1.

364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

HOMEWORK NO.1
FALL SEMESTER 2003

Due: Friday 26 September

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Post Office Square project in Boston, Massachusetts involves the demolition of
an existing garage (two storeys above and one storey below ground) and the
construction of new building structures and a 7-level underground parking. The site is
bounded by the intersections of Pearl, Congress, Milk and Franklin Streets (Figure 1).
Existing buildings up to 40 stories tall are located adjacent to the site and are
supported on shallow foundations (mats and footings). The site investigations for the
project were carried out in two main phases. The details are contained in the Report
Nos. 1 to 4.

2. AVAILABLE DATA

Report No.1 presents the geotechnical information obtained from the initial
investigation (BH 1 to 15). The report also includes a compilation of additional
borehole data derived from other sources for the surrounding areas outside the site
boundary. Report No.2 contains a summary of the supplementary laboratory tests
conducted. Phase 2 of the site investigation program addresses mainly the ground
water conditions surrounding the site (BH101 to 115) and field vane shear tests. The
information is given in Report No.3. The final Report No.4 summarizes the data
obtained from water pumping tests.
Five copies of the site investigation data are available in binders.These can be signed
out for limited periods of time. Please be courteous to your fellow students and return
them when you are not actually using them.

3. TASKS

You are required to evaluate and interpret the information contained in the site
investigation reports with regards to the ground conditions encountered. The
following specific tasks must be carried out and submitted:-

a. Draw two geological cross-sections across the site as shown in Figure 2. The
section should include the borehole information for areas surrounding the site that
would have an impact on design decisions. Label the different soil layers clearly.
(Include a scale!).
 b. Draw contours for each of the top of the Boston Blue Clay (BBC), glacial till and
the bedrock.

c. Summarize the soil properties in tables.

d. Identify and classify each soil layer including the bedrock.

e. Determine the average geological profile for the site. Plot the variation of the soil
and rock properties with depth. These should include at least the following
items:-

Standard penetration tests profiles

Undrained shear strengths (laboratory and field)
Pressuremeter modulus and limit pressures
Total unit weight
Water content and Atteburg limits
Plasticity Index
Liquidity Index
Hydraulic conductivity
Hydrostatic pressure line and insitu pore water pressures
Total and effective insitu vertical stresses
Preconsolidation pressures

f. Give your observations and comments on the nature of the site geology and soil
stratigraphy, based on the available information. You may make use of library
books that describe the geology of the Boston area for additional information.
Please do not refer to information on soil properties reported in published
technical papers on the project itself. Describe and discuss the characteristics of
each soil/rock layer and ground water conditions in detail. List reference
materials used.

g. Comment on any engineering implications that may influence the subsequent

design decisions for the excavation and foundation aspects of the project.

Although each student is to submit the homework individually, you are welcome (indeed
encouraged) to discuss the homework with each other and also with Prof. Whittle.
 1.364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

FALL SEMESTER 2003

HOMEWORK NO.2

Due: Friday October 10th 2002

Question No I

A new industrial development for a port extension consists of several large container warehouses
for storage of cargo. The site is located at Labenne in France. The stanchions of the new
warehouses are to be supported on shallow foundations of which typical dimensions are shown
in Figure 1.1. The site is underlain by sands and the variation of the standard penetration
resistance, cone penetration resistance and pressuremeter limit pressures are depicted in Figure
1.2. The soil friction angles derived from shear box tests are summarized in Figure 1.3. Figure
1.4 shows index properties reported from the site investigation. NOTE: Although the data in
Fig. 1.4 are quite reliable above the groundwater table, the data are affected by significant
sampling disturbance effects below the groundwater table (due to cave-in of the borehole).

Based on the data available to you, carry out the following tasks:

a. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation using the methods given in the 1.364
Course Notes.

b. Calculate the factor of safety for a vertical working load of 2000 kN acting at each stanchion.

c. How would your answer change if there is an additional moment of 500 kNm due to lateral
loads on the stanchions?

d. Use the method of Burland and Burbridge (1984) to calculate the immediate settlement of the
foundation. Consider only the vertical load of 2000 kN. What would be the settlement after a
period of operational life of 90 years?

e. For the same loading condition and operational life as in (e), re-calculate the immediate and
long term settlements using the method of Schmertmann (1970).

