Volume 5

ROADS & TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY
‫ ﺗطوﯾر وﺻﻠﺔ اﻷﺻﺎﯾل‬- ‫ ﺗﺣﺳﯾﻧﺎت ﻣﺣور اﻟﺷﯾﺦ راﺷد‬- 1060/2‫ط‬
PROJECT: R1060/2
– IMPROVEMENT OF SHEIKH RASHED
DEVELOPMENT OF AL ASAYEL LINK
TENDER DOCUMENT
VOLUME 5
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
EMPLOYER: CONSULTANT:
Roads & Transport Authority AECOM Middle East Ltd.

Roads Department P.O. Box 51028
P.O. Box 118899 Dubai – U.A.E.
Dubai – U.A.E.
RTA MAY 2024

R1060/2 - Improvement of Sheikh Rashed – Development of Al Asayel link
Tenderer & Contract Conditions
PROJECT R1060/2:
IMPROVEMENT OF SHEIKH RASHED –
GENERAL INDEX
VOLUME 1 - TENDERER & CONTRACT CONDITIONS
VOLUME 2 - SPECIFICATIONS
 PART I - RTA SPECIFICATIONS
o BOOK 1 – ROAD WORKS
o BOOK 2 – SERVICE WORKS & APPENDICES
 PART II - DM SPECIFICATIONS
o BOOK 1 - DM GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS, PART-1
o BOOK 2 - DM GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS, PART-2

& APPENDICES
Volume 3 - BILL OF QUANTITIES
Volume 4 - DRAWINGS
Volume 5 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
May 2024 Tender Document 1

AECOM Middle East Limited
PO Box 51028
Ubora Tower, Level 43
Dubai
United Arab Emirates
C.R. No. 120196
T: +971 4 439 1000

aecom.com
To: Project name:

AECOM Structural Team R1060/2 – Development of Al Asayel Link
Project ref:
CC:
Muhammad M. Zaheer
Finlay Leibrick From:
AECOM Geotechnical Team
Date:
April 2nd, 2024
Memo
Subject: Geotechnical Assessment and Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
RTA – R1060/2 – Development of Al Asayel Link
1. Introduction
AECOM Middle East Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) to validate the existing proposal
for the connectivity of the Al Asayel link as part of the overall R1060 Sheikh Rashid Bin Saeed Corridor Improvement study
and present viable alternative solutions to alleviate the traffic congestion effectively. The design services include preliminary
study through tender preparation and construction supervision for the proposed development of Al Asayal Link (RTA Project
R1060/2). Currently, the project is progressing under preliminary/detailed design and require geotechnical design
recommendations for the proposed structures. However, at the time of writing this technical memorandum, site-specific
geotechnical data is not available and under appointment of specialist GI subcontractor.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a desktop review of the existing geotechnical information and provide
preliminary foundation recommendations for the design of new bridges, underpasses (vehicular culverts) within the general
site location located in Za’abeel 1 Area, Dubai. The location of the proposed development is shown in Figure 1-1.
This technical memorandum provides preliminary design for deep foundation for the design of the infrastructure works for
R1060/2 – Al Asayel Link to allow for structural design to advance and meet the project schedule in the absent of site-
specific geotechnical data. Given the lack of on-site boreholes information, high variation from conditions described in this
memorandum should be expected. AECOM should be afforded the opportunity to revisit and make alternations to the
geotechnical recommendations.
1.1 Project Description
The limits of project corridor include Oud Metha Road of length 3.70 km, 1.3 km on Zabeel Palace Intersection, 2.0 km
from Al Asayel to Nouras street and 2.0 km on al Khail Road. All corridors are multiple lane dual carriageways with the
central median.
The Oud Metha Road (E66) is classified as primary arterial and therefore, it is crucial to ensure the traffic flow is optimized
with improved accessibility, and sustained mobility development.
The study area for R1060/2 encompasses the surrounding road network, primarily targeted for enhancement through the
proposed improvements within the project corridor. The study area shown in Figure 1-1 includes the project area as well
as its vicinity. The study area for the project study consists of the following segments:
AECOM
1/31
Memo
R1060/2 – Development of Al Asayel Link
• Oud Metha Road to the Wafi Interchange

