Geotech

Technical Consultancy for Survey Investigation and Preparation for Detailed Project Report for Improvement of Road Hunli-Anini
(138.00 KM)) To NH Double lane Specification in Arunachal Pradesh
CONTENTS
SL. No. CHAPTER PAGE NO.
1.0 BACK GROUND 2

2.0 PLANNING OF SOIL EXPLORATION PROGRAME 2
3.0 METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION 4
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS & DATA OBTAINED 7
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT & FOUNDATION OPTIONS 8
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 28
7.0 REFERENCES 33
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 1 of 33

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR

HUNLI-ANINI ROAD
1.0 BACK GROUND
1.1 M/s MC-TIC (JV) are consultants for Survey Investigation and Preparation for Detailed
Project Report for Improvement of Road Hunli-Anini (138.00 KM)) To NH Double lane
Specification in Arunanchal Pradesh.
1.2 M/s MC-TIC (JV) carried out the field work in month of January - March, 2011 Field
identification tests and some in situ strength tests as well as laboratory tests on soil
samples were carried out. The entire field - work and laboratory tests were conducted
as per the standard specifications.
2.0 PLANNING OF SOIL EXPLORATION PROGRAMME

On the basis of nature of the project, it was decided to carry out soil exploration in order
to:
(i) obtain soil samples, both representative and undisturbed (wherever necessary) for
classification tests and other laboratory tests for determining engineering properties;
(ii) obtain soundings of penetration resistance by Standard Penetration test in the

boreholes;
(iii) Drilling in rock in weathered and in hard rock, obtain rock cores of Nx size by diamond
core drilling method using double tube core barrels, determination of material
characteristics (Strength / Structure / Color / Texture / Grain size), mass characteristics
(State of weathering / existing natural discontinuities / faults and folding patterns /
fracture state), laboratory tests for determining engineering properties of existing rock,
i.e., unconfined compressive strength, water absorption, unit weight etc.
2.1 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1.1 To investigate the subsurface conditions at each structure boreholes were planned.
Disturbed and undisturbed samples were to be collected from all boreholes to assess
the soil characteristics in laboratory.

2.1.2 The summary of the field- work is given below:
STRETCH DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION (m)

CHAINAGE
In Soil In Rock Total Depth
19.43 5.50 36.2 41.70
23.80 2.50 27.00 29.50
30.35 2.50 26.50 29.00
43.20 -- -- --
43.98 3.50 27.00 30.50
47.45 3.50 54.45 57.95
62.40 3.50 24.50 28.00
HUNLI-ANINI
85.85 2.00 33.50 35.50

88.40 9.00 98.20 107.20
94.26 8.00 55.60 63.60
99.45 5.00 58.00 63.00
102.55 2.00 25.00 27.00
103.69 6.50 49.50 56.00
109.26 2.50 24.50 27.00
112.7 4.00 48.70 51.70
114.81 6.50 47.50 54.00
129.98 8.50 53.50 62.00
2.1.3 Conducting Standard Penetration Tests at regular interval of 1.50 m as per IS
2.1.4 specifications and as per the direction of Engineer – in –charge during boring operation.
2.1.5 Collecting disturbed / undisturbed soil samples / Rock core from the borehole at regular
interval as per IS specifications and as per the direction of Engineer – in –charge during
boring operation based on the strata met with. As most of the subsoil strata are
consisting high percentage of gravels and non plastic in nature, undisturbed samples
could not be collected.
2.1.6 Summary of proposed Laboratory Testing program is given below;
SL. PARTICULARS OF DISTURBED UNDISTURBED ROCK

NO. PROPERTIES SOIL SAMPLE SOIL CORES
FROM SPT SAMPLES / PIECE
1. Sieve Analysis √
2. Hydrometer Analysis √
3. Natural Moisture Content √
4. Bulk / Dry Density √ √
SL. PARTICULARS OF DISTURBED UNDISTURBED ROCK

NO. PROPERTIES SOIL SAMPLE SOIL CORES
FROM SPT SAMPLES / PIECE
5. Specific Gravity √
6. Atterberg Limits √
7. Direct Shear Test (for √ √
noncohesive soils)
8. Unconsolidated √
Undrained Tests (for
cohesive samples)
9. Unconfined Compressive √
Strength
10. Water Absorption √
3.0 METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION
31 The investigation was planned to obtain the subsurface stratification in the proposed
project area and collect soil samples for laboratory testing to determine the
engineering properties such as shear strength, along with basic engineering
classification of the subsurface stratum to arrive at the foundation design parameters.
3.2 For Geotechnical investigation work, boring rig was installed at the specified bore hole
location. Stability of rig was ensured by making level ground. Boring was advanced by
rotary drilling method and sampling were carried out at regular in the borehole.
3.3 The rig deployed was suitable for and had arrangement, boring, conducting Standard
Penetration Test (SPT), collection of Undisturbed Soil Sample (UDS) and Disturbed
(DS).
3.4 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was conducted at different depths in these

boreholes. SPT split spoon sampler of standard dimensions was driven into the soil
from the borehole bottom using 63.5 kg Hammer falling from 75 cm height. The SPT
weight was mechanically lifted to the specified height and allowed to fall freely on the
anvil with the use of cat-head winch with one to one and half turn of the drum. The
efficiency of the SPT blows is expected to be 65 to 75% in this system, and can be
directly used in most of analyses involving “N” values1. Blow counts for the penetration

of every 15 cm was recorded and the N is reported as the blow counts for 30 cm
penetration of the sampler leaving the first 15 cm penetration as seating drive.
When the number of blows exceeded 50 to penetrate the first or second 15 cms length
of the sampler, the SPT N is regarded as more than 100 as described in IS 2131 -
1981. The test is terminated in such case and a record of penetration of the sampler
under 50 blows is made. SPT refusal is recorded when there is no penetration of the
sampler at any stage and also when a rebound of the sounding system is recorded.
These tests were conducted at close intervals of 1.5m at shallow depths so that a
continuous SPT N profile is available.
Standard Penetration tests are conducted along with the boring operation. Overburden
and dilatancy corrections have been applied in non plastic & non cohesive soils as
applicable. SPT ‘N’ values are correlated with relative density of non-cohesive stratum
and with consistency of cohesive stratum,
Correlations are tabulated below.
CORRELATION FOR SAND/NON-PLASTIC SILT

