Final Report On Soil Investigation Work For Budhanilkantha Housing Project

KATHMANDU CAPITAL LIMITED (KCL)
Hattisar Sadak (Near Chinese Embassy)

Kathmandu -1, Nepal
REPORT
ON
SOIL INVESTIGATION WORK
FOR
BUDHANILKANTHA HOUSING PROJECT
AT
BUDHANILKANTHA MUNICIPALITY-10, TAULUNG, KATHMANDU
Prepared and Submitted By: June, 2019
PLANET TEST (P.) LTD.

KMC-31, Shantingar, Kathmandu
Telephone: 977-1- 4107665
E-mail: planettest2074@gmail.com
Ref No: Date:-June 26th, 2019
To,
Kathmandu Capital Limited
Hattisar Sadak (Near Chinese Embassy)
Kathmandu-1, Nepal
Subject:-Submission of Report on Soil Investigation Work for Budhanilkantha Housing

Project
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is our pleasure to submit you this Report on Soil Investigation Work for Budhanilkantha Housing Project.
This investigation was carried out according to yours request.
This report includes the results of field investigation, laboratory results, and the required conclusions
recommendations needed for the design & construction of the most suitable and economical foundation.
The foundation design Engineer needs not strictly follow the depth and dimension of foundation selected
in the bearing capacity analysis of this report. He is free to select any other dimension and greater depth
depending upon the load of the structure. However, Allowable bearing capacity depends on many
variables such as adopted allowable settlement, type of foundation, size and depth of foundation,
importance of structure, cost of the project etc. So, for the allowable bearing capacity of different size and depth
of foundation, Foundation designer can refer the report page no. 24 to 29.
For any further information or clarifications, please don‟t hesitate to contact us.
We would like to thank you for your condience, hoping to cooperate with you in the near future.
Yours Sincerely
Diwakar Khadka
Managing Director/Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical investigation work, core drilling and construction materials testing; Pavement design; Foundation
settlement and slope stability analysis; Design of roads, bridges, highways, buildings, hydropower’s and towers.
Report on Soil Investigation Work for Budhanilkantha Housing Project PLANET
At BUDHANILKANTHA MUNICIPALITY-10, TAULUNG, KATHMANDU TEST
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. ABOUT THIS STUDY ................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Scope of Investigation .............................................................................................................................. 1
3. SITE RECONAISANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Site Location .................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.3 Site Geomorphology and Geology ..................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 General Geomorphology ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.3.2 Site Geology .................................................................................................................................................. 4
4. GEO-TECHNICAL EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Number and Depth of Boreholes ....................................................................................................... 6
4.1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Boring ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.3 Sampling ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.4 Field Test ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
5. LABORATORY TESTING & RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Laboratory Test Results ............................................................................................................................ 9
6. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 9
6.1 Properties of Ground Materials ............................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Ground Water and Cavities .................................................................................................................. 10
7. GENERALIZE MODEL (BOREHOLE-LOG) FOR ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 10
8. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 11
8.1 Shallow Foundation Analysis ............................................................................................................... 11
8.1.1 Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure .......................................................................................... 11
8.1.1.1 SPT correction ............................................................................................................................................ 11
8.1.1.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity .................................... 12
8.1.1.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement ............................................... 14
8.2 Deep Foundation Analysis .................................................................................................................... 16
8.3 Analysis of Foundations ......................................................................................................................... 17
8.4 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
9. SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
9.1 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................................. 31
9.2 Identification of liquefaction area ..................................................................................................... 31
9.3 Analysis of liquefaction .......................................................................................................................... 32
Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page I

9.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 35

9.5 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................... 35
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................... 36
Recommendation .................................................................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES AND STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Topographical Map of Budhanilkantha Housing Project Site & 2
Borehole Location
2 Location Map of the proposed site 3
3 General Geomorphology 4
4 Geological map Project site 5
5 General Arrangement of Percussion Drilling 7
6 Historical events of Earthquakes 30
7 Seismic zoning map 30
8 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Map of the Nepal 31
Himalaya
LIST OF ANNEXES
1 BORELOG DATA
2 LABORATORY TEST DATA
3 PHOTOGRAPHS
Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page II

1. INTRODUCTION
This report is prepared upon the agreement between Kathmandu Capital Limited, KMC-1, Hattisar,
Kathmandu and Planet Test (P.) Ltd., Shantinagar, Kathmandu. It includes the final result of the
geotechnical site investigation, the laboratory tests, conclusion & recommendation for the Budhanilkantha
Housing Project at Budhanilkantha Municipality-10, Taulung, Kathmandu.
2. ABOUT THIS STUDY
2.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this site investigation is to determine the existing soil profiles and
engineering characteristics of the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide the
designer with comments on the following:
 Suitable footing types, founding depths and geotechnical design parameters which will be required
for a safe and economic design and excavation for the engineering works, such as the soil bearing
capacity, expected foundation settlement and other special recommendation which depends on the
site nature.
 Methods of construction of foundation and footings, groundwater conditions, quality

control requirements and outdoor subgrade and soil retaining parameters.
2.2 Scope of Investigation
The Scope of investigation for this study comprises the followings:
1. Collecting information such as geological and geotechnical maps related to the project site, and
land use maps.
2. Making visits for site reconnaissance in order to collect information about site nature,
topography of the site, geological features and other properties concerning the project site.
3. Drilling of five boreholes and sampling of disturbed and undisturbed samples.
4. Performing all necessary field and laboratory tests, to obtain physical and mechanical properties
of the subsurface soil. This leads to the geological description of the obtained materials.
5. Applying engineering analysis (assessment of bearing capacity, settlement analysis and

liquefaction analysis) and evaluation of field findings and laboratory results.
6. Developing conclusions and recommendations concerning design and construction of the most
safe and economical foundations, site preparation and retaining walls.
7. Submitting this report.

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 1
3. SITE RECONAISANCE
3.1 General
The Site is located on a sloppy terrain area. The plot is located about 13 Km North from the Core city of
Kathmandu. The small forest area is present nearby the northern side of the plot. Generally, the community
of Tamang, Newar people lives nearby the plot area. The plot is access through Budhanilkantha Temple
from which approx. 500m distance on northern east direction through paved and unpaved road leads to the
site. There is the presence of existence building surrounding the plot.
BH1
BH5
BH4
BH2
BH3
Figure 1: Topographical Map of Budhanilkantha Housing Project Site & Borehole Location

3.2 Site Location
The Site is located in Budhanilkantha Municipality-10, Taulung, Kathmandu. It lies the northern most part
of Kathmandu Valley which is about 13 Km from Ratna Park, the core city of Kathamandu Valley. The
co-ordinates of the five boreholes at which the drilling work was performed is as follows:
Bore Hole Northing Easting

BH1 27°46'34.65"N 85°22'24.09"E
BH2 27°46'33.71"N 85°22'23.55"E
BH3 27°46'33.21"N 85°22'23.91"E
BH4 27°46'33.73"N 85°22'24.19"E
BH5 27°46'33.69"N 85°22'25.27"E
Proposed Site
Figure 2:Location Map of the proposed site
(Source: Google Map June, 2019)

3.3 Site Geomorphology and Geology
3.3.1 General Geomorphology
From the exploration record of boreholes 1 to 5 on the proposed site the soil profile of the terrain is as
follows:
A band of thin homogeneous layer of medium dense to dense coarse sand mixed with gravel followed by
Light whittish dense to very dense highly weathered muscovite granite with intercalation of mica gneiss
and dark schist present in the lower portion of drilled depth in each borehole, which varies on its position
on each borehole.
Figure 3: General Geomorphology

Light grey medium dense to dense coarse sand mixed with gravel
3.3.2 Site Geology
Referring to the available Engineering and Environmental map of the Kathmandu valley, Scale (1:50,000),
published by Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal in 1998. The following geological information
about the site can be studied.
In general, the Kathmandu Basin lies on the Kathmandu Nappe (Hagen, 1952) along the southern slopes
of the Himalaya. A lake occupied a large part of the basin from Pliocene to Pleistocene (Yoshida and

Igarashi, 1984). The basin is currently filled with a very thick (500–600 m) sequence of fluvio-lacustrine
sediments (Moribayashi and Maruo, 1980) and is bounded to the south by a tectonic ridge developed
above the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). On the northern part of the valley, sediments are poorly sorted,
thin to medium-bedded highly micaceous coarse sands, gravel, and silts interlayered with clays. In the
south, they consist of a thick sequence of dark grey to black highly plastic clay and silts, usually overlain
and underlain by coarse sediments. The black plastic clay (locally called Kalimati or black cotton) is rich
in organic matter. The age of this clay is placed in the Pliocene to Pleistocene time according to Yoshida
and Igarashi (1984). According to the same study, the maximum thickness of the Black Clay is
approximately 300 m, and is greatest along the central part of 87 the valley starting from Satungal towards
Lalitpur and Bhaktapur.
The housing site lies on Sheopuri gneiss Formation. This Formation lies to Northern area of Kathmandu
valley. The formation consists of muscovite granite with intercalation of mica gneiss and dark schist. The
bearing capacity of the site is high in fresh rock but low to moderate on weathered rock. They are highly
prone to landslide and badland development under weathered conditions. Low to moderate groundwater
level potential. Medium to highly permeable on weathered rocks.
Proposed
Site
Figure 4: Geology Map of Project site (Source: Engineering and Environmental map of the
Kathmandu valley, Scale (1:50,000), published by Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal in 1998 )