• Al Asayel Link, including the Signalized Junction provide accessibility to Zabeel Palace
• Al Khail Road, key link providing connectivity to Deira.
Three options were proposed during the preliminary study for Al Asayel Link Development. However, we understand that
option two was selected as the preferred option, and hence this technical memorandum discusses option 2 layout with the
proposed structures.
Option 2 improves the traffic condition in Oud Metha Road by providing 6 lanes for the traffic commuting towards Wafi
Interchange. This option provides additional connectivity to Sheikh Rashid Street (both Garhoud Bridge and E11) from Oud
Metha Road main carriageway in addition to the connectivity from the CD Road.
The extent of the works includes potential works such as:
• Road expansions/improvements,
• Vehicle Bridges / overfly bridges,
• Retaining walls/MSE walls, and
• Underpasses (i.e., vehicular culverts)
The location of these features is shown in Figure 1-1 below.
Underpass 1 – U-1
Underpass 2 – U-2
Bridge 1 – BR-1
Bridge 2 – BR-2
Bridge 3 – BR-3
Underpass 3 – U-3
Figure 1-1 Project Site Location
AECOM
2/31
Memo
Table 1-1 Summary of Structures List within the Proposed Development

Junction Number. Brief Scope of Works
Underpass 1 – U-1 • Additional Lane to the Loop ramp connecting Sheikh Rasid Road and Oud Metha Road
Towards Sharjah.
Underpass 2 – U-2 • Additional Lane to the Right turn ramp connecting Sheikh Rashid Road and Oud Metha
Road Towards Al Ain.
Underpass 3 – U-3 • Additional Lane to the Loop ramp connecting Zabeel Palace Road and Oud Metha Road
Towards Al Ain.
Bridge 1 – BR-1 • A 2-lane directional ramp from Al Asayel to Oud Metha Road (CD Road).
Bridge 2 – BR-2 • A 3-lane bridge ramp from Al Nouras Street to Al Asayel Road
• 3 by 3 Lanes Flyover was added in Al Asayel Road near Zabeel Palace
Bridge 3 – BR-3 • Slip ramp at Al Khail interchange towards Oud Metha Road to allow direct access to Oud
Metha Road (Main Carriageway) for the Interchange Traffic.
1.2 Limitations
The available GI data offers high limitations for site-specific geotechnical design at each structure listed in Table 1-1 and
shows significant variation in soil/rock properties and profile. At this stage of the project, we would like to highlight the
limitations of using the geotechnical recommendation described herein as follows:
• Lack of soil stratigraphy data along the proposed road development and proposed structures, pavement input
parameters are not provided due to lack of CBR testing,
• Lack of rock UCS data at each specific structure. The data collected is very limited and may not be applicable to
the proposed structures list in Table 1-1. Hence, the preliminary design parameters are conservative and will
require redesign during tendering stage based on the site-specific data,
• Chemical analysis for soil and water are not available and will be required to understand the potential impact,
• Permeability testing is not included in the available data or not relevant to the project extent, and hence there is
no permeability recommendation within this stage,
• Seismic and liquefaction analysis is excluded from this assessment due to insufficient GI data.
AECOM
3/31
Memo
2. Available Geotechnical Data
2.1 Available Factual Reports
AECOM researched and collected geotechnical data from other projects near the project limits. The available geotechnical
investigation reports close to the project site are summarised below. This data was used to obtain information about the
anticipated subsurface soil/rock layers and soil and rock properties. The works carried out consisted of the investigation
as recorded below:
• Access Bridge for Wafi Complex: Geotechnical site investigation for proposed access bridge for Wafi complex
parking to link to Oud Metha ramp bridge, Dubai, UAE, prepared by ACES, document reference: SD15000061-
Rev 01, dated 26th October 2015. The investigation scope includes the following:
▪ Drilling of three (03 Nos) boreholes to a depth of 25.0m
▪ Installation of two (02 Nos) standpipe piezometers
▪ Limited in-situ and laboratory testing
• Unofficial Data: Geotechnical investigation at Al Jadaf, Dubai, UAE, within AECOMs archives. The
investigation scope includes the following:
▪ Drilling six (06 Nos) of boreholes (one borehole to a depth of 25m, three boreholes to a depth of 30m,
and two boreholes to a depth of 40m)
▪ Limited in-situ and laboratory testing
• RTA - R1122/1 Project Al Fai Road: Geotechnical Investigation at EM-824 – R1122/1: Improvement of Al Fai
Road (Various Improvement Work In Al Khail Road Phase-1), Dubai, UAE, prepared by Wade Adams
Contracting, Document Reference: ISTL-DGT24-008-Rev 00, Dated 24th, February 2024. The investigation
scope includes the following:
▪ Drilling of four (04 Nos) boreholes to depth of 40m,
▪ Limited in-situ and laboratory testing.
All Factual Reports have been included within Appendix A.
Figure 2-1 below shows where each of the existing data is located with respects to the project boundary. The ACES
boreholes are shown in a green colour, the archived data has been shown in pink, and the ISTL boreholes have been
shown in cyan.
Wafi complex
parking / link to Oud
Metha ramp bridge
AECOM’s
Archive
R1060/2 Project Limits
R1122/1:
Improvement of
Al Fai Road
Figure 2-1 Location of Available Factual Reports
AECOM
4/31
Memo
As seen in Figure 2-1 the available data is not specific to the proposed structures and is located outside the project limits.
2.2 Available Relevant Data

