1

REPORT
ON
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION
FOR

FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF UNIT MESS AT SAP

4TH Bn., KASBA, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR.

CLIENT

WEST BENGAL POLICE HOUSING &

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD.

PROSENJIT DAS

NONA ,ULUBERIA,HOWRAH-711315
 2

CONTENTS

Page
1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. SCOPE OF SOIL INVESTIGATION WORK 3

3. FIELD SOIL EXPLORATION 4

3.1 Boring 5
3.2 Sampling 5
3.3 Standard Penetration Test 6
3.4 Measurement of Water Table 6

4. LABORATORY TESTING 6
4.1 Atterberg Limits & Natural Water Content 8
4.2 Bulk Density 8
4.3 Undrained Triaxial Test/Unconfined Compression Test 8
4.4 Grain Size Analysis 8
4.5 Specific Gravity Test 8
4.6 Consolidation Test 8

5. GENERALIZATION OF SOIL PROFILE & PROPERTIES 9

6. HYDROLOGY 9
7. CALCULATIONS 10
7.1 Shallow Foundation
Pile Foundation 10
8. DISCUSSION ON FOUNDATION 21

9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 23

 3

1. Introduction
Soil exploration, investigation and testing of soil samples for the proposed
construction of Unit Mess at SAP 4th Bn., Kasba, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. was
entrusted to Prosenjit Das, “Own House”, Nona, Uluberia Howrah, 711315, West
Bengal. The objective was to ascertain the subsoil characteristics and stratification
and other necessary data of soil condition of the site for the proposed construction of
Unit Mess at SAP 4th Bn., Kasba, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. The field work involved in
the investigation including boring, recovery of samples and in-situ tests were carried
on 09th September to 13th September, 2019.

The scope of the work comprised of sinking Three boreholes. It included advancing
the boreholes by auger and rotary equipment. The boreholes were of 150 mm in
diameter. The scope also included conducting standard penetration tests (SPT),
collecting disturbed samples at regular intervals for identification and logging
purposes, collecting undisturbed tube samples at suitable intervals or at change of
strata whichever is earlier and testing these in the laboratory.

Based on the above, this report presents the subsoil profile and laboratory and field
test results. On the basis of field tests and laboratory test results and their analysis
thereof, the most suitable type of foundation with it’s safe bearing capacity is
suggested. The field profile was sometimes modified in the light of laboratory test
results.

2. Scope of Soil Investigation Work

The objective of the present Soil Investigation work was to study the engineering
properties and parameters of subsoil deposits encountered within the depth of
exploration for recommending suitable foundations for the specified location.

The scope of the soil investigation work consisted of the following operations:
(a) Mobilization of Plant & machinery to identified location, and sinking of 150
mm dia. bore hole in all kinds of soil up to a maximum depth of 30 m below the
existing ground level .
 4

(b) During sinking of bore hole, soil samples both in disturbed and undisturbed
conditions were to be collected for laboratory tests. Standard Penetration Tests at
specified depths within the bore holes were to be conducted. Recording Ground
Water Table in Borehole was required. .

(c) Conducting laboratory tests on various soil samples strictly as per relevant IS
Codes, for recommending all relevant subsoil design parameters.

(d) Preparation & submission of Geotechnical Investigation Report containing all

the field investigation and various laboratory tests results, graphs, charts, tables
etc, along with relevant recommendations on foundation system with safe load
carrying capacity etc

3. Field Exploration
Geotechnical Investigation was envisaged in an attempt for optimization in the
design of foundation for the proposed structures to be constructed at this site. The
entire Investigation programme had been divided mainly into two parts, I) Field
works & II) Laboratory tests.

I) Field works unfold the sub-surface deposit types and their characteristics

II) Laboratory tests part would help determining the relevant physical and
geotechnical properties of the sub-surface deposits leading to finalization of
foundation depths of the structures and the bearing capacity with particular
reference to the sub-surface types and their strength parameters and
settlement potentials at the site.

A list of the boreholes with the terminating depth and standing water level are
presented in a tabular form below:

Water
Table
Bore Hole Terminating below Date of Date of
Location
No. Depth (m) Ground commencement completion
Level
(m)
SAP 4 th Bn,
BH-1 30.0 2.30 09.09.19 10.09.19
Kasba,Raiganj.

