Main Report

SOIL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
OF
RESIDENTAL cum COMMERCIAL BUILDING
AT
WOTU, Kathmandu Metropolitan City-22
NEPAL
Client: Mr. Radheshyam Shrestha
Prepared By: Expert Testing Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.
Date: 2022-01-11
Soil Test Report of Commercial cum Residential Building. Wotu,KMC-22
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................5
2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................................................7
3. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................7
3.1 Desk Study .............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Field investigation .................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) .......................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Sample Collection ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Ground Water Table .................................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Laboratory investigation .................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1 Natural moisture content ........................................................................................................ 9
3.3.2 Specific gravity ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.3 Grain size analysis ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.4 Atterberg limits ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.5 Direct shear test ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.6 Bulk and Dry density .............................................................................................................. 10
4. Data Interpretation and Analysis .......................................................................................... 11
4.1 Standardization of SPT value ....................................................................................................... 11
4.2 General geology of site ................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Liquefaction analysis....................................................................................................................... 17
4.5 Allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundation using c and F ................................. 21
4.6 Allowable bearing capacity using SPT value .......................................................................... 22
4.7 Allowable bearing capacity using allowable settlement ................................................... 22
4.8 Settlement analysis .......................................................................................................................... 23
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendation ....................................................................................... 27
Annex 1: Borehole Log....................................................................................................................... 29
Annex 2: SPT correction ................................................................................................................... 33
Annex 3: Summary of Input Data ................................................................................................... 35
Annex 4: Bearing Capacity Calculation ........................................................................................ 37
Annex 5: Settlement Calculation .................................................................................................... 39
Annex 6: Liquefaction Calculation ................................................................................................ 41
[Type here]
Annex 7: Direct Shear Test Results ............................................................................................... 43

Annex 8: Sieve Analysis Results ..................................................................................................... 74
Annex 9: Moisture Content Analysis Results .......................................................................... 102
Annex 10: Bulk Density Results .................................................................................................. 104
Annex 11: Specific Gravity Results ............................................................................................. 106
Annex 12: Atterberg Limit Test Results ................................................................................... 108
Annex 13: Photographs .................................................................................................................. 117
[Type here]
List of Figures
Figure 1-1a Topographic map of the of the project area ...................................................................... 5
Figure 1-2 Map of soil investigation area .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4-1 Fluvio-Lacustrine deposits of the Kathmandu valley: Megh Raj Dhital, Geology of
the Nepal Himalaya ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4-2 Gelogical cross sectional map of Kathmandu Valley from Charlottee EL Gilder et.
al. 2019 ................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4-3 Topographic relief coupling modes and historical seismicity: Stevens V. and
Avouac J. (2015) ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4-4 Historical events of earthquakes: Micro seismic epicenter map of Nepal and
surrounding: DOMG,GON 1997 ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4-5 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment map of Nepal : DOMG,GON ..................... 16
Figure 4-6 Seismic zoning map : UNDP/UNCHS Habitat 1994 ........................................................ 17
Figure 4-7 Liquefaction susceptibility map of the Kathmandu Valley: Birendra Piya et. al.
2006 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4-8 Equation for strain influence factor: Schmertmann’s et al. (1978) ......................... 24
Figure 4-9 Relation between qc/N and D50 : Ismael and Jeraagh 1986 ........................................ 24
Figure 4-10 Values of A1 and A2 for elastic settlement calculation: Christian, J. T. and and
Carrier,W. D. (1978). ......................................................................................................................................... 25
[Type here]
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical investigation report is prepared based on the site
exploration and laboratory test results carried out by Expert Testing PVT. LTD, Mid
Baneswor for proposed COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING at WOTU, KMC-
22. The investigation characterizes the subsurface conditions and develops the
necessary requirement for the proposed safe bearing capacity of the foundation. The
Proposed Project area is located at about 260m NE of Hanumandhoka and 80m east
of Indra Chowk, center of capital city, Kathmandu as in figure 1.1 and 1.2.
Figure 1-1a Topographic map of the of the project area
EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 5

Figure 1-2 Map of soil investigation area
The investigation characterizes the subsurface conditions and develops

the necessary requirement for the proposed safe bearing capacity of the foundation.
The soil investigation work was carried out between third and fourth week of
December 2021. The total quantity of soil investigation included three boreholes,
each of 20m depths as per agreement. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was
conducted at 1.5m depth interval to furnish the compactness of the soil strata at field.

