CIVL 3210- Geotechnical Engineering

Design Project Assignment 1

February 22, 2023

The BoreHoles

Alliza Frias 215673445

Demar Holness 217282807

Gurleen Singh 217007014

Malek Alesali 216480436

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Site Conditions and Site Geology 1
Site Investigation Program and Results 4
Laboratory Testing Program and Results 12
A. Unit Weight vs. Elevation 12
B. LL, PL and Natural Water Content vs. Elevation 13
C. Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation 15
D. Consolidation plots with calculations for Cc, Cr and Casagrande and Schmertmann
Adjustments to Consolidation Data of undrained shear strength 16
Signature Page 18
Raw Data and Calculations 19
List of Figures
Figure 1: Aerial View of Proposed Site Location
Figure 2: Map of Surrounding Cities
Figure 3: Site Perimeter Details
Figure 4: Street Map of Local Area
Figure 5: Topographic Elevation of Proposed Location
Figure 6: Plate 1, Proposed Building Complex Layout
Figure 7: Cross-section #1 Boring Logs
Figure 8: Cross-section #2 Boring Logs
Figure 9: Composite Cross-section #1
Figure 10: Composite Cross-section #2
Soil Profile #1
Soil Profile #2
Figure 11: Unit Weight with Elevation
Figure 12: Atterberg Limits and Water Content with Elevation - Sandy Clay
Figure 13: Atterberg Limits and Water Content with Elevation - Clay
Figure 14: Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation
Figure. 15 Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande method for borehole 1
Figure 16: Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande method for borehole 9

List of Tables
Table 1: Plate 1, Proposed Building Complex Loading Conditions
Table 2: Soil Layer Properties
Table 3. Calculated Data parameters
Table 4: Borehole Data for Clay Layer
Table 5: Borehole Data for Sandy Clay Layer
Table 6: Borehole Data for Remaining Layers
Table 7: Average Soil Properties
Introduction
The construction of a multi-story building complex is proposed at this site 29°56'40.0"N
95°25'46.5"W. It is currently an unoccupied lot, but is intended to serve as a central computer
centre for an oil company.

The BoreHoles have been brought onto work with the project’s geotechnical engineering
consulting firm to complete the design process. The building proposal design has been
drafted (Figure 1 and Table 1), however a recommendation for size and type of foundation is
required. Using the technical reports drafted by Fugro McCleland, our firm has been tasked
with developing a suitable design soil profile, specifying various soil properties with depth.
The conditions of the site are outlined in the subsequent section

Site Conditions and Site Geology

Figure 1: Aerial View of Proposed Site Location

The figure above shows the area of the site and the structures around it. The site itself is
accommodated by multiple warehouses. The area is also surrounded by major roads from all
sides.

1
Figure 2: Map of Surrounding Cities

The site is located in Houston, Texas. The city is in the southern United States and tends to
stay warm year round.

2
Figure 3: Site Perimeter Details

The perimeter of the site is 1807.77m and the area is 180677m^2. The area around the
university is mainly inhabited by office space and university this can be a slight problem
when it comes to constructing on this site.

Figure 4: Street Map of Local Area

3
Two major highways also intersect nearby the location, showing this area consists of high
traffic and large population lives around it.

Figure 5: Topographic Elevation of Proposed Location

Site Investigation Program and Results

Figure 6: Plate 1, Proposed Building Complex Layout

Figure 6 shows the layout of boring and the selected cross-sections on the site. These two
cross-sections were chosen because they give a broader idea to the soil profile of the site as

4
they stretch across the site including the proposed computing centre, proposed annex, and the
proposed central plant substation.

The two cross-sections include four boreholes each for a total of eight boreholes between the
sections. Boreholes 8, 4, 1, 3 are assigned to cross-section 1, while boreholes 13, 6, 5, 18 are
assigned to cross-section 2.

Table 1: Plate 1, Proposed Building Complex Loading Conditions

Building Name Amount of Max Load Min Load Elevation
Storeys (kN) (kN) (ft)

Computing Center 3 4000 2000 98

Annex (3+1) 3 4500 3000 100

Annex Basement 1 4500 3000 85

Atrium 1 650 350 98

Central Plant 1 900 450 98

Substation
In addition, a future parking garage is proposed but the building is excluded from the scope

Boring Logs:

5
Figure 7: Cross-section #1 Boring Logs

The boring logs in figure 7 shows cross-section 1 appearing to have a predominately clayey
foundation. The first or top layer is a sandy silt layer followed up by a sandy clay layer then a
clay layer. There's also a silty sand layer that splits the clay layer into two sections.
Boreholes 3, 4, and 8 all have a depth of around 40 ft, borehole 1 on the other hand is the
deepest borehole on the sire with a depth of 59.5 ft. The extra depth of borehole 1 suggests
that there could very well be a sand layer beyond depth of 50 ft that is not taken into account
in the soil profile of the cross-section in figure 9

6
Figure 8: Cross-section #2 Boring Logs

The boring logs in cross-section 2 continue to show that the foundation is predominantly
clayey as seen in figure 10. The top layer is again for the most part a sandy silt layer followed

7
by sandy clay and a clay layer. The difference in cross-section 2 compared to the first
cross-section is the presence of a silt layer in the clay layer.

