GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF OHT AT BEMINA SRINAGAR, J&K. SUBMITTED CLIENT: M/S SHAH TECHNICAL MARCH- 2023, BY ose DESIGN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC) (ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYING GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS) Office: Old Bridge Barzulla,Srinagar. Pin: 190005. Phone: +91-7889859685 email: r.anjum8881@[Link] on ase const yang iContents List of Tables/Figures/Abbreviation 1. Introduction 1.1 General... 1.2 Purpose of Investigation and Scope... 2. Site Conditions 2.1 General Description of Site/Tepography. 22 2.2 Subsurface Conditions... ace 2.3 Ground Wate 2 3, Field Exploration, Field Testing and Sampling 3.1 Drilling... 3.2 Sampling .. 3.3 Boring Logs. scum 4, Laboratory Testing 4.1 Soil Classification and Identification Tests wm... 4.2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 5. Bearing Capacity Analysis 5.1 Calculation of Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) Based on Shear Criterion . 6, Engineering Recommendations... 7. References 8. Limitations [Link] Appendix-I Appendix-IL Appendix-IITTable-1 Table-2 Table-3 Table-4 Table-5 yeeee 1, Figure -1 Depth-wise variation of Corrected N- value... LIST OF TABLES Bore log (BH-01). Laboratory Investigation results (BH-OL eel 10 Safe SBC (R =7.0m) with valid checks. Calculation of SBC (BH-1)... .. Calculation of Settlement (BH-1).. LIST OF FIGURES/GRAPHS ABBREVIATIONS USED No = Observed STP value qu = Unconfined compressive strength CN = Correction factor ‘Cu = Un-drained shear strength Ne’ = Corrected N- value C’ = Effective cohesion parameter y =Bulk unit weight = Effective Angle of shearing resistance yd = Dry unit weight “bm = Mobilized Angle of shearing resistance yysat = Saturated unit weight Dr = Depth of foundation G=Specific gravity of soil Q = Effective surcharge LL = Liquid Limit Ny, Nq & Ne = Bearing capacity factors PL = Plastic Limit Sy, Sq &Sc = Shape factors PI = Plasticity index dy, dq &de = Depth factors LSF = Local shear failure GWT = Ground Water Table Ce = Compression Index EGL = Existing ground level B = Width of foundation W' =W.T. correction factor for BC from SPT values Length of foundation p= Natural overburden stress DS= Disturbed sample co riginal void ratio UDS=Un-disturbed sample EGL = Exiting ground level SBC=Safe bearing capacity1, INTRODUCTION 1.1 General M/S SHAH TECHNICAL is prepared dpr oht at the said site (Bemina bye-pass Srinagar location) identified by agency/owner. The agencylowner appointed the Design Master Constraétion Condiltants (DMCC) for carrying out the Geotechnical investigation and relevent analysis to develop suitable econimical and safe engincering recommendations for foundation design at proposedipredefined site. DMCC deputed a Field/technical team on 18- 08-2023 for execution of said work and conducted the relevant field geotechnical tess and Sample collection with all precautions and procedures as Per standard codes. This report presents the findings/results of the Geotechnical site investigation/exploration of one Borchole ‘within building area of the structure. DMCC have a pleasure to work with you during throughout the construction phase and hope youto be satisfied with our rendered services. 1.2 Purpose of Investigation “The durability of every civil engineering project depends upon the soundness of underlying soi, therefore proper soil investigation is done at site before construction phase and necessary steps of soil improvement are taken if needed. Investigation of the underground conditions at a site is prerequisite to the economical design of the substructure elements. Tt is also necessary to obtain sufficient information for feasibility and economic studies for any project. In general, the main purpose or Objectives of this site investigation are as follows: 1+ Information to determine the most suitable type of foundation required (shallow or deep), founding depths and geotechnical design parameters. 2: Information to allow the geotechnical consultant to make a recommendation on the allowable bearing capacity of the soil, expected foundation settlement. 