BH-2 30.0 SAP 4 th Bn, 2.10 11.09.19 12.09.19

Kasba,Raiganj

BH-3 30.0 SAP 4 th Bn, 2.20 12.09.19 13.09.19

Kasba,Raiganj
 5

3.1 Boring
The bore holes of 150 mm diameter were explored with the help of Auger and
Shell operated by mechanized winch as per IS 1892 - 1979. Here the auger
was turned in the bottom of the hole through auger pipes. Due to this the soil
cuttings were held in the auger and were drawn to the surface by pulling the
auger out of the hole each time the auger was filled. In continuation to auger
boring shell was used which is a 140mm diameter steel cylinder with a
cutting edge at the bottom and was fitted with a hinged one-way flap valve at
the bottom. The bore hole was advanced by raising the shell up to a height
and allowing it to fall and this was repeated several times till sufficient
amount of soil enters the shell. When the shell gets nearly filled with soil, it
was lifted out of the bore hole and emptied. Undisturbed soil samples were
collected at suitable intervals or at change of strata whichever is met earlier
by open drive sampling method since it was intended to ascertain the subsoil
characteristics. The standing water table in each borehole was determined at
least 24 hours after the termination of boring work
3.2 Sampling

Nominal 100 mm diameter undisturbed samples were recovered. The

sampling equipment used consists of a two-tier assembly of sample tubes 400
mm in length fitted at its lower end. The sampling assembly was driven by
means of a jarring link to its full length or as far down as was found
practicable. After withdrawal the ends of the tubes were sealed with wax at
both ends and capped before transmission to the laboratory. At close intervals
in depth, disturbed samples were collected both from split spoon sampler
after the standard penetration test and from cutting edge for identification
and logging purpose. These were tagged and packed in polythene packets
and transported to the laboratory. The depth wise locations of all the
undisturbed and disturbed samples were used in the preparation of borehole
log data and for general identification and classification purposes. The details
of boring are presented in the Appendix in the form of bore log sheets.
 6

3.3 Standard Penetration Test

Standard Penetration Tests were conducted in the boreholes at suitable

intervals as per IS: 2131-1963 using a split spoon sampler. The split spoon
sampler used is of a standard design having an outer diameter of 50.8 mm
and inner diameter of 35 mm, driving with a monkey weighing 63.5 kg, falling
freely from a height of 75 cm. A record of the number of blows required to
penetrate every 15 cm to a maximum depth of 45 cm was made. The first 15
cm of drive was considered to be seating drive and was neglected. The total
blows required to effect each 15 cm of penetration was recorded. The “N”
values were obtained by counting the number of blows required to drive the
spoon from 15 cm to 45 cm. On completion of a test, the split spoon sampler
was opened and soil specimens were preserved in polythene bags for logging
purpose.
All the boreholes were sunk with winch. However, raising of hammer for SPT
was done manually. Hence there will not be any inertia loss and the
efficiency of hammer blows should be considered as 100%.

3.4 Measurement of Water Table

Level of water was noted when struck in. This is termed as observed water
level. Standing water level was noted during initial stages of boring,
intermediate stage of boring and after 24 hours of removal of casing was also
noted and shown in the profile.

4. Laboratory Testing

For proper identification and classification of the sub-soil deposits and for
deriving adequate information regarding its relevant physical and
geotechnical properties at the site under investigation, the soil samples from
the 10 cm diameter sampling tubes were extracted in the laboratory by
 7

pushing out the core by using the extractor frame. The core was jacked out in
a direction that corresponded with the soil movement within the tube during
sampling. In general, the following laboratory tests were conducted on the soil
samples collected from the exploratory bore holes:

a) Grain size distribution (Sieve as well as Hydrometer).

b) Determination of Atterberg Limits.
c) Determination of Natural Moisture Content.
d) Determination of Specific Gravity.
e) Determination of Bulk & Dry Unit Weight.
f) Strength determination by Triaxial Unconsolidated Undrained Test (UU).
g) Strength Determination of Unconfined Compression Test on (UC)
h) Direct Shear Test (DS)
i) One-dimensional Consolidation Test for determining settlement potentiality.

The triaxial tests/unconfined compression test 38 mm diameter x 76 mm long

specimens were obtained by jacking out the soil core into thin-walled brass
tubes. The inside of the tubs was coated with a thin layer of silicon oil. Self-
explanatory test results are presented in the Appendix.

