International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR HIGHWAY PROJECT

Lakavath Ravinder1, Girmay Mengesha Azanaw2
1,2Department of Civil Engineering, Aksum University, P. O. Box 1010, Aksum-Tigray, Ethiopia
------------------------------------------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: This study is aimed at bringing out the salient PUP locations. The details of borehole locations at each
aspects of soil investigation and its study and control aspects PUP and VUP are provided under respective part.
of Chennai ORR Phase II, (NH 205), Project undertaken by
Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd., TNRDC. The The field-tests in the boreholes included Standard
project comprises construction of six lane highway that Penetration Tests [1,3], Disturbed Sampling, Identification
involves several vehicle and people underpasses, major of different soil layers, Ground water table observation,
bridges, grade separators, etc. One of the major components complete logging of the boreholes, etc. Undisturbed
is a 10x25 Major Bridge at CH 28+900. The bridge will have samples were not collected as the clay / sandy clay layers
a 12m carriage way and a 7m service road in both the are stiff to very stiff to hard.
directions. Geotechnical investigation for the vehicular as
well as people underpasses and PUPs and VUPs are Laboratory investigation mainly consisted of classification
investigated and this report is prepared to provide complete tests like determination of limit values for samples from
investigation data and the recommendations for suitable clay and sandy clay and grain size distribution analysis for
foundation system for the under passes. People under passes sand samples [6]. Natural moisture contents of different
at CH 20+050 and Vehicle under passes at CH 21+100. The soil layers were determined from properly preserved
investigation for each vehicular underpass comprises two disturbed soil samples collected using the SPT sampler
exploratory boreholes up to 15.0m depth at the structure [11].
location and four exploratory boreholes of 6.0m deep for the
1.1 Investigation Procedure
approach embankments. The investigation for people
underpass comprises four exploratory Shallow boreholes Exploratory boreholes were advanced from the existing
and four exploratory boreholes respectively. Soil data ground levels using rotary drilling technique
available from the investigation for abutment locations can supplemented by bentonite mud circulation. The mud
be used for having better understanding about the soil circulation was employed through the drill rods and letting
variations. it out through the side jets provided in the cutting tool thus
preventing any disturbance at the borehole bottom. Mud
The report describes the procedure of investigation adopted
circulation was used to stabilize the sides and the bottom
and then presents the complete investigation data. The
of the boreholes, and then to bring the soil cuts to the
general sub-soil conditions at these locations and the
surface. It is important to note that the mud jet is not used
procedure of analysing the data for arriving at the shear
to cut the soils as in the case of wash boring technique. Use
strength and compressibility parameters are described.
of drilling mud will also help in preventing the disturbance
Important conclusions of this Project work have been drawn
to the soil at the borehole bottom during drilling
subsequently.
operations. Rotary drilling procedure with mud circulation
Key Words / Phrases: Soil Investigation, Shear is found most suitable for making exploratory boreholes.
Strength, Compressibility, Boreholes, People Under Diameter of the borehole is 135mm to 150mm.
passes (PUS), Vehicle Under Passes (VUP), Bearing
Borehole was always kept full with the drilling mud so that
Capacity.
a positive head is maintained in the borehole thus
1. INTRODUCTION preventing any disturbance to the soil within the test zone
Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at regular
The investigation programme comprised sinking four to depth intervals in the boreholes and N values were
six exploratory boreholes at different underpass locations. recorded [14]. These tests were carried out manually using
The locations of boreholes at each underpass are given in manila rope attached to the SPT Hammer. The hammer
the key plan Two number of 15m deep boreholes are was lifted with the help of a guide rod and allowed to fall
executed at every VUP locations, while four number of 6m on the anvil from 75cm height. The expected energy level
deep boreholes are sunk along the approach embankment is roughly 60 to 65%. The N value resulting from this
[1,2]. Four number of 6m deep boreholes are sunk at the procedure may be considered equivalent to N the samples

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4080
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

collected through the SPT sampler were packed in two profiles are generated along the approach embankment
layers of polythene bags to retain the natural moisture alignments of each PUP and VUP [16].
content. Some of these samples were subjected to natural
moisture content determination. 2.2 Groundwater Table

