Gti Report

Job No-CECSPL/Pvt.
-DC-DMR/201707277, Site: Nayapara, Dharmanagar, Tripura (North)
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

ON
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (G+2) OF MR.

DEBABRATA CHOUDHURY AT NAYAPARA, DHARMANAGAR,
NORTH TRIPURA.
JOB ENTRUSTED BY
Mr. Debabrata Choudhury,

Nayapara, (Near Kalibari), Dharmanagar,
North Tripura
JOB CONDUCTED BY
Arpita Bhavan, Jail

Road, Banamalipur,
Agartala-799001,
Tel:- 03812313780
Mob:- 9436139749
Job No-CECSPL/Pvt.-DC-DMR/201707277,
JULY, 2017
0
CECSPL
Job No-CECSPL/Pvt.-DC-DMR/201707277, Site: Nayapara, Dharmanagar, Tripura (North)
PREFACE
A detailed geotechnical investigation including laboratory testing was carried out for the
proposed construction of Residential building (G+2) at Nayapara, (Near Kalibari), Dharmanagar, North
Tripura. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the soil parameters for the design of
foundation for proposed structure with particular reference to safe bearing capacity and anticipated
settlement.
The Geo-technical investigation work was awarded by Mr. Debabrata Choudhury to Civil
Engineering Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. The investigation work for this project was started on the
instruction of the Client. The fieldwork was commenced on 26th March, 2017 and completed on 27th
March, 2017.
The report has been prepared after careful study of all data collected during fieldwork and
laboratory testing and it deals with geotechnical properties of the Site and the sub-soil. Section I of
this report covers the fieldwork while Section II contains the results of all the laboratory test and
discussions thereon. Section III deals with the engineering appraisal and recommendations.
1
CECSPL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I SHEET
NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
2.0 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 4
3.0 INVESTIGATION SCHEME AND LOCATION OF TESTS & SKETCH
4-5
SHOWING LOCATION OF BOREHOLES
4.0 FIELD OPERATION 06
4.1 BORING 06
4.2 SAMPLING 06
4.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 06-07
4.4 GROUND WATER 08
SECTION II
5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS & GROUND CONDITION 10 -12
N VALUE CORRECTIONS 13
6.0 GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES & PROFILE 13 -16
SECTION - III
7.0 DISCUSSION ON FOUNDATION ASPECTS 18
7.1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOOTING 18-21
7.2 FOUNDATION PROPOSAL 22
8.0 DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 23-24
ANNEXURE
I BORELOGS 26
II N Vs DEPTH GRAPH 28
III UU- GRAPH 30
IV e-logP GRAPH 32
V PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION 34
2
CECSPL
SECTION - I
3
CECSPL
SECTION I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mr. Debabrata Choudhury, entrusted the soil investigation work to Civil Engineering Consultancy
Services Pvt. Ltd. At the onset of the work, one no. of borehole has been envisaged. The fieldwork
was commenced on 26th March, 2017 and completed on 27th March, 2017.
2.0 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present study was to bring out the stratigraphy, strength characteristics of the sub-
strata at the site, by conducting bore hole-studies including in-situ tests and laboratory test. The
findings were to be applied for realistic selection and design of suitable foundations for the
proposed construction.
3.0 INVESTIGATION SCHEME AND LOCATION OF TESTS
The scheme of investigation was formulated by the Clients, which involved sinking of 01 (One)
No. of borehole with depth of 15.45m from existing ground level on the location of the boreholes,
collection of undisturbed samples from cohesive deposit, carrying out standard penetration tests
within the boreholes, performing necessary laboratory tests on selected soil samples and
submission of a complete report along with recommendation of Foundation and the net safe
bearing Capacity. The work was carried out accordingly.
The sketch showing location of boreholes is given in the following page.
4
CECSPL
5 CECSPL
4.0 FIELD OPERATION
4.1 BORING:
At the proposed project site, 01(One) no. of borehole was sunk. Location was selected with the
view to get an overall idea about the whole site. The field operations consisted of boring, field
test, and collection of disturbed and undisturbed samples, identification, labeling and
preservations of the samples collected. The soil samples were collected by pushing a sampling
tube in the bore hole at suitable intervals and depth and then taken out. The samples so recovered
and collected in plastic bags, sealed, marked and taken for laboratory analysis. All the bore holes
are sunk as per provisions laid down in IS: 1892-1979. The boring operation has been done in
two stages( shell boring and wash boring with mechanical winch).
SHELL BORING: Shell boring is done up to 1.5 meter below the ground level to encounter