2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The scope of work includes the following:
 Making 100 mm nominal diameter bore holes each of 20.0 m depth at three
specified locations using suitable approved method of boring.
 Conducting standard penetration tests in the bore holes at 1.50 m interval in
depth & at everychange of strata, whichever is earlier.
 Collecting undisturbed soil samples from bore holes at 3.00 m interval in depth
(if possible forUndisturbed sampling) or at every change of strata, whichever
is earlier.
 Collecting disturbed soil samples from bore holes at regular interval and at
every identifiablechange of strata to supplement the boring records.
 Recording the depth of ground water table in all the bore holes if observed up
to the depth ofexploration during boring work as per specifications.
 Conducting the laboratory tests on selected disturbed / undisturbed soil
samples collected fromvarious bore holes.
 Preparation and submission of reports which includes Drill logs, Results of in
situ and laboratory test, Assessment of liquefaction Susceptibility, Assessment
of bearing capacity, Analysis of ground improvement techniques and
Recommendations of foundation type and depth.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Desk Study
Site conditions, topographical and geological characteristic of the project
area were collected from previous geotechnical investigation conducted nearby this
project, topographical map, and geological map. However, very limited information is
available for desk study as no geotechnical investigations nearby area are found and
comprehensive soil information system has not been established yet. The geology of
the proposed building site is comprised of the medium- to coarse-grained salt-and-
pepper sandstone with large cross lamination, calcareous sand lenses, convolute
bedding, dark grey siltstone, and mudstone (Shrestha et al. 2019). Plant fossils are
also present in the finely laminated clay bed and upper portion of the investigated
area also comprises of mud- to sand-supported pebble to cobble conglomerates as
shown in Figure 4.1.
A seismic hazard map of Nepal at 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years was used for seismic analysis of soil (Nepal National Building Code: 105:2020
(NBC-105 2020). A peak ground acceleration of 0.38 g is recommended for this site
(Figure4.5). On the basis of these past data’s, a general criterion was developed for
rating the soil condition along proposed building area. However, those studies did not
focus on the site-specific design of foundation considering major geotechnical
parameters like liquefaction possibility, earthquake magnitude, ground amplification,

and peak ground acceleration, which are very important aspect for foundation
analysis. In general, as per previous nearby areas experiences, the proposed structure
seems to lie on non-liquefiable zone followed by medium stiff silty layer.
3.2 Field investigation

The proposed geo-technical investigation was performed to characterize
the subsurface conditions at the site, to evaluate the bearing capacity of foundation
soil and to recommend safe bearing capacity for different type of foundation including
the settlement analysis and the potential of liquefaction.
Field investigation work was carried out in December 11-14, 2021.

Drilling works were carried out using one set of percussion drilling machine. The
sides of the boreholes were lined with 150mm casing pipes.
3.2.1 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 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 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.
3.2.2 Sample Collection

Before any disturbed samples were taken, the boreholes were washed clean
to flush any loose disturbed soil particles deposited during the boring operation. The
samples obtained in the split spoon barrel of SPT tube during SPT tests were
preserved as representative disturbed samples. The disturbed samples recovered
were placed in air-tight double 0.5 mm thick transparent plastic bags, labeled
properly for identification and finally sealed to avoid any loss of moisture. Only then,
the samples were transportation to the laboratory for further investigation.
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.
3.2.3 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 as per bore
log sheets during the drilling.
3.3 Laboratory investigation

All the requisite laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with IS
standard specifications. Standard laboratory test was carried out to characterize the
soil strata. The laboratory test includes the following tests: Moisture Content, Grain
Size Analysis, Specific Gravity, Atterberg Limits, and Direct Shear Tests.
3.3.1 Natural moisture content

The natural water content was determined from samples recovered from the
split spoon sampler. Natural moisture content is determined referring IS: 2720 (Part-
2)-1992.
3.3.2 Specific gravity

