Report on

SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS

for
Residential Building
Construction Site
at
Sanepa, Lalitpur

Prepared For
Mr. Rahul Agrawal / Mr. Rishi Agrawal
Sanepa, Lalitpur

Prepared By

Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.

Krishna Kunj, Ramnagar, Lokanthali-15, Bhaktapur
Tel : 00977-1-5182310, 9851026210
E-mail: [email protected]

Feb. 2018
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Lokanthali is very much
grateful to Mr. Rahul Agrawal/Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Sanepa, Lalitpur on behalf of
Design Cell Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu for entrusting the job of soil investigation works
for the proposed Residential Building Construction Site at Sanepa, Lalitpur to reveal
the facts and figures relating to the sub–soil exploration of that site for the foundation
design.

We hope this report will bring some useful parameters for a safe design of proposed
Structures. This report shall also be useful in positioning the depth of foundation, in
assuming the size of the foundation and corresponding safe bearing capacity.

Last but not the least, we hope for an early and successful completion of that
structures.
 Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Page No.
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1
2.1 General Geology, Geomorphology 1
3. SCOPE OF WORK 2
4. METHODOLOGY 2
4.1 Field Work Procedure 2
4.1.1 In-situ Tests 2
4.1.2 Sampling 3
4.2 Laboratory Tests 3
5. ANALYSIS OF SOIL EXPLORATION 4
5.1 Strata 4
5.2 Moisture Content and Density 5
5.3 Water Level 5
5.4 Bearing Capacity 5
5.4.1 Stress Distribution in Soils 5
5.4.2 Bearing Capacity Analysis 6
5.5 Settlement 9
5.6 Subgrade Modulus 9
6. SEISMICITY 10
6.1 Peak Ground Acceleration 10
6.2 Liquefaction 10
7. RECOMMENDATION 12
REFERENCES –
ANNEXES –
 Bore Hole Location Map
 Bore Hole Logs
 Bearing Capacity Analysis
 Design Parameters
 Soil Dynamic Parameters
 Liquefaction
 Laboratory Test Result Summary Sheet
 Figure
 Photographs
 Soil Investigation Works for
Residential Building Construction Site
at Sanepa, Lalitpur

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Stability of every structure is achieved by providing suitable foundation. The suitability of the
foundation depends upon the ground strata and corresponding strength property of the soil.
So, soil exploration works are conducted prior to the design. The objectives of current
exploration work are however concentrated to determine the foundation type & their safe
bearing capacities with considering the seismic behavior of soil strata. Here a short
geotechnical investigation program for soil parameters and strata have been attempted to
determine the safety assessment of newly constructing building during earthquakes in the
premises. This program included both the field and laboratory investigation in order to get
reliable information on:
a) General information of the site.
b) The stratification of sub soil.
c) The bearing capacity of soil pertaining to settlement and shear.
d) Liquefaction analysis of the building site.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

This Building Site is located at Sanepa of Lalitpur District. It is by the side of the city road.
This site has developed as residential building in its boundary region.

2.1 General Geology, Geomorphology

The Kathmandu Valley is an ultramontane basin located in the Lesser Himalayan region in
Central Nepal. Bedrocks are exposed mainly in the hill slopes around the basin and only at
few places in the valley floor. The Valley is filled with the fluvio-lacustrine sediments of
Quaternary age. These sediments were derived from the surrounding hills. The thickness of
the valley fill sediments varies according to the undulated pattern of the basement (from 78 m
in Bansbari up to 549m in Bhrikuti Mandap as confirmed by deep bore holes
(HMG/UNDP/UNCHS, 1994). The thickness of the valley fill sediments also varies
according to the undulated pattern of the basement.

As a matter of fact, the project site is in a flat area formed by lacustrine deposits with plastic
clayey silts, slight plastic sandy silts and gravel, pebbles etc. are found in their textures in the
vicinity of the site. The deposits are in medium to stiff and medium dense in state.

Moreover, the different data of epicenter and magnitude of the historical earthquakes shows
that Nepal is located on high seismic zones. However, for this site from the figure of
seismicity map of Nepal (attached in annexes) lies relatively in the risky zone from the past
seismic records and also the MCT lies nearer to the site. The epicentral distance is nearer
from minor to major earthquakes. So, we may conclude that the proposed site should be made
safe from the devasting earthquake.

1
3. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work includes drilling of three nos. of boreholes having 11.0m depths, with
standard penetration test, dynamic cone penetration test, retrieving samples from the
boreholes and evaluation of allowable bearing capacities of the foundation based on field and
laboratory test results considering liquefaction analysis.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Field Work Procedure
Field works involved Percussion Drilling Method for drilling and sampling of the boreholes
in side the building area where it was applicable to the maximum depth of 11.0m from the
ground levels and SPT observations were taken at every 1.5m intervals and are recorded.
Borehole logs were prepared at the site on the basis of the visual observation of the soil
obtained from the boreholes. The bore hole logs are attached to the annexes are later verified
by lab test results.
Percussion Drilling Method:-
Percussion Drilling Method is carried out by using heavy chisel bits and bailers with casing.
In which heavy chisel bits is used to drill in clayey to gravelly soils. The soil samples are
retrieved from bailer and SPT Tubes.
4.1.1 In-situ Tests
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) IS 2131: It consists of driving a Split Spoon sampler with
an outside dia. of 50 mm into the soil at the base of borehole. Driving is accomplished by a
drop of hammer weighing 63.5 kg falling freely through a height of 750 mm onto the drive
head. First of all the spoon is driven 150mm into the soil at the bottom of the borehole. It is
then driven further 300mm and the number of blows (N values) required to drive this distance
is recorded.
Dynamic Cone penetration Test (DCPT) IS 4968 part I & II: it was performed using a 50
mm cone. The cone was driven with 63.5 kg hammer falling through a height of 75 cm. The
recorded number of blows required to penetrate the least 300 mm is taken as DCPT values.
These values are presented in the log sheets. The dynamic cone resistance value can be
changed to SPT value as given below:
Ncr = 1.5 N for depths upto 3.00 m
Ncr = 1.75 N for depths 3.00 m to 6.00 m
Ncr = 2.00 N for depths greater than 6.00 m
Where,
Ncr = recorded DCPT values
N = SPT values
The field values of SPT (N) are mentioned in the attached log sheets which are used for
bearing capacity (B.C.) analysis.
Cohesion (c) & Angle of Internal Friction () :-
The cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction () of the cohesive and semi cohesive layers
are found by lab test results. Whereas, for the cohesionless and semi cohesionless soils having
sands, gravels, cobbles, pebbles, boulders and jointed rockmass; the value of () could be
found by using relationship developed by Halanakar & Uchida (1996);

