S16.SI.164 Stamp

SANDS LABORATORIES FOR SOIL TESTING
SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

REF: S16.SI.164
: Construction of Villa
PROJECT
: Rashid Mohammed Rashid Mallah Almansoori
OWNER
LOCATION : Plot No. 129, Sector: Al Nahda Al Jadeedah,
Al Nahda, Abu Dhabi
Rashid Mohammed Rashid Mallah Almansoori
Ref. No.
Date
: S16.SI.164
: June 13, 2016
Subject: Site Investigation Report
Project
Owner
Location
Consultant
:
:
:
:
Construction of Villa
Plot No. 129, Sector: Al Nahda Al Jadeedah, Al Nahda, Abu Dhabi
M/s Modern Home Engineering Consultants
Sands Laboratories for Soil Testing is pleased to present the attached geotechnical investigation
report for the above project site. This investigation was carried out according to your request dated
on June 5, 2016.
This report includes the recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of project design and
construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the results of
field investigation, laboratory testing and engineering analysis.
We would like to thank you for your confidence. We look forward for further cooperation with you
on future projects. For additional information or clarification, please dont hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely yours,
Sands Laboratories for Soil Testing
Eng. Mohammad Al Kilani
Engr.Mohannad Al Khatib
(B.S.C, M.Sc.) General Manager
(B.Sc) Technical Manager
1
S16.SI.164
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Letter of Transmittal . 1
1. Introduction .
1.1. Purpose of the Study ...... 4

1.2. Limitations of the Geo-Technical Investigation 4
1.3. Scope of Works .
2. Site Description and General Geology of the Area .
3. Project Description ..
4. Field Work ... 6

4.1. Drilling ......
4.2. Field In-Situ Testing & Sampling......
4.2.1. Standard Penetration Test ... 7

4.2.2. Undisturbed Sampling
5. Laboratory Testing ..
5.1. Soil Classification Test .. 8

5.2. Chemical Test
6. Results of the Investigation .
6.1. Surface Condition ..
6.2. Sub-surface Condition ...
6.3. Chemical Properties ... 9

6.4. Ground Water Condition ...
7. General Discussion ..
10
7.1. Bearing Capacity from Standard Penetration Test
10
8. Choice of Suitable Type of Foundation & Recommendation .
12
8.1. Shallow Foundation on Sand . 12

8.2. Excavation Side Slopes .
12
8.3. Backfill Material & Compaction Criteria .. 13

8.4. Dewatering . 13
8.5. Concrete for Foundation 13
2
S16.SI.164
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDIX A
I. Borehole Logs
II. Figure No. A1: General Site Plan & Location of the Boreholes
III. Figure No. A2: General Sub-surface Profile of the Site AA
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. 1: Sub-surface Description
Table No. 2: Results and Recommended Chemical Class
APPENDIX B: Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX C: Concrete Specifications against Sulphate Attack & Types of Cement
3
S16.SI.164
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of two boreholes drilled at 20.0m. The drilling was carried out
according to the request of Rashid Mohammed Rashid Mallah Almansoori.
The geotechnical investigation for the proposed project is to be located at Plot No. 129,
Sector: Al Nahda Al Jadeedah, Al Nahda, Abu Dhabi.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of our investigation is to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at various
locations on the site in order to develop geotechnical engineering safe and economical
recommendations for the design and construction of the project and its suitability for the
construction of civil engineering and building works.
1.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The recommendations and subsequent engineering designs stated in this geotechnical

