See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273126127

Managing Geotechnical Site Investigation Work – Getting Away from Old

Practice

Conference Paper · November 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 1,544

1 author:

Ramli Nazir
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
138 PUBLICATIONS   555 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SOFT CLAY STABILIZATION USING LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE RAFT AND COLUMN MATRICES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramli Nazir on 05 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Conference Proceedings
November 7-9, 2014
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ACSSC
Annual Conference on Social Studies, Communication and Education

APSSC
Asia-Pacific Social Science Conference
 Managing Geotechnical Site Investigation Work
– Getting Away from Old Practice

Ramli Nazir,
Assoc. Professor, PhD, P.Eng(Mal)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai, Johor Bahru, Johor.
*Corresponding Author : ramlinazir@utm.my

ABSTRACT
In all civil engineering works, the most crucial element is obtaining the reliable information of
the ground in which the project is to be founded. We obtain the information via Site Investigation
Nowadays this activity has been considered as part of the contractual obligation. The importance
in implementing site investigation is seems to be slowly faded from the engineering point of
view. As part of the contractual obligation, personnel involves in construction would only
provide Site Investigation reports upon request or else designers tend to prescribe any design
parameters based on intuitive values. Also the use of cut-price site investigation - or none at all –
is a form of gambling. If the gamble pays off the company will have saved a small proportion of
the costs. If not the additional on-going costs will inevitably exceed the price of competent site
investigation report. This paper will provide practicing engineers a good insight into the
importance of site investigation and its process by looking into old habits and getting away from
it.
Keywords: Exploration, Experience, Knowledge, Geotechnical Site Investigation, Projects

1. Introduction
A genesis of any Geotechnical Design is Site Investigation also call as Geotechnical Site
Investigation or subsurface investigation. Ground is an extremely variable and, hence, uncertain
material. The potential for incurring financial and time losses is great if the properties of the soil
and rock are not adequately quantified. The ground supports all construction projects which
inevitably shows that the Site Investigation is of prime important. The results from the site
investigation are mainly used to determine the strength of the soil and hence to propose any
geometry of the supporting structures. Other reasons for the site investigation are to determine
ground water levels which may affect the method of construction and design parameters. The
geometry dimensions are necessary for two reasons. If the original estimate of the geometry
dimension was too small due to incorrect calculations the structure may punch through the soil
and may cause crack and subside (collapse). If the geometry dimension were too big there would
be an excessive cost for the materials and labour to construct it. Approximately 50% of all
projects over-run and losses of up to 35% of the entire original tender have been suffered. The

1 
 
primary reasons for these losses are either insufficiency of site investigation or lack of
understanding of the results.
Site Investigation nowadays has become contracting exercise and we tend to forget that site
investigation is an INVESTIGATION. As in many INVESTIGATION it is an iterative process.
For information to be reliable, adhere to the procedure is very important. Site investigation is the
most procedure oriented operation within Civil Engineering Discipline. This is due to the
variability of the soil formation millions of years ago. The properties of soil assessment or test
carried out is affected by the latter. Accuracy and correct procedure is of vital important. Using
inadequate and unreliable information in the Site Investigation information has cause problems in
construction and even after the completion of the projects. The problems can arise from
unexpected soil condition and cause failure to the foundation or base of the structure. Such
failures often require extensive changes in remedial works entailing increase construction cost,
time delay and even threatening public safety. Inadequate in Site Investigation information is
often the result of design engineer failing to properly plan and specify the type of field and
laboratory test needed to acquire parameters used for the design. They sometimes leave it at a
courtesy of the Site Investigation Contractors to perform the site investigations without
supervision as it is part of contractual obligations. Even worse, they permit the Site Investigation
Contractors to specify the work for them. Needless to say, geotechnical information thus obtained
could well leave much to be desired where the design engineer must specific the scope of the
subsurface investigation for the work he is to design.

