BNBC LECTURE 12FEB 2022 Geotech 01 FINAL

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF
FOUNDATIONS:
PROVISIONS IN BNBC 2020
Date: 12 February 2022
Session 29: Geotech 1
Professor Md. Zoynul Abedin, Ph.D.

Military Institute of Science & Technology (MIST)
Dhaka, Bangladesh
S-8A SEng PRP

Training Program
Geotechnical Design of Foundations:
Provisions in BNBC 2020
PART : 6 (in Volume 2 of BNBC)

Structural Design
Structural and Geotechnical Designs
Chapter 3 : Soils and Foundations
2
02/12/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT
Organization of this Chapter (with Appendices)
The Soils and Foundations Chapter of the Code is divided

into 3 major Divisions (A, B & C) consisting of 22
Sections. In addition, there are 5 Appendices (D, E, F, G
& H) related to this Chapter.
A. Definitions, Site Investigations, Soil Classifications,
Materials and Foundation Types
B. Service Load Design Method of Foundations
C. Additional Considerations in Planning, Design and
Construction of Building Foundations
3
Organization of this Chapter (with Appendices)
Appendix D: Methods of Soil Exploration, Sampling and

Groundwater Measurements
Appendix E: Recommended Criteria for Identification and
Classification of Expansive Soil
Appendix F: Construction of Pile Foundation
Appendix G: Other Methods of Estimating Ultimate Axial
Capacity of Piles and Drilled Shafts, and
Design Charts for Settlement
Appendix H: References of Chapter 3 Part 6 (Soils and
Foundations)
4
Scope of the Chapter
The provisions of this Chapter shall be

applicable to the design and construction of
foundations of buildings and structures for
the safe support of dead and superimposed
loads without exceeding the allowable
bearing stresses, permissible settlements
and design capability.
5
Scope of the Chapter
Because of uncertainties and randomness involved in

sub-soil characteristics, Geotechnical Engineering
requires a high degree of engineering judgment. As
such the Code provisions of this Chapter are kept
elaborative for better understanding of the readers.
PROVISIONS THAT ARE STATED IN IMPERATIVE FORM
USING “SHALL” ARE MANDATORY. Other provisions of
this Chapter should be followed using sound
Geotechnical Engineering judgment.
6
Lecture Proceedings
❑ Geotech 01 (12 Feb 2022): Some basics of soil

mechanics (a subset Geotechnical Engineering)
❑ Geotech 02 (13 Feb 2022): Some complexities in
Geotechnical Engineering
❑ Geotech 03 (19 Feb 2022): Selected Code
Provisions for Division A & B: Site Investigations,
Pile Foundation. The lecture proceedings will
follow the Section Titles sequence of BNBC 2020
in order to be familiar with the Code Provisions or
Items that are included in BNBC 2020.
7
Some Basics of Soil Mechanics
Definition of Soil
Soil is considered to include all naturally

occurring loose or soft deposit overlying soil
bedrock.
It is formed by disintegration and
decomposition of rocks (weathering). It can
also be formed by decomposition of organic
matter.
8
Definition of Soil
The definitions soil by other professionals along with

that by Geotechnical Engineers are illustrated below.
Soil Top soil
Regolith or Mantle Soil

or soil Saprolite
Rock
Bed rock Bed rock
(a) Geologist (b) Agriculturist (c) Geotechnical

Engineer
9
Weathering of Rocks & Formation of Inorganic Soil
Weathering
Physical/Mechanical Biological
Chemical
Periodical Solution Plant Animal

temperature changes Carbonation
Hydration Dehydration
Wedging action of ice
Oxidation Reduction
Splitting action of
plant roots
Hydrolysis Leaching action
Abrasion action of
10 wind water
The types and intensity of

weathering processes,
particularly physical and
chemical, depend on the
climatic conditions of the
area mainly on
precipitation and
temperature.
11
Earth Mass: Consists of 3 Major Layers

Crust Mantle Core
Rock: Three (3) Types of Rock Formed of Several Minerals

Igneous: Sedimentary: Metamorphic
95% of Earth Crust Volume 80% of Surface Area
Minerals
More than 4000 Minerals Rock Forming Minerals = 8
Elements
Basic Elements = 118 98% of Earth Crust is Made of 8
Elements
12
13
Common Rock Forming Minerals
Mineral Group Species Structural Class Composition

Quartz Quartz Tektosilicate SiO2
Orthoclase (K, Na)AlSi3O8
Feldspar Tektosilicate
Plagioclase NaAlSi3O8 - CaAlSi2O8
Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3O10) - (OH)2
Mica Phyllosilicate
Biotite K2(MgFe)6(SiAl)8O20(OH)4
Amphibole Hornblende Inosilicate (NaCa)2(MgFeAl)5(SiAl)8O22 (OH)2
Pyroxene Augite Inosilicate Ca(MgFeAl)(AlSi)2O6
Olivine Olivine Neosilicate (MgFe)2SiO4
Kaolinite Al4Si4O10(OH)8
Clays Illite Phyllosilicate KAl2(AlSi3)O10(OH)2
Montmorillonite Al2Si4O10(OH)2nH2O
Calcite CaCo3
Carbonates --
Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2
14
Elements of Earth and Rock Forming Minerals
S-8A SEng PRP Training

