Geotechnical Engineering Report

F-18 Super Hornet Program Site Studies, Modifications #06 and #08
Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

F-18 SUPER HORNET PROGRAM SITE STUDIES
ALTERNATE CALA LOCATION EAST OF THE RUNWAYS AND
ADDITION TO EXISTING SUBSTATION
AL JABER AIR BASE, KUWAIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 3
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 4
3.1 Existing Site Conditions

3.2 Proposed Construction
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGICAL/HYDROGEOLOGICAL INFORMATION ............................... 6
4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 Hydrological and Hydrogeological Information
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 7
5.1 Test Borings

5.2 Test Pits
5.3 Soil Resistivity Testing
5.4 Thermal Conductivity Testing
LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................... 9
6.1 Index Testing

6.2 Compaction and CBR Testing
6.3 Direct Shear Testing
6.4 Chemical Analysis/Gypsiferous Testing
6.5 Organic Content Testing
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 10
7.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

An evaluation of these results is included in the Thermal Conductivity Considerations section.
7.2 Groundwater
7.3 Seismic Site Classification
7.4 Liquefaction
7.5 Corrosion Considerations
7.6 Thermal Conductivity Considerations
March 11, 2021 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Project 19C23011
W912ER23C0003 ©2021 All Rights Reserved
SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK ........................................................................................... 15
8.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

8.2 Compacted Fill
8.3 Permanent Slopes
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 18
9.1 Spread Footings
FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 20
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES .................................................................................................. 21
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 22
12.1 General Pavement Concerns
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 23
13.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

13.2 Spread Footings
13.3 Floor Slabs and Pavement Subgrades
13.4 Construction Materials
13.5 Geotechnical Observations During Construction
14.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Geologic Map
Figure 3A: Test Location Plan – Modification #006 and #008
Figure 3B: Test Location Plan – Modification #006
Figure 3C: Test Location Plan – Modification #008
Figure 4: Footing Undercut Detail
Figure 5: Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram for Below-Grade Walls
Figure 6: Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram for Site Retaining Walls
Figure 7: Subdrainage Detail
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C: Calculations
March 11, 2021 Page ii Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Project 19C23011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical
engineering analysis for the proposed F-18E/F Super Hornet Program Modification #006 and Modification
#008 site developments. We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any
party that relies on this report must read the full report. This executive summary omits several details,
any one of which could be very important to the proper application of the report.
• Our exploration indicates subsurface conditions consisting of existing fill soils of Stratum A
extending to depths of up to 2 m (6.6 ft) overlying Aeolian sands of Stratum B. The Stratum B
soils extend to the maximum depth explored for this project of 6.45 m (21.2 ft). Topsoil was not
observed in the tests conducted throughout the base. Layers of dense to very dense cemented
sands were encountered sporadically within Stratum B at depths of about 1 to 2.5 m (4.9 to 8.2 ft)
below existing grades and, where encountered, typically extended to depths of up to about 4 to 6
m (13.1 to 19.7 ft).
• The proposed structures may be supported by spread footings bearing on suitable natural soils,
compacted fill, or lean concrete. Soft, loose, or high plasticity natural soils or existing fill soils of
Stratum A are not suitable for direct spread footing support. Existing fill soils of Stratum A should
be completely removed from beneath footings. Soft, loose, or high plasticity soils should be
completely removed or undercut to a depth of 1 m (3 ft) below footing bearing grade, whichever is
less. We recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of 144 kPa (3 ksf) for footings
supported on compacted fill placed over suitable natural soils and constructed as detailed herein.
We recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of 192 kPa (4 ksf) for footings supported
directly on suitable natural soils or lean concrete placed over suitable natural soils and
constructed as detailed herein. New footings should be constructed outside the zone of influence
of existing building walls and foundations or existing utilities and other site features so as not to
induce load on or undermine the existing structures and utilities. The zone of influence is defined
as a 45 degree (1H:1V) plane projecting downward from the bottom edge of the structure, utility,
or feature with highest bearing grade.
• Floor slabs on-grade may be earth supported on suitable natural soils or new compacted fill.
Soft, loose, or high plasticity natural soils or existing fill soils should be undercut to a minimum
depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) or in their entirety, whichever is less. Undercut floor slab subgrades should
be backfilled with compacted fill or crushed stone. We recommend a modulus of subgrade
reaction, k, of 50 kPa/mm (185 pci) for floor slabs constructed on suitable natural soils or new
compacted fill. A minimum 100 mm (4 inch) thick washed gravel or crushed stone layer should
be placed below floor slabs.
• Subgrades to receive compacted fill should be stripped of vegetation, debris, and organic matter
and should consist of suitable soils as detailed herein. Some unsuitable soils may be present at
shallow depths beneath the existing ground surface in foundation and pavement areas.
Unsuitable subgrade soils will require mitigation. Methods of mitigation include but are not limited
to scarifying, drying/wetting, and recompacting; over excavation and replacement; placement of a
stabilization geotextile or geogrid; crushed stone working platforms; cement or lime treatment;
and/or a combination of some or all of these methods.
• Compacted fill and backfill in building and pavement areas should consist of soil classifying as
SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW, or combinations thereof per ASTM D2487. The fines
portion of compacted fill and backfill soils should have a Liquid Limit less than 40 and a Plasticity
index less than 15. Excavated portions of the on-site soils may generally meet these criteria but
March 11, 2021 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Project 19C23011
careful screening, moisture conditioning, and stockpiling will be necessary to separate unsuitable
soils from suitable soils. Compacted fill and backfill should be compacted in lifts not exceeding
200 mm (8 inches) in loose thickness. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor), except that the top 610 mm (24
inches) in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the same standard.
• Below-grade walls and retaining walls, if any are planned, should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures as discussed herein. Walls should be designed for seismic loading.
• Pavements may be supported on new compacted fill or suitable, firm soils that pass a proofroll.
Pavement sections constructed as detailed herein may be designed considering a CBR of 20
(flexible shoulder pavements) or a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 50 kPa/mm (185 pci) (rigid
pavements).
• Permanent cut and compacted fill slopes on the site may be constructed at a slope of 2H:1V or
flatter. Slopes should be protected from surface water and wind-based erosion.
• Earthwork and foundation construction should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or other
qualified individual to verify that the work is performed in accordance with the recommendations
contained within this report.

Project 19C23011
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our change order dated December 2, 2020, our Prime Contract No. W912ER-17-D-0001 dated April 26,
2019, and our Task Order W912ER19F0036 define our scope of services and terms and conditions for
this project, which includes preparation of this geotechnical engineering report. This geotechnical
engineering report includes the following:
• Evaluation of estimated subsurface conditions throughout the site study areas and below the
proposed site structures and features based on the subsurface data collected from our
subsurface exploration. Exploration logs are included.
• A plan drawing indicating boring and test pit locations.
• Geologic setting and comments on possible site geologic hazards, including karst features,
collapse potential, shrink/swell soils and seismicity including an assessment of liquefaction
potential, if applicable. We have included comments on historical earthquake activity, site
earthquake hazards from ground shaking, and surface fault rupture, as applicable, based on
available site information. We have also provided an IBC-compatible Soil Site Class designation
based on SPT N-value measurements collected during our subsurface exploration, extrapolated
to a depth of 30.5 m (100 ft), and seismic spectral ground motions (Ss and S1) and
recommended design peak horizontal ground acceleration based on the Site Seismic Class.
• Regional hydrological information limited to information gleaned from a desktop study/internet
search.
• Recommended foundation requirements for support of the proposed buildings and structures
including allowable bearing pressures, recommended bearing grades, and estimated foundation
settlements.
• Evaluation of soil for potential corrosivity through the performance of screening tests on selected
soil samples and from the results of the field resistivity testing. Corrosion protection requirements
will need to be evaluated by others.
• Recommended lateral earth pressure diagrams, including earthquake loading, for use in design of
site retaining walls or below-grade walls, if any.
• Assessment of subgrade conditions for support of flexible and rigid pavements including
recommendations for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and k-values and general pavement section
recommendations for use by others in pavement section design.
• Recommendations for handling of groundwater in design and construction.
• Recommendations for site preparation and construction of earthwork including an assessment of
excavated on-site soils for use as fill in building or pavement areas.
• Comments regarding geotechnical construction considerations for use in development of the
design and construction plans and specifications, including geotechnical-related comments on
construction materials that will be needed for construction of the proposed improvements.

