FOUNDATION REPORT FINAL Adjusted 3

4139844 Chukwudera igwe
ABSTRACT
The foundation design for the proposed six-
storey concrete framed building faces significant
geotechnical challenges, including uncontrolled
fill, contaminated water bodies, and high sulfate
concentrations in soft clay silts. This report
presents strategic solutions to address these
challenges, covering ground improvement
techniques, excavation methods, retaining wall
construction, basement structure design,
waterproofing measures, and protective
measures against sulfate attack. Implementing
these strategies will enhance the foundation's
stability and durability, ensuring the safety and
longevity of the building.
4139844
ADDRESSING GEOTECHNICAL
By Chukudwera Igwe
CHALLENGES IN FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR A SIX-STOREY CONCRETE FRAMED
BUILDING
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
1.0.Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0.Overview of Constraints in the Ground........................................................................... 1
2.1.Uncontrolled Fill .............................................................................................................. 1
2.2.Contaminated Water......................................................................................................... 2
2.3.High Concentration of Sulfates ........................................................................................ 2
3.0.Tackling Geotechnical Challenges.................................................................................... 3
3.1.Ground Improvement Techniques .................................................................................... 3
3.1.1.Soil Stabilization........................................................................................................ 3
3.1.2.Grouting. .................................................................................................................... 3
3.2.Excavation Techniques .................................................................................................... 4
3.3.Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................ 4
4.0.Identifying Inadequacies in Foundation Design.............................................................. 5
4.1.Settlement and Differential Movement ............................................................................ 5
4.2.Sulfate Attack on Concrete .............................................................................................. 5
4.3.Lateral Stability and Earth Pressure ................................................................................. 6
4.4.Water Ingress and Soil Erosion ........................................................................................ 6
4.5.Structural Integrity of Basement Slab .............................................................................. 6
5.0.Resolving Existing Challenges .......................................................................................... 7
5.1.Ground improvement ....................................................................................................... 7
5.2.Excavation techniques and retaining walls ...................................................................... 7
5.3.Basement structure and waterproofing techniques........................................................... 7
6.0.Additional Protective Measures against Sulfate Attack ................................................. 8
7.0.Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 8
8.0.References ........................................................................................................................... 8
9.0.Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 15
9.1.Task 1b ........................................................................................................................... 15
9.2.Task 2a ........................................................................................................................... 15
9.3.Task 2b ........................................................................................................................... 15
Executive Summary
The proposed development site for the six-storey concrete framed building faces significant
geotechnical challenges, including uncontrolled fill, contaminated water, and a high
concentration of sulfates in soft clay silts. These challenges raise concerns about the structural
integrity of the foundation design. This report outlines strategies to address these issues,
encompassing ground improvement techniques, excavation methods, retaining wall
construction, basement structure design, waterproofing measures, and additional protective
measures against sulfate attack. By implementing these strategies, the foundation's robustness
can be enhanced, ensuring the safety and longevity of the building.
1.0 Introduction
The context of our project emphasizes the critical role of a robust foundation design. The site’s
location and the need to address geotechnical issues are of utmost importance. This essay
examines the geotechnical challenges encountered in the design of the foundation for the
proposed six-storey concrete framed building. The presence of uncontrolled fill, contaminated
water bodies, and high sulfate concentrations in soft clay silts poses significant challenges that
require careful consideration and strategic solutions to ensure the structural integrity of the
foundation and the safety of the building occupants(Buabbas, 2021)(Sharma et al., 2021).
2.0 Overview of Constraints in the Ground

