Upload
vuphuc
View
222
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
15 mm
2 mm
25 mm
18 m
m
ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD.
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR JETTY & APPROACH TRESTLE FOR DRY BULK
TERMINAL AT TUNA, KANDLA
INDIA
FINAL REPORT
REPORT NO: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 FEBRUARY 06, 2013
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD.
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR JETTY & APPROACH TRESTLE FOR DRY BULK TERMINAL AT TUNA, KANDLA
FINAL REPORT
Report No. : FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/Rev-4 December 2012
REPORT ISSUE STATUS Report Issue No.
Date Report Status Checked Approved
<00> December 12, 2012 Report ISH ISH / SJ <01> December 19, 2012 Report ISH ISH / SJ <02> January 11, 2013 Report ISH ISH / SJ <03> February 02, 2013 Draft Final Report ISH ISH / SJ <04> February 06, 2013 Final Report ISH ISH / SJ
Client: Geotechnical Contractor: ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD. FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD. PMC House, Fugro Onshore Geotechnics Nr Mithakhali Circle, Plot No.51, Navrangpura, Sector-6, Sanpada, Ahmedabad 380 009 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Gujarat (India) Maharashtra (India)
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Borehole Positioning .............................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Positioning of Modular Jack-up Barge System ...................................................................... 11
3.3 Boring / Drilling ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Standard Penetration Tests .................................................................................................... 12
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................... 13
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 Information on the Project Area .............................................................................................. 14
5.2 Geo-technology of the Site ..................................................................................................... 14
5.2.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters ........................................................................................... 14
6.0 ENGINEERING DISCUSSIONS AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 16
6.1 Basis of the Foundation Selection – Engineering Discussions .............................................. 16
6.2 Pile Foundation Recommendations ....................................................................................... 16
6.2.1 Piles in Hard Rock .................................................................................................................. 16
6.2.2 Piles in Weathered/Soft Rock ................................................................................................. 16
7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 18
7.1 List of Standard Codes ....................................................................................................... 18
7.2 List of Specifications / Documents and Drawings .............................................................. 18
7.3 Standard Textbook References .......................................................................................... 18
8.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 19
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 4
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of the field activities completed for the project ...................................................... 10
Table 2 Summary of the laboratory test carried out on soil and rock samples .................................. 13
Table 3 Generalized Sub-Seabed Profile adopted for the project ..................................................... 15
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 5
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Generalized Subsurface Profile, A-A’ ............................................................................................ 2
Generalized Subsurface Profile, B-B’ ............................................................................................ 3
Plasticity Chart............................................................................................................................... 4
Plates
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 6
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – BORING LOGS .............................................................................. Appendix A
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Summary of Soil Test Results ............................................................................ Appendix B1
Summary of Rock Test Results ........................................................................... Appendix B2 APPENDIX C – LABORATORY TEST REPORTS
Reports of Grain Size Analysis .......................................................................... Appendix C1
Reports of Atterberg’s Limit Test ........................................................................ Appendix C2
Reports of Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test .......................................... Appendix C3
Reports of Unconfined Compressive Strength Test ........................................... Appendix C4
Reports of Laboratory Vane Shear Test ............................................................ Appendix C5
Reports of Direct Shear Test .............................................................................. Appendix C6
Reports of Rock Modulus of Elasticity Test ....................................................... Appendix C7
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 7
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Adani Ports and SEZ Limited (APSEZL) desires that detailed off-shore geotechnical
investigation be carried out in proposed Dry Bulk Terminal Location in Tuna, Kandla, in
proposed jetty location and along the approach trestle and rock bund, to provide the
designer with sufficiently accurate information, both general and specific, about the
substrata profile and relevant soil and rock parameters at site on the basis of which the
foundations for various structures and equipments can be designed rationally.
APSEZL has signed a concession agreement with Kandla Port Trust for developing of a Dry
Bulk Terminal off Tekra near Tuna outside Kandla creek at Kandla Port on BOT Basis.
APSEZL has formed a wholly owned subsidiary named Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (AKBTPL) for the development of the terminal.
AKBTPL [hereafter “Client”] of Ahmedabad (Gujarat), India have contracted Fugro Geotech Pvt. Ltd. (FGTL) [hereinafter “Fugro”], of Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra), India to
perform near shore soil investigation work for the jetty and approach trestle at Tuna, Kandla
vide Service Order No: 5700079294 dated 02.10.2012. The project consists of development
of the off-shore berthing structure with allied facilities for handling dry bulk cargo.
All the geotechnical investigation works were carried out according to relevant Indian, British
and American or equivalent Standards.
This report describes the factual field and laboratory data obtained through the geotechnical
investigation campaign in accordance with the requirements of the technical specifications.
This report also discusses about the foundation recommendations for the proposed marine
construction, all as per the requirement of technical specification.
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 8
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of works for the geotechnical investigation is to perform a total of ten (10-nos)
boreholes at proposed jetty head locations, along approach trestle and rock bund locations.
The work entails carrying out a campaign of sub-soil investigation work includes following;
• Mobilization of machinery and manpower along with the Jackup “Fugro GANGA”, mounted with hydraulic drill rig, water pump, testing tools, accessories, power pack, store house, PCPT set etc. to carry out marine boreholes and in-situ tests
• Survey and precise positioning of the borehole locations using Leica 420MX DGPS.
• Floating out and shifting of the jack up barge from one borehole location to other using tug boat.
• Sinking of 10 numbers of marine boreholes at specified locations
• Carrying out Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the boreholes at specified intervals or change of strata
• Carrying out tor vane shear test on the UDS sample collected from boreholes
• Disturbed and undisturbed sampling of soil in the boreholes
• Collection of ground water samples from the specified borehole locations for chemical test
• Logging visually identifiable litho-logical and engineering characteristics of the soil samples recovered from the boreholes.
