter (less below count are obtained from the
bigger boreholes)
• Based on this observations, it has been agreed upon to
introduce the so-called energy ratio, 𝐸𝑟 :
𝐸𝑎
𝐸𝑟 = × 100%
𝐸𝑖𝑛
• As explained earlier, while 𝐸𝑖𝑛 could be easily obtained
(𝐸𝑖𝑛 = 𝑊 × ℎ), the actual energy, 𝐸𝑎 should however, be
known for the arrangement (equipment, operator, type of
hammer, length of rods … etc at hand).

by Dr. Tensay 39
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• Thus standardization of the blow count N is mandatory.

• This demands referencing the equipment-dependent energy

ratio 𝐸𝑟 , to a certain selected standard energy ratio 𝐸𝑟𝑏 .

• This enables one to obtain the same blow count 𝑁′𝑟𝑏 (modified
blow count) despite the variation in 𝐸𝑟 with different eqpmnt.
– Bowles (1995) suggested, 𝐸𝑟𝑏 = 70% base on the common
practice of North America and the work of Riggs (1986), who
actually suggested:
𝐸𝑟𝑏 = 70 𝑡𝑜 80%
– Other suggestions can of course, be made for different localities.

by Dr. Tensay 40
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• The standard blow count (i.e 𝑁′70 according Bowles and Riggs)
can now be written as:
𝑁′70 = 𝐶𝑁 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 𝑁
– N = actual blow count
– 𝐶𝑁 = adjustment for effective over burden pressure, 𝑃′0

95.76𝑘𝑝𝑎
= (Liao and Whiteman (1986))
𝑃′ 0 (𝑘𝑝𝑎)
– 1 = correction for eqpmnt and hammer type and operator skill
𝐸𝑟 𝐸𝑟
= (= )
𝐸𝑟𝑏 70
• Note that 𝐸𝑟 × 𝑁 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑖. 𝑒 𝐸𝑟1 × 𝑁1 = 𝐸𝑟2 × 𝑁2 = ⋯

by Dr. Tensay 41
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
1.0; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝐿 ≥ 10
0.95; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 6 < 𝐿 < 10
– 2 =correction for rod length =
0.85; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 4 < 𝐿 ≤ 6
0.75; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0 ≤ 𝐿 ≤ 4

– 3 = Sampler correction
1; 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟
= 0.80; 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑠
0.90; 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
– 4 =Correction for borehole diameter, 

1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 60 ≤ ≤ 120𝑚𝑚
– = 1.05; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 = 150𝑚𝑚
1.15; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 = 120𝑚𝑚

by Dr. Tensay 42
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• For 𝐸𝑟 = 70%, length of rod, L>10m, no liner in split barrel,
and common small sized bore hole (≤120mm) it is then
evident that:
𝑁′70 = 𝐶𝑁 . 𝑁
• Remark:
• It is to be observed that, for the common practice in Ethiopia,
we may assume 3 = 4 = 1 while corrections should be
made for the equipment type and rod length employed in
addition to the adjustments for overburden:
i.e 𝑁′𝑟𝑏 = 𝐶𝑁 . 1 . 2 . 𝑁
if 𝐸𝑟𝑏 = 70%, then
𝑁′70 = 𝐶𝑁 . 1 . 2 . 𝑁 ,where 1 = 𝐸𝑟 70

by Dr. Tensay 43
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Conventional Practice on SPT
• It has become a common practice to run an SPT every 1 or 2m
of boring.
• The test is commonly started after boring through the top soil
or after 1 to 1.5m of boring below ground surface.
• This practice has the advantage of sample recovery up to 50%
by the SPT alone even in methods of boring, in which it is
difficult to extract representative samples.

Correlations of SPT-results
• N-values has been correlated for 𝛾, 𝐷𝑟 , and, furthermore,
bearing capacity and stress strain modulus 𝐸𝑠 can be estimated,
the latter being useful in the estimation of settlement
(immediate) by Dr. Tensay 44
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Correlations for Non-cohesive Soils
• The Japanese Railway Standards recommend the correlations
 = 18𝑁′70 + 15; for roads and bridges
 = 0.36𝑁70 +27; for buildings
• Meyerhof (1957) made the following suggestions indirectly
𝑁
2 = 𝐴 + 𝐵 × 𝑃0
𝐷𝑟
• Skempton (1986) after analyzing five different normally
consolidated sandy soils and recognizing the above Meyrhof’s
correlation found using 𝑁′70
A=15 to 54 & B=0.306 to 0.204
• Using the average values of Skempton results in
𝑁
= 32 + 0.288𝑃′ 0
by Dr. Tensay ( 𝑃′0 in kpa) 45
𝐷𝑟2
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Example: For an average unit wt of 𝛾𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 16 𝑡𝑜 17 𝑘𝑁 𝑚3 and
𝑁′70
an average depth of shallow foundation of 6m, 𝐷𝑟 =
60
• Skempton (1986) made also suggestion for OC sandy deposits:
𝑁′70
2 = 𝐴 + 𝐵. 𝐶𝑂𝐶𝑅 . 𝑃′0
𝐷𝑟
𝜎𝑧,𝑛𝑐
Where; 𝐶𝑂𝐶𝑅 =
𝜎𝑧,𝑜𝑐
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 + 𝜎𝑧
𝜎𝑧,𝑛𝑐 = , 𝑛𝑐
3
𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 + 𝜎𝑧
𝜎𝑧,𝑜𝑐 = , 𝑜𝑐
3

