Soil Report Tanahu Bhanu Hospital Building

Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT
OF
15-BED BHANU HOSPITAL BUILDING

PURANDEHI, BHANU MUNICIPALITY, TANAHU
Prepared For: Head Light Pvt. Ltd., Basundhara, Kathmandu
Date: February 2021

Prepared By: Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd.
Chandragiri-14, Naikap, Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact: 9851219947
Table of Contents
Table of Content
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................. 1
3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Penetration Tests ................................................................................................................. 1
3.2 Sampling.............................................................................................................................. 2
3.3 Ground Water Table ............................................................................................................ 2
4. LABORATORY TESTS ........................................................................................................... 3
5. STANDARDIZATION OF SPT VALUE ................................................................................. 3
6. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE SITE .................................................................................... 4
7. SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION ..................................................................................... 5
8. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 11
8.1 For Open foundation ......................................................................................................... 11
8.2 For bored cast in-situ concrete piles .................................................................................. 14
9. SAMPLE CALCULATION .................................................................................................... 16
10. RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................................ 18
Annexes:
Bore Hole Logs
Laboratory Test Result
Figures and photographs
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1: Standard Penetration Test ................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2: Geological map of Nepal showing the site location lying on the Lesser Himalaya Zone.
(modified from Dahal, 2006) ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Probabilistic Seismic hazard of Nepal................................................................................ 5
List of Tables
Table 1: The Laboratory Tests and their referred codes. ................................................................... 3
Table 2: Correction of Field SPT values............................................................................................ 4
Table 3: The level of liquefaction Severity........................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Liquefaction Analysis for BH1 for PGA =0.30g, M=7.5, GWT at 1.50 m ......................... 8
Table 5: Liquefaction Analysis for BH2 for PGA =0.30g, M=7.5, GWT at 1.50 m ......................... 9
Table 6: Liquefaction Analysis for BH3 for PGA =0.30g, M=7.5, GWT at 1.50 m ....................... 10
Table 7: Recommended Bearing Capacity for Isolated footing....................................................... 18
Table 8: Recommended Bearing Capacity for Raft Foundation. ..................................................... 18
Table 9: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soil. ....................................................................... 18
Soil Report: 15-Bed Bhanu Hospital Building
Purandehi, Bhanu Municipality, Tanahu
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This report is prepared as per the agreement between Bhanu Municipality, Phusretar, Tanahu and Head
Light Pvt. Ltd., Basundhara, Kathmandu to determine bearing capacity and subsurface exploration for
the foundation design of 15-Bed Bhanu Hospital Building located in Purandehi, Bhanu Municipality,
Tanahu, Nepal. Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd., Chandragiri-14, Naikap, Kathmandu Nepal has taken
responsibility for the soil investigation and preparation of report for this project.
2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The scope of work includes the following:
 Drilling of bore holes each of 15.0 m depth at three specified locations.
 Conducting standard penetration tests in the boreholes at 1.50 m interval in depth & at every
change of strata, whichever is earlier.
 Collecting disturbed soil samples from bore holes at regular interval and at every
identifiable change of strata to supplement the boring records.
 Recording the depth of ground water table in all the boreholes if observed up to the depth
of exploration during boring work as per specifications.
 Conducting the laboratory tests on selected disturbed / undisturbed soil samples collected
from various bore holes, Preparation and submission of reports.
3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Penetration Tests
Standard Penetration Tests: 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 150 mm into the soil at the bottom of the
borehole. It is then driven further 300 mm and the number
of blows (N values) required to drive this distance is
recorded. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were
conducted in the boreholes at 1.5 m intervals. The tests
were conducted in accordance with IS:2131-1981. Figure 1: Standard Penetration Test
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT): It consists of driving a cone by blows of hammers. The
number of blows for driving the cone through a specified distance is a measure of the dynamic cone
Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 1

resistance. Dynamic Cone Penetration test are performed by a 50 mm cone. The method for DCPT is
similar to that of SPT. First of all the cone is driven 100 mm into the soil at the bottom of the bore
hole. It is then driven further 200 mm and the number of blows (Ncbr values) required to drive this
distance is recorded.
The result i.e., Nc values first corrected to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value (N) and that
provides and estimation of degree of compaction of soil strata, values of angles of internal friction ()
and allowable bearing capacity. The dynamic cone resistance is correlated with the SPT (N) as given
below.
Nc = 1.5 N for depth up to 3 m
= 1.75 N for depth 3 to 6 m
= 2 N for depth greater than 6 m
3.2 Sampling
(i) Disturbed Sample:
Disturbed samples were collected from the split spoon after conducting SPT. Before any sample was
taken, the borehole was cleaned up of loose disturbed soil deposited during boring operation. The
samples which were obtained from bailer and in the SPT tube were preserved as representative
disturbed samples for finding out index 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 Sample are extracted by means of thin wall tube (Shelby tube). The tubes are pushed into
the ground and the samples are recovered mechanically. The tube are sealed with wax and wrapped
with airtight polythene sheets and then bound by adhesive tapes and properly labelled. The tubes were
properly packed in a wooden box so as to minimize the disturbances during transportation to the
laboratory and avoided the changes of moisture content of sample. These sample are used for the
determination of strength and consolidation parameters.
3.3 Ground Water Table

Prediction of depth of ground water table needs the installation of piezometers and regular monitoring
of those for at least a year. Since, the time frame and the installation are beyond the scope of the work,
visual examination was performed to find the depth. Ground Water Table (GWT) was monitored at
the depth as mentioned in borehole log sheet attached in annex of this report.

4. LABORATORY TESTS
The laboratory tests were conducted on selected representative disturbed and undisturbed samples
collected in core boxes, were transported to lab in Kathmandu, Nepal. All of the tests were conducted
confirming to the specifications as per IS codes. The following tests were conducted:
Table 1: The Laboratory Tests and their referred codes.
SN Type of Test IS Code Referred Remarks
1 Bulk and dry density By Calculations
2 Moisture content IS:2720 (Part-2)-1992
3 Grain size/ Hydrometer analysis IS:2720 (Part-4)-1992
4 Atterberg Limits IS:2720 (Part-5)-1992
5 Specific Gravity IS:2720 (Part-3)-1992
6 Drained Direct shear test IS:2720 (Part-13)-1986
The results of laboratory tests have been presented in the annex section of this report.
5. STANDARDIZATION OF SPT VALUE

The recorded SPT values are converted to standardized energy N60 as per Skempton (1986):
N rec η H η B ηS η R
N 60 =
60
N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
Nrec = measured penetration number
ηH = hammer efficiency (%) = 0.55 for hand drop hammer
ηB = correction for borehole diameter = 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole
ηS = sampler correction =1.0 for standard sampler
ηR = correction for rod length = 0.7 for rod length 0.0 – 3.0 m
= 0.75 for rod length 3.0 – 4.0 m
= 0.85 for rod length 4.0 – 6.0 m
= 0.95 for rod length 6.0 – 10.0 m
= 1.0 for rod length greater than 10.0 m
Correction for Overburden:
In granular soils, the value of N is affected by the effective overburden pressure. For that reason, the
value of N60 obtained from field exploration under different effective overburden pressures should be
changed to correspond to a standard value. That is, (N1)60 = CNN60
100
where, C N = as per Liao and Whitman 1987
σz '
Dilatancy Correction (for fine sand and silts below water table)
Terzaghi and Peck (1976) gave correction for water pressure as,

