group 1 final.docx

KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
DHULIKHEL, KAVRE
REPORT ON:
GEOTECHINCAL SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT
OF
CHECK DAM
SUBMITTED TO: - Er. Avishek Shrestha
SUBMITTED BY: -
ABISHEK ACHARYA (01)
NABIN CHAND (11)
NIKESH KHADKA (15)
AVASH PATHAK (34)
DHANANJAY SHAH (45)
NISHCAL THAPALIYA (56)
DATE OF SUBMISSION: - 17 MAY, 2023

Final Report for the Geotechnical Investigation for check dam in Batase Danda, Kavre
GROUP -1 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENIGNEERING
GROUP-1: Department of Civil Engineering, Dhulikhel, May 2023 Page | 1
Date: 18 May 2023
To,
The Head of Department
Department of Civil engineering
Subject: Submission of Report for the Geotechnical Investigation for
check dam in Batase Dada, Kavre
Dear Sir,
We the students of the Civil Engineering 2019 batch, third year, second-semester Group (1)
writing to submit the geotechnical investigation report for the proposed check dam base at
Batase, Kavre.
We conducted the geotechnical investigation, which involved visiting the proposed site and
conducting various to tests to assess the soil and rock properties, groundwater conditions and
other relevant factors. We also drilled boreholes and collected soil and rock samples for
laboratory test.
This report includes field and laboratory results with conclusion, detailed information on the
soil and rock properties, groundwater conditions and provides recommendations for the
design and construction of the dam including the type of foundation, the materials to be used
and specifications for the dam structure.
Please contact us if you need any more details or clarification.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................4
2. Purpose of study.................................................................................................................4
3. Site Location ......................................................................................................................4
4. Geo-Technical Exploration................................................................................................5
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................5
4.2 Field Investigation.......................................................................................................6
4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)..........................................................................6
4.2.2 Sample collection.................................................................................................7
4.3 Laboratory Investigation .............................................................................................7
4.3.1 Natural moisture content......................................................................................8
4.3.2 Specific gravity....................................................................................................8
4.3.3 Grain size analysis ...............................................................................................8
4.3.4 Atterberg Limits...................................................................................................8
5. Surface and Surface conditions..........................................................................................9
5.1 Properties of Ground materials ...................................................................................9
5.2 Groundwater Table......................................................................................................9
6. Engineering analysis ........................................................................................................10
6.1 Shallow foundation Analysis ....................................................................................10
6.1.1 Analysis of Allowable bearing pressure ............................................................10
6.2 Summary of Findings................................................................................................15
6.2.1 Calculation of Allowable Bearing pressure from IS code .................................15
6.2.2 Calculation of Bearing Pressure from Bowels...................................................16
6.3 RESULTS..................................................................................................................17
7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................18
8. Recommendation and Discussion....................................................................................18
9. References and Standards ................................................................................................19
ANNEX I – BOREHOLE LOG...............................................................................................20
ANNEX II – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS....................................................................24
ANNEX III- PHOTOGRAPHS...............................................................................................34

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map of proposed Site ...................................................................................5
Figure 2: Performing Standard Penetration Test .......................................................................6
Figure 3 Sample Collection of different bore holes...................................................................7
Figure 4: Flow chart of different types of correction of SPT N value....................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Soil characteristics of different boreholes ...................................................................9
Table 2. Corrected SPT Values recorded from the field i.e. different borehole......................13
Table 3. Bearing Capacity factors............................................................................................14

