Soil Investigation

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/311575954
Soil Investigation Report of Belnadi River Foundation
Technical Report · December 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22590.69445
CITATIONS READS
0 200
1 author:
Diwakar Khadka
AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków
9 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research Paper View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Diwakar Khadka on 12 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

NOV,
2016
SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

OF
BELNADI RIVER BRIDGE FOUNDATION
AT
PARSHURAMPUR -1, KAPILBASTU
CLIENT
DEPARTMETN OF ROADS
BRIDGE BRANCH
CHAKUPAT, LALITPUR
CONSULTANT
Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV
Prepared and Submitted By:
SOIL TECH CONSULTANT (P.) LTD. SOIL TECH

New Baneshwor, Kathmandu
Telephone: 977-1- 4784033, 9841122891, 9741030484 CONSULTANT
E-mail: soiltechconsultant@gmail.com
Soil Investigation Report of Belnadi River Bridge Foundation SOIL TECH
At PARSURAMPUR-1,KAPILVASTU, NEPAL CONSULTANT
Table of Contents
1. Soil Investigation of the Proposed Area .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Collection and review of available data’s ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Planning of works ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Geo-technical Exploration ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Boring ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Field Test ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters ............ 4
2.3.1 Index Tests ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Mechanical Tests ......................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings ..................................................................... 4
4. Generalize Model (Borehole-Log) for analysis ....................................................................... 5
5. Seismicity ....................................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Identification of liquefaction area ....................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Analysis of liquefaction ............................................................................................................................ 8
5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.5 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................... 11
6. Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure ................................................................................. 12
6.1 SPT correction ............................................................................................................................................ 12
6.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity .................................... 13
6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement ............................................... 15
6.4 Pile Foundation .......................................................................................................................................... 16
6.5 Analysis of Foundations ......................................................................................................................... 17
7. Conclusion and Recommendation .......................................................................................... 26
Recommendation .................................................................................................................................................... 26
8. References and Standards ........................................................................................................ 29
ANNEXES
Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016 Page I

GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. Soil Investigation of the Proposed Area
1.1 Introduction
This Soil investigation report is prepared based on the site exploration and laboratory test results carried out
by SOIL TECH CONSULTANT PVT. LTD, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu for the design of bridge
foundation at Belnadi River, Parsurampur-1, Kapilvastu. 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 between last week of September to third week of October,
2016. The total quantity of soil investigation included three boreholes, each of 20 m depths as per
agreement. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was conducted at 1.5m depth interval to furnish the
compactness of the soil strata at field from the elevation after excavation of natural ground level.
The scope of work of present contract includes the following:
 Exploration of the subsurface 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.
o Engineering analyses and
o Preparation of this report includes:
 Drill logs
 Results of in situ and laboratory test
 Assessment of liquefaction Susceptibility
 Assessment of bearing capacity
 Analysis of ground improvement techniques
 Recommendations of foundation type and depth
1.2 Collection and review of available data’s
Site conditions, topographical and geological characteristic of the project area was grasped sufficiently
through collecting and reviewing previously conducted soil investigation reports of nearby corridors,
topographical map and geological map. Information stored in the form of maps, tables and published papers
are collected from various sources. However, none of these institutions has a database to store and manage
this valuable information, and a comprehensive computerized soil information system is not established.
Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 1

A Seismic hazard map of Nepal was prepared by Department of Mines and Geology on 2002, using
probabilistic level of ground shaking considering five hundred years return period.
On the basis of these past data’s, a general criterion was developed for rating the soil condition along
proposed foundation area. However, those studies did not focus on the site-specific structure. Further, the
calculation did not consider major geotechnical parameters like liquefaction possibility, earthquake
magnitude and acceleration, which are very important aspect for foundation analysis.
In general as per previous nearby areas experiences, the proposed structure seems to lies on liquefiable zone
followed by soft clayey layer.
1.3 Planning of works
Work schedule, location of these boreholes and other project specific issues were identified on mutual
understanding between consultant, contractor and other relevant authorities during a desk study, which was
carried out immediately after finalization of agreement in-between. Immediately after initial site visit,
drilling team finalized and revised methodology depending upon the changes on environment, geological
and local conditions.
Table 1 Proposed Laboratory investigation of Soil
SPT samples U/D samples

(as per change in strata) (at least 1 in each hole if cohesive strata)
Natural Moisture test Natural Moisture test
Specific Gravity test Specific Gravity test
Liquid limit / Plastic Limit test Liquid limit / Plastic Limit test
Grain Size Distribution test Grain Size Distribution test
Unit weight Unit weight/ Bulk density
Direct shear test Uni-axial compression test
Consolidation test
2. 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. Standard Penetration Tests and Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests 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 area lies on fine sandy strata followed by dense coarse sandy strata with in proposed drilling
depth, Drilling team have been mobilized with percussion drilling rig. Safety mechanisms were developed
for technical team and workers.

2.1 Boring
Boring investigation was performed in the subsoil to abstract information of soil strata, thickness and depth
of layers etc. The subsoil distribution, fractured zone and soft ground shall be grasped for the foundation
design of structures depending on boring test results. In addition, in-situ tests, sounding, and underground
water level measurement shall be performed using bore-holes.
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.
Groundwater was monitored on drilled hole 24 hours after completion of drilling works.
Sampling
Before any disturbed samples were taken, the boreholes were washed clean to flush any loose disturbed soil
particles deposited during the boring operation. The samples obtained in the split spoon barrel of SPT tube
during SPT tests were preserved as representative disturbed samples. The disturbed samples recovered were
placed in air-tight double 0.5 mm thick transparent plastic bags, labeled properly for identification and
finally sealed to avoid any loss of moisture. Only then, the samples were transportation to the laboratory for
further investigation.
The samples were obtained as per IS 8763: 1978 Guide for undisturbed sampling of sands and
sandy soils 1978 Soil and foundation engineering.
2.2 Field Test
The field test conducted at the site consisted of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test (DCPT). Sounding test such as SPT/DCPT are methods for measuring soil characteristics
of relative density and strength simply and quickly by penetrating, rotating resistance into the ground and
pulling out it onto the ground.
Penetration tests were executed through all strata. Sounding test data were used to estimate soil strength
parameter, subsoil distribution and possible existence of soft layer.
SPT Test
A standard split barrel sampler was used in the test. The SPT tests were conducted in all the boreholes of
the site at a depth interval of every 1.5m, as per soil condition. The driving of split-spoon was recorded at
first 150 mm and then after at every 150 mm of penetration till the total penetration was 450 mm. The
number of blows recorded for the first 150 mm of penetration is disregarded. The number of blows
recorded for the last three 100 mm intervals are added and expressed as SPT N-value. The records of the
SPT values obtained are presented in borehole logs in the Appendix.

The recorded SPT values are without any correction of overburden pressure and water table. The test was
conducted without using liner. The maximum rod length used was 20 m.
From the exploration record of borehole on the proposed site the soil profile of the terrain is as follows:
After thin layer of top residual filling soil, a band of loose to medium dense fine silty sand followed by
stiff to very stiff medium plastic silty clayey soil lies to a full depth of exploration.
2.3 Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters
Undisturbed samples and disturbed samples, rock samples to get the physical characteristics and
mechanical properties in order to identify the laboratory soil tests and rock testing was performed. Uniform
Classification and engineering properties of soil to determine the availability of construction materials and
parameter estimation of rock strength and rock mass classification were utilized.
2.3.1 Index Tests
All the requisite laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with IS standard specifications. Standard
laboratory test was carried out to characterize the soil strata. The laboratory testing is included the
following tests: Moisture Content, Grain Size Analysis, Bulk Density, Specific Gravity, Atterberg Limits.
At least two sets of samples or each sample from each layer were selected as a representative samples and
tested as per standards.
2.3.2 Mechanical Tests
Generally, at least two sets of soil samples were selected assuming at least two in situ layers and conducted
laboratory tests from each borehole in order to discern the shear related strengths and stress-strain responses
of soils. All of the laboratory tests were numbered sequentially. The test number and the prefix were used
as test and specimen identifiers.
 Consolidation Test
 Unconfined Compression Test
 Direct Shear Test
3. Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings
Borehole
Generalize depth, m Generalize soil Characteristic
Identity
0.00 - 4.5 Light brownish to greyish medium dense fine silty sand
BH#1
4.5 - 20.0 Greyish to yellowish medium plastic very stiff to hard silty clay
BH#2 0– 1.5 Greyish to yellowish loose to medium dense fine silty sand

Borehole
Generalize depth, m Generalize soil Characteristic
Identity
1.5 - 4.5 Greyish stiff medium plastic silty clay
4.5 -20.0 Greyish medium dense to dense fine silty sand
0 – 7.2 Greyish to yellow loose to medium dense fine silty sand
BH#3 7.2 - 15.2 Greyish to yellow stiff to very stiff medium plastic silty clay
15.2 -10.0 Greyish medium dense fine silty sand
4. Generalize Model (Borehole-Log) for analysis
Geo-technical model is quite complex in this soil condition. After intensive study of soil parameters
following geotechnical model was analyzed on the soil condition.
Ø- c-
Generalize
Generalize soil Characteristic N-design design, design,
depth, m
° KN/m2
0.0 - 4.5 Loose to medium dense fine silty sand 11 26 0

Stiff to very stiff medium plastic silty
4.5 – 15.0 clay
21 20 20
15.0 – 20.0 Medium dense fine silty sand 24 28 0

15.0
Medium dense fine to coarse sand. 25, 26, 27,… (Nth +1).… 32 0
onwards
5. Seismicity
Many earth scientists believe that longitudinally the entire 2,400 km long Himalayan arc can be segmented
into different individual parts (200-300 km) which periodically break and move separately and produce
mega earthquake (catastrophic earthquake) in the Himalayan region. From east to west, the great
earthquake of Gorkha, Nepal (2015), Assam, India (1950), Shilong, India (1897), Nepal-Bihar, India (1934)
and Kangra, India (1905) are the mega-earthquakes of the last century produced by the movements in
different parts of the Himalayan arc, all with magnitude around 8.0 - 8.7. When a sector of the Himalaya
moves and produces earthquakes, it will take some time (from decades to century) to repeat the event at the
same place. Nepal is prone to an earthquake of minor or major magnitude. Records of earthquakes since
1253 indicate that Nepal was hit by 17 major earthquakes - the 1833 (magnitude 7.9) and 1934(magnitude
8.3) are two of these which have occurred at an interval of 100 years. Statically, the earthquake occurrence
data of the last century shows that in average Nepal was hit by a big earthquake in every 12 years
(Nakarmi, 1997).

Figure 1: Epicenter of the earthquake in Nepal Himalaya
Figure. 2: Historical events of Earthquakes (Source: Microseismic epicenter map of Nepal Himalaya
and adjoining region, 1997 published by DoMG, GON).
Figure 3: Seismic zoning map (Source: UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat, 1994).

