Jamuni River Geotech Report

ON
SOIL INVESTIGATION, GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED

BRIDGE OVER JAMUNI RIVER, BARAGADHI RURAL
MUNICIPALITY, BARA
Prepared for
Baragadhi Rural Municipality

Province No 2
Prepared By:
NGC Pvt Ltd
Sankhamul, Kathmandu
June 2019
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Scope of the work ................................................................................................................. 1
2 General Geology, Geomorphology and Seismicity ..................................................................... 2
2.1 General Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................. 2
2.2 Seismicity .............................................................................................................................. 2
3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Field work Procedure ............................................................................................................ 3
3.1.1 In-situ Tests ................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Sampling: ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Laboratory Test ..................................................................................................................... 5
4 Observations and Results ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Field Investigation Results .................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Ground water table ................................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Laboratory Investigation Results .......................................................................................... 6
4.3.1 Index Properties ............................................................................................................. 6
4.3.2 Strength Parameters ....................................................................................................... 6
4.4 N-value correction ................................................................................................................. 6
5 Bearing Capacity ......................................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Bearing Capacity of Spread Footing ..................................................................................... 7
5.2 Bearing capacity analysis results .......................................................................................... 8
6 Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 11
References: ........................................................................................................................................ 11
List of Appendix:
Appendix I: Bore Hole Logs
Appendix II: Lab Test Results
Appendix III: Photographs
i
Soil Investigation Works of Proposed Bridge over Jamuni
River Bridge, Baragadhi Rural Municipality
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
This report is prepared to determine bearing capacity of the soil for Bridge over Jamuni River,
Baragadhi, Bara. The site has been proposed to make three bore holes having 10 -16 m depth each
for sub-soil investigation program. The site location is shown Figure 1.
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of this investigation is to explore the geotechnical characteristics of the
sub–soil strata,
(i) to estimate the engineering properties of the sub-soil
(ii) to estimate bearing capacity of foundation soil
(iii) to estimate ground water level at site
1.3 Scope of the work
The main scopes of the works are:-
(i) to find out general soil profile of the site.

(ii) to estimate the engineering and geotechnical properties of the soil.
(iii) to estimate bearing capacity of soil for design of bridge foundation
1
2 General Geology, Geomorphology and Seismicity
2.1 General Geology and Geomorphology
The proposed bridge site lies in Bara district. Geologically, Nepal has been divided into five different
zone such as Terai zone, Sub-Himalaya, Lesser Himalaya, Higher Himalaya and Tibetan Tethys zone
as shown in the geological map of Nepal in Fig. 2. Figure 3 shows the project location where the
project site lies in Terai region composed of soils from Quaternary deposits composed of alluvium,
boulder, gravel, sand and fines.
Figure 2 Geological map of Nepal (Dahal 2006)
2.2 Seismicity
Due to Tectonic Forces, Himalayan zones and the neighboring areas are seismically very active. Most
of epicenters of earthquakes are found to be located in the unstable zones. The frequency and intensity
of earthquakes are found at the weakness of the crust such as major faults, major bends or major
acres. A recent earthquake of magnitude 7.6 on Richter scale also proves that the country is highly
vulnerable to earthquake. A suitable seismic force shall be considered for foundation design.
2
3 Methodology
3.1 Field work Procedure
3.1.1 In-situ Tests

Field works involved percussion drilling mechanism for drilling and sampling of the boreholes in the
proposed area to a depth of 10-16 m from the ground levels and SPT/ DCPT were taken at every 1.5
m intervals and are recorded. Borehole logs were prepared at the site on the basis of the visual
observation of the soil obtained from the boreholes. The borehole log is shown in Appendix I.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT):

It consists of driving a Split Spoon Sampler with an outside dia. of 50 mm into the soil at the base of
borehole. Driving is accomplished by a drop of hammer weighing 63.5 kg falling freely through a
height of 750 mm onto the drive head. First of all the spoon is driven 150 mm into the soil at the
bottom of the borehole. It is then driven further 300 mm and the number of blows (N values) required
to drive this distance is recorded. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of the test procedure. Figure
5 shows the friction angle of soil based on normalized SPT N value. Table 1 shows the relative
density and friction angle of soil based on SPT N value for cohesionless soils and Table 2 shows
unconfined compressive strength and consistency of cohesive soils based on SPT N value.
Figure 4 Standard Penetration Test Procedures
3
Figure 5: Friction angle for different normalized SPT N value (Hatanaka and Uchida 1996)
Table 1 Correlation of SPT N160 Values to Drained Friction Angle of Granular Soils (AASHTO
2012, Bowles, 1977)
N160 Friction Angle

