Soil Report of Mini Stadium Kathmandu

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.
Soil Investigation of Proposed Foundation Mini Stadium

At CHYASAL, LALITPUR, NEPAL Mid Baneshwor, Kathmandu
Table of Contents
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION..........................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1
2. General Geology and Geomorphology.......................................................................................................1
3. Geo-technical Exploration..............................................................................................................................3
3.1 Boring.................................................................................................................................................................4
3.2 Field Test............................................................................................................................................................5
4. Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters..................................5
4.1 Index Tests........................................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Mechanical Tests..............................................................................................................................................5
5. Seismicity...........................................................................................................................................................6
5.1 Liquefaction.......................................................................................................................................................7
5.2 Identification of liquefaction area................................................................................................................8
5.3 Analysis of liquefaction...................................................................................................................................9
5.4 Conclusion and Recommendation.............................................................................................................10
5.5 Recommendation..........................................................................................................................................10
6. Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure....................................................................................................12
6.1 SPT correction................................................................................................................................................12
6.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity...................................................... 13
6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement................................................................14
6.4 Pile Foundation..............................................................................................................................................15
6.5 Analysis of Foundations...............................................................................................................................16
7. Conclusion and Recommendation.............................................................................................................24
Recommendation.................................................................................................................................................24
8. References and Standards...........................................................................................................................27
All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page I

Soil Investigation of Proposed Foundation Mini Stadium Material Test Pvt. Ltd.
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. Introduction
This geotechnical investigation report is prepared based on the site exploration and laboratory test
results carried out by MATERIAL TEST PVT. LTD., at Chyasal, Lalitpur for proposed mini stadium
of ALL NEPAL FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, Nepal. The investigation characterizes the subsurface
conditions and develops the necessary requirement for the proposed safe bearing capacity of the
foundation.
The soil investigation work was carried out on first week of August 2015. The total quantity of soil
investigation included five boreholes, each of 12 m depths as per agreement. Standard Penetration Tests
(SPT) were conducted at 1.5m depth interval to furnish the compactness of the soil strata at field.
The scope of work of present contract includes the following:
 Exploration of the subsurface conditions at various locations of proposed foundation sites and
conduct requisite in-situ tests.
 Limited laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during the field investigation to
evaluate relevant engineering parameters of the subsurface soils.
 Engineering analyses.
o Preparation of this report includes:
 Drill logs
 Results of in situ and laboratory test
 Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility
 Assessment of bearing capacity
 Recommendations of foundation type and depth
2. General Geology and Geomorphology
From the exploration record of boreholes 1 to 5 on the proposed site the soil profile of the terrain is as
follows:
After thick layer of residual sandy soil, a thick band of highly plastic stiff clayey silt with traces of fine
sand exist to the full depth of exploration in all boreholes.
In general Geology, typical lithology of formation of the Kathmandu valley is one of the large
intramontane basin developed in the lesser Himalayas, central Nepal. It consists of a thick lucastrine
and fluvial deposits of fine and coarse sand, sandy loam, peat, sandy silty clay, carbonaceous clay, sand
and gravel, all of which are more or less consolidated. The maximum thickness of these sediments is
over 600 meter in some places. Recent drilling in these sediments has shown that the subsoil of central
part of Kathmandu Valley is very soft to very dense up to a depth of about 20 meter.
All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 1

As per the Geological map of Kathmandu valley, the project site lies in the Kalimati formation. The
Kalimati formation consists of grey to dark silty clay and clayey silt, at places calcareous and
phosphates minerals (vivianite). Organic clay, fine sand beds and peat layers are common. Ocassionally
lignite seems upto 2 m. The thickness of the formation is as high as 450 m or more at places.
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4: Sandy to clayey soil from explored split spooner

Project Site
Figure. 5: Geological map of Kathmandu valley including project area
3. Geo-technical Exploration
Geological condition/stratum at the test site is important aspect to determine the depth, size and types of
foundation. Standard Penetration Tests carried out in different depths can give appropriateness of the
densification of the soil strata, ground water table, cavities and changes in strata are major aspect of
drilling.
Figure 6, 7: Percussion drilling works on proposed stadium premises

As in general, drilling area lies on sandy strata followed by clayey soil, Drilling team have been
mobilized with percussion drilling rig. Safety mechanisms were developed for technical team and
workers.
3.1 Boring
The drilling works were carried out using single set of Percussion Drilling Rig. The diameter of
borehole at all the locations of the building site used was of 6 inch. The boreholes were logged
continuously in the field. The borehole logs included visual classification of soil, records of SPT for
penetration of 450 mm was reached and records position of water table. The field boreholes records
were updated after completion of laboratory investigation works. The updated borehole logs for site are
presented in Appendix including general ground water table.
Groundwater was monitored on drilled hole 24 hours after completion of drilling works.
Figures 8, 9: Percussion drilling in progress at proposed stadium area
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.

3.2 Field Test
The field test conducted at the site consisted of Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Sounding test such as
SPT are methods for measuring soil characteristics of relative density and strength simply and quickly
by penetrating, rotating resistance into the ground and pulling out it onto the ground.
Penetration tests were executed through all strata. Sounding test data were used to estimate soil strength
parameter, subsoil distribution and possible existence of soft layer.
SPT Test
A standard split barrel sampler was used in the test. The SPT tests were conducted in all the boreholes
of the site at a depth interval of every 1.5, as per soil condition. The driving of split-spoon was recorded
at each 150 mm interval 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 two 150 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 12 m.
4. Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters
In order to identify the physical characteristics and mechanical properties of soil, undisturbed samples
and disturbed samples are collected and laboratory soil tests were performed.
4.1 Index Tests
All the requisite laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with IS standard specifications.
Standard laboratory test was carried out to characterize the soil strata. The laboratory testing is included
the following tests: Moisture Content, Grain Size Analysis, Bulk Density, Specific Gravity, Atterberg
Limits. At least two sets of samples or each sample from each layer were selected as a representative
samples and tested as per standards.
4.2 Mechanical Tests
Generally, at least two sets of soil samples were selected assuming at least two in situ layers and
conducted laboratory tests from each borehole in order to discern the shear related strengths and stress-
strain responses of soils. All of the laboratory tests were numbered sequentially. The test number and
the prefix were used as test and specimen identifiers.
Direct Shear Test
Direct shear tests were conducted on disturbed samples collected from the all five 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 will be 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.
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).
Unconfined compression tests
Unconfined compression tests were carried out on cylindrical specimens extruded from the undisturbed
sampling tubes. The specimens are of 38 mm diameter and 76 mm height. A strain rate of 1.2 mm per
minute was adopted in all the tests and the samples were brought to failure in less than 10 minutes to
maintain undrained condition.
Consolidation tests
Consolidation tests were conducted on clayey undisturbed samples abstract with a help of undisturbed
sampling tube. 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.
5. Seismicity
Many earth scientists believe that longitudinally the entire 2,400 km long Himalayan arc can be
segmented into different individual parts (200-300 km) which periodically break and move separately
and produce mega earthquake (catastrophic earthquake) in the Himalayan region. From east to west, the
great earthquake of 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 16 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).
Statistics shows that 1934 earthquake was the severest for Kathmandu valley where significant damages
to the lives and properties were observed. Buildings and other structures built on thick soft soils are
very vulnerable to the force of earthquake as compared to the structures built on top of hard rocks. Due
to the thick soil cover, during an earthquake, the structures in the Kathmandu Valley are shaken very
strongly than the structures in the surrounding hills with rocky base.

Figure 10: Seismic zoning map (Source: UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat, 1994).
Now-a-days, earth scientists are most concerned about the lack of occurrence of any great earthquake
between Kathmandu in the east and Dehra Dun, India in the west during the past many centuries, and
have named it the CENTRAL GAP. It is most likely that this segment of the Himalaya is due for a
major break to trigger a mega-earthquake in the Himalaya. It is even suspected that it may be the
greatest earthquake that we have so far experienced in the Himalaya in the past few centuries. The area
closer to the epicenter will suffer the maximum damage.
To counteract earthquake effect due consideration has to be taken in the structural design of buildings.
The project area is located in the area having Seismic Zoning Factor, Z, equal to 1. According to the
Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal prepared by National Seismological center, Departments of mines and
geology, Nepal, Kathmandu is highly liquefiable zone, which may experience maximum ground
acceleration of 200 gal to 250 gal, whereas as per Building Department Memorandum for Multistory
Building it must be > 360 gal ≈ > 0.36g.
5.1 Liquefaction
Saturated loose to medium dense cohesionless soils and low plastic silts tend to densify and consolidate
when subjected to cyclic shear deformations inherent with large seismic ground motions. Pore-water
pressures within such layers increase as the soils are cyclically loaded, resulting in a decrease in vertical
effective stress and shear strength. If the shear strength drops below the applied cyclic shear loadings,
the layer is expected to transition to a semi fluid state until the excess pore-water pressure dissipates.
As proposed project corridor lies on highly susceptible zone of liquefaction based on Liquefaction
Hazard Map of Kathmandu Valley Floor Area (1193, DMG & UNDP/MoHPP), detail analysis was
performed based on “Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis-January 2010”.

Figure 11: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Map of the Nepal Himalaya
5.2 Identification of liquefaction area
The present site consists of sandy strata and the ground water table???? (may be confined seepage
water) being encountered typically at nearly 2 m below general ground level, so site may be susceptible
to liquefaction. Thus liquefaction potential analysis is performed for the site.
Project Area
Figure. 12: Liquefaction Hazard map of Kathmandu Valley.
Based on Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal prepared by National Seismological center, Departments of
mines and geology, Nepal, Kathmandu is highly liquefiable zone, which may experience maximum
ground acceleration of 200 gal to 250 gal, whereas as per Building Department Memorandum for
Multistory Building it must be 360 gal ≈ 0.36g.

