17-11-2014

Advances in Field Testing Methods and

Code of Practice

Prof. V.S.Raju

(Formerly: Director, IIT Delhi &

Professor and Dean, IIT Madras)
Email: rajuvs_b@yahoo.com
Prof. V.S. Raju 1

My background as a Foundation Consultant

over 45 years
 Started in 1965, as a doctoral student in University of Karlsruhe Germany.

 The Consultancy services involved a variety of projects all over the

country and abroad.

 Fertilizer plants, Power Stations, Harbour structures involving all major

ports in the country, Airports, Residential Towers and Industrial
Structures.

 Consultant to Larsen & Toubro, ECC for over 35 years.

 With APGENCO, for all their Power Stations for 30 years

 Expert Consultant to Hyderabad Metro on Foundations.

 Over the last 3 years, to 30 Gated Communities in the NCR Region, Delhi.

Prof. V.S. Raju 2

1
 17-11-2014

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

Extract from Eurocode 7,

BS EN 1997-1:2004

The provisions of this standard are based on

the assumptions given below:

1.Data required for design are collected, recorded and

interpreted by appropriately qualified personnel;

2.Structures are designed by appropriately qualified and

experienced personnel;
Prof. V.S. Raju 3

Continued….

3. Adequate continuity and communication exist between the

personnel involved in data collection, design and
construction;

4. Adequate supervision and quality control are provided in

factories, in plants, and on site;

5. Execution is carried out according to the relevant standards

and specifications by personnel having the appropriate skill
and experience;

6. construction materials and products are used as

specified in this standard or in the relevant material
or product specifications;

Prof. V.S. Raju 4

2
 17-11-2014

Continued….

7. The structure will be adequately maintained to ensure

its safety and serviceability for the designed service
life;

8. The structure will be used for the purpose defined for

the design.

9. These assumptions need to be considered both by the

designer and the client. To prevent uncertainty,
compliance with them should be documented, E.g. in
the geotechnical design report.

Prof. V.S. Raju 5

Eurocode 7 is the latest and best

code of practise.

It helps in evolving Optimum Designs –

Safety and Economy

Ensuring this standard will benefit India

significantly

Prof. V.S. Raju 6

3
 17-11-2014

Planning Subsoil Investigation

• Number of Boreholes
• One for each important structure
• Information for every 50m of loaded area
• Borehole for medium size structure only if variations
• Few boreholes for future expansion
• Depth of Boreholes
• 1.5 to 2 times times the width of foundation
• Few up to hard strata( N > 100 ) or rock
• 5 to 10m beyond foundation level on rock

Selection of Agency
• Not by lowest quotation
• Short listing of Agencies based on
equipments’ condition and laboratory
facilities
• Qualified/Trained manpower
• Constant supervision at site

4
 17-11-2014

Methods of Investigation
• Open Pits
• Bore Holes
• Geophysical Investigation

5
17-11-2014

6
 17-11-2014

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

QUALITY OF INVESTIGATION

 High quality is the very basis for excellence in practice.

 In spite of detailed standard specifications (IS-codes), the range of

practices vary very widely in the country.

 For field investigations, most primitive to fairly sophisticated

equipments are in use.

 Unfortunately, in majority of cases the practice is nearer to the

primitive.

 Similarly laboratory testing practices vary widely, with little or no

standardization.

Prof. V.S. Raju 13

QUALITY OF INVESTIGATION

India World Standard

o Poor quality of the o Highly sophisticated and
equipment. mechanised equipment.

o Wash Boring mostly, o Continuous core sampling

(in soils as well).
o SPT Equipment - o SPT equipment with
manual operation automatic hammer release.
o Conventional static cone o Static cone test with
penetration equipment. electric cone and
piezocone

Prof. V.S. Raju 14

7
 17-11-2014

Pic.1.1. Non Standard Pic. 1.2 International Standard

Equipment
No safety measures
Prof. V.S. Raju 15

Pic. 1.3 SPT Hammer Pic. 1.4. SPT with Auto Trip Hammer
Dropped Manually (2013) + Standard Rig

