Geotechnical Investigation Report for Oil India's Secondary Tank Farm Project

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED SECTION: 5.
6
TCE.7547A-H-
OST-300 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PAGE i OF i
ANNEXURE - B
(GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT)
ISSUE
R0
TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED
6th Floor, SKCL Central Square, C-35, CIPET Road,
Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy
CHENNAI-600032
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR

SECONDARY TANK FARM PROJECT OF,
OIL INDIA LIMITED (OIL), MADHUBAN, NEAR DULIAJAN, ASSAM
TCE CONTRACT NO 7547A-DOH-2014-129
FINAL REPORT
(VOLUME I & II)
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Doc No: TCE.7547A-STF-BPC-GTR-R2 Dated: 05.02.2015
BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Corporate Office: Concept Building,
514/A/1 Kalikapur Road, Prince Park
KOLKATA – 700099
DOCUMENT RELEASE SHEET
R2 05.02.2015 Final report issued incorporating compliance to TCE comments on ‘’ R1 issue’’
Vol 1,2 ,3 Consolidated, shear test (Liquefaction analysis) , test on River Sample added & compliance to initial
R1 09.01.2015
TCE comments
R0 09.12.2014 Volume III- Concluding Volume of Draft Report for units covered by BH-14 to 21 (excluding BH-17) ,one ERT
R0 25.11.2014 Volume II- Draft Report for units covered by Boreholes BH-1 to 4 & BH-10 to 13
R0 31.10.2014 Volume I- draft report for tank farm and administration building
Rev. Date Description
Client:
TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED

6th Floor, SKCL Central Square, C-35, CIPET Road,
Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy
CHENNAI-600032
Project:
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR

SECONDARY TANK FARM PROJECT OF,
OIL INDIA LIMITED (OIL), MADHUBAN, NEAR DULIAJAN, ASSAM.
Doc No: TCE.7547A-STF-BPC-GTR-R2 Dated: 05.02.2015

Geo-technical Investigations for STF PROJECT, OIL, Madhuban
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I (REPORT AND ANNEXURES I TO IV)
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Project Information 6
1.2 Scope of Work 7
1.3 Abstract of findings and recommendations 7
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 17
2.1 Site Geology - General description 17
2.2 Site Surface description 17
2.3 Potential Geological /other hazards 17
2.4 Site Topography-General Description 17
2.5 Accessibility and ground obstructions 17
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 18
3.1 Stratigraphy 18
3.2 Sub-surface and material properties-Relevant description 18
3.2.1 Boiler House (BH-1 & 2) and Indirect Bath Unit; (BH-3 & 4) 18
3.2.2 Tank Farms (BH5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) 19
3.2.3 Formation water and clarified water tanks (BH-10 & 11); Dispatch Pump house & Dehydrator 19
Unit (BH-12 & 13) 19
3.2.4 Future expansion Area (BH-14 &15) 20
3.2.5 Fire Water Tank (BH-16) & Additional borehole close to Parking shed (BH-21) 21
3.2.6 Administration and Canteen Building (BH-17) 21
3.2.7 Control Room and Electrical Substation (BH-18); Overhead tank for Potable water & Security 22
Building (BH-19), Captive Power Plant (BH-20) 22
3.3 Ground water elevations and expected variations 22
3.4 Description of underground obstructions 22
3.5 Chemical attack potential for concrete and underground facilities 23
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 23
4.1 Description of sampling procedures 23
4.1.1 Boring /drilling and termination criteria 23
4.1.2 Collection of Disturbed samples 23
4.1.3 Collection of Undisturbed samples 23
4.2 Description of field tests 23
4.2.1 Standard Penetration test (SPT) 23
4.2.2 Field permeability test 24
4.2.3 Installation of Standpipe and water level monitoring 24
4.3 Logs of borings 25
4.3.1 Exploratory boreholes 25
TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 3 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTS 25

5.1 Standards adopted 26
5.1.1 Geo-technical Properties 26
5.1.2 Chemical Properties 26
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION 29
6.1 Type of foundation 29
6.2 Basis for selecting depth and type of shallow foundation 29
6.2.1 Shallow foundations 29
6.3 Shallow foundations - Approach methodology 30
6.3.1 Laboratory Shear Strength Parameters 31
6.3.2 Recommendation 32
6.3.3 Recommendation for Lightly loaded structures 33
6.4 Recommendations for deep foundations 34
6.4.1 Pile foundations 34
6.4.2 Methodology for Axial Load from Geotechnical Criteria 34
6.4.3 Axial Capacity-Concrete strength criteria 35
6.4.4 Uplift Capacity-Geotechnical Criteria 35
6.4.5 Uplift Capacity-Concrete strength criteria 35
6.4.6 Lateral Load Capacity 35
6.5 Design Summary 35
6.6 Increase in Pile capacities 36
6.7 Consideration of negative skin friction 36
6.8 Spacing and group action 36
6.9 Load test requirements 36
7.0 OTHER RELAVENT ASPECTS 36
7.1 Engineered filling 36
7.2 Suitability of existing soil for backfilling 37
7.3 River Sand for filling 37
7.4 Stripping of top-soil 38
7.5 Slope angle for mass excavations 38
7.6 Engineered Filling - Slope 38
7.7 Ground water control 38
7.8 Expansive soil 39
7.9 CBR pits 39
7.10 Percolation test 40
7.11 Other design parameters 40
7.12 Time rate of settlement 42
7.13 Stone Columns 43
7.14 Broad Guidelines for Instrumentation 43

7.15 Electrical Resistivity Test (ERT) 43

8.0 SHEAR WAVE TESTS 51
8.1.1 Site classification based on NEHRP Vs30 58
8.1.2 Vulnerability to liquefaction 59
8.1.3 Broad remedial strategies 61
8.2 Machine foundations -Dynamic properties 62
ANNEXURES-VOLUME I
Annexure I. Plan of test Locations
Annexure IA- Borelogs
Annexure II- Field Permeability Records
Annexure III- Installation of Standpipe-Records
Annexure IV- Sub-soil Profiles
ANNEXURES- VOLUME II
Annexure V- Laboratory Test results
Annexure VI- Specimen calculations (Pile, shallow foundations, safe load on stone columns,
Settlement due to fill)
Annexure VII- Selected photographs of field investigations
Annexure VIII- Laboratory Test Certificate - River Bed Sample
Annexure IX- Comment-Compliance statement
Annexure X- All Certified Field Records

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Information

M/s OIL INDIA Limited (OIL), a Government of India ‘Navaratna’ company is a Premier Oil Company
engaged in exploration, production and transportation of crude oil & Natural gas, with its
headquarters at Duliajan, Assam. Duliajan is well connected by Air with nearest Airport being at
Dibrugarh, 45 km away. It is bounded on the east by Arunachal Pradesh, on the west by Dibrugarh
district, on the north by Lakhimpur district and south by the Dibrugarh district and part of Arunachal
Pradesh. As a part of its operations, Secondary Tank Farm (STF) with a safe storage capacity for
crude oil of 40000 KLs as well as separation of free and emulsified formation water from crude oil is
envisaged at Madhuban near Duliajan (Refer Figure 1 for Google location). Tank farm will also
include the following facilities,
a) Dehydration of wet crude and pumping out of dry crude to NHK CTF.
b) Treatment of separated formation water.
c) Safe disposal of clarified/treated formation water for disposal into shallow disposal wells as well
as to Water Injection Stations for injection to the reservoir.
Fig -1: Google Location of the Secondary Tank Farm (STF) at Madhuban near Duliajan
It has been planned to create these facilities with latest, suitable, appropriate and proven technology.
The facilities proposed to be set up, would be based on latest process control system available
including online monitoring and control facility for the entire plant. It is proposed to have a 25m wide
green belt around the perimeter of STF. It is also planned to achieve finished grade level by filling
and compacting upto 95% Proctor Density. The height of filling is anticipated to be 0.50m above HFL
(highest flood level) or the existing Duliajan-Madhuting-Tinsukia Road/Highest point of nearby road
level as per OIL requirements.

M/s TATA Consulting Engineers Limited (TCE), Chennai are the EPMC (Engineering & Project
Management Consultants) for this project. M/s BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT LTD (BPC) was
entrusted by TCE to conducted field investigation, sampling and laboratory testing for the new
Secondary Tank Farm (STF) in the Duliajan, Dibrugarh district. The overall objectives of the
exploration was to obtain specific information about sub-soil characteristics and to obtain
Geotechnical parameters of the subsurface formations for design and construction of foundations for
different units coming up as a part of this prestigious project. The site is bounded by 27°23'11.10"N
(3031395.93m N) - 95°19'56.71"E (730652.21m E) and 27°22'55.06"N (3030906.01m N) -
95°20'4.17"E (730866.46m E). The total area envisaged for this complex is 30 Acres.
1.2 Scope of Work

A comprehensive & detailed Geotechnical investigation program comprising boreholes, Electrical
Resistivity Tests, Installation of standpipe for long term water level monitoring, trial Pits and
Liquefaction assessment tests was implemented for understanding the sub-surface strata for various
units covering proposed STF Facility. Details of investigations implemented are summarized in
abstract of findings (which ensues) as well as explained in detail in Para 1.3- Fieldwork
This final report incorporates inputs suggested by the client on draft reports. A Comment -
compliance statement is attached.
1.3 Abstract of findings and recommendations

Fieldwork
The scope of drilling works was carried out by deploying two numbers skid mounted rotary drill rig
units and under guidance of client/consultant. The boreholes were terminated on reaching the
requisite depths as per the termination criteria specified by TCE. Work was implemented in two
phases (i.e.) September and October 2014. During first phase, work started on 11/9/14, 14
boreholes, 9 Trial Pits, Installation of 1 standpipe and 7 in-situ permeability tests in boreholes were
implemented and completed on 27/9/14. During second phase, works started on 10/10/14, and was
completed on 8/11/14. The locations of soil test locations are shown in Annexure I and details of final
scope of work implemented are also summarized in the table below.
Field test Component Notation Total no of tests carried out

Exploratory boreholes along with SPT BH 21**
Field permeability test in boreholes - 10
Installation of Standpipe in tank farm
SP-1 1
borehole (BH-7)
Electrical Resistivity Test- Wenner’s
ERT 5
method, 8 Direction Testing
CBR Trial pits CBR 9+2^^
Field shear wave tests for Vs LA 2
** Final Scope of work of which 19 boreholes are in STF site and 2 are in CGGS area.
^^- Auger borehole sample – Percolation test and pit excavated for CPLT-1
Summary of field work implementation

Phase I investigations (September 2014) - 14 Boreholes (BH-1 to 13 and 17) and all 9 CBR pits
were completed. During this phase, site was waterlogged /inundated and experienced heavy and
intermittent rains. Local opposition resulted in a two day stoppage of work (subsequently resolved
with the support of client).
Phase II investigations (October to November 2014)-During this phase. Balance work comprising 7
Boreholes (BH-14 to 21 excluding 17), 5 Electrical resistivity tests, 2 shear wave tests and sample
identification for filling (Dihing river) was completed. During this phase, Monsoons had begun to
recede and surface was generally dry, but water levels continued to be at shallow depths below
surface as a consequence of which Cyclic plate load test (CPLT) and BVT (Block Vibration tests)
could not be conducted at 3m depth and were replaced by alternate test (i.e.) shear wave test so as
to obtain required information on dynamic parameters. Specific details follow (Boreholes). Location
plan is enclosed separately as an Annexure I.

BH
Unit BH EGL Northing Easting GWT below Remarks/Other
Termination
number/name No RL (m) (m) (m) EGL(m) field tests
depth (m)
101 Rains occurred

( Boiler House)
1 119.184 3031235.951 730648.007 0.30 35.30 intermittently
102 Permeability between 0.00

(Indirect Bath Unit)
2 119.214 3031299.099 730685.702 0.30 35.50 to 3.00m
105
(Dehydrator Unit)
3 118.993 3031186.816 730687.306 0.30 35.35
107
Permeability between 6.00
(Dispatch Pump 4 119.157 3031276.197 730725.544 0.30 35.50 to 9.00m
House)
5 118.886 3031164.59 730738.84 0.30 * 35.50 * GWT is above GL.
6 118.968 3031148.95 730777.04 0.30 * 35.50 to 4.50m
(Tank Farms) 7 118.988 3031215.22 730785.92 2.30++ 39.50 to 3.00m, ERT, LA-2, SP-1
8 118.960 3031283.53 730792.67 0.30 * 35.50 * GWT is above GL.
9 118.848 3031266.52 730830.25 0.30* 35.50 * GWT is above GL.
109
(Formation Water 10 119.055 3031235.216 730876.355 0.30 35.50 to 8.00m
Tank)
110 & 111
(Clarified Water
Tank/Pump
11 118.884 3031182.544 730868.434 0.30* 35.20 * GWT is above GL.
House)
112 ( Effluent 12 119.045 3031150.000 730841.361 0.20 30.50 to 3.00m
Treatment plant
with oil sludge pit) 13 119.115 3031100.000 730850.000 0.30 35.21 -
Waterlogged area within
14 118.178 3030986.000 730740.000 At EGL 30.23 CGGS area. Boreholes
125 had to be shifted from
(Future Expansion) original locations due to site
15 118.330 3030947.000 730827.000 At EGL 30.80 constraints for rig
movement
115
(Fire water tanks)
16 119.018 3031129.116 730586.160 0.40 35.25
( Administration to 3.00m
and Canteen
17 119.238 3031062.61 730583.42 0.30 30.45
Building)
120&121
(Control Room & Permeability between 0.00
Electrical sub-
18 119.063 3031059.584 730640.643 0.60 31.25 to 3.00m
station)
126 &127
Overhead Tanks Permeability between 0.00
for Potable &
19 118.766 3031047.595 730677.541 0.50 30.73 to 3.00m
Industrial water
Unit 122, Captive **This borehole is in lieu of

power plant**
20 119.201 3031029.307 730610.808 0.80 35.70 BVT (Block vibration test)
Near Unit 118 &

Additional borehole to
124, Parking Area 21 119.008 3031102.000 730546.000 0.80 30.70 obtain soil data
& Guard Pond
++ Standpipe monitoring -30 days *GWT is above EGL

NOTE
For the purpose of soil investigations (water for drilling), a temporary tube well was dug (≈37 feet
approximately below ground) and closed before demobilization. Location and other details are as
under)
Depth below
EGL Northing Easting Remarks
Particulars existing ground
RL (m) (m) (m)
level (feet)
Temporary Closed prior to

tube well
119.277 3031277.00 730628.00 ≈37.00 demobilization
Two field tests namely BVT & CPLT could not be conducted at 3m depth due to presence of
presence of shallow water levels (refer photographs enclosed). Details are summarized below.
Block Vibration test (BVT) - Proposed captive Power Plant location (Unit 122) (Refer Photograph
No.27 enclosed where a nearby pit showed presence of water). One borehole (viz.) BH-20 was
drilled at this location.
Cyclic Plate Load test (CPLT)-Proposed compressor house (Unit 116)-A wide pit was excavated
and water was found at less than 1m depth even after rains had receded (Refer Photograph No. 26
enclosed)
Shear wave tests for assessing Vulnerability to Liquefaction (LA)

Two shear wave tests were conducted. LA-1 was conducted midway between CPLT-1 and BH-20.
(Units covered - compressor and Captive Power plant).
Terrain conditions / Topography during Soil Investigations

The Proposed Project comprises of an open site earmarked for STF and a part of land within CGGS
area is earmarked for ‘future expansion’. Refer location plan for clarity (presence of boundary wall
which demarcates these two). Ground levels vary from RL+118.232 to RL+119.238m indicating flat
terrain. Land is generally barren and comprises of grasses/shrubs and, there are no plantations or
trees, which are of economic importance. In future expansion area (BH-14 &15), area was
waterlogged and swampy /slushy. An additional aspect to be noted was while BH-14, only access
was a gate within the premises of godown adjacent to CGGS (Central Gas Gathering station)
Madhuban and BH-15 access was through the CGGS station itself.
Sub-soil profile stratification (Based on borehole investigations)

Consistent with established Geo-technical practices, longitudinal/cross sections covering group of
boreholes were drawn and sub-soil profile established. Based on extensive sub-soil profile analysis
following four layered profile is noticed in this Project site
9 Layer I : Top soil , 0.20 to 0.30m comprising vegetal matter/slushy soil followed by clayey silt
9 Layer II; Silty Sand with clay traces /binder /Clayey Sand
9 Layer III; Clayey Silt
9 Layer IV: Dense to very dense silty sand (Final Layer)
Refer ensuing paragraph below for specific details.
Based on extensive analysis of borehole data, boreholes were grouped as under for purpose
of sub-soil profile analysis and profile drawings are shown separately
9 Boreholes BH-1 to 4
9 Boreholes BH-14 &15
9 Boreholes BH-16 and 21
9 Borehole- BH-17
9 Boreholes BH-18,19 & 20
ANALYSIS FOLLOWS

