KE-187-881-12-DOC-001 Rev 1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns - Vetted by IITM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 General .....................................................................................................................................1
2 Structure Details .............................................................................................................................1
3 Soil Conditions ...............................................................................................................................2
4 Loading and Performance Criteria................................................................................................3
5 Geotechnical Assessment .............................................................................................................3
5.1 Bearing capacity .......................................................................................................................3
5.2 Settlement .................................................................................................................................3
6 Proposed Foundation Solution .....................................................................................................3
6.1 Ground Improvement using Vibro Stone Columns ...................................................................3
7 Proposal of Ground Improvement ................................................................................................4
7.1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns ................................................................................................4
7.2 Proposed Treatment Scheme ...................................................................................................5
7.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................6
7.4 Settlement Analysis ..................................................................................................................6
8 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall layout plan ....................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: SPT N values & Grain size distribution vs Depth and Idealised soil profile ..............................2
Figure 3: Schematic of vibro stone columns (dry bottom feed method)...................................................4
Figure 4: Typical cross section of vibro stone columns............................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Design soil parameters...............................................................................................................2
Table 2: Proposed Ground Improvement Scheme...................................................................................4
Table 3: Summary of Bearing Capacity Analysis .....................................................................................6
Table 4: Summary of Settlement Analysis ...............................................................................................6
LIST OF ENCLOSURES
Annexure A: Overall Layout and Elevation Drawings

Annexure B: Soil Investigation Report
Annexure C: Bearing Capacity Analysis (post treatment)
Annexure D: Load Carrying Capacity of Single Stone Column (as per IS 15284 Part 1: 2003)
Annexure E: Settlement Analysis
Annexure F: Layout of Vibro Stone Columns
Annexure G: Technical Paper Design of Vibro Replacement by Heinz J. Priebe
Page i
Design of Ground Improvement using vibro stone columns
1 Introduction
1.1 General
M/s. The Chennai Silks (group) is proposed to develop a textile showroom at Kumbakonam
with the footprint area of about 1,900m2. The proposed textile showroom is a precast building
construction which consists of B+G+4 upper floors. The foundation interface and super
structure construction will be executed by M/s Teemage Builders Pvt Ltd. (The Chennai Silks
group of companies) who is the main contractor. In this regard, M/s Teemage approached
Keller Ground Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. for the design and execution of suitable foundation
system for the proposed building.
The intention of this document is to describe the design of ground improvement using vibro
stone columns (dry bottom feed method). This document is revised as per the comments
received from IIT Madras.
2 Structure Details
The plot area of proposed site is 1.25 acres, in which part of plot will be covered by textile
showroom and rest of plot area will be hotel building. At present, ground improvement is
proposed for textile showroom with the total footprint area is around 1,900m2. The RL of road
level is RL. +100.0 m which corresponds to elevation EL. +0.0 and the Existing Ground Level
(EGL) of proposed site is EL. -1.2m (i.e. 1.2m below road level). The level of basement (raft
top) is EL -1.8m and the proposed founding level is at EL. -2.8m which is 2.8m below
Existing Ground Level. The overall layout plan of proposed site is shown in Figure 1. The
overall layout and elevation drawing of proposed building is shown in Annexure A.
Figure 1: Overall layout plan
1
3 Soil Conditions
M/s Time Institute for Materials and Testing carried out the subsoil investigation works during
December 2016 with 5 exploratory boreholes up to 50m depth within the proposed footprint
area. The subsoil consists of firm to stiff silty sandy clay layer with medium plasticity with
SPT N values varying from 5 to 20 up to the explored depth of 50m The ground water table
was encountered at 4m below Existing Ground Level (EGL).
In addition to the soil investigation by client, M/s Keller has conducted confirmatory soil
investigation with 3 nos. of boreholes and 6 nos. of dynamic penetration test (DPT) at the
prosed site. The confirmatory soil investigation reveals that the subsoil condition is similar to
the results reported by client. The idealised soil profile with SPT N values (Client & Keller BH
data) and Grain size distribution with respect to depth is shown in Figure 2. The detailed soil
investigation report is appended in Annexure B and the design soil parameters are indicated
in Table 1.
SPT N value Grain Size Distribution (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 0
Gravel %
-4 -4
BH 1 Sand %
BH 2 -8
-8 Fines %
BH 3
-12 BH 4 -12
BH 5
-16 KBH 1 -16

KBH 2
-20
Depth, m
-20 KBH 3
Depth, m
-24 -24
-28 -28
-32 -32
-36 -36
-40 -40
-44 -44
-48 -48
-52 -52
Figure 2: SPT N values & Grain size distribution vs Depth and Idealised soil profile
Table 1: Design soil parameters
Layer SPT
SI. Depth (m) Cu Ds
Thick Soil description N
No
From To (m) value (kPa) (deg) (kN/m3) (kPa)
1 0.0 4.0 4.0 Silty sandy clay (CI) 7 35 0 16.0 7,000
2
4 Loading and Performance Criteria

The loading intensity and performance criteria of proposed structure is described below.
Loading Intensity : 100 kPa
Performance Criteria : 125mm for raft in clays (as per IS 1904:1995)
5 Geotechnical Assessment
The subsoil of proposed site consisting of firm to stiff silty sandy clay layer with medium
plasticity up to the deeper depth of 50m and foundations with higher loading resting on such
challenging ground would pose the following geotechnical problems.
Lack of required bearing capacity at foundation level
Larger settlement due to heavy structural loading
Hence, the above geotechnical aspects need to be assessed and same shall be addressed
with suitable and optimum foundation solution.
5.1 Bearing capacity

The bearing capacity of top layer (silty clay, Cu~ 35 kPa) assessed by Terzaghi general shear
criteria (qd= 5.14C/2.5) found to be in the range of 70 kPa, whereas the required loading
intensity at the foundation base is 100 KPa. The in-situ bearing capacity is less than the
required loading intensity of the structure. Hence, the foundation soil fails in bearing.
5.2 Settlement
The long term settlements below building foundation have been estimated with in-situ soil
conditions and based on heavy structural loadings. The total settlement of foundation soil is
more than 150mm for the proposed raft foundation (55m x 34m) which is more than
permissible limits.
6 Proposed Foundation Solution

Based on the geotechnical assessment, it is understood bearing capacity and settlement
problem need to be addressed below building foundation to withstand the extreme loading
conditions and satisfying the performance requirements. Considering the ground conditions
and geotechnical challenge as described in above section, suitable ground improvement
technique need to be evaluated to address the geotechnical challenges.
6.1 Ground Improvement using Vibro Stone Columns

Vibro stone columns introduce a coarse-grained material as load bearing elements
consisting of crushed stone aggregate as a backfill medium. In the dry method, the columns
are installed by displacement technique (without removing any soil). Hence, the site
environment would be comparatively clean. The Figure 3 illustrates the schematic of the
installation procedure of vibro stone columns by dry bottom feed method. The grading of the
stone usually in the range of 35mm down to 12mm for dry bottom feed method.
This technique employs a depth vibrator, which ensures properly formed compacted vibro
stone columns to the required diameter and depth. The technique provides effective drainage
paths to ensure rapid consolidation. It also has a built-in real time computer monitoring
system to provide quality control on compaction effort throughout the construction process.
3
Figure 3: Schematic of vibro stone columns (dry bottom feed method)

The above technique (vibro stone columns) ensures following applications:
Improves bearing capacity of in-situ soils
Reduces settlements
Mitigates liquefaction potential under the excitation of earthquake
Enhances lateral capacity of piles
In case of stiff/ hard strata are encountered within the treatment depth, the column shall be
terminated at that depth. The detailed construction methodology of vibro stone columns
using dry bottom feed method has been described and will be submitted in a separate
document.
7 Proposal of Ground Improvement

Based on sub-soil and given loading conditions, the design of vibro stone columns has been
assessed with various alternatives to meet the bearing capacity and settlements for
performance requirements. The proposed treatment scheme is discussed in following
sections.
7.1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns

The analysis of Vibro replacement is done according to Priebes (1995) design methodology
using in-house program Keller Improvement Design (KID) by employing the available soil
information. The detailed technical paper for The Design of Vibro Replacement by Heinz J.
Priebe is appended in Annexure G. Summary of proposed ground improvement scheme
obtained from KID analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Proposed Ground Improvement Scheme
Ground Improvement scheme

Foundation
Loading (kPa) Column Dia. Depth from
type Spacing (m) ARR (%)
(mm) EGL (m)
1.8 Triangular
Raft 55mx34m 100 900 15m to 16m 23%
Pattern
4
7.2 Proposed Treatment Scheme

Based on assessment, the following stone column parameters and treatment scheme are
proposed for main works below building foundation.
Stone Column Parameters:
Unit weight of column material : 22 kN/m3
Submerged unit weight : 12 kN/m3
Angle of internal friction : 42o
Modulus of compressibility : 120,000 kPa
Proposed Treatment Scheme:
Diameter of the stone column : 900 mm
Installation length of stone column: 15m to 16m below Existing Ground Level
Stone column cut-off level : - 2.8m below EGL (EL. - 4.0m)
Depth of stone column : 12 to 13m from column COL
Column spacing & pattern : 1.8m c/c Triangular Pattern
Granular blanket of min. 500mm thick compacted fill will be laid over installed stone columns
for proper load distribution and also function as a drainage layer for pore water pressure
dissipation.
Extent of Treatment:
It shall be noted that the treatment area of proposed structure will be higher than the building
footprint area in order to facilitate the confinement row outside the footprint area.
Figure 4: Typical cross section of vibro stone columns
5
The vibro stone columns will be terminated in medium dense/stiff layers which can be
detected by the vibrator through power resistance against the soil. The termination amps
shall be in the range of 60 to 80 amps. The layout plan showing stone column arrangement
for proposed ground improvement area is appended in Annexure F.
7.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis

The analysis of vibro replacement is done according to Priebes (1995) design methodology
using in-house program KID by employing the available soil information. The safe bearing
capacity based on the shear failure criteria is determined as per IS 6403-1981 with the
improved parameters obtained from KID analysis. The bearing capacity after ground
improvement is presented in Table 3 and the detailed calculation is appended in Annexure C.
The load carrying of single stone column (as per IS 15284 part1: 2003) is enclosed in
Annexure D.
Table 3: Summary of Bearing Capacity Analysis
Ground Improvement
scheme Improved
Foundation Loading
Bearing Remarks
type (kPa) Depth from
ARR (%) Capacity
EGL (m)
> 100 kPa
Raft 55m x 34m 100 15m to 16m 23% 130 kPa (required bearing
capacity)
7.4 Settlement Analysis

The settlement analysis is carried out based on Priebes (1995) design methodology using
in-house program KID by employing the available soil information. The settlement after
ground improvement is presented in Table 4 and the detailed calculation is appended in
Annexure E.
Table 4: Summary of Settlement Analysis
Ground Improvement
Improved
Foundation Loading scheme
Settlement from Remarks
type (kPa) Depth from
ARR (%) KID
EGL(m)
< 125mm
Raft 55m x 34m 100 15m to 16m 23% 103 mm (Permissible
settlement)
Analysis shows that the uniform post treated settlements are less than 125mm of which top
clay layer contributed larger magnitude. The majority of the settlements will be occurred
during construction period due to imposed structural load. Accordingly, the post construction
long term settlements will be still lesser with due consideration of consolidation settlements.
8 Conclusions
Ground improvement using dry Vibro stone columns are proposed to enhance bearing
capacity at proposed building foundation level and to satisfy the performance criteria as
per project requirements.
Based on the assessment, Vibro stone columns of 900mm dia. and 1.8m triangular
pattern to a treatment depth of 15m to 16m from the Existing Ground Level is proposed
to satisfy the bearing capacity requirements.
6
Vibro stone columns convert the existing weak deposits to a homogeneous mass,
which behaves uniformly, resulting in minimal total & differential settlement.
Besides improving the shear strength and compressibility parameters of the in-situ soil,
the technique also provides effective drainage paths to ensure rapid consolidation. This
technique will be cost effective solution for treating soft soils.
7
Annexure A: Overall Layout and Elevation Drawings
8
54720
2700 6320 2280 2620 2910 2910 2800 10850 7070 5870 3100 2640 2650
52220 [171'-4"]
Lift cover slab height as
vendor's requirement
Galvolume Sheet roofing
Genset & Transformer area
OTS For Ventilation
as desired Lvl.
Precast wall
Slope Height
FFL to FFL
4800
3450
Parapet wall
3000
+18.75m Lvl. 5000
Toilet Terrace Floor Terrace Floor Genset area Transformer
Fourth floor to Terrace floor stairs Precast open
FFL to FFL
23 risers T=300mm;R=150mm 1200 1.2 x 1.2m
3450
3000
1200
100mm precast wall design
as per elevation detail
+15.3m Lvl.
Fourth Floor Fourth Floor
TFL to Fourth floor stairs
FFL to FFL
23 risers T=300mm;R=150mm
3450
100mm precast wall design 3000

as per elevation detail
+11.85m Lvl.
Third Floor Third Floor
18750 [61'-6"]
SFL to TFL stairs

FFL to FFL
23 risers T=300mm;R=150mm 75 mm V-Panel

3450
3000 partition
+8.4m Lvl.
Second Floor Second Floor
FFL to SFL stairs
FFL to FFL
1200
23 risers T=300mm;R=150mm
75 mm V-Panel
3450
3000
Precast Beam partition
with slab +4.95m Lvl.
First Floor First Floor
Lift Shaft 7 stops
Lift Shaft 7 stops
1200 GFL To FFL stairs

FFL to FFL
27risers T=300mm;R=150mm 1200 Precast open

1.2 x 1.2m
3750
3000
2400
1200
+1.2m Lvl. +1.2m Lvl.
Ground Floor Ground Floor
+0.3m Lvl. +0.45m Lvl. +0.45m Lvl.
1200
+0.0m Lvl. Site Lvl. Site Lvl. +0.0m Lvl.

600 600 600 600
300
300
300
300
Road Lvl. BFL To GFL stairs Road Lvl.
(FFL to FFL)
27risers T=300mm;R=156mm
2400
Ventilator open Retaining wall along
4000
Precast wall along 0.6 x 0.3m Ramp

3270
Ramp length
2800
stairs length Stub wall upto 8390 .2 6100 (Conventional type)

1600
height up to Ground lvl.

Lift Pit Lift Pit basement landing only -2.8m Lvl. Ramp1:7
Basement Floor 2750 2750 1850 Basement Floor Earth Filling
150mm Raft concrete
SECTION-AA'
AREA STATEMENT: REV. DESCRIPTION DATE V.RAMESH KUMAR., M.Arch., A.I.I.A.,

SECTION-AA' Joinery Detail
V-Ventilator-1.0x1.0m
ARCHITECT
BASEMENT AREA = 1655.13 S.MTS. Release details & status: FOR DISCUSSION
V1-Ventilator-1.0x0.8m
G.FLOOR AREA = 1588.27 S.MTS. checked
Typical 1st,2nd,3rd&4th floor = 1689.63 S.MTS. x 4 = 6758 S.MTS. Date:06.1.17 dwg:tcs, kumba r10.dwg VR
Terrace floor-HC Area [Regd. No. CA/99/24425]
V4-Ventilator-0.75x0.75m = 352.9 S.MTS. N
W-Window-1.2 x 1.2m Client: M/s.TCS Show room, Kumbakkonam
Total HC Area = 10354.82 S.MTS. W
E
off: 70, Udayappa colony, Shankar nagar main road, Salem. mobile: 9362101497.
LD-Lift Door-As vendors Require Terrace floor Sheet roofing area = 516.82 S.MTS. S resi: 18/2/3, subramaniapuram extn., west of Cluny School, Salem-636007.
33635
3320 2150 2800 2380 2050 2400 2000 7650 5095 3070
500 220
3620 30415 [99'-9"]

Sheet roofing only Genset,
Chillers and transformer area Lift cover slab height as
vendor's requirement
Stairs Head room

HC slab
as desired Lvl.
Slope Height
Parapet wall
3000
ir s
or
sta Rolling
+18.75m Lvl. Flo mm shutter +18.75m Lvl.
MV Panel room
rra
c
Te ;R=1
e
50 Terrace Floor
r to m
floo 300m
h T=
urt
Fo isers
FFL to FFL
Toilet portion only sunken 23r
3450
1500
300mm below the floor Lvl.
3750
(Excluding Terrace)
Gents +15.3m Lvl.
irs m
+15.0m Lvl. Toilet
or
sta 50m
flo ;R=
1 Fourth Floor
r h
t mm
o u 0
o F =30
Lt T
TF isers
FFL to FFL
2 3 r
3450
1500
Building height from Road lvl.