by Dr. Tensay 46
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• Introducing the relations 𝜎𝑥 = 𝜎𝑦 = 𝐾0 𝜎𝑧
1+2𝐾𝑜,𝑛𝑐 1+2𝐾0,𝑜𝑐
⟹ 𝜎𝑧,𝑛𝑐 = 𝜎𝑧 ; 𝜎𝑧,𝑜𝑐 = 𝜎𝑧
3 3
• Thus the coefficient 𝐶𝑂𝐶𝑅 becomes
𝜎𝑧,𝑛𝑐 1 + 2𝐾𝑜,𝑛𝑐
𝐶𝑜𝑐𝑅 = =
𝜎𝑧,𝑜𝑐 1 + 2𝐾0,𝑜𝑐
• There are a number of relations suggested for the
determination of 𝐾𝑜,𝑛𝑐 and 𝐾𝑜,𝑜𝑐
• Simple relations may be sited here:
𝐾𝑜,𝑛𝑐 = 1 − sin  & 𝐾𝑜,𝑜𝑐 = 𝐾𝑜,𝑜𝑐 × 𝑂𝐶𝑅 sin 
• The relative density 𝐷𝑟 , so obtained can be used to estimate 
based on Mayerhof’s (1957) suggestion,
=28+0.15𝐷𝑟 (𝐷𝑟 𝑖𝑛 %)
by Dr. Tensay 47
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• This equation of Mayerhof can also be used in conjunction with
the suggestion by Yoshed et al (1988) for 𝐷𝑟
(−𝐶1 ) 𝐶2
𝐷𝑟 = 𝐶0 𝑃′0 𝑁60
• Where;
– 𝑃′0 =effective overburden pressure in kPa
– 𝐷𝑟 (%)
– 𝐶0 =18 to 27 (best fit for all soils; 𝐶0 =25)
– 𝐶1 = 0.12 to 0.14 (best fit; 𝐶1 = 0.12)
– 𝐶2 = 0.44 to 0.57(best fit,𝐶2 = 0.46)

• Inserting the values that best fit most soils one obtains
(−0.12) 0.46
𝐷𝑟 = 25𝑃′0 . 𝑁60

by Dr. Tensay 48
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Example: For a soil of 𝛾 = 20 𝑘𝑁 𝑚3 at a depth of 5m with
𝑁60 =16, 𝑃′0 = 𝛾. ℎ = 20 × 5 = 100𝑘𝑃𝑎.
• Thus:
𝐷𝑟 = 25 × 100(−0.12) . 160.46 = 51.5 ≈ 52%
• Using Mayerhof’s suggestion (1952)
 = 28 + 0.15𝐷𝑟 = 28 + 0.15 × 52 = 35.8 = 360
• Correlations for cohesive soils
• The commonly used correlation of N-values with unconfined
compressive strength of cohesive soils is of the simple form
𝑞𝑢 = 𝐾. 𝑁 ( 𝑞𝑢 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑃𝑎)
Where; - K tends to depend on site.
- However, the avrg values of K=12 is suggested and
commonly used.
by Dr. Tensay 49
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
• The following table gives N'70 against qu
𝑁′70 consistency 𝑞𝑢 (kPa) 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 (𝑘𝑁 𝑚𝟑 )
NC (young clay)  ≤2 Very soft 0 to 25 16 to 19
↓ 3 to 5 Soft 25 to 50
Aged clay 6 to 9 Med stiff 50 to 100 17 to 20

