GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED (G+4) BLDG

AT PLOT NO.0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3, NORTHERN SECTOR, AJMAN, U.A.E.

MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED ALSAEEDI.

CST-2018-1880
FEBRUARY- 2018
MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED ALSAEEDI.

25th FEBRUARY 2018

CST-2018-1880

SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR

PROPOSED (G+4) BLDG
AT PLOT NO.0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3,
NORTHERN SECTOR, AJMAN, U.A.E.

OWNER: MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED ALSAEEDI.

Dear Sirs,
CONSULT SOIL TESTING LABORATORY is pleased to submit this report of the geotechnical
investigation for the (G+4) BLDG, AT PLOT NO.0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL -3, AJMAN - UAE.

This report presents the results of the field and laboratory test results, geotechnical analysis and
interpretation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations to aid design and construction of the
foundations.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your confidence and look forward to be of
service to you in the near future.

Sincerely yours,

CONSULT SOIL TESTING LABORATORY

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial Number Description Page No

* Table of Contents……………………………………………… 1

* Appendices…………………………………………………….. 2

1 Introduction…………………………………………………….. 3

2 The Objectives of Site Investigation ………………………….. 3

3 Project Description ………………………………………….... 3

4 Assessment of Foundation Soil ………………………………… 4

5 Scope of Work………………………………………………….. 4

6 Method of Investigation……………………………................. 5

7 Regional Geology and Weather Conditions………………….. 7

8 Field Work……………………………………………………… 7

9 Subsurface Condition………………………………………… 8

10 Field Testing ………………………………………………….. 8

11 Ground Water ……………………………………................... 9

12 Review of Literature and Theories For………………………. 9

13 General Discussions………………….…..…………………….. 10

14 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………... 11

15 Concrete for Foundations….…………………………………. 14

16 General Comments ……………………………………………. 15

CST-2018-1880 Page 1
 APPENDIXES

• APPENDIX A
* SITE PLAN SHOWING BOREHOLE LOCATIONS

• APPENDIX B
* KEY TO BOREHOLES
* BOREHOLE LOGS

• APPENDIX C
* PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

• APPENDIX D
* SUMMARY TABLE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

• APPENDIX E
* BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DIGEST 363 (EXTRACTS).
* DETERMINATION OF ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE OF GRANULAR SOILS
FROM IN-SITU TEST.

CST-2018-1880 Page 2
 1. INTRODUCTION

The Geotechnical Investigation and Soil Testing phase of foundation engineering still involves
some degree of uncertainties. No matter how extensive it is, there still is a doubt about its
accuracy. Engineers attempt to compensate for these uncertainties by applying factors of safety
in the analysis but unfortunately, this solution also increases the cost of construction due to over
safe design.

In the effort of necessary level of conservatism in the Foundation design, the Geotechnical
Engineer may choose more extensive Soil Investigation and Testing Program to better define the
soil characteristics. The additional costs of such efforts will result in decreased construction
costs. However, at some point, it becomes a matter of diminishing returns and eventually the
increased cost of additional Soil Investigation and Testing does not produce corresponding
reduction in construction costs. There is always optimum level of Soil Investigation and testing
which gives the minimum cost of construction by providing the most economical Foundation
Design.

Although there are times soil mechanic techniques can be applied to rock mechanics problems and
vice versa but any such sharing must be done cautiously.

2. THE OBJECTIVES OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS

The objectives of Soil exploration and characterization program include:

• Determining the location and thickness of soil and rock strata.

• Determining the location of the Ground Water Table.
• Recovering samples for testing and evaluation.
• Conducting tests, either in the field or in the laboratory to measure relevant
engineering properties.
• Defining special problems and concerns.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project involves the construction of Proposed (G+4) BLDG for MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA
MOHAMMED ALSAEEDI., on plot no.0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3, Ajman, UAE. The work was carried out
for two (2) boreholes to depth of fifteen (15) meter each upon the request of M/s. Owner's representative.
The site plan of the boreholes is shown in Drawing. No. 1 (Appendix-A)

CST-2018-1880 Page 3
4. ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION SOIL

The process of identifying the layers of deposits that underlie the proposed structure and their
physical characteristics is generally referred to as subsurface exploration.

The purpose of sub-surface exploration is to obtain information that will aid the Geotechnical
engineer to perform the following:

(a) Selecting the type and depth of foundation suitable for given structure.

