October - 2020: University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

Engineering Geology & Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory
www.uet.edu.pk
Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a

Residential Building
At Plot No. 413-K (20 Marla), Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
October - 2020
Sr. No. 2020/61

Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a Residential Building
At Plot No. 413-K (20 Marla) , Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
Authored By: Dr Muhammad Arshad

Associate Professor
B.Sc. and M.Sc. Civil Engineering (UET, Lahore)
M.Sc. Geomechanics and Foundation Engineering (Canada)
PhD. Geotechnical Engineering (Ireland)
Cell# 0304-0461457
PEC#Civil/24154
Reviewed By:
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Ahmed
Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a Residential Building at Plot # 413-K, Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a Residential Building
At Plot No. 413-K (20 Marla) , Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE #
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work 1
2 EXPLORATION METHODOLOGY 1
2.1 Exploratory Boring and Sampling 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing 2
2.3 Discussion on Field and Laboratory Test Results 2
3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS 3
4 FOUNDATIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3

4.1 Foundation Design Requirements 3
4.2 Foundation Design Suggestions 4
4.2.1 Strip Footing 4
4.2.2 Raft Footing 4
4.3 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 5
4.4 Seismicity 5
4.5 Some Constructional Aspects 6
5 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS 6
Illustrations 8
Appendix – A (bore-hole logs)
Appendix– B (gradation curves)
Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a Residential Building at Plot # 413-K, Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Mr Ahtesham Siddique , requested to University of Engineering & Technology (UET), Lahore
for the preparation of subsoil investigation report for the construction of a residential
building/house at plot number 413-K, Phase-VI, DHA Lahore. Dr Muhammad Arshad and
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Ahmed from Department of Geological Engineering, UET, Lahore
were engaged to prepare an interpretive report on the subsurface soil investigations carried out at
the project site for designing an appropriate foundation system for the required structure. Field
investigations were carried out through two number of the exploratory borehole, each up to a
maximum depth of 40 ft below the existing ground surface level (or Natural Ground Surface
Level) which is 1.0 ft below the existing road level, approximately. Borehole locations are
shown in Figure 1. The fieldwork was carried out on 10/10/2020 under the supervision of a
representative of Department of Geological Engineering, UET, Lahore. The laboratory
testing on the representative soil samples was also conducted in the geotechnical engineering
laboratory of the Department of Geological Engineering, UET, Lahore. This report presents
the findings of the geotechnical investigations carried out in relation to a specific site, location
and purpose.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work

The primary objective of these investigations was to determine appropriate parameters for the
design of the foundation for the construction of a residential building at the project site. For
this purpose, the following aspects were determined/evaluated:
a) Subsurface stratigraphy within the limits of exploratory boring.
b) Geotechnical characteristics of the subsurface materials (strata) encountered.
c) Evaluation of subsurface soil parameters, recommendations for appropriate type and
depth of foundation, and allowable bearing capacity value to be used in the design of
foundation for the required facility.
Borehole log and laboratory test results are presented in Appendices following the main text.
2. EXPLORATION METHODOLOGY
Field explorations were carried out at the site through two number of boreholes, each one 40 ft
deep with reference to an existing footprint at locations shown in Figure-1 (Illustrations) while
Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a Residential Building at Plot# 229-T, Phase-VIII, DHA Lahore
Page 1
the coordinates of these locations are mentioned on BH logs. The water table was not
encountered up to the depth of exploration. Brief details of the methodology of the investigation
are outlined in the following sections:
2.1 Exploratory Boring & Sampling