Project 19C23011
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
3.1 Existing Site Conditions
The project is located at the Ahmad Al-Jaber Air Base (base) in Kuwait. The base is situated about 50
km (31 miles) southwest of Kuwait City, is enclosed by perimeter fencing, and occupies approximately
2,000 hectares (4,942 acres). The base is bounded by highways to the east and south and is otherwise
situated within a relatively undeveloped area of Kuwait, consisting of sparsely-vegetated desert.
One and two story industrial, administrative, community, and billeting buildings; temporary military camps;
concrete bunkers; asphalt-surfaced vehicle access roadways and parking lots; walkways; helipads;
aircraft hangars; asphalt-surfaced taxiways; an asphalt-surfaced runway; and an asphalt-surfaced aircraft
parking/loading apron area are present throughout the base. The base headquarters (i.e., Building 61)
and many of the other buildings are situated on the northeast side of the base. The existing aircraft
hangars, taxiways, runway (i.e., flight line), and aircraft parking/loading apron area dominate the
southwestern portion of the base and are oriented in an approximate north-northwest to south-southeast
alignment. The undeveloped areas of the base are covered with sporadic, arid vegetation (e.g., weeds,
brush, and a few small trees). Several existing utilities including buried gas, electric, water, stormwater,
and sewer lines are present throughout the base.
Existing site grades in the developed areas are generally flat with a gentle slope toward the north and
vary from a topographic high elevation of about EL 125.5 m (411.7 ft) in the south to a low elevation of EL
118.5 m (388.8 ft) to the north.
A Site Vicinity Map depicting the approximate limits of the project site is included as Figure 1, which is
smaller than the limits of the base described above.
3.2 Proposed Construction
Details of the proposed construction at the writing of this report are still conceptual and undeveloped.
However, we reviewed the following documents to gain an understanding of the general scope of the
project, formulate our subsurface exploration program, and prepare this report:
• Scope of Work for Architect and Engineering Services for Kuwait F-18E/F Super Hornet Program,
Phase One Site Studies, revised 23 January, 2020
• Scope of Work for Architect and Engineering Services for Kuwait F-18E/F Super Hornet Program,
Phase One Site Studies, revised 24 July, 2020
• CETAM-CT-A Serial Letter No. 006, Partial Suspension of Work – W9 dated 18 November, 2020
• Exhibit 1 Site Layout revised 22 November, 2019
• Exhibit 3 Scope of Work for Geotechnical Investigation for Kuwait Air Force F-18 Super Hornet
Program, dated November 2, 2018
• Exhibit 5 Kuwait Air Force (KAF) F-18 E/F Facilities Requirements Document (FRD), Document
No.: 2018A0015, prepared by Boeing, dated May 31, 2018
• Exhibit 6 Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait Master Plan, Final, dated June 23, 2015
• Exhibit 11 Topographic and Geotech Areas of Work, revised 24 July, 2020

Project 19C23011
Based on our review and understanding of these documents and our ongoing conversations with Atkins,
we understand that the project will generally consist of the design and development of new facilities to
support F-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft. Specifically, this report covers the proposed development as
described in the Scope of Work Modification #006 and Modification #008. These Modifications (Mods)
detail new facilities planned including an alternate location for the proposed new Combat Aircraft Loading
Area (CALA) and an expansion to an existing substation.
Modification #006 consists of the design of an alternative CALA location. The new CALA is proposed in a
38 hectare (93.9 acre) area situated to the east of the southern end of the existing runway. This area of
the base is developed and includes several aprons, taxiways, support buildings, paved access roads, and
hangars. We understand that all of the existing structures within this area of the base are currently
considered for temporary use only and are planned to be demolished as part of the planned site
developments. Portions of the existing parking aprons, taxiways, and pavement areas may be reused as
part of the planned CALA development. Details of the new CALA were not available to us at the writing of
this report, however, we understand new one and two story structures, parking aprons, taxiways, and
pavement areas may be constructed.
Modification #008 consists of an expansion to an existing substation building. The existing substation
building is located about 600 m (1,969 ft) to the northeast of the Mod #006 area. We understand that this
addition will be constructed to accommodate new electrical cable that will be routed from the planned
development west of the flightline to the switching substation building. Details of the substation
expansion were not available to us at the writing of this report, however, we assume the expansion may
be up to two stories.
We understand other improvements planned as part of these Mods may include site grading, utility
relocations, new roadways, and new stormwater management features. Information regarding site layout
and grading including the size and location of buildings and features and structural loading, construction
type, and lowest finished floor elevations of all buildings and facilities were not available to us at the
writing of this report. However, for the purposes of developing the discussions and recommendations in
this report, we assumed maximum column and wall loads of 450 kN (101.2 kips) and 0.5 kN/m (7.3 klf),
respectively, for the proposed structures, and we assumed that all new structures will have finished floor
elevations within +/- 0.5 m (1.6 ft) of existing site grades.

Project 19C23011
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGICAL/HYDROGEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
4.1 Regional Geology
Available geologic and land surface reports of Kuwait and the Al Jaber region indicate that the region is
generally a flat, gently undulating desert plain with occasional low hills, escarpments, and depressions.
The base is located in the Sand Flat physiographic division of Kuwait and lies on the eastern edge of the
deep sedimentary basin that forms the majority of the Arabian Peninsula. The regional geology can be
classified as recent Aeolian sands layered atop Miocene to Pleistocene Age siliceous sands, gravelly
sands, and sandy clays of the Kuwait Group overlying undifferentiated limestones, sandstones, and
siltstones of the Ghar and Fars Formations. The near surface sands may be cemented with calcium
carbonate.
The site geology is comprised of Existing Fill materials of Stratum A consisting primarily of sandy soils
associated with previous site development overlying the normally-consolidated Aeolian Sands of Stratum
B to the maximum depth explored in our subsurface exploration of 6.45 m (21.2 ft).
A Geologic Map is included as Figure 2.
4.2 Hydrological and Hydrogeological Information
As noted above, the base is located in the Sand Flat physiographic division of Kuwait. The topography is
flat, generally a featureless and undulating desert plain, with occasional low-lying hills and scarps. The
mean annual rainfall is about 100 mm (4 inches) with virtually no rain from May to October.
Beneath the site are reportedly three large significant aquifers. The first aquifer is approximately 6 to 10
m (19.7 to 32.8 ft) beneath the surface wind-blown deposits and are even deeper during dryer months.
The uppermost aquifer is called the Kuwait Group aquifer, which varies in thickness between 50 and 400
m (164 and 1,312.4 ft), and consists largely of two formations divided by an aquitard, the Ghar Formation
and the Lower Fars Formations.
Unconformably underlying the Kuwait Group aquifer is the Dammam Formation Aquifer. A layer of chert
at the top of the Dammam Formation acts as an aquitard and greatly restricts groundwater passage
between the Dammam Formation and Kuwait Group aquifers. This aquifer is comprised largely of highly-
porous dolomite and limestone. The thickness of this aquifer is between approximately 120 and 280 m
(393.7 and 918.7 ft).
Beneath the Dammam Formation aquifer is an anhydrite layer known as the Rus Formation. This
anhydrite layer acts as a cap on the even deeper aquifer, known as the Radhuma Formation aquifer.
This aquifer is approximately 240 to 600 m (787.4 and 1,968.6 ft) in thickness, and consists largely of
dolomite and limestone, with varying degrees of anhydrites.
The noted aquifers are re-charged in areas outside of Kuwait, primarily in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Groundwater flow is generally from the southwest to the northeast through the region. These aquifers
reportedly contain highly brackish waters, with dissolved solids varying between 2,500 and 7,500 mg/L.
The water quality and quantity in these aquifers have diminished greatly in recent decades due to
increased development in the country. Due to the high-salinity of the water in the aquifers, water
extracted from them will require treatment in order to use for human consumption.

