Geotechnical Investigation Report

for
Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
at
French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi

Delma Lab Report Ref No. DL-SI25-005

Date 25th January 2025
Revision No. 0
Type of Report Interpretative

PREPARED FOR
M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C

Revision History

0 25th January 2025 First Issue SK SS

Revision No. Date Description Prepared Checked & Approved

TL, Page i of ii
To : M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C January 25th, 2025

Subject : Geotechnical Investigation for

Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi

Consultant : M/s Pioneer Engineering Consultancy L.L.C

Dear Sirs,

We are pleased to submit the interpretative report of the geotechnical investigation for the above
subject site. This investigation was carried out according to our quotation number QU241106 Rev.0
dated November 29th, 2024, approved by M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C and your
purchase order number: 24-CQ-1628 dated January 7th, 2025.

This interpretative report is prepared upon the request of M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical
L.L.C for the purpose of soil investigation and it contains the results of the field and laboratory
testing, geotechnical parameters, analysis, conclusions and recommendations required for the design
and construction of the foundations. This report is issued to be used by the client internally and
is not issued for Abu Dhabi Municipality submittal.

For further information or clarification, please contact our office or the undersigned at your
convenience. We would like to thank you for your confidence and look forward to be of service to
you again in the near future.

Sincerely Yours,

Delma Laboratory for Soil & Construction Materials Inspection

_________________________
Dr. Sonal Singhal
Technical Manager

DL-SI25-005 TL, Page ii of ii

FORWARD

The following notes should be read in conjunction with the report:

1. The recommendations and discussions presented in this report are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered during the site work at the time of investigation and on the result of the
field and laboratory testing on samples obtained from limited number of boreholes. There may
be, however, conditions pertaining to the site which have not been considered due to the limited
number of boreholes.

2. The recommendations and discussions presented in this report considered preliminary and
presented for guidance purposes only. It is imperative that detailed design of all foundations be
carried out by competent and experienced structural engineer who may interpret the findings
differently and adopt an alternative engineering judgment.

3. The ground water levels indicated in the report represent the measured levels at the time of
investigation. It should be noted, however, that ground water levels are subject to variation
caused by tidal and weather seasonal variations and by changes of local drainage and or
pumping conditions, and may at times be significantly different to those measured during the
investigation.

4. The recommendations apply only to the proposed development and should not be used for any
other projects on this site, or adjacent sites without further consultation and/or investigation.

5. Delma Laboratory is accredited by ENAS for a wide range of laboratory and field tests in
accordance with ISO/IEC 17025-2017. The List of ENAS Accredited Tests is available in the
latest Accreditation Certificate, ref. ENAS NAL084, and indicated in the relevant sections of
this report.
Note: The interpretations, recommendations and conclusions included in this report are outside
the scope of ENAS Accreditation.

DL-SI25-005 Forward, Page 1 of 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
FORWARD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope of Works .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project and Site Description ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA ......................................................................................................2
3.0 FIELD WORK AND SAMPLING ..................................................................................................................2
3.1 Drilling of Boreholes ................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Standard Penetration Test & Sampling ...................................................................................... 3
3.3 Rock Coring ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Field Permeability Test (Falling Head) ...................................................................................... 5
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................................6
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................8
5.1 Subsurface Condition ................................................................................................................. 8
5.2 Material Physical and Mechanical Properties ............................................................................ 8
5.3 Ground Water ............................................................................................................................. 9
5.4 Water Loss and Cavity/Voids Condition.................................................................................... 9
6.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE CHOICE OF FOUNDATION TYPE ............................................10
6.1 Pile Foundation......................................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Bearing Capacity of Piles ......................................................................................................... 11
6.3 Pile on Rock ............................................................................................................................. 12
6.4 Verification of Design Pile Capacities ..................................................................................... 13
6.5 Pile Load Test ........................................................................................................................... 13
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................14
7.1 Pile Foundation......................................................................................................................... 14
7.2 Ground Floor Slab Type .......................................................................................................... 15
7.3 Seismic Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 16
8.0 EXCAVATION, BACKFILL & DRAINAGE .............................................................................................18
8.1 Excavation Methods ................................................................................................................. 18
8.2 Excavation Side Slopes and/or Lateral Support System .......................................................... 18
8.3 Backfill Material and Compaction Criteria .............................................................................. 18
8.4 General Fill ............................................................................................................................... 19
8.5 Surface Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 19
8.6 Subsurface Drainage System (Dewatering) ............................................................................. 19
9.0 CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATION ..............................................................................................................20
10.0 POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION .........................................................................................................22
11.0 IMPORTANT NOTES ...................................................................................................................................24

DL-SI25-005 TOC, Page 1 of 2

 TABLE OF TABLES
Table No. 1: Location of Boreholes, Elevation and Depth .................................................................. 2
Table No. 2: Permeability Results (Falling Head) ............................................................................... 5
Table No. 3: Details of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Soil, Rock & Ground Water Samples ......... 6
Table No. 4: Summary of Ground Materials Encountered .................................................................. 8
Table No. 5: Measured Groundwater Depth and Level ....................................................................... 9
Table No. 6: Estimated Ultimate Unit Skin Friction and Base Resistance of Ground Materials ...... 14
Table No. 7: Allowable Working Loads of Piles (Factor of Safety = 2.5) ........................................ 14
Table No. 8: Allowable Uplifting Loads of Piles (Factor of Safety = 2.5) ........................................ 15
Table No. 9: Summary of Liquefiable Layers with Factor of Safety Less than 1.25 ........................ 23

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure No. 1: SPT N values versus Elevation ...................................................................................... 4
Figure No. 2: Variation of UCS with Ground Levels .......................................................................... 7
Figure No. 3: 0.2 s (Ss) Spectral Response Acceleration (ADIBC 2013) ......................................... 17
Figure No. 4: 1.0s (S1) Spectral Response Acceleration (ADIBC 2013) .......................................... 17
Figure No. 5: Liquefaction Analysis for BH-01 using PGA of 0.18g ............................................... 23
Figure No. 6: Liquefaction Analysis for BH-02 using PGA of 0.18g ............................................... 23

DL-SI25-005 TOC, Page 2 of 2

 APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: SITE PLAN AND GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE

APPENDIX A1: Generalized Subsurface Profile

APPENDIX B: BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX B1: Legend for Boreholes Logs

APPENDIX B2: Boreholes Logs

APPENDIX C: FIELD TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX C1: Falling Head Permeability Test

APPENDIX D: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX D1: Grain Size Distribution and Atterberg & Moisture Content Test Results
APPENDIX D2: Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results
APPENDIX D3: Point Load Strength Index Test Results
APPENDIX D4-1: Chemical Test Results for Soil Samples
APPENDIX D4-2: Chemical Test Results for Ground Water Samples

APPENDIX E: TECHNICAL LITERATURE

APPENDIX E1: Reduction Factors for Rock Socket Skin Fraction

APPENDIX E2: Reduction Factors for Discontinuities in Rock Mass
APPENDIX E3: Concrete Specifications against Sulphate Attack & Types of Cement

APPENDIX F: PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF ROCK SAMPLES

DL-SI25-005 Appendices, Page 1 of 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Upon the authorization letter received from M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C in
capacity as the contractor of the project, a site investigation has been carried out on site of
“Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8”.

1.1 Purpose of Study

The Purpose of the investigation is to determine subsurface conditions at the site by determining the
physical properties of the soil, observing the level of the water table, noting the depth to the rock
formation if any, as well as recommending the type of foundations to be used.

1.2 Scope of Works

The scope of works consists of the following tasks:

1. Collecting information and maps particular to the site such as public services, site plan and
land-use maps.
2. Drilling of Two (2 Nos.) boreholes at 20.0m depth below the existing ground surface level,
in-situ testing and sampling of disturbed standard penetration (SPT) samples and
undisturbed core samples.
3. Performing One (1 No.) Falling Head Permeability Test.
4. Carrying out the necessary physical, mechanical and chemical laboratory testing on soil,
rock and ground water samples.
5. Performing engineering analysis of the field and laboratory findings.
6. Providing comprehensive and detailed factual and interpretative report of the geotechnical
investigation findings.

1.3 Project and Site Description

The proposed project is “Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8”.

The site is located at French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi. At the time of investigation, the
site has existing building, almost level and the average ground level was taken as +0.30m
referenced to asphalt road level.

DL-SI25-005 Page 1 of 24
2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
Abu Dhabi is located on the southeastern side of the Arabian Peninsula and is part of the Arabian Gulf
Basin. The geology of Abu Dhabi is primarily composed of sedimentary rocks that have been
deposited over millions of years.
The area is characterized by extensive offshore and onshore sedimentary deposits, including,
calcarenite, sandstone, and siltstone. These rocks were formed during various geological periods,
ranging from the Permian to the Holocene, and were laid down in shallow marine, deltaic, and fluvial
environments.
The geology of Abu Dhabi is further characterized by a series of anticlines and synclines, which have
resulted from tectonic activity over time. These structural features have contributed to the formation of
hydrocarbon traps, making Abu Dhabi a significant oil-producing region.
Abu Dhabi also has unique geological features such as sand dunes and sabkha. The western part of the
emirate is dominated by extensive areas of sand dunes, including the famous Liwa Oasis, which is
home to some of the largest sand dunes in the world. These dunes are formed by the action of winds
that blow from the northeast, resulting in the accumulation of sand in the form of dunes.
Sabkha, on the other hand, is a type of salt flat that is found in the coastal areas of Abu Dhabi. These
salt flats are formed by the evaporation of seawater and the subsequent deposition of salts, resulting in
a flat, white expanse of salt crust.
Overall, the geology of Abu Dhabi is diverse and varied, ranging from sedimentary rocks to sand dunes
and salt flats. These features have played an important role in shaping the natural environment of the
region and have contributed to its unique cultural and economic development.

3.0 FIELD WORK AND SAMPLING

3.1 Drilling of Boreholes

As per the client instructions, Two (2 Nos.) boreholes up to 20.0m depth were drilled at this site, the
drilling was carried out between January 10 - 13, 2025 and were located by the contractor
representative. It is to be noted that the drilling was performed using One (1 No.) drilling rig machine
that utilize rotary drilling techniques. See Table No. 1 for boreholes elevation & depth.

Table No. 1: Location of Boreholes, Elevation and Depth

Ground Level** Drilled Depth
Borehole No. (m) (m)
BH-01 +0.30 20.0

BH-02 +0.30 20.0

*Coordinates are referenced to WGS-84, Zone 40R.
**Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

DL-SI25-005 Page 2 of 24
3.2 Standard Penetration Test & Sampling

Standard Penetration Tests (S.P.T.) was performed at various depths in the boreholes to assess the
relative densities of the ground materials. The tests were performed in accordance with BS1377:1990
Part 9, “Determination of Penetration Resistance Using Split-Barrel Sampler (SPT)”.

The SPT consists of driving a Standard 50mm outside diameter split spoon sampler into soil at the
bottom of a borehole, using repeated blows of a 63.5kg hammer falling through 760mm. The SPT N
value is the number of blows required to achieve a penetration of 300mm, after an initial seating drive
of 150mm.

Split spoon samples were obtained at selected intervals through soil materials as specified. Wherever
cemented and rock materials were encountered, undisturbed core samples were obtained using double
tube core barrel (nominal diameter 76mm). The recovered samples were examined, described and
classified by our geologist. Then the soil samples were properly packed in plastic bags and core
samples were wrapped with cling film and placed in proper sequence in wooden core boxes and
transported to our laboratories for testing. After the required laboratory testing the remaining samples
will be retained for a specific period as agreed or described in the project specification.