loose earth .The shell is a cylinder with a cutting edge at bottom . The shell is raised up to a
height and is allowed to fall freely. During the downward movement of the shell the valve
opens inward allowing the soil to enter into it . Again when the shell is raised , the soil
already inside the shell tries to move downwards and subsequently results in closing the
bottom of the shell and thus preventing the soil to escape from the shell . The bore hole
is advanced by repeating the process several times and during every motion of the shell ,
some soil gets inside the shell and when it gets filled up with soil , it is lifted out of the
bore hole and emptied .
WASH BORING: Beneath the filled up materials , the wash boring technique with Direct
Mud Circular method has been adopted . The object of the wash boring is to form an
open hole in the ground so that the soil sampling operations may be conducted at the
bottom of the bore hole at desired depth . The hole is advanced partly by chopping partly by
twisting action of a light bit called chisel which is fitted at the mouth of the drill rod .
The cutting process is augmented by jetting , which is accomplished by forcing water
under pressure through the drill rods that are operated inside the hole . The water jetting
was maintained by manual forces. The jetting action not only loosens the soil but also
brings the soil from bottom of the bore holes to the surface . The walls of the bore hole
was prevented by using casing pipes up to the depth of filling materials . After that it was
6
CECSPL
stabilized by drilling mud. During the execution of the field works two types of soil
samples were collected from the exploratory bore holes ; viz. Disturbed and undisturbed
samples. Boreholes depths, description of soil, N values during SPT at various depths and the
depth at which ground water was encountered are shown in the bore logs in Annexure I of this
report.
4.2 SAMPLING
Undisturbed soil samples were collected in predominantly cohesive deposits at regular interval
and disturbed samples were collected from all layers. The samples were brought to laboratory for
visual examination and laboratory testing. For collection of undisturbed soil sample, a 100 mm.
Thin walled, 450 mm. Long sample tube, which was driven into boreholes with the help of a down
hole hammer, called Jarring Link. This tool enabled collection of sample with minimum
disturbance. The sampler was provided with an arrangement for holding the sample by vacuum at
the time of extraction after collection. The driving end of the tube was fitted with a thin walled
sharp cutting shoe with a low area ratio. Disturbed samples were collected from the cutting shoe
of open drive sampler as well as from split spoon barrel of the Penetrometer. Depth and details of
the samples are shown in the bore logs (AnnexureI). These samples were preserved in polythene
packets, labeled properly and send to laboratory for identification and testing. A table showing
details of field tests and samples collected from the boreholes is given in the following page.
4.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
The standard penetration test (S.P.T.) were conducted in the bore holes at suitable intervals as
per provisions laid down in IS : 2131-1981 . This test was carried out by using a Terzaghis
split spoon sampler of standard design and dimension having 50mm outer diameter , 35mm
inner diameter and a minimum open length of 600mm . In this process, the sampling
assembly was driven in the bore hole by using a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely through a
height of 75cm . The split spoon sampler in these tests is adopted at the lower end of the
drill rods taken to the specific depth of the test . The Penetrometer was lowered inside
the bore hole at the desired depth on a string of drill rods and a count for the number
of blows for 7.5mm penetration was maintained till the total penetration was 600mm . The
number of blows required to penetrate the middle 300mm length (i.e. 150mm to 450mm depth )
of penetration out of the total penetration of 600mm was recorded as N-value .The
disturbed soil samples collected from the split spoon sampler after the completion of each
7
CECSPL
test were used for visual identification and classification of subsoil and also for preparation
of bore log data sheet . The soil samples recovered from the Penetrometer tube was then
placed in airtight polythene bags and were labeled before forwarding them to the
laboratory for testing purposes . The data section of this report exhibit the variations
observed in N-value recording at different test depths within the bore hole . The N-values
have also been plotted graphically against the depth . The following table shows the bore
hole numbers along-with the termination depth measured from the existing ground level and
the details of samples collected :
Table: 4.1 Boring Summary
Bore measured from the

