MATLAB Modeling of SPT and Grain Size Da

MATLAB MODELING OF SPT AND GRAIN SIZE
DATA IN PRODUCING SOIL PROFILE
A thesis submitted to the department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University

of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
February 2015
Submitted by:
Debojit Sarker
Student ID: 0704015
Department of Civil Engineering,

BUET, Dhaka.
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Successful completion of any type of project requires help from a number of persons and being
a novice I’ve taken help from different people for the preparation of this thesis. Now, here is a
petite effort to show my deepest gratitude to those helpful people who has helped me a lot for
the completion of this thesis. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my
honorable supervisor Dr. Md. Zoynul Abedin, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
BUET, for his continuous guidance, relentless discussion, helpful suggestions, generous help,
and devoted encouragement during the course of the project. I am grateful that he provided me
with necessary and important books, references and related research papers. His great interest in
this field and valuable advice greatly inspired me.
I wish to express my gratefulness to Ferdous Ahmed, Jewel Sarker & Saminur Islam for their
cooperation and sincere help for developing codes and algorithms in MATLAB. I wish to
thank staff of Civil Engineering Department library and central library of BUET for the sincere
cooperation in getting all useful literature.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my parents, relatives and many
friends for their constant inspiration and encouragements.
2
ABSTRACT
The study was carried out to find out a suitable numerical procedure for establishing a graphical
presentation of the soil profile of a site using SPT values and grain size analysis data. MATLAB
numerical tool was used for this purpose and the soil properties was estimated using established
empirical correlations. A computer Software was developed where SPT values at borehole
locations, percent of grain sizes, water table and GPS coordinates of the site were used as inputs,
Rectangular grids in 2-D or 3-D space were created for interpolation or extrapolation of the
gridded data in ‘meshgrid’ format. The output yielded intermittent SPT profile and the contour
plot matrix for subsoil soil condition of a site. The output soil-profile is presented by a 3-D
shaded surface plot that would be useful for preliminary selection of a project site, land use
planning, zoning ordinances, pre-disaster planning, capital investment planning,
Fifteen borehole data of SPT values and grain sizes along a 20 km stretch of ongoing Janjira
approach road project of Padma multipurpose bridge in Madaripur district were used to verify
the usability of the developed Software. Disturbed soil sample were collected up to depths of
19.5m depth in every 1.5m interval to perform grain size analysis test. Excel spreadsheet was
used where more than 500 data including SPT-N values, percent sand and fines at depths, GPS
coordinated, reduce level and ground water table. The soils at the site were predominantly
alluvial deposits. All these data were used in MATLAB interactive environment for numerical
computation, visualization, and programming. The purposes of the study were to find SPT
contour profile and soil-profile of a particular alignment of the site and to extract borehole Log
form SPT profile and soil-profile of a specific location of the alignment.
Outcome of this study can be used in microzonation studies, site response analysis, calculation
of bearing capacity of subsoils in the region and producing a number of parameters which are
empirically related to SPT values.
3
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ 6
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Subsoil Investigation Data and Their Interpretation .................................................................. 8
1.3 In-Situ Tests................................................................................................................................ 9
1.4 Standard Penetration Test......................................................................................................... 10
1.5 The Project Site......................................................................................................................... 11
1.6 Research Methodologies ........................................................................................................... 11
1.7 Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 12
1.8 Organization of the Report ....................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 14
2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Subsoil Investigation ................................................................................................................. 14
2.3 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ....................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Correlation for N60 in cohesive soil ............................................................................................ 20
2.3.2 Correction for N60 in granular soil ............................................................................................ 20
2.3.3 Correlation between N60 and relative density of granular Soil ........................................................ 20
2.4 Grain Size Distribution and Soil Profile .................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Sieve Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Hydrometer Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22
2.4.3 Particle Size Classification ......................................................................................................... 22
2.5 Pile Bearing Capacity and Standard Penetration Test .............................................................. 23
2.6 Soil Liquefaction and Standard Penetration Test...................................................................... 23
4
2.6.1 Assessment of liquefaction potential index ................................................................................... 26
2.6.2 Determination of cyclic stress ratio ............................................................................................. 26
2.6.3 Determination of cyclic resistance ratio ....................................................................................... 27
2.6.4 Determination of factor of safety ................................................................................................ 27
2.6.5 Determination of liquefaction potential index .............................................................................. 27
2.7 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 3 : MATLAB MODELING ........................................................................................... 29
3.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Multidimensional Interpolation ................................................................................................ 29

3.2.1 Bilinear Interpolation ............................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2 Multidimensional Interpolation in MATLAB .......................................................................... 30
3.3 MATLAB® Script ...................................................................................................................... 33

3.3.1 borehole_log_spt.m .............................................................................................................. 33
3.3.2 soil_profile.m ....................................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 : INPUT AND OUTPUT FOR BOREHOLE LOG AND SOIL PROFILE ........... 38
4.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 38
4.2 Project Site ................................................................................................................................ 38
4.2 INPUT Data .............................................................................................................................. 39
4.3 OUTPUT plots.......................................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 5 : CASE STUDIES FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS ...................................... 46
5.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 46
5.1 Pile Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 46
5.3 Soil Liquefaction ....................................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 53
6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 53
6.2 Recommendations for Further Studies ..................................................................................... 53
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX – A.................................................................................................................................. 55
5
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Applicability and Usefulness of In-situ Tests (Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997) ......................... 16
Table 2-2 Particle size ranges of soil ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 2-3 Prediction of pile capacityby SPT (after Shoospasha et. at. 2013) .................................................... 23
Table 2-4 The level of liquefaction severity ................................................................................................. 26
Table 4-1 Chainage and GPs locations of boreholes ..................................................................................... 39

Table 4-2 SPT data of boreholes ................................................................................................................ 40
Table 4-3 Grain size data of boreholes ........................................................................................................ 40
Table 5-1 Calculation for Pile Capacity under static load (at chainage 21100 for predicted SPT-N values) ......... 48
Table 5-2 Calculation for Pile Capacity under static load (at chainage 26100 for predicted SPT-N values) ......... 49
Table 5-3 Liquefaction Potential Index calculation (Predicted, at Chainage 21100) ......................................... 52
6
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Split Spoon Sampler used in SPT ............................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-2 Standard dimensions for the SPT sampler .................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-3 Standard penetration test arrangements ....................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-4 Sieve analysis apparatus ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2-5 Seismic map of Bangladesh and surrounding area (Ansary & Sharfuddin, 2002) ............................... 25
Figure 4-1 Site location (Janjira Approach Road of Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project) ................................. 38
Figure 4-2(a) Janjira Approach Road (6 Boreholes within Chainage 17600 to 21600) ..................................... 39
Figure 4-3(a) SPT contour profile from chainage 17600 to 25100.................................................................. 41
Figure 4-4 Vertical soil profile along with chainage (up to 19.5m depth) ........................................................ 43
Figure 4-5(a) Typical Predicted Borehole Log at chainage 21100 .................................................................. 44
Figure 5-1(a) Actual and Predicted Pile Capacity (in kN) at chainage 21100 ................................................... 46
Figure 5-2 Flood Prone Area of Bangladesh ................................................................................................ 50
7
Chapter 1 : Introduction
1.1 Background
In civil engineering projects, it is widely appreciated that the largest element of financial and
technical risk usually lies in the ground. Almost exclusively, the scope of geotechnical
investigations is governed not by what is needed to characterize the subsurface conditions
appropriately but, rather, by how much the client and project manager are willing to spend.
There is often little correlation between the variability of the ground and the scope of the
investigation.
For safe and economic infrastructural development, it is important that subsoil conditions at any
proposed civil engineering site be properly investigated prior to commencement of the final
design or construction activities. In other words, there is need to know the characteristics of the
formations (rocks and soils) on which the foundation of such structures and ancillary objects are
intended to rest or buried. This is for the obvious reason that such engineering structures or
objects (e.g. roads, bridges, dam embankments, buildings, etc.) must be anchored on or buried
in earth materials of proven integrity. Generally, the overall investigation should be detailed
enough to provide sufficient information for the geotechnical engineer to reach conclusions
regarding the site suitability, design criteria, probable construction problems and environmental
impact (Cernica, 1995). Both laboratory and in situ or field (surface and subsurface) techniques
are routinely used to obtain information about engineering properties of rocks and soils.
Laboratory techniques include Atterberg limits, pH determination, groundwater quality testing,
etc., while geological mapping, geophysical survey, shell and auger boring, core drilling, soil
sampling (disturbed and undisturbed), standard penetration tests, pressuremeter tests,
permeability tests, water level measurements, test pits are the commonly used field techniques.
These techniques are usually deployed in synergy for a given site. The overall consideration in
the choice of a method or a combination of methods is the cost implication, although this
consideration should not override the need for proper investigation. This study focuses on the
standard penetration test. It is one of the relatively cost-effective and yet informative field
techniques most commonly used in subsurface probing.
1.2 Subsoil Investigation Data and Their Interpretation

Data availability and accessibility can reduce time and the expense of the projects, especially
during feasibility stage. In the last few years, the numbers of construction projects in Bangladesh
have been increased rapidly and continuously. Consequently, the number of soil boring reports
has been accumulated largely. Data interpretation, management and appropriate processing,
then, cannot be regarded as simple tasks. The utilization of the various numerical and graphical
techniques can be served the geotechnical engineer as the very effective tools. Not only for
8
non-data area prediction but also used to interpret the complex data area with reliability and
accuracy.
In geotechnical engineering, soil formation, physical properties and engineering properties are
very important data. With the good soil information, engineers can make proper decision and
effectively design However, nature of soil is vary and more complicate in some area depending
upon its formation process or some disturbing condition. Thus well subsoil survey planning
during feasibility and detail design stage of the project is necessary for balancing of cost and
acquiring the significant data. Although significant data are obtained, data management and
interpretation are also very important processes and not easy tasks to achieve the subsoil
information.
The purpose this study is to elaborate the usage of numerical and graphical methods to manage
and interpret the soil data and establish geotechnical database system to provide information
support to others geotechnical work. Furthermore this system can be used as a decision support
system for geotechnical engineers.
1.3 In-Situ Tests