The boring was advanced using manually operated post-hole auger and light percussion
techniques. Disturbed subsurface soil samples were recovered using the Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) split spoon sampler in accordance with ASTM D1586. For both of the boreholes, the
SPT‟s were conducted at 3 ft interval up to the depth of 15 ft and then at an interval of of 5 ft up
to final depth of exploration of 40 ft. Disturbed soil samples obtained through SPT spoon
sampler were preserved in polythene bags for testing in the laboratory as per standard practice.
The SPT-Resistance values (N-values), a detailed description of the subsurface soils encountered
and the depth at which soil samples were procured are shown on the boring log (Appendix-A).
Soil descriptions on the boring log are a compilation of the field and laboratory testing data. The
stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types and transitions may be
assumed gradual. The engineering/mechanical properties of soils including the angle of internal
friction (ɸ'), moist unit (γb) weight, relative density (Dr) and unconfined compressive strength
(qu) can be evaluated on the basis of SPT „N' values. For this purpose in the existing literature
different ranges of the SPT „N' values have been identified to differentiate the numerical values
of the above-mentioned engineering/mechanical properties. Table 1 can be used to evaluate such
properties for a particular SPT „N‟ value as recommended by Terzaghi and others.
2.2 Laboratory Testing

Selected representative subsurface soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine the
various geotechnical characteristics. The following tests were conducted according to the
standard methods.
 Particles Size Analysis
 Atterberg‟s Limits (liquid and plastic limits)
 Natural Moisture Content (NMC)
Table 2 (Illustrations) presents a summary of laboratory test results.
2.3 Discussion on Field and Laboratory Test Results
The field and laboratory testing findings are summarized below:
Page 2
 Using grain size analyses of the data shows that strata are mostly silty-clay up to the
depth of 9 ft from the existing footprint, in the range 9-15 ft depth strata are clayey-silt
and below this, strata are silty-sand up to the final depth of exploration of 40 ft.
Collectively the lower formations of soil can be considered as non-cohesive.
 Based on SPT blows (N-values), the upper strata were found in soft to firm state, in the
range 9-15 in loose state and below this, in general, in medium dense state up to the final
depth of exploration of 40 ft at both of the BH locations.
 Natural moisture content (NMC) varies between 5.52‒29.55, and 2.70‒28.40% for
borehole 1 and 2 respectively, up to the exploration depth of 40 ft. However, this is
worth to mention that at some of the places/depths the values of NMC may not be true in
its spirit and rationality.
 Plasticity Index of the selected/tested soil sample was found in the range 6‒10, leading to
the following interpretations:
 PI=0 non-plastic
 PI<7 low-plastic
 PI >7 and <14 medium plastic
 PI>14 highly plastic
A summary of LL and PL values is given on Table 2. Figure 2 shows plots of liquid limit and
plasticity index data on the Casagrande Plasticity Chart. The liquid limit of cohesive soil sample
was found in the range of 28‒30%. As per Unified Soil Classification System, strata can be
considered as the blend of CL-ML (CL is for inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clay, sandy clay, silty clay and ML is for inorganic silt with very fine sand, clayey silt
with slight plasticity) or OL (organic silt and organic silty clay of low plasticity).
3. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
Subsurface soils disclosed by two exploratory borehole shows that soil can be categorized as the
silty-clay to silty-sand. The actual thickness of each stratum along with SPT resistance (N-
values) is shown on the borehole log, (Appendix-A). Ground Water Table (GWT) was not
encountered up to the depth of exploration at the time of these investigations.
4. FOUNDATIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Foundation Design Requirements
Foundations of a structure should meet the following minimum design criteria:
Page 3
i. Foundations should be safe against the shear failure of the supporting ground. A factor of
safety of 3.0 to 4.0 is generally adopted for this purpose.
ii. Foundations should not settle excessively under the service loads. Settlement of 25 mm
is usually taken as permissible for strip footing and 50 mm to 100 mm for the raft.
iii. Foundations must stay safe under tensile, lateral, moment and earthquake loadings.
4.2 Foundation Design Suggestions

Figure 3 represents the various types of shallow foundation systems. It should be an emphasis
that allowable bearing capacity of the strata basically depends upon the foundation type,
foundation depth, foundations dimensions and the applied loading conditions, among other
determinant factors. Keeping in view the possibility/requirement of the subject structure, the
following types of foundation systems are suggested.
4.2.1 Strip Footing