Relative Density Penetration Value (Blows/Ft)
Very loose 0 to 4 Blows
Loose 5 to 10 Blows
Medium 11 to 30 Blows
Dense 31 to 50 Blows
Very Dense Above 50
CORRELATION FOR CLAY/PLASTIC SILT

Consistency Penetration Value (Blows/Ft)
Very Soft 0 to 2 Blows
Soft 3 to 4 Blows
Medium Stiff 5 to 8 Blows
Stiff 9 to 16 Blows
Very Stiff 17 to 32 Blows
Hard Above 32
3.5 Disturbed Sampling in boreholes

Disturbed soil collected in the SPT sampler was preserved in polythene covers and
transported to the laboratory. One more polythene cover was provided to prevent the
loss of moisture during the transit period.
3.6 Undisturbed Sampling in Boreholes
Undisturbed samples were collected using 100mm dia and 450mm long MS tubes
provided with sampler head with ball check arrangement. At few locations and depths,
the sampling tubes could not be pushed / drived into the soil because of hard
consistency at few locations.
3.7 For drilling in rock, rock drilling rig was installed at the specified bore hole location.
Stability of rig was ensured by making level ground. Drilling was advanced by rotary
core drilling method using double tube core barrels as per the guidelines of IS: 6926-
1996.
When rock was encountered, size of borehole was changed to Nx / Nwt (76 mm)
diameter. Drilling was advanced by rotary core drilling method using double tube core
barrels as per the guidelines of IS: 6926-1996. A core barrel and Nwt sized bits are
used for drilling and recovering rock cores. Recovered rock cores were numbered
serially and preserved in good quality sturdy wooden core boxes. Rock core recovery
and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were computed for every run length drilled. Rock
samples have been selected based on the probable elevation of the proposed
structure.
Rock classification in terms of weathering and state of fractures and strength is carried
out in the following manner. Tabulations given in below explain it briefly.
SCALE OF WEATHERING GRADES OF ROCK MASS
Terms Description Grad Interpretation
Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering; e I CR > 90 %
perhaps slight discoloration on major
discontinuity surfaces.
Slightly Discoloration indicates weathering of rock II CR between
Weathered material and discontinuity surfaces. All the 70 % to 90 %
rock material may be discoloured by
weathering.
Moderately Less than half of the rock material is III CR between
Weathered decomposed or disintegrated to a soil. 51 % to 70 %
Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
a continuous framework or as corestones.
Highly More than half of the rock material is IV CR between

Weathered decomposed or disintegrated to a soil. 11 % to 50 %

Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
a discontinuous framework or as
corestones
Completely All rock material is decomposed and / or V CR between
Weathered disintegrated to soil. The original mass zero to 10 %
structure is still largely intact.
Residual All rock material is converted to soil. The VI CR = Zero %
Soil mass structure and material fabric are But N > 50
destroyed. There is a large change in
volume, but the soil has not been
significantly transported.
As per IS 4464
It should be understood that all grades of weathering may not be seen in a given rock
mass and that in some cases a particular grade may be present to a very small extent.
Distribution of the various weathering grades of rock material in the rock mass may be
related to the porosity of the rock material and the presence of open discontinuities of
all types in the rock mass.
3.8 The rock core samples is preserved and stored in wooden core boxes as specified in
IS: 4078-1980.
3.9 The laboratory testing was done following the testing procedures given in the relevant
parts of IS-2720.
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND DATA OBTAINED
4.1 GENERAL
In order to ascertain the in-situ subsoil profile and to determine the relevant
Geotechnical parameters, both field and laboratory tests were carried out. The field
programme consisted of Boring / core drilling, Standard Penetration tests and
sampling of representative and undisturbed soil samples / rock samples from
Boreholes. Sub-surface strata are mainly overburden followed by Rock.
4.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING

Boreholes were advanced at the site at different locations for bridges site. In each
borehole, representative samples were collected. The consolidated logs is presented
in this report as ANNEXURE – I.
4.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Standard Penetration tests are conducted in soil overburden to confirm the penetration
resistance and to collect the disturbed samples.
4.4 GROUND WATER TABLE
Ground water was encountered upto depth of investigation. Rock shall be considered
in submerged condition for determining RMR value.
4.5 DENSITY / WATER ABSORPTION / UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

ON ROCK MASS
Density / water absorption / unconfined compressive strength of rock mass is

determined for bed rock.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT / FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION /

FOUNDATION OPTIONS
5.1 GENERAL
For the Geotechnical Studies for proposed foundation scheme of bridges, Geotechnical
investigations including boreholes at proposed locations were carried out.
Based upon the investigation and laboratory testing on collected soil / rock samples it
may be concluded that Sub-surface strata mainly consists overburden soil followed by
Rock.
5.2 SUB SOIL / ROCK PROFILE
The sub-soil / Rock strata at proposed site is generally homogeneous and comprises of
mainly four types of layer (based on field tests & laboratory test result data). Description
of is as under,
LAYER TYPE – I, Overburden Soil
LAYER TYPE – II, Completely weathered Rock (In form of Residual Soil)
LAYER TYPE – III, Highly weathered Rock
LAYER TYPE – IV, Strong Fractured Rock

Technical Consultancy for Survey Investigation and Preparation for Detailed Project Report for Improvement of Road Hunli-Anini (138.00 KM)) To NH Double lane Specification in Arunachal Pradesh
SUBSURFACE SOIL / ROCK PROFILE

