Geotechnical Investigation and Construction Safety

Dr. A.M.M. Safiullah

President, Bangladesh Society for Geotechnical Engineering
&
Vice Chancellor, AUST
Introduction
Physical and economic development of any country is very much dependent on infrastructure
that serves the community. In the Construction of structures such as highways, bridges, airports,
railroads, buildings, dams, and reservoirs geotechnical engineering or foundation engineering
plays a very crucial role. For any construction project, a site investigation is normally required.
Investigation includes actual surface and subsurface investigation, on site and laboratory tests.
This should also include study of the site history and environment, interpretation and analysis of
all available data, and making recommendations on favorable/unfavorable locations, economic
and safe design, and prediction of potential risks. This requires combined effort of geotechnical
engineer and ground investigation contractor.

The ground investigation contractor is responsible for providing reliable factual data. The
geotechnical consultant should be responsible for planning and execution of the investigation
program, interpretation and analysis of results, and making appropriate design recommendations,
to avoid overdesign or unsafe design.

There have been several geotechnical failures in Bangladesh due to poor ground investigation,
improper construction control, inadequate knowledge of site condition, and lack of geotechnical
supervision. This paper describes some examples on problems of site investigation that can result
in unsafe construction.

Codes and Regulations

The Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 1993) does not give any specific requirement
for site investigation except that it mentions:

“Application for construction of a new building or structure and for the alteration of
permanent structures which require changes in foundation loads and their distribution shall
be accompanied by a statement describing the soil in the ultimate bearing strata, including
sufficient records and data to establish its character, nature and load bearing capacity. Such
records shall be certified by an engineer.”

The above statement does not provide any specific requirement for performing site
investigations. Also there is no mention of involving a geotechnical engineer in the process. As a
result most site investigation works are handled by drilling contractors who have little or no
experience in exploration techniques. In Bangladesh geotechnical engineering is not a discipline
for Professional Engineering (P Eng) license. There is neither any special recognition of
qualified geotechnical firm by the Professional Engineers Registration Board (BPERB) or any
relevant government authorities. On the other hand drilling contractors are not required to fulfill
any prescribed professional level of competence or knowledge.

Current practice in selecting site investigation (SI) contractors for Public Projects is carried out
through invitation or open tender. The practice of award purely based on low price is definitely a
problem since this system would exclude quality work. It is necessary that a SI contractor should
fulfill certain requirements regulated by profession in terms of technical capability, equipment
and geotechnical manpower.

Failures in non-engineered structures

In the recent past many structures were not properly designed by following building code or
using engineering principles following site investigation procedures. Many of these structures
failed. A few examples of such failures are described below.

Failure in Sabujbagh

A building located in newly filled land and built on the slope of the
fill in Sabujbag area of Dhaka failed when the second storey was
under construction. The rear columns on foundation footings settled
and the whole building rotated. The front row columns snapped from
the footing resulting in collapse of the building (Fig.1). It was
learned that no soil investigation was made and no proper engineering Fig.1
design was done for the building.

Failure in Kalabagan

In Kalabagan a five storied building was constructed over a pond filled with earth. When the
fifth storey was being built the whole
building rotated and tilted and collapsed
snapping column reinforcements from the
footing foundation (Fig.2). Obviously, soil
and structural design were not adequately
done. No competent engineer was
employed by the owner. Builders took an
unknown risk by not abiding building Code
Provisions.
Fig.2. Building failure in Kalabagan
Failures in improperly designed foundations

Failure in Mirpur

In Mirpur an eight storied building tilted to one side after about one
year of construction (Fig.3). The building was founded on wooden
piles driven in soft and organic soil. A soil investigation was
performed which showed existence of organic soil below foundation
level. The designer used wooden piles for the building. Apparently
the designer did not take into consideration the possibility of
deterioration of wooden pile with time. Also changes in soil
properties of organic soil were not considered. The building has not
been fully abandoned and remains a future threat to stability,
overturning and damage to surrounding properties.

In Mirpur area a five storied building titled and almost touched

the adjacent building. Obviously the differential settlement for
the building was not considered in the design. It is not known to Fig 3. Eight storied building at Mirpur tilts
what extent geotechnical investigation was done for this
building.

