CIVL 3210 – Geotechnical Engineering

Assignment No. 1
Design Project Report

Amer Shaikh (214414122)

Angelo Mandarello (215917339)

Guiseppe Garisto (215030208)

Prof. Bashir

03/03/2020
 i

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Site Conditions and Site Geology .................................................................................................................. 2
Site Investigation Program and Results ........................................................................................................ 4
Layout of Borings ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Building Map of Selected Cross-Sections .................................................................................................. 6
Side-by-Side Comparison of Boring Logs .................................................................................................. 7
Composite Soil Profile ............................................................................................................................. 10
Laboratory Testing Program and Results .................................................................................................... 11
Unit Weight vs. Elevation ........................................................................................................................ 11
LL, PL, and natural WC vs. Elevation ....................................................................................................... 11
Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation ................................................................................................. 13
Consolidation Plots ................................................................................................................................. 13
Borehole 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Borehole 9 ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion of Laboratory Results ............................................................................................................ 14
Work Authorization Form (Signature Sheet) .............................................................................................. 16
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Calculations ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Data Tables.............................................................................................................................................. 18
 ii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Historical Geological Map of Area of Interest from 1989. ............................................................. 2
Figure 2. Geographical Map and Estimated Area of Site in Present Condition. ........................................... 3
Figure 3. Topographical Elevation of Surrounding Area. .............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Local Businesses in the Surrounding Area. .................................................................................... 4
Figure 5. Depth (ft) vs. N blow-count............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 6. Layout of Borehole Tests Conducted on Proposed Site................................................................. 6
Figure 7. Borehole Logs Used to Develop Soil Profile Cross-Sections. ......................................................... 6
Figure 8. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #1 Using Borehole 2,3,18 & 19 Respectively.................................... 7
Figure 9. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #2 Using Borehole 6,1 & 7 Respectively. .......................................... 8
Figure 10. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #3 Using Borehole 12, 8, 4, 1 & 3 Respectively. ............................. 9
Figure 11. Composite General Soil Profile of Proposed Area. .................................................................... 10
Figure 12. Unit Weight vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area. ........................................................ 11
Figure 13. Liquid Limit vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area. ......................................................... 11
Figure 14. Plastic Limit vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area. ........................................................ 12
Figure 15. Natural Water Content vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area. ...................................... 12
Figure 16. Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation of Soil in Proposed Area. ............................................ 13
Figure 17. Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande Method of Borehole 1. ............................ 13
Figure 18. Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande Method of Borehole 9. ............................ 14

List of Tables
Table 1. Calculated Consolidation Data Parameters................................................................................... 14
Table 2.All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Clay Layer(s). ......................................................................... 18
Table 3. All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Silty Clay Layer(s). ................................................................. 18
Table 4. All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Sandy Clay Layer(s). .............................................................. 19
Table 5.. Pocket Penetrometer Data from All Boreholes. .......................................................................... 20
Table 6. Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Data from All Boreholes. ...................................................... 21
 Page |1

Introduction
A multi-storey building complex to serve as a central computer centre is proposed to be
built at the intersection of Ella Boulevard and Greens Parkway. The site is approximately 1200ft
by 1300ft. The area consists of buildings that are still in use and roads surrounding all sides of the
proposed site. The ground surface is sloped and varies from elevations of 95 ft to 97 ft. The overall
surrounding area consists of offices, stores, with the Sam Houston Tollway being just south of the
site.

The current plan consists of a three-storey computer centre with loads ranging from 500 to
900 kips at an elevation of 98 ft. A four-storey annex with a one-storey basement (basement plus
3 storeys above ground level) which contains loads ranging from 750 to 1100 kip. The finished
floor would be located at an elevation of 100 ft and the basement would be at 85 ft. A one Storey
atrium with column loads between 80 to 150 kip at 98 ft elevation. A one-storey central plan
substation with undetermined column loads at the moment, but they are assumed to be between
100 to 200 kip, with a proposed finished floor elevation of 98 ft. Also, a parking garage is planned
for the future, but it is not within the scope of the corresponding project.

The purpose of this investigation is to determine the composite soil profile, develop soil
cross sections. It is also meant to determine soil parameters including, the compression and
recompression indices and the pre-consolidation pressure. The data obtained from drilling,
sampling, and lab testing, present within this report will be utilized to determine a suitable
foundation layout for the proposed structures.