2. What is Geotechnical Site Investigation

Geotechnical site investigation is a scientific site exploration with a predetermined objectives. It
is usually to start something first through desk studies follow by site visit about the site and
project before we can determine the purpose of site investigation to identify the possible
geotechnical problems. Subsequently, we plan scope of SI to obtain the necessary parameters to
verify, assess and quantify the geotechnical problems identified. Experience and knowledge of
the designer about the anticipated geotechnical problems, the project brief and available SI
facilities and methods are of prime important. The main objectives are to provide adequate
information for site assessment, safe and economical designs. Foresee the construction
difficulties and making a choice of site and layout arrangement of the designated project.
Site investigation is normally carried out prior to the commencement of design of any project.
Due to lack of or inadequacy of guide/code requirement regarding the extent as well as quality of
site investigation work, geotechnical failures often occurred. These failures sometime lead to
catastrophic disaster and imposed serious threat to public safety (Moh, 2004). Baecher and
Christian (2003) divided the characterization of ground conditions into two phases. First is a
preliminary investigation or desk study, which involves collecting information about the regional
geology and geological history. The second phase is a site investigation designed to obtain data
based on detailed measurements of soil properties. Figure 1.0 shows a typical process of site
investigation works.

2 
 
 Figure 1.0 A typical process of site investigation work to extract sample on site.

2.1 Preliminary Investigation

In general the new construction may require a conceptual subsurface investigation, or
route selection study, where the geotechnical engineer is asked by the designers to
identify the best of several possible routes or locations for the proposed structures, or to
evaluate foundation alternatives. This type of project generally does not require a detailed
subsurface investigation. It is normally limited to geologic reconnaissance and some
sampling, field identification of subsurface conditions to achieve generalized site
characterization, and general observations such as the depth to rock or competent soils,
presence of sinkholes and/or solution cavities, organic deposits in low lying swampy
areas, and/or evidence of old fill, debris, or contamination. Conceptual study
investigations require limited laboratory testing and largely depend on the description of
subsurface conditions from boring logs prepared by an experienced field engineer and/or
geologist. Properly performed exploratory investigations, in cases where the designers
have flexibility in locating the project to take advantage of favourable subsurface
conditions, have the potential for resulting in substantial savings by avoiding problematic
foundation conditions and costly construction methods.

3 
 
 2.2 Detailed Investigation

A more common type of subsurface investigation is the detailed investigation to be

performed for the purpose of detailed site characterization to be used for design.
Frequently, the design phase investigation is performed in two or more stages. The initial,
or preliminary design, stage investigation is typically performed early in the design
process prior to defining the proposed structure elements or the specific locations of
foundations, embankments or earth retaining structures. Accordingly, the preliminary
design investigation typically includes a limited number of borings and testing sufficient
for defining the general stratigraphy, soil and rock characteristics, groundwater
conditions, and other existing features of importance to foundation design. Subsequently,
after the location of structure foundations and other design elements have been
determined, a second, or final design, phase investigation is frequently performed to
obtain site specific subsurface information at the final substructure locations for design
purposes and to reduce the risk of unanticipated ground conditions during construction.
Further investigation stages can be considered if there are significant design changes or if
local subsurface anomalies warrant further study. When properly planned, this type of
multi-phase investigation provides sufficient and timely subsurface information for each
stage of design while limiting the risk and cost of unnecessary explorations.
Prior to planning and initiating the investigation, the geotechnical engineer needs to obtain from
the designers the type, load and performance criteria, location, geometry and elevations of the
proposed facilities. The locations and dimensions propose construction should be identified as
accurately as practicable. Sufficient detail should be provided to allow a determination of the
locations, depths, type, and number of borings to be performed. In cases where the investigation
is being done for buildings, the designers should provide the layout and footprint of the building,
plans, and any column and wall loads.