Grameen Phone Building in Bashundhara

With Dhaka becoming a mega city with one of the highest density of population we now need to
build high-rise structures with basements for car parking.
This requires deep ground excavation close to existing
structures. The present practice relies on shore piles to
resist lateral soil pressure sometimes with a system of
struts or without it. Use of diaphragm walling with ground
anchoring system is non-existent in Bangladesh. Improper
design and shoring of the piles have resulted in many
failures such as shown in Fig. 4. Sometimes this type of
failures seriously affects the stability of adjacent structures
that leads to litigation and heavy compensation as Fig 4. Failure of shore piles in Grameen
detrimental cracks are expensive and difficult to repair. Phone building in Basundhara

Kathalbagan Failure

Very recently a seven storied building in Kathalbagan tilted resulting in collapse of ground floor
(soft storey). Tilting resulted damage of columns at supports where it became hinged. Again lack
of adequate soil investigation and quality of construction resulted in this failure. It is learned that
the building was built over a ditch filled with rubbish and foundation consisted of micro-piles of
inadequate length. .
Failure of braced excavation

M/s Impulse Health Services and Research Centre Ltd. decided to build a hospital building at
304/E Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka. The proposed hospital building was designed with three
basement levels requiring excavations up to -10m. For shoring two types of piles (P1 & P2)
were installed at the site. Most of the piles are P1 type (6 – 20 φ + 6 - 25 φ) and P3 type (12 - 25
φ). Failure occurred at the location of P1 type piles. At about midnight of 20 May 2011, when
excavation for basement construction was ongoing, shore piles on the north-east corner failed
that risked lives and adjacent property. At that time excavation was going on and reached to a
depth of about 12 m (30 ft).

Investigation of Impulse Hospital building revealed serious anomaly in site investigation reports
by two different agencies. This has necessitated the profession to look carefully the investigation
procedures that are followed in Bangladesh.

Anomaly in ground investigation by two different agencies

Initial soil investigation report for M/s Impulse Health Services and Research Centre Ltd hospital
was prepared by Engineering Survey Ltd. After the failure incidence three verification borings
were done by BUET. Fig. A shows location of bore holes done by two agencies. Fig. B shows a
comparison of SPT values at same location and Fig. C shows stratification noted in two
investigations.

The two reports present considerable difference in ground conditions.

Although various foundation failures described above have taken place for a long time, no
serious attempt is made to regulate site investigation practice in Bangladesh. Also there is lack of
knowledge of the architects, engineers and contractors in assessing soil condition and lack of
development of an appropriate construction practice by the profession. Some aspects of ground
investigation are described below.

Assessing Ground Conditions

From the failures described above it is apparent that a common factor that has led to failure is
inability to properly assess ground conditions for these structures.

Although very insignificant amount of money is required for site investigation compared to total
building cost there has been a tendency for most building owners and developers not to invest
enough money for site investigation. Also there is no regulation as to the qualification required
for a soil investigation firm. This has resulted in low quality of soil investigation reports and
inadequate designs with consequent risk in structural stability.
There are several ways geotechnical condition of a site may be evaluated. The simplest way to
examine a site is to dig up a trial pit to a suitable depth to reveal soil condition and if necessary
to collect undisturbed soil samples for laboratory testing. This is a very effective way of soil
exploration but has the disadvantage that this cannot be performed for greater depths to which
soil is usually stressed due to foundation load and when the ground water table is near the
surface.

The common procedure is to bore a hole and test soil conditions within the hole at several depths
or insert a rod and record its resistance as it is pushed down. Table 1 gives a list of common in-
situ test used for assessing ground condition.

Table 1 Common in-situ tests.

No. Test type Suitable for Not suitable for

1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sand Soft to firm clay
2. Dynamic Cone Test Sand and gravel Clays
3. Static Cone Test (CPT) Sand, silt and clay
4. Field Vane Shear Test Clay
5. Pressure meter Test Soft rock, sand, gravel, and till Soft sensitive clays
6. Plate Bearing Test and Screw Plate test Sand and clay
7. Flat Plate Dilatometer Test Sand and clay Gravel
8. Permeability Test Sand and gravel

Most in-situ tests and soil samplings are done in a borehole. Usually the boreholes are formed by
wash boring process. The hole formation process is very critical to performing field tests or soil
sampling.

It has been observed that in many instances crew performing a boring operation hardly gives any
attention to the stability of the borehole. Samples collected and situ tests performed in an
unstable hole can lead to serious misinterpretation of soil condition. Factors that need to be
checked for a stable borehole include:

• Hydrostatic condition leading to boiling and other instability;

• Jetting arrangement in chopping bit;
• Appropriate mixture of drilling fluid;
• Rate of cutting.

