H

SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

Project
Construction of the 9 Classes Primary School Project

Location
Jabr Al-Wadi village
Al-Ahrar district
Al-Kut city
Wasit Governorate

Date: June 2022

 H

Soil Investigation Report

For
Construction of the 9 Classes Primary School Project
Al-Ahrar district/Jabr Al-Wadi village
Wasit Governorate/Al-Kut city
3May 202
 ‫‪H‬‬

‫تقرير تحريات التربة الخاص‬

‫بـمشروع أنشاء أبتدائية سعة ‪ 9‬صف‬

‫محافظة واسط ‪ /‬مدينة الكوت‬

‫قضاء االحرار‪ -‬قرية جبر الوادي‬
‫أيار ‪0202‬‬
 H

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Authorization and Scope.
1.2 Site Location, Description and Boreholes
Chosen.

2. FIELD INVESTIGATION
2.1 Boring and Method of Drilling.
2.2 Recovery of Samples.
2.2.1 Undisturbed Samples.
2.2.2 Disturbed Samples.
2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
3. LABORATORY TESTS
3.1 Types of Testing.
4. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF TEST RESULTS
5. Allowable Bearing Capacity
6. SUBSOIL STRATIFICATION
5.1 Soil Profile Description.
5.2 Underground Water Level.
 H

7. SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC EVALUATION

8. SUMMARY,RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRECAUTIONS
9 REFFRENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Borehole logs.
Appendix B Test Results.
 H

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Cc Compression index
Cs Swelling index
Cu Un-drained cohesion
Cv Coefficient of consolidation
DS Disturbed Sample
Eo Initial void ratio
Gs Specific Gravity
LL Liquid limit
Mv Coefficient of volume change
N.P Non-Plastic
OCR Over consolidation ratio
PI Plasticity index
PL Plastic limit
Qu Unconfined Compressive Strength
SPT Standard Penetration test
S.S Standard Penetration test Samples
US Undisturbed Samples
UU Unconsolidated un-drained triaxial test
Po Effective overburden pressure
Pc Pre-consolidation stress
Ø Angle of internal friction
Wc Natural moisture content
t Total unit weight
wet Wet Unit Weight
dry Dry unit weight
Org. Organic Matters Content
%
TSS % Total Soluble Salts
SO3 Sulphate Content
%
Gyp. Gypsum Content
%
Cl Chloride content
Z Seismic zone factor
Ca,Cv Seismic Coefficient
Na,Nv Near surface factor
I,Iw,Ip Seismic Importance
SD,Se Soil profile
I
 H

1. Introduction
1.1 Authorization and Scope
The soil investigation for this project has been done by Engineering Consultancy
Bureau / Iraqi Engineers Union.

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the subsoil conditions of the
Construction of Construction of the 9 Classes Primary School Project Jabr Al-
Wadi village/Al-Ahrar district Al-Kut city /Wasit Governorate. Hence lay down
certain recommendations regarding the behavior of the soil and engineering
properties with respect to the proposed system of foundation for the structure.

The assignment was taken during May/2023. The soil exploration described in
this report consists of drilling of boreholes and field investigation, securing
representative samples, laboratory testing of these samples, subsoil
stratification, analyzing and evaluating the soil conditions with the tests results
and recommendations.

The following points are addressed by this report in order to:

 Examine the ground and ground water conditions.

 Determine the suitable limitations for design of suggested foundation.
 Estimate the suitable types of foundations for suggested structure and
suggested bearing capacity of each type.
 Estimate earthquake design parameters.
 Recognize additional requirement for design durability of structure depend
on chemical results.
1.2 Site Location, Description and Boreholes Chosen
The site is located at Wasit Governorate. It is located on Al-Kut city /Al-Ahrar
district/ Jabr Al-Wadi village. It is proposed to construct a one floor school
 H

building project. The site location has been at Plate 1. The region has a flat area
that has covered with some grasses as shown in Plate 2

The number and depth of the boreholes was set-up by the client. The report
involves the subsurface conditions by drilling three (3) boreholes of 15.0 m
depth to give the total depth of boring (45 m). The depth for each borehole is
shown in Table (1) below.

Table (1) Boreholes Number and Depth

BH.NO Depth(m)
1,2 &3 15.0
Total Boreholes No. = 3 -Total Depth of Boring =45 m

0. Field Investigation
2.1 Boring and Method of Drilling
The boring equipment used to carrying out the field investigation were a rotary
drilling machine which uses a flying auger and the rotary drilling with the use of core
barrel for continues coring and thin wall tube samplers. The drilling rig used is (Han
Jin) type which is a power driven machine. The method of drilling was performed
according to the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM-
D5783).

2.2 Recovery of samples

The drilling was executed using wash boring method, undisturbed and disturbed
samples were obtained at various intervals from boreholes.

2.2.1 Undisturbed Samples:

Undisturbed Samples (U.S) (Shelby tubes), was obtained because of soil layers
mainly consists of Silt and Clay layers. Undisturbed samples are used to determine
 H

the strength and compressibility characteristics of soil, permeability, density and

dynamic properties.