Disturbed samples of the soil were collected at frequent intervals as well as core samples for
observation as well as identification and laboratory testing.

SPT is a reliable method which provides valuable information about soil consistency and relative
density. The interpretation of SPT results is included in the Appendix B – Legend for Borehole Logs.
Moreover, graphical presentation of SPT N-values versus ground elevation for the boreholes drilled
is prepared and presented in Figure No. 1.

DL-SI25-005 Page 3 of 24
 SPT N Values
1 4 10 30 50 100
0.0

Medium dense

Very dense
Very loose
-0.5

Dense
Loose
-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

BH-01
-2.5

-3.0
BH-02

-3.5

-4.0

-4.5
ELEVATION* (m)

-5.0

-5.5

-6.0

-6.5

-7.0

-7.5

-8.0

-8.5

-9.0

-9.5

-10.0

-10.5

-11.0

-11.5

-12.0
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.
Figure No. 1: SPT N values versus Elevation

DL-SI25-005 Page 4 of 24
3.3 Rock Coring

Rotary coring was carried out in the boreholes, using HWF Double Tube Swivel Type Core Barrel
fitted with face discharge PDC (Polycrystalline Diamond Compact) bits producing a nominal core
diameter of 76mm.

3.4 Field Permeability Test (Falling Head)

One (1 No.) in-situ permeability test was carried out on January 14th, 2025, in borehole: BH-02 at
depth mentioned in Table No. 2. The test was carried out by the falling head method in accordance
with BS EN ISO 22282-2:2012. The test results are present in Appendix C, Section C1, and
summary of permeability test results are given in Table No. 2.

The methodology adopted for carrying out tests was as follows:

A separate hole near the main borehole for geotechnical investigation was first drilled to a pre-
determined depth using clear water circulation. Casing tube was lowered in the boreholes up to the
bottom of the borehole.

Before starting the test, the water level was measured in the annular space or measuring tube after
stabilization. Clear water was then poured into the borehole to the top of the casing. The head in the
borehole was then allowed to fall to equalize with the original groundwater table. The actual head was
measured at various intervals of time. The data generated was then used to calculate permeability of the
soil utilizing the following formula:
A ln(h1 / h 2 )
k=
F (t 2 − t1)
Where:
A = Area of borehole
h1 and h2 = heads at time t1 and t2
ln(h1/h2) = Natural Logarithm of h1/h2
L = length of casing below borehole bottom
2L
F=

( 
loge (2 L / D ) + 1 + (2 L ) / D 
2
)

The tests results and details are presented in Appendix C, Section C2.

Table No. 2: Permeability Results (Falling Head)

Borehole Reduced Level*
Test Depth (m) Material Description K value (m/sec)
No. (m)
Dense,
BH-02 3.25 0.00 Very Sandy, Silty 2.2E-05
GRAVEL
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

DL-SI25-005 Page 5 of 24
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted on selected samples relevant to the engineering objectives of the
investigation. The following tests were performed according to American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) and/or British Standards (BS):

Table No. 3: Details of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Soil, Rock & Ground Water Samples
Test Standard Test Method Remarks
Physical/Mechanical/Index Properties of Soil/Rock Samples
Sieve analysis Determination of Particle Size Distribution,
1
BS EN ISO 17892-4: 2016 Cl.5.2
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils,
1
BS EN ISO 17892-12:2018, Cl.5.3, 5.5, 6.5 +A2:2022
Moisture Content Determination of Water Content,
1
BS EN ISO 17892-1: 2014 +A1 2022
Determination of Water Content of Soil & Rock by Mass
1
ASTM D2216-19
Preparation of Rock Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and Verifying
1
Cores Conformance to Dimensional and Shape Tolerances, ASTM D 4543-19
Compressive Strength of Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock,
1
Rock Cores ASTM D 7012-14e1
Point Load Strength Point Load Strength Index of Rock and Application to Rock Strength
1
Index Classifications, ASTM D 5731-16
Chemical Properties of Soil/Ground Water Samples
Sulphate Content Determination of Sulphate Content of Soil & Ground Water,
1
BS 1377-3:2018+A1:2021, Cl. 7.0
Chloride Content Determination of Chloride Content of Soil & Ground Water,
1
BS 1377-3:2018+A1:2021, Cl. 9.2 & 9.3
pH Value Determination of the pH Value of Soil & Ground Water,
1
BS 1377-3:2018+A1:2021, Cl. 12.0
Remarks: 1. Test Method Accredited by ENAS (Certificate No. NAL084)
2. Non-accredited Test Method

The obtained laboratory test results are provided in Appendix D.

To describe the strength of rocks, the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of intact rock core
specimens is determined. The specimens for the UCS test were prepared with utmost care to meet the
required dimensional tolerances, although some variation in surface flatness was noted. However, this
deviation was insignificant in interpreting the UCS test results for rocks categorized generally as very
weak. Appendix D provides a summary of the test results, while Figure No. 2 illustrates the graphical
representation of UCS versus elevation.

DL-SI25-005 Page 6 of 24
 UCS Values (MPa)
0 0.6 1 2 3 4 5
-11.5

Extremely Weak

Very Weak
BH-01

-12.0
BH-02

-12.5

-13.0

-13.5

-14.0

-14.5
ELEVATION* (m)

-15.0

-15.5

-16.0

-16.5

-17.0

-17.5

-18.0

-18.5

-19.0

-19.5
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.
Figure No. 2: Variation of UCS with Ground Levels

DL-SI25-005 Page 7 of 24
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS
5.1 Subsurface Condition

The findings of the boreholes were generally consistent with the anticipated geology and each other.
Full details of the strata encountered are given on the Borehole Logs in Appendix B later in this
report. The geological description of the ground materials as encountered at the site summarized in
Table No. 4 below:

Table No. 4: Summary of Ground Materials Encountered

Average
Average Level*
Depth BGL Geological Description
(m)
(m)
Loose to dense, very sandy to sandy, silty to slightly silty, GRAVEL /
0.00 – 1.50 (+0.30) – (-1.20)
Medium dense, gravelly, silty, calcareous SAND

Dense, locally medium dense, very sandy to sandy, slightly silty to

1.50 – 7.00 (-1.20) – (-6.70) silty, GRAVEL / Medium dense, gravelly, silty, calcareous SAND
(*5.0m – 7.0m: Rare shell fragments)

7.00 – 9.00 (-6.70) – (-8.70) Medium dense, gravelly, slightly silty to silty, calcareous SAND
(*7.0m – 9.0m: Rare shell fragments)

9.00 – 10.00 (-8.70) – (-9.70) Very dense, gravelly, slightly silty to very silty, calcareous SAND

Medium dense, locally dense, very gravelly to gravelly,

10.00 – 12.00 (-9.70) – (-11.70)
very silty, calcareous SAND

Very dense, gravelly, silty, calcareous SAND /

12.00 – 12.40 (-11.70) – (-12.10)
Completely weathered CALCARENITE & calcareous SANDSTONE

Very weak CALCARENITE with few voids of 20mm to 26mm /

12.40 – 20.00 (-12.10) – (-19.70)
Very weak calcareous SANDSTONE
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

5.2 Material Physical and Mechanical Properties

The laboratory test results for the various ground materials encountered at the site are presented in
Appendix D. The sieve analysis test results are used to classify the soils according to
BS 5930:2015+A1:2020 and it's given in the sieve analysis curve in Appendix D1. Engineering
classifications and descriptions are also presented in logs of borings in Appendix B2.

DL-SI25-005 Page 8 of 24
5.3 Ground Water

At the time of the field investigation, ground water table was encountered in both boreholes at
-2.85m level in reference to asphalt road level. Ground water levels were recorded during the
drilling process and minimum 24 hours after purging of water from the boreholes.

No dewatering activities active within/surrounding the site during the site investigation works.
However, it is recommended to check the water table level before and during construction since
ground water table is subjected to tidal & seasonal variations or by artificial induced effects and these
variations shall be taken into consideration for designing and construction of underground
structures.

Ground water samples collected from boreholes are completely filled in inert containers and were
taken to Delma laboratory for testing. The ground water depths and levels are presented in
Table No. 5.

Table No. 5: Measured Groundwater Depth and Level

BH Ground Level* Ground Water Depth Ground Water Level*

Borehole No.
(m) below EGL (m) (m)

BH-01 +0.30 3.15 -2.85

BH-02 +0.30 3.15 -2.85

*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

5.4 Water Loss and Cavity/Voids Condition

Based on the drilled boreholes, neither cavities/ free fall of drilling tools nor water loss was
encountered during drilling. Few voids of 20mm to 26mm were observed within the
CALCARENITE rock texture in both boreholes, BH-01 & BH-02, as mentioned in logs of borings
in Appendix B2.

DL-SI25-005 Page 9 of 24
6.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE CHOICE OF FOUNDATION TYPE
To ensure a stable foundation, two requirements must be met at the same time:
1. Preventing shear failure in the soil mass, and
2. Limiting the maximum and differential settlements to safe levels.

Additionally, the foundation design should consider the soil properties, the ground water level,
loading conditions and project characteristics to choose an appropriate foundation type and size that
can safely support the structure and limit settlement to acceptable levels. When selecting a
foundation type, it is important to consider not only its safety but also its cost-effectiveness.

It is understood from the client's representative that Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8 is proposed
to be constructed at this site.

Based on the prevailing load and site conditions,

1. The imposed loads from the proposed structures on the foundation ground are expected to be
medium.
2. Water table was encountered in both boreholes at -2.85m level in reference to asphalt road
level as mentioned in Table No. 5.
3. Very loose, calcareous SAND layer was encountered between 9.0m to 10.0m depths
below the average existing ground level. Additionally, rare shell fragments were
encountered between 5.0m to 9.0m depths below the average existing ground level in
the soil strata.
4. The materials encountered are shown in subsurface profiles presented in Appendix A and
logs of borings in Appendix B and as summarized in Table No. 4.

Taking all of these factors into account, it is recommended to use Deep (Pile) Foundation for the
proposed structure. This foundation type is both cost-effective and suitable for the local site
conditions, and the required equipment and construction materials are locally available.

DL-SI25-005 Page 10 of 24
6.1 Pile Foundation

A deep foundation is a type of foundation that is distinguished from shallow foundation by the
depth it is embedded into the ground. There are many reasons why a geotechnical engineer would
recommend a deep foundation over a shallow foundation. Some of the common reasons are very
large design loads, a poor soil at shallow depth, or site constraints. A pile foundation, on the other
hand, is the part of a structure used to carry and transfer the load of the structure to the bearing
ground located at some depth below the ground surface.
The main components of the foundation are the pile cap and the piles. Piles are long and slender
members which transfer the load to deeper soil or rock of high bearing capacity avoiding shallow
soil of low bearing capacity. The main types of materials used for piles are steel and concrete. Piles
made from these materials are driven, drilled or jacked into the ground and connected to pile caps to
distribute loads which are larger than one pile can bear.
Deep foundations can be made out of timber, steel, reinforced concrete and pre-tensioned concrete.
Deep foundations can be installed by either driving them into the ground or drilling a shaft and
filling it with concrete, mass or reinforced.
Driving piles, as opposed to drilling shafts, is advantageous because the soil displaced by driving
the piles compresses the surrounding soil, causing greater friction against the sides of the piles, thus,
increasing their load-bearing capacity.