Site investigation and estimation of soil characteristics are essential parts of a geotechnical design
process. Geotechnical engineers must determine the average values and variability of soil
properties. As stated by Mair and Wood (1987), in-situ testing is becoming increasingly
important in geotechnical engineering, as simple laboratory tests may not be reliable while
more sophisticated laboratory testing can be time consuming and costly. Evaluation of
properties of soils beneath and adjacent to the structures at a specific region is of importance in
terms of geotechnical considerations since behaviour of structures is strongly influenced by the
response of soils due to loading. Properties of the soils surrounding the structure are effective on
the bearing capacity. From the viewpoint of the engineers, a correct assessment of these
properties necessitates a plausible bilateral evaluation of geotechnical and geological data. A
number of field tests including Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT),
Vane Shear Test, Dilatometer Test, etc. can be employed to find out the strength and other
engineering properties of the soils.
In-situ tests can greatly increase the volume of geometrical investigated at a foundation site,
with savings in both cost and speed when compared to sampling and lab testing. Historically,
they have been developed to evaluate specific parameters for geotechnical design. Some tests
directly measure the response to a particular type of load, such as a plate load test or a pile load
test. These tests verify design assumptions, and possibly determine soil or rock properties by
inversion. The two most common in-situ tests, the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone
Penetrometer Test, primarily identify soil type and stratigraphy, along with a relative measure
of strength. Interpretation of these two tests may also utilize indirect correlations with specific
9
soil properties, but typically with high statistical variability (partly due to inherent testing
variability, partly due to ignoring the soil's stress history test, and partly due to crude
empiricism). Other tests, such as the Iowa Borehole Shear Test, the Dilatometer Test, and the
Pressuremeter Test, attempt to directly measure in-situ the soil properties that might be
otherwise determined from laboratory tests of "undisturbed" (more accurately termed "intact")
samples. Stress-path variations, disturbance effects due to insertion of the test device, and
alternative test procedures may affect the results of these tests. There contains numerous
correlations between in-situ test results and various geotechnical parameters. To use these
correlations with reliability, the engineer must understand their basis and potential for error,
and then choose the in-situ test(s) that provide the most reliable correlation(s) for the desired
soil properties and design parameters. In general, this requires a test that closely models the
intended design use or directly measures the soil properties required for design.
In-situ tests generally investigate a much greater volume of soil more quickly than possible for
sampling and laboratory tests, and therefore they have the potential to realize both cost savings
and increased statistical reliability for foundation design.
1.4 Standard Penetration Test

One of in-situ testing methods is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). SPT is used to identify
soil type and stratigraphy along with a relative measure of strength. SPT, developed in the
United States, is a well established method of investigating soil properties such as bearing
capacity, liquefaction and so on. As many forms of tests are in use worldwide, standardization is
essential in order to facilitate the comparison of results from different investigations, even at the
same site.
In many parts of the world, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is still considered one of the
most common in-situ tests to evaluate the strength of soil and often the only in-situ test
performed during a site investigation. While the standard penetration test is probably the most
common in-situ test performed in Bangladesh, the term “standard” is misleading. Although the
test is relatively simple to perform, only skilled drillers routinely achieve meaningful results.
In 1902, Gow designed a 1inch diameter heavy wall sampler to be driven with a 110 pound
weight. In 1927, Hart and Fletcher developed the standard 2-inch-diameter "split-spoon"
sampler. Later, Fletcher and Mohr standardized the test using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-
inch drop to measure the blow count for three consecutive 6-inch increments of penetration,
reporting the total blow count for final 12 inches as the NSPT value. Terzaghi and Peck (1948)
published early geotechnical design correlations, which popularized the SPT and encouraged its
acceptance as a "standard". The three styles of SPT hammer in common use deliver energy to
the drill rods that varies from about 35% to 95% of the theoretically available driving energy of
4200 in-lbs. This variation, plus the use of non-standardized drilling techniques, led
10
Schmertmann (1978) to investigate their effect on the value of NSPT, which he found to exceed
a factor of two. In addition, Schmertmann (1979) also found that NSPT varied approximately
inversely in proportion to the hammer energy delivered to the drill rods. With the advent of
modern computers, energy measurement devices allow technicians to easily measure the actual
driving energy entering the rods as described in ASTM D4633. The engineer can then correct
the measured value of NSPT to N60, the equivalent blow count at 60% of the theoretical
hammer energy (thought to represent the average energy in the correlation database).
Skempton (1986) presented a method to compute N60 values from raw NSPT data, which is
incorporated in ASTM D 6066. Unfortunately, N60 values rarely appear on boring logs. The
barrel on the old samplers had the same inner diameter as the shoe. Today, an alternative
sampler barrel in common use has a larger inside diameter to accommodate liners with an inner
diameter the same as the shoe. However, liners are rarely used. Skempton suggests multiplying
the N-value by 1.2 for this correction. Automatic trip hammers, now in widespread use, may
deliver almost 95% of the theoretical energy if well-maintained. For these hammers, a
correction of 1.58 may be needed to get N60. Without making the N60 correction, designs tend
to be overly conservative and costly. Even with the best techniques, predicting how the soil
responds to static structural loading based on the results of a dynamic test can be highly
inaccurate.
1.5 The Project Site

Bangladesh Geological Survey indicates that the project site Jajira of Madaripur district, in
general, is underlain by recent alluvium. The Padma superficial alluvial river deposits typically
comprise normally-consolidated, low strength compressible clays, or silts and fine sands of low
density. The thickness of these deposits is usually quite variable and can exhibit considerable
changes over short distances depending on the profile of the former river channel in which they
were deposited. The underlying deposit is predominantly dense sand. The Janjira approach
road length is 10.579 km.
1.6 Research Methodologies

This study was conducted to produce a model for soil profile using MATLAB and Microsoft
Excel. MATLAB (matrix laboratory) which is a multi-paradigm numerical computing
environment and fourth-generation programming language which
allows matrix manipulations, plotting of functions and data, implementation of algorithms,
creation of user interfaces, and interfacing with programs written in other languages,
including C, C++, Java, Fortran and Python. MATLAB functions are similar to C functions or
FORTRAN subroutines.
11
MATLAB programs are stored as plain text in files having names that end with the extension
``m''. These files are called, m-files. Each m-file contains exactly one MATLAB function.
Thus, a collection of MATLAB functions can lead to a large number of relatively small files.
MATLAB functions can be used interactively. In addition to providing the obvious support for
interactive calculation, it also is a very convenient way to debug functions that are part of a
bigger project.
MATLAB functions have two parameter lists, one for input and one for output. This supports
one of the cardinal rules of MATLAB programming: do not change the input parameters of a
function.
Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application developed by Microsoft for Microsoft
Windows and Mac OS. It features calculation, graphing tools, pivot tables, and
a macro programming language called Visual Basic for Applications.
The key features of MATLAB are:

 High-level language for numerical computation, visualization, and application
development
 Interactive environment for iterative exploration, design, and problem solving
 Mathematical functions for linear algebra, statistics, Fourier analysis, filtering,
optimization, numerical integration, and solving ordinary differential equations
 Built-in graphics for visualizing data and tools for creating custom plots
 Development tools for improving code quality and maintainability and maximizing
performance
 Tools for building applications with custom graphical interfaces
 Functions for integrating MATLAB based algorithms with external applications and
languages such as C, Java, .NET, and Microsoft® Excel®
1.7 Objectives
Evaluation of properties of soils beneath and adjacent to the structures at a specific region is of
main importance in terms of geotechnical considerations. From the viewpoint of the engineers,
a correct assessment of these properties necessitates a plausible evaluation of geotechnical data.
The study was aimed to prepare a model to produce a soil profile at a particular location using
the adjacent soil data. The principal objectives of the study were:
 To develop o MATLAB computer model that could produce the soil profile at a
particular location using GPS coordinates or chainage location.
 To validate the model using known soil profile data.
 To use predicted borehole log in case studies of designing practical problem.
12
1.8 Organization of the Report
The present study is reported in five chapters namely- Chapter One: Introduction, Chapter
Two: Literature Review describing various definitions, theoretical background, previous
studies related to present study. Following is the Chapter Three: MATLAB Modelling,
describing the total methodology of modelling. Chapter Four is the Input and Output for
Borehole Log and Soil Profile. Chapter Five is the Case Studies for Geotechnical Problems.
Lastly Chapter Six is the Conclusions that summarizes the finding of the study and gives
recommendations for future study.
13
Chapter 2 : Literature Review
2.1 General
The present study is concerned with the development of a MATLAB computer software that
uses standard penetration test (SPT) and grain size data of a site to produce a soil profile at the
desired location where these tests were not been done. The program necessitates input like SPT
data of known adjacent boreholes and laboratory grain size analysis data. Various works has
been done in the past relevant to the topic. In the following sections the concept and relevant
literature are briefly reported.
2.2 Subsoil Investigation