(b) Evaluating the load bearing capacity of foundation.

(c) Estimating the probable settlement of a structure.

(d) Determining potential foundation problems due to the nature of the soil such as
expansive soil, collapsible soil, and Sanitary landfill or dredge material.

(e) Determining the location of the Ground Water Table.

(f) Predicting lateral earth pressure for structures such as retaining walls, sheet pile
bulkheads and braced cuts.

(g) Establishing construction methods for changing subsoil conditions.

Subsurface exploration may also be necessary when additions and alterations to existing
structures are contemplated.

5. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of works consists of the following:

• Making inspection visit to the site to collect information about the present land use,
surface topography, geological features and surface drainage.
• Drilling of 2 boreholes down to a depth of 15.0m each, and sampling of disturbed
and undisturbed samples.
• Carrying out necessary field and laboratory tests.
• Performing engineering analysis of fields and laboratory findings.
• Developing conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and construction

CST-2018-1880 Page 4
6. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

• Field Investigation

Fieldwork commenced on FEBRUARY 22 th, 2018 and was completed on FEBRUARY 24 th,
2018. The scope of the work comprises the drilling of two boreholes (BH1 & BH2) to depth of
15.0m each. The borehole locations are shown on the Site Plan in Appendix A.

A Drilling Rig Machine (Pilcon) was used for drilling the boreholes adopting percussion
drilling method.

Using procedures specified in the code of practice for site investigation BS 5930:1999, Disturbed
and split spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes for soil classification and laboratory
testing.

• Standard Penetration Test

In order to determine the relative density of the revealed strata, Standard Penetration Test at
frequent intervals of depth were conducted in accordance with BS 1377: Part 9:1990 “Methods
of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.”

The SPT consist of driving a 50mm external diameter thick walled tube (Split spoon sampler)
into the bottom of the borehole using a 63.5 Kg hammer falling freely through 760mm.

Initially the sampler is driven 150mm into the soil to be seated and to pass through disturbed soil
at the bottom of the borehole. The number of blows required for driving the sampler a further
300mm is recorded and termed as the “N” value. The results are shown on the attached borehole
logs in Appendix B.

CST-2018-1880 Page 5
 • Laboratory Testing
Soil and water samples were tested in accordance with BS 1377 (1990) “Methods of Test for
Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.”

Laboratory testing consisted of a visual classification on all the soil samples. Particle size
distribution and chemical analysis of soil were conducted on selected samples.

• Particle Size Distribution

Particle size distribution was carried out in accordance with B.S. 1377: 1990 Part 2: Method 9
“Determination of Particle Size Distribution”.

Soil samples were mechanically analyzed by wet sieving for classification. The results are
presented in the form of particle size distribution curves in Appendix C.

• Chemical Analysis
The likelihood of deterioration of the foundation concrete to aggressive in-situ condition was
assessed by the determination of the pH, sulphate as sulphur trioxide, and chloride content of the
soil and ground water samples in accordance with the following B.S. Standards:

B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 5 “Determination of the Sulphate Content of soil and
Groundwater.”
B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 7 “Determination of the Chloride Content.”
B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 9”Determination of the pH Value.
Chemical Tests are presented in Appendix- D

CST-2018-1880 Page 6
7. REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND WEATHER CONDITIONS

The geology of the United Arab Emirate, and Arabian Gulf Area, has been substantially influenced
by the deposition of marine sediments associated with numerous sea level changes during
relatively recent geological time, with the exemption of mountainous regions shared with Oman
in the North-East, the country relatively low-lying with near surface geology dominated by
Quaternary to late Pleistocene age, mobile Aeolian dune Sands and Sabhkha/ evaporates deposits.

The site is situated in Ajman 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
characteristics hot dessert 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 for
single cloudburst. Summer shade temperatures are frequently in excess 40c and humidity maybe
very high 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 on the concrete structures such as:

• High temperatures and seasonal changes

• High humidity and change in relative humidity
• Strong shifting winds during day time
• Condensation at night due to low temperature
• Windborne salt laden dust storm
• High solar radiation day time

8. FIELD WORK

• Drilling

Two boreholes were drilled on (22-24)th of FEBRUARY 2018, down to a depth of 15.0m each
below the existing ground surface.