↓ 10 to 16 Stiff 100 to 200

↓ 17 to 30 Very stiff 200 to 400 19 to 22

Increasing OCR >30 hard 400

• Mayer and Kamper (1988), based on regression analysis of 110 data

𝑁 0.689
points, obtained 𝑂𝐶𝑅 = 0.193 by Dr. Tensay 𝑃′0 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑁 50
𝑃′ 0 𝑚2
1.3.3.2 Dynamic Sounding … cont’d
Design N-values
• The design N-values for shallow foundations is normally taken
as the weight average of the n-values of all the layers tested in
the zone bounded by the two horizontal planes at the values a
height of 𝐵 2 above the foundation base at 2B below the
foundation base.
• It makes a better sense to average the adjusted N-values; i.e
𝑁′70
• In the above recommendation, B is the width of the foundation
at hand.
• If n layer are present width in the indicated zone with an
average 𝑁𝑖 -values in each, the weight average is
𝑛 (𝑁′70 )𝑖 .ℎ𝑖
𝑁′70 = 𝑖=1 ℎ 𝑖
by Dr. Tensay 51
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes
1.4.1 Layout and Number of boreholes
• Whenever possible locations of boreholes should be close to
the location of the future foundation element.
• Trial pits for small foundations such as strip footings for
residential houses should not be located close to the position
of the foundation.
• It is recommended (Bowels, 1995) that any project should have
at least three boreholes where the surface is more or less level
and the stratification is sufficiently uniform.
• For sites of somewhat uneven stratification five borings are
recommended.
• For foundations with rectangular layout four of them may be
located at each corner and the remaining one at the center.
by Dr. Tensay 52
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes

Fig.**
1.4.2 Depth of Boreholes
• The depth of investigation is mainly governed by the depth of
the soil affected by the foundation-soil contact pressure.
• The influence depth is commonly considered as that depth up
to which the vertical stress is only 5 to 10% of the contact
pressure.

by Dr. Tensay 53
Fig. **
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes
• Tomilson (1996) gave the following guidelines
• a) isolated footing b) Raft //mat found

Fig.**
• c) Closely spaced footings d)Largely piled foundation

Fig.**
by Dr. Tensay 54
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes
• For important construction, it may be necessary to sink two or
three boreholes to deeper depth than the other.
• When foundations are taken down to ‘’bed rock’ it is important
to prove that there really is the bed rock at that level. In order
not misinterpret a possible big boulder for the bedrock, for
example, the boring must be continued to a depth of at least
3m below the surface of the rock.

by Dr. Tensay 55
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes
• EBCS-7 Recommendations

• Euro code 7 recommends that the exploration points

(including sounding) from a grid at a mutual spacing of 20
to 40 m. by Dr. Tensay 56
1.4 Layout, Number and Depth of Boreholes
Depth, D
• Buildings:
– For structures on footings: D=3B, but 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.5 𝑚
3
– For structures on mat: 𝐷 = 𝐵
2
– For structure on piles; 𝐷 ≥ 𝐷′ + 3 𝑚 (D’=pile length)
• Roads:
– 2 to 3m below subgrade level

by Dr. Tensay 57
1.5 The Site Investigation Report
• Generally the report should include any pertinent data from
historical records, site observations, trial tests, boreholes, lab
tests and field tests.

• Two classes of report: a report possessing factual data and

interpretative data.

– The former is what is normally reported by our local institutions

rendering geotechnical investigation service (case Ethiopia).

– The latter is prepared by the design engineer who ordered the

investigation .

by Dr. Tensay 58
• The report should be divided under at least the following
headings
• It should have at least an introduction with like:
– for whom the project is done
– the reason as to why the investigation is needed
– how the investigation is run
– time and year of the investigation
– terms of reference (TOR)
• General description of the site
– general configuration of the site/topography and important
surface features
– types and density of vegetation
– old building
– quarries, mine shafts, marshy grounds, ponds, water courses,
filled areas, roads and theirby Dr.
types…
Tensay etc 59
• Any useful information extracted from historical records on
previous use of site.
• Other peculiar features: flooding, erosion, subsidence,
seismicity, slope instability, important features on existing
buildings like cracks.
• General geology of the area: springs, location of quarries, like
faults, folds …etc if projects are big like dams.
• Description of soil conditions in Borings.
– various strata indicated
– ground water level,
– good practice to show/ draw soil profile along selected lines of
borings

by Dr. Tensay 60
by Dr. Tensay 61
Laboratory Test Results
• A brief mention of the different lab tests under taken
• An account of unusual results should be included.
• Non-standard tests, the test procedure must be described
• For detailed results, it is enough to make reference to pertinent
forms like tables, charts, graphs, curves…etc.
• Discussion of results (in relation to foundation design and
construction)
• Possible type(s) of foundation(s) is/are recommended based on
the investigation results.
– Depth of foundation
– Possible bearing capacity

by Dr. Tensay 62
Laboratory Test Results …
• Advantages of using deep foundation: Possible depth of
penetration of piles in the selected stratum: pile capacity,
settlement chrct
• Possible difficulties during excavation and boring and driving of
piles taking into account the effect of these activities on
neighboring existing structures should be indicated.
Recommendations should thus be made as to the method of
construction.
Conclusions
– A brief summary of findings is made
– EBCS-7 requires the preparation of such a report with more or less the
content indicated above.
•
by Dr. Tensay 63
by Dr. Tensay 64