investigation report are based on the preliminary information collected and recorded during site
investigations and laboratory tests conducted on the samples taken from the boreholes to determine
the general subsurface conditions of the site. No responsibility can be held for conditions which have
not been revealed by the borehole tests.
It is therefore necessary to conduct periodically a site inspection during actual site work to
verify the subsurface conditions to ensure a successful construction.
The classifications of the ground water conditions in the site are based on observations made
at the time the site work was carried out. However, it is stressed that the ground water levels are
subject to variations caused by seasonal effects or changes in local drainage and/or pumping
conditions.
The recommendations presented herein should not be extrapolated to other reports. Gathering
of information and its appraisals should continue during any construction works.
4
S16.SI.164
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work is consists of the following:
Making site inspection visits to collect information about the site, its surface topography and
geological features.
Drilling of two boreholes to a depth 20.0m each below the existing ground surface level.
Ground water measurement for each borehole and collecting samples for chemical test.
Laboratory testing of the representative samples obtained during the field investigation to
evaluate relevant engineering parameters of the sites sub-surface soil.
Engineering analysis of the laboratory test results on which to base the recommendations for
the design and construction of the project.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
The site is located at Plot No. 129, Sector: Al Nahda Al Jadeedah, Al Nahda, Abu Dhabi. A
general site plan is presented in Figure A1.
Geologically, the UAE occupies a corner of the Arabian Platform, a body of continental rock
that has remained relatively stable since the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago. From
a geological standpoint, the Arabian Platform encompasses not only present day Arabia but also the
shallow Arabian Gulf and the rocks of the coastal Zagros Mountains of Iran. For most of its history,
the Arabian Platform has been part of the larger Afro-Arabian continent, and the two have behaved
as a unit in response to plate tectonic movements.
Over time, sediments accumulated on the coast and continental shelf that was to become the
UAE. Limited pre-Permian exposures in the UAE reveal fine-grained, shallow water terrigenous
sediments (silts and shale). These were probably relatively thin overall and may have been largely
removed by intermittent emergence and erosion. Later, in the tropical Mesozoic seas, thick
sequences of carbonate rocks, lime stones (CaCO3) and dolomites (CaMg(CO3)2), were deposited.
The late Permian and Mesozoic seas of the UAE were part of an ocean that opened north of Arabia
during that time, separating the Afro-Arabian continent from the Eurasian continent. This palaeoocean is known to geologists as Tethys and at one time it extended westward to the present-day
Mediterranean countries and eastward to the Himalayas.
The detail of the geologic history of the Arabian Platform in this area comes from drilling
and seismic information.
Most of the surface of the present day UAE is a sand desert, stretching from the Arabian Gulf
coast south to the unbroken and uninhabited sands of the Empty Quarter, and east to the gravel
plains bordering the Hajar Mountains. The desert is a geologically recent feature, the result of
prolonged subaerial erosion and deposition in an arid environment. The sands overlie the thick, oilrich sedimentary strata of the Arabian Platform which constitutes the bedrock of most of the UAE,
but the oil producing rocks are nowhere exposed at the surface.
5
S16.SI.164
Sand dune formation is controlled by a combination of wind strength and direction, and
sediment supply. Sabkha is the Arabic term for low-lying saline flats subject to periodic inundation.
Three types are recognized, based on their environment of formation. All are found in the UAE.
Coastal sabkha, as the name implies, forms at or near the marine shoreline. Fluvio-lacustrine (ie
river-lake) sabkha is formed in association with riverine drainage patterns in arid areas. Inland or
interdune sabkha is found in low-lying basins within the sand desert.
All sabkhas share certain characteristics. Although they are restricted to hot, arid regions, the
sabkha surface is always very close to the local water table, usually within about a metre.
Groundwater is drawn towards the surface by capillary action and evaporates in the upper subsurface
in response to the high temperatures. There it deposits dissolved salts, including calcium carbonate,
gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O), anhydrite (CaSO4) and sodium chloride or halite (NaCl), which precipitate
in that order. These salts create a hard, impermeable crust in a zone about half a metre below the
surface. This crust, along with high salinity, discourages all plant growth. The crust also impedes the
drainage of surface water, so that after rains the sabkhas flood. The surface water then evaporates
over time, often leaving behind a dazzling white crust of salt.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the construction of villa. It is consist of ground floor, first
floor & roof.
4. FIELD WORK
4.1 DRILLING
As per clients instructions, two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 20.0m each below the
existing ground level at the site where the proposed project is to be constructed. The drilling was
carried out during the period of June 6 & 7, 2016. Both boreholes were located in the field by the
clients representative. The location of the boreholes is presented in Figure A1.
The drilling was executed in the field by hydraulic drilling rig using rotary drilling method
with bentonite mud circulation.
4.2 FIELD IN SITU TESTING AND SAMPLING

The purpose of drilling test holes is not only for the observation of the subsoil conditions but
also for obtaining representative samples. Both disturbed and undisturbed samples are valuable to
geotechnical engineers to serve as basis for the recommendations.
The sampling procedure is selected on the basis of the quality of the sample required for
appropriate laboratory tests.
6
S16.SI.164
4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test:

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an in-situ dynamic penetration test designed to
provide information on the geotechnical engineering properties of the soil. The test procedure is
described in the British Standard BS 1377-9:1990 and ASTM D 1586.
Procedure: This particular test uses a thick-walled sample tube with an outside diameter of
50mm and an inside diameter of 35mm and a length of around 650mm. The sample tube is driven
into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with a weight of 63.5kg,
falling through a distance of 760mm. The tube is driven 150mm into the ground and then the number
of blows needed for the tube to penetrate each 150mm up to a depth of 450mm is recorded. The sum
of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 in. of penetration is termed the Standard
Penetration Resistance or the "N-value. The blow count provides an indication of the density of the
ground and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering formula.
Purpose: The main purpose of the test is to determine the relative density of granular
deposits, such as sands and gravels. The SPT is widely used because it can approximately determine
the strength parameters of the soil. This particular test also provides a useful guide regarding the
conditions of the ground. Whenever there is doubt in the quality of the undisturbed sample, it is
advisable to alternate the sampling using the standard penetration test to verify the actual strength of
the soil.
The results of this test are shown on the boring logs in Appendix-A. The samples recovered
in this test were described by the engineers, labeled, placed in plastic bags and secured in the plastic
jars before being taken to the laboratory for further testing.
4.2.2 Undisturbed Sampling:
A double tube core barrel sampler with an inside diameter of 76mm was used to carry out the
test to obtain the undisturbed sample of soils. The borehole was flunked with water to remove the
remnants left at its bottom before the sampling could be started. The depth of the bottom at which
the soil sample was taken was also measured before the sample tube was jacked into the soil. After
reaching the required depth, the sample tube was taken out of the surface, secured with tight plastic
bags and placed in a wooden box. The samples were then labeled properly and transported to the
laboratory for testing.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The samples taken in the field were sent to our laboratory for the project engineer's review,
classification and determination of which samples will be included in the testing program to obtain
the soils appropriate physical, mechanical and chemical characteristics. The following tests were
performed for the purpose of classification and the determination of the geotechnical parameters of
the soils and rocks.
7
S16.SI.164
5.1 Soil Classification Test