5.3 Analysis of liquefaction
Liquefaction potential analysis for the project sites was carried out based on the soil data obtained from
the soil investigation.
The “Simplified Method” described by Youd et al. (2001) as well as refine ments 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.
-2.215
MSF = magnitude scaling factor = 87.2(Mw)
Mw = earthquake moment magnitude.
AS = peak horizontal acceleration coefficient at the ground surface = F pga 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

5.4 Conclusion and Recommendation
o Project site is susceptible towards liquefaction, based on MAP prepared by Department of Mines
and Geology, Peak Bed Rock Acceleration for Kathmandu Valley is around 200-250gal.
o Based on LRFD Article 3.10.3.2, for proposed area soil Fpga (site amplification factor for zero-
period spectral acceleration) is around 2.0.
o In this regards, based on modern research and experience on this kind of soft soil, it is better to
consider 400 gal as a design horizontal peak ground acceleration during liquefaction analysis.
o Soil is susceptible to liquefaction.
5.5 Recommendation
o Considering possibility of liquefaction, it is recommended to install either pile foundation within

desired depth or place raft/mat foundation below liquefiable zone (i.e. about or below 5.0 m from
existing ground level).

PROBABLE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Project : Soil Investigation work for proposed Mini Stadium Hole No.: 1-2-3-4-5
Client : All Nepal Football Association Station (Km+m)
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Earthquake Moment Magnitude = 8.4 Ground Water GL, m : 2.0
Identification: Model Strata Source to Site Distance, R (km) = 10 Depth of exploration, m: 12.0
PGA = 0.40 g Designed Ground Water GL, m : 0.0
Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 2.0 Drilling Method : PERCUSSION
Thickness of embankement, m = 0.00 Scour Depth, m: 2.0
CRR
D
50 Liquid Resist .
N - Value, Bulk from Plasticity Moisture MAG CRR Stress EQ
Depth, Field Density, Seive % % clay Index, Limit Content ɣh, ɣ'h, 7.5, for M - Reduction induced
N
m Soil T ype SPT /DCPT t/m3 analysis corrected fines content PI % LL, % w, % t/m2 t/m2 (N1)'60 CRR7.5 8.4 Factor, rd CSR FoS Remarks
0 Sand 4 1.55 0.15 5 >0 - - - - 10.0 10.0 5 0.072
1.5 Sand 5 1.65 0.15 6 >5 - - - - 12.5 11.0 6 0.080 0.094 0.989 0.291 0.32 liq.
3 Sand 6 1.65 0.15 7 >5 - - - - 15.0 12.1 7 0.088 0.096 0.977 0.316 0.30 liq.
4.5 Silty Clay 10 1.6 0.01 12 >5 - - - - 17.5 13.1 12 0.131 0.136 0.966 0.335 0.41 liq.
6 Silty Clay 10 1.6 0.01 13 > 36 - - - - 20.1 14.2 20 0.215 0.218 0.954 0.351 0.62 Low liq.
7.5 Silty Clay 10 1.6 0.01 12 > 36 - - - - 22.6 15.3 19 0.203 0.191 0.943 0.363 0.53 Low liq.
10.5 Silty Clay 11 1.6 0.01 13 > 36 - - - - 27.7 17.4 20 0.215 0.184 0.894 0.370 0.50 Low liq.
Susceptible Depth of Liquefaction, m = 4.5

6. Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure
The allowable bearing pressure (qa) is the maximum pressure that can be imposed on the foundation soil
taking into consideration the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil and the tolerable settlement of the
structure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity and the pressure corresponding to a
specified maximum settlement were performed and the minimum pressure obtained from the two
analyses were adopted as the allowable bearing pressure.
6.1 SPT correction
The SPT values have been corrected in accordance with the proposal of Skempton, (1986) and Liao and
Whitman (1987) as outlined below with consideration of field procedure, hammer efficiency, borehole
diameter, sample and rod length.
Correction of SPT N-value using the relation after Skempton, 1986
N60 = Em CB CS CR N/0.60
Where: N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
Em = Hammer Efficiency
CB = borehole diameter correction
CS = Sample Correction
CR = rod length correction
N = SPT N value recorded in the field
The correction factors taken are :
Em =0.55 for hand drop hammer, due to lack of true verticalness and proper speed of SPT blow
CB =1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole,
Cs =1.0 for standard sampler,
CR =0.7 for rod length 0.00 - 2.99, =0.75 for rod length 3.00 - 3.99 m,
=0.85 for rod length 4.00 - 5.99 m, =0.95 for rod length 6.00 - 9.99 m,
=1 for rod length beyond 10.00 m,
Correction for overburden
The correction for values of N should be made for the field SPT values for depths. Modified correction
in 1974, peck, Hanson and Thornburn with suggested standard pressure of 100 kN/m 2 corresponding to
2
a depth of 5 m of soil with bulk density 20kN/m 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.
6.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be granular or non-plastic,
cohesion less sand at upper depth and low plastic cohesive silt at intermediate depth, the allowable
bearing capacity has been analyzed using the angle of friction and cohesion values from direct shear test
results. Empirical formula of Indian Standard IS 6403:1981 is applicable for this type of soils has been
used to obtain the ultimate bearing pressure.
Qu = c Nc sc dc ic+q (Nq-1) sq dq iq+1/2*B ſ Nſ sſ dſ iſ w‟
Where:
Qa = ultimate bearing pressure, t/m2
C = cohesion in t/m2
Nc, Nq, Nſ = Bearing capacity factors, sc, sq, sſ = Shape factors
dc, dq, dſ = Depths factors, ic, iq, iſ = Inclination factors
q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m 2
B = Width of footing in m
ɣ= Bulk unit weight of soil sample in t/m3 and w‟ = Correction factor for location of water table
The values of Nc, Nq, and Nſ may be obtained from Table 5.
Table 5. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
Angle of friction, Ø
Nc Nq Nſ
(degree)
0 5.14 1 0
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.4 5.39
25 20.72 10.66 10.88
30 30.14 18.4 22.4
35 46.12 33.3 48.03
40 75.31 64.2 109.41
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
50 266.89 319.07 762.89
The values of sc, sq, and sſ may be obtained from Table 6.

Table 6. SHAPE FACTORS
SHAPE OF FOOTING Sc Sq Sſ
Square 1.3 1.3 1.3
The depth factors shall be as
dc,= 1+0.2 Df/B√NØ
dq,= dſ = 1 for10
dq,= dſ = 1+0.1 Df/B√NØ for 10
The inclination factor shall be as under
ic = iq = (1-α/90)2 and iſ = (1-α/ )2
W‟ (effect of water table)
(a) If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (D f+B) beneath the ground
level surrounding the footing then W‟ = 1.
(b) If the water table is located at depth D f 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 D f<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of W‟
be obtained by linear interpolation.
6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Tolerable Settlement
If the clay layer is encountered, the settlement was calculated by:
Sf=Ht/ (1+e0)*Cc log10 ((p0+Δp)/p0)
Where: Sf = Consolidation or settlement in m
Ht = Thickness of soil layer in m
e0 = Initial void ratio

2
P0 = Effective stress at mid height of layer in t/m
2
Δp = Pressure increment t/m
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 q Σ0z (Iz/Es) z
Where, Se = net allowable settlement
C1 = a correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment = 1-0.5 (q/ q)
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)
q = difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure.
z = Thickness of soil layer
Es = Modulus of elasticity of sand and Iz = Strain influence at depth z
Approximate relationship between Cone penetration resistance (q c) and SPT value (N1)60 with Stress-
Strain Modulus Es (Bowles, 1982) are given below:
qc/N Es (kN/m2) Soil type
Based on D50 2.5-3.5 qc Clayey to sandy soil
6.4 Pile Foundation
1  n
Ap  D r N r  PD N q    KPDi tan  .Asi
Qu1 = 2  i l
Qu2 =
Ap CNc c.Asi
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.
n

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 and 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
Kb
Soil Type Kb
Sand 165
Sandy Silt 120
Clayey Silt 100
Clay 80
The bearing capacity of a single pile is to be determined from loading or failure test of a pile during
construction works. The purpose of the test is one or more of the following:
 to establish criteria for installation of working piles

 to establish settlement of working load
 to get an idea of the suitability of the pile for a particular purpose
 to determine the safe load capacity
6.5 Analysis of Foundations
6.5.1 General Assumption
 Each stratum was considered as a combination of different heterogeneous layer, so maximum

thickness considered for unique soil properties was limited to 1.5 m otherwise as tested.
 Corrected SPT value beyond 20m depth of exploration is assumed to be equal with SPT of
19.5m depth and assumed clayey soil from 20 m depth with SPT N equal 10 and increased
slightly with depth based on general experience and records of the drilling team, as there is
medium soft to stiff clayey silt exits to hundreds of meter depth at Kathmandu valley.
 In between two tested samples, properties of soil in middle sections were interpolated as
relevancy of data. And design data were interpolated between semi empirical data form field
test and lab test results.
 Some of input and output data were refined as per relevancy with correlated data.