Now-a-days, earth scientists are most concerned about the lack of occurrence of any great earthquake
between Kathmandu in the east and Dehra Dun, India in the west during the past many centuries, and have
named it the CENTRAL GAP. It is most likely that this segment of the Himalaya is due for a major break
to trigger a mega-earthquake in the Himalaya. It is even suspected that it may be the greatest earthquake
that we have so far experienced in the Himalaya in the past few centuries. The area closer to the epicenter
will suffer the maximum damage.
Figure 4: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Map of the Nepal Himalaya
To counteract earthquake effect due consideration has to be taken in the structural design of buildings. The
project area is located in the area having Seismic Zoning Factor, Z, equal to 1 according to the Seismic
Hazard Map of Nepal prepared by National Seismological center, Departments of mines and geology.
5.1 Liquefaction
Saturated loose to medium dense cohesionless soils and low plastic silts tend to densify and consolidate
when subjected to cyclic shear deformations inherent with large seismic ground motions. Pore-water
pressures within such layers increase as the soils are cyclically loaded, resulting in a decrease in vertical
effective stress and shear strength. If the shear strength drops below the applied cyclic shear loadings, the
layer is expected to transition to a semi fluid state until the excess pore-water pressure dissipates.
As proposed project corridor lies on moderate susceptible zone, detail analysis was performed based on
“Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis-January 2010”.

5.2 Identification of liquefaction area
Based on Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal prepared by National Seismological center, Departments of mines
and geology, Nepal, some parts of western terai is slightly liquefiable zone, which may experience
maximum ground acceleration of 200 gal to 250 gal.
5.3 Analysis of liquefaction
Liquefaction potential analysis for the project sites was carried out based on the soil data obtained from the
soil investigation.
The “Simplified Method” described by Youd et al. (2001) as well as refinements suggested by Cetin et al.
(2004) was used to estimate liquefaction potential as contained herein. The simplified method compares the
resistance of a soil layer against liquefaction (Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR) to the seismic demand on a
soil layer (Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR) to estimate the FS of a given soil layer against triggering liquefaction.
The FS for each soil sample should be computed to allow thin, isolated layers to be discounted and the
specific locations and extent of those determined liquefiable to be indicated in the SGR and accounted for
in design. An Excel spreadsheet that performs these calculations has been prepared to assist a liquefaction
analysis.
Where:
CRR = CRR7.5 Kσ Kα MSF
CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquake
Kσ = Overburden correction factor
f = soil relative density factor
=0.831- and 0.6 ≤ f ≤ 0.8
Kα = sloping ground correction factor
= 1.0 for generally level ground surfaces or slopes flatters than 6 degrees.
MSF = magnitude scaling factor

= 87.2(Mw)-2.215
Mw = earthquake moment magnitude.
AS = peak horizontal acceleration coefficient at the ground surface
= Fpga PGA
Fpga = site amplification factor for zero-period spectral acceleration (LRFD Article 3.10.3.2)
PGA = peak seismic ground acceleration on rock.
σvo= total vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)
σvo’ = effective vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)
rd = soil shear mass participation factor
The maximum ground acceleration for project area was taken as 0.25g, for earthquake zone V according to
the Indian Earthquake Standard and GEO-TECHNICAL and Geological judgment and based on PHGA
map prepared by department of mine and geology, Nepal.
During exploration time seepage water table was encountered around 1.5 m depth from natural ground,
which comes significantly up during monsoon (up to the natural ground level).
Long term ground water table monitoring system should be needed for scrupulous analysis of
liquefaction.
Assumptions
After recent schooling of various research papers from various country and various soil condition, In
general, Soil is not liquefy, if soil layer fulfill the following criteria;
 Clayey layer with fines greater than 35% with Liquid Limit greater than 35, having plasticity Index
greater than 12 and moisture content lower than 85% of Liquid limit.
Soil having natural moisture nearly equal to liquid limit may experience behavior similar to
liquefaction so proper mechanism should be design to encounter the situation.

PROBABLE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Project:Soil Investigation of Belnadi River Bridge Hole No.: 1#2#3

Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Station (Km+m)
Location:Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Earthquake Moment Magnitude = 8.4 Ground Water GL, m : 1.5
Identification: Model Strata Source to Site Distance, R (km) = 10 Depth of exploration, m: 20.0
PGA = 0.45 g Designed Ground Water GL, m : 1.0
Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 4.1 Drilling Method : ROTARY
Thickness of embankement, m = 0.00 Scour Depth, m: 4.1
CRR
N - Value, Bulk D50 from Plasticity Liquid Moisture Resist. CRR Stress
Depth, Field Density, Seive % clay Index, PI Limit Content w, ɣh, ɣ'h, MAG 7.5, for M - Reduction EQ induced
3 2 2
m Soil Type SPT/DCPT t/m analysis Ncorrected % fines content % LL, % % t/m t/m (N1)'60 CRR7.5 8.4 Factor, rd CSR FoS Remarks
0 Silty Sand 11 1.791 0.256 13 >0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 13 0.141

1.5 Silty Sand 12 1.891 0.256 14 <5 - - - - 2.5 1.0 21 0.228 0.268 0.989 0.854 0.31 Low liq.
3 Silty Sand 11 1.878 0.252 13 <5 - - - - 5.0 2.1 20 0.215 0.2529 0.977 0.832 0.30 Low liq.
4.5 Silty Clay 15 1.905 0.264 18 >36 - - - - 7.5 3.1 26 0.313 0.3603 0.966 0.817 0.44 Low liq.
6 Silty Clay 17 1.872 0.252 20 >36 - - - - 10.1 4.2 29 0.410 0.4352 0.954 0.804 0.54 Low liq.
7.5 Silty Clay 21 1.846 0.137 25 >36 - - - - 12.6 5.3 35 No Liq. No Liq. 0.943 0.792 No. Liq. Low liq.
9 Silty Clay 21 1.846 0.121 23 >36 - - - - 15.2 6.4 32 0.732 0.6778 0.931 0.781 0.87 Low liq.
10.5 Silty Clay 26 1.838 0.123 28 >36 - - - - 17.7 7.4 38 No Liq. No Liq. 0.894 0.748 No. Liq. Low liq.
12 Silty Clay 28 1.840 0.133 30 >36 - - - - 20.3 8.5 41 No Liq. No Liq. 0.854 0.714 No. Liq. Low liq.
13.5 Silty Clay 27 1.874 0.140 28 <5 - - - - 22.8 9.6 38 No Liq. No Liq. 0.814 0.680 No. Liq. Low liq.
15 Silty Clay 26 1.854 0.152 26 <5 - - - - 25.4 10.7 36 No Liq. No Liq. 0.774 0.646 No. Liq. Low liq.
Susceptible Depth of Liquefaction, m = 0.0

5.4 Conclusion
o Project site is susceptible towards low liquefaction, based on MAP prepared by Department of
Mines and Geology, Peak Bed Rock Acceleration for Kapilvastu area Valley is around 350-
450gal.
o Based on LRFD Article 3.10.3.2, for proposed area soil Fpga (site amplification factor for zero-
period spectral acceleration) is around 1.2.
o Soil is susceptible to low liquefaction.
5.5 Recommendation
o Considering slight possibility of liquefaction, Bridge foundation should place significant depth
below general ground level, it is strongly recommend to installed foundation with pile/well,
whose end base (Toe) must rest at or around 15 m below existing minimum bed level.

6. 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.
6.1 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
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
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
Cn=0.77log (2000/p0)
Where p0 is effective overburden pressure in kN/m2.
Correction for silts and fine sands below water table
The correction for values of N greater than 15 in fine sands below water level is as follows;
N=15 + 0.5 (Nc-15)
This correction is due to the fact that higher values are liable to be recorded due to pore pressure.
After, correcting with energy correction to 55%, it is very conventional to modify with
dilatancy. All analysis was performed without dilatancy correction.
6.2 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 sand at upper depth and low plastic cohesive silt at intermediate depth, 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 ultimate bearing pressure.
Qu = c Nc sc dc ic+q (Nq-1) sq dq iq+1/2*B ſ Nſ sſ dſ iſ w’
Where: Qa = ultimate bearing pressure, t/m2
C = cohesion in t/m2
Nc, Nq, Nſ = Bearing capacity factors
sc, sq, sſ = Shape factors
dc, dq, dſ = Depths factors
ic, iq, iſ = Inclination factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m2
B = Width of footing in m
ɣ= Bulk unit weight of soil sample in t/m3
w’ = Correction factor for location of water table
The values of Nc, Nq, and Nſ may be obtained from Table 5.

Table 1. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
Angle of friction, Ø
Nc Nq Nſ
(degree)
0 5.14 1 0
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.4 5.39
25 20.72 10.66 10.88
30 30.14 18.4 22.4
35 46.12 33.3 48.03
40 75.31 64.2 109.41
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
50 266.89 319.07 762.89
The values of sc, sq, and sſ may be obtained from Table 6.
Table 2. SHAPE FACTORS
SHAPE OF Sc Sq Sſ
Square 1.3 1.3 1.3
FOOTING
The depth factors shall be as
dc,= 1+0.2 Df/B√NØ
dq,= dſ = 1 for Ø<10̊
dq,= dſ = 1+0.1 Df/B√NØ for Ø>10̊
The inclination factor shall be as under
ic = iq = (1-α/90)2
iſ = (1-α/Ø)2
W’ (effect of water table)
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth Df<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of
W’ be obtained by linear interpolation.
For different layer of stratified soil, methods generally used for determination of the pressures
induced by loads at different depths are based on the mathematical model due to bossinesq with
assumed isotropic, homogeneity and elastic conditions. The computation of vertical normal stress
due to uniformly loaded rectangular loading may be obtained from:

σz/q=1/4П*[{2*L*B*Z*L2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2*(L2+B2+z2)+(LB)2)] * [{(L2+B2+2z2)/ (L2+B2+z2)} ] * [

Tan-1*{2*L*B*Z*L2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2*(L2+B2+z2)-(LB)2)]
Where: L = Length of footing in m
Z = Depth where load transformed in m
q = Effective load in t/m2
σz = Effective stress at depth z due to load q in t/m2
6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement
If the clay layer is encountered, the settlement was calculated by:
Sf=Ht/ (1+e0)*Cc log10 ((p0+Δp)/p0)
Where: Sf = Consolidation or settlement in m
Ht = Thickness of soil layer in m
e0 = Initial void ratio
P0 = Effective stress at mid height of layer in t/m2
Δp = Pressure increment t/m2
In case of lack of high accuracy on field and lab works, SPT/CPT 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 Δq Σ0z (Iz/Es)Δz
Where
Se = net allowable settlement
C1 = a correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment
= 1-0.5 (q/Δq)
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)
Δq = difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure.
Δz = Thickness of soil layer
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) Soil type
Based on D50 2.5-3.5 qc Clayey to sandy soil
6.4 Pile Foundation
1  n
A p  Dr N r  PD N q    KPDi tan  . Asi
Qu1 = 2  i l
Ap CNc  c. Asi

Qu2 =
Qu = Qu1 + Qu2
Where,
Ap = Cross sectional area of pile toe
D = Pile Stem diameter
ɣ = effective unit weight of soil at pile toe
PD = effective over burden pressure at pile toe
Nɣ & Nq = bearing capacity factor depending upon the angle of internal friction at toe.

i l = summation of n layers in which pile is installed.
Ø = angle of internal friction
 1  sin  
K = coefficient of earth pressure   
 1  sin  
Pdi = effective over burden pressure for the i th layer where i varies from 1 to n.
δ = angle of wall friction between the pile
Asi = surface area of pile stem in the i th layer
c = Cohesion of Soil NC = Skemption factor
α = Adhesion Factor
For working out a safe load carrying capacity of the pile, a factor of safety of 2.5 is adopted.