Project 19C23011
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Because of travel-related complications due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we provided stateside
coordination and direction of a subsurface exploration and field testing program performed by our drilling
subcontractor, Gulf Inspection International Co. (GIICO). This subsurface exploration program was
executed in coordination with representatives from Atkins who were on site during execution of the
program. Our subsurface exploration program was performed to identify the soil and rock conditions
underlying the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials
encountered. We based this exploration on the Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 11 site plans, the Exhibit 3
requirement to conduct borings and/or test pits on a 100 x 100 m (328.1 x 328.1 ft) grid pattern with
tighter spacing around planned structures and features, and our approved workplan dated October 30,
2020. Our subsurface exploration program was performed to estimate the soil conditions underlying the
site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. This program included test
borings, test pits, and in situ soil resistivity tests. The final building locations, sizes, and site plans were
not available at the time of our subsurface exploration.
The exploration methods used for our subsurface exploration are discussed in subsequent sections. Test
locations are depicted on Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C. The appendices to this report contain the results of
our subsurface exploration.
As noted above, we were not present on-site during execution of the subsurface exploration program
detailed herein. We have checked the subsurface data for reasonableness and have assumed that we
can rely on it to develop the recommendations included herein.
5.1 Test Borings
A total of 17 borings were performed within the site study area for the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites.
GIICO drilled test borings SB-171 through SB-185 at the Mod #006 site and test borings SB-186 and SB-
187 at the Mod #008 site. The borings were drilled using continuous flight augers with Standard
Penetration Testing (SPT) at regular intervals. All borings extended to depths of up to 6.45 m (21.2 ft)
each. Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings, classification criteria,
drilling methods, and sampling protocols.
5.2 Test Pits
A total of four mechanical test pits (STP-72 through STP-75) were excavated using a CAT 330 BL
excavator to depths of approximately 4 m (13.1 ft) each. All test pits were excavated in the Mod #006
site. These test pits accommodated collection of bulk samples for CBR and strength testing and allowed
us to observe the in situ conditions of the materials encountered. The test pits were backfilled upon
completion for safety. Logs for each test pit containing observations and remarks on the subsurface
materials encountered are included in Appendix A.
5.3 Soil Resistivity Testing
GIICO performed four soil resistivity tests designated as SR-18 through SR-20 performed at the Mod
#006 site and test SR-21 performed at the Mod #008 site. The objective of this testing was to obtain in
situ resistivity measurements of the subsurface materials. The resistivity data was collected along lines

Project 19C23011
oriented roughly in the north-south direction. The lines were centered at the locations identified on
Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C.
The resistivity data was collected using a Megger DET4TR2 Resistivity Meter. The tests were performed
per ASTM G57-06 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner
Four-Electrode Method. The probe “A” spacings were at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 m (3.3, 6.6, 9.9, 16.4, and 32.8
ft). The resistivity data collected at the four locations is included in Appendix A.
GIICO performed one in-situ thermal conductivity test, TRT-01, within the borehole for SB-187 at the Mod
#008 site. The objective of this testing was to obtain in situ thermal conductivity measurements of the
subsurface materials. The conductivity data was collected using a Huskeflux thermal sensor. The testing
was performed in accordance with ASTM D-5334. The conductivity data collected at the one location is
included in Appendix A.

Project 19C23011
LABORATORY TESTING
GIICO conducted soil laboratory testing on selected samples obtained during our subsurface exploration
for the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites. The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in
the subsurface exploration and provided data for use in the development of recommendations for design
of foundations, earthwork, and pavements included herein. The results of the laboratory testing are
presented in Appendix B. The testing that was performed is also summarized in the following sections.
Please note that we assigned the soil laboratory testing conducted by GIICO for the subsurface
exploration, but we were not present during sample preparation and testing. We have checked the data
for reasonableness and have assumed that we can rely on it to develop the recommendations included
herein.
6.1 Index Testing
Natural moisture content, Atterberg limit, and gradation tests on bag and bulk samples were performed in
GIICO’s subcontracted laboratories to provide soil classifications and parameters for use with published
correlations with soil properties.
6.2 Compaction and CBR Testing
GIICO’s subcontracted laboratories conducted three modified Proctor compaction and two CBR tests of
soil samples representing Stratum B that were obtained from the test pits to evaluate compaction
characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design.
6.3 Direct Shear Testing
GIICO-subcontracted laboratories conducted three direct shear tests of remolded soil samples
representing Stratum B that were obtained from the test pits.
6.4 Chemical Analysis/Gypsiferous Testing
Chemical analysis testing including sulfate, chloride, and gypsiferous content was conducted in GIICO’s
subcontracted laboratories on four samples representing Strata A and B.
6.5 Organic Content Testing
Organic content testing was conducted on four samples representing Strata A and B in GIICO’s
subcontracted laboratories.
Thermal conductivity testing including was conducted in GIICO’s subcontracted laboratories on two
samples representing Stratum B.

Project 19C23011
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
7.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy
A summary of the findings from our subsurface exploration for the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites and the
laboratory testing program is included in the following sections. Soils encountered during the subsurface
exploration have been designated by strata for the purpose of our discussion herein. These strata
designations do not imply continuity of the materials described, but give the general descriptions and
characteristics of the materials anticipated at the project site. Throughout the subsurface exploration, the
following stratigraphy was noted:
7.1.1 Ground Cover
Topsoil was not encountered in the borings or test pits performed at the Mod #006 or Mod#008 sites.
About 200 mm (8 inches) of asphalt and 250 mm (10 inches) of concrete was observed in the borings
performed in paved areas at the Mod #006 site.
7.1.2 Stratum A: Existing Fill
Below the ground surface or cover, existing fill materials were encountered in 11 borings at the Mod #006
site. This stratum was not encountered at the Mod #008 site. The Stratum A materials generally consist
of SILTY SAND (SM) and WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW-SM) with varying amounts of fines and
cementation. SPT N-values ranged from 6 to over 21 blows per 30 cm (1 ft or blows per foot (bpf)),
indicating densities of loose to medium dense. The average N-value in the existing fill was 11.
Laboratory tests performed on several samples from Stratum A indicate the fines content (i.e., percent
passing the number 200 sieve) ranged from approximately 7.3 to 19.2 percent. All tested samples were
found to be Non-Plastic. The natural moisture contents of the samples tested ranged from approximately
2.7 to 7.6 percent.
The results of the chemical analysis and organic content testing performed on samples of the existing fill
are shown on the tables included in the section below.
7.1.3 Stratum B: Aeolian Sands
The Aeolian sands were encountered in all of the borings and test pits at both the Mod #006 and Mod
#008 sites underlying the ground surface, ground cover, or existing fill of Stratum A at depths ranging
from approximately 0 to 2 m (0 to 6.6 ft) below existing grade. All test locations were terminated within
Stratum B at a depth of up to approximately 6.45 m (21.2 ft) below existing grade, the maximum depth
explored in the borings.
The Stratum B soils generally consist of CLAYEY SAND (SC), SILTY SAND (SM), POORLY GRADED
SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), and POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) with varying amounts
of fines and cementation. We note that layers of cemented sands were encountered at several boring
and test pit locations across the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites. The cemented sands were typically
encountered at depths varying from approximately 0.5 to 2.5 m (1.6 to 8.2 ft) below existing grades and
typically extended to depths of up to about 4 to 6 m (13.1 to 19.7 ft). The relative strength and degree of