BOILER HOUSE AND INDIRECT BATH HEATER UNIT (Unit 101 & 102); BH-1 & 2
DEHYDRATOR UNIT & DISPATCH PUMP HOUSE (Unit 105 & 107); BH-3 & 4
Four boreholes (BH-1, 2, 3, and 4) were drilled here. Boreholes were terminated at 35 to 35.5m
depth. The topsoil cover comprises a thin layer of vegetal cover followed by yellowish clayey silt upto
5.00m depth, except BH-2 where the thickness of this layer is noticed 3.50m depth. This is underlain
by medium dense to dense to very dense silty sand layer upto a depth of 5.00 to 13.00m. However,
at BH- 2, the stratum thickness is observed as 10.35m. This is followed once again clayey silt upto
13.00-15.50m but in medium stiff to stiff consistency. This is finally underlain by Silty sand
upto the maximum explored depth of 35.50m. Beyond 15.50m, layer progressively becomes very
dense with N Values consistently >50.
TANKAGE AREAS (UNIT 108), T-001 TO 006 & FUTURE; BH-5 to 9

Five boreholes were drilled here (BH-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). In addition, one Standpipe was also installed
in BH-7, the deepest borehole of the Tank farm & the entire Project site. All the boreholes except BH-
7 were terminated at 35.0 to 35.5m depth. BH-7 was drilled upto 39.50m to check for presence of
rock, which was however not encountered. The topsoil cover comprises a thin layer of vegetal cover
followed by light yellowish / brownish clayey silt upto 6.00m depth, except BH-7 where the thickness
of this layer is noticed 2.50m depth. This is underlain by medium dense to dense to very dense silty
sand layer upto a depth of 6.00 to 11.50m. However, at BH- 7, the stratum thickness is observed as
8.95m. This is followed once again clayey silt upto 11.50-18.00m in stiff to very stiff consistency. This
is finally underlain by Silty sand upto the maximum explored depth of 39.50m. Beyond 18-22m, layer
progressively becomes very dense with N Values consistently >50.
FORMATION WATER TANK (Unit 109); BH-10;

CLARIFIED WATER TANK AND CLARIFIED PUMP HOUSE (Unit 110 & 111); BH-11
EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT WITH OIL SLUDGE PIT (Unit 112); BH-12 & 13
Four boreholes were drilled here (BH-10, 11, 12, and 13). Boreholes were terminated at 35.2 to
35.5m depth. The topsoil cover comprises a thin layer of vegetal cover followed by yellowish clayey
upto 2.5m to 3.45m depth. This is underlain by medium dense to dense to very dense silty sand layer
upto a depth of 8m. However, at BH- 12, the stratum thickness is observed as 9.50m. This is followed
once again clayey silt upto 13.00-15.50m but in medium stiff to stiff consistency. This is underlain by
Silty sand upto the maximum explored depth of 35.50m. Beyond 15.50m, layer progressively
becomes very dense with N Values consistently >50.
FUTURE EXPANSION (Unit 125); BH-14 & 15

Two boreholes were drilled here. Boreholes were terminated at 30.23 & 30.80m depth. These two
boreholes come within jurisdiction of CGGS (Central Gas Gathering station). The topsoil 0.2 to 0.3m
comprises of slushy soil followed by yellowish clayey silt upto 3.5m depth, while at BH-15, thickness
of this layer is noticed 3.00m depth. This is underlain by medium dense / dense to very dense silty
sand layer upto a depth of 3.00 to 9.50m. This is followed once again clayey silt upto 9.50m to
17.00m in medium stiff to stiff consistency. This is finally underlain by Silty sand upto the explored
depth. Beyond 17.00m, layer progressively becomes very dense with N Values consistently >50.
Refusal is noticed at the termination depth for both the boreholes.
FIRE WATER TANK (Unit 116); BH-16

GUARD POND AND PARKING SHED (Unit 118 & 124); BH-21
BH-16 was terminated at 35.25m depth. BH-21 was terminated at 30.70m.The topsoil cover
comprises a thin layer of vegetal cover followed by yellowish clayey silt upto 6.50m depth, for BH-21
it is noticed upto 4.00m. This is underlain by medium dense / dense to very dense silty sand layer
upto a depth of 12m. This is followed once again by clayey silt upto 12.00-17.50m in medium stiff to
stiff consistency. This is finally underlain by Silty sand upto explored depth. Beyond 16.50m, layer
progressively becomes very dense with N Values consistently >50. Refusal is noticed at the
termination depth for both the boreholes.
ADMIN AND CANTEEN BUILDING (Unit 119); BH-17

This borehole was terminated at 30.45m. The topsoil cover comprises a thin layer vegetal cover
followed by light yellowish / brownish silty clay / clayey silt upto 7.00m depth. This is underlain by
medium dense to very dense silty sand layer upto a depth of 10.00m. Stiff to very stiff consistency
clayey silt upto 10.00-17.00m depth is encountered after the silty sand layer. This is underlain by silty
sand progressively densifying with depth and continuous upto the explored depth of 30.45m.

CONTROL ROOM AND ELECTRICAL SUB-STATION (Unit 120 & 121); BH-18
OVERHEAD TANK FOR POTABLE WATER &SECURITY BUILDING (Unit 126 & 127); BH-19
CAPTIVE POWER PLANT (Unit 122); BH-20 (In Lieu of BVT)
The termination depth of BH-18, 19 and 20 is 30.73m, 35.70m and 30.70m respectively. The topsoil
cover comprises a thin vegetal cover followed by light yellowish clayey silt up to 5m depth. This is
underlain by medium dense to very dense silty sand layer upto a depth of 12.5m, except BH-20
where the thickness of this layer is noticed 9.00m depth. Stiff to very stiff consistency clayey silt upto
12.5m-14.50m depth is encountered after the silty sand layer. This is underlain by silty sand
progressively densifying with depth and continuous upto the respective explored depths.
Water Level in Boreholes

Phase I Investigations- BH 1 to 13 & BH-17
Field work was carried out between 2nd to 4th week of September and 14 boreholes were drilled.
During this phase, the area experienced very heavy and intermittent rains during the Phase I Geo-
technical investigations and majority of site was flooded /standing water observed. Water Level in
boreholes 24-48 hours after borehole completion was found to be in range of 0.30 to 0.50m above
the existing ground level (Tank Farm areas). Water Level in boreholes, BH-1,2,3 & 4 24-48 hours
after borehole completion was found to be in range of 0.30 to 0.40m below the existing ground level.
In boreholes BH-10, 12 &13 24-48 hours after borehole completion, water level was found to be in
range of 0.20 to 0.30m below the existing ground level. At BH-11 it was observed at 0.3m above
existing ground level. During borehole investigations at BH-16 very heavy rains occurred.
Phase II Investigations- BH 14, 15, 16,18,19,20 & 21

nd th
Field work was carried out between 2 to 4 week of October when monsoons began to recede with
the surface dry and totally 7 boreholes of which 5 boreholes were drilled in STF site and 2 boreholes
in CGGS area. In area around BH-14 & BH-15 implemented was waterlogged with slushy water with
standing water noticed (Refer enclosed photographs of soil investigations). In fact, owing to severe
site constraint of moving rigs due to water logging & presence of slush, position of these two
boreholes were shifted closest to water after intimating the client. Water Level in remaining
boreholes, 24-48 hours after borehole completion was found to be in range of 0.40 to 0.80m below
the existing ground level
Considering the above aspects, while implementing constructions, it may be necessary to confine
the water table to the base of footing through adequate dewatering.
Water Level monitoring in Standpipe

Water level monitoring studies were carried out over a period of 30 days subsequent to completion of
borehole BH-7. Records are enclosed separately. Water level recorded on day 1 after insertion of
UPVC casing (properly protected at top with a cap so as to prevent rain water entering) was 1.9m
and after 30 days was 2.3m below ground level.
Permeability characteristics
Field permeability tests were carried out in clayey silt layer in select boreholes. Permeability is pre-
dominantly of order of 10-6 cm/sec indicating “Low Permeability’’ soil (Degree of Permeability based
classification -Terzaghi & Peck, 1948)
Percolation characteristics
One field percolation test was carried out as per IS-2470 (P-2) close to administration Building at
depth of 1.40m below EGL. Rate of percolation is assessed as 35 hours.
Electrical Resistivity
Five tests were carried out covering the entire project site as tabulated below.
ERT
Unit /location Easting(m) Northing (m) Elevation (m)
Number
Centre of area covered by Boreholes BH-1 to
ERT - 1 730683 3031252 119.167
4 covering units 101 to 107
ERT - 2 Centre of tank farm (BH-7) covering unit 108 730785 3031215 118.988
Table contd…

ERT
Number
Centre of area covered by Boreholes BH-10 to
ERT - 3 13 covering units 109 to 111, nearest borehole 730853 3031184 119.057
is BH-11
ERT - 4 Centre of unit 121 (Electrical Sub-station). 730630 3031050 119.086
Centre of cancelled CPLT-1 (Compressor

ERT - 5 730580 3031102 119.140
House) and additional borehole (BH-21)
Mean resistivity values are predominantly >100 Ohm-m indicating ‘Very mildly corrosive’
conditions. A very relevant aspect is Duliajan experiences heavy intensity of rainfall for most part of
the year. Over and above sub-strata encountered in project site exhibits poor permeability due to
presence of first layer (i.e.) low permeability clayey silt that occurs from surface upto a depth of 3 to
5m generally, so significant fluctuation in soil moisture content which could influence ‘resistivity’
values, is not anticipated. Nevertheless, confirmatory resistivity testing may be carried out during
construction in dry period/summer. Final Decision in this regard is left to the client.
Swell Shrink characteristics of clayey silt layer

Laboratory Differential Free Swell Index tests on clayey silt soil indicate values to be less than 20%
indicating soil as ‘Low degree of expansion’ (IS:1498-Table 8). Also considering the fact that project
site is located in heavy rainfall area, ‘swell- shrink of soil’ is not anticipated.
CBR Values
9 Trial pits were excavated upto a depth of 0.50m below existing ground level and bulk samples
collected for CBR tests. Based on laboratory test results, an average soaked CBR value of 3% is
suggested for design (at 95% MDD condition)
Suitability of in-situ soil for Filling

Existing in-situ soil (excavated from CBR Pits) is predominantly cohesive and generally exhibits
intermediate compressibility characteristics. Homogenization with non-plastic admixtures such as
sand/ crushed stone dust may be adopted to reduce the plasticity characteristics in case existing in-
situ soil is intended for use as engineered fill.
Alternate material for filling

Sand (Bulk sample) was collected from bed of Dihing River, which is located approximately 4kms
from BOC Gate along the Duliajan-Digboi Main Road. Test report for the same is attached
separately. Based on tests, material is suitable or filling (silt and clay content being < 15%) and non-
plastic. Considering magnitude of the project, before undertaking the actual construction, it may be
necessary to identify additional sources and carry out confirmatory material Investigation from the
various sources of materials finally identified by the construction agencies and obtain prior approval
from the concerned authorities
Cement type
Based on chemical test results of water samples, it is noted that pH, chlorides and sulphates are well
within permissible limits. Sulphate content in soil samples as SO3 is < 1.9% permitted by IS 456,
Table 4 for OPC. Ordinary Portland cement can be used. No Special measures are necessary.
Cement and concreting works shall be as mandatory guidelines of IS:456 (2000).
SHEAR WAVE TESTS

Two Shear wave tests (LA-1 &LA-2) were conducted, one in centre of Proposed Tank farm and other
midway of area between proposed compressor house and Captive Power plant to obtain shear wave
velocity profile upto minimum 30/35m depth and assess vulnerability to liquefaction. Details are as
under.

Unit Nearest Soil test Location Northing (m) Easting(m) RL (m)

Midway of compressor and Midway of CPLT-1* & BH-20
3031065.414 730613.103 119.193
Captive Power plant
Tank Farm Borehole BH-7/SP-1 3031215.22 730785.92 118.980
*CPLT Cancelled due to water at shallow depths during soil Investigations
• Site classification - Vs30 is of the order of 300m/sec. Based on NEHRP classification of USA
(Internationally accepted), ‘project site comes’ under class D (i.e.) Stiff soil /Type II soil of
IS:1893 system (BIS Equivalent).
• Vulnerability to Liquefaction
Between 0 to 2.1m, corrected shear wave velocities Vs in case of test at Tank Farm location is very
close to <200m/sec (198m/sec) while it is 185m/sec in area covered by Captive Power Plant and
compressor house indicating vulnerability to cyclic softening and strength loss/ large shear
displacements during an Earthquake of Magnitude 7.5 with water table at the existing ground
level. Top Clayey silt layer comes under Zone B/Zone C Borderline (Based on Seed-et al’s criteria
for fine grained soils). Further below, Vs is consistently >200m/sec.
•Broad remediation strategies

It is opined that thorough inspection of strata at the founding level is necessary for localized loose
/soft soil pockets, which if found be replaced with good quality soil such as gravels. Allowing proper
consolidation of clayey soil layer, adopting appropriate dewatering measures will improve the
resistance of soil to liquefaction induced ‘’cyclic softening’’ effects during an earthquake. Secondly,
considering that Project site comes under zone V of IS:1893 which is considered ‘vulnerable’ it shall
be ensured that construction shall comply with guidelines laid down by Bureau of Indian Standards
for seismically vulnerable areas.
Recommendations for minor /lightly loaded structures

Foundations for minor / lightly loaded structures, non-sensitive to settlements and transferring
2
pressure not exceeding 5t/m can be placed at depth of H/2 or existing ground level, whichever is
deeper. H= Height of Controlled fill above the existing ground level. In cases where height of
Controlled filling above ground is less than 0.50m, foundations shall be placed at existing ground
level
• Minimum width of footing shall be 1m and maximum shall be 2m.

• Strip footings shall be connected with tie beams at the foundation level
• Design SBC for footings of 1-2m wide remains restricted to 5t/m2
• Wider footings including rafts shall be invariably placed at existing ground level after thorough
inspection of strata at the founding level, net SBC remains restricted to 3t/m2.
Following aspects hold additional validity for all shallow/open foundations
• Prior to placement of foundations; stratum shall be thoroughly checked for loose soil pockets.
• Same if found shall be replaced with good quality soil, properly compacted to minimum 90% of
Laboratory Standard Proctor Density or as directed by Engineer-in-charge. In addition, prior to
placement of foundations, a mud mat (lean concrete) layer of suitable thickness shall be provided
to counteract uplift pressures.
• For foundations placed in natural /virgin soil, over-excavation and loosening of strata at the
founding level shall be avoided
• Backfilling after casting foundations shall be done in layers not exceeding 150mm loose thickness.
• Suitable drainage measures shall be provided so that water such as rainfall run off /seepage flows
do not stagnate at the founding level
Backfilling around underground liquid storage structures shall be allowed only after successful
hydro-testing and when so certified by the Engineer-in-charge

Recommendations for design of shallow /open foundations

For structures other than tanks, exact magnitude of load transfer is not available. Safe bearing
capacities have been recommended for foundations placed at 1.50m and 3.00m depth below existing
ground level. Specific details ensues
Net SBC (t/m2) based on shear &

Boreholes Depth below Width of
settlement failure for square / strip*,
covered EGL (m) foundation (m)
regardless of shape
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
BH-1,2,3,4 1-2 9.50
3.0 2-5 8.00
>6m 6.50
BH- 5 to 9 Covered separately
BH-10 & 11 Covered separately
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
BH- 12 & 13 1-2 9.50
3.0 2-5 8.00
>6m 6.50
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 6.00
>6m 5.00
BH-14 & 15**
1-2 8.50
3.0 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
BH-16 Covered separately
1-2 8.40
1.5 2-5 6.50
>6m 6.00
BH-17 1-2 9.90
3.0 2-5 7.50
>6m 6.50
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 6.00
BH-18,19,20 >6m 5.50
& 21 1-2 9.00
3.0 2-5 7.50
>6m 6.50
NOTE
a.*For strip, L should not exceed B.
b.**BH-14 & 15 -Design recommendation valid for condition of ‘’slushy soft soil ‘’removed &
replaced with good quality soil’’. (Waterlogged area)
c.In net SBC calculations, ground water table is considered at existing ground level
d.Factor dc value adopted in Net SBC calculations (IS-6403 guidelines) considers ‘’backfilling to be done
i.with proper compaction’’
Recommendations for storage Tanks (BH-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 16)

From the available information on storage height of tanks, it is understood that heavy load intensity of
the order of is expected to be transferred to sub-stratum on account of tank construction.