<4 25-30
4 27-32
10 30-35
30 35-40
50 38-43
Table 2 Relationship of N Value to Strength and Consistency for Cohesive Soils
N value Consistency Unconfined Compressive Strength qu (kPa)

<2 Very Soft < 25
2-4 Soft 25-50
4-8 Medium Stiff 50-100
8-15 Stiff 100-200
15-30 Very Stiff 200-400
>30 Hard 400-800
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT):

Cone – drill rod – driving head assembly is installed vertically on the ground and hammer is dropped
from standard height repeatedly. The blow counts are recorded for every 100 mm penetration. A sum
of three consecutive values i.e. 300 mm is noted as the dynamic cone resistance, Ncd at that depth.
Figure 9 shows the details of DCPT cone and sampler.
4
Figure 6: Details of DCPT cone and sampler
From the recorded dynamic cone resistance Ncd, the equivalent SPT (N) is calculated as:
Ncd = 1.5 N for depths up to 3 m
Ncd = 1.75 N for depths between 3 m to 6 m
Ncd = 2 N for depths greater than 6 m
The equivalent SPT value more than 80 has been recorded as 80.
3.1.2 Sampling:
Before any sample was taken, the borehole was cleaned up of loose disturbed soil deposited during
drilling operation. The samples obtained by washing and in the SPT tube were preserved as
representative disturbed samples for finding out index properties. The samples thus obtained were
placed in airtight double plastic bags, labeled properly for identification and transported to the lab
for analysis.
3.2 Laboratory Test
Following laboratory tests were conducted to obtain the geotechnical parameters of the sub soil, as
per standard code of practice.
a) Grain size distribution analysis
b) Natural moisture content
c) Specific gravity
d) Moist and Dry density
e) Direct shear test
5
4 Observations and Results
4.1 Field Investigation Results
Logging of the boring hole was carried out at the site during boring period. The log was reconfirmed
and suitably corrected based on the laboratory test results. The log of the boreholes show Sand/Gravel
throughout the holes.
Measured Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value is 12 to more than 80 at different depths and bore
holes in the in-situ soil strata. Measured (SPT) N-value shows that the soil is in medium dense to
very dense state as shown in Appendix I.
4.2 Ground water table

Ground water table was found at a depth of 3 m during soil investigation work. However, a
conservative water table at ground surface is assumed considering river flow.
4.3 Laboratory Investigation Results
4.3.1 Index Properties

The results of physical and index properties of soil samples collected from various depths are
presented in the attached summary sheet.
The grain size distribution curves of soil samples are classified as USCS Soil Classification System.
As per USCS Soil Classification System, most of the soils are in SP and GP groups. Boulders were
not included in sieve analysis.
4.3.2 Strength Parameters

Due to presence of cohesionless materials, it is often difficult to obtain undisturbed sample. Direct
shear test was conducted on disturbed samples. Though the samples show some cohesion, it is ignored
for effective stress analysis. A friction angle of 32° is assumed for foundation bearing soil. The lab
test results are shown in Appendix II.
4.4 N-value correction

The corrected SPT value (N1 )60 is the SPT blow count normalized to an overburden pressure of
approximately 100 kPa and a hammer energy ratio of 60% expressed as (Das 2013)
N160  NCN CECBCRCS (1)
where N = measured standard penetration resistance; CN =overburden correction factor (a factor to
normalize N to a common reference effective overburden stress of 1atm.); CE = correction for
6
CB = correction factor for borehole diameter; CR =correction factor for rod
hammer energy ratio;
length; CS =correction for samplers with or without liners. The factor CN is given by
7
2000 (2)
CN  0.77 log10  '  1.7
v
Maximum overburden correction factor is conservatively assumed as 1.0.
5 Bearing Capacity
Based on shallow depth of bearing stratum, spread/ raft footing is recommended for the abutments.
5.1 Bearing Capacity of Spread Footing