If Nrec ≤ 15, then Ncorr =Nrec

Nrec ≥ Ncorr = ½(Nrec-15)
Table 2: Correction of Field SPT values.
Correction for (N1)60

Depth Measured SPT
(m) Hammer Rod Borehole Sampler
Overburden BH1 BH2 BH3
BH1 BH2 BH3 efficiency Length diameter Type
1.5 m 15 13 13 1.70 0.55 1 0.70 1 16.00 14.54 13.82
3.0 m 23 18 18 1.70 0.55 1 0.70 1 25.45 19.64 19.64
4.5 m 25 29 25 1.70 0.55 1 0.85 1 33.30 37.85 32.55
6.0 m 34 34 26 1.57 0.55 1 0.85 1 41.13 41.13 31.37
7.5 m 38 35 28 1.40 0.55 1 0.95 1 45.73 42.07 33.53
9.0 m 42 43 32 1.27 0.55 1 0.95 1 46.58 47.14 34.94
10.5 m 45 45 38 1.17 0.55 1 1 1 48.46 47.92 40.39
12.0 m 47 50 46 1.09 0.55 1 1 1 47.01 49.51 45.51
13.5 m 50 50 48 1.03 0.55 1 1 1 46.68 47.15 45.26
15.0 m 50 50 50 0.98 0.55 1 1 1 44.28 44.73 44.28
1.
6. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE SITE
Figure 2: Geological map of Nepal showing the site location lying on the Lesser Himalaya Zone.
(modified from Dahal, 2006)
The propose site lies in Tanahu District. Geologically, the proposed site area for the Geotechnical
investigation lies in the Lesser Himalayan Zone. The proposed site primarily lies in Lesser Himalaya
zone between the Sub-Himalaya (Siwaliks) in the south and Higher Himalaya zone in the north. The

Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) separates Siwaliks at the south and Main Central thrust separates Higher
Himalaya at the north and west. The Siwalik rocks are basically consisting of sedimentary rocks
(mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate), while the Lesser Himalayan rocks are basically the low
grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., slate, phyllite, schists, garnet-schists, metasandstone and quartzite).
Generally, the range exhibits very rugged terrain with deeply dissected gullies and steep slopes.
7. SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION
Figure 3: Probabilistic Seismic hazard of Nepal.
Ground motion can be simply quantified by peak values of expectable acceleration, velocity and/or
displacement. Empirical relationships, called attenuation equations, can be derived from the
interpretation of available strong motion records and relate peak ground motion parameters to
magnitude and distance from the source of energy release. Attenuation equations are sensitive to the
estimates of distance and magnitude, especially in the near-field. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) often
represents the main seismic evaluation parameter for simplified analysis purposes. The peak ground
acceleration (usually as a fraction of the peak) is the earthquake ground motion parameter usually used
in the seismic coefficient method of analysis. Attenuation model of Young’s et al (1997) for subduction
zones for bed rock was used in development of seismic hazard map of Nepal.
When fine or medium, saturated, loose sand deposit is subjected to a sudden shock (generated by an
earthquake) the mass will densify and consolidate or temporarily liquefy. This phenomenon is termed
'Liquefaction'. Pore-water pressures within such layers increase as the soils are cyclically loaded,
resulting in a decrease in vertical effective stress and shear strength. If the shear strength drops below
the applied cyclic shear loadings, the layer is expected to transition to a semi fluid state until the excess

pore-water pressure dissipates. When liquefaction takes place in a particular soil then the bearing
capacity of the soil disappears and the structure built on it gets tilts or even sinks. The past big
earthquakes, have shown that saturated sandy soils in a loose to medium dense condition were liquefied
during earthquakes varying in magnitude from 5.5 to 8.5 (Richter scale) and epicenter distance from
several miles to hundreds of miles.
Analysis of Liquefaction
The stress-based approach for evaluating the potential for liquefaction triggering, initiated by Seed and
Idriss (1967), compares the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratios (CSR) with the cyclic resistance
ratios (CRR) of the soil. The soil's CRR is usually correlated to an in-situ parameter SPT blow count.
Factor of safety is evaluated as,
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5
𝐹𝑂𝑆 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅7.5,𝜎
where, CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio for earthquake of magnitude 7.5
CSR7.5,σ = normalized cyclic stress ratio for earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 and effective
overburden pressure of 100kPa.
𝜎𝑣 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑟𝑑 1
𝐶𝑆𝑅7.5,𝜎 = 0.65
𝜎′𝑣 𝑔 𝑀𝑆𝐹 𝐾𝜎
where, σv = the total vertical sress at depth z
σ’v = the effective vertical sress at depth z
amax/g = maximum horizontal acceleration (as fraction of gravity) at ground surface,
rd = shear stress reduction factor that accounts for the dynamic response of the soil.
𝑟𝑑 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝[𝛼(𝑧) + 𝛽(𝑧). 𝑀]
𝑧
𝛼(𝑧) = −1.012 − 1.126𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( + 5.133)
11.73
𝑧
𝛽(𝑧) = 0.106 + 0.118𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( + 5.142)
11.28
−𝑀
MSF= magnitude scaling factor = 6.9𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 0.058 ≤ 1.8 for sands
4
−𝑀
= 1.12𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) + .828 ≤ 1.13 for clays
4
𝜎′𝑣
Kσ = overburden correction factor = 1 − 𝐶𝜎 𝑙𝑛 ( ) ≤ 1.1
𝑃𝑎
1
𝐶𝜎 = ≤ 0.3
18.9 − 2.55√(𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠 )
(𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠 = (𝑁1)60 + ∆(𝑁1)60
2
9.7 15.7
∆(𝑁1)60 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (1.63 + −( ) )
𝐹𝐶 + 0.01 𝐹𝐶 + 0.01
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the capacity of soil to resist liquefaction, can be obtained from

the corrected blow count and soil’s fine content.

𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5,1𝑎𝑡𝑚 = 𝑓[(𝑁1)60 ), 𝐹𝐶]
2 3 4
(𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1)60𝑐𝑠
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5,1𝑎𝑡𝑚 = exp ( +( ) −( ) +( ) − 2.8)
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is a single-valued parameter to evaluate regional liquefaction

potential. Although, Factor of Safety (FS) shows the liquefaction potential of a soil layer at a particular
depth in the subsurface, it does not show the degree of liquefaction severity at a liquefaction-prone
site. Iwasaki et al. (1978) proposed liquefaction potential index (LPI) to overcome this limitation of
Factor of Safety (FS). Liquefaction potential index (LPI) provides an integration of liquefaction
potential over the depth of a soil profile and predicts the performance of the whole soil column as
opposed to a single soil layer at particular depth and depends on the magnitude of the peak horizontal
ground acceleration (Luna and Frost, 1998). LPI combines depth, thickness, and factor of safety against
liquefaction (FS) of soil layers and predicts the potential of liquefaction to cause damage at the surface
level at the site of interest.
LPI at a site is computed by integrating the factors of safety (FS) along the soil column up to 20 m
depth. A weighting function is added to give more weight to the layers closer to the ground surface.
The liquefaction potential index (LPI) proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1978, 1982) is expressed as follows:
where z is depth of the midpoint of the soil layer (0 to 20 m) and dz is differential increment of depth.
The weighting factor, w(z), and the severity factor, F (z), are calculated as per the following
expressions:
F (z) = 1 − FS for FS < 1.0
F (z) = 0 for FS ≥ 1.0
w(z) = 10 − 0.5z for z < 20 m
w(z) = 0 for z > 20 m
Table 3: The level of liquefaction Severity