This report consists of the step regarding Phase 1 of the project and will provide an input
and discussion of the results of lab data and soil profiles. Any changes to the project that take place
will be reviewed by the team, and will require modifications to the recommendations made, and
additional analysis.
 Page |2

Site Conditions and Site Geology

The site being proposed for the new central computer center for the oil company is located
at 1050 Greens Pkwy., Houston, TX, USA, 77076, Coordinates: 29.944454, -95.429589.

Figure 1. Historical Geological Map of Area of Interest from 1989.

The area being proposed for the oil company’s new central computer center was relatively
untouched and only had vegetation on the ground surface up until 1989 as seen in Figure 1. Since
then, the area has been repurposed as a wholesale warehouse owned by Consolidation Electrical
Distributors (CED). The local business provides wholesale electrical products for commercial and
industrial use, indicating heavy dead loads and live loads being applied to the soil below the
warehouse floor.

The area of interest is approximately 2,225,000 ft2 and is covered mainly by warehouses
with some vehicle parking corridors and vegetation as seen in Figure 2. Further exploration is
required on the type of foundation used for these warehouses (most likely shallow) and the depth
of excavation used to embed these foundations.
 Page |3

Figure 2. Geographical Map and Estimated Area of Site in Present Condition.

A topographical map shows that the general surface elevation of the area to be repurposed is
30m(98ft) to 38m (124ft) as seen in Figure 3. The general trend is a lower elevation of 30m (98ft) from the
South-East side of the lot to a maximum elevation of 43m(141ft) in the North-West side of the lot.

Figure 3. Topographical Elevation of Surrounding Area.

 Page |4

Figure 4. Local Businesses in the Surrounding Area.

Figure 4 shows that there are two highways nearby the site for ease of access during
construction. There are also nearby major arterial roads such as Ella Blvd. and Greens Pkwy. For
local transportation of construction goods and material.

Figure 4 also shows the nearby population centers such as schools, malls, and office
centers. A possible concern may be Remington College, Greenspoint Campus which is located
approximately 1-mile North of CED. This could be a potential noise concern for the campus,
which will need to be taken into consideration before the construction process.

Site Investigation Program and Results

The site investigation was conducted with drill rigs equipped with a dry auger or wet rotary
drill depending on the borehole. The types of samplers used consist mainly of thin-walled tubes
as well as some split-barrel samplers. The shear strengths of the soils were determined with the
use of multiple methods, with the most common being a pocket penetrometer (P), followed by
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial shear test, as well as an Unconfined shear test. 19 boreholes
where drilled for the site investigation but 15 were analyzed. Boreholes 14, 15, and 16 were
excluded from the analysis as they are designated for the parking area and their structural
properties are not necessary.
 Page |5

Depth (ft) vs. N

70

60

50
Depth (ft)

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
N

Figure 5. Depth (ft) vs. N blow-count

Figure 5 shows that the compaction of the soil layers stays generally constant with
increasing depth. That is, as we go deeper into the ground, the compactness of the clay layers does
not vary considerably. The deepest compaction conducted was at 60ft below ground surface (40
ft elevation with regard to mean sea level), with a N blow-count of approximately 75. Only the N
values where standard blow counts were achieved with desirable compaction were considered (N
values with a fraction of the required compaction by the test were disregarded).

Layout of Borings

Figure 6 represents the locations of the Borehole Logs conducted by XXX Inc. on site. 10
out of the 19 Borehole Logs conducted were used to provide an overall description of the soil layer
profiles below the ground surface as seen in Figure 7. The following cross sections were chosen
in order to develop a complete available soil profile. Each cross-section had at least 1 overlapping
borehole with another cross-section in order to ensure continuity between soil profiles so that a
more accurate composite soil profile could be developed. Any anomalies/outliers of miniscule
soil layers were cross-checked with the adjacent soil layers in order to ensure homogeneity when
developing the composite soil profile. Overall, Cross-section 1 and Cross-section 2 covered a
majority of where the foundation for the main building would be placed. Cross-section 3 was used
to ensure cohesiveness of the described soil layers from CS1 and CS2 with regard to the rest of the
site.
 Page |6

Figure 6. Layout of Borehole Tests Conducted on Proposed Site.

Building Map of Selected Cross-Sections

Figure 7. Borehole Logs Used to Develop Soil Profile Cross-Sections.

 Page |7

Side-by-Side Comparison of Boring Logs

Figure 8. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #1 Using Borehole 2,3,18 & 19 Respectively.