BRIDGE LOCATION’S
CHAINAGE BOREHOLE LAYER SPT CORE

DEPTH (m) LAYER TYPE (Strata Description) RQD (%)
(KM) NO. TYPE VALUE RECOVERY
19.43 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.00 Filled-up Soil -- -- -- --
3.00 – 5.50 Highly weathered Rock III -- 33.33 14.00
5.50 – 9.50 Strong fractured Granodiorite Gneiss IV -- 52.00 – 61.33 44.66 – 52.00
9.50 – 19.50 Strong fractured DIORITE IV -- 48.00 – 56.30 40.65 – 50.00
BH – 02 0.00 – 2.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- 0.00 0.00
Completely weathered Rock in form of
2.50 – 6.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
6.00 – 11.00 Grey strong QUARTZITE Rock IV -- 46.00 – 71.20 67.30
11.00 – 16.00 Highly weathered ROCK, strong in between III -- 14.66 – 50.00 14.66 – 50.00
16.00 – 22.20 Strong QUARTZITE Rock IV -- 64.83 64.83
23.80 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.50 Black Soil -- -- -- --
2.50 – 11.50 weathered Rock III -- 30.66 – 46.00 9.66 – 46.00
11.50 – 29.50 Strong ROCK IV -- 62.66 – 90.66 54.66 – 82.66
30.35 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.50 Silty Soil with plant fossils -- -- -- --
2.50 – 8.50 Weathered QUARTZITE Rock IV -- 21.33 – 48.66 8.66 – 22.66
8.50 – 29.00 Strong fractured QUARTZITE Rock IV -- 54.66 44.00
43.20 BH – 01 -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --

CHAINAGE BOREHOLE LAYER SPT CORE

DEPTH (m) LAYER TYPE (Strata Description) RQD (%)
(KM) NO. TYPE VALUE RECOVERY
-- -- -- -- -- --
43.98 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.50 Silty Soil with plant fossils -- -- -- --
3.50 – 16.00 Highly weathered ROCK II >100 25.00 – 2.00 0.00
16.00 – 30.50 Strong Fractured ROCK IV -- 55.00 47.33
47.45 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.00 Silty SAND with Gravels -- -- -- --
2.00 – 5.00 Weathered QUARTZITE Rock -- 42 – 47 0.00 0.00
5.00 – 16.25 Highly Weathered ROCK III >100 9.33 – 32.66 8.33 – 10.66
16.25 – 28.75 Strong VOLCANIC Rock IV -- 74.66 72.66
1.50 – 7.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
21.00 – 29.20 Strong QUARTZITE/DIORITE Rock IV -- 64.83 64.83
62.40 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- -- --
3.50 – 13.50 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
13.50 – 28.00 Highly weathered GRANITE Rock III -- 24.00 – 35.00 0.00
85.85 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.00 Grey Soil Deposit -- -- -- --

2.00 – 12.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil

12.00 – 19.50 Highly Weathered ROCK, strong at places III -- 28.62 – 47.00 47.00
19.50 – 35.50 Strong QUARTZITE Rock IV -- 68.00 – 75.33 62.33 – 75.33
88.40 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- 0.00 0.00
3.50 – 6.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
21.50 – 36.20 Strong QUARTZITE/DIORITE Rock IV -- 65.00 65.00
3.00 – 8.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
2.50 – 7.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
7.00 – 12.00 Grey stron GRANODIORITE Rock IV -- 56.00 – 71.33 62.33
94.26 BH - 01 0.00 – 4.50 Black Soil -- -- -- --
4.50 – 7.50 II > 100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
7.50 – 16.00 Highly weathered ROCK III -- 11.66 – 16.33 20.00

16.00 – 23.50 GREEN QUARTZITE ROCK III -- 67.00 73.00

23.50 – 34.10 Strong QUARTIZITE Rock IV -- 91.66 83.33
BH - 02 0.00 – 3.50 Black Soil -- -- -- --
3.50 – 8.00 II > 100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
16.00 – 29.50 GREEN QUARTZITE ROCK III -- 71.00 72.00
99.45 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- -- --
2.50 – 9.00 QUARTZITE PHYLLITE -- 28 – 35 0.00 0.00
9.00 – 18.50 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
18.50 – 31.00 Highly Weathered ROCK III -- 10.66 – 42.00 17.33
BH – 02 0.00 – 2.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- -- --
2.50 – 8.00 QUARTZITE PHYLLITE -- 29 – 34 0.00 0.00
8.00 – 19.50 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
19.50 – 32.00 Highly Weathered ROCK III -- 16.00 – 47.00 21.66
102.55 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.00 Silty Soil -- -- -- --
2.00 – 7.00 Grey Silty SAND / Sandy SILT -- 12 – 48 0.00 0.00
103.69 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.00 Black Soil -- -- -- --
3.00 – 14.50 Highly weathered ROCK III >100 17.33 – 40.00 0.00
14.50 – 28.00 Fractured ROCK IV -- 40.00 40.00
BH – 02 0.00 – 3.50 Black Soil -- -- -- --

3.50 – 16.00 Highly weathered ROCK III >100 19.00 – 44.00 0.00
16.00 – 28.00 Fractured ROCK IV -- 44.00 44.00
109.26 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.50 Silty Soil -- -- -- --
2.50 – 11.00 Highly Weathered ROCK III -- 10.00 – 18.00 6.62 – 6.66
112.70 BH - 01 0.00 – 1.50 Silty SAND with GRAVELS -- -- -- --
1.50 – 9.00 Highly weathered ROCK III -- 14.00 – 28.00 7.33 – 18.66
2.50 – 4.00 II >100 0.00 0.00
Residual Soil
114.81 BH - 01 0.00 – 3.50 Soil -- -- -- --

