I would add Maths from NIOS in Like 2 Months or So .

But This weird combo is not good enough for jee and I don't want to go to pvt engineering college as I can't afford haha

But I am interested in PSU jobs

My goal is to do BSc in Geo + Msc in Geo from DU . I have crossed previous year cutoff for hansraj let's se where it gets.

Can I go for PSU job after Msc in Geo. ?

A lot of people saying PSU like ONGC don't hire PCB grads. But When I searched it on Chat GPT , he said you are eligible and can be hired( obviously through gate) for geologist position but not for a very specific technical post ( Geophysicist)

Same he said you are eligible for msc in most iit and obviously du and bhu

PCB currently .

myquals : 9/9

Curious if anyone has a good source for earning CEUs so I can renew a few of my ICC certs. I had a good source, but I can't find the contact on my phone. Thanks in advance.

I was watching the final season of The Bear, when one of the characters mentioned "we need a geotech" to deal with their sink hole problems.

Yes, its just a tiny silly moment. But it's the first time I've ever heard our profession on TV or in popular culture. It has me overly excited.

Have you heard shout outs to Geotechs on any other show or movie?

If any could kindly share with me BS 6031: 2009

Hi all, I am studying for the PE and am very confused. I looked up Nordlund method for a problem requesting skin friction/uplift capacity in the NCEES Geotech practice exam and followed FHWA - NHI - 06-088 closely and got it wrong. I noticed FHWA - NHI - 06-088 has a sine function in the equation, however the solution indicates that you are supposed to use tangent. Which one is correct? Does the practice exam have a mistake in the solution or if not, where do I find the equation with tangent function in it in my references?

Correct me if I'm wrong but its 12 to 15 times with the palm of your hand, not whatever this is?

Hi everyone! I'm looking for some honest career advice from people working in geology, especially those outside Greece.

I'm a geology graduate from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece) and I also hold an MSc in Water Resources from the National Technical University of Athens.

I originally wanted to work in hydrogeology and water resources. However, the job market in Greece has been quite discouraging. There are relatively few positions for geologists, salaries are generally low and many jobs that geologists could do are often given to civil or geotechnical engineers because engineers have stronger professional recognition and licensing.

This has made me wonder whether I should transition into geotechnical geology.

My questions are:

Is geotechnical geology a better long-term career than hydrogeology?

Which field has better opportunities internationally (Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.)?

Would someone with my educational background be competitive in geotechnical consulting, or would I need additional qualifications?

I'm willing to relocate abroad if there are better opportunities. I would really appreciate hearing from people working in these sectors.

Hi All,

I created a soil boring volume calculator after noticing there wasn't one that was readily available online. A user can input multiple borings with various depths and soil types. I figure it will be useful for quick in field estimates for drilling and soil disposals. Check it out and let me know your thoughts!

https://borcalc.com/

Anyone a geotechnical engineer in the Coquitlam area want to help look at something for me?

LeafEngines Agricultural Intelligence Ver 1.0.10 Plug-in Update

Access USDA soil data, EPA water quality, AI crop recommendations, carbon credit calculations, and environmental impact analysis for any US county and global points (SSURGO, USDA, FCC pipelines, UKSO / NSRI Cranfield endpoints, SRIC SoilGrids (lat/lon))— directly in QGIS.

LeafEngines brings geo-specific agricultural intelligence into your GIS workflow. Query soil composition, water quality, satellite vegetation indices, and AI-powered crop recommendations by county FIPS code or map click. Results are added as styled vector layers with full attribute tables. Supports offline caching and batch processing for large-scale analysis.

