Soil Investigation Works for

Mulberry Hotel
Building Construction Site
at Thamel, Kathmandu

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 of soil parameters and strata have been attempted to
determine the safety assessment of newly constructing building during earthquakes around
the
construction site area. 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 building construction site.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

Soil investigation works for Mulberry Hotel Building Construction Site is located at Thamel,
Kathmandu District. It is by the side of the city road. This site is developed as a multi storey
building construction site 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 549 m 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.

The proposed building site is kept within the Gokarna Formation (gkr) at the Engineering
geological map of Kathmandu Valley Prepared by Department of mines and Geology. This
unit occupies the central part of the Valley and north of Kalimati Formation. It is
represented by light to brownish gray; fine laminated and poorly graded silty sand.
Intercalations of clay of variable thickness are common in the upper part. Layers of white
Thimi diatomite of up to 1 m thickness are present. The total thickness of this unit is
generally up to 300 m.

1
3. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work includes drilling of three nos. of boreholes upto a depth of 18.0m, 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 seismic analysis.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Field Work Procedure

Field works involved Percussion Drilling mechanism for drilling and sampling of the
boreholes in side the building area where it was applicable to the maximum depth of 18.0m
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 borehole logs are attached to the annexes are later
verified by lab test results.

4.1.1 In-situ Tests

Standard Penetration Test (SPT): 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): 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. The dynamic cone
resistance value can be changed into SPT value according as:
Nc = 1.5 N for depths upto 3.00 m
Nc = 1.75 N for depths 3.00 m to 6.00 m
Nc = 2.00 N for depths greater than 6.00 m
Where,
Nc = recorded DCP value
N = Standard Penetration value
The field values of SPT (N) are mentioned in the attached log sheets which are used for
Bearing Capacity (B.C.) values.

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 ()
found by using relationship developed by Halanakar & Uchida (1996);
() = 20 N cor  17 degree (i)
Ncor = corrected (N) value.

2
 But, in actual the field condition of sub- surface layers are not found homogenous. So, the
approximate 3/4th of the above value will be used for the general design purpose.
Hence,
() = 0.75 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 in 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 lab for analysis.

(ii) Undisturbed Sample:

Undisturbed samples were extracted by means of thin wall tube (Shelby Tube) which is used
for finding out the strength and compressibility characteristics. The tube was pushed into the
ground and the sample was recovered mechanically. The tube was sealed with wax and
wrapped with airtight polythene sheets and then bound by adhesive tapes and properly
labeled. The tube was properly packed and transported to the laboratory without any
disturbances.

The undisturbed soil samples were taken effectively below the proposed foundation depth
due to the presence of plastic silty layers which are shown in bore hole logs in the Annexes.

4.2 Laboratory Tests

Disturbed and Undisturbed samples were transported to the laboratory for the following tests.
a) Sieve analysis
b) Atterberg’s Limits
c) Natural Moisture Content
d) Bulk density and Dry Density
e) Specific Gravity
f) Direct shear test
g) Unconfined Compression Test
h) Consolidation Test and,
i) Chemical Analysis

5. ANALYSIS OF SOIL EXPLORATION

5.1 Strata

All the bore hole locations are taken in flat area of naturally deposited soils formed by
lacustrine deposits.
Briefly the soil profile seems as below :

3
 Bore Hole - 1
Depth
S. No. Soil Type Soil Description
(m)
1. 0.0 – 1.5 ML Dark gray soft low plastic clayey silts
2. 1.5 - 3.0 ML Black medium dense silts with fine sands
Light gray, brownish medium dense silty coarse to medium
3. 3.0 – 7.0 SM
sands
4. 7.0 – 9.0 SW Light gray, brownish medium dense well graded sands
5. 9.0 – 12.0 ML Black medium dense slight plastic silts with fine sands
6. 12.0 – 18.5 SW Gray, brownish medium to dense well graded sands

Bore Hole - 2
Depth
S. No. Soil Type Soil Description
(m)
1. 0.0 – 3.0 SP Brownish medium dense coarse to medium sands
2. 3.0 – 6.0 ML Black slight plastic clayey silts with fine sands
3. 6.0 – 9.0 SW Dark gray medium dense well graded sands with fines
Black medium dense slight plastic silts with coarse to fine
4. 9.0 – 12.0 ML
sands
5. 12.0 – 18.5 SP Gray medium to dense medium to fine sands

Bore Hole - 3
Depth
S. No. Soil Type Soil Description
(m)
1. 0.0 – 1.0 ML Dark gray plastic clayey silts with fine sands
2. 1.0 – 3.0 SM Black medium dense silty sands
3. 3.0 – 4.0 ML Black medium slight plastic silts with fine sands
4. 4.0 – 6.5 ML Black soft low plastic clayey silts
5. 6.5 – 8.0 SM Dark gray loose to medium dense silty coarse to fine sands
Gray brownish medium dense well graded sands
6. 8.0 – 11.0 SW
(coarse to medium sands)
7. 11.0 – 12.5 ML Black very stiff low plastic clayey silts
Gray, brownish medium to dense poorly graded sands
8. 12.5 – 18.5 SP
(medium to fine sands)

5.2 Moisture Content and Density

The natural moisture contents on the cohesive layers are found 32.65 to 44.74% and 15.91 to
22.00% for cohesionless sub- surface layers; having low to medium void ratios.

