Soil Investigation Report v1r0pdf Geotechnical Engineering Deep PDF

Chiniot Power Limited
2 x 31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Report on
Geotechnical Investigations
February, 2014
Doc. No. J-559
Rev. 00
Berkeley 316 D, OPF Housing Colony,

Raiwind Road Lahore
Phone: 042-35323313-15
Associates Fax: 042-35323316

E-mail: berkeley.associates@gmail.com
Berkeley Associates
00 04-02-2014 Issued to Client AAG KA

Initials Signature Initials Signature Initials Signature
Rev Date Description
Prepared by Checked by Clients Approval
55-K, Model Town, Lahore – Pakistan
Client Chiniot Power Limited Tel: +92 42 35857233-5
316-D, OPF Housing Colony near Raiwind Road,

Geotechnical Lahore – Pakistan.
Investigation Berkeley Associates Tel: +92-42-35323313-15
Fax: +92-42-35323316
Agency Email: berkeley.associates@gmail.com
REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Document No. J-559
2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Page 2
Berkeley Associates
CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 9
2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................................................... 10
2.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3 TEST PIT EXCAVATION ................................................................................................................. 11
2.4 IN-SITU TESTING .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) ...................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Field Density Tests (FDTs) ................................................................................................. 11
2.4.3 Cyclic Plate Load Tests (CPLTs) ........................................................................................ 11
2.4.4 Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS) ..................................................................................... 12
2.5 SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................. 13
3 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................... 14
3.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................... 14
3.2 ATTERBERG’S LIMITS ................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.4 BULK DENSITY ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.5 IN-SITU MOISTURE CONTENT ....................................................................................................... 15
3.6 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ................................................................................................ 15
3.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.8 STANDARD PROCTOR TESTS ......................................................................................................... 16
3.9 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO ....................................................................................................... 16
3.10 CHEMICAL ANALYSES .................................................................................................................. 16
3.10.1 Soil Samples ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.10.2 Water Samples ..................................................................................................................... 16
4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBSOIL.................................................... 18
4.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 18
4.3 SEISMICITY ................................................................................................................................... 18
4.4 STRATIGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 18
4.5 GROUNDWATER TABLE ................................................................................................................ 19
4.6 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 19
4.7 SEISMIC SOIL PROFILE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................ 19
4.8 CHEMICAL AGRESSIVITY .............................................................................................................. 19
4.9 CBR VALUES ............................................................................................................................... 20
4.10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 20
5 FOUNDATION DESIGN.............................................................................................................. 21
5.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 TYPE OF FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 21
5.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 21
5.3.1 Design Criteria for Shallow Foundations ............................................................................ 21
5.3.2 Design Parameters ............................................................................................................... 22
5.3.3 Allowable Bearing Pressures ............................................................................................... 22

Berkeley Associates
5.3.4 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction .......................................................................................... 23

5.4 DEEP FOUNDATIONS..................................................................................................................... 24
5.4.1 Cast in-situ Piles .................................................................................................................. 24
5.4.2 Length and Diameter ........................................................................................................... 24
5.4.3 Design Parameters ............................................................................................................... 24
5.4.4 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity ..................................................................................... 24
5.4.5 Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffness .......................................................................................... 25
5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ......................................................................................................... 25
5.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOUNDATIONS ................................................................ 26
5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................................ 26
5.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 27
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 28

Berkeley Associates
APPENDICES
Appendix-A
Tables and Figures
Table 2-1 Summary of Field Density and NMC Test Results

Table 2-2 Plate Load Test Data for CPLT-1
Table 3-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Fig. 2-1 Geotechnical Investigations Plan

Fig. 2-2A Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Switchyard
Fig. 2-2B Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Raw/Fire Water Tank
Fig. 2-2C Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Water Treatment
Plant
Fig. 2-2D Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Cooling Tower
Fig. 2-2E Profile of Observed SPT N-values for TG-1
Fig. 2-2F Profile of Observed SPT N-values for TG-2
Fig. 2-2G Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Maintenance Bay
Fig. 2-2H Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Boiler-1
Fig. 2-2I Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Boiler-2
Fig. 2-2J Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Chimney
Fig. 2-2K Profile of Observed SPT N-values for Coal Shed
Fig. 2-3 Pressure vs Settlement Curves for CPLT-1
Fig. 2-4 Pressure vs Settlement Curves for CPLT-2
Fig. 4-1 Linear Subsurface Profile 1-1’
Fig. 5-1A Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Switchyard
Fig. 5-1B Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Raw/Fire Water Tank
Fig. 5-1C Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Water Treatment
Plant
Fig. 5-1D Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Cooling Tower
Fig. 5-1E Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for TG-1
Fig. 5-1F Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for TG-2
Fig. 5-1G Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Maintenance Bay
Fig. 5-1H Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Boiler-1
Fig. 5-1I Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Boiler-2
Fig. 5-1J Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Chimney
Fig. 5-1K Profile of Corrected SPT N-values for Coal Shed
Fig. 5-2 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Square Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Switchyard
Fig. 5-3 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Strip Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Switchyard
Berkeley Associates
Fig. 5-4 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/Mat Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Raw/Fire Water Tank
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Water Treatment
Plant
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Water Treatment
Plant
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Cooling Tower
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at TG-1
Fig. 5-12 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft/ Mat Footings for
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Maintenance Bay
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Boiler-1
Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm at Chimney
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Coal Shed
Berkeley Associates
Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm at Coal Shed
Fig. 5-27 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of the Piles in
Compression
Fig. 5-28 Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffness of Pile below Pile Cap
Appendix-B
Borehole & Test pit Logs
Appendix-C
Laboratory Test Results
Appendix-D
Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey
Appendix-E
Photographs

Berkeley Associates
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Chiniot Power Limited is planning to construct a 2x31.2 MW Congeneration

Project, near Ramzan Sugar Mill on Chiniot-Jhang Road. The plant shall
comprise two turbines, two boilers, cooling towers, water treatment plant,
switchyard and other allied components. M/s Avant-Garde Engineers &
Consultants (FZC.), Sharjah, U.A.E. are the Project Consultants. M/s Berkeley
Associates were engaged to carry out the geotechnical investigations for the
proposed project.
The scope of work for these geotechnical investigations, as prepared by the

Project Consultants comprises; drilling of boreholes, excavation of test pits,
performance of in-situ tests in boreholes and test pits, performance of cyclic
plate load tests, performance of electrical resistivity survey, collection of soil
samples (disturbed and undisturbed), collection of water samples from
boreholes, performance of laboratory testing on selected soil and water
samples and submission of geotechnical investigations report.
The field work for these soil investigations was carried out during the period
from December 23, 2013 to January 27, 2014.
1.2 Scope of Work
Scope of Geotechnical Investigations is summarized below;
- Drilling of fourteen (14) exploratory boreholes; ten (10) down to 25 m

depth and four (4) down to 15m depth below existing ground level
(EGL)
- Performance of Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) in all boreholes at

a general depth interval of 1.5 m along with collection of disturbed
samples
- Excavation of two (2) test pits down to 4.0 m depth each below EGL
- Collection of composite bulk samples from the test pits
- Collection of undisturbed soil samples from boreholes and test pits

using appropriate samplers

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

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

boreholes and collection of water samples
- Performance of electrical resistivity survey (ERS) for design of earthing

system at two (2) locations
- Performance of two (02) cyclic plate load tests (CPLT) at the site
- Performance of laboratory tests on selected soil and water samples
- Preparation of a detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report upon

completion of field and laboratory testing
1.3 Methodology
The exploratory borings were drilled using straight rotary drilling rigs. In-situ
tests (i.e. SPTs/FDTs) were performed in accordance with relevant ASTM
standards.
Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected from boreholes using
appropriate samplers, for identification and subsequent laboratory testing.
Composite bulk soil samples were collected from test pits using appropriate
techniques. Selected soil samples were subjected to various laboratory tests
for evaluation of classification and strength characteristics of the sub-soils.
This report has been prepared on the basis of field geotechnical investigations
data and subsequent laboratory testing performed on the selected soil
samples. An evaluation of foundation soils, foundation design parameters and
recommendations regarding type of foundations, respective allowable bearing
pressures and type of cement to be used in the construction of substructure
are also provided in this report.

Berkeley Associates
2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 General
The scope of the geotechnical studies was planned by the Project

Consultants. The field investigations included the following activities;
- Drilling of exploratory boreholes
- Excavation of test pits
- In-situ testing in boreholes and test pits
- Soil and water sampling in boreholes
- Soil sampling in test pits
- Cyclic plate load test (CPLT)
- Performance of Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)
The details of the field work are discussed in this chapter. Photographs of field
activities are attached in Appendix-E.
2.2 Exploratory Boreholes
A total of fourteen (14) boreholes were drilled; ten (10) down to 25 m and four
(4) down to 15 m depth each below EGL at the proposed project site. The
location of all the boreholes drilled during these investigations is shown on
Fig. 2-1(Appendix-A).
All these boreholes were drilled using straight rotary drilling rig and the
boreholes were stabilized by circulating Bentonite mud in the boreholes. The
diameter of all the boreholes was in the range of 100mm to 150 mm. SPTs
were performed in these boreholes at a general depth interval of 1.5 m.
Undisturbed soil samples were collected from cohesive strata using Shelby
tube/Denison samplers.
A careful record of all the materials encountered and data of SPTs conducted
in each borehole was maintained in the form of field borehole logs. The
borehole logs are included in Appendix-B.
Ashiana-e-Iqbal, Burki Road, Lahore Doc. No. J-30

Interim Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Page 10
Berkeley Associates
2.3 Test pit Excavation
Two (2) test pits were excavated each down to 4.0 m depth below EGL.
Subsurface logs of both the test pits were prepared after carefully observing
the soils on the walls of the excavated pits. The test pit logs are also included
in Appendix-B.
2.4 In-situ Testing
During the field investigations, SPTs, FDTs, CPLT and ERS were carried out.
A brief description of these tests is provided in the following sections.
2.4.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)
For evaluating the consistency and compactness of the foundation soils,

SPTs were performed in all the exploratory boreholes. These SPTs were
carried out in each hole at 1.5m depth interval and were conducted in
accordance with the procedures described in latest version of ASTM Standard
D 1586. A donut type hammer, weighing 63.5kg, has been used for the test.
While performing the SPTs in boreholes, the hammer was lifted and dropped
mechanically through the flywheel of drilling rig and pulley hanged to a tripod.
Prior to performing each SPT, the loose material existing in the hole was
properly washed/ cleaned. A split spoon sampler without a liner was used for
all the tests. Disturbed soil samples were obtained through the split spoon
sampler. Profiles of SPT–N values are shown on Fig. 2-2A to Fig.2-2K
(Appendix-A) for boreholes corresponding various structures.
2.4.2 Field Density Tests (FDTs)
In order to determine the in-situ compactness and density of soils at shallow

depth, FDTs were performed in both the excavated test pits. The tests were
performed at various horizons using sand replacement method in accordance
with the relevant ASTM Standards. For determination of in-situ moisture, soil
samples were preserved in small tin boxes. The bulk and dry densities
determined during the field work are summarized in Table 2-1(Appendix-A).
2.4.3 Cyclic Plate Load Tests (CPLTs)
For evaluating the modulus of subgrade reaction of shallow foundations, two

(2) cyclic plate load tests were carried out at TG-1 and TG-2 locations. Both
Berkeley Associates
tests were performed at 4.0 m depth below EGL. A square shaped bearing
plate of 0.45 x0.45 m size was used in the test. The test was performed in
accordance with the procedure described in BS 1377-Part IX-Section 4.1. The
pressure versus settlement data for CPLT-1 and CPLT-2 is presented in
Table 2-2 and 2-3(Appendix-A). Pressure versus settlement curves are shown
on Fig. 2-3 and 2-4(Appendix-A) respectively.
Modulus of subgrade reaction determined from the two plate load tests were
presented in following table:
Sr. Plate Load Maximum Maximum Settlement at Modulus of

No. Test Test Load Pressure on Maximum Subgrade
Designation Plate Pressure Reaction
(Ton) (kPa) (mm) (kN/m3)

1 CPLT-1 6.18 289.9 0.593 488,870
2 CPLT-2 6.18 289.9 2.067 140,250
2.4.4 Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)
The electrical resistivity measurements of the subsurface material were taken

in the field by resistivity measuring instrument Terrameter SAS 1000 of
ABEM, Sweden and using the Schlumberger electrode array. The Terrameter
directly records the value of resistance (V/I) in ohms. In order to study the
variation of resistivity with depth, Vertical Electric Sounding (VES) technique
was employed. In this technique, apparent resistivity values are obtained for
various depths by increasing the current electrodes spacing at the ground
surface, keeping the centre of electrode array fixed at the observation point.
Vertical electric soundings were taken at two (2) points. These resistivity
observation points are designated as ER-1 and ER-2. The locations of these
points are shown in Fig. 2-1(Appendix-A). Separate report on electrical
resistivity survey is attached in Appendix-D.
2.5 Sampling
Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were obtained from all the boreholes
drilled during these soil investigations. Disturbed soil samples were obtained
from the boreholes through split spoon sampler while performing SPTs. These
samples were placed in polythene bags and preserved in wide-mouthed
plastic jars. The jars were clearly labelled to indicate the project name, project
code, borehole designation and depth of sample and date of sampling.

Berkeley Associates
Undisturbed soil samples were obtained from cohesive strata encountered in

the boreholes by using appropriate sampler. The undisturbed samples were
properly waxed and labelled to indicate the project name, project code,
borehole designation and depth of sample and date of sampling.
Composite bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The bulk samples
were properly preserved and labelled for transportation to the soil testing
laboratory.
All the soil samples were carefully transported to Berkeley Associates Soil
Testing Laboratory Facilities, Lahore for subsequent laboratory testing.
2.6 Groundwater Observations
GWT was encountered in all boreholes at depth ranging from 9.6 m to 11.4 m
during these investigations and are mentioned in the respective borehole logs.