If/when strip (wall) footing 3 ft wide, placed at 3~4 ft depth below the existing natural surface
level then the subgrade below the strip footing should be prepared as described below:
 Excavate soil at the footprint to a depth of 4.0~5.0 ft.
 Compact the foundation sub-grade soil to the density not less than 95% of the Modified
Proctor density value and provide a clean sand cushion in two layers of 6 inches
thickness, compacting not to less than 95% of the Modified Proctor density value.
 Provide a well-compacted layer of 6 inches thick brick ballast of 1-2 inch nominal size
diameter on the compacted sand cushion and underlain it by at least 4 inches thick well-
compacted pad of 1:4:8 P.C.C. Strip footing should bear on this P.C.C pad.
A representative value of allowable bearing capacity of the strip footing having 3 ft width and
placed at 2~3 ft depth below the existing natural surface level can be considered as 0.75 TSF
(≈80 KPa). This is worth to mention that existing footprint level in the plot area is almost, 4.0 ft
below the existing road level and is suffering from undesirable vegetation.
4.2.2 Raft Footing

The recommended value of net allowable bearing capacity for a raft foundation when placed at a
depth of 6‒9 ft below the road level can be taken as 1.6 TSF for the characteristic width of 20‒
30 ft. This value of allowable bearing capacity is based on the assumption that the trend of SPT
Page 4
„N' value will prevail even below the exploratory borehole depth of 40 ft from the existing foot-
print (NSL).
The natural sub-grade should be properly compacted such that its density should not be less than
95% of the Modified Proctor density value and provide a clean sand cushion of 2.0 ft thickness
(below the RCC raft slab) in layers of 6 inches compacted not less than 95% of the Modified
Proctor density value. This measure will minimize the settlement potential of the strata along
with improvement of the bearing capacity, also in case of strip footing. The compaction activity
should be carried out under the supervision of qualified staff along with quality control checks.
Additionally, damp-proofing measures including geo-textiles, polyethene sheets etc should be

applied below the RCC Raft slab. Concrete walls should also be coated with the bituminous
coating, acrylic modified cement, surface bonding mortar or any material permitted for
waterproofing. However, explicit application recommendations for the specific treatment
provided by the manufactures should be keenly observed. The above mentioned measures are
more specifically intended when the rise of the water table is expected with seasonal weather
conditions. The use of ordinary Portland cement is the existing standard practice in the project
area.
4.3 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction

Since “modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks)” depends upon the applied contact pressure and the
resulted settlement so this parameter is highly situation specific. Modulus of sub-grade reaction
Ks to be used in a computer model for structural analysis can be evaluated from the basic
definition of Ks by using the evaluated net allowable bearing pressure which caused the
settlement and the maximum permissible settlement under the maximum structural pressure as
follows:
Ks(T/ft3) = ( )
4.4 Seismicity
The project site (Lahore city) lies in Zone 2A, as per the revised Seismic Provisions (2007) of the
Building Code of Pakistan. This shows the probability of slight damage under the earthquakes
and corresponds to horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.08g to 0.16g. This
Page 5
acceleration has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years period. In addition to that the
liquefaction potential of the site strata is almost negligible as per criterion identified in the
existing literature.
4.5 Some Constructional Aspects