Here the boreholes are more consistent in depth sitting between 30 ft to 40 ft in depth, which
allows for a more consistent estimation of the soil profile.

Cross-sections:

Figure 9: Composite Cross-section #1

Figure 10: Composite Cross-section #2

8
To get the above composite cross-sections 1 and 2,the scale in figure XX was measured with
a ruler, the measurement came out to be 3 cm which meant that every 3 cm is equal to 240 ft.
Next, the distances between each borehole was also measured,

Example:

Between B-8 and B-4 was measure to be 1.5 cm,

240×1.5
3
= 120 𝑓𝑡

Therefore, 1.5 cm was equivalent to 120 ft, which means B-8 and B-4 are 120 ft apart. This
same calculation was done to find all the other distances between the boreholes. This
determines the x-axis scale, for determining the scale of the y-axis, a simple measurement of
the depth of the bore logs found that 3 cm is equal to 5 ft in depth.

After computing the distances of all the boreholes and creating the scales, AutoCad was used
to create the composite cross-sections and the soil profiles based on the given boring logs
which displays the depth of each layer, the GWT level, and provides a vertical and horizontal
scale.

Using the composite cross-sections the soil profiles on the following pages were created.

9
10
11
Laboratory Testing Program and Results

Table 2: Soil Layer Properties

Soil Type Max Min Average Average Average Average
Elevation Elevation Water Liquid Plastic Dry Unit
Content Limit Limit Weight

Sandy 99.7 53.3 14.65 39 12 134.169

Clay

Silty Clay 88.3 85.7 20.5 31 14 107.5

Clay 95.1 62.1 23.8 73 24 126.5

A. Unit Weight vs. Elevation

The purpose of plotting unit weight with depth is to determine specification of compaction in
the field. For the boreholes within cross section 1 and 2 the parameters have been plotted
with elevation. Using the values of unit weight and proposed loading ranges in Table XX for
the buildings, depth of the footing can be determined. It will also be used to determine future
settlement of the buildings.

As shown in the figure below, the majority of bulk unit weight values are in the range
120-140 pounds per cubic foot. This is in line with the typical unit weight of clay, which is
the largest soil layer of both cross sections. The high swelling potential and density of the
clay is a characteristic of the soil’s higher unit weight.

Figure 11: Unit Weight with Elevation

12
 B. LL, PL and Natural Water Content vs. Elevation
As the soil profile consists mainly of fine grained soils, the properties of liquid limit and
plastic limit (PL) significantly affect the settlement, and thus consideration for foundation is
essential. The measure of the soil's ability to change shape without causing cracking is the
difference between the LL and PL.

At higher elevations, the plastic and liquid limit are lower so this area is more resistant to
settlement upon loading. The stability of this is due to the presence of sand, which has a
larger particle size than the clay layer below it. At lower elevations, where it is largely a clay
layer, the higher liquid limit suggests it is prone to settlement upon loading. It is likely to
deform and lose strength under load. Since it is the lower layers, the dimensions of the
foundation will determine if the clay layer soil properties affect the buildings above it.

Figure 12: Atterberg Limits and Water Content with Elevation - Sandy Clay

13
Figure 13: Atterberg Limits and Water Content with Elevation - Clay

14
 C. Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation
Undrained shear strength is a way to measure the resistance of soil under loads that are
applied in the short term. A lot of factors can affect this measurement for example the soil
type, how saturated it is or pressure being applied. By plotting the undrained shear strength
VS the elevation we are able to see the changes that occur in the soil as you look into deeper
and deeper soil layers. By this information we can design the foundation. By checking the
shear strength at different levels we will also be able to check which layer is weak and which
is stronger.

Figure 14: Undrained Shear Strength vs. Elevation

15
 D. Consolidation plots with calculations for Cc, Cr and Casagrande and
Schmertmann Adjustments to Consolidation Data of undrained shear strength

Consolidation Plots
Borehole 1

Figure. 15 Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande method for borehole 1.