3450
Boys
m +11.85m Lvl.
+11.55m Lvl. Toilet
irs =1
50m Third Floor
L sta m;R
F 0m
o T T=30
18750 [61'-6"]
Lt
SF isers
FFL to FFL
23r
3450
1500
3450
Ladies
m +8.4m Lvl.
+8.1m Lvl. Toilet
s 150
m Second Floor
tair ;R=
F L s 0mm
o S =30
Lt
FF sers T
FFL to FFL
i
23r
3450
1500
3450
Ladies +4.95m Lvl.

+4.65m Lvl. Toilet
5 0m
m First Floor
irs ;R=1
sta
F FL 00mm
o 3
Lt T=
GF isers
FFL to FFL
25r
3750
4650
m
s 15 0m +1.2m Lvl.
tair R=
L s m;
Ground Floor
3020
o GF 300m +0.3m Lvl.
+0.45m Lvl. L T T=
BF isers +0.0m Lvl.
800
Site Lvl. Site Lvl.

Ramp up 16r Road Lvl.
(FFL to FFL)
1500
to Groun
d Lvl. Mid Landing :7)
asement (1
4000
to B
Platform Ramp Dn
1.5 m X 2.4 m
Retaining wall along

precast open
2280
rs
Ramp length rise Mid Landing
1600
11 -2.8m Lvl.
(Conventional type) Earth filling Basement Floor
R.C.C. Retaining wall 150mm Raft concrete

(Conventional type)
SECTION-BB'
AREA STATEMENT: REV. DESCRIPTION DATE V.RAMESH KUMAR., M.Arch., A.I.I.A.,
SECTION-BB' Joinery Detail
V-Ventilator-1.0x1.0m
ARCHITECT
BASEMENT AREA = 1655.13 S.MTS. Release details & status: FOR DISCUSSION
G.FLOOR AREA = 1588.27 S.MTS. checked
Typical 1st,2nd,3rd&4th floor = 1689.63 S.MTS. x 4 = 6758 S.MTS. Date:06.1.17 dwg:tcs, kumba r10.dwg VR
Terrace floor-HC Area [Regd. No. CA/99/24425]
V4-Ventilator-0.75x0.75m = 352.9 S.MTS.
W-Window-1.2 x 1.2m Client: M/s.TCS Show room, Kumbakkonam
Total HC Area = 10354.82 S.MTS. off: 70, Udayappa colony, Shankar nagar main road, Salem. mobile: 9362101497.
LD-Lift Door-As vendors Require Terrace floor Sheet roofing area = 516.82 S.MTS. resi: 18/2/3, subramaniapuram extn., west of Cluny School, Salem-636007.
Annexure B: Soil Investigation Report
9
REPORT
ON
SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR CONSTRUCTION

OF
TEXTILE SHOWROOM
AT
KUMBAKONAM
Client
Sathy Silks Pvt. Ltd,

Near Bus Depo,
Kumbakonam.
By
Time
TIME INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS TESTING

14/16 NEW RAJA COLONY,
BEEMA NAGAR,
CONTONMENT,
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 620 001.
Ph: 0431 2401326
DECEMBER 2016
SUMMARY
Project : Construction of Textile Showroom at Kumbakonam

Project Reference : Time / Soil Test / December 2016
Owner : Sathy Silks Pvt. Ltd, Near Bus Depo, Kumbakonam.
Type of Structure : R.C.C. Framed construction
Location : Kumbakonam
Scope : Geotechnical investigation for the entire area of construction
Test conducted : Four explanatory bore holes up to 30m & fifth bore hole up to 50m depth were
made and conducted standard penetration tests at every 1.5m depth.
The undisturbed soil samples were collected at every 1.5m depth for
laboratory test.
FINDINGS
Soil at shallow depth : Medium Plasticity clay exists up to 5m depth
Hard stratum : No trace of rock exists up to 50m depth
Ground water table : Ground water table exist at 3m depth below ground level during investigation.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ON SOIL TEST
1.1 Introduction - 1
1.2 Investigation Programme, Procedure and Data - 2
1.3 Review of Field and Laboratory Results - 3
1.4 Conclusion - 5
2. SOIL PROFILES
2.1 Plan of Bore Hole 1 to 5 - 6

2.2 Bore log details for Bore Hole 1 - 7
2.7 Summary of Engineering Geo Properties for Bore Hole 1 - 12
2.12 Summary of Engineering Geo Properties for Bore Hole 5 - 1 - 17
2.13 Summary of Laboratory test results for Bore Hole 1 - 18
2.18 Summary of Laboratory test results for Bore Hole 5 - 1 - 23
2.19 Shear Parameters for different layers of Bore Hole 1 - 24
2.24 Shear Parameters for different layers of Bore Hole 5 - 1 - 29
2.25 Sub Grade Modulus and Dynamic Shear Modulus values of Bore Hole 1 - 30
3. SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT
3.1 Sieve Analysis report of sample from Borehole No: 1 at 1m to 10m depth - 36
4. SAFE BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION
4.1 Safe Bearing capacity calculation based on settlement and shear - 53

4.2 Safe Bearing Capacity calculations based on Unconfined Compression Test (UCC) - 54
4.3 Safe Bearing Capacity calculations based on shear consideration (Direct Shear) - 55
5. CALCULATION OF SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE SOIL
5.1 Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on SPT values - 58

5.2 Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on Laboratory test
Through UCC - 64
Through Direct Shear - 70
5.3 Comparison of safe bearing capacity of soil
Through shear and settlement - 71
6. RESULT
6.1 Recommended safe bearing capacity values at different depths - 77

6.2 Recommended Pile Load carrying capacity values at different depths - 83
7. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
7.1 Assessment of Liquefaction - 87

7.2 Liquefaction Analysis for Bore Hole 1 - 88
8. SOIL SAMPLE PHOTOS

SOIL INVESTIGATION
Report on soil investigation for construction of Textile Showroom
at Kumbakonam
1.2 Investigation Programme, Procedure and Data:
Investigation was carried out in five locations at the site through exploratory bore holes. Soil
samples were collected from each bore hole at different depths for conducting laboratory test.
Standard Penetration test was conducted at regular intervals and N values were recorded.
Undisturbed soil samples were collected and were preserved and transported to the
laboratory for detailed identification tests. Based on the field and laboratory tests on the
samples collected, the results are furnished in this report.
An exploratory bore hole was advanced from the existing ground level using truck mounted
rotary drilling techniques supplemented by Bentonite mud circulation. This drilling procedure
with mud circulation is found most suitable for making exploratory bore hole. The mud
circulation was employed through the drill rods and letting it out though the side jets provided
in the cutting tool thus preventing any disturbance at the bore hole bottom. Mud circulation
was used to stabilize the sides and the bottom of the bore hole, and then to bring the soil cuts
to the surface. It is important to note that the mud jet is not used to cut the soils as in the case
of wash boring technique. Use of drilling mud will also help in preventing the disturbance to
the soil at the bore hole bottom during drilling operations. Diameter of the bore hole is about
150mm.
Bore hole was always kept full with the drilling mud so that a positive head is maintained in
the bore hole thus preventing any disturbance to the soil within the test zone.
The field tests included Standard penetration test, Disturbed and undisturbed soil sampling,
identification of different soil layers, Ground water table observation, complete logging of the
bore hole, etc.
Laboratory investigation consisted of classification tests like grain size distribution analysis,
determination of specific gravity etc. Unconfined Compression test and direct shear was
conducted on preserved soil samples. All the field and laboratory tests were conducted
according to the procedures stipulated in relevant IS codes.
Time Institute for Materials Testing, Trichy 2

Quality is excellence
at Kumbakonam
1.3 Review of Field and Laboratory Results:
Sub soil Profile

The original ground level in the presently investigated area was plain terrain.
Bore Hole 1:
The natural soil below the existing ground level is medium plasticity clay. This layer is
extended up to 5m depth. Fine sand with clay mixed exists from 5m to 9.5m depth. Medium
plasticity clay exists from 9.5m to 21m depth. Fine sand with silt mixed exists from21 to 22.8m
depth. Medium Plasticity clay exists from 22.8m to 29.5m depth. Below which fine sand with
clay mixed exists from 29.5m to 30m depth from the existing ground level. The soil
stratification and its variation under present investigations are available in bore log details.
The N value is progressively increasing towards depth, due to the soil stratification.
Bore Hole 2:
extended up to 5m depth. Fine sand with silt mixed exists from 5m to 8m depth. Medium
plasticity clay exists from 8m to 15.5m depth. Clay with fine sand mixed exists from 15.5m to
17.5m depth. Medium plasticity clay exists from 17.5m to 19.5m depth. Fine sand with silt
mixed exists from 19.5m to 21m depth. Below which Medium plasticity clay exists from 21m to
30m depth from the existing ground level. The soil stratification and its variation under present
investigations are available in bore log details. The N value is progressively increasing
towards depth, due to the soil stratification.
Bore Hole 3:
The natural soil below the existing ground level is Soft clay. This layer is extended up to 5m
depth. Medium plasticity clay exists from 5m to 18m depth. Fine sand exists from 18m to 19m
depth. Below which Medium plasticity clay exists from 19m to 30m depth from the existing
ground level. The soil stratification and its variation under present investigations are available
in bore log details. The N value is progressively increasing towards depth, due to the soil
stratification.

at Kumbakonam
Bore Hole 4:
extended up to 15.5m depth. Clay with fine sand mixed exists from 15.5m to 17m depth.
Medium plasticity clay exists from 17m to 29.25m depth. Below which fine sand with clay
mixed exists from 29.25m to 30m depth from the existing ground level. The soil stratification
and its variation under present investigations are available in bore log details. The N value is
progressively increasing towards depth, due to the soil stratification.
Bore Hole 5:
extended up to 19m depth. Fine sand with silt mixed exists from 19m to 20.6m depth. Below
which Medium plasticity clay exists from 20.6m to 50m depth from the existing ground level.
The soil stratification and its variation under present investigations are available in bore log
details. The N value is progressively increasing towards depth, due to the soil stratification.
Ground Water Table
The bore hole recorded ground water at about 3m depth below the present ground level
during soil investigation. The ground water may be very shallow during rains.
Shear Strength
Standard Penetration test blow counts N is measured at different levels in the bore hole.
Mainly these N values are used to assess the shear strength of different soil layers.
Clay layers: The classification of N values in moderate to high plasticity medium clay
deposits developed by Terzaghi is used for estimating the unconfined compression strength
and untrained shear strength of clay and sandy clay layers. The consistency between the N
values and the liquidity index values is reviewed while assigning undrained shear strength for
soft to medium clay layers.

SITE LOCATION PLAN
BUS STAND
N
CRC TAMIL NADU
SUGAM
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
HOSPITAL
RAILWAY
MAYILADUTHURAI
STATION
AARIYAS
OVER BRIDGE KARAIKKAL ROAD

SITE HOTEL
BH 3 BH 4
WMC JAPA HOUSE

HOUSE
BH 5
BH 2 BH 1
COMPOUND WALL
NOTE:
PLAIN AREA
SITE LEVEL IS BELOW 1m FROM THE ROAD LEVEL
CLIENT Sathy Silks Pvt. Ltd, Kumbakonam.

TIME Institute for Materials Testing
LEGEND: SOIL
4th Cross,
14/16. New Raja Colony,
CONSULTANT
SITE PLAN
Beemanagar, Trichy - 620001.
BORE LOG LOCATION PHONE : 0431 - 2401326(OFF)
TITLE
19.11.2016
SITE LOCATION DATE OF
SURVEY
to PLAN OF BORE HOLE AND SITE DETAILS AT
09.12.2016 KUMBAKONAM
DRG.NO REV.
Page No: 6 SCALE NTS
DRAWING - 01 0
BORE LOG DETAILS
at Kumbakonam
2.2 BORE LOG DETAILS FOR BORE HOLE 1
Project : Report on soil investigation for construction of Textile Showroom

Started on : 19.11.2016 Ended on : 23.11.2016
Depth of G.W.T : 4m
Type of Boring : Truck Mounted Rotary Drilling
Site Level : Below 1m from the road level
Lithology of Bore Hole Graphical

SPT Data representation of
penetration
Depth below Resistance
Profile Soil Description
G.L.(m) Depth of 'N' 0 20 40 60
0-15cm 15-30cm 30-45cm
SPT (m) Value
1.5 2 2 3 5
Medium plasticity
0 - 5m 3.0 2 2 3 5
clay
4.5 3 3 6 9
6.0 4 4 6 10
Fine sand with
5m - 9.5m
silt mixed
8.0 4 5 7 12
10.0 2 3 4 7
12.0 2 4 4 8
14.0 3 5 5 10
Fine sand with
9.5m - 21m
soft clay mixed
16.0 4 4 5 9
18.0 2 3 4 7
20.0 2 4 4 8
21m - 22.8m Sand 22.0 6 7 8 15
24.0 3 4 6 10
Sand with soft

22.8m - 29.5m 26.0 4 5 7 12
clay mixed
28.0 2 4 5 9
Fine sand with

29.5m - 30m 30.0 5 7 9 16
clay mixed
Bore terminated at 30m depth from the existing ground level

at Kumbakonam

Depth of G.W.T : 4m

SPT Data representation
of penetration
G.L.(m) Depth of 'N' 0 20 40 60
0-15cm 15-30cm 30-45cm
SPT (m) Value
1.5 2 3 3 6
Medium plasticity
0 - 5m 3.0 2 3 6 9
clay
4.5 3 4 5 9
6.0 4 5 8 13
Fine sand with
5m - 8m
silt mixed
8.0 5 7 9 16
10.0 5 6 8 14
Medium plasticity
8m - 15.5m 12.0 5 7 8 15
clay
14.0 4 6 7 13
Clay with fine

15m - 17.5m 16.0 2 3 6 9
sand mixed
Medium plasticity
17.5m - 19.5m 18.0 3 5 6 11
clay
Fine sand with
19.5m - 21m 20.0 4 7 11 18
silt mixed
22.0 5 6 10 16
24.0 6 8 9 17
Medium plasticity
21m - 30m 26.0 5 6 8 14
clay
28.0 6 7 8 15
30.0 7 7 11 18

at Kumbakonam

Depth of G.W.T : 4m

of penetration
G.L.(m) Depth of 'N' 0 20 40 60
0-15cm 15-30cm 30-45cm
SPT (m) Value
1.5 2 2 3 5
0 - 5m Soft clay 3.0 2 2 3 5
4.5 2 2 3 5
6.0 2 3 5 8
8.0 2 3 4 7
10.0 3 3 4 7
Medium plasticity
5m - 18m
clay
12.0 3 4 4 8
14.0 3 4 5 9
16.0 2 3 3 6
18m - 19m Fine sand 18.0 3 5 5 10
20.0 3 4 5 9
22.0 3 3 4 7
24.0 3 4 5 9
Medium plasticity
19m - 30m
clay
26.0 4 4 6 10
28.0 4 4 5 9
30.0 4 5 7 12

at Kumbakonam

Depth of G.W.T : 4m

of penetration
G.L.(m) Depth of 'N' 0 20 40 60
0-15cm 15-30cm 30-45cm
SPT (m) Value
1.5 2 3 5 8
3.0 3 3 4 7
4.5 3 5 5 10
6.0 3 5 6 11
Medium plasticity
0 - 15.5m
clay
8.0 5 7 8 15
10.0 3 5 9 14
12.0 3 4 7 11
14.0 3 5 9 14
Clay with fine

15.5m - 17m 16.0 6 8 10 18
sand mixed
18.0 3 4 2 6
20.0 4 6 8 14
22.0 5 6 9 15
Medium plasticity
17m - 29.25m
clay
24.0 5 5 6 11
26.0 6 6 8 14
28.0 6 6 8 14
Fine sand with

29.25m - 30m 30.0 7 7 10 17
clay mixed

at Kumbakonam

Depth of G.W.T : 4m

of penetration
G.L.(m) Depth of 'N' 0 20 40 60
0-15cm 15-30cm 30-45cm
SPT (m) Value
1.5 3 4 4 8
3.0 3 3 5 8
4.5 4 4 7 11
6.0 4 5 7 12
Medium plasticity 8.0 4 5 6 11
0 - 19m
clay 10.0 4 6 9 15
12.0 4 4 7 11
14.0 5 7 11 18
16.0 4 5 9 14
18.0 4 4 6 10
Fine sand with
19m - 20.6m 20.0 5 6 11 17
silt mixed
22.0 9 7 12 19
24.0 5 6 6 12
26.0 4 5 7 12
28.0 4 6 8 14
30.0 5 5 7 12
32.0 4 6 7 13
34.0 3 6 8 14
Medium plasticity
20.6m - 50m 36.0 4 6 8 14
clay
38.0 4 7 9 16
40.0 4 5 7 12
42.0 5 7 10 17
44.0 6 7 9 16
46.0 6 8 10 18
48.0 6 7 9 16
50.0 5 7 10 17

at Kumbakonam
2.7 Summary of Engineering Geo Properties for Bore Hole 1
Natural Moisture Bulk Density

