Geotechnical challenges and

Solution to these challenges

Prepared By:

G. S. Soil and Materials Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

GS Sinamangal, Gairigaun, Kathmandu, Nepal
P.O. Box 20716, Email: gsgroup.jain@gmail.com
Web: www.gsconsortium.com
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
 Case Study of different aspect of Challenges
and its Solutions
CASE -1: HITON HOTEL SITE
RE-ESTABLISHMENT TECHNIQUE OF COLLAPSE NAXAL ROAD DUE TO DOUBLE BASEMENT
EXCAVATION

CASE – 2: UNICEF PROJECT SITE

COST EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE FOR INCREASING ALLOWABLE BEARING
CAPACITIES OF SOIL

Different
CASE-3: BHATBHATENI SUPERMARKET- BHAIRAHAWA SITE aspects
COST EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE FOR RESISTING UPLIFT OF MAT FOUNDATION Geotechnical
UNDER HIGH WATER PRESSURE
challenges

CASE – 4: MONOJ KEDIA RESIDENCE-SANEPA HEIGHT

COST EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE BY USAGE OF SOIL REINFORCEMENT IN
COMBINATION WITH RCC PORTAL FRAME FOR ELEVATED ACCESS ROAD

CASE – 5: ENHANCED BEARING CAPACITIES USING

GEOGRID ON MAT AND ISOLATED FOOTINGS
 CASE STUDY-1
IMMEDIATE RESTORATION OF SLOPE FAILURE OF
PROTECTION PILES – HILTON HOTEL
 Case Study-1: Hilton Hotel Re-establishment of
Failure Slope due to double basement Excavation

Picture taken from Excavation side after the Picture taken from Road side after the
Collapse of Naxal Road due to Collapse of Collapse of Naxal Road due to Collapse of
Protection Piles for double Basement Protection Piles for double Basement
Case Study-1: Layout of Micropile to Anchor
the Failure Slope with New backfill layer.
Case Study-1: Sandwich layer of PCC layer and backfill soil layer
and anchor Concrete layer with Micropile vertical rebar to hold in
place against sliding
 Case Study-1: Sandwich layer of PCC layer and backfill soil layer
and anchor Concrete layer with Micropile vertical rebar to hold in
place against sliding

Picture taken after installing Micropile Picture taken after installing Metal Shoring after installing micropile at the Collapse
as per radial arrangement on the portion of Naxal Road
Collapse portion of Naxal Road
 CONSIDERATION BY DESIGNER IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE
FAILURE OF PROTECTION PILES
 The Protection Pile should not be designed as Friction Piles to resist the Soil surcharge which
should not be the case in Protection Pile design Concept.
 Protection Pile shall be designed as Cantilever Column action to resist soil surcharge.
 Soil-Anchor does not work in hydrostatic condition. Hence, the Load participation by Soil-
Anchor should not be considered in the Protection Pile design.
 Traffic load surcharge is not considered in the Protection Pile design.
 Surcharge load due to adjacent buildings has not been considered in the Protection Piles.
 The Spacing of should be considered in close spacing, especially when there is high water
table and Cohesionless soil condition.
 Designer should consider the sufficient Tie beams i.e. like a Pile cap on the top to tie all the
Protection piles.
 Designer should provide sufficient reinforcement at the dredge line of the Cantilever action of
Protection piles.
 The Excavation of the Soil for basement should be done in different phases. It should not be
excavated throughout the length of building at one time.
 CONSIDERATION BY DESIGNER IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE
FAILURE OF PROTECTION PILES
 Proper length of Tremie Pipe up to the base is not used
during pouring of Concrete.
 Design size of the Auger is not used by the Auguring team
at site due to lack of Supervision.
 CASE STUDY- 2 : UNICEF PROJECT
REMEDY OF LIQUEFACTION AND
ENCHANCED BEARING CAPACITY USING
MICROPILE & GEOGRID
 Case Study –2: UNICEF PROJECT SITE Enhanced allowable bearing
capacities of soil using Geogrid layers in Mat Foundation

Enhanced Allowable bearing Capacity of Mat Foundation using 1 Geogrid layer with
0.5m extension around the mat @ 0.5m spacing beneath Foundation. The increase in
bearing pressure is 61.56 KN/m2 [i.e. 20.40% increase from 49 KN/m2]
UNICEF PROJECT: Layout of Micropile array to sustain surplus load in
DL+LL condition
Case Study – 2: UNICEF PROJECT site Photos of laying Geogrid layers
in Mat Foundation
CASE STUDY- 3 : BHAT BHATENI SUPERMARKET
UPLIFT RESIST BY RCC PILE + DRIVEN
PILE + GEOGRID LAYERS
RE
CO
MM
EN
DAT
ION
AN
D
CO
NC
LUSI
ON:

