Soil test sanepa housing

Geotechnical Investigation works
Final
Report
on
Soil Investigation Works
For
The Proposed Site
Of
Sanepa Housing
At
Sanepa,Lalitpur.
Client: -
Consultant: -
PREPARED BY
The Agile Engineering Solution (P.) Ltd.
Sinamangal,Gairigaun,Kathmandu
Email: gsgroup.jain@gmail.com
Cell: 9851118335

Report on Geo-technical Investigation of Sanepa Housing,Sanepa,Lalitpur. Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is prepared on the basis of soil investigation carried out for the proposed
construction of Sanepa Housing, Sanepa,Lalitpur. It presents the detail of the site
investigation and laboratory tests of the sample drawn at site. The soil investigation
comprises of Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Laboratory tests and prediction of the
allowable bearing capacity of the site under consideration. The details of test and findings are
summarized in the respective sections and paragraphs.
Equipments were mobilized and drilling works for two (2) bore holes were carried out as per
the contract agreement. The SPT were carried out along with drawing out of both disturbed
and un-disturbed soil samples at locations and depth as shown in the relevant sections. The
samples so drawn at site were immediately taken to the laboratory and appropriate tests were
performed.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the investigation is to determine the soil formation at the project site so as to
derive engineering parameters for the design of the foundation of the proposed structures.
The specific objective of the consulting services subject to these TOR is:
o To do the detailed site investigation and geotechnical investigation of the site
o To submit the detailed site and soil investigation report including engineering
properties, design parameters, bearing capacity, coefficient of sub-grade reaction etc.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND INVESTIGATION
For the purpose of the foundation design and construction of the proposed building, the
following data are to be provided:
o Type of foundation
o Depth below the ground level at which the foundation is to be placed
o Allowable bearing pressure at the foundation level
o Design parameters of sub-soil strata (sub-soil profile and engineering properties of the
soil strata)
The scope of soil investigation is as follows for borehole advancement to 12m at 2 locations:
o Standard penetration tests at 1.5m interval
o Collection of disturbed and undisturbed samples at regular interval or as and when
required
o Ground water table observation
o Laboratory test and analysis of data to determine the engineering properties
o Seismic analysis
o Technical report of the investigation work

4. METHODOLOGY
A. 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 2072. Drilling works were carried out using
one set of percussion drilling machine. The sides of the boreholes were lined with
150mm casing pipes.
Standard Penetration tests (SPT) were carried out in the boreholes at average depth
intervals of 1.5 m. Spilt spoon sampler of 35 mm internal diameter and 50 mm external
diameter coupled with a standard cutting shoe at its lower end was driven into the
ground at the base of the borehole by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling from a height
of 760 mm. After an initial 150 mm seating penetration the sampler was driven to a
further depth of 150 mm twice to reach the final depth. The sum of the number of
blows required to reach the two last final 150mm depth was recorded as the N-value.
B. WATER TABLE MONITORING
The level of water was recorded in the boreholes at least 24 hours after boring was
completed to establish the ground water level. There were traces of water after 24 hours
of observation thus it can be said that the water table was found at 3m from G.L.
C. 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
including Hydrometer, Bulk Density, Specific Gravity, Atterberg Limits, Consolidation
Tests, Unconfined Compression Test and Direct Shear Tests.
a. Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density
The natural water content and bulk density was determined from samples recovered
from the split spoon sampler.
b. 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 4 degree C. It is important for computing the 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.

c. 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 shaked 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.
d. 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.
e. Consolidation
Consolidation of soil is the process of compression by gradual reduction of pores under
a steadily applied pressure. Consolidation tests are conducted for obtaining data
required for settlement analysis. Consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed
samples of 60 mm diameter and 20 mm thick. Two-way drainage was provided. Each
increment of load was maintained until sufficient period beyond the primary
consolidation has been reached. The test results are presented in terms of the e - logσ
curves in the attached figures.
f. Unconfined Compression Test
The unconfined compressive strength of a soil specimen is the ratio of failure load and
cross-sectional area of the specimen (at failure) when it is not subjected to any
confining pressure. It is conducted to measure the shear strength of a cohesive soil,
collected in natural state (in undisturbed form) from the field. This test is mainly used
for cohesive soils to check the short term stability of foundations and the sensitivity of
a soil. In this test, a circular soil specimen is compressed axially without any confining
pressure. The cross-section of the specimen increases with decrease in length.