S.No. Bore hole No. Depth (m) Soil Description Dry Density (gm/cc) Specific gravity
Content (%) (gm/cc)
1 1.5 21.56 1.78 1.46 2.58
2 3.0 Medium Plasticity clay 21.72 1.75 1.44 2.58
3 4.5 18.75 1.84 1.55 2.60
4 6.0 17.54 1.87 1.59 2.60

Fine sand with clay mixed
5 8.0 16.23 1.88 1.62 2.61
6 10.0 20.92 1.81 1.50 2.59
7 12.0 20.14 1.82 1.51 2.59
8 14.0 17.46 1.86 1.58 2.60

Bore Hole 1 Medium Plasticity clay
9 16.0 18.52 1.84 1.55 2.60
10 18.0 20.43 1.81 1.50 2.59
11 20.0 19.63 1.82 1.52 2.59
12 22.0 Fine sand with silt mixed 15.78 1.92 1.66 2.62
13 24.0 17.36 1.87 1.59 2.60
15 28.0 18.35 1.85 1.56 2.60

16 30.0 Fine sand with clay mixed 15.12 1.95 1.69 2.62

at Kumbakonam

Content (%) (gm/cc)
1 1.5 21.12 1.80 1.49 2.58
3 4.5 18.43 1.84 1.55 2.60
4 6.0 16.05 1.89 1.63 2.61

Fine sand with silt mixed
5 8.0 15.24 1.96 1.70 2.62
6 10.0 15.92 1.92 1.66 2.61
8 14.0 16.21 1.89 1.63 2.61

Bore Hole 2
9 16.0 Clay with fine sand mixed 18.64 1.85 1.56 2.60
11 20.0 Fine sand with silt mixed 14.57 1.97 1.72 2.62
12 22.0 15.14 1.95 1.69 2.62
13 24.0 14.98 1.96 1.70 2.62
15 28.0 15.32 1.93 1.67 2.62

16 30.0 14.36 1.98 1.73 2.62

at Kumbakonam

Content (%) (gm/cc)
1 1.5 21.65 1.79 1.47 2.58
2 3.0 Soft clay 21.72 1.77 1.45 2.58
3 4.5 21.68 1.76 1.45 2.58
4 6.0 20.12 1.82 1.52 2.59
5 8.0 20.54 1.80 1.49 2.59
6 10.0 20.48 1.81 1.50 2.59

Medium Plasticity clay
7 12.0 20.07 1.83 1.52 2.60
8 14.0 18.59 1.84 1.55 2.60

Bore Hole 3
9 16.0 21.08 1.80 1.49 2.58
10 18.0 Fine sand 17.58 1.85 1.57 2.60
11 20.0 18.79 1.84 1.55 2.60
12 22.0 20.64 1.82 1.51 2.59
13 24.0 18.85 1.83 1.54 2.60

14 26.0 17.98 1.85 1.57 2.60
15 28.0 18.75 1.84 1.55 2.60

16 30.0 16.56 1.89 1.62 2.61

at Kumbakonam

Content (%) (gm/cc)
1 1.5 20.32 1.82 1.51 2.59
2 3.0 20.74 1.81 1.50 2.59
3 4.5 17.48 1.87 1.59 2.60
4 6.0 16.95 1.87 1.60 2.60

5 8.0 15.72 1.92 1.66 2.62
6 10.0 15.96 1.91 1.65 2.61
7 12.0 16.84 1.88 1.61 2.60
8 14.0 15.87 1.91 1.65 2.61

Bore Hole 4
9 16.0 Clay with fine sand mixed 14.75 1.95 1.70 2.62
10 18.0 21.14 1.84 1.52 2.58
11 20.0 15.86 1.91 1.65 2.61
12 22.0 15.63 1.92 1.66 2.62

13 24.0 16.58 1.88 1.61 2.60
14 26.0 15.25 1.91 1.66 2.61
15 28.0 15.36 1.91 1.66 2.61

16 30.0 Fine sand with clay mixed 15.09 1.94 1.69 2.62

at Kumbakonam

Content (%) (gm/cc)
1 1.5 20.56 1.82 1.51 2.59
2 3.0 20.68 1.82 1.51 2.59
3 4.5 16.96 1.89 1.62 2.61
4 6.0 16.38 1.89 1.62 2.61
5 8.0 16.87 1.89 1.62 2.61

6 10.0 15.48 1.92 1.66 2.62
7 12.0 16.89 1.89 1.62 2.61
8 14.0 14.02 1.97 1.73 2.62

Bore Hole 5
9 16.0 16.03 1.91 1.65 2.62
10 18.0 17.56 1.87 1.59 2.60
11 20.0 FIne sand with silt mixed 14.87 1.97 1.71 2.62
12 22.0 13.56 1.98 1.74 2.62
13 24.0 16.45 1.89 1.62 2.61
15 28.0 15.89 1.99 1.72 2.62

16 30.0 16.34 1.99 1.71 2.61

at Kumbakonam

Content (%) (gm/cc)
17 32.0 16.07 1.90 1.64 2.61
18 34.0 15.42 1.91 1.65 2.61
19 36.0 15.63 1.91 1.65 2.61
20 38.0 14.95 1.93 1.68 2.62
21 40.0 16.68 1.89 1.62 2.61

22 42.0 14.72 1.96 1.71 2.62
23 44.0 14.85 1.95 1.70 2.62
24 46.0 14.23 1.96 1.72 2.62
25 48.0 14.56 1.95 1.70 2.62
26 50.0 14.76 1.96 1.71 2.62

at Kumbakonam
2.13 Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Bore Hole 1
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
S.No. Bore hole No. Depth (m) Soil Description Liquid Gravel (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
Plastic Plasticity sand (%) Sand (%) sand (%)
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
1 1.5 35.6 23.5 12.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 35.8 13.4 48.2
2 3.0 Medium Plasticity clay 34.9 23.2 11.7 0.0 0.0 3.5 35.3 12.1 49.1
3 4.5 35.1 23.8 11.3 0.0 0.0 5.4 34.3 11.6 48.7
4 6.0 Fine sand with clay 33.7 24.0 9.7 0.0 1.9 6.2 58.1 13.9 19.9
5 8.0 mixed 33.9 23.9 10.0 0.0 1.2 4.9 62.7 12.7 18.5
6 10.0 35.6 23.7 11.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 35.6 10.8 48.3
7 12.0 35.3 24.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 37.7 12.1 45.7
8 14.0 34.8 23.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 39.1 11.5 44.2
Bore Hole 1
9 16.0 35.8 23.5 12.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 39.0 11.8 43.3
10 18.0 35.1 23.4 11.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 39.3 10.2 43.8
11 20.0 35.4 23.2 12.2 0.0 0.0 7.6 38.7 11.6 42.1
Fine sand with silt
12 22.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 2.3 59.1 29.2 9.4
mixed
13 24.0 35.2 23.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 38.2 11.2 47.0
15 28.0 35.3 23.8 11.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 39.3 10.6 45.2
Fine sand with clay
16 30.0 32.8 23.2 9.6 0.0 0.0 13.2 50.5 10.3 26.0
mixed

at Kumbakonam
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
1 1.5 35.6 23.7 11.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 33.9 13.4 49.0
3 4.5 35.4 23.6 11.8 0.0 0.0 5.1 35.3 11.2 48.4
4 6.0 Fine sand with silt - - - 0.0 0.0 3.8 65.4 20.5 10.3
5 8.0 mixed - - - 0.0 0.0 4.1 67.6 19.1 9.2
6 10.0 33.9 23.7 10.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 35.6 11.7 49.5
8 14.0 34.2 23.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 37.7 11.5 46.9
Bore Hole 2
Clay with fine sand
9 16.0 33.2 23.5 9.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 43.4 10.6 38.5
mixed
Fine sand with silt
11 20.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 6.7 69.1 15.9 8.3
mixed
12 22.0 34.1 23.6 10.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 35.9 14.7 47.1
13 24.0 33.8 23.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 36.2 13.6 46.7
15 28.0 33.7 23.5 10.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 38.0 11.4 44.8
16 30.0 33.4 23.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 41.3 12.6 39.7

at Kumbakonam
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
1 1.5 34.1 23.9 10.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 35.9 7.9 52.9
2 3.0 Soft clay 33.8 23.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 36.2 7.1 54.8
3 4.5 34.0 24.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 34.7 8.8 50.5
4 6.0 35.7 23.7 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.1 7.5 48.4
5 8.0 35.4 23.2 12.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 40.7 6.8 51.0
6 10.0 35.9 23.5 12.4 0.0 0.0 3.9 39.2 6.5 50.4
7 12.0 35.5 23.6 11.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 31.3 8.9 56.9
8 14.0 34.8 23.2 11.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 34.9 7.8 54.9
Bore Hole 3
9 16.0 35.9 23.4 12.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 37.4 7.1 53.3
10 18.0 Fine sand - - - 0.0 0.0 7.7 79.1 5.4 7.8
11 20.0 35.2 23.3 11.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 36.2 10.4 51.5
12 22.0 35.5 23.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.8 10.8 52.4
13 24.0 35.1 23.5 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.2 9.9 56.9
14 26.0 34.8 23.1 11.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 37.3 7.5 54.0
15 28.0 35.4 23.2 12.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 37.8 10.4 49.4
16 30.0 34.9 23.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 38.8 9.4 48.7

at Kumbakonam
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
1 1.5 34.8 23.4 11.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 36.3 10.3 51.6
2 3.0 35.2 23.7 11.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 37.6 7.9 52.0
3 4.5 35.4 24.2 11.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 39.7 7.1 50.4
4 6.0 35.2 23.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 42.1 8.5 48.4
5 8.0 33.9 23.7 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 7.9 51.7
6 10.0 34.1 24.2 9.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 36.8 8.4 51.9
7 12.0 34.5 23.8 10.7 0.0 0.0 2.9 31.3 7.1 58.7
8 14.0 34.8 23.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 35.8 8.5 52.9
Bore Hole 4 Clay with fine sand
9 16.0 33.7 23.6 10.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 46.5 9.7 40.5
mixed
10 18.0 35.5 23.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 10.4 48.3
11 20.0 34.9 23.4 11.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 40.7 9.9 46.9
12 22.0 35.1 23.7 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.8 8.3 54.9
13 24.0 35.2 23.5 11.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 36.2 8.7 52.5
14 26.0 34.7 23.6 11.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 37.8 7.2 52.6
15 28.0 34.5 23.2 11.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 41.3 9.5 47.9
Fine sand with clay
16 30.0 33.3 23.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.5 8.0 39.5
mixed

at Kumbakonam
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
1 1.5 35.3 23.1 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.8 9.2 52.0
2 3.0 34.8 22.9 11.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 38.5 7.9 50.5
3 4.5 35.1 23.4 11.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 41.3 8.7 48.4
4 6.0 35.4 24.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 42.3 8.1 47.3
5 8.0 35.6 24.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 39.1 7.8 49.6
6 10.0 34.7 23.4 11.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 40.4 7.4 47.7
7 12.0 34.2 22.8 11.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 34.0 8.8 55.1
8 14.0 35.6 23.1 12.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 35.6 7.9 54.8
9 Bore Hole 5 16.0 35.5 23.2 12.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 40.2 8.2 49.6
10 18.0 35.1 23.4 11.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 41.1 9.1 48.2
FIne sand with silt
11 20.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 6.9 73.9 8.5 10.7
mixed
12 22.0 34.9 23.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 34.6 7.1 56.4
13 24.0 35.6 23.5 12.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 38.0 8.3 51.6
15 28.0 35.4 23.6 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 10.9 48.9
16 30.0 34.6 23.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 37.4 9.3 51.2

at Kumbakonam
Atterberg limits
Coarse Medium Fine
Limit
Limit (%) Index (%)
(%)
17 32.0 35.8 23.6 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.9 9.3 55.8
18 34.0 35.6 23.7 11.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 33.2 8.5 56.2
19 36.0 35.2 24.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 37.6 9.2 52.1
20 38.0 35.5 23.8 11.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 36.4 10.9 51.6
21 40.0 34.9 23.5 11.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 38.0 9.9 50.9
22 42.0 35.1 23.8 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 38.3 8.5 52.6
23 44.0 35.4 24.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 35.1 8.2 54.8
24 46.0 34.7 23.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 7.9 55.9
25 48.0 34.5 22.5 12.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 38.6 7.7 51.4
26 50.0 34.9 23.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 40.8 7.1 48.3

at Kumbakonam
2.19 Shear Strength Parameters for Different layers of Bore Hole 1
Shear
Depth below G.L. Cohesion
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description N Strength ''
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
1 1.5 5 2.02 -
2 3.0 Medium Plasticity clay 5 2.52 -
3 4.5 9 3.50 -
4 6.0 10 4.49 19.96

Fine sand with clay
mixed
5 8.0 12 5.48 20.64
6 10.0 7 3.00 -
7 12.0 8 3.50 -
8 14.0 10 3.99 -
9 16.0 9 3.50 -
10 18.0 7 2.51 -
11 20.0 8 3.00 -
Fine sand with silt

12 22.0 15 - 20.64
mixed
13 24.0 10 4.49 -
15 28.0 9 4.00 -
Fine sand with clay

16 30.0 16 7.94 23.29
mixed

at Kumbakonam
Shear
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
1 1.5 6 2.51 -
3 4.5 9 4.49 -
4 6.0 13 - 19.96
Fine sand with silt
mixed
5 8.0 16 - 20.64
6 10.0 14 5.97 -
8 14.0 13 5.48 -
Bore Hole 2
Clay with fine sand
9 16.0 9 4.00 19.96
mixed
Fine sand with silt

11 20.0 18 - 21.31
mixed
12 22.0 16 7.95 -
13 24.0 17 8.43 -
15 28.0 15 7.45 -
16 30.0 18 8.43 -

at Kumbakonam
Shear
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
1 1.5 5 2.02 -
2 3.0 Soft clay 5 2.02 -
3 4.5 5 2.51 -
4 6.0 8 3.01 -
5 8.0 7 3.51 -
6 10.0 7 3.01 -
7 12.0 8 3.99 -
8 14.0 9 4.49 -
Bore Hole 3
9 16.0 6 2.51 -
10 18.0 Fine sand 10 - 19.96
11 20.0 9 4.49 -
12 22.0 7 3.00 -
13 24.0 9 3.50 -
14 26.0 10 3.99 -
15 28.0 9 3.50 -
16 30.0 12 4.98 -

at Kumbakonam
Shear
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
1 1.5 8 3.50 -
2 3.0 7 3.00 -
3 4.5 10 3.99 -
4 6.0 11 4.49 -
5 8.0 15 6.97 -
6 10.0 14 6.47 -
7 12.0 11 4.49 -
8 14.0 14 5.98 -
Bore Hole 4
Clay with fine sand
9 16.0 18 8.43 21.98
mixed
10 18.0 6 2.51 -
11 20.0 14 6.96 -
12 22.0 15 7.45 -
13 24.0 11 4.98 -
14 26.0 14 5.96 -
15 28.0 14 6.46 -
Fine sand with clay

16 30.0 17 7.45 21.31
mixed

at Kumbakonam
Shear
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
1 1.5 8 4.00 -
2 3.0 8 4.49 -
3 4.5 11 4.98 -
4 6.0 12 5.48 -
5 8.0 11 4.49 -
6 10.0 15 6.96 -
7 12.0 11 4.98 -
8 14.0 18 7.94 -
Bore Hole 5
9 16.0 14 6.96 -
10 18.0 10 4.49 -
FIne sand with silt

