Soil Data

CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PTY.
LIMITED
FINAL REPORT
ON
' \
MANGALA PROCESSING TERMINAL
NAME OF PROJECT_ GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN

AREA DEVELOPMENT MANGALA & RAGESHWARI FlEWS
IN BLOCK RJ-DN-90/1, RAJASTHAN, INDIA
... '.,
•· ~ ·itl
Job No. : 191/06 ,
March, 2008
Submitted by:
FUGRO GEOTECH LIMITED

Plot No 51, Sector-6, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai • 400 705 ·
VOLUME I
1. TEXT
2. ENGINEERING ILLUSTRATION
~GRO
FUGRO GEOTECH LTO. ~
FINAL REPORT
ON
NAME OF PROJECT- GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN

AREA DEVELOPMENT MANGALA & RAGESHWARI FlEWS
. IN BLOCK RJ-oN-90/1, RAJASTHAN, INDIA
ReportNo.: FGTUMPT/191/08 March 2008
REPORT ISSUE STATUS
<01> November 2007 Report- Before Relocation AS/PS SJ SM

<02> December 2007 Report -After Relocation ISH SJ SM
<03> February 2008 Report·. After Relocation ISH SJ SM
Issue Date Description Prepared Checked Approved
CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PTY LIMITED FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
C/o Mustang Engineering L.P. Plot No 51

16001 Park Ten Place Sector-6,
Houston Sanpada
Navi Mumbai - 400 705
Texas 77084
Maharashtra
USA
India
Prepared by :ISH Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by . SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/08

~GRU
FINAL REPORT
ON

AREA DEVELOPMENT MANGALA & RAGESHWARI FIELDS
IN Bf.,OCK RJ-oN-9011, RAJASTHAN, INDIA
CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING 12
5.0 GEOLOGY 12
6.0 GROUNDWATER 13
~
7.0 LOCATION OF BED ROCK OR SUITABLE FOUNDATION MATERIAL 14
8.0 POTENTIAL FOR LIQUIFACTION 14
9.0 POTENTIAL FOR GROUND RUPTURE 14
10.0 SLOPE INSTABILITY AND LAND SLIDES 15
11.0 POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING 15
12.0 COLLAPSE POTENTIAL 15
13.0 SAND DUNE STABILITY 15
14.0 SUBSIDENCE 15
15.0 SEISMICITY OF SITE 15
16.0 GROUND CONDITIONS 16.
17.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORKS 17
18.0 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND
FACILITIES 20
Prepared by :ISH II Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 {R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
19.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
~
22
. 20.0 SAFETY FACTORS 29
21.0 COEFFICIENT OF ACTIVE, PASSIVE & AT EARTH PRESSURE AT REST 29
22.0 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION 30
23.0 SLIDING RESISTANCE 30
24.o· CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TEST RESULTS 31
25.0 ANGLE OF .INTERNAL FRICTION 37
26.0 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION · 37
27.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SET BACK DISTANCE FROM EDGE 37
OF FOUNDATION
28.0 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 37
29.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 41
. 30.0 UNDERGROUND RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS 49
31.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOT SULPHUR PIT DESIGN 49
32.0 ANCHOR FOUNDATIONS 50
33.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AT VARIOUS DEPTHS 50
"'
/' . 34.0 TANK PADS AND CONTAINMENT AREAS 50
35.0 ROAD, PAVED AREAS AND PARKING FACiliTIES 51
36.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EROSION PROTECTION 56
37.0 SEPTIC TANK 57
38.0 REFERENCES 58
Prepared by :ISH Ill Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

~GAD
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO. ~
VOLUMES
VOLUME I
TEXT
ENGINEERING ILLUSTRATION
VOLUME II
FIELD TEST RESULTS APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX 8
VOLUME 111-A
CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS APPENDIX c
VOLUME Ill - 8
CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS APPENDIX c
VOLUME -IV
STRENGTH TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D

DEFINITIONS APPENDIX E
Prepared by :ISH IV Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
ENGINEERING ILLUSTRATIONS
INDEX MAP -Plate . . 1
FIELD TEST LOCATION PLAN Plate 2
ROCK CONTOUR DRAWING Plate 3
SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 4
CHANNEL SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 5
SPT VS DEPTH PROFILES Plate 6 Thru 9
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR SLAB ON GRADE Plate 10 Thru 11
PILE CAPACITY CURVES Plate 12 Thru 16
DRAWING 1 Plate 17
DRAWING2 Plate 18
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR TANK SETTLEMENT Plate 19 Thru 21
DRAWINGS Plate 22
;~ PHOTOGRAPHS Plate 23
Prepared by :ISH v Date :March 2008
Checked Be Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
APPENDIX A
FIELD TEST RESULTS
BOREHOLE LOGS Plates A1 Thru A245
CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TESTS Plates A246 Thru A247
ELECTICAL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS Plates A248
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TESTS Plates A249 Thru A250
LOCATION OF BED ROCK Plates A251
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF LA BORATORY TEST
SUMMARY OF SOIL TEST RESULTS Plates B1 Thru B65
SUMMARY OF ROCK TEST RESULTS Plates B66 Thru B97
LAB CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TESTS Plates B98
;t MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITY Plates B99
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plates C1 Thru C576
AITERBERG LIMITS Plates C577 Thru C616
APPENDIX D
STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
DIRECT SHEAR TEST Plates D1 Thru D276
APPENDIX E
DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS Plates E1 Thru E2
Prepared by :ISH VI Date : March2008

~GAO
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD. ~
FINAL REPORT
ON

AREA DEVELOPMENT MANGALA & RAGESHWARI FIELDS
IN BLOCK RJ-QN-90/1, RAJASTHAN, INDIA
CLIENT CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PTY LIMITED
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Cairn Energy India Ply Limited (CEIL) is developing new oil production facilities in Barmer
district, western India as part of their Rajasthan Northern Area Development. The Mangala field
forms a major part of the development. The project consists of several work areas like Mangala
Processing Terminal, Oil Well Pads, Thumbli Water Field, Operation Base Enlargement Area,
Access Roads, Ragheshwari Gas Field and Dump Well Area.
Fugro Geotech Ltd. (FGTL) was commissioned by CEIL through their contract no. DECO-MRX-
CN-CT-0001 dated 06 October 2006 to carry out the geotechnical investigation work by
conducting one hundred and thirty one (131) boreholes as listed below, in accordance with the
technical specifications of the contract.
1. MPT area = 99
2. Oil Well pad area = 18
3. Dump Well area =01
4. Thumbli Water Field area = 03
5. Operation Base Enlargement Area = 02
6. Access Roads = 08
With the variation order no. DECO-MRX-CN-CT-0001-V0-01 dated 09 April 2007 ten (10) new
soil borings were added at MPT due to recent changes in the equipment general arrangement
plan of CEIL. Thus a total of 109 boreholes were drilled in the northern side of MPT area and the
detailed geotechnical investigation report containing data of these boreholes was submitted to
CEILb FGTL
Prepared by :ISH 1 Date :March 2008

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
As part of flood risk mitigation works, the plant layout was shifted by CEIL from northern side to
south-west side of MPT to give way for the flood relief channel which called for additional sixty
five (65) boreholes and two (2) cross hole seismic tests. These were requisitioned by CEIL
through variation order no. DECO-MRX-CN-CT-0001-V0-02 dated 05 .July 2007. Thus a total of
174 boreholes were drilled in MPT area. Data and interpretative report of these 174 boreholes
was submitted to CEIL by FGTL.
Further eighteen (18) boreholes as detailed below were requisitioned by CEIL through variation
order no. DECO-MRX-CN-CT-0001-V0.;.03 dated 12 December 2007..
1. New well pad - 9 =1

2. Bridge Area =3
3. D/s Water Channel =2
4. Pipe Line near Water Channel =2
5. Railway Crossing =2
6. Operation Base Enlargement Area =3
7. Rageshwari Gas Field =5
A total of thirty nos (30) field Electrical Resistivity Tests (ERD as listed below were carried out
for designing earthing I cathodic protection system and determining corrosivity of subsoil.
1. MPT area =07

2. Thumbli Water Field =04
3. Oil Well pads = 14
4. Rageshwari Gas Field =05
This report encompasses the total geotechnical investigation work performed at the Mangala
Processing terminal area (MPT) to generate subsurface geological and engineering data to be
used for foundation design. This was accomplished by boring at one hundred and seventy four
(174) locations, sampling in soil and coring in rock wherever encountered, carrying out various
in-situ and laboratory tests in accordance with relevant ASTM Codes as specified. The laboratory
tests were carried out at our laboratory in Navi Mumbai, India.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for the soil investigation project at MPT site includes the following:
• Borings at one hundred and seventy four (174) locations on land to termination depths
ranging from 15 m to 32 m below existing ground level.
• Visual inspection of the samples at site and recording their characteristics.
• Carrying out standard penetration tests (SPD at specified intervals.
• Collection of disturbed and undisturbed samples of soils.
• Collection of core samples of rocks, wherever encountered.
• Testing the soil/rock samples, thus collected, in the laboratory for their classification,
Prepared by : ISH 2 Date : March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJJSM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
index and engineering properties.

• Carrying out seven nos. (7) field Electrical Resistivity Tests (ERT) for designing earthing
I cathodic protection system and determining corrosivity of subsoil.
·• Carrying out Cross-hole seismic tests at two (2) locations under initial work order and
two (2) more locations under variation order three up to 20m depths.
• Carrying out two nos. (2) Soil Collapse Test.
• Preparation and submission of preliminary and subsequently the final report.
Four drilling rigs with accessories and other test equipments were mobilized to accomplish the
above work.
3.0 . FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation carried out at MPT site included the following;
• Borings at one hundred and seventy four (174) locations on land to termination depths
ranging from 15 m to 32 m below existing ground level.
• Carrying out standard penetration tests.
• Collection of disturbed and undisturbed samples of soils encountered.
• Collection of core samples of rocks wherever encountered.
• Logging visually identifiable lithological and engineering characteristics of soil samples.
• Testing the soil/rock samples, thus collected, in the laboratory for their classification,
index and engineering properties.
• Carrying out field Electrical Resistivity Tests at seven (7) locations.
• Carrying out a total of four (4) Cross-hole seismic tests up to 20m depths.
• Carrying out two nos. (2) Soil Collapse Potential Test
The equipment and manpower required to undertake work were mobilized to site on December
1, 2006. The field investigations commenced on, December 7, 2006 after completing requisite
HSE formalities. After completing the initial 109 boreholes the entire MPT project area was
relocated. An additional investigation campaign consisting of sixty five (65) boreholes has been
undertaken in the relocated area which is completed on September 30, 2007. An additional
thirteen (13) boreholes were carried out in different area under variation order three which was
completed on January 13, 2008.
The field work has been carried out under constant supervision of CEIL representatives.
INDEX MAP is presented on Plate 1 and a borehole location map is presented on Plate 2.

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
3.1 Drilling I Boring
The boreholes were positioned and their coordinates determined by using OmniSTAR 8300HP
DGPS.
The boring works were accomplished by deploying four skid mounted semi-hydraulic rig units.
Triplex type water pumps supported the rigs. Due to the extremely rugged terrain conditions and
presence of vast tracts of loose sand with sand dunes, it was very difficult to transport big rigs to
the area. Light rotary rigs were hence used for the boring and coring works. The borehole walls,
where weak, were supported by temporary steel casings. Standard Penetration Tests (SPD was
carried out.at specified intervals and disturbed bagged samples were obtained from SPT split
spoon sampler and shoe. Sampling frequency was generally 1m at the upper 3m and 1.50m
thereafter depending on strata variability. The boreholes were terminated on reaching the
requisite depths as per the termination criteria mentioned in contract. The location of boreholes,
trial pits and other tests is given in Plate 2 and detailed below in the Table-1.
It is understood that the finished grade level has been finalized at 170.500m w.r.t msl. The depth
of cut and fill with respect to borehole locations have been calculated and presented in Table 1
below.
Table 1: Field Test Locations corresponding to facility based on C2 DECO-MRX..C-DWG-

2100-02-C2
Facility BH No. Northing Easting Depth RL (m)'" CUT FILL Rem a

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) rks
BH-2A 2870184.50 749957.77 15.0 175.200 -4.700 .
owo
BH-28 2869979.33 750082.28 15.0 174.700 -4.200 -
Bh-602 2870241.53 750060.88 26.0 181.420 -10.920 -
BH-603 70031.02 749949.74 21.0 176.970 -6.470 .
BH-605 2870099.07 750021.31 27.0 181.300 -10.800 .
BH-607 2870140.06 750088.84 32.0 180.680 ·10.160 .
Export Oil
Tanks Area BH-611 2670017.00 750071.11 25.0 175.930 -5.430 .
BH-613 2870057.99 750136.65 27.0 177.760 -7.280 - V0-11
BH-615 2670101.77 750204.44 24.0 177.720 -7.220 .
BH-616 2869934.93. 750120.92 30.0 181.900 -11.400 -
BH-619 2869955.68 750155.11 27.0 163.250 -12.750 -
BH-620 2869975.92 750188.46 32.0 182.540 -12.040 .
BH-624 2869839.48 750160.81 20.0 181.500 -11.000 .
BH-625 2869929.16 750307.77 26.0 181.120 -10.620 .
BH-623 2869766.79 750040.80 22.0 176.620 -6.120 .
BH-627 2869711.13 749996.94 19.0 .130 -3.630 -
V0-11
BH-629 2869703.55 750109.82 22.0 177.260 -6.760 -
Power BH-631 2869593.16 750066.53 16.0 171.730 -1.230 -
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTLIMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO .
Generation BH-632 2869553.83 750092.40 20.0 169.780 - 0.720
Area
BH-633 2869588.48 750148.65 15.0 170.200 0.300 -
BH-634 2869502.60 750167.77 15.0 168.610 - 1.890 V0-11
BH-637 · 2869632.19 750248.50 20.0 171.820 -1.320 -

BH-638 2869705.28 750204.43 24.0 173.610 -3.110 -
BH-5 2869684.33 750472.52 15.0 165.700 - 4.800 . owo
BH-639 2869670.46 750288.44 19.0 173.850 -3.350 -
Water
BH-641 2869737.40 750333.20 20.0 179.350 -8.850 -
Treatment BH-645 2869773.20 750392.19 26.0 175.250 -4.750 -
Area
BH-649 2869809.00 75045.1.18 20.0 165.530 - 4.970 V0-11
BH-659 2869852.10 750522.78 15.0 165.660 - 4.840
BH-660 2869849.97 750305.36 21.0 176.310 -5.810 -
BH-661 2869908.69 750401.98 24.0 178.760 -8.260 -
BH-3 2869437.76 750297.72 15.0 166.700 - 3.800
BH-4 2869505.10 750408.68 15.0 165.900 - 4.600
Shop, Admin
BH-6 2869571.31 750519.44 15.0 166.200 - 4.300
owo
Blgds& BH-7 2869671.53 750586.05 15.0 166.100 - 4.400
Storage
Areas BH-8 2869611.96 750625.71 15.0 166.400 - 4.100
BH-9 2869659.96 750672.03 15.0 166.000 - 4.500
BH-652 2869536.02 750312.65 15.0 167.930 - 2.570
V0-11
BH-657 2869553.60 750560.60 15.0 165.470 - 5.030
DH-2 2870113.03 750567.62 20.0 166.700 - 3.800
DH-4 2870336.19 750614.41 20.0 168.300 - 2.200
DH-5 2870239.59 750673.03 20.0 166.900 - 3.600
BH-11 2870133.48 750625.49 15.0 167.200 - 3.300
owo
BH-70 2870271.22 750522.77 15.0 168.040 - 2.460
BH-71 2870202.38 750526.97 15.0 168.370 - 2.130
Settling & BH-72 2870188.10 750573.26 15.0 165.620 - 4.880
Skim Tanks
Area BH-73 2870136.64 750567.01 15.0 165.620 - 4.880
BH-662 2870082.67 750500.44 15.0 166.390 - 4.110
BH-668 2870217.86 750440.63 20.0 167.120 - 3.380
BH-671 2870282.03 750546.38 20.0 167.650 - 2.850
BH-672 2870172.78 750472.56 15.0 166.830 - 3.670
V0-11
BH-673 2870246.30 750595.35 15.0 166.560 - 3.940
BH-675 2870091.55 750575.65 15.0 166.520 - 3.980
BH-678 2870143.00 750661.00 15.0 166:340 - 4.160
BH-679 2870169.59 750707.35 15.0 166.370 - 4.130
DH-9 2870053.84 750793.05 20.0 167.000 - 3.500
BH-20 2870059.31 750740.27 15.0 167.200 - 3.300 owo
Gas BH-21 2870002.89 750774.51 15.0 167.100 - 3.400

~GliB
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD ~
Processing &
Skim Tanks
BH-22 1 2869979.85 750788.60 15.0 167.100 - 3.400
Area BH-26 2869992.48 750836.39 15.0 167.300 - 3.200

BH-75 2870041.02 750751.37 15.0 166.010 - 4.490 owo
BH-76 2870017.93 750765.38 15.0 165.970 - 4.530
BH-616 2869839.57 749919.66 20.0 172.280 -1.780 - V0-11
Steam
Generation BH-2C 2869854.82 749877.11 15.0 172.300 -1.800 - owo
BH-601 2869749.83 749943.17 19.0 176.500 -6.000 - V0-11
Condensate
BH-626 2869993.62 .750382.92 26.0 185.390 -14.890 -
and diesel BH-663 2870077.35 750321.66 27.0 182.030 -11.530 - V0-11
storage tanks BH-664 2870124.33 750369.19 27.0 181.770 -11.270 -
BH-665 2870130.83 750299.15 26.0 183.850 -13.350 -
Flare Stack BH-667 2870329.65 750310.67 26.0 183.850 -13.350 - V0-11
BH-162 2871527.00 749666.33 15.0 172.790 -2;290 -
Operation
Base BH-166 2871391.31 749684.13 15.0 . 171.980 -1.480 - V0-11
Enlargement
Area
BH-168 2871284.64 749773.84 15.0 169.540 - 0.960
ABH-2 2870465.24 751150.74 20.0 167.620 - 2.880
Bridge Area
ABH-3 2870439.69 751038.62 23.5 168.900 - 1.600
ABH-6 2870450.8 751087.37 20.0 168.290 - 2.210
Dis Water
Channel
ABH-4 2869253.91 750672.06 9.5 166.440 - 4.060
ABH-5 2869404.68 750852.41 9.0 166.230 - 4.270
V0-111
PipeLine ABH-7 2868911.35 750441.63 9.0 164.300 - 6.200
Near Water
Channel ABH-8 2867919.36 750828.26 9.7 162.230 - 8.270
Railway
Crossing
BH-105 2863581.23 754645.55 6.0 152.330 - -
BH-106 2863542.11 754666.71 6.0 153.170 - -
New Well Pad
-9
ABH-1 2870677.81 751253.89 15.0 168.220 - 2.280
BH-1 2870046.39 749733.08 15.0 168.700 - 1.800