In the analysis of bearing capacity of foundation, both shear failure and settlement criteria shall be
taken into account. The bearing capacity analysis was carried out based on the results of SPT N-
value. The bearing capacity of mat foundation can be computed based on two criteria: shear failure
criteria and settlement criteria.
The ultimate (or nominal) bearing capacity of raft foundation using Shear failure criteria is given by
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory as
qu  CNc  Df Nq  0.5DN for L/B≥5 (3)
General bearing capacity for any shape of footing and inclined load is given by 

qu  CNc scic  Df Nq sqiq  0.5BN s i (4)
sc, sq and sγ are the shape factors and ic, iq and iγ are the load inclination factors.
B Nq B B
for  0, sc  1  ,s 1 tan, s  1  0.4 (5)
q 
L Nc L L
The net ultimate bearing capacity and net safe or net allowable bearing capacity is given by:
qnu  qu  Df (6)
q nu
qna  (7)
FS
Bearing capacity of footing on cohesionless soils
Based on SPT value N, Teng’s equation can be used to compute bearing capacity of open
foundation as
q  0.22N 2BW  0.67(100  N 2 )D W (8)

nu  f q
8
The bearing capacity of open foundation for cohesionless soils can also be obtained using
settlement criteria as explained by different researchers below:
i. Teng (1969) modified formula based on the curves developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948)
9
B  0.32 F R
q (KN / m2 )  53(N  3)  (9)
p  2B  d w
 
where qp is the net allowable bearing pressure for allowed settlement of 25 mm, N is the corrected
SPT, B is the width of the footing, Rw is the water table correction factor (Rw= 1+z2/B), where z2 is
the depth of water table from footing level, Fd is the depth factor (Fd = 1+0.2×D/B ≤ 1.2)
ii. Meyerhof (1956, modified)
For B > 1.2m, for open foundations

q (KN / m2 )  12.5N  B  0.3  F R
2
(10)
p  B  d w
 
Fd is given by Fd = 1 + 0.33 D/B ≤ 1.33.
For the settlement of 40 mm, net allowable bearing pressure is given by:
S'
q' q (11)
p
25 p
Bearing capacity of footing on cohesive soils

To calculate the bearing capacity of cohesive soil, Terzaghi’s method and Skempton’s method are
used. The bearing capacity equations are:
Terzaghi’s net ultimate bearing capacity equation is:
 B
 (12)
q  5.7C 1 0.3 


nu  
 L 
Similarly, Skempton’s net ultimate bearing capacity is given by:
qnu  CNc (13)
 D f  B Df
N   0.2 1 0.2 for  2.5 (14)
C ( rec) 51  
 B  L  B
The safe bearing capacity is obtained by dividing net ultimate bearing capacity by factor of safety,
FS (3).
5.2 Bearing capacity analysis results
SPT value and correction is shown in Table 3. A minimum value from BH-1, BH-2 and BH-3 is
considered. The soil type in all boreholes is similar (Sand/Gravel with little fines).
10
Table 3: SPT value for bearing capacity analysis
11
SPT N Value Calculation
GWT (m) 3
Effective
Avg N60
Depth N Unit Wt σ'vo CN N160 Soil Type
(Spread)
(m) N60 γ' (KN/m3) (kPa)
1.5 12 9 17 25.5 1.00 9
Sand
GWT 3 15 12 17 51.0 1.00 12 Sand
gravel
4.5 15 11 9.2 64.8 1.00 11
6 29 21 9.2 78.6 1.00 21
7.5 37 28 10.2 93.9 1.00 28 32
9 66 50 10.2 109.2 0.97 48
Gravel with
10.5 80 60 12.2 127.5 0.92 55
Sand
12 80 60 12.2 145.8 0.88 53
14 80 60 12.2 170.2 0.82 49
16 80 60 12.2 194.6 0.78 47
1. Hammer efficiency is assumed as 45%.

2. Maximum correction factor CN is assumed 1.0.
Depth of Footing
For abutments, spread/raft footing shall be used. foundation shall be placed at least 2 m below the
maximum scour level. Scour data from hydrological report and recommended footing level is shown
in Table 4. Bearing capacity analysis results for raft foundation for abutments is shown in Table 5. A
sample calculation is shown in Figures 7a and 7b.
Table 4: Scour depth and recommended footing level

Substructure HFL Average Min Bed Maximum scour Recommended
(m) Ground level (m) level for Abutment foundation level (m)
Level (m) (m)
Abutment
Table 5: Computation of Bearing Capacity of Abutments and Piers (bearing on soil) for allowed
settlement of 40 mm (Raft foundation, L = approx. 8 m)
Effective Depth of foundation below B=5m B=6m B=7m

MSL (D) = 2 m
Average corrected SPT (N160) 32 32 32
Terzaghi's shear failure criteria, qna 390 425 455
Teng's shear failure criteria, qna 439 476 514
Teng's Equation (modified) 373 362 353
Meyerhof's Equation (modified) 407 392 381
Depth of foundation from Ground level for Abutments = approximately 6.0 m