g. 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 moulds 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., 0.5 kg/cm2
, 1.0 kg/cm2
, 1.5 kg/cm2
,). The direct shear
test results are presented in terms of the failure envelops to give the angle of internal
frictions (Ø) and the cohesion intercepts (c).
5. ANALYSIS OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
The allowable bearing pressure (qall) is the maximum pressure that can be imposed on
the foundation soil taking into consideration the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil
and the tolerable settlement of the structure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing
capacity and the pressure corresponding to a specified maximum settlement were
performed and the minimum pressure obtained from the two analyses were adopted as
the allowable bearing pressure.
A. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be grayish color
very dense gravel at greater depth, grey silty clay with high plasticity at intermediate
depth, the allowable bearing capacity has been analyzed using the angle of friction and
cohesion values from direct shear test results. Empirical formula of Terzaghi applicable
for this type of soils has been used to obtain the allowable bearing pressure with safety
factor equal to 3.
a. Hansen’s Method:
qult = cNcscdcic + qNqsqdqiqWq + 0.5γBNγsγdγiγWγ
where,
Nq = eπtanϕ
tan2
(45 + ϕ/2)
Nc = (Nq – 1) Cotϕ
Nγ = 1.5 (Nq – 1) tanϕ
sc,, sq,, sγ,, dc,,dq,,dγ,, ic,, iq,,iγ are shape, depth and inclination factors.
b. Terzaghi’s Method:
qult = cNcsc + qNqWq + 0.5γBNγsγWγ
where,
Nq = a2
/ a Cos2
( 45 + ϕ/2 ), a = e(0.75π-ϕ/2)tanϕ/2
Nc = (Nq – 1) Cotϕ
Nγ = tanϕ / 2 * (Kpγ / cos2
ϕ – 1)
Kpγ is a factor

c. Effect of water table:
i) If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (Df +
B) beneath the ground level surrounding the footing then Wq = 1.
ii) If the water table is located at depth Df or likely to rise to the base of the
footing or above then the value of Wq shall be taken as 0.5.
iii) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth
Df<Dw<(Df+B), then the value of Wq be obtained by linear interpolation.
B. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT
The maximum allowable settlement for isolated footings in sand is generally 50
mm and for mat foundation in sand the allowable settlement is 75 mm (IS 1904: -
1978). For isolated footings in cohesive soil, allowable settlement is generally 75
mm and for mat foundation in cohesive soil the allowable settlement is 100 mm
(IS 1904: - 1978).
a. Settlement Analysis using Schmertmann method:
The method proposed by Schmertmann (1970) states that the change in the
Boussinesq pressure bulb was interpreted as related to strain. Since the pressure
bulb changes more rapidly from about 0.4 to 0.6 B, this depth is interpreted to
have the largest strains. Schmertmann then proposed using triangular relative-
strain diagram to model this strain distribution with ordinates of 0, 0.6 and 0 at
0B, 0.5B and 2B respectively. The area of diagram is related to the settlement.
Settlement (δ) = C1C2C3(q-Ϭ’zd)ΣIεH/Es
The Peak Value of the strain influence factor Iεp is
Iεp = 0.5 + 0.1Sqrt ((q-Ϭ’zd)/ Ϭ’zp)
Square and Circular Foundation:
For zf = 0 to B/2 Iε = 0.1 + (zf/B) (2Iεp-0.2)
For zf = B/2 to 2B Iε = 0.667 Iεp (2-zf/B)
C1 = 1- 0.5 (Ϭ’zd /q - Ϭ’zd)
C2 = 1 + 0.2 log ( t / 0.1 )
C3 = 1.03 – 0.003 L/B >= 0.73
SPT N Value Corrected for field procedures
N60 = EmCBCSCRN/0.6
Em = Hammer efficiency
CB = Bore hole dia correction
CS = Sampler correction
CR = Rod Length Correction
SPT N value corrected for field procedure and overburden stress