A subsoil or ground investigation is undertaken to determine vertical and horizontal variations
in ground type and ground properties which include the in-situ stress conditions, deformation
and strength parameters and the factors defining the time-dependent behaviour (Clarke, 1995).
A proper ground investigation can enable a design engineer to assess the behaviour of the
ground when it is loaded or unloaded. During the last half century, there has been an enormous
increase in the size and complexity of construction works (Robertson, 1986). This fact
highlights an increasing need for better predictions of ground behaviour. An accurate
prediction of movements of a multi-storey building, neighbouring an existing building, is
essential during as well as after its construction. The new structure supporting such elements
that produce vibrations needs a special foundation for stability. Investigation of the distribution,
type and physical properties of subsurface materials are, in some form or other, required for the
final design of most civil engineering structures. These investigations are performed to obtain
solutions to the following groups of problems (Hvorslev, 1949):
 Foundation problems or determination of the stability and deformations of undisturbed

subsurface materials under superimposed loads, in slopes and cuts, or around foundation
pits and tunnels; and determination of the pressure of subsurface materials against
supporting structures when such are needed.
 Construction problems or determination of the extent and character of materials to be
excavated or location and investigation of soil and rock deposits for use as construction
materials in earth dams and fills, for road and airfield bases and surfacing and for
concrete aggregates.
 Groundwater problems or determination of the depth, hydrostatic pressure, flow and
composition of the ground water, and thereby the danger of seepage, underground
erosion, and frost action; the influence of the water on the stability and settlement of
structures; its action on various construction materials; and its suitability as a water
supply.
14
Several techniques are emp1oyed to predict ground conditions and changes in ground
conditions ranging from the standard penetration test (SPT) to the most sophisticated digital
true triaxial test (Clarke, 1995). Clearly, obtaining good quality soil parameters for use in
practice is of great importance, and this has led to the development of sophisticated subsoil
investigation techniques (Robertson, 1986).
Subsoil investigation, consisting of in-situ tests either independently or in combination with
laboratory tests, has become a prerequisite for any size of civil engineering project (Kaggwa et
al. 996). It is necessary for the economic and safe design of the substructure elements (Bowles,
1996). Therefore, careful collection, recording and interpretation of geotechnical information
should always be made. Figure 1.1 shows the divisions of the various field and laboratory tests
along with their further subdivisions. Results cannot be provided at the time of the subsoil
investigation with laboratory methods of testing soil samples, whether disturbed or undisturbed.
Basically soils are first sampled at the site, transported to the laboratory and then tested for the
determination of the required parameters. Unknown and different soil disturbance can have
impact on the soil fabric and can change the void ratio and density of the soil. The effect on
these parameters can permanently change the strength properties of the soil specimens. While
laboratory testing forms an essential part of any subsoil investigation, in-situ testing has become
increasingly desirable in order to obtain various soil parameters. Subsoil investigation either by
in-situ testing or laboratory testing is generally carried out at any site with following objectives:
 To assess sequence and thickness of strata underneath

 To assess quality of bedrock and depth of overburden soil.
 To determine the position of ground water table (GWT) and limits of its fluctuations
during wet and dry seasons.
 To evaluate the characteristics of subsoil, rock and GWT.
 To detect the presence of anomalies within the depth of exploration.
Laboratory methods of testing soil samples, either undisturbed or disturbed, do not provide
results at the time of the subsoil investigation. Soils are first sampled at the site, transported to
the laboratory and then tested. The test produced the results may not truly represent the in-situ
ground conditions.
In-situ tests can be interpreted either directly to get a soil parameter (such as strength from a
vane) or indirectly based on correlation with laboratory measurements (e.g. strength from SPT,
CPT, DMT) or by interpreting a ground response curve to get the shear stress-strain curve (e.g.
pressuremeter test). Lunne et al. (1997) prepared a summary of the main in-situ test methods
(Table 1.1) and graded each method based its applicability to different ground conditions and
the usefulness of the geotechnical information obtained. These grades represent qualitative
evaluation of the confidence levels assessed for each device and are changing regularlywith
experience and application.
15
Table 2-1 Applicability and Usefulness of In-situ Tests (Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997)
16
2.3 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
It is understood (Table 2-1) that a number of field tests including Standard Penetration Test
(SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), Vane Shear Test, Dilatometer Test, etc. can be employed
to find out the strength and other engineering properties of the soils.
It is acknowledged that all tests have a number of limitations, advantages as well as drawbacks
and application of different tests on various types of soils requires an extensive study in decision
making processes (Bowles 1997; Budhu 2007). Standard penetration test is barely the most
common in-situ test in geotechnical engineering, which is used in evaluating the strength
variation of soil strata underlying structures (Sivrikaya & Togrol 2006). The test is applicable to
a widely ranged soil conditions. Although the use of this test is prevalent in subsurface
investigations, it has some major drawbacks. The results are affected from many factors and
discrepancies in test results are noted in the literature due to use of equipment from different
manufacturers, drive hammer configurations, hammering system, use of liner inside the split
barrel sampler, overburden pressure, length of drill rod and other problems in application. The
test exhibits different driving resistances in silts and clays of varying moisture contents.
The standard penetration test, developed around 1927, is currently the most popular and
economical means to obtain information (both on land and offshore). The method has been
standardized as ASTM D 1586 since 1958 with periodic revisions to date. The test consists of
the following:
(i) Driving the standard split-barrel sampler of dimensions a distance of 460 mm into the
soil at the bottom of the boring.
(ii) Counting the number of blows to drive the sampler the last two 150 mm distances (
total = 300 mm) to obtain the N number.
(iii) Using a 63.5 kg driving mass (or hammer) falling “free” from a height of 760 mm.
several hammer configurations are available.
The exposed drill rod is referenced with three chalk marks 150 mm apart, and the guide rod is
marked at 760 mm (for manual hammers). The assemblage is then seated on the soil in the
borehole (after cleaning it of loose cuttings). Next the sampler is driven a distance of 150 mm to
seat it on undisturbed soil, with this blow count being recorded (unless distance of 150 mm to
seat it on undisturbed soil, with this blow count being recorded (unless the system mass sinks
the sampler so no N can be counted). The sum of the blow counts for the next two 150-mm
increments is used as the penetration count N unless the last increment cannot be completed. In
this case the sum of the first two 150 mm penetrations is recorded as N. Pictures and schematic
diagram of split spoon samplers, SPT arrangement are shown in Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-3.
17
Figure 2-1 Split Spoon Sampler used in SPT
Figure 2-2 Standard dimensions for the SPT sampler
Figure 2-3 Standard penetration test arrangements
18
The boring log shows refusal and the test is halted if
 50 blows are required for any 150-mm increment.

 100 blows are obtained (to drive the required 300 mm).
 10 successive blows produce no advance.
It is evident that the blow count would be directly related to the driving energy, which is
theoretically computed as –
Eq 2.1
( ) Eq 2.2
So, we obtain, Eq 2.3
Where, W = weight or mass of hammer and h = height of fall. This gives , for the standard 63.5
kg hammer and h= 762 mm (30 in.) , the theoretical input driving energy of
( )
Kovacs and Salomone (1982) found that the actual input driving energy Ea to the sampler to
produce penetration ranged from about 30 to 80 percent. These discrepancies appear to arise
from factors such as –
 Equipment from different manufactures

 Drive hammer configurations
 Hammer Drop
 Sampler
 Overburden pressure
 Length of drill rod
From several recent studies cited it has been suggested that the SPT be standardized to some
energy ratio Er which should be computed as
Eq 2.4
The standard blow count N60 can be computed from the measured N as follows:
Eq 2.5
Where, = Hammer correction (From avg. energy ratio Er)

= Rod length correction
= Sampler correction
= Borehole diameter correction
19
2.3.1 Correlation for N60 in cohesive soil
Hara, et al. (1971) suggested the following correlation between the undrained shear strength of
clay (cu) and N60:
Eq 2.6
Where Pa = atmospheric pressure ( )
2.3.2 Correction for N60 in granular soil

In granular soils, the value of N is affected by the effective overburden pressure, . For that
reason, the value N60 obtained from field exploration under different effective over-burden
pressures should be changed to correspond to a standard value of . That is,
( ) Eq 2.7
Where,
( ) = value of N60 corrected to a standard value of ( )

CN = correction factor
N60= value of N obtained from field exploration
Liao and Whitman’s relationship (1986):
[ ] Eq 2.8
( )
2.3.3 Correlation between N60 and relative density of granular Soil

Meyerhof (1957) developed a correlation between N60 and the relative density of sand (Dr) that
can be expressed as
{ } Eq 2.9
[ ( )]
2.4 Grain Size Distribution and Soil Profile

Samples and trial pits should be inspected visually and compared with field logs of the drillings
so that the preliminary ground profile can be established. For soil samples, the visual inspection
should be supported by simple manual tests to identify the soil and to give a first impression of
its consistency and mechanical behaviour. A standard visualmanual procedure of describing and
identifying soils may be followed.
20
Soil classification tests should be performed to determine the composition and index properties
of each stratum. The samples for the classification tests should be selected in such a way that the
tests are approximately equally distributed over the complete area and the full depth of the
strata relevant for design.
In any soil mass, the sizes of the grains vary greatly. To classify a soil properly, it can be done by
its grain-size distribution. The grain-size distribution of coarse-grained soil is generally
determined by means of sieve analysis. For a fine-grained soil, the grain-size distribution can be
obtained by means of hydrometer analysis.
2.4.1 Sieve Analysis