Plate 1 Site Location

2.2.2 Disturbed Samples:

Disturbed Samples (D.S) were collected at different depths along the boring depth
from the cutting of auger at any depth. The samples that were secured by the
standard split spoon samplers used in the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) were
also use as disturbed samples, which were performed for each test boring at
different intervals depending on the stratification of the soil. All samples were put
 H

in labeled nylon bags and sent to the laboratory for further examination and
testing. Disturbed samples are used for classification tests such as (visual
classification, grain size analysis and Atterberg limits) and physical tests such as
(specific gravity and unit weight) and compaction characteristics of soil. Table 2
shows the summary for sample type & test details for each one.
Table (2) Types of sample and tests

Type of sample Execution method Tests

Disturbed sample Helical auger Consistency, grain size
DS distribution, chemical
Analysis, specific gravity.
Undisturbed sample Shelby Tube Strength tests,
US Consolidation tests, density
Undisturbed sample Split Spoon Consistency tests, grain
SS size ,chemical tests,
0

2-3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test is currently the most popular and economical
means to obtain subsurface information, used to carrying out the field
investigation were a flying auger and rotary drilling machine which used by the
eroding action of drilling fluid (water), the side collapse of the boreholes wall did
not occur and no casing was used for advancing boreholes. The tests steps are:

1. Driving the standard split – barrel sampler a distance of 460 mm (18 in) into
the soil at the bottom of boring .
2. Counting the number of blows to drive the 2-inch (50.8mm) diameter
standard split spoon sampler tube last 305 mm (12 in) to obtain the N number.
3. Using a 63.5 kg ( 140 Ib) driving mass falling free from a height of 760 mm
(30 in).
 H

Plate 0 Site Topography

 H

The sampler was driven a distance of 150 mm to seat it on undisturbed soil with
a blow count recorded .The blow count for each of the next two 150 mm
increments was used as penetration count unless the last increments cannot be
completed ( either for encountering rock or because the blow count exceed 100)
. In case of the blow count for the last 305 mm is computed and used for N.

In the course of drilling work, the consistency of the soil was measured at
several depths by Standard Penetration Test (SPT) which conducted according to
(ASTM-D 1586). The test was performed in all types of soil especially in sandy
layers. Terzaghi and Peck (1967) correlated the (SPT) value with the relative
density and angle of internal friction of granular soil, consistency and
unconfined strength of cohesive soil, these correlations can be listed in Table 3
& 4. Plate 3 shows the drilling of boreholes and SPT tests.
Table (3) Relation between N-values, Relative Density, and Angle of Internal
Friction in Sand

N-value Relative Density Angle of Internal Friction, Ø°

0-5 Very Loose 26-30
5-10 Loose 28-35
10-30 Medium 35-42
30-50 Dense 38-45
Over 50 Very Dense > 45

Table (4) Relation between N-values, Consistency, and Unconfined Strength in Clay

N-value Consistency Unconfined Compression

Strength (qu), kN/m2
0-2 Very Soft 0-25
2-4 Soft 25-50
4-8 Medium 50-100
8-16 Stiff 100-200
16-30 Very Stiff 200-400
>30 Hard >400
 H

Plate 3 SPT test and drilling of boreholes

 H

3-LABORATORY TESTING
3-1 Types of Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on most disturbed and undisturbed samples
were delivered to the laboratory. A laboratory testing program was conducted to
classify soil and to evaluate the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of
the sub-surface soil. The scope of the laboratory testing program is summarized in
Table (5).

Table (5) Summary of Laboratory Tests

CLASSIFICATION TESTS TESTING STANDARD
Visual Classification ASTM D-2488
Liquid & Plastic Limits (Atterberg Limits) ASTM D-4318
Grain Size Analysis (Sieve & ASTM D-422
Hydrometer)
PHYSICAL TESTS TESTING STANDARD
Natural Water Content ASTM D-2216
Specific Gravity ASTM D-854
Unit Weight ASTM D-2216

SHEAR STRENGHT TESTS TESTING STANDARD

Unconfined Compression ASTM D-2166

COPMRESSIBILITY TESTS TESTING STANDARD

One-Dimensional Consolidation ASTM D-2435

CHEMICAL TESTS TESTING STANDARD

Sulfate (SO3) Content (%) BS 1377: 1990 Part 3
Organic Matters Content (%) BS 1377: 1990 Part 3
Gypsum Content (%) BS 1377: 1990 Part 3
Total Soluble (TTS) Content (%) BS 1377: 1990 Part 3
Chloride (Cl-1) Content (%) BS 1377: 1990 Part 3

All the tests were conducted according to the current standards of the American
society for testing and materials (ASTM), mentioned against each test.
 H

4- TESTS RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The following Laboratory tests were conducted for each specimens obtained
from boreholes. From the test results the following conclusions can be drawn:

4.1 The visual classification and grain size analysis results indicate that the soil
ranged in classification and composed of different soil layers, can be merged
as a one layer as below;

 Stratum 1: (0.0-15.0) m: The most specimens classified as: brown to grayish

brown and dark brown, low to high plasticity sandy lean to fat CLAY (CL & CH)
according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). In addition some salt and
organic matters have been appeared.
4.2 Atterberg limits: Atterberg limits results of the soil layers indicated that
the soils are ranged between low to high plasticity material for all stratums and
the values of liquid limits L.L. are ranged between (38.31-67.93) percent and the
values of plastic limits are ranged between (18.0-26.0) percent, while the values
of the plasticity indexes are ranged between (15.66- 42.71 percent).