2.1.Uncontrolled Fill
Uncontrolled fill poses a significant threat to any construction project, potentially resulting in
differential settlement and subsequent structural damage(El Naggar et al., 2023). This issue
often arises from previous site use or improper waste disposal, underscoring the importance of
identifying and mitigating it before commencing foundation construction. A comprehensive
site investigation and soil testing are imperative to ascertain the extent of uncontrolled fill and
its potential impact on foundation design(Zhou et al., 2016). By conducting such an
investigation, necessary remedial measures can be identified to mitigate the adverse effects of
uncontrolled fill. These measures may include the careful removal of uncontrolled fill
material and its replacement with properly compacted fill or the implementation of
ground improvement techniques such as soil stabilization or grouting. Ultimately,
addressing uncontrolled fill is crucial for ensuring uniform settlement and preserving the
stability of the foundation throughout the construction process(Zhou et al., 2016).
1
2.2.Contaminated Water
The presence of a contaminated water body on the site can significantly impact soil strength
and stability(Kumapley n. K., 1985), necessitating a thorough assessment of contamination
levels and potential effects on foundation design(AL-khyat et al., 2023). Specialized
foundation designs and waterproofing measures may be required to mitigate the risk of leakage
or contamination within the building's interior(AL-khyat et al., 2023). Foundation design
considerations must account for the influence of the water body on soil properties,
incorporating preventative measures to minimize structural damage. Hydrogeological
investigations and groundwater monitoring are essential to determine contamination levels and
prescribe necessary remedial actions. Remedial measures may include impervious liners,
specialized foundation designs like piles or caissons, or the implementation of a
groundwater management system. Contaminated water bodies pose environmental risks and
can compromise foundation integrity, potentially leading to erosion and instability. Overall,
contaminated water affects soil properties and foundation performance, necessitating
comprehensive planning and mitigation strategies(Zhao et al., 2023).
2.3.High Concentration of Sulfates
The presence of high concentrations of sulfates in soft clay silts presents a significant risk of
soil expansion and contraction, potentially resulting in structural damage due to sulfate
attack(T. I. Longworth, 2003). To mitigate this issue, sulfate-resistant concrete may be
necessary(Kota et al., 1996), along with ground improvement techniques such as soil
stabilization or grouting. Soil stabilization methods involve adding additives to enhance soil
strength and stability, while grouting entails injecting a liquid solution to improve soil
properties. A thorough geotechnical investigation is essential to assess the extent of sulfate
concentration and its impact on foundation design. Remedial measures must be identified based
on this investigation, and the appropriate solutions integrated into the foundation design to
prevent structural damage. Sulfates not only threaten concrete integrity but also jeopardize soil
stability(Menéndez et al., 2013), highlighting the need for comprehensive planning and
implementation of remedial strategies.
In summary, the presence of uncontrolled fill, contaminated water bodies, and high
concentrations of sulfates in the soft clay silts can have significant implications for the
foundation design(Russo et al., 2013) of the 6-story concrete framed building. It is crucial to
conduct a comprehensive site investigation and soil testing to determine the extent of these
2
issues and develop appropriate remedial measures(Desai, 1973). The incorporation of suitable
measures into the foundation design will help to ensure the long-term stability and safety of
the building(I. H. Longworth, 2004).
3.0 Tackling Geotechnical Challenges