BH-2 2870019.66 749917.44 15.0 174.800 -4.300 ,
BH-10 2870035.09 750622.75 15.0 167.200 - 3.300
8H-12 2870449.55 750408.96 15.0 168.200 - 2.300
8H-13 2870545.92 750556.67 15.0 168.800 - 1.700
BH-14 2870579.90 750637.23 15.0 168.800 - 1.700
8H-15A 2870458.57 750655.89 15.0 168.400 - 2.100
owo
BH-158 2870510.34 750654.75 15.0 168.400 - 2.100
8H-15C 2870483.48 750654.75 15.0 168.100 - 2.400
GENERAL
AREA
8H-16A 2870361.97 750714.51 15.0 167.600 - 2.900
BH-168 2870413.74 750713.38 15.0 168.700 - 1.800
8H-16C 2870386.87 750669.11 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-17A 2870265.36 750773.14 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
BH-178 2870317.14 750772.01 15.0 167.200 - 3.300

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD . ,,
BH-17C 2870290.27 750727.73 15.0 167.200 - 3.300

BH-18 2870195.99 750757.29 15.0 167.700 - 2.800
BH-19 2870108.16 750718.58 15.0 167.300 - 3.200
BH-23 2869867.37 750861.54· 15.0 167.100 - 3.400
BH-24 2869835.7 750880.66 15.0 167.200 - I 3.300
BH-25 2869786.11 750910.75 15.0 167.000 - 3.500
BH-27 2869883.13 750937.46 15.0 167.400 - 3.100
BH-28 2869938.41 750978.58 15.0 167.600 - 2.900
BH-29 2869901.65 751000.89 15.0 167.500 - 3.000
BH-30 2869931.25 751075.04 15. 166.700 - 3.800
BH-31A 2870037.65 750875.84 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
BH-318. 2870060.84 750914.04 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
BH-31C 2870016.16 750915.02 ! 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
8H-32A 2870096.64 750840.04 15.0 167.300 - 3.200
8H-328 2870119.82 750878.24 15.0 167.300 - 3.200
owo
BH-32C 2870075.15 750879.22 15.0 167.400 - 3.100
BH-33A 2870132.44 750899.03 15.0 167.500 - 3.000
8H-338 2870155.62 750937.23 15.0 168.100 - 2.400
8H-33C 2870110.95 75093~ 15.0 168.000 - 2.500
BH-34 2870174.02 751092.35 15.0 167.100 - 3.400
BH-35 · 2870233.99 750888.37 15.0 168.100 - 2.400
BH-36 2870252.72 750970.31 15.0 167.900 - 2.600
8H-37 2870292.1 751015.1 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
GENERAL
BH-38 2870316.53 750920.67 15.0 168.800 - 1.700
AREA BH-39 2870333.73 750939.57 15.0 168.200 - 2.300
BH-40 2870348.75 750964.57 15.0 168.500 - 2=--
BH-41 2870357.65 750917.16 ! 15.0 168.500 - 2.000
BH-42 2870373.21 750942.81 15.0 168.500 . - 2.000
8H-43 2870389.26 750906.16 15.0 168.700 - 1.800
BH-44 2870404.82 750931.81 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-45 2870415.57 750870.31 15.0 167.000 - 3.500
BH-46 2870471.63 750849.15 15.0 167.500 - 3.000
8H-47 2870522.41 750818.34 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
BH-48 2870556.52 750857.97 15.0 167.800 - 2.700
BH-49 2870653.4 750844.12 15.0 168.300 - 2.200
BH-50 2870704.54 750969.83 15.0 168.000 - 2.500
8H-51 2870763.56 751067.07 15.0 167.600 - 2.900
BH-52 2870534.6 750962.54 15.0 167.500 - 3.000
BH-53 2870550.94 750989.47 15.0 167.400 - 3.100
BH-54 2870567.28 751016.4 15.0 167.400 - 3.100
Checked & Approved by . SJ/SM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
BH-55 2870592.5 751057.95 15.0 168.000 - 2.500 owo

BH-56 2870615.17 751095.31 15.0 168.000 - 2.500
BH-57 2870635.35 751128.56 .15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-58 2870509.32 751033.71 15.0 168.700 - 1.800
BH-59 2870584.49 751157.74 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-60 2870441.83 750993.79 15.0 169.500 - 1.000
BH-61 2870361.84 751028.67 15.0 168.900 - 1.600
BH-62 2870415.47 751034.9 15.0 168.400 - 2.100
BH-63 2870417.77 751098.58 I 15.0 168.800 - 1.700
BH-64 2870497.23 751117.06 15.0 168.100 - 2.400
BH-65 2870468.64 751134.71 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-66 2870448.35 751171.22 15.0 168.300 - 2.200
BH-67 2870518.6 751152.32 15.0 168.100 - 2.400
BH-68 2870489.91 751169.76 15.0 168.500 - 2.000
BH-69 2870449.2 751252.59 15.0 168.600 - 1.900
BH-74 2870027.17 750668.04 15.0 165.780 - 4.720
BH-77 2869884.58 750869 15.0 166.050 - 4.450
BH-78 2870510.21 750820.19 15.0 165.950 - 4.550
BH-79 2870454.25 750845.63 15.0 165.990 - 4.510
DH-1 2870087.61 750525.73 20.0 166.500 - 4.000
DH-3 2870432.79 750555.78 20.0 168.100 - 2.400
DH-6 2870484.13 750640.37 20.0 168.400 - 2.100
DH-7 2870387.53 . 750699 20.0 169.200 - 1.300
DH-8 2870290.93 750757.63 20.0 167.000 - 3.500
GENERAL DH-10 2870038.22 750901.63 20.0 167.800 - 2.700
AREA
DH-11 2870097.20 750865.83 20.0 167.200 - 3.300
DH-12 2870133.20 750924.82 20.0 168.000 - 2.500
DH-13 2870074.01 750960.62 20.0 167.900 - 2.600
DH-14 2870109.81 751019.61 20.0 167.900 2.600
DH-15 2870524.8 751247.9 20.0 169.000 - 1.500
BH-622 2869827.8 749994.05 21.0 176.460 -5.960 -
BH-653 2869545.28 750464.77 20.00 165.430 - 5.070
BH-677 2870166.5 750591.45 15.0 166.310 - 4.190
BH-683 2870298.46 750851.8 15.0 166.920 - 3.580
BH-684 2870347.31 750822.16 15.0 167.100 - 3.400
BH-685 2870413.44 750679.92 15.0 168.430 - 2.070 V0-11
BH-686 2870458.73 750754.54 15.0 168.120 - 2.380

BH-687 2870502.65 750727.88 15.0 168.320 - 2.180
BH-688 2870540.71 750704.79 15.0 168.870 - 1.630
BH-689 2870550.03 750597.02 15.0 167.660 - 2.840
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM RP.pnrt Nn · FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

· FUGRO GEOTECH LTO
BH-690 2870622.38 750716.23 15.0 167.980 - 2.520
BH-691 2870595.32 750671.64 15.0 167.810 - 2.690
BH-692 2870567.77 750749.38 15.0 168.540 - 1.960
BH-693 2870596.15 750762.99 15.0 168.470 - 2.030
BH-694 2870596.15 750796.14 15.0 167.400 - 3.100
BH-695 2870676.39 750805.24 15.0 167.820 - 2.680
V0-11
BH-696 2870621.78 750838.38 15.0 167.580 - 2.920
BH-697 2870703.23 750849.46 15.0 167.640 - 2.860
BH-698 2870648.63 750882.62 15.0 168.640 - 1.860
BH-699. 2870566.64 750932.36 15.0 166.530 - 3.970
TP1 2870129.39 750742.41 3 168.000 - -

Test/ Trial PitS owo
TP2 2870490.20 751058.08 3 168.400 - -
. . ..
(Note: - VO- Vanatton Order. OWO- Ongmal Work Order, RL-Reduced Level, CUT & Ftll wtth respect to fimshed grade
level of 170. OOm)
3.2 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)
SPTs were carried out by 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 of a hammer of mass
63.5 kg on to a drive head from a height of 760 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 borehole records with visual lithologs, SPT 'N' values and laboratory test results are
enclosed in Appendix A on Plates A 1 thru plates A261.
3.3 Total Core Recovery (TCR), Solid Core Recovery (SCR), Rock Quality Designation (RQD}
Core samples of rock were obtained by diamond core drilling using tripple tube core barrel fitted
with diamond core bit. Fresh water was used as drilling fluid. Geologist inspected the core
samples at site and the various characteristics of rock were recorded.
Quantitative description of fracture state of rock masses are indicated using a number of indices
as measured from the borehole cores.
Total Core Recovery (TCR) is the percentage ratio of core recovered (whether solid, intact with
full diameter, or non-intact) to the total length of core run.
Solid Core Recovery (SCR) is the percentage ratio of solid core recovered to the total length of
the core run.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is a quantitative index based on core recovery procedure that
incorporates only those pieces of core 100mm or more in length. It is the total length of solid core

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
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 borehole records with visual lithologs, TCR, SCR, ROD values and laboratory test results
are enclosed in Appendix-A on Plates A1 thru Plates A459.
The detailed definitions of TCR, SCR, ROD, Weathering Grades and strength are given in
Appendix Eon Plates E1 thru E2.
3.4 Cross Hole Seismic Test (CHST)
Cross Hole Seismic Test (CHST) was carried out at two (2) locations up to a depth of 20m below
EGL. The locations of boreholes and brief description of the cross-hole seismic method are
given below:
Table 2· Location and Description of Boreholes for the CHST
Coordinate w.r.t. assumed Termination

Bore Hole Test Location Ground Coordinate System Depth Remarks
No. Northing (m) Easting (m) w.r.t. EGL (m)
DH-2 (Settling & Skim
CH-1* 2870113.03 750567.62 20.0
Tanks Area)
One source
DH-9
CH-2* 2870053.84 750793.05 16.0 borehole
(Gas Processing & Skim
· Tanks Area) & two receiver
boreholes
CH-3•• BH-616 (Steam
Generation)
2869839.57 749919.66 20.0
CH-4•• BH-632 (Power

· Generation)
2869553.83 750092.40 20.0
.. . .
(Note : - •. As per ongmal work order, ••. As per vanatlon order two)
Purpose
The cross-hole test was performed to determine the various soil and rock dynamic parameters
at the proposed site. The test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D- 4428.
Theory & Methodology:
The general principle of the cross-hole test is to establish the shear wave (S-wave) and
compression wave (P-wave) velocities of the soil and rock Layer at selected depths. The waves
are generated in an "impulse" borehole and are detected by the multi-directional geophone(s) in
"receiver" borehole(s) drilled at known distance from the impulse borehole. The wave fronts
detected by the geophone(s) are recorded on a signal enhancement seismograph. The travel
time of the generated P&S-wave is interpreted from the wave front recorded by the
seismograph. The travel time ·and the distance between the "impulse" and the "receiver"
borehole are used to calculate the P&S-wave velocities.
Prepared by :ISH 10 Date : March2008
Checked & Approved by ; SJ/SM Report No.. FGTIJMPT/'191/06 (R·tl)

~GRO
Test Layout:
The distance between the "impulse" and the "receiver" holes were 3.0m and .6.0m respectively
in two orthogonal directions. The impulse and the receiver holes were cased using heavy duty
PVC casing with bottom plug and the annular space between the borehole walls and the casing
were cement grouted up to the bottom.
Test Equipment:
The test-equipment~onsiStsOimilltl-cfiannel Smartseis R-24 seismograph of Geometries make,
a Bison reversible type pneumatically operated hammer to . generate energy, a three
dimensional geophone and battery. The seismograph is capable of storing and stacking the data
and using software it can pick up the arrival times of the P&S-waves. The bison hammer and the
geophone are fitted with inflatable rubber tubes allowing them to be fixed at the desired
elevation in the boreholes.
Test Intervals:
The P&S-wave measurements were made in the boreholes at every 1m depth up to maximum
depth of 20m below the ground level.
Procedure:
The test was performed at each test interval using the following procedures.
The hammer and the geophones were lowered to the test depth. The cables were marked at 1.0
m depth interval to ensure that the geophone and the hammer are at the same test depth. The
hammer was secured in this elevation by inflating the rubber tubes provided at the side of the
hammer using air pressure. Similarly the geophones were lowered in the receiver holes and
secured at the same elevation as that of hammer in the same manner. The test was started by
pulling the strike rod up with the help of a string and then allowing it to fall under its own weight.
Stacking enhanced the signals, which were achieved by repeating the process described above.
Striking at least five to ten times stacked the waves.
Initial calculations determining the P&S-waves were made in the field. The tests were repeated
a number of time until the first arrival of seismic waves corresponding to the known stratigraphy
was identified. The procedures were repeated at each test depth.
Subsequently the traces were examined again in the office to ensure proper identification of first
arrival of P-& S-waves.
Determination of Various Dynamic Soil Parameters

The recorded first arrivals of P-wave (tp) and to S-wave {ts) include the time required by the
"impulse" wave to travel through the medium. Table 3 summarizes the equations were used to
determine various parameters.
Prepared by :ISH 11 Date ; March 2008

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
Table 3- Equations and Parameters for the Cross Hole Seismic Test
S No Parameter Equation
1 Primarv Wave Velocity 0/p) Vp =X/tp
2 Shear Wave Velocity 0/.) v.=XIt.
3 Poisson's Ratio (J.I.) J.1. =(m~-2)/[2*(m"-1)]
4 Dynamic Shear Modulus (G) . G -' (Yt Vs ")/g
5 Dynamic Young's Modulus (E) E = 2 (1+J.I.)*G
(Ref. Barkan, D.D. (1962), DynamiCS of bases and foundations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, NY.)
Where,
X = Distance between the impulse and the receiver holes (m),
= Primary & Shear wave velocities, m/sec.
=Time of first arrival of primary & shear waves, respectively,
milliseconds.
m = Vp/Vs
G = Dynamic Shear Modules; MPa
Yt =Total Unit wt, KN/m3
g =Acceleration due to gravity, m/sec2
E = Dynamic Young's Modulus, MPa
Parameters calculated from above equations are presented in tabular form on Appendix-A on
Plates A262 thru Plates A269.
3.5 Electrical Resistivity Test (ERn
A total of seven (7) Field Electrical Resistivity Tests (as listed in Table 4) of the soil at
representative locations of the project site were carried out for designing the earthing system and
corrosion potential for the proposed structures.
Table 4- Location and Description of Boreholes for the ERT
Coordinate w.r.t. assumed.

Bore Hole No. Test Location Ground Coordinate System
Northing (m) Easting (m)
ERT-1 DH-12 2870133.00 750924.82
ERT-2 BH-15A 2870458.57 750655.89
ERT-3 BH-56 I 2870615.17 751095.31
ERT-4 BH-20 2870059.31 750740.27
ERT-5 BH-611 2870017.00 750071.11
ERT-6 BH-613 2870057.99 750138.65
ERT-7 BH-618 2869934.93 750120.92
Soil resistivity is determined in Ohm-meter by using "Wenner's Four Electrode Method. The
principle of the method is generally as follows:
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191106 (R-8)

~GRO
Four electrodes are driven in~o the earth along a straight line at equal intervals of. 'S'. The
distance 'S' can be varied and different readings taken for electrode spacing S=1, 3, 5 meters
etc. to detect the vertical variations of resistivity at a certain location. A current 'I' is passed
through the two outer electrodes and the earth. The voltage difference, 'V', . between the· two
inner electrodes is measured. The current 'I' flowing into the earth produces an electric field
proportional to its density and to the resistivity of the soil. The voltage 'V' measured between the
inner electrodes is, therefore, proportional to this field. Consequently, the resistivity will be
proportional to the ratio of voltage and current.
If the depth of the burial of the electrodes in the ground is negligible compared to the spacing
between the electrodes, the soil resistivity is given as:
v
s.-
p = 2 .1t.
I
Resistivity of the soil in Ohm-meter

Spacing between electrodes in meter
Voltage difference between two inner electrodes in volts
Current flowing through two outer electrodes in amperes
Earth testers normally used for the above purpose comprise the current source and voltmeter in
a single instrument and directly read the resistivity ofthe soil. Such an instrument is known as
the four terminal Meggar. Using such Meggar for measurement, above formula becomes:
p = 2 .1t. S. R
Where,
R = Meggar readings in Ohms
The results of electrical resistivity test are presented in Appendix A on Plate A270.
3.6 Collapse potential tests
Two field tests were performed as per tender specification no. 6.12. Results are presented in
Appendix A on Plates A271 thru Plates A272.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Disturbed samples in SPT split spoon samplers were collected from the predominantly sandy
strata encountered in the boreholes at this site. Undisturbed samples were collected in thin
walled Shelby tubes. The soil samples were visually identified, described and thereafter packed,
labeled, sealed and transported to the laboratory. The laboratory tests were carried out as per
relevant ASTM Codes as listed in the section 38.0. The results are summarized in Appendix-B
on Plates 81 thru Plates 865.