Question No. 2

At the Post Office Square site in Homework No. 1, the Owner suggested that an alternative
scheme involving a single basement be explored. The new scheme is shown in Figure 2.1. A
raft would be constructed at an elevation of 0.0 feet (based on Boston City datum) to carry the
foundation loads of the entire building. The soil profile and the soil parameters are summarized
in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. The coefficient of consolidation cv = 0.2 ft2/day and the coefficient of
secondary compression ca = 0.001 for the clay layers. Based on the information given, carry out
the following tasks:
a. Interpret the undrained shear strength of the clay using the SHANSEP approach of Ladd and
Foot (1974) assuming S = 0.2 and m = 0.8.

b. Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the raft.

c. If a factor of safety of 2.0 is required by the local Building Authority, how many floors can
the building be designed to, if the working live load is 0. 1 tsf per floor and 0.2 tsf for the
basement. Assume the structural dead load to be 0.5 tsf per floor and 0.36 tsf for the
basement.

After much discussion, a 13 storey high structure with a single basement was chosen. For this
case:

d. Calculate the immediate settlement using the method of D'Appoloniaet al (1971). Assume K0
= K0NC (OCR)n, where K0NC = 0.5 and n = 0.4.

e. Estimate the consolidation settlement assuming that the loads are applied instantaneously.

f. Estimate the long term creep settlement for a design life of 90 years.

g. If the actual construction period is 12 months, what amount of settlement can be expected
after the end of construction for the same design life?
 500 kNm 500 kN

2000 kN 2000 kN
1.5m 1.5 m

20 m 20 m

2m

10 m 3m

5m

Figure 1.1 Foundation layout

 0 2 4 6 0 50 100 1.0 2.0
0
15 Menard
1
13
2 Some clay
GWL traces 5
3 Pressio-
Depth (m)

12.7% organic penetrometer

2
4 content

5 Fine-medium
light brown
6 uniform sand

Pressuremeter
Borehole log SPT blows / CPT qc (MPa) CPT fc (kPa) limit pressure
300 mm pL (MPa)

Figure 1.2. Insitu Test Data

Dr (%)
100 75 50 25
45

40 fp
Angle of friction (f )

35
fcv ; 33o

30 LEGEND
Shear box data:
Soil-soil, peak
Conditions at constant volume
25

0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70

Initial voids ratio ei

Figure 1.3. Soil Friction Angle Obtained from Shear Box Tests
 Bulk density Water content
0 0

2 2

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

4 4

6 6

Yb (kN/m3) w (%)
15 20 0 10 20 30

Sr - Degree of saturation Relative density

Dr (%)
100 50 0

0 0

2 2
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

4 4

6 6

Sr (%) e Void ratio

0 50 100 0.4 0.6 0.8

LEGEND
BH IC 1 BH IC 2
Open symbols : average of complete sample
'Organic' sand

Figure1.4. Physical Properties obtained from Laboratory Tests

 Pore Water Pressure, Natural Water Content,
uo, u (TSF) Atterberg Limits (Percent)
20
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

10
FILL

0
Elevation in Feet (Boston City Base)

U-1 PZ
11A

U-1 U-1

-10

uo
U-2

U-2
Hydrostatic Pore Water
Pressure (Assuming
-20 Water Level
CLAY

PZ

U-3
11B at EL. = 9.0
U-3

-30

U-4

-40
u Observed in-situ
pore water
-50 PZ PZ
pressure Plastic Limit, Wp
TILL

Liquid Limit, WL
PZ
1(A) 3(B) PZ 14
12

-60
ROCK

PZ
1(B)

-70
B1 B2 B3 B11 B12 B14
Symbol OB. Well Symbol Boring Piez.
Natural Water Content, WN
No. No. No.