3.1.Ground Improvement Techniques
3.1.1. Soil Stabilization.
Soil stabilization is a common ground improvement technique used to increase the bearing
capacity of the soil, reduce settlement, and improve overall stability(Hirkane et al., 2014). This
technique involves adding a stabilizing agent to the soil to improve its physical and mechanical
properties(Afrin, 2017). The stabilizing agent could be lime, cement, fly ash, or other chemical
additives(Tiwari & Kumawat, 2014). The type of stabilizing agent used will depend on the soil
type, moisture content, and required strength. Lime stabilization involves adding hydrated lime
to the soil, which reacts with the soil's clay particles to create a stable soil-lime mixture. This
mixture can increase the soil's strength and stability, reduce its plasticity, and improve its
compressibility. Cement stabilization is another common soil stabilization technique that
involves adding cement to the soil to improve its strength and stiffness. This technique is
particularly useful in sites with soft soils that are prone to settlement and differential settlement.
The cement reacts with the soil to create a soil-cement mixture that is stronger and more stable
than the original soil. Fly ash stabilization involves adding fly ash, a byproduct of coal
combustion, to the soil to improve its physical and mechanical properties. Fly ash can improve
the soil's strength, stability, and durability, making it suitable for construction purposes(Karthik
et al., 2014).
3.1.2. Grouting.
Grouting is another ground improvement technique that involves injecting a cementitious grout
into the soil to improve its strength and stability(Bhuiyan et al., 2024). The grout is injected
under pressure into the soil, filling voids and improving the soil's shear strength and
compressive strength. Grouting can also be used to fill voids in the soil and reduce the potential
for differential settlement(Bhuiyan et al., 2024).
There are several types of grouting techniques, including permeation grouting, compaction
grouting, and jet grouting(Rawlings et al., 2000). Permeation grouting involves injecting low-
viscosity grout into the soil to improve its strength and reduce permeability. Compaction
grouting involves injecting a high-viscosity grout into the soil to compact it and improve its
3
bearing capacity. Jet grouting involves injecting a high-pressure jet of grout into the soil,
creating a soil-cement mixture that is stronger and more stable than the original soil(Wang et
al., 2013).
3.2.Excavation Techniques
Excavation is an essential part of any construction project, but it can be challenging and risky,
especially when dealing with unstable soils. In such cases, special excavation techniques may
be required to ensure the safety of the workers and the stability of the site(Zheng-guo, 2010a).
Proper excavation methods, along with the construction of retaining walls, are crucial for
stabilizing the site and preventing soil erosion, especially in areas with contaminated water
bodies(Zheng-guo, 2010b). One of the most common excavation techniques used in unstable
soils is shoring or bracing. Shoring involves installing temporary support structures to prevent
the soil from collapsing into the excavation(Britto & Kusakabe, 1984). These support structures
can be made of timber, steel, or other materials. The type of shoring used will depend on the
soil conditions, depth of the excavation, and other site-specific factors. Alternatively, if the soil
is stable, it may be possible to excavate without support. In such cases, the excavation may be
sloped or benched to prevent soil from collapsing into the excavation. The slope or bench angle
will depend on the soil type and stability(Ardouz et al., 2020), and it must be designed to
prevent soil from sliding or collapsing.
3.3.Retaining Walls
Retaining walls are structures used to hold back soil or rock and prevent it from sliding or
collapsing into the excavation. The choice of material used for retaining walls will depend on
several factors such as soil type, site conditions, and required aesthetics. Reinforced concrete
is a popular choice for retaining walls due to its strength and durability(Padfield & Mair, 1984).
It can be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures and provide stable working conditions
during construction. Additionally, the surface of the retaining wall can be finished with various
textures or coatings to achieve the desired aesthetic look. Gabion baskets are another option
for retaining walls. They are made of wire mesh baskets filled with rocks or other materials
and can be used to provide a natural-looking retaining wall that blends in with the surroundings.
Gabion walls are also relatively easy to construct and maintain, making them an attractive
option for many construction projects(Sayão et al., 2002). Sheet piling is another option for
retaining walls, especially in sites where space is limited. Sheet piling involves driving sheets
of steel or other materials into the ground to create a barrier against the soil or water pressure.
4
The sheets are then interlocked to form a continuous wall that can resist lateral earth pressures
and prevent soil from collapsing into the excavation(Ghareh & Saidi, 2012).
3.4.Basement Structure and Waterproofing Techniques
The basement structure plays a crucial role in the overall stability of the building(Paulay,
1983a). As such, it is essential to consider the soil type, groundwater level, and seismicity when
designing the basement structure(Hollings, 1971). The design should be able to withstand the
loads from the building above and the soil pressure from the surrounding soil. This is
particularly important when dealing with soft clay silts and uncontrolled fill, as these soil types
are prone to settling and shifting. To reinforce the basement structure, reinforced concrete
and/or steel beams can be used(Hollings, 1971). Reinforced concrete is a durable and cost-
effective option that can withstand high compressive and tensile forces(Barmenkova, 2019).
Steel beams, on the other hand, offer high strength and flexibility, making them ideal for
resisting lateral forces such as wind and earthquake loads(Paulay, 1983b).
4.0 Identifying Inadequacies in Foundation Design
Upon detailed examination of the proposed foundation design, several inadequacies are
apparent. These include insufficient depth and reinforcement, inadequate consideration of
geotechnical challenges, and a lack of provisions for potential differential settlement.
4.1.Settlement and Differential Movement