1. Introduction
For the safe and economic infrastructural development, it is important that subsoil conditions
at any proposed civil engineering site be properly investigated prior to commencement of the
final design or construction activities. Generally, the overall investigation should be detailed
enough to provide sufficient information for the geotechnical engineer to reach conclusions
regarding the site suitability, design criteria and environmental impact. Both laboratory and in
situ or field techniques are routinely used to obtain information about engineering properties
of rocks and soils. This report focuses on the standard penetration test (SPT) which is one of
the relatively cost-effective and informative field techniques most commonly used in
subsurface exploration.
This report presents the results of geotechnical investigation conducted, laboratory results and
recommendation for the proposed construction site i.e. check dam at Batase, Kavre. This
report covers boreholes drilled at various locations including three boreholes. To determine
how compact the soil layers were in the field, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and Dynamic
Cone Penetration Tests (DPCT) were carried out as efficiently as possible at 1.5m depth
intervals. Report is limited to defining parameters and specifying safe bearing capacity.
2. Purpose of study
Following are the purpose of site investigation:
 Evaluate the soil and rock properties at proposed site.
 Determine the site’s suitability for construction a check dam
 Identify potential issues that could affect the stability and safety of dam.
 Develop recommendations for the design and construction of the dam structures.
 Determine the type of foundation that would be suitable for the site,
 Identify suitable materials to be used in construction.
 Provide guidance for the design and construction.
3. Site Location
The site is located in Kavre district of Bagmati Province of Nepal. The project site can be
accessed by B.P highway. The project area lies about 5km south-east of Dhulikhel and is
connected with BP highway upto the project site.

Coordinates:
Latitude: 27.6033741o
E and Longitude: 85.5556795o
N
Figure 1 Location Map of proposed Site
4. Geo-Technical Exploration
4.1 General
Geotechnical exploration are performed by the engineers or geologist to obtain information
on the physical properties of soil and rock formations at a particular site. This exploration
process typically involves a combination of field and laboratory exploration. The
geotechnical exploration process typically begins with a site visit and visual inspection of the
area to be explored. This is followed by a detailed site investigation, which may include
drilling and sampling of soil, conducting geophysical surveys and collecting data on
groundwater levels. Laboratory testing is then performed on the samples collected during the
investigation, to determine their physical and chemical properties. The results of the

geotechnical exploration are then analyzed and interpreted by engineers and other
professionals to develop the recommendations for the site design and construction.
4.2 Field Investigation
The proposed geo-technical investigation was performed to characterize the subsurface
condition at the site, to evaluate the bearing capacity of foundation soil and to recommend
safe bearing capacity for different type of foundation.
Field investigation work was carrier 04 May 2023. Drilling works were carried out. The
sides of the boreholes were lined with 150mm casing pipes. For the site, three boreholes
BH1, BH2 and BH3 was drilled.
4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard Penetration test (SPT) were carried out in the boreholes at average depth intervals of
15cm. Spilt spoon sampler of 35mm 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 150mm twice to reach
the final depth. The sum of the number of blows required to reach the two-last final 150 mm
depth was recorded as the N- value.
Figure 2: Performing Standard Penetration Test

4.2.2 Sample collection
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
transparent plastic bags, labelled properly for identification and finally sealed to avoid any
loss of moisture. Only then the samples were taken to the laboratory for the further
investigation.
Figure 3 Sample Collection of different bore holes
4.3 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, Specific Gravity, Sieve
Analysis and Atterberg Limits.

4.3.1 Natural moisture content
The natural water was determined from samples recovered from the split spoon sampler. The
samples were kept in an oven for 24 hrs after which the weight of sample was measured
again to determine the water content present in the soil.
4.3.2 Specific gravity
The specific gravity test is made on the soil sample which was grounded to pass 2.0mm 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 20o
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.
4.3.3 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 sieve size (e.g. 4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm,
425, 300, 150and 75 microns) by keeping one over the other, the largest size being at the top
and the smallest size at the bottom. The soil is placed on the top sieve and shake for 10
minutes using mechanical shaker. The soil retained on each sieve was weighed and expressed
as a percentage of the weight of sample.
4.3.4 Atterberg Limits
The physical properties of fine-grained soils 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
soil. The sample to be used was passed through the 425 μm. The dry soil was mixed with
distilled water using a palette knife on a glass plate and thus formed a thick paste was kept in
oven dry for 24 hr to determine moisture content on it.

5. Surface and Surface conditions
5.1 Properties of Ground materials
From the field investigation, a generalized subsurface soil characteristic data visualized from
the three borehole is presented in table below:
Table 1: Soil characteristics of different boreholes
Borehole Depth Soil characteristics of borehole
BH1
Dam
Axis-2
0.86 Cohesionless, Grayish, low plastic
BH 1
Dam
Axis-1
0.71 Cohesionless, Grayish-black, silty clay mixed with pebbles, low
plastic
BH 2
Dam
Axis-2
0.83 Brownish black, silty sand, low plastic highly loose
5.2 Groundwater Table
Determination of the location of ground water table is an essential part of any exploratory
programme as the groundwater level affects the pore water pressure and hence the shear
strength pf soil. The position of groundwater can be estimated through observations of open
wells at the site or in the vicinity. Boreholes can also be used for recording water levels by
allowing the water in boring to reach equilibrium level. It is easy in sandy soils as water gets
stabilized very quickly within few hours. But in clayey soil it might take many days. The
readings should be made at least 12 to 24 hrs after boring and compared with water levels in
the wells existing in that area.