6.5.2 Input Data (considering a single model strata)
DESIGN INPUT DATA

Client : All Nepal Football Association Station (Km+m)
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Ground Water GL, m : 2.0
Identification: Model Strata Depth of exploration, m: 12.0
Clayey layer exist ; fro m 3.2 m to 99.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m 0.0 m to 0.0 m Designed Ground Water GL, m : 0.00
Hammer energy Correction, Er: 60 % Foundation/Scour Depth, 2.00 2.0
Drilling Method : PERCUSSIONp Soil Condition : = Drain Void Ratio (e) = 1.781094 Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 2.0
Part of
Drainage Condition
Is soil,
there Cohesive Design D50 N value
Silt or (Equivalent) Bulk from Liquid after Field Field Lab Lab Design Design
Depth, or Cohesion SPT N- Density, Seive Limit, Dilatancy Based Based C, Based Based c, PHI Design Cohesion, c, Cc,
3 2 2 2 2 3 **
m not* -less *** Value t/m analysis LL (%) Correction Ncoorected Ф, ° t/m Ф, ° t/m Ф, ° Ф, ° T/m KN/m KN/m
0 n C. less 4 1.55 0.15 0 4 5 28 - 28 (1) 29 29 - 1.0 - D E
1.5 n C. less 5 1.65 0.15 - 5 6 29 3.8 29 - 29 29 2.0 - - D E
3 n C. less 6 1.65 0.15 - 6 7 29 4.4 29 - 29 29 2.3 - - D E
4.5 y C 10 1.6 0.01 75 10 12 27 7.5 25 - 26 26 3.9 20.0 0.45 D E
6 y C 10 1.6 0.01 75 10 13 27 8.1 20 - 23 23 4.2 20.0 0.45 D E
7.5 y C 10 1.6 0.01 75 10 12 27 7.5 20 0.3 23 23 3.9 20.0 0.45 D E
9 y C 10 1.6 0.01 75 10 11 29 6.9 20 - 24 24 3.6 20.0 0.45 D E
10.5 y C 11 1.6 0.01 75 11 13 27 8.1 20 - 23 23 4.2 20.0 0.45 D E
12 y C 13 1.6 0.01 75 13 14 27 8.8 20 - 23 23 4.6 20.0 0.45 D E
* n = NO * y = YES ** E = Estimated ** A = Assumed *** C = Cohesion D Drain U Undrain

6.5.3 SAMPLE CALCULATION
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW (OPEN) FOUNDATION
Client : All Nepal Football Association Station (Km+m) 0
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Ground Water GL, m : 2
Identification: Model Strata Designed Ground Water GL, m : 0
Effective
Depth Surcharge
of unit at base
Width Length water Depth Angle Cohesion weight of
of of Area of table of of of soil of soil footing
footing footing footing (Dw), Footing friction ©, (‫)ץ‬, (q),
2
(B), m (L), m (A), m m (Df), m (Φ), ° kg/cm2 kg/m3 NΦ" kg/cm2 Nc Nq Ny
1.0 25 0.14 0.002 88.0 0.06 20.72 10.66 6.76

1.5 25 0.15 0.002 88.0 0.10 20.72 10.66 6.76
2.0 25 0.16 0.002 88.0 0.13 20.72 10.66 6.76
2.5 25 0.17 0.002 88.0 0.16 20.72 10.66 6.76
3.0 24 0.17 0.002 106.7 0.19 19.05 9.05 5.38
15.0 15.0 225 0.0 4.0 24 0.19 0.002 106.7 0.25 19.05 9.05 5.38
5.0 24 0.20 0.002 106.7 0.31 19.05 9.05 5.38
6.0 23 0.20 0.002 128.8 0.37 17.75 8.56 4.81
7.0 24 0.20 0.002 106.7 0.43 19.05 9.05 5.38
8.0 24 0.19 0.002 106.7 0.50 19.05 9.05 5.38
9.0 24 0.19 0.002 106.7 0.56 19.05 9.05 5.38
Net
Ultimate Allowable Allowable
Water Bearing Depth Bearing Bearing
table Capacity Factor of Capacity Capacity
Shape Factor Depth factor Inclination factor correction of Soil of Footing of Soil of Soil
Sq Sc S‫ץ‬ dq dc d‫ץ‬ iq ic w' (qc), t/m2 Safety (Df), m (qna), t/m2 (qga), t/m2
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.02 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 73.10 3.0 1.0 23.85 25.40
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 84.36 3.0 1.5 27.30 29.77
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.04 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 93.19 3.0 2.0 29.96 33.26
1.42 1.51 0.60 1.05 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 99.39 3.0 2.5 31.80 35.80
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.06 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 93.32 3.0 3.0 29.51 34.31
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 108.96 3.0 4.0 34.19 40.59
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.10 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 121.27 3.0 5.0 37.76 45.76
1.39 1.48 0.60 1.13 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 123.35 3.0 6.0 37.92 47.52
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.15 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 143.95 3.0 7.0 44.25 55.45
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.17 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 154.53 3.0 8.0 47.24 60.04
1.41 1.48 0.60 1.19 1.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.5 166.67 3.0 9.0 50.76 65.16

Settlement Analysis of Open (SHALLOW) Foundation

Semi Empirical Method by Schmertmann and Hartmann
Client : All Nepal Football Association Station (Km+m) 0
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Ground Water GL, m : 2
Identification: Model Strata Depth of exploration, m: 12
Depth of Foundation D = 5.00 m Designed Ground Water GL, 0
Width of Foundation B = 15.00 m Foundation/Scour Depth, m: 2
Length of Foundation L = 15.00 m Depth of Pile Top from NGL, 2
2
Allowable Bearing Capacity (Shear) of soil for designated foundation; 37.8 t/m 2
2
Assumed Safe Bearing Capacity of foundation (Shear or Settlement), 2.3 t/m
In case of 15 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 5 m below the NGL effective depth =35 m
Z to
Bulk the
Density center
Depth, (gamma) Ratio qc, Es , of Iz at center Settlement,
m Soil Layer, m t/m3 N- Corrected
2
of qc/N KN/m KN/m
2
layer, m of layer Iz/Es * Z Ss
5 5.0 to 6.5 1.60 12 2.25 2700 6750 0.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
6.5 6.5 to 6.5 1.60 13 2.25 2925 7313 1.50 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
8 6.5 to 8.0 1.60 12 2.25 2700 6750 2.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
9.5 8.0 to 9.5 1.60 11 2.25 2475 6188 3.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
11 9.5 to 11.0 1.60 13 2.25 2925 7313 5.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
12.5 11.0 to 12.5 1.60 14 2.25 3150 7875 6.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
14 12.5 to 14.0 1.60 15 2.25 3375 8438 8.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
15.5 14.0 to 15.5 1.60 16 2.25 3600 9000 9.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
17 15.5 to 17.0 1.60 17 2.25 3825 9563 11.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
18.5 17.0 to 18.5 1.60 18 2.25 4050 10125 12.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
20 18.5 to 20.0 1.60 19 2.25 4275 10688 14.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
21.5 20.0 to 21.5 1.60 20 2.25 4500 11250 15.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
23 21.5 to 23.0 1.60 21 2.25 4725 11813 17.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
24.5 23.0 to 24.5 1.60 22 2.25 4950 12375 18.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
26 24.5 to 26.0 1.60 23 2.25 5175 12938 20.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
27.5 26.0 to 27.5 1.60 24 2.25 5400 13500 21.75 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
29 27.5 to 29.0 1.60 25 2.25 5625 14063 23.25 0.000 0.000000 0.0000
Effective Bulk Density = 1.60 Settlement in Sandy layer = 0.0 mm
Depth correction factor C1= 0.87 0.87 Creep Factor C2= 1.6 Assuming 100 yrs for settlement
Now Settlement prediction on cohesionless soil with designed load; 0.0 mm
Semi Empirical Method Based on Clayey layer

In case of 15 m wide, Shallow Fondation resting on 5 m below the NGL effective depth for clayey soil =35 m
Design Void
Depth, Compression Compression Ratio, Settlement,
e P S
m Soil Layer, m Index, cc Index, cc 0 sigma/z ∆ P 0 H c Predicted Settlement, Sc
5 5.0 to 6.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.999 2.2 8.0 1.50 0.026101 0.0261007
6.5 6.5 to 6.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.958 2.2 10.4 1.50 0.019860 0.0198602
8 6.5 to 8.0 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.921 2.1 12.8 1.50 0.015814 0.0158140
9.5 8.0 to 9.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.855 1.9 15.2 1.50 0.012555 0.0125552
11 9.5 to 11.0 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.773 1.7 17.6 1.50 0.009937 0.0099375
12.5 11.0 to 12.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.707 1.6 20.0 1.50 0.008063 0.0080635
14 12.5 to 14.0 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.631 1.4 22.4 1.50 0.006475 0.0064754
15.5 14.0 to 15.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.550 1.2 24.8 1.50 0.005133 0.0051327
17 15.5 to 17.0 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.469 1.1 27.2 1.50 0.004014 0.0040140
18.5 17.0 to 18.5 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.395 0.9 29.6 1.50 0.003122 0.0031219
20 18.5 to 20.0 0.45 0.45 1.781 0.350 0.8 32.0 1.50 0.002563 0.0025626
Settlement in clayey layer= 124.8 mm
Limiting Settlement as per Code; 125.00 mm 1
Predicted Total Settlement with designated load; 124.8 mm

CAPACITY OF CAST IN-SITU BORED PILE
Project : Soil Investigation work for proposed Mini Stadium Hole No. = 1-2-3-4-5
Client : All Nepal Football Association Excavation Depth, m = 2.0 Station (Km+m) = 0+000
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Depth of Pile Top from NGL, m = 2.0 Ground Water GL, m = 2.0
Identification: Model Strata Drill with Bentonite Slurry 7200 Depth of exploration, m = 12.0
Length of Pile (L), m = 10.0 Base of the pile lies on = 12.0 Designed Ground Water GL, m 0.0
Diameter of Pile (D), mm = 600 Probable Liquefaction depth, m = 4.5 Scour Depth, m = 2.0
2
Area of Pile X-Section, m = 0.283 End Bearing Resistance, qt, Tons = 9.2 Shaft Bearing Resistance, qs, Tons = 18.7
Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile (Q), Tons = 27.8
Load Capacity of Pile @ liquefaction (Qliq), Tons = 35.7 Indian Standard Meyerhof Decourt Method
Effective End Skin End Shaft Shaft
Surface End Bearing Skin Bearing End Bearing Shaft Bearing End Bearing
Effective Design Design c, Surcharge Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing
Depth, m area (Asi), N-value Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance qt,
Thickness, m Ф, ° KN/m2 Pressure, 2 Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance 2 Resistance
t/m2 m (Qupc), Tonnes (Qusc), Tonnes Qups, Tonnes (Quss), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes (Qup), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes (Qus), Tonnes t/m qs, t/m2
0 - 26 - 0.000 - 5 - - - - - - - - - -
1.5 - 29 - 0.428 - 6 - - 2.2 - 5.1 - 7.0 - 7.8 -
3 1.5 29 - 1.395 2.8 7 - - 4.5 0.8 5.9 1.5 8.2 1.3 15.8 0.3
4.5 1.5 26 20.0 2.513 2.8 12 - 0.9 4.5 1.2 10.2 2.5 8.5 3.1 15.8 0.7
6 1.5 23 20.0 3.649 2.8 13 1.6 0.9 5.0 1.5 11.0 2.8 9.2 3.3 23.2 0.9
7.5 1.5 23 20.0 4.793 2.8 12 1.6 0.9 7.6 2.0 10.2 2.5 8.5 3.1 32.4 1.0
9 1.5 24 20.0 5.940 2.8 11 1.6 0.9 7.6 2.5 9.3 2.3 7.8 2.9 32.4 1.2
10.5 1.5 23 20.0 6.544 2.8 13 1.6 0.9 7.6 2.6 11.0 2.8 9.2 3.3 32.4 1.3
12 1.5 23 20.0 6.593 2.8 14 1.6 0.9 7.6 2.7 11.9 3.0 9.9 3.5 32.4 1.3