6.2 Bearing Capacity of Piles

The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile used in design may be one of the three values: the maximum
load Qmax, at which further penetration occurs without the load increasing; a calculated value Qult
given by the sum of the end-bearing and shaft resistances.
A pile loaded axially will carry the load:
❖ partly by shear stresses (s) generated along the shaft of the pile and
❖ Partly by normal stresses (qb) generated at the base.
The ultimate capacity Qult of a pile is equal to the base capacity Qb plus the shaft capacity Qs.
Qult = Qb + Qs = Ab . qb + (As . s)
Where Ab is the area of the base and As is the surface area of the shaft within a soil layer.
Full shaft capacity is mobilized at much smaller displacements than those related to full base
resistance. This is important when determining the settlement response of a pile. The same overall
bearing capacity may be achieved with a variety of combinations of pile diameter and length.
However, a long slender pile may be shown to be more efficient than a short stubby pile. Longer
piles generate a larger proportion of their full capacity by skin friction and so their full capacity can
be mobilized at much lower settlements. The proportions of capacity contributed by skin friction
and end bearing do not just depend on the geometry of the pile. The type of construction and the
sequence of soil layers are important factors.

DL-SI25-005 Page 11 of 24
6.3 Pile on Rock

The bearing capacity of the piles can be determined using equations below the unit base resistance
and side friction (socket resistance). The terms could be determined as follows:

Qult = Q friction + Q end bearing

Qfriction = qs x As qs =  βquc

As= π DL

Qend = qb x A end qb = 2 N φ quc

N φ = tan2( 45 + ½ φ)

A end = π D2
4
Thus, the ultimate bearing capacity of pile can be expressed as follows:

Qu= Ab (2 NΦquc) + As (quc)

Where: Qult : Ultimate Bearing Capacity

qucs = unconfined compressive strength

NΦ = bearing capacity factor (Φ ) depends on the type of rock

 = correction factor related to the discontinuity spacing in the rock mass

 = reduction factor relating to quc

D = diameter of the pile

L = friction length

DL-SI25-005 Page 12 of 24
6.4 Verification of Design Pile Capacities
To ensure the safety and reliability of foundation structures, it is essential to verify the theoretical
pile capacities through on-site load testing and consulting with experienced contractors. While the
designated pile length represents the design specifications, adjustments may be required to
accommodate site-specific conditions. Specialized contractors should be sought for advice on the
cost, performance, and installation method of a particular type of pile, considering the ground
conditions at the site.

Engaging a skilled and well-equipped piling contractor is necessary for the construction of piles.
The contractor should provide a method statement for the pile construction and confirm the actual
working loads for their specific piling system before finalizing the foundation design. Pile load tests
are the most reliable method for assessing the pile's carrying capacity and settlement behavior, and
they can be performed either before or during the foundation construction period. Pre-contract
testing may result in a more economical pile design based on specific test data.

During pile installation, a strict program of QC should be implemented, including all necessary tests
such as Caliper Logging, Cross-hole Sonic, PIT, and Loading Tests on working piles. Close
geotechnical supervision by qualified and experienced engineers is highly recommended at all
stages of pile foundation construction and testing. Drilling for cast-in-place piles requires caution to
avoid disturbing or loosening the end-bearing strata, maintaining stable contact between the piles
and these strata. Overall, verifying the theoretical pile capacities through load testing and consulting
with contractors is crucial for ensuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of foundation
structures.

6.5 Pile Load Test

Pile load testing provides an opportunity for continuous improvement in foundation and
construction practices. The main purpose of the pile testing is either to validate the design before
construction and/or to check the compliance of the specifications during construction. This
particular test can verify the estimated bearing capacity of the pile determined by static formulas
and evaluate the deflection change at the pile. In order to achieve this improvement, data from pile
tests has to be collected and analyzed to enable the piling industry, both individually and
collectively, make the best use of the resources.

The maximum test load to be applied must be agreed in advance so it can be designed as to apply to
the maximum test load safety.

The various available methods of testing piles can be determined according to the British Standard
Institution CP 2004 foundations and to the method of Construction Industry Research and
Information; Pile Load Testing Procedures. Tests involving large forces applied for long periods of
time increments up to a designated level of load and recording the vertical deflection of pile. Static
load tests are used to assess pile load capacity and small energy low strain tests to assess pile
integrity. The statistical test relies on a suitable reaction system from which to apply loading to the
pile under test.

DL-SI25-005 Page 13 of 24
 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the unconfined compressive strength for intact rock and the equations
presented before, the estimated ultimate unit skin friction of ground materials is presented in
Table No. 6 and the allowable working loads of piles & allowable uplifting loads of piles
considering factor of safety 2.5 are presented in Table Nos. 7 & 8, respectively.

7.1 Pile Foundation

The values in Table Nos. 6, 7 & 8 are estimated for the purpose of preliminary design only. A
detailed final design should be carried out by “piling specialist” taking into consideration all the
possible loading conditions, which may be applied on the piles. The load carrying capacity of small
diameter concrete piles can be further limited by the safe working load which can be carried out by
the shaft when considered as a structural member.

Table No. 6: Estimated Ultimate Unit Skin Friction and Base Resistance of Ground Materials

Depth of Rock Socket qs qb

Level of quc
Supporting UCS Reduction Ultimate Ultimate
Supporting Material UCS Base NΦ
Layer Below friction Factors Unit Skin Unit Base
Layer* Description Resistance
Average GL (kg/cm²) Friction Resistance
(m) (kg/cm²)
(m)   (kg/cm²) (kg/cm²)

0.00 – 12.40 (+0.30) – (-12.10) Calcareous SAND Neglected

CALCARENITE /
12.40 – 20.00 (-12.10) – (-19.70) Calcareous 20.0 0.31 0.65 4.03 20.0 2.0 80
SANDSTONE
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

Table No. 7: Allowable Working Loads of Piles (Factor of Safety = 2.5)

Average Toe Level* (m) -14.10 -14.60 -15.10

Depth up-to the Toe Level Below Average EGS (m) 14.40 14.90 15.40

Minimum Socket Length in Intact Rock (m) 2.00 2.50 3.00

Pile Diameter (m) Allowable Working Loads (Tons)

0.50 113 126 139

0.60 151 166 182

0.75 217 236 255

*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

DL-SI25-005 Page 14 of 24
 Table No. 8: Allowable Uplifting Loads of Piles (Factor of Safety = 2.5)
Average Toe Level* (m) -14.10 -14.60 -15.10

Depth up-to the Toe Level Below Average EGS (m) 14.40 14.90 15.40

Minimum Socket Length in Intact Rock (m) 2.00 2.50 3.00

Pile Diameter (m) Allowable Uplifting Loads (Tons)

0.50 36 45 54

0.60 43 54 64

0.75 54 67 81
*Ground elevations are referenced to asphalt road level.

Notes: 1. The indicated permissible working loads for the piles are determined solely based on geotechnical factors and should be
restricted according to the structural capacity of the piles.
2. These values are approximations intended for preliminary design purposes:
-A comprehensive final design must be conducted by the structural engineer, considering all potential loading scenarios that may
be imposed on the piles.
-The piling contractor shall submit the full detailed calculations for the capacity of the pile and settlement as per ADM
regulation.
3. Reduction of 0.7 on skin friction values was made for uplift pile capacity calculations as per Carter & Kulhawy (1988) for sockets
in rock to compensate for the lateral contraction of shaft when in uplift.

Remarks:
*Average Existing Ground Level is +0.30m in reference to asphalt road level.
**It should be taken into consideration that loss of concrete will/may happen during boring of piling due to presence of few voids
& interfaces/highly fractured zones in rock layers.

7.2 Ground Floor Slab Type

Types of ground slab are the designer's decision depending on the loading conditions, construction
design and layout of the structures. Anyway, based on the results of the field and laboratory
investigations, as well as practical experience Suspended Slab shall be used.

DL-SI25-005 Page 15 of 24
7.3 Seismic Design Parameters

Based on the MASW survey results (Refer to GS Report No. DL-GS25-001), the average Vs30
value was determined to be 435.96 m/sec and the construction area can be classified as
Very Dense Soil and Soft Rocks which is Type C according to the Abu Dhabi International
Building Code (ADIBC) 2013.

The site coefficients and the adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration parameters are basically function of the mapped spectral acceleration for short period
(i.e., 0.2 second), Ss and the mapped spectral acceleration for one second period, S1 as determined
in section 1613.5.1 of ADIBC 2013. The spectral accelerations Ss and S1 are shown on Figures
1613.5(1) and 1613.5(2). These figures are shown herein as Figure Nos. 3 and 4, respectively.

The relatively lower magnitude earth quakes that may occur in eastern UAE have no impact on long
period hazard. The actual hazard amplitudes are low - generally between 0.05 and 0.10g, the
following parameters are recommended for the equivalent lateral force estimation in the design of
buildings:

Ss = The mapped spectral acceleration for short period = 0.61

S1 = The mapped spectral acceleration for 1-second period = 0.18

TL = Long - term Transition Period = 8 (In the absence of actual data, this value was judged
appropriate for the UAE)

DL-SI25-005 Page 16 of 24
 Figure No. 3: 0.2 s (Ss) Spectral Response Acceleration (ADIBC 2013)

Figure No. 4: 1.0s (S1) Spectral Response Acceleration (ADIBC 2013)

DL-SI25-005 Page 17 of 24
8.0 EXCAVATION, BACKFILL & DRAINAGE
8.1 Excavation Methods
The excavation works should be carried out in accordance with good construction practice, such as
BS 6031: 1981, “Code of Practice for Earthworks” or a similar recognized standard. Excavations
are expected to be through sandy soil. Therefore, conventional excavation equipment such as
loaders & dozers will be needed for the excavation works.

8.2 Excavation Side Slopes and/or Lateral Support System

In case of excavation below ground water level, a temporary lateral support (shoring) system must
be used. Solid shoring (i.e. sheet pile) will be suitable to retain sandy materials encountered at this
site. However, in case excavation will be above water table or dewatering system is used before
excavation to lower the water table level, it is recommended that the ground material be cut at a face
inclination not steeper than the values given in the table below:

The areas adjacent to the top of slopes should be protected from dead, live or surcharge loads to a
lateral distance not less than 0.5H (H=height of excavation)

8.3 Backfill Material and Compaction Criteria

Structural fill materials shall comply with the following:

- Shall be selected, well-graded sand and gravel containing a small percentage of fines
- Maximum rock particle size 37.5mm
- The material shall be shown to have an acid-soluble sulphate content of 2% or less and
chloride content in the form of acid soluble chloride of 2% or less by dry weight
- Free of organic matter or other deleterious substances
- Materials passing sieve No.200 shall be less than or equal 20%
- Materials should be non to slightly plastic (max. P.I of 6)
- Soaked CBR at 95% maximum dry density (soaked) BS1377 part 4(method 3.5) not less
than 30% when tested according to BS 1377 Part 4 (method 7)
- Material under foundations shall be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as obtained
by modified proctor (ASTM D 1557).

DL-SI25-005 Page 18 of 24
8.4 General Fill

In areas where general filling is required (such as landscaping or unloaded areas), the materials to
be used shall be:

General fill material shall be used exclusively in areas where no structures or equipment are
planned for installation, and in open spaces where only grading is needed to achieve the elevations
specified on the drawings. The extent of general fill usage shall require prior approval from the
Consultant, in accordance with the specifications.

The properties and characteristics of general fill shall comply with, or surpass, the following
criteria:

1. Type of soil – Inorganic granular or silty soil.

2. Gradation

BS Sieve Size Percent Passing

75mm 100
0.075mm 0.0-20.0

Fill shall be placed in layers not exceeding 300mm in loose measurement. A capping layer, as
specified later, shall be applied every three layers, with the final layer being a capping layer.

