14014-R-05-Rev00 Geotechnical Report PDF

M.U.C.
Engineering
Capt. Mousa Building, office M001
Hamad Bin Abdulla Rd. Fujairah, UAE
P.O. Box 7718 - Fujairah, UAE Page: 2 of: 2 pages
Tel.: (..)971 9223 2033
Fax: (..)971 9223 2006
Report no. : 14014-R-05-rev.00 dated 24-09-2014
E-mail: muceng@ muc.ae Project: Nico Craft Liwa II
Annexes
Annex 01. Geotechnical report by ACES
List of abbreviations
ACD Admiralty Chart Datum

ACES Arab Center for Engineering Studies
GDFC Gulf Dutch Foundation Company
GPS Global Positioning System
MUC MUC Engineering
UAE United Arab Emirates
Annex 01 to Report 14014-R-05; rev.00; dated 24-09-2014
Geotechnical survey report of ACES
Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1PURPOSE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2SCOPE OF WORKS........................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................1
4.0 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITIONS ..................................................................................2
5.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA ....................................................................................3
6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION.............................................................................................................4
6.1DRILLING ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
6.1.1Sampling.................................................................................................................................4
6.1.2Field Testing in Boreholes ......................................................................................................4
7.0 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................6
7.1LABORATORY TESTS ....................................................................................................................................... 6
8.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .....................................................................10
8.1GROUND MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................... 10
8.2MATERIALS PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES.................................................................................... 10
8.3MATERIALS CHEMICAL PROPERTIES .............................................................................................................. 12
8.4GROUND WATER AND CAVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 12
9.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION FOR THE CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF FOUNDATIONS ...............13
10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................14
10.1DEEP FOUNDATION FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS (PILES) ..................................................................................... 14
10.2CONSTRUCTION OF EDGE PROTECTION WITH QUAY WALLS AND STABILITY OF TOP REVETMENT .................... 16
10.3BASIS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR MARINE STRUCTURE ............................................................................. 16
10.4IMPROVED GROUND/SEABED FOR FOR BLOCK QUAY WALLS/MARINE EDGE PROTECTION STRUCTURES ......... 17
10.5EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS ................................................................................................................. 18
10.6EXCAVATION SIDE SLOPES ......................................................................................................................... 19
10.7DEWATERING ............................................................................................................................................. 19
10.8DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................................................. 20
10.9BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION CRITERIA ......................................................................................... 20
10.9.1Structural Fill.......................................................................................................................20
10.9.2General Fill .........................................................................................................................20
10.10 FOUNDATION CONCRETE .......................................................................................................................... 21
10.10.1Analysis and Guidelines....................................................................................................21
10.10.2Classification of Ground Condition ....................................................................................21
10.10.3Concrete Quality for Resisting Chemical Attack ................................................................21
10.11 SEISMIC PARAMETERS AS PER IBC 2009 AND ASCE7 .............................................................................. 22
10.12 GROUND SHAKING & FREE FIELD GROUND ACCELERATION ....................................................................... 23
10.13 LIQUEFACTION ......................................................................................................................................... 23
10.14 COLLAPSE POTENTIAL.............................................................................................................................. 25
10.15 SWELLING & SHRINKAGE POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................ 25
10.16 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION INSPECTION..................................................................................................... 25
IMPORTANT NOTES:..................................................................................................................................... 25
S14000136-Rev.0-Interpretative Report TOC, Page 1 of 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTN)

Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Satellite Image of the Study Area.....................................................................................2

Figure 2: SPT versus Elevation ......................................................................................................5
Figure 3: UCS versus Elevation ....................................................................................................11
Figure 4: Average Values of Maximum Accelerations in Rock ......................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Details of the Drilled Boreholes .................................................................................................4

Table 2: Summarized Results of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Soil Samples from Boreholes ...7
Table 3: Summarized Results of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Rock Samples from Boreholes .8
Table 4: Summarized Results of Laboratory Chemical Tests Conducted on Groundwater Samples
from Boreholes.................................................................................................................9
Table 5: Summary of the Ground Materials Encountered .............................................................10
Table 6 : Ground Water Depth & Level .........................................................................................12
Table 7: Water Loss Amount & Depth ..........................................................................................12
Table 8: Estimated Ultimate Skin Friction.....................................................................................15
Table 9: Estimated Ultimate End Bearing Capacity ......................................................................15
Table 10:Calculated Allowable Working Loads (Factor of Safety = 3.0) ........................................15
Table 11:Calculated Uplifting Resistance (Factor of Safety = 2.5) ................................................15
Table 12: Earth Pressure Parameters (Estimated from N-values: S.P.T.)*....................................19
Table 13: Site Classification as per BRE SD1-2005......................................................................21
Table 14: Recommendations for Foundation Concrete as per BRE SD1-2005 .............................21
Table 15: Site Classification and Concrete Recommendations in view of CIRIA Publication C577,
2002 ............................................................................................................................22
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SITE PLANS & PROFILES
APPENDIX B LOGS OF BORING & LEGEND
Sec.B-1 Legend to Boring Logs
Sec.B-2 Logs of Boring
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Sec.C-1 Grading Curves & Soil Classifications
Sec.C-2 Moisture Content Test Results
Sec.C-3 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results
Sec.C-4 Point Load Test Results
Sec.C-5 Chemical Test Results
APPENDIX D RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION (BRE)
APPENDIX E LITERATURE FOR PILES ON ROCK
S14000136-Rev.0-Interpretative Report TOC, Page 2 of 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Arab Center for Engineering Studies (ACES) was contracted for the geotechnical investigation
works by MUC Engineering., Abu Dhabi, UAE, the main contractor of the project. The project is
Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty at ICAD, Mussafah Abu Dhabi, UAE.
This report describes the findings of the geotechnical investigation conducted at the proposed
project site.
1.1 Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the surface and subsurface conditions at the proposed
project site and the physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the foundation ground in order
to provide the structural engineer with sufficient information for the design of the most suitable and
safe foundation.
1.2 Scope of Works
The scope of works consists of the following:
1. Collecting information and maps particular to the project site such as public services, site plan
and land-use maps.
2. Making inspection visits to the site to collect information about the present land use, surface
topography, geological features and surface drainage.
3. Drilling of five(5Nos.) 20.0m deep borehole along with in-situ testing and sampling of disturbed
standard penetration (SPT) samples and undisturbed core samples.
4. Carrying out the necessary physical, mechanical and chemical laboratory testing on selected
soil samples collected during investigation.
5. Performing engineering analysis of field and laboratory findings.
6. Developing conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and construction.
7. Providing a detailed interpretative and comprehensive report of the geotechnical investigation
findings.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is Upgrading of Nico Craft LLC Shipbuilding and Conversation Liwa 2 yard
with development of a new quay wall, slipway and new office building (G+1).
Nico Craft LLC has an operating yard (Liwa2) at mussaffah with about 165m waterfront. Of the
165m length, 40m is currently being used as slipway. The water front is not developed and
comprises of a sand slope.
Nico Craft intends to develop the water front by creating a 40m wide slipway and a quay wall on
both sides of the slipway for ship berthing and loading operations. Furthermore a new office
building is to be built at the entrance of the yard.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site lies at Plot No 22A, Mussafah west 5, ICAD, Abu Dhabi, UAE as indicated by the attached
Affection / Site Plan in Figure No. A-1 Appendix A. A typical Satellite image of the site under
study is shown in Figure 1 below. (BH-01, BH04 & BH-05 were shifted from the actual Borehole
location. The details are found in site plan Figure No. A-1 Appendix A).
Most of the investigated area was flat except BH-02 was elevated platform compared to other. No
faults or other special geological features were observed at the site.
S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 1 of 25

Figure 1: Satellite Image of the Study Area
4.0 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITIONS
The site is situated in Mussafa, ICAD, Abu Dhabi where a hot arid climate prevails. A hot arid
climate is one where evaporation exceeds precipitation - such as rain, snow and dewfall. This
climate regime produces characteristic hot desert terrains. Average annual rainfall may only be a
few centimeters (even only a few millimeters in some parts) which usually occurs seasonally and
sometimes only from a single cloudburst. Summer shade temperatures are frequently in excess
40oC and humidity may be around 100% near the coast. The contrast between maximum night
and day temperatures and between night and day humidity is often great. Strong persistent winds
are normal in many areas. This unfavorable climate imposes adverse conditions on the concrete
structures, such as:
1. High temperature and high seasonal changes.

2. High humidity and high change in relative humidity.
3. Strong drying winds.
4. Condensation at night.
5. Windborne salt-laden dust.
6. High solar radiation.

5.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
Mussafah,ICAD, Abu Dhabi lies on the UAE coast line and the floor of Arabian Gulf which mainly
consists of extensive carbonate sediments.
Fookes and Knill (1969), developed a geomorphological division of the mountain and piedmont
plain of the gulf area in four sediment deposition zones. The coast line of the UAE forms Zone IV,
the base plain, which is mostly pleistocene or recent in age.
The superficial deposits of this zone consist mainly of sand dunes, loess and evaporate together
with marine sand and silts. The principal transporting agents of the environment is wind and
evaporation, and rare sheet flows in some wadis. At the coastal areas the marine agencies help
sort the windblown and extensive deposits of bioclastic sand, Salty coastal areas are common and
they form large part of this coast line.
Although wind blown material tends to predominate and great quantities of dust (silt) and sand are
moved during periods of high wind, water plays an important part. Flash floods are relatively rare
and any meandering stream actually reaching zone IV is usually short-lived after the downpour,
but the standing water table, which may be quite near the ground surface, can dominate the desert
processes, as this zone usually represents the local base level down to which wind erosion can
take place. Wind erosion more or less stops when sand and silts are damp; capillary moisture
movement from the water table to ground surface readily occurs if the water table is high and if
continual evaporation takes place. In these conditions a thick salt crust can build up from continual
precipitation of salts dissolved in the ground water even if they are in very weak dilution. Crystal of
these salts are also blown by the wind and can contaminate dunes and other parts of the desert
surface. Capillary moisture movements depend on many factors but it can be up to 3m-4m above
the water table in fine soils. These deposits are common in desert coastal regions and particularly
extensive around this coast line. Coastal salty deposits are known as `Sabkha'.
The superficial deposits overlie interbedded sandstones, limestones, conglomerates, calcisiltites

and siltstones.