3.50 – 10.00 weathered Rock II > 100 12.66 – 34.00 0.00
10.00 – 26.00 Carbon Rock III -- 26.33 – 46.00 12.00-28.00
BH - 02 0.00 – 3.00 Soil -- -- -- --
3.00 – 9.00 weathered Rock II > 100 13.66 – 34.00 0.00

9.00 – 28.00 Carbon Rock III -- 24.33 – 41.00 17.00-28.00

129.98 BH – 01 0.00 – 4.50 Clayey SILT (Soil) -- -- -- --
4.50 – 9.00 QUARTZITE PHYLLITE -- -- 0.00 0.00
48 -
9.00 – 18.50 Completely weathered Rock II -- --
>100
18.50 – 30.00 Strong SAND STONE Rock IV -- 46.66 46.66
BH – 02 0.00 – 4.00 Clayey SILT (Soil) -- -- -- --
4.00 – 9.50 QUARTZITE PHYLLITE -- -- 0.00 0.00
49 -
9.50 – 18.50 Completely weathered Rock II -- --
>100
18.50 – 32.00 Strong SAND STONE Rock IV -- 43.66 43.66

5.3 PENETRATION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH PARAMETERS
GENERAL SOIL
Relative density Dr and angle of shearing resistance  are obtained based on

penetration test data and based on the laboratory results on selected undisturbed
samples from non-cohesive soils.
IS 6403: 1981 gives the correlation between ‘N’ (corrected) and .
Laboratory test results are likely to be more dependable than the field results in case
of soft to stiff consistency cohesive soils. In case of stiff to hard clays, collection of truly
undisturbed samples is not practically possible. Undrained cohesion & coefficient of
volume compressibility of the stiff / hard consistency cohesive soils may be determined
by internationally accepted empirical correlations as below;
CU = 0.45 – 0.60 N (T/m2) FOUNDATION DESIGN AND
mv = 1/(0.45-0.6)xNx 100) (m2/T) CONSTRUCTION, “ M. J. TOMLINSON”
Relative density Dr and angle of shearing resistance  may be obtained based on

Standard penetration (SPT) test data for non-cohesive soils. Natural densities may
also be taken as per table 3 – 4, page no. 163, “Foundation Analysis and Design” By J
E Bowles.

Settlement of such soil deposits may be estimated by a semi – empirical method

based on the results of static cone or standard penetration tests.
5.4 CRITICAL STRENGTH PARAMETERS (SOIL) – BRIDGE’S
SECTION – C HUNLI-ANINI ROAD PROJECT OF 138.00 KM

5.5 BRIDGE’S
CHAINAGE LOCATION DEPTH Density Design Design Design

(KM) (T/m3) ‘Cu’ ‘u’
SPT
(T/m2) (Degrees)
values
19.43 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.00 2.00 50 0.00 33
23.80 BH – 01 0.00 – 0.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
30.35 BH – 01 1.00 – 1.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
43.98 BH – 01 0.00 – 1.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
47.45 BH – 01 0.50 – 5.00 1.80 25 0.00 32
62.40 BH – 01 1.00 – 4.50 1.90 30 18.00 33
85.85 BH – 01 0.00 – 3.50 1.70 12 7.00 33
88.40 BH – 01 1.00 – 3.00 2.00 50 0.00 33
BH – 02 0.00 – 3.00 2.00 50 0.00 33
BH – 03 2.50 – 5.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
94.26 BH – 01 1.50 – 3.00 1.80 30 0.00 32
3.00 – 7.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
102.55 BH – 01 1.00 – 4.00 1.70 15 0.00 30
4.00 – 5.00 1.80 35 0.00 32
103.69 BH – 01 1.00 – 8.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
109.26 BH - 01 2.50 – 4.00 2.00 50 0.00 33
112.70 BH – 01 2.50 – 4.50 1.70 12 7.00 0
4.50 – 8.50 2.00 50 0.00 33
114.81 BH – 01 1.50 – 3.00 1.80 17 10.00 0
3.00 – 3.50 2.00 35 18.00 0
129.98 BH – 01 2.50 – 7.00 2.00 50 0.00 33

Undisturbed samples could not be collected due to presence of high percentage of

gravels / dry nature of soil. Values given based on SPT value.
5.4 FOUNDATION OPTIONS
5.4.1 TYPE OF FOUNDATION

Considering the nature of sub-surface strata, type of proposed structures, expected
heavy loads on piers and abutment foundations and the following type of foundations
can be recommended;
a) Well foundation
b) Pile foundation
For satisfactory performance of a foundation, the following criteria must be satisfied;
(i) The foundation must not fail in shear.
(ii)The foundation must not settle by an amount more than the permissible settlement.
The smaller of the bearing pressure values obtained according to (I) and (ii) above, is
adopted as the allowable bearing capacity.
5.4.2 DEPTH OF FOUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL
A foundation must have an adequate depth from considerations of adverse

environmental influences. It must also be economically feasible in terms of overall
structure. Depth of foundations in soil shall be decided as per clause 7 of IS: 1904 for
special cases like; where volume change is expected / scour is expected / foundations
on sloping ground / foundation on made or filled up ground / frost action is expected etc.
FOUNDATIONS IN ROCK
The founding levels should fixed considering an embedment of at least 0.60 m into the
sound rock and 1.50 m in to the disintegrated / weathered soft rock.
As per clause 705.3.1 (a) of IRC: 78; for hard rock with an ultimate crushing strength of
100 Kg/cm2 or above the depth of foundation shall be 0.60 m below rock surface and
1.50 m for soft rocks having with an ultimate crushing strength of 20 Kg/cm2.