4.3 Water Content: The value of water contents of soil samples which
obtained from borehole. It shows that the water content approximately have
been ranged from 19.81-36.12 % for specimens due to nature consistency of
specimens, the location of water table & the drilling method.

4.4 Chemical Test: The purpose of performing chemical tests for foundation
soils is to provide enough data required assessing the degree of corrosion that
would attack the concrete or steel of reinforcements, consequently to assign the
suitable control and precaution for the used concrete. However, the
interpretation of these data will be used to select the suitable cement type to be
used in the foundation, and choosing the necessary isolation and protection
where ever is needed.
 H

Table (6) Summary of soil classification and Index properties for boreholes
Soil Classification & Identification
Atterberg Limits Sieve and Hydrometer
Wn,
Depth
B.H.

(m)

% silt
No.

% USCS
LL PL PI % Gravel % Sand &
clay
1.5 56.75 22.22 34.53 CH 0.00 8.45 91.55

3.0 21.52 44.06 20.74 23.32 CL 0.00 12.22 87.78

4.5 27.40 50.62 21.90 28.72 CH 0.00 10.20 89.80

6.0 23.83 54.37 24.34 30.03 CH 0.00 10.90 89.10

7.5 50.39 24.09 26.30 CH 0.00 13.65 86.35

1

9.0 31.31 41.12 24.11 17.01 CL 0.17 7.16 92.67

10.5 28.86 52.63 23.90 28.73 CH 0.00 8.10 91.90

12.5 65.19 25.96 39.23 CH 0.00 7.12 92.88

15.0 31.96 67.93 25.22 42.71 CH 0.00 7.09 92.91

1.5 53.24 24.97 28.26 CH 0.00 7.79 92.21

3.0 28.71 50.38 20.72 29.66 CH 0.00 7.14 92.86

4.5 23.50 38.31 22.64 15.66 CL 0.00 5.55 94.45

6.0 19.81 41.05 19.66 21.39 CL 0.00 15.16 84.84

7.5 55.45 20.36 35.08 CH 0.00 10.23 89.77

2

9.0 24.97 59.36 23.94 35.42 CH 0.00 10.98 89.02

10.5 25.87 45.33 25.42 19.91 CL 0.00 12.66 87.34

12.5 36.12 40.56 23.43 17.14 CL 0.00 13.89 86.11

15.0 28.58 41.44 24.97 16.47 CL 0.00 16.52 83.48

 H

Table (6) Summary of soil classification and Index properties for boreholes
Soil Classification & Identification
Atterberg Limits Sieve and Hydrometer
Wn,
Depth
B.H.

(m)

% silt
No.

% USCS
LL PL PI % Gravel % Sand &
clay
1.5 46.89 21.34 25.55 CL 0.00 6.18 93.82

3.0 20.98 40.76 24.92 15.84 CL 0.00 9.65 83.48

4.5 43.23 21.03 22.20 CL 0.00 19.16 80.84

6.0 48.68 25.86 22.81 CL 0.00 6.30 93.70

7.5 28.73 45.93 18.00 27.93 CL 0.00 21.35 78.65

3

9.0 45.13 21.61 23.52 CL 0.00 18.96 83.48

10.5 31.43 52.48 23.20 29.27 CH 0.00 6.14 83.48

12.5 28.71 54.68 19.54 35.15 CH 0.00 6.03 93.97

15.0 28.87 60.61 22.56 38.06 CH 0.00 6.54 93.46

The results of chemical tests (Chloride content, Total & Soluble Sulfate Contents,
pH value & Total Dissolved Salts illustrated in Table (7) Also can summarize as
below:

 The total sulfate contents shows high (4326-7321) concentration where the soil
classified as class 2-5 according sulfate content necessary precautions will be
required for concrete (> 0.2 %).
 The organic matter content shows high value (1.64-2364) %. (Max. 0.50 %).
 The pH slightly alkaline environments (normal 6-8).
 H

Table (7) Summary of chemical Tests

BH. No. Depth,(m) O.M SO3,% pH
2 5.4 9.53 4..5 9.3
9.4 2.23 9..4 9.7
225. 2.42 2.33 7..
2 9.. 1.62 1.37 8.1
5.4 1.49 2.29 8.0
4.. 1.74 1.52 7.2
22.4 1.50 1.36 7..
9 2.4 2.32 2.55 8.1
4.. 2.42 2.57 8.2
3.. 2.42 2.49 8.0
24.. 2.92 2.4. 8.2

4.5 Soil Compressibility: The One-Dimensional consolidation tests can be done

for this type of soil, the settlement analysis can be found depending on the test
results of the soil and the correlations of soil mechanics. the summary of test results
are summarized in Table 8.The values of the initial void ratio (eo) are about (0.632-
891) %, the values of the compression index (CC) is (0.737-0.242) % and swelling
index (Cr) is (0.027 -0.104). Regarding to consolidation tests results, the stratum
from (0-4.0) m is over-consolidated layer with OCR value more than 2.0 at 6.0m
deep. The soil layers according compression properties are slightly to Moderately
Compressible materials (Cc/ (1+eo) is range between (0.1-0.2) for normally
consolidated layer and (Cr/ (1+eo) is range between (0.01-0.04) for over-
consolidated layer.