 Issue: Soft clay silts are prone to settlement, especially under load. Differential
settlement occurs when different parts of the foundation settle at varying rates, leading to
unevenness.
 Impact: Uneven settlement can cause structural distress, cracking, and misalignment
of elements.
 Resolution:
1. Pile Foundations: Consider using deep foundations (driven piles or drilled shafts) to
transfer loads to deeper, more stable soil layers(Kim, 2001).
2. Ground Improvement: Preload the soil to accelerate consolidation and minimize future
settlement(Shahir & Pak, 2009).
4.2.Sulfate Attack on Concrete
 Issue: High sulfate concentrations in the soil can react with concrete, leading to sulfate
attack. This weakens the concrete and reduces its durability(Suleiman et al., 2014).
5
 Impact: Reduced load-bearing capacity, cracking, and potential structural failure.

 Resolution(Suleiman et al., 2014):
1. Sulfate-Resistant Concrete: Specify concrete mixes with low permeability and
resistance to sulfate attack.
2. Surface Coatings: Apply protective coatings to exposed concrete surfaces.
4.3.Lateral Stability and Earth Pressure
 Issue: Soft clay silts have low shear strength, making them susceptible to lateral
movement.
 Impact: Lateral soil pressure can cause wall tilting, sliding, or overturning.
 Resolution:
1. Retaining Walls: Design and construct retaining walls to resist lateral earth
pressure(Mittal et al., 2006).
2. Geogrid Reinforcement: Use geosynthetic reinforcement to enhance
stability(Biswas et al., 2016).
4.4.Water Ingress and Soil Erosion
 Issue: Contaminated water and uncontrolled fill exacerbate soil erosion and weaken the
foundation.
 Impact: Soil loss, undermining of footings, and compromised stability.
 Resolution(Osman, 2014):
1. Waterproofing: Implement effective waterproofing systems for basement walls and
slabs.
2. Drainage Systems: Install proper drainage to divert water away from the foundation.
4.5.Structural Integrity of Basement Slab
 Issue: Soft clay silts can lead to differential settlement of the basement slab.
 Impact: Uneven floors, cracking, and compromised structural integrity.
 Resolution:
1. Slab Design: Incorporate reinforcement to distribute loads evenly(Pugh, 2017).
2. Controlled Fill: Replace uncontrolled fill with engineered fill to minimize
differential settlement(Snow & Nickerson, 2004).
6
5.0 Resolving Existing Challenges
To enhance the original foundation design, the following solutions can be implemented:
5.1.Ground improvement
To enhance the foundation design, ground improvement techniques such as soil stabilization
or grouting can be implemented. Soil stabilization involves improving the soil's strength and
stability by adding materials such as lime, cement, or fly ash(Topolnicki, 2017). This technique
is particularly useful in sites with soft clay silts and high concentrations of sulfates, which can
cause differential settlement and pose a risk to the foundation's stability. Alternatively, grouting
involves injecting a slurry of cement or other materials into the soil to fill voids and improve
the soil's stability(Kai-wen, 2011). Both techniques can help mitigate potential issues
associated with uncontrolled fill and sulfates in the soil.
5.2.Excavation techniques and retaining walls
The site's topography and soil conditions may require specific excavation techniques and the
use of retaining walls to provide stable working conditions and prevent potential slope
failures(Niroumand et al., 2012). Excavation techniques such as benching or battering can be
implemented to provide a safe and stable working area for construction activities(Thomas et
al., 2019). Additionally, retaining walls can be used to prevent slope failure and provide
additional stability to the site. The retaining walls can be constructed using various materials
such as reinforced concrete, gabion baskets, or sheet piling, depending on the specific site
conditions and design requirements(Seo et al., 2016).
5.3.Basement structure and waterproofing techniques
Given the potential for a contaminated water body and the need to protect the building's interior
from potential leakage, it is recommended to use a waterproofing membrane on the basement
structure's exterior walls and floor. This membrane can be made of various materials such as
bituminous, PVC, or liquid-applied products, depending on the specific design requirements
and environmental conditions(Sriravindrarajah & Tran, 2018). Additionally, the basement
structure can be reinforced using reinforced concrete(Qiang, 2011) and/or steel beams to ensure
its stability and ability to withstand the anticipated loads.
Waterproofing techniques are essential to prevent potential water ingress into the basement
structure. The waterproofing membrane can be applied to the exterior walls and floor to prevent
7
water penetration. The membrane should be designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure
from the groundwater and the soil. Different types of waterproofing membranes can be used,
such as liquid-applied, sheet-based, or cementitious membranes. The choice of the
waterproofing membrane will depend on the soil type, groundwater level, and required
durability(Anderson & Lloyd, 2009). Proper drainage is also important to prevent water
accumulation around the basement structure. This can be achieved by installing drainage
systems around the perimeter of the basement. The drainage system should be designed to
redirect water away from the structure and towards a suitable discharge point. Additionally, a
sump pump can be installed to remove any accumulated water from the basement(Moperkar et
al., 2020).
6.0 Additional Protective Measures against Sulfate Attack