3- Location of the groundwater table and other hydrological conditions atthe site. 4- Need of any ground improvement techniqu. . ck aan oe yet ANTS (DMCC) Page 1———a 2, SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 General Description of ‘Site/Topography The site is located in the vicinity of Central Kashmir's Srinagar area with plain terrain. The soil deposits at this location may be primarily of alluvium in origin which can be guessed initially by site visit. After boring the subsurface conditions showed the similar behavior consisting of both young and matured alluvium deposits up to deeper depths, generally include sity-clay with sands generally of non- plastic nature with fine traces of organic material. No high voltage, electrical or telephone poles, sewer or water pipes were observed within the depth of the drilled boreholes. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions Geotechnical investigations have been undertaken at the site as per the scope of investigations, stipulated by the client, which consisted of only one number of borehole down to 10.0m depth in soil strata or down to refusal strata (where N value is >100) whichever is encountered earlier and further drilling in refusal strata by [Link] subsoil strata consists of silty-clay in varying proportions almost up to full depth of exploration. 2.3 Ground Water Ground water table was encountered at 1.00m depth below the existing ground level/NSL and may changes by seasonal variations therefore the soil samples obtained in s state, et MICO, Page 2iS 3. FIELD EXPLORATION, FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING 31 Drilling/Boring/Open Excavation ‘As the subsoil strata consist of silty-clay manually driven augers are used to reach the desired depth up to end with the possibility of continuous sampling, handling and transportation of soil samples at different depths and at each lithological change of the strata. 3.2 Sampling ‘Two types of samples were collected: 2) Disturbed sampling (DS): Disturbed samples suitable for identification and index property testing purposes at every depth interval were collected using the manual auger/wash-boring residue. The soil samples were sealed in polythene bags for retaining the natural moisture content and tagged with clear address and information for further laboratory testing. ) Undisturbed sampling (UDS): Actual undisturbed samples are obtained by using thin shelly tubes but here the samples will be obtained by using split spoon samplers at every depth interval the samples were protected in brass liners and tagged for laboratory investigations. These are also called Representative samples. This is done in accordance with the standard SPT codal procedure IS: 2131-1981 and the penetration value N- value is obtained. The observed N-value is corrected by applying suitable corrections and is explained below. 1) Correction for overburden pressure N (Corrected) = Ne = Cx X No C= 0.77 logio(2000/P’), P= effective overburden pressure (KN/m*) Another overburden correction that is commonly used is due to Bazaraa (1967) 2) Water table Correction (Dilatency correction) N (Final Correct value) =Nc’ = 15 +0.5(Ne-15) (for Ne> 15) TENc is less than or equal to15, this correction is not applied. Bazaraa recommendation for dilatency correction is N" =0.6Ne (Nc>15) The overburden correction is always applied first. These corrections are applied in case of cohesion-less soils like sand/very fine sands and non-plastic/ very low-plastic silts/[Link], But to be on the safer side, the overburden correction is not applied here as it increases the N- value and only water table correction is applied here. DESIGN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC)yoied (QoWa) SIN NOD NOLLINALSNOD WAISVEK NOISAC a 6 £@ £7 £t & eL oL oor or OL Os s 08 8 8 & 8 > b oo 9 9 s ¥ z € sv Its KaKkepo ysisarsy s s s s € z oe sjoawad ouy apne] YM Avpo AIpIs UMOIET y v ¢ , ¥. z st ON oN wmgsT ( [Link] pens}, AN[WA-N [CULY — SuONDIaIL105 SMOIq JO ‘ON w)pdoq AISN/TDA M019 WOT TV 9140) A9Ve