In other cases the embedment of the foundations shall be decided keeping in view the
overall characteristics like fissures, bedding plans, cavities, ultimate crushing strength,
proposed treatment of foundation strata etc.
5.4.3 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF OPEN FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL
The net intensity of loading which the foundation will carry without undergoing
settlement in excess of the permissible value for the structure under consideration but
not exceeding net safe bearing capacity.
5.4.3.1 NET SAFE BEARING CAPACITY FROM SHEAR CONSIDERATION:
FOR CLAYEY SOILS ( = 0)
The values are computed from unconfined compressive strength UCS, using the
following equation;
qd = C Nc Sc dc - Refer IS:6403, Clause 5.3
where qd = Net Ultimate bearing capacity
A factor of safety of 2.5 is used.
Considering  = 0, Nc = 5.14
Thus the equation is simplified as
q (net safe) = 1 / 2.5 x C x 5.14 Sc dc
= 2.056 C Sc dc
FOR C -  SOILS
Refer IS:6403 – 1981, Clause 5.1
General Shear Failure

qd = C Nc Sc dc +  D ( Nq – 1) Sq dq + 0.5  B N S d W ’
Local Shear Failure
qd’ = 2/3C N’c Sc dc +  D ( N’q – 1) Sq dq + 0.5  B N’ S d W ’
where qd and qd’ are net ultimate bearing capacity for general and local shear failure
Net safe bearing capacity = (1 / 2.5) x Net ultimate bearing capacity
Bearing capacity factor shall be determined for  for general shear failure and ’ = tan –
1
(0.67 tan) for local shear failure.
Shape and depth factors shall be determined as per IS:6403-1981.
For cohesionless soils with eo value less than 0.55, values are computed for General
shear failure, for eo values between 0. 55 to 0.75 the values are computed by linear
interpolation between local and general shear failure, and for eo value greater than 0.75
the values are computed for local shear failure.
For footing resting on multilayer deposit, Bowls recommends that the ultimate bearing
capacity of footing be determined using average values of cohesion, Cav and angle of
shearing resistance, av. The average values are computed over a depth H below the
base of footing, where
H = 0.5 B tan (45 + /2)
5.4.3.2 SAFE BEARING PRESSURE FROM SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION:
SETTLEMENTS BASED ON CONSOLIDATION CRITERION

For normal consolidated clays…
Sf = Sc + Si
Sc =  Soed
Si = pB(1-2) I /E; will be negligible
 = poission’s ratio,
Soed = (hI Cc /(1 + e0) ) log 10 ((p’ + p0’) / p0’))

(Reference: clause 9.2.2.2 IS 8009 (Part I))
where;
hI = thickness of soil layer (m)
Cc = Compression index
e0 = Initial void ratio
p0’ = effective overburden pressure (t/sq.m)
p’ = net increase in pressure at centre of cohesive soil layer

For precompressed clays………
Sf = Sc ( for fully saturated clays)
Sc =  Soed;  is taken from table – 1, IS: 8009 (Part – 1), 0.7
Soed = mv hI p
(Reference: clause 9.2.2.3 IS 8009 (Part I))
where;
mv = Coefficient of volume compression
p = net increase in pressure at center of cohesive soil layer
If clays are lightly over consolidated, then the above method may be adopted but
if the clay is heavily over consolidated, it may not be necessary to compute the
settlement.
If the soil deposits consists of several regular soil layers in the influence zone, the
settlement of each layer below the foundation shall be computed and summed to obtain
the total settlement.
The settlement contribution by noncohesive / partially cohesive soil layer shall be

estimated by the methods in clause 9.1, IS: 8009 (Part I); De Beer Marten method shall
be used.
De Beer and Martens’ Procedure

S = (2.303 / Ci) log 10 ((p + p0’) / p0’))hi
Ci = a constant of compressibility = 3/2 (Ckd / p0’)
Ckd = average static cone resistance
p0’ = effective overburden pressure (t/sq.m)
p = net increase in pressure at centre of noncohesive/ partially cohesive soil

layer
For purly noncohesive soils…….

Settlement shall be determined for unit pressure for a specified width of footing based
on Corrected SPT values between the level of base of footing and the depth equal to
1.5 to 2.0 times the width of footing. Corrections shall be applied as applicable. Refer;
IS: 8009 (Part-1).
5.4.4 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK
Analysis for allowable bearing capacity on rock has been done by the following four
methods.
a) Based on rock mass rating (RMR value).
b) Based on compressive strength of intact rock specimen using the procedure given in IS:
12070
c) Based on ASCE procedure
5.4.4.1 ANALYSIS OF SAFE BEARING PRESSURE FROM THE RMR SYSTEM
Analysis has been carried out using the RMR also known as Geo-mechanics
classification by considering various parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength,
RQD, spacing and condition of discontinuities and ground water condition. The
correlation between the RMR value and allowable pressure has been given in Table –3
IS: 12070. This will ensure settlement of raft foundation to be less than 12 mm.
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of jointed rock masses, may be worked out based on IS
13365 (part I). Rock Mass Rating parameters are reproduced from annex B of IS
13365 (part I) below for ready reference.
Strength of intact rock material (mpa)
Compressive Rating Basis
Strength (M Pa)
Exceptionally >250 15 UCS value data of specific
Very Strong 100-250 12 borehole from laboratory test
Strong
is used in RMR
Strong 50-100 7
Average 25-50 4
Weak 10-25 2
Very Weak 2-10 1
Extremely <2 0
Weak
Rock quality designation (RQD)

RQD (%) Rating Basis

Excellent 90-100 20 RQD values of specific
Good 75-90 17 borehole below given depth
from relevant borehole is
Fair 50-75 13
used in RMR
Poor 25-50 8
Very Poor <25 3
Spacing of discontinuities
Spacing, (m) Rating Basis
Very Wide >2 20 Spacing of discontinuities of
Wide 0.6-2 15 specific borehole from field
observations is used in RMR
Moderate 0.2-0.6 10
Close 0.06-0.2 8
Very Close <0.06 5
Condition of discontinuities
Very rough rough and slightly rough Slickensided 5 mm thick
and slightly and moderately wall rock soft gauge
unweathered weathered wall to highly surface or 1-5 5 mm wide
rock wall rock, rock surface, weathered wall mm thick gauge continuous
tight and separation < 1 rock surface, or 1-5 mm wide discontinuit
discontinuous, mm separation < 1 opening, y
no separation mm continuous
discontinuity
30 25 20 10 0
Ground water condition