 Page |8

Figure 9. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #2 Using Borehole 6,1 & 7 Respectively.

 Page |9

Figure 10. Proposed Soil Cross-Section #3 Using Borehole 12, 8, 4, 1 & 3 Respectively.
 P a g e | 10

Composite Soil Profile

Figure 11. Composite General Soil Profile of Proposed Area.

 P a g e | 11

Laboratory Testing Program and Results

Unit Weight vs. Elevation

Unit Weight vs. Elevation
105
100
95
90
Elevation (ft)

85
80
75
70
65
60
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Unit Weight (lb/ft3)
Clay Sandy Clay Silty Clay

Figure 12. Unit Weight vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area.

LL, PL, and natural WC vs. Elevation

Liquid Limit vs. Elevation

105

100

95
Elevation (ft)

90

85

80

75

70
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Limit (%)
Clay Sandy Clay Silty Clay

Figure 13. Liquid Limit vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area.
 P a g e | 12

Plastic Limit vs. Elevation

105

100

95
Elevation (ft)

90

85

80

75

70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Plastic Limit (%)
Clay Sandy Clay Silty Clay

Figure 14. Plastic Limit vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area.

Figure 15. Natural Water Content vs. Elevation of Soil Types in Proposed Area.
 P a g e | 13

Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation

Shear Stength vs. Elevation
100
95
90
85
Elevation (ft)

80
75
70
65
60
55
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Undrained Shear Strength (lb/ft2)

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Pocket Penetrometer

Figure 16. Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation of Soil in Proposed Area.

Consolidation Plots
Borehole 1

Figure 17. Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande Method of Borehole 1.

 P a g e | 14

Borehole 9

Figure 18. Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande Method of Borehole 9.

Table 1. Calculated Consolidation Data Parameters.

Borehole 1 Borehole 9
e0 0.487 1.002
ep 0.475 0.97197
efin 0.36 0.711
σo 0.9064 1.714
σp 5 ksf 8.9 ksf
σfin 65 ksf 68 ksf
σm 4.09 ksf 7.816 ksf
Cr 0.016 0.04
Cc 0.103 0.29

Discussion of Laboratory Results

By analyzing the natural water content relative to depth in Figure 15, it is visible that
overall, water content increases in depth, but up to 80 ft in elevation, the water content is highest,
 P a g e | 15

achieving values between 25% and 37 %. These water contents are within clay. This is typical due
to the smaller pores in clay relative to sand, which enable it to retain more water. With higher
water content, the soils will be more liquid.

The more water present within a soil, the more liquid it will be. This is present in
Figure 13. Clays have a higher liquid limit due to the fact that they need more water to transition
from a plastic soil to a liquid soil, whereas sands and silty clays do not. This is expected due to
clays be more plastic in nature. When comparing Figures 13 and 15, it is noticeable that the water
content and liquid limit follow similar trends, but increasing up to 80 ft, with clays achieving the
highest water content and liquid limit. Figure 14 compares the plastic limit vs elevation for sand,
silt, and clay. Sandy clay consists of a lower plastic limit. This is due to sands being more brittle
and solid, compared to silt and clay. It is visible in Figure 12 that as elevation increases, there is
more sand. This sand has a higher unit weight than clay and silty clay. Overall, it is clear that as
sand exists at higher elevation and clays at lower elevations, and in between there are silty clays.

When analyzing the shear strength using pocket penetrometer and unconsolidated-
undrained triaxial data in Figure 16, the data is sporadic, and no trends are visible. The pocket
penetrometer provides relatively higher shear strength results when compared to the
unconsolidated triaxial data. A depth increases, the shear strength is more consistent. At higher
elevations, the shear strength increases within small elevation differences, showing that undrained
shear is more inconsistent.