Recommended bearing capacity = 350 kPa
12
Spread Footing Bearing Capacity Calculation
D/B
z1
0.29
z1 ok
z2 z2
(assumed)
Figure 7a: Sample calculation of raft foundation bearing capacity
13
General bearing capacity analysis (Spread Footing/ Raft foundation)
Width of footing, B = 7m Above footing
Length of footing, L = 8m z1
Depth of footing, Df = 2m Df γ= 20
Vertical load, V = KN
Horizontal load, H = KN Below footing z1 = 0 OK
Load inclination angle, ϴ = deg
Eccentricity, e = m γ= 20 B z2
Effective width, B' = 7m
Nγ = 30.2 cohesion, c = 0
Nq = 23.2 Friction angle, φ = 32.0
Nc = 35.5 z2 = 0 OK
Sc = 1.57
Sq = 1.55 Shape Factors
sγ = 0.65
n= NA
ic = 1.00
iq = 1.00 Load Inclination
iγ = 1.00 Factors
Rw1 = 0.50 Water Table

Rw2 = 0.50 Correction Factors
qult = 1404 kPa

qnu = 1364.4 kPa
FS = 3
qna = 455 kPa
Figure 7b: Sample calculation of raft foundation bearing capacity (shear failure criteria, Terzaghi
method)
6 Recommendation
Geotechnical profile along different borehole shows medium dense to very dense Sand/Gravel, in all
boreholes at different depths.
For abutments, the recommended footing depth is 2 m below maximum scour level (approximately
6.0 m from existing ground). The recommended bearing capacity for the footing width of 5 – 7 m is
350 kPa for an allowable settlement of 40 mm. The foundation shall not be placed on soft/loose soils
if encountered below the bottom of the footing.
References:
Dahal R K (2006): Geology for Technical Students, Bhrikuti Academic Publications, Kathmandu,
Nepal, 756p.
Das B M (2013): Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering, Fourth Edition, Cengage Learning,

Delhi, India, 636p.
14
Appendix I: Borehole Log
15
Tiyaar River bridge
Bore Log
Province No. 2, Karaiyamai

Client Bore Hole No 1
Rural Municipality
Drilling Method Rotary Bore hole position L/B

Borehole dia (mm) 100 Depth of water table (m) 3
Logged by Ramsaran Magar
Checked by
Eqvt SPT Value

SPT No of blow (15/15/15
Thickness (m)
SPT/ DCPT
Depth (m)
cm)
Symbol
SPT N Value
Depth
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DCPT No of blow
(10/10/10 cm) 0 20 40 60 80
0.0
1.0
DCPT 1.5 12 16 18 31
2.0 2.0
3.0 Light grey dense Silty Sand DCPT 3.0 15 18 23 37

6.0
with gravel, boulder
4.0 4.0
DCPT 4.5 16 19 25 34
5.0
6.0 DCPT 6.0 22 26 35 47

6.0
7.0
DCPT 7.5 16 17 19 26
8.0 Light grey Silty Sand with
4.0 8.0
some gravel
9.0 DCPT 9.0 18 21 27 33
10.0 DCPT 10.0 17 22 28 34

Equivalent SPT value is limited to 80 10.0
Tiyaar River bridge
Bore Log

Rural Municipality
Drilling Method Rotary Bore hole position Centre

Borehole dia (mm) 100 Depth of water table (m) 3
Checked by
Eqvt SPT Value

Thickness (m)
SPT/ DCPT
Depth (m)
cm)
Symbol
SPT N Value
Depth
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DCPT No of blow
(10/10/10 cm) 0 20 40 60 80
0.0
1.0
DCPT 1.5 11 14 15 27 1.5
2.0
3.0 DCPT 3.0 10 12 22 29 3.0

Light grey dense Silty Sand
7.0
4.0 with gravel, boulder
DCPT 4.5 9 15 19 25 4.5
5.0
6.0 DCPT 6.0 12 28 34 42 6.0
7.0
DCPT 7.5 10 16 19 23 7.5
8.0
9.0 DCPT 9.0 12 15 18 23 9.0
10.0
DCPT 10.5 13 17 20 25 10.5
11.0
Light grey Silty Sand with
9.0
12.0 some gravel DCPT 12.0 15 19 24 29 12.0
13.0
13.5
14.0 DCPT 14.0 14 18 23 28
15.0
15.0
16.0 DCPT 16.0 17 25 28 35

