PREFACE

A detailed geotechnical investigation including laboratory testing was

carried out for the PROPOSED MULTI-SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & NURSING
COLLEGE AT KUNJABAN, AGARTALA.

The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the soil parameters for

design of foundation for proposed structure with particular reference to safe

bearing capacity and anticipated settlements.

The investigation work for this project was started on the instruction of

M/s G.P.T. HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD JEEWAN SATYA DD – 6 SECTOR – I SALT

LAKE CITY KOLKATA – 700064

The report has been prepared after careful study of all data collected

during fieldwork and laboratory testing and it deals with geotechnical

properties of the sub-soil. Section-I of this report covers the fieldwork &

engineering appraisal and recommendations. Section-II contains the results

of the entire laboratory test results and borelog data sheets. Section -III deals

location plan and graphs of laboratory test results.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SHEET NO.
SECTION - I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 02
2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAMME & TECHNIQUES 03
2.1 FIELD WORK 03 - 05
3.0 LABORATORY TESTS 05 - 06
4.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS 07
5.0 ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION , INTERPRETATION 08 - 11
AND GENERALISED BORELOG
6.0 GROUND WATER TABLE 13
7.0 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION 13 - 32
8.0 SUMMARY 33 - 34

SECTION - II
 LABORATORY TEST RESULT 33 -34

 BORELOGS 35 -39

SECTION - III

 BORE HOLE LOCATION MAP 40

 BUILDINGS LAYOUT 41

 e - log p CURVES 42 -45

 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES 46 - 53

 MOHR - DIAGRAM 54 - 55
1.0 INTRODUCTION

M/s G.P.T. HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD JEEWAN SATYA DD – 6 SECTOR – I SALT
LAKE CITY KOLKATA – 700064 has proposed to construct a MULTI-
SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & NURSING COLLEGE comprising of one
Basement plus Gr. plus five storied and a few Gr plus 2/3 storied buildings at
KUNJABAN, AGARTALA.

Geotechnical investigation is carried out at the proposed site to evaluate and

design the most suitable foundation system for the proposed structures.

The work is awarded to M/S A.B.CONSULTANTS PAPIYA BHAVAN, JAIL ROAD,

BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA - 01, TRIPURA (W).The fieldwork has been carried
out by M/S A. B. CONSULTANTS and the soil samples are tested for
identification and geotechnical parameters by M/s ROOTS, 816, 2ND FLOOR
DEODAR PLACE, GARIA KOLKATA-700084.

The scope of work include sinking boreholes at 5 [five] different locations as

shown in Fig – 1. The termination depths of boreholes are shown in the
respective bore log data sheets. The number & termination depths of
boreholes are decided by the client. It may not be out of place to mention that
the number of bore holes appears to be inadequate with respect to the
number of buildings and the land area involved. The scope also included
collection of samples, carrying out field & laboratory tests and submission of
report incorporating all the field and laboratory test results, interpretation of
data, engineering analysis, evaluation and recommendation.
Engineering evaluation of the suitability of different types of foundation and
estimation of bearing capacity is done after compilation and interpretation of
all field and laboratory test results including other relevant information’s. This
report deals with the findings from the above.

2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAMME & TECHNIQUES

The aim and objective of the present study is to bring out the stratigraphy,
strength and settlement characteristics of different strata subsequent to which
suitability of different types of foundation could be established. This objective
is accomplished by borehole studies including field & laboratory tests followed
by the necessary interpretation and analysis.

The soil exploration programme is drawn to find out the general stratification
and soil parameters which when put to analysis would provide the best
possible knowledge of foundation behaviour at this site. The programme
included:
i) Sinking boreholes at 5[five] predetermined locations.
ii) Conducting Standard penetration Tests [SPT] at suitable interval.
iii) Collection of disturbed/representative samples at suitable interval,
iii) Collection of Undisturbed Samples at suitable interval from
cohesive deposits only.