Prof. V.S. Raju 16

8
 17-11-2014

Pic.1.6 Static Cone Penetration - Pic. 1.7 Crawler Mounted SCPT

Reaction with Sand bags Equipment

Prof. V.S. Raju 17

CPT Truck

9
17-11-2014

10
 17-11-2014

Pic. 1.7 Conventional Static

Pic. 1.8 Electric Cone plus pore
Cone Penetrometer-
pressure sensor
Mechanical Cone
Prof. V.S. Raju 21

11
17-11-2014

12
 17-11-2014

Marine cone penetration system

Dimensions of Platform: 18mx8m

Control room Counter weight = 10 ton
Diameter of Counter weight = 3.4 m

Counter Weight - Tower

13
17-11-2014

14
17-11-2014

15
17-11-2014

16
17-11-2014

17
17-11-2014

18
17-11-2014

19
17-11-2014

20
 17-11-2014

MAIN PROBLEM

Insufficient Appreciation with regard to the Quality and

Importance of Soil Investigation at all Levels.

Responsibility

 Geotechnical community of the country; it is a

major failure on our part.

 Owners, Structural Consultants – Lack of

appreciation.

 Whole hearted commitment towards excellence

needed.
Prof. V.S. Raju 42

21
 17-11-2014

Benefits of Good Quality Investigations

Factor of Safety adopted in Pile Foundations

Based on Initial Pile Load Tests
Minimum Factor of Safety
IS:2911 Eurocode 7
Pile Capacity (Simplified)
2 1.5

Implication: For the same situation as per IS, We

provide 33 % more number of piles.
Prof. V.S. Raju 43

Case Study
Terminal T3 at Delhi International Airport

• Terminal T1 was on Pile Foundation

• T3 was originally planned with Pile Foundation.
However later changed to a raft through
reassessment.
• Additionally 2 footing load tests (1.5 m x 1.5 m)
were conducted at Founding Level.

Prof. V.S. Raju 44

22
 17-11-2014

Results of Footing Load Tests for Delhi International Airport

1st Footing load test:
Load Vs Settlement Curve for DIAL
Soil type = Sandy silt Load Intensity (t/m2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SPT N = 50 0

Size of footing = 1.5 m x 1.5 m

Settlement (mm)
5

For q = 40 t/m2 = 4 Kg/cm2, 10

Settlement (S) = 4 mm 15

𝟏− 𝟎.𝟑𝟐
𝑬𝒔 = 𝟒 ∗ 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝟎.𝟒
* 0.82 20

25
= 1119 Kg/cm2
As per Shultze and Muhs for SPT N = 50
Es = 800 Kg/cm2
Ratio = 1119/800 = 1.4
Prof. V.S. Raju 45

In one of the sites in 2013

Pic. 1.5 Bent SPT Sampler

Project: 10 Towers, 15 storeys each

Prof. V.S. Raju 46

23
 17-11-2014

Source of Disturbance
• During drilling operations
• Improper cleaning of the borehole bottom
• During driving of the sampler tube
• Stress release due to removal of overburden
• During ejecting the sample from sampling tube
• During storage of sample
• During preparation of sample for testing

2nd Footing load test:

Type of soil = Silt with fine sand
SPT N = 22
Load Vs Settlement Curve for DIAL
Size of footing = 1.5 m x 1.5 m Load Intensity (t/m2)

q = 38 t/m2 = 3.8 Kg/cm2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0
Settlement (S) = 5.4 mm
Settlement (mm)

5
𝟏− 𝟎.𝟑𝟐
𝑬𝒔 = 𝟑. 𝟖 ∗ 𝟏𝟓𝟎 * 0.82
𝟎.𝟓𝟒 10

= 787 Kg/cm2
15

As per Shultze and Muhs for

20
SPT N = 22
25
Es = 530 Kg/cm2
Ratio = 787/530 = 1.48
Prof. V.S. Raju 48

24
 17-11-2014

Comparison of Soil Modulus (Es) values in kg/cm2

from SPT correlations and from load test results:
S. No SPT N Es in kg/cm2

As per As per As per From

Bowles IS Code Schultze Footing
book and Load test
Muhs at DIAL
1 50 208 820*** 800 1119

2 22 118 710+++ 530 787

Es values calculated from Bowles book are for corrected N values.

