GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS IN

THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

OF STRUCTURES ON ALLUVIAL SOILS

ENGR. GLEN A. LORENZO

Doctor of Engineering
Geotechnical-Civil Engineer/Consultant
Professor, Civil Engineering Dep't, MSU-Marawi
Professor-Lecturer, Doctor of Engineering Program, SGS, MSU-IIT

For Geotechnical Consultancy please contact:

glenlorenzo@gmail.com; 09196425282
 Presentation Outline

1. Introduction/Description of Alluvial Soils

2. Common Problems Encountered in Alluvial
Deposits
2.1 Low Strength, Swelling and Shrinkage
2.2 Collapsible and Dispersive
2.3 Liquefiable and Varied Seismic Response
3. Liquefaction Assessment
4. Some Related Mitigation Practices
5. Concluding Remarks

2
How do you proceed on your design/
construction?
DEPTH (m)
GROUND SURFACE
0
GWT
1.0

LOOSE SILTY SAND OR

SOFT SANDY SILT
N = 3-10

16
SOFT TO VERY SOFT SANDY CLAY AND
LOOSE TO VERY LOOSE CLAYEY SAND
N=3
22
STIFF HIGH PLASTICITY SILT TO
LOW PLASTICITY CLAY (MH, CL)
N = 15
NMC = 39%; LL=45%; PI=16%

29
3
VERY STIFF LOW PLASTICITY CLAY (CL)
 What are Alluvial Soils

• Soils transported and deposited by current or

streams of water.

Depositional Primary Occurence

Environment

Fluvial Streambed, Alluvial fan,

Floodplain (point bar, clay plugs, natural
levees, backswamp), rejuvenated (varied
valleys, terraces)

Estuarine Delta, estuary

Lacustrine Lakes (various forms, swamps and

marshes)
 What are Alluvial Soils...

• Soils transported and deposited by current or

streams of water.

Depositional Primary Occurence

Environment

Coastal Barrier beach, tidal marsh, beach ridges

Marine Offshore: (varies with water depths and

currents). Marine clays, carbonate sands,
silica sand. Coastal plain
 General Composition of Alluvial Deposit

• Extremely varied, depending on its depositional

environment.
• Generally layers of mixtures of silt and sand with clay
and gravel, with varied relative density and
consistency.
• Except marine clay → dominantly clay with soft to
very soft consistency
• Groundwater is normally at shallower depth. It
fluctuates with seasons and with tides.
Example of problematic alluvial deposit
The parent rocks determine the
characteristics of resulting alluvial soils
 Foundation Conditions

• FAVORABLE
– Medium dense or denser soils of some stream channel
deposits and coastal deposits
– Overconsolidated inactive clays of some coastal plains

• MARGINAL TO POOR
– Loose granular soils in floodplains, deltas, estuaries, lakes,
swamps, and marshes
– Active clays deposited as marine clays and uplifted to a
coastal plain
– All organic deposits
SEAD TRAINING-WORKSHOP ON PAVEMENT DESIGN WITH THE APPLICATION OF
GEOSYNTHETICS
KEYNOTE LECTURE by Dr. Glen A. Lorenzo
 Problem of Most Alluvial Soils

• Low strength (soft or loose)

• Highly compressible (marine clay)
• Swelling and Shrinkage (marine clay) 
Expansive
• Quick Clays (Sensitive Clays)
• Collapsible
• Liquefiable and amplify/modify
earthquake excitation
 Nature of Soil

Coarse-Grained Soils Volume >> Surface Area

(large particles) FRICTION
Gravitational Force governs Behavior

 =(-u)tan
(Sand/Gravel)

