Iqwq-Cpp-Grinv-00-0001 - 0 PDF

West Qurna I Project
PRODUCED WATER PIPELINES PROJECT

AWQ0258
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR

PIPELINE ROUTE
IQWQ-CPP-GRINV-00-0001
Geotechnical Investigation Report for Pipeline Route
Rev Rev Date Description Prepared Checked Approved
50 13-Mar-2019 Issued As-Built KPV LJ WGX

ABBAS AHMED
0 05- Nov-2017 Issued for Use LC
MAZHER AKRAM
ABBAS AHMED
C 19- Oct-2017 Issued for Approval LC
MAZHER AKRAM
ABBAS AHMED
B 24- Sep-2017 Issued for Review LC
MAZHER AKRAM
Issued for Internal ABBAS AHMED
A 12-Sep-2017 LC
Review MAZHER AKRAM
IQWQ-CPP-GRINV-00-0001 Geotechnical Investigation Report for Pipeline Route
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1. Background ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.2. Overview of the project ...................................................................................................... 9
1.3. References .......................................................................................................................... 9
1.4. Codes and Standards ...................................................................................................... 10
2. PROGRAM OF THE GEOTECHNICAL WORK .................................................................. 11
2.1. Scope of the Geotechnical Work ................................................................................... 11
2.2. Purpose and Task of the Geotechnical Work .............................................................. 13
3. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 14
3.1. Site Location ..................................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Site Geology ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Site Topography ............................................................................................................... 17
3.4. Site Weather Conditions in Basra .................................................................................. 18
3.5. Seismic Activity at the Site .............................................................................................. 19
3.6. Previous Investigations ................................................................................................... 21
4. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................... 22
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 22
Page 2 of 70
4.2. Site Works ......................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.1. Drilling of the Boreholes .......................................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) .......................................................................... 26
4.2.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) ................................................................................. 26
4.2.4. Earth Resistivity Test ............................................................................................... 28
4.3. Laboratory Works ............................................................................................................. 32
5. GROUND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 33
5.1. Stratification of the Soil Profile ....................................................................................... 33
5.2. Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 33
6. SOIL PROPERTIES AND GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS .......................................... 34
6.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 34
6.2. Standard Penetration Tests ............................................................................................ 34
6.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) ......................................................................................... 43
6.4. Earth Resistivity Test ....................................................................................................... 49
6.5. Soil Classification and Identification .............................................................................. 52
6.6. Shear Strength Parameters ............................................................................................ 62
6.7. Soil Compressibility and Consolidation Parameters ................................................... 63
6.8. Chemical Tests for Soil and Groundwater .................................................................... 63
7. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN..................................................................................................... 66
7.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 66
7.2. Foundations ...................................................................................................................... 66
7.2.1. Allowable Bearing Pressure ................................................................................... 66
7.2.2. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil .......................................................................... 70
7.2.3. Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil .............................................. 71
7.2.4. Settlement of Shallow Footing ............................................................................... 72
7.2.5. Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................... 74
7.3. De-watering ....................................................................................................................... 75
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................................................................... 76
9. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 79
10. APPENDIX (BOREHOLE LOGS & BH PLAN) ................................................................ 81

Page 3 of 70
Page 4 of 70
List of Symbols and Abbreviations

B the width of the footing
b.g.l. Below ground level
cc Compression index
CL Clayey soil with low plasticity
CN The correction factor for SPT.
cs Swelling index
cu undrained cohesion
cub undrained cohesion at the level of the pile tip
cus undrained cohesion along the pile shaft
cv Coefficient of consolidation
Df the depth of footing
e o Initial void ratio
fcu 150*150*150 mm Concrete cube strength at age of 28 days
Gs Specific Gravity
H Thickness of compressible layer
I Importance factor related to the use of structure
K Structural system coefficient
L Length of footing
LI Liquidity index
LL Liquid limit
m.b.g.l. Meter below ground level
ML Silty soil with low plasticity
mv Coefficient of volume change
N Number of blows in SPT test
Nc Corrected SPT value for overburden pressure of 100 kPa
N Corrected SPT value for silty fine sand
OCR Overconsolidation ratio
Page 5 of 70
PI Plasticity index
PL Plastic limit
ppm Parts per million
Qall Allowable pile capacity
qall Net allowable bearing capacity
Qb End bearing of pile
qnf Net bearing capacity
Qs Side friction of pile
Qu Ultimate pile capacity
S Dynamic coefficient related to soil category
Sc Consolidation settlement
SE Soil type according to UBC code
Se Elastic settlement of sand layer.
SM Silty sand
SP‐SM Poorly graded sand with silt
SPT Standard Penetration Test
TDS Total Dissolved Salts
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
V lateral (horizontal) seismic load
W Total weight of the structure
Z Seismic hazard zoning coefficient
 Angle of internal friction
n Natural moisture content
t Total unit weight
or Po Effective overburden stress.
or Pc Maximum Preconsolidation stress
́
Effective overburden pressure at the pile tip
́
Average effective overburden pressure over the length of the soil layer
Page 6 of 70
for the side friction
∆  bearing stress from the superstructure
∆ Stress increment at a certain depth.
Poisson's ratio
Page 7 of 70
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The WQ I Project is located in Southern Iraq, approximately 65 km northwest of Basrah and 150
km northwest of Umm Qasr. The field dimensions are 50 km by 12 km. The Early Works
Program for the project involves a phased approach to increasing initial oil production in the field
by 10 percent, design and construct infrastructure and transportation capabilities to support the
Early Works Program, and to further increase production to the original name plate design of the
existing facilities.
The West Qurna Field is one of three segments of one giant oil field complex located in
Southern Iraq that is bounded by the Rumaila Field to the South and the West Qurna II field to
the north as illustrated in Figure 1.1-1.
Figure 1.1-1: WQ I Location Map

The South Oil COMPANY (SOC) began producing from the field in 1999. Production is currently
at 500 kbd. The field currently has three degassing stations (DS6, DS7, and DS8) with a total of
10 oil / gas separation trains and three test trains, with a total nameplate capacity of
approximately 600 kbd.
Page 8 of 70
1.2. Overview of the project

The WQ I Project is located in Southern Iraq, approximately 65 km northwest of Basra and 150
km northwest of Umm Qasr. The field dimensions are 50 km by 12 km.
The West Qurna Field is one of three segments of one giant oil field complex located in
Southern Iraq that is bounded by the Rumelia Field to the South and the West Qurna II field to
the north as illustrated in Figure 1.1-1
The field currently has three existing degassing stations (DS-6, DS-7, and DS-8) with a total of
10 oil/gas separation trains and three test trains, with a total nameplate capacity of
approximately 600 kbd.
The geotechnical investigation work will mainly focused on following project areas:
 DS6 to DS7 approximately 8,814m x 16inch Carbon Steel Pipeline corridor.
 DS8 to DS7 approximately 9,686m x 16inch Carbon Steel Pipeline corridor.
 DS6 pig launcher area.
 DS7 pig receiver area.
 DS6 pig launcher area.
1.3. References
The following project documents SHALL be used in conjunction with this specification where
applicable.
Table 1.3-1: Summary of documents for detailed design and EPC scope of work
Sr. Description
No.
1 The following sections as part of PROJECT No. AWQ0258 contractual documents

were received for the project and the contents as applicable are considered for the
detailed engineering scope as applicable.
Part II – Job specification
1) Section C – Project description
2) Section D – Scope of work
3) Section F – Coordination procedure
2 Response to the Bidder’s queries and other techno-commercial clarification issued by

the COMPANY since the issue of the ITT till the award of CONTRACTOR to the
CONTRACTOR.
Page 9 of 70
1.4. Codes and Standards

The Industry Codes and Standards form an integral part of this method statement. Unless
otherwise stipulated, the applicable version of these documents, including relevant appendices
and supplements, is the latest revision published on the effective date of the contract.
The overall applicable documents shall be:
1) Local National Laws, Rules and Regulations of Iraq
2) British Standards related for the geotechnical investigation
3) Relevant regulations from ASTM mentioned about the geotechnical investigation
Any conflict between any of the Contract Documents, or between this specification and any
other Contract Document, shall be reported to the COMPANY for confirmation. In such a case,
and unless otherwise agreed or decided by the COMPANY, it is understood that the more
stringent requirement shall apply.
Page 10 of 70
2. PROGRAM OF THE GEOTECHNICAL WORK

A site investigation has been carried out to determine the nature of the existing ground
conditions and their engineering performance as a foundation for the proposed project. The site
investigation for geotechnical works for whole project was executed into two phases. Phase I
was done in May (13th to 15th) 2017 and Phase II in July (21st to 29th) 2017.
The exact scope of work for geotechnical investigation discipline will mainly as following:
 Pipelines: from DS6 to DS7 with a length of about 8.81km; from DS8 to DS7 with a
length of about 9.69km (exact length of the pipeline route should be confirmed after final
routing).
 Crossings: 5 small-sized of asphalt road crossings along the pipeline.
 Stations: 2 pig launcher stations (near DS6 and DS8) and 1 pig receiver station (near
DS7)
The main ground investigation undertaken at the site was carried out at two stages as explained
below.
 The first stage is Phase I and performed from 13th to 15th of May 2017. The
investigations include installing six boreholes (BH 17, BH 18, BH19, BH 20, BH 21, and
BH 22) at the location of the pipeline of the site.
 The second stage is Phase II and performed from 5th to 29th of July 2017. The
investigations include installing (21) boreholes, (11) CPT test, (3) Downhole Test, and
(16) earth resistivity test.
2.1. Scope of the Geotechnical Work