11 20.0 17 - 20.64
mixed
12 22.0 19 8.92 -
13 24.0 12 5.47 -
15 28.0 14 5.97 -
16 30.0 12 5.48 -

at Kumbakonam
Shear
(m) 'c' (t/m2)
(in degrees)
17 32.0 13 5.96 -
18 34.0 14 6.46 -
19 36.0 14 5.97 -
20 38.0 16 7.45 -
21 40.0 12 5.48 -
22 42.0 17 7.94 -
23 44.0 16 8.43 -
24 46.0 18 8.92 -
25 48.0 16 7.94 -
26 50.0 17 8.43 -

at Kumbakonam
2.25 Sub Grade Modulus and Dynamic Shear Modulus Values for Bore Hole 1
Dynamic
Soil sub grade
Depth below G.L. 3 Shear
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, kN/m
(m) Modulus (G')
(Ks)
(Mpa)
1 1.5
2 3.0 Medium Plasticity clay 27000 15
3 4.5
4 6.0
Fine sand with clay mixed 30000 16
5 8.0
6 10.0
7 12.0
8 14.0
Bore Hole 1 Medium Plasticity clay 25000 14
9 16.0
10 18.0
11 20.0
12 22.0 Fine sand with silt mixed 32000 18
13 24.0
15 28.0
16 30.0 Fine sand with clay mixed 28000 15

at Kumbakonam
Soil sub grade Dynamic Shear

Depth below G.L.
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, Modulus (G')
(m)
kN/m3 (Ks) (Mpa)
1 1.5
3 4.5
4 6.0
Fine sand with silt mixed 31000 17
5 8.0
6 10.0
8 14.0
Bore Hole 2
9 16.0 Clay with fine sand mixed 29000 16
11 20.0 Fine sand with silt mixed 32000 18
12 22.0
13 24.0
15 28.0
16 30.0

at Kumbakonam
Dynamic
Soil sub grade
Depth below G.L. 3 Shear
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, kN/m
(m) Modulus (G')
(Ks)
(Mpa)
1 1.5
2 3.0 Soft clay 12000 12
3 4.5
4 6.0
5 8.0
6 10.0
Medium Plasticity clay 24000 14
7 12.0
8 14.0
Bore Hole 3
9 16.0
10 18.0 Fine sand 36000 20
11 20.0
12 22.0
13 24.0
14 26.0
15 28.0
16 30.0

at Kumbakonam

Depth below G.L.
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, Modulus (G')
(m)
kN/m3 (Ks) (Mpa)
1 1.5
2 3.0
3 4.5
4 6.0
5 8.0
6 10.0
7 12.0
8 14.0
Bore Hole 4
9 16.0 Clay with fine sand mixed 27000 15
10 18.0
11 20.0
12 22.0
13 24.0
14 26.0
15 28.0
16 30.0 Fine sand with clay mixed 30000 16

at Kumbakonam

Depth below G.L.
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, kN/m3 Modulus (G')
(m)
(Ks) (Mpa)
1 1.5
2 3.0
3 4.5
4 6.0
5 8.0
6 10.0
7 12.0
8 14.0
Bore Hole 5
9 16.0
10 18.0
11 20.0 FIne sand with silt mixed 31000 17
12 22.0
13 24.0
15 28.0
16 30.0

at Kumbakonam

Depth below G.L. 3
S.No. Bore Hole No. Soil Description modulus, kN/m Modulus (G')
(m)
(Ks) (Mpa)
17 32.0
18 34.0
19 36.0
20 38.0
21 40.0
Bore Hole 5 Medium Plasticity clay 25000 15
22 42.0
23 44.0
24 46.0
25 48.0
26 50.0

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
at Kumbakonam
3.1 TEST REPORT ON SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE

Bore Hole 1 @ 1.5m to 10m
PERCENTAGE OF PASSING
SIEVE SIZE
1.5m Depth 3m Depth 4.5m Depth 6m Depth 8m Depth 10m Depth
4.75 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100.0 100 100 98.1 98.8 100
600 micron 100.0 100.0 98.7 95.5 96.5 98.2
300 micron 97.4 96.5 94.6 91.9 93.9 94.7
150 micron 79.1 78.3 76.3 64.4 64.3 77.2
75 micron 61.6 61.2 60.3 33.8 31.2 59.1
Grain Size Distribution Curves

120
100 1.5m
Percentage of passing
3m
80
4.5m
60
6m
40
8m
20
10m
0
0.01 0.1 Sieve size (mm) 1 10
Description 1.5m Depth 3m Depth 4.5m Depth 6m Depth 8m Depth 10m Depth
Fineness modulus 1.619 1.640 1.701 2.163 2.153 1.708
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 4.5m depth, fine sand with clay mixed
exists up to 6m depth & clay exists at 10m depth.

at Kumbakonam

Bore Hole 1 @ 12 m to 20m
SIEVE SIZE
12m Depth 14m Depth 16m Depth 18m Depth 20m Depth
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 98.8 98.4 97.7
300 micron 95.5 94.8 94.1 93.3 92.4
150 micron 77 75.3 73.7 74.3 73.5
75 micron 57.8 55.7 55.1 54 53.7

120
100
12m
80
14m
60
16m
40
18m
20
20m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Description 12m Depth 14m Depth 16m Depth 18m Depth 20m Depth
Fineness modulus 1.697 1.742 1.783 1.800 1.827
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 20m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 99.1 100.0 96.4
300 micron 97.7 96.4 96.6 95.1 86.8
150 micron 68.8 77.8 77.4 76.2 63.5
75 micron 38.6 58.2 57.1 55.8 36.3

120
100 22m
80 24m
60 26m
40 28m
20 30m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the fine sand with silt mixed exists at 22m depth and clay
exists up to 28m depth & fine sand with clay mixed exist at 30m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 98.8 98.7 98.4 100.0 100.0 100.0
300 micron 96.3 96.1 94.9 96.2 95.9 96.8
150 micron 78.5 78.1 76.7 61.3 60.3 78.6
75 micron 62.4 60.5 59.6 30.8 28.3 61.2

120
100 1.5m
3m
80
4.5m
60
6m
40
8m
20
10m
0
0.01 0.1 Sieve size (mm) 1 10
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 4.5m depth, fine sand with silt mixed
exists up to 8m depth & clay exists at 10m depth.

at Kumbakonam

Bore Hole 2@ 12 m to 20m
SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 96.4 100.0 97.7
300 micron 96.5 96.1 92.5 96.1 93.3
150 micron 77.9 76.9 72.7 77.7 54.2
75 micron 60.1 58.4 49.1 57.5 24.2

120
100
12m
80
14m
60
16m
40
18m
20
20m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 18m depth & fine sand with silt mixed
exists at 20m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 98.7 97.5
300 micron 97.7 96.5 95.4 94.2 93.6
150 micron 80.4 78.5 77.4 74.9 73.8
75 micron 61.8 60.3 57.9 56.2 52.3

120
100 22m
80 24m
60 26m
40 28m
20 30m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that clay exists up to 30m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100.0 100.0 97.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
300 micron 96.7 98.1 94 100 98.5 96.1
150 micron 78.8 81.1 74.8 79.1 83 73.6
75 micron 60.8 61.9 59.3 55.9 57.8 56.9

120
100 1.5m
3m
80
4.5m
60
6m
40
8m
20
10m
0
0.01 0.1 Sieve size (mm) 1 10
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 97.8 100.0
300 micron 97.1 97.6 97.8 92.3 98.1
150 micron 81.6 80.4 80.6 46.7 77.5
75 micron 65.8 62.7 60.4 13.2 61.9

120
100
12m
80
14m
60
16m
40
18m
20
20m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 16m depth & fine sand exists at 18m
depth & clay exists at 20m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
300 micron 100 100 98.8 97.6 96.9
150 micron 84.6 85.8 80.6 78.5 77.4
75 micron 63.2 66.8 61.5 59.8 58.1

120
100 22m
80 24m
60 26m
40 28m
20 30m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
300 micron 98.2 97.5 97.2 99 100 97.1
150 micron 79.7 77.1 74.4 79.9 84.8 76.7
75 micron 61.9 59.9 57.5 56.9 59.6 60.3

120
100 1.5m
3m
80
4.5m
60
6m
40
8m
20
10m
0
0.01 0.1 Sieve size (mm) 1 10
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 98.9 100.0 100.0
300 micron 97.1 97.2 96.7 100 97.5
150 micron 81.6 79.3 76.1 83.1 79.2
75 micron 65.8 61.4 50.2 58.7 56.8

120
100
12m
80
14m
60
16m
40
18m
20
20m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 14m depth & clay with fine sand exists
at 16m depth & clay exists up to 20m depth.

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
300 micron 100 97.4 97.6 98.7 100
150 micron 84.6 81.5 80.8 77.8 78
75 micron 63.2 61.2 59.8 57.4 47.5

120
100 22m
80 24m
60 26m
40 28m
20 30m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that clay exists up to 28m depth & fine sand with clay mixed

at Kumbakonam

Bore Hole 5@ 1.5m to 10m
SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100.0 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
300 micron 100.0 96.9 98.4 97.7 96.5 95.5
150 micron 79.6 77.2 74.9 78.2 82.3 74.7
75 micron 61.2 58.4 57.1 55.4 57.4 55.1

120
100 1.5m
3m
80
4.5m
60
6m
40
8m
20
10m
0
0.01 0.1 Sieve size (mm) 1 10
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
300 micron 97.9 98.3 98 98.4 93.1
150 micron 79.5 80.9 81.1 81.9 58.7
75 micron 63.9 62.7 57.8 57.3 19.2

120
100
12m
80
14m
60
16m
40
18m
20
20m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:
The inference from the graph shows that the clay exists up to 18m depth & fine sand with silt mixed

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
300 micron 98.1 97.9 96.5 100 97.9
150 micron 81.7 81.1 78.9 80.2 78.9
75 micron 63.5 59.9 57.1 59.8 60.5

120
100 22m
80 24m
60 26m
40 28m
20 30m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
300 micron 100 97.9 98.9 98.9 98.8
150 micron 83.2 83.4 80.4 83.3 79.6
75 micron 65.1 64.7 61.3 62.5 60.8

120
100 32m
80 34m
60 36m
40 38m
20 40m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:

at Kumbakonam

SIEVE SIZE
4.75 mm 100 100 100 100 100

2.36 mm 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 mm 100 100 100 100 100
600 micron 100 100.0 100 100.0 98.1
300 micron 99.4 98.1 100 97.7 96.2
150 micron 81.9 81.3 82 80.5 77.8
75 micron 61.1 63 63.8 59.1 55.4

120
100 42m
80 44m
60 46m
40 48m
20 50m
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)
Observation:

SAFE BEARING CAPACITY
RESULTS
at Kumbakonam
4. CALCULATION OF SAFE BEARING CAPACITY
4.1 Safe bearing capacity calculation based on settlement and Shear
Safe Bearing Capacity calculations based on settlement consideration (SPT value):
Safe Bearing Capacity calculations for shallow foundation will vary based on the width of foundation.
For example, in the case of Individual footing such as isolated, combined etc., we are supposed to
use the formula as mentioned below. (Using Tengs Modified formula)
2
B + 0.3
qna = 51.4 (N 3) R w Cd
2B
Where,
qna = Net safe bearing capacity of soil (kN/m2)

(for 2.5cm permissible settlement)
N = Corrected SPT values
B = Width of foundation (m) (let us assume 2m)
Rw = Correction factor for water table level
Cd = Correction factor for depth of embedment
For Bore Hole 1 @ 1.5m depth SPT N Value = 5
qna = 51.4 x (5 - 3) x ((2 + 0.3)/(2 x 2))2 x 0.5 x 1 = 16.99 kN/m2
qna = 1.69 t/m2

at Kumbakonam
4.2 Safe Bearing Capacity calculations based on Unconfined Compression Test

(UCC):
Net safe bearing capacity of the soil,

qult = C Nc Sc dc ic + q (Nq- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B N S d i W
Where
C = Cohesion in Kgf/cm2
Nc, Nq, N = Bearing Capacity Factors
S c, Sq , S = Shape Factors
dc, dq, d = Depth Factors
ic, iq, i = Inclination Factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in Kgf/cm2

= xd
B = Width of footing, diameter of circular footing in cm
= Bulk unit weight of soil in Kgf/cm3
W = Correction factor for location of water table
At 1m depth, the Soil profile is Medium Plasticity Clay
If = 0
Nc = 5.14
Nq = 1
N = 0 (Zero)
and Cohesion C = 2.02 (based on laboratory test)
Applying these parameter in the equation No. 1

= C Nc Sc dc ic + q (1- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B 0 S d i W
= C Nc Sc dc ic + 0 + 0
qult = C Nc Sc dc ic

at Kumbakonam
Where Sc = Shape factor which is equal to 1
dc =
= 1.028 (hence considered the minimum value as 1)

= 1
ic =
Where = inclination of the load to the vertical in degree which is equal to zero
ic = 1
Therefore qult = C Nc Sc dc ic
= 2.02 x 5.14 x 1 x 1 x 1
= 10.38 t/m2
Applying factor of safety as 3
Then allowable bearing capacity
qallowable = 10.38/3
= 3.46 t/m2
4.3 Safe Bearing Capacity calculations based on shear consideration (Direct Shear):
At 6m depth
Proving Ring capacity 200kg = 413 division
Area of the shear box = 6cm x 6cm = 36cm2
Deflection (mm) No. of Division Stress
0.5 23 0.309
1.0 35 0.471
1.5 50 0.673
Stress = Load / Area
= (200/413) * 23* (1/36) = 0.309
= tan-1 (0.673-0.309) = 19.96
Net safe bearing capacity of the soil

Where
C = Cohesion in Kgf/cm2
Nc, Nq, N = Bearing Capacity Factors

at Kumbakonam
Sc, Sq , S = Shape Factors

dc, dq, d = Depth Factors
ic, iq, i = Inclination Factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in Kgf/cm2
= xd
B = Width of footing, diameter of circular footing in cm
= Bulk unit weight of soil in Kgf/cm3
W = Correction factor for location of water table
At 6m depth, the Soil profile is Fine sand with clay mixed
If C = 0
= 19.96 (based on laboratory test)
Therefore Nc = 14.800;
Nq = 6.381;
N = 5.369
Applying these parameter in the above equation

= 0 x Nc x Sc x dc x ic + q (Nq- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B N S d i W
= 0 + q (Nq- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B N S d i W
qult = q (Nq- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B N S d i W
Where q = xd
= 1.6 t/m3
d = 6m
Sq = S = Shape factor which is equal to 1
dq = d =
= 1 (Minimum value of 1 can be taken)
iq = inclination factor
= inclination of the load to the vertical in degree which is equal to zero

at Kumbakonam
Therefore iq = 1
B = Width of footing (2m)
W = 0.5
Applying in the above equation
qult = q (Nq- 1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B N S d i W
= 1.6 x 6 (6.381- 1) x 1 x 1 x 1 + 0.5 x 2 x 1.6 x 5.369 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 0.5
= 55.95 t/m2
Applying factor of safety as 3
Then allowable bearing capacity
qna = 55.95/3
= 18.65 t/m2

at Kumbakonam
5. Calculation of Safe bearing capacity of the soil:
5.1 Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on SPT values for Bore Hole 1
Safe Bearing capacity of soil

Bore Hole No. Depth (m) SPT value
KN/m2 t/m2
BH 1 1.50 5 16.99 1.69
BH 1 3.00 5 16.99 1.69
BH 1 4.50 9 50.98 5.09
BH 1 6.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 1 8.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 1 10.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 1 12.00 8 42.48 4.24
BH 1 14.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 1 16.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 1 18.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 1 20.00 8 42.48 4.24
BH 1 22.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 1 24.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 1 26.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 1 28.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 1 30.00 16 110.46 11.04

at Kumbakonam
Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on SPT values for Bore Hole 2