Table 4: Liquefaction Analysis for BH1 for PGA =0.30g, M=7.5, GWT at 1.50 m
Unit wt (KN/m3)
Fine contents %
Major Soil type
Plasticity Index
Potential Index
Corrected SPT
(Iwasaki,1982)
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Total Stress
F(z).w(z).H
Depth (m)
Eff stress
(KN/m2)
(KN/m2)
Severity
CSRM,σ
(N1)60cs
(N1)60
CRR
(N60)
w(z)
F(z)
Kσ
CN
FS
γd
H
medium
1.5 9.41 21 16.80 25 25 1.70 16.00 21.16 0.990 1.411 0.230 0.137 1.68 No 0 9.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
3.0 14.97 20 16.80 50 36 1.70 25.45 31.23 0.979 1.294 - 0.209 - No 0 8.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
4.5 19.59 21 16.80 76 46 1.70 33.30 40.03 0.969 1.213 - 0.255 - No 0 7.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
6.0 26.27 19 16.80 101 57 1.57 41.13 47.37 0.958 1.153 - 0.288 - No 0 7 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
7.5 32.66 19 16.80 126 67 1.40 45.73 52.69 0.943 1.105 - 0.313 - No 0 6.25 1.5 0.00
sand Very
0.00
medium Low
9.0 36.58 17 16.85 151 78 1.27 46.58 52.13 0.923 1.065 - 0.329 - No 0 5.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
10.5 41.25 13 16.90 177 88 1.17 48.46 52.20 0.894 1.031 - 0.338 - No 0 4.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
12.0 43.08 16 17.00 202 99 1.09 47.01 52.42 0.857 1.002 - 0.340 - No 0 4 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
13.5 45.38 14 17.00 228 110 1.03 46.68 50.92 0.811 0.977 - 0.335 - No 0 3.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
15.0 45.38 13 17.00 253 121 0.98 44.28 47.97 0.761 0.954 - 0.326 - No 0 2.5 1.0 0.00
sand

Unit wt (KN/m3)
Fine contents %
Major Soil type
Plasticity Index
Potential Index
Corrected SPT
(Iwasaki,1982)
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Total Stress
F(z).w(z).H
Depth (m)
Eff stress
(KN/m2)
(KN/m2)
Severity
CSRM,σ
(N1)60cs
(N1)60
CRR
(N60)
w(z)
F(z)
Kσ
CN
FS
γd
H
medium
1.5 8.56 24 16.80 25 25 1.70 14.54 20.18 0.990 1.411 0.218 0.137 1.59 No 0 9.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
3.0 11.55 24 16.80 50 36 1.70 19.64 25.87 0.979 1.294 0.310 0.209 1.49 No 0 8.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
4.5 22.26 20 16.80 76 46 1.70 37.85 44.59 0.969 1.213 - 0.255 - No 0 7.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
6.0 26.27 17 16.80 101 57 1.57 41.13 46.41 0.958 1.153 - 0.288 - No 0 7 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
7.5 30.04 21 16.80 126 67 1.40 42.07 49.30 0.943 1.105 - 0.313 - No 0 6.25 1.5 0.00
sand Very
0.00
medium Low
9.0 37.01 18 16.85 151 78 1.27 47.14 53.70 0.923 1.065 - 0.329 - No 0 5.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
10.5 40.79 19 16.90 177 88 1.17 47.92 54.75 0.894 1.031 - 0.338 - No 0 4.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
12.0 45.38 20 17.00 202 99 1.09 49.51 57.21 0.857 1.002 - 0.340 - No 0 4 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
13.5 45.83 17 17.00 228 110 1.03 47.15 53.15 0.811 0.977 - 0.335 - No 0 3.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
15.0 45.83 16 17.00 253 121 0.98 44.73 49.91 0.761 0.954 - 0.326 - No 0 2.5 1.0 0.00
sand

Unit wt (KN/m3)
Fine contents %
Major Soil type
Plasticity Index
Potential Index
Corrected SPT
(Iwasaki,1982)
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Total Stress
F(z).w(z).H
Depth (m)
Eff stress
(KN/m2)
(KN/m2)
Severity
CSRM,σ
(N1)60cs
(N1)60
CRR
(N60)
w(z)
F(z)
Kσ
CN
FS
γd
H
medium
1.5 8.13 23 16.80 25 25 1.70 13.82 19.26 0.990 1.411 0.206 0.137 1.51 No 0 9.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
3.0 11.55 24 16.80 50 36 1.70 19.64 26.00 0.979 1.294 0.313 0.209 1.50 No 0 8.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
4.5 19.15 20 16.80 76 46 1.70 32.55 38.63 0.969 1.213 - 0.255 - No 0 7.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
6.0 20.04 20 16.80 101 57 1.57 31.37 37.59 0.958 1.153 - 0.288 - No 0 7 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
7.5 23.95 19 16.80 126 67 1.40 33.53 39.33 0.943 1.105 - 0.313 - No 0 6.25 1.5 0.00
sand Very
0.00
medium Low
9.0 27.43 21 16.85 151 78 1.27 34.94 41.77 0.923 1.065 - 0.329 - No 0 5.5 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
10.5 34.38 19 16.90 177 88 1.17 40.39 46.53 0.894 1.031 - 0.338 - No 0 4.75 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
12.0 41.71 19 17.00 202 99 1.09 45.51 52.30 0.857 1.002 - 0.340 - No 0 4 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
13.5 44.00 21 17.00 228 110 1.03 45.26 52.80 0.811 0.977 - 0.335 - No 0 3.25 1.5 0.00
sand
medium
15.0 45.38 19 17.00 253 121 0.98 44.28 50.70 0.761 0.954 - 0.326 - No 0 2.5 1.0 0.00
sand

8. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The allowable bearing capacity of sub-soil strata for Open foundation has been computed from shear
and settlement failure considerations.
8.1 For Open foundation

Allowable Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity analysis has been carried out for foundation soil. The well-known Indian Standard
(IS 6403:1981) has been used to compute bearing capacity of soil on the basis of shear failure criteria.
For clayey soil (Ф=0)
The values are computed from unconfined compressive strength (UCS) as,
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐶𝑢 𝑁𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑆𝑐 Refer IS:6403, Clause 5.3
where, Cu = undrained cohesion of soil, obtained from UCS
Nc = 5.14
Sc =shape factor, For square foundation, Sc =1.3
𝐵
For rectangle foundation, Sc= 1 + 0.2
𝐿
𝐷𝑓
𝑑𝑐 = 1 + 0.2 √𝑁∅
𝐵
Factor of Safety = 3.0
For c-Ф soil,

General shear failure,
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑆𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾𝐷(𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 𝑊′
Local Shear failure,
2
𝑞′𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐𝑁′𝑐 𝑆𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾𝐷(𝑁′𝑞 − 1)𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁′𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 𝑊′
3
Factor of Safety = 3.0
Bearing capacity factor shall be determined for general shear failure Ф
2
for local shear failure ∅′ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅)
3
The bearing capacity are computed as per the table below:

Angle of friction (Ф˚) Nc Nq Nγ
0 5.14 1 0
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.4 5.39

Angle of friction (Ф˚) Nc Nq Nγ

25 20.72 10.66 10.88
30 30.14 18.4 22.4
35 46.12 33.3 48.03
40 75.31 64.2 109.41
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
50 266.89 319.07 762.89
Shape and depth factors are determined as per IS:6403-1981

Shape Factors
Shape of Base
𝑺𝒄 𝑺𝒒 𝑺𝜸
Continuous strip 1.0 1.0 1.0
Rectangle 𝐵 𝐵 𝐵
1 + 0.2 1 + 0.2 1 − 0.4
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
Square 1.3 1.2 0.8
Circle 1.3 1.2 0.6
Depth factors are calculated as:

𝐷𝑓
𝑑𝑐 = 1 + 0.2 √𝑁∅
𝐵
𝑑𝑞 = 𝑑𝛾 = 1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∅ < 10°
𝐷𝑓
𝑑𝑞 = 𝑑𝛾 = 1 + 0.1 √𝑁∅ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∅ >10˚
𝐵
Allowable Bearing Pressure from Settlement Criteria

In granular soils,
The settlement of granular soils can also be evaluated by the use of a semiempirical strain influence
factor proposed by Schmertmann et al. (1978). According to this method, the settlement:
𝑧𝑖
𝐼𝑧
𝑠𝑒 = 𝑐1 𝑐2 ∆𝑞 ∑ ∆𝑧
𝐸𝑠
0
where,
Se = net allowable settlement
𝑞
C1 = correction factor for the depth of foundation = 1 − 0.5
∆𝑞
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
C2= correction factor to account into creep in soil = 1 + 0.2𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
0.1

Δq= difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure

Iz= vertical strain influence factor
Es= Modulus of Elasticity of soil = 2.5 x qc in kg/cm2
Where, qc (cone penetration parameter) is related to SPT as,
Soil Type 𝒒𝒄
𝑵𝟔𝟎
Silts, sandy silts, slightly cohesive silt-sand mixtures 2-4
Clean fine to medium sands and slightly silty sands 3-5
Coarse sands and sands with little gravel 4-5
Sandy gravels with gravel 6-8
From In-situ SPT results,

The bearing capacity for open foundation are computed as per the Meyerhof’s (1965) modified by
Bowles (1977) as,
11.98N60  3.28B  1 
2
qsafe =  S 
f d   x R w1
 3.28B   25 
Where,
N60 = Standard Penetration Value for Average energy ratio of 60%
B = width (m)
S = Settlement (mm)
fd = 1+0.33 (D/B) ≤ 1.33
Rw1 = water correction factor = 0.5

For cohesive soil,

If the clay layer is encountered, the settlement is calculated as:
𝐻 (𝑃𝑜 + ∆𝑃
𝑠𝑒 = 𝐶𝑐 log10 ( )
1 + 𝑒0 𝑃𝑜
where, se = consolidation settlement (m)
H = thickness of soil (m)
eo = initial void ratio
Cc = compression index, obtained from consolidation test results
For preliminary analysis, IS:8009 (Part I)-1976, clause 9.2.2 recommends,
𝐶𝑐 = 0.009(𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 − 10)
𝐶𝑐 = 0.30(𝑒𝑜 − 10)
Po = effective pressure at mid height of layer (kN/m2)
ΔP = pressure increment (kN/m2)
As per IS: 8009 clause 9.5, correction factors for rigidity and depth are applied
8.2 For bored cast in-situ concrete piles

The pile capacity are calculated as per Annex B: of IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2): 2010 as,
For cohesionless soil,
𝑛
1
𝑄𝑢 = 𝐴𝑝 ( 𝐷𝛾𝑁𝛾 + 𝑃𝐷 𝑁𝑞 ) + ∑ 𝐾𝑖 𝑃𝑑𝑖 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿𝑖 𝐴𝑠𝑖
2
𝑖=1
where, Ap = cross sectional area of pile (m2)

D = diameter of pile shaft (m)
γ = effective unit weight of soil at pile tip (kN/m2)
Nγ & Nq = bearing capacity factors depending on friction angle at pile tip
PD = effective overburden pressure at pile tip (kN/m2)
∑𝑛𝑖=1 = Summation for pile installed layers 1 to n and contributing positive skin friction
Ki = coefficient of earth pressure applicable for the ith layer
PDi = effective overburden pressure for the ith layer (kN/m2)
δi = angle of wall friction between pile and soil for ith layer
Asi = surface area of pile shaft in the ith layer m2
Factor of safety =2.5
Notes:
1) Nγ factor is taken for general shear failure as per IS: 6403

2) Nq factor is obtained from Fig. 1. Annex B, of IS 2911 (Part 1/sec2): 2010

3) Ki, the earth pressure coefficient depending on the nature of soil strata, type of pile, spacing
of pile and its method of construction.
4) δ, angle of wall friction may be taken equal to friction angle of soil around pile stem
5) The maximum effective overburden at the pile tip should correspond to the critical depth,
which may be taken as 15 times the diameter of the pile shaft for Ф ≤ 30˚ and increasing
to 20 times for Ф ≥ 40˚
Piles in cohesive soils
𝑛
𝑄𝑢 = 𝐴𝑝 𝑁𝑐 𝑐𝑝 + ∑ 𝛼𝑖 𝑐𝑖 𝐴𝑠𝑖
𝑖=1
where,
Ap = cross-sectional area of pile tip (m2)
Nc = bearing capacity factor, taken as 9
cp = average cohesion at pile tip (kN/m2), taken from UCS of soil
∑𝑛𝑖=1 = summation for pile installed layers 1 to n and contributing positive skin friction
αi = adhesion layer for the ith layer depending on the consistency of soil
ci = average cohesion for the ith layer (kN/m2)
Asi = surface area of pile shaft in the ith layer
Use of SPT data for pile capacity in cohesionless soil

As per Meyerhof,
𝐿 ̅ 𝐴𝑠
𝑁
𝑄𝑢 = 13𝑁 𝐴𝑝 +
𝐵 0.5
where,
N = average N value at pile tip
L = length of penetration of pile in the bearing strata (m)
B = diameter or minimum width of pile (m)
Ap = cross-sectional area of pile tip (m2)
N = average N value along the pile shaft
As = surface area of pile shaft (m2)
The end bearing resistance value shall not exceed 130NAp.
For non-plastic silt or very fine sand, pile capacity is modified as:
𝐿 ̅̅̅
𝑁 𝐴𝑠
𝑄𝑢 = 10𝑁 𝐴𝑝 +
𝐵 0.60

9. SAMPLE CALCULATION
The allowable bearing capacity (kN/m2) for isolated footing of 2.4 m x 2.4 m at depths of 1.5 m and
raft foundation of 10.0 m x 10.0 m at depth of 2.5 m for all the Bore Holes with least SPT-values from
each respective depths.
For 2.4 m x 2.4 m isolated footing at depth of 1.5 m
a) For shear failure criterion,
From laboratory tests:
Friction angle = 30.75˚, cohesion=0 kN/m2, Bulk density = 16.8 kN/m3, GWT at 0 m
Shape factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors Bearing Capacity factors
Sq 1.59 dq 1.18 iq 1.00 Nq 20.05
Sc 1.63 dc 1.25 ic 1.00 Nc 32.01
Sγ 0.60 dγ 1.00 Nγ 17.00
General Shear failure criteria IS code qns = 160.33 kN/m2
1
From SPT results, Teng (1962) 𝑞𝑛𝑠 = (𝑁 2 𝐵𝑅𝑤2 + 3(100 + 𝑁 2 )𝐷𝑅𝑤1 )
9
qns = 249.32 KN/m2
b) From settlement criterion,