6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
6.1 Drilling
From 3rd to 9th September 2014 five (5 Nos.) boreholes were drilled at the site to depths of 20.0m
below the existing ground surface level. The boreholes are numbered as BH-01 to BH-5 and their
details are shown in Table 1.and are shown on the site plan in Figure A-1, Appendix A.The
locations for the proposed boreholes were provided and marked on site location by the client.
Table 1: Details of the Drilled Boreholes
Borehole Coordinates Ground Level Drilled Depth
Sr. No.
ID Easting Northing (m)(ACD) (m)
1 BH-1 244501.000 2691416.000 4.28
2 BH-2 244567.053 2691408.902 2.40
3 BH-3 244612.965 2691380.948 4.10 20
4 BH-4 244578.000 2691752.000 4.35
5 BH-5 244593.000 2691754.000 4.35
**Co-ordinates and levels are provided by client
The drilling was executed by ARDCO X type drill rig using rotary coring equipment with mud
circulation and/or casing to retain the sides of the boreholes. The borehole logs are presented in
Sec. B-2, Appendix B.
6.1.1 Sampling
Disturbed and split spoon and undisturbed samples were obtained from the boreholes. The
undisturbed samples were obtained using double tube core barrel 79mm inside diameter. The
samples recovered were examined, described and classified by ACES geotechnical engineer,
placed in proper sequence in wooden boxes and were taken to ACES laboratories for testing. The
moist samples were placed in waterproof plastic bags before being placed in wooden boxes.
6.1.2 Field Testing in Boreholes
At each borehole location, a 1.0m deep inspection pit was hand dug and the Standard Penetration
Tests (SPT) were performed in 1.0m interval upto rock layer to obtain approximate consistencies
and relative densities of the ground materials for classification purposes. The SPT tests were
performed in accordance with BS 1377: Part 9: 1990, Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes: Determination of Penetration Resistance Using Split-Barrel Sampler (the
standard penetration test SPT). The SPT consists of driving a Standard 50mm external diameter
split spoon sampler into soil at the bottom of a borehole, using repeated blows of a 63.5kg hammer
falling through 760mm. The sampler is driven through 6 intervals of 75mm penetration and the
number of blows required to penetrate each interval is recorded. The SPT N value is the number of
blows required to achieve a penetration of 300mm, after an initial seating drive of 150mm or 25
blows (whichever is achieved first). After initial seating drive, if penetration of 300mm could not be
achieved in the test drive due to the density or degree of cementation of the encountered deposits
then distance driven for a total of 50 blows are recorded on the borehole logs. Before inserting and
performing penetration test, the borehole is cleaned/washed using side-discharge bit.
Rotary coring was carried out in the boreholes, using double tube T6-101 size core barrels fitted
with face discharge TC (Tungston Carbide) bits producing a nominal core diameter of 79mm.
The test results are shown on the logs of boring at the depths of the tests. The Standard
Penetration Test is defined in the legend to boring logs in Appendix B, Sec.B-1, attached at the
end of this report. Interpretation of the test results are also given in the legend. Moreover graphical
presentation of SPT-N versus Elevation was prepared and is presented in Figure 2.

SPT N Values
1 4 10 30 50 100
Medium dense
Very dense
Very loose
9.0
Dense
Loose
7.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
ELEVATION, m (NADD)
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
-7.0
-9.0
-11.0
-13.0
BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05
-15.0
Figure 2: SPT versus Elevation

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING
In order to determine the physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the ground materials,
laboratory tests were performed on selected samples from boreholes.
7.1 Laboratory Tests
Tests were performed according to the relevant American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standards and/or British Standards (BS). The following photograph shows the laboratory
tests along with the applicable standards that were carried out on the collected soil, rock and
groundwater samples:
Particle Size Analysis of Soils Atterberg Limits of Soil Unconfined Compressive Strength
BS 1377 : Part 2 : BS 1377 : Part 2 ASTM D 2938-95,

1990 (Am d. 9027- : 1990 (Am d. Standard Test
96), Clause 9.2, 9027-96) Method for
Determination of Clause 5, Unconfined
Particle-size Determ ination Compressive
Distribution. of the Plastic Strength of Intact
Limit and Rock Core
Plasticity Index. Specimiens.
Moisture Content of Soil & Rock Sulphate Content of Soil & Chloride Content of Soil &
Ground Water Ground Water
ASTM D 2216- BS 1377 : Part 3 : BS 1377 : Part 3 :

05, Laboratory 1990 (Am d. 9028- 1990 (Amd. 9028-
Determination 96), 96),
of Water Determination of Determination of
(Moisture) Sulphate Content, the Chloride
Content of Soil Clause 5.3 & 5.5 Content, Clause
and Rock. for Soil; 5.4 & 5.5 7.2
for Ground Water.
pH Value
[1] Test accredited by ENAS.
[2] Test accredited by IAS.

B.S. 1377 : Part
3 : 1990 (Am d.
9028 - 04),
Clause 9,
Determ ination
of the pH
Value.
In addition to the tests shown in above photograph, the following laboratory tests were also
conducted:
1. Point Load Strength Index of Rock according to:
ASTM D5731-08, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Point Load Strength Index of
Rock and Application to Rock Strength Classifications.
BS 5930: 1999 "Code of Practice for Site Investigation, was used in the site investigation and for
describing soils:
All detailed laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 2 to 4.

Table 2: Summarized Results of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Soil Samples from Boreholes
Depth Percentage of Materials Plasticity Index (%) Chemical
BH below Soil Classification Moisture
No. Silt / As per BS 5930 Sulphate Chloride
E.G.S. Gravel Sand LL PL PI pH Content(%)
Clay (mg/L) (% by wt.)
(m)
BH-01 2.0 0 74 26 - - N.P. Very Silty SAND 2089.28 2.30 8.6 13.3
Slightly Gravelly Slightly sandy 34.5

BH-01 3.0 17 63 20 - - N.P. - - -
SILT
BH-01 6.0 26 55 19 33 26 7. Silty Very Gravelly SAND - - - 39.2
BH-02 1.0 6 41 53 36 25 11 Slightly Gravelly sandy SILT - - - 14.9
BH-02 5.0 0 82 18 - - N.P. Silty SAND - - - 39.6
BH-03 1.0 62 28 10 - - N.P. Silty very sandy GRAVEL - - - 12.4
BH-03 2.0 8 83 9 - - - Gravelly silty SAND 20.5
BH-03 3.0 11 36 53 32 25 7 Slightly Gravelly sandy SILT - - - 28.7
Slightly Gravelly Very Silty 20.2

BH-03 6.0 2 72 26 - - N.P. - - -
SAND
Slightly Gravelly Slightly Silty 10.2

BH-04 1.0 2 94 4 - - N.P. 1673.57 0.41 8.1
SAND

BH-04 3.0 11 23 66 34 26 8. - - -
SILT
BH-04 6.0 0 80 20 - - N.P. Silty SAND - - - 39.5
BH-05 1.0 6 79 15 - - N.P. Gravelly silty SAND - - - 10.9

BH-05 3.0 18 28 54 35 26 9 - - -
SILT
BH-05 7.0 2 79 19 Slightly gravelly Silty SAND - - - 16.4

Table 3: Summarized Results of Laboratory Tests Conducted on Rock Samples from Boreholes
Sample Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test Point Load Index Test
Depth below Moisture Bulk
BH No. UCS Dry Density Point Load Index Moisture Content Sample Description
E.G.S. Content Density
(m) (MPa) (Mg/m) Is(50) (%)
(%) (Mg/m)
BH-01 11.50 0.76 19.4 2.071 1.735 - - Crystalline GYPSUM
BH-01 14.00 0.38 24.5 1.996 1.603 - - MUDSTONE
BH-01 16.20 0.50 17.7 1.943 1.651 - - MUDSTONE
BH-01 17.75 0.86 27.2 2.052 1.613 - - MUDSTONE
BH-01 19.50 0.44 16.8 2.034 1.741 - - MUDSTONE
BH-02 9.50 - - - - 0.44 5.5 Crystalline GYPSUM
BH-02 11.40 - - - - 0.02 13.8 MUDSTONE
BH-02 12.50 0.80 24.6 1.759 1.412 - - MUDSTONE
BH-02 14.80 2.35 21.5 1.97 1.621 - - MUDSTONE
BH-02 16.75 2.11 18.6 2.019 1.702 - - MUDSTONE
BH-02 17.85 - - - - 0.28 3.4 MUDSTONE
BH-02 18.80 1.03 20.4 2.037 1.692 - - MUDSTONE
BH-03 15.10 1.08 23.6 1.906 1.542 - - MUDSTONE
BH-03 16.60 - - - - 0.10 16.7 MUDSTONE
BH-03 18.62 2.94 21.0 2.047 1.692 - - MUDSTONE
BH-04 19.10 - - - - 0.06 24.1 MUDSTONE
BH-04 15.00 0.37 21.0 1.949 1.611 - - MUDSTONE
BH-05 16.05 1.39 16.2 1.838 1.582 - - MUDSTONE
BH-05 17.65 0.79 18.2 2.057 1.74 - - MUDSTONE
BH-05 19.50 - - - - 0.07 14.5 MUDSTONE

Table 4: Summarized Results of Laboratory Chemical Tests Conducted on Groundwater Samples from Boreholes
Sulphate Content SO4-2 Chloride Content Cl-
BH No. pH Value
mg/L (%)
BH-01 4716.00 2.73 7.2
BH-05 5196.86 3.01 7.0

8.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
8.1 Ground Materials
The logs of boring indicates that there are general similarities and continuities of the subsurface
materials encountered, in spite of some local variations.
Generalized Subsurface Profiles AA, and BB are presented in Figures A-2 to A-3, Appendix
A. The locations of the lines are presented on the site plan in Figure No. A-1, Appendix A.
The general geological description of the ground materials at the site and the approximate average
depth at which they were encountered are summarized in Table 5 and the field test results are
presented in logs of boring, Sec. B-2, Appendix B.
Table 5: Summary of the Ground Materials Encountered

Depth Range
Geological Description
below EGS
and Classification of Materials
(m)
0.0 3.0 Medium dense Silty Gravelly SAND / Fill material
3.0 - 5.0 Slightly Gravelly Sandy SILT
5.0 -11.0 Medium dense Slightly silty SAND
11.0 - 15.0 Weak to very weak Crystalline GYPSUM with inclusions of Mudstone
15.0 20.0 Weak to very weak MUDSTONE
8.2 Materials Physical and Mechanical Properties
The classification of soils is done using the sieve analysis and Atterberg limits test results as per
BS 1377: 1990 Part 2, Method of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes - Classification
Test. Unconfined Compressive Strength of intact rock core specimens is also carried out for the
purpose of describing rock strengths. Whereas the tables given in the legend of boring logs in Sec.
B-1, Appendix B are used to describe the relative density of the coarse grained-soils and the
quality and strength of the rocks. Engineering classifications and descriptions are also presented
in the logs of borings.
The best efforts were made to prepare the specimens subjected to UCS test to comply with the
requirements for dimensional tolerances. However, a deviation from the requirements for surface
flatness was observed, was found as non significant to the interpretation of test results for UCS in
very weak to moderately strong rocks.
Test results are summarized in Appendix C, Sec.C-3. Moreover a graphical presentation of UCS
versus elevation is provided in Figure 3.