General Completely Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
Description Dry
Rating 4 8 17 4 0
Table 3 of IS-12070, Design & Construction of Shallow Foundation on Rock, gives net
allowable pressure based on RMR values. These values will ensure settlement of
foundation to be less than 12 mm. This table is reproduced below.
NET SAFE BEARING PRESSURES BASED ON RMR
Classification I II III IV V
No

Description of Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Rock
RMR 100-81 80-61 60-41 40-21 20-0
Q ns (T/m2) 600-448 448-288 280-151 145-90-58 55-45-40
The RMR for use in Table should be the average within a depth below foundation level
equal to the width of foundation, provided the RMR is fairly uniform within the depth. If
the upper part of the rock, within a depth of about one fourth of the width of foundation,
is of lower quality the value of this part should be used or the inferior rock should be
removed. Since these values are based on limiting the settlement, they should not be
increased if the foundation is embedded into the rock.
5.4.4.2 ESTIMATE OF SAFE BEARING CAPACITY FROM THE CORE STRENGTH
The safe bearing capacity has been estimated from the following equation given in
IS:12070.
qs = qc Nj
qs = gross safe bearing pressure (includes safety factor 3)
qc = average uniaxial compressive strength of rock cores

Nj = empirical coefficient depending on the spacing of discontinuities.
= (3 + S/Bf) /10( 1 + 300  / S),
= 0.10 for spacing of discontinuities 300 mm to 1000 mm
where,  = thickness of discontinuities (cm)
S = spacing of discontinuities (cm)
Bf = width of footing (cm)
This relationship is valid for a rock mass with spacing of discontinuities greater than
0.30 m aperture of discontinuities less than 10 mm and foundation width more than 0.30
m.
CORRECTION TO BE APPLIED

For getting the allowable bearing pressure the safe bearing pressure obtained from
6.4.4.1 & 6.4.4.3 shall be multiplied with the correction factors according to the
geological conditions as per IS: 12070 Clause 9.2.
For submerged conditions - correction factor of 0.50 to 0.75 depending upon

the aperture of joints
For orientation of joints - correction factor of 0.50 to 1.00 depending upon
the orientation of joints
These correction factors are not applicable for bearing pressure from RMR
system.
5.4.4.3 ESTIMATE OF SAFE BEARING CAPACITY FROM C -  PARAMETERS
The AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS recommends calculating the

bearing capacity considering general shear failure with irregular failure surface through
rock mass. Based on our evaluation of the rock characteristics and RMR values,
interpreted shear parameters (C and ) for the rock mass have been selected.
The ultimate bearing capacity equation is as follows;
qult = CNcCc + 0.5 B  N C +  D Nq
Where:
B = width of foundation
D = depth of foundation
 = effective unit weight of the rock
Cc, C = correction factors for foundation shape
Cc = 1.2 for circular foundation
= 1.25 for square foundation
C = 0.7 for circular foundation
= 0.85 for square foundation
Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors, function of 
As given by ASCE, these factors may be calculated using the following equations;
Nc = 2 N0.5 (N + 1)
N = N0.5 (N2 - 1)
Nq = N2
N = tan2(45 + /2)
The net safe bearing capacity may be worked out using the following equation;
qns = 1/F(qult - D),
F = factor of safety, taken as 3.0.
5.5 DEEP FOUNDATIONS (SOCKETED PILES)
Rock socketed piles can be designed to carry compressive loads in side wall shear
only or end bearing only, or a combination of both. The most important factors that
influence the design procedure are the strength, degree of fracturing and modulus of
deformation of rock mass, the condition of the walls and base of the socket and the
geometry of the socket.
5.5.1 LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF PILES BASED ON UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH OF ROCK
Qs = qc Nj Nd Ap + qc  Dls ---(1) IS: 14593: 1998
where Qs = safe load capacity of pile, in tonnes;
qc = uniaxial compressive strength of rock, T/m2
Nd = depth factor = 0.8 + 0.2ls/D, limited to 2;
ls = socket length into the rock, in m;
D = diameter of pile, in m
Ap = area of pile toe
Nj = values as per fig. 2 of IS 12070 if applicable, otherwise the table
4, IS 12070.
 = rock socket slide resistance reduction factor (Fig. 1, IS 14593:
1998)
 = rock socket correction factor (Fig. 2, IS 14593: 1998)
The uni-axial compression strength is not representative of the in-situ mechanical

properties of the rock mass because of the absence of discontinuities in the laboratory
test specimens. For such a rock mass, the conventional bearing-capacity equation

may be used, provided relevant strength parameters have been evaluated from in-situ
tests or estimated on the basis of the rock classification system. Note that the bearing-
capacity equation usually furnishes an upper bound capacity value. This method is
generally not applicable to soft stratified rocks.
MINIMUM SOCKET LENGTH

For sound relatively homogeneous rock = 1 to 2D.
For moderately weathered, closely jointed = 2 to 3D
Soft rocks, sedimentary rocks = 3 to 4D
5.5.2 AS PER IRC: 78 - 2000
Qa = Ksp qc df Ap + As qs
where Qa = ultimate load capacity of pile, in tonnes;
qc = uniaxial compressive strength of rock, T/m2
df = depth factor = 1.0 + 0.4ls/D, Length of socket limited to 0.5 x dia

of socket;
ls = socket length into the rock, in m;
D = diameter of pile, in m
Ap = area of pile toe
Ksp = An empirical coefficient whose value ranges from 0.1 to 0.4
qs = Ultimate shear along socket, value of qs may be taken as 50
Kg/cm2 for normal rock which may be reduced to 20 Kg/cm2 for weathered
rock.
Note: 1. Factor of safety shall be 5 on the end bearing component and 10 on

socket side resistance component.
2. The maximum allowable end bearing pressure should be limited to 30

Kg/cm2 after applying factor of safety.
5.5.3 AS PER CANADIAN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL

The method described in Chapter 9 of this Manual is applicable to deep foundations.

