Flip Nepal Final Report

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations
At SARANKOT, Kaski, Nepal
Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Mid Baneshwor, Kathmandu
Table of Contents
1.
GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Location and Description of Area ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4. Regional Geology of the Project Area .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5. Surface Geology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6. Slope Stability ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.7. Recommended Drilling ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.8. Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Soil Investigation of the Proposed Area ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.
2.2 Planning of works .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Geo-technical Exploration ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1
Boring............................................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2
Sampling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3
Field Test ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings ..................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.1
Correlation between SPT and DCPT ............................................................................................................... 16
2.5.2
SPT correction ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.5.3
Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity................................................... 18
2.5.4
Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement .............................................................. 19
2.5.5
Pile Foundation ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.6
Estimation of Bearing Capacity (Rock/Boulder) ........................................................................................ 21
2.5.7
Analysis of Foundations ........................................................................................................................................ 24
2.6 Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................................................ 34

2.7 References and Standards ................................................................................................................................................. 37


1. GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
1.1.
Introduction
M/S FLIP NEPAL RESORTS PTE LTD is proposed to construct the Hotel Building in between
Naudanda and Sarankot of Kaski District, Nepal. Material Test (P) Ltd. was entrusted to carry out
the Detail Geo-Technical Investigation of proposed building site at under contract made by FLIP
NEPAL.
A team headed by Senior Geologist (Dr. P. D. Ullak), including Senior Engineer (Madhukar
Karki), Geo-technical Engineer (Kishor Paudel) and contractors representative Er. Raj Thapa
visited site on July 26, of 2014.
The report is about visual observation and general geological condition of the sites, detail drilling
and laboratory tests.
1.2.
Location and Description of Area
The proposed project site is located in north-west of Pokhara, Kaski District, Gandaki Zone. The
area can be accessed by black topped road about 20 km north from Pokhara along PokharaBaglung Road. The proposed area is about 3 km away from Naudanda village along Sarangkot
road.
1.3.
Objectives
The following scopes of works were covered under this study:

Preliminary observation of soil condition
Slope stability analysis of the proposed construction area
Exploration of the sub-surface conditions at various locations of proposed foundation sites
and conduct requisite in-situ tests.
Limited laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during the field investigation
to evaluate relevant engineering parameters of the subsurface soils.
Engineering analyses.
The scope of this investigation report includes:
Geological Assessment
Drill logs
Assessment of bearing capacity
Recommendations of foundation type and depth
FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014
Page 1

1.4.
Regional Geology of the Project Area
The project area lies in the Lesser Himalayan rocks; structurally this zone is located in 20 km south
of the Main Central Thrust (MCT) zone. The lithostratigraphy of the Lesser Himalaya is presented
in Figure 1 and Table 1. Geologically, the proposed construction area (Sarangkot) is covered with
phyllite and quartzite. The effect of the MCT is considered as minimum, although the area has
active MCT zone. The active MCT zone passes through Taprang village along the Madi River.
Table 1: Lithostratigraphy of Western Nepal Himalaya (DMG, 1987)
Group
Formation
Lithology
SIWALIKS
MAIN BOUNDARY THRUST (MBT)
Lakharpata
Limestone, limestone, shale
Syangja
Quartzite, limestone, shale
Sangram
Shale, limestone and quartzite
Midland
Galyang
Slate, limestone
Ghanpokhara
Slate, limestone, quartzite
Seti*
Gritty phyllite, phyllite, quartzite
Ulleri
Augen gneiss
MAIN CENTRAL THRUST (MCT)
HIGHER HIMALAYA
Table 2: Lithostratigraphy of Central-Eastern Nepal Himalaya (DMG, 1987)
Lithological
Units
Siwalik Group
Thickness (m)
Lithological characters
6,000
Mudstone, sandstone and

conglomerate
--------------------Main Boundary Thrust (MBT)-------------------Suri
Dobhan
>200
Augen gneisses, schist and
Augen gneiss*
quartzite
Laduk Phyllite*
1,000-2,000
Phyllite, chlorite-schist and
sandy-phyllite
Chagu-Chilangka
400-700
Tourmaline bearing augen
Gneiss
gneiss
Khare Phyllite
2,500
Schist, quartzite, slates and
limestone
--------------------Main Central Thrust (MCT)-----------------
Age
Upper
PreCambrian
-Late Paleozoic
Age
Neogene
PreCambrianLower
Paleozoic
Lesser Himalaya
The Lesser Himalaya consists of low-grade metamorphic rocks like quartzite, slate and phyllite.
Based on the lithological characters the rocks of the Lesser Himalaya is subdivided into the
Lakharpata, Syangja, Sangram, Galyang, Ghanpokhara, Seti, Ulleri formations in ascending order.
Lakharpata Formation
The Lakharpata Formation is composed of thick bedded, fine-grained, grey to bluish grey dolomite
and limestone. Estimated thickness of this bed is around 3000m.
Page 2


Syangja Formation
This lithounit often begins with a coarse quartzite bed several tens of meters thick. It is mainly
composed of quartzite, slate. The total thickness is 1,000 m.
Sangram Formation
The unit is represented by thick bedded limestone and quartzite. Thickness of the unit is more than
1,000 m.
Project Area
Figure 1: Regional Geological Map
Galyang Formation
This lithounit characterized by presence of calcareous slate and limestone as well as slate, slate.
The total thickness is 1,000 m.
Ghanpokhara Formation
This lithounit characterized by presence of slate and limestone as well as quartzite. The total
thickness is 800 m.
Seti Formation
The Seti Formation is represented by presence of grey to milky white quartzite intercalated with
phyllite and schist. The total thickness is 3,000 m.
Page 3


Ulleri Formation
This lithounit characterized by presence of augen gneiss and schist only and attain thickness about
800 m.
The existing geology of proposed hotel building area belongs to the rocks of the Seti formation,
Lesser Himalaya. The area is covered by phyllite, slate and quartzite (Seti formation). However,
underneath part of the rock is topped by residual soil with alluvial and colluvial deposits.
1.5.
Surface Geology
The existing site area is mostly covered by residual soil and colluvial deposits. Thickness of
residual soil ranges from 1 m to 3 m, whereas colluvial deposits ranges from 1 m to 4 m depths.
Bedrocks are observed along newly constructed road alignment nearby proposed hotel entrance.
Rocks are visible at around 10% surface of proposed hotel areas. Exposed rocks are of fresh to
slightly weathered, phyllite and quartzite.
Along the road section from Naudanda to Sarangkot, bedrocks of phyllite and quartzite are exposed
on the hill slope. Proportion of the phyllite is greater than quartzite. On the surface, the rocks are
slightly weathered. Thickness of the phyllite is around 10 cm to 15 cm.
1.6.
Slope Stability
The slope stability condition is fair to good (Table 2 and Figure 2). Generally the natural hill slope
is oriented southwest direction with low angle dipping (10-20). The foliation plane is oriented
northeast. So, the stability condition is good due to opposite slope of the hill slope and foliation
plane. The dip of the hill slope is very low (10-20), low height cut slope, covered by forest, with
stepping topography on hill slope. The joints also oriented in opposite to the hill slope and long
spacing can be seen in the exposed rocks.
Slope nearby Entrance Area

Page 4


Slope nearby Hotel Block B
Slope nearby Sherpa Block
Slope nearby Naudanda-Sarangkot road

The slope of the hill on the back side (North-east) of the project area has steep in nature, the
dipping of the hill slope and foliation plane is nearly oriented at same direction, so there is little
Page 5

possibility of the plane failure, whereas sufficient setback (more than 10 m) from north end
prevents proposed area from probable damage by slope failure.
The staff dormitory area is geologically safe as slope is gentle and required cutting height is not
much.
Table 2: Slope stability condition
Location
Starting point of entrance
Just below the Hotel Block B
Just below the Sherpa Block
Along the road section
Naudanda and Sarangkot
1.7.
HS/F
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
F/J1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
F/J2
Unstable
Stable
Unstable
Stable
F/J3
Stable
Stable
Stable
J1/J2
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
J2/J3
Stable
J3/J1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Recommended Drilling
Altogether 9 nos. of borehole are plausible for the drilling to identify the subsurface condition of
the area. (Refer Table 3). One borehole location, D1 is shifted by 4 m west from the previously
proposed location of Block B, as rock bed is undulating and exposure has been noticed about 50 m
west only.
D2 is newly proposed, whereas D5 and D6, at Sherpa Block is recommended as rock exposure is
rear nearby this block and topographically it is slightly elevated. Other drilling points are same as
proposed by the client.
Table 3: Depth of proposed drilling holes
Drill hole
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
Location
Proposed Depth
Hotel Block B (Shift 4 m to west)
10 ~ 15 m
Hotel Block B (Add new hole)
10 ~ 15 m
Hotel Block A
10 ~ 15 m
Hotel Block A
10 ~ 15 m
Sherpa Block (add new hole)
8 ~ 10 m
Sherpa Block (add new hole)
8 ~ 10 m
Just below the Hotel Block B
8 ~ 10 m
Staff Dormitory
10 ~ 15 m
Staff Dormitory
10 ~ 15 m
Total
84 ~ 120 m
Drilling should stop, either after drilling up to a proposed depth or 5 ~6 m after encounter of
rock deposit
1.8.
Recommendation
The project area is located in rocks of Seti formation, Lesser Himalaya. The Seti
Formation is composed of thick bedded phyllite and quartzite.
Page 6


8~9 holes are sufficient to verify the stability and to asses the bearing capacity of soil
strata.
The slope stability condition is good on hill slope so there is no possibility to occur the
slide and any other major/minor failures. However, it is recommended to construct the
wall on the hill slope along the cutting slope of road and building with sufficient weep
holes with well managed drains.
On the basis of site geology, existing topography, folliation planes, bedding of rocks,
slope os hills, the proposed building (Hotel) construction area is observed as stable and
sound.
It is highly recommended to design building foundation, so that base of footing can rest of
bed rocks.
Figure 2: Proposed Location of Drill hole
Page 7


PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOIL/ROCK EXPOSURE
Plate 1: Bedrock Phyllite
Plate 2: Drilling location at Plate 3: Way to Hotel area
exposed at entrance area
Dormitory area, gentle hill

slope
Plate 4: Gentle slope with
Plate 5: Bedrocks just below
residual soil
the Hotel Block B
Plate 6: Gentle slope area
Plate 7: Hotel Block B and A Plate 8: Hotel Block A area Plate 9:

area on ridge area
on ridge area
Just
below the
Sherpa block area requires

the wall
Plate 10: Back side of the
Plate 11: Sherpa Block area Plate 12: Top area of the
area
elevated area
proposed hotel area
Page 8


2. GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
2.1 Soil Investigation of the Proposed Area
This section presents the result of soil investigation for the design of a Foundation of FLIP NEPAL
RESORT building at Sarankot, Kaski, Nepal. The investigation characterizes the subsurface
conditions and develops the necessary requirement for the proposed safe bearing capacity of the
foundation.
The soil investigation work was carried out on August-September of 2014. The total quantity of
soil investigation included eight boreholes, each of ranging from 10 m 15 m depth as per
understanding and requirement. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and Dynamic Cone Penetration
Tests (DCPT) were conducted at 1.0 to 1.5m depth intervals or as per convenience to furnish the
compactness of the soil strata at field.
2.2 Planning of works

Work schedule, location of these boreholes and other project specific issues were identified on
mutual understanding between drilling consultant and client engineer during a desk study, which
was carried out immediately after finalization of agreement in-between. Immediately after initial
site visit by experts, drilling team had revised methodology depending upon the changes on
environment, geological and local conditions.
Table 4 Proposed Laboratory investigation of Soil
SPT samples
(as per change in strata)
Natural Moisture test
Specific Gravity test
Liquid limit / Plastic Limit test
Grain Size Distribution test
Unit weight
Direct shear test
U/D samples
(at least 1 in each hole if
cohesive strata)
Natural Moisture test
Specific Gravity test
Liquid limit / Plastic Limit test
Grain Size Distribution test
Unit weight/ Bulk density
Uni-confined compression test
Consolidation test
Rock / Boulder
(at least 1 in each hole)
Unit weight
Point load Test
Uni-axial Compression Test
2.3 Geo-technical Exploration

Geological condition/stratum at the test site is important aspect to determine the depth, size and
types of foundation. Drilling can define the characteristic and strength of soil and rock in both
unstable and stable zones. Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests were carried out in different depths can
give appropriateness of the densification of the soil strata. Ground water table, cavities and changes
in strata are major aspect of drilling.
As drilling location lies on alluvial deposit followed by rocky strata within proposed drilling depth,
drilling team have been mobilized with rotary drilling rig. Safety mechanisms were developed for
Page 9


technical team and workers.