The specific gravity test is made on the soil sample which was grounded to
pass 2.0 mm IS sieve. Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the weight of a given
volume of soil particles in air to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at a
temperature of 20 °C. It is important for computing most of the soil properties e.g.,
void ratio, unit weight, particle size determination by hydrometer, degree of
saturation etc. This method covers determination of the specific gravity of soils by
means of a pycnometer. Specific gravity is determined referring IS: 2720 (Part-3)-
1992.
3.3.3 Grain size analysis

Grain size distribution was determined by dry sieving process. Sieve
analysis was carried out by sieving a soil sample through sieves of known aperture
size (e.g., 4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 425, 300, 150 and 75 microns) by keeping one over
the other, the largest size being kept at the top and the smallest size at the bottom.
The soil is placed on the top sieve and shake for 10 minutes using a mechanical
shaker. The soil retained on each sieve was weighed and expressed as a percentage
of the weight of sample. Grain size analysis is determined referring IS: 2720 (Part-4)-
1992.
3.3.4 Atterberg limits

The physical properties of fine-grained soils (clay and silt) get affected with
water content. Depending upon the amount of water present in a fine-grained soil, it
can be in liquid, plastic or solid consistency states. The Atterberg Test was used for
determining the consistency of a cohesive (fine) soil. The Liquid Limit is the water
content at which a soil has a small shear strength that it flows to close a groove of
standard width when jarred in a specified manner. The Plastic Limit is the water
content at which a soil begins to crumble when rolled into threads of specified size

i.e., 3mm. The water content determined at a stage when the rolled thread of soil just
starts crumbling. Three such tests and the average value of water content were taken
as Plastic Limit. The Plasticity Index is the numerical difference between the Liquid
Limit and the Plastic Limit. The liquid limit of the fine-grained soils was determined
using the Casagrande liquid limit device. A Plastic limit was determined using the
standard ‘rolling the soil into a thread of 3mm’ method. Casagrande plasticity chart
was employed to determine the classification of fine-grained soil according to the
Unified Soil Classification System. However, in this study, the Atterberg limit tests are
not applicable as the soil found in the site which were sand. Atterberg limits were
determined referring IS: 2720 (Part-5)-1992.
3.3.5 Direct shear test

The shear strength of a soil mass is its property against sliding along internal
planes within itself and is determined in this case to compute the safe bearing
capacity of the foundation soil. Direct shear tests were conducted on disturbed
samples collected from the three boreholes. The samples were carefully extruded
from the sampling tubes and molded using standard mould of 6.0 x 6.0 cm² cross-
sectional areas and trimmed to 2.5 cm high. Solid metal plates were placed on both
surfaces of the samples to prevent the dissipation of pore water during shearing. The
direct shear equipment is mechanically operated, and shearing is applied at more or
less constant strain rate.
If the samples are cohesive, they will be sheared at a relatively fast rate
(duration of tests less than 10 minutes) to maintain un-drained condition. The
samples were sheared at three different normal stresses (i.e., 5 kPa, 10 kPa, 15 kPa).
The direct shear test results are presented in terms of the failure envelops to give the
angle of internal frictions (F) and the cohesion intercepts (c). Direct shear tests were
conducted referring IS: 2720 (Part-13)-1992.
3.3.6 Bulk and Dry density

Bulk and dry density is determined for sample obtained from split spoon sampler
referring IS 2720 (part-8)-1983.

4. Data Interpretation and Analysis

After conducting desk study (study of available geological map of area, pervious soil
investigations in that area, and other maps, research papers), field investigation and
laboratory investigations following analysis and interpretations were conducted.
4.1 Standardization of SPT value

The recorded SPT values are converted to standardized energy N60 as per
Skempton (1986):
N60= (Em CB CS CR Nrec)/60
N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure
Nrec = measured penetration number
Em = hammer efficiency (%) = 0.55 for hand drop hammer
CB = correction for borehole diameter= 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia.
CS = sampler correction =1.0 for standard sampler
CR = 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 > 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

Where,
CN =√(100/σv ) as per P.K. Robertson et. al. 1997
σv = Effective over burden pressure in kPa.

