C GEOTECHNICAL

PARAMETERS:
T INFLUENCING FOUNDATION SYSTEMS

2
0
GUIDED BY: PROF PAVNI PANDYA AND

2 PROF CHANDRESH SOLANKI

TUTOR ASSISTANT: ANJAN PAREKH AND
KHUSHI SHAH

[Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

PREPARED BY: HERIL JAIN I UG190554

 STUDIO TIMELINE

01 03 05
UNDERSTANDI Site reconnaissance, boring, FOUNDATION Given admixtures mixed with
MODEL MAKING-
NG sample collection, the soil from Surat site and
DESIGN- comparing the data. SOIL
THE CONCEPT- penetration tests.
Performing laboratory tests, RESIDENTIAL AND Sample collection, IMPROVEMENT
MINDMAPS exploring laboratory work, Performing laboratory tests,
Early understanding COMMERCIAL
getting values for comparing data Admixture Problem: Consolidation
and basic concepts on BUILDING
geotechnical properties used: Rice Husk Ash settlement in soil. Using
important topics.
Different topics were stone columns and pre-
Making of horizontal soil
given based on that SOIL SOIL fabricated vertical drains-
profile of strata of all the
mind maps were made Used to take out water
INVESTIGATION- five boreholes, Problem IMPROVEMENT-
to understand all the from soil quickly and
statement, solutions by
basic geotechnical SANAND, SURAT, reducing the level of soil
trying different foundation
terms GUJARAT settlement
sizes GUJARAT

02 04
 GEOTECHNICAL CONCEPTS - MINDMAPS
Theoretical study of various
topics was done to get an
overview into the subject.
The topics which are studied
in mind map form are as
listed below:
1. Index properties of
soil
2. Soil classification
3. Atterberg’s limits
4. Geotechnical
investigation
5. Geophysical test
6. Geotechnical
exploration method
7. Field test
8. Penetration test

`
 GEOTECHNICAL CONCEPTS - MINDMAPS

`
 SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE BORELOG:
FIELD BORE LOG SHEET (GROUP A)
Site Details: Dipen Bricks Village: Sanand Water table at depth: 2.75 m
Total drilled depth from EGL(m): 10 District: Ahmedabad Dia. Of Borehole: 200 mm
Co-Ordinate: 22°58'04.5"N 72°24'49.2"E State: Gujarat Day: Monday Classification of Soil
Sample Observed N Recovery
Sr. No. Depth(m) Visual Description of Soil Strata
Type value (cm)
1 1.5 SPT 5 50-28=22 Brown colour, Silty sand with gravels CL
2 3 UDS - 50-13=37 Light brown colour, sand with gravel CL
3 4.5 SPT 4 50-14=36 Light brown colour, sand with gravel SC
4 6 UDS - No recovery Light brown colour, sand with gravel SC
5 1 7.5 SPT 35 2 50-13=37 Brown color, Clay with white gravels SC
6 of a borehole
Drilling 9 up to UDS - to do a bore50-32=18
Tools used hole Brown colour, clay with white gravels, hard strata CL
10 m using rig pulley system on site.
7 attached to10
bailer.
UDS - 50-42=8 Brown colour, clay with white gravels, hard strata CL

3 5

White gravels mixed with Removing the wax sealant

soil found from on-site at 10 from shelby tube to
m depth. 4 proceed upcoming tests.

Lime mixed with soil found

from on-site at 10 m depth.

`
 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
8 9 10

Triaxial Unconsolidated Performing out of wet sieve Taking out of soil from
Undrained test on a analysis to perform dry Shelby tube for performing
remould specimen to obtain sieve analysis after 24 consolidation test.
C-∅ parameters. hours.

6 7

Liquid limit test using Specific gravity test done

Casagrande method. using sand bath method.

