Malaisie - DID Manual - Volume 6 - Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Survey

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
AND DRAINAGE
Volume 6 – Geotechnical
Manual, Site Investigation and
Engineering Survey
Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Malaysia

Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
50626 KUALA LUMPUR
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Disclaimer
Every effort and care has been taken in selecting methods and recommendations that are
appropriate to Malaysian conditions. Notwithstanding these efforts, no warranty or guarantee,
express, implied or statutory is made as to the accuracy, reliability, suitability or results of the
methods or recommendations.
The use of this Manual requires professional interpretation and judgment. Appropriate design
procedures and assessment must be applied, to suit the particular circumstances under
consideration.
The government shall have no liability or responsibility to the user or any other person or entity with
respect to any liability, loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly, by the
adoption and use of the methods and recommendations of this Manual, including but not limited to,
any interruption of service, loss of business or anticipatory profits, or consequential damages
resulting from the use of this Manual.
March 2009 i
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Foreword
The first edition of the Manual was published in 1960 and was actually based on the
experiences and knowledge of DID engineers in planning, design, construction, operations and
maintenance of large volume water management systems for irrigation, drainage, floods and river
conservancy. The manual became invaluable references for both practising as well as officers newly
posted to an unfamiliar engineering environment.
Over these years the role and experience of the DID has expanded beyond an agriculture-
based environment to cover urbanisation needs but the principle role of being the country’s leading
expert in large volume water management remains. The challenges are also wider covering issues of
environment and its sustainability. Recognising this, the Department decided that it is timely for the
DID Manual be reviewed and updated. Continuing the spirit of our predecessors, this Manual is not
only about the fundamentals of related engineering knowledge but also based on the concept of
sharing experience and knowledge of practising engineers. This new version now includes the latest
standards and practices, technologies, best engineering practices that are applicable and useful for
the country.
This Manual consists of eleven separate volumes covering Flood Management; River
Management; Coastal Management; Hydrology and Water Resources; Irrigation and Agricultural
Drainage; Geotechnical, Site Investigation and Engineering Survey; Engineering Modelling;
Mechanical and Electrical Services; Dam Safety, Inspections and Monitoring; Contract Administration;
and Construction Management. Within each Volume is a wide range of related topics including topics
on future concerns that should put on record our care for the future generations.
This DID Manual is developed through contributions from nearly 200 professionals from the
Government as well as private sectors who are very experienced and experts in their respective
fields. It has not been an easy exercise and the success in publishing this is the results of hard work
and tenacity of all those involved. The Manual has been written to serve as a source of information
and to provide guidance and reference pertaining to the latest information, knowledge and best
practices for DID engineers and personnel. The Manual would enable new DID engineers and
personnel to have a jump-start in carrying out their duties. This is one of the many initiatives
undertaken by DID to improve its delivery system and to achieve the mission of the Department in
providing an efficient and effective service. This Manual will also be useful reference for non-DID
Engineers, other non-engineering professionals, Contractors, Consultants, the Academia, Developers
and students involved and interested in water-related development and management. Just as it was
before, this DID Manual is, in a way, a record of the history of engineering knowledge and
development in the water and water resources engineering applications in Malaysia.
There are just too many to name and congratulate individually, all those involved in
preparing this Manual. Most of them are my fellow professionals and well-respected within the
profession. I wish to record my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of them and I am confident
that their contributions will be truly appreciated by the readers for many years to come.
Dato’ Ir. Hj. Ahmad Hussaini bin Sulaiman,

Director General,
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia
ii March 2009
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Table of Contents
Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................. i
Foreword .................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Volumes ........................................................................................................................ iv
Part 1 GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL
Part 2 SITE INVESTIGATION
Part 3 ENGINEERING SURVEY
March 2009 iii

DID MANUAL Volume 6
List of Volumes
Volume 1 FLOOD MANAGEMENT
Volume 2 RIVER MANAGEMENT
Volume 3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
Volume 5 IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE
Volume 6 GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL, SITE INVESTIGATION AND ENGINEERING SURVEY
Volume 7 ENGINEERING MODELLING
Volume 8 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES
Volume 9 DAM SAFETY
Volume 10 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
Volume 11 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
iv March 2009
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Acknowledgements
Steering Committee:
Dato’ Ir. Hj. Ahmad Husaini bin Sulaiman, Dato’ Nordin bin Hamdan, Dato’ Ir. K. J. Abraham, Dato’
Ong Siew Heng, Dato’ Ir. Lim Chow Hock, Ir. Lee Loke Chong, Tuan Hj. Abu Bakar bin Mohd Yusof,
Ir. Zainor Rahim bin Ibrahim, En.Leong Tak Meng, En. Ziauddin bin Abdul Latiff, Pn. Hjh. Wardiah
bte Abd. Muttalib, En. Wahid Anuar bin Ahmad, Tn. Hj. Zulkefli bin Hassan, Ir. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Nor bin
Hj. Mohd. Desa, En. Low Koon Seng, En.Wan Marhafidz Shah bin Wan Mohd. Omar, Ir. Md Fauzi bin
Md Rejab, En. Khairuddin bin Mat Yunus, Cik Khairiah bt Ahmad,
Coordination Committee:
Dato’. Nordin bin Hamdan, Dato’ Ir. Hj. Ahmad Fuad bin Embi, Dato’ Ong Siew Heng, Ir. Lee Loke
Chong, Tuan Hj. Abu Bakar bin Mohd Yusof, Ir. Zainor Rahim bin Ibrahim, Ir. Cho Weng Keong, En.
Leong Tak Meng, Dr. Mohamed Roseli Zainal Abidin, En. Zainal Akamar bin Harun, Pn. Norazia
Ibrahim, Ir. Mohd. Zaki, En. Sazali Osman, Pn. Rosnelawati Hj. Ismail, En. Ng Kim Hoy, Ir. Lim See
Tian, Ir. Mohd. Fauzi bin Rejab, Ir. Hj. Daud Mohd Lep, Tn. Hj. Muhamad Khosim Ikhsan, En. Roslan
Ahmad, En. Tan Teow Soon, Tn. Hj. Ahmad Darus, En. Adnan Othman, Ir. Hapida Ghazali, En.
Sukemi Hj. Sidek, Pn. Hjh. Fadzilah Abdul Samad, Pn. Hjh. Salmah Mohd. Som, Ir. Sahak Che
Abdullah, Pn. Sofiah Mat, En. Mohd. Shafawi Alwi, En. Ooi Soon Lee, En. Muhammad Khairudin
Khalil, Tn. Hj. Azmi Md Jafri, Ir. Nor Hisham Ghazali, En. Gunasegaran M., En. Rajaselvam G., Cik Nur
Hareza Redzuan, Ir. Chia Chong Wing, Pn Norlida Mohd. Dom, Ir. Lee Bea Leang, Dr. Hj. Md. Nasir
Md. Noh, Pn Paridah Anum Tahir, Pn. Nurazlina Mohd Zaid, PWM Associates Sdn. Bhd., Institut
Penyelidikan Hidraulik Kebangsaan Malaysia (NAHRIM), RPM Engineers Sdn. Bhd., J.U.B.M. Sdn. Bhd.
Working Group:
Pn. Rozaini binti Abdullah, En. Azren Khalil, Tn. Hj Fauzi Abdullah, En. Che Mohd Dahan Che Jusof,
En. Ng Kim Hoy, En. Dzulkifli bin Abu Bakar, Pn. Che Shamsiah bt Omar, En. Mohd Latif Bin Zainal,
En. Mohd Jais Thambi Hussein, En. Osman Mamat, En. Tajudin Sulaiman, Pn. Rosilawani binti
Sulong, En. Ahmad Solihin Budarto, En. Noor Azlan bin Awaludin, Pn. Mazwina bt Meor Hamid, En.
Muhamad Fariz bin Ismail, Cik Sazliana bt Abu Omar, Cik Saliza Binti Mohd Said, En. Jaffri Bahan, En.
Mohd Idrus Amir, Mej (R) Yap Ing Fun, Ir Mohd Adnan Mohd Nor, Ir Liam We Lin, Ir. Steven Chong,
En. Jamal Abdullah, En. Ahmad Ashrin Abdul Jalil, Cik Wan Yusnira Wan Jusoh @ Wan Yusof.
March 2009 i
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Registration of Amendments
Amend Page Date of Amend Page Date of

No No Amendment No No Admendment
ii March 2009
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... i
Registration of Amendments ...................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................iii
List of Symbols ......................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1 GENERAL
Chapter 2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCESS
Chapter 3 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 4 SOIL SETTLEMENT
Chapter 5 BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
Chapter 6 SLOPE STABILITY
Chapter 7 RETAINING WALL
Chapter 8 GROUND IMPROVEMENT
Chapter 9 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
March 2009 iii

DID MANUAL Volume 6
List of Symbols
γ Unit weight
γd Dry unit weight
γw Unit weight of water
γb Buoyant unit weight
S Degree of saturation
w Moisture content
e Void ratio
e0 Initial void ratio
n Porosity
Gs Specific gravity of solids
σ Total stress
u Pore water pressure
σ’ Effective stress
g Gravity
ρw Density of water
c Cohesion
Cc Compression Index
Cr Recompression Index
U Degree of consolidation
t Time
θ Angular distortion
δ Differential settlement in the structure
qult Ultimate net bearing capacity
qu Allowable net bearing capacity
Frictional angle
’ Effective frictional angle
Ka Coefficient of active earth pressure
Kp Coefficient of passive earth pressure
Es Young’s modulus of soil
iv March 2009
PART 1: GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL
Chapter 1 GENERAL
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 1-i

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 LIMITATION OF MANUAL................................................................................... 1-1
March 2009 1-i

Chapter 1 GENERAL
(This page is intentionally left blank)
1-ii March 2009

Chapter 1 GENERAL
1 GENERAL
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Part 1 Volume 6 is developed around the aspects of geotechnical engineering usually required in
JPS nature of work, that include earth retaining structures, river works, embankment, revetment,
slope stability and stabilization works as well as the various coastal and hydraulic related works. It
serves to provide a very selective and by no means comprehensive overview of fundamental
practical knowledge ranging from methods of theoretically based analysis to “rules of thumb”
solutions for geotechnical and foundation analysis, design and construction issues encountered in
JPS work.
It is envisaged that this manual will most likely be used by practicing civil generalists, geotechnical
and foundation specialists, and others involved in the planning, design and construction of JPS’s
nature of works.
The main goals of this Part are to:-
a) Provide a general understanding and appreciation of the geotechnical principles gearing

towards a sound, safe and cost-effective design and construction of JPS projects.
b) Serve as a consistent guidance for the practitioners involved in the geotechnical planning,
design and construction in all phases of a JPS project.
c) Encourage the readers to follow through the topic of interest in one or more of the
reference books mentioned in the references
1.2 LIMITATION OF MANUAL
Even though the material presented is theoretically correct and represents the current state-of-the-
practice, the user must realize that there is no possible way to cover all the various intricate aspects
of geotechnical engineering. Owing to the high degree of ambiguities and uncertainties in the
various aspect of geotechnical engineering, sound engineering judgment from highly experience
and competent specialist practicing engineer is most important. For example, the values for the
parameters to be used in the analysis and design should be selected by a geotechnical specialist
who is intimately familiar with the type of soil in that region and intimately knowledgeable about
the regional construction procedures that are required for the proper installation of such
foundations in local soils. Often the key in the successful practice and application of geotechnical
engineering lies in a sound knowledge and understanding of the engineering properties and
behavior of soils in situ when subjected to changes in the environment conditions such as
engineering loading or unloading.
March 2009 1-1

Chapter 1 GENERAL
1-2 March 2009

CHAPTER 2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCESS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2-i

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... 2-ii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 2-ii
2.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 DESIGN PROCESS ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Determine Type of Geotechnical Design and Parameters Required ................. 2-2
2.2.2 Decide on Appropriate Geotechnical Investigation ......................................... 2-5
2.2.3 Interpret Geotechnical Investigation Result to Obtain Representative
Parameters/Properties ................................................................................ 2-5
2.2.4 Designer’s Analysis and Design ................................................................... 2-6
2.2.5 Check Compliance and Need for Modification during Construction .................. 2-6
2.2.6 Post Construction Monitoring and Verification of Structure Performance .......... 2-7
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 2-8
March 2009 2-i

List of Tables
Table Description Page

2.1 Typical Scope of DID Works (After Geotechnical Guidelines for DID Works) 2-3
2.2 Type Of Geotechnical Analysis Corresponding To Design Component 2-3
List of Figures
Figure Description Page

2.1 Flow Chart for the Designer Involvement in Geotechnical Design 2-2
2.2 Some Typical DID's Structures 2-4
2.3 Combination of Sources of Information in Geotechnical Design 2-6
2-ii March 2009

2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCESS
2.1 GENERAL
Geotechnical engineering is highly empirical and is perhaps much more of an ‘art’ than the other
disciplines within civil engineering because of the basic nature of soil and rock materials. They are
often highly variable, heterogeneous and anisotropic i.e. their engineering and material properties
may vary widely within the soil mass and also may not be the same in all direction. Furthermore,
the behavior of soil and rock materials are often controlled by the joints, fractures, weak layers and
zones and other ‘defects’ in the materials.
In the application of geotechnical engineering, the soil is usually assumed to be homogenous and
isotropic obeying linear stress-strain laws. However, to account for the real material behavior, large
empirical correction or ‘factors of safety’ must be applied in geotechnical design. As such,
geotechnical engineering is really an ‘art’ rather than an engineering science, where good judgment
and practical experience of the designer and contractors are essential for a successful geotechnical
design.
2.2 DESIGN PROCESS
In geotechnical engineering, the analysis and design process normally involved the various steps as
illustrated in Figure 2.1. It includes determination of the type of geotechnical design and their
required parameters, identification of appropriate geotechnical investigation works, evaluation and
interpretation of geotechnical investigation result to obtain representative parameters and
properties, performing design and analysis, checking compliance during construction and post
construction monitoring.
March 2009 2-1

DESIGNER ASSIGNED PROJECT
DETERMINE TYPE OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

AND PARAMETERS REQUIRED
DECIDE ON APPROPRIATE GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATIONS
INTERPRET GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESULT TO

OBTAIN REPRESENTATIVE PARAMETERS/PROPERTIES
DESIGNER’S ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
CHECK COMPLIANCE AND NEED FOR MODIFICATION

DURING CONSTRUCTION
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND VERIFICATION OF

STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE
Figure 2.1 Flow Chart for the Designer Involvement in Geotechnical Design
2.2.1 Determine Type of Geotechnical Design and Parameters Required
The type of geotechnical analysis and design depends very much on the type of structures or works
to be designed. Table 2.1 below highlighted the types of works normally carried out by DID and
their associated design components which include various hydraulic structures; embankments and
dams; subsurface drainage; excavations; earth retaining structures and revetment works. The type
of geotechnical analysis required and corresponding to the design components are as in Table 2.2,
namely bearing capacity, settlement, slope stability, seepage, retaining wall, soil and geosynthetic
filter.
2-2 March 2009

Table 2.1 Typical Scope of DID Works (After Geotechnical Guidelines for DID Works)
Design
Components Hydraulic Embankments Sub-surface Excavation Retaining
Revetment
Scope of Structure and Dams Drainage Works Structures
Work
1. River Works
and Erosion X X X
control
2. Irrigation and
X X X X
Drainage
3. Flood
X X X X
Mitigation
4. Urban Drainage X X X X X X
5. Coastal
X X X
Engineering
Table 2.2 Type Of Geotechnical Analysis Corresponding To Design Component
Geotechnical
Soil and
Analyses Bearing Slope Retaining
Settlement Seepage Geosynthetic
Design Capacity Stability wall
Filter
Components
1. Hydraulic
X X X X X
Structure
2. Embankments
X X X X
and Dams
3. Retaining
X X X X X
Structure
4. Subsurface
X X X
Drainage
5. Excavations X
6. Revetments X X X
Some typical DID structures are as shown in Figure 2.2
March 2009 2-3

Figure 2.2 Some Typical DID's Structures
2-4 March 2009

2.2.2 Decide on Appropriate Geotechnical Investigation
The objectives and various general details on the type of geotechnical investigation works are
described in Part 2, Volume 6 : Soil Investigation which include both field and laboratory works.
Suffice here to mention that the composition and amount of geotechnical investigation proposed
shall be able to provide sufficient data on the ground, groundwater conditions at the proposed site
and proper description of the essential soil properties for geotechnical design and construction. It
shall also be planned to take into account the construction and performance requirements of the
proposed structure.
Very often geotechnical engineer is required to determine the type of soil investigation works in
relation to the envisage analysis required in the design works, i.e. the long-term (drained with
effective stress analysis) or short-term analysis (undrained total stress analysis) conditions.
2.2.3 Interpret Geotechnical Investigation Result to Obtain Representative

Parameters/Properties
The evaluation and interpretation of geotechnical investigation work shall include a review of the
field and laboratory results to derive at the reasonable and representative parameters and
properties. This normally involves tabulation and graphical presentation of field and laboratory
results such as the range and distribution of values of the required soil parameters (including
ground water condition), subsurface strata profile which differentiate and group the various
formations and properties. Any irregularities or adverse field and laboratory results shall be pointed
out, commented upon, and if necessary to propose further geotechnical investigation for
verification. Reader should refer to Part 2 Volume 6 for more detail and comprehensive information
on this topic.
In spite of the many advances in geotechnical engineering theory, there are still many uncertainties
in the analysis and design due mainly to the highly variable, heterogeneous and anisotropic nature
of soil material. Designer normally use various investigation and testing techniques to determine the
soil conditions, however even the most thorough investigation program encounters only a small
portion of the soils and relies heavily on the interpolation and extrapolation. The most practical
approach to solve geotechnical design issues is to combine the sources of information gathered
through soil investigation and testing program, established theory developed to predict the behavior
of soils and experience obtained from previous projects coupled with sound engineering judgment.
These approaches are depicted in Figure 2.3
March 2009 2-5

Site
Investigation/ Established
laboratory Theory
Testing
Experience
and Judgment
Figure 2.3 Combination of Sources of Information in Geotechnical Design
2.2.4 Designer’s Analysis and Design
Some the common geotechnical analysis and design carried out by the Department include
evaluation and determination of the soil bearing capacity, settlement, seepage forces; and stability
of slope, earth retaining structures as well as the selection of effective soil and geosynthetic filter in
sub-soil drainage.
In carrying out the analysis and design, sound engineering by experience geotechnical engineer
should be incorporated to compensate for the many uncertainties in actual soil behavior, which
should take into consideration the following factors:
• Required reliability or acceptable probability of failure

• Consequence of failure
• Degree of uncertainties in soil properties and applied loads
• Compromise between cost and reliability
• Degree of ignorance of the structure behaviour
2.2.5 Check Compliance and Need for Modification during Construction
During construction, site operation shall be checked for compliance with the method of construction
assumed in the design. Also, observation and measurements of the structure and its surrounding
may necessitate some remedial measures or alterations to the construction sequence, for example
the unexpected excessive settlement of the embankment under construction would warrant the
review of the design and proposed sequence of construction. In fact, a great deal of geotechnical
information can be gathered during construction phase of a project, particularly those involving
huge volume of earth excavation or exposure where the actual ground conditions can be identified.
These information should then be used to validate the geotechnical design assumptions or soil
parameters and if necessary, to revise and modify the design accordingly.
2-6 March 2009

2.2.6 Post Construction Monitoring and Verification of Structure Performance
A geotechnical design should not be considered completed upon the completion of the construction
works. The designer should also be involved in post-construction activities such as visual
observation and inspection of the structure; gathering and analyzing results of instrumentation
monitoring to ensure its long-term performance and identified any necessary maintenance work.
Any lesson learned from the design stage to the completion of the construction works should be
adequately documented for future references.
March 2009 2-7

REFERENCES
[1] Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design. (Fourth edition). McGraw-Hill International,
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
[2] Brown, R.W., (1996) Practical foundation Engineering Handbooks, Mcgraw-Hill
[3] BSI. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules (BS EN 1997-1 : 2004). British
Standards Institution, London, 2004, 117 p.
[4] Carter M. & Symons, M.V., Site Investigations and foundations Explained, Pentech Press,
London
[5] CGS, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical
Society, Ottawa, 1992, 512 p.
[6] Das, B.M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, PWK-Kent Publishing Company ,

Boston,MA., 1990
[7] Dept. of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington D.C., NAVFAC DM-7.1, May
1982, Soil Mechanics
[8] DID, Geotechnical Guidelines for D.I.D Works
[9] Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
New Jersey
[10] Koerner R.M .• Construction and Geotechnical Method in Foundation Engineering, McGraw
Hill, 1985.
[11] Lambe T.W. and Whitman R.V., Soil Mechanics, John Wiley 8: Sons, 1969
[12] Peck R.B Hanson W.E. and Thornburn R.H., “Foundation Engineering", John Wiley and Sons,
1974.
[13] Smith C.N., Soil Mechanics for Civil and Mining Engineers.
[14] Teng W.C., Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, 1984.
[15] Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. (Second edition).
Wiley, New York, 729 p.
2-8 March 2009

CHAPTER 3 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 3-i

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3-ii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 3-ii
3 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 BASIC WEIGHT-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS ..................................................................... 3-1
3.2 EFFECTIVE STRESS CONCEPT ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 VERTICAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................ 3-4
3.4 SHEAR STRENGTH ....................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.1 Basic Principle................................................................................................. 3-5
3.4.2 Effective Versus Total Stress Analysis ............................................................... 3-8
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 3-11
March 2009 3-i

List of Tables

3.1 Definition and Typical Values of Common Soil Weight-Volume Parameters 3-1
3.2 Some Unit Weight Volume Inter-Relationships 3-2
3.3 Design Conditions and Related Shear Strengths and Pore Pressures 3-10
List of Figures

3.1 Unit Soil Mass and Phase Diagram 3-1
3.2 Total Stress at a Point 3-2
3.3 Example 3.1 3-3
3.4 Schematic of the Vertical Stress Distribution with Depth under an Embankment generated
by FoSSA Program (from Soil and Foundation - FHWA) 3-4
3.6 Graphical Representative of Shear Strength 3-7
3.7 Mohr-Coulomb’s Circles and Failure Envelopes 3-8
3-ii March 2009

3 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
3.1 BASIC WEIGHT-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS
Soil mass is generally idealized as a three phase system consisting of solid particles, water and air
as illustrated in diagram in Figure 3.1. Owing to the three different components of soils, complex
states of stresses and strains may exist in a soil mass. The various volume changes phenomena
encountered in geotechnical engineering, such as deformation, consolidation, collapse, compaction,
expansion, shrinkage etc. can be described in term of the various volumes of these components in
the soil mass. Thus, knowledge of the relative proportion of each component and their various
inter-relationships can give an important insight into engineering behavior of a particular soil.
The weight-volume relationships of the soil mass are readily available in most soil mechanics
textbooks. Most of these relationships are as summarized in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.
Volume Weight
Soil particles Va Air Wa≈0
Vv
Vw Water Ww
V W
Voids (filled with
water and air)
Vs Solid Ws
1 unit
Figure 3.1 Unit Soil Mass and Phase Diagram
Table 3.1 Definition and Typical Values of Common Soil Weight-Volume Parameters
Typical Range
Parameter Symbol Definition English SI
W 3
Unit weight 90 – 130 lb/ft 14 – 20 kN/m3
V
Ws
Dry unit weight d 60 – 125 lb/ft3 9 – 19 kN/m3
V
Ww
Unit weight of water w 62.4 lb/ft3 9.8 kN/m3
V
Buoyant unit weight b sat - w 28 – 68 lb/ft3 4 – 10 kN/m3
Vw
Degree of saturation S x 100% 2 – 100% 2 – 100%
Vv
Ww
Moisture content w x 100% 3 – 70% 3 – 70%
Ws
Vv
Void ratio e 0.1 – 1.5 0.1 – 1.5
Vs
Vv
Porosity n x 100% 9 – 60% 9 – 60%
V
Ws
Specific gravity of solids Gs 2.6 – 2.8 2.6 – 2.8
Vs w
(Source: Donald P. Coduto, [6])
March 2009 3-1

Table 3.2 Some Unit Weight Volume Inter-Relationships
Unit-weight Relationship Dry Unit Weight (No Water) Saturated Unit Weight (No Air)
1+w Gs w t Gs +e w
t= d= sat =
1+e 1+w 1+e
Gs +Se Gs t 1-n Gs +n
d=
w sat w
t= 1+e
1+e
1+w
1+w Gs d =Gs w (1-n) sat = G
w 1+wGs s w
t=
wGs
1+ Gs w
S e 1+w
t=
wGs
1+ sat
w 1+e w
t =Gs w 1-n (1+w) S
eS w sat d n w
d=
1+e w
e
sat d w
d sat ‐n w
1+e
e
d = sat - w
1+e
In above relations, w refers to the unit weight of water, 62.4 pcf (=9.81 kN/m3).
(Source: Donald P. Coduto, [6])
3.2 EFFECTIVE STRESS CONCEPT
The concept of effective stress was first proposed by Karl Terzaghi in the mid sixties. It is a simple
concept with significant implications on how the science of geotechnical engineering develops. In
simple terms the concept stipulates that soil consists of 2 major components in general, i.e., (i)
particulate, and (ii) pore water.
Under an applied load, the total stress (σ) in a saturation unit soil mass is composed of inter-
granular stress and the pore water pressure (u) as illustrated in Fig 3.2. When pore water drains
from the soil, the contact between the soil grains will increase which increases the inter-granular
stress. The inter-granular stress is called the effective stress, σ’.
Particles Pore Water Mathematically,

σ = σ’ + u
Where σ = Total stress
σ' = effective stress
u = pore water pressure
Figure 3.2 Total Stress at a Point
The concept of effective stress is extremely useful in the development of soil strength theories and
soil behaviour models. It allows a better understanding of soil behaviour, interpreting laboratory
test results and making engineering design calculations such as in the estimation of settlement due
to consolidation. More significantly, the concept implies that the soil shearing strength depends only
on the effective stress componentpore water carries no shear under hydrostatic or steady state
seepage conditions (i.e., flow velocity is negligible).
3-2 March 2009

Both the total stress and pore water pressure may readily be estimated or calculated with
knowledge of the densities and thickness of soil layers and location of ground water stable. To
calculate the total vertical stress σv at a point in a soil mass, you simply sum up the weights of all
the material (soil solids + water) above that point multiplied by respective thickness of each soil
layer or
σv = ∑ni= ρi gzi (3.1)
σv = Vertical stress
ρi = Densities of each layer above point in question
g = Gravity
z = Thickness of each layer
n = Number of layers above point in question
The pore water pressure is similarly calculated for static water conditions i.e.
u = ρw g zw (3.2)
Where ρw = density of water
zw = depth below ground water table to the point in question
Example: 3.1
Given that the container of soil shown in Fig 3.3 with the saturated density as 2.0 Mg/m3
Calculate the total and effective stress at Elevation A
Water Zw = 2 m
Soil
h=5m
Elev. A
Figure 3.3 Example 3.1
The stresses at Elevation A due to the submerged soil and water above are:
Total stress = ρsat g h + ρw g z w

= (2 x 9.81 x 5.0) + (1 x 9.81 x 2.0)
= 117.7 kPa
Pore water pressure, u

= ρw g (z w + h)
= 1 x 9.81 x (2 + 5)
= 68.7 kPa
Effective stress at Elev. A, σ ’

= σ − u = ( ρsat g h + ρw g z w ) - ρw g (z w + h)
= 117.7 - 68.7 = 49.0 kPa
March 2009 3-3

3.3 VERTICAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION
When a very large area is to be loaded, the induced stress in underneath soil would be would be
100% of the applied stress at the contact surface. However, near the edge or end of the loaded
area you might expect a certain amount of attenuation of stress with depth because no stress is
applied beyond the edge. Likewise, with a footing of limited size the applied stress would dissipate
rather rapidly with depth.
Figure 3.4 illustrated a schematic of the vertical stress distribution with depth along the center line
under an embankment of height, h, constructed with a soil having total unit weight, γ t .
Figure 3.4 Schematic of the Vertical Stress Distribution with Depth under an Embankment
generated by FoSSA Program (from Soil and Foundation - FHWA)
One of the simplest methods to compute the distribution of stress with depth for a loaded area is to
use the 2 to 1 (2:1) method. This is an empirical approach based on the assumption that the area
over which the load acts increases in a systematic way with depth. Since the same vertical force is
spread over an increasingly larger area, the unit stress decreases with depth, as shown in Fig. 3.4.
In Fig. 3.5a, a strip or continuous footing is seen in elevation view. At a depth z, the enlarged area
of the footing increases by z/2 on each side. The width at depth z is then B + Z and the stress σz
at that depth is
load σo (B×1)
σz = = (3.3)
B+z ×1 (B+z)×1
By analogy, the corresponding stress at depth z for a rectangular footing of width B and length L
(as illustrated in Figure 3.5b would be
load σo BL
∆σz = = (3.4)
B+z (L+z) B+z (L+z)
3-4 March 2009

Chapter 3 FU
UNDAMENTAL
L PRINCIPLES
Figure 3.5 The 2:1 Metthod for Estim

mation of Ve
ertical Stress Distribution with Depth
3.4 SHEA
AR STRENGT
TH
3.4.1 Basic
c Principle
The shear strength h of soils is a most important aspecct of geotech hnical engineering. The bearing
capacitty of shallow or deep fou undations, slo
ope stability, retaining waall design arre all affected
d by the
shear strength
s of th
he soil. The shear strenggth of a soil can be definned as the ultimate or maximum
m
shear stress
s the sooil can withsttand. Geotecchnical failurre occurs whhen shear sttress induced d by the
applied
d loads excee ed the shear strength of the
t soil.
March 2009
2 3-5
The shear strength of soil can be may be expressed by Coulomb’s equation:
s = c + σ tan φ (3.5)
where
s = shear strength or shear resistance
c = cohesion
φ = angle of internal friction of soil
σ = total normal stress to shear plane
For effective stresses the shear strength is expresses as:
s = c '+ σ' tan φ' and (3.6)
σ' = (σ − u) (3.7)
where
c' = effective cohesion
φ' = effective angle of internal friction
σ' = effective stress or inter-granular stress normal to the shear plane
u = pore water pressure on the shear plane
The equation 3.1 and 3.2 could also be represented graphically in Figure 3.6.
As expressed in the above equations, the shear strength of soil is represented by the additive of
two terms i.e. σ tan φ (οr σ'tan φ) and c (or c’). The first term is the inter-granular frictional
component which is approximately proportional to the normal stress on the surface, σ (or σ'),
whereas the second term is due to the internal electro-chemical bonding between particles and is
independent of the normal stress.
A coarse-grained soil such as sand and gravels has no cohesion and thus, it strength depends solely
on the inter-granular friction between soil grains. This type of soil is called granular, cohesionless,
non-cohesive or frictional soil. On the other hand, soils containing large amounts of fine grains
(clay, silt and colloid) are called fine-grained or cohesive soils.
3-6 March 2009

Figure 3.6 Graphical Representative of Shear Strength
The shear strength parameters, c and σ or c' and σ ', are normally determined from laboratory
shear test results such as triaxial and direct shear tests. A series of tests are usually carried out
whereby the stresses (normal and shear stresses) from each test representing failure are plotted.
The resulting graph, as illustrated in Figure 3.7, is known as the Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) failure
envelope which represents the shear strength of the soil.
March 2009 3-7

M-C Failure Envelope
M-C Failure Envelope
Figure 3.7 Mohr-Coulomb’s Circles and Failure Envelopes
The physical meaning of the M-C failure envelope may be explained as follows:
• Every point on the M-C failure envelope represents a combination of normal and shear stress
that results in failure of the soil, i.e. the limiting state of stress for equilibrium.
• If the state of stress is represented by a point below the M-C failure envelope then the soil
will be stable for that state of stress.
• States of stress beyond the M-C failure envelope cannot exist since failure would have
occurred before that point could be reached.
3.4.2 Effective Versus Total Stress Analysis
It is important to note that the properties of soil and its shear strength in the vicinity of construction
facility could change with time. As explained in Item 3.2, when the stress in the soil is suddenly
changed (e.g. due to applied load), the additional stress is initially carried by the pore water
pressure resulting to what is known as excess pore water pressure. If a foundation consolidates
slowly, relative to the rate of construction, a substantial portion of the applied load will be carried
by the pore water, which has no shear strength, and the available shearing resistance is limited to
the in-situ shear strength. In this case, analysis are carried out using the total stress (undrained)
analysis.
3-8 March 2009

In time , the excess pore water pressure will dissipate as result of seepage under consolidation and
the stress is eventually carried by soil skeleton of the soil and under such condition, analysis using
the effective (drained) stress analysis is applied. Since shear strength will vary with time, it is
important for the designer to understand and determine at which point in time i.e. before, during or
after construction that is critical to the design of the structure.
As granular or sandy soils are more permeable than cohesive or clayey soils, drainage of excess
pore pressure in sandy soil occurs much more rapidly. Hence, effective (drained) stress analysis is
usually necessary for sandy soils. For clayey soil, either a total (undrained) stress analysis or
effective (drain) stress analysis is required depending on the time considered in relation to the
duration of construction.
Effective stress analysis requires the estimation of the drained strength parameters c’, φ’ and pore
pressures. However, with pure free draining sands, φ = φ’ and c = 0. For total stress analysis,
undrained parameters typically used are φ = 0 and c determined from in-situ vane shear (for soft
clay) or undrained unconfined (UU) and consolidated undrained (CIU) triaxials tests.
In general, depending on the soil compressibility, thickness, permeability, nature of the stress
applied, and duration of construction, designer usually considers the two conditions listed to
determine which is more critical in the analysis
a) At the end of construction, e.g. construction of river embankment in soft clay. Geotechnical
analysis maybe carried using total stress analysis with undrained shear strength parameters
or effective stress analysis with drained shear strength parameters
b) Long-term e.g. construction of pervious reinforced earth retaining structure using free
draining backfill. Long-term geotechnical analysis is normally carried out using effective
stress analysis with drained shear strength parameters and estimated or measured pore
pressures.
Table 3.3 provided a more detail design conditions in relation to appropriate shear strengths for use
in analyses of static loading conditions.
March 2009 3-9

Table 3.3 Design Conditions and Related Shear Strengths and Pore Pressures
Shear Strengths and Pore Pressures for Static Design Conditions

Design Condition Shear Strength Pore Water Pressure
During Construction Free draining soils – use drained Free draining soils – Pore water
and End-of- shear strengths related to pressures can be estimated using
Construction effective stresses analytical techniques such as
hydrostatic pressure computations if
there is no flow or using steady
seepage analysis techniques (flow
nets or finite element analyses).
Low permeability soils – use Low-permeability soils = Total

undrained shear strengths stresses are used, pore water
related to total stresses pressures are set to zero in the slope
stability computations.
Steady-State Use drained shear strength Pore water pressures from field
Seepage Conditions related to effective stresses. measurements, hydrostatic pressure
computations for no-flow conditions,
or steady seepage analysis techniques
(flow nets or finite difference
analyses).
Sudden Drawdown Free draining soils – use drained Free draining soils – First-stage
Conditions shear strengths related to computations (before drawdown) –
effective stresses. steady seepage pore pressures as for
steady seepage condition. Second-
and third-stage computations (after
drawdown) – pore water pressures
estimated using same techniques as
for steady seepage, except with
lowered water level.
Low permeability soils – Three- Low-permeability soils – First-stage

stage computations: First stage computations – steady state seepage
– use drained shear strength pore pressures as described for steady
related to effective stresses, seepage condition. Second–stage
second stage – use undrained computations – total stresses are
shear strengths related to used, pore water pressures are set to
consolidation pressures from the zero. Third-stage computations –
first stage, third stage – use same pore pressures as free draining
drained strengths related to soils if drained strengths are used,
effective stresses, or undrained pore water pressures are set to zero
strengths related to where undrained strengths are used.
consolidation pressures from the
first stage, depending on which
strength is lower – this will vary
along the assumed shear
surface.
3-10 March 2009

REFERENCES
[1] Bishop A.V and Henkel D.J., The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test,
E.Arnold, 1962.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
London
[6] Donald P.Coduto, Foundation Design, Principles and Practices

Boston,MA., 1990
1982, "Soil Mechanics"
[9] Dept. of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington D.C.,NAVFAC DM-7.2, May 1982,
"Foundations and Earth Structures"
New Jersey
[11] Koerner R.M . Construction and Geotechnical Method in Foundation Engineering, McGraw
Hill, 1985.
[12] Ladd C.C., Foott R., Ishihara K., Schlosser F., and Roulos H.G., Stress Deformation and
Strength Characteristics, State of the Art Report, Session I, IX ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, 1971, pp. 421
- 494.
[14] McCarthy D.J., Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations.
[15] Nayak N. V. I II Foundation Design Manual. Dhanpat Rai a Sons I 1982.
[16] Peck R.B Hanson W.E. and Thornburn R.H., Foundation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons,
1974.
March 2009 3-11

[20] U.S. Department of Transportation, Soil and Foundation, Reference Manual Volume 1 & 2
(2006)
3-12 March 2009

CHAPTER 4 SOIL SETTLEMENT
Table of Contents

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 4-ii
4 SOIL SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 GENERAL CONCEPT .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Immediate (Distortion) Settlement ................................................................ 4-1
4.1.2 Primary Consolidation ................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Secondary Compression................................................................................ 4-2
4.2 SETTLEMENT ON GRANULAR SOILS .............................................................. 4-2
4.3 ESTIMATION OF PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION IN COHESIVE SOIL.................................... 4-3
4.3.1 Normally Consolidated Soils .......................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Overconsolidated (Preconsolidated) Soils ....................................................... 4-5
4.3.3 Underconsolidated Soils ................................................................................ 4-6
4.4 RATE OF CONSOLIDATION .......................................................................................... 4-7
4.5 SECONDARY SETTLEMENT OF COHESIVE SOIL ............................................................. 4-9
4.6 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ..................................................................................... 4-10
4.7 PLATE LOADING TEST FOR SETTLEMENT ESTIMATION ............................................... 4-12
4.8 SETTLEMENT OF RAFT/MAT FOUNDATIONS ............................................................... 4-12
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 4-14
March 2009 4-i

List of Tables

4.1 Typical Allowable Total Settlements for Foundation Design 4-3
4.2 Typical Values of Tolerable Differential Settlement 4-11
List of Figures

4.1 Components Of Total Settlement Versus Log Time 4-1
4.2 Typical e – lop p Curve 4-4
4.3 Typical Consolidation Curve for Normally Consolidated Soil 4-5
4.4 Typical Consolidation Curve for Over Consolidated Soil 4-6
4.5 Typical Consolidation Curve for Under-Consolidated Soil 4-7
4.6 Average Degree of Consolidation U versus Time Factor, Tv under Various Drainage
Conditions 4-8
4.7 Example 4.1 4-9
4.8 The Building was built partly on filled and partly on original ground, which resulted in
cracks due to excessive differential settlement 4-10
4-ii March 2009

4 SOIL SETTLEMENT
4.1 GENERAL CONCEPT
In geotechnical engineering, in particular foundation works for structures, engineers are interested
in how much and how fast soil settlement will occur. Excessive settlement including (differential
settlement) may cause structural damage as well as impair the functionality or serviceability of the
structures.
Soils whether cohesionless or cohesive, will experience settlements immediately after application of
loads. Whether or not the settlements will continue with time after the application of the loads will
be a function of how quickly the water can drain from the voids as explained in Item 3.2 Long-term
consolidation-type settlements are generally not experienced in cohesionless soils where pore water
can drain quickly or in dry or slightly moist cohesive soils where significant amounts of pore water
are not present. Therefore, embankment settlements caused by consolidation of cohesionless or
dry cohesive soil deposits are frequently ignored as they are much smaller compared to immediate
settlements in such soils.
The total soil settlement. St can be divided into 3 main components, namely immediate settlement,
primary consolidation settlement, , and secondary compression settlement
St = Si + Sc + Ss (4.1)
Si = immediate settlement
Sc = primary consolidation settlement (time-dependent)
Ss = secondary compression settlement
Si
Sc
Ss
Figure 4.1 Components Of Total Settlement Versus Log Time
4.1.1 Immediate (Distortion) Settlement
Immediate, or distortion, settlement (Si) occurs during application of load as excess pore pressure
develops in the underlying soil. If the soil has a low permeability and it is relatively thick, the excess
pore pressures are initially undrained. The foundation soil deforms due to the applied shear stresses
with essentially no volume change, such that vertical compression is accompanied by lateral
expansion.
It should be recognized that most field evidence indicates that Si is usually not important design
consideration especially in cohesive soils. It can usually be reduced by precompression or, to some
extent, by a controlled loading program which allows consolidation to increase the soil stiffness and
reduce the shear stress level in the foundation.
March 2009 4-1

Immediate settlement although not actually elastic is usually estimated by using elastic theory, and
the procedures for dealing with this problem can be found in textbooks on foundation engineering
such as Soil and Foundation, FHWA and DID Geotechnical Guidelines.
4.1.2 Primary Consolidation
Primary consolidation (Sc) develops with time as drainage allows excess pore pressure to dissipate.
Volume changes, and thus settlement occur as stresses are transferred from the water (pore
pressure) to the soil skeleton (effective stress). The rate of primary consolidation is governed by the
rate of dissipation of pore water pressure. The estimation and rate of primary settlement in
cohesive soil with low coefficient of permeability are dealt with in more details later in this Chapter.
4.1.3 Secondary Compression
Secondary compression settlement (Ss) is the continuing, long term settlement which occurs after
the excess pore pressures are essentially dissipated and after the effective stresses are practically
constant. These further volume changes and increased settlements are due to drained creep, and
are often characterized by a linear relationship between settlement and logarithm of time (refer
Figure 4.1).
Secondary compression is normally not very significant relative to the primary consolidation for
inorganic clayey soil. However, for peats and highly inorganic soils, secondary compression
constitutes a major part of the total settlement. Reader can refer to Holtz and Kovacs or Soil and
Foundation, FHWA for guidance on the evaluation of secondary compression settlement.
4.2 SETTLEMENT ON GRANULAR SOILS
Most methods for computing the primary settlements of foundations on granular soils are based on
elastic theory or empirical correlations. Empirical correlations based on standard penetration test
(SPT) generally provide an acceptable solution for predicting the settlement of a shallow foundation
on granular soils.
Poulos (2000) found that although soil behaviour is generally non-linear and highly dependent on
effective stress level and stress history and hence should be accounted for in settlement analysis,
the selection of geotechnical parameters, such as the shear and Young's modulus of soils, and site
characterisation are more important than the choice of the method of analysis. Simple elasticity-
based methods are capable of providing reasonable estimates of settlements.
Based on elastic theory, the settlement, δf, of a shallow foundation can be calculated using an
equation of the following general form:
qnet Bf 'f
δf= (4.2)
Es
where
qnet = mean net ground bearing pressure
Bf' = effective width of the foundation
Es = Young’s modulus of soil
f = a coefficient whose value depends on the shape and dimensions of the foundation,
the variation of soil stiffness with depth, the thickness of compressible strata,
Poisson’s ratio, the distribution of ground bearing pressure and the point at which
the settlement is calculated.
4-2 March 2009

Poulos & Davis (1974) gave a suite of elastic solutions for determining the coefficient 'f' for various
load applications and stress distributions in soils and rocks.
The increase of stress in soils due to foundation load can be calculated by assuming an angle of
stress dispersion from the base of a shallow foundation. This angle may be approximated as a ratio
of 2 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) (Bowles, 1992; French, 1999). The settlement of the foundation can
then be computed by calculating the vertical compressive strains caused by the stress increases in
individual layers and summing the compression of the layers.
A time correction factor has been proposed by Burland & Burbidge (1985) for the estimation of
secondary settlement. Terzaghi et al (1991) also give an equation for estimating secondary
settlement in a similar form. The commencement of secondary settlement is assumed to commence
when the primary settlement completes, which is taken as the end of construction.
4.3 ESTIMATION OF PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION IN COHESIVE SOIL
From the types of settlement described above, generally the most significant settlement is
consolidation settlement. Consolidation settlement is time dependence. For low permeability soil
with reasonably thickness, the primary consolidation may take very long time e.g., exceeding 10
years. Therefore, improvement method by shortening the consolidation process is essential to avoid
distresses or failure due differential settlement after construction.
Table 4.1 Typical Allowable Total Settlements for Foundation Design
Typical Allowable Total Settlement, δa

Type of Structure
(in) (mm)
0.5 – 2.1 (1.0 is the most 12 – 50 (25 is the most
Office Buildings
common value) common value)
Heavy Industrial Buildings 1.0 – 3.0 25 – 75
Bridges 2.0 50
(Source: Donald P.Coduto [19])
In general, lowering of the ground water table will leads to settlement of the ground. In fine-
grained soils, prolonged lowering of water table will cause an increase in the effective stresses by
extrusion of water from the voids leading to ground settlement.
Primarily Consolidation, Sc (herein refer as ‘consolidation’) is a process when sudden application of a

load to a saturated soil produces an immediate increase in pore water pressure. Over time, the
excess pore water pressure will dissipate, the effective stress in the soil will increase and settlement
will increase. Since shear strength is related to effective stress, it may be necessary to control the
rate of construction to avoid a shear failure. The rate at which the excess water pressure dissipates,
and settlement occurs, depends on the permeability of the soil, the amount of water to be expelled
and the distance the water must travel (drainage path).
The determination of consolidation is commonly based on the one-dimensional laboratory

consolidation test results. Typically, the results are expressed in an e-log p plot which is the so-
called “consolidation curve”, an example of which is as shown as in Figure 4.2. The followings
parameters r may be obtained from the consolidation curve:
a) Initial void ratio, eo

b) Compression index, Cc
c) Recompression index, Cr
d) Preconsolidation pressure, pc
March 2009 4-3

Chapterr 4 SOIL SETT
TLEMENT
pc
Figure 4.2 Typical e – lop p Curve
uld be noted that before this laborattory test resu

It shou ults are used
d, it is very important to
o correct
the con
nsolidation curves for the
e effects of sampling. Thhe proceduree for correcttion could bee readily
found in most founddation engineering textboooks e.g. Hooltz and Kova
acs and is noot discussed here.
h
The ressponse of th he soil to seettlement alsso depends on the mag gnitude of th he existing effective
e
stress relative
r to th
he maximum m past effectiive stress at a given deppth. The ove erconsolidatio
on ratio,
OCR, which
w is a meeasure of the
e degree of overconsolida
o ation in a soil is defined a
as
OCR = pc / po (4.3)
where pc = preco onsolidation pressure

p (obttained from an e-log p plot)
po = initial effective verrtical stress at
a the centerr of the layerr considered.
The vallue of OCR provides

p a baasis for deterrmining the effective
e stre
ess history off the clay at the
t time
of the proposed
p loa
ading as follo
ows:
OCR = 1 : – the clay

c is consid
dered to be “normally
“ consolidated” under
u the exxisting load, i.e., the
clay has fully conso
olidated undeer the existing load (pc = po).
a) OCR > 1 : – the clay isi considered d to be “ove erconsolidateed” under the existing lo oad, i.e.,
the clay has consolidate
ed under a lo oad greater than
t the load
d that curren ntly exists (pc > po).
b) OCR < 1 : – the clay iss considered d to be “unde erconsolidateed” under th he existing looad, i.e.,
on under the
consolidatio e existing loa
ad is still occcurring and will
w continue to occur under that
load until primary
p conso
olidation is co
omplete, eve en if no addittional load iss applied (pc < po).
4-4 Ma
arch 2009
4.3.1 Normally Consolidated Soils
The settlement of a geotechnical feature or a structure resting on n layers of normally consolidated

soils (pc = po) can be computed from Figure 4.3 where n is the number of layers into which the
consolidating layer is divided:
cc pf
Sc = ∑ni Ho log10 (4.4)
1+e0 po
Figure 4.3 Typical Consolidation Curve for Normally Consolidated Soil
The final effective vertical stress is computed by adding the stress change due to the applied load
to the initial vertical effective stress. The total settlement will be the sum of the compressions of
the n layers of soil.
4.3.2 Overconsolidated (Preconsolidated) Soils
For overconsolidated clay, i.e., OCR >1, the soils could have in the past subjected to a greater
stress than exists now. It maybe due to many factors including erosion of the weight of the natural
soil deosit, removal of the weight of a previously placed fill or structures, etc.
As a result of preconsolidation, the field state of stress will reside on the initially flat portion of the
e-log p curve. Figure 4.4 illustrates the case where a load increment, ∆p, is added so that the final
stress, pf. For this condition, the settlements for the case of n layers of overconsolidated soils will
be computed by summing the settlements computed from each subdivided compressible layer
within the zone of influence.
cc pc pf
S= ∑ni (cr log10 + cc log10 )
1+e0 po pc
March 2009 4-5

Figure 4.4 Typical Consolidation Curve for Over Consolidated Soil
4.3.3 Underconsolidated Soils
When the state of effective stress of soils has not fully consolidated under an existing load, the soils
is term as underconsolidation, i.e., OCR < 1. Consolidation settlement due to the existing load, will
continue to occur under that load until primary consolidation is completed (i.e. under ∆po) even if
no additional load is applied. This condition is represented in Figure 4.5. Thus, any additional load
increment, ∆p, would have to be added to po. Consequently, if the soil is not recognized as being
underconsolidated, the actual total primary settlement due to ∆po+∆p will be greater than the
primary settlement computed for an additional load ∆p only, i.e., the settlement may be under-
predicted.
As a result of under-consolidation, the field state of stress will reside entirely on the virgin portion of
the consolidation curve as shown in Figure 4.5.. The settlements for the case of n layers of under-
consolidated soils are computed by Equation 4.5 that correspond to Figure 4.5.
Ho Pc Pf
S= ∑n1 (cr log10 + cc log10 (4.6)
1+eo Po Pc
4-6 March 2009

Figure 4.5 Typical Consolidation Curve for Under-Consolidated Soil
4.4 RATE OF CONSOLIDATION
The average degree of consolidation, U at any time, t, can be defined as:
U = St / Sult (4.7)
Where St = Settlement at time of interest

Sult = Settlement at end of primary consolidation (i.e. at ultimate) when excess pore water
pressures are zero throughout the consolidating layer
Figure 4.6 shows the average degree of consolidation (U) corresponding to a normalized time
expressed in terms of a time factor, Tv, where :
cv t
Tv = 2 (4.8)
Hd
which can be written
2
T v Hd
t (4.9)
Cv
2
cv = coefficient of consolidation (m /day)
Hd = The longest distance to a drainage boundary (m)
t = time (day)
March 2009 4-7

0
U Tv
10 0.0077
Percent consolidation U
20 20 0.0314
30 0.0707
40 0.126
40 50 0.196
60 0.286
70 0.403
80 0.567
60 90 0.848
100 Infinity
80
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time factor Tv
Figure 4.6 Average Degree of Consolidation U versus Time Factor, Tv under Various Drainage
Conditions
Note that the longest drainage distance, Hd of a soil layer confined by more permeable layers on
both ends is equal to one-half of the layer thickness. When confined by a more permeable layer on
one side and an impermeable boundary on the other side, the longest drainage distance is equal to
the layer thickness. The value of the dimensionless time factor Tv may be determined from Table
4.6 for any average degree of consolidation. U. The actual time, t, it takes for this percent of
consolidation to occur is a function of the boundary drainage conditions, i.e., the longest distance to
a drainage boundary, as indicated by Equation 4.8. By using the normalized time factor, Tv,
settlement time can be computed for various percentages of settlement due to primary
consolidation, to develop a predicted settlement-time curve. A typical settlement-time curve for a
clay deposit under an embankment loading is shown in Figure 4.6
Coefficient of consolidation, cv can be obtained from laboratory consolidation test data. Two
graphical procedures are commonly used for this i.e. the logarithm-of-time method (log t) proposed
by Casagrande and Fadum (1940) and the square-root-of-time method proposed by Taylor (1948).
These methods are can be found in various textbooks such as Holtz and Kovacs, and Soil and
Foundations, FHWA.
4-8 March 2009

TLEMENT
Examplle 4.1: Deteermine the magnitude

m of and the tiime for 90%
% consolidattion for the primary
settlem
ment of a “wid
de” embankm
ment as show
wn in Figure 4.7
Figurre 4.7 Examp

ple 4.1
a) Since the embankment

e t is “wide,” the vertical stress at thhe base of the embank kment is
assumed too be the sam
me within the 3 m thick clay layer. Sin nce soil is no
ormally conso
olidated,
use Equatio
on 4.3 to dettermine the primary
p conssolidation setttlement as fo
follows:
b) Find the tim

me for 90% consolidation
c n use Tv = 0..848 from Fig
gure 4.6. Asssume singlee vertical
drainage duue to impervvious rock un
nderlying clay
y layer and use
u Equation n 4.7 to calcu
ulate the
time require
ed for 90% consolidation
c n to occur.
4.5 SECO
ONDARY SET
TTLEMENT OF COHESIIVE SOIL
The trraditional method

m prop
posed by Buisman
B (19
931) is practical in esstimating se econdary
consolid
dation settle
ement (Terza aghi et al, 19
991; Poulos et
e al, 2002). In this me
ethod, the magnitude
of seco
ondary conso olidation is assumed to vary linearly with the logarithm o of time. It iss usually
expresssed as:
s c= (4.10)
where
sc = secondary consolidation
c n
C = secondary compression
c index
eo = initial void ratio
r
Ho = Thickness ofo soils subjeccte to second
dary consolid
dation
tp = time when primary
p conssolidation com
mpleted
ts = time for which secondarry consolidattion is allowe
ed
March 2009
2 4-9
Mesri et al (1994) proposed correlating the secondary compression index, C , with the compression
index, Cc, at the same vertical effective stress of a soil. He found that the C /Cc ration is the
constant for a soil deposit (see Table 4.2).
The time at which secondary consolidation is assumed to commence is not well defined. A
pragmatic approach is to assume that the secondary consolidation settlement commences when
95% of the primary consolidation is reached (Terzaghi et al, 1991).
Table 4.2 Values of C /Cc for Geotechnical Materials
Material C /Cc
Granular soil 0.02 ± 0.01
Shale and mudstone 0.03 ± 0.01
Inorganic clays and silts 0.04 ± 0.01
Organic clays and silts 0.05 ± 0.01
Peat and muskeg 0.01 ± 0.01
(Source: Mesri et al [24])
4.6 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
Damage in structures due to settlement may be classified under 3 categories:
a) Architectural damage such as cracking in wall partitions and plaster

b) Structural damage where the structural integrity are affected and
c) Functional damage where the function of the structure may be impaired.
Figure 4.8 The Building was built partly on filled and partly on original ground, which resulted in
cracks due to excessive differential settlement
Normally, uniform settlement will not give rise to damage. It is the differential settlement that has
to be controlled. However, differential settlement is difficult to estimate due especially to the non-
homogeneity in the ground, and the large variations in the loadings between different supporting
members. Figure 4.8 illustrates the appearance of crack due to differential settlement in a building.
The limit of allowable settlement may be better expressed in terms of angular distortion, θ is
θ =δ / L (4.11)
4-10 March 2009

Where δ = differential settlement in the structure

L = horizontal distance between the 2 points where δ is considered.
Skelton and McDonald established that for no architectural damage, θ must be less than 1/300 for
buildings on individual footings. As a guide, reader can refer to Table 4.3 for the typical tolerable
values of differential settlement.
Table 4.2 Typical Values of Tolerable Differential Settlement
Span
Structure
ß /3
Settlement Differential
profile settlement
Tolerable differential
Type of Structure Comments
settlement, ß (radians)
Circular steel petrol or fluid For floating top, value depends on
storage tanks: details of top. Values apply to tanks on
Fixed top 0.008 a flexible base. With rigid base slabs,
Floating top 0.002 – 0.003 such settlement will cause cracking and
local buckling.
Tracks for overhead Value taken longitudinally along track.
travelling crane. 0.003 Settlement between between tracks is
not usually the controlling factor.
Rigid circular ring or mat
footing for stacks, silos, 0.002
water tanks etc.
Jointed rigid concrete Value is allowable angle change at joint.
pressure pipe. This is usually 2-4 times average slope
0.015
of settlement profile. Damage to joint
also depends on Longitudinal extension.
One- or two-storey steel Overhead crane, pipes, machinery or
framed warehouse with vehicles may limit tolerable values to
0.006 – 0.008
truss roof and flexible less than this.
cladding.
One- or two-storey houses Larger value is tolerable if most
or similar buildings with 0.002 – 0.003 settlement has taken place before
brick load-bearings walls. finishes are completed.
Structures with sensitive
interior finishes such as
0.001 -0.002
plaster, ornamental stone
or tiles.
Multi-storey heavy concrete Damage to interior or exterior finish
rigid framed structures on may limit value.
0.0015
thick structural raft
foundations.
(Source: Carter M, [7])
March 2009 4-11

4.7 PLATE LOADING TEST FOR SETTLEMENT ESTIMATION
Guidelines and procedures for conducting plate loading tests are given in BS EN 1997-1:2004 (BSI,
2004) and DD ENV 1997-3:2000 (BSI, 2000b). The test should mainly be used to derive
geotechnical parameters for predicting the settlement of a shallow foundation, such as the
deformation modulus of soil. It may be necessary to carry out a series of tests at different levels.
The plate loading test may also be used to determine the bearing capacity of the foundation in fine-
grained soils, which is independent of the footing size. The elastic soil modulus can be determined
using the following equation (BSI, 2000b):
1-vs 2
Es= qnet b Is (4.12)
δp
where
qnet = net ground bearing pressure
δp = settlement of the test plate
Is = shape factor
b = width of the test plate
νs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
Es = Young's modulus of soil
The method for extrapolating plate loading test results to estimate the settlement of a full-size
footing on granular soils is not standardised. The method proposed by Terzaghi & Peck (1917)
suggested the following approximate relationship in estimating the settlement for a full-size footing:
2Bf 2
δf = δp (4.13)
Bf +b
where:
δp = settlement of a 30mm square test plate
δf = settlement of foundation carrying the same bearing pressure
Bf = width of the shallow foundation
B = width of the test plate
However, the method implies that the ratio of settlement of a shallow foundation to that of a test
plate will not be greater than 4 for any size of shallow foundation and this could under estimate the
foundation settlement. Bjerrum & Eggestad (1913) compared the results of plate loading tests with
settlement observed in shallow foundations. They noted that the measured foundation settlement
was much greater than that estimated from the method of Terzaghi & Pack (1917). Terzaghi et al
(1991) also commented that the method is unreliable and is now recognized to be an unacceptable
simplification of the complex phenomena.
4.8 SETTLEMENT OF RAFT/MAT FOUNDATIONS
A raft/mat foundation is usually continuous in two directions and covers an area equal to or greater
than the base area of the structure. A raft foundation is suitable when the underlying soils have a
low bearing capacity or large differential settlements are anticipated. It is also suitable for ground
containing pockets of loose and soft soils. In some instances, the raft foundation is designed as a
cellular structure where deep hollow boxes are formed in the concrete slab. The advantage of a
cellular raft is that it can reduce the overall weight of the foundation and consequently the net
applied pressure on the ground. A cellular raft should be provided with sufficient stiffness to reduce
differential settlement.
4-12 March 2009

TLEMENT
Raft fooundations area relativelyy large in siize. Hence,, the bearin ng capacity is generally not the
controlling factor inn design. Diffferential and
d total settlemments usuallyy govern the e design. A common
approach for estim mating the settlement off a raft foun ndation is too model the e ground support as
springss using the subgrade
s rea
action metho od. This me ethod sufferrs from a nuumber of dra awbacks.
Firstly, the moduluss of subgrade reaction iss not an intrinsic soil property. It de epends upon not only
the stifffness of the soil, but also
o the dimenssions of the foundation.
f here is no intteraction
Secondly, th
betwee en the spring gs. They are e assumed to o be indepen ndent of eacch other and can only respond in
the dire ection of the
e loads. BS SI (2004) cauutions that the
t subgrade e reaction model is gene erally not
appropriate for estiimating the total
t and diffferential setttlement of a raft foundaation. Finite element
analysiss or elastic continuum
c m
method is pre
eferred for th he design off raft founda
ations (Frencch, 1999;
Poulos,, 2000).
ure 4.9 Comm

Figu mon Types of
o Raft Found
dation
March 2009
2 4-13
REFERENCES
E.Arnold, 1962.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
[5] Buisman, A.S.K. Results of long duration settlement tests. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
vol. 1, pp 103-101, 1931.
[6] Burland, J.B. & Burbidge, M.C. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel. Proceedings of
Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, vol. 78, pp 1325-1381, 1985
[7] Carter M. & Symons, M.V., Site Investigations and Foundations Explained, Pentech Press,
London
[8] CGS, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical

Boston,MA., 1990
1982, "Soil Mechanics"
Foundations and Earth Structures
[12] Duncan, J.M. & Poulos, H.G. (1981). Modern techniques for the analysis of engineering
problems in soft clay. Soft Clay Engineering, Elsevier, New York, pp 317-414.
[13] DID Malaysia, Geotechnical Guidelines for D.I.D. works
[14] EM 1110-2-1913. Design and Construction of Levees, U.S. Army Corp of Engineer,
Washington, DC.
[15] French, S.E. (1999). Design of Shallow Foundations, American Society for Civil Engineers
Press, 374 p.
[16] Foott R. and Ladd C.C., Undrained Settlement of Plastic and Organic Clays, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.107, No. GT8, August 1981.
[17] ISE (1989). Soil-structure Interaction: The Real Behaviour of Structures. The Institution of
Structural Engineers, London, 120 p.
[18] Koerner R.M ., Construction and Geotechnical Method in Foundation Engineering, McGraw
Hill, 1985.
4-14 March 2009

[19] Donald P.Coduto, Foundation Design, Principles and Practices
[20] Ladd C.C., Foott R., Ishihara K., Schlosser F., and Roulos H.G., Stress Deformation and
Strength Characteristics, State of the Art Report, Session I, IX ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, 1971, pp. 421
- 494.
[22] Liao S.S.C. and Whitman R. V., Overburden Correction Factors for SPT' in Sand, Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. Vol. 112 No. 3, March 1986, pp. 373 - 377.
[24] Mesri G., discussion of New Design Procedure for stability of Soft Clays, by Charles C. Ladd
and Roger Foott, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.101, No. GT4. Froc.
Paper 10664. April 1975. pp. 409 - 412.
[25] Mesri, G., Lo, D.O.K. & Feng, T.W. (1994). Settlement of embankments on soft clays.
Geotechnical Special Publication 40, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 1, pp 8-51.
[27] Parry, R.G. H. (1972). A direct method of estimating settlement in sands from SPT values.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Interaction of Structures and Foundations, Midland Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Society, Birmingham, pp 29-37.
1974.
[29] Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1974). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 411 p.
[30] Poulos, H.G. (2000). Foundation Settlement Analysis – Practice versus Research. The Eighth
Spencer J Buchanan Lecture, Texas, 34 p.
[31] Poulos, H.G., Carter, J.P. & Small, J.C. (2002). Foundations and retaining structures –
research and practice. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Istanbul, vol. 4, pp 2527-2101.
[32] Price, G. & Wardle, I.F. (1983). Recent developments in pile/soil instrumentation systems.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Zurich, vol. 1,
pp 2.13-2.72.
[33] Research and practice. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Istanbul, vol. 4, pp 2527-2101.
[34] Skempton A.W. and D.H. McDonald, "The Allowable Settlement of Buildings", Proc. Inst. Civil
Eng., Vo1.5 Pt.3. 1956, pp. 727-784.
[35] Skempton A.W., "The Bearing Capacity of Clays", Building Res. Congress, London Inst. Civ.
Engrs., div.I:180, 1951.
[36] Smith C.N., "Soil Mechanics for Civil and Mining Engineers".
March 2009 4-15

[37] Teng W.C., "Foundation Design", Prentice Hall, 1984.
[39] Thompson D.M. and Shuttler R.M., "Design of riprap slope protection against wind waves",
Report 61, London, Construction Industry Research & Information Association.
[40] Terzaghi, K. (1955). Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Géotechnique, vol. 5, pp

297-321.
[41] Tomlinson, M.J. (1994). Pile Design and Construction Practice. (Fourth edition). Spon, 411 p.
[42] United Bureau States Department of the Interior, "Design of Small Dams” Bureau of
Reclamation, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1974.
[43] Vesic, A.S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Foundation Engineering
Handbook, edited by Winterkorn, H.F. & Fang, H.Y., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 121-147.
[44] Zanen A., "Revetments", International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering,
Delft, Netherlands, 1978
4-16 March 2009

CHAPTER 5 BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
Table of Contents

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 5-ii
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation ......................................................... 5-1
5.1.1.1 General ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1.2 General Equation For Bearing Capacity ............................................ 5-2
5.1.2 Factors of Safety .......................................................................................... 5-5
5.1.3 Effects of Groundwater ................................................................................. 5-5
5.1.4 Foundation Near Crest of Slope ..................................................................... 5-6
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 5-8
March 2009 5-i

List of Tables

5.1 Bearing Capacity Factors for Computing Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations 5-4
List of Figures

5.1 Generalized Loading and Geometric Parameter for a Spread Shallow Foundation 5-3
5.2 Groundwater Cases for Bearing Capacity Analysis 5-6
5.3 Linear Interpolation Procedures for Determining Ultimate Bearing Capacity of a
Spread Shallow Foundation near the Crest of a Slope 5-7
5-ii March 2009

5 BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Shallow foundations, are generally more economical than deep foundations if they do not have to
be installed deep into the ground and extensive ground improvement works are not required. They
are often used to support structures at sites where ground are sufficiently strong. Unless a shallow
foundation can be founded on strong rock, some noticeable settlement will occur. Design of
shallow foundations should ensure that there is an adequate factor of safety against bearing failure
of the ground, and that the settlements, including total and differential settlement, are limited to
allowable values.
For shallow foundations founded on granular soils, the allowable load is usually dictated by the
allowable settlement, except where the ultimate bearing capacity is significantly affected by
geological or geometric features. Examples of adverse geological and geometrical features are
weak seams and sloping ground respectively. For shallow foundations founded on fine-grained soils,
both the ultimate bearing capacity and settlements are important design considerations.
High-rise structures or the presence of weak ground bearing materials do not necessarily stopping
the design engineer from adopting shallow foundation system. Suitable design provision or ground
improvement could be considered to overcome the difficulties. Some examples are given below:
a. Design the foundations, structures and building services to accommodate the expected
differential and total settlements.
b. Excavate weak materials and replace them with compacted fill materials.
c. Carry out in-situ ground improvement works to improve the properties of the bearing materials.
Some of these methods are discussed in Chapter 9.
d. Adopt specially designed shallow foundations, such as compensated rafts, to limit the net
foundation loads or reduce differential settlement.
5.1.1 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
5.1.1.1 General
There are a many of methods for determining the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on soils.
A preliminary estimate of allowable bearing pressure may be obtained on the basis of soil
descriptions. Other methods include correlating bearing pressures with results of in-situ field tests,
such as SPT N value and tip resistance of CPT. For example, Terzaghi & Peck (1917) proposed
allowable bearing pressure of 10 N (kPa) and 5N (kPa) for non-cohesive soils in dry and submerged
conditions respectively. This was based on limiting the settlement of footings of up to about 1 m
wide to less than 25 mm, even if it is founded on soils with compressible sand pockets.
Methods based on engineering principles can be used to compute the bearing capacity of soils and
estimate the foundation settlement. This would require carrying out adequate ground investigation
to characterize the site, obtaining samples for laboratory tests to obtain parameters and establishing
a reliable model. Designs following this approach normally result in bearing pressures higher than
the presumed allowable bearing pressures given in codes of practice.
March 2009 5-1

5.1.1.2 General Equation For Bearing Capacity
Various equations have been established for calculating the bearing of shallow foundation. A
comprehensive one which takes into consideration the shape of the foundation, inclination of
loading, the base of the foundation and ground surface is as follows
(GEO, 1993):
Qu
qu =
Bf'Lf'
c'Nc ζcs ζci ζct ζcg + 0.5 Bf' γs' Nγ ζγs ζγi ζγt ζγg + q Nq ζqs ζqi ζqt ζqg (5.1)
Where:
Nc, Nγ, Nq = general bearing capacity factors which determine the capacity of a long strip
footing acting on the surface of a soil in a homogenous half space
Qu = ultimate resistance against bearing capacity failure
qu = ultimate bearing capacity of foundation
q = overburden pressure at the level of foundation base
c’ = effective cohesion of soil
γs’ = effective unit weight of the soil
Bf = least dimension of footing
Lf = longer dimension of footing
Bf’ = Bf – 2eB
Lf’ = Lf – 2eL
eL = eccentricity of load along L direction
eB = eccentricity of load along B direction
ζcs , ζγs , ζqs = influence factors for shape of shallow foundation
ζci , ζγi , ζqi = influence factors for inclination road
ζcg , ζγg , ζqg = influence factors for ground surface
ζct , ζγt , ζqt = influence factors for tilting of foundation base
Figure 5.1 shows the generalized loading and geometric parameters for the design of a shallow
foundation. The bearing capacity factors are given in Table 5.1. Equation 5.1 is applicable for the
general shear type of failure of a shallow foundation, which is founded at a depth less than the
foundation width. This failure mode is applicable to soils that are not highly compressible and have a
certain shear strength, e.g. in dense sand. If the soils are highly compressible, e.g: in loose sands,
punching failure may occur. Vesic (1975) recommended using a rigidity index of soil to define
whether punching failure is likely to occur. In such case, the ultimate bearing capacity of the
foundation can be evaluated based on Equation 5.1 with an additional set of influence factors for soil
compressibility (Vesic,1975).
5-2 March 2009

Chapter 5 BE
EARING CAPAC
CITY THEORY
Y
Fig
gure 5.4 Gen
neralized Loa
ading and Ge
eometric Para
ameter for a Spread Shallow Foundattion
March 2009
2 5-3
Chapter 5 BE
EARING CAPAC
CITY THEORY
Y
Table 5
5.1 Bearing Capacity Facttors for Computing Ultimate Bearing Capacity of S
Shallow Foun
ndations
5-4 March
M 2009
5.1.2 Factors of Safety
The net allowable bearing pressure of a shallow foundation resting on soils is obtained by applying
a factor of safety to the net ultimate bearing capacity i.e.
q ult
qu = (5.2)
F
where
qult = ultimate net bearing capacity
qu = allowable bearing capacity
F = Factor of safety
The net ultimate bearing capacity should be taken as (qu – γ Df) where Df is the depth of soil
above the base of the foundation and γ is the bulk unit weight of the soil. The selection of the
appropriate factor of safety should consider factors such as:
(a) The frequency and likelihood of the applied loads (including different combination of dead
load and live loads) reaching the maximum design level.
(b) Soil variability, e.g. soil profiles and shear strength parameters. The ground investigation
helps increase the reliability of the site characterization.
(c) The importance of the structures and the consequences of their failures.
In general, the minimum required factor of safety against bearing failure of a shallow foundation is
in the range of 2.5 to 3.5. For most applications, a minimum factor of safety of 3.0 is adequate.
Although the factor of safety is applied to the bearing capacity at failure, it is frequently used to
limit the settlement of the foundation.
5.1.3 Effects of Groundwater
The ultimate bearing capacity depends on the effective unit weight of the soil. Where groundwater
is present, the effective stress and shear strength along failure plane will be smaller and the bearing
capacity will be reduced. The effect of groundwater is accounted for by adjusting the γ s' in equation
5.1. and the three possible cases as shown in Figure 5.2 and describe below:
a) Case 1: Dw < D
Use γ’ = γb = γ - γw where γb = weighted average buoyant unit weight
b) Case 2: D < Dw < D + B

′ Dw-D
Use w 1-
B
c) Case 3: D + B < Dw (no groundwater correction is necessary )

Use γ’ = γ
March 2009 5-5

Dw
D
Dw Dw
D+B
Lower Limit of Zone of influence
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Figure 5.5 Groundwater Cases for Bearing Capacity Analysis
5.1.4 Foundation Near Crest of Slope
An approximate method is given in Geoguide 1: Guide to Retaining Wall Design (GEO HONG KONG,
1993) to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation near the crest of a slope. The
ultimate bearing capacity can be obtained by linear interpolation between the value for the
foundation resting at the edge of the slope and that at a distance of four times the foundation
width from the crest. Equation 2.2 in section 2.2 can be used to estimate the ultimate bearing
capacity for the foundation resting on the slope crest. Figure 5.3 summarises the procedures for
the linear interpolation.
5-6 March 2009

Chapter 5 BE
EARING CAPAC
CITY THEORY
Y
Figure
e 5.6 Linear Interpolation
n Proceduress for Determining Ultimatte Bearing Ca
apacity of a Spread
S
Shallow Foundattion near thee Crest of a Slope
S
March 2009
2 5-7
REFERENCES
[1] Bishop A.V and Henkel D.J., The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test, E.Arnold,
1962.
[2] Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design. (Fourth edition). McGraw-Hill International, New
York, 1992, 1004 p.
[5] Buisman, A.S.K. Results of long duration settlement tests, Proceedings of the First
vol. 1, pp 103-101, 1931.
London
[7] CGS, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Ottawa, 1992, 512 p.
[8] Das, B.M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, PWK-Kent Publishing Company , Boston,MA.,
1990
[10] Dept. of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington D.C., NAVFAC DM-7.1, May 1982,
Soil Mechanics
Washington, DC.
Press, 374 p.
[14] GCO (1990) Review of Design Method for Excavation, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong
[15] Hansen J.B . A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity, Danish Geotechnical
Institute, Bulletin No. 28; October 1968.
[16] Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New
Jersey
[18] Ladd C.C., Foott R., Ishihara K., Schlosser F., and Roulos H.G., "Stress Deformation and
Strength Characteristics", State of the Art Report, Session I, IX ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, 1971, pp. 421
- 494.
5-8 March 2009

[20] Liao S.S.C. and Whitman R. V., Overburden Correction Factors for SPI' in Sand, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. Vol. 112 No. 3, March 1986, pp. 373 - 377.
1974.
[24] Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1974). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 411 p.
[25] Poulos, H.G., Carter, J.P. & Small, J.C. (2002). Foundations and retaining structures – research
and practice. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
[27] Skempton A.W., The Bearing Capacity of Clays, Building Res. Congress, London Inst. Civ.
Engrs., div.I:180, 1951.