The soil investigation includes a series of field investigations and laboratory test as required by
the concerned authority and given in Figure 8. The field investigation includes executing
exploratory boreholes; performing seismic down-hole survey, soil resistivity test, and Cone
Penetration Test. The required field and laboratory test (work load) for the whole project is listed
in Table 1.
The scope of the required laboratory tests and their numbers are specified and outlined by the
concerned authority. The details and information of the total geotechnical workload with the
standard specification of the test is given in Table 3.
Table 2: Main work load
Pipeline route DS8 DS7 DS6
Road Scraper Scraper Scraper
Activity Item DS8 to DS6 to crossing Launcher Receive Launcher
DS7 DS7 Area r Area Area
9686m 8814m 180m/6 40m*50m 80m*50m 40m*50m

Sub item (scale)
sites
Boreholes (Trail Pits) 5 5 12 2 3 2
Single depth(m) 5 5 15 10-20 10-20 10-20
Page 11 of 70
Pipeline route DS8 DS7 DS6

Road Scraper Scraper Scraper
Activity Item DS8 to DS6 to crossing Launcher Receive Launcher
DS7 DS7 Area r Area Area
Total depth (m) 25 25 180 30 40 30
Down-hole seismic test(m) 20m 20m 20m
SPT (DPT) 12 12 90 15 30 15
Cone penetration test (m/nos.) 20/4 20/4 20/1 20/1 20/1
Depth(2m/3m) 5 5 2 2 2
Soil Depth (1m/2m/3m/5m/

12
10m/15m/20m)
Resistivity
testing Depth (1m/3m/5m/10m/
15m/20m/25m/30m
/40m/50m/60m/)
Undisturbed samples (rocky

60 10 12 10
samples)
Sampling Disturbed samples 12 12 90 10 15 10
Water samples 4 4 6 1 1 1
Undisturbed samples 12 12 60 10 12 10
Disturbed samples 12 12 90 10 15 10
Laboratory
Test Chemical Tests (Water samples) 4 4 6 1 1 1
Chemical Tests (soil samples) 5 5 4 4 4
Table 3: Required Field and Laboratory Test with Testing Standards
Test Testing Standard
Field Tests
ASTM D 1452
Drilling and obtaining Undisturbed and disturbed samples
ASTM D 1587
Performing SPT Test ASTM D1586
Cone Penetration Test ASTM D3441
Soil Resistivity Test ASTM D1586
Laboratory Tests
Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Grain Size Analysis ASTM D 422
Page 12 of 70
Test Testing Standard
Specific Gravity ASTM D 854
Atterberg Limits (LL and PL) ASTM D 4318
Soil Classification ASTM D 2487, D 2488
Unconfined Compression ASTM D 2166
Natural Water Content ASTM D 2216
USCS soil classification ASTM D2487‐
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure) ASTM D2488
2.2. Purpose and Task of the Geotechnical Work

Site investigation are to determine the surface and subsurface conditions at the proposed site,
to assess the geological engineering condition of proposed site and provide geological
engineering data to detailed design.
Moreover, the data obtained from the field investigations and laboratory tests results on the
tested samples to evaluate the settlement and strength requirements, evaluate the durability
requirements of the structures.
Page 13 of 70
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1. Site Location
The WQI Project is in Southern Iraq, approximately 65 km northwest of Basrah and 150 km
northwest of Umm Qasr. The field dimensions are 50 km by 12 km. The location of the WQ area
with in the southern parts of Iraq is shown in Figure 1.
3.2. Site Geology
Iraq is in north-eastern part of Arabian plate. The geological map of Iraq in illustrated in Figure
while the tectonic map is given in Figure 3. The Tectonically, the stable platform interior of the
Arabian plate is surrounded by passive margins from the western and southern sides which they
are located at the spreading ridges of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The north-western
boundary is represented by Levant transcurrent fault. Masirah fault zone, in Oman, is in the
south-eastern boundary of Arabian plate. And the northern and northeastern boundaries of it are
compressional zone due to the Late- Tertiary collision of the Arabian Plate from one side and
Turkish and Iranian contents form the other side.
During the Late-Precambrian Pan African development of the Arabian Plate, the combined
activity of successive subduction of Arabian plate underneath the Iranian and Anatolian plates
and arc accretion has led to form the basement terrains. The outcrop of these terrains is well
defined in Arabian shield of Western Saudi Arabia. The subsequent development of the
Phanerozoic basins of the Arabian plate was highly affected by the basement terrains so that
the tectonic fabric and evolution of Iraq can be understood because of the extension of these
terrains beneath the sedimentary column of Iraq. The youngest sediments Quaternary and
Neoene-aged lie within the central depression (Figure 2) while the flanks expose older strata of
Paleogene to Paleozoic age.
The central depression is defined as a low-topographic cultivated area and extends from Syria
to the Arabian Gulf. Almost all the young sedimentary cover in Iraq has filled the northwest-
southeast oriented trough (central depression) which is flanked by a gently inclined plateau to
the west and south-west and a series of ridges and depressions passing into mountainous area
in the northeast. In general, the Quaternary deposits in Iraq can be divided into two zones, the
Rutba-Jazira and Salman zone and the Mesopotamian zone. The site of interest is classified in
Mesopotamian zone. The Mesopotamian plain extends from northwest of Baiji as a narrow area
and gradually becomes much broader toward the Arabian Gulf southeast-ward. The total area
covered by this sedimentary zone is 110,000 km2. The topographical map of Iraq is shown in
Figure 4.
Page 14 of 70
Figure 1: Geological Map of Iraq

Page 15 of 70
Page 16 of 70
Figure 2: Techtronic Map of Iraq
Figure 3: The Tropical Map of Iraq

3.3. Site Topography
From topographical point of view, the site was generally flat, with presence of filling materials,
grasses, salts, and organics at the uppermost parts of the soil at the site. Some illustrative
plates are presented in Figure 5.
Page 17 of 70

Figure 4: Topography of the Site and Some Features Surrounding the Site
3.4. Site Weather Conditions in Basra

Basra has a hot desert climate, like the rest of the surrounding region, though it receives slightly
more precipitation than inland locations due to its location near the coast. During the summer
months, from June to August, Basra is consistently one of the hottest cities on the planet,
regularly exceeding 45 °C (113 °F) and may approach 50 °C (122 °F) during July. During the
winter, Basra experiences mild weather with average high temperatures around 20 °C (68 °F).
In a few winter nights, the minimum temperature can drop below 0 °C (32 °F). High humidity that
may exceed 90% is common due to the proximity to the marshy Persian Gulf. The records of a
year for the climatic data are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Climate Data for Basra (http://www.basra.climatemps.com/)
Page 18 of 70
3.5. Seismic Activity at the Site

The seismological records of Iraq show different strength annual seismic activity. Highest level
of seismic activity is concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of Iraq; these seismic
activities are strongly diminution in the south and southwestern parts of Iraq (Figure 6). Bolton
(1958) divided the structural framework of Iraq into three prominent zones, thrust zone, folded
zone, and unfolded zone. The southern part of Iraq where located the proposed site is situated
in the unfolded zone so that it is unequivocal that the proposed site resides in a relatively stable
zone seismically and tectonically.
According to Iraqi Seismic Code /97, the project is located within zone I as shown in Figure 7.
Zone I represent the Middle Eastern parts of Iraq. According to the Iraqi Seismic Code, the
equivalent lateral (horizontal) earthquake load is calculated as:
Equation 1
Where:
V: lateral (horizontal) seismic load
Z: seismic hazard zoning coefficient (0.05)
S: dynamic coefficient related to soil category
I: importance factor related to the use of structure
K: structural system coefficient
W: total weight of the structure
It is worth to mention herein that the Iraqi seismic code is old and based on data at that time.
During the last years; great changes in seismic zone are happened. Hence, we recommend
using UBC or IBC code for seismic analysis. Based on the UBC code (1997) with regards to the
soil types encountered and some field test results, the soil profile at this site can be classified as
SE (see Table 5).
Page 19 of 70

Figure 5: Seism tectonic setting of Iraq and the geographical distribution of seismic activities
along the eastern border of Iraq, (Earthquakes records are from Advanced National Seismic
System (ANSS) Catalog)