B2 B1 PZ1(A)

B3 B1 PZ1(B)
B3 PZ3(A) Origin of Data:
B9
B3 PZ3(B)
B11 Postoffice SQ. Garage
B11 PZ11(A)
B12 B11 PZ11(B)
B14 B12 PZ12 One Post office SQ.
B14 PZ14 (H & A File No. 4207)

Figure 2.2. Pore water pressures, natural water content and Atterberg Limits
 Compressibility Parameters, Vertical Effective Stress,
CR, RR σvo, σv, σp (TSF)
20
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

10
FILL

Mean
RR
CR
Elevation in Feet (Boston City Base)

0 U-1
PZ
11A
Best Estimate of σp' -
U-1 U-1 Preconsolidation Pressure

-10
U-2 σv - Vertical Effective
Stress (Based on
U-2 observed
in-situ pore
-20
CLAY

water pressure)
PZ
11B
U-3
U-3

-30

U-4

-40
RR 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 σ vo -Vertical Effective Stress
CR 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PZ
(Assuming Water Level @ EL. 9.0)
-50 PZ
TILL

3(B) PZ
1(A) PZ 14
12

Compression Ratio, CR
Symbol Boring Sample
-60
B2 U2
ROCK

PZ
1(B)
Recompression Ratio, RR
B2 U4
-70 B12 U3
B1 B2 B3 B11 B12 B14
B14 U1
B2 U1
B2 U3
B12 U1
B14 U2

Figure 2.3. Compressibility parameters and vertical effective stress

 1.364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

HOMEWORK NO.3

Due: Monday November 10

Question No.1

A foundation contractor is bidding for a design-build tender package. The available

information on the subsoil conditions at the site is shown in Figure 1. You are engaged
as the Professional Engineer to submit a design of the piling system. The contractor has
decided on three options: 18in outside diameter closed-ended pipe piles, HP 14 x 73 steel
H-pile sections and 18-in diameter drilled shafts. Proprietary pile sizes are summarized
on pages 10-6 to 10-24 of the 1.364 Course Notes. The pile cut-off level is 6 ft below
ground and the pile toe is at a depth of 50 ft. Additional data are given in Table 1 for
your reference.

Table 1 Soil compressibility parameters

Soil Type G/s’vo n’ Cc/(1+ eo) Cs/(1+ eo) cv (ft2/day)
Sand 300 0.2 - - -
Normally consolidated clay 100 0.2 0.19 0.012 0.0465
Overconsolidated clay 400 0.3 0.05 0.005 2.0

Note that the preconsolidation pressure (s’P) vary quite widely. The best estimate of s’P
is indicated by a square symbol in Figure 1.

TASKS

1.1 For each of the three piling systems:-

a. Assess the shaft friction and end bearing resistance to be used

b. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile.
c. Determine the allowable working load if a factor of safety of 2.5 is required on
the ultimate capacity
d. Estimate the settlement of a single pile at the selected working load using the load
transfer approach of Randolph and Wroth (1978) and the elastic solutions of
Poulos and Davis (1980) discussed in the 1.364 course notes
e. Recommend the most suitable system for this site

1.2 For the drilled shaft option:-

a. Assess the efficiency of a 5-pile group with a pile spacing of 3 times the pile
diameter
b. Determine the ultimate capacity and overall factor of safety of the group if the
working load is unchanged from that in Question 1.1c

1
 c. Determine the elastic settlement of the pile group using the load transfer method
of Randolph and Wroth (1978) and check against that using Poulos and Davis
(1980)
d. Estimate the additional settlement of the pile group due to long term consolidation
of the soft clay (i.e., assuming 90% of primary consolidation has been completed).

Question No.2

Due to problems with vibrations caused by conventional pile driving methods, driven
piles are becoming more difficult to use on sites in close proximity to sensitive structures.
As a consequence, jacked-in piles are slowly finding their market niche in the foundation
industry. In order to verify the behavior of a jacked-in pile, a typical pile will be
subjected to a static compression load test. The trial pile consists of an open ended steel
pipe pile with an outer diameter of 3ft and a thickness of 0.25ins. The pile is installed to
a depth of 58.0ft from a piling platform (Ground surface at El. +81.3ft). The soil
conditions at the test site are shown in Figure 2.