Load Intensity expected

Boreholes
Structure based on storage height
covered
during hydro testing
BH -5 to 9 Storage tanks, 25 /30m diameter , 12-18m height 15-20t/m2
Formation tank, Clarified water tank,20m
BH-10 & 11 18-20t/m2
diameter,18.0m height
BH-16 Fire water tank,22m diameter,10.5m storage height 11-12t/m2
Net safe bearing pressures for wide circular raft type foundations of 25 to 30m diameter have been
computed based on shear & 40mm total settlement, findings of which are presented below.
Boreholes Depth below Diameter of Net SBC (t/m2) based on shear failure &
covered EGL (m) foundation (m) 40mm total settlement
25
1.5 4.30
30
BH-5 to 9
25
3.0 5.40
30
1.5 20 5.25
BH-10 & 11
3.0 20 6.50
1.5 22 5.00
BH-16
3.0 22 6.00
As can be seen, bearing characteristics is in-sufficient to sustain the heavy load transfer expected at
1.50 & 3.00m depth. Considering site conditions, taking the foundations beyond 3m may not be
feasible due to the presence of shallow water as excavations will involve dewatering. Hence
alternatives such as deep foundations may be necessary to ensure the effective load transfer without
excessive settlements. Accordingly, two alternatives have been considered (i.e.) Bored Cast-in-situ
Pile foundations and stone columns. The following pile capacity can be considered for the pile
foundations embedded 5 times in very dense layer (N>50 consistently). While working out
capacity, design parameter covering tank boreholes has been used and recommendations will be
valid accordingly for respective locations. Capacities in Axial & Uplift are based on Geo-technical and
Concrete strength considerations assuming M25 Grade concrete. Lateral Load capacity is based on
deflection of 5mm at pile head assuming fixed head conditions
Recommended Lateral Pile
Design Pile Cut-off below
Recommended Uplift Pile

Recommended Vertical
deflection, Fixed Head

Capacity (t) for 5mm
Ground level RL(m)
Pile Diameter (mm)
Ground level * (m)

Borehole Location
Concreted Length
Pile Capacity (t)

below l Cut-off
Capacity (t)
condition
(M)
450 1 21.25 73 46 8.09

500 1 21.50 90 54 8.99
BH-5, 6,
7, 8 & 9 600 1 22.00 135 75 10.79
118.848
(Tank 750 1 22.75 218 106 13.48
Farms)
900 1 23.50 331 148 16.18
1000 1 24.00 426 178 17.98




Ground level RL(m)
Pile Diameter (mm)
Ground level * (m)

Borehole Location
Concreted Length
Pile Capacity (t)

below l Cut-off
Capacity (t)
condition
(M)
450 1 19.75 74 46 8.09
BH-10,
11 500 1 20.00 93 56 8.99
(Clarified 600 1 20.50 138 78 10.79
and 119.055
formation 750 1 21.25 229 117 13.48
water 900 1 22.00 344 158 16.18
tanks),
1000 1 22.50 440 190 17.98
450 1 19.25 69 41 8.09
500 1 19.50 88 50 8.99
BH-16
Fire 600 1 20.00 130 70 10.79
119.013
water 750 1 20.75 220 108 13.48
tank
900 1 21.50 335 147 16.18
1000 1 22.00 432 170 17.98
NOTE
Lowest ground level in tankage area boreholes is at BH-9 and is used (conservative design basis).
Lowest ground level in BH-10 & 11 is at BH-11 and same is used (conservative design basis).
Data from boreholes BH-16 & 21 is used (Fire water tank)
Initial load tests shall be carried out as per IS-2911 guidelines to reconfirm the safe loads
recommended above. Specimen Calculations are enclosed in separate Annexure VI. Decision
regarding the ‘diameter and configuration’ of the pile thereof shall be taken by the designer
depending upon magnitude of load transfer.
Stone Columns
2
Upto a load transfer upto 17t/m , stone columns appear to be an alternate option. Stone Columns
having a diameter of 800mm, length of 16.5m below footing bottom (assumed as 1.5m below the
existing ground level) having an equilateral triangular arrangement, spaced at 1.5mc/c, safe load is
estimated to be 35 Tons. Stone Columns are highly specialized ground improvement technique. It
would be worthwhile to enlist the services of an experienced and specialized agency for finalizing the
equipment specifications and implementation methodology.
The final design option to be implemented (Piles /Stone columns) depends on a number of actors like
feasibility of method, magnitude of load transfer, availability of locally available implementation
agencies and other techno-economic considerations. Decision in this regard is left to the client

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Geology - General description
Site is situated near Madhuban, near Duliajan in Dibrugarh district of Assam. Duliajan (220 21’ 21.64’’
N 95018’ 22.68’’E), one of the oldest oil fields of Assam is situated in between East and West block of
upper Buridihing Reserve Forest. Exploration, refining, and transportations are going on there.
Varieties of flora and fauna grow there balancing the toxic effects of crude oil, heavy metals and other
components of nature. The area experiences a mean annual rainfall of 1800mm, mean relative
humidity of 78% and minimum temperature of 60C and maximum temperature of 380C (Reference :
http:in.Weather/India/ Assam/Duliajan.html). The study area is part of the Brahmaputra floodplain
with a very gentle gradient from north to south. Average elevation is within 120 m of the mean sea
level (msl) {RL of Railway Platform, Duliajan Railway Station is 124.36m}. A number of south
flowing rivers viz., Leko, Jonai Korong, Raiang, Rajakona and Barnesuti from east to west drain the
area, before merging into the Brahmaputra which marks the southern boundary of the area. Because
of its proximity to the Brahmaputra and a number of active channel belts, the project area is
characterized by typical floodplain geomorphology. The whole study area is covered by recent
alluvium composed of over-consolidated clay, sand with occasional gravel. The soils of the
Brahmaputra alluvium are partly new or recent and partly old. These are sandy loam type. The
geological nature of the detritus brought down by Brahmaputra is quite different from that deposited
by the rivers flowing down the foothills. A number of different types of alluvia are recognizable in this
valley. The soils, which owe their origin mainly to Brahmaputra River, are usually very sandy.
2.2 Site Surface description

Ground levels vary from RL+ 118.149 to RL+ 119.614m. At the time of Phase I Investigations, site
was waterlogged due to heavy rain. Land is generally barren and comprises of grasses/shrubs and,
there are no plantations or trees, which are of economic importance.
2.3 Potential Geological /other hazards

2.3.1 Seismic hazard
North East India is located in an Earthquake prone zone (zone V) of the Indian subcontinent. In this
region earthquake comes with landslides and floods. Much of Assam lies in the Brahmaputra River
Valley, except for a few southern districts. The northern and eastern parts of this valley are bounded
by the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT). Among the large earthquakes in this region were the events
in 1897 and 1950 with magnitude Ms of 8.7.
2.3.2 Flooding of site

The area & Duliajan in general experiences heavy rains. Terrain being flat as can be seen in table of
Para 2.4, site is likely to be subjected to standing water during rainy season. It is therefore reasoned
that site grading may be necessary to raise the ground level so as to protect plant installation and
services against flooding and stagnation of water and will thus envisage controlled filling.
2.4 Site Topography-General Description

Location Coordinates Elevation Highest Finished
Easting Above MSL Remarks flood level grade level
Northing (m)
(m) (m) RL (m) RL (m)**
730594.219 3031244.650 +119.614 Highest Point
+119.103 +120.000
730719.219 3031034.650 +118.149 Lowest Point
**Furnished by the client
2.5 Accessibility and ground obstructions

The site is located along Duliajan -Tinsukia Highway (SH-23), approximately 6.23 Kilometers from
OIL Industrial Gate. The site is bounded on southern side by Central Gas Gathering Station (GGS)
Madhuban and western side by Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited (BCPL). At Eastern and
northern sides, there are agricultural lands with semi built portions. Site is free from graveyards; open
wells and bore wells, etc. An Oil Facility ( under construction at time of soil Investigations) is noticed
at location bearing coordinates 27°22'59.59"N (3031043.14m N) and 95°19'59.66"E (730739.91m E)
with a pipeline of diameter 36’’ from BCPL is also noticed. In addition there are buried OIL Pipelines.

Details are shown in topographic survey drawing number TCE 7547A-100-SI-6002 and same shall be
referred to.
NOTE
‘During construction, excavations in vicinity of existing utilities (surface /sub-surface or above
surface), adequate care shall be taken so that surface sub-surface, above surface utilities and their
foundations are not damaged’
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Stratigraphy
Open site -STF Area - Covers BH-1 to 21 excluding BH-14 & 15
The topsoil cover generally varies between 0.2 to 0.3m throughout the site and comprises of grass.
Sub-soil further below comprises of relatively homogenous soil formations comprising clayey silt
followed by silty sand and once again by clayey silt. The final layer in all boreholes is very dense silty
sand progressively densifying with depth. However, rock was not encountered within maximum
explored depth of 39.5m.
CGGS Area (Future expansion)- BH-14 & BH-15

These two boreholes come within jurisdiction of CGGS (Central Gas Gathering station). The topsoil
0.2 to 0.3m comprises of slushy soil (Refer photograph). Sub-soil further below comprises of
relatively homogenous soil formations comprising clayey silt followed by silty sand and once again by
clayey silt. The final layer in both boreholes is very dense silty sand progressively densifying with
depth. However, rock was not encountered within explored depth of 30m
3.2 Sub-surface and material properties-Relevant description

Consistent with established Geo-technical practices, Longitudinal as well as cross sections covering
specific units /boreholes were considered. Details follow in ensuing paragraphs. For Sub-soil Profile
drawings, refer annexure IV enclosed
3.2.1 Boiler House (BH-1 & 2) and Indirect Bath Unit; (BH-3 & 4)
A four layered sub-soil profile is observed upto explored depth. Details follow
i) Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish Clayey Silt.
ii) Layer II: Greyish Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii) Layer III: Bluish / Dark Greyish / Black Clayey Silt.
iv) Layer IV: Grey Silty Sand with traces of Mica.
Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish Clayey Silt

First layer below the top soil consist of clayey silt of Intermediate compressibility with traces of fine
sand, and the thickness of this stratum is of 3.5 to 5.0m. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 5
to 9, which indicate medium stiff to stiff consistency of this cohesive stratum. This stratum
encountered in all the 4 boreholes. UDS sample was collected from this stratum and shear test as
well as consolidation test conducted on these samples.
Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand with Traces Of Clay & Mica.
Second layer of the generalized subsurface profile has found in all boreholes after the clayey silt
layer. Layer thickness is of order of 7.5m – 9.5 m. This layer has two internal segments Bluish, Clayey
Sand. (IIA) and Grey Silty Sand with traces of mica (IIB). Recorded SPT ‘N’ values are generally in
range of 23 to 86 with some higher values, indicating medium dense to very dense in-situ
compactness. Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay content to be of the order of 30-35% with
sand generally making up for the rest.
Layer III: Bluish / Dark Greyish / Black, Clayey Silt

Thickness of this layer is ranging from 2.00m – 4.30m. This layer is also characterized by dominant
presence of silt and clay particles. Recorded ‘N’ values in range of 8 - 14 indicating stiff in-situ

consistency conditions of this cohesive stratum. UDS samples were procured in this layer and
subjected to intensive laboratory testing essentially shear and consolidation. Results are enclosed
separately.
Layer IV: Greyish, Silty Sand with traces of mica.

This layer is the penultimate layer of Geo-technical explorations and occurs in all boreholes. This
layer is characterized by gradual replacement of clay so consistently found in second and fourth layer
by ‘’medium to fine sand’’ with silt making up the balance. This layer occurs between 14.50 to 17.00m
below the ground level. Recorded SPT ’N’ values are generally greater than 60. It is therefore opined
that this layer will have high strength characteristics.
3.2.2 Tank Farms (BH5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)

i) Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish / Greyish black /Bluish Clayey Silt.
ii) Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii) Layer III: Light Bluish / Greyish Black Clayey Silt.
iv) Layer IV: Greyish, very dense Silty Sand with traces of Mica.
Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish / Greyish Black /Bluish Clayey Silt

sand, and the thickness of this stratum is of 2.5 to 6.0m. This layer has two internal segments
Yellowish, Clayey Silt. (IA) and Dark Grey, Clayey Silt with traces of mica (IB) which is based on N
value consistency assessment. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 5 to 20, which indicate
medium stiff to very stiff consistency of this cohesive stratum. This stratum is encountered in all the 5
boreholes. UDS sample was collected from this stratum and shear test as well as consolidation test
conducted on these samples.
Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand with traces of clay & mica.
layer. Layer thickness is of order of 4.7- 8.95 m. Recorded SPT ‘N’ values are generally in range of
15 to 50 with some higher values, indicating medium dense to dense in-situ compactness. Gradation
analysis indicates silt and clay content to be of the order of 21-24% with sand generally making up for
the rest.
Layer III: Light Bluish / Greyish Black, Clayey Silt

Thickness of this layer is ranging from 4.30- 8.0m. This layer is also characterized by dominant
presence of silt and clay particles. Recorded ‘N’ values in range of 9 - 17 indicating stiff to very stiff
in-situ consistency conditions of this cohesive stratum. UDS samples were procured in this layer and
separately.
Layer IV: Greyish, Silty Sand with Traces of Mica.

by ‘’medium to fine sand’’ with silt making up the balance. This layer occurs between 18.00 to 20.00m
below the ground level. Recorded SPT ’N’ values are generally greater than 60. It is therefore opined
that this layer will have high strength characteristics.
3.2.3 Formation water and clarified water tanks (BH-10 & 11); Dispatch Pump house & Dehydrator
Unit (BH-12 & 13)
ii) Layer II: Greyish Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii) Layer III: Bluish / Dark Greyish / Black Clayey Silt.
iv)Layer IV: Grey Silty Sand with traces of Mica.


First layer below the top soil consist of clayey silt with traces of mica and the thickness of this stratum
is 7.0m. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 5 to 7, which indicate medium stiff to very stiff
consistency of this cohesive stratum in all four holes.
Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand with Traces of Clay & Mica.
At BH-10 to 13 the grayish silty sand layer has a thickness of 8.50 to 10.00m. The SPT “N” value is
recorded 19 to 44 indicating medium dense to dense in-situ compactness. Here also, this layer has
two internal segments Bluish, Clayey Sand. (IIA) and Grey Silty Sand with traces of mica (IIB) which
exhibits higher ‘N’ values. Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay content to be of the order of 30 -
34% with sand generally making up for the rest.
Layer III: Bluish / Dark Greyish / Black, Clayey Silt

Thickness of this layer is 2.00m to 6.00m. SPT N values of this stratum are found 10 to 18 which
indicate stiff in-situ consistency condition of this cohesive stratum.
Layer IV: Greyish, Silty Sand with Traces of Mica.

This layer occurs between 15 to 18.5m below the ground level upto the explored depth. Recorded
SPT ’N’ values are ranging from 50 to >100 indicating ‘very dense’ in-situ compactness.
3.2.4 Future expansion Area (BH-14 &15)

i)Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish Clayey Silt.
ii)Layer II: Greyish / Blackish/ Yellowish / Light Whitish Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii)Layer III: Light Bluish / Dark Greyish / Blackish Clayey Silt.
iv)Layer IV: Grey Silty Sand with traces of Mica.
sand, and the thickness of this stratum is of 3.0 to 3.5m. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 5
to 16, which indicate medium stiff to very stiff consistency of this cohesive stratum. This stratum
encountered in all the 2 boreholes. UDS sample was collected from this stratum and shear test as
well as consolidation test conducted on these samples.
Layer II: Greyish / Blackish/ Yellowish / Light whitish silty sand with traces of clay & mica
layer. Layer thickness is of order of 6.0m – 6.5 m. This layer has two internal segments, Blackish
/Grayish / Light Yellowish Clayey Sand with traces of mica. (IIA) and Grayish / Light Whitish / Silty
Sand with traces of clay & mica (IIB). Recorded SPT ‘N’ values are generally in range of 15 to 47,
indicating medium dense to dense in-situ compactness. Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay
content to be of the order of 24-37% with sand generally making up for the rest.
Layer III: Light Bluish / Dark Greyish / Blackish Clayey Silt.

in-situ consistency conditions of this cohesive stratum. UDS samples were procured in this layer and
separately.
Layer IV: Grey Silty Sand with traces of Mica.

by ‘’medium to fine sand’’ with silt making up the balance. This layer occurs between 16.00m to
17.50m below the ground level. Recorded SPT ’N’ values are generally greater than 60 and
observed refusal at the termination depth. Therefore this layer will have high strength characteristics.

3.2.5 Fire Water Tank (BH-16) & Additional borehole close to Parking shed (BH-21)
ii) Layer II: Greyish / Blackish/ Yellowish / Light Whitish Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii) Layer III: Light Bluish / Dark Greyish / Blackish Clayey Silt.

is 4.0m to 6.50m. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 8 to 14, which indicate stiff consistency of
this cohesive stratum in all two bore holes. UDS sample was collected from this stratum and shear
test as well as consolidation test conducted on these samples.
Layer II: Greyish /Blackish/ Yellowish / Light Whitish Silty Sand with Traces of Clay & Mica
At BH-16 and BH- 21 the grayish / blackish / bluish clayey silty sand with traces of mica layer has a
thickness of 7.50m to 8.0m. The SPT “N” value recorded varies between 21 to 73 indicating medium
dense to very dense in-situ compactness. Here also, this layer has two internal segments Grayish /
Blackish / Bluish Clayey Sand with traces of mica. (IIA) & Greyish silty Sand with traces of clay and
mica (IIB) which exhibits higher ‘N’ values. Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay content to be of
the order of 28 - 30% with sand generally making up for the rest.

in-situ consistency conditions of this cohesive stratum. UDS sample was procured in this layer at BH-
21 and subjected to intensive laboratory testing essentially shear and consolidation. Results are
enclosed separately.