Different soil layers collected from different levels were The water level in different boreholes were measured
identified and classified The Atterberg’s limit values were during the investigation and found to vary between 0.50m
determined directly from the natural soil adding necessary to 2.50m with respect to the respective ground levels. Very
amount of distilled water to the soil specimens. The tests consistent levels were not recorded since the boring
were conducted using Casagrande apparatus. Grain size procedure required introduction of water/drilling mud.
analyses on selected samples were conducted on oven Moreover, frequent rains during the investigation also
dried samples since accurate dry weights of test specimen caused large fluctuations in the water level recorded in
prior to washing through 75micron sieve is necessary in different boreholes.
this case. Some of the samples with more silt and clay were
then subjected to hydrometer analysis for obtaining the 2.3 Shear strength
gradation of soil particles smaller than 75 microns.
Standard Penetration Test blow counts N is measured at
All the field and laboratory tests were conducted according different levels in the borehole. Mainly these N values are
to the procedures stipulated in relevant IS Codes. used to assess the shear strength of different soil layers
[13].
1.2 Investigation Data
2.4 Sand Layers: The sand layers found here are of
All the field test results are recorded in the bore logs and sedimentary type. Conventional method of estimating the
presented as annexures in the relevant parts of the report angle of shearing resistance corresponding to the relative
[8,9]. Field N values at different depths and the depths density and the grain size distribution is adopted for these
from which the samples were collected are recorded in the sedimentary deposits.
bore log. The depths and thickness of different soil layers
are also presented in these bore logs. Laboratory test The classification of N values in moderate to high plasticity
results are summarized in the relevant parts. sedimentary clay deposits developed by Terzaghi used for
estimating the unconfined compression strength and
2. SUB-SOIL, SHEAR STRENGTH PROFILE AND undrained shear strength of medium stiff to hard silty clay,
COMPRESSIBILITY PROFILE clayey silt and sandy silty clay layers. The undrained
cohesion is taken as 0.5Nt/m. However, the undrained
2.1 Soil Profile and Topography shear strength is usually more than half the N value (in
terms of t/m) N values for very hard clays.
The locations of PUPs and VUPs are having more or less
uniform ground level. The reduced level of borehole 2.5 Compressibility
locations are reported with respect the project bench mark
system. The boreholes did not show the presence of very weak
layers that are highly compressible. The structure being
The subsoil profile comprises several river / sedimentary bridge piers and abutments, the foundation is
deposits of sandy silty clay, clayey silty sand, dirty fine to recommended as bored cast-in-situ piles. The settlement
medium sand, clayey silty very fine to fine sand, clayey of pile groups under the pier and abutment may be of
sandy silt, silty clay, etc. for the investigated depth. Most of importance and hence the compressibility parameters of
the grain size distribution curves are having typical ‘S’ different soil layers towards depth are important.
shape suggesting that most of the subsoil is derived by
sedimentary deposit. Establishment of cone resistance (q) profile may be
appropriate here for estimating the compressibility of
Since the stratification at different borehole locations different sand layers found here. Schmertmann uses a
varied significantly, common description of a generalized deformation modulus estimated from cone resistance by
sub-soil profile is provided in the respective bore logs in multiplying q by a factor 2.5 to 3.5 depending upon
which the soil identification is suitably modified axisymmetric and plain strain situations for estimating the
incorporating the laboratory test results. Soil profile settlement of shallow footings. Busman De Beer also uses
sections are drawn between adjacent boreholes. Two such the cone resistance to estimate the modulus using a