A sieve analysis is conducted by taking a measured amount of dry, well-pulverized soil and
passing it through a stack of progressively finer sieves with a pan at the bottom as shown in
Figure 2-4. The amount of soil retained on each sieve is measured, and the cumulative
percentage of soil passing through each is determined. This percentage is generally referred to as
percent finer. These sieves are commonly used for the analysis of soil for classification purposes.
The percent finer for each sieve determined by a sieve analysis is plotted on semilogarithmic
graph paper. The grain diameter, D, is plotted on the logarithmic scale and the percent finer is
plotted on the arithmetic scale.
Figure 2-4 Sieve analysis apparatus
21
2.4.2 Hydrometer Analysis
Hydrometer analysis is based on the principle of sedimentation of soil particles in water. This
test involves the use of 50 grams of dry, pulverized soil. A deflocculating agent is always added
to the soil. The most common deflocculating agent used for hydrometer analysis is 125 cc of
4% solution of sodium hexametaphosphate. The soil is allowed to soak for at least 16 hours in
the deflocculating agent. After the soaking period, distilled water is added, and the soil–
deflocculating agent mixture is thoroughly agitated. The sample is then transferred to a 1000-
ml glass cylinder. More distilled water is added to the cylinder to fill it to the 1000-ml mark,
and then the mixture is again thoroughly agitated. A hydrometer is placed in the cylinder to
measure the specific gravity of the soil–water suspension in the vicinity of the instrument’s
bulb, usually over a 24-hour period. Hydrometers are calibrated to show the amount of soil
that is still in suspension at any given time t. The largest diameter of the soil particles still in
suspension at time t can be determined by Stokes’ law,
√( √ Eq 2.10
)
Where
D = diameter of the soil particle, Gs= specific gravity of soil solids, = viscosity of water, γw
=unit weight of water, L= effective length, t= time
2.4.3 Particle Size Classification

There are several different systems in place that denote the particle sizes of soil. A classification
scheme presented in Table 2-2 is provided by Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC).
Table 2-2 Particle size ranges of soil
Soil Type Particle Size Range, mm Retained on Mesh Size/ Sieve

No.
Boulder >300 12”
Cobble 300-75 3”
Gravel: Coarse 75-19 ¾”
Medium 19-9.5 3/8”
Fine 9.5-4.75 No. 4
Sand: Coarse 4.75-2.00 No. 10
Medium 2.00-0.425 No. 40
Fine 0.425-0.075 No. 200
Silt 0.075-0.002 ---
Clay <0.002 ---
22
2.5 Pile Bearing Capacity and Standard Penetration Test
Pile capacity determination by SPT is one of the earliest applications of this test that includes
two main approaches, direct and indirect methods. Direct methods apply N values with some
modification factors. Indirect SPT methods employ a friction angle and undrained shear
strength values estimated from measured data based on different theories. Amongst the two, the
direct methods are more accepted amongst the field engineers for the ease of computations. In
the present study, the following common SPT-based direct methods have been employed to
predict the pile bearing capacity (Table 2-2).
Table 2-3 Prediction of pile capacityby SPT (after Shoospasha et. at. 2013)
2.6 Soil Liquefaction and Standard Penetration Test

Liquefactions and associated ground failures have been widely observed during numerous
devastating earthquakes. Liquefaction occurs generally due to rapid loading during seismic
events where there is not sufficient time for dissipation of excess pore-water pressures through
natural drainage. Rapid loading situation increases pore-water pressures resulting in cyclic
softening in fine-grained materials. The increased pore water pressure transforms granular
materials from a solid to a liquefied state. Shear strength and stiffness of the soil deposit are
reduced due to increase in pore water pressure. Liquefaction is observed in loose, saturated, and
clean to silty sands. The soil liquefaction depends on the magnitude of earthquake, intensity and
23
duration of ground motion, the distance from the source of the earthquake, site specific
conditions, ground acceleration, type of soil and thickness of the soil deposit, relative density,
grain size distribution, fines content, plasticity of fines, degree of saturation, confining pressure,
permeability characteristics of soil layer, position and fluctuations of the groundwater table,
reduction of effective stress, and shear modulus degradation (Youd and Perkins, 1978; Kramer,
1996; Tuttle et al., 1999; Youd et al., 2001). Liquefaction-induced ground failure is influenced
by the thickness of non-liquefied and liquefied soil layers (Ishihara, 1985). Measures to mitigate
the damages caused by liquefaction require accurate evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils.
The potential for liquefaction to occur at certain depth at a site is quantified in terms of the
factors of safety against liquefaction (FS). Seed and Idriss (1971) proposed a simplified procedure
to evaluate the liquefaction resistance of soils in terms of factors of safety (FS) by taking the ratio
of capacity of a soil element to resist liquefaction to the seismic demand imposed on it. Capacity
to resist liquefaction is computed as the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), and seismic demand is
computed as the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). FS of a soil layer can be calculated with the help of
several in-situ tests such as standard penetration test (SPT), conic penetration test (CPT),
Becker penetration test (BPT) and shear wave velocity (Vs) test (Youd et al., 2001). SPT-based
simplified empirical procedure is widely used for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils.
Factors of safety (FS) along the depth of soil profile are generally evaluated using the surface
level peak ground acceleration (PGA), earthquake magnitude (Mw), and SPT data, namely SPT
blow counts (N), overburden pressure (σv), fines content (FC), clay content, liquid limits and
grain size distribution (Seed and Idriss, 1971; Seed et al., 1985; Youd et al., 2001). A soil layer
with FS<1 is generally classified as liquefiable and with FS>1 is classified as nonliquefiable (Seed
and Idriss, 1971).
A layer may liquefy during an earthquake, even for FS>1.0. A factor of safety of 1.2 at a
particular depth is considered as the threshold value for the layer to be categorized as non-
liquefiable (Sonmez, 2003). Seed and Idriss (1982) considered the soil layer with FS value
between 1.25 and 1.5 as non-liquefiable. Soil layers with FS greater than 1.2 and FS between
1.0 and 1.2 are defined as non-liquefiable and marginally liquefiable layers, respectively (Ulusay
and Kuru, 2004). Although FS shows the liquefaction potential of a soil layer at a particular
depth in the subsurface, it does not show the degree of liquefaction severity at a liquefaction-
prone site. Iwasaki et al. (1978) proposed liquefaction potential index (LPI) to overcome this
limitation of FS. Liquefaction potential index (LPI) provides an integration of liquefaction
potential over the depth of a soil profile and predicts the performance of the whole soil column
as opposed to a single soil layer at particular depth and depends on the magnitude of the peak
horizontal ground acceleration (Luna and Frost, 1998). LPI combines depth, thickness, and
factor of safety against liquefaction (FS) of soil layers and predicts the potential of liquefaction to
cause damage at the surface level at the site of interest.
24
Figure 2-5 Seismic map of Bangladesh and surrounding area (Ansary & Sharfuddin, 2002)
Iwasaki et al. (1982) identified that liquefaction effects are moderate for 5<LPI<15 and major
for LPI>15. Toprak and Holzer (2003) reported that sand boils occur for LPI≥5 and lateral
spreads occur for LPI≥12. Juang et al. (2005) studied the effects of liquefaction on the damage
of ground surface near foundations. LPI shows a clear picture of liquefaction severity during
seismic events, and LPI≥5 is generally considered as a threshold for the surface manifestation of
liquefaction (Iwasaki et al., 1982; Toprak and Holzer, 2003; Holzer et al., 2006). Sonmez
(2003) categorized the sites with LPI=0 as not likely to liquefy and categorized the sites with
0<LPI<2, 2<LPI<5, 5<LPI<15, and LPI>15 as having low, moderate, high, and severe
liquefaction susceptibility, respectively. In this article, an attempt has been made to determine
the liquefaction potential index (LPI) from the factors of safety (FS) along the depth at each
representative borehole based on the method proposed by Youd et al. (2001).
A seismic map of Bangladesh and surrounding area is presented with Peak Ground Accelaration
(PGA in ) for a 10% probability of exceedance in an economic life of 50 year based on
the attenuation law of Duggal (Ansary & Sharfuddin, 2002).
25
2.6.1 Assessment of liquefaction potential index
The liquefaction potential index (LPI) quantifies the severity of liquefaction and predicts surface
manifestations of liquefaction, liquefaction damage or failure potential of a liquefaction-prone
area (Luna and Frost, 1998). LPI is computed by taking integration of one minus the
liquefaction factors of safety along the entire depth of soil column limited to the depths ranging
from 0 to 20m below the ground surface at a specific location. The level of liquefaction severity
with respect to LPI as per Iwasaki et al. (1982), Luna and Frost (1998), and MERM (2003) is
given in Error! Reference source not found.. The factors of safety against liquefaction (FS)
and the corresponding liquefaction potential index (LPI) are determined by comparing the
seismic demand expressed in terms of cyclic stress ratio (CSR) to the capacity of liquefaction
resistance of the soil expressed in terms of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR).
Table 2-4 The level of liquefaction severity
LPI Iwasaki et al. (1982) Luna and Frost (1998) MERM(2003)

LPI=0 Very low Little to none None
0<LPI<5 Low Minor Low
5<LPI<15 High Moderate Medium
15<LPI Very high Major High
2.6.2 Determination of cyclic stress ratio

Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) characterizes the seismic demand induced by a given earthquake, and
it can be determined from peak ground surface acceleration that depends upon site-specific
ground motions. The expression for CSR induced by earthquake ground motions formulated
by Idriss and Boulanger (2006) is as follows:
Eq 2.11
0.65 is a weighing factor to calculate the equivalent uniform stress cycles required to generate
same pore water pressure during an earthquake; is the peak horizontal ground
acceleration; g is acceleration of gravity; σv and are total vertical overburden stress and
effective vertical overburden stress, respectively, at a given depth below the ground surface;
is depth-dependent stress reduction factor; MSF is the magnitude scaling factor, and is the
overburden correction factor.
This stress reduction factor( ), can be calculated by-
Eq 2.12
Where, z is the depth (in m)
The values of CSR that pertain to the equivalent uniform shear stress induced by an earthquake
of magnitude, Mw, are adjusted to an equivalent CSR for an earthquake of magnitude Mw
26
=7.5 through introduction of magnitude scaling factor (MSF). MSF accounts for the duration
effect of ground motions. MSF for Mw < 7.5 is expressed as follows (from Youd et al.):
Eq 2.13
Hybes and Olson derived the correction factor to be
( ) Eq 2.14
Where is the effective overburden stress, pa is atmospheric pressure in the same units, and
is a function of site conditions. Youd et al. recommended values between 0.6 and 0.8,
depending on the relatively density of the soil. We assumed a conservative estimate for of 0.8.
2.6.3 Determination of cyclic resistance ratio