A sowsado, Sl WOREDEEESSEID HOS, uwng JDUWAK wOpEAapP 19a €ZOZ-80-81 EP BuLOg/BurtG Savettyp1005 Sd=) ‘oN 8a to wun woREDOT THO 2foag (LOH) 507 10g 1-14, [-xipuoddy ut “{-auniiy ur woys se adap ip Huoye anjea - pangausos Jo uonetiea ay -wof9q |-2}9e, FuyWo]0y w payuasaxd s1 suONEDO] OM} We ES TUasaud ay) 10} Fo]-240g 94, “StHTIed aouRYsIs91 oROUDM puTorE pue SOnfEA-N] [dG “BENS Jo UoMEaYHUIpE jonstA ‘adAi Hujdus “Tuu09 Jo yrdap pue odéi uone294 ays aya Suypredes woneUUOJA! Oy ITE surequos Sop-a409 aq 4 “uonerO[dxg SomMsqNs sO} HOT-AAOM Se paruasaid pue poyquiosse st ssoaod Zussog Jo om-Pfoyp auHUD OH, S807] Sujsog gre —_—4, LABORATORY TESTING DS and UDS were collected from the borcholes in the field, tightly sealed and transported to DMCC Quality control Laboratory, Barzulla Srinagar. 4.1 Soil classification and identification The following tests were performed to evaluate the engineering properties (Index and strength) of the soils and rocks influencing the performance of the proposed structure: L-Natural moisture content: Natural moisture and Natural Bulk density contents were determined in accordance with IS: 2720-1980(Part-2). 2. Sieve Analysis: These tests were performed in accordance with IS: 2720 (part 4) -1985 to establish the depth wise grain/ particle size distribution of soil samples. The organic matter content in soil is determined as per IS-2720-part-22-1972. 3. Atterberg limits: Liquid and Plastic in accordance with IS: 2720-1985(Part-5). Liquid and plastic limit tests were conducted on the powder of the obtained samples and the plasticity index (PD) was determined. 4 Specific gravity: Specific gravity in accordance with IS: 2720-1980(Part-3). S- Direct shear test: Direct shear test in accordance with IS : 2720-1975(Part-29), where three identical specimens were sheared under three vertical load conditions and the maximum shear stress in each case was measured, The strength parameters, namely cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (@) were determined from the maximum shear-vs- normal stress plot 4.2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results The results of the mentioned above tests are summarized in Table-2 below it « oe tes) —— IN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC) Page 5gaBed (DING) SLNVILTASNOD NOLLIMLLSNOD WALSVIN NOISAC ange, “Bay, re OF 710 $90 IZO 890 L9T OOLZ GST WZ WWD 996 HE 0 OT Ww - BE eee ee ere E - ts - 000 756 9F 000 08 paramere ce eh 10 9090 310087 Cee ee ame”, Ye oO 09 Spa eVect, OC 0 SHO ICO) OF ager nee. RE Os Fa IE 000 OE ae = aimee = ¥ 2? eee Soe ee 5 ee 2 lke > * Se —_—s E & o = mee = £ @ Se eee eee ira te é gs 2 25 g 6& & 8 = 2 ial £3 g 3 2 £ & 8 & O& ae § 5 & # A g Pe 2 é uopepesy (10-HeD sunsay 189, AsoyeIOgGeT] Z-S1G"L, Se eee EE EEE—[—[—_L__-—-——— 5, BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS ‘The parameters required for the design of economic, safe and durable foundation system for the proposed structure are: type of foundation to be adopted, depth at which the foundations have to be laid/piles have to be terminated, Allowable bearing pressure on the soil/rock at the foundation level/load carrying capacity of piles. 5.1 SBC based on shear criterion ‘The bearing capacity was calculated using the shear test parameters of cohesion, angle of internal friction and the soil density of the specimens extracted from the borehole after taking into consideration of shape factor, depth factor and water table of the foundation in accordance with LS. 6403-1981 Qea = eNe Sede+ q (Nq 1) Seda + 0.5BYNyS7dyW? Where, c= Unit Cohesion (Kg/em*) Ne, Ne, Ny = Bearing capacity Factors = Overburden Pressure y= effective unit weight of the soil (g/cc) B= Width of the Footing (m) W" = Water table correction factor: Sc, Sq,Sr= Shape Factors : de,dq,dr = Depth Factors Thus, local shear failure was considered for safe bearing capacity computation. The net safe bearing capacity for Raft foundation having predefined minimum dimensions of 2.0m under vertical static load intensity is evaluated as given below in Table -3. Settlement computed as per 18.8009, Part I-1976 