Importance of Proper Geotechnical Investigation in Engineering Project: Some case study

J.N.Jha*, K.S.Gill* & A.K.Chaudhary** *Department of Civil Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana ** Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Jamshedpur

Introduction
Construction

activities increased manifold (development of economic activities) Different types of complex structures are coming up (to meet the growing demand) Attempt being made to make soil suitable to project and not the project to soil.

 Geotechnical

Engineervery important role to play in this challenging task. Geotechnical Engineering Practice-At par with the best in the world. Range of Geotechnical practice vary widely in India.

 Field

investigation-Most primitive equipment are in use Laboratory testing-Practice vary widely with little standardization and accreditation.

Quality of Investigation
India
Generally Poor quality of the Equipment Calyx Drilling Technique SPT Equipment unchanged over the years (unreliable) Conventional Static Cone Penetration Equipment Very recently few companies have electric cone

World Standard
Highly sophisticated and mechanized equipment Continuous core sampling (in soils as well) SPT Equipment with Blow Energy Directly on top of the sampler Static Cone Test with Electric Cone

Result (Substandard practice)

Substantial

difference between actual soil profiles and available soil profiles (at the time of design as part of tender specifications) can be minimized if standard practices are followed during the soil investigation

Variation

Unfortunately this is not the case quite often Who is responsible? Responsibility squarely rests on Geotechnical community of the country and is a major failure on our part.

General and Standard Practice

Tender

for a project (information supplied) Subsoil profile and soil characteristics is of general information only

Owner is not responsible for the correctness of this information

Contractor if desired should satisfy the correctness of information before submitting his offer To safeguard the owner to avoid any dispute

Contractor (point of view)

Time

interval between issue of tender document and submission of technical bid is very short Soil investigation is expensive Impossible to carry out soil investigation Bidder accepts the stipulation given in tender

Case study
Road

over Bridge (ROB) Bridge :

5 span of 10.7 m with certain embankment on either side As per tender SPT value 12 to 16 for top two layer extending up to 7 m.

Recommend allowable bearing pressure=150 kN/m2 at depth 2 m below GL for Pier foundation. Accordingly Piers were constructed on shallow foundation 4 Pier constructed and 5th was under construction approach earth embankment settled by 2 m and corresponding heaving up of soil 1.5 m

9m
.

2m SET T LEM ENT

BRIDGE

EM BANKM ENT ABUT M ENT PIER RAIL LINE SOIL HEAVE G.L. SOF T CLAY ROT AT IONAL F AILURE - 6m SAND

10.7 m

 Confirming

carried out Soil Profile: Top 1-1.5 m 1.5-8 m

soil investigation was

: Sandy Clay : Soft marine clay

BH-I 0

SPT (N)

BH-I 0

SPT (N) 0.1

12 14

SAND

0.0

2 C=40KN/m

16

SILT

0.0

2 C=24KN/m

12 CLAY 29

6 0.0

2 C=31KN/m 2 C=40KN/m

8 38 10 (a) As Per tender

0.3 11

10

15

(b) As Per confirmatory bore Hole

Rehabilitation Measure
Piles

installed around shallow foundation and integrated with foundation Delay in completion of project, additional cost & dispute

Petro Chemical Complex

As per Tender Recommended depth of Pile = 25 m Test pile failed to take design load Confirmatory (Bore hole) test 12 such confirmatory bone hole consistently showed that SPT value reported in original soil report are higher Pile depth after confirmatory test =20m Confirmatory soil investigation saved a major disaster.

S P T ( N ) V a lu e s
0 8 16 24 32

B H -3

B H -F

4 D e p t h (m ) 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

TO P FI L L B H - F ( c o n f ir m a t o r y ) S ILT B H -3 (t ender) ROCK

C LA Y SAND

Choice of Appropriate foundation and execution

Optimum

ensure Technical adequacy Cost effectiveness Ease of execution

foundation design should

 Reasons

Insufficient and inaccurate information at the time of design variation in strata Changes in project requirement during execution.

 Achieving

this is easily said than done-needs engineering judgement Engineering Judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad engineering judgement

Case study
Fertilizer

plant in Gangetic beltpossibility of optimum design Phase-I Soil strata (Site) N<10- For a depth upto 10 m N-10-20-For a depth upto 10-20 m >20 For a depth upto 10-20m

 Type

of Soil Silty sand with high water table Threat of liquefaction during earthquake

Foundation Design (Recommended)

Provide

RCC cast in situ piles (diameter 400 mm) with pile capacity Axial vertical load 50 Tonnes Uplift - 5 Tonnes Horizontal capacity=2.5 Tonnes

 To

overcome the problem of liquefaction during earthquake Provide sand compaction pile 2 to 3 rows around RCC piles

Total requirement
As per design No. of RCC piles 16000 No. of sand compaction piles 32,000 Time required for installation of RCC piles and sand compaction piles= 6 months more than what was originally planned

This prompted for the review of foundation design

Sand Compaction Pile

Original

design Spacing of compaction pile 3D and 5D with triangular pattern Spacing 3D (desired improvement in N-values) Spacing-5D (desired improvement in N values not adequates)

Additional Recommendation
Spacing

of sand compaction pile-4D Result-Adequate to obtain required densification (N-values) No. of piles (now required)=16000 instead of 32000

 Pile

capacity (Revised) Vertical downward-65 tonnes instead of 50 tonnes original Uplift capacity=25 tonnes instead of 5 tonnes original Lateral capacity-3.5 tonnes as against original 2.5 tonnes

 Requirement

of no. of RCC piles (based on revision)=9400 piles Reduction in no. of piles =40% Observation: Performance of the foundation-fully adequate and satisfactory.

Phase-II (To double the capacity of the plant)

Ground improvement Vibro stone column in place of RCC piles and sand compaction piles Vibro stone column diameter- 960 mm Load test carried on single column and group of columns Footing test conducted for confirmation during execution.

Trial Test
Test

plot 10 m x 10 m Vibro stone column 11 m (length), c/c spacing 15 m, 2.15m & 1.8 m (Triangular pattern

Standard Penetration Test

Area Depth Layer N After treatment % increase in N Value
30 17-120 81 36-123 01 60-400

Prill Tower Benefield Area Compressor House

0-2.5 25-11 0-2.3 2.3-11 0-3.5 3.5-11

Silty Clay Silty Clay Silty Clay Silty Clay Silty Clay Silty Clay

13 20-36 20 16-34 11 24-46

Static Cone Penetration Test (SCPT)

Depth Pre-treatment Posttreatment (Cone Resistance) (Cone Resistance) 50-80 kg/cm2 130-300 kg/cm2

2-8m

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)

Depth Pre-treatment Past(No. of blows treatment per ft.) (No. of blows per ft.) 10-40 22-95

2-10 m

DESCRPTIO N BRO WN CLAY SILT 2.50 BRO WN SILT FINE SAND G REY FINE SAND 5.25

SO IL DEPTH PRO F. (m) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

SPT (N) VALUE 10 20 30 40 50 60

PRE CO MPACTIO N
X

PO ST CO MPACTIO N

PO ST CO MPACTIO N G REY SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND 9.55 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 PRE CO MPACTIO N

 Vibro

Stone Column of 960mm with spacing 2D, 2.25D and 2.5D where adopted depending on loading intensity Substantial saving in time and cost Subsequently observation during the operation of Phase-II confirmed a satisfactory behaviour of foundation

Concluding remarks
Commitment

to excellence from Geotechnical Engineers Positive attitude to continuously learn and to accept change for better Partnership and team work among all concerned i.e owner, consultant and contractor

Thank you..