Detailed review of each GI report was caried out and select the more appropriate boreholes data to be considered in the
design ground model. The most relevant data for each region is summarized in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Summary of Relevant Borehole and GI Data
Exploratory
Most Applicable
Report Title Prepared by Date Borehole Relevant Remarks
Structure
to the Current Site
Geotechnical
Northern 500 - 600 m away
Investigation for
Underpasses All Boreholes (BH- from both
access bridge for ACES 26th October 2015
01 to BH-03) Underpasses 1 and
Wafi complex
(U-1, U-2) 2
parking, Dubai, UAE
700 m away from

Geotechnical All Boreholes (BHs Bridge 1 and 2
Bridges Archived /
Investigation at Al 2024 A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 and
Unofficial Data
Jadaf, Dubai, UAE and C1) 150 m away from
(BR-1, BR-2, BR-3)
Bridge 3
and Southern
Underpass 3 (U-3)
EM-824-R1122:
Improvement of Al All Boreholes (BH- 1000 m away from
ISTL 24th February 2024
Fai Road, Dubai, 01 to BH-04) Underpass 3
UAE
2.3 Subsurface Conditions
A summary of the subsurface conditions experienced within each region has been given in Table 2-2 below. This
demonstrates the expected conditions along with geological descriptions throughout the R1060/2 Project site.
AECOM
5/31
Memo
Table 2-2 Summary of Subsurface Conditions with Each Region
Max
GWL Min
Elevation SPT N Range Material
Report Range Elevation to Geological Description
from or, Classification
(mDMD) (mDMD)
(mDMD) UCS (MPa) Range
Light brown / brown/ greyish brown /

Medium Dense
1.80 -1.40 light grey, slightly silty, slightly shelly,
17 - 43 (N) to Dense
fine / fine to medium SAND.
Light brown silty to very silty, gravelly

to very gravelly, fine to medium SAND
-1.60 to
-1.20 -4.67 / sandy GRAVELS. Gravels are Very Dense
ACES >50 (N)
subangular to subrounded of
-1.90
calcarenite pieces.
Light brown fine to medium grained

CALCARENITE partially to distinctly
-4.51 -23.4 Extremely Weak
weathered (B/C), fractures are very 0.25 – 5.22 (MPa)
close to medium spaced.
Light brown to brown, slightly shelly to

4.95 1.73 shelly, slightly silty to silty, fine to Medium Dense
23 – 30 (N)
medium SAND.
Light brown to brown, slightly shelly to

3.65 -0.10 shelly, slightly silty to silty, fine to Dense
31 – 40 (N)
medium SAND.
-0.67 to Light grey to grey, slightly shelly,

Archived 1.00 -11.57 slightly silty to silty, fine to medium Very Dense
>50 (N)
-2.59 SAND.
Light brown to brown, very thinly to

Extremely Weak
-10.85 -25.05 medium bedded, fine to medium
0.4 – 2.42 (MPa) to Very Weak
grained SANSTONE
Off white to light brown, slightly