297-321.
March 2009 5-9

5-10 March 2009

CHAPTER 6 SLOPE STABILITY
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................6-I

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... 6-III
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 6-III
6.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 TYPE OF SLOPE INSTABILITIES............................................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 Infinite Slope Failure .............................................................................. 6-1
6.2.2 Sliding Block Failure ............................................................................... 6-1
6.2.3 Circular Arc Failure ................................................................................. 6-2
6.3 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 6-3
6.3.1 Obtaining Subsurface Information ........................................................... 6-3
6.3.2 Determining of Soil Shear Strengths ........................................................ 6-3
6.3.3 Determining a Potential Slide Failure Surface ............................................ 6-3
6.4 PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1 Method of Analysis ................................................................................. 6-4
6.4.2 Stages of Stress Analysis ........................................................................ 6-4
6.4.2.1 Short-Term (or At-the-end-of-construction) .............................. 6-4
6.4.2.2 Long-term ............................................................................. 6-5
6.5 CIRCULAR ARC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 6-5
6.5.1 General Principles................................................................................... 6-5
6.5.2 Location of the Critical Slip Surface .......................................................... 6-6
6.5.4 Required Safety Factors .......................................................................... 6-7
6.5.5 Cut Slope in Clay .................................................................................... 6-7
6.5.6 Filled Slope/Embankment on Clay ............................................................ 6-8
6.5.7 Effects of Water ..................................................................................... 6-8
6.5.7.1 Effects on Cohesionless Soils................................................... 6-9
6.5.7.2 Effects on Cohesive Soils ........................................................ 6-9
6.5.8 Method of Slides for Circular Failure ......................................................... 6-9
6.5.9 Finite Element Methods ........................................................................ 6-11
6.6 SLIDING BLOCK FAILURE...................................................................................... 6-12
6.7 SLOPE STABILIZATION METHODS ......................................................................... 6-13
6.7.1 Slope Flattening ................................................................................... 6-13
6.7.2 Drainage ............................................................................................. 6-13
6.7.3 Buttressing or Counter Berm ................................................................. 6-14
6.7.4 Soil Nailing .......................................................................................... 6-14
March 2009 6-i

6.7.5 Geo-Synthetically Reinforcements .......................................................... 6-15

6.7.6 Retaining Walls .................................................................................... 6-15
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6-16
APPENDIX 6.A WORKED EXAMPLE: SLOPE STABILITY .................................................. 6A-1
6-ii March 2009

List of Tables
6.1 Undrained Shear Strength and Consistency of Cohesive Soils (After Terzaghi & Peck
and ASTM D2488-90) 6-5
6.2 Typical Drained Parameters For Effective Stress Analysis 6-5
6.3 Recommended Factors Of Safety 6-7
6.4 Guideline to Selection of Method of Slope Stability Analysis (After FHWA, Soils and
Foundation Reference Manual) 6-11
6.5 Summary of Results 6A-2
List of Figures
6.1 Infinite Slope Failure 6-1
6.2 Sliding Block Failure Mechanism 6-2
6.3 Example of Circular Arc Failure Mechanism 6-2
6.4 Typical Circular Arc Failure Mechanism 6-6
6.5 Relationship Of Total Stress, Pore Pressure And Time 6-8
6.6 Effects Of Water Content On Cohesive Strength 6-9
6.7 Method of Slides 6-10
6.8 Geometric And Force Components For Sliding Block Analysis 6-12
6.9 Schematic View of Slope Regrading Work 6-13
6.10 Good Drainage System Critical to Stability of Slope 6-14
6.11 Butresses or Counter Berm for Slope Stabilsation 6-14
6.12 Typical Details of Soil Nail 6-15
6.13 Related Slope Configuration 6A-1
6.14 Stability Analysis of an Embankment Uses SLOPE/W Software 6A-3
March 2009 6-iii

6-iv March 2009

Chapte
er 6 SLOPE STA
ABILITY
6 SLO
OPE STAB
BILITY
6.1 INTRO
ODUCTION
N
Slope stability
s addrresses the te endency of soil masses to attain an n equilibrium
m state betwween the
strengtth of the soil and the forcce of gravity. In JPS, slop
pe stability problems
p mosst often occuur in the
constru
uction of embankment over o soft soils, and the instability of waterway sslope (e.g. riiver and
pond) due to seep page, drawdown, or ero osion by flow wing water. Placement o of stockpiless, heavy
ment, or oth
equipm her surcharg ges may alsso cause insstabilities off the slope, particularly y during
constru
uction stage. In general,, altered slop pe, whether man-made or natural n need to be analyzed
a
and che ecked to enssure that it has adequate factor of saffety against slope failure.
The facctor of safetyy against slope failure is defined as the ratio of thhe resisting forces to the
e driving
forces tending
t to caause movem ment for a givven failure co
onfiguration. The analysiss of slope staability is
therefo
ore the analytical procedu ure of determmining the most
m critical, i.e.
i the lowesst factor of safety
s of
a given
n or proposed d slope configuration.
6.2 TYPE OF SLOPE INSTABILIITIES
In general, slope stability

s prob
blems comm
monly encoun
ntered in JP
PS can be ca
ategories intto three
types, namely:
n
6.2.1 Infiniite Slope Fa

ailure
e that extend
A slope ds for a relatiively long disstance and has a consisteent subsurfacce profile maay be
analyzeed as an infin
nite slope, se
ee Figure 6.11. The failure
e plane for th
his case is pa
arallel to the surface
of the slope
s and thee limit equilib
brium metho od can be app plied readily..
Fig
gure 6.1 Infinite Slope Fa
ailure
6.2.2 Slidin
ng Block Faiilure
Sliding block failure

e occurs whe en the wedgee type of slid
ding mass that cut througgh the fill an
nd a thin
layer off weak soil essentially
e mo
oves as a blo
ock. This conncept is as sh
hown in Figure 6.2.
March 2009
2 6-1
Chapte
er 6 SLOPE STA
ABILITY
Fill Fill
g
Sliding Material
M of Sliding
Firm
soil Ge
eneral Low
Pe
ermeability
Lens off Sand
Thin Seam of
without Friction
Weakk Clay
Fill Slidin
ng
Shallow Layer of We
eak Soil
Firm
m Soil
Fig
gure 6.2 Slidiing Block Failure Mechanism
6.2.3 Circullar Arc Failu

ure
All of the limit equilibrium meth hods require

e that a poteential slip surrface to be a
assumed in order
o to
calculatte the factorr of safety. For computa ational simplicity the slip
p surface is o
often assume
ed to be
circularr, particularlyy for relativvely homogeeneous soil condition. Calculations
C are repeate
ed for a
sufficient number of trial slip surfaces to o ensure tha at the minim mum factor of safety ha as been
obtaineed.
Circularr arc failure occurs

o when
n the ground sink down anda the adjaccent ground rises and the failure
surface
e follows a circular arc ass illustrated in Figure 6.3
3. This typee of failure sshall be discu
ussed in
more detail
d in this chapter as it is a veryy common mode
m of failu
ure especiallyy in river baank and
embankkment in sofft ground.
Figure 6.3
6 Example of Circular Arc
A Failure Me
echanism
6-2 March
M 2009
6.3 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS
In general, analysis of slope stability would involves three basic parts:
a) Obtaining subsurface information

b) Determining appropriate soil shear strengths and
c) Determining a potential slide failure surface which provides the minimum safety factor
against failure under the various conditions
6.3.1 Obtaining Subsurface Information
Previous works carried out at the site of interest generally can provide some subsurface information
which are usually indicated in the design report or construction plans. The bore logs obtained may
or may not be located close to the site and the engineer must determine if additional subsurface
information is required. Additional boring(s) at the site are generally preferable. Other completed
work in the nearby vicinity may also provide useful information. Soil type, thickness of each soil
zone, depth to bedrock, and groundwater conditions must be known to proceed with a slope
stability analysis. Reader can refer to Volume 6 Part 2 for further information on this matter.
Before any analysis being carried out, it is always advisable to carry out geomorphological mapping
of the project area. The observations during the mapping works can sometimes help significantly in
deciding the types of tests, site investigation works and strengthening measures. The tell tale signs
observed during the mapping works i.e., water seepages, ground saturation, erosion; mode of
failure (deep seated or shallow slip) can be the references in the analysis and design stage. These
geomorphologic features are always tie up with the estimation of the design parameter i.e., ground
water condition, drainage adequacy and inherent properties (existence of discontinuities) which are
difficult to retrieve from site investigation works.
6.3.2 Determining of Soil Shear Strengths
The shear strength parameters of the embankment soil are normally defined in terms of a friction
component (φ ) and a cohesion component (c). Shear strengths are usually determined from
laboratory tests performed on specimens prepared by compaction in the laboratory or undisturbed
samples obtained from exploratory soil borings. The laboratory test data may be supplemented
with in situ field tests and correlations between shear strength parameters and other soil properties
such as grain size, plasticity, and Standard Penetration Resistance (N) values. For a more detail
discussion, reader can refer to Item. 3.3 of this Part.
In general, for drained shear parameters for effective stress analysis, consolidated undrained (CU)
can be used to obtained the effective soil strength parameter i.e., effective frictional angle φ‘ and
effective cohesion c’. Shear box test can also be used in determining the strength parameter. The
shear box sample shall be soaked in water for saturation and the shear rate shall be low to avoid
misleading results. High cohesion (sometimes as high as 10kPa) and low frictional angle are the
common error obtained from such tests if the saturation procedure is omitted.
6.3.3 Determining a Potential Slide Failure Surface
All of the limit equilibrium methods require that a potential slip surface to be assumed in order to
calculate the factor of safety. Circular slip surfaces can be assumed if the soil conditions are
revealed to be relatively homogeneous. If the soil conditions are not homogeneous or if geologic
anomalies appear, slope failures may occur on non-circular slip surfaces. The shape of the failure
surface will depend on the problem geometry and stratigraphy, material characteristics (especially
anisotropy), and the capabilities of the analysis procedure used. Commercially available computer
March 2009 6-3

programs such as SLOPE/W and STABL, which offer several analysis procedures, are useful for
slope stability assessment.
6.4 PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS
6.4.1 Method of Analysis
The methods for analysis of slope stability broadly used in engineering practice are limit equilibrium
methods and finite element methods. The limit equilibrium method of slope stability analysis is
used to evaluate the equilibrium of a soil mass tending to move down slope under the influence of
gravity. A comparison is made between forces, moments, or stresses tending to cause instability of
the mass, and those that resist instability. Two-dimensional (2-D) sections are analyzed and plane
strain conditions are assumed. These methods assume that the shear strengths of the materials
along the potential failure surface are governed by linear (Mohr-Coulomb) or nonlinear relationships
between shear strength and the normal stress on the failure surface.
Where estimates of movements as well as factor of safety are required to achieve design
objectives, the effort required to perform finite element analysis can be justified. However, finite
element analysis requires considerably more time and effort, compared to the limit equilibrium
analysis and additional data related to stress-strain behavior of materials. Therefore, the use of
finite element analysis is not justified for the sole purpose of calculating factors of safety.
6.4.2 Stages of Stress Analysis
As mentioned in Para 3.3, shear strength of the soil varies with time. Thus, in slope stability
analysis, it is important for the designer to understand and determine at which point in time i.e.
before, during or after construction that is more critical and yield the lowest factor of safety.
Generally, the two conditions considered are:
6.4.2.1 Short-Term (or At-the-end-of-construction)
Analyses of the short-term condition of stability are normally performed in terms of total stress
(using undrained shear strength parameters), with the assumption that any pore water pressure set
up by the construction activity will not dissipate at all. However, in some construction works such as
large earth dams or embankments, the construction period is relatively long, and some dissipation
of the excess pore water pressure is likely. Under these conditions, a total stress analysis would
yield a value of factor of safety on the low side, possibly resulting in un-economic design.
For undrained shear strength of saturated soil, φ can be assumed as zero and knowledge of the
pore water pressure (i.e. the phreatic line) is not necessary since total stress can be expressed
independently of effective stress at failure. For instance, the total stress analysis must be used for
the construction of coastal bund in soft clay and it usually gives the worst critical factor of safety.
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Triaxial test is usually used to obtain the undrained strength
parameter of the soil. Extra care shall be given during the test when the soil samples are not fully
saturated. For soft to very soft clay such as coastal alluvium clay, in-situ strength test using in-situ
vane shear test should be used to determine the undrained shear strength. Typical values of
undrained shear strength for Malaysia coastal alluvium clay ranges from 10 to 20 kPa.
Table 6.1 gives some typical values of undrained shear strength, c which may be used for
preliminary analysis or to check laboratory test results
6-4 March 2009

Table 6.1 Undrained Shear Strength and Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Undrained Shear
Consistency Visual Identification
Strength, Su (kPa)
Very soft < 12 Thumb can penetrate more than 25 mm
Soft 12 – 25 Thumb can penetrate about 25 mm
Thumb can penetrate with moderate
Medium 25 -50
effort
Stiff 50 – 100 Thumb will indent soil about 8 mm
Thumb will not indent but readily indent
Very stiff 100 – 200
with thumbnail
(After Terzaghi & Peck and ASTM D2488-90)
6.4.2.2 Long-term
Long-term stability analysis is normally carried out using effective stress analysis with drained shear
strength parameters. For cohesive or clayey soil, total stress analysis (for short-term) in addition to
the effective stress analysis (for long-term) are carried out to determine the most critical factor of
safety. As granular or sandy soils are more permeable than cohesive or clayey soils, drainage of
excess pore pressure in sandy soil occurs much more rapidly. Hence, only effective stress analysis is
usually required.
Effective stress analysis requires the estimation of the drained strength parameters c’, φ’ and pore
pressures. For pure free draining sands, φ = φ’ and c = 0. Under conditions of steady seepage, the
phreatic line can be obtained from the flow net.
Some common drained strength parameters, φ' and c’ adopted in the slope analysis are as follows:-
Table 6.2 Typical Drained Parameters For Effective Stress Analysis
Soil type Effective friction angle φ‘ Effective cohesion c’

Well compacted soil 28o – 30o 2 – 5 kPa
Residual soil grade V to VI 30o – 32o 5 – 10kPa
Residual soil grade IV to V 32o – 35o 10 – 15kPa
Note:-
• The values above are just for references. Test shall be carried out before any
analysis is carried out. It is advisable to limit the cohesion to not more than
15kPa even with lab test results. The cohesion shows in test are sometimes
apparent and the changes are subjected to external factors i.e., weathering
process etc
• Description of grade of residual soil:
Grade VI = residual soil : Grade V = completely weathered rock ; Grade IV =
highly weathered
6.5 CIRCULAR ARC ANALYSIS
6.5.1 General Principles
Figure 6.4 shows a potential slide mass defined by a predetermined circular arc slip surface. If the
shear resistance of the soil along the slip surface exceeds that necessary to provide equilibrium, the
mass is stable. If the shear resistance is insufficient, the mass is unstable. Thus, the stability or
instability of the mass depends on its weight, the external forces acting on it, the shear strengths
March 2009 6-5

and pore-water pressures along the slip surface.
Circular arc slip surface is often used because it simplifies the calculations by just conveniently
summing up the moments or forces about the center of the circle. Also, circular slip surfaces are
generally sufficient for analyzing relatively homogeneous embankments or slopes.
Lw Center
Fill
Weight
Fill Surface Force Ls
after Failure
Failure
Case
Soft Clay
Resistance Sum of Shear Strength

Force along Arc
Figure 6.4 Typical Circular Arc Failure Mechanism
The requirement for static equilibrium of the soil mass are used to compute a factor of safety with
respect to shear strength. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the available shear
resistance to the driving force that can cause movement of the slope. In Figure 6.4, the factor of
safety (FOS) is
Resisting Moment Total shear strength x Ls

FOS = = (6.1)
Driving Moment Weight force × Lw
Limit equilibrium analysis assumes the factor of safety is the same along the entire slip surface. A
value of factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates that shear resistance exceeds the required for
equilibrium and that the slope will be stable with respect to sliding along the assumed particular slip
surface analyzed. A value of factor of safety less than 1.0 indicates that the slope will be unstable.
6.5.2 Location of the Critical Slip Surface
The critical slip surface is defined as the surface with the lowest factor of safety. Because different
methods of analysis like Bishop’s, Janbu’s and Spencer’s adopt different assumptions, the location
of the critical slip surface can vary among different methods of analysis. The critical slip surface for
a given problem analyzed by a given method is found by a systematic procedure of generating trial
slip surfaces until the one with the minimum factor of safety is obtained. Searching schemes may
vary with the assumed shape of the slip surface and the computer program used.
All external loadings imposed on the embankment or ground surface should be represented in slope
stability analysis, including loads imposed by water pressures, structures, surcharge loads, anchor
forces, or other causes.
6-6 March 2009

6.5.4 Required Safety Factors
Appropriate factors of safety are required to ensure adequate performance of embankments

throughout their design lives. Two of the most important considerations that determine appropriate
magnitudes for factor of safety are uncertainties in the conditions being analyzed, including shear
strengths and consequences of failure (both economic loss and loss of life) or unacceptable
performance.
The values of factor of safety listed in Table 6.3 provide a guidance and are not prescribed for
slopes of embankment dams. Higher or lower values might be warranted in respect of the degree of
uncertainties in the conditions being analyzed, economic loss and loss of life.
Table 6.3 Recommended Factors Of Safety

End of construction Long-term (steady- Rapid
Type of slopes 3
(short-term) stage seepage) drawdown
1. Embankment and 4
1.3 1.4 1.1 – 1.2
Natural Slope 1
2 4
2. Cut or Excavated Slope 1.3 1.4 1.1 - 1.2
Notes
1. Applicable to filling for river bank, water retention facilities, levees, sea wall, stockpiles, earth
retaining works. It also includes natural slopes such as river bank and valley slopes.
2. Applicable to excavated slope including foundation excavation, excavated river and retention
facilities, sea wall and other earth retaining works.
3. Rapid drawdown occurs when it is assumed that drawdown is very fast, and no drainage
occurs in materials with low permeability; thus the term “sudden” drawdown.
4. For submerged or partially submerged slopes, the possibility of low water events and rapid
drawdown should be considered. FOS of 1.1 to 1.2 for rapid drawdown recommended here are for
cases where rapid drawdown represents an infrequent loading condition. In cases where rapid
drawdown represents a frequent loading condition, as in river bank subjected fluctuations in water
level and pumped storage projects, the factor of safety should be higher.
6.5.5 Cut Slope in Clay
For cut slope, the effective stress reduces with time owing to the stress relief after removal of load.
This reduction will allow the clay to expand and absorb water, which will lead to a decrease in the
clay strength with time. For this reason, the factor of safety of a cut slope in clay may decrease
with time. Cut slopes in clay should be designed by using effective strength parameters and the
effective stresses that will exist in the soil after the pore pressures have come into equilibrium
under steady seepage condition.
These changes in the values of total stress and pore pressure with time are shown here in Figure
6.5(a).
March 2009 6-7

σ’ σ
a u
Increase in pore pressure
Excavation/cut Time
b σ
σ’
u
decrease in pore pressure
Construction/fill Time
Figure 6.5 Relationship Of Total Stress, Pore Pressure And Time
During slope cutting, frequent inspections and mapping shall be carried out by experience geologist
to ensure no adverse “inherent” geological features i.e., soil bedding, relicts and rock discontinuities
(if rock cutting). If these adverse features are found on slope outcrop, strengthening measures
such as soil nailing can be specified to improve the stability of the slope. Horizontal drains can be
installed at areas where water seepages are found during cutting to lower the ground water table.
Always avoid cutting slope with large catchment behind the slope. Area with large catchment
always associated with high ground water table. If it is unavoidable, Horizontal drains and deep
trench drains shall be included in the design to lower the ground water table
6.5.6 Filled Slope/Embankment on Clay
Excess pore water pressures are created when fills are placed on clay or silt. Provided the applied
loads do not cause the undrained shear strength of the clay or silt to be exceeded, as the excess
pore water pressure dissipates consolidation will occur, and the shear strength increases with time
as illustrated in Figure 6.5(b). For this reason, the factor of safety increases with time under the
load of the fill. Hence, the most critical state for the stability of an filled embankment is normally
the short-term or end-of-construction condition where total stress analysis with undrained shear
parameters are required.
6.5.7 Effects of Water
Besides gravity, water (both surface and ground water) is a major factor in slope instability. In
addition, ground water table induced failure is always deep seated and catastrophic. Ground water
table is one of the most difficult parameter to be assumed or estimated. Hence, if necessary
standpipes or piezometers can be installed to monitori and ascertain the fluatuation and worst
ground water levels to be used either in design or verification of design.
If the slope is subjected to inundation and changes in the water levels such as dam, pond, or river
subjected to tidal effects, the designer should consider the possible effects of rapid draw down of
water levels in the stability analysis. For rapid drawdown analysis of soils with low permeability (less
than 10-4 cm/sec), it is assumed that the drop in water level is so fast that no drainage can occur in
the soil. For this prupose, drained strengths with appropriate phreatic line are used for stability
analysis.
6-8 March 2009

Instability of natural slopes is often related to high internal water pressures associated with wet
weather periods. It is appropriate to analyze such conditions as long-term, steady-state seepage
conditions, using drained strengths and the highest probable position of the piezometric surface
within the slope.
6.5.7.1 Effects on Cohesionless Soils
In cohesionless soils, water does not affect the angle of internal friction (φ ’). The effect of water
on cohesionless soils below the water table is to decrease the intergranular stress between soil
grains (efffective normal stress, σn'), which decreases the frictional shearing resistance.
6.5.7.2 Effects on Cohesive Soils
An increase in absorbed moisture is a major factor in the decrease in strength of cohesive soils as
shown schematically in Figure 6.6. Water absorbed by clay minerals causes increased water
contents that decrease the cohesion of clayey soils. These effects are amplified if the clay mineral
happens to be expansive, e.g., montmorillonite. Some weak rocks such as shales, claystones, and
siltstones tend to disintegrate into a clay soil if water is allowed to percolate into them. This
transformation from rock to clay often leads to settlement and/or shear failure of the slope.
cohesive strength
water content
Figure 6.6 Effects Of Water Content On Cohesive Strength
6.5.8 Method of Slides for Circular Failure
For slope stability analysis, the method of dividing the soil mass into vertical slides is most
commonly used and illustrated in Figure 6.5 (a). The forces acting on each slide is shown in Figure
6.7 (b)
March 2009 6-9

(a) Method of Slides
(b) Forces on a slide with effect of water
Figure 6.7 Method of Slides
Fellenius’s method of slides is one of the oldest methods used. Subsequently, several other
methods basing on the method of slides were developed which include Bishop’s Simplified Method,
Janbu’s Simplified Method, Morgenstern and Price’s Method and Spencer’s Method. Fellenius’s
method is normally more conservative and gives unrealistically lower factors of safety than other
more refined methods. The only reason this method is discussed here is to demonstrate the basic
principles of slope stability. Reader can refer to Appendix A Example A.1 on the application of
Fellenius’s Method of slides in deriving the factor of safety.
Various methods may result in different values of factor of safety because:
(a) the various methods employ different assumptions to make the problem statically
determinate
(b) some of the methods do not satisfy all conditions of equilibrium.
6-10 March 2009

Table 6.4 Guideline to Selection of Method of Slope Stability Analysis (After FHWA, Soils and
Foundation Reference Manual)
Foundation Type of
Source of Strength Parameters Remarks (see Note 1)
Soil Type Analysis
Short-term or • UU or field vane shear test Use Bishop Method. An angle of
end of or CU triaxial test. internal friction should not be
construction • Undrained strength used to represent an increase of
parameters tested at p0 shear strength with depth.
(ground overburden stress)
Stage Use Bishop Method at each
construction • CU triaxial test. Some stage of embankment height.
(embankment samples should be Consider that clay shear
s on soft clays consolidated to higher than strength will increase with
– build existing in-situ stress to consolidation under each stage.
embankment determine clay strength gain Consolidation test data needed
in stages with due to consolidation under to estimate length of waiting
waiting staged fill heights. periods between embankment
periods to • Use undrained strength stages. Piezometers and
Cohesive take parameters at appropriate p0 settlement devices should be
advantage of for staged height used to monitor pore water
clay strength pressure dissipation and
gain due to consolidation during
consolidation construction
Long-term • CU triaxial test with pore Use Bishop Method with
(embankment water pressure combination of cohesion and
on soft clays measurements or CD triaxial angle of internal friction
and clay cut test. (effective strength parameters
slopes. • Use effective strength from laboratory test).
parameters.
• Direct shear or direct simple Use Bishop, Janbu or Spencer
shear test. Slow strain rate Method to duplicate previous
Existing failure
and large deflection needed. shear surface.
planes
• Use residual strength
parameters.
• Obtain effective friction Use Bishop Method with an
angle from charts of effective stress analysis.
standard penetration
Granular All types
resistance (SPT) versus
friction angle or from direct
shear tests.
Note 1: Methods recommended represent minimum requirement. More rigorous methods such as
Spencer’s method should be used when a computer program has such capabilities.
6.5.9 Finite Element Methods
The finite element methods can be used to compute stresses and displacements in earth structures
caused by applied loads. The method is particularly useful for soil-structure interaction problems, in
which structural members interact with a soil mass. The stability of a slope cannot be determined
directly from finite element analysis, but the computed stresses in a slope can be used to compute
a factor of safety. Use of the finite element methods for stability problems is a complex and time-
consuming process.
March 2009 6-11

Finite element analysis can provide estimates of displacements and construction pore water
pressures. This is useful for the field control of construction works, or when there is concern for
damage to adjacent structures. If the displacements and pore water pressures measured in the
field differ greatly from those computed, the reason for the difference should be investigated.
Finite element analysis provides displacement pattern which may show potential and possibly
complex failure mechanisms. The validity of the factor of safety obtained from limit equilibrium
analysis depends on locating the most critical potential slip surfaces. In complex conditions, it is
often difficult to anticipate failure modes, particularly if reinforcement or structural members such
as geotextiles, concrete retaining walls, or sheet piles are included. Once a potential failure
mechanism is recognized, the factor of safety against a shear failure developing by that mode can
be computed using conventional limit equilibrium procedures.
Finite element analysis provides estimates of mobilized stresses and forces. The finite element
method may be particularly useful in judging what strengths should be used when materials have
very dissimilar stress-strain and strength properties, i.e., where strain compatibility is an issue.
The finite element methods can help to identify local regions where “overstress” may occur and
cause cracking in brittle and strain softening materials.
6.6 SLIDING BLOCK FAILURE
Block slide failure mechanisms are defined by dividing into straight line segments defining an active
wedge, central block, and passive wedge. An example of the wedge is shown in Figure 6.8
Figure 6.8 Geometric And Force Components For Sliding Block Analysis
6-12 March 2009

The factor of safety for the wedge can be and computed by:
Horizontal Resisting Forces Pp + cL

FOS = = (6.2)
Horizontal Driving forces Pa
Pa = Active force (driving)

Pp = Passive force (resisting)
cL = Resisting force due to cohesive clay
For method of computation of the active force and passive forces reader can refer to the Chapter 7
on retaining wall.
6.7 SLOPE STABILIZATION METHODS
Slope stabilization methods generally aim to reduce driving forces, increase resisting forces, or
both. Driving forces can be reduced by excavation of materials from appropriate part of the
unsuitable ground and drainage of water to reduce the hydrostatic pressures acting on the unstable
zone. Resisting forces can be increased by introducing soil reinforcements, such as soil nails and
geo-synthetic materials, and retaining structures or other supports.
6.7.1 Slope Flattening
Slope flattening is a common method for increasing the stability of a slope by reducing the driving
forces that contribute to movements. Often, it is the first option to be considered when stabilizing a
slope.
Existing Slope Profile
Regrading Slope Profile
Figure 6.9 Schematic View of Slope Regrading Work
6.7.2 Drainage
Surface (berm, toe, interceptor, and cascade drains) and subsurface (horizontal drains and gravel
trenches) drainages are essential for treatment of any slide or potential slide. Proper drainage
system can reduce the destabilizing hydrostatic and seepage forces on a slope as well as the risk of
erosion.
March 2009 6-13

Chapte
er 6 SLOPE STA
ABILITY
For surface draina ages, cast in n-situ drainss (both berm m drains an
nd cut off d drains) are strongly
recomm mended to avoid
a possible water inffiltration thro
ough the po
oorly constru
ucted gaps between
b
precastt drain sectioons. V-shapee drain should be used due to the efffect of “self cleaning” ev
ven with
little wa
ater in the drrain.
F
Figure 6.10 Good
G Drainag
ge System Critical
C to Stability of Slop
pe
6.7.3 Buttre
essing or Counter
C Berrm
Buttresssing is a te
echnique useed to offset or counter the driving forces of a slope by ex xternally
applied
d force systemm that increa
ases the resisting forces. Buttressess may consist of soil or ro
ock fills,
and cou unterweight berms.
Co
ounter berm
Figure 6.11 Butresses or Counter Be

erm for Slope
e Stabilsation
n
6.7.4 Soil Nailing

N
Soil nailing is a me ethod of in-siitu reinforcement utilizing passive incclusions thatt will be mob
bilized if
movem ment occurs. It can be used to reta ain excavatioons and stabbilize slopes by creatingg in-situ,
reinforcced, soil reta
aining structu
ures.
6-14 March
M 2009
Chapte
er 6 SLOPE STA
ABILITY
Ste
eel plate
Soil face
Sho
otcrete facing
g einforcement
Main re
Figure 6.12 Typical

T Details of Soil Nail
6.7.5 Geo-S
Synthetically Reinforc
cements
Geo-synthetic soil reinforcemen nt, such as geo-grid an nd geotextilee, is anotherr technique used to
e slopes. Fo
stabilize or high emb bankment on n soft ground d, the appliccation of geo
o-synthetic i..e., high
strengtth geotextile or geogrid iss required att the base off the embankkment to enh hance the staability of
the embankment.
6.7.6 Retaining Walls
The mo ost common use of retaining walls for f slope sta abilization is when cut orr fill is required and
there iss not sufficie
ent space or right-of-way available for just the slo
ope itself. Gravity and caantilever
retainin
ng walls are most comm mon adopted d. Examples of wall use ed are reinfoorced concre ete wall,
sheet pile
p wall, gab bions wall, criib walls.
March 2009
2 6-15
REFERENCES
E.Arnold, 1962.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
London
[6] CGS, “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual”, (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical

Boston,MA., 1990
[11] Duncan, J. M., Buchignani, A. L., and DWet, M., An Engineering Manual for Slope Stability
Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1987.
[13] EM 1110-2-1902. Engineering and Design of Slope Stability, U.S. Army Corp of Engineer,
[14] GCO (1984). Geotechnical Manual for Slope”. (Second Edition). Geotechnical Control Office,
Hong Kong
[15] GCO (1990) Review of Design Method for Excavation, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong
Kong
New Jersey
[17] Huang Y.H., Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.
- 494.
6-16 March 2009

[19] Lambe T.W. and Whitman R.V., "Soil Mechanics", John Wiley 8: Sons, 1969
[20] McCarthy D.J., "Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations".
[21] Mesri G., discussion of "New Design Procedure for stability of Soft Clays". by Charles C. Ladd
Paper 10664. April 1975. pp. 409 - 412.
[23] Nakashima, E., Tabara, K. & Maeda, Y.C. (1985). Theory and design of foundations on
slopes. Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, no. 355, pp 41-52. (In Japanese).
1974.
pp 2.13-2.72.
[29] Skempton A.W. and D.H. McDonald, "The Allowable Settlement of Buildings", Proc. Inst. Civil
Eng., Vo1.5 Pt.3. 1956, pp. 727-784.
[34] Huang Y.H., Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.
March 2009 6-17

6-18 March 2009

APPENDIX 6.A WORKED EXAMPLE: SLOPE STABILITY
A.1 Problem
The worked example presented herein illustrates the application of stability analysis by way of
the Fellenius method of slices to determine the factor of safety in terms of effective stresses.
The related slope configuration is shown in Figure 6.13 below.
Figure 6.13 Related Slope Configuration
The applicable soil properties and strength parameters are given as follows:
i. Soil unit weight (above & below water table), γs = 20 kN/m3

ii. Effective cohesion, c’ = 10 kN/m2
iii. Effective angle of shearing resistance, φ’ = 29°
iv. The soil mass is divided into slices of 1.5m wide sing the
expression below (Eqn. 3.1), the resulting factor of
safety is established as follows.
c'La + tan ' ∑ W cos α-ul

F= ∑ W sin α
(6.3)
Solution:
i. The weight of each slice, W = γsbh

= 20 x 1.5 x h
= 30h kN/m
March 2009 6A-1

ii. The height of each slice is set off below the centre of the base, and the
normal and tangential components, h cos α and h sin α respectively are
determined graphically as shown in Figure 3.3. Thus:
W cos α = 30h cos α

W sin α = 30h sin α
iii. The pore water pressure at the centre of the base of each slice is taken to be
γwzw, where zw is the vertical distance of the centre point below the water
table (Fig 3.3 refers). [Note: This procedure slightly overestimates the pore
water pressure, which strictly should be γwze, where ze is the vertical
distance below the point of intersection of the water table and the
equipotential through the centre of the slice base. The error involved is
however, on the safe side].
iv. From Figure 6.13, the overall arc length, La is calculated as 14.35m. v.
The results are summarised in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.5 Summary of Results
h cos α h sin α u l u.l

Slice No.
(m) (m) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m)
1 0.75 - 0.15 5.9 1.55 9.1
2 1.80 - 0.10 11.8 1.50 17.7
3 2.70 0.40 11.2 1.55 25.1
4 3.25 1.00 18.1 1.10 29.0
5 3.45 1.75 17.1 1.70 29.1
6 3.10 2.35 11.3 1.95 22.0
7 1.90 2.25 0 2.35 0
8 0.55 0.95 0 2.15 0
17.50 8.45 14.35 132.0
vi. Hence:
Σ W cos α = 30 x 17.50 = 525 kN/m
Σ W sin α = 30 x 8.45 = 254 kN/m
Σ (W cos α - ul) = 525 – 132 = 393 kN/m
c' La + tan ' ∑ W cos α-ul

F= ∑ W sin α
10x14.35 +(0.554x393)
=
254
143.5+218
=
254
= 1.42
6A-2 March 2009

A.2 PROBLEM
Figure 6.14 shows a slope stability analysis of an embankment on soft clay using a commercial
software; SLOPE/W. The soil stratums are as illustrated in Figure 6.14. In order to increase the
factor of safety, two layers of high strength geotextiles were adopted. For embankment on soft
soils, undrained condition is adopted.
Figure 6.14 Stability Analysis of an Embankment Uses SLOPE/W Software
March 2009 6A-3

6A-4 March 2009

CHAPTER 7 RETAINING WALL
Table of Contents
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………...…7-i
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 7-II
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 7-II
7.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 TYPE OF RETAINING WALLS.......................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 SHEAR STRENGTH – LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP..................................... 7-2
7.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE........................................................................................... 7-4
7.4.1 At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure .......................................................................... 7-4
7.4.2 Active and Passive Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................ 7-5
7.4.2.1 Rankine’s Theory ............................................................................ 7-5
7.4.2.2 Coulomb’s Theory ........................................................................... 7-8
7.4.2.3 Effects of Wall Friction..................................................................... 7-9
7.4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure Due to Ground Water ................................................... 7-14
7.4.4 Lateral Pressure from Surchage ...................................................................... 7-14
7.5 STABILITY OF RIGID RETAINING WALL ....................................................................... 7-17
7.5.1 Sliding/Translational Stability ......................................................................... 7-19
7.5.2 Overturning Stability...................................................................................... 7-19
7.5.3 Bearing Capacity Failure ................................................................................ 7-20
7.5.4 Global Stability .............................................................................................. 7-20
7.5.5 Selection of Backfill Materials ......................................................................... 7-21
7.5.6 Design Wall Drainage System ......................................................................... 7-21
7.5.7 Design Example – Gravity/Cantilever Reinforced Concrete Wall ......................... 7-23
7.6 FLEXIBLE WALL SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 7-25
7.6.1 General ........................................................................................................ 7-25
7.6.2 Types of Flexible Walls .................................................................................. 7-26
7.6.3 Sheet Pile Wall .............................................................................................. 7-27
7.6.3.3 Design of Anchor - General ............................................................ 7-30
7.6.3.4 Some Considerations on Sheet Pile Wall Design ............................... 7-31
7.6.3.3 Cantilever Steel Sheet Pile Retaining Wall - Example ....................... 7-33
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 7-38
March 2009 7-i

List of Tables

7.1 Wall Displacements Required to Develop Active and Passive Earth Pressures
(Wu, 1975) 7-5
7.3 Calculation Table 7-24
7.4 Permissible Steel Stress of Sheet Pile 7-32
List of Figures

7.1 Forces Acting On Retaining Wall And Common Terminology 7-1
7.2 Type of Retaining Walls 7-2
7.3 State of Stress on a Soil Element Subjected to Stresses Induced by Wall
Deformation 7-3
7.4 The relationship between Ka, Kp, and Ko 7-4
7.5 Development of Rankine Active and Passive Failure Zones for a Smooth Retaining
Wall 7-6
7.7 Schematic Of Coulomb’s Theory Plane Failure Wedge of Soil 7-8
7.8 Comparison of Plane and Log-Spiral Failure Surfaces 7-10
7.9 Passive Coefficients for Sloping Wall with Wall Friction and Horizontal Backfill 7-11
7.10 Passive Coefficients for Vertical Wall with Wall Friction and Sloping Backfill 7-12
7.11 Lateral Pressure Coefficient Chart for Granular Soil with Sloping Backfill 7-13
7.12 General Distribution of Combined Active Earth Pressure and Water Pressure 7-14
7.13 Lateral Pressure Due to Surcharge Loadings (after USS Steel, 1975) 7-16
7.14 Potential Failure of a Rigid Retaining Wall 7-17
7.15 Design Criteria for Rigid Retaining Walls (NAVFAC 1986) 7-18
7.16 Typical Mode of Global Stability 7-20
7.17 Potential Source of Subsurface Water 7-22
7.19 Determining the Maximum and Minimum Pressures under the Base of the
Cantilever Retaining Wall 7-23
7.20 Typical Failure Mode of a Flexible Wall 7-25
7.21 Type of Sheet Pile Walls 7-27
7.22 Lateral Pressures Distribution for Fixed-End Method of Design of Cantilever
Sheet Pile Wall in Granular Soils 7-29
7.24 Various types of Anchoring for sheet pile walls 7-31
7-ii March 2009

7 RETAINING WALL
7.1 GENERAL
Generally the main application of retaining wall is to hold back earth and maintain a difference in
the elevation of the ground surface. The retaining wall is designed to withstand the forces exerted
by the retained ground or “backfill” and other externally applied loads without excessive
deformation or movement, and to transmit these forces safely to a foundation and to a portion of
the restraining elements, if any, located beyond the failure surface. Figure 7.1 illustrated the forces
acting on a retaining wall and some of the related terminology commonly used in retaining wall
design.
Special considerations are often necessary for retaining walls to be constructed close to land
boundaries, particularly in urban areas. Land take requirement for construction often place
limitations on the use of certain forms of earth retention. The cost of constructing a retaining wall is
usually high compared with the cost of forming a new slope. Therefore, the need for a retaining
wall should be assessed carefully during design.
Figure 7.1 Forces Acting On Retaining Wall And Common Terminology
7.2 TYPE OF RETAINING WALLS
The rigidity or flexibility of a wall system is fundamental to the understanding of the development of
earth pressures and the analysis of the wall stability. In simple terms, a wall is considered to be rigid
if it moves as a unit in rigid body rotation and/or translation and does not experience bending
deformation. Most gravity walls can be considered rigid walls. Flexible walls are those that undergo
bending deformations in addition to rigid body motion. Such deformations result in a redistribution of
lateral pressures from the more flexible to the stiffer portions of the system. Virtually all wall
systems, except gravity walls, may be considered to be flexible.
March 2009 7-1

Some of the typical retaining walls are as shown in Figure 7.2
Cantilever
Gravity Element
Braced
Tied-back (Anchored)
Sheet Piling
Counterfort wall Sheet Pile Wall
Reinforced Soil Soil Nailing
Figure 7.2 Type of Retaining Walls
7.3 SHEAR STRENGTH – LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP
The concept of lateral pressure is related to the effective stress and shear strength discussed in
Chapter 3, Item 3.2 to 3.4. It is recommended that reader should review the principles of effective
stress shear strength before proceeding further in this Chapter.
7-2 March 2009

The concept of lateral earth pressure acting on a wall can be explained based on the basic of the
wall deformation. Consider an element of soil within a dry coarse-grained cohesionless soil mass.
The geostatic effective stress on an element at any depth, z. would be as shown in Figure 7.3(a).
Since the ground is not disturbed without any deformation, it is regarded as ‘at-rest’ condition. The
coefficient of lateral pressure for this condition is termed as K0.
Assume that a hypothetical, infinitely thin, infinitely rigid “wall” is inserted into the soil without
changing the “at rest” stress condition in the soil as shown in Figure 7.3 (b). Now suppose that the
hypothetical vertical wall move slightly to the left, i.e., away from the soil element as shown in
Figure 7.3(c). In this condition, the vertical stress would remain unchanged. However, since the
soil is cohesionless and cannot stand vertically on its own, it actively follows the wall. In this event,
the horizontal stress decreases, which implies that the lateral earth pressure coefficient is less than
Ko since the vertical stress remains unchanged. When this occurs the soil is said to be in the
“active” state. The lateral earth pressure coefficient at this condition is called the “coefficient of
active earth pressure”, Ka.
δa δp
po po po po
ph=Kopo ph=Kopo ph=Kapo ph=Kppo
Figure 7.3 State of Stress on a Soil Element Subjected to Stresses Induced by Wall Deformation (a)
In-situ vertical and horizontal stresses (b) Insertion of hypothetical infinitely thin and infinitely rigid
(c) Active contition of wall movement away from retained soil (d) Passive contition of wall
movement toward retained soil
Now, instead of moving away from the soil, suppose the hypothetical vertical wall move to the right
into the soil element as shown in Figure 7.3 (d). Again, the vertical stress would remain unchanged.
However, the soil behind the wall passively resists the tendency for it to move, i.e., the horizontal
stress would increase, which implies that the lateral earth pressure coefficient would become
greater than Ko since the vertical stress remains unchanged. When this occurs the soil is said to be
in the “passive” state. The lateral earth pressure coefficient at this condition is called the “coefficient
of passive earth pressure,” Kp.
The relationship between Ka, Kp, and Ko can best be illustrated graphically by Figure 7.4 below.
March 2009 7-3

K
K Kp ((Passive limit)
Kp Passive limit)
KoKo ((at
atrest)
rest )
( (Not
not aa failure
failure limit)
limit )
Ka
Ka((Active
activelimit)
limit )
δ δ,,lateral
lateralsoil
soil movement
movement
Figure 7.4 The relationship between Ka, Kp, and Ko
7.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
7.4.1 At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure
The at-rest earth pressure condition in Figure 7.3(a) and (b) represents the lateral effective stress
that exists in a natural soil in its undisturbed state. For cut walls constructed in near normally
consolidated soils, the at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko, can be approximated by the equation
(Jaky, 1944):
Ko = 1 – sin φ′ (7.1)
where φ′ is the effective (drained) friction angle of the soil.
The magnitude of the at-rest earth pressure coefficient is primarily a function of soil shear strength
and degree of overconsolidation, which, as indicated in Chapter 4, may result from natural geologic
processes for retained natural ground or from compaction effects for backfill soils. In
overconsolidated soils, Ko can be estimated as (Schmidt, 1966):
Ω
Ko = (1 − sin ′)(OCR) (7.2)
where Ω is a dimensionless coefficient, which, for most soils, can be taken as sin φ′ (Mayne and
Kulhawy, 1982) and OCR is the overconsolidation ratio. Typical values of K0 are as shown below:
Normally consolidated clay, Ko = 0.55 to 0.65

Lightly overconsolidated clays (OCR ≤ 4) Ko = up to 1
Heavily overconsolidated clays (OCR > 4) Ko = > 2 (Brooker and Ireland, 1965)
Sand Ko = 0.4 to 0.5
7-4 March 2009

At-Rest condition may be appropriate for heavily preloaded, stiff wall systems. However, at-rest
conditions are not typically used for flexible wall systems such as steel sheet-pile wall, where the wall
undergoes some lateral deformation and designing to a requirement of zero movement is not
practical.
7.4.2 Active and Passive Lateral Earth Pressures
Active earth pressure (condition in Figure 7.3(c)) occurs when the wall moves away from the soil
and the soil mass stretches horizontally sufficient to mobilize its shear strength fully, and a condition
of plastic equilibrium is reached. The ratio of the horizontal component or active pressure to the
vertical stress is the active pressure coefficient Ka.
Passive earth pressure occurs when a soil mass is compressed horizontally, mobilizing its shear
resistance fully. The ratio of the horizontal component of passive pressure to the vertical stress is
the passive pressure coefficient, Kp.
The amount of movement necessary to reach the plastic equilibrium conditions is dependent
primarily on the type of backfill material. Some guidance on these movements is given in Table 7.1
Table 7.1 Wall Displacements Required to Develop Active and Passive Earth Pressures
Necessary Displacement
Soil Type and Condition
Active Passive
Dense Cohesiveless 0.001H 0.02H
Loose Cohesiveless 0.004H 0.06H
Siff Cohesive 0.01H 0.02 H
Soft Cohesive 0.02H 0.04H
Note : H = Wall Height
(Source: Wu, 1975)
There are two well-known classical lateral earth pressure theories i.e. Rankine’s and Coulomb’s.
Each furnishes expressions for active and passive pressures for a soil mass at the state of failure.
7.4.2.1 Rankine’s Theory
Rankine’s Theory is based on the assumptions that the wall introduces no changes in the shearing
stresses at the surface of contact between the wall and the soil. It is also assumed that the ground
surfaces is a straight line (horizontal or inclined straight line) and that a plane failure surface
develops.
March 2009 7-5

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Figure 7.5 Developme

ent of Rankine
e Active and Passive
P Failurre Zones for a
Smooth RRetaining Walll
When the e Rankine sta

ate of failure has
h been reacched, active and
a passive fa ailure zones will
w develop as
a
shown inn Figure 7.5. The coefficient of active
e and passive e earth presssure are exprressed by the
following
g equations:
- -
(7.3))
-
-
(7.4))
- -
Where
= the slopin
ng angle of thhe backfill beh
hind the wall
Ka = the active
e earth pressu ure coefficientt
Kp = the passivve earth preeesure coefficie
ent
φ = the effecttive frictional angle of the soil
Note that for the case

e of cohesionless soil on levvel backfill, th
hesse equatio
ons are reduce
ed to
-
Ka = tan2 (45 - ) (7.5))
Kp = tan2 (45 - ) (7.6))

-
Thus, witthout conside

ering the grou
und water levvel, the distrib
bution of late
eral earth pre
essures can be
assumedd to be triangn
nular (see Fig
gure 7.6) such
h that
7-6 March 20
009
pa = Ka p0= Ka γ z (7.7)
pa = Kp p0= Kp γ ζ (7.8)
where
p0 = Effective overburden pressure (unit length)= γh
pa = Active lateral earth pressures (unit length)
pp = Passive lateral earth pressures (unit length)
z = Depth below the ground surface
h = Depth of tension crack (clayey soil only)
ß β β
Ka = cosß
Z pa=rZ tan2 (45- )
Ø Z ß pa=rZKo
pp=rZKp
β β
2
H Ø
Pp=rZ tan2 (45+ ) β β
2
Ka = cosß
β β
(a)
1
Ka =
Kp
Ø
Ø 2c tan (45+ )
2c tan (45°- ) 2
2
Z Z Ø Ø
2 Ø Ø Pp = rZ tan2(45+ )+2c tan(45+ )
pa = rZ tan (45- )-2c tan(45°- ) 2 2
2 2
(b)
Figure 7.6 Triangular Lateral Force Distribution By Rankine Theory (a) For Granular Soil (b) For
Cohesive Soil With Tension Crack Depth ‘H’ (Active Case)
For non- granular (c’ – φ ‘) soils, the lateral pressures are :
Pa = Kaγz – 2c Ka (7.9)
Pp = Kpγz + 2c Kp (7.10)
c = Cohesive strength of soil
Theoretically, in soils with cohesion, the active earth pressure behind the wall becomes negative
from the ground surface to a critical depth z where γh is less than 2c′ √ Ka. This critical depth is
referred to as the “tension crack.” The active earth pressure acting against the wall within the depth
of the tension crack is assumed to be zero. Unless positive drainage measures are provided, water
infiltration into the tension crack may result in hydrostatic pressure on the retaining structure and
should be full added to the lateral earth pressure.
March 2009 7-7

7.4.2.2 Coulomb’s Theory
Coulomb Theory is also based on limit equilibrium of a plane wedge of soil. However, the theory
takes into consideration the effects of wall friction, sloping wall face as well as the sloping backfill.
The pressures calculated by using these coefficients are commonly known as the Coulomb earth
pressures. Since Coulomb’s method is based on limit equilibrium of a wedge of soil, only the
magnitude and direction of the earth pressure is found. Pressure distributions and the location of the
resultant are assumed to be triangular. Coulomb’s coefficients of lateral pressures are as follows with
their related terms and pressures diagrams shown in Figure 7.7
cos 2 -θ
Ka = (7.11)
2 sin - θ sin -β
cos θ cos θ+ δ
cos - δ cos -β
cos 2 +θ
Kp = (7.12)
cos 2θ cos θ - δ
Figure 7.7 Schematic Of Coulomb’s Theory Plane Failure Wedge of Soil

(a) Active Condition (b) Passive Condition
7-8 March 2009

7.4.2.3 Effects of Wall Friction
The magnitude and direction of the developed wall friction depends on the relative movement
between the wall and the soil. In the active case, the maximum value of wall friction develops only
when the soil wedge moves significantly downwards relative to the rear face of the wall. In some
cases, wall friction cannot develop. These include cases where the wall moves down with the soil,
such as a gravity wall on a yielding foundation or a sheet pile wall with inclined anchors, and cases
where the failure surface forms away from the wall, such as in cantilever and counterfort walls.
The maximum values of wall friction may be takes as follows :
Timber, steel, precast concrete wall δ max. = Ø’/2
Cast in-situ concrete wall δ max. = 2 Ø’/3
Considerable structural movements may be necessary, however, to mobilize maximum wall friction,
for which the soil in the passive zone needs to move upwards relative to the structure. Generally,
maximum wall friction is only mobilized where the wall tends to move downwards, for example, if a
wall is founded on compressible soil, or for sheet piled walls with inclined tensioned members.
Some guidance on the proportion of maximum wall friction which may develop in various cases is
given below (Teng)
δ = 200 concrete or brick walls

= 150 uncoated sheetpile
= 00 if wall tends to move downward together with the soil
= 00 sheetpiling with small penertration or penetrated into soft or loose soil
= 00 if backfill is subjected to vibratiion
In general, the effects of wall friction on Rankine and Coulomb methods of earth pressure
computation are as follows:
a) The Rankine method cannot take account of wall friction. Accordingly, Ka is overestimated
slightly and Kp is under-estimated, thereby making the Rankine method conservative for
most applications.
b) The Coulomb theory can take account of wall friction, but the results are unreliable for
passive earth pressures for wall friction angle values greater than φ′/3 because the failure
surface is assumed to be a plane. The failure wedges assumed in the Coulomb analysis take
the form of straight lines as shown in Figure 7.8. However, this contrasted with the curved
shapes of failure surface observed in many model tests. This assumption resulted in Ka
being underestimated slightly and Kp being overestimated very significantly for large values
of φ′.
In general, the effect of wall friction is to reduce active pressure. It is small and often disregarded.
However, wall friction increases the value of Kp significantly and thus could yield lateral earth
pressure that could be very large and could be unsafe as passive earth pressure forces are generally
resisting forces in stability analysis
March 2009 7-9

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Figure 7.8 Comparisson of Plane and

a Log-Spira
al Failure Surffaces (a) Activve Case (b) Passive
P Case
Hence, it is recommended that thet log-spirall failure surfa

ace (shown in Figure 7.88) which cou
uld
resemble e more close
ely the actual failure planne be used to t calculate the passive earth pressu
ure
coefficien
nts.
Charts fo or two comm mon wall configurations, sloping

s wall with
w level ba
ackfill and vertical wall wiith
sloping backfill
b basedd on the log-spiral theory are presente ed in Figuress 7.9 and 7.110 (Caquot an nd
Kerisel, 1948; NAVFA AC, 1986b). For F walls tha at have a slo oping backfacce and slopin ng backfill, the
passive earth
e pressuree coefficient can
c be calcula ated as indica e 7.9 and 7.10 by using δ =
ated in Figure
′/3. Fo
or granular soils, the coefficcients of eartth pressure caan be deived ffrom Figure 7.11
7
7-10 March 20
009
Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Fiigure 7.9 Passive Coefficie

ents for Slopin
ng Wall with Wall
W Friction aand Horizonta
al Backfill
(Caqu uot and Keriseel, 1948; NAVVFAC, 1986b)
March 200
09 7-1
11
Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Fiigure 7.10 Passive Coefficients for Vertical Wall with Wall Friction and Sloping Backfill
(Caquoot and Kerisel, 1948; NAVF FAC, 1986b)
7-12 March 20
009
Figure 7.11 Lateral Pressure Coefficient Chart for Granular Soil with Sloping Backfill
March 2009 7-13

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
7.4.3 Lateral Earth Press

sure Due to Ground Watter
In cases where groun nd water exissts, the lateraal pressure due to the wa ater at any deepth below the
ground water
w level is equal to the hydrostatic p pressure at th
hat point since the friction angle of watter
is zero and
a use of eitther Equationn 7.5 or 7.6 leeads to a coe efficient of la
ateral pressure for water, Kw
equal too 1.0. The computation
c o the verticcal water pre
of essure is based on trian ngular pressuure
distribution that increases linearly with depth as illustrated in Figure 7.12 2. The lateral earth pressu
ure
is added to the hydro ostatic water pressure to o obtain the to
otal lateral pre essure acting on the wall at
any poinnt below the ground water level. For a typical soill friction anglle of 30 degrrees, Ka = 1//3.
Since Kw = 1, it can be
b seen that the
t lateral pre essure due too water is app proximately 3 times that due
the activ
ve lateral eartth pressure. Thus,
T it is imp
portant to proovide adequa ate drainage behind
b the wall
w
to reducee and control the ground water
w table buuild-up.
gure 7.12 Gen

Fig neral Distribution of Combined Active Earth Pressure
e and Water Pressure
P
7.4.4 Lateral Pressure fro

om Surchag
ge
Surchargge loads on th
he backfill surrface near an
n earth retainiing structure also cause la
ateral pressurres
on the sttructure. The
e loading casees usually con
nsist of:
• Unifoorm surcharge e
• Pointt loads
• Line loads parallel to the wall
• Strip
p loads paralle
el to the wall.
Surchargge loads (verttical loads ap

pplied at the ground surfa ace) are assu
umed to resu
ult in a uniforrm
increase in lateral prressure over the entire h height of thee wall. The uniform incrrease in laterral
pressure for a uniform
m surcharge looading can bee written as:
7-14 March 20
009
∆ps = K qs (7.13)
where ∆ps = increase in lateral earth pressure due to the vertical surcharge load
qs = vertical surcharge load applied at the ground surface,
K = appropriate earth pressure coefficient.
When traffic is expected to come to within a distance from the wall face equivalent to one-half the
wall height, the wall should be designed for a live load surcharge. The standard loadings for
highway structures in are expressed in terms of HA and HB loading as defined in BS 5400 : Part 2 :
1978. In the absence of more exact calculations, the nominal load due to live load surcharge may
be taken from Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Suggested Surcharge Loads to be Used in the Design of Retaining Structures
Equivalent
Road class Type of live loading
surcharge
Urban trunk
Rural trunk
HA + 45 units of HB 20kPa
(Road likely to be regularly used by
heavy industrial traffic)
Primary distributor
HA = 37 ½ units of HB 15kPa
Rural main road
District and local distributors
Other rural roads HA 10kPa
Access Roads, Carparks
Footpaths, isolated from roads 5kPa
Play areas
Note : 1. It is recommended that these surcharges be applied to the 1 in 10 year storm condition.
2. For footpaths not isolated from roadways, the surcharge applying for that road class
should be used.
(Source: Public Works Department, 1977)
Point loads, line loads, and strip loads are vertical surface loadings that are applied over limited areas
as compared to surcharge loads. Hence, the increase in lateral earth pressure used for wall system
design is not constant with depth as is the case for uniform surcharge loadings. These loadings are
typically calculated by using equations based on elasticity theory for lateral stress distribution with
depth and are as shown in Table 7.13. Lateral pressures resulting from these surcharges should be
added explicitly to other lateral pressures.
March 2009 7-15

Figure 7.13 Lateral Pressure Due to Surcharge Loadings (after USS Steel, 1975)
7-16 March 2009

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
7.5 STABILITY OF RIGIID RETAINIING WALL
Rigid retaining walls are

a those tha at develop the
eir lateral ressistance primaarily from the
eir own weigh ht
and the weight
w of soil above the ba ase of the wa
all, if any. The
e goetechnica al design analyysis for a rigid
d
retaining
g wall shall incclude all the possible
p mode
e of a rigid reetaining wall, namely
a) Sliding/transla
S ational failure
e
b) R
Rotational faillure
c) F
Foundation beearing capacitty failure
d) D
Deep seated/g global stabilitty failure
e schematic sketch of the p

Figure 7..14 shows the potential failu
ures of a rigid retaining wa
all.
(a) Sliding or translatio

onal failure (b) Rotatio
onal failure
(c) Be
earing Capacitty failure d) Deep-se
eated Failure
4 Potential Failure of a Rigiid Retaining Wall

Figure 7.14 W
bility of free sttanding rigid retaining wall can be dete

The stab ermined by co
omputing facctors of safetyy,
which maay be deined in general eq quation as:
The forcees that produuce overturninng and slidingg also produce

e the foundattion bearing pressures
p and
d,
therefore
e, (a), (b) and
d (c) are interrlated for mosst soils
Figure 7.15
7 presenteed a useful guide
g for the
e computatioon of the staability of a rigid concrete
retaining
g wall (after NAVFAC,
N 1986 6).
March 200
09 7-1
17
Definitions
B = width of the base of the footing
tan δt = friction factor between soil and base
W = weight at the baseof wall. Includes
weight of wall for gravity walls. Includes
weight of the soil above footing for
cantilever and counterfort walls
c = cohesion of the foundation soil
ca = adhesion between concrete and soil
δ = angle of wall friction
Pp = passive resistance
Location of Resultant, R
Based on moments about toe (assuming Pp=0)
Wa+Pv g-Ph b
d=
W+Pv
Criteria for Eccentricity, e

B
e = d- ; e≤B/6 for soils; e≤B/4 for rocks
2
Factors of Safety Against Sliding

W+Pv tan δb +ca B
FSδ = ≥1.5 min
Ph
Applied Stress at Base (qmax, qmin, qeq)

W+Pv 6e
qmax = (1+ )
B B
W+Pv 6e
qmin = (1- )
B B
Equivalent uniform (Meyerhof) applied stress, qeq

is given as follows:
W+Pv
qeq = where B’ = B-2e
B'
Use uniform stress, qeq, for soils and settlement

analysis; use trapezoidal distribution with qmax
and qmin for rocks and structural analysis
Deep-seated (Global) Stability

Evaluate global stability using guidance in Chap.
6 (Slope Stability)
Figure 7.15 Design Criteria for Rigid Retaining Walls (NAVFAC 1986)
7-18 March 2009

7.5.1 Sliding/Translational Stability
The horizontal component of all lateral pressures tends to cause the wall to slide along the base of
the wall (or along any horizontal section of a gravity and crib wall). If the passive resistance is
neglected, the sliding force along the bottom of the wall is resisted by a horizontal force which
consists of friction, adhesion or a combination of both. If the bottom of base slab is rough, as the
case of concrete poured directly on soil, the coefficient of friction is equal to tan φ', (φ' is the angle
of internal friction of the soil). Typical coefficients of friction are as follows:
Course-grained (without silt) 0.55

Course-grained (with silt) 0.45
Silt 0.35
Sound rock (with rough surface) 0.60
For cohesive soils the adhesion between the base slab and the soil is assumed to be equal to the
cohesive strength of the clay and φ is assumed to be zero. The designer should consider the
possibility of reduction in cohesive strength due to construction works such as excavation, exposure
to surface water etc. If the retaining wall is supported on piles, the entire vertical and horizontal load
should be assumed to be carried by piles. No frictional resistance and no adhesion should be
assigned along the base slab.
For checking the sliding factor of safety, the live load surcharge is usually not considered in the
stabilising forces over the heel of the wall. Also, the passive resistance of the soil in front of the wall
is commonly neglected in the stability analysis. If it is included in the computation, as in the case
where the toe of wall is covered by a large depth of soil, its value should be reduced to take care of
the high potential of the soil to be removed by erosion, future excavation, and tension cracks in
cohesive soils.
The minimum safety factor for sliding/translational stability shall be of minimum 1.5. The sliding
stability can be increase by either increasing the overall weight of the retaining wall or providing
sufficient passive lateral resistance of the wall. This can be done by introducing a wider base,
construction of structural shear key and incorporating deep foundation support.
7.5.2 Overturning Stability
The lateral pressure due to the backfill and surcharge tends to tip the retaining over about its toe.
This overturning moment is stabilised by the weight of the wall and the weight of the soil above the
base of the wall. The overturning stability of the wall is always the most critical potential mode of
failure when the walls are underlain by weak soils. The minimum factor of safety against overturning
is:
Sum of stabilizing moment

Fs = ≥2.0
Sum of overturning moment
To overcome the overturning stability, normally pile foundation is recommended. For some cases,
ground improvement such as removal and replacement is adopted to increase the bearing capacity of
the ground (provided the soft bearing ground is relatively thin).
For passive resistance of the soil in front of the wall, designer should evaluate whether to ignore or
to use a reduced value basing on the reason discussed in 7.5.1 above.
March 2009 7-19

7.5.3 Bearing Capacity Failure
The computed vertical pressure at the base of the wall footing must be checked against the ultimate
bearing capacity of the soil. The generalized distribution of the bearing pressure at the wall base is
illustrated in Figure 7.15. Note that the bearing pressure at the toe is greater than that at the heel.
The magnitude and distribution of these pressures are computed by using the applied loads shown in
Figure 7.15. The equivalent uniform bearing pressure, qeq, should be used for evaluating the factor
of safety against bearing capacity failure. The procedures for determining the allowable bearing
capacity of the foundation soils can be found in Chapter 5 (Bearing Capacity) of this Volume.
Generally, the factor of safety against bearing failure is defined as
qult
Fs = ≥ 2.0
qeq
Where
q ult = ultimate bearing pressure
q eq = equivalent uniform bearing pressure (as computed according to Figure 10.15)
7.5.4 Global Stability
The overall stability shall be checked to avoid deep seated failure due to circular rotational or non-
circular failure beyond the retaining wall. It must be checked with respect to the most critical failure
surface. The minimum factor of safety for the overall stability shall be of minimum 1.5. A typical
mode of circular rotational stability condition is illustrated in Figure 7.16
If global stability is found to be a problem, deep foundations or the use of lightweight backfill may be
considered. Alternatively, measures can be taken to improve the shear strength of the weak soil
stratum. Other wall types, such as an anchored soldier pile and lagging wall or tangent or secant
pile wall, should also be considered in this case.
Figure 7.16 Typical Mode of Global Stability
7-20 March 2009

7.5.5 Selection of Backfill Materials
The ideal backfill for a retaining is a free draining granular material of high shearing strength.
However, the final choice of material should be based on the costs and availability of such materials
balanced against the cost of more expensive walls.
In general, the use of fine-grained clayey backfills is not recommended due to the following
reasons:
a) Clays are subject to seasonal variations in moisture content and consequent swelling and
shrinkage. This effect may lead to an increase in pressure against a wall when these soils
are used as backfill.
b) As clays are subjected to consolidation, long terms settlement problems are considerably
greater than with cohesionless materials.
c) For clay backfill, special attention must be paid to the provision of drainage to prevent the
build-up of water pressure. Free draining cohesionless materials may not require the same
amount of attention in this respect.
d) The wall deflection required to produce the active state in cohesive materials with a
significant clay content may be up to 10 times greater than for cohesionless materials.
This, together with the fact that the former generally have lower values of shearing
strength, means that the amount of shear strength mobilized for any given wall movement
is considerably lower for cohesive materials than for cohesionless materials. The
corresponding earth pressure on the active side for a particular wall movement will
therefore be higher if cohesive soil is used for backfill.
It is essential to specify and supervise the placing of backfill to ensure that its strength and unit
weight properties agree with the design assumptions both for lateral earth pressure and dead
weight calculations. In this regard, it is particularly important to ensure that the backfill behind a
wall and on a slope is properly compacted. The backfill should normally be compacted in thin layers
using light compaction plant so as not to minimize compaction loading on the wall.
7.5.6 Design Wall Drainage System
Control of water is a key component of the design of earth retaining structures. Both subsurface
water and surface water can cause damage during and/or after construction of the wall. Surface
water runoff can destabilize a structure under construction by inundating the backfill. It can also
destabilize a completed structure by erosion or by infiltrating into the backfill. Hence, adequate and
proper design for surface water runoff is important to ensure the stability of the wall. Potential
sources of subsurface water are surface water infiltration and groundwater as illustrated in Figure
7.17.
March 2009 7-21