6. Engineering analysis
6.1 Shallow foundation Analysis
6.1.1 Analysis of Allowable bearing pressure
The maximum allowable net loading intensity on the soil at which the soil neither fails in
shear nor undergoes excessive or intolerable settlement detrimental to the structure is
allowable bearing capacity and also called design bearing capacity. This is the minimum of
safe bearing capacity and safe bearing pressure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing
capacity and the pressure corresponding to a specified maximum settlement were performed.
6.1.1.1 SPT correction
Corrections for field procedures are always appropriate, but the overburden pressure
correction may or may not be appropriate depending on the procedure by those who
developed the analysis method under consideration. For cohesive soil there is no need for
overburden pressure correction (Peck et al, 1974 pp.114). For cohesionless soil at first
overburden pressure correction is made, then if it is fine sand or silt under water table with N
value > 15, dilatancy correction is made. For coarse sand dilatancy correction is not required.
Correction process can be represented by flowchart as shown in figure below:

Different types of corrections are described briefly:
6.1.1.1.1 Correction of SPT Value for Field Procedures
On the basis of field observations, it appears reasonable to standardize the field SPT number
as a function of the input driving energy and its dissipation around the sampler around the
surrounding soil. The variations in testing procedures may be at least partially compensated
by converting the measured N to N60 as follows (Skempton, 1986)
N60 = EHCBCsCRN/0.60
Where, N60= SPT N value corrected for field procedure
EH= Hammer Efficiency
CB= Borehole diameter correction
CS= Sample Correction
CR= Rod length correction
N= SPT N value recorded in the field
The correction factors taken are:
Figure 4: Flow chart of different types of correction of SPT N value

EH = 0.55 for hand drop hammer,
CB = 1.0 for 65 mm to 115 mm dia. Borehole,
CS = 1.0 for standard sampler,
CR = 0.85 for rod length 4 – 5.99 m
6.1.1.1.2 Correction of SPT Value for overburden pressure
In cohesionless soils, the overburden pressure affects the penetration resistance. For SPT
made at shallow levels, the values are usually too low. At a greater depth, the same soil at the
same density index would give higher penetration resistance. It was only as late as in 1957
that Gibbs and Holtz (1957) suggested that corrections should be made for field SPT values
for depth. Modified correction in 1974, Peck, Hanson and Thornburn with suggested standard
pressure of corresponding to a depth of 5 m of soil with bulk density 20 kN/m2
can be
represented by the following equation:
(N1)60 = N60Cn
Cn = 0.77log(2000/po)
6.1.1.1.3 Correction of SPT value for water Table
In addition to corrections of overburden, investigators suggested corrections of SPT- value
for water table in the case of fine sand or silt below water table. Apparently, high N-values
may be observed especially when observed value is higher than 15 due to dilatancy effect. In
saturated, fine or silty, dense or very dense sand the N- values may be abnormally great
because of the tendency of such materials to dilate during shear under undrained condtions.
The pore pressure affects the resistance of the soil and hence the N-value. In such cases,
following correction is recommended (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948).
(N1)60 (CORR) = 15 +
1
2
[ (N1)60-15]