• Preparation and submission of the preliminary field logs
• Packing, labeling and dispatching the soil samples to Fugro laboratory at Navi Mumbai for carrying out various laboratory tests as per the technical specification of the contact and defined bill of quantities
• Preparation and submission of the geotechnical investigation report complying the technical specification of the contract
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 9
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The equipment, jackup barge “Fugro GANGA” along with accessories, tools and relevant
numbers of manpower required to undertake marine geotechnical investigation work were
mobilized to site on November 15, 2012. The marine geotechnical investigation work was
commenced on November 17, 2012 and was completed dated December 14, 2012 under
constant supervision of client’s representatives.
Vicinity map showing the investigated area is presented in Illustrations on Plate 1. The CAD
drawing provided by client showing the indicative port layout plan, location of marine
boreholes and PCPT along with coordinates provides the basis to identify the locations of
marine boreholes. A list of the borehole segregation as per the proposed development plans
has been provided by the client’s representative. The summary of the field activities so far
completed is presented below in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of the field activities completed for the project
BH No. Field Work
Given Coordinates (WGS 84, Zone 42, CM-
69)
Achieved Coordinates (WGS 84, Zone 42, CM-
69) SBL w.r.t.
CD, m
TDb SBL,
m From To Easting, m
Northing, m
Easting, m
Northing, m
DRY BULK TERMINAL BH-01 11/30/12 12/02/12 613152.13 2531941.07 613157.00 2531404.10 -9.77 40.00 BH-02 12/10/12 12/12/12 613251.06 2532289.58 613249.70 2531531.50 -8.96 40.00 BH-03 11/19/12 11/22/12 613396.94 2532638.09 613399.90 2531588.60 -10.43 50.50 BH-04 12/05/12 12/07/12 613542.82 2532873.10 613542.10 2531638.10 -9.26 40.00 BH-05 12/03/12 12/04/12 613641.75 2533108.12 613644.00 2531762.10 -10.27 40.25
18M WIDE APPROACH ON PILE BH-06 11/23/12 11/30/12 613363.48 2531941.07 613363.90 2531941.60 -9.24 40.50 BH-07 12/08/12 12/09/12 613342.92 2532289.58 613343.10 2532293.10 -9.23 40.00 BH-08 12/12/12 12/13/12 613322.37 2532638.09 613325.60 2532635.30 -5.27 40.00 BH-09 12/14/12 12/14/12 613308.50 2532873.10 613304.10 2532870.00 -0.46 40.00 BH-10 11/17/12 11/18/12 613294.64 2533108.12 613293.80 2533112.50 1.02 42.50
A brief description of the activities carried out at project site under field investigation
campaign has been discussed in coming sections.
3.1 Borehole Positioning
Positioning of the marine borehole points was carried out at site using “Leica 4.2”. The co-
ordinates of the borehole locations were entered in the DGPS. DGPS provides bearing and
distance of that borehole location (i.e. Target) from antenna location. The boat along with
Jack-up Barge (JUB) was navigated towards the borehole (Target) location accordingly.
When the distance becomes zero, marking buoy was dropped at that point and after the
marking of the buoy, DGPS system was shifted from boat to JUB to fix the JUB position. The
same procedure was repeated for positioning of each borehole locations at the project site.
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 10
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
3.2 Positioning of Modular Jack-up Barge System
Once the drilling location is reached, the legs are jacked down to the seabed, preloaded
securely drive them into the sea bottom, and all the four legs are jacked down. Since the
legs have been preloaded and will not penetrate the seabed further, this jacking down of the
legs has the effect of raising the jacking mechanism, which is attached to the barge and the
drilling unit. In this way, the barge with drilling unit are slowly raised above the water up to a
predetermined height, so that the wave, tidal and current loading acts only on the relatively
small legs, not the bulky barge. Sufficient “air gap” was maintained well above the expected
wave heights, which needs to be justified from tidal charts. Tide charts give the information
on low and high tides and facilitate in maintaining minimum air gap.
After positioning the JUB at the proposed boreholes location, the coordinates were checked
using DGPS and are designated as achieved coordinates; with a tolerance of +/- 5.0m with
reference to the given coordinates of each boreholes.
3.3 Boring / Drilling
The boring works at the marine locations were carried out by deploying modular Jack-up
barges “Fugro GANGA” with leg length of 30.0m. A hydraulic drilling rig with triplex pump,
accessories and tools for boring in all type of soil / rock were mounted on these Jack-up
barges. The boreholes and jack up were positioned at specified locations using Leica
420MX DGPS. Modular jack up was shifted from one borehole location to other using tug
boat.
The boring operations were carried out by hydraulic rotary drilling method using Jack-up
platform. Casing was advanced in the sea bed up to hard strata to facilitate the drilling
operations. Clear water was used as the flushing medium. Standard Penetration Tests were
performed at specified intervals or at every change of strata. Sampling comprised collection
of disturbed samples from SPT split spoon sampler and shoe and undisturbed soil samples
of suitable diameter.
On reaching the rock the rock strata, boreholes were advanced using diamond core drilling
method and rock core samples were obtained using triple tube core barrels. The boreholes
were terminated as per the termination criteria issued by clients or as per the instruction of
Engineer In-charge.