2.3.1
Boring
Boring works were carried out using Rotary Drilling Rig. Whole investigation works were
conducted as per IS 1892: 1979 Code of practice for subsurface investigations for foundations
(First revision) 1979 Soil and foundation engineering
Figure 3: SPT test @ proposed hole D9
Figure 4: Soil Sample abstracted on Split Spooner at hole D9

Page 10


Groundwater was monitored on drilled holes 24 hours after completion of drilling works.
2.3.2
Sampling
The samples were obtained as per IS 8763: 1978 Guide for undisturbed sampling of sands and
sandy soils 1978 Soil and foundation engineering
Figure 5: Preparation for Sounding Test (SPT) at borehole D8

2.3.3
Field Test
Figure 6: Highly weathered phyllitic rock sample on split spooner after SPT test
Page 11


SPT Test/DCPT
The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon/cone was recorded at every 150 mm of
penetration till the total penetration was 450 mm. The number of blows recorded for the last two
successive 150 mm penetration are added and expressed as SPT/DCPT N-value.
Figure 7: Preparation for SPT test on D7
Figure 8: Drilling in progress with SPT arrangement at D1
Page 12



DCPT
In-situ penetration tests have been widely used in geotechnical and foundation engineering for site
investigation in support of analysis and design. The dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) is
typical in-situ penetration tests. The dynamic cone penetration test shows features of both the CPT
and the SPT. The Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCPT) is similar to the SPT in test.

Page 13



It is performed by dropping a hammer from a certain fall height and measuring a penetration depth
per blow for each tested depth. Therefore, it is quite similar to the procedure of obtaining the blow
count N using the soil sampler in the SPT. In the DCPT, however, a cone is used to obtain the
penetration depth instead of using the split spoon soil sampler. In this respect, there is some
resemblance with the DCPT in the fact that both tests create a cavity during penetration and
generate a cavity expansion resistance.
The shape of the dynamic cone is similar to that of the penetrometer used in the CPT. Cone having
standard apex angle of 60 at its lower end was driven into the ground at the base of the borehole
by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling from a height of 760 mm. (DCPT) were carried out in the
borehole at 1.5m depth intervals.
DCPT tests were conducted on hard strata and sometime soft strata containing gravelly to boulder
mix soil at similar interval like SPT. Only disturbed samples were abstracted from strata where
DCPT conducted.
There has not been direct correlation between DCPT and shear strength. The correlation
between SPT and DCPT is yet to be proven. DCPT values start increasing and deviating from
the SPT values (due to skin friction). It is difficult to figure out what are the condition that
the DCPT and SPT are comparable and when are not. However, until we have SPT values of
adjacent layer, DCPT blow count were used as a qualitative tool, not quantitative.
The nature of the subsoil was investigated from the debris collected at different depths to identify
Page 14


the stratification and type of soil at initial stage. Disturbed soil samples were retrieved from boring
tools at depth intervals of 1.5m. The samples were wrapped in plastic bags and labeled.
The recorded DCPT values are without any correction of overburden pressure and water table. The
test was conducted without using liner. The maximum rod length used was 15 m.
2.4 Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings

Project
Name
Borehole
Identity
Generalize
depth, m
Generalize soil Characteristic
0.0 2.20
Brownish grey dense sandy silt with small gravel of weathered

phyllite
Radish brown to yellowish white highly weathered phyllitic
rock (WEAK BED ROCK)
Light grey to brownish medium dense to dense sandy gravel
with fresh to weathered fragments of phyllite with quartzite
Brownish fresh to slightly weathered phyllitic rock with
quartzite (WEAK BED ROCK)
Light grey to brownish medium dense sandy silt with small
gravel and clayey traces
Radish brown medium dense to dense sandy soil with gravel
and fragments of weathered phyllite
Light grey to brownish slightly weathered and highly fractured
fine grained quartzite with phyllite (WEAK BED ROCK)
Dark grey to reddish soft sandy soil with clayey traces
Radish brown medium dense to dense highly fractured
fragments of phyllite and quartzite with sandy soil
Light purple to reddish, highly fractured and slightly weathered
rock of phyllite with quartzite (WEAK BED ROCK)
Light grey medium dense gravel mix sandy soil
Radish brown dense sandy soil with fragments of phyllite
Light grey dense sand mix gravel of weathered phyllite and
quartzite
Radish brown to pale yellow very dense sandy soil with
fragments of phyllite
Brownish grey to pale yellow highly weathered phyllitic rock
(WEAK ROCK BED)
Brownish grey to radish loose to medium dense silty sand with
clay and small fragments of phyllite
Light Brown medium dense to very dense sandy silt with
gravel of fine grained quartzite and phyllite
Brownish grey to reddish slightly weathered and fractured rock
of phyllite with fine grained quartzite (WEAK BED ROCK)
Light brownish grey loose to medium dense silty sand with
fragments of phyllite (size of pebble, cobble and boulder) with
clayey traces
Light grey slightly weathered and fractured phyllitic rock
(WEAK BED ROCK)
Light raddhish to grey medium dense silty clay sand with
weathered phyllite with quartzite (pebble to cobble)
Light grey fresh to highly weathered fractured phyllitic rock
bed (WEAK BED ROCK)
D-1
2.20 15.00
0.0 3.65
D-2
3.65 15.00
0.0 1.65
D-3
1.65 4.20
4.20 -15.00
0.0 1.15
D-4
1.15 -5.10
5.10 15.0
FLIP
NEPAL
RESORT
BUILDING
0.0 1.00
1.00 2.00
2.00 3.00
D5
3.00 5.00
5.00 10.00
0.0 1.95
D-7
1.95 3.00
3.00 10.00
0.0 4.00
D-8
4.00 10.00
0.00 2.00
D-9
2.00 10.00
Page 15


2.5 Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure

The allowable bearing pressure (qa) is the maximum pressure that can be imposed on the
foundation soil taking into consideration the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil and the tolerable
settlement of the structure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity and the pressure
corresponding to a specified maximum settlement were performed and the minimum pressure
obtained from the two analyses were adopted as the allowable bearing pressure.
2.5.1
Correlation between SPT and DCPT
Nc values of different bore holes are presented in the corresponding borelogs.

The dynamic cone resistance is correlated with the SPT N number as given below:
Nc = 1.50 N for depths up to 3 m
Nc= 1.75 N for depths 3 to 6 m
Nc= 2.00 N for depths greater than 6 m
2.5.2
SPT correction
The SPT values have been corrected in accordance with the proposal of Skempton, (1986) and Liao
and Whitman (1987) as outlined below with consideration of field procedure, hammer efficiency,
borehole diameter, sample and rod length.
Correction of SPT N-value using the relation after Skempton, 1986
Page 16


N60 = Em CB CS CR N/0.60
Where: N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
Em = Hammer Efficiency
CB = borehole diameter correction
CS = Sample Correction
CR = rod length correction
N = SPT N value recorded in the field
The correction factors taken are :
Em =0.55 for hand drop hammer, due to lack of true verticalness and proper speed of SPT blow
CB = 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole,
Cs =1.0 for standard sampler,
CR
=0.7 for rod length 0.00 - 2.99,

=0.75 for rod length 3.00 - 3.99 m,
=0.85 for rod length 4.00 - 5.99 m,
=0.95 for rod length 6.00 - 9.99 m,
=1 for rod length beyond 10.00 m,
Correction for overburden

Correction of corrected N60 field value for overburden pressure using the relation after Liao and
Whitman, 1987
(N1)60 = N60 (100kPa/'z)
Where: N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
(N1)60 = SPT N-value corrected for field procedures and overburden stress
Similarly,
The correction for values of N should be made for the field SPT values for depths. Modified
correction in 1974, peck, Hanson and Thornburn with suggested standard pressure of 100 kN/m2
corresponding to a depth of 5 m of soil with bulk density 20kN/m2 can be represented by the
following equation:
(N1)60 = N60 Cn
Page 17

Cn=0.77 log (2000/p0)

Where, p0 is effective overburden pressure in kN/m2.
2.5.3
Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be granular or non-plastic,
cohesion less sandy gravel with pebble and cobble, the allowable bearing capacity has been
analyzed using the angle of friction and cohesion values from direct shear test results. Empirical
formula of Indian Standard IS 6403:1981 is applicable for this type of soils has been used to obtain
the allowable bearing pressure with safety factor equal to 3.
qa = c Nc sc dc ic+q (Nq-1) sq dq iq+1/2*B N s d i W
Where:
(2.1)
qa = net allowable bearing pressure, t/m2

C = cohesion in t/m2
Nc, Nq, N = Bearing capacity factors
sc, sq, s = Shape factors,
dc, dq, d = Depths factors
ic, iq, i = Inclination factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m2
B = Width of footing in m,
= Bulk unit weight of soil sample in t/m3
W = Correction factor for location of water table
The values of Nc, Nq, and N may be obtained from Table 2.
Table 2, Bearing Capacity Factor

Angle of friction (degree)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nc
5.14
6.49
8.35
10.98
14.83
20.72
30.14
46.12
75.31
138.88
266.89
Nq
1
1.57
2.47
3.94
6.4
10.66
18.4
33.3
64.2
134.88
319.07
N
0
0.45
1.22
2.65
5.39
10.88
22.4
48.03
109.41
271.76
762.89
The values of sc, sq, and s may be obtained from Table 3.