Project 19C23011
cementation varied irregularly with depth and from one location to another. SPT N-values ranged from 5
to over 100 blows per 30 cm (bpf) with an average of 32 blows per 30 cm (bpf).
Laboratory tests performed on several samples from Stratum B indicate the fines contents ranged from
approximately 8.6 to 23.7 percent. Ten samples of the Aeolian Sands were found to be Non-Plastic. Of
the other four samples tested, Liquid Limits ranged from 22 to 31 and Plasticity Indices ranged from 15 to
21. The natural moisture contents of the samples tested ranged from approximately 3.1 to 10.1 percent.
GIICO conducted three modified Proctor compaction tests and two CBR tests on bulk samples
representing Stratum B. The modified Proctor testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D1557,
and the CBR testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D1883. For the CBR testing, the soil
samples were compacted to varying densities per modified Proctor; soaked for four days with a default
surcharge of 4.5 kg (10 lb); and penetrated under surcharge with readings taken at intervals per the
ASTM D1883. The 4.5 kg (10 lb) default surcharge was used since the design load from the pavement
section was not known at the time of testing. The results of these tests are included in Appendix B, and a
summary of the compaction and CBR testing is presented in the table below.
Table 1: Compaction and CBR Test Results

Modified Modified
Sample Proctor Proctor California
Test USCS Swell
Depth Stratum Maximum Dry Optimum Bearing
Pit Classification (%)
(m) Density Moisture Ratio
(kg/m3) Content (%)
STP-72 2.0 - 3.0 B SC-SM 2040 8.8 22.5 1
STP-74 0.0 - 1.0 B SM 2014 8.9 29.1 0
STP-75 1.0 - 2.0 B SC 2008 9.7 - -
Swell values measured during CBR testing of the soils of Stratum B were between 0 and 1 percent under
an approximate 2.4 kPa (50 psf) surcharge. Actual surcharge pressures induced on the pavement and
compacted fill subgrade soils will be greater and will result in additional confinement. The higher
surcharge pressures and additional confinement will likely result in even lower swell values than those
measured during CBR testing. Thus, we do not believe that the planned improvements will be impacted
by swell potential of the existing site soils.
GIICO performed three direct shear tests on samples of Stratum B soils obtained during our subsurface
exploration. The testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The test results are included
in Appendix B and are summarized in the table below.

Project 19C23011
Table 2: Direct Shear Test Results
USCS Friction
Sample Cohesion Unit Weight
Test Pit Stratum Classificati Angle
Depth (m) (kPa) (kN/m3)
on (Degrees)
STP-72 2.0 - 3.0 B SC-SM 0.78 36 19.8
STP-74 0.0 - 1.0 B SM 1.3 34.2 19.45
STP-75 1.0 - 2.0 B SC 0.65 35.4 19.6
Testing was conducted by GIICO laboratories to evaluate the organic, gypsiferous, sulfate, and chloride
contents of the Strata A and B soils. The test results are included in Appendix B and are summarized in
the table below.
Table 3: Organic, Gypsiferous, Sulfate and Chorlide Content Test Results

Organic
Sample USCS Gypsiferous Chloride Sulfate
Boring Stratum Content
Depth (m) Classification Content (%) (%) (%)
(%)
SB-171 0.5 - 0.95 A SM 0.32 3.09 0.019 0.195
SB-172 1.0 - 1.45 A SW-SM 0.27 2.97 0.026 0.217
SB-180 2.5 - 2.95 B SM 0.19 3.64 0.017 0.190
SB-184 0.5 - 0.95 A SM 0.21 3.24 0.024 0.221
SB-187 1.5 - 1.95 B SC-SM - - 0.028 0.217
The organic contents of the samples tested ranged between 0.19 and 0.32 percent. The gypsiferous
contents of the samples tested ranged between 2.97 and 3.64 percent with an average of about 3.2
percent, which is indicative of a slightly gypsiferous soils per Barzanji, 1973. Thus, we believe the
potential for organic- and gypsum-related problems associated with the proposed development is low.
The sulfate and chloride content test results are further discussed in the Corrosion Considerations
section.
GIICO conducted thermal conductivity testing both in-situ and in their laboratories to evaluate the thermal
conductivity of onsite soils. The test results are included in Appendices A and B and are summarized in
the table below.

Project 19C23011
Table 4: Thermal Conductivity Test Results

Thermal Moisture
Sample USCS Test Resistivity
Boring Stratum Conductivity Content
Depth (m) Classification Location (m°C/W)
(W/m°C) (%)
SB-187 1 B SM In-situ 0.192 5.2 1.38
SB-186 1.0 - 2.0 B SC Lab 0.208 4.82 1.63
SB-187 1.0 - 2.0 B SM/SC-SM Lab 0.185 5.41 1.56
An evaluation of these results is included in the Thermal Conductivity Considerations section.
7.2 Groundwater
The test boring and test pit logs in Appendix A include groundwater observations obtained during our
subsurface exploration. Groundwater was not observed during or after drilling the borings and during or
after excavating the test pits.
The groundwater levels on the logs indicate an estimate of the hydrostatic water table at the time of the
subsurface exploration. The final design should anticipate the fluctuation of the hydrostatic water table
depending on variations in precipitation, surface runoff, pumping, evaporation, utility breaks, and similar
factors.
7.3 Seismic Site Classification
Based on available information, the seismic hazard at the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites is considered to
be low (equivalent UBC Seismic Zone designation of 1). Moderate earthquake activity occurs in Kuwait
with 10 magnitude 4.0 or greater events occurring in the last 40 years, with the largest being a 4.7
magnitude. The geologic sections and tectonic history of Kuwait show seismotectonic deformation since
late Eocene time. This activity is related to the interaction of the Arabian platform and the Zagros folded
belt. A major break in the sedimentary succession, which occurred in Kuwait during Eocene and
Oligocene times, indicates that nascent folding and uplift have persisted since that time. The spatial
distribution of the recent earthquake activity in Kuwait is associated with the surface and subsurface
tectonic structures.
Considering the seismic spectral ground motions provided in United Facilities Code (UFC) 3-301-01 of Ss
= 0.57 and S1 = 0.27g, the site can be characterized as a Site Class D based on the extrapolation of soil
boring data we collected during GIICO’s previous and our recent subsurface explorations to a depth of
30.5 m (100 ft). As a result, the estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the soil surface
is 0.198g after Site Class is considered.
7.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, granular soils below the groundwater table experience a
reduction of shear strength under strong and extended earthquake shaking over successive cycles of
ground motion. Therefore, liquefaction is most likely to occur in areas with shallow groundwater, where
the subsurface profile consists of relatively thick layers of loose granular material and when the site is
subjected to strong and sufficiently long ground motions. It is our opinion that the soil liquefaction potential