The drillings were executed by Pilcon Drilling Rig using Percussion Drilling Method. The
Borehole Logs are presented in Appendix B.

• Sampling

Soil Disturbed, undisturbed and Split Spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes. The soil
samples were placed in airtight plastic bags, and then transferred to the laboratory for further
testing.

CST-2018-1880 Page 7
9. SUBSURFACE CONDITION

The subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations have been summarized in the
borehole logs in Appendix B.

10. FIELD TESTING

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

• It was developed in the late 1920's and has been used extensively through out the
world because of this long record of experience; the SPT is well established in
engineering practice. The test procedure was standardized only in 1958 when ASTM
Standard D 1586 first appeared.

• Although SPT is plagued by many problems that affect its accuracy and
reproducibility, it is continued to be used, primarily because of its low cost and
increased familiarity with it. Even after standardization, the test has a poor
repeatability.

• Standard penetration Tests (SPT) was performed at various depths in the boreholes to
asses the relative densities of the ground materials. The tests were performed in
accordance with BS 1377: 1990 Part 9, "Determination of Penetration Resistance using
Split Barrel Sampler (SPT) or ASTM: D 1586.

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

• The test results are shown on the boring logs at the respective test depths.
Interpretation of the SPT test results can be found in the Legend of Boring Logs
(Appendix B).

CST-2018-1880 Page 8
11. GROUND WATER

Observation concerning ground water were made during and at completion of the drilling
operations.At the time of investigation, the ground water level was established at a depth of
approximately 7.75m below working level (BH.1 to BH.2). Ground Water Table is not stationary
but fluctuates with tidal and seasonal variations or by naturally induced effects such as Rainfall,
Precipitation, Temperature or humidity etc.

12. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORIES FOR THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS:

Geotechnical Parameters for Design of Shallow Foundations:

Proper selection of foundation members, dictates their being capable of sustaining the structural
loads and transmitting these loads safely to the supporting ground, so it must provide for two
points. One is to avoid foundation soil failure, which leads to structural collapse, and the second
is to prevent excessive settlement, which may lead to restricting the possibility of using the
structure.

Terzagi’s equation is one the most widely used equations to calculate bearing capacity for Shallow
Foundations. Despite that it was originally developed for soils, it is also used to calculate the
bearing capacity for foundations on rocks provided properly selected factors are used. This
equation is of the form.

qult = C Nc Sc + q`Nq + 0.5 BNs

Where: qult = Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Sc, Sγ = are shape factors
q = h
C = Cohesion of Soil
Nc, Nq, N = are factors related to angle of internal friction (Ф)

On the other hand the settlement has to be within certain limits, and this may dictate some
limitations on the permissible bearing capacity which is obtained through applying a factor of
safety 3 on the ultimate bearing capacity.

• For sandy soils, the settlement occurs as the load is applied and there are no time dependent
effects. Under these conditions, settlement can be calculated using Elastic Theory by using
appropriate values for the Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil mass.

CST-2018-1880 Page 9
13. GENERAL DISCUSSION FOR THE CHOICE OF SUITABLE 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. In other
words, the 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. One has to choose the type of foundation which is not merely safe but also
economical.

For the particular case, the following prevailing load and site conditions exist:

1. The imposed loads from the proposed structures on the foundation ground are
expected to be light to medium due to the nature of the proposed structures.
2. Ground water was encountered at approximately (-7.75m) down to the drilled depth.

3. The materials encountered along with field and laboratory test results are shown in
Appendix C and logs of borings in Appendix B.

According to the above conditions, shallow foundation (Raft) can be used to support
the proposed structures as per the following recommendations.

CST-2018-1880 Page 10
14. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON INVESTIGATION RESULTS

Based upon the Borehole Logs, Field and routine Laboratory tests results and position
of the Ground Water Table and nature of the project, is It is recommended to perform one of the
following methods in order to have a method can be applied for this case, taking in the
consideration the economically and feasibility factors.

OPTION (1): In order to lay the shallow foundations, proceed as follows:

At the time of investigation, Major portion of the site was levelled approximately with
the BM [BENCH MARK] (±0.0) established on the adjacent paved road. Remaining area is (2.00-
2.80m) up with the paved road level. Site must be levelled.

• Excavate and level the existing soil at the Level of -2.50m below the BM (±0.0) level
established on the adjacent paved road.