Page 18

Table 3, Shape Factors

Shape of Footing
Square
Sc
1.3
Sq
1.3
S
1.3
The depth factors shall be as

dc,= 1+0.2 Df/BN
dq,= d = 1 for <10
dq,= d = 1+0.1 Df/BN for >10
The inclination factor shall be as under
ic = iq = (1-/90)2 and i = (1-/)2
W (effect of water table)
If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (D f+B) beneath the ground
level surrounding the footing then W = 1.
If the water table is located at depth Df or likely to rise to the base of the footing or above then the
value of W shall be taken as 0.5.
If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth D f<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of W
be obtained by linear interpolation.
2.5.4
Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement
SPT/DCPT methods proposed by Schmertmann Hartmann and Meyerhof, modified by Bowels are
used.
The semi empirical strain influence factor method proposed by Schmertmann and Hartmann (1978)
is as follows:
Se = C1.C2 q0z1(Iz/Es)z
Where
Se = net allowable settlement
C1 = a correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment = 1-0.5 (q/q)
q = effective overburden pressure on foundation
C2 = a correction factor to account into creep in soil = 1+0.2 log (time in year/0.1)
q = difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure.
z = Thickness of soil layer
Page 19

Es = Modulus of elasticity of sand

Iz = Strain influence at depth z
Approximate relationship between Cone penetration resistance (qc) and SPT value (N1)60 with
Stress- Strain Modulus Es (Bowles, 1982) are given below:
qc/N
Es (kN/m2 )
300-800
2.5 qc
Soil type
Coarse sand with small gravel
2.5.5
Pile Foundation
Qu1 =
1
n
A p Dr N r PD N q KPDi tan . Asi
2
i l
Qu2 =
Ap CNc c. Asi
Qu =
Qu1 + Qu2
Where,
Ap
Cross sectional area of pile toe
Pile Stem diameter
effective unit weight of soil at pile toe
PD
effective over burden pressure at pile toe
N & Nq =
bearing capacity factor depending upon the angle of internal friction at toe.
i l
summation of n layers in which pile is installed.
angle of internal friction
coefficient of earth pressure
Pdi
effective over burden pressure for the i th layer where i varies from 1 to n.
angle of wall friction between the pile
Asi
surface area of pile stem in the i th layer
Cohesion of Soil
Nc
Skemption factor and
1 sin

1 sin
Adhesion Factor
Page 20

For working out a safe load carrying capacity of the pile, a factor of safety of 2.5 is adopted.
BASED ON MEYERHOFS
Qutip
=120 N Ab, KN and Qushaft=Naverage Asi, KN
For working out a safe load carrying capacity of the pile, a factor of safety of 2.5 and 4 is adopted.
BASED ON DECOURT, 1995
Qutip=Kb Naveragebase Ab, KN and Qushaft= (2.8 N60 + 10) Asi, KN
Where, = 0.5 to 0.6 for sandy and 1 for clayey
Kb
Soil Type
Sand
Sandy Silt
Clayey Silt
Clay
Kb
165
120
100
80
The bearing capacity of a single pile is to be determined from loading or failure test of a pile during
construction works. The purpose of the test is one or more of the following:
to establish criteria for installation of working piles
to establish settlement of working load
to get an idea of the suitability of the pile for a particular purpose
to determine the safe load capacity
2.5.6
Estimation of Bearing Capacity (Rock/Boulder)
Foundation on Intact Rock

When the loaded area is same or slightly less than the spacing of open vertical joints, for a footing
resting at the surface or near the surface or a pile, the ultimate bearing capacity, q ult is,
qult =c
If the loaded area is much smaller, i.e. less than 1/5th of the spacing of open vertical joints as may
be in the case of pile, the ultimate bearing capacity will be greater than ci and is obtained by
considering one of the theories adopted for soils, i.e Terzaghis,
qult = 1.2 c Nc + 0.5 BNr
Where,
c=cohesion intercept of intact rock
B=width or diameter of the loaded area and =density of rock
Page 21

Nc and Nr = bearing capacity factors, depend on the friction angle of intact rock
The rupture surface may develop on one side, due to defects in the rock. Therefore qult may be
taken as 50% of the value given by above equation. Studies of model footings on rock-like material
have shown (Ramamurthy 1995), that qult may be taken as 1.4 ci.
If the vertical joints are tight, even in this case q ult will be greater than ci; the qult may be obtained
by enhancing ci by considering the influence of confinement, if the joint sets dip on either side, the
qult will be greater than cj, compressive strength and shear stresses developed on the different
combination of joint planes with one of the joint planes dipping under the loaded area from its one
of the edges.
Alternatively, the qult may be estimated by enhancing the compressive strength of the rock mass, cj
(Ramamurthy 1995) using joint factor, j f. it has been concluded from model studies that qult of rock
mass for surface footing could be taken as 1.7cj; cj is estimated from joint factor, this may take
care of rotation of some of the blocks.
Heavily Fractured Rock
When the rock mass is heavily fractured (i.e. c = 0) and the strip foundation is to be located at
some depth Df, the ultimate bearing capacity have been calculated by considering rupture planes
under the footing and the surrounding mass (Pauker 1889),
qult = Df tan4
Where
Df = depth of foundation, = density of rock mass
and
= friction angle, degrees.
For surface footings, above equation gives qult = 0 as in the case of gravelly soil.
By considering crushing of rock under the footing and with the confining pressure from the sides
acting equal to ci, Goodman (1989) suggested
qult =ci
or ci (N+1)
Where, is the friction angle of the intact rock and N = tan2
, ignoring its cohesion
component. For a value of = 30, above equation will give q ult four times the unconfined
compressive strength for crushing of rock under a symmetrical condition of side confinement.
The influence of size of footing with respect to the spacing of joints (horizontal and vertical),
Bishnoi (1968) showed for open vertical joints that
qult = ci
Page 22


Where, s = spacing of joints and B = width of footing.

When s = B, qult = ci and when the spacing between the open vertical joints increases to five times
the width, the qult will increase to 3.9 ci for = 30. The value will increase the qult above
equation is applicable when >0. With the tilting failure of footing, q ult will be 1.95ci.
As per above equations the qult will generally be high for rock mass. The actual values will be
lower mainly due to the rotation and sliding of some blocks within the zone of influence. with the
uncertainty involved in the estimation of and ci, it is always desirable to adopt larger factor of
safety or conservative values of ci and .
Bearing Capacity with Shape Factors
For estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on rock surface, Coates
(1970) suggested a simplified expression in the following form by considering failure along two
planes,
qult=c Nc + q Nq + 0.5 B N
Where,
c = cohesion of rock and q = surcharge loading around the footing
B = width of footing and = density of rock
Nc =
, Nq = tan6
and Nr = Nq + 1
= friction angle of rock.

This equation gives good results for varying from 0 to 45 and the results are comparable with
Terzaghis equation for the bearing capacity of strip footing. For square and circular footings on
rocks, the term Nc will be taken as,
Nc=7 tan4
If the rupture surface is not likely to develop on either side of the footing due to site conditions or
loading and the failure is likely to occur on one side, only 50% of q ult will have to be taken into
consideration.
The shear strength parameters, c and for rock could be evaluated by conducting two plate bearing tests at the surface of the rock. The size of the plate should match with the joint system,
usually less than 1 * 1 m2 sizes. The results obtained could be applied to a larger loaded area.
A more rigorous expression by Terzaghi (1943) may be adopted for strip loading
qult = c Nc sc + Df Nq + 0.5 B N sq
Page 23


The values of Nc, Nq and Nr as per Terzaghi are given in Table 4, for various values of
considering general shear failure. The values of sc for circular and square footings are 1.2 and sq
for square footing = 0.8 and for circular footing = 0.6.
When no test data of c and is available, RQD from bore log may be adopted with caution to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity from
qult = ci(RQD/100)2
ci = compressive strength of intact specimen.
Where,
In most cases, (RQD/100)2 may very between 1/3 and 1/10; for lower values of RQD (<25%), it is
better to treat rock as soil/dense gravelly material (Tomlinson 1986).
For very preliminary estimation,
Net allowable bearing pressure (qa) based on rock material as per Bureau of Indian Standards (IS:
1207-1987)
Materials
Massive crystalline bedrock including granite, diorite, gneiss, trap, hard limestone
and dolomite
qa (MPa)
10.0
Foliated rocks such as schist or slate in sound condition
4.0
Bedded limestone in sound condition
4.0
Sedimentary rock, including hard shales and sandstones
2.5
Soft or broken bedrock (excluding shale) and soft limestone
1.0
Soft shale
0.4
It is common to use Factor of safety 6-10, if RQD is less than 0.75. (J. E. Bowles).
2.5.7
Analysis of Foundations
General Assumption
Each stratum was considered as a combination of different heterogeneous layer, so

maximum thickness considered for unique soil properties was limited to 1.5 m otherwise as
tested.
Corrected SPT value beyond depth of exploration was same as value at end of borehole
depth.
In between two tested samples, properties of soil in middle sections were interpolated as
relevancy of data.
Design data were interpolated between semi empirical data form field test and lab test
results. Some of input and output data were refined as per relevancy with correlated data.
Page 24

DESIGN INPUT DATA
Depth,
m
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
31.5
33
34.5
Station (Km+m)
0.0 m to 0.0 m
* y = YES
** E = Estimated
** A = Assumed
0.0 m to 0.0 m
Ground Water GL, m :
NO
Depth of exploration, m:
15.0
Designed Ground Water GL, m :
0.00
Scour Depth, m:
Void Ratio (e) = 0.730324
Is
D50
there Part of
Design
N value
Field
Silt
soil,
(Equivalent) Bulk
from
Liquid
after
Field
or Sandy or
SPT N- Density, Seive
Limit, Dilatancy
Based Based C,
not* Clayey
Value
t/m3 analysis LL (%) Correction Ncoorected ,
t/m2
n
Sand
5
1.75
0.5
0
5
6
23
n
Sand
6
1.85
0.50
6
7
24
4.4
n
Sand
17
1.85
0.50
17
18
29
11.3
n
Sand
18
1.85
0.50
18
20
30
12.5
n
Sand
23
1.85
0.50
23
26
32
16.3
n
Sand
33
1.85
1.00
33
35
35
21.9
n
Sand
41
1.85
1.00
41
42
37
26.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
n
Sand
> 50
> 2.00
>1
50
50
39
31.3
* n = NO
D1 ~ D9
Hole No.:
1.50 1.5
Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m =
Design
Lab
Lab
Cc ,
Based Based c, PHI Design Cohesion, Design c,
,
t/m2
, ,
T/m2
KN/m2 KN/m3
30
(1) 27
27
1.0
31
- 27 > 30
4.4
32
- 30 > 31
11.3
32
- 31 > 31
12.5
33
- 32 > 32
16.3
34
- 34 > 34
21.9
35
- 36 > 36
26.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
> 37
- 38 > 38
31.3
-
D Drain
Page 25
U Undrain
1.5
Drainage Condition
Project : Soil Investigation of Proposed Building Foundation

Client : FLIK NEPAL RESORT PET LTD
Location : SARANKOT, Kaski, Nepal
Identification = Modeled Strata
Clayey layer exist ; fro m 0.0 m to 0.0 m
0.0 m to 0.0 m
0.0 m to 0.0 m
Hammer energy Correction, Er: 60 %
Drilling Method :
ROTARY
r
Soil Condition : = Drain
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
**
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW (OPEN) FOUNDATION