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
4.2 Laboratory Tests on Rock Samples
The tests on rock core samples are conducted as per procedure specified in relevant ISRM and
ASTM Codes as listed in the section 38.0. The results are summarized in Appendix-8 on Plates
866 thru Plates 897.
5.0 GEOLOGY
5.1 Geology of the Region
The 8armer basin in Western Rajasthan is a narrow north-south trending graben comprising
sediments of Middle Jurassic to Lower Eocene age. It originated due to the break up of Indian
craton in the late Cretaceous - early Paleocene that led to the formation of the Cambay rift and
the constituent basins. 8armer basin has been classified in three categories pre-rift, syn-rift and
post-rift.
The pre-rift sediments constitute siliceous Randha formation, calcareous 8irmania formation and
Lathi formation. These sediments are deposited on a late Proteroric basement of Malani igneous
suite.
The syn-rift formation includes 8armer formation and Fatehgarh formation. 8armer formation
comprises poorly cemented sandstone and intra formational conglomerate and represents
alluvial fan environment. Fatehgarh formation is mixed sand, mud and phosphorite formation
deposited on an intertidal environment.
The post-rift sediments deposited as a thickening and coarsening - upward claystone -siltstone -
sandstone cycle. They include Akli formation and Kapurdi formation. They are of Paleocene to
Eocene age. Overlying Akli and Kapurdi formations is a grit and gravel bed of Miocene age.
5.2 Sand Dunes
The desert of Rajasthan in India is the easternmost extension of the vast Sahara- Arabian
deserts. The desert is dominated by the southwest monsoon, which controls both the wind
vector and the vegetation cover. The configuration of atmospheric dynamics and sinking air
masses in the region inhibit in this region despite the fact that considerable precipitable moisture
exist in the atmosphere. Minor changes in the atmospheric circulation patterns result in amplified
changes in the rainfall, the winds and the Aeolian dynamism. The region is dominated by
Aeolian bed forms of different dimensions including sand dunes. The desert in Rajasthan is
located in between the foothills of the Aravalli ranges in the east and the international borders
with Pakistan in the west. Further west in Pakistan, the desert extends to the fertile alluvial
plains of the Indus.
Checked & Approved by : SJISM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
The desert in Rajasthan is the result of a delicately balanced relationship between the strength
and the duration of wind, sediment supply, rain fall vegetation covers and land surface
conditions. The naturally stabilized and free forming high sand dunes, dunes formed around
major obstacles, as well as the thick Aeolian sand sheets deposits can be considered as the best
keepers of sufficiently long records. The stratigraphy of the non-eccentric high sand with copious
vegetation suggests several episodes of dune building activities, separated by periods of
landscape stability.
5.3 Aeolian Process and Sand Dunes
Aeolian activity .in this area is mainly restricted to the periods of summer winds associated with
the southwest monsoon. The northeastern wind of winter months plays only a minor role in
Aeolian activity. Sand and dust raising winds begins from March onwards when the surface is
dry and maximum wind speed is reached during June. May and July are also very windy. Since,
this is also the periods when much of the ground flora is dry; the environment is suitable for
Aeolian activities.
The Mangala Processing Terminal area is surrounded by different kinds of sand dunes, which
includes compound parabolic dune, longitudinal parabolic dune, longitudinal dune, and
transverse dunes. The most dunes are gullied and sparsely vegetated, vegetation gradually
becoming less frequent on crust zone and it is prominent over sloping surface. The
morphological features of the dunes led to differentiation between dunes of the old system and
new system. The dunes of the old system are mostly the linear, parabolic, and transverse and
are the products of past changes in climate.
The broad classification of sand dunes includes active, dormant and relict dunes. The active
dunes are those that are being formed under the present climate, dormant dunes are the old
dunes on which sand transport is now almost absent or very low, but which gets periodically
reactivated. On the basis of observation, the sand dunes in the area around Mangala Processing
Terminal lie within dormant category but with a slightly mobile crest. The mobility of the crest
appears to be very low and localized.
6.0 GROUND WATER
Groundwater table was not encountered in any of the boreholes in MPT area. Standpipe
piezometers were installed in six boreholes to monitor the ground water level. The readings are
tabulated below
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-·8)

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
Table 5- Piezometer Data for MPT
c:
•
..... .. .. . . .. ~ •co . . . . .. •M0
0~
0 10 0 10
ci ..... .....
-- "'>oI
N M 10 U) ~
N N
z Cll..! I I I I I I I I
>o >o >o >o >o >o
I I I I •
::C <II <II
c'ti 10 10 ~ 10 10 10 10 ~ 10 >o
10
>o
10
>o
10
>o
10
>o
10
ID Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
.5 Q Q Q Q
0 0 ..., 0 0 ..., ..., 0 0 0 0 0 0

DH-8 24.01. 07
"'cO I'-
c:ri
0
.,;
(")
.,;
(")
.,;
(")
.,;
(")
.,;
""
0>
~
.,;
~
.,; .......
"'l
...<!:!
Ill
0>
:2
~
Q
...
0
...,...:
t() ..., 0 0 1'- ...,
"' ...,
<D ...,..., ...,
t() ...,0 0
0 ~ ~
BH-19 25.01. 07
cO "'
,...:
(")
c:ri
(")
ex)
N
ex) c:ri ex) c:ri ex) ...,.; .....,;. Q Q
DH-11 17.01.07
Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
BH·15A 25.01.07
Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
DH-15 17.02.07
Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
...,..., 0 ..., ~
<D <10 ..., "'l
0 0 ...,0 0
....
......
<!:!
.......
'<I' '<I'
... ...
(")
"!
BH-6 17.02. 07
cO .,;
1'-
.,;
<10
....ci ...
ci
...
ci ci
...
,.;
i Nil Nil
(": Stattc Water Level below £GL m m)
The water levels encountered in the three piezometers above appear to be remnant of drilling
water. No groundwater table at shallow depth (up to 20m below EGL) has been reported in the
area. It was gathered from the district groundwater department that the static water level in an
existing bore well of the government in MPT area, supplying water to the villagers, is at 48m
below EGL which gets depressed to 60m below EGL in peak summer. Thus, under normal
circumstances, no effect of ground water is expected on the proposed foundations at this site.
7.0 LOCATION OF BEDROCK OR SUITABLE FOUNDATION MATERIAL
The suitable foundation stratum at this site is encountered at shallow depths. Bed rock was
encountered at depths varying from 3m to 21m in part of the area investigated. Details are
furnished in borehole logs; sections and in Appendix A on PlateA273.
8.0 POTENTIAL FOR SOIL LIQUEFACTION
Barmer is situated in Zone Ill (IS: 1893-2002- Part 1). Liquefaction Potential of Soil has been
assessed based on SPT N values and the procedure described in IS: 1893-2002 (Part 1). It is
mentioned in Table 1, IS: 1893-2002 (Part 1), note 4 that for seismic Zone Ill, desirable corrected
SPT N value for stratification up to 5m depth should be 15 and for depth greater than 10m should
be 25. The SPT N values in the MPT area of the current investigation are generally greater than
15 from the top 1m onward and hence liquefaction of soil is not expected below foundation
depth.
9.0 POTENTIAL FOR GROUND RUPTURE
No fault or major structural disturbance has been reported at shallow depth in the area studied.
The ground surface up to 0.3m depth is generally covered by loose sand. Dense to very dense
sand occurs to a depth of 15-16m below ground surface. The potential for ground rupture in this
area is thus considered low.

---------------------------------==-----·····"···-·· -···
~GAD
10.0. SLOPE INSTABILITIES AND LANDSLIDES
The existing sand dunes are mostly stable and hence slopes instability and landslides are not
expected in dune areas unless these are disturbed by cutting.
11.0 POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING
During year 2006 monsoon it was reported that the area was inundated by flash flood, signs of
which are found in the slope cuts and temporary channels in the MPT area. Although this was
one of the. first recorded instances in 100 years, occurrence of such a heavy flood in the area
signifies the future potential of flood. However a much larger scale geomorphological and
hydrological study is required to assess the flooding potential.
12.0 COLLAPSE POTENTIAL
Two field tests were performed as per tender specification no. 6.12. Results are presented in
Appendix A on PlateA131 thru A132. Increase in settlement under constant pressure of200 kPa
was 3mm and 7.5mm respectively. Field test was performed on 0.3 m square plate. Considering
depth of influence to be 0.6m (twice width of footing), collapse index as per ASTM D 5333 is
calculated below;
Test 1: Collapse Index= 0.5

Test 2: Collapse Index= 1.25
Thus based on collapse index the stratum at the test locations can be considered to have "slight"
collapse potential. This quantum of settlement on wetting over the specified time is considered to
be densification as the formation is generally poorly graded fine sand with little silt. The collapse
potential of the soil at this site is thus considered low.
13.0 SAND DUNE STABILITY
· The existing sand dune at the western part of the MPT area is reported to be stable. This is
signified by tbe presence of dense sands and rock at reasonably shallow depth in its core. No
evidence of its shifting has been reported.
14.0 SUBSIDENCE
No cavities or underground activities have been found in the area up to the depth explored. The
possibility of surface subsidence is hence considered minimal.
15.0 SEISMICITY OF THE SITE
Barmer is situated in Zone Ill (IS: 1893-2002 - Part 1). As per IS: 1893-2005 Part 4 table 1 the
subsoil falls in "Soil classification type II". The importance factors for various structures can be
determined from Table 2 IS: 1893-2005 Part 4 depending on soil classification and type of
structure. Zone factor ·z• according to Annex E (Page 35) for seismic Zone Ill will be 0.16 (Low
Seismic Intensity- Table 2 IS: 1893-2005).
Prepared by : ISH 17 Date : March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

~GRD
16.0 GROUND CONDITIONS
16.1 Surface Condition .
As described earlier the area investigated for MPT falls in a desert and is typically covered with
poorly graded loose fine slightly silty sand. The ground topography within the area shows the
presence of a moderately high sand dune at the western I north western part of the plot. Rest of
the plot surface is generally flat. Occasional arid bushes are seen on the plain part of the area
where as the arid vegetation is relatively denser on the sand dune.
16.2 Sub-Surface Condition
The sub-surface stratification and the soil I rock types encountered at this site have been
described in detail in the borehole records presented on Appendix A. A generalized assessment
has been made on the sub-surface stratigraphy and ground conditions based on the boreholes
drilled, samples collected and laboratory test results. The inferences made are relevant up to the
maximum depth of the boreholes.
In general, the subsoil at the MPT site comprises of sand which is loose at the very top and
medium to very dense thereafter followed by highly to moderately weathered sandstones,
conglomerates marl up to the maximum depth of 32m investigated. The generalized subsurface
profile is presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6 - Generalized Sub-Surface Profile of the Site Area
Strata Thicknesses
Encountered in the
Symbol Soil Description
Boreholes (m)
Min Max Avg
Layer1 Loose, pale yellow, fine SAND occasionally with roots 0.2 0.5 0.30
Layer2 Medium dense to dense, pale yellow, fine SAND 4.5 9.0 6.75
Dense to very dense, pale yellow, fine SAND with gravel at times
Layer3 with highly weathered to partially decomposed sand stone 3.0 10.5 6.75
fragments(completely decomposed sand stone)
Weak to very weak, light pink, highly weathered, fine to coarse
Layer4 conglomeritic SANDSTONE, with close to medium spaced, sub 3.0 11.5 7.25
horizontal fracturing
Hard, yellowish colored, complete decomposed MARL (bentonitic
Layer 5
clay stone). Encountered in 4 boreholes only
0.0 10.5 -
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8}

~GRD
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO •. ~
r.able 7 -GeneraI'1zed sub-s 01., p rote
ftl an dParamet ersad OPle
Depth w.r.t
t dfior th e Repo rt
Angle Unit Young's
Symbol Soil Description EGL(m) of Weight Modulus
Friction (y) (E)
From To
(~0) (kN/m1 (kN/m2 )
·Layer 1 Loose, pale yellow, fine SAND 0 -0.5 28 16 7000
Medium dense to dense, pale
Layer2 -0.5 -5.5 34 18 22750
yellow, fine SAND
Dense to very dense, pale
yellow, fine SAND with gravels
Layer 3 -5.5 -11.5 38 20 66000
of partially decomposed sand
stone
Weak to very weak, light pink,
Layer4 highly weathered, fine to coarse -11.5 -25.0 41 20 150000
conglomeritic SANDSTONE
Hard, yellowish coloured,
LayerS
decomposed MARL (claystone)
-25.0 -30.0 - 16 175000
17.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SITE

PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK FACILITIES
17.1 Clearing and Grubbing of Top Soil
The topsoil thickness ranges from 20 to 30 em and occasionally up to 50 em. It is recommended

to remove the top soil for depth of 30cm only in areas where structures are located {as needed
basis). Resulting sub-grade shall be compacted to minimum 85% relative density (or 98%
maximum dry density) by 8 Ton to 10 Ton vibratory roller.
17.2 Recommendation forSubgrade Preparation
Prior to placement of backfill, subgrade shall be compacted to minimum 85% relative density {or
98% of maximum dry density) by 8 Ton to 10 Ton vibratory roller. Laboratory values of maximum
3 3
and minimum densities are around 16.85 kN/m and 14.47 kN/m respectively (Refer Plate 841).
Thus, expected field density after compaction shall be around 16.45 kN/m 3 (i.e. 98% of maximum
dry density or 85% relative density). Scarification of subgrade is not required.
The subsoil is poorly graded. Such stratum .is difficult to compact by rollers. "Wave" formation
takes place when roller is used to compact. Most common method is to flood the area with water
at least two times to achieve the desired compaction. However this method is applicable in
confined conditions. When ever such stratum is compacted in unconfined state, it is common
practice to use vibratory roller. The plan area to be compacted shall be about 1m wider than the
actual plan area on all the sides. On completion of compaction the exact area is demarcated and
extra area. r~ear the edge is scarified. {It is assumed that the area near edge is in unconfined
state and hence not properly compacted). This will ensure that the resulting area is adequately
compacted.
Checked & Approved by : SJISM Report No. : FGTUMPTI191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO·GEOTECH LTD.
It is understood that significant quantity of dune sand is available; hence existing excavated soil
can be reused as fill material for backfilling below the foundation, grade slabs or road.
The possible use of geogrids or geosynthetics to mobilize additional shear resistance in the
subgrade was examined. Subgrade consists of sand with SPT 'N' exceeding 15; hence
geosynthetics are not required to mobiles shear resistance in the subgrade.
Sub-soil consists of sand with traces of silt. This stratum is non expansive and non collapsible.
Ground water table has not been recorded in the boreholes at this site. It is expected that depth
of foundations or excavation for underground utilities will not exceed 3m hence temporary
drainage facilities are not anticipated. However permanent drainage system shall be provided
around individual facilities to channelise rain I flood water.
As explained above ground water table has not been encountered up to the depth investigated in
this area. Hence no effect of ground water on earth work is expected.
17.3 Recommendations for Excavation and Backfilling
At present there are no facilities or structures at the site. Substratum is sandy. Temporary
unshored slopes are suggested to be kept at 1M to 2(H) for maximum depth of excavation of
2m. Maximum permanent unshored slopes are suggested to be maintained at 1(V) to 3(H). In
case sufficient space is not available or steeper slopes are required slope protection measures
such as use of RCC retaining wall or flexible wall made of gabions shall be used. Considering
that the slopes is maintained at 1 (V) to 3 (H), it is expected that up to fill thickness of 4.0m
benching will not be required.
In case of filled areas with steeper slopes and thickness of backfill exceeding 2m use of soil
reinforcement such as geogrids with either concrete facia or flexible facia of gabions, wrap
around system can be considered.
In case required, it is suggested that to assist movement of trucks during backfilling about
150mm thick quarry spoil or similar material may be placed on top of backfilled Layer. Use of this .
Layer will not alter recommended bearing capacity values.
As explained (Section 6.0) above ground water is not expected within the depth of excavation for
foundations. Hence dewatering will not be required.
17.4 Recommendations for Selection and Location of Various Backfill Materials
Excavated sand can be used as fill material to raise the ground level. The subsoil is poorly
graded. It shall be compacted to minimum 85% relative density by using vibratory roller.
Impervious day was not encountered at shallow depth within the investigated area. In case clay
is used as containment liner it will have to be brought from a borrow area. Alternatively,
geomembrane can be used as containment liner for ponds and stockpiles.
Prepared by : ISH 20 Date :March 2008

~GRO
Hard boulders are normally used as rip rap material. Such material was not encountered at
shallow depth within the investigated area. Alternatively, geocells or coir fabric can be used as
rip rap. Advantages of coir fabric are it deteriorates within one to two years but its porous ·
structure allows for seeds of plants and weeds to germinate. Coir fabric can be treated for longer
life span. The roots of plants or weeds hold the subsoil avoiding erosion.
It is expected that excavation shall be performed using truck mounted equipments. No difficulties
are expected for mechanized excavations. Due care should be taken to maintain the specified
slopes.
17.5 Recommendations for Placing Backfill Material
The excavated sand from the site area can be used to raise the grade.
Frequency of backfill material quality control:
• Particle Size Distribution tests to be conducted: one test at change of borrow area or
3
every 100,000m .
• Field density: One test for every 400 m2 for each loose lift thickness. This can be
conducted by conventional Sand Replacement Method or by Nuclear Density Method.
• Backfill shall not be compacted with water on the surface.
• Compaction shall be in loose lifts of 45cm each in case heavy mechanical vibratory roller
(8 Ton to 10 Ton)
• Compaction control can be checked by conducting Static Cone Penetration Test. It is
common practice to consider that the required compaction (85% relative density) is
achieved if minimum cone resistance is 25 MPa. However it is recommended to perform
field trails on a trail plot to confirm this value.
• It is always ideal to prepare a test section to determine number of passes of roller so that
required compaction is attained.
• Since stock piles are temporary structures steeper slopes of 1M to 1.5(H) can be used.
17.6 Suitability of Excavated Soil
As explained in Section 17.4 and Section 17.5 the excavated sand material can be used as fill.
17.7 Recommendations for Waste, Shrinkage and Bulking
Stratum is fine sand, hence in order to avoid loss during transport it is recommended to cover it
with tarpaulin or suitable sheets. Shrinkage and bulking is not expected to happen.
17.8 Recommendations for Erosion Protection
As explained in Section 17.4 above riprap consisting of stones or geo-cells or coirfabric can be
used for erosion protection. In case it is required to steepen the slope, measures such as
providing anchors for natural slopes or using reinforced earth technology for new slopes or
providing RCC retaining walls can be used.
Prepared by :.ISH 21 Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8}

