Soil Test Report Gaushala PDF

Geotechnical Investigation works
Final
Report
On
Soil Investigation Works

For
The Proposed Site
Of
Residential Cum Commercial Building

At
Gaushala, Pinglasthan-8, Kathmandu.
Client: - Mr. Umesh Raj Shiwakoti

Consultant: -
PREPARED BY
G.S. Engineering & Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.

Sinamangal,Gairigaun,Kathmandu
Email:gsgroup.jain@gmail.com
9851118335
Report on Geo-technical Investigation of Construction of Residential Cum Commercial Building at Gaushala,
Kathmandu. Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is prepared on the basis of soil investigation carried out for the proposed
construction of Residential Cum Commercial Building at Gaushala, Kathmandu. It presents
the detail of the site investigation and laboratory tests of the sample drawn at site. The soil
investigation comprises of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Laboratory tests and prediction
of the allowable bearing capacity of the site under consideration. The details of test and
findings are summarized in the respective sections and paragraphs.
Equipments were mobilized and drilling works for three (3) bore holes were carried out as
per the contract agreement. The SPT were carried out along with drawing out of both
disturbed and un-disturbed soil samples at locations and depth as shown in the relevant
sections. The samples so drawn at site were immediately taken to the laboratory and
appropriate tests were performed.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the investigation is to determine the soil formation at the project site so as to
derive engineering parameters for the design of the foundation of the proposed structures.
The specific objective of the consulting services subject to these TOR is:
o To do the detailed site investigation and geotechnical investigation of the site

o To submit the detailed site and soil investigation report including engineering
properties, design parameters, bearing capacity, coefficient of sub-grade reaction etc.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND INVESTIGATION
For the purpose of the foundation design and construction of the proposed building, the
following data are to be provided:
o Type of foundation
o Depth below the ground level at which the foundation is to be placed
o Allowable bearing pressure at the foundation level
o Design parameters of sub-soil strata (sub-soil profile and engineering properties of the
soil strata)
The scope of soil investigation is as follows for borehole advancement to 15m at three
locations:
o Standard penetration tests at 1.5m interval
o Collection of disturbed and undisturbed samples at regular interval or as and when
required
o Ground water table observation
o Laboratory test and analysis of data to determine the engineering properties
o Seismic analysis
o Technical report of the investigation work
Kathmandu. Page 2
4. METHODOLOGY
A. FIELD INVESTIGATION
The proposed geo-technical investigation was performed to characterize the subsurface

conditions at the site, to evaluate the bearing capacity of foundation soil and to
recommend safe bearing capacity for different type of foundation including the
settlement analysis and the potential of liquefaction.
Field investigation work was carried out in 2076. Drilling works were carried out using
one set of percussion drilling machine. The sides of the boreholes were lined with
150mm casing pipes.
Standard Penetration tests (SPT) were carried out in the boreholes at average depth
intervals of 1.5 m. Spilt spoon sampler of 35 mm internal diameter and 50 mm external
diameter coupled with a standard cutting shoe at its lower end was driven into the
ground at the base of the borehole by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling from a height
of 760 mm. After an initial 150 mm seating penetration the sampler was driven to a
further depth of 150 mm twice to reach the final depth. The sum of the number of
blows required to reach the two last final 150mm depth was recorded as the N-value.
B. WATER TABLE MONITORING
The level of water was recorded in the boreholes at least 24 hours after boring was
completed to establish the ground water level. There were traces of water after 24
hours of observation thus it can be said that the water table was found at 3.5m from
Ground Level.
C. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
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 test includes the following tests: Moisture Content, Grain Size Analysis
including Hydrometer, Bulk Density, Specific Gravity, Atterberg Limits, Consolidation
Tests, Unconfined Compression Test and Direct Shear Tests.
a. Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density
The natural water content and bulk density was determined from samples recovered
from the split spoon sampler.
b. Specific Gravity
The specific gravity test is made on the soil sample which was grounded to pass 2.0
mm IS sieve. Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the weight of a given volume of
soil particles in air to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at a temperature
of 4 degree C. It is important for computing the most of the soil properties e.g., void
ratio, unit weight, particle size determination by hydrometer, degree of saturation etc.
This method covers determination of the specific gravity of soils by means of a
pycnometer.
Kathmandu. Page 3
c. Grain size Analysis
Grain size distribution was determined by dry sieving process. Sieve analysis was
carried out by sieving a soil sample through sieves of known aperture size (e.g.,
4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 425, 300, 150 and 75 microns) by keeping one over the other,
the largest size being kept at the top and the smallest size at the bottom. The soil is
placed on the top sieve and shaked for 10 minutes using a mechanical shaker. The soil
retained on each sieve was weighed and expressed as a percentage of the weight of
sample.
d. Atterberg Limits
The physical properties of fine grained soils (clay and silt) get affected with water
content. Depending upon the amount of water present in a fine grained soil, it can be in
liquid, plastic or solid consistency states. The Atterberg Test was used for determining
the consistency of a cohesive (fine) soil. The Liquid Limit is the water content at which
a soil has a small shear strength that it flows to close a groove of standard width when
jarred in a specified manner. The Plastic Limit is the water content at which a soil
begins to crumble when rolled into threads of specified size i.e., 3mm. The water
content determined at a stage when the rolled thread of soil just starts crumbling. Three
such tests and the average value of water content were taken as Plastic Limit. The
Plasticity Index is the numerical difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic
Limit. The liquid limit of the fine grained soils was determined using the Casagrande
liquid limit device. A Plastic limit was determined using the standard ‘rolling the soil
into a thread of 3mm’ method. Casagrande plasticity chart was employed to determine
the classification of fine grained soil according to the Unified Soil Classification
System.
e. Consolidation
Consolidation of soil is the process of compression by gradual reduction of pores under

