p ~· \"'

. 3 \'
'~
\'
/ J
• 'f
I

'·
1
' . ·-~ .. .

i ·~....
l'
·j I -· -··
i
1 '
. .I J
l .·25.
Case Studies
I

,I
iiq
r
25.1 Case study No. 1 (Clayey Strata Predominant) . .
'Ii

l
rr l
PROBLEM : One industrial building has to come up at a place in central India, whe~ r11
cl ayoy soil ia reported to b~ prc~ominan t:The building structure may be a 3 storeye~ structure ~IIi,;
·t which may have to house h~VY, machines on each floor. The client has desired to construct raft

I foundation with size as 12,m x 1:p m and minimum depth as 1.5 m from general ground level.
It is required to conduct suitable geotec;hnical investigations and recommend the allowable 11

l bearing capacity offoupdatio~ soil: · , .I

l'-
Solution: As ped.S. : 6403-1981, the allowable be.aring capacity shall be taken as either
i of the following, whichever is less : · · ; !1

I (i) Net ultimate bearing capacity divided by suitable factor of safety, that is net safe
bearing 'capacity. ·: .: · . ' ·· ··
(ii) The net soil pressure that can beimposed on the base without the settlement exceeding
·
'~!

the .permissible"val~~s· as given in IS: 1'904-1978 (Appendix -II of this book) to be

determined for each strµcture and type of soil that is safe bearing pressure.
(I) Following ~sts are 'generally conducted for geotechnical investigations.
(a) Boring of 150 mm, diameter wi~h collection of disturbed and undis~bed soil samples.
(b) Conducting Standard Penetration ~st& in ·' · ·
1
er-__ ,, ,· ·• ! ·
(c ) Dynamic cone Penetration test judiciously covering the entire site area (Chapter-14).
(d) Plate load test at fou ridation level (Chapter~16).
(e) Vane shear test (Chapter-17).
(/) Grain size analysis (Chapter-4).
(g) Atterberg limits (Chapter-5). .
(h) Specific gra~ty and moisture.content (Chapters 2 and 3).
(i) Triaxial she~r test at UU condition (Chapter-11).

'l (J) Consolidation test (Chapter-8).

The aboue case study is based on a Soil testing Project undertaken by MI ; Ground Engineers, Po,t, Box 1
,
No. 125, Roorkee-247667, Phone: 01332-70753/74565
 160 SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS

(In Specific tests. After visiting the site and conducting the reconnaissance survey there,
following in-situ tests were considered to be co_nducted.
(i) Boring with SPT (at 2 locations) upto influence zone i.e. a depth of 13 metres (1.5 m
depth of foundation plus 7.6 x 1.5, total =12.76 m, ·say 13 m or arrival of refusal
whicheveris earlier).
(ii) Dynamic cone tests (at 4 locations).

i:
f1
· After collection ofsoil samples, all the above said laboratory tests were co~ductcd.

II
Ii · Analysis •
Given data-

I i!
]I
(a) Type of foundation -Raft
(b) Size of foundation • 12 m x 7.5 m
(c) Depth of foundation- 1.5 m (minimum)
1. Influence zone below foundation level
I!t =7.5 X 1.5 =11.25 m
(,i
2. Ground water table = 5.5 m below ground level
, 3. Strata below foundation level is as below (Fig. 25.1) i
3.6m . CL ,;
l.5m ML-CL
4.0m SM /
/
f
\· 2.25m CL
~I:
4. As per Triaxial shear test (UU condition)
!F ' .. 2 0
J:,1
t~·1 5. Specific gravity= 2:65, Natural Moisture Content =8'. 75%
1

Dry Density= 1.6 glee, YsuJA = 1.74 glee

ti 6. As per consolidation test
i c. = 0.11
7. As per Appendix-II, the permissible settlement for raft foundations on cohesive strata
i (plastic clay) = 100 mm
il 8. Bearing Capacity computations-
pi
f! e = G . y., -1
I'
fl Yd .... (25.1)
2
illlf': = -~~6~ l - 1 = 0.656 .