LABORATORY RESULTS:
LABORATORY RESULTS (GROUP A)
Site Details: Dipen Bricks Village: Sanand Water table at depth: 2.75 m
Total drilled depth from EGL(m): 10 District: Ahmedabad Dia. Of Borehole: 200 mm
Co-Ordinate: 22°58'04.5"N 72°24'49.2"E State: Gujarat Day: Monday

Shear strength
Grain Size Analysis Free Consolidation Parameter
Field Moisture Dry Parameter
Types of Observed Corrected Sp. Classification swell
Depth N" Density( Content Density LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)
Sample N value N value Gravity of soil index
gm/cc) (%) (gm/cc) Silt+Clay C
Gravel% Sand% (%) Ф (0) Cc σC
% (kg/cm2)

1.5 SPT 5 7 - - 17.39% - 2.50 4.54 27.07 68.39 33% 22% 11% CL 19.05 - - - -
3 UDS - - - 2.02 20.33% 2.02 2.53 4.61 38.85 56.54 30% 20% 10% CL 20.00 0.28 15 - -
4.5 SPT 4 4 - - 15.23% - 2.51 1.17 66.28 32.55 25% 15% 10% SC 12.50 - - - -
6 DS - - - 16.19% - 2.60 3.54 65.5 30.96 25% 13% 13% SC 12.50 - - - -
7.5 SPT 35 29 22 - 14.49% - 2.51 3.74 53.51 42.75 28% 18% 10% SC 16.67 - - - -
9 UDS - - - 2.21 14.40% 2.21 2.59 7.34 39.91 52.75 32% 19% 13% CL 17.65 0.75 9.2 - -
10 UDS - - - 2.27 20.70% 2.27 2.55 8.42 37.98 53.6 32% 19% 13% CL 10.00 0.4 26 0.32 0.84

`
 SOIL PROFILE

`
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
Size of footing (L×B) (m) = 2×2

Depth of footing = 2m

FOR SHEAR CRITERIA:

Load 640
Pressure = = =160 kN /m2
Area 2× 2

C” = Cohesion kN/m2 Bearing capacity factors = Nc”, Nq”, Ny”, Shape factor = Sc, Sq, Sy

Depth factor = Dc, Dq, Dy, Inclination factor = Ic, Iq, Iy

Qu = (C ×Nc × Sc × Dc × Ic )+¿ = 1136.8 kN/m2

Qu 1136.8 2
Factor of safety = = =454.72 kN /m = Safe ultimate bearing capacity
2.5 2.5
Safe ultimate bearing capacity > Pressure applied therefore footing is safe for shear criteria.
Diagram for shear criteria FOR SETTLEMENT CRITERIA:

( )
2
1−µ
S I =q × B If
Eavg

q = Applied pressure (160 kN /m 2 ¿, B= width of footing (2 m), µ= Poisson’s ratio 0.32),

Eavg= Young’s modulus (8900 kN / m2 ¿ , If= influence factor (0.95)

S I = 30.66 mm

Cc 1∗H Δσ 01 +σ 01
Sc= ∗log( )⁡ (for strata- CI)
1+ e1 σ 01
As per IS 1904 permissible
Cc = Compression index (0.32), H = Height of strata (1 m), e 1= void ratio of strata (0.58),
settlement limit for Isolated
foundation for RCC structures
Δσ 01= Applied pressure (126.4 kN /m2 ¿, σ 01= Over burden pressure (26.4 kN /m2 ¿
in plastic clay is 75 mm so, this
Diagram for Settlement criteria. Sc1= 77.22 mm = 77.22 mm (Including λ correction as is 1) design is Safe from settlement.
`
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR SHEAR CRITERIA:

Load 10915 2
Pressure = = =19.81 kN /m
Area 19 ×29

Qu = (C ×Nc × Sc × Dc × Ic )+¿ = 818.14 kN/m 2

Qu 818.14 2
Factor of safety = = =327.26 kN /m = Safe ultimate bearing capacity
2.5 2.5
Safe ultimate bearing capacity > Pressure applied therefore footing is safe for shear criteria.

FOR SETTLEMENT CRITERIA:

St =q × B ( 1−µ2
Eavg )
If

q = Applied pressure (19.81 kN /m 2 ¿ , B= width of footing (19 m), µ= Poisson’s ratio (0.37),
Overburden at layer 1- CL
Eavg= Young’s modulus (20800 kN / m2 ¿, If= influence factor (2.16)

St = 33.73 mm

Cc∗H Δσ 01 +σ 01
Sc= ∗log ( )⁡
1+ e σ 01

For CL strata,

Cc = 0.25, H = 3.5 m, e 1= 0.877, Δσ 01= 17.11 kN /m2 , σ 01= 56.51 kN /m2

As per IS 1904 permissible
Sc1= 55.68 mm
settlement limit for raft
For CI strata, foundation for RCC structures
in plastic clay is 100 mm so,
Cc = 0.29, H = 3 m, e 1= 0.86, Δσ 01= 13.78 kN /m2 , σ 01= 77.28 kN /m2
this design is Safe from