Table (8) Results of Consolidation Tests

Depth PC Pz
B.H. NO eo Cc Cr OCR
(m) KN/m2 KN/m2
2 9.. ..434 27. ..24. ...29 4. 3.64
4.. ..492 27. ..299 ...4. 3. 2.00
2 4.. ..732 22. ..252 ..2.5 3. 1.22
 H

4.6 Shear Strength Parameters: unconfined compression test was done on

undisturbed samples the summary of test results are summarized in Table (9). It can
be seen that the unconfined Compressive Strength (C) for samples have been
ranged about 54.33-97.997 KPa so that the consistency is stiff for tested samples.

Table (9) Results of Unconfined Compression Tests

B.H. Depth Ultimate bearing Unconfined Compressive Consistency of
NO (m) Capacity qU Strength sample
KN/m2 C, KN/m2

1 3.0 195.99 97.997 Stiff

2 4.5 108.65 54.33 Stiff

4.7 Standard Penetration Test: The results of Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
indicated that the values of number of blows are 8- 22 blows for all samples. The
measured value of SPT (N-value) can be corrected for field condition and for
overburden pressure using the relationship by Skemptom 1986 as follows:

Where:

N60= Corrected value of SPT for field procedure.

Em= Hammer efficiency

CB= Borehole Diameter correction.

CS = Sampler Correction.

CR= Rod length Correction.

N= measured SPT N value.

 H

( ) √

Where:

N1(60) : corrected value for filed procedure and overburden stresses.

N 60: SPT N value corrected for filed procedure.

: Vertical effective stress at the test location.

The modified value of SPT can be adopted in bearing capacity calculations and
settlement analysis.

The Summary of SPT, N is listed in Table 10. In addition to N corrected depending on

the above relations. Also Plate (3) shows the variation of Navg , Ncorr for each layer
with depth.

Table (10) Summary of SPT value and corrected adopted values

Depth (m) Borehole Number NAvg Ncorrected
1 2 3
1.5 - - - - -
3 11 8 9.5 5.94
4.5 16 16.0 10.00
6 19 14 16.5 10.31
7.5 14 14.0 8.75
9 11 14 12.5 7.81
10.5 16 16 18 16.7 10.42
12.5 17 15 16.0 10.00
15 19 21 22 20.7 12.92
End of Boring
 H

SPT, N
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
Navg Ncorr

6
Depth ( m)

12

15
Plate (5) shows the variation of Navg and Ncorr for each layer with depth

5. Allowable Bearing Capacity

It is important to mention that the allowable bearing capacity of the soil
depends on the proposed foundation type. Consequently, there are changeable
and different values for bearing capacity when the type of proposed foundation
to use is changed. However, depending on the SPT and the soil Lab results, the
following bearing capacities are recommended with depth:
 H

5.1. Allowable Bearing Capacity for shallow foundations

Regarding to the site tests (SPT) and the Lab tests, the shear strength parameter is
adopting to evaluate the allowable Bearing Capacity (BC) for shallow foundations
using Terzaghi formula and the modification suggested by Meyerhof (1963) with
factor of safety equals (2.5). Before using the equations for calculation of
allowable Bearing Capacity (BC), the measured SPT-N values should be corrected
to account for different factors such as overburden vertical stress and driving
energy ratio. Since there is no available data regarding the driving energy and
efficiency, the ratio is assumed as 60% .this assumption reduces the measured
values by about 40% and makes the calculations on safe side.

Terzaghi equations and the modification suggested by Meyerhof (1963) for the
ultimate Bearing Capacity (BC) for shallow foundations:

qult= C Nc +q Nq +0.5BγNγ continuous footing 1

qult= 1.3CNc +q Nq +0.4γBNγ square footing 2

qult= 1.3CNc +q Nq +0.3γBNγ round footing 3

qult= C Nc Sc dc +q Nq Sq dq +0.5γ B Nγ Sγ dγ Meyerhof 4

where Nc ,Nq, N γ Bearing capacity factor

Sc, Sq ,S γ Shape factors

dc , dq , d γ Depth factors

Sc =1 + Nq b / Nc L 5

Sq= 1 + B/L tanø 6

Sγ=1 - 0.4 B/L 7

 H

dc= 1 + 0.4 Dƒ/B 8

dq= 1 + tanø(1-sinø)²D/B 9

The following equations for isolated footing constructed in sandy soil

qs = 20 N Rw2 Fd KN/m2 for B < 1.2m

qs = qs = 12.5 N ( B / B +0.3 )2 Rw2 Kd KN/m2 for B > 1.2 m

10
Rw2 = Water table correction factor.

Rw2 = 0.5 ( 1 + Dw2 /B )