To obtain specimens for consolidation test the odeometer ring was placed on the
trimmed horizontal face of the soil within the 10 cm sampling tube and the soil
around the cutting edge was gradually removed with a spatula as the ring was
gently pushed into the soil. The ring with the soil was then removed by cutting
across the soil core with the help of a piano wire saw.
The laboratory tests were done to ascertain the engineering properties of the
subsoil and to obtain the necessary data required to design the foundation.
These are detailed below. Summary of all the test results are given in a tabular
form in Table -1.
 8

4.1 Atterberg Limits and Natural Water Content

Liquid limit, plastic limit and natural water content of the silty clay/clayey silt
samples were determined (a) to classify the soil by the IS classification system
and (b) to qualitatively assess their consistency and compressibility.

4.2 Bulk density

These were determined by measuring the weight and dimension of
triaxial/unconfined compression test samples.

4.3 Undrained Triaxial Test/ Unconfined Compression Test

These were run on the clay/ clayey silt samples to determine their shear
strength. The cell pressures employed in triaxial tests were 0.5, 1.0 and
1.5 kg/cm2. The samples were tested under quick condition at the rate of
1.25 mm/min and were loaded upto a maximum of 20% of axial strain.

4.4 Grain Size Analysis

The grain-size distributions of a quantity of representative samples were

determined from sieve analysis/combined sieve analysis and hydrometer
analysis. The results are plotted in the Appendix.

4.5 Specific Gravity Test

The specific gravity of different minerals present in subsoils may vary.

Specific gravity as such does not indicate the behaviour of soil mass under
external loads, but it is an important factor, which is used in computing
other properties of soil. The specific gravity of soil samples were
determined in the laboratory as per IS : 2720 (Part-3 ).
4.6 Consolidation Test

Consolidation tests were run in floating ring type odeometers, in an eight

unit consolidation frame under standard load increment ratio of one,
starting from ¼ kg/cm2 and going upto 8 kg/cm2. The e vs. log10p curves
are given in the Appendix.
 9

5. Generalization of Soil Profile and Properties

Based on visual classification and results of field and laboratory tests on the
samples recovered the proposed site may be divided into the following major soil
strata as described below:

Avg. Layer Details

C0-efficient of

Shear strength
N-

Density
Value(Corr Avg)

Compressibility
Field N-Value
Depth below
Stratum No.

Parameters
EGL (m)
Description

Volume
(t/m3)
Field

Bulk
From To
C=-t/m 2,
I Loose, Redish, silty sand mixed 0.00 7.00 7 to 10 8 1.87* -
with mica.  =29 deg
C=- t/m2,
II Medium, Whitish Redish, silty 7.00 19.00 11 to 27 1.88* -
16  =31 deg
sand mixed with mica.
VeryStiff to Hard, Bluish MV= 0.010 C=8.6 t/m2,
III 19.00 28.00 19 to 41 - 1.91
Brownish Grey, silty clay traces cm2/kg  =2 deg
of siltystone & mica.
MV= 0.012 C=7.6 t/m2,
IV VeryStiff, Brownish Grey, sandy 28.00 30.00 20 to 29 - 1.90
silty clay traces of mica. cm2/kg  =6 deg
*Suggest

A profile through the boreholes and the distribution of field N Value with depth .
6. Hydrogeology

The ground water table at the site was found to exist at 2.10m to 2.30m below
the ground level for the boreholes explored during the time of investigation work.
 10

7. Calculations
7.1Shallow Foundation

Bearing Capacity

For a shallow foundation resting on cohesive deposit, the following bearing

capacity relations may be used as specified by IS: 6403-1981.

The net ultimate baring capacity –

q net ultimate = Cu .Nc .Sc .dc .ic + q.(Nq-1). Sq .dq .iq + 0.5.B.. N .S .d  .i.W’

The net safe bearing capacity is calculated as

q net safe = q net ultimate/FOS

where, Cu = undrained cohesion of the soil

Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors

Sc, Sq, S = shape factor

dc, dq, d = depth factor

ic, iq, i = inclination factor

q = effective surcharge at the base level of the foundation

W’ = correction factor for water table location

B = least width of the foundation

 = bulk unit weight of foundation soil

FOS = factor of safety

 11

Settlement

The foundation settlement occurs for cohesive layers of soil which are
stressed due to the superstructure loads. The settlements may be computed
using the following relations following Is: 8009(Part-I)-1976.

