A

REPORT ON

FIELD VISIT TO HATTIGAUNDA

BANSBARI, KATHMANDU

Submitted to:

ER. KISHOR BAGALE THAPA

(FOUNDATION ENGINEERING)

PREPARED BY:

HEM RAJ OLI (067/BCE/28)

HIMALAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CHYASAL-09, LALITPUR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report is all about field visit to a construction site as being related to Foundation Engineering. This
field visit was very much important and beneficial to us as being the students of Civil Engineering. It
has helped us to a great extent to gather some practical knowledge about some practical assets of
Foundation Engineering such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Auger boring, Wash boring, etc. and
their respective experimental setup.

I would like to thank specially our subject teacher Er. Kishor Bagale Thapa, who has done many
exercises to take us to the field visit. I would also like to thank our department head Er. Devendra Dev
Khanal who managed the environment to take us to such field visit. Lastly but not the least, I would
like to other college staffs and the members who have helped this field visit directly or indirectly to go
successfully.
Abstract:

This field visit was conducted by HIMALAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING for the BCE III/I
students as a part of Foundation Engineering. The purpose of this field visit was to make us aware of
Standard Penetration Test, Wash Boring, Auger Boring, etc. their setup, their application, problems that
arise during field work, sampling methods. The field visit was planned by our respected sir Er. Kishor
Bagale Thapa and other department officials. The aim of the visit was to make the students of Civil
Engineering to be enlightened with actual field work beside course of study, field problem and their
solutions. As only being observation type program, although not being performed by us, this field visit
gave us the practical knowledge of some topics related to Foundation Engineering.
 Table of contents:

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………...1

1.1-Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………2

1.2-Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………2

1.3-Limitation of field visit…………………….……………………………………………………..2

1.4-Signigicance of study……………………………………………………………………………..3

2. Discussion……………………………………….……………………………………………………9

2.1-Wash Boring………………………………………………………………………………………2

2.3-Auger Boring………………………………………………………………………………………2

2.3-Standard Penetration Test (SPT)…………………… ……………………………………………2

3. Recommendation……………………………………….……………………………………………9

4. Conclusion………………………………………..………………………………………………….13
 List of figures:

Fig 1: Truck mounted Wash Boring……………………………………………………………4

Fig 2: Hand Operated Augers ………………………..……………………………….………….5

Fig 3: Set up for Auger Boring and SPT…………………………………………………………7

 1. Introduction::

This field visit was done at Hattigaunda, Bansbari, Kathmandu Nepal by the date 09/02/2013. In the
field Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Auger boring, Wash boring, etc was observed and their setup of
the apparatus were analyzed. The construction was in progress and was performed by CG group under
the name CG Hills. Various soil tests end other engineering properties of soil were tested at the
construction site with utmost care. Actually for a reliable construction project, the durability of that
project depend upon the care of its foundation work which is strongly the function of study of soil as
every existing structures ever built rests finally on the soil and ultimately the load is to be transferred to
the soil. Hence soil is the final matter that wholly bears the structure load. So, soil property and its
behavior on imposed load should be somehow be forecasted for the construction project be on the safe
side. Some of the tests are SPT, CPT, Bore holes, Ground water observation, sampling and its testing,
including site investigations and other soil exploration processes. The depth of study whereas depends
largely upon the type of structure, available fund and the demand of owner or client.

1.1Objectives::

The main objectives of this field visits are as listed below:-

1. To observe how soil exploration program are carried out in field.

2. To observe type of soil tests carried out in the field and analyze their feasibility and importance
in various projects and places.
3. To familiarize with practical apparatus and their setup apart from theoretical study.
4. To analyze various difficulties that arises in field apart from theoretical ideal study.
5. To familiarize with the performance of various instruments, their operation methods and to
know how they really look like.
1.2 Methodology::

During the field visit both primary and secondary source of information’s were tackled with for the
collection of necessary knowledge of the field work that was going on. Various conversations were
made among the workers, supervisors and the field engineer about the construction work that was going
on and the effectiveness of the work was analyzed accordingly. Beside these source some other data
such as that from internet was also used. The information over there was analyzed and interpreted
accordingly.

1.3 Limitation of the field visit::

The corresponding field visit was limited to the construction site at Hattigaunda, Bansbari. The
conversation about the field work was confined within the supervisor, workers over there, and the site
engineer. No any conversation with the peoples beyond that site was made and no any subject beyond
that site was explained. However some websites were checked and information over there was analyzed
to get further more knowledge.

1.4 Significance of the field visit::

The information we got in the field visit was much more helpful and useful to us. This visit was of great
importance to us as the same experimental set up and apparatus will not be strange to us and hence we
will easily adapt such environment of engineering field.

2: Discussion::

As we know serious foundation problems are resulted due to carelessness in doing foundation jobs.
Generally they are not performed with utmost care, and if performed they are not given on the hands of
experts. They are either conducted under thumb rule or conducted under much carelessness as one
(owner or client) is only oriented with the cost of his/her construction cost and wants to minimize it as
much as possible. The bitter truth behind this fact is that the foundation is not seen from outside as a
superstructure does and hence a foundation does not have aesthetic values and given less priority, better
say no priority. Due to such less aesthetic values of foundation, superstructure is given much more
importance and foundation is behaved like a step child in a family. Another reason of ignorance of
foundation works is that as a foundation is given high priority then the overall cost of project would be
high which is unfavorable in eyes of owner or client. But its not completely true as the cost of
foundation work is not too high as people think if designed by a geotechnical engineer. A geotechnical
engineer will prepare a set of design of all promising type of foundation and will estimate corresponding
cost and the owner or client will be able to choose the foundation type with acceptable compromise
between its performance and cost. This leads to a foundation which will then be economic and of
owners’ choice.