Equivalent SPT value is limited to 80
Tiyaar River bridge
Bore Log

Rural Municipality
Drilling Method Percussion Bore hole position R/B

Borehole dia (mm) 100 Depth of water table (m) 3.5m
Checked by
Eqvt SPT Value

Thickness (m)
SPT/ DCPT
Depth (m)
cm)
Symbol
SPT N Value
Depth
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DCPT No of blow 0 20 40 60 80
(10/10/10 cm) 0.0
1.0
DCPT 1.5 13 16 17 31
2.0
2.0
3.0 Light grey dense Silty Sand DCPT 3.0 15 18 21 36

6.0
with gravel, boulder
4.0
4.0
DCPT 4.5 16 22 26 37
5.0
6.0 DCPT 6.0 18 24 27 39 6.0
7.0
DCPT 7.5 10 17 19 23
8.0 Light grey dense to very 8.0
4.0
dense Gravel with Sand
9.0 DCPT 9.0 14 21 25 30
10.0 DCPT 10.0 15 19 24 29

10.0
Equivalent SPT value is limited to 60
Appendix II: Lab Test Data
13
NGC LAB (P) Ltd.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project: Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge

Location: Baragadhi, Bara Bore Hole No.: 1
Size of box (m) : 0.06 Depth (m): 7.5 m
Strain Rate (mm/min): 1.25 Height of Box (m): 0.025
Shear Dial Const. (KN/div): 0.3125 Strain Dial Const. (mm): 0.01
Volume (m3): 0.00009 Area of Sample (sq.m): 0.0036
Tested by: Sita Shrestha Date: 29th May, 2019
Checked By : Sanjay Kumar Jha Certified by:
Test Normal Failure Load Shear Wt of Water Unit Weight

No Load Load Dial Stress Sample Content
Reading KN/m3
kN/m2 Div kN/m2 KN % Bulk Av. Dry Av
1 0 0 5.5
2 10.00 13 11 0.00164 29.05 18.22 14.12
3 20.00 21 18 0.00163 29.10 18.11 18.22 14.03 14.12
4 40.00 35 30 0.00165 29.08 18.33 14.20
Chart Title
40.000
Shear Stress, (KN/m²)
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Results:
Angle of internal friction: 32
Cohesion (KN/m²) : 0
NGC LAB (P) Ltd.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Size of box (m) : 0.06 Depth (m): 12 m
Tested by: Sita Shrestha Date: 2nd June, 2019
Checked By : Sanjay Kumar. Jha Certified by:

Reading KN/m3
1 0 0 2.5
2 10.00 11 10 0.00168 19.20 18.67 15.66
3 20.00 19 16 0.00167 19.10 18.56 18.63 15.58 15.63
4 40.00 33.5 29 0.00168 19.20 18.67 15.66
Chart Title
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Results:
NGC LAB (P) Ltd.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Size of box (m) : 0.06 Depth (m): 9.0 m
Tested by: Sita Shrestha Date: 2nd June, 2019
Checked By : Sanjay Kumar Jha Certified by:

Reading KN/m3
1 0 0 2
2 10.00 11 10 0.00168 18.10 18.67 15.81
3 20.00 19 16 0.00169 18.00 18.78 18.70 15.91 15.85
4 40.00 34 30 0.00168 17.90 18.67 15.83
Chart Title
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Results:
NGC LAB (P) LTD
Suruchi marg, Kathmandu, Nepal
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Date : 076.02.16
Location : Baragadhi, Bara Tested By : Sita Shrestha
Source : Percussion Drilling Checked By :
Client : Province No. 2, Baragadhi Rural Municipality Borehole No: 1
Wt. of
Average
Container + Wt. of Container Wt. of Water, Wt. of Empty Wt. of Dry Wt. of Wet Moisture
Sample No. Depth Can No. Moisture
Wt. of Wet + Wt. of Dry Soil W w Container Soil, W d Soil, Ww Content, M
Content
Soil
1 1.5m C-108 75.40 67.30 8.10 21.00 46.30 54.40 17.49 17.49
2 3.0m C--106 67.20 61.80 5.40 23.30 38.5 43.9 14.03 14.03
3 4.5 m C--110 73.40 63.90 9.50 21.10 42.80 52.30 22.20 22.20
4 6.0m C-121 85.10 73.60 11.50 24.70 48.9 60.4 23.52 23.52
5 7.5m C-126 80.40 70.30 10.10 25.10 45.2 55.3 22.35 22.35
6 9.0m C-123 70.00 63.50 6.50 25.40 38.1 44.6 17.06 17.06
7 10m C-108 68.60 61.60 7.00 27.30 34.3 41.3 20.41 20.41
Dry Density
Can Moist. Dry