***However, for the same N value at a depth of 8 m, the Es value would
be only 400 kg/cm2 as per IS.

+++ However, for the same N value at a depth of 8 m, the Es value

would be only 320 kg/cm2 as per IS.

Prof. V.S. Raju 49

Delhi Airport – T3
• Based on these results, Raft Foundation was
found fully satisfactory and adopted.

• 6 months of Time Saving – A huge advantage,

on total investment of 12,000 crores.

• Direct cost savings as well.

Prof. V.S. Raju 50

25
 17-11-2014

PILED RAFT
 As compared to a full pile solution, pile
assisted raft has a major advantage of
substantial reduction in number of piles, which
in turn results in savings of cost and time.

 It also to some extent removes uncertainties

associated with bored piles and driven cast
in situ piles.

 Extensively used world wide.

Prof. V.S. Raju 51

Design Philosophy of Piled Rafts

Conventional Pile Design Method
 Disregards the capacity of Pile caps/Rafts
 Increased number of piles or length of piles
 Very small allowable settlement
 Pile factor of safety (FS ≈ 2)
Piled Raft Design Method
 Raft is the main bearing element
 Design for full utilization of pile capacity (FS ≥1)
 Piles are Settlement reducers
 Consideration of the optimal location of piles to decrease the
differential settlement and bending moment of raft.
Prof. V.S. Raju 52

26
 17-11-2014

Concept of Piled Raft :

• A very good reference

“The Piled Raft Foundation for The Burj Dubai – Design and
Performance “, IGS-Ferroco Terzaghi Oration – 2008, by Prof.Harry
Poulos.

Prof. V.S. Raju 53

Load (t)

Raft
Piles

Settlement (mm)

Fig. 1 Load settlement curves for piles and Raft on cohesion-less soils.
Rafts have large settlements before failure
(sands & non plastic silts)
Prof. V.S. Raju 54

27
 17-11-2014

Schematic Model of Burj Kalifa on Piled Raft

 World’s tallest building.
 160 storey high rise tower.

Prof. V.S. Raju 55

Permissible settlements:

As per IS – 1904, 1986 (Reaffirmed1995):

For spread foundation resting on Sand and Hard

clay

Maximum settlement (mm)

Isolated Raft
Type of structure
foundation foundation
For reinforced concrete structures 50 75

Prof. V.S. Raju 56

28
 17-11-2014

Settlement Observations from Literature

Details of piled raft foundation of the buildings in Germany (Katzenbach,et.al.,
2000)
Messe DG-Bank
Torhaus Messeturm (Westend American
Structure
Strasse 1) Express

Max Height above

130 256.5 208 74.7
ground surface (m)
Basement floors 0 2 3 4
Foundation area (m2) 2 x 430 3457 2940 3570
Foundation level
-3 -14 -12.0/-14.0 -14
below GL (m)
Raft thickness (m) 2.5 3.0-6.0 3.0-4.5 2
Number of piles 2 x 42 64 40 35
Observed pile load
(MN) 1.7-6.9 5.8-20.1 9.2-14.9 2.7-5.1
Observed Max.
150 144 110 55
settlements (mm)
Contd…
Prof. V.S. Raju 57

Congress
Forum(Kasto Main
Structure Taunusto centre Eurotheum
r and pollux) Tower
r Japan- Messe
Centre Frankfurt