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 ≥ 15 then Ncorr = ½(Nrec-15)
4.2 General geology of site
In general Geology, typical lithology of formation of the Kathmandu valley is one of
the large intra montane basin developed in the lesser Himalayas, central Nepal. It
consists of a thick lacustrine and fluvial deposits of fine and coarse sand, sandy loam,
peat, sandy silty clay, carbonaceous clay, sand and gravel, all of which are more or less
consolidated. The maximum thickness of these sediments is over 600 meter in some
places. Recent drilling in these sediments has shown that the subsoil of central part
of Kathmandu Valley is very soft to very dense up to a depth of about 20 meter.
Geological map of the project area is shown in Fig. 4.1. The map is an extract from The
Engineering and Environmental map of the Kathmandu valley published by the
Department of Geology and Mines of the Government of Nepal.
Figure 4-1 Fluvio-Lacustrine deposits of the Kathmandu valley: Megh Raj Dhital, Geology of the Nepal Himalaya

Figure 4-2 Gelogical cross sectional map of Kathmandu Valley from Charlottee EL Gilder et. al. 2019
4.3 Seismicity
Many earth scientists believe that longitudinally the entire 2,400 km long
Himalayan arc can be segmented into different individual parts (200-300 km) which
periodically break and move separately and produce mega earthquake (catastrophic
earthquake) in the Himalayan region. From east to west, the great earthquake of
Assam, India (1950), Shilong, India (1897), Nepal-Bihar, India (1934) and Kangra,
India (1905) are the mega-earthquakes of the last century produced by the
movements in different parts of the Himalayan arc, all with magnitude around 8.0 -
8.7 as shown in figure 4.3. When a sector of the Himalaya moves and produces
earthquakes, it will take some time (from decades to century) to repeat the event at
the same place. Nepal is prone to an earthquake of minor or major magnitude.

Figure 4-3 Topographic relief coupling modes and historical seismicity: Stevens V. and Avouac J. (2015)
Records of earthquakes since 1253 indicate that Nepal was hit by 16 major
earthquakes - the 1833 (magnitude 7.9) and 1934(magnitude 8.3) are two of these
which have occurred at an interval of 100 years. Historical incidents of earth quakes
in Nepal and surrounding is shown in figure 4.2. Statically, the earthquake occurrence
data of the last century shows that in average Nepal was hit by a big earthquake in
every 12 years (Nakarmi, 1997).

Figure 4-4 Historical events of earthquakes: Micro seismic epicenter map of Nepal and surrounding: DOMG,GON 1997
Statistics shows that 1934 earthquake was the severest for Kathmandu valley
where significant damages to the lives and properties were observed. Buildings and
other structures built on thick soft soils are very vulnerable to the force of earthquake
as compared to the structures built on top of hard rocks. Due to the thick soil cover,
during an earthquake, the structures in the Kathmandu Valley are shaken very
strongly than the structures in the surrounding hills with rocky base.
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 as shown in figure 4.3.

Figure 4-5 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment map of Nepal : DOMG,GON
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.
To counteract earthquake effect due consideration has to be taken in the

structural design of buildings. The project area is located in the area having Seismic
Zoning Factor, Z, equal to 1 according to the Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal prepared
by National Seismological center, Departments of mines and geology, Nepal,
Kathmandu is highly liquefiable zone, which may experience maximum ground
acceleration of 200 gal to 250 gal, whereas as per Building Department Memorandum
for Multistory Building it must be 360 gal ≈ 0.36g.

Figure 4-6 Seismic zoning map : UNDP/UNCHS Habitat 1994
4.4 Liquefaction analysis

Saturated loose to medium dense cohesion-less soils and low plastic silts tend to
densify and consolidate when subjected to cyclic shear deformations inherent with
large seismic ground motions. 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. Propose building site is located in high liquefaction susceptibility
from reference of Direndra Piya et. al. (2006) and Narayan P. Marasaini (2014) as
shown in figure 4.7.
The present site consists of sandy strata and the ground water table being
encountered typically at nearly 1.6-3.0 m below general ground level, so site may
susceptible to liquefaction. Thus liquefaction potential analysis is performed in the
site.