Hole existing Detail of Samples collected
Nos. ground level U.D.S. S.P.T. D.S.
(m)
1 15.45 02 08 1
4.4 GROUND WATER
Ground water was observed at different levels from the top of boreholes. All the ground
water levels were observed after 24 hrs. of the completion of the boring as follows:-
Table: 4.2 Ground Water Table
Water
R.L of Table-Below G.L
BH BH (m) (m)
1. 100.00 0.53
8
CECSPL
SECTION - II
9
CECSPL
SECTION II
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND GROUND CONDITION
5.0 LABORATORY TEST
Soil samples collected at field were brought to laboratory for necessary testing and
Rechecking/reviewing the field bore logs.
Laboratory tests were conducted as per I.S. SPECIFICATION on the samples (Undisturbed)
taken from the field to determine the following properties.
I. Natural Moisture Content.

II. Bulk density and Dry density.
III. Particle size distribution.
a) Sieve Analysis
b) Hydro meter Analysis
IV. Atterberg Limit.
a) Liquid Limit.
b) Plastic Limit.
V. Tri- axial Tests/Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests.
VI. Specific Gravity.
VII. Consolidation test.
Grain size analysis was performed for cohesive soils. Triaxial Shear Tests (UU) were performed
to determine the shear strength characteristics. After completion of all laboratory tests, the data were
compiled and the bore logs were final.
The test results were compiled and the preliminary bore log written at site was rechecked and
revised accordingly and this has been presented in Annexure I of this report.
10
CECSPL
Laboratory Test Results

Table 5.1
Moisture
Bulk Density (T/Cum)
Unconfined
ve Strength
Compressi
Plasticity Index(%)
Strength
Triaxial
Borehole Number
Liquid Limit (%)
Plastic Limit (%)

(%)
Shear
Specific Gravity
Type of Sample
(UU)
Description
Depth (m)
Sand(%)

Clay(%)
Cohesi qu Cu
Content
Natural
Silt(%)
on c value (T/m2) (T/m2)
Site
(T/m2) ()
1 UDS 1.50- Brownish to greyish to 05 35 60 22.3 1.76 - - 3.90 1.95 41.5 19.3 22.20 2.68
Nayapara
1.95 steel greyish sandy soft

clay with kankar
1 UDS 3.00- Do 08 37 55 21.5 1.82 - - 7.60 3.80 47.6 18.2 29.40 2.68
3.45
11 CECSPL
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT
Table 5.2
mv(cm2/kg)
Bore
Type of Depth
Site Hole 0.50
Sample (m) 0.00 - 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.0 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 8.00
No 1.00
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
(kg/cm2)
1.50-
1 UDS 0.0041
Krishnanagar 1.95 0.0080 0.0130 0.0106 0.0085 0.0056
3.00-
1 UDS 0.0054
3.45 0.0040 0.0210 0.0185 0.0134 0.0084
12 CECSPL
N VALUE CORRECTIONS
Table: 5.3 N Value Corrections
Depth R.L of Effective 'N' Value after 'N' Value

Bore
eff below Test Over burden Skempton Field 'N' Overburden after
Hole
(kN/m3) EGL Points Pressure, Factor Cn Value Pressure Dialatancy
Number
(m) (m) (kN/m2) Correction Correction
1 7.6 1.5 98.5 11.4 1.795 N/A N/A N/A