The quantitative description of natural fracture state of rock masses are indicated using a
number of indices as determined from the borehole cores. TCR is the percentage ratio of
core recovered (whether solid, intact with full diameter, or non-intact) to the total length of
core run. SCR is the percentage ratio of solid core recovered to the total length of the core
run. RQD is a quantitative index based on core recovery procedure that incorporates only
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 11
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
those pieces of core which are 100mm or more in length. It is the total length of solid core
pieces, each greater than 100mm between natural fractures, expressed as a percentage of
the total length of core run. It is also a measure of drill core quality and it disregards the
influence of orientation, continuity, joint thickness and gauge.
The drilling accessories and tools used were all in conformity with BS 4019. The sub-seabed
lithostratigraphic conditions have been described in detail in the geotechnical borehole logs
presented in Appendix A.
3.4 Standard Penetration Tests
Standard penetration tests were carried out using a split spoon sampler complete with a
drive shoe and drive head fitted with a non-return valve. The basis of the test consists of
dropping a hammer of mass 63.5 kg on to a drive head from a height of 750 mm. The
number of such blows (N) necessary to achieve a penetration of the split spoon sampler by
300 mm (after its penetration under gravity and below the seating drive) is regarded as the
penetration resistance. The blow counts for each 150 mm penetration were recorded. Small
disturbed samples of soil were obtained from the split spoon sampler after completion of the
tests.
The number of blows and standard penetration test value has been described in detail in the
geotechnical borehole logs presented in Appendix A.
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 12
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The entire laboratory tests have been conducted as per the contract specifications,
approved laboratory test schedules and relevant standard code of practices as detailed
below in Table 2, in our laboratory at Navi Mumbai. The test results so obtained are
summarized and graphically presented in Appendix B for engineering characterization of soil
and rock core samples. Laboratory test carried out on recovered soil and rock samples and
used to complement in situ test and field data and to provide geotechnical parameters and
interpretation of the lithology across the site.
Table 2 Summary of the laboratory test carried out on soil and rock samples
Sl. No. Test Designation Relevant Standards
Bill of Quantities
Quantities performed
A Sieve Analysis IS 2720 (Part 4)
200 106
B Hydrometer Analysis 150 106
C Atterberg's Limit IS 2720 (Part 5) 150 106
D Specific Gravity IS 2720 (Part 3) 40 21
E Natural Moisture Content on UDS IS 2720 (Part 2) 10 20
F Sat & Dry Density on UDS BS 1377 (Part 2) 10 19
G Free Swell Index Test IS 2720 (Part 40) 10 -
H Consolidation Test on UDS IS 2720 (Part 15) 40 5
I Box Shear Test IS 2720 (Part 13) 40 7
J Triaxial Compression Test
i Unconsolidated Undrained IS 2720 (Part 11) 40 14
ii Consolidated Undrained BS 1377 (Part 8) 20 -
iii Consolidated Drained IS 2720 (Part 10) 20 -
K Unconfined Compression Test 20 4
L Test on Rock
i Uniaxial Compression test (saturated) IS 9143 80 20
ii Point Load Test IS 8764 20 18
iii Saturated Moisture Content
ISRM, IS 13030
40 13
iv Specific Gravity 40 20
v Unit Weight 40 14
vi Porosity and Water Absorption 20 15
vii Modulus of Elasticity IS 9221 20 8
M Chemical Analysis of Water Samples
i Sulphate content IS 2720 (Part 27) 2 2
ii Chloride content BS 1377 (Part 3) 2 2
iii pH value IS 2720 (Part 26) 2 2
N Chemical Analysis of Soil Samples
i Sulphate content IS 2720 (Part 27) 2 2
ii Chloride content BS 1377 (Part 3) 2 2
iii pH value IS 2720 (Part 26) 2 2
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 13
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Information on the Project Area
The project site is located within the Gulf of Kutch, outside Kandla creek, about 17km on
west of existing facilities of the Kandla Port within Kandla creek.
Tuna Port is a port-cum-town in Anjar Taluka of Kutch District of Gujarat State of India. The
Gulf of Kutch is an inlet of the Arabian Sea along the west coast of India, in the state of
Gujarat, and renowned for extreme daily tides. The maximum depth of Gulf of Kutch is 401
feet (122 m). It is about 99 miles in length and is famous for the coral reefs surrounding thirty
two islands. It divides Rann of Kutch and the Kathiawar peninsula regions of Gujarat. The
Rukmavati River empties into the Arabian Sea nearby. The Gulf of Kutch is well connected
by rail and roadways to major places in India. The nearest airport is at Kandla and rail-head
is Gandhidham.
5.2 Geo-technology of the Site
The site geotechnical investigation has been accomplished by carrying out a total of 10
marine boreholes as per the requirement of technical specification of the contract. The
boreholes were distributed along the Approach and Jetty. The generalized sub-seabed
profile has been prepared showing the variation in soil and rock till borehole termination
depths below seabed level. These profiles are presented in Illustrations on Plate 2 thru 3.
The plasticity chart prepared based on the laboratory test results are presented in
Illustrations on Plate 4. The sub-seabed lithostratigraphic conditions, classification and
engineering characteristics have been described in detail in the geotechnical borehole logs
presented in Appendix A.
Based on the review of the marine boreholes the entire site can be characterized in to three
units. UNIT I comprises predominately very soft to soft silty CLAY / CLAY with occasional
thin to thick layers of silty SAND / clayey silty SAND. UNIT II comprises weak to moderately
weak highly weathered to completely weathered Amygdaloidal BASALT / BASALT.
All the marine boreholes as detailed in Table 1 were terminated in Unit III, which comprises
moderately strong to strong moderately weathered to slightly weathered Amygdaloidal
BASALT / BASALT. The maximum termination depth of the marine borehole was 50.50m
below existing seabed level.
5.2.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters
The generalized sub-seabed profile and design parameter adopted for the project is
presented in coming sections. Field and laboratory test data for the project provided the
basis for the analysis presented in this report. Based on the study and established relations,
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 14
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
generalized design parameters are recommended for use in engineering analysis of
foundations.