Determination of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) requires fines content (FC) of the soil to correct
updated SPT blow count (N1)60 to an equivalent clean sand standard penetration resistance
value (N1)60cs. Idriss and Boulanger (2006) determined CRR value for cohesionless soil with
any fines content using the following expression:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
{ ( ) ( ) ( ) } Eq 2.15
( ) ( ) ( ) Eq 2.16
Where ( ) the correction for fines is content in percent (FC) present in the soil and is
expressed as
( ) ( ( ) ) Eq 2.17
2.6.4 Determination of factor of safety

The factor of safety against liquefaction (FS) is commonly used to quantify liquefaction
potential. The factor of safety against liquefaction (FS) can be defined by
( )
Eq 2.18
( )
Both CSR and CRR vary with depth, and therefore the liquefaction potential is evaluated at
corresponding depths within the soil profile.
2.6.5 Determination of liquefaction potential index

Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is a single-valued parameter to evaluate regional liquefaction
potential. LPI at a site is computed by integrating the factors of safety (FS) along the soil column
up to 20m depth. A weighting function is added to give more weight to the layers closer to the
27
ground surface. The liquefaction potential index (LPI) proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1978, 1982)
is expressed as follows:
∫ ( ) ( ) Eq 2.19
Where, z is depth of the midpoint of the soil layer (0 to 20m) and dz is differential increment of
depth. The weighting factor, w(z), and the severity factor, F(z), are calculated as per the
following expressions:
F(z)=1−FS for FS < 1.0
F(z)=0 for FS ≥ 1.0
w(z)=10−0.5z for z < 20 m

w(z)=0 for z > 20 m
For the soil profiles with the depth less than 20m, LPI is calculated using the following
expression (Luna and Frost 1998):
∑ Eq 2.20
with
Fi =1−FSi for FSi < 1.0

Fi =0 for FSi ≥ 1.0
Where, Hi is thickness of the discretized soil layers; n is number of layers; Fi is liquefaction

severity for i-th layer; FSi is the factor of safety for i-th layer; wi is the weighting factor (=10–
0.5zi); and zi is the depth of i-th layer (m). (Dixit, et al., 2012; Lenz & Baise, 2007)
2.7 Concluding Remarks

Subsoil investigation involving significant cost is perhaps the most important aspect in the
design of foundation in any civil engineering structures. The complex nature of the
embedment ground and lack of suitable analytical models for predicting the subsoil profile at a
particular site are the main reasons for the geotechnical engineer's tendency to peruse further
research on this subject. The present study, as such, was under taken with an aim to develop
computer software that would use the data from adjacent sites to generate a soil profile of a
location where subsoil investigation has not been carried out thus saving the cost of the project.
28
Chapter 3 : MATLAB Modeling
3.1 General
The present study was aimed at developing a modeling to generate soil profile at a selected
location using SPT and grain size data of neibouring boreholes. MATLAB computer was used
that provides the user with a convenient environment for performing many types of
calculations. In particular, it provides a very nice tool to implement numerical methods.
MATLAB uses three primary windows:
 Command window. Used to enter commands and data.

 Graphics window. Used to display plots and graphs.
 Edit window. Used to create and edit M-files.
In the following section the program concepts are described.
3.2 Multidimensional Interpolation

The interpolation methods for one-dimensional problems can be extended to multidimensional
interpolation. In this section, the simplest case of two-dimensional interpolation in Cartesian
coordinates is described in addition to MATLAB’s capabilities for multidimensional
interpolation.
3.2.1 Bilinear Interpolation

Tow-dimensional interpolation deals with determining intermediate values for functions of
two variables, ( ). Assuming values at four points: ( ) ( ) ( ) and
( ). To interpolate between these points to estimate the value at an intermediate point
( ), using a linear function, the result is a plane connecting the points. Such functions are
called bilinear.
A simple approach for developing the bilinear function:

First, by holding the value fixed and applying one-dimensional linear interpolation in the
direction. Using the Lagrange form, the result at ( ) is
( ) ( ) ( ) Eq 3.1
And at ( ) is
( ) ( ) ( ) Eq 3.2
These points can be used to linearly interpolate along the y dimension to yield the final result:
29
( ) ( ) ( ) Eq 3.3
A single equation can be developed by substituting these equations to give
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
Eq 3.4
3.2.2 Multidimensional Interpolation in MATLAB

MATLAB has built-in functions for two-, three- and n-dimensional piecewise interpolation:
interp2, interp3 and interpn.
MATLAB function: interp2 for 2-D interpolation
Vq = interp2(X,Y,V,Xq,Yq) interpolates to find Vq, the values of the underlying 2-D function
V at the query points in matrices Xq and Yq.
Matrices X and Y specify the points at which the data V is given.
Xq can be a row vector, in which case it specifies a matrix with constant columns. Similarly,
Yq can be a column vector and it specifies a matrix with constant rows.
Vq = interp2(V,Xq,Yq) assumes X=1:N and Y=1:M where [M,N]=SIZE(V).

Vq = interp2(V,NTIMES) expands V by interleaving interpolates between every element,
working recursively for NTIMES. interp2(V) is the same as interp2(V,1).
Vq = interp2(...,METHOD) specifies alternate methods. The default is linear interpolation.
Available methods are:
'nearest' - nearest neighbor interpolation

'linear' - bilinear interpolation
'spline' - spline interpolation

'cubic' - bicubic interpolation as long as the data is uniformly spaced, otherwise the same as
'spline'
For faster interpolation when X and Y are equally spaced and monotonic, use the syntax
30
Vq = interp2(...,*METHOD).
Vq = interp2(...,METHOD,EXTRAPVAL) specificies a method and a scalar value for Vq

outside of the domain created by X and Y. Thus, Vq will equal EXTRAPVAL for any value
of Yq or Xq which is not spanned by Y or X respectively. A method must be specified for
EXTRAPVAL to be used, the default method is 'linear'.
All the interpolation methods require that X and Y be monotonic and plaid (as if they were
created using MESHGRID). If you provide two monotonic vectors, interp2 changes them to a
plaid internally.
X and Y can be non-uniformly spaced.
For example, to generate a coarse approximation of PEAKS and interpolate over a finer mesh:
[X,Y,V] = peaks(10); [Xq,Yq] = meshgrid(-3:.1:3,-3:.1:3);

Vq = interp2(X,Y,V,Xq,Yq); mesh(Xq,Yq,Vq)
MATLAB function: meshgrid
meshgrid is a Cartesian grid in 2-D/3-D space
[X,Y] = meshgrid(xgv,ygv) replicates the grid vectors xgv and ygv to produce the coordinates
of a rectangular grid (X, Y). The grid vector xgv is replicated numel(ygv) times to form the
columns of X. The grid vector ygv is replicated numel(xgv) times to form the rows of Y.
[X,Y,Z] = meshgrid(xgv,ygv,zgv) replicates the grid vectors xgv, ygv, zgv to produce the
coordinates of a 3D rectangular grid (X, Y, Z). The grid vectors xgv,ygv,zgv form the columns
of X, rows of Y, and pages of Z respectively. (X,Y,Z) are of size numel(ygv)-by-numel(xgv)-
by(numel(zgv).
[X,Y] = meshgrid(gv) is equivalent to [X,Y] = meshgrid(gv,gv).