KN/m2 t/m2
BH 2 1.50 6 25.49 2.54
BH 2 3.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 2 4.50 9 50.98 5.09
BH 2 6.00 13 84.97 8.49
BH 2 8.00 16 110.46 11.04
BH 2 10.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 2 12.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 2 14.00 13 84.97 8.49
BH 2 16.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 2 18.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 2 20.00 18 127.45 12.74
BH 2 22.00 16 110.46 11.04
BH 2 24.00 17 118.95 11.89
BH 2 26.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 2 28.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 2 30.00 18 127.45 12.74

at Kumbakonam

KN/m2 t/m2
BH 3 1.50 5 16.99 1.69
BH 3 3.00 5 16.99 1.69
BH 3 4.50 5 16.99 1.69
BH 3 6.00 8 42.48 4.24
BH 3 8.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 3 10.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 3 12.00 8 42.48 4.24
BH 3 14.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 3 16.00 6 25.49 2.54
BH 3 18.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 3 20.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 3 22.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 3 24.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 3 26.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 3 28.00 9 50.98 5.09
BH 3 30.00 12 76.47 7.64

at Kumbakonam

KN/m2 t/m2
BH 4 1.50 8 42.48 4.24
BH 4 3.00 7 33.98 3.39
BH 4 4.50 10 59.47 5.94
BH 4 6.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 4 8.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 4 10.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 4 12.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 4 14.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 4 16.00 18 127.45 12.74
BH 4 18.00 6 25.49 2.54
BH 4 20.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 4 22.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 4 24.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 4 26.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 4 28.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 4 30.00 17 118.95 11.89

at Kumbakonam

KN/m2 t/m2
BH 5 1.50 8 42.48 4.24
BH 5 3.00 8 42.48 4.24
BH 5 4.50 11 67.97 6.79
BH 5 6.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 5 8.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 5 10.00 15 101.96 10.19
BH 5 12.00 11 67.97 6.79
BH 5 14.00 18 127.45 12.74
BH 5 16.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 5 18.00 10 59.47 5.94
BH 5 20.00 17 118.95 11.89
BH 5 22.00 19 135.95 13.59
BH 5 24.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 5 26.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 5 28.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 5 30.00 12 76.47 7.64

at Kumbakonam

KN/m2 t/m2
BH 5 32.00 13 84.97 8.49
BH 5 34.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 5 36.00 14 93.46 9.34
BH 5 38.00 16 110.46 11.04
BH 5 40.00 12 76.47 7.64
BH 5 42.00 17 118.95 11.89
BH 5 44.00 16 110.46 11.04
BH 5 46.00 18 127.45 12.74
BH 5 48.00 16 110.46 11.04
BH 5 50.00 17 118.95 11.89

at Kumbakonam
5.2 Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on Laboratory test results:
Unconfined Compression Test (UCC) for Bore Hole 1
Bore Depth (m) Max. Load Max. Deformation Cohesion Safe Bearing capacity
2
Hole No. (Div) (Div) (t/m ) of soil (t/m2)
BH - 1 1.50 20 85 2.02 3.46
BH - 1 3.00 25 95 2.52 4.32
BH - 1 4.50 35 155 3.50 5.99
BH - 1 6.00 45 170 4.49 7.69
BH - 1 8.00 55 180 5.48 9.38
BH - 1 10.00 30 150 3.00 5.14
BH - 1 12.00 35 155 3.50 5.99
BH - 1 14.00 40 165 3.99 6.84
BH - 1 16.00 35 160 3.50 5.99
BH - 1 18.00 25 120 2.51 4.30
BH - 1 20.00 30 155 3.00 5.14
BH - 1 24.00 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 1 26.00 50 180 4.98 8.53
BH - 1 28.00 40 160 4.00 6.85
BH - 1 30.00 80 205 7.94 13.60

at Kumbakonam
2
BH - 2 1.50 25 130 2.51 4.30
BH - 2 3.00 40 165 3.99 6.84
BH - 2 4.50 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 2 10.00 60 185 5.97 10.23
BH - 2 12.00 65 185 6.47 11.08
BH - 2 14.00 55 180 5.48 9.38
BH - 2 16.00 40 160 4.00 6.85
BH - 2 18.00 45 170 4.49 7.69
BH - 2 22.00 80 195 7.95 13.62
BH - 2 24.00 85 205 8.43 14.45
BH - 2 26.00 70 185 6.97 11.94
BH - 2 28.00 75 195 7.45 12.77
BH - 2 30.00 85 210 8.43 14.44

at Kumbakonam
2
BH - 3 1.50 20 85 2.02 3.46
BH - 3 3.00 20 90 2.02 3.46
BH - 3 4.50 25 115 2.51 4.31
BH - 3 6.00 30 125 3.01 5.16
BH - 3 8.00 35 140 3.51 6.01
BH - 3 10.00 30 140 3.01 5.15
BH - 3 12.00 40 165 3.99 6.84
BH - 3 14.00 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 3 16.00 25 125 2.51 4.30
BH - 3 20.00 45 170 4.49 7.69
BH - 3 22.00 30 150 3.00 5.14
BH - 3 24.00 35 160 3.50 5.99
BH - 3 26.00 40 165 3.99 6.84
BH - 3 28.00 35 160 3.50 5.99
BH - 3 30.00 50 180 4.98 8.53

at Kumbakonam
2
BH - 4 1.50 35 155 3.50 5.99
BH - 4 3.00 30 150 3.00 5.14
BH - 4 4.50 40 165 3.99 6.84
BH - 4 6.00 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 4 8.00 70 185 6.97 11.94
BH - 4 10.00 65 185 6.47 11.08
BH - 4 12.00 45 175 4.49 7.68
BH - 4 14.00 60 180 5.98 10.24
BH - 4 16.00 85 205 8.43 14.45
BH - 4 18.00 25 130 2.51 4.30
BH - 4 20.00 70 195 6.96 11.92
BH - 4 22.00 75 195 7.45 12.77
BH - 4 24.00 50 175 4.98 8.54
BH - 4 26.00 60 195 5.96 10.21
BH - 4 28.00 65 195 6.46 11.07
BH - 4 30.00 75 200 7.45 12.76

at Kumbakonam
2
BH - 5 1.50 40 155 4.00 6.85
BH - 5 3.00 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 5 4.50 50 175 4.98 8.54
BH - 5 6.00 55 180 5.48 9.38
BH - 5 8.00 45 165 4.49 7.70
BH - 5 10.00 70 195 6.96 11.92
BH - 5 12.00 50 175 4.98 8.54
BH - 5 14.00 80 205 7.94 13.60
BH - 5 16.00 70 190 6.96 11.93
BH - 5 18.00 45 170 4.49 7.69
BH - 5 22.00 90 215 8.92 15.28
BH - 5 24.00 55 185 5.47 9.38
BH - 5 26.00 50 180 4.98 8.53
BH - 5 28.00 60 190 5.97 10.22
BH - 5 30.00 55 180 5.48 9.38

at Kumbakonam
2
BH - 5 32.00 60 195 5.96 10.21
BH - 5 34.00 65 195 6.46 11.07
BH - 5 36.00 60 190 5.97 10.22
BH - 5 38.00 75 200 7.45 12.76
BH - 5 40.00 55 180 5.48 9.38
BH - 5 42.00 80 205 7.94 13.60
BH - 5 44.00 85 205 8.43 14.45
BH - 5 46.00 90 210 8.92 15.29
BH - 5 48.00 80 205 7.94 13.60
BH - 5 50.00 85 210 8.43 14.44

at Kumbakonam
Direct Shear test for Bore Hole 1 to 5
Bore Hole Depth (m) Load Division Safe Bearing

No. (in degrees) Capacity of Soil
(t/m2)
0.5 23
BH -1 6.00 1.0 35 19.96 18.65
1.5 50
0.5 23
BH -1 8.00 1.0 35 20.64 26.99
1.5 51
0.5 23
BH -1 22.00 1.0 34 20.64 71.37
1.5 51
0.5 23
BH -1 30.00 1.0 34 20.64 96.73
1.5 51
0.5 24
BH -2 6.00 1.0 35 19.96 18.65
1.5 51
0.5 24
BH -2 8.00 1.0 36 20.64 26.99
1.5 52
0.5 24
BH -2 16.00 1.0 34 19.96 47.35
1.5 51
0.5 23
BH -2 20.00 1.0 36 21.31 71.33
1.5 52
0.5 23
BH -3 18.00 1.0 34 19.96 53.09
1.5 50
0.5 23
BH -4 16.00 1.0 36 21.98 62.47
1.5 53
0.5 23
BH -4 30.00 1.0 35 21.31 106.09
1.5 52
0.5 23
BH -5 20.00 1.0 35 20.64 65.03
1.5 51

at Kumbakonam
5.3 Comparison of Safe bearing capacity of soil through Shear and Settlement
consideration:
Comparison of Safe bearing capacity of soil for Bore Hole 1
Safe Bearing Capacity (t/m2)

Bore Hole no. Depth (m) Shear consideration
Settlement
(UCC) (Direct Shear) consideration
BH 1 1.50 3.46 --- 1.69
BH 1 3.00 4.32 --- 1.69
BH 1 4.50 5.99 --- 5.09
BH 1 6.00 7.69 18.65 5.94
BH 1 8.00 9.38 26.99 7.64
BH 1 10.00 5.14 --- 3.39
BH 1 12.00 5.99 --- 4.24
BH 1 14.00 6.84 --- 5.94
BH 1 16.00 5.99 --- 5.09
BH 1 18.00 4.30 --- 3.39
BH 1 20.00 5.14 --- 4.24
BH 1 22.00 --- 71.37 10.19
BH 1 24.00 7.70 --- 5.94
BH 1 26.00 8.53 --- 7.64
BH 1 28.00 6.85 --- 5.09
BH 1 30.00 13.60 96.73 11.04

at Kumbakonam

Settlement
BH 2 1.50 4.30 --- 2.54
BH 2 3.00 6.84 --- 5.09
BH 2 4.50 7.70 --- 5.09
BH 2 6.00 --- 18.65 8.49
BH 2 8.00 --- 26.99 11.04
BH 2 10.00 10.23 --- 9.34
BH 2 12.00 11.08 --- 10.19
BH 2 14.00 9.38 --- 8.49
BH 2 16.00 6.85 47.35 5.09
BH 2 18.00 7.69 --- 6.79
BH 2 20.00 --- 71.33 12.74
BH 2 22.00 13.62 --- 11.04
BH 2 24.00 14.45 --- 11.89
BH 2 26.00 11.94 --- 9.34
BH 2 28.00 12.77 --- 10.19
BH 2 30.00 14.44 --- 12.74

at Kumbakonam

Settlement
BH 3 1.50 3.46 --- 1.69
BH 3 3.00 3.46 --- 1.69
BH 3 4.50 4.31 --- 1.69
BH 3 6.00 5.16 --- 4.24
BH 3 8.00 6.01 --- 3.39
BH 3 10.00 5.15 --- 3.39
BH 3 12.00 6.84 --- 4.24
BH 3 14.00 7.70 --- 5.09
BH 3 16.00 4.30 --- 2.54
BH 3 18.00 --- 53.09 5.94
BH 3 20.00 7.69 --- 5.09
BH 3 22.00 5.14 --- 3.39
BH 3 24.00 5.99 --- 5.09
BH 3 26.00 6.84 --- 5.94
BH 3 28.00 5.99 --- 5.09
BH 3 30.00 8.53 --- 7.64

at Kumbakonam

Settlement
BH 4 1.50 5.99 --- 4.24
BH 4 3.00 5.14 --- 3.39
BH 4 4.50 6.84 --- 5.94
BH 4 6.00 7.70 --- 6.79
BH 4 8.00 11.94 --- 10.19
BH 4 10.00 11.08 --- 9.34
BH 4 12.00 7.68 --- 6.79
BH 4 14.00 10.24 --- 9.34
BH 4 16.00 14.45 62.47 12.74
BH 4 18.00 4.30 --- 2.54
BH 4 20.00 11.92 --- 9.34
12.77
BH 4 22.00 --- 10.19
BH 4 24.00 8.54 --- 6.79
BH 4 26.00 10.21 --- 9.34
BH 4 28.00 11.07 --- 9.34
BH 4 30.00 12.76 106.09 11.89

at Kumbakonam

Settlement
BH 5 1.50 6.85 --- 4.24
BH 5 3.00 7.70 --- 4.24
BH 5 4.50 8.54 --- 6.79
BH 5 6.00 9.38 --- 7.64
BH 5 8.00 7.70 --- 6.79
BH 5 10.00 11.92 --- 10.19
BH 5 12.00 8.54 --- 6.79
BH 5 14.00 13.60 --- 12.74
BH 5 16.00 11.93 --- 9.34
BH 5 18.00 7.69 --- 5.94
BH 5 20.00 --- 65.03 11.89
BH 5 22.00 15.28 --- 13.59
BH 5 24.00 9.38 --- 7.64
BH 5 26.00 8.53 --- 7.64
BH 5 28.00 10.22 --- 9.34
BH 5 30.00 9.38 --- 7.64

at Kumbakonam

Bore Hole no. Depth (m) Shear consideration Settlement
BH 5 32.00 10.21 --- 8.49
BH 5 34.00 11.07 --- 9.34
BH 5 36.00 10.22 --- 9.34
BH 5 38.00 12.76 --- 11.04
BH 5 40.00 9.38 --- 7.64
BH 5 42.00 13.60 --- 11.89
BH 5 44.00 14.45 --- 11.04
BH 5 46.00 15.29 --- 12.74
BH 5 48.00 13.60 --- 11.04
BH 5 50.00 14.44 --- 11.89

at Kumbakonam
6. Result:
6.1 Recommended Safe bearing capacity values at different depths
Considering the lesser value of the above, the Safe Bearing Capacity, values at different depths are
recommended below:
Result for Bore Hole 1
Bore Hole Depth (m) Safe Bearing Capacity (t/m2)
BH 1 1.50 1.69
BH 1 3.00 1.69
BH 1 4.50 5.09
BH 1 6.00 5.94
BH 1 8.00 7.64
BH 1 10.00 3.39
BH 1 12.00 4.24
BH 1 14.00 5.94
BH 1 16.00 5.09
BH 1 18.00 3.39
BH 1 20.00 4.24
BH 1 22.00 10.19
BH 1 24.00 5.94
BH 1 26.00 7.64
BH 1 28.00 5.09
BH 1 30.00 11.04

at Kumbakonam
BH 2 1.50 2.54
BH 2 3.00 5.09
BH 2 4.50 5.09
BH 2 6.00 8.49
BH 2 8.00 11.04
BH 2 10.00 9.34
BH 2 12.00 10.19
BH 2 14.00 8.49
BH 2 16.00 5.09
BH 2 18.00 6.79
BH 2 20.00 12.74
BH 2 22.00 11.04
BH 2 24.00 11.89
BH 2 26.00 9.34
BH 2 28.00 10.19
BH 2 30.00 12.74

at Kumbakonam
BH 3 1.50 1.69
BH 3 3.00 1.69
BH 3 4.50 1.69
BH 3 6.00 4.24
BH 3 8.00 3.39
BH 3 10.00 3.39
BH 3 12.00 4.24
BH 3 14.00 5.09
BH 3 16.00 2.54
BH 3 18.00 5.94
BH 3 20.00 5.09
BH 3 22.00 3.39
BH 3 24.00 5.09
BH 3 26.00 5.94
BH 3 28.00 5.09
BH 3 30.00 7.64

at Kumbakonam
BH 4 1.50 4.24
BH 4 3.00 3.39
BH 4 4.50 5.94
BH 4 6.00 6.79
BH 4 8.00 10.19
BH 4 10.00 9.34
BH 4 12.00 6.79
BH 4 14.00 9.34
BH 4 16.00 12.74
BH 4 18.00 2.54
BH 4 20.00 9.34
BH 4 22.00 10.19
BH 4 24.00 6.79
BH 4 26.00 9.34
BH 4 28.00 9.34
BH 4 30.00 11.89

at Kumbakonam
BH 5 1.50 4.24
BH 5 3.00 4.24
BH 5 4.50 6.79
BH 5 6.00 7.64
BH 5 8.00 6.79
BH 5 10.00 10.19
BH 5 12.00 6.79
BH 5 14.00 12.74
BH 5 16.00 9.34
BH 5 18.00 5.94
BH 5 20.00 11.89
BH 5 22.00 13.59
BH 5 24.00 7.64
BH 5 26.00 7.64
BH 5 28.00 9.34
BH 5 30.00 7.64

at Kumbakonam
Pile Capacity Calculation (As per IS 2911 & IRC 78 -2014)
The allowabel load carrying capacity of a pile = Load due to End Bearing +
Load due to frictional resistance
i.e. Qallow = Cu*Nc**D2/4*Fs + *Cu* *D*L/Fs
Load due to Frictional Resistance:
Frictional Capacity Rfr = *Cu* *D*L*(fck/35)
Pile details
Pile diameter D = 1000 mm = 1m
Pile Length = 30 m
Soil Profile
Profile 1 (soil) = CL (Medium Plasticity clay)

Depth of profile = 0 - 30m
Layer depth L = 30 m
Grade of concrete = M 25
= 1
Cu = 35 kN/m2
There fore,
Frictional Capacity Rfr1 = 2787.89 kN
Load due to End Bearing:
End Bearing Capacity Re = Cub*Nc*Ab*(fck/35)

Cub = 35 kN/m2
Nc = 9
Grade of concrete = M 25
There fore,
End Bearing Capacity Re = 209.09 kN

at Kumbakonam
Allowable Pile Resistance:
Allowable pile resistance Qallow = Rfr1 Re

+
2.5 3
= 2787.89 209.09
+
2.5 3
= 1184.85 kN
Qallow = 118.485 t
Pile Uplift Resistance (As per IS 2911)
The Uplift capacity of pile = Fricitional Resistance + Weight of pile
Pile ultimater uplift capacity = 2787.89 + * 1.02 * 20 * 14

Since water content exist unit wt.of concrete = 14 kN/m3
= 3117.75 kN 311.78 t
Allowable Uplift Capacity = 2787.89 329.87
+
3 3
= 1039.25 kN = 103.93 t
Pile Lateral Resistance (As per IS 2911)
Check for Behaviour of pile based on its Embedded Length.
Stiffness Factor , R (m) = 4(EI/KB)
Where,
2
E = Young's Modulus of Pile Material (MN/m )
4
I = Moment of inertia of the pile cross secion in m
K = (k1/1.5)*(0.3/B) =
B = Diameter of pile Shaft (m)
2
k1 = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (kN/m )
Therefore,
R = 5.586 m

at Kumbakonam
Consider the maximum deflection of '5mm'
Deflection, y (mm) = (H(e+zf)3 x 103) / (12EI)

(For Fixed Head Pile)
Where,
E = Young's Modulus of Pile Material (kN/m2)
I = Moment of inertia of the pile cross secion in m4
H = Lateral Load (kN)
zf = Depth of point of fixity (m)
= 30 / 5.586
= 5.370
Here, Lf / R = 1.49 (From fig.3, in IS 2911, Part 1/Sec I)
zf = 1.49 x 5.586
= 8.324
Cantilever length above ground / bed to th point of

e =
load application (m)
Therefore,
H = 98.559 kN = 9.86 t

at Kumbakonam
7. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Liquefaction is again a state or condition of soil when it becomes unstable. When effective
stress in soil is reduced to zero, the soil loses its shear strength. It behaves like thick slurry
and flows like a fluid. This is known as liquefaction.
7.1 ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION
The procedure essentially compares the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) offered by the soil to
earthquake-induced Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) at that depth from a specified design
earthquake (defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated earthquake
moment magnitude) once the values of CRR & CSR are established for a soil stratum at a
given depth.
The factor of safety = CRR / CSR
Which must be equal to one or more for the soil is safe against liquefaction.
Here assessment made based on the soil data of all the three boreholes using the method of
Idriss and Boulanger (2006). In this method the SPT N values are corrected for installation
procedure, overburden pressure and plastic fines of the deposit. The CSR and CRR values
are obtained by the following equations.
CSR = 0.65 (amax/g) (vo / vo) rd
CRR = exp [(N1)60cs / 14.1) + ((N1)60cs / 126)2) - ((N1)60cs / 23.6)3) + ((N1)60cs / 25.4)4) 2.8]
The CSR and CRR values are obtained for M (Mercalli intensity) of 6 since the area is in the
Zone II and amax (Peak Ground Acceleration) value as 0.1g. The results of analysis are
presented in the following tables. The factor of safety against liquefaction in all the location is
greater than 1. Hence the deposits of project area are not susceptible for liquefaction,
since the deposits of medium plasticity clay exists up to 50m depth from bore hole 1 to 5.