 APM1: Utilizing sulfate-resistant cement in the concrete mix to minimize the risk of
sulfate attack(Irassar et al., 1996a).
 APM2: Implementing a thick waterproofing membrane to protect the foundation from
moisture ingress and sulfate penetration(Irassar et al., 1996b).
 APM3: Regular monitoring and maintenance of the foundation to detect any signs of
sulfate attack early on and take corrective measures(Romano et al., 2020).
 APM4: Installing sacrificial anodes or cathodic protection systems to prevent sulfate-
induced corrosion of reinforcement bars(Deyab et al., 2022).
 APM5: Conducting thorough soil testing and analysis to assess the extent of sulfate
contamination and tailor protective measures accordingly(Solek-Podwika et al., 2016).
7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, addressing the geotechnical challenges posed by uncontrolled fill, soil

instability, and sulfate attack is crucial for ensuring the structural integrity and longevity of
the building's foundation. By implementing specific solutions tailored to each challenge, we
can mitigate risks effectively.
Recommendations:
Ground Improvement: Implement soil stabilization or grouting techniques to enhance soil

strength and stability, addressing issues related to soft clay silts and high sulfate
concentrations.
8
Excavation Techniques and Retaining Walls: Utilize specific excavation techniques and
construct retaining walls using suitable materials to prevent slope failures and provide stability
to the site.
Basement Structure and Waterproofing Techniques: Install waterproofing membranes and

reinforce the basement structure with reinforced concrete and/or steel beams to prevent
moisture ingress and ensure stability.
Additional Protective Measures against Sulfate Attack: Utilize sulfate-resistant cement,

implement thick waterproofing membranes, conduct regular monitoring and maintenance,
install sacrificial anodes or cathodic protection systems, and conduct thorough soil testing and
analysis to assess sulfate contamination extent.
By incorporating these recommendations into the foundation design, we can effectively

resolve the existing geotechnical challenges and ensure the long-term stability and safety of
the building. Regular monitoring and maintenance are essential to detect any early signs of
issues and address them promptly, ensuring the foundation's resilience against environmental
factors
9
8.0 References
1. Afrin, H. (2017). A Review on Different Types Soil Stabilization Techniques.