5.3 Water Level

4
 During the field investigation water table was observed after 24 hrs. and the completion of
each borehole. The seepage ground water level is found around 6.0m depths in all boreholes.
The exact water tables were demarcated in borehole logs.

5.4 Bearing Capacity

Bearing capacity of a soil is a difficult term to define. There are different rules and empirical
equations to calculate bearing capacity of the soil, and are based on detail study of soil in
various ways, like settlement, shearing characteristics, location of water table, type of
foundation etc.

5.4.1 Bearing Capacity Analysis

At the building site, types of soil strata are uniform but their spatial distribution and thickness
is variable. The dominant stratification is cohesive soils having clayey silts and silty sands
with medium to stiff and medium denseness respectively.

The building having multi storey with single basement, so the calculation of the bearing
capacity for mat foundation having 6.0 x 6.0m width in all borehole locations is consider for
the safe bearing capacity analysis.

A) Bearing Capacity of soil with shear properties

Terzaghi's Relation (1943)
qult = 1.3 CNc + sat DfNq Rw1 + 0.4 sat BN Rw2 ……….. (i)
qsafe = qult / F.S.
Where,
sat = Saturated Unit weight of the soil (KN/m3)
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)
Nc, N & Nq are bearing capacity factors are found for different shearing angle (0)
considering local shear failure criterion.
B = Width of foundation (m)
Df = Depth of foundation (m)
C = Cohesion (KN/m2)
F.S. = Factor of safety i.e., 3
Rw1 & Rw2 = Water correction factor = 0.5 for ground level
If soils have loose to medium denseness and soft to medium stiff consistency then the
foundation fails according as the local shear failure criterion.

5
 B) Bearing Capacity of strata with Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)
Dilatancy Correction:
Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
If Nr≤ 15 Use N = Nr
If Nr ≥15 then,
Nc = 15+1/2 (Nr-15)
Where,
Nc = corrected value of Nr
The dilatancy correction is applied to the silty sand layers.
Correction for overburden pressure,
From Peck, Hansen and Thornburn (1974)
Ncorr = 0.77 Nc log (2000/')
Where,
Nc = SPT value from field after dilatancy correction
' = effective overburden pressure in KN/m2
Standardize Field Penetration Value:
N c  H B S R
N60 =
60
Where,
N60 = Standard penetration number, corrected for field conditions to an
average energy ration of 60%
Nc = measured penetration number
ηH = hammer efficiency (%)
ηB = correction for borehole diameter
ηS = sampler correction
ηR = correction for rod length

For Mat Foundation (6 x 6)m2

Using Meyerhof's (1965) & Bowles (1977) Correlation
2
 3.28 B  1   S 
qsafe = 11.98 N60   fd   x R w1 KN/m2 ……… (iii)
 3 . 28 B   25 
Where,
N60 = Standardize Penetration Value
B = width (m)
S = Settlement (mm)
fd = 1+0.33 (D/B) ≤ 1.33
Rw1 = water correction factor = 0.5

Results: Although the stratigraphy profiles of boreholes at the proposed depth of foundation
levels have more or less uniform SPT values. Each value of SPT is taken for B.C. analysis.

The B.C. values from field and lab test results for Mat Foundations are presented as a
tabulated form in the Annexes with permissible settlements.
5.5 Settlement

6
 As described above ground strata are dominated by medium stiff cohesive layers and medium
dense semi-cohesionless strata consist of silty and sandy layers just below the foundation
depth. The strata are generally compressible for general loading condition thus; settlement
analysis is considered for this building construction site. But, the settlement of the foundation
could be checked for the bearing capacity value of maximum 100.0 & 50.0mm settlements.
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.
*Assuming the net increase in pressure at the foundation level due to construction of super
structure load is taken from the respective B.C. value.
Now, with average pore pressure coefficients for the clayey soil,
 = 0.7
Sf = *SOc
This total amount of settlement that will take place continuously for hundred of years
checked for the respective cohesive layers and lies within the ranges of permissible value
(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. Value is found for the permissible values(75mm). So, the B.C. values for 50mm
settlement could be used for the proposed building foundation design.
5.6 Subgrade Modulus
The modulus of sub grade reaction is an conceptual relationship between pressure and
deflection. It is defined as the ratio between the soil pressure and the corresponding
settlement mathematically.