2.1 FIELD WORK

A brief description of method of boring, field tests, collection of samples etc.

and type of equipments used are given below.
  Boring
Boring through the soil is carried out by Shell & auger method using 150mm
dia auger to advance the bore holes up to about 2.0M followed by shell boring
technique up to the termination depth. Casings are used for the full depth of
bore holes to provide stability of side of the boreholes.

 Collection of representative samples

Representative soil samples are collected frequently from auger, split spoon
sampler of standard penetrometer and cutting shoe of undisturbed sampling
assembly to maintain a continuous record of strata encountered. All the
samples are labeled placed in air-tight containers and shifted to the laboratory
for identification and testing.

 Standard penetration tests

Standard Penetration Tests are conducted in each exploratory borehole at
suitable interval. The number of blows required for middle 30cm penetration
of the split spoon sampler out of a total penetration of 60cm driven by a 63.5
Kg hammer falling freely through a height of 75cm is recorded as N – values.
The samples from the split spoon are collected after each test and properly
labeled and placed in air-tight containers before sending to the laboratory for
identification and testing. The test procedure conformed to IS 2131-1981.

 Collection of undisturbed samples

Undisturbed samples are collected by means of 100mm ID open drive
sampler assembly having area ratio of about 14%. Before sampling, the
boreholes are thoroughly cleaned. The sampling assembly is driven to the
required depth manually with the help of a jarring link. Samples collected in
the tube are retained, labeled and waxed at both ends before sending to the
laboratory.

 Summary of field work

BH RLof Top Termination No. of UDS No. of SPT GWT [M]
No Depth [M]
1 102.6 21.0 2 12 Not struck
2 104.0 21.5 2 13 Not struck
3 101.7 21.0 2 13 Not struck
4 92.5 16.0 2 9 Not struck
5 83.7 15.0 2 9 7.50

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

The following laboratory tests are conducted on selected soil samples.
Bulk Density
Natural Moisture Content
Liquid & Plastic Limits [Atterberg Limits]
Sieve Analysis
Hydrometer Analysis
Consolidation Test
Undrained triaxial Test [UU]
Unconfined Compression Test
Specific Gravity

 Bulk Density
It is the ratio of the weight [moist] and volume of the sample.

 Natural Moisture Content

It is the percentage loss of weight of sample on oven drying.

 Atterberg Limits [LL & PL]

It is the moisture content at transition when soil starts behaving like liquid [LL]
and as plastic [PL].

 Sieve & Hydrometer Analysis

The percent content of gravel, sand, silt & clay of a sample are determined
with the help of sieves and principles of falling velocity of particles in a liquid.

 Consolidation Test
A sample in a mould is subjected to different stages of load and vertical
compression of the sample thickness is recorded at definite time intervals.
Coefficient of volume compressibility, mv values are found by using the void
ratio Vs pressure [log scale] curves.

 Undrained Triaxial Test

Set of sample is subjected to different all-round confining pressure. Vertical
axial pressure is then applied till failure in shear of sample occurs. C & f
parameters are then obtained with the help of Mohr’s Envelops.
4.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

The quantities of the different items of field work done are summarized
below:

 Standard Penetration Tests : 56

 Undisturbed Samples : 10
The number of laboratory tests is summarized below
 Bulk Density : 07
 Natural Moisture Content : 07
 Liquid & Plastic Limit : 07
 Sieve Analysis : 16
 Hydrometer Analysis : 09
 Consolidation Test : 07
 Unconfined Compression Test : 07
 Undrained Triaxial Test [UU] : 06
 Specific Gravity : 07

The samples are initially identified by manual identification test

[IS 1498-1970]. The laboratory test results are presented in Tables -1&2.

5.0 ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION, INTERPRETATION &

GENERALISED BORELOG:
Engineering classification of strata is done based on the colour, constituents,
strength and other physical parameters of the soil deposits. Stratifications at
the borehole locations are presented in the bore log data sheets. The sub-soil
profile drawn across the boring points is shown in Fig 1.A

Although generalization of the geotechnical parameters of different strata is

possible, such generalization of the level of occurrences of different
strata over the entire site is not attempted because of the wide
topographical variations.

