SOIL INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FOUNDATION DESIGN OF FACULTY HOUSING

(PHASE 1, 60 FLATS) AT IIT ROORKEE

by

N. K. SAMADHIYA1, M. N. VILADKAR2, MAHENDRA SINGH1,

V. A. SAWANT3, PRITI MAHESHWARI3, J. P. SAHOO4, K. CHATTERJEE4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Roorkee is involved in the

construction of a residential complex at IIT Roorkee, Roorkee. The complex is
proposed to be constructed as a multi-storeyed residential complex for faculty and
comprising of 60 flats on a sloping ground. Er. Aman Sachan, Executive Engineer,
IIT Roorkee Pariyojana Mandal-1, CPWD, Roorkee vide letter No
23(5)/I.I.T.R.P.D-1/153 dated November 21, 2017 requested Prof. and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee to carry out soil investigations at the
proposed site and advise on the type of foundation and allowable bearing
pressure/load for the foundation design. The soil investigation programme was
proposed by Dr. N.K. Samadhiya, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT
Roorkee vide letter No. CED/GTE/NKS/185 dated December 01, 2017. The
acceptance of the proposal was communicated by Er. Aman Sachan, Executive
Engineer, IIT Roorkee Pariyojana Mandal-1, CPWD, Roorkee vide letter No 23(5-
1)/I.I.T.R.P.D-1/2017-18/186 dated December 07, 2017 The report presents the
details of field and laboratory investigations, their interpretation and
recommendation on allowable bearing pressure/load for the design of foundation.

_______________________________________________________________
1 Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee – 247 667(UK)
2 Emeritus Fellow, Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee – 247 667(UK)
3 Assoc. Prof., Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee – 247 667(UK)
4 Asstt. Prof., Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee – 247 667(UK)

1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
At the proposed faculty complex, the site is not a leveled site but is
undulating. The type of construction involves a ten storeyed building complex with
one stilt floor in each building. This report therefore presents – i) all the field test
data obtained at the site during field exploration and testing, ii) laboratory test
data obtained from various laboratory tests conducted on all the soil samples
collected from site, iii) analysis and interpretation the entir e test data, and
iv) recommendations on the suitability of the types of foundations to be provided
for various structures and their respective values of allowable soil pressure / load
carrying capacity for design. The report also gives details of liquefaction study
carried out for the site and its influence on the behavior of foundations.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

In view of what has been stated above, it was decided to conduct following
field tests:
i) Borings to be advanced to a depth of 30.0 m or refusal, whichever is earlier
– at 04 locations,
ii) Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), to be conducted in each borehole at
an interval of 1.5 m up to a depth of 15.0 m and at an interval of 3.0 m
beyond.
iii) Dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT) – to be extended to a depth of
15.0 m or refusal, whichever is earlier. These tests, which give an idea of
the variation of continuous penetration resistance with depth, also indicate
the presence of loose pockets of soil and presence of fill material, if any -
06 locations .
iv) Plate load tests (PLT) – to be conducted in a test pit at a depth of 2.0 m on
a 300 mm x 300 mm size square test plate– at 02 locations.
v) Field density tests at PLT locations.
vi) Collection of undisturbed and representative soil samples from different
depths during borings and plate load test pits, for laboratory tests, and
vii) Observation of ground water table.

2
 Figure 1 shows the overall layout plan of the faculty housing complex along
with various test locations.

4.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

The laboratory testing program included:
i) Soil Classification Tests – to be conducted on all soil samples including:
a) mechanical sieve analysis for studying the grain size distribution of soil
and b) Atterberg Limits tests for studying the plasticity characteristics of soil,
ii) Unconfined Compression Tests - on all undisturbed soil samples
collected during borings from various depths and,
iii) Consolidation Tests - on all undisturbed soil samples collected during
borings from various tests.

5.0 FIELD TEST DATA

The existing site has been used as a dumping ground for the material
excavated from various locations of construction within IIT Roorkee campus. The
dumped material comprises of mixture of bricks and other demolished construction
material. Therefore, it was decided to excavate pits so as to reach the original
ground level. Four pits of about 2 - 3 m depth below the existing undulating ground
surface were excavated and the field tests were conducted in these pits except
DCPT locations DCPT-5 and DCPT-6.