Program
15
Clay Minerals
(a) Silica Tetrahedron

(b) Silica Sheet
(c) Alumina octahedron
(d) Octahedral (gibbsite) sheet
(e) Elemental silica-gibbsite sheet
16
Clay Minerals
The basic structural units clay minerals can be

summarized as follows.
1 Silica ion + 4 Oxygen ion = Tetrahedron unit
Tetrahedron unit + Tetrahedron unit = Silica sheet
1 (Al or Mg) ion + 6 Hydroxyl ion = Octahedron unit
Al octahedron unit + Al octahedron unit = Gibbsite sheet
Mg octahedron unit + Mg octahedron unit = Brucite sheet
These sheets will combine in different layers and
arrangements to form a clay particle. As such, clay
minerals are usually known as layered minerals.
17
Scanning Electron Micrograph of Clay Minerals
Kaolinite Illite Montmorillonite

18
Classification of Soil
Depending on origin or depositional mode, soil can

be broadly classified in to two groups:
❑ Inorganic Soil  Both coarse and fine grained
particles  physical weathering forms coarse
grained soil and chemical weathering forms fine
grained soil.
❑ Organic Soil  usually fine grained and remains
mixed with inorganic fine grained soil having
various proportions.
19
Classification based on
Origin/ Deposition
Classification based on Grain

Soil Type/ Size
Classification
Schemes Classification based on
Cohesive Properties
(Cohesion Parameter)
Classification based on Use:

Engineering Classification
20
OC:  5%
(Behaviour like inorganic soil
Organic
Soil OC: 6 – 20%
Deposit Organic silt or Organic clay
OC: 21 – 74%
Soil Deposit Silty or Clayey Organic soil
OC:  75%; Peat soil;
-- High natural moisture content
(up to 1500%).
Inorganic or -- High compressibility .
Mineral Soil -- Low strength in natural
Deposit conditions.
21
Inorganic Soil Deposit

Residual Transported
(Stays on Parent Rock)
Water Glacier Wind Gravity

Laterite (Aeolian) (Colluvial)
(Coarse Grained)
Alluvial Drift
Loess (Silty) Talus
(Running Water)
Lateritic
Till
(Fine Grained)
Lacustrine Dune (Sandy)
(Still Water) Moraine
Black Cotton Tuff/ Tufa
(Expansive) Marine Boulder
(Volcanic Ash)
(Saline Water)
Clay
Erratics
Marl
(Mudstone) Eskers
22 Drumlin
Various
Gravel size Classification
Agencies
Sand size ASTM
Soil AASHTO
Silt size USCS
MIT/ BSI
Clay size
BNBC 2020
23
24
Soil Mass Classification Based on Cohesion

Cohesionless Soil: Gravel, sand, non-plastic silt
particles. (Normally Consolidated Soil)
Cohesionless means the soil has no shear strength if
no frictional properties.
Cohesive Soil: Clay and plastic silt particles. Cohesive

soil contains clay minerals and posses plasticity.
𝐜 − 𝛗 Soil: Any or both types of cohesionless and

cohesive soil particles. (Over-consolidated Soil)
25
Engineering Classification of Soil
Two most common widely accepted classification

systems that being adopted by BNBC 2020 are:
• Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
• AASHTO Soil Classification System
Both the classification systems use the results of some
basic tests of soil materials. These tests are known as the
classification tests. The numerical results of these tests are
often termed as index properties of soil. Two most common
classification tests are:
• Grain Size Analysis
• Consistency Tests for Fine Grained Soil
26
Engineering Classification of Soil [Classification Tests]
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Analysis (A set of Sedimentation Analysis (If

sieves is used usually more than 10% Passing # 200
ranging from # 4 to #200 Sieve. Tests done on sample
sieves) passing # 200 sieve
Pipette Analysis
Hydrometer (Not common in
Analysis (151H engineering)
and 152H)
27
← Sieve analysis.
#
28
#
Sieve analysis
29
#
← Hydrometer analysis
30
The results of grain size analysis (sieve and hydrometer

analyses) are generally presented by semi logarithmic plots
known as GRAIN or PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES.
1. Effective Size
D10
2. Uniformity Coefficient
3. Coefficient of
Gradation/ Curvature
31
Consistency Test: Depending on water content, a soil could

have 4 states or conditions & 3 limiting values or limits: Limit
tests are done on soil sample passing # 40 sieve (0.425 mm).
Liquid Plastic State: Can Semi-Solid Solid

State: be remolded to any State: Can be State:
Flows on shape without remolded to any Can not
its own development of shape only with be
weight cracks development of remolded
cracks (breaks)
Liquid Plastic Shrinkage

Limit Limit Limit
32
Liquid limit by Cassagrande’s apparatus

33
← Liquid limit by cone penetration

apparatus
34
← Plastic limit test
 Final length 
Linear Shrinkage, LS (%) =  1 −   100
 Initial length 
 L − Ld 
=  m   100
 Lm 
← Linear shrinkage test
35
Shrinkage limit of a soil is the saturated water at its minimum volume

during the process of drying.
← Shrinkage
limit test
36
Soil Classification Based on Use
[Engineering Classification]
Plasticity Index: The range of water contents over which

the soil remains plastic is the plasticity index. It is the
numerical difference between liquid and plastic limits.
I P = wL − wP
Liquidity Index: The current state of a soil, in terms of
Atterberg limits, is defined by the Liquidity Index.
wn − wP w − wP
IL = = n
wL − wP IP
Consistency Index: The current state of a soil, in terms

of Atterberg limits, may also be defined as the
Consistency index. w − wn wL − wn
IC = L =
wL − wP IP
Flow Index: The slope of the flow curve is termed as flow
index, IF. w1 − w2 w − w2
IF = = 1
log n2 − log n1 log
n2
37 n1
Soil Particle Shape
Soil mineral, particle shape and soil structure are perhaps the most
important parameters that determine the consistency limits of soil.
Bulky (All the three dimensions LWH are prominent)
Bulky particles are mostly formed by mechanical
weathering. The shapes of the particles are
angular, subangular, subrounded and rounded.
Flaky (Two dimensions LW are prominent)

