GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

GARDEN CITY HOUSING SCHEME

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE #

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work 1

1.3 Seismic Zone and Soil Profile Characterization 2

2 EXPLORATION METHODOLOGY
2.1 Field Investigations 4
2.1.1 Execution of Exploratory Borehole 4
2.1.2 Performance of SPTs 4
2.1.3 Exploratory Test Pits 5

2.1.4 Soil Sampling 5

2.2 Laboratory Testing 5
2.2.1 Discussion of Field and Laboratory Results 6
3 EVALUATIONS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS 8
3.1 General 8
3.2 Stratigraphy 8
3.3 Ground Water Table 9
3.4 Geotechnical Design Parameters 9

_________________________________________________________________________________________ i
__________________________________________________________________________________________
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

4.1 Foundation Design Criteria 10
4.2 Safety Factors

4.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations 10

4.4 Evaluation of Subgrade for Road Construction 14
4.5 Subgrade and Road Embankment Compaction 14
4.6 Type of Cement and Protection of Substructure Concrete 15

5 CONSTRUCTIONAL ASPECTS AND LIMITATIONS 16

APPENDIX-A
(Tables & Figures)

-Empirical values for , qu, Dr and unit weight of soil based on SPT Table 1
-Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 2
-Summary of Compaction and CBR Test Results Table 3
- Boreholes Location Plan Figure 1
-Symbols & Legends Figure 1-A
-Borehole logs Figures 2 to 8
-Test Pit logs Figures 9 to 15

APPENDIX-B
(Laboratory Test Results)

-Results of Unconfined Compression Tests

-Results of Direct Shear Tests
-Results of Modified Compaction Tests
-Results of 3-Point CBR Tests

_________________________________________________________________________________________ ii
__________________________________________________________________________________________
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

GARDEN CITY HOUSING SCHEME

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

A housing scheme named as Garden City Housing Scheme is being developed on link road
connecting GT road ----------------------------. This report deals with geotechnical investigations
conducted at the site of the proposed housing scheme.

The Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department (CED),

University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Lahore, was engaged by the Developers
under the instruction of LDA, for carrying out sub-soil investigations at the proposed site.

The geotechnical investigations at the project site were conducted through the execution of seven
(7) exploratory boreholes down to 80 ft depth below the existing ground level and seven test pits
up to 9 ft depth. The fieldwork at the site was executed during ---------------2016.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work

The primary objective of this investigation was to determine the appropriate parameters for the
design of foundations of the proposed facility. For this purpose, the following aspects were
determined/evaluated:

1. Subsurface stratigraphy within the limits of exploratory borings.

2. Physical and engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials (strata)

encountered.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 1
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

3. Evaluation of subsoil parameters, recommendations for appropriate type of

foundations, and allowable bearing capacity values to be used in the design of
foundations of the proposed facility.

The scope of work for carrying out sub-soil investigations at the site included:
 Execution of seven (7) borings with auger/light percussion technique down to 80 ft
depth below the existing ground level.
 Performance of standard penetration test (SPT) in the borehole at 3 ft interval up to
25 ft depth and thereafter at every 5 ft interval down to the investigated depth.
 Excavation of seven (7) test pits near the each borehole for recovering undisturbed
soil samples and performing field density tests at every 2-3 ft interval. The test pits
were excavated up to 9 ft depth below the existing ground level.
 Soil sampling with appropriate sampling techniques, sample preservation and
transportation to the testing laboratory.
 Performance of laboratory tests on selected soil samples in accordance with relevant
ASTM standard method.
 Preparation of geotechnical investigation report, which would include subsurface log,
laboratory test data, and recommendations regarding allowable bearing capacity and
type/depth of foundations.

1.3 Seismic Zone and Soil Profile Characterization

Seismic Zone

The project site is located in Zone-2A as per Seismic Zoning Map of Pakistan (BCP-2007) and
for Zone-2A, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) is in the order of 0.08g to 0.16g. Therefore the
foundation design must conform to the maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.16g.