5.1 BORINGS
Locations of all the exploratory bore holes have been shown in Fig. 1. As
the site is undulating, levels of various bore holes have been obtained with respect
to existing road level. At borehole location, BH-01, the level of borehole has been
found to be 1.125 m below the existing road level. Level of borehole, BH-02 has
been found to be 0.2 m above the existing road level while level of BH-03 was
same as that of road level. The borehole BH-04 was found to be 0.64 m below the
existing road level. Standard penetration tests were conducted in each borehole
at every 1.5 m depth interval up to a depth of 15.0 m and at an interval of 3.0 m

3
beyond i.e. up to the termination depth of borings (30.0 m). Representative
samples collected during these tests were used in the laboratory for various
classification and identification tests on soils. Undisturbed soil samples were also
collected during borings, wherever possible, in clay strata for performing
unconfined compression and consolidation tests in the laboratory.

5.2 PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS

5.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests

Standard penetration tests were conducted as per IS: 2131-1997. These
tests were conducted in each borehole at every 1.5 m depth interval up to a depth
of 15.0 m and at an interval of 3.0 m beyond i.e. up to the termination depth of
borings. Variation of the observed penetration resistance with depth has therefore
been presented in Appendix-A (Figs. A-1 – A-4) for the four bore hole locations.
The observed values have been corrected for overburden and dilatancy, wherever
required. Figures A-1 to A-4 also show the variation of the corrected values of
standard penetration resistance with depth which are subsequently used in design.

5.2.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests

Dynamic cone penetration tests were conducted at 6 locations as shown in
Fig. 1 according to the guidelines of IS: 4968-1997. DCPT locations DCPT-1 to
DCPT-4 were conducted in the pits. However, DCPT-5 and DCPT-6 were
conducted on existing undulating ground surface. The data obtained from any
dynamic cone penetration test, which gives a continuous penetration resistance
with depth, helps in identifying the presence of weak / loose strata or soft pockets,
if any, in the soil mass beneath the ground surface. Figures B-1 to B-3 in Appendix-
B show the plots of variation of dynamic cone penetration resistance observed with
depth. The penetration resistance, Ncd has been plotted for every successive 30
cm penetration.

4
Fig. 1. Layout map of the faculty housing complex along with various test
locations

5
5.3 PLATE LOAD TESTS
Plate Load Tests (PLT) were conducted according to IS: 1888-1997 with
monotonic loading at two locations as shown in Fig. 1. These were conducted on
a 300 mm x 300 mm size rigid square steel test plate. All the tests were conducted
at a depth of 2.0 m below the bottom surface of the excavated pit up to failure.
Therefore, the PLT at location PLT-1 was conducted at a depth of 3.125 m below
the road level and at location PLT-2, the test was conducted at a depth of 2.0 m
below the road level. Figures C-1 to C-2 in Appendix–C show respectively the plots
of load intensity versus plate settlement obtained at two test locations. These plots
show a trend of general shear failure of the test plate.

5.4 FIELD DENSITY TESTS

The values of in-situ unit weight of soil mass as obtained at various plate
load test locations have been presented in Table 1.

Table 1 In-situ unit weight of soil mass

PLT Location Depth Unit Weight

(m) (t/m3)
PLT 1 2.0 1.79
PLT 2 2.0 1.95

5.5 COLLECTION OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLES

Representative soil samples were collected from different depths during
borings whenever a standard penetration test was conducted (15 samples in each
borehole). Undisturbed soil samples were also collected in plastic soil strata, i.e.
wherever clay strata were met with during boring for the conduct of consolidation
and unconfined compression tests in the laboratory.

6
6.0 LABORATORY TEST DATA

6.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS

These tests were conducted according to IS: 1498-1997. All the basic
classification tests including mechanical sieve analysis and the Atterberg’s limits
(liquid limit and plastic limit) tests were conducted on all the 60 SPT soil samples
(15 samples per borehole for 4 boreholes) collected during borings. The soils were
classified according to IS: 1498-1997 and the bore logs for the 4 boreholes have
been presented in Tables D-1 – D-4 of Appendix–D.

6.2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION AND CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

Undisturbed clay samples were collected in sampling tubes from each bore
hole.
Unconfined compression strength (UCS) tests were conducted on all such
samples. Consolidation tests were also therefore conducted on all these samples.
Each consolidation test takes minimum eight days for its completion.
Values of unconfined compressive strength, qc and the compression index,
Cc obtained from the consolidation tests have been tabulated in Table - 2 and the
corresponding effective pressure versus void ratio plots are presented in Appendix
– E (Figs. E-1 – E-3).