Figure 4-7 Liquefaction susceptibility map of the Kathmandu Valley: Birendra Piya et. al. 2006
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 = * MSF ---------------------------
𝐶𝑆𝑅
Where, CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio for earthquake of magnitude 7.5
CSR = Normalized cyclic stress that results in liquefaction

MSF = Magnitude scaling factor that accounts for the effects of the number
of cycles during earthquake duration
= 6.9𝑒 −𝑀/4 − 0.058 ⩽ 1.8 for sand
= 1.12𝑒 −𝑀/4 + 0.828 ⩽ 1.13 for clay
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 2 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 3 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 4

CRR7.5=exp⁡( +( ) −( ) +( ) − 2.8)
14.1 14.1 23.6 25.4
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 = Clean sand SPT count according to Idriss et. al 2008
(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 = (𝑁1 )60 + ∆(𝑁1 )60

9.7 15.7
∆(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 ⁡= exp (1.63+𝐹𝐶+0.01 − (𝐹𝐶+0.01)2)
FC = Fine content % obtained from sieve analysis
(𝑁1 )60 = Corrected SPT value normalized for atm. pressure 100 kPa
𝜎𝑣𝑐 𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥
CSR = 0.65 𝑟𝑑
𝜎′𝑣𝑐 𝑔
αmax = peak horizontal acceleration of ground = 0.36g
g = gravitational acceleration m2/sec
𝜎𝑣𝑐 and 𝜎′𝑣𝑐 = Total and effective vertical stress at depth of analysis⁡⁡in kPa
𝑟𝑑 ⁡⁡⁡= stress reduction coefficient = exp(α(z)+β(z)*Mw)⁡
α(z) = -1.012-1.126*sin(z/11.73+5.133)
β(z) =0.106+0.118*sin(z/11.28+5.142)
z = depth of analysis in meters
Mw = Magnitude of earthquake considered
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 particulardepth 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 horizontalground
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 surfacelevel 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:
20
LPI= ∫0 𝑓(𝑧). 𝑤(𝑧)⁡𝑑𝑧
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) as below
f(z) = 1 − FS for FS < 1.0
f(z) = 0 for FS ≥ 1.0
w(z)=10-0.5*z for z< 20m
w(z) =0 for z>20m
The level of liquefaction severity

4.5 Allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundation using c and F

The bearing capacity analysis has been carried out for foundation soil. The well-
known Indian Standard (IS 6403:1981) has been used to compute ultimate bearing
capacity (qult) of soil on the basis of shear failure criteria
For c-Ф soil,
General shear failure,
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐*𝑁𝑐*𝑆𝑐*𝑑𝑐*𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾*D*(𝑁𝑞 − 1)*𝑆𝑞*𝑑𝑞*𝑖𝑞 + 0.5*𝛾*𝐵*𝑁𝛾*𝑆𝛾*𝑑𝛾*𝑖𝛾*𝑊′
Local Shear failure,
𝑞′𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐*𝑁’𝑐*𝑆𝑐*𝑑𝑐*𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾*D*(𝑁’𝑞 − 1)*𝑆𝑞*𝑑𝑞*𝑖𝑞 + 0.5*𝛾*𝐵*𝑁’𝛾*𝑆𝛾*𝑑𝛾*𝑖𝛾*𝑊′
Where γ is the bulk unit weight of soil and bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, Nγ
are determined using table 1 of IS 6403:1981 for internal frictional angle of soil F
whereas bearing capacity factors N’c, N’q, N’γ are determine using table 1 of IS
6403:1981 for reduced internal frictional angle F’ = tan-1(0.67*tan(F)). Sc, Sq, Sγ are
shape factor which depends up on plan dimension and shape of foundation and can
be determined from table 2 of IS 6403:1981. dc, dq, dγ are depth factor according to IS
6403:1981 they can be determined as below
𝐷𝑓
dc =1+0.2* √𝑁∅
𝐵
dq = dγ = 1 for F <10o
𝐷
dq = dγ = 1+0.1* 𝐵𝑓 √𝑁∅ ⁡ for F >10o
⁡𝑁∅ = tan2(p/4+F/2)
Df = Depth of foundation and B= width of foundation
ic, iq, iγ are inclination factor for inclination of loading to the vertical (α) according to
IS 6403:1981 they can be determined as below
ic= iq=(1-α/90)2 and iγ=(1-α/F)2
W’ is the factor considering effect of water table, if water table will permanently
remain below a depth (Df+B) beneath ground level surrounding the footing then
W’=1.0, if water table is likely to rise to the base of footing or above then W’=0.5 and
for in between linear interpolation should be performed.
Detail of bearing capacity calculation is attached as Annex 4 in the report

according to which for proposed size of footing (10mX5m) and at depth of
footing 4m bearing capacity is 445.59 kN/m2.