Table 2. Corrected SPT Values recorded from the field i.e. different borehole
6.1.1.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure based on strength
IS : 6403-1981 gives the equation for the net ultimate bearing capacity, which is similar to
the ones proposed by Vesic,
In case of general shear failure:
Qu = cNcscdcic + q(Nq -1) sqdqiq+ 0.5B𝛾N𝛾 s𝛾d𝛾i𝛾w‫׳‬
In case of local shear failure:
Qu =
2
3
cN‫׳‬cscdcic + q(N‫׳‬q -1) sqdqiq+ 0.5B𝛾N‫׳‬𝛾 s𝛾d𝛾i𝛾 w‫׳‬
Where,
Qu = ultimate bearing pressure, t/m2
c= cohesion in t/m2
Nc, Nq, N𝛾 = bearing capacity factors
sc, sq, s𝛾= shape factors
dc, dq, d𝛾= depth factors
ic, iq, i𝛾 = inclination factors
q = effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m2
S.N. Borehole
Test
Depth
(m)
Equivalent
SPT
value
(N-value)
Field
Energy
Corection
(N60)
Overburden
Correction
(N1)60
Dilatency
Correction
(N1)cor60
Final
Adopted
N value
Unit
Weight
kN/m3
1
BH-1
Dam Axis
2 0.86 63 49.1 80.4 48 48 20
2
BH-1
Dam Axis
3 0.71 165 47.5 79.58 48 48 20
3
BH-1
Dam Axis
4 0.83 6 5.1 8.7 8.74 9 17

B= width of the footing in m
𝛾 = bulk unit weight of sample in t/m3
w= correction factor for location of sample in t/m3
For obtaining values of N‫׳‬c, N‫׳‬q, N‫׳‬𝛾, we calculate 𝜑‫׳‬ = tan−1
(0.67 tan 𝜑) and from
the table read corresponding values of 𝜑′ instead for 𝜑.
Table 3. Bearing Capacity factors
Angle of friction, 𝜑
(degree)
𝑁𝑐, 𝑁𝑞 𝑁𝛾
0 5.14 1 0
5 6.49 1.57 0.45
10 8.35 2.47 1.22
15 10.98 3.94 2.65
20 14.83 6.4 5.39
25 20.72 10.66 10.88
30 30.14 18.4 22.4
35 46.12 33.3 48.03
40 75.31 64.2 109.41
45 138.88 134.88 271.76
50 266.89 319.07 762.89
The chosen value of bearing capacity factors, depth factors, shape factors and
inclination factors are:
S.N Nq N‫ץ‬ Sq S‫ץ‬ dq d‫ץ‬ iq i‫ץ‬ ϕ ϕ‫׳‬
BH-1, Dam Axis 2 45.56 72.58 1.75 0.6 1.2 1.2 1 1 48 37
BH-1, Dam Axis 1 38.51 57.78 1.73 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.98 0.98 47 36
BH-2, Dam Axis 1 5.17 4.02 1.2 0.6 1.06 1.061 1 1 17 12

6.1.1.3 Bowles Correlation
The strata are generally compressible for general loading conditions thus settlement analysis
should be considered for the project site. So the settlement of the foundation could be
checked for maximum permissible values of 65/100 mm for cohesive layers and 40/50 mm
for cohesionless layers respectively. Using Meyerhof’s (1965) & Bowles (1997) correlation:
Where,
N60= Standard Penetration Value
B= width
S= settlement (mm)
fd= 1+033(D/B)
Rw2= water correction factor
6.2 Summary of Findings
The calculation of allowable bearing pressure of shallow footings considering capacity and
allowable settlement of 40 mm for isolated footings.
6.2.1 Calculation of Allowable Bearing pressure from IS code
i. BH-1, Dam Axis 2
Allowable Bearing pressure, kN/m2 (FOS=3)
Depth,m
Width of foundation, m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.83 2226.35 2356.98 2487.63 2618.22 2748.91
Qall 742.12 785.66 829.21 872.74 916.30

ii. BH-1, Dam Axis 1
Allowable Bearing pressure, kN/m2
Depth,m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.71 2438.64 2253.26 2209.65 2104.96 2067.89
Using FS= 3
Qa 812.88 751.09 736.55 701.65 689.30
iii. BH-2, Dam Axis 1
Allowable Bearing pressure, kN/m2 (FOS=3)
Depth,m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.86 127.86 126.99 129.12 132.45 136.37
Qall 42.62 42.33 43.04 44.15 45.46
6.2.2 Calculation of Bearing Pressure from Bowels
i. BH-1, Dam Axis 2
Allowable bearing pressure based on settlement of 40mm, kN/m2
Depth,m Width of foundation, m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.83,
Qall 2342.066 1771.67 1524.384 1387.467 1300.805
Depth,m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.71 1556.39 1435.17 1374.56 1338.20 1313.96
Using FS= 3
Qa 518.80 478.39 458.19 446.07 437.99