General fill shall be compacted to a minimum of 80% of the maximum Modified Proctor Density
(MDD) in accordance with ASTM D1557, or 85% of the maximum Standard Proctor Density
(MDD) in accordance with ASTM D698. A plate bearing test shall be conducted on each fill layer
as a quality control measure to verify compliance with the required allowable bearing pressure and
total settlement criteria for foundations.

The project-specific specifications shall take precedence over the fill criteria recommendations
provided in this report.

8.5 Surface Drainage

To ensure the stability and safety of the project site, it is highly recommended to implement a
suitable surface drainage system both during and after construction. Proper measures should be
taken to divert surface water away from the edges of the excavation.

8.6 Subsurface Drainage System (Dewatering)

No dewatering is required for the recommended deep (pile) foundation.

However, considering shallow groundwater table if dewatering is to be done, different methods for
site dewatering exist; ranging from shallow trenches and sumps, well point dewatering system or
deep wells depending on the depth of dewatering and site particulars. Shallow trenches and
pumping are only suitable for very shallow dewatering requirements, whereas well points are more
convenient for larger dewatering depth. The effective depth of a well point system below the header
pipe is about 5-6m only; therefore, a single, double or even multiple systems may be used
depending on the required depth of dewatering.

DL-SI25-005 Page 19 of 24
In the design of dewatering system, the flownet method involves the selection of suitable contour
intervals to adequately display the required drawdown within the excavated area. In this regard the
dewatering flow or pumping rate can be calculated accurately utilizing the readings of water table
together with the results of additional permeability test which simulates the aquifer characteristics
and the strata permeability.

Care should be taken during dewatering to prevent removal of fines, which could cause
unpredictable settlements of surrounding structures and associated structures. Dewatering level
when undertaken shall be minimum of 0.5m below the excavated level to achieve proper
compaction of subgrade and should be continued during construction period and as per the engineer
instructions.

Specialist contractors, with sufficient previous experience, must be consulted for the selection and
design of the shoring and dewatering systems.

9.0 CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATION

Chemical analysis of soil and ground water indicates possible sulphate and chloride attack against
corrosion.

Based on the results of Sulphate content determination test for the soils and ground water samples,
the site is categorized within class S2 as per ACI and class no. 3 by both BS 5328 and BRE digest
363, the results of these tests are attached in this report within Appendix C. 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.

However, it must be noted that, the above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride
ions in concrete surroundings. Hence, careful consideration should be given to the
recommendations made in CIRIA Publication 2002 “Guide to the construction of reinforced
concrete in the Arabian Peninsula”. According to CIRIA Special Publication No.31 guidelines,
there is no widely accepted view on the concentration as which chlorides becomes significant in soil
or groundwater, but limited experience in the gulf region suggests it may be as low as 0.05%
particularly in situations where alternate wetting and drying or capillary rise effect the concrete. As
per CIRIA SP31, concrete containing pulverized fuels ash (PFA), ground granulated blast furnace
slag (GGBS) and silica fumes (SF) are highly resistant to penetration by chlorides due to their
increased binding capacity and refined pore structure.

Relevant extracts of these documents are attached in Appendix E of this report for reference.

Also, when resistance is needed against both, sulphate and chlorides, concrete may need to be
protected from the soil and groundwater with a waterproofing membrane or tanking and a
compromise has to be made on the type of cement to be used, generally, a cement containing at least
3.5% but not more than 9.0% C3A is preferred. Each situation should be considered on its merit.

The recommendations of ACI, BS 5328 and BRE digest 363 for the cement type, cement content
and free water cement ratio is as follows:

DL-SI25-005 Page 20 of 24
 ACI 318 Building Code & Commentary

Min Cement Type

Exposure Max.
Fc'
Class w/cm
Mpa ASTM C595 ASTM C1157

Type IP (HS)
S
Sulfate S2 0.45 31 HS-High Sulfate Resistance

Type IS (<70)

BS 5328
Cement Content
Cement Type W/C
(kg/m3)
BS 4027 (SRPC)
330 0.50
BS 4248 (SSC)

BRE Digest 363

Cement Content
Cement Type W/C
(kg/m3)
BS 4027 (SRPC) 320 0.50
High-slag blast furnace cement to BS 4246
containing not less than 74% slag by mass of 340 0.50
nucleus
Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and
pfa to BS 3892: Part 1 containing not less than
340 0.50
25% pfa and not more than 40% pfa by mass of pfa
plus cement

DL-SI25-005 Page 21 of 24
10.0 POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION
Soil liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated soils with no cohesion experience a temporary but
complete loss of strength due to severe earthquakes. The potential for liquefaction in these soils is
influenced by various factors, including the characteristics of the soil such as its grain size
distribution and relative density, as well as the initial stresses or shear stresses that can cause excess
pore water pressure and strain softening, and the characteristics of the earthquake itself, including
the intensity and duration of ground shaking.

In this site, subsurface materials are medium dense, locally very loose silty sandy materials with
intermediate layer of medium dense to dense, very sandy, silty, gravelly materials underlain with
bedrock materials. Water table was encountered in both boreholes at -2.85m level in reference to
asphalt road level. Given these conditions and the criteria for liquefaction mentioned earlier, the site
is deemed susceptible to liquefaction during a seismic event. Proposed structures will be supported
by deep piles socketed in rock layers to mitigate any possibilities of liquefaction. Liquefaction shall
be accounted for in the design of piles against liquefaction/buckling loads.

Liquefaction analysis was carried out for both boreholes, BH-01 & BH-02, using the cyclic stress
ratio based on the magnitude of M = 6.0 on Richter scale (considering a magnitude reduction factor
on the CSR) with PGA of 0.18g using the procedure prescribed by Youd et al. (2001) and is
presented in Figure Nos. 5 & 6.

The factor of safety (FOS) against liquefaction is the ratio between the resisting conditions
represented by CRR value divided by the liquefaction driving condition represented by CSR value.
(NCEER 2003, modified from Seed et. al 1985).

FOS = CRR / CSR

Where,
FOS= Factor of safety against liquefaction
CRR= Cyclic Resistance Ratio
CSR= Cyclic Stress Ratio

Soil layer having FOS less than 1.25 is considered to be prone to liquefaction.

DL-SI25-005 Page 22 of 24
 CSR and CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
1
2
3 Cyclic stress ratio
4
depth (m)

cyclic resistance ratio

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Figure No. 5: Liquefaction Analysis for BH-01 using PGA of 0.18g

CSR and CRR

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
1
2
3
4
depth (m)

Cyclic stress ratio

5
6 cyclic resistance ratio
7
8
9
10
11

Figure No. 6: Liquefaction Analysis for BH-02 using PGA of 0.18g

It is observed from the results of liquefaction analysis (Figure Nos. 5 & 6) that this site is prone to
liquefaction when subjected to seismic activity of magnitude, M=6, PGA=0.18g. Based on detailed
liquefaction analysis a summary of soil strata susceptible to liquefaction in case of seismic event
which is with FOS less than 1.25 is presented in “Table No. 9”.

Table No. 9: Summary of Liquefiable Layers with Factor of Safety Less than 1.25

BH No. Depth below EGL (m) Layer Thickness (m)

BH-01 9.0 to 10.0 1.0

BH-02 9.0 to 10.0 1.0

Deep foundation (pile) are recommended to mitigate any possibilities of liquefaction. Liquefaction
shall be accounted for in the design of piles against liquefaction/buckling loads.

DL-SI25-005 Page 23 of 24
11.0 IMPORTANT NOTES
Please take note of the following important points in relation to this geotechnical investigation report:

• This technical report's conclusions and recommendations are based on the findings obtained
from the drilled boreholes and test results. It is important to note that the conclusions and
recommendations provided are specific to this particular study and should not be applied to
other projects without proper consideration of the site-specific conditions.

• The information contained in this report is confidential and proprietary to the "Delma
Laboratory (DL)". Any reproduction, copying, translation, publication, recording, storage,
or transmission of any part of this report in any form or by any means without the explicit
written permission of DL is strictly prohibited.

• Furthermore, the content of this report is not intended for use in advertising, publication, or
promotional materials. Citation of any trade name in this report does not constitute
promotion or approval of the use of such product. Any use of the information contained in
this report for such purposes requires explicit written consent from DL.

• Additionally, it is important to note that the report's findings and recommendations are
based on the current state of the site and are subject to change as construction work
progresses.

Finally, it is critical to have qualified and experienced geotechnical engineers supervise all aspects
of the construction to ensure compliance with project specifications and local authority
requirements.

DL-SI25-005 Page 24 of 24
 APPENDIX A
(Generalized Subsurface Profile)

Section A1: Generalized Subsurface Profile

DL-SI25-005
 APPENDIX A
Section A1
(Generalized Subsurface Profile)

DL-SI25-005
 Generalized Subsurface Profile

2 BH-01 BH-02 2
UCS N TCR/SCR/RQD UCS N TCR/SCR/RQD
(MPa) Value (%) (MPa) Value (%)

0 0
5 22
41 28
28 30
-2 33 35 -2
37 34
38 43

-4 44 38 -4
43 23

-6 42 21 -6
14 16
Elevation (m)

-8 19 10 -8
2 1

-10 29 28 -10
27 33

-12 50/19cm 50/25cm -12

2.14
98/55/32 98/30/20

2.35
-14 -14
2.09 33/11/09 22/16/11
2.60

-16 2.76
50/19cm
-16
50/12cm
84/45/35 90/37/25
2.34 3.08
-18 -18
85/46/31 2.44 87/40/31
2.58

-20 -20

Distance along Baseline (m)

Legend of Soil & Rock Project Name: Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
Borehole Details
Gravels SAND Location: French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi
BH ID Depth (m) Northing Easting Elev. (m)
Very Silty SAND/ Client: M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C
BH-01 20.00 1 1 0.30 Calcarenite
Sandy SILT Delma Report No.: DL-SI25-005
BH-02 20.00 2 2 0.30
SANDSTONE Figure No.: AA'
Profile Line: A1-A1

Abbreviations: Ground Water Level; UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength; TCR: Total Core Recovery; SCR: Solid Core Recovery; RQD: Rock Quality Designation
Appendix A, Section A3, Page No.1 of 1
 APPENDIX B
(Legends & Logs for Boreholes)

Section B1: Legends for Borehole Logs

Section B2: Boreholes Logs

DL-SI25-005
 APPENDIX B
Section B1
(Legends for Borehole Logs)

DL-SI25-005
 LEGEND TO BOREHOLE LOGS
SYMBOLS FOR COMMON SOIL & ROCK TYPES
SOIL

Cobbles & Boulders Gravels Sand Silt Clay Very Silty SAND/
Sandy SILT

ROCK OTHER MATERIALS

Sandstone Siltstone Mudstone Limestone Fill Peat/Organic

Soil/Topsoil

Calcarenite Conglomerate Gypsum Gabbro Concrete Asphalt

DEFINITION OF ABBREVIATIONS:
• SPT – Standard Penetration Test (N): Number of blows to drive the sampler to final 300mm of the total 450mm driving distance.
• TCR – Total Core Recovery (%): Percentage of length of core recovered in each run to the total length of the core run.
• SCR – Solid Core Recovery (%): Percentage of length of core recovered as solid full diameter core pieces to the total length of the core run.
• RQD – Rock Quality Designation (%): Percentage of the sum of lengths of intact core pieces of 10cm or longer to the total length of the core run.
• FI – Fracture Index: Number of fractures to length of core run per linear meter.