Weight of Moisture Can
Bore hole No. Depth(m) Can No. weight+Moist. Density(gm/c Density(gm/c
can(gm) Content(%) Volume(cc)
Sample Wt.(gm) c) c)
1.5 C-102 22.1 540.00 17.49 351.68 1.535 1.307
3 C-106 21,8 228.00 14.03 150.72 1.513 1.327
4.5 C--103 21.1 654.00 22.20 376.80 1.736 1.420
6 C-105 24.1 655.00 23.52 376.80 1.738 1.407
7.5 C-106 21.2 548.00 22.35 314.00 1.745 1.426
1 9 C--123 25.4 230.00 17.06 150.72 1.526 1.304
10 C-108 27.3 535.30 20.41 314.00 1.705 1.416
NGC LAB (P) LTD
Wt. of
Average
Content
Soil
1 1.5m C-104 68.30 62.10 6.20 21.00 41.10 47.30 15.09 15.09
2 3.0m C--113 59.40 52.60 6.80 23.30 29.3 36.1 23.21 23.21
3 4.5 m C--103 51.30 46.80 4.50 21.10 25.70 30.20 17.51 17.51
4 6.0m C-127 74.20 66.30 7.90 24.70 41.6 49.5 18.99 18.99
5 7.5m C-126 82.40 73.80 8.60 25.10 48.7 57.3 17.66 17.66
6 9.0m C-112 63.50 56.10 7.40 23.30 32.8 40.2 22.56 22.56
7 10.5m C-108 48.40 44.90 3.50 27.00 17.9 21.4 19.55 19.55
8 12m C-124 58.30 52.70 5.60 25.30 27.4 33 20.44 20.44
9 13.5m C-110 42.50 39.10 3.40 21.00 18.1 21.5 18.78 18.78
10 15m C-122 72.60 65.80 6.80 26.60 39.2 46 17.35 17.35
11 16 m C-112 47.30 42.80 4.50 22.10 20.7 25.2 21.74 21.74
Dry Density
Can Moist. Dry

1.5 C--1.03 21.1 496.00 15.09 314.00 1.580 1.373
3 C111 23.3 478.00 23.21 314.00 1.522 1.236
4.5 C-103 21.1 223.00 17.51 163.20 1.366 1.163
6 C-104 21 488.00 18.99 340.00 1.435 1.206
7.5 C--124 25.3 548.00 17.66 380.80 1.439 1.223
2 9 C--112 23.2 220.00 22.56 136.00 1.618 1.320
10.5 C-108 27.3 535.30 19.55 380.80 1.406 1.176
12 C--124 25.3 222.00 20.44 163.20 1.360 1.129
13.5 C-110 21.2 450.80 18.78 340.00 1.326 1.116
15 C-122 26.6 232.00 17.35 163.20 1.422 1.211
16 C-112 22.45 463.80 21.74 340.00 1.364 1.121
NGC LAB (P) LTD
Wt. of
Average
Content
Soil
1 1.5m C-102 62.70 56.10 6.60 20.40 35.70 42.30 18.49 18.49
2 3.0m C-103 53.60 48.80 4.80 21.00 27.8 32.6 17.27 17.27
3 4.5 m C-104 52.10 46.60 5.50 18.10 28.50 34.00 19.30 19.30
4 6.0m C-105 65.70 56.60 9.10 18.50 38.1 47.2 23.88 23.88
5 7.5m C-106 74.90 67.50 7.40 20.50 47.00 54.4 15.74 15.74
6 9.0m C-107 65.40 56.80 8.60 18.95 37.85 46.45 22.72 22.72
7 10m C-108 58.60 52.40 6.20 26.55 25.85 32.05 23.98 23.98
Dry Density
Can Moist. Dry