As per the Meyerhof’s (1965) modified by Bowles (1977),
qsafe=11.98N60  3.28B  1 
2
 S 
f d   x R w1
 3.28B   25 
= 140.77 kN/m2 for 25 mm settlement
Settlement as per Schmertmann et al. (1978) for qns= 140.77 kN/m2
qc ΔZ i
layer Z Iz N60 Esi(kN/m2) I
E si zi
(kN/m2)
1.50 3.00 1.50 0.703 9.84 7871 19678 5.36E-05
3.00 4.50 1.50 0.383 9.84 7871 19678 2.92E-05
4.50 6.00 1.50 0.064 15.35 12278 30695 3.12E-06
8.59E-05
Depth correction factor c1 0.961
Creep correction factor c2 1.540
Peak influence factor Izp 0.767
Expected settlement (mm) 17
Expected settlement < 25 mm (OK)
Adopted allowable bearing capacity is minimum of shear failure and that of settlement criterion.
Hence, adopted allowable bearing capacity = 140.77 kN/m2

For 10.0 m x 10.0 m raft foundations at depth of 2.5 m
a) For shear failure criterion,

From laboratory tests:
Friction angle =30.75˚, cohesion=0 kN/m2, Bulk density = 16.8 kN/m3, GWT at 0 m
Shape factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors Bearing Capacity factors
Sq 1.59 dq 1.07 iq 1.00 Nq 20.05
Sc 1.63 dc 1.10 ic 1.00 Nc 32.01
Sγ 0.60 dγ 1.00 Nγ 17.00
General Shear failure criteria IS code qns = 318.73 kN/m2
From SPT results, Teng (1962) 𝑞𝑛𝑠 = (0.22𝑁 2 𝐵𝑅𝑤2 + 0.67(100 + 𝑁 2 )𝐷𝑅𝑤1 )
qns = 690.46 kN/m2
b) From settlement criterion,

As per the Meyerhof’s (1965) modified by Bowles (1977),
qsafe=11.98N60  3.28B  1 
2
 S 
f d   x R w1
 3.28B   25 
= 172.18 kN/m2 for 50 mm settlement
Settlement as per Schmertmann et al. (1978) for qns = 172.18 kN/m2
qc ΔZ i
layer Z Iz N60 Esi(kN/m2) I
E si zi
(kN/m2)
2.50 4.00 1.50 0.272 12.82 10253 28195 1.45E-05
4.00 5.50 1.50 0.445 19.29 15435 42446 1.57E-05
5.50 7.00 1.50 0.617 20.69 16550 45513 2.03E-05
7.00 8.50 1.50 0.629 24.53 19623 53963 1.75E-05
8.50 10.00 1.50 0.562 28.59 22871 62895 1.34E-05
10.00 11.50 1.50 0.495 35.60 28478 78314 9.47E-06
11.50 13.00 1.50 0.427 42.09 33672 92599 6.92E-06
13.00 14.50 1.50 0.360 44.23 35383 97304 5.54E-06
14.50 16.00 1.50 0.292 45.45 36361 99993 4.38E-06
16.00 17.50 1.50 0.225 45.83 36667 100833 3.34E-06
17.50 19.00 1.50 0.157 45.83 36667 100833 2.34E-06
19.00 20.50 1.50 0.090 45.83 36667 100833 1.34E-06
20.50 22.00 1.50 0.022 45.83 36667 100833 3.34E-07
1.15E-04
Depth correction factor c1 0.945
Creep correction factor c2 1.540
Peak influence factor Izp 0.674
Expected settlement (mm) 26
Expected settlement < 50 mm (OK)
Adopted allowable bearing capacity is minimum of shear failure and that of settlement criterion.
Hence, adopted allowable bearing capacity = 172.18 kN/m2

10. RECOMMENDATION
i The allowable bearing capacity (kN/m2) for various size of isolated and raft foundations at
varying depths (measured from existing ground level) are below:
Table 7: Recommended Bearing Capacity for Isolated footing.
size of isolated Depth of foundation (m)
footing (L=B) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
1.5 144 150 155 160 166 172
1.8 141 153 156 159 166 171
2.1 141 149 159 164 167 172
2.4 141 150 160 167 171 175
2.7 143 152 160 168 176 180
3.0 146 154 162 169 177 185
3.3 149 157 164 172 180 189
3.6 153 160 169 177 186 193
Table 8: Recommended Bearing Capacity for Raft Foundation.

Size of raft Depth of foundation (m)
foundation (L=B) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6
5.0 120 129 138 146 155 167 182 195
10.0 132 144 156 168 178 187 199 209
15.0 157 166 175 184 193 202 216 231
20.0 176 183 190 198 207 215 228 237
25.0 176 180 181 186 195 201 204 203
30.0 156 159 160 164 172 177 179 178
35.0 139 143 143 147 153 157 159 159
40.0 129 132 132 135 141 145 147 147
ii The modulus of subgrade reaction of the soils are tabulated below:
Table 9: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soil.

Depth Ks =1.8N60 (mN/m3), Ks =1.8N60 (mN/m3), Ks =1.8N60 (mN/m3),
BH1 BH-2 BH-3
1.5 m 26.4 24.0 22.8
3.0 m 42.0 32.4 32.4
4.5 m 45.3 51.4 44.2
6.0 m 60.7 60.7 46.3
7.5 m 67.5 62.1 49.5
9.0 m 75.6 76.5 56.7
10.5 m 81.0 80.1 67.5
12.0 m 84.6 89.1 81.9
13.5 m 89.1 90.0 86.4
15.0 m 89.1 90.0 89.1

iii The bearing capacity obtained from settlement failure criteria for both isolated footing and mat
footing are recommended for the design purpose.
iv The foundation Design Engineer does not need to strictly follow the depth and dimension of
foundation selected in the bearing capacity analysis of this report. Designer is free to select any other
foundation dimension and depth depending upon the load of the structure. Therefore, once the size and
depth of the foundation is finalized the calculation may need to be refined during design phase based
on the parameters obtained from this investigation.
Care should be taken for the following during excavation and construction of the building foundation.
 The slope of the excavation should be maintained at about 45˚ to prevent the slope from
collapsing during excavation or construction period.
 Presence of seepage water and consideration of probable rise in water table in monsoon,
sidefall is eminent. So, at the time of construction of foundation, it is recommended to
design appropriate site protection measures based on soil properties obtained on this report.
 An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should inspect excavation of last 30 cm to founding

level before the blending of lean concrete. If the sub soil condition is found different than
originally anticipated, additional investigation or redesign of foundation should be carried
out.