DELMA LABORATORY FOR SOIL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL INSPECTION, LLC

 APPENDIX B
Section B2
(Boreholes Logs)

DL-SI25-005
BOREHOLE NO. BH-01 Sheet: 1/2

Client: M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C

Project: Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
Document No. F-LAB-47
Location: French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi Date: 31/05/2023, Issue No. 01, Rev. No.: 02
Report Ref.: DL-SI25-005

Boring Method: Rotary Total Depth (m) : 20 Ground Water Depth (m): 3.15 Ground Water Level (m): -2.85
Boring Diameter (mm): 125 Drill Fluid: Bentonite Casing Dia. (mm): NU Coordinates:
Boring Equipment: Rig No. 06 Core Dia. (mm): 76 Casing Depth (m): - N E

Starting Date: 10/01/2025 End Date: 11/01/2025 Rig Operator: Jilu Ground Level (m): +0.30
Samples SPT Records Core Recovery

Reduced
wrt EGL

Legend
Scale

Depth
Width
Layer

Level
Field Records Description of Strata

(m)

(m)

(m)
(m) Type and Depth N TCR SCR RQD UCS
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) FI (MPa)
Number (m) 0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
0 (cm) (cm) (cm) cm (cm) (cm)
Loose, brown, dry to moist, non-plastic, fine
B1
0.00 - 0.50 to medium, very sandy, silty, GRAVEL.
(Gravels are fine to medium, sub-angular, 1.00
S-1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5
multi rock fragments).
0.50 - 0.95
R 1.00 -0.70
1 S-2
0.95 - 1.00
Dense, locally medium dense, brown, moist
5 7 7 10 11 13 41
1.00 - 1.45 to wet, non-plastic, fine to medium, very
R sandy to sandy, slightly silty, GRAVEL.
1.45 - 1.50
S-3 5 5 5 5 8 10 28
(Gravels are fine to medium, sub-angular,
1.50 - 1.95 multi rock fragments).
R
2 S-4
1.95 - 2.00
6 6 7 7 8 11 33
2.00 - 2.45
R
2.45 - 2.50
S-5 7 7 8 8 9 12 37
2.50 - 2.95
R
3 S-6
2.95 - 3.00
4 7 8 9 9 12 38
3.00 - 3.45

R
3.45 - 4.00
4 S-7
6.00
8 8 9 9 12 14 44
4.00 - 4.45

R
4.45 - 5.00
5 S-8 5 9 9 10 12 12 43
5.00 - 5.45

R
5.45 - 6.00
6 S-9 9 9 10 10 11 11 42
6.00 - 6.45

R
6.45 - 7.00
7.00 -6.70
7 S-10 Medium dense, becoming very loose, grey,
2 2 2 3 4 5 14
7.00 - 7.45 wet, non-plastic, fine to medium grained,
gravelly, slightly silty, calcareous SAND.
R (Gravels are fine, sub-angular, cemented
7.45 - 8.00 sand, Siltstone & Sandstone pieces).
*7.0m - 7.45m: Rare shell fragments.
8 S-11 *8.0m - 8.45m: Rare shell fragments.
3 3 4 4 5 6 19
8.00 - 8.45
3.00
R
8.45 - 9.00
9 S-12 2 2 1/15 - 1/15 - 2
9.00 - 9.45

R
9.45 - 10.00
10.00 -9.70
10
REMARKS: SAMPLE KEY Abbreviations:
FI : Fracture Index Ground Water Table
1. Testing Standards followed: BS 1377:1990-Part 9; ASTM D 6032M-17. S: Standard Penetration Test TCR : Total Core Recovery NU : Not Used
2. The Samples were described in accordance with BS 5930:2015+A1: 2020, Sec.6.0.
3. The existing ground level was taken in reference to adjacent asphalt road level. R: Tricone Rolling SCR : Solid Core Recovery ND : Not Determined
B: Bulk Sample RQD : Rock Quality Designation
C: Core Sample UCS : Unconfined Compression Strength
Logged By : Geo. Umair Checked By : Sheher Yar Khan

Appendix B, Section B2, Page No. 1/4

BOREHOLE NO. BH-01 Sheet: 2/2

Client: M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C

Project: Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
Document No. F-LAB-47
Location: French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi Date: 31/05/2023, Issue No. 01, Rev. No.: 02
Report Ref.: DL-SI25-005

Boring Method: Rotary Total Depth (m) : 20 Ground Water Depth (m): 3.15 Ground Water Level (m): -2.85
Boring Diameter (mm): 125 Drill Fluid: Bentonite Casing Dia. (mm): NU Coordinates:
Boring Equipment: Rig No. 06 Core Dia. (mm): 76 Casing Depth (m): - N E

Starting Date: 10/01/2025 End Date: 11/01/2025 Rig Operator: Jilu Ground Level (m): +0.30
Samples SPT Records Core Recovery

Reduced
wrt EGL

Legend
Scale

Depth
Width
Layer

Level
Field Records Description of Strata

(m)

(m)

(m)
(m) Type and Depth N TCR SCR RQD UCS
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) FI (MPa)
Number (m) 0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
10 S-13
(cm) (cm) (cm) cm (cm) (cm)
Medium dense, grey, wet, non-plastic, fine to
4 4 4 7 8 10 29
10.00 - 10.45 medium grained, very gravelly, very silty,
calcareous SAND. (Gravels are fine,
R sub-angular, cemented sand, Siltstone &
10.45 - 11.00 Sandstone pieces).
11 S-14
2.00
3 4 4 7 7 9 27
11.00 - 11.45

R
11.45 - 12.00
12.00 -11.70
12 S-15 Very dense, grey, wet, non-plastic, fine to
9 12 16 21 13/4 - 50/19cm 0.34
12.00 - 12.34 medium grained, gravelly, silty, calcareous 12.34 -12.04
2.14 SAND. (Gravels are fine, sub-angular,
Calcarenite pieces). / Completely weathered,
C-1 CALCARENITE.
12.34 - 13.40 98 55 32
13 Very weak, very thinly to medium bedded,
off-white/ grey, CALCARENITE with few
voids up to 26mm & interbedded with
calcareous Sandstone. Distinctly weathered to
destructured, very closely to medium spaced,
sub-horizontal, rough, fractured.
14

C-2
13.40 - 16.40 33 11 09 2.09
15

16
2.76 7.66

S-16
16.40 - 16.74 6 12 16 18 16/4 - 50/19cm

17
C-3
16.74 - 17.80 84 45 35

2.34

18

C-4
17.80 - 20.00 85 46 31
19 2.58

End of Borehole at 20.0m Depth below EGL 20.00 -19.70

20
REMARKS: SAMPLE KEY Abbreviations:
FI : Fracture Index Ground Water Table
1. Testing Standards followed: BS 1377:1990-Part 9; ASTM D 6032M-17. S: Standard Penetration Test TCR : Total Core Recovery NU : Not Used
2. The Samples were described in accordance with BS 5930:2015+A1: 2020, Sec.6.0.
3. The existing ground level was taken in reference to adjacent asphalt road level. R: Tricone Rolling SCR : Solid Core Recovery ND : Not Determined
B: Bulk Sample RQD : Rock Quality Designation
C: Core Sample UCS : Unconfined Compression Strength
Logged By : Geo. Umair Checked By : Sheher Yar Khan

Appendix B, Section B2, Page No. 2/4

BOREHOLE NO. BH-02 Sheet: 1/2

Client: M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C

Project: Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
Document No. F-LAB-47
Location: French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi Date: 31/05/2023, Issue No. 01, Rev. No.: 02
Report Ref.: DL-SI25-005

Boring Method: Rotary Total Depth (m) : 20 Ground Water Depth (m): 3.15 Ground Water Level (m): -2.85
Boring Diameter (mm): 125 Drill Fluid: Bentonite Casing Dia. (mm): NU Coordinates:
Boring Equipment: Rig No. 06 Core Dia. (mm): 76 Casing Depth (m): - N E

Starting Date: 11/01/2025 End Date: 13/01/2025 Rig Operator: Jilu Ground Level (m): +0.30
Samples SPT Records Core Recovery

Reduced
wrt EGL

Legend
Scale

Depth
Width
Layer

Level
Field Records Description of Strata

(m)

(m)

(m)
(m) Type and Depth N TCR SCR RQD UCS
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) FI (MPa)
Number (m) 0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
0 (cm) (cm) (cm) cm (cm) (cm)
Medium dense, brown, dry to moist,
B1
0.00 - 0.50 non-plastic, fine to medium grained, gravelly,
silty, calcareous SAND. (Gravels are fine,
S-1 4 4 5 5 5 7 22
sub-angular, multi rock fragments).
0.50 - 0.95 1.50
R
1 S-2
0.95 - 1.00
5 5 5 6 8 9 28
1.00 - 1.45
R 1.50 -1.20
1.45 - 1.50
S-3 6 6 7 7 8 8 30 Dense, brown, moist to wet, non-plastic, fine
1.50 - 1.95 to medium, very sandy, silty, GRAVEL.
R (Gravels are fine to medium, sub-angular,
2 S-4
1.95 - 2.00
multi rock fragments).
4 6 6 8 10 11 35
2.00 - 2.45
R
2.45 - 2.50
S-5 5 5 7 7 8 12 34
2.50 - 2.95
R
3 S-6
2.95 - 3.00
7 7 9 10 11 13 43 3.50
3.00 - 3.45

R
3.45 - 4.00
4 S-7 7 7 7 9 9 13 38
4.00 - 4.45

R
4.45 - 5.00
5.00 -4.70
5 S-8 Medium dense, grey/ brown, wet,
4 4 4 5 7 7 23
5.00 - 5.45 non-plastic, fine to medium grained, gravelly,
silty, calcareous SAND. (Gravels are fine,
R sub-angular, Siltstone & Sandstone pieces).
5.45 - 6.00 *5.0m - 5.45m: Rare shell fragments.
6 S-9 *6.0m - 6.45m: Rare shell fragments.
3 4 4 5 6 6 21
6.00 - 6.45
3.00
R
6.45 - 7.00
7 S-10 *7.0m - 7.45m: Rare shell fragments.
2 2 3 3 4 6 16
7.00 - 7.45

R
7.45 - 8.00
8.00 -7.70
8 S-11 Medium dense to dense, locally very loose,
2 2 2 2 3 3 10
8.00 - 8.45 grey/ brown, wet, non-plastic, fine to
medium grained, slightly gravelly to
R gravelly, very silty, calcareous SAND.
8.45 - 9.00 (Gravels are fine, sub-angular, Siltstone &
Sandstone pieces).
9 S-12
4.00
1 1 1/30 - - - 1
9.00 - 9.45

R
9.45 - 10.00
10
REMARKS: SAMPLE KEY Abbreviations:
FI : Fracture Index Ground Water Table
1. Testing Standards followed: BS 1377:1990-Part 9; ASTM D 6032M-17. S: Standard Penetration Test TCR : Total Core Recovery NU : Not Used
2. The Samples were described in accordance with BS 5930:2015+A1: 2020, Sec.6.0.
3. The existing ground level was taken in reference to adjacent asphalt road level. R: Tricone Rolling SCR : Solid Core Recovery ND : Not Determined
B: Bulk Sample RQD : Rock Quality Designation
C: Core Sample UCS : Unconfined Compression Strength
Logged By : Geo. Umair Checked By : Sheher Yar Khan