Berkeley Associates
3 LABORATORY TESTING
For evaluation of physical and engineering and chemical characteristics of the

sub-soils, selected disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were tested in the
laboratory. The laboratory testing was carried out at Berkeley Associates
Laboratory Testing Facility, Lahore. The following laboratory tests were
performed on selected soil samples.
- Particle size distribution

- Atterberg’s limits
- Specific gravity
- Bulk & Dry density
- Natural moisture content (NMC)
- Unconfined compression tests
- Direct shear tests
- Modified Proctor Compaction tests
- 3 Point Soaked CBR tests
- Chemical analyses of soil and water samples
A brief description of these tests is given in the following sections. A summary

of laboratory test results is given in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).
3.1 Particle Size Distribution
For classifying the subsurface soils, seventy (70) selected soil samples were
subjected to sieve analyses during these studies. Some samples were further
subjected to hydrometer analyses. The sieve analyses were performed in
accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D 422 , with sample
preparation by ASTM D 2217 (wet preparation method), Procedure B. The
hydrometer analyses were carried out in accordance with procedure specified
in ASTM D 422. Results of sieve and hydrometer analyses were plotted in
the form of gradation curves. These curves for all the tested samples are
presented in Appendix-C. The percentages of fines (passing sieve no. 200),
sand and concretion fractions of the tested soil samples are also provided in
Table 3-1(Appendix-A).
3.2 Atterberg’s Limits
For evaluating plasticity characteristics of cohesive soils, liquid and plastic

limit tests were performed on twenty four (24) selected soil samples. The tests
were performed as specified in ASTM Designation D 4318. All the liquid limit
tests were performed with at least three trials. The test results are

Berkeley Associates
summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). Fourteen (14) samples were classified

as non-plastic.
3.3 Specific Gravity
Seven (7) selected soil samples were tested for estimation of specific gravity.
The tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM Designation D 854. The
test results are provided in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The specific gravity of
tested samples ranged between 2.62 to 2.68.
3.4 Bulk Density
Seven (7) undisturbed soil samples were tested for determination of their bulk
density. The test results are provided in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The bulk
density of the tested samples ranges from 14.87 kN/m3 to 17.84 kN/m3.
3.5 In-situ Moisture Content
Seven (7) undisturbed soil samples were tested for determination of their in-
situ moisture contents. The test results are provided in Table 3-1. The in-situ
moisture content of the tested soil samples ranges from 5.0% to 13.7%.
3.6 Unconfined Compression test
In order to estimate shear strength characteristics of fine grained soils, two (2)
undisturbed soil samples were subjected to unconfined compression test. The
test results are provided in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The measured values of
unconfined compressive strength were 44 kPa to 52 kPa for the selected soil
samples.
3.7 Direct Shear test
In order to estimate shear strength characteristics of foundation soils, twenty

nine (29) soil samples were subjected to direct shear tests. The tests were
carried out at in-situ moisture condition as specified in ASTM Designation D
3080. The test results are provided in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The laboratory
test sheets are attached in Appendix-C.

Berkeley Associates
3.8 Standard Proctor Tests
In order to determine the moisture-density relationships of subgrade soils, two

(2) Standard Proctor compaction tests were carried out on the composite bulk
samples. The test results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The
laboratory test sheets are attached in Appendix-C.
3.9 California Bearing Ratio
Two (2) compacted soil samples were tested to determine California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) under soaked conditions. The samples were prepared using
Standard Proctor Compaction method. The test results are summarized in
Table 3-1(Appendix-A). The laboratory test sheets are attached in Appendix-
C.
3.10 Chemical Analyses
3.10.1 Soil Samples
In order to determine the chemical characteristics of the subsoil, eleven (11)

selected soil samples were tested for estimation of chemical composition.
The results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).
Sulphate Content
The sulphate content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.036% to
0.068%.
Chloride Content
The chloride content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.010% to
0.021%.
Organic Content
The organic content of the tested soil samples ranges from 0.46% to 0.92%.
3.10.2 Water Samples
In order to determine the chemical characteristics of the ground water, two

(02) water samples collected from boreholes were tested for estimation of
chemical composition. The results are summarized in Table 3-1(Appendix-A).
Berkeley Associates
Sulphate Content
The sulphate content of the tested ground water samples was 120 and 140
ppm.
Chloride Content
The chloride content of the tested ground water samples was 75 ppm and 99
ppm.
pH Value
The pH value of all tested ground water samples was 8.0.
Total Soluble Salts
The value of total dissolved solids in the tested ground water samples was
1175 ppm and 1182 ppm.

Berkeley Associates
4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SUBSOIL
4.1 General
The geotechnical investigations carried for the project comprised field and
laboratory work. The field and laboratory investigations were aimed for
evaluating the engineering characteristics of the foundation soil. The
subsurface conditions and engineering characteristics of the soil existing at
the proposed project site are discussed in the following sections.
4.2 Topography and Geology
The topography of the project area is predominantly flat. Lithological units at

this site include top layer of fill material containing silty clay mixed with organic
material/ grass roots underlain by layer of Silty/ Lean Clay followed by Sandy
Silt and Silty Sand. The soils belong to alluvial deposits of Punjab plain.
4.3 Seismicity
According to Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions – 2007), issued

by Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Seismic Zone 2A has been
assigned to Chiniot. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with Zone
2A has been recommended to vary from 0.08g to 0.16g.
4.4 Stratigraphy
During these investigations, the subsurface was explored to a maximum

depth of twenty five (25) m below EGL and the following geotechnical units
have been identified;
 Top layer of fill material was encountered in a few boreholes. This layer
comprises brown silty clay mixed with organic material and grass roots.
The depth of this layer ranges from 0.3 m to 0.5 m below EGL.
 Layer of Silty Clay/Lean Clay is encountered below the top layer having
variable thickness in various boreholes.
 Sandy Silt/ Silty Sand layer is encountered below Silty/ Lean Clay and
continues down to maximum explored depth of 25 m.
Linear subsurface profiles developed on the basis of boreholes drilled at the

Berkeley Associates
site are shown on Figs. 4-1 to 4-3.
4.5 Groundwater Table
Ground water table (GWT) was encountered in all boreholes at depth range of
9.6 m to 11.4 m, during these investigations and are mentioned in the
respective borehole logs. For the design purposes, the GWT has been
assumed at 10.0 m depth below EGL.
4.6 Liquefaction Analysis
The overburden soils at site predominantly have quite high fine content. Such
soils are not likely to undergo liquefaction (Ref.4.1). As such no liquefaction
hazard exists at the site.
4.7 Seismic Soil Profile Characterization
According to Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions – 2007), issued

by Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the criteria for classification of
un-cemented soil profiles are to be based on;
 Vs = average shear wave velocity of the top 100ft. (30m) soil profile
or
 N = average field SPT resistance for the top 100ft. (30m) soil profile
or
 Su = average undrained shear strength for the top 100ft. (30 m) soil
profile
Keeping in view the available field SPT data of all the holes drilled at the site,
the soil profile type as per Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provision
2007), should be taken as SD (i.e. Stiff Soil Profile).
4.8 Chemical Agressivity
On the basis of concentrations of sulphates determined in the foundation soil

and ground water samples, the exposure is classified as “Negligible'' as
explained in ACI 318M-11 Table 4.2.1. According to the concentration of
sulphates in soil and water Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) can be used in
sub-structure construction.

Berkeley Associates
4.9 CBR Values
Based on the laboratory test results, the soaked CBR values for the in-situ
soils compacted to Standard Proctor Compaction are provided below;
Relative Compaction based on Soaked CBR Value

Standard Proctor Compaction TP-1 TP-2
90 % 4.0 4.8
95 % 6.6 7.6
100 % 9.2 10.2
4.10 References
4.1 Youd, T. L. et al, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report

from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, JGGE, Oct. 2001, pp
817-833.

Berkeley Associates
5 FOUNDATION DESIGN
5.1 General
Various field and laboratory tests have been carried out during these
geotechnical investigations. These test results have been examined for
evaluation of subsurface conditions at the project site and determination of
geotechnical design parameters.
Design parameters have been selected on the basis of available field &
laboratory test results, literature and engineering judgement.
Evaluations have been made for allowable bearing pressures for the shallow
as well as deep oundations which are discussed in the following sections.
5.2 Type of Foundations
Keeping in view the type of structures and soil conditions existing at the site;
allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations as well as deep
foundations has been evaluated. Shallow foundations are recommended to be
provided for light to moderately loaded structures. In order to facilitate the
designer, allowable load carrying capacity of deep foundations have also
been provided.
5.3 Shallow Foundations
Shallow foundations can be strip, square or raft footings. Allowable bearing

pressures for shallow foundations have been evaluated at different depths for
various structures of the Project.
The design criteria, geotechnical design parameters and allowable bearing

pressures for shallow foundations are discussed in the following sections.
5.3.1 Design Criteria for Shallow Foundations
Allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations have been evaluated for
various sizes of foundations placed at depths from 2m to 4m. For evaluation
of allowable bearing pressures, the following two criteria are adopted;
i- The allowable load should not initiate the shear failure of the

Berkeley Associates
foundation soils, and
ii- The total as well as differential settlements caused by the

application of allowable loads should be within specified
tolerable limits of 25.4 mm for square and strip foundations and
50.8 mm for raft foundations.
5.3.2 Design Parameters
For evaluation of allowable bearing pressures for shallow footings, the

recommended design parameters are summarized as under:
Angle of Modulus
Depth of Bulk
Structure Material Cohesion Design Internal of
Sr. No. Footing Density
Designation Type 3 (kPa) N’70 Friction Elasticity
(m) (kN/m )
(Deg) (MPa)
2
1 Switchyard Silty Clay 18.0 35 - - 15
3
Raw/Fire
2 3 Silty Sand 17.5 - 7 31 -
Water Tank
Water
3 Treatment 2 Silty Sand 18.0 - 10 32 -
Plant
2 Silty Clay 18.0 30 - - 15
Cooling
4 3 8
Tower Silty Sand 17.5 - 31.5 -
4 9
2 5
30.5
5 TG-1 3 Silty Sand 17.0 - 6 -
4 7 31
2 7
31
6 TG-2 3 Silty Sand 17.5 - 8 -
4 9 32
Maintenance
7 2 Silty Sand 17.5 - 9 32 -
Bay
2 Silty Clay 18.0 30 - - 15
8 Boiler-1 3 9
Silty Sand 18.0 - 32 -
4 10
2 5
30.5
9 Boiler-2 3 Silty Sand 17.5 - 6 -
4 7 31
10 Chimney 3 Silty Sand 18.0 - 12 33 -
2 Silty Clay 18.0 25 - - 12
11 Coal Shed
3 Silty Sand 17.0 - 6 31 -
5.3.3 Allowable Bearing Pressures
The evaluations of bearing pressures are carried out by considering both the
shear based as well as settlement based criteria. The allowable bearing
pressures on the basis of shear failure of soil were determined by adopting
Berkeley Associates
the approach given by Brinch-Hansen (Ref.5.1). A factor of safety of 3.0 was

used for determining the respective net allowable bearing pressures. The
allowable bearing pressures based on settlement criterion for foundations
underlain with cohesion less layer have been calculated using Bowles (1996).
In case both cohesive and cohesion less layers fall within the influence zone,
the elastic settlements have been evaluated using Timoshenko and Goodier
approach (Ref.1). The evaluated allowable bearing pressures for shallow
foundations for various structures are presented in Figs. 5-2 to 5-26 which are
attached in Appendix-A.
The allowable bearing pressures as provided in this report are for normal axial
loads on level ground. For eccentric loading conditions, the value of allowable
load shall be at least equal to the axial load, Pa with;
Pa = qa . Aeff
where
qa = allowable bearing pressure for axial loads, and

Aeff = effective foundation area = (L-2ex) (B-2ey)
where ex and ey are the magnitude of eccentricities along L and B

dimensions of the footing respectively.
5.3.4 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction
Modulus of sub-grade reaction Ks to be used in computer model for structural

analysis can be evaluated from the basic definition of Ks by using the
evaluated net allowable bearing pressure which causes the settlement under
the maximum structural pressure and is as follows:
For Square & Strip Footings with 25.4 mm tolerable settlement
ks (kN/m3) = Evaluated Net Allowable Bearing Pressure x FOS

Settlement (25.4 mm) under maximum structural pressure
For raft / mat footings with 50.8 mm tolerable settlement
ks (kN/m3) = Evaluated net allowable bearing pressure X FOS

Settlement (50.8 mm) under maximum structural pressure
The modulus values determined from the two plate load tests were provided
in section 2.4.3.

Berkeley Associates
5.4 Deep Foundations
5.4.1 Cast in-situ Piles
Piles are the most common type of deep foundations. The bored cast-in-situ
reinforced concrete piles are recommended to be used as the deep
foundations for the project.
5.4.2 Length and Diameter
Deep foundations are recommended for heavily loaded structures. We

envisage that cast-in-situ bored reinforced concrete piles of diameters 660mm
and 760mm shall be adequate for the structures. The allowable load carrying
capacities of cast-in-situ bored piles have been determined for these
diameters.
5.4.3 Design Parameters
For evaluation of load carrying capacity for deep foundations, design

parameters are presented in the following table:
Depth Bulk Density Angle of Relative

Internal Density
Sr. No. Soil Type
Friction
3
(m) (kN/m ) (Deg) (%)
1 Silty Sand 3 to 10 17.5 31 30
2 Silty Sand 10 to 18.0 33 35
maximum
explored depth
5.4.4 Allowable Load Carrying Capacity
The load carrying capacities of bored piles have been calculated according to
the procedures described in Ref. 5.1. The pile capacities in compression are
shown on Fig. 5-27 (Appendix-A). The allowable loads provided in these
figure are for single pile. Appropriate group reduction factor should be applied
on the basis of configuration of the pile group under a foundation.
The following formula given in Ref. 5.1 can be adopted to estimate pile group
efficiency:
Eg =

Berkeley Associates
and
θ =
where,
m = no. of columns in group
n = no. of rows in group
s = centre to centre distance between adjacent piles
D = pile diameter
The minimum spacing between the piles in a group should be at least 2 to 3

times the pile diameter.
The pile capacities provided in Fig. 5-27 must be verified by constructing test
pile and carrying out full scale loading tests.
5.4.5 Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffness
The horizontal soil spring stiffnesses have been evaluated for the piles. These
are shown on Fig. 5-28 (Appendix-A).
5.5 Lateral Earth Pressure
In case of buried structures and retaining walls, use of cohesion-less backfill

is recommended. The evaluation of static earth pressure on buried wall/
retaining walls depends upon the permissible movements allowed in the
design, configuration of the wall, backfill geometry and the type of soil used as
backfill. However, for smooth vertical walls with horizontal backfill, the
following simplified expressions can be used for determination of coefficients
of lateral earth pressure;
Coefficient of active earth pressure, Ka = (1 - sin’)/(1 + sin ’)
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko = (1 - sin’)
Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp = (1 + sin’)/(1 - sin ’)
where
’ = Effective angle of internal friction of backfill soil (to be

determined by shear test on fill remoulded to the
specified density and moisture)