This layer occurs between 17.50 to 18.0m below the ground level upto the explored depth. Recorded
3.2.6 Administration and Canteen Building (BH-17)

i)Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish / Greyish black /Bluish Clayey Silt.
ii)Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii)Layer III: Light Bluish / Greyish Black Clayey Silt.
iv)Layer IV: Greyish, very dense Silty Sand with traces of Mica.
Layer I: Yellowish/ Brownish / Greyish Black /Bluish Clayey Silt

is 7.0m. Here also, this layer has two internal segments Yellowish, Clayey Silt. (Ia) and Dark Grey,
Clayey Silt with traces of mica (Ib) which exhibits higher ‘N’ values. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have
ranges 15 to 19, which indicate medium stiff to very stiff consistency of this cohesive stratum.
Layer II: Greyish, Silty Sand With Traces Of Clay & Mica.
The grayish silty sand layer has a thickness of 3.00m. The SPT “N” value is recorded 51 to 62
indicating dense to very dense in-situ compactness. Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay content
to be of the order of 23% with sand generally making up for the rest.
Layer III: Light Bluish / Greyish Black, Clayey Silt

This layer has two internal segments Grey, Clayey Silt with traces of mica having layer thickness of
3.00m and III B. Dark Bluish / Blackish, Clayey Silt with traces of ‘decomposed wood’ having layer
thickness of 4.70m which shows relatively lower SPT “N” values.
Layer IV: Greyish, Silty Sand With Traces Of Mica.

The layer thickness is 12.75m upto explored depth having the SPT “N” values ranging from 67 to 91.
which indicates a ‘very dense’ layer

3.2.7 Control Room and Electrical Substation (BH-18); Overhead tank for Potable water & Security
Building (BH-19), Captive Power Plant (BH-20)
ii) Layer II: Greyish / Blackish/ Yellowish / Light Whitish Silty Sand with traces of Clay & mica.
iii) Layer III: Light Bluish / Dark Greyish / Blackish Clayey Silt.

is 4.0m to 5.0m. SPT ‘N’ values of this layer have ranges 7 to 15, which indicate medium to stiff
consistency of this cohesive stratum in all two bore holes. UDS sample was collected from this
stratum and shear test as well as consolidation test conducted on these samples.
Layer II: Greyish / blackish/ yellowish / light whitish silty sand with traces of clay & mica
At BH-18, BH- 19 and BH-20 the dark grayish / light yellowish/ whitish silty sand with traces of clay
and mica layer has a thickness of 6.50m to 9.00m. The SPT “N” value is recorded 20 to 56 indicating
medium dense to very dense in-situ compactness. Here also, this layer has two internal
segments at BH-19 & 20, Light yellowish/ Dark Grayish Silty Sand with clay binder and mica. (IIA)
and Dark Greyish Silty Sand with traces of clay and mica (IIB) which exhibits higher ‘N’ values.
Gradation analysis indicates silt and clay content to be of the order of 19 - 36% with sand generally
making up for the rest. Borehole 18 the second layer - Grayish, Light Whitish, Silty Sand with traces
of clay and mica has been separated into two segments in respect to the “N” values.

Following the silty sand layer, this layer is observed at the all three boreholes. This layer ranges from
3.50m to 4.00m. Recorded ‘N’ values in range of 12 - 21 indicating stiff to very stiff in-situ consistency
conditions of this cohesive stratum. UDS sample was procured in this layer at BH-18 and subjected
to laboratory testing essentially shear and consolidation.

This layer occurs between 15.5m to 18.0m below the ground level upto the explored depth. Recorded
3.3 Ground water elevations and expected variations

Refer table below
Depth of Water level in

Existing Ground level /
Sl No. BH No Borehole above EGL after 24
(EGL above MSL) (m)
hours of completion (m)
1 BH1 119.184 0.30
2 BH2 119.214 0.30
3 BH3 118.993 0.30
4 BH4 119.157 0.30
5 BH5 118.886 0.30
6 BH6 118.968 0.30
7 BH7 118.988 2.30** below EGL
8 BH8 118.960 0.30
9 BH9 118.848 0.30
10 BH10 119.055 0.30
11 BH11 118.884 0.30 above
12 BH12 119.045 0.20
13 BH13 119.115 0.30
14 BH14 118.178 At EGL

Depth of Water level in

Existing Ground level /
Sl No. BH No Borehole above EGL after 24
(EGL above MSL) (m)
hours of completion (m)
15 BH15 118.330 At EGL
16 BH16 119.018 0.40
17 BH17 119.238 0.30
18 BH18 119.063 0.60
19 BH19 118.766 0.50
20 BH20 119.201 0.80
21 BH 21 119.008 0.80
** Standpipe data -30 Day monitoring after installation, Refer Annexure III for record.
3.4 Description of underground obstructions

Generally, no underground obstructions either in form of boulder formations /localized gravel pockets
were observed in all boreholes that were drilled. Hard rock was not encountered within explored
depth of 39.5m. Buried utilities which are noticed are located well away from borehole locations.
3.5 Chemical attack potential for concrete and underground facilities

Refer section on chemical tests and electrical resistivity tests.
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
4.1 Description of sampling procedures

4.1.1 Boring /drilling and termination criteria
All 21 boreholes were bored/drilled using rotary drilling rigs capable of drilling upto-required depth.
Casing / bentonite slurry was used to stabilize side of boreholes and avoid caving, while drilling. Size
of borehole was 150mm. Methodology of boring conformed to stipulations of IS: 1892. Refer
Annexure IA for borelogs
Borehole Termination criteria

Borehole termination criteria was specified as one of the following criteria occurred first, whichever
occurred first
• 30-35m depth
• 5m in Refusal strata
• 3m in Hard Rock
All boreholes were terminated as instructed by Client’s Engineer-in-charge at site. Depth of boreholes
varied from 30 to 39.50m. A Point to be additionally noted is Tank farm; all the boreholes were drilled
upto minimum 35m depth regardless of sub-soil stratification encountered. One borehole (viz.) BH-7
in center of tank farm was drilled up to 39.5m essentially to ascertain the presence of rock beyond
35m. However rock is not met with.
4.1.2 Collection of Disturbed samples

Disturbed samples were collected using SPT split spoon sampler at 1.0m intervals upto 8m depth,
thereafter 1.5m intervals upto 12m depth and from thereon, 2m intervals upto termination depth. In
few boreholes, SPT was conducted at intervals of 1.50 to 3.00m.
4.1.3 Collection of Undisturbed samples

UDS Samples were procured in clay layer alternately with SPT in every borehole.
4.2 Description of field tests

4.2.1 Standard Penetration test (SPT)
This is a field test used to determine ‘penetration resistance of soil’. The methodology adopted
conformed to IS: 2131. In this test driving bit (50.8mm OD and 35mm ID) is replaced with split spoon
sampler. Sampler is then driven by dropping 63.5 kg hammer through a 15cm ‘initial seating drive’.
Number of blows required for driving the sampler 30 cm beyond seating drive is termed as
‘penetration resistance’ ‘N’. Where full 30cm penetration was not possible, number of blows and
corresponding penetration was recorded and same is shown in borelogs (Annexure IA).

4.2.2 Field permeability test

The field permeability test was conducted select boreholes generally between 0.0 to 4.50m due to
presence of shallow water levels. However in select boreholes, permeability tests were conducted at
deeper depths also in clayey silt layer as per client instruction. The test was conducted as per IS
5529 part I by “falling head method” in order to ascertain the “permeability characteristics” of the
stratum. Refer Annexure II for field records
Permeability Computations
The coefficient of permeability (k) is calculated as follows.
k = (d)2/ 8L loge (L/R) loge ( (h1/ h0) / (h2 / h0))/ t2 - t1 , where
k = coefficient of permeability in cm /sec.
d = diameter of intake/ stand pipe in cm.
L = length of the test zone in cm.
h1 = head of water in the stand pipe at time t1 sec, in cm
R = radius of the hole in cm.
Table shows field permeability values at tested depths in boreholes
Existing
Conducted ground level Test section
Sl No k (cm/sec)
in BH No. (elevation above below EGL (m)
MSL) in m
1 BH-2 119.214 0.0-3.0 1.10x10-6
2 BH-4 119.157 6.0-9.0 6.01x10-7
3 BH-6 118.968 1.5-4.50 6.70x10-7
4 BH-7 118.988 0.0-3.0 9.49x10-7
5 BH-10 119.055 6.0-8.0 1.49x10-6
6 BH-12 119.045 1.0-3.0 2.96x10-6
7 BH16 119.018 0.0-3.0 1.28x10-6
8 BH-17 119.238 0.0-3.00 2.73x10-8
9 BH18 119.063 0.0-3.0 3.17x10-6
10 BH19 118.766 0.0-3.0 3.34x10-6
Based on permeability, the layer is classified as “Low Permeability’’ soil (Degree of Permeability
based classification -Terzaghi & Peck, 1948)
4.2.3 Installation of Standpipe and water level monitoring

Standpipe was installed in BH-7. Salient details are tabulated below
SL SP Installed Existing Ground Depth of installation Water level below

No. No in BH No level (m) below EGL (m) EGL (m) after 30 days
1 SP-1 BH-7 118.988 39.50m 2.30m
Procedure for installation

In the 150mm borehole drilled, 75mm PVC jointed pipes glued with special PVC adhesive and having
vertical hand cut slots (<2mm width) were installed in final 1.5m. The gap between the PVC pipe and
surrounding sides of borehole was filled with sand. The last 1.5m (below the existing ground level)
was filled sequentially, first 0.5m using bentonite pellets and the final 1.3 (1+0.3m projection above
ground level) using rich cement –sand mix. All round base support to the PVC casing was provided in
form of thick PCC platform. The free projected portion of the casing is approximately 500mm. The
end was sealed with a bore cap.
Ground water level monitoring post installation

On completion of installation, water levels were recorded on daily basis upto 7 days and thereafter
after 30 days. Observation Records are enclosed separately as an Annexure III. A Point to be noted
is flushing was done on the day of installation and covered by cap at the top.

4.3 Logs of borings

4.3.1 Exploratory boreholes
Borelog Records are enclosed separately as Annexure IA and following necessary information is
included.
a)Description and thickness of each stratum encountered
b)Locations referenced to coordinates (Northing and Easting)
c)Ground surface elevation at test location (referenced to MSL Datum)
d)Standard penetration test values per 15cm (150mm) and ‘N’ value
e)Water level after 24 hours of borehole completion
f)Additional field tests in boreholes (Field permeability)
5.0 LABORATORY TESTS

Following laboratory tests were carried out on representative soil samples
Geo-technical Properties (Borehole soil samples/CBR Pits)

• Natural Moisture content, bulk and dry density (for UDS /Core cutter samples/SPT Samples)
• Sieve and hydrometer analysis
• Engineering classification of soil as per IS:1498
• Atterberg’s limits - liquid limit, plastic limit
• Specific gravity for soil
• Shear strength (Triaxial/Direct/UCS depending on soil type)
• Consolidation tests for UDS clayey silt samples
• Differential free swell index tests
• Modified Proctor Compaction for Bulk Soil samples from CBR Pits
• Soaked and Un-soaked CBR tests for Bulk Soil samples from CBR Pits
Geo-technical Properties (Filling material from Dihing River)

• Sieve analysis
• Atterberg’s limits - liquid limit, plastic limit
• Specific gravity for soil
• Standard Proctor Compaction
• Differential free swell index
Chemical analysis for soil and water samples

Following chemical tests on selected soil samples and water samples from all boreholes
were conducted.
Soil samples
• pH
• Chloride content in percentage
• Sulphate as SO4 and SO3 in percentage
Ground water samples collected from borehole locations

• pH
• Chloride content in mg/lit
• Sulphate as SO4 and SO3 in mg/lit

5.1 Standards adopted
5.1.1 Geo-technical Properties

Laboratory Test Parameter IS Standard
Grain size analysis of soil IS - 2720 Part - 4
LL & PL of soil IS - 2720 Part - 5
Specific Gravity of soil IS - 2720 Part - 3
Natural moisture content ( Soil ) IS - 2720 Part - 2
Free Swelling Index IS - 2720 Part - 40
Direct Shear Test IS - 2720 Part - 13
Triaxial Test (UU) IS - 2720 Part - 11
Consolidation IS - 2720 Part - 15
Compaction (Standard and Modified) IS - 2720 Part - 7 & 8
CBR (California Bearing Ratio) IS - 2720 Part - 16
Results are furnished as an Annexure V
5.1.2 Chemical Properties
Laboratory Test Parameter

Testing Protocol
(Soil Sample in aqueous extract)
pH IS - 2720, Part 26
Chloride as cl in mg/kg Titration with Silver Nitrate Method
Sulphate as SO4 and SO3 in %, IS - 2720, Part 27
Laboratory Test Parameter

Testing Protocol
(Water sample from borehole)
pH IS - 3025, Part 11
Chloride content in mg/lit, IS - 3025, Part 32
Sulphate as SO4 and SO3 in mg/lit, IS - 3025, Part 24
Results are furnished in the ensuing page.

CHEMICAL TESTS ON WATER SAMPLES FROM SOIL EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES
Sulphate
BH Chloride
Location pH SO4 SO3
No. mg/l mg/l mg/l
Boiler House BH-01 6.77 2.022 1.933 5.087
Indirect Bath Heater
BH-02 6.85 1.572 1.156 7.635
Unit
Circulation Pump
house and Chemical BH-03 6.73 2.758 2.570 6.750
dosing unit,
Dehydrator unit,
Cooling Tower+ Heat BH-04 6.63 2.241 1.878 4.992
exchanger
BH-05 6.08 2.632 2.473 7.498
BH-06 6.35 1.316 1.032 6.408
Tank Farms BH-07 6.43 1.966 1.927 6.750
BH-08 6.20 2.504 2.369 5.441
BH-09 6.12 2.034 1.412 7.290
Formation Water
BH-10 6.17 2.07 1.524 7.532
Tank
Clarified Water Tank
and water Pump BH-11 6.66 1.591 1.252 6.69
House
Effluent Treatment BH-12 6.41 2.788 2.466 5.021
Plant BH-13 6.48 2.542 2.337 6.92
BH-14 6.59 1.463 1.322 6.577
Future Expansion
BH-15 6.69 2.73 2.499 9.167
Fire Water Tank BH-16 6.58 2.619 2.153 6.743
Administration
BH-17 6.18 1.3058 1.237 4.805
Building
Additional borehole
near administration BH-21 6.80 2.328 1.916 7.247
Building
Control Room ,
BH-18 6.75 1.814 1.623 8.111
Electrical Sub Station
Captive Power Plant BH-20 6.77 2.522 2.215 8.355
Watch Tower,
Overhead tank for
portable water, Over BH-19 7.03 1.632 1.382 6.437
head tank for
industrial water
500mg/l for PCC
Limits as per IS:456-2000, Not
>6 400 mg/l Works and 2000
Table 1 defined
for RCC Works

CHEMICAL TESTS ON UD SOIL SAMPLES IN (SOIL :WATER) EXTRACT

BH Sample Depth Sulphate
Chloride
Location pH SO4 SO3
No. No. (m)
% % %
Boiler House BH-01 UDS-1 3.00 7.07 0.0027 0.0019 0.008
Indirect Bath
BH-02 UDS-1 14.50 6.94 0.0045 0.0031 0.013
Heater Unit
Circulation Pump
house and
BH-03 UDS-1 2.00 6.60 0.0040 0.0033 0.009
Chemical dosing
unit,
Dehydrator unit,
Cooling Tower & BH-04 UDS-3 13.00 7.13 0.0017 0.0012 0.006
Heat exchanger
BH-05 UDS-1 2.00 6.63 0.0048 0.0046 0.011
BH-06 UDS-2 14.00 6.26 0.0034 0.0024 0.009
Tank Farms and
BH-07 UDS-1 2.00 7.05 0.0016 0.0010 0.013
Future
BH-08 UDS-2 12.00 7.13 0.0042 0.0033 0.011
BH-09 UDS-1 9.00 6.82 0.0041 0.0038 0.010
Formation Water
BH-10 UDS-1 2.00 7.03 0.0041 0.0028 0.014
Tank
Clarified Water
Tank and water BH-11 UDS-2 14.50 6.85 0.0020 0.0027 0.011
Pump House
BH-12 UDS-1 2.50 7.15 0.0033 0.0025 0.006
Effluent Treatment
Plant BH-13 UDS-3 15.50 6.98 0.0019 0.0014 0.008
BH-14 UDS-1 2.00 6.13 0.0056 0.0047 0.0039

Future Expansion
BH-15 UDS-2 14.50 6.81 0.0067 0.0056 0.0072
Fire Water Tank BH-16 UDS-1 2.50 6.42 0.0044 0.0034 0.0038
Administration BH-17 UDS-1 1.50 6.52 0.0033 0.0027 0.0070
Control Room ,
Electrical Sub BH-18 UDS-1 3.00 6.65 0.0047 0.0035 0.0064
Station
Watch Tower,
Overhead tank for
portable water, BH-19 UDS-1 2.00 6.74 0.0045 0.0037 0.0044
Over head tank for
industrial water
Captive Power
BH-20 UDS-1 2.50 6.59 0.0072 0.0067 0.0067
Plant
Additional borehole
near administration BH-21 UDS-2 13.50 6.06 0.0049 0.0042 0.0052
Building
CONCLUSION
From the above chemical test results, it can be seen clearly that all the three parameters (i.e.) pH,
chlorides and sulphates are well within permissible limits in soil samples. Sulphate content as SO3 is
<1.9% permitted by IS 456, Table 4. To conclude, Ordinary Portland cement can be used. No Special
measures are necessary.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Type of foundation
Type of foundations depends essentially on configuration and nature of facility, magnitude of load
transfer envisaged and sub-soil data. In this report, for tanks both shallow & deep foundations are
considered. For plant facilities and installations and administration building- shallow foundations are
considered. Recommendations are based on shear failure & 25mm settlement criteria for
footings (regardless of shape) of 1-5m wide and for rafts (>6m wide), 40mm total settlement.
Recommendations have been additionally provided for minor /lightly loaded structures, non-sensitive
to settlements.
6.2 Basis for selecting depth and type of shallow foundation