4.6 Allowable bearing capacity using SPT value

Several empirical equations are available to estimate the allowable bearing
pressure of the soil. Following are the some widely used equations to estimate the
allowable bearing pressure of the soil.
qallow = 71.8*N kPa (Meyerhoff, 1956)
qallow = 47.8*N kPa (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
qallow = 34.0*N kPa (Strounf and Butler, 1975)
All these empirical formulas for the allowable end bearing capacity were
proposed by different researchers and practitioners assuming a factor of safety of 2.5.
All uncertainty is embedded in the factor of safety (FS).

4.7 Allowable bearing capacity using allowable settlement

The maximum allowable settlement for isolated footings in sand is generally 25
mm and for a mat foundation in sand the allowable settlement is 75 mm (IS 1904:
1978). For isolated footings in cohesive soil, allowable settlement is generally 25 mm
and for a mat foundation in cohesive soil the allowable settlement is 100 mm (IS
1904: 1978). According to Meyerhof’s (1965) modified by Bowles (1977) safe
allowable bearing capacity can be determined using equation
3.28⁡𝐵+1 2 𝑆
Qsafe= 11.98 *N60* ( ) ∗fd*(25)*Rw1
3.28𝐵
Where, N60= Corrected average SPT N value

B = Width of footing (m)
S = Allowable settlement (100mm)
fd = Depth factor= 1+0.33(Df/B) ⩽1.33
Rw1= water correction factor, for water table at just below footing=0.5

Note: It is recommended that net allowable bearing capacity of soil should be taken
as 258.3 kN/m2 for the design purpose.

4.8 Settlement analysis

The settlement of shallow foundation can be divided into two major categories:
a.) Elastic, or immediate settlement and
Immediate or elastic settlement of a foundation takes place during or

immediately after the construction of the structure.
Elastic settlement in granular soils can also be evaluated by the use of a semi-
empirical strain influence factor proposed by Schmertmann’s et al. (1978). According
to this method, the settlement:
𝐼
Se=C1 *C2 *qn*∑𝑧0 𝐸𝑧 ∆𝑧
𝑠
Where,
C1=correction factor for embedment of foundation=1-0.5*(qo/qn)
C2=Correction factor to account for creep in soil = 1+0.2*log(t/0.1); t is time in year
qo= Over burden pressure at base of foundation = γ*Df
qn=qu-qo
qu=Stress at level of foundation from foundation kPa
Df= Depth of foundation (m)
γ = unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
∆z=Increment in depth (m)
z =Total depth up to which effect will be considered (m)
Iz =Vertical influence factor obtained from figure 4.8
Es =Modulus of Elasticity of soil, for square footing Bowles (1982) gave empirical
equation using cone penetration resistance (qc)
Es = 2.5*qc for square/circular footing
Es = 3.5*qc for strip footing
Es = Es square*(1+0.4*log(L/B)) ; L, B length and width of footing
qc (kg/cm2) can be correlated to corrected SPT value N60 using figure4.9
depending on mean grain size (d50) .

Figure 4-8 Equation for strain influence factor: Schmertmann’s et al. (1978)
Figure 4-9 Relation between qc/N and D50 : Ismael and Jeraagh 1986

Elastic settlement in saturated clay for poison’s ratio 0.5 can be determined from
relation given Janbu et. al. (1956) average settlement of flexible foundation, which is
as below
𝑞𝑜 ∗𝐵
Se =A1*A2*
𝐸𝑠
Where, ‘A1’ and ‘A2’ are function of H/B and L/B which is determined from figure4.10
given by Christian and Carrier (1978). ‘H’ is depth of clay layer below foundation in
meter, ‘B’ is width of footing in meter in meter, ‘qo’ average vertical pressure from
foundation kPa and ‘Es’ is modulus of elasticity of soil in kPa.
Figure 4-10 Values of A1 and A2 for elastic settlement calculation: Christian, J. T. and and Carrier,W. D. (1978).
Note: For rigid foundation settlement can be considered as 80% of flexible

foundation.