Flaky particles have very low sphericity, usually
0.01 or less. These particles are predominantly
clay minerals.
Needle Shape (Only one dimension L is prominent)
Needle shaped particles are much less common.
Coral deposits and attapulgate clays are the
38 examples.
Soil Structure and Fabric
• Single grain structure → for

cohesionless soil (Loose, Dense,
Medium Dense)
• Honeycomb structure → For silty soil
• Flocculated structure
• Dispersed structure → For Cohesive soil
• Packet or Ped
39
Soil Structure and Fabric
(c) Dispersed
(a) Single grained
(d) Flocculated
(b) Honeycomb (e) Packet or Ped
40
USCS: Classification of Coarse Grained Soil
In USCS, soils are usually given two-letter designation. The
first letter indicates the main soil type, and the second
modifies the first.
Symbol Description Symbol Description
G Gravel W Well graded
S Sand P Poorly graded
Ist Letter M Silt 2nd Letter M Silty
C Clay C Clayey
O Organic H High plasticity
Pt Peat L Low plasticity
41
42
43
USCS [Classification of Fine Grained Soil: Plasticity Chart]
44
AASHTO Soil Classification System
The AASHTO classification system divides inorganic soil

into two classes granular material and silt-material and
seven main groups, A-1 to A-7, based generally on the
desirability of the soil as a subgrade for highway
construction. The lower the value of “A” designation,
the better is the soil quality.
That is A-1 is the best and A-8 is the worst. There are
also subgroup in several of the main groups Similar to
Unified classification, it also uses grain size distribution
and plasticity values as the criteria to classify the soils.
45
In this system organic soils are placed in group A-8, and
similar to USCS, it uses characteristic black colour, bad
odour, liquid limits of air dry and oven dry soils, and loss
on ignition as the criteria of presence of organic
matters.
Classification of the soils is examined using a chart that
is used in chronological order from top to bottom using
classification test results, and from left to right for the
soil class by elimination process. Once any of a criteria
does not satisfy in a class, the soil is to be examined for
the next class immediately.
46
For further quantification an index called group
index is used in parenthesis whose value usually
varies between 0 to 20. [e.g. A-1-a(0).
Group Index,
GI = (F − 35) 0.2 + 0.005(wL − 40 ) + 0.01(F − 15)(I P − 10 )
Where,
F = percent passing No. 200 sieve (i.e. finer
than 0.075 m)
wL = liquid limit (%)
IP= plasticity index (%)
47
48
49
Identification of Problematic Soil
In addition to the traditional soil conditions under

which ground improvement is often implemented
(e.g., loose coarse grained soils, soft fine-grained
soils, or loose, non-engineered fills), there are a
number of special natural geologic conditions
that produce problematic soil deposits and may
require treatment and their proper identification
is so important.
50
Types of Problematic Soils
1. Highly compressible organic soils
2. Liquefiable soils
3. Collapsible soils
4. Expansive soils
5. Highly sensitive “quick” clays
6. Dispersive soils/ Erodible soil
7. Corrosive soils
8. High-sulfate soils
9. Unusual or special soil conditions (e.g. Sanitary
landfill)
51
Each of problematic soil deposits may require special
field or laboratory procedures to identify their
occurrence and severity at a site and may also require
special considerations to mitigate potential problems.
Both indirect and direct methods have been suggested
to identify the presence of problematic soils at a site.
For example, numerous suggestions have been made to
identify swelling soils based on Atterberg Limits, but the
most direct method involves wetting the soil in the
laboratory under carefully controlled conditions to
measure the actual swelling directly.
52
Indirect methods are only approximate and do not
definitively identify the presence of problematic soils,
such as collapsible or expansive soils. This is partly
because of investigators, who have developed various
indirect methods, have often used different definitions
for a potentially problematic soil.
Indirect methods should never be the sole approach to
identifying problematic soils, since they can give “false
positives,” depending on the soil; that is, they may
falsely identify the presence of a problematic soil
condition.
53
Identification of Organic Soil
Organic deposits are due to the decomposition of

organic matters and found usually in top soil and
marshy place.
A soil deposit of organic origin is said to peat if it is
at the higher end of the organic content scale (75%
or more according to some authors), organic soil at
the lower end, and muck in between. Peat soil
deposit is usually formed of fossilized plant
materials and characterized by fibre content and
lower decomposition or humification.
54
Highly organic soils, such as peats, are usually first
identified in the field -
❑ By their very-dark-brown to black colors
❑ By their bad organic odor
❑ Presence of decaying plant matter, such as grass,
leaves, and twigs
❑ They are often fibrous and light weight
❑ When exposed to air, they often oxidize very quickly,
turning from black to brown in just a few minutes.
55
An initial indirect scheme to identify the peat soil