Page 20 of 70
Figure 6: Seismic Zoning Map of Iraq

Table 5: Soil Profile Types According to UBC (1997)
3.6. Previous Investigations

A review of available geotechnical data from previous projects in the general area of the site has
been made. A summary of the findings (taken from several Subsoil Investigation Reports)
reveals that the soil profile may consist of two layers as described below:
 The upper layer consists of medium, soft to very soft strengthens to medium to stiff
below (10-12) m depth having grayish and brownish color, lean to fat (CL to CH) Silty
CLAY with little fine-grained Sand in parts, black spots of organic matter.
 Medium, dense to very dense having grayish and greenish color fine Silty SAND
(SP, SM, SC, SP-SM) with white shiny traces of soluble salts, black spots of organic
matter, little brown pockets of Silty Clay may be noticed within this layer.
Page 21 of 70
4. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of the investigation is to obtain information on the ground and ground water
condition at the proposed site and obtain the physical and mechanical properties of the
foundation materials to enable the design and construction of the proposed structures.
The current investigations are related to the location of the pipeline within the site. The location
of the site investigation points is given in Figure 8 (Enlarged view is attached in the appendix)
and the scope of the geotechnical investigations at the location of the pipelines is given in Table
5 while the description, coordinates and details of each point is given in Table 6. The main
ground investigation undertaken at pipeline location was performed within stage two (Phase II)
of the site investigations presented in Section 2. It was performed from 28th to 29th of July
2017. The investigations include installing (10) boreholes to depth of 5.0m, (8) CPT test to a
depth of 5.0 m, and (10) earth resistivity test as summarized in Table 5
It is valuable to state here in that the name of the boreholes was corresponding to the point
name and location presented in Table 7. For BH 27 take the abbreviation of point no. 27 and BH
53 takes point no. 53 and so far for other boreholes presented in this table.
Figure 8: Layout of the site and boreholes location

Table 6: Summary of the Performed Field Tests
Test Number Details
Boreholes 10 Depth of Boreholes is 5 m
Cone Penetration Test 8 Depth of Test is 5 m
Soil Resistivity Test 10 Depth of Test is 20 m
Page 22 of 70
Table 7: Records and Data of the Field Points (Boreholes, CPT, SRT)
POINT Borehole NORTHING EASTING ELV.

CODE LOCATION
No. No. (N) (E) (m)
27 27 3418745.390 721906.190 0.852 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor
28 ‐‐‐ 3418740.297 721907.929 0.717 SRT Pipeline Corridor
29 ‐‐‐ 3417863.362 722168.756 0.670 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor
30 ‐‐‐ 3416972.546 722451.654 ‐0.233 SRT Pipeline Corridor
31 31 3416967.653 722453.712 ‐0.279 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor
41 ‐‐‐ 3411472.232 721228.192 ‐1.401 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor
Page 23 of 70
POINT Borehole NORTHING EASTING ELV.

CODE LOCATION
No. No. (N) (E) (m)
4.2. Site Works

The geotechnical site investigations consist of different field tests as explained in Table 2. The
summary of the field work is listed in Table 6 for the pipeline locations. The general information
and useful records of the boreholes are presented in the appendix. Moreover, the details of
borehole location, coordinates, elevation, and depth are given in Table 7.
4.2.1. Drilling of the Boreholes
The drilling was executed by using power driven wash boring drilling. Undisturbed and split
spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes. A drilling rig is a power-driven machine. The
method of the drilling was carried out according to ASTM D1452.
The undisturbed samples were obtained according to ASTM D1587; using Shelby tubes 100mm
diameters from which undisturbed samples for shear and consolidation tests were obtained.
For any borehole, the wash boring method was used for zones of soft cohesive soil. Disturbed,
undisturbed, and split spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes, while when using the
wash boring disturbed samples were only that obtained from a split spoon in SPT tests. In wash
boring, the variation of soil type can be deduced from the color change of slurry. To illustrate
boring procedures, field testing, and samples description; elective plates are chosen and given
Figure 9 to Figure 11.
Page 24 of 70
Figure 9: Drilling of the Boreholes during Investigations
Figure 10: Another View for the Drilling
Page 25 of 70

Figure 11: Wash boring Drilling
4.2.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were carried out at various depths in the boreholes. The
tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586. The SPT consists of driving a 50-mm
external diameter thick walled tube (Split spoon sampler) into the bottom of the borehole using
63.5 kg hammer falling freely through 760 mm. Initially the sampler is driven 150 mm into the
soil to be seated and to pass through disturbed soil at the bottom of the borehole. The number
of blows required driving the sampler a further 300 mm is recorded and termed “N” value. If 50
blows are reached before penetration of 300 mm, no further blows should be applied but the
actual penetration should be recorded.
Knowing the N values, the relative density of a cohesionless soil and the consistency of a
cohesive soil can be determined. The results of field boring, water table level, boreholes
elevation and coordinates are presented in the borehole log attached in the appendix.
4.2.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
4.2.3.1. General
The cone penetration test (CPT) is a common in situ testing method used to determine the
geotechnical engineering properties of soils and assessing subsurface stratigraphy. The test is
also called, Dutch Cone test. Due to its simplicity and efficiency, the cone penetration test is one
of the most commonly accepted and used in-situ testing methods in geotechnical investigation
worldwide.
The CPT is a simple test that is now widely used in lieu of the SPT-particularly for soft clays,
soft silts, and in fine to medium sand deposits. The test is not well adapted to gravel deposits or
to stiff/hard cohesive deposits. ASTM D 3441 have standardized this test. In outline, the test
Page 26 of 70
consists in pushing the standard cone into the ground at a rate of 10 to 20 mm/s and recording
the resistance. The total cone resistance is made up of side friction on the cone shaft perimeter
and tip pressure. Data usually recorded are the cone side resistance qs, point resistance qc,
and depth. Pore pressures, vertical alignment, and temperature may also be taken if allowed by
the equipment configuration.
The tip (or cone) usually has a projected cross-sectional area of 10 cm2, but larger tips are also
used and may provide more reliable pore pressure readings. The cone diameter does not seem
to be a significant factor for tip areas between 5 and 15 cm2.
A CPT allows nearly continuous testing at many sites, which is often valuable. If the soil is
stratified, the test may be performed in parallel with a drilling machine. In this case the hole is
drilled to soft material, a CPT is done, boring recommences, and so on.
4.2.3.2. Scope of CPT Test
In the present work (at the pipeline locations), a piezocone was used to determine the soft soil
strength and stratification. The piezocone used can present the expected soil profile and
strength. The results are presented in the appendix. A total of (8) tests was performed at the site
with details presented in Table 6 and Table 7. Some illustrative photos are given in Figure 12.

Page 27 of 70
Figure 12: illustrative Photos for the CPT Test
4.2.4. Earth Resistivity Test

4.2.4.1. General
It is well known that the resistance of an earth electrode is heavily influenced by the resistivity of
the soil in which it is driven and as such, soil resistivity measurements are an important
parameter when designing earthen installations. A knowledge of the soil resistivity at the
intended site, and how this varies with parameters such as moisture content, temperature, and
depth, provides a valuable insight into how the desired earth resistance value can be achieved
and maintained over the life of the installation with the minimum cost and effort.
4.2.4.2. Concept of the Test
Resistance is that property of a conductor which opposes electric current flow when a voltage is
applied across the two ends. Its unit of measure is the Ohm (Ω) and the commonly used symbol
is R. Resistance is the ratio of the applied voltage (V) to the resulting current flow (I) as defined
by the well-known linear equation from Ohm’s Law:
Equation 2
where:
V: Potential Difference across the conductor (Volts)
I: Current flowing through the conductor in (Amperes)
Page 28 of 70
R: Resistance of the conductor in (Ohms)
The Resistance of a conductor depends on the atomic structure of the material or its Resistivity
(measured in Ohm-m or Ω-m), which is that property of a material that measures its ability to
conduct electricity. A material with a low resistivity will behave as a “good conductor” and one
with a high resistivity will behave as a “bad conductor”. The commonly used symbol for
resistivity is ρ (Greek symbol rho).
4.2.4.3. Factors Affecting the Earth Resistivity
Several factors affecting the earth resistivity such as:
 Soil resistivity
 Stratification
 Size and type of electrode used
 Depth to which the electrode is buried
 Moisture and chemical content of the soil
The following tables (Table 8 and Table 9) summarize typical values of the earth resistivity for
different soil types and temperature. In addition, Table 10, which uses soil resistivity only to give
out rough indications of the soil corrosivity. However, Table 10 should be carefully used to
evaluate the nature of corrosivity of an environment. Although it is generally true that the most
rapid corrosion takes place in soils of the lowest resistivity and the least rapid corrosion takes
place in soils of the highest resistivity.
Table 8:Typical Resistivity Values for Geologic Materials (Hunt, 2007)

Table 9: Resistivity values for several types of soils and water
Page 29 of 70

Table 10:Rough Indications of Soil Corrosivity vs. Resistivity (AWWA, 1993)
Resistivity (Ohm-m) Soil Corrosivity Description
Below 5 Very corrosive
5.0-10.0 Corrosive
10.0-20.0 Moderately corrosive
20.0-100.0 Mildly corrosive
Above 100.0 Progressively less corrosive
4.2.4.4. Scope of Earth Resistivity Test

