Failue of Deep Foundation Due To Unexpected Subsurface Structure

© 2018 IJRAR November 2018, Volume 5, Issue 4 www.ijrar.
org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
FAILUE OF DEEP FOUNDATION DUE TO

UNEXPECTED SUBSURFACE STRUCTURE
BHASKAR VARDI PRASAD
Masters’s Student
Dept. Of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University – Kingsville, USA
Abstract: The principle objective of this paper is to reduce the incidents happens by failing deep foundation system due to the
presence of subsurface structures like drainage tunnels, natural voids or geological faults and old unused constructions. Failure of
the group piles may occur either by failure of the individual piles or as failure of the overall block of soil. Stress distribution
pattern changes in soil profile in presence of substructures. There is a brief and basic discussion in this paper about how does
stress pattern changes around subsurface structure using Kirsch equation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Foundation engineering solely depends upon knowledge of geology, soil mechanics & precedents. Whether a particular type of
foundation & its depth has proved to be successful over the years could be known through previous experience. In addition to this
geological and geotechnical investigations of the site are important factors to decide the type and the proper positioning of
foundations and to give as insight to the substratum through which the foundation is to be taken. These investigations could give a
detailed picture of the underlying subsoil and rock and can result in a considerable economy.
1.1 Pile foundations:

When the soil at are near the ground surface is not capable of supporting a structure, deep foundations are required to transfer the
loads to deeper strata. Deep foundations are therefore, used when surface soil is unsuitable for shallow foundations, and a firm
stratum is so deep that it cannot be reached economically by shallow foundations. The most common types of deep foundations
are piles, piers and caissons. The mechanism of transfer of the load to the soil is essentially the same in all types of deep
foundations. These are much more expensive than a shallow foundation.
1.2 Necessity of pile foundations:

 When the strata at or just below the ground surface is highly compressible and very weak to support the load transmitted
by the structure.
 When the plan of the structure is irregular relative to its outline and load distribution. It would cause non-uniform
settlement if a shallow foundation is constructed. A pile foundation is required to reduce differential settlement.
 Pile foundations are required for the transmission of structural loads through deep water to a firm stratum.
 Pile foundations are used to resist horizontal forces in addition to supporting the vertical loads in earth retaining
structures and tall structures that are subjected to horizontal forces due to wind and earthquake.
 Piles are required when the soil conditions are such that a washout, erosion or scour of soil may occur from underneath a
shallow foundation.
 Piles are used for the foundations of some structures, such as transmission towers, off-shore platforms, which are
subjected to uplift.
 In the case of expansive soils, such as black cotton soil, which swell or shrink as the water content changes, piles are
used to transfer the load below the active zone.
 Collapsible soils, such as loess, have a breakdown of structure accompanied by a sudden decrease in void ratio when
there is an increase in water content. Piles are used to transfer the load beyond the zone of possible moisture changes in
such soils.
1.3 Types of pile foundations used in bridges:

piles can be classified according to
 Materials used: Steel pile, concrete pile, timber pile, composite pile
 Mode of transfer of load: End bearing pile, friction pile, combined end bearing and friction pile
 Method of installation: driven piles, cast in situ piles
 Based on use: Load bearing piles, compaction piles, tension piles, sheet piles, anchor piles.
IJRAR1904799 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 750
© 2018 IJRAR November 2018, Volume 5, Issue 4 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
Above all these, composite driven piles or composite in situ piles commonly used for heavy bridges due to its unique
characteristics like load carrying capacity, corrosive resistance and long life when compares with other which are used both in
water and land. Wooden piles are used for small bridges like pedestrian bridges.
Fig. 1.1: Battered piles
Fig. 1.2: Pile driving procedure
1.4 Objective:
There are many causes of failure in deep foundations like scouring, design failures, poor compaction and many others. But
unexpected subsurface structures like tunnels, drainage systems etc., which are used for war strategies or drains or even for
drinking water supplies constructed centuries ago causes more disastrous failure. These are the biggest incidents happened due to
deep foundation failures. Even though the foundation engineers are designing well, the structures are collapsing due to
unexpected substructures. Till date, engineers are testing the soil and substratum by digging the bore wells. But this technique can
provide the details of soil and substratum profile like what kind of soil is there and its bearing capacities only inside the bore well.
We can’t expect what is there next to it. It is necessary to find the new techniques which can provide all soil profile details around
the construction site. The objective of this paper is the case study of what caused the deep foundation failure of bridge which is
constructed on unknown substructure. And also finding the solution to avoid these kinds of unexpected substructures.
The bridge taken in this case study is flyover collapse happened in a place called Punjagutta in Hyderabad city, India.
2. DESIGN OF PILES:
2.1 Load carrying capacity of piles:

There are four methods to find the load carrying capacity of pile. Those are
2.1.1 Static methods:
The ultimate capacity of single pile is given by
Qu = Qp + Qs (2.1)
where Qu is ultimate failure load, Qp is tip resistance of pile = qpAp and Qs is skin friction between shaft and soil = FsAs
Meyerhof’s equation:
Qu = q' Nq Ap+ n∑ i=1 K(σ'v)i tanδ(As)I (2.2)

where q' is effective vertical pressure at pile tip, N q is bearing capacity factor, σ'v is effective vertical pressure, tanδ is coefficient
of friction between soil and pile material and As is effective surface area of pile.
Fig. 2.1: Finding (Dc/B) using angle of shearing resistance 
Fig. 2.2: Finding Nq value using 
Table No. 2.1: Values of δ and k

Pile δ K K
material (Angle of friction) (Loose sand) (Dense sand)
o
Steel 20 0.5 1.0
Concrete 0.75  1.0 2.0
Timber 0.67  1.5 4.0
2.1.2 Dynamic formulas:

The dynamic formulae are based on the assumption that the kinetic energy delivered by the hammer during driving
operation is equal to the work done on the pile. Thus
WhȠh=R×S (2.3)
where W is weight of hammer (kN), h is height of ram drop (cm), Ƞ h is efficiency of pile hammer, R is pile resistance (kN) and S
is pile penetration per blow (cm)
The dynamic formulae are
 Engineering news record formula:
𝑊ℎȠℎ
𝑄𝑢 = (2.4)
𝑆+𝐶
where C is constant (for drop hammer, C = 2.54cm and for steam hammer, C = 0.254cm) and the efficiency Ƞ h of the drop
hammer is generally between 0.7 – 0.9 and for steam hammer is between 0.75 – 0.85.
 Modified formula:
This is modified form of Engineers new record formula. In this formula energy loss in the hammer system and that due
to impact are considered.
𝑊ℎȠℎ 𝑊 + 𝑒 2 𝑝
𝑄𝑢 = + (2.5)
𝑆+𝐶 𝑊+𝑝
where P is weight of the pile, e is coefficient of restitution

 Hailey formula:
𝑊ℎȠℎ Ƞ𝑏
𝑄𝑢 = (2.6)
𝑆 + (𝐶⁄2)
where Ƞb is efficiency of hammer blow, C is sum of elastic compression of pile, dolly, packings and ground.
 Danish formula:
𝑊ℎȠℎ
𝑄𝑢 = (2.7)
𝑆
𝑆 + ( 𝑜⁄2)
where S0 is elastic compression of pile = (2Ƞh (WhD)/AE)1/2, D is length of the pile, A is cross sectional area, E is modulus of
elasticity of pile material.
2.2 Group action in piled foundation:

Most of pile foundations consists not of a single pile, but of a group of piles, which act in the double role of reinforcing the soil,
and also of carrying the applied load down to deeper, stronger soil strata. Failure of the group may occur either by failure of the
individual piles or as failure of the overall block of soil. The supporting capacity of a group of vertically loaded piles can, in many
cases, be considerably less than the sum of the capacities the individual piles comprising the group. Grope action in piled
foundation could result in failure or excessive settlement, even though loading tests made on a single pile have indicated
satisfactory capacity. In all cases the elastic and consolidation settlements of the group are greater than those of single pile
carrying the same working load as that on each pile within the group. This is because the zone of soil or rock which is stressed by
the entire group extends to a much greater width and depth than the zone beneath the single pile.
Fig. 2.3: Comparison of stressed zone beneath single pile and pile group
2.2.1 Bearing capacity of pile groups:

Pile groups driven into sand may provide reinforcement to the soil. In some cases, the shaft capacity of the pile driven into sand
could increase by factor of 2 or more. But in the case of piles driven into sensitive clays, the effective stress increase in the
surrounding soil may be less for piles in a group than for individual piles. this will result in lower shaft capacities.
Figure 2.4 shows under axial or lateral load, in a group, instead of failure of individual piles in the group, block failure
(the group acting as a block) may arise.
Fig. 2.4: Block failure
In general, the bearing capacity of pile group may be calculated in consideration to block failure in a similar way to that
of single pile, by means of (equation 2.2) but hear (As) as the block surface area and (A b) as the base area of the block or by
rewriting the general equation we get:
Ƞg = [(Qg(u)/N) × 100] / Qu (2.8)
where Qg(u) is ultimate load of the group, N is number of piles in group and Qu is ultimate load of individual pile.
3. MECHANISM:
3.1 Hydrated lime:

Hydrated lime is a type of dry powder made from limestone. It is created by adding water to quicklime in order to turn oxides into
hydroxides. Combined with water and sand or cement, hydrated lime is most often used to make mortars and plasters. Its
chemical name is calcium hydroxide, or Ca(OH)2. At the olden ages until the introduction of Portland cement in 19 th century,
people used to construct almost every construction with the combination of normal lime (todays denomination is type N or NA),
rocks and bricks including buildings, forts, tunnels etc.,
CaO + H2O = Ca(OH)2 (3.1)
Lime slurry when dried given more strength than any other materials at olden ages. Some structures which are
constructed with hydrated lime still standing up to today. Best example is Charminar monument in Hyderabad city, India which is
constructed in 15th century.
There are several classes of hydrated lime. Type S and Type SA denote special high-purity limes and are most often used
in mortars. Types N and NA denote normal limes and are not cleared for use in building materials. Type SA and NA are aerated
limes, so their structure is more porous than their non-aerated counterparts.
Hydrated limes are classified by the amount of water they retain and their maximum air content. S types retain 85
percent water, N types 75 percent. NA and SA types are classified as having a maximum air content of 14 percent, and N and S
types have seven percent air content.
Lime mortar is not as strong in compression as Portland cement based mortar, but both are sufficiently strong for
construction of non-high-rise domestic properties. Under cracking conditions, Portland cement breaks, whereas lime often
produces numerous micro cracks if the amount of movement is small. These micro cracks recrystallize through the action of 'free
lime' effectively self-healing the affected area.
To improve the strength of the lime, ancestors used to mix alumina with the lime slurry. Alumina develops bonding
properties to the lime slurry. Calcium aluminates are a range of minerals obtained by heating calcium oxide and aluminum oxide
together at high temperatures.
2Al + 2Ca(OH)2 + 6H2O => 2CaAl(OH)5 + 3H2O (3.2)
In general, aluminum has a property to attract the water molecules. When it attracts water molecules, it expands and
when it dries, it contracts. Due to expansion and contraction, aluminates create micro cracks in lime mortar mixture. When the
lime mortar becomes older, micro cracks become more and it fails.
Fig. 3.1: Cracks in wall constructed with lime mortar

3.2 Boussinesq’s equation to find vertical stresses under pile loads:
Fig. 3.2 shows a load Q acting at a point 0 on the surface of a semi-infinite solid. A semi-infinite solid is the one bounded on one
side by a horizontal surface, here the surface of the earth, and infinite in all the other directions. The problem of determining
stresses at any point P at a depth z as a result of a surface point load was solved on the following assumptions.
 The soil mass is elastic, isotropic, homogeneous and semi-infinite.
 The soil is weightless.
 The load is a point load acting on the surface.
 Must obey the Hook’s law.
The soil is said to be isotropic if there are identical elastic properties throughout the mass and in every direction through
any point of it. The soil is said to be homogeneous if there are identical elastic properties at every point of the mass in identical
directions. The expression obtained by Boussinesq for computing vertical stress (σ z), at point P (Fig. 3.2) due to a point load Q is
shown in below equation.
3Q 1 Q
σz = 2
× r 2 5/2
= 2 Ib (3.3)
2πz [1 + ( ⁄z) ] z
where r is the horizontal distance between an arbitrary point P below the surface and the vertical axis through the point load Q, z
is the vertical depth of the point P from the surface and I b is Boussinesq’s stress coefficient
3 1
Ib = × r (3.4)
2π [1 + ( ⁄z)2 ]5/2
The values of the Boussinesq coefficient Ib can be determined for a number of values of r/z. The variation I b of with r/z
in a graphical form is given in Fig. 3.3.
Fig. 3.2: Vertical pressure within an earth mass
Stress distribution in soils due to surface loads that I b has a maximum value of 0.48 at r/z = 0, i.e., indicating thereby that
the stress is a maximum below the point load.
3.3 Stresses on the top of tunnel due to flyover is finding using Boussinesq’s uniform rectangular load acting outside the
loaded area:
Fig. 3.3 shows the point P acting outside the loaded area ABCD. In this case, a large rectangle AEPF is drawn with its one cotner
at P.
Rectangle ABCD = Rectangle AEPF – Rectangle BEPH – Rectangle DGPF + Rectangle CGPH
Fig. 3.3: Uniform rectangle load acting at point P
The last rectangle CGPH is given plus sign because this area has been deducted twice, once in rectangle BEPH and once
in rectangle DGPF.
Therefore, the stresses at P due to a load on rectangle ABCD is given by
σz = qp × [(IN)1 - (IN)2 - (IN)3 + (IN)4] (3.5)
where (IN)1, (IN)2, (IN)3, (IN)4 are the influence coefficients for rectangles AEPF, BEPH, DGPF and CGPH respectively taken from
Table 3.1 and qp is point load coming from pile.
Geotechnical engineers prefer to use Boussinesq’s solution as this conservative result.
Table 3.1 Influence coefficients IN for rectangular area
m n
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0
0.2 0.0179 0.0328 0.0435 0.0504 0.0547 0.0610 0.0619 0.0620 0.0620
0.4 0.0328 0.0602 0.0801 0.0931 0.1013 0.1134 0.1150 0.1154 0.1154
0.6 0.0435 0.0801 0.1069 0.1247 0.1361 0.1533 0.1555 0.1561 0.1562
0.8 0.0504 0.0931 0.1247 0.1461 0.1598 0.1812 0.1841 0.1849 0.1850
1.0 0.0547 0.1013 0.1361 0.1598 0.1752 0.1999 0.2034 0.2044 0.2046
2.0 0.0610 0.1134 0.1533 0.1812 0.1999 0.2325 0.2378 0.2395 0.2399
3.0 0.0618 0.1150 0.1555 0.1841 0.2034 0.2378 0.2439 0.2461 0.2465
5.0 0.0620 0.1154 0.1561 0.1849 0.2044 0.2395 0.2461 0.2486 0.2491
10.0 0.0620 0.1154 0.1562 0.1850 0.2046 0.2399 0.2465 0.2491 0.2498
3.4 Stresses acting on circular excavations:

The Kirsch equations are a set of closed form solutions, derived from the theory of elasticity, used to calculate stresses around
circular excavations. Kirsch's solution contains the well-known factor-of-three stress concentration at the hole under uniaxial
loading. But the stress concentration can in fact vary from two to four for more complex loading conditions, i.e., stress states
different from uniaxial tension. Kirsch's solution for stresses at a hole are for the case of uniaxial loading in an infinite plate.
Uniaxial loading is represented by the remote stress, σ∞. The hole has radius a, the radial coordinate is r (which is meaningless
when r<a), and θ=0 aligns with the remote loading direction, P = σ ∞, k = (σh / σv). We will see that the famous factor-of-three
stress concentration occurs at θ =±90°. The solution for the stress state around the hole is
σ∞ σ∞
σrr = [1 − (a⁄r)2 ] + [1 − 4(a⁄r)2 + 3(a⁄r)4 ]cos2θ (3.6)
2 2
σ∞ σ∞
σθθ = [1 + (a⁄r)2 ] − [1 + 3(a⁄r)4 ]cos2θ (3.7)
2 2
σ∞
𝜏𝑟𝜃 = − [1 + 2(a⁄r)2 − 3(a⁄r)4 ]sin2θ (3.8)
2
Fig. 3.4: Kirsch equation diagram
3.5 Assumptions of Kirsch equation:
 Hole must be at infinite depths, i.e., hole diameter is almost negligible when compares with surrounding medium.
 Surrounding medium must be homogeneous, continuous, isotropic, linear elastic behavior.
 Hole must be empty, i.e., stresses induced by the internal materials must be zero.
 Shear stresses must be zero at traction free boundary.
3.6 Stresses at the tunnel’s edge in 2-D loading conditions:

Linear superposition can be used to obtain analytical solutions for the stress field under general 2-D loading conditions. In this
case, σ∞ is replaced by σxx, then σyy, and finally positive and the negative principal stresses equal to the shear stress, τxy
θ=0° initially corresponds to σxx. Then θ+90° is substituted for θ when σ∞ =σyy. And θ±45° is used with the principal stresses
for τxy.
σθθ|r=a=(σxx+σyy)-2(σxx-σyy) cos2θ-4τxysin2θ (3.9)
Generally the Influence of tunnel is (radial coordinates r/ radius of tunnel a) = 5, after that stress path will be same as shown in
Figure.
Fig. 3.5: Influence of tunnel
3.7 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion represents the linear envelope that is obtained from a plot of the shear strength of a material
versus the applied normal stress.
Fig. 3.6: Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
σ1 − σ3
sin′ = (3.11)
σ1 + σ3
where σ1is major principal stress, σ3 is minor principal stress, ' is angle of internal friction (taken from soil tests), σd is deviatoric
stress = σ1-σ3.
Failure stresses on plane:
σ1 + σ3 σ1 − σ3
σ′nf = − × sin′ (3.12)
2 2
σ1 − σ3
τcs = × cos′ (3.13)
2
When the stresses on the edges of tunnel exceed the above values, the failure is imminent.
4. PANJAGUTTA FLYOVER COLLAPSE:
On September 9, 2007, a newly built flyover at the busy crossing of Punjagutta, area in city of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
collapsed a day before it was to be opened for public caused 20 dead and several injured. The cause of this disaster is due to
unexpected substructure (tunnel). The flyover is almost constructed on hard soil and stiff clay.
Fig. 4.1: Location of flyover
Fig. 4.2: Flyover after incident
Fig. 4.3: Flyover after reconstruction
4.1 Project details:

4.1.1 The Site:
The site for the Proposed structure is located at Punjagutta which is about 15 km from Hyderabad.
4.1.2 Structure:
As per the client’s information, the construction is heavy traffic flyover.
4.1.3 Weather conditions:
The weather was cloudy and rainy during field investigations, which were carried out all over the season in the month of
September 2007.
4.1.4 Seismic zone:
The proposed project site is situated near Hyderabad, which falls under seismic zone II as per IS 1893 (Part I) - 2002.
4.1.5 Type of foundation:
Deep drilled prestressed concrete pile.
4.2 Boreholes
The Boreholes were drilled at the specified locations shown by the client. The termination depths
of the boreholes are given in the Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Depth of boreholes

Termination depth from existing
Borehole No.
GL (m)
1 10.0
2 10.0
The following operations were undertaken in the boreholes.

 Conducting standard penetration tests.
 Collecting undisturbed samples.
Standard penetration tests were conducted as per IS 2131 - 1981.
 Liquid and plastic limits
 Natural density and water content tests
 Triaxial shear tests
An analysis of the data provided in soil profile tables indicates stratification with the presence of the following strata in
the subsoil:
a) Stratum I: Filling (boulders, sandy silty clay); unit weight = 21kN/m2
b) Stratum II: Sandy silty clay; unit weight = 18.5kN/m2
c) Stratum III: Silty sand; unit weight = 19.5kN/m2
Table 4.2: Depth of each soil stratum

(Depth in m)
Location
Stratum I Stratum II Stratum III
BH 1 0-3.0 3.0-6.5 6.5-10.0
BH 2 0.3.5 6.5-6.0 6.0-10.0
4.3 Shear test results

The angle of shearing resistance evaluated by conducting triaxial shear test on sandy silty clay soil sample varies between 25 to
27 degrees and the cohesion values vary from 0.41 to 0.765 kg/cm2. The angle of shearing resistance evaluated by conducting
direct shear test on silty sandy soil sample varies between 31 to 32 degrees and the cohesion values vary from 0.05 to 0.10
kg/cm2.
5. CASE STUDY
5.1 Failure of substructure due to sudden external loads:

This failure happened due to unexpected tunnel present at 12m to 15 m which was constructed during Nizams period (15 th century
to 19th century). The purpose of this tunnel is assumed to be drainage system which is used during above mentioned period and
was constructed with limestones and lime mortar. Engineers have no idea about the tunnel presence at the site of construction.
Geological tests were performed up to 10m and the result was fit for the construction of pile foundation as shown in Fig. 5.1.
It was a heavy rainy season. Engineers finished the construction on just beside the tunnel and started the vehicle load
tests. Due to heavy rains from two and half months, water seeped from the top of the ground and soil became wet. Aluminates
present in lime slurry has a tendency to attract the moisture and expands. It creates the micro cracks in the wall constructed with
lime mortar. Due to the pile stress on the already weakened tunnel, all of the sudden pile group plunged into the earth filled the
void space and pile tilted due to void created by tunnel collapse. The results are shown in following pictures.
Fig. 5.1: Soil profile as engineers assumed
Fig. 5.2: Unexpected drainage tunnel presence constructed by Nizams
Fig. 5.3: Tunnel collapsed and pile group plunged into the earth and tilted
Before the construction of flyover, the overburden on the tunnel is only due to soil on the top of it shown as follows
σv = [3.5m × 17.8 + 3.5m × 18.5 + 6m × 19.5] + [9.81 × 13m]
= 244Kn/m2 + 127.5Kn/m2 = 371kN/m2
σh = (0.7 × 244) + 127.5 = 298.3kN/m2
5.2 Stresses at the tunnel’s edge in 2-D loading conditions:
To find the stresses acting on the tunnel before constructing the flyover, using kirsch’s equation
σθθ|r=a=(σxx+σyy)-2(σxx-σyy) cos2θ-4τxysin2θ (from eq.3.9)
where σxx is Vertical overburden loads due to soil profile, σyy is Horizontal Vertical overburden loads due to soil profile, W is
width of tunnel influence = 2r.
On the Crown of the Tunnel:
σ'90 = (244+171) – (2 × (171-244) cos 180) – 0
= 269kN/m2
On the side near to pile group:
σ'0 = (244+171) – (2 x (171-244) cos 0) – 0
= 461kN/m2
Fig.: 5.4: Stress path when tunnel presence
Up to construction of flyover, tunnel experienced and withstand 269 kN/m2 on top and 461 kN/m2 on side. but after the
construction, the stresses on the tunnel changed.
5.3 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
To find the stresses on failure plane, Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is used.
σ1 − σ3
sin′ = (3.11)
σ1 + σ3
where σ1is major principal stress, σ3 is minor principal stress = 269kN/m2, ' is angle of internal friction = 31° (taken from soil
tests).
σ1 + σ3 σ1 − σ3
σ′nf = − × sin′ (3.12)
2 2
σ1 − σ3
τcs = × cos′ (3.13)
2
Since the tunnel is in silty sand, cohesion index C = 0

