UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Transcription

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS / PROJEK SARJANA MUDA
DAN HAK CIPTA
Nama Penuh Penulis :
Tarikh Lahir
:
Judul
:
Sesi Pengajian
:
______WONG KAM LEONG__________
______29-09-1986____________
__THE EFFECT OF STRESS AND
DISPLACEMENT IN SOIL
__ BASED ON FOOTING SHAPE
______2009/2010____________
Saya mengesahkan kertas projek ini diklasifikasikan sebagai :
SULIT
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah
keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang
termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)*
TERHAD
√
TIDAK TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah
ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan
dijalankan)
Saya bersetuju bahawa tesis ini boleh diterbitkan
sebagai akses tidak terhad (penulisan penuh
Saya mengaku membenarkan tesis ini disimpan oleh Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syaratsyarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1.
2.
Tesis adalah hak milik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan
pengajian sahaja.
3.
Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara
institusi pengajian tinggi.
Disahkan oleh:
___________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS)
_____________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
_____860929-04-5137_____________
(NO. K/P BARU/ PASSPORT NO.)
Tarikh : ____18 – April - 2010__________
DR.NAZRI BIN ALI
NAMA PENYELIA
Tarikh : ____18 – April - 2010_________
NOTE:
* Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa /
organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai
SULIT atau TERHAD
“ I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis I sufficient
in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Civil
Engineering”
Signature
: ……………………………………
Name of Supervisor
: Dr.Nazri Bin Ali
Date
: 18 April 2010
i
THE EFFECT OF STRESS AND DISPLACEMENT IN SOIL
BASED ON FOOTING SHAPE
WONG KAM LEONG
A dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
University Technology Malaysia
APRIL 2010
ii
“I declare that this document is made by me except the masterpiece which
the sources explained myself”
Signature
: ……………………………………
Writer
: WONG KAM LEONG
Date
: 18-04-2010
iii
For my loved family
And grateful to people help me to success this thesis
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep and sincere gratitude
to my supervisor, Dr Nazri bin Ali, a dedicate lecturer in Faculty of Civil
Engineering for his encouragement and expert advice, regarding the planning,
processing and editing me in order to complete this theses. The ideas and concepts
have had a remarkable influence on my entire project in this field. I also thankful to
Mr Lim from G&P Geotechnical Sdn Bhd that give information to me for success
the case study.
During this work I have collaborated with many persons for whom I have
great regard, and I wish to extend my warmest thanks to all those who have helped
me with my work in the Faculty of Civil Engineering in University Technology
Malaysia.
I owe my loving thanks to my parents and family who always, pray for
my success in everyday life. Without their encouragement and understanding it
would have been impossible for me to finish this work.
Thank you very much
v
AKSTRAK
Rekabentuk penapak biasa dikira dengan cara traditional. Jurutera tidak dapat
memperoleh maklumat yang diingin dengan cara tersebut kerana kiraan yang sangat
rumit. Penggunaan Finite Element Method (FEM) perisian iaitu Plaxis 7.2 membaiki
cara analisa lebih efektif berbanding dengan kaedah lama. Kajian ini membincangkan
penggunaan Finite Element Method yang menggabungkan elemen-elemen dalam analisa
and rekabentuk penapak panjang dan papak bulat. Keputusan mengambarkan pengiraan
terhadap tekanan dalam tanah kaedah lama berbanding dengan FEM berbeza sedikit
iaitu kurang daripada 16%. Dalam kajian ini, penapak yang berbeza terdapat kesan yang
lain terdapat tekanan dapat diketahui.
vi
ABSTRACT
Design of shallow foundation has been carried out using manual calculation
traditionally. The conventional method did not provide the engineer with all the desired
design information because the limitation on complex calculation. The introduction of
numerical approaches or finite element method (FEM) software which is Plaxis 7.2
enhances method of analysis. This paper discusses the application of finite element
method, which incorporates joint element, as a design and analysis method for circular
footing and strip foundation. The results indicate that the stress using manual calculation
compare with FEM is slightly different with percentage less than 16 %. The
effectiveness of different type foundations also has been identified in this work.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
TITLE
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRAK
v
ABSTRACT
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xiv
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 General
1
1.2 Problem Identification
2
1.3 Objectives of The Study
4
1.4 Scope of Study
4
1.5 Importance of Study
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
2.1 Types of Bearing Capacity Failure
5
2.2 Bearing Capacity of Footings
11
2.2.1 Bearing Capacity of Strip and
Circular Footings in Sand
12
viii
CHAPTER
2
TITLE
LITERATURE REVIEW (Cont.)
2.3 Settlement
12
2.4 Method of Analyzing Bearing Capacity
14
2.5 Finite Element Method
15
2.5.1 Mesh discretization and boundary condition
17
2.5.2 Plane strain analysis (strip footing)
19
2.5.3 Axis-symmetry (circular footing)
21
2.5.4 Result and Discussion
22
2.5.4.1 Collapse Mechanism
3
4
PAGE
24
2.6 Plaxis 7.2
26
METHODOLOGY
29
3.1 Introduction
29
3.2 Research Design
30
3.2.1 Manual Calculation
30
3.2.2 Finite Element Method (FEM)
31
3.3 Comparison of Result
32
CASE STUDY
33
4.1 Project Background
33
4.2 Study Setting
34
4.3 Design Requirement
35
ix
CHAPTER
5
TITLE
PAGE
ANALYSIS AND RESULT
37
5.1 Analyses Details
37
5.2 Comparison of Vertical Stress
between FEM with manual calculation
37
5.2.1 For strip footing (sample calculation)
37
5.2.2For circular footing (sample calculation)
38
5.3 Deformations, displacements and stresses
generated by strip footing
39
5.4 Deformations, displacements and stresses
generated by circular footing
6
42
5.5 Analysis of plain strain versus axis-symmetric
44
CONCLUSION
45
REFERENCE
APPENDICES
46
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
4.1
Coordinate of geometrical model
35
4.2
Soil Properties
36
4.3
Concrete Properties and Column Load
36
5.1
Stress point 338
38
5.2
Stress Point 339
38
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
General Shear Failure
6
2.2
Load-displacement curves of general shear failure
6
2.3
Local shear failure
7
2.4
Load-displacement curves of local shear failure
8
2.5
Punching shear failure
9
2.6
Load-displacement curves of punching shear failure
9
2.7
Mathematical and physical derivation of FEM
17
2.8
Typical mesh and boundary conditions
for footing simulations
19
2.9
Plane Strain Model
19
2.10
Axis-symmetric model
21
2.11
Load–settlement response from the analyses
of strip footings for the determination of Nγ
2.12
23
Load–settlement response from the analyses of
circular footings for the determination of
Nqsq (with surcharge)
2.13
24
Collapse mechanisms as depicted by contours of the
plastic maximum shear strain increment compared against
the mechanism yielded by computer program
for circular footings on weightless soil wit
surcharge.
25
xii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont)
FIGURE NO.
2.14
TITLE
PAGE
Collapse mechanisms as depicted by contours of the
plastic maximum shear strain increment compared
against the mechanism yielded by computer program
for strip footings on weightless soil with surcharge
26
2.15
Example of 15 nodes and 6 nodes element generated
28
3.1
Flow Chart
32
4.1
Geometrical Modeling
34
5.1
Deformation by Strip Footing
39
5.2
Displacement by Strip Footing
40
5.3
Stress Distribution by Strip Footing
41
5.4
Deformation by Circular Footing
42
5.5
Displacement by Circular Footing
43
5.6
Stress Distribution by Circular Footing
44
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
D
-
Depth or Stiffness Matrix
B
-
Width
Dr
-
Relative Density
Nc, Nq, Nγ
-
Bearing Capacity factors
c
-
Cohesion
q
-
Surcharge
γ
-
Soil Unit Weight
sc, sq, sγ
-
Shape Factors
dc, dq, dγ
-
Depth Factors
S
-
Total Settlement
Si
-
Immediate Settlement
Sc
-
Primary Consolidation Settlement
Ss
-
Settlement of Creep
σ
-
Stress
ε
-
Strain
τ
-
Shear Stress
r
-
Radial Direction
θ
-
Circumferential Direction
ϕ
-
Internal Friction Angle
ψ
-
Dilatancy Angle
K
-
Permeability
E
-
Young’s Modulus
ν
-
Poisson’s Ratio
P
-
Load
Pa
-
Stress Unit (Pascal)
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
A
SI Report for 10 units of Cooling Towers
B
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
C
Direct Shear Test
D
Pipe Bridge Footing Design
PAGE
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Foundations are designed and constructed for structures of various sizes such as
high-rise buildings, bridges, medium to large commercial building, and smaller
structures. A building's foundation transmits loads from buildings and other structures to
the earth. Geotechnical engineers design foundations based on the load characteristics of
the structure and the properties of the soils or bedrock at the site. In general,
geotechnical engineers, estimate the magnitude and location of the loads to be supported,
develop an investigation plan to explore the subsurface, determine necessary soil
parameters through field and lab testing (e.g. consolidation test), and design the
foundation in the safest and most economical manner.
The conventional method of designing a foundation is based on concept of
bearing capacity and settlement criteria. The bearing capacity of the soil refers to the
ability of the soil to support the load transferred by the foundation. When considering
settlement, total settlement and differential settlement is normally considered.
Differential settlement is when one part of a foundation settles more than another part.
This can cause problems to the structure the foundation is supporting. It is necessary that
a foundation is not loaded exceed its bearing capacity or the foundation will fail.
2
The first type of foundation to be considered for a construction is the shallow foundation.
In areas of shallow bedrock, most foundations may bear directly on bedrock; in other
areas, the soil may provide sufficient strength for the support of structures. Shallow
foundations are a type of foundation that transfers building load to the very near the
surface, it are located just below the lowest part of superstructures they support. Shallow
foundations typically have a depth to width ratio of less than 1.
Footings are structural elements which transfer structure loads to the ground by
direct areal contact. Footings can be isolated footings for point or column loads, or strip
footings for wall or other long line loads. Footings are normally constructed from
reinforced concrete cast directly onto the soil, and are typically embedded into the
ground to penetrate through the zone of frost movement and to obtain additional bearing
capacity. The enlarged size of the footing gives an increased contact area between the
footing and the soil. The increased area serves to reduce pressure on the soil to an
allowable amount, thereby preventing excessive settlement or bearing failure of the
foundation.
1.2 Problem Identification
When designing a foundation of structures, the subsurface condition of the site
and the working load are primarily concerned. In general, a structure may be subjected
to dead load, live load, earth pressure, water pressure, and possibly wind load or
earthquake forces.
Ultimate bearing capacity is the load per unit area that cause a shear failure of the
immediately below foundation. The basic principles of bearing capacity theory were
developed by Terzaghi based on three modes of failure; general shear failures, local
shear failures and punching shear failures. There also got three different types of failure
may occur in a concrete footing subjected to a concentrated load. There are diagonal
3
tension failure, one way shear failure, and flexure failure. All the failure modes will
provide different design value for foundation geometry or the tensile and shear stress of
the reinforcement used.
The conventional methods for designing foundation are geotechnical and
structural design. Geotechnical design concern about concentric downward loads,
eccentric or moment loads, shear loads, and wind or seismic loads. While structural
design take account of shear and flexure exerted by the foundation. Application of this
method will show only the significant value that calculate by not involve many set of
data to analysis the design weather it considering the efficiency of design factor such a
safety, economic, practicality and good life spend of foundation. In the same cases, the
stability analysis of stability foundation that design by using reinforce steel may not be
précised effectively.
This research will solve the problem discussed before, using Plaxis 7.2 software.
Plaxis is one of the numerical software in geotechnical engineering that can be used in
the analysis and design of the foundation. This software capable of analysis in soil
structure interaction and take advances consideration into analysis such as structural
components, soil conditions and ground water table. The results from these studies are
applicable to implement in application of foundation for Malaysian geotechnical
engineers.
4
1.3 Objectives of The Study
The objectives of this study are stated bellow:

To compare the approximate result in the analysis of shallow foundation (strip
footing and circular footing) by using FEM (Finite Element Method) Plaxis 7.2
with conventional method

To predicted the soil stresses and displacements induced by loadings of strip
footing and circular footing

To study analysis of plain strain (2D) versus axis-symmetric (2D)
1.4 Scope of Study
This study will focus on the effect on soil stresses and displacements by loadings of
strip footing and circular footing which the stability of the foundations are analyzed.
Properties of soil considered in this geometric model simulation. Finite Element Method
(FEM)–(Plaxis 7.2) is used in the analysis where two dimensional of footings are
considered. To gain the knowledge of FEM. FEM can do more complex analysis, in my
thesis just consider simple situation.
1.5 Importance of Study
This study was conducted with purpose:

To prove the effectiveness of Finite Element Method with Plaxis 7.2 software
that enhance geotechnical work in designing and analysis

To compare difference between strip footing and circular footing against vertical
stress applied in same soil condition.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Types of Bearing Capacity Failure
Shallow foundations transmit the applied structural loads to near-surface soils. In
the process of doing so, they induce both compressive and shear stresses in these soils.
The magnitudes of these stresses depend largely on the bearing pressure and the size of
the footing. If the bearing pressure is large enough, or the footing is small enough, the
shear stresses may exceed the shear strength of the soil or rock, resulting in a bearing
capacity failure. Researchers have identified three types of bearing capacity failures:
general shear failure, local shear failure, and punching shear failure.( Donald P.Coduto,
2001)
General shear failure is the most common mode. It occurs in soils that are
relatively incompressible and reasonably strong, in rock, and in saturated, normally
consolidated clays that are loaded rapidly enough that the undrained condition prevails.
The failure surface is well defined and failure occurs quite suddenly, as illustrated by the
load displacement curve. A clearly formed bulged appears on the ground surface
adjacent to the foundation. Although bulges may appear on both sides of the foundation,
ultimate failure occurs in one side only, and it is often accompanied by rotations of the
foundation.
6
Figure 2.1: General Shear Failure
Figure 2.2: Load-displacement curves of general shear failure
7
Local shear failure is an intermediate case. The shear surfaces are well defined
under the foundation, and then become vague near the ground surface. A small bulge
may occur, but considerable settlement, perhaps on the order of half the foundation
width, is necessary before a clear shear surface form near the ground. Even then, a
sudden failure does not occur, as happens in the general shear case. The foundation just
continues to sink ever deeper into the ground.
Figure 2.3: Local shear failure
8
Figure 2.4: Load-displacement curves of local shear failure
The opposite extreme is the punching shear failure. It occurs in very loose sands,
in a thin crust of strong soil underlain by a very weak soil, or in weak clays loaded under
slow, drained conditions. The high compressibility of such soil profiles causes large
settlements and poorly defined vertical shear surfaces. Little or no bulging occurs at the
ground surface and failure develops gradually, as illustrated by the ever-increasing loadsettlement curve.
9
Figure 2.5: Punching shear failure
Figure 2.6: Load-displacement curves of punching shear failure
10
Vesic (1973) investigated these three modes of failure by conducting load tests
on model circular foundations in sand. These tests included both shallow and deep
foundations. The results indicate shallow foundations (D/B less than about 2) can fail in
any of the three modes, depending on the relative density. However, deep foundations
(D/B greater than about 4) are always governed by punching shear. Although these test
results apply only to circular foundations in Vesic’s sand and cannot necessarily be
generalized to other soils, it does give a general relationship between the mode of failure,
relative density, and the D/B ratio.(Braja M.Das,2007)
Complete quantitative criteria have yet to be developed to determined which of
these three modes of failure will govern in any given circumstance, but the following
guidelines are helpful:

Shallow foundations in rock and undrained clays are governed by the
general shear case.

Shallow foundations in dense sands are governed by the general shear
case. In this context, dense sand is one with a relative density, Dr, greater
than about 67%.

Shallow foundations on loose to medium dense sands (30% < D r < 67%)
are probably governed by local shear.

Shallow foundations on very loose sand (Dr < 30%) are probably
governed by punching shear.
11
2.2 Bearing Capacity of Footings
The bearing capacity for both strip and circular footings has already been one of
the most highly interesting areas in geotechnical engineering for researchers and
practical engineers. Based on the solution methods, analytical solutions to the bearing
capacity problem can be classified into the following categories: the limit equilibrium
method, the upper-bound plastic limit analysis method and the method of characteristics.
In recent years, numerical methods, such as finite element method (FEM) and the finite
difference method (FLAC) have been widely used to compute the bearing capacity of
strip and circular footings (L.Zhao and J.H.Wang, 2008).
When the ground is loaded with a uniform surcharge pressure (q), according to
Terzaghi’s formula, the bearing capacity of a shallow, strip footing can be obtained from
qu = cNc + qNq + 0.5γBNγ
Where c = cohesion; q = equivalent surcharge; γ = soil unit weight; B = footing width;
Nc, Nq and Nc are the bearing capacity factors, which are dependent solely on the
friction angle. For the axially loaded circular footings, which have a width of B and rests
on the surface of the soil (no surcharge) with a unit weight c, according to Terzaghi’s
formula, the bearing capacity of a circular footing can be obtained from
qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3γBNγ
12
2.2.1 Bearing Capacity of Strip and Circular Footings in Sand
In the case of a footing in a sand deposit (in which case the soil cohesion c is
zero), the bearing capacity equation reduces to
qu = q0Nqsqdq + 0.5γBNγsγdγ
where γ is the soil unit weight, B is the footing width, Nq and Nc are bearing capacity
factors, sq and sγ are the shape factors that introduce the effect of footing geometry in the
case of a footing other than strip footing, and dq and dγ are depth factors.
The values for the bearing capacity factors Nq and Nγ can be derived based on
the method of characteristics (MOC). For Nq, there exists an exact solution in closed
form
𝑁𝑞 =
1 + sin ∅ 𝜋 tan ∅
𝑒
1 − sin ∅
where ∅ is the soil friction angle. The factor Nc cannot be obtained using MOC as a
closed-form solution. (D. Loukidis and R. Salgado, 2009)
2.3 Settlement
If a structure or a load is placed on soil surface, then the soil will undergo an
elastic and plastic deformation. In engineering practice, the deformation or reduction in
soil volume is seen as settlement or heave depending on whether the load is increased or
decreased. There are three types of settlement i.e. the immediate settlement (S i), primary
consolidation settlement (Sc), and secondary compression settlement or creep (S s). Total
settlement is:
13
S = S i + Sc + Ss
In general, immediate settlement is caused by the elastic deformation of the soil
mass or by the rearrangement of clay particles when the applied load causes the air to be
expelled from the voids. This process occurs immediately following a stress change.
Primary consolidation settlement occurs when the applied stress and
subsequently the excess pore pressure has caused the water to dissipate from the voids in
saturated soil. The process is time-dependent. Excess pore pressures are set up
immediately following a total stress change (undrained) and will gradually transfer the
total stress increase to the effective stresses at a rate proportional to the soil permeability
(drained). In sandy, free draining soils, primary consolidation occurs almost
instantaneously with relatively small settlements, but in low permeability clays the
process can take several years to complete and lead to significant settlements.
Secondary consolidation takes place when the excess pore water pressure is fully
dissipated. In this case, the settlement is caused by the deformation of soil skeleton. This
process is also time dependent and the process is slower as compared to primary
consolidation. The magnitude and rate of settlement is a function of soil type. In dry soil
subjected to vibration, the settlement was caused only by rearrangement of soil particles.
In granular soil or sand, water dissipates very quickly from void because of its high
permeability, therefore only the immediate settlement is considered while the primary
consolidation may be insignificant and could be neglected.
Primary consolidation makes an important part in the compressibility of fine
grained soil, especially clay. However, the immediate settlement cannot be neglected
and should be taken into account in the settlement analysis.
14
Secondary consolidation may play an important role in the compressibility of
organic soil. The proportion of the secondary and the primary consolidation parts should
be observed through a laboratory consolidation test. (Nurly Gofar and Khairul Anuar
Kassim, 2005).
2.4 Method of Analyzing Bearing Capacity
To analyze footings for bearing capacity failures and design them in a way to
avoid such failures, we must understand the relationship between bearing capacity, load,
footing dimensions and soil properties. Various researchers have studied these
relationships using a variety of techniques, including:

Assessments of the performance of real foundations, including full-scale
load test.

Load tests on model footings.

Limit equilibrium analyses.

Detailed stress analyses, such as finite element method (FEM) analyses
Full-scale load tests, which consist of constructing real spread footings and
loading them to failure, are the most precise way to evaluate bearing capacity. However,
such tests are expensive, and thus are rarely, if ever, performed as a part of routine
design. A few such tests have been performed for research purposes.
Model footing tests have been used quite extensively, mostly because the cost of
these tests is far below that for full-scale tests. Unfortunately, model tests have their
limitations, especially when conducted in sands, because of uncertainties in applying
proper scaling factors. However, the advent of centrifuge model tests has partially
overcome this problem. .( Donald P.Coduto, 2001)
15
Limit equilibrium analyses are the dominant way to assess bearing capacity of
shallow foundations. These analyses define the shape of the failure surface as shown in
figure above, and then evaluate the stresses and strengths along this surface. These
methods of analysis have their roots in Prandtl’s studies of the punching resistance of
metals (Prandtl, 1920). He considered the ability of very thick masses of metal (i.e., not
sheet metal) to resist concentrated loads. Limit equilibrium analyses usually include
empirical factors developed from model tests.
Occasionally, geotechnical engineers perform more detailed bearing capacity
analyses using numerical methods, such as the finite element method (FEM). These
analyses are more complex, and are justified only on very critical and unusual projects.
In my research, I will consider limit equilibrium analyses and finite element
methods for bearing capacity analyses.
2.5 Finite Element Method
The finite element method (FEM) was originally developed for use in static and
dynamic calculations in structural mechanics and has been used most frequently there
until today. FEM can be understood as a combination of an engineer’s intuition to split
up a continuum into discrete elements with the application of direct variational
principles. The overall perspective of FEM is shown in figure 2.7 below.(Peter Gussman,
2000).
16
FEM has been used for deformation and failure analysis of soils. Clough and
Woodward (1967) were researchers who introduced this method for analyzing many
problems related to geotechnical application.
FEM is useful in analyzing stresses, pore pressure and movement of soil
structure. It also used to monitor and analyze the performance of the structure during and
after construction. This method is possible to model complex conditions such as
nonlinear stress strain behaviour and non-homogeneous conditions (Duncan, 1996). The
equilibrium stresses, strain and the associated shear strengths in soil mass can be
computed accurately with the advance of computer technology available.
FEM provides the results in term of deformation, strains and stresses, structural
forces and displacement. The results are presented in graphical form such as arrows,
contour lines and shadings. The deformation of soil can be visualized in deformed mesh
together with amount of total displacements in vertical or horizontal direction. The total
displacement is prone with value of soil stiffness. It gives large deformation when the
value of stiffness is small. This finite element program also can present the stresses of
soil element which are presented in total and effective stresses. These results can be
viewed in principle direction, mean contours, relative shear contours, mean shadings and
relative shear shading. FEM may be used to a considerable advantage in the analysis of
shallow foundations.
17
Figure 2.7: Mathematical and physical derivation of FEM
2.5.1 Mesh discretization and boundary condition
The finite element analyses were performed using SNAC (Solid Nonlinear
Analysis Code). The analyses used unstructured meshes consisting of 15-noded
triangular elements. Unstructured meshing allows efficient element
arrangement
and refinement of the elements in the vicinity of the corners of the footing, which
is crucial for the accurate prediction of the collapse load. The 15-noded elements
converge more rapidly and perform better numerically than 6-noded elements when
18
a strongly non-associated flow rule is used, allowing use of a smaller number of
nodes to achieve the same level of accuracy as a mesh consisting of 6-noded elements.
The plane-strain elements used in the strip footing simulations and the axisymmetric elements used in the circular footing simulations possessed 12 and 16
Gauss-quadrature points. (Sloan and Randolph)
Loading of the footing is accomplished through prescription of uniform
incremental vertical displacements at the nodes located at the base of the footing
(displacement control), while the horizontal degrees of freedom are fixed. This way,
the footing is considered to be perfectly rigid and rough. The footing load is obtained as
the sum of the reactions at all the nodes where the footing nodal displacements are
prescribed (i.e., across the entire footing width B). At the bottom boundary of the
finite element mesh, both the horizontal and vertical degrees of freedom are fixed.
At the lateral boundaries, only the horizontal degree of freedom is fixed (Figure 2.8).
Preliminary analyses showed that fixing both degrees of freedom and just the
horizontal one at the lateral boundary nodes does not affect the resulting collapse
load as long as the lateral boundaries are placed far enough from the developing
collapse mechanism. The distances of the bottom and lateral boundaries from the
footing varied from analysis to analysis in order to ensure that the boundaries did
not interfere with the development of the collapse mechanism while maintaining
adequate mesh density close to the footing.(D. Loukidis and R. Salgado, 2009)
19
Figure 2.8: Typical mesh and boundary conditions for footing simulations
2.5.2 Plane strain analysis (strip footing)
Figure 2.9: Plane Strain Model
20
Due to the special geometric characteristics of many of the physical problems
treated in soil mechanics, additional simplifications of considerable magnitude can be
applied. Problems such as the analysis of continuous or strip footing generally have one
dimension very large in comparison with the other two. Hence, if the force or applied
displacement boundary conditions are perpendicular to, and independent of, this
dimension, all cross section will be the same. If the z dimension of the problem is large,
and it can be assumed that the state existing in the x-y plane holds for all planes parallel
to it, the displacement of any x-y cross section, relative to any parallel x-y cross section,
is zero. This mean that w = 0, and the displacements u and v are independent of the z
coordinate. The conditions consistent with these approximations are said to define the
very important cases of plane strain:
𝛿𝑤
𝛿𝑤
𝛿𝑣
𝛿𝑤
𝛿𝑢
𝜀𝑧 = − 𝛿𝑧 = 0 ; 𝛾𝑦𝑧 = − 𝛿𝑦 − 𝛿𝑧 = 0 ; 𝛾𝑥𝑧 = − 𝛿𝑥 − 𝛿𝑧 = 0
The constitutive relationship then reduces to:
∆𝜎𝑥
∆𝜎𝑦
∆𝜎𝑧
∆𝜏𝑥𝑦
∆𝜏𝑥𝑧
∆𝜏𝑧𝑦
=
𝐷11
𝐷21
𝐷31
𝐷41
𝐷51
𝐷61
𝐷12
𝐷22
𝐷32
𝐷42
𝐷52
𝐷62
𝐷14
𝐷24
𝐷34
𝐷44
𝐷54
𝐷64
∆𝜀𝑥
∆𝜀𝑦
∆𝛾𝑥𝑦
However, for elastic and the majority of material idealizations currently used to
represent soil behaviour D52 = D51 = D54 = D61 = D62 = D64 = 0, and
consequently
𝑏 ∆𝜏𝑥𝑦 = ∆𝜏𝑧𝑦 = 0
changes ,∆𝜎𝑥 ,∆𝜎𝑦 ,∆𝜎𝑧 ,∆𝜏𝑥𝑦 .
.
This
results
in
four
non-stress
21
It is common to consider only the stresses ∆𝜎𝑥 , ∆𝜎𝑦 , ∆𝜏𝑥𝑦 when performing
analysis for plain strain problems. This is acceptable if D 11, D12, D14, D21, D22, D24, D41,
D42, D44 are not dependent on ∆𝜎𝑧 . This condition is satisfied if the soil is assumed to be
elastic.
2.5.3 Axis-symmetry (circular footing)
Some problems possess rotational symmetry. For example, a uniform or centrally
loaded circular footing, acting on a homogeneous or horizontally layered foundation, has
rotational symmetry about a vertical axis through the centre of the foundation.
Cylindrical triaxial samples, single piles and caissons are other examples where such
symmetry may exist.
Figure 2.10: Axis-symmetric model
22
In this type of problem it is usual to carry out analyses using cylindrical
coordinates r (radial direction), z (vertical direction) and θ (circumferential direction).
Due to the symmetric, there is no displacement in the θ direction and the displacements
in the r and z directions are independent of θ and therefore the strains reduce to
(Timoshenko and Goodier, 1951):
𝜕𝑣
𝜕𝑣
𝑢
𝜕𝑣
𝜕𝑢
𝜀𝑟 = − 𝜕𝑧 ; 𝜀𝑧 = − 𝜕𝑧 ; 𝜀0 = − 𝑟 ; 𝛾𝑟𝑧 = − 𝜕𝑟 − 𝜕𝑧 ; 𝛾𝑟0 = 𝛾𝑧0 = 0
where u and v are the displacements in the r and z directions respectively.
This is similar to the plane strain situation discussed above and, consequently,
the same arguments concerning the [D] matrix apply here too. As for plain strain, there
are four non-zero stress changes, ∆𝜎𝑟 , ∆𝜎𝑧 , ∆𝜎𝜃 and ∆𝜏𝑟𝑧 .
2.5.4 Result and Discussion
All analyses were performed for a footing with B = 1 m. The analyses for the
determination of Nc and sc were done with c = 20 kN/m3 and no surcharge. In analyses
for the determination of Nq and sq, q0 was set equal to 15 kPa and the soil was assumed
to be weightless. Although the collapse load QbL depends on the values considered for B,
c or q0, the values of the resulting bearing capacity equation factors are independent of
these parameters when the soil friction angle, ∅ and dilatancy angle, ѱ are always
constant (as in this study). Figure 2.11 and 2.12 show examples of the evolution of
normalized footing load with footing settlement w illustrating that the analyses with a
non-associated flow rule produce load–displacement curves that oscillate as the collapse
load (peak load) is approached and after its attainment. Such oscillations have been
observed in other studies involving an M–C (Mohr-Coulomb) constitutive model with
23
∅ < ѱ .The intensity of the oscillations increases with increasing ∅ and increasing mesh
refinement. These oscillations are due to the apparent softening exhibited in shear bands
by materials following a M–C model with a non-associated flow rule, even with the
strength parameters remaining always constant.
Figure 2.11: Load–settlement response from the analyses of strip footings for the
determination of Nγ
24
Figure 2.12: Load–settlement response from the analyses of circular footings for the
determination of Nqsq (with surcharge)
2.5.4.1 Collapse Mechanism
Figure 2.13 shows examples of the collapse mechanisms for footings on
ponderable soil (soil with non-zero unit weight) and no surcharge (analyses for Nc and
Ncsc). Figure 2.14 and Figure 2.15 show examples of mechanisms on weightless soil
with a surcharge (analyses for Nq and Nqsq). The mechanisms are depicted by contours
of incremental plastic maximum shear strain Δγplmax. The mechanisms developed in the
FE simulations with ѱ = ∅ agree well with the mechanism predicted by MOC (using
computer program) both in shape and in size. As observed in previous studies, the
collapse mechanism for the ѱ = ∅ case is larger than the one for ѱ < ∅. Besides the
mechanism size, another important difference between the simulations for associated
25
and non-associated flow rules is that the deformation in the non-associated flow cases is
highly localized in thin shear bands, while, in the associated flow cases, the plastic
strains appear to be more diffused inside the mechanism. The intense shear banding
when ѱ < ∅ is a direct consequence of the apparent softening and energy release
exhibited by a material with a non-associated flow rule. (D. Loukidis and R. Salgado,
2009)
Figure 2.13 and 2.14 indicate the collapse mechanism of circular footing smaller
than strip footing.
With Surcharge
Figure 2.13: Collapse mechanisms as depicted by contours of the plastic maximum shear
strain increment compared against the mechanism yielded by computer program (shown
with dashed lines) for circular footings on weightless soil with surcharge.
26
Figure 2.14: Collapse mechanisms as depicted by contours of the plastic maximum shear
strain increment compared against the mechanism yielded by computer program (shown
with dashed lines) for strip footings on weightless soil with surcharge.
2.6 Plaxis 7.2
Plaxis 7.2 is a range of finite element packages intended for 2D and 3D analysis
of deformation, stability and groundwater flow in geotechnical engineering.
Geotechnical applications require advanced constitutive models for the simulation of the
non-linear and time-dependent behaviour of soils. In addition, since soil is a multiphase
material special procedure are required to deal with hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic pore
27
pressures in the soil. Although the modeling of the soil itself is an important issue, many
geotechnical engineering projects involve the modeling of structures and the interaction
between the structures and soil.
The idea behind FEM is an area are splitting up into easily calculable subareas
and defining variables at the coupling points as unknown, corresponding mathematical
model uses the principle of variation in the subareas called elements. Models are divided
to triangular elements. Plaxis 7.2 encourage 6 and 15 nodes of element in its analysis.
The 15 nodes gives more accurate value than 6 nodes analysis elements. 15 nodes
analysis consider 12 stress point in each element.
In order to include a particular constitutive model (or stress-strain relationship) in
a finite element formulation it is usually necessary to formulate the relationship between
the stresses (written in vector form as σ) and the strains (written in vector form as ε) in
matrix equation of the form:
σ = Dε
Stress = Stiffness Matrix x Strain
28
Figure 2.15: Example of 15 nodes and 6 nodes element generated
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The research was implemented in stages. The first stage of study was problem
identification followed by literature review and data collecting for method that could be
used for design and analyze of strip and circular footing with their basic formula,
theories, concepts, assumptions, applications and limitations. Then selection of methods
made for determination of vertical pressure applied on the footings.
The study continues with comparison of the result analysis that obtained from the
selected methods as well as established the factors that contribute to the differences
between the two methods, thus manual calculation and application of software (Plaxis
7.2).
For last stage of research, conclusions are made based on the analysis carried out
and make the comparison between two different shape of foundation to improve future
study. Figure 3.1 shows the procedure in this study.
30
3.2 Research Design
The first part of this study is using data collection process and assessments. The
data that related to the study is gathered from the available sources such as journal and
articles about method in designing circular and strip footing. Data collection and
gathering is important so that we can understand the design method procedure process in
conventional method and modern method. Hence, the effective method in designing the
shallow foundation can be identified. Consequently, it gives us some preparation in
getting required important data in second part of research methodology.
3.2.1 Manual Calculation
In this stage, analysis for stability of the shallow foundation will be done
manually based on related concepts and theories. The analysis is focus on calculations of
vertical stress or force that applied on footings.
Bousinessq’s theory and pressure bulb chart will be used to obtain the best
design.
31
3.2.2 Finite Element Method (FEM)
FEM is a computational procedure that may be used to obtain approximate
solution to mathematical problems that arise in a variety of areas of engineering. The
essential feature of the method is that the governing mathematical equations which are
generally continuous are approximated by a series of algebraic equations involving
quantities that are evaluated at discrete points within the region of interest. FEM are
formulated and solved in such a way as to minimize the error in the approximate
solution.
The second part is using design software (Plaxis 7.2) for analyze the stability of
strip and circular footing. Generally, distinction can be made between four types of input
of selection. After the model is created, the calculation phases need to be defined which
involved construction of geotechnical structure and load applied. After each successful
execution of a calculation phase, Plaxis 7.2 will indicate the phase with a check mark. In
output program, the deformed mesh for the final situation will be showed. The curve
phases in Plaxis 7.2 allowed us to create new chart and indicate the appropriate problem
which is not necessary in certain design of geotechnical structure. There are four stages
involve in this design method:
1. Plaxis Input
2. Plaxis Calculation
3. Plaxis Output
4. Plaxis Curve
32
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
LITERATURE REVIEW
DATA COLLECTING
MODEL
ANALYSIS
MANUAL CALCULATION
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (PLAXIS 7.2)
COMPARISON
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Figure 3.1: Flow Chart
3.3 Comparison of Result
The results of analysis that obtained from the above mentioned methods were
compared. From the comparison, percentages different among the results computed from
the different methods will be established.
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY
4.1 Project Background
The case study involved 10 units of Cooling Towers at ABF Bintulu, Sarawak
was carried out by Geospec Sdn. Bhd. Kuching, for Ikatan Innovasi Sdn. Bhd. The
Consulting Engineers for this project was G & P Professionals Sdn. Bhd.
Field investigation work was carried out and the field bore logs was transmitted
to the Client and Consulting Engineer after the completion of the borehole. The
laboratory testing schedules were then issued by the Consulting Engineers. The
laboratory testing include Classification Tests, Direct shear Box, Chemical tests and
UCT on rock core.
The borehole logs and laboratory testing result will attach at appendix.
34
4.2 Study Setting
To compare the effect of strip footing and circular footing to the soil
Case 1: Effect of stress and displacement in soil by strip footing
Case 2: Effect of stress and displacement in soil by circular footing
Compare the difference of case 1 and case 2
0.25m
1.5m
0.5m
0.3m
0.85m
6.0m
5.0m
m
Figure 4.1: Geometrical Modeling
35
Point
X
Y
Unit
meter
meter
0
0
0
1
5
0
2
5
6
3
0
6
4
0
4.2
5
0.85
4.2
6
0.85
4.5
7
0.25
4.5
8
0.25
6
Table 4.1: Coordinate of geometrical model
4.3 Design Requirement
According result from borehole logs, the soil mainly consist sand and silt. The soil
friction angle, Φ is 26o and cohesion, C is 0 obtained from the laboratory tests. But in
plaxis 7.2, the cohesion should take 1.0 as minimum value. Table 4.3 shows that soil
properties. Concrete properties and column load shown in table 4.4.
36
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Material Model
Mohr-Coulomb
Type of behavior
Drained
Unit
Dry soil weight
γ dry
17.0
kN/m3
Wet soil weight
γ wet
20.0
kN/m3
Horizontal permeability
Kx
1.0
m/day
Vertical permeability
Ky
1.0
m/day
Young’s Modulus
E
13000
kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio
ν
0.3
-
Cohesion
C
1.0
kN/m2
Friction angle
Φ
26
o
Dilatancy angle
ψ
0
o
Table 4.2: Soil Properties
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Material Model
Linear Elastic
Type of behavior
Non-porous
Unit
Concrete unit weight
γ concrete
24.0
kN/m3
Young’s Modulus
E
1.35 x 106
kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio
ν
0.35
-
Column Load
P
86
kN
Table 4.3: Concrete Properties and Column Load
The unit weight (γ), Young’s Modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν), Horizontal permeability
(Kx) and Vertical permeability (Ky) values are referred to Plaxis Manual.
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND RESULT
5.1 Analyses Details
Fifteen nodes element were used in the analysis. Two analyses were carried out,
one was strip footing and another was circular footing. Figure show the finite element
mesh. Both analyses were carried out in drained condition. This design method uses in
analyses the real situation of the settlement and the distribution load of both models.
5.2 Comparison of Vertical Stress between FEM with manual calculation.
5.2.1 For strip footing (sample calculation)
Stress from column = (43kN/m)/0.85m = 50.588 kPa
+ Soil and concrete (1.5m from ground level)
=(
0.25
0.85
𝑥24 +
0.6
0.85
𝑥17 𝑥1.5 = 28.588 𝑘𝑃𝑎
+ Footing = 0.3 x 24 = 7.2 kPa
Total = 86.376 kPa
Choose stress point 338 in Plaxis 7.2
38
X
Y
Total stress
0.054
4.147
71.698
Table 5.1: Stress point 338
z/a = (4.5 -4.147) / 0.85 = 0.207 , r/a = 0.054/0.85 ≈ 0
From Pressure Bulb Chart, Iz = 0.9
σ = (0.9 x 86.736) + (4.5 - 4.147) x 17 = 83.739 kPa
Percentage of different =
83.739−71.698
83 .739
𝑥 100% = 14.4%
5.2.2For circular footing (sample calculation)
Stress from column = 43kN/ (0.5 x π x 0.852) m2 = 37.889 kPa
+ Soil and concrete (1.5m from ground level)
=(
0.25
0.85
𝑥24 +
0.6
0.85
𝑥17 𝑥1.5 = 28.588 𝑘𝑃𝑎
+ Footing = 0.3 x 24 = 7.2 kPa
Total = 73.677 kPa
Choose stress point 339 in Plaxis 7.2
X
0.054
Y
3.466
Table 5.2: Stress Point 339
z/a = (4.5 -3.466) / 0.85 = 0.207 , r/a = 0.054/0.85 ≈ 0
From Pressure Bulb Chart, Iz = 0.53
σ = (0.53 x 73.677) + (4.5 – 3.466) x 17 = 56.627
Percentage of different =
66.067 −56.627
66 .067
𝑥 100% = 15.7
Total stress
66.067
39
5.3 Deformations, displacements and stresses generated by strip footing
Figure 5.1: Deformation by Strip Footing
40
Figure 5.2: Displacement by Strip Footing
41
Figure 5.3: Stress Distribution by Strip Footing
42
5.4 Deformations, displacements and stresses generated by circular footing
Figure 5.4: Deformation by Circular Footing
43
Figure 5.5: Displacement by Circular Footing
44
Figure 5.6: Stress Distribution by Circular Footing
5.5 Analysis of plain strain versus axis-symmetric
The result indicates that the stress and displacement distribution for circular
footing more effective compare to the strip footing. The result same with pressure bulb
diagram. (Roy Whitlow, 2001)
45
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is as follow,

The comparison between manual calculation and FEM for stress in soil
indicates different less than 16% for strip footing and circular footing.
The analysis acceptable because there is not much different with the
conventional method

The geometry of the model can be easily modified using Plaxis. It also
easy to predict the deformations, displacements and stresses of soil
compare to conventional method

The result show that circular footing can distribute load more effective
compare to strip footing
Certainly this study gives important implication in practice; since the output can be
utilize to overcome any geotechnical problems in real and simulation design situation
46
REFERENCE
1. Donald P.Coduto (2001). Foundation Design: principles and practices. (2nd ed)
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
2. Braja M.Das (2007). Theoretical foundation engineering. J.Ross Publishing
3. David M.Potts and Lidija Zdravkovic (1999). Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: theory. Heron Quay, London: Thomas Telford
4. Lymon C.Reese (2006). Analysis and design of shallow and deep foundations.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
5. Tirupathi R.Chandrupatha and Ashak D.Belegundu (2002). Introduction to finite
elements in engineering. (3rd ed) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
6. Nurly Gofar and Khairul Anuar Kassim (2005). Introduction to geotechnical
engineering Part 1. Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
7. Nor Salfaiza Bt Fadzil. Effect Of Geotextile Reinforcement In Stability Analysis.
Degree Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia ; 2009
8. Rosmah Binti Wahab. Design Of Retaining Wall By Finite Element Method
Using Plaxis 7.2. Degree Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia ; 2008
9. D. Loukidis and R. Salgado. Computers and Geotechnics.Bearing capacity of
strip and circular footings in sand using finite elements, 2009. 36: 871–879
10. L. Zhao and J.H. Wang. Computers and Geotechnics. Vertical bearing capacity
for ring footings. 2007. 35: 292–304
11. Plaxis Manuals. Plaxis 7.2 tutorial manual. Tutorial 1-8
12. Roy Whitlow (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. Pearson Education Ltd.
Subsurface Investigation Works For 10 units of Cooling Tower at ABF Bintulu, Sarawak
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
Subsurface Investigation Works For 10 units of Cooling Towers at ABF Bintulu, Sarawak was
carried out by Geospec Sdn. Bhd. Kuching, for Ikatan Innovasi Sdn. Bhd. The Consulting
Engineers for this project was G & P Professionals Sdn. Bhd.
Field investigation work was carried out during the period of 15 May 2008 to 25 May 2008. The
field bore logs was transmitted to the Client and Consulting Engineer after the completion
of the borehole. The laboratory testing schedules were then issued by the Consulting
Engineers.
The following Laboratory test schedule were received from the Consulting Engineers :
Schedule
Borehole Ref.
Date
Tests
ABH1,
28/5/2008
Classification Tests, Direct
No.
1 to 3
ABH2,
shear Box, Chemical tests
ABH3,
and UCT on rock core
ABH4, ABH5
The Bulk Laboratory testing works were carried out during the period of
28 May 2008 to 8
June 2008.
1.2
1.3
Scope of Work
The scope of the present work comprises the following : a)
Exploration of Boreholes ( 5 nos.)
b)
Standard Penetration Tests
c)
Undisturbed and Disturbed Soil sampling
d)
Observation of water levels
e)
Diamond rock coring
f)
Mackintosh probe tests (7 nos.)
g)
Laboratory analysis on selected samples and
h)
Submission of bound factual report
Codes and Standards
The soil investigation work was carried out in compliance and accordance to the
followings codes and standards :
(a) British Standard Code of Practice BS 5930 : 1999 " Site Investigation" and
(b) British Standard Code of Practice BS 1377 : 1990 " Method of test for soils
for civil Engineering purposes "
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 2
2.0
FIELD INVESTIGATION
2.1
Setting Out
The Borehole and other test positions were located according to the detailed location
plan provided by Consulting Engineer. The location plan is enclosed in Appendix F.
2.2
Borehole Drilling
Rotary wash drilling method was employed for sinking five (5) boreholes. One unit of rotary
drilling rig YBM-05 was used in the Rotary wash drilling. The drilling equipment was
manufactured by Yoshida Boring Machine Company of Japan. The drilling of borehole
was done by advancing a roller cutting bit connected to a drill string consisting of a series of
hollow drill rods. As the rods with the bit were rotated, a downward pressure is applied to
the drill string to obtain penetration, and drilling fluid under pressure was introduced into
the bottom of the hole through the hollow drill rods and passage into the bit. The drilling
fluid served the purpose of removing the cuttings from the bottom of the hole as it returned
to the surface in the annular space between
the drill rods and the casings of 76 mm
diameter.
2.3
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at an interval of 1.5m in the boreholes unless
otherwise instructed by the site Engineer. The SPT is carried out by driving a standard split
spoon thick walled sampler of 50mm diameter, with a 64kg self tripping automatic hammer.
The falling height of the hammer is 760mm along a guided rod attached to the split spoon
sampler.
The number of blows required for each 75mm penetration upto a total penetration of
450mm was observed. The number of blows for the first 150mm was not considered due to
the relatively disturbed soil zone.
The penetration resistance, N-value was taken as the
number of blows required to drive the sampler for the last 300mm penetration. The N-value
indicates the relative densilty of non cohesive soils. On completion of the test, the sampling
tube was removed and dismantled to provide a disturbed but representative sample for
identification and classification test.
Records of the SPT results in the form of 'N' value are included in the borehole logs
furnished in Appendix A.
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 3
2.4
Water Level Measurements
Ground water levels in the boreholes were closely monitored throughout the exploration
period.
Such observations were made at the commencement and end of the site work
everyday both in the morning and afternoon. The ground water level records, where
applicable, are included in the borehole log shown in Appendix A.
2.5
Soil Sampling
Soil samples were collected in the form of undisturbed or disturbed but representative
when drilling was in progress.
Disturbed samples were normally used for identification
and laboratory classification tests.
Undisturbed samples were collected by employing
hydraulic thrust on thin wall sampling tubes and piston sampler of 75mm diameter for
very soft to soft cohesive soils.
However in very stiff to hard formation, light
hammering was necessary to drive the sampling tube in order to retrieve soil samples.
But, in such operations, the sampling tubes were invariably
damaged.
After collection,
the sampling tubes were promptly sealed with paraffin wax to prevent any loss of the
moisture content.
All
the undisturbed samples were placed in cushioned boxes and
transported with great care to the laboratory to ensure minimum disturbance to the soil.
2.6
Diamond Rock Coring
The drilling procedure discussed in chapter
2.2 was employed in rock coring
operations. A diamond bit was attached to NMLC core barrel to retrieve a standard core of
52.0 mm diameter measuring 1.50 m in length. Description of the rock core samples were
based on BS 5930-1999 and ASTM D420.
2.7
Mackintosh Probe Tests
The Mackintosh Probe equipment consists of a string of 13mm diameter steel rods with a steel
tip at the bottom. The length of the rod was 1.22m each. The rods were connected together by
screw couplings.
The hardened steel tip of 25mm diameter with crosssectional area of
5cm square was driven into the soil with the help of a falling hammer. The weight of the
hammer was 4.5kg and the height of fall was 0.30m. The total number of blows required for
every 0.30m penetration was recorded.
The penetration was continued until 400
blows/0.30m or less was encountered.
Seven (7) numbers of Mackintosh Probe Tests were performed in the desired locations. The
results of Mackintosh Probes tests in showing the Blow Counts versus Depth are enclosed
in Appendix B.
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 4
3.0
LABORATORY TESTING
3.1
General
Selected undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were analysed in the Geotechnical
Engineering laboratory of Geospec Sdn. Bhd, Kuching following BS 1377:1990-.'
Methods of test for soils for Civil Engineering purposes'.
The BS soil classification
system was used to classify the soil.
3.2
Tests on Soil Samples
The soil samples were analysed for its classification, Shear Strength and Chemical
properties. The following tests were carried out after the site investigation.
a).
Moisture content determination (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 3)
b).
Atterberg limits (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 4.5 & 5.3)
c).
Particle size distribution for coarse and fine grained soils (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990: 9)
d).
Direct shear test (BS 1377: Part 7: 1990: 4)
e).
Chemical tests
i)
pH value (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990:9)
ii) Total sulphate content (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990:5)
iii) Chloride content (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990:7)
iv) Organic content (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990: 3)
f).
For Rock Sample tests
i) Uniaxial Compression Test (ASTM D7012-04)
The summary of all
results of the tests on soil samples were shown in Table 1
to Table 4
was enclosed in chapter 4.3. The details of the laboratory test results showing the
calculations, graphs etc relating to the soil samples are furnished in Appendix C.
3.3
B. S. Soil classification system
The following charts are enclosed in Appendix D.
a).
British soil classification system for Civil Engineering purposes
b).
Plasticity chart
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 5
4.0
SUBSOIL CONDITION
4.1
Summaries of borehole results
ABH1
Depth (m)
Description
0.00-0.80
Stiff sandy CLAY
0.80-1.80
Medium dense silty SAND
1.80-2.40
Boulder
2.40-7.10
Very stiff to stiff sandy CLAY / sandy SILT
7.10-8.70
Medium dense very silty SAND
8.70-11.00
Loose very silty SAND
11.00-13.20
Moderately weak moderately weathered SANDSTONE
13.20-17.00
Weak completely weathered SANDSTONE
ABH2
Depth (m)
Description
0.00-0.30
silty SAND
0.30-1.60
Soft sandy CLAY
1.60-1.80
Loose SAND
1.80-3.50
Very stiff sandy CLAY
3.50-4.20
Boulder
4.20-5.50
Very stiff sandy SILT
5.50-7.00
Firm sandy SILT
7.00-8.30
Loose silty SAND
8.30-10.00
10.00-10.40
Boulder
10.40-13.50
Medium dense very silty fine SAND
13.50-15.60
Very weak highly weathered SANDSTONE
15.60-16.00
Very weak completely weathered SANDSTONE
16.00-19.00
Weak highly weathered SANDSTONE
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 6
ABH3
Depth (m)
Description
0.00-3.00
Very dense silty SAND
3.00-4.20
Soft sandy SILT
4.20-5.30
Very stiff clayey SILT
5.30-7.00
Medium dense very silty fine SAND
7.00-8.20
Very stiff sandy SILT
8.20-9.70
Stiff sandy CLAY
9.70-11.00
Firm clayey SILT
11.00-13.40
Medium dense silty fine SAND
13.40-14.50
Hard sandy CLAY
14.50-15.50
Very dense silty fine SAND
15.50-17.30
Very weak completely weathered SANDSTONE
17.30-21.10
ABH4
Depth (m)
Description
0.00-1.20
1.20-1.80
Medium dense silty fine SAND
1.80-4.60
Stiff clayey SILT / sandy CLAY
4.60-8.40
Medium dense to dense very silty fine SAND
8.40-15.00
Hard silty CLAY / clayey SILT
15.00-18.20
Very weak to weak completely weathered SHALE
18.20-21.00
Weak highly weathered SHALE
ABH5
Depth (m)
Description
0.00-1.80
Loose silty SAND
1.80-2.70
Soft sandy SILT
2.70-4.00
Void
4.00-6.70
Loose silty SAND
6.70-8.50
Stiff sandy CLAY
8.50-9.80
Medium dense to dense silty SAND
9.80-11.50
Firm sandy CLAY
11.50-12.20
Very dense silty SAND
12.20-13.20
13.20-15.90
Weak completely weathered MUDSTONE
15.90-17.9 0
Moderately weak moderately weathered SANDSTONE
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 7
4.2
Generalised soil profile
Generalised soil profile was drawn across boreholes
5-1-2-3-4 to establish the
probable profiles. The profiles are presented in Figure 1 .
4.3
Summary of laboratory test results
All the laboratory testing results are tabulated in Table 1 to Table 4 .
Geospec Sdn. Bhd
Page 8
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PROJECT: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR 10 UNITS OF COOLING TOWER AT ABF BINTULU, SARAWAK
ABH1
Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth (m) From:
To:
Natural Moisture Content (%)
Atterberg Limit
Liquid Limit (%)
Plasticity Index (%)
Particle Size Distribution
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Classification
Triaxial Compression Test (UU)
Apparent Cohesion (kN/m2)
Shear Resistance Angle (deg.)
Direct Shear Test
D2
0.50
0.95
D3
3.00
3.45
D4
5.00
5.45
D6
7.50
7.95
D8
9.50
9.95
20.82
13.56
14.84
14.02
20.12
51
17
41
Sample not
Sample too
enough
sandy
-
C1
12.30
12.50
C3
14.30
14.43
31.10
18.17
21
1
10
5
7
4
35
42
48
66
74
46
38
38
22
18
CHS
10
CIS
9
CIS
5
SM
Chemical Test
pH value
Total Sulphate Content (%)
Chloride Content (%)
Organic Matter Content (%)
Rock Sample Test
Unconfined compressive Test
Compressive strength (MPa)
36
26
D4+D5+D6
22
SF
0
24
5.84
0.046
0.000
0.156
FM-RP-LS-00/0/03
Table 1
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
ABH2
Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth (m) From:
To:
Atterberg Limit
Liquid Limit (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Classification
Direct Shear Test
D2
0.50
0.95
D4
3.00
3.45
D6
6.00
6.45
D8
9.00
9.45
D10
12.00
12.45
14.97
15.51
20.50
16.87
16.39
38
18
36
Sample not
15
-
C1
13.60
13.72
Sample too
sandy
19
12
4
1
6
0
45
50
37
56
69
32
31
44
28
26
11
CIS
15
CIS
18
MS
10
CIS
5
SM
Chemical Test
pH value
Rock Sample Test
39
enough
D4+D3+D6
0
24
6.85
5.86
0.059
0.032
0.000
0.115
0.000
0.114
9.06
FM-RP-LS-00/0/03
Table 2
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth (m) From:
To:
Atterberg Limit
ABH3
ABH4
D4+D2+D3
D6+D5+D7
-
-
D2
3.50
3.95
D4
6.00
6.45
D6
9.00
9.45
D8
11.50
11.95
D10
13.50
13.945
24.27
15.70
19.90
23.72
Liquid Limit (%)
47
Sample too
sandy
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Classification
Direct Shear Test
10
12
3
2
1
4
3
0
1
1
47
64
59
89
20
28
54
30
61
30
82
33
37
48
5
72
11
82
10
MIS
4
SM
10
CIS
14
12
CIS
CIS
6
CHS
22
CI
6
CI
19
Chemical Test
pH value
Rock Sample Test
40
16
Sample too
sandy
9
S-F
D2
1.00
1.45
D4
3.50
3.95
D7
7.50
7.95
D9
10.50
10.95
D11
13.50
13.67
20.11
16.57
15.12
23.34
13.27
12.86
46
41
51
44
40
25
18
24
19
22
0
30
C1
15.90
16.10
0
25
5.88
5.81
0.045
0.000
0.150
0.000
0.077
38.99
FM-RP-LS-00/0/03
Table 3
18
SF
-
0
29
0.031
Sample too
sandy
D2+D3+D4
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
ABH5
Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth (m) From:
To:
Atterberg Limit
Liquid Limit (%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Classification
Direct Shear Test
D3
2.00
2.45
D5
7.50
7.95
D7
10.50
10.95
D8
12.00
12.34
20.08
18.28
19.29
19.35
Sample not
42
36
45
enough
20
18
20
8
2
0
0
42
49
57
54
42
35
31
39
8
MS
14
CIS
12
CIS
7
CIS
Chemical Test
pH value
Rock Sample Test
D3+D1+D2
C3
-
16.60
16.75
0
30
5.91
0.031
0.000
0.112
57.15
FM-RP-LS-00/0/03
Table 4
BOREHOLE NO. ABH1
LOG OF BORING
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
X367.256, Y375.251
Sheet 1 of 1
JOB NO: GSI/08/1408
Date started: 20/5/2008
Date completed: 21/5/2008
Boring dia.: 76mm
Coring dia.:52mm
Rotary Boring Rig: YBM-05
Ground level:
PROJECT: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR 10 UNITS OF COOLING TOWER
AT ABF BINTULU, SARAWAK
Client/Consulting Engineer:
Ikatan Innovasi Sdn. Bhd. / G & P Professionals Sdn. Bhd.
Date
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
&
75 75 75 75 75 75
N
R
Casing
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm
Ratio
Record
Time
Depth (m)
Type
20/5
0.00-0.20
D1
0.50-0.95
P1/D2
2.00
P2
3.00-3.45
P3/D3
1
SOIL/STRATUM DETAILS
Sample
1
1
1
3
4
7
15
33/45
>50
NIL
16
27/45
Depth
Thick-
(m)
ness
0.40
0.40
Yellowish brown sandy CLAY
0.80
0.40
1.00
Stiff orangish brown sandy CLAY
with traces of gravel of high plasticity
1
Medium dense reddish orange silty
SAND
2
0.60
Boulder
3
1.80
2
Hammer rebound
3.00
3
2
3
5
3
4
4
2.40
Description/Classification
2.00
Very stiff grey sandy CLAY with
traces of gravel of intermediate plasticity
1.40
Very stiff brown sandy CLAY with
1.30
Stiff reddish brown sandy SILT
4.40
5
P4/D4
2
3
7
6
7
6
26
22/45
6.00
6
7
6.50-6.95
P5/D5
1
1
2
2
3
4
11
25/45
8
7.50-7.95
P6/D6
3
3
3
3
3
3
12
12/45
5.80
7.10
9.00
9
10
9.00-9.45
P7/D7
1
0
0
1
1
2
4
NIL
9.50-9.95
P8/D8
2
3
2
2
3
3
10
13/45
11.00-12.50
C1
1.60
Medium dense grey very silty SAND
with traces of gravel
8
0.80
Loose grey silty SAND
9
1.50
Loose brownish grey very silty SAND
10.50
10
11.00
11
Moderately weak light grey moderately
weathered SANDSTONE
12
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=87%
12
6
12.50-14.00
C2
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=30%
14.00-15.50
C3
TCR=1.50/1.50
2.20
13.20
13
14
14
RQD=37%
15
15.50-17.00
C4
3.80
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=8%
Weak grey completely weathered
SANDSTONE with a little of coal
15
laminated
16
17.00
17
17
BH1 terminated at 17.00m below
ground level
18
19
20
20
WATER LEVEL MONITORING, depth (m) Remarks:
D
Disturbed Sample
Date
Time
Hole
Casing
Water
U
C
Undisturbed Sample
Cored Sample
20/5
18:00
11.00
11.00
Full
21/5
08:00
11.00
11.00
Full
P
V
R
Standard Penetration Test
Vane Shear Test
Recovery
Scale : 1 :100
FM-RP-SI-04/0/03
18
19
SAMPLE/TEST KEY
Driller : Fizan
Logged by: Chian
SM
9.50
11.00
11
CIS
7
8.70
16
4
5
5.00-5.45
13
CHS
CIS
4
21/5
Log
Checked by Geologist : Wong Sing Wei
SF
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SPT N-Value Plot
Project Title: Subsurface Investigation Works For 10 Units Of Cooling Tower At ABF Bintulu
ABH1
SPT-N value (Blow)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
40
60
80
100
BOREHOLE NO. ABH2
LOG OF BORING
Sheet 1 of 1
JOB NO: GSI/08/1408
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
X423.934, Y358.852
Boring dia.: 76mm
Coring dia.:52mm
Ground level:
Date
&
75 75 75 75 75 75
N
R
Casing
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm
Ratio
Record
Time
Depth (m)
Type
21/5
0.00-0.30
D1
0.50-0.95
P1/D2
1
Sample
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
Depth
Thick-
(m)
ness
0.30
0.30
Yellowish grey silty SAND with traces
1.30
of gravel and organic matter
Soft brown sandy CLAY with a little of
1
0.20
gravel of intermediate plasticity
Loose light brown SAND
2
1.70
3
0.70
Boulder
4
1.30
Very stiff grey sandy SILT with some
5
17/45
1.60
1.80
2
2.00-2.45
P2/D3
0
2
6
8
7
6
27
20/45
3.00-3.45
P3/D4
1
1
5
7
5
4
21
18/45
3.00
3
3.50
4.20
4
22/5
5
5.00-5.45
P4/D5
4
4
5
4
8
7
24
15/45
6.00-6.45
P5/D6
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
20/45
7.50-7.95
P6/D7
1
2
1
2
2
3
8
Firm light brown sandy SILT with
MS
traces of gravel
7
1.30
Loose yellow silty SAND
8
1.70
10.00
10.40
Boulder
10
0.40
11.30
0.90
Medium dense brown silty fine SAND
11
2.20
Medium dense light brown very silty
7.00
8
CIS
6
1.50
7
CIS
sandstone laminae
5.50
6.00
6
Log
18/45
8.30
9.00
9
9.00-9.45
P7/D8
2
3
5
6
5
4
20
10
11
10.50-10.95
P8/D9
12.00-12.45
P9/D10
1
3
9
22/45
4
4
4
5
17
NIL
(wash sample taken)
10
4
5
10
29
12.00
12
3
5
12
26/45
fine SAND
13
13.50
23/5
14
13.50-15.00
C1
TCR=1.50/1.50
17
Very weak light grey highly weathered
SANDSTONE
16
16.50-18.00
C3
TCR=1.50/1.50
15.60
RQD=11%
16.00
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=7%
0.40
Very weak light grey completely
weathered SANDSTONE (residual soil)
3.00
Weak light grey highly weathered
C4
SANDSTONE with traces of mudstone
laminae
TCR=1.00/1.00
RQD=7%
19
15
16
17
18
18.00-19.00
13
14
2.10
15
C2
SM
13.50
RQD=27%
15.00-16.50
CIS
19.00
18
19
ground level
20
SAMPLE/TEST KEY
WATER LEVEL MONITORING, depth (m)
D
Disturbed Sample
Date Time Hole Casing Water
U
C
Undisturbed Sample
Cored Sample
21/5
18:00
2.45
-
1.30
22/5
08:00
2.45
-
4.00
22/5
18:00
13.50
13.50
2.50
23/5
23/5
08:00
11:00
13.50
13.50
19.00
13.50
Logged by: Chian
2.50
2.50
P
V
R
Vane Shear Test
Recovery
Scale : 1 :100
FM-RP-SI-04/0/03
Driller : Fizan
Remarks:
20
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SPT N-Value Plot
ABH2
SPT-N value (Blow)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
40
60
80
100
BOREHOLE NO. ABH3
LOG OF BORING
Sheet 1 of 1
JOB NO: GSI/08/1408
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
X400.461, Y322.132
Boring dia.: 76mm
Coring dia.:52mm
Ground level:
Date
&
75 75 75 75 75 75
N
R
Casing
Depth
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm
Ratio
Record
(m)
Time
Depth (m)
Type
15/5
0.00-0.30
D1
0.50
P1
1
Sample
Thickness
1.30
Hammer rebound
>50
NIL
Log
Yellowish brown silty SAND with
traces of 2" DCR
1
1.30
2
2.00
P2
Hammer rebound
>50
NIL
3
1.80
2.50
0.50
0.70
Very dense white silty SAND
Very dense brown silty SAND and
2
3.00
0.50
1.20
boulder
Very dense brown silty SAND
3
Soft orangish brown sandy SILT with
4
1.10
Very stiff yellow clayey SILT and
sandstone fragment
5
1.70
Medium dense yellow very silty fine
SAND with a little of gravel
6
3.00
3.50-3.95
4
P3/D2
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
40/45
4.20
4.50
4.50-4.95
5
P4/D3
2
3
3
5
4
4
16
10/45
5.30
6.00
6
6.00-6.45
P5/D4
1
5
5
4
5
6
20
24/45
7.00
7
7.50-7.95
P6/D5
7
6
6
5
5
4
20
15/45
9.00-9.45
P7/D6
4
4
4
3
3
4
14
27/45
10.00-10.45
P8/D7
0
1
0
1
2
2
5
28/45
8
10.50
12
11.50-11.95
P9/D8
13
12.50-12.95
P10/D9
13.50-13.945
P11/D10
1
2
2
4
5
6
6
6
23
26/45
2
3
3
4
5
15
29/45
4
11 11 11 17
70
50
295
33/44.5
50
50
15/16.5
13.50
13.40
15.00
15.00-15.165
P12/D11 19
C1
20 70
TCR=0.90/0.90
16.40-18.00
C2
RQD=23%
TCR=1.60/1.60
18.00-19.60
C3
RQD=14%
TCR=1.60/1.60
17
18
19.60-21.10
C4
1.20
of sandstone fragment
Medium dense yellowish brown silty
1.20
Medium dense dark grey silty SAND
with traces of sandstone fragment
13
1.10
Hard grey sandy CLAY with traces
of gravel of intermediate plasticity
14
1.00
Very dense light grey silty fine SAND
15
1.80
Very weak grey completely weathered
SANDSTONE with traces of mudstone
laminae
Weak grey highly weathered SANDSTONE
with traces of mudstone laminae
21.10
S-F
CIS
17
19
20
Remarks:
BH3 terminated at 21.10m below ground level
Undisturbed Sample
Cored Sample
18:00
6.45
6.00
2.80
16/5
08:00
6.45
6.00
3.50
16/5
18:00
18.00
15.00
5.00
17/5
17/5
08:00
18:00
18.00
15.00
21.00
15.00
Logged by: Chian
4.80
3.60
Driller : Fizan
11
12
3.80
15/5
Scale : 1 :100
10
18
FM-RP-SI-04/0/03
CIS
fine SAND with traces of gravel
17.30
Disturbed Sample
9
16
Vane Shear Test
Recovery
with traces of gravel of intermediate
70
TCR=1.5/1.5, RQD=10%
SAMPLE/TEST KEY
8
15.50
RQD=19%
19
20
6
15.50-16.40
16
V
R
12.20
with traces of sandstone fragment
plasticity
Firm grey clayey SILT with traces
14.50
15
P
12.00
Very stiff orangish grey sandy SILT
1.30
11.00
11
U
C
1.50
9.70
10
D
1.20
8.20
9.00
9
14
SM
7
7.50
16/5
MIS
Final water level =3.70m on 20/5/2008
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SPT N-Value Plot
ABH3
SPT-N value (Blow)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
40
60
80
100
BOREHOLE NO. ABH4
LOG OF BORING
Sheet 1 of 1
JOB NO: GSI/08/1408
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
X391.111, Y259.296
Boring dia.: 76mm
Coring dia.:52mm
Ground level:
Date
&
Sample
75 75 75 75 75 75
N
R
Casing
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm
Ratio
Record
Time
Depth (m)
Type
17/5
0.00-0.30
D1
1.00-1.45
P1/D2
2
3
3
5
7
8
23
28/45
2.00-2.45
P2/D3
1
1
3
3
4
5
15
26/45
Depth
Thick-
(m)
ness
0.30
0.30
Brown sandy CLAY with traces of 2"DCR
0.90
Very stiff orangish brown sandy CLAY
1
with traces of gravel of intermediate plasticity CIS
0.60
1.10
Medium dense brownish yellow silty
fine SAND
1
1.20
1.80
2
Stiff grey clayey SILT with traces of
sandstone fragment
2.90
3
3.00
3.50-3.95
4
P3/D4
5
4
2
4
4
5
15
25/45
1.70
with traces of gravel of high plasticity
1.60
Medium dense grey silty fine SAND
4.60
5
Log
2
3
4
CHS
5
18/5
5.00-5.45
P4/D5
2
3
3
5
4
9
21
26/45
with traces of sandstone fragments
6
0.90
Dense dark brown silty SAND
7
1.30
Medium dense dark brown very
silty fine SAND
8
6
6.20
7
6.50-6.95
P5/D6
3
2
4
7
12 12
35
30/45
8
7.50-7.95
P6/D7
2
3
5
7
6
26
30/45
8
7.10
8.40
8.50-8.95
9
P7/D8
1
1
5
9
10 12
36
26/45
9
10
11
10.50-10.95
P8/D9
3
3
4
5
14 14
37
19/45
10.70
11.50
2.30
Hard grey silty CLAY with traces of
sand and gravel of intermediate plasticity
0.80
Hard dark grey clayey SILT
P9/D10 10 15 34 16
60
13
50
30
18/24
105
13
3.50
13.50-13.67
P10/D11
15.00-16.50
C1
9
16 43
15
7
5
50
80
12/17
15.00
C2
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=15%
1.40
Very weak grey completely weathered
SHALE
1.80
18.20
C3
19.50-21.00
C4
2.80
TCR=1.5/1.5,RQD=21%
Weak grey highly weathered SHALE
19
21.00
D
Disturbed Sample
Date
U
C
Undisturbed Sample
Cored Sample
17/5
17:35
18/5
P
V
R
Vane Shear Test
Recovery
19/5
Scale : 1 :100
18
20
WATER LEVEL MONITORING, depth (m) Remarks:
SAMPLE/TEST KEY
FM-RP-SI-04/0/03
SHALE
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=59%
19
16
17
18
18.00-19.50
CI
15
16.40
16.50-18.00
14
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=16%
16
20
Hard grey silty CLAY with a little of
sand and traces of gravel of intermediate
plasticity
15
17
CI
12
12.00-12.24
19/5
10
11
12
14
SF
Driller : Fizan
Time
Hole
BH4 terminated at 21.00m below ground level
Casing Water
3.95
3.00
1.20
08:30
3.95
3.00
1.50
08:00
15.00
3.00
3.70
Logged by: Chian
Hole collape after casing pulled out.
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SPT N-Value Plot
ABH4
SPT-N value (Blow)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
40
60
80
100
BOREHOLE NO. ABH5
LOG OF BORING
Sheet 1 of 1
JOB NO: GSI/08/1408
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
X338.480, Y367.397
Boring dia.: 76mm
Coring dia.:52mm
Ground level:
Date
&
Sample
75 75 75 75 75 75
N
R
Casing
Depth
Thick-
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm
Ratio
Record
(m)
ness
Time
Depth (m)
Type
24/5
0.00-0.30
D1
1.00-1.45
P1/D2
1
1
3
2
2
2
9
20/45
2.00-2.45
P2/D3
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
11/45
1
1.80
Loose brownish orange silty SAND
0.90
Soft greyish brown sandy SILT
1.30
Void
1.80
2
4.00
4
1
2
2.70
3
Log
MS
3
4
5
5
2.70
5.50-5.95
6
P3/D4
2
1
1
2
2
2
7
10/45
6.00
Loose brownish grey silty SAND
with a little of rock fragment
6
6.70
7
7
1.80
7.50-7.95
8
P4/D5
1
2
2
3
3
6
14
Stiff light brown sandy CLAY with
8
0.80
Medium dense orangish yellow silty
SAND with traces of rock fragment
9
0.50
Dense brownish grey silty SAND
10
1.70
Firm light brown sandy CLAY of
intermediate plasticity
11
0.70
Hard brown sandy CLAY of intermediate
plasticity
30/45
CIS
8.50
9
25/5
9.00-9.45
P5/D6
3
8
11
9
7
7
34
18/45
9.30
9.80
10
11
10.50-10.95
P6/D7
1
1
2
2
1
2
7
33/45
11.50
12
12.00-12.34
P7/D8
7
3
5
18 27
50
12.50-14.00
C1
TCR=1.30/1.50
40
190
14.00-15.50
C2
RQD=21%
TCR=1.50/1.50
13
14
24/34
12.20
1.00
Weak light grey highly weathered
SANDSTONE with traces of coal laminae
2.70
13.20
MUDSTONE with some sandstone
laminae
15.90
16
15.50-17.00
C3
TCR=1.50/1.50
RQD=36%
C4
18
TCR=0.90/0.90
17.30
RQD=36%
17.90
0.60
19
D
Disturbed Sample
U
C
Undisturbed Sample
Cored Sample
24/5
18:00
7.95
6.00
1.50
25/5
08:00
7.95
6.00
2.50
P
V
R
Vane Shear Test
Recovery
25/5
16:00
18.50
-
Full
Scale : 1 :100
FM-RP-SI-04/0/03
Driller : Fizan
13
15
weathered SANDSTONE
17
weathered SANDSTONE with traces
18
of siltstone laminae
19
ground level
20
SAMPLE/TEST KEY
CIS
16
1.40
17
17.00-17.90
12
14
RQD=10%
15
Logged by: Chian
Remarks:
CIS
20
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
SPT N-Value Plot
ABH5
SPT-N value (Blow)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
40
60
80
100
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR 10 UNITS OF COOLING TOWER AT ABF
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Client/Consultant: Ikatan Innovasi Sdn. Bhd. / G & P Professionals Sdn. Bhd.
Sample Ref.:
ABH1/D4+D5+D6
Depth (m) :
Date: 6/6/2008
Description :
Brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Rate of Displacement: 0.5mm/min
Proving Ring Constant = 0.0007kN/div
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Mass of mould = 2660g
Specimen
Mass of mould + sample
Mass of sample
Moisture content before test
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Moisture content after test
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2850.0
190.0
0.00
1.272
1.009
50
26.02
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
3.69
7.37
9.70
11.64
13.39
14.94
16.68
18.43
20.95
22.89
23.67
24.25
25.03
25.03
25.41
25.03
24.83
24.83
24.83
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Volume(cm ) = 149.40
Area, A (mm ) =
Specimen preparation = Compacted by rodding in 3 layers
2
3
g
2850.0 g
2850.0
g
190.0 g
190.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.272 Mg/m3
1.272
Mg/m3
1.012 Mg/m3
1.023
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
25.70 %
24.33
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.216
6.21
-0.386
7.95
-0.254
12.61
-0.454
16.39
-0.286
17.46
-0.512
25.22
-0.312
21.92
-0.558
30.46
-0.336
25.80
-0.590
35.50
-0.360
31.04
-0.634
39.77
-0.376
34.34
-0.660
45.20
-0.388
36.86
-0.698
52.19
-0.412
44.04
-0.720
60.33
-0.426
45.59
-0.734
65.96
-0.436
46.75
-0.742
70.42
-0.446
47.53
-0.748
72.94
-0.454
47.72
-0.754
74.11
-0.460
47.92
-0.756
74.69
-0.468
48.02
-0.758
75.08
-0.472
47.34
-0.760
75.27
-0.476
46.95
-0.760
74.30
-0.476
46.95
-0.760
73.14
-0.476
46.95
-0.760
72.56
46.95
-0.760
72.17
72.17
72.17
72.17
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.554
-0.602
-0.666
-0.718
-0.760
-0.806
-0.874
-0.912
-0.954
-0.980
-1.002
-1.018
-1.030
-1.042
-1.052
-1.060
-1.070
-1.078
-1.084
-1.090
-1.092
-1.096
-1.102
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Sample Ref.:ABH1/D4+D5+D6
Depth (m) :
Date: 6/6/2008
100
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
25.41
48.02
75.27
5.50
5.50
6.00
-0.468
-0.758
-1.060
24.83
46.95
72.17
7.00
7.50
9.00
-0.476
-0.760
-1.096
80
Max. Shear stress(kPa)
60
Displacement (mm)
40
Settlement (mm)
Residual Shear stress
(kPa)
Spec. 1
20
Displacement (mm)
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
Settlement (mm)
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
Shear Strength Parameters:
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
25
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
24
kPa
Deg.
-1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Sample Ref.:
ABH2/D4+D3+D6
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
Description :
Brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Specimen
Mass of sample
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2850.0
190.0
0.00
1.272
1.038
50
22.54
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
5.04
11.06
12.22
12.42
12.80
13.19
13.19
13.19
13.39
16.68
17.65
18.04
18.43
19.01
19.21
19.98
20.56
21.34
21.73
22.50
22.89
23.86
24.44
24.83
24.25
24.25
24.25
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Area, A (mm ) =
2
3
g
2850.0 g
2850.0
g
190.0 g
190.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.272 Mg/m3
1.272
Mg/m3
1.028 Mg/m3
1.031
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
23.77 %
23.39
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.428
7.18
-0.638
10.86
-0.442
13.58
-0.680
21.92
-0.450
16.49
-0.716
28.52
-0.456
18.24
-0.740
31.62
-0.462
19.59
-0.766
34.73
-0.466
23.86
-0.790
37.25
-0.484
27.16
-0.810
43.65
-0.508
31.23
-0.826
46.56
-0.566
37.83
-0.874
51.99
-0.592
42.49
-0.900
56.26
-0.606
44.04
-0.926
60.92
-0.618
45.20
-0.942
64.02
-0.630
45.59
-0.954
65.18
-0.640
46.17
-0.966
66.35
-0.646
46.37
-0.970
68.29
-0.650
46.95
-0.972
69.65
-0.654
46.95
-0.976
70.42
-0.658
46.95
-0.976
71.39
-0.660
46.37
-0.978
71.78
-0.662
46.17
-0.978
71.97
-0.664
46.17
-0.978
72.17
-0.666
46.17
-0.978
72.36
-0.668
46.17
-0.978
72.56
-0.668
71.97
-0.668
71.97
-0.668
71.97
-0.668
71.97
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.894
-0.940
-0.986
-1.030
-1.076
-1.106
-1.144
-1.196
-1.228
-1.260
-1.274
-1.284
-1.294
-1.302
-1.310
-1.316
-1.322
-1.326
-1.330
-1.334
-1.336
-1.340
-1.340
-1.340
-1.340
-1.340
-1.340
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
100
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
24.83
46.95
72.56
60
Displacement (mm)
10.00
5.50
9.50
Settlement (mm)
(kPa)
-0.668
-0.972
-1.340
40
24.25
46.17
71.97
Displacement (mm)
11.00
9.00
11.00
Settlement (mm)
-0.668
-0.978
-1.340
80
Spec. 1
20
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
25
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
24
kPa
Deg.
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Sample Ref.:
ABH3/D4+D2+D3
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
Description :
Orangish brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Specimen
Mass of sample
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2845.0
185.0
0.00
1.238
0.975
50
27.02
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
3.49
6.60
8.34
9.89
11.06
12.22
12.61
13.19
14.74
16.88
18.04
19.40
21.15
22.70
24.06
25.22
26.58
27.55
28.13
28.52
30.07
31.62
31.04
31.04
31.04
31.04
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Area, A (mm ) =
2
3
g
2845.0 g
2845.0
g
185.0 g
185.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.238 Mg/m3
1.238
Mg/m3
0.985 Mg/m3
0.987
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
25.66 %
25.41
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.310
5.24
-0.466
6.98
-0.340
10.86
-0.502
15.52
-0.360
15.52
-0.540
21.92
-0.376
19.01
-0.572
26.38
-0.394
22.70
-0.602
29.29
-0.408
27.16
-0.640
31.82
-0.432
34.14
-0.666
34.34
-0.462
35.50
-0.720
38.02
-0.504
38.99
-0.782
48.11
-0.540
45.01
-0.838
56.65
-0.568
51.80
-0.870
64.99
-0.588
55.48
-0.894
70.42
-0.604
56.65
-0.920
73.72
-0.620
57.42
-0.940
82.45
-0.636
58.01
-0.962
87.49
-0.650
58.59
-0.972
89.63
-0.666
59.36
-0.978
90.79
-0.680
59.95
-0.984
91.37
-0.694
60.33
-0.986
91.76
-0.706
59.75
-0.990
91.96
-0.718
58.78
-0.992
90.79
-0.726
58.78
-0.992
89.82
-0.736
58.78
-0.994
89.43
-0.736
58.78
-0.994
89.24
-0.736
89.24
-0.736
89.24
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.614
-0.670
-0.720
-0.766
-0.810
-0.854
-0.892
-0.920
-0.930
-0.938
-0.982
-0.986
-0.988
-0.996
-1.010
-1.024
-1.030
-1.036
-1.042
-1.044
-1.044
-1.046
-1.048
-1.048
-1.048
-1.048
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
120
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
31.62
60.33
91.96
9.00
5.50
8.00
Settlement (mm)
(kPa)
-0.726
-0.986
-1.044
31.04
58.78
89.24
Displacement (mm)
10.50
9.50
10.50
Settlement (mm)
-0.736
-0.994
-1.048
100
80
Displacement (mm)
60
40
Spec. 1
20
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
31
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
30
kPa
Deg.
-1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Sample Ref.:
ABH3/D6+D5+D7
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
Description :
Reddish brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Specimen
Mass of sample
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2855.0
195.0
0.00
1.305
1.070
50
21.94
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
4.27
7.95
10.48
12.42
13.77
14.55
15.62
16.68
17.46
18.43
19.21
19.79
20.76
21.15
22.50
23.28
23.09
22.70
24.83
24.25
24.06
21.92
21.92
21.92
21.92
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Area, A (mm ) =
2
3
g
2855.0 g
2855.0
g
195.0 g
195.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.305 Mg/m3
1.305
Mg/m3
1.065 Mg/m3
1.065
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
22.50 %
22.51
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.310
6.40
-0.414
7.57
-0.336
11.83
-0.460
15.52
-0.352
19.98
-0.494
23.09
-0.364
26.19
-0.520
27.16
-0.376
29.29
-0.546
33.95
-0.382
32.01
-0.562
38.41
-0.390
35.11
-0.592
43.65
-0.396
36.86
-0.610
47.92
-0.406
44.04
-0.618
56.65
-0.416
46.56
-0.654
65.38
-0.428
48.69
-0.672
71.97
-0.432
50.25
-0.686
74.69
-0.440
51.02
-0.696
76.24
-0.444
51.60
-0.704
77.02
-0.446
51.80
-0.706
78.57
-0.450
52.19
-0.714
79.15
-0.452
52.38
-0.718
79.73
-0.454
51.41
-0.720
79.93
-0.456
50.63
-0.724
80.12
-0.464
50.25
-0.726
80.32
-0.470
50.05
-0.726
80.51
-0.474
49.86
-0.728
79.35
-0.476
49.86
-0.728
78.18
-0.478
49.86
-0.728
77.60
-0.478
49.86
-0.728
77.02
76.82
76.82
76.82
76.82
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.606
-0.674
-0.706
-0.740
-0.792
-0.830
-0.868
-0.890
-0.940
-0.972
-1.002
-1.026
-1.042
-1.058
-1.072
-1.078
-1.084
-1.090
-1.096
-1.102
-1.108
-1.112
-1.114
-1.114
-1.118
-1.118
-1.120
-1.120
-1.122
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Depth (m) :
Date: 7/6/2008
120
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
24.83
52.38
80.51
7.50
5.50
8.50
Settlement (mm)
(kPa)
-0.456
-0.718
-1.108
21.92
49.86
76.82
Displacement (mm)
10.00
10.00
12.00
Settlement (mm)
-0.478
-0.728
-1.120
100
80
Displacement (mm)
60
40
Spec. 1
20
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
27
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
25
kPa
Deg.
-1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Sample Ref.:
ABH4/D2+D3+D4
Depth (m) :
Date: 8/6/2008
Description :
Brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Specimen
Mass of sample
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2860.0
200.0
0.00
1.339
1.071
50
24.98
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
5.24
9.89
11.83
13.97
15.91
17.65
19.79
21.15
23.47
24.83
26.00
26.77
28.13
28.91
29.29
30.07
30.07
30.26
30.46
30.46
30.65
30.26
29.49
29.10
29.10
29.10
29.10
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Area, A (mm ) =
2
3
g
2860.0 g
2860.0
g
200.0 g
200.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.339 Mg/m3
1.339
Mg/m3
1.076 Mg/m3
1.095
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
24.37 %
22.30
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.216
7.57
-0.396
8.92
-0.256
14.55
-0.440
17.27
-0.290
18.04
-0.486
26.58
-0.326
22.50
-0.524
31.82
-0.356
24.06
-0.560
35.31
-0.378
26.58
-0.596
38.22
-0.400
29.10
-0.630
43.65
-0.420
31.62
-0.664
46.95
-0.450
39.19
-0.726
58.39
-0.470
45.98
-0.760
67.90
-0.484
48.50
-0.794
73.33
-0.498
51.02
-0.818
77.99
-0.508
52.57
-0.834
81.09
-0.518
53.93
-0.850
82.84
-0.528
55.29
-0.864
84.00
-0.540
56.07
-0.874
84.97
-0.562
57.04
-0.884
85.36
-0.576
57.62
-0.890
85.75
-0.582
57.81
-0.896
85.94
-0.586
58.01
-0.902
86.14
-0.592
57.42
-0.906
85.94
-0.594
56.84
-0.910
84.97
-0.598
56.26
-0.912
84.39
-0.602
55.87
-0.914
84.00
-0.602
55.87
-0.914
83.81
-0.602
55.87
-0.916
83.81
-0.602
55.87
-0.916
83.81
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.606
-0.674
-0.706
-0.740
-0.792
-0.830
-0.868
-0.890
-0.940
-0.972
-1.002
-1.026
-1.042
-1.058
-1.072
-1.078
-1.084
-1.090
-1.096
-1.102
-1.108
-1.112
-1.114
-1.114
-1.118
-1.118
-1.120
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Depth (m) :
Date: 8/6/2008
120
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
30.65
58.01
86.41
8.50
5.50
8.00
Settlement (mm)
(kPa)
-0.592
-0.902
-1.102
29.10
55.87
83.81
Displacement (mm)
11.00
11.00
11.00
Settlement (mm)
-0.602
-0.916
-1.118
100
80
Displacement (mm)
60
40
Spec. 1
20
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
30
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
29
kPa
Deg.
-1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240
GEOSPEC SDN. BHD.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
GSI/2008/1408
Job No.:
Project :
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Location:
Sample Ref.:
ABH5/D3+D1+D2
Depth (m) :
Date: 8/6/2008
Description :
Orangish brown sandy SILT
Tested By : Lucy
Dimension =
60 X 60 mm
Specimen
Mass of sample
Bulk Density
Dry Density
Normal Stress
Time
Horizontal
Displacement
(min)
(mm)
0.5
0.25
1.0
0.50
1.5
0.75
2.0
1.00
2.5
1.25
3.0
1.50
3.5
1.75
4.0
2.00
5.0
2.50
6.0
3.00
7.0
3.50
8.0
4.00
9.0
4.50
10.0
5.00
11.0
5.50
12.0
6.00
13.0
6.50
14.0
7.00
15.0
7.50
16.0
8.00
17.0
8.50
18.0
9.00
19.0
9.50
20.0
10.00
21.0
10.50
22.0
11.00
23.0
11.50
24.0
12.00
25.0
12.50
26.0
13.00
27.0
13.50
28.0
14.00
29.0
14.50
30.0
15.00
31.0
15.50
32.0
16.00
FM-RP-LS-13/0/03
1
2850.0
190.0
0.00
1.272
0.992
50
28.24
Shear
Stress
(kPa)
6.79
12.61
16.30
17.65
18.62
19.79
20.95
22.31
24.25
24.83
25.61
26.19
26.97
27.74
28.71
30.26
31.04
32.01
32.40
32.59
32.79
32.20
31.23
30.65
30.07
30.26
30.26
30.26
30.26
Stress factor,
Ct (kPa) =
Height(mm) = 41.50
3
2
Area, A (mm ) =
2
3
g
2850.0 g
2850.0
g
190.0 g
190.0
%
0.00 %
0.00
1.272 Mg/m3
1.272
Mg/m3
1.005 Mg/m3
1.014
Mg/m3
kPa
100 kPa
150
%
26.55 %
25.42
Expansion+
Shear
Expansion+
Shear
SettlementStress
SettlementStress
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(kPa)
-0.364
8.34
-0.528
9.51
-0.384
16.30
-0.560
19.59
-0.400
23.47
-0.604
26.58
-0.410
26.58
-0.636
31.04
-0.420
30.07
-0.670
36.86
-0.430
32.59
-0.688
43.65
-0.438
34.92
-0.726
47.14
-0.448
37.64
-0.750
50.05
-0.468
47.34
-0.768
58.78
-0.484
55.68
-0.790
65.38
-0.496
59.36
-0.828
70.62
-0.506
62.27
-0.846
76.24
-0.520
63.24
-0.862
82.84
-0.538
64.21
-0.874
85.55
-0.554
64.41
-0.884
88.27
-0.572
64.80
-0.896
89.82
-0.586
64.99
-0.904
90.99
-0.610
64.21
-0.910
91.76
-0.628
63.63
-0.918
92.54
-0.642
63.24
-0.924
93.12
-0.654
63.05
-0.928
93.51
-0.680
63.05
-0.930
93.90
-0.684
63.05
-0.934
94.09
-0.690
63.05
-0.940
92.93
-0.694
92.15
-0.696
91.37
-0.700
91.18
-0.702
91.18
-0.706
91.18
91.18
0.194
3600
g
g
%
Mg/m3
Mg/m3
kPa
%
Expansion+
Settlement(mm)
-0.690
-0.770
-0.818
-0.856
-0.894
-0.938
-0.970
-0.994
-1.028
-1.060
-1.094
-1.122
-1.152
-1.180
-1.210
-1.226
-1.236
-1.250
-1.266
-1.276
-1.288
-1.294
-1.302
-1.310
-1.316
-1.322
-1.328
-1.332
-1.336
-1.342
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Job No.:
GSI/2008/1408
Project :
Location:
BINTULU, SARAWAK
Depth (m) :
Date: 8/6/2008
120
Normal Stress (kPa)
50
100
150
32.79
64.99
94.09
8.50
5.50
9.50
Settlement (mm)
(kPa)
-0.654
-0.904
-1.302
30.26
63.05
91.18
Displacement (mm)
12.00
9.50
12.50
Settlement (mm)
-0.702
-0.934
-1.336
100
80
Displacement (mm)
60
40
Spec. 1
20
Spec. 2
Spec. 3
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Peak
value
C=
Phi=
0
31
kPa
Deg.
Residual
value
C=
Phi=
0
30
kPa
Deg.
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
FAILURE ENVELOPE
120
100
80
60
40
20
Peak
Residual
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Normal Stress (kPa)
160
180
200
220
240

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Transcription

Similar documents

NEW SOLUTION

Top 10 architectural trends for new Malaysian properties in

ACEM ENGINEERING AWARDS 2015 - Association of Consulting

SHC Corporate Profile

Existing Structural System

Peningkatan suri rumah dan reaktif bakat Scheme(HEARTS)

jawatan kosong tnt v4 copy

EZGreen sales sheet_Dec12.indd

Innovating New Directions - Konsultant Proses Sdn Bhd

cambodia masterplan proposal