Appendix B, Section B2, Page No. 3/4

BOREHOLE NO. BH-02 Sheet: 2/2

Client: M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromehanical L.L.C

Project: Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No. 8
Document No. F-LAB-47
Location: French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi Date: 31/05/2023, Issue No. 01, Rev. No.: 02
Report Ref.: DL-SI25-005

Boring Method: Rotary Total Depth (m) : 20 Ground Water Depth (m): 3.15 Ground Water Level (m): -2.85
Boring Diameter (mm): 125 Drill Fluid: Bentonite Casing Dia. (mm): NU Coordinates:
Boring Equipment: Rig No. 06 Core Dia. (mm): 76 Casing Depth (m): - N E

Starting Date: 11/01/2025 End Date: 13/01/2025 Rig Operator: Jilu Ground Level (m): +0.30
Samples SPT Records Core Recovery

Reduced
wrt EGL

Legend
Scale

Depth
Width
Layer

Level
Field Records Description of Strata

(m)

(m)

(m)
(m) Type and Depth N TCR SCR RQD UCS
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) FI (MPa)
Number (m) 0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
10 S-13
(cm) (cm) (cm) cm (cm) (cm)
Medium dense to dense, locally very loose,
4 6 6 7 7 8 28
10.00 - 10.45 grey/ brown, wet, non-plastic, fine to
medium grained, slightly gravelly to
R gravelly, very silty, calcareous SAND.
10.45 - 11.00 (Gravels are fine, sub-angular, Siltstone &
Sandstone pieces).
11 S-14
4.00
4 4 5 8 9 11 33
11.00 - 11.45

R
11.45 - 12.00
12.00 -11.70
12 S-15 Very dense, grey, wet, non-plastic, fine to
12.00 - 12.40 5 7 9 14 21 6/2 50/25cm 0.40
medium grained, gravelly, silty, calcareous 12.40 -12.10
SAND. (Gravels are fine, sub-angular,
Sandstone pieces). / Completely weathered,
C-1 calcareous SANDSTONE.
13 12.40 - 13.50 98 30 20 Very thinly to thinly bedded, grey, fine to 1.10
medium grained, calcareous SANDSTONE.
Distinctly weathered to destructured, very 13.50 -13.20
closely to closely spaced, sub-horizontal,
2.35
rough, fractured.
Very weak, very thinly to medium bedded,
14 off-white/ grey, CALCARENITE with few
voids up to 20mm & interbedded with
calcareous Sandstone. Distinctly weathered,
very closely to medium spaced,
sub-horizontal, rough, fractured.
C-2
15 13.50 - 16.50 22 16 11 2.60

4.30

16

S-16
16.50 - 16.77 11 13 26 24/4 - - 50/12cm

17
C-2
16.77 - 17.80 90 37 25

3.08
17.80 -17.50
Very weak, very thinly to medium bedded,
18 brown/ grey, fine to medium grained,
calcareous SANDSTONE. Distinctly
weathered to destructured, very closely to
2.44 medium spaced, sub-horizontal, rough,
C-2 fractured.
17.80 - 20.00 87 40 31 2.20
19

End of Borehole at 20.0m Depth below EGL 20.00 -19.70

20
REMARKS: SAMPLE KEY Abbreviations:
FI : Fracture Index Ground Water Table
1. Testing Standards followed: BS 1377:1990-Part 9; ASTM D 6032M-17. S: Standard Penetration Test TCR : Total Core Recovery NU : Not Used
2. The Samples were described in accordance with BS 5930:2015+A1: 2020, Sec.6.0.
3. The existing ground level was taken in reference to adjacent asphalt road level. R: Tricone Rolling SCR : Solid Core Recovery ND : Not Determined
B: Bulk Sample RQD : Rock Quality Designation
C: Core Sample UCS : Unconfined Compression Strength
Logged By : Geo. Umair Checked By : Sheher Yar Khan

Appendix B, Section B2, Page No. 4/4

 APPENDIX C
(Field Test Results)

Section C1: Falling Head Permeability Test

DL-SI25-005
 APPENDIX C
Section C1
(Falling Head Permeability Test)

DL-SI25-005
 VARIABLE (FALLING) HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST
BS EN 22282-2:2012, Cl. 6.2.3
Document No. : F-LAB-55
Date :03/09/2023
Issue No.: 01, Rev. No: 00

Test No.: BH-02 Coordinates: E=-

Ground level (GL, m): 0.00 N=-
Date of Test: 14/01/2025
Carried out by: Jose Paul
Depth of borehole from Top of casing (m) = 3.30
Depth of casing below GL (m) = 3.25 H1
GL
Height of casing above GL H1 (m) = 0.05 H2
Depth of groundwater table from top of casing (m)
= 2.85 H4
H3
Depth of Groundwater table H3 (m) = 2.80
H
Internal Diameter of casing D (m) = 0.135
Length of Test Section L(m) = 0.00
Intake factor F (m) = 0.37 D

Note:
L
1. Measurements to be taken from top of casing.
2. At the start of the test time T = 0 and H = 2.85m
Coefficient of
Test Time Depth of Water Depth of water Head
Elapsed Time Permeability
Time from Top of Casing from GL (m) H = H3 – H4
(sec.)
Min. Sec. (m) (H2) (H4) (m) K (m/sec)

0 0 0 0.000 -0.050 2.850

0.25 15 15 0.070 0.020 2.780 6.4E-05
0.5 30 30 0.120 0.070 2.730 5.5E-05
1 60 60 0.180 0.130 2.670 4.2E-05
2 120 120 0.230 0.180 2.620 2.7E-05
3 180 180 0.280 0.230 2.570 2.2E-05
4 240 240 0.400 0.350 2.450 2.4E-05
5 300 300 0.510 0.460 2.340 2.5E-05
6 360 360 0.700 0.650 2.150 3.0E-05
7 420 420 0.810 0.760 2.040 3.1E-05
8 480 480 0.950 0.900 1.900 3.3E-05
9 540 540 1.110 1.060 1.740 3.5E-05
10 600 600 1.280 1.230 1.570 3.8E-05
15 900 900 1.410 1.360 1.440 2.9E-05
30 1800 1800 1.580 1.530 1.270 1.7E-05
45 2700 2700 1.700 1.650 1.150 1.3E-05
60 3600 3600 1.950 1.900 0.900 1.2E-05
90 5400 5400 2.300 2.250 0.550 1.2E-05
120 7200 7200 2.800 2.750 0.050 2.2E-05
Aln (h1/h2 )
k=
F (t2 − t1)
A= Area of borehole=(p/4)xD2
h1 and h2 = head at time t1 & t2
2 .75 D L = length of casing below
F =
1 + (11 / p )( L / D ) borehole bottom
π  3.090m
2.850 
 (0.141m )2 ln 
k=
4  0.050 
2.590m
F = 0.37 m 0.02m (7200sec- 0sec)
0.37

k = 2.2E-05
2.2E-05 m/sec

DL-SI24-352 App. C, Sec. C2, Page 1/1

 APPENDIX D
(Laboratory Test Results)

Section D1: Grain Size Distribution and Atterberg Limit &

Moisture Content Test Results
Section D2: Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Result
Section D3: Point Load Strength Index Test Results
Section D4-1: Chemical Test Results for Soil Samples
Section D4-2: Chemical Test Results for Ground Water Samples

DL-SI25-005
 APPENDIX D
Section D1
(Grain Size Distribution and Atterberg Limit &
Moisture Content Test Results)

DL-SI25-005
 APPENDIX D1-1
DL-SI25-005
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

0.425

0.200

0.063
0.300

0.150
0.63
1.18
37.5

3.35

2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50

20
75

10
BS Aperture size - mm

63

28
100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
very gravelly, slightly silty silty CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Particle Size - mm 63 20 6.3 2.0 0.63 0.2 0.063 0.02 0.0063 0.002

% Retained on
BOREHOLES LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY
SYMBOL DEPTH (m) GRAVEL SAND SILT / CLAY 0.425mm DESCRIPTIVE TERM
No. LIMIT (%) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%)
Sieve
BH-01 0.5 62 30 8 1.7 - - N.P. very sandy, silty, GRAVEL
very sandy, slightly silty,
BH-01 1.5 63 34 3 2.4 - - N.P.
GRAVEL
BH-01 4.0 80 16 4 1.4 - - N.P. sandy, slightly silty, GRAVEL

Notes:
Test Method Used for Particle Size Distribution : BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 Cl.5.2
Soil Description : BS 5930:2015+A1:2020
Test Method Used for Atterberg Limits : BS EN ISO 17892-12:2018, Cl.5.3, 5.5 & 6.5 +A2:2022
Test Method Used for Hydrometer : ASTM D 7928-21 E1
Test Method Variation : Nil App. C, Sec. C1-1 Page 1/4
 APPENDIX D1-1
DL-SI25-005
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

0.425

0.200

0.063
0.300

0.150
0.63
1.18
37.5

3.35

2.0
6.3
5.0
14
20
50

10
75
BS Aperture size - mm

63

28
100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Particle Size - mm 63 20 6.3 2.0 0.63 0.2 0.063 0.02 0.0063 0.002

% Retained on
BOREHOLES LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY
SYMBOL DEPTH (m) GRAVEL SAND SILT / CLAY 0.425mm DESCRIPTIVE TERM
No. LIMIT (%) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%)
Sieve
BH-01 7.0 14 81 5 15.8 - - N.P. gravelly, slightly silty SAND

BH-01 10.0 22 53 25 2 - - N.P. very gravelly, very silty SAND

Notes:
Test Method Used for Particle Size Distribution : BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 Cl.5.2
Soil Description : BS 5930:2015+A1:2020
Test Method Used for Atterberg Limits : BS EN ISO 17892-12:2018, Cl.5.3, 5.5 & 6.5 +A2:2022
Test Method Used for Hydrometer : ASTM D 7928-21 E1
Test Method Variation : Nil App. C, Sec. C1-1 Page 2/4
 APPENDIX D1-1
DL-SI25-005
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

0.425

0.200

0.063
0.300

0.150
0.63
1.18
37.5

3.35

2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50

20
75

10
BS Aperture size - mm

63

28
100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Particle Size - mm 63 20 6.3 2.0 0.63 0.2 0.063 0.02 0.0063 0.002

% Retained on
BOREHOLES LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY
SYMBOL DEPTH (m) GRAVEL SAND SILT / CLAY 0.425mm DESCRIPTIVE TERM
No. LIMIT (%) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%)
Sieve
BH-02 0.5 14 78 8 7.3 - - N.P. gravelly, silty SAND

BH-02 2.0 59 21 20 1.7 - - N.P. very sandy, silty, GRAVEL

BH-02 5.0 18 72 10 12.4 - - N.P. gravelly, silty SAND

Notes:
Test Method Used for Particle Size Distribution : BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 Cl.5.2
Soil Description : BS 5930:2015+A1:2020
Test Method Used for Atterberg Limits : BS EN ISO 17892-12:2018, Cl.5.3, 5.5 & 6.5 +A2:2022
Test Method Used for Hydrometer : ASTM D 7928-21 E1
Test Method Variation : Nil App. C, Sec. C1-1 Page 3/4
 APPENDIX D1-1
DL-SI25-005
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

0.425

0.200

0.063
0.300

0.150
0.63
1.18
37.5

3.35

2.0
6.3
5.0
14
20
50

10
75
BS Aperture size - mm

63

28
100

90

80
PERCENT PASSING (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Particle Size - mm 63 20 6.3 2.0 0.63 0.2 0.063 0.02 0.0063 0.002