consists of determining moisture content and
performing liquid limit test on the whole sample
(not passing 425 micron sieve as usually done)
twice; one on air dry sample and the other one on
oven dry sample (105oC).
The ratio of liquid limit values of oven dry and air
dry sample less than 75% is the indication of
presence of organic matter.
56
In the laboratory as a direct procedure, a
measurement of the amount of organic material is
finally obtained by burning off the organic matter
using a muffle furnace, which can produce
temperatures up to 700°C. At high temperatures, the
organic matter burns and leaves an ash residue from
where ash content can be determined. A standard
procedure for determining organic matter is given in
ASTM D2974 “Standard Test Methods for Moisture,
Ash and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic
Soils.”
57
Past investigations suggest a reasonably strong

correlation between the water content and organic
content, as might be expected for these soils; i.e.,
higher organic content gives higher water content.
It is not unusual for water content in highly organic
soils to be on the order of 200%–600%.
In general, the compressibility of organic soils is
often related to the initial water content, which in
turn is related to the organic content; an example is
shown in Figure below.
58
Undesirable Properties
❑ High natural moisture
content (up to 1500%).
❑ High compressibility
including significant
secondary and even tertiary
compression.
❑ Low shear strength in
natural conditions.
← Relationship between initial
water content and compression
index for peat soil.
59
Identification of Expansive Soil
Expansive soils are those soils which experience

large amounts of volume increase (swell) when
water is added, or large amounts of volume
decrease (shrink) when water is removed during
drying. In general, these soils experience such
volume changes because of the presence of
expansive clay minerals belonging to the smectite
(montmorillonite) group of clay minerals.
60
Most expansive soils have -

❑ Low natural water-content (often close to or
below the plastic limit)
❑ High natural dry-density
❑ Liquidity Index is often close to zero or may
even be negative.
61
Many suggestions have been made to identify

expansive soils based on a variety of basic soil
properties, especially Atterberg Limits. In general,
❑ expansive soils often have high plasticity (Liquid
Limit ≥ 50)
𝑃𝐼
❑ high activity (𝐴𝑐 ≥ 0.8) 𝐴𝑐 = % 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 # 200 (0.075 𝑚𝑚)
However, these may vary depending on the geology

and specific mineralogy.
62
Most of these indirect indicators should be used as

“screening” tools to help identify possible
problems and the need for additional direct
testing.
Some of the proposed indirect methods for
identification of potentially expansive soils require
additional testing beyond most routine site-
investigations, especially a determination of the
Shrinkage Limit and Linear Shrinkage.
63
There are three groups of methods of recognizing

expansive soils:
❑ Indirect methods such as index properties, soil
suction and activity
❑ Direct measurement like swelling pressure
❑ Mineralogical identification, x-ray diffraction,
SEM.
64
Potentially expansive soils are usually recognized in

the field by
❑ Fissured or shattered (and slicken sided)
condition
❑ Obvious structural damage caused by such soils
to existing buildings
❑ Digging tools leave a high polish surface
❑ Extensive crazing occurs as the clay dries on the
sunny side of a trench.
65
The “Potential expansion, PE” (also termed potential
swell or degree of expansion) is a convenient term
used to classify expansive soils.
66
67
68
69
70
← Fig. E.1: Prediction of swell for

clay based on liquid limit and
natural moisture content (after
Bell --).
71
← Fig. E.2: Use of activity

chart to identify swelling
soil (after Van der Mewre,
1964).
72
Fig. E.3: Liquid limit and insitu density to predict soil expansion.
73
Identification of Expansive Soil:
Free Swell Test & Free Swell Index
In this test, 10 grams of oven-dry soil passing the

No. 40 sieve is prepared, and the initial (dry)
volume of the 10 grams is determined using a 25-
mL graduated cylinder. The soil is then slowly
added to a 100-mL graduated cylinder filled with
distilled water.
The graduated cylinder is allowed to stand for 24
hours, and the volume of the soil after 24 hours is
read off the graduated cylinder.
74
← Fig. E.4: Final 24 hour volume

from free swell test; (a) Kaolinite,
(b) Montmorillonite.
(a) (b)
75
The Free Swell Index, FSI, is calculated as:
𝑉𝐹 − 𝑉𝑜
𝐹𝑆𝐼 = × 100
𝑉𝑜
Where:
𝑉𝑜 = Initial (dry) volume
𝑉𝐹 = Final swelled volume
Table E.6 gives some suggested guidelines for the
severity of swelling as a function of the Free Swell
Index.
76
77
Modified Free Swell Index
Other researchers have suggested alternative use of the
Free Swell Test data to identify the potential severity of
swelling. Sivapullaiah et al. (1987) suggested Modified
Free Swell Index, MFSI, as:
𝑉𝐹 − 𝑉𝑠
𝑀𝐹𝑆𝐼 = × 100
𝑉𝑠
Where:
𝑊𝑠
𝑉𝑠 = Volume of soil solids=
𝐺𝑠
𝐺𝑠 = Sp. gravity of soil solids (can be assumed 2.65)
𝑊𝑠 = Weight of soil solids.
78
Modified Free Swell Index
Table E.9 gives some suggested guidelines for the severity

of swelling as a function of the Modified Free Swell Index.
79
Relative Free Swell Index
Sridharan et al. (1985) suggested using the Relative Free
Swell Index, RFSI, defned as:
𝑉𝐹
𝑅𝐹𝑆𝐼 = × 100
𝑊𝑠
Where:
𝑉𝐹 = Final volume
𝑊𝑠 = Weight of soil solids.
This approach is attractive since it does not require
separate determinations of either the initial dry-volume of
soil or the unit weight of the solids. Table E.10 gives
suggested severity of swelling based on RFSI.
80
Relative Free Swell Index
Sridharan et al. (1985) suggested using the Relative
Free Swell Index, RFSI, defned as:
81
Differential Free Swell Test and Index
A modification of the Free Swell Test, suggested by