2
 () = 20 N cor  17 degree (i)
Ncor = corrected (N) value.
But, in actual the field condition of sub- surface layers could not be found homogenous and
identical. So, the approximate 90% of the above value will be used for the general design
purpose.
Hence,
() = 0.9 ( 20 N cor  17 ) degree (ii)

4.1.2 Sampling

(i) Disturbed Sample:

Before any sample was taken, the borehole was cleaned up of loose disturbed soil deposited
during drilling operation. The samples that were obtained from bailer and the SPT tubes were
preserved as representative disturbed samples for finding out physical properties. The samples
thus obtained were placed in airtight double plastic bags, labeled properly for identification
and later transported to the laboratory for analysis.

(ii) Undisturbed Sample:

The undisturbed soil sample was taken effectively below the proposed foundation depth at
different depth in BH-1 & BH-2 respectively, which are mentioned in the bore hole logs in
the annexes.

4.2 Laboratory Tests

Following laboratory tests are could be recommended for the retrieved soil samples to get the
physical and strength properties of the sub soil, as per IS & ASTM standards code of practice.
a) Grain Size Distribution Analysis
b) Atterberg’s Limit
c) Natural Moisture Contents, Bulk & Dry Density
d) Specific Gravity Tests
e) Direct Shear Tests and,
f) Consolidation Tests

Briefly Description:-

Grain size Analysis

Grain size distribution was determined by wet and dry mechanical process. Sieve analysis
was carried out by sieving a soil sample through a set of sieves kept one over the other, the
largest size being kept at the top and the smallest size at the bottom. The soil retained on each
sieve was weighed and expressed as a percentage of the weight of sample. Finally, the
gradation curve was found using % finer and corresponding particle size (D), dia.

Atterberg’s Limit
Liquid Limits (LL) and plastic limits (PL) could be done on fine grained soils by standard
methods. Casagrande’s Plasticity Chart will be used to classify the fine grained soil according
to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

3
 Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density
The natural water content and bulk density was determined from samples recovered through
the split spoon sampler and the corrected SPT values.

Specific Gravity Test

The specific gravity test was conducted of the soil samples which passes the No. 200 mm
sieve. The density bottle method is widely used in the laboratory test for finding out Specific
Gravity (G) value.

Direct Shear Test

Direct shear tests were conducted on representative disturbed samples collected from the
boreholes. The samples were carefully 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 test
equipment was mechanically-operated and shearing was applied at more or less constant
strain rate. The samples were sheared at three different normal stresses. The direct shear test
results were presented in terms of the failure envelops to obtain the angle of internal frictions
() and the cohesion intercepts (c).

Consolidation Test
The consolidation tests were performed on disturbed samples of 75mm diameter and 22mm
height as per laboratory requirements. Two way drainages system could be provided and each
increment of load is maintained until sufficient period beyond the primary consolidation has
been reached.

Detail laboratory test results are presented in the annexes.

5. ANALYSIS OF SOIL EXPLORATION

5.1 Strata
All bore hole locations are taken in flat area of naturally deposited soils formed by lacustrine
deposits.

Briefly the soil profile seems as below:

Bore Hole – 1
S.
Depth (m) Soil Type Soil Description
No.
1. 0.0 – 1.5 ML Yellow brownish medium low plastic clayey silts with fine sands
Gray medium to stiff slight plastic clayey silts with appreciable
2. 1.5 – 8.0 ML
amount of fine sands
3. 8.0 – 11.0 ML Gray blackish medium low plastic clayey silts with fine sands

4
 Bore Hole – 2
S.
Depth (m) Soil Type Soil Description
No.
1. 0.0 – 1.5 ML Yellow brownish stiff low plastic clayey silts with fine sands
2. 1.5 – 4.5 ML – SM Whitish stiff non plastic sandy silts
Grayish medium dense slight to non plastic gravelly silts/silty
3. 4.5 – 9.5 ML – GM
gravels with appreciable amount of fine sands
4. 9.5 – 11.0 ML Gray blackish stiff low plastic clayey silts with fine sands

Bore Hole – 3
S.
Depth (m) Soil Type Soil Description
No.
1. 0.0 – 1.5 ML Brownish stiff low plastic clayey silts with gravels
Gray very stiff/medium dense slight plastic gravelly clayey silts
2. 1.5 – 3.5 ML – GM
with fine sands
3. 3.5 – 9.0 ML Gray medium slight plastic clayey silts with fine sands
Gray stiff slight plastic clayey silts with appreciable amount of
4. 9.0 – 11.0 ML
fine sands

5.2 Moisture Content and Density

The natural moisture contents are found medium in the cohesive soil layers whereas lower to
medium in semi-cohesionless soil layers; that give medium voids with medium to stiff and
medium dense in state respectively.
5.3 Water Level

During the field investigation water table was observed after 24 hrs, the completion of each
borehole. The seepage ground water levels are found around 4.5m depths in all bore holes
which are shown in the bore hole logs in the annexes.
5.4 Bearing Capacity
There are different rules and empirical equations to calculate bearing capacity of soil for
settlement and shearing characteristics considering depth of water table, type of foundation etc.
5.4.1 Stress Distribution in Soils
The Boussinesq’s approximate method can be used to get stress distribution analysis for stress
at any depths below the foundation level. In which the vertical pressure at any depth z below
the soil surface can be determined approximately by constructing a frustum or pyramid or
cone of depth z having side slopes (2 : 1). The pressure distribution is assumed to be uniform
on a horizontal plane at that depth. The average vertical stress σ z depends upon the shape of
the loaded area as given below :
qB 2
Square Area (B x B), σz =
( B  L) 2
q ( B  L)
Rectangular Area (L x B), σz =
(B  z) (L  z)

5
 q D2
Circular Area (Dia. D), σz =
(D  z) 2
This gives fairly accurate values if the z is less than 2.5B.

