Assessment of allowable bearing pressure for a raft

foundation on coal mine overburden dump

Sivani Remash T1[0000-0002-9252-7322] and Vishwas N Khatri1[0000-0002-8624-465X]

1Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad, 826004
[email protected]

Abstract. Coal overburden dumps (OB dumps) span acres of land in prominent
mining areas in and around the states of Orissa and Jharkhand. Consequently, it's
crucial to repurpose these existing dump sites into usable land to prevent further
deforestation and damage to natural ecosystems. These dumps are highly
heterogeneous, consisting of particles that exhibit wide variations in size and
shape. As a result, a comprehensive analysis that accounts for soil heterogeneity
is necessary. Toward this objective, the current study evaluates the suitability of
an existing OB dump for supporting shallow foundations. Accordingly, a
numerical assessment of a raft foundation on a coal mine overburden dump is
performed in this study. The analysis is conducted after determining dump soil
properties through the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Multichannel
Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) data available in the literature. The load
settlement behavior of the foundation, derived from the numerical study, is then
utilized to determine the range of bearing pressures that align with acceptable
settlement values.

Keywords: Coal mine overburden dump, Heterogeneity, Standard Penetration

Test, MASW test, Bearing pressure analysis, Raft foundation.

1 Introduction

The coal mining industry is a significant source of revenue for India, particularly in
regions like Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal. These areas have been prominent sites
for coal mining, focusing on opencast mining due to its cost-effectiveness when coal
deposits are available at shallow depths. In opencast mining, a vast quantity of topsoil
is removed and stored elsewhere to access underlying coal layers. After the mining, the
excavated areas are backfilled with the removed soil and leftover material, leading to
deep, heterogeneous fills. As the demand for developable land grows, these overburden
dumps must be considered for future infrastructure projects. However, utilizing these
areas requires thorough soil exploration and detailed analysis to ensure safe
construction on these valuable but challenging terrains. The main difficulty stems from
the varied properties of the fill soil due to the lack of proper compaction and bonding
between the soil particles, leading to potential issues with settlement across the dump
area.
 2

Numerous studies have delved into the failure of overburden dumps, thoroughly
examining the mechanisms behind these failures. For instance, Cheeks [1] explored the
impact of settlement on structures situated on overburden dumps. Karem et al.[2]
presented a case study involving the construction of a lumber processing facility over
a flat mine bench with a depth of 60 feet. Their study reported a significant settlement
due to water seepage. Poulsen et al. [3] conducted a back analysis of slope failure in an
overburden dump, emphasizing the significance of the dump's foundational soil and the
predominant role of residual frictional angle in the spread of failure. Similarly, Gao et
al. [4] conducted an extensive investigation into the mechanical characteristics of mine
overburden material, highlighting the influence of residual cohesion and friction on the
stability of dumps. Jiang et al. [5] offered a comprehensive exploration of the bearing
capacity of soft foundations comprising overburden dumps using a modified version of
Prandtl's formula. The existing limited research related to the bearing capacity of
shallow foundations on coal mine overburden dumps strongly emphasizes that
traditional soil testing and analysis techniques might not be sufficient for ensuring
secure foundation design. Furthermore, according to the author's understanding, a
thorough investigation involving the detailed numerical analysis of foundations on
dump soil has not been conducted yet. The present study tries to address this gap.
The current research undertakes a thorough analytical and numerical examination of
the OB dump site located in Talcher, Orissa, as discussed in the work of [6]. Kumar
and Dutta [6] previously presented a detailed design for a raft foundation at the same
site, relying on the bearing capacity derived from in-situ footing tests. Given the
considerable variability in the dump soil properties, relying on a single test to estimate
allowable bearing pressure might be inadequate. Hence, this study seeks to address
these limitations by examining and contrasting the bearing capacity calculated from all
the accessible information, namely: i) results of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT),
ii) outcomes of in-situ footing load tests, and iii) findings from the Multichannel
Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW). Additionally, an elastoplastic finite element
analysis was performed to validate the load-settlement data reported for the in-situ
footing load test and to predict the permissible bearing pressure for the raft foundation
on the dump site.