Surface Water
Infiltration
Drainage
aggregate
Fill Retained Fill
Groundwater
Foundation Soil
Figure 7.17 Potential Source of Subsurface Water
Drainage system design depends on wall type, backfill and/or retained soil type, and groundwater
conditions. Drainage system components such as granular soils, prefabricated drainage elements and
filters, are usually sized and selected based on local experience, site geometry, and estimated flows,
although detailed design is only occasionally performed. Drainage systems may be omitted if the wall
is designed to resist full water pressure.
Drainage measures for fill wall systems and cut wall systems typically consist of the use of a free-
draining material at the back face of the wall, with “weep holes” and/or longitudinal collector drains
along the back face as shown in Figure 7.18. The collector drains may be perforated pipes or gravel
drains. Where weepholes are used, BS 8002 specified that they should be at least 75 mm in diameter
and at a spacing of not more than 1 m horizontally and 1 m to 2 m vertically.
7-22 March 2009

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Wall Bacckfill Retain

ned Backfill
Chim
mney
Face chiimney
drain
d
drain
Co
ollection &
Weephole Drrain Pipes
Outlet P
Pipe
Figure 7.1
18 Some Typiical Retaining
g Wall Drainag
ge
7.5.7 Design Example – Gravity/Can

G ntilever Rein
nforced Concrete Wall
ne the maxim
Determin mum and minimum pressurres under the e base of the cantilever rettaining wall as
a
n Figure 7.19 below, and th
shown in afety against sliding.
he factor of sa
Figure 7..19 Example Calculation

C fo
or Stability of a Cantilever R
Retaining Wall
March 200
09 7-2
23
The applicable soil properties and strength parameters are given as follows:
Soil unit weight, γs = 17 kN/m3

Effective cohesion, c’ = 0 kN/m2
Effective angle of shearing resistance, φ’ = 40o
Assume friction on the base of wall, δ = 30o
Unit weight of concrete, γc = 23.5 kN/m3
And, water table is below base of wall.
Solution:
i. To determine the position of the base reaction, the moment of all forces about the heel of
the wall (X) are calculated as follows (Table 7.3 refers).
Table 7.3 Calculation Table
Force per m (kN) Arm (m) Moment per m

(kNm)
(1) 0.22 x 40 x 5.40 = 47.5 2.70 128.2
(2) ½ x 0.22 x 17 x 5.402 = 54.6 1.80 98.3
Rh = 102.1
(Stem) 5.00 x 0.30 x 23.5 = 35.3 1.90 67.0

(Base) 3.00 x 0.40 x 23.5 = 28.2 1.50 42.3
(Soil) 5.00 x 1.75 x 17 = 148.8 0.875 130.2
(Load) 1.75 x 40 = 70.0 0.875 61.3
Rv = 282.3 M = 527.3
The active pressure is calculated on the vertical through the heel of the wall. No shear stresses act
on this vertical, and therefore the Rankine theory (δ = 0) is used to calculate the active pressure
using the pressure distribution as shown in Figure 1 above. Thus:
For φ’ = 40 0 (and δ = 0), Ka = 0.22
M 527.3
Lever arm of base resultant, =
Rv 282.3
= 1.81
i.e., the resultant acts within the middle third of the base.
ii. Thus, eccentricity of base reaction, e = 1.81 – 1.50

= 0.31 m
The maximum and minimum base pressures are given by:
Rv 6e
1±
B B
282.3 6x0.36
p= 1± = 94 (1 ± 0.72)
3 B3
= 112 kN/m2 and 21 kN/m2
7-24 March 2009

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
Thus the
e factor of saffety against slliding is given
n by:
F= =
= 1.1 ≤ 1.5 not OKK, need to inccrease resista

ance against sliding eitherr by increasing
the widtth of the base
e slab, introdu
uce shear keyy or using rakeed pile.
7.6 FLEXIBLE WALL SY

YSTEM
7.6.1 General
Unlike rig
gid retaining wall, the stab
bility of the fllexible wall de
epends mainlly on the emb bedded length
of the waall element. Some
S of the common
c type
es of flexible wall
w are sheett pile wall, sooldier pile wall,
contiguous bored pile wall and diap phragm wall. Sometimes due d to stabilitty requiremen nt, tie backs or
o
anchors to
t deadman anda strut systtem are used to increase the overall sta ability of the wall.
w
The common failure modes

m of a fle
exible retainin
ng wall are:
a) Rotational faillure (at strut//tie back or att toe of the wall)

R w
b) D
Deep seated/g global stabilitty failure
c) H
Hydraulic failu
ure due to pip ping and uplifft (in case of high
h differenttial hydrostatiic head)
d) S
Structural failure (tie back failure or wall element failure)
(a)
( Deep-seatted failure (b) Rotatio
on about the anchor/prop
(c) Rotation near

n base (d) Failu
ure of (e) F
Failure by ben
nding
20 Typical Faiilure Mode of a Flexible Wa

Figure 7.2 all
March 200
09 7-2
25
7.6.2 Types of Flexible Walls
The following retaining wall types are commonly used in Malaysia either to retain and/or support
soils during excavations:
a) Sheet pile wall

b) Soldier pile wall
c) Contiguous bored pile / caisson wall
d) Diaphragm wall
a) Sheet Pile Walls
The sheet pile wall is used in many types of temporary and permanent structures. It is one of the
most common methods used in the Department especially for the support and protection of river
banks, water front construction, flood defence as well as temporary supports or containment for
construction of hydraulic structures. Steel sheet piles are preferred mainly because of their ease of
installation, length of service life and ability to be driven through water. However, they are not
suitable when high bedrock or boulders prevent penetration to the required depth.
When selecting sheet piles to be used, it is important to consider the drivability of the piles. The
ability of the sheet pile to penetrate the ground depends on the section size of the pile and the type
of the pile hammer used, as well as the ground conditions. It is difficult to drive sheet piles through
soils with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values greater than 50 (subjected to pile section).
Further discussion on the basic principles in design of sheet pile wall are discussed in Item 7,6.3
below.
b) Soldier Pile Wall
Soldier pile wall has two basic components, soldier piles (vertical component) and lagging
(horizontal component). Soldier piles provide intermittent vertical support and are installed before
excavation commences. Due to their relative rigidity compared to the lagging, the piles provide the
primary support to the retained soil as a result of the arching effect. Spacing of the piles is chosen
to suit the arching ability of the soil and the proximity of any structures sensitive to settlement. A
spacing of 2 – 3 m is commonly used in strong soils and no sensitive structures are present. The
spacing is reduced to 1 – 2 m in weaker soils or near sensitive structures.
c) Contiguous Bored Pile /Caisson Wall
Replacement pile wall i.e., contiguous bored pile wall or caisson wall is the common excavation
support system adopted in Malaysia. Generally, these types of wall are used as the permanent
retaining wall system for basement construction and sometimes for high wall in hillside
development.
Bored piles or caisson piles are constructed continuously in a row to form retaining structures. A
gap of approximately 75mm to 100mm is allowed between the piles. for ground with high ground
water table or loose soils, grout columns are introduced between the gaps behind the wall system.
For a better water tide conditions pressured grout columns can be used to minimize the water
leakage.
For caisson wall, it is commonly used at areas with limited working space; where big machinery i.e.,
boring rig and excavator are not possible.
7-26 March 2009

Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
d) D
Diaphragm Wall
W
Diaphrag gm wall consttruction is verry similar to b

bored pile walll. This wall syystem comes in panels and
the soil removal
r is using a mechan nical grab. Water stopping g system is in ntroduced bettween the waall
panels too ensure totall water tightness.
Diaphrag gm wall systeem is not suiitable for are ea with shallo
ow bed rock. Rock chiseling during the
installatio
on may affe ect the consstruction duration and causing vibrration disturb bance to the
surround ding.
7.6.3 Sheet Pile

P Wall
7.6.3.1 Types of
o Sheet Pile
e Wall
The sheeet pile wall system can bee further diviided into the
e followings ccategories acccording to the
form of support
s providded, namely:--
a) C
Cantilevered or
o unbraced wall
w
b) Supported
S wa
all either with anchor/tie-ba
ack or bracing
g/struts
The vario
ous types of sheet
s pile walll are as illustrated in Figurre 7.21
Fig
gure 7.21 Typ
pe of Sheet Piile Walls
a) Ca
antilever Shee
et Pile Wall
ever sheet pile wall is on

A cantile ne that doess not have any a additionaal support su
uch as bracin ng,
anchors, or other stru
uctural elemennts and thus rrelies on its fllexural streng
gth and embeedment to ressist
the lateral earth pressures. The im
mposed latera al earth presssures on thesse walls creatte large flexurral
stresses in the steel and as such,, these types of wall gene erally are nott more than 3 to 4 m hig gh.
er walls also experience
Cantileve e grreater lateral deflections and are more susceptible to o failure due to
scour or erosion of the
e supporting soils.
b) Su
upported She
eet Pile Wall
Most sheeet pile wallss include add ditional latera

al supports, using
u internallly bracing/sttruts or tieba
ack
anchors (known as braced
b walls or anchored walls respecctively). The additional su upport provide ed
reduces the flexural stresses
s and lateral movements in the wall, thus p permits constrruction of wa alls
much talller than that of cantileverr design. In tthis situation the soil cond
ditions at the toe of the wall
w
are not as
a critical to th
he overall sta
ability of the structure
s and depth of emb bedment requ uired would nnot
be as deeep as in the case
c of a canttilever wall.
March 200
09 7-2
27
Chapter 7 RETAINING
R WA
ALL
In generral, a wall suppported by a single tie or prop will gen

nerally will on
nly be cost-efffective up to
oa
retained height of 10 0 m. Also, as the wall doees not move as much, the ere is less settlement in the
backfill. When more than one levvel of supportts are used, wall stability becomes a function of the
support stiffness
s and the conventional active/p passive earth pressure disttribution doess not necessa ary
apply.
7.6.3.2 Design of Sheet Pile Wall
In generral, the desiggn of sheet pile

p wall requ uires two setts of calculattions, one to determine the
geometryy of the sheett pile to achie
eve equilibrium
m under the design
d condittions, the othe
er to determine
the strucctural require
ements of the e wall to ressist the inducced bending moments an nd shear forcces
derived from
f the equilibrium calculation.
To desiggn the steel sheet pile wall,

w several empirical an nd semi-emp pirical methodds have been
developeed, all of whicch are based on the classiccal lateral earth pressuress theories. Sevveral methodds
have beeen developed in the design n of sheet pile wall; howev ver the two m
most common n methods are
the Free--end method and Fixed-en nd method. T The main diffe erent between n these methods lies in the
influence
e with which the depth off embedmentt has on the e deflected shhape of the wall.
w Only the
basic con
ncepts and laateral pressuree distribution
n are discusseed below. Rea ader can refe
er to the many
reference
e books on thhe detailed de mong which are Piling Hand
esign of sheett pile wall, am dbook, Arceloor
Groups, ‘Foundation design’
d by W.CC. Teng and ‘Steel Sheet Piling
P Design M
Manual’, USS.
a) Frree-end meth
hod.
The Freee-end method d is based on n the assump ption that thee sheet pile iss embedded to a sufficiennt
depth into the soil to prevent tra anslation, bu
ut not rotatioon at the toe e and a pinn ned support is
i
assumed d. This condittion and the idealised eartth pressure distribution
d arre as shown in Figure 7.211.
For the supported
s wa
all, a strut (p
prop) or tie n
near the top of the wall provides
p the other
o supportt.
Compare e to Fixed-end
d method und der similar se
et of condition
ns, the relativve length of pile
p required is
i
less but the
t maximum m moments arre higher.
(a) (b)
Figure 7.21: Free-end Method off Design of Single Prop She

eet Pile Wall
7-28 March 20
009
b) Fixed-end Method
A wall designed using Fixed-end principles is embedded sufficiently deep enough so that at the foot
of the wall, both translation and rotation are prevented and fixity is assumed. This is the condition
assumed in the design of a cantilever sheet pile wall. Figure 7.22 (a) and (b) illustrated the
deflected shape of a cantilever sheet pile together with the conventional and simplified pressure
distributions used for design. An example on the application of this method in Cantilever sheet pile
wall desiGn is given in Item 7.6.3.3 below.
Dredge Line
Deflected shape
of pile
(a) (b)
Figure 7.22 Lateral pressures distribution for Fixed-end Method of design of cantilever
sheet pile wall in granular soils: (a) Idealized distribution (b) Simplified distribution
A tie or prop may also be provided at the upper part of the wall as shown in Figure 7.23 (a), (b) and
(c). The effect of toe fixity is to create a fixed end moment in the wall, reducing the maximum
bending moment for a given set of conditions but at the expense of increased pile length. The design
method used (whether Free-end or Fixed-end Method) should also consider the effects of hydrostatic
pressures and surcharge loads, which are usually added to that due to the soils.
Deflected shape
of pile
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7.23 Fixed-end Methpod of Design of Prop Sheet Pile Wall in ranular soils (a) Deflected shape
of wall (b) Idealized lateral preswsure distribution (c) Simplified Lateral Pressure Distribution
March 2009 7-29

7.6.3.3 Design of Anchor - General
In the analysis of anchored steel sheet pile wall, whether using the Fixed-end or Free-end method,
the tie or strut force, F , per unit length of the wall can be obtained. The restaining anchor must be
designed to take the required force, F.
In general, the types of anchor used in sheet pile wall are:
a) Anchor plates and beams (deadman) Figure

b) Tie backs
c) Vertical anchor piles
d) Anchor beam supported by batter (compression or tension) piles
These anchors are as shown in Figure 7.24 (a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively.
(a) Anchor plates and beams
(b) Tie backs (c) Vertical anchor piles
7-30 March 2009

(d) Anchor beam supported by batter (compression or tension) piles
Figure 7.24 Various types of Anchoring for sheet pile walls (a) Anchor Plate or Beams; (b) Tie Back;
(c) Vertical Anchor Pile; (d) Anchor Beam with Batter Piles
The above figures also illustrated the proper locations for placement of various types of anchors.
Readers can refer to ‘Principles of Getechnical Engineering’ by M. B. Das for further guidance on the
design of the various types of anchors.
7.6.3.4 Some Considerations on Sheet Pile Wall Design
a) Selection of Analysis Method
Designers must be careful when selecting the design approach to adopt i.e., the Fixed-end or Free
end method. Walls installed in soft cohesive soils, may not generate sufficient pressure to achieve
fixity and in those soils it isrecommended that free earth conditions are assumed. Fixed earth
conditions may be appropriate where the embedment depth of the wall is taken deeper than that
required to satisfy lateral stability, i.e. to provide an effective groundwater cut-off or adequate
vertical load bearing capacity. However, where driving to the required depth may be problematic,
assumption of free earth support conditions will minimise the length of pile to be driven and ensure
that the theoretical bending moment is not reduced by the assumption of fixity. When designing a
wall involving a significant retained height and multiple levels of support, the overall pile length will
often be sufficient to allow the designer to adopt fixed earth conditions for the early excavation
stages and take advantage of reduced bending moment requirements.
b) Construction Sequence
The design of tied-back or braced system should also consider the sheet pile design requirements at
each and every stages of the construction sequence, i.e. excavation, strutting, anchoring and
lowering of ground water table. This construction sequence shall be detailed in the construction
drawings as wrong construction sequence may cause large changes in the bending moment, shear
stress and overall stability of the wall.
c) Permissible Stress of Steel Sheet Pile
In the design of temporary sheet pile wall, the permissible steel stresses for the structural design of
the sheet pile can be increased slightly. For instance, Piling Handbook, Archelor Group suggested
that the permissible steel stresses for temporary works (wall to last not more than 3 months) shown
in Table 7.3 be used in the structural design in the sheet piles and other steel components of the
wall such as walins, struts and tie rod.
March 2009 7-31

Table 7.4 Permissible Steel Stress of Sheet Pile
Class of Work Steel grade to EN10248

S270GP S355GP
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Permanent 180 230
Temporary 200 260
d) Design of Cofferdam
Cofferdam is a retaining structure, usually temporary in nature, which is used to temporary support
the sides of deep excavation such as in the construction of multi-level basements and trenches for
construction of bridge abutment, piers and instalation of deep pipe culverts. Its method of
construction involved instalation of vertical steel sheet piles to required depth and as excavation
works progress, a system of wales and struts or prestressed tiebacks (anchors) is installed.
The earth lateral pressures for the multi-level cofferdam cannot be calculated by the classical
pressures theories ( Rankine, Coulomb and wedge theories). Readers are advised to refer to
literatures such as Foundation Design by W.C. Teng or Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual, USS for
design of this type of wall.
In addition, the effects of seepage forces and piping need to be considered especially where high
differential water levels existing between the inner and outer face of the wall. Seepage forces and
piping or boiling effects can lead to wall instability by reducing passive earth pressure, and in more
severe cases, can cause liquifaction or ‘quick sand' condition.
BS8004 1981 provides some guides on the minimum depth of cut-off for cohesionless soils (Table 9,
pg 47)and shown belows:
Width, W Depth of cut-off, D

2Y or more 0.4Y
Y 0.5Y
0.5Y 0.7Y
Notes:
W Table 9 ( BS8004 )
a) The stability of the wall could
be increased
Idea by increasing
is to increase the
seepage flow
GWL seepage
path. flow path.
b) A narrow trench needs a
Note thatcut-off.
deeper a narrow trench needs a
deeper cut-off.
c) Value of D obtained to be
Y
compared
Value with value
of D obtained to be for
stability. with value for stability.
compared
7-32 March 2009

e) Engineering Software
Many commercial softwares are also available to facilitate the analysis of retaining wall. Most of
these software are capable of analyzing more complex and complicated situation e.g. basement
excavation where high accuracy is required. Some computer programs used the numerical solutions
to model the soil-structure interaction analysis. Some of these softwares include WALLAP by
Geosolve, ReWaRD by Geocentrix, FREW by OASYS and many others are available. Finite element
software such as PLAXIS, SIGMA/W are also becoming increasing more popular as they are able to
simulate the response of the wall and the soils under various design loadings and construction
sequence.
7.6.3.3 Cantilever Steel Sheet Pile Retaining Wall - Example
A wall is to be built to support a retained height of 3.2m of sandy soils. The effective wall height =
3.2m + 10% = 3.52m say 3.5m (unplanned excavation allowance is 10% with 0.5m maximum).
Minimum surcharge loading = 10 kN/m2.
Based on Carquot & Kerisel Chart for Ka and Kp (Fig. 7.9)
Loose fine sand Ka = 0.3 Kp = 0.746 x 6.5

(Ø = 30°, δ/Ø = -0.5, Reduction Factor for Kp = 0.746 – From Fig. 7.9)
Compact fine sand Ka = 0.26 Kp = 0.7 x 8.3 = 5.8

(Reduction Factor for Kp = 0.70)
SURCHARGE 10 kN/m2 Overburden kN/m2

Active Passive
Water Soil Water Soil
0.00 10.00
Loose Fine Sand

3.2 m
γ = 17.5 kN/m3
4.50 m
γsat = 19.1 kN/m3 0.00 0.00

= 30°
0.00 88.75 17.50 0.00
0.30 m Unplanned
1.0 m
Compact Fine Sand

GWL GWL 0.00 107.25 36.00 0.00
γ = 18.5 kN/m3
γsat = 19.81 kN/m3

= 33°
6.0 m
γw = 9.81 kN/m3
58.86 167.25 96.00 58.86

-δ/Ø = -0.5 for both soil layer
TYPICAL SECTION
March 2009 7-33

Note: As ground water levels are the same on both active and passive sides of the wall, pressures
due to water are ignored.
Active pressures
Pa at 0.00 m below G.L. in loose sand

= 0.3 x 10.00 = 3.0 kN/m2

= 0.3 x 88.75 = 26.63 kN/m2

= 0.260 x 88.75 = 27.89 kN/m2

= 0.260 x 167.25 = 43.49 kN/m2

= 0.260 x 167.25 = 43.49 kN/m2
Passive pressures
Pp at 3.50 m below G.L. in loose sand

= 4.8 x 0.00 = 0.00 kN/m2

= 4.8 x 17.50 + 0.00 = 84.00 kN/m2

= 5.8 x 17.50 + 0.00 = 101.50 kN/m2

= 5.8 x 36.00 = 208.80 kN/m2

= 5.8 x 96.00 = 556.80 kN/m2
7-34 March 2009

Chapter 7 RETAINING WA
ALL
March 200
09 7-3
35
Take moments about the toe at 7.022m depth
Active force
Force Moment about toe
(kN/m) (kNm/m)
3.0 x 6 = 18.00 x 3.0 = 54.00
23.63 x 4.5 x 1/2 = 53.17 x 3.00 = 159.50
20.07 x 1.000 = 20.07 x 1.00 = 20.07
4.81 x 1.000 x ½ = 2.41 x 0.833 = 2.01
24.88 x 0.32 = 7.96 x 0.16 = 1.27
0.83 x 0.32 x ½ = 0.133 x 0.11 = 0.014
101.74 236.86
Passive force
Force Moment about toe
(kN/m) (kNm/m)
84.0 x 1000 x ½ = 42 x 1.65 = 69.30
101.50 x 1000 = 101.50 x 1.0 = 101.50
106.80 x 1.000 x ½ = 53.40 x 0.833 = 44.48
208.30 x 0.50 = 104.15 x 0.167 = 17.36
29.0 x 0.5 x ½ = 7.25 x 0.167 = 1.21
308.30 233.85
Since the passive moment is marginally less than the active moments length is OK.
To correct the error caused by the use of the simplified method in the depth below the point of
equal active and passive pressure is increased by 20% to give the pile penetration.
Let the point of equal pressure be (3.5 + d) below ground level
84 23.63
Then x d = 3.0 + x (3.5 + d)
1.00 4.5
18.38
Therefore d = = 0.233m
84 – 5.25
Hence the required pile length

= 3.50 + 0.233 + 1.2 x (2.50 – 0.233) = 6.45m say 6.50m.
Zero shear occurs at 4.77m below ground level (where the area of the active pressure diagram
above the level equals the area of the passive pressure diagram above the level).
Take the moments about and above the level of zero shear (point O):
kNm/m
3.0 x 4.77 x ½ x 2.385 = 17.06
23.63 x 4.5 x ½ x 1.77 = 94.11
0.056 x 0.27 x ½ x 0.009 = 0.00
20.08 x 0.27 x 0.135 = 6.73
-84.00 x 1.000 x ½ x 0.6 = -25.20
-101.50 x 0.27 x 0.091 = -2.49
-28.84 x 0.27 x ½ x 0.09 = -0.35
83.86
7-36 March 2009

Maximum bending moment = 83.86 kNm/m.
A partial factor of 1.2 is applied to give the ultimate load.
Section modulus of pile required

= 1.2 x 83.36 x 103 / 270 = 373 cm3/m
Hence use PU6 piles (z=600 cm3/m) not less than 6.50m long in S270GP.
However the designer will need to check the sustainability of the section for driving and durability.
March 2009 7-37

REFERENCES
E.Arnold, 1962.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
London
[6] CGS, “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual”, (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical

Boston,MA., 1990
[11] DID Malaysia, Retaining Wall
Kong
[13] GEO (1993). Guide to Retaining Wall Design (Geoguide 1). (Second edition). Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Hong Kong, 217 p.
[14] Harry R.Cedergreen, Seepage, Drainage and Flownet, John Wiley nd Sons.
New Jersey
- 494.
[17] Lambe T.W. and Whitman R.V., "Soil Mechanics", John Wiley 8: Sons, 1969
[18] McCarthy D.J., "Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations".
7-38 March 2009

1974.
March 2009 7-39

7-40 March 2009

CHAPTER 8 GROUND IMPROVEMENT
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 8-i

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 8-ii
8.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 SOIL IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES ............................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Removal and Replacement.............................................................................. 8-2
8.2.2 Surcharging ................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.3 SUB SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM ........................................... 8-3
8.2.3.1 Vertical Drainage System ................................................................. 8-4
8.2.3.2 Sand Drain System .......................................................................... 8-5
8.2.3.3 Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD) .................................................... 8-5
8.2.4 Vibro-Floatation ............................................................................................. 8-6
8.2.4.1 Vibro Compaction ............................................................................ 8-6
8.2.4.2 Vibro Replacement (Stone Column)................................................... 8-7
8.2.5 DEEP SOIL MIXING (LIME COLUMN)................................................................ 8-8
8.2.5.1 Mix Design...................................................................................... 8-9
8.2.6 Dynamic Compaction...................................................................................... 8-9
8.2.7 Some Additional Considerations......................................................................8-10
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 8-12
APPENDIX 8A: DESIGN OF VERTICAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM ....................................................... 8A-1
March 2009 8-i

List of Tables

8.1 Typical Properties and Test Standards Specified For Vertical Drain 8-6
List of Figures

8.1 Distribution of Alluvium Deposits In Peninsular Malaysia 8-1
8.2 Typical Drainage Directions in Soft Soil During Consolidation Process 8-4
8.3 Typical Drainage Direction with Vertical Drainage System in Soft Soil during
Consolidation Process 8-4
8.4 Typical Schematic Diagram For Vertical Sand Drain System In Embankment
Construction on Soft Ground 8-5
8.5 Prefabricated Vertical Drain 8-5
8.6 Relationships between Particle Size and Available Vibro Techniques 8-6
8.7 The Schematic Process of Vibro Compaction 8-7
8.8 Schematic Showing the Installation of Stone Columns (Dry Method) 8-8
8.9 Mixer Paddle Used In Deep Soil Mixing 8-9
8.10 Dynamic Compaction 8-10
8.11 Relationships between U and Tv 8A-2
8.12 Relationship Of Uh and Tv For Horizontal/Radial Drainage 8A-2
8.13 Relationship of F(n) and D/dw 8A-4
8.14 Design Chart for Horizontal Consolidation 8A-5
8-ii March 2009

Chapter 8 GROUND IMP
PROVEMENT
8 GROUN
ND IMPRO
OVEMENT
T
8.1 INTR
RODUCTION
N
As landd becomes scarcer,

s it iss often becoomes necessary to erectt structures or buildings on sites
underla
ain by poor soils. Thesse sites are potentially troublesome e. The mosst common of these
problem
matic soils arre the soft saturated
s clayys and silts often found near the mo
ouths of rive
ers, along
the perrimeter of ba
ays, coast line es and beneaath wetlandss.
These soils are ve ery weak and compresssible and th hus are sub bjected to b bearing capa acity and
ment problem
settlem ms. They fre equently incclude organiic material which further aggravattes these
problem
ms. Areas un nderlain by th
hese soft soils frequently
y are subjectt to flooding,, so it often becomes
necessaary to raisee the ground surface by b placing fill.
f Unfortun
nately, the w weight of these fills
frequenntly causes la
arge settleme
ents.
In Mala aysia, deposiits of alluvium m could be found

f along the coastal line
l as should in Figure 8.1
8 which
illustratted the distriibution of allluvial depositts in Peninsu
ular Malaysia
a. In fact, sofft to very soft marine
clay annd silt from a few meterss to 25 mete er depth can be found in n many areass along the coast
c line
stretchiing from Perrlis in the no orth to Johorr in the soutth, and also along the co oast lines in Sarawak
and Sabah.
Figure 8.1 Disstribution of Alluvium

A Dep
posits In Pen
ninsular Malayysia
March 2009
2 8-1
Fortunately, engineers and contractors have developed methods of coping with these problematic
soils and have successfully built many large structures on very poor sites. Among the methods used
(either individually or in combination) include:-
a) Support the structures on deep foundations that penetrate through the weak soils
b) Support the structure on shallow foundations and design them to accommodate the weak
soils
c) Use a floating foundation, either deep or shallow
d) Remove the poor material and replace with good materials. This approach is only effective
if the poor soil material is relatively thin and good replacement soil materials can be easily
found on site.
e) Improve the engineering properties of the soils. Various methods of ground improvement
techniques are available which basically aim to reduce the pore water pressure, reduce
the volume of voids in the soil, add stronger materials and additives (such as lime or
cementitious grout) to enhance its soil properties
f) Avoid the poor ground either by re-alignment or shifting the location of the structures (if
availability of land is not a constraint)
The main objectives of ground improvements are to:-

• Reduce settlement of structures
• Improve shear strength and bearing capacity of shallow foundations
• Increase factor of safety against possible slope failure of embankments and dams.
• Reduce shrinkage and swelling of soils
The most common techniques often used in our country for solving and stabilizing soft ground
problems are listed below:-
a) Structure support system using the shallow foundation or deep foundation and incorporating
either partially or fully floating foundation principle. Readers are advised to refer to Chapter 5
and Chapter 9 for shallow foundation and deep foundation respectively.
b) Soil improvement and stabilization works include

i) Removal and replacement
ii) Surcharging
iii) Sub-surface drainage improvement system
iv) Vibro floatation
v) Deep mixing – Lime column
vi) Dynamic compaction
8.2 SOIL IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES
8.2.1 Removal and Replacement
Sometimes poor soils can simply be removed and replaced with good quality compacted fill. This
alternative is especially attractive if the thickness of the deposit is small, the groundwater table is
deep and good quality fill material is readily available. If the soil is inorganic and not too wet, then it
probably is not necessary to haul it away. Such soils can be improved by simply compacting them. In
this case, the contractor excavates the soil until firm ground is exposed and then places the
excavated soil back in its original location, compacting it in lifts. This technique is often called
removed and re-compaction. If necessary, the soil can be reinforced with geosynthetics to spreads
the applied load over a larger area, thus reducing the change in effective stress and reducing the
consolidation settlement as well as increasing the bearing capacity.
8-2 March 2009

Removal and Replacement (or re-compaction) technique is one of the most common and relatively
less expensive methods used in infrastructures development such as road and earthworks
construction. However, its usage is limited or constraint by:-
a. Thickness of unsuitable soft soil

Often, this technique is only applicable to soft soil layers with thickness less than 3 meter.
Thick removal may require massive temporary shoring to be in place and end up being
more costly.
b. Availability of replacement material
Availability of replacement material is an important factor as it will govern the overall
construction cost. Sometimes, light weight material such as Expanded Polystyrene System
(EPS) is used as an alternative replacement material to minimize excessive consolidation
settlement and bearing failure of thick fill area.
8.2.2 Surcharging
Covering poor soils with a temporary surcharge fill, as shown in Figure 8.3, causes them to
consolidate more rapidly. When the temporary fill is removed, some or all of the soil is now
overconsolidated, and thus stronger and less compressible. Often, preloading (by surcharging) has
been used to improve saturated silts and clays because these soils are most conducive to
consolidation under static loads. Sandy and gravelly soils respond better to vibratory loads.
If the soil is saturated, the time required for it to consolidate depends on the ability of the excess
pore water to move out of the soil voids (see the discussion of consolidation theory in Chapter 4).
This depends on the thickness of the soil deposit, its coefficient of permeability, and other factors,
and can be estimated using the principles of soil mechanics. The time required could range from only
a few weeks to thirty years or more. Allowable construction period is an important factor to
determine the height of surcharge. Lesser surcharge height will require longer surcharge time.
For condition where high embankment or surcharge load is required, stage construction can be
introduced to avoid bearing failure during construction. Consolidation process during stage
construction will increase soil strength in order to allow higher load at the next stages.
The consolidation process can be accelerated by an order of magnitude or more by installing vertical
drains in the natural soil, as discussed in Item 8.2.3. These drains provide a pathway for the excess
water to escape more easily. Preloading is less expensive than some other soil improvement
techniques, especially when the surcharge soils can be moved from place to place, thus preloading
the site in sections. Vertical drains, if needed will increase the cost substantially.
8.2.3 Sub Surface Drainage Improvement System
In general sub-drainage system, either horizontal or vertical (or both), can be used to accelerate
consolidation process by reducing drainage path. These drainage systems provide a pathway for the
excess water to escape more easily. Vertical drainage system is the most commonly used system for
embankment constructed on soft soil (provided there are no sand layers or lenses exist in the
ground) and the directional flows of these drains are as shown in Figure 8.2. The length of the
drainage path is determined by the thickness of the soft soil or by the existence of any drainage
layers such as sand layers or lenses. The longer the drainage path, the longer the time required to
achieve the desired degree of consolidation.
March 2009 8-3

Figure 8.2 Typical Drainage Directions in Soft Soil During Consolidation Process
8.2.3.1 Vertical Drainage System
The introduction of a grid of vertical drains will reduce the traveling distance of the water path
during consolidation process (refer Figure 8.3), thus increases the rate of consolidation. The
presence of any natural permeable layers or lenses will further enhance and facilitates horizontal
water flow toward the vertical drains. This minimizes the excess water pressure generated during
and after construction and increases the rate of settlement.
Generally there are 2 common vertical drainage systems available in the market, namely:-
a) Sand drain system

b) Prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) system
Figure 8.3 Typical Drainage Direction with Vertical Drainage System In Soft Soil During Consolidation
Process
8-4 March 2009

PROVEMENT
2
8.2.3.2 Sand Drain Syste
em
Sand drain
d m has been introduced since
system s 1930s as the verttical drainag ge technique e for soft
ground. In general sand column n are installe
ed in grid patttern with sppacing ranges from 2 – 3m 3 center
to center. The common diamete er adopted raanges from 200mm
2 to 40
00mm and th he allowablee depth of
treatmeent can be as deep as 30m. One of o the typica al examples of sand dra ain applicatioon is the
manma ade island for the Kansai Airport Japaan in 1990s. The
T applicattion of sand d drain has slo
owly been
replace
ed by Prefabrricated Vertical Drain due mainly to its speed, ea ase of consttruction and relatively
cheapeer cost.
e 8.4 Typical Schematic Diagram

Figure D For V
Vertical Sand
d Drain Syste
em In Emban
nkment Consstruction
o Soft Ground
on
3
8.2.3.3 ertical Drain (PVD)
Prefabricated Ve
PVD ha as been wid dely used ass vertical drrainage syste em. It is a manufactured drain ma ade from
synthettic material. In general, PVD is very thin materia al, approximaately 4mm w with a commmon width
of 100mmm. The ve ery thin mateerial would minimize
m clay
y smearing during
d installation which
h reduces
the efficiency of the e drain. PVD is slowly rep
placing the use
u of sand drain
d becausse of the cheaper cost
and fasst installation
n. Figure 8.6 shows a pictture of a typical PVD avaailable in the market.
Figure 8.5 Prefabricated

P Vertical Drain
March 2009
2 8-5
PROVEMENT
PVD no ormally consiists of 2 main componen nts, i.e., the center

c core and
a the filterring jacket. The
T drain
cores are
a of flexible type which allows free e flow of wa ater along and/or acrosss the drain core.
c The
filter is of the non-w
woven geo-fa abric type with specific pore
p size disttribution. The
e drain core and filter
are ma ade of one oro combination of the following
f maaterials: polyyester, polyamide, polypropylene,
polyeth hylene or anyy other naturral polymericc material.
atural soil filter surface which

The filttering jacket acts as a na w inhibitt movement of soil particcles while
allowing g passage of water into the drain. Thus,
T it acts as the exterrior surfaces and preventts closure
of the internal drain
n flow paths under latera al soil pressurres.
The PVVD center corre serves to provide the internal flow

w paths along g the drain a
and at the sa
ame time,
provide
e support to the filter jacket to main ntain the draain configuraation and shhape. It also provides
some reesistance to longitudinal stretching as well as bucckling of the drain.
t Appendix 8A for a more

Readerr can refer to m detail discussion
d on
n the design
n of vertical drainage
system.
8.2.4 Vibro
o-Floatation
n
The pro ocess of imp proving loosee granular grround soil wiith depth vib brators starte
ed in the 19330s. With
the advvancement of o technologyy, vibro-floata ation techniqque has also been used tto treat coheesive soil.
Vibro-flloatation can n be divided d into two main catego ories, namely; Vibro Co ompaction and
a Vibro
Replace ement. Vibro o Compactio on basically iss used to tre
eat granular soils by densifying loosee granular
soils byy means of depth vibrator. As for Vibro V Replaccement, it iss used to treeat cohesive
e soils by
partiallyy replacing the
t cohesive soils with grranular soils (in this case e, vibro repla
acement is so
ometimes
referredd to as sto one column)). Figure 8.6 6 shows the relationsh hip between soil types and the
appropriate method d of vibro floa
atation.
Figure 8.6
8 Relationsships betwee
en Particle Sizze and Availa
able Vibro Te
echniques
1
8.2.4.1 Vibro
o Compactio
on
The priinciple behinnd this methood is that th

he cohesivele
ess soil i.e., sand
s and gra
avel can be densified
by mea ans of vibrattion. The vib
bratory action
n of the deppth vibrator is used to teemporarily re
educe the
particular friction between
b the particles andd rearrange soil particless in a denser state. The effect of
vibro densification can increasee the shear strength
s of the
t existing ground and reduce the total and
ntial settleme
differen ent.
8-6 March
M 2009
PROVEMENT
The vib brator penettrates the sooil by meanns of water jets and on nce at full ddepth, it is gradually
withdraawn leaving behind a column of well w compacte ed soil. Figuure 8.7 illusttrated the schematic
s
processs of vibro compaction. To achieve a mass den nsification, the
t entire arrea is comppacted by
column n points in a triangle or square patteern. This tecchnique is well
w suited fo or the densifiication of
relative
ely clean (fin
nes content up
u to about 10 to 15%)) granular so oils such as sands and gravels.
g A
major benefit of th his method isi that no addditional maaterials are necessary
n which makes it a very
econom mical techniqque. The exteent and effe
ectiveness off the techniques in impro oving the compaction
of the soil can be determined easily by sounding
s tessts such as cone penetrration test or o electric
piezocoone.
Figure 8.7
8 The Schematic Processs of Vibro Co
ompaction
2
8.2.4.2 Vibro
o Replaceme
ent (Stone Column)
Vibro reeplacement is a techniqu ue used to im mprove sand dy soils with high fines ccontents (>1 15%) and
cohesivve soils such as silts and clays. In thiis method coolumns made e up of stonees are installled in the
soft groound using th
he depth vibbrator. The viibrator is use
ed to first cre
eate a hole in
n the groundd which is
then filled with stones as the vibrator
v is wiithdrawn. Thhe stones are e then latera
ally displaced
d into the
soil byy subsequentt re-penetra ation of the vibrator. In n this mann ner a colummn made up p of well
compaccted stone fill with diam meters typically ranging between
b 0.7
7 m and 1.1 m is installe ed in the
ground.
Two me ethods of insstallation nammely the ‘we

et’ and ‘dry’ methods
m are
e used for insstallation of the
t stone
column ns. In the weet method, water
w jets are
e used to create the hole and to asssist in penetration. In
the dryy method, th he hole is crreated by the vibratory energy
e and induced pulll down force e. Typical
installattion process in the case of dry metho od is schema atically show
wn in Figure 88.8. This tech hnique of
soil impprovement ca an be used for
f nearly all types of soils.
March 2009
2 8-7
PROVEMENT
Figure 8.8
8 Schematiic Showing th
he Installatio
on of Stone Columns
C (Dryy Method)
The Vibbro Replacem ment techniqque provides an economiccal and flexib ble solution, which can readily
r be
adapted d to varying ground cond ditions. Vibro
o Replaceme ent technique
e can improvved the soil conditions
c
in vario
ous ways, am mong which are:
a
• Compaction of the subsoil
s and increase
i in density
• Improvvement in the e stiffness off the subsoil to decrease excessive seettlement
• Improvvement in the e shear strenngth of the subsoil to deccrease the rissk of failure
• Increasse in the masss of the subbsoil to mitigaate ground vibrations
v
• Ability to
t carry veryy high loads since
s columnns are highly ductile
• Rapid consolidation
c n of the subso oil
Stone column
c impro ovement sha all not be treated as strucctural solutio
on. Dense sto
one columnss installed
and th he surroundiing soil is considered
c a a compo
as osite matrix. Shear stre ength considder after
treatme ent is not limited to stone
s colum
mn but subje ected to ovverall strenggth increase. Overall
compossite strength shall be con nsidered in stability
s desig
gn. The commmon design approach ad dopted in
stone column
c is ussing Priebe’ss method wh hich developped by Heinz J. Priebe 1995 from Keller.
K In
Priebe’ss method, im mprovementt factors are e calculated to be colum mn spacing, diameter, constraint
c
modulu us and etc. The common n diameter of
o stone colu umn adopted d in Malaysia ranges from
m 900mm
to 1200 0mm diametter. Depth off treatment is subjected to loading, soil stratum,, need for se ettlement
/stabilitty.
Testing
g of the soil improvement, after insstallation of the
t stone co olumns in cooarse-grained soils is
usually performed with
w either static or dyna amic penetro
ometer tests (CPT or DPT T). However for stone
columnns constructe
ed in fine-gra
ained soils it is common practice
p to ca
arry out load
d tests directtly on the
columnns.
8.2.5 Deep Soil Mixing

g (Lime Column)
Deep soil mixing (D DSM) technology is a devvelopment off the lime-ce ement column method, whichw was
introduced almost 30 years ag go. It is a form
f of soil improvemennt involving the introducction and
mechan nical mixing of in-situ sofft and weak soils with a cementitiouss compound such as lime e, cement
or a co ombination ofo both in different
d pro
oportions. Th he mixing of
o the cemen ntitious com
mpound is
facilitatted with a rotary paddle asa shown in Figure 8.9. The mixture e is often refe
erred to as th
he
8-8 March
M 2009
binder. The binder is injected into the soil in a dry form. The moisture in the soil is utilized for the
binding process, resulting in an improved soil with higher shear strength and lower compressibility.
The removal of the moisture from the soil also results in an improvement in the soft soil surrounding
the mixed soil.
Figure 8.9 Mixer Paddle Used In Deep Soil Mixing
Typical applications of the deep soil mixing method include foundations of embankment fill for
highway and railway, slope stabilization, stabilization of deep excavation and foundations for housing
development. The anticipated amounts of binding agents commonly used are approximately 100 –
150 kg/m3 in silty clay and clayey silt materials. The strength develops differently over time
depending on the type of soil, amount of binder and proportion used. In most cases, the strength
starts to increase after a few hours and then continues to increase rapidly during the first week. In
normal cases, approximately 90% of the final strength is reached after about three weeks.
8.2.5.1 Mix Design
Detailed site investigation and laboratory tests are required to determine the optimum lime content
for soil stabilization. In general, lime stabilization is suitable for ground with low sulphide and organic
content. It is also effective for silty ground with low plasticity. The optimum lime percentage is
approximately 3% but increases with water content. However if lime content exceeded the optimum
content, shear strength of treated ground will be reduced. The increase in the shear strength after
improvement varies, and ranges from 5-10 kPa to 100kPa. Generally shear strength increment
reduces with increment of liquid limit.
The soil strength increase gradually through the pozzolonic reaction between lime, aluminate and
silicate in the soil (clay). The percentage of clay shall be more than 20%. For normal case, the
mixture of silt and clay shall be greater than 35% and plasticity shall be greater than 10%. If the
percentage of clay does not fulfill the condition above, cement and fly ash shall be added.
For soil improvement using lime mixing in organic soil, shear strength increment is rather small.
Usually, gypsum is added to unslaked lime to stabilize the organic soil. The mixture is of
approximately ¼ to ½ of gypsum to ¾ ~ ½ unslaked lime.
8.2.6 Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic compaction consists of using a heavy tamper that is repeatedly raised and dropped with a
single cable from varyingn heights to impact the ground. The mass of the tampers generally ranges
from 20 tonnes to 200 tonnes and drop height range from 20 to 40m. The energy is generally
applied in phases on a grid pattern over the entire area using single or multiple passes. Following
March 2009 8-9

PROVEMENT
ass, the cratters are eithe

each pa er levelled with
w a dozer or filled with
h granular fill material before the
next pa
ass of energyy is applied. Figure 8.10 shows
s the scchematic of the
t dynamic compaction process.
Figure 8.1
10 Dynamic Compaction
C
he energy iss applied from

All of th m existing grade and thee degree of improvemen nt is a functio
on of the
energy applied i.e.,, the mass ofo the tampe er, the drop height, the grid spacing
g and the number of
drops at
a each grid point
p location
n.
The ap pplication off dynamic compaction

c eration the noise and vibration
shall take into conside
disturba
ances to th he surroundiing. Excessivve vibration
n may causee distresses to the neigbouring
structures.
In situ test such as

a SPT, CPT or Piezocon ne can be used during anda after co
ompletion of dynamic
compacction to verrify whether the desiredd improveme ent has nott been achie eved. If necessary,
addition
nal energy could
c be ap
pplied to furtther improve
e the densiffication and improvemen nt of the
ground.
8.2.7 Some
e Additionall Considera
ations
a) Th he selection of
o ground im mprovement methods
m is subjected
s to the
t following g criterions:-
i) Cost effecctiveness of the treatmen nt method ass compared tot the overall project cosst
ii) The availability of the
e treatment method
m in the country
iii)) Types of soil to be tre
eated
iv)) Long termm and differeential settlem
ment requiremments for thee structures
b) Thee constructio on rate of the

t earthworrks is usuallly faster tha an the dissippation of po ore water
pre
essure (especcially in low permeabilityy clay soil). TheT initially high excess pore water pressure
devveloped in th he ground due to rapid construction will reduce the effective e strength of
o the soil
andd may lead to t ground insstability. How wever, the excess
e pore pressure
p will slowly dissip
pate with
tim
me, thus incre eases the efffective stresss of the soil which
w eventuually increasses the stability of the
gro
ound. Hence,, total stresss analysis with undrained d condition, which is usuually the mo ost critical
conndition, is useed in the dessign of grounnd treatmentt.
8-10 March
M 2009
c) Soils subjected to improvement works are usually very soft in nature. Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) is not suitable for soft soil layer. It is advisable to retrieve undisturbed soil samples from
the ground for laboratory tests which include Undrained Unconsolidated (UU) Triaxial test and
One Dimensional Consolidation Test using Odeometer. In addition, in-situ tests such as Vane
Shear test and Piezocone are recommended in soft soils sensitive to disturbance such as marine
clay is highly recommended.
d) Transition zone shall be provided in the ground improvement design if the project used more
than one type of ground improvement methods. This is most crucial if the ground improvement
methods pose a different allowable long term settlement, e.g., bridge and bridge approach,
culverts etc.
e) Due to the complexities and uncertainties of the ground conditions as well as the simplification of
design formulae in the analysis and design, it is strongly recommended that the instrumentation
monitoring scheme shall be provided during the construction works for design verification
purposes. Some provisions in the Bill of Quantities shall also be provided to cater for any design
changes during construction.
March 2009 8-11

REFERENCES
[1] ASCE (1987). Soil Improvement – A ten Year Update, Geotechnical Special Publication No.
12, edited by J.P. Welsh.
[2] Bowles, J.E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[3] Broms, B.B. (1993). Lime Stabilization. “Chapter 4 in Ground Improvement, edited by M.P.
Moseley, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 65-99.
[4] Broms, B.B., and Forssblad, L. (1969). “Vibratory Compaction of Cohesionless Soils.
“Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Specialty Session No. 2, pp. 101-118.
[5] Broomhead, D., and Jasperse, B.H. (1992). “Shallow Soil Mixing- a Case History. “Grouting,
Soil Improvement and Geosynthetic, edited by R.H. Borden, R.D. Holtz, and I. Juran, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication no. 3o, vol. 1, pp. 564 – 576.
[7] Coduto, D. P., (2001) Foundation Design – Principles and Practices, Prentice Hill Inc.
[8] Das, B.M. (1983). Advanced Soil Mechanics, Hemisphere Publishing, New York.
[9] Dept. of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington D.C.,NAVFAC DM.-7.3, April
1983, Soil Dynamics, Deep Stabilization and Special Geotechnical Construction
[10] Duncan, J.M. & Poulos, H.G. (1981). Modern techniques for the analysis of eng
[11] ineering problems in soft clay. Soft Clay Engineering, Elsevier, New York, pp 317-414.
Washington, DC.
[13] FHWA (1979). Soil Stabilization in Pavement Structures- a User’s Manual, Report no. FHWA-
IP-80-2, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., October.
[14] Hausmann, M.R. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground Modification, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
[15] Koerner R.M . Construction and Geotechnical Method in Foundation Engineering, McGraw
Hill, 1985.
[17] Mesri G., discussion of New Design Procedure for stability of Soft Clays. by Charles C. Ladd
Paper 10664. April 1975. pp. 409 - 412.
[18] Nayak N. V. I II, Foundation Design Manual. Dhanpat Rai a Sons I 1982.
1974.
8-12 March 2009

[20] O.G., and Metcalf, J.B. (1973), Soil Stabilization: Principles and Practice, John Wiley & Sons,
New Ingles.
[21] PCA(1979). Soil-Cement Construction handbook, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,

Illinois.
[22] Sherwood, P.T.(1962). Effect of Sulfates on Cement-and Lime-Stabilized Soils. Highway

Research Board Buletin No. 353: Stabilization of Soils with Portland Cement, Washington, D.C., pp.
98-107. Also in Roads and Road Construction, vol. 40, February, pp. 34-40.
[23] Sokolovich, V.E., and Semkin, V.V. (1984), Chemical Stabilization of Loess Soils. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, July-August, pp. 8-11.
[26] Thomson, M.R. (1966). Shear Strength and Elastic Properties of Lime-Soil Mixtures.
Highway Research Record No. 139: Behaviour Characteristics of Lime-Soil Mixtures, highway
Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-14.
[27] Thonson, M.R. (1969). Engineering Properties of Soil-Mistures. Journal of Materials, ASTM,
vol. 4, no. 4, December.
[28] TRB (1987). Lime Stabilization: Reactions, Properties, Design, and Construction, State of the
Art Report 5, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
March 2009 8-13

8-14 March 2009

APPENDIX 8A: DESIGN OF VERTICAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The principal objective of soil pre consolidation, with or without PVD, is to achieve a desired degree
of consolidation within a specified period of time. The design of pre consolidation with PVDs requires
the evaluation of drain and soil properties (both separately and as a system) as well as the effects of
installation.
For one dimensional consolidation with drains, only consolidation due to one dimensional (vertical)
seepage to natural drainage boundaries is considered. The degree of consolidation can be measured
by the ration of the settlement at any time to the total primary settlement that will (or is expected
to) occur. This ratio is referred to as Ū, the average degree of consolidation.
By definition, one dimensional consolidation is considered to result from vertical drainage only, but
consolidation theory can be applied to horizontal or radial drainage as well. Depending on the
boundary conditions consolidation may occur due to concurrent vertical and horizontal drainage. The
average degree of consolidation, Ū, can be calculated from the vertical, horizontal or combined
drainage depending on the situation considered.
With Vertical drains the overall average degree of consolidation, Ū, is the result of the combined
effects of the horizontal (radial) and vertical drainage. The combined effect is given by:-
Ū = 1 – ( 1 – Ūh) (1 – Ūv) (8.1)
where,
Ū = overall average degree of consolidation
Ūh = average degree of consolidation due to horizontal (radial) Drainage
Ūv = average degree of consolidation due to vertical drainage.
The graph of Ū vs log time for both the vertical and horizontal drainage in shown in Figure 8.11 and
Figure 8.12 respectively.
March 2009 8A-1

PROVEMENT
Fig
gure 8.11 Rellationships between U an
nd Tv
Figu
ure 8.12 Rela
ationship Of Uh and Tv For
F Horizonta
al/Radial Drainage
The design of PVD system requ uires the prediction of the rate of disssipation of e
excess pore pressures
p
by radiaal seepage to
o vertical dra
ains as well a
as evaluating g the contribution of vert
tical drainage
e.
The first comprehe ensive treatm ment of the radial drain nage problem m was prese ented by Barrron who
d the theory of vertical sand
studied s drains. Barron worrks was base ed on simplifying assum mptions of
Terzaghhi’s one-dimeensional linear consolidattion theory. The
T most widely used sim mplified solution from
Baron’ss analysis provides the relationsh hip of time e, drain dia ameter, spa acing, coeffficient of
consolid
dation and thhe average degree
d of connsolidation.
8A-2 March
M 2009
t = (D2/8Ch) F(n) ln (1/(1- Ūh)) (8.2)
where,
t = time required to achieve Ūh
Ū = average degree of consolidation due to horizontal drainage.
D = diameter of the cylinder of influence of the drain (drain influence zone)
Ch = coefficient of consolidation for horizontal drainage
F(n) = Drain spacing factor
= ln (D/d) – ¾
D = diameter of a circular drain
Equation 8.2 was further modified by Hasbo to be applied to band-shape PVD and to include
consideration of disturbance and drain resistance effects.
2
t = (D /8Ch) (F(n) + Fs + Fr) ln (1/(1- Ūh)) (8.3)
where,
t = time required to achieve Ūh
Ū = average degree of consolidation at depth z du to horizontal drainage
D = diameter of the cylinder of influence of the drain (drain influence zone)
Ch = coefficient of consolidation for horizontal drainage
F(n) = Drain spacing factor
= ln (D/dw) – ¾
D = diameter of a circular drain
dw = equivalent diameter
Fs = factor for soil disturbance
= ((kh/ks ) – 1) ln (ds/dw)
kh = the coefficient of permeability in the horizontal direction in the undisturbed soil
ks = the coefficient of permeability in the horizontal direction in the disturbed soil
ds = diameter of the idealized disturbed zone around the drain
Fr = factor for drain resistance
= πz (l – z) (kh/qw)
z = distance below top surface of the compressible soil later
L = effective drain length; length of drain when drainage occurs at one end only; half
length of drain when drainage occurs at both ends
qw = discharge capacity of the drain (at gradient = 1.0)
Equation 8.3 can be simplified to the ideal case by ignoring the effect of soil disturbance and drain
resistance (Fs and Fr = 0) the resulting ideal case equation is equivalent to Barron’s solution:
t = (D2/8Ch) F(n) ln (1/(1- Ūh)) (8.4)
Therefore, in the ideal case, the time for a specified degree of consolidation simplifies to be a
function of soil properties (Ch), design requirement (Ūh) and design variables (D, dw).
March 2009 8A-3

Figure 8.13 Relationship of F(n) and D/dw
Figure 8.13 shows the relationship of F(n) to D/dw for the ideal case. Within a typical range of D/dw,
F(n) ranges from approximately 2 to 3.
The theory of consolidation with radial drainage assumes that the soil is drained by a vertical drain
with circular section. The radial consolidation equations include the drain diameter, d. A band shape
PVD drain must therefore be assigned as “equivalent diameter”, dw. For design purposes, it is
reasonable to calculate the equivalent diameter as:-
dw = (2(a+b)/π) (8.5)
where,
a = width of the band – shaped drain cross section

b = thickness of a band-shaped drain cross section
Equation A8.5 can be further simplified to
dw = (a + b) /2 (8.6)
8A-4 March 2009

PROVEMENT
Consolidation
n period (month)
% of Consolidatio
on
Spacing (m) 2
Ch m /y
year
Figure 8.14
8 Design Chart for Ho
orizontal Consolidation
The De esign Chart shown

s in Fig
gure 8.14 cann be used as a prelimina ary guide for PVD designn. Simple
input parameter
p suuch as drain spacing, deggree of consoolidation, req
quired conso
olidation dura
ation and
coefficient of horizo
ontal consolid
dation are ussed for PVD design.
d
In conttext of local Malaysian soft

s soil, the typical spaccing of PVD ranges from m 1.0 to 1.5m m c/c. In
some construction,
c to further re
educe the consolidation period,
p additiional surcharrge load is ussed.
Some of
o the typical properties specified
s for Prefabricate
ed Vertical Drain
D (PVD) a
are as shownn in Table
8.1 belo
ow. The actu
ual limiting values
v of the
e properties can
c be obtained from the e various sup
ppliers or
manufaacturers:
March 2009
2 8A-5
Table 8.1 Typical Properties and Test Standards Specified For Vertical Drain
Criteria Properties Standard

General Thickness ASTM D5199
Constructability Tensile Strength (dry and Wet)
Grab ASTM D4132
Strip ASTM D1182
Wide Width ASTM D5035
Tear Strength ASTM D4533
Puncture resistance ASTM D4833
Abrasion resistance ASTM D4881
Ultra violet stability ASTM D4355
Hydraulic Permeability / permittivity ASTM D4491
Apparent opening size (O95) ASTM D4751
Discharge capacity ASTM D4711
8A-6 March 2009

CHAPTER 9 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Table of Contents

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 9-iii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 9-iii
9.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 DEEP FOUNDATION ..................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1 General ......................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.2 Classification of Piles ....................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.2.1 Precast Reinforced Concrete Piles ....................................................... 9-2
9.2.3 Pile Foundation Design.................................................................................... 9-6
9.2.3.1 General ............................................................................................ 9-6
9.2.3.2 Design Philosophies ........................................................................... 9-6
9.2.3.4 Pile Capacity ..................................................................................... 9-8
9.2.4 Pile Loading Tests ........................................................................................ 9-13
9.2.4.1 General .......................................................................................... 9-13
9.2.4.2 Timing of Pile Tests ......................................................................... 9-14
9.2.4.3 Static Pile Loading Tests .................................................................. 9-14
9.2.5 Equipment ................................................................................................... 9-17
9.2.5.1 Measurement of Load ...................................................................... 9-17
9.2.5.2 Measurement of Pile Head Movement ............................................... 9-19
9.2.5.3 Test Procedures .............................................................................. 9-21
9.2.5.4 Instrumentation .............................................................................. 9-24
9.2.5.5 Interpretation of Test Results ........................................................... 9-25
9.2.6 Dynamic Loading Tests ................................................................................. 9-27
9.2.6.1 General .......................................................................................... 9-27
9.2.6.2 Test Methods .................................................................................. 9-27
9.2.6.3 Methods of Interpretation ................................................................ 9-28
9.2.6.4 Recommendations on the Use of Dynamic Loading Tests .................... 9-29
9.3 LATERALLY LOADED PILES ......................................................................................... 9-29
9.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 9-29
9.3.2 Lateral Load Capacity of Pile .......................................................................... 9-31
9.3.3 Inclined Loads .............................................................................................. 9-39
9.3.4 Raking Piles in Soil........................................................................................ 9-39
9.3.5 Lateral Loading ............................................................................................ 9-40
March 2009 9-i


9.3.5.1 General .......................................................................................... 9-40
9.3.5.2 Equivalent Cantilever Method ........................................................... 9-41
9.3.5.3 Subgrade Reaction Method .............................................................. 9-41
9.3.5.4 Elastic Continuum Method ................................................................ 9-43
9.4 PILE GROUP .............................................................................................................. 9-45
9.4.1 General ....................................................................................................... 9-45
9.4.2 Minimum Spacing of Piles ............................................................................. 9-46
9.4.3 Ultimate Capacity of Pile Groups .................................................................... 9-46
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 9-48
9-ii March 2009

List of Tables

9.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Machine-dug Piles 9-4
9.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Hand-dug Caissons 9-5
9.6 Tolerance of Installed Piles 9-46
List of Figures

9.1 Types of Foundation 9-1
9.2 Estimation of Negative Skin Friction by Effective Stress Method 9-13
9.3 Typical Arrangement of a Compression Test using Kentledge 9-15
9.4 Typical Arrangement of a Compression Test using Tension Piles 9-16
9.6 Typical Instrumentation Scheme for a Vertical Pile Loading Test 9-21
9.7 Typical Load Settlement Curves for Pile Loading Tests (Tomlinson, 1994) 9-26
9.8 Failure Modes of Vertical Piles under Lateral Loads (Broms, 1914a) 9-30
9.9 Coefficients Kqz and Kcz at Depth z for Short Piles Subject to Lateral Load
(Brinch Hansen, 1911) 9-33
9.10 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Short Piles in Granular Soils (Broms, 1914a) 9-34
9.11 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Long Piles in Granular Soils (Broms, 1914b) 9-35
9.12 Influence Coefficients for Piles with Applied Lateral Load and Moment (Flexible
Cap or Hinged End Conditions) (Matlock & Reese, 1910) 9-37
9.13 Influence Coefficients for Piles with Applied Lateral Load (Fixed against Rotation at
Ground Surface) (Matlock & Reese, 1910) 9-38
9.14 Analysis of Behaviour of a Laterally Loaded Pile Using the Elastic Continuum
Method (Randolph, 1981a) 9-44
March 2009 9-iii

9-iv March 2009

Ch
hapter 9 FOUNDATION ENGIN
NEERING
9 DEE
EP FOUNDA
ATION EN
NGINEERIN
NG
9.1 INTROD
DUCTION
In geneeral, deep fo oundation ussing piles arre relied up pon to transsfer the load
d acting on the
superstru
uctures in situ
uations where the use of shallow foun ndations beco
omes inadequuate or unreliable.
Some of the situationss where piles are required are as follow
ws:
• To
o transfer load ds through wa oil to a suitable bearing strratum by mea
ater or soft so ans of end
bearing of the piles
p (end beaaring or point bearing piless).
• To
o transfer load ds to a depth of a relativelyy weak soil byy means of "sskin friction" along
a the leng
gth
of the piles (fricction piles).
• To
o compact gra anular soils, th
hus increasing g their bearing capacity (coompaction pilles).
• To
o carry the fou undation through the depth of scour to provide safetty in the even nt the soil is
ero
oded away.
• To
o anchor down n the structurres subjected to uplift due to hydrostatic (Pressure or o overturning g
mooment (tensio on pile or uplifft pile).
• To
o provide anch horage againsst horizontal p pull from shee etpiling walls or other pulliing forces
(an
nchor piles).
• To
o protect wate er front structtures against impact from ships
s or other floating obje
ects (fender piles
p
and dolphins).
• To
o resist large horizontal
h or inclined forcees (batter piles).
Foundattion can be divided into tw

wo main categ gories, namelly shallow fou
undation and deep founda
ation.
The common type of foundation
f is shown in Fig
gure 9.1 below
w.
Foun
ndations
Shallow
S Deep
Fou
undations Found
dations
Sprread Mat Driven Drille

ed Auger Cast
Foottings Foundations Piles Shaffts Piles
Figure 9.1 T
Types of Foun
ndation
This Chaapter discusse

es the princip
ples and desiign of deep foundation.
f FFor shallow fooundation, re
eader
can refer to Chapter 4 and Chap pter 5 for moore detailed discussion onn soil settlem
ment and bea aring
capacity theory respecctively.
March 200
09 9
9-1
9.2 DEEP FOUNDATION
9.2.1 General
Deep foundation is usually used when tructural load is relatively high and/or the ground condition does
not allow for shallow foundation system. Sometimes due to high load, required spread footing are too
large and not economical. For some special structures, i.e., bridge pier, dock etc, pile foundation is
adopted because the foundation is subjected to scour or undermining. Generally deep foundation
system is also preferable where the structures are subjected to high uplift force or lateral force.
9.2.2 Classification of Piles
There are many types of pile classification adopted. In general, piles can be classified according to:-
a) The type of material forming the piles,

b) The mode of load transfer,
c) The degree of ground displacement during pile installation and
d) The method of installation.
Pile classification in accordance with material type (e.g. steel and concrete) has drawbacks because
composite piles are available. A classification system based on the mode of load transfer will be
difficult to set up because the proportion of shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance that occurs in
practice usually cannot be reliably predicted.
In the installation of piles, either displacement or replacement of the ground will predominate. A
classification system based on the degree of ground displacement during pile installation, such as that
recommended in BS 8004 (BSI, 1981) encompasses all types of piles and reflects the fundamental
effect of pile construction on the ground which in turn will have a pronounced influence on pile
performance. Such a classification system is therefore considered to be the most appropriate. In this
document, piles are classified into the following four types:
(a) Large-displacement piles, which include all solid piles, including precast concrete piles, and steel
or concrete tubes closed at the lower end by a driving shoe or a plug, i.e. cast-in-place piles,
large diameter spun pile etc.
(b) Small-displacement piles, which include rolled steel sections such as H-piles and open-ended
tubular piles. However, these piles will effectively become large-displacement piles if a soil plug
forms.
(c) Replacement piles, which are formed by machine boring, grabbing or hand-digging. The
excavation may need to be supported by bentonite slurry, or lined with a casing that is either left
in place or extracted during concreting for re-use.
(d) Special piles, which are particular pile types or variants of existing pile types introduced from
time to time to improve efficiency or overcome problems related to special ground conditions.
9.2.2.1 Precast Reinforced Concrete Piles
Precast reinforced concrete piles are common nowadays in Malaysia. These piles are commonly in
square sections ranging from about 250 mm to about 450 mm with a standard length varies from 1m
to 12m. The lengths of pile sections are often dictated by the practical considerations including
transportability, handling problems in sites of restricted area and facilities of the casting yard In
general, and the maximum allowable axial loads is subjected to the structural capacity designed by the
manufacturer and it can be up to about 1 000kN. These piles can be lengthened by coupling together
during installation. Joining method commonly adopted in Malaysia is using wielding of the end plate of
the piles.
9-2 March 2009

This type of pile is not suitable for driving into ground that contains a significant amount of boulders
or corestones and very hard sand lenses.
i) Precast Prestressed Spun Piles
Precast prestressed spun concrete piles used in Malaysia are closed-ended tubular sections of 400 mm
to 1000 mm diameter with maximum allowable axial loads up to about 3000 kN. Special large diameter
spun piles with diameter greater than 1000mm are also available but the demand is low. Pile sections
are normally 12 m long and are usually welded together using steel end plates.
Precast prestressed spun concrete piles require high-strength concrete and careful tight QA/QC control
during manufacture. Casting is usually carried out in a factory where the curing conditions can be
strictly regulated. Special manufacturing processes such as compaction by spinning or autoclave curing
can be adopted to produce high strength concrete up to about 75 MPa. Such piles may be handled
more easily than precast reinforced concrete piles without damage. Steam curing is usually adopted in
the casting yard to shorten casting time and to ensure the quality of the pile.
ii) Small-Displacement Piles
Small-displacement piles are either solid (e.g. steel H-piles) or hollow (open-ended tubular piles, i.e., GI
pipes) with a relatively low cross-sectional area. This type of pile is usually installed by percussion
method. However, a soil plug may be formed during driving, particularly with tubular piles, and
periodic drilling out may be necessary to reduce the driving resistance. A soil plug can create a greater
driving resistance than a closed end, because of damping on the inner-side of the pile.
Bakau pile is considered to be a small displacement pile. However, due to the conservation of the
mangrove forest and the coastal line of Malaysia. Bakau piles are not allowed to be used special permit
is required if imported bakau pile is used.
iii) Replacement Piles
Replacement or bored piles are mostly formed by machine excavation. When constructed in condition
with high ground water table, the pile bore will need to be supported using steel casings, concrete rings
or drilling fluids such as bentonite slurry, polymer mud, etc to avoid collapsing of drilled hole.
Excavation of the pile bore may also be carried out by hand-digging in the dry; and the technique
developed in Hong Kong involving manual excavation is known locally as hand-dug caissons.
Machine-dug piles are formed by rotary boring, or percussive methods of boring, and subsequently
filling the hole with concrete. Piles with 100 mm or less in diameter are commonly known as small-
diameter piles. Piles greater than 1000 mm diameter are referred to as large-diameter piles.
a) Machine Bored Piles
The advantages and disadvantages of machine-dug piles are summarized in Table 9.1.
March 2009 9-3

Table 9.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Machine-dug Piles
Advantages Disadvantages
i. No risk of ground heave induced by pile a. Risk of loosening of sandy or gravelly soils
driving. during pile excavation, reducing bearing
ii. Length can be readily varied. capacity and causing ground loss and hence
ii. Spoil can be inspected and compared with settlement.
site investigation data. b. Susceptible to bulging or necking during
v. Structural capacity is not dependent on concreting in unstable ground.
handling or driving conditions. c. Quality of concrete cannot be inspected after
v. Can be installed with less noise and vibration completion except by coring.
compared to displacement piles. d. Unset concrete may be damaged by
vi. Can be installed to great depths. significant water flow.
vii. Can readily overcome underground e. Excavated material requires disposal, the
obstructions at depths. cost of which will be high if it is
contaminated.
f. Base cleanliness may be difficult to achieve,
reducing end-bearing resistance of the piles.
b) Mini / Micro Bored Piles
Mini-piles generally have a diameter between 100 mm and 400 mm. One or more high yield steel bars
are provided in the piles. In Malaysia, used high yield steel pipes are commonly used as the
reinforcement for micro piles.
Construction can be carried out typically to about 10 m depth or more, although verticality control will
become more difficult at greater depths. Mini-piles are usually formed by drilling rigs with the use of
down-the-hole hammers or rotary percussive drills. They can be used for sites with difficult access or
limited headroom and for underpinning. In general, they can overcome large or numerous obstructions
in the ground.
Mini-piles are usually embedded in rock sockets. Given the small-diameter and high slenderness ratio
of mini-piles, the load is resisted largely by shaft resistance. The lengths of the rock sockets are
normally designed to match the pile capacity as limited by the permissible stress of steel bars. A mini-
pile usually has four 50 mm diameter high yield steel bars and has a load-carrying capacity of about
1375 kN. Where mini-piles are installed in soil, the working load is usually less than 700 kN but can be
in excess of 1 000 kN if post grouting is undertaken using tube-a-manchette.
Pile cap may be designed to resist horizontal loads. Alternatively, mini-piles can be installed at an
inclination to resist the horizontal loads.
c) Large Diameter Bored Piles
Large-diameter bored piles are used in Malaysia to support heavy column loads of tall buildings and
highways structures such as viaducts. Typical sizes of these piles range from 1 m to 3 m, with lengths
up to about 80 m and working loads up to about 45,000 kN. The working load can be increased by
socketing the piles into rock or providing a bell-out at pile base. The pile bore is supported by
temporary steel casings or drilling fluid, such as bentonite slurry.
9-4 March 2009

d) Hand Dug Caissons
Hand-dug caissons are not very common in Malaysia. For the past two decades, it has been widely
used in project with limited working space and for hillside development. Their diameters typically range
from 1.2 m to 2.5 m, with an allowable load of up to about 25000 kN. The advantages and
disadvantages of hand-dug caissons are summarised in Table 9.2.
Hand-dug caisson shafts are excavated using hand tools in stages with depths of up to about 1 m,
depending on the competence of the ground. Dewatering is facilitated by pumping from sumps on the
excavation floor or from deep wells. Advance grouting may be carried out to provide support in
potentially unstable ground. Each stage of excavation is lined with in-situ concrete rings (minimum 75
mm thick) using tapered steel forms which provide a key to the previously constructed rings. When the
diameter is large, the rings may be suitably reinforced against stresses arising from eccentricity and
non-uniformity in hoop compression. Near the bottom of the pile, the shaft may be belled out to
enhance the load-carrying capacity.
Examples of situations where the use of caissons should be avoided include:
• Coastal reclamation sites with high groundwater table,