.'
i Thus, initial void ratio= 0.656,
1:(
t'
{i The ultimate net bearing capacity on the basis of shear criteria is computed by using the
/! following equation
{: (a) In case of genciral shear failure,
1
qd = c . N, . S, . d, . i, + q (N9 - 1) . S 9 • d 9 • i 9 + - B . y . NT . ST. d., . iT . w' ... (25.2)
. 2 I

11 : I

,!
ii
I( _,.,

~m,iw...~!Kii
--------:------------·
I
·
I CASE STUDIES

l (b) In case oflocal shear failure,

181

I qd = j c . N', S, . d, . i, + q (N'q - 1) Sq . dq . iq + ½.B . y . N', , S,. d, . 4. w'

.... (25.3)
where, N, , Nq , N, or N', , N q , N, are non-dimensional bearing capacity factors and are com-
puted as per Table 25.1 and also Table 25.2. Values of S,, Sq, S, are taken from Table 25.3. B
is width of foundation, q is effective surcharge at the base level of foundation, w', is the water
table correction.

DESCRIPTION OF '
STRATA STANDARD PENETRATION SHEAR
I I RESISTANCE
I
1 CURVE PARAMETERS
GROUND LEVEL N/30 cm 'c'
Xl 2_0 30 40 50 (~/cm 0 «;

SILTY CLAYS OF
1-70IUDS
LOW PLASTICITY
(Cl)
2 0·30 e
0·35 9
4
0·30 9
CLAYEY SILTS
(ML·CL)
6 8
GWT
-'- I
---:.-INFLUENCE
I 0•30 7.5

·1Hn 7•56·7f12.18 12 I \
ZONE 1·5x 7·5
zll-25 m

r1
SIi.TY SANOS I I 16
(~M) 8 I
I 18
I
111, 21 17

---r I
I11 9.7 47
10
I
16
291
(CL)
uos <\;0•75
12

(SM) 13

LEGEND
N - SPT BLOWS OBSERVED PER 30 Cm
NcORSPT BLOWS CORRECTED
qu - UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
GWT-GROUNO WATER TABLE
UOS·UNDISTURBEO SOIL SAMPLE

Fig. 25.1. Bora Log Details of Bore Hola-1 I

1·
I
I

' ,1~ J
162
SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS CASl
Table 25.1. Bearing Capacity Factors

Bearing Capacity Factors

ob (0~1{rllll14) N, N, N,
0 5.14 1.00 0.00
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.40 5.39
25 20.72 10.66 10.88
i
30 ' 30.14 18.40 22.40
35 46.12 33.30 I
48.03
75.31 .. 64.20 I
109.41
40
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
319.07 762.89
Wh,
50
;
' 266.89

1
NOTE- For obtaining values of N',, N', and N'1, calculate ii>'= tan· (0.67 tan q,). Read N, , N,, and N1,
from the Table corresponding to the value of q,' instead of i > which. are values of N', , N' ,, and N'y
respectively. ·

Table 25.2. Method or Analysis Based on Relative Density

Bl.No. Relative Density (Den• Void Ratio Conditio11 Method ofAnalysis

sitv Index)
(i) Greater than 70 percent Less than 0.55 Dense General Shear
·-
(ii) Less than 20 percent Greater than 0.75 Loose Lueal shear (as well as punching shear)
(Ch
(iii) 20 to 70 percent 0.55 to 0.75 Medium Interpolate between (i) and (ii)

gen
r. oil
Table 25.3. Shape Fuctors
loc:

SL.No. Shaoe of Base Shape Factor

s, Sa S,

[
(i) Continuous strip 1.00 1.00 1.00
(ii) Rectangle 1 + 0.2BIL 1 + 0.2 BIL 1- 0.4 BIL

(iii) Square 1.3 1.2 0.8

(iv) Circle 1.3 1.2 0.6

Note: The net ultimate bearing capacity on fairly saturated homogenous cohesive soils (ii>= 0) shall
be calculated by following relationship
(qd,_,..,, = cN, . S, . d, . i,

/4
 --~-------------.-.........._________ i
~....,;.,..,,, .. _._,,_,. ,

lS CASE STUDIES
183

Use diameter as Bin the bearing capacity formula for circular footings.
The depth factors shall be calculated as under :
d, = l + 0.2 (D/B) ../Ni ... (25.4)
dq =dy = 1 for cp < 10° ... (26.5)
dq = dy = 1 + 0.1 (DIB) ../Ni
for cp > 10° ... (25.6)
NOTE--The correction is to be applied only when back filling is done with proper compaction.
Here,
Dr= Depth of foundation below ground level
B = width of foundation
N. = tan 2 (45 + cp/2)
The inclination factor shall be as under:

Where,
i, = i9 = ( 1 - 9~ J
a = Inclination of load to the vertical (degrees)
... (25.7)

T
,,Y•
y
Effect of water table
~=(1-!J •.. (25.8)

(a) If the water table is likely to permanently remain at or below a depth of (Dr+ B)
beneath the ground level surrounding the footing then w' = l.
(b) If the water table is· located at a depth Dr or likely to rise to the base of the footing or
i above then the value of w' shall be taken as 0.5.

l!
l

I (c) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth Dr< D., <(Dr+ B), then
the value of w' be obtained by linear interpolation. .

(~). ' ' '' ' ' ' . :v--

For other locations of ground water tEtble, values of w' may be read from inset of Fig. 13.6 • .,
0

.. As per Table 25,2, for e0 < 0.55, the method of bearing capacity analysis shall be based on
general shear and for eo > 0. 75, the method of analysis shall be adopted as per local shear. For _·
e0 in between 0.55-0. 75 (ElS in our case it is 0.656

t~, .~
ocarsnear values is II'ade as det~iled below in Table 25.4. t-1,c f
For cp = 8°, cp' = tan-• (0.67 tan 8°) = 5.37 (say 6.4j O·~ (7,-<," 4)

Table25.4 eJ·D'Jlt ( -)
I Bearing Values of bearing capacity factors Interpolated
i1· Capacity
Factors
(Refer Table 25.1) values
I 41=8° cb' -5.4°
N, 7.61 7 61 - 6·64
6.64
6.64 + - 0.2 X 0 •094 = 7.09
.II Nq 2.11 2 11 - 1·64 XO 094 = 1 86
1.64
1. 64 + - 0.2 . .
Ny 0.91 9 5
0.51
0.51 + 0. l-0.
0.2 l XO
·094 = Q.70.
·- - ------·-···--·
l1
.
184 .

From Table 25.3, for rectangular footing,

SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS
~j
s. =s, =1 + 0.2:rB
VI
=1 + 0.2 X ~: =1.125
,,·1
s, = 1 - o.4L B
I

=1 "'." 0.4 X ~-: =0.75 = i

0.
The depth factors shall be determined as below {Eqn. 25.4) 0:
- 1

d c = 1 + O.2 X _ tan (45 + 5.4)

2 0.
7 5 2 - I
1..
= 1.037 '
.!.i
d, =d., =1 (Since , < io; 2.
2;
The multiplying constant for the first segment 'of equation 25.2 may also be linearly
calculated for e0 = 0.656 as i
:·. ' 3:
- 2 1 - % X 0.094
=3+ 0.2
=0.82 - 1
4
WatE:r table correction (w') 4
7
.' 4_ = 5.5 - 1.5 = 0 53 5]
B 7.5 .
From inset of Fig. 13.6, for d/B = 0.53,
w' =0.78
Assuming i. = i, = i, = 1 and putting all these values in equation 25.2, the net ultimate
bearing capacity shall be worked out as below :
(qd)l,ful-ull) = (0.82 X 3) X 7.09 X 1.125 X 1.037 X 1 + 1.6 X 1.5 X (1.86 - 1) X

1
1.125 X 1 X 1 + 2 X 7.5 X 1.74 X 0.70 X 0.75 X 1 X 1 X 0.78

=25.34 t/m2
Applying a factor or'safety as 2.5, the safe bearing capacity works out to 25.34/2.5 = 10.14 t/m2 •
9. Settlement Computations Criteria
A load placed on a soil mass causes stress changes within the soil below. The stress
distribution (a,1due to a concentrated load (Q) on.the soil surface can be computed using-
(i) Boussinesq equation, i.e.
Q 3
O',=zl•~
2n[ 1 +(~) · .. (25.7)
(ii) . New mark chart (Based on Boussinesq analysis) as per Fig. 25.2 (see foot note below), or SC
(iii) JnfJueoce factors (after Tsytovich-197.6).,..ghteo io Table 25 5 I tl=l

• • st - ztJtMRlltftrTtF~TT!
. 1
,. '
\
\
\
l
•.