6.5.4 FINDINGS
6.5.4.1 Shallow Foundation (considering Borehole (1#2#3#4#5))
Theoretical Recommended Theoretical Recommended Theoretical Recommended

Depth of
Safe Bearing design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe
footing,
Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing
m
t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
Width of Square Footing, m Width of Square Footing, m Width of Square Footing, m
1.5 2 2.5
2 18.8 18.8 19.5 19.5 17.8 17.8
2.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 19.7 19.7
3 17.1 17.1 14.0 14.0 11.3 11.3
4 20.9 20.9 17.4 17.4 14.3 14.3
3.0 4.0 5.0
2 13.8 13.8 10.1 10.1 8.3 8.3
2.5 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 9.4 9.4
3 10.1 10.1 8.7 8.7 7.9 7.9
4 12.7 12.7 11.0 11.0 10.1 10.1
5 11.4 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.5 10.5
6.0 7.0 10.0
2 10.0 10.0 8.9 8.9 7.2 7.2
2.5 11.2 11.2 10.1 10.1 8.2 8.2
3 9.4 9.4 8.9 8.9 7.9 7.9
4 11.7 11.7 11.1 11.1 9.9 9.9
5 11.8 11.8 11.5 11.5 10.8 10.8
6 14.0 14.0 13.6 13.6 12.8 12.8
15.0 20.0 30.0
2 6.1 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.1
2.5 6.9 6.9 6.4 6.4 5.9 5.9
3 7.1 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.4
4 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.6 8.2 8.2
5 10.3 10.3 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.6
6 12.1 12.1 11.8 11.8 11.4 11.4
7 14.0 14.0 13.6 13.6 13.1 13.1
8 15.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 14.8 14.8
9 17.6 17.6 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.6

6.5.4.2 Shallow Foundation (considering Borehole (1))
Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical

Depth Recommended Recommended Recommended
Safe Safe Safe
of design Safe design Safe design Safe
Bearing Bearing Bearing
footing, Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing
2 2 2
m Capacity, t/m Capacity, t/m Capacity, t/m

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
2 28.0 28.0 29.2 29.2 28.9 28.9
2.5 35.0 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.5 30.0
3 29.2 29.2 35.2 30.0 20.8 20.8
4 61.5 30.0 52.8 30.0 30.0 30.0
m m m
3.0 4.0 5.0
2 27.8 27.8 17.8 17.8 13.2 13.2
2.5 30.2 30.0 19.5 19.5 14.8 14.8
3 18.5 18.5 13.2 13.2 10.8 10.8
4 22.2 22.2 16.1 16.1 13.3 13.3
5 15.4 15.4 13.3 13.3 12.3 12.3
m m m
6.0 7.0 10.0
2 15.3 15.3 13.0 13.0 9.3 9.3
2.5 16.9 16.9 14.4 14.4 10.5 10.5
3 12.8 12.8 11.5 11.5 9.3 9.3
4 15.4 15.4 13.9 13.9 11.4 11.4
5 14.0 14.0 13.4 13.4 11.9 11.9
6 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.5 12.7 12.7
m m m
15.0 20.0 30.0
2 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.5 5.8 5.8
2.5 8.4 8.4 7.5 7.5 6.7 6.7
3 7.9 7.9 7.3 7.3 6.8 6.8
4 9.8 9.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.5
5 10.9 10.9 10.4 10.4 9.9 9.9
6 12.1 12.1 11.7 11.7 11.3 11.3
7 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.5 13.1 13.1
8 15.8 15.8 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.8
9 17.6 17.6 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5

6.5.4.3 Shallow Foundation (considering Borehole (2#3#4#5))
Theoretical Recommended Theoretical Recommended Theoretical Recommended

Depth of
Safe Bearing design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe Safe Bearing design Safe
footing,
Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing Capacity, Bearing
m t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2 t/m2 Capacity, t/m2
1.5 2 2.5
2 18.8 18.8 19.5 19.5 17.8 17.8
2.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 19.7 19.7
3 17.1 17.1 14.0 14.0 11.3 11.3
4 20.9 20.9 17.4 17.4 14.3 14.3
3.0 4.0 5.0
2 13.8 13.8 10.1 10.1 8.3 8.3
2.5 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 9.4 9.4
3 10.1 10.1 8.7 8.7 7.9 7.9
4 12.7 12.7 11.0 11.0 10.1 10.1
5 11.4 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.5 10.5
6.0 7.0 10.0
2 10.0 10.0 8.9 8.9 7.2 7.2
2.5 11.2 11.2 10.1 10.1 8.2 8.2
3 9.4 9.4 8.9 8.9 7.9 7.9
4 11.7 11.7 11.1 11.1 9.9 9.9
5 11.8 11.8 11.5 11.5 10.8 10.8
6 14.0 14.0 13.6 13.6 12.8 12.8
15.0 20.0 30.0
2 6.1 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.1
2.5 6.9 6.9 6.4 6.4 5.9 5.9
3 7.1 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.4
4 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.6 8.2 8.2
5 10.3 10.3 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.6
6 12.1 12.1 11.8 11.8 11.4 11.4
7 14.0 14.0 13.6 13.6 13.1 13.1
8 15.8 15.8 15.4 15.4 14.8 14.8
9 17.6 17.6 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.6

7. Conclusion and Recommendation
o Project site is susceptible to liquefaction, based on MAP prepared by Department of Mines and
Geology, Peak Bed Rock Acceleration for Kathmandu Valley is around 200-250gal, and estimating
with amplification factor of 2, design maximum horizontal acceleration is around 400gal.
o Sandy soil followed by stiff high plastic clayey silt strata lies on project site within drilling depth
o Project site is highly susceptible towards liquefaction, to a depth of 4.5 m from general ground
level.
Recommendation
o From geo-technical point of view, the proposed stadium block could be constructed with
proper design of sand compaction pile or with pile foundation.
o Else, considering the allowable settlement of 125 mm, the recommend gross allowable bearing
capacity of soils for 30 m × 30 m size Raft or Mat foundation at or near particular boreholes at
5.0 m below general ground level is 96.00 KN/m2. The recommended ABC is in safer side, which
is within a settlement of 125mm.
 See Page 21, 22, 23 for Recommended ABC other than stated
 For small footing around borehole 1 area, use 6.5.4.2
 For small footing around borehole 2,3,4,5, refer table 6.5.4.3
 For large raft footing covering multiple hole (1-5), refer table 6.5.4.1
o As per the Engineering and Environmental Map of Kathmandu valley, the project area lies in an
area which is moderate to high hazardous from liquefaction potential point of view. Evaluation of
the site utilizing N-Value method shows that the site is potential for liquefaction up to a depth of
4.5 meter from existing ground level, for a value of 0.4g as the maximum ground acceleration at
the surface.
o The foundation design Engineer needs not strictly follow the depth and dimension of foundation
selected in the bearing capacity analysis of this report. He is free to select any other dimension and
greater depth depending upon the load of the structure. However, Allowable bearing capacity
depends on many variables such as adopted allowable settlement, type of foundation, size and
depth of foundation, importance of structure, cost of the project etc. Hence based on parameters
obtained from this investigation provided in this report, calculations need to be refined during
design phase.
Important Notes;
o The recommendations and discussions presented in this report are based on the sub-surface
conditions encountered during the site work at the time of investigation and on the result of the
field and laboratory testing on samples obtained from limited number of boreholes. There may be,

however, conditions pertaining to the site which have not been into account due to the limited
number of boreholes.
o The ground water levels indicated on the logs of borings represents the measured levels at the time
of investigations and immediately 24 hour after completion of drilling works, which may be
permanent water table or seepage water from nearby small pouch of fractured/weathered strata.
o It should be noted; however, that ground water levels are subject to variation caused by flood and
weather seasonal variations and by changes of local drainage and or pumping conditions, and may
at the times be significantly different to those measured during the investigation.
o Because of presence of seepage water and probable rise in water table in summer, side fall
(collapse) is eminent. So, at the time of construction of foundation, it is strongly recommended to
design the appropriate site protection measures based on the soil properties shown in this report.
o Probable presence of organic matter, sulphate and acid content in the soil, have adverse effect to
the reinforcing bar in the foundation. It corrodes the steel, thus shortening the life of the
foundation. To protect the foundation reinforcement from this undesired effect by these chemicals,
a cover of 75mm thick rich concrete mix to the rebar at base and sides is recommended.
o As described in the chapter SEISMICITY in this report, Nepal is very sensitive to experience very
strong earthquake sooner or later. Therefore the Foundation design Engineer must pay due
attention on seismic forces; it is recommended to follow the seismic design code NBC: 105-1994
for analysis and design of the building.
o PGA value used on this analysis report is based on a map prepared by Department of mines and
Geology, Nepal, which was only preliminary indication, due to lack of sufficient data, which
cannot forestall some diverse situation if large earthquake occur in nearby area.
o Conventional excavation equipment such as excavators, loaders and bulldozers will be sufficient
for most of the excavation work. Every effort should be done to avoid soil disturbance at
foundation level.
o Where space permits, the sides of the excavations shall be battered to a slope of two vertical and
one horizontal (2V: 1H) to avoid collapse. If these recommended side sloped cannot be achieved
for insufficient lateral space or for any other reason, lateral support system (shoring system) for the
sides of the excavation will be required and should be considered to maintain safe working
conditions.
o It is expected that the excavation work for shallow foundation (Raft) and Pile cap will be below the
water table, so dewatering is required. Experience has shown that small close-boarded excavation
can be conveniently dealt with by conventional sump pumping techniques. However, if larger
excavations (More than 2m) are to stand open for considerable period, the installation of
dewatering system along with protection wall (Sheet Piles, Contiguous Pile, Soldier pile) may
be required.

o Specialist contractors should be consulted in this regard during construction. Care should be taken
during dewatering to ensure that fines are not removed during pumping since this could result in
unpredictable settlements of the surrounding ground and associates structures.
o It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at the location of the
structures both during and after construction. Surface water should be directed away from the
edges of the excavation.
o The SANDY/GRAVELLY materials will probably be satisfactory for backfilling purposes,

whereas, the CLAYEY materials will not be satisfactory for backfilling purposes. However, the
final decision shall be taken during construction after complete excavation.
o The materials to be used for backfilling purposes shall be of selected fill composed of sand and/or
granular mixture free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The plasticity index of
the backfill material shall not exceed 10 percent. It shall be spread in lifts not exceeding 25cm in
un-compacted thickness, moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content, and compacted to
a dry density not less than 95% of the maximum dry density as obtained by modified proctor test
(ASTM D-1557).
o With prior approval from project directorate specific geotechnical designs are allowed to adjust as
per actual soil observed during construction works on specific.
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 Material Test Pvt Ltd. This is because this report has been written as advice
and opinion rather than instructions for construction.