Looking at the generalized sub seabed profiles presented in Illustrations on Plate 2 and 3,
the entire site can be classified as presented below in Table 3. The sub-seabed soil / rock
condition and strength parameters considered for engineering analysis of foundation for the
project is presented below in Table 3.
Table 3 Generalized Sub-Seabed Profile adopted for the project
Unit No Geotechnical Description h1 h2 H N RQD γ c q
I
Predominately very soft to soft silty CLAY / CLAY with occasional thin to thick layers of silty SAND / clayey silty SAND
-9.00 -22.00 13.00 2 - 16 10 -
II weak to moderately weak highly weathered to completely weathered Amygdaloidal BASALT / BASALT
-22.00 -44.00 22.00 - 0 22 - 14
III
moderately strong to strong moderately weathered to slightly weathered Amygdaloidal BASALT / BASALT
-44.00 -59.00 15.00 - 0-60 24 - 30
Note - legends used in Table above are as below; h1 - Depth from, (below Chart Datum) h2 - Depth to, (below Chart Datum) H - Average thickness of the strata, (meters) N - Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value RQD - Range of Rock Quality Designation, (%) γ - Bulk Density, (kN/m3) c - Average Cohesion arrived based on the correlation with SPT and results of laboratory test, (kN/m2) q - Average Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock, (MPa)
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 15
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
6.0 ENGINEERING DISCUSSIONS AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Basis of the Foundation Selection – Engineering Discussions
As per the information received from client’s representative it is understood that large
diameter pile foundation system is to be adopted for the construction of proposed marine
facilities comprising Approach Trestle and Jetty.
Piles find application in foundations to transfer loads from a structure to competent
subsurface strata having adequate load-bearing capacity. The load transfer mechanism of
pile to the surrounding ground is complicated and is not yet fully understood. Broadly, piles
transfer axial loads either substantially by friction along its shaft and/or by the end bearing.
Looking at the sub-seabed soil conditions as presented in Illustrations on Plates 2 thru 3, as
discussed in Section 5 above and as per the client’s requirement, end bearing piles
socketed in weathered/soft rock foundation system has been presented in coming sections
for the proposed construction of Approach Trestle and Jetty. It may be noted that, the
installation piles demands careful control on position, alignment and depth, and involve
specialized skill and experience.
Pile foundations should designed in such a way that load from structure can be transmitted
to the sub-surface with adequate factor of safety against shear failure of sub-surface and
without causing differential or total settlement, which may cause structural damage or
functional distress under permanent/ transient loading. The pile shaft should have adequate
structural capacity to withstand loads and moments which are to be transmitted to the
subsoil.
For the requirement of cement, steel and concrete, appropriate consultation with the structural
engineer is advised. It is recommended to follow the requirements of workmanship as
mentioned in IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2): 2010.
6.2 Pile Foundation Recommendations
6.2.1 Piles in Hard Rock
When crushing strength of the rock is more than characteristic strength of pile concrete, the
rock should be deemed as hard rock. Piles resting directly on hard rock may be loaded to
their safe structural capacity.
6.2.2 Piles in Weathered/Soft Rock Piles founded in weathered/soft rock different empirical approaches are used to arrive at the
socket length necessary for utilizing the full structural capacity of pile. Since it is difficult to
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 16
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
collect cores in weathered rock/soft rocks, method suggested by Cole and Stroud using SPT
‘N’ values is more widely used. It has been mentioned in IS 2911 (Part 1, Section 2) that if
the Standard Penetration Values is more the 60, the stratum is to be treated as weathered
rock rather than soil. The allowable load on the pile by this approach can be arrived using
following equation;
su2
s
2
cu1a FBLc
FBNcQ παπ
+=4
Where,
u1c - Shear strength of rock below the base of pile, kPa
cN - Bearing capacity factor (9)
sF - Factor of safety (3)
α - 0.9 (recommended value)
u2c - Average shear strength of rock in the socketed length of pile, kPa
B - Minimum diameter of pile shaft, m
L - Socket length of pile
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 17
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
7.0 REFERENCES
The following standard codes, references on soils and foundations were referred:
7.1 List of Standard Codes
1. IS: 1498 Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineer in charge Purposes
2. IS: 1892 Code of Practice for Subsurface Investigation for Foundation
3. IS: 2131 Method of Standard Penetration Tests for Soils
4. IS: 2132 Code of Practice for Thin Walled Tube Sampling for Soils
5. IS: 2720 Method of Test for Soils (Relevant Parts)
6. IS: 2911 Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations Part I Concrete Piles Section 2 Bored Cast in-Situ Piles
7. IS: 14593 Design and Construction of Bored Cast in-situ Piles Founded on Rocks - Guidelines
7.2 List of Specifications / Documents and Drawings 1. Appendix I – Bill of Quantities
2. Appendix III – Technical Specifications
3. Appendix VI – Location Plan
4. Offshore Borehole Location Plan (KDL-12/E101.001/C001/CD007
7.3 Standard Textbook References 1. Foundation Analysis and Design, Joseph E. Bowles
2. Foundation Design and Construction, M.J. Tomlinson
3. Foundation Design Manual, N.V.Nayak
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 18
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
8.0 CONCLUSION
This report presents the field records and laboratory test results conducted for marine
investigation project along with engineering discussions and foundation recommendations.
The borehole logs and related information depict sub-seabed conditions only at the specific
location and time where the sampling was conducted. The results reported here are
dependent on the test locations and time at which the tests were conducted.
