Preliminary conceptual design

Typical
Desk study
engineering
Walk over survey project
Evaluate Hazards

Conceptual design

Preliminary Site Investigation

Detailed Investigation

Lab Testing (Parameter definition)

Evaluation of Data

Final Design

Construction

Monitoring Groundworks

Have you done your desk

study/preliminary investigation?
 Trial Pits
• Excavation of the ground to examine (and
sample) the soil type, layering & variability

• Excavated by hand, machine

• Max depth around 4-5m

• Can take disturbed (bag) samples

• Cheap

SAFETY
• Excavated soil - min. 1m from edge of pit

• If >1.2m deep - support needed or sloped at

safe angle. Ladder should be provided

• If below water table – may need pump

• Keep trial pits away from intended

foundation locations!

Boreholes

Light percussion drilling

Rotary drilling
“Shell and Augur”
 Where should boreholes be located?
• As close to proposed foundations as
possible
• Number of boreholes influenced by:
• variability of ground conditions
• project size
• cost
• Spacing (EC7 guidance):
• high-rise and industrial structures: grid
pattern with points at 15-40m
• large-area structures: grid pattern with
points at max. 60m distance
• linear structures: spacing of 20-200m
• special structures: two to six
investigation points per foundation
• dams and weirs, 25-75m distance,
along relevant sections
 In-Situ testing
• Sampling not always appropriate (or
possible)…
• Very soft or sensitive clays
• Stoney soils
• Sands and gravels
• Weak, fissile, fractured rock

• Significantly faster than drilling

• Not affected by sampling disturbance

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

• Penetration testing & sampling
• Standard weight of 63.5kg falling through 760 mm
• N = num. of blows to drive split spoon sampler 300mm
(recorded in four 75mm increments)
• SPT also takes a sample (disturbed)
 SPT corrections
• The efficiency of the hammer and the rod length can
affect the measured N-value

• Standard practice to correct N value to an average

energy ratio (or hammer efficiency) (Er) of 60%, where
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 1
• 𝐸𝑅 =
𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟 100

• Corrected N value called N60:

𝐸𝑅
• 𝑁60 = 𝜆𝑁
60
• 𝐸𝑟 /60 = 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
• 𝜆 = 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

Correction factors ER and 𝜆

Country Hammer Release ER
Japan Donut Tombi 78
Donut 2 turns of rope 67
China Pilcon type Trip 60
Donut Manual 54
USA Safety 2 turns of rope 54
Donut 2 turns of rope 45
UK Pilcon, Dando Trip 60
Old Standard 2 turns of rope 48

Rod Length (m) 𝜆

>10 1.0
6-10 0.95
4-6 0.85
0-4 0.75
𝜆 is a correction for the effect of rod length on the energy delivered to the sampler when the length is
less than 10m
SPT corrections
• In granular soil the value of N60 is also affected by the effective
overburden stress (σv0’) – N will underestimate the compactness
or density at shallow depths (σv0’< 100kPa)

• N60 should be corrected to a standard value of σv0’

(= pa ≈ 100 kN/m2), called (𝑁1 )60 , where:
• (𝑁1 )60 = 𝐶𝑁 𝑁60
• 𝐶𝑁 is a correction factor where (there are many other published
relationships for CN):
1 0.5
• 𝐶𝑁 = 𝜎𝑣0 ′
𝑝𝑎

Example 1
• An SPT is carried out in sand where the efficiency of the
hammer (𝐸𝑅 = 70%). If the N-value at 9m is 24, find N60
and (N1)60. The unit weight of sand is 18kN/m3 and the
water table is at great depth.
Example 1
Step 1: Determine N60
𝐸𝑅 70
𝑁60 = 𝜆𝑁 = × 0.95 × 24 = 27
60 60

Step 2: Determine (N1)60

0.5 0.5
1 1
𝐶𝑁 = 𝜎𝑣0 ′ = 9×18 = 0.79
𝑝𝑎 100

Therefore

(N1)60 = CNN60 = 0.79 x 27 ≈ 21

Use other – Bell p. 337, Craig p. 298

SPT N to ɸ’ …

Strength parameters for Clay:

from Stroud (1988)
• Low plasticity Clay (PI = 20±10%):
• cu = 6 N60
• High plasticity Clay (PI = 40±10%):
• cu = 5 N60

• Note: N uncorrected for stress level*

 SPT
• Advantages
• Easy to use
• Simple, inexpensive
• Lot of available data / experience
• Related to , cu, E…
• Can be used for estimating foundation
settlement (and allowable bearing pressure)
• Takes sample (disturbed)

• Limitations
• Variable results
• Non standard equipment (corrections
necessary for the ratio of delivered energy to
free fall energy of the hammer - N60)
• Correction necessary for overburden pressure
• Completely empirical correlations with
properties

Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

• 60o Cone attached to a series of rods is
pushed into the ground at 2±0.5cm/s
• Continuous measurements (every 10-
50mm) made of the resistance to
penetration of the cone (qc) and of a
surface “friction” sleeve (fs)
• CPT
• Tip stress/resistance & Friction Sleeve

• Piezocone (CPTU)
• PWP instrumentation
• Material characterisation

fs fs

u u

qc
CPTU material characterisation
Can use CPT data to characterise soils based on mechanical
“behaviour” rather than “classification” (i.e. PSD’s etc).
• Tip resistance, qc (qt corrected)
• reflects intact strength Rf (%)

• sleeve friction (fs)

• reflects remoulded/adhesive
strength
• friction ratio (Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%)

CPTU material characterisation

Can use CPT data to characterise soils based on mechanical
“behaviour” rather than “classification” (i.e. PSD’s etc).
• Tip resistance, qc (qt corrected)
• reflects intact strength
PWP

• sleeve friction (fs)

• reflects remoulded/adhesive
strength
• friction ratio (Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%)
Depth

• PWP response (u)

• Measures excess pore pressures
uclay
• PWP parameter (Bq)
• 𝐵𝑞 =
𝑢−𝑢0
𝑞𝑡 −𝜎𝑣0
ugranular
• In sand u-u0 is low (high in clays)

u0
 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)
Rf (%)
OC
fissured
Silt

Sand

Soft
clay

Estimating undrained shear strength

(cu) from CPT’s
(𝑞𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣0 )
𝑐𝑢 =
𝑁𝑘𝑡

qt (kPa) cu (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
0 0

2 2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10

12 12
Nkt = empirically chosen cone factor usually between 10-20 (average of 14). For
deposits where little experience is available, estimate cu using cone factor values
(Nkt) closer to the upper value.
CPT cone resistance to ɸ’

CPT
• Advantages
• Fast, Repeatable, Economical
• Continuous profile
• Soil type
• Can be used for estimating a range of soil
parameters

• Limitations
• Empirical correlations with properties
• Wide range of cone factors
• Classification charts may be misleading
for organic soils