1 8.2 3.0 97 24.6 1.605 N/A N/A N/A
1 7.0 4.5 95.5 31.5 1.521 2 3 3
1 8.5 6.0 94 51.0 1.325 60 79 47
1 7.6 7.5 92.5 57.0 1.274 3 4 4
1 8.2 9.0 91 73.8 1.151 23 26 21
1 8.8 10.5 89.5 92.4 1.040 50 52 33
1 8.9 12.0 88 106.8 0.967 80 77 46
1 9.0 13.5 86.5 121.5 0.903 90 81 48
1 9.2 15.0 85 138.0 0.840 100 84 50
6.0 GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES & PROFILE:
Altogether 5 (five) different sub-soil layers were encountered within the bored depth of the
boreholes. The sub-soil layer is discussed below. The Designer gives a generalized soil profile
along with design soil parameters at the end of this section for use.
Table:-6.1 Soil Stratum Detail
R.L OF BH Layer
BH Layers From (m) To (m)
(m) thickness (m)
S-1 0.0 5.0 5.00
S-2 5.0 7.0 2.00
1 100.00 S-3 7.0 8.5 1.50
S-4 8.5 9.5 1.00
S-5 9.5 15.45 5.95
Stratum 1
It can be described as Brownish to greyish to steel greyish sandy soft clay with kankar. This
layer exists the borehole and its thickness is mentioned in Table 6.1. The borehole as envisaged reflects
soft clay in consistency. Further to mention that, the field N values resulted from Standard Penetration
Tests varies range to 6.
The average engineering properties of the stratum has been given below:-
13 CECSPL
Natural moisture content (%) 21.5 22.3

Bulk density (t/m3) 1.76 1.82
Cohesion (t/m2) 1.95 3.80
Liquid limit (%) 41.5 47.6
Plastic limit (%) 18.2 19.3
Specific Gravity 2.68
-value () N/A
mv (cm2/kg) 0.0106 -0.0185
Stratum 2
It can be described as Steel Greyish clayey silty fine dense sand. The field N values ranges to
60. The thickness of this layer is mentioned in Table 6.1. The average engineering properties of the
stratum has been given below:-
Natural moisture content (%) N/A

Density (t/m3) 1.85
Cohesion (t/m2) 0
Liquid limit (%) N/A
Plastic limit (%) NP
Specific Gravity N/A
-value () 40
Field N Value 60
mv N/A
Stratum 3
It can be described as Greyish to steel greyish sandy silty soft clay. This layer exists in the
borehole and its thickness is mentioned in Table 6.1. The bore hole as envisaged reflect dense soft clay
in consistency. Further to mention that, the field N values resulted from Standard Penetration Tests in
this layer varies to 3.
The average engineering properties of the stratum has been given below:-
Natural moisture content (%) N/A
Density (t/m3) 1.75
Cohesion (t/m2) 2.0 (Correlate N)
Plastic limit (%) N/A
Specific Gravity 2.70
-value () 0
mv 0.0100 (Correlate N)
14 CECSPL
Stratum 4
It can be described as Greyish to steel greyish sandy silty medium to stiff clay. This layer
present in the borehole. The single field N value found in this borehole at a depth 9.0m below ground
level to the range of 23 reflects very medium to stiff clay. The thickness of this layer is mentioned in
Table 6.1. The average engineering properties of the stratum has been given below:-
Natural moisture content (%) = N/A

Bulk density (t/m3) = N/A
Cohesion (t/m2) = 8.5 Correlate N
-value () N/A
Field N Value = 23
Stratum 5
It can be described as Steel greyish silty fine dense sand. This layer present in the borehole.
The field N value in this borehole at depth 9.50m varies from 50 to 100 up-to the termination depth of
15.45m below ground level reflects very dense sand. The thickness of the layer is mentioned in Table
6.1. The average engineering properties of the stratum has been given below:-
Natural moisture content (%) = N/A