Immediate settlement i = {qnet . B.(1-2).Ip.}/E

Consolidation settlement
H p  p
Sc  C c log 10 0 OR S c =   . H. mv . p . 
1  e0 p0

where, qnet = net pressure on soil

B = least width of the foundation
E = modulus of elasticity of soil
 = Poisson’s ratio
Ip = Influence factor
mv = co-efficient of volume compressibility
H = Thickness of compressible layer

p = effective overburden pressure at the center of the corresponding layer

p0 = initial effective overburden pressure

 = a factor related to pore pressure parameter, may be taken as 0.70

 = rigidity factor, may be taken as 0.80

Cc = Compression Index, e0 = initial void ratio,

 12

Pile Foundation
For bored pile, load bearing capacity is calculated according to IS:2911 (Part-
I/Sec-2)-2010

Skin Friction
QSF =  AS Č for cohesive soil
=  AS K PDi tan  for granular soil
where,
AS = surface area of pile stem
Č = average cohesion
 = reduction factor
K = co-efficient of earth pressure
PDi = effective overburden pressure
 = angle of wall friction between pile and soil
QSF = ultimate capacity due to skin friction
End Bearing
QEB = AP CP Nc for cohesive soil
= AP( 0.5 D  N + PD Nq ) for granular soil
where,
AP = cross-sectional area of pile tip
Nq , N , NC = bearing capacity factors
 = Effective unit weight of soil at pile toe
D = Dia of stem of pile
CP = average cohesion at pile tip
QEB = ultimate capacity due to end bearing
Safe bearing capacity of pile
= QSAFE = (QSF + QEB)/FOS
where,
FOS = Factor of safety
 13

TYPICAL CALCULATION (SQUARE FOOTING)

Square footing (2.0mx2.0m) founded at 1.5m

Design parameters of founding strata are

Cohesion C = - t/m2 below footing,
Angle of Internal Friction  = 290 ,
 = 1.87 t/m2(Layer-I),
and assuming Square Footing of = (2.0x2.0) m
and depth of foundation Df = 1.5m

Local Shear Condition

For ’ = 200
N’q = 6.40 N’γ = 5.39 , d’q = d’γ = 1.11

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I)

and assuming Square Footing of (B) = (2.0x2.0) m
and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m
q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2
Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(N’q -1) Sq d’q iq + 0.5 B γ N’γ Sγ d’γ iγw’)
= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(6.4-1)x1.2 x1.11x1+ 0.5x1.87x2.0x5.39x0.8x1.11x1x0.5)
= 5.55 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

General Shear Condition

Design parameters of founding strata are
Cohesion C = - t/m2 below footing,
Angle of Internal Friction  = 290,

Nq = 16.85 Nγ = 20.09 , dq = dγ = 1.13

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I).

and assuming Square Footing of (B) = (2.0x2.0) m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m
q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2
Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(Nq -1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B γ Nγ Sγ dγ iγw’)
= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(16.85-1)x1.2 x1.13 x1+ 0.5x1.87x2.0x20.09x0.8x1.13x1x0.5)
= 18.05 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5
 14

On Interpolation

Qsafe = 5.55 +(18.05-5.55) x (32.5-20)/(70-20) = 8.67 t/m2

SETTLEMENT

Settlement for Sand Layer:-

For NAvg=8, B=2.0m, factor for settlement=0.044.

Settlement= ( 0.044 x 1000 x 0.867)= 38.15 mm

Stotal = 38.15 mm <50 mm

Hence recommend Safe Bearing Capacity of 8.67 t/m2(Say 8.50 t/m2) for a
calculated settlement of 38.15 mm (2.0x2.0)m Square footing founded at depth of
1.5m below EGL.

