IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA

Importance of Reliable Geotechnical Investigation for Safe and Economical Foundation Design of Civil Structures

IMPORTANCE OF RELIABLE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR SAFE AND ECONOMICAL FOUNDATION DESIGN
OF CIVIL STRUCTURES

B.V. Sushma
Senior Engineer, TCE Consulting Engineers Ltd., Bangalore–560 001, India.
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Geotechnical report is a tool used to communicate the site conditions, design and construction recommendations.
The importance of adequate site investigation and preparation of comprehensive geotechnical report cannot be over
emphasized. Reliability of the information contained in geotechnical report has a strong influence on design, construction,
project cost, safety and resolution of contractual disputes and hence the report must be clear, concise and accurate. Inadequate
geotechnical investigations are many a times source of costly, over designed foundations, project delays, disputes, claims, and
project cost overruns. Lack of adequate information from the Geotechnical Report may sometimes lead to deeper excavation
for founding depths and hence an uneconomical design of foundation. This paper illustrates how an inaccurate geotechnical
report for a power project led to selecting expensive foundation designs initially, which was subsequently optimized based on
actual conditions realized at site.

1. INTRODUCTION interpretation of site and laboratory investigations in the Geo-

technical Report may lead to uneconomical and or unsafe
The site investigation phase is the most important segment of
designs. Such problems are also highlighted by authors like
any geotechnical study to be performed before starting the
Goldsworthy et al. (2004) and his research has shown that
designs for any building or engineering structure. The extent
foundation failures are heavily dependent on the quantity and
of site investigation is usually determined based on desk
quality of information obtained from geotechnical site
study where site is visually appraised and relevant information
investigation.
available concerning the site like its geology, previous
investigations and any features in the area which may have In India, it is typical for developers of infrastructure projects
influenced the site is reviewed. The extent of site investi- to appoint the Geotechnical agency based on open/selective
gation would also be influenced by the nature and type of competitive bidding with or without any serious pre-
construction activity planned. A detailed site investigation qualification requirements and the contract is invariably
involving deep boreholes, in situ tests like plate load test, awarded to the lowest bidder especially in government
cross hole shear test, pressure meter tests etc., and further projects. The practice of awarding work purely based on
laboratory test of soil (and rock if applicable) samples is lowest price may qualify a less experienced and a small time
always a necessity for any construction activity involving bidder, thereby affecting the quality of investigations and the
heavy structures. Technical capability of the investigating report. It is important to recognize that the most competent
agency in producing borehole records which accurately are not the one to bid the lowest price and in infrastructure
describe the ground condition is critical for a successful projects where the fee for geotechnical investigations are
investigation in addition to using correct methodology for likely to be less than 0.01% to 0.02%, more weightage has to
performing and recording the results of all other field tests. be given to technical competency rather than the price.
The ability of investigating agency to test the soil (and rock if This paper brings out one of the recent field experience in a
applicable) samples to recognized standards is also important to power plant project where failure of the geotechnical
arrive at correct recommendations. The agency involved in investigation agency to carryout accurate site investigations
designing the building or engineering structures of a project and provide correct information in the geotechnical report led
would expect a clear and concise Geotechnical Investigation to difficulties in deciding the founding levels for different
report. This equips the designer with accurate interpretation structures.
of the site and provides the necessary input data like bearing
capacities of soil at different depths (derived considering the
2. GENERAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED AREA
sub soil profile, ground water table) soil resistivity data, per-
meability data etc. Lack of adequate information or incorrect

7
Importance of Reliable Geotechnical Investigation for Safe and Economical Foundation Design of Civil Structures

An area inside existing power plant boundary is proposed for Following are the excerpts from the Report, which was made
the extension unit. In the selected location, some auxiliary available to the design office responsible for foundation design.
buildings (such as Workshop, Fire station and other non plant  Sub soil profile indicated 8–9 m of fill of soil/rock.
buildings) of the operating unit was existing before. The  Encountering Ground water level at around 6–9 m level
space for the extension unit was created by dismantling and below N.G.L.
relocating the structures of the operating unit. In general the
 For foundations resting on fill, it is recommended that
terrain is flat without large undulations in ground levels.
Geotechnical investigation work was initiated in this area. the fill shall be replaced by plum concrete upto the virgin
soil layer.
 Plate load tests conducted at 2 m below N.G.L area
3. DETAILS OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION indicates excessive settlements.
For any construction project, a site investigation is normally  The founding levels for isolated shallow/raft foundations
carried out. Site investigation has been defined as investigation are suggested at 8–9 m below N.G.L in the Virgin soil
of the physical characteristics of the site and includes layer (weathered rock layer), below fill.
documentary studies, site surveys and ground investigation.  S.B.C’s were suggested in the range of 55–65 t/m 2
In broad sense, site investigation should also include study of depending on the loading of structures
the site history and environment, interpretation and analysis
Since the engineers at design consultant office were not
of all available data, and making recommendations on the
familiar about the conditions existing at the site, review of
favorable/unfavorable locations, economic and safe design,
the report was done assuming that the data and information
and prediction of potential risks (Za-Chieh Moh 2004). given in the report are factual. However, observing the
The Geotechnical investigation for the above mentioned area general sub soil profile, doubts arose about the huge extent of
was carried out by the contractor and the report was submitted fill in the area which was subsequently clarified was due to
to the design consultant. 40 boreholes were drilled in the area the fact that the site has been reclaimed after dismantling of
and in addition to this the field tests such as DCPT, the existing structures in the area. Also since all the
Pressuremeter test, Plate load tests, Cross hole shear tests, etc boreholes and plate load tests carried out in the area reflected
were conducted in the area. The sub soil profile of the area as a similar profile, the soil data submitted in the borelogs was
included in the report is shown in Table 1. considered as correct and the foundation levels and SBC’s
recommended were cross checked. Considering huge extent of
It can be seen from the sub soil profile that the fill comprising fill at shallow depths, the design consultant office strictly
of soil/broken stones exists in the area up to a maximum recommended to rest the isolated shallow/raft foundations on
depth of 8 m below the Natural Ground Level. The next layer the virgin soil layer, which is available at a depth of around 8–
below the fill is weathered rock layer, which is having thickness 9 m below N.G.L. With this recommendation the Geotechnical
of around 3 m. The next layer below is hard biotite rock report was appro-
layer. In the fill layer, no samples were collected and no ved and the excavation for foundations was initiated at site.
information was given regarding type and classification of
the material.

