Bengaluru: The geotechnical investigation report prepared for SNN Raj Etternia has become central to the conflicting claims made by developer SNN Raj Corp and Nagadi Consultants over what caused an 18-storey tower in the apartment complex to tilt.The affected tower is one of 15 in the 972-unit township near Kudlu. SNN has maintained that the remaining 14 towers are structurally safe.Nagadi’s Sept 2022 geotechnical report states that according to information provided by the client, a portion of the project site was a former quarry that had been filled with soil, debris, and other material. The report adds that the investigation was carried out keeping these site conditions in mind.
CJP Jantar Mantar Protest Updates
During investigation, the consultant found varying subsurface conditions across the site. While rock was encountered at shallow depths in most boreholes, one location (BH4) had nearly 12 metres of filled-up strata before competent rock was reached. Based on these findings, Nagadi recommended pile foundations for BH4 and shallow isolated or combined footings for the remaining four borehole locations.In a clarification, Sangamesh, senior engineer at Nagadi Consultants, said the firm had recommended pile foundations wherever deep filled-up strata was encountered. He said the report had also flagged the presence of the filled-up strata and recommended additional investigations to determine its extent. “Had the recommendation for pile foundations been adopted in such areas, the distress could have been avoided,” he said, maintaining that the structural distress occurred because the recommendation was not implemented.SNN, however, disputes Nagadi’s account and says the geotechnical report itself contained the error. According to SNN director Anuj Sanjay Jain, the borehole data for E1 and E3 towers were inadvertently interchanged, resulting in incorrect foundation recommendations.He said E3 was recommended for a shallow foundation even though it ideally required pile foundations. Jain said the discrepancy came to light only after construction had begun, when additional boreholes drilled by the developer revealed subsurface conditions that differed from those reflected in the report.The competing claims have placed the geotechnical report at the centre of the controversy. While Nagadi maintains that its recommendations were not implemented, SNN argues that the report itself contained incorrect borehole data, leading to the wrong foundation recommendations.