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4081
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

correlation E = 1.5q.
PBH/04 E:411785.246, 10.152 6.00 M
Since the investigation consists of exploratory boreholes N:1461521.090
with SPT only, N values are used for estimating
approximate cone resistance values. Many authors have
developed correlation between cone resistance and N for The ground level along the approach embankment
sedimentary deposits, the soil with respect to the alignment is more or less same. All the field test results are
percentage of plastic fines, the following correlations may recorded in the bore logs and presented in Annexure 1 to
be used for rough estimation of cone resistance of different Annexure 4 Field N values at different depths and the
soil layers present here. depths from which the samples were collected are
recorded in the bore log. The depths and thickness of
For dirty fine to coarse sand, q = 35 N t/m (Field N). different soil layers are also presented in these bore logs.
Laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1, while
For dirty fine to medium sand, q = 30 to 32 N t/m (Field N)
the grain size distribution curves for different soil layers
For clayey silty fine to medium sand, q = 28 N t/m (Field along with the distribution from hydrometer analysis are
N) presented in Annexure G

For clayey silty very fine sand, q = 25 N t/m (Field N) The ground at different boreholes is at more or less at
same level close to 10.200m RL the entire profile
3. BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL AND FOUNDATION comprises layers of sandy silty clay and silty clay except in
the case of PBH/01 in which clayey silty fine sand is
The discussions on suitable foundation system for present below 4.80m depth. The clay layers are stiff.
different PUPs and VUPs are made in subsequent parts of
this report. The subsoil profiles at the specific locations, The sandy clay and silty clay layers recorded medium
shear strength profiles, suitable foundation system and plasticity to high plasticity with plasticity index PI in the
conclusions for different PUPs and VUPs are presented in range of 15% to 32%. These layers are classified as SC-CI
the following parts. to SC-CH.

PART – A PUP AT CH: 20+050. 4.2 Groundwater Table:

PART – B VUP AT CH: 21+100. The boreholes recorded water at 0.30m to 1.60m depth.
The variations in the water table are because of rains
Conclusions on foundation types and depths are during the investigation. The ground water table is
drawn for different PUP and VUP locations as expected to be at very shallow depth or close to the ground
discussed in the relevant parts. level during rains.
4. PEOPLE UNDERPASS Since ground water table will affect the foundation, ground
water table at ground level is considered while estimating
4.1. Site Topography and Soil Profile:
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
The locations of exploratory boreholes sunk in this stretch
4.3 Shear Strength Parameters
are shown in Figure 1. Other details of the borehole
locations are as below. The shear strength parameters in terms of angle of friction
and undrained cohesion c of different soil layers found in
Table 1. Details of Borehole Locations
these boreholes are estimated as discussed in Section 3.3
Location co- GL RL, Depth, m of the report and summarized in Appendix A.
BH No ordinates m
4.4 Bearing capacity of soil and foundation
PBH/01 E:411638.767; 10.199 6.00 M
N:1461505.032 The proposed construction is a people underpass below a
PBH/02 E:411654.207; 10.292 6.00 M 6-lane highway. The width of under pass is about 7.0m.
N:1461469.300 Usually the underpass structure is designed as a box
transferring the entire load from the road section and the
PBH/03 E:411770.518, 10262 6.00 M earth pressure from the embankment fill on both side of
N:1461561.577
© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4082
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

the box through the bottom slab of sufficient thickness. 5. VECHILE UNDER PASSES

The approach embankment is planned as RE wall 5.1 Site topography and soil profile.
construction with almost vertical sides. The width of RE
Wall construction may be 2.00m to 3.00m for the expected The locations of exploratory bore holes sunk in this stretch
embankment height of 3.50m to 4.00m from the existing are shown fig. 1. Other details of borehole locations are
ground level. given in table below.

The depth of foundation for box culvert is recommended BH No Location co- GL RL, Depth, m
as 1.00m below GL. If the thickness of bottom slab is ordinates m
smaller than 1000mm, the gap between PCC and the
founding level shall be filled with well compacted rubble RWBH/09 E:412620.787, 10.570 6.00m
soling so that the founding level can be treated as 1.00m N:1461932.144
below GL. Similarly, the depth of RE wall foundation is
also recommended as 1.00m so that adequate stability
RWBH/10 E:412637.147, 9.625 6.00m
against sliding is available for the reinforced mass.
N:1461897.059
The bottom slab of underpass box structure is treated as
wide strip raft foundation. Similarly, the foundation for RE RWBH/11 E:412842.283, 10.650 6.00m
wall section is also treated as a strip foundation. The net N:1462049.836
safe bearing capacity of strip foundations of 2.0m to 7.0m
wide are estimated as illustrated. RWBH/12 E:412862.407, 10.885 6.00m
N:1462017.051
Table 2. Net SBC of Strip Footings at 1.00m below GL
(9.00m RL) BH/23 E:412743.769; 10.845 15.00m
N:1461992.963
3.00m 4.00m 5.00m 6.00m 7.00m
2.00m BH/24 E:412765.739; 10.810 15.00m
N:1461959.905
8.80t/m2 9.40 10.20 11.00 11.8 11.9 t/m2
t/m2 t/m2 t/m2 t/m2
Table 2. Details of Borehole Locations