for 75.0 mm permissible settlement and corrected N- value is used for checking the Safe SBC as calculated earlier, as shown in Appendix-II. DESI MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTA S (DMCC) Page 7z 2 3 3 & Table-3 Safe SBC (B Remarks Permissible Settlement (mm) CalculatedSettle ‘ment (mm) Avg. SBC (m*) Shear criterion SBC (t/m*) Shear criterion (BH-2) SBC (/m*) Shear criterion (BH-1) Df(m) Size(m) ‘Type Foundation details Safe for both Shear and Settlement a ee so. ee. oe. 7.05 10.12 20 3.0 5 W oain= 2.0 m_ RCC Stiffened Raft DESIGN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC) Page 8Engineering Recommendations 1. From the above investigation, the subsoil stratification along the depth has been observed as old alluvium deposits containing silty-clay or clayey-silt type soil in alternate layers with intermixed fine to medium sand followed by clean grayish sandy silt layer at 10.0m_ depth. These layers show increase in penetration resistance or stiffness along deeper depths. The ground water table is encountered at 1.0m below EGL and may undergo seasonal variations. 2. Keeping in view the above soil investigation results, the SBC is calculated for all shallow. depths with all necessary corrections of water table, depth factors, shape factors etc. as shown in Table-3, based on shear criterion and checked for permissible settlement and corrected N-value. The calculated settlement values at all the two shallow depths are within permissible limits for 2.0 m wide foundation, therefore Shear is the governing criterion for design and not the settlement failure. As it is clear from the exploration data obtained by conducting SPT at the site under consideration, there is a virgin soft-soil layer of filling material of brownish good earth upto 1.50m depth of intermediate compressibility which may get compressed non- uniformly even under moderate loads. Therefore, in no case the foundation be placed ‘upto 1.50m depth. 4. By conducting investigation at only one locations, the behavior of the soil strata at any other locations may or may be not be same and cannot be predicted without going detailed/extensive soil investigation, However, at any stage of execution if differential behavior from this report is noticed, same should be reported immediately. 5. Shallow foundations in the form of RCC Stiffened Strip Raft foundation (2.0m wide) at shallow depths would be technically feasible and economically safe. The recommended values of Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) with minimum one dimension/geometry (Bais, - 2.0m), Factor of safety = 3.0 and depth requirement given as 6.50t/m? (2.0m depth), 10.00t/m? (3.0m depth) and may be adopted for structural design of the said OHT at proposed construction location which is safe both in shear and settlement criteria, However, the F.0.$ at the same depth and dimensions can be reduced to 2.8 and the SBC is increased to 7.S0t/m? (2.0m depth) by providing a well graded & compacted stone soling cushion about 0.450m thick below the foundation level. 6. Keeping in view the high importance of the structure and site under consideration is located in highly earthquake sensitive zone-V, therefore codal provisions (IS-1893-2002) are strictly followed in structural design of all building elements including rafvmat. DESIGN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC)Leen eee EEE 7. Keeping in view the devastation and destruction induced by flood (Sept.2014) in Kashmir, the first floor level of the building should be designed in accordance with local flood codal provisions by considering the recently marked FLF.L. Sr. Geotechnical Consultant DMCC 6, REFERENCES A list of IS codes and textbooks referred for providing the recommendations and that ‘which might be required to implement the same has been given in Appendix-IIl. 8, LIMITATIONS ‘This Geotechnical investigation has been carried out at one location in the site chosen by the client as representing the entire site. However, multiple boreholes (every comer and at center) and up to significant depth should have been studied. Zhe recommendations provided in this Report are hence valid ouly for one test locations. _ggwntt SDMCC) Page 10APPENDIX-I Variation of corrected N- value along the depth Corrected N-Value 10 18 Figure-1 Depth-wise variation of Corrected N- value APPENDIX-IT Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil Shape of footing = RCC Stiffened Raft (Bris. = 2.0m) Since, © < 29° (local shear failure) Depth(m) | Rigidity factor (R)_| Depth factor (D9) Soil factor (Si) 15 08 0.96 07 (NC) 2.0 08 0.93 07 (N.C) 3.0 08 0.88 07 (N.C) Corrected mean settlement, Sm = S.