UCS Values (MPa)
0 1 5.0 10 12.5 50 100 1000

0.0
Moderately Strong
Moderately Weak
Very Strong
Very Weak
Strong
Weak
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
ELEVATION, m (NADD)
-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
-18.0
BH-02 BH-01 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05
-20.0
Figure 3: UCS versus Elevation

8.3 Materials Chemical Properties

-
The Sulphate content expressed as Sulphate/Sulfate (SO4), Chloride contents (Cl ), and pH values
for the selected soil and water samples, tested from boreholes are shown in Appendix C, Sec.C-5
8.4 Ground Water and Cavities
During the period of investigation, ground water was encountered in all the drilled boreholes as
presented in Table 6. Careful attention was paid during boring and drilling for the existence of
ground water. Ground water levels were recorded during the drilling process and minimum 24
hours after purging of water from the boreholes. A piezometer or perforated standpipe should be
installed in a borehole for long term ground water observation and monitoring to obtain a true
indication of the stable ground water level and monitoring the variation in ground water
level.However, these depths may be subjected to tidal and seasonal variations or induced artificial
effects and these variations shall be taken into consideration for designing and construction of
underground structures.
No cavities were encountered in the boreholes down to the drilled depth at the time of
investigation.
Table 6 : Ground Water Depth & Level
Ground Water Depth Ground Water Level
Sr. No. BH No.
(m) (m)
1 BH-01 2.6 0.50
2 BH-02 2.4 0.60
3 BH-03 2.5 0.53
4 BH-04 2.5 0.49
5 BH-05 2.5 0.62
**Co-ordinates and levels are provided by client
However, water loss was observed in BH-03 at particular depths as provided in Table 7 due to the
presence of highly fractured and highly weathered Crystalline Gypsum.
Table 7: Water Loss Amount & Depth

Water Loss Depth below EGS
Sr. No. BH No.
(%) (m)
1 BH-03 50% 13.0 14.0

9.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION FOR THE CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF FOUNDATIONS
In designing foundations, the engineer must satisfy two independent foundation stability
requirements, which must be met simultaneously:
1. There should be an adequate safety against shear failure within the soil mass. (The applied
working loads should not exceed the allowable bearing capacity of the soil being built upon).
2. The probable maximum and differential settlements of the soil under any part of the
foundations must be limited to safe and tolerable limits.
The choice of particular type of foundation depends upon the character of the soil, the presence of
ground water at the site, the magnitude of the imposed loads, and the project characteristics.
For the particular case, the following prevailing load and site conditions exist:
1. The imposed loads from the proposed structure on the foundation soil are medium to heavy
due to the nature of the proposed structures like upgrading jetty.
2. Ground water was encountered in all the boreholes as presented in Table 6.
3 The materials encountered during site investigation along with field and laboratory test results
are shown on subsurface profiles, Appendix A, logs of boring in Appendix B, laboratory test
results in Appendix C
Deep (pile) foundations are recommended to Building since the upper soil layers are including
loose interbeds (i.e., between 2.5m to 5.0m depth below the EGS) that were encountered at
shallow depths. And shallow foundation could also be recommended for Slipway and Quay wall
explored on improving the existing ground conditions by using any of the ground improvement
methods suggested in Cl. 10.2 to .10.4
The required equipment and construction materials for such foundations are locally available.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the field and laboratory investigations, subsurface conditions, engineering analysis
and practical experience, it can be concluded that the proposed structures can be satisfactorily
supported by the ground at the site, provided that the following recommendations are followed:
10.1 Deep Foundation for Office Buildings (Piles)
According to the general discussion presented above and taking into consideration the type and
particulars of the proposed structure, ground conditions and ground water level, pile foundations
which will transmit the applied loads to a good bearing stratum shall be used.
It is considered that bored cast-in-situ piles would be suitable for the ground conditions
encountered at this site.
The ultimate skin friction/adhesion for the various materials as well as the ultimate end bearing
capacities at various toe depth were estimated and are presented in Tables 8 and 9 Accordingly,
the total allowable working loads for various pile diameters were calculated considering a factor of
safety of three (F.S. = 3.0) and are presented in Table 10 Allowable Uplifting Resistance values
are summarized in Table 11 For more details on design of piles on rock, refer to Appendix E.
The values in Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 are estimated for preliminary design only. A detailed final
design should be carried out by the structural engineer taking into consideration all possible
loading conditions, which may be applied on the piles. The carrying capacity of small diameter
concrete pile can be further limited by the safe working load which can be carried out by the shaft
when considered as a structural member.
Pile load tests are considered the most satisfactory method to assess the carrying capacity of a
pile. It is therefore recommended that such tests be performed according to British Standard
Code of Practice 8004 on specially constructed piles installed before the start of the general
construction works during the foundation construction period. However, if pre-contract testing is
carried out, significant savings may result from a more economical pile design based upon specific
test data.
With any form of the pile, it is recommended that specialist contractors are consulted as to the cost
and performance characteristics of their particular form of pile with particular reference to the
proposed method of installation in the ground conditions encountered at the site. The piling
construction should be carried out by specialist well-experienced and equipped piling contractor,
who must submit a method statement for the construction of the piles and should be requested to
confirm the actual working loads for his particular piling system before foundation design is
finalized, since the theoretical design methods provide an approximate working load. The
contractor should also demonstrate by load test the piles performance and its load settlement
characteristics.

Table 8: Estimated Ultimate Skin Friction

Average Level Ultimate Skin
below G.L.(Ground Geologic Description Friction/Adhesion
Level).(m) (kg/cm2)
GL to -7.60 Slightly Gravelly Sandy SILT/Silty SAND/ Fill Materials Negligible
Very weak Crystalline Gypsum with inclusions of Mudstone/
-7.60 to -11.20 1.0
Interbedded with very weak Mudstone
-11.20 to -15.0 Weak to very weak Mudstone 2.3
Table 9: Estimated Ultimate End Bearing Capacity

Average Level
Ultimate End
below
Geologic Description Bearing Capacity
G.L.(Ground 2
(kg/cm )
Level) (m)
Very weak Crystalline Gypsum with inclusions of Mudstone/
-7.60 to -11.20 47
Interbedded with very weak Mudstone
-11.20 to -15.0 Weak to very weak Mudstone 60
Table 10: Calculated Allowable Working Loads (Factor of Safety = 3.0)

Average Toe Level below G.L.(Ground Level).(m) -10.10 -10.60 -11.10 -11.60 -12.10
Minimum Socket Length in Intact Rock (m) 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Pile Diameter (m) Allowable Working Loads (tons)
0.60 60 63 66 86 93
0.75 89 93 97 125 134
0.80 100 104 108 139 149
0.90 123 128 133 171 182
Table 11: Calculated Uplifting Resistance (Factor of Safety = 2.5)

Average Toe Level below G.L.(Ground Level) (m) -10.10 -10.60 -11.10 -11.60 -12.10
Minimum Socket Length in Intact Rock (m) 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Pile Diameter (m) Allowable Uplifting Loads (tons)
0.60 20 23 27 36 45
0.75 25 30 35 46 57
0.80 26 32 37 49 61
0.90 30 36 42 55 68
Notes:
1. The above allowable pile working loads are calculated based on geotechnical consideration only and should therefore, be limited on the basis
of structural capacity of the pile.
2. These values are estimated for preliminary design only. A detailed final design should be carried out by the structural engineer taking into
consideration all possible loading conditions which may be applied on the piles.

10.2 Construction of Edge Protection with Quay Walls and Stability of Top Revetment
It is proposed to construct an edge protection structure around the maritime edge and to develop
adjacent slipway. At shallow surfacial depths loose to medium dense Sand were
encountered with interbeds of very soft Silt; these layers shall be excavated to reach stable
layers. Excavation up to level of -2.5m ACD (as informed by MUC) shall be carried out
followed by backfilling/reclamation to reach design foundation level. At these depth levels
SPT- N is found to be greater than 18 and therefore, soil bearing pressure of 1.1kg/cm2
required to support either quay walls or rock revetment edge protection can be achieved.
The required soil improvement behind quay wall or any foundation ground to prevent the
sinking of edge protection into loose strata or failure of foundation by scouring due to tidal
change (thru layers susceptible to softening and erosion), is described in detail in Section
10.3. The design parameters for the placed fill materials should be considered in relation to
their characteristics as fully remoulded soil. Cohesionless soils i.e. Sand and Gravels, or
Crushed Rock are normally used as fill in reclamation areas where stable conditions
capable of carrying surface loading are required. Exploratory boreholes can be drilled to verify
the condition of the reclaimed layers (if any) up to a minimum depth of 1.5 times the width or 2
times the height of the edge rock protection front above the seabed level (whatever is greater).
Stability checks for e.g., for quay wall would typically include sliding, overturning and bearing
capacity analysis for all possible normal and abnormal loading combinations.
10.3 Basis of Stability Analysis For Marine Structure
The gravitational forces acting on the mass of soil forming the slope along with other forces that
act as disturbing loads can create instability in the form of a shear slide. The resistance of soil in
terms of effective stresses is given by:
R = c'+( Pu ) tan( )
Where:
c' = Effective cohesion
= Total normal stress to the plane of sliding
Pu = Pore water pressure
= The angle of shear resistance
The Method of Slices was used (Bishop Simplified Method). The Method of Slices utilizes plane
strain circular arc method where the respective slice weights are assumed to be acting through the
midpoints of the slices. Clockwise and counterclockwise effects of the normal and tangential
components are inherent in the rotational equilibrium requirement such that:
FS =
M resisting
M overturning
Any temporary excavated slope shall not be steeper than 2H:1V as loose Silty SAND was
encountered. Rapid fluctuation of the pore water pressure caused by constructional procedure
should be assessed though numerical analysis prior to start of operations.

10.4 Improved Ground for for Block Quay Walls/Marine Edge Protection Structures
For this site the presence of locally loose Silty SANDY/soft SILT materials is encountered at
shallower depths. Foundations are not recommended to be established on existing seabed
without soil improvement.
Deep improvement may be considered as an appropriate technique using either of the two
following methods prior to any construction. The treatment of the ground as pointed out in this
following paragraph can utilize dredging/excavation and soil replacement.
The effectiveness of ground improvement methods should be verified through exploratory

boreholes, or cone penetration test and the analyses of observed settlement data for
purpose of shallow foundation analysis and recommendations.
1. Ground Improvement by Soil Replacement
According to the general discussion presented above and taking into consideration the type and
particulars of the structure and the materials which are loose very Silty SAND/soft SILT. The
sequence of operations includes:
1. Excavation shall be carried out to the level of -2.5 ACD.

2. If the foundation is the mentioned level, backfill in layers of structural Fill material that shall be
compacted by heavy vibratory roller to degree of compaction not less than 95% of the
maximum dry density as obtained by modified proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557).
Provide as many layers (each 25cm thick) of engineered fill materials to reach the foundation
level
3. At these depth levels SPT- N is found to be greater than 18 and therefore, soil bearing
pressure of 1.1kg/cm2 to support either quay walls or rock revetment edge protection
can be achieved.
2. Ground Improvement by Vibro-replacement (Stone Columns) Technique
If the foundation is -2.5m, Stone columns technique is recommended to be used in this site in the
area of relatively light structures / facilities. Vibro-replacement method is used to produce a stone
column, below the ground level by sinking the vibratory device, backfilling the induced hole by
adding granular materials commonly ranges in gradation from 6mm to 40mm (1/4 to 1
inches).The distribution of these stone columns below the foundation ground (i.e. spacing,
diameter and depth) shall be decided by specialist and experienced contractors (normally 1.2m to
3.0m spacing, 0.5m to 0.75m diameter, and not less than 5.0m depth) to achieve the required
ground bearing pressures, which could reach 2.0kg/cm2.

10.5 Earth Pressure Parameters
The lateral pressures vary directly with depth in either cohesionless or cohesive soil except when
the backfill supports a surcharge loading. This reflects a hydrostatic-pressure distribution, and it
may therefore be considered that the lateral pressure distribution is due to a fluid of unit weight
such that the total pressure for the soil and the so-called EQUIVALENT FLUID are the same.
weight of the equivalent fluid for cohesionless soil may be calculated as follows by means of the
Rankine equations.
For the resultant lateral force, write:
H2 H2
P= .K = w'
2 2
in which:
P = resultant lateral force

H = vertical height of wall
K = pressure coefficient
w = unit weight of equivalent fluid
For the active pressure case ( K = K a )
1 sin
w '=
1 + sin
1 sin
i.e. K a = = tan 2 [45 / 2 ]
1 + sin
For the passive pressure case ( K = K p )

1 + sin
w '=
1 sin
1 + sin
i.e. K = = tan 2 [45 + / 2 ]
p 1 sin
For the at-rest pressure case ( K= K )

0
w = (1-sin )
* K 0 = 1 sin (After Jacky 1948)
For the design of the thrust blocks in view of the applied thrust force; that thrust will be resisted by
the sliding resistance between the base and the soil and by lateral passive pressure. Therefore,
H2
Thrust resistance = f v + Kp
2
Where:
f = the sliding coefficient

= tan (2/3 )
v = Summation of the dead vertical loads.