2 Methodology

The study area for the overburden dump is situated within the Jagganath colliery region
of Talcher, Orissa, located at coordinates 20°57'50.021" E and 85°07'57.985" N. As
part of the subsurface investigation, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried
out following IS 2131-1981, utilizing two boreholes approximately 15 meters deep each
[6]. The N value profile after various corrections as per IS 2131-1981 is illustrated in
Fig. 1 (a). A wide scatter in N values indicates dump variability in the horizontal and
vertical directions. Notably, the N values for borehole 2 are comparatively lower than
those for borehole 1, indicating a weak soil composition. The sudden rise in N value at
a depth of around 8.2 meters suggests an alteration in strata due to
compaction/consolidation under self-weight or the presence of soil consisting of
 3

boulders, common in overburden dumps within coal mines. In addition to SPT, the
subsurface exploration was conducted through Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave
(MASW) tests. The shear wave velocity profile resulting from this test is depicted in
Fig. 1 (b). Furthermore, an in-situ footing test was executed on a 1m square plate
following IS 1888 (1982) guidelines. The load settlement relationship derived from the
in-situ loading test is presented in Fig. 1 (c). From the plate load test results, the ultimate
bearing capacity of the plate can be obtained by the double tangent method.
Consequently, the ultimate bearing capacity, as well as the safe bearing capacity of the
raft foundation, can be estimated as per the following equation;
𝐵
𝑞𝑢𝑓 = 𝑞𝑢𝑝 [ 𝑓 ] (1)
𝐵𝑝

𝑞
𝑞𝑠 = 𝑢𝑓 (2)
𝐹
Furthermore, the settlement of raft footing and plate for a given bearing pressure can
be related to each other as per Terzaghi and Peck's [7] expression;

2
𝐵𝑓 (𝐵𝑝 +0.3)
𝑆𝑓 = 𝑆𝑝 [ ] (3)
𝐵𝑝 (𝐵𝑓 +0.3)
Where quf and qs are the foundation's ultimate bearing capacity and safe bearing
capacity, respectively, F implies the safety factor adopted. Bf and Bp are the widths of
the raft and plate, while Sf and Sp are their corresponding settlements. The allowable
bearing pressure for the raft corresponding to a limiting settlement can thus be
determined using equation (3) and plate load test data.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. The reported variation of (a) N value, (b) shear wave velocity and (c) load-settlement
curve [6]

The N value was further related to unit weight (γ), soil modulus (E), and Poisson's ratio
(μ), following the Caltrans geotechnical manual and Kumar et al. [10]. It is to be noted
that the chart reported in the Caltrans geotechnical manual displaying the variation of
 4

unit weight with SPT-N value is developed based on Bowles's [11] expression. The
same is followed in this study. The dilation angle (ψ) was taken ϕ -30° for friction angle
greater than 30°, while it was substituted as zero for ϕ ≤ ° T v ff
angle (ϕ), unit weight (γ), and elastic modulus (E), following the above procedure, is
shown in Fig. 2 (a)-(c)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Variation of (a) friction angle (), (b) elastic modulus (E) and (c) unit weight with depth
obtained from N values.

The Optum G2 software was utilized to conduct finite element analysis, incorporating
the developed soil properties to replicate a realistic, heterogeneous soil profile. The
domain and boundary conditions applied during the analysis are visible in Fig. 3. It is
crucial to emphasize that the soil domain remained consistent for both the in-situ
footing load test analysis and the raft analysis, aimed at eliminating boundary effects.
Consequently, the domain's boundaries were positioned at 100 meters horizontally and
40 meters vertically. In the analysis, the original 1-meter square footing utilized in the
field test and the 10-meter square raft were transformed into circular footings by
equating areas, facilitating a two-dimensional axisymmetric analysis. Accordingly, the
equivalent circular footings have radii of 0.564m and 5.64m, respectively, for the plate
and raft. The boundary conditions included certain constraints: both the lower boundary
and the vertical right boundary were restricted against horizontal and vertical
displacements (u, v), whereas the vertical left boundary was constrained against
horizontal displacement (u) to emulate the line of axial symmetry.
 5

Fig. 3. The soil domain and boundary conditions for analyzing the
foundation on the dump.

The domain was discretized utilizing 6-noded Gauss elements. The soil was assumed
to conform to Mohr-Coulomb's failure criteria along with a non-associated flow rule.
Elastoplastic analysis was conducted in various scenarios, utilizing material profiles
corresponding to boreholes 1 and 2. The comparison of the load settlement curve was
then employed to calculate the bearing pressure in different cases.