Bore Hole Log
Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Drilling Log
Project: Detail Geotechnical Soil Test for the construction of 15-Bed Bhanu Hospital
Location: Purandehi, Bhanu , Tanahu District
Client: Bhanu Municipality, Phusretar, Tanahu
Date: 2077-09-25
Borehole No: 1
Ground water: Nil m
No. &Type
No. of blows N-Value SPT
Nc-Value
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
Sample
DCPT
10 cm
10 cm
10 cm
Soil Description
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Yellow colored Clayey Sand -1

DCPT 6 7 9 22 15 1.5
-2
-3 DCPT 10 12 13 35 23 3
Gravel mixed Clayey Sand
-4
DCPT 12 15 17 44 25 4.5
-5
-6 DCPT 15 20 24 59 34 6
-7
DCPT 20 25 30 75 38 7.5
-8
-9 DCPT 21 28 35 84 42 9
Boulder, Gravel mixed Clayey

- 10
Sand
DCPT 22 29 39 90 45 10.5
- 11
- 12 DCPT 21 29 44 94 47 12
- 13
DCPT 25 30 44 99 50 13.5
- 14
- 15 DCPT 24 29 46 99 50 15
End Depth * Completed at 15.00m Ground: Dry
Types of Soil N Value
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
Granular Soil Compactness
Very Loose Loose Med. Dense Dense Very Dense
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Cohesive Soil Consistency
Very Soft Soft Med. Soft Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Drilling Log
Location: Purandehi, Bhanu, Tanahu District
Date: 2077-09-27
Borehole No: 2
Ground water: Nil m
No. &Type
Nc-Value
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
Sample
DCPT
10 cm
10 cm
10 cm
Soil Description
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
DCPT 5 7 8 20 13 1.5
Yellow colored Clayey Sand
-2
-3 DCPT 8 9 10 27 18 3
-4
DCPT 12 17 21 50 29 4.5
-5
-6 DCPT 17 19 23 59 34 6
-7
DCPT 18 25 26 69 35 7.5
-8
Boulder, Gravel mixed Clayey -9 DCPT 21 29 35 85 43 9

Sand
- 10
DCPT 25 29 35 89 45 10.5
- 11
- 12 DCPT 30 35 34 99 50 12
- 13
DCPT 35 >50 Blows 50 13.5
- 14
- 15 DCPT 41 >50 Blows 50 15

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Drilling Log
Location: Purandehi, Bhanu , Tanahu District
Date: 2077-09-29
Borehole No: 3
Ground water: Nil m
No. &Type
Nc-Value
Depth, m
N-Value
Symbol
Sample
DCPT
10 cm
10 cm
10 cm
Soil Description
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
-1
DCPT 4 6 9 19 13 1.5
Yellow colored Clayey Sand
-2
-3 DCPT 7 9 11 27 18 3
-4
DCPT 10 14 19 43 25 4.5
-5
-6 DCPT 13 14 18 45 26 6
Gravel mixed Clayey Sand -7

DCPT 14 18 23 55 28 7.5
-8
-9 DCPT 16 21 26 63 32 9
- 10
DCPT 19 27 29 75 38 10.5
- 11
- 12 DCPT 21 33 37 91 46 12
Boulder, Gravel mixed Clayey

- 13
Sand
DCPT 24 34 38 96 48 13.5
- 14
- 15 DCPT 26 33 40 99 50 15
0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50
0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 > 32
Laboratory Test Result

Sieve Analysis
Name: Detail Geotechnical Soil Test for the construction of 15-Bed Bhanu Hospital
Location: Purandehi, Bhanu , Tanahu District Date: 16-10-2077
Total weight: BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 Depth of Sample: 1.5 m
210 200 165 gm Tested by: Suraj
Cummulative Retained
Sieve Size Soil Retained (gm) Percent Retained (%) Percent finer (%)
(%)
(mm)
BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-01 BH-02 BH-03
4.75 2 3 0 0.95 1.50 0.00 0.95 1.50 0.00 99.05 98.50 100.00
2.36 15 13 11 7.14 6.50 6.67 8.10 8.00 6.67 91.90 92.00 93.33
1.18 24 17 18 11.43 8.50 10.91 19.52 16.50 17.58 80.48 83.50 82.42
0.6 33 33 35 15.71 16.50 21.21 35.24 33.00 38.79 64.76 67.00 61.21
0.3 22 24 16 10.48 12.00 9.70 45.71 45.00 48.48 54.29 55.00 51.52
0.15 37 44 26 17.62 22.00 15.76 63.33 67.00 64.24 36.67 33.00 35.76
0.075 33 19 21 15.71 9.50 12.73 79.05 76.50 76.97 20.95 23.50 23.03
0.01 44 47 38 20.95 23.50 23.03 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 210.00 200.00 165.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm
Grain Size Distribution Curve - Fine Grained Soil

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve sizes (Logarithmic)
BH01 BH02 BH03

Diameter of particle at 60% finer (D60) 0.46 0.4 0.6 mm
Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) 15.33 16.00 24.00
Coefficient of Curvature (Cc) 1.04 1.96 0.96
Clay/Silt 21.0% 23.5% 23.0%

Sand 78.1% 75.0% 77.0%
Gravel 1.0% 1.5% 0.0%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 26 2 4 10.00 0.85 1.90 10.00 0.85 1.90 90.00 99.15 98.10
2.36 16 19 17 6.15 8.09 8.10 16.15 8.94 10.00 83.85 91.06 90.00
1.18 42 16 11 16.15 6.81 5.24 32.31 15.74 15.24 67.69 84.26 84.76
0.6 18 54 31 6.92 22.98 14.76 39.23 38.72 30.00 60.77 61.28 70.00
0.3 24 30 28 9.23 12.77 13.33 48.46 51.49 43.33 51.54 48.51 56.67
0.15 45 16 29 17.31 6.81 13.81 65.77 58.30 57.14 34.23 41.70 42.86
0.075 36 42 39 13.85 17.87 18.57 79.62 76.17 75.71 20.38 23.83 24.29
0.01 53 56 51 20.38 23.83 24.29 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 260.00 235.00 210.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 20.4% 23.8% 24.3%

Sand 69.6% 75.3% 73.8%
Gravel 10.0% 0.9% 1.9%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 25 21 19 6.10 7.24 5.94 6.10 7.24 5.94 93.90 92.76 94.06
2.36 22 19 17 5.37 6.55 5.31 11.46 13.79 11.25 88.54 86.21 88.75
1.18 46 10 58 11.22 3.45 18.13 22.68 17.24 29.38 77.32 82.76 70.63
0.6 70 32 10 17.07 11.03 3.13 39.76 28.28 32.50 60.24 71.72 67.50
0.3 58 64 51 14.15 22.07 15.94 53.90 50.34 48.44 46.10 49.66 51.56
0.15 70 35 32 17.07 12.07 10.00 70.98 62.41 58.44 29.02 37.59 41.56
0.075 32 50 70 7.80 17.24 21.88 78.78 79.66 80.31 21.22 20.34 19.69
0.01 87 59 63 21.22 20.34 19.69 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 410.00 290.00 320.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 21.2% 20.3% 19.7%