Seismic Soil Profile

In accordance with the procedures described in Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provision
2007), the criteria for classification of un-cemented soil profiles are to be based on;

 Vs=average shear wave velocity of top 30m soil profile

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 2
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

 N=average field SPT resistance for the top 30m soil profile

 Su=average undrained shear strength for the top 30m soil profile

The following table on the next page defines the various seismic soil profile based on the above-
mentioned soil parameters

Average Properties for Top 30 M (100 ft) of Soil Profile

Soil Soil Profile Name/ Standard Penetration Undrained Shear
Shear Wave
Profile Generic Tests, N [or NCH for Strength, su
Velocity, vs
Type Description cohesionless soil kPa
m/sec (ft/sec)
layers] (blows/foot) (psf)
>1,500
SA Hard Rock
(>4,920)
750 to 1,500
 
SB Rock (2,460 to 4,920)

350 to 750 >100

Very Dense Soil
SC (1,150 to 2,460) >50 (>2,088)
and Soft Rock

175 to 350 50 to 100

SD Stiff Soil Profile (575 to 1,150) 15 to 50 (1,044 to 2,088)

<50
1
<175
SE Soft Soil Profile <15 (<1,044)
(<575)

SF Soil requiring Site-specific Evaluation. See 4.4.2

Based on the above mentioned parameters derived through field and laboratory investigations for
project site area, the average soil profile of the project site as per Building Code of Pakistan
(Seismic Provision 2007) is classified as SE (i.e., soft soil profile).

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 3
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

EXPLORATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Field Investigations

The following activities were carried out in the field for accomplishing the geotechnical
investigations in accordance with the scope of work.

- Execution of exploratory borings

- Conducting SPTs in the boreholes

- Excavation of test pits and performance of filed density tests

- Soil sampling

The following section briefly describes the field activities.

2.1.1 Execution of Exploratory Borings

The borings were advanced using auger/light percussion technique. The location of the
exploratory borehole was marked by the representative of the client. The boreholes were kept
stabilized below the ground water table by using a casing of diameter of 100 mm. Standard
penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out in the borehole at 3 ft interval up to 25 ft depth and
thereafter at 5 ft interval down to 80 ft depth. A careful record of all the materials encountered in
the boreholes was maintained in the form of field boring logs. Data of in-situ tests (SPTs)
conducted in the borings were also recorded on the borehole logs. The boring logs are presented
in Appendix-A.

2.1.2 Conducting SPTs

For evaluating the consistency and compactness of the sub-soils, the standard penetration tests
(SPTs) were performed in the borehole at 3-5 ft interval as mentioned above.

The SPTs were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586. A donut type hammer, weighing
64 kg was used for conducting the test. Disturbed samples were recovered using Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon sampler. Detailed description of the subsoils encountered and
the depth at which samples were procured are given in borehole logs presented in Figures 2 thru

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

8 Appendix-A. Legends and symbols used in the boring logs are given in Figure 1-A. Soil
descriptions on the boring logs are a compilation of field and laboratory testing data. The
stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types, and transitions may
be assumed gradual.

Estimates of relative density of granular soils and consistency of the cohesive soils given on the
boring logs are based on the SPT resistance as recommended by Terzaghi and are shown in
Table 1 under Appendix-A.

2.1.3 Exploratory Test Pits

Seven (7) open test pits were excavated down to 9 ft depth below the existing natural surface
level (NSL) using hand-digging tools near each borehole as shown in the layout plan (Figure-1).
These test pits were excavated to assess excavability of on-site materials and to have a visual
examination of the subsoil stratigraphy and estimation of in-situ density. The field density test
(FDT) was performed at every 3 ft depth interval and the soil samples were recovered from each
depth for the laboratory for compaction tests. Subsurface logs were prepared for the test pits. The
boring logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 9 thru 15 under Appendix-A following the
boring logs.

2.1.4 Soil Sampling

Undisturbed soil samples (UDS) were recovered from test pits using Shelby tubes and disturbed
soil samples were obtained from the boreholes through split spoon sampler while performing
SPTs. The SPT samples were placed in polythene bags. The polythene bags were clearly labeled
to indicate the project name, boreholes designation and depth of the sample.