The net SBC of strip is adequate for supporting the PUP The boreholes RWBH/9 & 10 and the VUP structure, there
structure and also the RE wall if the width of foundation is is a pond that to be trained for the construction of
equal to or more than 3.0m. Gross Allowable Bearing approach embankment. Contour of the pond bed shall be
Pressure: The gross allowable bearing pressure may be drawn for deciding the procedure of treating this pond
estimated by adding the effective overburden pressure at area before construction of the approach road. This report
the founding level to the net allowable bearing pressure. is prepared without specific recommendations for the
The submerged density of soil between the existing ground treatment within the pond area, but shall be addressed
level and the founding level may be taken as 0.85 t/m for before finalizing the design of approach embankment.
estimating the gross SBC.
All the field test results are recorded in the bore logs and
The load from additional filling shall be added to the load presented in Annexure 1 and Annexure 2. Field N values at
on foundation while proportioning the footing sizes. The different depths and the depths from which the samples
bulk density of additional filling soil (preferably 1.90 t/m) were collected are recorded in the bore log. The depths
may be used for calculating the additional load. and thickness of different soil layers are also presented in
these bore logs.

The ground at different boreholes is at more or less at

same level except in the case of RWB/10 that is about
1.00m below the other locations. The average ground level
RL of other locations is 10.70m RL. The ground level RL of
RWBH/10 is 9.65m.

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4083
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Yellowish grey and brownish grey silty clay found at 5.3 Bearing capacity of soil and foundation
shallow depths are of medium to high plasticity with liquid
limit 44% to 64%. The plasticity index PI is 21% to 35%. The proposed construction is a vehicular underpass
The differential free swell index is 15% to 31% classifying below a 6 lane highway The width of under pass is
the soil as low to moderate swelling type. about 7.0m. Usually the underpass structure is designed as
a box transferring the entire load from the road section
and the earth pressure from the embankment fill on both
side of the box through the bottom slab of sufficient
thickness.

The approach embankment is planned as RE wall

construction with almost vertical sides. The width of RE
Wall construction may be 2.50m to 4.00m for the expected
embankment height of 4.50m to 5.00m from the existing
ground level.

The depth of foundation for box culvert is recommended

as 1.20m below GL so as to accommodate the sub-base and
base courses of the road construction. Similarly, the depth
of RE wall foundation is also recommended as 1.20m so
that adequate stability against sliding is available for the
reinforced mass.

The bottom slab of underpass box structure is treated as

wide strip raft foundation. The width of the raft is more
than 7.0m as the carriage width is 7.0m. The soil
conditions near BH/23 and BH/24 vary between medium
dense sand and stiff sandy silty clay. The sand layers near
BH/23 have angle of friction equal to 33.5º and the stiff
sandy clay near BH/24 has undrained cohesion equal to
Figure 1. Boreholes at Different Locations 7.0 t/m to 10.5 t/m. The founding stratum in the latter
case is assumed as a two-clay layer system to take
5.2 Groundwater Table: advantage of better shear strength towards depth the net
safe bearing capacity of strip foundations of 5.0m and 7.0m
The boreholes recorded water at 1.60m to 3.00m depth. wide are estimated and illustrated in Appendix E for these
The variations in the water table are because of rains two subsoil conditions. The summary of estimations for
during the investigation. The ground water table is different footings widths is presented below.
expected to be at very shallow depth or close to the
ground level during rains. Table 3. Net SBC of Strip Footings at 1.20m below GL
(9.50m RL) for VUP
Since ground water table will affect the foundation,
ground water table at ground level is considered while BH No: 5.00m 6.00m 7.00m
estimating the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
BH/23 25. 8 29.4t/m2 33.0t/m2
Shear Strength Parameters t/m2
BH/24 17.2t/m2 18.0t/m2 18.9t/m2
The shear strength parameters in terms of angle of
friction and undrained cohesion c of different soil layers
found in these boreholes are estimated and summarized
The width of reinforced earth section may vary between
in Appendix A.
2.0m and 4.0m for accommodating the maximum height of
about 6.00m above the founding level. The SBCs of 2.0m to
4.0m wide strip foundation for the worst soil conditions
near RWBH/10 are estimated as illustrated in Appendix D.