Table 2 Summary of data of unconfined compression and consolidation

tests

Borehole Depth Bulk Dry UCS Undrained Compression

location Unit unit Cohesion, Index, Cc
weight weight cu (range of
(m) (t/m3) (t/m3) (t/m2) (t/m2) stress = 40 -
80 t/m2)
BH-01 6.0 1.79 1.22 6.7 3.35 -
BH-01 6.0 1.79 1.23 7.9 3.95 0.32
BH-02 10.5 1.84 1.33 8.5 4.25 0.42
BH-02 10.5 1.82 1.29 7.4 3.70 -
BH-03 4.5 1.82 1.29 11.9 5.95 0.19

7
7.0 INTERPRETATION OF TEST DATA
The field and laboratory test data obtained for the site have been interpreted
and based on this data; further computations have been made for deciding the
suitability of the type of foundation and the allowable soil pressure / load carrying
capacity.

7.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The bore logs obtained at locations BH-01 – BH-04 have been presented in
Appendix – D (Tables D-1 – D-4). Study of these bore logs at locations BH-01 to
BH-04 suggests that the entire soil mass up to the depth of exploration (30 m) can
be sub-divided into four layers as follows:
i) Soil strata upto a depth of about 8 m below the road level is either clay of
low to intermediate compressibility (CL/CI) or silt of intermediate
compressibility (MI) or non-plastic silt (Layer-1),
ii) Soil strata from 8 m to 9.5 m below the road level consists of either poorly
graded sand (SP) or poorly graded silty sand (SP-SM) (Layer-2: sandy
layer),
iii) Soil strata from 9.5 m to 11.5 m below the road level is comprised of silt of
intermediate to high compressibility (MI/MH), and
iv) A soil layer of either poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded silty sand
(SP-SM) beyond the depth of 11.5 m and up to the depth of exploration
(Layer-4: sandy layer).

Tables D-1 to D-4 give the classification of soil samples collected during
field exploration as per the Indian Standard, IS: 1498 – 1997. On basis of this, a
representative soil profile has been presented for the entire site in Fig. 2. The water
table was found to occur at a depth of 6 to 7 m below the road level at various test
locations during December 2017.

8
 Road level
0.0

CL / CI/ ML(NP) / MI
cu = 3.5 t/m2

Ground water table

- 6.0 m

- 8.0 m
SP / SP-SM
Navg. = 25, Ф = 34.5° γbulk = 1.80 t/m3
- 9.5 m
MI / MH, cu = 3.5 t/m2
- 11.5

SP / SP-SM / SM
3
Navg. = 20, Ф = 330 γbulk = 1.80 t/m

Fig. 2. Representative soil profile at faculty housing complex (Phase 1) at

IIT Roorkee

7.2 PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Variation of the observed standard penetration resistance with depth has
been presented in Figs. A-1 to A-4 for the various boreholes BH-01 – BH-04. The
variation of the corrected values of standard penetration resistance which are used
in design calculations is also shown in respective plots. Based on these plots,
representative values of corrected penetration resistance are presented for
different soil layers in Fig. 2.
Figures B-1 to B-3 show the variation of dynamic cone penetration
resistance with depth at different locations in the faculty residential complex. These
plots show in general, loose strata up to about 2 - 3 m and subsequently increasing
resistance with depth and occurrence of no soft / loose pocket at any depth.

7.3 PLATE LOAD TEST DATA

The load intensity versus settlement curves from plate load tests data
conducted at different locations, have been presented in Appendix–C (Figs. C-1–
C-2). At both the locations, values of ultimate bearing capacity of the test plate

9
have been obtained by double tangent method, which are presented in respective
plots (15.8 t/m2 for PLT1 and 31.5 t/m2 for PLT2). It is worth mentioning here that
there is large variability in soil strata at two locations. PLT1 has been conducted
on silt of intermediate compressibility and PLT2 on loose to medium silty sand.

7.4 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION AND CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

Table 2, wherein this data has been presented, shows that average
unconfined compressive strength of clay has been found to be 8.5 t/m2. The
compression index, Cc has been found to be 0.42 at a depth of 10.5 m representing
the presence of high compressible soil strata. However, at a depth of 4.5 m, this
has been found to be about 0.2.