1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.86, Qall 426.4511 322.5916 277.565 252.6347 236.855
6.3 RESULTS
From the 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the minimum allowable pressure is the required allowable
bearing pressure.
i. BH-1, Dam Axis 2
Allowable Bearing Pressure in kN/m2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.83, Qall 742.12 785.66 829.21 872.74 916.30
Depth,m
Width of
foundation, m
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.71 1556.39 1435.17 1374.56 1338.20 1313.96
Using FS= 3
Qa 518.80 478.39 458.19 446.07 437.99
0.86 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qall 42.62 42.33 43.04 44.15 45.46

7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the geotechnical investigation utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
has provided valuable insights into the subsurface conditions at the site of interest. Through
careful planning, execution, and analysis of the SPT, important information regarding soil
composition, density, and strength has been obtained. The test results have allowed for the
characterization of the subsurface layers, identification of potential geotechnical hazards, and
the design of appropriate foundation systems and construction techniques. The SPT data
collected during the investigation has been analyzed and interpreted, leading to a
comprehensive understanding of the soil behavior and its implications for the proposed
project. This information is vital for making informed engineering decisions and ensuring the
safety and stability of structures. It is important to note that the reliability and accuracy of the
SPT results depend on various factors, including the expertise of the personnel performing
the test, the calibration of equipment, and the representative sampling of soil. As such, all
efforts have been made to adhere to recognized industry standards and guidelines during the
investigation. While the SPT provides valuable data, it is recommended to supplement the
findings with additional geotechnical testing and analysis methods, as necessary, to obtain a
more comprehensive understanding of the site's subsurface conditions. This may include
laboratory testing, cone penetration testing, or other in-situ testing techniques.
8. Recommendation and Discussion
In conclusion, the geotechnical investigation utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
has provided valuable insights into the subsurface conditions at the site of interest. Through
careful planning, execution, and analysis of the SPT, important information regarding soil
composition, density, and strength has been obtained. The test results have allowed for the
characterization of the subsurface layers, identification of potential geotechnical hazards, and
the design of appropriate foundation systems and construction techniques. The SPT data
collected during the investigation has been analyzed and interpreted, leading to a
comprehensive understanding of the soil behavior and its implications for the proposed
project. This information is vital for making informed engineering decisions and ensuring the
safety and stability of structures. It is important to note that the reliability and accuracy of the
SPT results depend on various factors, including the expertise of the personnel performing
the test, the calibration of equipment, and the representative sampling of soil. As such, all
efforts have been made to adhere to recognized industry standards and guidelines during the
investigation. While the SPT provides valuable data, it is recommended to supplement the
findings with additional geotechnical testing and analysis methods, as necessary, to obtain a
more comprehensive understanding of the site's subsurface conditions. This may include
laboratory testing, cone penetration testing, or other in-situ testing techniques.

9. References and Standards
1. Wazoh, H. N and Mallo, S. J, (2014). Standard Penetration Test in Engineering
Geological site Investigations, International Journal Of Engineering,3, 7: 40-48
2. Khaleel Hussian, Dow Bin and Ali Asghar, (2022). Geotechnical Parameter
Assessment and Bearing Capacity Analysis for The Foundation Design, Earth Science
Malaysia, 6, 2: 136-145
3. Joseph E. Bowles, P.E., S.E, (1968). Foundation Analysis And Design, 5th
Edition.
4. Barbara Schneider-Muntau, Iman Bathaeian, (2018), Simulation Of Settlement And
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, International Journal on Geomathematics
9:359-375
5. Abou-mater, H., and Goble, G.G., (1997), SPT dynamic analysis and measurements,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, pp 921-928
6. West Argyle Street, Jackson, (2008). Estimating Shear Strength Properties of Soils
Using SPT Blow counts: An Energy Balance Approach, ASCE Geotechincal Special
Publication No. 179, ISBN 978-0-7844-0972-5
7. Md Manzur Rahman (2019). Foundation Design Using Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) N-value, https:// www.researchgare.net/publication/318110370
8. IS 2720: Part 2: 1973 Methods of test for soils: part 2 Determination of water content
(Second revision) 1973 Soil Foundation Engineering
9. IS 2720: Part 4: 1985 Methods of Test for Soils – Part I: Grain Size Analysis (Second
revision) 1985 Soil and foundation engineering
10. IS 6403: 1981 Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow
foundations