The subsoil stratification together with the representative geotechnical

parameters of each stratum at this site may be summarized as per following.

Stratum – I

Description : Laterites: Reddish silty clay/clayey

silt with lateritic nodules.
Consistency : Very stiff to hard

Parameters Range Assigned

 [t/m3] 1.89-2.05 1.98
NMC [%] 16.06-20.84 18.50
Cu [Kg/cm2] 9.8-12.3 9.8
Φ0 00 00
mv [cm2/ kg] 0.0060-0.0136 0.0104
 [0.5 – 1.0 kg/cm2]

Stratum – II

Description : Reddish becoming reddish brown compact sandy clay

to clayey sand/fine to medium compact sand with clay
binders.
Consistency : Very stiff to hard

Parameters Range Assigned

 [t/m3] 1.92-1.96 1.94
NMC [%] 14.33-16.94 15.64
Cu [Kg/cm2] 7.8-8.8 8.3
Φ0 00 00
mv [cm2/ kg]
0.0039-0.0047 0.0043
[1.0 – 2.0 kg/cm2]

Stratum – III

Description : Grey laminated silty clay/clayey silt with trace

sand.
Consistency : Very stiff to hard

Parameters Range Assigned

 [t/m3] 1.80 1.80
NMC [%] 37.20* 37.20
Cu [Kg/cm2] 4.7 4.7
Φ0 00 00
mv [cm2/ kg] 0.0061 0.0061
 [1.0 – 2.0 kg/cm2]

[*Note: Considering that the ground water was not struck up to the termination
depth of bore hole of 21.0m, the moisture content determined in the
laboratory for the sample from this stratum appears to be very much in the
higher side. This becomes evident when compared with the NMC values of
the other samples. This may possibly explain the inconsistency between the
field Spt values and the very low undrained cohesion value determined in the
laboratory.]

Stratum – IV

Description : Reddish brown becoming whitish brown fine to

medium Sand.
Relative density : Medium dense to very dense.

N-value [field] BH-1,2 &3 BH-4 BH-5

Range: 56 - >100 24 – 80 12 - 78
Representative
value: 76 28 17

It is important to mention that numerical averages have been taken in many

situations to present a general condition of the sub-soil. However, this has
been deliberately deviated in some instances to present the most unfavorable
condition the foundation may be subjected to.
The subsoil profile drawn across the boring points together with the
generalized parameters are presented in Fig No.1A.

6.0 GROUND WATER TABLE

Water levels, if any, in the boreholes are observed during and after
completion of boring operation. The final water readings are recorded in the
field and are presented in the bore log data sheets and also in the summary
of boring data.

7.0 EVALUATION & CONCLUSION

Depending on the average characteristics and various sub-soil parameters

established by field and laboratory tests, allowable bearing capacities of
different types of foundation are estimated.

The foundation system should satisfy the following two criteria beside others
which may be dependent to a particular site condition.

[a] The net foundation load intensity on the soil should not exceed the
permissible bearing capacity of soil in shear.
[b] Settlement under the load should not exceed the specified values
in IS 1904-1983.

A. For deposits represented by BH-1, 2 & 3

The basement plus Gr plus five storied building and also a few Gr plus two
storied buildings are proposed to be constructed over the deposits
represented by BH-1, 2 & 3.
This has already been decided by the client that the working level in this area
shall be RL.98.0m which requires removal of the overburden above the
desired RL.

i] Isolated footings [2.0m x 2.0m]

Computation of Bearing Capacity

The ultimate [gross] bearing capacity of such foundation in general shear

failure can be estimated by using the following expression.