The investigation work was carried out upto 11.0m depth. The stress distribution at a depth of
11.0m below ground level will be abruptly reduces the stress developed at the foundation level
and seems very low below that depth. So, assuming there will not be any major geotechnical
changes in the strata below the depth of foundation to the depth of investigation. Ultimately, a
spread or mat/raft foundation could be suitably provided to transfer the required load.

5.4.2 Bearing Capacity Analysis

At the building site, types of soil strata are not found uniform in which the dominant
stratifications are cohesive and semi-cohesionless soils.
The building having multi storey with or without basement, so the calculation of the bearing
capacity for isolated (1.5 x 1.5, 2.0 x 2.0, 2.5 x 2.5, 3.0 x 3.0) m 2 or mat/raft (6.0m or greater)
foundations in the borehole location could be considered for the safe bearing capacity analysis
respectively.
Standardize Field Penetration Value:
N rec H  B S  R
N60 =
60
Where,
N60 = Standard penetration number, corrected for field conditions to an
average energy ratio of 60%
Nrec = measured penetration number
ηH = hammer efficiency (%)
= 60%
ηB = correction for borehole diameter
= 1.0
ηS = sampler correction
= 1.0
ηR = correction for rod length
= 0.0 – 4.0m - 0.75
4.0 – 6.0m - 0.85
6.0 – 10.0 - 0.90
>10.0m - 1.0
Dilatancy Correction:
Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
If Nr≤ 15 Use N = Nr
If Nr ≥15 then,
Nc = 15+1/2 (N-15)
Where,
Nc = corrected value of Nr
ηR = correction for rod length

6
 Correction for overburden pressure,
From Peck, Hansen and Thornburn (1974)
Ncorr = 0.77 Nr log (2000/')
Where,
Nr = SPT value from field after dilatancy correction
' = effective overburden pressure in KN/m2

Unit Weight of the Soil Layers () KN/m3

The unit weight of the soil layers are directly found from the retrieved soil samples through
the SPT Tubes, UD Samples in the field or as per the observed N value from the field test.
The ultimate design of the foundation is found for the worst condition, i.g. submerged
condition. So, the saturated unit weight of the soil layers were found considering the above
mostly adopted assumptions.
sat = Saturated unit weight of the soil (KN/m3)
= 16.0, 17.0, 18.0, 19.0 and 20.0 KN/m3 (assumed as per observed (N)
values)
If, N  10 (sat = 16 KN/m3)
10  N  15 (sat = 17 KN/m3)
15  N  20 (sat = 18 KN/m3)
20  N  30 (sat = 19 KN/m3)
N  30 (sat = 20 KN/m3)
CALCULATION OF BEARING CAPACITY
A) For Spread Footing
Assuming a typical having (1.5 x 1.5, 2.0 x 2.0, 2.5 x 2.5, 3.0 x 3.0) m2 Square
Isolated Shallow Foundation for light to medium load bearing structures.

(i) Terzaghi's Relation (1943)

From Terzaghi's equation
qult = 1.3 CNc +1.2 sat Df (Nq-1) + 0.4 sat BN Rw2 ……….(I)
qsafe = (qult) / F.S.
Where,
sat = Saturated Unit weight of the soil (KN/m3)
Nc, N & Nq are bearing capacity factors
B = Width of foundation (m)
Df = Depth of foundation (m)
C = Cohesion (KN/m2)
F.S. = Factor of safety i.e., 3
Rw2 = Water correction factor = 0.5 at ground level

7
 (ii) Using Meyerhof's (1956, 1974) Correlation
For 25mm Settlement
qsafe = 8.1 N60 KD2 ((B+0.3)/B)2 Rw2 KN/m2 for B 1.2m …….(II)
Where,
KD1 = 1+0.33 (D/B) ≤ 1.33
B&D= Breadth and depth of foundation
Rw2 = Water correction factors
= 0.5

B) For Mat/Raft Foundation

Considering a typical (6.0 x 6.0) or greater Mat/Raft Foundation for heavy loaded
structures.

(i) Terzaghi's Relation (1943)

qult = 1.3 CNc +1.2 sat Df (Nq-1) + 0.4 sat BN Rw2 ……….(I)
qsafe = (qult ) / F.S. (for Net SBC)
qsafe (b) = (qsafe + sat Df ) (for Gross SBC)
Where,
sat = Saturated Unit weight of the soil (KN/m3)
Nc, N & Nq are bearing capacity factors
B = Width of foundation (m)
Df = Depth of foundation (m)
C = Cohesion (KN/m2)
F.S. = Factor of safety i.e., 3
Rw2 = Water correction factor = 0.5 at ground level

If soils have loose to medium denseness and soft to medium consistency then the foundation
fails according as the local shear failure (LSF) otherwise fails in general shear failure (GSF)
criterion.
(ii) Using Meyerhof's (1965) & Bowles (1977) Correlation

 3.28 B  1 
2
 S 
qsafe = 11.98 N60   f d   x Rw 2 KN/m2 ……(II)
 3.28 B   25 
Where,
N60 = Standardrize Standard Penetration Value
B = width (m)
S = Settlement (mm)
fd = 1+0.33 (D/B) ≤ 1.33
Rw2 = water correction factor = 0.5

The B.C. values from field and lab test results for Spread and Mat/Raft Foundations are
presented as a tabulated form in the annexes within permissible settlements.

8
5.5 Settlement
As described above ground strata are dominated by plastic silty soil and silty soil with gravel
layers just below the proposed foundation depth. The strata are generally compressible for
general loading condition thus; settlement analysis should be considered for the building site.
So, the settlement of the foundation could be checked for maximum permissible values of
65/100 mm for cohesive layers and 40/50 mm for semi cohesionless soil layers respectively.
For Cohesive Layer:
For heavier and important structures consolidation settlement should be predicted by the
following equation;
SOc =  Hi * Cc/(1+eo) log {(P'o+P)/P'o}
Where, SOc = long term settlement, cm
Hi = thickness of each layer
P'o = effective overburden pressure at the middle of each layer
Cc = compression index
eo = initial void ratio
P = the excess pressure at the middle of each layer due to superposition of
load.
Now, with average pore pressure coefficients for the clayey soil,
 = 0.7
Sf = *SOc
This total amount of settlement that will takes place continuously for hundred of years and
should be lie within the ranges of permissible value (65/100 mm).