3 Results and Discussion

As mentioned before, the bearing capacity in the present study was determined
analytically based on the reported data and numerically using interpreted soil
properties. The outcome of this study is described in the subsequent sections.

3.1 Analytical/empirical estimation of bearing capacity of plate and raft

In this case, the bearing capacity was determined using the outcomes of i) plate load
test data, ii) SPT data, and iii) MASW data. Furthermore, the allowable bearing
pressure for the foundation was determined by satisfying both shear failure and
settlement criteria.

Bearing pressure from the plate load test data

 6

The plate load test data illustrated in Fig. 1 (c) reveal that the ultimate bearing
capacity for a 1m square plate can be evaluated as 110 kPa, utilizing the double tangent
method. Consequently, the extrapolated ultimate bearing capacity for the raft amounts
to 110 × 10 = 1100 kPa. With a presumed factor of safety of 3, the estimated safe
bearing capacity for the raft is calculated as 1100/3 = 366.67 kPa as per Eq. 1. In light
of the dump's heterogeneity, the allowable settlement for the raft was limited to 25mm.
Following the guidance of Terzaghi and Peck [7], this leads to the determination of a
plate settlement of 15.694 mm under similar foundation pressure conditions.
Consequently, the computed bearing pressure for the raft foundation, corresponding to
a 25 mm settlement, stands at 135.21 kPa. Therefore, the acceptable bearing pressure
for a raft can be established as 135.21 kPa. It's worth noting that in the study conducted
by Kumar and Dutta [6], the ultimate bearing capacity of the plate was associated with
a plate settlement of 25 mm, yielding a value of 196.59 kPa. By incorporating a factor
of safety of 3, the safe bearing capacity of the plate was taken as 195.59/3 = 65.2 kPa.
However, based on heuristic judgment, the bearing capacity of the raft was set at 50
kPa.

Bearing pressure variation from SPT-N values

By utilizing the SPT-N value profile showcased in Fig. 1 (a), Teng's [12] equation
can be employed to establish the net safe bearing capacity for both plate and raft
foundations at varying depths:
Net safe bearing capacity,
1
𝑞𝑛𝑠 = [𝑁 2 𝐵𝑊𝛾 + 3(100 + 𝑁 2 )𝐷𝑓 𝑊𝑞 ] (5)
3𝐹

Here, N signifies the SPT-N value, F represents the factor of safety set at 3, and Wq,
Wγ stands for water table correction factors. Considering Wq and Wγ as 1 and taking B
as 1m for the plate and 10m for the raft, the variation of safe bearing capacity in relation
to depth was formulated and visualized in Fig. 4(a)-(b). Moreover, adhering to Teng's
[12] guidance, bearing pressure with a settlement of 25mm for a plate and raft was
determined as:
𝐵+0.3 2
𝑞𝑛𝑝 = 1.4(𝑁 − 3) [ ] 𝑊𝛾 𝑅𝑑 𝑠 (6)
2𝐵

Here, Wγ stands for the water table correction factor, s signifies the allowable
0.2𝐷𝑓
settlement = 25mm, Rd represents the depth correction factor = 1 + ≤ 1.2 ; where
𝐵
Df stands for the depth of the footing.
It's essential to acknowledge that utilizing Eq. (6) without accounting for the depth
factor generally yields bearing pressure values comparable to IS 6403 (1981). Hence,
this approach has been followed in this context.
With these considerations, the variations in allowable bearing for both a 1m x 1m
plate and a 10m x 10m raft foundation are displayed in Fig. 4(c)-(d). Based on these
 7

depicted variations, analytical assessments from SPT-N values of boreholes 1 and 2

yielded an average allowable bearing pressure of 176 kPa and 101 kPa, as well as net
safe bearing capacities of 373 kPa and 218 kPa, respectively, for a 1m x 1m footing.
Notably, the safe bearing capacity and allowable bearing pressure values for borehole
2 align with those acquired from the plate load test data.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Variation of net safe bearing capacity (a-b) and allowable bearing pressure and from
analytical calculations for Plate (a, c) and Raft (b, d)

Meanwhile, for a raft foundation, allowable bearing pressures of 110 kPa and 63 kPa
and net safe bearing capacities of 619.5 kPa and 323.8 kPa are deduced for boreholes 1
and 2, respectively. The lower values in allowable bearing pressure and net safe bearing
capacity for borehole 2 correspond with the SPT-N profile outlined in Fig. 1 (a). Once
 8

again, the raft's safe bearing capacity for the second borehole closely approximates that
derived from plate load test data.

Bearing pressure estimation from MASW test data

Tezcan et al. [14] introduced a procedure for calculating the allowable bearing
pressure for a shallow foundation based on MASW test data. The same is adopted
herein. The allowable bearing pressure for 25mm settlement, as per [14] approach, is
given as follows:
𝑞𝑛𝑝 = 0.025𝛾𝑉𝑠 𝛽 (7)

Where, Vs= Shear wave velocity (m/s), γ= Unit weight of soil, β= Correction factor for
foundation width; β=1 f ≤B≤ m, β=0.83-0.01B f ≤B≤ m
As the MASW data displays relatively minor variation up to great depth, an average
shear wave velocity (Vs) value up to 26.5m for location 1 and 21.5m for location 2 has
been considered. Accordingly, the mean shear wave velocities for locations 1 and 2 are
roughly calculated as 134 m/s and 170 m/s, respectively. In Kumar and Dutta [6], the
density of the dump material has been documented to vary from 16.89 kN/m 3 to 18.8
kN/m3. Considering the average density of 17.85 kN/m3 for both locations, the
allowable bearing pressure for the plate is computed as approximately 59.6 kPa for
location 1 and 75.86 kPa for location 2.
Similarly, the allowable bearing pressure for the 10m raft can be approximated as
around 43.51 kPa for location 1 and 55.38 kPa for location 2.

3.2 Bearing pressure estimation from numerical analysis

As previously mentioned, the current study utilized numerical analysis to complement

the traditional analytical approach for assessing load-bearing capacity. In this regard,
the finite element analysis was conducted using Optum G2 software. The configuration
of the soil domain and various boundary conditions is illustrated in Fig. 3, while Fig. 2
provides a visualization of the variations in material properties. As per the grain size
distribution data reported by Kumar and Dutta [6], the dump soil consists of gravel and
sand in excess of 50%. Accordingly, the soil matrix for the numerical analysis is
considered cohesionless. The pressure-settlement response of the plate and raft,
obtained through an axisymmetric elastoplastic analysis, is depicted in Fig. 5 (a).
Observing this graph, it becomes evident that the pressure-settlement trend for borehole
1 closely aligns with the field test data. However, the curve for borehole 2 matches well
only within the elastic range, diverging from experimental data beyond that point. At a
settlement of 25 mm, the field plate load test indicated a bearing pressure of
approximately 190 kPa. In contrast, this value is underestimated at 175 kPa when
employing borehole 1 data and overestimated at 240 kPa when using borehole 2
material data.
Following the validation of the plate load test results, a similar analysis was
conducted for the raft, and its pressure-settlement curve is illustrated in Fig. 5 (b). This
 9

plot suggests that the predicted bearing pressure for a 25 mm settlement with borehole
1 and borehole 2 data is around 39.5 kPa and 55 kPa, respectively.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Pressure-settlement variation for (a) plate and (b) raft.

Discussion and comparison

Table 1 summarizes the allowable bearing pressures acquired through both
analytical calculations and numerical analysis. A thorough examination of this table
reveals a significant overestimation of mean allowable bearing pressures for both plates
and rafts based on in-situ footing tests when compared to other analytical and empirical
methods. This outcome is expected, as the model footing's (plate's) influence zone is
generally smaller than that of field footings. This limitation fails to represent the
heterogeneity of the dumped material adequately.
Additionally, the scale effect phenomenon overestimates bearing pressure for the
raft. Bearing pressures determined using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data
yielded values lower than those from plate load tests but higher than those derived from
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) test data. Notably, the MASW-
based approach proved to be the most conservative among all the considered analytical
and empirical techniques. It's important to note that Tezcan et al. [14] method does not
account for the footing's plan shape, thus introducing an approximation.
The mean bearing pressure for a plate (1m × 1m) based on numerical analysis using
material properties derived from SPT tests closely matched field observations,
confirming the validity of the numerical analysis. Intriguingly, the mean allowable
bearing pressure for raft from this analysis closely resembled those obtained from
MASW test data. Noteworthy is that the pressure-settlement behavior of the raft is
predominantly within the elastic range up to the designated 25 mm settlement, making
 10

the allowable load magnitude dependent on the selected elastic parameters for the
dumped material.

Table 1. Variation of allowable bearing pressure (kPa) for plate and raft (25 mm settlement)

Numerical
Borehole/ In-situ load test SPT test MASW test
Analysis
Location
Plate Raft Plate Raft Plate Raft Plate Raft
Borehole 1 176 110 - - 175 39.5
195.6 135.21
Borehole 2 101 63 - - 240 55
Location 1 - - - - 59.60 43.51 - -
Location 2 - - - - 75.86 55.38 - -
Mean 195.6 135.21 138.5 86.5 67.73 49.45 207.5 47.25

4 Conclusions

Comprehensive analytical and numerical analyses were employed to evaluate the

bearing pressure of a shallow foundation on a coal mine overburden (OB) dump
characterized by significant variability in properties. The allowable bearing pressure of
the OB dump was examined using analytical and numerical methods based on data from
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW)
tests, and in-situ footing tests. The outcomes of the study can be concluded as follows:
- Employing mean soil parameters for the entire dump soil is inadvisable due to the
pronounced variability in soil properties. Consequently, the outcomes derived from
plate load test data should be interpreted carefully and complemented by additional
borehole sampling or alternative testing methods. Moreover, relying solely on a single
test result to calculate the allowable bearing pressure would yield unrealistic outcomes.
- The application of Tezcan's approach resulted in the most conservative range of
allowable bearing pressure values for both plate and raft footings and hence can be
adopted in practice in the absence of numerical analysis.
- Considering various analyses, the mean allowable bearing pressure for a 10m x
10m raft footing on the selected dump falls within the range of 47 kPa to 86.5 kPa.
Opting for a lower value is recommended to ensure a conservative design approach.

5 References
1. Cheeks, J.R.: Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Uncontrolled Mine Spoil
Fill. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 10, 143–151 (1996).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-3828(1996)10:4(143)
2. Karem, W.A., Kalinski, M.E., Hancher, D.E.: Settlement of Mine Spoil Fill
from Water Infiltration: Case Study in Eastern Kentucky. J. Perform. Constr.
 11

Facil. 21, 345–350 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-

3828(2007)21:5(345)
3. Poulsen, B., Khanal, M., Rao, A.M., Adhikary, D., Balusu, R.: Mine
Overburden Dump Failure: A Case Study. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 32, 297–309
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9714-7
4. Gao, S., Zhou, W., Shi, X., Cai, Q., Crusoe, G.E., Jisen, S., Huang, Y.:
Mechanical properties of material in a mine dump at the Shengli #1 Surface
Coal Mine, China. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 27, 545–550 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.03.014
5. Jiang, J., Yang, H., Cao, L., Wang, D., Wang, L., Jia, Z., Lu, Y., Di, S.: Bearing
Capacity Calculation of Soft Foundation of Waste Dumps—A Case of Open-
Pit Mine. Front. Earth Sci. 10, 1–11 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.839659
6. Kumar, S., Dutta, S.C.: An effort towards constructing building structures on
backfilled soil. J. Build. Eng. 26, 100891 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100891
7. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B.: Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley. (1948)
8. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H.: Foundation Engineering. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1974)
9. Kumar, A., Khatri, V.N., Gupta, S.K.: Numerical and analytical study on uplift
capacity of under-reamed piles in sand. Mar. Georesources Geotechnol. 40,
104–124 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2021.1871689
10. Kumar, R., Bhargava, K., Choudhury, D.: Estimation of Engineering Properties
of Soils from Field SPT Using Random Number Generation. Ina. Lett. 1, 77–
84 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41403-016-0012-6
11. Bowles, J.E.: Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill (1977)
12. Teng, W.: Foundation Design. Prentice-Hall, Inc (1962)
13. IS 6403: Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations, ,. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India (1981)
14. Tezcan, S.S., Ozdemir, Z., Keceli, A.: Seismic technique to determine the
allowable bearing pressure for shallow foundations in soils and rocks. Acta
Geophys. 57, 400–412 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-008-0077-z