(N1)60 = N60
The method of Teng (1988) can also be employed for determining settlement.
This method is a modification of the method of Terzaghi and Peck (1948) such
that the allowable bearing pressure could directly be obtained from the SPT
values.
The allowable bearing pressure for a limiting settlement other than 25 mm (e.g. x
mm) can be linearly interpolated from the allowable bearing pressure for 25 mm
settlement.
qa(x mm) = qa(25 mm)(x/25)
C. LIQUEFACTION:
The liquefaction resistance of an element of soil depends on how close the initial
state of the soil is to the state corresponding to “failure’’ and on the nature of the
loading required to move it from the initial state to failure state. It is evident from
the literature that the failure state is different for flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility. The failure state for flow liquefaction is easily defined using the FSL
and its initiation is easily recognized in the field. Once the cyclic loading imposed
by an earthquake and the liquefaction resistance of the soils has been
characterized, liquefaction potential can be evaluated. The cyclic stress approach
characterizes earthquake loading by the amplitude of an equivalent uniform
cyclic stress and liquefaction resistance by the amplitude of the uniform cyclic
stress required to produce liquefaction in the same number of cycles. The
evaluation of liquefaction potential is thus reduced to a comparison of loading
and resistance throughout the soil deposit of interest. Liquefaction can be
expected at depths where the loading exceeds the resistance or when the factor of
safety against liquefaction, expressed as, FSL = is less than 1.
Cyclic mobility failure is generally considered to occur when pore pressure
become large enough to produce ground oscillation, lateral spreading, or other
evidence of damage at the ground surface.
Maximum shear stress:
Ʈmax = amax / g*σ`v* rd
amax / g = 0.3 (Peak ground acceleration)
rd = Stress reduction factor
The equivalent uniform cyclic shear stresses are simply taken as 65% of
maximum shear stress.
Ʈmax = amax/g*σ`v*rd * 0.65
Triaxial cyclic stress ratio (CSRL) from fig 9.31,
Cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction:
Ʈcyc,L = CSRL * σ`v

FSL = Ʈcyc,L/Ʈcyc, is less than 1.
It should be noted that significant excess pore pressure can develop even if the
computed factor of safety is greater than 1.

6. CONCLUSION
1. Soil investigation work has been carried out for the construction of the proposed
Sanepa Housing,Sanepa,Lalitpur.
2. During soil investigation the water table was found at 3m from GL level.
Therefore, all the bearing capacity calculations have been done with the water
table.
3. As per the site investigation results and then analysis associated for the measure
of liquefaction, it shall be noted that there is no possibility of liquefaction.
4. The footing depth should be minimum 2.5 m depth due to filling materials 1.5 m
depth.
5. The depth of Gravel Soling should be 30 cm. The size of gravel should be less than 150
mm mixing with coarse sand. The gravel layer should be compacted by rolling machine
in MAT and Rammer in Shallow. The layer of gravel should be compacted in 15 cm each
layer with spread of water
6. On the basis of ultimate bearing capacity and allowable settlement the following
allowable bearing pressures in kN/m2
for shallow/Mat foundation have been
recommended.
Footing size in
m x m
Depth of
footing in
m
Allowable
bearing capacity
by Terzaghi’s
method in
KN/m2
Settlement of Minimum
Allowable
bearing
capacity in
KN/m2
40 mm 60mm
2.5 x 2.5 2.5 68.12 25.4 68.12