• Place Two (2) layers of selected granular backfill materials (Road Base) 25cm thick each
to reach the required foundation level. Each layers shall be compacted by heavy vibratory
roller to a degree of compaction not less than 95% of the maximum dry density as obtained
by modified proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557 – 98).

• Shallow foundation can be placed on engineered fill. (i.e., Approximately -2.00m below the
BM (±0.0) level established on the adjacent paved road)

TABLE
14.1
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY FOR RAFT FOOTING

Raft Foundation 240 kN/m2 1 9 ,200 kN/m3

The foundation settlement related to these values of pressure is less than the tolerable limits of
1 inch (25mm) for the isolated and 2 inch (50mm) for Raft foundation.




CST-2018-1880 Page 11
PROJECT NO. CST-2018-1880

PILE FOUNDATION:

If higher loads are anticipated, due to the presence of variable medium dense to very dense
layers and the size and nature of the proposed building, deep foundation (piles) are
recommended to support column loads of the proposed building. Deep Foundations by means
of bored cast in-situ or continuous flight auger piles can be used to support the applied loads of
the building. The pile capacities and related parameters are included in the following tables

TABLE No. 1
CALCULATED ALLOWABLE WORKING LOADS
(Factor of safety = 3.0)
Allowable Working Loads (tons)
Pile Diameter (m) Toe Length Below Existing Ground Surface (m)
12 13 14 15
0.50 136 143 151 159
0.60 184 193 203 213
0.75 240 253 265 278
0.90 301 316 331 347
1.00 371 390 408 427
1.10 450 473 497 522
1.20 525 552 580 608
1.30 615 647 679 711
1.40 653 735 772 809

TABLE NO. 2
ALLOWABLE UPLIFTING RESISTANCE
(Factor of safety = 2.5)
Allowable Working Loads (tons)
Pile Diameter (m) Toe Length Below Existing Ground Surface (m)
12 13 14 15
0.50 49 54 59 64
0.60 59 65 71 78
0.75 69 77 84 92
0.90 80 88 97 105
1.00 91 100 110 119
1.10 109 122 135 149
1.20 118 133 147 163
1.30 130 146 162 179
1.40 139 156 174 192
The estimation of the bearing capacity was based on the following:

1. Materials Encountered : Very dense Sand

2. Design SPT N-Value : 50 Blows

3. Angle of Internal Friction  : 40.50

4. Soil Bulk Density : 1.7 ton/m3

5. Reinforced Concrete Density : 2.5 ton/m3

6. Top 2.00m were excluded from friction calculations (Cut Off level)

7. Water table at 7.75m depth from the Natural Ground Level.

8. If necessary, Dewatering is required.

Based on the subsoil strata conditions, the following Vertical spring stiffness values of the soil
can be used for the design of pile foundations. These values are calculated based on the
predicted maximum allowable settlement of 1% of the pile diameter.

TABLE NO. 3
VERTICAL SPRING STIFFNESS VALUES
Vertical Spring Stiffness Values (MN/m)
Pile Toe Depth Level
Pile Diameter (m)
@ DEPTH(m) 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
12 272 307 320 376 412 450 477
13 286 322 337 395 433 473 502
Toe
14 302 338 353 414 453 497 527
15 318 355 371 434 474 522 553
Note: 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.
• The above recommended pile working load capacities are tentative and based
on theoretical calculations, hence these values should be confirmed by carrying
out pile load tests. Specialized and experienced pile contractors shall be
contacted to submit their method statement for the construction of the piles and
to confirm the actual working loads for their piling system before foundation
design is finalized.
• Pile Integrity Testing should be conducted on every pile. This is necessary to
check out the defects or damages (if any) which may occur after installation of
piles due to the lateral impacts, movements, soil instability and others.
• Care should be taken into account during installation of piles, in such case, good
interaction between the concrete (or grout) and the soil are ensured in order to
mobilize optimum friction. Moreover, no disturbance shall be caused to the end
bearing strata so as to cause no excessive settlement under initial loading.
• The recommended optimum spacing (S) center to center distance between the
shall be at least 2.5 times the pile diameter.
• The Stiff pile cap has to be considered for the design of the pile system so as to
resist the differential and total settlement due to vertical and lateral forces.
• The concrete to be specified for the piles should be of good quality with a
compressive strength not less than 45N/mm2.