~GAO
TerraZyme is being increasingly used as replacement of boulders below the road base. This
product is vegetable based soil stabilizer and is tested by department of transportation in
commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a period of 8 years. It is reported that on treatment with the
product "the soil mass is permanently stable, water repellant road surface similar to rigid
pavemenf'. Discussion with manufacturer or supplier may be needed to assess effectiveness as
erosion protection in sandy area.
17.9 Recommendation for post development
It is expected that most of the open area within complex will be covered. Local plants shall be
used to cover remaining open areas. Since the exposed area will be sandy, bitumen can be
sprayed to stabilize the surface.
17.10 Third Party Quality Control
The excavation and backfilling operation involves large quantity of earth. It is recommended that
a qualified Geotechnical Engineer I Company is appointed to provide site monitoring. This
"Quality Assurance• will be independent from the quality control provided by the contractor and
shall be considered as "Third Party Quality Assurance".
18.0 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
18.1 Underground Electrical Facilities
18.1.1 Recommendation for Burial of Underground lines

):-
Minimum burial depth of the electrical cables will depend on the factors such as sloughing of the
sides during excavation for placement, thermal conductivity, electrical resistivity etc. Minimum
depth from geotechnical point of view will be 50cm. Special bedding is not required. Excavated
surface shall be compacted with plate compactor. No slope failure was noticed in the test
trenches up to 0.5m depth at this site for a limited period of 3 days. Manufacturers of the cables
generally provide their recommendations regarding bedding, depth of burial etc. suitable for their
product.
18.1.2 Soil electrical resistivity
A total of seven nos (7) field electrical resistivity tests were performed. The test procedure and
locations are described in section 3.5. Results are furnished in Appendix A on Plate A270. The
range of soil corrosivity with respect to Soil Resistivity is as below;
Table 8: Table showing the range of soil corrosivitv with resoect to Soil resistivity
Resistivity (Ohm-m) Soil Corrosivity
Below5 Very corrosive
5-10 ,, Corrosive
10-20 ,:. Moderately Corrosive
20-100 Mildly Corrosive
> 100 ',,
Progressive Corrosive
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No, : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

~GRU
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
~·
(Ref.: American National Standarr:t for Polythene Encasement for Ductile Iron pipe Systems 1993, ANSI/ AWWA C 1051
A 21.5, Denver, Colo. :American Water Wot*s Association.)
Referring to the tests performed at all the locations at this site, the resistivity 140 0-m minimum
and 690 0-m maximum. The subsoil, hence, can be considered as "Progressive Corrosive".
18.2 Underground piping
18.2.1 Recommendation for design of Underground Piping
Minimum· burial of the piping will depend on the factors such as sloughing of the sides during
excavation for placement, thermal conductivity, flow whether gravity or under pressure etc.
Minimum depth from geotechnical point of view will be 50cm. Special bedding is not required.
Excavated surface shall be compacted with plate compactor.
18.2.2 Trench Design
In case the pipes are placed in trench wall of the trench shall be properly designed considering at
rest condition of the surroundings in addition to surcharge loading (such as vehicular loads).
Unshored trench walls are expected to remain stable for a limited period only.
18.2.3 Corrosive effect of soil on carbon steel
Corrosive effect is evaluated based on results of electrical resistivity values. As mentioned in

18.1.2 subsoil can be considered as "Progressive Corrosive".
18.2.4 Recommendations regarding possibility of harmful sulphate action
Chemical tests were performed on soil samples. Refer section 19.1.1 for details.
18.3 Allowable bearing capacities for thrust blocks
Bearing capacity recommendations for spread foundations placed at depth ranging from 0.5m to
2.0m from the ground surface at the time of investigation are provided in section 29.1.
19.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
19.1 General recommendations for foundations
19.1.1 Possibility of Sulphate action and sulphate resisting Cement
Chemical tests were conducted on soil samples obtained from the boreholes. The samples were
tested to determine the water soluble sulphates {SOs & S04), chloride (CI) and pH. Based on the
results the values obtained are tabulated as follows:
r.able 9: r.ablesh owmg th eresuIts o f ch emtca

' Itest
Chemical Test
so4 so3 Cl
pH
(ppm) (%) (ppm) (%) {ppm) (%)
Maximum 1111.0 0.1111 926.0 0.0926 600.0 0.06 8.7
Minimum 8.0 0.0008 7.0 0.0007 10.0 0.001 6.0
Prepared by .ISH 23 Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJISM Report No. : FGTLIMPT/191106 (R-8)

~GRU
The Sulphate content places the concrete requirements of substructures in Class 1 as per IS:
456-2000 which indicates use of Ordinary Portland Cement or Portland Slag Cement or Portland
Pozzolana Cement. The requirements for dense fully compacted concrete made with aggregates
complying with IS: 383-1970 specifies a minimum cement content of 280 kg/m 3 and Maximum
free water: cement ratio of 0.55. The pH values are of near-neutral condition and are not
. expected to have significant bearing on concrete.
The values of Sulphates, Chlorides and pH of soils are summarized in Appendix-8 on Plate 81
thru 835.
19.1.2 Recommendation for most suitable foundations
A suitable foundation for any structure must satisfy two basic independent criteria with respect to
the underlying foundation soils. First, the foundation must have an adequate factor of safety
against exceeding the bearing capacity of the foundation soils. Second, the vertical movements
of the foundation due to settlement or swelling of the foundation soils must be within tolerable
limits for the structure. The value of bearing pressure that satisfies both the above criteria is
normally recommended for design.
It has also been found at this site that some structures lay in areas where due to the present
topographic condition, both cutting as well as filling will be involved. In such areas we have
indicated two separate bearing capacity values for cutting and filling areas. However, the
designer may use lower of the two values for a specific structure for design convenience, if
deemed fit.
The founding conditions and recommendations for suitable foundation for various structures
planned at this site are discussed below;
19.1.2.1 Export oil storage tanks
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), export oil storage tank area

was investigated by conducting fourteen nos. (14) of boreholes as detailed in Table 1.
Existing Ground level of the bore holes drilled in export oil storage tank varies from 174. 700m to
183.250m indicating uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level is
170.500m. There will be only cutting in this area to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil
profile adopted in design calculations is presented in Table 22.
The strata encountered at finished grade level is very dense fine sand followed by moderately to
highly weathered weak to very weak sandstone
It is recommended to use "pad" type foundation or ring beam or strip footing (Refer Drawing 2 in
section on engineering illu!:ltr~tion for typical sketch of "Pad" and "Ring Beam or Strip"
foundation).
Checked & Approved by : SJfSM Report No. : FGTUMPTf191f06 (R-8}

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
Refer section 29.1 for bearing capacity recommendations.
As referred in document no DECO-RX-C-SP-2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.1, the diameter of export

oil storage tank is 58.5m and its height is planned as 14.6m. Hence stress intensity on the
2
bottom plate is expected to be of the order of 150 kN/m during hydro testing. Anticipated
2
settlement for stress intensity of 150 kN/m is tabulated below in Table 10.
Table 10: Table showing calculated anticipated settlement at centre and edges of tank for
"Exrport 01., storage tan k"
Sl. Name of Structure Settlement (mm) "
No. At centre At edges
1 Export oil storage tank D-501 A 56 (51-61) * 28 (25-31)
2 Export oil storage tank D-501 B 53 (48-58) 26 (23-29)
3 Export oil storage tank D-501 C 62 (57-67) 31 (28-33)
(• Probable value (range of settlement))
Due to loading of adjacent tank, increase in settlement along the periphery of the tank under
consideration is expected to be about 5mm.
It is expected that tank will be hydrotested to check for leakage. While carrying out the
hydrotesting, the tank shall be loaded in stages. Each stage shall be maintained till settlement
has seized under that particular load increment.
19.1.2.2 Power Generation Area
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), power generation steam plant

area was investigated by conducting nine nos. (9) of boreholes as detailed in Table 1.
Existing Ground level of the bore holes drilled in this area varies from 168.610m to 177.260m
indicating uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level is 170.500m.
There will be both cut and fill to achieve the "finished grade level".
The strata encountered at finished grade level in cut area is very dense fine sand followed by
moderately to highly weathered weak to very weak sandstone.
Backfilling of existing sand material as explained in section 17.5 may be carried out to achieve
the "finished grade level".
The soil profile adopted in design calculations is presented in Table 22 and Table 23 for cut and
fill respectively.
It is anticipated that the plant will consist of either steel buildings or RCC framed structures. It is
recommended to adopt strip or spread foundations for the buildings. Refer section 29.1 for
bearing capacity. For dynamic properties refer Appendix A and Section 24.0.Cross hole tests
results.

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
19.1.2.3 Water treatment areas
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), Water treatment areas was

investigated by conducting eight nos. (8) of boreholes as listed in Table 1.
There will be both cut and fill. The levels are presented in Table1.
The strata encountered at finished grade level in cut area is very dense fine sand followed by
moderately to highly weathered weak to very weak sandstone.
The soil profile adopted in design calculations is presented in Table 22 and Table 23 for cut and
fill respectively.
It is recommended to adopt either Ring Beam or Strip type foundation or pad foundations for
treated water storage tanks depending on tank diameter (Refer Drawing 2 in section on
engineering illustration for typical sketch of "Pad" and "Ring Beam or Strip or strip" foundation).
Bearing capacity values are provided in Section 29.1. For dynamic properties refer Appendix A
and Section 24.0.
It is anticipated that the plant will consist of either steel buildings or RCC framed structures and
steel storage tanks (injection water storage tank). Reference to document no DECO-RX-C-SP-
2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.2, diameter of injection water storage tank is 41.5m and the tank is
14.6m tall. Hence stress intensity on the bottom plate is expected to be of the order of 150 kN/m 2
during hydro testing. Anticipated settlement for stress intensity of 150 KN/m2 is tabulated below
in Table 11.
Table 11: Table showing calculated anticipated settlement for "Injection water storage
tank"
Sl. Name of Structure Settlement (mm) "'
· No. At centre At edges
1 Injection water storage tank D-302 A 47 (42-52) 23 (20-26)
2 Injection water storage tank D-302 B 50 (45-55) 25 (22-27)
(*Probable value (range of settlement))
Due to loading of adjacent tank increase in settlement along the periphery of the tank under
consideration will be about 3mm.
19.1.2.4 Shop, Administration Building and Storage Areas
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), shop, administration building

and storage area was investigated by conducting eight nos. (8) boreholes as detailed in Table 1.
Checked & Approved by : SJISM Report No. ; FGTUMPT/191106 (R-8)

~GRO
There will be only "fill" to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil profile adopted in design
calculations is presented in Table 23.
It is anticipated that the shop, admin bldgs and storage facilities will be RCC framed structures. It
is recommended to adopt isolated, strip or spread foundations for the buildings. Bearing capacity
values are provided in Section 29.1. Recommendations on bearing capadty applicable to fill
areas may be adopted for design.
19.1.2.5 Settling and Skim Tanks Area
As referred in drawing no C2 {DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), settling and skim tanks areas

was investigated by conducting sixteen nos. (16) of boreholes as listed in Table 1.
indicating fairly uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level is
170.500m. There will be only ''fill" to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil profile adopted in
design calculations is presented in Table 23.
the "finished grade lever.
It is anticipated that the settling and skim tanks will be fabricated from steel. It is recommended
to adopt either Ring Beam or Strip type foundation or pad foundations depending on tank
diameter (Refer Drawing 2 in section on engineering illustration for typical sketch of "Pad" and
"Ring Beam or Strip" foundation). Bearing capacity values are provided in Section 29.1.
Recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design. For
dynamic properties refer Appendix A and Section 24.0.
19.1.2.6 Gas processing areas and skim tank area
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), gas processing areas and skim

tank area was investigated by conducting seven nos. (7) borehole as detailed in Table 1.
indicating fairly uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level will be
170.500m. There will be only "fill" to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil profile adopted in
Backfilling of existing sand material as explained in section 17.5 may be carried out at borehole
to raise the ground level.

~GAO
Reference to document no DECO~RX~C~SP~2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.4, diameter of horizontal
drum (slug catcher) is 4.5m with length 17m weighing 70,000kg. Hence. stress intensity on the
2
bottom is expected to be of the order of 5 kN/m . It is understood that slug catcher footing will be
placed at ·1.50m below the ground level. For generalized bearing capacity values refer Section
29.1.
Recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design.
Anticipated settlement for "Slug Catcher" is 4mm.
19.1.2.7 Steam generation area
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO~MRX~C~DWG-2100-02-C2), steam generation area was

investigated by conducting three nos. (3) boreholes as listed in Table 1.
There will be cut to achieve the "finished grade level".
highly weathered weak to very weak sandstone. The soil profile adopted in design calculations is
presented in Table 22.
It is anticipated that the condensate and diesel storage tanks will be fabricated from steel. It is
recommended to adopt either Ring Beam or Strip type foundation or pad foundations depending
on tank diameter (Ref. Drawing 2 in section on engineering illustration for typical sketch of "Pad"
and "Ring Beam or Strip" foundation). Bearing capacity values are provided in Section 29.1.
19.1.2.8 Condensate and Diesel Storage Tanks
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), Condensate and Diesel

Storage Tanks areas were investigated by conducting four nos. (4) borehole as listed in Table 1.
indicating uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level is 170.500m. The
area need to cut, .to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil profile adopted in design
calculations is presented in Table 22.
highly weathered weak to very weak sandstone
It is anticipated that the condensate and diesel storage tanks will be fabricated from steel. It is
recommended to adopt either Ring Beam or Strip type foundation or pad foundations depending.
on tank diameter (Refer Drawing 2 in section on engineering illustration for typical sketch of
"Pad" and "Ring Beam or Strip" foundation), Bearing capacity values are provided in Section
29.1.
Cha~ked & Approved by : SJISM Report No. ; FGTUMPTI191106 (R 8)

~GRO
19.1.2.9 Flare stack
As referred in drawing no C2 {DECO-MRX-C-DWG-210Q..02-C2), Flare stack area were

investigated by conducting single (1) borehole as listed in Table 1.
Existing Ground level of the bore hole drilled in this area is 183.850m. It is understood that the
finished grade level is 170.500m. There will be cut to achieve the "finished grade lever. The soil
profile adopted in design calculations is presented in Table 22. The strata encountered at ·
finished grade level is very dense fine sand followed by moderately to highly weathered weak to
very weak sandstone
Reference to document no DECO-RX-C-SP-2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.3 diameter of flare stack is

400mm and 30m tall. It is recommended to use "pedestal". type foundation. Bearing capacity
values are provided in Section 29.1.
It is expected that anchor block will be used to resist over turning (uplift) forces on the flare stack
foundation. Uplift capacities of anchor blocks are furnished in Section 29.5.
19.1.2.10 Export Oil Pump Station Area
As referred in drawing no C2 (DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02-C2), Export Oil Pump Station Area

was investigated by conducting boreholes as listed in Table 1.
indicating fairly uneven ground surface. It is understood that the finished grade level is
170.500m. There will be only "fill" to achieve the "finished grade level". The soil profile adopted in
the "finished grade level" .
. It is anticipated that the export oil pump station area will consist of either steel buildings or RCC
framed structures. It is recommended to adopt Strip or Spread foundations for the buildings.
Bearing capacity values are provided in Section 29.1. Recommendations on bearing capacity
applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design .. For dynamic properties refer Appendix A and
Section 24.0.
19.1.2.11 Long skid
long skid area has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table 1. Referring to
document no DECO-RX-C-SP-2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.5, diameter of long skid is 4.5m and 13m
long weighing 120,000kg. Hence stress intensity on the bottom is expected to be of the order of
20 KN/m2 • It is recommended to use strip or raft type foundation. Bearing capacity values are
provided in Section 29.1. Since it is anticipated that long skid area comes under fill area hence
recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design.