Depth Thickness
m m
Depth
(m)
Type 15 cm 15 cm 15 cm
1.50 SPT 2 2 2 4
3.00 SPT 6 7 9 16
4.50 SPT 3 3 3 6
6.00 SPT 2 3 4 7
7.50 SPT 3 2 3 5
9.00 SPT 2 3 4 7
10.50 SPT 4 4 6 10
12.00 SPT 7 7 7 14
10 to 30
med.
dense
dense very
dense
4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32
med.soft stiff very stiff
Checked by : Daman Pantha
Logged by : Ramesh K. Thapa
Cohesive Soil
Total Depth :12.00m
Compactness
Type of soil
Verified by : S. K. Jain
30 to 50
Very soft
0 to 2
very loose
4 to 10
0 to 4
2 to 4
loose
Consistency
Soft
N, Value
Granular Soil
N
Sampling
0.00-1.5 1.5 Soil With Filling Materials .
Penetration Blow
Soil
symbol
Group
symbol
1
Project Name :
Sanepa,Lalitpur
Diameter of Bore Hole : 6"
Water Table, m : 3.00
4.5-7.5 3 Dark Greyesh Colour Silty Clay.
Bore Hole Log Sheet
Bore Hole No :
Sanepa Housing
Location :
7.5-12.0 4.5 Dark Greyesh Colour Clay.
Soil Description
1.5-4.5 3 Greyish Colour Silty Clay.

Depth Thickness
m m
Depth
(m)
Type 15 cm 15 cm 15 cm
1.50 SPT 4 4 3 7
3.00 SPT 7 6 7 13
4.50 SPT 3 3 3 6
6.00 SPT 3 2 3 5
7.50 SPT 2 3 5 8
9.00 SPT 4 4 3 7
10.50 SPT 2 3 3 6
12.00 SPT 6 7 7 14
10 to 30
med.
dense
dense very
dense
4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32
med.soft stiff very stiff
Greyish Colour Silty Sandy Gravelely Clay.
3.0-6.0 3 Greyish Colour Silty Clay.
6.0-12.0 6 Dark Greyesh Colour Clay.
Bore Hole Log Sheet
Bore Hole No :
Sanepa Housing
Location :
1.5-3.0 1.5
2
Project Name :
Sanepa,Lalitpur
Diameter of Bore Hole : 6"
Water Table, m : 3.00
Penetration Blow
Soil
symbol
Group
symbol
Soil Description
Consistency
Soft
N, Value
Granular Soil
N
Sampling
0.00-1.5 1.5 Soil With Filling Materials .
Very soft
0 to 2
very loose
4 to 10
0 to 4
2 to 4
loose
Logged by : Ramesh K. Thapa
Cohesive Soil
Total Depth :12.00m
Compactness
Type of soil
Verified by : S. K. Jain
30 to 50

Project Name : Sanepa Housing
Consultant :
Location : Sanepa,Lalitpur
Date :
Sample
No.
Depth
m
Length
cm
Weight
gm
Volume
cm3
Bulk Density
gm/cm3
3.00 10.00 168.20 96.16 1.75
10.50 10.00 165.30 96.16 1.72
1.50 10.00 180.50 96.16 1.88
9.00 10.00 157.30 96.16 1.64
Borehole No. 1
Checked by : Daman Pantha Verified by : S.K. Jain (M.E.Civil,Geotech Engg. USA)
The Agile Engineering Solution (P.)Ltd.
Bulk Density Test
Tested by : Subhash. ( Lab. Technician )
Borehole No. 2
SPT
SPT

Sanepa Housing
Sanepa,Lalitpur
3.00 200.20 156.00 44.20 6.50 149.50 29.57
10.50 171.70 97.90 73.80 6.50 91.40 80.74
1.50 367.30 343.40 23.90 6.50 336.90 7.09
9.00 163.20 92.60 70.60 6.50 86.10 82.00
The Agile Engineering Solutions (P.) Ltd.
Natural Moisture Content
Project Name :
Consultant :
Location :
Date :
Wt. of Cont.
+
Wet Soil gm
Wt. of
Cont.+
Dry Soil
gm
Wt. of
Water
gm
Wt. of
Empty
Container
gm
Tested by : Subhash (Lab. Technician)
Wt. of Dry
Soil
gm
Moisture
Content
%
Sample No. Depth,m
Checked by : Daman Pantha Verified by : S.K. Jain ( M.E.Civil, Geotech Eng., USA)
Bore Hole No. 1
SPT
Bore Hole No. 2
SPT