Project 19C23011
at the site is low due to the absence of groundwater to the depths explored at both the Mod #006 and Mod
#008 sites during our subsurface explorations.
7.5 Corrosion Considerations
The results of the sulfate content testing that we conducted indicate water soluble sulfate contents
between 0.190 and 0.221 percent, with an average value of 0.208 percent. These sulfate contents range
from “Moderate” to “Severe” exposure levels per ACI Table 4.3.1, with the average value being
considered within the “Severe” range (i.e., the range of 0.2 to 2 percent). Therefore, the use of sulfate-
resistant cement, such as ASTM C150 Type V or equivalent, should be considered to provide sulfate
resistance for concrete where the utilities and foundation elements will extend into existing subgrades.
The results of the chloride content testing indicate chloride contents between 0.017 and 0.028 percent
(170 to 280 ppm) with an average of approximately 228 ppm. The average chloride content of these
materials is above the permissible level (100 ppm) per FHWA guidelines. Therefore, it is our opinion that
protection of buried metals, including reinforcing steel, will be necessary.
A corrosion consultant should review these results and make the final determination as to the need for
and extent of protection measures.
7.6 Thermal Conductivity Considerations
Laboratory and in-situ thermal conductivity tests were conducted as part of our scope of services for this
project. The thermal conductivity of a given soil is affected by its dry density and moisture content. At
higher densities, greater contact among the soil particles and reduced void space results in a more
efficient thermal conductor. At high moisture contents or saturation, water fills the void space between
soil particles and provides a continuous medium, increasing the thermal conductivity. At lower moisture
contents, the water in the voids is replaced by air, which is a less efficient thermal conductor. Therefore,
soil usually has the greatest thermal resistivity (opposite of conductivity) when it is in its driest state.
Additional heat load from structures such as underground utility lines or duct banks may result in thermal
instability. Above the water table, the natural moisture content of soil is not constant but varies in
response to climatic conditions. In addition, heat flux from underground structures can force moisture out
of the surrounding soils, decreasing their moisture content substantially over native, undisturbed soil.
The underground utility designer should review the results of the thermal resistivity testing to evaluate if
the onsite soils are suitable for use as bedding or backfill near the duct banks or other sensitive utilities.
We expect that variations in moisture, stratification, and density throughout the undisturbed soils and
backfill will result in variations in the thermal resistivity, however the results reported herein are relatively
consistent.

Project 19C23011
SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK
Based on our ongoing discussions with Atkins, we have considered that only nominal grading (i.e., +/- 0.5
m or 1.6 ft of cut and/or fill) will be necessary throughout the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites to level
building pads and reach proposed finished pavement and other site grades. Recommendations for
compacted fill subgrade preparation, compacted fill placement, and permanent slopes are presented in
subsequent sections. These recommendations are applicable to both the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites.
8.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades
Subgrades to receive compacted fill for structure, utility, or pavement support should be stripped of
existing fill soils, vegetation, debris, and organic matter. Compacted fill subgrades should consist of
suitable natural soils as detailed herein.
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, the base is generally covered by desiccated, near-
surface soils and cemented sands that extend to a depth of up to about 6 m (19.7 ft). Thicker layers of
the desiccated/cemented sands may provide a working platform upon which to place compacted fill and
may reduce the amount of subgrade undercutting and stabilization that may otherwise be required if
these layers are removed. Therefore, we recommend that the contractor protect and maintain these
layers throughout the duration of earthwork operations.
Some loose or soft soils may be encountered sporadically throughout the base below the ground surface
or the desiccated/cemented layers noted above. Loose or soft near-surface soils are not considered
suitable for support of the proposed compacted fill. Removal of unsuitable soils beneath compacted fill
supporting structures and near the edge of fill embankments should extend at least ½H horizontally
beyond the proposed building footprint, foundation areas, and limits of fill, where H is the depth of
undercut below subgrade level.
Evaluation of the fill subgrades should be performed by proofrolling with suitable, loaded construction
haul traffic under the observation of a geotechnical engineer or other qualified individual. Evaluation of
the pavement or floor slab subgrades should be performed by proofrolling the subgrades with a fully
loaded 9,100 kg (10 ton) on-road dump truck, or equivalent, under the observation of a geotechnical
engineer or other qualified individual. Subgrade evaluation techniques complementary to proofrolling
could include a combination of probing with a penetrometer, drilling hand augers, or observing test pits.
The compacted fill subgrades should provide sufficient stability to allow placement of subsequent lifts and
compaction of fill to the specified density. Areas that exhibit excessive pumping, waving, or rutting or
those that do not provide sufficient stability to allow placement of compacted fill should initially be
scarified, dried/wetted, and recompacted, or undercut. If these initial measures are ineffective, alternative
methods of subgrade stabilization may be necessary. These methods should be selected by the
contractor and evaluated during construction and may include installing drainage blankets, crushed stone
working platforms, cement or lime treatment, or other methods determined to be suitable by a
geotechnical engineer or other qualified individual. While sulfate concentrations were under one percent
for this study, our experience in other areas of the base indicates site soils may contain sulfate
concentrations of over one percent. Lime and cement treatment is generally not feasible for soils with
sulfate concentrations of over one percent unless the high sulfate content soils are removed or blended
with soils having lower sulfate concentrations. Test strips should be constructed prior to mass

Project 19C23011
implementation in all areas requiring subgrade repair to evaluate the suitability of the chosen stabilization
technique.
Traffic on stripped or undercut subgrades should be limited to reduce disturbance of underlying soil.
Maintaining positive drainage and sealing of subgrades with a smooth drum roller should be performed to
maintain subgrades free of water and to minimize disturbance of the subgrade soils before placing
compacted fill or pavement section materials.
Some existing structures, buried utilities, or drainage structures may be encountered on site and will need
to be removed before earthwork construction. Existing foundations, utilities, and drainage structures
should be completely removed and replaced with compacted fill. Compacted fill subgrades should not be
steeper than about 4H:1V. If steeper slopes are present, subgrades should be benched to permit
placement of horizontal lifts of fill.
8.2 Compacted Fill
Compacted fill and backfill in building and pavement areas should consist of suitable material classifying
as SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, GW, or combinations thereof according to ASTM D2487. In addition,
fill materials should exhibit Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of less than 40 and 15, respectively.
Fill materials should not contain particles larger than 8 cm (3 inches). Excavated portions of the on-site
soils may generally meet these criteria, but careful screening, moisture conditioning, and stockpiling will
be necessary to separate unsuitable soils from suitable soils.
Compacted fill should be placed in maximum 200 mm (8 inch) thick horizontal, loose lifts. Fill should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor), except
that the top 610 mm (24 inches) in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the
same standard. Soil moisture contents at the time of compaction should be within plus or minus 2
percent of the soils' optimum moisture content (e.g., if the optimum moisture content is 20%, allowable
moisture range is 18% to 22%). This acceptable range of moisture contents may need to be adjusted in
the field depending on results.
Backfill placed in excavations, trenches, and other areas that large compaction equipment cannot access
should be placed in maximum 150 mm (6 inch) thick, loose lifts. Backfill should meet the material,
placement, and compaction requirements outlined above.
Successful re-use of the excavated, on-site soils and imported soils as compacted fill will depend on the
soil type and natural moisture content during placement. Laboratory test results indicate most on site
soils encountered are generally dry of the optimum moisture content.
Soils used for compacted fill placement should be evaluated during construction for conformance with the
project specifications and the recommendations included herein. Specifically, evaluation should include
soil index, modified Proctor, and CBR tests at the frequencies indicated in the project specification,
amongst the other required evaluations.

