Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf

8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf

1/198

Chiniot Power Limited

316 D, OPF Housing Colony,Raiwind Road LahorePhone: 042-35323313-15Fax: 042-35323316

E-mail: [email protected]

2 x 31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Report on

Geotechnical Investigations

February, 2014

Berkeley

Associates

Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00


2/198

Berkeley Associates

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Report on Geotechnical Investigations

Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 2

2 x 31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

00 04-02-2014 Issued to Client AAG KA

Rev Date DescriptionInitials Signature Initials Signature Initials Signature

Prepared by Checked by Clients Approval

Client Chiniot Power Limited55-K, Model Town, Lahore Pakistan

Tel: +92 42 35857233-5

Geotechnical

Investigation

Agency

Berkeley Associates

316-D, OPF Housing Colony near Raiwind Road,

Lahore Pakistan.

Tel: +92-42-35323313-15

Fax: +92-42-35323316Email: [email protected]

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Document No. J-559


3/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 3

CONTENTS

1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... ...................... 8

1.1

GENERAL............................................................. ............................................................... ............ 8

1.2

SCOPE OF WORK............................................................ ................................................................ . 8

1.3 METHODOLOGY............................................................. ................................................................ . 9

2

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................... ...................................... 10

2.1 GENERAL............................................................. ............................................................... .......... 10

2.2 EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES................................................................ ......................................... 10

2.3

TEST PIT EXCAVATION............................................................. .................................................... 11

2.4

IN-SITU TESTING...................................... ................................................................ .................... 11

2.4.1

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) .......................... ............................................................ 11

2.4.2 Field Density Tests (FDTs) ................................................................................................. 112.4.3 Cyclic Plate Load Tests (CPLTs) ........................................................................................ 11

2.4.4

Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS) .............................................................. ....................... 12

2.5

SAMPLING..................................................................... ............................................................... 12

2.6

GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS.............................................................................. .................... 13

3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................. ........................ 14

3.1

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................ .......... 14

3.2 ATTERBERGS LIMITS................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY......................................................... .............................................................. 15

3.4

BULK DENSITY......................................................................................................... .................... 15

3.5

IN-SITU MOISTURE CONTENT........................................................................ ............................... 15

3.6

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST................................................................................................ 15

3.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST................................................................................................. .................... 15

3.8

STANDARD PROCTOR TESTS......................................................................................................... 16

3.9

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO....................................................................................................... 16

3.10

CHEMICAL ANALYSES.............................................................................................. .................... 16

3.10.1

Soil Samples ........................................................................................... ............................. 16

3.10.2 Water Samples ...................................................................................................... ............... 16

4

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBSOIL .................................................... 18

4.1 GENERAL............................................................. ............................................................... .......... 18

4.2

TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY....................................................................................................... 18

4.3

SEISMICITY.......................................................... ............................................................... .......... 18

4.4 STRATIGRAPHY................................................... ............................................................... .......... 18

4.5 GROUNDWATER TABLE................................................................................. ............................... 19

4.6

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS................................................................... ......................................... 19

4.7

SEISMIC SOIL PROFILE CHARACTERIZATION................................................. ............................... 19

4.8

CHEMICAL AGRESSIVITY.............................................................................................................. 19

4.9 CBRVALUES...................................................................................... ......................................... 20

4.10 REFERENCES............................................ ................................................................ .................... 20

5

FOUNDATION DESIGN ................................................................. ............................................. 21

5.1 GENERAL............................................................. ............................................................... .......... 21

5.2 TYPE OF FOUNDATIONS....................................................................................................... ......... 21

5.3

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.................................................................... ......................................... 21

5.3.1

Design Criteria for Shallow Foundations ........................................ .................................... 21

5.3.2

Design Parameters .................................................................................... ........................... 225.3.3 Allowable Bearing Pressures .................................................................. ............................. 22


4/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 4

5.3.4 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction .......................................................................................... 235.4

DEEP FOUNDATIONS...................................................... ............................................................... 24

5.4.1

Cast in-situ Piles ......................................................... ......................................................... 24

5.4.2 Length and Diameter ...................................................................... ..................................... 245.4.3

Design Parameters .................................................................................... ........................... 24

5.4.4 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity ........................................................ ............................. 24

5.4.5

Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffness .......................................................................................... 255.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE................................................................ ......................................... 25

5.6

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOUNDATIONS................................. ............................... 26

5.7

PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS............................................................................ .................... 26

5.8

REFERENCES............................................ ................................................................ .................... 27

6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... ..................................................... 28


5/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 5

APPENDICES

Appendix-A

Tables and Figures

Table 2-1 Summary of Field Density and NMC Test Results

Table 2-2 Plate Load Test Data for CPLT-1


Table 3-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Fig. 2-1 Geotechnical Investigations Plan

Fig. 2-2A Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Switchyard

Fig. 2-2B Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Raw/Fire Water Tank

Fig. 2-2C Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Water Treatment

Plant

Fig. 2-2D Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Cooling Tower

Fig. 2-2E Profile of Observed SPT N-values for TG-1

Fig. 2-2F Profile of Observed SPT N-values for TG-2

Fig. 2-2G Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Maintenance Bay

Fig. 2-2H Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Boiler-1

Fig. 2-2I Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Boiler-2

Fig. 2-2J Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Chimney

Fig. 2-2K Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Coal Shed

Fig. 2-3 Pressure vs Settlement Curves for CPLT-1

Fig. 2-4 Pressure vs Settlement Curves for CPLT-2

Fig. 4-1 Linear Subsurface Profile 1-1



Fig. 5-1A Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Switchyard

Fig. 5-1B Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Raw/Fire Water Tank

Fig. 5-1C Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Water Treatment

Plant

Fig. 5-1D Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Cooling Tower

Fig. 5-1E Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for TG-1

Fig. 5-1F Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for TG-2

Fig. 5-1G Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Maintenance Bay

Fig. 5-1H Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Boiler-1

Fig. 5-1I Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Boiler-2

Fig. 5-1J Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Chimney

Fig. 5-1K Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Coal Shed

Fig. 5-2 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for

Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Switchyard

Fig. 5-3 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings forPermissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Switchyard


6/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 6

Fig. 5-4 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings for

Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Raw/Fire Water Tank


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Water Treatment

Plant

Fig. 5-6 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for

Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Water Treatment

Plant


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Cooling Tower






Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-1



Fig. 5-12 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/ Mat Footings for






Fig. 5-15 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings forPermissible Settlement of 50.8mm at TG-2


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Boiler-1



Fig. 5-20 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings forPermissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Boiler-1








Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Chimney

Fig. 5-25 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings forPermissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Coal Shed


7/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 7


Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Coal Shed

Fig. 5-27 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of the Piles in

Compression

Fig. 5-28 Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffness of Pile below Pile Cap

Appendix-B

Borehole & Test pit Logs

Appendix-C

Laboratory Test Results

Appendix-D

Report on Electrical Resistiv ity Survey

Appendix-E

Photographs


8/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 8

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Chiniot Power Limited is planning to construct a 2x31.2 MW Congeneration

Project, near Ramzan Sugar Mill on Chiniot-Jhang Road. The plant shall

comprise two turbines, two boilers, cooling towers, water treatment plant,

switchyard and other allied components. M/s Avant-Garde Engineers &

Consultants (FZC.), Sharjah, U.A.E. are the Project Consultants. M/s Berkeley

Associates were engaged to carry out the geotechnical investigations for the

proposed project.