Surface Area >> Volume

Fine-Grained Soils clay
Surface Force (electrical)
(small particles)
COHESION
DOUBLE governs the behavior
LAYER

clay
u =Su Double layer expands – repulsion
Double layer contracts – attraction
(Clay/Silt)
' =(-u)tan'
11/28/09 13
 Moisture in Fine-grained Soils
4
drainage
Solid 3 2 1
5 1 2 3 air drying

oven drying

Categories of water surrounding clay particles

1) Adsorbed water – held by powerful electrical forces virtually in solid state and
very thin (0.005 mm)
- cannot be removed by oven drying at 110oC
2. Can be removed by oven drying not by air drying.
3. Capillary water held by surface tension, removed by air drying
4. Gravitational water – removable by drainage
5. Chemically combined water – water hydration
within crystal structure – not removable by oven drying
11/28/09 14
 Effect of Double-Layer Water
(After T. W. Lambe, Compacted Clay: Structure, Trans. ASCE, vol. 125, 1960)

(a) Typical kaolinite particle, (b) Typical montmorillonite

10000 by 1000 A. particle, 1000 by 10 A.

 Since the innermost layer of double-layer water is very strongly

held by a clay particle, it is referred to as adsorbed water.

11/28/09 Slope Stability Analysis and Design 15

 Problem 1: Low Strength and Compressible

Foundation soil must be strong enough to support imposed loads.

 Problem 1: Low Strength and Compressible

• Bearing capacity is low and could be controlled by

settlement.
• Pile foundation could be subject to downdrag skin
friction (negative skin friction)
• Serviceability issues for building structure such as:
wall and floor cracking, cracking or loosening of tiles,
etc.
• For road structure: Difficult, if not impossible, to
allow passage of heavy equipment during
construction without constructing a temporary
stabilizing platform/embankment.
• Improper embankment construction could lead poor
serviceability performance
 Problem 1: Low Strength and Compressible

Implications to Design and Construction of

Vertical Structures
1)The use of combined footings or mat foundation.
2)For larger foundation, the allowable bearing capacity
(ABC) is usually controlled by the allowable
settlement. Settlement controlled ABC entails deeper
Boreholes during Soil Investigation.
3)If water table is high, then liquefaction assessment
shall be done.
4)If subsoil is liquefiable, then there are two options:
(a) use deep foundations (piles); (b) mitigate
liquefaction by ground improvement, then use
shallow foundations
EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT SOIL
(use Geotextile Separator)

Separate the good

soil (sand/gravel)
from the “bad” ones
(soft soil) for better
performance!
Why Use Geotextile (GT) Separator?
Reinforcement functions provided by
Geotextiles in roadways
Reinforcement functions provided by GT in
roadways
Reinforcement functions provided by GT in
roadways
11/28/09
 DAVAO PROJECT:

2.7 HECTARE OFF-DOCK CONTAINER YARD

DAVAO INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL
LADEN CARGO HANDLER (Linde C4351)
 18-WHEELER TRUCK LOADING
144 kN main axle loading
250 passes per day
3,650,000 total passes
for 20-year design life
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
 FINAL DESIGN

JPCP
ITEM 202
GG/GT
1.30m STABILIZING AGGREGATE
ITEM 201. DOC >95%

ENGINEERED FILL
CBR>50%; DOC >95%
GT
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
MONITORING PHOTOGRAPHS
Problems on Soft, Subsiding Ground
Transition between non-piled and
piled foundations
Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments
(Conventional method)

Transition between non-piled and piled

foundations
DMM Application for Bridge Approach on Soft Clay
Foundation
Effective length of improved section, Le
Lc= Le/2 Ls= Le/2

Approach slab Design crown level

Vertical crest curve
Bridge Anticipated total settlement
PVC
of the improved section
G1
S1 Vertical sag curve
S2 Existing ground level
PRVC
Estimated crown level after
20 years, for no soil improvement So
G2
EMBANKMENT
Anticipated crown level after primary
P3 PVT
consolidation (with soil improvement)

Weathered Crust

0.5mdiameter DMMpiles
Spacing:
S=0.50m
S=1.0m
S=1.5m SOFT CLAY
P2

P1
x Ls/2 = Le/4 MEDIUMSTIFF CLAY
Lc= Le/2
 Excavation in Soft Soil
BE CAREFUL, THE DAMAGE COULD BE DOUBLED!

AND THE RESTORATION COST COULD EVEN BE TRIPLED!