8.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

Foundations, in general, are designed for safety against two criteria:
i) Foundations must be safe against shear failure and
ii) Foundations should not settle excessively.
Attempt has, therefore been made to design the foundations of various
proposed structures considering both these criteria. IS 1904: 1995 gives limits of
total settlement, differential settlements and angular distortions for shallow
foundations of the framed structures. These limiting values have been specified
for - a) sand and hard clay and b) plastic clays. In view of the fact that various
buildings in the complex are quite tall (10 storeys), it is anticipated that the load
intensity transferred to the soil will be quite high and hence it is recommended to
have combined pile-raft system, especially in view of the soil strata (presence of
loose strata up to 2 – 3 m, variability of soil strata at different locations, extent of
plastic soil up to 8 m below road level, silt strata of intermediate to high
compressibility between -9.5 m and -11.5 m) as a foundation to support these
heavily loaded tall structures. Further, due to presence of silt strata of intermediate
to high compressibility between -9.5 m and -11.5 m, the structural load has to be
transferred to the sand (SP) layer beyond 11.5 m and hence the pile foundation is
warranted.

10
9.0 ALLOWABLE LOADS ON PILES
A close study of various soil bore logs (Appendix - D) suggests that the soil
strata from 2 m to 8 m below the existing road surface consists of plastic soil
followed by a 1.5 m thick sandy soil layer. Below this sandy layer, i.e., beyond 9.5
m below the road level, again a highly compressible soil layer of about 2 m
thickness has been observed which is followed by a sandy soil layer up to the
depth of exploration.
A glance at the penetration resistance test data (Appendix – A & B),
suggests that the penetration resistance values are moderate. In view of the
presence of top 8 m and 2 m thick highly compressible soil layer at 9.5 m below
road level, the geotechnical state of art suggests that this silty layer should be
completely penetrated and the load of the structure should be transferred to a
stronger sandy soil layer below. The cut-off level of the base of the foundation has
been decided as 2.0 m below the road level. The minimum suitable length of the
pile foundation, therefore, works out to be 12 m with a penetration length of 2.5 m
into the sandy soil layer below.

9.1 AXIAL LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF BORED CAST-IN-SITU PILES

Figure 3 shows the position of bored cast-in-situ pile in relation to various
soil layers below the ground surface along with representative soil properties.
The point bearing resistance of bored cast-in-situ pile in granular soils is
given by:
Qp = Ab σv’ Nq (1)
where, Ab is the area of pile tip, σv’ , the effective overburden pressure at pile tip
and Nq, the bearing capacity factor (= 42 in present case; IS: 2911 (Part I / Sec 2)
– 2010).
The frictional resistance mobilized along the pile shaft in c -  soil strata is
given by –
Qs = f. As = As [K0. . tan + . cu] (2)
where, f is the unit skin friction (t/m2); K0 = (1 - sin), the earth pressure coefficient
at rest; σ, the average effective overburden pressure (t/m2) over embedded length

11
of pile; δ (=2 / 3), angle of wall friction, cu, the undrained cohesion (= 3.5 t/m2 in
present case) and As is the embedded surface area (m2) of pile in soil strata.
The ultimate axial load carrying capacity of pile is therefore given by –
Qult = Qp + Qs (3)
The values of ultimate and safe axial load carrying capacity of bored cast-
in-situ piles were evaluated using equations (1), (2) and (3) for different values of
pile diameter, i.e., 450 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm and for different pile lengths.
These values are presented in Table 3.

Road level
0.0

Cut-off Level
- 2.0 m CL / CI/ ML(NP) / MI
cu = 3.5 t/m2

Ground water table

- 6.0 m

- 8.0 m
SP / SP-SM
Navg. = 25, Ф = 34.5° γbulk = 1.80 t/m3
- 9.5 m

- 11.5 m MI / MH, cu = 3.5 t/m2

SP / SP-SM / SM
3
Navg. = 20, Ф = 330 γbulk = 1.80 t/m

Fig. 3 Representative soil profile for calculating load carrying capacity of a

pile

9.2 PILE GROUPS

The bored cast-in-situ piles, when provided in the form of pile group as a
foundation supporting the various multi-storeyed buildings of faculty housing
complex, may be installed at a centre to centre spacing of 2.5 times the pile
diameter. The piles may be provided in a staggered fashion. The load carrying
capacity of the entire pile group is expected to be more than the load carrying
capacity of the individual pile times the number of piles in the group. A typical

12
configuration of the pile - raft system is shown in Fig. 4. The cut-off level of base
of pile cap has been decided as 2.0 m below the formation level.