For Semi-Cohesion and Cohesionless Layer:

Δ = 2.84q / N [B/ (B+ 0.3)] 2 for B > 1.25m
Where, q is KN/m2 and B in meters.
The B.C. Values are found with in the permissible values (40/50 mm).

5.6 Subgrade Modulus

The modulus of sub grade reaction is a conceptual relationship between pressure and
deflection. It is defined as the ratio between the soil pressure and the corresponding
settlement mathematically.
Ks = qn/Sv
Different researchers have suggested empirical approaches to get Ks.
Bowles method,
Ks = qnu/0.025
= 40 qnu KN/m3
The values of Ks are presented in the annexes.

9
6. SEISMICITY

6.1 Peak Ground Acceleration

For the study, scenario of three earthquakes of different magnitude and setting are selected.
Based on the seismic, seismotectonic and geological condition, scenarios of these three
earthquakes are compared with the large Bihar state of India- Nepal earthquake of 1934 (Ms -
8.4). The scenarios considered are Mid Nepal earthquake (Ms - 8.0), North Bagmati
earthquake (Ms - 6.0) and KV Local earthquake (Ms - 5.7).

Assuming Peak Ground Acceleration to Different Scales of Earthquakes

Name of Mid Nepal North Bagmati KV Local Bihar Nepal

Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake
PGA (gal) 200-300 100-200 200-300 200-300
Ms 8.0 6.0 5.7 8.4

6.2 Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is the major cause of damage to the building foundation during an
earthquake. Liquefaction potential depends upon factors, like the nature of shaking intensity,
duration and material susceptibility to liquefaction. Liquefaction potential assessment is
carried out in the following steps.

Estimation of liquefaction resistance of soil deposit,

Estimation of maximum or equivalent cyclic shear stress likely to be induced in the soil
deposit during an earthquake.
The liquefaction potential of sand layer subjected to earthquake load is evaluated using the
following equation by See`d et al. (1971)
 a max 
 0 . 65
cyc v0
rd
 '
v0 g  '
v0

where cyc = average cyclic shear stress developed in horizontal sand layer due
to earthquake
vo = effective overburden stress at a depth under consideration
vo’ = total overburden pressure
amax = peak horizontal ground acceleration by the earthquake at ground
surface
g = acceleration due to gravity
rd = stress reduction factor (function of depth and rigidity of soil
column)

10
The estimation of cyclic strength of soil deposit is based on the empirical correlations with
Standard Penetration Test value. N value is corrected for effective overburden pressure of 1
ton/ft2 and for further correlation to energy ratio of 60%, the following equation is used :

Em
 N 1  60  N m C N
0 . 60 E ff

Nm = measured SPT N value

CN = overburden correction factor
Em = actual hammer energy
Eff = theoretical free fall hammer energy

Based on the cyclic loading imposed by an earthquake, and liquefaction characteristics of soil,
the liquefaction potential is evaluated. Liquefaction at any depth is expected where the
loading by earthquake exceeds the resisting capacity of soil to liquefaction. The factor of
safety against liquefaction is expressed as the ratio of cyclic shear stress required to cause
liquefaction and equivalent cyclic shear stress induced by earthquake.

 CSR
 
cyc ,L L
FS

l
cyc CSR

In the present study for building site, the computation of the liquefaction susceptibility could
not be seen due to the presence of plastic clayey silts and medium dense silty soils with
gravels, pebbles etc. just below the foundation depth upto the depth of investigation. FSL
indicates the factor of safety for liquefaction at corresponding depth. Liquefaction is expected
when FSL is less than 1.0 but in this case the FSL values are greater than 1 in most cases. So,
the sub surface layers of the building site could not be liquefy.

11
7. RECOMMENDATION

The sub-soil strata with field observations below the foundation depth is mentioned in the
bore hole log in the annexes. Thus, based on field and laboratory tests following inferences
have been made.

i) Adopt a safe allowable bearing capacity for Isolated Spread or Mat/Raft Foundation at
different depths of site location as given in the annexes.

Spread foundation (Net SBC):

Recommended Allowable B.C. Values (KN/m2)

Depth (m)
1.5 x 1.5 2.0 x 2.0 2.5 x 2.5 3.0 x 3.0
1.5 73.20 76.49 79.78 80.33
1.85 81.22 84.29 87.36 88.71
2.25 90.39 93.21 96.02 98.30
3.0 109.83 108.32 108.14 106.81
4.5 122.83 115.84 110.41 106.51

Mat/Raft foundation (Net SBC) :

Depth (m) 1.5 1.85 2.25 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5

Recommended Allowable
96.73 104.61 113.63 133.13 152.11 189.29 215.39
B.C. Values (KN/m2)

Mat/Raft foundation (Gross SBC) :

Depth (m) 1.5 1.85 2.25 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5

Recommended Allowable
106.87 117.19 128.98 153.56 237.17 252.38 282.68
B.C. Values (KN/m2)

ii) Change in size and depth of foundation is subjected to change in bearing capacity.

iii) The allowable B.C. value for different foundation size should be easily fulfilled the
design loads for the foundation design.

iv) The proposed site is safe against liquefaction susceptibility.

v) The upper layer about 1.5m depth seems soft or loose soils in all locations. So, any
foundation structure would not be considered up to that depth.

vi) The bearing capacity (B.C.) values are obtained for worst water conditions.

vii) The soil Type III - Soft Soils was found.

viii) All the assumed geotechnical values, relationships etc. are directly used as per
requirements from the relevant codes, different papers, author’s books and published
journals.

12
References

Bowles, Joseph E. ‘Foundation Design and Analysis’ fifth Edition. The Mc Graw-
Hill Companies, Inc. 1996.

Dr. Arora, K.R., ‘Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering’.