The other empirical relation for allowable bearing capacity in

cohesion less soil with a variation of B can be expressed in KN/m2
as follows :

qa( net ) = 10.5 N B for B< 1.0 m and settlement 25 mm

qa( net ) = 10.5 N for B> 1.0 m and settlement 25 mm

qa( net ) = 0.42 N ( approx.) for B > 1.0 m and settlement 1

mm

For Raft Foundation:

qa = ( N / 0.08 )kd 1

Kd = 1 + ( 0.333* (D/B) ≤ 1.33 2

Qa = 21 N KN/m2 3

Bearing capacity for foundation on untrained saturated clay for ø=0, so the general
Expression will be :
 H

qult= C Nc + γ Dƒ (i.e. Nq=1, Nγ=0)

(Nc) rectangular = (1+ 0.2 B/L) (Nc) strip (skempton formula)

The net allowable bearing capacity of clay or plastic is approximately equal to the
unconfined compressive strength where

qult= C Nc + γ Dƒ (for ø=0)

The net ultimate bearing capacity (qult) is defined as the pressure that can be
supported at the base of the footing in excess of that at the same level due to the
surrounding surcharge.

So qult= qult- γ Dƒ= C Nc + γ Dƒ - γ Dƒ

qult= C Nc take F.O.S=3

qult= C Nc/3

C= q unconfined /2 , usually Nc≈6 , so

qall= q unconfined x 6 /2x3 , so

qall= qult/ safety factor

Tables 11a and 11b show the calculation of allowable bearing capacity from
corrected values of SPT for raft foundation and square spread respectively of
embedment depth Df 1.00 m.

Table 11c displays the calculation of allowable bearing capacity from unconfined
compression strength C for undisturbed samples and has been compared with
allowable bearing capacity based on estimated of shear strength parameters from
N value.
 H

Table (11a) calculation of allowable bearing capacity from corrected SPT values for raft foundation at
different depths

Depth (m) N corrected Qall KN/m2 for Qall KN/m2 Avg

S (25 mm) for Smax KN/m2

3.0 5.94 56.28 112.56 84.42

4.5 10.00 63.19 126.39 94.79
6.0 10.31 65.17 130.34 97.75
7.5 8.75 55.29 110.59 82.94
9.0 7.81 49.37 98.74 74.06
10.5 10.42 65.83 131.65 98.74
12.5 10.00 63.19 126.39 94.79
15.0 12.92 81.63 163.25 122.44
End of Boring

Table (11b) calculation of allowable bearing capacity from corrected SPT values for spread at different
width and 1.0 m of embedment depth

Qall KN/m2 for Qall KN/m2 for

Depth(m) N corrected
B=3.0 B=2.0

3.0 5.94 51.11 46.76

4.5 10.00 57.39 52.50

6.0 10.31 59.18 54.15

7.5 8.75 50.21 45.94

9.0 7.81 44.83 41.02

10.5 10.42 59.78 54.69

12.5 10.00 57.39 52.50

15.0 12.92 74.12 67.82

End of Boring
 H

Table 11 c calculation of allowable bearing capacity from Unconfined shear strength

Depth From Laboratory test From Field test (Correlation)

(m) Unconfined compression Test
Unconfined shear qsafe shear strength qsafe
2 2` 2
strength KN/m KN/m KN/m
2
KN/m
3.0 97 200 59.4 65.38
4.5 54 114 100.0 106.00
6.0 103.1 109.13
7.5 87.5 93.50
9.0 78.1 84.13
10.5 104.2 110.17
12.5 100.0 106.00
15.0 129.2 135.17

0 25 qall,
50 75KPa100 125
0

6
Depth ( m)

12

15 Qall-Raft qall-spread/B=3

Plate 6 shows the variation of allowable bearing capacity with depth

 H

5.2 Settlement
Settlements are usually classified as follows:

1. Immediate, or those that take place as the load is applied or within a time
period of construction.

2. Consolidation, or those that are time-dependent and take months to years to

develop.

Immediate settlement analyses are used for all fine-grained soils including silts and
clays with low degree of saturation and for all coarse-grained soils with a large
coefficient of permeability. Consolidation settlement analyses are used for all
saturated, or nearly saturated, fine grained soils where the consolidation theory
applies. For these soils, it can be estimate both settlement ΔH and how long a time
it will take for most of the settlement to occur. The soil type at the site is cohesion
soil. Hence, only consolidation settlement is expected to take place due to the
applied loads. The settlements of fine-grained, saturated cohesive soils will be
time-dependent, and consolidation theory is usually used, although elastic
methods can be, and sometimes are, used. Consolidation settlements for normally
consolidated clay can be calculated from the following equation :( where the soil
in site was over consolidated from natural ground level to 6.0 m deep )

Sc = Cr/( 1+eo) H log σf'/σo'

Where

Sc: consolidation settlement.

Cc: Compression Index.

 H

H: Summation of depth for consolidated layer (m)

eo: initial void ratio.

σf': final effective stress (KPa).

σo': initial overburden stress(KPa).

For the encountered soil at the site; it can be concluded that the predominated
settlement component at the site is the consolidation settlement. Keeping in mind that
special care must be followed for the evaluation of soil parameters for settlement
analysis .In the site, the consolidation settlement can be calculated directly from the
results of consolidation test. The expected settlement Sc for raft foundation is closely to
the maximum limit for specimens at 6.0m deep due to the existence of compressible
layer at that depth. But, for the other examined depth the expected settlement is
within the allowable limit. The predications of soil consolidation settlement analysis are
estimated in Table (12).