Therefore, failure stresses on top of tunnel is
Sin31° = (σ1-269/ σ1+269)
0.515σ1 + 173.18 = σ1 – 269
σ1 = 442.18/0.485
= 911.7kN/m2
σ'nf = [(912 + 269)/2] – [(912 - 269)/2] × sin31
= 424.91 kN/m2
τcs = [(912 - 269)/2] × cos31
=275kN/m2
Failure stresses on side of tunnel is
Sin31° = (σ1-461/ σ1+461)
0.515σ1 + 237 = σ1 – 461
σ1 = 698/0.485
= 1439.175kN/m2
σ'nf = [(1439 + 461)/2] – [(1439 - 461)/2] × sin31
= 698.14 kN/m2
τcs = [(1439 - 461)/2] × cos31
=251.85 kN/m2
When the stresses on the edges of tunnel exceed the above values, the failure is imminent.
5.4 End bearing capacity of pile without tunnel:

By considering Meyerhof’s equation
Qu = q' Nq Ap+ n∑ i=1 K(σ'v)i tanδ(As)I (2.2)
In these k (for dense sands) = 2, internal friction angle  = 31°, δ = 0.75 = 22.5, diameter of pile d = 0.75m, length of pile l =
10m and Dc = 7 × 0.75 = 5.25m
Maximum value of σ'v = 5.25 × 25 = 131.25kN/m2
Nq from Berezontzev’s graph (from Fig. 2.2) = 28 for  = 31o.
Qu = 131.25 × 28 [(π/4) x 0.75]2 + 1.5 × 0.325 × [0.5 × 131.25 × 5.25 + 131.25 × 4.75] π × 0.75
= 1275 + 1211.85
= 2486kN (for each pile)
For pile group i.e., for 4 piles = 2486 × 4 =9944kN
Stresses by neglecting friction and only considering end bearing capacity
Qp = 1275 × 4 =5100kN
Fig. 5.5: Dimensions of pile group

5.5 Finding stresses acting on the tunnel due to the flyover system using Boussinesq equation:
Using Boussinesq’s uniform rectangular load equation acting not in the center of rectangle and influence factors m & n from table
3.2
Fig. 5.6: Stresses on point P and Q which are outside the uniform rectangular load
(a) Stresses acting on the crown:

A1 = A2 => m = (3.35 + 1.475)/ 3 = 1.60; n = (1.3/3) = 0.5
A3 = A4 => m = (1.475)/ 3 = 0.5; n = (1.3/3) = 0.5
For above values, and taking influence values from Table 3.1 (IN)1 = (IN)2 = 0.107, (IN)3 = (IN)4 =0.07015
from Fig.5.6(a),
Rectangle ABED = rectangle ACPG + rectangle GPFD – rectangle BCPH - rectangle HPFE
σz = qp × [(IN)1 + (IN)2 - (IN)3 - (IN)4]
σz = 5100 × [0.107+0.107-0.07015-0.07015]
= 376kN/m2
(b) Stresses acting on the nearest side to pile group:

A5 = A6 => m = (3.35 + 0.475)/ 4 = 1; n = (1.3/4) = 0.3
A7 = A8 => m = (0.475)/ 4 = 0.1; n = (1.3/4) = 0.3
For above values, and taking influence values from Table 3.1 (IN)5 = (IN)6 = 0.078, (IN)7 = (IN)8 =0.02535
from Fig..5.6(b),
Rectangle MNTU = rectangle MORQ + rectangle TRQV – rectangle NOSQ - rectangle SQUV
σz = qp × [(IN)5 + (IN)6 - (IN)7 - (IN)8]
σz = 5100 × [0.078+0.078-0.02535-0.02535]
= 537kN/m2
When compare with failure stresses on tunnel i.e., 424.91 kN/m2 on crown and 698.14 kN/m2 on nearest side of pile
group, stresses due to pile load on the tunnel is adding 220.09 kN/m2 (269 kN/m2 + 376 kN/m2 – 424.91 kN/m2) and 309.86 kN/m2
(461 kN/m2 + 537 kN/m2 – 698.14 kN/m2) more stresses on crown and side of tunnel respectively.
6. DISCUSSION
Due to stresses of pile group on tunnel is keeping more sudden stresses than the failure stresses on more than 300 years old lime
mortar substructure tunnel, it suddenly failed. The structure on the top of tunnel has nothing to do. Superstructure simply plunged
into the earth. Even after this failure, one more residential building collapsed due to same reason and one more tunnel found while
excavating for the residential building foundation in the same city Hyderabad on April 13,2015.
Fig. 6.1: Tunnel found during excavating for foundation
We can avoid this kind of failures using other techniques instead of testing of soil using collecting samples in bore holes.
Geotechnical engineers generally test the soil profile by making a bore holes and collecting the samples from it. It gives results
only from samples collected from bore holes. Nobody knows what is there next to it. Engineering studies, along with supporting
field tests, have shown that the electromagnetic wave gradiometer can locate and map underground passages in real time. The
burial depth and orientation of an underground passage can be estimated from single traverses over a tunnel. Field tests have
demonstrated that the high signal-to-noise ratio in the measured gradient data eliminates the need for extensive post-processing to
identify simple target structures like a single tunnel.
Fig. 6.2: Graph showing the tunnel depth using EM gradiometer
The EM gradiometer method' is based upon the long wavelength scattering limit of mathematical physics. In a very ET
simplified form, the method is illustrated in Figure 6.3. The primary EM wave from a remote EM source may be resolved into
vertical (Ez) and horizontal (Ex) components at the earth's surface overlying the underground target. The horizontally Downward
Traveling Upward Traveling Polarized Ex and Hy fields are responsible for WEW the primary wave traveling vertically
downward into the earth. Wait's recursive formula described how EM wave energy travels vertically into the layered earth [4].
When the downward traveling EM wave interacts with a subsurface scattered, a secondary wave forms and travels back to the
surface. At the surface, the wave sums with the primary wave to form the total field, with horizontal components, E, and HK, the
observables on the surface. If the tunnel or underground facility contains an electrical conductor, then the analysis by Harrington
of the scattering problem for the limiting case of a thin electrical conductor illuminated by a uniform EM wave applies to the
problem. Even in the case where no apparent conductor, such as wiring, is present, detection is still possible using the EM
gradiometer.
Fig. 6.3: Travelling electric field components illustrate the tilt in the
vertical electric field component
Fig. 6.4: Ground penetrating radar in use near static water
Table 6.1: Effective frequencies for different depths and mediums

Penetration depth in Penetration depth
Antenna Example of smallest visible object
dense wet clay in clean dry clay
100 MHz 20 ft (6m) 60 ft (18m) 2 ft diameter Tunnel at 60 ft depth
250 MHz 13 ft (4m) 40 ft (12m) 3 ft diameter tunnel at 40 ft depth
500 MHz 6 ft (1.8m) 14.5 ft (4.4m) 4 in diameter tunnel at 13 ft depth
1000 MHz 3 ft (90cm) 6 ft (1.8m) 3/16 in diameter hose at 3 ft depth
7. CONCLUSION
The increased stress loads on the unexpected substructure tunnel due to the construction of flyover which is constructed
on the top of tunnel caused the failure of week walled tunnel. Due to the tunnel failure, pile group plunged into the earth caused
the failure of a pier and two slabs resting on top of pier.
Even though engineers designed the structure well, failure still caused. To avoid this kind of accidents, engineers must
use the electromagnetic gradiometers with addition of testing the soil profile by digging the bore holes and conducting all kind of
field and laboratory tests. When using the low frequency electromagnetic gradiometers, engineers gets the rough idea about tunnel
presence, so that they can take the precautionary steps like filling the empty space with grout material.
Engineers must adopt the electromagnetic gradiometers at least in old historic cities like Hyderabad where we can expect
more unknown substructures which is disappeared due to soil deformations on top of it, and when constructing heavy structures
like flyovers, bridges, skyscrapers etc., to avoid civil engineering disasters.
8. ACKNOWLODGEMENT:
Firstly, I am thankful to my project committee chair; Dr. Jong Won Choi and advisor Dr. Dazhi Sun without whose help I could
not have completed this herculean task.
I am thankful to my Department Chair, Dr. Joseph O. Sai for the opportunity to gain knowledge and the suggestions
regarding the project.
I would like to thank all our professors for their guidance and suggestions whenever needed in making the project a
success and also my parents for their support.
9. REFERENCES
 Arora, K.R., “soil structure interaction analysis of the strip and circular footings on soil”. Ph. D Thesis, IITD, 1980.
 Barkan D.D., “Dynamics of Bases and Foundations”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1962.
 Bishop, A.W. and Henkel, D.J., “The measurement of soil properties in the Triaxial test”, Edward Arnold, 1962.
 Bowels, J.E., “Foundation analysis and design”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1968.
 Chellis, R.D., “Pile foundation”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1961.
 Daniels DJ (ed.) (2004). Ground Penetrating Radar (2nd ed.). Knoval (Institution of Engineering and Technology).
pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-0-86341-360-5.
 Greenwood, N. N.; & Earnshaw, A. (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd Edn.), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
ISBN 0-7506-3365-4.
 Hansen, J.B., “General formula for bearing capacity”, Danish Geotechnical institute bulletin, 11, 1961
 IRC: 6, “Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges”, Loads and Stresses, IRC 1966.
 Kambhampati consultancies, “Soil tests in Panjagutta incident site”, 2007
 K.D. Mahrer and D.F. List, “Radio frequency Electromagnetic Tunnel Detection and Delineation at the Otay mesa site”.
Geophysics, Vol.60, No.2, April 1995.
 Kirsch, 1898, Die Theory der Elastizität und die Bedürfnisse der Festigkeitslehre. Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher
Ingenieure, 42, 797–807.
 Meyerhof, G.G., “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion less soils”, Jnl. Soil mech. Found. Division, ASCE,
SM1, 1965.
 Reddy, A.S. and R.J. Srinivasan, “Bearing capacity of footings on Layered soils”, jnl. Of SM & FE, ASCE, Vol. 98, No.
SM 2, 1967.
 R.E. Kelly., Underground Structure Detection by surface Magnetic Gradient Measurement. Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 26 April 1999.