Overburden at layer 1- CI
Sc2 = 32.8, ¿) = 87.6 mm settlement.
`
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR SINGLE PILE:

Considering pile size:

Diameter (m) = 0.45 m

Length (m) = 31 m

Type of piles: Driven cast in – situ, Qu=Qb+ΣQf (from IS 2911- part1 section 1)

Qf =α i × c i × A s + K i × P d i × A si × tanθ

For High Plastic clay - CH – Layer 1,

Layer Depth = 7 m

Qf 1=α i × ci × A s + K i × P d i × A si × tanθ (For granular + cohesive)

Coefficient of earth pressure K: 1 (∅ = 9.3° ), Effective over burden pressure¿ 50.45 kN /m 2 = σ vf

σ n=K ×σ vf = 50.45 kN / m2, f s=σ n × tan ∅=8.26 kN / m2 , A S = 9.89 m2

Qf 1 ¿ = 81.7 kN (for granular)

fs = α × Cu = 44.5 kN / m 2 (α = 0.76) , As = 9.89 m2

Qf 1' = 440.2 kN (for cohesive)

Qf 1= Qf 1' +Qf 1} ¿ 440.2 + 81.7 = 521.7 kN

For Medium Plastic clay – CI – Layer2, Qf 2= Qf 2' +Qf 2} ¿ 363.08 + 154.23 = 517.31 kN

For Sandy clay – SC – Layer3, Qf 2= Qf 2' +Qf 2} ¿ 406.9 + 1222.95 = 1630 kN

For Silty sand - SM – Layer4, Qf 4= 1830.42 kN

Single pile design
Qf =Qf 1+Q f 2 +Q f 3 +Q f 4 ¿ 4500 kN
`
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
Qf 4500
Factor of safety = = =1800 k N = Safe ultimate bearing capacity
2.5 2.5

For Hard rock – Basalt rock: As load carried by group of

piles > Load given, 6584.4 kN >
Qs =q c N j N d A P +q c πD L S αβ = 4784.4 kN
3400 kN, therefore its safe
Net safe pile load capacity =Q s +Q f = 4784.4 + 1800 = 6584.4 kN

For multiple piles:

Considering pile size:

Diameter (m) = 0.45 m

Length (m) = 25 m

For High Plastic clay - CH – Layer 1,

Layer Depth = 7 m

Qf 1=α i × ci × A s + K i × P d i × A si × tanθ (For granular + cohesive)

Coefficient of earth pressure K: 1 (∅ = 9.3° ), Effective over burden pressure¿ 50.45 kN /m 2 = σ vf

σ n=K ×σ vf = 50.45 kN / m2, f s=σ n × tan ∅=8.26 kN / m2 , A S = 9.89 m2

Qf 1 ¿ = 81.7 kN (for granular)

fs = α × Cu = 44.5 kN / m2 (α = 0.76), As = 9.89 m2

Q f 1' = 440.2 kN (for cohesive)

Multiple pile design

Qf 1= Qf 1' +Qf 1} ¿ 440.2 + 81.7 = 521.7 kN

For Medium Plastic clay – CI – Layer2, Q f 2= Q f 2' +Q f 2} ¿ 363.08 + 154.23 = 517.31 kN

`
 FOUNDATION DESIGN
For Sandy clay – SC – Layer3, Q f 2= Q f 2' +Q f 2} ¿ 406.9 + 1222.95 = 1630 kN

For Silty sand - SM – Layer4, Qf 4=183.04 × 4.24 = 776.1 kN

Qf =Qf 1+Q f 2 +Qf 3 +Q f 4

Qf =3564 kN

Qf 3564 As load carried by group of

Factor of safety = = =1425.7 k N = Safe ultimate bearing capacity
2.5 2.5
piles > Load given, 4277.2 kN
ISOLATED
Total safe ultimate load bearing capacity of piles SQUARE
= no. of FOOTING
piles ×Safe ultimate bearing capacity > 3400 kN, therefore its safe
Sr. L B Depth Settlement
Shear criteria Reason to go for specific
no. (m) (m) (m) =3 ×1425.7 criteria
= 4277.2 kN
1 2 2 Pass Fail Fails in settlement
2 2.25 2.25 Pass Fail Fails in settlement
C 3 2.5 2.5 1.5 Pass Fail Fails in settlement
4 2.75 2.75 Pass Fail Fails in settlement
O 5 3 3 Pass Fail Fails in settlement