BASED ON MEYERHOF’S
Qutip =120 N Ab, KN
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
Qushaft=α (2.8 N60 + 10) Asi, KN
Where, α = 0.5 to 0.6 for sandy and 1 for clayey
Soil Type Kb
Sand 165
Sandy Silt 120
Clayey Silt 100
Clay 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
6.5 Analysis of Foundations
6.5.1 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 30 m depth of exploration is same as assumed at 30 m depth.
 In between two tested samples, properties of soil in middle sections were interpolated as
relevancy of data. And 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.

6.5.2 Input Data
DESIGN INPUT DATA

Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Station (Km+m)
Location:Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Ground Water GL, m : 1.5
Identification: Model Strata Depth of exploration, m: 20.0
Clayey layer exist ; from 0.0 m to 0.0 m 4.5 m to 15.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m Designed Ground Water GL, m : 1.00
Hammer energy Correction, Er: 67 % Scour Depth, m: 4.10 4.1
Drilling Method : ROTARY r Soil Condition : = Drain Void Ratio (e) = 0.994765 Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 4.1
Drainage Condition
Is
there Part of N value
Silt soil, Design Bulk D50 from Liquid after Field Field Lab Lab Design Design
Depth, or Sandy or (Equivalent) Density, Seive Limit, Dilatancy Based Based C, Based Based c, PHI Design Cohesion, c, Cc,
m not* Clayey SPT N-Value t/m3 analysis LL (%) Correction Ncoorected Ф, ° t/m2 Ф, ° t/m2 Ф, ° Ф, ° T/m2 KN/m2 KN/m3 **
0 y Silty Sand 11 1.79 0.256 0 10 13 26 - 25 (1) 26 26 - 1.0 - D E
1.5 y Silty Sand 12 1.89 0.26 - 11 14 27 8.8 26 - 26 26 8.8 - - D E
3 y Silty Sand 11 1.88 0.25 - 11 13 27 8.1 26 - 26 26 8.1 - - D E
4.5 y Silty Clay 15 1.91 0.26 - 15 18 29 11.3 20 - 24 24 11.3 20.0 0.03 D E
6 y Silty Clay 17 1.87 0.25 - 16 20 30 12.5 20 - 25 25 12.5 20.0 0.03 D E
7.5 y Silty Clay 21 1.85 0.14 - 21 25 32 15.6 20 - 26 26 15.6 20.0 0.03 D E
9 y Silty Clay 21 1.85 0.12 - 21 23 31 14.4 20 - 25 25 14.4 20.0 0.03 D E
10.5 y Silty Clay 26 1.84 0.12 - 25 28 33 17.5 20 - 26 26 17.5 20.0 0.03 D E
12 y Silty Clay 28 1.84 0.13 - 28 30 33 18.8 20 - 26 26 18.8 20.0 0.03 D E
13.5 y Silty Clay 27 1.87 0.14 - 27 28 33 17.5 20 - 26 26 17.5 20.0 0.03 D E
15 y Silty Clay 26 1.85 0.15 - 26 26 32 16.3 20 - 26 26 16.3 25.0 0.03 D E
16.5 y Silty Sand 25 1.94 0.24 - 19 18 29 11.3 28 - 28 28 11.3 - - D E
18 y Silty Sand 27 1.94 0.25 - 21 19 30 11.9 28 - 29 29 11.9 - - D E
19.5 y Silty Sand 24 1.93 0.26 - 19 17 29 10.6 28 - 28 28 10.6 - - D E
* n = NO * y = YES ** E = Estimated ** A = Assumed D Drain U Undrain u

6.5.3 Sample Calculation
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW (OPEN) FOUNDATION

Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Station (Km+m) 0
Identification: Model Strata Designed Ground Water GL, m : 1
Depth Effective
Width Length of Depth unit Surcharge
of of Area of water of Angle of Cohesion weight of at base of
footing footing footing table Footing friction of soil ©, soil (‫)ץ‬, footing
(B), m (L), m (A), m2 (Dw), m (Df), m (Φ), ° kg/cm2 kg/m3 NΦ" (q), kg/cm2 Nc Nq Ny
1.0 25 0.08 0.002 88.0 0.08 20.72 10.66 6.76

1.5 25 0.10 0.002 88.0 0.14 20.72 10.66 6.76
2.0 25 0.11 0.002 88.0 0.18 20.72 10.66 6.76
2.5 25 0.13 0.002 88.0 0.23 20.72 10.66 6.76
3.0 25 0.15 0.002 88.0 0.27 20.72 10.66 6.76
7.0 7.0 49 1.0 4.0 25 0.18 0.002 88.0 0.35 20.72 10.66 6.76
5.0 25 0.20 0.002 88.0 0.43 20.72 10.66 6.76
6.0 26 0.22 0.002 72.3 0.51 21.96 11.80 7.90
7.0 26 0.22 0.002 72.3 0.60 21.96 11.80 7.90
8.0 26 0.22 0.002 72.3 0.72 21.96 11.80 7.90
9.0 26 0.23 0.002 72.3 0.79 21.96 11.80 7.90
Net
Ultimate Allowable Allowable
Water Bearing Bearing Bearing
Depth
table Capacity Factor of
Capacity Capacity
Shape Factor Depth factor Inclination factor correction of Soil of Footing of Soil of Soil
Sq Sc S‫ץ‬ dq dc d‫ץ‬ iq ic w' (qc), t/m2 Safety (Df), m (qna), t/m2 (qga), t/m2
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.04 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 49.63 3.0 1.0 15.95 17.74
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.07 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 66.56 3.0 1.5 21.24 24.08
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.09 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 80.90 3.0 2.0 25.71 29.47
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.11 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 97.55 3.0 2.5 30.93 35.69
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.13 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 112.24 3.0 3.0 35.54 41.16
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.18 1.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 143.60 3.0 4.0 45.41 52.79
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.22 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 173.69 3.0 5.0 54.82 64.05
1.44 1.54 0.60 1.26 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 221.74 3.0 6.0 70.24 81.27
1.44 1.54 0.60 1.31 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 249.11 3.0 7.0 78.75 91.62
1.44 1.54 0.60 1.26 1.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 264.62 3.0 8.0 83.21 98.20
1.44 1.54 0.60 1.28 1.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 288.20 3.0 9.0 90.51 107.19

Settlement Analysis of Open (SHALLOW) Foundation

Semi Empirical Method by Schmertmann and Hartmann
Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Station (Km+m) 0
Identification: Model Strata Depth of exploration, m: 20
Depth of Foundation D = 7.00 m Designed Ground Water GL, m1 :
Width of Foundation B = 7.00 m Scour Depth, m: 4.1
Length of Foundation L = 7.00 m Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m
4.1=
2
Allowable Bearing Capacity (Shear) of soil for designated foundation; 78.7 t/m 2
2
Assumed Safe Bearing Capacity of foundation (Shear or Settlement), 45.0 t/m
In case of 7 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 7 m below the NGL effective depth =21 m
Z to the
Depth, Bulk Density Ratio of qc, Es , center of Iz at center
m Soil Layer, m (gamma) t/m3 N- Corrected qc/N KN/m2 KN/m2 layer, m of layer Iz/Es * ΔZ Settlement, Ss
7 7.0 to8.5 1.87 20 4.95 9900 24750 0.75 0.000 ####### 0.0000
8.5 8.5 to8.5 1.85 25 4 10000 25000 1.50 0.000 ####### 0.0000
10 8.5 to10.0 1.85 23 4 9200 23000 2.25 0.000 ####### 0.0000
11.5 10.0 to11.5 1.84 28 4 11200 28000 3.75 0.000 ####### 0.0000
13 11.5 to13.0 1.84 30 4 12000 30000 5.25 0.000 ####### 0.0000
14.5 13.0 to14.5 1.87 28 4 11200 28000 6.75 0.000 ####### 0.0000
16 14.5 to16.0 1.85 26 4 10400 26000 8.25 0.000 ####### 0.0000
17.5 16.0 to17.5 1.94 18 4.95 8910 22275 9.75 0.202 ####### 6.2607
19 17.5 to19.0 1.94 19 4.95 9405 23513 11.25 0.131 ####### 3.8378
20.5 19.0 to20.5 1.93 17 4.95 8415 21038 12.75 0.060 ####### 1.9497
22 20.5 to22.0 1.93 10 4.95 4950 12375 14.25 -0.012 ####### 0.0000
23.5 22.0 to23.5 1.93 11 4.95 5445 13613 15.75 -0.083 ####### 0.0000
25 23.5 to25.0 1.93 12 4.95 5940 14850 17.25 -0.155 ####### 0.0000
26.5 25.0 to26.5 1.93 13 4.95 6435 16088 18.75 -0.226 ####### 0.0000
28 26.5 to28.0 1.93 14 4.95 6930 17325 20.25 -0.298 ####### 0.0000
29.5 28.0 to29.5 1.93 15 4.95 7425 18563 21.75 -0.369 ####### 0.0000
31 29.5 to31.0 1.70 16 2.7 4320 10800 23.25 -0.440 ####### 0.0000
Effective Bulk Density = 1.87 Settlement in Sandy layer = 12.0 mm
Depth correction factor C1= 0.90 0.90 Creep Factor C2= 1.6 Assuming 100 yrs for settlement
Now Settlement prediction on cohesionless soil with designed load; 12.0 mm
Semi Empirical Method Based on Clayey layer