- Rr Dr-Sr We have checked the calculated SBC calculated from shear criterion and checked for settlement criterion which governs here, and comes out to be safe for both shear and settlement. The inputs for the calculation of SBC based on shear criterion are summarized as below:Ey - = iat - = i ae mt nl = ha os09 - ater bier a berate Male Sree nee a Sy oe Rane wor _ tr sezl $0 001 Set O01 OT OO1 L460 61Z SLL LIB PvLOO 0OT 0% o1 TT07 SOL Loe =0T6 SO COT ETT OOT O01 COL 980 907 TL 0O's 1900 661 07 ow Tt00 s . Se = ee ee ee oe agar eee g e ¢ =, Z ae we 2 3s = g a § ee » re g B =z ¥ 2 2 & g 2 6 EE FB 4 2 é pane 209085 alla wmdoq suopry odeyg —_Aypedey Supwag, ae (CO-HA) OAS Jo woHEINd[LD F-o1qeL, a ,oss 0100 1r0'0 Ico 3970 001 1001 000z so 08 , SOIT 1200 z80°0 Izo 190 sot 662 000z = os 109 € 9U'st 6x00 8910 Iwo 080 6% wo Oost = QMS z ILve $90'0 seo 170 390 o's sp Oost = SHOE 1 (Cmu)arg (aos (oddV+ed))801 9D °2 (umay — (uip)eg — (u)op] Buea pda, or yrdag_ wg'¢ 18 Yayo JuOWANAS, surg’ >u1499°99 sso z10°0 6070 Ico 190 wh sro 000z os 109 , 88 9100 0600 ra) 080 BLT We ost = OMS € 69l 1€00 8910 Ico 8970 67 wo ost = SPO z 89'rE +900 oreo Ico 690 o's ue oor = oe OZ : (eu)ws (w)og _ (@dkdv+od)#O1_ 9D. °° (uAav — Gupog — (uu)oy _aBuer pag ‘ee dog w9’Z 1 ays qwawaNes (10-Ha) WaUIaMag Jo UORMIIeD ¢-3q9RL, Leen eee nn nn nInInnInIREnEnIEISEnEEEEannineimneimeemmememmmmeneeedAPPENDIX-IIT LIST OF Is- CODES Field Investigation 1. IS: 1498 - 1970: Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes (First Revision) (Amendment 2) 2. IS: 1892 - 1979: Code of practice for sub surface investigations for foundations (First revision) 3. IS: 2131 - 1981: Method of Standard Penetration Tests for Soils (First revision) 4. IS: 2132 - 1986: Code of practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils (Second revision) Laboratory Tests 1. IS: 2720 - 1983 (Part 1): Methods of test for soils: Preparation of dry soil samples for various tests (Second revision) 2. IS: 2720 - 1980 (Part 2): Method of test for soils: Determination of water content (Second revision) Amendment 1 3. IS: 2720 - 1980 (Part 3/Sec 1): Method of test for soils: Determination of Specific Gravity: Fine grained soils. (First revision) 4. IS: 2720 - 1985 (Part 4): Method of test for soils: Grain size analysis (Second revision) 5. IS: 2720 - 1985 (Part 5): Method of test for soils: Determination of liquid and plastic limit (Second revision) Foundation Construction 1. IS: 1080 - 1986: Code of practice for design and construction of shallow foundations on soils (other than raft, ing and shell) (Second revision) 2. IS: 1904 - 1986: Code of practice for design and construction of foundation in soils: ‘General requirements (Third revision) 3. IS 6403 - 1981: Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations: First revision (Amendment 1) 4. IS 8009 - 1976 (Part 1): Code of practice for calculation of settlements of foundations Shallow foundations subject to symmetrical static vertical loads (Amendment 2). 5. 182911 (Part I to IV) : Design and construction of Pile Foundations. 6. IRC: 78-2000: Guidelines for Design of Road Bridges i Textbooks cao 1. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering ([Link]) « x 2. Basics and Applied Soil Mechanics ( Ranjan and Rao) w « A 3. Principles of Foundation Engineering (B. [Link]) LE. Bowles. Foundation Analysis and Design. Third edition. McGraw - Hill International 1982. TER COM Page 14be Te ET eed Arce Tne Toe ae DESIGN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (DMCC). Page 16