SOIL PARAMETERS

The following soil parameters (coefficient at rest, active and passive pressures, dry density
and the angle of friction resistance) are estimated at depth as given below based on the
standard penetration test (SPT) values and laboratory test. The coefficient of earth pressure
is calculated by Rankine’s Method. The recommended soil parameters are for different
locations within the first 3m depth. The following soil parameters may be adopted for the
design of shoring system:

Depth Range
Soil Parameters
R.L. -0.00m
to
R.L. -3.00m
Angle of Shearing Resistance 36°
Unit Weight of Soil (above water table) (kN/m3) 17
3
Unit Weight of Soil (below water table) (kN/m ) 9.2
Earth Pressure Coefficients
• Active earth pressure coefficient (ka) 0.26
• Active earth pressure coefficient (kp) 3.86
• Earth pressure at rest (k0) 0.41
 

• Adequate cover of backfill (minimum 0.5m) shall be provided above the top of the
foundation to protect the foundations ground from erosion and seasonal weather variation.

• Plate bearing test shall be carried out at foundation level as quality control measure to verify
the required allowable bearing pressure and total settlement criteria under foundations.

15. CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATIONS:

The results of the chemical analysis of soil and ground water samples recovered from the
boreholes given in Table 6.1 should be studied in conjunction with Tables 6.2 and 6.3 which is
an extract reproduced from BRE Digest 363 July 1991. Alternatively, the standard requirements
of Municipality/ relevant authorities should be strictly followed. Appendix D of this report
contains extracts from BRE Digest 363 July 1991.
Thus the recommended cement type and content, as well as the water/cement ratio for concrete,
should be selected in accordance with Class 2 of Table 6.2 & 6.3. Also taken into account the
recommendation of the above-mentioned CIRIA special publication.
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.

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
groundwater, 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.

Conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified recommendations for concrete mix
design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region and CIRIA Special Publication 31 (1984)

CST-2018-1880 Page 12
16. GENERAL COMMENTS:

In the absence of availability of full loading conditions imposed by the structure to be supported
on the foundations it is not possible to decide the most appropriate analytic model for evaluating
the interaction between the structural loads with their configuration and properties of the
supporting soils and rock and such as the computations of parameters like total settlements,
differential settlements and angular are not feasible.

Conclusions and recommendations made in this report are based on the findings from the drilled
boreholes, and Laboratory tests results. Due to the limited extent of the soil investigation, it is most
probable that some variation may be found at the time of execution of the project in the Sub
– Strata encountered.

Most Engineers work with manufactured products that have very consistent and predictable
engineering properties, but Geotechnical engineers do not have this facility. They work with soil
and rock, which are natural materials whose engineering properties vary dramatically from place
to place, for example, one site may be underlain by strong, hard deposits while another may be
underlain by soft, weak deposits, and thus, instead of specifying required properties,
Geotechnical engineer's task becomes to determine the properties of the existing soils.

The best way to deal with such uncertainties is continued monitoring of sub - surface during
construction. Often new information becomes available during construction and if the new
conditions are found to be different from the anticipated conditions, then the design may need to
be changed accordingly even at the execution stage. In well managed projects, site characterization
continues through out construction, period since further data often becomes available and may
dictate changes in the design. Therefore, Geotechnical monitoring during construction is most
essential and is highly recommended.

Design of Geotechnical structures involves a certain amount of uncertainty in the value of the
input parameters which include the structural geology, material strengths, ground water
pressures, floods and seismic events, reliability of the analytical procedure and construction
methods. In view of these uncertainties and heterogeneous nature of the soils and rocks along
with the creep phenomenon the recommendations and procedures contained in this report are
intended to be used with caution, therefore, prior to their use in connection with any design,
report or specifications they should be reviewed with regard to the full circumstances of such
use.