We recommend the following measures during the construction of the subject building/facility:
 Proper surface drainage should be provided in the area and the area should be graded to
keep the surface runoff away from the structure.
 To reduce ingress of water to foundation soils, plinth protection slab sloping away from
the structure in unpaved portion should be provided to ensure positive protection, the
plinth protection slab should extend beyond such portion of the structure at least 2.5 ft
from the face of the walls. A PCC layer, 4 inches thick, may be provided for this purpose.
 It is highly desirable to provide a well compacted (not less than 95% of the Modified
Proctor density value) sand cushion of 1 ft thickness in two number of layers (each one 6
inch in thickness) below the floor finishes.
 An experienced engineer should observe/monitor the construction activities to check that
the works are performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Field and
laboratory tests should be performed to confirm that the material quality, compaction and
strength to meet the project specifications.
 Retaining structure to provide the lateral stability to the foundation brickwork seems to
be mandatory, more specifically, when there is no building in the close vicinity of the
proposed residential structure/building.
5. GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Following are the comments and limitations of our report:
 This report presents results of the geotechnical investigations, conducted through two
number of the exploratory borehole each one up to a maximum depth of 40 ft below the
existing ground surface level.
 The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions, as they existed at the time of field investigations and further on the
assumption that the exploratory boring is representative of the subsurface conditions
throughout the site area.
Page 6
 If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of
work at the site and conditions have changed due to either natural causes or due to
construction operation at or adjacent to the site, we urge that we be promptly informed
and retained to review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and
recommendations, considering the changed conditions and/or time lapse.
 This report has been prepared on the bases of experimental data collected in the field and
laboratory by the staff of Department of Geological Engineering, UET, Lahore for the
recommendation of foundation types for the construction of residential building.
Paragraphs, statements, test results, boring logs, diagrams etc., should not be taken out of
the context and should not be utilized for any other structure at any site even in the close
vicinity of the proposed project locations discussed in this report.
***End of Main Text of the Report***

Note: Errors and omissions are excepted, if any
Page 7
Illustrations
Page 8
Table 1. Empirical values for φ, qu, Dr and unit weight of soil based on SPT
Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Particle Size Distribution LL PL LI
(%)
(%) (%)
Depth NMC Silt &
BH# Sample# (ft) (%) Gravel Sand Clay
SPT-1 3 21.66 2.0 30.7 67.3 -- -- --
SPT-2 6 21.61 1.0 10.0 89.0 28 22 --
SPT-3 9 21.53 0.0 15.0 85.0 29 22
SPT-4 12 29.55 0.0 3.0 97.0 NP NP
1
SPT-5 15 27.38 1.0 6.0 93.0 31 18
S
SPT-6 20 5.82 0.0 94.0 6.0 NP NP
SPT-7 25 5.52 1.6 96.9 1.6 NP NP
SPT-8 30 6.22 0.9 95.6 3.5 NP NP
SPT-9 35 7.32 0.0 94.4 5.6 NP NP
SPT-10 40 5.98 0.0 91.5 8.5 NP NP
SPT-1 3 19.32 3.0 32.0 65.0 -- -- --
SPT-2 6 21.89 1.0 2.6 96.4 30 23 --
SPT-3 9 25.06 0 15.5 84.5 29 24
SPT-4 12 28.40 0 5.3 94.7 NP NP
2
SPT-5 15 26.14 0 15.5 84.5 29 19
S
SPT-6 20 9.12 0 94.2 3.8 NP NP
SPT-7 25 3.82 0.0 95.5 4.5 NP NP
SPT-8 30 2.70 0.0 90.7 9.3 NP NP
SPT-9 35 2.76 0.0 93.8 6.2 NP NP
SPT-10 40 2.79 0.0 94.7 5.3 NP NP
Page 9
location of BHs
Approximate
Figure 1. Borehole Location through Google Map
70
60
50
Plasticity Index
40
30
CL - ML
20
10 CL or OL
ML or OL MH or OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (%)
Figure 2. Casagrande Plasticity Chart
Page 10
Figure 3. Types of Shallow Foundations
Page 11
Figure 4. Field Testing in Progress
Page 12
Figure 5. Laboratory Testing in Progress
Page 13
www.uet.edu.pk
Residential Building at Plot No. 413/K