4. GEO-TECHNICAL EXPLORATION
4.1 Number and Depth of Boreholes
4.1.1 General
The number and disposition of the borings should be such as to reveal any major changes in thickness,
depth or properties of the strata to be affected by the expected works and immediate surroundings.
Exploration, in general, will be carried out to a depth up to which the increase in pressure due to structural
loading is likely to cause perceptible settlement or shear failure. Such a depth, known as the significant
depth, depends upon the type of structure, its weight, size, shape and disposition of the loaded areas, and
the soil profile and its properties. It is generally safe to assume the significant depth up to a level at which
the net increase in vertical pressure becomes less than 10% of the initial overburden pressure.
Alternatively, a pressure bulb bounded by an isobar of one-fifth or one-tenth of the surface loading
intensity is sometimes assumed to define the minimum depth of exploration. This depth may be assumed to
be equal to one-and a half to two times the width (smaller lateral dimension) of the loaded footing area.
4.1.2 Boring
In rotary drilling, a core barrel, fitted with a core bit at its lower end is rotated and grinds away an annulus
of soil mass. The stick of soil overburden in the centre of the annulus passes up into the core barrel, and is
subsequently removed from the borehole when the core barrel is full or drilled up to designated depth.
A flush fluid, usually water, is passed around the bit while drilling proceeds in order to remove the cuttings
from the borehole. The drilling fluid serves the dual function of cooling the bit as it enters the hole and
removing of cuttings (fines) from the bottom of the hole through the annular space between the drill rod
and the wall of the hole as it returns to the surface. In an uncased hole, it also serves as a support to the
wall of the hole. Flush fluid is pumped down with a pump through the drill rods, passing outward over the
bit and travelling upwards in the annular space between the drill rods and the outside of the hole carrying
the cuttings with it.
Rotary drilling is also called core drilling because it uses a diamond bit. This drill bit is composed of group
of small, industrial grade diamonds set into a metallic, soft matrix. As the ground is drilled, this matrix will
wear away and expose more diamonds.
This is then attached to a drill rod, which is around 10 foot in length, and then more sections of pipe can be
attached to the top of this so a greater depth can be drilled. The depth that is drilled to is estimated by the
number of rods attached to the top of the drill rod.
Inside the drill rod, a core tube is attached to a cable via a latching mechanism. The core tube is lifted to
the surface using the cable, so the solid core can be removed.

Whole investigation works were conducted as per IS 1892: 1979 Code of practice for subsurface
investigations for foundations (First revision) 1979 Soil and foundation engineering.
Figure 5: General Arrangement of Rotary drilling
Groundwater was monitored on drilled hole 24 hours after completion of drilling works.
4.1.3 Sampling
Before any disturbed samples were taken, the boreholes were washed clean to flush any loose disturbed
soil particles deposited during the boring operation. The samples obtained in the split spoon barrel of SPT
tube during SPT tests were preserved as representative disturbed samples. The disturbed samples recovered
were placed in air-tight double 0.5 mm thick transparent plastic bags, labeled properly for identification
and finally sealed to avoid any loss of moisture. Only then, the samples were transportation to the
laboratory for further investigation.
The samples were obtained as per IS 8763: 1978 Guide for undisturbed sampling of sands and
sandy soils 1978 Soil and foundation engineering.
4.1.4 Field Test
The field test conducted at the site consisted of Standard Penetration Test (SPT. Sounding test such as
SPT/DCPT are methods for measuring soil characteristics of relative density and strength simply and
quickly by penetrating, rotating resistance into the ground and pulling out it onto the ground.
Penetration tests were executed through all strata. Sounding test data were used to estimate soil strength
parameter, subsoil distribution and possible existence of soft layer.

SPT Test
A standard split barrel sampler was used in the test. The SPT tests were conducted in all the boreholes of
the site at a depth interval of every 1m to 2m, as per soil condition. The driving of split-spoon was recorded
at first 150 mm and then after at every 100 mm of penetration till the total penetration was 450 mm. The
number of blows recorded for the first 150 mm of penetration is disregarded. The number of blows
recorded for the last three 100 mm intervals are added and expressed as SPT N-value. The records of the
SPT values obtained are presented in borehole logs in the Appendix.
The recorded SPT values are without any correction of overburden pressure and water table. The test was
conducted without using liner. The maximum rod length used was 15 m.
CPT Test
The standard 600 cone is connected to the drilling rod. The driving head with the guide rod is connected
and properly fixed on the top of the drilled rods. This complete assembly is kept in position with the cone
resting vertically on the ground where the test is to be carried out. The cone is driven into the soil by blows
of 65 Kg hammer falling from a height of 750mm. The number of blows that is required to drive the cone
down each 100mm increment is then recorded until a required depth is reached or a refusal is achieved.
The records of the CPT values obtained are presented in borehole logs in the Appendix.
The recorded CPT values are without any correction of overburden pressure and water table. The test was
conducted without using liner. The maximum rod length used was 25 m.
5. LABORATORY TESTING & RESULTS
5.1 Laboratory Testing
After classification and carrying out the geological description on the obtained samples, a laboratory tests
program was issued; this program contained the required tests on selected samples in order to determine
the physical and mechanical properties of the ground materials. Where applicable, the performed tests were
performed according to Indian Standards (IS) as follow:
Table 1: Common Soil Laboratory Tests Used in Geotechnical Engineering
Type of Soil Properties Specification

Condition
(2) (3)
(1)

Type of Soil Properties Specification

Condition
(2) (3)
(1)
Classification IS : 1498-1970
Particle Size IS: 2720, 1992 Part 4
Atterberg Limit IS: 2720, Part 5 1992
Water (or moisture Content) IS: 2720, 1992 Part 2

Index
Tests Bulk Density Block Sample or Sampling tubes
Specific gravity (IS: 2720, Part 3 1992)
Settlement Consolidation IS : 2720 (Part 15)-1986
Organic Content IS : 2720 (Part 22) - 1972
Shear Unconfined Compressive strength IS 2720 ( Part 10 ) : 1991
Strength Unconsolidated Undrained IS 2720-Part 11-1993( Reaffirmed-2002)
Consolidated Undrained IS : 2720 ( Part 12 ) - 1984
Direct shear IS : 2720 (Part 39/Set I)-1977
Notes: - Other tests will be defined depending up on the clients and engineers requirements.
5.2 Laboratory Test Results
The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix (A).
6. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Properties of Ground Materials
According to our exploration, findings, and the geological description for the obtained samples, there are
general similarities and continuities of the subsurface materials, however some local variations were
noticed along the drilled depths as illustrated by the general section through the boreholes.
For the five boreholes, a generalized subsurface soil characteristic data is presented in the table below:
Borehole
Depth, m Soil Characteristic of each hole
Identity
0.00 –3.00 Light grey medium dense to dense coarse sand mixed with gravel.
BH#1
3.00 – Light whittish dense to very dense highly weathered muscovite
12.00 granite with intercalation of mica gneiss and dark schist.

Borehole
Depth, m Soil Characteristic of each hole
Identity
0.00 –3.00 Light grey medium dense to dense coarse sand mixed with gravel.
BH#2
0.00 –1.80 Light grey top clayey soil mixed with coarse sand.
BH#3
0.00 – 1.70 Light grey top clayey soil mixed with coarse sand.
BH#4
0.00 –
Light grey top clayey soil mixed with coarse sand.
1.8.00
BH#5
6.2 Ground Water and Cavities
Water Table is defined as underground border between the grounds in which all spaces are filled with
water and the ground above in which the spaces contain some air. The level of the water table tends to
follow the shape of the overlying ground surface, rising under hills and dipping in valleys, but with a
gentler slope than the ground. The level of the water table also varies with the climate, rising during rainy
periods and falling during dry season.
At the inspected site, ground water table was not encountered within the drilled depth. The samples were
obtained continuously without any interruption in sampling.
7. GENERALIZE MODEL (BOREHOLE-LOG) FOR ANALYSIS
Geo-technical model is quite complex in this soil condition. After intensive study of soil parameters
following geotechnical model was analyzed on the soil condition.

8. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
8.1 Shallow Foundation Analysis
8.1.1 Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure
The allowable bearing pressure (qa) is the maximum pressure that can be imposed on the foundation soil
taking into consideration the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil and the tolerable settlement of the
structure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity and the pressure corresponding to a
specified maximum settlement were performed and the minimum pressure obtained from the two analyses
were adopted as the allowable bearing pressure.
8.1.1.1 SPT correction
The SPT values have been corrected in accordance with the proposal of Skempton, (1986) and Liao and
Whitman (1987) as outlined below with consideration of field procedure, hammer efficiency, borehole
diameter, sample and rod length.
Correction of SPT N-value using the relation after Skempton, 1986
N60 = Em CB CS CR N/0.60
Where: N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
Em = Hammer Efficiency
CB = borehole diameter correction
CS = Sample Correction
CR = rod length correction
N = SPT N value recorded in the field
The correction factors taken are:
Em =0.55 for hand drop hammer, due to lack of true verticalness and proper speed of SPT blow
CB = 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole,

Cs =1.0 for standard sampler,
CR =0.7 for rod length 0.00 - 2.99,
=0.75 for rod length 3.00 - 3.99 m,
=0.85 for rod length 4.00 - 5.99 m, =0.95 for rod length 6.00 - 9.99 m,
=1 for rod length beyond 10.00 m,
Correction for overburden
The correction for values of N should be made for the field SPT values for depths. Modified correction in
1974, peck, Hanson and Thornburn with suggested standard pressure of 100 kN/m2 corresponding to a
depth of 5 m of soil with bulk density 20kN/m2 can be represented by the following equation:
(N1)60 = N60 Cn
Cn=0.77log (2000/p0)
Where p0 is effective overburden pressure in kN/m2.
Correction for silts and fine sands below water table
The correction for values of N greater than 15 in fine sands below water level is as follows;
N=15 + 0.5 (Nc-15)
This correction is due to the fact that higher values are liable to be recorded due to pore pressure.
After, correcting with energy correction to 55%, it is very conventional to modify with dilatancy.
8.1.1.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be granular or non-plastic, cohesion
less sand at upper depth and low plastic cohesive silt at intermediate depth, the allowable bearing capacity
has been analyzed using the angle of friction and cohesion values from direct shear test results. Empirical
formula of Indian Standard IS 6403:1981 is applicable for this type of soils has been used to obtain the
ultimate bearing pressure.
Qu = c Nc sc dc ic+q (Nq-1) sq dq iq+1/2*B ſ Nſ sſ dſ iſ w‟
Where: Qu = ultimate bearing pressure, t/m2
C = cohesion in t/m2
Nc, Nq, Nſ = Bearing capacity factors
sc, sq, sſ = Shape factors
dc, dq, dſ = Depths factors

ic, iq, iſ = Inclination factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m2
B = Width of footing in m
ɣ= Bulk unit weight of soil sample in t/m3
w‟ = Correction factor for location of water table
The values of Nc, Nq, and Nſ may be obtained from Table 2.
Table 2. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
Angle of friction, Ø
Nc Nq Nſ
(degree)
0 5.14 1 0
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.4 5.39
25 20.72 10.66 10.88
30 30.14 18.4 22.4
35 46.12 33.3 48.03
40 75.31 64.2 109.41
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
50 266.89 319.07 762.89
The values of sc, sq, and sſ may be obtained from Table 3.
Table 3. SHAPE FACTORS
SHAPE OF Sc Sq Sſ
Square 1.3 1.3 1.3
FOOTING
The depth factors shall be as
dc,= 1+0.2 Df/B√NØ
dq,= dſ = 1 for Ø<10̊
dq,= dſ = 1+0.1 Df/B√NØ for Ø>10̊
The inclination factor shall be as under
ic = iq = (1-α/90)2
iſ = (1-α/Ø)2
W‟ (effect of water table)
(a) If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (Df+B) beneath the ground level
surrounding the footing then W‟ = 1.

(b) If the water table is located at depth Df or likely to rise to the base of the footing or above then the
value of W‟ shall be taken as 0.5.
(c) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth Df<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of W‟ be
obtained by linear interpolation.
For different layer of stratified soil, methods generally used for determination of the pressures induced by
loads at different depths are based on the mathematical model due to bossinesq with assumed isotropic,
homogeneity and elastic conditions. The computation of vertical normal stress due to uniformly loaded
rectangular loading may be obtained from:
σz/q=1/4П*[{2*L*B*Z*L2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2*(L2+B2+z2)+(LB)2)] * [{(L2+B2+2z2)/ (L2+B2+z2)} ] * [ Tan-

1*{2*L*B*Z*L2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2*(L2+B2+z2)-(LB)2)]
Where: L = Length of footing in m
Z = Depth where load transformed in m
q = Effective load in t/m2
σz = Effective stress at depth z due to load q in t/m2
8.1.1.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement
Settlement is of concern same as the bearing capacity and most test effort is undertaken to determine the
in-situ deformation modulus E and Poisson‟s ratio so that some type of settlement analysis can be made.
Different sources of settlement include:
a) Settlement caused by the structural loads (foundation settlement).
b) Settlement due to the weight of recently placed fill.
c) Settlement due to falling ground water table.
d) Settlements caused by underground mining or tunneling.
e) Settlements caused by the formation of sinkholes.
f) Lateral movements resulting from nearby excavations that indirectly cause settlement.
In this report the estimated settlement will be that one resulting from Consolidation settlement.
Consolidation settlement
This type of settlement is time dependent settlement, and it is occur if the footing is located on a
compressible layer or if this layer is located within the significant depth below the footing. This type of
settlement is calculated using the following equation assuming the compressible layer is normally
consolidated clay.

The settlement was calculated by:
Sf=Ht/ (1+e0)*Cc log10 ((p0+Δp)/p0)
Where: Sf = Consolidation or settlement in m
Ht = Thickness of soil layer in m
e0 = Initial void ratio
P0 = Effective stress at mid height of layer in t/m2
Δp = Pressure increment t/m2
In case of lack of high accuracy on field and lab works, SPT/CPT methods proposed by Schmertmann
Hartmann and Meyerhof, modified by Bowels are used. The semi empirical strain influence factor method
proposed by Schmertmann and Hartmann (1978) is as follows:
Se = C1.C2 Δq Σ0z (Iz/Es)Δz
Where
Se = net allowable settlement
C1 = a correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment
= 1-0.5 (q/Δq)
q = effective overburden pressure on foundation
C2 = a correction factor to account into creep in soil
= 1+0.2 log (time in year/0.1)
Δq = difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure.
Δz = Thickness of soil layer
Es = Modulus of elasticity of sand
Iz = Strain influence at depth z
Approximate relationship between Cone penetration resistance (qc) and SPT value (N1)60 with Stress-
Strain Modulus Es (Bowles, 1982) are given below:
qc/N Es (kN/m2) Soil type
Based on D50 2.5-3.5 qc Clayey to sandy soil

8.2 Deep Foundation Analysis
Pile Foundation
1  n
A p  Dr N r  PD N q    KPDi tan  . Asi
Qu1 = 2  i l
Ap CNc  c. Asi

Qu2 =
Qu = Qu1 + Qu2
Where,
Ap = Cross sectional area of pile toe
D = Pile Stem diameter
ɣ = effective unit weight of soil at pile toe
PD = effective over burden pressure at pile toe
Nɣ & Nq= bearing capacity factor depending upon the angle of internal friction at toe.

i l = summation of n layers in which pile is installed.
Ø = angle of internal friction
 1  sin  
K = coefficient of earth pressure   
 1  sin  
Pdi = effective over burden pressure for the i th layer where i varies from 1 to n.
Δ = angle of wall friction between the pile
Asi = surface area of pile stem in the i th layer
C = Cohesion of Soil Nc = Skemption factor
α = Adhesion Factor
For working out a safe load carrying capacity of the pile, a factor of safety of 2.5 is adopted.
BASED ON MEYERHOF’S
Qutip =120 N Ab, KN
Qushaft =Naverage Asi, KN
For working out a safe load carrying capacity of the pile, a factor of safety of 2.5 and 4 is adopted.

BASED ON DECOURT, 1995

Qutip=Kb Naveragebase Ab, KN
Qushaft=α (2.8 N60 + 10) Asi, KN
Where, α = 0.5 to 0.6 for sandy and 1 for clayey
Soil Type Kb
Sand 165
Sandy Silt 120
Clayey Silt 100
Clay 80
The bearing capacity of a single pile is to be determined from loading or failure test of a pile during
construction works. The purpose of the test is one or more of the following:
 to establish criteria for installation of working piles
 to establish settlement of working load
 to get an idea of the suitability of the pile for a particular purpose
 to determine the safe load capacity
8.3 Analysis of Foundations
8.3.1 General Assumption
 Each stratum was considered as a combination of different heterogeneous layer, so maximum

thickness considered for unique soil properties was limited to 1.5 m otherwise as tested.
 Corrected SPT value beyond 30 m depth of exploration is same as assumed at 30 m depth.
 In between two tested samples, properties of soil in middle sections were interpolated as relevancy
of data. And design data were interpolated between semi empirical data form field test and lab test
results.
 Some of input and output data were refined as per relevancy with correlated data.