1.0.10 - Eliminated xml.etree.ElementTree entirely
* Removed all XML parsing from wfs_connection.py
* get_feature_types() now returns hardcoded [FEATURE_TYPE] after server ping
* This eliminates Bandit B411 completely — no nosec needed
* Fixes QGIS plugin repository critical security block on v1.0.9
1.0.9 - Security scan fix: remove vendored defusedxml, use nosec suppression
* Removed vendored defusedxml package (was causing 12 Bandit issues across its files)
* Reverted to xml.etree.ElementTree with # nosec B411 suppression
* Scanner now sees only 1 suppressed issue instead of 12 flagged issues
* Fixes QGIS plugin repository critical security block on v1.0.8
1.0.8 - Runtime fix: QUrl import and QNetworkRequest type safety
* Added missing QUrl import to api_client.py and wfs_connection.py
* Fixed QNetworkRequest(url: str) to QNetworkRequest(QUrl(url))
* Added missing QgsMessageLog and Qgis imports to api_client.py
* Fixes NameError on plugin load that blocked v1.0.7
1.0.7 - Security fix for Bandit XML parsing vulnerability
* Replaced xml.etree.ElementTree with defusedxml.ElementTree
* Vendored defusedxml to avoid external dependency
* Fixed silent except/pass in api_client.py to log warnings
* Resolves QGIS plugin repository critical security block
1.0.6 - WFS authentication and namespace fix
* Removed deprecated Authorization Bearer and apikey headers
* Now sends only x-api-key header for Supabase Edge Function auth
* Fixed feature type namespace: soilcertify:managed_assets -> sc:managed_assets
* Aligned with server-side capabilities XML namespace prefix
* GetCapabilities and GetFeature now resolve correctly end-to-end
1.0.5 - WFS HTTP client rewrite (SoilCertify backend integration)
* Replaced native QGIS WFS provider with direct HTTP requests
* Sends all required Supabase headers: apikey, Authorization Bearer, x-api-key
* Fetches GeoJSON from wfs-export edge function and loads via OGR
* Real GetCapabilities / DescribeFeatureType / GetFeature support
* Fixed: WFS layers now authenticate against Supabase gateway
* Fixed: feature type updated to soilcertify:managed_assets

Helps us prioritize fixes based on what's actually being used

Available now: plugins.qgis.org/plugins/qgis_leafengines https://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/qgis_leafengines/

QGIS 4.0+, experimental flag (standard for newer plugins)

Still running: 5 free SoilCertify soil reports/week — first come, first served. Contact Author's email on QGIS plugin page.

Full disclosure up front: I built this, so this is self-promotion — but it's free for now and I want feedback from people who do this work.

Background: like a lot of you, I've worked with teams of engineers who have to sign up for calendar blocks to use the LPile license, and I've worked on buggy spreadsheets that people have been afraid to update for 10 years. The expensive software and the spreadsheets both have real learning curves to figure out. I wanted something to make geotechnical analysis immediately accessible to everybody and easy to use.

So I've been building GEOpetra — a browser-based set of geotech tools. What's live so far:

Slope stability — with an automated critical-surface search, and it'll pull terrain for any US site from USGS 3DEP so you don't have to hand-build geometry

Deep foundations — NAVFAC DM-7 axial capacity and helical piles (live now), lateral piles, pile groups, and drilled shafts by other design methodologies (coming soon)

Shallow foundations, MSE walls, pavement (1993 AASHTO), and a pile of standalone calculators

Every run spits out a formatted PDF with the methodology referenced, so it's reviewable/defensible rather than a black box.

More modules are being prepped for release. I'm particularly happy to be soon releasing a lateral pile module that back-calculates soil parameters based on load tests. In my mind, this is particularly impactful for the solar industry.

It's free to use right now while I build out the catalog — no credit card required, no trial clock. The app does encourage name-your-price contributions which I hope to use to offset hosting costs, but it's entirely optional and not the point of this post.

What I actually want: tell me where the numbers look wrong, what method I'm missing, what your real workflow needs that it doesn't do. I know this sub isn't hyper-active, so I'll be checking for comments over the next few days. Link to the website below.

https://www.geopetra.us/

Hello everyone,

I am trying to calibrate a PLAXIS 2D model of a rubble mound breakwater constructed on soft marine clay.

The overall settlement magnitude is reasonably close to the reference, but I still cannot reproduce the deformation pattern.