8. References and Standards
1. Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal -2002, Department of Mines and Geology
2. Canadian FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANNUAL 4th EDITION, Canadian Geotechnical

Society 2006
3. Teng, W.C. (1988), 'Foundation Design', Prentice Hall, New Delhi.
4. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), 'Foundation Engineering', John Wiley and
Sons Inc. 514 p.
5. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice', John Wiley and
Sons Inc. 514 p.
6. Nepal Building Code, (1994), 'Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal – NBC 105 – 94'.
7. Design Guide AGMU Memo 10.1 - Liquefaction Analysis
8. Memorandum, New Structure Geotechnical Report Categories and Scope, June 15, 2012, Illinois
Department of Transportation
9. IS 1892: 1979 Code of practice for subsurface investigations for foundations (First revision) 1979
Soil and foundation engineering
10. IS 2131: 1981 Method for standard penetration test for soils (first revision) 1981 Soil and
foundation engineering
11. IS 13094: 1992 Guidelines for selection of ground improvement techniques for foundation in weak
soils 1992 Soil and foundation engineering
12. IS 6403: 1981 Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations
13. 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
14. 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)
15. IS 8009: Part II: 1980 Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlement of Foundations - Part II:
Deep Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loading
16. IS 2950: Part I: 1981 Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundations - Part I:
Design

SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF MINI STADIUM
AT
CHYASAL, LALITPUR, NEPAL
Prepared For:
ALL NEPAL FOOTBALL
ASSOCIATION
Kathmandu, Nepal
August, 2015
SUBMITTED BY:
MATERIAL TEST (P) LTD

E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone/Fax: 01-4486092
Mid Baneswor, Kathmandu, Nepal
www.material-test.org
DRILL HOLE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX
BOREHOLE LOG DATA
BOREHOLE LOG
Project : Soil Investigation work for proposed Mini Stadium Hole No.: - 1
Client : All Nepal Football Association Date: 05/08/2015
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Ground water: 2 m
No. of blows N-Value SPT
Symbol
SampleNo.
N-Value
&Type
Depth,m
15cm
15cm
15cm
UDS
Soil Description
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
SPT 7 10 13 23 1.5
Light grey medium dense -2
medium to fine sand
-3 SPT 5 7 9 16 3
-4
SPT 3 5 7 12 4.5
Dark grey medium soft to stiff
-5
high plastic clayey silt with fine
sand
-6 SPT 3 4 3 7 6
-7
Dark grey medium soft highly SPT 3 3 4 7 7.5
plastic clayey silt and traces of
fine sand -8
-9 UDS 9
- 10
Dark grey stiff highly plastic SPT 5 6 6 12 10.5
clayey silt - 11
- 12 SPT 5 6 7 13 12
End Depth * Completed at 12.0 m 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 LOG
Project : Soil Investigation work at chyasal Hole No.: - 2
Client : Date: 07/08/2015
Location : Chyasal,Lalitpur Ground water: 2 m
Sample No.&Type
Depth, m
UDS
N-Value
Symbol
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Light grey to white color
medium dense fine sand -1
SPT 2 2 2 4 1.5
-2
-3 SPT 3 3 3 6 3
Dark grey medium soft highly
plastic clayey silt and traces of -4
fine sand
SPT 3 3 4 7 4.5
-5
-6 UDS 6
-7
SPT 4 5 5 10 7.5
-8
Dark grey medium stiff to stiff -9 SPT 5 5 6 11 9

highly plastic clayey silt with
traces of fine sand
- 10
SPT 5 5 6 11 10.5
- 11
- 12 SPT 6 5 7 12 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 LOG

Location : Chyasal,Lalitpur Ground water: 1.5 m
Symbol
SampleNo.
N-Value
&Type
Depth,m
15cm
15cm
15cm
UDS
Soil Description
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
SPT 3 3 3 6 1.5
Light grey to white loose sandy -2
gravel
-3 SPT 2 2 2 4 3
-4
UDS 4.5
Dark grey soft highly plastic
-5
clayey silt with traces of fine
sand
-6 SPT 5 6 6 12 6
-7
SPT 4 5 8 13 7.5
-8
Dark grey stiff highly plasticity -9 SPT 3 3 6 9 9

clayey silt with traces of fine
sand
- 10
SPT 3 4 6 10 10.5
- 11
- 12 SPT 4 6 7 13 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 LOG

Location : Chyasal,Lalitpur Ground water: 2 m
Sample No.&Type
Depth, m
UDS
N-Value
Symbol
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Light brown sandy soil with

small gravel -1
SPT 3 2 2 4 1.5
-2
Dark grey medium soft to highly

-3 SPT 3 3 3 6
plastic clayey silt 3
-4
SPT 4 6 7 13 4.5
-5
-6 SPT 4 5 5 10 6
-7
UDS 7.5
Dark grey stiff highly plastic -8
clayey silt
-9 SPT 4 6 7 13 9
- 10
SPT 4 7 7 14 10.5
- 11
- 12 SPT 4 6 8 14 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 LOG

Location : Chyasal,Lalitpur Ground water: 1.5 m
Sample No.&Type
Depth, m
UDS
N-Value
Symbol
Soil Description
15 cm
15 cm
15 cm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
White to dark grey soft clayey

silt with fine sand -1
SPT 3 2 3 5 1.5
-2
-3 SPT 4 4 4 8 3
-4
SPT 5 6 5 11 4.5
-5
-6 SPT 3 4 6 10 6
Dark grey medium soft to stiff

highly plastic clayey silt with -7
traces and spot of fine sand SPT 3 3 5 8 7.5
-8
-9 SPT 3 4 4 8 9
- 10
SPT 4 5 6 11 10.5
- 11
- 12 UDS 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
LABORATORY TEST DATA
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
Project : Soil Investigation work for proposed Mini Stadium
Client : All Nepal Football Association
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur
Wt. of Cont. Wt. of Cont. Wt. of
Wt. of Wt. of
Sample + + Empty Moisture
No. Depth, m Wet Soil Dry Soil Water Container Dry Soil Content (%)
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
Borehole No. - 1
SPT-1 1.5 105.10 89.50 15.60 22.20 67.30 23.18
SPT-3 4.5 146.30 97.80 48.50 30.50 67.30 72.07
SPT-5 7.5 134.60 83.30 51.30 21.30 62.00 82.74
UDS 9.0 131.10 74.70 56.40 22.40 52.30 107.84
SPT-8 12.0 100.60 57.20 43.40 19.00 38.20 113.61
Borehole No. - 2
SPT-1 1.5 130.40 82.00 48.40 22.40 59.60 81.21
SPT-3 4.5 91.80 63.20 28.60 35.10 28.10 101.78
UDS 6.0 195.30 125.10 70.20 22.60 102.50 68.49
SPT-6 9.0 121.70 74.40 47.30 20.50 53.90 87.76
Borehole No. - 3
SPT-1 1.5 121.60 112.10 9.50 21.60 90.50 10.50
UDS 4.5 149.40 94.90 54.50 20.50 74.40 73.25
SPT-4 6.0 126.20 83.10 43.10 26.80 56.30 76.55
SPT-7 10.5 105.40 68.20 37.20 22.60 45.60 81.58
Borehole No. - 4
SPT-1 1.5 108.90 91.90 17.00 22.30 69.60 24.43
SPT-3 4.5 132.70 85.70 47.00 22.10 63.60 73.90
UDS 7.5 156.30 100.90 55.40 19.00 81.90 67.64
SPT-7 10.5 102.10 66.30 35.80 23.30 43.00 83.26
Borehole No. - 5
SPT-1 1.5 125.90 86.50 39.40 34.70 51.80 76.06
SPT-3 4.5 95.80 63.50 32.30 21.00 42.50 76.00
SPT-6 9.0 97.00 63.80 33.20 33.20 30.60 108.50
UDS 12.0 181.00 119.30 61.70 35.10 84.20 73.28
BULK DENSITY DETERMINATION
Sample Depth, Length, Weight, Volume, Bulk Density,

