±660kV 4000 MW HVDC Bipole Matiari Lahore Transmission Proj

Sub-project 3 M-L HVDC Transmission Line

Detailed Design-Geotechnical Investigation Report-Section-7-2 ，8 base on
Review & Comments Matrix

No. OE's Comments

General Comments:
1 For better understanding and quick
reference, it is recommended to include
following sections in the Geotechnical
Investigation Report.
a Executive Summary
b Conclusions
c Photographs of geotechnical
investigations

2 As the geotechnical investigations were

conducted prior to mobilization of OE as
well as due to absence of signed
laboratory test results, the
authenticity of geotechnical
investigation report shall remain the
responsibly of CET.

3 Provision of granular fill / select fill

or other soils improvement techniques
for weak ground conditions and for soils
having higher Plasticity Index (PI) for
deep GWT zone should be included in the
Geotechnical Investigation report.

4 Layout plan for transmission line towers

along with borehole locations shall be
included in the geotechnical
investigation report.
5 The criteria for which drilling was
planned and executed along the
Transmission line route shall be
included in the geotechnical report.
Further, the criteria for location of
borehole selected for specific reach

6 In line with Geotechnical Investigation

Report, CET has proposed typical bearing
capacities geotechnical design for the
shallow foundation. Although OE has no
objection to typical design, however,
the typical bearing capacities and soil
classification presented in the
‘Contraction Design report for Pad &
Chimney Foundation Design reports’ are
not consistent with the geotechnical
investigation report.
 7 It is not clear how CET will ensure the
sub-strata soil consistency (loose, soft
etc.,) at those tower locations where
boreholes were not drilled. This
shortcoming shall be addressed in the
revised report.

8 The proposed tower foundations are

shallow foundations with bearing
capacity evaluated for a depth of
foundation of about 3.5m. In view of
shallow ground water table (0.4m to
4.7m), extensive dewatering will be
required. CET is advised to revisit
their decision of shallow foundations.

9 On the basis of chemical analysis tests

on soil and water, recommendations for
type of cement should be included in the
report for use of structural engineer in
design.

10 Recommendations for full scale and

working load tests on pile should be
included in in the geotechnical
investigation report.

11 Laboratory tests results reports such

as, Sieve analysis, Hydrometer analysis,
Atterberg limits, direct shear and
chemical tests etc., should be included
in the geotechnical investigation
report.

12 It is surprising for OE to observe that

all the boreholes, either it is of 10m
depth or 30m depth, were completed in a
single day time period.
Specific Comments for Geotechnical Investigations:
13 Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Number of
boreholes using percussion drilling
mentioned shows 57 boreholes while
Annex-3 has 56 boreholes. This
discrepancy should be corrected.

14 Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, Number of 37
undisturbed samples collected for
evaluation of geotechnical design
parameters for 313 km transmission line
and 50km electrode line seems less.
15 Table 1.7-1 & 1.7-2 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Number of SPTs,
undisturbed & disturbed as well as water
samples, drilling depth (total footage)
and number of laboratory tests (indoor
tests) are not consistent with Annex-2-
Summary of Lab Test Results and Annex-3-
Borehole Logs

16 Table 1.7-2 of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, the table shows
that 35 number of consolidation test
were performed.
However, their results are either not
included in the report or in Annex-2 or
these are not performed. Both these
tests are very important parameters in
evaluation of bearing capacity and
settlement analysis for fine grained
soils (silty clay etc.). It is also
worthy to mention that, only direct
shear were performed on undisturbed
samples (UDS) irrespective of type of
sample. As a standard geotechnical
practice, direct shear tests are
applicable on granular soils (sands)
while unconfined compression tests are
valid for cohesive soils.

17 Tables 1.8-1 & 9.2 of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, it is recommended
to include references to these tables.
18 Section 1.6 of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, borehole depth
range of 10-12m and 12-15m is not
consistent with depth shown in Table
1.7-1-Site Survey Workload depth, which
should be corrected.

19 Table 2.3.2-3 of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, all the chemical
tests of soil samples were conducted at
1m depth while the proposed depth of
foundation is 3.5m. M/s CET should
evaluate chemical aggressivity of soils
at other depth ranges.

20 Section 3.1, CET mentioned their

constraint that they could not take
undisturbed samples in soft silty clay.
This is accepted but then CET should
have conducted SPT as closer interval in
such type of strata for use in bearing
capacity and settlement analysis which
was not done.

21 Table 3.1 of Geotechnical Investigation

Report, the parameters for sand/silty
fine sand is missing in the report.
22 Table 3.2 Results of SPT & Table 3.3.1-1
SPT Statistics of Geotechnical
Investigation Report, SPT blow count
cannot be in decimals. It should be
corrected.

23 Table 3.3.1-1 SPT Statistics of

Geotechnical Investigation Report, this
table does not seems to be consistent
with ‘Table of Engineering Geological
Condition for Tower’ of Annex-1
delineating summary of design
parameters. This should be corrected.

24 It is required that recommended

allowable bearing capacity, similar to
the one presented in Table 3.3.3-1 of
Geotechnical Investigation Report as
‘fa’, should be included in Annex-1
along with allowable bearing capacities
from Terzaghi Theory and Meyerhoff. This
is mandatory for selection of foundation
types for each tower location..