Hole No.:
Station (Km+m)
Depth
of
unit
water Depth Angle Cohesion weight
Width Length
of
of
of
Area of table
of
of soil of soil
footing footing footing (Dw), Footing friction
,
(),
(B), m (L), m (A), m 2
m
(Df), m (), kg/cm 2 kg/m 3
2.0
2.0
0.0
Shape Factor
Sq
Sc
N"
Effective
Surcharge
at base of
footing (q),
kg/cm 2
Nc
Nq
Ny
1.0
29
0.00 0.002
37.9
0.08
28.04
16.45
12.85
1.5
30
0.00 0.002
29.7
0.13
30.14
18.40
15.07
2.0
30
0.00 0.002
29.7
0.17
30.14
18.40
15.07
2.5
31
0.00 0.002
22.7
0.22
32.50
21.00
18.03
3.0
31
0.00 0.002
22.7
0.26
32.50
21.00
18.03
4.0
31
0.00 0.002
22.7
0.35
32.50
21.00
18.03
5.0
31
0.00 0.002
22.7
0.44
32.50
21.00
18.03
6.0
32
0.00 0.002
16.8
0.61
36.05
23.50
21.09
7.0
33
0.00 0.002
11.9
0.71
38.50
26.50
24.84
8.0
35
0.00 0.002
4.7
0.82
46.12
33.30
33.93
9.0
36
0.00 0.002
2.3
0.92
51.15
37.20
39.45
Depth factor
dq
D1 ~ D9
0
NO
0
dc
Net
Gross
Allowable Allowable
Ultimate
Bearing
Bearing
Bearing
Water
Depth
Capacity
of
Capacity
Capacity
table
Factor
of
of Soil
Inclination factor correction of Soil
of Footing Soil (qna),
2
2
2
iq
ic
(qc ), t/m Safety (Df), m
t/m
(qga), t/m
w'
1.48 1.59
0.60 1.15 1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
26.49
3.0
1.0
8.25
10.00
1.50 1.61
0.60 1.22 1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
48.00
3.0
1.5
15.07
17.85
1.50 1.61
0.60 1.29 1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
66.07
3.0
2.0
20.79
24.49
1.52 1.65
0.60 1.25 1.36
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
91.73
3.0
2.5
29.03
33.66
1.52 1.65
0.60 1.28 1.39
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
111.11
3.0
3.0
35.19
40.74
1.52 1.65
0.60 1.31 1.44
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
150.37
3.0
4.0
47.66
55.06
1.52 1.65
0.60 1.34 1.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
189.96
3.0
5.0
60.24
69.49
1.53 1.65
0.60 1.34 1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
302.26
3.0
6.0
96.75
108.75
1.54 1.69
0.60 1.35 1.52
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
401.45
3.0
7.0
129.15
143.15
1.57 1.72
0.60 1.34 1.53
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
582.12
3.0
8.0
188.71
204.71
1.59 1.73
0.60 1.33 1.54
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
735.08
3.0
9.0
239.03
257.03
Page 26

Settlement Analysis of Open (SHALLOW) Foundation

Semi Empirical Method by Schmertmann and Hartmann
Depth of Foundation D =
1.50 m
Width of Foundation B =
2.00 m
Length of Foundation L = 2.00 m
Hole No.:
D1 ~ D9
Station (Km+m)
0
NO
15
Designed Ground Water GL, 0m :
Scour Depth, m:
1.5
Depth of Pile Top from NGL, 1.5
m=
Allowable Bearing Capacity (Shear) of soil for designated foundation;

15.1 t/m2
Assumed Safe Bearing Capacity of foundation (Shear or Settlement),
15.1 t/m2
In case of 2 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 1.5 m below the NGL effective depth =5.5 m
Depth,
m
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
Soil Layer, m
Bulk
Density
(gamma)
t/m 3
N- Corrected
1.5 to 3.0
1.85
3.0 to 3.0
1.85
3.0 to 4.5
1.85
4.5 to 6.0
1.85
6.0 to 7.5
1.85
7.5 to 9.0
1.85
9.0 to 10.5
2.00
10.5 to 12.0
2.00
12.0 to 13.5
2.00
13.5 to 15.0
2.00
15.0 to 16.5
2.00
16.5 to 18.0
2.00
18.0 to 19.5
2.00
19.5 to 21.0
2.00
21.0 to 22.5
2.00
22.5 to 24.0
2.00
24.0 to 25.5
2.00
Effective Bulk Density = 1.85
Depth correction factor C1 = 0.89
7
18
20
26
35
42
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
qc,
Es,
Ratio
of qc/N KN/m 2 KN/m 2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0.89
Z to
the
center
I z at center
of
Settlement,
layer, m of layer Iz/Es * Z
Ss
0.75
0.400 0.000054 9.5014
1.50
0.417 0.000000 0.0000
2.25
0.292 0.000014 2.4248
3.75
0.042 0.000002 0.2665
5.25
-0.208 0.000000 0.0000
6.75
-0.458 0.000000 0.0000
8.25
-0.708 0.000000 0.0000
9.75
-0.958 0.000000 0.0000
11.25
-1.208 0.000000 0.0000
12.75
-1.458 0.000000 0.0000
14.25
-1.708 0.000000 0.0000
15.75
-1.958 0.000000 0.0000
17.25
-2.208 0.000000 0.0000
18.75
-2.458 0.000000 0.0000
20.25
-2.708 0.000000 0.0000
21.75
-2.958 0.000000 0.0000
23.25
-3.208 0.000000 0.0000
Settlement in Sandy layer = 12.2 mm
Creep Factor C2 = 1.6
Assuming 100 yrs for settlement
4410
11340
12600
16380
28000
33600
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
Now Settlement prediction on cohesionless soil with designed load;
11025
28350
31500
40950
70000
84000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
12.2 mm
Semi Empirical Method Based on Clayey layer

In case of 2 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 1.5 m below the NGL effective depth for clayey soil =5.5 m
Depth,
m
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
Soil Layer, m
1.5 to
3.0 to
3.0 to
4.5 to
6.0 to
7.5 to
9.0 to
10.5 to
12.0 to
13.5 to
15.0 to
3.0
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
10.5
12.0
13.5
15.0
16.5
Design
Void
Compression Compression Ratio,
sigma/z
Index, cc
Index, cc
e0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.999 15.1
0.508 7.7
0.194 2.9
0.096 1.4
0.065 1.0
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
P0
2.8
5.6
8.3
11.1
13.9
16.7
19.7
22.7
25.7
28.7
31.7
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Settlement,
Sc
Predicted Settlement, Sc
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Settlement in clayey layer=
Limiting Settlement as per Code; 40.00 mm

Predicted Total Settlement with designated load; 12.2 mm
0.0 mm
0
Page 27

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW (OPEN) FOUNDATION

Hole No.:
Station (Km+m)
Depth
of
unit
water Depth Angle Cohesion weight
Width Length
of
of
of
Area of table
of
of soil of soil
footing footing footing (Dw), Footing friction
,
(),
(B), m (L), m (A), m 2
m
(Df), m (), kg/cm 2 kg/m 3
15.0 15.0
225
0.0
Shape Factor
Sq
Sc
N"
Effective
Surcharge
at base of
footing (q),
kg/cm 2
Nc
Nq
Ny
1.0
34
0.00 0.002
7.9
0.08
42.08
29.70
29.04
1.5
35
0.00 0.002
4.7
0.13
46.12
33.30
33.93
2.0
35
0.00 0.002
4.7
0.17
46.12
33.30
33.93
2.5
35
0.00 0.002
4.7
0.22
46.12
33.30
33.93
3.0
35
0.00 0.002
4.7
0.26
46.12
33.30
33.93
4.0
36
0.00 0.002
2.3
0.35
51.15
37.20
39.45
5.0
36
0.00 0.002
2.3
0.44
51.15
37.20
39.45
6.0
37
0.00 0.002
0.7
0.61
56.30
42.60
47.02
7.0
37
0.00 0.002
0.7
0.71
56.30
42.60
47.02
8.0
38
0.00 0.002
0.0
0.82
62.00
48.90
56.14
9.0
38
0.00 0.002
0.0
0.92
62.00
48.90
56.14
Depth factor
dq
D1 ~ D9
0
NO
0
dc
Net
Gross
Allowable Allowable
Ultimate
Bearing
Bearing
Bearing
Water
Depth
Capacity
of
Capacity
Capacity
table
Factor
of
of Soil
Inclination factor correction of Soil
of Footing Soil (qna),
2
2
2
iq
ic
(qc ), t/m Safety (Df), m
t/m
(qga), t/m
w'
1.56 1.71
0.60 1.02 1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
81.42
3.0
1.0
26.56
28.31
1.57 1.72
0.60 1.03 1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
125.55
3.0
1.5
40.92
43.70
1.57 1.72
0.60 1.03 1.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
149.70
3.0
2.0
48.67
52.37
1.57 1.72
0.60 1.04 1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
174.23
3.0
2.5
56.54
61.16
1.57 1.72
0.60 1.05 1.08
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
199.16
3.0
3.0
64.54
70.09
1.59 1.73
0.60 1.07 1.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
283.54
3.0
4.0
92.05
99.45
1.59 1.73
0.60 1.08 1.13
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
342.54
3.0
5.0
111.10
120.35
1.60 1.76
0.60 1.10 1.16
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
540.58
3.0
6.0
176.19
188.19
1.60 1.76
0.60 1.11 1.19
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
624.60
3.0
7.0
203.53
217.53
1.62 1.79
0.60 1.12 1.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
823.20
3.0
8.0
269.07
285.07
1.62 1.79
0.60 1.14 1.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.5
924.87
3.0
9.0
302.29
320.29
Page 28

Settlement Analysis of Open (SHALLOW) Foundation

Semi Empirical Method by Schmertmann and Hartmann
Depth of Foundation D =
2.00 m
Width of Foundation B = 15.00 m
Length of Foundation L = 15.00 m
Hole No.:
D1 ~ D9
Station (Km+m)
0
NO
15
Designed Ground Water GL, 0m :
Scour Depth, m:
1.5
Depth of Pile Top from NGL, 1.5
m=
Allowable Bearing Capacity (Shear) of soil for designated foundation;

48.7 t/m2
Assumed Safe Bearing Capacity of foundation (Shear or Settlement),
46.9 t/m2
In case of 15 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 2 m below the NGL effective depth =32 m
Depth,
m
2
3.5
5
6.5
8
9.5
11
12.5
14
15.5
17
18.5
20
21.5
23
24.5
26
Soil Layer, m
Bulk
Density
(gamma)
t/m 3
N- Corrected
2.0 to 3.5
1.85
3.5 to 3.5
1.85
3.5 to 5.0
1.85
5.0 to 6.5
1.85
6.5 to 8.0
1.85
8.0 to 9.5
1.85
9.5 to 11.0
2.00
11.0 to 12.5
2.00
12.5 to 14.0
2.00
14.0 to 15.5
2.00
15.5 to 17.0
2.00
17.0 to 18.5
2.00
18.5 to 20.0
2.00
20.0 to 21.5
2.00
21.5 to 23.0
2.00
23.0 to 24.5
2.00
24.5 to 26.0
2.00
Effective Bulk Density = 1.85
Depth correction factor C1 = 0.96
7
18
20
26
35
42
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
qc,
Es,
Ratio
of qc/N KN/m 2 KN/m 2
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0.96
Z to
the
center
I z at center
of
Settlement,
layer, m of layer Iz/Es * Z
Ss
0.75
0.140 0.000019 12.6240
1.50
0.180 0.000000 0.0000
2.25
0.220 0.000010 6.9432
3.75
0.300 0.000011 7.2831
5.25
0.380 0.000008 5.3968
6.75
0.460 0.000008 5.4441
8.25
0.483 0.000007 4.8050
9.75
0.450 0.000007 4.4736
11.25
0.417 0.000006 4.1423
12.75
0.383 0.000006 3.8109
14.25
0.350 0.000005 3.4795
15.75
0.317 0.000005 3.1481
17.25
0.283 0.000004 2.8167
18.75
0.250 0.000004 2.4854
20.25
0.217 0.000003 2.1540
21.75
0.183 0.000003 1.8226
23.25
0.150 0.000002 1.4912
Settlement in Sandy layer = 75.0 mm
Creep Factor C2 = 1.6
Assuming 100 yrs for settlement
4410
11340
12600
16380
28000
33600
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
Now Settlement prediction on cohesionless soil with designed load;
11025
28350
31500
40950
70000
84000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
75.0 mm
Semi Empirical Method Based on Clayey layer