Bangar, K.M., “Principle of Engineering Geology”, fifth Edition.

Dahal, Rajan Kumar, “Geology for Technical Students”, First Edition.

Compendium of Indian Standards on Soil Engineering – Part 1, Laboratory

Testing of Soils from Civil Engineering Purposes, SP: 36 (Part – 1) 1987, Bureau
of Indian Standards, new Delhi.

Teng, W.C. (1988), 'Foundation Design', Prentice Hall, New Delhi.

Peck, R. B., Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), 'Foundation Engineering',
John Wiley and Sons.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), 'Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice',

John Wiley and Sons.

Simons, N.E. and Menzies, B.K. (1979), 'A short Course in Foundation
Engineering', ELBS and Newnes Butterworth, London.

Indian Standard Code of Practice for Determination of ‘Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Foundation IS 6403: 1981’.

Indian Standard Code of Practice for ‘Calculation of Settlement of foundation IS

8009 (Part I) – 1976’.
ANNEXES –
 Bore Hole Location Map
 Bore Hole Logs
 Bearing Capacity Analysis
 Spread Foundation
 Mat Foundation

 Design Parameters
 Soil Dynamic Parameters
 Liquefaction
 Laboratory Test Result Summary Sheet
 Figure
 Photographs
 BORE HOLE
LOCATION MAP
BORE HOLE LOGS
 BORE HOLE LOG
Project: Soil Investigation Works for Residential Building Construction Site Date : Feb. 2018
Client: Mr. Rahul Agrawal/Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Sanepa, Lalitpur Bore Hole No.: 1
Location: Sanepa, Lalitpur

Total SPT/DCPT Value

Total SPT Value

SPT/DCP at
Water Table
Classification
Thickness

No. of Blows
Depth
Scale

Symbol

Scale
SPT
SOIL DESCRIPTION

per 15/10 cm
Penetration
0 10 20 30 40 50
m m m m 15/10 30/20 45/30
0 0
Yellow brownish medium low
SPT
1.5 ML plastic clayey silts with fine
1 sands 1
1.5
1.5 3 3 4 7 7
2 2

3 3
3.0 5 4 4 8 8

4
UD 4
4.0 Gray medium to stiff slight
plastic clayey silts with 4.5 3 3 3 6 6
6.5 ML
5 appreciable amount of fine 4.5 5
sands

6 6.0 4 3 3 6 6 6

7 7

7.5 3 4 4 8 8
8
8.0 8

9 9
Gray blackish medium low 9.0 3 2 4 6 6
3.0 ML plastic clayey silts with fine
UD
sands
10.0
10 10

10.5 5 3 4 7 7
11
11.0 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

* Maximum SPT Value.

Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
Krishna Kunj, Ramnagar, Lokanthali-15, Bhaktapur
Tel : 00977-1-5182310, 9851026210 E-mail: [email protected]
 BORE HOLE LOG
Project: Soil Investigation Works for Residential Building Construction Site Date : Feb. 2018
Client: Mr. Rahul Agrawal/Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Sanepa, Lalitpur Bore Hole No.: 2
Location: Sanepa, Lalitpur

Total SPT/DCPT Value

Total SPT Value

SPT/DCP at
Water Table
Classification
Thickness

No. of Blows
Depth
Scale

Symbol

Scale
SPT
SOIL DESCRIPTION

per 15/10 cm
Penetration
0 10 20 30 40 50
m m m m 15/10 30/20 45/30
0 0
Yellow brownish stiff low
SPT
1.5 ML plastic clayey silts with fine
1 sands 1
1.5
1.5 4 5 6 11 11
2 2

3
ML - Whitish stiff non plastic sandy 3.0 4 5 4 9 9 3
3.0
SM silts
4 4

4.5
4.5 6 5 6 11 11
5 4.5 5

6 6.0 6 6 6 12 12 6
Grayish medium dense slight
to non plastic gravelly
ML -
7 5.0 silts/silty gravels with 7
GM
appreciable amount of fine
7.5 7 10 12 22 22
sands
8 8

9 9
9.0 7 7 7 14 14
9.5

10 10
Gray blackish stiff low plastic
1.5 ML
clayey silts with fine sands
10.5 3 4 4 8 8
11
11.0 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

* Maximum SPT Value.

Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
Krishna Kunj, Ramnagar, Lokanthali-15, Bhaktapur
Tel : 00977-1-5182310, 9851026210 E-mail: [email protected]
 BORE HOLE LOG
Project: Soil Investigation Works for Residential Building Construction Site Date : Feb. 2018
Client: Mr. Rahul Agrawal/Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Sanepa, Lalitpur Bore Hole No.: 3
Location: Sanepa, Lalitpur

Total SPT/DCPT Value

Total SPT Value

SPT/DCP at
Water Table
Classification
Thickness

No. of Blows
Depth
Scale

Symbol

Scale
SPT
SOIL DESCRIPTION

per 15/10 cm
Penetration
0 10 20 30 40 50
m m m m 15/10 30/20 45/30
0 0

Brownish stiff low plastic SPT

1.5 ML
1
clayey silts with gravels 1
1.5
1.5 7 8 7 15 15
2 2
Gray very stiff/medium dense
ML -
2.0 slight plastic gravelly clayey
GM
3 silts with fine sands 3
3.0 8 10 10 20 20
3.5

4 4

4.5 3 3 3 6 6
5 UD 4.5 5
5.0

6 Gray medium slight plastic 6.0 3 2 3 5 5 6

5.5 ML
clayey silts with fine sands
7 7

7.5 4 3 3 6 6
8 8

9.0
9 9
9.0 6 6 7 13 13

10 Gray stiff slight plastic clayey 10

2.0 ML silts with appreciable amount
of fine sands 10.5 7 5 6 11 11
11
11.0 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

* Maximum SPT Value.

Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
Krishna Kunj, Ramnagar, Lokanthali-15, Bhaktapur
Tel : 00977-1-5182310, 9851026210 E-mail: [email protected]
BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
 Spread Foundation
 Open/Raft Foundation
 Analysis of Bearing Capacity at Different Depths for Spread Foundation

B. C. Values (KN/m2) for different Cohesion

Angle of Saturated
Allowable Subgrade
Bore Depth size of Foundation (m) friction Density,
(C), Settlement Modulus, Ks
Hole (m) (), γsat
1.5 x 1.5 2.0 x 2.0 2.5 x 2.5 3.0 x 3.0 KN/m² 3 (mm) (KN/m3)
Degree (KN/m )

1.5 57.88 59.76 61.65 63.53 3 25 16 65 5788.20

1.85 66.33 68.21 70.09 71.97 3 25 16 65 6632.68

1 2.25 75.98 77.86 79.74 81.63 3 25 16 65 7597.80

3.0 94.07 95.96 97.84 99.72 3 25 16 65 9407.40

4.5 120.69 110.84 105.13 101.41 3 25 16 65 12068.71

B. C. Values (KN/m2) for different Cohesion

Angle of Saturated
Allowable Subgrade
Bore Depth size of Foundation (m) friction Density,
(C), Settlement Modulus, Ks
Hole (m) (), γsat
1.5 x 1.5 2.0 x 2.0 2.5 x 2.5 3.0 x 3.0 KN/m² (mm) (KN/m3)
Degree (KN/m3)

1.5 64.24 67.30 70.35 73.41 0 29 17 40 6424.30

1.85 77.10 80.15 83.20 85.58 0 29 17 40 7709.50

2 2.25 91.78 94.84 97.89 99.49 0 28 17 40 9178.30

3.0 116.11 106.63 101.14 97.56 0 28 17 40 11610.76

4.5 151.59 139.22 132.05 127.37 0 29 17 40 15158.54

 Analysis of Bearing Capacity at Different Depths for Spread Foundation

B. C. Values (KN/m2) for different Cohesion

Angle of Saturated
Allowable Subgrade
Bore Depth size of Foundation (m) friction Density,
(C), Settlement Modulus, Ks
Hole (m) (), γsat
1.5 x 1.5 2.0 x 2.0 2.5 x 2.5 3.0 x 3.0 KN/m² 3 (mm) (KN/m3)
Degree (KN/m )

1.5 97.49 102.41 107.33 112.25 0 32 18 40 9748.80

1.85 100.25 104.52 108.78 113.04 0 31 18 40 10025.21

3 2.25 103.41 106.92 110.44 113.95 0 30 17 40 10341.10

3.0 119.32 122.38 125.43 123.15 0 29 17 40 11932.30

4.5 96.23 97.45 94.07 90.74 4 20 16 65 9623.07

 Analysis of Bearing Capacity at Different Depths for Raft Foundation

Safe B. C. Values (KN/m2) Angle of Saturated Allowable Subgrade

Depth Cohesion
Bore Hole
(m) (C), KN/m²
friction (), Density, γsat Settlement Modulus, Ks
50/100 mm settlement Degree (KN/m3) (mm) (KN/m3)
1.5 74.83 3 25 16 100 7482.60
1.85 83.27 3 25 16 100 8327.08
2.25 92.92 3 25 16 100 9292.20
1 3.0 111.02 3 25 16 100 11101.80
4.5 147.21 3 25 16 100 14721.00
6.0 183.40 3 25 16 100 18340.20
7.5 219.59 3 25 16 100 21959.40

Safe B. C. Values (KN/m2) Angle of Saturated Allowable Subgrade

Depth Cohesion
Bore Hole
(m) (C), KN/m²
friction (), Density, γsat Settlement Modulus, Ks
50/100 mm settlement Degree (KN/m3) (mm) (KN/m3)
1.5 91.73 0 29 17 50 9173.20
1.85 104.58 0 29 17 50 10458.40
2.25 119.27 0 28 17 50 11927.20
2 3.0 146.81 0 28 17 50 14681.20
4.5 201.89 0 29 17 50 20189.20
6.0 252.38 0 30 18 50 25238.49
7.5 269.61 0 31 18 50 26961.45
 Analysis of Bearing Capacity at Different Depths for Raft Foundation

Safe B. C. Values (KN/m2) Angle of Saturated Allowable Subgrade

Depth Cohesion
Bore Hole friction (), Density, γsat Settlement Modulus, Ks
(m) (C), KN/m²
50/100 mm settlement Degree (KN/m3) (mm) (KN/m3)
1.5 141.77 0 32 18 50 14176.80
1.85 138.62 0 31 18 50 13862.41
2.25 135.03 0 30 17 50 13503.10
3 3.0 146.81 0 29 17 50 14681.20
4.5 107.22 4 20 16 100 10722.27
6.0 132.09 4 20 16 100 13208.67
7.5 156.95 4 20 16 100 15695.07
DESIGN PARAMETERS
 Design Parameters for Different Depths

Bore Hole No. 1

Depth, Df (m) 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5

Saturated Density up to
16 16 16 16 16 16 16
depth, γsat (KN/m3)

Angle of friction (), Degree 25 25 25 25 25 21 21

Cohesion (C.), KN/m² 3 3 3 3 3 5 5

Bore Hole No. 2

Depth, Df (m) 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5

Saturated Density up to
17 17 17 18 18 17 16
depth, γsat (KN/m3)

Angle of friction (), Degree 29 28 29 30 31 27 22

Cohesion (C.), KN/m² 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Bore Hole No. 3

Depth, Df (m) 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5

Saturated Density up to
18 17 16 16 16 17 17
depth, γsat (KN/m3)

Angle of friction (), Degree 32 29 20 20 20 20 20

Cohesion (C.), KN/m² 0 0 4 4 4 6 6

SOIL DYNAMIC
PARAMETERS
 Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) & Maximum Shear Modulus (G max)

Bore Hole No. : 1

Avg. Shear Wave Avg. Maximum Shear

Depth
S. No. Soil Type Velocity (Vs) Modulus (Gmax)
(m)
(m/s) (Mpa)

1 0.0 - 11.0 Silty/Clayey Soil 119.65 55.44

Bore Hole No. : 2

Avg. Shear Wave Avg. Maximum Shear

Depth
S. No. Soil Type Velocity (Vs) Modulus (Gmax)
(m)
(m/s) (Mpa)