Table 3 Ultimate and safe axial load carrying capacity of

bored cast-in-situ piles
Pile Pile Point Skin Total Safe Pile
Length Diameter Bearing Friction Ultimate Capacity,
Resistance Resistance Capacity,
(m) (mm) Qp (t) Qs (t) Qult (t) Qsafe (t)*

450 90.85 23.74 114.58 38.19

12 600 161.50 31.65 193.15 64.38
800 287.12 42.20 329.32 109.78
450 94.85 34.76 129.61 43.20
15 600 190.00 47.04 237.05 79.01
800 337.78 62.73 400.51 133.50
450 94.85 45.84 140.69 46.90
18 600 190.00 63.69 253.69 84.57
800 388.45 86.59 475.04 158.35
* Factor of safety = 3 for estimating Qsafe.

20.0 m
Formation level
0

Q = 20 t/m2 Pile Cap

- 2.0 m
Cut-off Level 20.0 m CL / CI/ ML(NP) / MI
2
- 6.0 m cu = 3.5 t/m
Ground water table
- 8.0 m
SP / SP-SM
Navg. = 25, Ф = 34.5°
- 9.5 m γbulk = 1.80 t/m3
2
MI / MH, cu = 3.5 t/m
- 11.5 m
Piles

Equivalent Raft
- 14.0 m
SP / SP-SM / SM
3
0 γbulk = 1.80 t/m
Navg. = 20, Ф = 33

Fig. 4 Typical raft - pile group system

13
10.0 SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUPS
The settlement of a pile-raft system at faculty housing complex has been
computed using the equivalent raft method. In this method, pile-raft system is
replaced by an equivalent raft placed at the tip of pile (contribution of end bearing
resistance being high). An allowable settlement of 75 mm (IS: 1904-1995) has
been considered as the permissible total settlement in this case.
The total settlement of the equivalent raft will be comprised of immediate
settlement of granular sand layer below it. The allowable soil pressure for a raft on
sand is given by: qa = 0.044 N S Cw t/m2. For N = 20, and qa = 20 t/m2, the
settlement, S works out to be 45.5 mm and hence, the settlement can be
considered as within the permissible limit.

11.0 UPLIFT CAPACITY OF PILES

Uplift capacity of the bored cast-in-situ piles has been obtained as per IS
2911 (Part 1/ Section 2): 2010 for different values of pile diameter adopting a factor
of safety of 3.0 and has been presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Uplift capacity of bored cast-in-situ piles

Pile Pile Uplift
Length Diameter Capacity,
(t)
(m) (mm)
450 7.91
12 600 10.55
800 14.07
450 11.59
15 600 15.68
800 20.91
450 15.28
18 600 21.23
800 28.86

14
12.0 LIQUEFACTION STUDIES
Liquefaction studies has been carried out employing two methods as given
below in detail:
12.1 Liquefaction studies as per Seed and Idriss (1971)
Method suggested by Seed and Idriss (1971), has been used to assess the
liquefaction potential of the site. This method consists of the following steps:
Compute the maximum ground acceleration due to earthquake.
Compute shear stress at depth z, due to earthquake as:
a
  0.65(  q) max r (4)
eq v g d
where v = total stress at depth z below ground surface due to overburden
q = stress at depth z due to superimposed load (= 20 kPa)
amax = maximum ground acceleration
g = acceleration due to gravity
rd = stress reduction factor (Fig. 5)

Read from the charts (Fig. 6), the value of shear stress required to cause
liquefaction (L) based on the value L / (v + q); where v is the effective normal
stress at depth z.
For no liquefaction, eq < L
The magnitude of earthquake has been assumed as 7.5 on Richter scale,
with a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.18g. The computations for liquefaction
potential have been carried out with and without surcharge and these have shown
that liquefaction will not occur in the soil.