a steadily applied pressure. Consolidation tests are conducted for obtaining data
required for settlement analysis. Consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed
samples of 60 mm diameter and 20 mm thick. Two-way drainage was provided. Each
increment of load was maintained until sufficient period beyond the primary
consolidation has been reached. The test results are presented in terms of the e - log
curves in the attached figures.
f. Unconfined Compression Test
The unconfined compressive strength of a soil specimen is the ratio of failure load and
cross-sectional area of the specimen (at failure) when it is not subjected to any
confining pressure. It is conducted to measure the shear strength of a cohesive soil,
collected in natural state (in undisturbed form) from the field. This test is mainly used
for cohesive soils to check the short term stability of foundations and the sensitivity of
a soil. In this test, a circular soil specimen is compressed axially without any confining
pressure. The cross-section of the specimen increases with decrease in length.
Kathmandu. Page 4
g. Direct Shear Test
The shear strength of a soil mass is its property against sliding along internal planes
within itself and is determined in this case to compute the safe bearing capacity of the
foundation soil. Direct shear tests were conducted on disturbed samples collected from
the three boreholes. The samples were carefully extruded from the sampling tubes and
molded using standard moulds of 6.0 x 6.0 cm² cross-sectional areas and trimmed to
2.5 cm high. Solid metal plates were placed on both surfaces of the samples to prevent
the dissipation of pore water during shearing. The direct shear equipment is
mechanically-operated and shearing is applied at more or less constant strain rate. If the
samples are cohesive they will be sheared at a relatively fast rate (duration of tests less
than 10 minutes) to maintain un-drained condition. The samples were sheared at three
different normal stresses (i.e., 0.5 kg/cm2, 1.0 kg/cm2, 1.5 kg/cm2,). The direct shear
test results are presented in terms of the failure envelops to give the angle of internal
frictions (Ø) and the cohesion intercepts (c).
5. ANALYSIS OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
The allowable bearing pressure (qall) 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.
A. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be grayish color
very dense gravel at greater depth, grey silty clay with high plasticity 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 Terzaghi applicable
for this type of soils has been used to obtain the allowable bearing pressure with safety
factor equal to 3.
a. Hansen’s Method:
qult = cNcscdcic + qNqsqdqiqWq + 0.5γBNγsγdγiγWγ
where,
Nq = eπtanϕ tan2(45 + ϕ/2)
Nc = (Nq – 1) Cotϕ
Nγ = 1.5 (Nq – 1) tanϕ
sc,, sq,, sγ,, dc,,dq,,dγ,, ic,, iq,,iγ are shape, depth and inclination factors.
b. Terzaghi’s Method:
qult = cNcsc + qNqWq + 0.5γBNγsγWγ
where,
Nq = a2 / a Cos2( 45 + ϕ/2 ), a = e(0.75π-ϕ/2)tanϕ/2
Nc = (Nq – 1) Cotϕ
Nγ = tanϕ / 2 * (Kpγ / cos2ϕ – 1)
Kpγ is a factor
Kathmandu. Page 5
c. Effect of water table:
i) 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 Wq = 1.
ii) 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 Wq shall be taken as 0.5.
iii) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth

Df<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of Wq be obtained by linear interpolation.
B. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT
The maximum allowable settlement for isolated footings in sand is generally 50

mm and for mat foundation in sand the allowable settlement is 75 mm (IS 1904: -
1978). For isolated footings in cohesive soil, allowable settlement is generally 75
mm and for mat foundation in cohesive soil the allowable settlement is 100 mm
(IS 1904: - 1978).
a. Settlement Analysis using Schmertmann method:
The method proposed by Schmertmann (1970) states that the change in the
Boussinesq pressure bulb was interpreted as related to strain. Since the pressure
bulb changes more rapidly from about 0.4 to 0.6 B, this depth is interpreted to
have the largest strains. Schmertmann then proposed using triangular relative-
strain diagram to model this strain distribution with ordinates of 0, 0.6 and 0 at
0B, 0.5B and 2B respectively. The area of diagram is related to the settlement.
Settlement (δ) = C1C2C3(q-Ϭ’zd)ΣIεH/Es
The Peak Value of the strain influence factor Iεp is

Iεp = 0.5 + 0.1Sqrt ((q-Ϭ’zd)/ Ϭ’zp)
Square and Circular Foundation:
For zf = 0 to B/2 Iε = 0.1 + (zf/B) (2Iεp-0.2)

For zf = B/2 to 2B Iε = 0.667 Iεp (2-zf/B)
C1 = 1- 0.5 (Ϭ’zd /q - Ϭ’zd)

C2 = 1 + 0.2 log ( t / 0.1 )
C3 = 1.03 – 0.003 L/B >= 0.73
SPT N Value Corrected for field procedures
N60 = EmCBCSCRN/0.6
Em = Hammer efficiency
CB = Bore hole dia correction
CS = Sampler correction
CR = Rod Length Correction
SPT N value corrected for field procedure and overburden stress
Kathmandu. Page 6
(N1)60 = N60
The method of Teng (1988) can also be employed for determining settlement.
This method is a modification of the method of Terzaghi and Peck (1948) such
that the allowable bearing pressure could directly be obtained from the SPT
values.
The allowable bearing pressure for a limiting settlement other than 25 mm (e.g. x
mm) can be linearly interpolated from the allowable bearing pressure for 25 mm
settlement.
qa(x mm) = qa(25 mm)(x/25)
C. LIQUEFACTION:
The liquefaction resistance of an element of soil depends on how close the initial
state of the soil is to the state corresponding to “failure’’ and on the nature of the
loading required to move it from the initial state to failure state. It is evident from
the literature that the failure state is different for flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility. The failure state for flow liquefaction is easily defined using the FSL
and its initiation is easily recognized in the field. Once the cyclic loading imposed
by an earthquake and the liquefaction resistance of the soils has been
characterized, liquefaction potential can be evaluated. The cyclic stress approach
characterizes earthquake loading by the amplitude of an equivalent uniform
cyclic stress and liquefaction resistance by the amplitude of the uniform cyclic
stress required to produce liquefaction in the same number of cycles. The
evaluation of liquefaction potential is thus reduced to a comparison of loading
and resistance throughout the soil deposit of interest. Liquefaction can be
expected at depths where the loading exceeds the resistance or when the factor of
safety against liquefaction, expressed as, FSL = is less than 1.
Cyclic mobility failure is generally considered to occur when pore pressure

become large enough to produce ground oscillation, lateral spreading, or other
evidence of damage at the ground surface.
Maximum shear stress:

Ʈmax = amax / g*ζ`v* rd
amax / g = 0.3 (Peak ground acceleration)
rd = Stress reduction factor
The equivalent uniform cyclic shear stresses are simply taken as 65% of
maximum shear stress.
Ʈmax = amax/g*ζ`v*rd * 0.65
Triaxial cyclic stress ratio (CSRL) from fig 9.31,
Cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction:
Ʈcyc,L = CSRL * ζ`v