Bulk density (t/m3) = N/A
Cohesion (t/m2) = 8.5 Correlate N
-value () N/A
Field N Value = 23
15 CECSPL
CECSPL 16
SECTION - III
17 CECSPL
SECTION III
7.0 DISCUSSION ON FOUNDATION ASPECTS:
Foundation for any structure depends upon the height of the structure, load coming to the sub-soil
deposit. At present except the nature of sub-soil, all other details are unknown. However, in general, any
foundation design should satisfy the two basic requirements, viz.
a) There must be adequate factor of safety against shear failure, and
b) The settlement should be within permissible limit under the design load.
7.1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PILE FOUNDATION
A. Bearing Capacity:
Five distinct layers have been found out within the soil strata. It is evident from the bore-log of
the borehole as well as from the soil characteristics of each five layers which are variable that
the shallow footing may serve the required bearing capacity with restriction to cater the
foundation loads from a structure of a building which is of G+2 in height until suitable ground
improvements are taken into considerations.
The first layer is extended around 5m below the ground surface following second layer of dense
sand for a thickness of 2.0m. As the first layer is governed by clay with weak soil properties in
terms of strength parameters and as the foundation for the structure is likely to be placed in that
layer, the Hansen Brinch Equation in addition of Vesics equation as recommended in
IS:6403-1981 is found more suitable for calculation of bearing capacity for this specific site.
However, the effects of pressure bulb will emerged into the second layer and which is desired
because of strong soil properties of the soil layer for an average width of 2.0m. It is restricted
that the width of foundation shall be restricted to 3.0m for isolated and strip footing so that the
pressure bulb will always end within the second layer which is desired.
As per the clause 5.1.2 of IS: 6403(1981), the ultimate net bearing capacity of shallow
foundations in case of local shear failure
qnf = 0.67cNcscdcic + q (Nq 1) sqdqiq + 0.5BNsdqiW
Where, Nc Nq N are the bearing capacity factors in case of local shear failure.
18 CECSPL
Sc, Sq and S are the shape factors.
dc, dq, and d are the depth factors.
ic, iq, and i are the inclination factors.
B is the least dimension of the foundation in meter.
is the bulk unit weight of foundation soil in t/m3
q is the effective stress at the foundation level in t/m3
W is the correction factor for location of water table
Considering pressure bulb to be limited up-to second layer and considering first and
second layer as Cohesive Soil, the equation as above may be reduced to
qnf = 0.67cNcscdcic
(This equation is herein limited only for isolated and strip footing whereas for raft the
basic equation is used considering the soil as c- soil)
B. Sample Calculation Of Bearing Capacity Against Shear Failure Considering Borehole-2:
Founding level: 1.5 meters below average ground level
Below a sample calculations have been made:
i) Isolated footing of 1.0 m X 1.0 m size:
Sc = 1.30, Sq = 1.20, S=0.80 , dc = 1.30, dq =d=1, Nc =5.14, ic = iq = i =1.0, D = 1.5m,

cu avg = 3.18 t/m2, avg. =1.80 t/m3 , B=1.0 m,
Undrained Cohesion value has been considered as the average of the values within the depth of
influence zone of the pressure bulb.
As per IS code clause 5.12 of (IS: 6403-1981) the formula for bearing capacity is as follows: -
qnf = 0.67cNcscdcic
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity:
qnf = 18.42 t/ m 2
Safe Bearing Capacity:
qa = 18.42/2.5 = 7.37t/ m2 .
Check for Settlement:

19 CECSPL
Immediate settlement (Si) = pB (1-2) I/E
p = 7.37t/m2
B = 1.00 m
= 0.40
I = 1.12
E = 1272t/m2. (Considering E= 400 Cuavg. = 400 x 3.18)
So, Si = 5.45mm
Consolidation Settlement
(NC) Normaly Consolidated If 'c <'0<('0+'avg)

Over Consolidated
(OC)-1 Condition-1 If ('0+'avg)<'c
(OC)-2 Condition-2 If '0 <'c<('0+'avg)

Test for Consolidation State Over Consolidation Ratio (OCR)= 'c/'eff. 9.75 <2 Hence it is not the case of NC Soil
>2 Hence OC Soil
Layer-1 Test for OC-1 3.8425 <'c Hence in OC-1