TASKS

2.1 Based on the information available:-

a. Assess the skin friction and end bearing resistance based on the given SPT and
CPT data
b. Estimate at what test load the trial pile will fail
c. Predict the likely settlement of the pile at one third of the failure load using the
methods of Randolph and Wroth (1978) and Poulos and Davis (1980).

2.2 If a six-pile group consisting of 2 rows of 3 piles (all installed to the same toe
elevations and a pile spacing of 4 times the pile diameter) were to be tested,

a. What will be the expected failure load?

b. What is the group efficiency?
c. What will be the settlement of the pile group estimated using Randolph and
Wroth (1978) and Poulos and Davies (1980)?

2
 Water Content, w (%) Vertical Effective Stresses (ksf) SPT Blow Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

Sand Fill
10
Range of s'
v0

20 s' p

30
Soft-Medium Clay
Depth (ft)

40

50

60
Stiff Clay

U (1960)
70 UU (1988)
FV (1988)
SPT - N
80
Note: Water table shown 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
at time of pile installation Undrained Shear Strength, s u (ksf)

Figure 1. Subsoil conditions at project site

3
 SPT N (blows/ft) Point Stress-Qc Local Friction-LF
(Kg/cm2) (Kg/cm2)
500 6
GL +81.3' 10 20 30 40 0

Silty Sand
5 5
2
10 3 10
4
15 22 15
5 Fine Sand
20 6 31 20
7
25 25
8 36
Depth (ft)

30 9 30
10
35 35
11
Clayey Fine Sand

40 12 40
13
45 45
14
15
50 50
16
55 55
17
18
60 60
19
65 20 65
(ft) (m)

Standard Penetration Test Cone Penetration Test

Figure 2. Soil profile and in-situ test data

4
 1.364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

HOMEWORK NO. 4
th
Due: Monday November 24

Question 1

Two circular concrete piles each 0.4m in diameter were installed through thick soft to firm clays
underlain by dense coarse silty sand at depth. The subsoil profile and the variation of the soil
properties with depth from the ground surface is given in Figure 1 and 2. The characteristic
strength and Young’s modulus of the pile concrete was 30 MPa and 20 GPa respectively. Pile
No.1 was driven to a set at 20.8m in the dense silty sand layer, whilst Pile No.2 was terminated
1m above the top of the dense silty sand layer within the firm silty clay/clayey silt. After
completion of piling, the platform was subsequently raised by 2m and compacted to a density of
20kN/m3. The embankment can be considered as wide in relation to the thickness of the clay
layer. The piles were debonded from the embankment by applying a bituminous slip coating.

TASKS

1.1 For Pile No.1,

a. Calculate the ultimate capacity of the pile in end bearing and the factor of safety for a
working load of 970 kN, without considering effects of downdrag
b. Obtain the profile of vertical pile displacement with depth under the applied working load
of 970 kN, assuming that no downdrag occurs
c. Compute the free field ground settlement under the surcharge weight of the embankment
at 1m depth intervals
d. Assess the location of the neutral axis due to downdrag
e. What will be the factor of safety of the pile as a result of the downdrag force?
f. Estimate the additional vertical displacement at the pile head due to downdrag

1.2 For Pile No.2,

a. Calculate the working load of the pile if a factor of safety of 2.0 is required, without
consideration of downdrag
b. Obtain the vertical pile displacement with depth under the working load calculated in (a),
assuming no downdrag occurs
c. Estimate the resulting vertical displacement of the pile head due to the surcharge imposed
by the embankment
d. What is the factor of safety of the pile in this case?