According to Ladanyi and Roy (1971), the effect of depth is included and the formula
becomes:
qa = qc Ksp d
where
qa = allowable bearing pressure
qc = average unconfined compressive strength of rock core, from ASTM D2938
Ksp = empirical factor, as given in Section 9.2 and including a safety factor of 3 (as
used for determining the SBC of footing on rock)
d = depth factor = 1 + 0.4 Ls/bs < 3.4
Ls = depth (length) of the socket
bs = diameter of the socket
This method is generally not applicable to soft stratified rocks, such as shales or
limestones.
SHAFT RESISTANCE BETWEEN CONCRETE AND ROCK
Analytical studies revealed from test loading of drilled piers socketed in to the bed rock
that socket shear may account for a large portion of the total capacity. The socket
shear load is given by the following relationship.
Qs= π bs Lsqs
Where, bs = diameter of the socket
Ls = Length of the socket
qs = unit shear along the socket
The socket shear depends on the strength of the concrete or rock and on the
roughness of the socket rock interface, as outlined below
CONVENTIONAL PIERS

Piers that are excavated and constructed using conventional methods have relatively
smooth concrete rock interface. Using data from more than two hundred loading tests
on large diameter, by Horvath et al, established a relationship between unit socket
shear and compressive strength of the weaker socket material, i.e. the weaker of the
concrete or rock. Relation is given in fig 20.1 (not enclosed here) and approximated by
the following relation.
qs =  √c
Where qs = is unit socket shear and c = compressive strength of weaker of the

concrete or rock,  = empirical factor ranging from 200 to 300 having unit √ Pa. On
calculating unit socket shear by this method, divide by minimum factor of safety of 2.50
to obtain safe unit shear value.
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS & DETAILED DISCUSSIONS
In case proposed founding level falls in weathered rock layer with moderate core
recovery and nil to negligible RQD. Now from literature we know that the c and 
values of a rock specimen is in the range of c = 35 to 350 kg/sqcm and  is seldom
less than 40 degree [ Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, pp-233, 4th
Edition]. When the rock is fractured so that good intact core is not recovered, it is the
cohesion value that will be missed. The friction value will remain in tact. Again, from
laboratory tests on crushed samples shows C = 0.00 kg/sqcm &  = > 40°. The strata
having core recovery less than 20 % shall be designed as RMR value “0”, or as soil
with C = 0.00 kg/sqcm &  = 33° on conservative side.
RMR value for highly fractured rock is also determined based on experience as Joints
are not very clearly defined. In cases where the shear failure is to be considered to
occur through highly fractured rock masses, cohesion can not be relied upon to provide
resistance to failure, hence only angle of internal friction is considered to determine the
bearing capacities by conventional method. If Rock is not Intact UCS value of recovered
core does not represent the strength of rock mass.
6.1 FOUNDATION SCHEME
SAMPLE CALCULATION – BRIDGE STRUCTURE / BRIDGE ABUTMENTS

Considering weak rock as per RMR System
Parameters used for the analysis for foundations bearing on rock are as follows;
A) RMR Value : 0
Net Safe bearing Pressure from Table – 3 (IS: 12070) : 40T/m2
B) Safe Bearing Pressure from the core strength : NA
C) Based on ASCE Procedure
qult = CNcCc + 0.5 B  N C +  D Nq
Cu = 0.0 T/m 2 ,  = 33 and  = 1.500 T/m3 (Submerged Density),
Cc = 1.12, Cv = 0.90
A summary of the analysis based on these various calculations for open foundations
bearing on rock is presented below;
METHOD OF ANALYSIS ESTIMATED NET BEARING PRESSURE FOR

FOUNDATIONS BEARING ON ROCK, T/m2
RMR Value 40
Compressive strength of Intact Rock NA
ASCE Procedure rectangular 34
RECOMMENDED NET
ALLOWABLE BEARING 30
CAPACITY, T/m2
RECOMMENDED LOAD CAPACITY FOR WELL FOUNDATIONS

CUTOFF LEVEL BELOW
BELOW CUTOFF LEVEL

DIA METER OF WELL
PROPOSED TYPE OF
LENGTH OF WELL
LOCATION (KM)
RECOMMENDED SAFE
FOUNDATION
VERTICAL LOAD
CARRYING
NGL
(m)
CAPACITY
(Tonnes)
BORED CAST IN SITU
WELL
19.43 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 15.00 m 400

23.80 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.50 m 400
30.35 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 13.50 m 400

43.98 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.50 m 400

47.45 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 16.50 m 400
62.40 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 14.50 m 400
85.85 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.50 m 400
88.40 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 17.50 m 400
94.26 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.00 m 400
99.45 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.50 m 400
102.55 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 10.50 m 400
103.69 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.00 m 400
109.26 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 11.50 m 400
112.70 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 15.00 m 400
114.81 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 15.00 m 400
129.98 WELL 8000 mm 2.00 m 16.50 m 400
Safe vertical Load carrying capacity of piles have been determined based on IS: 14593, IRC:
78 – 2000 & as per Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual.
The capacity is assumed to be derived from both toe resistance and shaft resistance. In this
case, consideration must be given to the load transfer behavior of the pile – socket system.
This approach should be used with caution, detailed investigation at exact pier / abutment
location and verification of the design load by full scale test a is recommended.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON BEARING PRESSURES ON ROCK
a) The uni-axial compression strength is not representative of the in-situ mechanical