No m cm gm cm³ gm/cm³
Borehole No. - 1
SPT-1 1.5 10 206.8 96.21 2.15
SPT-3 4.5 10 166.1 96.21 1.73
SPT-5 7.5 10 168.2 96.21 1.75
SPT-8 12 10 155.8 96.21 1.62
Borehole No. - 2
SPT-1 1.5 10 191.6 96.21 1.99
SPT-3 4.5 10 169.6 96.21 1.76
SPT-6 9 10 148.6 96.21 1.54
Borehole No. - 3
SPT-4 6 10 172.4 96.21 1.79
SPT-7 10.5 10 184.9 96.21 1.92
Borehole No. - 4
SPT-1 1.5 10 153.2 96.21 1.59
SPT-3 4.5 10 171.8 96.21 1.79
SPT-7 10.5 10 211.1 96.21 2.19
Borehole No. - 5
SPT-1 1.5 10 168.4 96.21 1.75
SPT-3 4.5 10 171 96.21 1.78
SPT-6 9 10 155.8 96.21 1.62
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
Borehole No. - 1
Depth, m 1.5 4.5 7.5 9.0 12.0
Sample No. SPT- 1 SPT- 3 SPT- 5 UDS SPT- 8
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 181.05 183.75 182.29 183.85 181.45
Temperature °C 25 25 25 25 25
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 162.2 166.2 164.64 166.2 163.9
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.85 17.55 17.65 17.65 17.55
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9971 0.9971 0.9971 0.9971 0.9971
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.683 2.403 2.422 2.422 2.403
Borehole No. - 2
Depth, m 1.5 4.5 6.0 9.0
Sample No. SPT- 1 SPT- 3 UDS SPT- 6
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 177.90 178.55 182.19 181.60
Temperature °C 25 25 25 25
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 159.6 160.8 164.64 164.1
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 18.3 17.75 17.55 17.5
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30
Specific Gravity of Water 0.9971 0.9971 0.9971 0.9971
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.557 2.442 2.403 2.393
Borehole No. - 3
Depth, m 1.5 4.5 6.0 10.5
Sample No. SPT- 1 UDS SPT- 4 SPT- 7
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30
Borehole No. - 4
Depth, m 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5
Sample No. SPT- 1 SPT- 3 UDS SPT- 7
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30
Borehole No. - 5
Depth, m 1.5 4.5 9.0 12.0
Sample No. SPT- 1 SPT- 3 SPT- 6 UDS
Wt. Soil gm 30 30 30 30
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Test Method : IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985
Project : Soil Investigation work for proposed Mini Stadium Borehole: 1
Client : All Nepal Football Association SPT-1
Location : Chyasal, Lalitpur Depth m: 1.50
1
0
Sieve % Passing 0
40.000 mm 100.00
20.000 mm 100.00 90
10.000 mm 100.00 80
4.750 mm 99.90
2.360 mm 97.15 70
1.180 mm 93.67
%Passing
0.300 mm 28.70
60
40
0.600 mm 76.80
0.425 mm 48.64 50
0.150 mm 5.81
30
0.075 mm 0.80
0.064 mm 20
0.046 mm
10
0.033 mm
0.024 mm 0 1
0.017 mm 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm Sieves, mm
0.009 mm
0.007 mm CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL
0.005 mm 0.0 % 0.80 % 99.1 % 0.1 %
0.003 mm
0.002 mm
0.001 mm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Client : All Nepal Football Association SPT - 3
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 94.40 80
2.360 mm 86.60
70
1.180 mm 73.50
0.600 mm 58.50 60
% Passing
0.425 mm 52.60 50
0.300 mm 50.80
40
0.150 mm 49.70
0.075 mm 49.10 30
0.064 mm 47.93 20
0.046 mm 46.25
0.032 mm 44.57 10
0.023 mm 41.21 0 1
0.017 mm 37.84 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 32.80 Sieves, mm
0.009 mm 27.75
0.006 mm 22.71 CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL
0.005 mm 17.66 9.3 % 39.85 % 45.3 % 5.6 %
0.003 mm 12.61
0.002 mm 9.25
0.001 mm 4.20
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100
20.000 mm
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 99.50 80
2.360 mm 98.80 70
1.180 mm 97.80
60
0.600 mm 97.20
% Passing
0.425 mm 97.00 50
0.300 mm 97.00 40
0.150 mm 97.00
30
0.075 mm 97.00
0.064 mm 94.17 20
0.046 mm 90.87 10
0.033 mm 84.26 0 1
0.024 mm 74.35 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 54.52
0.009 mm 44.61
0.005 mm 28.09 11.6 % 85.44 % 2.5 % 0.5 %
0.003 mm 21.48
0.002 mm 11.56
0.001 mm 8.26
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Client : All Nepal Football Association UDS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100
20.000 mm
90
10.000 mm
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 70
1.180 mm
%Passing
0.300 mm 99.90 60
40
0.600 mm
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.150 mm 99.80
30
0.075 mm 99.70
0.064 mm 96.79 20
0.046 mm 93.40 10
0.033 mm 86.60 0 1
0.023 mm 79.81 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 62.83
0.009 mm 56.04
0.004 mm 42.45 18.7 % 81.02 % 0.3 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 35.66
0.002 mm 18.68
0.001 mm 11.89
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 70
1.180 mm
60
%Passing
0.600 mm 0.3 00 mm 100.00

40
0.425 mm 50
0.150 mm 99.90
30
0.075 mm 99.80
0.064 mm 97.43 20
0.046 mm 94.01 10
0.032 mm 90.59 0 1
0.023 mm 83.76 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 70.08
0.009 mm 59.83
0.005 mm 39.31 18.8 % 81.00 % 0.2 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 25.64
0.002 mm 18.80
0.001 mm 11.97
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 99.50 80
2.360 mm 99.10 70
1.180 mm 98.50
60
0.600 mm 98.00
% Passing
0.425 mm 97.80 50
0.300 mm 97.80 40
0.150 mm 97.80
30
0.075 mm 97.80
0.063 mm 94.76 20
0.045 mm 91.55 10
0.032 mm 88.34 0 1
0.023 mm 81.91 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 62.64
0.009 mm 49.79
0.005 mm 24.09 11.2 % 86.56 % 1.7 % 0.5 %
0.003 mm 17.67
0.002 mm 11.24
0.001 mm 4.82
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 99.40 80
2.360 mm 98.30
70
1.180 mm 96.60
0.600 mm 60
Passing
95.60
0.425 mm 95.30 50
0.300 mm 95.20
%
40
0.150 mm 94.90
0.075 mm 94.70 30
0.063 mm 94.62 20
0.045 mm 91.41
0.032 mm 88.20 10
0.023 mm 78.58 0 1
0.017 mm 68.96 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.009 mm 49.72
0.005 mm 27.26 14.4 % 80.27 % 4.7 % 0.6 %
0.003 mm 17.64
0.002 mm 14.43
0.001 mm 8.02
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00
100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm
%Passing
100.00
0.300 mm 99.90 60
40
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.150 mm 99.80
30
0.075 mm 99.60
0.064 mm 97.24 20
0.046 mm 90.41 10
0.033 mm 83.59 0 1
0.023 mm 80.18 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 63.12
0.009 mm 52.88
0.005 mm 29.00 11.9 % 87.66 % 0.4 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 18.76
0.002 mm 11.94
0.001 mm 5.12
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00
100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm
%Passing
100.00
0.300 mm 99.70 60
40
0.600 mm 99.80
0.425 mm 99.70 50
0.150 mm 99.70
30
0.075 mm 99.70
0.064 mm 97.63 20
0.046 mm 94.20 10
0.032 mm 90.77 0 1
0.024 mm 77.07 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 53.09
0.009 mm 46.24
0.005 mm 22.27 12.0 % 87.71 % 0.3 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 15.41
0.002 mm 11.99
0.001 mm 8.56
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
1
0
40.000 mm 100.00 0
20.000 mm 82.63
90
10.000 mm 69.93
4.750 mm 34.14 80
2.360 mm 23.62 70
1.180 mm 15.45
%Passing
60
0.300 mm 5.20 40
0.600 mm 9.27
0.425 mm 6.68 50
0.150 mm 3.35 30
0.075 mm 0.96
0.064 mm 20
0.046 mm 10
0.033 mm 0 1
0.024 mm 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.017 mm Sieves, mm
0.013 mm
0.009 mm
0.005 mm 0.0 % 0.96 % 33.2 % 65.9 %
0.003 mm
0.002 mm
0.001 mm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00
70
1.180 mm 100.00
0.600 mm 60
Passing
100.00
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.300 mm 99.90
%
40
0.150 mm 99.80
0.075 mm 99.50 30
0.064 mm 97.14 20
0.046 mm 93.73
0.032 mm 90.32 10
0.023 mm 83.51 0 1
0.017 mm 73.28 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.009 mm 63.06
0.004 mm 46.01 18.7 % 80.75 % 0.5 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 28.97
0.002 mm 18.75
0.001 mm 8.52
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 99.80 80
2.360 mm 98.50 70
1.180 mm 97.20
60
0.600 mm 96.20
% Passing
0.425 mm 95.90 50
0.300 mm 95.90 40
0.150 mm 95.90
30
0.075 mm 95.90
0.064 mm 20
91.03
0.046 mm 87.84 10
0.033 mm 81.45 0 1
0.023 mm 75.06 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 52.70
0.009 mm 39.93
0.005 mm 14.37 8.0 % 87.91 % 3.9 % 0.2 %
0.003 mm 11.18
0.002 mm 7.99
0.001 mm 4.79
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.600 mm 100.00 40
0.3 00 mm 100.0 0
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.150 mm 100.00
30
0.075 mm 99.90
0.064 mm 97.27 20
0.046 mm 93.86 10
0.032 mm 90.44 0 1
0.023 mm 80.21 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 59.73
0.009 mm 49.49
0.005 mm 29.01 8.5 % 91.37 % 0.1 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 15.36
0.002 mm 8.53
0.001 mm 5.12
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
1
0
40.000 mm 100.00 0
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 97.70
4.750 mm 74.38 80
2.360 mm 49.57 70
1.180 mm 30.83
%Passing
60
0.300 mm 8.19 40
0.600 mm 17.19
0.425 mm 11.52 50
0.150 mm 3.97 30
0.075 mm 0.89
0.064 mm 20
0.046 mm 10
0.033 mm 0 1
0.024 mm 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.017 mm Sieves, mm
0.013 mm
0.009 mm
0.005 mm 0.0 % 0.89 % 73.5 % 25.6 %
0.003 mm
0.002 mm
0.001 mm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.300 mm 99.30 40
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 99.70 50
0.150 mm 98.90
30
0.075 mm 98.70
0.064 mm 95.00 20
0.046 mm 91.67 10
0.032 mm 88.34 0 1
0.024 mm 75.00 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 51.67
0.009 mm 38.34
0.005 mm 25.00 8.3 % 90.37 % 1.3 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 15.00
0.002 mm 8.33
0.001 mm 5.00
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
10.000 mm 100.00 90
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00
70
1.180 mm 100.00
0.600 mm 60
Passing
100.00
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.300 mm 99.90
%
40
0.150 mm 99.80
0.075 mm 99.70 30
0.064 mm 96.79 20
0.046 mm 93.40
0.032 mm 90.00 10
0.023 mm 86.60 0 1
0.017 mm 76.42 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.009 mm 59.43
0.004 mm 42.45 15.3 % 84.42 % 0.3 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 25.47
0.002 mm 15.28
0.001 mm 8.49
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.300 mm 99.30 40
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 99.70 50
0.150 mm 98.90
30
0.075 mm 98.70
0.064 mm 95.00 20
0.046 mm 91.67 10
0.032 mm 88.34 0 1
0.024 mm 75.00 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 51.67
0.009 mm 38.34
0.005 mm 25.00 8.3 % 90.37 % 1.3 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 15.00
0.002 mm 8.33
0.001 mm 5.00
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.300 mm 98.90 40
0.600 mm 99.50
0.425 mm 99.10 50
0.150 mm 98.50
30
0.075 mm 98.20
0.064 mm 95.34 20
0.046 mm 91.99 10
0.033 mm 85.30 0 1
0.024 mm 75.27 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 48.50
0.009 mm 38.47
0.005 mm 15.05 8.4 % 89.84 % 1.8 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 11.71
0.002 mm 8.36
0.001 mm 5.02
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 99.50 80
2.360 mm 99.20 70
1.180 mm 98.40
60
0.600 mm 97.80
% Passing
0.425 mm 97.60 50
0.300 mm 97.50 40
0.150 mm 97.40
30
0.075 mm 97.10
0.064 mm 20
95.08
0.046 mm 88.41 10
0.033 mm 85.07 0 1
0.023 mm 81.73 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 61.72
0.009 mm 45.04
0.005 mm 18.35 8.3 % 88.76 % 2.4 % 0.5 %
0.003 mm 11.68
0.002 mm 8.34
0.001 mm 5.00
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.300 mm 100.00 40
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.150 mm 100.00
30
0.075 mm 99.90
0.064 mm 96.71 20
0.046 mm 93.31 10
0.032 mm 89.92 0 1
0.023 mm 83.13 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.013 mm 59.38
0.009 mm 52.60
0.005 mm 32.24 15.3 % 84.63 % 0.1 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 25.45
0.002 mm 15.27
0.001 mm 8.48
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve % Passing
40.000 mm 100.00 100
20.000 mm 100.00
90
10.000 mm 100.00
4.750 mm 100.00 80
2.360 mm 100.00 70
1.180 mm 100.00
60
%Passing
0.300 mm 100.00 40
0.600 mm 100.00
0.425 mm 100.00 50
0.150 mm 99.90
30
0.075 mm 99.80
0.064 mm 97.43 20
0.046 mm 94.01 10
0.032 mm 90.59 0 1
0.023 mm 87.18 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.075 0.1 1 4.75 10 100
0.012 mm 70.08
0.009 mm 59.83
0.005 mm 35.90 15.4 % 84.42 % 0.2 % 0.0 %
0.003 mm 22.22
0.002 mm 15.38
0.001 mm 8.55
LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTIC LIMIT