Project Name : Sanepa Housing
Client :
Location : Sanepa,Lalipur
Date :
Depth, m 3.00 10.50
SPT SPT
Weightof Pycnometer W1 gm 61.00 66.00
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil W2 gm 86.00 91.00
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil and water W3 gm 176.20 181.20
Weight Pycnometer full of water W4 gm 160.80 166.00
Weight of dry Soil (w2-w1) gm 25.00 25.00
Weight of an equal volume of water (w2-w1)-(w3-w4) gm 9.60 9.80
2.60 2.55
Depth, m 1.50 9.00
SPT SPT
Weightof Pycnometer W1 gm 66.30 66.00
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil W2 gm 91.30 91.00
Weight of pycnometer with dry soil and water W3 gm 181.50 181.45
Weight Pycnometer full of water W4 gm 165.80 166.30
Weight of dry Soil (w2-w1) gm 25.00 25.00
Weight of an equal volume of water (w2-w1)-(w3-w4) gm 9.30 9.85
2.69 2.54
Verified by : S.K. Jain ( M.E.Civil, Geotech Eng., USA)
The Agile Engineering Solutions (P.) Ltd.
Specific Gravity Test
BH - 1
BH - 2
Borehole No.
Sample No.
Borehole No.
Specific Gravity
Sample No.
Specific Gravity
Tested by : S. Adhikari ( Lab Technician )

Project : Client :
Location : Sanepa,Lalitpur Consultant :
Bore Hole No : BH - 1 Wash Sample gm Depth (m) : 3.00
Wt. of Sample, gm : 108.90 104.90 Sample No : SPT
Seive Size (mm)
Cumulative
weight
gm
Percent Finer
(%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 0.00 0.00 100.00
1.180 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.600 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.425 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.300 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.150 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.075 0.80 0.76 99.24
Gravel , % 0.00 51.28
Sand , % 0.76 47.96
Remarks
Tested by : S. Adhikari ( Lab Technician ) Certified by : Dr. Pankaj Bhattrai, Ph.D, Japan
Silt, %
Clay, %
Sieve Analysis Test Result
Wt. of Soil Retained
(gm) Cumulative Percent
retaining (%)
Sanepa Housing
0.00
0.80
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Percent
Finer,
%
Particle size, mm
Grain Size & Hydrometer Disribution Curve

Project : Client :
Seive Size (mm)
Cumulative
weight
gm
Percent Finer
(%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 0.00 0.00 100.00
1.180 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.600 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.425 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.300 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.150 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.075 0.50 0.50 99.50
Gravel , % 0.00 51.54
Sand , % 0.50 47.96
0.50
retaining (%)
Sanepa Housing
Remarks
Silt, %
Clay, %
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Percent
Finer,
%
Particle size, mm

Project : Client :
Seive Size (mm)
Cumulative
weight
gm
Percent Finer
(%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 16.80 10.23 89.77
20.000 65.20 39.71 60.29
16.000 89.10 54.26 45.74
10.000 118.60 72.23 27.77
4.750 139.40 84.90 15.10
2.360 3.90 3.72 14.54
1.180 6.20 5.91 14.21
0.600 8.00 7.63 13.95
0.425 11.20 10.68 13.49
0.300 12.30 11.73 13.33
0.150 13.80 13.16 13.12
0.075 14.40 13.73 13.03
Gravel , % 85.46 7.89
Sand , % 1.51 5.14
Remarks
Silt, %
Clay, %
29.50
1.80
16.80
48.40
retaining (%)
Sanepa Housing
20.80
3.90
2.30
1.10
1.50
0.60
23.90
3.20
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Percent
Finer,
%
Particle size, mm