Sieve analysis according to ASTM D 422 -63 (2007), standard test method for, Particles
Size Analysis of Soils.
Atterberg limits according to ASTM D 4318-10, standard test method for Liquid Limit,
plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils.
5.2 Chemical Test

Sulphate content according to BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, Method 5.5 Determination of Sulphate
Content of Soil.
Chloride content according to BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, Method 7.2 Determination of Chloride
Contents.
PH-value according to BS 1377: Part 3:1990, Method 9.5, Determination of the pH-value.
6.0 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

6.1 Surface Conditions
The site is located at Plot No. 129, Sector: Al Nahda Al Jadeedah, Al Nahda, Abu Dhabi. Site
topography is generally flat. The existing ground level was taken as 0.0m.
6.2 Sub-surface Condition

Table No.1
Sub-surface Description
Layer Depth (m)
Material Description
0.70
made ground
0.70
11.0
fine grained silty SAND
11.0
20.0
cemented SAND (very weak poorly cemented sandstone)
Detailed descriptions of the sub-surface conditions encountered during our field investigation are
generalized in the sub-surface profile presented in Fig. A2. The location of the profile is shown in
Fig. A1. The profile was constructed by direct interpolation between the materials revealed from the
boreholes, therefore, it should not be considered as actual field condition.
8
S16.SI.164
6.3 Chemical Properties
Chlorides which are normally present in the subsoil and groundwater penetrate porous
concrete and cause corrosion of steel reinforcement. The groundwater and subsoil are likely to be
contaminated with aggressive salts. Such contamination is a major factor in the design of concrete
mixes and it needs special protection.
Sulphate may also be present in the concrete materials, gypsum which is added to the cement
during manufacture to produce the required rate of setting and in the environment to which the
concrete is exposed often in combination with the chlorides. Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by
the presence of the high sulphate content either by the ingress from the sulphate of the surrounding
environment such as foundation soils or by the presence of sulphate in the concrete ingredients such
as sand or aggregates or both. The main effect of both the sulphate and chloride attack on concrete
leads to the internal expansion and disruption of the concrete. However, their effect can be reduced
by the use of sulphate resisting cements and cement containing blast-furnace slag. Where sulphates
and chlorides occur together, sulphates resisting cement provide less protection to steel against
attack in the presence of the chlorides compared with the Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC).
PH value attack to concrete occurs when acid attack on concrete is coming from the soil
samples and ground water and chemical attack to concrete may come from the use of salts in the
construction materials or from chemicals in the ground soil or water below the ground concrete. Just
like sulphate and chloride attack on concrete, their effect results in a considerable internal expansion
which may lead to crack and disintegration of the concrete. It is necessary to check and control the
amount of salts incorporated in all the materials used in making concrete which is a primary defense
against chemical attack.
The quality of water to be added to the cement and aggregates during mixing shall be just
sufficient and free from contamination to produce a workable mix to enable it to be well compacted
and worked into corners from and around reinforcement.
Determination of the concentrations of sulphate expressed as (SO3), chlorides as (CL) and (PH)
value for the soil samples tested from boreholes are presented in table 1 in Appendix B.
Based on the results of sulphate content determination test for the soil samples, the sites are
divided into five categories of increasing severity. The site of the proposed project falls within Class
2 by both requirement of BS 5328 and BRE digest 363.
6.4 Ground Water Condition