b.) Consolidation settlement
In clay layers total settlement can be expressed as sum of immediate settlement

(Se) and consolidation settlement (Sc). Consolidation settlement consolidation
settlement occurs over time in saturated clayey soils subjected to an increased
load caused by construction of the foundation. Consolidation settlement depends
up on the extent of clay layer beneath foundation, as found in site from field
investigation and from Ranjan Kumar Dahal and Arjun Aryal (2002) at project site
there is very thick layer of clay beneath the foundation in that case according to IS
8009 part-I:1976 consolidation settlement can be computed as below,
𝐻𝑡 𝑃𝑜 +∆𝑃
Sc=λ* 𝐶𝑐 ∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
1+𝑒𝑜 𝑃𝑜
Where,
Po =Effective pressure at mid height of clay layer before construction in kPa
∆P =Average increment in pressure after construction in kPa
eo = Initial void ratio at clay
Cc = Compression index obtained from consolidation test results,
For preliminary analysis according to IS 8009 part (I):1976
Cc= 0.009*(liquid limit -10)
Cc= 0.30*(eo-10)
Ht =Thickness of clay layer in meter
λ = A factor related to pore pressure parameter and (Ht/B)
according to IS 8009 (part-I):1976 for normally consolidated clay
λ = 0.7 to 1.0
Detail of settlement calculation is attached as Annex 5 in the report

according to which for proposed size of footing (10mX5m) provided at depth of
footing 4m and for pressure from footing 258.3 kPa total settlement is
estimated as 71.992 mm which in with in allowable settlement recommended
by table 1of IS 1904:1978 according to which for raft foundation over clay is
100mm.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendation

From the desk study, field investigations and laboratory tests following conclusions
are made:
 Project site is susceptible to liquefaction, based on MAP prepared by

Department of Mines and Geology, Peak Bed Rock Acceleration for Kathmandu
Valley is around 200-250gal, and estimating with amplification factor of 2,
design maximum horizontal acceleration is around 400gal.
 Sandy soil followed by stiff high plastic clayey silt strata lies on project site
within drilling depth
 Project site is highly susceptible towards liquefaction, to a depth of 4 m from
general ground level.
 Soil stratification is found as back fill of very loose silty sand from 0 to 1.5m,
followed by alternating bands of medium grained to fine grained silty sand up
to 3.5m, at this depth remaining of old foundation was found. From depth 3.5m
to 4.5m a thin layer of silty clay was observed followed by around 5 to 6 meters
of dense sand mixed with silts were observed. Beneath sandy silt layer a very
thick layer of high plastic silty clay was observed.
 At level of proposed foundation corrected SPT N value is 18.97, soil type is
sandy clay having D50=0.54, cohesion 1.2 kPa and frictional angle 28.4o.
 Allowable bearing capacity is taken as 258.3 kPa for raft footing of size
10m*10m and estimated total settlement is 72 mm.
Recommendations
 From geo-technical point of view, the proposed building could be constructed

with proper design of sand compaction pile or with pile foundation.
 To decrease risk of liquefaction different methods can be applied among which
certain suitable methods are sand compaction piles, vibration compaction and
bentonite suspension grouting.
 Because of presence of seepage water and probable rise in water table in
summer, side fall (collapse) is eminent. So, at the time of construction of
foundation, it is strongly recommended to design the appropriate site
protection measures based on the soil properties shown in this report.
 To protect the foundation reinforcement from this undesired effect by these
chemicals, a cover of 75mm thick rich concrete mix to the rebar at base and
sides is recommended.
 Conventional excavation equipment such as excavators, loaders and
bulldozers will be sufficient for most of the excavation work. Every effort
should be done to avoid soil disturbance at foundation level.
 Where space permits, the sides of the excavations shall be battered to a slope
of two vertical and one horizontal (2V: 1H) to avoid collapse. If these