Kathmandu. Page 7
FSL = Ʈcyc,L/Ʈcyc, is less than 1.
It should be noted that significant excess pore pressure can develop even if the
computed factor of safety is greater than 1.
Kathmandu. Page 8
6. CONCLUSION
1. Soil investigation work has been carried out for the construction of the proposed
Construction of Residential Cum Commercial Building at Gaushala, Kathmandu.
2. During soil investigation the water table was found at 3.5m from GL level.
3. As per the site investigation results and then analysis associated for the measure
of liquefaction, it shall be noted that there is no possibility of liquefaction.
4. On the basis of ultimate bearing capacity and allowable settlement the following
allowable bearing pressures in KN/m2for shallow/mat foundation.
Footing size in Depth of Allowable Settlement in mm Minimum

footing in bearing capacity Allowable
mxm by Hansen’s bearing
m method in capacity in
KN/m2 KN/m2
50 mm for
isolated/60mm for
mat
2.0 x 2.0 2.5 114.9 23.9mm 114.9
10.0 x 10.0 2.5 263.0 140.0 140.0

Kn/m2@58.7mm
G.S. Engineering & Construction Co.(P.) Ltd.
Summary
Natural Grain Size Distribution, %

Bore Hole Sample Depth Moisture Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
No. No. m Content gm/cm3
% Gravel Sand Silt Clay
SPT 1.50 22.38 1.83 0.00 60.28 20.88 18.84 2.63

BH- 1
SPT 9.00 30.88 2.08 54.14 31.11 8.24 6.51 2.72
SPT 3.00 20.67 1.84 0.00 58.77 21.02 20.21 2.60

BH- 2
SPT 10.50 32.24 2.10 43.54 54.26 1.18 1.03 2.70
SPT 1.50 21.79 1.82 0.00 57.82 22.31 19.87 2.63

BH- 3
SPT 12.00 32.79 2.09 38.43 52.13 4.81 4.62 2.71
Bore Hole Log Sheet
Project Name : Residential Cum Commercial Building
Location : Gaushala, Kathmandu Bore Hole No : 1
Water Table, m : 3.50
Diameter of Bore Hole : 6"
Depth Thickn Sampling Penetration Blow
Soil Group
ess Soil Description Depth N
m Type 10cm 10cm 10cm symbol symbol
(m)
0.0-0.5 0.5 Soil With Filling Materials.
1.5 SPT 3 3 2 5
0.5-3.0 2.5 Brown Colour Silty Sandy Clay.
3.00 SPT 7 13 11 24
4.50 SPT 8 10 14 24
3.0-6.0 3.0 Greyish Colour Coarse Sand.
6.00 SPT 11 12 15 27
Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

6.0-7.5 1.5
Gravel Pieces.
7.50 SPT 13 13 17 30
9.00 SPT 16 15 18 33
DCPT @10cm
10.50 DCPT 50+

7.5-15.0 7.5
Gravel, Boulder.
12.00 DCPT 50+
13.50 DCPT 50+
15.00 DCPT 50+
Total depth: 15.00m

Type of soil N, Value
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50
Granular Soil Compactness med. very
very loose loose dense
dense dense
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32
Cohesive Soil Consistency
Very soft Soft med.soft stiff very stiff
Logged by : Ramesh K. Thapa

Checked by : Daman Pantha
Verified by : S. K. Jain
Bore Hole Log Sheet
Soil Group
(m)
1.5 SPT 2 3 4 7

3.00 SPT 8 10 12 22
4.50 SPT 9 10 13 23
6.00 SPT 10 13 14 27

6.0-7.5 1.5
Gravel Pieces.
7.50 SPT 14 15 16 31
9.00 SPT 15 16 17 33
DCPT @10cm
10.50 DCPT 50+

7.5-15.0 7.5
Gravel, Boulder.
12.00 DCPT 50+
13.50 DCPT 50+
15.00 DCPT 50+
Total depth: 15.00m

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50
dense dense
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32

Bore Hole Log Sheet
Soil Group
(m)
1.5 SPT 3 4 4 8

3.00 SPT 9 12 13 25
4.50 SPT 11 14 15 29
6.00 SPT 10 15 16 31

6.0-8.0 2.0 7.50 SPT 15 17 18 35
Gravel Pieces.
DCPT @10cm
9.00 DCPT 50+
10.50 DCPT 50+

8.0-15.0 7.0 12.00 DCPT 50+
Gravel, Boulder.
13.50 DCPT 50+
15.00 DCPT 50+
Total depth: 15.00m

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50
dense dense
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32

Bulk Density Test

Consultant :
Location : Gaushala, Kathmandu
Date :
Sample Depth Length Weight Volume Bulk Density

No. m cm gm cm3 gm/cm3
Borehole No. 1
1.50 10.00 175.60 96.16 1.83

SPT
9.00 10.00 200.30 96.16 2.08
Borehole No. 2
3.00 10.00 177.30 96.16 1.84

SPT
10.50 10.00 202.30 96.16 2.10
Borehole No. 3
1.50 10.00 174.90 96.16 1.82

SPT
12.00 10.00 200.80 96.16 2.09
Tested by : Subhash. ( Lab. Technician )