Berkeley Associates
= A conservative value of 30o can be adopted for

preliminary design purpose
For evaluation of earth pressure under earthquake conditions, the equations

proposed by Mononobe-Okabe are recommended to be used.
5.6 Construction Considerations for Foundations
The soils at foundation level must be carefully inspected prior to placing the
foundations to ensure that the soils are similar to those encountered in the
boreholes. In case any loose/weak material or fill material is encountered in
the foundation trenches/pits, it must be completely removed and foundations
should be placed on natural soil. The foundation trenches/pits must be
protected from ingress of water during foundation construction.
For floor construction, well graded fill should be used having coefficient of
uniformity greater than 4 and compacted in layers of 150 mm (compacted)
thickness. Each layer should be compacted to achieve relative density at least
75%. The material should be free draining having less than 15% fines.
For confirmation of the load carrying capacities of the selected piles, full scale
pile load tests shall be conducted on separate piles constructed outside the
area of working piles. The length and diameter of the test piles should be the
same as the designed working piles. The construction methodology and type
of equipment used for the construction of test piles must also be same as
envisaged for the working piles. The test piles shall be loaded to at least 2.5
times the theoretical design load carrying capacity of the pile or to failure.
In order to ensure proper workmanship, load tests are also recommended on

some of the working piles.
5.7 Pavement Design Parameters
The top layer at the site mainly comprises Silty Clay (CL-ML). The soaked
CBR values for the in-situ soils compacted to Standard Proctor density for
various compaction levels are provided below:
Relative Compaction based on Soaked CBR Value

Standard Proctor Compaction TP-1 TP-2
90 % 4.0 4.8
95 % 6.6 7.6
100 % 9.2 10.2

Berkeley Associates
5.8 References
5.1 Bowles, J. E., "Foundation Analysis and Design", McGraw Hill

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

Berkeley Associates
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. During these investigations, the subsurface was explored to a

maximum depth of 25 m below EGL. The location of all exploratory
points is shown on Fig. 2-1.
2. Various soil layers encountered at the site below the existing ground
surface are described in section 4.4 and graphically represented in
linear subsurface profiles shown on Figs. 4-1 to 4-3.
3. Ground water table (GWT) was encountered in all boreholes at depth

range of 9.6 m to 11.4 m. For design purposes, the GWT has been
assumed at 10m depth below EGL.
4. The site soils are not prone to liquefaction hazard.
5. On the basis of our evaluations, the soil profile type as per Building
Code of Pakistan, (Seismic Provision 2007) can be taken as SD (i.e.
Stiff Soil Profile).
6. On the basis of concentrations of sulphates determined in the

foundation soil and ground water samples, the exposure is classified as
“Negligible'' as explained in ACI 318M-11 Table 4.2.1. According to the
concentration of sulphates in soil and water Ordinary Portland Cement
(OPC) can be used in sub-structure construction.
7. Allowable of pressures for square, strip and mat footings have been
evaluated. Recommended allowable bearing pressures for shallow
foundations of various structures of the project are presented in Figs.
5-2 to 5-26.
8. Deep foundations are recommended for heavily loaded structures.

Allowable load carrying capacities for piles in compression are shown
on Fig. 5-27.
9. Profile of horizontal soil spring stiffness coefficient with depth is shown

on Fig. 5-28.
10. Some construction considerations are discussed in section 5.6.
11. Pavement design parameters are provided in section 5.7.
12. The report on Electrical Resistivity Survey and relevant

recommendations are provided in Appendix-D
Berkeley Associates
APPENDIX - A
TABLES AND FIGURES

Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Appendix-A
Berkeley Associates
Table 2-1 Summary of In-situ Density Test Results & Relative Compaction % age
Project: Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Sheet 1 of 1
Standard Proctor
In-situ In-situ In-situ
Compaction
Bulk Moisture Dry Dry Relative
Sr. Test Pit Sample Depth Density Density Density Optimum
Content Max. Dry Density Compaction
No. No. No. (meter) Moisture
(%) % age
3 3 3 3 3 Content
(g/cm ) (g/cm ) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (g/cm ) (%)
1 TP-1 FDT-1 0.60 1.640 12.78 1.454 14.260 17.36 1.77 13.9 82.2
2 FDT-2 2.00 1.623 11.23 1.459 14.310 17.36 1.77 13.9 82.4
3 FDT-3 3.00 1.707 1.76 1.677 16.450 17.36 1.77 13.9 94.8
4 FDT-4 4.00 1.616 2.31 1.579 15.489 17.36 1.77 13.9 89.2
5 TP-2 FDT-1 1.00 1.542 3.20 1.494 14.653 16.67 1.70 14.0 87.9
6 FDT-2 2.00 1.600 2.70 1.558 15.278 16.67 1.70 14.0 91.6
7 FDT-3 3.00 1.643 8.92 1.509 14.793 16.67 1.70 14.0 88.7
8 FDT-4 4.00 1.770 8.83 1.626 15.949 16.67 1.70 14.0 95.7
Berkeley Associates

Project: 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Description of soil: Silty Sand Test depth: 4.0m below EGL
Test started on: 25/1/2014 Plate size: 18 x 18 Inches
Test completed on: 25/1/2014 Area of plate: 324 Sq In
Plate load test no: 1 Piston dia: 2.5 Inches
Location: TG-1 Piston area: 4.91 Sq In
OBSERVATIONS
LOADING SETTLEMENT in mm
DATE TIME Pressure Corrected Load on Pressure on REMARKS
Pressure on
on Guage plate plate
Guage G1 G2 G3 Average
min (p.s.i) (p.s.i) (Lbs) kPa
25/1/2014 Loading
" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.133
" 0.5 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.140
" 1 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143
" 2 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143
" 4 " " " " 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.143
" 8 " " " " 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.160
" 15 " " " " 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.183
20 " " " " 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.193
CYCLE-1
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.140
" 0.5 " " " " 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.140
" 1 " " " " 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.127
" 2 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100
" 4 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100
" 8 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100
" 15 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100
" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100
Loading
" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420
" 0.5 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420
" 1 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420
" 2 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420
" 4 " " " " 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.420
" 8 " " " " 0.43 0.29 0.58 0.433
" 15 " " " " 0.49 0.31 0.59 0.463
" 20 " " " " 0.51 0.33 0.60 0.480
CYCLE-2
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293
" 0.5 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293
" 1 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293
" 2 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293
" 4 " " " " 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.293
" 8 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273
" 15 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273
" 20 " " " " 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.273
Loading
" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.33 0.29 0.59 0.403
" 0.5 " " " " 0.33 0.29 0.59 0.403
" 1 " " " " 0.34 0.29 0.59 0.407
" 2 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417
" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417
" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417
" 15 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417
" 20 " " " " 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.417
CYCLE-3
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.037
" 0.5 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033
" 1 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033
" 2 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033
" 4 " " " " 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.033
" 8 " " " " 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.027
" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.003
" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.003
Loading
" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.36 0.44 0.65 0.483
" 0.5 " " " " 0.36 0.44 0.65 0.483
" 1 " " " " 0.37 0.44 0.65 0.487
" 2 " " " " 0.38 0.45 0.66 0.497 CYCLE-4
" 4 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.67 0.507
" 8 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.68 0.510
" 15 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.68 0.510
" 20 " " " " 0.40 0.45 0.69 0.513
1 of 3
Berkeley Associates
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100
" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100
" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100
" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100 CYCLE-4
" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.100
" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.097
" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.083
" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.080
Loading
" 0.25 2750 2774.75 13624 289.93 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.540
" 0.5 " " " " 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.547
" 1 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557
" 2 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557
" 4 " " " " 0.55 0.57 0.55 0.557
" 8 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593
" 15 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593
" 20 " " " " 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.593
UnLoading
" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483
" 0.5 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483
" 1 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483
" 2 " " " " 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.483
" 4 " " " " 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.477
" 8 " " " " 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.473
" 15 " " " " 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.463
" 20 " " " " 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.457
" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353
" 0.5 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353
" 1 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353
" 2 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353
" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.353
" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.350
" 15 " " " " 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.330 CYCLE-5
" 20 " " " " 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.300
" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163
" 0.5 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163
" 1 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163
" 2 " " " " 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.163
" 4 " " " " 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.153
" 8 " " " " 0.12 0.20 0.11 0.143
" 15 " " " " 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.127
" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.113
" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007
" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007
" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007
" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.007
" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.003
" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 0.5 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 1 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 2 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 4 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 8 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 15 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
" 20 " " " " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
2 of 3
Berkeley Associates