Table 1: Typical Borelog of the Area Included in the Report

Depth/run Total length Core
Type of SPT: No. RQD
of core recovery Description
From To sample of blows (%)
pieces (m) (%)
0.00 1.50 C >100 0.2 13 Nil Fill with Boulder and
Soil,
1.50 3.00 C 0.1 12 “
1.5 m
3.00 4.50 C 0.1 7 “
4.50 6.00 C 0.1 9 “ Fill With Broken
6.00 7.50 C 0.2 19 “ Stone/Rock 9.0 m
7.50 9.00 C 0.2 15 “
9.00 10.5 C 0.5 33 15 Light to Dark Grey
10.5 12.0 C 1.0 67 – Sandstone 12.0 m

8
 Importance of Reliable Geotechnical Investigation for Safe and Economical Foundation Design of Civil Structures

12.0 13.5 C 1.2 81 51 Hard Dark Grey Biotite

13.5 15.0 C 1.0 69 45 15.0 m

Depth of Ground Water Table: 5.8 m, Termination Depth: 15.0 m

4. FEEDBACK DURING EXCAVATION WORK FOR It was noticed from the subsoil profile that crushed rock/soil
FOUNDATIONS fill was encountered up to a top depth of 2 m, followed by
Clayey/silty sand upto a depth of around 4–5 m, below this
Excavation work was carried out at site for foundations up to
layer weathered rock layer was struck at a depth of around
the suggested founding levels. During excavation it was noticed 5–6 m. It was noticed at site that excavation further to this
that the encountered soil profile was entirely different from layer could not be carried out by smaller capacity proclaim
that indicated in the report. It was observed by the site may be because of encountering comparatively harder stratum.
engineer that the extent of fill was only up to a maximum The soil stratum encountered at this level is shown in Figure 2.
depth of 2 m, contradictory to 8–9 m depth indicated in the
report. Considering the mismatch of the sub soil profile During the joint site inspection, observation of the soil
between the actual encountered at site and that indicated in conditions existing at site convinced the contractor that the
the report, a joint site inspection was proposed for the client, sub soil profile and hence the foundation recommendations
contractor and design consultant. indicated in the Geotechincal report may be erroneous and
agreed to revise the Geotechnical report reflecting the actual
The joint site inspection was carried out in the pits excavated conditions at site.
upto the founding levels. During the inspection, the sub soil
profile observed is shown in the Figure 1. The revised Geotechnical report was submitted and the sub
soil profile of borelog shown in Table 1 was revised to that
indicated in Table 2. A comparison between the Table 1 and
Table 2 clearly indicates that top 8 m depth of soil/rock fill
indicated in Table 1 did not exist at site and top 8m was
virgin soil. It is also surprising to note that out of the 40
boreholes drilled in the area by the contractor, not a single
borehole reflected the profile similar to that in Table 2,
which represents the actual condition at site. Due to time
constraint, it was then decided to conduct at least fresh plate
load tests in the areas where heavy loadings are anticipated to
get additional strength parameters at shallower depths where
information was not available. The new plate load tests
conducted reported of higher settlements.
This may be attributed to the presence of looser strata just
below the plate, and also the fact that the stress zone will be
limited to about 1.0 m depending on the size of the plate. It is
clearly evident that SBC from field test results cannot be
evaluated in isolation and factual borehole data and sub soil
Fig. 1: Soil Profile Observed during Joint Site Inspection profile is very much required to interpret the field test results.