~GRD
19.1.2.12 Pipe rack column
Pipe rack column has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table -1. Referring to
document no DECO-RX-C-SP-2000/RC 1 clause no 5.1.6 the pipe rack columns are expected to
carry vertical load of 18,000 kg and horizontal load of 2,500 kg. It is recommended to use strip or
spread type foundation placed at minimum depth 1m. Bearing capacity values are provided in
Section 29.1. Since it is anticipated that pipe rack column area comes under fill area hence
recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design.
19.1.2.13 Skid
Skid area has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table 1. Referring to
document no. DECO-RX-C-SP-2000/RC1 clause no 5.1.7, the skids are expected to be 3m wide
and Sm long weighing 36,000kg. Hence stress intensity on the bottom is expected to be of the
order of 2 KN/m 2 . It is recommended to use strip or spread type foundation. Bearing capacity
values are provided in Section 29.1. Since it is anticipated that skid area comes under fill area
hence recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design.
19.1.2.14 Incinerator Area
Incinerator area has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table 1. It is anticipated
that the incinerator area will consist of RCC framed structures. It is recommended to adopt strip
or spread foundations for the buildings. Bearing capacity values are provided in Section 29.1. For
dynamic properties refer Appendix A and Section 24.0. Since it is anticipated that incinerator
area comes under fill area hence recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas
may be adopted for design.
19.1.2.15 Steam Generation, De-aerator, Emergency Generator Package
The above mentioned area has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table 1. It is
anticipated that the RCC framed structures will be constructed at above mentioned areas. It is
recommended to adopt strip or spread foundations for the structure. Bearing capacity values are
provided in Section 29.1. Since it is anticipated that steam generation, de-aerator, emergency
generator package area comes under fill area hence recommendations on bearing capacity
applicable to fill areas may be adopted for design. For dynamic properties refer Appendix A and
Section 24.0.
19.1.2.16 Operation Base Enlargement Area
Operation base enlargement area has been investigated by carrying boreholes as listed in Table
1. It is anticipated that the RCC framed structures will be constructed at above mentioned areas.
It is recommended to adopt strip or spread foundations for the structure. Bearing capacity values
are provided in Section 29.1. Sincejt is anticipated that operation base enlargement area comes
under fill area hence recommendations on bearing capacity applicable to fill areas may be
adopted for design. For dynamic properties refer Appendix A and Section 24.0.
Checked & Approved by : SJfSM Report No. : FGTUMPTf191f06 (R-8)

~GRD
. 19.1.2.17 Bridge Area
Detailed investigation has been carried out by conducting three nos. (3) boreholes as listed in
Table 1. It is anticipated that the RCC structure will be constructed at above mentioned area. It is
recommended to adopt pad foundations for the structure. Bearing capacity values are provided
in Section 29.1. Recommendations on bearing capacity subject to maximum scour depth shall be
adopted for design. Foundation depth shall be considered below the scour depth
19.1.2.18 Down stream Water Channel Area
Detailed investigation has. been carried out in above mentioned area by conducting two {2)
boreholes as listed in Table 1, are presented in Appendix A. Maximum depth of drilling in soil and
rock varies from 20 .. 0m to 23.0m from existing ground level. Rock head is encou.ntered at an
average depth of 18.0m below existing ground level. Prior to this stratification very loose to loose
slightly silty sand near ground surface followed by dense to very dense slightly silty sand has
been observed .
19.1.2.19 .Pipe Line near Water Channel Area
Detailed investigation has been carried out in above mentioned area by conducting two (2)
boreholes as listed in Table 1, are presented in Appendix A. Maximum depth of drilling was 9.0m
from existing ground level. The stratification is predominantly sand, very loose to loose slightly
silty sand at top then dense to very dense slightly silty sand up to the maximum depth of
investigation.
It is recommended to adopt pad foundations (Refer Drawing 2 in section on engineering

illustration for typical sketch of "Pad" and "Ring Beam or Strip" foundation). Bearing capacity
values are provided in Section 29.1.
19.1.2.20 Railway Crossing Area
Detailed investigation has been carried out in above mentioned area by conducting two (2)
boreholes as listed in Table 1, are presented in Appendix A. Maximum depth of drilling was 6.0m
from existing ground level. The stratification is predominantly sand,. very loose to loose slightly
investigation. It is understood that directional drilling shall be used to drill below the railway line.
19.1.2.20 New Well Pad - 9
Detailed investigation has been carried out in above mentioned area by conducting one (1) .
borehole as listed in Table 1, is presented in Appendix A. Maximum depth of drilling was 15.0m ·
from existing ground level. The stratification is predominantly sand, very loose to loose slightly
investigation

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
It is understood that in well pad area crane of having 10 t/m2 (maximum} load intensity will be
operating and the crane shall move on a pad prepared of "wooden sleepers•. It is expected that
thickness of these sleepers shall be about 200mm.
It is recommended to remove top 200mm surface layer and compact the resulting subgrade
using heavy 10 T to 12 T vibratory rollers to minimum 98% of maximum dry density. Wooden
sleepers shall be placed on compacted subgrade.
It is expected that the roads shall be "secondary access roads". Refer section 35.0 for typical
section details.
20.0 Safety Factors
It is understood that except building foundations, other foundations will not be tied together.
Hence, increase in allowable bearing capacity under transient conditions is not possible. For
such condition factor of safety for shallow foundation for compression loading conditions is 2.0.
Other areas factor of safety for shallow foundation for compression loading conditions is 2.5.
As per IS: 1904-1978 the pressures coming on the soil due to building and foundation shall not
be more than the safe bearing capacity of soil-foundation system.
IS 1893 (part 4} table 1 provides values for increase in bearing pressure for foundations under
seismic loading conditions placed on type II soils (poor1y graded sands with N > 15} and is
tabulated below;
Table 12: Table showing the permissible increase in bearing pressure

Sl. No. Type of foundation . Permissible increase in bearing pressure
1. Raft 50%
2. Combined /Isolated RCC footings 25%
with its beams
IS 1904 mentions that "the factor of safety against overturning shall not be less than 1.5 when
dead load, live load and earth pressures are considered together with seismic forces. When
dead load and earth pressures only are considered, the factor of safety shall not be less than 2".
21.0 COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURES
The coefficients of Earth Pressures are as follows;
1. Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko}

2. Active Earth Pressure (Ka}
3. Passive Earth Pressure (Kp}
The definitions of all above mentioned Earth Pressure Coefficient are as given below;
Ko= 1-sin$
Prepared by :ISH 32 Date March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTIJMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
Ka = (1-sin<t>)/(1 +sin<t>)
Kp = (1 +sin<t>)/(1-sin<t>)
Where,
<t> = Angle of internal friction
The coefficients
.
of Earth Pressures are calculated for various Layers and tabulated
.
as below;
Table 13: Table showinr, the subsurface Layer properties (Coefficient of earth pressure)
Sl. Depth w.r.t +0
Soil Description Symbol EGL (m) 'Y Ko Ka Kp
No. (kN/m 3)
From To
Loose, pale yellow,
1 Layer1 0 -0.5 28 16 0.53 0.36 2.77
fine SAND
Medium dense to
2 dense, pale yellow, Layer2 -0.5 -5.5 34 18 0.41 0.26 3.85
fine SAND
Dense to very
dense, pale yellow,
fine SAND with
3 Layer3 -5.5 -11.5 38 20 0.38 0.24 4.20
gravels of partially
decomposed sand
stone
22.0 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Rafts and Pavement Designs
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction is determined from Plate Load Test data. Standard correlations
with reference to allowable bearing capacity are given below (Ref:- Foundation Analysis and
Design, Bowles):
Ks = 40(SF}qa
Where,
Ks = Modulus of subgrade reaction in kN/m3
SF =Factor of Safety
qa = Allowable Bearing Pressure for Settlement of 25mm in kPa
Values of Ks recommended by IS: 2911 - Part 1, Section 1 for the strata encountered at this site,
3
range between 0.525 to 1.245 kg/cm . The value suggested for design calculation is 1.0 kg/cm 3 •
Generally a width of foundation exceeding 6m is considered as a mat or raft.
23.0 SUDING RESISTANCE VALUES FOR RESISTING LATERAL LOADS
With reference to standard values (Ref:- Foundation Analysis and Design, Bowles) the sliding
resistance (based on coefficient of friction) for resisting lateral loads for concrete against silty
sand, friction angle will vary between 19°-24° (recommended value is 21a,.
Prepared by :ISH 33 Date . :March 2008
Checked & Approved by ; SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
For footings placed at less than 1.0m below grade level the passive resistance provided by soil
shall not be considered for resisting lateral loads irrespective of the surface soil being erodable
or non-erodable. Following two (2) cases have been analyzed;
Case I Depth of foundation at 1m and surface soil is erodable type
Assuming top 50cm will be eroded during the life of structure passive resistance
provided by the soil shall be considered for resisting lateral loads only for a depth of
50cm.
Case II Depth of foundation 1m and surface soil is non erodable type
Passive resistance provided by the soil can be considered for resisting lateral loads.
Typically for a footing of having 1 sq.m plan area the non erodable area should be
2.5sq.m (Refer Drawing 3 in section on engineering illustration for typical sketch showing .
the width of non-erodable soil from the edge of footing). Table on drawing 3 shows the
range of minimum non erodable width from the edge of footing for various depth of
foundation.
24.0 CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TEST RESULTS
Dynamic parameters are evaluated from the results of two Cross Hole Seismic Test conducted
within the MPT area as listed in Table 1. ·
24.1 Static and Dynamic Shear Modulii
The dynamic shear modulus (Gmax) and static shear modulus (E) have been evaluated by the
Cross Hole Seismic Tests.
Variation in static and dynamic modulus as observed in the two tests is tabulated in Table 13
below,
Table 14: Ta b le showmg th e range d'ynamlc and static mod ulus rom Cross hole seismic test
Unit Dynamic Static
Symbol Soil Description .Depth Weight Modulus Modulus
(kN/m3) (GPa) (GPa)
From To Min Max Min Max
Layer1 Loose. pale yellow, fine SAND 0 -0.5 16 - 0.042 -
0.11
Layer2 Medium dense to dense, pale -0.5 -5.5 18 0.042 0.145 0.11 0.403
yellow, Fine SAND
Layer3 Dense to very dense, pale -5.5 -11.5 20 0.145 0.251 0.403 0.738
yellow, fine SAND with gravels of
partially decomposed
SANDSTONE
Layer4 Weak to very weak, light pink, -11.5 -15.5 20 0.251 0.226 0.738 0.665
highly weathered, fine to coarse
conqlomeritic SANDSTONE
LayerS Hard yellowish coloured, r:, -15.5 -20.5 16 0.300 0.492 0.874 1.427
complete Decomposed MARL ~*
(bentonitic claystone)

-fUGRD
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

~·
It is suggested to use values of static and dynamic modulus as tabulated below in Table 15.
Table 15: Table showing the suggested values of dynamic and static properties
Depth Dynamic Modulus Static Modulus
From To (GPa) (GPa)
0 -0.5 - -
-0.5 -5.5 0.1 0.2
-5.5 -11.5 0.2 0.6
-11.5 -15.5 0.22 0.70
-15.5 -20.5 0.40 1.10
24.2 Compression and Shear Wave Velocities
Variation in Compression and Shear Wave Velocities as observed in the two tests is tabulated in
Table 16 below
Table 16: Table showing the range of compression and shear wave velocities determined from
Cross hole seismic test
Unit Vp Vs
Symbol Soil Description Depth Weight (km/s) (km/s)
From To (kN/m 3 ) Min Max Min Max
Layer 1 Loose, pale yellow, fine 0 -0.5 16 0 0.305 0 0.162
SAND
Layer2 Medium dense to dense, -0.5 -5.5 18 0.374 0.672 0.174 0.283
pale yellow, Fine SAND
Layer3 Dense to very dense, pale -5.5 -11.5 20 0.672 1.589 0.283 0.354
yellow, fine SAND with
gravels of partially
decomposed SANDSTONE
Layer4 Weak to very weak, light -11.5 -15.5 20 1.589 1.661 0.354 0.375
pink, highly weathered, fine
to coarse conglomeritic
SANDSTONE
LayerS Hard yellowish colored, -15.5 -20.5 16 1.413 1.852 0.409 0.496
complete Decomposed
MARL (bentonitic clay stone)
- . wave veloc1ty;
(Vp-Compress1on
. Vs-Shearwave velocity)
-
It is suggested to use values of Compression and Shear Wave Velocities as tabulated in Table 17
below
Table 17: Table showing the suggested values of compression and shear wave velocities
Depth Unit Weight Vp Vs
3
From To (km/s) (km/s)
0 -o.s ··•·•••· (kN/m
16 )
- -
-o.5 -5.5 18 0.5 0.2
-5.5 -11.5 . 20 0.8 0.32
-11.5 -15.5 ···.,· ' ' ·~; 20 1.62 0.36
·.--::;.
-15.5 -20.5 20 1.62 0.45
(Vp=CompressJon wave veloctty; Vs=Shearwave velocrty)
Prepared by :ISH Date :March 2008

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
24.3 Poissons' Ratio
Poissons' ratio of 0.25 to 0.35 can be considered for sand encountered up to 5.5m at the site.
Variation in Poisson ratio as observed in the two tests is tabulated in Table 18 below
r,able 18: r,ablesh OWinQ th e range po1sons ra f10 f,rom cross hoIe sesm1c test
Unit Poisson's
Symbol Soil Description Depth Weight Ratio
3
From To (kN/m ) I Min Max
Layer 1 Loose, pale yellow, fine SAND 0 -0.5 16 0 0.301
Layer2 Medium dense to dense, pale -0.5 -5.5 18 0.301 0.391
yellow, Fine SAND
Layer3 Dense to very dense, pale yellow, -5.5 -11.5 20 0.391 0.474
fine SAND with gravels of partially
decomposed SANDSTONE
Layer4 Weak to very weak, light pink, -11.5 -15.5 20 0.474 0.474
highly weathered, fine to coarse
conqlomeritic SANDSTONE
Layers Hard yellowish coloured, -15:5 -20.5 16 0.45 0.473
complete Decomposed MARL
(bentonitic claystone)
It is suggested to use values of Poissons' ratio as tabulated in Table 19 below;
Table 19: Table showing the suggested va Iues of poissons' ratio

Depth Poissons' Ratio
From To
0 -0.5 -
-0.5 -5.5 0.32
-5.5 -11.5 0.41
-11.5 -15.5 0.47
-15.5 -20.5 0.46
Graphical representation of variation in dynamic and static properties along depth is presented in
Appendix A on Plates A262 thru Plates A269.
24.4 Material Damping Ratio at several levels of strain
The low strain value of material damping depends only marginally on such variables as confining
stress and void ratio. For most soils, it ranges between 2% and 6%. Suggested value is 3%.
24.5 Bulk Unit Weight
Refer to Section 16.2 Table 8 for values of bulk unit weight for various Layers used in
calculations. For upper 2m of the soil the bulk unit weight can be taken as 16 KN/m3.The actual
values are summarized in Appendix B.
25.0 ANGLES OF INTERNAL FRICTION
Refer to Section 16.2 Table 8 for values of angle of internal friction for various Layers. For upper
2m of the soil, the angle of internal friction can be taken as 28°.
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/19110!'1 (R-11)

~ORO
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD. ·~
26.0 COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION
Refer to Section 23.0 for values of coefficients of friction.
27.0 RECOMMENDATION OF SETBACK DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF FOUNDATION TO CREST

OF A SLOPE
Recommended minimum setback distance from the edge of the foundation to the crest of the
slope should be twice the width of foundation.
28.0 DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Considering the ground conditions existing at this site, most structures indicated, may not require
pile foundation. However pile foundation alternatives have also. been discussed only for piles
installed in existing subsoil and no backfill is considered.
28.1 Recommendation for Pile Types
Based on the information generated in this investigation, we have developed recommendations

for design of pile capacities. Although, piles may not be used for any structures, calculation
procedures are in partial fulfillments of the requirements of contract specifications. Considering
the soil conditions we have developed pile capacity curves for 400mm to 800mm diameter Bored·
cast in place piles. The pile capacities are calculated based on IS: 2911 (Part 1 I Sec 2} and pile
capacity curves are presented in Section on Engineering Illustrations.
'··
;;,.
Equation used for the calculation of Pile Capacity is as below;

In Cohesionless Soils ·
n
OuLT= Ap (Y2. D. y. N1 +Po. Nq) + IKP0i tano.Asi
i=1
Where,
OuLT = Ultimate Pile Capacity
Qb = Ultimate End Bearing Resistance
Nq, N1 = Bearing Capacity Factors, depends on angle of internal friction at toe
Po = Effective Overburden Pressure at Pile base level
Poi = Effective Overburden Pressure for fh Layer (where i varies from 1 to n)
D = Diameter of the Pile Shaft

y' = Effective Unit Weight of the Soil at Pile Toe
Ap = Pile Cross Sectional Area
a. = Ultimate Skin Friction
K = Coefficient of Earth Pressure
tano = Angle of Wall Friction between Pile and Soil
As; = Surface Area of the pile Shaft for fh Layer (where i varies from 1 to n)

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO,
The generalized sub-soil profile and parameters adopted for pile design calculations are
tabulated in Table 20 below.
Table 20 - Generalized Sub-Soil Profile and Parameters adopted for Pile Design
Calculations
r' K
'
Depth w.r.t 0 Nq
Symbol Soil Description ·eGL (m) Nr
From To (v) (kN/m")
Layer1 Loose, pale yellow, fine SAND 0 -0.5 28 16 21 1 25 17
Medium dense to dense, pale
Layer2 -0.5 -5.5 34 18 27 2 60 56
yellow, fine SAND
Dense to very dense. pale
yellow, fine SAND with gravels
Layer3 -5.5 -11.5 38 20 29 2 90 78
of partially decomposed sand
stone
Weak to very weak, light pink,
highly weathered, fine to
coarse conglomeritic
Layer4 -11.5 -15.5 41 20 31 3 150 130
SANDSTONE, with close to
medium spaced, sub horizontal
fracturing
Hard, yellowish colored,
Layer 5 complete decomposed MARL -15.5 -20.5 - 16 33 3 300 225
(bentonitic clay)
Note.
1) II is taken equal to 0. 75ijl (As per 18:2911 (Part 1/8ec 2))
2) K. for 1, 2 and 3 for various strata (As per 18:2911 (Part 1/Sec 2))
3) y used is the assumed average value for the granular soils
4) Poi is considered for a maximum of 15 to 20 times diameter of the pile

Where.
=Angle of internal friction
=Effective unit weight of soil at pile toe in kN/m3
= Angle of wall friction between pile and soil
= Earth pressure coefficient
=Bearing capacity factors depending upon the angle of internal friction at toe
28.2 Lateral Load Capacity of Piles
Recommendations have been developed for Lateral Load Capacity of Piles for an allowable
deflection of 6mm and 8mm. The pile capacities for pile diameters 400mm, 500mm, 600m,
750mm & 800mm are calculated as below in Table 22 based on 15:2911 (Part 1/Sec 2) (Reese
and Matlock approach) for fixed head piles:
1
Ymax = -{(Pt
El
. T ) . Ay+
3 3
(Mt . T ) . By}
Where,
Ymax = Deflection at the pile head
E = Elastic Modulus of Pile Material N/cm2
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No.. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

-------------------------------=----------.. -~·~·'·""'"."'"""
~GRO
4
= Moment of Inertia, cm
Mt = Moment at Fixed End, kN-cm
2
11h = Constant of Soil Modulus, N/cm
115
T = Relative Stiffness Factor, em = (EII11h)
Pt = Lateral load at the Pile Head, kN

Ay. By = Deflection Coefficients by Reese & Matlock approach
Tab/e2 1 - P"le Capactttes un dera3000000

1 I teraIIoa ds
(Concrete)
E
10 (Dense to very dense SAND)
nh
Length (em) 1500
Diameter (em) 40 50 60 75
l Moment of Inertia 125663.71 306796.16 636172.51 1553155.55
El (N~cm") 3. 76991 E+1.1 9.2039E+11 1.90852E+12 4.65947E+12
T 130.40 155.88 180.36 215.61
M 1 free head - - - -
P1 free head (6mm) 41.90 59.87 80.16 114.55
M t fixed head 7.62 13.02 20.17 34.46
Pt fixed head (6mm) 62.86 89.83 120.26 171.86
M 1 free head - - -~
-
Pt free head (8mm) 55.86 79.83 106.87 152.73
M 1 fixed head 10.16 17.36 26.90 45.95
P1 fixed head (8mm) 83.81 119.77 160.34 229.14
28.3 Recommendations for Piles
The values of pile capacities in compression (FOS=Z.5), tension (FOS=2.5) and lateral directions
(Allowable deflection of 6mm under service condition and 8mm under transient condition). Refer
section 28.1, 28.2 and pile capacity curves in engineering illustration for the values of pile
capacity.
29.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
· Bearing capacities are calculated for shear failure and settlement consideration point of view.
IS 1904 ~ 1986, recommends allowable value of 50mm as total maximum settlement due to
structural load for isolated foundations and 75mm for raft foundation.
The bearing capacity calculations have been carried out taking into account data obtained from
all the boreholes and other tests conducted in the facility area. Due to the granular nature of
strata encountered, the parameter which influences the bearing capacity in this area is the angle
of internal friction. The stratum encountered at the "finished grade level" is very dense and SPT
"N" values encountered indicate the ~~!ue of angle of internal friction to be in the range of 38° to
40°. A practicable bearing capacity value has been recommended to be adopted for the design
of the shallow foundations in this area. The soil profile adopted for design calculation is
presented in Table 22.