The work consists of earth resistivity survey for (10) points at the proposed site by using
Wenner configuration. The number and details of tested points is presented in Table 6 and
Table 7. The test was conducted according to ASTM standards (G75-95a-2001) and (ASTM
D4631-99).
4.2.4.5. Test Method and Field Survey
Different test methods are available to perform earth resistivity test of soil. The most common
one in Iraq is the Wenner configuration method. In this report, the Wenner 4 Pin method was
used and the configuration of the probes is shown in Figure 13. To measure resistivity, four
electrodes are driven into the ground. In Wenner configuration, the electrodes are arranged so
that the spacing between each two adjacent electrodes is equal. This separation is represented
by a distance (d).
Each measurement was repeated at least two times. The readings were identical for most of the
measurements. The number of tests and electrodes locations for each point depending on the
location of point. The field works and site conditions during the tests is given in Figure 14.
Page 30 of 70

Figure 13: Resistivity Test Probe Configurations (Wenner 4 pin configuration)

Page 31 of 70
Figure 14: Illustrative Photos for the Earth Resistivity Test
4.2.4.6. Test Parameters and calculations

The electric current from the instrument is passed between the outer pair of electrodes (C1 and
C2) as shown in Figure 13. The potential drop between the inner electrodes (P1 and P2) is
compared with this current and the resistivity of the soil can be calculated from the ratio of
potential drop to the current and the electrode spacing. The resistivity of the soil () measured in
(ohm.m.) using the equation below:
. . Equation 3
Where (a) is the electrode spacing in (m) and (R) the ratio of potential drop to the current
(ohms) which read directly from the testing device. Hence, the value obtained will represent
apparent resistivity.
4.3. Laboratory Works
Routine geotechnical laboratory testing for determining physical and mechanical properties of
the soil was carried out on selected disturbed and undisturbed soil obtained from the boreholes.
The testing program was performed to provide minimum required tests suggested by the
concerned authority. The scope of the laboratory testing is summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.
The scope of the laboratory tests for soil samples includes the required physical, chemical, and
mechanical properties of the soil samples. Moreover, the laboratory tests comprise the chemical
properties of the underground water samples recovered during investigations.

Page 32 of 70
5. GROUND CONDITIONS
5.1. Stratification of the Soil Profile
From logs of boring presented in the appendix, the soil profiles can be described and evaluated.
A study of the test boring data was coupled with the results of laboratory tests and the CPT test
to provide a complete understanding of the subsoil conditions.
The test borings showed that the soil profile consists mainly cohesive soil of light brown to gray
silty clay with sand at some locations. This layer extends from the natural ground surface to the
end of boring (5.0 m). According to USCS, most of the cohesive soil type is lean clay (CL) to fat
clay (CH). The consistency of this soil is ranging from very soft to medium stiff. It is worth to
mention herein that at BH 31, a layer of silty sand was found at the upper 1.0 m.
5.2. Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in most the boreholes during drilling. The groundwater level was
recorded when initial groundwater encountered and after at least 24 hours of drilling. The final
groundwater level was listed in within the borehole log attached in the appendix. The
groundwater level ranges from about 2.8 to 3.0 m.b.g.l.
Measurements of the final groundwater levels were taken on at least the day following the
completion of fieldwork on July 2017. Measured Groundwater table may be expected to vary
due to seasonal conditions or any constructions in the vicinity.
Page 33 of 70
6. SOIL PROPERTIES AND GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS

6.1. Introduction
This section describes the classification and engineering properties of the soil obtained during
the investigation, as determined by field and laboratory testing.
6.2. Standard Penetration Tests
The measured SPT N values can be corrected for effective overburden pressure, using the well-
known relationships proposed by Peck, Hanson & Thornburn, 1974. Other corrections are
available for different conditions and parameters as can be seen in Bowels, 1996 and Coduto,
2000.
In the field, the magnitude of hammer efficiencies can vary from 30 to 90%. The standard
practice now expresses the N-value to an average energy ratio of 60% Thus, correcting for field
procedures and based on field observations, it appears reasonable to standardize the field
penetration number as a function of the input driving energy and its dissipation around the
sampler into the surrounding soil as given below and its parameters are presented in table 10:

Equation 4
Where:
N is the measured SPT from the field.
is the hammer efficiency (%)
is the correction for rod length
is the sampler correction
is the correction for borehole diameter
Standard penetration number, corrected for field conditions
For the present site, the correction of the N‐values presented in eq. 4, are applied. The
parameters of eq. 2 for the present site are calibrated and summarized as given below:
45 %
1.05 . 150
1.0
0.75 10.0 1.0 10.0
The measured and corrected SPT "N" values are plotted against depth in Figure 15 to Figure
24. The SPT values decrease slightly with depth but have been increased at great depth. It is
worth to mention herein that knowing the N values the relative density of the cohesionless soil
and the consistency of the cohesive soil can be estimated.
The values of the measured and corrected SPT is very important in the estimation of the
bearing capacity of soils. For this purpose, a simple statistical analysis for the measurements of
Page 34 of 70
the ten boreholes was made at certain depth as shown in Table 12 and it was found that the
minimum values of the SPT was measured at (BH33, BH 46, BH 49, BH 52, and BH 53).

Table 11: Variations of H, B, S and R (Parameters for eq. 4)

Table 12: Summary of the SPT Analysis at the Site
Depth, m
BH No.
2.75 4.75
27 21 27
31 15 18
33 8 7
37 15 19
40 10 14
43 11 9
46 6 8
49 8 9
52 5 7
Page 35 of 70
53 5 6
Max 21 27
Min 5 6
Average 11 13

Figure 15: Variation of Measured and Corrected SPT with Depth for BH No. 27 (Pipeline Corridor))
Page 36 of 70

Page 37 of 70

Page 38 of 70

Page 39 of 70

Page 40 of 70


Page 41 of 70

Page 42 of 70

6.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

The CPT test results are obtained directly from the Data Acquisition System (DAS) built in the
device presented in 4.2.3. A sample of the CPT results is given Figure 25 Figureto Figure 30. All
the test results for the tested points are presented in the appendix. The output of the test results
includes:
1) Variation of the end bearing, sleeve resistant pore water pressure with depth.
2) Estimated soil type according to the soil strength with depth
3) Variation of the correlated soil properties with depth such as permeability, SPT, Modulus of
elasticity, friction angle, shear modulus, shear strength, OCR, and relative density.
4) Variation of in suite stresses with depth
5) Estimated bearing capacity with depth
Page 43 of 70
Figure 25: Variation of Tip resistance, sleeve resistance, pore pressure with depth for CPT 2 at Point No.
29
Page 44 of 70

Figure 262: Estimated soil type from CPT test for CPT 2 at Pipeline (Point No. 29)
Page 45 of 70
Figure 27: Variation of soil strength and behaviour with depth for CPT 2 at Pipeline (Point No. 29)
Figure 28: Variation of SPT, Modulus of elasticity, friction angle with depth for CPT 2 at Pipeline (Point
No. 29)
Page 46 of 70
Figure 29: Variation of shear st0rength parameters with depth for CPT 2 at Pipeline (Point No. 29)
Page 47 of 70
Figure 303: Bearing capacity with depth for CPT 1 (Point No. 3)
Page 48 of 70
6.4. Earth Resistivity Test

As explained previously in Section 4.2.4, the points were distributed at the site pf the pipelines
to cover all the investigated area according to the work load presented in Table 6. The results of
these measurements are shown in Table 13.
Generally, the distribution of the resistivity with depth decreases in all points. Moreover, the
variation of the resistivity with depth seems to be uniform and no erratic data was recorded. On
the other hand, it should be noted that the measured resistivity may be changed due to
seasonal periods. The results suggest that the area characterized ranged about low earth
resistivity due to the presence of cohesive materials and groundwater as shown in Table 8 and
Table 9.
According to the relationship of Soil Resistivity values and corrosivity of soil presented in Table
10, the resistivity data of the pipelines locations show very corrosive behavior to steel and
concrete.
Table 13: Results of Earth Resistivity Test
Point Point Distance Reading

Point No. ρ (Ω.m.)
Location Coordinates (a), m (Ω)
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.3183 4.00
3.0 0.3714 7.00

N:3418740.297
28 Pipe Line 5.0 0.0000 0.00
E: 721907.929
10.0 0.0159 1.00
15.0 0.0106 1.00
20.0 0.0080 1.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.1592 2.00
3.0 0.8488 16.00

N:3416972.546
30 Pipe Line 5.0 0.2865 9.00
E: 722451.654
10.0 0.1273 8.00
15.0 0.0743 7.00
20.0 0.0637 8.00
34 Pipe Line N:3415225.681 1.0 15.9155 100.00
Page 49 of 70

E: 722718.318 2.0 0.3183 4.00
3.0 1.0610 20.00
5.0 0.2865 9.00
10.0 0.1592 10.00
15.0 0.1061 10.00
20.0 0.0796 10.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.3183 4.00
3.0 1.1671 22.00