Test for OC-2 'c> 3.8425 Hence not in OC-2
Sc (OC-1)= (Cs * Hc)/(1+e0)*Log(('0+'avg)/'0)
OUTPUT
Avg. initial
Net Safe Mid-Depth Submerge Degree Pre- eff.
Bearing of Unit d Unit Normal of Initial Thickness consolidation Vertical Increase in Present eff.
Depth Width Length Capacity Influence Weight Weight Moisture Sp. Saturati Void of clay Compression Swelling Pressure stress eff. Vertical Vertical
2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Layer (m) (m) (m) (t/m ) (m) (t/m ) (t/m ) Content Gravity on Ratio layer (m) Index Index (t/m ) (t/m ) stress(t/m ) stress(t/m ) Sc (OC-1)
Df B L q Z ' G Sr e0 Hc Cc Cs 'c '0 'avg 'eff. (mm)
Layer-1 1.5 1 1 7.37 1 1.8 0.8 0.223 2.68 1 0.598 2 0.1 0.0316 19.5 2 1.8425 2 11.2
Total Settlement = (SI) + (Sc) = 5.45+11.2 = 16.65mm < 50 mm, which is safe.
Therefore, allowable bearing capacity = 7.37t/m2
20 CECSPL
NET ULTIMATE SAFE BEARING CAPACITY

Table: 7.1 Net Ultimate Safe Bearing Capacity Table of Shallow Foundation
Net
Depth Ultimate Maximum
of Foundation Type of Safe Permissible
Size
below E.G.L. Foundation Bearing Settlement
(m) Capacity (mm)
t/m2
1.0 m x 1.0 m 7.37

1.5 m x 1.5 m 6.80
ISOLATED 50
2.0 m x 2.0 m 6.52
2.5 m x 2.5 m 6.35
3mx3m 6.23
1.0 m Wide
1.50
(L/B = 5) 5.67
(at R.L-98.5m)
1.5 m Wide
(L/B = 5) 5.23
2.0 m Wide
STRIP 50
(L/B = 5) 5.01
2.5 m Wide
(L/B = 5) 4.88
3.0 m Wide
(L/B = 5) 4.79
1.20m 5.0 m 5.0 m 7.5
(at R.L 98.80m) 75
7. 5 m 7.5 m
RAFT 8.16
21 CECSPL
7.2 FOUNDATION PROPOSAL
The soil deposit of the location consists of five strata within the depth of 15.45m. The top soil is soft to
very soft clay suitable for placing footing at shallow depth provided the pressure bulb of footing shall be
restricted up-to second layer which is good in strength. The second layer is dense sand with good
strength properties. The third layer is of soft clay again. The fourth layer is much stiffer clay with good
strength as revealed from its N value. The last layer within the bored depth reveals very dense sand.
The proposal for foundation for the construction of Residential Building (G+2) may be considered by
shallow footing limited to the fact that pressure bulb of the footing shall not exceed the second
layer. Hence the footing width is restricted up-to 3.0m. Allowable pressure for shallow foundation in
terms of isolated and strip at a depth of 1.5m and the raft of two different sizes at depth of 1.2m have
been given in Clause: 7.1 under Table 7.1. The Designer should properly make decision for adopting
the size of the footing depending upon the requirements of the actual loading of superstructure on
optimal basis.
22 CECSPL
8.0 DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
From the information, as supplied by the client, it is known that there is a proposal of one
Residential building (G+2) at Nayapara (near Kalibari), Agartala on the land of Mr.
Debabrata Choudhury. However, whatever be the type, height & nature of structure its
foundation design should satisfy two basic criteria. They are as follows:
1.There must be adequate factor of safety against shear failure.
2.The settlement of footings must be within permissible limits
On the basis of field and laboratory test result and rational judgments on the test
results, the following features are summarized:
The subsoil properties of the soil layers comparatively weak in top layer however
supported by very good dense sand layer at its very next second layer. The top layer of soft clay
covers an average depth of 5m and which is fortunately supported by next dense sand layer and
able to cater superstructure load considering the load from (G+2) building. The second layer of
dense fine sand covers a further depth of 2.0m can contribute the strength if pressure bulb lies in
this depth. The third layer is of soft clay and incapable of contributing the strength of the soil as per
demand. After careful study of all tests which includes Field Tests and Laboratory Tests for the
boreholes dug in the site 05 (five) distinct layers have been identified and considering all the
features of the layers it is realized that, soil is safe in terms of load carrying capacity as well as in
settlement if shallow foundation in different forms are considered. The net safe ultimate bearing
capacity is tabulated in Table 7.1. On the basis of field and laboratory test result and rational
judgments on the test results and observations, our recommendations are summarized below:
i) For the proposed construction features, shallow foundation in terms of isolated, strip or raft
foundation have been recommended which may be placed in the stratumI for all bore holes as
the case may be, at a depth of 1.5m for isolated and strip footing and at a depth of 1.2m for raft if
considered.
ii) Depth of foundation given at this stage for the easy of Structural Design office. Allowable
bearing capacities for different conventional sizes of footing have been given in Table 7.1. The net
safe bearing capacity of the soil has been given in the same tables. Structural Designer may choose
bearing capacity as per the requirements.
23 CECSPL
iii) Backfilling of foundation pits should be of good quality earth, which should be properly
compacted.
iv) Due consideration should be given to open excavation of any sort. All sorts of
precautionary measures are to be adopted to avoid excessive ground settlement & damage to
adjoining structures.
v) The foundation appraisal is for up-to (G+2) storied height. For taller structure foundation
appraisal has to be made with the soil data presented in this report.
vi) When working near existing structures, care should be taken to avoid damage to such
structures by suitable measures.
vii) Another borehole must be bored, tested and compared with the present bore-log to finalize
and attest the present recommendation with or without modification.
Prepared by Checked & Approved by
Rana Chattaraj Er. M. K. Deb