15
Fig. 5. Stress reduction factor for liquefaction potential (Seed and Idriss, 1971)

16
 Fig. 6. Shear stress required causing liquefaction

12.2 Liquefaction studies as per Idriss and Boulanger (2004)

Liquefaction analyses have been carried out using the method proposed by
Idriss and Boulanger (2004). This method has been used to assess the liquefaction
potential of the sub-soil strata and has been explained below:
The approach uses semi-empirical procedures for evaluating the
liquefaction potential of saturated cohesionless soils during earthquakes. SPT
results are utilized to quantify liquefaction potential. The step-by-step procedure
as given below:

17
 Cyclic shear stress ratio CSR at a depth z is given as
 a 
CSR  0.65 vo ' max rd
 (5)
  vo 
where amax is the maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground surface in g's,
vo is the total vertical stress and 'vo is the effective vertical stress at depth z.
The parameter rd is a stress reduction coefficient that accounts for the flexibility of
the soil column.
The adjusted value of CSR pertaining to the equivalent shear stress induced
by an earthquake magnitude M=7.5 is given by:

CSR  a  rd 1
CSR M 7.5   0.65 vo ' max 
 MSF K (6)
MSF   vo  

where, the stress reduction factor rd and earthquake magnitude scaling factor for
cyclic stress ratios (MSF) are obtained as:
ln( rd )   ( z )   ( z ) M for z  34m (7)

 z 
 ( z )  1.012  1.126 sin   5.133  (8)
 11.73 
 z 
 ( z )  0.106  0.118 sin   5.142  (9)
 11.28 
rd  0.12 exp(0.22M ) for z> 34m. (10)

M 
MSF  6.9 exp   0.058  1.8 (11)
 4 
The overburden correction factor for observed SPT is given as:
  vo' 
K  1  C ln   1.0 (12)
 Pa 
1
C   0 .3 (13)
18.9  17.3D R

N1 60
DR  (14)
46
N1 60  C N N 60 (15)

18
 m
 P 
C N   a' 
 (16)
  vo 
m  0.784  0.521DR (17)

The above four equations are solved iteratively to converge at CN.

 9.7  15.7  
2

 N1 60 
 exp 1.63    (18)
 FC  FC  


N 
1 60 CS
 N1 60  N1 60 (19)

The cyclic resistance ratio CRR is obtained as:

 N   N     N1 60cs
2
   N1 60cs
3

4 
CRR  exp 1 60cs   1 60cs         2.8 (20)
 14.1  126   23.6   25.4  

CRR M 7.5
FOS  (21)
CSR
Computations did not exhibit any sign of liquefaction at the site as the FOS

worked out to be more than 1. Therefore, it can be inferred that the proposed site

is safe from liquefaction point of view.

19
13.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of limited field and laboratory geotechnical investigations
carried out and analysis of tests data, following recommendations have been
made:
1) Analysis of borelogs at various locations suggests that –
i) Soil strata upto a depth of about 8 m below the adjoining road level
is either clay of low to intermediate compressibility (CL/CI) or silt of
intermediate compressibility (MI) or non-plastic silt (Layer-1),
ii) Soil strata from 8 m to 9.5 m below the adjoining road level consists
of either poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded silty sand (SP-SM)
(Layer-2: sandy layer),
iii) Soil strata from 9.5 m to 11.5 m below adjoining road level is
comprised of silt of intermediate to high compressibility (MI/MH), and
iv) A soil layer of either poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded silty
sand (SP-SM) beyond the depth of 11.5 m and up to the depth of exploration
(Layer-4: sandy layer).
2) The water table was found to occur at a depth of 6 m - 7 m below the road
level during December 2017.
3) Average penetration resistance (N) in the Layer-2 was found to be 25 and
the corresponding value of friction angle,  have been found to be 34.5°.
The average undrained cohesion of Layers 1 and 3 has been found as 3.5
t/m2 and compression index of 0.19 and 0.42 respectively for the stress
ranging 40 t/m2 to 80 t/m2.
The average penetration resistance (N) in SP layer (Layer-4) has been
found to be 20 and the corresponding friction angle  is 33°.
4) In view of the fact that various buildings in the complex are quite tall (10
storeys), it is anticipated that the load intensity transferred to the soil will be
quite high and hence it is recommended to have combined pile-raft system,
especially in view of the soil strata, as a foundation to support these heavily
loaded tall structures.

20
 The capacity of the individual piles has been worked out assuming the cut-
off level of piles (base of the pile cap) at -2.0 m below the ground surface.
The individual pile capacity has been worked out for bored cast-in-situ piles
with diameter as 450 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm. In view of the soil strata
stated above, the minimum length of the piles which are supposed to rest
in Layer-4, has been decided as 12 m below the cut-off level. The ultimate
and the safe pile capacities for different length and diameter thus obtained
have been tabulated below:
Pile Pile Total Safe Pile
Length Diameter Ultimate Capacity,
Capacity,
(m) (mm) Qult (t) Qsafe (t)*

450 114.58 38.19

12 600 193.15 64.38
800 329.32 109.78
450 129.61 43.20
15 600 237.05 79.01
800 400.51 133.50
450 140.69 46.90
18 600 253.69 84.57
800 475.04 158.35
* assuming factor of safety equal to 3.
5) The permissible settlement of the pile groups has been taken as 75 mm.
Accordingly, settlement of the buildings have been worked out which are
within the permissible limit.
6) Recommended values of uplift capacity of the bored cast-in-situ piles have
been tabulated below:
Pile Pile Uplift
Length Diameter Capacity,
(t)
(m) (mm)
450 7.91
12 600 10.55
800 14.07
450 11.59
15 600 15.68
800 20.91
450 15.28
18 600 21.23
800 28.86

21
7) The liquefaction study at all the four borehole locations, suggested that
there is no possibility of occurrence of liquefaction. Therefore, it can be
recommended that the proposed site is safe from liquefaction point of view.
8) The actual load carrying capacity of the piles depends upon many factors
such as the quality of construction of piles, disturbance to sub-soil during
construction etc. The influence of these factors is not amenable to
theoretical computations. It is therefore a usual practice to confirm the
theoretically predicted pile capacity by conducting pile load tests on
prototype piles in-situ.
a) It is therefore, recommended that initial load tests be conducted on piles
at the site as per Indian Standard (IS: 2911 (Part 4) - 2013) by subjecting
the pile to a load level of 2.5 times the safe load carrying capacity of the
piles.
b) Further, it is also advisable to conduct few routine load tests on arbitrarily
chosen piles by subjecting the piles to a load level of 1.5 times the design
load so as to check the quality of construction (IS: 2911 (Part 4) - 2013).
9) The above recommendations have been made on the basis of limited
investigations conducted at the site of faculty housing (Phase 1) complex,
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee. However, if during construction, any deviation is
observed regarding the soil type and the nature of the strata, the matter may
be referred back to the authors for advice or any competent geotechnical
expert.

22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are extremely thankful to Er. Gajendra Kumar, Chief Project
Manager, IIT Roorkee Project Zone, CPWD, Roorkee and his staff for having
fruitful discussions during the soil investigations.
Thanks are also due to the Prof. CSP Ojha, Head, Deptt. of Civil Engg.,
I.I.T. Roorkee for permitting the authors to undertake this project.
REFERENCES

1. Idriss I.M. and R. W. Boulanger (2004), Semi-Empirical Procedures for

Evaluating Liquefaction Potential during Earthquake, Proceedings of the
11th ICSDEE & 3rd ICEGE Berkeley, California, USA; pp 32 – 56
2. IS: 1498 – 1997, Classification and Identification of Soils for General
Engineering Purposes.
3. IS: 1888 – 1997, Method of Load Tests on Soils.
4. IS: 1904 – 1995, Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
Foundations in Soils: General Requirements.
5. IS: 2131 – 1997, Methods for Standard Penetration Test for Soils.
6. IS: 2911 (Part I / Sec 2) – 2010, Code of Practice for Design and
Construction of Pile Foundations, Part I, concrete piles, Section 2, bored
cast in-situ piles.
7. IS: 2911 (Part 4) – 2013, Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
Pile Foundations, Part 4, load test on piles.
8. IS: 4968 (Part I) – 1997, Methods for Subsurface Sounding for Soils, Part I,
dynamic method using 50 mm come without bentonite slurry.
9. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. & Thornburn, W.T. (1974), “Foundation
Engineering”, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons., New York.
10. Seed H. B & Idriss I. M (1971), Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div, Vol: 97, No: SM9, p
1249-73.
11. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
John Wiley & Sons., New York.

23