Checked by : Daman Pantha Verified by : S.K. Jain (M.E.Civil,Geotech Engg. USA)
G.S. Engineering & Construction Co.(P.) Ltd.
Natural Moisture Content
Consultant :
Date :
Wt. of Wt. of
Wt. of Cont. Wt. of Wt. of Dry Moisture
Cont.+ Empty
Sample No. Depth,m + Water Soil Content
Dry Soil Container
Wet Soil gm gm gm %
gm gm
Bore Hole No. 1
1.50 139.90 115.30 24.60 5.40 109.90 22.38

SPT
9.00 359.00 275.60 83.40 5.50 270.10 30.88
Bore Hole No. 2
3.00 150.20 125.40 24.80 5.40 120.00 20.67

SPT
10.50 375.90 285.60 90.30 5.50 280.10 32.24
Bore Hole No. 3
1.50 145.80 120.70 25.10 5.50 115.20 21.79

SPT
12.00 365.80 276.90 88.90 5.50 271.40 32.76
Tested by : Subhash (Lab. Technician)

Checked by : Daman Pantha Verified by : S.K. Jain ( M.E.Civil, Geotech Eng., USA)
Specific Gravity Test

Client :
Date :
Borehole No. BH - 1
Depth, m 1.50 9.00
Sample No. SPT SPT
Weightof Pycnometer W1 gm 61.50 66.20
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil W2 gm 86.50 91.20
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil and water W3 gm 176.30 181.40
Weight Pycnometer full of water W4 gm 160.80 165.60
Weight of dry Soil (w2-w1) gm 25.00 25.00
Weight of an equal volume of water (w2-w1)-(w3-w4) gm 9.50 9.20
Specific Gravity 2.63 2.72
Borehole No. BH - 2
Depth, m 3.00 10.50
Sample No. SPT SPT
Tested by : S. Adhikari ( Lab Technician )
Specific Gravity Test

Client :
Date :
Borehole No. BH - 3
Depth, m 1.50 12.00
Sample No. SPT SPT
Tested by : S. Adhikari ( Lab Technician )
G. S. Engineering & Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.
Sieve Analysis Test Result
Bore Hole No : BH - 1 Depth (m) 1.50
Wt. of Sample, gm : 144.00 Sample No SPT
Cumulative
Wt. of Soil Percent Finer
Seive Size (mm) weight Cumulative Percent
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 20.50 20.50 14.24 85.76
1.180 32.50 53.00 36.81 63.19
0.600 8.90 61.90 42.99 57.01
0.425 7.60 69.50 48.26 51.74
0.300 5.20 74.70 51.88 48.13
0.150 1.80 76.50 53.13 46.88
0.075 10.30 86.80 60.28 39.72
Grain Size Disribution Curve

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 0.00 Silt , % 20.88

Remarks
Sand , % 60.28 Clay , % 18.84
Cumulative
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 45.20 45.20 22.60 77.40
10.000 20.90 66.10 33.05 51.82
4.750 15.40 81.50 40.75 45.86
2.360 10.80 92.30 46.15 41.68
1.180 45.00 137.30 68.65 24.26
0.600 15.70 153.00 76.50 18.19
0.425 8.90 161.90 80.95 14.74
0.300 161.90 80.95 14.74
0.150 161.90 80.95 14.74
0.075 161.90 80.95 14.74

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 54.14 Silt , % 8.24

Remarks
Sand , % 31.11 Clay , % 6.51
Cumulative
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 0.00 0.00 100.00
1.180 15.80 15.80 10.66 89.34
0.600 22.90 38.70 26.11 73.89
0.425 17.20 55.90 37.72 62.28
0.300 15.40 71.30 48.11 51.89
0.150 13.80 85.10 57.42 42.58
0.075 2.00 87.10 58.77 41.23

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 0.00 Silt , % 21.02

Remarks
Sand , % 58.77 Clay , % 20.21
Cumulative
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 15.80 15.80 7.68 92.32
16.000 20.10 35.90 17.45 82.55
10.000 10.20 46.10 22.41 64.05
4.750 18.90 65.00 31.60 56.46
2.360 45.70 110.70 53.82 38.12
1.180 50.80 161.50 78.51 17.74
0.600 30.20 191.70 93.19 5.62
0.425 8.50 200.20 97.33 2.21
0.300 200.20 97.33 2.21
0.150 200.20 97.33 2.21
0.075 200.20 97.33 2.21