Fugro Report No.: FGTL/AKBTPL/ED/452/12/REV-4 19
ILLUSTRATIONS
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
SITE LOCATION
MBH-10
MBH-09
MBH-08
MBH-07
MBH-06
MBH-05
MBH-01
MBH-02MBH-03
MBH-04
SITE VICINITY MAP / BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR JETTY & APPROACH TRESTLE FOR DRY BULK TERMINAL AT TUNA, KANDLA
ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD.
A
A'B
B'
Plate 1
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
SUB-SEABED SOIL PROFILE FOR APPROACH AREA (SECTION AA')
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR JETTY & APPROACH TRESTLE FOR DRY BULK TERMINAL AT TUNA, KANDLA
ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD.
ScaleVertical= 1:150Horizontal= 1:2200
BH
-10
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
-18.0
-20.0
-22.0
-24.0
-26.0
-28.0
-30.0
-32.0
-34.0
-36.0
-38.0
-40.0
-42.0
-44.0
-46.0
-48.0
-50.0
-52.0
-54.0
-56.0
-58.0
-60.0
510
29
4
18
18
12
15
21
7
8
910
11300900
SPT
n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
51
49
25
45
49
51
RQ
D
37.9
36
13
23.8
65.6
UC
S
0.38
0.58
12.47
PLI
BH
-09
510
10
4
4
2
5
7
7
9
9
10
1112450
SPT
n.i.13n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
15
39
53
91
74
95
65
RQ
D
7.8
5.6
UC
S
0.19
PLI
BH
-08
12
3
5
6
6
9
9
10
7
6450
SPT
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
19
25
23
53
73
52
99
74
97
66
RQ
D27.8
18.8U
CS
0.39
0.96
PLI
BH
-07
11
2
3
4
4
4600
SPT
n.i.n.i.n.i.
11
21
45
38
33n.i.n.i.
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
39
13
51
4466
RQ
D
47.5
UC
S
0.19
0.76
PLI
BH
-06
12
3
42450
SPT
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.7
n.i.
n.i.
41
26
9
41
11
n.i.
n.i.
41
58
50
95
RQ
D
19.6
UC
S
BH
-03
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
-18.0
-20.0
-22.0
-24.0
-26.0
-28.0
-30.0
-32.0
-34.0
-36.0
-38.0
-40.0
-42.0
-44.0
-46.0
-48.0
-50.0
-52.0
-54.0
-56.0
-58.0
-60.0
23
1
1
251450
SPT
n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
28
20
n.i.
11
11
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
444147
18
49
59
15
69
8743
RQ
D
17.1
UC
S
0.38
0.39
0.95
PLI
A
A'
UNIT I
UNIT I
UNIT I
UNIT II
UNIT III
Plate 2
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
SUB-SEABED SOIL PROFILE FOR DRY BULK TERMINAL (SECTION BB')
SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR JETTY & APPROACH TRESTLE FOR DRY BULK TERMINAL AT TUNA, KANDLA
ADANI KANDLA BULK TERMINAL PVT. LTD.
BH
-01
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
-18.0
-20.0
-22.0
-24.0
-26.0
-28.0
-30.0
-32.0
-34.0
-36.0
-38.0
-40.0
-42.0
-44.0
-46.0
-48.0
-50.0
-52.0
-54.0
-56.0
-58.0
-60.0
12
2
2
3
4337
SPT
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
22
8
n.i.
57
53
n.i.
7
n.i.
8
19
25
11
RQ
D
9.6
11.7
28.5
UC
S
0.39
0.19
PLI B
H-0
2
41
2
3
3450
SPT
n.i.17
7
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
7
8
37
7
26
43
n.i.n.i.60n.i.
85
RQ
D17.4
UC
S
0.19
0.75
PLI
BH
-03
23
1
1
251450
SPT
n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
28
20
n.i.
11
11
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
444147
18
49
59
15
69
8743
RQ
D
17.1
UC
S
0.38
0.39
0.95
PLI B
H-0
4
10
2
2
3107
SPT
n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
15n.i.n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.n.i.n.i.
n.i.
RQ
D
101.7
UC
S
7.92
PLI
BH
-05
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
-18.0
-20.0
-22.0
-24.0
-26.0
-28.0
-30.0
-32.0
-34.0
-36.0
-38.0
-40.0
-42.0
-44.0
-46.0
-48.0
-50.0
-52.0
-54.0
-56.0
-58.0
-60.0
11
3
4
2
900
SPT
n.i.
7
7
n.i.
13
20
7
n.i.
7
36
76
29
60
62
45
55
71
94
RQ
D
3
UC
S
0.79
0.19
PLI
ScaleVertical= 1:150Horizontal= 1:900
B
B'
UNIT I
UNIT II
UNIT III
Plate 3
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Atterberg limits Location(s):
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Liquid Limit [%]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pla
stic
ity In
dex
[%]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pla
stic
ity In
dex
[%]
PLASTICITY CHARTSub-Soil Investigation at Tuna,Kandla,Gujrat
GeO
Din
/Pla
stic
ity C
hart.