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4084
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

The depth of foundation is taken as 1.20m, same as that of the VUP structure the foundation soil in this case is stiff cay with
undrained cohesion c equal to 5.5 t/m. The detailed estimations for strip footings of 2.0m, 3.0m and 4.0m wide resulted the
following values.

Table 4. Net SBC of Strip Footings at 1.20m below GL (9.50m RL) (RE walls)

2.00M 3.00M 4.00M

BH NO:
RWBH/10 10.60t/m2 10.20t/m2 10.00t/m2

APPENDIX-A
BEARING CAPACITY STRIP FOOTINGS AT 1.0M BELOW GL (PBH/04)
TWO LAYER SYSTEM TWO SANDY CLAY LAYERS
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = CNC+γDNq+0.5γBNγ NC FACTOR REVISED

SOIL DATA
REFERENCE BOREHOLE PBH/04
TYPE OF SOIL SANDY CLAY
BULK DENSITY ABOVE GWL 1.80 gm/cc.
BULK DENSITY BELOW GWL 1.90gm/cc
GROUND WATER TABLE 0.00 m
FACTOR OF SAFTY 3.00.

FOR CR δ 1 NCS = CR 5.14 (FOR STRIP FOOTING).

NCR = CR 6.05 (FOR ROUND BASE).

FOR CR > 1 COMPUTE: NS = STRIP.
NS =
TWO CLAY LAYERS SYSTEMS:
SHEAR STRENGTH OF 1ST LAYERS C 1.
SHEAR STRENGTH OF 2ND LAYERS C2
RATIO OF SHEAR STRENGTH CR
THICKNESS OF 1ST LAYERS BELOW FL d1
WIDTH OF FOOTING B

INTERMEDIATE VALUES FOR RECTANGLE FOOTINGS

ESTIMATION

FOR SINGLELAYER CASE

THICKNESS OF 1ST LAYER 1.00 m NI SI DI II N ULTIMATE
COHESION OF 1ST LAYER C1 4.50 t/m2 NC 5.14 1.00 1.05 1.00 5.40 24.3
COHESION OF 2ND LAYER C2 8.00 t/m2 Nq 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.0
DEPTH OF FOUNDATION 1.00 m Nr 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.0
SHAPE OF FOOTING STRIP TOTAL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 24.3 t/m2
WIDTH OF FOUNDATION 4.00 m SAFE BEARING CAPACITY 8.10 t/m 2

FOR TWO LAYER CASE

RATIO OF SHEAR STRENGTH (CR) = 1.8 TOTAL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 30.6 t/m2.
BEARING CAPACITTY FACTOR (NC)= 6.47 NET SAFE BEARING CAPACITY 10.2 t/m2
© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4085
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS)= 3.0 LIMIT OF NET SBC TO CONTROL SQUEEZ 13.1 t/m2

Selected net safe bearing capacity 10.2t/m2

APPENDIX-B
BEARING CAPACITY STRIP FOOTINGS AT 1.0M BELOW GL (PBH/04)
TWO LAYER SYSTEM TWO SANDY CLAY LAYERS
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = CNC+γDNq+0.5γBNγ NC FACTOR REVISED

SOIL DATA
REFERENCE BOREHOLE PBH/04
TYPE OF SOIL SANDY CLAY
BULK DENSITY ABOVE GWL 1.80 gm/cc.
BULK DENSITY BELOW GWL 1.90gm/cc
GROUND WATER TABLE 0.00 m
FACTOR OF SAFTY 3.00.