Project Name: (20 Marla),
Location: Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
Type of Drilling: Auguring/Boring Ground Water Level: Not Encountered
Bore Hole No: 1 Date: 9/10/2020
Coordinates: 31.471863, 74.407088
Depth S.P.T N.M.C SPT 'N' Values
Description Symbol Sample
(ft) 'N' (%) 2 4 0 6 8 10 12
10 14 2016
GWT
0
Light brown soft
3 silty clay with 1- SPT-1 4 21.66
8 mm concretion
3
Light brown
firm silty clay
6 with 1-2 mm SPT-2 5 21.61
concretion 6
Light brown
9 firm silty clay SPT-3 7 21.53
9
Light brown
12 loose clayey silt SPT-4 7 29.55
12
Light brown
Depth (ft)
firm silty clay 15
15 with 1-2 mm SPT-5 6 27.38
concretion
Not Encountered
18
Light grey
20 medium dense SPT-6 12 5.82
sand
21
Light grey
25 medium dense SPT-7 14 5.52 24
sand
27
Light grey
sand
30
Light grey
sand
36
Light grey
sand
39
End of Borehole Log

www.uet.edu.pk
Residential Building at Plot No. 413/K

Project Name: (20 Marla),
Location: Phase-VI, DHA Lahore
Type of Drilling: Auguring/Boring Ground Water Level: Not Encountered
Bore Hole No: 2 Date: 9/10/2020
Coordinates: 31.471846, 74.467029
Depth S.P.T N.M.C SPT 'N' Values
Description Symbol Sample
(ft) 'N' (%) 2 4 0 6 810 10 20
12 14 3016
GWT
Light brown firm 0
silty clay with 1-
3 10 mm SPT-1 5 19.32
concretion
3
Light brown firm
6 silty clay with 1- SPT-2 7 21.89
2 mm concretion
6
Light brown firm
9 silty clay SPT-3 7 25.06
9
Light brown
12 loose clayey silt SPT-4 9 28.40 12
Depth (ft)
Light brown firm 15
15 silty clay SPT-5 5 26.14
Not Encountered
Light grey
18
sand
21
Light grey
sand
27
Light grey
sand
30
Light grey
sand
36
Light grey
sand 39
End of Borehole Log