CST-2018-1880 Page 13
 APPENDIX A

Site Plan Showing Borehole Locations

PHOTO OF SITE
 APPENDIX B

Key to Boreholes
Borehole Logs
 KEY TO BOREHOLES (BS 5930:1999)
SOIL TYPES

MADE GROUND ( FILL ) BOULDERS and COBBLES GRAVEL

SAND SILT CLAY

PEAT Silty SAND Gravelly SAND

Shelly SAND Gravelly Silty SAND Sandy SILT

Gravelly Sandy SILT Sandy GRAVEL

ROCK TYPES

LIMESTONE CONGLOMERATE SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE MUDSTONE CALCARENITE

GYPSUM Igneous (MG)

SOILS
Non-Cohesive Soils Cohesive Soils
SPT N Value Relative Density Angle of Internal Consistency Undrained Shear Strength
(Blows / Friction* (kN/m2)
300mm)
0–4 Very Loose < 30o Very Soft < 20
4 – 10 Loose 30o- 35o Soft 20 – 40
10 – 30 Medium Dense 35o- 40o Firm 40 – 75
30 – 50 Dense 40o- 45o Stiff 75 – 150
> 50 Very Dense > 45o Very Stiff 150 – 300
* After Meyerhof Hard > 300

ROCK
Rock Strength Classification
Unconfined Compressive Strength Description
( MN/m 2 )
< 1.25 Very Weak
1.25 – 5.0 Weak
5.0 – 12.5 Moderately Weak
12.5 – 50 Moderately Strong
50 – 100 Strong
100 – 200 Very Strong
> 200 Extremely Strong
 BOREHOLE LOG No.:01

Client : MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED

Log Sheet : Sheet 1 of 2
ALSAEEDI.
Project No : CST-2018-1880 Ground Level : NP
Project Name : G+4 BLDG Borehole Dia. : 150mm
Location : Plot# 0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3 , AJMAN- UAE. Casing Dia. : 150mm
Equipment Type : Pilcon Type of Boring : Percussion
Drilling Fluid Used : Water Date Started : 22/02/2018
Coordinates E: N: Date Finished : 22/02/2018

S.P.T. Layer
DEPTH SAMPLE
No. of Blows
'N' TCR SCR RQD FI DESCRIPTION OF STRATA LEGEND Thick.
(m.) No Type 150mm 150mm 150mm (%) (%) (%) (m.)
_0.0 1
BULK SAMPLE 0.50

_0.5
2 S 11 17 19 36

_1.0
3 S 12 18 21 39

_1.5 Dense to very dense, brown , slightly silty medium

4 S 11 19 26 45 2.50
grained sand.
_2.0
5 S 13 21 28 49

_2.5
6 S 14 24 26_50 >50

_3.0
7 S 16 26 24_60 >50

_3.5

_4.0
8 S 17 31 19_45 >50

_4.5

_5.0 Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

9 S 19 33 17_30 >50 5.00

_5.5 grained sand.

_6.0
10 S 20 38 12_75 >50

_6.5

_7.0
11 S 23 41 9_35 >50

_7.5

_8.0
12 S 24 43 7_40 >50

_8.5

Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

-9.0 grained sand. 7.00
13 S 25 45 5_55 >50

-9.5

-10

Ground Water Level : - 7.75m (This value of ground water may vary according to weather condition, temperature etc.) Logged By: HM

Key Checked By: DM

TCR Total Core Recovery S- S.P.T. Sample
SCR Solid Core Recovery B- Bulk Sample
RQD Rock Quality Designation00:00 D- Disturbed Sample
S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test C- Coring Sample
FI Fracture Index
 BOREHOLE LOG No.:01

Client : MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED

Log Sheet : Sheet 2 of 2
ALSAEEDI.
Project No : CST-2018-1880 Ground Level : NP
Project Name : G+4 BLDG Borehole Dia. : 150mm
Location : Plot# 0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3 , AJMAN- UAE. Casing Dia. : 150mm
Equipment Type : Pilcon Type of Boring : Percussion
Drilling Fluid Used : Water Date Started : 22/02/2018
Coordinates E: N: Date Finished : 22/02/2018

S.P.T. Layer
DEPTH SAMPLE
No. of Blows
'N' TCR SCR RQD FI DESCRIPTION OF STRATA LEGEND Thick.
(m.) No Type 150mm 150mm 150mm (%) (%) (%) (m.)

-10.5 14 S 25_40 50_60 ---- >50

-11.0
15 S 25_35 50_70 ---- >50

-11.5

-12.0
16 S 25_50 50_75 ---- >50 Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

-12.5 grained sand.