The scope of work for these geotechnical investigations, as prepared by theProject Consultants comprises; drilling of boreholes, excavation of test pits,

performance of in-situ tests in boreholes and test pits, performance of cyclic

plate load tests, performance of electrical resistivity survey, collection of soil

samples (disturbed and undisturbed), collection of water samples from

boreholes, performance of laboratory testing on selected soil and water

samples and submission of geotechnical investigations report.

The field work for these soil investigations was carried out during the period

from December 23, 2013 to January 27, 2014.

1.2 Scope of Work

Scope of Geotechnical Investigations is summarized below;

- Drilling of fourteen (14) exploratory boreholes; ten (10) down to 25 m

depth and four (4) down to 15m depth below existing ground level

(EGL)

- Performance of Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) in all boreholes ata general depth interval of 1.5 m along with collection of disturbed

samples

- Excavation of two (2) test pits down to 4.0 m depth each below EGL

- Collection of composite bulk samples from the test pits

- Collection of undisturbed soil samples from boreholes and test pits

using appropriate samplers


9/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 9

- Performance of Field Density Tests (FDTs) in each test pit at various

horizons

- Obtaining pertinent ground water table (GWT) information in the

boreholes and collection of water samples

- Performance of electrical resistivity survey (ERS) for design of earthing

system at two (2) locations

- Performance of two (02) cyclic plate load tests (CPLT) at the site

- Performance of laboratory tests on selected soil and water samples

- Preparation of a detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report upon

completion of field and laboratory testing

1.3 Methodology

The exploratory borings were drilled using straight rotary drilling rigs. In-situ

tests (i.e. SPTs/FDTs) were performed in accordance with relevant ASTM

standards.

Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected from boreholes using

appropriate samplers, for identification and subsequent laboratory testing.

Composite bulk soil samples were collected from test pits using appropriate

techniques. Selected soil samples were subjected to various laboratory tests

for evaluation of classification and strength characteristics of the sub-soils.

This report has been prepared on the basis of field geotechnical investigations

data and subsequent laboratory testing performed on the selected soil

samples. An evaluation of foundation soils, foundation design parameters and

recommendations regarding type of foundations, respective allowable bearing

pressures and type of cement to be used in the construction of substructure

are also provided in this report.


10/198

Berkeley Associates

Ashiana-e-Iqbal, Burki Road, Lahore

Interim Report on Geotechnical Investigations

Doc. No. J-30

Rev. 00Page 10

2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 General

The scope of the geotechnical studies was planned by the Project

Consultants. The field investigations included the following activities;

- Drilling of exploratory boreholes

- Excavation of test pits

- In-situ testing in boreholes and test pits

- Soil and water sampling in boreholes

- Soil sampling in test pits

- Cyclic plate load test (CPLT)

- Performance of Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)

The details of the field work are discussed in this chapter. Photographs of fieldactivities are attached in Appendix-E.

2.2 Exploratory Boreholes

A total of fourteen (14) boreholes were drilled; ten (10) down to 25 m and four

(4) down to 15 m depth each below EGL at the proposed project site. The

location of all the boreholes drilled during these investigations is shown on

Fig. 2-1(Appendix-A).

All these boreholes were drilled using straight rotary drilling rig and the

boreholes were stabilized by circulating Bentonite mud in the boreholes. Thediameter of all the boreholes was in the range of 100mm to 150 mm. SPTs

were performed in these boreholes at a general depth interval of 1.5 m.

Undisturbed soil samples were collected from cohesive strata using Shelby

tube/Denison samplers.

A careful record of all the materials encountered and data of SPTs conducted

in each borehole was maintained in the form of field borehole logs. The

borehole logs are included in Appendix-B.


11/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 11

2.3 Test pit Excavation

Two (2) test pits were excavated each down to 4.0 m depth below EGL.

Subsurface logs of both the test pits were prepared after carefully observingthe soils on the walls of the excavated pits. The test pit logs are also included

in Appendix-B.

2.4 In-situ Testing

During the field investigations, SPTs, FDTs, CPLT and ERS were carried out.

A brief description of these tests is provided in the following sections.

2.4.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)

For evaluating the consistency and compactness of the foundation soils,

SPTs were performed in all the exploratory boreholes. These SPTs were

carried out in each hole at 1.5m depth interval and were conducted in

accordance with the procedures described in latest version of ASTM Standard

D 1586. A donut type hammer, weighing 63.5kg, has been used for the test.

While performing the SPTs in boreholes, the hammer was lifted and dropped

mechanically through the flywheel of drilling rig and pulley hanged to a tripod.

Prior to performing each SPT, the loose material existing in the hole was

properly washed/ cleaned. A split spoon sampler without a liner was used for

all the tests. Disturbed soil samples were obtained through the split spoon

sampler. Profiles of SPTN values are shown on Fig. 2-2A to Fig.2-2K

(Appendix-A) for boreholes corresponding various structures.

2.4.2 Field Density Tests (FDTs)

In order to determine the in-situ compactness and density of soils at shallow

depth, FDTs were performed in both the excavated test pits. The tests were

performed at various horizons using sand replacement method in accordance

with the relevant ASTM Standards. For determination of in-situ moisture, soil

samples were preserved in small tin boxes. The bulk and dry densities

determined during the field work are summarized in Table 2-1(Appendix-A).

2.4.3 Cyclic Plate Load Tests (CPLTs)

For evaluating the modulus of subgrade reaction of shallow foundations, two

(2) cyclic plate load tests were carried out at TG-1 and TG-2 locations. Both


12/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 12

tests were performed at 4.0 m depth below EGL. A square shaped bearing

plate of 0.45 x0.45 m size was used in the test. The test was performed in

accordance with the procedure described in BS 1377-Part IX-Section 4.1. The

pressure versus settlement data for CPLT-1 and CPLT-2 is presented in

Table 2-2 and 2-3(Appendix-A). Pressure versus settlement curves are shown

on Fig. 2-3 and 2-4(Appendix-A) respectively.

Modulus of subgrade reaction determined from the two plate load tests were

presented in following table:

Sr.

No.

Plate Load

Test

Designation

Maximum

Test Load

(Ton)

Maximum

Pressure on

Plate

(kPa)

Settlement at

Maximum

Pressure

(mm)

Modulus of

Subgrade

Reaction

(kN/m3)

1 CPLT-1 6.18 289.9 0.593 488,870

2 CPLT-2 6.18 289.9 2.067 140,250

2.4.4 Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)

The electrical resistivity measurements of the subsurface material were taken

in the field by resistivity measuring instrument Terrameter SAS 1000 of

ABEM, Sweden and using the Schlumberger electrode array. The Terrameter

directly records the value of resistance (V/I) in ohms. In order to study the

variation of resistivity with depth, Vertical Electric Sounding (VES) technique

was employed. In this technique, apparent resistivity values are obtained for

various depths by increasing the current electrodes spacing at the ground

surface, keeping the centre of electrode array fixed at the observation point.

Vertical electric soundings were taken at two (2) points. These resistivity

observation points are designated as ER-1 and ER-2. The locations of these

points are shown in Fig. 2-1(Appendix-A). Separate report on electrical

resistivity survey is attached in Appendix-D.

2.5 Sampling

Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were obtained from all the boreholes

drilled during these soil investigations. Disturbed soil samples were obtained

from the boreholes through split spoon sampler while performing SPTs. These

samples were placed in polythene bags and preserved in wide-mouthed

plastic jars. The jars were clearly labelled to indicate the project name, project

code, borehole designation and depth of sample and date of sampling.


13/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 13

Undisturbed soil samples were obtained from cohesive strata encountered in

the boreholes by using appropriate sampler. The undisturbed samples were

properly waxed and labelled to indicate the project name, project code,

borehole designation and depth of sample and date of sampling.

Composite bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The bulk sampleswere properly preserved and labelled for transportation to the soil testinglaboratory.

All the soil samples were carefully transported to Berkeley Associates Soil

Testing Laboratory Facilities, Lahore for subsequent laboratory testing.

2.6 Groundwater Observations

GWT was encountered in all boreholes at depth ranging from 9.6 m to 11.4 mduring these investigations and are mentioned in the respective borehole logs.


14/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 14

3 LABORATORY TESTING

For evaluation of physical and engineering and chemical characteristics of the

sub-soils, selected disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were tested in thelaboratory. The laboratory testing was carried out at Berkeley Associates

Laboratory Testing Facility, Lahore. The following laboratory tests were

performed on selected soil samples.

- Particle size distribution

- Atterbergs limits

- Specific gravity

- Bulk & Dry density

- Natural moisture content (NMC)

- Unconfined compression tests- Direct shear tests

- Modified Proctor Compaction tests

- 3 Point Soaked CBR tests

- Chemical analyses of soil and water samples

A brief description of these tests is given in the following sections. A summary

of laboratory test results is given in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).

3.1 Particle Size Distr ibut ion

For classifying the subsurface soils, seventy (70) selected soil samples were

subjected to sieve analyses during these studies. Some samples were further

subjected to hydrometer analyses. The sieve analyses were performed in

accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D 422 , with sample

preparation by ASTM D 2217 (wet preparation method), Procedure B. The

hydrometer analyses were carried out in accordance with procedure specified

in ASTM D 422. Results of sieve and hydrometer analyses were plotted in

the form of gradation curves. These curves for all the tested samples are

presented in Appendix-C. The percentages of fines (passing sieve no. 200),sand and concretion fractions of the tested soil samples are also provided in

Table 3-1(Appendix-A).

3.2 Atterbergs Limits

For evaluating plasticity characteristics of cohesive soils, liquid and plastic

limit tests were performed on twenty four (24) selected soil samples. The tests

were performed as specified in ASTM Designation D 4318. All the liquid limit

tests were performed with at least three trials. The test results are


15/198


16/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 16

3.8 Standard Proctor Tests

In order to determine the moisture-density relationships of subgrade soils, two

(2) Standard Proctor compaction tests were carried out on the composite bulk

samples. The test results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). Thelaboratory test sheets are attached in Appendix-C.

3.9 California Bearing Ratio

Two (2) compacted soil samples were tested to determine California Bearing

Ratio (CBR) under soaked conditions. The samples were prepared using

Standard Proctor Compaction method. The test results are summarized in

Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The laboratory test sheets are attached in Appendix-

C.

3.10 Chemical Analyses

3.10.1 Soil Samples

In order to determine the chemical characteristics of the subsoil, eleven (11)

selected soil samples were tested for estimation of chemical composition.

The results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).

Sulphate Content

The sulphate content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.036% to

0.068%.

Chloride Content

The chloride content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.010% to

0.021%.

Organic Content

The organic content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.46% to 0.92%.

3.10.2 Water Samples

In order to determine the chemical characteristics of the ground water, two

(02) water samples collected from boreholes were tested for estimation ofchemical composition. The results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).


17/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 17

Sulphate Content

The sulphate content of the tested ground water samples was 120 and 140

ppm.

Chloride Content

The chloride content of the tested ground water samples was 75 ppm and 99

ppm.

pH Value

The pH value of all tested ground water samples was 8.0.

Total Soluble Salts

The value of total dissolved solids in the tested ground water samples was

1175 ppm and 1182 ppm.


18/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 18

4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBSOIL

4.1 General

The geotechnical investigations carried for the project comprised field and

laboratory work. The field and laboratory investigations were aimed for

evaluating the engineering characteristics of the foundation soil. The

subsurface conditions and engineering characteristics of the soil existing at

the proposed project site are discussed in the following sections.

4.2 Topography and Geology

The topography of the project area is predominantly flat. Lithological units at

this site include top layer of fill material containing silty clay mixed with organic

material/ grass roots underlain by layer of Silty/ Lean Clay followed by Sandy

Silt and Silty Sand. The soils belong to alluvial deposits of Punjab plain.

4.3 Seismicity

According to Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions 2007), issued

by Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Seismic Zone 2A has been

assigned to Chiniot. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with Zone

2A has been recommended to vary from 0.08g to 0.16g.

4.4 Stratigraphy

During these investigations, the subsurface was explored to a maximumdepth of twenty five (25) m below EGL and the following geotechnical unitshave been identified;

Top layer of fill material was encountered in a few boreholes. This layercomprises brown silty clay mixed with organic material and grass roots.The depth of this layer ranges from 0.3 m to 0.5 m below EGL.

Layer of Silty Clay/Lean Clay is encountered below the top layer havingvariable thickness in various boreholes.

Sandy Silt/ Silty Sand layer is encountered below Silty/ Lean Clay andcontinues down to maximum explored depth of 25 m.

Linear subsurface profiles developed on the basis of boreholes drilled at the


19/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 19

site are shown on Figs. 4-1 to 4-3.

4.5 Groundwater Table

Ground water table (GWT) was encountered in all boreholes at depth range of

9.6 m to 11.4 m, during these investigations and are mentioned in the

respective borehole logs. For the design purposes, the GWT has been

assumed at 10.0 m depth below EGL.

4.6 Liquefaction Analysis

The overburden soils at site predominantly have quite high fine content. Such

soils are not likely to undergo liquefaction (Ref.4.1). As such no liquefaction

hazard exists at the site.

4.7 Seismic Soil Profile Characterization

According to Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions 2007), issuedby Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the criteria for classification ofun-cemented soil profiles are to be based on;

Vs= average shear wave velocity of the top 100ft. (30m) soil profile

or N = average field SPT resistance for the top 100ft. (30m) soil profile

or

Su= average undrained shear strength for the top 100ft. (30 m) soil

profile

Keeping in view the available field SPT data of all the holes drilled at the site,

the soil profile type as per Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provision

2007), should be taken as SD(i.e. Stiff Soil Profile).

4.8 Chemical Agressivi ty

On the basis of concentrations of sulphates determined in the foundation soil

and ground water samples, the exposure is classified as Negligible'' as

explained in ACI 318M-11 Table 4.2.1. According to the concentration of

sulphates in soil and water Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) can be used in

sub-structure construction.


20/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 20

4.9 CBR Values

Based on the laboratory test results, the soaked CBR values for the in-situ

soils compacted to Standard Proctor Compaction are provided below;

Relative Compaction based on

Standard Proctor Compaction

Soaked CBR Value

TP-1 TP-2

90 % 4.0 4.8

95 % 6.6 7.6

100 % 9.2 10.2

4.10 References

4.1 Youd, T. L. et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Reportfrom the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops onEvaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, JGGE, Oct. 2001, pp817-833.


21/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 21

5 FOUNDATION DESIGN

5.1 General

Various field and laboratory tests have been carried out during these

geotechnical investigations. These test results have been examined for

evaluation of subsurface conditions at the project site and determination of

geotechnical design parameters.

Design parameters have been selected on the basis of available field &

laboratory test results, literature and engineering judgement.

Evaluations have been made for allowable bearing pressures for the shallowas well as deep oundations which are discussed in the following sections.

5.2 Type of Foundations

Keeping in view the type of structures and soil conditions existing at the site;

allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations as well as deep

foundations has been evaluated. Shallow foundations are recommended to be

provided for light to moderately loaded structures. In order to facilitate the

designer, allowable load carrying capacity of deep foundations have alsobeen provided.

5.3 Shallow Foundations

Shallow foundations can be strip, square or raft footings. Allowable bearing

pressures for shallow foundations have been evaluated at different depths for

various structures of the Project.

The design criteria, geotechnical design parameters and allowable bearingpressures for shallow foundations are discussed in the following sections.

5.3.1 Design Criteria for Shallow Foundations

Allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations have been evaluated for

various sizes of foundations placed at depths from 2m to 4m. For evaluation

of allowable bearing pressures, the following two criteria are adopted;

i- The allowable load should not initiate the shear failure of the


22/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 22

foundation soils, and

ii- The total as well as differential settlements caused by the

application of allowable loads should be within specified

tolerable limits of 25.4 mm for square and strip foundations and

50.8 mm for raft foundations.

5.3.2 Design Parameters

For evaluation of allowable bearing pressures for shallow footings, the

recommended design parameters are summarized as under:

Sr. No.Structure

Designation

Depth o fFooting

(m)

Material

Type

BulkDensity

(kN/m3)

Cohesion

(kPa)

Design

N70

Angle ofInternal

Friction(Deg)

Modulusof

Elasticity(MPa)

1 Switchyard2

Silty Clay 18.0 35 - - 153

2Raw/Fire

Water Tank3 Silty Sand 17.5 - 7 31 -

3Water

TreatmentPlant

2 Silty Sand 18.0 - 10 32 -

4CoolingTower

2 Silty Clay 18.0 30 - - 15

3Silty Sand 17.5 -

831.5 -

4 9

5 TG-12

Silty Sand 17.0 -5 30.5

-3 6

4 7 31

6 TG-2

2

Silty Sand 17.5 -

731

-3 8

4 9 32

7Maintenance

Bay2 Silty Sand 17.5 - 9 32 -

8 Boiler-1

2 Silty Clay 18.0 30 - - 15

3Silty Sand 18.0 -

932 -

4 10

9 Boiler-22

Silty Sand 17.5 -5 30.5

-3 6

4 7 31

10 Chimney 3 Silty Sand 18.0 - 12 33 -

11 Coal Shed2 Silty Clay 18.0 25 - - 12

3 Silty Sand 17.0 - 6 31 -

5.3.3 Allowable Bearing Pressures

The evaluations of bearing pressures are carried out by considering both the

shear based as well as settlement based criteria. The allowable bearingpressures on the basis of shear failure of soil were determined by adopting


23/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 23

the approach given by Brinch-Hansen (Ref.5.1). A factor of safety of 3.0 was

used for determining the respective net allowable bearing pressures. The

allowable bearing pressures based on settlement criterion for foundations

underlain with cohesion less layer have been calculated using Bowles (1996).

In case both cohesive and cohesion less layers fall within the influence zone,

the elastic settlements have been evaluated using Timoshenko and Goodier

approach (Ref.1). The evaluated allowable bearing pressures for shallow

foundations for various structures are presented in Figs. 5-2 to 5-26 which are

attached in Appendix-A.

The allowable bearing pressures as provided in this report are for normal axial

loads on level ground. For eccentric loading conditions, the value of allowable

load shall be at least equal to the axial load, Pawith;

Pa =

qa .

Aeffwhere

qa = allowable bearing pressure for axial loads, and

Aeff = effective foundation area = (L-2ex) (B-2ey)

where ex and ey are the magnitude of eccentricities along L and B

dimensions of the footing respectively.

5.3.4 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction

Modulus of sub-grade reaction Ksto be used in computer model for structural

analysis can be evaluated from the basic definition of Ks by using the

evaluated net allowable bearing pressure which causes the settlement under

the maximum structural pressure and is as follows:

For Square & Strip Footings with 25.4 mm tolerable settlement

ks (kN/m3) = Evaluated Net Allowable Bearing Pressure x FOS

Settlement (25.4 mm) under maximum structural pressure

For raft / mat footings with 50.8 mm tolerable settlement

ks(kN/m3) = Evaluated net allowable bearing pressure X FOS

Settlement (50.8 mm) under maximum structural pressure

The modulus values determined from the two plate load tests were provided

in section 2.4.3.


24/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 24

5.4 Deep Foundations

5.4.1 Cast in-situ Piles

Piles are the most common type of deep foundations. The bored cast-in-situ

reinforced concrete piles are recommended to be used as the deep

foundations for the project.

5.4.2 Length and Diameter

Deep foundations are recommended for heavily loaded structures. We

envisage that cast-in-situ bored reinforced concrete piles of diameters 660mm

and 760mm shall be adequate for the structures. The allowable load carrying

capacities of cast-in-situ bored piles have been determined for these

diameters.

5.4.3 Design Parameters

For evaluation of load carrying capacity for deep foundations, design

parameters are presented in the following table:

Sr. No. Soil Type

Depth

(m)

Bulk Density

(kN/m3)

Angle of

Internal

Friction

(Deg)

Relative

Density

(%)

1 Silty Sand 3 to 10 17.5 31 30

2 Silty Sand 10 to

maximum

explored depth

18.0 33 35

5.4.4 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity

The load carrying capacities of bored piles have been calculated according to

the procedures described in Ref. 5.1. The pile capacities in compression are

shown on Fig. 5-27 (Appendix-A). The allowable loads provided in these

figure are for single pile. Appropriate group reduction factor should be applied

on the basis of configuration of the pile group under a foundation.

The following formula given in Ref. 5.1 can be adopted to estimate pile group

efficiency:

Eg =


25/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 25

and

=

where,

m = no. of columns in group

n = no. of rows in group

s = centre to centre distance between adjacent piles

D = pile diameter

The minimum spacing between the piles in a group should be at least 2 to 3

times the pile diameter.

The pile capacities provided in Fig. 5-27 must be verified by constructing test

pile and carrying out full scale loading tests.

5.4.5 Horizontal Soil Spring Stif fness

The horizontal soil spring stiffnesses have been evaluated for the piles. These

are shown on Fig. 5-28 (Appendix-A).

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressure

In case of buried structures and retaining walls, use of cohesion-less backfill

is recommended. The evaluation of static earth pressure on buried wall/

retaining walls depends upon the permissible movements allowed in the

design, configuration of the wall, backfill geometry and the type of soil used as

backfill. However, for smooth vertical walls with horizontal backfill, the

following simplified expressions can be used for determination of coefficients

of lateral earth pressure;

Coefficient of active earth pressure, Ka= (1 - sin)/(1 + sin )

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko= (1 - sin)

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp= (1 + sin)/(1 - sin )

where

= Effective angle of internal friction of backfill soil (to bedetermined by shear test on fill remoulded to thespecified density and moisture)


26/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 26

= A conservative value of 30ocan be adopted for

preliminary design purpose

For evaluation of earth pressure under earthquake conditions, the equations

proposed by Mononobe-Okabe are recommended to be used.

5.6 Construction Considerations for Foundations

The soils at foundation level must be carefully inspected prior to placing the

foundations to ensure that the soils are similar to those encountered in the

boreholes. In case any loose/weak material or fill material is encountered in

the foundation trenches/pits, it must be completely removed and foundations

should be placed on natural soil. The foundation trenches/pits must be

protected from ingress of water during foundation construction.

For floor construction, well graded fill should be used having coefficient of

uniformity greater than 4 and compacted in layers of 150 mm (compacted)

thickness. Each layer should be compacted to achieve relative density at least

75%. The material should be free draining having less than 15% fines.

For confirmation of the load carrying capacities of the selected piles, full scale

pile load tests shall be conducted on separate piles constructed outside the

area of working piles. The length and diameter of the test piles should be the

same as the designed working piles. The construction methodology and typeof equipment used for the construction of test piles must also be same as

envisaged for the working piles. The test piles shall be loaded to at least 2.5

times the theoretical design load carrying capacity of the pile or to failure.

In order to ensure proper workmanship, load tests are also recommended on

some of the working piles.

5.7 Pavement Design Parameters

The top layer at the site mainly comprises Silty Clay (CL-ML). The soaked

CBR values for the in-situ soils compacted to Standard Proctor density for

various compaction levels are provided below:

Relative Compaction based on

Standard Proctor Compaction

Soaked CBR Value

TP-1 TP-2

90 % 4.0 4.8

95 % 6.6 7.6

100 % 9.2 10.2


27/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 27

5.8 References

5.1 Bowles, J. E., "Foundation Analysis and Design", McGraw Hill

International Editions, Civil Engineering Series, 5th Edition, 1996.


28/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Page 28

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. During these investigations, the subsurface was explored to amaximum depth of 25 m below EGL. The location of all exploratory

points is shown on Fig. 2-1.

2. Various soil layers encountered at the site below the existing ground

surface are described in section 4.4 and graphically represented in

linear subsurface profiles shown on Figs. 4-1 to 4-3.

3. Ground water table (GWT) was encountered in all boreholes at depth

range of 9.6 m to 11.4 m. For design purposes, the GWT has been

assumed at 10m depth below EGL.

4. The site soils are not prone to liquefaction hazard.

5. On the basis of our evaluations, the soil profile type as per Building

Code of Pakistan, (Seismic Provision 2007) can be taken as SD (i.e.

Stiff Soil Profile).

6. On the basis of concentrations of sulphates determined in the

foundation soil and ground water samples, the exposure is classified as

Negligible'' as explained in ACI 318M-11 Table 4.2.1. According to the

concentration of sulphates in soil and water Ordinary Portland Cement

(OPC) can be used in sub-structure construction.

7. Allowable of pressures for square, strip and mat footings have been

evaluated. Recommended allowable bearing pressures for shallow

foundations of various structures of the project are presented in Figs.

5-2 to 5-26.

8. Deep foundations are recommended for heavily loaded structures.

Allowable load carrying capacities for piles in compression are shown

on Fig. 5-27.

9. Profile of horizontal soil spring stiffness coefficient with depth is shown

on Fig. 5-28.

10. Some construction considerations are discussed in section 5.6.

11. Pavement design parameters are provided in section 5.7.

12. The report on Electrical Resistivity Survey and relevant

recommendations are provided in Appendix-D


29/198

Berkeley Associates



Doc. No. J-559

Rev. 00Appendix-A

APPENDIX - A

TABLES AND FIGURES


30/198

Sheet 1 of 1

(g/cm3) (g/cm

3) (kN/m

3) (kN/m

3) (g/cm

3)

1 TP-1 FDT-1 0.60 1.640 12.78 1 .454 14.260 17.36 1.77 13.9 82.2

2 FDT-2 2.00 1.623 11.23 1 .459 14.310 17.36 1.77 13.9 82.4

3 FDT-3 3.00 1.707 1.76 1.677 16.450 17.36 1.77 13.9 94.8

4 FDT-4 4.00 1.616 2.31 1.579 15.489 17.36 1.77 13.9 89.2

5 TP-2 FDT-1 1.00 1.542 3.20 1.494 14.653 16.67 1.70 14.0 87.9

6 FDT-2 2.00 1.600 2.70 1.558 15.278 16.67 1.70 14.0 91.6

7 FDT-3 3.00 1.643 8.92 1.509 14.793 16.67 1.70 14.0 88.7

8 FDT-4 4.00 1.770 8.83 1.626 15.949 16.67 1.70 14.0 95.7

Berkeley ssociates

Table 2-1 Summary of In-situ Density Test Results & Relative Compaction % age

Project: Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Sr.

No.

Test Pit

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(meter)

In-situ

Bulk

DensityMoisture

Content

(%)

In-situ

Dry

Density

Standard ProctorCompaction

Relative

Compaction

% age

Max. Dry Density Optimum

Moisture

Content

(%)

In-situ

Dry

Density


31/198

Berkeley Associates


Project : 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Description of soil: Silty Sand Test depth:

Test started on: 25/1/2014 Plate size: 18 x 18 Inches

Test completed on: 25/1/2014 Area of plate: 324 Sq In

Plate load test no: 1 Piston dia: 2.5 Inches

Location: TG-1 Piston area: 4.91 Sq In

DATE TIME Pressure Load on Pressure on

on Guage plate plateG1 G2 G3 Average

min (p.s.i) (p.s.i) (Lbs) kPa

25/1/2014

" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.133

" 0.5 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.140

" 1 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143

" 2 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143

" 4 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143

" 8 " " " " 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.160

" 15 " " " " 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.183

20 " " " " 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.193

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.140

" 0.5 " " " " 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.140

" 1 " " " " 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.127

" 2 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100

" 4 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100

" 8 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100

" 15 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100

" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100

" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420

" 0.5 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420

" 1 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420

" 2 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420

" 4 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420

" 8 " " " " 0.43 0.29 0.58 0.433

" 15 " " " " 0.49 0.31 0.59 0.463

" 20 " " " " 0.51 0.33 0.60 0.480

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293" 0.5 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293

" 1 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293

" 2 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293

" 4 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293

" 8 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273

" 15 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273

" 20 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273

" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.33 0.29 0.59 0.403

" 0.5 " " " " 0.33 0.29 0.59 0.403

" 1 " " " " 0.34 0.29 0.59 0.407

" 2 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417

" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417

" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417

" 15 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417

" 20 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.037

" 0.5 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033

" 1 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033

" 2 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033

" 4 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033

" 8 " " " " 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.027

" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.003

" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.003

" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.36 0.44 0.65 0.483

" 0.5 " " " " 0.36 0.44 0.65 0.483

" 1 " " " " 0.37 0.44 0.65 0.487

" 2 " " " " 0.38 0.45 0.66 0.497

" 4 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.67 0.507

" 8 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.68 0.510

" 15 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.68 0.510

" 20 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.69 0.513

CYCLE-3

CYCLE-4

REMARKS

Loading

Corrected

Pressure on

Guage

4.0m below EGL

SETTLEMENT in mmLOADING

UnLoading

CYCLE-1

CYCLE-2

Loading

OBSERVATIONS

UnLoading

Loading

UnLoading

Loading

1 of 3


32/198

Berkeley Associates

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100

" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100

" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100

" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100

" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100

" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.097

" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.083

" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.080

" 0.25 2750 2774.75 13624 289.93 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.540

" 0.5 " " " " 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.547

" 1 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557

" 2 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557" 4 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557

" 8 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593

" 15 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593

" 20 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593

" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483

" 0.5 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483

" 1 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483

" 2 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483

" 4 " " " " 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.477

" 8 " " " " 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.473

" 15 " " " " 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.463

" 20 " " " " 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.457

" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353

" 0.5 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353

" 1 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353

" 2 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353

" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353

" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.350

" 15 " " " " 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.330

" 20 " " " " 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.300

" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163

" 0.5 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163

" 1 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163

" 2 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163

" 4 " " " " 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.153

" 8 " " " " 0.12 0.20 0.11 0.143

" 15 " " " " 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.127

" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.113

" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007

" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007

" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007

" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007

" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.003

" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

CYCLE-4

CYCLE-5

UnLoading

Loading

UnLoading

2 of 3


33/198

Berkeley Associates


Project : 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Description of soil: Silty Sand Test depth:

Test started on: 26/1/2014 Plate size: 18 x 18 Inches

Test completed on: 27/1/2014 Area of plate: 324 Sq In

Plate load test no: 2 Piston dia: 2.5 Inches

Location: TG-2 Piston area: 4.91 Sq In

DATE Pressure Load on Pressure on

on Guage plate plateG1 G2 G3 Average

min (p.s.i) (p.s.i) Lbs kPa

26/1/2014

" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.26 0.25 0.14 0.217

" 0.5 " " " " 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.220

" 1 " " " " 0.28 0.25 0.15 0.227

" 2 " " " " 0.29 0.26 0.15 0.233

" 4 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240

" 8 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240

" 15 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240

20 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.133

" 0.5 " " " " 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.130

" 1 " " " " 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.133

" 2 " " " " 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.123

" 4 " " " " 0.15 0.16 0.05 0.120

" 8 " " " " 0.14 0.15 0.04 0.110

" 15 " " " " 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.100

" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.077

" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 0.5 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 1 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 2 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 4 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 8 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 15 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 20 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223

" 0.5 " " " " 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223

" 1 " " " " 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223

" 2 " " " " 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.157

" 4 " " " " 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.147

" 8 " " " " 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.137

" 15 " " " " 0.04 0.14 0.21 0.130

" 20 " " " " 0.04 0.14 0.21 0.130

27/1/2014

" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.69 0.94 1.05 0.893

" 0.5 " " " " 0.70 0.94 1.06 0.900

" 1 " " " " 0.70 0.94 1.06 0.900

" 2 " " " " 0.71 0.94 1.07 0.907

" 4 " " " " 0.71 0.95 1.08 0.913

" 8 " " " " 0.72 0.96 1.09 0.923

" 15 " " " " 0.72 0.96 1.09 0.923

" 20 " " " " 0.73 0.96 1.09 0.927

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.28 0.51 0.76 0.517

" 0.5 " " " " 0.25 0.49 0.75 0.497

" 1 " " " " 0.24 0.48 0.74 0.487

" 2 " " " " 0.24 0.48 0.74 0.487

" 4 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477

" 8 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477

" 15 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477

" 20 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477

" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.94 1.33 1.70 1.323

" 0.5 " " " " 0.95 1.35 1.72 1.340

" 1 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347

" 2 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347

" 4 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347

" 8 " " " " 0.98 1.35 1.72 1.350

" 15 " " " " 0.98 1.35 1.72 1.350

" 20 " " " " 0.99 1.35 1.72 1.353

CYCLE-3

CYCLE-4

UnLoading

4.0m below EGL

OBSERVATIONS

LOADING SETTLEMENT in mm

TIME

Corrected

Pressure on

Guage

REMARKS

CYCLE-1

CYCLE-2

Loading

Loading

UnLoading

Loading

UnLoading

Loading

1 of 3


34/198

Berkeley Associates

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.39 0.71 1.26 0.787

" 0.5 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773

" 1 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773

" 2 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773

" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763

" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763

" 15 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763

" 20 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763

" 0.25 2750 2774.75 13624 289.93 1.49 1.96 2.52 1.990

" 0.5 " " " " 1.49 1.96 2.54 1.997

" 1 " " " " 1.49 1.97 2.56 2.007

" 2 " " " " 1.50 1.98 2.58 2.020

" 4 " " " " 1.51 1.98 2.58 2.023

" 8 " " " " 1.51 1.98 2.59 2.027

" 15 " " " " 1.52 1.99 2.62 2.043

" 20 " " " " 1.55 2.02 2.63 2.067

" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 1.53 1.99 2.61 2.043

" 0.5 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.61 2.043

" 1 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047

" 2 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047

" 4 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047

" 8 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047

" 15 " " " " 1.52 1.98 2.62 2.040

" 20 " " " " 1.52 1.98 2.62 2.040

" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940

" 0.5 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940

" 1 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940

" 2 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940

" 4 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940

" 8 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937

" 15 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937

" 20 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937

" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813

" 0.5 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813

" 1 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813

" 2 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813

" 4 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.40 1.817

" 8 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.41 1.820

" 15 " " " " 1.31 1.75 2.43 1.830

" 20 " " " " 1.31 1.75 2.43 1.830

" 25 " " " " 1.20 1.59 2.29 1.693

" 27 " " " " 1.19 1.59 2.29 1.690

" 29 " " " " 1.19 1.59 2.29 1.690

" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727

" 0.5 " " " " 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727

" 1 " " " " 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727

" 2 " " " " 1.21 1.64 2.32 1.723

" 4 " " " " 1.20 1.63 2.31 1.713

" 8 " " " " 1.18 1.63 2.31 1.707

" 15 " " " " 1.21 1.63 2.30 1.713

" 20 " " " " 1.22 1.65 2.32 1.730

" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.64 1.08 1.96 1.227

" 0.5 " " " " 0.63 1.08 1.95 1.220

" 1 " " " " 0.62 1.08 1.94 1.213

" 2 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.94 1.210

" 4 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.93 1.207

" 8 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.93 1.207

" 15 " " " " 0.67 1.12 1.99 1.260

" 20 " " " " 0.71 1.15 2.03 1.297

" 90 " " " " 0.58 1.00 1.30 0.960

CYCLE-4

CYCLE-5

UnLoading

Loading

UnLoading

2 of 3


35/198


Sheet 1 of 3

Sand Fines LL PI b qu C

% % % % kN/m3 kPa kPa degre

UDS-1 1.0 2.63 0 .0 66.5 33 .5 14.87 5.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 27 .4 72.6 0.0 21 0 .068 0.8 20 ML Silt with Sand

SPT-3 4.5 0 .0 89 .4 10.6 1.0 32.1 SP-SM Poorly graded sand with silt

SPT-8 12.0 2 .0 82 .5 15.5 0.0 33.8 SM Silty Sand

SPT-15 22.5 0 .0 79 .6 20.4 SM Silty Sand

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 71 .0 29.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-2 3.0 0 .0 77 .5 22.5 0.0 30.7 0.018 0.048 0.770 SM Silty Sand

SPT-5 7.5 2.63 0 .0 81.5 18 .5 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand

SPT-10 15.0 1 .0 77 .9 21.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-17 25.0 0 .0 81 .9 18.1 0.0 32.8 SM Silty Sand

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 76 .1 23.9 SM Silty Sand

SPT-4 6.0 0 .0 80 .5 19.5 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand

SPT-10 15.0 0 .0 74 .0 26.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-14 21.0 2.63 0 .0 80.2 19 .8 0.0 33.6 SM Silty Sand

SPT-16 24.0 0 .0 84 .7 15.3 SM Silty Sand

UDS-1 1.0 0.0 0.8 99.2 31 9 CL Lean Clay

SPT-1 1.5 0.0 3 3.0 67.0 26 7 CL-ML Sandy Silty Clay

SPT-3 4.5 0 .0 86 .1 13.9 4.0 33.1 0.016 0.048 0.620 SM Silty Sand

SPT-8 12.0 0 .0 86 .8 13.2 2.0 35.2 SM Silty Sand

SPT-11 16.5 3 .1 75 .4 21.5 SM Silty Sand

SPT-16 24.0 1 .4 73 .4 25.2 SM Silty Sand

UDS-1 0.5 2.62 0.0 8.3 91.7 14.89 5.1 ML Silt

SPT-2 3.0 0 .0 71 .4 28.6 8.0 29.4 SM Silty Sand

SPT-9 13.5 0 .2 79 .4 20.4 3.0 32.2 SM Silty Sand

SPT-14 21.0 0 .0 76 .5 23.5 0.0 33.7 SM Silty Sand

SPT-17 25.0 3 .5 63 .3 33.2 SM Silty Sand

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 82 .9 17.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-4 6.0 0 .2 82 .5 17.3 2.0 32.7 0.021 0.038 0.600 SM Silty Sand

SPT-8 12.0 2.63 0.0 78.3 21.7 0.0 32.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-13 19.5 1 .6 71 .1 27.3 SM Silty Sand

SPT-16 24.0 0 .4 69 .1 30.5 0.0 33.7 SM Silty Sand

UDS-1 0.5 0.0 3.0 97.0 24 5 17.51 8.6 52 2.5 CL-ML Silty Clay

SPT-3 4.5 0 .0 72 .8 27.2 1.0 32.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-8 12.0 0 .4 82 .6 17.0 0.0 14 0 .036 0.5 50 SM Silty Sand

SPT-10A 15.0 1 .2 20 .8 78.0 ML Silt with Sand

SPT-10B 15.0 0.0 3.5 96.5 35 11 CL Lean Clay

SPT-13 19.5 0 .0 76 .6 23.4 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand

SPT-15 22.5 0 .0 65 .1 34.9 SM Silty Sand

Berkeley ssociates

Table 3-1 Summary of Labora ory Tes Resul s

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)

Specific

Gravity

Grain Size AnalysisAtterberg

Limits

Bulk

Density N.M.C

% Group

Symbol

Group

NameConcre

-tion %

Strain

%

Unconfined

Compression

Direct

Shear TestTotal

soluble

salts

Chloride

Content

Sulphate

Content

SO4

Organic

Matter

BH-2 Non-Plastic

pH

Value

Soil Classification

(USCS)

BH-1 Non-Plastic

Non-Plastic

BH-3 Non-Plastic

Non-Plastic

BH-4

BH-5 Non-Plastic

Non-Plastic

Non-PlasticBH-6 Non-Plastic

BH-7

Non-Plastic


36/198


Sheet 2 of 3

Sand Fines LL PI b qu C

% % % % kN/m3 kPa kPa

UDS-1 0.5 2.68 0.0 26.5 73.5 23 4 15.00 7.2 CL-ML Silty Clay with Sand

SPT-2 3.0 0 .0 42.7 57.3 4.0 32.6 ML Sandy Silt

SPT-5 7.5 0 .0 80.9 19.1 0.0 33.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-9 13.5 0 .0 80.9 19.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-14 21.0 0 .0 80.3 19.7 0.014 0.050 0.480 SM Silty Sand

SPT-17 25.0 0 .0 78.9 21.1 0.0 34.5 SM Silty Sand

UDS-1 0.5 0.0 2 5.2 74.8 23 5 16.70 7.5 44 2.9 CL-ML Sil ty Clay with Sand

SPT-3 4.5 0 .0 34.8 65.2 0.0 31.7 0.018 0.060 0.700 ML Sandy Silt

SPT-10 15.0 0 .1 72.8 27.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-12 18.0 0 .0 70.3 29.7 0.0 34.6 SM Silty Sand

SPT-16 24.0 0 .3 55.7 44.0 SM Silty Sand

WS 1175 ppm 75 ppm 120 ppm 8.0

UDS-1 0.5 0.0 8.0 92.0 25 6 17.84 13.7 CL-ML Silty Clay

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 80.9 19.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-6 9.0 2.63 0.8 80.5 18.7 0.0 32.1 0.012 0.046 0.500 SM Silty Sand

SPT-9 13.5 0 .0 79.5 20.5 SM Silty Sand

SPT-13 19.5 2 .8 75.3 21.9 0.0 35.1 SM Silty Sand

SPT-17 25.0 0 .0 80.7 19.3 0.010 0.036 0.460 SM Silty Sand

UDS-1 0.5 0.0 2.9 97.1 24 5 16.27 12.6 CL-ML Silty Clay

SPT-1 1.5 0.0 6 .1 93.9 2.0 31.2 ML Silt

SPT-5 7.5 0 .0 82.0 18.0 SM Silty Sand

SPT-8 12.0 0 .0 83.2 16.8 0.0 32.9 SM Silty Sand

SPT-10 15.0 0 .0 80.5 19.5 SM Silty Sand

WS 1182 ppm 99 ppm 140 ppm 8.00

SPT-1 1.5 0 .0 81.9 18.1 2.0 31.8 0.018 0.042 0.860 SM Silty Sand

SPT-4 6.0 0 .0 75.6 24.4 SM Silty Sand

SPT-9 13.5 1 .6 78.7 19.7 SM Silty Sand

SPT-2 3.0 0.0 28.9 71.1 26 6 0.0 31.3 CL-ML Silty Clay with Sand

SPT-5 7.5 0 .4 82.0 17.6 SM Silty Sand

SPT-10 15.0 2 .8 74.8 22.4 SM Silty Sand

SPT-1 1.5 0.2 2.3 97.5 24 4 0.014 0.052 0.920 CL-ML Silty Clay

SPT-2 3.0 0 .0 45.2 54.8 1.0 32.3 ML Sandy Silt

SPT-8 12.0 0 .0 80.1 19.9 SM Silty Sand

1263 ppm 99 ppm 90 ppm 8.00

443 ppm 60 ppm 70 ppm 7.00

Non-Plastic

BH-8

BH-9

BH-10

Water

Sample

BH-11

BH-12

BH-13

Non-Plastic

BH-14

Non-Plastic

Tubewell

Hand pump

Soil Classification

(USCS)

Group

Symbol

Group

Name

Chloride

Content

(%)

Sulphate

Content

SO4(%)

Organic

Matter

(%)

Berkeley ssociates

Table 3-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)

Specific

Gravity

Grain Size AnalysisAtterberg

Limits

Bulk

Density N.M.C

%Concre

-tion %

Strain

%

Unconfined

Compression

Direct Shear

Test Total

soluble

salts

pH

Value


37/198

Table 3-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Test Pit

Sheet 3 of 3

No.10 No.40 No.200 Sand Fines LL PI

% % % % % % % (g/cm3)

Group

Symbol

Group

Name

TP-1 CS-1 0.0-4.0 99.9 100 46.2 0.0 53.8 46.2 1.77 13.9 4.0 6.6 9.2 A-4(0) SM Silty Sand

TP-2 CS-1 0.0-4.0 100 100 18.4 0.0 81.6 18.4 1.70 14.0 4.8 7.6 10.2 A-2-4(0) SM Silty Sand

Berkeley ssociates


Test Pit

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(meter)

Partical Size Analysis

Atterberg

Limits

Standard Proctor

Compaction

Non-Plastic

Soaked C.B.R

Value at

Soil ClassificationPassing % age Composition

Corresponding to

Standard Proctor

Compaction at

Concr-

etion

%

Max.

Dry

Density

Optimum

Moisture

Content

(%)

90% 95%

Non-Plastic

100% AASHTO

USCS


38/198


39/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)

N-Value (Blows/30 cm)

10

11

12

13

14

15

BH13

Fig. 2-2A Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Switchyard


40/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH11

Fig. 2-2B Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank


41/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH12

Fig. 2-2C Prof ile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant


42/198

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Depth(m)


.

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

BH09 BH10 NAvg

Fig. 2-2D Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Cooling Tower


43/198


44/198

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth(m)


20

25

30

BH08

Fig. 2-2F Prof ile for ObservedSPT N-Values for TG-2


45/198

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth(m)


20

25

30

BH06

Fig. 2-2G Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay


46/198

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Depth(m)


20.0

25.0

30.0

BH02 BH04 NAvg

Fig. 2-2H Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-1


47/198

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Depth(m)


20.0

25.0

30.0

BH03 BH05 NAvg

Fig. 2-2I Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-2


48/198


49/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH14

Fig. 2-2K Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Coal Shed


50/198

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Settlement

(mm)

Pressure (kPa)

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fig. 2-3 Pressure vs Settlement Curves of Cycl ic Plate Load Test Data-1


51/198

0

0.1

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Pressure (kPa)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

).

1

1.1

1.2ttlement(mm

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

S

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

Fig. 2-4 Pressure vs Settlement Curves of Cyclic Plate Load Test -2


52/198

LEGEND:LEGEND:

SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT

FILL MATERIAL

SPT

GROUND WATER TABLE

SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY


53/198

LEGEND:LEGEND:

SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT

FILL MATERIAL

SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY

SPT

GROUND WATER TABLE


54/198


55/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH13

Fig. 5-1A Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Switchyard


56/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH11

Fig. 5-1B Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank


57/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH12

Fig. 5-1C Prof ile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant


58/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH09 BH10 NAvg

Fig. 5-1D Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Cooling Tower


59/198

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


20

25

30

BH07

Fig. 5-1E Prof ile for Corrected SPT N-Values for TG-2


60/198


61/198

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Depth(m)


20

25

30

BH06

Fig. 5-1G Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay


62/198


63/198


64/198


65/198

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Depth(m)


10

11

12

13

14

15

BH14

Fig. 5-1K Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Coal Shed


66/198

60

80

100

120

eBearingPressures(kPa)

0

20

40

0 1 2 3 4

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-2. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sat Switchyard


67/198


68/198

80

100

120


Df

40

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-4 Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissible at Raw/Fire Water Tank


69/198

200

250

300

350

400


50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-5. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sat Water Treatment Plant

Df= 2.


70/198

200

250

300

350

400


50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-6. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Setat Water Treatment Plant

Df= 2.0


71/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-7. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible at Cooling Tower


72/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-8. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settat Cooling Tower


73/198

80

100

120

140

160


0

20

40

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-9. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissible at Cooling Tower


74/198

100

150

200

250


0

50

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-10. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sat TG-1


75/198

100

150

200

250


0

50

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-11. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settat TG-1


76/198

80

90

100

110

120


Df

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-12. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissibleat TG-1

Df

Df=


77/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-13. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Perimissible Sat TG-2


78/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-14. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Setat TG-2


79/198

80

100

120

140

160


0

20

40

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-15. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissibleat TG-2


80/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-16 Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sat Maintenance Bay


81/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAlllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-17. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settat Maintenance Bay


82/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-18. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sar Boiler-1


83/198

150

200

250

300

350


0

50

100

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-19. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settat Boiler-1


84/198

80

100

120

140

160

180


0

20

40

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-20. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissibleat Boiler-1


85/198

100

150

200

250


0

50

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-21. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Sat Boiler-2


86/198

100

150

200

250


0

50

0 1 2 3 4

NetAllowabl

Width (m)

Fig. 5-22. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settat Boiler-2


87/198

60

80

100

120


0

20

40

0 5 10 15 2

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	faraz-ali
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf

Documents