______ --------------------••••••••••1111!1•?~~.~[·:1~"":~rr~~.i:.~'.::.;;,~:;j•·:~;: . .- .
RS CASE STUDIES
115
Table25.5
VALUES OF INFLUENCE FACTOR 10 FOR UNIFORMLY LOADED RECTANGULAR, STRIP
AND CIRCULAR FOOTINGS (TSYTOVICH 1976)

m
Rectangular footing with n =LIB Strip Cir•
foot- cular
ing foot-
=2zlb 1
n >10 ifl,f(
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 4 5 (I.) (lo)
0.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 l.000 1.000
0.4 0.960 1.000
0.968 0.972 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.049
0.8 0.800 0.830 0.848 0.859 0.866 0.870 0.875 0.878 0.879 0.880 0.881 0.881
1.2 0.606 0.756
0.652 0.682 0.703 0.717 0.727 0.740 0.746 0.740 0.753 0.754 0.756 0.647
i
1.6 0.449 0.496 0.532 0.558 0.578 0.593
I
0.612 0.623 0.630 0.639 0,639 0.642 0.390
I
2.0 0.336 0.379 0.414 0.441 0.463 0.481 0.505 0.520 0.529 0.540 0.545 0.550
2.4 0.257 0.285
y ' 0.294 '0.325 0.352 0.374 0.392 0.419 0.437 0.449 0.462 0.470 0.477 0.214
!
2.8 0.201 0.232 0.260 0.284 0.304 0.321 0.350 0.369 0.383 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.165
3.2 0.160 0.187 0.210 0.232 0.251 0.267
i 0.294 0.314 0.329 0.348 0.360 0.374 0.130 ·
3.6 0.130 0.153 0.173 0.192 0.209 0.224
! 0.250 0.270 0.285 0.305 0.320 0.337 0.106
4.0 0.108 0.127 0.145 0.161 0.176 0.190 0.214 0.233 0.248 0.270 0.285 0.306 0.087
4.4 0.091 0.107 0.122 0.137 0.150 0.163 0.185 !
0.203 0.218 0.239 0.256 0.280 0.073
4.8 0.077 0.092 0.105 0.118 0.130 0.141 0.161
I
0.178
I 0.192 I
0.213 0.230 0.258 0.062 !
6.2 0.066 0.079 0.091 0.102 0.112 0.123 0.141 0.157 0.170 0.191 0.208 0.239 0.053 i
5.6 0.058 0.069 0.079 0.089 0.099 I
0.108 0.124 0.139 0.152 0.172
6.0 0.051 0.060 0.070 0.078
0.189 0.233 0.046 !
0.087 0.095 0.110 0.124 0.136 0.155 0.172 0.208 0.040
\ 6.4 0.045 0.068 0.062 0.070 0.077 0.086 0.098 0.111 0.122 0.141 0.168 0.196 0.086
i
.e 6.8 0.040 0.048 0.056 0.062 ().069 0.076 0.088 0.100 0.110 0.128 0.144 0.184 0.032

>(
7.2
7.6
8.0
0.036
0.032
0.029
0.042
0.038
0.035
0.049
0.044
0.040
0.056
0.050
0.046
0.062
0.056
0.051
0.068
0.062
0.080
0.072
0.090
0.082
0.100
0.091
0.117
0.017
0.133
0.123
0.175
0.166
0.028
0.024 II!
-- -·
0.056 0.066 0.075 0.084 0.098 0.113 0.168 0.022
' 8.4 0 n?ll nn:t? nn~7 n n.t? . n n,A~ n I\P• n AAA ft

·--- "-·-~
AAA
- .
V•---
A

v---- v , V.,.J.
8.8 0.024 0.029 0.034 0.038 0.042 0.047 0.055 0.063 0.070 0.084 0.098 0.1.U 0.019
9.2 0.022 0.026 0.031 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.051 0.058 0.065 0.078 0.091 0.137
tlm 2 • ' 0.018
9.6 0.020 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.040 0.054 0.060 0.072 . 0.085 0.182
0.047 0.016
10 0.019 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.033 0.037 0.044 0.060 0.056 0.067 0.079 0.126 0.016
1
.s i
11 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.027 0.029 0.033 0.040 0.044 0.050 0.060 0.071 0.114 0.011 11
12 0.015 0.018 0.020 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.034 0.088 0.044 0.051 0.060 0.104 0.009
,,ii
I
':
l !
!
! : :