Qult = CNcScdcic + qNqSqiqdq + 0.5BNSid

Depth of foundation = 1.5m below the finished GL [RL.98.0m]

It is evident that BH-3 presents the most unfavorable condition the foundation
may be subjected to. Therefore the shearing strength of Stratum-III will
govern the estimation of bearing capacity. Since the shearing strengths of the
underlying layer is relatively better, punching shall not be of any concern.

Cu = 4.7t/m2
Φ = 00

ic = iq = i =1.0 for no inclination of footing

For f < 100, dq = d = 1
dc = 1 + (0.2)(D/B)tan[ 450 + Φ/2]

The depth correction factors are to be applied only when backfilling is done
with proper compaction and are ignored here.
For f = 00,
Nc = 5.14
Nq = 1.0
N = 0.0

The expression for net bearing capacity reduces to

Qult]net = CNcSc
Sc = 1 + 0.3 B/L = 1.3 [for square footing]

Qult]net = CNcSc = [1.3 x 4.7 x 5.14] = 31.4 t/m2

Net permissible bearing capacity for a factor of safety value of 2.5,

q(net) safe  12.5 t/m2

Computation of settlement

Computation of immediate settlement may be done using the following

formula:

ρi = µ1. µ0. qn. B

Es
Where, ρi - immediate settlement
µ1 and µ0 - factors related to the depth of footing [D], thickness of
compressible layer [H] and Length/width [L/B] ratio of the
footing.

B– width of footing
ES – Deformation modulus of soil
Computation of consolidation settlement may be done by using the formula,
 ρc = mv . H. ∆p

where, mv – coeff. of volume compressibility

H - thickness of compressible layer
∆p - excess pressure in the subsoil

Total settlement, ρT = ρi + ρc

a] Immediate settlement

Deformation modulus of St-III, ESIII = 500Cu = 2350 t/m2

Stratum – III

L/B = 1.00 µ1 = 0.56

H/B = 2.00 µ0 = 0.78
D/B = 0.75

St B qn µ1 µ0 ES ρi
III 2000 12.5 0.56 0.78 2350 4.65

Total Immediate settlement, ρi = 4.65 mm

b] Consolidation settlement

ρc = mv . H. ∆p = [0.0061 x 4000 x 0.682] mm = 16.64 mm

D/√LB = 0.75
 L/B = 1.00
Depth correction factor, f = 0.78
Applying geological correction factor of 0.8,
Corrected ρc = 10.38 mm

Total settlement, ρT  15mm < 75 mm OK

[Note: About 30 % of the total settlement is likely to occur immediately on

imposition of load]
It is important to note that foundations placed on deposits represented by BH-
1 & 2 will have a cushion of Stratum-II of about 2.4m thickness. The bearing
capacity of Stratum – II in shear is estimated to be 22 t/m 2 which is far greater
than the permissible bearing capacity of Stratum-III [12.5 t/m 2]. The
anticipated settlements of such footings under the recommended bearing
capacity shall also be slightly smaller compared to the values presented in
Table – A which is computed based on the parameters found at BH-3.
However, the resulting differential settlement shall be of the order of 6mm and
therefore should not be much of a concern.

The estimated bearing capacities and anticipated settlements for all other size
of footings are summarized in Table – A.

TABLE – A

B[m] qn[t/m2] ρT [mm]

L/B = 1.0 L/B = 1.0

 1.5 12.5 11
2.0 12.5 15
2.5 12.5 20
3.0 12.5 26

Where, B – width of footing,

L – length of footing
qn – net permissible bearing capacity
ρT - anticipated settlement under qn
Notes : Depth correction factor & geological correction factors have been
applied on consolidation settlement.
: Approximately 30% of total settlement would occur immediately on
imposition of load.
: The bearing capacity values are not applicable for foundations on a
slope or under the influence of a slope

ii] Basement raft

It is considered that the bottom of basement raft for the six storied building
shall be placed at a depth of 3.0M below the finished ground level [RL 98.0m]
and the depth of up stand beam to be 800mm. For such a building, the design
load over the plan area of the building may reasonably be considered
as 8.0 t/m2.