Soil parameters necessary for design of foundations for the different relative densities for soil
materials are summarized in Table 12, where the highlighted range can be adopted.
Table 12: Earth Pressure Parameters (Estimated from N-values: S.P.T.)*

Coefficient Earth Pressure
Estimated Assumed
Estimated of Friction Coefficient
S.P.T. Angle Cohesion
Soil Bulk Between
Range of Internal (C)
Type Density* Soil and
(N=Values) 3 Friction ** 2) Ka Kp Ko
(g/cm ) (kg/cm Footing
(degrees)
(f)
Loose
6-10 1.500 30 0.0 0.36 0.33 3.0 0.50
SAND
Medium
dense 10 - 20 1.700 32 0.0 0.39 0.31 3.23 0.47
SAND
Medium
dense 20 - 30 1.750 34 0.0 0.42 0.28 3.54 0.44
SAND
Dense
30-40 1.820 37 0.0 0.46 0.25 4.0 0.40
SAND
Dense
40-50 1.850 39 0.0 0.49 0.23 4.40 0.37
SAND
Very
Dense >50 2.000 41 0.0 0.52 0.21 4.81 0.34
SAND
* (Adopted from Bowels, Foundation Analysis And Design and Practical Experience).
** (After Peck, Hanson and Thornburn)
10.6 Excavation Side Slopes
Where space permits, the sides of the excavations shall be battered to a slope recommended in
the table below:
Recommended Cut Slope

Material Type SPT Range
(Horizontal : Vertical)
Very Loose to Loose SAND 0 - 10 2:1
Medium Dense SAND 10 - 30 1.5 : 1
Dense SAND 30 - 50 1.3 : 1
Rock Materials - Vertical *
* Rock materials can be cut vertically with berms every 4.0m for temporary purposes.
If these recommended side slopes can not be achieved for insufficient lateral space or for any
other reason, lateral support system for the sides of the excavation will be required (H-beams and
Slab Shoring), to maintain safe working conditions, and should be considered.
10.7 Dewatering
The excavation for the foundation works will be below water table, so dewatering is required.
Experience has shown that small close-boarded excavation can be conveniently dealt with by
conventional sump pumping techniques. However, if larger excavations are to stand open for
considerable period, the installation of dewatering system may be required. Specialist contractors
should be consulted in this regard.

10.8 Drainage
It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at the location of the
structures both during and after construction. Surface water should be directed away from the
edges of the excavation.
10.9 Backfill Material and Compaction Criteria
Most of the materials which expected to be excavated from the site consist of medium dense
SANDY materials underlain by bedrock. SANDY materials shall comply with the requirements of
general fill and will probably be satisfactory for (soft land scaping / green area) backfilling
purposes. However, the final decision shall be taken during construction after testing.
10.9.1 Structural Fill
In the areas where structural fill under foundations is required (i.e. Foundation, Roads), then the
materials to be used shall be:
- Free of organic matter or other deleterious substances.
- Well graded granular mixture with no particles larger than 75mm.
- Materials passing sieve No.200 shall be less than or equal 20%.
- Materials should be non-plastic to slightly plastic (maximum PI value of 6).
- Materials under foundations shall be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as

obtained by modified proctor (ASTMD 1557).
- Maximum salt content should be less than 1%.
- Plate bearing test shall be carried out on fill as quality control measure to verify the
required allowable bearing pressure and total settlement criteria under foundations.
10.9.2 General Fill
In the areas where general filling is required (e.g., landscaping, slab-on-grade, area not loaded),
then the materials to be used shall be:
- Free of organic matter or other deleterious substances.
- Well graded granular mixture with no particles larger than 75mm.
- Materials passing sieve No.200 shall be less than or equal 35%.
- Plasticity index less than or equal to 15%.
- Liquid limit not more than 40%.
- Material shall be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as obtained by standard

proctor (ASTM D 698).
- Plate bearing test shall be carried out on fill as quality control measure to verify the
required allowable bearing pressure and total settlement criteria under foundations.

10.10 Foundation Concrete

10.10.1 Analysis and Guidelines
The results of chemical analysis for the selected soil sample is given in Appendix C, Sec.C-5. The
methodology of assessment of ground for chemical agents aggressive for concrete has been
based on the publications concerning assessment of exposure conditions and specification of
concrete to resist chemical attack:
BRE Special Digest 1, 2005, Concrete in Aggressive Ground

CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula (CIRIA C577).
Appendix D includes selected extracts from the above referenced documents.
10.10.2 Classification of Ground Condition
Classification of the severity of chemical attack is given based on the maximum value of sulphate
content and pH for the tested ground water samples, as well as the type of exposure conditions.
Natural soil and mobile ground water conditions are adopted in view of definitions of BRE Special
Digest 1, 2005. Accordingly, the site has been classified as follows in Table 13.
Table 13: Site Classification as per BRE SD1-2005

Design Sulphate Aggressive Chemical
Location of Foundations Class Environment for Concrete Class
(DS-Class) (ACEC-Class)
Within / Above Ground Water Level DS-4 AC-4
Reference
BRE SD1-2005, Table C1
(See Appendix D)
10.10.3 Concrete Quality for Resisting Chemical Attack
In accordance to BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 and considering the existing site conditions and the
prevailing hostile climate in UAE, the following preliminary design chemical classification of
concrete may be proposed, subject to the following provisions:
1. Cast in-situ concrete for general use, well compacted with no face exposed to air.
2. Section thickness of concrete elements: 140-450mm,
3. Intended working life of concrete element: not less than 100 years.
4. Hydraulic gradient due to ground water: <5
Table 14: Recommendations for Foundation Concrete as per BRE SD1-2005

Design Additional Cement
Recommended
Chemical Protective Content &
Foundations Cement
Class Measure(s) Water/Cement
Group**
(DC Class) (APM)* Ratio
Within / Above Ground One APM of
DC-4 F/E/D/G Select from
Water Level choice
Table D2,
Reference Table D1, Tables D2&D3, BRE SD1-2005
(See Appendix D ) BRE SD1-2005 BRE SD1-2005
* For choices of Additional Protective Measure (APM) consult Table D4, BRE SD1-2005.
** Group G Cements (Sulphate Resistant Portland Cements), do not provide sufficient protection against chloride induced
corrosion of concrete reinforcement, hence, Group G cements, if specified, shall be used with caution in a case of
significant chloride contamination.

The above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride ions in concrete surrounding.
In such cases the site exposure conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified
recommendations for concrete mix design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region, CIRIA
Publication C577, 2002, Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula- See Table below.
Table 15: Site Classification and Concrete Recommendations in view of CIRIA Publication C577,
2002
Minimum
Maximum
Cementitious Minimum cover
Recommended Free
Chloride Exposure content Additional to
Cement Water/
Concentration Condition for 20mm requirements reinforcement
Group Cement
aggregates (mm)
3 Ratio*
(kg/m )
Portland cement
Significant d(iii) 320-400 0.42 Tanking 40-50
or additions
Table
[1] 5.1,
See Note Table 5.2, CIRIA C577
CIRIA
C577
[1]
Note : There is no widely accepted view of the concentration at which the chlorides become significant in soil or ground
water, but limited experience in Gulf region suggests it may be as low as 0.05%, particularly in situation where
alternative wetting and drying or capillary rise affect the concrete.(Ref. CIRIA Special Publication 31( 1984)).
* On well supervised projects free-water /cement ratios down to 0.35 have successfully achieved using the latest
generation of super-plasticizers.
10.11 Seismic Parameters as Per IBC 2009 and ASCE7
The International Building Code (IBC-2009) is a world wide used reference which covers various
engineering topics among which the Earthquake loads and seismic design parameters (Refer to
Section 1613 in IBC-2009).
Based on the investigated boreholes in the project area, which are generally characterized by
loose to medium dense SANDY materials underlain by Very weak Bedrock, the site class for such
condition can be used as Site Class D as defined in Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC-2009.
The site coefficients and the adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration parameters are basically function of the mapped spectral acceleration for short (0.2
second) and a one second period Ss and S1 as determined in section 1613.5.1 in IBC-2009.
Similarly, there were various studies made by specialized agencies or authorities to simulate and
evaluate these parameters relevant to their areas, specifically referring to our region with studies
and publications made for the UAE Region, JORDAN and SAUDI ARABIA.
Special attentions were given to the following studies:
1. The Geology and Geophysics of the United Arab Emirates, Volume 4: Geological Hazards, -
United Arab Emirates Ministry of Energy Petroleum and Minerals Sector Minerals Dept.
2. Seismic Hazard Assessment of United Arab Emirates and its Surroundings, Jamal A. Abdulla
and Asm S. Al-Hamoud, 2004.
3. Notes on International Seismic Codes IBC versus UBC Nazzal A. Armouti.
As concluded from the above studies the following parameters are recommended:
Ss = The mapped spectral acceleration for short period = 0.55
S1 = The mapped spectral acceleration for 1-second period = 0.17

TL = Long-Period transition periods = 8 Second
PGA on bedrock in 50 years time periods is 0.15g.
10.12 Ground Shaking & Free Field Ground Acceleration
The intensity of future earthquake ground motion in the project area will depend on the distance
from the earthquake epicenter, the magnitude of the earthquake and the soil response
characteristics. According to the information presented above about the tectonics and the
seismicity of the southeast region of the Arabian Peninsula, it can be concluded that within the
anticipated lifetime of the project (at least 50 years) the maximum probable Richter magnitude
future earthquake is 6.0 at a minimum distance of 100km from the project. The approximate
maximum free field ground acceleration can then be obtained from curves which show the relation
between the epicentral distance (distance from causative fault) and the maximum acceleration for
different earthquake magnitudes such as the relationship presented in Figure 1. This figure is
published in Report No.72-2, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, June 1972, "Acceleration in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", by Per
B. Schnabel and Ho. Bolton Seed.
10.13 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated loose cohesion less soils are subjects to a
temporary, but essentially total loss of strength induced by severe earthquakes. Significant factors
known to affect the liquefaction potential of these soils are: the characteristics of the material, such
as the grain size distribution and relative density; the initial stresses or monotonic shear stresses
that could even trigger flow liquefaction by the generation of excess pore water pressure and strain
softening; and the characteristics of the earthquake in, such as the intensity and duration of the
ground shaking. In this site, in this site, shallow water table was encountered and the subsurface
materials are generally loose to medium dense with interbeds of very soft, highly compressible
sandy silt, therefore liquefaction potential shall be considered in design of piles using buckling load
combination.
.