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 43.54 Silt , % 1.18

Remarks
Sand , % 54.26 Clay , % 1.03
Cumulative
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 22.80 22.80 18.86 81.14
1.180 12.00 34.80 28.78 71.22
0.600 15.80 50.60 41.85 58.15
0.425 10.70 61.30 50.70 49.30
0.300 8.60 69.90 57.82 42.18
0.150 69.90 57.82 42.18
0.075 69.90 57.82 42.18

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 0.00 Silt , % 22.31

Remarks
Sand , % 57.82 Clay , % 19.87
Cumulative
Retained (gm) (%)
gm retaining (%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 25.00 25.00 12.22 87.78
10.000 20.70 45.70 22.34 68.17
4.750 15.40 61.10 29.86 61.57
2.360 40.10 101.20 49.46 44.36
1.180 45.80 147.00 71.85 24.71
0.600 35.60 182.60 89.25 9.44
0.425 182.60 89.25 9.44
0.300 182.60 89.25 9.44
0.150 182.60 89.25 9.44
0.075 182.60 89.25 9.44

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percent Finer, %
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size, mm
Gravel, % 38.43 Silt , % 4.81

Remarks
Sand , % 52.13 Clay , % 4.62
Work in progress
Work in progress
Work in progress

Soil Test Report Gaushala PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Soil Test Report Gaushala PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Investigation works

Soil Investigation Works

Residential Cum Commercial Building

Client: - Mr. Umesh Raj Shiwakoti

G.S. Engineering & Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.

o To do the detailed site investigation and geotechnical investigation of the site

3. SCOPE OF WORK AND INVESTIGATION

The proposed geo-technical investigation was performed to characterize the subsurface

B. WATER TABLE MONITORING

a. Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density

c. Grain size Analysis

Consolidation of soil is the process of compression by gradual reduction of pores under

f. Unconfined Compression Test

g. Direct Shear Test

5. ANALYSIS OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

A. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

c. Effect of water table:

i) If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (D f +

iii) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth

B. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT

The maximum allowable settlement for isolated footings in sand is generally 50

Settlement (δ) = C1C2C3(q-Ϭ’zd)ΣIεH/Es

The Peak Value of the strain influence factor Iεp is

Square and Circular Foundation:

For zf = 0 to B/2 Iε = 0.1 + (zf/B) (2Iεp-0.2)

C1 = 1- 0.5 (Ϭ’zd /q - Ϭ’zd)

SPT N Value Corrected for field procedures

Cyclic mobility failure is generally considered to occur when pore pressure

Maximum shear stress:

Ʈmax = amax/g*ζ`v*rd * 0.65

Triaxial cyclic stress ratio (CSRL) from fig 9.31,

Cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction:

Ʈcyc,L = CSRL * ζ`v

FSL = Ʈcyc,L/Ʈcyc, is less than 1.

Footing size in Depth of Allowable Settlement in mm Minimum

2.0 x 2.0 2.5 114.9 23.9mm 114.9

10.0 x 10.0 2.5 263.0 140.0 140.0

Natural Grain Size Distribution, %

SPT 1.50 22.38 1.83 0.00 60.28 20.88 18.84 2.63

SPT 3.00 20.67 1.84 0.00 58.77 21.02 20.21 2.60

SPT 1.50 21.79 1.82 0.00 57.82 22.31 19.87 2.63

0.0-0.5 0.5 Soil With Filling Materials.

0.5-3.0 2.5 Brown Colour Silty Sandy Clay.

Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

13.50 DCPT 50+

15.00 DCPT 50+

Total depth: 15.00m

Logged by : Ramesh K. Thapa

0.0-0.5 0.5 Soil With Filling Materials.

0.5-3.5 3.0 Brown Colour Silty Sandy Clay.

3.5-6.0 2.5 Greyish Colour Coarse Sand.

Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

13.50 DCPT 50+

15.00 DCPT 50+

Total depth: 15.00m

Logged by : Ramesh K. Thapa

0.0-0.5 0.5 Soil With Filling Materials.

0.5-3.5 3.0 Brown Colour Silty Sandy Clay.

3.5-6.0 2.5 Greyish Colour Coarse Sand.

Greyish Colour Coarse Sand Mix

10.50 DCPT 50+

Ʈmax = amax/gζ`vrd * 0.65