6.2.1 Shallow foundations
Boiler House, Indirect bath Unit, Dehydrator Unit and Dispatch Pump House (BH-1, 2,3 and 4)
Open foundations having a minimum width of 1m and upto 6m have been considered. Based on
Geo-technical considerations and facility envisaged, minimum depth of foundation suggested is
1.50m below ground level. In addition, recommendations have been provided at 3.00m depth.
Recommendations are based both on shear & 25mm settlement criteria for footings of 1- 5m wide
and for rafts, 40mm settlement has been considered.
Tank Farms (BH-5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Heavy load transfer (i.e.) of the order of 15-20t/m2 (During Hydro Testing) is expected in case of tank
foundations (it is understood that storage height of tank is 12-18m. In case of tank foundations, it is
expected that foundations will be wide circular raft foundations. Since total allowable settlement for
tank foundations has not been specified, permissible total settlement has been considered as 40mm
(same as rafts).
Formation water & Clarified water tanks (BH-10 & 11)

Heavy load transfer (i.e.) of the order of 18-20t/m2 (During Hydro Testing) is expected in case of
Formation Water tank foundations (it is understood that storage height of tank is 18.0m). In case of
tank foundations, it is expected that foundations will be wide circular raft foundations. Since total
allowable settlement for tank foundations has not been specified, permissible total settlement has
been considered as 40mm (same as rafts).
Effluent Treatment plant with oil sludge Pit (BH-12 & 13)
Based on Geo-technical considerations and facility envisaged, minimum depth of foundation
suggested is 1.50m below ground level. In addition, recommendations have been provided at 3.00m
depth. Recommendations are based both on shear & 25mm settlement criteria for footings of 1- 5m
wide and for rafts, 40mm settlement has been considered.
Future expansion (BH-14 and 15)

wide and for rafts, 40mm settlement has been considered. A point to be noted is that this area was
waterlogged ,slushy (during soil investigations) and Engineering filling is highest here.
Fire Water Tanks (BH-16)

2
Load transfer (i.e.) of the order of 11-12t/m (During Hydro Testing) is expected in case of Fire water
tank foundations (it is understood that storage height of tank is 10.5m). In case of tank foundations, it
is expected that foundations will be wide circular raft foundations. Since total allowable settlement for
tank foundations has not been specified, permissible total settlement has been considered as 40mm
(same as rafts). Based on Geo-technical considerations and facility envisaged, minimum depth of
foundation suggested is 1.50m below ground level. In addition, recommendations have been
provided at 3.00m depth.

Administration Building (BH-17)

Control Room and Electrical Sub-station, Overhead tank for Potable water & Security
Building , Captive Power plant, Close to Parking shed (BH-18, 19, 20 and 21)
6.3 Shallow foundations - Approach methodology

For shallow foundations, supporting capacity of soil at the founding level (below existing ground level)
considered is based on both shear and settlement.
Shear failure criteria recommended by IS-6403

The calculations are based on "TERZAGHI" bearing capacity equation as recommended by IS: 6403
as under for type of shear failure, purely cohesive soil, φ =0
Net UBC = c*Nc*Sc*dc+ γ *D*(Nq-1) *Sq*dq + 0.5* γ *B*Νγ*Sγ*dγ where,

Nc, Nq & Nγ : Bearing Capacity Factors for Shear Failure depending on void ratio
sc, sq & sγ : Shape Factor, dc, dq & dγ : Depth Factor (Assuming proper backfilling)
ic, iq & iγ : Inclination Factor, W’: Water Table Correction
Net Safe bearing capacity (SBC) is the maximum intensity of loading that the foundation will safely
carry without the risk of shear failure of soil irrespective of any settlement that may occur. Net Safe
bearing capacity can be obtained by dividing the Net UBC with a factor of safety generally 2.5.
Net SBC = Net UBC/2.5
NOTE
Factor dc is applied in SBC calculation assuming backfilling will be done with proper compaction
(IS-6403 guidelines)
Settlement Criteria
The calculations are based on Immediate and long term Settlement using Standard Soil Mechanics
formulae. In settlement calculations (Bowles method). In calculations, Influence zone below
foundation has been considered as 2B or upto incompressible layer/ hard strata, whichever is
first.
Total settlement (S) = Immediate settlement (Si) +Consolidation settlement (Sc)

Si = qn*B*(1-μ)*If / Es
Where,
qn = Net foundation pressure,
B = Width of foundation,
μ = Poisson’s ration,
If = Influence factor,
Es = Modulus of Elasticity = 250*c for clay soil, Es = 2000 t/m2 for Silty Sand (Bowels – Table – 2-8).
c = cohesion of the soil= Varies from 3.45 to 8.8 t/m2
Sc = Δp*mv*H
Δp = Pressure increment,
mv = Coefficient of volume compressibility =1/Es,
H = Thickness of compressible stratum.
Specimen calculations is given in Annexure VI
Settlement so obtained is finally corrected for effect of water table (immediate settlement)
rigidity, embedment (depth) and λ (clay layer) as per IS:8009 (Part 1)

6.3.1 Laboratory Shear Strength Parameters
In consideration of more or less uniform sub-soil prevalent in this site, shear strength parameters
based on testing at Borehole locations is tabulated below for ease of Engineering understanding.
Depth wise summary is tabulated below.
Clayey Silt Layer
Sample Bulk
UCS UU shear
Depth density φ
BH No below (deg)
EGL (m) (t/m3) c (t/m2) c (t/m2)
1 14.00 1.89 - 5.50 0.22

2 14.50 1.88 4.05 - -
3 14.00 1.88 5.40 - -
4 13.00 1.89 - 5.40 0.62
2.00 1.89 4.15 - -
5 12.50 1.94 - 6.80 0.54
15.50 1.94 - 6.90 0.50
2.00 1.88 - 8.20 0.81
6
14.00 1.92 - 7.00 0.88
2.00 1.83 4.25 - -
7 12.00 1.94 - 7.50 0.63
15.00 1.96 - 8.80 0.75
2.00 1.85 3.45 - -
8
12.50 1.92 - 6.10 0.83
2.00 1.89 - 7.00 0.69
9
12.50 1.93 4.75 - -
2.00 1.90 4.10 - -
10
14.00 1.95 - 8.00 0.23
2.00 1.86 3.95 - -
11
14.50 1.90 - 7.10 0.33
12 2.50 1.87 3.50 - -
12.50 1.92 5.50 -
13
15.50 1.93 - 7.1 0.50
2.00 1.85 - 4.20 0.41
14
11.50 1.95 4.9 - -
2.25 1.89 - 8.10 0.46
15
14.50 1.90 7.15 - -
16 2.50 1.90 - 6.20 0.50
1.50 1.87 3.45 - -
17
15.00 1.94 - 6.60 0.91
3.00 1.91 - 5.90 0.89
18
14.00 1.90 6.65 - -
19 2.00 1.88 - 4.00 0.21
20 2.50 1.91 - 6.40 0.47
3.00 1.93 - 6.40 0.47
21
13.50 1.91 8.35 - -

Silty Sand Layer
Remolded
Sample Direct shear
density
BH No Depth below
EGL (m) (t/m3) c (t/m2) φ (deg)
1 28.45+30.45 2.08 0.4 32
2 23.45+25.45 2.21 0.1 35
3 26.45+28.45 2.21 0.3 34
4 20.95+22+95 2.16 0.2 35
5 20.45+22.45 2.00 0.2 33
6 24.45+26.45 2.10 0.2 35
7 32.95+34.83 2.20 0.3 34
8 26.45+28.45 2.10 0.3 33.4
9 18.95+20.45 2.10 0.2 35
10 28.95+30.95 2.16 0.2 32
11 33.71+35.20 2.20 0.5 34
12 26.45+28.95 2.20 0.6 32
13 18.95+20.45 2.20 0.9 29
14 26.45+28.22 2.18 0.1 34
15 25.87+27.86 2.20 0.3 36
16 26.95+28.95 2.17 0.1 34
17 27.45+30.45 2.10 0.4 36
18 24.45+26.35 2.16 0.2 33
19 24.45+26.25 2.17 0.0 35
20 25.95+27.95 2.16 0.2 36
21 21.95+23.95 2.17 0.1 33
6.3.2 Recommendation
For structures other than tanks, exact magnitude of load transfer is not available. Safe bearing
capacities have been recommended for foundations placed at 1.50m and 3.00m depth below existing
ground level. Specific details ensues

regardless of shape
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
BH-1,2,3,4 1-2 9.50
3.0 2-5 8.00
>6m 6.50
BH- 5 to 9 Covered separately
BH-10 & 11 Covered separately
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
1-2 9.50
BH- 12 & 13 2-5 8.00
3.0 >6m 6.50
2-5 7.50
>6m 6.50
Table contd..


regardless of shape
1-2 8.00
1.5 2-5 6.00
>6m 5.00
BH-14 & 15**
1-2 8.50
3.0 2-5 7.00
>6m 6.00
BH-16 Covered separately
1-2 8.40
1.5 2-5 6.50
>6m 6.00
BH-17
1-2 9.90
3.0 2-5 7.50
>6m 6.50
1-2 8.00
BH-18,19,20 1.5 2-5 6.00
& 21 >6m 5.50
3.0 1-2 9.00
NOTE
a.*For strip, L should not exceed B.
b.**BH-14 & 15 -Design recommendation valid for condition of ‘’slushy soft soil ‘’removed &
replaced with good quality soil (Waterlogged area)
c.In net SBC calculations, ground water table is considered at existing ground level
d.Factor dc value adopted in Net SBC calculations (IS-6403 guidelines) considers ‘’backfilling to be done
with proper compaction’’
6.3.3 Recommendation for Lightly loaded structures

Foundations for minor / lightly loaded structures, non-sensitive to settlements and transferring
pressure not exceeding 5t/m2 can be placed at depth of H/2 or existing ground level, whichever is
deeper. H= Height of Controlled fill above the existing ground level. In cases where height of
Controlled filling above ground is less than 0.50m, foundations shall be placed at existing ground
level
• Minimum width of footing shall be 1m and maximum shall be 2m.

• Strip footings shall be connected with tie beams at the foundation level
• Design SBC for footings of 1-2m wide remains restricted to 5t/m2
• Wider footings including rafts shall be invariably placed at existing ground level after thorough
inspection of strata at the founding level, net SBC remains restricted to 3t/m2.
Following aspects hold additional validity for shallow foundations

• Prior to placement of foundations; stratum shall be thoroughly checked for loose soil pockets.
• Same if found shall be replaced with good quality soil, properly compacted to minimum 90% of
Laboratory Standard Proctor Density or as directed by Engineer-in-charge. In addition, prior to
placement of foundations, a mud mat (lean concrete) layer of suitable thickness shall be provided
to counteract uplift pressures.
• For foundations placed in natural /virgin soil, over-excavation and loosening of strata at the
founding level shall be avoided
• Backfilling after casting foundations shall be done in layers not exceeding 150mm loose thickness.
• Suitable drainage measures shall be provided so that water such as rainfall run off /seepage flows
do not stagnate at the founding level
Backfilling around underground liquid storage structures shall be allowed only after successful
hydro-testing and when so certified by the Engineer-in-charge.

6.4 Recommendations for deep foundations

It is obvious from previous paragraph that in case of tanks, load transfer envisaged is much higher
than SBC derived from shear criteria even upto 3m depth. Considering the presence of high water,
table, deep excavations may not be feasible; hence deep foundations may be necessary for tanks.
6.4.1 Pile foundations

Considering sub-soil characteristics, presence of adjacent facilities such as CGGS Madhuban and
BCPL Compressor station close to the STF Site, Bored Cast-In-Situ appears to be most feasible type
of deep foundation compared to driven piles. Pile bearing capacity in axial compression is arrived
based on the static approach. Separate evaluation of shaft friction and end bearing forms the basis of
this approach. The following design parameters have been adopted
• Type: Bored cast-in-situ

• Diameter of the pile: 450,500,600, 750, 900 & 1000mm respectively
• Load transfer: Friction cum end bearing (last 5m of concreted length)
• Embedment strata: Final 5m of concreted length with SPT N >50 consistently
• Design Pile cut off level: Adopted as 1.00 m below existing ground level
• Concreted length below cut off: Refer Summary
• Calculations: Are as per Static approach suggested in IS-2911, revised
6.4.2 Methodology for Axial Load from Geotechnical Criteria

Safe Axial capacity
Q ultimate = Qskin friction + Q end bearing (i.e.) Q ultimate = fs As + fb Ab elaborated below
Pile Foundation in Granular soils

The ultimate load capacity (Qu) of piles, in granular soils is given by the following formula:
Qu = Ap(1/2DγNγ + PDNq) + Σni=1 Ki PDi tanδiAsi
The first term gives end-bearing resistance and the second term given skin friction resistance. In first
term, Term involving ½ DγNγ is generally ignored as value is quite small compared to PD Nq , where
Ap = cross-sectional area of pile tip, in m2;D = diameter of pile shaft, in m
γ = effective unit weight of the soil, in kN/ m3 or t/ m3
Nq = bearing capacity factor based on angle of internal friction φ at pile tip and from
curve of IS-2911, Part 1 -Sec 2 Nγ= bearing capacity factor from IS-6403
PD = effective overburden pressure at pile tip in kN/m2
Σνι=1=Summation for layers 1 to n in which pile is installed and which contribute to positive skin
friction;
Ki = coefficient of earth pressure applicable for the ith layer
PDi = effective overburden pressure for the ith layer, in kN/m2 or t/ m2 satisfying critical depth
concept
δι = angle of wall friction between pile and soil for the ith layer; and
Asi = surface area of pile shaft in ith layer, in m2
Pile Foundation in Cohesive soils
The ultimate load capacity (Qu) of piles, in cohesive soil is given by the following formula:
Qu = Ap Nc Cp+Σni=1 αici Asi
The first term gives the end the second term gives the skin friction resistance, where
Ap = cross-sectional area of pile tip, in m2;
Nc = bearing capacity factor, may be taken as 9:
cp = average cohesion at pile tip, in kN/m2 or t/ m2
Σni=1 = summation for layers 1 to n in which the pile is installed and which contribute to positive skin
friction;
αi = adhesion factor for the ith layer depending on the consistency of soil,
ci = average cohesive for ith layer, in kN/m2; and
Asi = surface area of pile shaft in the ith layer,
The recommended factor of safety is 2.5 for safe axial load

6.4.3 Axial Capacity-Concrete strength criteria

The axial capacity of a pile is given by the cross-sectional area of pile multiplied by stress in direct
compression (σcc) which depends on grade of concrete (From IS:456-2000). For design calculations,
grade of concrete is assumed as M25.
6.4.4 Uplift Capacity-Geotechnical Criteria

The uplift capacity of a pile is given by sum of frictional resistance and the self weight of the pile
(buoyant). The recommended factor of safety is 3.0.
6.4.5 Uplift Capacity-Concrete strength criteria

The uplift capacity of a pile is given by cross-sectional area of pile multiplied by stress in tension (σt)
which depends on grade of concrete (From IS: 456-2000). For design calculations, grade of concrete
is assumed as M25.
6.4.6 Lateral Load Capacity

Approach recommended in IS-2911, Part-1, Sec 2, is followed. Capacities have been recommended
for a deflection of 5mm for fixed Head and assuming M25 grade concrete.
6.5 Design Summary

Safe axial and uplift capacities recommended are the lower of values computed from Geotechnical
criteria and concrete strength consideration and additionally based on design consideration of piles
embedded minimum 5 times pile diameter in very dense silty sand layer with SPT N value >50
consistently. Based on detailed calculations and analysis, safe loads for bored cast-in-situ pile
foundations in Safe axial compression, uplift loading is as under.