Note that in Figure 2, values of mv were obtained for two load increments (s’vo and 4s’vo). For
simplicity, assume that the lower values apply if OCR<1 and the higher values apply for OCR>1.
 Description Moisture content and Unit weights: Particle size Loss on Vertical effective Undrained shear
Atterberg limits: % kg/m3 distribution: % ignition: % stress: kN/m2 strength: kN/m2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1600 1800 2000 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 0 50 100 150 200 0 25 50 75
0 Firm dark grey/brown silty clay
Shells in silty clay 4 Range of yield
2 Average field
Soft brown grey silty clay/ stresses from
vane strength
clayey silt with shells consolidation
(from Fig. 11)
4 tests
Soft very dark grey silty clay/ clayey silt 36
(from Fig. 8)
grey mottling, sometimes micaceous.
6 Some silt laminations Profile used Yield stress:
in this Paper
s 'y = 1.55 s vo
'

Remoulded vane str

Soft to firm dark grey silty clay with
Depth below ground m

8 small holes and some mottling 59

Soft dark grey silty clay/clayey silt

10
with faint laminations. Some mottling

12 83

ength
14
Firm dark grey sility clay/clayey silt
with some mottling and laminations.
16 Slightly micaceous, with occasional 110
shells below 15 m
18 Average field

Medium silt
Coarse silt
Piston U U triaxial
Vertical

Fine silt
Delft effective strength

Sand
Clay
20 Coarse silty sand with broken shells Wp W W L '
stress in-situ s vo (from Fig. 11)

Figure 1. Soil profile and geotechnical parameters, Bothkennar site

0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10

0

5
Depth: m

10

15

20
mv: m2/MN Cv: m2/year k: 10-9 m/s

Oedometer
s' vo 4 s' vo SBPM

Figure 2. Compressibility, consolidation and hydraulic conductivity parameters, Bothkennar

 Pile No.1 Pile No.2

+2m
Fill 2m
0m

Debonded

Soft to firm clay

19.5m

1m
-19.5m
1.3m

Dense coarse silty sand

Figure 3 Schematic of piles installed

Question 2

A bridge pier is to be founded on the same soil profile as question 1. The pier will be supported
on 13m deep drilled shaft foundations. Each drilled shaft is 1m diameter and will be constructed
with reinforced concrete of characteristic strength 35 MPa. The pile modulus was determined to
be 20 GPa. The ultimate structural moment capacity of each pile was 3750 kNm. Assuming that
the head of each pile is fixed against rotation and that the elastic shear modulus of the clay , G =
100su, find the following:
a. Use the method of Fleming et al (1985) to compute the maximum working lateral load
that can be applied to the pile head without exceeding a factor of safety of 1.5 on the
ultimate lateral geotechnical capacity
b. For the value of the working load obtained, predict the lateral deflection and bending
moment along the pile shaft using the Wrinkler model.
c. Compare the results of (b) with those calculated using the elastic continuum model of
Randolph (1981).
 1.364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
HOMEWORK No. 5

Due: Friday December 12

1. This question concerns the stability of an open slope cutting that will be used to provide
construction access for a 13.2m deep excavation in Boston. The site is level with ground
surface at El. +34.2m with a soil profile shown in Figure 1a. The groundwater table is at El.
+31.5m and pore pressures are assumed to be hydrostatic. Table 1 summarizes the unit
weight and shear strength properties of the soils at the site, while Figure 1b provides
additional field vane data from which the undrained shear strength of the Boston Blue Clay
layers can be estimated. Using the soil properties provided and the slope stability program
Autoslope (on the CEEnet – S:\analysis\autoslope), find the maximum slope inclination
angle, i, which will ensure a factor of safety, FS= 1.5 for short term (undrained) stability. For
your selected slope angle, what is the factor of safety for long term drained stability?
In the first calculation you should assume that the undrained shear strength of the
cohesive fill, silt and BBC layers are controlled by the in situ effective stress (σ'v0). In the
second calculation, the water table will be maintained below the excavated grade within the
excavation itself. [You will need to sketch a flow net in order to estimate the pore pressures
within the slope.]
Your should include full details of the assumptions used in your analyses, together with
plots showing the location of the critical slope failure mechanisms.