Mohan and Goel (1959), can also be used to
identify expansive soils in which two identical
samples are tested, one in water and one in
kerosene. The difference in final volume between
the two samples can provide an indication of the
dominant mineralogy, as shown in Fig. E.5.
82
Water is a polar fluid and interacts with expanding
clay minerals to increase the spacing between
particles and swell; kerosene is a non-polar fluid,
and therefore, even an expansive clay mineral will
not swell when kerosene is added. Figure E.5 shows
the dramatic difference in behavior between
swelling and non-swelling clay minerals.
83
Fig. E.5: Results of differential free swell test for different

clay minerals.
84
Mohan and Goel (1959) suggested that the results of

the Free Swell Test could also be used to define the
Differential Free Swell Index, DFSI, as:
𝑉𝑤 − 𝑉𝑘
𝐷𝐹𝑆𝐼 = × 100
𝑉𝑘
Where:
𝑉𝑤 = Final volume in water
𝑉𝑘 = Final volume in kerosine
85
Differential Free Swell Index
They suggested that the degree of swelling could be
characterized according to Table E.11.
86
Direct Methods to Identify Expansive Soil
The best and most-direct method of determining the
laboratory swelling behavior of natural undisturbed
soils is to perform a one-dimensional swell test using a
sample taken from the field. In this test, a specimen at
natural water-content is carefully trimmed and placed
in a conventional consolidometer, such as illustrated in
Fig. E.6. The specimen is sometimes left unloaded or
with a nominal, small seating-load, or, alternatively, the
specimen may be loaded to a stress level representing
either the existing overburden stress or the overburden
stress plus the anticipated foundation stress.
87
Direct Methods to Identify Expansive Soil
Water is then added to the cell to saturate the specimen,
and the amount of swell is recorded over time. Details on
laboratory swelling tests are given in ASTM D 4546
“Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell and
Collapse of Cohesive Soils.”
← Fig. E.6: 1-D consolidometer

for swell test.
88
Identification of Collapsible Soil: Sauges Test
Soil deposits most likely to collapse are;
❑ Loose fills
❑ Altered wind blown sands
❑ Hill wash of loose consistency, and
❑ Decomposed granite or other acid igneous rocks.
A very simple test for recognizing collapsible soil is the
“sauges test”. A hand size of soil to be tested is broken into
two pieces and each is trimmed to approximately equal
volumes. One of them is wetted and moulded in the hands to
form a damp ball. Comparing the two volumes, if the wetted
ball is smaller, then collapse may be suspected.
89
Identification of Collapsible Soil: Other Criteria
Collapse is probable when the natural void ratio, 𝑒𝑖 is
higher then a critical void ratio, 𝑒𝑐 that depends on void
ratios 𝑒𝐿 and 𝑒𝑝 at liquid limit and plastic limits
respectively. Denisov and Feda mentioned the criteria:
𝑒𝑐 = 𝑒𝐿 (Denisov)
𝑒𝑐 = 0.85𝑒𝐿 + 0.15𝑒𝑝 (Feda)
According to Russian code, collapsible soils (with 𝑆𝑟 ≤
0.6) satisfy the following condition:
𝑒𝐿 − 𝑒𝑖
≤ 0.10
1 + 𝑒𝑖
90
Tsytovich (1976) suggests a consolidation test on an
undisturbed specimen at natural moisture content and
to record the thickness, “𝐻” on consolidation under a
pressure “𝑝” equal to overburden pressure plus the
external pressure likely to be exerted on the soil. The
specimen is then submerged under the same pressure
and the final thickness 𝐻′ recorded. Relative
subsidence, 𝐼𝑠𝑢𝑏 is found as:
𝐻 − 𝐻′
𝐼𝑠𝑢𝑏 =
𝐻
Soils having 𝐼𝑠𝑢𝑏 ≤ 0.02 are considered to be collapsed.
91
Fig. E.3: Liquid limit and insitu density to predict soil collapse.
92
Identification of Dispersive Soil
Dispersive soils are defined as soils which, when
immerged in a relatively pure still water will disintegrate
with some particle going into suspension. It is also
described as the condition of slurry in which the
individual clay particles do not aggregate into flocs.
Dispersion occurs in those soils where in the repulsive
forces between clay particles when saturated exceed
attractive forces. This is caused by a reduction in the
concentration of cations in the pore fluids, resulting in
deflocculation and dispersal of the clay particles.
93
Soils comprising clay minerals that have a high
concentration of exchangeable sodium ions are usually
prone to dispersion.
Soils that most commonly have high exchangeable
sodium percentages (ESP), are those soils whose clay
fraction is largely composed of smectitic clays such as
montmorillonite. However some illites with high ESP
values are also known to be highly dispersive and
Kaolinite clays with relatively low ESP values have been
reported as having dispersive characteristics.
94
A method that determines the pH of a 1:2.5 soil/water
suspension. If 𝑝𝐻 ≥ 7.8, the soil may contain enough
sodium to disperse the mass. Then to determine:
❑ Total exchangeable bases, i.e, K+, Ca2+ , Mg2+ and
Na+ (milliequivalent per 100g of air dried soil) and
❑ Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soil
((milliequivalent per 100g of air dried soil).
Exchangeable Sodium Percentage ESP is calculated as:
𝑁𝑎 (𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
𝐸𝑆𝑃 = × 100
𝐶𝐸𝐶
95
Exchangeable Magnesium Percentage EmgP is
calculated as:
𝑀𝑔 (𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
𝐸𝑀𝑔𝑃 = × 100
𝐶𝐸𝐶
❑ IF 𝐸𝑆𝑃 ≥ 8 and 𝐸𝑆𝑃 + 𝐸𝑀𝑔𝑃 ≥ 15, dispersion
will take place.
❑ Soils with 𝐸𝑆𝑃 = 7 − 10 are moderately dispersive
in combination with reservoir waters of low
dissolved salts.
❑ Soils with 𝐸𝑆𝑃 ≥ 15 have serious piping potential.
96
Fig. E.7: Picture of dispersive soil