In context of Nepal, foundation is not on main focus as it should be. This type of activity has shown
various serious unexpected results eg. tilt of structures, excessive or unequal settlement, cracks on
superstructure and even its complete collapse. These damages can be said as the revenge of foundation,
due to their ignorance in design. So foundation should be given more care as far as it is economic and
safe.

At field visit I was glad to see that various soil tests and various studies of soil properties and their
behavior were really performed besides those bulky books. This is good symbol that structures are being
built with great foundation care in developing countries like Nepal.

In our field visit we first saw the Wash Boring set up which over there was truck mounted. Although not
in operation at the time of field visit we got the opportunity to see the Wash Boring setup and we were
taught by our supervisor how that stuff works, its application and limitations of use. Then we moved to
see auger boring and finally saw SPT.

2.1 Wash Boring

The method consists of driving a casing pipe usually through a heavy drop hammer supported on a
tripod and pulley. Water is pushed under pressure through the hollow drill rod which may be rotated or
moved up and down inside the casing pipe. Sometimes instead of casing, special drilling fluids made up
of suspension or emulsions of fat clays or Bentonite combined with some chemical additives are used
for supporting the walls of borehole temporarily. The lower end of the drill rod, fitted with a sharp
cutting edge or chopping bit, cuts the soil. The soil thus cut gets mixed with water and floats up through
the annular space between the casing pipe and the drill rod. The slurry flowing out gives an indication of
the soil type. The change in soil strata can be surmised from the rate of progress of the slurry flowing
out. As heavier soil particles remain in suspension and get mixed up, so soil samples recovered from
wash water are of no value except soil type approximation. The water just pushed out by setup is reused
in further advancement of hole. After the required depth is reached, the borehole is cleaned and suitable
samplers are used to obtain soil samples for testing.

The equipments used in wash boring are relatively light, inexpensive and easily be transported as being
truck mounted. Hence its feasibility has increased in different scale construction activities.

Fig 1: Truck mounted Wash Boring

2.2 Auger Boring

An auger is a tool similar to one as used by carpenter for boring holes in wood, but to a large scale.
Boring by an auger is carried out by holding it vertically, pressing down and rotating the auger
simultaneously. The turning action cuts the soil which fills the annular space. The soil filled in annular
space is withdrawn and cleaned. The soil sample being highly disturbed is of no use other than
inspection and classification. Also in auger boring it seemed difficult to locate the change in soil strata.
Then cleaned auger is reinserted in the hole and the same process is repeated till the required depth is
reached. Then suitable sampler is used to take out the sample. The auger used there was of hand
operated types which are used up to limited depth. If the sides of hole are likely to cave in or shrink
excessively casing mar be used. The soil exploration by auger seemed to be economical and rapid too.
Fig 2. Hand Operated Augers

2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

This is especially used for cohesionless soils which cannot be easily sampled. The test is extremely
useful for determining the relative density and angle of shearing resistance of cohesionless soils. It is
also used to determine the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils.

The standard penetration test consists of a split spoon sampler which further consists of a driving shoe, a
split barrel of circular cross section which is longitudinally split into two parts and a coupling. When the
borehole is already advanced to required depth then it is used to take out the soil sample. The sampler is
then lowered to desired depth and made to rest at the bottom vertically. The sampler is then driven into
soil for a distance of 450mm with the help of blows of a monkey hammer (65 kg) with a free fall height
of 750mm. The number of blows required to penetrate each 150mm is noted while driving the sampler
into the soil. The rate of blows is maintained nearly about 30 blows per minute. The number of blows
required to penetrate the soil sampler to first 150mm called ‘seating drive’ is disregarded and the
number of blows required to penetrate the sampler to further 300mm is summed up and defined as N-
value for the soil at that depth. The split spoon sampler is then withdrawn from the hole and
disassembled from drill rods. Then split barrel is disconnected from cutting shoe and coupling. The soil
sample inside the split barrel is carefully collected so as to preserve natural moisture content and
transported to laboratory for further tests. The SPT is carried intervals of 750mm or 1500mm depending
upon vertical extent of boring.

Thus obtained N-value is further corrected for Dilatancy correction and Overburden correction to get
final corrected N-value which is very important parameter for further study of properties of soil. As the
angle of shearing resistance (φ) of cohesionless soil depends upon number N, the consistency and
unconfined compressive strength of the cohesive soils can be approximated from N-value, N-value has
great importance. Hence this experiment has much more importance

In the field visit N-value was found very fast (N=5), which symbolized very loose state soil at the
performed depth.

Fig 3. Set up for Auger Boring and SPT

3: RECOMMENDATIONS::

This field visit has been fruitful to us, being the students of civil engineering one should be aware with
these experiments. As seen at the field I recommend following at the field work.

 Soil samples to be handled much carefully and protection

 Giving much care while reading N-value as it is very much important parameter

4: Conclusion::

As already mentioned this field visit has been very much beneficial to us. As being students of civil
engineering we must be aware of all the experiment, their setup, their operation mechanism, their point
of application, their importance, feasibility, etc should be at least known to us. This field visit has taught
us many lessons and gave us a chance to gather various knowledge about field work, problems in field,
their solutions, etc. Apart from theoretical study this visit has great importance.