In case of 7 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 7 m below the NGL effective depth for clayey soil =21 m
Design Void
Depth, Compression Compression Ratio, Settlement,
m Soil Layer, m Index, cc Index, cc e0 sigma/z ∆P P0 H Sc Predicted Settlement, Sc
7 7.0 to 8.5 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.999 45.0 13.1 1.50 0.014583 0.0145834
8.5 8.5 to 8.5 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.913 41.1 15.8 1.50 0.012546 0.0125461
10 8.5 to 10.0 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.753 33.9 18.5 1.50 0.010185 0.0101846
11.5 10.0 to 11.5 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.592 26.6 21.3 1.50 0.007950 0.0079500
13 11.5 to 13.0 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.423 19.0 24.0 1.50 0.005717 0.0057170
14.5 13.0 to 14.5 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.314 14.1 26.9 1.50 0.004137 0.0041370
16 14.5 to 16.0 0.03 0.03 0.995 0.249 11.2 29.6 1.50 0.003137 0.0031366
17.5 16.0 to 17.5 0.00 0.00 0.995 0.194 8.7 32.6 1.50 0.000000 0.0000000
19 17.5 to 19.0 0.00 0.00 0.995 0.163 7.3 35.6 1.50 0.000000 0.0000000
20.5 19.0 to 20.5 0.00 0.00 0.995 0.133 6.0 38.5 1.50 0.000000 0.0000000
22 20.5 to 22.0 0.00 0.00 0.995 0.101 4.6 41.4 1.50 0.000000 0.0000000
Settlement in clayey layer= 58.3 mm
Limiting Settlement as per Code; 75.00 mm 1
Predicted Total Settlement with designated load; 70.3 mm

CAPACITY OF CAST IN-SITU BORED PILE

Project:Soil Investigation of Belnadi River Bridge Hole No. = 1#2#3
Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Excavation Depth, m = 4.1 Station (Km+m) = 0+000
Location:Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 4.1 Ground Water GL, m = 1.5
Identification: Model Strata Drill with Bentonite Slurry 7200 Depth of exploration, m = 20.0
Length of Pile (L), m = 15.0 Base of the pile lies on = 19.1 Designed Ground Water GL, m =1.0
Diameter of Pile (D), mm = 800 Probable Liquefaction depth, m = 0.0 Scour Depth, m = 4.1
2
Area of Pile X-Section, m = 0.503 End Bearing Resistance, qt, Tons = 45.2 Shaft Bearing Resistance, qs, Tons = 19.7
Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile (Q), Tons = 64.9
Load Capacity of Pile @ liquefaction (Qliq), Tons = 108.2 Indian Standard Meyerhof Decourt Method
Effective
End Bearing Skin Bearing End Bearing Skin Bearing End Bearing Shaft Bearing End Bearing Shaft Bearing Shaft Bearing
Effective Design Design c, Surcharge Surface area End Bearing
Depth, m N-value Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance (Qus), Resistance qs,
Thickness, m Ф, ° KN/m2 Pressure, (Asi), m2 Resistance qt, t/m2
(Qupc), Tonnes (Qusc), Tonnes Qups, Tonnes (Quss), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes (Qup), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes Tonnes t/m2
t/m2
0 - 25 1.0 0.000 - 12 - - - - - - - - - -
1.5 - 25 - 0.608 - 9 - - 2.2 - 16.6 - 15.9 - 33.0 -
3 - 26 - 1.395 - 14 - - 4.4 - 21.1 - 20.2 - 42.0 -
4.5 1.5 23 20.0 2.513 3.8 14 2.8 1.2 6.7 0.8 22.6 1.3 18.8 4.9 45.0 0.4
6 1.5 24 20.0 3.649 3.8 17 2.8 0.9 9.0 1.3 27.1 1.6 22.6 5.7 54.0 0.4
7.5 1.5 25 20.0 4.793 3.8 19 2.8 0.9 11.2 1.7 28.7 1.8 23.9 6.0 57.0 0.5
9 1.5 25 20.0 5.940 3.8 20 2.8 0.9 13.6 1.8 28.7 1.9 23.9 6.0 57.0 0.5
10.5 1.5 24 20.0 7.090 3.8 18 2.8 0.9 18.3 2.1 28.7 1.7 23.9 6.0 57.0 0.5
12 1.5 25 20.0 8.241 3.8 21 2.8 0.9 18.3 2.5 30.2 2.0 25.1 6.2 60.0 0.5
13.5 1.5 25 20.0 8.907 3.8 20 2.8 0.9 18.3 2.3 34.7 1.9 28.9 7.0 69.0 0.5
15 1.5 26 25.0 9.000 3.8 27 3.2 1.1 29.9 2.4 39.2 2.5 32.7 7.8 78.0 0.7
16.5 1.5 30 - 9.076 3.8 25 - - 37.6 2.8 39.2 2.4 37.6 4.7 78.0 0.6
18 1.5 30 - 9.140 3.8 28 - - 37.6 2.9 45.2 2.6 43.4 5.3 90.0 0.7
19.5 1.5 31 - 9.194 3.8 32 - - 22.2 3.0 31.7 3.0 30.3 3.9 63.0 0.8
21 1.5 22 25.0 9.240 3.8 10 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.1 15.1 0.9 14.5 2.1 30.0 0.3
22.5 1.5 23 25.0 9.280 3.8 11 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.2 16.6 1.0 15.9 2.3 33.0 0.3
24 1.5 23 25.0 9.315 3.8 12 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.2 18.1 1.1 17.3 2.5 36.0 0.3
25.5 1.5 23 25.0 9.346 3.8 13 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.2 19.6 1.2 18.8 2.6 39.0 0.3
27 1.5 23 25.0 9.373 3.8 14 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.2 21.1 1.3 20.2 2.8 42.0 0.4
28.5 1.5 24 25.0 9.398 3.8 15 3.5 1.5 18.3 2.3 22.6 1.4 21.7 2.9 45.0 0.4
30 1.5 26 25.0 9.420 3.8 16 3.5 1.1 22.2 2.5 24.1 1.5 23.1 3.1 48.0 0.4
31.5 1.5 27 25.0 9.440 3.8 17 3.5 1.1 26.0 2.6 25.6 1.6 24.6 3.3 51.0 0.4
33 1.5 27 25.0 9.458 3.8 18 3.5 1.1 26.1 2.6 27.1 1.7 26.0 3.4 54.0 0.5
34.5 1.5 27 25.0 10.540 3.8 19 3.5 1.1 26.1 2.9 28.7 1.8 27.5 3.6 57.0 0.5

SETTLEMENT OF INDIVISUAL PILE
Project:Soil Investigation of Belnadi River Bridge Hole No. = 1#2#3

Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur Station (Km+m) = 0+000
Location:Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Ground Water GL, m = 1.5
Depth of exploration, m = 20.0
Length of Pile (L), m = 15.0 Designed Ground Water GL, m = 1.0
Diameter of Pile (D), mm = 800 Scour Depth, m: 4.1
Area of Pile X-Section, m2 = 0.5027 Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 4.1
Pile rest on Below NGL, m = 19.1
Allowable Capacity of Single Pile (QT), Tonnes = 64.94 Tonnes
Total Applied Load in Single Pile (Qs), Tonnes = 64.94 Tonnes 45.24 45.24 Tonnes
Modulus of Elasticity of the Pile material = 28.58 KN/Sq. mm 19.7 19.70 Tonnes
Now, Estmated Pile Shaft Compression Sp = 0.6 mm Limiting Settlement, = 50 mm

Estimated Total Settlement based on Burland et al. and Weltman and Healy S= 11.8 mm
0.441 3.75
Part of Effective Skin Total

Depth, soil, Sandy thickness, Design Design qt, Settlement, Cohesion, Tip Settlement, Settlement
m or Clayey m qs, , t/m2 t/m2 Cs mm Ncorrected c, Kpa Ct mm of Pile, mm
0 Sand Silt - - 225.0 0.2 - 12.0 1.0 0.11 - 24.4
1.5 Sand Silt - - 225.0 0.2 - 9.0 - 0.11 -
3 Sand Silt - - 225.0 0.2 - 14.0 - 0.11 -
4.5 Clay Silt 1.5 0.9 225.0 0.2 0.1 14.0 20.0 0.11 26.7
6 Clay Silt 1.5 1.1 225.0 0.2 0.1 17.0 20.0 0.10 25.9
7.5 Clay Silt 1.5 1.2 225.0 0.2 0.1 19.0 20.0 0.10 25.4
9 Clay Silt 1.5 1.3 225.0 0.2 0.1 20.0 20.0 0.10 25.1
10.5 Clay Silt 1.5 1.1 225.0 0.2 0.1 18.0 20.0 0.10 25.7
12 Clay Silt 1.5 1.3 225.0 0.2 0.1 21.0 20.0 0.10 24.9
13.5 Clay Silt 1.5 1.3 225.0 0.2 0.1 20.0 20.0 0.10 25.1
15 Clay Silt 1.5 1.7 225.0 0.2 0.1 27.0 25.0 0.09 23.3
16.5 Sand Silt 1.5 1.6 225.0 0.2 0.1 25.0 - 0.09 23.8
18 Sand Silt 1.5 1.8 225.0 0.1 - 28.0 - 0.09 23.0
19.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.1 - 32.0 - 0.09 22.0
21 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 10.0 25.0 0.11 27.8
22.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 11.0 25.0 0.11 27.5
24 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 12.0 25.0 0.11 27.3
25.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 13.0 25.0 0.11 27.0
27 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 14.0 25.0 0.11 26.7
28.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 15.0 25.0 0.11 26.5
30 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 16.0 25.0 0.10 26.2
31.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 17.0 25.0 0.10 25.9
33 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 18.0 25.0 0.10 25.7
34.5 Sand Silt 1.5 - 225.0 0.2 - 19.0 25.0 0.10 25.4

PILE GROUP CAPACITY

Project:Soil Investigation of Belnadi River Bridge
Client: Departmetn of Roads, Bridge Branch, Chakupat, Lalitpur
Location:Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Identification: Model Strata
Length of Pile (L), m = 15
Base of pile cap lies on, m = 4.1 No of Pile in loading direction, (m) 4
Diameter of Pile, (D), mm = 800 No of Pile in lateral direction, (m) 4
Spacing of Pile (s)/Diameter of pile (D) 3 >2.99 θ° = 18.4349
Pile Group Efficiency (Eg) = 83.804 %
Group Capacity of Pile Qgn1 = 8707.2 KN Group Capacity of Pile Qgn2 4486 KN
Actual Efficiency = 43.179 %
Recommended Group Capacity Qgn = 4486 KN 0.4318 10390
SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUP
Width of Pile Cap (B), m 8.8
Length of Pile Cap (L), m 8.8
Critical Depth of pile from NGL, m 12.73
In case of 15 m long, Pile Fondation with 16 nos of pile, soil cmpress from =12.73m to 30.33 m
Bulk
Density Z to the
Depth, (gamma) Ratio of Es , center of Iz at center
m Soil Layer, m t/m3 N- Corrected qc/N qc, KN/m2 KN/m2 layer, m of layer Iz/Es * ΔZ Settlement, Ss
12.7 12.7 to 14.2 1.84 21 4 8400 21000 0.75 0.162 0.000012 0.0000000
12.0 12.0 to 12.7 1.84 21 4 8400 21000 -0.37 0.000 0.000000 0.0000000
13.5 12.7 to 13.5 1.87 20 4 8000 20000 0.39 0.000 0.000005 0.0000000
15.0 13.5 to 15.0 1.85 27 4 10800 27000 1.52 0.000 0.000013 0.0000000
16.5 15.0 to 16.5 1.94 25 4.95 12375 30938 3.02 0.383 0.000018 0.0000000
18.0 16.5 to 18.0 1.94 28 4.95 13860 34650 4.52 0.511 0.000021 0.0000000
19.5 18.0 to 19.5 1.93 32 4.95 15840 39600 6.02 0.442 0.000017 0.0000000
21.0 19.5 to 21.0 1.90 10 2.7 2700 6750 7.52 0.374 0.000085 0.0000000
22.5 21.0 to 22.5 1.90 11 2.7 2970 7425 9.02 0.306 0.000066 0.0000000
Effective Bulk Density = 1.84 Settlement in Sandy layer = 0.0 mm
Depth correction factor C1= 0.63 0.63 Creep Factor C2= 1.6 Assuming 100 yrs for settlement
Now Settlement prediction on cohesionless soil with designed load; 0.0 mm
Semi Empirical Method Based on Clayey layer