Borehole no: - 1
Sample No.: SPT - 1
Depth : 1.50m Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 12 24 30 39
3 Wt. of Container + Wet Soil gms 39.70 42.20 34.10 35.60 14.80 15.50
4 Wt. of Container + Dry Soil gms 27.40 29.60 24.20 25.80 12.70 13.00
5 Wt. of Water Present gms 12.30 12.60 9.90 9.80 2.10 2.50
6 Wt. of Empty Container gms 11.46 12.80 10.60 11.70 9.20 8.70
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.94 16.80 13.60 14.10 3.50 4.30
8 Moisture Content % 77.16 75.00 72.79 69.50 60.00 58.14
81.00
79.00
77.00
75.00
73.00
71.00
69.00
67.00
1 10 100
Results :
Liquid Limit : 73.39 %
Plastic Limit : 60.00 %
Plasticity Index : 13.4 %

Borehole no: - 1
Sample No.: SPT - 5
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 23 27 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.90 15.70 12.90 13.60 5.80 4.80
84.00
83.00
82.00
81.00
80.00
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
75.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 1
Sample No.: SPT - 8
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 8 24 28 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 17.50 15.44 18.60 17.80 3.60 3.80
74.00
72.00
70.00
68.00
66.00
64.00
62.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 1
Sample No.: UDS
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 12 23 28 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 11.60 15.00 17.20 13.40 0.77 1.20
84.00
82.00
80.00
78.00
76.00
74.00
72.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 2
Sample No.: SPT - 1
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 14 22 30 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 11.08 12.34 12.00 11.70 2.93 3.80
81.00
80.00
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
75.00
74.00
73.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 2
Sample No.: SPT - 3
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 10 22 28 40
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 11.49 12.84 13.28 12.80 2.93 3.90
74.00
73.00
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
64.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 2
Sample No.: SPT - 6
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 14 23 28 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 16.00 13.40 17.80 14.50 4.30 3.90
90.00
88.00
86.00
84.00
82.00
80.00
78.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 2
Sample No.: UDS
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 24 27 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 16.30 17.00 13.00 17.70 6.30 5.10
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
64.00
63.00
62.00
61.00
60.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 3
Sample No.: SPT - 4
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 24 28 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.60 10.40 10.60 6.00 6.20 5.70
81.00
79.00
77.00
75.00
73.00
71.00
69.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 3
Sample No.: SPT - 7
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 23 27 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.90 15.70 12.90 13.60 5.80 4.80
85.00
84.00
83.00
82.00
81.00
80.00
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
75.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 3
Sample No.: UDS
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 10 20 29 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.22 16.21 15.80 13.06 3.36 2.80
75.00
74.00
73.00
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 4
Sample No.: SPT - 3
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 14 23 27 38
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 14.90 12.80 14.94 15.20 5.10 3.70
75.00
74.00
73.00
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 4
Sample No.: SPT - 7
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 24 34 39
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 18.60 19.10 17.10 16.50 5.90 6.20
82.00
81.00
80.00
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
75.00
74.00
73.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 4
Sample No.: UDS
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 14 23 26 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 14.84 16.90 14.40 13.54 3.01 2.85
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
64.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 5
Sample No.: SPT - 1
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 12 24 30 39
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 15.94 16.80 13.60 14.10 3.50 4.30
80.00
78.00
76.00
74.00
72.00
70.00
68.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 5
Sample No.: SPT - 3
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 14 23 26 36
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 14.84 16.90 14.40 13.54 3.01 2.62
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
68.00
67.00
66.00
65.00
64.00
63.00
62.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 5
Sample No.: SPT - 6
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 10 22 28 40
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 10.31 10.30 10.60 11.56 2.31 1.94
106.00
104.00
102.00
100.00
98.00
96.00
94.00
92.00
90.00
88.00
1 10 100
Results :

Borehole no: - 5
Sample No.: UDS
1 Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 1 2
2 No. of Blows 13 24 27 39
7 Wt. of Dry Soil gms 12.62 13.01 14.70 13.61 2.26 1.80
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
75.00
74.00
73.00
72.00
71.00
70.00
69.00
1 10 100
Results :
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
Diameter of sample (Do) : 3.6 cm Bore Hole No. : 1.00
Height of sample (Lo) : 7.4 cm Depth, m. : 9.00
Original Area of sample (Ao) : 10.18 cm² Sample No. : UDS
Weight of Sample (gm) : 159.60 gm Water Content, % : 107.84
Volume of Sample, cm3 : 75.32 cu.c Unit Weight, gm/cc : 2.12
Proving Ring Constant (P'RC) 0.11 kg/div.
Deformation Dail Reading Least Count (DDRLC) : 0.01 mm/div.
Total Load
Deformation Load Dial Sample Deformation Unit Strain Corrected on Sample, Stress 0.40
dial Reading Units DL, mm DL/Lo, e in % 1 - e Area cm² (Ac) kg (TL) kg/cm²
(DDR) (LDU) (DDR x DDRLC) A = Ao/1-e (LDU x PRC) TL/Ac
1 2 0.01 0.014 1.000 10.180 0.220 0.022
2 4 0.02 0.027 1.000 10.182 0.440 0.043
3 6 0.03 0.041 1.000 10.183 0.660 0.065
4 8 0.04 0.054 0.999 10.184 0.880 0.086
5 10 0.05 0.068 0.999 10.186 1.100 0.108
kg/cm²
6 12 0.06 0.081 0.999 10.187 1.320 0.130
7 14 0.07 0.095 0.999 10.188 1.540 0.151
Stress
9 18 0.09 0.122 0.999 10.191 1.980 0.194 0.20
,
8 16 0.08 0.108 0.999 10.190 1.760 0.173
Unit
10 20 0.10 0.135 0.999 10.193 2.200 0.216
11 22 0.11 0.149 0.999 10.194 2.420 0.237
12 24 0.12 0.162 0.998 10.195 2.640 0.259
13 26 0.13 0.176 0.998 10.197 2.860 0.280
14 28 0.14 0.189 0.998 10.198 3.080 0.302
15 30 0.15 0.203 0.998 10.199 3.300 0.324
16 31 0.16 0.216 0.998 10.201 3.410 0.334
17 32 0.17 0.230 0.998 10.202 3.520 0.345 0.00
18 33 0.18 0.243 0.998 10.204 3.630 0.356 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40
19 33 0.19 0.257 0.997 10.205 3.630 0.356 Unit Strain, e in %
26 32 0.26 0.351 0.996 10.215 3.520 0.345
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) : 0.28 kg/cm²
Cohesion = qu/2 : 0.14 kg/cm²
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
Diameter of sample (Do) : 3.6 cm Bore Hole No. : 3.00
Height of sample (Lo) : 7.4 cm Depth, m. : 4.50
Original Area of sample (Ao) : 10.18 cm² Sample No. : UDS
Weight of Sample (gm) : 158.20 gm Water Content, % : 107.84
Volume of Sample, cm3 : 75.32 cu.c Unit Weight, gm/cc : 2.10
Proving Ring Constant (P'RC) 0.11 kg/div.
Deformation Dail Reading Least Count (DDRLC) : 0.002 mm/div.
Total Load
Deformation Load Dial Sample Deformation Unit Strain Corrected on Sample, Stress 0.40
dial Reading Units DL, mm DL/Lo, e in % 1 - e Area cm² (Ac) kg (TL) kg/cm²
(DDR) (LDU) (DDR x DDRLC) A = Ao/1-e (LDU x PRC) TL/Ac
1 3 0.00 0.003 1.000 10.179 0.330 0.032
2 6 0.00 0.005 1.000 10.179 0.660 0.065
3 9 0.01 0.008 1.000 10.180 0.990 0.097
4 12 0.01 0.011 1.000 10.180 1.320 0.130
5 15 0.01 0.014 1.000 10.180 1.650 0.162
kg/cm²
6 17 0.01 0.016 1.000 10.180 1.870 0.184
7 19 0.01 0.019 1.000 10.181 2.090 0.205
Stress
9 23 0.02 0.024 1.000 10.181 2.530 0.248 0.20
,
8 21 0.02 0.022 1.000 10.181 2.310 0.227
Unit
10 25 0.02 0.027 1.000 10.182 2.750 0.270
11 27 0.02 0.030 1.000 10.182 2.970 0.292
12 29 0.02 0.032 1.000 10.182 3.190 0.313
13 31 0.03 0.035 1.000 10.182 3.410 0.335
14 33 0.03 0.038 1.000 10.183 3.630 0.356
15 33 0.03 0.041 1.000 10.183 3.630 0.356
16 32 0.03 0.043 1.000 10.183 3.520 0.346
0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Unit Strain, e in %
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) : 0.37 kg/cm²