% Retained on
BOREHOLES LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY
SYMBOL DEPTH (m) GRAVEL SAND SILT / CLAY 0.425mm DESCRIPTIVE TERM
No. LIMIT (%) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%)
Sieve
BH-02 8.0 3 75 22 7.4 - - N.P. slightly gravelly, very silty SAND

BH-02 11.0 19 56 25 4.6 - - N.P. gravelly, very silty SAND

Notes:
Test Method Used for Particle Size Distribution : BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 Cl.5.2
Soil Description : BS 5930:2015+A1:2020
Test Method Used for Atterberg Limits : BS EN ISO 17892-12:2018, Cl.5.3, 5.5 & 6.5 +A2:2022
Test Method Used for Hydrometer : ASTM D 7928-21 E1
Test Method Variation : Nil App. C, Sec. C1-1 Page 4/4
 DL-SI25-005
APPENDIX D1-2
MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS

BH No. Depth (m) Moisture Content (%)

BH-01 0.5 26.9

BH-01 1.5 21.3
BH-01 4.0 14.7
BH-01 7.0 23.7
BH-01 10.0 27.0
BH-02 0.5 39.0
BH-02 2.0 26.9
BH-02 5.0 22.2
BH-02 8.0 27.0
BH-02 11.0 16.2
Notes:
Test Method Used : BS EN ISO 17892-1:2014+A1 2022
Test Method Variation : Nil

App. C, Sec. C1-2 Page 1 of 1

 APPENDIX D
Section D2
(Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Result)

DL-SI25-005
 DL-SI25-005

APPENDIX D2
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens
Test Method: ASTM D 7012-14e1 & Preparation of Sample Method: ASTM D 4543-19
Straightness End Flatness As
Perpendicularity
Average Mass of (Procedure (Procedure Bulk Received Rate of Maximum
Borehole Sample Height (H), (Procedure P2) Dry Density Temperature UCS Mode of
Diameter Specimen S1) FP2) Ratio (L/D) Density Moisture Loading Failure Description Remarks
No. Depth (m) (mm) (gm/cmᶟ) (oC) MPa Failure
(D), (mm) (g) (gm/cmᶟ) Content (mm/min) Load (kN)
≤ 0.50mm ≤ 25µm ≤ 0.0043 (%)

12.4 149.6 72.8 1252.2 0.28 36 0.0019 2.1 2.01 14.5 1.76 24.00 0.50 8.90 2.14 CALCARENITE 1, 3

14.9 150.2 72.5 1246.8 0.31 32 0.0021 2.1 2.01 19.3 1.69 24.00 0.50 8.64 2.09 CALCARENITE 1, 3

BH-01 16.2 150.4 72.2 1232.8 0.38 35 0.0025 2.1 2.00 15.6 1.73 24.00 0.50 11.32 2.76 CALCARENITE 1, 3

17.6 151.4 72.6 1202.6 0.36 37 0.0024 2.1 1.92 17.4 1.63 24.00 0.50 9.70 2.34 CALCARENITE 1, 3

19.1 149.8 72.7 1189.8 0.39 32 0.0026 2.1 1.91 18.2 1.62 24.00 0.50 10.70 2.58 CALCARENITE 1, 3

13.6 148.3 72.2 1261.6 0.31 32 0.0021 2.1 2.08 16.7 1.78 24.00 0.50 9.62 2.35 CALCARENITE 1, 3

15.0 148.6 72.0 1192.7 0.30 32 0.0020 2.1 1.97 18.5 1.66 24.00 0.50 10.59 2.60 CALCARENITE 1, 3

BH-02

17.6 148.9 72.2 1225.6 0.32 34 0.0021 2.1 2.01 15.9 1.73 24.00 0.50 12.61 3.08 CALCARENITE 1, 3

18.6 149.8 73.3 1248.2 0.33 33 0.0022 2.0 1.97 17.4 1.68 24.00 0.50 10.28 2.44 SANDSTONE 1, 3

Remarks:
1. Test Method Validation: Best efforts made for attaining End Flatness tolerance.
2. L/D requirement not met due to lack of proper specimen. Results may differ from a test specimen that meets the L/D Ratio requirements of 2.0 to 2.50.
3. Variation to End Flatness requirement owing to the physical properties of specimen. Results may differ from a test specimen that meets the End Flatness tolerance <=25mm.
4. Variation to Perpendicularity requirement owing to the physical properties of specimen. Results may differ from a test specimen that meets the Perpendicularity tolerance <=0.0043.

App. C, Sec. C2 Page 1 of 1

 APPENDIX D
Section D3
(Point Load Strength Index Test Results)

DL-SI25-005
 DL-SI25-005

APPENDIX D3
Point Load Strength Index of Rock Specimens
ASTM D 5731-16
Project Name Proposed Construction of Mezzanine Floor in Building No.8 Date tested 16/01/2025

Client M/s Rashid Al Mansoori Electromechanical L.L.C Tested By Zahid

Location French Naval Base, Mina Port, Abu Dhabi Analyzed By Sheher Yar Khan

UnCorrected Point Load

Sample Sample Final Platen As Received Size
Depth Type of Type of Failure Point Load Index Type of Lithological
BH No. Length/Wi dia (d Separation, Moisture Factor
(m) Sample Test Load (kN) Strength Is(50), Failure Mode Description
dth (l mm) mm) D' (mm) Content (%) (F)
Index (MPa) (MPa)

BH-02 12.45 Core Diametral 91.6 72.8 48.0 0.85 15.40 1.18 0.16 0.19 D-Type 1 SANDSTONE

App. C, Sec. C3 Page 1 of 1

 APPENDIX D
Section D4
(Section D4-1: Chemical Test Results for Soil Samples)
(Section D4-2: Chemical Test Results for Ground Water Samples)

DL-SI25-005
 DL-SI25-005
APPENDIX D4-1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TESTS RESULTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES

Sulphate Content Chloride Content

% passing Soil
Depth by mass Soil pH Value
BH No. Acid pH of water Acid (2:1)
(m) < 2mm (2:1) Water @25°C
Soluble soil Extract Soluble Cl- Water:Soil
Extract
SO4 (%) @25°C (%) Extract Cl-
SO4 (mg/l)
(%)
BH-02 1.0 100 - 390 7.3 - 0.04 8.2
Notes:
Test Method Used : BS 1377-3:2018 + A1:2021, Part 3: Cl. 7.2, 7.3, 7.9, 7.6, 9.2, 9.3, 12, Earth Manual Des.8
Test Method Variation : Nil

APPENDIX D4-2
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TESTS RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER

Sulphate Content
Chloride Content Cl- pH Value
BH No. Depth (m) SO4
(%) @25°C
(mg/l)

BH-02 3.15 400 0.13 7.2

Notes:
Test Method Used : BS 1377-3:2018 + A1-2021, Part 3, Cl. 7.2, 7.3, 7.9, 7.6, 9.2, 9.3, 11, 12
Test Method Variation : Nil

App. C, Sec. C4 Page 1 of 1

 APPENDIX E
(Technical Literature)

DL-SI25-005
 RQD (%) Fracture frequency per meter Mass factor j
0–25 15 0.2
25–50 15–8 0.2
50–75 8-5 0.2-0.5
75-90 5-1 0.5-0.5
90-100 1 0.8-1

Figure No.1: Reduction factors for rock socket skin friction

Figure No.2: Reduction factors for discontinuities in rock mass (after Williams and Pellis)
58 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BUILDING CODE (ACI 318-11) AND COMMENTARY

CODE COMMENTARY
finishes. These items are beyond the scope of the Code and
should be covered specifically in the project specifications.
Concrete ingredients and proportions are to be selected to
meet the minimum requirements stated in the Code and the
additional requirements of contract documents.

4.2.1 — The licensed design professional shall assign R4.2.1 — The Code addresses four exposure categories that
exposure classes based on the severity of the antici- affect the requirements for concrete to ensure adequate
pated exposure of structural concrete members for durability:
each exposure category according to Table 4.2.1.
Exposure Category F applies to exterior concrete that is
exposed to moisture and cycles of freezing and thawing,
with or without deicing chemicals.
TABLE 4.2.1 — EXPOSURE CATEGORIES AND
CLASSES
Exposure Category S applies to concrete in contact with
Category Severity Class Condition soil or water containing deleterious amounts of water-
Not F0 Concrete not exposed to freezing- soluble sulfate ions as defined in Table 4.2.1.
applicable and-thawing cycles
Concrete exposed to freezing-and-
Moderate F1 thawing cycles and occasional Exposure Category P applies to concrete in contact with
exposure to moisture water requiring low permeability.
F
Freezing Concrete exposed to freezing-and-
and thawing Severe F2 thawing cycles and in continuous
contact with moisture Exposure Category C applies to reinforced and prestressed
Concrete exposed to freezing-and- concrete exposed to conditions that require additional
Very thawing and in continuous contact protection against corrosion of reinforcement.
F3
severe with moisture and exposed to deicing
chemicals
Water-soluble Severity of exposure within each category is defined by
sulfate (SO4) in Dissolved classes with increasing numerical values representing
soil, percent by sulfate (SO4) in
mass* water, ppm† increasingly severe exposure conditions. A classification of
Not S0 SO4 < 0.10 SO4 < 150
“0” is assigned when the exposure severity has negligible
applicable effect or does not apply to the structural member.
S
Sulfate 150 ≤ SO4 <1500
Moderate S1 0.10 ≤ SO4 < 0.20 Seawater
1500 ≤ SO4 ≤
Exposure Category F is subdivided into four exposure
Severe S2 0.20 ≤ SO4 ≤ 2.00 10,000 classes: Exposure Class F0 is assigned to concrete that will
Very
S3 SO4 > 2.00 SO4 > 10,000
not be exposed to cycles of freezing and thawing. Exposure
severe Class F1 is assigned to concrete exposed to cycles of
Not
P P0 In contact with water where low freezing and thawing and that will be occasionally exposed
Requiring applicable permeability is not required
low to moisture before freezing. Examples of Class F1 are exterior
permeability Required P1 In contact with water where low
permeability is required. walls, beams, girders, and slabs not in direct contact with
Not C0 Concrete dry or protected from soil. Exposure Class F2 is assigned to concrete exposed to
applicable moisture cycles of freezing and thawing that is in continuous contact
C
Corrosion Moderate C1 Concrete exposed to moisture but
not to external sources of chlorides
with moisture before freezing. An example is an exterior
protection
Concrete exposed to moisture and
water tank or vertical members in contact with soil.
of reinforce- Exposure Classes F1 and F2 are conditions where exposure
ment an external source of chlorides from
Severe C2 deicing chemicals, salt, brackish to deicing salt is not anticipated. Exposure Class F3 is
water, seawater, or spray from these
sources assigned to concrete exposed to cycles of freezing and
*
†
Percent
sulfate by mass in soil shall be determined by ASTM C1580. thawing, in continuous contact with moisture, and where
Concentration of dissolved sulfates in water in ppm shall be determined by
ASTM D516 or ASTM D4130. exposure to deicing chemicals is anticipated. Examples are
horizontal members in parking structures.