The soil parameters present within Boreholes 1 and 9 are present in Figures 17 and 18.
These parameters were obtained using the Casagrande method of analysis. When following the
trend of the consolidation plot in Borehole 1, the slopes of compression and recompression are
relatively small compared to Borehole 9. In Table 1, the comparison between soil parameters is
present. The compression and recompression index for borehole 9 are greatly larger compared to
Borehole 1. The pre-consolidation pressure is also higher, showing that the soil at borehole 9 has
experienced higher stresses prior to loading. The differences in soil parameters in boreholes 1 and
9 can possibly lead to differential settlement and should be considered when selecting the
foundation for the proposed project.
 P a g e | 16

Work Authorization Form (Signature Sheet)

Amer Shaikh (214414122)

Signature:

Angelo Mandarello (215917339)

Signature:

Guiseppe Garisto (215030208)

Signature:
 P a g e | 17

Appendix A
Calculations
Borehole 15
e0 = 0.487

e=-(e0 +1)*Ɛ + e0

σo = Ɣ*Depth
σo =113.3/1000 * 8 = 0.9064
σp= 5 ksf

ep = -(0.487+1)*0.8/100 + 0.487 = 0.475

Cr = -(0.475-0.487)/ log(5/0.9064) = 0.016
σfin = 65 ksf
efin = -(0.487 + 1)*8.5/100 +0.487 = 0.36

Cc= -(e1- e0) /log(σ1/σ0)

Cc = -(0.36-0.475)/log(65/5) = 0.103
σm = σp – σ0 = 5-0.9064 = 4.09 ksf
Borehole 9
e0 = 1.002

e=-(e0 +1)*Ɛ + e0

σo = Ɣ*Depth

σo =85.7/1000 * 8 = 1.714
σp = 8.9 ksf

ep = -(1.002+1)*1.5/100 + 1.002 = 0.972

Cr = -(e1- e0) /log(σ1/σ0)
Cr = -(0.972-1.002)/ log(8.9/1.714) = 0.04
σfin = 68 ksf
efin = -(1.002 + 1)*14.5/100 +1.002 = 0.711

Cc= -(e1- e0) /log(σ1/σ0)

Cc = -(0.711-0.972)/log(68/8.9) = 0.29
σm = σp – σ0 = 8.9 – 1.714 = 7.186 ksf
 P a g e | 18

Appendix B
Data Tables
Table 2.All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Clay Layer(s).

Unit
Borehol Elevatio
WC (%) LL (%) PL (%) Weight Layer
e Log n (ft)
(lb/ft3)
1 80.2 27 Clay
2 85.5 26 98 Clay
2 80.5 29 73 27 Clay
3 91.1 20 Clay
3 81.1 22 104 Clay
6 81.7 33 89 Clay
7 81.6 22 104 Clay
8 90.7 23 105 Clay
8 81.7 29 Clay
9 80.3 36 70 23 86 Clay
11 90.7 21 106 Clay
11 81.7 28 Clay
12 80.7 24 103 Clay
13 85.7 20 106 Clay
17 91.1 18 108 Clay
18 95.6 10 117 Clay
18 90.6 19 111 Clay
18 81.6 27 73 24 Clay
18 61.6 22 Clay
19 92.4 16 115 Clay
19 91.4 50 17 Clay
19 85.4 20 Clay
19 76.4 28 Clay
19 66.4 26 Clay

Table 3. All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Silty Clay Layer(s).

Unit
Borehole Elevation
WC (%) LL (%) PL (%) Weight Layer
Log (ft)
(lb/ft3)
4 85.4 23 102 Silty Clay
5 85.7 21 Silty Clay
9 85.3 22 104 Silty Clay
10 85.7 19 31 18 111 Silty Clay
19 98.9 14 Silty Clay
 P a g e | 19

Table 4. All Borehole Log Data Analyzed for Sandy Clay Layer(s).

Borehole Elevation WC LL PL Unit Weight

Layer
Log (ft) (%) (%) (%) (lb/ft3)
1 97.8 14 Sandy Clay
1 94.8 13 Sandy Clay
1 92.8 17 Sandy Clay
1 92.8 17 Sandy Clay
1 92.8 40 11 113 Sandy Clay
1 94.8 122 Sandy Clay
1 92.8 115 Sandy Clay
2 96.5 16 33 13 112 Sandy Clay
2 92.5 15 116 Sandy Clay
3 98.1 14 Sandy Clay
3 95.1 15 117 Sandy Clay
4 97.4 14 Sandy Clay
4 92.4 15 118 Sandy Clay
5 96.7 15 Sandy Clay
5 94.7 14 33 13 120 Sandy Clay
5 90.7 18 112 Sandy Clay
6 95.7 13 Sandy Clay
6 92.7 14 117 Sandy Clay
7 94.6 16 Sandy Clay
7 90.6 17 108 Sandy Clay
8 96.7 15 Sandy Clay
8 94.7 15 116 Sandy Clay
8 72.7 60 Sandy Clay
9 94.3 14 41 13 119 Sandy Clay
9 90.3 18 109 Sandy Clay
10 96.7 15 Sandy Clay
10 93.7 14 120 Sandy Clay
11 97.7 13 Sandy Clay
11 95.7 17 114 Sandy Clay
12 96.7 20 56 13 109 Sandy Clay
12 92.7 20 110 Sandy Clay
13 97.7 14 Sandy Clay
13 94.7 19 109 Sandy Clay
13 91.7 17 Sandy Clay
17 97.1 14 119 Sandy Clay
17 94.1 20 Sandy Clay
18 97.6 10 44 12 Sandy Clay
19 96.4 13 37 12 Sandy Clay
19 94.4 15 Sandy Clay
19 56.4 20 Sandy Clay
 P a g e | 20