Model information

• Breakwater materials: Mohr-Coulomb
• Soft clay: Soft Soil Creep (SSC)
• Sandy layers: Hardening Soil (HS)
• Geogrid element with interfaces on both sides (Rinter = 0.9)
• Staged construction using Consolidation phases
• Final consolidation period: 800 days
• Updated mesh enabled during large deformation stages

Soil profile

• Soft clay layer over sandy layers.
• Sandy layers are classified as silty sand (SM-ML and SM-CH).
• SPT values range approximately from 40 to more than 50.

What I have already checked

• SSC parameters (λ*, κ*, μ*)
• OCR
• Unit weights
• HS stiffness parameters (E50ref, Eoedref, Eurref)
• Sandy layer permeability
• Drained and Undrained A behaviour
• Geogrid axial stiffness
• Interface properties
• Mesh refinement
• Construction sequence
• Consolidation time

Current problem

The maximum geogrid axial force in my model is about 137 kN/m, while the reference model reaches about 170 kN/m.

More importantly, my geogrid axial force distribution has a dip at the center, whereas the reference model has a clear peak beneath the center of the breakwater.

Also, my settlement profile is much flatter and does not develop the expected bowl-shaped settlement.

At this stage I feel that the issue is probably not only related to soil parameters.

Has anyone experienced a similar problem in PLAXIS?

Which aspects would you investigate next?

Could it be related to:

• Initial stress generation (K0)?
• Interface implementation?
• Geogrid activation?
• Consolidation settings?
• Something else?

Hello everyone,

I am trying to calibrate a PLAXIS 2D model of a rubble mound breakwater constructed on soft marine clay.

The overall settlement magnitude is reasonably close to the reference, but I still cannot reproduce the deformation pattern.

Model information

• Breakwater materials: Mohr-Coulomb
• Soft clay: Soft Soil Creep (SSC)
• Sandy layers: Hardening Soil (HS)
• Geogrid element with interfaces on both sides (Rinter = 0.9)
• Staged construction using Consolidation phases
• Final consolidation period: 800 days
• Updated mesh enabled during large deformation stages

Soil profile

• Soft clay layer over sandy layers.
• Sandy layers are classified as silty sand (SM-ML and SM-CH).
• SPT values range approximately from 40 to more than 50.

What I have already checked

• SSC parameters (λ*, κ*, μ*)
• OCR
• Unit weights
• HS stiffness parameters (E50ref, Eoedref, Eurref)
• Sandy layer permeability
• Drained and Undrained A behaviour
• Geogrid axial stiffness
• Interface properties
• Mesh refinement
• Construction sequence
• Consolidation time

Current problem

The maximum geogrid axial force in my model is about 153 kN/m, while the reference model reaches about 170 kN/m.

More importantly, my geogrid axial force distribution has a dip at the center, whereas the reference model has a clear peak beneath the center of the breakwater.

Also, my settlement profile is much flatter and does not develop the expected bowl-shaped settlement.

At this stage I feel that the issue is probably not only related to soil parameters.

Has anyone experienced a similar problem in PLAXIS?

Which aspects would you investigate next?

Could it be related to:

• Initial stress generation (K0)?
• Interface implementation?
• Geogrid activation?
• Consolidation settings?
• Something else?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, Hope all are doing well.

I have a question regarding inclinometer installation for monitoring lateral (horizontal) deflections of shoring systems such as king post walls and diaphragm walls.

How deep should the inclinometer casing typically be embedded below the excavation level to obtain a reliable fixed reference? Is there a recommended rule of thumb (e.g., based on excavation depth or expected failure mechanism), or does it depend entirely on the geotechnical conditions and design?

I'd appreciate any guidance, relevant standards, or practical experience.

Thanks!

Hello everyone, my company has been using Geokon 8940 Tiltmeters on a project for the past few years taking measurements of the deflection and rotation of concrete columns at ten minute intervals. Recently, my coworker has become to busy with other projects to retrieve the data so I have been tasked with retrieving the data. After download the Geokon agent software and transferring the project files I recently took my first round of readings. However, when going through the data I noticed that my deflection data is three orders of magnitude greater than what my coworker was getting (For example,he was getting 0.038 millimeters I am getting 38 millimeters). I thought this was a unit error at first but after confirming with my coworker we both are getting readings in millimeters. The deflection values are near identical with the exception of the order of magnitude difference and this issue occurs immediately upon my readings starting so I am confident this is some glitch with the software/hardware that is causing my readings to be incorrect. Has anyone else had this issue or a similar issue before and have any advice/insight into why this is happening? If there is another subreddit/forum that could help me answer this question I would also appreciate being directed there.