FOR CR δ 1 NCS = CR 5.14 (FOR STRIP FOOTING).

NCR = CR 6.05 (FOR ROUND BASE).

FOR CR > 1 COMPUTE: NS = STRIP.

NS =

TWO CLAY LAYERS SYSTEMS:

SHEAR STRENGTH OF 1ST LAYERS C 1.
SHEAR STRENGTH OF 2ND LAYERS C2
RATIO OF SHEAR STRENGTH CR
THICKNESS OF 1ST LAYERS BELOW FL d1
WIDTH OF FOOTING B

INTERMEDIATE VALUES FOR RECTANGLE FOOTINGS

ESTIMATION

FOR SINGLELAYER CASE

THICKNESS OF 1ST LAYER 1.00 m NI SI DI II N ULTIMATE
COHESION OF 1ST LAYER C1 4.50 t/m2 NC 5.14 1.00 1.05 1.00 5.40 24.3
COHESION OF 2ND LAYER C2 8.00 t/m2 Nq 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.0
DEPTH OF FOUNDATION 1.00 m Nr 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.0
SHAPE OF FOOTING STRIP TOTAL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 24.3 t/m2
WIDTH OF FOUNDATION 4.00 m SAFE BEARING CAPACITY 8.10 t/m 2

FOR TWO LAYER CASE

RATIO OF SHEAR STRENGTH (CR) = 1.8 TOTAL ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 30.6 t/m2 .

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4086
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

BEARING CAPACITTY FACTOR (NC)= 6.47 NET SAFE BEARING CAPACITY 10.2 t/m2
FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS)= 3.0 LIMIT OF NET SBC TO CONTROL SQUEEZ 13.1 t/m2

Selected net safe bearing capacity 10.2t/m2

APPENDIX-E-1 ANGLE OF FRICTION 33.50.

BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION FOR VUP FAILURE CASE INTERMEDIATE.

STRUCTURE
DESIGN ANGLE OF FRICTION 30.50.
BEARING CAPACITY: STRIP RAFT AT 1.2M BELOW GL
(BH/23) Ni Si Di Ii N ULTIMATE
NC 31.40 1.00 1.08 1.00 34.0 0.0
STRUCTURE: VECHILE UNDER PASSES Nq 19.49 1.00 1.04 1.00 19.3 20.8
NR 24.14 1.00 1.04 1.00 25.2 56.6
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = CNC+γDNq+0.5γBNγ

SOIL DATA: Total ultimate bearing capacity 77.4 t/m2

REFERENCE BORE HOLE BH/24 Net safe bearing capacity 25.8 t/m2
TYPE OF SOIL SOIL ESTIMATION-2:
CORRECTED SPT (N) 25 DEPTH OF FOUNDATION 1.2 m
BULK DENSITY ABOVE FL 1.80 gm/cc. SHAPE FOOTING STRIP
BULK DENSITY BELOW FL 1.90 gm/cc. WIDTH OF FOUNDATION 6.00m
GROUND WATER TABLE 0.00 m. ANGLE OF FRICTION 33.50.
COHESION (C) 0.00 m FAILURE CASE INTERMEDIATE.
FACTOR OF SAFTY 3.00. DESIGN ANGLE OF FRICTION 30.50.
FAILUR CASE: Ni Si Di Ii N ULTIMATE
 LOCAL SHEAR FAILUR WHEN ANGLE OF FRICTION IS NC 31.40 1.00 1.07 1.00 33.6 0.0
280 OR LESS. Nq 19.49 1.00 1.03 1.00 19.1 20.7
 ANGLE OF FRICTION IS ADJESTED TO 0.67 tan ( ). NR 24.14 1.00 1.03 1.00 25.0 67.5
 GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE WHEN ANGLE OF Total ultimate bearing capacity = 88.1 t/m2
FRICTION IS 360 OR MORE.
 ANGLE OF FRICTION ISEQUAL TO ORIGINAL VALUE Net safe bearing capacity = 29.4 t/m2
INTERMEDIATE CASE WHEN < <360 ANGLE OF
APPENDIX-E-2
FRICTION IS INTERPOLATED
BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION FOR
ESTIMATION-1
REWALLFOUNDATION
DEPTH OF FOUNDATION 1.2 m
BEARING CAPACITY: STRIP RAFT AT 1.2M BELOW GL.
SHAPE FOOTING STRIP
STRUCTURE: REWALL FOUNDATION
WIDTH OF FOUNDATION 5.00m
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY = CNC+γDNq+0.5γBNγ