8.3.2 Input Data (Considering a single model strata)

8.3.3 Sample Calculation





8.4 Findings
8.4.1 Shallow Foundation
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION AT PROPOSED COSTRUCTION SITE

(BH#1 )
Theoretical
Recommended Theoretical Recommended Theoretical Recommended
Depth of Safe
design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe
footing, Bearing
Bearing Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing
m Capacity,
Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
t/m2
Width of Square Footing,
Width of Square Footing, m Width of Square Footing, m
m
1.5 2 2.5
1 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2
1.5 9.2 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.8
2 12.1 12.1 12.3 12.3 12.5 12.5
2.5 13.2 13.2 13.4 13.4 13.7 13.7
3 13.9 13.9 14.1 14.1 14.6 14.6
m
3.0 4.0 5.0
1 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0
1.5 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.3
2 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 13.0 13.0
2.5 16.0 16.0 16.2 16.2 16.7 16.7
3 15.6 15.6 17.6 17.6 18.6 18.6
4 26.6 26.6 27.6 27.6 28.6 28.6
5 35.3 30.0 36.3 30.0 37.3 30.0
m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 7.5 7.5 8.9 8.9 10.3 10.3
1.5 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.7 12.7
2 13.6 13.6 14.6 14.6 15.6 15.6
2.5 17.7 17.7 18.2 18.2 18.7 18.7
3 20.6 20.6 21.4 21.4 22.6 22.6
4 29.6 29.6 30.6 30.0 32.6 30.0
5 38.3 30.0 39.3 30.0 40.3 30.0

SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION AT PROPOSED COSTRUCTION

SITE (BH#2 )
Theoretical Theoretical
Recommended Theoretical Recommended Recommended
Depth of Safe Safe
design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe design Safe
footing, Bearing Bearing
Bearing Capacity, Bearing Bearing
m Capacity, Capacity,
Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
t/m2 t/m2
Width of Square Footing, Width of Square Footing, Width of Square Footing,
m m m
1.5 2 2.5
1 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.4 8.2 8.2
1.5 10.2 10.2 10.7 10.7 11.8 11.8
2 13.4 13.4 13.6 13.6 14.5 14.5
2.5 16.5 16.5 17.4 17.4 18.7 18.7
3 18.9 18.9 19.1 19.1 19.6 19.6
m m m
3.0 4.0 5.0
1 8.4 8.4 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.0
1.5 11.9 11.9 12.4 12.4 13.3 13.3
2 14.7 14.7 15.0 15.0 15.6 15.6
2.5 19.0 19.0 19.2 19.2 19.7 19.7
3 19.6 19.6 20.0 20.0 20.6 20.6
4 28.6 28.6 29.6 29.6 30.4 30.0
5 36.3 30.0 36.8 30.0 37.8 30.0
m m m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 8.5 8.5 9.1 9.1 10.8 10.8
1.5 12.7 12.7 13.3 13.3 13.7 13.7
2 15.9 15.9 16.6 16.6 17.5 17.5
2.5 20.7 20.7 21.2 21.2 22.7 22.7
3 21.6 21.6 22.4 22.4 22.9 22.9
4 30.6 30.6 31.8 30.0 32.9 30.0
5 40.3 30.0 40.9 30.0 41.5 30.0


SITE (BH#3 )
Depth of Safe Safe
t/m2 t/m2
m m m
1.5 2 2.5
1 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.4 5.2 5.2
1.5 7.2 7.2 7.7 7.7 9.4 9.4
2 10.4 10.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.3
2.5 12.5 12.5 13.0 13.0 14.8 14.8
3 14.9 14.9 15.3 15.3 16.1 16.1
m m m
3.0 4.0 5.0
1 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0
1.5 9.6 9.6 9.9 9.9 10.3 10.3
2 12.7 12.7 12.9 12.9 13.2 13.2
2.5 15.0 15.0 15.3 15.3 16.7 16.7
3 16.7 16.7 17.0 17.0 18.3 18.3
4 21.6 21.6 22.8 22.8 23.4 23.3
5 26.3 26.3 26.8 26.8 27.8 27.8
m m m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.5 8.1 8.1
1.5 10.7 10.7 11.3 11.3 11.7 11.7
2 13.9 13.9 14.2 14.2 14.5 14.5
2.5 17.7 17.7 18.2 18.2 18.7 18.7
3 18.6 18.6 20.4 20.4 19.3 19.3
4 24.6 24.6 24.8 24.8 25.3 25.3
5 28.3 28.3 28.9 28.9 29.5 29.5


SITE (BH#4 )
Depth of Safe Safe
t/m2 t/m2
m m m
1.5 2 2.5
1 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.7 6.2 6.2
1.5 7.6 7.6 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.4
2 10.8 10.8 11.6 11.2 12.8 12.8
2.5 12.9 12.9 13.8 13.8 15.2 15.2
3 15.1 15.1 15.9 15.9 16.6 16.6
m m m
3.0 4.0 5.0
1 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.5
1.5 9.9 9.9 10.5 10.5 10.8 10.8
2 12.9 12.9 13.3 13.3 13.6 13.6
2.5 15.3 15.3 16.6 16.6 16.9 16.9
3 16.9 16.9 17.5 17.5 17.9 17.9
4 22.0 22.0 23.4 23.4 23.9 23.9
5 27.1 27.1 27.3 27.3 28.1 28.1
m m m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 7.6 7.6 8.0 8.0 8.6 8.6
1.5 10.9 10.9 11.8 11.8 12.0 12.0
2 14.3 14.3 14.7 14.7 14.9 14.9
2.5 17.8 17.8 18.9 18.9 19.2 19.2
3 19.0 19.0 21.0 21.0 21.8 21.8
4 25.0 25.0 25.3 25.3 26.7 26.7
5 28.7 28.7 29.2 29.2 30.1 30.0


SITE (BH#5 )
Depth of Safe Safe
t/m2 t/m2
m m m
1.5 2 2.5
1 6.0 6.0 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.2
1.5 8.1 8.1 8.7 8.7 9.6 9.6
2 11.6 11.6 12.4 12.4 13.1 13.1
2.5 13.5 13.5 14.6 14.6 15.8 15.8
3 16.8 16.8 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.8
m m m
3.0 4.0 5.0
1 7.8 7.8 8.2 8.2 10.5 10.5
1.5 10.3 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.3 11.3
2 14.2 14.2 15.4 15.4 16.6 16.6
2.5 16.0 16.0 17.2 17.2 18.9 18.9
3 17.5 17.5 18.6 18.6 20.6 20.6
4 22.8 22.8 24.7 24.7 25.9 25.9
5 28.0 28.0 29.5 29.5 30.1 30.0
m m m
6.0 7.0 10.0
1 11.6 11.6 12.0 12.0 12.6 12.6
1.5 11.9 11.9 12.6 12.6 15.0 15.0
2 17.3 17.3 17.7 17.7 19.9 19.9
2.5 19.7 19.7 20.4 20.4 22.2 22.2
3 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 24.6 24.6
4 26.7 25.0 27.3 27.3 29.7 29.7
5 30.3 30.0 30.7 30.0 31.2 30.0

8.4.2 Deep Foundation (Cast In-Situ Bored Concrete Pile)
BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE VERTICAL PILE FOUNDATION GENERAL (Static)
Diameter of Pile, mm 600

Length of pile, m 15.0
Bearing Capacity, KN 435
BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE VERTICAL PILE FOUNDATION GENERAL (Dynamic)
Diameter of Pile, mm 600

Length of pile, m 15.0
Bearing Capacity, KN 726

9. SEISMICITY
Many earth scientists believe that longitudinally the entire 2,400 km long Himalayan arc can be segmented
into different individual parts (200-300 km) which periodically break and move separately and produce mega
earthquake (catastrophic earthquake) in the Himalayan region. From east to west, the great earthquake of
Gorkha, Nepal (2015), Assam, India (1950), Shilong, India (1897), Nepal-Bihar, India (1934) and Kangra,
India (1905) are the mega-earthquakes of the last century produced by the movements in different parts of the
Himalayan arc, all with magnitude around 8.0 - 8.7. When a sector of the Himalaya moves and produces
earthquakes, it will take some time (from decades to century) to repeat the event at the same place. Nepal is
prone to an earthquake of minor or major magnitude. Records of earthquakes since 1253 indicate that Nepal
was hit by 17 major earthquakes - the 1833 (magnitude 7.9) and 1934(magnitude 8.3) are two of these which
have occurred at an interval of 100 years. Statically, the earthquake occurrence data of the last century shows
that in average Nepal was hit by a big earthquake in every 12 years (Nakarmi, 1997).
Figure No. 6: Historical events of Earthquakes (Source: Micro seismic epicenter map of Nepal
Himalaya and adjoining region, 1997 published by DoMG, GON).
Figure No. 7: Seismic zoning map (Source: UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat, 1994).

