!

GEO TECHNOLOGIES

GEO TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

REPORT No.: GT / 1481 / 2018-19

PROJECT: Proposed Commercial Building at Machlipatnam, A.P..

CLIENT: RAM NITESH JALDU &

JALDU RAJA VISALA SUBBA RAO,MACHILIPATNAM

W.O. No.: 4400024527 dt. 30.05.2018

DURATION : September 2018

GEOTECHNICAL

CONSULTANTS: GEO TECHNOLOGIES

ISO 9001:2015 COMPANY
# 5-83/B, V. V. NAGAR
HABSIGUDA, STREET No. 8
HYDERABAD - 500 007
!
Tele/Fax: 040 – 42217757; M: 9347275255
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.geotechnologies.in

!1
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

CONTENTS

S.NO. TITLE PAGE

_____________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 3
3. LABORATORY TESTING 4
4. RESULTS 4
5. SUB SOIL PROFILE & FOUNDATIONS 5
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 6
7. TABLE-1: Summary of Drilling 7
8. TABLE-2(a): Results of lab Tests on UD soil samples 7
9. TABLE-2(b): Results of lab Tests on SPT soil samples 8
10. TABLE-2(c): Results of lab Tests on trial pit soil samples
10
10. TABLE-3(a) & (b): Results of chemical tests of soil & water 11
11. APPENDIX: Calculation of SBC for Raft foundation 12
12. FIG.1: Site plan showing the Borehole locations
13. FIG.2: Combined Log of boreholes
14. FIG.3: Log of trial pit
15. Annexure-1: Field Bore Log charts
16. Annexure-2: BIS (IS) Codes

!2
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

1. INTRODUCTION
RAM NITESH JALDU & JRV SUBBA RAO-MTM, MACHILIPATNAM, is proposing to construct
a commercial building at Machlipatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Soil investigation work for this project was assigned to M/s GEO TECHNOLOGIES, vide
Ref. No. 4400024527 dt. 30.05.2018.
Soil investigation was conducted by drilling four (4) boreholes, excavating two (2)
trial pits, conducting standard Penetration Tests, and collecting Undisturbed and
disturbed soil samples and lab testing of soil samples.
The results of this investigation and recommendations are presented in this Report.
All the investigations are conducted in accordance with the relevant IS Codes.
2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
DRILLING:
The bore holes were drilled at the locations specified by the client (Fig.1). Table-1
gives details of the bore holes drilled.
Rotary Drilling was performed as per IS: 1892. The size of the casing used was 150 /
90 mm.
The following information was collected during the drilling operations:
- Nature of strata - Details of soil samples
- Colour of Return Water - Rate of drilling
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT):
Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at 1.5 m depth intervals in the bore
holes, in accordance with IS: 2131-1981. Soil samples were carefully extracted from
the split-spoon sampler and preserved in polythene bags.
FIELD BORE LOGS:
All the details collected from the field operations are presented in Logs of Bore holes
in Annexure-1 at the end of this Report. These logs contain depth wise strata details,
depth and type of samples collected, results of Standard Penetration Tests, drilling
rate and colour of return water etc.
TRIAL PITS:
Two (2) trial pits were excavated at the locations shown in Fig.1. Size of the pit was 3
m x 3 m, and depth was 4.0 m. The soil profile is the trial pit is given in Fig.3.

!3
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

SOIL SAMPLES:
SPT and Disturbed soil samples were collected from sand layer. Undisturbed samples,
SPT and disturbed samples were procured from clay soil as per IS: 2132.
All the samples collected from the bore holes and the trial pits were properly packed,
labeled and transported to Geo Technologies Soil Testing Laboratory at Hyderabad.

3. LABORATORY TESTING

The samples were tested at the Soil Testing Laboratory of M/s GEO TECHNOLOGIES at
Hyderabad.

The following tests were performed on the Soil samples from the boreholes and the
trial pit:

-Natural Moisture Content

-Atterberg Limits (LL, PL, PI, SL)
-Grain size analysis
-In situ Dry Density
-Shear tests
-Chemical analysis of soil & water (for samples from the boreholes)
All the tests were conducted in accordance with IS: 2720 (Methods of Tests for

Soils).

The samples were tested at the Soil Testing Laboratory of M/s GEO TECHNOLOGIES at
Hyderabad.

4. RESULTS

Fig. 2 gives the combined log of the bore holes, showing the sub soil profile.
Fig. 3 gives the TP logs, showing the soil profile in the trial pits.
Table-2(a) gives the results of tests on UD soil samples from clay layer.
Table-2(b) gives the results of tests on SPT soil samples from boreholes.
Table-2(c) gives the results of tests on soil samples from trial pits.
Table-3(a) & (b) gives the results of chemical analysis of soil and water samples.
Appendix gives the calculations for SBC of Raft foundations.

!4
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

5. SUB-SOIL PROFILE & FOUNDATIONS

Based on the four Bore logs and one trial pit log, the generalized subsoil profile in the
site is as follows:

Depth, m Strata N Value

0.00 – 1.00 Silty sand –
1.00 – 11.00 Sand 16 – 66
11.00 –
Sandy clay / Clay 5 – 22
21.00
21.00 –
Sandy clay 29 – 34
25.00

Water is seen at 0.80 m depth.

In view of the soil conditions, Open (Raft) foundations are recommended at 2m depth
from ground level, resting in sand.

Appendix gives the calculation of SBC for raft foundations in sand.

!5
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made for proposed construction of commercial
building at Machlipatnam, Andhra Pradesh. These are based on exploratory core
drilling of four (4) boreholes and two (2) trial pits.
a) The generalized subsoil profile in the site is as follows:

Depth, m Strata N Value

0.00 – 1.00 Silty sand –
1.00 – 11.00 Sand 16 – 66
11.00 –
Sandy clay / Clay 5 – 22
21.00
21.00 –
Sandy clay 29 – 34
25.00
b) Water table is seen at 0.8 m depth.
c) Raft foundations are recommended.
d) SBC for Raft foundation at 2 m depth is recommended as 20 t / m2.
e) Value of modulus of sub-grade reaction is recommended as 2.0 kg/cm2/cm.
f) Alternatively, pile foundations may be considered. 
g) Chemical parameters of soil and water are within permissible limits as per IS:
456. No harmful effects on concrete are expected.

For GEO TECHNOLOGIES

(Dr. D. BABU RAO)

M.E., Ph.D. (USA), MIGS (Dr. N. VENKAT RAO)
Former Professor & Head of Civil Engineering M.Sc. Tech., Ph.D. FAEG, MIGS
Former Professor & Head of Geophysics
Principal Geotechnical Consultant !6
Geological Consultant & Proprietor
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

Name of Work: Proposed commercial building at Machlipatnam, A.P.

TABLE-1: SUMMARY OF DRILLING

Depth drilled, Water table,
S No. BH No.
m m
1 BH-1 25.0 0.90
2 BH-2 15.0 0.80
3 BH-3 15.0 0.80
4 BH-4 15.0 0.80

TABLE – 2(a): RESULTS OF LAB TESTS ON UD SAMPLES

Triaxial
Atterberg Limits Grain Size, % UC
Shear
S. BH Depth Soil M.C. γb C
No. No. ,m
Φ
LL PL PI SL Gr Sa Si Cl C deg
41. 23. 18. 17.
1 13.0 Clay 15.0 14.8 0 0 0 100 42 0 78
5 2 3 6

BH- 40. 24. 15. 17.

2 14.0 Clay 14.7 15.2 0 0 0 100 45 0 85
1 5 6 9 8

42. 26. 16. 17.

3 17.0 Clay 14.1 14.4 0 0 0 100 55 0 90
8 4 4 5

42. 27. 15. 17.

4 11.0 Clay 13.6 15.3 0 0 0 100 58 0 95
6 3 2 6
BH-
2 39. 23. 16. 17.
5 13.0 Clay 14.2 14.6 0 0 0 100 60 0 97
8 6 2 7

38. 22. 15. 16.

6 13.0 Clay 13.7 13.6 0 0 0 100 63 0 89
1 4 7 8
BH-
3 41. 25. 15. 17.
7 14.0 Clay 14.0 15.2 0 0 0 100 60 0 100
2 3 9 1

36. 22. 14. 17.

8 11.0 Clay 13.8 16.1 0 0 0 100 62 0 97
8 5 3 8

BH- 39. 23. 16. 17.

9 13.0 Clay 15.1 15.4 0 0 0 100 65 0 95
4 2 1 1 0

!7
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

40. 24. 16. 16.

10 14.0 Clay 12.8 14.6 0 0 0 100 65 0 99
4 0 4 9

TABLE – 2(b): Results of Lab Tests of SPT Soil samples

Atterberg Limits Grain Size, %

S. BH Dept Soil r M.C. rd
No No. h, m
G
LL PL PI SL Sa Si Cl
r

1 3.0 Sand 17.3 5.1 16.9 - - - - 0 100 0 0

2 6.0 Sand 17.5 5.8 17.2 - - - - 0 100 0 0

3 9.0 Sand 17.6 5.9 17.3 - - - - 0 100 0 0

4 12.0 Clay 17.8 12.5 15.8 40.2 23.4 16.8 - 0 0 0 100

BH1
5 15.0 Clay 17.9 11.8 16.0 41.6 22.8 18.8 14.8 0 0 0 100

6 18.0 Clay 17.6 12.1 15.7 - - - - 0 0 0 100

7 21.0 Clay 17.5 12.0 15.6 - - - 13.6 0 0 0 100

8 24.0 Clay 17.9 11.8 16.0 39.5 23.1 16.4 14.7 0 0 0 100

10 1.5 Sand 17.3 6.2 17.0 - - - - 0 100 0 0

11 4.5 Sand 17.2 5.4 16.8 - - - - 0 100 0 0

12 BH2 7.5 Sand 17.5 6.1 17.2 - - - - 0 100 0 0

13 10.5 Clay 17.8 10.4 16.1 42.1 25.2 16.9 - 0 0 0 100

14 13.5 Clay 17.6 12.8 15.6 39.4 22.1 17.3 15.0 0 0 0 100

!8
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE – 2(b): Results of Lab Tests of SPT Soil samples – Contd…

Atterberg Limits Grain Size, %

S. BH Dept
Soil r M.C. rd
No No h, m
LL PL PI SL Gr Sa Si Cl

15 1.5 Sand 17.4 5.6 17.1 - - - - 0 100 0 0

16 4.5 Sand 17.6 5.7 17.3 - - - - 0 100 0 0

17 BH3 7.5 Sand 17.7 6.1 17.4 - - - - 0 100 0 0

18 10.5 Sand 17.5 5.5 17.2 - - - - 0 100 0 0

19 13.5 Clay 17.8 12.1 15.9 38.6 22.8 15.8 - 0 0 0 100

20 3.0 Sand 17.5 4.8 17.2 - - - - 0 100 0 0

21 6.0 Sand 17.6 5.2 17.4 - - - - 0 100 0 0

22 BH4 9.0 Sand 17.6 5.8 17.3 - - - - 0 100 0 0

23 12.0 Clay 17.9 11.5 16.0 40.2 23.5 16.7 15.3 0 0 0 100

24 15.0 Clay 17.8 12.3 15.9 39.6 23.0 16.6 14.8 0 0 0 100

NOTATION : MC: Moisture Content; Gr … Gravel Sa … Sand Si … Silt Cl… Clay

LL: Liquid limit %; PL: Plastic Limit %; PI: Plasticity Index; SL: Shrinkage Limit %; γ b : Insitu
density
C: Cohesion kN/m2 ; UCC: Unconfined Compressive Strength kN/m2

!9
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE – 2(c): Results of Lab Tests of Trial pit Soil samples

Grain Size, %
Depth,
S. No BH No. Soil r M.C. rd
m
Gr Sa Si Cl

1 1.0 Sand 17.3 5.1 16.5 0 100 0 0

2 2.0 Sand 17.5 5.8 16.5 0 100 0 0

TP1
3 3.0 Sand 17.6 5.9 16.6 0 100 0 0

4 4.0 Sand 17.8 5.2 16.9 0 100 0 0

5 1.0 Sand 17.9 6.1 16.8 0 100 0 0

6 2.0 Sand 17.6 6.0 16.6 0 100 0 0

TP2
7 3.0 Sand 17.5 5.8 16.5 0 100 0 0

8 4.0 Sand 17.9 5.6 16.9 0 100 0 0

!10
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

Name of Work: Proposed commercial building at Machlipatnam, A.P.

TABLE – 3 (a): RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL

S. No. Location  Depth, m pH Chloride as Cl, ppm Sulphates as SO4, ppm

1 BH-1 2.0 7.5 358 26

2 BH-2 2.0 7.8 345 32

3 BH-3 2.0 7.6 376 28

4 BH4 2.0 7.4 310 41

TABLE – 3 (b): RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

Chloride Sulphates Organic

S. Location pH as Cl, as SO4, mg/ matter, mg/
No. mg/l l l

1 BH-1 7.6 362 34 36

2 BH-2 7.1 350 52 41

3 BH-3 7.8 316 26 38

4 BH4 7.6 332 31 51

Permissible
limits as per IS: >6.0 <500 <400 <200
456

!11
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

Name of Work: Proposed commercial building at Machlipatnam, A.P.

APPENDIX: CALCULATION OF SBC

OPEN FOUNDATIONS ( RAFT ) at depth of 2 m :

Unit wt. = 18.3 kN / cu m Submerged unit wt = 8.5 kN / cu m

Cohesion = 0 kN / sq m

Assumed depth of foundation D = 2 m

N Value in effective zone (between 3 to 6 m depth) in four BH

= 1/4 [1/ 3 (34+42+43) + 1/3( 42+46+48) +1/3 ( 45+47+51) + 1/ 3( 41+50 +59)]

= 1/4 ( 39 +45 +47 + 50 ) = 45

The allowable bearing pressure of a raft in sand is always governed by settlement,

since the large size of raft gives a very high safe bearing capacity.

Using Teng’s Equation (Analysis & Design of Sub structures by Swami Saran, 2006):

q (net allowable) = 0.7 ( N – 3) rw’ C D Sa

where q = net allowable pressure, kN / sq m

rw’ = Water table correction factor = 0.5

C D = Depth correction Factor = 2

Sa = Permissible value of settlement, mm = 50 mm

Substituting, q = 0.7 x 42 x 0.5 x 2.0 x 25 = 735 kN /sq m

!12
 ! GEO TECHNOLOGIES

Recommended Safe Bearing capacity is 20 t per sq m

ANNEXURE - 1

FIELD BORE LOGS

!13