Table (12 a) Consolidation Settlement

Depth, (m) Sc,(mm)

3 20.00
6 41-133

Table (12b): Tolerable Magnitude of Settlement

Total Settlement Differential
Type of Footing Type of soil Reference
(mm) Settlement (mm)

Isolated and Strip 25 ---

Terzaghi and
Peck, 1967
Raft Sand 50 --- Tomlinson, 1980
Isolated and Strip 40 51
Raft 45 – 65 51 – 76 Skempton and
Isolated and Strip
Clay
65 76 McDonald, 1956
Raft 65 – 100 76 – 126
 H

6. SUBSOIL STRATIFICATION
6.1 Soil Profile Description
The borehole logs shown in Appendix (A) indicate that the soil sub-Surface
Condition at the site is consisted of (one) strata for boreholes:

 Stratum 1: (0.0-15.0) m: The most specimens classified as: brown to grayish

brown and dark brown, low to high plasticity sandy lean to fat CLAY (CL & CH)
according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). In addition some salt and
organic matters have been appeared.
6.2 Underground Water Level
The underground water level has been existed at 6.0 m from natural ground level
for all the boreholes during the time of boring at (May /2023). The specified
depth was fixed after 24 hours of boring termination. This level may be changed
during the coming seasons by effect of temperature & environmental conditions.

7. Site Specific Seismic Evaluation

Earthquake design according uniform building code UBS, 1997.

The purpose of earthquake design herein is primarily to safeguard against major

structural failures and loss of life.

7.1 Design basis ground motion: is that the ground motion that has 10 percent
chance of being exceed in 50 years as determined by a site specific hazard analysis
or may be determined by hazard map. A suite of ground motion time histories with
dynamic properties representative of the site characteristics shall be used to
represent the ground motion. The dynamic effects of Design Ground Motion may be
represented by the Design Response Spectrum.
 H

1.2 Design Response Spectrum: is an elastic response spectrum for 5 percent

equivalent viscous damping used to represent the dynamic effect of the Design
Ground Motion for the design of structure. This response spectrum may be both a
site- specific spectrum based on geologic, tectonic, and seismological and soil
characteristics associated with specific site or may be a spectrum constructed
accordance UBC. Soil profile type is SD depending on soil properties from physical
and mechanical that the soil profile classified in addition wave shear velocity as
table below:
Soil Profile Soil Profile Wave Shear Velocity UndrainedShear Strength N avg
Type Description m/sec Cu KPa
SD Stiff 180-360 50-100 15-50
Seismic zone factor Z: for Wasit Government that lays in zone 3 that seismic
zone factor Z equal 0.30.

The occupancy Category: According the location of the project in Wasit

Government so the proposed parameters for Seismic Importance as table below:

Function Seismic Seismic Importance, Seismic Importance, Iw

of Importance, I Ip
structure
Special and standard 1.0 1.0 1.0
occupancy building

Seismic Coefficients: Seismic Coefficients Ca and Cv for soil profile SD and for
Seismic zone factor Z for Wasit city can be listed in table below:
Soil Seismic Coefficient Seismic Coefficient
Profile Ca Cv

SD 0.36 0.54
 H

Near surface factor: Near surface factors Na and Nv

Seismic Source Near Surface Near Surface Remark

type Factor, Factor,
Na Nv
A 1.0 1.0 The closet earthquake center
B 1.0 1.0 source of seismic more than 10
C 1.0 1.0 Km in case of
Wasit Government
T= Ct ( hn)0.75

Where:

T: Structural Period

Ct: Structural factor 0.0731-0.0853

hn: height of building

Then , T = 0.458-0.687 Sec ( referring the building characteristics)

Plate 7 illustrates the Design Response Spectrum for the soil stratum that observed
in investigation. In addition, the summary of site specific seismic evaluation is
display in Table 13.
1
Sectral Acceleration (g/s)

SD
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (Sec)

Plate 7 Design Response Spectrum

 H

Table 13 site specific seismic evaluation

Soil Type Ca Cv To Ts T
SD 0.36 0.54 0.12 0.60 0.458-0.687

Plate 8 Geomorphological map of the study area, representing the Mesopotamian plain
 H

8. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRECAUTIONS

Geotechnical investigations have been conducted for construction the
construction of primary school project. The site is located at Wasit Governorate
/Al-Kut city /Al-Ahrar district/ Jabr Al-Wadi village.

Three geotechnical boreholes of 15.0 m deep have been constructed of total

depth of boring 45.0 m. All geotechnical field and laboratory tests were conducted
on the three boreholes. Based on geotechnical investigations results, the following
recommendations and precautions can be drawn:

8.1 Proposed Foundation and Construction Precautions

The selection of appropriate type of foundation will normally depend on the

magnitude and distribution of structural load, the structure type, the bearing
capacity and settlement characteristics of the ground.

In the beginning, from the results of laboratory tests, there is a swelling soil layer
has classified as high expansive soil at 3.0 m deep, therefore the following
recommendations have been adopted depended on above soil properties and site
conditions.