Ground level RL(m)
Pile Diameter (mm)
Ground level * (m)

Borehole Location
Concreted Length
Pile Capacity (t)

below l Cut-off
Capacity (t)
condition
(M)
450 1 21.25 73 46 8.09

500 1 21.50 90 54 8.99
BH-5, 6,
7, 8 & 9 600 1 22.00 135 75 10.79
118.848
(Tank 750 1 22.75 218 106 13.48
Farms)
900 1 23.50 331 148 16.18
1000 1 24.00 426 178 17.98
450 1 19.75 74 46 8.09
BH-10,
11 500 1 20.00 93 56 8.99
(Clarified 600 1 20.50 138 78 10.79
and 119.055
formation 750 1 21.25 229 117 13.48
water 900 1 22.00 344 158 16.18
tanks),
1000 1 22.50 440 190 17.98




Ground level RL(m)
Pile Diameter (mm)
Ground level * (m)

Borehole Location
Concreted Length
Pile Capacity (t)

below l Cut-off
Capacity (t)
condition
(M)
450 1 19.25 69 41 8.09
500 1 19.50 88 50 8.99
BH-16
Fire 600 1 20.00 130 70 10.79
119.013
water 750 1 20.75 220 108 13.48
tank
900 1 21.50 335 147 16.18
1000 1 22.00 432 170 17.98
NOTE
Lowest ground level in tankage area boreholes is at BH-9 and is used (conservative design basis).
Lowest ground level in BH-10 & 11 is at BH-11 and same is used (conservative design basis).
Fire water tank- Data from boreholes BH-16 & 21 is used
Specimen Calculations are enclosed in separate Annexure VI. Decision regarding the ‘diameter and
configuration’ of the pile thereof shall be taken by the designer depending upon magnitude of load
transfer.
6.6 Increase in Pile capacities

As per clause 6.9 of IS-2911 (Part 1-Sec 2), maximum permissible safe load of a pile as arising out of
wind loading is 25%. In case of loads arising out of earthquake effects, the increase of safe load on a
single pile shall be limited to the provisions contained in IS 1893 (Part 1). For transient loading arising
out of superimposed loads, no increase is permitted.
6.7 Consideration of negative skin friction

SPT ‘N’ value of the top layer generally has a consistency of medium stiff to very stiff and negative
skin friction is not anticipated.
6.8 Spacing and group action
Decision regarding the ‘configuration of the pile’ shall be taken by the structural designer depending
upon magnitude of load transfer envisaged.
6.9 Load test requirements
Initial load tests shall be carried out as per IS-2911 guidelines to reconfirm the safe loads
recommended above. Pile load tests shall be carried out as per the guidelines of IS: 2911- Part IV to
reconfirm the safe load recommended for axial compression, lateral and uplift capacity in this report.
7.0 OTHER RELAVENT ASPECTS

7.1 Engineered filling
HFL (Highest flood level) at this site is RL+119.103m (Topographic survey was carried out during rain
period of August 2014. Height of filling at respective borehole locations is tabulated as under

Existing Ground Height of filling required

Sl No. BH No level / (EGL above considering to attain FGL
MSL) (m) of RL+120m
1 BH1 119.184 0.816
2 BH2 119.214 0.786
3 BH3 118.993 1.007
4 BH4 119.157 0.843
5 BH5 118.886 1.114

6 BH6 118.968 1.032
7 BH7 118.988 1.012
8 BH8 118.960 1.040
9 BH9 118.848 1.152
10 BH10 119.055 0.945

11 BH11 118.884 1.116
12 BH12 119.045 0.955

13 BH13 119.115 0.885
14 BH14* 118.178 1.822

15 BH15* 118.330 1.670
16 BH16 119.018 0.982

17 BH17 119.238 0.762
18 BH18 119.063 0.937
19 BH19 118.766 1.234
20 BH20 119.201 0.799
21 BH21 119.008 0.992
*In CGGS Area - Waterlogged and slushy at time of soil investigations
7.2 Suitability of existing soil for backfilling

Existing in-situ soil (excavated from CBR Pits) is predominantly cohesive and generally exhibits
intermediate compressibility characteristics. Homogenization with non-plastic admixtures such as
sand/ crushed stone dust may be adopted to reduce the plasticity characteristics in case existing in-
situ soil is intended for use as engineered fill. Trial Proportions shall be finalized based on
appropriate testing. If this is not feasible, alternate backfill materials may have to be identified. This
shall be examined by the client during detailed Engineering design stage.
7.3 River Sand for filling

Sand (Bulk sample) was collected from bed of Dihing River, which is located approximately 4kms
from BOC Gate along the Duliajan-Digboi Main Road. Test Report is attached separately.
Summary of results is as under.
Atterberg’s Standard Proctor

Particle Size Gradation (%)
Limits Compaction
Sample Specific
Medium
Visual gravity MDD

Coarse
Gravel
Sand
Fine Silt & OMC

sand
Description LL PL G (g/cc or
Sand clay (%)
t/m3)
Light
greyish
- - 4.65 82.47 12.88 28.00 NP 2.67 11.00 1.71
brown
River Sand
Differential free swell: Nil
OMC-Optimum Moisture content, MDD-Maximum Dry Density, LL-Liquid Limit, PL-Plastic Limit, NP- Non-plastic

Quarry Map/Lead Chart is enclosed separately
NOTE
Considering magnitude of the project, before undertaking the actual construction, it may be
necessary to identify additional sources and carry out confirmatory material Investigation from the
various sources of materials finally identified by the construction agencies and obtain prior approval
from the concerned authorities
7.4 Stripping of top-soil

In areas identified for major plant facilities, prior to placement of Engineered filling, the topsoil to an
extent of 0.2- 0.3m below the existing Ground level shall be stripped off and shall not be used for
backfilling. Further excavations below the existing ground level will invariably depend upon the exact
depth of foundations and configuration of foundation system to be finalized by the designer. In open
areas, topsoil may be retained depending on future considerations.
7.5 Slope angle for mass excavations

For mass excavations in in-situ soil, a slope of 1.5 to 2H:1V is suggested with proper drainage control
measures. Where sufficient space is not available for this slope, support systems such as shoring
/strutting may be used. Vehicular traffic meant for haulage shall not be allowed near the top of slope
within a horizontal distance equal to depth of temporary excavations. Care shall be taken to ensure
that existing buried /overhead /at ground utilities /structures where present are not damaged
7.6 Engineered Filling - Slope

A slope of 2H:1V (Direct reference to IRC 36 , since height of filling is less than 2m) is suggested with
proper drainage control measures. Where sufficient space is not available for this slope, support
systems such as shoring /strutting may be used. Vehicular traffic meant for haulage shall not be
allowed near the top of slope within a horizontal distance equal to depth of temporary excavations.
Material selection, Quality Control during filling operations & quality control testing shall comply with
BIS/IRC /international codes/Standards
7.7 Ground water control

During Investigations, water was encountered at less than 0.40 to 0.80m depth below ground level. In
tank boreholes, water level was above the ground level due to heavy rains. 7 Day monitoring record
from Standpipe (BH-7) capped at the top also indicated water level to be of order of 2.3m, which
remained unchanged even at the end of 30 days.
At BH-11, water level was above the ground level due to heavy rains. In BH-14 & 15 standing water
above the ground level was noticed (area is waterlogged and slushy).
On account of this aspect, it is anticipated that adequate dewatering measures may be necessary
considering low permeability of clayey silt layer during constructions. This is to enable good site
grading for executing civil construction works. In area around BH-14 &15, vegetal clearance and
slush removal is necessary before placement of Controlled filling. Refer the figure below which shows
the ‘’dewatering methods’’ applicable to different soils

(Reference: Technical Manual –Dewatering and Ground water control- Published by US NAVFAC, Departments of Army,
Navy and Air-force-US Army Corps of Engineers)
Considering the ground topography and sub-soil conditions (clayey silt layer being fine grained soil
with low permeability), gravity drainage measures may not be effective. Dewatering methods that can
be adopted could be wells and or well point with vacuum or electro-osmosis (Refer above
graph).
Actual method of dewatering on a number of factors such as

9Actual ground water levels that prevail during construction period
9Factors such as precipitation /rainfall/presence of surface / sub-surface drainage channels , if
any
9Time availability for construction
9Installation costs & availability of resource for example direct current (Electro Osmosis)
Decision on actual method of dewatering to be adopted shall be decided by the client based on
techno-economic considerations during construction stage
7.8 Expansive soil

Laboratory Differential Free Swell Index tests on clayey silt soil indicate values to be less than 20%
indicating soil as ‘’Low degree of expansion’’ (IS:1498-Table 8). Also considering the fact that project
site is located in heavy rainfall area, swell- shrink of soil is not anticipated.
7.9 CBR pits

9 Trial Pits were excavated upto depth of <1m covering the entire site. A point to be noted is as site
was waterlogged during investigations, CBR pits were excavated at locations where area was
reasonably free from water-logging after intimating Client. Locations are given below.
CBR PITS -Co-ordinate & Elevation

Location Easting Northing Elevation
CBR - 1 730741.00 3031317.00 118.761

Table contd...

CBR PITS -Co-ordinate & Elevation

Location Easting Northing Elevation
CBR - 2 730722.00 3031234.00 118.881
CBR - 3 730764.00 3031118.00 118.905
CBR - 4 730853.00 3031225.00 119.116
CBR - 5 730896.00 3031149.00 118.928
CBR - 6 730877.00 3031025.00 119.107
CBR - 7 730689.00 3031060.00 118.836
CBR - 8 730604.609 3031065.243 119.225
CBR - 9 730564.202 3031082.734 118.967
Tests indicate sub-soil to be clayey silt. 4 day soaked CBR value ranges between 2.67 to 4.01%
(95% Laboratory Proctor MDD Condition). An average soaked CBR value of 3% is suggested for
design (at 95% MDD condition). Results are presented in Annexure V and It is to be noted that
CBR-1, 2, 3,4,5,7 locations had to be changed due to water-logging.
7.10 Percolation test

One field percolation test was carried out as per IS-2470 (P-2) close to administration Building at
depth of 1.40m below EGL. It is noted that even after 28 hours, fall in head was 20mm and thereafter
water level became constant. Rate of percolation is estimated as 35 hours (linear extrapolation). Field
tabulation records are enclosed below.
Time Reading (m) Date

4.00 PM 0.80 19.10.14
8.00 AM 0.78 20.10.14
7.11 Other design parameters
A) Coefficient of friction between soil & concrete /lateral resistance

In Standard Geo-technical practices
• In cohesive /semi-cohesive soils, cohesion is usually taken as 0.50 to 0.75c*
• In cohesionless soils, coefficient of friction is taken as tan φ to 0.67 tan φ∗
(*Reference: Design Aids in Soil Mechanics- Kaniraj)
Basic parameters
Cohesion for clayey silt layer (Layer I) = 4.0t/m2
Angle of internal friction for silty sand (Layer II) = 300 (Remains limited)
Design values
Cohesion value is adopted as 0.625 times Cohesion = 0.625x4 = 2.5 t/m2
Coefficient of friction μ = 3/4 tan φ = ¾ tan (300) = 0.433 ≈ 0.43
Note
Great care during backfilling is required in case designer includes passive resistance to
sliding (Reference: Foundation analysis & design by Bowles)

B) Earth Pressure calculations-Design parameters - In-situ soil

Design cohesion for clayey silt layer (Layer I) = 4.0t/m2
Angle of internal friction for silty sand (Layer II) = φ =300 (Remains limited)
Design bulk unit weight of in-situ soil = 1.9t/m3
Design submerged weight of in-situ soil = 0.92t/m3
Coefficient of active earth pressure = ka= (1-sinφ /1+sin φ)
Coefficient of passive earth pressure = kp = 1/ka= (1+sinφ /1-sin φ)
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest = K0 = 1-sin φ
Design water table = At existing ground level
C) Modulus of sub-grade reaction - In-situ soil

Recommendations are made as per IS-2950 (Part 1)
Method 1: Based on laboratory triaxial compression tests
Es = 100 to 500 Su (Bowles), adopt 300 Su
Su = 2 Cu =2 x40 =80kPa
Es = 300 Su =300x80 = 24000kPa or 2.4x 103 t/m2 or 2.4x102 kg/cm2
ks = 0.65 12√EsB4/EI Es/1-μ2 1/B (Vesic’s equation)
where Es = Elastic modulus of soil
E = Elastic modulus of foundation material
μ = Poisson’s ratio
B = Width of footing
I = Moment of inertia of footing /structure if determined
Since 12th root of the any value x 0.65 will be close to 1, the Vesic‘s equation gets simplified to
ks = Es/(1-μ2) B. Now substitute
Es = 2.4x 102 kg/cm2
μ = Poisson’s ratio = 0.45
For footings < 6m (Consider as 5m)

ks = 2.4x102 /500 (1-0.452) = 0.60 kg/cm3
For B >6m (Consider least dimension of raft as 6m)

ks = 2.4x102 /600 (1-0.452) = 0.50 kg/cm3
Method 2: Average contact pressure and allowed settlement

(Conservative approach & suggested for design)
When the structure is rigid
ks =Average contact pressure of raft /Average settlement of the raft (40mm)
Depth Width of Net SBC (t/m2) based on shear Design modulus of

Boreholes below foundation & settlement failure for square / sub-grade reaction
covered EGL (m) (m) strip*, regardless of shape (kg/cm3)
1.5 >6m 6.00 0.375
BH-1,2,3,4
3.0 >6m 6.50 0.406
1.5 >6m 6.00 0.375
BH- 12 & 13 3.0 >6m 6.50 0.406
1.5 >6m 5.00 0.313
BH-14 & 15
3.0 >6m 6.00 0.375
1.5 >6m 6.00 0.375
BH-17
3.0 >6m 6.50 0.406
1.5 >6m 5.50 0.344
BH-18,19,20 & 21
3.0 >6m 6.50 0.406
Example BH-1,2,3,4 Modulus of sub-grade reaction = (0.6 kg/cm2 x 2.5*) /4cm = 0.375kg/cm3
*Factor of safety

7.12 Time rate of settlement
Time rate for 50% and 90 % of total field consolidation settlement to occur is calculated using a
simple relationship (viz.) tsample /(H)2 sample = tfield /(H)2 field
Time for
Height
Laboratory
of Consolidation Time for 90% field Time for 50% field
Maximum Consolidation
stressed Settlement consolidation consolidation
Height Of (double
Area Layer due to fill (In Years) (In Years)
Fill drainage)
Below load alone
(m) ( in Sec )
The Fill ( in mm)
Single Double Single Double
(m) 50% 90%
drainage drainage drainage drainage
BH- 1 to
BH - 13
( BH-4* is
1.152 5.00 46.56 373 828 6.5 1.6 3.0 0.74
considered
for the
calculation)
BH- 14 to
BH - 15
( BH-14* is
1.822 4.50 79.60 470 1109 7.2 1.80 3.00 0.75
considered
for the
calculation)
BH- 16 to
BH - 21
( BH-19* is
1.234 4.50 47.97 250 750 4.8 1.20 2.0 0.50
considered
for the
calculation)
*Soil conditions in this borehole ‘poor compared to other boreholes’ (based on borehole data)
As seen from √time versus rate of settlement calculations, Time required for achieving 90%
consolidation in clay layer with single drainage is considerable due to fill load itself, quite obvious
since soil encountered as first layer is clayey silt. Note that Load transfer envisaged will be due to fill
as well as due to structures and in stages allowing at least 90% consolidation under each stage
loading.
Inferences
Suitable measures shall be adopted to accelerate the soil consolidation considering project schedule
envisaged. Common method is to adopt prefabricated vertical drains (Wick /Band Drains)
Principle of PVD
The excess pore water pressure that develops as the soil consolidates providing the head to drive
water through the vertical drains. Once consolidation completes, excess pore water pressure
becomes zero and drainage ceases.
PVD- Material characteristics

PVDs are usually available as spools and are inserted into ground using special equipment and
consist of corrugated or textured plastic ribbons surrounded by geo-synthetic filter cloth100mm wide
and 5mm thick.
Spacing and depth of PVD

Typical spacing between PVD is 3m c/c. Required spacing of drains is usually determined by a radial
drainage analysis. Depths of drains are decided based on soil profile in project site and extend
through the most compressible strata that account for major consolidation settlement.