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4087
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

SOIL DATA: LOADING CASES:

REFERENCE BORE HOLE RWBH/10 Eccentricity (eL) NO.

TYPE OF SOIL CLAY Eccentricity (eB) NO.

CORRECTED SPT (N) 25 Slope of ground NO.

BULK DENSITY ABOVE FL 1.80 gm/cc. Ni Si Di Ii N ULTIMATE

NC 5.14 1.00 1.08 1.00 5.6 30.5
BULK DENSITY BELOW FL 1.90 gm/cc. Nq 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0
NR 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0
GROUND WATER TABLE 0.00 m.
Total ultimate bearing capacity = 30.5 t/m2
COHESION (C) 0.00 m
Net safe bearing capacity = 10.2 t/m2
FACTOR OF SAFTY 3.00.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FAILUR CASE:
I. The sub-soil conditions are not uniform along
 GENERAL FAILURE CASE IS CONSIDERED IN ALL CASES alignment of VUP. There are also variations in the
ASSUMING NO PUNCHING SHEAR BECAUSE OF WIDE subsoil conditions along the RE wall construction
BASE alignment on either side of the approach
embankments. There is a pond before the location
ESTIMATION-1 of VUP that is to be trained properly for the
construction of approach embankment.
Depth of foundation 1.2 m II. All the boreholes except BH/23 recorded stiff
sandy clay at shallow depths. Borehole BH/23
Shape of footing STRIP recorded a thick layer of medium dense fine to
coarse sand from the surface. Borehole RWBH/10
Width of foundation 5.00m represents the worst condition having medium
stiff to stiff clay with undrained cohesion c equal
Cohesion (C) 5.5 t/m2.
to 5.50 t/m up to 6.0m depth.
LOADING CASES: III. The net SBC of strip footings placed at 1.20m
below GL is estimated since the RE wall height is
Eccentricity (eL) NO. marginally larger than that of PUPs. The whole
width of the reinforced section of RE wall is
Eccentricity (eB) NO. treated as the foundation width. The height of wall
is expected to be about 6.00m from the founding
Slope of ground NO. level and accordingly the width of reinforced
section may be 3.0m to 4.0m. The net SBCs of strip
Ni Si Di Ii N ULTIMATE footings of width 2.0m to 4.0m are hence
NC 5.14 1.00 1.12 1.00 5.8 31.7 estimated and reported.
Nq 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.0 0.0 IV. The underpass structure may be designed as an
NR 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 RCC box structure, by which the bottom slab will
Total ultimate bearing capacity = 31.7 t/m2 act like a full raft foundation (strip raft). The net
SBC of wide strip raft foundations placed at 1.20m
Net safe bearing capacity = 10.6 t/m2 below GL are estimated and reported.
V. Detailed settlement estimations are made to
ESTIMATION-2: arrive at the allowable bearing pressure for a
limiting settlement of 75mm. The estimated net
Depth of foundation 1.2 m
allowable bearing pressure is 12.0 t/m2
Shape of footing STRIP

Width of foundation 3.00m

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4088
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Foundation Recommendations *The ground is at about 10.70m RL and the recommended

founding level is +9.50m RL. If the thickness of bottom slab
 The foundation recommendation for the proposed RE along with the PCC and the pavement course is smaller
walls is as follows: than 1200mm, the remaining thickness shall be
compensated with well compacted rubble soling.