N:3413512.116
36 Pipe Line 5.0 0.3183 10.00
E:722465.153
10.0 1.4324 90.00
15.0 0.1061 10.00
20.0 0.7162 90.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.1592 2.00
3.0 0.6366 12.00

N:3412558.123
39 Pipe Line 5.0 0.1910 6.00
E:721194.655
10.0 0.1751 11.00
15.0 0.1167 11.00
20.0 0.0875 11.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.3183 4.00

N:3410783.062
42 Pipe Line 3.0 1.0080 19.00
E:721229.857
5.0 0.4138 13.00
10.0 0.1910 12.00
Page 50 of 70

15.0 0.1273 12.00
20.0 0.0955 12.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.2387 3.00
3.0 1.1141 21.00

N:3408957.828
45 Pipe Line 5.0 0.3183 10.00
E:721199.832
10.0 0.1432 9.00
15.0 0.0955 9.00
20.0 0.0716 9.00
1.0 15.9155 100.00
2.0 0.4775 6.00
3.0 0.4244 8.00

N:3407082.969
48 Pipe Line 5.0 0.0318 1.00
E:721231.229
10.0 0.1114 7.00
15.0 0.0637 6.00
20.0 0.0557 7.00
1.0 0.1592 1.00
2.0 0.1592 2.00
3.0 0.5305 10.00

N:3405390.011
51 Pipe Line 5.0 0.1910 6.00
E:721532.914
10.0 0.0796 5.00
15.0 0.0531 5.00
20.0 0.0398 5.00
N:3405389.584 1.0 15.9155 100.00

54 Pipe Line
E:722151.760 2.0 0.2387 3.00
Page 51 of 70

3.0 0.2653 5.00
5.0 0.1273 4.00
10.0 0.1592 10.00
15.0 0.1061 10.00
20.0 0.0796 10.00
6.5. Soil Classification and Identification

Soil may be classified according to their texture, plasticity and SPT values.
 TexturalClassification: The basic components of the soil, namely sand, silt and
clay can be obtained from the grain size tests. Moreover, the summary of the
physical properties of the tested samples in given in Table14, the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) was used to classify the soil according to the
texture. The cohesive soil was found to be brown to gray silty clay with sand at
most locations.
 AtterbergLimits: Results of liquid limit, plastic limit and natural moisture
content are listed in Table14 and presented in Figure 31 to Figure 40. This test
was conducted on samples exhibits cohesive behavior and for cohesive
constituents that mixed within cohesionless soil.
The results of plasticity index, Table14, have been plotted against its liquid limit
in Figure 418 to give the plasticity chart. According to the USCS, most of the
cohesive soils are clayey soil with low plasticity; lean clay (CL) to clayey soil with
high plasticity; fat clay (CH).
 SPTClassification: Referring to the relationships presented in Figure 15 to Figure
24, the soil profile may be classified as soft to medium stiff cohesive soil.
For the sake of geotechnical analysis, a statistical analysis was performed for the test results at
certain depth and given in table 14.
.
Table 14: Results of Atterberg Limits, Specific Gravity, and Water Content
Depth, m LL PL PI UCSC soil
, % Gs
From To % % % classification
Page 52 of 70

, % Gs
BH 27 (Pipeline Corridor)
1.0 1.5 25.66 36 16 19 2.69 CL
2.5 3.0 29.46 38 18 19 2.70 CL
4.5 5.0 24.05 42 19 23 CL
0.0 1.0 ‐ 20 NP NP 2.66 SM
1.0 1.5 24.71 32 16 15 2.69 CL
2.5 3.0 28.07 38 17 21 2.70 CL
4.5 5.0 22.11 35 16 19 CL
1.0 1.5 40.10 52 26 27 2.77 CH
2.5 3.0 37.22 28 15 13 CL
4.5 5.0 29.54 27 14 12 2.68 CL
1.5 2.0 33.57 51 19 31 2.73 CH
2.5 3.0 30.12 49 22 27 2.68 CL
4.5 5.0 26.87 52 23 28 CH
1.0 1.5 28.86 56 25 31 2.71 CH
2.5 3.0 25.17
4.5 5.0 27 12 15 2.68 CL
1.0 1.5 36.64 49 24 25 2.69 CL
2.5 3.0 30.08 62 26 35 CH
4.5 5.0 49 23 26 ‐ CL
Page 53 of 70

, % Gs
0.0 1.0 ‐ 42 21 21 CL
1.0 1.5 38.84 49 25 24 2.69 CL
2.5 3.0 38 20 19 CL
4.5 5.0 51 19 32 ‐ CH
1.0 1.5 27.33 44 21 24 2.71 CL
2.5 3.0 25 11 14 CL
4.5 5.0 40 20 20 ‐ CL
0.0 1.0 ‐ 38 18 21 CL
1.0 1.5 36.11 47 23 25 2.69 CL
2.5 3.0 51 19 32 CH
4.5 5.0 29 13 16 ‐ CL
1.0 1.5 30.46 43 19 24 2.67 CL
2.5 3.0 29 16 13 CL
4.5 5.0 30 14 16 ‐ CL
Table 15: Summary of statistical analysis for the Physical Properties of Soils at Pipelines
Depth, m
Parameter
0.5 1.25 1.75 2.75 4.75
LL (max) 42 56 51 62 52
LL (min) 38 32 51 25 27
LL (Avg) 40 46 51 40 38
Page 54 of 70
PL (Max) 21 26 19 26 23
PL (min) 18 16 19 11 12
PL (Avg) 20 22 19 18 17
PI (Max) 21 31 31 35 32
PI (min) 21 15 31 13 12
PI (Avg) 21 24 31 22 21
Figure 31: Variation of Atterberg Limits and Natural Water Content for BH No. 27 (Pipeline
Corridor))
Page 55 of 70
Corridor))
Page 56 of 70
Corridor))
Corridor))
Page 57 of 70
Corridor))
Page 58 of 70
Corridor))
Corridor))
Page 59 of 70
Corridor))
Page 60 of 70
Corridor))
Corridor))
Page 61 of 70
Figure 418: Plasticity Chart for (Pipeline corridor) Location
6.6. Shear Strength Parameters

Unconfined compression test was done on undisturbed samples of soft to medium consistency.
The summary of the test results is given in Table 16.
The values of unconfined compressive strength (qu) vary from 32.3 to 46.0 kPa. The average
value of the unconfined compressive strength would be taken at each location separately in the
geotechnical design as would be seen in Section 7.
Table 16: Results of Shear Strength
Depth (m) ,% t (kN/m3) qu (kPa)
1.0‐1.5 25.66 15.96 46.00
1.0‐1.5 41.10 15.00 32.30
1.0‐1.5 38.84 15.28 36.62
Page 62 of 70
6.7. Soil Compressibility and Consolidation Parameters

Consolidation test have been carried out to assess the compressibility of the soil. The test
results are presented in table 16.
The values of consolidation parameters were calculated as required in different textbooks. The
maximum reconsolidation stress was estimated by Casagrande's method. Examining the test
results in table 16, the compressibility of cohesive soil expressed as (c / 1 e ) is moderately
to high compressible soil. In addition, it was found that the soil is over consolidated at a depth
less than 3.0m. Moreover, the value of compression index and swelling index are ranging from
0.175 to 0.297 and 0.037 to 0.049, respectively. On the other hand, the swelling potential exists
in some tested samples with swelling pressure potential range between (0.0-2.5) kN/m2.
Table 17: Results of Consolidation Test
Depth t
, % eo cc cs
(m) kN/m3
1.0‐1.5 25.66 15.82 1.231 0.297 0.049 19.8 100
1.0‐1.5 41.10 15.08 1.155 0.280 0.046 18.8 110
1.0‐1.5 38.84 15.28 0.835 0.175 0.037 19.1 100
6.8. Chemical Tests for Soil and Groundwater

Both soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for sulfate and chloride content. Soil samples
were taken from the boreholes at varying depths. TDS and pH were also analyzed for water.
The results are summarized in table 17.
The ranges of the chemical tests can be obtained directly from table 17. Besides that, all the
tested boreholes possess appreciable amounts of chemicals at a different depth. Remarkable
chemical contents were noticed at the uppermost layers (0.0 to 1.0) m.b.g.l. at all boreholes.
Examining the tests results, the range of sulphate in most of soil samples tested is between
0.15 and 0.80 % and the range of sulphate in water between 980 and 1350 mg/l, while the
range of chloride content is (500 to 640) mg/l for water samples. Organic matters of the soil
samples were varying from 0.12 to 2.90%. On the other hand, it also noted that the pH value for
water samples was ranging from 6.9 to 7.1.
According to the requirement for concrete exposed to chemical attack, the following precautions
and recommendations are highlighted:
Page 63 of 70
1) For sulphate containing solutions, the range of the sulphates is (0.15-0.80 %) with an
average value of 0.35 %. According to article 4.2 of (ACI 318, 2011) exposure
condition is classified as Severe Exposure (S2). According to article 4.3 of ACI Code,
sulfate resisting Portland cement (Type V) should be used in all underground concrete
works with maximum water-cement ratio by weight is 0.45 and minimum fcu is 35 MPa
(Cube strength).
2) The soil under and surrounding the footing must satisfy the standard specification for
chemical and physical requirements.
3) The chloride and salts content is high in some places, hence increasing the concrete
cover and protection of the foundation by bitumen martial with three layers is highly
recommended
4) Organic matter influences the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils. In
addition, it also affects the water holding capacity, nutrient contributions, biological
activity and water and air infiltration rates. Organic matter in the tested samples is
considered low ranging from 0.12-2.90% (with an average value of 0.84%), which is
normal due to the presence of decayed roots within the soil layers.
Table 18: Results of Chemical Analysis
Depth, m Soil Samples Water Samples