[X,Y,Z] = meshgrid(gv) is equivalent to [X,Y,Z] = meshgrid(gv,gv,gv).
The coordinate arrays are typically used for the evaluation of functions of two or three variables
and for surface and volumetric plots.
meshgrid and NDGRID are similar, though meshgrid is restricted to 2-D and 3-D while
NDGRID supports 1-D to N-D. In 2-D and 3-D the coordinates output by each function are
the same, the difference is the shape of the output arrays. For grid vectors xgv, ygv and zgv of
31
length M, N and P respectively, NDGRID(xgv, ygv) will output arrays of size M-by-N while
meshgrid(xgv, ygv) outputs arrays of size N-by-M. Similarly, NDGRID(xgv, ygv, zgv) will
output arrays of size M-by-N-by-P while meshgrid(xgv, ygv, zgv) outputs arrays of size N-by-
M-by-P.
Example: Evaluate the function x*exp(-x^2-y^2)
over the range -2 < x < 2, -4 < y < 4,
[X,Y] = meshgrid(-2:.2:2, -4:.4:4);
Z = X .* exp(-X.^2 - Y.^2);
surf(X,Y,Z)
MATLAB function: contour
contour function is for Contour plot.
contour(Z) is a contour plot of matrix Z treating the values in Z as heights above a plane. A
contour plot are the level curves of Z for some values V. The values V are chosen
automatically.
contour(X, Y, Z) X and Y specify the (x, y) coordinates of the surface as for SURF. The X
and Y data will be transposed or sorted to bring it to MESHGRID form depending on the span
of the first row and column of X (to orient the data) and the order of the first row of X and the
first column of Y (to sorted the data). The X and Y data must be consistently sorted in that if
the first element of a column of X is larger than the first element of another column that all
elements in the first column are larger than the corresponding elements of the second. Similarly
Y must be consistently sorted along rows.
contour(Z, N) and contour(X, Y, Z, N) draw N contour lines, overriding the automatic
value.
contour(Z, V) and contour(X, Y, Z, V) draw LENGTH(V) contour lines at the values
specified in vector V. Use contour(Z, [v, v]) or contour(X, Y, Z, [v, v]) to compute a single
contour at the level v.
The contours are normally colored based on the current colormap and are drawn as PATCH
objects.
Example:
[c, h] = contour(peaks); clabel(c, h); colorbar;
32
3.3 MATLAB® Script
For simple problems, entering requests at the MATLAB prompt in the Command window is
fast and efficient. However, as the number of commands increase, or when I wish to change the
value of one or more variables and reevaluate a number of commands, typing at the MATLAB
prompt quickly becomes tedious. MATLAB provides a logical solution to this problem. It
allows to place MATLAB commands in a simple text file and then tell MATLAB to open the
file and evaluate the commands exactly as it would have if I had typed the commands at the
MATLAB prompt. These files are called script files or M-files. The term “script” signifies
that MATLAB simply reads from the script found in the file. The term M-file means that script
filenames must end with the extension ‘.m’. In our study two script files- borehole_log_spt.m
and soil_profile.m were used.
3.3.1 borehole_log_spt.m
clc;
clear all;
close all;
depth=xlsread('PMBP.xlsx',1,'A2:A20');
chainage=(xlsread('PMBP.xlsx',1,'B1:Z1'))'
SPT_N=xlsread('PMBP.xlsx',1,'B2:Z100');
for a=1:numel(chainage);
CELL_SPT_N{a,1}=SPT_N(:,a);
end
celldisp(CELL_SPT_N)
for a=1:numel(depth);
CHAINAGE(a,:) = chainage;
end
for hhh=1:numel(SPT_N(1,:));
DEPTH(:,hhh)=depth;
end
CHAINAGE;
DEPTH;
chainage;
depth;
SPT_N;
DEPTHi=linspace(max(depth),min(depth));
CHAINAGEi=linspace(max(chainage),min(chainage));
[CHAINAGEii, DEPTHii]=meshgrid(CHAINAGEi,DEPTHi);
CHAINAGEii;
DEPTHii;
33
nseq = cell(size(CELL_SPT_N));
for i = 1:numel(CELL_SPT_N);
x = 1:length(CELL_SPT_N{i});
mask = ~isnan(CELL_SPT_N{i});
nseq{i} = CELL_SPT_N{i};
nseq{i}(~mask) = interp1(x(mask), CELL_SPT_N{i}(mask),...
x(~mask),'linear','extrap')
end
CELL_SPT_N_i=nseq;
for a=1:numel(CELL_SPT_N_i);
CELL_SPT_N_ii(:,a)=CELL_SPT_N_i{a};
end
CELL_SPT_N_ii
SSPP_N_IN = interp2(chainage,depth,CELL_SPT_N_ii,...
CHAINAGEii,DEPTHii,'linear');
SSPP_N_INaa = round( interp2(chainage,depth,CELL_SPT_N_ii,...

26100,0:1.5:25,'linear') )
filename = 'boring_log_test.xlsx';
xlswrite(filename,SSPP_N_INaa,1,'D14')
contour(CHAINAGEi,-DEPTHi,SSPP_N_IN,'LineColor',[0 0 0],'Fill','on');
colorbar;
set(colorbar, 'YDir', 'reverse' );
hold on;
3.3.2 soil_profile.m
clc;
clear all;
close all;
sand_or_clay=xlsread('Mom Da.xlsx',1,'E4:ZZ25')
chainage_read=xlsread('Mom Da.xlsx',1,'E2:ZZ2')
h=xlsread('Mom Da.xlsx',1,'C4:C100')
numel(sand_or_clay(1,:))
for a=1:((numel(sand_or_clay(1,:)))/2)
sand(:,a)=sand_or_clay(:,2*a-1);
clay(:,a)=sand_or_clay(:,2*a);
end
sand
clay
numel(chainage_read(1,:))
34
for a=1:((numel(chainage_read(1,:)))/2)+1
chainage(:,a)=chainage_read(:,2*a-1);
end
chainage=chainage'
CELL_sand{a,1}=sand(:,a);
end
celldisp(CELL_sand)
CELL_clay{a,1}=clay(:,a);
end
celldisp(CELL_clay)
nseq_sand = cell(size(CELL_sand));
for i = 1:numel(CELL_sand);
x = 1:length(CELL_sand{i});
mask = ~isnan(CELL_sand{i});
nseq_sand{i} = CELL_sand{i};
nseq_sand{i}(~mask) = interp1(x(mask), CELL_sand{i}(mask),...
x(~mask),'pchip');
for h_c=h(1:numel(nseq_sand{i}));
CELL_sand_i{i} = interp1(h_c,nseq_sand{i},h ,'linear','extrap');
end
end
for a=1:numel(CELL_sand_i)
sand_ii(:,a)=CELL_sand_i{a}
end
sand_ii
nseq_clay = cell(size(CELL_clay));
for i = 1:numel(CELL_clay);
x = 1:length(CELL_clay{i});
mask = ~isnan(CELL_clay{i});
nseq_clay{i} = CELL_clay{i};
nseq_clay{i}(~mask) = interp1(x(mask), CELL_clay{i}(mask),...
x(~mask),'pchip');
for h_c=h(1:numel(nseq_clay{i}));
CELL_clay_i{i} = interp1(h_c,nseq_clay{i},h ,'linear','extrap');
end
end
35
for a=1:numel(CELL_clay_i)
clay_ii(:,a)=CELL_clay_i{a}
end
clay_ii
for a=1:numel(h);
end
for hhh=1:numel(sand_or_clay(1,:));
DEPTH(:,hhh)=h;
end
CHAINAGE
DEPTH
CHAINAGEi=linspace(max(chainage),min(chainage));
DEPTHi=linspace(max(h),min(h));
[CHAINAGEii, DEPTHii]=meshgrid(CHAINAGEi,DEPTHi);
SAND_IN = interp2(chainage,h,sand_ii,CHAINAGEii,DEPTHii,'linear');
CLAY_IN = interp2(chainage,h,clay_ii,CHAINAGEii,DEPTHii,'linear');
surf(CHAINAGEi,-DEPTHi,SAND_IN, 'FaceAlpha', 'flat', 'AlphaDataMapping',...

'scaled', 'AlphaData', gradient(SAND_IN), 'FaceColor', 'white');
hold on;
surf(CHAINAGEi,-DEPTHi,CLAY_IN, 'FaceAlpha', 'flat', 'AlphaDataMapping',...

'scaled', 'AlphaData', gradient(CLAY_IN), 'FaceColor', 'black');
hold on;
%ch=input('Input Chainage =');

ch=26100; % for test, a fixed value is given
depth=1.5:1.5:19.5;
SAND_IN = round(interp2(chainage,h,sand_ii,ch,depth,'linear'))
CLAY_IN = round(interp2(chainage,h,clay_ii,ch,depth,'linear'))
SAND_IN(1)
for ind=1:length(depth)
if SAND_IN(ind)< CLAY_IN(ind)
soil_type(ind,:)={'cohesive'};
else
soil_type(ind,:)={'cohesionless'};
end
end
36
soil_type
filename = 'Pile_capacity_by_SPT-N - Copy.xlsx';
xlswrite(filename,soil_type,1,'C8')
filename = 'boring_log_test.xlsx';
xlswrite(filename,soil_type,1,'F15')
37
Chapter 4 : Input and Output for Borehole Log and Soil
Profile
4.1 General
A MATLAB program was developed in this study that uses SPT and grain size data from 15
boreholes of Padma bridge approach road Janjira site. The boreholes were done along the
chainage of approach road in a 20 km stretch with approximately 500 m spacing. The present
study was aimed at generating the soil profiles at the intermittent locations. In the following
sections the modes of data input and output are described.
4.2 Project Site

As mentioned earlier, the project site Jajira of Madaripur district, in general, is underlain by
recent alluvium with Padma superficial alluvial river deposits.The underlying deposit is
predominantly dense sand. The Janjira approach road length is 10.579 km. The project site and
the borehole locations are shown in Figures 4-1, 4-2(a) and 4-2(b).
Figure 4-1 Site location (Janjira Approach Road of Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project)
38
Figure 4-2(a) Janjira Approach Road (6 Boreholes within Chainage 17600 to 21600)
Figure 4-2(b) Janjira Approach Road (All 15Boreholes within Chainage 17600 to 27600)
4.2 INPUT Data

The chainage and GPS locations of the 15 boreholes are presented in Table 4-1. Data of SPT
and grain size of the boreholes as presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 were given as input data
using Excel spread sheet. . The borehole logs are furnished in Appendix-A.
Table 4-1 Chainage and GPs locations of boreholes
Borehole Name Chainage Latitude longitude

degree degree
APBH 05 17600 23.40657 90.25319667
APBH 06 18600 23.40108 90.24574333
APBH 07 19600 23.39786667 90.23663
APBH 08 20100 23.39741333 90.23177167
APBH 09 20600 23.39755833 90.226955
APBH 10 21100 23.39803 90.22179167
APBH 11 21600 23.39892667 90.21706667
APBH 12 24100 23.39914667 90.19285167
APBH 13 24582 23.39899167 90.18823333
APBH 14 25100 23.399 90.183
APBH 15 25600 23.4 90.1783
APBH 16 26100 23.4009 90.1735
APBH 17 26600 23.4016 90.1687
APBH 18 27100 23.4021 90.1639
APBH 19 27600 23.4024 90.1589
39
Table 4-2 SPT data of boreholes
APBH 05 APBH 06 APBH 07 APBH 08 APBH 09 APBH 10 APBH 11 APBH 12 APBH 13 APBH 14 APBH 15 APBH 16 APBH 17 APBH 18 APBH 19
chainage-
17600 18600 19600 20100 20600 21100 21600 24100 24582 25100 25600 26100 26600 27100 27600
depth
1.5 4 5 5 5 6 5 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 10
3 4 5 3 3 20 5 6 17 17 3 4 4 7 1 12
4.5 6 6 26 16 18 33 5 10 9 13 3 4 2 9 11
6 10 7 27 31 12 31 24 6 10 14 11 6 15 5 3
7.5 11 7 31 26 28 30 19 8 11 12 13 7 16 18 11
9 11 8 30 15 29 9 23 11 26 16 13 6 11 16 12
10.5 12 2 32 17 24 12 32 12 22 14 24 13 18 9 32
12 17 15 33 15 21 13 35 22 24 9 23 14 38 14 14
13.5 15 37 32 14 20 14 20 24 18 4 19 29 31 19 16
15 29 29 31 26 32 11 18 23 21 5 23 37 14 13 21
16.5 27 30 38 24 43 23 25 7
18 30 16 42 23 34 22 22 42
19.5 26 21 46 22 39 21 19 25
Table 4-3 Grain size data of boreholes