1. The allowable bearing capacity has been summarized in Table A of spread and
raft foundation and can be summarized as follows:
A. It can be noted that the amount of safe allowable bearing capacity of spread
footing of 3.0 m width (B) has about 6.0 T/m2 of embedment depth not less than
1.0 m with fill layers of 1.0 m thickness below the foundation level.
 H

 Fill layers below the spread footing details as follows:

a. Boulders layers (Stone fragments), two layers, thickness is 50 cm for layers.
b. Gravelly layers, one layers, thickness is 25 cm for a layer
c. Gravelly soil, one layer, with thickness is 25 cm.

B. It can be noted that the amount of safe allowable bearing capacity of raft
foundation has about 8.5 T/m2 of embedment depth not less than 1.0 m with fill
layers of 0.50 m thickness below the foundation level.
 Fill layers below the raft footing details as follows:
a. Boulders layers (Stone fragments), one layer, thickness is 20 cm for layers.
b. Gravelly layers, one layers, thickness is 15 cm for a layer
c. Gravelly soil, one layer, with thickness is 15 cm.

Table A - Allowable bearing capacity from corrected SPT values for spread and raft
foundation with depths and from unconfined compressive strength
Depth Qall (raft) Qall (spread) Qall (Safe)
(m) T/m2 T/m2 T/m2
(based on N from Field Test)(S=50 (based on N from Field (based on Lab Test of undisturbed samples)
corr corr
mm) Test)(S=25 mm)

3.0 8.4 5.1 200

4.5 9.5 5.8 114
6.0 9.8 5.9 -
7.5 8.3 5.0 -
9.0 7.4 4.5 -
10.5 9.9 6.0 -
12.5 9.5 5.7 -
15.0 12.2 7.4 -
End of Boring
 H

Fill layers the details as follows:

a) The value of CBR not less than 35% (ASTM D1883) at 95% of the max.
dry density established according to (ASTM D1557).
b) Liquid limit 35% maximum.
c) Organic matter not more than 0.1%
d) SO3 not more than 1.0%.
e) Total soluble salts not more than 2%.
f) Gypsum content not more than 2.5%.
g) Relative compaction not less than 95% modified.
2. The final decision concerning the selection of the more suitable dimension of
foundation is according to the designer's opinion. The actual design stress is not
computed yet for structure but it should be taken into consideration that the
imposed design load should not exceed the allowable bearing capacity of soil.
3. The summary of site specific seismic evaluation is display in Table below:

Site specific seismic evaluation

Soil Type Ca Cv To Ts T
SD 0.36 0.54 0.12 0.60 0.458-0.687

8.2 Preparing Works: The site shall be cleaned, leveled and all debris, bricks,
organic matter, salts, unsuitable soils and deleterious materials shall be
removed and disposed out of the site.

8.3 Placement: Due to presence of high content of salts in soil, the following
precautions should be done:

1. Cement slurry (5% cement) should be poured after compaction or use a (10.0
cm) blinding concrete & 735 cm concrete cover.
 H

2. All concrete in contact with soil should be coated with asphalt materials in
two to three layers to prevent the effect of salts on the foundation.
3. Precautions should be taken to protect the steel reinforcements and any
metal type such as Zinc compound.
4. It is recommended to use Sulfate Resisting Portland cement not less than (400
kg/m3) and maximum (w/c) is (0.45).
5. Use admixture for permeability reducing and high range super-plasticizer to
protect the foundation from ground water. In addition the requirement in item 4
that not achieve only using that additives.
8.4 Type of Cement

For the concrete of foundation, the following points are written for convenience:

1. Sulfate-resisting cement (Type V) must be used in all concrete works in

contact with the soil.
2. Minimum cement content is (400kg/m3).
3. Maximum free water cement ratio of (0.45) by weight should be used.
4. Vibrators must be used in order to increase the density the fresh concrete.
8.5 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ks
The subgrade reaction at any point along the beam is assumed to be
directly proportional to the vertical displacement of the beam at that point or
oby's Hook's law. The modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil is given by
following formulas:
 H

Ks= q/w

Ks=40 *SF*qa

Where:

q = the bearing pressure at appoint along beam

w= the vertical displacement of the beam at that point.

Ks = the modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil

Estimation of modulus of sub grade reaction, Ks

Depth ( m) qa(KN/m2), avg ks(KN/m3)
3.0 59.4 10131
4.5 100.0 11375
6.0 103.1 11730
7.5 87.5 9953
9.0 78.1 8887
10.5 104.2 11849
12.5 100.0 11375
15.0 129.2 14693
 H

References
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), (1989).

 Bowles, J.E.,(1997),“Foundation Analysis and Design”, 5th Edition,

McGraw Hill Book Company.
 Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V.,(1969),“Soil Mechanicals“, John Wiley &
Sons.
 Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., (1967), “Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice”, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
 Braja M. Das, (2011), "Principles of Foundation Engineering", 7th Edition,
Cengage Learning, pages (284 – 285) .