At the time of the field investigation, ground water table was not encountered in all boreholes
to the measured depth of 9.5m below the existing ground level.
9
S16.SI.164
7. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The recommendation for the allowable bearing capacity (qa) to be used for design is based on
the minimum of either:
Limiting the settlement to a tolerable amount
The ultimate bearing capacity, which considers soil strength against shear failure.
The allowable bearing capacity based on shear control (qa) is obtained by dividing the
ultimate bearing capacity (qult) based on soil strength by a Safety Factor (SF) that is deemed
adequate to avoid a base sheer failure. To obtain:
The safety factor is based on the type of soil (cohesive or cohesionless), reliability of the soil
parameters and structural information.
In geotechnical engineering, bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads
applied to the ground. The bearing capacity of soil is the maximum average contact pressure
between the foundation and the soil which should not produce shear failure in the soil. Ultimate
bearing capacity is the theoretical maximum pressure which can be supported without failure while
allowable bearing capacity is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety. Sometimes,
on soft soil sites, large settlements may occur under loaded foundations without actual shear failure
occurring. In such cases, the allowable bearing capacity is based on the maximum allowable
settlement.
7.1 BEARING CAPACITY FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of soils. Meyerhof published equations
for computing the allowable bearing capacity for a 25mm settlement. These could be used to
produce curves similar to those of Terzaghi and Peck and thus were also very conservative.
Considering the accumulation of field observations and the stated opinions of the authors and others,
Myerhofs equations were adjusted to an approximate 50 percent increase in the allowable bearing
capacity to obtain the following:
=
= 20
1.2 .(E1)
>
= 12.5
1.2 .(E2)
Where qa = allowable bearing pressure for Ho = 25mm
10
S16.SI.164
= 1 + 0.33 1.33
F factors:
F1
F2
F3
F4
=
=
=
=
.. (E3)
0.05
0.08
0.3
1.2
In these equations N is the statistical average value for the footing influence zone of about
0.5B above footing base to at least 2B below. Footing width is a significant parameter. Obviously if
the depth of influence is on the order of 2B, a larger footing width will affect the soil to a greater
depth and strains integrated over a greater depth will produce a larger settlement. This is taken into
account somewhat for mats which were considered by Meyerhof and adjusted for 50 percent
increase to obtain:
=
.........................................................................................................(E4)
= 12.5
...........
(E5)
In these equations the allowable soil pressure is for an assumed 25mm settlement. In general
the allowable pressure for any settlement Hj is
=
.......(E6)
Where Ho = 25 mm.
Hj is the actual settlement that can be tolerated, in millimeters.
However these recommendations are considered to produce too severe a reduction in
allowable pressure and a correction should be made only if the water table is within a depth B
(below the foundation). Peck, Hanson and Thornburn proposed that linear interpolation should be
used between a reduction of 50 % of the water table which is at ground level and zero reduction if
the water table is at depth B (below the foundation). Thus, the provisional value of allowable bearing
pressure should be multiplied by a factor Cw given by:
= 0.5 + 0.5
Where:
.(E7)
Cw
Dw
D
B
=
=
=
=
Correction of water
Water depth
Depth of footing
Width of footing
In using the correlations, the average N value is determined for each borehole on the site in
question and the lowest average is then used in design. For a series of footings, the bearing pressure
is obtained for the largest footing.
11
S16.SI.164
8.0 CHOICE OF SUITABLE TYPE OF FOUNDATION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The suitable type of foundations for a given structure depends mostly on the character of the
soil, the presence of the water at the site and the magnitude of the imposed loads and project
characteristics.
The ultimate bearing capacity of a footing in sand depends mainly upon four variables: the
position of the water table, the relative density of the sand, the width of footing and the depth of the
surcharge surrounding the footings.
The following site surface and subsurface conditions, project characteristics and the results of
the field and laboratory tests are considered in choosing the appropriate foundations. For this
particular site:
1. It is proposed to construct a villa. It is consists of ground floor, first floor and roof.
2. Medium dense to dense, sandy layer encountered to a depth of 11.0m below the existing
ground level (made ground on the top 0.70m).
3. Rock layer was encountered at a depth of 11.0m and up to the end of boring 20.0m
below the existing ground level.
Therefore, the recommended suitable type of foundation to be used is shallow
foundation.
8.1. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Based on the results of the Standard Penetration Test and the equations presented before, it is
recommended to lay the foundation of the proposed project at a depth of 1.0m below the existing
ground level considering a factor of safety of three (F.S=3) against sheer failure and total settlement
not exceeding 25.0mm. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure value of 150 kPa could be
used for the design of the foundation.
Foundation ground should be compacted to a degree of compaction not less than 95 percent
of its maximum dry density as obtained by modified proctor test (ASTM D-1557).
8.2 EXCAVATION FOR FOUNDATIONS

The excavation for the foundations is expected to be fine grained silty sand (made ground on
the top 0.70m). Therefore, the excavation can be madder using conventional excavation equipment
such as loaders and dozers.
No construction problems of consequence are generally encountered in making excavations
for foundations in sand or similar deposits above the water table, however, temporary side slopes cut
to face inclination of horizontal to 1 vertical (H : 1V) should be considered stable.
12
S16.SI.164
8.3. BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION CRITERIA

Most of the materials which will be excavated from the site consist of sandy materials. This
will probably be satisfactory for backfilling purposes. However, the final decisions shall be taken
during construction.
The materials to be used for backfilling purposes:
shall be selected, well-graded sand and gravel containing a small percentage of fines
shall be free from organic matter or other deleterious substances
shall be free from lumps over 15 cm in greatest dimension
shall not be more than 15 percent larger than 7 cm
shall be spread in lifts not exceeding 25cm in non-compacted thickness
The moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content and compacted to a dry density
shall not be less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by modified proctor
test (ASTM D-1557)
The plasticity index for the backfill material shall not exceed 10 percent.
8.4 DEWATERING
Dewatering is the removal of the ground water or surface water when it is necessary to lower
the ground water table from a construction site to allow construction to be done in the dry until all
underground work is completed. Water is usually removed by pre-drainage of the site or using well
points and power driven pumps. Specialized contractors must be consulted.
8.5. CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATION

Based on the results of sulfate content determination test for the soil and ground water
samples, the site of the proposed project falls within Class 2 of both BS 5328 and BRE digest 363
(See Table No.2).
The recommendations of the BS 5328 and BRE Digest 363 for the protection of the
structures adjacent to the soil containing sulphate should be followed. CIRIA Special Publication 31
( The CIRIA Guide to Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region published by the Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London 1984) considered both sulphate and
chloride contamination of soils, groundwater and aggregates in various exposure conditions to all
forms of concrete construction. The recommendations of these publications should also be followed.
(See appendix C)
13
S16.SI.164
Table No.2
Results and Recommended Chemical Class
BS 1377: Part 3: 1990,
Method 5.5
BS 1377: Part 3: 1990,