Conclusion
Decision on adopting PVD shall be taken by client during detailed Engineering stage depending on
techno-economic considerations, construction costs, rate of consolidation targeted to be achieved
during construction period. It is suggested to enlist the services of a specialist expert agency who can
execute this kind of highly specialized work.
7.13 Stone Columns

Stone columns involve use of specially designed vibratory equipment to direct compactive energy
upto the required improvement depths. As the vibratory device is withdrawn from the ground,
resulting void is filled with sand, gravel or stone and re-vibrated to ensure densification effort
throughout the penetration. In this report, stone columns have been considered as foundation system
in addition to bored piles for heavy load transferring structures such as tanks. Design details are
summarized below. Calculations are enclosed separately as an Annexure VI.
Depth of footing below existing ground level: 1.50m below existing ground level.
•Type of Arrangement: Equilateral triangle.
•Diameter of stone column ‘d’: 0.80m.
•Spacing 's' : 1.6m c/c
•Design length of stone column from bottom level of footing: 16.5m.
•Safe Design Load of a single stone column: 35T (Load tests to be done as per IS:15284 (P-1))
•Calculated area replacement ratio : 22.67%
As can be seen, for 30m diameter tanks, load capacities are slightly lesser than load transfer
envisaged. It is therefore inferred that upto load intensity of 17t/m2, stone columns can also be
adopted
NOTE
Published literature on behavior /performance of stone columns is ‘location specific’ and this ground
improvement technique relies heavily on quality of construction and field-testing. Great care is
required while testing to accurately assess the safe load capacity. The final design option to be
implemented (Piles /Stone columns) depends on a number of actors like feasibility of method,
magnitude of load transfer, availability of locally available specialist implementation agencies and
other techno-economic considerations. Final decision in this regard is left to the client
7.14 Broad Guidelines for Instrumentation

Instrumentation is an integral component of works involving Engineered filling /Embankment
construction. The need for deciding instrumentation depends on factors such as time allowed for
construction, magnitude of project, availability of specialist monitoring agencies etc
Geo-technical data such as PWP (pore water pressure-both build up as well as dissipation), rate of
settlement /vertical deformations, lateral movement of slopes, uplift pressures, slope stability and
effectiveness of drainage schemes can be monitored on real-time basis.
Instruments commonly adopted include Vibrating wire / standpipe /Casgrande Piezometers,

settlement plates, markers, inclinometers, moisture probes and density measurements etc. The data
so obtained can be used to control rate of placement of fill and for assessing appropriate waiting
periods so that consolidation gets accommodated and shear strength increases. For detailed
reference on instrumentation layout / arrangement, guidelines such as those published by Indian
Roads Congress (for example IRC-75) can be referred. Nevertheless, Geo-technical Instrumentation
has proven to be useful in optimizing construction schedules and costs. Before commencement of
construction of foundations, it is necessary to confirm that Engineered fill has been compacted
/consolidated and can sustain loads likely to be transferred by the proposed structures
7.15 Electrical Resistivity Test (ERT)

Five Electrical resistivity tests were carried out. A Point to be noted is Test was carried out after
monsoons had receded and on dry areas free of water logging. The locations of test were identified
by the client on site so as to obtain maximum information within the area of interest and avoiding
water logged areas. Refer below for exact details

ERT
Number
Centre of area covered by Boreholes BH-1
ERT - 1 730683 3031252 119.167
to 4 covering units 101 to 107
Centre of tank farm

ERT - 2 730785 3031215 118.988
(BH-7) covering unit 108
Centre of area covered by Boreholes BH-
ERT - 3 10 to 13 covering units 109 to 111, 730853 3031184 119.057
nearest borehole is BH-11
ERT - 4 Centre of unit 121 (Electrical Sub-station). 730630 3031050 119.086
Centre of cancelled CPLT-1 (Compressor

ERT - 5 730580 3031102 119.140
House) and additional borehole (BH-21)
Mean Resistivity values are tabulated below.
Pin spacing Mean Resistivity

ERT Number Unit /location
(m) (Ω-m)
1 210
2 134
5 154
Centre of area
10 183
covered by Boreholes
ERT - 1
BH-1 to 4 covering
15 173
units 101 to 107
20 152
25 143
30 134
1 155
2 138
5 166
Centre of tank farm 10 185

ERT - 2 (BH-7) covering unit
108 15 184
20 165
25 150
30 135
1 174
2 118
5 125
Centre of area
10 135
ERT - 3
BH-1 to 4 covering
15 120
units 101 to 107
20 109
25 97
30 95

Pin spacing Mean Resistivity

ERT Number Unit /location (m) (Ω-m)
1 140
2 136
5 124
Centre of area
10 136
BH-10 to 13 covering
ERT - 4
units 109 to 111,
15 140
nearest borehole is
BH-11
20 121
25 123
30 117
1 278
2 154
5 132
Centre of cancelled
10 162
CPLT-1 (Compressor
ERT - 5
House) and additional
15 150
borehole
(BH-21)
20 141
25 125
30 117
Polar curves showing mean resistivity values are enclosed separately for each ERT and each
depth. A point to be noted is mean resistivity values are in general >100 Ohm-m.
CORROSION ASSESSMENT
As per IS 3043 Amendment No.2 January 2010, clause 8.6.1, project site soil is predominantly ‘Very
mildly corrosive’ {corresponding table is appended below}.
Soil Resistivity and Corrosion Relationship

Range of Soil Resistivity (ohm-m) (Class of Soil)
Less than 25 Severely corrosive
25-50 Moderately corrosive
50-100 Mildly corrosive
Above 100 Very mildly corrosive
Anti Corrosion measures for buried metallic utilities shall be adopted consistent with established
practices / National /International standards. Detailed description and recommendations is beyond
the purview of this report.
NOTE
A very relevant aspect is Duliajan experiences heavy intensity of rainfall for most part of the year.
Over and above sub-strata encountered in project site exhibits poor permeability due to presence of
first layer (i.e.) low permeability clayey silt that occurs from surface upto a depth of 3 to 5m generally,
so significant fluctuation in soil moisture content which could influence ‘resistivity’ values, is not
anticipated. Nevertheless, confirmatory resistivity testing may be carried out during construction in dry
period/summer. Final Decision in this regard is left to the client
Field Tabulations and resistivity computation is enclosed in ensuing pages.

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST-FIELD RECORDS AND TABULATION
Coordinates
ERT-No a(m) Multiplier K R (Ohm) X (C) X(P) P (Ohm-m) Direction
&RL (m)
1 6.29 3.585 10 1 225.34
2 12.57 1.135 10 1 142.69
5 31.43 4.965 1 1 156.04
10 62.86 2.900 1 1 182.29
SE-NW
15 94.29 1.855 1 1 174.90
20 125.71 1.255 1 1 157.77
25 157.14 0.915 1 1 143.79
30 188.57 0.640 1 1 120.69
1 6.29 3.370 10 1 211.83

2 12.57 1.045 10 1 131.37
5 31.43 5.145 1 1 161.70
10 62.86 2.970 1 1 186.69
N-S
15 94.29 1.850 1 1 174.43
20 125.71 1.285 1 1 161.54
25 157.14 0.955 1 1 150.07
ERT-1 E- 730683, 30 188.57 0.715 1 1 134.83
(Midway of N-3031252,
BH1,2,3 and 4.) RL-119.167
1 6.29 3.315 10 1 208.37
2 12.57 1.090 10 1 137.03
5 31.43 4.610 1 1 144.89
10 62.86 2.985 1 1 187.63
NE-SW
15 94.29 1.885 1 1 177.73
20 125.71 1.215 1 1 152.74
25 157.14 0.900 1 1 141.43
30 188.57 0.710 1 1 133.89
1 6.29 3.220 10 1 202.40

2 12.57 1.040 10 1 130.74
5 31.43 4.930 1 1 154.94
10 62.86 2.685 1 1 168.77
E-W
15 94.29 1.715 1 1 161.70
20 125.71 1.190 1 1 149.60
25 157.14 0.910 1 1 143.00
30 188.57 0.740 1 1 139.54

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST- FIELD TABULATION & COMPUTATION
Coordinates &
RT-No a(m) Multiplier K R (Ohm) X (C) X (P) P (Ohm-m) Direction
RL (m)
1 6.29 2.810 10 1 176.63
2 12.57 1.110 10 1 139.54
5 31.43 5.310 1 1 166.89
10 62.86 2.700 1 1 169.71
SE-NW
15 94.29 2.050 1 1 193.29
20 125.71 1.580 1 1 198.63
25 157.14 1.070 1 1 168.14
30 188.57 0.760 1 1 143.31
1 6.29 2.720 10 1 170.97

2 12.57 1.050 10 1 132.00
5 31.43 5.410 1 1 170.03
10 62.86 3.195 1 1 200.83
N-S
15 94.29 1.990 1 1 187.63
20 125.71 1.295 1 1 162.80
25 157.14 0.985 1 1 154.79
30 188.57 0.710 1 1 133.89
ERT-2 , E- 730785,
(BH-7, Tank N-3031215,
Farm) RL – 118.988m
1 6.29 2.260 10 1 142.06
2 12.57 1.090 10 1 137.03
5 31.43 5.365 1 1 168.61
10 62.86 2.940 1 1 184.80
NE-SW
15 94.29 1.925 1 1 181.50
20 125.71 1.320 1 1 165.94
25 157.14 0.960 1 1 150.86
30 188.57 0.725 1 1 136.71
1 6.29 2.450 10 1 154.00

2 12.57 1.170 10 1 147.09
5 31.43 5.160 1 1 162.17
10 62.86 2.940 1 1 184.80
E-W
15 94.29 1.930 1 1 181.97
20 125.71 1.310 1 1 164.69
25 157.14 0.935 1 1 146.93
30 188.57 0.700 1 1 132.00

Coordinates &
RL (m)
1 6.29 2.520 10 1 158.40
2 12.57 0.950 10 1 119.43
5 31.43 4.215 1 1 132.47
10 62.86 2.160 1 1 135.77
SE-NW
15 94.29 1.240 1 1 116.91
20 125.71 0.860 1 1 108.11
25 157.14 6.210 0.1 1 97.59
30 188.57 5.090 0.1 1 95.98
1 6.29 2.885 10 1 181.34

2 12.57 0.940 10 1 118.17
5 31.43 4.120 1 1 129.49
10 62.86 2.150 1 1 135.14
N-S
15 94.29 1.280 1 1 120.69
20 125.71 0.850 1 1 106.86
25 157.14 6.025 0.1 1 94.68
ERT-3, 30 188.57 5.125 0.1 1 96.64
E- 730853,
(Midway of
N-3031184,
BH-10,11
RL 119.057m
12,and 13 ) 1 6.29 2.930 10 1 184.17
2 12.57 1.010 10 1 126.97
5 31.43 4.010 1 1 126.03
10 62.86 2.290 1 1 143.94
NE-SW
15 94.29 1.275 1 1 120.21
20 125.71 0.880 1 1 110.63
25 157.14 6.170 0.1 1 96.96
30 188.57 5.010 0.1 1 94.47
1 6.29 2.750 10 1 172.86

2 12.57 0.915 10 1 115.03
5 31.43 3.970 1 1 124.77
10 62.86 2.130 1 1 133.89
E-W
15 94.29 1.315 1 1 123.99
20 125.71 0.920 1 1 115.66
25 157.14 6.500 0.1 1 102.14
30 188.57 5.070 0.1 1 95.61

Coordinates &
RL (m)
1 6.29 2.280 10 1 143.31
2 12.57 1.080 10 1 135.77
5 31.43 3.960 1 1 124.46
10 62.86 2.225 1 1 139.86
SE-NW
15 94.29 1.610 1 1 151.80
20 125.71 1.060 1 1 133.26
25 157.14 0.790 1 1 124.14
30 188.57 0.665 1 1 125.40
1 6.29 2.220 10 1 139.54

2 12.57 1.020 10 1 128.23
5 31.43 3.920 1 1 123.20
10 62.86 2.165 1 1 136.09
N-S
15 94.29 1.580 1 1 148.97
20 125.71 1.130 1 1 142.06
25 157.14 0.820 1 1 128.86
ERT-4, (Near E- 730630, 30 188.57 0.635 1 1 119.74

Electrical N-3031050, RL
Substation) 119.086m
1 6.29 2.325 10 1 146.14
2 12.57 1.160 10 1 145.83
5 31.43 3.980 1 1 125.09
10 62.86 2.470 1 1 155.26
NE-SW
15 94.29 1.635 1 1 154.16
20 125.71 0.980 1 1 123.20
25 157.14 0.740 1 1 116.29
30 188.57 0.600 1 1 113.14
1 6.29 2.090 10 1 131.37

2 12.57 1.250 10 1 157.14
5 31.43 3.840 1 1 120.69
10 62.86 2.380 1 1 149.60
E-W
15 94.29 1.480 1 1 139.54
20 125.71 0.960 1 1 120.69
25 157.14 0.775 1 1 121.79
30 188.57 0.625 1 1 117.86

Coordinates &
ERT-No a(m) Multiplier K R (Ohm) X (C) X (P) P (Ohm-m) Direction
RL (m)
1 6.29 3.490 10 1 219.37
2 12.57 1.080 10 1 135.77
5 31.43 4.205 1 1 132.16
10 62.86 2.430 1 1 152.74
SE-NW
15 94.29 1.680 1 1 158.40
20 125.71 1.290 1 1 162.17
25 157.14 0.900 1 1 141.43
30 188.57 0.660 1 1 124.46
1 6.29 2.670 10 1 167.83

2 12.57 1.230 10 1 154.63
5 31.43 4.240 1 1 133.26
10 62.86 2.445 1 1 153.69
N-S
15 94.29 1.630 1 1 153.69
20 125.71 1.160 1 1 145.83
25 157.14 0.910 1 1 143.00
ERT-5, 30 188.57 0.660 1 1 124.46
E- 730580,
(Midway of
N-3031102,
BH-21 &
RL -119.140m
CPLT-1*) 1 6.29 2.845 10 1 178.83
2 12.57 1.260 10 1 158.40
5 31.43 4.045 1 1 127.13
10 62.86 2.640 1 1 165.94
NE-SW
15 94.29 1.735 1 1 163.59
20 125.71 1.105 1 1 138.91
25 157.14 0.780 1 1 122.57
30 188.57 0.625 1 1 117.86
1 6.29 2.830 10 1 177.89

2 12.57 1.300 10 1 163.43
5 31.43 4.200 1 1 132.00
10 62.86 2.580 1 1 162.17
E-W
15 94.29 1.560 1 1 147.09
20 125.71 1.020 1 1 128.23
25 157.14 0.795 1 1 124.93
30 188.57 0.590 1 1 111.26
*CPLT cancelled due to waterlogged pit at 0.80m

8.0 SHEAR WAVE TESTS

Shear wave tests designated as LA-1 & LA-2 (in this report) were carried out. Details are as under
Unit Nearest Soil test Location Northing (m) Easting(m) RL (m)

Midway of compressor and Midway of CPLT-1* & BH-20
3031065.414 730613.103 119.193
Captive Power plant
Tank Farm Borehole BH-7/SP-1 3031215.22 730785.92 118.980
*Cancelled
Objective of the tests

The purpose of this test was to obtain shear wave velocity (Vs) and profile of shear wave velocity at
the investigated location and assess vulnerability to Liquefaction and deduce dynamic parameters.
Tests were carried out through a specialist agency M/s Parsan, New Delhi. Shear wave velocity data
furnished by M/s Parsan was used as basis and detailed analysis made based on Vs values furnished
as per IS: 5249/Internationally accepted methods of analysis
Principle of MASW
MASW (Multichannel analysis of surface waves) is a ‘low strain’ geophysical method wherein shear
wave velocity profile (Vs versus depth) can be generated by analyzing Rayleigh ‘R’ surface waves on
a multichannel record. Theoretically method is based on dispersion of Raleigh wave in a layered
media (Park 1999, Rix,2005).Dispersion of R wave arises because different frequencies traverse the
medium with different velocities. The latter is due to the fact that penetration depth of R wave is
inversely proportional to its frequency. Thus higher frequencies travel through shallower strata and
lower frequencies propagate mostly in deeper layers. Each frequency carries the information
associated to a specific depth of medium that it is traversing. The record field responses (time
domain signals) constitute the calculation basis for phase velocity –frequency curve (dispersion
image) of the line. Subsequently inversion of constructed dispersion curve leads to estimation of
shear wave velocity profile at the site
Method
The method comprises of number of geophones (usually more than 12). Seismic waves are created
by an impulsive active source (Sledge hammer). These waves are captured by the geophones
/receivers. The captured waves are analyzed using suitable software and comprise the following
steps
9Preparation of a multichannel record ( sometimes called shot gather)
9Dispersion curve analysis
9Inversion
‘Multichannel’ record indicates a seismic data set acquired by using a recording instrument with more
than one channel using seismograph. The Dispersion analysis is the most important step in MASW
and comprises data presentation as a function of phase velocity versus frequency. Point to be noted
is in this site test carried out as a combination of Active MASW (Multichannel analysis of Surface
waves & Passive MASW array (Micro Tremor). While active arrays are useful in obtaining shear wave
velocity at shallow depths, Passive arrays are useful in obtaining shear wave velocity profiles of
deeper depths.
Equipments used
Seismograph Model AMBROGEO 24M Signal enhancement fully digital 24 channel seismograph
Geophones Moving Coil Type , Digital grade vertical & Horizontal Geophones, Natural
frequency 10Hz
Cable Geophone Spread cables , 5/10m spacing, water proof joints, made in Germany
Combination of sledge hammer /Ambient Seismic Noise (Active and Passive
Energy Source
MASW)
Software Appropriate to Analysis

SEISMOGRAPH
AMBROGEO 24M Engineering Seismograph was used to record field data. The Seismograph has
the signal enhancement or stacking capability. The Seismograph recorded the arrival of Seismic
waves through 24 channels. The Seismic waves were displayed simultaneously on the screen.
ENERGY SOURCE
Was induced by tapping a sledge hammer on a plate at one end of profile /using natural noise
/making people jump at various points of the profile. The effort was to generate as much as random
noise as possible in various ways

Low frequency (10 Hz) spike Geophones were used to record Seismic Signals. The general layout of
Seismic Survey Lines was in accordance with coordinate system provided by the client. Shooting
progressed along the lines. Seismic shocks were induced by using sledge hammer while ambient
noise was induced by workmen jumping in unison. Depending on the length available along seismic
lines, 24 channels were used. Seismic spread comprised of five numbers of shots with minimum of
two end shots , two mid shots and one centre shot and noise recordings ( mass run, jump run and
sledge hammers). Care was taken to ensure that the pointed ends (Spikes) of Geophones were fully
embedded in top soil
DATA ACQUISITION
Data acquisition procedure comprised of obtaining five to ten 20 second seismic noise records using
conventional seismograph and P wave geophones. The wave-field transformation of noise record
revealed the shear dispersion wave. The shear -wave dispersion curve from the wave-field
transformation was then manually picked and picks modeled to determine the subsurface shear
waves. During the data analysis, the wave-field from three separate noise records were manually
picked and modeled for purpose of quality control. The resolution of final model was quantified based
on uncertainty of the picks.
Field Testing at Project site

During field testing, it was observed that maximum depth of probing using MASW (energy source
being conventional sledge hammer) was around 11m in linear array MASW technique was not able to
generate the required Rayleigh waves. Since client specified data to be provided upto minimum 30m,
equipment being the same, for deeper depths (Passive MASW-Micro-tremor technique was adopted)
to overcome this constraint.