SOIL SAMPLE PHOTOS
0
30m
Bore Hole No: 1

Depth : 0 to 30m
0
30m
Bore Hole No: 2

Depth : 0 to 30m
0
30m
Bore Hole No: 3

Depth : 0 to 30m
0
30m
Bore Hole No: 4

Depth : 0 to 30m
0
35m
Bore Hole No: 5

Depth : 0 to 35m
35m 50m
Bore Hole No: 5

Depth : 35m to 50m
Annexure C: Bearing Capacity Analysis (after improvement)
10
Project : GI works for Textile showroom, Kumbakonam
Structure : Textile showroom
Design : Safe Bearing Capacity of Treated Soil
Loading Details:
Imposed foundation pressure = 100 kPa
Insitu Soil Details : Treated parameters

Type of soil Silty Sandy Clay
Undrained Cohesion, Cu soil = 46.08 kPa
Angle of internal friction, soil = 12.20 deg
Bulk density, soil = 16.0 kN/m3
Depth of GWT below EGL, Dw = 0m
Submerged density, 'soil = 6 kN/m3
Foundation Details
Depth of foundation considered = 2.3 m
Footing type (R/C/S/CS) = R
Diameter / Width of footing = 34 m
Length of footing = 55 m
Safe Bearing Capacity of Foundation Soil (Shear Failure Criteria):
N = 1.54
1) Shear Failure Condition = Local Shear Failure
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Factors (Local) Clause 3, IS:6403:2002
Angle of internal friction for local shear failure = 8.20
Nc' Nq' N' Clause 3.6.1, Table 1,
7.68 2.15 0.94 IS:6403:2002
Shape Factors Clause 5.1.2.1, Table 2,

sc sq s IS:6403:2002
1.12 1.12 0.75
Clause 5.1.2.4, IS:6403:2002
W' 0.5
Depth Factors
dc dq d Clause 5.1.2.2, IS:6403:2002
1.02 1.01 1.01
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Local Shear Failure

qd = 2/3cNc'scdcic + q(Nq'-1)sqdqiq + 0.5BN'sdiW' Clause 5.1.2, IS 6403:2002
NBC = 325 kPa
Factor of Safety = 2.5
SBC = 130 kPa
2
= 13.0 t/m
Annexure D: Load Carrying Capacity of Single Stone Column (as per Is

15284 (part 1) : 2003)
11
Project : Construction of B+G+4 storey Textile showroom, Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu Job No. : 881
Subject : Ground improvement using vibro stone columns for building foundation Date : 13-02-2017
Client : Teemage Builders India Pvt. Ltd. Page No. : 1
By : Vimala C Chkd. : Arunkumar S

R0
1) Calculation of Bearing Capacity of Composite Ground Treated by Vibro Stone Column
Ground Improvement scheme
Dia. of Stone Column, D = 0.9 m

Spacing of Stone Column, S = 1.8 m
Stone Column pattern : = Triangle grid
Friction angle of stone column, c = 40 Deg.
Loading intensity at foundation base, qo = 100 kN/m 2
Estimated Avg. Design Parameters of Clay layer surrounding Column in Bulb Formation Zone.
(Weighted Average Values)
Cohesion, Cu : = 3.5 T/m2
Friction, : = 0 Deg.
Unit weight, sub : = 0.6 T/m3
2) Estimation of Load Carrying Capacity of a Vibrofloated Column
a ) Capacity Based on Bulging of Column :

Safe Load on Column Alone, Q1 = { ( K0 v0 + 4 cu ) * tan2 ( 45 + c /2 ) * /4 D2 } / FOS . I
Q1 = 21.43 T
Where
Undrained Cohesion of Clay cu : 3.5 T/m2
Diameter of Stone Column D: 0.9 m
Factor of Safety FOS : 2
Average Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure K0 : 0.6 (for clays)
Effective Angle of Internal Friction of Soil : 0 Deg.
Angle of Internal Friction of the Column Material c : 40 Deg.
Average Initial Effective Vertical Stress v0 : 1.08 T/m2 (Average Bulge Depth of 2D)
= (0.6)*2*0.9
b ) Surcharge Effect :
Increase in Safe Load of Column due to
{ ( qsafe / 3 ) ( 1 + 2 K0 ) * tan2 ( 45 + c /2 ) * As / FOS . II
Surcharge, Q2 =
Q2 = 7.72 T
Where
Area of Stone Column As : 0.64 m2
Factor of Safety FOS : 2
Average Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure K0 : 0.6
Safe Bearing Pressure as per IS 6403 qsafe : 7.20 T/m2 ( cu Nc / 2.5 )
Bearing Capacity Factor NC : 5.14
Angle of Internal Friction of the Column Material c : 40 Deg.
c) Bearing Support Provided by the Intervening Soil :

Bearing Support Provided by the Intervening Soil, Q3 = qsafe * Ag . III
Q3 = 15.61 T
Where
Safe Bearing Pressure as per IS 6403 qsafe : 7.20 T/m2 ( cu Nc / 2.5 )
Bearing Capacity Factor NC : 5.14
Area of Influence of each column A : 2.8058 m2 (m*S2)
Area of Intervening Soil for Each Column Ag : A - As = 2.17 m2
m: 0.866
Constant Based on Arrangement of
m : 0.866 for Triangular Grid
Stone Column
m : 1.0 for Square Grid
Spacing of the Stone Columns S: 1.8 m (Triangular Grid)
Safe Load on each column and its tributary soil, Q = Q1 + Q2 + Q3

Q = 44.76 T
Load carrying capacity (bearing capacity) of each stone column, q = 16.0 T/m2 >10.0 T/m2
Annexure E: Settlement Analysis (after improvement)
12
Keller Holding GmbH 2/13/2017 6:38:14 PM
Teemage - GI Works for Textile Showroom Page 2
Stresses [kN/m] Settlement [mm]

Overbur. - Load
100 [kN/m] 0m
16.8 100.0 101.50 2.8 m
3.3 m
4m
37.0 99.7 90
55.5 98.0 82 8m
75.0 94.3 74
94.5 88.9 67 16 m
113.0 82.4 52
132.0 75.5 38 20 m
153.0 68.6 31 24 m
172.5 62.1 21
192.0 56.0 12
212.0 50.5 5 32 m
0
60 m
Properties of soil layer Settlement add from punching at column head 0.03 mm
Top Type gam phi c ny Eoed A-R Eoed-R tau Settlement add from punching at column toe 1.56 mm
[m] [kN/m] [] [kN/m] [MN/m] [kN/m] Total settlement 103 mm
0.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 35.00 0.41 7.0 ***** 17.14 0.00
2.80 Granular Blanket 8.00 30.00 0.00 0.33 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
3.30 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 35.00 0.41 7.0 4.41 17.14 0.00
4.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 50.00 0.40 15.0 4.41 8.00 0.00
8.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.50 0.00 60.00 0.38 18.0 4.41 6.67 0.00
16.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 45.00 0.40 13.5 ***** 8.89 0.00
20.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 80.00 0.38 32.0 ***** 3.75 0.00
24.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.50 0.00 65.00 0.39 19.5 ***** 6.15 0.00
32.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 75.00 0.39 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
60.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 75.00 0.39 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
Powered by Mursoft OG Version KID Keller Improvement Designer 1.2.4

Project: Teemage - GI Works for Textile Showroom

Department: Technical
Person in charge: Vimala C.
Type of treatment: Raft
Single footing of 1870.00 m (55.00 m * 34.00 m on 667 columns)
Area per column 2.80 m

Calculation depth 60.00 m Foundation level 2.80 m
Depth of column toe 16.00 m Depth of column head 3.30 m
Groundwater table 0.00 m
Partial safety factor: Permanent

R 1.40 [-]
G 1.35 [-] Q 1.50 [-]
cc,pl 0.80 [-] C 1.50 [-]
Load (characteristic values):

Dead weight g 100.00 [kN/m], Live load q 0.00 [kN/m]
Total load 100.00 [kN/m]
Properties of column material

Top gam phi c D Eoed Ecm fck K
[m] [kN/m] [] [kN/m] [m] [MN/m] [MN/m] [kN/m]
0.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
2.80 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
3.30 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.90 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
4.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.90 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
8.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.90 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
16.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
20.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
24.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
32.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
60.00 12.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 120.0 0.0 0.00 1.00
Properties of soil layer

Top Type gam phi c ny Eoed A-R Eoed-R tau
[m] [kN/m] [] [kN/m] [MN/m] [kN/m]
0.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 35.00 0.41 7.0 ***** 17.14 0.00
2.80 Granular Blanket 8.00 30.00 0.00 0.33 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
3.30 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 35.00 0.41 7.0 4.41 17.14 0.00
4.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 50.00 0.40 15.0 4.41 8.00 0.00
8.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.50 0.00 60.00 0.38 18.0 4.41 6.67 0.00
16.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.00 0.00 45.00 0.40 13.5 ***** 8.89 0.00
20.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 80.00 0.38 32.0 ***** 3.75 0.00
24.00 Silty sandy Clay 6.50 0.00 65.00 0.39 19.5 ***** 6.15 0.00
32.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 75.00 0.39 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
60.00 Silty sandy Clay 7.00 0.00 75.00 0.39 30.0 ***** 4.00 0.00
Top = top of soil layer D = column diameter

gam = effective bulk density phi = friction angle
c = cohesion ny = Poissons ratio
A-R = area ratio Eoed-R = ratio of constrained moduli
Eoed = constrained modulus E = Youngs modulus
q = Valid strength for elastic deformation (piling)
K = assumed coeff. of earth pr.
tau = skin friction
Improvement factors
(Relevant for column sections with plastic deformations only!)
The load share of the columns is approximated by m = 1 - 1/n

Mutual support of columns accounts for 97 % of this limited system
Top n0,0 n0,1 n0 d(A/AS) n1,0 n1,1 n1 n1 fd fd n2 n2

2.80 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
3.30 2.43 1.49 2.39 0.31 2.31 1.45 2.27 2.27 1.03 1.03 2.34 2.34
4.00 2.44 1.51 2.41 0.71 2.19 1.42 2.16 2.16 1.08 1.08 2.34 2.34
8.00 2.48 1.56 2.44 0.89 2.17 1.45 2.14 2.14 1.28 1.00 2.14 2.14

without/with depth factor

Top m1 phi1 c1 Eoed1 m2 phi2 c2 Eoed2
[] [kN/m] [MN/m] [] [kN/m] [MN/m]
2.80 **** **** **** **** / **** **** **** ****
3.30 0.66 30.73 11.90 15.92 / 0.67 31.08 11.57 16.37
4.00 0.64 30.06 17.87 32.45 / 0.67 31.09 16.51 35.12
8.00 0.64 29.91 21.66 38.54 / 0.64 29.91 21.66 38.54
Legend
n0 = basic improvement factor from n0,0 (grid) and n0,1 (single col.)
d(A/AC) = supplement for the area ratio (from column compressibility)
n1 = corrected improvement factor from n1,0 and n1,1 (column compressib.)
fd = depth factor (due to overburden stress) (fd = reduced fd)
n2 = fd x n1 (n1 resp. n2 = reduced n1 resp. n2)
m1/2 = load share of the columns
phi1/2 = friction angle of composite system attributable to n1 resp. n2
c1/2 = cohesion of composite system
Eoed1/2 = constr. modulus of compound
Settlements calculated at 0 m from centre of the single footing.
Settlement of the load area

Depth Settlement Type of Level of Over- Found. Press.
improved deformation utiliz. burden pressure ratio
[m] [mm] [kN/m2] [kN/m]
2.80 1.67 16.8 100.0 5.95
3.30 3.06 plastic 20.8 100.0 4.81
3.80 1.21 plastic 23.8 100.0 4.20
4.00 1.48 plastic 25.0 100.0 4.00
4.50 1.46 plastic 28.0 100.0 3.57
5.00 1.45 plastic 31.0 99.9 3.22
5.50 1.43 plastic 34.0 99.8 2.94
6.00 1.41 plastic 37.0 99.7 2.69
6.50 1.39 plastic 40.0 99.5 2.49
7.00 1.37 plastic 43.0 99.3 2.31
7.50 1.35 plastic 46.0 99.1 2.15
8.00 1.28 plastic 49.0 98.8 2.02
8.50 1.27 plastic 52.3 98.4 1.88
9.00 1.27 plastic 55.5 98.0 1.77
9.50 1.26 plastic 58.8 97.5 1.66
10.00 1.25 plastic 62.0 97.0 1.56
10.50 1.25 plastic 65.3 96.4 1.48
11.00 1.24 plastic 68.5 95.7 1.40
11.50 1.23 plastic 71.8 95.0 1.32
12.00 1.22 plastic 75.0 94.3 1.26
12.50 1.21 plastic 78.3 93.5 1.19
13.00 1.20 plastic 81.5 92.6 1.14
13.50 1.18 plastic 84.8 91.8 1.08
14.00 1.17 plastic 88.0 90.8 1.03
14.50 1.16 plastic 91.3 89.9 0.99
15.00 1.15 plastic 94.5 88.9 0.94
15.50 1.13 plastic 97.8 87.9 0.90
16.00 3.20 101.0 86.8 0.86
16.50 3.16 104.0 85.8 0.82
17.00 3.11 107.0 84.7 0.79
17.50 3.07 110.0 83.6 0.76
18.00 3.03 113.0 82.4 0.73
18.50 2.99 116.0 81.3 0.70
19.00 2.95 119.0 80.1 0.67
19.50 2.90 122.0 79.0 0.65
20.00 1.21 125.0 77.8 0.62
20.50 1.19 128.5 76.7 0.60
21.00 1.17 132.0 75.5 0.57
21.50 1.15 135.5 74.4 0.55
22.00 1.13 139.0 73.2 0.53
22.50 1.12 142.5 72.0 0.51
23.00 1.10 146.0 70.9 0.49
23.50 1.08 149.5 69.8 0.47
24.00 1.75 153.0 68.6 0.45
24.50 1.72 156.3 67.5 0.43

25.00 1.69 159.5 66.4 0.42

25.50 1.66 162.8 65.3 0.40
26.00 1.63 166.0 64.2 0.39
26.50 1.61 169.3 63.1 0.37
27.00 1.58 172.5 62.1 0.36
27.50 1.55 175.8 61.0 0.35
28.00 1.53 179.0 60.0 0.34
28.50 1.50 182.3 59.0 0.32
29.00 1.47 185.5 58.0 0.31
29.50 1.45 188.8 57.0 0.30
30.00 1.42 192.0 56.0 0.29
30.50 1.40 195.3 55.1 0.28
31.00 1.38 198.5 54.1 0.27
31.50 1.35 201.8 53.2 0.26
32.00 0.86 205.0 52.3 0.26
32.50 0.85 208.5 51.4 0.25
33.00 0.83 212.0 50.5 0.24
33.50 0.82 215.5 49.7 0.23
34.00 0.81 219.0 48.8 0.22
34.50 0.79 222.5 48.0 0.22
35.00 0.78 226.0 47.2 0.21
35.50 0.77 229.5 46.4 0.20
101.50
Settlement add from punching at column head 0.03 mm

Settlement add from punching at column toe 1.56 mm
Total settlement 103 mm

Annexure F: Layout of Vibro Stone Columns
13
Annexure G: Technical Paper The Design of Vibro Replacement by