Method 7.2
BS 1377: Part 3:1990,

Method 9.5
Maximum
Sulphate (SO3)
content in soil
(%)
Maximum Sulphate
((SO3) content in
groundwater
(g/L)
Maximum Chloride
(CL) content in soil
(%)
Maximum Chloride
(CL) content in
groundwater (g/L)
PH value in
soil
(%)
PH value in
groundwater
(g/L)
0.89
0.10
8.2
CHEMICAL CLASS 2
Type of Cement
Maximum Free
Water/Cement Ratio
(Note 1)
Maximum Free
Water/Cement Ratio
(Note 1)
A-G
530
0.50
H
280
0.55
I-L
300
0.55
Note 1. Cement content includes pfa and slag.
Note 2. Cement contents relate to 20mm nominal maximum size aggregate. In order to maintain the
cement content of the mortar fraction at similar values, the minimum cement contents given
should be increased by 40 kg/m3 for 10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be
decreased by 30 kg/m3 for 4 mm nominal maximum size aggregate as described in Table 8 of
BS 5328: Part 1.
Trial mix shall be prepared for concrete in accordance with BS 5328 showing that the
proposed mix proportions and manufacture will produce a concrete of strength and quality required
having adequate workability for compaction by the method to be used in placing.
14
S16.SI.164
Form No: FRM-SL -41

Revision No. : 02
Revision Date: 17/02/2015
BOREHOLE LOG
Ref. S16.SI.164
Client
Project
Location
Drilling Date
Drilling Method
D
SPT
(m) No.
Borehole No. 1
Total Depth: 20.0m Sheet 1 of 2

Ground elevation (m):
0.0
Ground water depth (m):
Drilled by: Fidaullah
Logged by: Engr. Mohannad
Checked by: Engr. Mohd

6-Jun-16
Rotary with bentonite mud circulation
N
ST Leg
end
Description
(Blows)
TCR
SCR
(%)
(%)
RQD) U.C.S.
(%)
1
8,10,15
R
L
(m)
x SM : (Silty SAND).
Medium dense to dense, light brown,
fine grained silty SAND.
*made ground on the top 0.70m
S1
MPa
-1
25
-2
S2 10,10,16 26
-3
S3
4,6,7
13
S4
4,5,7
12
-4
5
S5
4,6,8
14
S6
5,7,9
16
S7
6,7,10
17
-5
11.0
-6
-7
x
8
-8
S8
8,11,14
25
-9
S9 12,18,24 42
10
-10
SPT : Standard Penetration Test
TCR: Total Core Recovery
ST:
Sample Type
N:
No.of Blows presented to 30cm
RQD: Rock Quality Designation
RL:
Reduced Level
penetration
SCR:Solid Core Recovery
LT:
Layer Thickness
Sample No.
UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength
S:
REMARKS:
The existing ground level was taken as 0.0m.
D:
Depth
Form No: FRM-SL -41

Revision No. : 02
BOREHOLE LOG
Ref. S16.SI.164
Client
Project:
Location
Drilling date
Drilling Method
D
SPT
(m) No.
Borehole No. 1

0.0
Checked by: Engr. Mohd

6-Jun-16
N
ST Leg
end
Description
(Blows)
TCR
SCR
(%)
(%)
RQD) U.C.S.
(%)
MPa
R
L
(m)
x
11
S10 50/17cm
50
Medium dense to dense, light brown, fine grained silty SAND.

11.0 m
x
Very dense, light brown and light gray,
. . . . . cemented SAND (very weak poorly
cemented sandstone).
11.0
-11
.....
12
-12
0
.....
.....
13
S11 50/14cm
-13
50
.....
.....
14
-14
60
.....
.....
15
S12 50/12cm
-15
50
.....
9.0
.....
16
-16
.....
.....
17
-17
.....
S13 50/10cm
50
.....
18
-18
.....
.....
19
70
30
10
-19
.....
.....
20
-20
ST:
Sample Type
N:
RL:
Reduced Level
penetration
LT:
Layer Thickness
Sample No.
S:
REMARKS:
D:
Depth
Form No: FRM-SL -41

Revision No. : 02
BOREHOLE LOG
Ref. S16.SI.164
Client
Project:
Location
Drilling date
Drilling Method
D
SPT
(m) No.
Borehole No. 2

0.0
Checked by: Eng. Mohd

7-Jun-16
N
ST Leg
end
Description
(Blows)
TCR
SCR
(%)
(%)
RQD) U.C.S.
(%)
S1 20,13,11 24
2
4,5,6
R
L
(m)
Medium dense to dense, light brown, fine
grained silty SAND.
S2
MPa
-1
-2
11
-3
x
S3
5,5,7
12
-4
S4
6,7,8
15
-5
11.5
S5
4,9,9
18
-6
x
S6
7,10,11
21
-7
S7
8,12,15
27
-8
S8 10,15,18 33
9
-9
x
10
-10
ST:
Sample Type
N:
RL:
Reduced Level
penetration
LT:
Layer Thickness
Sample No.
S:
REMARKS:
D:
Depth
Form No: FRM-SL -41

Revision No. : 02
BOREHOLE LOG
Ref. S16.SI.164
Client
Project:
Location
Drilling date
Drilling Method
D
SPT
(m) No.
Borehole No. 2