Sand 72.7% 72.4% 74.4%
Gravel 6.1% 7.2% 5.9%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 25 28 25 6.85 7.27 7.14 6.85 7.27 7.14 93.15 92.73 92.86
2.36 15 28 10 4.11 7.27 2.86 10.96 14.55 10.00 89.04 85.45 90.00
1.18 26 46 44 7.12 11.95 12.57 18.08 26.49 22.57 81.92 73.51 77.43
0.6 36 55 72 9.86 14.29 20.57 27.95 40.78 43.14 72.05 59.22 56.86
0.3 80 52 36 21.92 13.51 10.29 49.86 54.29 53.43 50.14 45.71 46.57
0.15 75 80 63 20.55 20.78 18.00 70.41 75.06 71.43 29.59 24.94 28.57
0.075 40 32 29 10.96 8.31 8.29 81.37 83.38 79.71 18.63 16.62 20.29
0.01 68 64 71 18.63 16.62 20.29 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 365.00 385.00 350.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 18.6% 16.6% 20.3%

Sand 74.5% 76.1% 72.6%
Gravel 6.8% 7.3% 7.1%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 24 18 19 7.27 5.00 7.45 7.27 5.00 7.45 92.73 95.00 92.55
2.36 18 55 21 5.45 15.28 8.24 12.73 20.28 15.69 87.27 79.72 84.31
1.18 26 42 29 7.88 11.67 11.37 20.61 31.94 27.06 79.39 68.06 72.94
0.6 76 26 53 23.03 7.22 20.78 43.64 39.17 47.84 56.36 60.83 52.16
0.3 25 55 31 7.58 15.28 12.16 51.21 54.44 60.00 48.79 45.56 40.00
0.15 50 65 19 15.15 18.06 7.45 66.36 72.50 67.45 33.64 27.50 32.55
0.075 47 25 35 14.24 6.94 13.73 80.61 79.44 81.18 19.39 20.56 18.82
0.01 64 74 48 19.39 20.56 18.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 330.00 360.00 255.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 19.4% 20.6% 18.8%

Sand 73.3% 74.4% 73.7%
Gravel 7.3% 5.0% 7.5%
Sieve Analysis
315 375 265 gm Tested by:
(%)
(mm)
4.75 22 26 18 6.98 6.93 6.79 6.98 6.93 6.79 93.02 93.07 93.21
2.36 18 24 11 5.71 6.40 4.15 12.70 13.33 10.94 87.30 86.67 89.06
1.18 26 20 27 8.25 5.33 10.19 20.95 18.67 21.13 79.05 81.33 78.87
0.6 59 66 36 18.73 17.60 13.58 39.68 36.27 34.72 60.32 63.73 65.28
0.3 68 45 55 21.59 12.00 20.75 61.27 48.27 55.47 38.73 51.73 44.53
0.15 36 70 25 11.43 18.67 9.43 72.70 66.93 64.91 27.30 33.07 35.09
0.075 34 55 37 10.79 14.67 13.96 83.49 81.60 78.87 16.51 18.40 21.13
0.01 52 69 56 16.51 18.40 21.13 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 315.00 375.00 265.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 16.5% 18.4% 21.1%

Sand 76.5% 74.7% 72.1%
Gravel 7.0% 6.9% 6.8%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 30 18 17 6.90 5.45 6.30 6.90 5.45 6.30 93.10 94.55 93.70
2.36 76 22 36 17.47 6.67 13.33 24.37 12.12 19.63 75.63 87.88 80.37
1.18 20 62 49 4.60 18.79 18.15 28.97 30.91 37.78 71.03 69.09 62.22
0.6 53 52 18 12.18 15.76 6.67 41.15 46.67 44.44 58.85 53.33 55.56
0.3 98 24 23 22.53 7.27 8.52 63.68 53.94 52.96 36.32 46.06 47.04
0.15 55 52 56 12.64 15.76 20.74 76.32 69.70 73.70 23.68 30.30 26.30
0.075 46 38 21 10.57 11.52 7.78 86.90 81.21 81.48 13.10 18.79 18.52
0.01 57 62 50 13.10 18.79 18.52 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 435.00 330.00 270.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Diameter of particle at 60% finer (D60) 0.64 0.81 1 mm
Clay/Silt 13.1% 18.8% 18.5%

Sand 80.0% 75.8% 75.2%
Gravel 6.9% 5.5% 6.3%
Sieve Analysis
Total weight: BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 Depth of Sample: 12 m
(%)
(mm)
4.75 23 24 17 6.76 7.74 7.39 6.76 7.74 7.39 93.24 92.26 92.61
2.36 35 21 28 10.29 6.77 12.17 17.06 14.52 19.57 82.94 85.48 80.43
1.18 67 28 42 19.71 9.03 18.26 36.76 23.55 37.83 63.24 76.45 62.17
0.6 59 36 21 17.35 11.61 9.13 54.12 35.16 46.96 45.88 64.84 53.04
0.3 38 17 15 11.18 5.48 6.52 65.29 40.65 53.48 34.71 59.35 46.52
0.15 42 70 28 12.35 22.58 12.17 77.65 63.23 65.65 22.35 36.77 34.35
0.075 21 51 35 6.18 16.45 15.22 83.82 79.68 80.87 16.18 20.32 19.13
0.01 55 63 44 16.18 20.32 19.13 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 340.00 310.00 230.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Diameter of particle at 60% finer (D60) 1 0.3 1 mm
Clay/Silt 16.2% 20.3% 19.1%

Sand 77.1% 71.9% 73.5%
Gravel 6.8% 7.7% 7.4%
Sieve Analysis
(%)
(mm)
4.75 28 38 22 5.71 8.54 8.00 5.71 8.54 8.00 94.29 91.46 92.00
2.36 34 22 21 6.94 4.94 7.64 12.65 13.48 15.64 87.35 86.52 84.36
1.18 17 62 22 3.47 13.93 8.00 16.12 27.42 23.64 83.88 72.58 76.36
0.6 56 52 39 11.43 11.69 14.18 27.55 39.10 37.82 72.45 60.90 62.18
0.3 138 104 35 28.16 23.37 12.73 55.71 62.47 50.55 44.29 37.53 49.45
0.15 102 52 47 20.82 11.69 17.09 76.53 74.16 67.64 23.47 25.84 32.36
0.075 46 38 32 9.39 8.54 11.64 85.92 82.70 79.27 14.08 17.30 20.73
0.01 69 77 57 14.08 17.30 20.73 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 490.00 445.00 275.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 14.1% 17.3% 20.7%

Sand 80.2% 74.2% 71.3%
Gravel 5.7% 8.5% 8.0%
Sieve Analysis
Total weight: BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 Depth of Sample: 15 m
(%)
(mm)
4.75 45 24 25 8.82 5.27 6.41 8.82 5.27 6.41 91.18 94.73 93.59
2.36 32 18 28 6.27 3.96 7.18 15.10 9.23 13.59 84.90 90.77 86.41
1.18 52 26 34 10.20 5.71 8.72 25.29 14.95 22.31 74.71 85.05 77.69
0.6 86 77 49 16.86 16.92 12.56 42.16 31.87 34.87 57.84 68.13 65.13
0.3 110 95 63 21.57 20.88 16.15 63.73 52.75 51.03 36.27 47.25 48.97
0.15 65 85 72 12.75 18.68 18.46 76.47 71.43 69.49 23.53 28.57 30.51
0.075 52 57 47 10.20 12.53 12.05 86.67 83.96 81.54 13.33 16.04 18.46
0.01 68 73 72 13.33 16.04 18.46 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 510.00 455.00 390.00 gm
Loss (gm)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 gm

100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing
70.00
60.00
50.00 BH01
BH02
40.00
BH03
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10
BH01 BH02 BH03