1.5 C-102 22.1 462.40 18.49 314.00 1.47 1.24
3 C-103 20.1 526.50 17.27 376.80 1.40 1.19
4.5 C-104 20.2 540.60 19.30 376.80 1.43 1.20
6 C-105 24.1 414.60 23.88 251.20 1.65 1.33
7.5 C-106 21.2 380.6 15.74 251.20 1.52 1.31
3 9 C-107 19.3 540.6 22.72 351.68 1.54 1.25
10 C-108 27.3 535.30 23.98 288.88 1.85 1.49
NGC LAB (P) Ltd
Baneswor, Kathmandu,Nepal
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Date : 076/02/16
Location: Baragadhi, Bara Tested by: Sita Shrestha
Source Percussion Drilling Checked by:
Client: Province No. 2, Baragadhi Rural Municipality Borehole No. 1
WT of
WT of Pyc+ oven dry WT of Pyc+Soil WT of Pyc+ water WT of oven dry Sp. Gr.of Sp. Gr.of soil
Depth: Pycnometer(Py Temp. of Water
Sample Sample+Full water (full) Sample Water sample
c)
1.50 284.5 371.3 523.9 470 86.8 26 0.997 2.63
3.00 304.5 378.7 509.3 463.2 74.2 26 0.997 2.63
4.50 284.6 315.7 483.1 463.8 31.1 25 0.997 2.63
6.00 284.6 353.8 506.8 463.8 69.2 26 0.997 2.63
7.50 253.9 340 480.4 426.8 86.1 26 0.997 2.64
9.00 261.63 329.46 483.19 440.89 67.83 26 0.997 2.65
10.00 303.6 321.4 481.05 470 17.8 25 0.997 2.63
NGC LAB (P) Ltd
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
WT of
c)
1.50 303.6 362.2 506.4 470 58.6 26 0.997 2.63
3.00 303.6 363.1 506.9 470 59.5 26 0.997 2.62
4.50 284.6 375.4 520.2 463.8 90.8 25 0.997 2.63
6.00 284.6 355.3 507.7 463.8 70.7 26 0.997 2.63
7.50 253.9 351.3 487.3 426.8 97.4 26 0.997 2.63
9.00 261.63 331.9 484.5 440.89 70.27 26 0.997 2.63
10.50 303.6 372.1 512.5 470 68.5 25 0.997 2.63
12.00 284.6 354.7 507.2 463.8 70.1 26 0.997 2.62
13.50 284.6 353.8 506.8 463.8 69.2 26 0.997 2.63
15.00 253.9 340 480.4 426.8 86.1 26 0.997 2.64
16.00 261.63 329.46 483.19 440.89 67.83 26 0.997 2.65
NGC LAB (P) Ltd
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
WT of
c)
1.50 284.6 358.2 509.5 463.8 73.6 26 0.997 2.63
3.00 253.9 362.2 494.1 426.8 108.3 26 0.997 2.63
4.50 284.6 359.7 510.4 463.8 75.1 25 0.997 2.63
6.00 253.9 361.5 493.6 426.8 107.6 26 0.997 2.63
7.50 284.6 365.9 514.3 463.8 81.3 26 0.997 2.63
9.00 253.9 325.9 471.5 426.8 72 26 0.997 2.63
10.00 284.6 358.1 509.5 463.8 73.5 25 0.997 2.64
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Shankhamul, Kathmandu, Nepal
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 1.5 m
Location: Baragadhi, Bara Date : 076-2-18
Source: Drilling Sample (Borehole No. 1) Tested by: 0
Client: Province No.2, Baragadhi Rural Municipality Checked By : 0
Unified Soil Classification GRAVEL SAND

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

BOULDERS SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Fine
GRAVEL SAND
ASTM Classification BOULDER COBBLE SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

BOULDERS COBBLE CLAY
Classification Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medi Fine
100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.27
Gravel 54.57 80
Sand 45.15
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 3m


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.19
Gravel 45.08 80
Sand 54.72
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 4.5m


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type %
90
Silt/Clay 0.21
Gravel 52.92
80
Sand 46.87
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.41
Gravel 58.71 80
Sand 40.88
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 7.5


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.24
Gravel 50.29 80
Sand 49.47
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 9


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.39
Gravel 45.25 80
Sand 54.37
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.17
Gravel 39.84 80
Sand 59.99
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Source: Drilling Sample (Borehole No. 2) Tested by: Sita Shrestha


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.53
Gravel 51.04 80
Sand 48.44
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.20
Gravel 43.77 80
Sand 56.03
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.38
Gravel 41.51 80
Sand 58.11
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.41
Gravel 57.98 80
Sand 41.61
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.48
Gravel 48.26 80
Sand 51.26
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.70
Gravel 12.22 80
Sand 87.08
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.59
Gravel 28.45 80
Sand 70.96
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
soil type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.67
Gravel 27.23 80
Sand 72.10
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.91
Gravel 28.22 80
Sand 70.87
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