~GAO
Bearing capacity recommendations have been provided for the areas where filling is required to
be carried out to achieve the "finished grade level" of 170.500m. In these areas the calculations
have been made assuming that a 4.0m hE!ight of backfill will be placed. The soil profile adopted
for design calculation is presented in Table 23.
29.1 Bearing Capacity based on Shear Strength Criteria
For shallow foundations, the footing size, orientation and position relative to the ground surface
have an influence on the bearing capacity. Based on IS: 6403-1981 the net ultimate bearing
· capacity for shear failure in soil strata is determined from the following relationship:
Osate= Ou11 I FOS
Where,
Ou1t = Ultimate net bearing capacity
Osate = Net safe bearing capacity
FOS = Factor of safety (2.5)
y · =Unit weight of soil
Ysub = Unit weight of soil below water table
c =Cohesion
q =Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation =y x Dt
,,
'r
B = Width of strip footing, width of footing, side of square footing, diameter
of circular footing
L = Length of Footing
Dt = Depth of Foundation
Nc. Nq & N1 =Bearing capacity factors
Sc. Sq. & S 1 = Shape factors
The calculation of shape factors are as below in Table 22.
Table 22- Table showing equations adopted for calculation of various shape factors
Sl Shape of Base Shape factors
No
Sc Sq Sr
1 Continuous strip 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 Rectangle 1 + 0.2 X BIL 1 + 0.2 x B/L 1-0.4 x 8/L
3 Square 1.3 1.2 0.8
lc, 11 & lq = Inclination factors

lc= lq =(1- a/90)2
ly = (1 - a./q,)2
= Inclination of the load to the vertical In degrees
Prepared by :ISH 40 Date : March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No.. FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

-fiJGR. D

de, dy & dq = Depth factors
de = 1 + 0.2 X Dt I 8 X ~41
dq & dy =1 for+< 10
dq& dy = 1 +0.1 xOt/Bx~N+
N~ = tan2 (m'4+41/2)
41 =Angle of shearing resistance of soil in degrees
w =Correction factor for location of water table
The percentage of permissible increase in bearing capacities for transient wind and earthquake
loading are given in Section 20.0.
The generalized sub-soil profile and parameters adopted for design calculations of foundations
for facility area and general area are presented in Table 23 and 24 respectively.
Table 23- Generalized Subsurface Soil Profile and Soil Parameters adopted for design of
foundation in Cut Area
Height of Unit Weight SPT Angle of

Layer Strata 'y' 'N' Internal
Description of Soil Layers
No. (m) (kN/m 3) Value Friction
(<Po)
Layer2 Very dense, pale yellow, fine SAND with 6.0 50

20 32
gravels of partially decomposed sand stone
Weak to very weak, light pink, highly
Layer3 weathered, fine to coarse conglomeritic 4.0 20 100 41
SANDSTONE, with close to medium
spaced sub horizontal fracturing
Layer4 Hard, yellowish colored, complete
decomposed MARL (bentonitic clay)
5.0 16 100 -
( Note: The SPT N value for the beanng strata has been obtamed from the average SPT N of the ent1re Layer. Layer 1
has not considered due to cutting)
Table 24- Generalized Subsurface Soil Profile and Soil Parameters adopted for design of
foundation in Fill Area
Angle of
Height of Unit Weight
Layer SPT Internal
Description of Soil Layers Strata 'y'
No. 'N' Friction
(m) (kN/m 3) (<1>0)
Value
Layer 1 Backfill 4.0 16 12 29

Layer2 Medium dense to dense, pale yellow, fine
5.0 16 26 34
SAND
Dense to very dense, pale yellow, fine
Layer3 SAND with gravels of partially decomposed 6.0 20 66 38
sand stone
Weak to very weak, light pink, highly
Layer4 weathered, fine to coarse conglomeritlc 4.0 20 100 41
SANDSTONE, with close to medium
spaced, sub horizontal fracturing
Hard, yellowish colored, complete
Layer 5
decomposed MARL (bentonitic clay)
5.0 16 100 -
(Note. The SPT N value for the beanng strata has been obtamed from the average SPT N of the ent1re Layer.)
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM l(eport No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
29.2 Expected Load-Settlement Curves
Settlement is calculated by Sch mertmann' s method rRef 'Foundation Engineering Handbook" by Hsai-Yang
Fang).
The settlement of the shallow spread footings with influence depth within the top sand strata as
given in the soil model, have been calculated using the Schmertmann's method. The immediate
settlement S; is given by ttie equation:
n
S; = c1 . c2. L\q • 2: (lz I E;) • L\Z;
i=1
Where,
s; = immediate settlement
L\q = net load intensity at the foundation depth
lz =strain influence factor from 2B- 0.6 distribution
L\Z; = thickness of various Layers, i
E; =Young modulus at the middle of ilh Layer of thickness L\Z;
c1 =1. 0.5 * (crvof L\q) ~ 0.5
cr vo =effective in-situ overburden stress at the foundation depth
C2 = 1 + 0.2 *log (tl 0.1)
The minimum of the bearing capacities calculated from the shear failure criteria and settlement
criteria is recommended as the net allowable bearing pressure.
The permissible differential settlements for raft foundations as per IS: 1904:1986 is 0.002*L and
for water and oil tanks is 0.0015*L, (where L denotes the length of deflected part of raft). The
permissible angular distortion is 1/500 for raft foundations and 1/666 for water and oil tanks.
Recommended Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for various sizes and shape of foundation are
presented in Table 25.0 to 25.5 and Table 26.0 to 26.3.
Table 25.0 - Recommended Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for various size of
Found at'ron WI'th res peet to fitms
. h ed gra d e Ievel
Net Allowable
Footing Width Length Depth of Bearing Pressure,
2
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt). kN/m
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 125.0 50.0
Square 2 2 150.0 60.0
3 3 175.0 75.0
1 2 125.0 50.0
Rectangle 2 4 0.5 150.0 60.0
3 6 175.0 75.0
1 5 150.0 50.0
Strip 2 10 175.0 60.0

---· .
-fi.IGRO
~
K~
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD. '-.J
Net Allowable
Bearing Pressure,
2
kN/m
3 15 225.0 75.0
6 12 200.0 225.0
Mat 8 12 250.0 250.0
10 16 300.0 275.0
Table 25.1 -Recommended Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for various size of Foundation
with respect to finished grade level
Net Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt). kN/m 2
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 150.0 50.0
Square 2 2 175.0 75.0
3 3 225.0 100.0
1 2 200.0 50.0
.· Rectangle 2 4 0.75 250.0 75.0
3 6 275.0 100.0
1 5 200.0 50.0
Strip 2 10 250.0 75.0
3 15 300.0 100.0
6 12 250.0 225.0
Mat 8 12 300.0 275.0
10 16 375.0 300.0
F<ound ' wtt
atton 'h respect to f.''hd
tms e grad e leveI
Net Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt). kN/m 2
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 150.0 75.0
Square 2 2 175.0 90.0
3 3 200.0 100.0
1 2 150.0 75.0
Rectangle 2 4 1.0 200.0 100.0
3 6 225.0 i25Jl
1 5 225.0 75.0
Strip 2 10 250.0 100.0
3 15 275.0 125.0
6 12 250.0 250.0
Mat 8 12 300.0 275.0
10 16 350.0 250.0

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
Table 25.3 - Recommended Net Allowable Bearing· Pressure for various size of
Foundation with respect to finished grade level
Net Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt), kN/m2
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 175.0 100.0
Square 2 2 200.0 150.0
3 3 I 225.0 150.0
1 2 175.0 100.0
Rectangle 2 4 1.25 200.0 150.0
3 6 250.0 175.0
1 5 225.0 75.0
Strip 2 10 250.0 100.0
3 15 300.0 150.0
6 12 275.0 250.0
Mat 8 12 300.0 275.0
10 16 325.0 300.0
Net Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (D,), kN/m 2
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 225.0 125.0
Square 2 2 250.0 150.0
3 3 275.0 175.0
1 2 225.0 100.0
Rectangle 2 4 1.5 250.0 125.0
3 6 275.0 150.0
1 5 225.0 100.0
Strip 2 10 250.0 125.0
3 15 275.0 150.0
6 12 300.0 225.0
Mat 8 12 325.0 250.0
10 16 350.0 300.0

~GRO
Net Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dr), kN/m 2
m CUT FILL
AREA AREA
1 1 250.0 150.0
Square ·2 2 300.0 175.0
3 3 325.0 175.0
1 2 250.0 125.0
Rectangle 2 4 2.0 275.0 150.0
3 6 300.0 150.0
1 5 250.0 125.0
Strip 2 10 300.0 125.0
3 15 325.0 150.0
6 12 350.0 250.0
Mat 8 12 375.0 275.0
10 16 425.0 325.0
Foundation depth with respect to maximum scour depth (Bridge Area)
Net
Footing Width Length Depth of Allowable
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dr), Bearing
m Pressure,
kN/m2
1 1 75.0
Square 2 2 90.0
3 3 100.0
1 2 75.0
Rectangle 2 4 1.0 100.0
3 6 125.0
1 5 75.0
Strip 2 10 .. 100.0
3 15 125.0
6 12 250.0
Mat 8 12 275.0
10 16 250.0
. ,,;,·. :;::.•:.::;.; 1i~

-epared by :ISH 45 Date : March2008
1ecked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
Foundation with respect to maximum scour depth (Bridge Area)
Net
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt), Bearing
m Pressure,
kN/m 2
1 1 125.0
Square 2 2 150.0
3 3 175.0
1 2 100.0
Rectangle 2 4 1.5 125.0
3 6 150.0
1 5 100.0
Strip 2 10 125.0
3 15 150.0
6 12 225.0
Mat 8 12 250.0
10 16 300.0
·Table 26.3 ..:. Recommended Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for various size of
Foundation with respect to maximum scour depth (Bridge Area)
Net
Type (B), m (L), m Foundation (Dt). Bearing
m Pressure,
kN/m2
1 1 150.0
Square 2 2 175.0
3 3 175.0
1 2 125.0
Rectangle 2 4 2.0 150.0
3 6 150.0
1 5 125.0
Strip 2 10 125.0
3 15 150.0
6 12 250.0
Mat 8 12 275.0
10 16 325.0
C:hP.r.kP.n P. AppmvP.n hy · S.I/SM Report No. ; FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

~GRU
29.3 Impact of adjacent foundation on allowable bearing pressure
Net allowable bearing pressures and settlement estimates are based on the assumption that
foundation soils underlying a footing are not significantly affected by adjacent footings. The
minimum lateral distance between adjacent individual spread footings bearing at the same grade
on soil should be B/2, where B is the footing width or diameter of the larger footing. For strip
footings of width B, the minimum lateral separation distance should be no less than B. Where
lateral spacing is less than recommended, the stress distribution beneath adjacent footings
should be analyzed. Typically, footings spaced between B/2 and B/5 apart may experience 10 to
20 percent higher settlement.
It is mandatory to maintain clear spacing of footings mainly owing. to interference of interacting

stress fields. In case the total plan area of the footing exceeds 50% ·Of the plan area of the
building it is common practice to provide raft foundation.
29.4 Interaction of foundation supported at different depths
Refer IS Code IS: 1904 ·1978, Section 9.7, for the recommendations of foundation at different
levels. It states that;
When the ground. surface adjacent to sloping ground or where the bottoms of the footings of a
structure are at different levels or at levels different from those of the footings of adjoining
structures, the depth of the footings shall be such that the difference in footing elevations shall be
' -
subject to the following limitations:
'
a) When the ground surface slopes downward adjacent to a footing the sloping surface shall not
encroach upon the frustum of bearing material under the footing having sides which make an
angle with the horizontal of 60° for rock and 30° for soil and the horizontal distance from the
lower edge of the footing to the sloping surface shall be at least 60cm for rock and 90cm for soil.
b) In the case of footings in granular soil, a line drawn between the lower adjacent edges of
adjacent footings shall not have a steeper slope than two horizontal to one vertical.
Drawing 1 illustrates effect of interaction of foundation supported at different depths as per IS

1904 Page 12, is shown in section on engineering illustration.
29.5 Ultimate uplift capacity
Ultimate Uplift Capacity can be calculated by using following equation (Foundation Engineering
Handbook·winterkom & fang),
T =(PpX tano + C X Dt) X p + W

Ta =T/ FOS

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
Where,
T = Ultimate Uplift Capacity
Pp =Passive earth pressure (kN/m) ·
2
Pp = 0.5 X Ys X Dlx tan (45+<1>/2) X p
<I> = Angle of Internal Friction = 34°
p =Perimeter of failure zone (m)
2
c =Cohesion =0 kN/m
Dt =Depth of foundation (m)
w = Weight of (Soil over the footing + Footing} (kN)
Ys =Density of Soil = 17 kN/m3
Yc =Density of Concrete =24 kN/m3

Ta =Allowable Uplift Capacity
FOS =Factor of safety =2.5
Calculated Ultimate Uplift Capacity is tabulated as below in Table 27.
Table 27- Table showing the calculated Allowable Uplift Capacity
Weight of Soil
Breadth Length Angle of Passive over footing + Ultimate Allowable
(B), m (L), m Wall Earth Weight of Uplift Uplift Force
Friction Pressure footing (kN) Capacity (Ta), kN
(oo) (Pp). kN <n. kN
Depth of Foundation (Dr} =1.0 m
24 31.90 12.76
0.5 0.5 30 60.13 5.125 39.84 15.94
36 48.81 19.53
24 94.54 37.82
30 110.43 44.17
1.0 1.0 120.26 41.00
36 128.38 51.35
Depth of Foundation (D1) =1.5 m
24 65.36 26.14
30 83.24 33.30
0.5 0.5 135.30 5.125
I 36 103.42 41.37
24 161.47 64.59
1.0 1.0 30 270.59 41.00 197.23 78.89

36 237.60 95.04
29.6 Recommendation for heated, interior support slabs at grade including possible settlement
and proposed sub base
The Curves for various sizes of slab on grade are given in Section on engineering illustrations.
The sub grade shall be compacted to 85% of relative density. When slabs are placed on grade it
is mandatory to provide thickened edges or provide rubble soling along the edges to avoid edge
shear failure.

FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
30.0 UNDERGROUND RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS
Net safe bearing capacity from shear failure criteria is tabulated in Section on Engineering
Illustrations. The coefficients of lateral earth pressures are tabulated in Section 21.0. The
surrounding backfill shall be free draining with weep holes in the retaining walls, wherever
possible.
30.1 Recommendation for the design of retaining Walls
The coefficients of lateral earth pressures are tabulated in Section 21.0.
31.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOT SULPHUR PIT FOUNDATION DESIGN
Recommendations required for design of foundation system such as bearing capacity values,
lateral pressure on walls can be found in section on engineering analysis.
32.0 ANCHOR BLOCK FOUNDATIONS
It is expected that anchor blocks are required for resisting uplift forces at flare stack. Ultimate
uplift capacities of anchor blocks have been calculated and the results provided in Section 29.5.
32.1 Recommendations for the design of anchor block foundation
Allowable bearing capacity and allowable uplift capacities is tabulated in Section 29.1 and 29.5
'I
respectively.
33.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR VARYING DEPTHS
Design parameters and anticipated settlements are tabulated in Section 29.1 and on Section on
Engineering Illustrations.
34.0 TANK PADS AND CONTAINMENT AREAS
It is common practice that steel storage tanks up to 12m diameter are founded on Ring Beam or
Strip (ring wall) type foundation while steel storage tanks with diameter exceeding 12m are
founded on pad type foundation (preferred). In case for tanks with diameter exceeding 12m if
roof is subjected internal uplift forces suitable dead man type anchors can be provided around
the tank periphery.
34.1 Recommendation for design of tank pads
It is essential to provide about 60 em thick boulder soling below the tank edges. This will avoid
edge shear failure at the tank periphery.