Project : Client :
Location : Sanepa,Laliptur Consultant :
Seive Size (mm)
Cumulative
weight
gm
Percent Finer
(%)
40.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
16.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.360 0.00 0.00 100.00
1.180 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.600 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.425 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.300 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.150 0.00 0.00 100.00
0.075 0.30 0.29 99.71
Gravel , % 0.00 53.47
Sand , % 0.29 46.25
Remarks
Silt, %
Clay, %
retaining (%)
Sanepa Housing
0.30
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Percent
Finer,
%
Particle size, mm

Location : Sanepa. Tested by : Binita Basnet
Bore Hole No. : 1 Checked by : Daman Pantha
Sample : SPT Verified by :
Depth, m : 3.00
PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm²
0.05 5.00 0.050 12.00 0.120 19.00 0.190
0.1 12.00 0.120 17.00 0.170 28.00 0.280
0.2 17.00 0.170 24.00 0.240 36.00 0.360
0.3 25.00 0.250 28.00 0.280 45.00 0.450
0.4 30.00 0.300 35.00 0.350 53.00 0.530
0.5 34.00 0.340 42.00 0.420 61.00 0.610
0.6 37.00 0.370 46.00 0.460 67.00 0.670
0.7 35.00 0.350 51.00 0.510 73.00 0.730
0.8 33.00 0.330 55.00 0.550 78.00 0.780
0.9 30.00 0.300 52.00 0.520 80.00 0.800
1.0 47.00 0.470 77.00 0.770
1.1 74.00 0.740
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
φ, degree 23.00
C, Kpa 14.00
The Agile Engineering Solutions (P) Ltd
Direct Shear Test Results
Normal Stress
1.50 kg/cm²
Normal Stress
1.00 kg/cm²
Normal Stress
0.50 kg/cm²
Test No. 2
Test No. 1
Project : Sanepa Housing
S.K. Jain
(M. E. Geotechnical Engg, USA)
SDT
cm
Test No. 3
Shear Parameters
SDT = Shear Displacement; PRDRg = Proving Ring Dial Reading; SST = Shear Stress
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
Shear
Stress,
kg/cm
2
Normal Stress, kg/cm2

Location : Sanepa. Tripureshor Tested by : Binita Basnet
Bore Hole No. : 2 Checked by : Daman Pantha
Sample : UDS Verified by :
Depth, m : 9.00
PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm² PRDRg SST kg/cm²
0.05 9.00 0.090 14.00 0.140 23.00 0.230
0.1 16.00 0.160 22.00 0.220 32.00 0.320
0.2 24.00 0.240 30.00 0.300 4249.00 42.490
0.3 30.00 0.300 38.00 0.380 55.00 0.550
0.4 36.00 0.360 46.00 0.460 66.00 0.660
0.5 39.00 0.390 53.00 0.530 70.00 0.700
0.6 40.00 0.400 57.00 0.570 74.00 0.740
0.7 38.00 0.380 60.00 0.600 79.00 0.790
0.8 35.00 0.350 57.00 0.570 76.00 0.760
0.9 53.00 0.530 73.00 0.730
1.0 50.00 0.500 70.00 0.700
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
φ, degree 21.00
C, Kpa 17.00
S.K. Jain
(M. E. Geotechnical Engg, USA)
SDT
cm
Test No. 3
Shear Parameters
SDT = Shear Displacement; PRDRg = Proving Ring Dial Reading; SST = Shear Stress
The Agile Engineering Solutions (P) ltd
Direct Shear Test Results
Normal Stress
1.50 kg/cm²
Normal Stress
1.00 kg/cm²
Normal Stress
0.50 kg/cm²
Test No. 2
Test No. 1
Project : Sanepa Housing
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
Shear
Stress,
kg/cm
2
Normal Stress, kg/cm2

Soil test sanepa housing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Soil test sanepa housing

Similar to Soil test sanepa housing (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Soil test sanepa housing