0.0
Checked by: Eng. Mohd

7-Jun-16
N
ST Leg
end
Description
(Blows)
TCR
SCR
(%)
(%)
RQD) U.C.S.
(%)
MPa
R
L
(m)
S9 15,19,24 43

grained silty SAND.
11
11.5
-11
11.5 m
Very dense, light brown and light gray,
. . . . . cemented SAND (very weak poorly
cemented sandstone).
12
-12
50
.....
.....
13
S10 50/18cm
-13
50
.....
.....
14
-14
0
.....
.....
15
S11 50/14cm
-15
50
.....
8.5
.....
16
.....
-16
70
20
.....
17
-17
.....
S12 50/10cm
50
.....
18
-18
.....
.....
19
80
40
10
-19
.....
.....
20
-20
ST:
Sample Type
N:
RL:
Reduced Level
penetration
LT:
Layer Thickness
Sample No.
S:
REMARKS:
D:
Depth
A
BH1
A'
BH2
grained silty SAND.
2
3
4
5
6
7
D E P T H (m)
8
9
10
11
12 . . . . . Very dense, light brown and light gray,

cemented SAND (very weak poorly cemented
13 . . . . . sandstone).
.....
14 . . . . .
.....
15 . . . . .
.....
16 . . . . .
.....
17 . . . . .
.....
18 . . . . .
.....
19 . . . . .
.....
20 . . . . .
.....
.....
Figure A2: General Sub-surface Profile of the Site AA'

S16.SI.164
Table 1: Concrete Specification against Sulfate Attcks

BRE Digest 363 July 1991
Concentration of Sulphate
In Soil or Fill
Class
By Acid
Extraction
%
< 0.24
By 2:1
Water/Oil
Extract g/l
< 1.2
Minimum
Cement
/
(Notes 1 & 2)
Maximum
Free
Water/Cement
Ratio (Note1)
In Ground
Water
g/l
Cement Type
(See Table 1c)
< 0.4
AL
Note 3
0.65
330
280
300
0.55
0.55
0.55
1.2 2.3
0.4 1.4
AG
H
IL
2.3 3.7
1.4 3.0
H
IL
320
340
0.50
0.50
3.7 6.7
3.0 6.0
H
IL
360
380
0.45
0.45
3.7 6.7
3.0 6.0
360
0.45
> 6.7
> 6.0
> 6.7
> 6.0
If > 0.24
classify on
basis of 2:1
extract
As for Class 4 plus surface protection see CP

102
Note 1. Cement content includes pfa and slag.

Note 2. Cement contents relate to 20mm nominal maximum size aggregate. In order to maintain the
cement content of the mortar fraction at similar values, the minimum cement contents given
should be increased by 40 / for 10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be
decreased by 30 / for 40mm nominal maximum sixe aggregate as described in Table 8 of
BS 5328: Part1.
Note 3. The minimum value required in BS 8110: 1985 and BS 5328: Part 1: 1990 is 275 / for
un-reinforced structural concrete in contact with non-aggressive soil. A minimum cement
content of 300/ for (BS 8110) and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.60 is required
for reinforced concrete. A minimum cement content of 220 / and maximum free
water/cement ratio of 0.80 is permissible for C20 grade concrete when using un-reinforced strip
foundations and trench fill for low-rise buildings in Class 1.
Table 1b : Modifications to Table 1 for Other Types of Concrete

Concrete Type
General Recommendations
Poorly compacted concrete

Designed for full compaction
Not acceptable for sulphate resistance
Cast-in-situ concrete over 450mm thick.

Precast ground beams, wall units or piles with
smooth surfaces which, after normal curing,
have been exposed to air but protected from
rain for several weeks.
For Classes2,3 and 4the requirements for type of cement content and
water/cement ratio given in the Table 1 may be reduced by on class if other
durability and structural considerations permit.
Cast-in-situ concrete (other than ground floor

slabs) less than 140mm thick or having many
edges and corners.
Increase classification in Table 1 by one class.
Precast concrete blocks
Blocks complying with BS 6073 and with BS 5328:Part 3 relating to use below
ground will be satisfactory for Class 1 conditions in Table 1. For Classes 2 and
3 of Table 1, as an alternative to compliance with the minimum cement content
and water/cement ratio, autoclaved blocks (including aerated blocks Aircrete
with a minimum density of 600 kg/m3) or pressed blocks with more than 50%
of their least cross-sectional area carbonated* may be used.
Concrete bricks
Compliance with BS 6073 and with Table 1.
Concrete pipes
Classification with respect to type of cement may be reduced by one class for
pipes complying with Parts 100 and 120 of BS 5911. Cement contents and
water/cement ratios in Table 1 are not relevant.
Porous concrete pipes
Compliance with BS 1194. Porous concrete pipes are not suitable for use in
Class3, 4 or 5 soils.
Estimated by breaking block and applying phenolphthalein see BRE Information Paper 6/81
Code Type or Combination

A
Portland cement BS 12
Portland blastfurnace cements to BS 146
High slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246
Combinations of Portland cements to BS12 and

blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
Code Type or Combination

H
Sulphste-resisting Portland cement to BS 4027
High-slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246 containing

not less than 74% slag by mass of nucleus.
Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and

blastfurnace slag to BS 6699 containing not less than
70% slag and not more than 90% slag by mass of slag
plus cement
Portland pfa cements to BS 6588 containing not less
than 26% pfa by mass of nucleus
Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and pfa
to BS3892: Part 1 containing not less than 25% pfa
and not more than 40% pfa by mass of pfa plus
cement
K
L
Portland pfa cements to BS 6588
Combinations of Portland cement to BS 12 and pfa to