(M.C.E-Soil mechanics and foundation Engg-JU) (M.C.E, MIGS, P.E, Chartered Engineer)
(Geotechnical Engineer) Managing Director
CECSPL CECSPL
24 CECSPL
ANNEXURE I
25 CECSPL
BORELOG DATA SHEET

B.H.: 01
Boring Method: Shell & Auger & Wash
Site: Nayapara, Dharmanagar Samples Nos
Boring.
Client: Mr. D. Choudhury, Nayapara, Undisturbed (U) 02
Water Level: 0.53 m below GL
Dharmanagar
Penetrometer (P) 08
Boring Diameter: 150 mm. Depth of Bore hole: 15.45 m.
Disturbed (D) 00
Casing Diameter: 150 mm. Commenced on: 26.03.2017 Ground/Bed R.L.
Boring equipment: Motorized Cable Tool. Completed on: 27.03.2017 100.0 m
Depth (m) N- Samples
Description Thickness
From To Value Type Ref No Depth (m)
Brownish to greyish to 0.00 5.0 5.0 N/A UDS U-1/1 1.50 - 1.95
steel greyish sandy soft
clay with kankar N/A UDS U-1/2 3.00 - 3.45
02 SPT P-1/1 4.50 - 4.95
Steel Greyish clayey

silty fine dense sand 5.0 7.0 2.0 60 SPT P-1/2 6.00 - 6.45
Greyish to steel 7.0 8.5 1.5 03 SPT P-1/3 7.50 - 7.95

greyishsandy silty soft
clay
Greyish to steel greyish 8.5 9.5 1.0 23 SPT P-1/4 9.00 - 9.45
sandy silty medium to
stiff clay
50 SPT P-1/5 10.50 - 10.95
Steel greyish silty fine 9.5 15.45 5.95
dense sand 80 SPT P-1/6 12.00 - 12.45
90 SPT P-1/7 13.50 - 13.95
100 SPT P-1/8 15.00 - 15.45
26 CECSPL
ANNEXURE II
27 CECSPL
"N"Vs. Depth (BH-1)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-2
Field N-value
-4
Depth below G.L (m)
Corrected N-value
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
N-value
28 CECSPL
ANNEXURE III
29 CECSPL
30 CECSPL
ANNEXURE IV
31 CECSPL
e vs logp curve
B.H-1
Depth- 1.50 to 1.95 m
0.860 'c = 1.95 Kg/cm2 'c = 2.3 Kg/cm2
0.840
Void ratio (e)
0.820
Cc= 0.100
0.800
Cc= 0.0963
Cs=0.0316
0.780
Cs=0.0290
Consolidation pressure (kg/cm2)