Project 19C23011
8.3 Permanent Slopes
Permanent cut and compacted fill slopes planned throughout the base may be constructed at a slope of
up to 2H:1V or flatter. The site soils will be susceptible to erosion. Slopes should be protected from
surface water and wind based erosion before and after construction through stabilization measures.

Project 19C23011
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
We based our geotechnical engineering analysis on the information collected from our subsurface
exploration and the results of GIICO’s soil laboratory testing. Based on the assumed maximum structural
loads presented in the Proposed Construction section of this report and assuming that finished floor
elevations will be at or within about 0.5 m (1.6 ft) of existing grades throughout the site study areas, we
recommend spread footings for support of the structures associated with Mod #006 and Mod #008. The
following sections of the report provide our detailed recommendations and are applicable to both sites.
Should the structural loading, finished floor elevation, building materials, or other aspects of the proposed
construction differ from the assumptions detailed in this report, we should be contacted to evaluate
potential impacts to the recommendations included herein.
9.1 Spread Footings
We consider spread footings suitable for support of proposed structures planned for the Mod #006 and
Mod #008 sites. Footings should be supported on suitable natural soils of Stratum B or lean concrete
placed over suitable natural soils of Stratum B. Footings supported as detailed herein may be designed
considering a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 192 kPa (4,000 psf). As an alternative, footings
supported on new compacted fill placed over suitable natural soils may be designed for a reduced net
allowable soil bearing pressure of 144 kPa (3,000 psf). Compacted fill should meet the requirements
outlined in the Site Grading and Earthwork section of this report. These bearing pressures provide a
factor of safety against general bearing capacity failure of at least 3.0.
The above allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by 33 percent for wind and seismic loads
when used in conjunction with load combinations defined in IBC Section 1605.3.2, Alternative Basic Load
Combinations for use with allowable stress design. This increase is not applicable for other allowable
stress load combinations, strength design, or load and resistance factor design.
We anticipate suitable natural soils will be encountered at relatively shallow depths (less than 1 m or 3.3
ft) below the assumed finished floor grades of the proposed structures. However, some of the near
surface natural soils were observed to be soft or loose in their natural state. Loose or soft soils, high
plasticity soils (if encountered), and existing fill are unsuitable for direct support of spread footings.
Existing fill soils should be entirely removed from beneath footings. Loose or soft soils and high plasticity
soils should be undercut in their entirety or a minimum depth of 1 m (3.3 ft) below foundation bearing
elevation, whichever is less. Undercut subgrades should be backfilled with compacted fill or lean
concrete as a function of the design bearing pressure, or the footings may be lowered to the depth of
undercut. Undercuts should be performed in accordance with Figure 4, Footing Undercut Detail, included
at the end of this report.
Total settlements of new shallow foundations constructed as detailed herein are not expected to exceed
about 2.5 cm (1 inch). Differential settlements between similarly loaded and supported footings are not
expected to exceed about half this value. However, we note that the differential settlement between
adjacent existing and new footings may be equal to the total settlement.
Column and wall footings should be at least 750 mm (30 inches) and 610 mm (24 inches) wide,
respectively, for shear considerations. Where bearing grades between adjacent footings vary, the slope
between the bottom edges of adjacent footings should not be steeper than 45 degrees (1H:1V). New

Project 19C23011
footings should be constructed outside the zone of influence of existing building walls and foundations or
existing utilities and other site features so as not to induce load on or undermine the existing structures
and utilities. The zone of influence is defined as a 45 degree (1H:1V) plane projecting downward from the
bottom edge of the structure, utility, or feature with highest bearing grade. Footings may be designed
using a friction coefficient of 0.45.
Finished site grades should be set to permit positive drainage of surface water away from buildings.
Actual foundation subgrades and undercutting should be observed in the field by a qualified geotechnical
engineer or other qualified individual.

Project 19C23011
FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
For both the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites, proposed floor slabs should be supported on suitable natural
soils or new compacted fill. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 50 kPa/mm (185 pci) should be used in
design of floor slabs.
A 100 mm (4 inch) crushed stone or washed gravel capillary barrier should underlie floor slabs on grade.
The material should consist of an open graded crushed stone such as AASHTO No. 57 stone (GP per
ASTM D2487). The Contractor should compact the stone in place using suitable compaction equipment.
A minimum 10-mil thick impermeable plastic membrane should be placed over the underslab stone layer
to serve as a vapor barrier and to prevent infiltration of concrete into the crushed stone during concrete
placement.
Soft, loose, or high plasticity soils or the existing fill soils of Stratum A observed at floor slab subgrade
should be undercut to a minimum depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) or in their entirety, whichever is less. Undercut
floor slab subgrades should be backfilled with compacted fill or crushed stone.
The Contractor should compact floor slab subgrades to repair any disturbance that may occur due to
construction operations before placing capillary barrier materials. Since floors will be slab-on-grade,
footing and utility excavations should be backfilled with compacted fill as defined in the Site Grading and
Earthwork section of this report. Final floor slab subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of
a geotechnical engineer or other qualified individual immediately prior to placing concrete.

Project 19C23011
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
While we are not aware of specific locations or details at the writing of this report, braced walls, site
retaining walls, and underground tanks present at the Mod #006 and Mod #008 sites should be designed
to resist lateral earth pressures developed from the surrounding soil, backfill, and surcharge loads. Earth
pressures should be calculated based on a moist unit weight of 18.9 kN/m3 (120 pcf). Active and passive
earth pressure coefficients should be used for site retaining wall design, whereas an at-rest earth
pressure coefficient should be used for braced below-grade wall design. The table below includes the
recommended earth pressure coefficients. The values in this table were developed assuming level
conditions on each face of the walls.
Table 4: Earth Pressure Coefficients for Below Grade Walls and Site Retaining Walls
Active Earth Pressure At Rest Earth Pressure Passive Earth Pressure

Backfill Slope
or Toe Slope Dynamic, Dynamic, Dynamic,
Conditions Static, Ka Static, Ko Static, Kp
ΔKae ΔKoe ΔKpe
Level 0.283 0.057 0.441 0.149 3.537 -0.191
In addition to lateral earth pressures from backfill and surrounding soils, braced and site retaining walls
should also be designed to resist surcharge loads within the area defined by a 45-degree slope from the
bottom of the walls. Lateral earth pressures from surcharge loads can be estimated with a uniform lateral
pressure equal to the lateral earth pressure coefficient times the vertical surcharge pressure as shown in
Figures 5 and 6. If any backfill is placed adjacent to walls, the material should meet the specifications and
compaction requirements for compacted fill. Wall footings founded on new compacted fill or natural soils of
Stratum B may be designed using a friction coefficient of 0.45.
Using the Mononobe-Okabe equation for level backfill conditions we recommend design seismic loading
against unrestrained retaining walls based on the dynamic active and dynamic passive earth pressure
coefficients provided in the table above, ∆Kae and ∆Kpe, respectively. A design seismic coefficient, kh of
0.099g, which is equivalent to one-half of the peak horizontal acceleration of 0.198g is recommended in
the unrestrained retaining wall design. We recommend a design seismic loading against below-grade
and non-yielding walls based on the dynamic at-rest earth pressure coefficient, ∆Koe. This value is based
on the full peak ground acceleration of 0.198g. The resultant force of the seismic earth pressure stress
distribution should be considered at a height equal to 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is the
height of the retained soil above the wall base in the active and at-rest cases, and at a height of 1/3D
above the base of the wall, where D is the toe embedment in the passive case. If a load distribution is
required for structural design, the equivalent linear load distribution may be considered. Figures 5 and 6
illustrate lateral pressures for use in design of the below-grade walls and site retaining walls, respectively.
The lateral loads on below-grade and site retaining walls should consider the static earth pressures and
the seismic earth pressures as separate design conditions. The earthquake loads should be considered
additive to the static earth pressures.
Drainage should be provided behind braced walls and retaining walls to reduce the possibility of
hydrostatic pressures acting on the walls as shown on Figures 6 and 7.