APBH-05 APBH-06 APBH-07 APBH-08 APBH-09 APBH-10 APBH-11 APBH-12
Chainage 17600 18600 19600 20100 20600 21100 21600 24100
Start End Avg
Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine % Sand % Fine %
1.35 1.8 1.35 D1 86 14 92 8 94 6 90 10 86 14 94 6 15 85 18 82
2.85 3.3 3.075 D2 93 7 83 17 94 6 92 8 93 7 94 6 87 13 86 14
4.35 4.8 4.575 D3 94 6 84 16 86 14 93 7 87 13 82 18
5.85 6.3 6.075 D4 91 9 92 8 89 11 92 8 92 8 91 9
7.35 7.82 7.585 D5 84 16 88 12 88 12 94 6 90 10 94 6
8.85 9.3 9.075 D6 87 13 87 13 88 12 91 9 95 5
10.35 10.8 10.575 D7 88 12 89 11 91 9 87 13 90 10 92 8
11.85 12.3 12.075 D8 90 10 85 15 92 8 94 6 91 9 90 10 91 9 63 37
13.35 13.8 13.575 D9 85 15 89 11 87 13 89 11 91 9 86 14 63 37
14.85 15.3 15.075 D10 89 11 90 10 87 13 90 10 89 11 88 12 84 16
16.35 16.8 16.575 D11 92 8 90 10 92 8 90 10 90 10 84 16
17.85 18.3 18.075 D12 96 4 95 5 67 33 92 8 87 13 89 11
19.35 19.8 19.575 D13 94 6 88 12 88 12
4.3 OUTPUT plots

The MATLAB program developed in this study yields SPT contour and grain size surface plots
as output. They are presented in Figure 4-3(a) through Figure 4-3(c) to Figure 4-4
respectively. The program also gives soil profile at any intermittent locations once chainage or
GPS are given as input. The typical predicted output soil profiles (borehole log) are presented in
Figure 4-5(a) and Figure 4-5(b).
40
Figure 4-3(a) SPT contour profile from chainage 17600 to 25100
Figure 4-3(b) SPT contour profile from chainage 25600 to 27600
41
Figure 4-3(c) SPT contour profile from chainage 17600 [APBH 05] to 27600 [APBH 19], up to 19.5m depth
42
Figure 4-4 Vertical soil profile along with chainage (up to 19.5m depth)
43
Project: Project Number: Client: Boring No.
Address: Madaripur Latitude (deg) 23.39803

Position:
Chainage: 21100 Longitude (deg) 90.221792
Groundwater Depth (m): Elevation(m) PWD: Total Depth of Boring:
3.25 4.615 19.5
Undrained Shear
Sample Number
Relative Density
Consistency
Additional Test
Strength (kPa)
Depth (meter)
Blow Counts
Sample Type
Graphic Log
(blows/foot)
Soil Type
0 0 cohesionless very loose 0 0

0
1.5 4 cohesionless medium 1.5 4

0.42
3 13 cohesionless dense 3 13
0.68

0.62
0.72
7.5 24 cohesionless dense 7.5 24

0.8
0.8

0.8
0.78

0.64
0.69

0.78
0.69

0.69
Figure 4-5(a) Typical Predicted Borehole Log at chainage 21100
44
Project: Project Number: Client: Boring No.
Address: Madaripur Latitude (deg) 23.4009

Position:
Chainage: 26100 Longitude (deg) 90.1735
Groundwater Depth (m): Elevation(m) PWD: Total Depth of Boring:
2.5 5.804 15
Undrained Shear
effective stress
Relative Density
Sample Number
Consistency
Strength (kPa)
Depth (meter)
Blow Counts
Sample Type
Graphic Log
(blows/foot)
Soil Type γ (kN/m^2) 15
γ sat 18
(kN/m^2)
0 0 cohesive very soft 0 0 N/A 0 0
1.5 5 cohesive soft 1.5 5 N/A 46.2 23
3 6 cohesive soft 3 6 N/A 48.8 42
4.5 3 cohesive soft 4.5 3 N/A 39.9 54
6 13 cohesionless medium 6 13 0.63 N/A 66
7.5 15 cohesionless medium 7.5 15 0.64 N/A 79
10.5 21 cohesionless dense 10.5 21 0.7 N/A 103
12 31 cohesionless dense 12 31 0.83 N/A 115
13.5 25 cohesionless dense 13.5 25 0.72 N/A 128
16.5 16.5
18 18
19.5 19.5
Figure 4-5(b) Typical Predicted Borehole Log at chainage 26100
45
Chapter 5 : Case Studies for Geotechnical Problems
5.1 General
Standard penetration is widely used in various parts of the world as an indirect method
subsurface insitu soil test. Extensive research has been done and there are established
relationships bearing SPT and foundation design parameters are obtained as mentioned in
Chapter 2. In the following sections pile design and liquefaction problems are taken as case
studies where predicted borehole log data has been used to calculate the pile capacity and
liquefaction potential.
5.1 Pile Capacity

The axial geotechnical pile capacity for different diameters was estimated using actual and
predicted soil profile. They are presented in Figures 5-1(a) and 5-1(b). It was observed that the
predicted capacities are very close to actual capacities of the piles. As such, the predicted soil
profile may be used to estimate the pile capacity at intermittent locations. The typical
calculation sheets are presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2.
Pile Capacity (in kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
in-situ SPT with
2 6in dia pile
4 predicted SPT
with 6in dia pile
6
8 in-situ SPT with

Depth (in m)
12in dia pile

10
predicted SPT
12 with 12in dia pile
14 in-situ SPT with

18in dia pile
16
18 predicted SPT
with 18in dia pile
20
Figure 5-1(a) Actual and Predicted Pile Capacity (in kN) at chainage 21100
46
Pile Capacity (in kN)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 in-situ SPT
with 6in dia
2 pile
predicted
4 SPT with
6in dia pile
6 in-situ SPT
Depth (in m)
with 12in
dia pile
8
predicted
SPT with
10 12in dia pile
in-situ SPT
12 with 18in
dia pile
14 predicted
SPT with
16 18in dia pile
Figure 5-1(b) Actual and Predicted Pile Capacity (in kN) at chainage 26100
47
Table 5-1 Calculation for Pile Capacity under static load (at chainage 21100 for predicted SPT-N values)
Design Load (KN) Chainage
1000 21100
Pile Diameter in meter γ (KN/m^2) γ sat (KN/m^2) Water Table below GL (m)
0.3048 15 18 3.25
Q
Pile ϭ effective Qp (KN) ΣQs Qs Design
chainage- Cu ϭ effective Qp ( KN ) allowable No. of
SPT-N soil layer N-avg diameter avg α Irr = Ir visic, Qs ( KN ) mayerhof, briaud, Load
depth (KN/m^2) (KN/m^2) mayerhof in KN Piles
(m) (KN/m^2) briaud α λ (KN)
(FS=3)
1.5 4 cohesionless N/A 4 0.3048 22.50 22.50 N/A 57 N/A 237 11 11 48 59 1000 17
3 13 cohesionless N/A 9 0.3048 45.00 33.75 N/A 244 N/A 311 24 23 120 116 1000 9
48
Table 5-2 Calculation for Pile Capacity under static load (at chainage 26100 for predicted SPT-N values)
Design Load (KN) Chainage
1000 26100
Pile Diameter in meter γ (KN/m^2) γ sat (KN/m^2) Water Table below GL (m)
0.3048 15 18 2.5
Q
Pile ϭ effective Qp (KN) ΣQs Qs Design
chainage- Cu ϭ effective Qp ( KN ) allowable No. of
SPT-N soil layer N-avg diameter avg α Irr = Ir visic, Qs ( KN ) mayerhof, briaud, Load
depth (KN/m^2) (KN/m^2) mayerhof in KN Piles
(m) (KN/m^2) briaud α λ (KN)
(FS=3)
1.5 5 cohesive 31.25 5 0.3048 22.50 22.50 0.43 21 75 15 19 19 35 15 1000 67
3 6 cohesive 37.50 6 0.3048 41.60 32.05 0.47 25 97 18 25 39 86 28 1000 36
4.5 3 cohesive 18.75 5 0.3048 53.88 42.96 0.73 12 32 8 20 64 96 30 1000 33
49
5.3 Soil Liquefaction
The site is at Janjira approach road of Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project which lies in
Madaripur district, Figure 5-2. It understood that our site is located in flood prone area. So, for
worst case scenario, to analyze seismic soil liquefaction and liquefaction potential index, ground
water table is assumed to be at ground level. The liquefaction potential was estimated using
actual borehole and predicted borehole data. Typical outputs are presented in Figures 5-3 and
Figure 5-4. A typical calculation sheet is presented in Table 5-3. Is was observed the
liquefaction potential as estimated by predicted borehole data was higher as compared to the
value obtained for actual borehole data.
Figure 5-2 Flood Prone Area of Bangladesh
50
Figure 5-3 Liquefaction Potential Index for variable Peak Ground Acceleration & Earthquake Magnitude at chainage 21100
Figure 5-4 Liquefaction Potential Index for variable Peak Ground Acceleration & Earthquake Magnitude at chainage 26100
51
Table 5-3 Liquefaction Potential Index calculation (Predicted, at Chainage 21100)
depth of water table Dry unit weight Saturated unit weight of
Chainage
(in m) of soil (γ) soil(γ')
amax /g Magnitude of EQ ,M
21100 0 15 18 0.4 6.5
magnitude scaling
1.441922
factor, MSF
cyclic cyclic FS= Liquefaction

percent finer Total Effective
Grain Size SPT-N resistance stress (CRR/CSR)* Potential
correction stress overburden stress
Depth (m) Soil type ratio ratio MSF*Kσ Index
σv σ'v σ'v
% Sand %Fines in-situ corrected Δ (N1) 60 (N1)60cs CRR rd CSR Kσ FL=R/L wi Hi Fi ∑wi * Fi * Hi
(KN/m^2) (KN/m^2) (Kgf/cm^2)
0 Cohesionless 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.06 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 0 1 0