Type of foundation Strip footing (RE wall **The soil at the proposed founding level is sandy clay or
width). fine to coarse sand. The excavation surface shall be
Recommended depth of 1.20m below ground level* compacted well using heavy compaction accessories so
foundation that the surface is leveled and free from loose pockets.
Type of soil at foundation Sandy clay, except near
depth BH/23** ***The gross allowable bearing pressure may be estimated
Minimum width for 2.00m by adding the effective overburden pressure at the
foundation founding level to the net allowable bearing pressure. The
Recommended net sbc*** 10t/m2 (net allowable submerged density of soil between the existing ground
bearing pressure) level and the founding level may be taken as 0.85 t/m for
Expected settlement < 60mm (IS 1904-1986 table estimating the gross SBC. Any load from additional filling
1). shall be added to the load on foundation while
proportioning the footing sizes. The bulk density of
*The ground is at about 10.70m RL and the recommended additional filling soil (preferably 1.9 t/m) may be used for
founding level is +9.50m RL calculating the additional load.

** The soil at the proposed founding level is sandy clay in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

most of the cases. The excavation surface shall be
The authors express their profound thanks to Dr. Pidy Hari
compacted well using heavy compaction accessories so
Prasad Rao, Assistant Professor, Aksum University for his
that the surface is leveled and free from loose pockets.
critical reading and suggestions.
*** The gross allowable bearing pressure may be
REFERENCES
estimated by adding the effective overburden pressure at
the founding level to the net allowable bearing pressure. [1]. Arora, K. R (2004.). Soil mechanics and Foundation
The submerged density of soil between the existing ground Engineering. (Sixth edition)
level and the founding level may be taken as 0.85 t/m for
estimating the gross SBC. Any load from additional filling [2]. Das, Braja, (2002). Principles of Geotechnical
shall be added to the load on foundation while Engineering, 5th ed., Brooks/Cole
proportioning the footing sizes. The bulk density of
additional filling soil (preferably 1.9 t/m) may be used for [3]. Budhu M. (2000), Soil Mechanics and Foundations,
calculating the additional load. Wiley and Sons

 The foundation recommendation for the proposed vehicle [4]. Craig, R.F. (2004), Craig's Soil Mechanics, 7th edition,
under passage is as follows: Taylor & Francis

Type of foundation RCC footing (RE wall width). [5]. Karl Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, Gholamreza Mersi.
(1996), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
Recommended depth of 1.20m below ground level*
foundation [6]. M. Leikun and A. Teffera, (2006). Soil Mechanics.
Type of soil at foundation Sandy clay, except near
depth BH/23** [7]. M.G. WINTER, G.D. MATHESON & P. McMILLAN. “Soil
Minimum width for 4.00m and Rock Investigation”, by Transport Research
foundation Laboratory Scotland.
Recommended net sbc*** 12t/m2 (net allowable
bearing pressure) [8]. Paul W. Mayne, Barry R. Christopher, & Jason Dejong,
Expected settlement < 75mm (IS 1904-1986 table (2001), “Manual on subsurface investigation”, Federal
1). Highway Administration”, Washington, DC.

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4089
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 05 | May 2020 [Link] p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[9].[Link]
[Link]

[10].[Link]
372

[11]. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1993), An Introduction to

the Mechanics of Soils and Foundations.

[12].[Link]
pe29/Production/[Link]

[13]. S. Nam, M. Gutierrez, P. Diplas, and J. Petrie, (2011),

“Determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils
using the multistage direct shear test,” Engineering
Geology, vol. 122, no. 3-4, pp. 272– 280.

[14]. V. N. S. Murthy, (2009), Geotechnical Engineering:

Principles and Practices of Foundation Engineering, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2nd edition.

[15]. R. M. Madu, (1977) “An investigation into the

geotechnical and engineering properties of some laterites
of Eastern Nigeria,” Engineering Geology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.
101–125.

[16]. Cox, J.B. (1981). The Settlement of a 55 KM Long

Highway on Soft Bangkok Clay, Proceeding 10th
International Conference Soil Mechanical Foundation
Engineering., Vol. 1, pp. 101-104.

[17]. Tomlinson, M.J. (1975), Foundation Analysis and

Design, Pitman, London.

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 4090