2. A new subway extension in Berlin involves the construction of 1.2m thick concrete
diaphragm walls forming the side walls of the station with a 1.5m thick base slab connecting
the walls (Figure 2a). The walls are to be tied back with permanent ground anchors. The
subsoil profile at the site consist of thick layers of Berlin sand. The soffit of the base slab is
22m below the existing ground surface. As the water table is only 1.5m below the ground
surface, the structure has to be tied down against uplift water pressures acting against the
base slab. Due to the proximity of the excavation to sensitive structures around the site, the
excavation cannot be dewatered until the base slab has been cast to seal the water inflow. As
a result, the following excavation sequence has to be adopted:-
 Stage 1. Install retaining walls from existing ground surface
Stage 2. Excavate to temporary platform for installation of ground anchor (2.5m below
ground surface)
Stage 3. Excavate to soffit of base slab at 22m depth
Stage 4. Cast base slab underwater and seal joints with retaining walls by grouting
Stage 5. Pump out water in excavation to lower the water level to below the top of the
base slab.
Stage 6. Install tie-down piles and secure piles to base slab
Stage 7. Terminate pumping
Results of triaxial tests run on Berlin sand at different relative densities (Dr) and mean effective
stresses (σm) are given in Figure 2b.
a. Find the embedment depth of the retaining wall required for stability of the excavation.
b. Specify the spacing for the anchor and determine the prestress force based on the most
critical condition at the end of excavation (no drawdown of water inside excavation).
c. Design the inclination and length of the anchor based on a nominal bore diameter of 150mm,
indicating clearly the locations of the free and fixed lengths of the anchor (assuming no
restriction on anchor lengths outside the site boundary). The geotechnical factor of safety for
a permanent ground anchor is 2.0.
d. The base slab is to be anchored by 200mm diameter concrete friction piles. Calculate the
length and spacing required, assuming a geotechnical factor of safety of 1.5 on the ultimate
shaft resistance is adequate.

3. A typical section of the MBTA transitway project in Boston is supported by 3 ft thick

concrete diaphragm walls with five levels of cross-lot bracing, Fig. 3a. The site has level ground
surface (El. 112ft) and the toe of the wall extends to an elevation of +24 ft. The allowable
structural moment capacity of the diaphragm wall is 265 kips-ft/lin. ft. The struts consist of steel
pipe sections with an outer diameter of 30ins and wall thickness of 0.75ins, located at a
horizontal spacing of 22 ft. Excavation is carried out from the existing ground surface at +112 ft
elevation. The sequence of excavation and strutting is set out in Figure 3a. The soil properties at
the site are summarized in Table 3. Figure 3b gives the existing in situ soil stresses and pore
water pressures in the ground. (For the purpose of this exercise, use the revised profile for σ’ho in
Figure 3b.).
a. Using empirical apparent earth pressure diagrams methods, recommend a design lateral earth
pressure envelope (this should include the effects of a 600psf construction surcharge load
applied at the ground surface and extending up to 20ft behind the wall).
b. For this assumed set of apparent earth pressures, what are the expected loads in each level of
strut.
c. Check the basal stability of the excavation using the methods discussed in the Course Notes
d. Determine the likely ground settlement profile induced by the excavation using the method
of Clough et al (1989)
 Soil Type Unit Weight Undrained Shear Drained Strength Parameters
(kN/m3) Strength (kPa) c' (kPa) φ'
Granular Fill 18.9 -* 0 300
Cohesive Fill 18.0 0.35σ'v0 0 300
Organic Silt 17.3 0.25σ'v0 0 350
BBC 18.5 see Fig. 1c 0 330
Glacial Till 23.1 - 0 430
* Fully drained
Assume hydraulic conductivity of cohesive fill, organic silt and BBC, k = 5x10-7 cm/sec
Table 1. Soil Properties for Stability Analyses

Soil Type Elevation (ft) OCR Su (ksf) φ’ (degree) γt (pcf)