N
Is economical than others
6 2 2 2 Pass Pass
and is safe in all criteria
RAFT FOOTING
C Sr.
no.
L
(m)
B
(m)
Depth
(m)
Shear criteria
Settlement
criteria
Reason to go for specific

L 1
2
22
23
16
17
1.5
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fails in settlement
Fails in settlement

U 3 30 20 2 Pass Pass
Is economical than others
and is safe in all criteria

S 4 29 19 3 Pass Pass
Is more safe in settlement,
but little expensive

I
SINGLE/MULTIPLE PILE
Load carried
Sr. No. of
D L by pile> load Reason to go for specific

O
no. piles
given
1 0.45 10 6 Fail Number of piles at maximum

N 2
3
0.45
0.45
15
20
8
4
Pass
Pass
More costly and requires more man power
More costly and requires more man power
4 0.45 25 3 Pass More costly and requires more man power
Less costly and requires less man power
5 0.45 31 1 Pass
and safe in all criteria

`
 SOIL IMPROVEMENT
SOIL IMPROVEMENT USING RICE HUSK ASH - RHA:

Literature study on Identifying Identifying

soil using RHA as an properties of soil properties of soil
additive without additive with additive

SOIL IMPROVEMENT RESULTS Sr.

Properties
Expansiv
Expansiv
e soil +
Increase/
No. e soil Decrease
It was observed through different
A literature study was RHA
carried out on the use CONCLUSION: COMPARISON papersTABLE WITH
that 9% of RHA added in
1 Gravel % 0.03% to total soil sample mass changes
of RHA as a chemical
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: In case of grain size analysis the percentage remains same
AND WITHOUT ADDITIVE:
admixture for soil 2 Sand % 22.5% the properties of soil. All the
-
only before and after adding
improvement. additives.
Based on conclusions were noted down
The soil sample used for soil Silt + Clay
study of multiple improvement was obtained 3 77.4% and it was observed that some
%
STANDARD PROCTOR
research TEST:
papersIn%case
of of standard proctor test, OMC decreases and properties showed increment
from a site at Surat, Gujarat. Decrease with
MDD increases as RHA
additives is added
were the quantity of free silt and clay decreases. The
finalized 4 OMC % 22 16 whileadditive
some didn’t.
Experiments like UCS, Standard
coarse sand has larger surface area and these process needs water take place.
proctor test, CBR, Atterberg’s Increase with
According to it more water is required to compact the soil and its admixture. The 5 MDD (g/cc) 1.54 1.56
limit, free swell, specific gravity additive
other reason behind decrease of MDD is lower specific gravity of RHA. Free swell Decrease with
were carried out 6 37% 20%
index additive
FREE SWELL INDEX TEST: The free swell value decrease when RHA is added as RHA Soil Medium
reduces the possibility of crack formation on foundation surface. 3 7 classificatio Plasticity
4 -
n clay
ATTERBERG’S LIMITS: The plastic limit, liquid limit and shrinkage limit Unconfined
increases compression
as Unsoaked- California
Specific Decrease with
test on
RHA is added to soil, as for improvement attribute RHA requires more water to a remould specimen 8 2.6
gravity bearing ratio
2.1
additive
to find cohesion. UCS Increase with
make it fluid due to its pozzalonic characteristic. 9 1.40 2.54
(kN/m2) additive
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: The specific gravity decreases in RHA as compared to normal as Increas
due to low specific gravity of RHA participating RHA as compared to soil. e with
10 C (kg/cm2) 0.71 1.27 additiv
1
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE 2
TEST: The C value increases when RHA is added to soil 5 e
as RHAUsing
acts aashammer
binder25particle
blows which makes
Specific gravity test done clay to silt and which
soil change from CBR- Increase with
Soaked- California bearing
makesare
it more suitable to use. 11 1% 5%
given to a soil filled in 3 using sand bath method. Soaked additive
ratio for 4 days
layers in standard proctor CBR- Increase with
test. RATIO: The CBR value increases when RHA is added as clay has 12 4% 9%
` BEARING
CALIFORNIA Unsoaked additive
 SOIL IMPROVEMENT MODEL MAKING

`
 THANK YOU