• Sites underlain by cavernous marble,
• Deep foundation works (e.g. In excess of say 50 m),
• Landfill or chemically-contaminated sites,
• Sites with a history of deep-seated ground movement,
• Sites in close proximity to water or sewerage tunnels,
• Sites in close proximity to shallow foundations, and
• Sites with loose fill having depths in excess of say 10 m.
Examples of situations where hand-dug caissons may be considered include:
• Steeply-sloping sites with hand-dug caissons of less than 25 m in depth in soil, and
• Sites with difficult access or insufficient working room where it maybe impracticable or unsafe
to use mechanical plant.
Table 9.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Hand-dug Caissons
a) As (a) to (e) for machine-dug piles. a) As (a), (c) and (e) for machine-dug piles.
b) Base materials can be inspected. b) Hazardous working conditions for workers
c) Versatile construction method requiring and the construction method has a poor
minimal site preparation and access. safety record.
d) Removal of obstructions or boulders is c) Liable to base heave or piping during
relatively easy through the use of excavation, particularly where the
pneumatic drills or, in some cases, groundwater table is high.
explosives. d) Possible adverse effects of dewatering on
e) Generally conducive to simultaneous adjoining land and structures.
excavation by different gangs of workers. e) Health hazards to workers, as reflected by a
f) Not susceptible to programme delay arising high incidence rate of pneumoconiosis and
from machine down time. damage to hearing of caisson workers.
g) Can be constructed to large-diameters.
March 2009 9-5

9.2.3 Pile Foundation Design
9.2.3.1 General
Methods based on engineering principles of varying degrees of sophistication are available as a

framework for pile design. All design procedures can be broadly divided into four categories:
(a) Empirical 'rules-of-thumb',

(b) Semi-empirical correlations with in-situ test results,
(c) Rational methods based on simplified soil mechanics or rock mechanics theories, and
(d) Advanced analytical (or numerical) techniques.
A judgment has to be made on the choice of an appropriate design method for a given project.
In principle, in choosing an appropriate design approach, relevant factors that should be considered
include:
(a) The ground conditions,

(b) Nature of the project, and
(c) Comparable past experience.
9.2.3.2 Design Philosophies
The design of piles should comply with the following requirements throughout their service life:
• There should be adequate safety against failure of the ground. The required factor of safety
depends on the importance of the structure, consequence of failure, reliability and adequacy of
information on ground conditions, sensitivity of the structure, nature of the loading, local
experience, design methodologies, number of representative preliminary pile loading tests.
• There should be adequate margin against excessive pile movements, which would impair the
serviceability of the structure.
a) Global Factor of Safety Approach
The conventional global factor of safety approach is based on the use of a lumped factor applied
notionally to either the ultimate strength or the applied load. This is deemed to cater for all the
uncertainties inherent in the design.
9-6 March 2009

The conventional approach of applying a global safety factor provides for variations in loads and
material strengths from their estimated values, inaccuracies in behavioural predictions, unforeseen
changes to the structure from that analysed, unrecognised loads and ground conditions, errors in
design and construction, and acceptable deformations in service.
b) Limit State Design Approach
A limit state is usually defined as 'any limiting condition beyond which the structure ceases to fulfil
its intended function'. Limit state design considers the performance of a structure, or structural
elements, at each limit state. Typical limit states are strength, serviceability, stability, fatigue,
durability and fire. Different factors are applied to loads and material strengths to account for their
different uncertainty.
c) Recommended Factors Of Safety
The following considerations should be taken into account in the selection of the appropriate
factors of safety:
(i) There should be an adequate safety factor against failure of structural members in
accordance with appropriate structural codes.
(ii) There must be an adequate global safety factor on ultimate bearing capacity of the ground.
Terzaghi et al (1991) proposed the minimum acceptable factor of safety to be between 2
and 3 for compression loading. The factor of safety should be selected with regard to
importance of structure, consequence of failure, the nature and variability of the ground,
reliability of the calculation method and design parameters, extent of previous experience and
number of loading tests on preliminary piles. The factors as summarised in Table 9.3 for
piles in soils should be applied to the sum of the shaft and end-bearing resistance (HONG
KONG GEO 2001).
(iii) The assessment of working load should additionally be checked for minimum 'mobilisation'
factors fs and fb on the shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance respectively as given in
Table 9.5.
(iv) Settlement considerations, particularly for sensitive structures, may govern the allowable
loads on piles and the global safety factor and/or 'mobilisation' factors may need to be
higher than those given in (ii) & (iii) above.
(v) Where significant cyclic, vibratory or impact loads are envisaged or the properties of the
ground are expected to deteriorate significantly with time, the minimum global factor of
safety to be adopted may need to be higher than those in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above.
(vi) Where piles are designed to provide resistance to uplift force, a factor of safety should be
applied to the estimated ultimate pile uplift resistance and should not be less than the values
given in Table 9.4.
March 2009 9-7

Table 9.3 Minimum Global Factors of Safety for Piles in Soil and Rock
Mobilization Factor for Shaft Mobilization Factor for End-

Material
Resistance, fs bearing Resistance, fb
Granular Soils 1.5 3–5
Clays 1.2 3–5
Notes: 1. Mobilization factors for end-bearing resistance depend very much on construction.
Recommended minimum factors assume good workmanship without presences of
debris giving rise to a ‘soft’ toe and are based on available local instrumented loading
tests on friction piles in granitic saprolites. Mobilization factors for end-bearing
resistance. The higher the ratio, the lower is the mobilization factor.
2. Noting that the movements required to mobilize the ultimate end-bearing resistance
are about 2% to 5% of the pile diameter for driven piles and about 10% to 20% of
the pile diameter for bored piles, lower mobilization factor may be used for driven
piles.
3. In stiff clays, it is common to limit the peak average shaft resistance to 100 kPa and
the mobilized base pressure at working load to a nominal value of 550 to 600 kPa for
settlement considerations, unless higher values can be justified by loading tests.
4. Where the designer judges that significant mobilization of end-bearing resistance
cannot be relied on at working load due to possible effects of construction, a design
approach which is sometimes advocated (e.g. Toh et al, 1989, Brooms & Chang, 1990)
is to ignore the end-bearing resistance altogether in determining the design working
load with a suitable mobilization factor on shaft resistance alone (e.g. 1.5). .End-
bearing resistance is treated as an added safety margin against ultimate failure and
considered in checking for the factor of safety against ultimate failure.
5. Lower mobilization factor for end-bearing resistance may be adopted for end-bearing
piles provided that it can be justified by settlement analyses that the design limiting
settlement can be satisfied.
9.2.3.4 Pile Capacity
a) Design of Geotechnical Capacity in soil
Pile capacity can be divided into 2 main components, namely;

• Shaft resistance; Qs
• End bearing resistance; Qb
The ultimate capacity of the pile is the sum of both the shaft resistance and the end bearing resistance;
Qult = Qs + Qb (9.6)
As for allowable pile capacity;
Qallow = Qs/Fs + Qb/Fb (9.7)
Where,
Fs = safety factor for shaft resistance. The common Fs adopted in design is 2.0
Fb = safety factor for end bearing. The common Fb ranges from 2.0 to 3.0 subjected to
availability and sufficiency of soil parameters. Higher safety factor shall be used when
limited soil information is made available. As for bored pile, normally Qb is ignored.
9-8 March 2009

The design of pile geotechnical capacity commonly used can be divided into two major categories
namely:
i) Semi-empirical Method
ii) Simplified Soil Mechanics Method
i) Semi-Empirical Method
Piles are constructed in tropical soils that generally have complex soil characteristics. The current
theoretically based formulae do not consider the effects of soil disturbance, stress relief and partial
reestablishment of ground stresses that occur during the installation of piles; therefore, the
sophistication involved in using such formulae may not be necessary.
Semi-empirical correlations have been extensively developed relating both shaft resistance and base
resistance of piles to N-values from Standard Penetration Tests (SPT ’N’ values). In the correlations
established, the SPT ’N’ values generally refer to uncorrected values before pile installation.
The commonly used correlations for bored piles are as follows:
fs = Ks x SPT ’N’ (in kPa) (9.8)
fb = Kb x SPT ’N’ (in kPa) (9.9)
Where:
Ks = Ultimate shaft resistance factor
Kb = Ultimate base resistance factor
SPT’N’ = Standard Penetration Tests blow counts (blows/300mm)
Toh et al. (1989) reported that the average Ks obtained varies from 5 at SPT ’N’ 20 to as low as 1.5 at
SPT ’N’=220. Chang & Broms (1991) suggests that Ks of 2 for bored piles in residual soils of Singapore
with SPT ’N’<150.
For base resistance, Kb values available varies significantly indicating difficulty in obtaining proper and
consistent base cleaning during construction, especially for bored piles. It is very dangerous if the base
resistance is relied upon when the proper cleaning of the base cannot be assured. From back-analyses
of test piles, Chang & Broms (1991) shows that Kb equals to 30 to 45 and Toh et al. (1989) reports that
Kb falls between 27 and 10 as obtained from the two piles that were tested to failure.
ii) Simplified Soil Mechanics Methods
Generally the simplified soil mechanics methods for bored pile design can be classified into fine grained
soils (e.g. clays, silts) and coarse grained soils (e.g. sands and gravels).
Fine Grained Soils
The ultimate shaft resistance (fs) of bored piles in fine grained soils can be estimated based
on the semi-empirical undrained method as follows:
fs = α x su (9.10)
March 2009 9-9

Where :
α = adhesion factor
su = undrained shear strength (kPa)
Whitaker & Cooke (1911) reports that the α value lies in the range of 0.3 to 0.1 for stiff
overconsolidated clays, while Tomlinson (1994) and Reese & O’Neill (1988) report α values in the range
of 0.4 to 0.9. The α values for residual soils of Malaysia are also within this range. Where soft clay is
encountered, a preliminary value of 0.8 to 1.0 is usually adopted together with the corrected
undrained shear strength from the vane shear test. This method is useful if the bored piles are to be
constructed on soft clay near river or at coastal area.
The value of ultimate shaft resistance can also be estimated from the following expression:
fs = Kse x σv ’ x tan φ’ (9.11)
Where :
Kse = Effective Stress Shaft Resistance Factor = [can be assumed as Ko]
σv ’ = Vertical Effective Stress (kPa)
φ’ = Effective Angle of Friction (degree) of fined grained soils.
However, this method is not popular in Malaysia and limited case histories of back-analysed Kse values
are available for practical usage of the design engineer.
Although the theoretical ultimate base resistance for pile in fine grained soil can be related to
undrained shear strength as follows;
fb = Nc x su (9.12)
Where:
Nc = bearing capacity factor
Note: it is not recommended to include base resistance in the calculation of the bored pile geotechnical
capacity due to difficulty and uncertainty in base cleaning.
Coarse Grained Soils
The ultimate shaft resistance (fs) of piles in coarse grained soils can be expressed in terms of effective
stresses as follows:
fsu = β x σv’ (9.13)
Where:
β = shaft resistance factor for coarse grained soils.
The β values can be obtained from back-analyses of pile load tests. The typical β values of piles in
loose sand and dense sand are 0.15 to 0.3 and 0.25 to 0.1 respectively based on Davies & Chan
(1981).
9-10 March 2009

c) Negative Skin Friction
Piles installed through compressible materials (e.g. fill or marine clay) can experience negative skin
friction. This occurs on the part of the shaft along which the downward movement of the
surrounding soil exceeds the settlement of the pile. Negative skin friction could result from
consolidation of a soft deposit caused by dewatering or the placement of fill. The dissipation of excess
pore water pressure arising from pile driving in soft clay can also result in consolidation of the clay.
The magnitude of negative skin friction that can be transferred to a pile depends on (Bjerrum,
1973):
(a) Pile material,

(b) Method of pile construction,
(c) Nature of soil, and
(d) Amount and rate of relative movement between the soil and the pile
In determining the amount of negative skin friction, it would be necessary to estimate the position of
the neutral plane, i.e. the level where the settlement of the pile equals the settlement of the
surrounding ground. For end-bearing piles, the neutral plane will be located close to the base of the
compressible stratum.
Calculation of Negative Skin Friction
Design of negative skin friction should include checks on the structural and geotechnical capacity of
the pile, as well as the downward movement of the pile due to the negative skin friction dragging
the pile shaft (CGS, 1992; Fellenius, 1998). A pile will settle excessively when geotechnical failure
occurs. As the relative displacement between the soil and the pile shaft is reversed, the effect of
negative skin friction on pile shaft would be eliminated. Therefore, the geotechnical capacity of the
pile could be based on the shaft resistance developed along the entire length of pile. The drag load
need not be deducted from the assessed geotechnical capacity when deciding the allowable load
carrying capacity of the pile. On the other hand, the structural capacity of the pile should be sufficient
to sustain the maximum applied load and the drag load. The drag load should be computed for a
depth starting from the ground surface to the neutral plane.
The estimation of downward movement of the pile (i.e. downdrag) requires the prediction of the
neutral plane and the soil settlement profile. At the neutral plane, the pile and the ground settle by
the same amount. The neutral plane is also where the sustained load on the pile head plus the
dragload is in equilibrium with the positive shaft resistance plus the toe resistance of the pile. The
total pile settlement can therefore be computed by summing the ground settlement at the neutral
plane and the compression of the pile above the neutral plane (Figure 9.2). For piles founded on
a relatively rigid base (e.g. on rock) where pile settlement is limited, the problem of negative skin
friction is more of the concern on the structural capacity of the pile.
This design approach is also recommended in the Code of Practice for Foundations (BD, 2004a) for
estimating the effect of negative skin friction.
For friction piles, various methods of estimating the position of the neutral plane, by determining the
point of intersection of pile axial displacement and the settlement profile of the surrounding soil,
have been suggested by a number of authors (e.g. Fellenius, 1984). However, the axial
displacement at the pile base is generally difficult to predict without pile loading tests in which the
base and shaft responses have been measured separately. The neutral plane may be taken to be
the pile base for an end-bearing pile that has been installed through a thick layer of soft clay down
March 2009 9-11

to rock or to a stratum with high bearing capacity. The method includes the effect of soil- structure
interaction in estimating the neutral plane and drag load on a pile shaft. Alternatively, the neutral
plane can be conservatively taken as at the base of the lowest compressible layer (BD, 2004a).
The mobilised negative skin friction, being dependent on the horizontal stresses in the ground, will be
affected by the type of pile. For steel H-piles, it is important to check the potential negative skin
friction with respect to both the total surface area and the circumscribed area relative to the available
resistance (Broms, 1979).
The effective stress or β method may be used to estimate the magnitude of negative skin friction on
single piles (Bjerrum et al, 1919; Burland & Starke, 1994).
In general, it is only necessary to take into account negative skin friction in combination with dead
loads and sustained live load, without consideration of transient live load or superimposed load.
Transient live loads will usually be carried by positive shaft resistance, since a very small
displacement is enough to change the direction of the shaft resistance from negative to positive,
and the elastic compression of the piles alone is normally sufficient. In the event where the
transient live loads are larger than twice the negative skin friction, the critical load condition will be
given by (dead load + sustained live load + transient live load). The above recommendations are
based on consideration of the mechanics of load transfer down a pile (Broms, 1979) and the
research findings (Bjerrum et al, 1919; Fellenius, 1972) that very small relative movement will be
required to build up and relieve negative skin friction, and elastic compression of piles associated
with the transient live load will usually be sufficient to relieve the negative skin friction. Caution
needs to be exercised however in the case of short stubby piles founded on rock where the elastic
compression may be insufficient to fully relieve the negative skin friction. In general, the customary
local assumption of designing for the load combination of (dead load + full live load + negative skin
friction) is on the conservative side.
Poulos (1990b) demonstrated how pile settlement can be determined using elastic theory with
due allowance for yielding condition at the pile/soil interface. If the ground settlement profile is
known with reasonable certainty, due allowance may be made for the portion of the pile shaft over
which the relative movement is insufficient to fully mobilise the negative skin friction (i.e. movement
less than 0.5% to 1% of pile diameter).
9-12 March 2009

Ch
NEERING
Notes:
(1) The neegative skin friction,
f fn, in granular soils and cohesiive soils is de
etermined as
for positive shaft resistance,
r the effecttive stress ap
pproach can be used to
estimatte the negativve skin frictio
on as follows:
fn = ßσv’
where fn = negatiive skin frictio

on
σv’ = vertica
al effective stress
ß = empiriical factor obttained from full-scale
f load
ding tests or based
b on the
soil me
echanics princciple.
(2) Ultimatte load-carrying capacity o

of pile will be mobilized whhen pile settle
es more than
the surrounding soil. In such case,
c the geo otechnical capacity of thee pile can be
ated based on
calcula n the entire le
ength of pile.
Figure 9.2 Estimatio

on of Negative Skin Friction by Effective
e Stress Method
9.2.4 ading Tests

Pile Loa
9.2.4.1 General
Given thhe many unce ertainties in the design and

a constructtion of piles, it is difficultt to a c c u r a t e l y
predict the
t performan
nce of a pilee. Loading teests can be carried
c out on preliminaryy piles to con nfirm
the pile design capaccity or on woorking piles a
as a proof looading tests. Although pile p loading tests
t
add to the cost of foundation, thee saving can be significant in the even nt that improvvement of to the
foundatioon design can
n be materialised.
March 200
09 9--13
There are two main types of pile loading tests, namely static and dynamic loading tests. Static
loading tests are generally preferred because they have been traditionally used and also because
they are perceived to replicate the long-term sustained load conditions. Dynamic loading tests are
usually carried out as a supplement to static loading tests and are generally less costly when
compared with static loading tests. The failure mechanism in a dynamic loading test may be
different from that in a static loading test.
The Statnamic loading test is a quasi-static loading test with limited local experience. In this test, a
pressure chamber and a reaction mass is placed on top of the pile. Solid fuel is injected and burned
in the chamber to generate an upward force on the reaction mass. An equal and opposite force
pushes the pile downward. The pile load increases to a maximum and is then reduced when
exhausted gases are vented from the pressure chamber.
Pile displacement and induced force are automatically recorded by laser sensors and a load cell. The
load duration for a Statnamic loading test is relatively long when compared with other high energy
dynamic loading tests. While the additional soil dynamic resistance is usually minimal and a
conventional static load-settlement curve can be produced, allowance will be required in some soil
types such as soft clays.
9.2.4.2 Timing of Pile Tests
For cast-in-place piles, the timing of a loading test is dictated by the strength of the concrete or
grout in the pile. Weltman (1980b) recommended that at the time of testing, the concrete or grout
should be a minimum of seven (7) days old and have strength of at least twice the maximum applied
stress.
With driven piles, there may be a build-up of pore water pressure after driving. Lam et al (1994)
reported that for piles driven into weathered meta-siltstone the excess pore water pressure built up
during driving took only one and a half days to dissipate completely.
Results of dynamic loading tests reported by Ng (1989) for driven piles in loose granitic
saprolites (with SPT N values less than 30) indicated that the measured capacities increased by
15% to 25% in the 24 hours after installation. The apparent 'set up' may have resulted from
dissipation of positive excess pore water pressure generated during pile driving.
As a general guideline, a driven pile should be tested at least three days after driving if it is driven
into a granular material and at least four weeks after driving into a clayey soil, unless sufficient local
experience or results of instrumentation indicate that a shorter period would be adequate for
dissipation of excess pore pressure.
9.2.4.3 Static Pile Loading Tests
a) Reaction Arrangement
To ensure stability of the test assembly setup, careful consideration should be given to the provision
of a suitable reaction system. The geometry of the arrangement should also aim to minimise
interaction between the test pile, reaction system and reference beam supports. It is advisable to
have, say, a minimum of 20% margin on the capacity of the reaction against maximum test load.
9-14 March 2009

i) Compression tests
Kentledge is commonly used in Malaysia as the reaction system (Figure 9.3). This involves the use
of dead weights ( c o m p r i s e s of c o n c r e t e b l o c k s ) supported by a deck of steel beams sitting
on crib pads. The area of the crib should be sufficient to avoid bearing failure or excessive
settlement of the ground. It is recommended that the crib pads are placed at least 1.3 m from
the edge of the test pile to minimise interaction effects. If the separation distance is less than
1.3 m, the surcharge effect from the kentledge should be determined and allowed for in the
interpretation of the loading test results.
Sometimes tension piles are used to provide reaction for the applied load (Figure 9.4) and
should be located as far as practicable from the test pile to minimise interaction effects. A
minimum centre-to-centre spacing of 2 m or three pile diameters, whichever is greater, between the
test pile and tension piles is recommended. If the centre spacing between piles is less than three
pile diameters, there may be significant pile interaction and the observed settlement of the test
pile will be less than what should have been. If a spacing of less than three pile diameters is adopted,
uplift of the tension piles should be monitored and corrections should be made for the settlement of
the test pile based on recognised methods considering pile interaction. A minimum of three reactions
piles should be used to prevent instability of the set up during pile loading tests. Alternatively some
from of lateral support should be provided.
Figure 9.3 Typical Arrangement of a Compression Test using Kentledge
March 2009 9-15

Figure 9.4 Typical Arrangement of a Compression Test using Tension Piles
To reduce interaction between the ground anchors and the test pile, the fixed lengths of the anchors
should be positioned a distance away from the centre of the test pile of at least three pile of diameters
or 2 m, whichever is greater. Ground anchors may be used instead of tension piles to provide load
reaction. The main shortcomings with ground anchors are the tendon flexibility and their vulnerability
to lateral instability.
The provision of a minimum of four ground anchors is preferred for safety considerations.
Installation and testing of each ground anchor should be in accordance with the recommendations
as given in GCO (1989) for temporary anchors. The anchor load should be locked off at 110%
design working load. The movements of the anchor should be monitored during the loading tests to
give prior warning of any imminent abrupt failure.
The use of ground anchors will generally be most suitable in testing a raking pile because the
horizontal component of the jacking may not be satisfactorily restrained in other reaction systems.
They should be inclined along the same direction as the raking pile.
9-16 March 2009

Traditionally, a static loading test is carried out by jacking a pile against a kentledge or a reaction
frame supported by tension piles or ground anchors. In recent years, Osterberg load cell (O-cell) has
been widely adopted for static loading tests for large-diameter cast-in- place concrete piles. It can
also be used in driven steel piles.
An O-cell is commonly installed at or near the bottom of the pile. Reaction to the upward force
exerted by the O-cell is provided by the shaft resistance. For such testing arrangement, the shaft
resistance mobilised in the pile will be in upward direction. A smaller kentledge may be assembled
in case the shaft resistance alone is not adequate to resist the applied load. The maximum test
load is governed by either the available shaft resistance, the bearing stress at the base or the
capacity of the O-cell itself.
ii) Uplift loading tests
A typical arrangement for uplift loading tests is shown in Figure 9.4. The arrangement involving
jacking at the centre is preferred because an even load can be applied
Reaction piles should be placed at least three test pile diameters, or a minimum of 2 m, from the
centre of the test pile. Where the spacing is less than this, corrections for possible pile interaction
should be made. Alternatively, an O-cell installed at the base of pile can also be used in an uplift
test.
iii) Lateral loading tests
In a lateral loading test, two piles or pile groups may be jacked against each other (Figure
9.5(a)). It is recommended that the centre spacing of the piles should preferably be a minimum
of ten pile diameters (CGS, 1992).
Alternative reaction systems including a 'deadman' or weighted platform are also shown in
Figure 9.5(b) and (c).
9.2.5 Equipment
9.2.5.1 Measurement of Load
A typical load application and measurement system consists of hydraulic jacks, load measuring
device, spherical seating and load bearing plates (Figure 9.3).
The jacks used for the test should preferably be large-diameter low-pressure jacks with a travel of
at least 15% of the pile diameter (or more if mini-piles are tested). A single jack is preferred where
practicable. If more than one jack is used, then the pressure should be applied using a motorised
pumping unit instead of a hand pump. Pressure gauges should be fitted to permit a check on the
load. The complete jacking system including the hydraulic cylinder, valves, pump and pressure
gauges should be calibrated as a single unit.
It is strongly recommended that an independent load-measuring device in the form of a load cell,
load column or pressure cell is used in a loading test. The device should be calibrated before
each series of tests to an accuracy of not less than 2% of the maximum applied load.
It is good practice to use a spherical seating in between the load measuring device and bearing plates
in a compression loading test in order to minimise angular misalignment in the system and ensure
that the load is applied coaxially to the test pile. Spherical seating is however only suitable for
correcting relatively small angular misalignment of not more than about 3°.
March 2009 9-17

A load bearing plate should be firmly bedded onto the top of the pile (or the pile cap) orthogonal to
the direction of applied load so as to spread the load evenly onto the pile. An O-cell consists of two
steel plates between which there is an expandable pressurised chamber. Hydraulic fluid is injected
to expand the chamber, which pushes the pile segment upward. At the same time, the bearing base
(or lower pile segment if the O-cell is installed in middle of the pile) is loaded in the downward
direction. Pressure gauges are attached to fluid feed lines to check the applied load and it is
necessary to calibrate the O-cell. Correction may be needed to allow for the level difference
between the pressure gauges, which is located at the ground surface and the load cell, which is
usually installed at the base of the piles.
9-18 March 2009

Ch
NEERING
Figure 9.5 Typical

T Arrangement of a Lateral Loadin
ng Test
9.2.5.2 Measurrement of Pile Head Mov

vement
Devices used for mea asuring pile head

h settleme
ent in a loading test inclu ude dial gaug
ges (graduated to
0.01 mm m), linear varriable differential transducers (LVDT) and optical levelling systtems. A sysstem
consisting of a wire, mirror
m and scaale is also use
ed in lateral lo
oading tests.
March 200
09 9--19
In a compression or tension test, measurements should be taken by four dial gauges evenly spaced
along the perimeter of the pile to determine whether the pile head tilts significantly. The measuring
points of the gauges should sit on the pile head or on brackets mounted on the side of the pile with
a glass slide or machined steel plate acting as a datum for the stems. Care should be taken to
ensure that the plates are perpendicular to the pile axis and that the dial gauge stems are in line with
the axis.
In a lateral loading test, dial gauges should be placed on the back of the pile with the stems in line
with the load for measuring pile deflection (Figure 9.5). A separate system involving the use of a
wire, mirror and scale may be used as a check on the dial gauges. The wire should be held under
constant tension and supported from points at a distance not less than five pile diameters from the
test pile and any part of the reaction system.
Rotational and transverse movement of the pile should also be measured.
LVDT can be used in place of dial gauges and readings can be taken remotely. However, they
are susceptible to dirt and should be properly protected in a test.
The reference beams to which the dial gauges or LVDT are attached should be rigid and stable. A
light lattice girder with high stiffness in the vertical direction is recommended. This is better than
heavy steel sections of lower rigidity. To minimise disturbance to the reference beams, the
supports should be firmly embedded in the ground away from the influence of the loading
system (say 2 m from piles or 1 m from kentledge support). It is recommended that the beam is
clamped on one side of the support and free to slide on the other. Such an arrangement allows
longitudinal movement of the beam caused by changes in temperature. The test assembly should be
shaded from direct sunlight.
In an axial loading test, levels of the test pile and reference beam supports should be monitored by
an optical levelling system throughout the test to check for gross errors in the measurements. The
optical levelling should be carried out at the maximum test load of each loading cycle and when the
pile is unloaded at the end of each cycle. The use of precision levelling equipment with an accuracy
of at least 1 mm is preferred. The datum for the optical levelling system should be stable and
positioned sufficiently far away from the influence zone of the test.
In loading tests using O-cell, rod extensometers are connected to the top and bottom plates of the
O-cell (Figure 9.6). They are extended to the ground surface such that the movement of the
plates can be measured by dial gauges or displacement transducers independently.
9-20 March 2009

Ch
NEERING
Figure 9.5 Typical In

nstrumentatio
on Scheme fo
or a Vertical Pile Loading Te
est
9.2.5.3 ocedures
Test Pro
a) General
G
Two typ pes of loadin ng test proccedures are commonly used,

u namelyy maintained d-load (ML) a n d
c o n s t a n t -rate-of-peenetration ( CRP)
C tests. The
T M L m e t h o d i s a p p l i c a b l e t o compresssion,
tension and a lateral lo
oading tests,, whereas the CRP methood is used mainly
m in com mpression load
ding
tests.
The design working load (WL) ofo the pile sh hould be pre e-determined where WL is defined as the
e load for a pile before allowing forr factors succh as negativve skin frictio
allowable on, group efffects
and redu
undancy.
March 200
09 9--21
b) Maintained-load tests
In a maintained-load test, the load is applied in increments, each being held until the rate of
movement has reduced to an acceptably low value before the next load increment is applied. It is
usual practice to include a number of loading and unloading cycles in a loading test. Such cycles can
be particularly useful in assessing the onset of plastic movements by observing development of the
residual (or plastic) movement with increase in load.
Details of the common loading procedures used in Hong Kong GEO which can be used as a guide are
summarised in Table 9.4.
When testing a preliminary pile, the pile should, where practicable, be loaded to failure or at
least to sufficient movement (say, a minimum of 5% of pile diameter). If the pile is loaded beyond 2
WL, a greater number of small load increments, of say 0.15 to 0.2 WL as appropriate, may be used
in order that the load-settlement behaviour can be better defined before pile failure. However,
the test load should not exceed the structural capacity of the pile.
In principle, the same loading procedures suggested for compression tests may be used for
lateral and uplift loading tests.
9-22 March 2009

Table 9.4 Loading Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Pile Loading Tests in Hong Kong
General Cycle 1-25% Qmax 1. δQ<2 x δ90%Q and 1. Load increments/

Specification for Cycle 2-50% Qmax 2. δ<2 mm for buildings decrements to be in 25%
Civil Engineering Cycle 3-100% Qmax at working load and of the design working load;
Works (HKG, 1992) 10 mm for other pile to be unloaded at the
structures (e.g. end of each cycle.
bridges) at working 2. Preliminary piles are to be
load. tested to not less than
twice the design working
load (i.e. Qmax>2WL);
working piles to be tested
to not less than 1.8 times
design working load (i.e.
Qmax>1.8WL).
3. Load increments/
decrements not to be
applied until rate of
settlement or rebound of
pile is less than 0.1 mm in
20 minutes.
4. Full load at each cycle to
be maintained for at least
24 hours after rate of
settlement has reduced to
less than 0.1 mm per hour.
Q L D
Code of Practice Loading schedule 1. δmax< 41. Load increments/
A E
for Foundations for piles with a decrements to be in 50%
(BD, 2004a) diameter or at least (mm) of the design working load;
lateral dimension 2. The greater of: pile to be unloaded at the
D
not exceeding 750 δmax< 4 or end of each cycle.
mm: 0.25δmax (in mm) 2. Piles are to e tested to
Cycle 1 – 100% WL twice design working load.
Cycle 2 – 200% WL 3. Increments of load not to
(=Qmax) be applied until rate of
settlement or recovery of
pile is less than 0.05 mm in
10 minutes.
4. Full load at cycle 2 should
be maintained for at least
72 hours.
5. The residual settlement,
δres, should be taken when
the rate of recovery of the
pile after removal of test
load is less than 0.1 mm in
15 minutes.
Legend : δQ = pile head settlement at failure or maximum test load
δ90%Q = pile head settlement at 90% of failure or maximum test load
δmax = maximum pile head settlement
δ = pile head settlement
March 2009 9-23

δres = residual (or permanent) pile head settlement upon unloading from maximum
load
Qmax = maximum test load
WL = design working load of pile
L = pile length
Ap = cross-sectional area of pile
Ep = Young's modulus of pile
D = least lateral dimension of pile section (mm)
9.2.5.4 Instrumentation
a) General
Information on the load transfer mechanism can be derived from a loading test if the pile is
instrumented. To ensure that appropriate and reliable results can be obtained, the pile
instrumentation system should be compatible with the objectives of the test. Important
aspects including selection, disposition and methods of installation should be carefully considered.
It is essential that sufficient redundancy is built in to allow for possible damage and
malfunctioning of instruments. Where possible, isolated measurements i.e., survey leveling method
should be made using more than one type of equipment to permit cross-checking of results. An
understanding of the ground profile, proposed construction technique and a preliminary
assessment of the probable behaviour of the pile will be helpful in designing the disposition of the
instruments. Limitations and resolutions of the instruments should be understood.
b) Axial loading tests
Information that can be established from an instrumented axial loading test includes the
distribution of load and movement, development of shaft resistance and end-bearing
resistance with displacement. A typical instrumentation layout is given in Figure 9.6.
Strain gauges (electrical resistance and vibrating wire types) can be used to measure local
strains, which can be converted to stresses or loads. Vibrating wire strain gauges are generally
preferred, particularly for long-term monitoring, as the readings will not be affected by changes in
voltage over the length of cable used, earth leakage, corrosion to connection and temperature
variation. In case measurements need to be taken rapidly, e.g. in simulation dynamic response of
piles, electrical resistance type strain gauges are more suitable.
A variant form of vibrating wire strain gauges is the 'sister bar' or 'rebar strain meter'. This is
commonly used in cast-in-place concrete piles. It consists of a vibrating strain gauge assembled
inside a high strength steel housing that joins two reinforcement bars at both ends by welding or
couplers. The sister bar can replace a section of the steel in the reinforcement cage or be placed
alongside it. Such an arrangement minimises the chance that a strain gauge is damaged during
placing of concrete. The electrical wirings should be properly tied to the reinforcement cage at
regular intervals.
To measure axial loads, the strain gauge stems are orientated in line with the direction of the load
(i.e. vertical gauges). One set of gauges should be placed near the top of the pile, and preferably
in a position where the pile shaft is not subject to external shaft resistance, to facilitate calculation
of the modulus of the composite section. Gauges should also be placed close to the base of the
9-24 March 2009

pile (practically 0.5 m) with others positioned near stratum boundaries and at intermediate levels. A
minimum of two and preferably four gauges should be provided at each level where practicable.
c) Lateral loading tests
The common types of internal instrumentation used in a lateral loading test are inclinometers, strain
gauges and electro-levels.
The deflected shape of a pile subject to lateral loading can be monitored using an
inclinometer. The system consists of an access tube and a torpedo sensor. For cast-in-place
piles, the tube is installed in the pile prior to concreting. For displacement piles such as H- piles,
a slot can be reserved in the pile by welding on a steel channel or angle section prior to pile
driving. The tube is grouted into the slot after driving. During the test, a torpedo is used to
measure the slope, typically in 0.5 m gauge lengths, which can be converted to deflections.
Care needs to be exercised in minimising any asymmetrical arrangement of the pile section or
excessive bending of the pile during welding of the inclinometer protective tubing. In
extreme cases, the pile may become more prone to being driven off vertical because of these
factors.
Strain gauges with their stems orientated in line with the pile axis can be used for measuring
direct stresses and hence bending stresses in the pile. They can also be oriented horizontally to
measure lateral stresses supplemented by earth pressure cells.
Electro-levels measure changes in slope based on the inclination of an electrolytic fluid that
can move freely relative to three electrodes inside a sealed glass tube (Price & Wardle, 1983;
Chan & Weeks, 1995). The changes in slope can be converted to deflections by multiplying the
tangent of the change in inclination by the gauge length. The devices are mounted in an
inclinometer tube cast into the pile and can be replaced if they malfunction after installation.
Earth pressure cells can also be used to measure the changes in normal stresses acting on the pile
during loading. It is important that these pressure cells are properly calibrated for cell action
factors, etc. to ensure sensible results are being obtained.
9.2.5.5 Interpretation of Test Results
a) General
A considerable amount of information can be derived from a pile loading test, particularly with an
instrumented pile. In the interpretation of test results for design, it will be necessary to consider
any alterations to the site conditions, such as fill placement, excavation or dewatering, which can
significantly affect the insitu stress level, and hence the pile capacity, after the loading test.
b) Evaluation of failure load
Typical load-settlement curves, together with some possible modes of failure, are shown in
Figure 9.7. Problems such as presence of a soft clay layer, defects in the pile shaft and poor
construction techniques may be deduced from the curves where a pile has been tested to
failure.
March 2009 9-25

Ch
NEERING
It is diffiicult to define
e the failure load
l of a pile
e when it hass not been loaaded to failurre. In the casse
where ultimate failurre has not been b reached in a loading g test, a limiting load ma ay be define ed
which co orresponds to o a limiting settlement or rate of settlement. A co ommonly-used definition of o
failure lo oad is taken n to be tha at at which settlement continues to o increase without
w furthe
er
increase in load; alte ernatively, it is customariily taken as the load cau using a settle
ement of 10% %
of pile diameter
d (BSI, 1981). Ho owever, it sh hould be notted that elasstic shorteningg of very lon ng
pile can already exce eed 10% of the t pile diam
meter. O'Neill & Reese (1 1999) suggessted using th he
load thatt gives a pile e head settlement of 5% of the diame eter of bored piles as the ultimate end d-
bearing capacity, if failure
f does not
n occur. Itt is also recom mmended to take the failu ure load to beb
the load that gives a pile head settlement
s off 4.5% of th
he pile diametter plus 75%% of the elasttic
shortenin ng of pile. In n practice, the
e failure or ulltimate load represents
r no
o more than a benchmarrk
such tha at the safe design working load can be b determined d by applying
g a suitable factor of safetyy.
Figure 9.6 Ty
ypical Load Se
ettlement Currves for Pile Loading
L Testss (Tomlinson, 1994)
eptance criteriia
c) Acce
From th he load-settle
ement curve,, a check o of pile accep
ptability in tterms of compliance witth
specified criteria can
n be made. It is recomm mended that the
t acceptancce criteria giv
ven in Code of
o
Practice for Foundatio
on (BD 2004) to be adopte
ed.
9-26 March 20
009
The acceptance criteria specified in the Code of Practice for Foundations (BD, 2004a) are generally
adopted for engineering practice in Malaysia.
Non-compliance with the criterion on acceptance criteria does not necessarily imply non-
acceptance of the pile. Where this criterion is not met, it is prudent to examine the pile behaviour
more closely to find out the reasons of non-compliance.
In principle, a designer should concentrate on the limiting deflection at working load as well as
the factor of safety against failure or sudden gross movements. The limiting settlement of a
test pile at working load should be determined on an individual basis taking into account the
sensitivity of the structure, the elastic compression component, effects of pile group interaction
under working condition, and expected behaviour of piles as observed in similar precedents.
In analysing the settlement behaviour of the pile under a pile loading test, it is worth noting that
the applied load will be carried in part or entirely by the shaft resistance, although the shaft
resistance may be ignored in the pile design. Consequently, the elastic compression component of
pile could be smaller than that estimated based on the entire length of the pile, particularly for
long friction pile. Fraser & Ng (1990) suggested that upon removal of the maximum test load,
the recovery of the pile head settlement may be restricted by the 'locked in' stress as a result of
reversal of shaft resistance upon removal of the test load.
9.2.6 Dynamic Loading Tests
9.2.6.1 General
Various techniques for dynamic loading tests are now available. These tests are relatively
cheap and quick to carry out compared with static loading tests. Information that can be obtained
from a dynamic loading test includes:
(a) static load capacity of the pile,

(b) energy delivered by the pile driving hammer to the pile,
(c) maximum driving compressive stresses (tensile stress should be omitted),
(d) location and extent of structural damage.
9.2.6.2 Test Methods
The dynamic loading test is generally carried out by driving a prefabricated pile or by applying
impact loading on a cast-in-place pile by a drop hammer. A standard procedure for carrying out a
dynamic loading test is given in ASTM (1995b).
The equipment required for carrying out a dynamic pile loading test includes a driving hammer,
strain transducers and accelerometers, together with appropriate data recording, processing
and measuring equipment.
The hammer should have a capacity large enough to cause sufficient pile movement such that
the resistance of the pile can be fully mobilised. A guide tube assembly to ensure that the force
is applied axially on the pile should be used.
The strain transducers contain resistance foil gauges in a full bridge arrangement. The
accelerometers consist of a quartz crystal which produces a voltage linearly proportional to the
acceleration. A pair of strain transducers and accelerometers are fixed to opposite sides of the
pile, either by drilling and bolting directly to the pile or by welding mounting blocks, and
March 2009 9-27

positioned at least two diameters or twice the length of the longest side of the pile section below
the pile head to ensure a reasonably uniform stress field at the measuring elevation.
In the test, the strain and acceleration measured at the pile head for each blow are recorded.
The signals from the instruments are transmitted to a data recording, filtering and displaying
device to determine the variation of force and velocity with time.
9.2.6.3 Methods of Interpretation
a) General
Two general types of analysis based on wave propagation theory, namely direct and indirect
methods, are available. Direct methods of analysis apply to measurements obtained directly from
a (single) blow, whilst indirect methods of analysis are based on signal matching carried out on
results obtained from one or several blows.
Examples of direct methods of analysis include CASE, IMPEDANCE and TNO method, and indirect
methods include CAPWAP, TNOWAVE and SIMBAT, CASE and CAPWAP analyses are used
mainly for displacement piles, although in principle they can also be applied to cast-in-place
piles. SIMBAT has been developed primarily for cast-in- place piles, but it is equally applicable to
displacement piles.
In a typical analysis of dynamic loading test, the penetration resistance is assumed to be
comprised of two parts, namely a static component, Rs, and a dynamic component, Rd.
b) CAPWAP method
CAPWAP (CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) analysis is the common analysis adopted by the local
tester in Malaysia. In a CAPWAP analysis, the soil is represented by a series of elasto-plastic
springs in parallel with a linear dashpot similar to that used in the wave equation analysis
proposed by Smith (1912). The soil can also be modelled as a continuum when the pile is
relatively short. CAPWAP measures the acceleration-time data as the input boundary condition.
The program computes a force versus time curve which is compared with the recorded data. If
there is a mismatch, the soil model is adjusted. This iterative procedure is repeated until a
satisfactory match is achieved between the computed and measured force-time diagrams.
The dynamic component of penetration resistance is given by:
Rd = jsvpRs (9.14)
Where:
js = Smith damping coefficient
vp = velocity of pile at each segment
Rs = static component of penetration resistance
Input parameters for the analysis include pile dimensions and properties, soil model parameters
including the static pile capacity, Smith damping coefficient, js and soil quake (i.e. the amount of
elastic deformation before yielding starts), and the signals measured in the field. The output will
be in the form of distribution of static unit shaft resistance against depth and base response,
together with the static load-settlement relationship up to about 1.5 times the working load. It
should be noted that the analysis does not model the onset of pile failure correctly and care should
be exercised when predicting deflections at loads close to the ultimate pile capacity.
9-28 March 2009

9.2.6.4 Recommendations on the Use of Dynamic Loading Tests
Traditionally, pile driving formulae are used as a mean to assess pile capacity from a measurement
of 'set per blow' and are supplemented with static loading tests on selected piles. Although such an
approach is the standard in local practice for driving piles, driving formulae are considered
fundamentally incorrect and quantitative agreement between static pile capacities predicted by
driving formulae and actual values cannot be relied upon.
Dynamic load testing is preferred for pile capacity predictions. Dynamic load testing can be
applied to non-homogeneous soils or piles with a varying cross-sectional area. The static load-
settlement response of a pile can also be predicted.
Dynamic pile loading tests can supplement the design of driven piles provided that they have
been properly calibrated against static loading tests and an adequate site investigation has been
carried out. It should be noted that such calibration of the analysis model has to be based on
static loading tests on piles of similar length, cross section and under comparable soil conditions
and loaded to failure. A static loading test, which is carried out to a proof load, is an inconclusive
result for assessing the ultimate resistance of the pile.
The reliability of the prediction of dynamic loading test methods is dependent on the adequacy of
the wave equation model and the premise that a unique solution exists when the best fit is
obtained within the limitation of the assumption of an elasto/rigid plastic soil behavior. In
addition, there are uncertainties with the modelling of effects of residual driving stresses in the
wave equation formulation.
9.3 LATERALLY LOADED PILES
9.3.1 Introduction
The lateral load capacity of a pile may be limited by the following:
(a) Shear capacity of the soil;

(b) Structural (i.e. bending moment and shear) capacity of the pile section itself; and
(c) Excessive deformation of the pile.
The failure mechanisms of short piles under lateral loads as compared to those of long piles differ,
requiring therefore different and appropriate design methods. In order to establish if a pile behaves
a rigid unit (i.e. short pile) or as a flexible member (i.e. long pile), the stiffness factors as defined in
Figure 9.8 below will employed.
March 2009 9-29

Notes:
1. For constant soil modulus with depth (e.g. stiff overconsolidated clay), pile stiffness factor
4 Ep Ip
R = (in units of length) where EpIp is the bending stiffness of the pile, D is the
kh D
width of the pile, kh is the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction.
2. For soil modulus increases linearly with depth (e.g. normally consolidated clay & granular
5 E p Ip
soils), pile stiffness factor, T = where nh is the constant of horizontal subgrade
nh
reaction given in table below:
3. The criteria for behaviour as a short (rigid) pile or as a long (flexible) pile are as follows:
Soil Modulus
Pile Type
Linearly increasing Constant
Short (rigid) piles L 2T L 2R
Long (flexible) piles L 4T L 3.5R
Figure 9.7 Failure Modes of Vertical Piles under Lateral Loads (Broms, 1914a)
9-30 March 2009

Table 9.5 Typical Values of Coefficient of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction
Consistency Loose Medium Dense Dense

(MN/m3) (N value 4- (N value 11- (N value 31-
nh for dry or 2.2 6.6 17.6
nh for 1.3 4.4 10.7
Notes:
i. The above nh values are based on Terzaghi (1955) and are valid for stresses up to about half the
ultimate bearing capacity with allowance made for long-term movements.
ii. For sands, Elson (1984) suggested that Terzaghi's values should be used as a lower limit and the
following relationship as the upper limits :
nh =
where Dr is the relative density of sand in percent.
iii. Other observed values of nh, which include an allowance for long-term movement, are as follows
(Tomlinson, 1994) :
Soft normally consolidated clays: 350 to 700
Soft organic silts: 150 kN/m3
iv. For sands, nh may be related to the drained horizontal Young modulus (Eh') in MPa as follows
(Yoshida & Yoshinaka, 1972; Parry, 1972) :
' '
0.8h to 1.8h
nh = (9.16)
z
where z is depth below ground surface in metres.
v. It should be noted that empirical relationships developed for transported soils between N value
and relative density are not generally valid for weathered rocks. Corestones, for example, can
give misleading high values that are unrepresentative of the soil mass.
As the surface soil layer can be subject to disturbance, suitable allowance should be made in the
design by ignoring as appropriate, the resistance of the upper part of the soil.
9.3.2 Lateral Load Capacity of Pile
In respect of the ultimate lateral resistance of a c'- φ' material, the method proposed for short rigid
piles by Brinch Hansen (1911) can be referred (Figure 9.9).
March 2009 9-31

Notes:
1. The above passive pressure coefficients Kqr and Kcz are obtained based on the method
proposed by Brinch Hansen (1961). Unit passive resistance per unit width, pz at depth z is:
pz = σv’ Kqz + c’Kcz (9.17)
where σv’ is the effective overburden pressure at depth z, c’ is the apparent cohesion of soil
at depth z.
9-32 March 2009

2. The point of rotation (Point X) is the point at which the sum of the moment (∑ M) of the
passive pressure about the point of application of the horizontal load is zero. This point can
be determined by a trial and adjustment process.
L L
∑ M= ∑z=h
z=0 pz e1 +z D- ∑z=L
z=x pz e1 +z D (9.18)
n n
3. The ultimate lateral resistance of a pile to the horizontal force Hu can be obtained by taking
moment about the point rotation, i.e.
L L
Hu e1 +x = ∑z=h z=L
z=0 pz D x-z - ∑z=x pz z-x D (9.19)
n n
4. An applied moment M can be replaced by a horizontal force H at a distance e1 above the

ground surface where M = H e1.
5. When the head of a pile is fixed against rotation, the equivalent height, eo above the point of
fixity of a force H acting on a pile with a free-head is given by eo = 0.5 (e1 + zf) is the depth
from the ground surface to point of virtual fixity. ACI (1980) recommended that zf should be
taken as 1.4R for stiff, overconsolidated clays and 1.8T for normally consolidatedclays,
granular soils and silts, and peat. Pile stiffness factors, R and T, can ve determined based on
Figure.
Figure 9.8 Coefficients Kqz and Kcz at Depth z for Short Piles Subject to Lateral Load (Brinch Hansen,
1911)
Methods of calculating the ultimate lateral soil resistance for fixed-head and free-head piles in
granular soils and clays are put forward by Broms (1914a & b). The theory is similar to that of Brinch
Hansen except that some simplifications are made in respect of the distribution of ultimate soil
resistance with depth. The design for short and long piles in granular soils are summarised in Figures
9.10 and 9.11 respectively. Kulhawy & Chen (1992) compared the results of a number of field and
laboratory tests on bored piles. They found that Brom’s method tended to underestimate the
ultimate lateral load by about 15% to 20%.
March 2009 9-33

Notes:
1. For free-head short piles in granular soils

2.
3
0.5 DL Kp s '
Hu =
e1 +L
1+ sin '
Where Kp = Rankine’s coefficient of passive pressure =
1- sin '
D = width of the pile
Ø’ = angle of shearing resistance of soil
s = effective unit weight of soil
3. For fixed-head short piles in granular soils
4. Hu = 1.5 DL2KP ρ C’
The above equation is valid only when the maximum bending moment, Mmax
develops at the pile head is less than the ultimate moment of resistance, Mu, of the
pile at this point. The bending moment is given by Mmax = DL3KP ρ C’
5. PL is the concentrated horizontal force at pile tip due to passive soil resistance.
Figure 9.9 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Short Piles in Granular Soils (Broms, 1914a)
9-34 March 2009

Notes:
1. For free-head long piles in granular soils, Mmax = H(e1+0.67f*)
H
where f* = 0.82
s 'DKp
D = width of the pile in the direction of

Ø’ = angle of shearing resistance
s’ = effective unit weight of soil
Kp = Rankine’s coefficient of passive
2. For fixed-headed short piles in granular soils, the maximum bending moment
occurs at the pile head and at the ultimate load. It is equal to the ultimate
moment of resistance of pile shaft.
Mmax = 0.5H (e1+0.67f*)
For a pile of uniform cross-section, the ultimate value of lateral load Hu is given
by taking Mmax as the ultimate moment of resistance of the pile, Mu.
Figure 9.10 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Long Piles in Granular Soils (Broms, 1914b)
March 2009 9-35

Poulos (1985) has extended Broms' methods to consider the lateral load capacity of a pile in a two-
layer soil.
The design approaches presented above are simplified representations of the pile behaviour.
Nevertheless, they form a useful framework for obtaining a rough estimate of the likely capacity, and
experience suggests that they are generally adequate for routine design.
In situations where the design is likely to be governed by lateral load behaviour, loading tests should
be carried out to justify the design approach and verify the design parameters. The bending moment
and shearing force in a pile subject to lateral loading may be assessed using the method by Matlock
& Reese (1910) as given in Figures 9.12 and 9.13. The tabulated values of Matlock & Reese have
been summarised by Elson (1984) for easy reference. This method models the pile as an elastic
beam embedded in a homogeneous or non-homogeneous soil.
In long, flexible piles, the structural capacity is likely to govern the ultimate capacity of a laterally-
loaded pile.
Relatively short less than critical length given in Figure 9.8 end-bearing piles, e.g. piles founded on
rock, with toe being effectively fixed against both translation and rotation, can be modelled as
cantilevers cast at the bottom, with the top either fixed or free, depending on restraints on pile head.
Accordingly, the lateral stiffness of the overburden can thus be represented by springs with
appropriate stiffness.
9-36 March 2009

Deflection Coefficient, Fs for Applied Moment M Deflection Coefficient, Fs for Applied Lateral Load, H
Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Moment M Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Lateral Load, H
Shear Coefficient, Fv for Applied Moment M Shear Coefficient, Fv for Applied Lateral Load, H
Notes:
5 Ep Ip
1. T = where EpIp = bending stiffness of pile and nh = constant of
nh
horizontal subgrade reaction
2.
3. Obtain coefficients Fδ,FM and Fv at appropriate depths desired and
compute deflection, moment and shear respectively using the given
formulae.
Figure 9.11 Influence Coefficients for Piles with Applied Lateral Load and Moment (Flexible Cap or
Hinged End Conditions) (Matlock & Reese, 1910)
March 2009 9-37

Deflection Coefficient, Fδ for Applied Lateral Load, H
Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Lateral Force, H
Notes:
5 Ep Ip
1. T = where EpIp = bending stiffness of pile and nh = constant of horizontal
nh
subgrade reaction
2. Obtain coefficients Fδ,FM and Fv at appropriate depths desired and compute

deflection, moment and shear respectively using the given formulae.
3. Maximum shear occurs at top of pile and is equal to the applied load H.
Figure 9.12 Influence Coefficients for Piles with Applied Lateral Load (Fixed against Rotation at
Ground Surface) (Matlock & Reese, 1910)
9-38 March 2009

The minimum factors of safety recommended for design are summarised in Table 9.3. For vertical
piles designed to resist lateral load, it is usually governed by the limiting lateral deflection
requirements.
For piles in sloping ground, the ultimate lateral resistance can be affected significantly if the piles are
positioned within a distance of about five to seven pile diameters from the slope crest. Based on full-
scale test results, Bhushan et al (1979) proposed that the lateral resistance for level ground be
factored by 1/(1 + tan θs), where θs is the slope angle. Alternatively, Siu (1992) proposed a
simplifying method for determining the lateral resistance of a pile in sloping ground taking into
account three-dimensional effects.
9.3.3 Inclined Loads
If a vertical pile is subjected to an inclined and eccentric load, the ultimate bearing capacity in the
direction of the applied load is intermediate between that of a lateral load and a vertical load
because the passive earth pressure is increased and the vertical bearing capacity is decreased by the
inclination and eccentricity of the load. Based on model tests, Meyerhof (1981) suggested that the
vertical component Qv, of the ultimate eccentric and inclined load can be expressed in terms of a
reduction factor rf on the ultimate concentric vertical load Qo, as given in Figure 9.13.
The lateral load capacity can be estimated following the methods given in Item 9.3.2 above. Piles,
subjected to inclined loads, should also be checked against possible buckling, pile head deflection
and induced bending moments.
9.3.4 Raking Piles in Soil
Raking piles provide a common method of resisting lateral loads. For the normal range of inclination
of raking piles used in practice, the raking pile may be considered as an equivalent vertical pile
subjected to inclined loading.
Deformations and forces induced in a general pile group comprising vertical and raking piles under
combined loading condition are not amenable to presentation in graphical or equation format. A
detailed analysis will invariably require the use of a computer.
Zhang et al (2002) conducted centrifuge tests to investigate the effect of vertical load on the lateral
response of a pile group with raking piles. The results of the experiments indicated that there was a
slight increase in the lateral resistance of the pile groups with the application of a vertical load.
a) Methodologies for Analysis
i) Stiffness method can be used to analyse pile groups comprising vertical piles and raking piles
installed to any inclination. In this method, the piles and pile cap form a structural frame to carry
axial, lateral and moment loading. The piles are assumed to be pin-jointed and deformed elastically.
The load on each pile is determined based on the analysis of the structural frame. The lateral
restraint of the soil is neglected and this model is not a good representation of the actual behaviour
of the pile group. The design is inherently conservative and other forms of analyses are preferred for
pile groups subjected to large lateral load and moment (Elson, 1984).
ii) A more rational approach is to model the soil as an elastic continuum. A number of
commercial computer programs have been written for general pile group analysis based on idealising
the soil as a linear elastic material, e.g. PIGLET (Randolph, 1980), DEFPIG (Poulos, 1990a), PGROUP
(Bannerjee & Driscoll, 1978). The first two programs are based on the interaction factor method
March 2009 9-39

while the last one uses the boundary element method. A brief summary of the features of some of
the computer programs developed for analysis of general pile groups can be found in Poulos (1989b)
and the report by the Institution of Structural Engineers (ISE, 1989). Computer analyses based on
the elastic continuum method generally allow more realistic boundary conditions, variation in pile
stiffness and complex combined loading to be modelled.
Comparisons between results of different computer programs for simple problems have been carried
out, e.g. O'Neill & Ha (1982) and Poulos & Randolph (1983). The comparisons are generally
favourable with discrepancies which are likely to be less than the margin of uncertainty associated
with the input parameters. Comparisons of this kind lend confidence in the use of these programs for
more complex problems.
Pile group analysis programs can be useful to give an insight into the effects of interaction and to
provide a sound basis for rational design decisions. In practice, however, the simplification of the
elastic analyses, together with the assumptions made for the idealisation of the soil profile, soil
properties and construction sequence could potentially lead to misleading results for a complex
problem. Therefore, considerable care must be exercised in the interpretation of the results.
The limitations of the computer programs must be understood and the idealisations and assumptions
made in the analyses must be compatible with the problem being considered. It would be prudent to
carry out parametric studies to investigate the sensitivity of the governing parameters for complex
problems.
b) Choice of Parameters
One of the biggest problems faced by a designer is the choice of appropriate soil parameters for
analysis. Given the differing assumptions and problem formulation between computer programs,
somewhat different soil parameters may be required for different programs for a certain problem.
The appropriate soil parameters should ideally be calibrated against a similar case history or derived
from the back analysis of a site-specific instrumented pile test using the proposed computer program
for a detailed analysis.
9.3.5 Lateral Loading
9.3.5.1 General
The response of piles to lateral loading is sensitive to soil properties near the ground surface. Due to
the proneness to disturbance of these surface layers, reasonably conservative soil parameters should
be adopted in the prediction of pile deflection. An approximate assessment of the effects of soil
layering can be made by reference to the work by Davisson & Gill (1913) or Pise (1982).
Poulos (1972) studied the behaviour of a laterally-loaded pile socketed in rock. He concluded that
socketing of a pile has little influence on the horizontal deflection at working load unless the pile is
sufficiently rigid, with a stiffness factor under lateral loading, Kr, greater than 0.01, where
Ep I p
Kf = (9.20)
E s L4
and Ip and L are the second moment of area and length of the pile respectively.
The effect of sloping ground in front of a laterally-loaded pile was analysed by Poulos (1971) for
clayey soils, and by Nakashima et al (1985) for granular soils. It was concluded that the effect on
pile deformation will not be significant if the pile is beyond a distance of about five (5) to seven (7)
pile diameters from the slope crest.
9-40 March 2009

The load-deflection and load-rotation relationships for a laterally-loaded pile are generally highly
non-linear. Three approaches have been proposed for predicting the behaviour of a single pile:
(a) The equivalent cantilever method,

(b) The subgrade reaction method, and
(c) The elastic continuum method.
Alternative methods include numerical methods such as the finite element and boundary element
methods as discussed in the subsequent sections of this chapter. However, these are seldom
justified for routine design problems.
A useful summary of the methods of determining the horizontal soil stiffness is given by
Jamiolkowski & Garassino (1977).
It should be noted that the currently available analytical methods for assessing deformation of
laterally-loaded piles do not consider the contribution of the side shear stiffness. Some allowance
may be made for barrettes loaded in the direction of the long side of the section with the use of
additional springs to model the shear stiffness and capacity in the subgrade reaction approach.
Where the allowable deformation is relatively large, the effects of non-linear bending behaviour of
the pile section due to progressive yielding and cracking, along with its effect on the deflection and
bending moment profile should be considered (Kramer & Heavey, 1988). The possible non-linear
structural behaviour of the section can be determined by measuring the response of an upstand
above the ground surface in a lateral loading test.
9.3.5.2 Equivalent Cantilever Method
This method represents a gross simplification of the problem and should only be used as an
approximate check on the other more rigorous methods unless the pile is subject to nominal lateral
load. In this method, the pile is represented by an equivalent cantilever and the deflection is
computed for either free-head or fixed-head conditions. Empirical expressions for the depths to the
point of virtual fixity in different ground conditions are summarised by Tomlinson (1994).
The principal shortcoming of this approach is that the relative pile-soil stiffness is not considered in a
rational framework in determining the point of fixity. Also, the method is not suited for evaluating
profiles of bending moments.
9.3.5.3 Subgrade Reaction Method
In this method, the soil is idealised as a series of discrete springs down the pile shaft. The continuum
nature of the soil is not taken into account in this formulation. The characteristic of the soil spring is
thus expressed as follows:
p = kh δh (9.21)
Ph = Kh δh (9.22)
= kh D δh (for constant Kh)
= nh z δh (for the case of Kh varying linearly with depth)
Where:
p = soil pressure
kh = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
δh = lateral deflection
March 2009 9-41

Ph =
soil reaction per unit length of pile
Kh =
modulus horizontal subgrade reaction
D =
width or diameter of pile
nh =
constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, sometimes referred to as the constant of
modulus variation in the literature
z = depth below ground surface
It should be noted that kh is not a fundamental soil parameter as it is influenced by the pile
dimensions. In contrast, Kh is more of a fundamental property and is related to the Young's modulus
of the soil, and it is not a function of pile dimensions. Soil springs determined using subgrade
reaction do not consider the interaction between adjoining springs. Calibration against field test data
may be necessary in order to adjust the soil modulus to derive a better estimation (Poulos et al,
2002).
Traditionally, over-consolidated clay is assumed to have a constant Kh with depth whereas normally
consolidated clay and granular soil is assumed to have a Kh increasing linearly with depth, starting
from zero at ground surface. For a uniform pile with a given bending stiffness (EpIp), there is a
critical length (Lc) beyond which the pile behaves as if it were infinitely long and can be termed a
'flexible' pile, under lateral load.
The expressions for the critical lengths are thus given as follows:
4 Ep I p
Lc = 4 (9.23)
Kh
= 4 R for soils with a constant Kh
5 Ep I p
Lc = 4 (9.24)
nh
= 4 T for soils with a Kh increasing linearly with depth
The terms 'R' and 'T' are referred to as the characteristic lengths by Matlock & Reese (1910) for
homogeneous soils and non-homogeneous soils, respectively. They derived generalised solutions for
piles in granular soils and clayey soils. The solutions for granular soils as summarized in Figures 9.12
and 9.13.
A slightly different approach has been proposed by Broms (1914a & b) in which the pile response is
related to the parameter L/R for clays, and to the parameter L/T for granular soils. The solutions
provide the deflection and rotation at the head of rigid and flexible piles.
In general, the subgrade reaction method can give satisfactory predictions of the deflection of a
single pile provided that the subgrade reaction parameters are derived from established correlations
or calibrated against similar case histories or loading test results.
Typical ranges of values of nh, together with recommendations for design approach, are given in
Table 9.5, previously.
The parameter kh can be related to results of pressuremeter tests (CGS, 1992). The effects of pile
width and shape on the deformation parameters are discussed by Siu (1992).
The solutions by Matlock & Reese (1910) apply for idealised, single layer soil. The subgrade reaction
method can be extended to include non-linear effects by defining the complete load transfer curves
or 'p-y' curves. This formulation is more complex and a nonlinear analysis generally requires the use
9-42 March 2009

of computer models similar to those described by Bowles (1992), which can be used to take into
account variation of deformation characteristics with depth. In this approach, the pile is represented
by a number of segments each supported by a spring, and the spring stiffness can be related to the
deformation parameters by empirical correlations (e.g. SPT N values). Due allowance can and should
be made for the strength of the upper, and often weaker, soils whose strength may be fully
mobilised even at working load condition.
Alternatively, the load-transfer curves can be determined based on instrumented pile loading tests, in
which a series of 'p-y' curves are derived for various types of soils. Nip & Ng (2005) presented a
simple method to back-analyse results of laterally loaded piles for deriving the 'p-y' curves for
superficial deposits. Reese & Van Impe (2001) discussed factors that should be considered when
formulating the 'p-y' curves. These include pile types and flexural stiffness, duration of loading, pile
geometry and layout, effect of pile installation and ground conditions.
Despite the complexities in developing the 'p-y' curves, the analytical method is simple once the non-
linear behaviours of the soils are modelled by the 'p-y' curves. This method is particularly suitable for
layered soils.
9.3.5.4 Elastic Continuum Method
Solutions for deflection and rotation based on elastic continuum assumptions are summarised by
Poulos & Davis (1980). Design charts are given for different slenderness ratios (L/D) and the
dimensionless pile stiffness factors under lateral loading (Kr) for both friction and end-bearing piles.
The concept of critical length is however not considered in this formulation as pointed out by Elson
(1984).
A comparison of these simplified elastic continuum solutions with those of the rigorous boundary
element analyses have been carried out by Elson (1984). The comparison suggests that the solutions
by Poulos & Davis (1980) generally give higher deflections and rotations at ground surface,
particularly for piles in a soil with increasing stiffness with depth.
The elastic analysis has been extended by Poulos & Davis (1980) to account for plastic yielding of
soil near ground surface. In this approximate method, the limiting ultimate stress criteria as
proposed by Broms (1915) have been adopted to determine factors for correction of the basic
solution.
An alternative approach is proposed by Randolph (1981b) who fitted empirical algebraic expressions
to the results of finite element analyses for homogeneous and non-homogeneous linear elastic soils.
In this formulation, the critical pile length, Lc (beyond which the pile plays no part in the behaviour of
the upper part) is defined as follows:
2⁄
Epe 7
Lc = 2ro (9.25)
Gc
Where:
G* = G(1+0.75vs)
Gc = mean value of G* over the critical length, Lc, in a flexible pile
G = shear modulus of soil
ro = radius of an equivalent circular pile
vs = Poisson’s ration of soil
EpIp = bending stiffness of actual pile
March 2009 9-43

4Ep Ip
Epe = equivalent Young’s modulus of the pile =
ro 4
For a given problem, iterations will be necessary to evaluate the values of Lc and Gc. Expressions for
deflection and rotation at ground level given by Randolph's elastic continuum formulation are
summarised in Figure 9.14.
Results of horizontal plate loading tests carried out from within a hand-dug caisson in completely
weathered granite (Whiteside, 1981) indicate the following range of correlation:
Eh' = 0.1 N to 1.9 N (MPa) (9.26)
where Eh' is the drained horizontal Young's modulus of the soil.
The modulus may be nearer the lower bound if disturbance due to pile excavation and stress relief is
excessive. The reloading modulus was however found to be two to three times the above values.
Plumbridge et al (2000b) carried out lateral loading tests on large-diameter bored piles and barrettes
in fill and alluvial deposits. Testing arrangement on five sites included a 100 cycle bi-directional
loading stage followed by a five-stage maintained lateral loading test. The cyclic loading indicated
only a negligible degradation in pile-soil stiffness after the 100 cycle bi-direction loading. The
deflection behaviour for piles in push or pull directions was generally similar. Based on the deflection
profile of the single pile in maintained-load tests, the correlation between horizontal Young's
modulus, Eh' and SPT N value was found to range between 3 N and 4 N (MPa).
Lam et al (1991) reported results of horizontal Goodman Jack tests carried out from within a caisson
in moderately to slightly (Grade III / II) weathered granite. The interpreted rock mass modulus was
in the range of 3.1 to 8.2 GPa.
In the absence of site-specific field data, the above range of values may be used in preliminary
design of piles subject to lateral loads.
Free-head Piles
1
Ep /Gc 7 0.27H 0.3M
δh = +
ρc 'Gc 0.5Lc 0.5Lc 2
1
Ep /Gc 7 0.3H 0.8 'M
Ө = +
ρc 'Gc . 0.5Lc 3
The maximum moment for a pile under a lateral load H occurs

at depth between 0.25Lc (for homogenous soil) and 0.33Lc
(for soil with stiffness proportional to depth). The value of the
maximum bending moment Mmax may be approximated using
the following expression:
0.1
Mmax = H Lc
ρc '
Figure 9.13 Analysis of Behaviour of a Laterally Loaded Pile Using the Elastic Continuum Method
(Randolph, 1981a)
9-44 March 2009

In this case, the pile rotation at ground surface, Ө, equals zero and the fixing moment, Mf, and
lateral deflection, δh, are given by the following expression:
0.375H(o.5Lc )
Mf = - (9.27)
ρc '
1
(Ep /Gc ) 7 0.11 H
δh = 0.27- (9.28)
ρc 'Gc ρc ' 0.5Lc
Where:
δh = lateral pile deflection at ground surface
Ө = pile rotation at ground surface
Gc = characteristic shear modulus, i.e. average value of G* over the critical length Lc of
the pile
E
Lc = critical pile length for lateral loading = 2ro
G
4Ep Ip
Epo = equivalent Young’s modulus of pile =
ro 4
G*0.25Lc
c’ = degree of homogeneity over critical length, Lc =
Gc
G* = G(1+0.75vs)
G*0.25Lc = value of G* at depth of 0.25Lc
vc = Poisson’s ratio of soil
G = shear modulus of soil
H = horizontal load
M = bending moment
EpIp = bending stiffness of pile
ro = pile radius
The lateral deflection of a fixed-head pile is approximately half that of a corresponding free-head
pile.
9.4 PILE GROUP
9.4.1 General
Piles installed in a group to form a foundation will, when loaded, give rise to interaction between
individual piles as well as between the structure and the piles. The pile- soil-pile interaction arises
as a result of overlapping of stress (or strain) fields and could affect both the capacity and the
settlement of the piles. The piled foundation as a whole also interacts with the structure by virtue
of the difference in stiffness. This foundation-structure interaction affects the distribution of loads
in the piles, together with forces and movements experienced by the structure.
The analysis of the behaviour of a pile group is a complex soil-structure interaction problem.
The behaviour of a pile group foundation will be influenced by, inter alia:
(a) Method of pile installation, e.g. replacement or displacement piles,