Misc. Fill 112 to 106 - - 30 120
Cohesive Fill 106 to 99 - 0.15 - 115
99 to 91 0.26
91 to 84 0.36
Silty Sand 84 to 72 - - 35 120
Upper BBC 72 to 64 3.00 SHANSEP - 115
64 to 56 2.52 S = 0.2
56 to48 2.14 m = 0.77
48 to 40 1.79
40 to 32 1.46
32 to 24 1.25
Lower BBC 24 to16 1.00 SHANSEP - 115
16 to 8 1.00 S = 0.18
8 to 0 1.00 m = 0.66
0 to –8 1.00
-8 to –16 1.00
-16 to –25 1.00

Table 3. Soil profile and properties for MBTA excavation

 35
Granular Fill
30 Cohesive Fill
Organic Silt
Elevation (m)

25
Final Excavation Grade i
20 Boston Blue
Clay
15
10

5 Glacial Till

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Lateral Position (m)
Figure 1a. Slope excavation

35
Granular Fill

30
Cohesive Fill

Organic Silt
25
Elevation (m)

20 Boston Blue
Clay

15 Sym. Location
A
B
10 C
D

5 Till &
Argillite

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
Field Vane Strength, s uFV (kPa)

Figure 1b. Undrained Shear Strength Data for Boston Blue Clay
 Figure 2a. Schematic of anchored retaining wall and tied-down base slab scheme

50
sm = 0.2 Kg/cm2 sm = 0.2 Kg/cm2
48 sm = 0.5 Kg/cm2
sm = 0.5 Kg/cm2 sm = 1 Kg/cm2
46 sm = 6 Kg/cm2
sm = 1 Kg/cm2
44
(Eq = 1 Kg/cm2)
42
Degrees

40

38
j'

36
sm = 6 Kg/cm2
34
sm= 10 Kg/cm2
32
(extrapolated) BERLINSAND
30
30 32 34 36 38
31.5
40 4242.85 44 46 48
Porosity h - %
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Dg
Relative Density

Figure 2b. Friction angle of Berlin sand obtained from triaxial tests
 120 120
1
100 100
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
80 80

60 60

40 40
Platform Section: P1 Platform Section: P1
20 Stage 1 20 Stage 2
3ft RC
Install Strut 1 @ El. + 107ft
Diaphragm Excavate to El. + 105ft Excavate to El. + 95ft
0 Wall Time: 45 days 0
Time: 45 days
-20 Till -20 Till
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance from Centerline (ft) Distance from Centerline (ft)
120 120
1 1
100 100
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
2 2
3
80 80

60 60

40 Platform Section: P1 40 Platform Section: P1

Stage 3 Stage 4
20 20 Install Strut 3 @ El. + 87ft
Install Strut 2 @ El. + 97ft
Excavate to El. + 85ft Excavate to El. + 75ft
0 Time: 45 days 0 Time: 45 days

-20 Till -20 Till

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance from Centerline (ft) Distance from Centerline (ft)
120 120
1 1
100 100
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

2 2
3 3
80 80
4 4
5
60 60
final grade
40 40 El. + 54ft
Platform Section: P1 Platform Section: P1
20 Stage 5 20 Stage 6
Install Strut 4 @ El. + 77ft Install Strut 5 @ El. + 67ft
0 Excavate to El. + 65ft 0 Excavate to El. + 54ft
Time: 45 days Time: 45 days
-20 Till -20 Till
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance from Centerline (ft) Distance from Centerline (ft)
Misc. Fill Cohesive Fill Silty Sand Boston Blue Clay

Figure 3a. Excavation and struting sequence, MBTA Transitway , South Boston
 Stresses & Pore Pressures (kPa)
0 200 400 600 800 0

100
5

Depth (m)
Elevation (ft)
80 10

15
60

20
40

s v0
' 25
In Situ Stresses:
GWT @ 106ft 20
Piezometric Head in Till 100ft 30
Linear Regression:
s v0
' (ksf) = 6.6306-0.056257He (ft) s h0
'
0 s v0 35
R2 = 0.99997, for He < 106ft
Original Profile s h0
' u0
Revised Profile s h0
' -20 40
0 5 10 15 20
Stresses & Pore Pressures (ksf)

Figure 3b. In situ stresses and pore water pressures