ANNEX I – BOREHOLE LOG

Project: Geotechnical Investigation Works at Batase Check Dam
Location: Batase Danda
Client:
BoreholeNo: BH-1DamAxis2 Co-ordinate
Initition Date: 2023-05-04 Northing:
Completion Date: 2023-05-04 Easting:
SPT 15 cm 30 cm 45 cm
Greyish,cohessionless,SandyClay,SL-CL 0.87m
SoilDescription
Symbol
Depth,
m
28-kilo,Dhulikhel,Nepal
DepartmentofCiviland GeomaticsEngineering
BORE LOG
0.45m
Water
level,
m
N-Value
Sample No.
&Type
No. ofblows
SPT 6 21 42 63

Project: GeotechnicalInvestigation WorksatBataseCheck Dam
Location: BataseDanda
Client: Kathmandu University
BoreholeNo: BH-1,Borehole1 Co-ordinate
InititionDate: 2023-05-04 Northing: 27°36'6.22"N
CompletionDate: 2023-05-04 Easting: 85°33'22.05"E
SPT/DCPT
15/10
cm
30/20
cm
45/30
cm
0.6m
3.0m DCPT 8 25 40 49
10 50/10 >50
1.5m DCPT 10 50/8 >50
No.ofblows
KATHMANDUUNIVERSITY
FacultyofEngineering
DepartmentofCivilEngineering
Dhulikhel,Kavre
BOREHOLELOG
SoilDescription
Symbol
SPT
N-Value
GreyishBlack,Dense,Non-plastic,Gravelly soilwithclay (GC-GW)
Depth,
m
Water
level,
m
SampleNo.
&Type
0.71m SPT
0
1.5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50

Project: GeotechnicalInvestigationWorksatBataseCheckDam
Location: BataseDanda
Client:
BoreholeNo: BH-2,DamAxis1 Co-ordinate
InititionDate: 2023-05-04 Northing:
CompletionDate: 2023-05-04 Easting:
SPT 15cm 30cm 45cm
0.45m
Water
level,
m
N-Value
SampleNo.
&Type
No.ofblows
SPT 3 3 3 6
KATHMANDUUNIVERSITY
28-kilo,Dhulikhel,Nepal
DepartmentofCivilandGeomaticsEngineering
BORELOG
GreyishBlackSoil,InorganicSiltofLowCompressibility 0.87m
SoilDescription
Symbol
Depth,
m

ANNEX II – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Department of Civil Engineering
Dhulikhel, Kavre
TEST RESULT SIMMARY SHEET
Project:- Geotechincal Investigation for check dam
Location:- Batase, Kavre
Non-Plastic Soil
Non-Plastic Soil
Non-Plastic Soil
1.34
2.34
15.13
17.93
2.5
2.67
16.9 2.69
BH 1
Dam Axis 1
BH 2
Dam Axis 2
0.71
0.83
18.98
19.98
82.68
83.68
BH 1
Dam Axis 2
0.86 17.98 81.68 0.34
Moisture
content
%
Specific
Gravity
Atterberg's Limit Test
LL
(%)
PL
(%)
PI
Depth
(m)
Grain Size Distribution
Borehole
No. Clay &Silt
%
Sand
%
Gravel
%

Dhulikhel, Kavre
Natural Moisture Content (IS 2720-2 (1973))
1
2
3
4
1
2
3 22.85
1
2
3
17.93
15.12
38.44
14.82
14.68
15.86
15.14
21.75
16.91
53.86
63.7
61.25
42.21
38.57
45.24
42.03
41.22
58.07
69.96
67.34
BH 1
Dam Axis-1
BH 2
DAM AXIS-1
0.83
0.71
25.45
21.05
22.2
22.66
22
Average
moisture
content(w%)
Test
26.93 34.44
Borehole
No.
Depth
(m)
Weight of
Can (gm)
Weight of
wet soil+
can (gm)
Weight of
dry soil+can
(gm)
36.25
44.43
35.81
35.72
Moisture
content
(%)
13.59
15.43
14.47
27.13
22.27
20.29
16.90
BH 1
Dam Axis-2
0.86
42.36
34
33.77
24.10