All the soil samples were carefully transported to Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory of UET
Lahore for carrying out the laboratory testing.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Selected representative subsoil samples were tested in GSC geotechnical engineering laboratory
to determine the physical and engineering characteristics of the subsoils. The following tests
were conducted according to the relevant ASTM standard methods.

 Natural Moisture Content

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 5
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

 Bulk Density
 Grain Size Analysis
 Atterberg Limit’s Limits (LL and PL)
 Unconfined Compression Test
 Direct Shear Test
 Modified Proctor Compaction on Test Pit Samples

 3-Point Soaked CBR on Test Pit Samples

 Chemical analysis on water and soil samples

A summary of laboratory test results is presented in Table 2 and Table 3 under Appendix-A. The
detailed worksheets of the laboratory test results are presented under APPENDIX-B.

2.2.1 Discussion of Field and Laboratory Results

The field and laboratory findings are summarized below:

1. Based on the SPT-N values, the consistency of cohesive soil up to 7~8 ft depth exists in soft
to medium stiff condition, whereas the sandy silt/sand stratum from 8 ft to 30 ft depth exists
in loose condition followed by medium dense sand up to 48 ft and then followed by stiff clay
stratum.

2. The natural moisture content of sub-soils up to 9 ft depth ranges between 10 % and 23 %.

3. The in-situ dry density up to 9 ft depth ranges from 93 pcf to 111 pcf at the locations of the
FDTs.

4. The liquid limit values of the selected soil samples are between 38 % and 24 % and plasticity
index values between 4 and 18.

5. Using grain size analyses and atterberg limits, soils were classified according to the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM-2487 as indicated in Table 2. The cohesive
subsoils up to about 7~8 ft depth is classified as CL-ML/ML (silty clay/sandy silt), whereas
the non-cohesive stratum from 9 ft to 48 ft depth is classified as SM/SP-SM/SP (silty
sand/poorly graded sand with silt/poorly graded sand). The stratum from 48 ft to about 78 ft
depth is classified as CL (lean clay).

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

6. The unconfined compression test performed on undisturbed soil sample (UDS) recovered
from test pits is in the order of 0.28~1.0 tsf except one value which is 4.6 ton/ft2 where the
sample was very stiff.

7. The direct shear tests performed on sand samples from various depths show the value of
angle of internal friction () between 26o and 31o with cohesion almost nil.

8. Modified Proctor compaction tests (ASTM D-1557) on three test pit composite samples give
the value of maximum dry density (MDD) varying from 120 pcf to 121.5 pcf with optimum
moisture content (OMC) varying between 12% and 13%. The results of modified compaction
are summarized in Table 3.

9. Three point soaked CBR tests on three composite samples from test pits were conducted as
per ASTM D-1883. The CBR value at 95% of modified proctor density is between 2.6 % and
4.0 %, whereas at 100% modified proctor density, the CBR value varies between 5% and
6%. The results of 3-point soaked CBR tests are summarized in Table 3.

10. The maximum sulphate and chloride contents in the subsoil samples are 0.002% and 0.015%
where as in case of water samples the maximum sulphate content are 75PPM and Chloride
170 PPM, TDS 380PPM and pH as 7.7.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 7
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

3. EVALUATIONS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS

3.1 General

The geotechnical investigation carried out at the proposed project site comprised field and
laboratory work. The field and laboratory investigations were aimed at evaluating the
engineering characteristics of the foundation soils. The subsurface conditions and the
engineering characteristics of the soils existing at the proposed project site are discussed in the
following section.