In case of 15 m long, Pile Fondation with 16 nos of pile, soil cmpress from =12.73m to 30.33 m
Depth, Design Void Settlement,

m Soil Layer, m Index, cc Index, cc Ratio, e0 sigma/z ∆P P0 H Sc Predicted Settlement, Sc
12.73 12.7 to 14.2 0.03 0.03 0.99 0.999 13.40 23.4 -0.73 0.000 0.00000
12 12.0 to 12.7 0.03 0.03 0.99 0.999 13.40 22.1 1.50 0.000 0.00000
13.5 12.7 to 13.5 0.03 0.03 0.99 0.967 12.97 25.0 1.50 0.000 0.00000
15 13.5 to 15.0 0.03 0.03 0.99 0.891 11.95 27.8 1.50 0.003 0.00312
16.5 15.0 to 16.5 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.753 10.11 30.9 1.50 0.000 0.00000
18 16.5 to 18.0 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.631 8.46 33.9 1.50 0.000 0.00000
19.5 18.0 to 19.5 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.492 6.61 36.8 1.50 0.000 0.00000
21 19.5 to 21.0 25.00 25.00 0.99 0.377 5.06 39.7 1.50 0.000 0.00000
Settlement in clayey layer= 3.1 mm
Limiting Settlement as per Code = 50.00 mm 0
Predicted Total Settlement with designated load = 3.1 mm
Predicted Total Settlement by Vesis's Method = 81.0 mm
Predicted Total Settlement by Vesis's Method = 81.0
Predicted Total Settlement by Meyerhof's Method = 1.46

6.6 Findings
6.6.1 Shallow Foundation
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION AT PROPOSED COSTRUCTION SITE
Recommended Recommended Recommended

Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical
Depth of design Safe design Safe design Safe
Safe Bearing Safe Bearing Safe Bearing
footing, m Bearing Bearing Bearing
Capacity, t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
Capacity, t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
Width of Square Footing, m Width of Square Footing, m Width of Square Footing, m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 15.2 15.2 17.7 17.7 17.3 17.3
1.5 21.9 21.9 24.1 24.1 20.8 20.8
2 27.7 27.7 29.5 29.5 23.8 23.8
2.5 34.4 30.0 35.7 30.0 25.8 25.8
3 40.4 30.0 41.2 30.0 27.6 27.6
4 53.2 30.0 52.8 30.0 30.4 30.0
5 65.5 30.0 49.2 30.0 33.2 30.0
6 70.3 30.0 54.0 30.0 36.0 30.0
7 78.6 30.0 57.9 30.0 38.9 30.0
8 83.0 30.0 62.0 30.0 42.0 30.0
9 86.8 30.0 64.4 30.0 43.9 30.0
6.6.2 Deep Foundation (Cast In-Situ Bored Concrete Pile)
BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE VERTICAL PILE
Diameter of Pile, mm 800

Length of pile, m 15
Bearing Capacity, KN 1082
CAPACITY OF CAST IN-SITU BORED PILE (for > 760 mm)
Shaft Bearing
Effective Design Design c, End Bearing
Depth, m Resistance qs,
Thickness, m Ф, ° KN/m2 Resistance qt, t/m2
t/m2
0 - 25 1.0 - -
1.5 - 25 - 33.0 -
3 - 26 - 42.0 -
4.5 1.5 23 20.0 45.0 0.4
6 1.5 24 20.0 54.0 0.4
7.5 1.5 25 20.0 57.0 0.5
9 1.5 25 20.0 57.0 0.5
10.5 1.5 24 20.0 57.0 0.5
12 1.5 25 20.0 60.0 0.5
13.5 1.5 25 20.0 69.0 0.5
15 1.5 26 25.0 78.0 0.7
16.5 1.5 30 - 78.0 0.6
18 1.5 30 - 90.0 0.7
19.5 1.5 31 - 63.0 0.8
21 1.5 22 25.0 30.0 0.3

Summary Sheet of Pile Analysis
Dia. Of Pile, mm 700

Length of Pile, m 12 15 18 20 25
*
Safe Capacity of Pile, KN 429 519 322 365 434
*
Allowable Capacity of Pile, KN 429 519 322 365 434
Seismic Allowable Capacity of Pile, KN 715 865 537 608 723
Proposed Spacing of Pile, 3 X D, mm 2100
Arrangement of Pile, Nos 4X4
Safe Group Capacity of Pile, KN 5750 6955 4324 4888 5816
*
Allowable Group Capacity of Pile, KN 2507 3769 4324 4888 5816
Seismic Allowable Group Capacity of Pile, KN 2507 3769 4324 4888 5816
Safe Capacity of Pile, KN* 539 649 387 439 524
Allowable Capacity of Pile, KN* 539 649 387 732 524
*
*
Safe Capacity of Pile, KN 796 953 531 606 726
*
Allowable Capacity of Pile, KN 796 953 531 606 726
*
nsidering Rigid Pile Ca p (as suming 50 mm s ettlement of Pile Cap and no di fferential
settlement within Pile Ca
** For total 50 mm Settlement of Pile Gr oup or Pile Cap, Need to compare with total vertical
load
Consi dering Rigi d Pile Cap (ass umi ng 50 mm settle ment of Pile Ca p and no di ffere ntial
settlement within Pile Cap)
** For total 50 mm Settlement of Pile Gr oup or Pile Cap, Need to compare with total vertical
loa
 Considering rigid pile cap (assuming 50 mm settlement of pile cap and no differential settlement
within pile cap).
 For total 50 mm settlement of pile group or pile cap, need to compare with total vertical load.
 Compare with maximum load on individual pile.

7. Conclusion and Recommendation
o The proposed bridge site over Belnadi River is on recent top alluvial deposits followed by medium soft
clayey silt deposit beneath the fine silty sand up to drilled depth.
o Evaluation of the site utilizing N-Value method shows that the bridge site is susceptible to low
liquefaction for a value of 0.45g as the maximum horizontal ground acceleration.
Recommendation
o Considering top alluvial deposit, clayey stiff to very stiff soil, small dia. pile (<760mm or up to 800 mm
dia.) of length less than 15 m is plausible at particular site.
o A recommended bearing capacity of 800 mm dia., 15.0 m long, circular, cast-in-situ pile foundation near
or at or at particular borehole can resist about 539 KN of load. The recommended ABC is in safer side,
which is within a settlement of 50mm.
Refer Page 24 and 25 for more Details
o Please note that, as pile cap is rigid, load test or settlement test of individual pile must be
conducted based on ASTM D1143_07 (IS 2911-4 is not relevant for bridge foundation with
rigid pile cap). Special provision/correction is necessary on Section 1614 (1) and (3) of
Standard Specification for Road and Bridges, DoR 2058 or else correction is essential on
section 1614 (1) of Standard Specification for Road and Bridges, DoR 2073.
o As per IRC 078-2014, Clause 709.1.8 (c) It is further provided that the working load capacity
of pile based on the sub-clause b) shall not exceed 40 percent of the load corresponding to the
settlement of 10 percent of pile diameter (i.e. safety factor of 2.5 on ultimate load capacity is
ensured).
o So, allowable limiting capacity of pile is must be measured with settlement of 40% load,
which creates settlement of 10-15% of pile diameter.
o Considering size of armored and layered soil, compaction level of material and geotechnical
empirical calculation, recommended angle of friction of soil is ≈ 25°
o The foundation design Engineer needs not strictly follow the depth and dimension of foundation selected
in the bearing capacity analysis of this report. He is free to select any other dimension and greater depth
depending upon the load of the structure. However, 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 etc. Hence based on parameters obtained from this

investigation provided in this report, calculations need to be refined during design phase.
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 area.
o 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.
o 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.
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.
o 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.

o 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).

8. 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. Teng, W.C. (1988), 'Foundation Design', Prentice Hall, New Delhi.
5. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), 'Foundation Engineering', John Wiley and
Sons Inc. 514 p.
6. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice', John Wiley and Sons Inc.
514 p.
7. Simons, N.E. and Menzies, B.K. (1979), 'A short Course in Foundation Engineering', ELBS and
Newnes Butterworths, London, 159 p.
8. Indian Standard, ‘Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations’ Part I Concrete
Piles, Section 2 Bored Cast In-Situ Piles, First Revision, “IS : 2911 (Part i/Sec 2)- 1979 (reaffirmed
1997)
9. Nepal Building Code, (1994), 'Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal – NBC 105 – 94'.
10. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF COHESIONLESS SOILS, GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
PROCEDURE, GDP-9, Revision #2 , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU, APRIL 2007,
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
11. Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis
12. Memorandum, New Structure Geotechnical Report Categories and Scope, June 15, 2012, Illinois
Department of Transportation
13. IS 2809: 1972 Glossary of terms and Symbols relating to soil engineering (First revision) 1972 Soil and
foundation engineering
14. IS 2810: 1979 Glossary of terms relating to soil dynamics (First revision) 1979 Soil and foundation
engineering
15. IS 1892: 1979 Code of practice for subsurface investigations for foundations (First revision) 1979 Soil
and foundation engineering
16. IS 8763: 1978 Guide for undisturbed sampling of sands and sandy soils 1978 Soil and foundation
engineering
17. IS 10442: 983 Specification for earth augers (spiral type) 1983 Soil and foundation engineering
18. IS 2131: 1981 Method for standard penetration test for soils (first revision) 1981 Soil and foundation
engineering