BS 3892: Part 1
Pozzolanic pfa-cement to BS 6610: 1991
In Code I and J, slag with alumina (AI2O3) content over 14% should be used only with Portland cement having low to moderate C3A
content (typically less than 10%)
BS 5328: Part 1 : 1991

Table 7. Concrete exposed to Suphate Attack
Concentration of Sulphates
Expressed as SO3
In Soil (2)
Class
Cement Complying with

In Ground
Water
Total
SO3
SO3 in
2:1
water:soi
l extract
%
Less
than 0.2
g/L
Less
than 1.0
g/L
Leass than
0.3
0.2 to
0.5
1.0 to 1.9
0.3 to 1.2
0.5 to
1.0
1.9 to 3.1
1.2 to 2.5
Dense, fully compacted

concrete made with 20
mm nominal maximum
size aggregates(1)
complying with BS 882
or BS 1047
Cement
content
not less
than
Free
water/cement
ratio not
more than
Table 1
Kg/m3
BS 12, BS 146, BS 6588

BS 12 combined with less than 25% pfa
BS 12 combined with less than 70% ggbs
330
0.50
BS 12 combined with 25% to 40% pfa

BS 12 combined with 70% to 90% ggbs
BS 4246 with at least 70% ggbs
BS 6588 with at least 25% pfa
310
0.55
BS 4027 (SRPC)
BS 4248 (SSC)
280
0.55
BS 12 combined with 25% to 40% pfa

BS12 combined with 70% to 90% ggbs
BS 4246 with at least 70% ggbs
BS 6588 with at least 25% pfa
380
0.45
BS 4027 (SRPC)
BS 4248 (SSC)
330
0.50
1.0 to
2.0
3.1 to 5.6
2.5 to 5.0
BS 4027 (SRPC)
BS 4248 (SSC)
370
0.45
Over 2
Over 5.6
Over 5.0
BS 4027 and
BS 4248 (SSC) both with adequate protective
coating (see BS 8110)
370
0.45
1)
Adjustments to minimum cement content should be made for aggregates of nominal maximum size other than 20mm in accordance
with table 8.
2)
If much of the sulphate is present as low solubility calcium sulphate, analysis on the basis of a 2:1 water extract may permit a lower
site classification than that obatained from the extraction of total SO3. Reference should be made to BRE Current Paper 2/79 for
methods of analysis and to BRE Digests 250 (see foreword) and 276 for interpretation in relation to natural soils and fills, respectively.
Note 1. Within the limits specified in this table, the sulphate resistance of combinations of ggbs and pfa with SRPC will be at least
equivalent to combinations with cement complying with BS 12.
Note 2. It is recommended that the alumina content of ggbs does not exceed 15%.
Table 2. Requirements for concrete exposed to attack from acids of pH > 2.5
Use
Foundation
s including
poured
cast-in-situ
piles. For
piles made
by special
techniques
using low
water/ceme
nt ration,
slightly less
stringent
requiremen
ts may be
applicable
Concrete in contact with:
pH
Natural Ground
>5.5
3.5
to
5.5
<3.5
External Surface
Pipes to BS
5911: Parts
100 and
120
Internal Surface
Ground
containing
wastes or
made-up
ground
Natural Water
Effluent.
Domestic
Sewage
Industrial
Effluent
Porous
pipes to BS
1194
Land Drainage
Agricultura
l and
Industrial
When advancing classes for cements A G into Classes

3 5, choose the higher cement content option
S or M
No change
No change
Advance by one class

No change
>3.5
No change
<3.5
Provide surface protection if SO4 if above Class 3
>4.5
No change
<4.5
Provide surface protection if SO4 if above Class 2
4.5
to
5.5
>5.0
<5.0
No change
No change
No change
Provide protective lining if SO4 if above Class 3
>5.0
Provide protective lining if SO4 if above Class 2
<5.0
Provide protective lining irrespective of SO4

classification
>3.5
H or L
No change
<3.5
H or L
Concrete not suitable
No change
Advance by two classes
>5.5
Advance by two classes
<5.5
Advance to Class 5
<5.5
Milk (lactic acid)
H = High
L = Low
Natural Water Effluent
Industrial Effluent
M = Mobile
S = Static
>5.5
Culverts :
cast-in-situ
or precast
Change in classification with respect to minimum

cement content and maximum water/cement
ration for the type of cement recommended on the
basis of sulphate in Tables 1, 1a and 1b
<4.5
Natural
Ground
Aggressiv
e CO2
(Table 3)
>5.5
Ground containing wastes or made
up ground
Mobility of
Water
(Table 1a)
See Dairy Floors: Ministry of Ag Fish and Food 1967 and Concrete in milking parlours
Cement and Concrete Association Farm Note 8:1980
Silage (principally lactic acid)
Contact Ministry of Ag Fish and Food for cement recommendation
Acid spillage in
industrial processes
Refer to specialist producers of acid resistant finishes and CP 204
Method of determination and data derived from The

Chemistry of Cement and Concrete pp.338-342.
Temporary
Hardness
mg/l CaCO3
below 3.5
Aggressiveness
Description used
in Table 2
High
Aggressive CO2
mg/l
3.5 to .5
above 35
Structural concrete and is not covered by BS8110.