-13.0
17 S 25_70 50_40 ---- >50

-13.5

-14.0
18 S 25_85 50_80 ---- >50

-14.5

-15.0
End of borehole at 15.0m

Ground Water Level : - 7.75m (This value of ground water may vary according to weather condition, temperature etc.) Logged By: HM

Key Checked By: DM

TCR Total Core Recovery S- S.P.T. Sample
SCR Solid Core Recovery B- Bulk Sample
RQD Rock Quality Designation00:00 D- Disturbed Sample
S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test C- Coring Sample
FI Fracture Index
 BOREHOLE LOG No.:02

Client : MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED

Log Sheet : Sheet 1 of 2
ALSAEEDI.
Project No : CST-2018-1880 Ground Level : NP
Project Name : G+4 BLDG Borehole Dia. : 150mm
Location : Plot# 0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3 , AJMAN- UAE. Casing Dia. : 150mm
Equipment Type : Pilcon Type of Boring : Percussion
Drilling Fluid Used : Water Date Started : 25/02/2018
Coordinates E: N: Date Finished : 25/02/2018

S.P.T. Layer
DEPTH SAMPLE
No. of Blows
'N' TCR SCR RQD FI DESCRIPTION OF STRATA LEGEND Thick.
(m.) No Type 150mm 150mm 150mm (%) (%) (%) (m.)
_0.0 1
BULK SAMPLE 0.50

_0.5
2 S 10 16 18 34

_1.0
3 S 11 17 21 38

_1.5 Dense to very dense, brown , slightly silty medium

4 S 12 19 25 44 2.50
grained sand.
_2.0
5 S 14 20 28 48

_2.5
6 S 15 23 27_55 >50

_3.0
7 S 16 25 25_75 >50

_3.5

_4.0
8 S 18 30 20_50 >50

_4.5

_5.0 Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

9 S 18 32 18_40 >50 5.00

_5.5 grained sand.

_6.0
10 S 22 37 13_70 >50

_6.5

_7.0
11 S 24 40 10_30 >50

_7.5

_8.0
12 S 25 42 8_45 >50

_8.5

Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

-9.0 grained sand. 7.00
13 S 25_30 44 6_50 >50

-9.5

-10

Ground Water Level : - 7.75m (This value of ground water may vary according to weather condition, temperature etc.) Logged By: HM

Key Checked By: DM

TCR Total Core Recovery S- S.P.T. Sample
SCR Solid Core Recovery B- Bulk Sample
RQD Rock Quality Designation00:00 D- Disturbed Sample
S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test C- Coring Sample
FI Fracture Index
 BOREHOLE LOG No.:02

Client : MR. ABDULLA MOHAMMED ABDULLA MOHAMMED

Log Sheet : Sheet 2 of 2
ALSAEEDI.
Project No : CST-2018-1880 Ground Level : NP
Project Name : G+4 BLDG Borehole Dia. : 150mm
Location : Plot# 0166, JURF INDUSTRIAL-3 , AJMAN- UAE. Casing Dia. : 150mm
Equipment Type : Pilcon Type of Boring : Percussion
Drilling Fluid Used : Water Date Started : 25/02/2018
Coordinates E: N: Date Finished : 25/02/2018

S.P.T. Layer
DEPTH SAMPLE
No. of Blows
'N' TCR SCR RQD FI DESCRIPTION OF STRATA LEGEND Thick.
(m.) No Type 150mm 150mm 150mm (%) (%) (%) (m.)

-10.5 14 S 25_40 50_55 ---- >50

-11.0
15 S 25_35 50_75 ---- >50

-11.5

-12.0
16 S 25_65 50_85 ---- >50 Very dense , brown , Slightly silty fine to medium

-12.5 grained sand.

-13.0
17 S 25_85 50_35 ---- >50

-13.5

-14.0
18 S 25_80 50_70 ---- >50

-14.5

-15.0
End of borehole at 15.0m

Ground Water Level : - 7.75m (This value of ground water may vary according to weather condition, temperature etc.) Logged By: HM

Key Checked By: DM

TCR Total Core Recovery S- S.P.T. Sample
SCR Solid Core Recovery B- Bulk Sample
RQD Rock Quality Designation00:00 D- Disturbed Sample
S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test C- Coring Sample
FI Fracture Index
 APPENDIX C

Particle Size Distribution Curves

project: cst-2018-1880
depth: 3.00m

COBBLES
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL

Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

1.18

3.35

6.3
10
14
20
Series1

0.6

5
0.425
100
90

0.3
80
70

0.212
60

0.15
50
40
0.063

30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter in mm

seive size (mm)