100
Soil Type % 90
Silt/Clay 0.42
Gravel 34.66 80
Sand 64.92
70
Percentage passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75 7.5 0.75 0.07
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Silt/Clay 4.48
Gravel 43.39 80 366.4
Sand 52.13 79.2
70 53.4
Percentage passing
82.7
60 27.9
25.4
50
58.5
40
31.4
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Silt/Clay 5.94 315.8
Gravel 56.41 80
Sand 37.65 167.5
70 128.4
Percentage passing
71.8
60 54.6
35.8
50
19.5
11.4
40
2.3
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.
Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Gravel 50.04 80 319.4
Sand 46.84 275.1
70 41.1
Percentage passing
124.8
60 56.7
29.8
50 21.3
34.1
40
2.5
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Gravel 34.87 80 214.6
Sand 61.18 16
70 173.9
Percentage passing
25.7
60 34
56.9
50 38.2
18.5
40
1.8
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Gravel 53.04 80 349.2
Sand 46.79 193.2
70 87.6
Percentage passing
16.4
60 94.5
72.8
50 40
21.3
40
1.9
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil type % 235.6

90
Silt/Clay 0.27
Gravel 18.75 80 289.4
Sand 80.98 15.2
70 198.5
Percentage passing
10.6
60 22.6
63.9
50 33.8
14.1
40
1.3
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
NGC LAB (P) LTD.
Project : Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge Depth 10 m


BOULDERS SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BS GRAVEL SAND SILT

Soil Type %
90
Gravel 11.63 80 244.8
Sand 87.69 14.2
70 205.9
Percentage passing
28.1
60 15.8
71.6
50 49.1
28.4
40
3.2
30
20
10
75 7.5 0.75 0.07

Particle size mm
Appendix III: Photographs
14
Soil Test on progress using Percussion drilling mechanism
15
Soil sample seen in split sampler
16
17

Jamuni River Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Jamuni River Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ON

SOIL INVESTIGATION, GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED

Baragadhi Rural Municipality

1.3 Scope of the work

The main scopes of the works are:-

(i) to find out general soil profile of the site.

2.1 General Geology and Geomorphology

Figure 2 Geological map of Nepal (Dahal 2006)

3.1.1 In-situ Tests

Standard Penetration Test (SPT):

Figure 4 Standard Penetration Test Procedures

N160 Friction Angle

Table 2 Relationship of N Value to Strength and Consistency for Cohesive Soils

N value Consistency Unconfined Compressive Strength qu (kPa)

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT):

3.2 Laboratory Test

4.2 Ground water table

4.3 Laboratory Investigation Results

4.3.1 Index Properties

4.3.2 Strength Parameters

4.4 N-value correction

where N = measured standard penetration resistance; CN =overburden correction factor (a factor to

normalize N to a common reference effective overburden stress of 1atm.); CE = correction for

Maximum overburden correction factor is conservatively assumed as 1.0.

5.1 Bearing Capacity of Spread Footing

qu  CNc  Df Nq  0.5DN for L/B≥5 (3)

qnu  qu  Df (6)

Bearing capacity of footing on cohesionless soils

q  0.22N 2BW  0.67(100  N 2 )D W (8)

ii. Meyerhof (1956, modified)

For B > 1.2m, for open foundations

Bearing capacity of footing on cohesive soils

5.2 Bearing capacity analysis results

1. Hammer efficiency is assumed as 45%.

Table 4: Scour depth and recommended footing level

Effective Depth of foundation below B=5m B=6m B=7m

Depth of foundation from Ground level for Abutments = approximately 6.0 m

Figure 7a: Sample calculation of raft foundation bearing capacity

Rw1 = 0.50 Water Table

qult = 1404 kPa

Das B M (2013): Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering, Fourth Edition, Cengage Learning,

Province No. 2, Karaiyamai

Drilling Method Rotary Bore hole position L/B

Eqvt SPT Value

3.0 Light grey dense Silty Sand DCPT 3.0 15 18 23 37

6.0 DCPT 6.0 22 26 35 47

10.0 DCPT 10.0 17 22 28 34

Province No. 2, Karaiyamai

Drilling Method Rotary Bore hole position Centre

Eqvt SPT Value

3.0 DCPT 3.0 10 12 22 29 3.0

6.0 DCPT 6.0 12 28 34 42 6.0

9.0 DCPT 9.0 12 15 18 23 9.0

16.0 DCPT 16.0 17 25 28 35

Province No. 2, Karaiyamai

Drilling Method Percussion Bore hole position R/B

Eqvt SPT Value

3.0 Light grey dense Silty Sand DCPT 3.0 15 18 21 36

6.0 DCPT 6.0 18 24 27 39 6.0

10.0 DCPT 10.0 15 19 24 29

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Project: Soil Test for the Design of Jamuni River Bridge