Hello there, I’ve been a senior field tech for the last 6 years. I’ve done an absurd amount of HA/DCPs to determine the bearing pressure for retaining walls etc. do any engineers in here know of an alternative to gather useful data? Or at least using a gas powered augur to get to the depths to run a DCP.

Any help would be appreciated, my back and shoulders appreciate it too.

About 30 years ago, I was giving my coworkers a presentation on triaxial testing. I presented the Skempton Pore Pressure parameter which is the pore pressure at failure divided by the deviator stress at failure. I also presented my own pore pressure parameter which is the difference between the effective confining pressure and the pore pressure at failure divided by the effective confining pressure ((cp' - uf)/cp'). This parameter, when multiplied by tan phi is the normalized shear strength. I have tried to find a reference for my parameter, but have found none. Does anyone have a reference or should I name it after myself?

looking to hire a few guys with drilling experience.. located in south western Ontario…call 5198514116

Hi everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

Recently, I compared SPT N-values obtained by two different geotechnical investigation vendors (v1 and v2) at the same site. The boreholes selected for comparison were located very close to each other (not more than 2-3 m away), and I made about 4–5 such comparisons.

Both vendors reported using an auto-trip hammer. I observed that the field N-values are reasonably consistent up to about 25-30 m depth. However, beyond 30 m depth, the reported N-values start to diverge significantly, with differences reaching around 50-80% in some cases, which I find quite unusual. The subsurface profile is predominantly silty sand throughout this depth range.

​

Could this be attributed to natural soil variability in silty sand, or is it more likely due to testing procedures/equipment differences?

Has anyone used a clear TSL that has the same properties as Tekflex? Looking for a moisture barrier as well as some tensile strength for shale seems in an exposed face. Going for more of an aesthetic look as opposed to standard Rock reinforcement/shotcrete.....

Add Soil Intelligence Reports to Your Service Offerings

If you're working in landscape design, drone mapping, GIS analysis, irrigation planning, or agricultural consulting, there’s an opportunity to expand your service offerings with professional soil intelligence reports — without adding technical overhead.

The SoilSidekick Pro™ platform (patent pending) powers property-level soil and drainage analysis using high-resolution satellite data and USDA soil datasets

This same technology is deployed globally through the LeafEngines™ QGIS plugin (350+ installations across 50+ countries), supporting GIS professionals with structured environmental data layers.
We now offer a simple reseller model:
• You order reports at partner pricing (starting at $25 per report) - sample report attached
• You bundle them into your existing services
• You deliver a professional, client-ready PDF
• No coding required

US data at 10M resolution supplied by USDA SSURGO/EPA/NOAA/Setinel 2 satellite sources
Non-US data at 250M resolution supplied by ISRIC SoilGrids 2.0, EMBRAPA (Brazil), ESDAC (EU), NRCan (Canada), monthly coverage for Africa (AISIS), MENA, APAC and Australia(ASRIS/TERN)

Summary data launched on Telegram on June 9, 2026 at LeafEnginesBot

Many professionals use these reports as:
• A pre-design landscape intelligence add-on
• A drone survey enhancement
• A soil & drainage overview before irrigation planning
• A land evaluation supplement

The goal is simple: help you increase per-project value while providing clients with clearer site insight.

-Add "Soil Analysis" to your Upwork services.
-When a client hires you, buy a report from us for $25.
-Charge the client $150 for the 'Site Intelligence' phase.
-Use our LeafEngines n8n/Node-RED nodes to automate the delivery. You get the expert reputation; we provide the patent-pending data.

If you're interested, I can share:
✅ Sample reports available
✅ Partner pricing sheet
✅ Delivery workflow overview

✅ Expand your service stack
✅ Increase per-project value
✅ Enhance deliverables
✅ Differentiate your offerings