19. IS 9640: 1980 Specifications for split spoon sampler 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
20. IS 2132: 1986 Code of practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils (second revision) 1986 Soil and
foundation engineering
21. IS 10108: 1982 Code of practice for sampling of soils by thin wall ampler with stationery piston 1982
soil and foundation engineering
22. IS 4968: Part 3: 1976 Method for subsurface sounding for soils: Part 3 Static cone penetration test
(First Revision) 1976 Soil and foundation engineering
23. IS 2720: Part 2: 1973 Methods of test for soils: Part 2 determination of water content (Second revision)
1973 Soil and foundation engineering
24. IS 2720: Part VII: 1980 Methods of Test for Soils - Part VII: determination of Water Content-Dry
Density Relation Using Light Compaction (Second Revision) 1980 soil and foundation engineering
25. IS 2720: Part 4: 1985 Methods of Test for Soils – Part I: Grain Size Analysis (Second revision) 1985
Soil and foundation engineering
26. IS 9259: 1979 Specification for liquid limit apparatus for soils 1979 Soil and foundation engineering
27. IS 2720: Part 5: 1985 Method of Test for Soils - Part 5: Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit
(Second revision) 1985 Soil and foundation engineering
28. IS 11196: 1985 Specification for equipment for determination of liquid limit of soils cone penetration
method 1985 Soil and foundation engineering
29. 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
30. IS 2720: Part III: Sec 2: 1980 Test for Soils - Part III : Determination of Specific Gravity - Section 2:
fine, Medium and Coarse Grained Soils (First revision) 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
31. IS 2720: Part 10: 1991 Methods of test for soils: Part 10 Determination of unconfined compressive
strength (Second revision) 1991 Soil and foundation engineering
32. IS 11593: 1986 Specification for shear box (large) for testing of soils 1986 Soil and foundation
engineering
33. Is 2720: Part 13: 1986 Methods of Test for Soils - Part 13: Direct shear Test (Second revision) 1986
Soil and foundation engineering
34. IS 2720: Part XXXIX: Sec 2: 1979 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XXIX: Direct Shear Test for Soils
Containing Gravel - Section 2: In-Situ Shear Test 1979 Soil and foundation engineering
35. IS 2720: Part XXXIX: Sec 1: 1977 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XXXIX: Direct Shear Test for soils
containing gravel - Section 1: Laboratory Test 1977 Soil and foundation engineering
36. IS 2720: Part XV: 1965 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XV: Determination of Consolidation properties
(First revision) 1965 Soil and foundation engineering

37. IS 1498: 1970 Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes (first revision)
1970 Soil and foundation engineering
38. IS 4332: Part 5: 1970 Methods of test for stabilized soils: Part 5 Determination of unconfined
compressive strength of stabilized soils 1970 Soil and foundation engineering
39. IS 12287: 1988 Specification for consolidometer for determination of consolidation properties 1988
soil and foundation engineering
40. IS 13094: 1992 Guidelines for selection of ground improvement techniques for foundation in weak
soils 1992 Soil and foundation engineering
41. IS 13094: 1992 Guidelines for selection of ground improvement techniques for foundation in weak
soils Earthquake Engineering
42. IS 6403: 1981 Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations
43. 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
44. IS 8009: Part I: 1976 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of Foundations - Part I: Shallow
Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loads
45. IS 8009: Part II: 1980 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlement of Foundations - Part II: Deep
Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loading
46. IS 2911: Part 1: Sec 1: 1979 Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations: Part 1
Concrete piles, Section 1 Driven cast in-situ concrete piles
Concrete piles, Section 2 Bored cast-in-situ piles
concrete piles, Section 4 Bored precast concrete piles
49. IS 2950: Part I: 1981 Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundations - Part I:
Design.

ANNEXES
BORELOG DATA
Drilling Log
Project: Soil Investigation of Belnadi River Bridge
Location: Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu
Client: Department of Roads, Babarmahal, Kathmandu
Consultant: Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV
Contract No: BB-159-DSD-071/072-36 Commencement Date: 2073-06-13
Borehole No: 1 (Left Bank) Completed Date: 2073-06-17
Ground water: 1.32 m
No. of blows N-Value SPT
Sample No.
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
&Type
DCPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
SPT 6 7 9 16 1.5
-2
Light brownish to greyish
medium dense fine silty sand
-3 SPT 9 7 8 15 3
-4
SPT 9 7 9 16 4.5
-5
-6 SPT 7 8 9 17 6
-7
SPT 8 8 8 16 7.5
-8
-9 SPT 10 9 12 21 9
- 10
SPT 10 14 18 32 10.5
- 11
- 12 SPT 11 13 16 29 12
Greyish to yellowish medium
plastic very stiff to hard silty clay
- 13
SPT 16 14 18 32 13.5
- 14
- 15 SPT 13 11 10 21 15
- 16
SPT 14 10 12 22 16.5
- 17
- 18 SPT 9 7 13 20 18
- 19
SPT 8 8 11 19 19.5
- 20
End Depth * Completed at 20.0m Ground: Dry
Types of Soil N Value
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Granular Soil 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
Cohesive Soil Consistency
Very Soft Soft Med. Soft Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Drilling Log
Borehole No: 2 (Center) Completed Date: 2073-06-23
Sample No.
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
&Type
DCPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Greyish to yellowish loose to

-1
medium dense fine silty sand
SPT 6 5 5 10 1.5
-2
Greyish stiff medium plastic silty -3 SPT 4 6 5 11 3

clay
-4
SPT 5 6 8 14 4.5
-5
-6 SPT 6 7 12 19 6
-7
SPT 10 13 11 24 7.5
-8
-9 SPT 11 9 13 22 9
- 10
SPT 7 13 12 25 10.5
- 11
- 12 SPT 8 12 14 26 12
Greyish medium dense to dense
fine silty sand
- 13
SPT 9 10 13 23 13.5
- 14
- 15 SPT 8 14 15 29 15
- 16
SPT 10 16 14 30 16.5
- 17
- 18 SPT 9 17 15 32 18
- 19
SPT 11 14 17 31 19.5
- 20
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Drilling Log
Borehole No: 3 (Right Bank) Completed Date: 2073-07-07
Sample No.
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
&Type
DCPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
SPT 3 4 5 9 1.5
-2
-3 SPT 5 4 4 8 3
Greyish to yellow loose to

medium dense fine silty sand -4
SPT 5 7 9 16 4.5
-5
-6 SPT 6 6 8 14 6
-7
SPT 9 13 10 23 7.5
-8
-9 SPT 11 9 11 20 9
- 10
SPT 10 8 12 20 10.5
Greyish to yellow stiff to very - 11

stiff medium plastic silty clay
- 12 SPT 12 13 16 29 12
- 13
SPT 9 12 14 26 13.5
- 14
- 15 SPT 11 15 13 28 15
- 16
SPT 13 10 12 22 16.5
- 17
Greyish medium dense fine silty 18

- 18 SPT 11 13 16 29
sand
- 19
SPT 9 11 11 22 19.5
- 20
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
LABORATORY TEST RESULT DATA
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
Contract No: BB-159-DSD-071/072-36
Borehole No: 1 (Left Bank)
Date: 2073-07-25
Wt. of Cont.
Wt. of Cont. + Wt. of Water Wt. of Empty Wt. of Dry Soil Moisture
Sample No. Depth, m +
Wet Soil (gm) (gm) Container (gm) (gm) Content (%)
Dry Soil (gm)
SPT - 1 1.5 33.41 27.21 6.20 11.20 16.01 38.73
SPT - 2 3.0 29.86 24.65 5.21 9.80 14.85 35.08
SPT - 3 4.5 24.43 20.21 4.22 7.60 12.61 33.47
SPT - 4 6.0 31.48 24.06 7.42 6.50 17.56 42.26
SPT - 5 7.5 39.54 29.38 10.16 7.80 21.58 47.08
SPT - 6 9.0 40.02 30.02 10.00 7.30 22.72 44.01
SPT - 7 10.5 44.21 33.26 10.95 6.50 26.76 40.92
SPT - 8 12.0 36.55 28.05 8.50 9.30 18.75 45.33
SPT - 9 13.5 33.29 25.96 7.33 8.60 17.36 42.22
SPT - 10 15.0 37.65 28.09 9.56 8.20 19.89 48.06
SPT - 11 16.5 39.02 30.29 8.73 8.50 21.79 40.06
SPT - 12 18.0 41.28 31.28 10.00 8.30 22.98 43.52
SPT - 13 19.5 38.53 29.65 8.88 7.80 21.85 40.64

Borehole No: 2 (Center)
Date: 2073-07-25
Wt. of Cont.
Dry Soil (gm)
SPT - 1 1.5 36.58 29.17 7.41 9.40 19.77 37.48
SPT - 2 3.0 41.25 30.65 10.60 7.50 23.15 45.79
SPT - 3 4.5 37.65 28.13 9.52 7.90 20.23 47.06
SPT - 4 6.0 33.21 27.16 6.05 10.20 16.96 35.67
SPT - 5 7.5 36.65 30.09 6.56 10.50 19.59 33.49
SPT - 6 9.0 39.88 31.04 8.84 6.80 24.24 36.47
SPT - 7 10.5 40.02 31.02 9.00 7.50 23.52 38.27
SPT - 8 12.0 41.24 32.65 8.59 6.30 26.35 32.60
SPT - 9 13.5 45.32 34.47 10.85 6.90 27.57 39.35
SPT - 10 15.0 38.88 31.95 6.93 10.20 21.75 31.86
SPT - 11 16.5 36.65 28.93 7.72 7.50 21.43 36.02
SPT - 12 18.0 43.21 34.56 8.65 6.90 27.66 31.27
SPT - 13 19.5 40.09 31.26 8.83 7.30 23.96 36.85

Borehole No: 3 (Right Bank)
Date: 2073-07-25
Wt. of Cont.
Dry Soil (gm)
SPT - 1 1.5 36.66 29.18 7.48 8.60 20.58 36.35
SPT - 2 3.0 43.35 35.23 8.12 7.90 27.33 29.71
SPT - 3 4.5 40.06 31.93 8.13 6.70 25.23 32.22
SPT - 4 6.0 43.58 33.91 9.67 7.30 26.61 36.34
SPT - 5 7.5 41.22 31.29 9.93 6.80 24.49 40.55
SPT - 6 9.0 40.65 30.05 10.60 6.20 23.85 44.44
SPT - 7 10.5 41.83 32.03 9.80 7.90 24.13 40.61
SPT - 8 12.0 44.92 33.46 11.46 8.30 25.16 45.55
SPT - 9 13.5 38.88 29.75 9.13 8.10 21.65 42.17
SPT - 10 15.0 39.02 29.47 9.55 6.70 22.77 41.94
SPT - 11 16.5 40.65 33.16 7.49 7.50 25.66 29.19
SPT - 12 18.0 43.86 36.94 6.92 8.30 28.64 24.16
SPT - 13 19.5 41.20 34.15 7.05 7.20 26.95 26.16