No recommendations for type of cement for acid
resistance are contained in Table 2 since the rate of
erosion of concrete surfaces by natural acidic waters is
affected much less by the type of cement than by the
quality of the concrete. However, the reduced calcium
hydroxide content and lower porosity resulting from
well cured OPC/slag and OPC/pfa concretes is
generally regarded as being beneficial in reducing the
rate of attack.
15 and above
High
below 15
Low
40 and above
High
below 40
Low
Fig. 1 Procedure for classification of site

Type of Sample
NATURAL
SOIL
NATURAL
GROUNDWATER
INDUSTRIAL
EFFLUENT
2:1 WATER
EXTRACT
Analytical
determinations
WASTECONTAINING SOIL
2:1 WATER
EXTRACT
SO3 and pH
SO3 and pH
15 pH
LESS
THAN 7
15 pH
LESS
THAN 7
YES
NO
YES
NO
Cl and NO3
CALCULATE
EQUIVALENT SO3
and add to
DETERMINED
SO3
CLASSIFY SITE
ON BASIS OF SO3
CHOOSE:
Type of cement
Water/cement ratio
Cement content
from Table 1
CLASSIFY SITE
ON BASIS OF SO3
CHOOSE:
Type of cement
Water/cement ratio
Cement content
from Table 1
The presence of limestone aggregate in concrete can

increase the overall vulnerability of the concrete to
attack by acid. However, under certain circumstances
where very small quanitities of acid are generated, for
example on the walls of sewerage systems above the
effluent, it has been found that large amounts of
neutralizing hard limestone aggregate can prolong the
life of the construction. The use of such aggregate
could be considered in pipelines where the detritus
caused by the progressive dislodgement of an insoluble
aggregate (such as flint gravel) and the associated
uneven surface of the attacked concrete is of particular
concern.
Recent evidence has shown that, in a small number of
cases, concretes exposed to very wet, cold conditions
and containing a source of finely divided internal
calcium carbonate have suffered suphate attack even
though they contained a sulphate-resisting cement. In
these concrete, the sulphates reacted with this source of
carbonate and the calcium silicate hydrates in the
cement to form the mineral thaumasili (a calcium
silicate carbonate sulphate hydrate); this caused
expansion and breakdown of the concrete.
The mechanism of the process is still being
investigated and will be the subject of a forthcoming
BRE publication.
SAMPLING AND TESTING GROUND WATERS
The main concern in classifying sites on the basis of
groundwater analysis alone lies in the difficulty in
obtaining samples that are not diluted with surface
water (see BS5930: 1981 Clause 20:3).
The
solubilities of the three most abundant salts mentioned
earlier differ considerably. That of calcium sulphate is
only 1.44g (SO4) per litre compared with about 150 and
200 times this value for magnesium and sodium
sulphates respectively.
The sulphate content of
groundwaters therefore gives an indication whether one
(or both) of the latter sulphates is present.
Groundwater saturated with calcium sulphate would
have an SO4 concentration of 1.44g/l and the division of
column 4 of Table 1 between Classes 2 and 3 directly relates
to this.
Some suitable methods for the analysis of
groundwaters for sulphates are given in BS 1377: Part 3 and
in BRE Current Paper 2/79 which also gives methods for the
determination
of
magnesium.

S16.SI.164 Stamp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S16.SI.164 Stamp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S16.SI.164 Stamp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANDS LABORATORIES FOR SOIL TESTING

SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Rashid Mohammed Rashid Mallah Almansoori

Subject: Site Investigation Report

Sands Laboratories for Soil Testing

Eng. Mohammad Al Kilani

(B.S.C, M.Sc.) General Manager

(B.Sc) Technical Manager

1.1. Purpose of the Study ...... 4

2. Site Description and General Geology of the Area .

4. Field Work ... 6

4.2. Field In-Situ Testing & Sampling......

4.2.1. Standard Penetration Test ... 7

5.1. Soil Classification Test .. 8

6. Results of the Investigation .

6.1. Surface Condition ..

6.2. Sub-surface Condition ...

6.3. Chemical Properties ... 9

7.1. Bearing Capacity from Standard Penetration Test

8. Choice of Suitable Type of Foundation & Recommendation .

8.1. Shallow Foundation on Sand . 12

8.3. Backfill Material & Compaction Criteria .. 13

APPENDIX B: Laboratory Test Results

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

1.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The recommendations and subsequent engineering designs stated in this geotechnical

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work is consists of the following:

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA

4.2 FIELD IN SITU TESTING AND SAMPLING

4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test:

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 Soil Classification Test

5.2 Chemical Test

6.0 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

6.2 Sub-surface Condition

fine grained silty SAND

cemented SAND (very weak poorly cemented sandstone)

6.3 Chemical Properties

6.4 Ground Water Condition

Where qa = allowable bearing pressure for Ho = 25mm

8.0 CHOICE OF SUITABLE TYPE OF FOUNDATION & RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

8.2 EXCAVATION FOR FOUNDATIONS

8.3. BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION CRITERIA

8.5. CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATION

BS 1377: Part 3: 1990,

BS 1377: Part 3:1990,

Form No: FRM-SL -41

Total Depth: 20.0m Sheet 1 of 2

Rashid Mohammed Rashid Mallah Almansoori

SPT : Standard Penetration Test

TCR: Total Core Recovery

No.of Blows presented to 30cm

RQD: Rock Quality Designation

SCR:Solid Core Recovery

UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength

The existing ground level was taken as 0.0m.