BH No.
(Pipeline
Corridor) O.C. Gypsum TSS SO3‐2 Cl‐ SO4‐2 TDS
From To pH pH
% % % % (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
27 1.0 1.5 7.81 2.90 1.72 3.35 0.80 7.05 600 980 2500
31 2.5 3.0 7.08 0.72 0.47 4.09 0.22 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
33 2.5 3.0 7.55 0.30 0.47 3.89 0.22 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
37 2.5 3.0 7.15 0.25 0.49 3.61 0.23 7.00 630 1350 3800
40 1.0 1.5 7.01 0.12 0.32 3.58 0.15 6.92 500 1060 2300
43 2.5 3.0 7.31 0.19 0.58 4.71 0.27 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
46 1.0 1.5 7.28 0.48 0.62 5.02 0.29 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
49 1.0 1.5 7.35 0.26 0.73 3.88 0.34 6.95 550 1100 2550
52 1.0 1.5 8.08 1.30 0.94 3.11 0.44 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
53 1.0 1.5 8.01 0.59 0.68 2.84 0.32 7.10 640 1080 3200
Page 64 of 70
Depth, m Soil Samples Water Samples

BH No.
(Pipeline
Corridor) O.C. Gypsum TSS SO3‐2 Cl‐ SO4‐2 TDS
From To pH pH
% % % % (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Max. 8.08 2.90 1.72 5.02 0.80 7.1 640 1350 3800
Summary Min. 7.01 0.12 0.32 2.84 0.15 6.9 500 980 2300
Average 7.48 0.84 0.76 3.83 0.35 7.0 580 1129 2921
Page 65 of 70
7. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
7.1. Introduction
Different types and function of structures would be constructed at the proposed extension of the
WQ project. For the present report, it was focused on the location of the pipelines. However, the
ground conditions at the site generally comprise very soft to stiff silty clay at shallow depth. At
the time of preparing this geotechnical report, no structural design data are available.
As explained in Section 5, the ground conditions at the site covered with cohesive mixed with
appreciable amounts of organics, roots, and salts to a depth of 1.0 m. This section will consider
the following items:
 Foundations
- Allowable Bearing Pressure
- Settlement of shallow foundations
- Shallow Foundation
 Dewatering
7.2. Foundations
The foundation types for the proposed structures are dependent upon the size of the structures,
the anticipated loads, and the allowable bearing pressure. The project consists of different units
and structures for different purposes.
7.2.1. Allowable Bearing Pressure
The foundation of the proposed structure must satisfy at least two foundation requirements:
 They must be adequate to support the structure.
 The settlement of the structure should be kept within allowable limits.
The allowable bearing pressure is the maximum pressure which must be applied to the soil such
that the two fundamental requirements are satisfied. The most popular methods for calculating
the static bearing capacity of cohesionless soils are:
7.2.1.1. Bearing Capacity from Terzaghi's and Meyerhof's Equation
The bearing capacity is calculated according to Terzaghi’s equation with modification suggested by
Meyerhof (1963).
qult  C N c  q N q  0.5 Bγ N γ Continuous footing Equation 5
qult  1.3 C N c  q N q  0.4  B N Square footing Equation 6
Page 66 of 70
qult  1.3 C N c  q N q  0.3  B N Round footing Equation 7
qult  C Nc Sc dc  q Nq Sq d q  0.5  B N S d Equation 8
Nc , Nq , N Bearing capacity factor
Sc , Sq , S Shape factor
d c , d q , d Depth factor
Nq B B B
Sc  1  Sq  1  tan S  1  0.4
Nc L , L , L
Df D
d c  1  0.4 dq  1  2 tan 1  sin 2
B , B
7.2.1.2. Bearing Capacity from Unconfined Compression Test

In general, the net ultimate bearing capacity (qnet) is defined as the pressure that can be
supported at the base of the footing more than that at the same level due to the surrounding
surcharge. Thus, the allowable bearing capacity of clay or plastic silt approximately equal to the
unconfined compression strength. The allowable bearing capacity that calculated depends on
the undrained cohesion obtained from the laboratory test (Table 16) is presented in Table 19.
Table 19: Allowable Bearing Capacity Based on Laboratory tests
Layer Cu, kPa
Elevation, m Depth (m) ,
No. Form Table 16
1.0 25.0 61.3
1 0.0‐3.0 2.0 25.0 71.4
3.0 40.0 119.5
4.0 40.0 128.7

2 3.0‐5.0
5.0 40.0 138.0
7.2.1.3. Bearing Capacity from Skempton's relationship
For cohesive soil in saturated and undrained condition Skempton's relationship could be used to
estimate the net bearing capacity:
 Df  B
q nf  5.14  1  0.2  1  0.4  c u Equation 9
 B  L
Page 67 of 70
7.2.1.4. Bearing Capacity from SPT Results

It is one of the most common methods for determining allowable bearing capacity. It is simply
because SPT numbers are readily available from soil boring. This method is more reliable for
the cohesionless soils. The estimation of the bearing capacity from the SPT for soft cohesive
soil is not reliable. Therefore, the value of the undrained cohesion (cu) is estimated from Table
19. Keeping in mind that the undrained shear strength is half the unconfined compressive
strength. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil obtained from the SPT tests results is
presented in Table 20.

Table 20: Approximate Correlation between SPT blows and Soil Strength for Cohesive soil
Based on the above explanation with the aid of Table 12, the bearing capacity of the soil under
the footing would be as given in Table 21 for square footing (B/L=1.0):
Table 21: Allowable Bearing Capacity Based on SPT
Cu, kPa
From
Layer No. Elevation, m Depth (m) Design SPT ,
Table 20
1.0 7 50 112
1 0.0‐3.0 2.0 7 50 130
3.0 9 80 219
Page 68 of 70
4.0 9 80 235

2 3.0‐5.0
5.0 9 80 250
7.2.1.5. Bearing Capacity from CPT Results

The cone resistance qc is normally correlated with the undrained shear strength (cu) to be used
in the general bearing capacity equations presented in 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.3. Several adjustments
are made to qc. One correlation equation is (Bowles, 1996):
Equation 10
Where:
: average tip resistance below foundation level
: a cone factor that depends on the geometry of the cone and the rate of penetration. Average
values of as a function of plasticity index can be estimated from (Budhu, 2008):
Equation 11
Referring to the summary of the physical tests results presented in

Table 15Table 14 and the CPT test results presented in the appendix, the following Table 22
presents the allowable bearing capacity depends on the CPT test results analysis.
Table 22: Allowable Bearing Capacity Based on CPT
Layer Elevation,
Depth (m) , KPa PI Cu, kPa ,
No. m
1.0 4500 21 16.8 266.8 374.7
1 0.0‐3.0 2.0 2500 31 14.8 166.5 408.0
3.0 2500 22 16.6 147.3 391.8
4.0 1000 21 16.8 55.7 171.1

2 3.0‐5.0
5.0 600 21 16.8 31.3 113.0
For the present work, Meyerhof's equation with other modification for shape and depth factor
proposed by Hansen was used to estimate the net allowable bearing capacity. There is a variety
in the footing shape and types. Hence, the allowable bearing capacity will be given to cover the
square footing type dimensions.
Page 69 of 70
In the present work, the bearing capacity was calculated by different methods and the method
that gives the most suitable value would be adopted. As stated previously, the design data are
not available till now. Hence, the allowable bearing capacity will be given for presumed applied
pressure. Using safety factor of 3.0 for shear failure, the calculated bearing capacity at different
depths is summarized in Table 23 for shear strength and settlement requirements.
7.2.2. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil
The bearing capacity equations presented in Section 7.2.1 involve cases in which the soil
supporting the foundation is homogeneous and extends to a considerable depth.
The cohesion, angle of friction, and unit weight of soil were assumed to remain constant for the
bearing capacity analysis. However, in practice, layered soil profiles are often encountered. In
such instances, the failure surface at ultimate load may extend through two or more soil layers,
and a determination of the ultimate bearing capacity in layered soils can be made in only a
limited number of cases.
This section features the procedure for estimating the bearing capacity for layered soils. To
illustrate this concept, Figure 42 is introduced. From this figure, the most important factor in the
analysis of the layered soil is the thickness of stiff supporting layer as well as the mode of failure
of the upper soil. This means that when the failure reaches the second layer, the presence of
the upper stiff layer must be taken into considerations.