Figure 4: Average Values of Maximum Accelerations in Rock

10.14 Collapse Potential
Since the subsurface materials of site are locally loose sandy with intercalations of very soft Sandy
Silt, that are highly compressible materials, therefore, the potential of collapse of these materials
during excavation shall be considered according clause 10.3.
10.15 Swelling & Shrinkage Potential
In view of the materials encountered, and the test results, the potential for swelling & shrinkage
potential is considered negligible.
10.16 Foundation Excavation Inspection
The recommendations given in this project are based on the assumption that the subsurface
materials and conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the borings.
However, there may be conditions pertaining to the site which were not disclosed by the
investigation, due to the limited number of boreholes, which therefore could not be taken into
account. In such cases, our office should be notified, immediately after foundation excavation and
before foundation construction, to accordingly amend our recommendations and to confirm that
the required level is reached and all undesirable and loose materials are removed.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. The ground water levels indicated on the logs of borings represents the measured levels at the
time of investigations. 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 at times may be significantly different to those measured
during the investigation.
2. 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 into account due to the
limited number of boreholes.

APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN & PROFILES
S14000136
Generalized Subsurface Profile
6 6
SPT UCS Core SPT UCS Core

(N) (MPa) Recovery (N) (MPa) Recovery
4 26 4
36 SPT UCS Core 15

(N) (MPa) Recovery
2 18 14 2
2 2
3
0 2 3 0
6
22 14
12
-2 26 17 -2
17
18 21
18
Elevation (m)
-4 19 21 -4
26
23 27
25
-6 48 39 -6
30
(0.76) 40
94/52/40 97/32/18
-8 -8
90/50/16
0/0/0
(0.38)
-10 (0.8) 48 -10
96/67/55 96/57/42
(1.08) 99/45/45
-12 (0.5) -12

(2.35)
96/45/31
95/85/68
(0.86) 96/77/65
-14 -14
(2.11) (2.94)
80/44/40 94/86/80
(0.44)
-16 BH-01 -16
(1.03) 97/60/48 BH-03
-18 BH-02 -18
Ground Water Table

Core Recovery: TCR/SCR/RQD
Boreholes Information
Project Name: Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty Fill Materials Silt
BH-No. Depth (m) Elev. (m)
Project Ref. No.: S14000136 Sand Gypsum BH-01 20 4.275
BH-02 20 2.400
Location: ICAD, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, UAE Mudstone
BH-03 20 4.100
Client: MUC Engineering
Profile No.: AA' Figure No.: A-2
Appendix A, Page 2/3

Generalized Subsurface Profile
6 6
SPT UCS Core SPT UCS Core

(N) (MPa) Recovery (N) (MPa) Recovery
4 4
13 14
2 19 37 2
2 2
0 4 3 0
17 22
-2 19 26 -2
22 26
Elevation (m)
-4 25 27 -4
27 20
-6 34 33 -6
40
-8 97/13/07 -8
94/57/23
-10 -10
(0.37)
97/45/32
(1.39) 97/50/42
-12 -12
(0.79)
-14 90/40/27 -14
88/78/72
-16 BH-04 BH-05 -16
Ground Water Table

Core Recovery: TCR/SCR/RQD
Boreholes Information
Project Name: Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty Fill Materials Silt
BH-No. Depth (m) Elev. (m)
Sand Gypsum BH-04 20 4.350
Project Ref. No.: S14000136
BH-05 20 4.350
Location: ICAD, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, UAE Mudstone
Client: MUC Engineering
Profile No.: BB' Figure No.: A-3
Appendix A, Page 3/3

APPENDIX B : LOGS OF BORING & AND LEGEND
CONTENTS
Sec.B-1 Legend To Logs Of Boring
Sec.B-2 Logs Of Boring
S14000136
APPENDIX B
SECTION B-1
LEGEND TO LOGS OF BORING
S14000136
LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS
Calcarenite
Peridotite
Soft Gypsum
Calcite
App.B, Sec.B-1, Page 1/4




APPENDIX B
SECTION B-2
LOGS OF BORING
S14000136
Borehole Log
Project: Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty
Project Ref. No.: S14000136 Borehole No.
Location: ICAD, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, UAE BH-01
Client: MUC Engineering Sheet 1 of 2
Total Depth (m): 20.00 Drilling Method: Rotary Drilling Medium: Mud Core Dia. (mm): 79
Ground Level (m): 4.28 Boring Started: 10/09/2014 Boring Dia. (mm): 121 Casing Depth (m): N.U.
Coordinates: N= 2,691,416 Boring Completed: 11/09/2014 Casing Dia. (mm): N.U. Water Level (m): 1.78
E= 244,501 Rig: ARDCO X Driller: Mahmoud Water Depth (m): 2.5
SPT Records Core Recovery
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
N TCR SCR RQD Description of Strata
Type and Depth FI (MPa)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
Fill comprising, dense, yellowish gray, fine

to coarse grained, Slightly Gravelly Silty
TB1 0-1 SAND (Gravel is the fragments of
Sandstone & Crystalline Gypsum).
1 (2.00)
SPT1 1 - 1.45 4 5 6 8 10 12 36
TB2 1.45 - 2
2 2.28
2
SPT2 2 - 2.45 2 3 3 4 5 6 18 Fill comprising, medium dense, yellowish
gray, fine grained, very Silty SAND.
(1.00)
TB3 2.45 - 3
3 1.28
3
SPT3 3 - 3.45 1 - 1/15 - 1/5 - 2 Very soft, gray, Slightly gravelly sandy
SILT with shells & shell fragments.
TB4 3.45 - 4
4 (2.00)
SPT4 4 - 4.45 1/15 - 1/15 - 1/15 - 2
TB5 4.45 - 5
5 -0.73
5
SPT5 5 - 5.45 7 4 4 5 6 7 22 Medium dense, yellowish gray, fine to
coarse grained, Silty very gravelly SAND.
TB6 5.45 - 6
6
SPT6 6 - 6.45 4 5 5 6 7 8 26
TB7 6.45 - 7
7
SPT7 7 - 7.45 2 2 3 5 4 6 18
TB8 7.45 - 8 (5.50)

8
SPT8 8 - 8.45 2 3 3 5 5 6 19
TB9 8.45 - 9
9
SPT9 9 - 9.45 3 4 4 5 6 8 23
TB10 9.45 - 10
Undisturbed Sample Key: Disturbed Sample Key: Abbreviations:

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
CS: Core Sample TB: Tricone Bit * The samples were described in accordance with
TCR: Total Core Recovery
appropriate standard (BS 5930).
SPT:Standard SCR: Solid Core Recovery Co-ordinates and levels are provided by client.(Levels are
DB: Drive Barrel
Penetration Test RQD: Rock Quality Designation related to ACD)
AU:Auger FI: Fracture Index
SH: Shelby Tube
UCS:Unconfined Comp. Strength
HPD: High Pressure N.U.: Not Used
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Logged By: Geo. Anvar Checked By: Geo. Manjari
App. B, Sec. B-2 Page 1/10
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
SPT10 10 - 10.45 5 7 9 11 13 5 48 Ditto as from 5.0m to 10.0m.

10.5 -6.23
Very weak, gray, Crystalline GYPSUM
with inclusions of Mudstone, distinctly
11 weathered extremely close to close
spaced sub horizontal rough uneven
fractured surface.
0.76
(2.65)
12 CS1 10.45 - 13.5 94 52 40 04
*12.10m-12.90m: Extremely close spaced

fractured.
13 13.15 -8.88
Very weak, greenish gray to light greenish
gray MUDSTONE, distinctly weathered
close to medium spaced sub horizontal
smooth uneven fractured surface.
14 0.38 *13.75m-13.95m, 14.80m-15.05m,
15.75m-15.85m & 16.65m-16.75m:
Extremely close spaced fractured.
15 CS2 13.5 - 16.5 96 67 55 03
16
0.50
(6.85)
17
CS3 16.5 - 18.5 95 85 68 04

0.86
18
*18.60m-18.95m: Calcareous Sandstone.

19
CS4 18.5 - 20 80 44 40 04
0.44
END OF BORING (20.0m) 20 -15.73

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
Fill comprising, gray, fine to coarse

grained, Sandy GRAVEL angular to sub
TB1 0-1 angular fragments (Gravels are the (1.00)
fragments of Gabbro).
1 1.40
1
SPT1 1 - 1.5 1/15 - 1/15 - 1/15 - 2 Soft, gray, Slightly Gravelly, Sandy SILT
with shells & shell fragments.
TB2 1.5 - 2
2 (2.00)
SPT2 2 - 2.5 1 1 1 - 1/5 1 3
TB3 2.5 - 3
3 -0.60
3
SPT3 3 - 3.5 1 2 2 3 4 5 14 Medium dense, gray to yellowish gray,
fine grained, Silty SAND.
TB4 3.5 - 4
4
SPT4 4 - 4.5 2 3 3 4 5 5 17
TB5 4.5 - 5
5
SPT5 5 - 5.5 2 3 4 4 6 7 21
(5.00)
TB6 5.5 - 6
6
SPT6 6 - 6.5 3 4 5 5 5 6 21
TB7 6.5 - 7
7
SPT7 7 - 7.5 4 5 5 6 7 9 27
TB8 7.5 - 8
8 -5.60
8
SPT8 8 - 8.5 5 7 9 9 10 11 39 Weak, gray, Crystalline GYPSUM with
inclusions of Mudstone, disitnctly
weathered to destructured extremely
close to close spaced sub horizontal
rough uneven mud infilled fractured
9 surface.
*8.0m-8.50m: SPT performed on
Crystalline Gypsum recovered on gravel (2.90)
sized fagments.

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
CS1 8.5 - 11.5 97 32 18 06

*Ditto as from 8.0m to 10.0m.
10.9 -8.50
11 Very weak to weak, greenish gray to light
gray MUDSTONE distinctly weathered
close to medium spaced sub horizontal
smooth uneven fractured surface,
*10.90m-11.20m & 14.0m-14.25m:
12 Extremely close spaced fractured.
0.80
13 CS2 11.5 - 14.5 96 57 42 04
14
(6.95)
2.35
15
16 CS3 14.5 - 17.5 96 77 65 05
2.11
17
17.85 -15.45
18 Weak, white to gray Crystalline GYPSUM
with inclusions of Mudstone disitnctly (0.65)
weathered very closely spaced sub 18.5 -16.10
horizontal rough uneven fractured
CS4 17.5 - 20 97 60 48 04 1.03 surface.
19 Weak, pinkish brown to greenish gray
MUDSTONE disitnctly weathered close to
medium spaced sub horizontal smooth (1.50)
uneven fractured surface.
END OF BORING (20.0m) 20 -17.60

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
SPT1 0 - 0.45 2 3 5 6 8 7 26 Fill comprising medium dense, grayish

brown, angular to sub-angular, fine to
coarse grained, Silty Very Sandy
TB1 0.45 - 1 GRAVEL.
1 (2.00)
SPT2 1 - 1.45 2 2 3 3 4 5 15
TB2 1.45 - 2
2 2.10
2
SPT3 2 - 2.45 2 3 3 4 4 3 14 Fill comprising medium dense, yellowish
gray, fine to coarse grained, Gravelly,
Silty SAND. (1.00)
TB3 2.45 - 3
3 1.10
3
SPT4 3 - 3.45 1/15 - 1/15 - 1 1 3 Soft to firm, gray, Slightly Gravelly, Sandy
SILT with shells and shell fragments.
TB4 3.45 - 4
4 (2.00)
SPT5 4 - 4.45 1/15 - 1 1 2 2 6
TB5 4.45 - 5
5 -0.90
5
SPT6 5 - 5.45 2 2 2 3 3 4 12 Medium dense, yellowish gray, fine
grained, Slightly Gravelly, Very Silty
SAND.
TB6 5.45 - 6
6
SPT7 6 - 6.45 2 2 3 4 5 5 17
TB7 6.45 - 7
7
SPT8 7 - 7.45 5 5 3 4 5 6 18
TB8 7.45 - 8
8 (6.00)
SPT9 8 - 8.45 7 5 5 6 8 7 26
TB9 8.45 - 9
9
SPT10 9 - 9.45 3 3 5 6 7 7 25
TB10 9.45 - 10