3.2 Stratigraphy
The field investigations at the project site have revealed the following subsoil stratigraphy along
with range of SPT-N values and description of soil strata..
Classific-

Symbol
Legend

Ground
Depth
below

ation
EGL
(ft)

Description of Subsoil Strata Water

Table
x x x
x x x CL/ Brown, soft to medium stiff
x x x CL-ML lean Clay/silty Clay
7~8 x x x SPT-N= 4~8 GWT

x x x Light grey, loose, sandy Silt 7~13 ft below NSL

during investigation
x x x ML SPT-N=6~12
11~15 x x x GWT

x 11~17 ft below NSL

as measured on
26-11-2016

x Light grey to grey, loose to medium

SM/ fine sand with variable amout of silt
SP-SM SPT-N=7~20
x

43~48 x
x x x
x x x Brown, stiff to very stiff, lean Clay/
x x x silty Clay
x x x CL Note: in case of BH-2 & BH-3, there encounters
x x x a sand layer between 53~64 ft depth within
the clay layer
x x x SPT-N=12~22
74~78 x x x
x SP Grey, medium dense, poorly graded Sand
80 Note: in case of BH-2, this layer was not encountered

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 8
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

The actual thickness of each stratum along with SPT resistance (N-values) is shown in the boring
logs (Figures 2 thru 8) Appendix-A.
3.3 Groundwater Table
In order to monitor the ground water table in all the borings, piezometric pipes were inserted in
all the boreholes with their ends plugged and with perforated pipe of about 9~10 ft at the bottom.
The ground water table (GWT) was measured in all the boreholes through the pipes during the
period of the investigation. Later on the indication of the client that the water table in the
boreholes has dropped to some extent, our representative in the presence of the client again noted
the water table observation in all the boreholes on 26-11-2016. Both the ground water table
observations are summarized in the following table:
Sr. no. Borehole GWT depth below EGL during 15~23 GWT depth below EGL
# October 2016 (investigation period) on 26-11-2016
1 BH-1 12 ft ----on 15-10-2016 17 ft
2 BH-2 13 ft ----on 15-10-2016 17 ft
3 BH-3 13 ft ----on 18-10-2016 15 ft
4 BH-4 09 ft ----on 19-10-2016 14 ft
5 BH-5 07 ft ----on 20-10-2016 11 ft
6 BH-6 07 ft ----on 21-10-2016 12 ft
7 BH-7 13 ft ----on 23-10-2016 14 ft
During the excavation of the test pits, the ground water table was encountered at 7 ft depth below
EGL in two of the test pits (TP-5 & TP-6). However, during the observations on 16-11-2016, the
water in these pits was not found and did seep into the ground and the pits were found dry.
The fall of the ground water table in the order of 4~5 ft in the borings may be due to the reason
that during the drilling process, the water was added in the boreholes which raised the level of
the water table. The earlier observation was taken during the field work where the water table
could not become in equilibrium to original ground water table which did happen as a result of
sufficient time elapse in later observation. The disappearance of water in two of the test pits
indicates that the water table encountered in these two pits was a perched water table and not the
actual ground water table. From the above observations, it can be concluded that the ground
water table at the site is within 11~17 ft depth below EGL. This difference of level may be due to
difference in elevations of the investigation point which is up to about 3~4 ft.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 9
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

3.4 Geotechnical Design Parameters

The basic subsoil parameters of different subsoils used in the engineering analyses and design
are summarized below: The papameters have been selected from field and laboratory test data
and using the general engineering judgment.
Stratum # 1 Stratum # 2 Stratum # 3
Soil Properties
(0-9 ft) (9-48 ft) (48-80 ft)
USCS Classification Symbol CL/CL-ML SM/SP-SM CL

Bulk unit weight (lbs/ft3) 116 105 118

Cohesion (ton/ft2) 0.50 0 1.0

Angle of internal friction, deg 0 28 0

5.0 20.0 15.0

Elastic Modulus, Es (MPa)

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

4.1 Foundation Design Criteria

When designing foundations for any structure, there are two criteria, which must be considered
and satisfied separately:

 There must be an adequate factor of safety (FOS) against a shear failure or ground break,
generally called bearing capacity failure. The factor of safety against shear failure is
generally taken as 3.

 The settlement should remain within reasonable limits. In case of shallow spread
foundations, the permissible settlement, in general, is 25 mm and for mat, the permissible
settlement is 50 mm. The pile groups are expected to settle to a much lower value, depending
upon the configuration of the pile groups selected.