Page 70 of 70

Figure 429: Bearing Capacity of Layered soil (Das, 2011)

7.2.3. Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil

When foundations are to be supported on different soil layers, the bearing capacity must be
modified according to the pattern of soil stratification. For the case of cohesionless soil as upper
layer; the bearing capacity can be expressed as follows:
0.67 1 Equation 12
Where:
: the bearing capacity of layered soil
Page 71 of 70
q : Bearing capacity of underling clay layer for a fictitious footing of the same size
and shape as the actual footing resting on its surface
B &L: footing dimensions
H: Thickness of the upper cohesionless layer
In the case of the present work; the value of (H) can be regarded as the thickness of subbase
layer. An improvement factor is proposed to explain the effect of subbase addition of the bearing
capacity of underlined soil. This factor termed as  and equals to:
 0.67 1 Equation 13
For explanations; the following calculations is presented with the aid of Figure 43.

Figure 4310: Presence of Subbase Layer under the Footings
7.2.4. Settlement of Shallow Footing
From the soil stratification presented in Section 5; it can be concluded that the settlement of the
foundations consists mainly of consolidation settlement. In addition, elastic settlement of
cohesive soil could be calculated.
7.2.4.1. Immediate settlement
The elastic settlement of uniformly loaded flexible foundation can be calculated from the
following equation (Bowles, 1996):
∆ Equation 14
Equation 15
Page 72 of 70
Where:
Se: Elastic settlement of sand layer.
∆ : bearing stress from superstructure and Is, IF, I1 and I2: influence factors, which depend on L'/B',
thickness of stratum H, Poisson's ratio , and base embedment depth Df, (these factors can be taken
from Bowles (1996), and ES, : elastic parameters of soil under the footing base.
7.2.4.2. Consolidation Settlement (Long term settlement)
According to the test results of the one-dimensional consolidation and CPT test, the soil is over
consolidated clay at a depth less than 3.0 m. Accordingly, the consolidation settlement of the
shallow footing can be calculated using the following equations:
For over consolidated clay with ∆ , settlement can be calculated from the
following eq.:
∆
Equation 16
For σ ∆σ σ the consolidation settlement can be estimated from the following
equation:
∆
Equation 17
Where:
Sc: Consolidation settlement of clay layer.
Se: Elastic settlement of sand layer.
H: Thickness of compressible layer.
cc: Compression index.
cs: Swelling index.
∆ : Stress increment at certain depth.
′
: Effective overburden stress.
′
: Maximum Preconsolidation stress
∆ : bearing stress from superstructure
The recommended values of consolidation parameters such as cc, cs and eo for the calculation
of settlement parameters can be taken from table 16.
The final net allowable bearing capacity is the minimum value that satisfies the shear strength
and compressibility requirements. Hence, the net allowable bearing capacity can be taken as
given in Table 22 to make the foundation design. It is important to state herein that the
settlement of the footing must be checked when the design data are completed as well as when
the area and dimensions of the footing are known.
Page 73 of 70
Table 23: Net Allowable Bearing Capacity along the Pipelines Rout
Layer No. Depth, m.b.g.l. qall, kN/m2
1.0 61.3
1 2.0 71.4
3.0 119.5
4.0 128.7
2
5.0 113
7.2.5. Shallow Foundations

At the time of preparing this geotechnical report, the upper soil contains appreciable amounts of
salts and organics. However, shallow foundation could be considered appropriate when the
bearing pressure doesn’t exceed the allowable bearing capacity of the soil and the settlement is
within the allowable limits. Due to the presence of filling materials at shallow depth, the depth of
shallow footing should be below the filling materials or the improvement technique should be
implemented to overcome such problem.
Generally; preparation for shallow footings would require removal of the undesirable soil to a
certain depth, as well as the undesirable soil underneath footing of about 0.0-1.0 m. The soil
beneath the footing must be replaced with well-compacted subbase material Class (B). Addition
of cement of about (2%) is recommended to increase the strength of the subbase layer under
the footing. This replacement would increase the bearing capacity and reduce total and
differential settlement.
Any material to be used for backfilling purposes shall be of granular mixture and free from any
deleterious substances and satisfy the standard specifications such as SCRB R06 requirements
as given in
Table 24. The subbase material shall be spread in lifts not exceeding 25.0 cm in un-compacted
thickness and compacted to a dry density not less than 95.0% of the maximum dry density as
obtained by modified Proctor test.

Table 24: Subbase materials specification (Subbase Class B)
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Size (mm) Standard Limits for Class (B) Subbase material, %
75 ‐‐‐
Page 74 of 70
50 100
25 75‐100
9.5 40‐75
4.75 30‐60
2.36 21‐47
0.30 14‐28
0.075 5‐15
Chemical Properties
SO3, % Less than 5 %
Organic Content, % Less than 2 %
Gypsum Content, % Less than 10.75 %
TSS, % Less than 10.0 %
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit, LL, % Less than 25 %
Plasticity Index, PI, % Less than 6 %
7.3. De-watering
The site investigation data shows that groundwater is found at 2.8 to 3.0 m.b.g.1. It may also be
affected by seasonal variations.
It is expected that some of the work will be below the water table level; hence de-watering is
required. For the safe excavation during construction; care should be taken to ensure that fines
are not removed during pumping, since this could result in unpredictable settlement of the
surrounding and associated structures. As well as; any excavation shall be carried out in such a
way not to damage the base material due to uncontrolled hydraulic gradient. Groundwater
control measures could take the form of local de-watering by the construction of perimeter
drains and sump pumping.
Page 75 of 70
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Geotechnical investigations have been carried out for the site of the West Qurna 1 Project
Produced Water Pipelines Project, which lies Basrah Province in the southeast parts of Iraq. A
site investigation has been carried out at the locations of the pipeline 28th to 29th of July 2017.
The site investigations include field and laboratory work. The filed work includes installing (10)
boreholes to depth of 5.0m, (8) CPT test to a depth of 5.0 m, and (10) earth resistivity test, and
the laboratory tests have been undertaken to determine Atterberg limits, grading, shear strength
parameters and consolidation test.
From the field observation and laboratory test, results; the following conclusions and
recommendations are gathered:
1) Ground conditions encountered in the exploratory holes showed that the test borings
consist mainly cohesive soil of light brown to gray silty clay with sand at some
locations. This layer extends from the natural ground surface to the end of boring (5.0
m). According to USCS, most of the cohesive soil type is lean clay (CL) to fat clay
(CH). The consistency of this soil is ranging from very soft to medium stiff. It is worth
to mention herein that at BH 31, a layer of silty sand was found at the upper 1.0 m.
2) The final groundwater level was recorded in all boreholes. The groundwater level for
the six boreholes ranges from about 2.8 to 3.0 m.b.g.l. Dewatering may be required
for the part of structure below the water table level.
3) The values of unconfined compressive strength (qu) vary from 32.3 to 46.0 kPa. This
means that the consistency of the soil ranges from very soft to medium.
4) The compressibility of cohesive soil ranging from moderately to high compressible
soil. In addition, it was found that the soil is slightly overconsolidated. Moreover, the
value of compression index and swelling index are ranging from 0.175 to 0.297 and
0.037 to 0.049, respectively.
5) According to the soil stratification and conditions encountered, no hazard problem of
liquefaction may occur.
6) Shallow foundations (Strip, spread, continuous and raft) could be considered
appropriate for lightly loaded structures and when the applied pressure less than the
allowable bearing capacity of the soil. The allowable bearing capacity for shallow
footing can be estimated from the field test and laboratory shear strength tests
results. The estimated bearing capacity for shallow foundation is given in Table 23.
7) The preparation of shallow footing requires removal of the uppermost undesirable
material (i.e. fill materials, organic matters, roots, and salts, etc.) to a depth of 0.0-1.0
m. Besides that, the soil under the footing should be replaced to a depth of 0.5-1.0 m
with well-compacted subbase. The subbase (Type B) must be provided according to
SCRB/06 and compacted in layers (25.0 cm) according to the standard specification
to 95% relative density. The properties of the subbase materials Type B are listed in
table 23 of this Report.
8) The resistivity data of the soil show very corrosive behavior to steel and concrete,
therefor special protection should be adopted for the pipes that in contact with soil
and groundwater.
Page 76 of 70
9) For sulphate containing solutions and according to article 4.2 of (ACI 318, 2011) the
exposure condition is classified as Severe Exposure (S2). According to article 4.3 of
ACI Code, sulfate resisting Portland cement (Type V) should be used in all
underground concrete works with maximum water-cement ratio by weight is 0.45 and
minimum fcu is 35 MPa (Cube strength).
10) The soil under and surrounding the footing must satisfy the standard specification
for chemical and physical requirements.
11) The chloride and salts content is high in some places, hence increasing the
concrete cover and protection of the foundation by bitumen martial with three layers
is highly recommended
12) Water, sewer, and gas lines installed in such a way that not make weakness in
foundation and should be designed to absorb movement without breaking.
13) Sidewalk surrounding the structures should be constructed immediately after
erection of the building.
14) It is recommended to use cohesionless soil as backfill materials.
Page 77 of 70
Page 78 of 70
9. REFERENCES
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), (2003).
 American Water Works Association. (1993). American national standard for
polyethylene encasement for ductile-iron pipe systems. In AWWA standards.
AWWA.
 Bowles, J.E., (1996) "Foundation Analysis and Design" 5th edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
 BS 1377:1990 "Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes".
 Budhu, M. (2008) "SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS". John Wiley & Sons
 Buringh, P. (1960) "Soils and Soil Conditions in Iraq" Republic of Iraq, Ministry of
agriculture directorate general of agricultural research and projects, Baghdad.
 Coduto, D. P. (2001)"Foundation Design; Principles and Practice"2nd edition,
Prentice-Hall. Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
 CP2004: 1972 "Code of Practice for Foundations" British Standards Institution.
 Das, B. M. (2011). "Principles of Foundation Engineering" 7th edition, Cengage
Learning.
 Design Manual "Soil Mechanics, Foundation and Earth Structures, (1971).
NAVDOOKS DM-7 Dept. of the Navy Bureau of Yards & Dooks, Washington 25, D.
C.
 Head, K.H. (1980) “Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing" Vol. 1, Prentech, Press,
London.
 Hunt, R. E. (2007). Geologic hazards: a field guide for geotechnical engineers. CRC
Press.
 Iraqi Seismic Code/ 1997.
 Lambe, T. W. (1951) "Soil Testing for Engineers" John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969) "Soil Mechanics" John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Page 79 of 70
 McDowell, P. W., Barker, R. D., Butcher, A. P., Culshaw, M. G., Jackson, P. D.,
McCann, D. M., & Arthur, J. C. R. (2002). Geophysics in engineering investigations.
 Sissakian, V.K. and Fouad, S.F., 2012. Geological Map of Iraq, scale 1: 1000 000, 4 th
edit. GEOSURV, Baghdad, Iraq.
 Som, N.N. and Das, S.C. (2003) "Theory and Practice of Foundation design"
Prentice-Hall of India.
 Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. (1967) "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice" 2nd
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
 UFC, (2005)" Soil mechanics", UFC 3-220-10N, electronic copy.
 Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997.
Page 80 of 70
10. APPENDIX (BOREHOLE LOGS & BH PLAN)
BOREHOLE LOG
Borehole No.: BH‐27 Borehole Elevation: 0.852 m.a.s.l.
Borehole Dia.: 150 mm Date of Drilling: 28/07/2017
Depth of Borehole: 5.0 m Coordinates: E: 721906.19 N: 3418745.39
Method of Drilling: Wash boring
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
15 15 15 Description of Strata
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
0.0 1.0 1.0 DS Light brown silty clay with sand
1.0 1.5 0.5 US Light brown silty clay with sand
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐

2.5 3.0 0.5 SPT 6 8 9 17 Light brown silty clay with sand
3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring

Ground Water Level (Initial) :‐‐‐ US Undisturbed Sample: 1
DS Disturbed Sample: 1
Ground Water Level (Final) :3.0m
S.P.T. Standard Penetration Test:2

BOREHOLE LOG
Borehole No.: BH‐31 Borehole Elevation: ‐0.279 m.a.s.l.
Layer
Strata Sample S.P.T.
Depth (m) Thickness
Symbol Type
Description of Strata
(m) 15 15 15 N60
Page 81 of 70
From To cm cm cm
0.0 1.0 1.0 DS Gray silty sand with clay
1.0 1.5 0.5 US Light brown silty clay with sand
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐
3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring

BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
0.0 1.0 1.0 DS Light brown silty clay
1.0 1.5 0.5 US Light brown clay with silt
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐

2.5 3.0 0.5 SPT 1 3 3 6 Light brown silty clay
3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring
Page 82 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm

BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
1.5 2.0 0.5 US Light brown silty clay
2.0 2.5 0.5 ‐

3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
Page 83 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
End of Boring
Ground Water Level (Initial) :‐‐ US Undisturbed Sample: 1
Ground Water Level (Final) :3.0
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐

3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring
Page 84 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm

BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
2.0 2.5 0.5 ‐

3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
Page 85 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
End of Boring
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐

3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring
Page 86 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm

BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
0.0 1.5 1.5 DS Brown silty clay
1.5 2.0 0.5 US Brown silty clay
2.0 2.5 0.5 ‐
2.5 3.0 0.5 SPT 2 3 3 6 Brown silty clay
3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
Page 87 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
4.5 5.0 0.5 SPT 3 3 5 8 Brown silty clay
End of Boring
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
1.5 2.5 1.0 ‐

3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
Page 88 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
End of Boring

Ground Water Level (Final) :2.8 m

BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm

2.0 2.5 0.5 ‐
Page 89 of 70
BOREHOLE LOG
S.P.T.
Depth (m) Layer
Strata Sample
Thickness
Symbol Type
(m) N60
From To cm cm cm
3.0 4.5 1.5 ‐
End of Boring
Ground Water Level (Initial):‐‐‐‐ US Undisturbed Sample: 1
Page 90 of 70
Enlarged BH Plan for Pipeline Route

Page 91 of 70

Iqwq-Cpp-Grinv-00-0001 - 0 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Iqwq-Cpp-Grinv-00-0001 - 0 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iqwq-Cpp-Grinv-00-0001 - 0 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Qurna I Project

PRODUCED WATER PIPELINES PROJECT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR

Rev Rev Date Description Prepared Checked Approved

50 13-Mar-2019 Issued As-Built KPV LJ WGX

IQWQ-CPP-GRINV-00-0001 Geotechnical Investigation Report for Pipeline Route

4.2. Site Works ......................................................................................................................... 24

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

Figure 1.1-1: WQ I Location Map

1.2. Overview of the project

 DS6 to DS7 approximately 8,814m x 16inch Carbon Steel Pipeline corridor.

 DS8 to DS7 approximately 9,686m x 16inch Carbon Steel Pipeline corridor.

 DS6 pig launcher area.

 DS7 pig receiver area.

 DS6 pig launcher area.

1 The following sections as part of PROJECT No. AWQ0258 contractual documents

2 Response to the Bidder’s queries and other techno-commercial clarification issued by

1.4. Codes and Standards

2. PROGRAM OF THE GEOTECHNICAL WORK

2.1. Scope of the Geotechnical Work

9686m 8814m 180m/6 40m*50m 80m*50m 40m*50m

Boreholes (Trail Pits) 5 5 12 2 3 2

Single depth(m) 5 5 15 10-20 10-20 10-20

Pipeline route DS8 DS7 DS6

Total depth (m) 25 25 180 30 40 30

Down-hole seismic test(m) 20m 20m 20m

Cone penetration test (m/nos.) 20/4 20/4 20/1 20/1 20/1

Soil Depth (1m/2m/3m/5m/

Undisturbed samples (rocky

Chemical Tests (soil samples) 5 5 4 4 4

Test Testing Standard

2.2. Purpose and Task of the Geotechnical Work

Figure 1: Geological Map of Iraq

Figure 2: Techtronic Map of Iraq

Figure 3: The Tropical Map of Iraq

3.4. Site Weather Conditions in Basra

3.5. Seismic Activity at the Site

Figure 6: Seismic Zoning Map of Iraq

3.6. Previous Investigations

Figure 8: Layout of the site and boreholes location

Test Number Details

Boreholes 10 Depth of Boreholes is 5 m

Soil Resistivity Test 10 Depth of Test is 20 m

POINT Borehole NORTHING EASTING ELV.

27 27 3418745.390 721906.190 0.852 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor

28 ‐‐‐ 3418740.297 721907.929 0.717 SRT Pipeline Corridor

29 ‐‐‐ 3417863.362 722168.756 0.670 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor

30 ‐‐‐ 3416972.546 722451.654 ‐0.233 SRT Pipeline Corridor

31 31 3416967.653 722453.712 ‐0.279 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor

32 ‐‐‐ 3416144.446 722703.121 0.662 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor

33 33 3415229.637 722721.966 0.305 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor

34 ‐‐‐ 3415225.681 722718.318 0.019 SRT Pipeline Corridor

35 ‐‐‐ 3414132.398 722669.888 0.246 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor

36 ‐‐‐ 3413512.116 722465.153 0.203 SRT Pipeline Corridor

37 37 3413509.262 722460.176 0.174 BH‐5m Pipeline Corridor

38 ‐‐‐ 3413145.394 721723.157 0.005 CPT‐5m Pipeline Corridor

39 ‐‐‐ 3412558.123 721194.655 ‐0.109 SRT Pipeline Corridor

9686m 8814m 180m/6 40m50m 80m50m 40m*50m