BULK DENSITY DETERMINATION
Borehole No: 1 (Left Bank)
Date: 2073-07-25
Sample Depth, Length, Weight, Volume, Bulk Density,
No m cm gm cm³ gm/cm³
SPT - 1 1.50 10 183.21 96.25 1.903
SPT - 2 3.00 10 181.46 96.25 1.885
SPT - 3 4.50 10 178.56 96.25 1.855
SPT - 4 6.00 10 175.68 96.25 1.825
SPT - 5 7.50 10 181.34 96.25 1.884
SPT - 6 9.00 10 180.20 96.25 1.872
SPT - 7 10.50 10 176.53 96.25 1.834
SPT - 8 12.00 10 171.93 96.25 1.786
SPT - 9 13.50 10 182.21 96.25 1.893
SPT - 10 15.00 10 175.43 96.25 1.823
SPT - 11 16.50 10 179.40 96.25 1.864
SPT - 12 18.00 10 180.03 96.25 1.870
SPT - 13 19.50 10 177.43 96.25 1.843

Borehole No: 2 (Center)
Date: 2073-07-25
SPT - 1 1.50 10 178.53 96.25 1.855
SPT - 2 3.00 10 181.24 96.25 1.883
SPT - 3 4.50 10 188.32 96.25 1.957
SPT - 4 6.00 10 179.45 96.25 1.864
SPT - 5 7.50 10 174.33 96.25 1.811
SPT - 6 9.00 10 179.34 96.25 1.863
SPT - 7 10.50 10 181.65 96.25 1.887
SPT - 8 12.00 10 187.34 96.25 1.946
SPT - 9 13.50 10 182.34 96.25 1.894
SPT - 10 15.00 10 185.54 96.25 1.928
SPT - 11 16.50 10 189.96 96.25 1.974
SPT - 12 18.00 10 193.32 96.25 2.009
SPT - 13 19.50 10 189.55 96.25 1.969

Borehole No: 3 (Right Bank)
Date: 2073-07-25
SPT - 1 1.50 10 184.34 96.25 1.915
SPT - 2 3.00 10 179.56 96.25 1.866
SPT - 3 4.50 10 183.21 96.25 1.903
SPT - 4 6.00 10 185.43 96.25 1.927
SPT - 5 7.50 10 177.32 96.25 1.842
SPT - 6 9.00 10 173.44 96.25 1.802
SPT - 7 10.50 10 172.53 96.25 1.793
SPT - 8 12.00 10 171.98 96.25 1.787
SPT - 9 13.50 10 176.54 96.25 1.834
SPT - 10 15.00 10 174.33 96.25 1.811
SPT - 11 16.50 10 191.23 96.25 1.987
SPT - 12 18.00 10 187.72 96.25 1.950
SPT - 13 19.50 10 189.96 96.25 1.974

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
Date: 2073-07-25
Borehole No. 1 (L/B) Borehole No. 2 (Center)
Depth, m 4.5 12.0 19.5 3.0 9.0 18.0
Sample No. SPT - 3 SPT - 8 SPT - 13 SPT - 2 SPT - 6 SPT - 12
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 183.41 180.26 179.86 181.24 183.18 179.55
Temperature °C 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27°
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 164.69 161.6 161.22 162.64 164.48 160.84
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.72 18.81 18.64 18.6 18.83 18.71
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.648 2.634 2.629 2.620 2.643 2.646

Borehole No. 3 (R/B)
Depth, m 6.0 10.5 16.5
Sample No. SPT - 4 SPT - 7 SPT - 11
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 180.20 183.36 178.54
Temperature °C 27° 27° 27°
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 161.51 164.74 159.86
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.69 18.62 18.68
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.641 2.625 2.639

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Test Method : IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985
Location: Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Borehole: 1 (L/B)
Client: Department of Roads, Babarmahal, Kathmandu SPT-3
Consultant: Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV Depth m: 4.50
Contract No:BB-159-DSD-071/072-36 Date: 2073-07-28
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 92.20
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 82.40
0.425 mm 66.80 50
0.300 mm 47.50
40
0.150 mm 17.70
0.075 mm 4.10 30
0.063 mm 20
0.045 mm
0.032 mm 10
0.023 mm 0
0.017 mm 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.012 mm Sieves, mm
0.009 mm
0.006 mm CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL D10 D30 D50 D60 D90 CU CC Classification
0.005 mm 0.0 % 4.10 % 95.9 % 0.0 % 0.1 0.2 0.32 0.38 1 3.8 1.05 ML
0.003 mm
0.002 mm
0.001 mm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 99.70 50
0.300 mm 99.40
40
0.150 mm 92.60
0.075 mm 88.90 30
0.065 mm 75.95 20
0.047 mm 64.49
0.034 mm 53.02 10
0.025 mm 41.56 0
0.018 mm 32.96 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.013 mm 27.23 Sieves, mm
0.009 mm 18.63
0.007 mm 15.76 CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL D10 D30 D50 D60 D90 CU CC Classification
0.005 mm 12.90 7.2 % 81.73 % 11.1 % 0.0 % 0.0032 0.016 0.032 0.041 0.098 12.813 1.95 ML
0.003 mm 10.03
0.002 mm 7.17
0.001 mm 4.30
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 99.90 50
0.300 mm 99.20
40
0.150 mm 98.70
0.075 mm 98.40 30
0.064 mm 87.34 20
0.047 mm 74.64
0.034 mm 61.93 10
0.025 mm 49.23 0
0.018 mm 36.53 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.009 mm 20.64
0.005 mm 14.29 7.9 % 90.46 % 1.6 % 0.0 % 0.0028 0.015 0.026 0.032 0.068 11.429 2.51 ML
0.003 mm 11.12
0.002 mm 7.94
0.001 mm 4.76
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Location: Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Borehole: 2 (C/B)
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 98.10
0.425 mm 94.50 50
0.300 mm 89.70
40
0.150 mm 80.40
0.075 mm 73.90 30
0.065 mm 60.95 20
0.047 mm 51.39
0.034 mm 41.83 10
0.025 mm 34.66 0
0.018 mm 29.88 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.009 mm 20.32
0.005 mm 13.15 6.0 % 67.92 % 26.1 % 0.0 % 0.0038 0.018 0.045 0.061 0.3 16.053 1.40 ML
0.003 mm 8.37
0.002 mm 5.98
0.001 mm 3.59
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 93.20
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 82.90
0.425 mm 69.30 50
0.300 mm 47.60
40
0.150 mm 22.30
0.075 mm 2.50 30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves, mm
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL D10 D30 D50 D60 D90 CU CC Classification
0.0 % 2.50 % 97.5 % 0.0 % 0.1 0.19 0.31 0.38 0.93 3.8 0.95 ML
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 90.70
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 79.10
0.425 mm 62.60 50
0.300 mm 43.90
40
0.150 mm 16.30
0.075 mm 1.70 30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves, mm
0.0 % 1.70 % 98.3 % 0.0 % 0.13 0.21 0.34 0.4 1.2 3.077 0.85 ML
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Location: Parshurampur -1, Kapilbastu Borehole: 3 (R/B)
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 85.70
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 68.90
0.425 mm 55.00 50
0.300 mm 43.40
40
0.150 mm 14.37
0.075 mm 1.67 30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves, mm
0.0 % 1.67 % 98.3 % 0.0 % 0.12 0.21 0.37 0.48 1.15 4 0.77 ML
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 99.70 50
0.300 mm 99.20
40
0.150 mm 97.80
0.075 mm 95.70 30
0.064 mm 85.03 20
0.047 mm 75.75
0.034 mm 66.47 10
0.025 mm 57.20 0
0.018 mm 47.92 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.009 mm 29.37
0.005 mm 13.91 7.7 % 87.97 % 4.3 % 0.0 % 0.0028 0.0098 0.018 0.026 0.07 9.286 1.32 ML
0.003 mm 10.82
0.002 mm 7.73
0.001 mm 4.64
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 89.10
60
% Passing
0.600 mm 74.80
0.425 mm 59.20 50
0.300 mm 46.00
40
0.150 mm 22.40
0.075 mm 3.70 30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves, mm
0.0 % 3.70 % 96.3 % 0.0 % 0.098 0.190 0.320 0.420 1.130 4.286 0.88 ML
Sample No: Pit Sample Borehole No: 1 (Left Bank)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Test Standard: IRC : 5 - 1998 Appendix -2, Clause 110.1.3

Nominal Diameter of Approximate Minimum
Largest Particle Wt. of Sample, g
No. 10 sieve 200
No. 4 sieve 500
3/4 in. 1500
Wt. of dry sample + container, (g)

Wt. of container, (g)
Wt. of dry sample, Ws (g) 500
Table I - Sieve Analysis and Grain Shape

Sieve No. Diam. (mm) Wt. retained % retained % passing
40 0 0.00 100.00
20 0 0.00 100.00
10 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 15.6 3.12 96.88
2.36 21.3 4.26 92.62
1.180 13.2 2.64 89.98
0.600 24.5 4.90 85.08
0.425 54.7 10.94 74.14
0.300 43.9 8.78 65.36
0.150 112.4 22.48 42.88
0.075 106.4 21.28 21.60
Pan 64.5 14.13 7.47
Total 456.5
Table II - Mean Diameter

Average Size Pecentage of Mean
Sieve No.
(mm) weight retained diameter
50 - 40 45.0 0.00 0.000
40 - 20 30.0 0.00 0.000 Weighted Mean Diamater (dm)
20 - 10 15.0 0.00 0.000 63.959
10 - 4.75 7.375 3.12 23.010 = 100
4.75 - 2.36 3.555 4.26 15.144
2.36 - 1.18 1.770 2.64 4.673 = 0.640 mm
1.18 - 0.6 0.890 4.90 4.361
0.6 - 0.425 0.513 10.94 5.607
0.425 - 0.300 0.363 8.78 3.183
0.300 - 0.150 0.225 22.48 5.058
0.150 - 0.075 0.113 21.28 2.394
0.075 & below 0.0375 14.13 0.530
Total 63.959
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART
Sample No: Pit Sample Borehole No: 1 (Left Bank)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26
Unified Soil Classification GRAVEL SAND

COBBLES SILT or CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
A A S H T O Classification GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

BOULDERS Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Fine
GRAVEL SAND
Medium Cobbles
ASTM Classification BOULDERSilt
FineCOBBLE Medium Sand
Coarse Sand
Fine C Gravel
Fine Medium Coarse
SILT CLAY
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

BOULDER COBBLE CLAY
Classification Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine
300 200
Particle Size, mm 80 60 20 6.0 4.75 2.00 0.60 0.425 0.2 0.075 0.063 0.02 0.006 0.005 0.002
100
90
80
Percentage passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle size mm
Sample No: Pit Sample Borehole No: 2 (Center)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26
SIEVE ANALYSIS

No. 10 sieve 200
No. 4 sieve 500
3/4 in. 1500


40 0 0.00 100.00
20 0 0.00 100.00
10 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 23.7 4.74 95.26
2.36 22.6 4.52 90.74
1.180 19.8 3.96 86.78
0.600 35.4 7.08 79.70
0.425 55.7 11.14 68.56
0.300 76.5 15.30 53.26
0.150 64.8 12.96 40.30
0.075 95.6 19.12 21.18
Pan 87.2 18.12 3.06
Total 481.3