properties of the rock mass because of the absence of discontinuities in the laboratory
test specimens. For such a rock mass, the conventional bearing-capacity equation
may be used, provided relevant strength parameters have been evaluated from in-situ
tests or estimated on the basis of the rock classification system (Hoek and Brown,
1980). Note that the bearing-capacity equation usually furnishes an upper bound
capacity value.
b) With the exception of a few porous limestone and volcanic rocks and some shales, the
strength of bed rock in-situ will be greater than the compressive strength of the
foundation concrete. This statement may not be true if the rock is in a highly fractured,
highly weathered (as not intact), where considerable relative slip between rock
fragments may occur.
c) If at the time of actual excavation, major solution cavities have been found which have
rendered the ground surface uneven, the depth of foundation should be taken to a level
such that 80 percent rock area is available. Otherwise excavate the filled up soil upto 80
percent area level and backfill it by lean concrete of required strength. However the rock
has to be excavated up to the pre-selected foundation level.
d) Tests on intact rock samples where the RQD = 0.50 (50 %) or less can give an incorrect
strength for the mass.
e) It is more common to use building code values / IS / IRC code recommendations for the
allowable bearing capacity of rock; however geology, rock type and quality (RQD) are
significant parameters, which should be used together with the recommended code
values.
f) Horizontal stiffness of foundations on rock is too small compared to its vertical stiffness.
Due attention should be given in selecting minimum size of footings.
g) In case of RCC strip foundation on heterogeneous rock deposits, longitudinal

reinforcement (along wall) should also be provided to take care possible bending
moments.

h) The choice of the value for design is a matter of engineering judgment and field
assessment of rock character. After review of the net bearing pressure computed from
different methods, the final value has been selected based on our engineering judgment
based on rock encountered in the limited number of boreholes as reported herein. If any
significant departure from the reported data is noticed during actual construction, the
Geotechnical consultants may be referred for advice.

7.0 REFERENCES
1. IRC: 78 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice

for Road Bridges; Foundations and
Substructures
2. Specifications for Road Ministry of Surface Transport, Section 2400

and Bridge Works
Classification and Identification of soils for

3. IS:1498-1970
General Engineering Purposes.
4. IS:2131-1981 Method for Standard penetration Test for soils.
5. IS-2132 Code of practice for thin walled tube sampling

of soils.
6. IS: 11315 (Part II) Core recovery and core quality
Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlement

7. IS: 8009 (Part-I & II)
of Shallow Foundations & deep foundations
Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing
8. IS: 6403
Capacity of Shallow Foundations
Code of Practice for Design and Construction
9. IS: 12070
of Shallow Foundations on Rocks
Design and Construction of cast-in-situ piles
10. IS: 14593: 1998
founded on rocks - Guidelines.
11. IS: 4464 Presentation of drilling information
12. IS-6926: Code of practice for diamond core drilling for

site investigations.
13. IS: 5313 Guide for core drilling observations
14. Bieniawski, Z. T (1989). “Engineering Rock Mass Classifications”.
15. Terzaghi, K. And Peck, R.B. (1975), “

Geotech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Consultancy for Survey Investigation and Preparation for Detailed Project Report for Improvement of Road Hunli-Anini

(138.00 KM)) To NH Double lane Specification in Arunachal Pradesh

SL. No. CHAPTER PAGE NO.

1.0 BACK GROUND 2

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 1 of 33

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR

2.0 PLANNING OF SOIL EXPLORATION PROGRAMME

(ii) obtain soundings of penetration resistance by Standard Penetration test in the

2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 2 of 33

2.1.2 The summary of the field- work is given below:

STRETCH DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION (m)

85.85 2.00 33.50 35.50

2.1.3 Conducting Standard Penetration Tests at regular interval of 1.50 m as per IS

2.1.6 Summary of proposed Laboratory Testing program is given below;

SL. PARTICULARS OF DISTURBED UNDISTURBED ROCK

SL. PARTICULARS OF DISTURBED UNDISTURBED ROCK

3.0 METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION

3.4 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was conducted at different depths in these

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 4 of 33

Correlations are tabulated below.

CORRELATION FOR SAND/NON-PLASTIC SILT

CORRELATION FOR CLAY/PLASTIC SILT

3.5 Disturbed Sampling in boreholes

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 5 of 33

3.6 Undisturbed Sampling in Boreholes

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 6 of 33

Weathered decomposed or disintegrated to a soil. 11 % to 50 %

4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND DATA OBTAINED

4.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING

4.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 7 of 33

4.4 GROUND WATER TABLE

4.5 DENSITY / WATER ABSORPTION / UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Density / water absorption / unconfined compressive strength of rock mass is

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT / FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION /

5.2 SUB SOIL / ROCK PROFILE

LAYER TYPE – I, Overburden Soil

LAYER TYPE – III, Highly weathered Rock

LAYER TYPE – IV, Strong Fractured Rock

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 8 of 33

SUBSURFACE SOIL / ROCK PROFILE

CHAINAGE BOREHOLE LAYER SPT CORE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 9 of 33

CHAINAGE BOREHOLE LAYER SPT CORE

85.85 BH – 01 0.00 – 2.00 Grey Soil Deposit -- -- -- --

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 10 of 33

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 11 of 33

16.00 – 23.50 GREEN QUARTZITE ROCK III -- 67.00 73.00

BH – 02 0.00 – 3.50 Black Soil -- -- -- --

114.81 BH - 01 0.00 – 3.50 Soil -- -- -- --

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 13 of 33

9.00 – 28.00 Carbon Rock III -- 24.33 – 41.00 17.00-28.00

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 14 of 33

5.3 PENETRATION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH PARAMETERS

Relative density Dr and angle of shearing resistance  are obtained based on

IS 6403: 1981 gives the correlation between ‘N’ (corrected) and .

Relative density Dr and angle of shearing resistance  may be obtained based on

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SHEET 15 of 33

Settlement of such soil deposits may be estimated by a semi – empirical method

5.4 CRITICAL STRENGTH PARAMETERS (SOIL) – BRIDGE’S

SECTION – C HUNLI-ANINI ROAD PROJECT OF 138.00 KM