~GRO
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.·
~·
34.2 Recommendations for design of containment areas
Refer to Section 17.2 for subgrade preparation. Impervious clay was not encountered at shallow
depth within the investigated area. In case clay is used as containment liner it will have to be
brought from a borrow area. Alternatively, geomembranes can be used as containment liner for
ponds and stockpiles. Manufacturer's recommendations of geomembranes for placing, storing
and handling is suggested to be followed.
As recommended in section 17.3 maximum safe containment dyke slope shall be 101): 3(H). In
case steeper slope is required due to space limitation RCC retaining wall for entire or partial
height as may be suitable can be considered .
. '
34.3 Expected short term and long term settlement at tank centre and edge
The subsoils encountered at this site are prE:ldominantly granular in nature. In this type of soils,
90% to 95% of the total settlement is expected to be immediate settlement. Significant long term
settlements are not expected. For steel storage tanks most of the settlement will take place
during hydro testing and expected settlement during service condition is negligible.
34.4 Expected differential settlement between tank centre and edge
It is expected that the settlement of centre will be twice that at the edge of the tanks.
A. Tanks on Ring Beam or Strip foundation
IS 1904:1986 recommends the following values,
Total permissible settlement : 50mm

Differential settlement : 0.0015 L (L denotes the length of deflected part of the Ring Beam or Strip}
Angular distortion : 1/666
B. Tanks on pad foundation
With reference to Naval Doc Manual DM 7 or Foundation Engineering Handbook Second Edition
Edited by Hsai-Yang Fang, tolerable differential settlement along the periphery shall not exceed
1/300.
35.0 ROAD, PAVED AREAS, PARKING FACILITIES
35.1 Typical thickness of various Layers for roads and parking (Refer to IRC: 37-2001)
35.1.1 Primary Access Roads
Typically for subgrade CBR of 10%, for 10 msa (million standard axles), total pavement
thickness will be 540 mm. Thickness of individual Layer for GSB (Granular Sub-Base Course)
and GB (Granular Base Course) shall be 200mm and 250mm respectively (IRC 37 -2001, Plate
1, pg 28). Adopt the layer thicknesses of DBM (Dense Bituminous Macadam) and BC
(Bituminous Concrete) as per IRC 37-2001.
Prepared by :ISH 50 Date ; March2008
Chool<od & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMP l/191/06 (R·B}

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
35.1.2 Secondary Access Roads
Typically for subgrade CBR of 10%, for 3 msa (million standard axles), total pavement thickness
will be 450mm. Thickness of individual Layer shall be as follows (IRC 37 .:.2001, Plate 1, pg 28)
• GSB (Granular Sub-Base Course)= 160mm

• GB (Granular Base Course) = 250mm
. • BM (Bituminous Macadam) = 50mm
Adopt the layer thickness of PC (Premix Carpet) as per IRC 37-2001.
35.1.3 Parking Facilities
Typically for subgrade CBR of 10%, for 1 msa (million standard axles), total pavement thickness
will be 375mm. Thickness of individual Layer for GSB (Granular Sub-Base Course) and GB
(Granular Base Course) shall be 150mm and 225mm respectively (IRC 37 -2001.
Adopt the layer thickness of PC (Premix Carpet) as per IRC 37.
35.1.4 Recommendation for design of concrete paved areas
Modulus of subgrade reaction to be used for design of concrete paved areas can be referred
from Section 22.0.
35.2 Material specifications
35.2.1 Granular Sub-Base Course
As per MORT & H specifications (Ministry of Road Transport and. highways, specifications
published by Indian Road Congress) Clause 401, the material to be used for the work shall be
natural sand, moorum (gravelly silty sand), gravel, crushed stone, or combination thereof
depending upon the grading required. The material shall be free from organic or other
deleterious constituents and conform to one of the three grading given in Table below:
Table 28- Details of grading requirement for sub-base coarse material

IS Sieve Designation % by wei :Jht passing the IS Sieve
Grading I Grading II Grading Ill
75.0mm 100 - -
53.0 mm 55-75 100 -100
26.5mm - 50-80
4.75mm 10.30 15-35 25-45
0.075mm < 10 < 10 < 10
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R·8)

~GRD
35.2.2 Granular Base Course
As per MORT & H specifications Clause No 406, the coarse aggregates shall be crushed stone.
If crushed graveklshingle is used, not less than 90 percent by weight of the gravel/shingle pieces
retained on 4. 75mm sieve shall have at least two fractured faces. The aggregates shall conform
to the physical requirements as shown in table below:
Table 29- Physical requirements of coarse aggregates for Wet Mix Macadam for sub-
base/base course
Test Test Method Requirements
1. Los Angeles Abrasion value IS 2386 (Part-4) 40 per cent (Max)
Or Aggregate Impact value IS 2386 (Part-4) or 30 per cent (Max)
IS:5640
2. Combined Flakiness and Elongation IS 2386 (Part-1) 30 per cent (Max}
Indices (Total)
As per MORT & H specifications the final gradation approved within these limits (as shown in
table below) shall be well graded from coarse to fine and shall not vary from the low limit on one
sieve to the high limit on the adjacent sieve or vice versa. The details of grading are as shown in
Table below:
T.able 30- Deta1s

'I o f·grad'mg reqUirement or wet m1x macad am
IS Sieve Designation o/o by weight passing the IS sieve
53.00 mm 100
45.00 mm 95-100
26.50 mm -
22.40 mm 60-80
11.20 mm 40-60
4.75 mm 25-40
2.36 mm 15-30
600.00 micron 8-22
75.00 micron 0-8
35.2.3 Dense Bituminous Macadam
As per MORT & H specifications Clause No 507, the bitumen shall be paving bitumen of
Penetration Grade complying with IS: 73, and of the penetration tabulated as follows:
-c
r.able 31 ompos1tion o fdense grad edb'1tummous macad am pavement L ayers
Grading 2
Nominal aggregate size 25mm
Layer Thickness 50-75mm
IS Sieve (mm) Cumulative o/o by weight of total
aggregate passing
37.5 100
26.5 90-100
19 71 -95
13.2 56-80
9.5 -
4.75 38-54
2;36 28-42
1.18 -

-----------------------------==------ -~··· ·----"
~GAD
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO . ~
0.6 -
0.3 7-21
0.15 -
0.075 2-8
Bitumen content % by Min4.5
mass of total mix
Bitumen grade (pen) 50/70
The coarse aggregates shall consist of crushed rock, crushed gravel or other hard material
retained on the 2.36 mm sieve. They shall be clean, hard and durable of cubical shape, free from
dust and soft or friable matter, organic or other deleterious substances. The aggregate shall
satisfy following physical requirements as per MORT & H.
Table 32- Physical requirements for coarse aggregate for dense graded bituminous
macadam
Property Test Specification
Cleanliness Grain size analysis I Max 5% passing 0.075mm sieve
Particle shape Flakiness and Elongation Index Max30%
Strength Los Angeles Abrasion Value Max35%
Durability Soundness
Sodium Sulphate Max 12%
Magnesium Sulphate Max 18%
Water Absorption Water absorption Max2%
Stripping Coating and Stripping of Bitumen Aggregate Minimum retained coating 95%
Mixtures
Water Sensitivity Retained Tensile Strength Min80%
Fine aggregates shall consist of crushed or naturally occurring mineral material, or a combination
of the two, passing the 2.36mm sieve and retained on the 75 micron sieve. They shall be clean,
hard, durable, dry and free from dust, and soft or friable matter, organic or other deleterious
matter. Fine aggregate shall have a sand equivalent value of not less than 50. The plasticity
index of the fraction passing the 0.425 mm sieve shall not exceed 4.
35.2.4 Bituminous Concrete
Penetration Grade complying with IS: 73 and of the penetration grade as follows,
Table 33- Composition of bituminous concrete pavement Layers

Grading 2
Layer Thickness 30-45 mm
IS Sieve (mm) Cumulative % by weight of total aggregate passing
19 100
13.2 79-100
9.5 70-88
4.75 53-71
2.36 42-58
1.18 34-48
0.6 26-38
Prepared by :ISH 53 Date : March 2008

FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
0.3 18-28
0.15 12-20
0.075 4-10
Bitumen content % by 5.0-7.0
mass of total mix
The coarse and ·fine aggregate shall be generally as per section 9.6.2.3 except that the
aggregate shall satisfy physical requirements as follows,
Table 34- Physical requirements for coarse aggregate for bituminous concrete pavement
L ayers
Cleanliness Grain size analysis · Max 5% passing 0.075mm sieve
Aggregate lmapct Value Max24%
Polishing Polished Stone Value Min 55
Sodium Sulphate Max 12%
Stripping Coating and Stripping of Bitumen Minimum retained coating 95%
Aggregate Mixtures
Water sensitivity Retained Tensile Strength Min 80%
35.2.5 Bituminous Macadam

Penetration Grade complying with IS: 73 and of the penetration grade as follows,
1iable 35 - Phrystca
. I reqwremen tsf<or coarse aggrefl at e f;or b"tummous macad am
1
Cleanliness Grain size analysis Max 5% passing 0.075mm sieve
Aggregate lmapct Value Max30%
Sodium Sulphate Max12%
Stripping I~~~:::afnd Stripping ofBitumen
te Mixtures
Minimum retained coating .95%
Water sensitivity Retained Tensile Strength Min80%
T;able 36 -c
ompost ron o fb"t
1 ummous macad am
Grading 2
Layer Thickness 50-75 mm
IS Sieve (mm) Cumulative % by weight of total aggregate passing
26.5 100
19 90-100
13.2 56-88
Checked & Approved by . SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

-fiJGRU
1-1.'
4.75 16-36
2.36 4-19
0.3 2-10
0.075 0.8
Bitumen content % by 3.3-3.5
mass of total mix
Fine aggregate shall be crushed or naturally occurring material passing 2.36mm sieve and retain
in 75 micron sieve. They shall be clean hard durable dry and free from dust and soft and friable
material or organic or other deleterious material.
35.2.7 Granular Road (Without bitumen)
As per MORT & H specifications Clause No 404, the crushed or broken stone shall be hard,
durable and free from excess flat, elongated, soft and disintegrated particles, dirt and other
deleterious material. The physical requirements of coarse aggregates are as follows;
Table 37- Physical requirements of coarse aggregates for granular road for sub-
base/base course
Test Test Method Requirements
1. Los Angeles Abrasion value IS 2386 (Part-4) 40 per cent (Max)
Or Aggregate Impact value IS 2386 (Part-4) or 30 per cent (Max)
18:5640
2.. Combined Flakiness and Elongation IS 2386 (Part-1) 30 per cent (Max)
Indices (Total)
As per MORT & H specifications the coarse aggregates shall conform to one of the gradings
given below in table,
Table 38- Details of grading requirement for coarse aggregates

Grading IS Sieve IS Sieve % by weight passing the IS sieve
No Designation
125 100
90 90-100
1 90mm to45mm
63 25-60
45 0-15
22.4 0-5
90 100
63 90-100
2 63 mm to45mm
53 25-75
45 0-15
22.4 0-5
63 100
53 95--100
3 53 mm to 22.4 mm
45 65-90
22.4 0-10
11.2 0-5
Checked &Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
36.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EROSION PROTECTION
As explained in Section 6.4 above riprap consisting of stones or geocells or coir fabric can be
used for erosion protection. Coir is useful in situations where vegetation will take longer to
establish while jute is useful in low rain fall areas because it absorbs more moisture. In case the
· slope is required to be steepened, measures such as providing anchors for natural slopes or
using reinforced earth technology for new slopes can be used.
Several industrial products exist in the market. One of the manufactured (patented) products is
"GARMAT". It consists oftop and bottom Layer of flexible non-biodegradable net and a middle
Layer of biodegradable mulch material which provides high level of protection during initial period
for the required for the growth of vegetation. It also promotes growth of vegetation by retaining
moisture and also conditioning of soil. The synthetic net enhances the effectiveness of
vegetation in short term as well as long term.
Other similar products are "Terram trimmer or Terram erocell". Since these products are
manufactured and patented it is not possible to provide uniform specifications. Also use of these
materials is site specific hence these can be finalized once basic engineering is complete and
expected slopes to be retained are known. Manufactures can be contacted for details.
Typical specifications of ''heavy" jute geotextile are as follows

Weight : 730gsm
Width : 122cm
Threads : (main and cross direction) 7 x 7
Thickness : 6mm
Strength (KN/m) in main and cross directions: 12 x 12
Coverage(%) : 60
37.0 SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM DESIGN

Recommended capacities and sizes of septic tanks for housing colonies according to IS 2470
(Part II) is as presented in table below,
Table 39- Table showing the capacities and sizes of septic tanks
No. of Length Breadth Liquid Depth Once in 2 Years Liquid Capacities Once in 2
Users (m) (m) of Sludge Withdrawal (m) Years of Sludge Withdrawal
(m3)
300 14.6 3.9 1.15 65.5
For design of Sand filter open or closed, sand size 0.4 to 0.6 mm, uniformity coefficient not
exceeding 4 (for definition of uniformity coefficient refer section 7.4), rate of filtration 40 to 50
litreslm 2 per day.
Chockad & 1\pprovod by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPl/H:l1/06 (R-8)

~GAD
37.1 Percolation Rates
Permeability of soils depends on their grain size distribution. Typical values for this site can be
considered as:
k = 5 to 8x1 a-s cm/s
38.0 REFERENCES
38.1 Codes:
The folloWing American and Indian Standards on Soils and Foundations were referred:
Laboratory Tests
ASTM D 2487 Classification of samples
ASTM D 2488 Classification of samples
ASTM D 4318 Liquid limit, Plastic limit & Plasticity Index of Soil
ASTM D 4253 Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using Vibratory Table
ASTM D 4254 Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative
Density
ASTM D 3080 Direct Shear Test
ASTM D 2216 Natural Moisture Content
ASTM D 1883 California Bearing Ratio
ASTM D 4542 Determination of Water Soluble Sulphates and Water Soluble Chlorides of Soils
ASTM D 4972 Determination of pH value (ASTM G 51)
ASTM D 2937 Bulk Density
ASTM D 654 Specific Gravity
ASTM D 2938 Unconfined Compression Test in Rock
ASTM D 3967 Splitting Tensile Test in Rock
ISRM Moisture Absorption Test in Rock
ISRM Porosity Test in Rock
ISRM Unit Weight Test in Rock
ISRM Specific Gravity Test in Rock
ISRM Point Load Index Test in Rock
Indian Standards Codes

IS:1498 Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes
IS:1888 Method of Load Tests on Soil
IS:1892 Code of Practice for Site Investigations for Foundations
IS:1904 Code of practice for design and construction of foundations in soils: general
requirements
IS:6403 Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations
IS:2131 Method of Standard Penetration Test for Soils
IS:2132 Code of Practice for Thin Walled Tube Sampling of Soils
. Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
IS: 2470 Part II Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Septic Tanks - Large
Installations
IS:2720 Method of Test for Soil (relevant Parts)
IS:5249 Method of Tests for Determination of lnsitu Dynamic Properties of Soils
IS:1893 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
. IRC37 Guidelines for design of flexible pavements (second revision)
MORT&H Ministry of road transport and highways - Specifications for road and bridge
works (fourth revision)
IS 2911 (Part 1, section 2)-
Code of Practice for design and construction. of pile foundations. Concrete bored
cast in situ piles.
IS 8009 (Part I)
Code of Practice for ealculation of settlements of foundations, shallow
foundations subjected to verticallaods
References
1. Sisodia M.S., Singh U.K., Lashkari G.L., Shukla P.N., Shukla A. D. and Bhandari N. -
Mineralogy and trace element chemistry of the siliceous earth of Barmer basin, Rajastan:
Evidence for a volcanic origin.
a. Department of Geology, JMV University, Jodhpur.
b. Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.
2. Sharma, Kamal K.- K-T magmatism and basin tectonism in Western Rajastan, India,
3. Mishra P.C., Singh M.P., Sharma D.C., Upadhyay H, Kakroo A. K. and Saini M.L. 1993,
Lilhostatigraphy at Western Rajastan.
4. Bateman M.D., Thomas DSG and Singhvi A.K. 2003 - extending the aridity record at the
south crust Kalahari current problems and future perspectives, Quaternary International.
5. Jain M., Tandon S.K., Bhat S.C., Singhvi A.K., and Mishra S. 1999- Alluvial and Aeolian
sequences along the River Luni, Barmer District, Physical Stratigraphy and feasibility of
luminescence chronology methods.
6. Winterkorn & Fang- Foundation Engineering Handbook
7. Bowles- Foundation Analysis and Design
8. NAVDOC Manual DM-7
38.2 List of Specifications & Drawings
38.2.1 Specification
38.2.1.1 Specification for Soil Investigation DECO-RX-C-SP-2000 (Rev C1)
38.2.2 Drawing
11.2.1 Soil Boring Location Plans for Mangala Process Terminal

DECO-MRX-C-DWG-2100-02 (Rev C1)

j
I
!
FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
INDEX MAP Plate 1
FIELD TEST LOCATION PLAN Plate 2
ROCK CONTOUR DRAWING Plate 3
SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 4
CHANNEL SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 5
SPT VS DEPTH PROFILES Plate 6 Thru 9
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR SLAB ON GRADE Plate 10 Thru 11
PILE CAPACITY CURVES Plate 12 Thru 16
DRAWING 1 Plate 17
DRAWING2 Plate 18
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR TANK SETTLEMENT -pJate 19 Thru 21
DRAWJNG3 Plate 22
PHOTOGRAPHS Plate 23
i
Prepared by :ISH v Date :March 2008
Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No.. FGTUMPT/191106 (R-8)

N 2870850.00
\
\
N 2870800.00
N 2870750.00
N 2870500.00
N 2870250.00
N2869750.00
/
/
/
/
I
N2869500.00 I
I \ ABH-
•••••
••••• 'I
I
- 1 - GROUND CONTOUR
N 2869250.00
. --r-GAD ':AI~N t:"t-.fRGY 1'\11 A
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

Plot No.-SO, s.ctor-8, Sonpodo, NIM l.lumbcri--400 70!
f'hon-.; +81-22 115111 5e74/&6112, foiC +il -22 2762 0768
E-Noll :fll~l.com
RA A'S 1-lA!o.J I'.'J Tl ~-ME 1'. f PRC C"

LD
N 2869000.00 MANGALA F-IE:: ... D

BOR[ lOLl LC . J.
) '
REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHK APPR CUENT
DWG.REF. .o 21JC PLATE-2
8H~05
BH~D6
N 2871250.00
N 2871000.00
N 2870750.00 .~
N 2870500.00
N 2870250.00
N 287
N 2869750.00
N 2869500.00
I \
N 2869250.00
I
I
•
. _,_ __ ___
---
> tiT
N 2869000.00
MANGALA FlEl.D
\
I
1&1
CONTOUR DRAWING
.
I
UJ
1-
:s
c...
' ,l
')
r I ' "'u
z I
I (?
....t:.
,_
"'
~ 'l'l ' l' I' ....~' I ' 1'1' i' ,:.,............