9.1 Liquefaction
Saturated loose to medium dense cohesion less soils and low plastic silts tend to densify and consolidate when
subjected to cyclic shear deformations inherent with large seismic ground motions. Pore-water pressures
within such layers increase as the soils are cyclically loaded, resulting in a decrease in vertical effective stress
and shear strength. If the shear strength drops below the applied cyclic shear loadings, the layer is expected to
transition to a semi fluid state until the excess pore-water pressure dissipates.
As proposed project corridor lies on moderate susceptible zone, detail analysis was performed based on
“Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis-January 2010”.
9.2 Identification of liquefaction area
Nepal lies within the Himalayan range which is a product of continental collision between the
Indian subcontinent and Eurasia. The convergence of the two continents has produced high levels of seismicity
and high rates of active tectonic deformation which has resulted in four major earthquakes within the
Himalayan region in the last 100 years with magnitudes greater than M 8.4 (UNDP, UNCHS, 1994).
Based on Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal prepared by National Seismological center, Departments of mines and
geology, Nepal, proposed building area may experience maximum peak bedrock acceleration of 300 gal to 350
gal ≈ 0.30 g to 0.35g.
Figure No.8: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Map of the Nepal Himalaya
During drilling and logging water table was not encountered.

9.3 Analysis of liquefaction
Liquefaction potential analysis for the project sites was carried out based on the soil data obtained from the
soil investigation.
The “Simplified Method” described by Youd et al. (2001) as well as refinements suggested by Cetin et al.
(2004) was used to estimate liquefaction potential as contained herein. The simplified method compares the
resistance of a soil layer against liquefaction (Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR) to the seismic demand on a soil
layer (Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR) to estimate the FS of a given soil layer against triggering liquefaction. The FS
for each soil sample should be computed to allow thin, isolated layers to be discounted and the specific
locations and extent of those determined liquefiable to be indicated in the SGR and accounted for in design.
An Excel spreadsheet that performs these calculations has been prepared to assist a liquefaction analysis.
Where:
CRR = CRR7.5 Kσ Kα MSF
CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquake
Kσ = Overburden correction factor
f = soil relative density factor
=0.831- and 0.6 ≤ f ≤ 0.8
Kα = sloping ground correction factor
= 1.0 for generally level ground surfaces or slopes flatters than 6 degrees.
MSF = magnitude scaling factor
= 87.2(Mw)-2.215
Mw = earthquake moment magnitude.
AS = peak horizontal acceleration coefficient at the ground surface
= Fpga PGA

Fpga = site amplification factor for zero-period spectral acceleration (LRFD Article 3.10.3.2)
PGA = peak seismic ground acceleration on rock.
σvo= total vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)
σvo‟ = effective vertical soil pressure for final condition (ksf)
rd = soil shear mass participation factor
The maximum ground acceleration for project area was taken as 0.35g, for earthquake zone V according to the
Indian Earthquake Standard and GEO-TECHNICAL and Geological judgment and based on PHGA map
prepared by department of mine and geology, Nepal.
During exploration time water table was not encountered, at the site of Budhanilkantha Housing Project
which may comes significantly up during monsoon (up to the natural ground level).
Long term ground water table monitoring system should be needed for scrupulous analysis of
liquefaction.
Assumptions
After recent review of various research papers from various country and various soil condition. The following
assumption is taken in consideration either the Soil is Susceptible to liquefaction or not:
Clayey layer with fines greater than 35% with Liquid Limit greater than 35, having plasticity Index
greater than 12 and moisture content lower than 85% of Liquid limit.
Soil having natural moisture nearly equal to liquid limit may experience behavior similar to
liquefaction so proper mechanism should be design to encounter the situation.
If the Plasticity index (PI) of the soil is equal or greater than 7 than such soil layer isn’t susceptible to
liquefaction. [Boulanger and Idriss, 2006]
Soil with PI<12 and a ratio of Water Content to liquid limit (Wc/ LL)>0.85 will be susceptible to
liquefaction. [Bray and Sancio, 2006]


9.4 Conclusion
o Project site is not susceptible towards liquefaction, based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
Map of the Nepal Himalaya.
o Based on LRFD Article 3.10.3.2, for proposed area soil Fpga (site amplification factor for zero-period
spectral acceleration) is around 2.1.
o Based on the drilling data‟s and laboratory test value & Seismic parameters based on Seismic Hazard
Map of Nepal, Liquefaction analysis was performed which suggest that Soil is not susceptible to
liquefaction.
9.5 Recommendation
o Considering liquefaction analysis with maximum ground PGA of 0.35g, the site is not susceptible to
liquefaction. The foundation designer is free to choose between isolated or raft foundation expect incase
the foundation has been constructed on filling area.

10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
o Project site is not susceptible to liquefaction, liquefaction, based on MAP prepared by Department of Mines
and Geology, Peak Bed Rock Acceleration for Kathmandu Valley site is around 300-350 gal, and
estimating with amplification factor of 2, design maximum horizontal acceleration is around 200gal.
o Light grey medium dense to dense coarse sand mixed with gravel followed by Light whittish dense to very
dense highly weathered muscovite granite with intercalation of mica gneiss and dark schist lies on project
site within drilling depth.
o Project site is not susceptible towards liquefaction, for 0.35g of PHGA.
Recommendation
o From geo-technical point of view, the proposed building foundation could be constructed with proper
design of isolated foundation.
o Considering, the allowable settlement of 60 mm, the recommended gross allowable bearing capacity of
soils for 2.0 m X 2.0 m size, Isolated Foundation at or near particular boreholes at 2.5m depth from
ground level is 134 KN/m2 for BH-1; 174 KN/m2 for BH-2; 138 KN/m2 for BH-4 & 146 KN/m2 for BH-5.
The recommended ABC is in safer side, which is within the settlement of 60mm.
Please refer page 24 to 28 for the actual data as per desire size.
o Considering, the allowable settlement of 60 mm, the recommended gross allowable bearing capacity of
soils for 10 m X 10 m size, Raft Foundation at or near particular boreholes at 4m depth from ground level
is 300 KN/m2 for BH-1; 300 KN/m2 for BH-2; 267 KN/m2 for BH-4 & 297 KN/m2 for BH-5. The
recommended ABC is in safer side, which is within the settlement of 60mm.
Please refer page 24 to28 for the actual data as per desire size.
o Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Based on Bowles, “FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN” chapter 10.5
Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction = Allowable Bearing Capacity * Factor of Safety / Deflection
(Settlement) = 30.0 * 3 / 60 * 10000 = 15,000 ≈ 15,000 KN/m3
Based on Bowles, “FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN” chapter 9.6

For 10 m x 10 m wide raft foundation, at 4 m below existing ground, Modulus of sub-grade reaction is
15,000 KN/m3, which changes significantly with depth and size of raft foundation, so recommend to use
with proper attention and calculation, based on actual size and shape of footing. The foundation designer
can also follow the approximate value depending upon the type of soil nature.
o However, As per the site conditions and site planning by the Consultant it is expected that BH-3 has been
done in filling area and incase the foundation is required to construct in filling area. Soil Investigation
Agency, Planet Test would like to suggest the construction of pile foundation nearby BH-3 area. So, the
recommended bearing capacity of 600 mm dia., 15.0 m long, circular, cast-in-situ pile foundation near or at
or at particular borehole can resist about 435 KN of load. The recommended ABC is in safer side, which is
within a settlement of 50mm.
Refer Page 29 for more Details
o Please note that, as pile cap is rigid, load test or settlement test of individual pile must be
conducted based on ASTM D1143_07 (IS 2911-4 is not relevant for bridge foundation with
rigid pile cap). Special provision/correction is necessary on Section 1614 (1) and (3) of
Standard Specification for Road and Bridges, DoR 2058 or else correction is essential on
section 1614 (1) of Standard Specification for Road and Bridges, DoR 2073.
o As per IRC 078-2014, Clause 709.1.8 (c) It is further provided that the working load capacity
of pile based on the sub-clause b) shall not exceed 40 percent of the load corresponding to the
settlement of 10 percent of pile diameter (i.e. safety factor of 2.5 on ultimate load capacity is
ensured).
o So, allowable limiting capacity of pile must be measured with settlement of 40% load,
which creates settlement of 10-15% of pile diameter.
o The report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached sheets and should be kept in its entity
without separation of individual pages or sections. This report or sections from this report should not be

used as part of specification for a project, without review and agreement by Planet Test. This is because this
report has been written as advice and opinion rather than strict instruction for construction.
Important Notes;
o The recommendations and discussions presented in this report are based on the sub-surface conditions
encountered during the site work at the time of investigation and on the result of the field and laboratory
testing on samples obtained from limited number of boreholes. There may be however, conditions
pertaining to the site which have not been into account due to the limited number of boreholes.
o The proposed Budhanilkantha Housing Project Site is expected to be developed on the sloppy surface. So,
the proper slope stability analysis before the land development work has to be done in conjunction with the
submitted soil investigation report. This report mainly focus on the calculation of bearing capacity,
settlement analysis, liquefaction analysis etc. for the design of foundation, rather than the report focuses on
the site development work.
o It should be noted; however, that ground water levels are subject to variation caused by rainfall, flood and
weather seasonal variations and by changes of local drainage and or pumping conditions, and may
at the times be significantly different to those measured during the investigation.
o PGA value used on this analysis report is based on a map prepared by Department of mines and Geology,
Nepal, which was only preliminary indication, due to lack of sufficient data, which cannot forestall some
diverse situation if large earthquake occur in nearby area.
o This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without
separation of individual pages or sections. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as
part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by Planet Test Pvt Ltd. This is because
this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction

REFERENCES AND STANDARDS
1. Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal -2002, Department of Mines and Geology

2. AASTHO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONs, 4th edition
3. Canadian FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANNUAL 4th EDITION, Canadian Geotechnical Society
2006
4. Teng, W.C. (1988), 'Foundation Design', Prentice Hall, New Delhi.
5. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), 'Foundation Engineering', John Wiley and Sons
Inc. 514 p.
6. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice', John Wiley and Sons Inc.
514 p.
7. Simons, N.E. and Menzies, B.K. (1979), 'A short Course in Foundation Engineering', ELBS and Newnes
Butterworths, London, 159 p.
8. Indian Standard, „Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations‟ Part I Concrete
Piles, Section 2 Bored Cast In-Situ Piles, First Revision, “IS : 2911 (Part i/Sec 2)- 1979 (reaffirmed 1997)
9. Nepal Building Code, (1994), 'Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal – NBC 105 – 94'.
10. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF COHESIONLESS SOILS, GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
PROCEDURE, GDP-9, Revision #2 , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU, APRIL 2007,
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
11. Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis
12. Memorandum, New Structure Geotechnical Report Categories and Scope, June 15, 2012, Illinois
Department of Transportation
13. IS 2809: 1972 Glossary of terms and Symbols relating to soil engineering (First revision) 1972 Soil and
foundation engineering
14. IS 2810: 1979 Glossary of terms relating to soil dynamics (First revision) 1979 Soil and foundation
engineering
15. IS 1892: 1979 Code of practice for subsurface investigations for foundations (First revision) 1979 Soil
and foundation engineering
16. IS 8763: 1978 Guide for undisturbed sampling of sands and sandy soils 1978 Soil and foundation
engineering
17. IS 10442: 983 Specification for earth augers (spiral type) 1983 Soil and foundation engineering
18. IS 2131: 1981 Method for standard penetration test for soils (first revision) 1981 Soil and foundation
engineering
19. IS 9640: 1980 Specifications for split spoon sampler 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
20. IS 2132: 1986 Code of practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils (second revision) 1986 Soil and

foundation engineering
21. IS 10108: 1982 Code of practice for sampling of soils by thin wall ampler with stationery piston 1982
soil and foundation engineering
22. IS 4968: Part 3: 1976 Method for subsurface sounding for soils: Part 3 Static cone penetration test (First
Revision) 1976 Soil and foundation engineering
23. IS 2720: Part 2: 1973 Methods of test for soils: Part 2 determination of water content (Second revision)
1973 Soil and foundation engineering
24. IS 2720: Part VII: 1980 Methods of Test for Soils - Part VII: determination of Water Content-Dry
Density Relation Using Light Compaction (Second Revision) 1980 soil and foundation engineering
25. IS 2720: Part 4: 1985 Methods of Test for Soils – Part I: Grain Size Analysis (Second revision) 1985 Soil
26. IS 9259: 1979 Specification for liquid limit apparatus for soils 1979 Soil and foundation engineering
27. IS 2720: Part 5: 1985 Method of Test for Soils - Part 5: Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit
(Second revision) 1985 Soil and foundation engineering
28. IS 11196: 1985 Specification for equipment for determination of liquid limit of soils cone penetration
method 1985 Soil and foundation engineering
29. IS 2720: Part 3: Sec 1: 1980 Methods of test for soils: Part 3 Determination of specific gravity Section
fine grained soils (First revision) 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
30. IS 2720: Part III: Sec 2: 1980 Test for Soils - Part III : Determination of Specific Gravity - Section 2:
fine, Medium and Coarse Grained Soils (First revision) 1980 Soil and foundation engineering
31. IS 2720: Part 10: 1991 Methods of test for soils: Part 10 Determination of unconfined compressive
strength (Second revision) 1991 Soil and foundation engineering
32. IS 11593: 1986 Specification for shear box (large) for testing of soils 1986 Soil and foundation
engineering
33. Is 2720: Part 13: 1986 Methods of Test for Soils - Part 13: Direct shear Test (Second revision) 1986 Soil
34. IS 2720: Part XXXIX: Sec 2: 1979 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XXIX: Direct Shear Test for Soils
Containing Gravel - Section 2: In-Situ Shear Test 1979 Soil and foundation engineering
35. IS 2720: Part XXXIX: Sec 1: 1977 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XXXIX: Direct Shear Test for soils
containing gravel - Section 1: Laboratory Test 1977 Soil and foundation engineering
36. IS 2720: Part XV: 1965 Methods of Test for Soils - Part XV: Determination of Consolidation properties
(First revision) 1965 Soil and foundation engineering
37. IS 1498: 1970 Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes (first revision)
38. IS 4332: Part 5: 1970 Methods of test for stabilized soils: Part 5 Determination of unconfined

compressive strength of stabilized soils 1970 Soil and foundation engineering

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

ANNEXES
ANNEX-1
BORELOG DATA
BORE LOG PLANET TEST
Project: Soil Investigation Work at Budhanilkantha Housing Project
Location: Budhanilkantha Municipality-10, Taulung, Kathmandu
Client: Kathmandu Capitals Limited
Borehole No: 1
Initition Date: 2076-03-03
Completion Date: 2076-03-04 Ground water: Not Encountered
Sample No. &Type

No. of blows N-Value SPT
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
CPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
Light grey medium dense to dense coarse SPT 40 50/1 >50
sand mixed with gravel. -2 1.5
-3 SPT 12 36 50 >50
3
-4
CPT 5 8 7 15 4.5
-5
-6 CPT 6 5 8 13 6
Light whittish dense to very dense highly -7

CPT 8 9 7 16
weathered muscovite granite with intercalation 7.5
-8
of mica gneiss and dark schist.
-9 CPT 9 7 11 18 9
- 10
CPT 10.5
- 11
- 12 CPT 12
* Completed at 12m Ground: Dry
Types of Soil N Value
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Granular Soil Compactness
Very Loose Loose Med. Dense Dense Very Dense
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Cohesive Soil Consistency
Very Soft Soft Med. Soft Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Borehole No: 2
Sample No. &Type

Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
CPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Light grey medium dense to dense soil mixed -1

with coarse sand and gravel. SPT 9 13 22 35 1.5
-2
-3 SPT 10 16 18 34 3
-4
CPT 35 50/2 >50 4.5
-5
-6 CPT 39 50/7 >50 6
Light whittish dense to very dense highly -7

CPT 36 50/7 >50 7.5
weathered muscovite granite with intercalation
-8
of mica gneiss and dark schist.
-9 CPT 40 50/1 >50 9
- 10
CPT 43 50/2 >50 10.5
- 11
- 12 CPT 32 50/6 >50 12

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Borehole No: 3
Sample No. &Type

Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
CPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Light grey top soil mixed with coarse sand. -1

SPT 1 1 1 2 1.5
-2
-3 CPT 18 23 50/3 >50 3
-4
CPT 22 50/1 >50 4.5
-5
-6 CPT 36 50/2 >50 6

Light whittish dense to very dense highly
weathered muscovite granite with intercalation -7
of mica gneiss and dark schist. CPT 46 50/3 >50 7.5
-8
-9 CPT 50/3 >50 9
- 10
CPT 50/2 >50 10.5
- 11
- 12 CPT 50/1 >50 12

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Borehole No: 4
Sample No. &Type

Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
CPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

SPT 1 1 1 2 1.5
-2
-3 CPT 13 25 50/2 >50 3
-4
CPT 22 30 50/2 >50 4.5
-5
-6 CPT 35 50/3 >50 6

of mica gneiss and dark schist. CPT 40 50/2 >50 7.5
-8
-9 CPT 50/7 >50 9
- 10
CPT 50/1 >50 10.5
- 11
- 12 CPT 50/1 >50 12