! (Note: For intermediate values ofm and n, the influence factors are found by interpolation) : i
r l
For study of Newmark charts, following steps are adopted : : I
') • I
Step 1- Draw a plan (Length >< width) of the loaded foundation on a tr~cing paper to such a
,), or scale that the depth z (at which stress intensity is required to be determined) corresponds to·
the length AB given on the side of the Newmark chart.
- :I
I,
I -~ !I,
 166
SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS

INFLUENCE VALUE=O ·OOS

Fig. 25.2. Network chart.
1,
~tep 2- Place the traced drawing of foundation plan on the Newmark chart irt such a way
j
,r
that the origin of the chart (o) coincides with the point beneath which stress intensity is required.
Step 3- Count the number of influence areas (each space between two adjacent concentric
areas and radial lines is called one area) covered by the drawing on the chart. Estimate the
parts or fraction of areas with sufficient accuracy.
The stress distribution as obtained by above three methods show almost identical results.
In our computations Table 25.1 has been used.
For stress distribution calculations, the cohesive strata (CL and ML-CL) of 5 m leni§th was
firstly divided into strips of 1 m, 2 m and 2 m lengths and the stress intensity in excess of the
s
Sb I ... -···· __ lliW Q n:_. -
.
p 1l
..•-.--it·
CASE STUDIES

187
'/
existing overburden pressure due to imposition of safe bearing capacity load (10.14 t/m 2) on the
foundation was computed aJ the centre of each strip {Fig. 25.3).
J.
(i) Excess stress intensity computations (6. p) at {C.L) oflst strip i.e. at 0.5 m depth below
foundation level I
2 x 0.5 12 L
m= =0.133, n =B =7 _5 =1.6, I:,__= 0.991,Ref. Table 25.5 ,._
¥1 = 10.14 X .991 = 10.05 t/m 2

(ii) 6. p at centre of Ilnd strip i.e. at 2 m depth below foundation level

2X 2
Im =U =0.533, n =LIB= 7_
12
M:: «'Z:..

=1.6, I =0.936] -.
-B
5
7~
0

¥2 = 10.14 X 0.936 = 9.49 t/m 2 Yl~

(iii) 6. p at the centre of IIIrd strip i.e. at 4 m depth
2x4
Im= 7J;" = 1.067, n = 1.6, l = 0.755] 0

b.p3 = 10.14 X 0. 755 = 7.66 t/m 2

(iu) 6. pat the top of cohesion less SM layer i.e. at 5 m depth below foundation
2x5 .i:
=?J;" = 1.333, n = 1.6, I =0.655] i

:d I
(m 0

tJ.p, = 10.14 X 0.655 = 6.64 t/m 2 i- i'

1

LOADING INTENSITY
l 1i
: 11
i·
t
10 12 14 t/m 2 ~
: ,. I
hb<< I - \\ .ale • t t I \ W F.L. : '/i
Iii STIIJP F/ •:f ,
.,
I I;,'

J
(CL)
'>·'>m

(ML-CL)
III
. I'
Ill
j' 1·11 1' /_
s II•
i H

INFLLJ€NCE ZONE
(SM) J.',x7•',a1J-l',m

,'1~.;
4m

CCLJ It ·
l •i
(CL) l
VI
£
k
r- ·
Fig. 25.3. Stress Distribution Curve (BH-1)
. iq1·
Ii I
 168

(u) 6p at the bottom ofcohesionless SM layer i.e. at 9 m depth below foundation

2X9
[ m = 7 _5 =2.4_, n = 712_5 = 1.6 , I 0 = 0.352]
SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS

,
'
1!
'!
!
C

(
'1 1
2 '!
f¥>& = 10.14 X 0.352 = 3.57 t/m l
II
(ui) 6p at the centre ofVth cohesive soil strip i .e. at 9.5 m below foundation
Ii: '/:
2 X 9.5
i
[m = = 2.533, n = 712_5 = 1.6 , I.= 0.329 ] I
i
f¥>1 = 10.14 X 0.329 = 3.34 t/m2 ,j
l\
(uii) 6. p at the centre ofVIth Cohesive soil strip i.e. at 10.625 m depth below foundation
2 X 10.625
[m = _
75
=2.833 , n = 1.6, l =0.280] 0

6p7 = 10.14 X 0.280 = 2.84 t/m 2 _I

;i~
Settlement Computations
(A) Settlement in cohesive layers of the influence zone have been computed using the
following relationship :

iI . S = ...s__ H log 10
1 + e0 po
.
_ -z... V
... (25.8) \
j _ 0.11 l 1000 l (1.5 + 0.5) x 1.6 + 10.05
(i)
I S1- 1 + 0.656 x x og10 ! 3.2 ·
=66.425 x 0.617 =41.0 mm '1- V'
(ii) - 0.11 2 1000 l (1.5 + 2) X 1.6 + 9.49
S2 - 1 + 0.656 X X 0g10 5.6
= 132.850 x 0.431 = 57.3 mm
(iii)
S3 -
_ 132 •850 X l oglO (1.5 + 2 + 1)_x 1.6 + 7.66
88
=132.850 x 0.272 =36.l mm
(iu) Settlement in 4 m thick cohesion less SM soil
The observed Nsn- values have been corrected detailed, vide chapter - 13
A vg. ofN co1t bl owe -_12+16+18+17+29_92_134-18
- - . -
5 5
Ncoa values (29) is more than 1.5 times of avg. NcoR i.e. 29 > (18 x 1.5).
Hence ignoring Ncoa 29, the correct Avg. of NcoR works out to
12 + 16 : 18 + 17 = 15. 75 "' 15 (say) Y .
\'~{ For Avg. Ncoa = 15 & B = 7.5 m the settlement (Fig. 13.6) for 10 t/m 2 loading intensity works
out to 23 mm. The ground water table bemg above this SM zone, the settlement under
submergence ~ondition is ;_! = 46 mm.

Had there been Cohesion less (SM) soil through out the influence zone (11.25 m) below
'/'"'::. foundation, the safe besiring pressure for 46 mm settlement would hav~ been 10 t/m 2 •

·f
iu
I
!1-
:t
~,
;r
!fA
.-, r
~f

if:I
:i
I
 i

I
I
- .,_
CASE STUDIES
. .."'!~'"·•------ •--..,:; . _ ........l. .I f

169
But., since the SM soil slnrts nt !i rn depth below founclntion, the Rettlcmont (.~') in 6,2fi m
I
(11.,o .. r, m " o.05 m) leo,,u, ,r '"''"''"" le~ soll I
Thus, If'"'
./~V I, <omp,tod by llneu, '"""8''""""•")
_ I
.s
s, = 46 X 6.25 X 6.74If.= l7.2 !Tlm
11.25 X 10
Settlements" in 2.25 m (6.25 - 4 = 2.25 m) thick SM soil (assumed)

85
_ 46 X 2.25 X 3.57 .y
- 11.25 x 10
_
- 3 ·3 mm
ll ,<1.1""

<, .,,z r
Ia

6 ·H1
4b
J
Hence settlement (s 4) in 4 m thick cohesion less (SM) soil
s, = s' - s" = 17.2 - 3.3 = 13.9 mm
Computations of settlement in remaining 2. 25 m cohesive (CL) soil

85 _ 0.11 x 1 1000 l .@.6 x 1.6 + 5.5 x 1.0) + 3.34

- 1 + 0.656 X oglO 14.3
=66.425 x .0~l =6.0 mm
Settlement in remaining 1.25 m thick cohesive (CL) soil

56
_ o.u x 1.25 x 1000 I
- 1 + 0.656 ogio >< 1.6 + 6.625 X 1.0) + 2.84
15.425
= 83.031 x 0.073 = 6.0 mm
Total settlement