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
FI: Fracture Index *50% Waterloss was observed from 13.0m to 14.0m
SH: Shelby Tube AU:Auger depth.
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
SPT11 10 - 10.45 5 8 7 7 8 8 30 Dense, yellowish gray, fine grained, Very

Silty SAND.
TB11 10.45 - 11
11 -6.90
11
SPT12 11 - 11.45 4 5 7 9 11 13 40 Weak, gray, Crystalline GYPSUM, with
inclusions of Mudstone, distinctly
TB12 11.45 - 11.5
weathered to destructured, very close to
close spaced subhorizontal, rough,
uneven mud infilled fractured surface.
12 * 11.0m - 11.5m & 14.0m - 14.5m: SPT
CS1 11.5 - 13 90 50 16 7 was performed on Crystalline Gypsum,
recovered as gravel sized fragments.
13 (3.95)
CS2 13 - 14 0 0 0 -
14
SPT13 14 - 14.45 6 8 10 12 12 14 48
TB13 14.45 - 14.5
14.95 -10.85
15 CS3 14.5 - 15.5 99 45 45 3
1.08 Weak, greenish gray MUDSTONE,
distinctly weathered, extremely close to
medium spaced subhorizontal, smooth,
uneven fractured surface.
16
17 CS4 15.5 - 18.5 96 45 31 8

* 17.0m - 17.8m: Extremely close spaced
fractured.
(5.05)
18
2.94
19
CS5 18.5 - 20 94 86 80 4
END OF BORING (20.0m) 20 -15.90

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
FI: Fracture Index *50% Waterloss was observed from 13.0m to 14.0m
SH: Shelby Tube AU:Auger depth.
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
Fill comprising, yelowish gray, fine

grained, Silty SAND.
TB1 0-1 (1.00)
1 3.35
1
SPT1 1 - 1.45 2 2 3 3 3 4 13 Fill comprising, medium dense, yellowish
gray, fine to medium grained Slightly
Gravelly, Slightly Silty SAND.
TB2 1.45 - 2
2 (2.00)
SPT2 2 - 2.45 3 3 4 4 5 6 19
TB3 2.45 - 3
3 1.35
3
SPT3 3 - 3.45 1 - 1/15 - 1/15 - 2 Soft, gray, Slightly gravelly slightly sandy
TB4 3.45 - 4
4 (2.00)
SPT4 4 - 4.45 1/15 - 1/15 - 2 1 4
TB5 4.45 - 5
5 -0.65
5
medium grained, Silty SAND.
TB6 5.45 - 6
6
SPT6 6 - 6.45 3 3 4 4 5 6 19
TB7 6.45 - 7
7
SPT7 7 - 7.45 3 4 5 5 6 6 22
TB8 7.45 - 8
8 (6.00)
SPT8 8 - 8.45 4 4 5 6 7 7 25
TB9 8.45 - 9
9
SPT9 9 - 9.45 4 5 6 6 7 8 27
TB10 9.45 - 10

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
SPT10 10 - 10.45 5 6 6 8 9 11 34 Medium dense to dense, yellowish

gray,fine grained, very Silty SAND.
TB11 10.45 - 11
11 -6.65
11
Weak, gray, Crystalline GYPSUM with
inclusions of Mudstone distinctly
weathered to destructured extremely
close to close spaced sub horizontal
rough uneven fractured surface.
12
CS1 11 - 14 97 13 07 06
(3.40)
13
14
14.4 -10.05
Very weak to weak, greenish gray
MUDSTONE distinctly weathered
15 0.37 extremely close to close spaced sub
horizontal smooth uneven fractured
surface.
CS2 14 - 17 97 45 32 05
16
*16.0m-16.60m, 17.0m-17.25m &
17.85m-19.0m: Extremely close spaced
fractured surface.
17
(5.60)
18
CS3 17 - 20 90 40 27 04
19
END OF BORING (20.0m) 20 -15.65

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
Fill comprising, yellowish gray, fine

grained, Silty SAND.
TB1 0-1 (1.00)
1 3.35
1
SPT1 1 - 1.45 2 3 4 4 3 3 14 Fill comprising, medium dense to dense,
yellowish gray, fine to coarse grained,
Gravelly Silty SAND.
TB2 1.45 - 2 (1.50)
2
SPT2 2 - 2.45 4 6 7 8 10 12 37 *2.0m-2.50m: Interbedded with thin bands
of Silt. 2.5 1.85
TB3 2.45 - 3 Soft, gray, Slightly gravelly slightly sandy

3
SPT3 3 - 3.45 1/15 - 1/15 - 1/15 - 2
TB4 3.45 - 4 (2.50)

4
SPT4 4 - 4.45 1/15 - 1/15 - 1 1 3
TB5 4.45 - 5
5 -0.65
5
medium grained, Slightly Silty SAND.
TB6 5.45 - 6
6
SPT6 6 - 6.45 4 4 5 6 7 8 26
TB7 6.45 - 7
7
SPT7 7 - 7.45 4 5 6 6 7 7 26
TB8 7.45 - 8
8
SPT8 8 - 8.45 4 5 5 6 7 9 27 (6.50)
TB9 8.45 - 9
9
SPT9 9 - 9.45 2 2 4 5 5 6 20
TB10 9.45 - 10

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
Borehole Log
(Thickness) (m)
Reduced Level
Samples
Scale (m)
Field Records
Legend
Depth
0-15 (cm) 15-30 (cm) 30-45 (cm) UCS
(m)
Number 0.0-7.5 7.5-15 15-22.5 22.5-30 30-37.5 37.5-45 Blows (%) (%) (%)
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
SPT10 10 - 10.45 4 5 7 7 9 10 33 Dense, yellowish gray, fine grained, Silty

SAND.
TB11 10.45 - 11
11
SPT12 11 - 11.45 4 6 7 9 11 13 40
11.5 -7.15
Weak, gray, Crystalline GYPSUM with
inclusions of Mudstone distinctly
12 weathered, very close to close spaced
sub horizontal rough uneven mud infilled
fractured surface.
13 CS2 11.45 - 14.5 94 57 23 07
(3.60)
14
15 15.1 -10.75
Very weak to weak, light greensh gray to

greenish gray MUDSTONE distinctly
weathered close to medium spaced sub
horizontal smooth uneven fractured
16 CS3 14.5 - 17.5 97 50 42 05 1.39 surface.
17
*17.5m-17.30m: Extremely close spaced
fractured.
(4.90)
0.79
18
CS4 17.5 - 20 88 78 72 02
19
END OF BORING (20.0m) 20 -15.65

Remarks:
Ground Water Table
DB: Drive Barrel
SH: Shelby Tube
Dilatomer
ND: Not Determined
APPENDIX C : LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
CONTENTS
Sec.C-1 Grading Curves, Atterberg Limits & Soil Classifications
Sec.C-2 Moisture-Content Test Results
Sec.C-3 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results
Sec.C-4 Point Load Strength Test Results
Sec.C-5 Chemical Test Results
S14000136
APPENDIX C
SECTION C-1
GRADING CURVES, ATTERBERG LIMITS & SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
S14000136
Upgrading Liwa to Jetty
GRAIN - SIZE DISTRIBUTION
0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
BS Aperture size - mm
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002
BOREHOLES PLASTICITY INDEX

SYMBOL DEPTH (m) GRAVEL SAND SILT / CLAY DESCRIPTIVE TERM (BS 5930)
No. LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
BH-01 2.0 0 74 26 - - N.P. Very Silty SAND

Slightly Gravelly, Slightly Sandy
BH-01 3.0 17 20 63 33 26 7
SILT
BH-01 6.0 26 55 19 - - N.P. Silty, Very Gravelly SAND
S14000136 FIGURE No.C-1 App. C, Sec.C-1, Page 1/6

0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

BH-02 1.0 6 41 53 36 25 11 Slightly Gravelly, Sandy SILT
BH-02 5.0 0 82 18 - - N.P. Silty SAND

0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

BH-03 1.0 62 28 10 - - N.P. Silty, very Sandy GRAVEL
BH-03 2.0 8 83 9 - - N.P. Gravelly, Silty SAND

0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

BH-03 3.0 11 36 53 32 25 7 Slightly Gravelly, Sandy SILT
Slightly Gravelly, Very Silty
BH-03 6.0 2 72 26 - - N.P.
SAND

0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

Slightly Gravelly, Slightly Silty
BH-04 1.0 2 94 4 - - N.P.
SAND
BH-04 3.0 11 23 66 34 26 8
SILT
BH-04 6.0 0 80 20 - - N.P. Silty SAND

0.425
0.212
0.063
1.18
0.15
37.5
3.35
0.6
0.3
2.0
6.3
5.0
14
50
20
75
10
63
28
100
90
80
70
PERCENT PASSING
60
50
40
30
20
lly, Silty SAND 10
0
GRAVEL SAND SILT
CLAY
Particle Size - mm 60 20 6.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

BH-05 1.0 6 79 15 - - N.P. Gravelly, Silty SAND
BH-05 3.0 18 28 54 35 26 9
SILT
BH-05 7.0 2 79 19 - - N.P. Slightly Gravelly, Silty SAND

APPENDIX C
SECTION C-2
MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
S14000136
TABLE No. C-2-1

MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
BS 1377 : PART 2: 1990 (Amd.9027/96), Cl.3.2.3.1.4
Depth Below E.G.S.

Test No. Sample No. Moisture Content (%)
(m)
1 2.0 13.3
2 BH-01 3.0 34.5
3 6.0 39.2
5 1.0 14.9
BH-02
6 5.0 39.6
7 1.0 12.4
8 2.0 20.5
BH-03
9 3.0 28.7
10 6.0 20.2
11 1.0 10.2
12 BH-04 3.0 23.2
13 6.0 39.2
14 1.0 10.9
15 BH-05 3.0 24.2
16 7.0 16.4
S14000136 App.C, Sec.C-2, Page 1/1

APPENDIX C
SECTION C-3
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
S14000136
TABLE No. C-3-1

REPORT ON UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK CORE SPECIMENS
Job No.: S14000136
Date Reported: 17/09/2014
Client : MUC Engineering
Project Name : Upgrading Liwa 2 Jetty
Location : Abu Dhabi
Sample Description : ROCK CORE
Sample Preparation : ASTM D 4543 - 01 (Best effort dimensional conformance)
Test Method : ASTM D 2938 95
Test Method Var. : Nil
Date Tested : 09/09/2014
Tested By : Santosh
Side Diameter Unconfined

