Case Study of Site Investigation for a Proposed Construction of Double-Storey Houses in Sibaya Portion

Abstract

The heterogeneous nature of soils causes them to behave differently under different environmental conditions. If only the soil was a completely homogenous and isotropic material, structures built on them would not suffer the consequences of differential settlement. However, a homogenous and isotropic soil is merely imaginative.

Introduction

According to the literature, site investigation begins with desk studies and preliminary reconnaissance to review maps and existing data. This helps estimate ground conditions in a cost-effective way. Key concepts include soil bearing capacity, which is the maximum load soil can support without failure, and the balance between structural demand and soil capacity. If surface soils are weak, deep foundations like piles are used to transfer loads to stronger layers.

The methodology described involves collecting both disturbed and undisturbed soil samples from inspection pits, followed by field tests such as the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) and soil profiling. Laboratory tests include particle size analysis, hydrometer testing, Atterberg limits, compaction tests, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests, all used to classify soil and assess its strength, moisture behavior, and load-bearing capacity.

Conclusion

Geotechnical site investigations are a necessity when it comes to civil engineering projects. Of course, the magnitude of the investigation is governed by the size of the proposed project. For the double-storey houses proposed to be built in Sibaya portion 24, the aims and objectives of the investigation were straightforward. However, this is not to rule out the fact that there were some complexities involved along the way. Is the site, Sibaya portion 24, suitable or not suitable for the proposed construction? Yes, the site is suitable for the proposed construction of double-storey houses since there are no disastrous geological flaws that exist. However, the recommendations provided in this section should be strictly adhered to.

References

[1] Abebe, A. and Smith, I.G., 2005. Pile Foundation Design: A Student Guide. A.A Balkema Rotterdam, 102. [2] Agrawal, M., Rajput, R. S., Pandey, M., Gupta, R., Kushwah, A. S., & Arya, P. D. (2026). An improved NSGA-III-based optimization framework for structural–thermal trade-offs in high-rise buildings with earth–air heat exchanger integration and multi-criteria decision analysis. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-18. [3] Bowles, J.E., 1997. Foundation analysis and design, International edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1230. [4] Curtin, W.G., Shaw, G., Parkinson, G., Golding, J. and Seward, N., 2006. Structural foundation designers\' manual. John Wiley & Sons, 275-385. [5] Gupta, R., & Trivedi, M. K. (2022). AEHO: Apriori-based optimized model for building construction to time-cost tradeoff modeling. IEEE Access, 10, 103852-103871. [6] Gupta, R., & Trivedi, M. K. (2023). Integrating the multi-objective elephant herding optimization based time–cost trade-off model with earned value management. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(4), 1027-1039. [7] Gupta, R., Rajpoot, A., Shyam, R., Dash, B., Ate?, B., & Sethi, K. C. (2025). Modified adaptive weight Rao-2 algorithm for construction time-cost trade-off optimization problems. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-11. [8] Hicks, N., 2009. A combined sedimentological-mineralogical study of the sediment-hosted gold and uranium mineralization at Denny Dalton, Pongola Supergroup, South Africa. Thesis, (M.sc). University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Ayush Kumar Sharma, Vishal Singh , Herdesh Solanki , Aman Kushwah. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.