1 0.0 - 4.5 Silty/Clayey Soil 133.65 69.75

Silty/Sandy/
2 4.5 - 9.5 205.03 87.27
Gravelly Soil

3 9.5 - 11.0 Silty/Clayey Soil 125.35 60.98

Bore Hole No. : 3

Avg. Shear Wave Avg. Maximum Shear

Depth
S. No. Soil Type Velocity (Vs) Modulus (Gmax)
(m)
(m/s) (Mpa)

1 0.0 - 1.5 Silty/Clayey Soil 150.60 89.32

Silty/Sandy/
2 1.5 - 3.5 227.12 108.28
Gravelly Soil

3 3.5 - 11.0 Silty/Clayey Soil 124.36 60.83

LIQUEFACTION
 Computation of FS against Liquefaction (Bore Hole No.: 1)

North Bagmati Earthquake PGA=200 gal M=6.0

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=6.0) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 7 1.60 11.77 2.85 19.97 23.54 0.978 2.99 1.00 1.32 31.08 10.39

3.0 8 1.60 23.54 2.02 16.14 47.09 0.955 5.85 1.00 1.32 62.16 10.63

4.5 6 1.60 35.32 1.65 9.88 70.63 0.933 8.56 1.00 1.32 93.23 10.89

6.0 6 1.60 47.09 1.43 8.56 94.18 0.910 11.14 1.00 1.32 124.31 11.16

7.5 8 1.60 58.86 1.28 10.21 117.72 0.888 13.58 1.00 1.32 155.39 11.44

9.0 6 1.60 70.63 1.16 6.99 141.26 0.865 15.89 1.00 1.32 186.47 11.74

10.5 7 1.60 82.40 1.08 7.55 164.81 0.843 18.05 1.00 1.32 217.55 12.05

8.2 - KV Local Earthquake PGA=275 gal M=5.7

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=5.7) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 7 1.60 11.77 2.85 19.97 23.54 0.978 4.11 1.00 1.40 32.96 8.01

3.0 8 1.60 23.54 2.02 16.14 47.09 0.955 8.04 1.00 1.40 65.92 8.20

4.5 6 1.60 35.32 1.65 9.88 70.63 0.933 11.77 1.00 1.40 98.88 8.40

6.0 6 1.60 47.09 1.43 8.56 94.18 0.910 15.32 1.00 1.40 131.85 8.61

7.5 8 1.60 58.86 1.28 10.21 117.72 0.888 18.68 1.00 1.40 164.81 8.82

9.0 6 1.60 70.63 1.16 6.99 141.26 0.865 21.84 1.00 1.40 197.77 9.05

10.5 7 1.60 82.40 1.08 7.55 164.81 0.843 24.82 1.00 1.40 230.73 9.30

1934 Bihar Nepal Earthquake PGA=300 gal M=8.4

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=8.4) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 7 1.60 11.77 2.85 19.97 23.54 0.978 4.49 1.00 0.89 20.95 4.67

3.0 8 1.60 23.54 2.02 16.14 47.09 0.955 8.77 1.00 0.89 41.91 4.78

4.5 6 1.60 35.32 1.65 9.88 70.63 0.933 12.84 1.00 0.89 62.86 4.89

6.0 6 1.60 47.09 1.43 8.56 94.18 0.910 16.71 1.00 0.89 83.82 5.02

7.5 8 1.60 58.86 1.28 10.21 117.72 0.888 20.37 1.00 0.89 104.77 5.14

9.0 6 1.60 70.63 1.16 6.99 141.26 0.865 23.83 1.00 0.89 125.72 5.28

10.5 7 1.60 82.40 1.08 7.55 164.81 0.843 27.08 1.00 0.89 146.68 5.42

(Average values of density have been considered)

 Computation of FS against Liquefaction (Bore Hole No.: 2)

North Bagmati Earthquake PGA=200 gal M=6.0

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=6.0) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 11 1.70 12.51 2.77 30.44 25.02 0.978 3.18 1.00 1.32 33.02 10.39

3.0 9 1.60 24.28 1.99 17.88 48.56 0.955 6.03 0.19 0.25 12.18 2.02

4.5 11 1.70 36.79 1.61 17.75 73.58 0.933 8.92 1.00 1.32 97.12 10.89

6.0 12 1.70 49.30 1.39 16.73 98.59 0.910 11.66 1.00 1.32 130.14 11.16

7.5 22 1.90 63.27 1.23 27.07 126.55 0.888 14.60 1.00 1.32 167.04 11.44

9.0 14 1.70 74.31 1.14 15.89 148.62 0.865 16.71 1.00 1.32 196.18 11.74

10.5 8 1.60 86.82 1.05 8.40 173.64 0.843 19.02 1.00 1.32 229.20 12.05

8.2 - KV Local Earthquake PGA=275 gal M=5.7

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=5.7) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 11 1.70 12.51 2.77 30.44 25.02 0.978 4.37 1.00 1.40 35.02 8.01

3.0 9 1.60 24.28 1.99 17.88 48.56 0.955 8.29 0.19 0.27 12.92 1.56

4.5 11 1.70 36.79 1.61 17.75 73.58 0.933 12.26 1.00 1.40 103.01 8.40

6.0 12 1.70 49.30 1.39 16.73 98.59 0.910 16.04 1.00 1.40 138.03 8.61

7.5 22 1.90 63.27 1.23 27.07 126.55 0.888 20.08 1.00 1.40 177.17 8.82

9.0 14 1.70 74.31 1.14 15.89 148.62 0.865 22.98 1.00 1.40 208.07 9.05

10.5 8 1.60 86.82 1.05 8.40 173.64 0.843 26.15 1.00 1.40 243.09 9.30

1934 Bihar Nepal Earthquake PGA=300 gal M=8.4

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=8.4) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 11 1.70 12.51 2.77 30.44 25.02 0.978 4.77 1.00 0.89 22.26 4.67