3. How do the results affect your design

Several studies have been published over the last 30 years or so clearly demonstrate that, in civil
engineering projects, the largest element of financial and technical risk usually lies in the ground
(National Research Council 1984, Institution of Civil Engineers 1991, Littlejohn et al. 1994,
Whyte 1995). As a result, the geotechnical data obtained from limited characterization of ground
conditions can be both inadequate and/or inappropriate. This situation can lead to failure and a
high level of financial and technical risk (Institution of Civil Engineers 1991; Littlejohn et al.
1994; National Research Council 1984; Temple and Stukhart 1987). It is clear that over the last
30 years geotechnical investigation prices have been driven down, with the scope often being
governed by minimum cost and time of completion (Institution of Civil Engineers 1991). As a
consequence, the Institution of Civil Engineers concluded that: “You pay for a site investigation

4 
 
whether you have one or not.” Figure 2.0 shows the relationship between Site Investigation with
other related engineering works.

 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
SI SOIL  CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
PROPERTIES  BASIC & INDEX
PROPERTIES

INTERPRETATION
JUDGEMENT
 MASS PROPERTIES
 TYPICAL & GENERALISED
GROUND SUBSOIL PROFILE &
CHARACTERIZATIONN PROPERTIES OF TYPICAL
GEOLOGICAL
FORMATIONS, MAN MADE
FILL etc..
 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
MODELLING
PREDICTION

CODE OF SOIL & ROCK MECHANICS

PRACTICES:- • EFFECTIVE STRESS
• FOUNDATION MS THEORY
EN7 GROUND BEHAVIOUR • SEEPAGE THEORY
• ANCHORS BS8081 • STRESS DISTRIBUTION
• EARTHWORKS • LATERAL PRESSURE
MSEN7 • BEARING CAPACITY
• REINFORCED FILLS DEFORMATION • COMPRESSIBILITY
MSEN7 DISPLACEMENT
• GEOGUIDES STABILITY

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENTATION FOR

PERFORMANCE • PORE WATER PRESSURE
• EARTH PRESSURE
• DISPLACEMENT(SURFACE &
SUBSURFACE
• INTERNAL STRESSES

Figure 2.0 Relationship between SI and other related geotechnical works

A geotechnical evaluation should always be part of any comprehensive due diligence assessment
associated with the transfer or development of a given site, and is a relatively low-cost/low-
5 
 
impact approach to reducing potential liability associated with unidentified site conditions. Many
government regulatory agencies require a geotechnical evaluation for projects ranging from
small-scale development to large development. While some agencies allow the use of default
code values when a geotechnical analysis is not performed, these values are usually very
conservative. A quality geotechnical evaluation of a project site can save a project considerable
time and expenses, by providing the design team and contractors with subsurface information and
design parameters during the initial design and planning stages. The cost of change orders due to
unexpected subsurface conditions can be very high and can usually be avoided through a quality
geotechnical evaluation. The risk of a construction failure is heavily dependent on the quantity
and quality of information obtained from a geotechnical site investigation aimed at characterizing
the underlying soil conditions. It has shown that by increasing the scope of the site investigation,
the risk of ground failure is significantly reduced, potentially saving clients and consultants large
amounts of money. Goldsworthy et al. (2004) suggested that the risk of a foundation failure is
heavily dependent on the quantity and quality of information obtained from a geotechnical site
investigation aimed at characterizing the underlying soil conditions. Project risk is a measure of
the potential inability to achieve overall project objectives within defined cost, time schedule,
quality, environmental impact and technical constraints and can be estimated as the combination
of the probability of a risk event occurring and its consequences for project objectives (Carlsson,
2005).

It has been recommended by some, that an appropriate level of resources for a site investigation
is of the order of 0.2% to 5% of the total project budget. However, money is not the whole
picture. An appropriate site investigation must be carried out with adequate time resources and
the quality of the investigation is perhaps more important than the cost. Ultimately, the decision
of the scope of the geotechnical investigation rests with the geotechnical engineering consultant,
the project team and the client. It is incumbent on the geotechnical engineer to bring to the
attention of the project team and client the risks associated with a minimalist approach to
geotechnical site investigations

4. Soil Sampling Procedure

Site Investigation can be no better than collecting the soil sample. Therefore, proper collection of
the soil sample is extremely important. In general, the type of sample extraction in site
investigation will depend on geotechnical design analysis i.e Total Stress analysis or Effective
Stress analysis. Under estimate values will result in flaw selection of the soil parameters. Over
prediction will results in conservatism in geotechnical design. Although it is safe however the
cost may not impressed the client since more money will come out from their budget.