GLO
/201
3-01
-11
4:38
:17
PM
BH-01BH-02BH-03BH-04BH-05
BH-06BH-07BH-08BH-09BH-10
A-line
U-line
L
ASTM:
I H V
High plasticity
BS:
Low plasticity
Low plasticityASTM CL-ML zone
E
LIntermediate plasticityI
Very high plasticityVExtremely high plasticityEBritish Standard 5930: 1999BSASTM D2487-06ASTM
High plasticityH
Plate 4
APPENDIX - B
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Laboratory Soil Test SummaryProject : 452/12
Client : 05.01.2012
Direct Shear UU UCS
Fine Medium Coarse
3 7 14 4 21 106 95 73 106 106 106 106 106 106 20 19 19 5 3 3 3 2 2 2
0.00 0.45 54 19 35 38 54 8 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 49 18 31 39 47 14 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 57 18 39 44 50 6 0 0 0
4.50 4.95 60 19 41 39 51 10 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 14/1 2.713 55 19 36 48 48 4 0 0 0 42.12
7.50 7.95 54 19 35 30 45 25 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 8/2 2.686 48 18 30 36 58 6 0 0 0 38.53 1.84 1.33
10.50 10.95 40 18 22 23 42 31 4 0 0
11.65 12.00 46 29 17 5 23 36 22 4 10
0.00 0.45 65 19 46 41 49 10 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 71 22 49 46 52 2 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 11/2 2.674 46 19 27 37 53 10 0 0 0 37.74 1.85 1.35
4.50 4.95 65 20 45 51 43 6 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 11.9 62 20 42 35 40 25 0 0 0 49.9 1.71 1.14 Sample insufficient for UU, bottom part of sample contained coarser proportion
7.50 7.95 46 17 29 35 51 14 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 9/2 2.683 42 19 23 32 59 9 0 0 0 42.12 1.79 1.26
10.50 10.95 50 17 33 33 54 13 0 0 0
0.2100 20500 8.56
0.00 0.45 35 24 11 35 40 25 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 2.66 29 20 33 47 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 18/2 2.69 64 20 44 50 39 11 0 0 0 47.3 1.77 1.2 1.227
4.50 4.95 55 23 32 54 44 2 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 12/1 2.62 70 20 50 46 44 9 1 0 0 49.8 1.78 1.19 1.378 0.0137 5200 8.40
7.50 7.95 44 18 26 40 52 8 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 16/2 2.609 41 17 24 37 57 6 0 0 0 34.84 1.85 1.38 0.884
10.50 10.95 50 19 31 39 51 10 0 0 0
12.00 12.45 13 21 28 22 4 12
12.55 12.65 13 22 25 17 8 15
BH-02
Total Quantity Tested
Lab Vane
qu (KPa)
ToFromc, φ
(kPa, degree)
BH. NO.
Test Depth (m) below E.G.L. /
S.B.L
BH-01
BH-03
Strength Test
Sp. Gravity
WATER SAMPLE
Particle Size Distribution (%) Moisture
Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (%)
GravelSilt φ (deg) τv
Chloride Content (ppm)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Consolidation Test
CHEMICAL TEST ON SOIL SAMPLES
Remarks (**)
CHEMICAL TEST ON GROUND WATER SAMPLES
pH
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
pHChloride Content (ppm)
ClayIPWLInitial Void Ratio
eoDry
NATURAL DENSITY & MOISTURE CONTENT
Density (Mg/m3)
WetWP
Sand
NP
NP
NP
Job Number :
Date
Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
Plate B1.1
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Laboratory Soil Test SummaryProject : 452/12
Client : 05.01.2012
Direct Shear UU UCS
Fine Medium Coarse
Lab Vane
qu (KPa)
ToFromc, φ
(kPa, degree)
BH. NO.
Test Depth (m) below E.G.L. /
S.B.L
Strength Test
Sp. Gravity
Particle Size Distribution (%) Moisture
Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (%)
GravelSilt φ (deg) τv
Chloride Content (ppm)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Consolidation Test
CHEMICAL TEST ON SOIL SAMPLES
Remarks (**)
CHEMICAL TEST ON GROUND WATER SAMPLES
pH
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
pHChloride Content (ppm)
ClayIPWLInitial Void Ratio
eoDry
NATURAL DENSITY & MOISTURE CONTENT
Density (Mg/m3)
WetWP
Sand
Job Number :
Date
Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
0.00 0.45 56 21 35 11 21 68 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 39 22 17 34 48 18 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 43.3 2.679 62 20 42 35 41 24 0 0 0 28.7 1.95 1.52 Sample insufficient for UU
4.50 4.95 43 20 23 18 30 52 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 2.663 62 21 41 38 50 12 0 0 0 40.76 1.84 1.31 1.051 0.0274 5300 8.35
7.50 7.95 45 17 28 30 44 25 1 0 0
9.00 9.45 15/0 2.671 65 21 44 45 49 6 0 0 0 47.88 1.67 1.13
10.50 10.95 62 23 39 49 43 8 0 0 0
12.00 12.45 37 24 13 7 18 41 24 2 8
0.00 0.45 47 19 28 28 46 26 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 66 21 45 50 46 4 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 70 18 52 42 48 10 0 0 0
4.50 4.95 66 21 45 42 51 7 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 9/1 65 22 43 48 48 4 0 0 0 49.38 1.74 1.16
7.50 7.95 61 23 38 46 48 6 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 10.9 2.682 66 22 44 47 51 2 0 0 0
10.50 10.95 68 22 46 44 49 7 0 0 0
12.00 12.45 10.9 7/1 65 22 43 50 48 2 0 0 0 45.99 1.71 1.17
13.20 13.25 6 13 11 18 6 46
0.00 0.45 44 18 26 44 40 16 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 37 18 19 33 41 26 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 29/9 2.582 42 18 24 31 41 27 1 0 0 30.8 1.94 1.48
4.50 4.95 41 16 25 38 51 11 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 30/1 2.570 49 17 32 37 55 8 0 0 0 34.39 1.92 1.43
7.50 7.95 31 12 37 41 10 0 0
0.00 0.45 47 18 29 31 40 19 8 1 1
1.50 1.95 45 18 27 33 53 14 0 0 0
3.00 3.45 49 18 31 32 58 10 0 0 0
4.50 4.95 43 23 20 29 51 19 1 0 0
6.00 6.45 24/1 45 19 26 37 52 11 0 0 0 38.97 1.83 1.32
7.50 7.95 48 19 29 36 40 19 4 0 1
9.00 9.45 13/2 2.667 47 20 27 30 56 14 0 0 0 42.12 1.79 1.26
10.50 10.95 46 18 28 31 39 26 3 1 0
12.00 12.45 41 19 22 33 54 12 1 0 0
13.50 13.95 42 24 18 32 50 17 1 0 0
BH-05
BH-04
BH-07
BH-06
NP
NP
Plate B1.2
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Laboratory Soil Test SummaryProject : 452/12
Client : 05.01.2012
Direct Shear UU UCS
Fine Medium Coarse
Lab Vane
qu (KPa)
ToFromc, φ
(kPa, degree)
BH. NO.