Max Height above

115.3 94/130 51.6 198 110
ground surface (m)
Basement floors 4 3 2 5 3
Foundation area (m2) 1920 14000 10200 3800 1830
Foundation level below
-15.8 -13.5 -8 -21 -13
GL (m)
Raft thickness (m) 1.0-3.5 1.0-3.0 0.8-2.7 3.0-3.8 1.0-2.5
Number of piles 25 26/22 141 112 25

Observed pile load (MN) 7.4-11.7/5.0-

7.9-13.8 12.6 4.2-6.5 1.4-8.0 1.8-6.1
Observed Max.
60 80 40-60 25 32
settlements (mm)

Prof. V.S. Raju 58

29
 17-11-2014

Settlement of the piled raft foundation of the

Burj Kalifa:
 160 storey high rise tower
 Founded on 3.7 m thick raft supported on bored piles (1.5
m diameter, 50 m long).
 Estimated total settlement is 45 mm to 75 mm.
 Settlements under dead load (February 2008) 43 mm.
 Extrapolated to full load is 55 mm to 60 mm
 Predicted final settlement is 70 to 75 mm

Prof. V.S. Raju 59

Adoption of Piled Rafts in

National Capital Region (NCR)
Starting in 2009, we have consulted to 32 projects in the NCR.

Except in 2 cases, foundation is either a raft or a pile assisted raft

including a 50 storey tower.

In about 6 cases we got a fresh soil investigation done.

A proper analysis has lead to a very economical foundation

designs.

The details are given in the following slides

Prof. V.S. Raju 60

30
 17-11-2014

PROJECTS NEAR DELHI:

Sector Area Number of storeys Ground Liquefaction Foundation
Water Potential Recommendations
Table (m)

103 Gurgaon 1B + S + 14 2 Yes Raft Foundations

Cosmocity 1 1B+S+30
103 Gurgaon 1B + S + 14 2.7 to 4.5 Yes Raft Foundations
Cosmocity 2
103 Gurgaon 1B + S + 22 4.5 Yes Pile Assisted Raft
Cosmocity 3 Foundations
68 Gurgaon 1B + G+ 13 to 25 21 No Raft Foundations
2B + G+ 25 to 33
86 Gurgaon 1B + G+ 13 to 17 28 No Raft Foundations
16 B Gurgaon 3B + G+ 17 to 39 11 No Pile Assisted Raft,
Raft Foundations
67 Gurgaon 2B + G+ 18 to 33 20 No Raft Foundations

62 Gurgaon 3B + G+ 29 to 37 8 No Pile Assisted Raft

Foundations

Prof. V.S. Raju Contd… 61

Sector Area Number of Ground Liquefaction Foundation

storeys Water Potential Recommendatio
Table (m) ns

16 Noida G + 22 to 34 18 No Pile Assisted

Raft, Raft
Foundations
Gwalpahari Gurgaon 3B + G+ 17 21 No Raft
Foundations

48 Gurgaon 2B + G+ 34 21 No Pile Assisted

Raft
Foundations
58 Gurgaon 2B + G+ 23 7 No Raft
to 30 Foundations

58 Gurgaon 1B+G+25 to 8 to 13 No Raft

Mixed Use 29 Foundations,
Pile Foundation

Gwalpahari Gurgaon 2B + G+ 28 Not met No Raft

Foundations
102 Gurgaon 1B + G+ 26 1.5 Yes Pile Foundations
Prof. V.S. Raju 62

31
 17-11-2014

Sector Area Number of Ground Liquefaction Foundation

storeys Water Potential Recommendati
Table (m) ons
128 Noida 2B + G+ 35 8 No Pile Assisted
to 38 Raft
Foundations
60 Gurgaon 2B+G+8 25 No Raft
Foundations