Heinz. J Priebe
14
The design of vibro
replacement
Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe

Keller Grundbau GmbH
Presented by
Kaiserleistr. 44
D-63067 Offenbach Reprint from:
Tel. 069 / 80 51 - 0 GROUND ENGINEERING
Fax 069 / 80 51 - 244 December 1995
E-mail Marketing@KellerGrundbau.com
www.KellerGrundbau.com Technical paper 12-61 E
The Design of Vibro Replacement
Heinz J. Priebe
Vibro Replacement is an accepted method for subsoil improvement, at which large-sized co-
lumns of coarse backfill material are installed in the soil by means of special depth vibrators.
The performance of this composite system consisting of stone columns and soil, is not deter-
minable by simple investigation methods like soundings, and therefore, such methods are not
suitable for design purposes. However, theoretically, the efficiency of Vibro Replacement can
be reliably evaluated.The method elaborated on a theoretical basis and described in this contri-
bution, is easy to survey and adaptable to different conditions due to the separate consideration
of significant parameters. Practically, it comprises design criteria for all frequently occurring
applications.
1 Introduction
Vibro replacement is part of the deep vibratory compaction techniques whereby loose or soft
soil is improved for building purposes by means of special depth vibrators. These techniques as
well as the equipment required is comprehensively described elsewhere [1] [1].
Contrary to vibro compaction which densifies noncohesive soil by the aid of vibrations and improves
it thereby directly, vibro replacement improves non compactible cohesive soil by the installation
of load bearing columns of well compacted, coarse grained backfill material.
The question to what extent the density of compactible soil will be improved by vibro compaction,
depends not only on the parameters of the soil being difficult to determine, but also on the
procedure adopted and the equipment provided. However, the difficulty of a reliable prognosis is
balanced by the fact that the improvement achieved can be determined easily by soundings.
With vibro replacement the conditions are more or less revers. Considerable efforts only like
large-scale load tests can prove the benefit of stone columns. However, a reliable conclusion can
be drawn about the degree of improvement which results from the existence of the stone columns
only without any densification of the soil between. This is possible because the essential parameters
attributable to the geometry of the layout and the backfill material can be determined fairly good.
In such a prognosis the properties of the soil, the equipment and the procedure play an indirect
role only and that is mainly in the estimation of the column diameter.
Basically, the design method described herewith was developed some twenty years ago and
published already [3][3]. However, in the meantime it came to several adaptions, extensions and
supplements which justify a new and comprehensive description of the method. Nevertheless,
the derivation of the formulae is renounced with reference to literature.
1
Heinz J. Priebe
It may be emphasized: The design method refers to the improving effect of stone columns in a
soil which is otherwise unaltered in comparison to the initial state. In a first step a factor is
established by which stone columns improve the performance of the subsoil in comparison to
the state without columns. According to this improvement factor the deformation modulus of
the composite system is increased respectively settlements are reduced. All further design steps
refer to this basic value.
In many practical cases the reinforcing effect of stone columns installed by vibro replacement is
superposed with the densifying effect of vibro compaction, i.e. the installation of stone columns
densifies the soil between. In this cases, first of all the densification of the soil has to be evaluated
and only then - on the basis of soil data adapted correspondingly - the design of vibro replacement
follows.
Notation
A grid area p area load resp. foundation pressure

b foundation width s settlement
c cohesion W weight
d improvement depth reduction faktor in earthquake design
dGr depth of ground failure unit weight
D constrained modulus safety against ground failure
fd depth factor Poissons ratio
K coefficient of earth pressure 0f bearing capacity
m proportional load on stone columns friction angle
n improvement factor
Used subscripts, dashes and apostrophes follow from the context. Generally, subscript C means column and S
means soil. With the exception of K0 as coefficient for earth pressure at rest (Ka for active earth pressure)
subscript 0 means a basic respectively an initial value.
2 Determination of the Basic Improvement Factor
The fairly complex system of vibro replacement allows a more or less accurate evaluation only
for the well defined case of an unlimited load area on an unlimited column grid. In this case a unit
cell with the area A is considered consisting of a single column with the cross section A C and the
attributable surrounding soil.
Furthermore the following idealized conditions are assumed:
The column is based on a rigid layer
The column material is uncompressible
The bulk density of column and soil is neglected
Hence, the column can not fail in end bearing and any settlement of the load area results in a
bulging of the column which remains constant all over its length.
2
The improvement of a soil achieved at these conditions by the existence of stone columns is
evaluated on the assumption that the column material shears from the beginning whilst the
surrounding soil reacts elastically. Furthermore, the soil is assumed to be displaced already during
the column installation to such an extent that its initial resistance corresponds to the liquid state,
i. e. the coefficient of earth pressure amounts to K = . The result of the evaluation is expressed
as basic improvement factor n0.
A C 1 2 + f ( S , A C A )
n0 = 1+ 1
A K aC f ( S , A C A )
f ( S , A C A ) =
(1 S ) (1 A C A )
1 2 S + AC A
K aC = tan 2 ( 45 C 2 )
A poissons ratio of S = which is adequate for the state of final settlement in most cases,
leads to a simple expression.
AC 5 AC A
n0 = 1+ 1
A 4 K aC (1 A C A )
The relation between the improvement factor n0, the reciprocal area ratio A/AC and the friction
angle of the backfill material C which enters the derivation, is illustrated in the well known
diagram of Figure 1
1.
5

S == 45.0
45.0
Improvement Factor n
SC == 42.5
42.5 S B==1/3
1/3
4
S == 40.0

C
40.0
CS =
= 37.5
37.5
3
SC == 35.0
35.0
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Area Ratio A /A C
Figure 1
1: Design chart for vibro replacement
3
Heinz J. Priebe
3 Consideration of the Column Compressibility
2,0
CS ==45.0
Addition to the Area Ratio (A /A C )
45.0
1,6
CS == 42.5
42.5 sB== 1/3
1/3
CS== 40.0
40.0
1,2
CS == 37.5
37.5
S ==35.0
35.0
C
0,8
0,4
0,0
1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Constrained Modulus Ratio DC /DS
Figure 2:
2 Consideration of column compressibility
The compacted backfill material of the columns is still compressible. Therefore, any load causes
settlements which are not connected with bulging of the columns. Accordingly, in the case of soil
replacement where the area ratio amounts to A/AC = 1, the actual improvement factor does not
achieve an infinite value as determined theoretically for non compressible material, but it coincides
at best with the ratio of the constrained moduli of column material and soil. In this case for
compacted backfill material as well as for soil a constrained modulus is meant as found by large
scale oedometer tests. Unfortunately, in many cases soundings are carried out within the columns
and wrong conclusions about the modulus are drawn from the results which are somtimes very
moderate only.
It is relatively easy to determine at which area ratio of column cross section and grid size (AC /A)1
the basic improvement factor n0 corresponds to the ratio of the constrained moduli of columns
and soil DC /DS. For example, at S = 1/3 the lower positive result of the following expression
(with n0 = DC /DS ) delivers the area ratio (AC /A)1 concerned.
2
AC 4 K aC ( n0 2) + 5 1 4 K aC ( n0 2) + 5 16 K aC ( n0 1)
= +
A 1 2 (4 K aC 1) 2 4 K aC 1 4 K aC 1
4
As an approximation, the compressibility of the column material can be considered in using a

reduced improvement factor n1 which results from the formula developed for the basic
improvement factor n0 when the given reciprocal area ratio A/AC is increased by an additional
amount of (A/A C).
A C 1 2 + f ( S , A C A ) AC 1
n1 = 1 + 1 =
A K aC f ( S , A C A ) A A AC + (A A C )
1
(A AC ) = 1
( A C A )1
In using the diagram in Figure 1 this procedure corresponds to such a shifting of the origin of the
coordinates on the abscissa which denotes the area ratio A/A C that the improvement factor n1
to be drawn from the diagram, begins with the ratio of the constrained moduli and not with just
an infinite value. The additional amount on the area ratio (A /AC) depending on the ratio of the
constrained moduli DC /DS can be readily taken from the diagram in Figure 22.
4 Consideration of the Overburden
The neglect of the bulk densities of columns and soil means that the initial pressure difference
between the columns and the soil which creates bulging, depends solely on the distribution of the
foundation load p on columns and soil, and that it is constant all over the column length. As a
matter of fact, to the external loads the weights of the columns WC and of the soil WS which
possibly exceed the external loads considerably, has to be added. Under consideration of these
additional loads the initial pressure difference decreases asymptotically and the bulging is reduced
correspondingly. In other words, with increasing overburden the columns are better supported
laterally and therefore, can provide more bearing capacity.
Since the pressure difference is a linear parameter in the derivations of the improvement factor,
the ratio of the initial pressure difference and the one depending on depth - expressed as depth
factor fd - delivers a value by which the improvement factor n1 increases to the final improvement
factor n2 = fd n1 on account of the overburden pressure. For example, at a depth where the
pressure difference amounts to 50 % only of the initial value, the depth factor comes to fd= 2.
The depth factor fd is calculated on the assumption of a linear decrease of the pressure difference
as it results from the pressure lines (pC + Cd)KaC and (pS + Sd) (KS = 1). However, it has to be
considered that with decreasing lateral deformations the coefficient of earth pressure from the
columns changes from the active value KaC to the value at rest K0C. Up to the depth where the
straight line assumed for the pressure difference, meets the actual asymptotic line, the depth
factor lies on the safe side. In practical cases the treatment depth is mostly less. However, safety
considerations advise not to include the advantageous external load on the soil pS in the derivations.
5
Heinz J. Priebe
1 p
fd = pC =
K 0C WS WC WC AC 1 AC A
1+ +
K0C pC A p C pS
p C 1 2 + f ( S , A C A )
=
pS K aC f ( S , A C A )
WC = ( C d ) , WS = ( S d )
KoC = 1 sin C
The simplified diagram in Figure 3 considers the same bulk density for columns and soil which is
not on the safe side.Therefore for safety reasons, the lower value of the soil S should be considered
in this diagram always.
1
fd =
K 0 C 1 ( S d )
1+
K0C pC
1,3
[1 -- yy. .((
ffdt == 11 // [1 BS
.
d)
t) // p]
p]
1,1
SC == 45.0
45.0
Influence Factor y

CS =
= 42.5
42.5 SB == 1/3
1/3
0,9
S == 40.0
40.0
C
SC ==37.5
37.5
0,7
SC == 35.0
35.0
0,5
0,3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Area Ratio A/AC
Figure 3:
3 Determination of the depth factor
6
5 Compatibility Controls
The single steps of the design procedure are not connected mathematically and they contain
simplifications and approximations.Therefore, at marginal cases compatibility controls have to be
performed which guarantee that no more load is assigned to the columns than they can bear at
all in accordance with their compressibility.
At increasing depths, the support by the soil reaches such an extent that the columns do not
bulge anymore. However, even then the depth factor will not increase to infinity as results from
the assumption of a linearly decreasing pressure difference.Therefore, the first compatibility control
limits the depth factor and thereby the load assigned to the columns so that the settlement of
the columns resulting from their inherent compressibility does not exceed the settlement of the
composite system. In the first place this control applies when the existing soil is considered pretty
dense or stiff.
D C DS
fd
p C pS
0,20
0,16
Influence Factor y
0,12
S = 35.0
C = 35.0
0,08
CS == 37.5
37.5
= 40.0
CS = 40.0
sB== 1/3
1 /3

S == 42.5
42.5 fftd <
< yy. .DECS/ /DESB, ,
0,04 C
CS = 45.0
= 45.0 be r ff t >>1 1
abut
d
0,00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Area Ratio A /AC
Figure 4:
4 Limit value of the depth factor
The maximum value of the depth factor can be drawn also from the diagram in Figure 4 4. By the
way, a depth factor fd < 1 should not be considered, even though it may result from the calculation.
In this case the second compatibility control is imperatively required which relates to the maximum
value of the improvement factor. In a certain way this control resembles the first one. It guarantees
that the settlement of the columns resulting from their inherent compressibility does not exceed
the settlement of the surrounding soil resulting from its compressibility by the loads which are
7
Heinz J. Priebe
assigned to each. In the first place this second control applies when the existing soil is encountered
pretty loose or soft.
AC DC
n max = 1 + ( 1)
A DS
It has to be observed that the actual area ratio AC /A has to be appointed in the formula and not

the modified value AC / A. Because of the simple equation, an independent Diagram is not required.
6 Shear Values of Improved Ground
The shear performance of ground improved by vibro replacement is outmost favourable. Whilst
under shear stress rigid elements may break successively, stone columns deform until any overload
has been transferred to neighbouring columns. For example, a landslide will not occur before the
bearing capacity of the total group of columns installed has been activated. The stone columns
receive an increased portion of the total load m thereby which depends on the area ratio AC /A
und the improvement factor n.
m = (n 1 + A C A) n
Simplifying, the recommended design procedure does not consider the volume decrease of the
surrounding soil caused by the bulging of the columns. Therefore and particularly at a high area
ratio, the soil receive a greater portion of the total load than actually calculated. In order not to
overestimate the shear resistance of the columns when averaging on the basis of load distribution
on columns and soil, the proportional load on the columns has to be reduced. The following
approximation seems to be adequate:
m= ( n 1) n
The diagram in Figure 5 shows in solid lines the proportional load of the columns m and in
dashed lines the not reduced one m.
According to the proportional loads on columns and soil, the shear resistance from friction of
the composite system can be readily averaged.
tan = m tan C + (1 m ) tan S
Since in most practical cases possible lines of sliding cover different depths which is difficult to
survey, it is recommended to consider the depth factor in clear-cut cases only, i. e. to calculate
usually with a load portion of the stone columns m1 related to n1 and not with m2 related to
the increased factor n2 = fdn1.
The cohesion of the composite system depends on the proportional area of the soil.
c = (1 A C A ) cS
8
The installation of stone columns possibly creates damages to the soil structure which are difficult
to survey. For safety reasons, it seems to be advisable to consider the cohesion also proportional
to the loads, i. e. pretty low, although this proposal is not based on soil mechanical aspects.
c= (1 m ) cS
1,0
Dashed Lines:
m = (n - 1 + A C /A) / n
0,8
sB == 11/3
/3
Proportional load m
0,6 CS==45.0
45.0
C S= 42.5
= 42.5
S = 40.0
0,4 C = 40.0
= 37.5
C S= 37.5
Solid Lines: CS == 35.0
35.0
0,2
m = (n - 1) / n
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Area Ratio A/AC
Figure 5:
5 Proportional load on stone columns
7 Settlement of Single and Strip Footings
It is not (yet) possible to determine directly the performance of single or strip footings on vibro
replacement. The design ensues from the performance of an unlimited column grid below an
unlimited load area. The total settlement s which results for this case at homogeneous conditions,
is readily to determine on the basis of the foregoing description with n2 as an average value over
the depth d.
d
s = p
DS n 2
Diagrams which are given in Figure 6 and Figure 7 7, allow to conclude from this value the sett-
lements of single or strip footings on groups of columns. These diagrams - with the diameter of
the stone columns D as one parameter - are based on numerous calculations which considered
load distribution on one side and a lower bearing capacity of the outer columns of the column
group below the footing on the other side.
9
Heinz J. Priebe
0,8
Settlement Ratio s/s
1600
900
No. of Stone Columns