-24.35 35.05 gypsiferous, slightly conglomeratic, Very weak
1.57 – 4.14 (MPa)
CALCISILTITE
Slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to Medium Dense

4.71 3.39
medium SAND 13 – 45 (N) to Dense
Grey to yellowish grey, slightly silty, Very Loose to

4.71 -10.29
clayey, fine to medium SANDY CLAY 1 – 16 (N) Loose
2.23 to
ISTL Slightly silty to silty, slightly gravelly to Medium Dense
0.27 -6.46 -12.03
gravelly, fine to medium SAND 14 – 50 (N) to Very Dense
Brown to reddish brown, very thinly to

thinly bedded SANDSTONE. Distinctly
-9.77 -26.76 Very Weak
to partially weathered, very closely to 1.1 – 2.5 (MPa)
closely spaced, sub horizontal fracture.
AECOM
6/31
Memo
Very thinly to thinly bedded, fine to

medium matrix supported,
-21.16 -32.61 CONGLOMERATE. Partially Very Weak
2 - 2.5 (MPa)
weathered, very closely to closely
spaced, sub horizontal fracture.
Off white, very thinly to thinly bedded

MUDSTONE, distinctly to partially
-25.81 -36.61 Very Weak
weathered, very closely to closely 1.7 – 1.9 (MPa)
spaced fracture
2.4 Aerial / Satellite Images
The site history for proposed R1060/2 – Development of Al Asayel Link is presented in Figure 2-2 below. The boundaries
of the Site are marked in Red, and the Cyan markers show the ISTL boreholes in the images from 2001 to 2023. The
potential inter-tidal impact is marked in yellow broken line. The preimages of the site before 2001 are not clear to get an
indication the pre-construction site conditions. The southern limits of the sites appear to be darker than that of the rest of
the site, potentially suggesting two different types of soil layers. Due to existing road layout, it is difficult to assess at the
stage without the presence of historic data if the existing construction had been done on natural ground conditions or on
the reclaimed land.
2001 2007
2010 2013
AECOM
7/31
Memo
2016 2019
2021 2023
Figure 2-2 Project Site History
Based on the desk study of the historical satellite image extracted from Google Earth, we consider that the very loose to
loose soil encountered within the R1122 project and reported by ISTL is likely to represent inter-tidal adjacent to creek end
underlain by backfill soil. Therefore, we assume such superficial conditions are not applicable to the R1060/2 site location.
Hence, these data were excluded from the data analysis for the superficial soil deposits.
The Google Earth historical images show, it’s likely located within an inter-tidal creek zone, subjected to soft conditions,
and assumed to be performed within old creek bed mud soils. It is interpreted that the ground conditions encountered in
R1122 are not applicable at our site of 1060/2 and, hence, this loose layer is not considered in developing the design
ground model. However, considering worst soil conditions of R1122 and large data gaps, we have kept a reasonable level
of conservatism in proposed ground model.
AECOM
8/31
Memo
3. Preliminary Ground Models
3.1 Design Values
To develop realistic and conservative ground models, statistical design values were developed for all soil and rock
properties at each data source. The developed design values for SPT and UCS (for each data source) have been estimated
based on available in-situ and laboratory testing from other sites and selected design values based on the following criteria:
‘Design Value = Average – 1.0 x Standard Deviation’
3.2 Inferred Regional Ground Models
Using the relevant boreholes and ground investigation data described in Table 2-2, the following ground parameters were
inferred from these data and summarized in Table 3-1, Table 3-2, Table 3-3 for data collected from 500 m north of
Underpass U-1, 200 m north of bridge BR-3 and 1000 m south of underpass U-2, respectively.
Table 3-1 Ground Model Based on ACES Data (~500 m North of Underpass U-1)
Std
From To Elevation Elevation Std Average Design
Average Design Dev
Depth Depth From To Stratigraphy Dev UCS UCS
SPT N SPT N UCS
(m) (m) (mDMD) (mDMD) SPT N (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
0.00 3.00 1.71 -1.29 Medium dense silty Sand 21 3.2 18 - - -
3.00 6.00 -1.29 -4.29 Dense silty Sand 37 3.6 32 - - -
6.00 6.31 -4.29 -4.60 Very dense silty Sand 50 - 50 - - -
6.31 25.00 -4.50 -23.29 Very Weak Calcarinite - - - 1.4 0.6 0.8
Table 3-2 Ground Model based on Archived Data (~Central, approx. 200 m north of BR-3)
Elevation Std
From To Elevation Std Average Design
To Average Design Dev
Depth Depth From Stratigraphy Dev UCS UCS
SPT N SPT N UCS
(m) (m) (mDMD) (mDMD) SPT N (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Medium dense silty