6 
 
Total Stress analysis uses the undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil and also known as
short term analysis. The undrained shear strength, cu can be obtained from field such as vane
shear and laboratory such as unconfined compression test. If the undrained shear strength is
constant throughout the depth then cu = c and =0o. The use of unconsolidated undrained triaxial
compression test is also applicable provided that it is saturated plastic soil. The groundwater does
not have an effect in the use of total stress parameters. Total stress analysis will provide a lower
allowable bearing capacity for soft or very soft saturated plastic soils. This is due to the load from
foundation that will consolidate the plastic soil leading to an increase in shear strength as time
passes.

Effective Stress analysis uses the drained shear strength, c’ and ’ of the plastic soil. The drained
shear strength could be obtained from triaxial compression test with pore pressure measurement
tested on a fully saturated specimen of the plastic soil. Also known as long term analysis since
the shear-induced pore water pressure (positive or negative) from the loading has dissipated and
the hydrostatic pore pressure conditions now prevail in the field. Thus the location of the water
table is significant in considering in the analysis. For Effective stress analysis, the shear strength
is higher for soft or very soft saturated plastic soils which will results in higher bearing capacity.
Effective stress analysis will provide lower bearing capacity for very stiff or hard saturated
plastic soils. This is due to the dilation of plastic soil during undrained shear deformation since
the soil is usually heavily overconsolidated. As the soil dilates it tends to develop negative pore
pressure. As this pressure dissipates with times the shear strength of the heavily overconsolidated
plastic soil will decrease. This will lower the bearing capacity of the soil.

4.1 Sample Extraction

Boring is a common method of extracting sample apart from augering. Borings come in
two main varieties, large-diameter and small-diameter boreholes. Large-diameter borings
are rarely used due to safety concerns and expense, but are sometimes used to allow a
geologist or engineer to visually and manually examine the soil and rock stratigraphy in-
situ. Small-diameter borings are frequently used to allow a geologist or engineer examines
soil or rock cuttings or to retrieve samples at depth using soil samplers, and to perform in-
place soil tests. Figure 3.0 shows sample extracted from the ground using boring machine
using split spoon sampler
Soil samples are often categorized as being either “disturbed” or “undisturbed;” however,
“undisturbed” samples are not truly undisturbed. A disturbed sample is one in which the
structure of the soil has been changed sufficiently that tests of structural properties of the
soil will not be representative of in-situ conditions, and only properties of the soil grains
(e.g., grain size distribution, Atterberg’s limits, and possibly the water content) can be
accurately determined. An undisturbed sample is one where the condition of the soil in the

7 
 
 sample is close enough to the conditions of the soil in-situ to allow tests of structural
properties of the soil to be used to approximate the properties of the soil in-situ.

Figure 3.0. Sample extraction using boring machine

Offshore soil collection introduces many difficult variables. In shallow water, work can
be done off a barge. In deeper water a ship will be required. Deepwater soil samples are
normally variants of Kullenberg-type samplers, a modification on a basic gravity corer
using a piston. Seabed samplers are also available, which push the collection tube slowly
into the soil which sometimes calls as a continuous core sampling or vibracore. This type
of Site Investigation will not be discussed in this paper. Figure 4.0 show an equipment for
continuous sampling.

Figure 4.0 Vibracore or continuous core sample equipment for offshore site investigation

8 
 
 4.2 Sample Testing
Sampling technique can be referred to BS EN 1997 Part 2 where all the methods and
procedures of determining the soil parameters are laid down in detail. Generally two type
of test location can be adopted; the in-situ test and laboratory test. Some soil properties
are intrinsic to the composition of the soil matric and are not affected by sample
disturbance, while other properties depend on the structure of the soil as well as its
composition, and can only be effectively tested on relatively undisturbed samples. Some
soil tests measure direct properties of the soil, while others measure “index properties”
which provide useful information about the soil without directly measuring the property
desired. In conclusion, those samples which are highly affected on disturbance will
govern by an in-situ test to determine their properties. Properties such as permeability,
highly activities soil, matric suction will need an in-situ test to be performed due to its
parameter integrity in the design. These parameters normally related with critical project
where accuracy in design is highly demand.