97
Problems with dispersive soils
❑ Difficult to predict without full scale structure
❑ Still learning from failure
❑ Testing is not 100% reliable
❑ Often neglected by geotechnical community except
earth dam engineers
❑ Costly implications
❑ To differentiate between dispersion and erosion
98
Comparison of Dispersive and Erodible Soils

❑ Use of dispersive soils are significantly more
problematic than purely erodible soil
❑ Piping failure occurs in dispersive soil
❑ Erosion and siltation occurs in erodible soils
❑ Dispersion occurs in relatively flat terrain
❑ Erosion usually does not occur in flat terrains
99
Determination of Soil Dispersion

❑ Difficult to reliably identify dispersiveness using a
single laboratory test
❑ Numbers of test are to be done and the outcome is
accepted from majority of tests
Various tests Soil Dispersion
✓ ESP based tests (ASTM D7503)
✓ Double hydrometer test (ASTM D4221)
✓ Crumb test (ASTM D6572)
✓ Pinhole test (ASTM D4647)
100
Identification of Dispersive Soil:
Double Hydrometer Test
❑ One hydrometer test with no dispersive agent
❑ Compared with conventionally used dispersive
hydrometer test results
❑ Ratio of 2 𝜇𝑚 (0.002 mm) fractions obtained from
both the tests is compared
❑ Mass percent finer for both specimens is calculate
and recorded
❑ The maximum particle diameter in suspension for
both specimens is calculated and recorded
❑ The percent dispersion to the nearest 1 % is
calculated using the following equation:
101
𝑁𝑚,2𝜇𝑚,𝑛𝑑
% 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × 100
𝑁𝑚,2𝜇𝑚, 𝑑
where:
𝑁𝑚,2𝜇𝑚,𝑛𝑑 =mass % finer than 2-µm not dispersed, nearest 1 %
𝑁𝑚,2𝜇𝑚,𝑑 = mass % finer than 2-µm dispersed, nearest 1 %
Percent Dispersion Dispersiveness
< 30 % Nondispersive
30 to 50 % Intermediate
> 50 % Dispersive
102
Fig. E.8: Double Hydrometer Test

103
Crumb Test (Emersion Test)
Two versions of tests in use
✓ Test on natural soil (Method A)
✓ Test on remoulded soil (Method B)
Small lump of 15 ± 5 mm cube is placed in a dish of
distilled water and dispersion is observed with time.
← Fig. E.8:
Crumb test.
104
Fig. E.8: Grades in Crumb test.

105
❑ Grade 1 (Non-dispersive)—No reaction; the soil may
crumble, slake, diffuse, and spread out, but there is
no turbid water created by colloids suspended in the
water. All particles settle during the first hour.
❑ Grade 2 (Intermediate)—Slight reaction; Grade 2 is
the transition grade. A faint, barely visible colloidal
suspension causes turbid water near portions of the
soil crumb surface. If the cloud is easily visible,
assign Grade 3. If the cloud is faintly seen in only
one small area, assign Grade 1.
106
❑ Grade 3 (Dispersive)—Moderate reaction; an easily
visible cloud of suspended clay colloids is seen around
the outside of the soil crumb surface. The cloud may
extend up to 10 mm away from the soil crumb mass
along the bottom of the dish.
❑ Grade 4 (Highly Dispersive)—Strong reaction; a dense,
profuse cloud of suspended clay colloids is seen around
the entire bottom of the dish. Occasionally, the soil
crumb dispersion is so extensive that it is difficult to
determine the interface of the original soil crumb and
the colloidal suspension. Often, the colloidal suspension
is easily visible on the sides of the dish.
107
Pinhole Test
A reliable identification of dispersive soils can be
made on the basis of pinhole test.
❑ Water is passed through 1 mm diameter hole in a
25 mm long and 35 mm diameter compacted soil
specimen at different heads
❑ The test is run under 50 mm, 180 mm, 380 mm
and 1020 mm heads, outflow turbidity is
monitored and the soil dispersibility is classified.
108
Pinhole Test
Fig. E.9: Schematic diagram of Pinhole test equipment