%passing
20 100
14 100
10 100
6.3 100
5 100
3.35 100
2 100
1.18 99
0.6 97
0.425 86
0.3 75
0.212 53
0.15 37
0.063 14
project: cst-2018-1880
depth: 9.00m

COBBLES
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL

Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

1.18

3.35
0.425

6.3
10
14
20
Series1

0.6

5
100
90
80

0.3
70

0.212
60
50
0.15 40
30
0.063

20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter in mm

seive size (mm)

%passing
20 100
14 100
10 100
6.3 100
5 100
3.35 100
2 100
1.18 99
0.6 97
0.425 96
0.3 67
0.212 45
0.15 33
0.063 12
 APPENDIX D

Summary Table of Chemical Analysis

 SUMMARY TABLE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Ref. No.: CST-2018-1880

Location: plot# 0166, JURF IND -3, Northern Sector, Ajman- UAE.
Report Date: 24/02/2018

TABLE 6.1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
SOIL

Sulphate Content Chloride Content,

B.H. Depth as SO4, (g/l) (BS pH Value
(%) (BS 1377:P3:
No. (m) 1377:P3:
(BS 1377:P3: 1990:Cl9)
1990:Cl.5.3)
1990:Cl7.2)

BH 1 1.00 0.06 0.02 8.3

Type of Concrete: Class 1

 TABLE 6.2
CONRETE SPECIFICATION AGAINST SULPHATE ATTACK
BRE Digest 363 July 1991
Concentration of Sulphate
Minimum Maximum free
In soil or fill
Cement Cement water/cement
By 2:1 In ground-
CLASS By acid Type (See kg/m3 ratio (Note 1)
water/soil Water g/l Table 1c)
extraction (Notes 1 &
% SO4 extract – g/l SO4
2)
SO4
1 <0.24 <1.2 <0.4 A-L Note 3 0.65
A-G 330 0.50
2 1.2-2.3 0.4-1.4 H 280 0.55
I-L 300 0.55
If>0.24 H 320 0.50
3 2.3-3.7 1.4-3.0
classify on I-L 340 0.50
basis of 2:1 H 360 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0
4 extract I-L 380 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0 H 360 0.45
>6.7 >6.0 As for Class 4 plus surface protection – see
5
>6.7 >6.0 CP 102
Note 1 Cement content includes pfa and slag.
Note 2 Cement contents relate to 20mm nominal maximum size aggregate. In order to maintain the cement content of
the mortar fraction at similar values, the minimum cement contents given should be increased by 40kg/m3 for
10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be decreased by 30kg/m3 for 40mm nominal maximum size
aggregate as described in Table 8 of BS 5328 : Part 1.
Note 3 The minimum value required in BS 8110 : 1985 and BS 5328 : Part 1 : 1990 is 275 kg/m3 for unreinforced
structural concrete in contact with non-aggressive soil. A minimum cement content of 300 kg/m3 for (BS
8110) and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.60 is required for reinforced concrete. A minimum cement
content of 220 kg/m3 and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.80 is permissible for C20 grade concrete
when using unreinforced strip foundations and trench fill for low-rise Buildings in Class 1.
TABLE 6.3
TYPES OF CEMENT
Code Type or Combination
A Portland cement to BS 12
B Portland blastfurnace cements to BS 146
C High slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246
D Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
E Portland pfa cements to BS 6588
F Combinations of Portland cement to BS 12 and to BS 3892 Part1
G Pozzolanic pfa-cement to BS 6610 : 1991
H Sulphate-resisting Portland cement to BS 4027
I High-slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246 containing not less than 74% slag by
Mass of nucleus
J Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
Containing not less than 70% slag and not more than 90% slag by mass of slag plus cement.
K Portland pfa cements to BS 6588 containing not than 26% pfa by mass of nucleus
L Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and pfa to BS 3892 : Part 1 containing
not less than 25% pfa and not more than 40% pfa by mass of pfa plus cement.
In codes I and J, slag with aluminia (A1 2O3) content over 14% should be used only with Portland cement having low to
moderate C3A content (Typically less than 10%).
 APPENDIX E

* Building Research Establishment Digest 363 (Extracts).

* Determination of angle of shearing resistance of granular soils from in-situ test.