In case of 15 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 2 m below the NGL effective depth for clayey soil =32 m
Depth,
m
2
3.5
5
6.5
8
9.5
11
12.5
14
15.5
17
Soil Layer, m
2.0 to
3.5 to
3.5 to
5.0 to
6.5 to
8.0 to
9.5 to
11.0 to
12.5 to
14.0 to
15.5 to
3.5
3.5
5.0
6.5
8.0
9.5
11.0
12.5
14.0
15.5
17.0
Design
Void
Compression Compression Ratio,
sigma/z
Index, cc
Index, cc
e0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.999
0.958
0.921
0.855
0.773
0.707
0.631
0.550
0.469
0.395
0.350
P0
46.9
44.9
43.2
40.1
36.3
33.1
29.6
25.8
22.0
18.5
16.4
3.7
6.5
9.3
12.0
14.8
17.6
20.6
23.6
26.6
29.6
32.6
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Settlement,
Sc
Predicted Settlement, Sc
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Settlement in clayey layer=
Limiting Settlement as per Code; 75.00 mm

Predicted Total Settlement with designated load; 75.0 mm
0.0 mm
0
Page 29

CAPACITY OF CAST IN-SITU BORED PILE

Length of Pile (L), m =
10.0
Diameter of Pile (D), mm =
800
Area of Pile X-Section, m2 =
0.503
Hole No. =
0
Station (Km+m) =
0+000
Ground Water GL, m =
NO
Depth of exploration, m =
15.0
Designed Ground Water GL, m 0=.0
Scour Depth, m =
4.0
Shaft Bearing Resistance, qs , Tons = 19.3
Excavation Depth, m = 4.0

Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 4.0
Drill with Bentonite Slurry
7200
Base of the pile lies on = 14.0
Probable Liquefaction depth, m = 1.5
End Bearing Resistance, qt, Tons = 110.8
Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile (Q), Tons = 130.2

Load Capacity of Pile @ liquefaction (Q liq), Tons = 216.9
Depth, m
Effective
Design
Thickness, m ,
Design c,
KN/m2
Effective
Surcharge
Pressure,
t/m2
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
31.5
33
34.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
27
27
31
31
33
35
36
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0.000
0.578
1.395
2.513
3.649
4.793
5.940
7.090
8.241
8.907
9.000
9.076
9.140
9.194
9.240
9.280
9.315
9.346
9.373
9.398
9.420
9.440
10.089
12.416
Surface
area (A si ),
m2
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Indian Standard
End Bearing
N-value Resistance
(Qupc), Tonnes
6
7
20
22
29
39
46
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Skin Bearing
Resistance
(Qusc), Tonnes
End
Bearing
Resistance
Qups, Tonnes
4.1
11.2
20.0
34.2
56.3
81.7
110.8
110.8
110.8
110.9
110.9
110.9
110.9
110.9
111.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
119.0
119.0
Decourt Method
Meyerhof
Skin
End
Bearing
Bearing
Resistance Resistance
(Quss ), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes
1.1
1.8
2.5
2.7
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.1
5.1
Shaft
Bearing
Resistance
(Qup), Tonnes
End Bearing
Resistance
(Qus ), Tonnes
6.6
8.7
11.8
13.9
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
27.0
43.5
51.8
70.5
87.1
99.5
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
103.7
19.6
31.7
37.7
51.3
63.3
72.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
Page 30
Shaft Bearing
Resistance
(Qus ), Tonnes
4.5
5.9
7.2
8.2
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
End Bearing
Resistance q t ,
t/m2
8.1
22.2
39.9
68.1
111.9
162.5
220.3
220.4
220.5
220.6
220.6
220.6
220.7
220.7
220.7
220.8
220.8
220.8
220.8
220.8
220.8
236.7
236.7
Shaft
Bearing
Resistance
q s , t/m2
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3

Output
Shallow Foundation
Breaking strength of sample (boulder)
0.6 to 2.6
Phyllitic with quartzite
Very weak to weak
15 to 65.0
<25
93.75 to 406.25
6
3.0 m
15.6 to 67.7
15.6
Point Load Index (Mpa)

Rock/Boulder Type
Rock Strength
Assumed Uniaxial Compressive Strength (Mpa)
RQD
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (Qult1), T/m2
Factor of Safety
Proposed Depth of Foundation, m
Safe Bearing Capacity (Qult1), T/m2
Based on IS 1207 - 1987 (Qall), T/m2
Recommended Allowable Bearing Capacity (Qallrec), T/m2
15.6
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION AT PROPOSED COSTRUCTION SITE
Depth of
footing, m
Theoretical Recommended
Safe Bearing
design Safe
Capacity,
Bearing
t/m2
Capacity, t/m2
Width of Square Footing, m
Safe Bearing
design Safe
Capacity,
Bearing
t/m2
Capacity, t/m2
1.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.2
18.4
23.8
34.1
41.3
55.7
70.2
109.8
144.3
206.0
258.4
2
10.2
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
10.0
17.8
24.5
33.7
40.7
55.1
69.5
108.8
143.1
204.7
248.5
11.2
17.6
26.8
34.0
41.6
53.9
75.9
119.9
139.2
177.8
190.2
2.5
10.0
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
3.0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Safe Bearing
design Safe
Capacity,
Bearing
t/m2
Capacity, t/m2
9.9
17.6
27.1
34.7
40.3
54.4
76.6
121.0
149.0
201.6
218.0
4.0
11.2
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
11.4
20.2
26.6
33.3
40.3
55.3
74.8
117.0
120.2
141.6
152.4
9.9
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
5.0
11.4
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
11.8
20.6
26.8
33.2
39.8
60.2
86.7
104.1
107.4
123.6
130.0
11.8
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
Page 31

Width of Square Footing,

m
6.0

m
7.0

m
10.0
12.2
12.2
14.5
14.5
18.3
15.6
1.5
21.1
15.6
21.5
15.6
26.1
15.6
27.1
15.6
27.4
15.6
36.9
15.6
2.5
33.3
15.6
37.5
15.6
44.2
15.6
44.4
15.6
44.5
15.6
58.2
15.6
59.5
15.6
66.6
15.6
84.8
15.6
95.1
15.6
93.9
15.6
100.0
15.6
151.1
15.6
140.0
15.6
108.9
15.6
158.9
15.6
143.1
15.6
112.3
15.6
178.6
15.6
158.2
15.6
121.2
15.6
185.1
15.6
163.6
15.6
125.5
15.6

m
15.0

m
20.0

m
30.0
28.3
15.6
35.7
15.6
27.8
15.6
1.5
43.7
15.6
41.1
15.6
31.0
15.6
50.6
15.6
43.2
15.6
33.6
15.6
2.5
52.6
15.6
45.1
15.6
35.4
15.6
64.7
15.6
52.9
15.6
39.9
15.6
68.2
15.6
56.7
15.6
43.7
15.6
75.9
15.6
62.3
15.6
48.3
15.6
82.0
15.6
67.8
15.6
53.2
15.6
85.8
15.6
71.7
15.6
57.0
15.6
91.4
15.6
76.4
15.6
61.2
15.6
95.6
15.6
80.4
15.6
65.2
15.6
Deep Foundation (Cast In-Situ Bored Concrete Pile)

BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE VERTICAL PILE FOUNDATION GENERAL (Static)
Diameter of Pile, mm
Length of pile, m
Bearing Capacity, KN
800
10.0
1302
BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE VERTICAL PILE FOUNDATION (DYNAMIC)

Diameter of Pile, mm
Length of pile, m
Bearing Capacity, KN
800
10.0
2170
Page 32

CAPACITY OF CAST IN-SITU BORED PILE ( for > 710 mm)

Depth, m
Effective
Thickness, m
Design ,
Design c,
KN/m2
End Bearing
Shaft Bearing
2
Resistance q t , t/m
Resistance q s , t/m2
0
1.5
27
27
8.1
3
4.5
1.5
31
31
22.2
39.9
0.3
6
7.5
9
1.5
1.5
1.5
33
35
36
68.1
111.9
162.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
10.5
12
1.5
1.5
38
38
220.3
220.4
0.9
1.1
13.5
15
1.5
1.5
38
38
220.5
220.6
1.0
1.0
16.5
18
19.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
38
38
38
220.6
220.6
220.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
21
22.5
24
1.5
1.5
1.5
38
38
38
220.7
220.7
220.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
Page 33


2.6 Conclusion and Recommendation

o
The proposed building site over Sarankot is on top residual soil deposits followed by phyllitic
rock with quartzite, Seti formation of Lesser Himalaya.
Rock is slightly to highly weathered in nature, fall on weak stage.
Recommendation
o
A recommended allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 m wide square, shallow (OPEN) foundation
near or at particular borehole 2.0 m depth is nearly equal to 156 KN/m2. The recommended
ABC is in safer side, which is within a settlement of 40mm. It takes care of differential
settlement as well.
A recommended allowable bearing capacity of 15.0 m wide square, shallow (OPEN)

foundation near or at or at particular borehole at 2.0 m depth is nearly equal to 156 KN/m2.
The recommended ABC is in safer side, which is within a settlement of 75 mm. It takes care
of differential settlement as well.
o
Refer Pages 31, 32 and 33 for more Details (Theoretical and recommended values)
Considering size of armored and layered soil, compaction level of material and geotechnical
empirical calculation, recommended angle of friction of soil is 34
For 15 m wide square raft foundation, at 2.0 m below existing ground, Modulus of Sub-grade
reaction is 20,000 KN/m3, which changes significantly with depth and size of raft
foundation, so recommend to use with proper attention and calculation, based on actual size
and shape of footing.
As described in the heading LIQUEFACTION in this report, sooner or later a very strong
earthquake is expected to occur in Nepal. Therefore the Foundation Engineer must pay due
attention in this regard.
Because of presence of seepage water and probable rise in water table in summer, side fall
(collapse) is eminent. So, at the time of construction of foundation, it is strongly
recommended to design the appropriate temporary site protection measures based on the soil
properties shown in this report.
The foundation Design Engineer needs not strictly follow the depth and dimension of
foundation selected in the bearing capacity analysis of this report. Designer is free to select
any other foundation dimension and depth depending upon the load of the structure. Allowable
bearing capacity depends on many variables such as adopted allowable settlement, type of
foundation, size and depth of foundation, importance of structure, cost of the project,
Page 34