Furthermore, the foundation system selected must be compatible, economical, and feasible for
construction. Preferably, the foundation should be constructed using local resources and should
be environment friendly.

4.2 Safety Factors

A safety factor of 3 has been taken in to account against shear failure in shallow foundation
design and the permissible settlement limits are 25 mm and 50 mm for isolated/strip and mat,
respectively. The differential settlements are 12 mm and 25 mm for isolated/strip and mat,
respectively.

4.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

At the subject site, the subsoil within shallow depth exists in soft to medium condition (up to 9 ft
depth; therefore proper compaction control is required to be implemented before placing the
shallow foundations at the project site. Keeping in view the above situation, we recommend to
found the shallow foundations at 1m to 1.5m depth below the finished level of the buildings on a
properly prepared foundation subgrade as recommended in the following section.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 11
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

The calculation of allowable bearing pressures for various shallow foundations are based on
shear failure criterion against a factor of safety of 3 and for permissible total settlement of 25mm
and 50mm in case of strip/isolated footings and mat foundation, respectively. The limits of
differential settlement are 12 mm and 25 mm for the above mentioned foundations, respectively.
However, it is recommended to ensure the rigidity of the foundation system by providing plinth
and/or tie beams between the isolated footings so as to keep the angular distortion between the
adjacent loaded areas to within 1/300.

Based on the bearing capacity analyses, the bearing pressures based on shear failure criterion and
for permissible settlement of 25 mm were calculated and the lowest value of the bearing pressure
is referred to as allowable bearing capacity. The following are the results of allowable bearing
capacities for strip and isolated square footings for the project area.

Results of Bearing Capacity Analysis for Strip Footing

Footing width B=1.0m B=1.5m B=2.0m B=2.5m

Bearing
capacity w.r.t 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Depth
of shear
footing Bearing
1.0 m capacity w.r.t
1.20 0.92 0.78 0.75
25 mm
settlement
Bearing
capacity w.r.t 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Depth shear
of
footing Bearing
1.5 m capacity w.r.t 1.4 1.01 0.95 0.85
25 mm
settlement

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

Results of Bearing Capacity Analysis for Isolated Square Footing

Footing width B=1.0m B=1.5m B=2.0m B=2.5m

Bearing
capacity w.r.t 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Depth
of shear
footing Bearing
1.0 m capacity w.r.t
1.20 0.92 0.78 0.75
25 mm
settlement
Bearing
capacity w.r.t 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Depth shear
of
footing Bearing
1.5 m capacity w.r.t 1.4 1.01 0.95 0.85
25 mm
settlement

Recommended Bearing Capacity for Strip/Square Footings:

Based on the above analysis, we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 0.75 tsf
both for strip and square footing if the footing is placed at 1 m depth below the existing
ground level and an allowable bearing capacity of 0.85 tsf when the footings are
founded at 1.5m depth.

Allowable Bearing Capacity for Raft Foundation

The evaluation of allowable bearing pressure for mat foundation has been made for a range of 5
m to 15 m width of raft to be founded at 1.5 m depth for permissible settlement of 50 mm using
Bowles equation based on SPT-N value as given below.

qa = (N/4)x(CD/CW)xs

N = SPT-N value measured in the field

CD = 1+0.33Df/B (less than or equal to 1.33)
CW = 2-{DW /(Df+B)}, Depth to GWT (between 1 & 2)
s = permissible settlement in inches, (2 inch for raft)

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 13
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

The results of bearing capacity analysis are summarized in the following table and also given as
bearing capacity curve with varying width of raft foundation.