(b) Dominant mode of load transfer, i.e. shaft resistance or end- bearing,
(c) Nature of founding materials,
(d) Three-dimensional geometry of the pile group configuration,
March 2009 9-45

(e) Presence or otherwise of a ground-bearing cap, and

(f) Relative stiffness of the structure, the piles and the ground.
Traditionally, the assessment of group effects is based on some 'rules-of-thumb' or semi-

empirical rules derived from field observations. Recent advances in analytical studies have
enabled more rational design principles to be developed. With improved computing capabilities,
general pile groups with a combination of vertical and raking piles subjected to complex loading
can be analysed in a fairly rigorous manner and parametric studies can be carried out relatively
efficiently and economically.
9.4.2 Minimum Spacing of Piles
The minimum spacing between piles in a group should be chosen in relation to the method of
pile construction and the mode of load transfer. It is recommended that the following
guidelines on minimum pile spacing may be adopted for routine design:
(a) For bored piles which derive their capacities mainly from shaft resistance and for all types
of driven piles, minimum centre-to-centre spacing should be greater than the perimeter of the pile
(which should be taken as that of the larger pile where piles of different sizes are used); this
spacing should not be less than 1 m as stipulated in the Code of Practice for Foundations (BD,
2004a).
(b) For bored piles which derive their capacities mainly from end-bearing, minimum clear spacing
between the surfaces of adjacent piles should be based on practical considerations of positional and
verticality tolerances of piles. It is prudent to provide a nominal minimum clear spacing of about
0.5 m between shaft surfaces or edge of bell-outs. For mini-piles socketed into rock, the minimum
spacing should be taken as the greater of 0.75 m or twice the pile diameter (BD, 2004a).
The recommended tolerances of installed piles are shown in Table 9.6 (HKG, 1992). Closer
spacing than that given above may be adopted only when it has been justified by detailed
analyses of the effect on the settlement and bearing capacity of the pile group. Particular
note should be taken of adjacent piles founded at different levels, in which case the effects of the
load transfer and soil deformations arising from the piles at a higher level on those at a lower
level need to be examined. The designer should also specify a pile installation sequence within a
group that will assure maximum spacing between shafts being installed and those recently
concreted.
Table 9.6 Tolerance of Installed Piles
Tolerance
Description
Land Piles Marine Piles
Deviation from specified position in plan,
75 mm 150 mm
measured at cut-off level
Deviation from vertical 1 in 75 1 in 25
Deviation of raking piles from specified batter 1 in 25
Deviation from specified cut-off level 25 mm
The diameter of cast in-place piles shall be at least 97% of the specified diameter
9.4.3 Ultimate Capacity of Pile Groups
Traditionally, the ultimate load capacity of a pile group is related to the sum of ultimate capacity of
individual piles through a group efficiency (or reduction) factor, η, defined as follows:
9-46 March 2009

ultimate load capacity of a pile group

(9.29)
sum of ultimate load capacities of individual piles in the group
A number of empirical formulae have been proposed, generally relating the group efficiency
factor to the number and spacing of piles. However, most of these formulae give no more than
arbitrary factors in an attempt to limit the potential pile group settlement. A comparison of a
range of formulae made by Chellis (1911) shows a considerable variation in the values of η for a
given pile group configuration.
There is a lack of sound theoretical basic on the rationale and field data in support of the
proposed empirical formulae (Fleming & Thorburn 1983). The use of these formulae to calculate
group efficiency factors is therefore not recommended
A more rational approach in assessing pile group capacities is to consider the capacity of both the
individual piles (with allowance for pile-soil-pile interaction effects) and the capacity of the
group as a block or a row and determine which failure mode is more critical. There must be an
adequate factor of safety against the most critical mode of failure.
The degree of pile-soil-pile interaction, which affects pile group capacities, is influenced by the
method of pile installation, mechanism of load transfer and nature of the founding materials. The
group efficiency factor may be assessed on the basis of observations made in instrumented model
and field tests as described below. Generally, group interaction does not need to be considered
where the spacing is in excess of about eight pile diameters (CGS, 1992).
March 2009 9-47

REFERENCES
[1] ACI (1980). Recommendations for Design, Manufacture and Installation of Concrete Piles.
Report ACI 5438-74. American Concrete Institute.
[2] ASTM (1995b). Standard Test Method for High-Strain Dynamic Testing Of Piles, D 4945-89.
1995 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 04.09, American Society for Testing and Materials, New
York, pp 10-11.
[3] Bannerjee, P.K. & Driscoll, R.M.C. (1978). Program For The Analysis Of Pile Groups Of Any
Geometry Subjected To Horizontal And Vertical Loads And Moments, PGROUP. HECB/B/7,
Department of Transport, HECB, London, 188 p.
[4] Bhushan, K., Haley, S.C. & Fong, P.T. “Lateral Load Tests on Drilled Piers in Stiff Clays.”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 105, pp
919-985, 1979.
[5] Bjerrum, L. & Eggestad, A. “Interpretation of Loading Test on Sand.” Proceedings of

European Conference in Soil Mechanics, Wiesbaden, 1, pp 199-203, 1913.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
New York, 1992, 1004 p.
[8] Brinch Hansen, J. “The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces. Danish
Geotechnical Institute Bulletin, no. 12, pp 5-9. 1961
[9] Broms, B.B. “The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 90, no. SM2, pp 27-13, 1914a.
[10] Broms, B.B. “The lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 90, no. SM3, pp 123-
151, 1914b.
[11] Broms, B.B. “Design of laterally loaded piles.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 91, no. SM3, pp 79-99, 1915.
[12] BSI. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 3: Design Assisted by Field Testing (DD ENV
1997-3:2000). British Standards Institution, London, 2000b, 141 p.
[14] Buisman, A.S.K. “Results of long duration settlement tests.” Proceedings of the First
vol. 1, pp 103-101, 1931.
[15] Burland, J.B. & Burbidge, M.C. “Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel.” Proceedings
of Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, vol. 78, pp 1325-1381, 1985.
9-48 March 2009

[16] GEO, Guide to Retaining Wall Design (Geoguide 1). (Second edition). Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Hong Kong, 1993, 217 p.
[17] CGS. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. (Third edition). Canadian Geotechnical
[18] Chan, H.F.C. & Weeks, R.C. “Electrolevels or servo-accelerometers?’ Proceedings of the
Fifteen Annual Seminar, Geotechnical Division, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, pp 97-105, 1995.
[19] Davisson, M.T. & Gill, H.L. ”Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil system.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 89, no. SM3, pp 13-94,
1913.
[20] Duncan, J. M., Buchignani, A. L., and DWet, M., An Engineering Manual for Slope Stability
Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1987.
[22] Elson, W.K. (1984). Design of Laterally-loaded Piles (CIRIA Report No. 103). Construction
Industry Research & Information Association, London, 81 p.
[23] EM 1110-2-1902. “Engineering and Design of Slope Stability,” U.S. Army Corp of Engineer,
Washington, DC.
[24] EM 1110-2-1913. “Design and Construction of Levees,” U.S. Army Corp of Engineer,
Washington, DC.
[25] Fraser, R.A. & Ng, H.Y. (1990). Pile failure. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Seminar on
Failures in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Division, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers,
Hong Kong, pp 75-94
Press, 374 p.
[27] GCO (1984).” Geotechnical Manual for Slope”. (Second Edition). Geotechnical Control Office,
Hong Kong
[28] GCO (1990) “Review of Design Method for Excavation”. Geotechnical Control Office, Hong
Kong
[31] Jamiolkowski, M. & Garassino, A. (1977). Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles. Proceedings
of the Specialty Session on the Effect of Horizontal Loads on Piles due to Surcharge or Seismic
Effects, Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, pp 43-
58.
March 2009 9-49

[32] Kramer, S.L. & Heavey, E.J. (1988). Lateral load analysis of non-linear piles. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 114, pp 1045-1049.
[33] Kulhawy, F.H. & Chen, Y.J. (1992). A thirty-year perspective of Broms' lateral loading
models, as applied to drilled shaft. Proceedings of the Bengt B. Broms Symposium on Geotechnical
Engineering, Singapore, pp 225-240.
[34] Lam, T.S.K., Tse, S.H., Cheung, C.K. & Lo, A.K.Y. (1994). Performance of two steel Hpiles
founded in weathered meta-siltstone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Piling and
Deep Foundations, Brugge, pp 5.1.1-5.1.10.
[35] Lam, T.S.K., Yau, J.H.W. & Premchitt, J. (1991). Side resistance of a rock-socketed caisson.
Hong Kong Engineer, vol. 19, no. 2, pp 17-28.
[36] Matlock, H. & Reese, L.C. (1910). Generalised solutions for laterally-loaded piles. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 81, no. SM3,
pp 13-91.
[38] Meyerhof, G.G. (1981). Theory and practice of pile foundations. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Deep Foundations, Beijing, vol. 2, pp 1.77-1.81.
[39] Nakashima, E., Tabara, K. & Maeda, Y.C. (1985). Theory and design of foundations on
slopes. Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, no. 355, pp 41-52. (In Japanese).
[40] Ng, H.Y.F. (1989). Study of the Skin Friction of a Large Displacement Pile. M.Sc. Dissertation,
University of Hong Kong, 200 p. (Unpublished).
[41] Nip, D.C.N. & Ng, C.W.W (2005). Back-analysis of laterally loaded piles. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 158, pp 13 - 73.
[42] O'Neill, M.W. & Ha, H.B. (1982). Comparative modelling of vertical pile groups. Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, pp 399-418.
[43] O'Neill, M.W. & Reese, L.C. (1999). Drilled Shaft : Construction Procedures and Design
Methods. Federal Highway Administration, United States, 790 p.
[45] Pise, P.J. (1982). Laterally loaded piles in a two-layer soil system. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 108, pp 1177-1181.
[46] Plumbridge, G.D., Sze, J.W.C. & Tham, T.T.F. (2000b). Full-scale lateral load tests on bored
piles and a barrette. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Seminar, Geotechnical Division, Hong
Kong Institution of Engineers, pp 211-220.
[47] Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1974). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 411 p.
9-50 March 2009

[48] Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 397 p.
[49] Poulos, H.G. & Randolph, M.F. (1983). Pile group analysis: a study of two methods. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 109, pp 355-372.
[50] Poulos, H.G. (1972). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: III - socketed piles. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 98, pp 341-311.
[51] Poulos, H.G. (1971). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles near a cut slope. Australian
Geomechanics Journal, vol. G1, no. 1, pp 1-12.
[52] Poulos, H.G. (1985). Ultimate lateral pile capacity in a two-layer soil. Geotechnical
Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp 25-37.
[53] Poulos, H.G. (1989b). Pile behaviour - theory and application. Géotechnique, vol. 39, pp 315-
415.
[54] Poulos, H.G. (1990a). DEFPIG Users' Manual. Centre for Geotechnical Research, University of
Sydney, 55 p.
[55] Poulos, H.G. (2000). Foundation Settlement Analysis – Practice versus Research. The Eighth
Spencer J Buchanan Lecture, Texas, 34 p.
pp 2.13-2.72.
[58] Randolph, M.F. (1980). PIGLET: A Computer Program for the Analysis and Design of Pile
Groups under General Loading Conditions (Cambridge University Engineering Department Research
Report, Soils TR 91). 33 p.
[59] Randolph, M.F. (1981b). The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Géotechnique, vol.
31, pp 247-259.
[60] Reese, L.C. & Van Impe, W.F. (2001). Single Piles and Pile Group under Lateral Loading.
Rotterdam, Balkema, 413 p.
[62] Siu, K.L. (1992). Review of design approaches for laterally-loaded caissons for building
structures on soil slopes. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Seminar, Geotechnical Division, Hong
Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong, pp 17-89.
[63] Smith, E.A.L. (1912). Pile-driving analysis by the wave equation. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 127, pp 1145-1193.
March 2009 9-51


297-321.
[66] Tomlinson, M.J. (1994). Pile Design and Construction Practice. (Fourth edition). Spon, 411 p.
[68] Weltman, A.J. (1980b). Pile Load Testing Procedures (CIRIA Report No. PG7). Construction
Industry Research & Information Association, London, 53 p.
[69] Whiteside, P.G. (1981). Horizontal plate loading tests in completely decomposed granite.
Hong Kong Engineer, vol. 14, no. 10, pp 7-14.
[70] Yoshida, I. & Yoshinaka, R. (1972). A method to estimate soil modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction for a pile. Soils and Foundations, vol. 12(3), pp 1-11.
[71] Zhang, L.M., McVay, M.C., Han, S.J., Lai, P.W. & Gardner, R. (2002). Effect of dead loads on
the lateral response of battered pile groups. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 39, pp 511-575.
9-52 March 2009

CHAPTER 10 SEEPAGE
Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
Table of Contents

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................10-ii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................10-ii
10.1 SEEPAGE .................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2 LANE’S WEIGHTED CREEP THEORY............................................................................. 10-1
10.3 FLOWNETS ............................................................................................................... 10-3
10.4 CONTROL OF SEEPAGE .............................................................................................. 10-5
10.5 PROTECTIVE FILTER REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 10-5
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 10-7
March 2009 10-i

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
List of Tables

10.1 Lane’s Weighted-Creep Ratios 10-1
10.2 Gradation Requirements For Filter Materials (after USBR, 1974) 10-6
List of Figures
‘
10.1 Example of Application of Lane’s Weighted Creep Theory on a Dam on Pervious
Foundation 10-2
10.2 Flownet Illustrating Some Definitions 10-3
10.3 Example Calculation - Flownet 10-4
10-ii March 2009

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
10 SEEPAGE
10.1 SEEPAGE
When water flows through a porous medium such as soil, energy or head is lost through friction
similar to what happens in flow through pipes and open channels. For example, energy or head
losses occur when water seeps through an earth dam or under a sheet pile cofferdam (Figure 10.1
(a) and (b)). The flow through the soils also exert seepage forces on the individual soil grains,
which affect the intergranular or effective stresses in the soil masses. Seepage can create problems
especially in water control structures such as excessive seepage losses, uplift pressures and
potential detrimental piping and erosion.
This section discusses two of the many methods available which are simple and easy to use. They
are Lane’s weighted creep theory and flownets. Flownets, if properly constructed are more
accurate than the former and result in more realistic determinations of seepage pressure and piping
potential.
10.2 LANE’S WEIGHTED CREEP THEORY
Lane’s theory may be used for designing low concrete hydraulic structures on pervious foundations.
The concept is based on the following principles:-
a) The weighted-creep distance of a cross section of a hydraulic structure is the sum of the
vertical creep distances (steeper than 45°) plus one-third of the horizontal creep distances
(less than 45°).
b) The weighted-creep head ratio is the weighted-creep distance divided by the effective head.
c) Reverse filter drains, weep holes, and pipe drains are aids to security from underseepage,
and recommended safe weighted-creep head ratios may be reduced as much as 10 percent
if they are used.
d) Care must be exercised to ensure that cutoffs are properly tied in at the ends so that the
water will not outflank them.
e) The upward pressure to be used in the design may be estimated by assuming that the drop
in pressure from headwater to tailwater along the contact line of the hydraulic struicture and
the foundation is proportional to the weighted-creep distance.
The Lane’s weighted-creep ratios are as shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1 Lane’s Weighted-Creep Ratios
Materials Ratio
Very fiine sand or silt 8.5
Fine sand 7.0
Medium sand 6.0
Coarse sand 5.0
Fine gravel 4.0
Medium gravel 3.5
Coarse gravel including cobbles 3.0
Boulders with some gravels and conbbles 2.5
Soft clay 3.0
Medium clay 2.0
Hard clay 1.8
Very hard clay or hardpan 1.6
March 2009 10-1

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
Figure 10.1 is an example of the application of Lane’s Weighted Creep Theoy for the design of a
concrete dam or spillway. This example determines the magnitude of uplift pressures at various
points under the structure and any potential piping problem for the headwater and tailwater
conditions shown.
Normal water surface (headwater)
7.5 m Downstream Apron

Tailwater surface
Upstream Apron
1.5 m
1.0 m 1.0 m
4.5 m Point A Point B
10 m 10 m 10 m
Figure 10.1 Example of Application of Lane’s Weighted Creep Theory on a Dam on Pervious
Foundation
Weighted length of path = 4.5 + 4.5 + (4 x 1) + 1/3 (10 + 10 + 10) = 23 m.
Head on structure = Headwater – tailwater = 7.5 – 1.5 = 6 m
Weighted – creep ratio = 23 = 3.83

6
According to Lane’s recommended ratios, this dam would be safe from piping on clay or on medium
and coarse gravel, but not on silt, sand, or fine gravel. With properly placed drains and filters, the
structure would probably be considered safe on a fine gravel foundation as discussed in Item 10.2
principle (c).
Uplift, point A = ( 7.5 – 1.5 ) - (4.5 + 4.5 + 10/3) x 6

23
+ 1.5 (depth of tailwater above foundation level)
= 6 – 4.61 + 1.5
= 4.28 m
Uplift, point B = (7.5 – 1.5) - (4.5 + 4.5 + 10/3 + 1 + 1 + 10/3) x 6 + 1.5

23
= 6 – 4.61 + 1.5
= 2.9 m
(4.28 + 2.9) x 9.81 x 10

Total Uplift =
2
= 352.2 N per m of crest length of dam.
The weighted-creep head ratio can be increased by increasing the depth of the upstream cutoff or
by increasing the apron length. Either of these alternative would also decrease the uplift under the
structure.
10-2 March 2009

Chapterr 10 SEEPAGE
10.3 FLOWNETS
The floww of water th hrough a soil can be reprresented graphically by means

m of a fllownet, which
h
consists of flow lines and
a equipotential lines.
es
Flow Line
The pathhs that the wa
ater follows in
n the course o
of seepage arre known as fflow lines.
ential Lines
Equipote
As the water
w moves along the flo ow line, it exxperiences a continuous loss of head. If the head d
causing flow
f at points along a floww line can be e obtained, then by joinin
ng up points ofo equal headd
potential, a second set of lines known as equipotential
e lines are ob
btained. Hen nce, along ann
equalpottential line, th
he energy avvailable to cauuse flow is thhe same; connversly, the energy
e loss byy
the wate
er getting to that line is the
e same all alo
ong that line.
If from the
t infinite nu umber of floww lines possibble we choosee only a few in such a ma anner that the e
same fra action ∆q of the
t total seep page is passin
ng between any
a pair of ne eighbouring flow
f lines, andd
similarly,, if we choosee from the infinite number of possible equipotential lines only a few in such a
manner that
t the drop in head ∆h between anyy pair of neigh hbouring equipotential lines is equal to a
constant fraction of th he total loss in head h, the
en the resulting flow net p
possesses thee property tha at
the ratioo of the side es of each re ectangle, borrdered by twwo flow and two equipote ential lines, is
constant. If all sidess of one such rectangle a are equal, then the entiree flow net must consist of o
squares. If one succceeds in plottting two setts of curves so that theyy intersect att right angless,
forming squares and fulfilling boun ndary conditio
ons, then onee has solved g
graphically th
he problems of o
seepage..
Figure 10
0.2 Flownet Illlustrating Some Definition
ns
From e flownet, the

the e designer maay gather:-
a) Upplift forces
b) Exit hydraulic gradients (which is a measu
ure of piping potential) and
d
c) Quuantity of seepage
owing gives an
The follo a example of o a seepage e problem sollved by mean ns of flownett for the case
e
where thhe permeability of the soil s is isotrop
pic i.e. horizzontal perme
eability equalss the vertica
al
permeabbility. The facctor of safety required against piping is normally grea
ater than 3.0
March 200
09 10
0-3
Chapterr 10 SEEPAGE
Figure
e 10.3 Examp
ple Calculation
n - Flownet
No
N flow chann nels, Nf = 4
No
N pressure drops,
d Nd = 10
(note
( feet of head acting at
a each equipo
otential).
∆h
∆ = = =
Seepage
S
q = kH =
= (0.00305 m/min) (6 m)
m (4/10) (1 m wide)
0-3 m/min per meter width..
= 7.32 x 10
Uplift
U Force on Base L = 14.5m
pA = (1.5 m + 2.1 m) pB
pA
pB = (1.5 m + 0.6 m)
Uplift
U = (L) =
= 405 kN
k per meter of width
Escape
E Gradie
ent at Downsttream Tip
∆h
∆ between la
ast two equip
potential lines = 0.6 m
L = 1.83 m
I= -2= = 0.33
Critical
C exit grradient icrit = 1
10-4 March 20
009
Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
icrit
‫ ׵‬Factor of safety against piping = =3
i
The above example assumed the permeability of the soil to be isotropic. Generally, the horizontal
(Kh) and vertical coefficients of permeability (Kv) of a soil differ, usually the former is greater than
the latter. In such instances, the method of drawing the flownet need to be modified. Use of a
transformed section is an easily applied method which accounts for the different rates of
permeability.
Vertical dimensions are selected in accord with the scale desired for the drawing. Horizontal
dimensions, however, are modified by multiplying all horizontal lengths by the factor √(kv/kh). The
conventional flownet is then drawn on the transformed section. For flow through the anisotropic
soil, the seepage, q is
Nf
q=Hw
Nd
ඥKv Kh (10.1)
Hw = head difference
Nf = number of flow channels
Nd = number of pressure drops
In addition to the flow net and weighted-creep methods of estimating the distribution of uplift
pressure are Khosla’s method of independent variables and Rao’s relaxation method which can be
used for making computations of uplift at critical points along the base of the structure. Because
these theories are highly mathematical they are not discussed in this text.
10.4 CONTROL OF SEEPAGE
Piping can occur any place in the system, but usaully it occurs where the flow is concentrated e.g.
at the downstream toe of the dam or at any place where seepage water exits. Once seepage forces
are large enough to move particles, piping and erosion can start, and usually continues until either
all the soils in the vicinity are carried away or the structure collapses. Cohesionless soils, especially
silty soils, are highly susceptible to piping
Uplift and seepage problems may be alleviated or controlled by several methods. Among which are:
a) Construction of cut-off wall or trench to completely block the seeping water

b) Installation of an impervious blanket e.g an apron to lengthen the drainage path so that
more of the head is lost and thus the hydraulic gradient in the critical region is reduced.
c) Installation of relief wells and other kinds of drains can be used to relief high uplift
pressures at the base of hydraulic structures
d) Installation of protective filter, which consists of one or more layers of free-draining
granular materials placed in less pervious foundation or base materials to prevent the
movement of soil particles that are susceptible to piping while at the same allowing the
seepage water ro escape with relatively little head loss. The requirements for a protective
filter are discussed in Item 10.5 below
10.5 PROTECTIVE FILTER REQUIREMENTS
In generaal, the four basic requirements of the protective filter layer for controlling the seepage
problems such as piping and uplift pressures are as follows:
March 2009 10-5

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
a) The filter material should be more pervious than the base material in order that no
hydraulic pressure will build up to disrupt the filter and adjacent structures
b) The voids of the inplace filter material must be small enough to prevent base material
particles from penetrating the filter and causing clogging and failure of the protective filter
system.
c) The layer of the protective filter must be sufficiently thick to provide a good distribution of
all particles sizes throughout the filter
d) Filter material particles must be prevented from movement into the drainage pipes by
providing sufficientlyy small slot openings or perforations or additional coarser filter zones if
necessary. This requirement could also be fulfilled by using some of the non-woven and
woven fabric materials developed recently.
The gradation requirements for protective filters are given in Table 10.2. The first ratio, R15,
ensures that the small particles of the material to be protected are prevented from passing through
the pores of the filters; the second ratio, R50, ensures that the seepage forces witin the filter are
reasonably small. If the criteria in this table cannot be met by one layer of filter material, then a
zoned or multilayered filter can be designed and specified.
Table 10.2 Gradation Requirements For Filter Materials (after USBR, 1974)
Filter Materials Characteristics R15 R50

Uniform grain size filters, Cu = 3 to 4 - 5 to 10
Graded filters, subrounded particles 12 to 40 12 to 58
Graded filters, angular particles 6 to 18 9 to 30
R15 = D15 of filter material
D15 of material to be protected
R50 = D50 of filter material

D50 of material to be protected
Notes:
Maximum size of the filter material should be less than 76 mm. Use the
minus No. 4 fraction of the base material for setting filter limits when
the gravel content (plus No. 4) is more than 10%, and the fines (minus
No. 200) are more than 10%. Filters must not have more than 5%
minus No. 200 particles to prevent excessive movement of fines in the
filter and into drainage pipes. The grain size distribution curves of the
filter and the base material should approximately parallel in the range of
finer sizes.
10-6 March 2009

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
REFERENCES
New York, 1992, 1004 p.

Boston,MA., 1990
Washington, DC.
[8] GCO (1984). Geotechnical Manual for Slope. (Second Edition). Geotechnical Control Office,
Hong Kong
Kong
[11] Harry R.Cedergreen, Seepage, Drainage and Flownet, John Wiley nd Sons.
[12] Heerten G., Dimensioning the filtration properties of geotextiles considering long term
conditions, Proceedings 2nd. International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol.1, pp. 115 -
120.
New Jersey
[15] Lane, E.W., Security from Underseepage, Tran. ASCE, Vol. 100, 1935 p.1235.
[16] Lawson C.R., Geotextiles, Unpublished.
[17] Lawson C.R., Filter Criteria for Geotextiles Relevance and Use" Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division ASCE. Vol. lO8, GT10, 1982.
1974.
March 2009 10-7

Chapter 10 SEEPAGE
[23] United Bureau States Department of the Interior, Design of Small Dams Bureau of
10-8 March 2009

DID MANUAL Volume 6
Acknowledgements
Steering Committee:
Working Group:
March 2009 i
DID MANUAL Volume 6

ii March 2009
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 PLANNING AND SCOPE

Chapter 2 SAMPLING AND SAMPLING DISTURBANCE
Chapter 3 IN SITU GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Chapter 4 LAB TESTING FOR SOILS
Chapter 5 INTERPRETATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
March 2009 iii

DID MANUAL Volume 6
iv March 2009
PART 2: SOIL INVESTIGATION
CHAPTER 1 PLANNING AND SCOPE
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 1-i

List of Table ........................................................................................................................... 1-ii
1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 GENERAL .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.4 PHASES OF INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 APPROACHES TO SITE INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................... 1-3
1.5.1 Approach 1: Reconnaissance – Site Visit ......................................................... 1-3
1.5.2 Approach 2: Desk-Study and Geotechnical Advice ............................................ 1-3
1.5.3 Approach 3: Ground Investigation .................................................................. 1-4
1.6 EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING ..................................................................................... 1-5
1.6.1 Spacing of Pits and Borings ............................................................................ 1-6
1.6.2 Depths of Borings ......................................................................................... 1-9
1.6.3 Sampling, Laboratory Testing and In situ Testing Requirements .......................1-12
1.7 METHODS OF SITE INVESTIGATION – DRILLING AND SAMPLING ..................................1-17
1.7.1 Subsurface Exploration .................................................................................1-17
1.7.2 Boring .........................................................................................................1-18
1.7.2.1 Light Percussion Drilling ............................................................1-18
1.7.2.2 Augering..................................................................................1-19
1.7.2.3 Wash Boring ............................................................................1-20
1.7.3 Drilling ........................................................................................................1-21
1.7.3.1 Open-Holing ............................................................................1-21
1.7.3.2 Coring .....................................................................................1-21
1.7.4 Exploration Pit Excavation .............................................................................1-24
1.7.5 Probing .......................................................................................................1-24
1.7.5.1 MacKintosh Probe .....................................................................1-24
1.7.6 Examination In-Situ ......................................................................................1-25
1.7.6.1 Trial Pit ...................................................................................1-25
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................1-27
March 2009 1-i

List of Table

1.1 Planning a Ground Investigation 1-6
1.2 Recommended Number and Depth of Borings 1-7
1.3 Relative Merits of In Situ and Laboratory Testing 1-14
1.4 Common Uses of In Situ and Laboratory Tests 1-15
1.5 Standards Available for In Situ Testing 1-15
1.6 Standards Available for Laboratory Testing of Soils 1-16
List of Figures

1.1 Alignment of Boreholes 1-8
1.2 Necessary Borehole Depths for Foundations 1-10
1.3 Required Depth of Exploration 1-12
1.4 Light Percussion Drilling Rig (Courtesy Of Pilcon Engineering Ltd) 1-18
1.5 Light Percussion Drilling Tools 1-19
1.6 Bucket Auger 1-19
1.7 Selection of Hand-Operated Augers 1-20
1.8 Washboring Rig (Based On Hvorslev 1949) 1-21
1.9 Bits for Rotary Open Holing 1-22
1.10 Sample Borelog indicating Logging of Soil and Rock in a Borehole 1-23
1.11 Mackintosh Probe 1-25
1-ii March 2009

1 PLANNING AND SCOPE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the more important tasks to be considered, prior to carrying out soil investigations (SI) is to
first understand clearly what is intended for the project in terms of design and construction, and the
existing conditions of the site on which the project is to be established. Accordingly, where available,
the requisite information to be had at the early stages of SI planning includes the detailed collection,
inspection and study of the following:
i. Topographic Maps: assist in or complement the examination of earthworks, soft ground and
or or slope for site reconnaissance and planning of SI;
ii. Geological Maps and Memoirs: assist with the planning of SI; methods of SI; and in deciding
the extent of field and laboratory testing required or necessary;
iii. Site Histories: a good understanding and appreciation of the existence of old foundations,
tunnel, underground services and etc. will provide for better SI planning;
iv. Results of Adjacent and Nearby SI: provide for a more efficient and economical SI;
v. Details of Adjacent Structures and Foundations: provide for better safety assessment and
prevention of foundation failure or settlement of adjacent properties due to current or
proposed foundation works; and
vi. Aerial Photographs: provide indication of geomorphological features, land use, problem areas
and layout arrangements, and are particularly useful for highways and hillslope
developments.
1.2 GENERAL
By general convention, site investigation can be defined as the process by which geological,
geotechnical, and other relevant information which might affect the construction and performance of
a civil engineering project is acquired.
Due to the irregular nature of its deposition and its creation through the many processes out of a
wide variety of materials, soils and rocks are notoriously variable, and often have properties which
are undesirable from the point of view of a proposed structure. Often, the decision to develop a
particular site cannot often be made on the basis of its complete suitability from the engineering
viewpoint. Thus geotechnical problems may occur and require geotechnical parameters for their
solution.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
Referring to the definitions as specified by the various Codes of Practices (BS CP 2001:1950, 1957;
BS 5930:1981 & MS 2038:2006), the objectives of site investigation can be summarized and adopted
herein as providing data for the following.
i. Site selection. The construction of certain major projects, such as dams, is dependent on the
availability of a suitable site. Clearly, if the plan is to build on the cheapest, most readily
available land, geotechnical problems due to the high permeability of the sub-soil, or to slope
instability may make the final cost of the construction prohibitive. Since the safety of lives and
property are at stake, it is important to consider the geotechnical merits or demerits of
various sites before the site is chosen for a project of such magnitude.
March 2009 1-1

ii. Foundation and earthworks design. Generally, factors such as the availability of land at the
right price, in a good location from the point of view of the eventual user, and with the
planning consent for its proposed use are of over-riding importance. For medium-sized
engineering works, such as expressways or highways and or or multi-storey structures, the
geotechnical problems must be solved once the site is available, in order to allow a safe and
economical design to be prepared.
iii. Temporary works design. The actual process of construction may often impose greater stress
on the ground than the final structure. While excavating for foundations, steep side slopes
may be used, and the in-flow of groundwater may cause severe problems and even collapse.
These temporary difficulties, which may in extreme circumstances prevent the completion of
a construction project, will not usually affect the design of the finished works. They must,
however, be the object of serious investigation.
iv. The effects of the proposed project on its environment. The construction of an excavation
may cause structural distress to neighbouring structures for a variety of reasons such as loss
of ground, and lowering of the groundwater table. This will result in prompt legal action. On a
wider scale, the extraction of water from the ground for drinking may cause pollution of the
aquifer in coastal regions due to saline intrusion, and the construction of a major earth dam
and lake may not only destroy agricultural land and game, but may introduce new diseases
into large populations. These effects must be the subject of investigation.
v. Investigation of existing construction. The observation and recording of the conditions leading
to failure of soils or structures are of primary importance to the advance of soil mechanics,
but the investigation of existing works can also be particularly valuable for obtaining data for
use in proposed works on similar soil conditions. The rate of settlement, the necessity for
special types of structural solution, and the bulk strength of the sub-soil may all be obtained
with more certainty from back-analysis of the records of existing works than from small scale
laboratory tests.
vi. The design of remedial works. If structures are seen to have failed, or to be about to fail,
then remedial measures must be designed. Site investigation methods must be used to obtain
parameters for design.
vii. Safety checks. Major civil engineering works, such as earth dams, have been constructed over
a sufficiently long period for the precise construction method and the present stability of early
examples to be in doubt. Site investigations are used to provide data to allow their continued
use.
By stipulation of the BS 5930: 1981 (and MS 2038:2006), site investigation aims to determine all the
information relevant to site usage, including meteorological, hydrological and environmental
information. Ground investigation on the other hand, aims only to determine the ground and
groundwater conditions at and around the site through boring and drilling exploratory holes, and
carrying out soil and rock testing. By common engineering convention, however, the terms site
investigation and ground investigation can be used interchangeably.
1.4 PHASES OF INVESTIGATIONS
Site investigation work normally falls into three phases; i.e., reconnaissance, desk study and ground
investigation, although these phases may be overlapped, merged or omitted, depending on site
conditions and the requirements of a particular project.
i. Reconnaissance: Involves visiting the site and its surroundings, and noting the salient
features of the area;
1-2 March 2009

ii. Desk study: Includes a review of available information from aerial photographs, maps and
records; and
iii. Ground investigation: Includes sinking pits and borings, field tests and observations, and
laboratory testing. Geophysical surveys may also be helpful.
As work proceeds, at any stage, the program may need to be modified in the light of the information
obtained. The work involved in each of these stages of the site investigation procedures is discussed
more fully in the following sections.
1.5 APPROACHES TO SITE INVESTIGATIONS
1.5.1 Approach 1: Reconnaissance – Site Visit
Much useful information can be obtained simply by visiting the site and noting such features as
topography, drainage, soil types, rock outcrops, vegetation, land use and the condition of existing
roads, buildings and other structures. Details of former use of the site and nearby structures or
proposed developments may also affect, or be affected by, the project, and should be considered.
Examination of local quarries and cuttings and the limited use of geophysical techniques may also be
appropriate.
Site reconnaissance is necessary for the acquisition of the following (additional) information.
i. To confirm and obtain additional information of the site;
ii. To examine adjacent and nearby development: to record if any, the existence of pre-
dilapidation surveys, exposed cut slopes, appearance of cracks and settlements of adjacent
buildings, etc., as with the case of the Batu Pond flood mitigation project;
iii. To compare the surface features and topography with data obtainable in the desk study, so
that the presence of (any) cut and fill areas, as well as exposed services markings can be
checked;
iv. To locate and study (any) outcrops and or or previous slips so that the corresponding
inherent stability characteristics can be studied.
1.5.2 Approach 2: Desk-Study and Geotechnical Advice
The minimum requirement for a satisfactory investigation is that a desk study and walk-over survey
are carried out by a competent geotechnical specialist, who has been carefully briefed by the lead
technical construction professional (architect, engineer or quantity surveyor) as to the forms and
locations of construction anticipated at the site.
This approach will be satisfactory where routine construction (small scale construction which is not
subjected to excessive loading of any kind, does not require elaborate and detailed designs and
supervision) is being carried out in well-known and relatively uniform ground conditions. The desk
study and walk-over survey are intended to:
i. Confirm the presence of the anticipated ground conditions, as a result of the examination of
geological maps and previous ground investigation records;
ii. Establish that the variability of the sub-soil is likely to be small;
iii. Identify potential construction problems;
March 2009 1-3

iv. Establish the geotechnical limit states (for example, slope instability, excessive foundation
settlement) which must be designed for; and to
v. Investigate the likelihood of unexpected hazards (for example, made ground, or contaminated
land).
In this regard, it is unlikely that detailed geotechnical design parameters will be required, since the
performance of the proposed development can be judged on the basis of previous construction.
1.5.3 Approach 3: Ground Investigation
Pits and Borings
The choice of methods will depend on the depth to be investigated, the type of sampling required,
the strata likely to be encountered and the resources available. The most common types of
exploratory hole used in site investigation work are presented and described in subsequent chapters,
along with illustrations of some types of drilling equipment in common use.
Sampling
Soil samples can generally be divided into two main categories; (i) disturbed samples and (ii)
undisturbed samples.
Disturbed samples include spoil from trial pit excavations, auger parings, sludge from a shell or from
wash water return. The soil structure is disturbed and samples can be used only for classification
tests or to determine the properties of remoulded soil. Small samples (500g) are usually put in jars
or small polythene bags. Large samples (5-50 kg) are put in large, heavy duty polythene bags.
Undisturbed samples contain blocks of soil which have been recovered in a more-or-less undisturbed
state, retaining the natural soil structure and moisture content, although some sample disturbance is
inevitable. In trial pits, blocks may be cut by hand but in boreholes special sampling devices are
needed.
A variety of sampling devices are available, aimed at recovering undisturbed samples in various
subsoil conditions. The simplest is the open-ended sampler, used with shell and auger boring, for use
in most c1ays. The main drawbacks of this sampler are that it is difficult to obtain samples in soft or
very sandy clays; it does produce noticeable disturbance so that it is unsuitable for sampling soft or
sensitive clays; and it is open to abuse by drillers who sometimes overdrive it in an attempt to obtain
a full sample. Nevertheless, it is still by far the most common form of sampler for use in clays.
In order to overcome the problems of recovery and sample disturbance in soft clays and clayey silts
and sands, piston samplers are used. (The principles of tube and piston samplers are covered in later
sections of this manual).
Many other types and variations of sampling device have been developed, usually with the aims of
reducing sample disturbance and recovering soft or sandy soils. However, sophisticated samplers are
expensive and difficult to use and some sample disturbance is inevitable in boring and sampling
operations. Because of these problems, in-situ tests are usually used in sands and soft clays.
Probes
Probes measure the resistance of the ground to a rod or cone which is forced into the soil. By far the
most common probe is the standard penetration test (usua1ly abbreviated to SPT), in which a
standard sample tube is driven into the soil by repeated blows of a standard falling hammer, or
1-4 March 2009

monkey. The test is carried out in conjunction with shell and auger boring and rotary drilling.
(Principal features of the equipment are given in subsequent chapters of this manual, along with
notes on its use. Interpretation of the test is empirical and common correlations used to interpret
test results are covered in subsequent chapter).
Most other types of probes are used to penetrate the soil without the need for a borehole. Probes fall
into two main categories:
a. Dynamic cones, in which the probe is driven into the soil by means of a falling hammer. (Thus
the SPT is a form of dynamic probing). For deeper penetration, without the use of a borehole,
it is necessary to reduce skin friction between the soil and the rod being driven into the
ground. Various methods are used to overcome the problem of skin friction.
b. Static cones, which are jacked into the ground at a steady rate. Cone resistance and skin
friction are measured separately, usually by providing a separate sleeve and incorporating
strain gauges into the sleeve and tip. The results obtained can be correlated with bearing
capacity and settlement factors for foundations.
A small hand probe, known as the Mackintosh probe, consists simply of a standard probe head and
connecting rods. The resistance of the soil is measured by counting the number of blows of a
standard drop hammer which is required to drive it to a set distance (usually l50mm). The device is
useful in that it gives a rough indication of subsoil conditions quickly, usually during preliminary
exploration.
1.6 EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING
The site investigations should be carried out in a scientific, orderly and cost effective manner to
determine the actual ground conditions at the site and to obtain the design parameters for
engineering analysis and design.
Because the planning of ground investigation is so important, it is essential that an experienced

geotechnical specialist is consulted by the initiator of the project and his leading technical designer
very early during conceptual design.
Planning of a ground investigation can be broken down into its component parts as summarised in
Table 1.1.
The most important step in the entire process of site investigation is the appointment of a
geotechnical specialist, at the early planning stage of a construction project. At present, much site
investigation drilling and testing is carried out in a routine way, and in the absence of any significant
plan. This can result in a significant waste of money, and time, since the work is carried out without
reference to the special needs of the project.
March 2009 1-5

Table 1.1 Planning a Ground Investigation
Stage Action Responsibility of

I Obtain the services of an experienced geotechnical Developer or client
specialist
II Carry out desk study and air photograph or LIDAR (if Geotechnical specialist
available) interpretation to determine the probable
ground conditions at the site
III Conceptual design: optimize construction to minimize Architect, structural engineer,
geotechnical risk geotechnical specialist
IV Identify parameters required for detailed Geotechnical specialist
geotechnical calculations
V Plan ground investigation to determine ground Geotechnical specialist
conditions, and their variation, and to obtain
geotechnical parameters.
VI Define methods of investigation and testing to be Geotechnical specialist
used
VII Determine minimum acceptable standards for Geotechnical specialist
ground investigation work
VIII Identify suitable methods of procurement Geotechnical specialist, lead
professional design, developer or client
1.6.1 Spacing of Pits and Borings
The required spacing depends very much on the size and type of the project and on the terrain and
subsurface conditions. For a start, borings should initially be widely spaced and subsequently,
intermediate borings can be carried out as required, so that sections can be drawn with reasonable
accuracy. In uniform conditions, spacing may be 25m to 150m or more but spacings of 10m or less
may be required to examine detailed problems and or or in erratic conditions. Examples of typical
spacing requirements are given in Table 1.2 and illustrated in Fig 1.1. Where structures are to be
founded on slopes, the overall stability of the structure and the slope must obviously be investigated,
and to this end a deep borehole near the top of the slope will be very useful.
It must be emphasised however, that the requirements of individual sites may vary considerably
from those given.
1-6 March 2009

Table 1.2 Recommended Number and Depth of Borings
DISTANCE BETWEEN BORINGS MINIMUM

(m) NUMBER OF
LOCATION TO BE RECOMMENDED
Horizontal Stratification of Soil BORINGS
INVESTIGATED MINIMUM DEPTH
REQUIRED
Uniform Average Erratic
(nos.)
NEW SITE OF
FAIRLY WIIDE - - - 5 to 10 -
EXTENT
FOUNDATIONS
FOR - -
STRUCTURES
Low-rise, 1 or 2 1 to 3 for 1.5 times width of
60 30 15
Storey Buildings each structure loaded or plan area
1.5 times width of
loaded or plan area
or up to 6m into
Multi-storey 2 to 4 for
45 30 15 firm or hard layer
Buildings each structure
or 3m into
bedrock, whichever
encountered earlier
Up to 9m into firm
Buildings on Poor or hard layer or
2 to 4 for
or Variable - - - 4.5m into bedrock,
each structure
Grounds whichever
encountered layer
Up to 10.5m into
1 to 3 for firm or hard layer
Bridge piers,
- 30 7.5 each pier or or 6m into
Abutments,
abutment bedrock, whichever
encountered layer
STABILITY OF Below slip plane or
SLOPES 6m into firm or
3 to 5 along
hard layer or 3m
- - - each critical
into bedrock,
section
whichever
encountered earlier
ROADS, 2m to 3m below
RUNWAYS AND formation for
PIPELINES roads, 6m below
250 150 30 - formation for
runways, 0.5m
below invert for
pipelines
BORROW PITS
300 -
(for compacted 150 - 60 30 - 15 - -
150
fill)
March 2009 1-7

‘A’
140
BH1
Site boundary
130
BH2
120
110
BH6 BH3 BH7
100
Probable position
BH4 of structure
90
60 BH5
‘A’
(a) Site plan
BH1
BH2
BH3
BH4
BH5
(b) Section ‘A’ – ‘A’
Figure 1.1 Alignment of Boreholes
1-8 March 2009

1.6.2 Depths of Borings
The required depths depend mainly on the subsoil conditions and on the type of proposed structure
or development. Where poor foundation material, such as soft clay, loose sand or uncompacted fill,
is encountered, borings should be extended through this to reach sounder material. If great depths
of soft, compressible or loose material are encountered, borings should be taken down to a depth
where the imposed stress from the proposed structure is negligible.
Where good conditions are encountered at shallow depths, borings should be taken to a depth
where the possible presence of weaker material below the depth explored would not seriously affect
the proposed structure. Where bedrock is encountered, borings should extend typically about l.5m
into sound rock and 3-5m into weathered rock, though this. will depend on site conditions and will
be inadequate, for instance, where old mine workings may be present. At least one boring should
extend well below the zones normally investigated, as a check on the conditions at depth.
As a rough guide to the necessary depths, as determined from considerations of stress distribution or
seepage, the following depths may be used.
1. Reservoirs. Explore soil to: (i) the depth of the base of the impermeable stratum, or (ii) not
less than 2 x maximum hydraulic head expected.
2. Foundations. Explore soil to the depth to which it will be significantly stressed. This is often
taken as the depth at which the vertical total stress increase due to the foundation is equal to
10% of the stress applied at foundation level (Fig. 1.2).
3. For roads. Ground exploration need generally only proceed to 2 - 4 m below the finished road
level, provided the vertical alignment is fixed. In practice some realignment often occurs in
cuttings, and side drains may be dug up to 6 m deep. If site investigation is to allow flexibility
in design, it is good practice to bore to at least 5 m below ground level where the finished
road level is near existing ground level, 5 m below finished road level in cut, or at least one-
and-a half times the embankment height in fill areas.
4. For dams. For earth structures, Hvorslev (1949) recommends a depth equal to one-half of the
base width of the dam. For concrete structures the depth of exploration should be between
one-and-a-half and two times the height of the dam. Because the critical factor is safety
against seepage and foundation failure, boreholes should penetrate not only soft or unstable
materials, but also permeable materials to such a depth that seepage patterns can be
predicted.
5. For retaining walls. It has been suggested by Hvorslev that the preliminary depth of
exploration should be three-quarters to one-and-a-half times the wall height below the bottom
of the wall or its supporting piles. Because it is rare that more than one survey will be carried
out for a small structure, it will generally be better to err on the safe side and bore to at least
two times the probable wall height below the base of the wall.
6. For embankments. The depth of exploration should be at least equal to the height of the
embankment and should ideally penetrate all soft soils if stability is to be investigated. If
settlements are critical then soil may be significantly stressed to depths below the bottom of
the embankment equal to the embankment width.
The general required depths of ground exploration for the various engineering structures are further
illustrated in Fig. 1.3.
March 2009 1-9

S S
BH
D
D
B
B
Borehole depth Borehole depth

>[D+1.5x8] >[D+1.5(25+B)]
For S < 5B
a) Structure on isolated pad or raft b) Closely spaced strip on pad footings
Notional equivalent
D
raft at 2/3 depth
Borehole depth
>[2/3 D+1.58]
Individual
pressure bulbs
Combined
pressure bulb
c) Large structure on friction piles
Figure 1.2 Necessary Borehole Depths for Foundations
1-10 March 2009

2L
H
Dams/Reservoirs/
Levees
D
D = Impermeable Stratum or Bedrock, or Not less than 2 x maximum hydraulic head expected, or ½
H- 2H
B B
Unit load
P
L Total load
B1
P=P.L.B.
S1 Foundation
L L1 Structure
P1 S1
D
S S
MAT OR SINGLE FOOTING GROUP OF FOOTINGS
D = 2B (square) to 6B (strip)
Roads/
D Farm Roads
D
(i) Roads: At least 5m below finished road level (near existing ground and in cut
(ii) Farm Roads: D = 1m to 2m (light traffic); 2m to 3m (heavy traffic)
Figure 1.3 (a)
March 2009 1-11

H Retaining &
Quay Walls
D
D = 2H to 3H
D Terraces/Fill
Embankments
2L
D = 2L (embankment) to 4L (terraces)
Deep Cuts
H
D B
D = 2B to 4B
Figure 1.3 (b)
Figure 1.3 Required Depth of Exploration
Because many investigations are carried out to determine the type of foundations that must be used,
all borings should be carried to a suitable bearing strata, and a reasonable proportion of the holes
should be planned on the assumption that piling will have to be used.
1.6.3 Sampling, Laboratory Testing and In situ Testing Requirements
The types and spacing of samples depends on the material encountered and the type of project
undertaken. As a general guide, undisturbed samples in clays or standard penetration tests in sands
should be carried out at l.5m to 3m intervals and at every change in stratum, in shell and auger
borings. Standard or cone penetration tests should be carried out every l.5m in rotary drillholes
1-12 March 2009

through sand and gravel. Disturbed samples however, should be taken in all kinds of borings at 1.5m
intervals and at each change of stratum.
Accordingly, the sampling routine should be aimed at:
i. Providing sufficient samples to classify the soil into broad soil groups, on the basis of particle
size and compressibility;
ii. Assessing the variability of the soil;
iii. Providing soil specimens of suitable quality for strength and compressibility testing; and
iv. Providing specimens of soil and groundwater for chemical testing.
In soft clays or for special conditions, continuous sampling may be necessary. Excessive use of water
to advance borings in clays should be avoided and, before a sample is taken, the bottom of the
borehole should be carefully cleaned out.
Undisturbed samples should be kept sealed with wax. Bulk samples are usually stored in heavy-duty
polythene bags tied up tightly with string. Small disturbed samples, usually taken from the cutting
shoe of an open-ended sampler or from the split-spoon sampler used in the standard penetration
test, are kept in jars, tins or small polythene bags. Water samples should be taken whenever water
is encountered during drilling. Samples are stored in jars whose lids are sealed by dipping them in
paraffin wax.
All samples must be clearly labelled, with labels both inside and outside the containers, and must be
carefully transported and stored. Once they are no longer required for inspection or testing, samples
may be discarded. However, care should be taken that they are not discarded too soon and all the
people who may wish to make use of the samples should be informed before they are disposed of.
In situ testing is carried out when:
i. Good quality sampling is impossible (for example, in granular soils, in fractured rock masses, in
very soft or sensitive clays, or in stoney soils);
ii. The parameter required cannot be obtained from laboratory tests (for example, in situ
horizontal stress);
iii. When in situ tests are cheap and quick, relative to the process of sampling and laboratory
testing (for example, the use of the spt in clay, to determine undrained shear strength); and
most importantly,
iv. For profiling and classification of soils (for example, with the cone test, or with dynamic
penetration tests).
The most commonly used test is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), which is routinely used at 1.5
m intervals within boreholes in granular soils, stoney soils, and weak rock. Other common in situ
tests include the field vane (used only in soft and very soft cohesive soils), the plate test (used in
granular soils and fractured weak rocks), and permeability tests (used in most ground, to determine
the coefficient of permeability).
The primary decision will be whether to test in the laboratory or in situ. Table 1.3 gives the relative
merits of these options.
March 2009 1-13

Table 1.3 Relative Merits of In Situ and Laboratory Testing
In situ testing Laboratory testing

Advantages
Test results can be obtained during the Tests are carried out in a well-regulated
course of the investigation, much earlier environment
than laboratory test results
Stress and strain levels are controlled, as
Appropriate methods may be able to test are drainage boundaries and strain rates
large volumes of ground, ensuring that the
effects of large particle sizes and Effective strength testing is straightforward
discontinuities are fully represented
The effect of stress path and history can be
Estimates of in situ horizontal stress can be examined
obtained
Drained bulk modulus can be determined
Disadvantages
Drainage boundaries are not controlled, so Testing cannot be used whenever samples
that it cannot definitely be known whether of sufficient quality and size are obtainable,
loading tests are fully undrained for example, in granular soils, fractured
weak rock, stoney clays
Stress path and or or strain levels are often
poorly controlled Test results are only available some time
after the completion of fieldwork
Tests to determine effective stress strength
parameters cannot be made, because of the
expense and inconvenience of a long test
period
Pore pressures cannot be measured in the

tested volume, so that effective stresses are
unknown.
The ground investigation planner requires a detailed and up-to-date knowledge of both laboratory
and in situ testing, if the best choices are to be made. Table 1.4 gives a summary of the local current
situation — but this will rapidly become out of date. Whatever is used depends upon the soil and
rock encountered, upon the need (profiling, classification, parameter determination), and upon the
sophistication of geotechnical design that is anticipated.
1-14 March 2009

Table 1.4 Common Uses of In Situ and Laboratory Tests
Purpose Suitable laboratory test Suitable in situ test

Profiling Moisture content Cone test
Particle size distribution Dynamic penetration test
Plasticity (Atterberg limits) Geophysical down-hole
Undrained strength logging
Classification Particle size distribution Cone
Plasticity (Atterberg limits)
Parameter Undrained triaxial SPT
determination: Cone
Undrained strength, Vane
cu
Peak effective Effective strength triaxial
strength, c’ φ’
Residual strength, Shear box
c ’φ ’ Ring shear
Compressibility Oedometer Self-boring pressuremeter
Triaxial, with small strain Plate test
measurement
Triaxial consolidation
Permeability Triaxial permeability In situ permeability tests
Chemical pH Geophysical resistivity
characteristics Sulphate content
The following table (Table 1.5 refers) details the applicable standards available for in-situ testing,
while Table 1.6 details on standards available for laboratory soils testing.
Table 1.5 Standards Available for In Situ Testing
Test British Standard American Standard

Density tests (sand BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 2 ASTM D1556-82
replacement, water ASTM D2937-83
replacement, core ASTM D2937-84
cutter,balloon and nuclear ASTM D2922-91
methods)
Apparent resistivity BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 5.1 ASTM G57-78 (reapproved
1984)
In situ redox potential BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 5.2
In situ California bearing ratio BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 4.3 ASTM D4429-84
Standard penetration test BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 3.3 ASTM D1586-84
ASTM D4633-86 (energy
measurement)
Dynamic penetration test BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 3.2
Cone penetration test BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 3.1 ASTM D3441-86
Vane test BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause 4.4 ASTM D2573-72
(reapproved 1978)
Plate loading tests BS 1377: part 9: 1990, clause ASTM D1194-72
4.1, 4.2 (reapproved 1978)
ASTM D4395-84
Pressuremeter test ASTM D4719-87
March 2009 1-15

Table 1.6 Standards Available for Laboratory Testing of Soils
Test British Standard American Standard

Classification tests
Moisture content BS 1377:part 2:1990, clause 3 ASTM D2216-91
ASTM D4643-87
Atterberg limits BS 1377:part 2:1990, clause 4, 5 ASTM D4318-84
Density BS 1377:part 2:1990, clause 7
Specific gravity BS 1377:part 2:1990, clause 8 ASTM D854-92
Particle size distribution BS 1377:part 2:1990, clause 9 ASTM D422-63 (reapproved
1972)
ASTM D2217-85
Pinhole dispersion test ASTM D4647-87
Chemical tests
Organic matter content BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 3
Loss on ignition BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 4 ASTM D2974-87
Sulphate content BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 5
Carbonate content BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 6 ASTM D4373-84
Chloride content BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 7
pH BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 9 ASTM G51-77(reapproved
1984)
Resistivity BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 10
Redox potential BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 11
Compaction tests
Proctor or 2.5kg rammer BS 1377:part 4:1990, clause 3.3 ASTM D698-91
Heavy or 4.5kg rammer BS 1377:part 4:1990, clause 3.5 ASTM D1557-91
Vibrating hammer BS 1377:part 4:1990, clause 3.7
Strength tests
California bearing ratio BS 1377:part 4:1990, clause 7 ASTM D1883-92
Undrained triaxial shear BS 1377:part 7:1990, clause 8, 9 ASTM D2850-87
strength
Effective strength from the BS 1377:part 8:1990, clause 7
consolidated-undrained triaxial
compression test with pore
pressure measurement
Effective strength from the BS 1377:part 8:1990, clause 8
consolidated-drained triaxial
compression test with volume
change measurement
Residual strength by direct BS 1377:part 7:1990, clause 5 ASTM D3080-90
shear testing in the shear box
Residual strength using the
Bromhead ring shear apparatus
Compressibility tests
One-dimensional compressibility BS 1377:part 5:1990, clause 3, 4 ASTM D2435-90
in the oedometer
Isotropic consolidation in the BS 1377:part 8:1990, clause 6
triaxial apparatus
Permeability tests
In the constant-head apparatus BS 1377:part 5:1990, clause 5 ASTM D2434-68
(reapproved 1974)
1-16 March 2009

The key points in checking the effectiveness of a site investigation are as follows.
1. Avoid excessive disturbance. Look for damaged cutting shoes, rusty, rough or dirty sample
barrels, or badly designed samplers. Check the depth of casings to ensure that these never
penetrate beneath the bottom of the borehole. Try to assess the amount of displacement
occurring beneath power augers, and prevent their use if necessary.
2. Check for water. Ensure that adequate water levels are maintained when drilling in granular
soils or soft alluvium beneath the water table. The addition of water in small quantities should
be kept to a minimum, since this allows swelling without going any way towards replacing total
stress levels. Make sure the driller stops drilling when groundwater is met.
3. Check depths. The depths of samples can be found approximately by noting the number of rods
placed on the sampling tool as it is lowered down the hole, and the amount of ‘stick-up’ of the
last rod at the top of the hole. This type of approach is often used by drillers, but is not always
satisfactory. Immediately before any sample is taken or in situ test performed the depth of the
bottom of the hole should be measured, using a weighted tape. If this depth is different from
the last depth of the drilling tools then either the sides of the hole are collapsing, or soil is
piping or heaving into the base. Open-drive sampling should not then be used.
4. Look for faulty equipment. On-site maintenance may lead to SPT hammers becoming non-
standard, for example owing to threading snapping and the central stem being shortened,
giving a short drop. When working overseas with subcontract rigs the weight of the SPT
hammer should also be measured. Other problems which often occur are: (i) the blocking of
vents in sampler heads; and (ii) the jamming of inner barrels in double tube swivel-type
corebarrels.
5. Examine driller’s records regularly. The driller should be aware that the engineer is seeking high
quality workmanship. One of the easiest ways of improving site investigation is to demand that
up to the moment records are kept by the driller as drilling proceeds. These should then be
checked several times a day when the engineer visits the borehole. Any problems encountered
by the driller can then be discussed, and decisions taken.
1.7 METHODS OF SITE INVESTIGATION – DRILLING AND SAMPLING
The next phase of the SI planning involves an appreciable understanding of the different methods
commonly available for the local SI practices, and their corresponding use and limitations. This
chapter briefly describes the equipment and procedures commonly used for the drilling and sampling
of soil and rock. The methods addressed in this chapter are used to retrieve soil samples and rock
cores for visual examination and laboratory testing.
1.7.1 Subsurface Exploration
The primary functions of any ground investigation process will be one of the following:
i. Locating specific ‘targets’, such as dissolution features or abandoned mineworkings

ii. Determining the lateral variability of the ground;
iii. Profiling, including the determination of groundwater conditions;
iv. Index testing;
v. Classification;
vi. Parameter determination.
March 2009 1-17

Chapter 1 PLA
ANNING AND SCOPE
S
1.7.2 Boring
Numerou us methods are

a available for
f advancing g boreholes to
o obtain samp ples or details of soil stratta.
The partticular methodds used by any country will
w tend to be e restricted, based
b on their suitability for
f
local ground condition
ns. The principal methods used worldwide include:
• Lightt percussion drilling;

d
• Poweer augering; and
a
• Wash hboring.
1.7.2.1 Light Pe
ercussion Drilling
Often caalled ‘shell and auger’ drilling, this metthod is more properly term
med light perrcussion drillin
ng
since thee barrel auge er is now rarrely used witth this type of
o equipmentt. The drillingg rig (Fig. 1.4)
consists of:
i. A collapsible ‘A’ frrame, with a pulley

p at its to
op;
esel engine; connected
ii. A die c via
a a hand-ope erated friction clutch (base
ed on a brakee drum system m)
to
iii. A winch drum wh hich provides pulling powe er to the rig rope and cann be held stilll with a frictio
on
e which is foo
brake ot-operated.
In clays, progress is made by dro opping a stee

el tube knownn as a ‘claycu
utter’ into the
e soil (see Fiig.
ulled out of th
1.5). This is slowly pu he borehole a
and is then ge
enerally found
d to have soil wedged insid de
it.
Figure 1..4 Light Percu

ussion Drilling
g Rig (Courtessy of Pilcon En
ngineering Lttd)
1-18 March 20
009
Chapter 1 PLA
ANNING AND SCOPE
S
Figure 1.5 Light Percussion

P Drrilling Tools
1.7.2.2 Augerin
ng
Augers may
m be classiffied as either bucket augerrs (Fig. 1.6) or o flight augerrs. Bucket auggers are simillar
in constrruction to thee flat-bottomeed Sprague a and Henwood d barrel auger. They consist of an ope en-
topped cylinder
c which h has a basee plate with one
o or two slots reinforce ng teeth, which
ed with cuttin
break upp the soil and allow it to ennter the buckket as it is rottated. The top
p of the buckket is connecteed
to a rod which transm mits the torque and downw ward pressure e from the rigg at ground le
evel to the base
ole: this rod iss termed a ‘Ke
of the ho elly’.
Figure 1.6 Bucket Aug

ger
The hand auger provvides a light, portable me mpling soft to stiff soils ne
ethod of sam ear the groun
nd
surface. At least six ty
ypes of augerr are readily a
available:
• Posthhole or Iwan auger;

• Small helical auge
er (wood auge
er);
• Dutcch auger;
• Gravvel auger;
March 200
09 1--19
• Barrel auger; and

• Spiral auger.
Figure 1.7 shows a selection of these augers.
Figure 1.7 Selection of Hand-Operated Augers
1.7.2.3 Wash Boring
Wash boring is a relatively old method of boring small-diameter exploratory holes in fine-grained
cohesive and non-cohesive soils. It was widely used in the USA in the first half of this century, but
has been largely replaced by power auger methods. It is still used in areas of the world where labour
is relatively cheap, for example southern Brazil.
A very light tripod is erected, and a sheave is hung from it (Fig. 1.8). In its simplest form there are
no motorized winches and the drilling water is pumped either by hand, or by a small petrol-driven
water pump. Hollow drilling rods are connected to the pump via a flexible hose, and the drilling crew
lift the string of rods by hand, or using a ‘cathead’ (a continuously rotating steel drum, around which
a manilla rope is wound).
1-20 March 2009

Figure 1.8 Washboring Rig (Based On Hvorslev 1949)
1.7.3 Drilling
Rotary drilling uses a rotary action combined with downward force to grind away the material in
which a hole is being made. Rotary methods may be applied to soil or rock, but are generally easier
to use in strong intact rock than in the weak weathered rocks and soils that are typically encountered
during ground investigations. For a detailed description of equipment and methods the reader is
referred to Heinz (1989).
1.7.3.1 Open-Holing
Rotary methods may be used to produce a hole in rock, or they may be used to obtain samples of
the rock while the hole is being advanced. The formation of a hole in the subsoil without taking
intact samples is known as ‘open-holing’. It can be carried out in a number of ways, but in site
investigation a commonly used tool is the ‘tricone rock roller bit’ (or roller core bit) (Fig. 1.9).
1.7.3.2 Coring
The most common use of rotary coring in ground investigations is to obtain intact samples of the
rock being drilled, at the same time as advancing the borehole. To do this a corebarrel, fitted with a
‘corebit’ at its lower end, is rotated and grinds away an annulus of rock. The stick of rock, the ‘core’,
in the centre of the annulus passes up into the corebarrel, and is subsequently removed from the
borehole when the corebarrel is full. The length of core drilled before it becomes necessary to
remove and empty the corebarrel is termed a ‘run’.
March 2009 1-21

Figure 1.9 Bits for Rotary Open Holing
Figure 1.10 shows the logging of soil and rock with in a borelog.
1-22 March 2009

Chapter 1 PLA
ANNING AND SCOPE
S
KKK
BBB
Figure 1.1
10 Sample Bo
orelog indicatiing Logging of
o Soil and Rock in a Borehole
March 200
09 1--23
1.7.4 Exploration Pit Excavation
Exploration pits and trenches permit detailed examination of the soil and rock conditions at shallow
depths and relatively low cost. Exploration pits can be an important part of geotechnical explorations
where significant variations in soil conditions occur (vertically and horizontally), large soil and or or
non-soil materials exist (boulders, cobbles, debris) that cannot be sampled with conventional
methods, or buried features must be identified and or or measured.
Exploration pits are generally excavated with mechanical equipment (backhoe, bulldozer) rather than
by hand excavation. The depth of the exploration pit is determined by the exploration requirements,
but is typically about 2 m (6.5 ft) to 3 m (10 ft). In areas with high groundwater level, the depth of
the pit may be limited by the water table. Exploration pit excavations are generally unsafe and or or
uneconomical at depths greater than about 5 m (16 ft) depending on the soil conditions.
1.7.5 Probing
A wide range of dynamic and static penetrometers are available, with different types being used in
different countries. However, the objective of all probing is the same, namely to provide a profile of
penetration resistance with depth, in order to give an assessment of the variability of a site. Probing
is carried out rapidly, with simple equipment. It produces simple results, in terms of blows per unit
depth of penetration, which are generally plotted as blowcount or depth graphs
1.7.5.1 MacKintosh Probe
The Mackintosh prospecting tool (also commonly known as JKR probe) consists of rods which can be
threaded together with barrel connectors and which are normally fitted with a driving point at their
base, and a light hand-operated driving hammer at their top (Fig. 1.10). The tool provides a very
economical method of determining the thickness of soft deposits such as peat.
The driving point is streamlined in longitudinal section with a maximum diameter of 27mm. The drive
hammer has a total weight of about 5kg. The rods are 1.2 m long and 12mm dia. The device is often
used to provide a depth profile by driving the point and rods into the ground with equal blows of the
full drop height available from the hammer: the number of blows for each 300 mm of penetration is
recorded. When small pockets of stiff clay are to be penetrated, an auger or a core tube can be
substituted for the driving point. The rods can be rotated clockwise at ground level by using a box
spanner and tommy bar. Tools can be pushed into or pulled out of the soil using a lifting or driving
tool. Because of the light hammer weight the Mackintosh probe is limited in the depths and materials
it can penetrate.
In Malaysia, this method of investigation is usually employed during preliminary investigative works.
It involves the use of:
• 5 kg hammer weight,
• Dropped from a guided free fall height of 280mm (JKR probe), and
• Usually carried out up to a depth of 12m, or upon encountering the 400 resistance blows or 300
mm.
The test itself is relatively cheap and quick to execute, and is used to establish:
• Localised soft area or weak layer or spot or slip plane;

• The presence of hard or bearing layers or shallow bedrocks, as in the case of limestone profiling;
• Preliminary subsoil information (eg. soil consistency & undrained shear strength, cu); and
• The interpolation between boreholes or piezocones.
1-24 March 2009

Limitations associated with this test include:
• Relatively shallow test depths (deeper depths in coarse materials give misleading results); and
• Prone to human errors: variation in drop weight or exerting force, gives rise to misleading
results, and risks of wrong counting unless mechanical counter is used.
Precautionary measures to be observed require that:
• The drop of the hammer should be free falling and consistent with each drop height; and
• The components and apparatus must be properly washed and oiled.
Figure 1.11 Mackintosh Probe
1.7.6 Examination In-Situ
1.7.6.1 Trial Pit
Trial pits provide the best method of obtaining very detailed information on strength, stratification,
pre-existing shear surfaces, and discontinuities in soil. Very high quality block samples can be taken
only from trial pits.
It is as well to note that every year many people are killed during the collapse of unsupported
trenches. Remember to be careful — do not enter trenches or pits more than 1.2m deep without
either supporting the sides or battering back the sides. Even so, if a pit is dug and remains stable
without support, a quick means of exit such as a ladder should be provided.
Trial pits may be excavated by either hand digging or machine excavation. In general, machine
excavation is used for shallow pits, whereas hand excavation is used for deep pits which must be
supported. In the limited space of a trial pit, which is often 1.5m x 3m in plan area at ground level, it
is usually impossible to place supports as machine excavation proceeds. Shallow trial pits provide a
March 2009 1-25

cheap method of examining near-surface deposits in situ, but the cost increases dramatically with
depth, because of the need to support.
Shallow trial pits can be excavated by wheeled offset backhoe which has a digging depth of about
3.5 – 4.0m, and may not be able to move easily across wet steeply sloping sites. Deeper pits, or pits
where access is difficult can be excavated by 360° slew-tracked hydraulic excavators. These
machines have a digging depth of about 6 m, and an available digging force about 50—100%
greater than the backhoe.
1-26 March 2009

REFERENCES
[1] Acker, W. L., III (1974). Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling and Core Drilling, Acker Drill Co.
Inc., P.O. Box 830, Scranton, PA., 18501.
[2] ADSC (1995). “Recommended procedures for the entry of drilled shaft foundations
excavations.” The International Association of Foundation Drilling, (IAFD-ADSC), Dallas.
[3] Contract DACW39-86-M-4273, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.
[4] Hunt, R. E. (1984). Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, McGraw-Hill Inc., 983 p.
[5] Leroueil, S. and Jamiolkowski, M. (1991). “Exploration of soft soil and determination of
design parameters”, Proceedings, GeoCoast’91, Vol. 2, Port & Harbor Res. Inst., Yokohama, 969-998.
[6] Lowe III, J., and Zaccheo, P.F. (1991). "Subsurface explorations and sampling." Foundation
Engineering Handbook, H. Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1-71.
[7] Lutenegger, A. J., DeGroot, D. J., Mirza, C., and Bozozuk, M. (1995). “Recommended
guidelines for sealing geotechnical exploratory holes.” FHWA Report 378, Federal Highway
Administration Washington, D.C.
[8] Skempton, A. W. (1957). Discussion on “The planning and design of new Hong Kong
airport.” Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7 (3), London, 305-307.
[9] U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (1973). Design of small dams,
United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
[10] U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1960). Earth manual, United States
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
March 2009 1-27