Test Depth (m) below E.G.L. /
S.B.L
Strength Test
Sp. Gravity
Particle Size Distribution (%) Moisture
Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (%)
GravelSilt φ (deg) τv
Chloride Content (ppm)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Consolidation Test
CHEMICAL TEST ON SOIL SAMPLES
Remarks (**)
CHEMICAL TEST ON GROUND WATER SAMPLES
pH
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
pHChloride Content (ppm)
ClayIPWLInitial Void Ratio
eoDry
NATURAL DENSITY & MOISTURE CONTENT
Density (Mg/m3)
WetWP
Sand
Job Number :
Date
Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
0.00 0.45 34 17 17 27 43 25 5 0 0
1.50 1.95 34 16 18 25 43 27 5 0 0
3.00 3.45 32 18 14 26 48 22 4 0 0
4.50 4.95 28 15 29 41 15 0 0
6.00 6.45 6 2.674 36 23 13 29 43 24 4 0 0 30 1.87 1.44
7.50 7.95 26 13 24 46 17 0 0
9.00 9.45 30 10 26 51 10 3 0
10.50 10.95 29 11 24 54 9 2 0
12.00 12.45 25 28 3 15 72 10 0 0
13.50 13.95 29 3 22 71 4 0 0
15.00 15.45 31 33 6 28 61 5 0 0
16.50 16.95 38 15 23 31 53 8 8 0 0
0.00 0.45 36 19 17 4 12 82 2 0 0
1.50 1.95 38 19 19 26 28 45 1 0 0
3.00 3.45 58 17 41 36 42 21 1 0 0
4.50 4.95 47 17 30 36 36 28 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 33 2.677 36 13 35 52 0 0 0 28.4 1.93 1.5
7.50 7.95 41 18 23 33 31 36 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 53 17 36 38 42 20 0 0 0
10.50 10.95 35 18 42 40 0 0 0
12.00 12.45 34 16 43 41 0 0 0
13.50 13.95 34 14 37 49 0 0 0
15.00 15.45 33 11 40 49 0 0 0
16.50 16.95 32 11 37 51 1 0 0
18.00 18.95 27 33 13 41 45 1 0 0
19.50 19.95 33 11 35 51 3 0 0
21.00 21.45 27 36 4 35 60 1 0 0
BH-09
BH-08
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Plate B1.3
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Laboratory Soil Test SummaryProject : 452/12
Client : 05.01.2012
Direct Shear UU UCS
Fine Medium Coarse
Lab Vane
qu (KPa)
ToFromc, φ
(kPa, degree)
BH. NO.
Test Depth (m) below E.G.L. /
S.B.L
Strength Test
Sp. Gravity
Particle Size Distribution (%) Moisture
Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (%)
GravelSilt φ (deg) τv
Chloride Content (ppm)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Sulphate content in terms of SO3
(%)
Consolidation Test
CHEMICAL TEST ON SOIL SAMPLES
Remarks (**)
CHEMICAL TEST ON GROUND WATER SAMPLES
pH
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
pHChloride Content (ppm)
ClayIPWLInitial Void Ratio
eoDry
NATURAL DENSITY & MOISTURE CONTENT
Density (Mg/m3)
WetWP
Sand
Job Number :
Date
Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
0.2200 21000 8.51
0.00 0.45 5 25 70 0 0 0
1.50 1.95 NS 2.654 13 33 53 1 0 0
3.00 3.45 NS 2.650 9 21 68 2 0 0
4.50 4.95 40 18 22 40 44 16 0 0 0
6.00 6.45 56.3 2.648 34 9 27 63 1 0 0 29.9 1.87 1.44 0.967 0.0137 3350 8.35 Sample not sufficient for UU test
7.50 7.95 30 13 26 61 0 0 0
9.00 9.45 11 45 44 0 0 0
10.50 10.95 30 17 33 49 1 0 0
12.00 12.45 32 22 10 22 44 33 1 0 0
13.50 13.95 18 43 39 0 0 0
15.00 15.45 35 22 13 21 41 38 0 0 0
16.50 16.95 34 22 12 23 50 27 0 0 0
18.00 18.95 33 28 46 26 0 0 0
19.50 19.95 37 19 18 29 60 11 0 0 0
21.00 21.45 NS 2.631 6 6 22 40 7 19
22.50 22.75 11 11 22 40 5 11
23.15 23.20 6 11 13 26 6 38
E.G.L. Mg/m3 Mega gram per cubic meter c Cohesion φ Angle of internal friction Np Non-plasticWL WP IP Plasticity Index BH. Borehole NS Sample Not sufficient for test
Approved ByIS
NS
NS
Revision Date
NP
Format No.
Existing Ground LevelLiquid Limit
Revision No.