Project: 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project
Description of soil: Silty Sand Test depth: 4.0m below EGL
Test started on: 26/1/2014 Plate size: 18 x 18 Inches
Test completed on: 27/1/2014 Area of plate: 324 Sq In
Plate load test no: 2 Piston dia: 2.5 Inches
Location: TG-2 Piston area: 4.91 Sq In
OBSERVATIONS
LOADING SETTLEMENT in mm
DATE Pressure Corrected Load on Pressure on REMARKS
TIME Pressure on
on Guage plate plate
Guage G1 G2 G3 Average
min (p.s.i) (p.s.i) Lbs kPa
26/1/2014 Loading
" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 0.26 0.25 0.14 0.217
" 0.5 " " " " 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.220
" 1 " " " " 0.28 0.25 0.15 0.227
" 2 " " " " 0.29 0.26 0.15 0.233
" 4 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240
" 8 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240
" 15 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240
20 " " " " 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.240
CYCLE-1
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.133
" 0.5 " " " " 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.130
" 1 " " " " 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.133
" 2 " " " " 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.123
" 4 " " " " 0.15 0.16 0.05 0.120
" 8 " " " " 0.14 0.15 0.04 0.110
" 15 " " " " 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.100
" 20 " " " " 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.077
Loading
" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 0.5 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 1 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 2 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 4 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 8 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 15 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
" 20 " " " " 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.440
CYCLE-2
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223
" 0.5 " " " " 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223
" 1 " " " " 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.223
" 2 " " " " 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.157
" 4 " " " " 0.06 0.15 0.23 0.147
" 8 " " " " 0.05 0.14 0.22 0.137
" 15 " " " " 0.04 0.14 0.21 0.130
" 20 " " " " 0.04 0.14 0.21 0.130
27/1/2014 Loading
" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 0.69 0.94 1.05 0.893
" 0.5 " " " " 0.70 0.94 1.06 0.900
" 1 " " " " 0.70 0.94 1.06 0.900
" 2 " " " " 0.71 0.94 1.07 0.907
" 4 " " " " 0.71 0.95 1.08 0.913
" 8 " " " " 0.72 0.96 1.09 0.923
" 15 " " " " 0.72 0.96 1.09 0.923
" 20 " " " " 0.73 0.96 1.09 0.927
CYCLE-3
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.28 0.51 0.76 0.517
" 0.5 " " " " 0.25 0.49 0.75 0.497
" 1 " " " " 0.24 0.48 0.74 0.487
" 2 " " " " 0.24 0.48 0.74 0.487
" 4 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477
" 8 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477
" 15 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477
" 20 " " " " 0.22 0.47 0.74 0.477
Loading
" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 0.94 1.33 1.70 1.323
" 0.5 " " " " 0.95 1.35 1.72 1.340
" 1 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347
" 2 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347 CYCLE-4
" 4 " " " " 0.97 1.35 1.72 1.347
" 8 " " " " 0.98 1.35 1.72 1.350 1 of 3
" 15 " " " " 0.98 1.35 1.72 1.350
" 20 " " " " 0.99 1.35 1.72 1.353
Berkeley Associates
UnLoading
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.39 0.71 1.26 0.787
" 0.5 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773
" 1 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773
" 2 " " " " 0.36 0.70 1.26 0.773 CYCLE-4
" 4 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763
" 8 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763
" 15 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763
" 20 " " " " 0.35 0.69 1.25 0.763
Loading
" 0.25 2750 2774.75 13624 289.93 1.49 1.96 2.52 1.990
" 0.5 " " " " 1.49 1.96 2.54 1.997
" 1 " " " " 1.49 1.97 2.56 2.007
" 2 " " " " 1.50 1.98 2.58 2.020
" 4 " " " " 1.51 1.98 2.58 2.023
" 8 " " " " 1.51 1.98 2.59 2.027
" 15 " " " " 1.52 1.99 2.62 2.043
" 20 " " " " 1.55 2.02 2.63 2.067
UnLoading
" 0.25 2000 2018.00 9908 210.86 1.53 1.99 2.61 2.043
" 0.5 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.61 2.043
" 1 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047
" 2 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047
" 4 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047
" 8 " " " " 1.53 1.99 2.62 2.047
" 15 " " " " 1.52 1.98 2.62 2.040
" 20 " " " " 1.52 1.98 2.62 2.040
" 0.25 1500 1513.50 7431 158.14 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940
" 0.5 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940
" 1 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940
" 2 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940
" 4 " " " " 1.43 1.89 2.50 1.940
" 8 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937
" 15 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937
" 20 " " " " 1.42 1.89 2.50 1.937
" 0.25 1000 1009.00 4954 105.43 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813 CYCLE-5
" 0.5 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813
" 1 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813
" 2 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.39 1.813
" 4 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.40 1.817
" 8 " " " " 1.30 1.75 2.41 1.820
" 15 " " " " 1.31 1.75 2.43 1.830
" 20 " " " " 1.31 1.75 2.43 1.830
" 25 " " " " 1.20 1.59 2.29 1.693
" 27 " " " " 1.19 1.59 2.29 1.690
" 29 " " " " 1.19 1.59 2.29 1.690
" 0.25 500 504.50 2477 52.71 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727
" 0.5 " " " " 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727
" 1 " " " " 1.21 1.65 2.32 1.727
" 2 " " " " 1.21 1.64 2.32 1.723
" 4 " " " " 1.20 1.63 2.31 1.713
" 8 " " " " 1.18 1.63 2.31 1.707
" 15 " " " " 1.21 1.63 2.30 1.713
" 20 " " " " 1.22 1.65 2.32 1.730
" 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.64 1.08 1.96 1.227
" 0.5 " " " " 0.63 1.08 1.95 1.220
" 1 " " " " 0.62 1.08 1.94 1.213
" 2 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.94 1.210
" 4 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.93 1.207
" 8 " " " " 0.62 1.07 1.93 1.207
" 15 " " " " 0.67 1.12 1.99 1.260
" 20 " " " " 0.71 1.15 2.03 1.297
" 90 " " " " 0.58 1.00 1.30 0.960
2 of 3
Berkeley Associates
Sheet 1 of 3
Soil Classification
Atterberg Bulk Unconfined Direct Chloride Sulphate
Grain Size Analysis Total Organic (USCS)
Borehole Sample Depth Specific Limits Density N.M.C Compression Shear Test Content Content pH
soluble Matter
No. No. (m) Gravity % SO4 Value Group Group
Concre Sand Fines LL PI gb qu Strain C F salts
-tion % 3
Symbol Name
% % % % kN/m kPa % kPa degre
BH-1 UDS-1 1.0 2.63 0.0 66.5 33.5 Non-Plastic 14.87 5.0 SM Silty Sand
SPT-1 1.5 0.0 27.4 72.6 Non-Plastic 0.021 0.068 0.820 ML Silt with Sand
SPT-3 4.5 0.0 89.4 10.6 1.0 32.1 SP-SM Poorly graded sand with silt
SPT-8 12.0 2.0 82.5 15.5 0.0 33.8 SM Silty Sand
SPT-15 22.5 0.0 79.6 20.4 SM Silty Sand
BH-2 SPT-1 1.5 0.0 71.0 29.0 Non-Plastic SM Silty Sand
SPT-2 3.0 0.0 77.5 22.5 0.0 30.7 0.018 0.048 0.770 SM Silty Sand
SPT-5 7.5 2.63 0.0 81.5 18.5 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand
SPT-10 15.0 1.0 77.9 21.1 SM Silty Sand
SPT-17 25.0 0.0 81.9 18.1 0.0 32.8 SM Silty Sand
SPT-4 6.0 0.0 80.5 19.5 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand
SPT-10 15.0 0.0 74.0 26.0 Non-Plastic SM Silty Sand
SPT-14 21.0 2.63 0.0 80.2 19.8 0.0 33.6 SM Silty Sand
SPT-16 24.0 0.0 84.7 15.3 SM Silty Sand
BH-4 UDS-1 1.0 0.0 0.8 99.2 31 9 CL Lean Clay
SPT-1 1.5 0.0 33.0 67.0 26 7 CL-ML Sandy Silty Clay
SPT-3 4.5 0.0 86.1 13.9 4.0 33.1 0.016 0.048 0.620 SM Silty Sand
SPT-8 12.0 0.0 86.8 13.2 2.0 35.2 SM Silty Sand
SPT-11 16.5 3.1 75.4 21.5 SM Silty Sand
SPT-16 24.0 1.4 73.4 25.2 SM Silty Sand
BH-5 UDS-1 0.5 2.62 0.0 8.3 Non-Plastic 14.89
91.7 5.1 ML Silt
SPT-2 3.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Non-Plastic 8.0 29.4 SM Silty Sand
SPT-9 13.5 0.2 79.4 20.4 3.0 32.2 SM Silty Sand
SPT-14 21.0 0.0 76.5 23.5 0.0 33.7 SM Silty Sand
SPT-17 25.0 3.5 63.3 Non-Plastic
33.2 SM Silty Sand
SPT-4 6.0 0.2 82.5 17.3 2.0 32.7 0.021 0.038 0.600 SM Silty Sand
SPT-8 12.0 2.63 0.0 78.3 21.7 0.0 32.0 SM Silty Sand
SPT-13 19.5 1.6 71.1 27.3 SM Silty Sand
SPT-16 24.0 0.4 69.1 30.5 0.0 33.7 SM Silty Sand
BH-7 UDS-1 0.5 0.0 3.0 97.0 24 5 17.51 8.6 52 2.5 CL-ML Silty Clay
SPT-3 4.5 0.0 72.8 27.2 1.0 32.0 SM Silty Sand
SPT-8 12.0 0.4 82.6 17.0 0.014 0.036 0.550 SM Silty Sand
SPT-10A 15.0 1.2 20.8 78.0 Non-Plastic ML Silt with Sand
SPT-10B 15.0 0.0 3.5 96.5 35 11 CL Lean Clay
SPT-13 19.5 0.0 76.6 23.4 0.0 31.8 SM Silty Sand
SPT-15 22.5 0.0 65.1 34.9 SM Silty Sand
Berkeley Associates
Sheet 2 of 3
Soil Classification
Atterberg Bulk Unconfined Direct Shear Chloride Sulphate
Grain Size Analysis Total Organic (USCS)
Borehole Sample Depth Specific Limits Density N.M.C Compression Test Content Content pH
soluble Matter
No. No. (m) Gravity % SO4 Value Group Group
Concre Sand Fines LL PI gb qu Strain C F salts (%)
degre (%) (%) Symbol Name
-tion % % % % % kN/m 3
kPa % kPa
e
BH-8 UDS-1 0.5 2.68 0.0 26.5 73.5 23 4 15.00 7.2 CL-ML Silty Clay with Sand
SPT-2 3.0 0.0 42.7 57.3 4.0 32.6 ML Sandy Silt
SPT-5 7.5 0.0 80.9 19.1 0.0 33.1 SM Silty Sand
SPT-9 13.5 0.0 80.9 19.1 SM Silty Sand
SPT-14 21.0 0.0 80.3 19.7 0.014 0.050 0.480 SM Silty Sand
SPT-17 25.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 0.0 34.5 SM Silty Sand
BH-9 UDS-1 0.5 0.0 25.2 74.8 23 5 16.70 7.5 44 2.9 CL-ML Silty Clay with Sand
SPT-3 4.5 0.0 34.8 65.2 0.0 31.7 0.018 0.060 0.700 ML Sandy Silt
SPT-10 15.0 0.1 72.8 27.1 SM Silty Sand
SPT-12 18.0 0.0 70.3 29.7 0.0 34.6 SM Silty Sand
SPT-16 24.0 0.3 55.7 44.0 SM Silty Sand
WS 1175 ppm 75 ppm 120 ppm 8.0
BH-10 UDS-1 0.5 0.0 8.0 92.0 25 6 17.84 13.7 CL-ML Silty Clay
SPT-1 1.5 0.0 80.9 19.1 Non-Plastic SM Silty Sand
SPT-6 9.0 2.63 0.8 80.5 18.7 0.0 32.1 0.012 0.046 0.500 SM Silty Sand
SPT-9 13.5 0.0 79.5 20.5 SM Silty Sand
SPT-13 19.5 2.8 75.3 21.9 0.0 35.1 SM Silty Sand
SPT-17 25.0 0.0 80.7 19.3 0.010 0.036 0.460 SM Silty Sand
BH-11 UDS-1 0.5 0.0 2.9 97.1 24 5 16.27 12.6 CL-ML Silty Clay
SPT-1 1.5 0.0 6.1 93.9 Non-Plastic 2.0 31.2 ML Silt
SPT-5 7.5 0.0 82.0 18.0 SM Silty Sand
SPT-8 12.0 0.0 83.2 16.8 0.0 32.9 SM Silty Sand
SPT-10 15.0 0.0 80.5 19.5 SM Silty Sand
WS 1182 ppm 99 ppm 140 ppm 8.00
BH-12 SPT-1 1.5 0.0 81.9 18.1 2.0 31.8 0.018 0.042 0.860 SM Silty Sand
SPT-4 6.0 0.0 75.6 24.4 SM Silty Sand
SPT-9 13.5 1.6 78.7 19.7 SM Silty Sand
BH-13 SPT-2 3.0 0.0 28.9 71.1 26 6 0.0 31.3 CL-ML Silty Clay with Sand
SPT-5 7.5 0.4 82.0 17.6 SM Silty Sand
SPT-10 15.0 2.8 74.8 22.4 SM Silty Sand
BH-14 SPT-1 1.5 0.2 2.3 97.5 24 4 0.014 0.052 0.920 CL-ML Silty Clay
SPT-2 3.0 0.0 45.2 54.8 Non-Plastic 1.0 32.3 ML Sandy Silt
SPT-8 12.0 0.0 80.1 19.9 SM Silty Sand
Water Tubewell 1263 ppm 99 ppm 90 ppm 8.00
Sample Hand pump 443 ppm 60 ppm 70 ppm 7.00
Berkeley Associates
Table 3-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Test Pit

Sheet 3 of 3
Soaked C.B.R
Partical Size Analysis
Value at
Atterberg Standard Proctor
Corresponding to Soil Classification
Limits Compaction
Passing % age Composition Standard Proctor
Test Pit Sample Depth Compaction at
No. No. (meter)
Max.
No.10 No.40 No.200 Concr- Sand Fines LL PI Dry Optimum USCS
etion Density Moisture 90% 95% 100% AASHTO
Content
% Group Group
% % % % % % % 3
(g/cm ) (%)
Symbol Name
TP-1 CS-1 0.0-4.0 99.9 100 46.2 0.0 53.8 46.2 Non-Plastic 1.77 13.9 4.0 6.6 9.2 A-4(0) SM Silty Sand
TP-2 CS-1 0.0-4.0 100 100 18.4 0.0 81.6 18.4 Non-Plastic 1.70 14.0 4.8 7.6 10.2 A-2-4(0) SM Silty Sand
N-Value (Blows/30 cm)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐13
Fig. 2-2A Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Switchyard

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐11
Fig. 2-2B Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank
0 5 10 15 20 25

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐12
Fig. 2-2C Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Depth (m)
7.0
8.0
90
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
BH‐09 BH‐10 N‐Avg
Fig. 2-2D Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Cooling Tower

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐07
Fig. 2-2E Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for TG-1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐08
Fig. 2-2F Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for TG-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐06
Fig. 2-2G Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.0
5.0
10.0
Depth (m)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Fig. 2-2H Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0.0
5.0
10.0
Depth (m)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Fig. 2-2I Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Boiler-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐01
Fig. 2-2J Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Chimney

0 5 10 15 20 25

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐14
Fig. 2-2K Profile for ObservedSPT N-Values for Coal Shed

Pressure (kPa)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
0
0.1
Cycle 1
0.2
Cycle 2
Settlement (mm)
Cycle 3
0.3
Cycle 4
0.4 Cycle 5
0.5
0.6
0.7
Fig. 2-3 Pressure vs Settlement Curves of Cyclic Plate Load Test Data-1
Pressure (kPa)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Cycle 1
0.6
0.7
Cycle 2
0.8
m)
09
0.9 Cycle 3
ettlement (mm
1
Cycle 4
1.1
1.2
Cycle 5
Se
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
Fig. 2-4 Pressure vs Settlement Curves of Cyclic Plate Load Test -2

FIG. 4-1
LEGEND: CLIENT:
CHINIOT POWER LIMITED
PROJECT:
CHINIOT POWER COMPANY 2X31.2 MW
FILL MATERIAL COGENERATION PROJECT
TITLE:
LINEAR SUBSURFACE PROFILE 1-1'
SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY WITH SAND DRAWN BY:
Berkeley Associates
316-D,OPF Housing Society, Raiwind Road, Lahore
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT / CLAYEY SILTY SAND CHECKED BY: Contact: +92-42-35323312-15
Fax: +92-42-35323316
DATE: COPYRIGHT C
GROUND WATER TABLE THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF Berkeley Associates
AND MAY NOT BE COPIED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT FOR FULFILLING
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ISSUED.
SPT SCALE JOB N0. FIG N0.

FIG. 4-2
LEGEND: CLIENT:
PROJECT:
FILL MATERIAL COGENERATION PROJECT
TITLE:
SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY WITH SAND DRAWN BY:
Berkeley Associates
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT / CLAYEY SILTY SAND CHECKED BY: Contact: +92-42-35323312-15
Fax: +92-42-35323316
DATE: COPYRIGHT C
GROUND WATER TABLE THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF Berkeley Associates
SPT SCALE JOB N0. FIG N0.

FIG. 4-3
LEGEND: CLIENT:
PROJECT:
COGENERATION PROJECT
SILTY CLAY / SILTY CLAY WITH SAND
TITLE:
DRAWN BY:
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT / CLAYEY SILTY SAND Berkeley Associates
CHECKED BY: Contact: +92-42-35323312-15
GROUND WATER TABLE Fax: +92-42-35323316
DATE: COPYRIGHT C
SPT THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF Berkeley Associates
SCALE JOB N0. FIG N0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐13
Fig. 5-1A Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Switchyard

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐11
Fig. 5-1B Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Fire Water Tank
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐12
Fig. 5-1C Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Water Treatment Plant
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fig. 5-1D Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Cooling Tower
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐07
Fig. 5-1E Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for TG-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐08
Fig. 5-1F Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for TG-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐06
Fig. 5-1G Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Maintenance Bay
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0
5.0
10.0
Depth (m)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Fig. 5-1H Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Boiler-1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
5.0
10.0
Depth (m)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Fig. 5-1I Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Boiler-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
BH‐01
Fig. 5-1J Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Chimney

0 5 10 15 20 25

0
6
Depth (m)
10
11
12
13
14
15
BH‐14
Fig. 5-1K Profile for Corrected SPT N-Values for Coal Shed
Berkeley Associates
120
100
Net Alllowable Bearing Pressures (kPa)
80 Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
Fig. 5-2. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm
at Switchyard
Berkeley Associates
100
90
80
70
Df = 3.0m
60
50
Df = 2.0m
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
Fig. 5-3. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Strip Footings for Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm
at Switchyard
Berkeley Associates
Net Alllowable Bearing Pressures (kPa) 120
100
Df = 3.0m
80
60
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
Fig. 5-4 Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm
at Raw/Fire Water Tank
Berkeley Associates
400
350
300
250
200
150
Df = 2.0m
100
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Water Treatment Plant
Berkeley Associates
400
350
300
250
200
150 Df = 2.0m
100
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Water Treatment Plant
Berkeley Associates
350
300
Net Allowable Bearing Pressures (kPa)
250
200
150 Df = 4.0m
Df = 3.0m
100
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Cooling Tower
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
150
Df = 4.0m
Df = 3.0m
100
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Cooling Tower
Berkeley Associates
160
140
120
Df = 4.0m
100
Df = 3.0m
80
60
40
Df = 2.0m
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
Fig. 5-9. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Mat/Raft Footings for Permissible Settlement of 50.8mm
at Cooling Tower
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
Df = 4.0m
100
Df = 3.0m
30
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at TG-1
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
Df = 4.0m
100
Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at TG-1
Berkeley Associates
120
110
100
90
Df = 4.0m
80
Df = 3.0m
70
60 Df = 2.0m
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
at TG-1
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
Df = 4.0m
150
Df = 3.0m
100
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
Fig. 5-13. Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Perimissible Settlement of 25.4mm
at TG-2
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
Df = 4.0m
150
Df = 3.0m
100 Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at TG-2
Berkeley Associates
160
140
120
Df = 4.0m
100
Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
at TG-2
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
150
2 0m
Df = 2.0m
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
Fig. 5-16 Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for Square Footings for Permissible Settlement of 25.4mm
at Maintenance Bay
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
150
Df = 2.0m
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Maintenance Bay
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
Df = 4.0m
150
Df = 3.0m
100
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
ar Boiler-1
Berkeley Associates
350
300
250
200
Df = 4.0m
150
3 0m
Df = 3.0m
100
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Boiler-1
Berkeley Associates
180
160
140
120 Df = 4.0m
Df = 3.0m
100
80
60
40
Df = 2.0m
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
at Boiler-1
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
Df = 4.0m
100
Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Boiler-2
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
Df = 4.0m
100
30
Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Boiler-2
Berkeley Associates
120
100
Df = 4.0m
80
Df = 3.0m
60 Df = 2.0m
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
at Boiler-2
Berkeley Associates
220
200
180
160
Df = 3.0m
30
140
120
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (m)
at Chimney
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
100
3 0m
Df = 3.0m
Df = 2.0m
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Coal Shed
Berkeley Associates
250
200
150
100
Df = 3.0m
30
50 Df = 2.0m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (m)
at Coal Shed
Berkeley Associates
180
arring Capacities in Compression (Tons)
160
140
Dia = 760mm
120
100
Dia = 660mm
80
Allowable Load Ca
60
40
20
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Length below Pile Cap (m)
Fig. 5-27. Allowable Load Carrying Capacities of Piles in Compression

Berkeley Associates
250,000
200,000
Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffnes (kN/m3)
150,000
660mm Dia
760mm Dia
100 000
100,000
50,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Depth below Pile Cap (m)
Fig. 5-28. Horizontal Soil Spring Stiffnesses of Pile below Pile Cap
Berkeley Associates
APPENDIX – B
BOREHOLE & TEST PIT LOGS

Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Appendix-B
Berkeley Associates
PROJECT: CHINIOT POWER COMPANY 2X31.2 MW COGENERATION PROJECT BOREHOLE NO: BH-01 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: ID FAN DEPTH OF W.T: 11.20 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
COORDS. E: 287588 m N: 3499393 m BORING STARTED ON: 30-12-2013 ENDED ON: 30-12-2013
GROUND ELEV: 98.61 m LOGGED BY: SHAHID SALEEM CHECKED BY: UMAIR
SPT
STANDARD
DESCRIPTION BLOWS FOR
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.61
UDS-1 Light Brown, Silty Sand, trace mica,
1 97.61 trace organic matter.
SPT-1 12
2 96.61 Light to Brown, Loose, Silt with Sand (ML),
trace mica, trace organic matter.
3 95.61 SPT-2 16
Light Grey, Medium Dense to Dense,
4 94.61 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM),
SPT-3 18
5 93.61 to Silty Sand (SM), trace mica,
trace concretion.
6 92.61 SPT-4 18
HYDRAULIC FEED STRAIGHT ROTARY DRILLING TECHNIQUE
7 91.61
SPT-5 22
8 90.61
9 89.61 SPT-6 26
10 88.61
SPT-7 27
11 87.61
12 86.61 SPT-8 30
13 85.61
SPT-9 33
14 84.61
15 83.61 SPT-10 18
16 82.61
SPT-11 23
17 81.61
18 80.61 SPT-12 38
19 79.61
SPT-13 25
20 78.61
21 77.61 SPT-14 28
22 76.61
SPT-15 40
23 75.61
24 74.61 SPT-16 37
25 73.61 SPT-17 43
(BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE)
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: BOILER NO. 1 DEPTH OF W.T: 11.0 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.74
UDS-1 Light Brown to Light Grey, Medium Dense
1 97.74 to Dense, Silty Sand (SM), trace
SPT-1 concretion, trace mica, trace organic 16
2 96.74 material at top.
3 95.74 SPT-2 14
4 94.74
SPT-3 17
5 93.74
6 92.74 SPT-4 24
7 91.74
SPT-5 24
8 90.74
9 89.74 SPT-6 21
10 88.74
SPT-7 16
11 87.74
12 86.74 SPT-8 23
13 85.74
SPT-9 22
14 84.74
15 83.74 SPT-10 18
16 82.74
SPT-11 20
17 81.74
18 80.74 SPT-12 26
19 79.74
SPT-13 25
20 78.74
21 77.74 SPT-14 29
22 76.74
SPT-15 24
23 75.74
24 74.74 SPT-16 29
25 73.74 SPT-17 32
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
COORDS. E: 287598 m N: 3499444 M BORING STARTED ON: 29-12-2013 ENDED ON: 29-12-2013
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.66
UDS-1 Light Brown to Light Grey, Loose to Dense,
1 97.66 Silty Sand (SM), trace concretion, trace
SPT-1 mica, 12 cm clayey patch at 7.5 m & 6 cm 5
2 96.66 clayey patch at 15 m depth.
3 95.66 SPT-2 12
4 94.66
SPT-3 17
5 93.66
6 92.66 SPT-4 15
7 91.66
SPT-5 9
8 90.66
9 89.66 SPT-6 22
10 88.66
SPT-7 18
11 87.66
12 86.66 SPT-8 16
13 85.66
SPT-9 22
14 84.66
15 83.66 SPT-10 19
16 82.66
SPT-11 14
17 81.66
18 80.66 SPT-12 16
19 79.66
SPT-13 23
20 78.66
21 77.66 SPT-14 31
22 76.66
SPT-15 29
23 75.66
24 74.66 SPT-16 33
25 73.66 SPT-17 35
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.7
UDS-1 Light Brown, Lean Clay (CL),
1 97.7 trace, organic matter.
SPT-1 7
2 96.7 Light Brown, Firm,
Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML)
3 95.7 SPT-2 14
Light brown to Grey, Medium Dense
4 94.7 to Dense, Silty Sand (SM), trace mica,
SPT-3 trace concretion. 12
5 93.7
6 92.7 SPT-4 17
7 91.7
SPT-5 19
8 90.7
9 89.7 SPT-6 19
10 88.7
SPT-7 22
11 87.7
12 86.7 SPT-8 26
13 85.7
SPT-9 15
14 84.7
15 83.7 SPT-10 27
16 82.7
SPT-11 25
17 81.7
18 80.7 SPT-12 28
19 79.7
SPT-13 26
20 78.7
21 77.7 SPT-14 34
22 76.7
SPT-15 31
23 75.7
24 74.7 SPT-16 23
25 73.7 SPT-17 28
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.72
UDS-1 Light brown, Loose, Silt (ML),
1 97.72 trace organic matter.
SPT-1 9
2 96.72
3 95.72 SPT-2 7
Light Brown to Light Grey, Loose Dense,
4 94.72 Silty Sand (SM), trace mica,
SPT-3 20
5 93.72 trace concretion.
6 92.72 SPT-4 22
7 91.72
SPT-5 19
8 90.72
9 89.72 SPT-6 28
10 88.72
SPT-7 20
11 87.72
12 86.72 SPT-8 17
13 85.72
SPT-9 17
14 84.72
15 83.72 SPT-10 17
16 82.72
SPT-11 25
17 81.72
18 80.72 SPT-12 28
19 79.72
SPT-13 33
20 78.72
21 77.72 SPT-14 28
22 76.72
SPT-15 23
23 75.72
24 74.72 SPT-16 30
25 73.72 SPT-17 39
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: MAINTENANCE BAY DEPTH OF W.T: 11.10 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 99.2
UDS-1 Light Brown to Grey, Loose to Dense,
SPT-1 10
3 96.2 SPT-2 14
4 95.2
SPT-3 15
5 94.2
6 93.2 SPT-4 15
7 92.2
SPT-5 13
8 91.2
9 90.2 SPT-6 16
10 89.2
SPT-7 18
11 88.2
12 87.2 SPT-8 20
13 86.2
SPT-9 23
14 85.2
15 84.2 SPT-10 18
16 83.2
SPT-11 19
17 82.2
18 81.2 SPT-12 21
19 80.2
SPT-13 28
20 79.2
21 78.2 SPT-14 31
22 77.2
SPT-15 32
23 76.2
24 75.2 SPT-16 32
25 74.2 SPT-17 35
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: TG -1 DEPTH OF W.T: 10.80 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.67
UDS-1 Light Brown, Silty Clay (CL-ML),
1 97.67 trace concretion trace organic matter.
SPT-1 6
2 96.67
3 95.67 SPT-2 10
Light Brown to Light Grey, Loose to Dense,
4 94.67 Silty Sand (SM), trace mica, trace
SPT-3 concretion, 10 cm patch of Lean Clay (CL) 8
5 93.67 at 15.05 m depth.
6 92.67 SPT-4 14
7 91.67
SPT-5 21
8 90.67
9 89.67 SPT-6 20
10 88.67
SPT-7 17
11 87.67
12 86.67 SPT-8 12
13 85.67
SPT-9 20
14 84.67
15 83.67 SPT-10 7
16 82.67
SPT-11 29
17 81.67
18 80.67 SPT-12 35
19 79.67
SPT-13 28
20 78.67
21 77.67 SPT-14 24
22 76.67
SPT-15 27
23 75.67
24 74.67 SPT-16 33
25 73.67 SPT-17 32
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: TG # 2 DEPTH OF W.T: 11.10 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.55
UDS-1 Light Brown, Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML),
1 97.55 trace organic matter, trace concretion.
SPT-1 8
2 96.55
3 95.55 SPT-2 9
Light Brown, Loose, Sandy Silt (ML),
4 94.55 trace mica.
SPT-3 13
5 93.55 Light Grey, Medium Dense to Dense, Silty
Sand (SM), trace mica, trace concretion
6 92.55 SPT-4 15 cm clayey patch at 19.50 m depth. 19
7 91.55
SPT-5 23
8 90.55
9 89.55 SPT-6 19
10 88.55
SPT-7 16
11 87.55
12 86.55 SPT-8 14
13 85.55
SPT-9 20
14 84.55
15 83.55 SPT-10 24
16 82.55
SPT-11 20
17 81.55
18 80.55 SPT-12 30
19 79.55
SPT-13 34
20 78.55
21 77.55 SPT-14 28
22 76.55
SPT-15 26
23 75.55
24 74.55 SPT-16 32
25 73.55 SPT-17 29
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: COOLING TOWER DEPTH OF W.T: 11.0 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.64
UDS-1 Fill Material Blackish Brown, furnace
1 97.64 slag mixed with silty clay, grass roots
SPT-1 and concretion. 6
2 96.64
Light Brown, Firm,
3 95.64 SPT-2 Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML). 13
4 94.64 Light Brown to Brown, Loose to Medium

SPT-3 Dense, Sandy Silt (ML), trace mica, 10
6 92.64 SPT-4 17
Light Grey, Medium Dense to Very Dense,

8 90.64
9 89.64 SPT-6 16
10 88.64
SPT-7 18
11 87.64
12 86.64 SPT-8 18
13 85.64
SPT-9 16
14 84.64
15 83.64 SPT-10 20
16 82.64
SPT-11 36
17 81.64
18 80.64 SPT-12 34
19 79.64
SPT-13 31
20 78.64
21 77.64 SPT-14 31
22 76.64
SPT-15 30
23 75.64
24 74.64 SPT-16 33
25 73.64 SPT-17 50
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: COOLING TOWER DEPTH OF W.T: 11.0 m FINAL DEPTH: 25 m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.48
UDS-1 Fill Material
1 97.48 Blackish Brown, furnace slag with silty
SPT-1 clay, grass roots, concretion. 8
2 96.48
Light Brownish Grey, Silty Clay (CL-ML).
3 95.48 SPT-2 16
Light Brown to Light Grey, Loose to Dense,
5 93.48
6 92.48 SPT-4 20
7 91.48
SPT-5 19
8 90.48
9 89.48 SPT-6 23
10 88.48
SPT-7 23
11 87.48
12 86.48 SPT-8 14
13 85.48
SPT-9 18
14 84.48
15 83.48 SPT-10 20
16 82.48
SPT-11 18
17 81.48
18 80.48 SPT-12 28
19 79.48
SPT-13 30
20 78.48
21 77.48 SPT-14 28
22 76.48
SPT-15 32
23 75.48
24 74.48 SPT-16 29
25 73.48 SPT-17 27
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: FIRE WATER TANK DEPTH OF W.T: 9.90 m FINAL DEPTH: 15m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.71
Fill Material
1 97.71 UDS-1 Light Brown, silty clay with grass roots,
SPT-1 organic material, concretion. 6

2 96.71
Light Brown, Silty Clay (CL-ML).
3 95.71 SPT-2 8
Light Brown, Loose, Silt (ML), trace mica.
4 94.71
SPT-3 14
5 93.71 Light Grey, Medium Dense,
Silty Sand (SM),trace mica.
6 92.71 SPT-4 24
7 91.71
SPT-5 26
8 90.71
9 89.71 SPT-6 28
10 88.71
SPT-7 22
11 87.71
12 86.71 SPT-8 19
13 85.71
SPT-9 16
14 84.71
15 83.71 SPT-10 18
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: WATER TREATMENT PLANT DEPTH OF W.T: 10.80 m FINAL DEPTH: 15m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.9
Fill Material, grass roots with
1 97.9 UDS-1 clayey silt and organic material.
SPT-1 10
2 96.9 Light Brown to Light Grey, Loose to
Medium Dense, Silty Sand (SM), trace
3 95.9 SPT-2 mica, trace concretion. 16
4 94.9
SPT-3 15
5 93.9
6 92.9 SPT-4 21
7 91.9
SPT-5 18
8 90.9
9 89.9 SPT-6 20
10 88.9
SPT-7 21
11 87.9
12 86.9 SPT-8 16
13 85.9
SPT-9 20
14 84.9
15 83.9 SPT-10 17
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: SWITCH YARD DEPTH OF W.T: 9.60 m FINAL DEPTH: 15m
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.7
UDS-1 Fill Material, grass roots with clayey silt,
1 97.7 trace organic material.
SPT-1 10
2 96.7 Brownish,
Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML) trace mica.
3 95.7 SPT-2 8
Brownish, Loose to Medium Dense,
4 94.7 Silty Sand (SM), trace mica.
SPT-3 19
5 93.7 Brownish, Loose,
Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML), trace mica.
6 92.7 SPT-4 24
Greyish, Medium Dense, Silty Sand (SM),
7 91.7 trace mica, trace concretion.
SPT-5 17
8 90.7
9 89.7 SPT-6 26
10 88.7
SPT-7 13
11 87.7
12 86.7 SPT-8 20
13 85.7
SPT-9 25
14 84.7
15 83.7 SPT-10 22
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
LOCATION: COAL SHED DEPTH OF W.T: 11.40 m FINAL DEPTH: 15m
COORDS. E: 287608 m N: 3499299 BORING STARTED ON: 30-12-2013 ENDED ON: 30-12-2013
GROUND ELEV: 98.58 LOGGED BY: MATEEN HUSSAIN CHECKED BY: UMAIR
SPT
STANDARD
PENETRATION
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, m
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
LAST 30 cm
DETAILS
LEGEND
OF PENETRATION
TEST PROFILE
MATERIAL
30 60
0 98.58
UDS-1 Light Brown, Firm,
1 97.58
Silty Clay (CL-ML).

SPT-1 5
2 96.58
3 95.58 SPT-2 7
Light Browm, Firm,
4 94.58 Sandy Silt (ML).
SPT-3 12
5 93.58 Light Grey, Medium Dense,
Silty Sand (SM), trace mica.
6 92.58 SPT-4 21
7 91.58
SPT-5 13
8 90.58
9 89.58 SPT-6 13
10 88.58
SPT-7 14
11 87.58
12 86.58 SPT-8 19
13 85.58
SPT-9 18
14 84.58
15 83.58 SPT-10 19
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
PROJECT: CHINIOT POWER COMPANY 2X31.2 MW COGENERATION PROJECT TESTPIT NO: TP-01 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: BOILER # 1 DEPTH OF W.T: NIL FINAL DEPTH: 4.0 m
COORDS. E: 287561 m N: 3499481 m STARTED ON: 31-12-2013 ENDED ON: 31-12-2013
BULK MOISTURE DRY

DESCRIPTION
DENSITY CONTENT DENSITY
REDUCED
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, M
SAMPLES
DRILLING
LEVEL, m
DETAILS
LEGEND
AND PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE
kN/cu.m. (%) kN/cu.m.
REMARKS
10 10 20 10
0
Fill Material
Brown to Light Brown Silty Clay (CL-ML),
.2
trace to little grass roots, trace organic
material, trace fine sand, trace concretion.
.4
Brown to Light Grey, Soft, Silty Clay (CL-ML),
trace organic matter, trace grass roots,
.6 FDT-1 trace concretion.
.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
MECHANICAL EXCAVATED
1.8 Light Brown, Soft, Sandy Clayey Silt (CL-ML).
2 FDT-2 CS-1
2.2
2.4
2.6
Light Grey, Loose, Moist, Silty Sand (SM).
2.8
3 FDT-3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4 FDT-4
(BOTTOM OF TESTPITS)
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
PROJECT: CHINIOT POWER COMPANY 2X31.2 MW COGENERATION PROJECT TESTPIT NO: TP-02 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: BOILER # 2 DEPTH OF W.T: NIL FINAL DEPTH: 4.0 m
COORDS. E: 287586 m N: 3499481 m STARTED ON: 31-12-2013 ENDED ON: 31-12-2013
BULK MOISTURE DRY

DESCRIPTION
DENSITY CONTENT DENSITY
DEPTH, m
DEPTH, M
SAMPLES
DRILLING
DETAILS
LEGEND
AND PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE
TEST
kN/cu.m. (%) kN/cu.m.

REMARKS
10 10 20 10
0
Fill Material
Brown to Light Brown Silty Clay (CL-ML),
.2
trace grass roots, trace organic material, trace
concretion.
.4
Light Brown, Soft, Silty Clay (CL-ML), trace
.6 organic material, trace grass roots, trace fine
sand.
.8
1 FDT-1
1.2
1.4
1.6
MECHANICAL EXCAVATED
1.8
2 FDT-2 CS-1
2.2 Light Grey, Loose, Silty Sand (SM),

trace mica, trace concretion.
2.4
2.6
2.8
3 FDT-3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4 FDT-4
(BOTTOM OF TESTPITS)
CLIENT:
Berkeley Associates
APPENDIX - C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Appendix-C
Berkeley Associates
Borehole No. BH-1 Lab Ref. J-559
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percentage Passing (%)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Average Grain Diameter (mm)
UDS-1(1.0 meter) SPT-1(1.5 meter) SPT-3(4.5 meter) SPT-8(12.0 meter) SPT-15(22.5 meter)
Sand
Boulders Cobbles Gravel Silt Clay
Coarse Medium Fine
Tested by:Sikandar Checked by: Muhammad Ajmal
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
SPT-1(1.5 meter) SPT-2(3.0 meter) SPT-5(7.5 meter) SPT-10(15.0 meter) SPT-17(25.0 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
SPT-1(1.5 meter) SPT-3(4.5 meter) SPT-8(12.0 meter) SPT-11(16.5 meter) SPT-16(24.0 meter) UDS-1(1.0 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
UDS-1(0.5 meter) SPT-3(4.5 meter) SPT-8(12.0 meter) SPT-10A(15.0 meter)

SPT-13(19.5 meter) SPT-15(22.5 m) SPT-10B(15.0 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
UDS-1(0.5 meter) SPT-2(3.0 meter) SPT-5(7.5 meter) SPT-9(13.5 meter) SPT-14(21.0 meter) SPT-17(25.0 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
UDS-1(0.5 meter) SPT-1(1.5 meter) SPT-6(9.0 meter) SPT-9(13.5 meter) SPT-13(19.5 meter) SPT-17(25.0 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
SPT-1(1.5 meter) SPT-4(6.0 meter) SPT-9(13.5 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
Test Pit Lab Ref. J-559
300 mm 75 mm #4 # 10 # 40 # 200 0.005 mm

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
TP-1(0-4 meter) TP-2(0-4 meter)
Sand
Coarse Medium Fine
Berkeley Associates
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit,Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
Date: 22/01/2014
Borehole No.BH-4 Depth: 1.0 meter Sample No. UDS-1 Sample Type: Undisturbed
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Description Unit AASHTO T-89/ASTM D4318-00, Method"A" AASHTO T-90
Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 36 30 24 18
Dish No. 71 70 69 68 67 66
Wt. of dish+wet soil g 16.94 15.76 19.72 19.69 12.20 15.39
Wt. of dish+dry soil g 14.76 13.58 17.16 16.76 10.90 13.93
Wt. of dish g 7.37 6.39 8.97 7.71 5.01 7.30
Wt. of water g 2.18 2.18 2.56 2.93 1.30 1.46
Wt. of dry soil g 7.39 7.19 8.19 9.05 5.89 6.63
Water content % 29.5 30.3 31.3 32.4 22.1 22.0
Original Data Best Fit
35
Liquid Limit 31 %
34
33
Plastic Limit 22 %
31.0
Moisture Content %
32
31 Plasticity Index 9%
30
Group of soil A-4( 9 )
29
28 Note:
27
-
26
25
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows
Tested by: Checked by:

Sikandar Hayat Muhammad Ajmal
Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014
Borehole No.BH-4 Depth: 1.50 meter Sample No. SPT-1 Sample Type: Disturbed

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 37 29 23 17
Dish No. 38 39 40 41 42 43
Wt. of dish g 6.33 6.68 8.03 7.12 6.97 7.11
Wt. of water g 2.02 2.17 2.04 2.34 1.05 1.04
Wt. of dry soil g 8.21 8.54 7.79 8.58 5.55 5.47
Water content % 24.6 25.4 26.2 27.3 19.0 19.1
30
Liquid Limit 26 %
29
28 Plastic Limit 19 %
Moisture Content %
27 26.0
Plasticity Index 7%
26
25 Group of soil A-4( 6 )

24
Note:
23
22 -
21
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 35 29 22 16
Dish No. 32 33 34 35 36 37
Wt. of dish g 11.67 11.12 11.90 13.62 12.20 7.14
Wt. of water g 1.81 2.16 2.02 1.73 0.99 1.18
Wt. of dry soil g 7.85 9.15 8.25 6.78 5.18 6.13
Water content % 23.0 23.6 24.5 25.5 19.1 19.3
30
Liquid Limit 24 %
29
Moisture Content %
27
Plasticity Index 5%
26
25 24.1 Group of soil A-4( 3 )

24
Note:
23
22 -
21
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014
Borehole No.BH-7 Depth: 15.0 meter Sample No. SPT-10B Sample Type: Disturbed

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 37 30 23 17
Dish No. 44 45 46 47 48 49
Wt. of dish g 6.30 6.70 6.69 5.87 6.89 5.75
Wt. of water g 3.24 2.74 2.99 2.72 1.53 1.42
Wt. of dry soil g 9.66 7.96 8.45 7.46 6.32 5.89
Water content % 33.5 34.4 35.4 36.5 24.2 24.1
40
Liquid Limit 35 %
39
Moisture Content %
37
Plasticity Index 11 %
36 35.0
34
Note:
33
32 -
31
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 35 30 24 16
Dish No. 26 27 28 29 30 31
Wt. of dish g 11.85 16.36 14.69 12.60 14.95 9.65
Wt. of water g 1.47 1.77 1.92 1.82 1.16 1.10
Wt. of dry soil g 6.69 7.85 8.25 7.41 6.12 5.71
Water content % 22.0 22.5 23.3 24.5 18.9 19.2
28
Liquid Limit 23 %
27
Moisture Content %
25
Plasticity Index 4%
24 23.1

22
Note:
21
20 -
19
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 35 30 24 16
Dish No. 19 21 22 23 24 25
Wt. of dish g 8.49 12.01 13.53 13.40 16.71 12.02
Wt. of water g 1.61 1.90 1.81 1.70 1.13 1.12
Wt. of dry soil g 7.34 8.46 7.79 6.96 5.95 5.96
Water content % 21.9 22.4 23.2 24.4 19.0 18.8
28
Liquid Limit 23 %
27
Moisture Content %
25
Plasticity Index 4%
24 23.0
22
Note:
21
20 -
19
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 35 28 22 16
Dish No. 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wt. of dish g 12.64 12.54 12.48 11.51 13.51 15.36
Wt. of water g 1.52 1.83 1.84 2.00 1.21 1.09
Wt. of dry soil g 6.48 7.48 7.28 7.58 6.34 5.72
Water content % 23.5 24.4 25.3 26.4 19.1 19.0
30
Liquid Limit 25 %
29
Moisture Content %
27
Plasticity Index 6%
26
24.7
25 Group of soil
A-4( 4 )
24
Note:
23 -
22
21
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 34 27 21 15
Dish No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wt. of dish g 14.11 13.99 12.02 11.52 14.00 11.36
Wt. of water g 1.49 1.88 2.00 1.97 0.96 1.17
Wt. of dry soil g 6.47 7.95 8.20 7.75 5.08 6.09
Water content % 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.4 18.8 19.2
28
Liquid Limit 24 %
27
Moisture Content %
25 23.9
Plasticity Index 5%
24

22
Note:
21
20 -
19
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 36 29 22 16
Dish No. 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wt. of dish g 16.37 9.02 11.37 12.19 8.49 12.01
Wt. of water g 1.99 2.08 1.99 1.94 1.20 1.02
Wt. of dry soil g 8.17 8.24 7.64 7.11 6.05 5.09
Water content % 24.4 25.3 26.1 27.3 19.9 20.1
30
Liquid Limit 26 %
29
Moisture Content %
27
25.7
Plasticity Index 6%
26

24
Note:
23
22 -
21
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
Date: 22/01/2014

Trial # 1 2 3 4 1 2
No. of blows 34 27 22 16
Dish No. 50 51 52 53 54 55
Wt. of dish g 6.15 5.99 7.07 6.99 7.20 7.07
Wt. of water g 1.38 1.53 1.73 2.05 1.24 0.97
Wt. of dry soil g 5.99 6.43 7.08 8.05 6.60 5.05
Water content % 23.1 23.8 24.5 25.5 18.8 19.2
28
Liquid Limit 24 %
27
Moisture Content %
25 24.1
Plasticity Index 5%
24

22
Note:
21
20 -
19
15 20 25 30 40 50
No. of Blows

Berkeley Associates
SUMMARY OF NMC , BULK DENSITY SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST RESULTS
Sr. Sample Depth NMC Bulk Density Dry Density Specific

Borehole No.
No. No. (meter) (%) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) Gravity
1 BH-1 UDS-1 1.0-1.5 5.0 14.87 14.17 2.63

2 BH-2 SPT-5 7.5-7.95 - - - 2.63
3 BH-3 SPT-14 21.0-21.45 - - - 2.63
4 BH-5 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 5.1 14.89 14.17 2.62
5 BH-7 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 8.6 17.51 16.12 -
6 BH-8 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 7.2 15.00 13.99 -
7 BH-8 SPT-8 12.0-12.45 - - - 2.63
8 BH-9 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 7.5 16.70 15.53 2.68
9 BH-10 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 13.7 17.84 15.69 -
10 BH-10 SPT-6 9.0-9.45 - - - 2.63
11 BH-11 UDS-1 0.5-1.0 12.6 16.27 14.45 -
Tested by: Sikandar Hayat Checked by: Muhammad Ajmal

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Ref No. J 559 Sample Type : Remolded Test Condition Soaked
Borehole No. BH-1 Sample No. SPT-3 Depth: 4.50 meter
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.625x + 1.921
LINEAR REGRESSION
Angle of Internal Friction = 32.0 Degrees

Cohesion = 1.0 kPa
Tested by: Sikandar Hayat Checked by:Muhammad Ajmal

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.669x + 0.862
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.594x + 0.771
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.620x - 0.743
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
200.0
180.0
160.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
450
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.646x + 0.228
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.621x + 1.527
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 1.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
180.0
160.0
140.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.665x + 0.406
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.651x + 4.242
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 4.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
160.0
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
y = 0.706x + 2.009 Normal Stress (kPa)
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 2.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.564x + 8.059
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 8.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.629x + 3.430
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 3.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
180.0
160.0
140.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.667x + 0.370
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.643x + 2.822
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 2.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.625x - 0.017
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
180.0
160.0
140.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.667x - 0.303
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.626x + 1.585
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 1.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
160.0
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.620x - 0.119
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.640x + 4.101
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 4.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.653x + 0.784
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
180.0
160.0
140.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.687x - 0.755
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.618x + 0.832
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
160.0
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.689x - 0.157
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.628x + 0.042
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
200.0
180.0
160.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
400
350
300
Shear Stress (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.702x - 0.077
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.607x + 2.994
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 2.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
140.0
120.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.647x + 0.520
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.620x + 2.491
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 2.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.608x + 0.430
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 0.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
120.0
100.0
Shear Stress (kPa)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
350
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal Stress (kPa)
y = 0.632x + 1.449
LINEAR REGRESSION

Cohesion = 1.0 kPa

Berkeley Associates
Unconfined Compression Test
Ref No. 559 Date: 21-01-2014
Borehole No. BH - 1 Depth: 1.0-1.5 meter Sample No. UDS- 1
LC for deformation gauge 0.010 mm
Load Factor = 0.245 kg per division for 0.002 mm Least count gauge
2
Length = 16 cm Area(Avg.) = 38.50 cm
3
Dia(Avg.) = 7.00 cm Bulk Density = 14.87 kN/m
Weight = 934 g NMC = 4.98 %
3 3
Volume = 616 cm Dry Density = 14.17 kN/m
70
Corre.
Def. Load Strain Area Stress
2
Gauge Gauge (%) (Cm ) kPa 60
50
Sample Collapse during extract due to
Low moist and sandy soil
40
Stress (kPa)
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
Unconfined Compressive Strength= Strain =

Unconfined Compressive Strength 66 Kpa

Berkeley Associates
Ref No. 559 Date: 21-01-2014
2
Length = 16.5 cm Area(Avg.) = 38.50 cm
3
Weight = 964 g NMC = 5.09 %
3 3
Volume = 635.25 cm Dry Density = 14.17 kN/m
70
Corre.
Def. Load Strain Area Stress
2
Gauge Gauge (%) (Cm ) kPa 60
50
Sample Collapse during extract due to
Low moist and silty soil
40
Stress (kPa)
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strain (%)
Unconfined Compressive Strength= Strain =


Berkeley Associates
Ref No. 559 Date: 21-01-2014
2
3
Weight = 962 g NMC = 8.58 %
3 3
Volume = 539 cm Dry Density = 16.12 kN/m
60
Corre.
Def. Load Strain Area Stress 55
2
Gauge Gauge (%) (Cm ) kPa
50
0 0 0.000 38.500 0.000
50 13 0.357 38.638 8.087 45
100 27 0.714 38.777 16.735
150 42 1.071 38.917 25.939 40
200 56 1.429 39.058 34.460
250 71 1.786 39.200 43.532 35
Stress (kPa)
300 84 2.143 39.343 51.315

30
350 86 2.500 39.487 52.345
400 84 2.857 39.632 50.941 25
20
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Strain (%)
Unconfined Compressive Strength= 52 kPa Strain = 2.5 %


Berkeley Associates
Ref No. 559 Date: 21-01-2014
2
Dia(Avg.) = 7.00 cm Bulk Density = 16.71 kN/m3
Weight = 918 g NMC = 7.52 %
Volume = 539 cm3 Dry Density = 15.54 kN/m3
50
Corre.
Def. Load Strain Area Stress 45
2
Gauge Gauge (%) (Cm ) kPa
0 0 0.000 38.500 0.000 40
50 13 0.357 38.638 8.087
100 23 0.714 38.777 14.256 35
150 33 1.071 38.917 20.380
200 44 1.429 39.058 27.076
30
250 53 1.786 39.200 32.496
Stress (kPa)
300 62 2.143 39.343 37.876

25
350 69 2.500 39.487 41.998
400 73 2.857 39.632 44.270
450 71 3.214 39.779 42.899 20
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Strain (%)
Unconfined Compressive Strength= 44 kPa Strain = 2.9 %


Berkeley Associates
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
STANDARD AASHTO T-99-93(ASTM D 698-00a)
Ref No.: J 559 Test Pit # TP-1 Sample # : CS-1
Depth: 0.00-4.00 meter Description:Sub Grade
DIAMETER OF MOLD: 10.16 cm VOLUME OF MOLD: 944 c.c.

BLOWS/LAYER: 56 NUMBER OF LAYERS: 3
WEIGHT OF RAMMER: 5.5 lbs DROP OF RAMMER: 12 in
NUMBER OF TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 10.12 11.70 13.68 15.53 17.45 19.49
WET UNIT WEIGHT (g/cc) 1.775 1.891 2.008 1.986 1.939 1.891
DRY UNIT WEIGHT (g/cc) 1.612 1.693 1.766 1.720 1.651 1.583
ZERO AIR VOID DRY DENSITY (g/cc) 2.089 2.023 1.945 1.878 1.812 1.747
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
Dry Density (g/cc)
1.75 Zero Air Void Line
1.70
90 % Saturation
1.65
80 % Saturation
1.60
1.55
70 % Saturation
1.50
1.45
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0
Moisture Content (%)
3
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) = 13.9 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (g/cc) = 1.77
Tested by:Sikandar Hayat Checked by: Muhammad Ajmal

Berkeley Associates
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
STANDARD AASHTO T-99-93(ASTM D 698-00a)
Ref No.: J 559 Test Pit # TP-2 Sample # : CS-1
Depth: 0.00-4.00 meter Description:Sub Grade
DIAMETER OF MOLD: 10.16 cm VOLUME OF MOLD: 944 c.c.

BLOWS/LAYER: 56 NUMBER OF LAYERS: 3
WEIGHT OF RAMMER: 5.5 lbs DROP OF RAMMER: 12 in
NUMBER OF TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 8.99 10.97 13.02 14.85 16.56 18.31
WET UNIT WEIGHT (g/cc) 1.637 1.775 1.907 1.944 1.891 1.838
DRY UNIT WEIGHT (g/cc) 1.502 1.599 1.687 1.693 1.623 1.554
ZERO AIR VOID DRY DENSITY (g/cc) 2.140 2.053 1.970 1.902 1.842 1.784
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
Zero Air Void Line
Dry Density (g/cc)
1.75
90 % Saturation
1.70
1.65 80 % Saturation
1.60
70 % Saturation
1.55
1.50
1.45
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0
Moisture Content (%)
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) = 14.0 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (g/cc) = 1.70
Tested by:Sikandar Hayat Checked by: Muhammad Ajmal

Berkeley Associates
CBR DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (AASHTO T-193-99)
Project:- Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Sample No. CS-1

Project Blows = 10 , 30, 65
Location:- Test Pit-1 Ring Factor 4.0
Compaction Data
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 13.9 Maximum Dry Density (g/cc) 1.770
C.B.R DATA
Number of Blows Per Layer 10 30 65
C.B. R. Value at 0.1" inch 3.47 7.07 9.73
C.B.R. Value at 0.2" 3.11 6.58 9.07
Dry Density (g/cc) 1.573 1.696 1.784
Moisture Content % 13.89 13.99 13.84
Swell (%) 0.065 0.044 0.000
Compaction % age at C.B.R. Value at 0.1" 0.2"
82 % In-situ Dry density 1.454 C.B.R. at In-situ Dry density - -
90 % of Maxmum Dry Density 1.593 C.B.R. at 90% of Max.Dry Density 4.0 3.8
100% of Maxmum Dry Density 1.770 C.B.R. at 100% of Max.Dry Density 9.2 8.6
11
10
8
C.B.R Value
1
1.400 1.450 1.500 1.550 1.600 1.650 1.700 1.750 1.800
Dry Density g/cc

C.B.R. Value at 0.1"
Berkeley Associates

Project:- Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Sample No. CS-1
Blows 10, 30, 65
Location:- Test Pit-1 Proving Ring Factor Lb/div. 4.0
Moisture Content CBR Test Data

Descrition 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows Penetration Dial Reading Load Lbs Dial Reading Load Lbs Dial Reading Load Lbs
Dish No. 5 6 7 inches 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows
Total Wet weight gm 122.6 127.7 120.2 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dry weight gm 110.1 114.4 108.2 0.025 7 28 16 64 24 96
Dish weight 20.08 19.34 21.52 0.050 15 60 30 120 44 176
Weight of water 12.5 13.3 12 0.075 21 84 42 168 59 236
Weight of dry soil gm 90.02 95.06 86.68 0.100 26 104 53 212 73 292
Moisture Content % 13.89 13.99 13.84 0.150 30 120 64 256 87 348
Opt. Moisture Content % 13.90 0.200 35 140 74 296 102 408
0.250 40 160 84 336 116 464
Dry Density 0.300 44 176 94 376 130 520
Descrition 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows 0.350 48 192 105 420 142 568
Total weight gm 7680 8400 8180 0.400 52 208 115 460 156 624
Weight of Mold gm 3875 4294 3865 0.450 56 224 126 504 170 680
Weight of Wet Soil gm 3805 4106 4315 0.500 60 240 136 544 184 736
Volume of Mold cc 2124 2124 2124
Wet Density g/cc 1.791 1.933 2.032
900
Dry Density g/cc 1.573 1.696 1.784 800
Max Dry Density g/cc 1.770
Moisture Content of Specimen After Soaking 700
Descrition 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows
Load (Lb)
600
Weigth of Dish gm 18.38 24.7 20.1
Total Wet weight gm 119.8 117.5 119.7 500
Total Dry weight gm 104.3 104.8 106.9
Weight of Water 15.5 12.7 12.8 400
Net Dry Weight gm 85.92 80.10 86.80
Moisture Content % 18.04 15.86 14.75 300
Percentage Swell
200
Initial Reading 0 0 0 100
Final Dial Reading 3 2 0
Percentage Swell 0.07 0.04 0.00 0
Corrected CBR Values 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
CBR Value 0.1" Penetration 3.5 7.1 9.7
CBR Value 0.2" Penetration 3.1 6.6 9.1 Penetration (Inches)
10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows
Berkeley Associates
Project:- Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Sample No. CS-1

Project Blows = 10 , 30, 65
Location:- Test Pit-2 Ring Factor 4.0
Compaction Data
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 14.0 Maximum Dry Density (g/cc) 1.700
C.B.R DATA
Number of Blows Per Layer 10 30 65
C.B. R. Value at 0.1" inch 4.53 7.87 10.67
C.B.R. Value at 0.2" 3.91 7.20 9.78
Dry Density (g/cc) 1.522 1.619 1.713
Swell (%) 0.022 0.000 0.000
Compaction % age at C.B.R. Value at 0.1" 0.2"
88 % In-situ Dry density 1.494 C.B.R. at In-situ Dry density 3.8 3.2
100% of Maxmum Dry Density 1.700 C.B.R. at 100% of Max.Dry Density 10.2 9.3
12
11
10
9
C.B.R Value
2
1.350 1.400 1.450 1.500 1.550 1.600 1.650 1.700 1.750
Dry Density g/cc

Berkeley Associates

Project:- Chiniot Power Company 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Sample No. CS-1
Blows 10, 30, 65
Location:- Test Pit-2 Proving Ring Factor Lb/div. 4.0
Moisture Content CBR Test Data

Descrition 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows Penetration Dial Reading Load Lbs Dial Reading Load Lbs Dial Reading Load Lbs
Dish No. 11 12 13 inches 10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows
Total Wet weight gm 131.3 135.5 116.8 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Dry weight gm 117.2 120.9 105.2 0.025 10 40 17 68 28 112
Dish weight 15.41 16.65 22.53 0.050 20 80 33 132 47 188
Weight of water 14.1 14.6 11.6 0.075 27 108 47 188 66 264
Weight of dry soil gm 101.79 104.25 82.67 0.100 34 136 59 236 80 320
Moisture Content % 13.85 14.00 14.03 0.150 39 156 70 280 95 380
Opt. Moisture Content % 14.00 0.200 44 176 81 324 110 440
0.250 49 196 91 364 126 504
Dry Density 0.300 55 220 101 404 139 556
Descrition 10 Blows 8600 65 Blows 0.350 62 248 110 440 150 600
Total weight gm 7280 7770 8050 0.400 67 268 119 476 160 640
Weight of Mold gm 3600 3850 3900 0.450 72 288 127 508 171 684
Weight of Wet Soil gm 3680 3920 4150 0.500 77 308 133 532 181 724
Volume of Mold cc 2124 2124 2124
Wet Density g/cc 1.733 1.846 1.954
900
Dry Density g/cc 1.522 1.619 1.713 800
Max Dry Density g/cc 1.700
Moisture Content of Specimen After Soaking 700
Load (Lb)
600
Weigth of Dish gm 17.82 16.76 19.26
Total Wet weight gm 126.6 131.3 114.4 500
Total Dry weight gm 109.6 114.1 100.8
Weight of Water 17 17.2 13.6 400
Net Dry Weight gm 91.78 97.34 81.54
Moisture Content % 18.52 17.67 16.68 300
Percentage Swell
200
Initial Reading 0 0 0 100
Final Dial Reading 1 0 0
Percentage Swell 0.02 0.00 0.00 0
Corrected CBR Values 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
CBR Value 0.1" Penetration 4.5 7.9 10.7
CBR Value 0.2" Penetration 3.9 7.2 9.8 Penetration (Inches)
10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows
Berkeley Associates
APPENDIX - D
REPORT ON ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

Report on Geotechnical Investigations Rev. 00 Appendix-E
Chiniot Power Limited
Report on
Electrical Resistivity Survey
February, 2014
Doc. No. J-559
Rev. 00
Berkeley 316 D, OPF Housing Colony,

Raiwind Road Lahore
Phone: 042-35323313-15
Associates Fax: 042-35323316

Berkeley Associates
00 04-02-2014 Issued to Client AAG KA

Initials Signature Initials Signature Initials Signature
Rev Date Description
Prepared by Checked by Clients Approval
Client Chiniot Power Limited
Geotechnical 316-D, OPF Housing Colony near Raiwind Road,

Lahore – Pakistan.
Investigation Berkeley Associates Tel: +92-42-35323313-15
Agency Fax: +92-42-35323316
Email: berkeley.associates@gmail.com
REPORT ON ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Document No. J-559

Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey Rev. 00 2
Berkeley Associates
CONTENTS
Page
1. GENERAL 4
2. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY 4
2.1 Principles of Resistivity Survey 4

2.2 Instrumentation and Field Procedure 5
2.3 Interpretation and Evaluation of Resistivity Data 6
3. RESULTS 6
4. SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL 6
5. CONCLUSIONS 7
TABLE
FIGURES
ANNEXURE
FIELD DATA SHEETS

Berkeley Associates
1. GENERAL
Chiniot Power Company is planning to develop a 2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Power plant near
Ramzan Sugar Mills on Jhang-Chiniot road about 27 km from Chiniot in Punjab-Pakistan. In
order to design the earthing system for the electrical installations and for assessing the soil
corrosion protection requirements, the measurement of earth electrical resistivity values are
required, therefore soil resistivity survey was carried out at the site proposed for the power
plant.
The purpose of the soil resistivity survey is to determine the electrical resistivity values of the
subsoil up to a depth of about 20 meters which could be used for the design of the earthing
system and for assessing the subsoil corrosion potential for the buried pipelines.
Shallow electrical resistivity measurements using Wenner electrode configuration were

conducted at two locations within the site area. The fieldwork was carried out on January 27,
2014. The locations of electrical resistivity observation points are shown in Fig. 1.
The details of field methodology, analysis of the data collected, results of the survey and
recommendations are presented in this report.
2. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
2.1 Principles of Resistivity Survey
Among the various geophysical methods of subsurface exploration, electrical resistivity

method has been successfully employed for groundwater investigations, particularly where
electrical resistivity contrast exists between the water bearing formation and surrounding soils
or rock.
Considering the variable electrical properties of the subsoil, the technique of electrical
resistivity survey makes use of measuring the current and potential differences of various
subsoil materials at the surface. In general, current is conducted electrolytically in the soils
containing interstitial fluids. The resistivity is controlled by porosity, water content, as well as
the quantity of dissolved salts. Clay minerals, however, are capable of storing electrical
charges and current conduction in clay minerals is electronic as well as electrolytic. Thus the
resistivity of soils depends directly on the amount of contained electrolyte and clay minerals
and is inversely related to the porosity and degree of saturation of the formation. Therefore,
resistivity of soil varies considerably not only from formation to formation, but also within the
same layer. In particular, the resistivity variations can be large in unconsolidated sediments.
It has generally been observed that the resistivity increases progressively from fine grained to
coarse grained material in the order of clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt, sandy silt, silty sand,
sand, gravel and boulder.
During the resistivity survey, commutated direct or very low frequency (less than 1 Hz) current
is introduced into the ground through two current electrodes C1 and C2 inserted in the ground
surface as shown schematically on Fig. 2.
The potential electrodes P1 and P2 are inserted in the ground between the outer current
electrodes C1 and C2 such that all the electrodes are aligned along a straight line. The
potential difference is measured between the two potential electrodes.
By measuring the current (I) flowing between the two current electrodes C1 and C2 and the
associated potential difference (V) between the potential electrodes P1 and P2, the resistivity
Berkeley Associates
(R) is computed by the following well-known Ohm’s law;
R = K* V/I
where
K= Geometric factor of the electrode arrangement

V= Potential difference in millivolts
I= Current passing through ground in milliamperes
In homogeneous subsurface conditions, the above relation gives the true resistivity of the
subsurface material, but in anisotropic and inhomogeneous conditions, it represents weighted
average resistivity of the formations through which the current passes. Since the subsoil is
normally inhomogeneous and anisotropic, the resistivity value computed from the above
equation is called apparent resistivity and is denoted by “Ra”.
Therefore,
Ra = K* V/I
The apparent resistivity values are obtained for various depths below the surface by
expanding the current and potential electrodes from its centre along a straight line, while
spacing between the electrodes is maintained.
Following are the technical requirements for carrying out the resistivity survey:
 Electrical resistivity contrast should exist between the formations under study.
 While carrying out the electrical resistivity survey using Wenner configuration,
about three times the space along a straight line is required to achieve the
estimated depth of investigation.
 Resistivity values of the alluvial strata and bedrock in an area could be

established if the subsurface lithology through at least one borehole or tubewell is
known in or around the area having similar geological conditions.
 If the earth consists of thin alternate layers, the resistivity obtained at the surface
would be the average effect of these alternate layers.
2.2 Instrumentation and Field Procedure
The electrical resistivity measurements of the subsurface material were taken in the field by
resistivity measuring instrument Terrameter SAS 1000 of ABEM, Sweden and using the
Wenner electrode array. The Terrameter directly records the value of V/I in ohms. In order to
study the variation of resistivity with depth, Vertical Electric Sounding (VES) technique was
employed. In this technique, apparent resistivity values are obtained for various depths by
increasing the current electrodes spacing at the ground surface, keeping the centre of
electrode array fixed at the observation point.
Electrical resistivity survey was carried out two (2) observation points, designated as ER-1
and ER-2, the locations of which are shown in Fig. 1.

Berkeley Associates
The resistivity measurements were made as per ASTM Designation G-57-95. At each
observation point, apparent resistivity measurements were taken at electrode spacing of 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 20 meters. The field resistivity data obtained at two observation points
are presented in Annexure. From the field data, field resistivity curves were obtained by
plotting observed resistivity values against electrode spacing. The field resistivity curves are
shown in Fig. 3 and Fig.4 for ER-1 and ER-2 respectively.
2.3 Interpretation and Evaluation of Resistivity Data
The apparent resistivity values obtained in the field versus depth were plotted on the
logarithmic scale. The interpretation of resistivity sounding makes use of the method of curve
matching in which the field curve is compared with a set of standard curves or with the curve
plotted with a computer programme. The standard curves as well as computer curves
correspond to a system of subsurface layers and their specific electrical resistivity, which
could be correlated with the lithological and hydrogeological characteristics of the subsurface
material of a particular area. The final interpretation makes use of the available local
geological and borehole data.
Among the various curve matching techniques, partial curve matching technique using
auxiliary point method was employed to determine the approximate true resistivity model. For
this purpose, a set of Ebert auxiliary graphs (Orellana and Mooney 1966) was used. Final
analysis of the resistivity curves was made by employing computer software which yields
possible earth layer model from the field resistivity curve using automatic iterative method.
3. RESULTS
The results of electrical resistivity survey obtained at two observation points in the site area
are presented in Table-1 in the form true resistivity earth layering model. From these results, it
can be inferred that the subsurface material upto 20 meters depth shows layers with large
variation of true resistivity values ranging from 21.2 to 393 ohm-meters.
At both the observation points, the resistivity shows first an increasing trend and then shows a
decreasing trend and then again a slightly increasing trend with depth.
At ER-1, top 1.5 meter layer have resistivity of 38.2 ohm-meters. Below this up to 8.2 meters
depth, a layer with high resistivity of 163.7 ohm-meters is present. From 8.2 to 18.8 meters, a
layer with a resistivity of 75.5 ohm-meters is present. Below 18.8 meters depth, a layer with
resistivity of 122.5 ohm-meters is present.
At ER-2, the top 0.5 meter layer shows a resistivity of 21.2 ohm-meters. Below this up to 5.6
meters, a high resistivity material with a resistivity of 393 ohm-meters is present. From 5.6
meters to 11.8 meters, a layer with resistivity of 36.1 ohm-meters is observed. Below 11.8
meters depth, subsoil with a resistivity of 155.9 ohm-meters is present.
The subsurface layers in the site area below about 6 to 8 meters depth show electrical
resistivity ranging from 21 to 75 ohm-meters, therefore design of earthing system for electrical
installations should be made accordingly.
4. SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
Though corrosion of metals embedded in soils is generally not as rapid as in the atmosphere

Berkeley Associates
or underwater, yet it presents problems of sizeable magnitude. Factors governing corrosion

by soil include its (i) oxygen content (ii) moisture content (iii) hydrogen ion concentration (iv)
electrical conduction (v) particle size (vi) drainage (vii) bacterial process activity etc.
In the case of pipeline corrosion, the concentration of electrolytic cells, formed due to the
localized differences in the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil coming in contact
with the pipe, could lead to localized attack. Similarly soil-water and groundwater attack
metals to a degree, which depends upon the nature and concentration of various salts
present in the water.
Soils are generally assigned one of the following classes of corrosivity:
 Soils with very low corrosivity for steel generally include somewhat excessively
drained coarse textured soils that have little clay. Water and air move through
these soils rapidly. Electrical resistivity of such soils at natural moisture content is
above 100 ohm-meters.
 Soils with low corrosivity for steel generally include well drained soils that have a
coarse to medium texture. These soils are moderately permeable. The electrical
resistivity of such soils is 50-100 ohm-meters.
 Soils with moderate corrosivity for the steel generally include well drained soils
that have medium to fine texture. Electrical resistivity of these soils varies
between 20 to 50 ohm-meters.
 Soils with high corrosivity for steel generally include moderately well drained fine
textured soils. Very poorly drained soils are included when the water table
fluctuates within 30 cm at some time during the year. Electrical resistivity of these
soils at natural moisture equivalent is 10 to 20 ohm-meters.
 Soils with very high corrosivity for steel generally include poorly to very poorly
drained fine textured soils. The electrical resistivity of these soils at natural
moisture equivalent is below 10 ohm-meters.
As described in Section-3 above, the true resistivity of the subsurface material in the site area
varies from 21.2 to 393 ohm-meters, which indicates moderate to very low soil corrosion
potential of the subsurface material as per above classification.
The near-surface material also shows moderate to very low soil corrosion potential at both the
observation points.
As near-surface material in the project area show moderate to very low soil corrosion
potential, therefore pipes embedded in this material would require only nominal corrosion
protection measures.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of electrical resistivity survey carried out at two observation points in the
site area of Chiniot Power Project on Chiniot-Jhang Road in Punjab-Pakistan, the following
conclusions are drawn:

Berkeley Associates
a) The true resistivity of the subsurface material up to about 20 meters depth in

the site area varies from 21.2 to 393 ohm-meters.
b) Near the ground surface, the subsurface material at both observation points
shows predominantly high resistivity values.
c) The subsurface layers below about 6 to 8 meters depth show resistivity ranging
from 21 to 75 ohm-meters, therefore design of earthing system for electrical
installations should be made accordingly.
d) In general, the near-surface material in the site area show moderate to very low
soil corrosion potential, therefore pipes embedded in this material would require
only nominal corrosion protection measures.

Berkeley Associates
TABLE

Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey Rev. 00 Table
TABLE - 1
CHINIOT POWER PROJECT

RESULTS OF SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Observation Depth Layer Thickness True Resistivity

Point No. (meters) (meters) (ohm - meters)
ER - 1 0.0 - 1.5 1.5 38.2

1.5 - 8.2 6.7 163.7
8.2 - 18.8 10.6 75.5
18.8 - 20.0 1.2 122.5
ER - 2 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 21.2

0.5 - 5.6 5.1 393.0
5.6 - 11.8 6.2 36.1
11.8 - 20.0 8.2 155.9
Berkeley Associates
FIGURES

Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey Rev. 00 Figures
FIELD RESISTIVITY CURVE ER - 1
1000
RESISTSIVITY IN OHM-METER
100
10
1 10 100
Fi g- 3
ELECTRODE SPACING IN METERS
FIELD RESISTIVITY CURVE ER - 2
1000
RESISTSIVITY IN OHM-METER
100
10
1 10 100
Fig - 4
ELECTRODE SPACING IN METERS
Berkeley Associates
ANNEXURE
FIELD DATA SHEETS

Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey Rev. 00 Annexure
BERKELEY ASSOCIATES
316-D, OPF Housing Colony
Raiwind Road, Lahore-Pakistan.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT: Chiniot Power Project ER NO: ER - 1

LOCATION: Switchyard DATE: 27-01-2014
COORDINATES: N 3499650 m CONFIGURATION: WENNER
o
E 287599 m TEMPERATURE: 21 C
ELEVATION: 98.69 m GEOPHYSICIST: M. Javed
ELECTRODE RESISTANCE APPARENT

READING ELECTRODE
SPACING "a" R=V/I RESISTIVITY REMARKS
NO. CONSTANT
(m) (Ohms) (Ohm-m)
1 1 6.28 6.8247 42.86 Silty clay/Silty sand
2 2 12.56 4.1495 52.12 with bushes and minor
3 3 18.84 3.7442 70.54 organic matter.
4 4 25 12
25.12 3 4912
3.4912 87 70
87.70
5 5 31.4 2.8603 89.81
6 6 37.68 2.5230 95.07
7 7 43.96 2.2820 100.32
8 10 62.8 1.7033 106.97
9 15 94.2 1.1450 107.86
10 20 125.6 0.9136 114.74

BERKELEY ASSOCIATES
316-D, OPF Housing Colony
Raiwind Road, Lahore-Pakistan.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT: Chiniot Power Project ER NO: ER - 2

LOCATION: Switchyard DATE: 27-01-2014
COORDINATES: N 3499680 m CONFIGURATION: WENNER
o
E 287548 m TEMPERATURE: 23 C
ELEVATION: 98.88 m GEOPHYSICIST: M. Javed
ELECTRODE RESISTANCE APPARENT

READING ELECTRODE
SPACING "a" R=V/I RESISTIVITY REMARKS
NO. CONSTANT
(m) (Ohms) (Ohm-m)
1 1 6.28 4.9134 30.86 Silty clay/Silty sand
2 2 12.56 4.9725 62.45 with bushes and dump
3 3 18.84 6.0780 114.51 material with organic
4 4 25.12 5.2555 132.02 matter.
5 5 31.40 4.4794 140.65
6 6 37.68 4.3169 162.66
7 7 43.96 3.5477 155.96
8 10 62.80 1.9780 124.22
9 15 94.20 1.4393 135.58
10 20 125.60 1.2434 156.17

Berkeley Associates
APPENDIX - E
PHOTOGRAPHS

Berkeley Associates
Investigation Points are being demarcated
Inspection of Drilling Equipment is in progress

Berkeley Associates
SPT in Borehole is in progress
FDT in TP-1 is being carried out

Berkeley Associates
Electrical Resistivity Survey is in Progress
Data during Cyclic Plate Load Test is being collected


Soil Investigation Report v1r0pdf Geotechnical Engineering Deep PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Soil Investigation Report v1r0pdf Geotechnical Engineering Deep PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chiniot Power Limited

2 x 31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

Berkeley 316 D, OPF Housing Colony,

Associates Fax: 042-35323316

2 x 31.2 MW Cogeneration Project

00 04-02-2014 Issued to Client AAG KA

316-D, OPF Housing Colony near Raiwind Road,

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Document No. J-559

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

5.3.4 Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction .......................................................................................... 23

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

Tables and Figures

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

Fig. 2-1 Geotechnical Investigations Plan

Borehole & Test pit Logs

Laboratory Test Results

Report on Electrical Resistivity Survey

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

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

The scope of work for these geotechnical investigations, as prepared by the

1.2 Scope of Work

Scope of Geotechnical Investigations is summarized below;

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

- Performance of Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) in all boreholes at

- Collection of composite bulk samples from the test pits

- Collection of undisturbed soil samples from boreholes and test pits

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

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

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

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

- Performance of laboratory tests on selected soil and water samples

- Preparation of a detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report upon

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

The scope of the geotechnical studies was planned by the Project

- Drilling of exploratory boreholes

- Excavation of test pits

- In-situ testing in boreholes and test pits

- Soil and water sampling in boreholes

- Soil sampling in test pits

- Cyclic plate load test (CPLT)

- Performance of Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)

2.2 Exploratory Boreholes

Ashiana-e-Iqbal, Burki Road, Lahore Doc. No. J-30

2.3 Test pit Excavation

2.4 In-situ Testing

2.4.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs)

For evaluating the consistency and compactness of the foundation soils,

2.4.2 Field Density Tests (FDTs)

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

2.4.3 Cyclic Plate Load Tests (CPLTs)

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

Sr. Plate Load Maximum Maximum Settlement at Modulus of

(Ton) (kPa) (mm) (kN/m3)

2.4.4 Electrical Resistivity Survey (ERS)

The electrical resistivity measurements of the subsurface material were taken

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

Undisturbed soil samples were obtained from cohesive strata encountered in

2.6 Groundwater Observations

2x31.2 MW Cogeneration Project Doc. No. J-559

For evaluation of physical and engineering and chemical characteristics of the

- Particle size distribution