Case Study-3: BBSM-Bhairahawa Uplifting force generated by

1.
Fro
m
the
ab
ove
sum
mar
y,
the
cal
cul

buoyancy will be anchored by RCC bored piles, driven piles and

atio
n
sho
ws
that
the
AB
C
val
ue
incr
eas

membranes to hold the mat on its place

es
with
incr
eas
e in
the
nu
mb
er
of
lay
ers
of
the
Ge
ogri
d
lay
ers
2.
Fro
m
the
ab
ove
sum
mar
y,
the
cal
cul
atio
n
sho
ws
that
the
AB
C
val
ue
incr
eas
es
with
incr
eas
e in
the
spa
cin
g
bet
we
en

the
lay
ers
of
the
Ge
ogri
d
lay
ers
3.
Fro
m
the
ab
ove
sum
mar
y,
the
cal
cul
atio
n
sho
ws
that
the
AB
C
val
ue
incr
eas
es
with
incr
eas
e in
the
ext
ensi
on
len
gth
of
the
Ge
ogri
d
lay
ers
4.
The
Ge
ogri
d
mat
eria
l
sho
uld
be
ap
pro
ved
by
Ge
ote
ch
Desi
gn
Eng
ine
er.
5.
The
layi
ng
pro
ces
s
an
d
the
met
hod
of
layi
ng
of
Ge
ogri
d
sho
uld
be
ap
pro
ved
an
d
sup
ervi
sed
by

Ge
ote
ch
Desi
gn
Eng
ine
er
6.
The
ba
ckfil
l
mat
eria
l on
Ext
ensi
on
par
t
sho
uld
be
san
 BBSM-Bhairahawa: Typical Cross Section to resist Uplifting force
generated by buoyancy to hold the mat on its place by RCC
bored piles, driven piles and membranes
Total Uplifting force rest by RCC Piles = 313KNx 236Nos= 33,463KN

Total Uplift force = 53mx25mx(6.1-1)m*9.81= 74,090KN

Total Uplift force by driven pile

= 812Nosx50Kn= 40,627KN
Cost Comparison of uplift resist by RCC Piles & driven piles+ Geogrid
layers

RCC pile Ø600mm depth 12 m without using ISMB100 driven pile & Geogrid – Required Pile - 236 Nos
RCC pile Ø600mm depth 12 m with using ISMB100 driven pile & Geogrid- Required -106 Nos

Cost Analysis
RCC pile without Geogrid - NRs 2,72,03,184.19
RCC pile with using I section and Geogrid – NRs 1,81,28,436.19
Cost Reduction is 33.35%
 CASE STUDY- 4 : ACCESS ROAD OF MANOJ KEDIA RESIDENCE
DESIGN AND COST COMPARISON
RCC RETAINING WALL
VS
STONE WALL REINFORCED /W GEOGRID, MICROPILE & RCC PORTAL
FRAME
CASE – 4: MONOJ KEDIA RESIDENCE-SANEPA HEIGHT
Original design of Access Road profile Using RCC Retaining wall
CASE – 4: MONOJ KEDIA RESIDENCE-SANEPA HEIGHT
Access Road profile Using soil reinforcement in combination with
Micropile & RCC portal frame and Stone masonry wall
Typical Cross Section at two Zones of Access Road profile Using soil
reinforcement in combination with Micropile & RCC portal frame
and Stone masonry wall
Design of Stone Masonry wall using Geogrid reinforcement Tensile Force in 3 layers
 Cost Comparison between RCC retaining wall to build elevated
Access Road and using Stone wall reinforced /w Geogrid,
micropile & RCC Portal Frame

 Cost of building the Entire length of Access road with RCC retaining wall = NRs 3,48,37,646.19
 Cost of shoring works to construct the RCC retaining wall foundation = NRs 1,59,87,913.14
 Total Cost of building Access road with RCC wall = NRs 5,08,25,559.33
 Total Cost of building Access road using Stone wall reinforced /w Geogrid, micropile & Portal
Frame, Foundation beam, cross beams, Tie beams and RCC pavement = NRs 3,43,34,379.72
 Net Cost difference = NRs 1,64,91,179.61 and decrease in Cost % is = 32.44%
 ENHANCED BEARING CAPACITIES USING
GEOGRID ON MAT AND ISOLATED FOOTINGS
CALCULATION OF ENHANCED BEARING PRESSURE
USING GEOGRID- Mr. Sashi Kiran Maskey
Usage of Geogrid-Different Aspect of Design
Photos of laying Geogrid layers in Mat Foundation at Kalopul Site
RABIN MAHARJAN’S BUILDING: photos of laying Geogrid layers in Mat
Foundation
Case Study – 5: Downtown site Enhanced allowable bearing
capacities of soil using Geogrid layers in Isolated Footings
Case Study – 5: UN-House site Enhanced allowable bearing
capacities of soil using Geogrid layers in Isolated Footings
 ENHANCEMENT OF ALLOWABLE
BEARING CAPACITIES OF SOIL AFTER
USING MULTIPLE GEOGRID LAYERS
UNDERNEATH THE FOUNDATION

CONCLUSION:
 From the above summary, the calculation shows that the
ABC value increases with increase in the number of layers of
the Geogrid layers.
 From the above summary, the calculation shows that the
ABC value increases with increase in the spacing between
the layers of the Geogrid layers.
 From the above summary, the calculation shows that the
ABC value increases with increase in the extension length of
the Geogrid layers.
 The above result are based on the backfill material on
Extension part should be sand mixed gravel materials.
THANK YOU