109
Pinhole Test
Three alternative procedures for classifying the
dispersibility of clay soils are provided.
Method A and Method C require the evaluation of
cloudiness of effluent, final size of the pinhole, and
computation of flow rates through the pinhole in order
to classify the dispersive characteristics of the soil.
Method B requires only the evaluation of the cloudiness
of effluent and final size of the pinhole to classify the
dispersive characteristics of the soil.
110
Pinhole Test
Method A and Method C, classify soils into six categories
of dispersiveness as:
✓ Dispersibility (D1, D2)
✓ Slight to moderately dispersive (ND4, ND3)
✓ Nondispersive (ND2, ND1)
Method B classifies soils into three categories as:
✓ Dispersibility (D)
✓ Slightly dispersive (SD)
✓ Nondispersive (ND)
111
Pinhole Test
Classification as per Method A

D1, D2 — Dispersive clays that fail rapidly under 50-
mm head.
ND4, ND3 — Slightly to moderately dispersive clays
that erode slowly under 50-mm or 180-mm head.
ND2, ND1 — Nondispersive clay with very slight to no
colloidal erosion under 380-mm or 1020-mm head.
112
Pinhole Test
Classification as per Method B
D — Dispersive clays that erode rapidly under 50-mm
head.
SD — Slightly dispersive clays that erode slowly under
180-mm head.
ND — Nondispersive clays that show very slight or no
colloidal erosion under 380-mm head.
Method B for classifying dispersiveness of clay soils
combines the categories of Method A as follows: D = D1,
D2, ND4; SD = ND3; and ND = ND2, ND1.
113
Pinhole Test
Classification as per Method C

D1, D2 — Dispersive clays that fail rapidly under 50-
mm head.
ND4, ND3 — Dispersive clays that erode slowly under
50-mm, 180-mm, or 380-mm head.
ND2, ND1 — Nondispersive clay with very slight to no
colloidal erosion under 380-mm head.
114
Identification of Erodible Soils
Erodibility of soil is the resistance of the soil to both

detachment and transport. Soil erosion occurs when soil
particles are carried off by water or wind and deposited
somewhere else. Erosion begins when rain or irrigation water
detaches soil particles.
Erosion features can be classified into 3 types namely sheet,
rill and gully erosion. Sheet Erosion is the most common form
of erosion by water. Normally the thin layer of soil is detached
by the falling rain drops and then removed by surface runoff.
Rill erosion can be classified as moderate, the range is
between sheet and gully erosion.
115
Normally, rill erosion erodes downwards and may

extend into the subsoil, leading to gully erosion in a
short time.
Gully erosion can be defined as the most erosive
process compared to sheet and rill erosion that
mostly causes a great amount of soil loss and then
contributes to shape the earth surface.
Normally gully erosion is a result of continuous
flowing of water through rill erosion.
116
Fig. E.10: Picture of sheet erosion.

117
Fig. E.11: Picture of rill erosion.

118
Fig. E.12: Picture of gully erosion.

119
Identification of Erodible Soils: Erodibility
Many attempts have been made to devise a simple index of

erodibility based either on the properties of the soil as
determined in the laboratory or the field, or on the
response of the soil to rainfall.
Theoretically the use of clay content as an indicator of
erodibility was found to be more satisfying, when the clay
particles combine with organic matter to form soil
aggregates or clods. It is the stability of these which
determines the resistance of the soil. The clay ratio is
given to determine the Bouyoucos erodibility index.
% 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑+% 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑡
𝐵𝑜𝑢𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =
120
% 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦
Identification of Erodible Soils: Erodibility
A modified erodibility index, EIROM is introduced, in

relation river bank, erosion by Roslan et al. (2013) as:
% 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 + % 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑡
𝐸𝐼𝑅𝑂𝑀 =
2 × % 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦
The erodibility risk categories are given as:
‘ROM’ Scale Soil erodibility category
< 1.5 Low
1.5 – 4.0 Moderate
4.0 – 8.0 High
8.0 – 12.0 Very High
> 12.0 Critical
121
Identification of Soft Inorganic Soils
No standard definition exists for soft clays in terms of

conventional soil parameters, mineralogy or geological origin.
It is commonly understood that soft clays give shear strength,
compressibility and time related settlement problems.
The following relationship among N-values obtained from SPT,
consistency and undrained shear strength of soft clays may be
used as guidelines.
N-value (blows/300 Consistency Undrained shear
mm of penetration) strength (kN/m2)
Below 2 Very soft Less than 20
2–4 Soft 20 – 40
122
Identification of Liquefiable Soils
Loose, saturated, coarse-grained soils, including sands,

gravels, silty sand, silty gravel, gravelly sands, and even
silts, are generally considered a risk for liquefaction, given
a sufficiently large enough earthquake or other dynamic
loading. The key elements are that these materials exist in
a loose state (low Relative Density) and that they are
saturated (below the water table).
Liquefaction of natural soils can be caused by strong
ground motion from an earthquake, provided that the
conditions are correct.
123
In order to soils to be liquefiable in an earthquake
event, several conditions are required.
1. The soil is saturated (i.e., below the water
table);
2. The soil is predominantly coarse-grained (i.e.,
typically less than about 20% fines);
3. The soil is loose (i.e., Relative Density is less
than about 40%); and
4. The ground motion is sufficiently strong.
124
Liquefaction has also been observed in non-plastic