It is necessary that at all stages of boring and sampling the water

level within the hole must be above ground water level. This
implies that during withdrawal of tools water level must not fall
below ground water level. It is necessary that while using
chopping bits the water coming through the drilling pipe should
not directly jet on the bottom of the hole which may disturb the Fig.5. Deflecting water jet at
chopping bit
soil to considerable depth (see Fig.5). Direct jetting action destroys soil structure and
composition and defeats the purpose of soil sampling or in-situ tests (SPT) in the hole. In
cohesionless soil and in deep borings it is necessary that side walls of the boreholes are stabilized
by drilling fluid (bentonite slurry).

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

This is the most widely used field test in Bangladesh. The test although named as standard has
many non-standard performance conditions. Correct interpretation of soil design parameters
from this test depends on a number of factors such as:

• Maintaining a stable borehole;

• Clogging of the vent hole in the SPT spoon sampler;
• Appropriate energy correction for hammer blow on anvil;
• Overdriving of sampler and other non-standard performance conditions;
• Inappropriate calibration of N-values with angle of internal friction (φ);

Presently SPT results provide N values that are corrected for energy and overburden pressure and
this corrected N value is correlated to shear parameter φ using correlation given by Peck et al.
(1967). This correlation is however based on medium grained soils of US origin. Granulometric
properties of Bangladeshi sands are different and there is a need for N- φ correlation for our soil.
No such correlation data is available for Bangladeshi sands.

Some engineers try to correlate N value with undrained shear strength of clay soils. Test results
have shown that such correlation does not apply in reality for clay soils and therefore is not
recommended for use.

Because of some uncertainties with the interpretations of SPT results it is necessary that for
geotechnical interpretation more than one method of in-situ test listed in Table 1 should be
performed. A good geotechnical engineer should be able to decide which type of test is most
suitable for his purpose. For example Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is perhaps a more reliable
field test than SPT for our alluvial soils as it is suitable for both clayey and sandy soils.

Soil Sampling

Evaluation of shear strength, compressibility and deformation characteristics of cohesive soils

require collection of undisturbed samples for testing in the laboratory. Collecting undisturbed
samples requires adequate borehole preparation and careful sampling procedure. Table 2 shows a
classification of quality of samples obtained by various sampling processes and type of test that
can be performed by each classified sample.

It should be noted that the sampling process changes the stress condition of a sample due to
drilling, sampling in tube, extruding the sample, trimming the sample and then testing. It is
apparent that considerable stress may be released when sample is prepared for testing (i.e.
Sample is over-consolidated). Hence, soil test results particularly strength parameters reported
should be interpreted considering sample to be over-consolidated at the time of testing and the
stress path that is followed in testing.

Table 2. Classification of soil samples (after Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985)

Class of Quality of sample Method of sampling Type of tests that can be

Sample performed
1 Undisturbed Block sample A,B,C.D.E,F,G,H,I,J,K
Stationary piston sampler
2 Slightly disturbed Open tube thin walled sampler A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I
3 Substantially Open tube thick walled sampler A,B,C,D,E,G
disturbed Split spoon sampler
4 Disturbed Random samples collected by A,B,D,E,G
auger or in pits
A – Stratigraphy B – Stratification C – Organic content D – Grainsize distribution
E – Atterberg limits F – Relative density G – Water content H – Unit weight
I – Permeability J – Compressibility K – Shear strength

Laboratory Tests

Disturbed samples (i.e. Class 3 and 4) are used to obtain index properties and classification of
soil while Class 1 samples are required to obtain compressibility and strength test results that are
needed for foundation design. False and fabricated soil reports are quite common and designers
should test for inconsistencies in all test reports before accepting the results for design.

Empirical Relations

Empirical correlations between index properties and compression and strength parameters are
commonly used in geotechnical designs. Such relation given in most text books should be
verified before use. A number of correlations proposed by various authors are given in many text
books between compression index (Cc ) and
liquid limit (LL), and between Cc /(1+e0) and LL.
Here e0 is the initial void ratio of the soil. It has
been found that Cc vs LL correlations for most of
the Bangladeshi silty clays do not agree well with
those proposed by Skempton (1944), Terzaghi
and Peck (1967) and Nishida (1956). Correlation
by Serajuddin (1987) and Azzouz et al (1976)
Fig.6
give a better fit.