Failue of Deep Foundation Due To Unexpected Subsurface Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failue of Deep Foundation Due To Unexpected Subsurface Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© 2018 IJRAR November 2018, Volume 5, Issue 4 www.ijrar.

org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

FAILUE OF DEEP FOUNDATION DUE TO

1.1 Pile foundations:

1.2 Necessity of pile foundations:

1.3 Types of pile foundations used in bridges:

Fig. 1.1: Battered piles

Fig. 1.2: Pile driving procedure

2.1 Load carrying capacity of piles:

Qu = q' Nq Ap+ n∑ i=1 K(σ'v)i tanδ(As)I (2.2)

Fig. 2.1: Finding (Dc/B) using angle of shearing resistance 

Fig. 2.2: Finding Nq value using 

Table No. 2.1: Values of δ and k

2.1.2 Dynamic formulas:

 Engineering news record formula:

where P is weight of the pile, e is coefficient of restitution

2.2 Group action in piled foundation:

2.2.1 Bearing capacity of pile groups:

Fig. 2.4: Block failure

3.1 Hydrated lime:

Fig. 3.1: Cracks in wall constructed with lime mortar

Fig. 3.2: Vertical pressure within an earth mass

Fig. 3.3: Uniform rectangle load acting at point P

σz = qp × [(IN)1 - (IN)2 - (IN)3 + (IN)4] (3.5)

Table 3.1 Influence coefficients IN for rectangular area

3.4 Stresses acting on circular excavations:

Fig. 3.4: Kirsch equation diagram

3.5 Assumptions of Kirsch equation:

3.6 Stresses at the tunnel’s edge in 2-D loading conditions:

σθθ|r=a=(σxx+σyy)-2(σxx-σyy) cos2θ-4τxysin2θ (3.9)

Fig. 3.5: Influence of tunnel

3.7 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:

Fig. 3.6: Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.

Failure stresses on plane:

4. PANJAGUTTA FLYOVER COLLAPSE:

Fig. 4.1: Location of flyover

Fig. 4.2: Flyover after incident

Fig. 4.3: Flyover after reconstruction

4.1 Project details:

Table 4.1: Depth of boreholes

The following operations were undertaken in the boreholes.

Table 4.2: Depth of each soil stratum

4.3 Shear test results

5.1 Failure of substructure due to sudden external loads:

Fig. 5.1: Soil profile as engineers assumed

Fig. 5.2: Unexpected drainage tunnel presence constructed by Nizams

5.2 Stresses at the tunnel’s edge in 2-D loading conditions:

Fig.: 5.4: Stress path when tunnel presence

Failure stresses on plane:

Since the tunnel is in silty sand, cohesion index C = 0

0.515σ1 + 237 = σ1 – 461

Failure stresses on plane:

σ'nf = [(1439 + 461)/2] – [(1439 - 461)/2] × sin31

τcs = [(1439 - 461)/2] × cos31

5.4 End bearing capacity of pile without tunnel:

Fig. 5.5: Dimensions of pile group

(a) Stresses acting on the crown:

A3 = A4 => m = (1.475)/ 3 = 0.5; n = (1.3/3) = 0.5

Therefore, the stresses at P due to a load on rectangle ABCD is given by

σz = qp × [(IN)1 + (IN)2 - (IN)3 - (IN)4]

(b) Stresses acting on the nearest side to pile group:

A7 = A8 => m = (0.475)/ 4 = 0.1; n = (1.3/4) = 0.3

Therefore, the stresses at P due to a load on rectangle ABCD is given by