| | What Does a Soil Report | Really Tell Us? Tnecompily ofasoisvaartand, + detaled site plan showing groundwates lvl athe se ena ene : cemendatons ar decty Sroperty boundary witha sue "During planing of the boring lo Se caribity ofthe 00 coniions Slee cations, depth, and type, iis ex: found and ne comlent ite 4g « topographic survey, if avail- tremely important that the ge0- Ses gaya abe technical engineer be advised ofall eetuiess at esoinrepertts wrosly —« vicinity map, directions (o the available project detlls including eendent one experice ater” Yee fn indicadon of any unusual coo rete + development concept with pro- Suction sch 85: . owed building foeations edaap excavations, cuts, ead : + Sei atch + Taal indication of building” basement eam iestiea tories reer ‘loads and finished floor leva: + retaining walt { ‘he Instead of receiving the above in- * lateral or surcharge loads 3h te ealSitnes aa soe formation from the design team, + vibrating machine foundations periodically. the geotechnical engineer often re- * adjacent structures or utilities eles a skehy or haniedrawa suc Depending on the comolenty of development plan without a vicinity the project and the anticipated var- 5 map already marked up co show —_iabilicy of the soils on the site, field jhe quality and usefulness of three borings and their depths. investigations could be very limited i fa soils report is largely de- Often no explanation of what,the with only a few shallow borings to pendent on the experience construction is or what other issues. much more extensive ones with and qualifications of its might need to be addressed is in- dozens of deep structural borings or writer and the level of understand- cluded. Sometimes these “scopes"” cone soundings. Normally, the level ing reached between the client and are very conservative and some- of complexity of che structure and the geotechnical engineer prior to times they aren’t, depending on the soil conditions are reflected the investigation. geotechnical expertise of the archi- throughout the geotechnical stdy, ‘The geotechnical engineer oper- tect or engineer who prepares the from the fieldwork, to the labora~ ates under different constraints im- * site plan. tory testing, and finally into the re- posed by nature than the structural To establish the level of investi- port with its recommendations. engineer. Some of the dicotomies gation needed for a particular proj- typical soils report might be two to between the two practices are pre- ect, the geotechnical engineer re- twenty pages long and have a for- semted in Table 1. views the information supplied by mat similar to Fig. 1. Because there are no written the client as well as available pub- _In a specific locality, issues such ‘guidelines governing the contents of lished data such as: as the following might be given 2 soils report, it is important that + USGS quadrangle maps significant amount of attention in the scope of work be carefully ne- + USDA soil survey maps the evaluation section of the report: gotiated, including items that need + black and white or color aerial + seismic activity + to be addressed in the final report. photographs ‘sinkhole pronencss, * To get the most our of a geotechni. previous investigation, if avail- + frost depth heave cal study, a certain amount of base able + = expansive/compressible soils i level information is needed by the After this initial data collection ice there are no design stan- : soils consultant. Most of the fol- and review, a program of field- dards for geotechnical inves! : lowing items would be helpful to work, normally consisting of 20 the geotschnical engineer while pre- borings, 18 planned to de paring for an investigation: Ceualng mbeuface conditions and siadtun'al camel elocaos Be i Suly 1308 23Soil Report continued Table 1—Geotechnical versus structural engineering practice 2. Proposed development 3. Purpose and scope of the study 4. Background/review of existing ata "5. Fed explorations 6. Laboratory teins 7. Site geology Soi conditions Si Surtace 9.1 Observed shallow groundwater able valuations and recommendations 3510.1 Specialy subjecs/assessents [[ Gectetinie engineer vn | 1s Strvcwral engines = "Noohomogeneous maieral | Homogeneous materials Sauce Soe “by code tons, the quality and level of study an vary significantly for the same type of project. Reaching a com- fortable level of geotechnical study is the responsibility of the entire de- sign team. Negotiation with the Beotechnical engineer will normally emphasize limitations of the inves lugation prior to its performance. In the following sections, a few of the common subjects where mis- understandings Occur between the design team and the geotechnical engineer will be discussed. Groundwater table fluctuation The position of the shallow groundwater table can