0,6
400
225
0,4 100
64
36
0,2 16
9
4
1
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Depth/Diameter Ratio d/D
Figure 6:
6 Settlement of single Footings
0,8
Settlement Ratio s/s
0,6
10 No. of Stone Column Rows
8
6
0,4
4
3
2
0,2
1
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Depth/Diameter Ratio d/D
Figure 7:
7 Settlement of strip Footings
The diagrams do not refer directly to footing extensions as to be expected. However, there exists
an indirect reference in that the grid area A required to determine the improvement factor n, has
10
to be derived as quotient of the footing area and the number of columns. For example, the
settlement reduction which a larger footing experiences normally at the same load, is compensated
widely by the lower improvement factor which results from an increased area ratio as follows
from a larger footing area on the same number of stone columns. The approximation given for
the diagrams by this assumed compensation seems to be acceptable for usually considered area
ratios, i. e. up to some A/AC = 10.
Quite clear that the diagrams are valid for homogeneous conditions only and refer to the settlement
s up to a depth d which is the second parameter counting from foundation level. The settlement
s of any layer at any depth below the footing has to be determined as difference of the settlements
up to the depths dl and du of the lower and upper bound of the layer concerned with n2 as an
average value over its thickness d.
p
s = [(s s )l d l (s s )u d u ]
DS n 2
Since n2 increases with depth on one side due to the depth factor, but becomes less significant
with depth on the other side due to the load distribution of a limited footing, it is required even
at homogeneous conditions to subdivide greater depths.This avoids settlements being too liberally
estimated.
8 Bearing Capacity of Single and Strip Footings
A simple method to estimate the bearing capacity of single and strip footings on vibro replace-
of
ment exists by determining at first a fictitious width b of the footing, using the friction angle
the improved soil below the footing and the friction angle S of the untreated soil on the outside,
which would develop - calculated on the basis of the friction angle S of the untreated soil only -
in case of ground failure the same line of sliding outside of the improved area as the actual footing
at actual conditions. If the border line of treatment coincide with the edge of the footing - being
usually the case but not necessarily - the following formula results:
b = b e[ ] sin( 45 + 2 ) sin( 90 S )
arc( 45 2 )tan arc ( 45 S 2 )tan S
sin(90 ) sin( 45+ S 2 )
Then, for this fictitious width the bearing capacity is determined by using the friction angle of the
untreated ground S and an averaged cohesion according to the proportion of fictitious footing
width and failure width outside of the footing. In pure cohesive soil the failure width equals the
footing width, thus leading to an average cohesion of c = (c + cS) / 2.
For foundations on layered ground the shear values change with depth also.The determination of
the bearing capacity, e. g. according to the German Standard DIN 4017, becomes rather complicated
with the fictitious width since this width changes at each layer.
11
Heinz J. Priebe
A practical approximation can be achieved as follows. At first, safeties 0 and maximum depths of
ground failure lines dGr,0 are calculated applying one after another the soil parameters of every
individual layer, e. g. according to DIN 4017.
0 = 0 f p 0f = ( cS N c c + q N d d + S b N b b ) b b
d Gr , 0 = b sin( 45+ S 2 ) e[ arc ( 45+ S 2 )tan S ]
In a second step, the final safety and maximum depth dGr is averaged successively with the
values of the individual layers as long as dGr(n-1) exceeds du(n) being the upper bound of the layer
concerned (dl(n) being the lower bound).
[ ]
d o( n )
( n ) = 0( n ) + ( n 1) 0( n )
d Gr ( n 1)
[ ]
d o( n )
d Gr ( n ) = d Gr , 0( n ) + d Gr ( n 1) d Gr , 0 ( n )
d Gr ( n 1)
n2 (1) = 0(1) d Gr (1) = d Gr , 0(1) When d Gr ( n 1) > d l( n ) then d Gr ( n 1) = d l ( n )
Though little bit uncomfortable, this procedure can still be performed manually in contrast to the
iteration as outlined in DIN 4017.The results of both the procedures do not differ much.
9 Liquefaction Potential of Improved Ground
Vibro replacement is suitable particularly for ground improvement in seismic areas since stone
columns possess a certain flexibility on one side and prevent liquefaction on the other side. The
stabilizing effect results from the frictional resistance of the columns which carry a considerable
amount of the external load and of the weight of the soil, and their capability to reduce excess
porewater pressure in the soil - at least in close vicinity - almost instantly.The steep reduction of
porewater pressure towards the column is in so far important as it creates kind of a filter cake
effect which maintains the lateral support required for the bearing capacity of the columns and
which prevents a higher degree of soil infiltration into the columns although the column material
does not fulfill any established filter criteria.
The complex conditions in a seismic event are investigated frequently for more or less
homogeneous ground. Nevertheless, practical criteria to evaluate the liquefaction potential were
developed rather empirically. For vibro replacement although carried out already many times
against earthquake vibrations, even an empirical evaluation is difficult since - fortunately - no
damages have been observed so far.
Usually, safety against liquefaction is concluded from the comparison of so-called cyclic stress
ratios, namely the one which is provided by the soil on the basis of its density and the one which
probably develops in a seismic event.
12
For a rough estimation of the efficiency of vibro replacement it is proposed to reduce the cyclic
stress ratio probably developed in a seismic event, in the same ratio as the load on the soil
between the columns is reduced by vibro replacement, i. e. to use a corresponding reduction
factor .
= pS p = 1 n
Such a reduction seems to be adequate with regard to the favourable performance of vibro
replacement in seismic events. However, from soil mechanical aspects this is not proved and has
to be verified ultimately by the increasing number of projects carried out world-wide.
For similar reasons as outlined at the determination of the shear values, it is recommended to
use in the formula n1 rather than n2.
A diagram for the reduction factor is given in Figure 8
8.
0,8
CS== 35.0
35.0
Stress Ratio pS /p
CS==37.5
37.5
0,6
C S==40.0
40.0
CS== 42.5
42.5
0,4
C S= =45.0
45.0
S == 1/3
1 /3
0,2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Area Ratio A/AC
Figure 8:
8 Residual pressure on the soil after vibro replacement
10 Case Study Worked Example
The design method has been used already frequently in determining the expected behaviour of
structures on treated ground. However, in most cases the application is based on parameters
indirectly derived from field tests or even just assumed. As long as the actual performance of
vibro replacement excels such forecasts, more accurate verifications are usually omitted.
Some full scale field experiments about vibro replacement which comprise measurements beyond
common practice are outlined in [2][2]. For example, enough details of a tank foundation at Canvey
Island are given so that the design method can be applied and the results verified.
13
Heinz J. Priebe
The diameter of the tank concerned is 36 m. It is founded on a pad of approximately 1 m thickness

above soil reinforced by 10 m long stone columns in a grid with triangular spacing of 1.52 m and
an average diameter of 0.75 m measured near surface. Including some 0.4 m of top soil the
treated strata consist up to 9 m depth of silty and clayey soil occasionally with pockets of peat
followed by medium dense silty fine sand in which the columns are embedded. Referred to depths,
the given coefficients of volume change m v and the constrained moduli DS (= 1 / mv) as used in
the design computations are as follows:
Depth [m] mv [m/MN] DS [MN/m] Remarks

-1.0 50 pad
0.0 20 top soil
0.4 0.8 - 0.5 2 soft soil
1.0 1 very soft soil
1.6 1.2 - 0.5 1 very soft soil below ground water
8.2 0.3 - 0.06 10 firm soil
9.0 20 medium dense sand
At full loading of 130 kN/m settlements were observed in the range of some 40 cm.
A computation according to the design method (s. appendix) shows a final settlement of
approximately 38 cm. Taking into consideration the pockets of peat or a possible reduction of
column diameter with depth, the value would be higher and in really good agreement.
The improvement factors n as computed on the basis of formulae, can be taken readily also from
the diagrams as follows with reference to the first layer below the ground water table which
contributes most to the settlements:
A /AC = 4.53 Fig. 1 n0 2.35

DC/DS = 100 Fig. 2 A/AC 0.05 A /AC = 4.58
A /AC = 4.58 Fig. 1 n1 2.30
A /AC = 4.58, (d) = 19 1.0 + 18 0.4 + 16 0.6 + 150.6 + 5 6.6/2 = 61.3 kN/m,
p = 130 kN/m Fig. 3 fd 1.38 n2 = fdn1 = 3.17
The discrepancy to the computed value of n2 = 2.94 is due to the difference between formulae
and diagram as outlined in paragraph 4.
14
11 Conclusions
Out of the deep vibratory compaction techniques vibro replacement covers the widest range
with regard to the application in different soils. Whilst vibro compaction is restricted to compactible
sand and gravel, the application of vibro replacement extends principally over the total range in
grain size of loose soils. Even in most of the noncohesive natural soils suitable for vibro compaction,
backfilling with coarse grained material is recommended to increase the compaction efforts - and
this means stone column installation. Pure vibro compaction has advanced just lately at gigantic
artificial deposits in different coastal regions of the world.
Notwithstanding the importance of vibro replacement, the efficiency of stone columns in soil
improvement must not be overestimated. As long as the existing soil is suitable to be densified,
this should be the preceding aim of any deep compaction treatment including vibro replacement.
However, the achievable densification depends on too many parameters to be calculable. On the
contrary the improving effect of stone columns - possibly supplementary to an achieved densification
- can be determined pretty reliably.
The application of vibro replacement which was introduced end of the fifties, relied for a long
time upon the experience of the contractors. Not before the middle of the seventies first theoretical
approaches were submitted. In its fundamentals also the design method outlined afore originates
from this time. It has proved its reliability since then. Subsequent supplements imply refinements
or extensions of the application range but not a radical alteration on the fundamentals. In respect
of the complexity of the matter the design criteria have the advantage to be easy to use and to
cover in a closed package all cases practically occurring.
References
[1] Kirsch, K.: Die Baugrundverbesserung mit Tiefenrttlern, 40 Jahre Spezialtiefbau: 1953-1993,
Festschrift,Werner-Verlag GmbH, Dsseldorf, 1993.
[2] Greenwood, D. A.: Load Tests on Stone Columns, ASTM Publication STP 1089, Deep
Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction, and Testing, 1991.
Publications of the author to the design method:

[3] Abschtzung des Setzungsverhaltens eines durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten Baugrundes,
Die Bautechnik 53, H.5, 1976.
[4] Zur Abschtzung des Setzungsverhaltens eines durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten Bau-
grundes, Die Bautechnik 65, H.1, 1988.
[5] Abschtzung des Scherwiderstandes eines durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten Baugrundes,
Die Bautechnik 55, H.1, 1978.
[6] Vibro Replacement Design Criteria and Quality Control, ASTM Publication STP 1089, Deep
Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction, and Testing, 1991.
[7] The Prevention of Liquefaction by Vibro Replacement, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Earthquake
Resistant Construction and Design, 1990 Balkema, Rotterdam.
[8] Die Bemessung von Rttelstopfverdichtungen, Die Bautechnik 72, H.3, 1995
15
Heinz J. Priebe
Appendix

Kaiserleistr. 44, 63067 Offenbach, Tel. 069/8051210, Fax. 069/8051221
Program VIBRI, Version 950904, Copyright by KELLER Grundbau GmbH
Vibro Replacement at Canvey Island, Reported 1991 by Greenwood

***********************************************************
Evaluation of the Soil Improvement by Vibro Replacement
acc. to Priebe, H.: Die Bautechnik 72, 3/1995
below an Area Load on a Regular Triangular Column Grid
Foundation Pressure 130.00 kN/m Column Material

Column Distance 1.52 m Unit Weight 19.00 kN/m, below 1.60 m Depth 12.00 kN/m
Row Distance 1.32 m Constrained Modulus 100.00 MN/m
Grid Area 2.00 m Friction Angle 40.00 Degrees
Load Level -1.00 m Press. Coefficient .22
Column Depth 10.00 m
Considered Depth 20.00 m
Subsoil Strata
Ground Water Table 1.60 m
No. TopL. Dia. A/AC DS DC/DS gamma my phi c
[m] [m] [MN/m] [kN/m] [degree] [kN/m] Top L. = Top Level of Stratum Concerned
Dia. = Column Diameter
1 -1.00 .00 **** 50.00 2.00 19.00 .33 35.00 .00
A = Grid Area Resp. Reference Area
2 .00 .75 4.53 20.00 5.00 18.00 .33 25.00 5.00
AC = Cross-sectional Area of Column
3 .40 .75 4.53 2.00 50.00 16.00 .33 .00 25.00
DC = Constrained Modulus of Backfill
4 1.00 .75 4.53 1.00 100.00 15.00 .33 .00 20.00
DS = Constrained Modulus )
5 1.60 .75 4.53 1.00 100.00 5.00 .33 .00 20.00
gamma = Unit Weight )
6 8.20 .60 7.08 10.00 10.00 7.00 .33 .00 30.00
my = Poissons Ratio ) of Soil
7 9.00 .60 7.08 20.00 5.00 9.00 .33 30.00 .00
phi = Friction Angle )
8 10.00 .00 **** 20.00 5.00 9.00 .33 30.00 .00
c = Cohesion )
9 20.00 .00 **** 20.00 5.00 9.00 .33 30.00 .00
Soil Improvement
No. n0 d(A/AC) n1 m1 phi1 c1 fd n2 m2 phi2 c2
[degree] [kN/m] [degree] [kN/m]
1 Layer without Stone Columns!
2 2.34 1.17 2.01 .50 33.16 2.49 ***** 1.88 .47 32.67 2.66
3 2.34 .09 2.31 .57 25.41 10.84 1.16 2.68 .63 27.73 9.34
4 2.34 .05 2.32 .57 25.54 8.61 1.21 2.82 .65 28.44 7.09
5 2.34 .05 2.32 .57 25.54 8.61 1.27 2.94 .66 28.98 6.80
6 1.78 .52 1.72 .42 19.35 17.45 1.24 2.13 .53 24.04 14.05
7 1.78 1.17 1.65 .40 34.25 .00 ***** 1.57 .36 33.90 .00
8 Layer without Stone Columns!
The Proportional Loads on Columns are Approximated to m = 1 - 1/n Vibro Replacement

by the Keller Group
n0 = Basic Improvement Factor
- the experienced contractors
d(A/AC) = Addition to the Area Ratio (Column Compressibility)
which invented and developed
n1 = Improvement Factor (with Column Compressibility)
the basic features of the deep
(> Recommended for Failure Analyses if n1 < n2)
vibratory compaction methods.
fd = Depth Factor (Overburden Constraint)
(***** > Overridden by Control Checking!)
VIBRI - The only software for the
n2 = Improvement Factor (Add. with Overburden Constraint)
design of vibro replacement
m1,2 = Proportional Load on Columns )
developed by the author (Priebe)
phi1,2 = Friction Angle of Compound ) Attributable to n1 resp. n2 of the design method.
c1,2 = Cohesion of Compound )
- user friendly
by graphically supported input
Settlement Depth Infinite w/o Over-
Load Area Impr. burden - easy to survey
by alphanum. and graphic output
[m] [cm] [cm] [kN/m]
-1.00 .26 .26 .0
.00 .14 .26 19.0 For details please contact

.40 1.37 3.66 26.2 Keller Grundbau GmbH
1.00 2.45 6.90 35.8 Technical Department
Kaiserleistr. 44
1.60 25.81 75.93 44.8
63067 Offenbach/Main
8.20 .48 1.03 77.8
Tel: 069-8051-218
9.00 .41 .65 83.4
Fax: 069-8051-221
10.00 6.46 6.46 92.4
GERMANY
37.37 95.14
16

KE-187-881-12-DOC-001 Rev 1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns - Vetted by IITM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KE-187-881-12-DOC-001 Rev 1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns - Vetted by IITM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annexure A: Overall Layout and Elevation Drawings

Figure 1: Overall layout plan

-16 KBH 1 -16

4 Loading and Performance Criteria

5.1 Bearing capacity

6 Proposed Foundation Solution

6.1 Ground Improvement using Vibro Stone Columns

Figure 3: Schematic of vibro stone columns (dry bottom feed method)

7 Proposal of Ground Improvement

7.1 Design of Vibro Stone Columns

Ground Improvement scheme

7.2 Proposed Treatment Scheme

Figure 4: Typical cross section of vibro stone columns

7.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis

7.4 Settlement Analysis

Annexure A: Overall Layout and Elevation Drawings

OTS For Ventilation

100mm precast wall design 3000

SFL to TFL stairs

23 risers T=300mm;R=150mm 75 mm V-Panel

Lift Shaft 7 stops

1200 GFL To FFL stairs

27risers T=300mm;R=150mm 1200 Precast open

+0.0m Lvl. Site Lvl. Site Lvl. +0.0m Lvl.

Precast wall along 0.6 x 0.3m Ramp

stairs length Stub wall upto 8390 .2 6100 (Conventional type)

height up to Ground lvl.

150mm Raft concrete

AREA STATEMENT: REV. DESCRIPTION DATE V.RAMESH KUMAR., M.Arch., A.I.I.A.,

3620 30415 [99'-9"]

Stairs Head room

Building height from Road lvl.

Ladies +4.95m Lvl.

Site Lvl. Site Lvl.

Retaining wall along

R.C.C. Retaining wall 150mm Raft concrete

Annexure B: Soil Investigation Report

SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR CONSTRUCTION

Sathy Silks Pvt. Ltd,

TIME INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS TESTING

Project : Construction of Textile Showroom at Kumbakonam

1. INTRODUCTION ON SOIL TEST

2.1 Plan of Bore Hole 1 to 5 - 6

4. SAFE BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION

4.1 Safe Bearing capacity calculation based on settlement and shear - 53

5. CALCULATION OF SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE SOIL

5.1 Safe Bearing capacity of soil based on SPT values - 58

6.1 Recommended safe bearing capacity values at different depths - 77

7.1 Assessment of Liquefaction - 87

8. SOIL SAMPLE PHOTOS

1.2 Investigation Programme, Procedure and Data:

Time Institute for Materials Testing, Trichy 2

1.3 Review of Field and Laboratory Results:

Sub soil Profile

Time Institute for Materials Testing, Trichy 3

Ground Water Table

Time Institute for Materials Testing, Trichy 4

OVER BRIDGE KARAIKKAL ROAD

WMC JAPA HOUSE

CLIENT Sathy Silks Pvt. Ltd, Kumbakonam.

2.2 BORE LOG DETAILS FOR BORE HOLE 1

Project : Report on soil investigation for construction of Textile Showroom