topographical, hydrological characteristics of river etc. Therefore once the size and depth of
the foundation is finalized the calculation may need to be refined during design phase based
on the parameters obtained from this investigation.
Important Notes;
o
The recommendations and discussions presented in this report are based on the sub-surface
conditions encountered during the site work at the time of investigation and on the result of
the field and laboratory testing on samples obtained from limited number of boreholes. There
may be, however, conditions pertaining to the site which have not been into account due to the
limited number of boreholes.
The ground water levels indicated on the logs of borings represents the measured levels at the
time of investigations and immediately 24 hour after completion of drilling works, which may
be permanent water table or seepage water from nearby small pouch of fractured/weathered
strata.
It should be noted; however, that ground water levels are subject to variation caused by flood
and weather seasonal variations and by changes of local drainage and or pumping conditions,
and may at the times be significantly different to those measured during the investigation.
PGA value used on this analysis report is based on a map prepared by Department of mines
and Geology, Nepal, which was only preliminary indication, due to lack of sufficient data,
which cannot forestall some diverse situation if large earthquake occur in nearby a rea.
Conventional excavation equipment such as excavators, loaders and bulldozers will be

sufficient for most of the excavation work. Every effort should be done to avoid soil
disturbance at foundation level.
Where space permits, the sides of the excavations shall be battered to a slope of two vertical
and one horizontal (2V: 1H) to avoid collapse. If these recommended side sloped cannot be
achieved for insufficient lateral space or for any other reason, lateral support system (shoring
system) for the sides of the excavation will be required and should be considered to maintain
safe working conditions.
It is expected that the excavation work for shallow foundation (Raft) and Pile cap will be
below the water table in most of the bridge, so dewatering is required. Experience has shown
that small close-boarded excavation can be conveniently dealt with by conventional sump
pumping techniques. However, if larger excavations are to stand open for considerable period,
the installation of dewatering system may be required.
Specialist contractors should be consulted in this regard during construction. Care should be
Page 35


taken during dewatering to ensure that fines are not removed during pumping since this could
result in unpredictable settlements of the surrounding ground and associates structures.
o
It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at the location of the
structures both during and after construction. Surface water should be directed away from the
edges of the excavation.
The SANDY/GRAVELLY materials will probably be satisfactory for backfilling purposes,

whereas, the CLAYEY materials will not be satisfactory for backfilling purposes. However,
the final decision shall be taken during construction after complete excavation.
The materials to be used for backfilling purposes shall be of selected fill composed of sand
and/or granular mixture free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The
plasticity index of the backfill material shall not exceed 10 percent. It shall be spread in lifts
not exceeding 25cm in un-compacted thickness, moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture
content, and compacted to a dry density not less than 95% of the maximum dry density as
obtained by modified proctor test (ASTM D-1557).
With prior approval from project directorate specific geotechnical designs are allowed to
adjust as per actual soil observed during construction works on specific.
Page 36

2.7 References and Standards

1.
Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal -2002, Department of Mines and Geology
2.
AASTHO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONs, 4th edition
3.
Canadian
FOUNDATION
ENGINEERING
MANNUAL
4th
EDITION,
Canadian
Geotechnical Society 2006

4.
Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis
5.
IS 2131: 1981 Method for standard penetration test for soils (first revision) 1981 Soil and
foundation engineering
6.
IS 2720: Part 2: 1973 Methods of test for soils: Part 2 determination of water content (Second
revision) 1973 Soil and foundation engineering

7.
IS 2720: Part 4: 1985 Methods of Test for Soils Part I: Grain Size Analysis (Second revision)
1985 Soil and foundation engineering

8.
IS 2720: Part 3: Sec 1: 1980 Methods of test for soils: Part 3 Determination of specific gravity
Section fine grained soils (First revision) 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
9.
IS 2720: Part 10: 1991 Methods of test for soils: Part 10 Determination of unconfined
compressive strength (Second revision) 1991 Soil and foundation engineering

10. Is 2720: Part 13: 1986 Methods of Test for Soils - Part 13: Direct shear Test (Second revision)
1986 Soil and foundation engineering
11. IS 6403: 1981 Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations
12. IS 8009: Part 1: 1976 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of Foundations - Part I:
Shallow
Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loads 1976 Soil and foundation
engineering
13. IS 8009: Part I: 1976 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of Foundations - Part I:
Shallow Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loads
14. IS 8009: Part II: 1980 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlement of Foundations - Part II:
Deep Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loading
15. IS 2911: Part 1: Sec 2: 1979 Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations:
Part 1 Concrete piles, Section 2 Bored cast-in-situ piles
16. IS 2950: Part I: 1981 Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundations - Part
I: Design
Page 37
SOIL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
OF
FLIP NEPAL RESORT PTE LTD

SARANKOT, KASKI, NEPAL
September, 2014
Prepared BY:
MATERIAL TEST (P) LTD

Web: material-test.com.org
E-Mail: matecon.lab@gmail.com
Phone/Fax: 01-4486092
Mid Baneswor, Kathmandu, Nepal


Annex
Borehole log
Laboratory Test Results
Page 39


Borehole log and Laboratory Test Data
Page 40
Borehole Log
Brownish grey dense sandy silt with

small gravel of weathered phyllite
-1
SPT
-2
N-Value
15 cm
SPT
12 14 13 27
-3
SPT
17 19 23 42
-4
SPT 50/12
> 50
-5
SPT 50/10
> 50
-9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
Cohesive Soil
- 15
* Completed at 15m
10
SPT
DCPT
20
30
40
0
1
-8
Granular Soil
N-Value
UDS
9 11 20
-7
End Depth
Types of Soil
15 cm
-6
Radish brown to yellowish white

highly weathered phyllitic rock
(WEAK BED ROCK)
Hole No.: D - 1
Date: 22/08/2014 ~ 25/08/2014
Ground water table: GL- Not Encountered
Hole Dia.: HX, NX, BX
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No.
&Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

Method of Drilling: Rotary
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
N Value
0 to 4
4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Compactness
Very Loose Loose Med. Dense Dense Very Dense
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Med. Soft Stiff Very Stiff Hard
50
Borehole Log
Light grey to brownish medium

dense to dense sandy gravel with
fresh to weathered fragments of
phyllite with quartzite
N-Value
15 cm
-2
SPT
13 14 16 30
-3
SPT 50/14
> 50
-4
SPT 50/13
> 50
-5
SPT 50/11
> 50
-6
SPT 50/10
> 50
-9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
Cohesive Soil
15 cm
15 17 16 33
- 11
Granular Soil
- 15
* Completed at 15m
10
SPT
DCPT
20
30
40
SPT
-8
End Depth
Types of Soil
N-Value
UDS
-1
-7
Light grey to brownish fresh to

slightly weathered phyllitic rock
with quartzite (WEAK BED
ROCK)
Hole No.: D - 2
Date: 26/08/2014 ~ 04/09/2014
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No.
&Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
N Value
0 to 4
4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Compactness
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Light grey to brownish medium

dense sandy silt with small gravel
and clayey traces
Radish brown medium dense to
dense sandy soil with gravel and
fragments of weathered phyllite
Light grey to brownish slightly

weathered and highly fractured fine
grained quartzite with phyllite
(WEAK BED ROCK)
N-Value
15 cm
15 cm
12 10
9 19
-2
SPT
14 16 16 32
-3
SPT
14 15 16 31
-4
SPT
17 19 20 39
-5
SPT 50/13
> 50
-7
-8
-9
- 10
- 14
- 15
* Completed at 15m
10
20
30
40
-6
- 13
Cohesive Soil
SPT
DCPT
SPT
- 12
Granular Soil
N-Value
UDS
-1
- 11
End Depth
Types of Soil
Hole No.: D - 3
Date: 05/09/2014 ~ 10/09/2014
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No.
&Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
N Value
0 to 4
4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Compactness
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Light purple to reddish, highly

fractured and slightly weathered
rock of phyllite with quartzite
(WEAK BED ROCK)
End Depth
Types of Soil
Granular Soil
Cohesive Soil
N-Value
N-Value
UDS
15 cm
Sample No.
&Type
No. of blows
15 cm
Radish brown medium dense to

dense highly fractured fragments
of phyllite and quartzite with
sandy soil.
Hole No.: D - 4
Date: 11/09/2014 ~ 13/09/2014
15 cm
Dark grey to reddish soft sandy

soil with clayey traces
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

-1
SPT
-2
SPT
9 11 20
-3
SPT
10 12 14 26
-4
SPT
14 12 17 29
-5
SPT
15 17 20 37
-7
-8
-9
- 10
10
- 11
11
- 12
12
- 13
13
- 14
14
0 to 4
Compactness
Very Loose
0 to 2
Consistency
Very Soft
20
30
40
-6
- 15
* Completed at 15m
10
SPT
DCPT
15
N Value
4 to 10
10 to 30 30 to 50
> 50
Loose Med. Dense Dense Very Dense
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16 16 to 32
> 32
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Hole No.: D - 5
Date: 14/09/2014 ~ 16/09/2014
N-Value
15 cm
15 cm
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No. &Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

-1
SPT
9 11 13 24
-2
SPT
12 14 17 31
-3
SPT
15 17 19 36
-4
SPT
30 35 20 55
-5
SPT
20 22 24 46
-6
SPT
17 19 26 45
-7
SPT
Light grey dense sand mix gravel of

weathered phyllite and quartzite
50/14
Granular Soil
Compactness
Cohesive Soil
Consistency
> 50
-9
0 to 4
Very Loose
0 to 2
Very Soft
DCPT
10
20
30
40
-8
- 10
* Completed at 10m
End Depth
Types of Soil
UDS
0
Radish brown dense sandy soil with

fragments of phyllite
Brownish grey to pale yellow highly

weathered phyllitic rock (WEAK ROCK
BED)
SPT
Light grey medium dense gravel mix

sandy soil.
Radish brown to pale yellow very dense

sandy soil with fragments of phyllite
N-Value
10
N Value
4 to 10
10 to 30 30 to 50
> 50
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16 16 to 32
> 32
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Brownish grey to reddish slightly

weathered and fractured rock of
phyllite with fine grained quartzite
Granular Soil
15 cm
N-Value
Sample No.
&Type
SPT
-2
SPT
7 10 17
-3
SPT
50/11
> 50
-4
SPT
14 50/15 > 50
-5
CPT 50/11
Cohesive Soil
> 50
-7
-8
0 to 4
Very Loose
0 to 2
Consistency
Very Soft
20
30
40
CPT 50/10
10
SPT
DCPT
-6
- 10
* Completed at 10m
Compactness
N-Value
UDS
-1
-9
End Depth
Types of Soil
No. of blows
15 cm
Light Brown medium dense to very

dense sandy silt with gravel of fine
grained quartzite and phyllite
Hole No.: D - 7
Date: 05/05/2071 ~ 15/05/2071
15 cm
Brownish grey to radish loose to

medium dense silty sand with clay
and small fragments of phyllite
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

>50
10
N Value
4 to 10
10 to 30 30 to 50
> 50
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16 16 to 32
> 32
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Light brownish grey loose to medium

dense silty sand with fragments of phyllite
(size of pebble, cobble and boulder) with
clayey traces
Light grey slightly weathered and

fractured phyllitic rock (WEAK BED
ROCK)
Hole No.: D - 8
Date: 05/05/2071 ~ 15/05/2071
N-Value
15 cm
15 cm
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No. &Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