11/28/09 Slope Stability Analysis and Design 41

 Excavation in Soft Soil

11/28/09 42
 Excavation in Soft Soil

11/28/09 43
 Excavation in Soft Soil

Implication to Design: Implication to Construction:

• Instrumentation shall
• The stages of
be implemented to
construction and the
monitor actual soil
corresponding soil
deformation and
deformation response
subsequently compare
shall be the primary
to the design
objective during the
simulation.
design stage. This
entails the use of FE • If necessary, modify
simulations. soil parameters in the
simulation
• Adjust construction
11/28/09
sequence if necessary 44
 Excavation FE Simulation example

11/28/09 45
 Excavation FE Simulation example

11/28/09 46
 Problem 2: Collapsible and Dispersive

Collapsible soils are unsaturated soils that can withstand

relatively high pressure without showing significant
change in volume; however upon wetting, they are
susceptible to a large and sudden reduction in volume.
11/28/09 Slope Stability Analysis and Design 47
STRUCTURES ON RIVER BANKS
WHY THIS PIER FAILED?
DOESN'T GOING DEEPER MEAN STRONGER FNDN?
Effects of sheet pile driving on silty soils

SO WHAT IS REALLY THE PROBLEM HERE?

 Effect of Water Level and Alteration of Natural Seepage

11/28/09
11/28/09
 River Structures (Concrete Rubble Revetment)

11/28/09 Slope Stability Analysis and Design 53

 River Structures (Concrete Rubble Revetment)

11/28/09 Slope Stability Analysis and Design 54

 CRR Failure during Flush Flood

Possible cause:
– Combination of: problematic soil (collapsible); Seepage
force build-up (blocked seepage); scouring and
undermining of foundation soil.
11/28/09 55
Nipa House saved
by the mangrove

Lesson: The best way to go with nature is

to go natural.
Collapse and Swell Potential

Do/DLL < 1.1, SOIL PRONE TO COLLAPSE

Do/DLL > 1.3, SOIL PRONE TO SWELL

Where:

Do = in situ dry density

DLL = dry density of soil at moisture content equal to the
liquid limit (LL).
Collapse potential for sandy clays and clayey sands
Problem 3: Expansive Soils
(Swelling & Shrinkage Problem)
Problem 3: Expansive Soils
(Swelling & Shrinkage Problem)
Activity of Clay (cont’d)

PI
Activity (A) =
by weight finer than 2μ
Activity of clay may
provide information
relative to swelling
potential (relative swell
at 1psi surcharge) and
stability.
Damage and Implication to Design
How to mitigate?

EXPANSIVE CLAY
 Problem 4: Liquefaction

NSCP Provisions on Liquefaction

Problem: Liquefiable and amplifies
earthquake excitation
 Liquefaction
Foundation soil must be strong enough to
NSCPimposed
support Provisions
loads ….. on Liquefaction…
 Problem: Liquefaction
Foundation soil must be strong enough to
NSCPimposed
support Provisions
loads ….. on Liquefaction…
 Problem: Amplifies earthquake
excitation
RED: 30 m Soil (v=200m/s)  4.6x
Soil D, H=30m

BLUE; 50 m Soil  3.8x

Soil D, H=50m
800 BROWN: 10m Soil  (1.5x)
Soil D, H=10m
Surface Acceleration (Gals)

BLACK: ROCK
600 Generic Rock

400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40
-200
-400
-600
Time (seconds)
-800
 Problem: Modify the resonant frequency
and the response spectrum of SDOF VS
Acceleration Response Spectrum
3500 RED:Bldg
30 h=0.05;
m Soil Soft Soil: H=100,v=200
(v=200m/s)
BLUE; 50h=0.05;
Bldg m SoilSoft Soil: H=50,v=200
3000
Spectral Acceleration (Gals)

LIGHT BLUE: 100m Soil

Bldg h=0.05; Soft Soil: H=30, v=200
2500 BROWN: 10 m Soil
Bldg h=0.05;
BLACK: ROCK Soft Soil: H=10,v=200
2000 ForBase
Bldg h=0.05; h=0.05
input at Generic Rock
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period (sec)
 Problem: Bldg response is site-specific
Elastic Design Response Spectrum