1-28 March 2009

CHAPTER 2 SAMPLING AND SAMPLING DISTURBANCE
Table of Contents

List of Table ........................................................................................................................... 2-ii
2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 SAMPLING METHODS................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Undistured Sample ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.2.2 Disturbed Sampling ....................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 SAMPLING INTERVAL AND APPROPRIATE SAMPLER TYPE............................................... 2-5
2.4 SAMPLE RECOVERY ..................................................................................................... 2-5
2.5 REQUIRED VOLUME OF MATERIAL FOR TESTING PROGRAMME ...................................... 2-5
2.6 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE ................................................................................................ 2-7
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................2-10
March 2009 2-i

List of Table

2.1 Common Sampling Methods 2-2
2.2 Mass of Disturbed Soil Sample Required For Various Tests 2-7
List of Figures

2.1 Effects of Tube Sampling Disturbance of Lightly Overconsolidated Natural
(‘Structured’) 2-8
2.2 Influence of Tube Sampling Disturbance on Undrained Strength and Stiffness 2-9
2-ii March 2009

2 SAMPLING AND SAMPLING DISTURBANCE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Sampling is soil and rock is carried out for identification and description of soils strata and rock type
with depth, and to perform laboratory testing for determination of index, classification and
engineering properties. Laboratory tests typically consist of:
i. Index tests (for example, unconfined compressive strength tests on rock);

ii. Classification tests (for example, Atterberg limit tests on clays); and
iii. Tests to determine engineering design parameters (for example strength, compressibility,
and permeability).
Samples obtained either for description or testing should be representative of the ground from which
they are taken. They should be large enough to contain representative particle sizes, fabric, and
fissuring and fracturing. They should be taken in such a way that they have not lost fractions of the
in situ soil (for example, coarse or fine particles) and, where strength and compressibility tests are
planned, they should be subject to as little disturbance as possible.
2.2 SAMPLING METHODS
Generally, sampling during a soil investigation program can be grouped into two main categories.
1. Undisturbed sampling
2. Disturbed sampling
The methods of sampling adopted for a particular site investigation program is based on the type
and requirement of soil investigation data for design and construction. While a large number of
samplers and sampling methods are available, however, before a suitable technique can be selected
it is always necessary to consider whether the sample size will be adequate, and whether the most
suitable method of sampling has been selected, to ensure that sample disturbance is sufficiently
small.
2.2.1 Undistured Sample
Undisturbed samples are obtained with specialized equipment designed to minimize the disturbance
to the in-situ structure and moisture content of the soils. The term “undisturbed” soil sample refers
to the relative degree of disturbance to the soil’s in-situ properties. Specimens obtained by
undisturbed sampling methods are used to determine the strength, stratification, permeability,
density, consolidation, dynamic properties, and other engineering characteristics of soils.
Undisturbed samples are obtained in clay soil strata for use in laboratory testing to determine the
engineering properties of those soils. Undisturbed samples of granular soils can be obtained, but
often specialized procedures are required such as freezing or resin impregnation and block or core
type sampling. Common methods for obtaining undisturbed samples are summarized in Table 2.1
and briefly described below.
March 2009 2-1

Table 2.1 Common Sampling Methods
Sampler Disturbed/ Appropriate Soil Types Method of Penetration % Use in

Undisturbed Practice
Split-Barrel Disturbed Sands, silts, clays Hammer driven 85
(Split Spoon)
Thin-Walled Undisturbed Clays, silts, fine-grained Mechanically Pushed 6
Shelby Tube soils, clayey sands
Continuous Partially Sands, silts, and clays Hydraulic push with 4
Push Undisturbed plastic lining
Piston Undisturbed Silts and clays Hydraulic push 1
Pitcher Undisturbed Stiff to hard clay, silt, Rotation and hydraulic <1
sand, partially weathered pressure
rock and frozen or resin
impregnated granular soil
Denison Undisturbed Stiff to hard clay, silt, Rotation and hydraulic <1
sand and partially pressure
weather rock
Modified Disturbed Sands, silts, clays and Hammer driven (large <1
California gravels split spoon)
Continuous Disturbed Cohesive soils Drilling w/ Hollow <1
Auger Stem Augers
Bulk Disturbed Gravels, sands, silts, clays Hand tools, bucket <1
augering
Block Undisturbed Cohesive soils and frozen Hand tools <1
or resin impregnated
granular soils
Brief description of some of the undisturbed samplers and sampling method is presented below:
Thin Walled Shelby Tube
It is used in cohesive soil in rotary drilled boreholes. The sampler consists of a thin walled tube
secured to a head containing a ball check valve. The most commonly used sampler sizes are 75mm
and 50 mm (OD). The head is threaded to a drill rod. The tube is used below the casing after
cleaning the casing side with clean out auger and washing the bottom. The sampler screwed to the
drill rod and the sampler are pressed with hydraulic jack of the drilling in one fast stroke. The
pressure required to push the sampler should be read on hydraulic gauge. It is always preferable to
wait for some time say 15 to 30 minutes before pulling out the tube as this allows the soil to expand
and gain shear strength so that it sticks to the tube. The soil is removed from the two ends of the
tube to about 25mm to 50mm and sealed with paraffin wax. The scrapped sample is logged in the
Borelog.
Piston Sampler
This is similar to the Shelby tube sampler except that it is sealed at the bottom and therefore
contamination is avoided. Secondly by holding the piston stationary and pressing the tube
downward, the top of the sample is protected against distortion. The most commonly used sampler
size is 73.6mm dia and 762mm long sampler. The actuating rod is held in place while the sampling
tube is pushed past the stationary piston. The tube is removed from the hole and separated from
sampler by unscrewing the actuating rod. The tube ends are sealed. The sample should be logged in
the borelog as done for Shelby tube.
2-2 March 2009

Denison Sampler
The Denison sampler was designed by H.L. Johnson in 1930 to obtain samples from dense or highly
cemented strata (stiff to hard clays and dense sand) where thin Shelby tube was unable to penetrate
and extract an undisturbed sample. The sample device is essentially a double tube core barrel with
thin lined liner tube adapted to soil use. The inner tube with cutting shoe always advances ahead of
the rotating outer core barrel ensuring the sample to e undisturbed and uncontaminated.
The Denison core barrel is manufactured in 89, 100, 140, and 197mm OD sizes, and recovers
relatively large samples in the inner stationary tube. The standard lengths are 60cm and 1.5m.
Besides stiff and dense soils, the sampler can also sample clean sand and soft clays with use of
drilling mud, vacuum valve and basket core retainer. The operating procedure is to lower the
sampler to the bottom of the hole and apply hydraulic feed downward pressure, simultaneously
drilling at a maximum rate of 100 rpm and allowing the circulation of drilling fluid just enough to
wash the cutting. Once the depth is reached, the core barrel is withdrawn, the head and cutting shoe
is removed and inner liner pushed hydraulically or mechanically from inner core barrel. The soil
sample collected in the liner is sealed in th same was as Shelby tube and the sample is logged.
Pitcher Sampler
The pitcher sampler is basically a Denison sampler in which the inner barrel is spring loaded so as to
provide for the automatic adjustment of the distance by which the cutting edge of the barrel leads
the coring bit. After cleaning the drill hole, the sampler is lowered to the bottom of the drill hole.
When the sampler reaches the bottom of the drill hole the inner tube meets the resistance first and
the outer barrel slides past the tube until the spring at the top of the tube contacts the top of the
outer barrel. The spring in the sampler is compressed with respect to the amount of resistance met
by the soil sample i.e soft or hard. Sampling is accomplished by rotating the outer barrel at 100 to
200 rpm while exerting the downward pressure. Upon completion of the sampling drive, the sampler
is removed from the borehole, and the inner tube which is used to ship and store the sample is
removed from the sampler.
Mazier’s Sampler
The Mazier’s sampler, commonly used in south-east Asia, for soil exploration is very much similar to
Denison sampler. It is very useful for obtaining samples of stiff to hard residual soil with relict rock
fragments and weathered material. The Mazier’s triple tube retractor barrel which is a stationary
plastic liner encasing 73 m diameter core is compatible with standard laboratory and testing
apparatus. The Mazier’s sample is used in conjunction with double core barrel when coring of rock is
required.
Block Samples
For projects where the determination of the undisturbed properties is very critical, and where the soil
layers of interest are accessible, undisturbed block samples can be of great value. Of all the
undisturbed testing methods discussed in this manual, properly-obtained block samples produce
samples with the least amount of disturbance. Such samples can be obtained from the hillsides, cuts,
test pits, tunnel walls and other exposed sidewalls. Undisturbed block sampling is limited to cohesive
soils and rocks. The procedures used for obtaining undisturbed samples vary from cutting large
blocks of soil using a combination of shovels, hand tools and wire saws, to using small knives and
spatulas to obtain small blocks.
In addition, special down-hole block sampling methods have been developed to better obtain
samples in their in-situ condition. For cohesive soils, the Sherbrooke sampler has been developed
and is able to obtain samples 250 mm (9.85 in) diameter and 350 mm (13.78 in) height (Lefebvre
March 2009 2-3

and Poulin 1979). In-situ freezing methods for saturated granular soils and resin impregnation
methods have been implemented to “lock” the soil in the in-situ condition prior to sampling. When
implemented, these methods have been shown to produce high quality undisturbed samples.
However, the methods are rather involved and time consuming and therefore have not seen
widespread use in practice.
Once samples are obtained and transported to the laboratory in suitable containers, they are
trimmed to appropriate size and shape for testing. Block samples should be wrapped with a
household plastic membrane and heavy duty foil and stored in block form and only trimmed shortly
before testing. Every sample must be identified with the following information: project number,
boring or exploration pit number, sample number, sample depth, and orientation.
2.2.2 Disturbed Sampling
Disturbed samples are those obtained using equipment that destroy the macrostructure of the soil
but do not alter its mineralogical composition. Specimens from these samples can be used for
determining the general lithology of soil deposits, for identification of soil components and general
classification purposes, for determining grain size, Atterberg limits, and compaction characteristics of
soils. Disturbed samples can be obtained with a number of different methods as summarized in Table
2.1. Some of the sampling methods given in Table 2.1 are described below.
Split-Barrel (Split Spoon)
The split spoon sampler is a solid steel tube barrel split into two halves longitudinally. The device has
a check valve and a hard steel shoe. When the head and shoe are unscrewed the barrel opens in the
centre exposing the sample. Improvement in design provides liner and the sampler retainer. The ball
valve in the head and the sample retainer valve spring prevent the sample particularly cohesionless
soil from being washed out and lost. The borehole is cleaned before lowering the sampler into the
borehole. The sampler is then driven into the borehole base by hammering to extract the sample.
The sample is then logged on a borelog.
Continuous Auger
Continuous auger or continuous flight augers are augers with continuous spiral on the shaft. As the
hole advances, additional sections of spiral flight are added. In this type of auger, the soils rise to
the top of the hole on the spiral flight and is sampled as it emerges. Moreover the disadvantage of
raising and lowering the auger to remove the soil is eliminated. Condinuous augers can be with solid
or hollow stems also. The limitation of the augers is that these are not effective below water table
as there are constant caving problems and samples are washed off unless cased. Hollow stem auger
can cope with the situation to some extent with special adaptors. The limitations are maximum depth
30m for continuous augers.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples are suitable for soil classification, index testing, R-value, compaction, California Bearing
Ratio (CBR), and tests used to quantify the properties of compacted geomaterials. The bulk samples
may be obtained using hand tools without any precautions to minimize sample disturbance. The
sample may be taken from the base or walls of a test pit or a trench, from drill cuttings, from a hole
dug with a shovel and other hand tools, by backhoe, or from a stockpile. The sample should be put
into a container that will retain all of the particle sizes. For large samples, plastic or metal buckets or
metal barrels are used; for smaller samples, heavy plastic bags that can be sealed to maintain the
water content of the samples are used.
2-4 March 2009

Usually, the bulk sample provides representative materials that will serve as borrow for controlled fill
in construction. Laboratory testing for soil properties will then rely on compacted specimens. If the
material is relatively homogeneous, then bulk samples may be taken equally well by hand or by
machine. However, in stratified materials, hand excavation may be required. In the sampling of such
materials it is necessary to consider the manner in which the material will be excavated for
construction. If it is likely that the material will be removed layer by layer through the use of
scrapers, samples of each individual material will be required and hand excavation from base or wall
of the pit may be a necessity to prevent unwanted mixing of the soils. If, on the other hand, the
material is to be excavated from a vertical face, then the sampling must be done in a manner that
will produce a mixture having the same relative amounts of each layer as will be obtained during the
borrow area excavation. This can usually be accomplished by hand-excavating a shallow trench
down the walls of the test pit within the depth range of the materials to be mixed.
2.3 SAMPLING INTERVAL AND APPROPRIATE SAMPLER TYPE
In general, SPT samples are taken in both granular and cohesive soils, and thin-walled tube samples
are taken in cohesive soils. The sampling interval will vary between individual projects and between
regions. A common practice is to obtain split barrel samples at 0.75 m (2.5 ft) intervals in the upper
3 m (10 ft) and at 1.5 m (5 ft) intervals below 3 m (10 ft). In some instances, a greater sample
interval, often 3 m (10 ft), is allowed below depths of 30 m (100 ft). In other cases, continuous
samples may be required for some portion of the boring.
In cohesive soils, at least one undisturbed soil sample should be obtained from each different
stratum encountered. If a uniform cohesive soil deposit extends for a considerable depth, additional
undisturbed samples are commonly obtained at 3 m (10 ft) to 6 m (10 ft) intervals.
Where borings are widely spaced, it may be appropriate to obtain undisturbed samples in each
boring; however, for closely spaced borings, or in deposits which are generally uniform in lateral
extent, undisturbed samples are commonly obtained only in selected borings. In erratic geologic
formations or thin clay layers it is sometimes necessary to drill a separate boring adjacent to a
previously completed boring to obtain an undisturbed sample from a specific depth which may have
been missed in the first boring.
2.4 SAMPLE RECOVERY
Occasionally, sampling is attempted and little or no material is recovered. In cases where a split
barrel or another disturbed-type sample is to be obtained, it is appropriate to make a second attempt
to recover the soil sample immediately following the first failed attempt. In such instances, the
sampling device is often modified to include a retainer basket, a hinged trap valve, or other
measures to help retain the material within the sampler.
In cases where an undisturbed sample is desired, the field supervisor should direct the driller to drill
to the bottom of the attempted sampling interval and repeat the sampling attempt. The method of
sampling should be reviewed, and the sampling equipment should be checked to understand why no
sample was recovered (such as a plugged ball valve). It may be appropriate to change the sampling
method and/or the sampling equipment, such as waiting a longer period of time before extracting
the sampler, extracting the sampler more slowly and with greater care, etc. This process should be
repeated or a second boring may be advanced to obtain a sample at the same depth.
2.5 REQUIRED VOLUME OF MATERIAL FOR TESTING PROGRAMME
A further consideration in fixing sample sizes is the standard test specimen sizes in use. The
specimen sizes commonly used here and in United Kingdom is shown below.
March 2009 2-5

Compressibility characteristics
Oedometer 76mm dia. x 19mm high
Triaxial cell 102mm dia. x 102mm high
Hydraulic consolidation cell up to 254mm dia. x 100 – 125mm high
Triaxial compression tests

Small specimens 38mm dia. x 76mm high
Large specimens 102mm dia. x 204mm high
or 152mm dia. x 305mm high
Direct shear tests

Small specimens 60mm x 60mm in plan
Large specimens 305mm x 305mm in plan
Small triaxial specimens are normally tested in groups of three, all of which should be obtained from
the same level in the sample in order that they are as similar as possible. Three 38mm dia.
Specimens can be obtained from a 102 mm dia. sample.
Soil testing equipment manufactured in the USA uses the following specimen sizes.
Compressibility characteristics
Consolidometer
(large specimen) 113mm dia.
(small specimen) 64mm dia.
Triaxial compression tests

Small specimens 36mm dia. x 71mm high
Medium specimens 71mm dia x 142mm high
Large specimens 102mm dia. x 204mm high
Or 152mm dia. x 305mm high
Direct shear tests

Cylindrical specimens 63.5mm dia.
Square specimens 51mm dia. x 52mm
Three 36mm dia. (1.4in. dia.) specimens can be obtained from either 89mm (3.5 in.) dia. samples or
102 mm (4 in.) dia. samples.
As noted above, when discussing the need for samples to contain representative particle sizes, in
many cases it is the minimum quantity of soil required for a particular test procedure which will
dictate the volume or mass that must be obtained. BS 5930: 1981 suggested sample sizes should be
determined on the basis both of soil type and the purpose for which the sample was needed (Table
2.2).
2-6 March 2009

Table 2.2 Mass of Disturbed Soil Sample Required For Various Tests
Soil type
Fine and medium
Testing Clay, silt or sand Coarse gravel
gravel
(kg) (kg)
(kg)
Moisture content,
Atterberg limits, sieve 1 5 30
analysis, chemical tests
Compaction tests 25-60 25-60 25-60
Soil stabilization tests 100 130 160
(Source: BS 5930: 1981)
2.6 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE
The most obvious effect of sample disturbance can be seen when attempting to tube sample very
soft, sensitive clays with a poorly designed sampler. The soil around the edge of the sample
undergoes a very large decrease in strength, such that when the tube is withdrawn from the soil
there is no recovery. But, as has been noted above, sample disturbance occurs in all sampling
processes and, if sampling is carried out well, the effects of disturbance will hopefully be more
subtle. Whatever its magnitude, sampling disturbance normally affects both undrained strength and
compressibility. In addition, chemical effects may cause changes in the plasticity and sensitivity of
the soil sample.
(I) Strength
Although it has been noted above that tube sampling disturbance has the greatest effect, in terms of
reductions in mean effective stress, on reconstituted clays its effect on the undrained shear strength
of such material is, perhaps surprisingly, small. Laboratory experiments by a number of workers have
shown that the stress paths during undrained shearing converge on the critical state and, because
the soil is initially reconstituted, the state boundary surface is not disrupted by tube sampling.
Typically, it has been found that the undrained strength is reduced by less than 10%, even when the
material is not reconsolidated back to its initial stress state (for example, Siddique (1990)).
Tube sampling does, however, have a significant effect on real soils, most of which are either
bonded (‘structured’), and/or more heavily overconsolidated. Shearing of bonded soils during tube
sampling can have the effect of progressively destructuring them. Clayton et al. (1992) show
comparisons of the stress paths taken by soil specimens tube sampled in different ways. Figure 2.1
shows how tube sampling a lightly overconsolidated natural, structured clay with a standard piston
sampler leads subsequently to much higher pore pressure generation during undrained shear, with
the consequence that undrained strength is reduced. Clayton et al. (1992) found that provided tube
sampling strain excursions were limited to ± 2% and that appropriate stress paths were used to
reconsolidate the material back to its in situ stress state, the undrained strength of the Bothkennar
clay would be within ± 10% of its undisturbed value. It is to be expected, however, that much
greater effects will occur when sensitive clays are sampled.
Heavily overconsolidated clays often display almost vertical stress paths under undrained shear. An
increase in the mean effective stress level as a result of tube sampling will result in approximately
proportional increase in intact strength. Unfortunately, however, this is not the only effect at work.
Hammering of tubes into stiff clays can cause fracturing, and loosening along fissures, and this may
lead to a marked reduction in measured undrained strength.
March 2009 2-7

Chapter 2 SAMPLING A
AND SAMPLING
G DISTURBANC
CE
Figure 2.1 Effects off Tube Sampling Disturban

nce of Lightly Overconsoliddated Natural (‘Structured’))
Clay on: (a)
( Stress Patth and Streng
gth during Und drained Triaxxial Compression
(b)) One-Dimenssional Compre
essibility durin
ng Oedomete er Testing
(II) Compressibilit
C ty and Stiffne
ess
The effeccts of samplin

ng on compre essibility (as measured
m in the
t oedomete er, for examp
ple) are difficu
ult
to assesss because of bedding effeects, particularly in heavily overconsolid dated clays. The
T use of loccal
axial stra
ain measuremment on triaxial specimens during the pastp decade hhas produced new and mo ore
reliable stiffness
s data
a than can normally
n be eexpected from m routine one-dimensiona al consolidatioon
tests, It is now knowwn that the measured
m small-strain stifffnesses of cla
ays, most rellevant to man ny
geotechn nical engineering problemms, is for a given
g clay appproximately linearly prop portional to thhe
mean efffective stress at the time of
o measureme ent. This me eans that changes in effective stress ass a
result of disturbance are
a directly trranslated into proportional changes in m measured soil stiffness.
Because of the grow wing appreciattion of the innfluence of bedding

b and effective
e stre
ess changes ono
measured stiffness, itt has become e common prractice in the e UK to adoptt laboratory methods
m whicch
d these proble
will avoid ems. In heavily overconso olidated clays, small-strain stiffness is offten normalize
ed
with resppect to the mean
m effective
e stress at th
he start of sheear (p’o=(σ’11+σ’2+σ’3)/3)). Alternatively,
the stiffn
ness of bonde
ed soils is perh
haps more ap ppropriately normalized witth respect to undrained
2-8 March 20
009
Chapter 2 SAMPLING A
AND SAMPLING
G DISTURBANC
CE
shear strrength, althouugh it may be e difficult to determine the true in situ value
v of this. In situ stiffne
ess
can then be recovered d if p’o(in situ
u) or cu(in situ
tu) be estimatted. In lightly overconsolidated natural
clay Clayyton et al. (1
1992) have shown,
s howevver, that eve en the carefu ul reestablishm ment of in situ
si
effective stress levels before shearring cannot fu ully recover th
he undisturbe ed stiffness beehaviour of th he
soil.
A 60% reduction
r in Eu/ p’o (meassured locally,, and after re
e-establishmeent of in situ
u stresses) was
w
obtained for the Both hkennar clay following tub be sampling strain excurssions of ±2% %, for examplle.
The resuults of a literrature surveyy by Hopper (1992) are shown
s in Fig. 2.2. Here thhe very seve
ere
effects of
o tube sampling (including g the effects of borehole disturbance, and obtained d by comparinng
test resu
ults from tube samples with h those on blo
ock samples in the same ssoil type) can be seen.
gure 2.2 Influ

Fig uence of Tube
e Sampling Disturbance on
n Undrained Strength
S and Stiffness
(From
( a Surve
ey by Hopper 1992).
March 200
09 2
2-9
REFERENCES
[1] Acker, W. L., III (1974). Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling and Core Drilling, Acker Drill Co.
Inc., P.O. Box 830, Scranton, PA., 18501.
[2] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1988).
Manual on Subsurface Investigations, Developed by the Subcommittee on Materials, Washington,
D.C.
[3] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1995).
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing: part II:
tests, Sixteenth Edition, Washington, D.C.
[4] Deere, D. U. (1963). “Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes.”
Felmechanik und Ingenieur Geologis, 1 (1), 16-22.
[5] Ford, P.J., Turina, P.J., and Seely, D.E. (1984). Characterization of hazardous waste sites - a
methods manual: vol. II, available sampling methods, 2nd Edition, EPA 600/4-84-076 (NTIS PB85-
521596). Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
[6] Hunt, R. E. (1984). Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, McGraw-Hill Inc., 983 p.
Hvorslev, M. J. (1948). Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
[7] Krebs, R. D., and Walker, E. D. (1971). "Highway materials." Publication 272, Department of
Civil Engrg., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McGraw-Hill Company, New York, 107.
[8] Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H., and O’Rourke, T.D. (1991). “The soil-rock boundary: What
is it and where is it?” Detection of and Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface, GSP No. 28, ASCE,
Reston/VA, 1-15.
[9] Kulhawy, F.H. and Phoon, K.K. (1993). “Drilled shaft side resistance in clay soil to rock”,
Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles & Piers in Soil & Soft Rock, GSP No. 38, ASCE,
Reston/VA, 172-183.
[11] Lowe III, J., and Zaccheo, P.F. (1991). "Subsurface explorations and sampling." Foundation
Engineering Handbook, H. Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1-71.
[12] Lupini, J.F., Skinner, A.E., and Vaughan, P.R. (1981). "The drained residual strength of
cohesive soils", Geotechnique, Vol. 31 (2), 181-213.
[13] Lutenegger, A. J., DeGroot, D. J., Mirza, C., and Bozozuk, M. (1995). “Recommended
guidelines for sealing geotechnical exploratory holes.” FHWA Report 378, Federal Highway
Administration Washington, D.C.
[14] NAVFAC, P-418. (1983). "Dewatering and groundwater control." Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Department of the Navy; Publication No. TM 5-818-5.
[15] Powers, J. P. (1992). Construction Dewatering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
2-10 March 2009

[16] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1991). Description and sampling of
contaminated soils, (EPA/625/12-9/002; November), Washington, D.C.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C
March 2009 2-11

2-12 March 2009

CHAPTER 3 IN SITU GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Chapter 3 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Table of Contents

List of Table ........................................................................................................................... 3-ii
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT).......................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Correction Factors for Spt .............................................................................. 3-4
3.2 CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT).................................................................................. 3-5
3.3 FIELD VANE SHEAR TEST (VST)...................................................................................3-15
3.4 SUMMARY ON IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL METHODS........................................................3-20
3.5 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS ..............................................................................3-21
3.5.1 General .......................................................................................................3-21
3.5.2 Determination of Ground Water Levels and Pressures .....................................3-22
3.5.3 Field Measurement of Permeability ................................................................3-22
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................3-24
March 2009 3-i

List of Table

3.1 Comparison between Advantages and Disadvantages of SPT 3-4
3.2 Comparison between Advantages and Disadvantages in CPT 3-5
3.3 Diagnostic Features of Soil Type 3-14
3.4 General Advantages and Disadvantages of VST 3-16
3.5 Field Methods for Measurement of Permeability 3-23
List of Figures

3.1 Common In-Situ Tests for Geotechnical Site Characterization of Soils 3-1
3.2(a) Equipment for the Standard Penetration Test 3-2
3.3 Ratio of Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) Determined On 100mm Diameter. 3-4
3.4 Original Dutch Cone and Improved Mechanical Delft Cone (Lousberg Et Al. 1974) 3-6
3.5 Begemann Mechanical Friction Cone (Left, Fully Closed; Right, Fully Extended) 3-7
3.6 Electric Friction Cone (Largely After Meigh 1987) 3-8
3.7 Definition of Cone Area Ratio, Α 3-9
3.8 Distribution of Excess Pore Pressure over the Cone (Coutts 1986). 3-10
3.9 Typical Record of a Friction Cone Penetration Test (Te Kamp, 1977, from Meigh,
1987) 3-12
3.10 (a) relationship between soil type, cone resistance and local friction (Begemann
1956); 3-13
3.11 Ratio of (CPT Qc) (SPT N) as a Function of D50 Particle Size of the Soil (Thorburn,
1971). 3-14
3.12 General Test Procedures for the Field Vane in Fine-Grained Soils. 3-16
3.13 Assumed Geometry of Shear Surface for Conventional Interpretation of the Vane
Test 3-18
3.14 Vane Correction Factor (:R) Expressed in Terms of Plasticity Index and Time to
Failure. 3-20
3.15 Relevance of In-Situ Tests to Different Soil Types 3-21
3.16 Field Permeability Test Arrangement for Soil 3-23
3-ii March 2009

3 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Several in-situ tests define the geostratigraphy and obtain direct measurements of soil properties
and geotechnical parameters. The common tests include: standard penetration test (SPT), cone
penetration test (CPT), piezocone test (CPTu), flat dilatometer test (DMT), borehole pressure meter
test (PMT), and vane shear test (VST). Each test applies different loading schemes to measure the
corresponding soil response in an attempt to evaluate material characteristics, such as strength
and/or stiffness. Fig. 3.1 depicts these various devices and simplified procedures in graphical form.
Details on these tests will be given in the subsequent sections.
Figure 3.1 Common In-Situ Tests for Geotechnical Site Characterization of Soils
Boreholes are required for conducting the SPT and normal versions of the PMT and VST. A rotary
drilling rig and crew are essential for these tests. In the case of the CPT, CPTU, and DMT, no
boreholes are needed, thus termed direct-push technologies. Specialized versions of the PMT (i.e.,
full-displacement type) and VST can be conducted without boreholes. As such, these may be
conducted using either standard drill rigs or mobile hydraulic systems (cone trucks) in order to
directly push the probes to the required test depths.
A disadvantage of direct-push methods is that hard cemented layers and bedrock will prevent further
penetration. In such cases, borehole methods prevail as they may advance by coring or non-coring
techniques. An advantage of direct-push soundings is that no cuttings or spoil are generated.
3.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
The standard penetration test (SPT) is performed during the advancement of a soil boring to obtain
an approximate measure of the dynamic soil resistance, as well as a disturbed drive sample (split
barrel type). The test was introduced by the Raymond Pile Company in 1902 and remains today as
the most common in-situ test worldwide.
March 2009 3-1
Chap
pter 3 IN-SITU GEOTECHNICA
AL TESTING
The SPTT involves thee driving of a hollow thiick-walled tube into the ground and measuring th he
number of blows to advance
a the split-barrel
s ampler a vertiical distance of 300 mm (1 foot). A dro
sa op
weight sy
ystem is usedd for the poun nding where a 63.5-kg (14 40-lb) hamme er repeatedly falls from 0.776
m (30 inches)
i to achieve three e successive increments of 150-mm (6-inches) each. e The firrst
incremennt is recorded
d as a .seatinng, while the e numbers of blows to advvance the se econd and thiird
incremennts are summmed to give th he N-value ("b blow count") or SPT-resisttance (reporte
ed in blows/00.3
m or blow
ws per foot). Figs. 3.2 a, b refer.
The pene etration resistance (N) is the

t number of o blows requuired to drive
e the split spo
oon for the la
ast
300mm (1 ft) of pe enetration. The
T penetratiion resistance
e during thee first 150 mmm (6 in.) of
penetration is ignoredd, because the soil is considered to hav
ve been disturrbed by the action
a of borin
ng
the hole..
Figure 3.2(a) Equipment fo

or the Standa
ard Penetratio
on Test
3-2 March 20
009
Figure 3.2(b) Sequence of Driving Split-Barrel Sampler During the Standard Penetration Test
Correlations between SPT N value and soil (Fig. 3.3 refers) or weak rock properties are wholly
empirical, and depend upon an international database of information. Because the SPT is not
completely standardised, these correlations cannot be considered particularly accurate in some
cases, and it is therefore important that users of the SPT and the data it produces have a good
appreciation of those factors controlling the test, which are:
1. Variations in the test apparatus;

2. The disturbance created by boring the hole; and
3. The soil into which it is driven.
March 2009 3-3

10
Cu/N (kN/m2)
6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PI %
Boulder clay Kimmeridge clay

Laminated clay Woolwich and Reading clay
Sunnybrook till Upper Lias clay
London clay Keuper marl
Bracklesham bods Flints
Oxford clay
Figure 3.3 Ratio of Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) Determined On 100mm Diameter.
Specimens to SPT N, As a Function of Plasticity (Stroud 1974).
A comparison between advantages and disadvantages of SPT is summarised in Table 3.1 as follows:
Table 3.1 Comparison between Advantages and Disadvantages of SPT
Simple and rugged Disturbed sample (index tests only)
Suitable in many soil types Crude number for analysis
Can perform in weak rocks Not applicable in soft clays and silts
Easily available High variability and uncertainty
3.1.1 Correction Factors for Spt
In recent years, it has become a practice to adjust the N valule of SPT test by a hammer-energy
ratio or hammer efficiency of 60% and much attention has been given to N values because of its
use in liquefaction studies. Geotechnical foundation practice and engineering usage based on SPT
correlations have been developed on the basis of standard-of-practice corresponding to an average
ER = 60 %. Normally the correction factor used for SPT tests N values is
(N1)60 = N.CN.CE (3.1)
Where
(N1)60 = Corrected N Value

N= SPT N count obtained from Testing
3-4 March 2009

CN. = Depth Correction Factor - (Should not be greater than 1.7)

= (1/σ’vo)0.5 - (Liao and Whitman 1986)
= 2.2/ (1.2 + σ’vo / Pa) - (Kayen et. Al, 1992)
σ’vo = Effective overburden pressure (γt - γw).z in tons / sq ft
Pa = 1 tons/sq. ft (95KN/m2)
CE = Correction Factor for Energy Ratio of 60%. = ER /60
ER = Energy Ratio for drill rigs (Table below)
Country Hammer Releases ER (%)

USA Safety 2 turns of Rope 55
Donut 2 turns of Rope 45
Japan Donut Tombi 78 -85
Donut 2 turns of Rope 65 – 67
China Automatic Trip 60
Donut Manual 55
UK Automatic Trip 73
Additional correction has been proposed by (Skempton, 1986, Robertson and Wride, 1998) for
hammer type (donut and safety), borehole diameter rod lengths and sampler.
3.2 CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT)
The cone penetration test is quickly becoming the most popular type of in-situ test because it is fast,
economical, and provides continuous profiling of geostratigraphy and soil properties evaluation.
The CPT can be used in very soft clays to dense sands, yet is not particularly appropriate for gravels
or rocky terrain. The pros and cons are listed in Table 3.2 below. As the test provides more accurate
and reliable numbers for analysis, yet no soil sampling, it provides an excellent complement to the
more conventional soil test boring with SPT measurements.
Table 3.2 Comparison between Advantages and Disadvantages in CPT
Fast and continuos profiling High capital investment
Economical and productive Requires skilled operator to run
Results not operator-dependent Electronic drift, noise and calibration
Strong theoretical basis in interpretation No soil samples are obtained
Particularly suitable for soft soils Unsuitable for gravel or boulder deposits
except where special rigs are provided and /
or additional drilling support is available.
Samples of various cone penetrometers are illustrated in Figs. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.
March 2009 3-5

Chap
AL TESTING
ure 3.4 Origin

Figu nal Dutch Cone and Improvved Mechanical Delft Cone (Lousberg Ett Al. 1974)
3-6 March 20
009
Chap
AL TESTING
gure 3.5 Bege

Fig anical Friction Cone (Left, Fully
emann Mecha F Closed; Right, Fully Extended)
E
(Meeigh 1987)
March 200
09 3
3-7
Chap
AL TESTING
F
Figure 3.6 Ele
ectric Friction Cone (Largely After Meigh
h 1987)
Interprettation and use

e
The basicc measureme ents made by a cone are:

1. Thee axial force necessary
n to drive
d c 2 cone into
the 10 cm o the ground a
at constant ve
elocity; and
2. Thee axial force generated by y adhesion orr friction actin 150 cm2 area
ng over the 1 a of the frictio
on
jackket.
ocones, the basic measurrement is the

For piezo e pore pressuure develope ed as penetra ation proceed ds.
Routine calculations
c c
convert these measuremen
nts into cone resistance, lo
ocal side fricttion and frictio
on
ratio.
3-8 March 20
009
Chap
AL TESTING
Cone ressistance, qc (n
normally in MP
Pa) can be ca
alculated from
m:
(3.2
2)
where Fc = force req

quired to pussh the cone into the grou
und, and Ac plan area off the cone, i..e.
10cm2.
Local side friction, fs (normally

( in MPa),
M can be calculated
c fro
om:
(3.3
3)
where Fs shear force on n sleeve, and As = area of the friction ssleeve, i.e. 150 cm2.
o the friction
Friction ratio,
r % can be calculated from::
Rf (in %),
(3.4
4)
Because of the geom metry of the electric

e cone,, where pore water pressu ure acts dowwnwards on th he
back of the cone end d (Fig. 3.7), the cone ressistance will beb under- reccorded. When n used in deeep
water, foor example, foor offshore in
nvestigations,, the force exxerted by grouundwater will be significan
nt,
and if poore pressuress are measure ed (with the piezocone), cone
c resistancce can be corrected for th
his
effect. Th
he corrected, ‘total’, cone resistance, qt is:
qt = qc+(1- )u
u (3.5
5)
where α = ratio of the t area of the shaft abo

ove the cone end to the area
a of the cone
c (10 cm2),
typically 0.15 to 0.3, and
a u = pore pressure at tthe top of the
e cone.
Figurre 3.7 Definitio

on of Cone Area Ratio, Α
March 200
09 3
3-9
Chap
AL TESTING
Because the pore prressure is no ot always meeasured at thet top of thhe cone, butt is sometimes
measured either on thet face, or on
o the shouldder, a factor must be app plied to the measured po ore
pressure. This factor (β)
( is based upon
u pore pre
essure distribuutions calcula
ated using the
e strain path
method. Thus:
qt = qc+(1- )((u0+ß∆u) 6)
(3.6
where β = ratio between the calcu ulated excess pore pressurre at the top o
of the cone and
a at the poiint
of measu urement, u0 = hydrostaticc pore pressu
ure, and ∆u = excess porre pressure caused
c by con
ne
penetration. Pore preessure distributions measuured and calcculated arounnd piezoconess are shown in
Fig. 3.8.
Figure 3.8
8 Distribution
n of Excess Po
ore Pressure over
o the Cone
e (Coutts 1986).
In soft cohesive
c soilss, at depth, much of the cone resista ance may be derived from m the effect of
overburdden, rather thhan the strenngth of the ssoil. In these circumstance
es the ‘net cone resistancce’
may be calculated:
c
qn = qc-σv (3.7
7)
3-10 March 20
009
where qn = net cone resistance, and σv = vertical total stress at the level at which qn is measured.
Net cone resistance can only be calculated once the distribution of bulk unit weight with depth is
known, or can be estimated.
Typical results of a friction cone test are given in Fig. 3.9. The original development of side friction
measurement was made by Begemann using a mechanical cone, who found the useful correlation
between friction ratio and soil type shown in Fig. 3.10a. He defined soil type by its percentage of
particles finer than 0.016mm, and found that on a plot of side friction versus cone resistance each
type of soil plotted as a straight line passing through the origin. This has led to more sophisticated
charts such as that shown in Fig. 3.10b, and for the piezocone to correlations based upon the
relationship between excess pore pressure and net cone resistance (qn = qc - σv).
March 2009 3-11

Chap
AL TESTING
Figure 3.9 Typical Record

R of a Friction Cone Penetration Te
est (Te Kamp,, 1977, From Meigh, 1987))
3-12 March 20
009
Chap
AL TESTING
Cone resistance (kg/cm2)
ocal friction (kkg/cm2)

Lo
Point resistance, (MPa)
Frictio
on ratio, PH (%
%)
Figure 3.10
3 (a) relationship betwe een soil type, cone resistannce and local friction (Bege
emann 1956));
(b) Soil identificatio
on chart for a mechanical friction
f cone ((Searle 1979)
The classsification of soils is norm

mally carried out on the basis
b of the value
v of cone resistance in
combinattion with the friction ratio. Generally, th
he diagnostic features of th
he common soil
s types are as
given in Table
T 3.3.
March 200
09 3--13
Chap
AL TESTING
Table
e 3.3 Diagnosstic Features of
o Soil Type
Excesss pore
Soil tyype Cone ressistance Friction ratio
o
pre
essure
Organicc soil Lo
ow Very high L
Low
No
ormally conso
olidated clay Lo
ow High H
High
Sandd Hig
gh Low Z
Zero
Grav
vel Very high Low Z
Zero
elationships between
Useful re b angle
e of shearing
g resistance and
a cone resistance, qc, can be found in
Schmertmmann (1978), and Durgun noglu and Mitchell (1975)). A correlatio
on between qc and SPT N,
based onn particle size, is shown in Fig. 3.11.
e 3.11 Ratio of
Figure o (CPT Qc) (S
SPT N) As a F
Function Of D50 Particle Sizze Of The Soil (Thorburn,
1971).
Well-knoown methods of predicting g the settlemment of shallo

ow footings (dde Beer and Martens 195 57;
Schmertm mann 1970; Schmertmann et al. 1978) 1 use cone
c resistan
nce directly. For examplle,
Schmertm mann et al. (1978) use E = 2.5 qc. Succh relationships, although of great pracctical value, a
are
known to o be of limited accuracy. This
T is to be e
expected, beccause the CPTT test involve
es the continu
ual
failure off soil around the cone, an
nd cone resisttance is a meeasure of the
e strength of the soil, rath
her
than its compressibilit
c ty.
een shown (L
It has be Lambrechts annd Leonards 1978) that while the comp pressibility of granular soil is
very sign
nificantly affe
ected by overr-consolidation
n, strength iss not. This sh
hortcoming iss shared by th he
SPT. Howwever, settlemments of spre
ead footings p predicted usin
ng the CPT tennds to be con nsiderably moore
accurate than those using
u the SPT,, because theere is no borehole disturbance.
3-14 March 20
009
In a comparative study based upon case records, Dikran found that the ratio of calculated/observed
settlements fell in the range 0.21—2.72, for four traditional methods of calculation using the CPT.
For the SPT the variation was 0.15—10.8.
When calculating the point resistance of piles in sand based upon cone resistance, it is normal to
consider the static cone penetrometer as a model of the pile, and simply apply a reduction factor of
between two and six to give allowable bearing pressure (Van der Veen and Boersma 1957; Sanglerat
1972). Sand deposits are rarely uniform, and so an averaging procedure is used with the qc values
immediately above and below the proposed pile tip position (Schmertmann 1978). The side friction
of piles may be calculated directly from the side friction of the cone, or by correlation with cone
resistance.
In cohesive soils, the CPT is routinely used to determine both undrained shear strength and
compressibility. In a similar way to the bearing capacity of a foundation, cone resistance is a function
of both overburden pressure (σv) and undrained shear strength (cu):
qc = NkCu+σv (3.8)
so that the undrained shear strength may be calculated from:
qc -σv
cu = (3.9)
Nk
provided that Nk is known, or can be estimated. The theoretical bearing capacity factor for deep
foundation failure cannot be applied in this equation because the cone shears the soil more rapidly
than other tests, and the soil is failed very much more quickly than in a field situation such as an
embankment failure.
At shallow depths, or in heavily over-consolidated soils, the vertical total stress in the soil is small, so
that:
qc
cu (3.10)
Nk
Typically, in these conditions, the undrained shear strength is about 1/15th to 1/20th of the cone
resistance.
Nk is not a constant, but depends upon cone type, soil type, overconsolidation ratio, degree of
cementing, and the method by which undrained shear strength has been measured (because
undrained shear strength is sample-size and test-method dependent). The Nk value in an over-
consolidated clay will be higher than in the same clay when normally consolidated
Typically, Nk varies from 10 to 20. Lunne and Kleven have shown that this variation is significantly
reduced, giving Nk much closer on average to 15, if a correction (Nk* = Nk/µ) is made to allow for
rate effects, in a similar way to that proposed by Bjerrum for the vane test (see below), but this is
rarely done in practice.
3.3 FIELD VANE SHEAR TEST (VST)
The vane shear test (VST), or field vane (FV), is used to evaluate the in-place undrained shear
strength (suv) of soft to stiff clays & silts at regular depth intervals of 1 meter (3.28 feet). The test
consists of inserting a four-bladed vane into the clay and rotating the device about a vertical axis.
Limit equilibrium analysis is used to relate the measured peak torque to the calculated value of su.
Both the peak and remoulded strengths can be measured; their ratio is termed the sensitivity, St. A
March 2009 3-15

selection of vanes is available in terms of size, shape, and configuration, depending upon the
consistency and strength characteristics of the soil. The standard vane has a rectangular geometry
with a blade diameter D = 65 mm, height H = 130 mm (H/D =2), and blade thickness e = 2 mm.
Fig. 3.12 illustrates the general VST procedures
Figure 3.12 General Test Procedures for the Field Vane in Fine-Grained Soils. (Note: Interpretation of
Undrained Strength Shown Is Specifically For Standard Rectangular Vane with H/D = 2)
The general advantages and disadvantages of VST is summarised in Table 3.4 as follows.
Table 3.4 General Advantages and Disadvantages of VST
Advantages Disadvantage
Assessment of undrained strength, suv Limited application to soft to stiff clays
Simple test and equipment Slow and time-consuming
Measure in-situ clay sensitivity (St) Raw suv needs (empirical) correction
Long history of use in practice Can be affected by sand lenses and seams
By implication, BS 1377 considers that the field vane will not be suitable for testing soils with
undrained strengths greater than about 75 kPa. The vane must be designed to achieve an area ratio
of 12% or less. The test is not suitable for fibrous peats, sands or gravels, or in clays containing
laminations of silt or sand, or stones.
3-16 March 2009

Interpretation
The vane test is routinely used only to obtain ‘undisturbed’ peak undrained shear strength, and
remoulded undrained shear strength. The undrained strength is derived on the basis of the following
assumptions:
1. Penetration of the vane causes negligible disturbance, both in terms of changes in effective
stress, and shear distortion;
2. No drainage occurs before or during shear;
3. The soil is isotropic and homogeneous;
4. The soil fails on a cylindrical shear surface;
5. The diameter of the shear surface is equal to the width of the vane blades;
6. At peak and remoulded strength there is a uniform shear stress distribution across the shear
surface; and
7. There is no progressive failure, so that at maximum torque the shear stress at all points on
the shear surface is equal to the undrained shear strength, cu.
On this basis (Fig. 3.13), the maximum torque will be:
2
D Hcu D/2
T = + 2 2 δr-rcu (3.11)
2 0
D/2
D2 Hcu 4πr3
= + cu
2 3 0
D2 H D
= 1+ cu
2 3H
For a vane blade where H = 2D:
T = 3.667D3 cu (3.12)
March 2009 3-17

Figure 3.13 Assumed Geometry of Shear Surface for Conventional Interpretation of the Vane Test
If it is assumed that the shear stress mobilized by the soil is linearly proportional to displacement, up
to failure, then another simple assumption (Skempton 1948), that the shear stress on the top and
bottom of the cylindrical shear surface has a triangular distribution, is sometimes adopted. For the
rectangular vane this leads to the equation:
D2 H D
T= 1+ cu (3.13)
2 4H
For a vane blade where H = 2D:
T = 3.53D3cu (3.14)
giving only 4% difference in shear strength from that obtained using the uniform assumption.
Undrained Strength and Sensitivity
The conventional interpretation for obtaining the undrained shear strength from the recorded
maximum torque (T) assumes a uniform distribution of shear stresses both top and bottom along the
blades and a vane with height-to-width ratio H/D = 2 (Chandler, 1988), as given in Eq. 3-11 above,
regardless of units so long as torque T and width D are in consistent units (e.g., kN-m and meters,
respectively, to provide vane strength cuv in kN/m2). The test is normally reserved for soft to stiff
materials with cuv < 200 kPa. (2 tsf). After the peak cuv is obtained, the vane is rotated quickly
through 10 complete revolutions and the remoulded (or "residual") value is recorded. The in-situ
sensitivity of the soil is defined by:
3-18 March 2009

St = cu(peak)/cu(remolded) (3.15)
For the commercial vanes in common use, the following expressions for vanes with blade heights
that are twice their widths (H/D = 2) are obtained:
Rectangular (iT = 0° and iB = 0°): suv = 0.273 Tmax/D3 (3.16a)
Nilcon (iT = 0° and iB = 45°): suv = 0.265 Tmax/D3 (3.16b)
Geonor (iT = 45° and iB = 45°): suv = 0.257 Tmax/D3 (3.16c)
Vane Correction Factor
It is very important that the measured vane strength be corrected prior to use in stability analyses
involving embankments on soft ground, bearing capacity, and excavations in soft clays. The
mobilized shear strength is given by:
τmobilized = μR suv (3.17)
where μR = empirical correction factor that has been related to plasticity index (PI) and/or liquid
limit (LL) based on back-calculation from failure case history records of full-scale projects. An
extensive review of the factors and relationships affecting vane measurements in clays and silts with
PI > 5% recommends the following expression (Chandler, 1988):
μR = 1.05 - b (PI)0.5 (3.18)
where the parameter b is a rate factor that depends upon the time-to-failure (tf in minutes) and
given by:
b = 0.015 + 0.0075 log tf (3.19)
The combined relationships are shown in Fig. 3.14. For guidance, embankments on soft ground are
normally associated with tf on the order of 104 minutes because of the time involved in construction
using large equipment.
March 2009 3-19

Figure 3.14 Vane Correction Factor (:R) Expressed in Terms of Plasticity Index and Time to Failure.
(Adapted from Chandler, 1988). Note: For Stability Analyses Involving Normal Rates of Embankment
Construction, the Correction Factor is Taken at the Curve Corresponding to Tf = 10,000 Minutes.
It has been shown that the mobilized undrained shear strength back-calculated from failure case
histories involving embankments, foundations, and excavations in soft clays are essentially
independent of plasticity index (Terzaghi, et al. 1996).
For further information, a detailed review of the device, the procedures, and methods of
interpretation for the VST are given by Chandler (1988).
3.4 SUMMARY ON IN-SITU GEOTECHNICAL METHODS
In-situ physical testing provide direct information concerning the subsurface conditions, geo-
stratigraphy, and engineering properties prior to design, bids, and construction on the ground.
In soils, in-situ geotechnical tests include penetration-type (Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone
Penetration Test (CPT), Cone Penetrometer Test / Piezocone Test (CPTu), Flat Dilatometer Test
(DMT), Cone Pressuremeter (CPMT), Vane Shear Test (VST)) and probing-type (Pressuremeter Test
(PMT), Self-boring Pressurementer(SBP)) methods to directly obtain the response of the
geomaterials under various loading situations and drainage conditions.
The general applicability of the test method depends in part on the geo-material types encountered
during the site investigation, as shown by Figure 3.15. The relevance of each test also depends on
the project type and its requirements.
Commonly used penetration type tests are Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test
(CPT) and Vane Shear Test (VST). Other tests are carried out for special purposes and requirements.
3-20 March 2009

SPT
CPT
In-situ Test Method
DMT
PMT
VST
Geophysics
Grain size (mm)
Figure 3.15 Relevance of In-Situ Tests to Different Soil Types
The evaluation of strength, deformation, flow, and time-rate behaviour of soil materials can be
derived from selected tests or combinations of these test methods. Together, information from these
tests allow for the rational and economical selection for deciding foundation types for bridges and
buildings, safe embankment construction over soft ground, cut angles for adequate slope stability,
and lateral support for underground excavations.
3.5 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS
3.5.1 General
Groundwater conditions and the potential for groundwater seepage are fundamental factors in
virtually all geotechnical analyses and design studies. Accordingly, the evaluation of groundwater
conditions is a basic element of almost all geotechnical investigation programs. Groundwater
investigations are of two types as follows:
o Determination of groundwater levels and pressures and

o Measurement of the permeability of the subsurface materials.
Determination of groundwater levels and pressures includes measurements of the elevation of the
groundwater surface or water table and its variation with the season of the year; the location of
perched water tables; the location of aquifers (geological units which yield economically significant
amounts of water to a well); and the presence of artesian pressures. Water levels and pressures may
be measured in existing wells, in boreholes and in specially-installed observation wells. Piezometers
are used where the measurement of the ground water pressures are specifically required (i.e. to
determine excess hydrostatic pressures, or the progress of primary consolidation).
Determination of the permeability of soil or rock strata is needed in connection with surface water
and groundwater studies involving seepage through earth dams, yield of wells, infiltration,
excavations and basements, construction dewatering, contaminant migration from hazardous waste
March 2009 3-21

spills, landfill assessment, and other problems involving flow. Permeability is determined by means of
various types of seepage, pressure, pumping, and flow tests.
3.5.2 Determination of Ground Water Levels and Pressures
Observations of the groundwater level and pressure are an important part of all geotechnical
explorations, and the identification of groundwater conditions should receive the same level of care
given to soil descriptions and samples. Measurements of water entry during drilling and
measurements of the groundwater level at least once following drilling should be considered a
minimum effort to obtain water level data, unless alternate methods, such as installation of
observation wells, are defined by the geotechnical engineer.
3.5.3 Field Measurement of Permeability
The permeability (k) is a measure of how easily water and other fluids are transmitted through the
geo-material and thus represents a flow property. In addition to groundwater related issues, it is of
particular concern in geo-environmental problems. The parameter k is closely related to the
coefficient of consolidation (cv) since time rate of settlement is controlled by the permeability. In
geotechnical engineering, we designate small k = coefficient of permeability or hydraulic conductivity
(units of cm/sec), which follows Darcy's law:
q = kiA (3.20)
where q = flow (cm3/sec), i = hydraulic gradient, and A = cross-sectional area of flow.
Laboratory permeability tests may be conducted on undisturbed samples of natural soils or rocks, or
on reconstituted specimens of soil that will be used as controlled fill in embankments and earthen
dams. Field permeability tests may be conducted on natural soils (and rocks) by a number of
methods, including simple falling head, packer (pressurized tests), pumping (drawdown), slug tests
(dynamic impulse), and dissipation tests. A brief listing of the field permeability methods is given in
Table 3.5. Field permeability arrangement for soil and rock are presented in Figure 3.16 and Figure
3.17.
3-22 March 2009

Chap
AL TESTING
Table 3.5 Fie

eld Methods ffor Measurem
ment of Perme
eability
Test Method A
Applicable Soills Re
eference
Variou
us Field Metho
ods Soil and
a Rock Aquifers A
ASTM D4043
Pumpiing tests Draw
wdown in soilss A
ASTM D4050
Double e-ring
Surfa
ace fill soils A
ASTM D3385
infiltro
ometer
Infiltro
ometer with
Surfa
ace soils A
ASTM D5093
sealed d ring
Variou us field metho
ods Soils in vadose zon
ne ASTM D5126
A
Slug te ests Soils at depth A
ASTM D4044
Hydraulic fracturingg Rock in-situ A
ASTM D4645
Low-permeability
Consta
ant head injecction A
ASTM D4630
rockss
Pressu
ure pulse Low-permeability
A
ASTM D4630
technique rockss
Ho
oulsby & The
Piezoccone dissipatio
on Low to
t medium k soils
(1988)
Robertson et al..
Dilatom
meter dissipa
ation Low to
t medium k soils
(1988)
Lam
mbe & Whitma an
Falling
g head tests Cased
d borehole in soils BS-5930 –(1988)
(1979)
Figure 3.16 Field Permea

ability Test Arrrangement fo
or Soil
March 200
09 3--23
REFERENCES
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1988).
Manual on Subsurface Investigations, Developed by the Subcommittee on Materials, Washington,
D.C.
[2] American Society for Testing & Materials. (2000). ASTM Book of Standards, Vol. 4, Section
08 and Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978). The Pressuremeter and Foundation
Engineering, Trans Tech Publication, Switzerland.
[3] Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M. and LoPresti, D.C. (1989). "Modulus of
sands from CPTs and DMTs", Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Rio de Janeiro, 165-170.
[4] Briaud, J. L. (1989). “The pressuremeter test for highway applications.” Report FHWA-IP-89-
008, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 148.
[5] Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W. (1996). “Small- and high-strain measurements of in-situ soil
properties using the seismic cone”. Transportation Research Record 1548, Natl. Acad. Press, Wash.,
D.C., 81-88.
[6] Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W. (1998). “Monotonic and dilatory pore pressure decay during
piezocone tests”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35 (6), 1063-1073.
[7] Campanella, R.G. (1994). "Field methods for dynamic geotechnical testing", Dynamic
Geotechnical Testing II (STP 1214), ASTM, Philadelphia, 3-23.
[8] Campanella, R. G., and Robertson, P. K. (1981). “Applied cone research”, Cone Penetration
Testing and Experience, ASCE, Reston/VA, 343-362.
[9] Chandler, R.J. (1988). “The in-situ measurement of the undrained shear strength of clays
using the field vane”. Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies. ASTM STP
1014, American Society for Testing & Materials, West Conshohocken/PA, 13-44.
[10] Chen, B.S-Y. and Mayne, P.W. (1996). “Statistical relationships between piezocone
measurements and stress history of clays”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33 (3), 488-498.
[11] Driscoll, F. G. (1986). Groundwater and Wells, 2nd Edition, Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, 1089 p.
[12] Dunnicliff, J. (1988). Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[13] Fahey, M. and Carter, J.P. (1993). “A finite element study of the pressuremeter in sand using
a nonlinear elastic plastic model”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30 (2), 348-362.
[14] Finn, P. S., Nisbet, R. M., and Hawkins, P. G. (1984). "Guidance on pressuremeter, flat
dilatometer and cone penetration tests in sand." Géotechnique, Vol. 34 (1), 81-97.
[15] Greenhouse, J.P., Slaine, D.D., and Gudjurgis, P. (1998). Application of Geophysics in
Environmental Investigations, Matrix Multimedia Publishing, Toronto. Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A.
(1996).”
3-24 March 2009

[16] “Empirical correlation between penetration resistance and effective friction of sandy soil”,
Soils & Foundations, Vol. 36 (4), Japanese Geotechnical Society, 1-9.
[17] Hegazy, Y.A. (1998). Delineating geostratigraphy by cluster analysis of piezocone data. PhD
Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 464
p.
[18] Hoar, R.J. and Stokoe, K.H. (1978), "Generation and measurement of shear waves in-situ",
Dynamic Geotechnical Testing (STP 654), ASTM, Philadelphia, 3-29.
[19] Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J. (1979). Discussion of “SPT and relative density in coarse
sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 105 (3), 439-441.
[20] Houlsby, G.T. and Teh, C.I. (1988). “Analysis of the piezocone in clay”, Penetration Testing
1988, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, 777-783.
[21] Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., and Lancellotta, R. (1985). “New
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Proceedings, 11th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, San Francisco, 57-153.
[22] Kovacs, W.D., Salomone, L.A., and Yokel, F.Y. (1983). “Energy Measurements in the
Standard Penetration Test.” Building Science Series 135, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
73.
[23] Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1991). Relative density, SPT, and CPT interrelationships.
Calibration Chamber Testing, (Proceedings, ISOCCT, Potsdam), Elsevier, New York, 197-211.
[24] Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H., and O’Rourke, T.D. (1991). “The soil-rock boundary: What
is it and where is it?”. Detection of and Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface, GSP No. 28, ASCE,
Reston/VA, 1-15.
[25] Kulhawy, F.H. and Phoon, K.K. (1993). “Drilled shaft side resistance in clay soil to rock”,
Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles & Piers in Soil & Soft Rock, GSP No. 38, ASCE,
Reston/VA, 172-183.
[27] Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., Hauge, E.A., Mokkelbost, K.H., and Uglow, I.M. (1990).
“Correlation for dilatometer readings with lateral stress in clays”, Transportation Research Record
1278, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 183-193.
[28] Lunne, T., Lacasse, S., and Rad, N.S. (1994). “General report: SPT, CPT, PMT, and recent
developments in in-situ testing”. Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, Rio de Janeiro, 2339-2403.
[29] Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M. (1997). Cone Penetration Testing in
Geotechnical Practice, Blackie-Academic Publishing/London, EF SPON Publishing, U.K., 317 p.
[30] Mair, R. J., and Wood, D. M. (1987). "Pressuremeter testing methods and interpretation."
Ground Engineering Report: In-Situ Testing,(CIRIA), Butterworths, London, U.K.
March 2009 3-25

[31] Marchetti, S. (1980). “In-situ tests by flat dilatometer”, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division (ASCE), Vol. 107 (3), 832-837.
[32] Marchetti, S. (1997). "The flat dilatometer: design applications", Proceedings, Third
International Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo University, Egypt, 1-25.
[33] Marcuson, W.F. and Bieganousky, W.A. (1977). "SPT and relative density in coarse sands",
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE), Vol. 103 (GT11), 1295-1309.
[34] Mayne, P. W., and Mitchell, J. K. (1988). "Profiling of overconsolidation ratio in clays by field
vane." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25 (1), 150-158.
[35] Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy, F.H., and Kay, J.N. (1990). “Observations on the development of
pore water pressures during piezocone tests in clays”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 (4),
418-428.
[36] Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1990). “Direct & indirect determinations of in-situ K0 in
clays.” Transportation Research Record 1278, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 141-149.
[37] Mayne, P.W. (1991). “Determination of OCR in clays by piezocone tests using cavity
expansion and Mayne, P.W. and Rix, G.J. (1993). "Gmax-qc relationships for clays", ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16 (1), 54-60.
[38] critical state concepts.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31 (2), 65-76.
[39] Mayne, P.W., Mitchell, J.K., Auxt, J., and Yilmaz, R. (1995). “U.S. national report on the
CPT”. Proceedings, International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’95), Vol. 1, Swedish
Geotechnical Society, Linköping, 263-276.
[40] Mayne, P.W. (1995). “Profiling yield stresses in clays by in-situ tests”. Transportation
Research Record 1479, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 43-50.
[41] Mayne, P.W. (1995). “CPT determination of OCR and Ko in clean quartz sands”. Proceedings,
CPT’95, Vol. 2, Swedish Geotechnical Society, Linkoping, 215-220.
[42] Mayne, P.W., Robertson, P.K., and Lunne, T. (1998). “Clay stress history evaluated from
seismic piezocone tests”. Geotechnical Site Characterization, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1113-1118.
[43] Mayne, P.W. and Martin, G.K. (1998). “Commentary on Marchetti flat dilatometer
correlations in soils.” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 21 (3), 222-239.
[44] Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., and Martin, G.K. (1999). "Small- and large-strain soil
properties from seismic flat dilatometer tests", Pre-Failure Deformation Characteristics of
Geomaterials, Vol. 1 (Torino), Balkema, Rotterdam, 419-426.
[45] Mayne, P.W. (2001). “Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests”,
Proceedings, International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties & Case Histories
(In-Situ 2001), Bali, Indonesia, 47-69.
[46] Parez, L. and Faureil, R. (1988). “Le piézocône. Améliorations apportées à la reconnaissance
de sols”. Revue Française de Géotech, Vol. 44, 13-27.
3-26 March 2009

[47] Rehm, B.W., Stolzenburg, T. R., and Nichols, D. G. (1985). “Field measurement methods for
hydrogeologic investigations: a critical review of the literature.” EPRI Report No. EA-4301, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
[48] Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1983). “Interpretation of cone penetration tests: Part
I - sands; Part II - clays”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20 (4), 719-745.
[49] Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., and Wightman, A. (1983). “SPT-CPT correlations”,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE), Vol. 109 (11), 1449-1459.
[50] Robertson, P.K. (1986). “In-situ testing and its application to foundation engineering”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23 (4), 573-584.
[51] Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Grieg, J. (1986). “Use of piezometer
cone data”. Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP No. 6, ASCE, New York, 1263-
1280.
[52] Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A. (1986). “Seismic CPT to
measure in-situ shear wave velocity”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 112 (8), 71-803.
[53] Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and By, T. (1988). “Excess pore pressures
and the flat dilatometer test”, Penetration Testing 1988, Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, 567-576.
[54] Robertson, P.K. (1990). “Soil classification using the cone penetration test”. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 (1), 151-158.
[55] Santamarina, J.C., Klein, K. and Fam, M.A. (2001). Soils and Waves, Particulate Materials
Behavior, Characterization, & Process Monitoring, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York, 488 p.
[56] Schmertmann, J.H. (1986). “Suggested method for performing the flat dilatometer test”,
ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 9 (2), 93-101.
[57] Skempton, A.W. (1986). “SPT procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure,
relative density, particle size, aging, and overconsolidation”. Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, 425-447.
[58] Stokoe, K. H., and Woods, R. D. (1972). "In-situ shear wave velocity by cross-hole method."
Journal of the. Soil Mechanics &.Foundations Division, ASCE, 98 (5), 443-460.
[59] Stokoe, K. H., and Hoar, R. J. (1978). "Variables affecting in-situ seismic measurement."
Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, Ca, 919-938.
[60] Tanaka, H. and Tanaka, M. (1998). "Characterization of sandy soils using CPT and DMT",
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 38 (3), 55-67
[61] Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S. (1992). “Deformation characteristics of soils & rocks from field
& lab tests.” Report of the Institute of Industrial Science 37 (1), Serial No. 235, University of Tokyo,
136 p.
[62] Tavenas, F., LeBlond, P., Jean, P., and Leroueil, S. (1983). “The permeability of natural soft
clays: Parts I and II”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20 (4), 629-660.
March 2009 3-27

[63] Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991). “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”.
Geotechnique, Vol. 41 (1), 17-34.
[65] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1951). "Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater
observations." Waterways Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 36, Vicksburg, MS.
[67] Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977). "In-situ measurement of the properties of stiff clays."
Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
Tokyo, Japan, 347-352.
3-28 March 2009

CHAPTER 4 LAB TESTING FOR SOILS
Chapter 4 LABORATORY TESTING FOR SOILS
z
Table of Contents

List of Table ........................................................................................................................... 4-ii
4.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 WEIGHT – VOLUME CONCEPTS .................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 LOAD-DEFORMATION PROCESS IN SOILS ..................................................................... 4-2
4.4 PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE STRESS .............................................................................. 4-3
4.5 OVERBURDEN STRESS ................................................................................................. 4-3
4.6 TESTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS .................................................................... 4-4
4.6.1 Classification Tests ........................................................................................ 4-5
4.6.2 Chemical and Electro-chemical Tests .............................................................. 4-7
4.6.3 Compaction Related Tests.............................................................................. 4-8
4.6.4 Compressibility, Permeability and Durability Tests ............................................ 4-9
4.6.5 Consolidation and Permeability Tests in Hydraulic Cells and with Pore Pressure
Measurement................................................................................................ 4-9
4.6.6 Shear Strength Tests (Total and Effective Stresses) ........................................4-10
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................4-16
March 2009 4-i

List of Table

4.1 Terms in Weight – Volume Relations (After Cheney And Chassie, 1993) 4-1
4.2 Unit Weight – Volume Relationships 4-2
4.3 Available Chemical Tests 4-7
List of Figures

4.1 Typical Particle Size Distribution 4-5
4.2 Casagrande Plot Showing Classification of Soil into Groups 4-7
4.3 Typical Compaction Curves 4-8
4.4 Consolidation Test Apparatus 4-10
4.5 Bishop Direct Shear Box 4-12
4.6 Triaxial Cell 4-13
4-ii March 2009

4 LABORATORY TESTING FOR SOILS
4.1 GENERAL
Laboratory testing of soils is a fundamental element of geotechnical engineering. The complexity of

testing required for a particular project may range from a simple moisture content determination to
specialized strength and stiffness testing. Since testing can be expensive and time consuming, the
geotechnical engineer should recognize the projects issues ahead of time so as to optimize the
testing program, particularly strength and consolidation testing.
Before describing the various soil test methods, soil behavioural under load will be examined and
common soil mechanics terms introduced. The following discussion includes only basic concepts of
soil behaviour. However, the engineer must grasp these concepts in order to select the appropriate
tests to model the in-situ conditions. The terms and symbols shown will be used in all the remaining
modules of the course. Basic soil mechanics textbooks should be consulted for further explanation of
these and other terms.
4.2 WEIGHT – VOLUME CONCEPTS
A sample of soil is usually composed of soil grains, water and air. The soil grains are irregularly
shaped solids which are in contact with other adjacent soil grains. The weight and volume of a soil
sample depends on the specific gravity of the soil grains (solids), the size of the space between soil
grains (voids and pores) and the amount of void space filled with water. Common terms associated
with weight-volume relationships are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Terms in Weight – Volume Relations (After Cheney And Chassie, 1993)
How obtained
Property Symbol Units1 Direct Applications
(AASHTO/ASTM/BSS)
By measurement Classification and in
Moisture Content w D
(T 265/D 4959/BS1377-Part 2) weight-volume relations
By measurement
Specific Gravity Gc D Volume computations
(T 100/D 854 BS1377-Part 2)
By measurement or from Classification and for
Unit weight FL-3
weight-volume relations pressure computations
Defines relative volume
Porosity n D From weight-volume relations of solids to total volume
of soil
Defines relative volume
Void Ratio e D From weight-volume relations of solids to total volume
of soil
1
F = Force or weight; L = Length; D = Dimensionless. Although by definition, moisture content is
a dimensionless fraction (ratio of weight of water of solids), it is commonly reported in percent
by multiplying the fraction by 100.
Of particular note is the void ratio (e) which is a general indicator of the relative strength and
compressibility of a soil sample, i.e., low void ratios generally indicates strong soils of low
compressibility, while high void ratios are often indicative of weak and highly compressible soils.
Selected weight-volume (unit weight) relations are presented in Table 4.2.
March 2009 4-1

Table 4.2 Unit Weight – Volume Relationships
Case Relationship Applicable Geomaterials

Soil Identities 1. Gδ w = S e All types of soils and rocks
2. Total Unit Weight:
1+w
= G
1+e s w
Limiting Unit Weight Solid phase only: w=e=0: Maximum expected value for
solid silica is 27 kN/m3
rock = Gs w
Dry Unit Weight For w=0 (all air in void space): Use for clean sands and dry
soils above groundwater table
d = Gs w /(1+e)
Moist Unit Weight Variable amounts of air and water: Partially-saturated soils above
(Total Unit Weight) water table; depends on degree
t = Gs w (1+w)/(1+e) of saturation (S, as decimal)
with e = Gδ w/S
Saturated Unit Weight Set S = 1 (all voids with water): All soils below water table;
Saturated clays and silts above
sat = w (Gs+e)/(1+e) water table with full capillarity
Hierarchy d ≤ t ≤ sat < rock Check on relative values
Note: w = 9.8 kN/m3 (62.4 pcf) for fresh water
4.3 LOAD-DEFORMATION PROCESS IN SOILS
When a load is applied to a soil sample, the deformation which occurs will depend on the grain-to-
grain contact (inter-granular) forces and the amount of water in the voids. If no porewater exists,
the sample deformation will be due to sliding between soil grains and deformation of the individual
soil grains. The rearrangement of soil grains due to sliding accounts for most of the deformation.
Adequate deformation is required to increase the grain contact areas to take the applied load. As the
amount of pore water in the void increases, the pressure it exerts on soil grains will increase and
reduce the inter-granular contact forces.
In fact, tiny clay particles may be forced completely apart by water in the pore space. Deformation of
a saturated soil is more complicated than that of dry soil as water molecules, which fill the voids,
must be squeezed out of the sample before readjustment of soil grains can occur. The more
permeable a soil is, the faster the deformation under load will occur. However, when the load on a
saturated soil is quickly increased, the increase is carried entirely by the pore water until drainage
begins. Then more and more load is gradually transferred to the soil grains until the excess pore
pressure has dissipated and the soil grains readjust to a denser configuration. This process is called
consolidation and results in a higher unit weight and a decreased void ratio.
4-2 March 2009