Source / Sample End Flatness Perpendicularity Length of Moisture Wet Dry Rate of Temperature Length /
Lithological Straightness of Moisture Compressive Failure
Borehole Depth (Procedure B) (Procedure B) Specimen Content Density Density Loading at Test Diameter
Description (Procedure A) specimen Condition Strength Mode *
No Ratio
(m) (mm) (m) (/L) (mm) (mm) (%) (Mg/m) (Mg/m) (mm/min) (C) (MPa)
11.50 Crystalline GYPSUM 0.4 318 0.0028 76.8 175.8 As Received 19.4 2.071 1.735 0.50 23 2.3 0.76 Type B
14.00 MUDSTONE 0.5 318 0.0031 75.8 172.0 As Received 24.5 1.996 1.603 0.50 23 2.3 0.38 Type B
BH-01 16.20 MUDSTONE 0.45 320 0.0028 76.8 176.3 As Received 17.7 1.943 1.651 0.50 23 2.3 0.50 Type B
BH-02
BH-03
BH-04 15.00 MUDSTONE 0.4 314 0.0026 74.3 172.8 As Received 21.0 1.949 1.611 0.50 23 2.3 0.37 Type B
BH-05
17.65 MUDSTONE 0.5 314 0.0032 74.3 171.3 As Received 18.2 2.057 1.74 0.50 23 2.3 0.79 Type C
Remarks: The test results represent the tested specimen only
*Failure Mode Paterns:
Type A Type B Type C Type D
App. C, Sec.C-3, Page 1/1

APPENDIX C
SECTION C-4
POINT LOAD STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
S14000136
TABLE No. C-4-1

POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX OF ROCK
(ASTM D 5731 - 08)
Type of Test: Diametral

Sample Moisture Specimen Dimensions Failure Load Point Load Point Load
BH No. Depth Content (mm) P Index (Is) Index Is(50) Material Type
(m) (%) Platens Length kN N/mm2 N/mm2
9.50 5.5 78 150 2.2 0.36 0.44 Crystalline GYPSUM
BH-02 11.40 13.8 75 158 0.1 0.02 0.02 MUDSTONE
17.85 3.4 75 88 1.3 0.23 0.28 MUDSTONE
BH-03
16.60 16.7 60 111 0.3 0.09 0.10 MUDSTONE
BH-04
19.10 24.1 79 117 0.3 0.05 0.06 MUDSTONE
BH-05 13.50 10.4 75 110 0.2 0.04 0.05 Crystalline GYPSUM
19.50 14.5 75 93 0.3 0.06 0.07 MUDSTONE
S14000136 App. C, Sec.C-4, Page 1/1

APPENDIX C
SECTION C-5
CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS
S14000136
TABLE NO. C-5-1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS
SULPHATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONTENT

In Soil In Soil
Borehole/ Sample In Ground 2:1 In Ground 2:1 pH
Sample Depth Water water/soil Water water/soil VALUE
No (m) extract extract
- -
as SO4 as SO4 as Cl as Cl
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (% by wt.)
BH-01 2.0 - 2089.28 - 2.30 8.6
BH-04 1.0 - 1673.57 - 0.41 8.1
BH-01 Water 4716.00 - 2.73 - 7.2
BH-05 Water 5196.86 - 3.01 - 7.0
* According to BS 1377: Part 3: 1990 (Amd. 9028-96)

**According to ASTM D512 - 89 (04)
S14000136 App. C, Sec. C-5, Page 1/1

APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION (BRE)
S14000136
Recommendations for Foundation Concrete

-References Matrix-
Page Number
STAGE REFERENCE* (This Appendix)
Determine DS & ACEC BRE SD1, 3

1
Class T able C1
Determine Intended Working Life

of Concrete Elem ent
BRE SD1, 4
T able D1
Determine T hickness of
2 Concrete Element
Determine Hydrostatic Head
Determine DC Class & BRE SD1, 4

Number of APM T able D1
3
BRE SD1,
Select T ype of APM
T able D4 4
BRE SD1,
Adjusted DC Class
T able D1 4
4
Cement or Combination BRE SD1,

Group T able D2,D3 5 6
Finalize exposure
Recomme ndations conditions considering CIRIA, T able 5.1
5 for Foundations & 5.2
7
chloride content and
Concrete Mix Criteria local experience
* References: BRE SD1, 2005 - Concrete in Aggressive Ground

CIRIA C577-2002, Guide to the Construction of Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Peninsula
Appendix D, Page 1/7

Introduction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEMICAL ATTACK ON BURIED CONCRETE
Sulphate Attack
Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by the presence of a high sulphate content either by the ingress from
the sulphate of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils or ground water, or by the presence
of sulphate in the concrete ingredients. The attack results in a considerable internal expansion which may
lead to crack and disintegration of the concrete. This effect can be reduced by use of selected cements or
by suitable protection of the concrete.
Chloride Attack
The primary cause of serious deterioration in reinforced concrete is corrosion of the reinforcement, due to
attack by chlorides, present in concrete either within concrete aggregate and mixing water, or through
penetration from surrounding environment. Since chloride induced reinforcement corrosion can only
occur in the presence of oxygen and water, the risk of corrosion can be reduced by control of chloride in
concreting materials and by ensuring adequacy, integrity and impermeability of the concrete cover.
Resistance to chlorides penetration is influenced by cement chemistry and concrete quality. In general,
Portland cement with a high C3A is more resistant to chloride penetration than Portland cement with a
low C3A content. The following approaches are recommended by CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, Guide
to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian Peninsula, Table 6.1, for reducing the
penetration of chlorides:
Approach: Method:
Concrete Mix Design Selection of Cement Type

Water Cement ratio
Use of additions:
Pulverised fuel ash
Ground Granulated blastfurnace slag
Silica Fume
Other measures Controlled permeability formwork

Coatings
Hydrophobic treatment of the concrete
Chloride and Sulphate Attack
For reinforced concrete in the ground the need for protection from chlorides must be balanced with the
need for protection from sulphates and where necessary a cement resistant to both sulphates and chlorides
should be used .The usual course is to use a cement giving best protection against chlorides and to prevent
sulphate ingress by tanking (coating with impervious material) the surface of concrete. In every case the
need for good quality concrete with low permeability is paramount.
In the case where both sulphates & chlorides occur together, the designer should consider low water
cement ratio, high strength, suitable type of cement, use of epoxy or zinc coated reinforcement bars and
concrete cover with adequate thickness, impermeability & integrity. In such cases the site exposure
conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified recommendations for concrete mix design,
based on local experience in the Gulf Region, C577, 2002, Guide to the construction of reinforced
concrete in the Arabian Peninsula.

BRE Special Digest 1, 2005

Concrete in Aggressive Ground
EXTRACT
Table C1 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for natural ground locations a
Sulfate Groundwater ACEC
Design Sulfate 2:1 water/soil Groundwater Total potential Static Mobile Class for
Class for location extract b sulfate c water water location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(SO4 mg/ l) (SO4 mg/ l) (SO4 %) (pH) (pH)
DS-1 < 500 < 400 < 0.24 * 2.5 AC-1s

> 5.5 d AC-1d
2.55.5 AC-2z
DS-2 5001500 4001400 0.240.6 > 3.5 AC-1s
> 5.5 AC-2
2.53.5 AC-2s
2.55.5 AC-3z
DS-3 16003000 15003000 0.71.2 > 3.5 AC-2s
> 5.5 AC-3
2.53.5 AC-3s
2.55.5 AC-4
DS-4 31006000 31006000 1.32.4 > 3.5 AC-3s
> 5.5 AC-4
2.53.5 AC-4s
2.55.5 AC-5
DS-5 > 6000 > 6000 > 2.4 > 3.5 AC-4s
2.53.5 * 2.5 AC-5
Notes
a Applies to locations on sites that comprise either undisturbed ground that is in its natural state (ie is not brownfield Table C2) or clean fill derived from such ground.
b The limits of Design Sulfate Classes based on 2:1 water/soil extracts have been lowered relative to previous Digests (Box C7).
c Applies only to locations where concrete will be exposed to sulfate ions (SO4) which may result from the oxidation of sulfides (eg pyrite) following ground disturbance
(Appendix A1 and Box C8).
d For flowing water that is potentially aggressive to concrete owing to high purity or an aggressive carbon dioxide level greater than 15 mg/l (Section C2.2.3), increase the
ACEC Class to AC-2z.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class
Suffix s indicates that the water has been classified as static.
Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix z primarily have to resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the cements or combinations listed in
Table D2 on page 42.


EXTRACT
Table D1 Selection of the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to
groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete a,b,c
ACEC Class Intended working life
(from Tables C1 and C2) At least 50 yearsd,e At least 100 years
AC-1s, AC-1 DC-1 DC-1

AC-2s, AC-2 DC-2 DC-2
AC-2z DC-2z DC-2z
AC-3s DC-3 DC-3
AC-3z DC-3z DC-3z
AC-3 DC-3 DC-3 + one APM of choice
AC-4s DC-4 DC-4
AC-4z DC-4z DC-4z
AC-4 DC-4 DC-4 + one APM of choice
AC-4ms DC-4m DC-4m
AC-4m DC-4m DC-4m + one APM of choice
AC-5z DC-4z + APM3 f DC-4z + APM3 f
AC-5 DC-4 + APM3 f DC-4 + APM3 f
f
AC-5m DC-4m + APM3 DC-4m + APM3 f
For specification of DC Class, see Table D2. For choice of additional protective measures, see Table D4.
Notes
a Where the hydraulic gradient across a concrete element is greater than 5, one step in DC Class or one APM over and above the number indicated in this table should be
applied except where the original provisions included APM3. Where APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an extra APM is not needed.
b A section thickness of 140 mm or less should be avoided in in-situ construction but, where this is not practical, apply one step higher DC Class or an extra APM except
where the original provisions included APM3. Where APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an extra APM is not necessary.
c Where a section thickness greater than 450 mm is used and some surface chemical attack is acceptable, a relaxation of one step in DC Class may be applied.
For reinforced concrete, the cover should be sufficiently thick to allow for estimated surface degradation during the intended working life (Section D6.5).
d Foundations of low-rise housing that have an intended working life of at least 100 years may be constructed with concrete selected from the column headed At least
50 years (Section D7).
e Structures with an intended working life of at least 50 years but for which the consequences of failure would be relatively serious, should be classed as having an
intended working life of at least 100 years for the selection of the DC Class and APM (Section D7).
f Where APM3 is not practical, see Section D6.1 for guidance.
Explanation of suffix symbols to DC Class

Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix z primarily must resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the cements listed in Table D2.
Suffix m relates to the higher levels of magnesium in DS Classes 4 and 5.
Table D4 Options available to provide additional protective

measures for buried concrete
Option code Additional protective measure (APM)
APM1 Enhance concrete quality (Section D6.2)

APM2 Use controlled permeability formwork (Section D6.3)
APM3 Provide surface protection (Section D6.4)
APM4 Provide a sacrificial layer (Section D6.5)
APM5 Address drainage of site (Section D6.6)


EXTRACT
Table D2 Concrete qualities to resist chemical attack for the general use of in-situ concrete: limiting values for composition
DC Class Maximum Minimum cement or combination content (kg/m3) Recommended cement and
free-water/cement for maximum aggregate size of: combination group
or combination ratio * 40 mm 20 mm 14 mm 10 mm
DC-1 A to G inclusive
DC-2 0.55 300 320 340 360 D, E, F
0.50 320 340 360 380 A, G
0.45 340 360 380 380 B
0.40 360 380 380 380 C
DC-2z 0.55 300 320 340 360 A to G inclusive
DC-3 0.50 320 340 360 380 F
0.45 340 360 380 380 E
0.40 360 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4 0.45 340 360 380 380 F
0.40 360 380 380 380 E
0.35 380 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4m 0.45 340 360 380 380 F
Grouped cements and combinations
Cements Combinations
A CEM I, CEM II/A-D, CEM II/A-Q, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM II/A-V, CIIA-V, CIIB-V, CII-S, CIIIA, CIIIB, CIIA-D,
CEM II/B-V, CEM III/A, CEM III/B CIIA-Q
B CEM II/A-La, CEM II/A-LLa CIIA-La, CIIA-LLa
C CEM II/A-La, CEM II/A-LLa CIIA-La, CIIA-LLa
D CEM II/B-V+SR, CEM III/A+SR CIIB-V+SR, CIIIA+SR
E CEM IV/B (V), VLH IV/B (V) CIVB-V
F CEM III/B+SR CIIIB+SR
G SRPC
For cement and combination types, compositional restrictions and relevant Standards, see Table D3.
Note
a The classification is B if the cement/combination strength class is 42,5 or higher and C if it is 32,5.