recommended side sloped cannot be achieved for insufficient lateral space or

for any other reason, lateral support system (shoring system) for the sides of
the excavation will be required and should be considered to maintain safe
working conditions.
 It is expected that the excavation work for shallow foundation (Raft) and Pile
cap will be below the water table, so dewatering is required. Experience has
shown that small close-boarded excavation can be conveniently dealt with by
conventional sump pumping techniques. However, if larger excavations (More
than 2m) are to stand open for considerable period, the installation of
dewatering system along with protection wall (Sheet Piles, Contiguous Pile,
Soldier pile) may be required.
 Specialist contractors should be consulted in this regard during construction.
Care should be taken during dewatering to ensure that fines are not removed
during pumping since this could result in unpredictable settlements of the
surrounding ground and associates structures.
 It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at
the location of the structures both during and after construction. Surface water
should be directed away from the edges of the excavation.
 The SANDY/GRAVELLY materials will probably be satisfactory for backfilling
purposes, whereas, the CLAYEY materials will not be satisfactory for
backfilling purposes. However, the final decision shall be taken during
construction after complete excavation.

Annex 1: Borehole Log

Annex 2: SPT correction

Annex 3: Summary of Input Data

Annex 4: Bearing Capacity

Calculation

Annex 5: Settlement Calculation

Annex 6: Liquefaction Calculation

Annex 7: Direct Shear Test

Results

Annex 8: Sieve Analysis Results

Annex 9: Moisture Content

Analysis Results

Annex 10: Bulk Density Results

Annex 11: Specific Gravity

Results

Annex 12: Atterberg Limit Test

Results

Annex 13: Photographs

Main Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Main Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Main Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOIL INVESTIGATION

Client: Mr. Radheshyam Shrestha

Prepared By: Expert Testing Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.

Annex 7: Direct Shear Test Results ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 1-1a Topographic map of the of the project area

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 5

Figure 1-2 Map of soil investigation area

The investigation characterizes the subsurface conditions and develops

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 6

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 7

3.2 Field investigation

Field investigation work was carried out in December 11-14, 2021.

3.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

3.2.2 Sample Collection

3.2.3 Ground Water Table

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 8

3.3 Laboratory investigation

3.3.1 Natural moisture content

3.3.2 Specific gravity

3.3.3 Grain size analysis

3.3.4 Atterberg limits

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 9

3.3.5 Direct shear test

3.3.6 Bulk and Dry density

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 10

4. Data Interpretation and Analysis

4.1 Standardization of SPT value

N60= (Em CB CS CR Nrec)/60

N60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedure

Nrec = measured penetration number

Em = hammer efficiency (%) = 0.55 for hand drop hammer

CB = correction for borehole diameter= 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia.

CS = sampler correction =1.0 for standard sampler

= 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 > 10.0 m

Correction for Overburden:

In granular soils, the value of N is affected by the effective overburden pressure.

That is, (N1)60 = CNN60

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 11

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 12

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 13

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 14

Ground motion can be simply quantified by peak values of expectable acceleration,

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 15

Figure 4-5 Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment map of Nepal : DOMG,GON

To counteract earthquake effect due consideration has to be taken in the

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 16

Figure 4-6 Seismic zoning map : UNDP/UNCHS Habitat 1994

4.4 Liquefaction analysis

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 17

Where, CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio for earthquake of magnitude 7.5

CSR = Normalized cyclic stress that results in liquefaction

EXPERT TESTING LABORATORY PVT. LTD 18

= 6.9𝑒 −𝑀/4 − 0.058 ⩽ 1.8 for sand

= 1.12𝑒 −𝑀/4 + 0.828 ⩽ 1.13 for clay

(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 2 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 3 (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 4

(𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 = (𝑁1 )60 + ∆(𝑁1 )60

FC = Fine content % obtained from sieve analysis

𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐𝑆𝑐𝑑𝑐𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾D(𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑆𝑞𝑑𝑞𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑆𝛾𝑑𝛾𝑖𝛾𝑊′

𝑞′𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐𝑁’𝑐𝑆𝑐𝑑𝑐𝑖𝑐 + 𝛾D(𝑁’𝑞 − 1)𝑆𝑞𝑑𝑞𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁’𝛾𝑆𝛾𝑑𝛾𝑖𝛾𝑊′