Detailed Design-Geotechnical Investigation Report-Section-7-2 ,8 base on Review & Comments Matrix
No. OE's Comments
General Comments: 1 For better understanding and quick reference, it is recommended to include following sections in the Geotechnical Investigation Report. a Executive Summary b Conclusions c Photographs of geotechnical investigations
2 As the geotechnical investigations were
conducted prior to mobilization of OE as well as due to absence of signed laboratory test results, the authenticity of geotechnical investigation report shall remain the responsibly of CET.
3 Provision of granular fill / select fill
or other soils improvement techniques for weak ground conditions and for soils having higher Plasticity Index (PI) for deep GWT zone should be included in the Geotechnical Investigation report.
4 Layout plan for transmission line towers
along with borehole locations shall be included in the geotechnical investigation report. 5 The criteria for which drilling was planned and executed along the Transmission line route shall be included in the geotechnical report. Further, the criteria for location of borehole selected for specific reach
6 In line with Geotechnical Investigation
Report, CET has proposed typical bearing capacities geotechnical design for the shallow foundation. Although OE has no objection to typical design, however, the typical bearing capacities and soil classification presented in the ‘Contraction Design report for Pad & Chimney Foundation Design reports’ are not consistent with the geotechnical investigation report. 7 It is not clear how CET will ensure the sub-strata soil consistency (loose, soft etc.,) at those tower locations where boreholes were not drilled. This shortcoming shall be addressed in the revised report.
8 The proposed tower foundations are
shallow foundations with bearing capacity evaluated for a depth of foundation of about 3.5m. In view of shallow ground water table (0.4m to 4.7m), extensive dewatering will be required. CET is advised to revisit their decision of shallow foundations.
9 On the basis of chemical analysis tests
on soil and water, recommendations for type of cement should be included in the report for use of structural engineer in design.
10 Recommendations for full scale and
working load tests on pile should be included in in the geotechnical investigation report.
11 Laboratory tests results reports such
as, Sieve analysis, Hydrometer analysis, Atterberg limits, direct shear and chemical tests etc., should be included in the geotechnical investigation report.
12 It is surprising for OE to observe that
all the boreholes, either it is of 10m depth or 30m depth, were completed in a single day time period. Specific Comments for Geotechnical Investigations: 13 Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report, Number of boreholes using percussion drilling mentioned shows 57 boreholes while Annex-3 has 56 boreholes. This discrepancy should be corrected.
14 Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Number of 37 undisturbed samples collected for evaluation of geotechnical design parameters for 313 km transmission line and 50km electrode line seems less. 15 Table 1.7-1 & 1.7-2 of Geotechnical Investigation Report, Number of SPTs, undisturbed & disturbed as well as water samples, drilling depth (total footage) and number of laboratory tests (indoor tests) are not consistent with Annex-2- Summary of Lab Test Results and Annex-3- Borehole Logs
16 Table 1.7-2 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, the table shows that 35 number of consolidation test were performed. However, their results are either not included in the report or in Annex-2 or these are not performed. Both these tests are very important parameters in evaluation of bearing capacity and settlement analysis for fine grained soils (silty clay etc.). It is also worthy to mention that, only direct shear were performed on undisturbed samples (UDS) irrespective of type of sample. As a standard geotechnical practice, direct shear tests are applicable on granular soils (sands) while unconfined compression tests are valid for cohesive soils.
17 Tables 1.8-1 & 9.2 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, it is recommended to include references to these tables. 18 Section 1.6 of Geotechnical Investigation Report, borehole depth range of 10-12m and 12-15m is not consistent with depth shown in Table 1.7-1-Site Survey Workload depth, which should be corrected.
19 Table 2.3.2-3 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, all the chemical tests of soil samples were conducted at 1m depth while the proposed depth of foundation is 3.5m. M/s CET should evaluate chemical aggressivity of soils at other depth ranges.
20 Section 3.1, CET mentioned their
constraint that they could not take undisturbed samples in soft silty clay. This is accepted but then CET should have conducted SPT as closer interval in such type of strata for use in bearing capacity and settlement analysis which was not done.
21 Table 3.1 of Geotechnical Investigation
Report, the parameters for sand/silty fine sand is missing in the report. 22 Table 3.2 Results of SPT & Table 3.3.1-1 SPT Statistics of Geotechnical Investigation Report, SPT blow count cannot be in decimals. It should be corrected.
23 Table 3.3.1-1 SPT Statistics of
Geotechnical Investigation Report, this table does not seems to be consistent with ‘Table of Engineering Geological Condition for Tower’ of Annex-1 delineating summary of design parameters. This should be corrected.
24 It is required that recommended
allowable bearing capacity, similar to the one presented in Table 3.3.3-1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report as ‘fa’, should be included in Annex-1 along with allowable bearing capacities from Terzaghi Theory and Meyerhoff. This is mandatory for selection of foundation types for each tower location..