Rectangular footing (2.5m x 5.0m) founded at 1.5m depth

Design parameters of founding strata are
Cohesion C = - t/m2 below footing,
Angle of Internal Friction  = 290 ,
 = 1.87 t/m2(Layer-I),

and assuming Rectangular Footing of = (2.5 x 5.0) m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5m

Local Shear Condition

For ’ = 200
N’q = 6.40, N’γ = 5.39 , d’q = d’γ = 1.08, Sq = 1.1, Sγ = 0.8

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I)

and assuming Rectangular Footing of (B) = (2.5 x 5.0) m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m

q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(N’q -1) Sq d’q iq + 0.5 B γ N’γ Sγ d’γ iγw’)

= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(6.4-1)x1.1 x1.08 x1+ 0.5x2.5x1.87x5.39x0.8x1.08x1x0.5)
= 5.54 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5
 15

General Shear Condition

For  = 290,

Nq = 16.85 Nγ = 20.09 , dq = dγ = 1.1, Sq = 1.1, Sγ = 0.8

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I).

and assuming Rectangular Footing of (B) = (2.5 x 5.0) m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m
q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(Nq -1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B γ Nγ Sγ dγ iγw’)

= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(16.85-1)x1.1 x1.1 x1+ 0.5x2.5x1.87x20.09x0.8x1.1x1x0.5)
= 18.31 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

On Interpolation

Qsafe = 5.54 +(18.31-5.54) x (32.5-20)/(70-20) = 8.73 t/m2

SETTLEMENT

Settlement for Sand Layer:-

For NAvg=8, B=2.5m, factor for settlement=0.048.

Settlement= ( 0.048 x 1000 x 0.873)= 41.90 mm

Stotal = 41.90 mm <50 mm

Hence recommend Safe Bearing Capacity of 8.73 t/m2(Say 8.50 t/m2) for a
calculated settlement of 41.90 mm (2.5 x 5.0)m Rectangular footing founded at
depth of 1.5m below EGL .

TYPICAL CALCULATION (Strip FOOTING)

Strip footing 3.0m wide founded at 1.5m depth

Design parameters of founding strata are
Cohesion C = - t/m2 below footing,
Angle of Internal Friction  = 290 ,
 = 1.87 t/m2(Layer-I),

and assuming Strip Footing of = 3.0 m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5m
 16

Local Shear Condition

For ’ = 200
N’q = 6.40 N’γ = 5.39 , d’q = d’γ = 1.07

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I)

and assuming Strip Footing of (B) = 3.0 m
and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m
q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(N’q -1) Sq d’q iq + 0.5 B γ N’γ Sγ d’γ iγw’)

= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(6.4-1)x1.0 x1.07 x1+ 0.5x3.0x1.87x5.39x1.0x1.07x1x0.5)
= 6.26 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

General Shear Condition

For  = 290,
Nq = 16.85 Nγ = 20.09 , dq = dγ = 1.08

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I).

and assuming Strip Footing of (B) = 3.0 m

and depth of foundation Df = 1.5 m
q= (1.5x0.87) = 1.31 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(Nq -1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B γ Nγ Sγ dγ iγw’)

= 1/ 2.5( 1.31(16.85-1)x1.0 x1.08 x1+ 0.5x3.0x1.87x20.09x1.0x1.08x1x0.5)
= 21.14 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

On Interpolation

Qsafe = 6.26 +(21.14-6.26) x (32.5-20)/(70-20) = 9.98 t/m2

SETTLEMENT
Settlement for Sand Layer:-

For NAvg=8, B=3.0m, factor for settlement=0.050.

Settlement= ( 0.050 x 1000 x 0.998)= 49.90 mm

Stotal = 49.90 mm <75 mm

Hence recommend Safe Bearing Capacity of 9.98 t/m2(Say 9.75 t/m2) for a
calculated settlement of 49.90 mm 3.0m Strip footing founded at depth of 1.5m
below EGL.
 17

TYPICAL CALCULATION (RAFT FOOTING)

Raft footing (12.0m X 20m) founded at 2.0m depth

Design parameters of founding strata are

Cohesion C = - t/m2 below footing,
Angle of Internal Friction  = 290,
Local Shear Condition
For, ’ = 200
N’q = 6.40 N’γ = 5.39, d’q = d’γ = 1.02, Sq= 1.12, Sγ=0.76

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I).

and assuming Raft Footing of (B) = 12.0 m

and depth of foundation Df = 2.0 m
q= (2.0x0.87) = 1.74 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(N’q -1) Sq d’q iq + 0.5 B γ N’γ Sγ d’γ iγw’)

= 1/2.5(1.74(6.4-1)x1.12 x1.02x1+ 0.5x12.0x1.87x5.39x0.76x1.02x1x0.5)
= 13.66 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