S = S1 + S2 + S3 + s,· + S5 + Sa
= 41.0 + 57.3 + 36.1 + 13.9 + 6 + 6
= 160.3 mm

Applying rigidity (0.8) and Depth Factor (For~&= ~ \ 5 _ = 0.158, it is 0.96, Refer Fig.
13.7). The correct settlement works out to 12 7 5
~ 3 x 0.8 x 0.96 = 123.1 = 123 mm I
I
10 1For 100 mm permissible settlement, The allowable bearing capacity in computed as r
· : 2; lOO = 8.24 = 8.2 Um 2
j:
',
Hence the allowable bearing capacity at this site works out to 8.2 Um 2 for which the
tii
settlement
accordingly.will be of the order of 100 mm. Therefore the foundation should be designed lj •·
'
11
Since the strata is mostly clayey predominant, it is suggested to carry out Differential free f,
swell test also on the soil samples collected from site, Wherever required, chemical tests on soil
should also be conducted . · ll
 'I .

94 SOIL TESTING FOR_ENGINEERS

Thus after applying depth factor correction, the ·corrected settlement works out to ,..
42.6 x 0.89 =37.9 = 38 mm (say) · ,t:

Depth Foctor (Sf) ; r.' ' '7 ~- f,.

I
0~ 0-6 07 0& 09 i1 0 ,..
I

l/8•'00 .
0 ·l

0
"'
-
-
f"
D
L
B xl
l
I .
2c;

JV/ V
'-....
IY 1/J
IJ, '7 r-,.9
w
.. '.)
I
D \

I Ill f tt . "
.,.
Ii 1/' ,,
0 -6
b
0-&
,Ill -1 ("

.. I
I~
O·S . /.'!
0-6
1, !Ji rf
9, ""I //

o-, /', 77

0·2
1//f
/, '17' ,zc; .. ...
.
I
·; , t

0
I~ " 100
· "
..·<(,, ...i"
1 J ~, t ·

Fig. 13.7. Depth factor correction curves for settleme,:i.ts:'.(?ff,IEtXible rectangular footings at depth 'D'.

,. i ) Effect of rigidity of foundation- For rigid fo~ndations, e.g. a heavy beam, a slab
raft or a massive pier, the total settlement at the centre should be reduc;ed by rigidity factor as
below: '
Total settlement ofri "d foundation _08
: ·
Total"se lement at the centre of flexible
., · I
foundation
i 1 ,.. ,: ' , •
-
:
·1
• . ; . . ·. · • . .
In our cas_e the rigidity factor is not applicable. Hence the final settlemen,t works out to 38
mm (computed above yide para (ii)). For 50.mm pel'.Jllif!sibl~ settleuieni (Appe~dix-11) of the
o~t ~
1
2
fo~d~tion, the sd"e bearing pressure by lin~~ interpc;,l~tioriw~rk.s 5oi38,;.1.315 kg/cm
i.e. 13.15 t/m2 • · · ·

l'{ote : No factor of safety iB applied to the •afe bearin6 presaure calculated from
settlement
. .. , criteria as detailed abo~e.
' '
. , .. . . . ' .,•.;·: , : . .
 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

93

"'E
I.:>
:x:
~100
::,
I:: 60
a.
_ L 0

• ·g ) 0 N•lO
i-- 1
I
1·
<ii 20 N•IS
a.
...
QI

a: 10
E
- .,,
.E N: Ln

5
C L
)
C
a,
E 2
-
a,

\/'I
I
0 2 ) L 5 6 7
Width CB) Of Footing rn Metre
G,L,c 6ROUNO LEVEL W,T, WATER TABLE

Fig. 13.6. Settlement per unit pressure from standard penetration resistance.
(i) Effect of depth of ground water table.
(ii) Effect of depth of foundation.
(iii) Effect of rigidity of foundation. .
(i) ·E ffect of depth of ground water table.:Presence of ground wate~ table within a depth
equal to the width {B) of foundations, below foundation level increases the settlement. In our
case (assumed earlier) the ~ater table correction, w' (inset of Fig. 13.6) works out to 0.68 (for
,/d/B = ½ = 0.33). The settlement after applying' water table correction is thus computed as
.29/0.68=42.6 mm.
"~ - '\ii) Effect 'of depth of foundation- The above settlement is also subjected to correction
calculi t;,ed in the form of depth factor (S1) read from figure 13. 7. In our case the depth factor (for
-b = \ix 3 =0.33_' .and I1B. =12/3 =4) works out. to 0.89. I
J
. 'VL,LJ