silts. According to Kraemer (1996), fine-grained
soils that satisfy the following four criteria may be
considered susceptible to liquefaction:
1. Fraction finer than 0.005 mm ≤ 15%
2. Liquid Limit ≤ 35%
3. Natural water content ≥ 0.9 LL
4. Liquidity Index ≥ 0.75
125
Lutenegger and Hallberg (1988) described the
occurrence of low-plasticity (nearly non-plastic),
liquefied loess deposits in the Midwest, in which
Liquidity Index > 1.0.
Bray and Sancio (2006) suggest that
❑ fine-grained soils with PI less than 12 and
❑ natural water content to LL ratio (w/LL) greater
than 0.85
may be subject to liquefaction.
126
Many field investigations have been conducted to evaluate
soil deposits that have liquefied during earthquakes (e.g.,
Seed and Idriss 1971; Seed et al. 1983; Moss et al.
2006), to develop correlations between performance and
field tests.
A common approach used since the 1970s for identifying
potential liquefaction problems at a site has been to
compare the results from either SPT or CPT at sites.
Charts are typically expressed as Cyclic Stress Ratio
(CSR) versus corrected SPT N-values or CPT tip
resistance.
127
128
129
Identification of Liquefiable Soils:
Typical Formula from SPT
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5
𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐹𝑆 = × 𝑀𝑆𝐹 ≥ 1.00
𝐶𝑆𝑅
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎 𝑟𝑑 CRR is the cyclic resistance ratio
𝐶𝑆𝑅 = 0.65 × ′× CSR is the cyclic shear stress ratio
𝑔 𝜎 𝑀𝑆𝐹 × 𝐾𝜎
𝑁1(60−𝑐𝑠) 𝑁1(60−𝑐𝑠) 2 𝑁1 60−𝑐𝑠 3𝑁 60−𝑐𝑠 4
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 = 𝐸𝑋𝑃 + − + 125.4 − 2.8
14.1 126 23.6
1 − 0.4113𝑧 0.5 + 0.04052𝑧 + 0.001753𝑧 1.5
𝑟𝑑 =
1 − 0.4177𝑧 0.5 + 0.05729𝑧 − 0.006205𝑧 1.5 + 0.00121𝑧 2
2
′
𝜎𝑣𝑜 9.7 15.7
𝐾𝜎 = 1 − 𝐶 𝛼 ln ≤ 1.00 ∆𝑁1(60) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 1.63 + −
100 𝐹𝐶 + 0.01 𝐹𝐶 + 0.01
1 𝑁1(60−𝑐𝑠) = 𝑁1(60) + ∆𝑁1(60)
𝐶 𝛼 = ≤ 0.3
18.9 − 2.25 𝑁1(60
𝑁1(60) = 𝐶𝑁 𝑁60
−𝑀 100
0.5
𝑀𝑆𝐹 = 6.9𝐸𝑥𝑝 − 0.058 ≤ 1.80 𝐶𝑁 = ′
4 𝜎 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑃𝑎
130
Geotechnical Design of
Foundations:
Provisions in BNBC 2020
Session 28: Geotech 1
Thank You
Professor Md. Zoynul Abedin, Ph.D.

Military Institute of Science & Technology (MIST)
Dhaka, Bangladesh

BNBC LECTURE 12FEB 2022 Geotech 01 FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

BNBC LECTURE 12FEB 2022 Geotech 01 FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF

Professor Md. Zoynul Abedin, Ph.D.

S-8A SEng PRP

PART : 6 (in Volume 2 of BNBC)

Chapter 3 : Soils and Foundations

The Soils and Foundations Chapter of the Code is divided

Appendix D: Methods of Soil Exploration, Sampling and

The provisions of this Chapter shall be

Because of uncertainties and randomness involved in

❑ Geotech 01 (12 Feb 2022): Some basics of soil

Soil is considered to include all naturally

The definitions soil by other professionals along with

Soil Top soil

Regolith or Mantle Soil

Bed rock Bed rock

(a) Geologist (b) Agriculturist (c) Geotechnical

Periodical Solution Plant Animal

The types and intensity of

Earth Mass: Consists of 3 Major Layers

Rock: Three (3) Types of Rock Formed of Several Minerals

Mineral Group Species Structural Class Composition

S-8A SEng PRP Training

(a) Silica Tetrahedron

The basic structural units clay minerals can be

Kaolinite Illite Montmorillonite

Depending on origin or depositional mode, soil can

Classification based on Grain

Classification based on Use:

Inorganic Soil Deposit

Water Glacier Wind Gravity

Soil Mass Classification Based on Cohesion

Cohesive Soil: Clay and plastic silt particles. Cohesive

𝐜 − 𝛗 Soil: Any or both types of cohesionless and

Two most common widely accepted classification

Grain Size Analysis

Sieve Analysis (A set of Sedimentation Analysis (If

The results of grain size analysis (sieve and hydrometer

Consistency Test: Depending on water content, a soil could

Liquid Plastic State: Can Semi-Solid Solid

Liquid Plastic Shrinkage

Liquid limit by Cassagrande’s apparatus

← Liquid limit by cone penetration

← Plastic limit test

← Linear shrinkage test

Shrinkage limit of a soil is the saturated water at its minimum volume

Plasticity Index: The range of water contents over which

Consistency Index: The current state of a soil, in terms

Flaky (Two dimensions LW are prominent)

• Single grain structure → for

(a) Single grained

(b) Honeycomb (e) Packet or Ped

The AASHTO classification system divides inorganic soil

In addition to the traditional soil conditions under

Organic deposits are due to the decomposition of

An initial indirect scheme to identify the peat soil

Past investigations suggest a reasonably strong

Expansive soils are those soils which experience

Most expansive soils have -

Many suggestions have been made to identify

However, these may vary depending on the geology

Most of these indirect indicators should be used as

There are three groups of methods of recognizing