Author studied empirical correlations between Cc

/(1+e0) and LL for nine coastal soils. The result shown in Fig 6 shows reasonably good
correlation.

Soil mechanics texts often refers to relation Su /po’ = 0.11+0.0037 Ip , where Su is the undrained
shear strength, po’ is the overburden pressure and Ip is the plasticity index (Skempton, 1944). It
has been found that for our silty clays which have low plasticity index the above relationship is
not applicable.

Problem with many civil engineering constructions begins immediately after ground breaking. In
geotechnical history there has been numerous litigation cases where ground conditions
interpreted during design turned out to be different at the time of construction. Often engineers
design foundations on assumed soil parameters. False and fabricated soil reports are not
uncommon. Whatever may be the reason for variation in soil condition from design assumptions,
the result is extra cost or delay in construction, change in design, change in construction
operation, or even failure. Good geotechnical engineering practice can limit uncertain soil
condition problems.

Some aspects of safety during construction

Bored Pile Construction Practice

A major concern in Bangladesh is the construction of cast-in-situ bored piles. At present there is
no Code of Practice in force for this type of construction in Bangladesh. This method of pile
construction is very popular because piling can be done with very simple tools such as tripod
stand, wash boring equipment and tremie pipes. Operations that are critical to safe pile
construction are:

• Prevention of hole collapse;

• Maintaining quality of underwater concreting;
• Maintain a clean borehole bottom, and
• Maintaining integrity of the pile shaft.

Prevention of hole collapse requires control of hydrostatic head within the borehole and use of
bentonite slurry in adequate mix and density. There are several specifications for slurry to be
used in piling work. Table 3 shows a slurry specification given by Federation of Piling
Specialists (FPS) for cast-in-place diaphragm walling.

It is important that we develop slurry specification that is consistent with our soil type and
construction practice to provide adequate quality control during construction.

Checking integrity of constructed piles is an important condition in the assessment of quality.

Such checks are made by pile load test and by use of an integrity tester. It is important to keep a
record of volume of concrete used in a bored pile and compare it with volume of drilled hole.
During load test it often appears that supports of reference test gauges are placed in a way that
these are affected by loading and unloading from load platform invalidating the test results.

Table 3. Slurry specification for Cast-in-place diaphragm walling (FPS)

Property Range of results at 200C Test method

Density Less than 1.10g/ml Mud density balance
Viscosity 30-90 seconds Marsh cone method
Shear strength (10 min gel 1.4 – 10 N/m2 Shear meter
strength)
pH 9.5 - 12 pH indicator

Interpretation of pile load test results is also very important. Selection of appropriate failure or
performance criteria is essential in these interpretations.

Building Collapse in Shanghai

At around 5:30am on June 27, an unoccupied building still under construction at Lianhuanan
Road in the Minhang district of Shanghai city toppled over. One worker was killed. The
investigation team's report said that workers dug an underground garage on one side of the
building while on the other side earth was heaped up to 10 meters high, which was apparently an
error in construction. Fig. 7 and 8 show a photograph and the scheme of failure.

Fig. 7. Showing Collapse of Building Fig. 8. Showing excavation and filling before failure

Quality Control in Construction

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 1993) provides guidelines for safe construction.
The intend of the Code is to ensure public safety, health and general welfare in so far as they are
affected by the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, use or occupancy of
buildings, structures or premises, through structural strength, stability, means of egress, safety
from fire and other hazards, sanitation, light and ventilation. Any building design and
construction undergoes the following stages:

• Site investigation
• Foundation and superstructure design
• Foundation and superstructure construction
• Installation of utilities and services

At all these stages Building Code should be strictly adhered to but there is a lack of standardized
code of practice within the Code. Details of construction should be guided by Code of Practice
developed from good construction practice. Unfortunately no such documents have been
developed in Bangladesh for site investigation in line with our local conditions.

Conclusions

1. A number of recent failures of buildings and engineering structures have demonstrated that
most of these failures occurred because:
I. Geotechnical and ground conditions are not properly assessed; a review of these
aspects have been provided in the paper;
II. Site investigation is a specialized operation, requires specialized organizations and
specialized personnel. There should be government regulatory control over site
investigation through enforcement of a Code of Practice for Site Investigation.