66 Gurgaon 2B+G+23 25 No Raft

Foundations

67 Gurgaon 2B+G+26 26 No Raft

Foundations

River Ghaziabad 3B+G+15 12.5 No Raft

Heights Foundations
Golf Links Ghaziabad 2B+G+29 20 No Raft
Foundations

Prof. V.S. Raju 63

Sector Area Number of Ground Liquefaction Foundation

storeys Water Potential Recommendat
Table (m) ions

88 A Gurgaon 2B+G+27 9.2 No Raft

Center Foundations
Court
Solitairian Greater 1B+G+29 4.5 No Pile Assisted
City Noida Rafts &
Raft
Foundations
Kristal NOIDA 1B+G+20 10 No Pile Assisted
Court, Wish t0 26 Raft
Town Foundation
5A Haryana G+4 1.5 Yes Raft
Palwal Foundation
4A Haryana S+14 1.7 to 2.7 Yes Raft
Bahadurgar Foundation on
h Vibro Stone
Columns
Prof. V.S. Raju 64

32
 17-11-2014

Sector Area Number of Ground Liquefaction Foundation

storeys Water Potential Recommendati
Table (m) ons
77 Gurgaon 1B+G+15 to 37 No Raft
Winter Hills 17 Foundation
78 Gurgaon S+13 to 18 18 No Raft Foundation
Monsoon
Breeze
Iconic Tower Kanpur 2B+G+28 20 No Pile Assisted Raft
Foundation
DDA EWS Kalkaji S+14 Not Met No Strip Rafts

Prof. V.S. Raju 65

Importance of Settlement
Observations

The settlement information is most

valuable, as these measurements will
significantly contribute to improvements in
design procedures, ensuring economy
along with safety

Prof. V.S. Raju 66

33
 17-11-2014

Settlement Observations Method:

 Any precision leveling will be O.K

 Fix plates on the floor or to the columns ( basement is
ideal), ground floor level is also adequate.
 It is adequate if the measurements are done from stilt level
or ground floor level. This may be much easier than
transferring the level from the reference mark on the
ground to the basement level

Prof. V.S. Raju 67

Examples in Delhi Region –Settlements of Rafts

1. DIAL – Terminal 3 on Raft
 Settlements measured and reported as not significant.

2. Sector 58, Gurgaon

Structure : Residential building 2B+30 floor on Raft.
Frame completed
Dead load settlements = 32 mm
Estimated total settlement = 40 mm

Prof. V.S. Raju 68

34
 17-11-2014

 Settlements observations are being carried out for

6 structures

 One structure in Noida is fully instrumented, where

load on the piles, reactions of the base raft and the
settlements are being measured.

 For one more structure in Noida, pile loads and

settlements are planned to be observed.

My Recommendation:
Make Settlement Observations mandatory for all
structures with more than 10 storeys
Prof. V.S. Raju 69

THE WAY FORWARD ON GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATIONS:
 Recognise the importance of a good Geotechnical
Investigations and educate Geotechnical, Structural
Consultants, Architects and the owners

 Soil Investigations have to be of International Standards

and have to be supervised by an Independent qualified /
trained persons.

 Prequalify the soil investigation agency based on standard

norms, Highly desirable that the agency is suitably
accredited.

 Involve a specialist Foundation Engineer / Consultant

(Preferable in-house in case of a big consulting office)
right from the start.
Prof. V.S. Raju 70

35
 17-11-2014

 Specialist Consultant has to decide the scope of investigations, in

consultation with Structural Consultants who has to give inputs
with regard to Structures to be designed / built.

 While engaging a geotechnical investigation agency, their scope

could be given in 2 parts, viz Part A – Field and Laboratory
Investigations and Part B – Foundation Analysis and
Recommendations.

 Part B could be made optional depending on expertise of the

agency, should be done only when all the Structural details are
available.

 The Foundation and Structural Consultants should work

very closely to arrive at a safe and optimum solutions.

 During execution, the Foundation Consultant has to visit the

site to ensure that foundation work is being done as per
specifications.

Prof. V.S. Raju 71

72

36