Clay/Silt 13.3% 16.0% 18.5%

Sand 77.8% 78.7% 75.1%
Gravel 8.8% 5.3% 6.4%
Specific Gravity Determination
Boring No: BH-01 Depth:
Description of soil: Clayey Sand Tested by: Suraj
Depth of Sample: 0-15 m
Depth, m 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
Wt. Pycnometer + Water + Soil gm 381.4 385.8 380.9 380.7 380.8 385.3 385.4 381.0 385.7 381.0
Temperature °C 26° 26° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 28° 28° 26°
Wt. Pycnometer + Water gm 343.8 348.5 343.7 343.5 343.7 348.0 348.1 343.8 348.4 343.7
Wt. Pycnometer + Dry Soil gm 158.5 162.4 158.6 158.5 158.5 162.9 162.9 158.2 162.6 158.5
Wt. Soil gm 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Specific Gravity of Water 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.673 2.633 2.627 2.622 2.622 2.635 2.635 2.624 2.629 2.634

Depth, m 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
Temperature °C 30° 30° 27° 28° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 29°
Wt. Soil gm 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Depth, m 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
Temperature °C 30° 30° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 27° 29°
Wt. Soil gm 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Moisture Content Determination
Bore Hole: BH-01 Depth: 0m-15m
Tested by: Suraj Description of soil: Clayey Sand
Wt of Can Wt of Can+wet Wt of Can +Dry Moisture Content

Sample No Depth (m)
(gm) Soil (gm) Soil (gm) (w%)
1 1.5 126.34 301.29 264.12 26.98

2 3 117.15 579.18 485.38 25.47
3 4.5 112.09 487.63 408.24 26.81
4 6 123.82 596.79 501.84 25.12
5 7.5 118.17 582.4 482.93 27.27
6 9 114.65 549.3 465.17 24.00
7 10.5 111.35 521.88 435.09 26.81
8 12 128.47 584.11 490.74 25.77
9 13.5 116.851 581.98 479.68 28.20
10 15 123.88 387.82 331.64 27.04


Sample No Depth (m)
1 1.5 111.1 767.6 630.36 26.43

2 3 111.35 521.88 435.09 26.81
3 4.5 128.47 584.11 490.74 25.77
4 6 114.84 553.05 459.21 27.25
5 7.5 117.15 702.24 571.7 28.72
6 9 111.219 383.12 326.07 26.55
7 10.5 112.09 487.63 410.24 25.96
8 12 123.82 596.79 498.84 26.12
9 13.5 123.82 951.33 761 29.87
10 15 117.2 472.14 398.46 26.20


Sample No Depth (m)
1 1.5 117.15 702.24 585.7 24.87

2 3 111.219 383.12 328.07 25.39
3 4.5 123.82 951.33 772 27.67
4 6 117.2 472.14 401.46 24.86
5 7.5 126.34 301.29 268.12 23.40
6 9 123.82 596.79 501.84 25.12
7 10.5 118.17 582.4 482.93 27.27
8 12 117.15 579.18 480.38 27.20
9 13.5 112.09 487.63 410.24 25.96
10 15 123.82 596.79 498.84 26.12
Direct Shear Test
Detail Geotechnical Soil Test of 15 Bed Dordi Hospital
Dordi Rural Municipality, Ward No. 4, Nauthar Sera, Lamjung, Gandaki Province
Date: 15-10-2077
Bore Hole No: 1 Depth: 1.5m-3.0m
Size of box (mm)= 51*51 mm
Area of box (cm^2)= 25 cm^2
Volume of box (cm^3)= 46.818 cm^3
Proving ring constant (kg/div.)= 0.17
Least count of displacement dial gauge (mm/div)= 0.01 mm
Mass of soil= 78.32 gms
Density of soil= 1.67 gm/cc
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.135
0.4 0.24
0.6 0.373
∅= 30.75
c= 0.0113
Shear Stress Vs Normal Stress

0.4
y = 0.595x + 0.0113
0.35
0.3
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Normal Stress Kg/cm2
Direct Shear Test
Date: 15-10-2077
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.135
0.4 0.29
0.6 0.38
∅= 31.49
c= 0.0233

0.45
0.4 y = 0.6125x + 0.0233

0.35
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Direct Shear Test
Date: 15-10-2077
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.125
0.4 0.26
0.6 0.37
∅= 31.49
c= 0.0067

0.4
y = 0.6125x + 0.0067
0.35
0.3
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Direct Shear Test
Date: 15-10-2077
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.14
0.4 0.26
0.6 0.39
∅= 32.01
c= 0.0133

0.45
0.4
y = 0.625x + 0.0133
0.35
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Direct Shear Test
Date: 15-10-2077
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.13
0.4 0.29
0.6 0.37
∅= 30.96
c= 0.0233

0.45
0.4
y = 0.6x + 0.0233
0.35
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Direct Shear Test
Date: 15-10-2077
Normal Stress
Shear Stress kg/cm2
kg/cm2
0.2 0.14
0.4 0.26
0.6 0.385
∅= 31.49
c= 0.0167

0.45
0.4
y = 0.6125x + 0.0167
0.35
Shear Stress kg/cm2
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figures and Photographs



Soil Report Tanahu Bhanu Hospital Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Report Tanahu Bhanu Hospital Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

GEOTECHNICAL SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

15-BED BHANU HOSPITAL BUILDING

Prepared For: Head Light Pvt. Ltd., Basundhara, Kathmandu

Date: February 2021

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Figure 1: Standard Penetration Test ................................................................................................... 1

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 1

(ii) Undisturbed Sample:

3.3 Ground Water Table

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 2

5. STANDARDIZATION OF SPT VALUE

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 3

If Nrec ≤ 15, then Ncorr =Nrec

Correction for (N1)60

6. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE SITE

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 4

7. SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION

Figure 3: Probabilistic Seismic hazard of Nepal.

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 5

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 6

the corrected blow count and soil’s fine content.

Liquefaction potential index (LPI) is a single-valued parameter to evaluate regional liquefaction

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 7

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 8

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 9

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 10

8. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

8.1 For Open foundation

Factor of Safety = 3.0

For c-Ф soil,

The bearing capacity are computed as per the table below:

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 11

Angle of friction (Ф˚) Nc Nq Nγ

Shape and depth factors are determined as per IS:6403-1981

Depth factors are calculated as:

Allowable Bearing Pressure from Settlement Criteria

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 12

Δq= difference between stress at level of foundation and overburden pressure

From In-situ SPT results,

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 13

For cohesive soil,

8.2 For bored cast in-situ concrete piles

where, Ap = cross sectional area of pile (m2)

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 14

2) Nq factor is obtained from Fig. 1. Annex B, of IS 2911 (Part 1/sec2): 2010

Use of SPT data for pile capacity in cohesionless soil

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 15

b) From settlement criterion,

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 16

For 10.0 m x 10.0 m raft foundations at depth of 2.5 m

a) For shear failure criterion,

b) From settlement criterion,

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 17

Table 8: Recommended Bearing Capacity for Raft Foundation.

ii The modulus of subgrade reaction of the soils are tabulated below:

Table 9: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soil.

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 18

 An experienced Geotechnical Engineer should inspect excavation of last 30 cm to founding

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd. Page 19

Bore Hole Log

Prime Civil Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Yellow colored Clayey Sand -1