4.4 PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE STRESS
The consolidation process demonstrates the very important principle of effective stress, which will be
used in all the remaining modules of this course.
Under an applied load, the total stress in a saturated soil sample is composed of the inter-granular
stress and porewater pressure (neutral stress). As the porewater has zero shear strength and is
considered incompressible, only the inter-granular stress is effective in resisting shear or limiting
compression of the soil sample. Therefore, the inter-granular contact stress is called the effective
stress. Simply stated, this fundamental principle states that the effective stress (σ’) on any plane
within a soil mass is the net difference between the total stress (σt) and porewater pressure (u).
When pore water drains from soil during consolidation, the area of contact between soil grains
increases, which increases the level of effective stress and therefore the soil’s shear strength. In
practice, staged construction of embankments is used to permit increase of effective stress in the
foundation soil before subsequent fill load is added. In such operations the effective stress increase
is frequently monitored with piezometers to ensure the next stage of embankment can be safely
placed.
Soil deposits below the water table will be considered saturated and the ambient pore pressure at
any depth may be computed by multiplying the unit weight of water (γw) by the height of water
above that depth. For partially saturated soil, the effective stress will be influenced by the soil
structure and degree of saturation (Bishop, et. al., 1960). In many cases involving silts and clays, the
continuous void spaces that exist in the soil behave as capillary tubes of variable cross-section. Due
to capillarity, water may rise above the static groundwater table (phreatic surface) as a negative
porewater pressure and the soils may be nearly or fully saturated.
4.5 OVERBURDEN STRESS
The purpose of laboratory testing is to simulate in-situ soil loading under controlled boundary
conditions. Soils existing at a depth below the ground surface are affected by the weight of the soil
above that depth. The influence of this weight, known generally as the overburden stress, causes a
state of stress to exist which is unique at that depth for that soil. When a soil sample is removed
from the ground, that state of stress is relieved as all confinement of the sample has been removed.
In testing, it is important to re-establish the in-situ stress conditions and to study changes in soil
properties when additional stresses representing the expected design loading are applied. In this
regard, the effective stress (grain-to-grain contact) is the controlling factor in shear, state of stress,
consolidation, stiffness, and flow. Therefore, the designer should try to re-establish the effective
stress condition during most testing.
The test confining stresses are estimated from the total, hydrostatic, and effective overburden
stresses. The engineer’s first task is determining these stress and pressure variations with depth.
This involves determining the total unit weights (density) for each soil layer in the subsurface profile,
and determining the depth of the water table. Unit weight may be accurately determined from
density tests on undisturbed samples or estimated from in-situ test measurements. The water table
is routinely recorded on the boring logs, or can be measured in open standpipes, piezometers, and
dissipation tests during CPTs and DMTs.
The total vertical (overburden) stress (σvo) at any depth (z) may be found as the accumulation of
total unit weights ( t) of the soil strata above that depth:
σvo = t dz= ∑ t ∆z (4.1)
March 2009 4-3

For soils above the phreatic surface, the applicable value of total unit weight may be dry, moist, or
saturated depending upon the soil type and degree of capillarity (see Table 4.2). For soil elements
situated below the groundwater table, the saturated unit weight is normally adopted.
The hydrostatic pressure depends upon the degree of saturation and level of the phreatic surface
and is determined as follow:
Soil elements above water table: uo = 0 (Completely dry) (4.2a)
= w (z-zw) (Full capillarity) (4.2b)
Soils elements below water table: uo = w (z-zw) (4.2c)
where z = depth of soil element, zw = depth to groundwater table. Another case involves partial
saturation with intermediate values between (4.2a and 4.2b) which literally vary daily with the
weather and can be obtained via tensiometer measurements in the field. Usual practical calculations
adopt (4.2a) for many soils, yet the negative capillary values from (4.2b) often apply to saturated
clay and silt deposits.
The effective vertical stress is obtained as the difference between (4.1) and (4.2):
σvo’ = σvo - uo (4.3)
A plot of effective overburden profile with depth is called a ’v diagram and is extensively used in all
aspects of foundation testing and analysis (see Holtz & Kovacs, 1981; Lambe & Whitman, 1979).
4.6 TESTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
A wide range of tests has been used to determine the geotechnical parameters required in
calculations for example, of bearing capacity, slope stability, earth pressure and settlement.
Geotechnical calculations remain almost entirely semi-empirical in nature; it has been said that when
calculating the stability of a slope one uses the ‘wrong’ slip circle with the ‘wrong’ shear strength to
arrive at a satisfactory answer. For this reason testing requirements differ considerably from region
to region.
The new British Standard (BS 1377:1990.) is divided into nine separate parts:
Part 1 General requirements and sample preparation

Part 2 Classification tests
Part 3 Chemical and electro-chemical tests
Part 4 Compaction-related tests
Part 5 Compressibility, permeability and durability tests
Part 6 Consolidation and permeability tests in hydraulic cells and with pore pressure
measurement
Part 7 Shear strength tests (total stress)
Part 8 Shear strength tests (effective stress)
Part 9 In situ tests.
4-4 March 2009

Chap
pter 4 LABORAT
TORY TESTING
G FOR SOILS
4.6.1 Classific
cation Tests
s
Soil classsification, alth

hough introduucing a furthe
er stage of da ata acquisitionn into site inv
vestigation, has
an imporrtant role to play in reduccing the costts and increasing the costt-effectivenesss of laborato ory
testing. Together
T with
h detailed sam
mple descripttion, classifica
ation tests alllow the soils on a site to be
b
divided into a limited number of arbitrary group ps, each of which
w is estim
mated to conta ain materials of
similar geotechnical properties.
p Subsequent mo ore expensive and time-con nsuming testss carried out to
determin ne geotechniccal parameterrs for design purposes ma ay then be m made on limitted numbers of
samples which are selected to be representative
r e of the soil group
g in questtion.
Particle Size
S Distribution Tests
BS 13777:1990 gives four method ds for determmining the pa article size distribution
d off soils (part 2,
clauses 9.2—9.5).
9 Th
he coarse fracction of the ssoil (>0.06mmm approximattely) is tested d by passing it
through a series of siieves with dim
minishing ape
ertures. The particle
p size d
distribution iss obtained fro
om
records of
o the weight of soil partticles retainedd on each sieeve and is ussually shown as a graph of
‘percenta
age passing by
b weight’ as a function of particle size (Fig.
( 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Typical Particle Size Distribution
Two metthods of sieving are define ed in BS 1377 7 (part 2, clau

uses 9.2, 9.3). Dry sieving is only suitab
ble
for sandss and gravelss which do no ot contain anny clay: the British
B Standa ard discourages its use, an
nd
since thee exact compo osition of a soil will not be
e known befo ore testing, it is not often requested.
r W
Wet
sieving re
equires a commplex procedu ure to separa ayey particless from the coarse fraction of
ate the fine cla
the soil which
w is suitab
ble for sieving
g, as summarrized below.
1. elect represen
Se ntative test sp
pecimen by quartering and d riffling.
2. Ovven dry specimen at 105— —110°C, and weigh.
w
3. Place on 20mm m sieve.
4. Wirebrush
W each
h particle reta
ained on the 20mm
2 sieve to
t remove fine es.
5. Sieve particles coarser than 20 mm. Reco ord weights reetained on ea ach sieve.
6. Riiffle particles finer than 20mm to reduce e specimen mass
m to 2kg (a
approx.) weig
gh.
March 200
09 4
4-5
7. Spread soil in a tray and cover with water and sodium hexametaphosphate (2 g/l).
8. Stir frequently for 1 h, to break down and separate clay particles.
9. Place soil in small batches on a 2mm sieve resting on a 63 m sieve and wash gently to remove
fines.
10. When clean, place the material retained in an oven and dry at 105—110°C.
11. Sieve through standard mesh sizes between 20mm and 6.3 mm using the dry sieving
procedure. Note weights retained on each sieve.
12. f more than 150 g passes the 6.3mm mesh, split the sample by riffling to give 100—150g.
13. Sieve through standard mesh sizes between 5mm and 63 tm sieve.
The particle size distribution of the fine soil fraction, between about 0.1 mm and 1 µm may be
determined by one of two British Standard sedimentation tests (BS 1377:part 2, clauses 9.4, 9.5).
Soil is sedimented through water, and Stokes’ law, which relates the terminal velocity of a spherical
particle falling through a liquid of known viscosity to its diameter and specific gravity, is used to
deduce the particle size distribution.
Sedimentation tests make a number of important assumptions. Since Stokes’ law is used, the
following assumptions are implied (Allen 1975).
1. The drag force on each particle is due entirely to viscous forces within the fluid. The particles
must be spherical, smooth and rigid, and there must be no slippage between them and the
fluid.
2. Each particle must move as if it were a single particle in a fluid of infinite extent.
3. The terminal velocity must be reached very shortly after the test starts.
4. The settling velocity must be slow enough so that inertia effects are negligible.
5. The fluid must be homogeneous compared with the size of the particle.
Plasticity tests
The plasticity of soils is determined by using relatively simple remoulded strength tests. The plastic
limit is the moisture content of the soil under test when remoulded and rolled between the tips of
the fingers and a glass plate such that longitudinal and transverse cracks appear at a rolled diameter
of 3 mm. At this point the soil has a stiff consistency.
The liquid limit of a soil can be determined using the cone penetrometer or the Casagrande
apparatus (BS 1377:1990:part 2, clauses 4.3, 4.5 / ASTM D-423-54T and ASTM D-424-54T). One of
the major changes introduced by the 1975 British Standard (BS 1377 ) was that the preferred
method of liquid limit testing became the cone penetrometer. This preference is reinforced in the
revised 1990 British Standard which refers to the cone penetrometer as the ‘definitive method’. The
cone penetrometer is considered a more satisfactory method than the alternative because it is
essentially a static test which relies on the shear strength of the soil, whereas the alternative
Casagrande cup method introduces dynamic effects. In the penetrometer test, the liquid limit of the
soil is the moisture content at which an 80 g, 300 cone sinks exactly 20 mm into a cup of remoulded
soil in a 5s period.
Plasticity tests are widely used for classification of soils (Fig. 4.2) into groups on the basis of their
position on the Casagrande chart (Casagrande 1948), but in addition they are used to determine the
suitability of wet cohesive fill for use in earthworks, and to determine the thickness of sub-base
required beneath highway pavements (Road Research Laboratory 1970).
4-6 March 2009

Chap
pter 4 LABORAT
TORY TESTING
G FOR SOILS
Plasticity index (Liquid limit – plastic limit) (%)
Liquid
d limit (%)
Figure
e 4.2 Casagra
ande Plot Sho
owing Classificcation of Soil into Groups
4.6.2 Chemic
cal and Electtro-chemical Tests
During siite investigatiion it is often necessary to

o carry out lab
boratory testss to determine the effects of
the sub-soil or groun ndwater on co oncrete to bee placed as foundations.
f C
Chemical testts may also beb
used to check the soundness of aggregates
a for concrete orr soil cement,, to determin
ne if electrolyttic
n of metals will take place,, or simply to act as index tests.
corrosion
The effeccts of aggresssive ground are numerous. Details can

n be found in n Neville (197
77), BRE Digeest
250 (19881), Tomlinso on (1980) andd BS 5930:19
981. The ava ailable tests in
nclude those listed in Tab
ble
4.3.
Table
T 4.3 Avaiilable Chemical Tests
Test Souurce
Organic ma atter content BS
S 1377:part 3:1990, clausee3
Loss on ign nition or ash content
c BS
Sulphate co ontent of soil and groundw
water BS
Carbonate content BS
Chloride coontent BS
Total dissolve solids BS
pH value BS
Resistivity BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 10
Redox pote ential BS 1377:part 3:1990, clause 11
The risk of acid attacck should bee assessed fro om pH data, depth to waater table, th
he likelihood of
water movement,
m the
e thickness ofo concrete, and whetherr it is subjecct to any hyddrostatic heaad.
Exampless of low and high risk cond
ditions are givven below.
March 200
09 4
4-7
Chap
pter 4 LABORAT
TORY TESTING
G FOR SOILS
a. Low risk. pH 5.5—

—7.0, stiff unffissured clay ssoil with wate
er table below
w foundation level.
b. High
h risk. pH < 3.5, perme eable soil witth water tab ble above foundation levvel and risk of
groundwater movvement.
Organic contents are also of use in classifying g organic soilss such as pe eats. For mosst purposes th
he
nation of ‘losss on ignition’ or ash conten
determin nt is sufficien
nt, but it shou
uld be remem
mbered that th his
method tends
t to yieldd organic conntents which may be up to t 15% too h high because the oven-drieed
specimen
n is fired at about 800—90 00°C and clayy minerals and d carbonates are altered.
4.6.3 Compac
ction Relate
ed Tests
377: 1990:part 4 provides three specificcations for lab

British Sttandard BS 13 boratory compaction:
a. 2.5 kg
k rammer method;
b. 4.5 kg
k rammer method; and
c. Vibra
ating hammerr method for granular soilss.
Laboratoory compactio on tests are intended to model the field f process,, and to indicate the moost
suitable moisture con ntent for commpaction (the ‘optimum mo oisture conte
ent’) at which
h the maximu um
dry denssity will be ach
hieved for a particular
p soil.. The 2.5 kg rammer
r meth
hod is derived
d from the woork
of Procto
or (1933) which introduce ed a test intended to be relevant to th he compaction n techniques in
use in ea
arthfill dam co onstruction in
n the USA in tthe 1930s. Th he test subse
equently became adopted by
the Ame erican Associa ation of Statee Highway Officials
O (AASHHO), and wa as known as the Proctor or
AASHO compaction
c te
est.
A typical compaction curve

c (i.e. dryy density as a function of moisture
m conttent) is shown
n in Fig. 4.3.
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Moisture content
c (%)
Fig
gure 4.3 Typiccal Compactio
on Curves
4-8 March 20
009
4.6.4 Compressibility, Permeability and Durability Tests
Laboratory determinations of the permeability of granular soils can be made using the constant head
and falling head permeameter tests (BS 1377: part 5:1990, clause 5). For granular soils any values
of permeability must be regarded as approximate, since several important factors affect the accuracy
of these tests.
Cohesive soils can be tested for coefficient of permeability in the laboratory, and indeed it was for
this purpose that Terzaghi (1923) produced the one-dimensional consolidation theory. Terzaghi
noted that smear on the specimen boundaries greatly affected the measured soil permeability in his
permeameter tests, and used an oedometer test in order that all water flow would occur out of the
sample. Thus the coefficient of permeability can be obtained from triaxial or hydraulic consolidation
tests since:
k = cvmv w (4.4)
where k = coefficient of permeability, cv = coefficient of consolidation, mv = the coefficient of

compressibility, and w = density of water.
4.6.5 Consolidation and Permeability Tests in Hydraulic Cells and with Pore
Pressure Measurement
Consolidation tests are frequently required either to assess the amount of volume change to be
expected of a soil under load, for example beneath a foundation, or to allow prediction of the time
that consolidation will take. The effect of predictions based on consolidation test results can be very
serious, for example leading to the use of piling beneath structures, and the use of sand drains or
stage construction for embankments. It is therefore important to appreciate the limitations of the
commonly available test techniques. Three pieces of apparatus are in common use for consolidation
testing. These are:
a. The oedometer (Terzaghi 1923; Casagrande 1936);

b. The triaxial apparatus (Bishop and Henkel 1962); and
c. The hydraulic consolidation cell (Rowe and Barden 1966).
a. Casagrande oedometer test
The Casagrande oedometer test is most widely used. BS 1377: part 5:1990, clause 3 gives a
standard procedure for the test. In this procedure the specimen is subjected to a series of pre-
selected vertical stresses (e.g. 6, 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 kN/m2) each of which
is held constant while dial gauge measurements of vertical deformation of the top of the specimen
are made, and until movements cease (normally 24 h).
b. Triaxial Dissipation Test
The measurement of consolidation characteristics can be carried out in the triaxial dissipation test
(Fig 4.6). The most common size of specimen is 102mm high x 102mm dia., and the test is carried
out in a triaxial chamber such as might be used for a consolidated undrained triaxial compression
test with pore pressure measurement. The specimen is compressed under the isotropic effective
stress produced by the difference between the cell pressure and the back pressure, and volume
change is recorded as a function of time, as in the consolidation stage of an effective strength triaxial
compression test, but in addition pore pressure is measured at the base of the specimen. Drainage
occurs upwards in the vertical direction but soil compression is three-dimensional, and for this reason
the results of this test are not strictly comparable with those of an oedometer test. The
compressibility determined from volume changes during the triaxial dissipation is greater than that
March 2009 4-9

measured under conditions of zero lateral strain, and the difference is most pronounced for
overconsolidated clays and compacted soils.
c. Hydraulic Consolidation Cell (Rowe Cells Consolidation Test)
The conventional oedometer enables one to determine the consolidation characteristics in the
vertical direction only. With some modifications, the hydraulic consolidation cell (Rowe cell) with
radial drainage can measure the horizontal consolidation properties. The Rowe cell is an incremental
loading test similar to a conventional oedometer test with a reasonably long testing duration. These
cells, in which load is applied to the sample hydraulically, offer many advantages and considerably
widen the scope of laboratory testing. In addition, the hydraulic loading system gives accurate
control of applied loads over a wide range, including high pressures on large diameter samples.
(a) Schematic Diagram of Oedometer (b) Hydraulic Consolidation Cell
Figure 4.4 Consolidation Test Apparatus
4.6.6 Shear Strength Tests (Total and Effective Stresses)
The principal tools available for strength determination include the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
apparatus, the Franklin Point Load Test apparatus (Franklin et al. 1971; Broch and Franklin 1972),
the laboratory vane apparatus and various forms of direct shear and triaxial apparatus. For the
purpose of relevance and application to DID related works, only the vane apparatus and the direct
shear and triaxial tests are presented herein.
Laboratory vane test
The principles involved in the vane test are discussed in Section 3.3. Whilst the field vane typically
uses a blade with a height of about 150 mm, the laboratory vane is a small-scale device with a blade
height and width of about 12.7mm. The small size of the laboratory vane makes the device
unsuitable for testing samples with fissuring or fabric, and therefore it is not very frequently used.
The laboratory vane test is described in BS 1377: part 7:1990, clause 3.
Direct shear test
The vane apparatus induces shear along a more or less predetermined shear surface. In this respect
the direct shear test carried out in the shear box apparatus (Skempton and Bishop 1950) is similar.
Fig. 4.5 shows the basic components of the direct shear apparatus; soil is cut to fit tightly into a box
which may be rectangular or circular in plan (Akroyd 1964; Vickers 1978; ASTM Part 19; Head 1982;
BS 1377:1990), and is normally rectangular in elevation. The box is constructed to allow
displacement along its horizontal mid-plane, and the upper surface of the soil is confined by a
loading platen through which normal stress may be applied. Shear load is applied to the lower half of
4-10 March 2009

the box, the upper half being restrained by a proving ring or load cell which is used to record the
shear load. The sample is not sealed in the shear box; it is free to drain from its top and bottom
surfaces at all times.
The cross-sectional area over which the specimen is sheared is assumed to remain constant during
the test.
The direct shear test has been used to carry out undrained and drained shear tests, and to
determine residual strength parameters. Morgenstern and Tchalenko (1967) reported the results of
optical measurements on clays at various stages during the direct shear test, and it is clear that at
peak shear stress and beyond, failure structures (Reidels and thrust structures) are not coincident
with the supposed imposed horizontal plane of failure. In addition, the restraints of the ends of the
box create an even more markedly non-uniform shear surface. Since the direction of the failure
planes, the magnitude and directions of principal stresses and the pore pressure are not
determinable in a normal shear box experiment, its results are open to various interpretations (Hill
1950), and this test is now rarely used to determine undrained or peak effective strength
parameters. Triaxial tests may be performed more conveniently and with better control.
March 2009 4-11

Chap
pter 4 LABORAT
TORY TESTING
G FOR SOILS
F
Figure 4.5 Bish
hop Direct Sh
hear Box
Triaxial Test
T
The triaxxial apparatus has been described

d in great detail by Bishop an nd Henkel (1 1962). The te est
specimen n is normally a cylinder wiith an aspect ratio of two,, which is sea aled on its sid
des by a rubb ber
membran ne attached byb rubber ‘O’’ rings to a base
b pedestall and top cap p (Fig. 4.6). Water
W pressu
ure
inside the
e cell provide
es the horizon
ntal principal ttotal stresses,, while the ve
ertical pressurre at the top
4-12 March 20
009
cap is produced by the cell fluid pressure and the ram force. The use of an aspect ratio of two
ensures that the effects of the radial shear stresses between soil, and top cap and base-pedestal are
insignificant at the centre of the specimen.
The triaxial apparatus requires one or two self-compensating constant pressure systems, a volume
change measuring device and several water pressure sensing devices. The ram force may be
measured outside the cell using a proving ring, but most modern systems now use an internal
electrical load cell mounted on the bottom of the ram. The ram is driven into the triaxial cell by an
electrical loading frame which will typically have a capacity of 5000 or 10000 kgf and is capable of
running at a wide range of constant speeds; triaxial tests are normally carried out at a controlled rate
of strain increase.
Figure 4.6 Triaxial Cell
The three most common forms of test are:
a. The unconsoldiated undrained triaxial compression test, without pore water pressure
measurement (BS 1377:part 7:1990. clause 8);
b. The consolidated undrained triaxial compression test, with pore water pressure measurement
(BS 1377:part 8:1990, clause 7); and
c. The consolidated drained triaxial compression test, with volume change measurement (BS
1377:part 8:1990, clause 8).
The unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test is carried out on ‘undisturbed’ samples of
clay in order to determine the undrained shear strength of the deposit in situ. Pore pressures are not
measured during this test and therefore the results can only be interpreted in terms of total stress.
March 2009 4-13

Peak effective strength parameters (c' and φ') may be determined either from the results of
consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests with pore pressure measurement or from
consolidated drained triaxial compression tests. The former test is normally preferred because it can
be performed more quickly and therefore more economically.
The consolidated undrained triaxial compression test is normally performed in several stages,
involving the successive saturation, consolidation and shearing of each of three specimens.
Saturation is carried out in order to ensure that the pore fluid in the specimen does not contain free
air. If this occurs, the pore air pressure and pore water pressure will differ owing to surface tension
effects: the average pore pressure cannot be found as it will not be known whether the measured
pore pressure is due to the pore air or pore water, and at what level between the two the average
pressure lies.
The consolidation stage of an effective stress triaxial test is carried out for two reasons. First, three
specimens are tested and consolidated at three different effective pressures, in order to give
specimens of different strengths which will produce widely spaced effective stress Mohr circles.
Secondly, the results of consolidation are used to determine the minimum time to failure in the shear
stage. The effective consolidation pressures (i.e. cell pressure minus back pressure) will normally be
increased by a factor of two between each specimen, with the middle pressure approximating to the
vertical effective stress in the ground.
Effective stress triaxial tests are far less affected by sample size effects than undrained triaxial tests,
but the problems of sampling in stoney soils still make multistage testing an attractive proposition
under certain circumstances. The effectiveness of this technique in consolidated undrained triaxial
testing has been reported by Kenney and Watson (1961), Parry (1968) and Parry and Nadarajah
(1973).
The consolidated drained triaxial compression test, with volume change measurement during shear is
carried out in a similar sequence to the consolidated undrained test, but during shear the back
pressure remains connected to the specimen which is loaded sufficiently slowly to avoid the
development of excess pore pressures. The coefficient of consolidation of the soil is derived in the
manner described above from the volume change measurements made during the consolidation
stage.
Thus the shear stage of a drained triaxial test can be expected to take between 7 and 15 times
longer than that of an undrained test with pore pressure measurement. 100mm dia. specimens of
clay may require to be sheared for as much as one month. Once shearing is complete, the results
are presented as graphs of principal stress difference and volume change as a function of strain, and
the failure Mohr circles are plotted to give the drained failure envelope defined by the parameters cd'
and φd'
The effective strength parameters defined by drained triaxial testing should not be expected to be
precisely the same as those for an undrained test, since volume changes occurring at failure involve
work being done by or against the cell pressure (Skempton and Bishop 1954). In practice the
resulting angles of friction for cohesive soils are normally within 1—2°, and the cohesion intercepts
are within 5 kN/m2. The results of tests on sands can vary very greatly (for example, Skinner 1969).
Stiffness tests
From the 1950s through to the early 1980s there has been a preoccupation in commercial soil testing
with the measurement of strength with less emphasis being paid to the measurement of detailed
stress—strain properties such as stiffness. This is reflected in both the 1975 and the 1990 editions of
BS 1377, both of which fail to consider the measurement of stiffness.
4-14 March 2009

In most soils any discontinuities such as fissures will generally have a stiffness that is similar to that
of the intact soil such that the intact soil stiffness may be used to predict with reasonable accuracy
ground deformations and stress distributions. This means that laboratory triaxial tests on good
quality ‘undisturbed’ specimens may yield adequate stiffness parameters for design purposes.
However, conventional measurements of axial deformation of triaxial specimens, made outside the
triaxial cell, introduce significant errors in the computation of strains.
March 2009 4-15

REFERENCES
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1995).
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing: part II:
tests, Sixteenth Edition, Washington, D.C.
[2] American Society for Testing & Materials. (2000). ASTM Book of Standards, Vol. 4, Section
08 and 09, Construction Materials: Soils & Rocks, Philadelphia, PA.
[3] Bishop, A. W., and Henkel, D. J. (1962). The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial
Test, Second Edition, Edward Arnold Publishers, Ltd., London, U.K., 227 p.
[4] Bishop, A. W., and Bjerrum, L. (1960). “The relevance of the triaxial test to the solution of
stability problems.” Proceedings, Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,
Boulder/CO, ASCE, 437-501.
[5] Bishop, A. W., Alpan, I., Blight, G.E., and Donald, I.B. (1960). “Factors controlling the
strength of partially saturated cohesive soils.”, Proceedings, Research Conference on Shear Strength
of Cohesive Soils, Boulder/CO, ASCE, 503-532.
[6] Clarke, B.G. (1995). Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design. International Thomson

Publishing/UK, and BiTech Publishers, Vancouver.
[7] Deere, D. U., and Miller, R. P. (1966). Engineering classification and index properties of
intact rock, Tech. Report. No. AFWL-TR-65-116, USAF Weapons Lab., Kirtland Air Force Base, NM.
[8] Gibson, R. E. (1953). "Experimental determination of the true cohesion and true angle of
internal friction in clays." Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 126-130.
[9] International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission (1979). “Suggested Methods for
Determining Water Content, Porosity, Density, Absorption and Related Properties.” International
Journal Rock Mechanics. Mining Sci. and Geomechanics Abstr., Vol. 16, Great Britian, 141-156.
[10] Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., and Lancellotta, R. (1985). “New
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Proceedings, 11th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, San Francisco, 57-153.
[11] Littlechild, B.D., Hill, S.J., Statham, I., Plumbridge, G.D. and Lee, S.C. (2000).
“Determination of rock mass modulus for foundation design”, Innovations & Applications in
Geotechnical Site Characterization (GSP 97), ASCE, Reston, Virginia, 213-228.
[12] LoPresti, D.C.F., Pallara, O., Lancellotta, R., Armandi, M., and Maniscalco, R. (1993).
“Monotonic and cyclic loading behavior of two sands at small strains”. ASTM Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 16 (4), 409-424.
[13] LoPresti, D.C.F., Pallara, O., and Puci, I. (1995). “A modified commercial triaxial testing
system for small strain measurements”. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18 (1), 15-31.
[14] Poulos, S.J. (1988). “Compaction control and the index unit weight”. ASTM Geotechnical
Testing Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 100-108.
4-16 March 2009

[15] Richart, F. E. Jr. (1977). "Dynamic stress-strain relations for soils - State of the art report."
Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo,
605-612.
[16] Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S. (1992). “ Deformation characteristics of soils & rocks from field
& lab tests.” Report of the Institute of Industrial Science 37 (1), Serial No. 235, University of Tokyo,
136 p.
[17] Tatsuoka, F., Jardine, R.J., LoPresti, D.C.F., DiBenedetto, H., and Kodaka, T. (1997). “Theme
Lecture: Characterizing the pre-failure deformation properties of geomaterials”. Proceeedings, 14th
International Conf. on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, Hamburg, 2129-2164.
[18] Tavenas, F., LeBlond, P., Jean, P., and Leroueil, S. (1983). “The permeability of natural soft
clays: Parts I and II”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20 (4), 629-660.
[21] Woods, R. D. (1978). "Measurement of soil properties - state of the art report." Proceedings,
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. I, ASCE, Pasadena, CA, 91-178.
[22] Woods, R.D. (1994). "Laboratory measurement of dynamic soil properties". Dynamic
Geotechnical Testing II (STP 1213), ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 165-190.
[23] Wroth, C. P., and Wood, D. M. (1978). "The correlation of index properties with some basic
engineering properties of soils." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15 (2), 137-145.
[24] Wroth, C. P. (1984). "The interpretation of in-situ soil tests." 24th Rankine Lecture,
Géotechnique, Vol. 34 (4), 449-489.
[25] oud, T.L. (1973). “Factors controlling maximum and minimum densities of sands”. Evaluation
of Relative Density, STP 523, ASTM, West Conshohocken/PA, 98-112.
March 2009 4-17

4-18 March 2009

CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Table of Contents

List of Table ........................................................................................................................... 5-ii
5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Reporting of Test Results ............................................................................... 5-1
5.2 COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Soil Classification and Geo-Stratigraphy........................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Soil Classification by Soil Sampling and Drilling ................................................ 5-2
5.2.3 Soil Classification by Cone Penetration Testing................................................. 5-3
5.3 DENSITY..................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.1 Unit Weight .................................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.2 Relative Density Correlations .......................................................................... 5-7
5.4 STRENGTH AND STRESS HISTORY ...............................................................................5-11
5.4.1 Drained Friction Angle of Sands .....................................................................5-11
7.4.2 Pre-consolidation Stress of Clays ...................................................................5-13
5.4.3 Undrained Strength of Clays and Silts ............................................................5-17
5.4.4 Lateral Stress State ......................................................................................5-20
5.5 FLOW PROPERTIES ....................................................................................................5-21
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................5-23
March 2009 5-i

List of Table

5.1 Representative Permeability Values for Soils 5-22
List of Figures

5.1 Delineation of Geostratigraphy and Soil & Rock Types by Drill & Sampling
Methods 5-3
5.2 Factors Affecting Cone Penetrometer Test Measurements in Soils (Hegazy, 1998) 5-4
5.3 Chart for Soil Behavioral Classification by CPT (Robertson, Et Al., 1986) 5-5
5.4 Interrelationship between Saturated Unit Weight and In-Place Water Content Of
Geo-Materials 5-6
5.5 Interrelationship between Minimum and Maximum Dry Densities of Quartz Sands 5-8
5.6 Maximum Dry Density Relationship with Sand Uniformity Coefficient 5-9
5.7 Relative Density Of Clean Sands From Standard Penetration Test Data 5-10
5.8 Relative Density Evaluations Of NC and OC Clean Quartz Sands from CPT Data 5-11
5.9 Typical Values of ø’ and Unit Weight for Cohesionless Soils 5-12
5.10 Peak Friction Angle Of Sands From SPT Resistance 5-12
5.11 Peak Friction Angle Of Un-Aged Clean Quartz Sands From Normalized CPT Tip
Resistance 5-13
5.12 Representative Consolidation Test Results in Overconsolidated Clay 5-14
5.13 Trends for Compression and Swelling Indices in Terms of Plasticity Index 5-15
5.14 Ratio Of Measured Vane Strength To Preconsolidation Stress (Suv/ P') Vs. Plasticity
Index (Ip) (After Leroueil And Jamiolkowski. 1991) 5-15
5.15 Pre-consolidation Stress Relationship with Net Cone Tip Resistance from Electrical
CPT 5-16
5.16 Relationship Between Pre-consolidation Stress and Excess Porewater Pressures from
Piezocones 5-16
5.17 Relationship Between Pre-consolidation Stress and DMT Effective Contact Pressure in
Clays 5-17
5.18 Relationship between Preconsolidation Stress and Shear Wave Velocity in Clays 5-17
5.19 Normalized Undrained Strengths for NC Clay under Different Loading Modes by
Constitutive Model (Ohta, et al., 1985) 5-19
5.20 Undrained Strength Ratio Relationship with OCR and ' for Simple Shear Mode 5-20
5-ii March 2009

5 INTERPRETATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The results of the field and laboratory testing program must be compiled into a simplified
representation of the subsurface conditions that includes the geo-stratigraphy and interpreted
engineering parameters. Natural geo-materials are particularly difficult to quantify because they
exhibit complex behavior and involve the actions and interactions of literally infinite numbers of
particles that comprise the soil and/or rock mass. In contrast to the more "well-behaved" civil
engineering materials, soils are affected by their initial stress state, direction of loading, composition,
drainage conditions, and loading rate. Thus, the properties of soil and rock properties must be
evaluated through a program of limited testing and sampling. In certain cases, the soil properties
may be altered or changed using ground modification techniques.
All interpretations of geotechnical data will involve a degree of uncertainty because of the differing
origins, inherent variability, and innumerable complexities associated with natural materials. The
interpretations of soil parameters and properties will rely on a combination of direct assessment by
laboratory testing of recovered undisturbed samples and in-situ field data that are evaluated by
theoretical, analytical, statistical, and empirical relationships.
The application of empirical correlations and theoretical relationships should be done carefully, with
due calibration and verification with the companion sets of laboratory tests, to ensure that proper
site characterization is achieved. Notably, many interrelationships between engineering properties
and field tests have developed separately from individual sources, with different underlying
assumptions, reference basis, and specific intended backgrounds, often for a specific soil.
5.1.1 Reporting of Test Results
Reporting of test results (field and laboratory) are presented in two basic forms.
a. Factual Report
b. Interpretative Report
Factual Reports is a compilation of all the location plan of boreholes and test pits, borelogs, test pit
logs, test results (field and laboratory) and photographs of site investigation activities without
detailed interpretation of the test results. This report is basically presented by the S.I Contractor for
their Client.
Interpretative reports include the Factual Report as well as an interpretation of the test results by a
geotechnical engineer/ expert to be used by the designers. This report can also be prepared by the
S.I contractor by employing the services of a geotechnical engineer or it is prepared separately by
the Client employing a geotechnical engineer depending on the nature of the site investigation
contract. The interpretative report presents the interpretation of soil properties from in-situ tests
and laboratory test for the analysis and design of foundations, embankments, slopes, and earth-
retaining structures in soils. Correlation of properties to laboratory index tests and typical ranges of
values are also provided to check the reasonableness of field and laboratory test results. Reference is
made to relevant established documents and standards in order to familiarize with appropriate and
more detailed directions on the procedures and methodologies, as well as examples of data
processing and evaluation.
March 2009 5-1

5.2 COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION
Soil composition includes the relative size distributions of the grain particles, their constituent
characteristics (mineralogy, angularity, shape), and porosity (density and void ratio). These can be
readily determined by the traditional approach to soil investigation using a drilling and sampling
program, followed by laboratory testing.
The behavior of soil materials is controlled not only by their constituents, but also by less tangible
and less quantifiable factors as age, cementation, fabric (packing arrangements, inherent structure),
stress-state anisotropy, and sensitivity. In-situ tests provide an opportunity to observe the soil
materials with all their relevant characteristics under controlled loading conditions.
5.2.1 Soil Classification and Geo-Stratigraphy
In the field, there are three approaches to soil classification and the delineation of geo-stratigraphy,
i.e., drilling and sampling, cone penetration, and flat plate dilatometer soundings.
Testing by the cone and dilatometer, measure the in-situ response of soil while in its original position
and environment, thus indicating a "soil behavioural" type of classification at the moment of testing.
The field tests are primarily conducted by deployment of vertical soundings to determine the type,
thickness, and variability of soil layers, depth of bedrock, level of groundwater and presence of
lenses, seams, inclusions, and/or voids.
5.2.2 Soil Classification by Soil Sampling and Drilling
Routine samplings involve the recovery of auger cuttings, drive samples, and pushed tubes from
rotary-drilled boreholes. The boring may be created using solid flight augers (depth, z < 10 m),
hollow-stem angers (z < 30 m), wash-boring techniques (z < 90 m), and wire-line techniques
(applicable to 200 m or more). At select depths, split-barrel samples are obtained and a visual-
manual examination of the recovered samples is sufficient for a general quantification of soil type.
These 0.3-m long drive samples are collected only at regular 1.5-m intervals, however, and thus
reflect only a portion of the subsurface stratigraphy. Less frequently, thin-walled undisturbed tube
samples are obtained. More recently, sampling by a combination of direct-push and percussive forces
has become available (e.g., geoprobe sampling; sonic drilling), whereby 25-mm diameter
continuously-lined plastic tubes of soil are recovered. Although disturbed, the full stratigraphic profile
can be examined for soil types, layers, seams, lenses, color changes, and other details.
5-2 March 2009

Chapterr 5 INTERPRET
TATION OF SOIIL PROPERTIES
S
Figurre 5.1 Delinea

ation of Geosttratigraphy an
nd Soil & Rocck Types by D
Drill & Samplin
ng Methods
5.2.3 Soil Cla

assification by
b Cone Pen
netration Te
esting
The cone penetrome eter provides indirect asse essments of soil classifica ation type (iin the classiccal
sense) by
b measuring the response e during full--displacementt. During a cone penetrattion test (CPT T),
the conttinuously reco
orded measurrements of tiip resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and porewatter
pressures (ub) are afffected by the particle sizess, mineralogy
y, soil fabric, age, stress sttate, and oth
her
factors, as
a depicted in
n Fig. 5.2 (He
egazy, 1998).
March 200
09 5
5-3
S
ure 5.2 Factorrs Affecting Cone

Figu C Penetrom
meter Test Me
easurements in Soils (Hega
azy, 1998)
A genera al rule of thu

umb is that th he tip stress in sands is qt > 40 atm (Note: one atmosphere
a ≈1
kg/cm2 ≈ 1 tsf ≈ 100 kPa), while in many softt to stiff clayss and silts, qt < 20 atm. In I clean sand ds,
penetration porewater pressures are a near hydro w z) since the permeability is
ostatic valuess (u2 ≈ uo ≈ γw.
high, whhile in soft to stiff intact clays,
c measure ed u2 are oftten 3 to l0 tim mes uo. Nota ably, in fissure
ed
clays annd silts, the shoulder po orewater read dings can be e zero or negative (up to minus on ne
atmosphere, or - 100 kPa). With th he sleeve fricttion reading (f
( s), a processsed value termmed the frictio
on
R) used:
ratio (FR
CPT Friction Ra
ation, FR = Rf = fs/qt (5.1))
With CPTT data, soil classification ca

an be accompplished using a combinatioon of two readings (either qt
and fs or qt and uo),, or with all three reading gs. For this, it is conveniient to define
e a normalise
ed
porewateer pressure pa arameter, Bq, defined by:
5-4 March 20
009
S
-
Po
orewater Presssure Parame
eter, Bq = (5.2))
-
chart using qt, FR, and

d Bq is presen
nted in Fig. 5..3, indicating twelve classiffication regions.
Figure 5.3 Chart

C for Soil Behavioral Cla y CPT (Roberrtson, Et Al., 1986)
assification by 1
5.3 DENSIT
TY
5.3.1 Unit We
eight
The calculations of ovverburden strresses within a soil mass require

r evaluations of the
e unit weight or
mass density of the various
v a. Unit weigh
strata ht is defined as soil weigh
ht per unit voolume (units of
kN/m3) and
a denoted by b the symbo ol . Soil maass density is measured ass mass per vo olume (in eith
her
3
g/cc or kg/m
k ) and denoted by . In common n use, the terrms "unit weight" and "density" are useed
interchan
ngeably. Their interrelation
nship is:
γ = ρ.g (5.3))
where g = gravitatio onal constantt = 9.8 m/ssec2. A refere ence value forf fresh watter is adopte ed,
whereby ρw = 1 g/ccc, and the corresponding g γw = 9.8 kN//m3. In the la
aboratory, soiil unit weight is
measured on tube sa amples of na atural soils an
nd depends upon the spe ecific gravity of solids (Gs),
water coontent (wn), and void ratio (eo), as well as
a the degreee of saturation (S). These parameters area
interrelatted by the soil identity:
G s w n = S eo (5.4))
where S = 1 (100% %) for saturated soil (g generally asssumed for soil layers lying below th
he
groundw
water table) an
nd S = 0 (asssumed for gra
anular soils ab
bove the wate
er table).
March 200
09 5
5-5
For the case of clays and silts above the water table, the soils may have degrees of saturation
between 0 to 100%. Full saturation can occur due to capillarity effects and varies as the atmospheric
weather. The identity relationship for total unit weight is:
1+wn
γT = Gsγw
1+eo
The estimation of unit weights for dry to partially saturated soils depends on the degree of
saturation, as defined by (5.4) and (5.5).
Figure 5.4 Interrelationship between Saturated Unit Weight and In-Place Water Content Of Geo-
Materials
The total overburden stress (σvo) is calculated from:
σvo = ∑ T ∆z (5.6)
which in turn is used to obtain the effective vertical overburden stress:
σvo’ = σvo - uo (5.7)
where the hydrostatic porewater pressure (uo) is determined from the water table.
5-6 March 2009

5.3.2 Relative Density Correlations
The relative density (DR) is used to indicate the degree of packing of sand particles and applicable
strictly to granular soils having less than l5 percent fines. The relative density is defined by:
emax -eo
DR = (5.8)
emax -emin
where emax = void ratio at the loosest state and emin = void ratio at the densest state. The direct
determination of DR by the above definition is not common in practice, however, because three
separate parameters (eo, emax, and emin) must be evaluated.
For a given soil, the maximum and minimum void states are apparently related (Poulos, 1988). A
compiled database indicates (n = 304; r2 = 0.851; S.E. = 0.044):
emin = 0.571 emax (5.9)
For dry states (w = 0), the dry density is given as: d = Gs. γw/(l+e) and the relationship between
the minimum and maximum densities is shown in Fig. 7.5 for a variety of sands. The mean trend is
given by the regression line:
d (min) = 0.808 d(max) (5.10)
Laboratory studies by Youd (1973) showed that both emax and emin depend upon uniformity
coefficient (UC = D60/D10), as well as particle angularity. For a number of sands (total n = 574), this
seems to be borne out by the trend presented in Fig. 5.6 for the densest state corresponding to emin
and d (max). The correlation for maximum dry density [ d (max)] in terms of UC for various sands is
shown in Fig 5.7 and expressed by (n = 574; r2 = 0.730):
d(max) = 9.8 [1.65 + 0.52 log (UC)] (5.11)
March 2009 5-7

Figure 5.5 Interrelationship between Minimum and Maximum Dry Densities of Quartz Sands.
(Note: Conversion in terms of mass density and unit weight = 1 g/cc = 9.8 kN/m3 = 62.4 pcf)
5-8 March 2009

Figure 5.6 Maximum Dry Density Relationship with Sand Uniformity Coefficient (UC = D60/D10).
(Note: Conversion In Terms Of Mass Density And Unit Weight: 1 G/Cc = 9.8 Kn/M3 = 62.4 Pcf)
From a more practical stance, in-situ penetration test data are used to evaluate the in-place relative
density of sands. The original DR relationship for the SPT suggested by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) has
been re-examined by Skempton (1986) and shown reasonable for many quartz sands. The
evaluation of relative density (in percent) is given in terms of a normalized resistance [(N1)60], as
shown in Fig. 5.7.
N1 60
DR = 100 (5.12)
60
where (N1)60 = N60/(σ.vo’)0.5 is the measured N-value corrected to an energy efficiency of 60%oand
normalised to a stress level of one atmosphere. Note here that the effective overburden stress is
given in atmospheres. In a more general fashion, the normalised SPT resistance can be defined by:
(N1)60 = N60/(σvo’/pa)0.5 for any units of effective overburden stress, where pa is a reference stress =
1 bar ≈ 1 kg/cm2 ≈ 1 tsf ≈ 100 kPa. The range of normalized SPT values should be limited to (N1)60 <
60, since above this value, apparent grain crushing occurs due to high dynamic compressive forces.
Additional effects of over-consolidation, particle size, and aging may also be considered, as these too
affect the correlation (Skempton, 1986; Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).
A comparable approach for the CPT can be made based on calibration chamber test data on clean
quartz sands (Fig. 5.8). The trends for relative density (in percent) of unaged uncemented sands
are:
March 2009 5-9

qn
Overconsolidated sands: DR = 100 0.2 (5.13a)
300 OCR
qn
Normally-consolidated Sands: DR = 100 (5.13b)
300
where qt1 = qc/(σvo’)0.5 is the normalized tip resistance with both the measured qc and the effective
overburden stress are in atmospheric units. The relationship should be restricted to qt1 < 300
because of possible grain crushing effects. For any units of effective overburden stress and cone tip
resistance, the normalized value is given by: qt1 = (qt/pa)/(σvo ‘/pa)0.5, where pa is a reference stress
= l bar ≈ 1 kg/cm2 ≈ 1 tsf ≈ l00kPa.
Figure 5.7 Relative Density Of Clean Sands From Standard Penetration Test Data
Note: Normalized Value (N1)60 = N60/(σ.Vo’)0.5 Where σVo’ is In Units Of Bars Or Tsf.
5-10 March 2009

Figure 5.8 Relative Density Evaluations Of NC and OC Clean Quartz Sands from CPT Data.
Note: Normalized resistance is qt1= qc/(σ’Vo)0.5 with stresses in atmospheres (1 Atm=1 Tsf=100 Kpa).
5.4 STRENGTH AND STRESS HISTORY
The results of in-situ test measurements are convenient for evaluating the strength of soils and their
relative variability across a project site. For sands, the drained strength corresponding to the
effective stress friction angle (ø') is interpreted from the SPT, CPT, DMT, and PMT. For short-term
loading of clays and silts, the undrained shear strength (cu) is appropriate and best determined from
normalized relationships with the degree of over-consolidation. In this manner, in-situ test data in
clays are used to evaluate the effective pre-consolidation stress (σp') from CPT, CPTu, DMT, and Vs,
which in turn provide the corresponding over-consolidation ratios (OCR = σp'/σvo').
The long-term strength of intact clays and silts is represented by the effective stress strength
parameters (ø’ and c’ = 0) that are best determined from either consolidated undrained triaxial tests
with pore water pressure measurements, drained trail tests, or slow direct shear box tests in the lab.
For fissured clay materials, the residual strength parameters (or’ and cry’ = 0) may be appropriate,
particularly in slopes and excavations, and these values should be obtained from either laboratory
ring shear tests or repeated direct shear box test series.
5.4.1 Drained Friction Angle of Sands
The peak friction angle of sands (ø') depends on the mineralogy of the particles, level of effective
confining stresses, and the packing arrangement (Bolton, 1986). Sands exhibit a nominal value of ø'
due solely to mineralogical considerations that corresponds to the critical state (designated rocs'). The
critical state represents an equilibrium condition for the particles at a given void ratio and effective
confining stress level. For clean quartzite sands, a characteristic rocs' ≈ 33o, while a feldspathic sand
may show øcs' ≈ 30o and a micaceous sandy soil exhibit øcs' ≈ 27o. Under many natural conditions, the
sands are denser than their loosest states and dilatancy effects contribute to a peak ø' that is greater
than øcs'. Fig. 5.9 shows typical values of ø' and corresponding unit weights over the full range of
cohesionless soils.
March 2009 5-11

Figure 5.9 Typical Values of ø’ and Unit Weight for Cohesionless Soils. (NAVFAC DM 7.1, 1982)
The effective stress friction angle (ø') of sand is commonly evaluated from in-situ test data. The peak
friction angles (ø') in terms of the (N1)60 resistances are presented in Fig. 5.10.
Figure 5.10 Peak Friction Angle Of Sands From SPT Resistance (Data From Hatanaka & Uchicla,
1996). Note: The Normalised Resistance Is (N1)60 = N60/(σVo’/Pa)0.5, Where Pa = 1 Bar = 1 Tsf = 100
Kpa
5-12 March 2009
The cone penetrometer can be considered a miniature pile foundation and the measured tip stress
(qT) represented the actual end bearing resistance (qb). In bearing capacity calculations, the pile end
bearing is obtained from limit plasticity theory that indicates: qb = Nq. σvo' where Nq is a bearing
capacity factor for surcharge and depends upon the friction angle. Thus, one popular method of
interpreting CPT results in sand is to invert the expression (Nq = qT/σvo') to obtain the value of φ'
(e.g., Robertson & Campanella, 1983). One method for evaluating the peak φ’ of clean quartz sands
from normalized CPT tip stresses is presented in Fig. 5.11.
Figure 5.11 Peak Friction Angle Of Un-Aged Clean Quartz Sands From Normalized CPT Tip
Resistance. (Calibration Chamber Data Compiled By Robertson & Campanella, 1983).
7.4.2 Pre-consolidation Stress of Clays

The effective preconsolidation stress σp', is an important parameter that governs the strength,
stiffness, geostatic lateral stress state, and porewater pressure response of soils. It is best
determined from one-dimensional oedometer tests (consolidation tests) on high-quality tube samples
of the soil. Sampling disturbance, extrusion, and handling effects tend o reduce the magnitude of σp'
from the actual in-place value. The normalised form is termed the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and
defined by:
OCR = σp’/σvo’ (5.14)
Soils are often over-consolidated to some degree because they are old in geologic time scales and
have undergone many changes. Mechanisms causing over-consolidation include erosion, desiccation,
groundwater fluctuations, aging, freeze-thaw cycles, wet-dry cycles, glaciation, and cementation.
March 2009 5-13

A representative e-log(σv’) curve obtained from one-dimensional consolidation testing on a marine

clay is presented in Fig. 5.12. The observed pre-consolidation stress is seen to separate the
recompression phase ("elastic strains") from the virgin compression portion (primarily "plastic
strains") of the response.
A check on the reasonableness of the obtained compression indices may be afforded via empirical
relationships with the plasticity characteristics of the clay. A long-standing expression for the
compression index (Cc) in terms of the liquid limit (LL) is given by (Terzaghi, et al., 1996):
Cc = 0.009 (LL-10) (5.15)

.
In natural deposits, the measured Cc may be greater than that given by (5.15) because of inherent
fabric, structure, and sensitivity. For example, in the case in Fig. 5.12 with LL = 41, (5.15) gives a
calculated Cc = 0.33, vs. measured Cc = 0.38 in the oedometer.
Figure 5.12 Representative Consolidation Test Results in Overconsolidated Clay
Statistical expressions for the virgin compression index (Cc) and the swelling index (Cs) from unload-
reload cycles are given in Fig. 5.13 in relation to the plasticity index (PI). However, it should be
noted that the PI is obtained on remoulded soil, while the consolidation indices are measurements on
natural clays and silts. Thus, structured soils with moderate to high sensitivity and cementation will
depart from these observed trends and signify that additional testing and care are warranted.
5-14 March 2009

S
F
Figure 5.13 Trends
T for Com
mpression and
d Swelling Indices in Term
ms of Plasticityy Index
In clays and silts, th

he profile of preconsolidattion stress ca
an be evalua
ated via in-sittu test data. a
relationship between p', plasticityy index (PI) and
a the (raw) measured va ane strength (suv) is given in
4. This permits immediate
Fig. 5.14 e assessmentt of the degrree of over-cconsolidation of natural soil
deposits..
e 5.14 Ratio Of
Figure O Measured Vane
V Strengthh To Preconso
olidation Stresss (Suv/ P') Vs. Plasticity
Index (Ip
p) (After Lerou
ueil And Jamiolkowski. 19991)
For the electric

e cone penetromete er, Fig. 5.15 shows a relationship for σp' in terms of o net cone tip
t
resistancce (qT - σvo ‘) for intact clayy deposits. Fiissured clays are seen to llie above thiss trend. For th
he
piezoconne, σp' can be evaluated fro om excess po orewater presssures (u1 - uo), as seen in Fig. 5.16.
March 200
09 5--15
A direct correlation between the effective pre-consolidation stress and effective contact pressure
(po-uo) measured by the flat dilatometer is given in Fig. 5.17, again noting that intact clays and
fissured clays respond differently. The shear wave velocity (VS) can also provide estimates of σp', per
Fig. 5.18. In all cases, profiles of σp' obtained by in-situ tests should be confirmed by discrete
oedometer results.
Figure 5.15 Pre-consolidation Stress Relationship with Net Cone Tip Resistance from Electrical CPT
Figure 5.16 Relationship Between Pre-consolidation Stress and Excess Porewater Pressures from
Piezocones
5-16 March 2009

Figure 5.17 Relationship Between Pre-consolidation Stress and DMT Effective Contact Pressure in
Clays
Figure 5.18 Relationship between Preconsolidation Stress and Shear Wave Velocity in Clays.
(Data from Mayne, Robertson, & Lunne, 1998)
5.4.3 Undrained Strength of Clays and Silts
The undrained shear strength (su or cu) is not a unique property of soils, but a behavioral response
to loading that depends upon applied stress direction, boundary conditions, strain rate, over-
consolidation, degree of fissuring, and other factors. Therefore, it is often a difficult task to directly
compare undrained strengths measured by a variety of different 1ab and field tests, unless proper
March 2009 5-17

S
ng of these factors
accountin f is giver due consid
deration and adjustmentss are made accordingly.
a F
For
example,, the undraine
ed shear stre ents the failure condition corresponding to the peak of
ength represe
the sheaar stress vs. shear strain curve. The time to reacch the peak is a rate efffect, such th hat
consolida
ated undraineed triaxial tests are usually conductedd with a time e-to-failure on
o the order of
several hours,
h whereaas a vane sheear may take several minutes, yet in coontrast to secoonds by a con
ne
penetrommeter.
For normmally-consolidated clays an nd silts, Fig. 5

5.19 shows th he relative hie
erarchy of the
ese modes an nd
the obseerved trends with
w plasticityy index (Ip). In this presen ntation, the unndrained sheaar strength has
been norrmalized by thhe effective overburden
o sttress level, ass denoted by the ratio (su/σvo', or cu/σvoo'),
that refers to the olde
er c/p' ratio.
Fig. 5.19
5 Modes of
o Undrained S
Shear Strengtth Ratio (su/σσvo')NC for Norm
mally-Consolidated Clays
(Jamiolkowsski, et al. (19
985)).
The theooretical interrrelationships of undrainedd loading mo odes for norm

mally consolidated clay are
a
depicted in Fig. 5.20 using
u a constitutive model (Ohta, et al.,, 1985).
5-18 March 20
009
Figure 5.19 Normalized Undrained Strengths for NC Clay under Different Loading Modes by
Constitutive Model (Ohta, et al., 1985)
Based on extensive experimental data (Ladd, 1991) and critical state soil mechanics (Wroth, 1984),
the ratio (su/σvo') increases with over-consolidation ratio (OCR) according to:
(su/σvo’)OC = (su/σvo’)NC OCRA (5.16)
where A ≈ 1- CS/CC and generally taken to be about 0.8 for unstructured and uncemented soils.
Thus, if a particular shearing mode is required, it can be assessed using either Figs. 5.19 or 5.20 to
obtain the NC value and equation (5-16) to determine the undrained strength for over-consolidated
states. In many situations involving embankment stability analyses and bearing capacity calculations,
the simple shear mode may be considered an average and representative value of the undrained
strength characteristics, as shown by Fig. 5.21 and given by:
(su/σvo’)DSS = ½ sin ’ OCRA (5.17)
March 2009 5-19

Figure 5.20 Undrained Strength Ratio Relationship with OCR and ' for Simple Shear Mode
5.4.4 Lateral Stress State
The lateral geostatic state of stress (Ko) is one of the most elusive measurements in geotechnical
engineering. It is often represented as the coefficient of horizontal stress Ko = σho'/σvo' where σho' =
effective lateral stress and σvo' = effective vertical stress. A number of innovative devices have been
devised to measure the in-place total horizontal stress (σho) including: total stress cell (push-in
spade), self-boring pressuremeter, hydraulic fracturing apparatus, and the Iowa stepped blade.
Recent research efforts attempt to use sets of directionalised shear wave measurements to decipher
the in-situ Ko in soil formations.
For practical use, it is common to relate the Ko state to the degree of overconsolidation, such as:
sin ’
K0 = (1 – sin ’) OCR (5.18)
which was developed on the basis of special laboratory tests including instrumented oedometer
tests, triaxial cells, and split rings (Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982). Fig. 5.22 shows field data
measurements of Ko for clays and sands.
5-20 March 2009

Fig. 5.22 Field Ko - OCR Relationships for (a) Natural Clays and (b) Natural Sand
In general, the value of Ko has an upper bound value limited by the passive coefficient, Kp. The
simple Rankine value is given by:
Kp = tan2 (45° + ½ ’) = (1 + sin ’)/(1 + sin ’) (5.19)
When the in-situ Ko reaches the passive value Kp, fissures and cracks can develop within the soil
mass. This can be important in sloped masses since extensive fissuring is often associated with
drained strengths that are at or near the residual strength parameters (φr' and cr' = 0).
5.5 FLOW PROPERTIES
Soils exhibit flow properties that control hydraulic conductivity (k), rates of consolidation,
construction behaviour, and drainage characteristics in the ground. Field measurements for soil
permeability have been discussed previously and include pumping tests with measured drawdown,
slug tests, and packer methods. Laboratory methods are presented in Section 4.6.5 and include
falling head and constant head types in permeameters. An indirect assessment of permeability can
be made from consolidation test data. Typical permeability values for a range of different soil types
are provided in Table 5.1. Results of pressure dissipation readings from piezocone and flat
dilatometer and holding tests during pressuremeter testing can be used to determine permeability
and the coefficient of consolidation (Jamiolkowski, et al. 1985).
March 2009 5-21

S
Table 5.1 Representativ

R ve Permeabilitty Values for S
Soils
The perm meability (k) can be deterrmined from the dissipatio on test data, either by usse of the dire ect
correlativve relationship presented earlier, or a alternatively by the evalu uation of the
e coefficient of
consolidaation ch. Assuming radial fllow, the horizzontal permeaability (kh) is obtained
o from
m:
kh = (5.20))
where D'' = constraine

ed modulus obtained
o from oedometer tests.
5-22 March 20
009
REFERENCES
[1] Barton, N.R. (1973). “Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints.” Engineering
Geology, Elsevier, Vol. 7, 287-332.
[2] Barton, N.R., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974). "Engineering classification of rock masses for
the design of tunnel support". Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6 (4), 189-239.
[3] Barton, N.R. (1988). “Rock mass classification and tunnel reinforcement using the Q-
system.”, Rock Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, STP No. 984, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 59-84.
[4] Bieniawski, Z.T. (1984). Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 272 p.
[5] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989). Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.
[6] Bieniawski, Z. T. (1972). “Propagation of brittle fracture in rock.” Proceedings., 10th U.S.
Symposium. On Rock Mechanics., Johannesburg, South Africa.
[7] Bishop, A. W., Alpan, I., Blight, G.E., and Donald, I.B. (1960). “Factors controlling the
strength of partially saturated cohesive soils.”, Proceedings, Research Conference on Shear Strength
of Cohesive Soils, Boulder/CO, ASCE, 503-532.
[8] Bjerrum, L. (1972). “Embankments on soft ground.” Proceedings, Performance of Earth and
Earth- Supported Structures, Vol. II, (Purdue Univ. Conf.), ASCE, Reston/VA, 1-54.
[9] Bolton, M.D. (1986). "The strength and dilatancy of sands", Geotechnique, Vol. 36 (1), 65-
78.
[10] Bruce, D. A., Xanthakos, P. P., and Abramson, L. W. (1994). “Jet grouting”, Ground Control
and Improvement, Chapter 8, 580-683.
[11] Burland, J.B. (1989), "Small is beautiful: The stiffness of soils at small strains", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26 (4), 499-516.
[12] Carter, M., and Bentley, S. P. (1991). Correlations of Soil Properties, Pentech Press Limited,
London, U.K.
[13] Casagrande, A., and Fadum, R. E. (1940). “Notes on soil testing for engineering purposes.”
Publication 268, Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma.
[14] Cheney, R. S., and Chassie, R. G. (1993). “Soils and foundations workshop manual.” Circular
FHWA HI-88-009, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 399.
[15] Clarke, B.G. (1995). Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design. International Thomson

Publishing/UK, and BiTech Publishers, Vancouver.
[16] Das, B. M. (1987). Advanced Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
[17] Das, B. M. (1990). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering,, PWS-Kent Publishing Company,

Boston, MA, 665 p.
March 2009 5-23

[18] Deere, D. U., and Deere, D. W. (1989). Report Manual: Rock quality designation (RQD) after
20 years.
[19] Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.Y. (1970). “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils”.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division (ASCE) 96 (SM5), 1629-1653.
[20] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1985) “Checklist and guidelines for review of
geotechnical reports and preliminary plans and specifications.” Report FHWA-ED-88-053, Washington
D.C.
[21] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1989). “Rock slopes: design, excavation,
stabilization.” Circular No. FHWA: TS-89-045, Washington, D.C.
[22] Foster, R. S. (1975). Physical Geology, Merrill Publishing, Columbus, OH.
[23] Franklin, J. A., and Dusseault, M. B. (1989). Rock Engineering, McGraw-Hill Company, New
York.
[24] Franklin, J. A. (1981). "A shale rating system and tentative applications to shale
performance." Shales and Swelling Soils, Transportation Research Record 790, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C.
[25] gINT - gEotechnical INTegrator Software 3.2. (1991). “gINT, gEotechnical INTegrator
Software 3.2, Documentation.” Geotechnical Computer Applications, Inc., Santa Rosa, California.
[26] Goodman, R. E. (1989). Introduction to Rock Mechanics, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, 562 p.
[27] Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P. (1972). “Shear modulus and damping in soils”. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division (ASCE), Vol. 98 (SM7), 667-692.
[28] Hassani, F.P., and Scoble, M.J. (1985). “Frictional mechanism and properties of rock
discontinuities.” Proceedings, International Symposium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Björkliden,
Sweden, 185-196.
[29] Hilf, J. W. (1975). "Compacted fill." Foundation Engineering Handbook, H. F. Winterkorn and
H. Y.Fang, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 244-311.
[30] Hoek, E., and Bray, J. W. (1977). Rock Slope Engineering, Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, U.K.
[31] Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F. (1995). Support of Underground Excavations in
Hard Rock, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
[32] Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1998). “Practical estimates of rock mass strength”, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Min. Sciences, Vol. 34 (8), 1165-1186.
[33] Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,

Prenctice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[34] Hough, B. K. (1969). Basic Soils Engineering, Ronald Press, New York.
5-24 March 2009

[35] Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. (1977). Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 2nd Edition,
Science Paperbacks, Chapman & Hall, London, 585 p.
[36] Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., LoPresti, D.C.F., and Pallara, O. (1994). “Stiffness of
Toyoura sand at small and intermediate strains”. Proceedings, 13th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering (1), New Delhi, 169-172.
[37] Keaveny, J. and Mitchell, J.K. (1986). “Strength of fine-grained soils using the piezocone”.
Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP 6, ASCE, Reston/VA, 668-685.
[38] Krebs, R. D., and Walker, E. D. (1971). "Highway materials." Publication 272, Department of
Civil Engrg., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McGraw-Hill Company, New York, 107.
[39] Kulhawy, F.H. (1975). "Stress-deformation properties of rock and rock discontinuities",
Engineering Geology, Vol. 9, 327-350.
[40] Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design. Report EPRI-EL 6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 306 p.
[41] KLadd, C.C., and Foott, R. (1974). "A new design procedure for stability of soft clay." Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 100 (3), 763-786.
[42] Ladd, C.C. (1991). Stability evaluation during staged construction. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 117 (4), 540-615.
[43] Lambe, T.W. (1967). “The Stress Path Method.” Journal of the Soil Mechancis and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 93 (6), Proc. Paper 5613, 309-331.
[44] Lambe, T.W. and Marr, A.M. (1979). “Stress Path Method: Second Edition,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering., ASCE, Vol. 105 (6), 727-738.
[45] Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. (1979). Soil Mechanics: SI Version, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, 553 p.
[46] Lame, G. (1852). Lecons sur la theorie mathematique d'elasticite des corps solides,
Bachelier, Paris, France (in French).
[47] Littlechild, B.D., Hill, S.J., Statham, I., Plumbridge, G.D. and Lee, S.C. (2000).
“Determination of rock mass modulus for foundation design”, Innovations & Applications in
Geotechnical Site Characterization (GSP 97), ASCE, Reston, Virginia, 213-228.
[48] Lupini, J.F., Skinner, A.E., and Vaughan, P.R. (1981). "The drained residual strength of
cohesive soils", Geotechnique, Vol. 31 (2), 181-213.
[49] Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1982). “K0-OCR relationships in soil”. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 108 (GT6), 851-872.
[50] Mesri, G. and Abdel-Ghaffar, M.E.M. (1993). “Cohesion intercept in effective stress stability
analysis”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (8), 1229-1249.
[51] Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 437 p.
March 2009 5-25

[52] NAVFAC, DM-7.1. (1982). "Soil Mechanics." Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Department of the Navy, Alexandria, VA.
[53] Ng, C.W.W., Yau, T.L.Y., Li, J.H.M, and Tang, W.H. (2001). “Side resistance of large
diameter bored piles socketed into decomposed rocks”, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering Vol. 127 (8), 642-657.
[54] Obert, L., and Duvall, W. I. (1967). Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[55] Ohta, H., Nishihara, A., and Morita, Y. (1985). “Undrained stability of Ko-consolidated clays.”
Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, San
Francisco, 613-616.
[56] Patton, F. D. (1966). "Multiple modes of shear failure in rock." Proc., 1st International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 509-13.
[57] Peck, R. B., Hansen, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 514 p.
[58] Pough, F.H. (1988). Rocks & Minerals. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, 317 p.
[59] Puzrin, A.M. and Burland, J.B. (1996). “A logarithmic stress-strain function for rocks and
soils.” Geotechnique, Vol. 46 (1), 157-164.
[60] Serafim, J. L. and Pereira, J. P. (1983). “Considerations of the geomechanics classification of

Bieniawski.” Proceedings, International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Underground
Construction, Lisbon, 1133-44.
[61] Sheorey, P.R. (1997). Empirical Rock Failure Criteria. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 176 p.
[62] Singh, B. and Goel, R.K. (1999). Rock Mass Classification: A practical approach in civil
engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., 267 p.
[63] Skempton, A. W. (1957). Discussion on “The planning and design of new Hong Kong
airport.” Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7 (3), London, 305-307.
[64] Soil Conservation Service (SCS). (1983). National soils handbook, Information Division,
Washington, D.C.
[65] Sowers, G.F. (1979). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Geotechnical
Engineering, Fourth Edition, Macmillan, New York.
[66] Stagg, K. G., and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1968). Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[67] Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[68] Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, 729 p.
[69] Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Second Edition, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 549 p.
5-26 March 2009

[72] U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (1986). "Soil classification handbook
on Unified soil classification system." Training Manual No. 6; January, Geotechnical Branch,
Washington, D.C.
[73] Van Schalkwyk, A., Dooge, N., and Pitsiou, S. (1995). “Rock mass characterization for
evaluation of erodibility”. Proceedings, 11th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 3, Copenhagen, Danish Geotechnical Society Bulletin 11, 281-287.
[74] Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response”. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117 (1), 89-107.
[75] Way, D.S. (1973). Terrain Analysis, Dowden, Hutchingson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.
[76] Williamson, D.A. (1984). "Unified rock classification system." Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists, Vol. XXI (3), 345-354
[77] Witczak, M.W. (1972). "Relationships between physiographic units and highway design
factors." National Cooperative Highway Research Program: Report 132, Washington D.C.
[78] Wittke, W. (1990). Rock Mechanics: Theory and Applications with Case Histories, Springer-
Verlag, New York.
[79] Wyllie, D. C. (1992). Foundations on Rock. First Edition, E&F Spon Publishers, Chapman and
Hall, London, 333 p.
March 2009 5-27

5-28 March 2009

DID MANUAL Volume 6
Acknowledgements
Steering Committee:
Working Group:
March 2009 i
DID MANUAL Volume 6

ii March 2009
DID MANUAL Volume 6
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES

Chapter 2 MAP PROJECTION
Chapter 3 TYPES OF SURVEY
Chapter 4 REFERENCES ON GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES
Chapter 5 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
Chapter 6 CHECKLIST FOR TERRAIN FEATURES
March 2009 iii

DID MANUAL Volume 6
iv March 2009
PART 3: ENGINEERING SURVEY
CHAPTER 1 GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES
Table of Contents

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 FIELD OF GEOMATICS AND ENGINEERING SURVEYING ............................................... 1-1
1.3 APPLICATION AREAS ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 SOURCE OF MATERIAL FOR GEOMATIC PLANNING ...................................................... 1-1
1.5 PRINCIPLES OF SURVEYING EXERCISED BY SURVEYORS ............................................. 1-2
1.5.1 Basic Principles Adopted by Surveyors ........................................................... 1-2
1.5.2 Control ........................................................................................................ 1-2
1.5.3 Revision ................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5.4 Economy and Accuracy ................................................................................. 1-4
1.5.5 The Independent Check................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.6 Safeguarding ............................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 1-5
March 2009 1-i