Project 19C23011
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 General Pavement Concerns
While many details of the proposed pavement areas, including proposed grades, were not developed and
available to us at the writing of this report, we understand that new aircraft parking aprons and taxiways
and related facilities will be constructed as a part of Mod#006. We further understand that some existing
pavements may be reused and incorporated into the proposed development. As previously noted, we
were not on site to directly observe the subsurface exploration due to travel restrictions related to the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, we were also not able to directly observe the condition of the
existing pavements and comment on the potential suitability for reuse and/or recommendation for
rehabilitation.
We have assumed that the pavements will be supported on either the existing fill or natural soils of
Stratum A or B that pass a proofroll or on new compacted fill. Pavement section subgrades should be
prepared in accordance with the Site Grading and Earthwork section of this report.
Dense-graded aggregate placed as pavement subbase course should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the maximum dry density for rigid concrete pavements and 100 percent of the maximum dry
density for flexible asphalt pavements according to ASTM D1557 modified Proctor. Dense-graded
aggregate should be placed in maximum 150 mm (6 inch) thick loose lifts.
Based on the anticipated subgrade soils within the depth of influence beneath the pavement sections, we
recommend a design CBR of 20 for flexible pavement sections constructed on suitable subgrades that
pass a proofroll or new compacted fill placed in accordance with the project specifications and
recommendations herein. We converted this CBR value to a k-value based on correlations and our
experience with these types of soils. We recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 68 kPa/mm
(250 pci) for the design of rigid concrete pavements constructed on suitable subgrades that pass a
proofroll or new compacted fill placed in accordance with the project specifications and recommendations
herein. Note that representative samples of the soils at pavement subgrade should be obtained during
construction for CBR testing to verify that the actual CBR value meets or exceeds the design value.
Final pavement subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of a geotechnical engineer or
other qualified individual immediately prior to placing subbase aggregate to evaluate their suitability to
support the pavement section, as detailed in the Site Grading and Earthwork section of this report.
Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of
the pavement design. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away
from paved areas. The Civil Engineer should evaluate the need for pavement underdrains. We
understand that a drainage layer will not be required beneath the new pavements.

Project 19C23011
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
13.1 Site Grading and Earthwork
Traffic on stripped or undercut subgrades should be limited to reduce disturbance of underlying soils.
Also, using lightweight, track-mounted dozer equipment for stripping will limit the disturbance of
underlying soils, and may reduce the undercut volume needed. The Contractor should provide site
drainage to maintain subgrades free of water and to avoid saturation and disturbance of the subgrade
soils before placing compacted structural fill, pavement subbase course, or moisture barrier material.
This will be important during all phases of the construction work. The Contractor should be responsible
for reworking of subgrades and compacted structural fill that were initially considered suitable but were
later disturbed by equipment and/or weather.
Some of the on-site soils are susceptible to moisture changes, will be easily disturbed, and will be difficult
to compact under wet weather conditions. Similarly, significant wetting may be necessary to maintain
compacted fill moisture contents at or near optimum moisture during hotter and drier periods. The
Contractor may need crushed stone and stabilization geotextile working platforms to provide a base on
which to place compacted structural fill. Earthwork planning and moisture control will be important to the
overall success of site grading and earthwork operations.
13.2 Spread Footings
Footing subgrades should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to evaluate whether the soils
are suitable for the recommended bearing pressures and to verify that subgrades have not become
excessively disturbed. Footings should be concreted the same day the excavations are completed to
reduce disturbance of footing subgrades by exposure to weather conditions and construction operations.
Any disturbed subgrade soils should be removed prior to concreting footings. As an alternative to
concreting footings the same day, a mud slab may be poured on the approved subgrades to protect
subgrade surfaces from damage before concreting.
Forming of footings may be used if necessary. However, less subgrade disturbance will occur if footings
are poured directly against the soil. Therefore, we recommend that forming of footings be avoided where
possible. If forms are used, they should be removed and the excavations backfilled as soon as possible.
Water should not be permitted to pond around footing excavations.
13.3 Floor Slabs and Pavement Subgrades
Floor slab and pavement subgrades should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or other qualified
representative prior to the placement of the granular subbase course or other pavement-related materials.
Proofrolling with a loaded 9,100 kg (10-ton) dump truck or other suitable weight rubber-tired construction
equipment should be performed where possible. In areas where it will not be feasible to use suitable
weight construction equipment for proofrolling, other methods will be required to evaluate the suitability of
subgrade soils. Other methods include the use of a dynamic cone penetrometer, geostick penetrometer,
etc. A qualified geotechnical engineer should decide which equipment is best for evaluating subgrade
soils on the site during construction. All loose materials should be removed and the excavated surface
observed to evaluate if additional excavation is necessary. Where the subgrade is unsuitable or where

Project 19C23011
soils have been disturbed due to inclement weather or construction activity, the disturbed or unsuitable
materials should be removed and replaced with compacted fill as detailed herein.
Construction loading conditions on pavements are typically more severe than the design conditions.
Also, construction loads are typically placed on partially constructed pavement sections. These two
factors often contribute to subgrade and pavement failures. Consideration should be given to limiting
construction traffic on partially constructed pavements, or increasing the thickness of the granular
subbase and/or asphalt concrete base course to account for the construction loads and traffic.
13.4 Construction Materials
Materials proposed for use in geotechnical-related construction including soil, cement, asphalt, and
aggregates should meet the relevant requirements of the UFGS specification sections and the
requirements detailed on the design drawings. Additionally, the cement type selected for concrete that
may be in contact with soil should be selected with consideration for the recommendations provided in the
Corrosion Considerations section. The asphalt binder selected for pavement section construction should
be selected with consideration for the anticipated traffic loads. The aggregate base course planned for
support of pavement sections should be selected and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations included in the Pavement Recommendations section. Aggregates should meet or
exceed the durability requirements from the UFGS specifications.
13.5 Geotechnical Observations During Construction
The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from our
recent subsurface exploration by GIICO. However, conditions on site may vary between the discrete
locations observed at the time of the subsurface exploration. Therefore, there is a possibility that
variations in subsurface conditions will be encountered during construction. To permit correlation
between the subsurface exploration data and actual subsurface conditions, a geotechnical engineer
and/or other qualified representative must provide observations during construction as recommended
herein. Construction services should include observation of foundation bearing materials; evaluation of
the suitability of subgrade materials for support of new fills, as well as floor slabs and pavements;
evaluation of compacted fill, backfill, and asphalt/concrete placement and/or compaction; and consultation
on matters related to foundations and earthwork. Schnabel should be informed when unexpected site
conditions are encountered which might require modification of our geotechnical engineering design
recommendations.

Project 19C23011
14.0 LIMITATIONS
We based the analyses and recommendations presented in this report on the information revealed by our
exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that
unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.
This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.
It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on
the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or
grades should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would
appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations
contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.
An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to
construct earthwork, pavements, and foundations as recommended in this report. Additional costs may
be incurred for a variety of reasons including variation of soil between test locations, excavation of
existing fill or loose/soft/high plasticity soils, difficulty in acquiring suitable fill material, moisture
conditioning of on-site soils, obstructions, temporary dewatering, subgrade stabilization, etc.
We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality
and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or
intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of
service.