3.0 9 1.60 24.28 1.99 17.88 48.56 0.955 9.04 0.19 0.17 8.21 0.91

4.5 11 1.70 36.79 1.61 17.75 73.58 0.933 13.38 1.00 0.89 65.48 4.89

6.0 12 1.70 49.30 1.39 16.73 98.59 0.910 17.49 1.00 0.89 87.75 5.02

7.5 22 1.90 63.27 1.23 27.07 126.55 0.888 21.90 1.00 0.89 112.63 5.14

9.0 14 1.70 74.31 1.14 15.89 148.62 0.865 25.07 1.00 0.89 132.27 5.28

10.5 8 1.60 86.82 1.05 8.40 173.64 0.843 28.53 1.00 0.89 154.54 5.42

(Average values of density have been considered)

 Computation of FS against Liquefaction (Bore Hole No.: 3)

North Bagmati Earthquake PGA=200 gal M=6.0

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=6.0) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 15 1.80 13.24 2.69 40.34 26.49 0.978 3.37 1.00 1.32 34.96 10.39

3.0 20 1.90 27.22 1.88 37.52 54.45 0.955 6.76 1.00 1.32 71.87 10.63

4.5 6 1.60 38.99 1.57 9.40 77.99 0.933 9.45 1.00 1.32 102.95 10.89

6.0 5 1.60 50.77 1.37 6.87 101.53 0.910 12.01 1.00 1.32 134.02 11.16

7.5 6 1.60 62.54 1.24 7.43 125.08 0.888 14.43 1.00 1.32 165.10 11.44

9.0 13 1.70 75.78 1.12 14.62 151.56 0.865 17.04 1.00 1.32 200.07 11.74

10.5 11 1.70 87.55 1.05 11.51 175.11 0.843 19.18 1.00 1.32 231.14 12.05

8.2 - KV Local Earthquake PGA=275 gal M=5.7

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=5.7) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 15 1.80 13.24 2.69 40.34 26.49 0.978 4.63 1.00 1.40 37.08 8.01

3.0 20 1.90 27.22 1.88 37.52 54.45 0.955 9.29 1.00 1.40 76.22 8.20

4.5 6 1.60 38.99 1.57 9.40 77.99 0.933 13.00 1.00 1.40 109.19 8.40

6.0 5 1.60 50.77 1.37 6.87 101.53 0.910 16.52 1.00 1.40 142.15 8.61

7.5 6 1.60 62.54 1.24 7.43 125.08 0.888 19.84 1.00 1.40 175.11 8.82

9.0 13 1.70 75.78 1.12 14.62 151.56 0.865 23.43 1.00 1.40 212.19 9.05

10.5 11 1.70 87.55 1.05 11.51 175.11 0.843 26.37 1.00 1.40 245.15 9.30

1934 Bihar Nepal Earthquake PGA=300 gal M=8.4

Total
SPT Effective
Depth Density CN (N1)60 Vertical rd tcyc CSRL (M=7.5) CSRL (M=8.4) tcyc,L FS
(N) stress (s'no)
stress (sno)

1.5 15 1.80 13.24 2.69 40.34 26.49 0.978 5.05 1.00 0.89 23.57 4.67

3.0 20 1.90 27.22 1.88 37.52 54.45 0.955 10.14 1.00 0.89 48.46 4.78

4.5 6 1.60 38.99 1.57 9.40 77.99 0.933 14.18 1.00 0.89 69.41 4.89

6.0 5 1.60 50.77 1.37 6.87 101.53 0.910 18.02 1.00 0.89 90.36 5.02

7.5 6 1.60 62.54 1.24 7.43 125.08 0.888 21.65 1.00 0.89 111.32 5.14

9.0 13 1.70 75.78 1.12 14.62 151.56 0.865 25.57 1.00 0.89 134.89 5.28

10.5 11 1.70 87.55 1.05 11.51 175.11 0.843 28.77 1.00 0.89 155.85 5.42

(Average values of density have been considered)

LABORATORY TEST RESULT
SUMMARY SHEET
 Pashupati Drilling & Geo- Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
Krishna Kunj, Ramnagar, Lokanthali-15, Bhaktapur
Tel : 00977-1-5182310, 9851026210 E-mail: [email protected]

LABORATORY TEST RESULT SUMMARY SHEET

Project: Soil Investigation Works for Residential Building Construction Site Date : Feb. 2018
Client: Mr. Rahul Agrawal/Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Sanepa, Lalitpur
Location: Sanepa, Lalitpur

USCS Percentage of Atterberg Limits Direct Shear Test

Natural (*analytical)
Bore Sand Moist Dry
Depth Silt & Liquid Plastic Plasticity Moisture Consolidation
Hole Classi- Gravel Coarse to Density Density Specific
Fine Clay Limit Limit Index content Gravity C f
No. fication medium
(m) % % % % % % % % gm/cc gm/cc KN/m2 Degree Cc eO
1.5 - 8.0
ML 0.00 3.90 23.67 72.43 34.00 31.62 2.38 26.69 1.64 1.32 2.417 4 26 0.111 0.786
& UD
1
8.0 - 10.0
ML 0.00 0.85 13.03 86.12 44.50 33.65 10.85 42.21 1.54 1.24 2.384 5 21 0.128 0.808
& UD

1.5 - 4.5 ML - SM 0.00 1.40 41.62 56.98 No LL No PL - 12.65 1.59 1.45 2.426 0 29*

2 4.5 - 9.5 ML - GM 32.73 3.66 23.73 39.88 11.12 1.76 1.66 2.654 0 31*

9.5 - 10.0 ML 0.00 0.55 12.78 86.67 45.00 32.61 12.39 33.06 1.64 1.46 2.416 5 22 0.120 0.711

1.5 - 3.5 ML - GM 29.09 3.81 15.27 51.83 - - - 15.50 1.69 1.54 2.636 0 32*

3.5 - 9.0
3 ML 0.00 2.57 22.52 74.91 31.00 26.51 4.49 30.69 1.66 1.37 2.308 3 24 0.115 0.938
& UD
9.0 - 11.0
ML 0.00 0.00 17.19 82.81 42.00 32.77 9.23 38.40 1.65 1.33 2.187 6 21 0.122 0.842
& UD
FIGURE
 PHOTOGRAPHS

Drilling a Hole by Percussion Drilling Mechanism
Conducting SPT/DCPT Test for getting (N) Value by Dropping a
63.5 kg Hammer from 750mm height
Retrieving Soil Samples through SPT Tubes