soil investigation report v1r0.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
3/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
4/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
5/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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 2-3 Plate Load Test Data for CPLT-2
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. 4-2 Linear Subsurface Profile 2-2
Fig. 4-3 Linear Subsurface Profile 3-3
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
6/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
Fig. 5-5 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
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
Fig. 5-7 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Cooling Tower
Fig. 5-8 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Cooling Tower
Fig. 5-9 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Cooling Tower
Fig. 5-10 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-1
Fig. 5-11 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-1
Fig. 5-12 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/ Mat Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at TG-1
Fig. 5-13 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-2
Fig. 5-14 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-2
Fig. 5-15 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings forPermissible Settlement of 50.8mm at TG-2
Fig. 5-16 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay
Fig. 5-17 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay
Fig. 5-18 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Boiler-1
Fig. 5-19 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
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
Fig. 5-21 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Boiler-2
Fig. 5-22 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Boiler-2
Fig. 5-23 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Boiler-2
Fig. 5-24 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings for
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
7/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
Doc. No. J-559
Rev. 00Page 7
Fig. 5-26 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
8/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
9/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
11/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
12/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
13/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
14/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
15/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
16/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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).
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
17/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
18/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
19/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
20/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
21/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
22/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
23/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
24/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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 =
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
25/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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)
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
26/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
27/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
28/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
29/198
Berkeley Associates
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on Geotechnical Investigations
Doc. No. J-559
Rev. 00Appendix-A
APPENDIX - A
TABLES AND FIGURES
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
31/198
Berkeley Associates
Table 2-2 Plate Load Test Data for CPLT-1
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
33/198
Berkeley Associates
Table 2-3 Plate Load Test Data for CPLT-2
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
35/198
Project: Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
36/198
Project: Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
Project: Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
38/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
40/198
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
BH11
Fig. 2-2B Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
41/198
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH12
Fig. 2-2C Prof ile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
.
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
43/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
44/198
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20
25
30
BH08
Fig. 2-2F Prof ile for ObservedSPT N-Values for TG-2
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
45/198
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20
25
30
BH06
Fig. 2-2G Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
46/198
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20.0
25.0
30.0
BH02 BH04 NAvg
Fig. 2-2H Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-1
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
47/198
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20.0
25.0
30.0
BH03 BH05 NAvg
Fig. 2-2I Profi le for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-2
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
48/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
49/198
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH14
Fig. 2-2K Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Coal Shed
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
52/198
LEGEND:LEGEND:
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT
FILL MATERIAL
SPT
GROUND WATER TABLE
SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
53/198
LEGEND:LEGEND:
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT
FILL MATERIAL
SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY
SPT
GROUND WATER TABLE
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
54/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
55/198
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. 5-1A Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Switchyard
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
56/198
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
BH11
Fig. 5-1B Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
57/198
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
BH12
Fig. 5-1C Prof ile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
58/198
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
BH09 BH10 NAvg
Fig. 5-1D Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Cooling Tower
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
59/198
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20
25
30
BH07
Fig. 5-1E Prof ile for Corrected SPT N-Values for TG-2
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
60/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
61/198
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
20
25
30
BH06
Fig. 5-1G Profi le for Corrected SPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
62/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
63/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
64/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
65/198
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth(m)
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH14
Fig. 5-1K Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Coal Shed
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
67/198
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
68/198
80
100
120
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
69/198
200
250
300
350
400
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
70/198
200
250
300
350
400
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
71/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
72/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
73/198
80
100
120
140
160
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
74/198
100
150
200
250
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
75/198
100
150
200
250
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
76/198
80
90
100
110
120
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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=
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
77/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
78/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
79/198
80
100
120
140
160
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
80/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
81/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
82/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
83/198
150
200
250
300
350
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
84/198
80
100
120
140
160
180
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
85/198
100
150
200
250
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
86/198
100
150
200
250
eBearingPressures(kPa)
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
-
8/10/2019 Soil Investigation report V1R0.pdf
87/198
60
80
100
120
eBearingPressures(kPa)
0
20
40
0 5 10 15 2