1.6 RED: Design

30 m Soil (v=200m/s)
RS for h=0.05; Soil H=50m, v=200 m/s, h=0.05

DASHDesign
RED: NSCP, 30m Sd
RS for h=0.05; Soil H=30m, v=200 m/s, h=0.05
1.4 BLUE;Design
50RSm SoilSoil H=10m, v=200 m/s, h=0.05
for h=0.05;
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2 BROWN: 10
NSCP, Soil m Soil
Sd, Na=1.2

BLACK:
DesignROCK
RS for Bldg wih h=0.05; Generic Rock Surface
1 For h=0.05
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (sec)
Liquefaction Assessment
 Assessment of Depth Prone to Liquefaction

Step 1: Obtain soil profile and the corresponding

corrected SPT blow counts (N1)60 with depth.

11/28/09 72
11/28/09 73
 N1 60  C N  N m
 60 
Assessment of Depth Prone to Liquefaction…
 ' v 
where C N  1  1.25 log  , ’v in kPa
 95.76  (PGA), amax
Step 2: Determine the peak ground acceleration
2. Determine
• PGA can be takenthe seismic
as C condition
a(g), based on NSCPof the site
provisions.
acceleration, amax (normally express in terms o
3. Determine the Cyclic Stress Ratio with depth
at the the
Step 3: Calculate given magnitude
Cyclic using
Stress Ratio the following
(CSR) with depth rel

ave  a max   v 
 0.65  rd
' v  g  ' v 
where rd is the stress reduction ratio obtained f
4. Determine the liquefaction boundary
11/28/09 74 blow cou
 Stress reduction factor

11/28/09 75
 Assessment of Depth Prone to Liquefaction…

Step 4: Determine the liquefaction boundary

blow counts (N1)60 limit with depth using design
chart of CSR or CRR.

Alternatively, determine the Cyclic Resistance

Ratio (CRR) for the given (N1)60

11/28/09 76
11/28/09 77
 Assessment of Depth Prone to Liquefaction…

Step 4: Determine the liquefaction boundary blow counts

(N1)60 limit with depth using design chart of CSR or CRR.

Alternatively, determine the Cyclic Resistance Ratio

(CRR) for the given (N1)60

Step 5: Plot (N1)60 limit together with (N1)60 from step 1.

Depths having (N1)60 < (N1)60 limit are liquefiable.

Alternatively, calculate the FS against liquefaction:

FS = (CRR)7.5 /CSR
11/28/09 78
 For Magnitude other than 7.5

Step 6: Apply Magnitude Scaling factor (MSF

11/28/09 80
 Liquefaction Mitigation Techniques
• Deep Compaction (Increased Relative
Density of Soil)

• Deep Mixing Method (Strengthen and

modify the fabric of the soil structure)

• Use of piles/micropiles (expensive)

• Other innovative way of strengthening soil

11/28/09
 How about effects of:
• Deep well pumping → increase in effective stress.
• Pile driving → increase pore pressure; damage soil
fabric
• Leaking pressure conduits → increase pore
pressure; saturate soils

 =(-u)tan

settlement is proportional to the increase

in effective stress (-u)
 CONCLUSION

• Alluvial soils, which underlay most of

our major cities, possess problematic
behaviors that are crucial to the design
and construction of infrastructures
such as:
• Low strength and high compressibility,
• Collapsibility
• Swelling
• Liquefaction
 CONCLUSION

• It is crucial to consider and deal

first any problematic behavior
of the foundation soils in the
selection of most appropriate
foundation system before going
further to the design and
construction.
 CONCLUSION

• It must be realized that the overall safety

of any structure built on or in the ground
rests on the capacity of the foundation
soils to carry it and maintain its integrity
and serviceability.
• Most alluvial deposits would require
improvement or modification in order to
improve its performance as the ultimate
foundation of the built structure.
 Thank You

04/19/13 Design of MSE Wall 86