25 Table 3.3.4 of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, the capacity of
pile foundation has been presented
without pile lengths. As a result, OE is
unable to review allowable pile
capacity. The pile length should be
included in the said table.

26 Annex-1, Tower type should also be

included in Annex-1. Further, back-span
distances between each tower and
borehole should also be included in
Annex-1.

27 Annex-2, Soil classification according

to Unified Soil Classification system is
neither provided in the geotechnical
investigation report nor in the Annex-2,
which should be included.

28 Annex-3, the borehole logs which is most

important component of a geotechnical
investigation report, is deficient of
information and nowhere meet quality of
international standards. A few examples
are;
a Depth of Standard penetration tests
(SPTs) performed is not mentioned in the
borehole logs. Further, blow count
details observed at site to calculate
SPT
value is missing. b Details of
Undisturbed &Disturbed (SPT)soil samples
and water samples are not mentioned in
the borehole logs. Drilling method, not
mentioned in the borehole logs.
 29 Annex-3, although depth of SPTs is not
mentioned in boreholes logs, however,
after quick look it was observed that
SPTs are generally conducted at 1.5 to
2m interval or even higher. Further, SPT
is missing is upper horizon in some of
the boreholes (e.g. T49, T71, T114,
T126) which are the load bearing
stratum. This is not in accordance with
general practice, and should have been
done at close interval especially in
upper sub-soil
horizon.

30 Annex-3, the dates mentioned in two

borehole logs i.e., T196 & T201 is
August 15, 2015. This is inconsistent
with dates mentioned in Section 1.8 of
the Geotechnical Investigation Report-
Volume 1.

31 Annex-3 and Geotechnical Investigation

Report, it is not clear which boreholes
were drilled for main transmission line
and electrode line.
32 Annex-3, Borehole logs for holes G2, G5,
T24, T26, T28 for which laboratory
testing is carried out as shown in
Annex-2 are missing.
Specific Comments for Earth Conductivity & Soil Resistivity:
33 Please provide the copy of Assignment
Book
34 The Earth Resistivity Values between
Tower No. G0198 to G0213 are very high
and unbelievable. Please locate the
areas and also recheck these high
values.
kV 4000 MW HVDC Bipole Matiari Lahore Transmission Project
Sub-project 3 M-L HVDC Transmission Line
technical Investigation Report-Section-7-2 ，8 base on Section-1 comments
Review & Comments Matrix

CET Reply NTDC-OE Response

a. See Chapter 1 Foreword 1.3 in main Geotechnical

investigation report.
b. See Chapter 6 Conclusion and suggestion in main
Geotechnical investigation report.
c. Photographs will be added in next revised
report

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

In this part of Section7-2,8,no granular fill /

select fill or other soils improvement techniques
will be carried out.

We will provide layout plan with borehole

locations.

Drilling was planned and executed by Code for

investigation of geotechnical engineering in China
for combined with relevant ASTM clauses. Location
of boreholes were exactly at the central of the
Tower.

The typical bearing capacities and soil

classification presented in the ‘Contraction
Design report for Pad & Chimney Foundation Design
reports’ are comprehensively determined by our
structure discipline based on the ultimate bearing
capacities of each type of soil provided in the
geotechnical investigation report and their typical
soil classification.This discrepancy should be
addressed in the revised structural design report.
 Before we start investigate, we have made sure the
tower without drilling hole and its reference tower
were at the same geological unit, the layer
fluctuation was little.

The bearing capacity evaluated for a depth of 3.5m

and width of 4.0m of foundation ,structure
discipline confirm the typical soil classification
considered with ground water table, and choose the
reasonable bearing capacity and dewatering method.

Cement type will be decided by structural

engineer.This content should be properly addressed
in the structural design report.

We recommend the type of foundation for each tower

in geotechnical investigation report, but the final
decision shall be made by structural engineers, and
they will give the recommendations for full scale
and working load tests on pile if it was needed.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

vestigations:
No such problem in Section-7-2,8

No such problem in Section-7-2,8.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

No such problem in Section-7-2,8 Agreed.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8 Agreed.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

all the chemical tests of soil samples were

conducted at 1.0-2.2m depth in Section-7-2,8,
According to our engineering experience , normally
the test result of samples could representative
the aggressivity of soils in site.

No soft silty clay in Section-7-2,8

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

We will correct in next revised report.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

No such problem in Section-7-2,8;

By calculation and analyzing,the method of
Meyerhoff is unsuitable for the layer of soil,and
Terzaghi theory is more suitable ,so Terzaghi
formula is adopted in this Geotechnical
Investigation Report.

The length of the pile shall be decided by

structural engineer.The indexes recommended in this
table can be taken for reference during the design
of pile testing.The bearing capacity of pile
foundation should be determined via pile testing.

We will add this content in next revised report.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

Agree,we will complete in next revised report

 we can take the core of soil during drilling
borehole,the 1.5 to 2m interval of SPT could be
used to divide layer of soil, we will perform more
SPT next project according to your suggestiong.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

All the drilling holes are for the main route.

Electrode line part is not contained in this
report.

No such problem in Section-7-2,8

ity & Soil Resistivity:

We will provide the copy of assignment book in next
revised report.
No such problem in Section-7-2,8