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56034464
2. AL-khyat, S., Naji, D., T. Hamad, H., & Onyeaka, H. (2023). A REVIEW ON SOIL
CONTAMINATION SOURCES: IMPACT ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND
REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES. Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development,
27(3), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.31272/jeasd.27.3.1
3. Anderson, R., & Lloyd, S. (2009). Tunnel waterproofing—A new level of protection.
Concrete Engineering, 13, 54–55.
4. Ardouz, G., Baba, K., Bahi, L., & Cherradi, C. (2020). Comparison of analytical and
numerical methods in the analysis of the stability of an excavation of the high-speed line
in northern Morocco. E3S Web of Conferences.
5. Barmenkova, E. V. (2019). Design of Base and Foundation for the Earthquake-Resistant
Building. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 661.
6. Bhuiyan, M. R., Masum, S. R., Parvej, M. T., & Sanuwar, S. M. (2024). An Overview of
Soil Improvement through Ground Grouting. Journal of Geoscience and Environment
Protection. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267140431
7. Biswas, A., Krishna, A. M., & Dash, S. K. (2016). Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Soil Foundation Systems Supported on Stiff Clay Subgrade. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 16, 04016007–04016007.
8. Britto, A. M., & Kusakabe, O. (1984). On the stability of supported excavations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 21, 338–348.
9. Buabbas, A. (2021). Investigation of Foundation Failures [MS, West Virginia University
Libraries]. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.10199
10. Desai, M. D. (1973). SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONS OF BUILDINGS: PARTS III AND IV
(DISCUSSION). Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 99.
11. Deyab, M. A., Allam, M. G. E., Haggar, A. M., Azab, M. A., Al-Qhatani, M. M., Barakat,
M. M., & Mohamed, N. S. (2022). Combine merits of both sacrificial and impressed
10
current cathodic protection in one system to mitigate chloride-induced corrosion in

reinforcement concrete. Zeitschrift Für Physikalische Chemie, 236, 1267–1280.
12. El Naggar, A., Youssef, M. A., El Naggar, H., & El Ansary, A. M. (2023). Differential
Settlement Effect on RC Framed Structures. In S. Walbridge, M. Nik-Bakht, K. T. W. Ng,
M. Shome, M. S. Alam, A. El Damatty, & G. Lovegrove (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference 2021 (Vol. 248, pp. 683–694).
Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1004-3_56
13. Ghareh, S., & Saidi, M. (2012). An Investigation on the Behavior of Retaining Structure
of Excavation Wall Using Obtained Result from Numerical Modeling and Monitoring
Approach. (A Case Study of International “Narges Razavi 2 Hotel”, Mashhad). Journal of
Structural Engineering and Geo-Techniques, 17–23.
14. Hirkane, S. P., Gore, N. G., & Salunke, P. P. J. (2014). Ground Improvement Techniques.
15. Hollings, J. (1971). Reinforced concrete seismic design. New Zealand Engineering, 26,
371.
16. Irassar, E. F., Maio, A. A. D., & Batic, O. R. (1996a). Sulfate attack on concrete with
mineral admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 26, 113–123.
17. Irassar, E. F., Maio, A. A. D., & Batic, O. R. (1996b). Sulfate attack on concrete with
mineral admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 26, 113–123.
18. Kai-wen, L. (2011). ENGINEERING PROJECTS IN APPLYING GROUTING INTO
OPTIMIZATION DESIGN OF FOUNDATION PLAN. Architecture Technology.
19. Karthik, S., kumar.E, A., Gowtham, P. S., Elango, G., Gokul, D., & Thangaraj, S. (2014).
Soil Stabilization By Using Fly Ash. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering,
10, 20–26.
20. Kim, M. M. (2001). Design of Pile Foundations in Soft Deposits.
21. Kota, P. B. V. S., Hazlett, D., & Perrin, L. (1996). Sulfate-Bearing Soils: Problems with
Calcium-Based Stabilizers. Transportation Research Record, 1546, 62–69.
22. KUMAPLEY N. K. (1985). The effect of chemical contamination on soil strength. Proc.
11th ICSMFE, 13, 1199–1201.
23. Longworth, I. H. (2004). ASSESSMENT OF SULFATE-BEARING GROUND FOR
SOIL STABILISATION FOR BUILT DEVELOPMENT. Ground Engineering.
11
24. Longworth, T. I. (2003). Contribution of construction activity to aggressive ground