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Borehole No: 5
Sample No. &Type

Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
CPT
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

SPT 7 10 13 23 1.5
-2
-3 CPT 26 30 50/3 >50 3
-4
CPT 32 50/2 >50 4.5
-5
-6 CPT 40 50/1 >50 6

of mica gneiss and dark schist. CPT 50/3 >50 7.5
-8
-9 CPT 50/2 >50 9
- 10
CPT 50/2 >50 10.5
- 11
- 12 CPT 50/2 >50 12

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
ANNEX-2
LABORATORY TEST DATA
TEST RESULT SUMMARY SHEET PLANET TEST
Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Limit Unconfined

Bulk Specific Direct
Moisture Compression Compression
Borehole No Depth, m Density Gravity Shear Test Strength (q ) Remarks
Content % u Index (Cc)
gm/cc gm/cc (Ø0)
Clay % Silt % Sand % Gravel % LL PL PI Kg/cm2
1.50 0.00 5.45 54.86 39.69 - - - 9.90 1.866 2.609 31 - -

BH-1
3.00 0.00 2.37 97.08 0.55 - - - 21.09 - 2.623 - - -
1.50 0.00 8.01 40.62 51.37 - - - 18.83 1.912 2.641 30 - -

BH-2
3.00 0.00 2.59 58.83 38.59 - - - 17.66 - 2.609 - - -
BH-3 1.50 0.00 3.57 57.09 39.35 - - - 18.47 2.011 2.641
1.50 0.00 1.65 48.53 49.82 - - - 19.33 2.076 2.609 - -

BH-4
3.00 0.00 2.38 44.60 53.02 - - - 14.42 - 2.623 35 - -
BH-5 1.50 0.00 6.10 44.00 49.90 - - - 18.83 2.06 2.64 34 - -

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT PLANET TEST
[Test Method:IS: 2720 (Part-II)-1973]
Date: 2076-02-29
Wt. of Cont.
Wt. of Cont. + Wt. of Water Wt. of Empty Wt. of Dry Soil Moisture
+
Sample No. Depth, m Wet Soil (gm) (gm) (3)=(1)- Container (gm) (gm) (5)= (2)- Content (%)
Dry Soil (gm)
(1) (2) (4) (4) (6)=(3)/(5)x100
(2)
Borehole No: 1
SPT - 1 1.5 102.13 95.72 6.41 30.96 64.76 9.90
SPT - 2 3.0 85.42 74.56 10.86 23.06 51.50 21.09
Borehole No: 2
SPT - 1 1.5 98.13 86.20 11.93 22.84 63.36 18.83
SPT - 2 3.0 101.18 90.20 10.98 28.04 62.16 17.66
Borehole No: 3
SPT - 1 1.5 115.48 102.30 13.18 30.96 71.34 18.47
Borehole No: 4
SPT - 1 1.5 115.48 101.79 13.69 30.96 70.83 19.33
SPT - 2 3.0 91.99 83.50 8.49 24.62 58.88 14.42
Borehole No: 5
SPT - 1 1.5 115.48 102.90 12.58 31.25 71.65 17.56
TESTING OFFICER:- APPROVED/CHECKED:-
Binod Giri Diwakar Khadka
This test results reported herein have been performed in accordance with the Indian Standard.
BULK DENSITY DETERMINATION PLANET TEST

Date: 2076-02-29
Sample Depth, Length, Weight, Volume, Bulk Density,
No m cm gm cm³ gm/cm³
Borehole No: 1
SPT - 1 1.50 10 179.60 96.25 1.866
Borehole No:2
SPT - 1 1.50 10 184.00 96.25 1.912
Borehole No:3
SPT - 1 1.50 10 193.60 96.25 2.011
Borehole No: 4
SPT - 1 1.50 10 199.80 96.25 2.076
Borehole No:5
SPT - 1 1.50 10 198.60 96.25 2.063

This test results reported herein have been performed in accordance with the Indian Standard.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST PLANET TEST
[Test Method: IS-2720-PART-3-1980]
Borehole No. BH-1 BH-2 BH-3

Depth, m 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.5
Sample No. SPT - 1 SPT - 2 SPT - 1 SPT - 2 SPT - 1
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 180.36 181.86 180.50 181.80 180.50

Temperature °C 25° 25° 25° 25° 25°
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 161.81 163.25 161.81 163.25 161.81
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.35 18.83 18.35 18.83 18.35
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.609 2.623 2.641 2.609 2.641
Borehole No. BH-4 BH-5
Depth, m 1.5 3.0 1.5
Sample No. SPT - 1 SPT - 2 SPT - 1
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 180.36 181.86 180.50

Temperature °C 25° 25° 25°
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 161.81 163.25 161.81
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.35 18.83 18.35
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9957 0.9957 0.9957
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.609 2.623 2.641
This test results reported herein have been performed in accordance with the
Indian Standard.
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Test Method: IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985

Location:- Budhanilkantha Municipality-10, Taulung, Kathmandu Borehole:- 1
Client:- Kathmandu Capitals Limited Sample:- SPT - 1
Depth:- 1.50
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 100.00 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 89.36
4.75 mm 75.82 50
2.36 mm 60.31
40
1.18 mm 43.94
0.600 mm 25.94 30
0.425 mm 19.91
20
0.300 mm 16.05
0.150 mm 9.70 10
0.075 mm 5.45
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL

0.0 % 5.45 % 54.9 % 39.7 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 3.00
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 100.00 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 100.00
4.75 mm 100.00 50
2.36 mm 99.45
40
1.18 mm 95.96
0.600 mm 64.59 30
0.425 mm 39.04
20
0.300 mm 22.52
0.150 mm 5.75 10
0.075 mm 2.37
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 2.37 % 97.1 % 0.6 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 1.50
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 91.56 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 79.49
4.75 mm 64.61 50
2.36 mm 48.63
40
1.18 mm 34.81
0.600 mm 28.59 30
0.425 mm 21.94
20
0.300 mm 17.30
0.150 mm 13.03 10
0.075 mm 8.01
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 8.01 % 40.6 % 51.4 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 3.00
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 100.00 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 93.42
4.75 mm 79.98 50
2.36 mm 61.41
40
1.18 mm 46.44
0.600 mm 33.05 30
0.425 mm 22.46
20
0.300 mm 13.58
0.150 mm 7.03 10
0.075 mm 2.59
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 2.59 % 58.8 % 38.6 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 1.50
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 100.00 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 89.39
4.75 mm 76.54 50
2.36 mm 60.65
40
1.18 mm 45.51
0.600 mm 35.22 30
0.425 mm 25.62
20
0.300 mm 16.19
0.150 mm 9.17 10
0.075 mm 3.57
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 3.57 % 57.1 % 39.3 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 1.50
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 93.82 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 80.71
4.75 mm 65.65 50
2.36 mm 50.18
40
1.18 mm 37.06
0.600 mm 25.59 30
0.425 mm 15.24
20
0.300 mm 10.00
0.150 mm 6.71 10
0.075 mm 1.65
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 1.65 % 48.5 % 49.8 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 3.00
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 90.43 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 77.83
4.75 mm 62.13 50
2.36 mm 46.98
40
1.18 mm 36.09
0.600 mm 26.60 30
0.425 mm 18.26
20
0.300 mm 11.23
0.150 mm 6.17 10
0.075 mm 2.38
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 2.38 % 44.6 % 53.0 %
PLANET TEST
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS


Depth:- 1.50
Sieve % Passing 100

75.00 mm 100.00
40.00 mm 100.00 90
20.00 mm 100.00 80
16.00 mm 100.00
12.50 mm 100.00 70
10.00 mm 92.40 60
% Passing
6.30 mm 81.25
4.75 mm 66.15 50
2.36 mm 50.10
40
1.18 mm 38.95
0.600 mm 29.15 30
0.425 mm 21.35
20
0.300 mm 14.75
0.150 mm 9.85 10
0.075 mm 6.10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves, mm