Exposure Category S is subdivided into four exposure

classes: Exposure Class S0 is assigned for conditions
where the water-soluble sulfate concentration in contact
with concrete is low and injurious sulfate attack is not a
concern. Exposure Classes S1, S2, and S3 are assigned for
structural concrete members in direct contact with soluble
sulfates in soil or water. The severity of exposure increases
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
60 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BUILDING CODE (ACI 318-11) AND COMMENTARY

CODE COMMENTARY
TABLE 4.3.1 — REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE content. For Exposure Class S1 (moderate exposure), Type II
BY EXPOSURE CLASS cement is limited to a maximum C3A content of 8.0 percent
Expo- Min. under ASTM C150. The blended cements under ASTM
sure Max. fc′ , C595 with the MS designation are appropriate for use in
Class w/cm* psi Additional minimum requirements
Exposure Class S1. The appropriate types under ASTM
Limits on
cementi- C595 are IP(MS) and IS(<70)(MS) and under C1157 is
tious Type MS. For Exposure Class S2 (severe exposure), Type V
Air content materials
cement with a maximum C3A content of 5 percent is speci-
F0 N/A 2500 N/A N/A
fied. Blended cements Types IP (HS) and IS (<70) (HS)
F1 0.45 4500 Table 4.4.1 N/A
under ASTM C595 and Type HS under ASTM C1157 can
F2 0.45 4500 Table 4.4.1 N/A
also be used. In certain areas, the C3A content of other
F3 0.45 4500 Table 4.4.1 Table
4.4.2 available types such as Type III or Type I may be less than 8
Cementitious materials†—types or 5 percent and are usable in moderate or severe sulfate
Calcium
ASTM ASTM ASTM chloride exposures. Note that sulfate-resisting cement will not
C150 C595 C1157 admixture increase resistance to some chemically aggressive solutions,
S0 No Type
N/A 2500 restriction No Type No Type No for example, sulfuric acid. The project specifications should
restriction restriction restriction
cover all special cases.
IP(MS), No
S1 0.50 4000 II‡ IS (<70) MS restriction
(MS) The use of fly ash (ASTM C618, Class F), natural pozzolans
IP (HS) Not (ASTM C618, Class N), silica fume (ASTM C1240), or
S2 0.45 4500 V§ IS (<70) HS permitted
(HS) ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (ASTM C989) also has
IP (HS) + been shown to improve the sulfate resistance of concrete.4.1-4.3
pozzolan or ASTM C1012 can be used to evaluate the sulfate resistance of
V+ slag|| or IS HS +
S3 0.45 4500 pozzolan or Not mixtures using combinations of cementitious materials as
(<70) pozzolan permitted
||
slag (HS) + or slag|| determined in 4.5.1. For Exposure Class S3, the alternative in
pozzolan or
slag|| ACI 318-05 allowing use of Type V plus pozzolan, based on
records of successful service, instead of meeting the testing
P0 N/A 2500 None requirements of 4.5.1, still exists and has been expanded to
P1 0.50 4000 None consider the use of slag and the blended cements.
Maximum water-soluble
chloride ion (Cl–) Table 4.2.1 lists seawater under Exposure Class S1 (moderate
content in concrete,
percent by weight of exposure), even though it generally contains more than
cement# 1500 ppm SO4. Portland cement with higher C3A content
Reinforced Prestressed improves binding of chlorides present in seawater and the
concrete concrete Related provisions
Code permits other types of portland cement with C3A up to
C0 N/A 2500 1.00 0.06
None 10 percent if the maximum w/cm is reduced to 0.40.
C1 N/A 2500 0.30 0.06
C2 0.40 5000 0.15 0.06 7.7.6, 18.16**
In addition to the proper selection of cementitious materials,
*For lightweight concrete, see 4.1.2.
†Alternative combinations of cementitious materials of those listed in Table 4.3.1 other requirements for durable concrete exposed to water-
shall be permitted when tested for sulfate resistance and meeting the criteria in
4.5.1. soluble sulfate are essential, such as low w/cm, strength,
‡
For seawater exposure, other types of portland cements with tricalcium alumi- adequate air entrainment, adequate consolidation, uniformity,
nate (C3A) contents up to 10 percent are permitted is the w/cm does not
exceed 0.40.
§
adequate cover of reinforcement, and sufficient moist curing
Other available types of cement such as Type III or Type I are permitted in
Exposure Classes S1 or S2 if the C3A contents are less than 8 or 5 percent, to develop the potential properties of the concrete.
respectively.
||
The amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slag to be used shall not
be less than the amount that has been determined by service record to improve Exposure Class P1: The Code includes an Exposure Class
sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement. Alterna-
tively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slag to be used shall P1 for concrete that needs to have a low permeability when in
not be less than the amount tested in accordance with ASTM C1012 and
meeting the criteria in 4.5.1. direct contact with water and where the other exposure
#
Water-soluble chloride ion content that is contributed from the ingredients conditions defined in Table 4.2.1 do not apply. The primary
including water, aggregates, cementitious materials, and admixtures shall be
determined on the concrete mixture by ASTM C1218 at age between 28 and 42 means to obtain low permeability is to use a low w/cm. Low
days.
**
Requirements of 7.7.6 shall be satisfied. See 18.16 for unbonded tendons. permeability can be also achieved by optimizing the
cementitious materials used in the concrete mixture. One
standard method that provides a performance-based indicator
of low permeability of concrete is ASTM C1202, which is
more reliable in laboratory evaluations than for field-based
acceptance.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org

 Extract from BS 5328

Table 7. Concrete exposed to sulphate attack

Class Concentration of sulphates Cement complying with Dense, fully
expressed as SO3 compacted
In soil2) In concrete made with
ground- 20mm nominal
water maximum size
aggregates1)
complying with
BS SS2 or BS 1047
Total SO2 in 2:1 Cement Free
SO3 water:soil content water/ce
extract not less ment
than ratio not
more
than
1 % g/L g/L Kg/m3
Less Less Less Table 1 - -
than 0.2 than 1.0 than 0.3
2 0.2 to 1.0 to 0.3 to BS 12, BS 146, BS 6588 330 0.50
0.5 1.9 1.2 BS 12 combined with less than 25 % pfa
BS 12 combined with less than 70 % ggbs
BS 12 combined with 25 % to 40 % pfa 310 0.55
BS 12 combined with 70 % to 90 % ggbs
BS 4246 with at least 70 % ggbs
BS 6588 with at least 25 % pfa
BS 6610 with not more than 40 % pfa
BS 4027 (SRPC) 280 0.55
BS 4248 (SSC)
BS 12 combined with 25 % to 40 % pfa 380 0.45
BS 12 combined with 70 % to 90 % ggbs
BS 4246 with at least 70 % ggbs
BS 6588 with at least 25 % pfa
BS 6610 with not more than 40 % pfa
3 0.5 to 1.9 to 1.2 to BS 4027 (SRPC) 330 0.50
1.0 3.1 2.5 BS 4248 (SSC)
4 1.0 to 3.1 to 2.5 to BS 4027 (SRPC) 370 0.45
2.0 5.6 5.0 BS 4248 (SSC)
5 Over 2 Over 5.6 Over 5.0 BS 4027 and 371 0.45
BS 4248 (SSC) both with adequate
protective coating (see BS 8110)
1)
Adjustments to minimum cement 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 obtained from the extraction of total SO 3. Reference should be made to BRE
Current Paper 2/79 for methods of analysis, and to BRE Digest 250 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 combinitaions with cement complying with BS 12.
NOTE 2. It is recommended that the alumna content of ggbs does not exceed 15 %.
Extract from BRE Digest 363
Table 2 Concrete Specification Against Sulphate Attack(BRE Digest 363 July 1991)

Concentration of Sulphate
Class
In soil or fill Minimum
Cement Maximun free
By 2:1 In ground- Cement
By acid Type (See water/cement
Water/soil Water g/l kg/m3
extraction Table 1c) ratio (Note 1)
extract- g/l SO4 (Notes 1 & 2)
% SO4
SO4
1 <0.24 <1.2 <0.4 A-L Note 3 0.65
A-G 530 0.50
2 1.2-2.3 0.4-1.4 H 280 0.55
I-L 300 0.55
If>0.24 H 320 0.50
3 2.3-3.7 1.4-3.0
classify on I-L 340 0.50
basis of 2:1 H 360 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0
4 extract I-L 380 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0 H 360 0.45
>6.7 >6.0 As for Class 4 plus surface protection- see
5
>6.7 >6.0 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 40kg/m3 for 10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be decreased by 30kg/m3
for 40mm nominal maximum size aggregate as described in Table 8 of BS 5328: Part 1.
Note 3 The minimum value required in BS 8110 : 1985 and BS 5328 : Part 1 : 1990 is 275 kg/m3 for
unreinforced structural concrete in contact with non-aggressive soil. A minimum cement content of
300 kg/m3 for (BS 8110) and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.60 is required for reinforced
concrete. A minimum cement content of 220 kg/m3 and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.80 is
permissible for C20 grade concrete when using unreinforced strip foundations and trench fill for low-rise
buildings in Class 1.

Table 3 Types of Concrete

Code Type or Combination

A Portland cement to BS 12
B Portland blastfurnace cements to BS 146
C High slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246
D Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
E Portland pfa cements to BS 6588
F Combinations of Portland cement to BS 12 and to BS 3892 Part 1
G Pozzolanic pfa-cement to BS 6610 : 1991
H Sulphate-resisting Portland cement to BS 4027
I High-slag blasfurnace cement to BS 4246 containing not less than 74% slag by Mass nucleus
J 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
K Portland pfa cements to BS 6588 containing not than 26% pfa by mass of nucleus
L Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and pfa to BS 3892:Part 1 containing not less than 25% pfa
and not more than 40% pfa by mass of pfa plus cement
In codes I and J, slag with alumina (Al2O3) content over 14% should be used only with Portland cement having low
to moderate C3A content (Typically less than 10%).
 CIRIA C577-2002,
Guide to the Construction of Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Peninsula
(Extract)
Chapter 5, Key Recommendations for Durable Concrete (extract)
Table 5.1: Classification of Exposure Conditions in the Arabian Peninsula
Exposure Locations
Condition
a Superstructures inland with no risk of windborne salts
b Superstructures in areas of salts flats, inland or near the
coast, exposed to windborne salts
c Parts of structures in contact with the soil, well above
capillary rise zone, with no risk of water introduced at
the surface by irrigation, faulty drainage systems,
washing down etc.
d Parts of structures in contact with the soil, within the
capillary rise zone, below ground water level, or where
water may be introduced at the surface by irrigation,
discharge of wastes, washing down, etc.
These situations all lead to a potential for the
concentration of aggressive salts by evaporation.
(i) Significant sulfate contamination only
(ii) Significant chloride contamination only
(iii) Significant contamination with both sulfates and
chlorides
e Marine structures (splash zone)
f Water retaining structures (including sewage treatment
palnts)

5.2: Typical concrete mix criteria and cover requirements for exposure conditions in the Arabian
Peninsula, from Table 5.1

Minimum Maximum Minimum

Exposure Cementitious cementitious content free- Additional cover to the
Conditions material (s) for 20mm aggregates water/cement requirements reinforcement
(kg/m3) ratio ** (mm)
a 300-320 0.52 None 30
Portland
b 320 0.50 None 40
Cements or
c* 320-350 0.45 None 40-50
additions
d(i),(ii)or(iii) 320-400 0.42 Tanking 40-50
Portland cement
e and f blends with 370-400 0.40 None 100-150
addition

* When concrete is cast directly in contact with the soil the minimum cover should be increased to 75mm.

** On well supervised projects free-water/cement ratios down to 0.35 have been successfully achieved using the
latest generation of superplasticizers.
 APPENDIX F
(Photographic Evidence of Rock Samples)

DL-SI25-005
Borehole No.1 DL-SI24-005

Borehole No.1 – 12.34m to 20.0m, Depth

Borehole No.2 DL-SI24-005

Borehole No.2– 12.40m to 20.0m, Depth