significantly affect the site grading plan, meth- ‘ods of foundation construction, feasibility of using a basement level, retention pond elevations/storage, the need for pavement underdrain- age, waterproofing requirements, and many other considerations. ‘Therefore, definition of existing and anticipated groundwater conditions are of great importance. Yet, deter- ‘mination of probable groundwater Facior of saley specified > SFewnitt] "Fig. 1—Typical repon format table fluctuations is one of the prudent where limited data is avail- hhardest tasks a geotechnical engi- able, it can lead co a more conser- heer faces in preparing a soils re-_vative (costly) site grading plan that port. potentially does not take into ac- count such improvements as nearby canals, lakes with controlled out- falls, or the fact that recharge of groundwater may be significantly based on a preliminary site devel- Sonat eee Heaton of Fed eee or within the budget. These limita- _Pefvious areas. tions make the prediction of sea- When discussing anticipated sea- sonal groundwater table fluctua- Sonal groundwater fluctuations with tions very difficult for the geo- 4 geotechnical engineer, extra care technical engineer. For that reason, ad time spent in determining these many engineers avoid the problem Water levels can minimize problems and that fluctuations will occur. draining of roadways and building forewarn the site civil engineer of | Feasible foundation Uf pressed by the client or site civil Once the limit and configuration engineer, the geotechnical engineer of the proposed construction have will often fall back on the USDA been established, fieldwork in the soil survey and assume a fairly con- form of soul borings are performed servative seasonal high groundwa- 0 define the subsurface condicions ter level. While this is sometimes beneath each structure. The’ more SK i ‘ConereFig. 2—Net versus gross bearing pressures. detailed the project and structural load information supplied to the geotechnical engineer prior to his investigation, the better the recom- mendations for possible founda- tions can be. ‘An example of information that should be provided initially is the elevation or depth of fill antici pated beneath the structure, mini- mum and maximum column loads, special framing that is sensitive to Aifferential settlement, below-grade Portions of the structure, as well as ‘any other unusual items. If this information is not known at the time of the subsurface inves- tigation, the geotechnical engineer should be given the opportunity to review the final construction docu- ments and plans prior to bidding ‘and release (0 the contractors. This type of constructibility review may uncover misunderstandings or mis- interpretations and prompt sugges- tions for an alternative foundation design/system. In more detailed foundation re- ports, it is becoming increasingly -couiniou (0 evaluate several of the Sie cwe sna Scone scorn ° most technically feasible founda- tion concepts and relate the associ- ated level of risk and cost of each alternative. Following this type of discussion, it is customary for the geotechnical ‘engineer to present the various al- ternatives to the client and the de- sign team and answer aay questions the team might have prior to selec- tion of the preferred alternative by the client. This approach not only ‘exposes the client and design team to the rationale behind each alter- native, but shares the responsibility and risk with the parties ultimately realizing the expense or benefit. Allowable bearing capacity versus settlement One of the classic recommenda- tions for shallow foundations pre- sented in a sols report concerns the allowable soil contact pressure. This value is used throughout the struc- ural design process to size footings for varying loads, While this method seems somewhat straizht- ‘orward, the difference becween the Saeco UA Fig. Ultimate veisus allowable bearing, net and gross bearing pressure is sometimes confusing. Net bearing pressure is the in- crease that can be safely applied at the foundation level and does not include the weight of the overbur- den soil. Gross bearing pressure in- cludes the weight of the overburden soil, and in practice it is necessary to consider the difference in unit ‘weight between soil and concrete for that volume of the footing and columa below existing grade. This difference must then be added to the structural loads (See Fig. 2). For simplification, most geo- technical engineers provide recom- mendations’ for net bearing pces- sures. Normally these differences have litle if any affect on the foun- ‘dation design. However, when large concrete mat foundations or foot- ings that are several feet thick are buried deeply, or basement levels are contemplated, the difference between concrete and soil unit weight becomes