16
Figure 16: Consolidation Data Adjustments Using Casagrande method for borehole 9

Table 3. Calculated Data parameters

Borehole 1 Borehole 9
e0 0.49 1
ep 0.475 0.972
efin 0.36 0.711
σ0 0.9 1.715
σp 5 ksf 9 ksf
σfin 65 ksf 68ksf
σm 4.1 ksf 7 ksf
Cr 0.016 0.039
Cc 0.103 0.29

The soil parameters were obtained using the Casagrande method of analysis. Starting by
following the plot for borehole 1, we see that the slope for compression and recompression is
smaller than that of borehole 9. This is confirmed in Table 3, where we can see the
compression and recompression index for borehole 9 are bigger than borehole 1. Borehole 9
also has higher preconsolidation pressures. The differences mean the type of foundation
should be taken in consideration, since these areas will have different settlements.

17
Signature Page

Gurleen Singh 217007014

Malek Alasali 216480436

Demar Holness 217282807

Alliza Frias 215673445

18
Raw Data and Calculations

Borehole 1
e0 = 0.487
e=-(e0 +1)*Ɛ + e0σo=Ɣ*Depth
σo=113.3/1000 * 8 = 0.9064
σp= 5 ksf
ep = -(0.487+1)*0.8/100 + 0.487 = 0.475
Cr = -(e1-e0) /log(σ1/σ0)
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

Sample Bulk Unit Weight Calculation:

ɣd = ɣ /(1+w)
ɣ = 122*(1+(17/100))
= 142.74

19
Table 4: Borehole Data for Clay Layer
Borehole Elevation w LL PL ɣd ɣ

1 84.8

1 81.8 27

3 93.1

3 91.1 20

3 81.1 22 104 126.88

3 71.1

4 85.4 23 102 125.46

4 70.9

5 85.7 21

5 71.2

6 85.7

6 81.7 33 89 118.37

6 71.2

8 92.7

8 90.7 23 105 129.15

8 85.7

8 82.2 29

8 71.2

13 86.7

13 85.7 20 106 127.2

18 95.1

18 91.1 19 111 132.09

18 82.1 27 73 24

18 72.1

20
18 62.1 22

21
Table 5: Borehole Data for Sandy Clay Layer
Borehole Elevation w LL PL Dry Unit Bulk
Weight Unit
Weight

1 98.8

1 97.8 14

1 94.8 13

1 92.8 17 122 142.74

1 90.8 17 40 11 115 134.55

1 53.3

3 fill: sandy
clay

3 99.1 14

3 95.1 15 117 134.55

4 98.9

4 97.4 14

4 92.4 15 118 135.7

5 98.7

5 96.7 15

5 94.7 14 33 13 120 136.8

5 90.7 18 112 132.16

22
 6 99.2

6 95.7 13

6 92.7 14 117 133.38

8 99.7

8 96.7 15

8 94.7 15 116 133.4

13 99.2

13 98.2 14

13 95.2 19 109 129.71

13 92.2 17

18 99.1

18 98.1 10 44 12

18 96.1 10 117 128.7

Table 6: Borehole Data for Remaining Layers

Borehole Soil Type Elevation

1 sandy silt

1 sand 48.3

1 failure 41.3

3 sandy silt 100.1

3 silty sand 74.1

23
3 sandy silt 63.1

3 failure 61.1

4 sandy silt 100.4

4 silty clay 88.9

4 silty sand 74.4

4 clayey 62.4
silt

4 failure 60.4

5 sandy silt 100.7

5 silty clay 89.2

5 silt 73.7

5 clayey 63.7
silt

5 failure 60.7

6 sandy silt 100.7

6 silty clay 78.2

6 clayey 74.7
silt

6 failure 70.2

8 sandy silt

8 silty clay 88.7

8 sandy silt 74.2

8 sandy silt 73.2

8 silty sand 62.7

8 failure 61.7

13 sandy silt 100.7

24
 13 silty clay 89.7

13 failure 70.7

18 silty clay 100.6

18 failure 60.6

Table 7: Average Soil Properties

Soil Max/ Min w LL PL PI ɣd ɣ
Layer Elevation

Sandy 99.7 14.65 39 12 27 116.3 134.16

Clay 9

53.3

Clay 95.1 23.8333 73 24 49 102.833333 126.52

3333 3 5

62.1

Silty 74.4
Sand

70.9

sandy 100.7
silt

63.1

Silty 100.6
Clay

78.2

Sand 48.3

41.3

Clayey 74.7
Silt

60.4

25