Dhulikhel, Kavre
Specific Gravity Test
Weight of pycnometerfilledwithwater(gm)
2.50
BH2
Dam Axis-1
0.83
520
552
1570
1550
2.67
2.69
Specific Gravity
1560
BH1
Dam Axis-1
0.71
495
570
1585
1540
Weight of pycnometer,soilandwater(gm)
Description
BH1
DamAxis-2
0.86
525
560
1582
Weight of drypycnometer+ soil(gm)
Depth(inmeters)
Weight of cleananddrypycnometer(gm)

Dhulikhel, Kavre
Grain Size Analysis (IS: 2720 (Part 4)-1985):
Project:- Geotechincal Investigation for check dam Borehoe:- BH1
Location:- Batase, Kavre Sample:- Dam Axis-2
Depth:- 0.86m
Sieve
%
passing
4.75 mm 99.66
2 mm 93.38
1.18 mm 86.89
1 mm 85.63
0.6 mm 82.52
0.425 mm 80.90
0.3 mm 77.64
0.25 mm 77.39
0.15 mm 67.81
0.075 mm 18.32
Clay/SILT Sand Gravel
18.32% 81.34% 0.34%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01
0.1
1
10
%
Passing
Particle Size, mm

Dhulikhel, Kavre
Depth:- 0.71 m
% passing
4.75 mm 63.74
2 mm 58.70
1.18 mm 35.54
1 mm 35.44
0.6 mm 29.84
0.425 mm 27.56
0.3 mm 24.09
0.25 mm 21.85
0.15 mm 21.72
0.075 mm 15.55
Sieve
0.07% 63.67% 36.26%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01
0.1
1
10
%
Passing
Particle size, mm

Dhulikhel, Kavre
Location:- Batase, Kavre Sample:- Dam Axis-
Depth:- 0.83m
7.61% 86.62% 5.77%
% passing
4.75 mm 94.23
2 mm 76.02
1.18 mm 56.77
1 mm 52.09
0.6 mm 44.54
0.425 mm 38.52
0.3 mm 28.74
0.25 mm 24.69
0.15 mm 14.65
0.075 mm 7.61
Sieve
%
Passing
Particle Size, mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01
0.1
1
10

Dhulikhel, Kavre
LIQUID LIMIT TEST
Depth:- 0.86m
29%
From graph, Liquid Limit
1 2 3
22.77 22.96 22.94
41.62 33.23 32.38
37.34 31.02 30.28
29.38 27.42 28.61
28 48 24
Test No:
Description
Mass of container, W1
Mass of container + wer soil, W2
Masss of container+ dry soil, W3
Moisture content, %
Number of blows, N
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture
percent
No. of Blows

Dhulikhel, Kavre
LIQUID LIMIT TEST
Depth:- 0.71 m
Description
Test No:
1 2 3
Mass of container, W1 22.42 20.66 20.61
Mass of container + wet soil, W2 30.25 31.89 33.28
Mass of container+ dry soil, W3 28.53 29.43 30.57
Moisture content, w 28.15 28.05 27.21
Number of blows, N 13 26 36
From graph, Liquid Limit 27.8%
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture
percent
No. of Blows

Dhulikhel, Kavre
LIQUID LIMIT TEST
Project:- Geotechincal Investigation for check dam Borehoe:- BH 2
Depth:- 0.83 m
1 2 3
23.11 22.42 22.68
34.25 29.23 33.17
31.51 27.66 30.91
32.62 29.96 27.46
15 20 35
Mass of container, W1
Mass of container + wet soil, W2
Masss of container+ dry soil, W3
Moisture content, w
Number of blows, N
Test No:
Description
From graph, Liquid Limit 29.58%
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture
percent
No. of Blows

ANNEX III- PHOTOGRAPHS

Setting up tripod and rope for SPT test SPT test
Bore Hole Measuring water table inside the borehole

Sample collected from SPT
barrel from BH1
Sample collected from SPT
barrel from BH3
Sieve Analysis Moisture content test

Specific gravity Casagrande’s Liquid Limit test

group 1 final.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to group 1 final.docx

Similar to group 1 final.docx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

group 1 final.docx