25 Table 3.3.4 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, the capacity of pile foundation has been presented without pile lengths. As a result, OE is unable to review allowable pile capacity. The pile length should be included in the said table.
26 Annex-1, Tower type should also be
included in Annex-1. Further, back-span distances between each tower and borehole should also be included in Annex-1.
27 Annex-2, Soil classification according
to Unified Soil Classification system is neither provided in the geotechnical investigation report nor in the Annex-2, which should be included.
28 Annex-3, the borehole logs which is most
important component of a geotechnical investigation report, is deficient of information and nowhere meet quality of international standards. A few examples are; a Depth of Standard penetration tests (SPTs) performed is not mentioned in the borehole logs. Further, blow count details observed at site to calculate SPT value is missing. b Details of Undisturbed &Disturbed (SPT)soil samples and water samples are not mentioned in the borehole logs. Drilling method, not mentioned in the borehole logs. 29 Annex-3, although depth of SPTs is not mentioned in boreholes logs, however, after quick look it was observed that SPTs are generally conducted at 1.5 to 2m interval or even higher. Further, SPT is missing is upper horizon in some of the boreholes (e.g. T49, T71, T114, T126) which are the load bearing stratum. This is not in accordance with general practice, and should have been done at close interval especially in upper sub-soil horizon.
30 Annex-3, the dates mentioned in two
borehole logs i.e., T196 & T201 is August 15, 2015. This is inconsistent with dates mentioned in Section 1.8 of the Geotechnical Investigation Report- Volume 1.
31 Annex-3 and Geotechnical Investigation
Report, it is not clear which boreholes were drilled for main transmission line and electrode line. 32 Annex-3, Borehole logs for holes G2, G5, T24, T26, T28 for which laboratory testing is carried out as shown in Annex-2 are missing. Specific Comments for Earth Conductivity & Soil Resistivity: 33 Please provide the copy of Assignment Book 34 The Earth Resistivity Values between Tower No. G0198 to G0213 are very high and unbelievable. Please locate the areas and also recheck these high values. kV 4000 MW HVDC Bipole Matiari Lahore Transmission Project Sub-project 3 M-L HVDC Transmission Line technical Investigation Report-Section-7-2 ,8 base on Section-1 comments Review & Comments Matrix
CET Reply NTDC-OE Response
a. See Chapter 1 Foreword 1.3 in main Geotechnical
investigation report. b. See Chapter 6 Conclusion and suggestion in main Geotechnical investigation report. c. Photographs will be added in next revised report
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
In this part of Section7-2,8,no granular fill /
select fill or other soils improvement techniques will be carried out.
We will provide layout plan with borehole
locations.
Drilling was planned and executed by Code for
investigation of geotechnical engineering in China for combined with relevant ASTM clauses. Location of boreholes were exactly at the central of the Tower.
The typical bearing capacities and soil
classification presented in the ‘Contraction Design report for Pad & Chimney Foundation Design reports’ are comprehensively determined by our structure discipline based on the ultimate bearing capacities of each type of soil provided in the geotechnical investigation report and their typical soil classification.This discrepancy should be addressed in the revised structural design report. Before we start investigate, we have made sure the tower without drilling hole and its reference tower were at the same geological unit, the layer fluctuation was little.
The bearing capacity evaluated for a depth of 3.5m
and width of 4.0m of foundation ,structure discipline confirm the typical soil classification considered with ground water table, and choose the reasonable bearing capacity and dewatering method.
Cement type will be decided by structural
engineer.This content should be properly addressed in the structural design report.
We recommend the type of foundation for each tower
in geotechnical investigation report, but the final decision shall be made by structural engineers, and they will give the recommendations for full scale and working load tests on pile if it was needed.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
vestigations: No such problem in Section-7-2,8
No such problem in Section-7-2,8.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
No such problem in Section-7-2,8 Agreed.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8 Agreed.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
all the chemical tests of soil samples were
conducted at 1.0-2.2m depth in Section-7-2,8, According to our engineering experience , normally the test result of samples could representative the aggressivity of soils in site.
No soft silty clay in Section-7-2,8
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
We will correct in next revised report.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
No such problem in Section-7-2,8;
By calculation and analyzing,the method of Meyerhoff is unsuitable for the layer of soil,and Terzaghi theory is more suitable ,so Terzaghi formula is adopted in this Geotechnical Investigation Report.
The length of the pile shall be decided by
structural engineer.The indexes recommended in this table can be taken for reference during the design of pile testing.The bearing capacity of pile foundation should be determined via pile testing.
We will add this content in next revised report.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
Agree,we will complete in next revised report
we can take the core of soil during drilling borehole,the 1.5 to 2m interval of SPT could be used to divide layer of soil, we will perform more SPT next project according to your suggestiong.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
All the drilling holes are for the main route.
Electrode line part is not contained in this report.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8
ity & Soil Resistivity:
We will provide the copy of assignment book in next revised report. No such problem in Section-7-2,8