SPT
-2
SPT
10
9 17
-3
SPT
9 18
-4
SPT
10 12 11 23
-5
SPT
10 16 17 33
-6
SPT
11 19 22 41
Compactness
SPT
Cohesive Soil
Consistency
0 to 4
Very Loose
0 to 2
Very Soft
DCPT
10
20
30
40
-7
31 34 36 > 50
SPT
50/07
- 10
* Completed at 10m
Granular Soil
UDS
0
-8
End Depth
Types of Soil
SPT
-1
-9
N-Value
> 50
10
N Value
4 to 10
10 to 30 30 to 50
> 50
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16 16 to 32
> 32
Soft
50
Borehole Log
Light radish to grey medium dense

silty clay sand with weathered phyllite
with quartzite (pebble to cobble)
-1
SPT
-2
-3
Hole No.: D - 9
Date: 05/05/2071 ~ 15/05/2071
N-Value
15 cm
15 cm
No. of blows
15 cm
Sample No. &Type
Depth, m
Soil Description
Symbol

SPT
10 13 18 31
SPT
30 34 37 71
SPT
32 35 33 68
Cohesive Soil
30
40
> 50
8
-8
Granular Soil
20
SPT 50/9
SPT
19 18 21 39
- 10
* Completed at 10m
0 to 4
Compactness
Very Loose
0 to 2
Consistency
Very Soft
10
31 29 30 59
-7
End Depth
Types of Soil
DCPT
-5
-9
UDS
6 13
SPT
-6
SPT
-4
Light grey fresh to highly weathered

fractured phyllitic rock bed (WEAK
BED ROCK)
N-Value
10
N Value
4 to 10
10 to 30 30 to 50
> 50
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16 16 to 32
> 32
Soft
50
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

Sample No.
Depth,m
Wt. of
Cont. +
Wet Soil
Wt. of Cont.
+
Dry Soil
Wt. of
Wt. of Empty Wt. of Dry
Water, gm Container, gm Soil, gm
Moisture
Content
(%)
D-1
Bore Hole No.

SPT - 1
1.0
63.80
54.80
9.00
14.70
40.10
22.44
SPT - 2
2.0
56.40
49.80
6.60
8.07
41.73
15.82
SPT - 5
5.0
66.50
60.20
6.30
D-2
14.10
46.10
13.67
SPT - 1
1.0
87.30
72.10
15.20
14.70
57.40
26.48
SPT - 3
3.0
70.10
60.20
9.90
8.07
52.13
18.99
SPT - 6
6.0
64.80
57.20
7.60
D-3
14.10
43.10
17.63
SPT - 1
1.0
56.80
48.30
8.50
14.70
33.60
25.30
SPT - 3
3.0
60.40
53.20
7.20
8.07
45.13
15.95
SPT - 5
5.0
68.90
61.50
7.40
D-4
14.10
47.40
15.61
SPT - 2
2.0
88.40
73.50
14.90
8.34
65.16
22.87
SPT - 3
3.0
66.30
58.90
7.40
7.86
51.04
14.50
SPT - 5
5.0
56.90
51.50
5.40
D-5
13.70
37.80
14.29
SPT - 2
1.0
73.50
65.80
7.70
14.70
51.10
15.07
SPT - 4
2.0
66.40
56.30
10.10
8.07
48.23
20.94
SPT - 7
4.0
52.60
45.80
6.80
D-7
14.10
31.70
21.45
SPT - 1
1.0
88.50
78.20
10.30
8.34
69.86
14.74
SPT - 4
4.0
69.80
59.40
10.40
7.86
51.54
20.18
CPT - 6
9.0
64.50
59.60
4.90
D-8
13.70
45.90
10.68
SPT - 1
1.0
61.00
56.10
4.90
14.70
41.40
11.84
SPT - 4
4.0
90.80
80.90
9.90
8.07
72.83
13.59
SPT - 7
7.5
54.60
50.30
4.30
D-9
14.10
36.20
11.88
SPT - 1
1.0
63.60
54.80
8.80
8.34
46.46
18.94
SPT - 4
4.0
72.40
63.50
8.90
7.86
55.64
16.00
SPT - 7
7.5
49.60
43.50
6.10
13.70
29.80
20.47
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bore Hole No.
Bulk Density of Soil

Sample
Depth
Length
Weight
Bulk Density
No
cm
gm
cm
gm/cm
Borehole No. D1
SPT - 1
1.00
10
178.50
96.21
1.86
SPT - 2
2.00
10
186.90
96.21
1.94
Borehole No. D2
SPT - 1
1.00
10
187.90
96.21
1.95
SPT - 3
3.00
10
200.30
96.21
2.08
Borehole No. D3
SPT - 1
1.00
10
178.60
96.21
1.86
SPT - 4
4.00
10
180.60
96.21
1.88
Borehole No. D4
SPT - 1
1.00
10
173.90
96.21
1.81
SPT - 4
4.00
10
178.40
96.21
1.85
Borehole No. D5
SPT - 2
2.00
10
188.60
96.21
1.96
SPT - 4
4.00
10
200.60
96.21
2.08
Borehole No. D7
SPT - 1
1.00
10
200.10
96.21
2.08
SPT - 4
4.00
10
184.70
96.21
1.92
CPT - 6
9.00
10
213.70
96.21
2.22
Borehole No. D8
SPT - 1
1.00
10
146.10
96.21
1.52
SPT - 2
2.00
10
188.90
96.21
1.96
Borehole No. D9
SPT - 1
1.00
10
200.10
96.21
2.08
SPT - 4
4.00
10
184.70
96.21
1.92
SPT - 7
7.50
10
213.70
96.21
2.22
Unit Weight of Rock Mass

Depth m
Dry Weight gm
Volume cm
Unit Weight
gm/cm
12.0 - 13.0
156.90
60.80
2.58
8.0 - 9.0
132.10
50.60
2.61
9.0 - 10.0
214.60
86.10
2.49
6.0 - 7.0
168.90
65.40
2.58
8.0 - 9.0
246.80
96.90
2.55
4.50
104.30
40.20
2.59
7.50
159.50
61.90
2.58
7.50
203.30
82.20
2.47
10.00
303.10
118.60
2.56
4.50
293.50
108.00
2.72
7.50
105.80
41.70
2.54
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil
Temperature
Wt. Pycnometer + Water
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil
Wt. Soil
Specific Gravity of Water
Specific Gravity of Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
180.30
25
161.5
18.8
30
0.9971
2.671
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
181.10
25
162.3
18.8
30
0.9971
2.671
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
178.50
25
159.6
18.9
30
0.9971
2.695
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 2
1.0
179.80
25
161.1
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-1
SPT - 5
5.0
179.80
25
161.1
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-2
SPT - 5
5.0
180.80
25
162.1
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-3
SPT - 5
5.0
179.50
25
160.8
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-4
SPT - 5
5.0
180.10
25
161.3
18.8
30
0.9971
2.671
DS
12.0 -13.0
182.10
25
163.2
18.9
30
0.9971
2.695
DS
8.0 - 9.0
181.90
25
162.9
19
30
0.9971
2.719
DS
9.0 - 10.0
183.10
25
164.1
19
30
0.9971
2.719
DS
6.0 - 7.0
181.60
25
162.7
18.9
30
0.9971
2.695
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
Borehole No.
SPT
Depth, m
Temperature
Wt. Soil
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
179.60
25
161.1
18.5
30
0.9971
2.601
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
180.60
25
161.8
18.8
30
0.9971
2.671
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
178.50
25
159.6
18.9
30
0.9971
2.695
gm
C
gm
gm
gm
SPT - 1
1.0
182.30
25
163.7
18.6
30
0.9971
2.624
D-5
SPT - 4
4.0
179.40
25
160.7
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-7
SPT - 5
3.0
181.10
25
162.4
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-8
SPT - 4
4.0
179.50
25
160.8
18.7
30
0.9971
2.647
D-9
SPT - 3
3.0
181.70
25
162.85
18.85
30
0.9971
2.683
DS
8.0 - 9.0
182.10
25
163.2
18.9
30
0.9971
2.695
CPT
9.0
183.10
25
164.1
19
30
0.9971
2.719
SPT - 7
7.5
183.10
25
164.1
19
30
0.9971
2.719
SPT - 7
9.0
181.50
25
162.62
18.88
30
0.9971
2.690
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Test Method : IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985
% Passing
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
100.00
89.90
70.19
51.32
41.59
33.47
28.25
24.34
16.89
4.09
D-1
SPT - 1
Depth m : 2.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
4.09 %
66.1 %
29.8 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
94.87
78.06
55.11
41.60
32.72
25.84
23.08
18.44
12.98
5.05
D-2
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
5.05 %
50.1 %
44.9 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

% Passing
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
100.00
92.35
75.30
57.04
49.86
44.29
36.87
17.22
10.03
7.88
D-2
SPT - 3
Depth m : 3.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
7.88 %
67.4 %
24.7 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
90.42
70.15
56.78
30.44
27.76
22.87
20.15
14.79
6.31
1.42
D-3
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.42 %
55.4 %
43.2 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

% Passing
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
D-3
SPT - 4
Depth m : 4.00
100
90
100.00
84.68
61.30
29.56
23.92
20.78
15.55
10.82
4.82
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
4.82 %
79.9 %
15.3 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
88.65
84.02
49.18
26.65
18.22
10.94
8.60
7.41
4.45
2.35
D-4
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
2.35 %
46.8 %
50.8 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

% Passing
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
100.00
98.25
92.02
70.82
61.43
55.79
33.03
5.98
4.86
1.56
D-4
SPT - 5
Depth m : 5.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.56 %
90.5 %
8.0 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
89.22
86.12
81.26
56.68
26.10
22.81
16.12
11.26
2.99
2.10
D-5
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
2.10 %
79.2 %
18.7 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
100.00
97.09
87.24
79.59
58.88
22.57
11.63
7.71
5.70
2.02
D-5
SPT - 5
Depth m : 5.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
2.02 %
85.2 %
12.8 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