Figure 5.0 Undisturbed sampling before and after covering with wax

Figure 6.0 Rock Sampling

9 
 
 5. Current Practice of Site Investigations in Malaysia

Based on ICE UK (1991), various reports over the past 25 years it has been shown that in civil
engineering and building projects the largest element of technical and financial risk lies normally
in the ground. Thus, Circular No. 4/2005 by the Board of Engineer Malaysia has laid down the
responsibilities of professional engineers in site investigations activities. It also specified who’s
who shall take an active role in supervising the site investigation works. It is always said that a
good decision comes from good information. Investigation is about getting information. One
cannot rely of prescribe information or unreliable information to make a conclusions. On the
basis of obtaining the reliable data from the site investigation works, it is therefore makes an
engineering sense that the works must be carried out using suitable equipment and ancillaries and
by trained persons under the supervision of equality if not better trained supervisors.

Although we agree with the circular which aforementioned by the Engineering Board and even
bind by good specification, yet if we were to visit any site investigation site anywhere in our
country, we will find there is almost not a single site investigation site where any of these
sentiments and requirements is met. And the worst is no supervision on site. Old machine, dented
sampling tube, untrained operators, no site documentation and no sense of appreciation in
sampling handling is virtually a similar situation that can be found on the site investigation
practice. It has been clearly shows that an incompetent site investigation supervision has been
identified as one of the major causes of poor quality of acquiring the information. Information
taken which is not relevant with the required design parameters are normal since requirement of
data needed was not done by the designers. It has been a contractual obligation as mentioned
earlier thus no matter how, Site Investigation has been part of the contract which must be done.
However the reliability of the information is none of the important matters. The only matter is
that the work must be done. Most of the Geotechnical Engineers face a problem of prescribing
the parameters due to insufficient information given in the site investigation report.

In many cases, the interpretations of the results from the site are not the same as on site itself.
Different or further location from the proposed point has been blindly chosen. Until now there is
a tacit awareness that something is wrong with our site investigation, but nothing is changing, bad
equipment, bad ancillaries, bad operators and where possible experienced bad supervisors
continue to provide us with doubtful information and we keep designing and constructing and
wasting money. We then point to these structures and say, “If SI was bad how come these
buildings are standing up?” Unless failures occur than all fingers starts to find the scapegoat
within the surrounding and in most popular case, one responsible Minister accused god was to be
blamed for the reason.

Many old and tired equipment are still in use in ‘Malaysia Site Investigation’ works. Practitioners
of site investigation around seventies used boring methods using hydraulic fed, top driven
machine, using compatible rods and casings, usually B, N, H sized casings and B and N sized
rods. Every job required careful consideration of compatible and suitable equipment which
included rods, casings, core barrels, various cutting bits and drilling bits. Each borehole took
almost four times longer and nearly three times costlier than today. Site investigation
information, we like to believe, was at least reliable. These equipment still exist and are available

10 
 
even today, but because of high operation costs, practitioners cannot compete with today’s wash
boring or “WATER JETTING”. By late eighties, numerous operators with access to cheap
machines entered the site investigation market. The machines they used were not right machines
for boring and testing, but they were fast, and again very important, they were very cheap. They
produced fast reports, in some cases even instantaneous reports. Quality and reliability of
information became secondary to speed and price. Those with proper equipment and ancillaries
could not compete and either left the field or simply joined in. Cost of site investigation kept
coming down even though the cost of labour, fuel, ancillaries and equipment has almost doubled
or tripled. There are no drastic innovations in basic site investigation technology. Nevertheless
site investigation costs today are about ONE THIRD that used to be in seventies or early eighties.
Today site investigation operations are come to be regarded as lowest form of contracting and it
seem as we just do not care.