B (m) B (ft) B+Df Cw CD=1+0.33D/B qa (ksf) qa (tsf)

5.0 16 19.7 1.5420 1.0654 3.10916 0.93
6.0 20 22.9 1.6075 1.0545 2.95193 0.88
7.0 23 26.2 1.6566 1.0467 2.84326 0.85
8.0 26 29.5 1.6948 1.0409 2.76369 0.82
9.0 30 32.8 1.7254 1.0363 2.70291 0.80
10.0 33 36.1 1.7503 1.0327 2.65498 0.79
11.0 36 39.3 1.7712 1.0297 2.61622 0.78
12.0 39 42.6 1.7888 1.0272 2.58423 0.77
13.0 43 45.9 1.8039 1.0252 2.55737 0.76
14.0 46 49.2 1.8170 1.0234 2.53451 0.75
15.0 49 52.5 1.8284 1.0218 2.51481 0.75

Allow able Bearing for Raft w ith w idth

0.95

0.90
Allowable bearing Capacity, TSF

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
Raft w idth (m )

Preparation of Subgrade for Foundation Construction

The above analyses of bearing capacity are based on the assumption that the foundation subgrade
will be properly compacted and the foundation will be constructed as mentioned below:

 Excavate the pit/ trench at the footprint of the foundation up to the foundation depth.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

 Compact the bottom of the excavated area to 95% of Modified Proctor (ASTM-1557)
density using appropriate compaction equipment. The field density should be checked
either by core cutter or sand cone method to check the above compaction requirement.

 Provide a pad of lean concrete (1:4:8) under the foundation at least 6 inches thick.

 Construct the reverent foundation on the PCC layer.

4.4 Evaluation of Subgrade for Road Construction

Three samples of the on-site soils, collected from three test pits within 1~3 ft depth were tested
for 3-point soaked CBR. A summary of the results is presented in Table 3. Appendix-B includes
plots of CBR values versus dry density. The average soaked CBR value against maximum dry
density (120~121.5 pcf) and optimum moisture content (12~13%) obtained from modified
AASHTO compaction test is between 5 and 6 %. It is therefore recommended to adopt a CBR of
5% for designing the road pavement, in case the local on-site soils are to be used in the subgrade
construction. In case, soils from some other source are to be used in the subgrade construction,
CBR for pavement design should be determined by testing those materials.
4.5 Subgrade and Road Embankment Compaction

The following minimum compaction levels are recommended to be adopted in the earthwork for
roadways:
Subgrade (30 cm): 98% Modified Proctor
Another 30 cm fill below subgrade: 95% Modified Proctor
Underlying fill: 92% Modified Proctor

4.6 Type of Cement and Protection of Substructure Concrete

The maximum sulphate and chloride contents in the subsoil samples are 0.002% and 0.015% and
in case of water samples the maximum sulphate content are 75 PPM and Chloride 170 PPM
which are very low values; therefore, the contents of sulphate and chloride are not injurious to
the foundation structure. As per Concrete Manual of USBR, the British Standards and ACI
Committee Report, no special precautions are required about the use of cement for the
foundation construction. However, the cement contents not less than 310 kg/m3 with maximum
water/cement ratio of 0.55 should be adopted and a minimum rebar cover of the order of about
75 mm (3") should be ensured.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 15
GARDEN CITY HOUSING
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LAB, UET LAHORE

5. CONSTRUCTIONAL ASPECTS AND LIMITATIONS

We recommend the following measures for the long-term stability of structures.

 The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the results
gathered from 7-borings at locations shown approximately in Figure 1 (Appendix-A).
This report reflects an approximate variation of subsoil conditions between these
locations. The nature and extent of variation may not become evident until the course of
construction. It is recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork
and foundations be observed by experienced personnel.

 The findings of this report are for general purpose and confirmatory borings in order to
verify the finding of this report are recommended at the specific locations of various
structures in the project area.

 Appropriate surface drainage should be ensured in the project area so as to reduce the
subsequent ingress of surface water into the foundation subsoil. To assure positive
protection, the plinth protection slab should extend beyond all round the structure at least
3 ft from the face of the periphery walls.

 This report has been prepared for the site of the Garden City Housing ------------.
Paragraphs, statements, test results, boring logs, diagrams etc., should not be taken out of
context and should not be utilized for any other structure at any site.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 16
GARDEN CITY HOUSING