BH-10
WATER SAMPLE
NP
NP
MPRSNIL
NS
Plastic Limit
NS
Checked ByFM-LAB-TEST-14 00
Prepared By
Abbreviations used :
NP
NS
NP
NP
NS
Plate B1.4
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Job No. 452/12Client : Date 5/1/2012
SMC
From To %
13 15 14 14 13 20 18 20 18 8
12.00 13.50 5.098 0.39
22.00 23.50 10.5 5.122 0.19 9.56 9.6
26.50 28.00 10.51 5.138 4.92 5.07 12.47 2.46 2.58 2.871 11.67 11.7 1.38E+03
28.00 29.50 8.412 5.138 3.97 2.18 5.40 2.48 2.58 2.871 29.28 28.5
13.50 15.00 NS -- 17.14 -- -- -- 2.871 -- -- Highly fracture rock. Sample insufficient
15.00 16.50 DRY 5.188 -- -- -- -- -- 0.19 --
25.00 26.50 DRY 5.218 -- -- -- -- -- 0.75 -- --
28.00 29.50 10.5 5.148 2.92 2.45 6.25 2.55 2.62 2.871 17.44 17.4
14.00 15.50 DRY 5.152 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.38 -- --
15.50 17.00 DRY 5.126 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.39 -- --
24.50 26.00 Saturated 10.500 5.120 0.68 1.08 2.74 2.54 2.56 2.792 -- 17.15 17.1
26.00 27.50 Saturated 8.258 5.158 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.95 -- -- Sample collapsed During saturation
BH-04 28.00 29.50 Saturated 10.756 5.2 -- -- -- -- -- 2.947 7.92 101.71 101.7
14.75 16.25 DRY 5.05 -- -- -- -- -- 2.925 0.79 -- --
20.75 22.25 DRY 5.11 -- -- -- -- -- 2.806 0.19 -- --
26.75 28.25 Saturated 7.9 5.118 8.46 7.20 15.88 2.20 2.39 2.871 3.16 3.0 4.55E+02
24.00 25.5 Saturated 7.608 5.15 -- -- -- -- -- -- 31.59
25.50 27 Saturated 10.452 5.138 -- -- -- -- -- -- 50.98
28.5 30 Saturated 8.922 5.138 -- -- -- -- -- -- 19.97 19.6 2.65E+03
16.50 18.00 DRY 5.1 -- -- -- -- -- 2.846 0.19 --
21.00 22.50 Saturated 10.638 5.202 2.13 0.89 2.36 2.64 2.70 2.871 47.46 47.5 5.46E+03
24.00 25.50 Saturated 9.716 5.18 9.76 16.25 37.94 2.33 2.56 2.851 -- -- sample collapsed after saturation
33.50 35.00 DRY 5.188 -- -- -- -- -- 1.348 0.76 -- --
Diameter (cm)
BH-01
BH-02
BH-05
BH_03
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Depth (m) Condition during
Strength testLength (cm)
Remarks
PROJECT : Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
BH No.
Corrected Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(Saturated ) MPa
Saturated Density(g/cc)
Point Load Index Strength (Is)50
(MPa)
Quantity of Test Completed
Porosity (%)
Dry Density(g/cc)
Specific Gravity
Modulus of Elasiticity (Mpa)
εt
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
Water Absorption
(%)
Sat. UCS (MPa)
BH-07
BH-06
Plate B2.1
FUGRO GEOTECH PVT. LTD.
Job No. 452/12Client : Date 5/1/2012
SMC
From To %
Diameter (cm)
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Depth (m) Condition during
Strength testLength (cm)
Remarks
PROJECT : Sub Soil Investigation for Jetty Approach Trestle for Dry Bulk Terminal at Tuna Kandla.
BH No.
Corrected Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(Saturated ) MPa
Saturated Density(g/cc)
Point Load Index Strength (Is)50
(MPa)
Porosity (%)
Dry Density(g/cc)
Specific Gravity
Modulus of Elasiticity (Mpa)
εt
Adani Kandla Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
Water Absorption
(%)
Sat. UCS (MPa)
19.00 20.50 DRY 5.118 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.39 -- --
23.50 25.00 DRY 5.148 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.96 -- --
26.50 28.00 Saturated 8.928 5.128 2.26 2.90 6.67 2.30 2.35 2.871 28.36 27.8
28.00 29.50 Saturated 9.374 5.138 2.23 5.26 12.28 2.34 2.39 2.851 19.05 18.8 3.13E+03
23.00 24.50 DRY 5.148 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.19 --
31.00 32.50 Saturated 9.472 5.14 2.02 1.15 3.04 2.63 2.69 2.871 7.86 7.8
34.00 35.50 Saturated 10.266 5.142 4.77 8.61 18.85 2.19 2.29 2.851 5.63 5.6 8.47E+02
30.50 32.00 Saturated 5.172 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.38 -- --
32.00 33.50 Saturated 5.122 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.58 -- --
33.50 35.00 Saturated 10.550 5.119 -- 0.65 1.60 2.45 -- 2.568 12.47 -- -- A part of sample collapsed during saturation
35.00 36.50 Saturated 10.590 5.140 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37.88 37.9 4.127E+03
36.50 38.00 Saturated 10.520 5.160 2.98 0.52 1.29 2.48 2.56 2.938 -- 36.01 36.0
38.00 39.50 Saturated 10.800 5.120 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13.02 13.0
39.50 41.00 Saturated 8.108 5.172 2.06 0.67 1.68 2.51 2.57 2.875 -- 24.61 23.8 6.66E+03
41.00 42.50 Saturated 10.500 5.140 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 65.64 65.6
Checked ByMP AS
BH-09
Format No.FM-LAB-TEST-14
Revision No.00
Revision DateNIL
Prepared ByRS
Approved By
BH-08
BH-10
Plate B2.2