General Shear Condition

For  = 290,

Nq = 16.85 Nγ = 20.09 ,dq = dγ = 1.03, Sq= 1.12, Sγ=0.76

γ = 1.87 t/m2 (Layer-I).

and assuming Raft Footing of (B) = 12.0 m

and depth of foundation Df = 2.0 m
q= (2.0x0.87) = 1.74 t/m2

Qsafe = 1/ 2.5 (q(Nq -1) Sq dq iq + 0.5 B γ Nγ Sγ dγ iγw’)

= 1/2.5(1.74(16.85-1)x1.12 x1.03 x1+ 0.5x12x1.87x20.09x0.76x1.03x1x0.5)
= 48.82 t/m2
Therefore, for factor of safety of 2.5

On Interpolation

Qsafe = 13.66 +(48.82-13.66) x (32.5-20)/(70-20) = 22.45 t/m2

CHECK FOR SETTLEMENT

 18

Using Teng’s equation based on Terzaghi and Peck empirical formula given in
Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics by Gopal Ranjan and A.S.R Rao(p-518)

SBC = 0.14 (N-3){(B+0.3)/2B}2 R´w CD Sa t/m2

Where,
N = Corrected N value
B = Width of footing in m
R´w = Water table correction factor
CD = Depth correction factor = (1 + D/B) restricted to a maximum of 2
Sa = Permissible settlement in mm
D = Depth of foundation in m
Here,
N avg = 8, B = 12 m, R´w = 0.5, Sa = 75 mm, D = 2.0 m, CD = 1+ 2.0/12 = 1.16
SBC = 0.14 x 5 x (12.3/24)2 x 0.5 x 1.16 x 75 = 7.99 t/m2
Hence recommend Safe Bearing Capacity of 7.99 t/m2 (Say 7.75 t/m2) for founded
at depth of 2.0m below EGL .
 19

TYPICAL CALCULATION (IS:2911(Part I/Sec-2)-2010)

For 400mm dia (Total Pile Length 20.0m)

Critical depth= 15.0 x dia of pile= 15.0 x 0.40= 6.00 m

S-I S-II S-III

C/Cp - - 8.6
(t/m2)
Navg 7 to 10 11 to 27 19 to 41
N(corr) 8 16 -
avg
α - - 0.51
0
δ (Φ) Φ = 29 (Considered 26 0) Φ = 31 0 (Considered 280) -
K 1.0 1.0 -
γ 1.87 1.88 1.91
(t/m3)
Nγ 13.18 17.79 -
Nq 12.0 18.0 -
PDi (5 x0.87+1.0x0.88)=5.23 (5 x0.87+1.0x0.88)=5.23 -
(t/m2)
PD - - -
(t/m2)
Asi / (πx0.4x5) (πx0.4x12.0) (πx0.4x1.0)
As(m2) =6.28 =15.07 =1.256
Ap/Ab - - (.785x0.42)
(m2) =0.1256

Stratum Skin Friction(t) End Bearing(t)

S-II (1.0x 5.23 xtan26 x 6.28 )=16.02
S-III (1.0x 5.23 xtan28x13.82 )=38.43
S-IV (0.51 x 8.6 x 1.256 )=5.51 90.1256 x 9 x 8.6)=9.72
Total 63.44 9.72
Grand Total 73.16

Ultimate bearing capacity of pile= 73.16 t

Considering factor of safety of 2.5,
Safe end load bearing capacity= 29.26 t Say = 28.0 t
 20

Uplift Capacity of Pile

Bulk density of reinforced concrete(Ref: I.S.456-2000)= 2.5(t/m3)

Buoyant weight of pile= π/4(0.4)2x 25 x (2.5-1) = 4.71 t

Skin friction= 63.44 t
Uplift Capacity= 1/2.5 x 63.44 +4.71 = 30.08 Say 29.0 t

Lateral Load Capacity:

Lateral Load Capacity:

Considering fixed head condition

Φ at the S-II = 260 ,for NCorr Avg=9
B=0.40m
nh = 1.2 x 103(from Table:3 Annex C)
T(Stiffness factor)=(EI/nh)1/5 E For Concrete(M25)= 25 x 106kn/m2
I for circular section= πd4/64
T= 1.92 m
From Fig 4(I.S 2911 -2010)
L1/T=0
Lf/T= 2.2
Lf= 4.224 m
Considering allowable deflection=5mm= 5 x 10-3m
Zf=Lf= 4.224 m, e=0
H= 24.99 KN Say= 23 KN = 2.3 T
 21

8. Discussions on Foundation

In view of the sub-soil formation encountered in the area for construction of

Unit Mess at SAP 4th Bn., Kasba, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, open foundation in
the form of Isolated, Strip & Raft footing. The bearing capacity of Isolated &
Strip footing along with settlement is tabulated below.