University of Engineering & Technology,
Lahore
Client: Mr. Ahtesham Siddique 413/K, Phase-VI, Your Ref.: Dated on 8/10/2020
DHA Lahore
Consultant: Test Results Submitted on: 15/10/2020
Project: Construction of a Residential Building at Depth
Plot#413, Sector-K, Phase-VI, DHA BH 01 SPT 1 3.0 ‒4.5
(ft)
Lahore
Sieve Analysis as Per
Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
Percentage passing by mass (%)
80 152H
Gravel (%) 2.0
70 Sand (%) 30.7
Silt & Clay (%) 67.3
60 Sieve Size Passing
(mm) (%)
50
19.05 100.0
40 4.25 98.0
30 2 98.0
1.18 98.0
20 0.6 98.0
10 0.425 97.7
0.3 97.3
0
0.15 87.3
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Opening size (mm) 0.075 67.3
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Principal Investigator
Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lecturer, Department of Geological Engineering
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 1.0
70 Sand (%) 10.0
60 Silt & Clay (%) 89.0
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 99.0
30 2 99.0
20 1.18 99.0
0.6 99.0
10 0.425 99.0
0 0.3 99.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.15 97.0
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 15.0
60 Silt & Clay (%) 85.0
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 100.0
30 2 100.0
20 1.18 100.0
0.6 100.0
10 0.425 100.0
0 0.3 99.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 94.0
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 3.0
60 Silt & Clay (%) 97.0
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 100.0
30 2 100.0
20 1.18 100.0
0.6 100.0
10 0.425 100.0
0 0.3 100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.15 98.5
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 1.0
70 Sand (%) 6.0
60 Silt & Clay (%) 93.0
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 99.0
30 2 99.0
20 1.18 99.0
0.6 99.0
10 0.425 99.0
0 0.3 99.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.15 97.0
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 94.0
60 Silt & Clay (%) 6.0
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 100.0
30 2 100.0
20 1.18 100.0
0.6 100.0
10 0.425 100.0
0 0.3 95.5
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 9.0
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 1.6
70 Sand (%) 96.9
60 Silt & Clay (%) 1.6
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 98.4
30 2 97.6
20 1.18 96.9
0.6 96.1
10 0.425 95.3
0 0.3 94.5
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 2.4
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.9
70 Sand (%) 95.6
60 Silt & Clay (%) 3.5
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 99.1
30 2 98.2
20 1.18 97.4
0.6 95.6
10 0.425 94.7
0 0.3 89.9
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 5.7
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
152H
80
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 94.4
Silt & Clay (%) 5.6
(mm) (%)
50
19.05 100.0
40 4.25 100.0
2 99.1
30
1.18 98.3
20 0.6 97.4
10 0.425 96.2
0.3 91.9
0 0.15 7.3
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
0.075 5.6
Opening size (mm)
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
152H
80
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 91.5
Silt & Clay (%) 8.5
(mm) (%)
50
19.05 100.0
40 4.25 100.0
2 100.0
30
1.18 100.0
20 0.6 100.0
10 0.425 98.8
0.3 89.7
0 0.15 26.7
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
0.075 8.5
Opening size (mm)
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 3.0
70 Sand (%) 32.0
Silt & Clay (%) 65.0
(mm) (%)
50
19.05 100.0
40 4.25 97.0
30 2 97.0
1.18 97.0
20 0.6 97.0
10 0.425 95.6
0.3 93.0
0
0.15 85.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 1.0
70 Sand (%) 2.6
60 Silt & Clay (%) 96.4
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 99.0
30 2 99.0
20 1.18 99.0
0.6 99.0
10 0.425 99.0
0 0.3 99.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.15 97.4
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
100 ASTM D 6913
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 93.8
60 Silt & Clay (%) 6.2
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 100.0
30 2 100.0
20 1.18 100.0
0.6 100.0
10 0.425 98.6
0 0.3 91.8
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 19.9
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood
Lahore
DHA Lahore
(ft)
Lahore
Gravel Sand
100 ASTM D 6913
Silt/Clay
ASTM D 422
90 Hydrometer type:
80 152H
Gravel (%) 0.0
70 Sand (%) 94.7
60 Silt & Clay (%) 5.3
Sieve Size Passing
50 (mm) (%)
19.05 100.0
40
4.25 100.0
30 2 100.0
20 1.18 100.0
0.6 100.0
10 0.425 100.0
0 0.3 92.7
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.15 12.0
Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Prepared By:
Umer Waqas
Ahsan Mehmood

October - 2020: University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

October - 2020: University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

October - 2020: University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose and scope of work?

What is the purpose and scope of work?

What exploration methodology was used?

What exploration methodology was used?

University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

Subsoil Investigation Report for the Construction of a

Sr. No. 2020/61

Authored By: Dr Muhammad Arshad

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE #

4 FOUNDATIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3

5 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS 6

Appendix – A (bore-hole logs)

Appendix– B (gradation curves)

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work

2.1 Exploratory Boring & Sampling

2.2 Laboratory Testing

4.2 Foundation Design Suggestions

4.2.1 Strip Footing

4.2.2 Raft Footing

Additionally, damp-proofing measures including geo-textiles, polyethene sheets etc should be

4.3 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction

4.5 Some Constructional Aspects

5. GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

***End of Main Text of the Report***

Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Liquid Limit (%)

Figure 2. Casagrande Plasticity Chart

Residential Building at Plot No. 413/K

End of Borehole Log

Residential Building at Plot No. 413/K

End of Borehole Log

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

Dr. Muhammad Arshad

You might also like

End of Main Text of the Report