1.5 Cohesionless 54 46 4 11 5.61 27 12.3 0.12 17 0.17 0.98 0.56 1.52 0.67 9.25 1.5 0.331489 4.59941513
3 Cohesionless 88 12 13 26 2.11 54 24.6 0.25 28 0.39 0.96 0.55 1.32 1.36 8.5 1.5 0 0
4.5 Cohesionless 89 11 12 19 1.65 81 36.9 0.37 21 0.21 0.93 0.53 1.22 0.71 7.75 1.5 0.292694 3.402561963
6 Cohesionless 91 9 18 25 0.76 108 49.1 0.49 26 0.31 0.91 0.52 1.15 0.99 7 1.5 0.012148 0.127549547
7.5 Cohesionless 89 11 24 30 1.65 135 61.4 0.61 32 0.61 0.89 0.51 1.10 1.91 6.25 1.5 0 0
9 Cohesionless 89 11 26 30 1.65 162 73.7 0.74 32 0.61 0.87 0.49 1.06 1.89 5.5 1.5 0 0
10.5 Cohesionless 90 11 28 30 1.65 189 86.0 0.86 32 0.61 0.84 0.48 1.03 1.89 4.75 1.5 0 0
12 Cohesionless 91 9 28 28 0.76 216 98.3 0.98 29 0.42 0.82 0.47 1.00 1.29 4 1.5 0 0
13.5 Cohesionless 90 10 20 19 1.19 243 110.6 1.11 20 0.21 0.80 0.46 0.98 0.65 3.25 1.5 0.354381 1.72760601
15 Cohesionless 87 13 25 22 2.54 270 122.9 1.23 25 0.28 0.78 0.44 0.96 0.87 2.5 1.5 0.126239 0.47339489
16.5 Cohesionless 87 13 34 29 2.54 297 135.1 1.35 32 0.60 0.75 0.43 0.94 1.90 1.75 1.5 0 0
18 Cohesionless 92 8 28 23 0.39 324 147.4 1.47 23 0.26 0.73 0.42 0.93 0.82 1 1.5 0.179708 0.269562672
19.5 Cohesionless 97 3 29 22 0.00 351 159.7 1.60 22 0.23 0.71 0.40 0.91 0.76 0.25 1.5 0.243109 0.09116604
LPI 10.69125625
52
Chapter 6 : Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
In this study, A MATLAB computer software model has been developed for SPT and grain size
data of boreholes of a particular site in order to generate soil profile at intermittent locations.
The program has been validated against known borehole data of Padma multipurpose bridge
access road data. Also the predicted borehole data were used to estimate axial pile load and
liquefaction potential at the location. The results can be summarized as follows.
(i) The MATLAB model developed can predict an intermittent borehole log with
reasonable accuracy.
(ii) The developed model gives SPT contours that may be used to identify the soil
spatial stiffness of soil.
(iii) The program yields grain size surface plots that may be used to identify the soil
profile.
(iv) The estimation of pile capacity suggests that the predicted borehole estimates the
SPT values well.
(v) The variation in liquefaction potential suggests that the model be refined for grain
size estimation.
6.2 Recommendations for Further Studies

The present study involved only SPT and grain size data. The study may be extended
considering the following cases.
(i) Instead of using the particle sizes of the soil, the study may be extended using
engineering classification of soil.
(ii) The study may be extended for other insitu test like CPT.
(iii) The study may be extended for unit flexibility conversion.
(iv) The study may be extended for graphic user interface.
53
References
Anon., 2015. Wikipedia. [Online]
Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineering
[Accessed January 2015].
Ansary, M. A. & Sharfuddin, M., 2002. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SEISMIC ZONING
MAP FOR BANGLADESH. Journal of Civil Engineering, pp. Vol. CE 30, No. 2.
Bowles, J. E., 1997. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th ed. s.l.:McGraw-Hill.
Chapra, S. C., 2007. Applied Numerical Methods With MATLAB for Engineers and
Scientists. 2nd ed. s.l.:Tata McGraw-Hill.
Das, B. M., 2004. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 5th ed. s.l.:Thomson Learning.
Das, B. M., 2011. Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. s.l.:Cengage Learning.
Das, B. M. & Ramana, G. V., 2011. Principles of Soil Dynamics. 2nd ed. s.l.:CENGAGE
Learning.
Dixit, J., Dewaikar, D. & Jangid, R., 2012. Assessment of liquefaction potential index for
Mumbai city. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.
Hanselman, D. & Littlefield, B., 2007. Mastering MATLAB 7. 1st ed. s.l.:Pearson Education.
Holtz, R. & Kovacs, W., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice-Hall,
Inc. ISBN 0-13-484394-0.
Lambe, T. W., 1993. SOIL TESTING for Engineers. 5th ed. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Lenz, J. A. & Baise, L. G., 2007. Spatial variability of liquefaction potential in regional mapping
using CPT and SPT data. SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical
practice, E & FN Spon Routledge, 352 p.
Murthy, V., 2003. PRINCIPLES OF SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION
ENGINEERING. 5th revised ed. s.l.:UBS.
Nassaji, F. & Kalantari, B., 2011. SPT Capability to Estimate Undrained Shear Strength of
Fine-Grained Soils of Tehran, Iran. The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Volume 16.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. & Thornburn, T. H., 1974. Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed.
s.l.:John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Shooshpasha, I., Hasanzadeh, A. and Taghavi, A. 2013, Int. J. of GEOMATE, June, 2013,
Vol. 4, No. 2 (Sl. No. 8), pp. 560-564
Teng, W. C., 1962. FOUNDATION DESIGN. 13th ed. s.l.:Prentice-hall Inc..
54
APPENDIX – A
Borehole Log
55

MATLAB Modeling of SPT and Grain Size Da

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

MATLAB Modeling of SPT and Grain Size Da

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATLAB MODELING OF SPT AND GRAIN SIZE

DATA IN PRODUCING SOIL PROFILE

A thesis submitted to the department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University

Department of Civil Engineering,

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Subsoil Investigation Data and Their Interpretation .................................................................. 8

1.3 In-Situ Tests................................................................................................................................ 9

1.4 Standard Penetration Test......................................................................................................... 10

1.5 The Project Site......................................................................................................................... 11

1.6 Research Methodologies ........................................................................................................... 11

1.8 Organization of the Report ....................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 14

2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Subsoil Investigation ................................................................................................................. 14

2.3 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ....................................................................................... 17

2.4 Grain Size Distribution and Soil Profile .................................................................................... 20

2.5 Pile Bearing Capacity and Standard Penetration Test .............................................................. 23

2.6 Soil Liquefaction and Standard Penetration Test...................................................................... 23

2.7 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................ 28

CHAPTER 3 : MATLAB MODELING ........................................................................................... 29

3.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 29

3.2 Multidimensional Interpolation ................................................................................................ 29

3.3 MATLAB® Script ...................................................................................................................... 33

4.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 38

4.2 Project Site ................................................................................................................................ 38

4.2 INPUT Data .............................................................................................................................. 39

4.3 OUTPUT plots.......................................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER 5 : CASE STUDIES FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS ...................................... 46

5.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 46

5.1 Pile Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 46

5.3 Soil Liquefaction ....................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 53

6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 53

6.2 Recommendations for Further Studies ..................................................................................... 53

Table 4-1 Chainage and GPs locations of boreholes ..................................................................................... 39

1.2 Subsoil Investigation Data and Their Interpretation

1.3 In-Situ Tests

1.4 Standard Penetration Test

1.5 The Project Site

1.6 Research Methodologies

The key features of MATLAB are:

2.2 Subsoil Investigation

 Foundation problems or determination of the stability and deformations of undisturbed

 To assess sequence and thickness of strata underneath

Figure 2-2 Standard dimensions for the SPT sampler

Figure 2-3 Standard penetration test arrangements

 50 blows are required for any 150-mm increment.

So, we obtain, Eq 2.3

 Equipment from different manufactures

Where, = Hammer correction (From avg. energy ratio Er)

Where Pa = atmospheric pressure ( )

2.3.2 Correction for N60 in granular soil

( ) = value of N60 corrected to a standard value of ( )

2.3.3 Correlation between N60 and relative density of granular Soil

2.4 Grain Size Distribution and Soil Profile

2.4.1 Sieve Analysis

Figure 2-4 Sieve analysis apparatus

2.4.3 Particle Size Classification

Soil Type Particle Size Range, mm Retained on Mesh Size/ Sieve

2.6 Soil Liquefaction and Standard Penetration Test

LPI Iwasaki et al. (1982) Luna and Frost (1998) MERM(2003)

2.6.2 Determination of cyclic stress ratio