Bearing Capacity of Soil.

Safe Estimated
Recommended
Foundation Foundation Depth of bearing settlement
Safe bearing
Type size(BxL) foundation capacity (mm)
capacity(t/m2)
(t/m2)
Isolated
2.0m x 2.0m 1.5 m 8.67 8.50 38.15<50
footing
Isolated
2.5m x 2.5m 1.5 m 9.19 9.00 44.11<50
footing
Isolated
3.0m x 3.0m 1.5 m 9.79 9.25 49.93<50
footing
This settlement with in the permissible settlement, So this S.B.C is SAFE
Rectangular
2.0m x 4.0m 1.5 m 8.22 8.00 36.16<50
footing
Rectangular
2.5m x 5.0m 1.5 m 8.73 8.50 41.90<50
footing
This settlement with in the permissible settlement, So this S.B.C is SAFE

Safe Recommended Estimated

Foundation
Foundation Depth of bearing Safe bearing settlement
Type
size. foundation capacity capacity (mm)
(t/m2) (t/m2)
Raft
12.0m x 20.0m 2.0 m 7.99 7.50 75
footing
This settlement within the permissible settlement, So this S.B.C is SAFE
 22

Safe Estimated
Recommended
Foundation Foundation Depth of bearing settlement
Safe bearing
Type size(B) foundation capacity (mm)
capacity(t/m2)
(t/m2)
Strip footing 2.0m 1.5 m 8.64 8.50 38.02<75

Strip footing 2.5m 1.5 m 9.19 9.00 43.87<75

Strip footing 3.0m 1.5 m 9.98 9.75 49.90<75

This settlement with in the permissible settlement, So this S.B.C is SAFE

Deep foundation in the form of R.C.C bored cast-in-situ piles is recommended.

Total Pile length 20M length may have cut-off level at 2.0m below E.G.L. The
load carrying capacities of piles for various diameters are presented below:

Pile Load Capacity (Pile Length 20m) (F.O.S-2.5)

Length Safe vertical Safe Uplift

Safe horizontal
Pile diameter Cut-off below load Capacity load
Location load carrying
(mm) level cut-off carrying carrying
capacity (t)
level (m) capacity (t) capacity (t)
400 28 2.3 29
2.0m
Land 450 below 18.0 35 2.9 36
B.G.L.
500 44 3.4 45
 23

9. Conclusion and Recommendations

 The subsoil characteristic for the proposed construction of Unit Mess at SAP
4th Bn., Kasba, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, Project for Unit Mess at SAP 4th Bn.,
Kasba, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur Nadia was determined from soil exploration
with three boreholes.

 Deep foundations in the form of RCC bored cast-in-situ piles. The cut-off level
of pile shall be 2.0 m below E.G.L. The shaft length of the pile shall be 18.0m
& also Foundation in the form of Raft, Strip & Isolated. The proposed
foundation shall be placed at 1.5m(Strip &Isolated) & 2.0m(Raft) below
existing ground level. Safe load carrying capacities for such pile & Strip
Footing shall be governed by table given in section 8.0.

 The Foundation Designer shall decide the size, shape and depth of foundation
required for specific structure loads. Actually, SBC may not be a fixed value; it
depends on depth, size and shape of footing.

 The structural designs of the piles shall be adequate to take care of all loads
and bending moments that may be generated due to actual loads.

 The piles should be placed at a centre to centre spacing of three times the
diameter of the pile.
 Suitable pile cap shall be provided for the piles in a group.

 The final decision regarding the foundation will depend on the judgment of the
engineer concerned. .

For Prosenjit Das

Approved by

Prosenjit Das
M.E, MIGS, MIRC,AMIE
MIPHE, MISCA, AIV
Chartered Engineer & APPROVED VALUERS