Sieve No.
50 - 40 45.0 0.00 0.000
20 - 10 15.0 0.00 0.000 81.338
10 - 4.75 7.375 4.74 34.958 = 100
4.75 - 2.36 3.555 4.52 16.069
2.36 - 1.18 1.770 3.96 7.009 = 0.813 mm
1.18 - 0.6 0.890 7.08 6.301
0.6 - 0.425 0.513 11.14 5.709
0.425 - 0.300 0.363 15.30 5.546
0.300 - 0.150 0.225 12.96 2.916
0.150 - 0.075 0.113 19.12 2.151
0.075 & below 0.0375 18.12 0.679
Total 81.338
Contract No: BB-159-DSD-071/072-36 Borehole No: 2 (Center)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26


GRAVEL SAND
ASTM Classification BOULDER COBBLE SILT CLAY
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

BOULDER COBBLE CLAY
300 200
Particle Size, mm 80 60 20 6.0 4.75 2.00 0.60 0.425 0.2 0.075 0.063 0.02 0.006 0.005 0.002
100
90
80
Percentage passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle size mm
Sample No: Pit Sample Borehole No: 3 (Right Bank)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26
SIEVE ANALYSIS

No. 10 sieve 200
No. 4 sieve 500
3/4 in. 1500


40 0 0.00 100.00
20 0 0.00 100.00
10 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 19.3 3.86 96.14
2.36 16.1 3.22 92.92
1.180 32.5 6.50 86.42
0.600 43.6 8.72 77.70
0.425 41.2 8.24 69.46
0.300 79.8 15.96 53.50
0.150 65.3 13.06 40.44
0.075 103.2 20.64 19.80
Pan 96.5 19.40 0.40
Total 497.5

Sieve No.
50 - 40 45.0 0.00 0.000
20 - 10 15.0 0.00 0.000 75.177
10 - 4.75 7.375 3.86 28.468 = 100
4.75 - 2.36 3.555 3.22 11.447
2.36 - 1.18 1.770 6.50 11.505 = 0.752 mm
1.18 - 0.6 0.890 8.72 7.761
0.6 - 0.425 0.513 8.24 4.223
0.425 - 0.300 0.363 15.96 5.786
0.300 - 0.150 0.225 13.06 2.939
0.150 - 0.075 0.113 20.64 2.322
0.075 & below 0.0375 19.40 0.727
Total 75.177
Contract No: BB-159-DSD-071/072-36 Borehole No: 3 (Right Bank)
Depth: 1.50 m Date: 2073-07-26


GRAVEL SAND
ASTM Classification BOULDER COBBLE SILT CLAY
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

BOULDER COBBLE CLAY
300 200
Particle Size, mm 80 60 20 6.0 4.75 2.00 0.60 0.425 0.2 0.075 0.063 0.02 0.006 0.005 0.002
100
90
80
Percentage passing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle size mm
LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTIC LIMIT
Borehole no: 1 (L/B) Date: 2073-07-29

Sample No. SPT - 8
Depth: 12.0 m Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 10 25 31 40
3 Wt. of Container + Wet Soil gms 40.65 42.64 46.18 43.86 50.21
4 Wt. of Container + Dry Soil gms 31.24 33.65 37.76 37.01 43.19
5 Wt. of Water Present gms 9.41 8.99 8.42 6.85 7.02
6 Wt. of Empty Container gms 9.10 9.50 9.70 9.30 12.30
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 22.14 24.15 28.06 27.71 30.89
8 Moisture Content % 42.50 37.23 30.01 24.72 22.73
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
1 10 100
Results :
Liquid Limit : 32.92 %
Plastic Limit : 22.73 %
Plasticity Index : 10.2 %
Borehole no: 1 (L/B) Date: 2073-07-29

Sample No. SPT - 13
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 10 24 33 43
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 23.24 26.00 30.28 30.69 35.57
45.00
43.00
41.00
39.00
37.00
35.00
33.00
31.00
29.00
27.00
25.00
1 10 100
Results :
Borehole no: 2 (C/B) Date: 2073-07-29

Sample No. SPT - 2
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 9 23 32 39
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil gms 43.38 45.80 41.29 47.23 54.10
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 24.09 26.64 24.48 29.97 34.83
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
1 10 100
Results :
Borehole no: 3 (R/B) Date: 2073-07-29

Sample No. SPT - 7
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 11 23 34 41
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 23.06 22.04 28.39 26.94 37.23
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
1 10 100
Results :
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample No.: SPT -3

Depth , m: 4.5
Borehole No.: 1 (L/B) Date: 2073-07-30
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3

SDT Normal Stress 0.5 kg/cm² Normal Stress 1.0 kg/cm² Normal Stress 1.5 kg/cm²
cm PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm²
0.1 22.00 0.096 47.00 0.206 77.00 0.338
0.2 44.00 0.193 70.00 0.307 94.00 0.412
0.3 56.00 0.246 74.00 0.325 106.00 0.465
0.4 58.00 0.254 87.00 0.382 116.00 0.509
0.5 57.00 0.250 99.00 0.434 124.00 0.544
0.6 106.00 0.465 137.00 0.601
0.7 110.00 0.482 155.00 0.680
0.8 108.00 0.474 168.00 0.737
0.9 178.00 0.781
1.0 184.00 0.807
1.1 180.00 0.789
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SDT = Shear Displacement; PRDRg = Proving Ring Dial Reading; SST = Shear Stress
f = 27°
2.50
2.00
Shear Stress, kg/sq.cm
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Normal Stress, kg/sq.cm
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample No.: SPT -6

Depth , m: 9.0
Borehole No.: 2 (C/B) Date: 2073-07-30

0.1 30.00 0.132 54.00 0.237 81.00 0.355
0.2 54.00 0.237 71.00 0.311 103.00 0.452
0.3 61.00 0.268 84.00 0.368 110.00 0.482
0.4 67.00 0.294 90.00 0.395 122.00 0.535
0.5 65.00 0.285 103.00 0.452 134.00 0.588
0.6 110.00 0.482 143.00 0.627
0.7 116.00 0.509 155.00 0.680
0.8 114.00 0.500 172.00 0.754
0.9 184.00 0.807
1.0 189.00 0.829
1.1 185.00 0.811
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 28°
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
Sample No.: SPT -12

Depth , m: 18.0
Borehole No.: 2 (C/B) Date: 2073-07-30

0.1 24.00 0.105 52.00 0.228 82.00 0.360
0.2 45.00 0.197 74.00 0.325 101.00 0.443
0.3 51.00 0.224 80.00 0.351 112.00 0.491
0.4 57.00 0.250 97.00 0.425 126.00 0.553
0.5 55.00 0.241 106.00 0.465 131.00 0.575
0.6 111.00 0.487 142.00 0.623
0.7 118.00 0.518 155.00 0.680
0.8 113.00 0.496 178.00 0.781
0.9 182.00 0.798
1.0 191.00 0.838
1.1 188.00 0.825
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 28°
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
Sample No.: SPT -4

Depth , m: 6.0

0.1 28.00 0.123 47.00 0.206 72.00 0.316
0.2 49.00 0.215 68.00 0.298 94.00 0.412
0.3 54.00 0.237 79.00 0.346 106.00 0.465
0.4 62.00 0.272 86.00 0.377 115.00 0.504
0.5 60.00 0.263 94.00 0.412 128.00 0.561
0.6 107.00 0.469 145.00 0.636
0.7 114.00 0.500 156.00 0.684
0.8 111.00 0.487 173.00 0.759
0.9 186.00 0.816
1.0 194.00 0.851
1.1 191.00 0.838
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 29°
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
Sample No.: SPT -11

Depth , m: 16.5

0.1 31.00 0.136 64.00 0.281 94.00 0.412
0.2 55.00 0.241 83.00 0.364 113.00 0.496
0.3 58.00 0.254 92.00 0.404 125.00 0.548
0.4 62.00 0.272 106.00 0.465 132.00 0.579
0.5 60.00 0.263 112.00 0.491 146.00 0.640
0.6 126.00 0.553 158.00 0.693
0.7 131.00 0.575 163.00 0.715
0.8 129.00 0.566 178.00 0.781
0.9 185.00 0.811
1.0 181.00 0.794
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
f = 29°
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
PHOTOGRAPHS
Fig: Setting up of Rotary Drilling equipment at field
Fig: Sample collected at split spoon sampler
View publication stats

Soil Investigation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Soil Investigation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Soil Investigation Report of Belnadi River Foundation

Technical Report · December 2016

Research Paper View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

Prepared and Submitted By:

SOIL TECH CONSULTANT (P.) LTD. SOIL TECH

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016 Page I

The scope of work of present contract includes the following:

o Engineering analyses and

o Preparation of this report includes:

 Results of in situ and laboratory test

 Assessment of liquefaction Susceptibility

 Assessment of bearing capacity

 Analysis of ground improvement techniques

 Recommendations of foundation type and depth

1.2 Collection and review of available data’s

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 1

1.3 Planning of works

Table 1 Proposed Laboratory investigation of Soil

SPT samples U/D samples

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 2

2.2 Field Test

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 3

2.3 Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters

2.3.1 Index Tests

2.3.2 Mechanical Tests

 Unconfined Compression Test

 Direct Shear Test

3. Generalize Borehole-Log (Subsurface) findings

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 4

1.5 - 4.5 Greyish stiff medium plastic silty clay

4.5 -20.0 Greyish medium dense to dense fine silty sand

0 – 7.2 Greyish to yellow loose to medium dense fine silty sand

15.2 -10.0 Greyish medium dense fine silty sand

4. Generalize Model (Borehole-Log) for analysis

0.0 - 4.5 Loose to medium dense fine silty sand 11 26 0

15.0 – 20.0 Medium dense fine silty sand 24 28 0

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 5

Figure 1: Epicenter of the earthquake in Nepal Himalaya

Figure 3: Seismic zoning map (Source: UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat, 1994).

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 6

Figure 4: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Map of the Nepal Himalaya

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 7

5.2 Identification of liquefaction area

5.3 Analysis of liquefaction

CRR = CRR7.5 Kσ Kα MSF

CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquake

Kσ = Overburden correction factor

f = soil relative density factor

=0.831- and 0.6 ≤ f ≤ 0.8

Kα = sloping ground correction factor

MSF = magnitude scaling factor

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 8

Mw = earthquake moment magnitude.

AS = peak horizontal acceleration coefficient at the ground surface

PGA = peak seismic ground acceleration on rock.

σvo= total vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)

σvo’ = effective vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)

rd = soil shear mass participation factor

Geocom - RND - Sakhuwa JV/Bridge /2016Page 9

PROBABLE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

σz/q=1/4П[{2LBZL2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2(L2+B2+z2)+(LB)2)] [{(L2+B2+2z2)/ (L2+B2+z2)} ] [