2. All geotechnical engineering works should be supervised by qualified geotechnical

engineers. Site investigation is the combined product of ground investigation contractor and
geotechnical consultant. The contractor is responsible for obtaining reliable data. The
geotechnical consultant is responsible for planning and execution of the site investigation
work, interpretation and analysis of data, recommendations of design and assumed
professional responsibility.

3. The practice of recommending lowest tender as main criteria for site investigation should be
discouraged. Selection should be made on the basis of the geotechnical consultant’s
competency and investigation contractor’s ability to provide reliable factual data.

4. There is a lack of standardized code of practice for geotechnical works such as bored pile
construction, ground excavation, shoring work, dewatering, etc. Details of construction
should be guided by Code of Practice development from good construction practice.
Unfortunately no such documents have been developed in Bangladesh for site investigation
and geotechnical works in line with our local conditions.
References

Azzouz, A.S.,Krizek,R.J. and Corotis, R.B. (1976) Regression analysis of soil compressibility.
Soils and Foundations, (16), 2, 19-29.

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1985):

Nishida, Y. (1956): A brief note on compression index of soil. J. of SMFED, ASCE, (82), SM3,
1027-1 to 1027-14.

Peck, R B., Hanson, W E., and Thornburn, T H.(1967): Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition,
John Wiley, N.Y.

Serajuddin, M. (1987): Universal compression equation and Bangladesh soils. Proc. 9th SEAGC,
(1), 5-61.

Skempton, A.W.(1944): Note on the compressibility of clays. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London,
(100), 119-135.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967): Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2nd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons Inc., N.Y.

---------------------------------------------------------------
 70'4”
16’ 23’ 23’ 8’

20’
BH-3 BH-2 BH-1
N
BH-3
W

40’
BH-4 BH-5 BH-6
.

155’
40’
BH-9 BH-8 BH-7
Reports
BH-2 Engineering Survey Ltd
255’

BUET
40’

BH-10 BH-11 BH-12

37’
29’

BH-13
35’
BH-1 BH-16 16’
100’
70’

BH-14
50’
BH-15 16’
31’

24’

Road

107’
Fig.A Location of Bore holes
 SPT n Value SPT n Value SPT n Value
10
20
30
40
50

10
20
30
40
50

10
20
30
40
50
0

0
0.0 0.0 0.0
BUET BH-1 BUET BH-2
1.5 1.5 BUET BH-3
TESL BH13 TESL BH-8 2.0 TESL BH-2
3.0 3.0
4.0
4.5 4.5

6.0 6.0 6.0

7.5 7.5
8.0
Depth, m

Depth, m

Depth, m
9.0 9.0
10.0
10.5 10.5

12.0
12.0
12.0

13.5
13.5 14.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
16.5
16.5
18.0 18.0
18.0
19.5
19.5 20.0

Fig. B. Comparison of SPT values by two different agencies.

Dt.11-12-2009 Dt.05-06-2009
Ground RL : -0.25 m from road SPT n Value Ground RL : -0.30m from road

10
20
30
40
50
GWL : +8.5 m from EGL GWL : 2.74 m above

0
0.0
Poly bags, pieces of cotton, Rubbish
Different types of filthy matter 1.5
t
3.0 3.5m

4.5
CLAYEY SILT
6.0
Soft to medium stiff,
7.5
Depth, m

8.5m
Brown soft clayey SILT with fine 9.0 9.5m
sand, med. compress. 9.75m
10.5
SILTY SAND
12.0

Brown medium dense to dense 13.5 medium dense to dense,

silty FINE SAND, trace mica brown
15.0

16.5

End of boring -18.5m 18.0

DS BH-1
TESL BH13 End of boring -19.5m
19.5

BH1, Dhaka Soil BH13, TESL

Grain Size Atterberg Limit
D-10.5m, Fraction < 0.074mm - 27.2% D-9.0m, LL-47, PL-18 & PI-29
D-13.5m, Fraction< 0.074mm - 27.1% Grain Size
D-8.0m, Fraction< 0.074mm - 24.1% D-9.0m, Sand 0%, Silt-68%, Clay-32%
Direct shear test D-19.5m, Sand- 87%, Silt-13%, Clay-0%
D-12.0~16.5 m
c' =5 kN/m 2, φ'=380

Fig.C. Comparison of boring log, SPT-N value and soil properties mentioned in two
separate soil-investigation reports.