conditions causing the thaumasite form of sulfate attack to concrete in pyritic ground.
Thaumasite in Cementitious Materials, 25(8), 1005–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-
9465 (03)00124-0
25. Menéndez, E., Matschei, T., & Glasser, F. P. (2013). Sulfate Attack of Concrete. In M.
Alexander, A. Bertron, & N. De Belie (Eds.), Performance of Cement-Based Materials in
Aggressive Aqueous Environments: State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC 211—PAE (pp.
7–74). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5413-3_2
26. Mittal, S., Garg, K. G., & Saran, S. (2006). Analysis and Design of Retaining Wall having
Reinforced Cohesive Frictional Backfill. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 24,
499–522.
27. Moperkar, A. M., Jagtap, S. A., & Yadav, L. (2020). Subsoil water drainage system for
building foundation structure. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and
Innovations in Technology, 6, 89–91.
28. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K. A., Nazir, R., Faizi, K., Adhami, B., & Moayedi, H. (2012).
Slope stability and sheet pile and contiguous bored pile walls. The Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 19–27.
29. Osman, K. T. (2014). Soil Erosion by Water.
30. Padfield, C. J., & Mair, R. J. (1984). DESIGN OF RETAINING WALLS EMBEDDED
IN STIFF CLAY. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:107282432
31. Paulay, T. (1983a). Deterministic seismic design procedures for reinforced concrete
buildings. Engineering Structures, 5, 79–86.
32. Paulay, T. (1983b). Deterministic seismic design procedures for reinforced concrete
buildings. Engineering Structures, 5, 79–86.
33. Pugh, R. S. (2017). Settlement of floor slabs on stone columns in very soft clays.
34. Qiang, Z. (2011). CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF BASEMENT
WATERPROOFING IN QUZHOU TIMES SQUARE. Architecture Technology.
35. Rawlings, C. G., Hellawell, E. E., & Kilkenny, W. M. (2000). GROUTING FOR
GROUND ENGINEERING. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:106665236
12
36. Romano, P., Gomes, J. P. C., & Brito, P. S. D. (2020). Monitoring of Reinforced Concrete
for Decision Support in Maintenance Management Systems.
37. Russo, G., Pauletta, M., & Scibilia, N. (2013). Long-Term Structural Deficiencies in a Mat
Foundation on Clay Soil. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 27, 295–302.
38. Sayão, A. S. F. J., Medeiros, L. V., Sieira, A. C. C. F., Gerscovich, D., & Garga, V. K.
(2002). RETAINING WALLS BUILT WITH SCRAP TYRES.
39. Seo, M., Im, J.-C., Kim, C., & Yoo, J.-W. (2016). Study on the applicability of a retaining
wall using batter piles in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53, 1195–1212.
40. Shahir, H., & Pak, A. (2009). NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
SOIL DENSIFICATION ON THE REDUCTION OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED
SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. Scientia Iranica, 16, 331–339.
41. Sharma, G., Kumar, P., Pandit, K., & Lala, S. (2021). Codal Provisions for Foundation
Design on Soils and Rocks: A Review. In S. Patel, C. H. Solanki, K. R. Reddy, & S. K.
Shukla (Eds.), Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019 (Vol. 134, pp.
599–609). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6370-0_52
42. Snow, C. L., & Nickerson, C. R. (2004). CASE STUDY OF EPS GEOFOAM
LIGHTWEIGHT FILL FOR SETTLEMENT CONTROL AT BRIDGE APPROACH
EMBANKMENT. Geotechnical Special Publication, 580–589.
43. Solek-Podwika, K., Ciarkowska, K., & Kaleta, D. (2016). Assessment of the risk of
pollution by sulfur compounds and heavy metals in soils located in the proximity of a
disused for 20 years sulfur mine (SE Poland). Journal of Environmental Management, 180,
450–458.
44. Sriravindrarajah, R., & Tran, E. (2018). Waterproofing practices in Australia for building
construction. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117152718
45. Suleiman, A. R., Soliman, A. M., & Nehdi, M. L. (2014). Effect of surface treatment on
durability of concrete exposed to physical sulfate attack. Construction and Building
Materials, 73, 674–681.
46. Thomas, S. D., French, G., & Thomas, M. (2019). Designing Steep Stable and Sustainable
Retaining Embankments in Weak Saturated Ground Using the Stable-EarthTM
Technique. INCREaSE 2019. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:204257778
47. Tiwari, D. S. K., & Kumawat, N. (2014). Recent Developments in Ground Improvement
Techniques- A Review. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:212569761
13
48. Topolnicki, M. (2017). GROUND IMPROVEMENT INSTEAD OF PILING –

EFFECTIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR HEAVILY LOADED STRUCTURES.
49. Wang, Z. F., Shen, S., Ho, C. E., & Kim, Y. H. (2013). Jet Grouting Practice: An
Overview. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258767734
50. Xu, Q., & He, X. (2020). Geotechnical Analysis of Building Foundation in Beihai Sand
Dam. Journal of Coastal Research, 112, 349–351.
51. Zhao, S., Zhang, B., Zhang, W., Su, X., & Sun, B. (2023). Impacts of Contaminants from
Different Sources on Geotechnical Properties of Soils. Sustainability, 15(16), 12586.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612586
52. Zheng-guo, Y. (2010a). Analysis on Support Design for Excavation of Expansive Soil
High Slope. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:133433598
53. Zheng-guo, Y. (2010b). Analysis on Support Design for Excavation of Expansive Soil
High Slope. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:133433598
54. Zhou, S., Di, H., Xiao, J., & Wang, P. (2016). Differential Settlement and Induced
Structural Damage in a Cut-and-Cover Subway Tunnel in a Soft Deposit. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30, 04016028. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0000880
14
9.0 Appendix
9.1.Task 1b
 Basement Retaining Wall
9.2.Task 2a
 Front Elevation(FE)
9.3.Task 2b
 Longitudional Cross Section(LS)
15

FOUNDATION REPORT FINAL Adjusted 3

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

FOUNDATION REPORT FINAL Adjusted 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4139844 Chukwudera igwe

2.0 Overview of Constraints in the Ground

2.3.High Concentration of Sulfates

3.0 Tackling Geotechnical Challenges

3.4.Basement Structure and Waterproofing Techniques

4.0 Identifying Inadequacies in Foundation Design

4.1.Settlement and Differential Movement

 Impact: Reduced load-bearing capacity, cracking, and potential structural failure.

5.0 Resolving Existing Challenges

5.2.Excavation techniques and retaining walls

5.3.Basement structure and waterproofing techniques

6.0 Additional Protective Measures against Sulfate Attack

In conclusion, addressing the geotechnical challenges posed by uncontrolled fill, soil

Ground Improvement: Implement soil stabilization or grouting techniques to enhance soil

Basement Structure and Waterproofing Techniques: Install waterproofing membranes and

Additional Protective Measures against Sulfate Attack: Utilize sulfate-resistant cement,

By incorporating these recommendations into the foundation design, we can effectively

1. Afrin, H. (2017). A Review on Different Types Soil Stabilization Techniques.

current cathodic protection in one system to mitigate chloride-induced corrosion in

24. Longworth, T. I. (2003). Contribution of construction activity to aggressive ground

48. Topolnicki, M. (2017). GROUND IMPROVEMENT INSTEAD OF PILING –

You might also like