It is evident that the geotechnical parameters of Stratum-III are applicable for

estimation of bearing capacity in shear.
Ignoring the shape factor and computing as before, the bearing capacity of
Stratum-III in shear for a factor of safety value of 2.5 = 9.7 t/m 2. [ignoring any
resistance offered by the side friction]

Relief of excess pressure due to permanent removal of overburden

[considering the deposits to be normally consolidated]
= 11.6 t/m2 [minimum for conditions at BH-3]

It is evident that the basement raft transferring a load of 8.0 t/m 2 placed at a
depth of 3.0m [RL.95.0m] below the finished GL [RL.98.0m] shall behave as a
fully compensated foundation. Other than the recompression of the heave of
the excavated surface, no settlement is expected to occur.

 Check for hydrostatic uplift

The ground water table has been observed only at BH-5 at a depth of 7.5m
below the top of bore hole [RL.83.7m]. The corresponding RL of water table is
76.2m. This together with the knowledge of the deposits at this site suggests
that the basement raft placed at RL 95.0m is not likely to experience any
hydrostatic uplift pressure.

B. For deposits represented by BH-4 [RL.925m]

Isolated footings
Computation of Bearing Capacity
Depth of foundation = 1.5m below the existing GL [RL.92.5m]

It is evident that the bearing capacity of the foundation shall be guided by the
parameters of Stratum-I.

This estimated bearing capacity of stratum-I in shear for a factor of safety

= 26.2 t/m2
Since the shearing strength of the underlying layer is relatively poor, punching
into stratum-II is also checked.
However, such a high order of bearing capacity is not recommended and it is
considered to be reasonable to restrict the bearing capacity in shear to 12.5
t/m2. Settlements for different size of footings under this load intensity are
estimated and are presented in Table – B.
TABLE – B

B[m] qn[t/m2] ρT [mm]

L/B = 1.0 L/B = 1.0

1.5 12.5 12
2.0 12.5 15
2.5 12.5 18
3.0 12.5 21

Where, B – width of footing,

L – length of footing
qn – net permissible bearing capacity
ρT - anticipated settlement under qn
Notes : Depth correction factor & geological correction factors have been
applied on consolidation settlement.
: Approximately 20% of total settlement would occur immediately on
imposition of load.
: The bearing capacity values are not applicable for foundations on a
slope or under the influence of a slope

C. For deposits represented by BH-5 [RL.83.7m]

Isolated footings
Computation of Bearing Capacity

Depth of foundation = 1.5m below the existing GL [RL.83.7m]

Since the N-values increased considerably with the increase in depth, the numerical average of such
N-values for the whole thickness of the layer will be unsafe for the assessment of the behaviour of
shallow foundation.

Considering the N-values within the top 5.0m,

Average field N = 17

N- value Correction
Correction for overburden pressure
Effective overburden pressure at the concerned depth  6 t/m2
Correction factor, CN  1.0
Corrected N = 17
Corresponding value of angle of shearing resistance, f  300
[As the deposit is not saturated, dilatancy correction is not applicable]
For granular soil containing more than 5% silt, f = 25 + 0.15ID [Meyerhof]
Therefore, ID = 33% say 30%

Therefore the foundation shall rest on the stratum-IV of sand.

The ultimate [gross] bearing capacity of such foundation in general shear
failure can be estimated by using the following expression.
Qult = CNcScdcic + qNqSqiqdq + 0.5BNSid

Considering C = 0 and ignoring the depth and inclination factors, the

expression for net ultimate bearing capacity reduces to

Qult]net = q[Nq-1]Sq + 0.5BNS

Using factors recommended by Peck, Hansen & Thornburn

f = 300
Corresponding bearing capacity factors:
Nq = 10 [these bearing capacity factors automatically
accommodate the mode of failure]
N = 11