Project 19C23011
GULF INSPECTION INTERNATIONAL CO., (ksc)
Ph: +965-24735121, 24748859 Fax: 24733045 E-MAIL: soilwell@qualitynet.net
Subhan Industrial Area; Block-6, Street-61, Plot-57
PLATE LOADING TEST (ASTM D1194)
DATE OF TEST : 24/Apr/2017
TEST NO. : P-34 JOB REF. No.: 2016 02 070
ELEVATION (m) : SET OF PLATES USED (m) : 0.30
LOCATION Al-Jaber Air Base - Kuwait TEST SOIL CONDITION : Dry
SETTLEMENT READINGS (Dial Divisions) X 0.01mm MEAN OF
PROVING LOAD PRESSURE GAUGE -1 GAUGE -2 GAUGE -3 FINAL
RING TIME (min) TIME (min) TIME (min) SETTLEMENT
2
DIV. Ton kN/m 1 4 9 15 Corr. 1 4 9 15 Corr. 1 4 9 15 Corr. mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
1.0 139 21 23 25 26 26 48 49 51 53 53 13 15 18 19 19 0.33
2.0 277 35 38 42 44 44 87 90 94 97 97 26 29 31 33 33 0.58
3.0 416 121 129 136 139 139 166 173 180 182 182 85 86 93 95 95 1.39
5.0 694 228 256 288 295 295 235 308 329 337 337 160 187 201 207 207 2.80
7.0 971 486 491 493 496 496 495 540 578 585 585 320 324 327 331 331 4.71
5.0 694 450 450 450 450 450 453 453 453 453 453 289 289 289 289 289 3.97
3.0 416 382 382 382 382 382 386 386 386 386 386 202 202 202 202 202 3.23
2.0 277 361 361 361 361 361 349 349 349 349 349 187 187 187 187 187 2.99
1.0 139 308 308 308 308 308 297 297 297 297 297 175 175 175 175 175 2.60
0.0 0 270 270 270 270 270 259 259 259 259 259 147 147 147 147 147 2.25
Tested by : Reviewed by :
Waqas
Field Technician Geotechnical Engineer
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Works for Nasser Ramp, Al-Jaber Air Base
CLIENT : OHA Engineering Consultants Page: 1 of 4
W912ER23C0003
Subhan Industrial Area; Block-6, Street-61, Plot-57
PLATE LOADING TEST (ASTM D1194)
DATE OF TEST : 24/Apr/2017
TEST NO. : P-34 JOB REF. No.: 2016 02 070
ELEVATION (m) : SET OF PLATES USED (m) : 0.30
STRESS (kN / m2)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0.0
0.5
1.0
SETTLEMENT (mm)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Tested by : Reviewed by:
Field Technician Geotechnical Engineer
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Works for Nasser Ramp, Al-Jaber Air Base
W912ER23C0003
Case:A - Estimation of allowable bearing capacity from SETTLEMENT consideration:
TEST NO. : P-34 LOCATION: Al-Jaber Air Base - Kuwait
ELEVATION (m) : : 0.00 JOB REF. No.: 2016 02 070
Sf = Sp [ B (bp + 0.3) / bp (B+0.3) ] 2 Modulus of subgrade reaction for Plate:(kN/m3)

Where K1= 234129
Sf = Permissible settlement of foundation (mm) For different Foundation sizes Ks = K1((B+0.3)/2B))2
Sp = Settlement of Plate (mm) For B=1 B=3 B=10 B=30 B=40
bp = Plate Load diameter (m) 98919 70824 62097 59709 59413
B= foundation width (m)
for Sf = 25mm, bp = 0.30m, B =1.0m,3.0m, & 5.0m

For ex. 25 = Sp [ 1.0 (0.3 + 0.3) / 0.3 (1.0 + 0.3)]2
For B=1m For B=3m For B=5m
Sp(mm) = 15.21 10.89 10.11
Maximum pressure reached without failure (or)

Pressure corresponding to Sp from Graph= 9 9 9 Kg/cm2
(Estimated allowable bearing capacity for settlement of foundation less than 25mm)
PROJECT : Geotechnical Investigation Works for Nasser Ramp, Al-Jaber Air Base
W912ER23C0003
Case:B - Estimation of Ultimate load capacity from SHEAR FAILURE consideration:
TEST NO. : P-34 LOCATION: Al-Jaber Air Base - Kuwait
ELEVATION (m) : : 0.00 JOB REF. No.: 2016 02 070
qu(f) = qu(p) . [B/bp]

Where
qu(f) = Ultimate bearing capacity of proposed foundation
qu(p)= Ultimate bearing capacity of test plate
bp = Plate Load diameter (m)
B= foundation width (m)
In this load test, qu(p) in kg/cm2 = 9
(Since the maximum pressure reached without failure was 925 kPa (9 kg/cm2), the ultimate
bearing capacity of plate is taken as 9 kg/cm2)
For ex. bp = 0.45m, B =1.0m,3.0m, & 5.0m
Ultimate bearing capacity of foundation, For B=1m For B=3m For B=5m
qu(f) in kg/cm2 = 21 63 105
Summary: For B=1m For B=3m For B=5m

Estimtd. Ultimate bearing capacity based on shear failure (in kg/cm2): 21 63 105
Estimtd. Allowable bearing capacity from settlement criteria (in kg/cm2): 9 9 9
Note: - The designer is expected to be aware of the limitations of plate load tests and
the above equations. Especially, the results are to be used with caution for large foundation sizes.
-Hence, the analysis and use of the above test results is left to the discretion of the designer
Recommended Net Allowable BC (kg/cm2): For B=1m For B=3m For B=5m
for 25mm permissible settlement 3 3 3
Checked by :
Geotechnical Engineer
PROJECT : Geotechnical Investigation Works for Nasser Ramp, Al-Jaber Air Base
W912ER23C0003

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F-18 Super Hornet Program Site Studies, Modifications #06 and #08

Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 3

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 4

3.1 Existing Site Conditions

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGICAL/HYDROGEOLOGICAL INFORMATION ............................... 6

4.1 Regional Geology

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 7

5.1 Test Borings

LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................... 9

6.1 Index Testing

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 10

7.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

March 11, 2021 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC

SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK ........................................................................................... 15

8.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 18

9.1 Spread Footings

FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 20

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES .................................................................................................. 21

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 22

12.1 General Pavement Concerns

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 23

13.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

14.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data

March 11, 2021 Page ii Schnabel Engineering, LLC

March 11, 2021 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

March 11, 2021 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

March 11, 2021 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.1 Existing Site Conditions

3.2 Proposed Construction

March 11, 2021 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

March 11, 2021 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGICAL/HYDROGEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

4.1 Regional Geology

A Geologic Map is included as Figure 2.

4.2 Hydrological and Hydrogeological Information

March 11, 2021 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

5.1 Test Borings

5.2 Test Pits

5.3 Soil Resistivity Testing

March 11, 2021 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

5.4 Thermal Conductivity Testing

March 11, 2021 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

6.1 Index Testing

6.2 Compaction and CBR Testing

6.3 Direct Shear Testing

6.4 Chemical Analysis/Gypsiferous Testing

6.5 Organic Content Testing

6.6 Thermal Conductivity Testing

March 11, 2021 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

7.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

7.1.1 Ground Cover

7.1.2 Stratum A: Existing Fill

7.1.3 Stratum B: Aeolian Sands

March 11, 2021 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 1: Compaction and CBR Test Results