Ks = qn/Sv …………………….. eq. (iii)

Generally, the followed method illustrate in different codes to get Ks are plate load test. For
the stratified soil with cohesive and cohesionless strata the only solution is the plate load test.
Different researchers have suggested alternative empirical approaches to get Ks.

Bowles method,
Ks = qnu/0.025

7
 = 40 qnu KN/m3 ……………. eq. (iv)

Sub grade modulus of soils below foundation depths

Sub grade modulus for clayey silt bed

4800.00 KN/m3
(3.0 – 7.50m depth)

6. SEISMICITY

Himalayas are one of the youngest mountains in the world, which are in the mobile state and
consequently, earthquakes are frequent in the whole mountainous region including Nepal.
Statistics based on catalogue of UNDP/UNCHS (1994) is given below the table. Which
shows occurrence of earthquake in Kathmandu valley in the last 100 years, of which the
survivor was in 1934. The epicenter map (Pandey et. Al, 2002) shows that the seismicity is
more active in the eastern and western part of Nepal Himalayas where as the Central part of
Nepal has shown less seismicity. Bilham (1995) has pointed out that this zone may be a
seismic gap, where stress is accumulating to be relieved in a very large earthquake in future.
LIST OF EARTHQUAKE NEAR KATHMANDU
Epicentral Distance
Date Latitude Longitude Magnitude (Ms)
from Ktm
1833/08/26 28.00 85.00 7.0 38
1833/10/04 27.00 85.00 7.0 84
1833/10/18 27.00 84.00 7.0 151
1869/07/07 28.00 85.00 7.0 45
1934/01/15 27.55 87.09 8.4 177
1936/05/27 28.50 83.50 7.0 199
1954/09/04 28.30 83.80 6.5 163
1988/08/20 26.75 86.62 6.5 167
There are three major faults in the Nepal Himalayas viz. Main Central Thrust (MCT), Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Frontal Thrust (MFT). They are running along the length
of Nepal Himalayas.

6.1 Seismological Setting of Kathmandu Valley

There are several faults and lineaments within Kathmandu Valley. These faults could be the
possible source for small to medium scale earthquakes that may occur within the valley,
causing severe damages.

The Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal, prepared by National Seismological Centre, Department
of Mines and Geology shows the peak ground horizontal acceleration in bedrock for five
hundred years return period, which corresponds to 10 % chance of exceeding in fifty years.
According to the map, Kathmandu Valley lies within the PGA of 200-250 gal.

6.2 Peak Ground Acceleration

Ministry of Home affairs, Government of Nepal and Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA) conducted a study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in Kathmandu Valley in the

8
 year 2002. For the study, scenario of three earthquakes of different magnitude and setting
were selected. Based on the seismic, seismotectonic and geological condition, scenario 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).

The study team predicted the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) within the valley. According
to the report of JICA (2002), the building site at Thamel will experience PGA values for the
above-mentioned Scenario and Bihar Nepal earthquake of 1934 as presented in below.
Peak Ground Acceleration To Different Scales Of Earthquakes
Name of
Mid Nepal North Bagmati KV Local Bihar Nepal
Earth
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake
Quake
PGA (gal) 200-300 100-200 200-300 200-300
Ms 8.0 6.0 5.7 8.4

6.3 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 Seed et al. (1971)

 cyc a max  v 0
 0.65 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)
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
 N1  60  N mC N
0.60 E ff

9
 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.
 cyc , L CSRL
FS l  
 cyc CSR

In the present study for building site, the computation of the liquefaction susceptibility could
not be found due to the presence of plastic clayey, silty layers and appreciable amount of
fines with sandy layers just below the foundation depth upto the depth of investigation. FS L
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 FS L value will be greater than 1.
Hence, the sub surface layer could not liquefy.

10
7. RECOMMENDATION

The bore hole logs show that the sub-soil strata consist of different uniformity of silty sands
with plastic clayey silt beds just below the foundation depth to the width of foundation depth.
Thus, it is recommended to provide Mat Foundation at any depth below the existing ground
level.
As the results derived for safe bearing capacity, the following are recommended:
i) Adopt a safe allowable bearing capacity for Mat Foundation at different depths of site
location as given below:
Mat Foundation :

Bore
Depth Recommended B.C. Value
Hole Remarks
(m) (KN/m2)
No.

3.0 186.82
4.5 221.30
1
6.0 225.15
7.5 225.21
3.0 108.12
4.5 122.14
2
6.0 201.45
7.5 207.94
3.0 136.14
4.5 67.75
3
6.0 66.67
7.5 186.05

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

iii) The proposed site could be considered safe against liquefaction.

iv) To increase the B.C. value around Bore Hole No. 3 area, provide 4.5m length 0.4m
dia. 1.2m c/c Stone Column/Gravel Pile having capacity of 81.0 KN.

v) The chemical analysis of soil and ground water at the site lies within the permissible
ranges.

11