Table 5.. Pocket Penetrometer Data from All Boreholes.

Elevation Pocket Elevation Pocket Elevation Pocket Elevation Pocket

(ft) (KSF) (ft) (KSF) (ft) (KSF) (ft) (KSF)
97.7 0.7 91.5 1.6 86.6 2.1 81.4 3.3
97.8 1.2 93.7 1.6 97.4 2.1 76.4 3.3
97.5 1.2 81.3 1.6 95.4 2.1 77.7 3.3
87.7 1.2 94.1 1.6 91.4 2.1 93.7 3.3
75.7 1.2 76.4 1.6 86.4 2.1 70.7 3.3
86.7 1.2 93.5 1.8 56.4 2.1 76.7 3.3
97.3 1.2 94.1 1.8 82.1 2.2 70.7 3.3
98.7 1.2 93.7 1.8 85.7 2.2 71.5 3.6
87.7 1.2 91.7 1.8 80.7 2.2 66.8 3.6
92.1 1.2 93.6 1.8 81.7 2.2 56.8 3.6
98.4 1.2 86.7 1.8 91.6 2.2 77.1 3.6
95.5 1.3 76.7 1.8 81.4 2.2 66.4 3.6
96.1 1.3 86.7 1.8 95.8 2.4 82.7 3.6
86.4 1.3 76.7 1.8 86.5 2.4 76.6 3.6
94.6 1.3 86.7 1.8 81.8 2.4 66.7 3.6
97.7 1.3 87.1 1.8 92.1 2.4 82.1 3.6
91.7 1.3 93.4 1.8 95.4 2.4 66.6 3.6
97.7 1.3 98.1 1.9 91.6 2.4 67.7 3.7
94.7 1.3 97.4 1.9 81.6 2.4 70.1 3.7
92.7 1.3 93.4 1.9 81.5 2.5 96.8 3.9
95.7 1.3 91.4 1.9 81.7 2.5 75.5 3.9
95.7 1.3 93.6 1.9 66.3 2.5 67.1 3.9
98.1 1.3 75.3 2 69.7 2.5 95.7 3.9
99.6 1.3 93.8 2.1 66.4 2.5 61.3 3.9
91.8 1.5 86.8 2.1 99.8 2.7 95.7 3.9
87.1 1.5 86.6 2.1 76.8 2.7 91.7 3.9
97.7 1.5 80.6 2.1 100.1 2.7 77.7 3.9
95.7 1.5 76.7 2.1 97.7 2.7 81.7 3.9
95.7 1.5 95.3 2.1 99.6 2.7 96.1 3.9
71.7 1.5 86.3 2.1 97.6 2.7 77.1 3.9
93.7 1.5 81.7 2.1 82.7 2.7 61.4 4.2
91.7 1.5 93.7 2.1 76.6 2.7 96.6 5.2
97.7 1.5 91.7 2.1 91.7 3 97.6 5.4
 P a g e | 21

Table 6. Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Data from All Boreholes.

Elevation
UU (KSF)
(ft)
81.7 0.88
91.1 1.2
90.7 1.4
81.1 1.5
81.6 1.5
85.4 1.7
94.7 1.7
97.7 1.8
91.7 1.8
92.7 1.8
94.7 1.9
96.7 2.1
80.7 2.1
95.1 2.2
85.7 2.2
94.7 2.3
91.3 2.4
92.5 2.5
90.8 2.5
90.7 2.5
85.7 2.5
92.4 2.5
90.6 2.7
85.5 2.8
90.3 2.9
85.3 2.9
94.8 3
90.6 3.3
93.7 3.5
92.4 3.7
92.7 4.6
95.6 4.8