List of Figures

1.1 Types of Traverse 1-3
1-ii March 2009

1 GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES
1.1 OVERVIEW
Planning and proposals for, and later, implementation of Department of Irrigation and Drainage
project of various types have to take into consideration survey information provided by geomatics
and land survey services. Geomatics is a fairly new term. It includes the tools and techniques used
in land surveying for engineering works, remote sensing, Geographic Information System (GIS),
Global Positioning System (GPS) and related forms of earth mapping. Originally, used in Canada, the
term geomatics has been adopted by the International Organization for Standardization, the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institution of Surveyors Malaysia and many other
international authorities. Some, especially the United States, prefer to use the term geospatial
technology.
The rapid progress and increased utilization of geomatics has been made possible by advances in
computer technology, computer science and software engineering as well as advances in remote
sensing technologies which provide imagery using space borne and air borne sensors.
1.2 FIELD OF GEOMATICS AND ENGINEERING SURVEYING
a. Geodesy
b. Surveying
c. Mapping
d. Positioning of structures
e. Geomatic Engineering
f. Navigation
g. Remote Sensing
h. Photogrammetry
i. Geographic Information System
j. Global Positioning System
k. Geospatial Technology
1.3 APPLICATION AREAS
a. The environment
b. Land management
c. Urban planning
d. Subdivision planning in land development and land acquisition
e. Infrastructure management
f. Natural and infrastructure resource monitoring
g. Coastal erosion management and mapping
h. Natural disaster information for disaster risk reduction and response
1.4 SOURCE OF MATERIAL FOR GEOMATIC PLANNING
a. In Malaysia the initial source for obtaining material and information to plan and then formulate
the term of reference and scope of work for proposals can be obtained from:-
b. Topographic maps and aerial photographs from the Mapping Division of the Department of
Survey and Mapping [1] Department of Survey and Mapping Website: http://www.jupem.gov.my
c. Cadastral Certified Plans and Cadastral Standard Sheets from the Cadastral Survey Division of
the Department of Survey and Mapping
d. Thematic or geological maps from the Mineral and Geosciences Department Natural Resources
and Environment Ministry
March 2009 1-1

e. Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI) Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment [2] MaCGDI Website:http:// www.mygeoportal.gov.my
f. DigitalGlobe the provider of high resolution QuickBird Imagery. QuickBird’s high resolution
satellite imagery is available with resolution of 1.6 ft or 50cm panchromatic to 2ft or 70cm
panchromatic, natural colors, colors infrared or 4-band pan sharpened [3] Digital Globe Website:
http:// www.digitalGlobe.com. Digital Globe images has to be obtained through the Malaysian
Centre for Remote Sensing (MACRES)
g. Combination in the supply of a mosaic assembled from Quick Bird Satellite Images supplied by
Digital Globe and color aerial photographs supplied by the Department of Survey and Mapping
Overlaid with Department of Survey and Mapping cadastral standard sheet information can be
customized. e.g. Bertam area Kepala Batas
h. US Army Corps of Engineer Hydrographic Manual EM1110-2-1003 from the Web. (Chapter 17 –
River Engineering and Channel Stabilization Surveys). [4] US Army Corps of Engineers website
available by keying in “us army corps of engineers hydrographic survey manual” then click
“EM1110-2-1003”
1.5 PRINCIPLES OF SURVEYING EXERCISED BY SURVEYORS
1.5.1 Basic Principles Adopted by Surveyors
Users are informed that regardless of changes in techniques and equipment, the basic principles of
surveying, which have been tested and proved over the years by geomatics and land surveyors
remain and are applicable to all types of surveying. They are:-
a. Control comprising planimetric (Horizontal) and Height (Vertical)

b. Revision
c. Economy of Accuracy
d. The independent check
e. Save guarding
1.5.2 Control
Any survey, whether large or small, depends upon the establishment of a carefully measured control
framework which contains measured points linked with lines which encompass the whole area to be
surveyed. The measured lengths and bearings of these straight lines, known as traverses, linking
these series of points to form the various types of traverses are shown in Fig 1.1 below. Subsequent
work is then fitted inside this framework and is adjusted to it. All TBMs should be connected by a
closed leveling net which contain height points linked by survey lines which is tied to a minimum of 2
Survey Department Bench Marks (BM). Surveyors also check Azimuths or bearings reckoned from
true north by solar observation of the sun at suitable intervals with maximum closing error of
1:4,000 for traverses within the horizontal control network (as a guide only).
An open traverse is not acceptable unless it is double checked, both by angles and distances.
1-2 March 2009

KNOWN
STATIONS
A. CLOSED LOOP TRAVERSE
KNOWN
KNOWN
STATIONS
STATIONS
B. CLOSED CONNECTION TRAVERSE
KNOWN
STATIONS
C. OPEN TRAVERSE
Figure 1.1 Types of Traverse
1.5.3 Revision
Whenever a survey is initiated, the methods and scope of works employed by the surveyor should be
formulated in the light of the following requirements:
a. The requirements of the team of professionals who will be designing and subsequently
implementing the project for the Department of Irrigation and Drainage. Checks should also
be made that the requirement of another Department is taken into consideration e.g. the
Ministry of Agriculture, Public Works Department or the Land Office resettlement plan.
b. It is important that a survey work done for one purpose may at some future date be used
for a different purpose. The department concerned should anticipate this and consider
whether, by some minor adjustment, the scope of works can be made more generally useful
than the immediate needs.
c. It is important that all leveling or height control and connection work which include the
establishment of hydrological stations are tied to Survey and Mapping Department Bench
Marks (BM) and that Temporary Bench Marks (TBM) are established on permanent features
at strategic locations within the proposed scheme for future use.
d. The field surveyor’s first task is to establish the horizontal and vertical control frameworks
which are tied to the Survey Department Horizontal Datum for position and to the Land
Survey Vertical Datum or the Chart Datum at the respective tide gauge stations for levels or
TBM. Fitted within this framework are the supplementary control such as the DID proposed
baseline, check line or secondary gridline where appropriate to pick up details of features
and points contained in the Term of Reference (TOR)
March 2009 1-3

1.5.4 Economy and Accuracy
It is important, before any field survey operation is started, to weigh the accuracy against the time,
resources and costs. The greater the accuracy required, the greater the cost of operation. Since
accuracy depends upon the elimination or reduction of errors, it is essential that the surveyor
understands the nature of the errors and plans his works in such a way to reduce them to acceptable
levels to meet the misclosure tolerances adopted.
1.5.5 The Independent Check
In every survey operation it is the responsibility of a surveyor to do a check. It is best to employ a

system which is completely self checking. Where this is not possible the check applied should be as
independent as possible and not just a repetition of the previous operation. For example, if the
measurement of the length is carried out, the check applied should be made by measuring the
distance again using different unit of length or measuring in the reverse direction. In many cases a
rough check is very useful and sometime all that is required. Computations which are not self
checking should be completed by another survey staff including, using, if possible, methods other
than those used.
1.5.6 Safeguarding
Marks established by the field surveyor for the horizontal and vertical control framework should be as
permanent as possible or easily re-established from nearby marks. Liaison with Agricultural
Department may be considered during planning for topographical surveys to coordinate simultaneous
concurrent activities to collect water and soil test samples to determine their suitability for crop
cultivation. Hydrological stations for systematic collection of data such as rainfall, stream flow,
maximum flood levels, tidal range, etc. should also be considered.
1-4 March 2009

REFERENCES
[1] Department of Survey and Mapping website http://www.jupem.gov.my
[2] Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaGDI) website

http://www.mygeoportal.gov.my
[3] Digital Globe for Satellite Imagery at website http://www.digitalglobe.com
March 2009 1-5

(This page is intentionally blank)
1-6 March 2009

CHAPTER 2 MAP PROJECTION
Table of Contents

2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Map Projection Malaysia .................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 Rectified Skew Orthomorphic (RSO) Projection ..................................... 2-2
2.2.2 Cassini Soldner Projection ................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.3 WGS (World Geodetic System) 84 Ellipsoid ....................................................... 2-3
2.2.4 GDM 2000 or Geocentric Datum Malaysia 2000 .................................................. 2-3
2.3 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 2-5
March 2009 2-i

List of Figures

2.1 The Ellipsoid 2-1
2.2 RSO Grid Projection on Topographic Map 2-2
2.3 Peninsular Malaysia GPS Network 2-4
2-ii March 2009

2 MAP PROJECTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
• A map projection is used to portray all or part of the round Earth by transforming/projecting it
from a round surface (ellipsoid/spheroid) on to a plane or flat surface with some distortion.
• Every projection has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. There is no “best”
projection.
• The mapmaker must select the one best suited to the needs, reducing distortion of the most
important features.
• Every flat map misrepresents the surface of the Earth in some way. No map can rival a globe in
truly representing the surface of the entire Earth. However, a map or parts of a map
constructed from map projections can show one or more but never all of the following. True
directions or bearings. True distances or scale. True areas. True shapes. Hence mapmaking is
an art and science of trade-offs.
• Mapmakers and mathematicians have devised almost limitless equations to show the geographic
image of the globe on paper. The mathematical model which is an approximation of the actual
shape of the earth is commonly referred to as a spheroid or ellipsoid.
North pole
P Geoid
Equatorial
Plane
b
a
P1 Ellipsoid
Elements of an ellipse
a = Semi Major Axis
b = Semi Minor Axis
f = Flattening = (a-b)/a
PP’ = Axis of revolution of the earth's ellipsoid
Figure 2.1 The Ellipsoid
• As shown in the Figure 2.1 above the surface of the earth is not a sphere but an irregular
changing shape, due to terrain features such as hills, mountains, valleys, rivers and the seas.
This irregular surface has been approximated mathematically to that of an ELLIPSOID.
Locations of topographic features on the curved surface of the ellipsoid earth are described in
terms of latitude (Ø) Longitude (λ) and geodesic height (h). The ellipsoid parameters are
expressed in terms of the semi major axis (a) and the flattening (f). These geographic
coordinates which are then related mathematically to another system of mathematical
coordinates on a flat/plane surface of a map are known as the rectangular Cartesian grid
coordinates.
March 2009 2-1

2.2 MAP PROJECTION MALAYSIA
2.2.1 Rectified Skew Orthomorphic (RSO) Projection
Rectified Skew Orthomorphic Projection has been adopted for the Topographic Maps produced by
the Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia. The result of this projection is the RSO Grid
Coordinates. The Datum for this projection is KERTAU (Bukit Kertau Pahang). RSO projection was
selected to suit the shape of Peninsular Malaysia. The limits of the projection are mainland
Peninsular Malaysia and the close lying offshore islands. This RSO projection cannot be extended to
include islands in the South China Sea, nor the East Malaysia states of Sabah and Sarawak. The East
Malaysia states are covered by a second RSO projection. The Datum for this projection for the land
below the wind is TIMBALAI (Timbalai Labuan).
The mathematical theory on which the projection is based is found in the article “The Orthomorphic
Projection of the Spheroid” by Brigadier M. Hotine CBE, published in the “Empire Survey Review” Vols
VIII and IX Nos 62-65, particularly para 19 E.S.R. No. 64 of April 1947.
Figure 2.2 RSO Grid Projection on Topographic Map
2.2.2 Cassini Soldner Projection
This projection was used extensively in Great Britain in the 19th Century where mapping was done by
the respective counties (Majlis Perbandaran) whose areas are small. However it is not suitable for
mapping of a nation as the projection is subjected to distortion of scales which increase progressively
for areas whose distances increase from the central meridian of the ellipsoid. Similarly, the Cassini
Soldner projection used in Peninsular Malaysia is on a state by state basis (except for the large state
of Pahang which has 4 zones) by defining a central meridian and origin of projection for each of the
states.
Computation of cadastral coordinates for land title survey in Peninsular Malaysia based on the cassini
soldner projection is very simple. It is based on the concept of selecting a fixed meridian and a point
2-2 March 2009

on the fixed meridian of the ellipsoid which acts as an origin. The coordinates of any point are then
found as the length of perpendiculars from the point on the lot of a piece of land to the fixed
meridian and the distance of the foot of the perpendiculars from the origin point.
Geographical coordinates controlling cadastral surveys are computed on three separate datums
namely the ASA datum (Bukit Asa) for the Southern Part of Peninsular Malaysia, the Kertau MRT
datum for Terengganu, Perak and Kelantan and the Perak Datum (Gunong Hijau Larut) for Perlis,
Kedah and Penang. However each state adopts its own coordinates system.
2.2.3 WGS (World Geodetic System) 84 Ellipsoid
A unified global World Geodetic Reference System for relating the position of any feature or object
on the surface of the earth become essential in the 1950s for several reasons:-
• International space science and the beginning of astronautics

• The lack of inter-continental geodetic information
• The inability of the large geodetic systems to provide a worldwide geographic coverage
• Need for universal geographic reference system for global maps used for navigation, aviation
and geography or surveying
The new World Geodetic System called WGS 84 is currently the reference system used by the Global
Positioning System. The WGS 84 originally used the GRS 30 reference ellipsoid but has undergone
some minor refinements to meet high-precision calculations for the orbits of satellites. However
these have little practical effect on typical topographic maps. Currently survey works by the
Department of Survey and Mapping using GPS (Global Position System) is based on WGS 84
coordinates published by JUPEM (Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan) in 1994.
2.2.4 GDM 2000 or Geocentric Datum Malaysia 2000
The increasing usage of GPS by surveyors, engineers, navigators and other professionals especially
those in GIS (Geographic Information System) applications, means that JUPEM has to provide
geographically referenced map products which are compatible with worldwide usage of GPS without
having to resort to lengthy computation steps which involves the transformation of coordinates such
as follows:-
(Ø λ h) < > (Ø λ h) < > (N, E.) < > (N, E)

(WGS84) (MRT) (RSO) (Cassini)
Future cadastral coordinate system will be based on the Geocentric Datum Malaysia 2000 or
GDM2000. This system will replace the cassini soldner coordinates system mentioned above to
facilitate the use of GPS. The GPS network which links all the GPS stations to form the Peninsular
Malaysia Primary Geodetic Network for GDM2000 is depicted below.
March 2009 2-3

Latitude °N
Longitude °E
Figure 2.3 Peninsular Malaysia GPS Network
2-4 March 2009

REFERENCES
[2] United States Geological Survey website Map Projection Poster

egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/MapProjections/projections.html”
[3] “The Orthomorphic Projection of the spheroid” Brigadier M. Hotine CBE in the Empire Survey
Review vols VIII and IX Nos 62-65, particularly para 19 E.S.R. no. 64 of April 1947
March 2009 2-5

CHAPTER 3 TYPES OF SURVEY
Table of Contents

3 TYPES OF SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SURVEYS ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Geodetic...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Plane .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.3 Construction Surveys .................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.4 Topographic Mapping Surveys ....................................................................... 3-1
3.2.5 Basic Control (Geodetic) Surveys ................................................................... 3-2
3.2.6 Satellite Surveys .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.7 Hydrographic Surveys ................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.8 Land Surveys ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.9 Engineering Surveys ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 SURVEY NETWORKS .................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.1 Basic Horizontal Control Network ................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Basic Vertical Control Network ....................................................................... 3-3
3.4 REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) SURVEY .......................................................................... 3-3
3.5 LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Airborne Mapping .................................................. 3-4
3.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 3-5
APPENDIX 3A-1 .................................................................................................................... 3A-1
APPENDIX 3A-2 .................................................................................................................... 3A-2
March 2009 3-i

3-ii March 2009

3 TYPES OF SURVEY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Surveying is the science of determining relative positions of points of geographical features on,
under, or near the earth’s surface. These points may be cultural, hydrographic or terrain features on
maps, or points needed to locate or layout roads, waterways, air fields or engineering structures of
all kind
3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SURVEYS
Surveying which can be classed technically or functionally are described below:-
3.2.1 Geodetic
A survey in which the figure and size of the mathematically created ellipsoidal shape of the earth is
considered. It is applicable for large areas and long lines such as topographic mapping on a national
scale. It is used for the precise location of higher order basic points in a control framework or net for
controlling other lower order surveys. The Malaysia Primary Geodetic network and the GDM2000
Datum are described under “Basic Control (Geodetic) Surveys” item 3.2.5 and shown as Fig 2.3
Peninsular Malaysia GPS Network.
3.2.2 Plane
In plane survey the curved surface of the earth is assumed to be flat. Currently cadastral survey for
Issue Document of Title under the provision of the National Land Code Malaysia (Act 56 of 1965) is
based on plane coordinates. For small areas, precise results may be obtained with plane-surveying
methods, but the accuracy and precision of such results will decrease as the area surveyed is
progressively increased in size. This is reflected in the need for each of the states in Peninsular
Malaysia to have its own plane coordinate system except the very large state Pahang which has 4
zones.
3.2.3 Construction Surveys
These surveys are conducted to obtain data essential to plan, design and estimate costs to locate or
provide the layout points for implementing the construction of engineering structures. These surveys
normally cover relatively small sites where the use of plane surveying techniques is adequate.
3.2.4 Topographic Mapping Surveys
Topographic survey involves both air survey and field survey activities. Topographic surveys are
conducted to establish horizontal and/or vertical positions of points which are then linked to similar
distinctly identifiable points captured on aerial photograph for use by photogrammetric interpreters
to compile topographic maps using computer aided mapping systems. Since the control stations are
usually distributed over comparatively large areas their relative positions are determined by using
point positioning by satellite techniques. Currently satellites from the GPS (Global Positioning
System) which are being utilized globally are also widely used in Malaysia.
March 2009 3-1

3.2.5 Basic Control (Geodetic) Surveys
Basic control survey provides positions, horizontal and or vertical, of geographic points on a terrain in
a control framework to which supplementary surveys are adjusted. Most of these basic controls are
limited to fit national mapping requirements and cannot be applied internationally. In Malaysia,
these points are contained in two control network based on two local geodetic datum namely the
Malayan Revised Triangulation (MRT) network for Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia) and the
Borneo Triangulation 1968 (BT68) network for Sabah and Sarawak (East Malaysia).
However, with the advent of new technologies such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and
Unified Geographic Information System (GIS) over large areas, the existing MRT and BT68 network
have become outdated. A new Geocentric Datum of Malaysia (GDM2000) which fits into the global
geodetic framework has been introduced to eventually replace the MRT and BT68. The GDM2000
datum contains the Peninsular Malaysia Primary Geodetic Network (PMPGN) of permanent GPS
Stations established in 1998 for geodetic and scientific purposes. A similar East Malaysia Primary
Geodetic Network (EMPGN) is being established.
3.2.6 Satellite Surveys
Satellite surveys employ the use of artificial earth satellites as a means of extending geodetic control
systems. These positioning of points on the ground in a geodetic control system are being conducted
using artificial earth satellites in the Global Positioning System (GPS) for long line surveys where the
distance between stations is a few hundred kilometers apart. They are used for conducting
worldwide surveys for intercontinental, inter-datum and inter-island geodetic ties. Topographic and
basic control surveys are frequently conducted with satellite surveys. Special project instructions are
written to detail methods, techniques, equipment and procedures to be used in these surveys.
3.2.7 Hydrographic Surveys
A survey made in relation to any considerable body of water, such as a strip of part of the sea along
the coast, a bay, harbour, lake or river for the purpose of determination of channel depths for
navigation, location of rocks, sand bars, and in the case of rivers for flood mitigation control, hydro-
electric power generation, navigation of boats, water supply and water storage.
3.2.8 Land Surveys
Land surveying embraces survey operations to locate and monument the boundaries of a property to
meet the requirement of Land Laws relating to land and land tenure in the National Land Code (Act
56 of 1965). In the case where alienated land is acquired for construction works such as flood
mitigation projects land survey has to be conducted to meet the requirement of the Land Acquisition
Act. Land survey is commonly referred to as Cadastral Survey.
3.2.9 Engineering Surveys
It is executed for the purpose of obtaining information which is essential for planning an engineering
project or proposed development and estimating its cost. The survey information may, in part, be in
the form of an engineering survey map.
3-2 March 2009

3.3 SURVEY NETWORKS
Horizontal and vertical survey control within a country like Malaysia was established by a network of
control arcs, which are all referenced to a single datum and are therefore linked in position and
elevation to each other, regardless of their distance apart. These networks for topographic mapping
are referenced to the KERTAU Datum for the Malayan Revised Triangulation (MRT) network in
Peninsular Malaysia and the TIMBALAN Datum for the Borneo Triangulation 1968 (BT68) network in
the Sabah and Sarawak states of East Malaysia.
3.3.1 Basic Horizontal Control Network
The horizontal control for mapping was established by connecting a mixed series of stations
(geodetic, primary, secondary and tertiary stations) by a combination of precise electronic distance
measuring techniques (Geodimeter) and first order astronomical observation to form the Malaysian
geodetic net covering Peninsular Malaysia. The stations in the network were then transformed into
the RSO coordinates system. This network is being replaced by the GDM2000 network, shown in Fig
2.3, which has been established using GPS satellite point positioning techniques to fit it into a global
geodetic framework. This network is termed Malaysia Primary Geodetic Network (PMPGN) and the
East Malaysia Primary Geodetic Network (EMPGN).
3.3.2 Basic Vertical Control Network
This control was established to provide orthometric (mean sea level) heights in the national height
system in the configuration of leveling networks. The datum for orthometric leveling in Peninsular
Malaysia is Bench mark No. B0169 Height 3.863 metres above Mean Sea Level (MSL) located at the
back of the tide gauge station on Warf No. 25 North Port, Port Klang. Hydrographic survey for
design of marine structures may require the heights to be tied to the Chart Datum used in Nautical
Charts. In such situations the Orthometric (Mean Sea Level) heights relative to the Chart Datum
available from the Hydrographic Division of the Royal Malaysia Navy has to be obtained. Fig 4.1
Survey Datum shows the relationship between the Chart Datum and Land Survey Datum.
3.4 REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) SURVEY
The Geodesy Section, Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia provide Real Time Kinematic
(RTK) Virtual Reference Station (VRS) technique which extends the use of RTK to the whole of
Peninsular Malaysia by the establishment of a network containing GPS reference stations over the
whole of Peninsular Malaysia. This service, which attracts a standard fee, is provided by the Malaysia
Real-Time Kinematic GPS Network System (MyRTnet), for users to conduct dynamic GPS Survey to
meet applications below:-
• Geomatics
• Deformation Monitoring
• Scientific Research
• Surveying
• Construction
• Navigation
• Mapping and GIS (Geographic Information System)
• Location Based Services
RTK VRS networking exploits the concept of all users sharing a common GPS coordinate control
framework and it significantly reduces systematic errors and extends the operating range with
improved accuracy requiring less time. It is surveying where users do not have to set-up their own
base stations
March 2009 3-3

Appendix 3A-1 shows in general the concept on functioning of the RTK network together with cellular
phone (gsm) communication to obtain the geographical position of a map or engineering feature to
an accuracy of +/- 2 to 3 cm.
3.5 LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Airborne Mapping
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is an airborne mapping technique which uses Laser to measure
the distance between the aircraft and the terrain of the ground. Airborne LIDAR systems can broadly
be classified into 3 main types: Wide Area Mapping using fixed wing aircrafts, Corridor Mapping
Systems mounted on helicopters and bathymetric mapping systems using either one of these two
airborne platforms.
A typical airborne LIDAR system coupled with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and an Inertial
Navigation System (INS) allow the user to capture geo-referenced “Points” of ground features to
produce highly accurate Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) either day or night in a variety of weather
conditions. The LIDAR system acquires data along a corridor that can be up to 600 metres wide.
These very accurate elevation data have a variety of uses, such as the generation of contour lines,
beach profiles and modeling terrain for 3D applications.
Data acquired using LIDAR systems are often used in conjunction with data from other remote
sensing instruments; including spectral and thermal imaging system and high resolution video and
digital aerial cameras to produce digitally rectified images or orthophotographs. More information on
LIDAR is contained in item 4.17 and Appendix 3A-2.
3-4 March 2009

REFERENCES
[3] GDM2000 Geodesy Section, Department of Survey and Mapping website

http://geodesi.jupem.gov.my
March 2009 3-5

APPENDIX 3A-1
Illustration on Point Positioning for using Satellite and RTK (Real Time Kinematic) Networking
JUPEM - Jabatan Ukur Dan Pemetaan Malaysia (Department of Survey and Mapping
Malaysia)
MyRTKnet - Malaysia Real Time Kinematic GPS network system control center
RTCM - Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Standard for mobile
phone communication to enable the field surveyor to obtain the real time position
of a point to an accuracy of +/- 2 to 3 cm from myRTKnet
JUPEM GPS reference Station - A GPS station within the JUPEM Network of RTK GPS reference
stations
3A-1 March 2009

APPENDIX 3A-2
IMU
Airborne LIDAR System
LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Airborne System comprising

• Laser Scanner
• GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) Receiver
• IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit)
March 2009 3A-2

3A-3 March 2009

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES ON GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY
SERVICES
Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 4-iii
4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 POINT POSITIONING OF A FEATURE USING SATELLITE AND RTK ........................................
(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.4). ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 PLANIMETRIC (HORIZONTAL TRAVERSING) CONTROL AND CONNECTION ..........................
(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.5). ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.4 HEIGHT (VERTICAL) CONTROL AND CONNECTION (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.6). .................. 4-2
4.5 LEVELING BENCH MARKS (BM) OR MONUMENTATION (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.7) .............. 4-3
4.6 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 2.10 AND ITEM 7.9)................................ 4-4
4.7 GRID SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 7.9.2 AND ITEM 2.2 IN KEMENTERIAN ...........................
KEWANGAN KHAZANAH MALAYSIA LETTER REFERENCE (K&B)(8.09)735/3/1 JD.3(13) ...........
DATED 13TH JANUARY 1984). ...................................................................................... 4-4
4.8 SETTING-OUT SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 8.10 AND 8.13). .......................................... 4-4
4.9 SURVEY OF EXISTING WATERWAYS, CANALS AND DRAINS ................................................
(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 8.11 AND 3.10.2) .......................................................................... 4-4
4.10 STRIP SURVEY TO MAP DETAILS AND SPOT LEVELS (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 4.9 AND 8.9) .... 4-4
4.11 PREPARATION OF LAND ACQUISITION PLANS (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 8.14 & 1.11 ...................
AND REGULATION 1991 ITEM 3(B). .............................................................................. 4-5
4.12 EFFECT OF ADVANCE OR RETREAT OF THE BED OF ANY RIVER OR SEA .......................... 4-5
4.13 TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES AND MAP PROJECTIONS IS NEEDED DUE .................
TO THE USE OF VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE SYSTEMS (JADUAL 2001 .....................
ITEM 8.16 AND 1.13). .................................................................................................. 4-5
4.14 AIR SURVEY MAPPING TECHNIQUE FOR PRODUCING ENGINEERING SURVEY PLANS
(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 11) .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.14.1 Limitation of Air Survey ............................................................................... 4-7
4.15 HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRITORIAL WATERS AND INLAND WATER BODIES (JADUAL
2001 ITEM 14 PART V)................................................................................................. 4-7
4.16 LOCATING OF CROSS-SECTION PROFILES FOR HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING (JADUAL 2001
ITEM 14.9 PART V) ...................................................................................................... 4-8
4.16.1 Mixed Survey Methods ................................................................................ 4-8
4.16.2 Guidance to Surveyors on Cross-Section Locations......................................... 4-8
4.16.3 Guidelines on Locating Cross-Sections .......................................................... 4-8
4.16.4 Additional Guidelines on Cross-Section Profiles .............................................. 4-9
4.16.5 Cross-Sections Adjacent to Bridges or Culverts (Jadual 2001 Item 3 Part I) ... 4-10
4.17 LIDAR (LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING) AIRBORNE MAPPING .................................. 4-10
4.18 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 4-12
APPENDIX 4A-1 .................................................................................................................... A4-1
March 2009 4-i


APPENDIX 4A-2 .................................................................................................................. A4-45
APPENDIX 4A-3 .................................................................................................................. A4-57
APPENDIX 4A-4 .................................................................................................................. A4-61
APPENDIX 4A-5 .................................................................................................................. A4-64
APPENDIX 4A-6 .................................................................................................................. A4-69
APPENDIX 4A-7 .................................................................................................................. A4-72
4-ii March 2009

List of Figures

4.1 Survey Datum 4-3
4.2 Typical Cross-Section Configuration 4-9
4.3 Cross-Section Locations at a Bridge or Culvert 4-10
March 2009 4-iii

4-iv March 2009

4 REFERENCES ON GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Guides to components of surveying which are important for ascertaining cost estimates and
specifying scope of survey works in the planning of any Department of Irrigation and Drainage
project are currently guided by contents in the following references. Updates which are issued from
time to time should be applied where relevant in the future to these references.
a. Kelulusan Kadar Baru Pengiraan Kos Perkhidmatan Perunding Bidang Ukur Tanah bagi
Projek-Projek Kerajaan. Perbendaharaan Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia letter reference
S(K&B)(8.09)735/9-24 Sj.5.Jld.3 (11) dated 29th March 2005.
b. Jadual Fee Ukur Kejuruteraan 2001 (Pindaan Kepada Jadual Fee Ukur Kejuruteraan 1980).
Please see Appendix 4A-1.
c. Peraturan-peraturan Jurukur Tanah Berlesen (Pindaan) 1997 (Kadar Bayaran Upah Ukur
untuk Ukuran Hakmilik) Akta Jurukur Tanah Berlesan 1958 P.U. (A) 169. Please see
Appendix 4A-2.
d. Surat Perkeliling Perbendaharaan Bil.8 Tahun 2006 on Peraturan Perolehan Perkhidmatan
Perunding reference S/K.KEW/PK/1100/000000/10/31 Jld.21 (5) dated 6th November 2006.
e. Chapter 17 River Engineering and Channel Stabilization Surveys EM1110-2-1003 US Army
corps of Engineers Hydrographic Survey Manual.
f. BQ Example - Cost Estimate for Survey of Existing Route of Waterways, Canals and Drains.
g. BQ Example - Cost Estimate for Hydrographic Survey of Territorial Waters and Inland Water
Bodies. Please see Appendix 4A-5.
4.2 POINT POSITIONING OF A FEATURE USING SATELLITE AND RTK (JADUAL

2001 ITEM 1.4).
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is currently the only fully functional Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS). Utilizing a constellation of at least 24 medium Earth Orbit Satellites that transmit
precise microwave radio signals, the system enables a GPS receiver to determine the Position of a
point or location on or above the surface of the earth. The GPS radio receiver has become a widely
used aid to navigation worldwide and a useful tool, among many others, map making and Land
Surveying. GPS equipment used by surveyors incorporates techniques and augmentation methods to
improve accuracy and error sources inherent to operation of GPS. Example of augmentation systems
includes Differential GPS or RTK (Real-Time Kinematic) surveying illustrated at Appendix 3A-1.
In Malaysia RTK survey service for a fee is provided by logging on to myRTKnet located at the
Geodesy Section of the Department of Survey and Mapping.
4.3 PLANIMETRIC (HORIZONTAL TRAVERSING) CONTROL AND CONNECTION

(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.5).
Planimetric cntrol and connection is a technique used for determining the relative horizontal positions
(x, y coordinates) of cultural, hydrographic or terrain features for mapping or points needed to plan
and subsequently locate positions or layout accurately bunds, canals, soil investigation boreholes,
roads, waterways and drainage structures, of all kinds. It comprises a series of points on features
surveyed. Hence it comprises:
March 2009 4-1

a. Connection to Survey Department Horizontal Datum which provides scale, position and
azimuth control for establishing boundary marks shown on land title survey or cadastral
survey plans to meet issue document of titles to land based on the Cassini Soldner
projection.
b. And then the proposed or existing routes or alignment, identified by the Department of
Drainage and Irrigation. Issue to be considered here are land with various category of titles
and ownership which have to be obtained from the Cadastral Division Department of Survey
and Mapping, the Land Office and sometimes direct objection from the affected land owner
himself.
4.4 HEIGHT (VERTICAL) CONTROL AND CONNECTION (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 1.6).
Height controls and connection to determine the spot level of a feature includes:
a. Connection to Survey and Mapping Department Bench Marks (BM) based on the Land Survey
Datum (LSD) and now known as the National Vertical Geodetic Datum (NGVD) which is
located at a tide gauge station sited in Port Klang, Selangor
b. Connection to the CHART DATUM which is traditionally referred to as the Admirably Chart
Datum. These datums are located at Tidal Stations, mainly jetties or ports along the coast.
Appendix 3A-1 attached contains a list of the existing Tidal Stations.
c. Occasionally connection to both the LSD and the Admirably Chart Datum has to be related
for marine navigation structures such as a fishing jetty or port. An example of this is
depicted in the diagram below which shows the Chart Datum is 1.7m below the Land Survey
Datum.
d. And then along the proposed or existing routes or alignment identified by the Drainage and
Irrigation Department
4-2 March 2009

TIDAL REFERENCE FOR PULAU SIBU
31.847 m (BM S1150) 32.547m (BM S1150)
NAUTICAL OR ADMIRALTY CHART DATUM

Above L.S.D Above Chart Datum
00m (L.S.D)/(M.S.L) 1.700m
-1.700m (Chart Datum) 00 (Chart Datum)
Chart Datum is 1.700M below Land Survey Datum (L.S.D) at

Survey Department Bench Mark (BM S1150)
Figure 4.1 Survey Datum
4.5 LEVELING BENCH MARKS (BM) OR MONUMENTATION (JADUAL 2001 ITEM

1.7)
A Bench Mark is a relatively permanent object natural or artificial, bearing a marked point normally a
brass bolt set in concrete with a bench mark number inscribed. The elevation or the height of the
point above or below the Land Survey Datum (LSD) or National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) has
to be purchased from Geodesy Section, Department of Survey and Mapping. Establishment of
subsidiary marks or monuments related to the Department of Survey and Mapping Bench Marks by
conducting Height Control and Connection Surveys are known as:-
a. Temporary Bench Marks (TBM)

• Plan of a TBM marker on Normal surface is shown in Appendix 4A-6.
• Plan of a TBM marker on hard surface is shown in Appendix 4A-7.
b. Intersection Point Marks (IP)
c. Reference Marks (RM)
March 2009 4-3

4.6 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 2.10 AND ITEM 7.9)
Topographic Surveys often known as Engineering Surveys are conducted to establish horizontal (x, y)
and/or vertical (h or z) positions of points of all natural and manmade features to produce a
geographical details and contour map over a large area. Topographic maps supply a general image
of the earth’s surface namely roads, rivers, buildings, often the nature of the vegetation, the contour
together with spot levels and names of various surveyed objects. The main supplier of topographic
map is the Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia
4.7 GRID SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 7.9.2 AND ITEM 2.2 IN KEMENTERIAN
KEWANGAN KHAZANAH MALAYSIA LETTER REFERENCE (K&B)(8.09)735/3/1
JD.3(13) DATED 13TH JANUARY 1984).
This survey is special to projects where the difference in spot levels is very important and critical. It
is specified for survey of aircraft runway construction or other flat surface. This type of survey is not
suitable for undulating or hilly area covered by overgrown vegetation.
4.8 SETTING-OUT SURVEY (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 8.10 AND 8.13).
This survey, also known as construction setting out survey, is executed before construction works
can start. The setting comprise x and y coordinates of the following:-
a. Centre line of proposed route from IP to IP (Intersection Points)

b. Right of Way (ROW) of the waterway, canal or drain reserve based on the approved pre-
computation plan.
c. Intersection Points (IP) (Jadual 2001 Item 8.10)
d. Pegging of positions of Piling Points based on pre-computation plan from engineering layout
plan
4.9 SURVEY OF EXISTING WATERWAYS, CANALS AND DRAINS (JADUAL 2001

ITEM 8.11 AND 3.10.2)
This survey covers the area within the banks or the designated or gazette reserve for the irrigation
canal or waterway to show the alignment, longitudinal section and the cross-sections. It also
includes the area within the specified Right of Way (ROW) shown on the approved pre-computation
plan. When the reserve is not specified the outer limits of the alignment is within 50m from the
banks of river or drain or canal. If the water depth of the waterways, drains and canal at the time of
survey is more than 1 meter then Jadual 2001 item 8.11 specification (viii) and item 3.10.2 applies
or alternatively Hydrographic Survey for Inland Water Bodies under Paragraphs 4.15 (Jadual 2001
Item 14 Part V) and 4.16 (Jadual 2001 Item 14.9.1 Part V) is applicable. If the width of the cross-
sections or the intervals is more or less than 50 metres then the fees shall be increased or decreased
proportionately (specification (vii) Jadual 2001 item 8.11)
4.10 STRIP SURVEY TO MAP DETAILS AND SPOT LEVELS (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 4.9
AND 8.9)
The strip comprises topographic details and spot levels survey of long narrow stretches of areas or
corridors which are beyond the banks or overbanks and flood plains of a waterway or along the
coast.
4-4 March 2009

4.11 PREPARATION OF LAND ACQUISITION PLANS (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 8.14 &
1.11 AND REGULATION 1991 ITEM 3(B).
These are approved pre-computation plans based on the Right of Way (ROW) plans or any other
area to be acquired for the implementation of the project for the proposed waterway, canal or drain.
On being surveyed the ROW will eventually become the designated drainage reserve alignment to be
maintained by the Drainage and Irrigation Department. Land acquisition is a socially sensitive, very
costly, tedious and long drawn process which entails the following:-.
a. Preparation of Land Acquisition Plans which comprise:-

• Purchasing certified plans (Pelan Akui) and Cadastral (Standard) Sheets from the
Department of Survey and Mapping for the compilation/preparation of Land Acquisition
(LA) Plans.
• Search for Qualified Titles (Hakmilik Sementara) and Approved LA Plans at the Land
Office or other Government Department.
b. Land Acquisition Plans normally compiled on the same scale as the Survey Department
cadastral sheet shall show:-
• Lot boundaries with bearings and distances within the surveyed corridor or strip
(proposed alignment/ROW)
• Lot numbers of lots to be acquired
• Lot areas with details on portion to be acquired and the left over balance
• Status and category of land use and crops
• Houses and other as-built features affected by the Acquisition
c. Finalized Land Acquisition Plans are updated from:-

• Revision/amendment of ROW by consulting engineer
• Comments by the Department of Drainage and Irrigation
• Up-to date information on change in status of land received from the Land Office
• Objection from Land owner during field survey work to demarcate the ROW/alignment of
the future waterway reserve or alignment.
d. R.S. (Requisition for Survey) Plan. The approved Pre-computation plan for Land Acquisition
which is attached to the Requisition for Survey (Permintaan Ukur) letter by the Land Office to
the Department of Survey Mapping is known as the R. S. Plan.
4.12 EFFECT OF ADVANCE OR RETREAT OF THE BED OF ANY RIVER OR SEA
Frequently while conducting survey for Land Acquisition we come across a situation where part a of
privately owned land along river banks are lost through erosion by the action of flood water. Similarly
land along the opposite bank, especially on bends, may also gain land through accretion by the
action of flooding. Such lands, as per provision of Section 49 of the National Land Code (Act 56 of
1965), shall become State land.
4.13 TRANSFORMATION OF COORDINATES AND MAP PROJECTIONS IS NEEDED

DUE TO THE USE OF VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE SYSTEMS (JADUAL
2001 ITEM 8.16 AND 1.13).
Coordinates in a common geographically referenced system is needed to provide information on the

location of a position of a feature for navigation, point of Interest or geographic information system.
An example on the request for transformation of coordinates is the experience with the Sungai Muda
Flood Mitigation Project stretching from Jambatan Merdeka to Kuala Muda where different
coordinates are being used.
March 2009 4-5

a. The various coordinates used are:-

• The plane cadastral coordinates (x and y coordinate) on the Kedah side of Sungai Muda
is based on the Cassini Solder projection from the Central Meridian of the Everest
(Modified) Ellipsoid at Gunung Perak
• The plane cadastral coordinates in Pulau Pinang side of Sungai Muda is based on the
Cassini Solder projection from the Central Meridian of the Everest (Modified) Ellipsoid at
Gun Hill.
• The coordinates required by the Civil and Structural Consultants is that based on the
RSO (Rectified Skew Orthomorphic) projection. The RSO projection is used for
Topographic Maps produced by the Department of Survey and Mapping Peninsular
Malaysia. The RSO projection (Fig. 2.2.2) was selected because of the shape of the area
to be mapped and the scale distortion which can be tolerated.
• WGS (World Geodetic System) 84 coordinates (Jadual 2001 item 1.4 Part I). The world
Geodetic System 1984 coordinates are used when Point Positioning is determined using
GPS (Global Positioning Satellites). The World Geodetic System (WGS84) the latest
revision is WGS84 dating from 1984 (last revised in 2004) will be valid to about 2010. A
unified World Geodetic System based on the WGS84 ellipsoid is essential for several
reasons:-
- International space science and astronautics
- Inter-continental geodetic information
- Inability of large geodetic systems such as the Rectified Skew Orthomorphic (RSO)
for Peninsular Malaysia which cannot be extended to include islands in the South
China Sea nor the East Malaysia State of Sabah and Sarawak; European Datum
(ED50) and North American Datum (NAD) to provide worldwide coverage to meet
the need for global or regional maps for navigation, aviation and geography
b. Eventually when the GDM2000 coordinates system is fully implemented the requirement for
coordinates transformation may be greatly reduced. GDM2000 is described at item 2.2.4.
c. The Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers requirement for engineering survey plans to be
in RSO Coordinates against plans in the respective Land Office in Kedah and Pulau Pinang in
their respective Cadastral Cassini Solder Coordinates require the mathematical process of
transformation of coordinates e.g. WGS84 to RSO or Kedah Cassini to RSO or vice versa
4.14 AIR SURVEY MAPPING TECHNIQUE FOR PRODUCING ENGINEERING SURVEY

PLANS (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 11)
The provision here is for the out-put of photo-mosaics and photo-maps over a wide area or long
corridor using aerial photographs supplied by the Department of Survey and Mapping. If the Survey
Department aerial photographs are out of date “Jadual 2001 item 12” caters for acquisition of new
ones by Air Survey methods. The benefits of adopting this approach are:-
a. Access and Coverage - Aerial images can be obtained of areas that are inaccessible or
dangerous for ground surveyors due either to unfriendly inhabitant, difficult terrain or a need
to maintain confidentiality. An accurate survey can then be compiled in comfortable
surroundings. The approximate width of the corridor covered is 1000m (1km) whereas the
actual Right of Way (ROW) may be 100m. It provides advance survey information over a
wider area which can then be narrowed down to the proposed corridor requiring follow-up of
more detailed field survey works.
b. Speed and Cost - Due to the high speed of aerial surveys the cost of works is reduced, and
the final product is available earlier. In addition, the expenses of working away from base
are reduced, as only the flying crew and some camera operators need travel to the survey
area. The photomap together with the photo-mosaic will provide a more focused approach to
the planning and scheduling of the actual field survey works.
4-6 March 2009

c. Control - The organization and control of the survey is simplified as the bulk of the surveyors
are working in good stable conditions at base, where they can be easily administered and
supervised. Those conditions produce high output and quality of work.
d. Supply - Supply is also simplified as in most cases the aircraft can operate from a commercial
airport. Any necessary special equipment such as GPS enabled digital camera can be carried
in the survey aircraft to the area of operations.
e. Weather - Although low cloud and extensive cloud-cover will prevent photography, only a
short time is needed to obtain suitable images. The weather is therefore seldom a major
problem, and once the photographic data has been obtained the survey is unaffected by
weather conditions.
4.14.1 Limitation of Air Survey
Survey Control - In order to relate an air-survey to the area in which the images were taken, it is
necessary to have precise ground coordinates, both plan and height, of points that can be clearly
seen on the images and on the ground. Coordinates and a clear description of each point are
provided by the ground surveyors as control for the aerial survey. Whilst aerial triangulation using
electronic computers provides a means of distributing additional controls on photographs a certain
amount of ground control is necessary, and must be provided before the air survey mapping works
can be commenced. Invert levels below the water surface cannot be ascertained.
Check - A field check of an air survey is necessary to eliminate errors due to misinterpretation of
detail. If the survey is at a large scale, completion of hidden detail (under trees, in shadow, etc)
may be needed. In all cases, names and description must be obtained from ground survey works.
Administrative work include:-
a. Arrangement for tasking of aircraft

b. Application for security clearance and the obtaining of the permit to fly aerial photographic
mission
c. Mobilization of personnel and equipments
4.15 HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR TERRITORIAL WATERS AND INLAND WATER

BODIES (JADUAL 2001 ITEM 14 PART V)
Hydrographic survey provides information and data to support:-
a. The management of coastal zones

b. The hydrographic survey of deltaic regions and river months up to two kilometers upstream
of river mouth
c. The development of coastal engineering, property, infrastructure projects and activities
d. The management and development of jetties, ports, harbors and associated maritime
facilities
e. The management and development along inland waterways and inland water body
March 2009 4-7

4.16 LOCATING OF CROSS-SECTION PROFILES FOR HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING

(JADUAL 2001 ITEM 14.9 PART V)
4.16.1 Mixed Survey Methods
Obtaining cross-section profile of stream, adjoining bank and flood plain requires a combination of
survey methods. Hydrographic sounding surveys performed in the river must be combined with
conventional topographic, and or photogrammetric surveys in the adjacent over banks and flood
prone plain. Surveys of the flood plains are usually more efficiently conducted using air survey
(Digital photogrammetric) methods to create a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Recently, airborne
LIDAR (Item 4.17) techniques have been developed to provide DEM of the flood plain. Conventional
topographic survey methods (leveling and digital/optical total station) will be required to fill in hidden
areas under cover of vegetation and to ascertain break lines in the final terrain models.
4.16.2 Guidance to Surveyors on Cross-Section Locations
Detailed guidance for determining the location and spacing of stream cross-sections is based on the
recommendations in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineers Manual “EM1110-2-1002” and
EM1110-2-1416”. Surveyors providing input for these studies should be aware of the hydraulic
considerations that dictate the intended placement and alignment of stream sections. Thus,
knowledge of the engineering rationale for locating cross-sections profiles is required by field
surveyors in order to make reasonable adjustments or recommend modification to the project
engineer to optimize the obtaining of basic field information on the river profile, the adjoining river
banks and the flood plain.
4.16.3 Guidelines on Locating Cross-Sections
Generally (not exhaustive) the locations of Cross-sections for hydraulic modeling should be
considered are:-
a. Points where roughness changes abruptly to provide channel roughness information

b. Closer together in stretches where water surface expands and in bends
c. Closer together in stretches where the flow of water changes greatly as a result of changes
in width, depth or roughness
d. Closer together at wide bends where the lateral distribution of water flow changes radically
with distance
e. Closer together in streams of very low gradient at lowlands which are significantly non
uniform, because the computations are very sensitive to the effects of local disturbances
and/or irregularities
f. At tributaries that contribute significantly to the main stem flow. Cross-sections should be
located immediately upstream and downstream from the confluence on the main river and
immediately upstream on the tributary
g. At regular intervals along waterway of uniform cross-section
h. Above, below, and within bridges at bridge sites including the soffit levels
i. On large rivers that have average slopes of 0.4 meter to 1.5 meter per kilometer or less,
cross-section within fairly uniform reaches may be taken at intervals of 1.5 km or more
j. More closely spaced cross-sections are usually needed to define energy losses in urban
areas, where steep slopes are encountered, and on relatively narrower streams. On small
streams with steep slopes it is desirable to take cross-sections at intervals of 500m or less.
4-8 March 2009

k. Recommended maximum reach lengths (distances between cross-sections) are: (1) 800m for
wide flood plains and slope less than 0.4m per km, (2) 550m for slopes less than 0.6m per
kilometer, and (3) 365m for slopes greater than 0.6m per kilometer. In addition, no reach
between cross-sections should be longer than 75 – 100 times the mean depth for the largest
discharge, or about twice the width of the reach. The fall of a reach should be equal to or
greater than the largest of 0.15m or the velocity head, unless the bed slope is so flat that
the above criterion holds. The reach length should be equal to, or less than, the
downstream depth for the smallest discharge divided by the bed slope
Figure 4.2 Typical Cross-Section Configuration
4.16.4 Additional Guidelines on Cross-Section Profiles
Field surveyors should also take into consideration the following application when acquiring cross-
sectional data.
a. Cross-sections are run perpendicular to the direction of flow at intervals along the river. The
“reach length” is the distance between cross-sections. Flow lines are used to determine the
cross-section orientation. The hydraulic engineer will provide these orientations to the
surveyor.
b. The cross-section should be referenced to the stream thalweg (deepest part of the channel)
and by river kilometers measured along the thalweg. From this the reach lengths (distance
between cross-sections) is computed. End points on the cross-section should be
geographically coordinated using the local State Plane Cassini Soldner Coordinate System.
c. End station elevations. The maximum elevation of each end of a cross-section should be
higher than the anticipated maximum water surface level.
March 2009 4-9

d. Local irregularities in bed surface. Local irregularities in the ground surface such as
depressions or rises that are not typical of the reach should not be included in the cross-
sectional data.
e. Bent cross-sections. A cross-section should be laid out on a straight line if possible.
However, a cross section should be bent if necessary to keep it perpendicular to the
expected flow lines.
f. Avoid intersection of cross-sections. Cross-sections must not cross each other. Care must
be taken at river bends and tributary junctions to avoid overlap of sections.
g. Inclusion of channel control structures. Channel control structures such as bunds or wing
dams should be shown on the cross-section, and allowances in cross-sectional areas and
wetted perimeters should be made for these structures.
4.16.5 Cross-Sections Adjacent to Bridges or Culverts (Jadual 2001 Item 3 Part I)
Cross-sections need to be denser near bridges and culverts in order to analyze the flow restriction
caused by these structures. A guide on the locations of cross-sections is shown below.
RIVER
CH 001
CONTRACTION
W UP STREAM
CH 002
CROSS BRIDGE/CULVERT
SECTION
CH 003
W L
EXPANSION
DOWN
4XL STREAM
CH 004
L – Length of abutment
W- Span of bridge
Figure 4.3 Cross-Section Locations at a Bridge or Culvert
4.17 LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING AIRBORNE MAPPING
Information on this aspect of surveying, which was described and illustrated in Appendix 3A-2. and in
item 3.5 earlier can be found from the web by keying in the following:-
a. LIDAR technologies
b. us army corps of engineers hydrographic survey manual (Click item EM1110-2-1003)
LIDAR technology which is similar to radar is an airborne laser mapping technique. A typical airborne
LIDAR system is coupled with a Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine aircraft position and
an Inertial Navigation System (INS) or Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU) to determine the constantly
changing aircraft attitude. Appendix 3A-2 shows the operation of a typical LIDAR using a fixed wing
4-10 March 2009

aircraft.
With LIDAR, highly accurate digital elevation (DEM) and digital terrain (DTM) models or elevation
contours can be generated immediately well before any aerial photography is processed, ground
control is acquired and photogrammetric mapping is performed. LIDAR can capture data with
accuracies of 5 to 20 centimeters to meet modeling efforts day and night in a variety of weather
conditions.
However integrating LIDAR data with photogrammetric data from air survey often yields better end-
results since shorelines frequently have heavy ground vegetation cover and mapping goals are
frequently 1 to 2 feet (30cm to 60cm) contours. In other words, combined LIDAR – Air
Survey/Photogrammetric Mapping provides a more realistic depiction of the terrain and ensures
desired map accuracies will be maintained by providing an independent check.
Airborne LIDAR system can be broadly classified into 3 main types: wide area mapping systems
flown from fixed wing aircraft, Corridor mapping systems from helicopters and Bathymetric mapping
systems flown from either one of the platform.
March 2009 4-11

4.18 REFERENCES
[1] US Army Corps of Engineers website is accessible by keying in “us army corps of engineers
hydrographic survey manual” then click “EM 1110-2-1003 Title: Engineering and Design –
Hydrographic Survey”

4-12 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-1
SCHEDULE ‘C’ – TREASURY APPROVED RATE
(JADUAL FEE UKUR KEJURUTERAAN 2001)
March 2009 4A-1

4A-2 March 2009

Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
OMATICS AND LAND SURVEY SERVICES
March 200
09 4A--3
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-4 March 20
009
March 2009 4A-5

Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-6 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A--7
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-8 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A--9
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-10 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-1
11
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-12 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-1
13
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-14 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-1
15
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-16 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-1
17
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-18 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-1
19
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-20 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-2
21
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-22 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-2
23
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-24 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-2
25
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-26 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-2
27
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-28 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-2
29
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-30 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-3
31
4A-32 March 2009

Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-3
33
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-34 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-3
35
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-36 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-3
37
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-38 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-3
39
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-40 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-4
41
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-42 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-4
43
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-44 March 20
009
APPENDIX 4A-2
SCHEDULE ‘D’ – AKTA JURUKUR TANAH BERLESEN 1958

P.U. (A) 169.
(Relevant Pages Only)
March 2009 4A-45

4A-46 March 2009

March 2009 4A-47

4A-48 March 2009

Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-4
49
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-50 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-5
51
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-52 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-5
53
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
4A-54 March 20
009
Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-5
55
4A-56 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-3
MINISTRY OF FINANCE LETTER

ON
MACRES (MALAYSIAN CENTRE FOR REMOTE SENSING)
March 2009 4A-57

4A-58 March 2009

Cha
apter 4 REFERE
ENCES ON GEO
March 200
09 4A-5
59
4A-60 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-4
BQ EXAMPLE – COST ESTIMATE FOR

SURVEY OF EXISTING ROUTE OF WATERWAYS
CANALS AND DRAINS
(2.4.9)
March 2009 4A-61

4A-62 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-4
BQ EXAMPLE - COST ESTIMATE FOR SURVEY OF EXISTING

ROUTE OF WATERWAYS CANALS AND DRAINS
Item Description Estd Actual Unit Rate Agreed Actual Remarks/

Qty Qty (RM) Amount Amt Try Item
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (I)
1 Waterways and hydrographic survey
of Muda River (Tidal River)
1.1 Preparatory work 1 P/day 743.00 743.00 8.1
1.2 Mobilization & demobilization 18 P/day 743.00 13,374.00 8.2

(Six Field Parties) respectively
1.3 Planimetric control for as-built 33.8 km 2,500.00 84,500.00 8.3

both banks (length 33.8 km)
Kedah & Penang
1.4 Height control from existing 13 km 743.00 9,659.00 8.4
bench mark (misclosure check)
1.5 Strip survey with details of existing

tidal waterway (2 x 250m over banks
+ 100m waterway )waterway
a) Alignment survey (4.25 x RM243) 13 km 3,157.75 41,050.75 8.11
b) Cross-section survey at 100m interval 53.4 km 5,944.00 317,409.60 8.11/3.10.2
c) Long-section survey at 13 km 5,944.00 77,272.00 8.11/3.10.2
100m interval
1.6 Establishment of TBMs (Monumentation) 11 No 148.50 1,633.51 8.5
1.7 Site Survey & preparatory works

(minimum fee)
a) Site No. 1 min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 }
b) Site No. 2 min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 }
c) Site No. 3 min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 } 7.10 & 8.12
d) Site No. 4 min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 }
e) Barrage min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 }
f) Jambatan Merdeka min 1 1,486.00 1,486.00 }
1.8 Others
1.9 Re-imbursable cost for purchase 8.8.8.1.10

of Revenue Sheet (Std Sheets)
CPs, hire of boat and travelling
expenses
1.10 Land Acquisition Plans
a) Preparatory work 1 P/day 743.00 743.00 3.11/1.11.1
d) Search at Land Office 16 hour 10.00 160.00 3.11/1.11.3
c) Computation Plan 704 lot 20.00 14,080.00 3.11/1.11.4
569,540.86
2 Add 5% Government Service Tax 113,908.17
683,449.03
3 Supply of Land Acquisition Plans
Penang 40 sets @ 10 plan/set 40 100 plan 10.00 400.00 1,000.00 8.17/1.14.3
Kedah 40 sets @ 10 plan/set 40 100 plan 10.00 400.00 1,000.00
Estimated Total
Note:
a) Alignment survey comprise location of form lines of the waterway
b) Rate of 8 party day per kilometre if the depth of water is more that 1 metre
(Specification (viii) Item 8.11 Jadual 2001) for cross-section and Longitudinal section
March 2009 4A-63

4A-64 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-5
BQ EXAMPLE – COST ESTIMATE FOR HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY

OF TERRITORIAL WATERS AND INLAND WATER BODIES
(2.4.16)
March 2009 4A-65

4A-66 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-5
BQ EXAMPLE - COST ESTIMATE FOR

COASTAL AND WATERWAYS HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
Item Description Estd Actual Unit Rate Agreed Actual Remarks/

Qty Qty (RM) Amount Amt Try Item
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (I)
1 Mobilization & demobilization of 3 P/day 743.00 2,229.00 14.1

topographic survey equipment
2 Planimetric control and connection in 10 km 2,500.00 25,000.00 14.2

built up area
3 Height control and connection 10 km 743.00 7,430.00 14.3
4 Topographic strip survey with details 100 ha 99.00 9,900.00 14.8

100m x 10 km coastal strip
5 Bathymetric (Off Shore) Profiling
a) Profiles at 50m 90 km 297.20 26,748.00 14.9.2

b) Profiles at more than 100m 30 km 371.50 11,145.00 14.9.2
c) Extended hydrographic survey 9 km 222.90 2,006.10 14.9.2
up-stream at 25m intervals
6 Direct Reading of Tide Pole 11 No 148.50 1,633.51 14.10.2
a) Installation of Tide Pole 1 no 900.00 900.00

b) Tidal observation 2 P/day 743.00 1,486.00
88,477.61
7 Add 5% Government Service Tax 17,695.52
106,173.13
8 Boat
a) Mobilization 1 no 600.00 600.00
b) Rental 5 P/day 300.00 1,500.00
Estimated Total 108,273.13
March 2009 4A-67

4A-68 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-6
TEMPORARY BENCH MARK (TBM)

MARKERS ON NORMAL SURFACE
March 2009 4A-69

4A-70 March 2009

5mm Ø Drilled Center
End Cap Sealed to Pipe
300 Projection
150 Concrete
600
300
50mm Ø G.I Pipe
IP. 28
JPS
Figures Engraved on
NAME OF Concrete
SURVEYOR
TBM MARKER ON NORMAL SURFACE
March 2009 4A-71

4A-72 March 2009

APPENDIX 4A-7
TEMPORARY BENCH MARK (TBM)

MARKERS ON HARD SURFACE
March 2009 4A-73

4A-74 March 2009

30 50 50
Cement/Mortar Mix
10mm Ø Rivet
6mm Thk. Galvanised

Steel Plate
50
4 Nos. 150mm Galvanised
Steel Nails driven into
concrete or hard surface
(except pavement)
300
TBM 19
10mm Ø Rivet
JPS
300
Engraved
NAME OF Figures
30
SURVEYOR
30
TBM MARKER ON HARD SURFACE
March 2009 4A-75

4A-76 March 2009

CHAPTER 5 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
CHAPTER 5 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
(GIS)
Chapter 5 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
Table of Contents

5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 MORE ON GIS INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 5-2
March 2009 5-i

5-ii March 2009

5 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
5.1 INTRODUCTION
There is an old common saying that “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Today with GIS we can
choose to have not only the picture which is very often the digital topographic map but also the
thousand words which is interlinked with the geographically referenced features depicted on a map
through feature codes. A GIS is a computerized system capable of capturing, storing, analyzing and
displaying geographically referenced information; that is data of map features identified according to
location. Traditionally such a graphic picture is depicted on cartographically enhanced topographic
maps (USGS website on geographic information system http//:egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/gis_poster/).
GIS tools and methods can be used for environmental studies, water resource management for
agriculture, flood mitigation development planning or scientific investigation. A GIS may allow flood
emergency planners to easily calculate flood emergency response times during a flood season.
Together with cartography a component of topographic mapping, remote sensing, global positioning
systems, photogrammetry, and geography; GIS has evolved into a discipline with its own research
base known as Gographic Information science
An example on the usefulness of GIS technology development is the possibility of combining

agricultural or land records, hydrography; which include rainfall data, to determine which river will
carry certain levels of soil erosion sediment runoff.
Having gone through the above it is hoped the user of this manual can now make use of the link
provided by the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure [2] (MaCGDI) Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment (NRE) website http://www.mygeoportal.gov.my to contact various other
departments to share experience and ideas on creating geospatial information.
5.2 MORE ON GIS INFORMATION
More information which is listed below can be obtained from the USGS website mentioned in item
5.3 References.
• How does a GIS work?

• Data Capture
• Data integration
• Map projection and registration
• Data structures
• Data modeling
• What’s special about a GIS?
• Framework for cooperation etc.
March 2009 5-1

5.3 REFERENCES

5-2 March 2009

CHAPTER 6 CHECKLIST FOR TERRAIN FEATURES
CHAPTER 6 CHECKLIST FOR TERRAIN FEATURES
Table of Contents

6.1 SURVEY SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 LAND ACQUISITION BASE PLAN. .................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 GROUND MARKERS...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 INDUSTRY .................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.5 ROAD FURNITURE, SERVICES AND UTILITIES ............................................................... 6-2
6.6 BOUNDARY FEATURES ................................................................................................. 6-2
6.7 BRIDGE SITE............................................................................................................... 6-2
6.8 RAILWAYS .................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.9 SURVEY CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 6-3
6.10 PLANTATIONS, TREES AND RECREATIONAL AREAS........................................................ 6-3
6.11 SLOPES AND EARTHWORKS ......................................................................................... 6-3
6.12 WATER AND DRAINAGE ............................................................................................... 6-3
6.13 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-4
March 2009 6-i

(This page was intentionally left blank.)
6-ii March 2009

6 CHECKLIST FOR TERRAIN FEATURES

6.1 SURVEY SERVICES
The survey services to be provided by the surveyor are as listed below and as detailed: -
a. Discussion with relevant authorities such as JKR, JPS, Survey Department, Local Authority
and Land Office before the physical commencement of work on site
b. Consultation with the Superintending Officer (SO) or SO’s Representative and obtain
Instructions
c. Study all relevant information, maps and plans provided and obtaining all necessary
additional topographic maps, certified plans, revenue sheets, data and other information for
the proper execution of the works
d. Preparation of topographic survey plans
e. Field survey to pick up details according to format required
f. Compiling, processing and preparing data and CAD plot of survey plan in accordance to
format required
g. In carrying the work, the surveyor shall attempt to obtain permission prior to entry into
private land, cemeteries and property of other relevant authorities
6.2 LAND ACQUISITION BASE PLAN.
The drawing shall show the following:
a. Name of districts and mukims

b. Lot boundaries and lot numbers
c. Existing total lot areas computed based on coordinates
d. Land use indicating type of cultivation etc.
e. Type of building indicating permanent or semi permanent and usage
f. The existence of burial ground if any within the survey corridor
g. All other relevant details as instructed by client or as desired by the government
h. Land lots that are partially within the mapping area shall, where possible, be presented
showing the whole area of the lot
6.3 GROUND MARKERS
The surveyor shall supply two copies of the following results to the client on completion of field work
and adjustment:
a. Schedule of all Permanent Ground Markers (TBM’s and RM’s) giving the reference numbers,
coordinates and heights
b. Descriptions of Permanent Ground Markers giving the types of marker constructed and
location
c. Diagrams of the horizontal control net showing the connection between Permanent Ground
Markers
d. Diagrams of the leveling (height control) net indicating the connection between Permanent
Bench Marks
6.4 INDUSTRY
a. Tanks
b. Valve chambers
c. Transformers (boundary fences and building lines)
d. Electricity sub-station, boxes and switch boxes (boundary fences and building lines)
e. Pylon lines (indicate levels at lowest point at sag and at pylon towers)
f. Pylon bases
g. Pylon reference numbers and
March 2009 6-1

h. Telegraph lines
6.5 ROAD FURNITURE, SERVICES AND UTILITIES
a. Km post (value to be noted)

b. Guardrails
c. Bus stops
d. Lamp posts
e. Telecom poles
f. Electricity poles
g. Road signs
h. Large road signs (with minimum 2 posts only)
i. Hoardings
j. Large notice boards and display boards
k. Traffic signals and control boxes
l. Vehicle detector pads
m. Road drains or gullies
n. Fire hydrants
o. Stop valve and stand pipes
p. Top of manholes (circular and square)
q. Weigh bridge; and
r. Services above ground (such as some water pipelines)
6.6 BOUNDARY FEATURES
a. Fences
b. Gates
c. Hedges
d. Walls
e. Burial grounds (indicate whether Muslim,. Chinese, Christian etc.) and
f. Historical areas
6.7 BRIDGE SITE
a. Width of bridges
b. Soffit levels of edge beam
c. Carriage way
d. Existing reserve
e. Size, type and location of utility services adjacent and along the span of the bridge
f. Spans and location of columns/piers
g. Level of water and date taken
6.8 RAILWAYS
a. Railway running rails

b. Points
c. Bridges (over roads, river, etc.)
d. Signal boxes
e. Telephone points
f. Telegraph poles, and
g. Km posts (value to be noted)
6-2 March 2009

6.9 SURVEY CONTROL
a. Survey Department GPS and Boundary Marks for horizontal control

b. Ground control points
c. Permanent ground control markers
d. Survey Department Bench Marks (BM) vertical control; and
e. Temporary Bench Mark (TBM) established
6.10 PLANTATIONS, TREES AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
a. Playing fields
b. Parks and open spaces
c. Laid out pitches
d. Prominent trees; and
e. Land-use and vegetation etc.
6.11 SLOPES AND EARTHWORKS
a. Cutting and embankments

b. Terraced slope
c. Ornamental slopes
d. Mounds
e. Industrial waste; and
f. Refuse tips
6.12 WATER AND DRAINAGE
a. Rivers (name to be indicated)

b. Streams
c. Water courses
d. Ditches (width and depth to be indicated)
e. Swamps
f. Lined drains (type, size, depth to be indicated)
g. Culverts with sizes and invert levels, including sketch of inlet and outlet structures such as wing
wall
h. Irrigation structures such as Weirs, bunds, spillways, barrage, floodgates, dams and floodwalls
i. Pump station sites
j. Tanks
k. Sewer outfalls and top of manhole covers
l. The top of all water features over 1.0 meter wide are to be detailed and the bottom of banks as
indicated by the water level at the time of the survey. The direction of flow of all rivers, streams
and watercourses is to be indicated
m. Slopes with a height greater than 1.0 meter or too sharp a gradient to be shown by contours,
including river banks, are to be shown by conventional markings and the top and bottom of
slopes are to be shown as dotted lines; and
n. Slope conventions are to be drawn as near as possible to indicate the actual shape of the slope
face, i.e. all berms and terraces are to be detailed
o. Flood spillways and closure bunds
p. Tidal variation sites for tidal gate structures or bunds
q. Highest known flood level
Any other visible features not listed likely to affect design and later construction works are also to be
shown.
March 2009 6-3

REFERENCES

[3] Digital Globe for Satellite Imagery at website http://www.digitalglobe.com
[4] US Army Corps of Engineers website is accessible by keying in “us army corps of engineers
hydrographic survey manual” then click “EM 1110-2-1003 Title: Engineering and Design –
Hydrographic Survey”

[7] GDM2000 Geodesy Section, Department of Survey and Mapping website

http://geodesi.jupem.gov.my
6-4 March 2009

Malaisie - DID Manual - Volume 6 - Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Survey

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Malaisie - DID Manual - Volume 6 - Geotechnical Manual, Site Investigation and Survey

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Malaysia

Dato’ Ir. Hj. Ahmad Hussaini bin Sulaiman,

March 2009 iii

Volume 1 FLOOD MANAGEMENT

Volume 2 RIVER MANAGEMENT

Volume 3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Volume 4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

Volume 5 IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE

Volume 6 GEOTECHNICAL MANUAL, SITE INVESTIGATION AND ENGINEERING SURVEY

Volume 7 ENGINEERING MODELLING

Volume 8 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES

Volume 9 DAM SAFETY

Volume 10 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Volume 11 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Amend Page Date of Amend Page Date of

March 2009 iii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 1-i

March 2009 1-i

(This page is intentionally left blank)

1-ii March 2009

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The main goals of this Part are to:-

a) Provide a general understanding and appreciation of the geotechnical principles gearing

1.2 LIMITATION OF MANUAL

March 2009 1-1

(This page is intentionally left blank)

1-2 March 2009

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2-i

March 2009 2-i

Table Description Page

Figure Description Page

2-ii March 2009

2 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCESS

2.2 DESIGN PROCESS

March 2009 2-1

DESIGNER ASSIGNED PROJECT

DETERMINE TYPE OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

DECIDE ON APPROPRIATE GEOTECHNICAL

INTERPRET GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESULT TO

DESIGNER’S ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

CHECK COMPLIANCE AND NEED FOR MODIFICATION

POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND VERIFICATION OF

2.2.1 Determine Type of Geotechnical Design and Parameters Required

2-2 March 2009

Table 2.2 Type Of Geotechnical Analysis Corresponding To Design Component

Some typical DID structures are as shown in Figure 2.2

March 2009 2-3

Figure 2.2 Some Typical DID's Structures

2-4 March 2009

2.2.2 Decide on Appropriate Geotechnical Investigation

2.2.3 Interpret Geotechnical Investigation Result to Obtain Representative

March 2009 2-5

Figure 2.3 Combination of Sources of Information in Geotechnical Design

2.2.4 Designer’s Analysis and Design

• Required reliability or acceptable probability of failure

2.2.5 Check Compliance and Need for Modification during Construction

2-6 March 2009

2.2.6 Post Construction Monitoring and Verification of Structure Performance

March 2009 2-7

[2] Brown, R.W., (1996) Practical foundation Engineering Handbooks, Mcgraw-Hill

[6] Das, B.M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, PWK-Kent Publishing Company ,

[14] Teng W.C., Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, 1984.