EXTRACT
Table D3 Cements and combinations for use in Table D2

Type Designation Standard Grouping with
respect to sulfate
resistance
Portland cement CEM I BS EN 197-1 A

Portland-silica fume cement CEM II/A-D BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-limestone cement CEM II/A-L BS EN 197-1 B or C a
a
CEM II/A-LL BS EN 197-1 B a or C a

b
Portland-pozzolana cement CEM II/A-Q BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-slag cements CEM II/A-S BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-S BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-fly ash cements CEM II/A-V BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-V c BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-V+SR d BS EN 197-1 D
e
Blastfurnace cements CEM III/A BS EN 197-1 A
BS EN 197-4 A
CEM III/A+SR f BS EN 197-1 D
BS EN 197-4 D
CEM III/B BS EN 197-1 A
BS EN 197-4 A
CEM III/B+SR f BS EN 197-1 F
BS EN 197-4 F
g,h
Pozzolanic cement CEM IV/B (V) BS EN 197-1 E
Very low heat pozzolanic cement VLH IV/B (V) BS EN 14216 E
Sulfate-resisting Portland cement SRPC BS 4027 G
Combinations conforming to BS 8500-2, Annex A, manufactured in the
concrete mixer from Portland cement and fly ash, pfa, ggbs or limestone fines:
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-V BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 21 to 35 % CIIB-V c BS 8500-2, Annex A A
d
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1 CIIB-V+SR BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 55 % CIVB-V BS 8500-2, Annex A E
of combination fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 35 % CII-S BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 65 % CIIIA BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 CIIIA+SR f BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 66 to 80 % CIIIB BS 8500-2, Annex A A
e f
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 CIIIB+SR BS 8500-2, Annex A F
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-L BS 8500-2, Annex A B a or C a
of combination of limestone fines conforming to BS 7979 CIIA-LL BS 8500-2, Annex A B a or C a
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 10 % CIIA-D See Note j A
of combination of silica fume conforming to BS EN 13263 i
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-Q See Note k A
of combination of metakaolin conforming to an appropriate Agrment certificate
Notes
a The classification is B if the cement or combination strength is class 42,5 or higher and C if it is class 32,5.
b Metakaolin only.
c Where the fly ash or pfa content is a mass fraction of 21 to 24%.
d The addition of the abbreviation +SR denotes an additional requirement for sulfate resistance that the fly ash content should be a mass fraction of not less than 25% of
the cement or combination. Where it is less than 25%, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is A (Note c).
e Cements or combinations with higher levels of slag than permitted in this table may be used for certain specialist applications, but no guidance is provided in this Special
Digest or BS 8500.
f The addition of the abbreviation +SR denotes an additional requirement for sulfate resistance, that where the alumina content of the slag exceeds 14%, the tricalcium
aluminate content of the Portland cement fraction should not exceed 10%. Where this is not the case, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is A.
g CEM IV/A cement with siliceous fly ash should be classified as CEM II-V cement.
h (V) indicates siliceous fly ash only.
i Until BS EN 13263 is published, the silica fume should conform to an appropriate British Board of Agrment certificate.
j These combinations are not currently covered by BS 8500-2, Annex A. However, silica fume can be used in accordance with Clause 5.2.5 of BS EN 206-1.
k These combinations are not currently covered by B S 8500-2, Annex A. However, metakaolin conforming to Clause 4.4 of BS 8500-2 may be used in accordance with
Clause 5.2.5 of BS EN 206-1. If the k-value concept is used, a k-value with respect to sulfate resistance of 1.0 should be used.

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. : 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 salt 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

plants)
Table 5. : Typical concrete mix criteria and cover requirements for exposure conditions in the Arabian Peninsula,
from Table 5.1
Maximum Minimum
Minimum cementitious free- cover to the
Exposure Cementitious Additional
content for 0mm aggregates water/cement reinforceme
conditions material (s) requirements
(kg/mm3) ratio nt
** (mm)
a 300-320 0.52 None 30
b 320 0.50 None 40

Portland Cements
or additions
c* 320-350 0.45 None 40-50
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
additions
* When concrete is cast directly in contact with 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 superplasticisers.

LITERATURE FOR PILES ON ROCK
The in-situ or static pile capacity computations are necessary to estimate the number of piles for a job and
the required pile lengths for the design of the substructure elements. All the static pile formulas may be expressed by
the following basic equation:
Qu = Qp + Qf
Where:
Qu = Ultimate Pile Capacity

Qp = Load Carried by End Bearing (Pile Base) = qb . Ab
Qf = Load Carried by Friction Along Perimeter of Pile = fs . As
Ab = Pile Base area
As = Pile shaft area in contract with rock (socket area)
qb = Ultimate base resistance
fs = Ultimate skin friction / Adhesion
Differences of this equation lie in the methods used to evaluate the friction and end bearing portions of the
equation.
It is impossible to predict with accuracy the ultimate end bearing capacity of straight sided piles bearing on
rock directly from the results of the laboratory uniaxial compressive strength tests, which are usually carried out on
specimens of intact rock core and cannot model the overall effect of discontinuities within the rock mass.
Where the joints are spaced widely, that is at 600mm or more apart, or where the joints are tightly closed
and remain closed after pile installation, the ultimate base resistance may be calculated from the following equation:
qb = 2Nquc

N = tan2 450 +
2
where,
N = bearing capacity factor,

quc = Unconfined compressive strength of intact rock
Wyllie gives the following friction angles for intact rock which should be used only as a guide because of
the wide variations which can occur due to site conditions.
Classification Type Friction angle (degrees)

Schists (high mica content)
Low friction Shale 20 to 27
Marl
Sandstone
Siltstone
Medium friction Chalk 27 to 34
Gneiss
Slate
Basalt
High friction 34 to 40
Granite
The values of N obtained from the friction angle of an intact rock can be reduced substantially if the rock
mass has open or clay-filled joints, or if joints which are tightly closed in situ are subsequently opened by pile
displacement and vibrations. In the case of open joints the ultimate base resistance may be no more than the
unconfined compression strength, quc, of the intact rock.
However, various model tests in intact rock carried out by Pells and others as well as collection of available
data from the field (Thorne, 1977) have shown that the ultimate end bearing capacities of 1.5 to 4.5 times the
measured uniaxial compressive strength for the jointed, fractured rock to intact rock, respectively are not unduly
conservative for preliminary design purposes.
In this report, qb = 4.5quc was considered in calculation of ultimate base resistance.
S14000136 Appendix E, Page 1/2

When piles are socketed or driven into rock, some load transfer to the embedded portion of the shaft will
occur. Correlations between the unconfined compression strength of the rock and rock socket bond stress have
been established by Horvarth, Rosenberg and Journeaux and Williams and Pells. The ultimate bond stress (skin
friction/adhesion), fs, is related to the average unconfined compression strength, quc, by the equation:
f s = aquc
where is a reduction factor relating to quc as shown in Figure 1
is a correction factor related to the discontinuity spacing in the rock mass as shown in Figure 2.
= 1 for all cases for the Horvarth, Rosenberg and Journeaux
The factor is related to the mass factor, j, which is the ratio of the elastic modulus of the rock mass to that
of the intact rock. If the mass factor is not known from loading tests or seismic velocity measurements, it can be
obtained approximately from the relationships with the rock quality designation (RQD) or the discontinuity spacing
quoted by Hobbs as follows:
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 0.5-0.8
90-100 1 0.8-1.0
Figure No.1: Reduction factors for rock socket skin friction
Figure No. 2: Reduction factors for discontinuities in rock mass (after Williams and Pellis)
However, on the basis of the data summarized by Thorne (1977) Poullos and Davis (1980) suggested the use
of an ultimate adhesion value of 0.15 times the measured uniaxial compressive strength for preliminary design
purposes. In this report, fs = 0.2 quc was considered in calculation of ultimate skin friction.
S14000136 Appendix E, Page 2/2

14014-R-05-Rev00 Geotechnical Report PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

14014-R-05-Rev00 Geotechnical Report PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

M.U.C.

Annex 01. Geotechnical report by ACES

ACD Admiralty Chart Datum

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

S14000136-Rev.0-Interpretative Report TOC, Page 1 of 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTN)

Figure 1: Satellite Image of the Study Area.....................................................................................2

Table 1: Details of the Drilled Boreholes .................................................................................................4

S14000136-Rev.0-Interpretative Report TOC, Page 2 of 2

1.1 Purpose of Study

1.2 Scope of Works

The scope of works consists of the following:

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 1 of 25

Figure 1: Satellite Image of the Study Area

4.0 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITIONS

1. High temperature and high seasonal changes.

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 2 of 25

5.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA

The superficial deposits overlie interbedded sandstones, limestones, conglomerates, calcisiltites

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 3 of 25

6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 4 of 25

BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05

Figure 2: SPT versus Elevation

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 5 of 25

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.1 Laboratory Tests

BS 1377 : Part 2 : BS 1377 : Part 2 ASTM D 2938-95,

ASTM D 2216- BS 1377 : Part 3 : BS 1377 : Part 3 :

[2] Test accredited by IAS.

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 6 of 25

Slightly Gravelly Slightly sandy 34.5

BH-01 6.0 26 55 19 33 26 7. Silty Very Gravelly SAND - - - 39.2

BH-02 1.0 6 41 53 36 25 11 Slightly Gravelly sandy SILT - - - 14.9

BH-02 5.0 0 82 18 - - N.P. Silty SAND - - - 39.6

BH-03 1.0 62 28 10 - - N.P. Silty very sandy GRAVEL - - - 12.4

BH-03 2.0 8 83 9 - - - Gravelly silty SAND 20.5

BH-03 3.0 11 36 53 32 25 7 Slightly Gravelly sandy SILT - - - 28.7

Slightly Gravelly Very Silty 20.2

Slightly Gravelly Slightly Silty 10.2

Slightly Gravelly Slightly sandy 23.2

BH-04 6.0 0 80 20 - - N.P. Silty SAND - - - 39.5

BH-05 1.0 6 79 15 - - N.P. Gravelly silty SAND - - - 10.9

Slightly Gravelly Slightly sandy 24.2

BH-05 7.0 2 79 19 Slightly gravelly Silty SAND - - - 16.4

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 7 of 25

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 8 of 25

BH-01 4716.00 2.73 7.2

BH-05 5196.86 3.01 7.0

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 9 of 25

8.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

8.1 Ground Materials

Table 5: Summary of the Ground Materials Encountered

0.0 3.0 Medium dense Silty Gravelly SAND / Fill material

3.0 - 5.0 Slightly Gravelly Sandy SILT

5.0 -11.0 Medium dense Slightly silty SAND

15.0 20.0 Weak to very weak MUDSTONE

8.2 Materials Physical and Mechanical Properties

S14000136-Rev.0- Interpretative Report Page 10 of 25

UCS Values (MPa)

0 1 5.0 10 12.5 50 100 1000

BH-02 BH-01 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05