Due to our lack of awareness, where cheapest and fastest work done has been acceptable
nowadays in our engineering society, just about almost every method in site investigation works
is subjected to suspicion and likely to be unacceptable. In most cases, the involvement of
Geotechnical expert in site investigation works is questionable. Most of the detailed work has
been prepared by those who are not involved in the design and sometimes by the site
investigation contractors themselves. It is know that delay and escalating in the cost of
construction is mainly due to the inadequate site investigation.

6. Getting away from old practices

Old habits die hard. Getting away from old practice is not as easy as we say. The methods and
ways of working have been automated in our daily task. Similar to the site investigation, most of
the task done has been practice for so long and has been a standard procedure even though it is
wrong and doubtful. A most common example is situation whereby in the SI works, there are:-
a. No reference documents (CP or specifications) on site
b. Machines and ancillaries which are non-compliance with specifications
c. Unacceptable procedures and handling of samples, testing, transporting
d. Untrained operators
e. No professional supervision
f. Untrained supervisor.
Site investigation information produced from these worksites, in the form of Site Investigation
reports are equally compatible to situation on the worksites and have following in common:-
a. Almost all introduction portion of reports describe methods which are not same as on
site
b. All presentations and soil descriptions in bole logs vary from company to company and
in some cases different locations and pay no relevance to say, laboratory tests,
consistency etc.
From bore holes logs, based on presentation and lack of site observations, it also can be inferred
that:-
a. All strata changes in ground below occurs at 1.5 meter intervals in Malaysia.
b. There are never any occurrences of water losses, change in water colors, water ingress,
material changes below.

11 
 
Site investigations often suffer from the rush and tumble associated with planning pressures,
provision of access, last-minute changes in scheme layout and construction deadlines. There
appears to be an inadequate appreciation by clients, planners and administrators of the
importance of site investigation and the need to allow adequate time for its planning, design and
execution. It is also vital that the site investigation should be directly relevant to the final lines
and levels of the project. There is a failure to realize that ground is complex and even when strata
inconsistencies become apparent further investigation is often omitted. There is frequently a lack
of flexibility in the design approach to site and ground investigations. How can we get out from
this old practice encroachment?

Now, it is a prerequisite of all successful projects that adequate time and funding be devoted to
site investigation. At the planning stage, extreme care must be taken to establish the correct
contractual environment to ensure an effective interrelationship between the client, site
investigation specialist, engineering designer and main contractor. It is thought by some that this
is not always the case. Site and ground investigations should be conducted as operations of
discovery. Investigations should proceed in logical stages and planning should be flexible so that
work can be varied as necessary in the light of new information. In other words, after each stage
of a site investigation it should be possible to assess the degree of uncertainty that remains in
relation to vital aspects of the ground. This observational approach should allow the best
engineering strategy to be developed. No uncertainty is acceptable to solve for the certainty
answer.

The important phasing of investigations will be easier to implement if the client is advised at the
outset that phasing may be a contingency requirement. Designers of site and ground
investigations should attempt to answer the following questions.
(a) What is known about the site?
(b) What is not known about the site?
(c) What needs to be known?

Figure 7.0 shows a circle of questions for site investigation simplify by Neoh, C.A (2010). A
person who cannot adequately answer all these points probably has insufficient expertise to
design the investigation.

Figure 7.0 Circle of Questions for Site Investigation (Neoh, C.A (2010))
12 
 
Supervision of site investigation can be carried out only when the work is in progress. In this way
the detailed procedures can be monitored continuously and the supervisor can amend, if
necessary, the scope of the investigation as it proceeds. The supervisor should have geotechnical
expertise and experience, as well as practical knowledge of different exploration techniques. The
training needs of site investigations supervisors and the current training provision by the
investigation industry should be assessed from time to time by the appropriate regulating bodies.