.....
I'J 'JI'::ll 'l 'l 'l'l' I ' I ' j ' 1' 1'1'1 ' 1' 1' 1'1 'l ' j' 1' 1'l'l' j ' l ' I 'l'l' j' l 'I' I' 1'1
:::... ...... .. ... !
"' ~
-
~
-
~
-
~
-
'i
-
<{
b-- - - - - (>
II
• II
••' ~I Ill
' ~
• '
• >
• '
w
1--- - - - - ll==f¥=*-='q - - - - "'

• •
• •
b-- - - - - - -
.
0
- - - --1
0 • •
• 0
•
•
• •
••
·, .
'\
{
I
;
{ •
'' t i
i
0
~
j
w
b-- - - - - - - ""l
i'f I I I' ~ I I I il l 1'1'1' ~ I l'l'l 'l
- - - - - --1
I II II I j I I' I' I'&''.,. I I 'I'' I II I I I I· ~· I I I 'I 'I 'J
!! ,. . .. ... ...
••
• •
1------ - - - - - - - -1
• !
I ! !
! !
! !
• • •
<! 0
<!'
- - - - --1
z I • 0
•
0
•
6
w
I
0
• • •
IJ)
1 - - - - -ilfs:==:=~:=E
• •
•• •
• .' ' •
• •
I
1-- - - -
•
1 - - - - --1
i
!
I l
I.I I
0
.'
0
'•
II
•
• I'
0
I. •
\ . f---- - - -
- - - - --1
'•
co
co' \ . u
u' Cl
•
z
0...... I. . z
0
•
• ! Cl
z -----~
'
tJw • 6
w 1- -
'
0
6
b-- - - -
•
IJ) • IJ)
• w • •
I
IJ) '
• •
• • '
0
•
• !
0
- - - - --1
.
0
• •
' 0
•
!
' •
..
! !
1--- - - -
\ •
.\
\
0
•.
!
•
I
\•
!
' - - - - - - --1 '
I. - - - - --1
I '
I
I 1-- - -
I•
I I ''
I
- - - - --1
•
..- ~
0
- - - - - - --1
- - - --1
0 •
- - - - --1 •
' • 0
• • • • '
' • •• •
• • • 0•
• •
1--- - - - - 0
--------~
'
- - - - - - - --1
~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I j I I I I j
iii ~ :il ~ ~
"'twl "'100 M&no H.l.toto...
INDEX MAP
. ' N
Jaisalmer
' Jodhpur A
.. .. , .. i
.
''
'
• Mandl
.... ~
...,
PAKISTAN
\.
\
• IRUMneUonaiBounde~
- - - Dislrict Boundary Jalor
c:= National Highway
UajorRoad
\
.
\
Railway
_
@ Dislrict Haedquartelli \
• Major Tovm Map nol to scale
• Other Tovm ......, _.,····
Copyright © 2007 Compare lnfobase Limited
-''~"'
'-· Riwr
- Mangala Processing Terminal
- Wellpads
Rageshwari Gas Field
FINAL REPORT ON
MANGALA PROCESSING TERMINAL AREA
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN AREA
DEVELOPMENT MANGALA &RAGESHWARI FIELD, BLOCK RJ-QN-90/1,
RAJASTHAN, INDIA
Plate 1
Geotechnical Investigation for Rajasthan Northen Area
Project SPT (Corrected)
Development • Mangla Processing Terminal
Calm Energy India Ply Ltd v/s
191106
Location EXPORT OIL STORAGE TANKS AREA

DEPTH CURVES
SPT 'N' VALUE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1
-2
-3
I
-7 I
I
I
I
I
E I
£-8 I
Q.
I
c" I
I
I
_g I
I
I
I
I
I
-10 I
I
I
I
I
I
-11 - --1-----
I
I
I
I
I
-12 I
I
•
I
I
I
I
-14
-15
-16
Plate 6
Geotechnical Investigation for Rajasthan Northen Area
SPT (Corrected)
Development - Mangla Processing Terminal
v/s
DEPTH CURVES
SPT 'N' VALUE

10 40 50 60 70
I
I
I
I
-1 I
I
I
I
I
I
-2
I
I
I
-3
.....
I
I
Dense
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ :§: I
:5-8
.
c""
I
I
I
I
I
I
-9 I
I
I
I
I
-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
-11 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-13
I
I
I
I
I
-14 I
I
I
I
I
I
-15 I
I
I
~ I
I
I
-16
Plate 7
IGt~ot:eclhniicallnvestigation for Rajasthan Northen Area
IDjWe>IOJlment • Mangla Processing Terminal
SPT (Corrected)
v/s
DEPTH CURVES
SPT 'N' VALUE
0 ~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~======~=:=:::sFo::::::7io::::::!:::;--i~--~2fo·~~.~~:~~T:~3C
0 ~
I
I
I
-1 I
I
I
I
I
-2 I
I
I
I
I
I
-3 I
I
I
I
I
I
-4 Varyl
.....;.!
-5
-6
-7
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
Plate 8
-fi.IDRD Project Geotechnical Investigation for Rajasthan Northen Area
SPT (Corrected)
~·~===
~
~u:;:;;:r-i;D~e;;;v;;-e;;lo~p::m::e-;;n::;t;:·-;;M;;:-a;-;n-;:g;-la_P_ro_c_e_s_si_n..:.g_T_e_rm_in_a_I_ _ _ ____J
_ I CLIENT Cairn Energy India Ply ltd v/s
JOB No 191/06
Location SHOP,ADMIN BLDGS & STORAGE AREAS

DEPTH CURVES
SPT 'N' VALUE

10 20 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2 I
I
i
I
I
....!..
I
~eryDenae
I
-3 I I
I
I
I
I
I
-4
I
I
I
I I
I
I
-5 I
I
I
I I
-6
I
I
--1-- I
I
I
I
I
-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ ]:
:5-S
I
I
I
I
l
I
..
Q
0. I
I
I
I
I
-9 I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
-10 l
I
-11
·12
-13
-14
-15
-1£
Plate 9
FUGRO GEOTECH LTO.
·ect Geotechnical Services for Northern Area Development

Client Cairn Energy India Pty Ltd
Location Mangla Processing Terminal (MPT)
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT Vs. NET BEARING PRESSURE (CUT)
Net Bearing Pressure (kPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
-L=6m, B=12m, D=At Grade
5 -L=Sm, B=12m, D=At Grade
-L=10m, B=16m, D=At Grade

10
15
\ e 2o
.§.
cGl
E
11>
iJ! 25
tn
1:1
.!
IV
E
1;! 30
w
35
40
45
50
1) B is the foundation width, L is the foundation length and D is the foundation depth
Plate 10
FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.
Geotechnical Services for Northern Area Development

Cairn Energy India pty Ltd
Location Mangla Processing Terminal (MPT)
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT Vs. NET BEARING PRESSURE (FILL)
Net Bearing Pressure (kPa)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ~ • so • so a ro ~ oo • oo • 100
0
10 - - L=6m, B=12m, D=At Grade
20 ···· L=Bm, B=12m, D=At Grade
30
• L=10m, B=16m, D=At Grade
40
50
60
70
\ 'E 80
g
1:!Q> 90
.!ll 100
....21
(/)
.
E
110
'ti
w 120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
Notes::~
- - 1) B is the foundation width, Lis the foundation length and Dis the foundation depth
2 Back fill= 4.0m
Plate 11
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.
Project: Geotechnical Services for Rajasthan Northern Area Development

Pile Type : Bored.Cast-ln.Situ
Pile Dla. : 0.40m Ultimate Pile Copo~lty (kN)
1000 2000
0.00~~----------,------------,-------------.-------------,------------,-------------,
3000 4000 5000 6000
-. ·- I
':, \ - - - \leryloosfii:No---------
-----
--unlmate Capacity
\;--------t----+---t-··-
- · ... ~ • Tension
\ - ·•- ·End Bearing
-2.50
'
t--i------+-t-1\ ! - ·• · ·Skin Friction
-
1 Me ium dense to dens SAND
l
::
:;
-t- -1\--- - - t---------- -----:------

:;
-5.00 ·~- t
• I '
\\ ;
\\ ; ! '
\\ ! :
-7.50 t----.;.....:,--i---t--t--·-----j-----------+----------+------+---·-----c
De se to very dense S N D with partially d composed sandsto e
·. \ !
\• \. !I
E
...J
1!1
w
-;:
\ ;:
"
0
-10.00-itl
~..
---~,d~--
iii
-----:------
·12.50 +--- +\ ~· \>\ ---t----------
~- --weaf<tOVi il'}TW!lllk conglomE!I tllrSAIIIDSTOm=-- ----~---
.... \ i
.... \.\ I.
-15.00
'
+--------',--+-.,---Y\'-·,-1-,- - - ' \
...... \\ ..
\---+---.. . _____ . .
1- - - - ~ -~- 4.. \ - ~·~~-"'~ - \ - - - - - ~r;M~L- --
\. ''
'
I\
-20.00
\_ ~
Not&: The pile capacity c:urves plotted above are indicative. The.t;md bearing capacities are c:alculated only at the c:hange of stratum. End bearing capacities at any other
location needs to be calwlated and cannot be r.ead dl~tty from the abovto graphs.
Plate 12
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

Pile Type : Bored-Cast-in-Situ
Pile Dia. : 0.50m
Ultimate Pile Capacity (kN)
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500

o.oo,-.~------------,----------------r---------------,---------------,----------------,
tt-----=....- ___v:!:f ~o~ S~N£j _ _ _ _ _ _
~Ultimate Capacity
··-+··Tension
~ -•- -End Bearing

-2.50
- -•- ·Skin Friction
Medi~m dense to dense SAN
g
6w
~ -10.00 +-~---------+~.-+- -t -~~\- -~---- -+--~~~- - ------+-~~-~--~-- -1-~---------~----~---t
5
I
NE-~~~ ------~~~
-17.50 +----------t-~
-
-15.00 +------------+-----'~-----';:--'----',,-----------+--------t--------1
'--.
~\,- ~,~' r~',

\
.....
\
\._
.
'~
·,,
"·-,
,' .
.
~ ....
-..........
____'.c·......---t--------+"<---------j
' '·
'
'·
-20.00 L-------------..L.---------~-'---------"-----'----------'>.--'-----L:..;__->.-----'
Note: Th& plle capacity curves plotted above are indicative. The end bearing capacltles are calculated onlv at the change of stratum. End bearing capacitios at any ather
location needs to be calculated and cannot be read directly from the above graphs.
Plate 13
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

Pile Dia. : 0.60m
Ulllmate Pile Capacity (kN)
2500 5000 7500 10000
--Ultimate capacity
•. .., .. Tension
- ·•- ·End Bearing
- ..._··Skin Friction
Medium dense to SAND
-5.00
:t
·-~·:;-- -~,- .. ..·-T--t- ..- - - -.......____.... ,____...____ ...__-t.---....._ ..___... _____i
~-----
'•\
':\:.
.
~\
Dense to very dense SA D with partially decompose. sandstone
I
-'
!II
~ -10.00
i"
~
iii
-----t-------i-------
·12.50 1 - - - - - + - - - ; - - - - " t - - - - - - \ - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - l
Note: Tho pile capacity curves plotted above are Indicative. The end bearing capacities are calculated only at the cbsngs of stratum. End bearing capacities at any other
location needs to be calculated and eannot be r&ad directly from the above graphs,
Plate 14
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

Pile Type : Bored-Cast-in..Situ
Pile Dia. : 0.75m
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000
NJ2.---
--Ultimate Capacity
...... Tension
·2.50 t-\------+-1------+--------t--------t------1 - ·•- ·End Bearing
\ - ·• · ·Skin Friction
1 radium dense to drse SAND
l
~i
-5.00 t---'":------+--lc-----+--------t--------t--------t---------1
r-----
Dens~ to very dense SA D with partially de omposed sandsto e
1
~
~ -1o.oo +--~-+...;---~- r
c
.!!
1
----t---·
~--
1
Plate 15
FUGRO GEOTECH LTD.

Pile Dia. : 0.80m
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000

0.00 ~~--=-----,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------.
fil~,___·----·-_·_;..:.-;:....,p-V~ry~o_::~NE_ _____________ _
-----
~; ~ . r----1-------,
,: i' . --Ultimate capacity
\ i j__' ·· •·· Tension
'
-2.50 H~~~--~--····--'--'-+- ····· ····--~~~f-------------i------~1 ·•- -End Bearing
\ Medium dense to d nse SAND -·:.·-Skin Friclion

\
:
~\
~\!•
-5.00
--!1:-t----- --- -----

',\
~ '\
1
'
ii', \
\_ . . I
, 1 Dens to very dense SA ~D with partially depomposed sandsto e
~~~~~\~~~~~~~~-
-7.50
g
.J
C)
\\ ' \ l
w
'::!
,; -10.00
"
i --~-. -~---...~-
\• \•
.
!I
I --------------- -----
-12.50
-~~\\\1\. ''{ ~~+-~····----~~-+---···--~~~+ ·····~~----~
Weak to ve weak conglomeri ic SANDSTONE

. '
I ' '
, i '. 1..
' ,
'' \
\1 \ ! ' ...
-15.00
=--=-~ ·~~\
··.••
:_\\~ --=--_---':\-=-:':~'-=-,-=-,-=--=--=--=-:=------.;\-~a:M:R~ - -
'.\
t•
! ''
' . \ ' '
~17.50 +-------t----'-:-----+------+-------+'-,_'.::.,_,-----ll\-l______-l
,\
1
''.,
'' ',,\,
·20.00 I
Note: The pile capacity curves plotted abow aN indicative. The end bearing capacitt.s are calculated onlv at the change of .stratum, End bearing capacities at any other
location needs ~o be calcuhtted and cannot be read directly from the above graph•.
Plate 16
Minimum width of non
Depth of foundation
eroda ble soil from edge of
(m)
footing (m)
1.0 0.75
1.5 1,.12
THI! SLOPI OP CUT ....---- 11·U.C~ESS OF NON
eltOOABlE KA"tEIUAL
DI!PI!NDING ON - - -
SITE SlTUATION - - FOUNOAllOfl EIACI<FILL
M.I\TeiUAU.
SECTION
WJDTHOFNON
·ERODA8LE MATERIAL
..,...---- FROM THE t:tlG£ Of"
FOon111G ON! AU StDES
PLAN
(1 Ml X 1M)
DRAWING l : WIDTH OF NON cROOABil.E son. FROM ntf: EDGE OF FOOTING
Project : Geotechnical UGRO GEOTECH LTD.

-fi.IIIRD Cor. ViDa No.. St Prot No.~&o~
investigation for nothern area 1 Mavuresh Olambeni, Sector-11,
C.B.O.-BelaP'Jr~ NiM Mumbal~
~
development at Mangala field
~ Phofle: +91 ... 22-StUEi· 8662
l"'I e-mall' :l!'ugroO\Isnl.cam
DWG. l't:t. DATE: Dwn. By. (lrk. ey. Aprd. By.

Client : CAIRN ENERGY
3 29/06/07 T.V.G. I.S.H. S.J.
INDIA PTY LTD.
Plate 23

Soil Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PTY.

MANGALA PROCESSING TERMINAL

NAME OF PROJECT_ GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN

Job No. : 191/06 ,

FUGRO GEOTECH LIMITED

NAME OF PROJECT- GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN

ReportNo.: FGTUMPT/191/08 March 2008

REPORT ISSUE STATUS

<01> November 2007 Report- Before Relocation AS/PS SJ SM

Issue Date Description Prepared Checked Approved

CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PTY LIMITED FUGRO GEOTECH L TO.

C/o Mustang Engineering L.P. Plot No 51

Prepared by :ISH Date :March 2008

Checked & Approved by . SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/08

NAME OF PROJECT_ GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR RAJASTHAN NORTHERN

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2

CONSTRUCTION OF SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORKS 17

18.0 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND

Prepared by :ISH II Date :March 2008

Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 {R-8)

. 20.0 SAFETY FACTORS 29

21.0 COEFFICIENT OF ACTIVE, PASSIVE & AT EARTH PRESSURE AT REST 29

22.0 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION 30

23.0 SLIDING RESISTANCE 30

24.o· CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TEST RESULTS 31

25.0 ANGLE OF .INTERNAL FRICTION 37

26.0 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION · 37

27.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SET BACK DISTANCE FROM EDGE 37

28.0 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 37

29.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 41

. 30.0 UNDERGROUND RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS 49

31.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOT SULPHUR PIT DESIGN 49

32.0 ANCHOR FOUNDATIONS 50

33.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AT VARIOUS DEPTHS 50

35.0 ROAD, PAVED AREAS AND PARKING FACiliTIES 51

36.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EROSION PROTECTION 56

37.0 SEPTIC TANK 57

Prepared by :ISH Ill Date :March 2008

Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTL/MPT/191/06 (R-8)

FIELD TEST RESULTS APPENDIX A

CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS APPENDIX c

CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS APPENDIX c

STRENGTH TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D

Prepared by :ISH IV Date :March 2008

Checked & Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

INDEX MAP -Plate . . 1

FIELD TEST LOCATION PLAN Plate 2

ROCK CONTOUR DRAWING Plate 3

SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 4

CHANNEL SUBSURFACE PROFILES Plate 5

SPT VS DEPTH PROFILES Plate 6 Thru 9

SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR SLAB ON GRADE Plate 10 Thru 11

PILE CAPACITY CURVES Plate 12 Thru 16

SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR TANK SETTLEMENT Plate 19 Thru 21

Prepared by :ISH v Date :March 2008

Checked Be Approved by : SJ/SM Report No. : FGTUMPT/191/06 (R-8)

FIELD TEST RESULTS

BOREHOLE LOGS Plates A1 Thru A245

CROSS HOLE SEISMIC TESTS Plates A246 Thru A247

ELECTICAL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS Plates A248