more significant. Bearing pressures are determined by evaluating (wo criteria, seitle- ment and ultimate bearing caracity. ln most cases where the footing has July 1988Soil Report continued some confinement or burial, settle- ment controls the design bearing pressure. For example, 2 2-ft (0.6- m) wide, 12-in. (305-mmn) thick strip footing with its base at 2 ft (0.6 m) below grade, founded on medium dense sand might have an ultimate bearing capacity of 8,500 psf (407 kPa), but could only sustain 2,500 psf (120 kPa) of load without set- Uing more than 1 in. (25 mm). In this case, the allowable bearing pressure would be controlled by set- Hement, not by bearing capacity failure (See Fig. 3). (On sites where the near surface soils are very loose or highly com- pressible, the danger of excessive settlement is the major problem ad- dressed by the geotechnical engi- neer. In areas with granular soils, the anticipated settlement is nor- mally reduced to an acceptable level by densifying the soils through compaction. In areas with cohesive soils (clays), bearing capacities are Gerived from the natural uncon- fined compressive strength of the soil and compaction is used only to provide uniformity to the footing ‘wench bottom. To reduce settlement of founda- tions placed on soft cohesive soils, preloading or surcharging of the building area is sometimes per- formed. Both of these techniques ‘can presettle the soft soils prior to construction. Compaction methods and results * To provide uniform bearing and to reduce settlements, foundation soils and fill material are normally compacted prior to construction Depending on soil types and equip- ment used, a wide variety of com- action results can be achieved. The ‘most common mistakes made in compaction operations are working, with soils that are too far above or below optimum moisture content and trying to compact too thick a lift of soil at one time. ‘There are no substitutes for well educated, experienced quality con- rol personnel monitoring compac- tion operations. Careful attention to achieving near-optimum moisture contents and compacting relatively thin level lifts of fill material will result in a quality construction op- eration with minimal earth-work re- lated delays. Workability of fill material! borrow suitability Suitability of on-site borrow or reworked material for use as struc- tural or site grading fill is an issue that relies heavily on local experi- ence and practice. A sandy clay ma- terial excavated in Georgia or Wis- consin may be readily usable for structural or site grading fill be- ‘cause the local contractors are used to dealing with it and are equipped with the proper machinery needed to place and compact the material. ‘The same material may be totally unacceptable for use as structural fil in Florida because the contrac- tors are not prepared or experi- enced in its use. Within a local region, this crite- ria breaks down further into whether the material should be used. At first glance, these ques- tions (should it be used? and can it “be used?) appear to be almost the same. In practice, a wet material that is nonplastic but needs drying before placement might be consid- fered usable at one site given a cer- tain time schedule and contractor, while the same material on an adj cent site might not be usable be- cause o! oF contractor con Client expectations versus actual performance ‘The geotechnical engineer must use his judgment and experience to prepare a wnitten report for a client ‘who may not want to hear the pru- dent answer. In many cases, the cheapest answer contains the most risk. This dilemma is compounded when the client selects the low bid- der to perform the construction, and the chent's representative has not been involved throughout the preconstruction discussions and Qualifications of the recommenda- tons. ‘Because the written text of a soils report often does not transfer all of the subjective decisions and associ- ated expectations, disillusionment With the geotechnical engineer and team consultants sometimes occurs. ‘What was common knowledge and 2 given during the design process, but not documented in writing, is many times forgotten once prob- lems start occurring during con- struction. For this reason, itis important to keep the same geotechnical consul- tant involved throughout design and construction. It is also important that the client or his representative be kept involved from the begin- ning of the design phase through to the construction phase. In this way, realistic expectations for the perfor: mance of the project can be estab- lished and reviewed periodically. Rober L, Goon Pe ing ts a Principal F tn recta tne geotechnical Sonor aarmat 8 aver Park, Pi fe vgcetved Ns BSc anc us in a & SruciunuGeotetisedl Enpwerng itm twa State Unie. ‘Concrete International