Since all new construction as to consider ground conditions, for the purposes of both design and
construction, it is likely that there are too few professional geotechnical engineers and
engineering geologists working in the Malaysia construction industry. To assess the situation it
would be useful if an organization such as the Board of Engineers Malaysia could establish how
many geotechnical specialists are currently working and potentially available to the industry,
compared with market needs (e.g. the number of projects started each year). If a shortfall is
confirmed more courses on site investigation technology should be introduced into the continuing
professional development programme for civil engineers, architects, builders and planners.
Although currently there are offers for site investigation programme in the continuous
programme development however the enforcement of such activity is not compulsory. Thus it has
inadequate attention to all parties involved in site investigation work. Inevitably, it will be a
contractual procedure rather than investigation work

Site investigation should not be part of the project contract as it tend to be biased during the
implementation. It should be an independent activities or contract under the designer or client
supervision whereby qualified Geotechnical Engineer must take responsibility of the work.
Normally in Malaysia project management practice, prior to the design stage, a process of
authority approval for project planning will take almost a year or more. During this period, it will
be a best practice for client or responsible project management team to conduct a site
investigation before any design takes place. At this period any change or error during sampling
extract can be corrected at the earlier stage.

No matter how much innovation takes place in site investigation, the most important thing
required is conscious awareness amongst engineers that quality of SI needs improving. Good
quality SI will not be cheap, but these costs are nothing compared to gains in cost reductions and
reduction in construction and post construction problems. This has to be acceptable to both
clients and engineers. After all the cost of SI is less than 5% of the total cost of the projects.

7. Conclusions

The consequences of inadequate investigations are not only severe for the design and
construction phases of a project but are even more serious when continued into full-life costing.
Inadequate site investigations can arise from a lack of client awareness, inadequate finance,
insufficient time and a lack of geotechnical expertise. The proper planning of site investigation,
specifying correct types of field and laboratory data and full time supervision works are
necessary to ensure reliability of the ground parameters for geotechnical engineering design. The
decision of the scope of the geotechnical investigation rests with the geotechnical engineering

13 
 
 consultant, the project team and the client. It is incumbent on the geotechnical engineer to bring
to the attention of the project team and client the risks associated with a minimalist approach to
geotechnical investigations. In order to reduce the likelihood of ground related problems, it is
recommended that the geotechnical engineering consultant be involved throughout the life of the
project, from site investigation, to preliminary design, detail design, construction and through to
after- construction monitoring. No matter how good or detail the process of site investigation
works, a habit of awareness among the Engineers and personnel involve in the site investigation
works shall be an obligation to avoid the old habit.

REFERENCES

Baecher, G. B., and Christian, J. T., Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England, 2003.
Board of Engineers Malaysia, Engineer’s Responsibility for Sub Surface Investigation, Circular
No. 4/2005, Seriel No. 0018, 2005.
Carlsson, M., Management of Geotechnical Risks in Infrastructure Projects, Licentiate Thesis,
Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,
2005.
Goldsworthy, J. S., Jaksa M. B. Kaggwa, W. S., Fenton, G. A., Griffiths, D. V. &Poulos H. G.,
Cost Of Foundation Failures Due To Limited Site Investigations, Proceeding of
International Conference on Structural and Foundation Failures, Singapore, pp. 398-409,
August 2-4, 2004
Institution of Civil Engineers, Inadequate Site Investigation, Thomas Telford, London, 1991.
Littlejohn, G. S., Cole, K. W. and Mellors, T. W., Without Site Investigation Ground is a Hazard,
Proceeding of Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, May 1994, pp. 72–78.
Moh, Z.C., Site Investigation and Geotechnical Failures, Proceeding of International Conference
on Structural and Foundation Failures, Singapore, August 2-4, 2004
National Research Council, Geotechnical Site Investigations for Underground Projects, US
National Committee on Tunneling Technology, Vol. 1, National Academy Press,
Washington, 1984.
Neoh, C.A., Site Investigation for Civil Engineering Projects, http://www.dostoc.com/docs/, 2010
Temple M. W. B. and Stukhart G., Cost Effectiveness of Geotechnical Investigations, Journal of
Management in Engineering, 3(1), 1987, pp. 8-19.
Whyte, I.L., The Financial Benefit from Site Investigation Strategy, Ground Engineering, 10,
1995, pp. 33-36.

14 
 

View publication stats