0.760 P
0.1 1 10 100
e vs logp curve
B.H-1
Depth- 3.00 to 3.45 m
0.790
'c = 1.75 Kg/cm2 'c = 2.3 Kg/cm2
0.770
0.750
Void ratio (e)
0.730
0.710
Cc= 0.123
0.690
0.670 Cc= 0.0963

Cs=0.030
0.650
Cs=0.0290
0.630
Consolidation pressure (kg/cm2)
0.610 P
0.1 1 10 100
32 CECSPL
ANNEXURE V
33 CECSPL
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

BH-1 BH-1
AT DEPTH 1.00 M TO 1.45M AT DEPTH 3.00 M TO 3.45M
100.00 100.00
90.00 90.00
PERCENTAGE FINER
PERCENTAGE FINER
80.00 80.00
70.00 70.00
By Hydrometer By Hydrometer
60.00 60.00
By Sieve By Sieve
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PARTICLE SIZE IN mm PARTICLE SIZE IN mm
Gravel Sand Silt Clay Gravel Sand Silt Clay
CECSPL 34

Gti Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gti Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Job No-CECSPL/Pvt.

-DC-DMR/201707277, Site: Nayapara, Dharmanagar, Tripura (North)

GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (G+2) OF MR.

Mr. Debabrata Choudhury,

Arpita Bhavan, Jail

7.0 DISCUSSION ON FOUNDATION ASPECTS 18

7.1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOOTING 18-21

7.2 FOUNDATION PROPOSAL 22

8.0 DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 23-24

2.0 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.0 INVESTIGATION SCHEME AND LOCATION OF TESTS

The sketch showing location of boreholes is given in the following page.

4.0 FIELD OPERATION

4.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Table: 4.1 Boring Summary

Bore measured from the

4.4 GROUND WATER

Table: 4.2 Ground Water Table

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND GROUND CONDITION

5.0 LABORATORY TEST

I. Natural Moisture Content.

Laboratory Test Results

Bulk Density (T/Cum)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

1.95 steel greyish sandy soft

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT

Table: 5.3 N Value Corrections

Depth R.L of Effective 'N' Value after 'N' Value

1 7.6 1.5 98.5 11.4 1.795 N/A N/A N/A

6.0 GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES & PROFILE:

Table:-6.1 Soil Stratum Detail

Natural moisture content (%) 21.5 22.3

Natural moisture content (%) N/A

Natural moisture content (%) = N/A

Natural moisture content (%) = N/A

7.0 DISCUSSION ON FOUNDATION ASPECTS:

7.1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PILE FOUNDATION

qnf = 0.67cNcscdcic + q (Nq 1) sqdqiq + 0.5BNsdqiW

Sc, Sq and S are the shape factors.

dc, dq, and d are the depth factors.

ic, iq, and i are the inclination factors.

B is the least dimension of the foundation in meter.

is the bulk unit weight of foundation soil in t/m3

q is the effective stress at the foundation level in t/m3

W is the correction factor for location of water table

B. Sample Calculation Of Bearing Capacity Against Shear Failure Considering Borehole-2:

Founding level: 1.5 meters below average ground level

Below a sample calculations have been made:

i) Isolated footing of 1.0 m X 1.0 m size:

Sc = 1.30, Sq = 1.20, S=0.80 , dc = 1.30, dq =d=1, Nc =5.14, ic = iq = i =1.0, D = 1.5m,

Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity:

Safe Bearing Capacity:

Check for Settlement:

Immediate settlement (Si) = pB (1-2) I/E

(NC) Normaly Consolidated If 'c <'0<('0+'avg)

(OC)-2 Condition-2 If '0 <'c<('0+'avg)

Layer-1 Test for OC-1 3.8425 <'c Hence in OC-1

Sc (OC-1)= (Cs * Hc)/(1+e0)*Log(('0+'avg)/'0)

Therefore, allowable bearing capacity = 7.37t/m2

NET ULTIMATE SAFE BEARING CAPACITY

1.0 m x 1.0 m 7.37

7.2 FOUNDATION PROPOSAL