% Passing
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
100.00
84.59
55.00
41.83
32.47
25.50
23.11
21.45
12.53
1.37
D-7
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.37 %
53.6 %
45.0 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
100.00
93.06
89.26
86.28
81.50
73.77
61.82
53.67
26.26
3.61
D-7
SPT - 2
Depth m : 2.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
3.61 %
85.7 %
10.7 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.49
98.88
96.68
85.29
69.41
57.71
34.12
4.29
D-7
SPT - 4
Depth m : 4.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
4.29 %
95.2 %
0.5 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
71.26
62.35
34.94
23.37
16.17
11.34
9.50
8.14
5.40
1.10
D-8
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.10 %
33.8 %
65.1 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
100.00
97.31
79.71
71.95
57.87
45.17
39.75
35.32
15.27
1.78
D-8
SPT - 4
Depth m : 4.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.78 %
77.9 %
20.3 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
90.39
80.38
49.47
38.79
25.35
14.45
11.47
9.39
5.68
1.01
D-9
SPT - 1
Depth m : 1.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
1.01 %
48.5 %
50.5 %
4.75
10
100
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
% Passing
100.00
95.80
88.12
54.77
42.03
28.45
19.31
15.86
13.26
6.40
0.78
D-9
SPT - 3
Depth m : 3.00
100
90
80
70
% Passing
Sieve
40.000
20.000
10.000
4.750
2.360
1.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.053
0.038
0.027
0.019
0.014
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
Borehole:
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002
0.075
0.01
0.1
Sieves, mm
CLAY
0.0 %
SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
0.78 %
54.0 %
45.2 %
4.75
10
100
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: D - 1
Sample No: SPT - 1
Depth (m): 1.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
Normal Stress 0.5 kg/cm Normal Stress 1.0 kg/cm Normal Stress 1.5 kg/cm
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
32.00
0.140
37.00
0.162
43.00
0.189
0.2
53.00
0.232
58.00
0.254
64.00
0.281
0.3
70.00
0.307
81.00
0.355
87.00
0.382
0.4
76.00
0.333
109.00
0.478
122.00
0.535
0.5
77.00
0.338
131.00
0.575
174.00
0.763
0.6
78.00
0.342
134.00
0.588
204.00
0.895
0.7
133.00
0.583
208.00
0.912
0.8
209.00
0.917
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SDT = Shear Displacement; PRDRg = Proving Ring Dial Reading; SST = Shear Stress
f = 31
2.50
Shear Stress, kg/sq.cm
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Normal Stress, kg/sq.cm
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: D - 2
Sample No: SPT - 2
Depth (m): 2.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
40.00
0.175
44.00
0.193
48.00
0.211
0.2
61.00
0.268
72.00
0.316
76.00
0.333
0.3
86.00
0.377
102.00
0.447
109.00
0.478
0.4
89.00
0.390
133.00
0.583
146.00
0.640
0.5
91.00
0.399
139.00
0.610
187.00
0.820
0.6
142.00
0.623
214.00
0.939
0.7
143.00
0.627
223.00
0.978
0.8
226.00
0.991
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 33
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: D - 3
Sample No: SPT - 3
Depth (m): 3.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
34.00
0.149
36.00
0.158
40.00
0.175
0.2
58.00
0.254
64.00
0.281
64.00
0.281
0.3
81.00
0.355
93.00
0.408
91.00
0.399
0.4
83.00
0.364
124.00
0.544
134.00
0.588
0.5
84.00
0.368
158.00
0.693
172.00
0.754
0.6
159.00
0.697
201.00
0.882
0.7
160.00
0.702
203.00
0.890
0.8
201.00
0.882
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 32
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: D - 4
Sample No: SPT - 3
Depth (m): 3.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
32.00
0.140
37.00
0.162
41.00
0.180
0.2
53.00
0.232
59.00
0.259
64.00
0.281
0.3
69.00
0.303
83.00
0.364
87.00
0.382
0.4
72.00
0.316
121.00
0.531
115.00
0.504
0.5
73.00
0.320
142.00
0.623
146.00
0.640
0.6
148.00
0.649
187.00
0.820
0.7
149.00
0.654
192.00
0.842
0.8
193.00
0.846
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 31
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: D - 5
Sample No: SPT - 3
Depth (m): 3.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
32.00
0.140
37.00
0.162
41.00
0.180
0.2
53.00
0.232
59.00
0.259
64.00
0.281
0.3
69.00
0.303
83.00
0.364
87.00
0.382
0.4
72.00
0.316
121.00
0.531
115.00
0.504
0.5
73.00
0.320
142.00
0.623
146.00
0.640
0.6
148.00
0.649
187.00
0.820
0.7
149.00
0.654
192.00
0.842
0.8
193.00
0.846
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 31
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 5
Sample No: SPT - 1
Depth (m): 1.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
31.00
0.136
38.00
0.167
41.00
0.180
0.2
49.00
0.215
62.00
0.272
67.00
0.294
0.3
67.00
0.294
91.00
0.399
92.00
0.404
0.4
72.00
0.316
116.00
0.509
134.00
0.588
0.5
73.00
0.320
134.00
0.588
168.00
0.737
0.6
74.00
0.325
132.00
0.579
194.00
0.851
0.7
130.00
0.570
196.00
0.860
0.8
197.00
0.864
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 30
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 5
Sample No: SPT - 5
Depth (m): 5.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
33.00
0.145
36.00
0.158
40.00
0.175
0.2
56.00
0.246
63.00
0.276
64.00
0.281
0.3
73.00
0.320
90.00
0.395
91.00
0.399
0.4
81.00
0.355
121.00
0.531
130.00
0.570
0.5
80.00
0.351
129.00
0.566
170.00
0.746
0.6
79.00
0.346
130.00
0.570
211.00
0.925
0.7
127.00
0.557
224.00
0.982
0.8
226.00
0.991
0.9
225.00
0.987
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 33
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 7
Sample No: SPT - 2
Depth (m): 2.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
38.00
0.167
46.00
0.202
69.00
0.303
0.2
60.00
0.263
73.00
0.320
102.00
0.447
0.3
83.00
0.364
98.00
0.430
133.00
0.583
0.4
96.00
0.421
121.00
0.531
162.00
0.711
0.5
94.00
0.412
142.00
0.623
196.00
0.860
0.6
140.00
0.614
207.00
0.908
0.7
204.00
0.895
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 32
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 8
Sample No: SPT - 1
Depth (m): 1.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
36.00
0.158
47.00
0.206
69.00
0.303
0.2
52.00
0.228
77.00
0.338
102.00
0.447
0.3
74.00
0.325
101.00
0.443
133.00
0.583
0.4
93.00
0.408
123.00
0.539
158.00
0.693
0.5
98.00
0.430
132.00
0.579
186.00
0.816
0.6
95.00
0.417
130.00
0.570
207.00
0.908
0.7
215.00
0.943
0.8
213.00
0.934
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 32
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 8
Sample No: SPT - 4
Depth (m): 4.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
40.00
0.175
48.00
0.211
69.00
0.303
0.2
62.00
0.272
74.00
0.325
104.00
0.456
0.3
83.00
0.364
102.00
0.447
135.00
0.592
0.4
102.00
0.447
122.00
0.535
167.00
0.732
0.5
108.00
0.474
138.00
0.605
192.00
0.842
0.6
105.00
0.461
142.00
0.623
210.00
0.921
0.7
140.00
0.614
207.00
0.908
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 33
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 8
Sample No: SPT - 7
Depth (m): 7.50
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
38.00
0.167
46.00
0.202
71.00
0.311
0.2
62.00
0.272
74.00
0.325
103.00
0.452
0.3
84.00
0.368
92.00
0.404
135.00
0.592
0.4
89.00
0.390
121.00
0.531
168.00
0.737
0.5
87.00
0.382
136.00
0.596
192.00
0.842
0.6
142.00
0.623
215.00
0.943
0.7
140.00
0.614
210.00
0.921
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 33
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 9
Sample No: SPT - 1
Depth (m): 1.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
37.00
0.162
45.00
0.197
68.00
0.298
0.2
52.00
0.228
70.00
0.307
103.00
0.452
0.3
74.00
0.325
101.00
0.443
136.00
0.596
0.4
93.00
0.408
128.00
0.561
162.00
0.711
0.5
90.00
0.395
142.00
0.623
193.00
0.846
0.6
148.00
0.649
190.00
0.833
0.7
145.00
0.636
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 31
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 9
Sample No: SPT - 3
Depth (m): 3.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
38.00
0.167
48.00
0.211
68.00
0.298
0.2
57.00
0.250
74.00
0.325
102.00
0.447
0.3
74.00
0.325
98.00
0.430
136.00
0.596
0.4
89.00
0.390
122.00
0.535
164.00
0.719
0.5
95.00
0.417
132.00
0.579
192.00
0.842
0.6
92.00
0.404
136.00
0.596
190.00
0.833
0.7
132.00
0.579
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 31
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Borehole No.: 9
Sample No: SPT - 7
Depth (m): 9.00
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
SDT
cm
PRDRg
SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
PRDRg SST kg/cm
0.1
40.00
0.175
48.00
0.211
69.00
0.303
0.2
62.00
0.272
76.00
0.333
103.00
0.452
0.3
84.00
0.368
102.00
0.447
134.00
0.588
0.4
101.00
0.443
124.00
0.544
166.00
0.728
0.5
98.00
0.430
137.00
0.601
196.00
0.860
0.6
135.00
0.592
207.00
0.908
0.7
204.00
0.895
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 32
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Point Load test Result

Drill Hole
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
m
Test
Direction
Wide
mm
height
mm
P
KN
De
De
Is
Mpa
IS (50)
MPa
DG - 1
12.0 - 13.0
Diameterical
41.1
62.2
0.0
3868.84
62.2
1.10
0.00
5.0 - 6.0
Diameterical
53.5
70.5
0.0
4970.25
70.5
1.17
0.00
7.0 - 8.0
Diameterical
53.5
66.2
0.0
4382.44
66.2
1.13
0.00
8.0 - 9.0
Diameterical
51.7
75.2
0.0
5655.04
75.2
1.20
0.00
9.0 - 10.0
Diameterical
53.3
89.5
1.0
8010.25
89.5
0.12484
1.30
0.16
14.0 - 15.0
Diameterical
41.5
57.6
2.0
3317.76
57.6
0.602816
1.07
0.64
DG - 4
6.0 - 7.0
Diameterical
52.3
92.5
5.0
8556.25
92.5
0.584368
1.32
0.77
DG - 5
8.0 - 9.0
Diameterical
41.6
56.9
1.0
3237.61
56.9
0.30887
1.06
0.33
4.5
Diameterical
53.4
35.6
0.0
1267.36
35.6
0.86
0.00
7.5
Diameterical
53.4
30.5
3.0
930.25
30.5
3.22494
0.80
2.58
7.50
Diameterical
54.4
47.7
1.5
2275.29
47.7
0.659257
0.98
0.65
10.00
Diameterical
54.4
68.4
3.0
4678.56
68.4
0.641223
1.15
0.74
4.5
Diameterical
54.4
63.5
1.0
4032.25
63.5
0.248
1.11
0.28
7.5
Diameterical
41.1
59.2
0.0
3504.64
59.2
1.08
0.00
DG - 2
DG - 3
DG - 7
DG - 8
DG - 9

Flip Nepal Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Flip Nepal Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

At SARANKOT, Kaski, Nepal

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Planning of works .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Field Test ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings ..................................................................................................... 15

Correlation between SPT and DCPT ............................................................................................................... 16

SPT correction ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity................................................... 18

Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement .............................................................. 19

Pile Foundation ......................................................................................................................................................... 20

Estimation of Bearing Capacity (Rock/Boulder) ........................................................................................ 21

Analysis of Foundations ........................................................................................................................................ 24

2.6 Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................................................ 34

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Location and Description of Area

The following scopes of works were covered under this study:

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Mid Baneshwor, Kathmandu

Regional Geology of the Project Area

Mudstone, sandstone and

FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Figure 1: Regional Geological Map

FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Slope nearby Entrance Area

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Slope nearby Hotel Block B

Slope nearby Sherpa Block

Slope nearby Naudanda-Sarangkot road

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Mid Baneshwor, Kathmandu

FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOIL/ROCK EXPOSURE

Plate 1: Bedrock Phyllite

Plate 2: Drilling location at Plate 3: Way to Hotel area

exposed at entrance area

Dormitory area, gentle hill

Plate 4: Gentle slope with

Plate 5: Bedrocks just below

the Hotel Block B

Plate 6: Gentle slope area

Plate 7: Hotel Block B and A Plate 8: Hotel Block A area Plate 9:

Sherpa block area requires

Plate 10: Back side of the

FLIP NEPAL/KASKI/ September - 2014

proposed hotel area

Soil Investigation of Proposed BUILDING Foundations

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

2.2 Planning of works

2.3 Geo-technical Exploration