0.0 % 6.10 % 44.0 % 49.9 %
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PLANET TEST
[Test Method: IS : 2720 ( Part 13 ) - 1986, (Reaffirmed 2002)]
Client: Budhanilkantha Municipality-10, Taulung, Kathmandu
Location: Kathmandu Capitals Limited
Sampler Dimension:
Length: 6.03 cm
Width : 6.03 cm
Height: 2.45 cm
Borehole No:1
Sample No: SPT-1 Depth (m):1.50m Date: 2076-02-29
Normal Stress Normal Normal Stress
(σn) .50 Shear Stress Stress (σn) Shear Stress (σn) 1.5 Shear Stress
S.N kg/cm2 1 kg/cm2 kg/cm2
Displacement Displacemen Displacement
(mm) KN Kg/cm2 t (mm) KN Kg/cm2 (mm) KN Kg/cm2
1 0.50 0.026 0.07 0.5 0.035 0.10 0.5 0.060 0.17
2 1.00 0.035 0.10 1.00 0.048 0.14 1.00 0.072 0.20
3 1.50 0.041 0.12 1.50 0.061 0.17 1.50 0.089 0.25
4 2.00 0.048 0.14 2.00 0.070 0.20 2.00 0.109 0.31
5 2.50 0.055 0.16 2.50 0.083 0.24 2.50 0.132 0.37
6 3.00 0.061 0.17 3.00 0.093 0.26 3.00 0.179 0.51
7 3.50 0.070 0.20 3.50 0.100 0.28 3.50 0.132 0.37
8 4.00 0.082 0.23 4.00 0.110 0.31 4.00 0.210 0.59
9 4.50 0.094 0.27 4.50 0.119 0.34 4.50 0.250 0.71
10 5.00 0.100 0.28 5.00 0.129 0.37 5.00 0.280 0.79
11 5.50 0.115 0.33 5.50 0.166 0.47 5.50 0.291 0.82
12 6.00 0.123 0.35 6.00 0.189 0.54 6.00 0.293 0.83
13 6.50 0.128 0.36 6.50 0.202 0.57 6.50 0.303 0.86
14 0.129 0.37 0.215 0.61 7.00 0.308 0.87
15 0.13 0.36 0.214 0.61 0.307 0.87
1.6
Shear Stress, kg/sq.cm
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Normal Stress, kg/sq.cm
Angle of Internal Friction (f) = 31°

DIRECT SHEAR TEST PLANET TEST
Sampler Dimension:
Length: 6.03 cm
Width : 6.03 cm
Height: 2.45 cm
Borehole No:2
Sample No: SPT-1 Depth (m): 1.50mm Date: 2076-02-29
1 0.50 0.024 0.07 0.5 0.048 0.14 0.5 0.062 0.18
2 1.00 0.029 0.08 1.00 0.059 0.17 1.00 0.076 0.22
3 1.50 0.033 0.09 1.50 0.070 0.20 1.50 0.107 0.30
4 2.00 0.048 0.14 2.00 0.091 0.26 2.00 0.134 0.38
5 2.50 0.059 0.17 2.50 0.109 0.31 2.50 0.142 0.40
6 3.00 0.063 0.18 3.00 0.127 0.36 3.00 0.157 0.44
7 3.50 0.078 0.22 3.50 0.134 0.38 3.50 0.198 0.56
8 4.00 0.093 0.26 4.00 0.148 0.42 4.00 0.224 0.63
9 4.50 0.105 0.30 4.50 0.153 0.43 4.50 0.244 0.69
10 5.00 0.109 0.31 5.00 0.170 0.48 5.00 0.250 0.71
11 5.50 0.115 0.33 5.50 0.193 0.55 5.50 0.263 0.75
12 6.00 0.133 0.38 6.00 0.201 0.57 6.00 0.277 0.78
13 6.50 0.142 0.40 6.50 0.210 0.59 6.50 0.283 0.80
14 7.00 0.142 0.40 0.209 0.59 7.00 0.282 0.80
15
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Sampler Dimension:
Length: 6.03 cm
Width : 6.03 cm
Height: 2.45 cm
Borehole No:4
1 0.50 0.032 0.09 0.5 0.064 0.18 0.5 0.098 0.28
2 1.00 0.044 0.12 1.00 0.079 0.22 1.00 0.153 0.43
3 1.50 0.054 0.15 1.50 0.107 0.30 1.50 0.194 0.55
4 2.00 0.066 0.19 2.00 0.123 0.35 2.00 0.231 0.65
5 2.50 0.077 0.22 2.50 0.150 0.42 2.50 0.256 0.73
6 3.00 0.090 0.25 3.00 0.179 0.51 3.00 0.273 0.77
7 3.50 0.103 0.29 3.50 0.196 0.56 3.50 0.288 0.82
8 4.00 0.114 0.32 4.00 0.213 0.60 4.00 0.310 0.88
9 4.50 0.122 0.35 4.50 0.234 0.66 4.50 0.334 0.95
10 5.00 0.134 0.38 5.00 0.250 0.71 5.00 0.354 1.00
11 5.50 0.143 0.41 5.50 0.255 0.72 5.50 0.355 1.01
12 6.00 0.150 0.42 6.00 0.254 0.72 6.00 0.354 1.00
13 6.50 0.153 0.43 6.50 6.50
14 7.00 0.152 0.43 7.00
15
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Sampler Dimension:
Length: 6.03 cm
Width : 6.03 cm
Height: 2.45 cm
Borehole No:5
1 0.50 0.029 0.08 0.5 0.058 0.16 0.5 0.088 0.25
2 1.00 0.041 0.12 1.00 0.074 0.21 1.00 0.108 0.31
3 1.50 0.058 0.16 1.50 0.100 0.28 1.50 0.147 0.42
4 2.00 0.066 0.19 2.00 0.113 0.32 2.00 0.164 0.46
5 2.50 0.078 0.22 2.50 0.139 0.39 2.50 0.210 0.59
6 3.00 0.100 0.28 3.00 0.149 0.42 3.00 0.229 0.65
7 3.50 0.107 0.30 3.50 0.164 0.46 3.50 0.256 0.73
8 4.00 0.121 0.34 4.00 0.189 0.54 4.00 0.270 0.76
9 4.50 0.136 0.39 4.50 0.203 0.58 4.50 0.297 0.84
10 5.00 0.140 0.40 5.00 0.236 0.67 5.00 0.314 0.89
11 5.50 0.142 0.40 5.50 0.243 0.69 5.50 0.324 0.92
12 6.00 0.140 0.40 6.00 0.244 0.69 6.00 0.334 0.95
13 6.50 0.00 6.50 0.243 0.69 6.50 0.343 0.97
14 7.00 0.00 7.00 0.350 0.99
15 0.349 0.99
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

ANNEX-3
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs 1: Field equipment setup at BH3 Photographs 2: Field equipment setup at BH2
Photographs 3: Conducting SPT test by marking on Photographs 4: Extraction of disturbed Sample from
SPT rod at an interval of 150mm. SPT split spoon sampler
Photographs 5: Conducting SPT test at BH-2 Photographs 6: Conducting SPT test at BH-3

Final Report On Soil Investigation Work For Budhanilkantha Housing Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final Report On Soil Investigation Work For Budhanilkantha Housing Project

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

Final Report On Soil Investigation Work For Budhanilkantha Housing Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KATHMANDU CAPITAL LIMITED (KCL)

Hattisar Sadak (Near Chinese Embassy)

Prepared and Submitted By: June, 2019

PLANET TEST (P.) LTD.

Kathmandu Capital Limited

Hattisar Sadak (Near Chinese Embassy)

Subject:-Submission of Report on Soil Investigation Work for Budhanilkantha Housing

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page I

9.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure No. Title Page No.

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page II

2. ABOUT THIS STUDY

2.1 Purpose of the Study

 Methods of construction of foundation and footings, groundwater conditions, quality

2.2 Scope of Investigation

The Scope of investigation for this study comprises the followings:

3. Drilling of five boreholes and sampling of disturbed and undisturbed samples.

5. Applying engineering analysis (assessment of bearing capacity, settlement analysis and

7. Submitting this report.

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 2

3.2 Site Location

Bore Hole Northing Easting

Figure 2:Location Map of the proposed site

(Source: Google Map June, 2019)

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 3

3.3 Site Geomorphology and Geology

3.3.1 General Geomorphology

Figure 3: General Geomorphology

3.3.2 Site Geology

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 4

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 5

4.1 Number and Depth of Boreholes

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 6

Figure 5: General Arrangement of Rotary drilling

4.1.4 Field Test

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 7

5. LABORATORY TESTING & RESULTS

5.1 Laboratory Testing

Table 1: Common Soil Laboratory Tests Used in Geotechnical Engineering

Type of Soil Properties Specification

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 8

Type of Soil Properties Specification

Particle Size IS: 2720, 1992 Part 4

Atterberg Limit IS: 2720, Part 5 1992

Water (or moisture Content) IS: 2720, 1992 Part 2

Specific gravity (IS: 2720, Part 3 1992)

Settlement Consolidation IS : 2720 (Part 15)-1986

Organic Content IS : 2720 (Part 22) - 1972

Shear Unconfined Compressive strength IS 2720 ( Part 10 ) : 1991

Strength Unconsolidated Undrained IS 2720-Part 11-1993( Reaffirmed-2002)

Consolidated Undrained IS : 2720 ( Part 12 ) - 1984

Direct shear IS : 2720 (Part 39/Set I)-1977

5.2 Laboratory Test Results

The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix (A).

6. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Properties of Ground Materials

Planet Test (P.) Ltd, Kathmandu, 2019 Page 9

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