LA-1

Shear wave Velocity Profile - LA-1
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY FROM FIELD TEST LA-1
Test No Location Depth (m) Vs (m/sec) Corrected Vs (m/sec)

0 - 2.121 137.96 185.85
2.121-5.828 220.22 262.69
Midway of
5.828 -11.422 268.93 312.61
LA-1 CPLT-1
11.422- 28.438 486.49 428.58
Cancelled and
BH-20 28.438- 36.597 398.81 417.65
36.597- 63.17 664.00 -
63.17 - 80.00 929.19 -
*Corrected VS for computing Vs30 using density data of nearest borehole (BH-20)

LA-2

Shear wave Velocity Profile - LA-2
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY FROM FIELD TEST LA-2
Test No Location Depth (m) Vs (m/sec) Corrected Vs

(m/sec)
0 - 2.121 144.452 198.904
2.121 - 6.76 205.065 236.629
Centre of 6.76 - 13.986 245.114 270.071
LA-2 Tank Farms 13.986 -38.228 635.859 507.195
(BH-7) 38.228 - 48.718 376.084 -
48.718 - 71.562 658.589 -
71.562-80.00 1223.599 -
*Corrected VS for computing Vs30 using density data of nearest borehole (BH-7)

8.1.1 Site classification based on NEHRP Vs30
Methodology
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard reduction program) Building Safety Seismic Council (BSSC)
2003 guideline, USA has been used, which is recognized by ASCE (American Society of Civil
Engineers) and Euro-code as well.
SPT N value
Site Class Soil Profile Name Vs30
(Eurocode 8)
A Hard Rock >1500 m/sec
B Rock 760-1500 m/sec
C Very Dense soil and soft rock 360-760 m/sec >50
D Stiff Soil 180-360 m/sec 15 to 50
E Soft Soil <180m/sec <15
F Soils requiring specific site - -
valuation
IS:1893 classification & ASCE 7 classification system

(Vijay Namdev Ghose et al)
IS:1893 ASCE 7 System

Site Class N Value Site Class Shear wave velocity SPT N value
Hard Rock >1524 m/sec -
Type I soil
Rock 762-1524 m/sec -
( Rock or Hard
N>30 Very Dense soil
Soil) 366-762 m/sec >50
and soft rock
Type II Soil
N =10 to 30 Stiff Soil 183-366 m/sec 15 to 50
(Medium Soil)
Type III Soil
N<10 Soft Soil <183m/sec <15
(Soft Soil)
Site E- Soft soil includes any profile with more than 3m soft clay with PI>40, water content>40% and
un-drained shear strength <25kPa
Site F- includes Soils vulnerable to failure and collapse under seismic loading (i.e.)
9Liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays and collapsible weakly cemented soils
9Peat and / highly organic soils more than 3m thick
9Very High PI (PI>75)
9Soft to medium clay layers more than 36m thick
Vs30, where Vs30 is time required for shear wave to travel from a depth of 30m to the ground surface
(not the average shear velocity value).
Vs30 = 30/Σ(d/Vs) where d= Layer thickness up-to ground surface from 30m
Vs = Corrected Shear wave velocity of the respective layers
LA-1, refer the table showing corrected Vs with depths and specimen calculation for VS30
Vs30 = 30 / (2.121/185.85)+ (5.828-2.121)/262.69+ (11.422-5.828)/312.61+ (28.438-

11.422)/428.58+(30-28.438)/417.65
Vs30 = 345m/sec
Similarly, LA-2, Vs30 = 305m/sec
Site classification
Based on Vs30 values and NEHRP classification, ‘project site comes’ under class D (i.e.) Stiff soil
with shear velocity of 180-360m/sec /Type II Site as per Indian Standard IS:1893

8.1.2 Vulnerability to liquefaction
CYCLIC STRESS RATIO CSR ( SANDS)

CRR = 0.65 (amax/g) (σvo/σvo’) rd Where
0.65 (amax/g) = 65% of Peak acceleration stress
amax = Peak ground surface acceleration
σvo and σvo’ = Total and effective vertical overburden stress
In present effective vertical overburden stress considers water table at ground level
rd = Stress Reduction coefficient = 1.0-0.00765z for Z < 9.15m
= 1.174-0.0267z for 9.15<Z < 23m
Project Site is in Assam, Zone V, so assume factor of 0.36g as per IS:1893
CYCLIC RESISTANCE RATIO from Vs

CRR = 0.022 (Vs1/100)2 + 2.8 (1/(V*s1- Vs1) -1/ V*s1) MSF-------(Andrews and Stokoe-1997)
Where,
Vs1 = Shear wave velocity corrected for overburden pressure
V*s1 = Limiting shear wave velocity for liquefaction, varies linearly from
200m/sec for soils with % fines of 35% to 215m/sec for soils with % fines of less than 5%
MSF = 102.24/ Mw 2.56 where Mw = Design Earthquake magnitude other than 7.5
For Earthquake of scale 7.5 scale, MSF =1
The above equation of Andrews and Stokoe is based on assumption that liquefaction in clean sands
would not occur when corrected N value (N1(60))is >30 and limiting shear velocity was estimated as
210m/sec. Based on this estimation, the relationship was provided for limiting shear velocities
distinguishing liquefiable and non-liquefiable layers (i.e.) sands with fines exceeding 35% will NOT
liquefy if their shear velocities Vs1 exceed 200m/sec.
Particle size gradation showing critical zone for liquefaction (Finn 1972)
FINE GRAINED SOILS (CLAYS/SILT-CLAY MIXTURES)

Unlike sands, liquefaction studies of silt-clay mixtures have not received enough attention despite
such kinds of soils occurring extensively worldwide (Shamsher Prakash, University of Missouri).
Liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils not only depend on percentage of fines, but the nature
of the fines itself (Ishihara-1993). Various criteria adopted in International Practice is indicated as
under
Wang’ Chinese Criteria (1981)

Silty Soils which contain less than 15 to 20% clays (particles smaller than 5μm size) and PI more
than 3% can liquefy during a strong Earthquake if its water content is >90% of its liquid Limit.

Modified Chinese Criteria

Since Chinese method for determination of Atterberg’s limits are slightly different from American
method (ASTM), Chinese criteria was modified (Perlea, Koster and Prakash, 1999) and is as under
¾Decrease fines content by 1%
¾Increase liquid limit by 1%
¾Increase moisture content by 2%
Andrews & Martin Criteria (2000)

Based on data from subsequent Earthquakes Andrews and Martin (2000) modified the Chinese
criteria as under
Clay Soils are susceptible to liquefaction if

Fraction finer than 0.002mm <10% and Liquid Limit, LL<32%
Clay Soils are not susceptible to liquefaction if

Fraction finer than 0.002mm >10%
Liquid Limit, LL>32%
A Point to be noted is that in case of clayey soils, when the clay content is less, the clay bridges the
sands (Osipov et al 2005). During cyclic loading, this bridge between the sand gets destroyed and
the soil will liquefy. However when the clay content is more, the clay fills the inter-granular voids and
offers high resistance against liquefaction.
Seed et al Criteria (2003)

(Recent Advances in Liquefaction Engineering- A Unified and Consistent Framework-
Earthquake Engineering and Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley)

Zone A Soils - Potentially susceptible to cyclically induced liquefaction (LL<37% and PI<12)
Zone B Soils - May be liquefiable (LL<47% and PI<20)
Zone C Soils - Not shaded area- Not generally susceptible to cyclically induced liquefaction but they
may be ‘’sensitive’’ and vulnerable to cyclic softening and strength loss with re-moulding or large
shear displacements
Bray and Scancio (2006)- Based on cyclic testing

Soil with moisture content to LL ratio w/LL>0.85 & PI <12- Susceptible to liquefaction
Soil with moisture content to LL ratio w/LL>0.80 & PI <18- Moderately susceptible to liquefaction
Soil with PI >18- Do not liquefy at low stresses
SUMMARY
Uniform fine sands, silts and soils that are saturated, uniform and fine grained are most susceptible
to Liquefaction. Clayey and well graded cohesive soils are susceptible to ‘’ Cyclic strain softening’’,
a lesser problem compared to liquefaction.
As seen from findings of above stated researchers, it is obvious that when PI and clay content is
more than 20%, cohesive soils are not susceptible to cyclically induced liquefaction but are sensitive
to cyclic softening and strength loss /large shear displacements
With Specific reference to this Project site, top clayey silt layer comes under Zone B/Zone C
Borderline (As per Seed et al criteria) . In addition, corrected shear wave velocities in case of both the
tests is of the order of <200m/sec between 0 to 2.1m indicating vulnerability to cyclic softening
and strength loss/large shear displacements during an Earthquake of Magnitude 7.5 with water
table at the existing ground level.
8.1.3 Broad remedial strategies

Broad remediation strategies from Geo-technical considerations* is illustrated below
LIQUEFACTION REMEDIATION
(GEO-TECHNICAL MEASURES)
Improve the soil so that soil skeleton Achieve rapid dissipation of excess
will not collapse under earthquake pore water pressures- examples -
loading drains, replacement with gravels
To increase liquefaction resistance of soil Reduce earthquake induced shear stress

Compaction ratio
Consolidation Example Lower the ground water level, thus
Preloading increasing the effective vertical stress of soil below
Replacement (refilling with material ground water table and reduce the shear stress
that will not undergo liquefaction)
Other improvement methods**

¾Deep and shallow mixing
¾Mass stabilization (Suitable especially for high moisture content soils such as clays, silts,
organic soils and consolidated sediments)
References: * Handbook on Liquefaction remediation of reclaimed land, Port & Harbour Research Institute,
The Netherlands-Relevant excerpts
** Soil Stabilization methods and Materials in Engineering Practice- State of Art Review-
Gregory Paul Makusa, Lulea University of Technology-Sweden --Relevant excerpts

Conclusions
Based on preceding paragraphs, it is opined that thorough inspection of strata at the final founding
level is necessary for localized loose /soft soil pockets, which if found be replaced with good quality
soil such as gravels. Allowing proper consolidation of clayey soil layer and adopting appropriate
dewatering measures will improve the resistance of soil to liquefaction induced ‘’cyclic softening’’
effects during an earthquake. Secondly, considering that Project site comes under zone V of
IS:1893 which is considered ‘vulnerable’ it shall be ensured that construction shall comply with
guidelines laid down by Bureau of Indian Standards for seismically vulnerable areas.
8.2 Machine foundations -Dynamic properties

COMPUTATION OF DYNAMIC PROPERTIES*
Mass Correction
Bulk
Test density G =ρVs2 Factor for Corrected
Depth (m) density μ E (Mpa)
No ρ =γ/g (Mpa) G* = Vs G (Mpa)
γ (t/m3)
(t/m3) (P/σvo) 0.25
0 - 2.121 1.95 1.988 38.56 1.347 51.95 0.50 155.86
2.121 - 5.828 1.95 1.988 98.27 1.193 117.22 0.45 339.93
LA-1 5.828 - 11.422 1.96 1.998 147.29 1.162 171.22 0.45 496.54
11.422 - 28.438 1.96 1.995 481.20 0.881 423.92 0.40 1186.98
28.438-35.000 2.00 2.039 1299.13 1.047 1360.50 0.35 3673.35
0 - 2.121 1.83 1.865 39.68 1.377 54.64 0.50 163.91
2.121 - 6.76 1.90 1.937 83.02 1.154 95.80 0.45 277.83
LA-2 6.76 - 13.986 1.92 1.957 119.87 1.102 132.07 0.45 383.01
13.986 - 38.228 2.00 2.039 538.89 0.798 429.85 0.40 1203.57
38.228-39.500 2.00 2.039 1338.55 0.983 1316.43 0.35 3554.35
* Computed upto nearest borehole explored depth only
*Where P = Atmospheric pressure approximated as 100kPa (10t/m2);
σvo = Initial effective overburden stress in kPa.
*Formula referenced from Sykora, Robertson et al and technical report of NDMA
(Government of India)
Water table -Conservatively assumed water table at ground level itself for purpose of design
calculations
E=2G (1+μ) Poisson’s Ratio is referred from IS: 5249 based on nearest borehole data
COMPUTATION OF PROPERTIES FOR DYNAMIC EQUIPMENT FOUNDATIONS (LA-1)

Area Valid -Compressor House and Captive Power plant (BH-20)
3
Footing E (x10 Kpa) Area of Cu =1.13E/
2 Cτ = Cu/2 Cφ = 3.46Cτ Cψ = 1.5 Cτ
Test No depth below based on contact , (1-μ )√A 3 3 3
2 3 (x 10 kPa) (x 10 kPa) (x 10 kPa)
EGL (m) LA-1 footing** (m ) (x 10 kPa)
LA-1 1.50 - 3.00 155.86 10.00 74 37 128 56
**Exact dimensions of footing is not known, hence assumed.
3
1 MPa = 10 KPa
However, DD Barkan (Dynamics of Bases and Foundations) recommends Cu Values for Various soils
based on Static Load Pressure (Net SBC), reproduced as below
Soil Static Load Static Load

Cu (kPa)
Group Pressure (kN/m2) Pressure (t/m2)
Weak Upto 150 15.00 Upto 30x103
Medium 3
150-350 15.00 to 35.00 30 to 50 x10
strong
Strong 350-500 35.00 to 50.00 50 to 100 x103
Rocks >500 50.00 > 100 x103
1t/m2 = 10KN/m2
Reference: Foundation Engineering by PC Verghese

This variation in Cu value is because MASW is a low strain test & result in higher values. Considering
the fact that net safe bearing capacity for shallow spread foundations is less than 15t/m2 & shear
velocities also less than 200m/sec upto 2.1m for design purposes, following values have been
suggested as per DD Barkan
Footing Area of Static load 3

Cu based on Cτ = Cu/2 E (x10 Kpa)
depth contact , pressure / 3 Cφ = 3.46Cτ Cψ = 1.5 Cτ 2
net SBC (x 10 3 3 = (1-μ )√A Cu /
below EGL footing** Net 3 (x 10 kPa) (x 10 kPa)
2 (x 10 kPa) kPa) 1.13
(m) (m ) 2
SBC(t/m )
1.50 - 3.00 10.00 <15 30 15 51.9 22.5 62.96
Note: Machine / equipment foundations shall be designed as per IS:2974 (relevant parts)
LA-2- Tank Farms- As open foundations have not been recommended, so values not provided
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This Geotechnical report is valid for site conditions that prevailed at time of Geo-technical
investigations. The entire scope of field work was executed in accordance with soil test location plan
issued by the client. Few test locations had to be shifted owing to site constraints such as water-
logging/slushy areas/inaccessibility to rig etc. Few field tests were cancelled /replaced with alternate
field tests Data derived from investigations have been necessarily used to arrive at the necessary
design recommendations. There is a possibility that strata variations could occur between test
locations. If any variations indicate significant deviations from the findings of this report, same shall
be brought to our notice for appropriate review.
FOR BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Geotechnical Investigation Report for Oil India's Secondary Tank Farm Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Investigation Report for Oil India's Secondary Tank Farm Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED SECTION: 5.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR

TCE CONTRACT NO 7547A-DOH-2014-129

Doc No: TCE.7547A-STF-BPC-GTR-R2 Dated: 05.02.2015

BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

R2 05.02.2015 Final report issued incorporating compliance to TCE comments on ‘’ R1 issue’’

Rev. Date Description

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR

Doc No: TCE.7547A-STF-BPC-GTR-R2 Dated: 05.02.2015

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 3 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTS 25

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 4 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

7.15 Electrical Resistivity Test (ERT) 43

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 5 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

1.1 Project Information

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 6 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

1.2 Scope of Work

1.3 Abstract of findings and recommendations

Field test Component Notation Total no of tests carried out

Summary of field work implementation

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 7 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

101 Rains occurred

102 Permeability between 0.00

Unit 122, Captive **This borehole is in lieu of

Near Unit 118 &

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 8 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

Temporary Closed prior to

Shear wave tests for assessing Vulnerability to Liquefaction (LA)

Terrain conditions / Topography during Soil Investigations

Sub-soil profile stratification (Based on borehole investigations)

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 9 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

TANKAGE AREAS (UNIT 108), T-001 TO 006 & FUTURE; BH-5 to 9

FORMATION WATER TANK (Unit 109); BH-10;

FUTURE EXPANSION (Unit 125); BH-14 & 15

FIRE WATER TANK (Unit 116); BH-16

ADMIN AND CANTEEN BUILDING (Unit 119); BH-17

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 10 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

Water Level in Boreholes

Phase II Investigations- BH 14, 15, 16,18,19,20 & 21

Water Level monitoring in Standpipe

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 11 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

ERT - 4 Centre of unit 121 (Electrical Sub-station). 730630 3031050 119.086

Centre of cancelled CPLT-1 (Compressor

Swell Shrink characteristics of clayey silt layer

Suitability of in-situ soil for Filling

Alternate material for filling

SHEAR WAVE TESTS

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 12 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

Unit Nearest Soil test Location Northing (m) Easting(m) RL (m)

•Broad remediation strategies

Recommendations for minor /lightly loaded structures

• Minimum width of footing shall be 1m and maximum shall be 2m.

Following aspects hold additional validity for all shallow/open foundations

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 13 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

Recommendations for design of shallow /open foundations

Net SBC (t/m2) based on shear &

Recommendations for storage Tanks (BH-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 16)

TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED 14 BPC CONSULTANT INDIA PVT. LTD.

Load Intensity expected

Recommended Uplift Pile

deflection, Fixed Head