Cohesion = qu/2 : 0.18 kg/cm²
CONSOLIDATION TEST
SAMPLE NO. : UDS
BOREHOLE NO. : 1 DEPTH, m. : 9
Wt. of Ring + Wet soil, gm : 263.20 Initial moisture content (w) , % : 98.22
Wt. of Ring + Dry soil, gm : 230.00 Initial void ratio, eo = w.G : 2.360
Wt. of Ring, gm : 196.20 Specific Gravity of solids (G) : 2.40
Ht. of solids,2Ho = [ho/(1+eo)], mm : 5.95 Initial height of sample (ho), mm : 20.00
Pressure Intensity (kN/sq.m) 50 100 200 400 8.00
Elapsed Time ( minutes) Dial Gauge Reading 590.00
0 3239 2705 2272 1910 1641
0.25 3188 2649 2207 1883 1598
4 3119 2589 2153 1850 1565
9 3061 2537 2103 1810 1540
16 2994 2484 2061 1777 1518
25 2946 2430 2021 1746 1495
49 2882 2384 1985 1716 1479
81 2843 2355 1960 1691 1468
169 2805 2328 1942 1676 1459
225 2768 2303 1929 1661 1453
325 2738 2286 1921 1648 1448
400 2712 2278 1915 1645 1445
500 2705 2272 1910 1641 1443
Pressure Dial Change Ht. of Equiv.

Intensity Reading in height sample ht. of voids Void ratio mv
kN/sq.m. mm. mm.[2H] [2H-2Ho] =(2H-2Ho)/2H m²/kN
1 3239 - 20.00 14.05 2.36
50 2705 1.31 18.69 12.73 2.14 1.34E-03
100 2272 2.38 17.62 11.67 1.96 1.07E-03
200 1910 3.27 16.73 10.78 1.81 4.45E-04
400 1641 3.93 16.07 10.12 1.70 1.65E-04
800 1443 4.42 15.58 9.63 1.62 6.07E-05
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
Void Ratio, e
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60 Compression Index, Cc = 0.43
1.50
0 1 10 100 1000
Pressure Intensity, kN/m²

CONSOLIDATION TEST
SAMPLE NO. : UDS
BOREHOLE NO. : 3 DEPTH, m. : 4.5
Wt. of Ring + Wet soil, gm : 277.90 Initial moisture content (w) , % : 87.37
Wt. of Ring + Dry soil, gm : 237.10 Initial void ratio, eo = w.G : 2.099
Wt. of Ring, gm : 190.40 Specific Gravity of solids (G) : 2.40
Ht. of solids,2Ho = [ho/(1+eo)], mm : 6.45 Initial height of sample (ho), mm : 20.00
Pressure Intensity (kN/sq.m) 50 100 200 400 8.00
Elapsed Time ( minutes) Dial Gauge Reading 590.00
0 3375 2819 2367 1990 1710
0.25 3322 2760 2300 1962 1665
4 3250 2698 2243 1928 1631
9 3189 2644 2191 1886 1605
16 3120 2588 2148 1851 1582
25 3070 2532 2106 1819 1557
49 3003 2484 2068 1788 1541
81 2962 2454 2042 1762 1530
169 2923 2425 2024 1746 1520
225 2884 2399 2010 1731 1514
325 2853 2382 2001 1717 1509
400 2826 2373 1995 1714 1505
500 2819 2367 1990 1710 1504
Pressure Dial Change Ht. of Equiv.

Intensity Reading in height sample ht. of voids Void ratio mv
kN/sq.m. mm. mm.[2H] [2H-2Ho] =(2H-2Ho)/2H m²/kN
1 3375 - 20.00 13.55 2.10
50 2819 1.37 18.63 12.18 1.89 1.40E-03
100 2367 2.48 17.52 11.07 1.71 1.11E-03
200 1990 3.41 16.59 10.14 1.57 4.64E-04
400 1710 4.10 15.90 9.45 1.46 1.72E-04
800 1504 4.60 15.40 8.94 1.39 6.33E-05
2.20
2.00
1.80
Void Ratio, e
1.60
1.40
1.20
Compression Index, Cc = 0.42
1.00
0 1 10 100 1000
Pressure Intensity, kN/m²

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample No.: SPT-1

Depth , m: 1.50
Borehole No.: 1
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3

SDT Normal Stress 0.5 kg/cm² Normal Stress 1.0 kg/cm² Normal Stress 1.5 kg/cm²
cm PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm²
0.1 34.00 0.149 42.00 0.184 62.00 0.272
0.2 57.00 0.250 67.00 0.294 95.00 0.417
0.3 72.00 0.316 94.00 0.412 118.00 0.518
0.4 86.00 0.377 122.00 0.535 142.00 0.623
0.5 89.00 0.390 136.00 0.596 176.00 0.772
0.6 92.00 0.404 138.00 0.605 201.00 0.882
0.7 91.00 0.399 139.00 0.610 212.00 0.930
0.8 138.00 0.605 213.00 0.934
0.9 211.00 0.925
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SDT = Shear Displacement; PRDRg = Proving Ring Dial Reading; SST = Shear Stress
Ø= 32°
2.50
2.00
Shear
Stress, 1.50
kg/sq.cm
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Normal Stress, kg/sq.cm
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample No.: SPT-1

Depth , m: 1.50
Borehole No.: 3

0.1 38.00 0.167 47.00 0.206 61.00 0.268
0.2 52.00 0.228 77.00 0.338 102.00 0.447
0.3 62.00 0.272 101.00 0.443 132.00 0.579
0.4 64.00 0.281 124.00 0.544 163.00 0.715
0.5 63.00 0.276 128.00 0.561 186.00 0.816
0.6 63.00 0.276 125.00 0.548 192.00 0.842
0.7 190.00 0.833
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Ø= 29°
2.50
2.00
Shear
Stress, 1.50
kg/sq.cm
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample No.: SPT-1

Depth , m: 1.50
Borehole No.: 4

0.1 31.00 0.136 43.00 0.189 65.00 0.285
0.2 52.00 0.228 57.00 0.250 97.00 0.425
0.3 74.00 0.325 81.00 0.355 117.00 0.513
0.4 86.00 0.377 112.00 0.491 138.00 0.605
0.5 91.00 0.399 119.00 0.522 174.00 0.763
0.6 90.00 0.395 121.00 0.531 192.00 0.842
0.7 122.00 0.535 191.00 0.838
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Ø= 30°
2.50
2.00
Shear
Stress, 1.50
kg/sq.cm
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Soil Report of Mini Stadium Kathmandu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Report of Mini Stadium Kathmandu

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Report of Mini Stadium Kathmandu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Test Pvt. Ltd.

Soil Investigation of Proposed Foundation Mini Stadium

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page I

The scope of work of present contract includes the following:

o Preparation of this report includes:

 Results of in situ and laboratory test

 Assessment of Liquefaction Susceptibility

 Assessment of bearing capacity

 Recommendations of foundation type and depth

2. General Geology and Geomorphology

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 1

Figures 1, 2, 3, 4: Sandy to clayey soil from explored split spooner

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 2

Figure. 5: Geological map of Kathmandu valley including project area

Figure 6, 7: Percussion drilling works on proposed stadium premises

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 3

Figures 8, 9: Percussion drilling in progress at proposed stadium area

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 4

3.2 Field Test

4. Laboratory Testing, Interpretations and Determination of Design Parameters

4.1 Index Tests

4.2 Mechanical Tests

Direct Shear Test

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 5

Unconfined compression tests

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 6

Figure 10: Seismic zoning map (Source: UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat, 1994).

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 7

5.2 Identification of liquefaction area

Figure. 12: Liquefaction Hazard map of Kathmandu Valley.

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 8

5.3 Analysis of liquefaction

CRR = CRR7.5 Kσ Kα MSF

CRR7.5 = Cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquake

Kσ = Overburden correction factor =

f = soil relative density factor = 0.831- and 0.6 ≤ f ≤ 0.8

Kα = sloping ground correction factor

Mw = earthquake moment magnitude.

AS = peak horizontal acceleration coefficient at the ground surface = F pga PGA

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

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 9

5.4 Conclusion and Recommendation

o Soil is susceptible to liquefaction.

o Considering possibility of liquefaction, it is recommended to install either pile foundation within

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 10

PROBABLE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

Susceptible Depth of Liquefaction, m = 4.5

All Nepal Football Association /2015 Page 11

6. Analysis of Allowable Bearing Pressure

6.1 SPT correction

Correction of SPT N-value using the relation after Skempton, 1986

Where: N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure

CB = borehole diameter correction

CR = rod length correction

N = SPT N value recorded in the field

The correction factors taken are :

CB =1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole,