GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED MANDOLI SUBSTATION

PROJECT NEAR MANDOLI JAIL
AT VILLAGE MANDOLI,
NEW DELHI

SUBMITTED TO:

M/S. BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED

Shakti Kiran Building, 3rd Floor, A-Block, Karkardooma, New Delhi

Project No. 19094 Dated. June, 2019 Revision-0

RAO ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES

Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors
Address: Phone : E-mail :
91-D-3, Street-1, East Moti Bagh, Old Rohtak Road, 011-23698806, 23691434 [email protected],
Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi - 110007 9310502435, 9811108174 [email protected]
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

June 20th, 2019 Project No. 19094

M/s. BSES Yamuna Power Limited

Shakti Kiran Building, 3rd Floor,
A-Block, Karkardooma,
New Delhi

Sub: Final Report on Soil Investigation Work for Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near
Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

We have carried out the soil investigation work for the proposed project. We thank you for your
business, and hope that you are satisfied with our services rendered.

This Final Report presents our findings based on the soil investigation conducted by us at the project
site. This report presents the field and laboratory test data along with our engineering
recommendations, which shall help you in deciding the optimum foundation arrangement for use on
site.

We have prepared this report based on our findings on site as well as our experience gained in our
previous projects completed over the past 15 years. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this
investigation for you and have pleasure in submitting this report. Please contact us when we can be
of further service to you.

Yours faithfully,
RAO ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES

(G.R.RAO)
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Aim of Soil Investigation 1
1.3 Scope of Work 1

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 2

2.1 Soil Borings 2
2.2 Groundwater 2
2.3 Electrical Resistivity Tests 2

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS 3

4.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4

4.1 Site Stratigraphy 4
4.2 Groundwater 4

5.0 FIELD TEST RESULTS 4

5.1 Electrical Resistivity Test Result 4
5.2 Plate Load Test Details 4
5.3 Test Results 5
5.4 Interpretation of Plate Load Tests Results 5
5.5 Limitations of Plate Load Tests 6

6.0 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 6

6.1 General 6
6.2 Foundation Type and Depth 6
6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure 7
6.4 Sample Calculations (Open Foundation) 7
6.5 Definition of Gross and Net Bearing Pressure 8

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 9

8.0 CHEMICAL ATTACK 9

9.0 VARIABILITY IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 10

ILLUSTRATIONS

Caption Sheet No.

Soil Profiles 1 to 3
Summary of Borehole Profiles 4
Standard Penetration Test Results 5&6
Electrical Resistivity Test Results 7&8
Plate Load Test Results 9 & 10
Grain Size Test Results 11 to 13
Chemical Test Results 14

-------------------------------------------------------

Project No. 19094 i

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

This soil investigation work, whose results are being presented herewith, has been
carried out for Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New
Delhi.

M/s. Rao Engineering Enterprises has been retained by M/s. BSES Yamuna Power
Limited for carrying out the Geotechnical Investigation at the project site.

1.2 Aim of Soil Investigation

Soil investigation has been conducted at the site in order to evaluate the parameters
required for design of foundations. These parameters are:

a) Type of foundation on which the proposed super structure will be supported.

b) Depth of foundation, and

c) Allowable bearing pressure at the founding level.

To evaluate these parameters, following engineering properties of the Sub-Soil have

been studied:

Sub-soil penetration resistance characteristics which have been determined insitu.

Properties like particle size distribution, atterberg’s limits, bulk density, moisture content, and
shear strength parameters; which have been determined in the laboratory by conducting
testing of both disturbed as well as undisturbed samples.

1.3 Scope of Work

The stipulated scope of work comprised of the following:

1. Mobilization of equipment and personnel to the site and back.

2. Sinking three (3) boreholes to 10.0 m depth or refusal whichever is encountered

earlier, observing ground water table levels, conducting required field and
laboratory tests and their analysis.

3. conducting one (1) electrical resistivity test (ERT’s) to provide data for the
grounding systems;

4. conducting one (1) plate load test at specified location and depth to assess the
load-settlement behavior of soils under loading;

5. Preparation and submission of technical report in triplicate.

Project No. 19094 Page 1 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 Soil Borings

The boreholes were progressed using mechanized shell and auger drilling rig to the
specified depth. The diameter of the borehole was 150 mm. Where caving of the borehole
occurred, casing was used to keep the borehole stable. The work was in general accordance
with IS: 1892-1979.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted in the boreholes at 1.5 m depth
interval up to 15 m depth. The tests were conducted by connecting a split spoon sampler to ‘A’
rods and driving it by 45 cm using a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely from a height of 75 cm. The
tests were conducted in accordance with IS: 2131-1981.

The number of blows for each 15 cm of penetration of the split spoon sampler was
recorded. The blows required to penetrate the initial 15 cm of the split spoon for seating the
sampler is ignored due to the possible presence of loose materials or cuttings from the drilling
operation. The cumulative number of blows required to penetrate the balance 30 cm of the 45
cm sampling interval is termed the SPT value or the ‘N’ value.

Where the split spoon sampler did not penetrate the initial 15 cm seating in a total of
100 blows, it is indicated “Ref" for an indicated amount of penetration. The ‘N’ values are
presented on the soil profile for each borehole.

Disturbed samples were collected from the split spoon after conducting SPT. The
samples were preserved in transparent polythene bags. Undisturbed soil samples were
collected by attaching 75 mm diameter thin walled ‘Shelby’ tubes and driving the sampler by
light-hammering using a 63.5 kg hammer in accordance with IS: 2132-1986. The tubes were
sealed with wax at both ends. All samples were transported to our laboratory for further
examination and testing.

2.2 Groundwater

Groundwater level was measured in the boreholes after drilling and sampling was
completed. The measured water levels are recorded on the individual soil profiles.

2.3 Electrical Resistivity Tests

Electrical resistivity of the substratum (soil) at the site was determined at specified
locations. The electrical resistivity test is used for shallow subsurface exploration by means of
electrical measures made at the ground surface. Resistivity measurements are made by
driving four electrodes about 10 to 15 cm in to the ground at pre-selected electrode spacing.
We used the Wenner’s electrode configuration for this study.

The four electrodes were spaced at equal distance along a line. The test procedure is
in accordance with IS: 3043:1987 RA 2006.

Measurements are made by causing a current, ‘I’, to pass through the earth and
distribute within a relatively large hemispherical earth mass. The portion of the current that
flows along the surface produces a voltage drop, ‘V’. The resistance ‘R’, ratio of voltage drop
‘V’ to current ‘I’ is directly measured by Digital Earth Resistance Tester. The resistivity is
determined from the following equation:

Project No. 19094 Page 2 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

=2aR
where:
 = apparent resistivity, ohm-m
a = spacing between the electrodes, meter
R = resistance, ohms

Results are presented as semi-logarithmic plot of apparent resistivity versus electrode

spacing, as well as in the form of polar curves, as specified by IS: 3043:1987 RA 2006. The
schematic arrangement of electrodes is shown below:

NOTE: I1 AND I2 ARE CURRENT ELECTRODES

P1 AND P2 ARE POTENTIAL ELECTRODES

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests have been conducted on various selected soil and groundwater
samples in the laboratory:

Laboratory Test IS Code Referred

Bulk Density By calculations
Natural Moisture Content IS : 2720 (Part-2)-1973, RA-2010
Specific Gravity IS : 2720 (Part-3)-1980, RA-2007
Grain Size Analysis IS : 2720 (Part-4)-1985, RA-2010
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit IS : 2720 (Part-5)-1985, RA-2010
Unconfined Compression Test IS : 2720 (Part-10)-1991, RA-2010
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Shear Test IS : 2720 (Part-11)-1993, RA-2007
Consolidated Drained Direct Shear Test IS : 2720 (Part-13)-1986, RA-2010
pH value IS : 3025 (Part-11)-1983, RA-2006
Chemical Analysis of
Sulphates IS : 3025 (Part-24)-1986, RA-2009
water
Chlorides IS : 3025 (Part-32)-1988, RA-2009
pH value IS : 2720 (Part 26)-1987, RA-2007
Chemical Analysis of
Sulphates IS : 2720 (Part-27)-1977, RA-2010
soil
Chlorides IS : 3025 (Part-32)-1988, RA-2009

Project No. 19094 Page 3 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

4.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Stratigraphy

A heterogenous fill of silty sand with brick bats was encountered to about 2.0 m depth
below EGL. Below fill material, clayey silt was encountered to about 5.0 m depth and underlain
by fine sand to about 8.0-9.0 m below EGL. Further, sandy silt was met to the final explored
depth of 10.45 m below EGL.

The field SPT N-values generally range from 18 to 26 to about 2.0 m depth. Below this
the field SPT N value range from 9 to 16 to about 5.0 m depth and range from 11 to 19 to
about 9.0 m depth below EGL. Further SPT N-values range from 23 to 28 to the final explored
depth of 10.45 m.

All test results are presented on the individual soil profiles on Sheet No. 1 to 3. A
summary of the borehole profiles is illustrated on Sheet No. 4. Plots of field and corrected SPT
values versus depth are presented on Sheet No. 5 & 6, respectively.

4.2 Groundwater

Based on our measurements in the completed boreholes, groundwater was met at

5.8-6.0 m depth below EGL during the period of our field investigations (June, 2019).
Fluctuations may occur in the measured ground levels due to seasonal variations in rainfall,
surface evaporation rates.

5.0 FIELD TEST RESULTS

5.1 Electrical Resistivity Test Result

One (1) electrical resistivity test was conducted at the project site as per IS: 3043-1987.
The test was conducted using the Wenner’s configuration. The apparent resistivity value
obtained has been analyzed to generate the polar curve. The polar curve is used to compute
the mean resistivity.

Mean resistivity value at the electrical resistivity test (ERT) location is summarized in
the table below:

Test Mean Resistivity, Presentation of

Corrosion potential*
Designation ohm-m Results
ERT-1 7.9 Severely Corrosive Sheet No. 7 & 8
* As per Clause 8.6.1 of Amendment No. 2 to IS: 3043-1987, dated January 2010.

The above value may be used for design of the electrical grounding system. The data
may also be used to assess the corrosion potential for buried utility lines as per the guideline
given in IS 3043-1987.

5.2 Plate Load Test Details

One (1) plate load test was conducted on a 30 cm x 30 cm size square plate. The test
details are as follows:

Project No. 19094 Page 4 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Test
Test Depth, m Presentations of Test Results
Designation
PLT-1 2.5 Sheet No. 9 & 10

5.3 Test Results

The following table summarizes the measured settlements of the plate under various
loading intensities, as well as the interpreted ultimate bearing capacity (shear criterion) and
modulus of subgrade reaction (k):

Measured Settlement (mm) under Applied Ultimate Computed modulus of

Test Bearing Pressure of Bearing Subgrade Reaction
No. 5 10 15 20 30 35 Capacity, (k) for 75 cm size
T/m2 T/m2 T/m2 T/m2 T/m2 T/m2 Kg/cm2 plate, kg/cm3
PLT-1 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.6 7.4 9.0 3.70 0.96

Necessary corrections for curvature, plate bending, plate size and saturation have been
applied to the “k-values” as per IS Code: 9214-1979 (RA-2007).

5.4 Interpretation of Plate Load Tests Results

The settlement for 3 m size foundations has been(1) extrapolated using the following
equation applicable for soil encountered at the site;
Sf Bf

Sp Bp

where:
Sf = settlement of foundation in mm.
Sp = settlement of test plate in mm
Bf = width of the foundation in m
Bp = width of the plate in m

A multiplying factor of 2.0 has been applied to account for saturation. A multiplying
factor of 2.0 has been applied to account for local variations in strata conditions. The following
table summarizes the interpreted settlements for large-size foundations bearing at the test
level:

Estimated Settlement for 3 m size foundations under applied bearing

Test No. pressure of (mm)
5 T/m2 10 T/m2 15 T/m2 20 T/m2 30 T/m2 35 T/m2
PLT-1 44.0 88.0 132.0 184.0 296.0 360.0

(1)
Narayan V. Nayak “Foundation Design Manual”, Page no. 101, Sec-2.7.2.1

Project No. 19094 Page 5 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

The final values of safe bearing capacity for foundation design should be selected in
conjunction with borehole and other field data.

5.5 Limitations of Plate Load Tests

The analysis presented in this report is governed by the inherent limitations of plate
load test. They are:

 The analysis is applicable only for uniform isotropic formations. Stratified deposits are
not modeled effectively by the test.

 The test stresses the soils only to a depth of “2 Bp” below test level (Bp= plate width).
Large size foundations will stress the deeper soils also. However, the behavior of the
deeper soils cannot be evaluated by the test.

 The load test results do not take in to account the saturation / ground water table effect
as ground water table is below the influence depth.

 The settlement measured during the test is primarily immediate settlement.

Consolidation or long term settlement cannot be assessed by the test.

 The similitude law used for extrapolation of the test data may, at best, be treated as an
approximation. Therefore, the final values of soil bearing capacity for foundation design
should be selected after review of borehole data also.

6.0 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

6.1 General

For designing the foundation system, the following parameters are required:

a) Suitable type of foundation on which the proposed super-structure can be supported.

b) Depth of these foundations, and

c) Allowable bearing pressure at the founding level corresponding to various footing

sizes.

A suitable foundation for any structure should have an adequate factor of safety against
exceeding the bearing capacity of the supporting soils. Also, the vertical movements due to
compression of the soils should be within tolerable limits for the structure. We consider that
foundation designed in accordance with the recommendations given herein will satisfy these
criteria.
6.2 Foundation Type and Depth

Type of foundation to be adopted for a particular structure depends upon the loading
intensity at the foundation level and the configuration of loading points.

Reviewing the stratigraphy of the site on the basis of boreholes data, SPT values &
laboratory test results, we are of the opinion that open foundation is feasible foundation
scheme to support the structural load.

Project No. 19094 Page 6 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

As discussed in Section 4.1, fill is encountered at the site to about 2.0 m depth below
EGL. Our recommended values of net allowable bearing pressures at minimum 2.5 m depth
(at least 0.5 m into the natural strata) for open foundation are presented in Section 7.0.

Interconnecting beams should be provided either at plinth level or at foundation level in

order to restrict differential settlements and to provide rigidity to the structure during
earthquakes.

6.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure

Following criterion have been considered for evaluating the bearing capacity values:

(a) Settlement criteria

(b) Shear failure criterion

Shear failure condition as per I.S. 6403 has been considered for allowable bearing
pressure computation. Allowable settlement value of 40 mm & 50 mm has been considered for
deducing shear strength value.

6.4 Sample Calculations (Open Foundation)

Type of foundation Open foundation

Depth of foundation 2.5 m below EGL*
Width of foundation 3.0 m
*Atleast 0.5 m into the natural soil strata.

I. SETTLEMENT CRITERIA (AS PER IS - 8009, PART-1, 1976, FIG.9, PAGE-17)

Weighted Average minimum Corrected ‘N’ value 11

Settlement undergone by footing per unit pressure 29.8 mm
Total Settlement undergone by footing (considering water
47.7 mm
table Correction factor taken as 0.6 for Worst condition)
Allowable bearing pressure Corresponding to 50 mm
10.0 T/m²
allowable Settlement.

III. SHEAR FAILURE CRITERION

The bearing capacity equation used is as follows:

qnet safe = 1 [cNcc dc+ q(Nq-1) qdq+ 0.5 B N d Rw]

F
Where:
qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity of soil based on the shear failure criterion.
q = overburden pressure
Rw = water table correction factor
F = Factor of safety, taken as equal to 2.5 in accordance with IS: 1904-1986.

Project No. 19094 Page 7 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

c,q, = Shape factors. For Strip footings, c = q =  = 1

For Square footing, c = 1.3, q = 1.2,  = 0.6
dc ,dq, d = Depth factors

For   10, dc = 1 + 0.2 tan (45 +  / 2) D / B, dq = d = 1

For  > 10, dq = d = 1 + 0.1 tan (45 +  / 2) D / B

Cohesion, c = 5.0 T/m²

Angle of shearing resistance,  = 5 degrees
Bearing Capacity factors:

General Shear Failure : Nc = 6.49 Nq = 1.57 N = 0.45

Local Shear Failure : Nc' = 5.99 Nq' = 1.35 N' = 0.27

Density at Foundation Level,  = 1.70 gms/cc

Net Safe Bearing Capacity , qnet safe = 15.2 T/m²
(considering average of local & general shear criteria)

6.5 Definition of Gross and Net Bearing Pressure

For the purposes of this report, the net allowable bearing pressure should be calculated
as the difference between total load on the foundation and the weight of the soil overlying the
foundation divided by the effective area of the foundation. The gross bearing pressure is the
total pressure at the foundation level including overburden pressure and surcharge load.

The following equations may be used –

qnet = [(Ps + Wf +Ws) / Af] - Sv

qgross = qnet + Sv = (Ps + Wf + Ws) / Af

where:
qnet = net allowable bearing pressure
qgross = gross bearing pressure
Ps = superimposed static load on foundation
Wf = weight of foundation
Ws = weight of soil overlying foundation
Af = effective area of foundation
Sv = overburden pressure at foundation level prior to excavation for foundation.

It may please be noted that safe bearing pressures recommended in this report refer to
“net values”. Where filling is done, it should be treated as a surcharge over the foundation.

Project No. 19094 Page 8 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table presents our recommended values of net allowable bearing
pressures for open foundations bearing at 2.5-3.0 m depth below EGL:

Recommended Net Allowable Bearing

Foundation Depth Pressure, T/m²
below EGL, m Total Settlement = Total Settlement =
40 mm 50 mm
2.5 8.0 10.0
3.0 9.6 12.0

The above values include a safety factor of 2.5. The appropriate value of net bearing
pressure may be selected as per the permissible settlement criterion.

Net bearing pressure for foundations at intermediate depths may be interpolated

linearly between the values given above. Fill placed above EGL should be treated as
surcharge load. Foundation should be seated 0.5 m into natural soil.

In order to restrict the influence of adjacent footings on each other, the lateral edge-to-
edge spacing between the foundations should at least be equal to “0.8B” where” B” is the width
of the larger footing.

8.0 CHEMICAL ATTACK

Results of chemical test on selected soil samples are presented on Sheet No. 14. The
results indicate that the soils contain 0.11-0.16 percent sulphates and 0.13-0.15 percent
chlorides and groundwater contain 256-302 percent sulphates and 108-135 percent chlorides.
The pH value of soil is 7.2-7.5 and groundwater is 7.2-7.3.

IS: 456-2000 recommends that precautions should be taken against chemical

degradation of concrete if

 sulphates content of the soils exceeds 0.2 percent, or

 groundwater contains more than 300 mg /litre of sulphates (SO3).

Comparing the test results with these specified limits, the sulphate content of the soil is
less than the specified limit. Groundwater was met at 5.8~6.0 m encountered at the site during
our field investigation and is not likely to influence foundation concrete. Therefore, strata at the
site may be treated in Class-1 category as described on IS: 456-2000.

In our opinion, the soils at site are not aggressive to foundation concrete. We
recommend the following as a good practice to limit the potential for chemical attack:

(1) The cement content in open foundations concrete should be at least 281 kg/m3.

(2) Water cement ratio in foundation concrete should generally not exceed 0.55.

Project No. 19094 Page 9 of 10

 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

(3) A clear concrete cover over the reinforcement steel of at least 50 mm should be
provided for all foundations.

(4) Foundation concrete should be densified adequately using a vibrator so as to form a

dense impervious mass.

9.0 VARIABILITY IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions encountered during construction may vary somewhat from the
conditions encountered during the site investigation. In case significant variations are
encountered during construction, we request to be notified so that our engineers may review
the recommendations in this report in light of these variations.

Project No. 19094 Page 10 of 10

 SOIL PROFILE: BH-1

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Water Table, m : 5.9
Project:
Mandoli, New Delhi Project No. 19094
Termination Depth,
10.45
Date of Start: 14-Jun-19 Date of Completion: 14-Jun-19 m:
Density and
Depth, m Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Shear Tests
Moisture

Depth of Strata, (m)

Plasticity Index (%)

Cohesion Intercept,
Field SPT 'N' Value

Friction, f (degrees)
Moisture Content

Angle of Internal
Specific Gravity
SOIL DESCRIPTION

Bulk Density

Type of Test
(%)
Sample No.

Dry Density
Plastic (%)

'c' (kg/cm )
Gravel (%)

Liquid (%)

(gms/cm )

(gms/cm )

2
Sand (%)

3
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Symbol
From

To

0.50 1.00 DS-1

Fill: Sandy silt with brick bats
1.50 1.95 SPT-1 26 2.00

2.25 2.55 UDS-1 0 4 75 21 2.70 1.75 1.56 12.3 UUT 0.58 5

Light grey clayey silt of medium plasticity

3.00 3.45 SPT-2 15
(CI)

4.50 4.95 SPT-3 9 5.00 41.2 23.1 18.1

5.25 5.55 UDS-2 0 92 8 0 2.61 1.79 1.58 13.2 DST 0.00 28

6.00 6.45 SPT-4 11 Light grey fine sand (SP-SM)

7.50 7.95 SPT-5 17 8.00 0 93 7 0

8.25 8.55 UDS-3 32.5 21.4 11.1 1.95 1.65 18.1 UUT 0.80 5

9.00 9.45 SPT-6 24 Light brown sandy silt of low plasticity (CL) 5 14 71 10 2.68

10.00 10.45 SPT-7 27 10.45 30.6 21.7 8.9

UUT : Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Shear Test DST: Drained Direct Shear Test, UCS : Unconfined Compressive Strength Remoulded Sample +

Sheet No. 1 of 14
 SOIL PROFILE: BH-2

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Water Table, m : 6.0
Project:
Mandoli, New Delhi Project No. 19094
Termination Depth,
10.45
Date of Start: 15-Jun-19 Date of Completion: 15-Jun-19 m:
Density and
Depth, m Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Shear Tests
Moisture

Depth of Strata, (m)

Plasticity Index (%)

Cohesion Intercept,
Field SPT 'N' Value

Friction, f (degrees)
Moisture Content

Angle of Internal
Specific Gravity
SOIL DESCRIPTION

Bulk Density

Type of Test
(%)
Sample No.

Dry Density
Plastic (%)

'c' (kg/cm )
Gravel (%)

Liquid (%)

(gms/cm )

(gms/cm )

2
Sand (%)

3
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Symbol
From

To

0.50 1.00 DS-1

Fill: Sandy silt with brick bats
1.50 1.95 SPT-1 20 2.00

2.25 2.55 UDS-1 41.2 22.8 18.4 1.77 1.56 13.5 UUT 0.60 8

Light grey clayey silt of medium plasticity

3.00 3.45 SPT-2 15 0 5 74 21 2.69
(CI)

4.50 4.95 SPT-3 11 5.00 40.1 22.5 17.6

5.25 5.55 UDS-2 0 90 10 0 2.61 1.85 1.62 14.1

6.00 6.45 SPT-4 14

Light grey fine sand (SP-SM)
7.50 7.95 SPT-5 18

8.25 8.55 UDS-3 9.00 0 92 8 0 1.95 1.66 17.5 DST 0.00 30

9.00 9.45 SPT-6 23 4 10 74 12 2.67

Light brown sandy silt of low plasticity (CL)
10.00 10.45 SPT-7 26 10.45 33.1 21.2 11.9

UUT : Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Shear Test DST: Drained Direct Shear Test, UCS : Unconfined Compressive Strength Remoulded Sample +

Sheet No. 2 of 14
 SOIL PROFILE: BH-3

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Water Table, m : 5.8
Project:
Mandoli, New Delhi Project No. 19094
Termination Depth,
10.45
Date of Start: 16-Jun-19 Date of Completion: 16-Jun-19 m:
Density and
Depth, m Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Shear Tests
Moisture

Depth of Strata, (m)

Plasticity Index (%)

Cohesion Intercept,
Field SPT 'N' Value

Friction, f (degrees)
Moisture Content

Angle of Internal
Specific Gravity
SOIL DESCRIPTION

Bulk Density

Type of Test
(%)
Sample No.

Dry Density
Plastic (%)

'c' (kg/cm )
Gravel (%)

Liquid (%)

(gms/cm )

(gms/cm )

2
Sand (%)

3
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Symbol
From

To

0.50 1.00 DS-1

Fill: Sandy silt with brick bats
1.50 1.95 SPT-1 18 2.00

2.25 2.55 UDS-1 0 4 74 22 2.69 1.77 1.55 14.1 UUT 0.50 8

Light grey clayey silt of medium plasticity

3.00 3.45 SPT-2 11
(CI)

4.50 4.95 SPT-3 16 5.00 41.5 23.2 18.3

5.25 5.55 UDS-2 0 91 9 0 2.63 1.87 1.63 14.5 DST 0.00 29

6.00 6.45 SPT-4 13

Light grey fine sand (SP-SM)
7.50 7.95 SPT-5 19

8.25 8.55 UDS-3 9.00 0 90 10 0 1.96 1.66 17.8

9.00 9.45 SPT-6 27 31.6 22.2 9.4 2.61

Light brown sandy silt of low plasticity (CL)
10.00 10.45 SPT-7 28 10.45 4 14 71 11

UUT : Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Shear Test DST: Drained Direct Shear Test, UCS : Unconfined Compressive Strength Remoulded Sample +

Sheet No. 3 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

BH-1 BH-2 BH-3

N-Value N-Value N-Value
0

1
26 20 18
2 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m

3 15 15 11

4
9 11 16
Depth, m

5 5.0m 5.0m 5.0m

6 11 14 13
5.9m 6.0m 5.8m

7
17 18 19
8 8.0m

9 24 9.0m 23 9.0m 27

10 27 26 28

10.45m 10.45m 10.45m

11
LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
Filled up
Sandy silt (ML-CL)
Silty sand (SM)
Clayey silt (CI)
Water Table
Summary of Borehole Profiles

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 4 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Standard Penetration Test

IS : 2131-1981, RA-2007

Borehole Details

Symbol Borehole Number

BH-1
BH-2
BH-3

Field SPT Value (N)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0

5
Depth, m

10

11

Field SPT Values vs. Depth

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi
Sheet No. 5 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Standard Penetration Test

IS : 2131-1981, RA-2007

Borehole Details

Symbol Borehole Number

BH-1
BH-2
BH-3

Corrected SPT Value (N")

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0

5
Depth, m

10

11

Corrected SPT Values vs. Depth

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi
Sheet No. 6 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Electrical Resistivity Test No.: ERT-1

IS: 3043-1987, RA-2006
Test Details
Test Designation : ERT-1

1000

E-W E-W (Reverse)

SE-NW SE-NW (Reverse)

N-S N-S (Reverse)

Apparent Resistivity ,Ohm-m

100 SW-NE SW-NE (Reverse)

10

1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Electrode Spacing , m

Apparent Resistivity, Ohm-m

Electrode
E-W SE-NW N-S SW-NE
Spacing, m E-W (Reverse SE-NW (Reverse N-S (Reverse SW-NE (Reverse
) ) ) )

0.5 9.0 8.8 6.6 6.9 4.9 5.3 8.5 8.3

1.0 7.1 7.0 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.7
2.0 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.7 9.6 9.8 8.4 8.3
4.0 10.8 10.6 8.0 10.1 12.6 12.1 11.6 11.3
6.0
8.0
Space not Available
Mean Resistivity 8.8 8.6 7.3 7.9 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.7

Mean Resistivity Value, ohm-m : 7.9 ohm-m

Apparent Resistivity Values (ERT-1)

Sheet No. 7 of 14
Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Electrical Resistivity Test No.: ERT-1

IS: 3043-1987, RA-2006
Test Details
Test Designation : ERT-1

NW NE
15 N

12

9
0.0, 8.4

6 6.1, 6.1
-5.6, 5.6

W -8.6, 0.0 0 8.8, 0.0 E

-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15

-3 E

5.2, -5.2
-6.2, -6.2 -6

0.0, -8.4
-9

-12

SW -15 SE
S

Total Area of Polygon : 198

Radius of Equivalent Circle=Mean Resistivity : 7.9 ohm-m

Polar Resistivity Curves (ERT-1)

Sheet No. 8 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Plate Load Test No.: PLT-1

IS: 1888-1982, RA-2007

Test Details
Size of Plate : 30cm x 30cm
Test Depth : 2.5 m
Test Depth : Depth Missing in admin
Test Level (RL) :
Test Location : See Fig. No. 1

Bearing Pressure (kg/sq. cm)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

0

12
Settlement, (mm)

`
16

20

24

28

32
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Test Plate (qult) : 3.70 kg/cm 2

Bearing Pressure vs. Settlement (PLT-1)

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 9 of 14
 Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

Plate Load Test No.: PLT-1

IS: 1888-1982, RA-2007

Test Details
Size of Plate : 30cm x 30cm
Test Depth : 2.5 m
Test Depth : 0.0 m
Test Level (RL) :
Test Location : See Fig. No. 1

Settlement, (mm)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0
Bearing Pressure (kg/sq. cm)

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0
Calculation for Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k):
i) Applying curvature correction, Ku : 3.89 kg/cm 3
ii) Correction for bending of plate, Kb : 3.52 kg/cm 3
iii) Correction for Saturation, Ks : 1.76 kg/cm 3
iv) Correction for size of plate, Kd : 0.96 kg/cm 3
Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (PLT-1)

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 10 of 14
Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

SAND
CLAY SILT GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE

100

90

80

70
Percent Finer by Weight

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle Size, mm

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

SYMBOL BH DEPTH (m) DESCRIPTION
% % % %

1 2.25 Clayey silt (CI) 0 4 75 21

1 5.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 92 8 0

1 8.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 93 7 0

1 10.00 Sandy silt (CL) 5 14 71 10

Grain Size Analysis

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 11 of 14
Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

SAND
CLAY SILT GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE

100

90

80

70
Percent Finer by Weight

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle Size, mm

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

SYMBOL BH DEPTH (m) DESCRIPTION
% % % %

2 3.00 Clayey silt (CI) 0 5 74 21

2 5.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 90 10 0

2 8.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 92 8 0

2 9.00 Sandy silt (CL) 4 10 74 12

Grain Size Analysis

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 12 of 14
Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

SAND
CLAY SILT GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE

100

90

80

70
Percent Finer by Weight

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle Size, mm

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

SYMBOL BH DEPTH (m) DESCRIPTION
% % % %

1 2.25 Clayey silt (CI) 0 4 74 22

1 5.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 91 9 0

1 8.25 Fine sand (SP-SM) 0 90 10 0

1 10.00 Sandy silt (CL) 4 14 71 11

Grain Size Analysis

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 13 of 14
Geotechnical Consultants, Land Surveyors, Piling Contractor & GPR Surveyors

CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS

SOIL-EXTRACT WATER:

Borehole Sulphate Content Chloride Content

Depth, m pH Value
No. (SO3), % (CL), %

1 2.25 0.16 0.13 7.4

2 3.00 0.11 0.15 7.2
3 4.50 0.14 0.13 7.5

GROUND WATER:

Borehole Sulphate Content Chloride Content

Depth, m pH Value
No. (SO3), mg/l (CL), mg/l
1 - 302 112 7.2
2 - 256 135 7.3
3 - 288 108 7.3

Proposed Mandoli Substation Project Near Mandoli Jail at Village Mandoli, New Delhi

Sheet No. 14 of 14