Table 2: Sub-soil Profile of the Borehole Revised as Per the Actual Conditions at Site
Depth/Run Total
SPT: Core
Type of length of RQD
No. of recovery Description
From To sample core pieces (%)
blows (%)
(m)
0.00 0.15 C >100 0.1 93 Nil Concrete Floor 0.15 m
0.15 1.70 C 0.1 12 “
1.70 2.50 D “ Crushed/Broken Rock with Soil
2.50 3.50 U Fill 1.7 m
3.50 4.50 U Dark Grey Silty Clay 2.5 m
4.50 6.00 U
Yellowish Brown Sand with Clay
6.00 7.50 C 0.3 19 “
Binders 6.0 m
7.50 9.00 C 0.2 15 “
9.00 10.5 C 0.5 33 “

9
Importance of Reliable Geotechnical Investigation for Safe and Economical Foundation Design of Civil Structures

10.5 12.0 C 1.0 67 15 Weathered and Fractured Grey

12.0 13.5 C 1.2 81 51 Sand Stone 10.5 m
13.5 15.0 C 1.0 69 45
Hard Dark Grey Biotite 15.0 m
Depth of Ground Water Table 5.8 m, Termination Depth: 15.0 m.
6. NOTATIONS
N.G.L – Natural Ground Level
U – Undisturbed Sample
C – Core Sample
D – Disturbed Sample.

7. CONCLUSIONS
 Site investigation is a specialized operation and requires
specialized organizations and specialized personnel.
 Ground is an extremely variable and uncertain material.
The potential for incurring financial and time losses is
great if the ground investigations are not properly carried
out and properties of the soil and rock are not adequately
quantified. This can only be achieved by carrying out an
Fig. 2: Excavation Being Carried at Site Up to appropriate site investigation.
the Suggested Founding Level
 It is recommended that site investigations be carried out
in two stages: preliminary—to verify desk study data and
5. OPTIMIZATION OF FOUNDING LEVELS characterize the thickness, distribution and properties of
strata present, followed by a detailed investigation with
There was a time constraint to conduct confirmatory boreholes
targeted tests to study specific problems and find
and also no clear cut strength (N value) data was available in
appropriate solutions. Such an approach would enable the
the earlier report. In view of non availability of accurate data
geotechnical engineer to be more accurate in providing re-
and to minimize the potential risk involved, it was decided to
commendation for geotechnical design parameters and less
optimize the founding levels only for the lightly loaded conservative and thereby economical foundation designs.
structures and to retain original founding levels for heavily
 The practice of recommending lowest tender as the main
loaded structures.
criteria for site investigation should not be preferred, on
The joint site inspection had revealed the presence of harder the contrary be discouraged. Selection should be made
strata at a depth of 5–6 m below the N.G.L. It was decided to on the basis of the geotechnical consultant’s competency
rest the foundations at this level for lightly loaded structures. and investigation contractor’s ability to provide reliable
Hence the founding levels were revised by generally raising factual data.
the founding levels 2 m higher than the earlier indicated  In case serious discrepancies are observed in the first
levels. Had the site investigations been carried out more detailed soil investigation, it is preferable to carry out few
accurately and factual data furnished in the report, probably borelogs along with some required field tests, instead of
the founding levels would have been further optimized to resorting to only selected field tests.
still shallower levels for all foundations, thereby achieving  As India is rapidly progressing with infrastructure develop-
more significant savings in construction cost and time. ment, there is an urgent need for developing a process
for accreditation of geotechnical investigation agencies.
The above experience once again brings out the fact as to the
This will help improve the quality of geotechnical investi-
importance of reliable and factual soil investigation data to
gations and reports which is vital for safe and economical
avoid over design or unsafe design. It also highlights the need
design of foundations for buildings and engineering
for the full time supervision on site by qualified geotechnical
structures.
engineer for any ground investigation work in order to ensure
the quality and reliability of the investigation results. It would
not be out of place to mention that the above experience is not REFERENCES
an isolated incident and several such cases are being Goldsworthy, J.S., Jaksa, M.B., Kaggwa, W.S., Fenton,
encountered frequently leading to an urgent need for G.A., Griffiths, D.V. and Poulos, H.G. (2004). “Cost of
developing a process for accreditation of investigation Foundation Failures Due to Limited Site Investigations”,
agencies and laboratories like in UK. International Conference on Structural and Foundation
Failures, Singapore, pp. 404–409.

10
 Importance of Reliable Geotechnical Investigation for Safe and Economical Foundation Design of Civil Structures

Hunt, Roy (2005). Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Martin Th. Van Staveren, Adriaan Van Seters, J. and Geo Delft,
Handbook, Second Edition, pp. 31–55. Stieltjesweg (2004). Smart Site Investigations Save Money.
Jaksa, Mark (1997). “Geotechnical Risk and Inadequate Site Moh, Za-chieh (2004). “Site Investigation and Geotechnical
Investigation”, A Case Study, Australia, pp. 5–10. Failures”, International Conference on Structural and
Kong, S.K. (1997). “Preventive Measures of Foundation Foundation Failures, Singapore.
Failures-Case Studies”, Proceedings of International Con-
ference on Foundation Failures, Singapore, pp. 551–556.

11