For square footing, Sq = 1 + 0.2B/L = 1.2

[2.0m x 2.0m] S = 0.8
Qult]net = 49.8 t/m2

Safe bearing capacity in shear for a factor of safety of 2.5,

qn = 19.9 t/m2

IS Code Method

For local shear:

f/ = tan-1[2/3 tanf] = 21.050

Corresponding Nq = 7.29
N = 6.49

For square footing, Qult]net = 32.88 t/m2

[2.0m x 2.0m]

For general shear: Nq = 18.4

N = 22.4
For square footing, Qult]net = 98.0 t/m2
[2.0m x 2.0m]

Interpolating for ID between 0.2 and 0.7,

Qult]net = 45.9 t/m2

Safe bearing capacity in shear for a factor of safety of 2.5,

qn = 18.3 t/m2 < 19.9 t/m2
[Safe bearing capacity in shear for larger size of footings shall be greater]

For reasons explained earlier, it is recommended to restrict the bearing

capacity to 12.5 t/m2.

Immediate settlement
[2.5m x 2.5m]

Average field N-value = 28 [up to the concerned depth of about 4B]

Deformation Modulus, ES IV = 500[N + 15] kpa = 2100 t/m2

L/B = 1.0 µ1 = 0.65

H/B = 4.0 µ0 = 0.83
D/B = 0.6

Immediate settlement, ρi = 8.00 mm

It is evident that under the design load intensity of 12.5 t/m 2, settlement of
square footings of widths between 1.5m and 3.0m shall be well within the
permissible value stipulated in the relevant IS Code and is expected to be
within 10mm.

Notes
 The bearing capacity values recommended in this report in Table – A
do not include any effect of overstressed zones in the subsoil due to
closely spaced foundations and therefore should be modified if
situation demands. To check any undesirable differential settlement,
the footings should be tied thoroughly at the foundation level.

 Check for stability of foundation of the existing structure, if any, due to

excavation and construction of the proposed building does not come
within the purview of this report and hence not included. Such check

 must be carried out and remedial measures be taken prior to the

construction if necessary.

 The allowable bearing capacity values recommended in this report are

based on the subsoil condition revealed at the boring locations. If
 during excavation for foundation or otherwise, local subsoil variation
with respect to the condition revealed at the boring locations are
observed, the bearing capacity values must be modified accordingly.

 It is important to note that the recommended bearing capacity values

presented in this report are not applicable for foundations on a slope or
under the influence of a slope.
 Check for overall natural stability of the ground under slope and also
slope stability analysis of the ground under the influence of the
structural loads is not within the purview of this report. This must be
checked for overall stability of the ground.

 The geotechnical parameters presented in this report may be used to

compute the lateral earth pressures [active & passive] for designing the
lateral support system required for deep excavation.
8.0 SUMMARY

A] For deposits represented by BH-1,2 & 3 [Finished GL = 98.0m]

i] The bearing capacity in shear of an open raft foundation = 9.7 T/m 2.

The anticipated settlement under this load is well within the permissible value.
Considering the relief of [11.6 T/ m2] due to removal of overburden in case of
a
Basement raft placed at a depth of 3m

B] For deposits represented by BH-4 [RL.92.5m]

Permissible bearing capacity for footings of sizes 1.5m x1.5m, 2.0m x

2.0m, 2.5m x 2.5m & 3.0m x 3.0m placed at a depth of 1.5m below the
existing ground level = 12.5 t/m2

C] For deposits represented by BH-5 [RL.83.7m]

Permissible bearing capacity for footings of sizes 1.5m x1.5m, 2.0m x

2.0m, 2.5m x 2.5m & 3.0m x 3.0m placed at a depth of 1.5m below the
existing ground level = 12.5 t/m2

D] The assessment of overall slope stability of the natural ground and

also the stability of the ground under the effect of the proposed building
load is not within the purview of this report. This must be checked for
overall stability of the ground.

E] The recommended bearing capacity values presented in this report

are not applicable for foundation on a slope or under the influence of a
slope.