 British standard Institute ( 1975 ) " Method of Testing soil for civil
Engineering Purpose" , B.S.1377.
 Head K. H. " Manual of Soil Laboratory testing " , Vol.2 Prentch
Press,London,1982.
 Head K. H. " Manual of Soil Laboratory testing " , Vol.3 Prentch
Press,London,1986.
 Lambe T. W. and Whitman R. V.," Soil Testing ",John Wiely and
Sons.Inc., London,SYDNEY ,1951.
 Lambe T. W. and Whitman R. V.," Soil Mechanics ",John Wiely and
Sons.Inc., New York ,1979.
 Das M. B . " Principles of foundations Engineering" six th editions ,2007
 Das M. B . " Principles of Geotechnical Engineering" California state
university ,2007.
 Gamal-Eldin A. K. " Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering" 1982.
 Uniform building code volume 2 chapter 16 , 1997.
 H

APPENDIX A
Borehole Loges
 H

Disturbed Sample Undisturbed Sample (SPT) Sample

D.S. U.S S.S

Medium Stiff to Stiff, low Plasticity silt with Medium Stiff to Stiff, high Plasticity Clay with
)sand (ML sand (CH)

Medium Stiff to Stiff f, low plasticity Clay with sand Medium Stiff to Stiff high Plasticity Silt
(CL) with sand (MH)

Gray, Silty sand (SM) Gray, Clayey sand (SC)

 H

BOREHOLE 1
GEOTECHNICAL SOIL BORING LOG
Project Name : Construction of 9 Classes
Project Location : Al-Kut city/Wasit Governorate
Primary School
Boring Date : 6/ May / 2023 Method of Boring : Flight Auger
Ground Water Levels : - 6.0 m Total Depth of Boring : 15.0m Ground Level : 0.0 N.G.L
Depth
Sample Legend Soil Description SPT,N variation
(m)
D.S. Grayish brown, medium stiff to
0.0-1.5 stiff, high plasticity sandy fat SPT, N
CLAY (CH) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Grayish brown, medium stiff to 0 Bh-1
1.5-3.0 S.H. stiff, low plasticity sandy lean
CLAY (CL)
Grayish brown to dark brown,
3.0-4.5 S.S. medium stiff to stiff, high plasticity 3
sandy fat CLAY (CH). In addition,
salts and organic matters have
4.5-6.0 S.S. appeared.
6
G.W.T @ -6.0 m

6.0-7.5 D.S.
9

S.S. Dark brown, stiff, low plasticity

7.5-9.0
sandy lean CLAY (CL)
12
9.0-10.5 S.S.
Dark brown, stiff, high plasticity
10.5-12.5 D.S. sandy fat CLAY (CH)
15
13.5-15.0 S.S.
15.0 m end of boring Sheet 1 of 3 sheets
 H

BOREHOLE 2
GEOTECHNICAL SOIL BORING LOG
Project Name : Construction of 9 Classes
Project Location : Al-Kut city/Wasit Governorate
Primary School
Boring Date : 31/ May / 2022 Method of Boring : Flight Auger
Ground Water Levels : - 6.0 m Total Depth of Boring : 15.0m Ground Level : 0.0 N.G.L
Depth
Sample Legend Soil Description SPT,N variation
(m)
D.S.
0.0-1.5 SPT, N
Grayish brown, medium stiff to
stiff, high plasticity sandy fat 0 5 10 15 20 25
CLAY (CH) 0 Bh-2
1.5-3.0 S.S.

Grayish brown, medium stiff to

3.0-4.5 S.H. 3
stiff, low plasticity sandy lean
CLAY (CL)

G.W.T @ -6.0 m
6
4.5-6.0 S.S.

6.0-7.5 D.S. 9
Dark brown to dark brown, stiff,
7.5-9.0 S.S. high plasticity sandy fat CLAY (CH).

9.0-10.5 S.S. 12
Brown, stiff, low plasticity sandy
10.5-12.5 S.S.
lean CLAY (CL)

13.5-15.0 S.S. 15
15.0 m end of boring Sheet 2 of 3 sheets
 H

BOREHOLE 3
GEOTECHNICAL SOIL BORING LOG
Project Name : Construction of 9 Classes
Project Location : Al-Kut city/Wasit Governorate
Primary School
Boring Date : 6/ May / 2023 Method of Boring : Flight Auger
Ground Water Levels : - 6.0 m Total Depth of Boring : 15.0m Ground Level : 0.0 N.G.L
Depth
Sample Legend Soil Description SPT,N variation
(m)
D.S.
0.0-1.5 SPT, N
0 10 20 30 40 50
Slightly brown to dark brown,
0
medium stiff to stiff, low plasticity Bh-3
1.5-3.0 S.S. sandy lean CLAY (CL)
In addition, salts and organic
matters have appeared.
3.0-4.5 D.S. 3

G.W.T @ -6.0 m
4.5-6.0 S.H.
6
6.0-7.5 S.S.
7.5-9.0 D.S.
9
9.0-10.5 S.S.
Dark brown, stiff, high plasticity
10.5-12.5 S.S. sandy fat CLAY (CH)
12
In addition, salts and organic
matters have appeared.
13.5-15.0 S.S.
15
15.0 m end of boring Sheet 3 of 3 sheets
 H

APPENDIX B
Tests Results
 H

Consolidation Test ( Bh. 1/Depth 3.0 m)

Consolidation Test ( Bh.1/Depth 4.5 m)

 H

Consolidation Test ( Bh. 2 /Depth 6.0 m)

 H

APPENDIX C
Lab Tests
 H

Laboratory Tests