0.00 2.00 4.54 2.54 28 2.1 26 - - -
Sand
2.00 4.50 2.54 0.04 Dense silty Sand 33 2.6 30 - - -
4.50 15.80 0.04 -11.26 Very dense silty Sand 50 - 50 - - -
15.80 28.80 -11.26 -24.26 Very Weak Sandstone - - - 1.9 0.6 1.3
28.80 40.00 -24.26 -35.46 Very Weak Calcisilite - - - 1.7 0.2 1.5
Table 3-3 Ground Model Based on ISTL Data (~1000 m South of Underpass U-3)
Std
From To Elevation Std Average Design
Elevation Average Design Dev
Depth Depth From Stratigraphy Dev UCS UCS
To (mDMD) SPT N SPT N UCS
(m) (m) (mDMD) SPT N (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Medium Dense to Dense
0.00 4.00 4.27 0.27 26 11 15 - - -
Silty Gravelly Sand
Very Loose to Loose
4.00 10.88 -0.27 -6.61 Sandy Clay or Carbonate 4 5 2 - - -
Sand
Loose to Medium Dense
10.88 14.07 -6.61 -9.80 16 4 12 - - -
Silty Sand
Dense to Very Dense Silty
14.07 15.24 -9.80 -10.97 46 5 41 - - -
Sand
15.24 27.71 -10.80 -23.57 Very Weak Sandstone - - - 1.52 0.5 1.0
27.71 32.68 -23.57 -28.55 Very Weak Conglomerate - - - 2.33 0.2 2.1
32.68 40.00 -28.55 -35.87 Very Weak Mudstone - - - 1.80 0.1 1.7
AECOM
9/31
Memo
3.3 Assigned Geotechnical Parameters

Based on developed ground models discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the observed variation between the three
sources of data, two general parameter sets / models were developed for the proposed structures adopting conservative
approach and practical experience in such conditions to assign these preliminary design parameters.
3.3.1 Rock Strength

Intact rock properties have been analysed based on available laboratory test data and the selected characteristic values
are presented below.
Sandstone (intermittent Calcisilite & Conglomerate) bedrock recovered from the GI drilling often appears fair to good
recovery, an average of 56% of Solid Core Recovery (SCR) was obtained.
Calcarinite bedrock recovered from the GU drilling often appear good recovery, an average of 92% of solid core recovery
(SCR) was obtained.
The rock mass parameters were developed for the simplified rock profile used in the generic design model and calculated
using RSData from the intact rock parameters. Mohr-Coulomb equivalent cohesion and friction angle are calculated to
facilitate bearing capacity calculations. Error! Reference source not found. provides rock mass parameters used in the
design model.
Table 3-4: Characteristic Rock Mass Geotechnical Parameter Values
Relevant Lithology Unit Design J V2 GSI mi MR Values Erm Cohesion Friction

Geotechnical Weight UCS (MPa)3 (kPa)4 Angle4
1
Parameters (kN/m3) (MPa)
1 Calcarinite 20 0.80 0.20 0.25 40 17 375 60.0 40 32
Sandstone / Calcisilite /
2 20 0.69 0.20 0.25 40 22 350 61.3 38 34
Conglomerate
1 Based on 5% Percentile and engineering judgment
2 Based on Table C10.4.6.5-2 of AASHTO LRFD (2020)
3 Equation for Ed = j x Mr x qe
4 Values obtained from Rocscience RSData
3.3.2 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters

The proposed ground model chosen for the R1060/2 project was based on a review of all available data from three sources
and experience in similar site conditions. ISTL data (i.e., R1122 Project, south of the subject site of R1060/2) offers the
worsened soil conditions presented by approx. 8 m thick loose layer (N values <10) from a depth of 4.38 tm to a depth of
11.75 m. However, as discussed in Section 2.4, this site is more than 1 KM away from our subject site. As the Google
historical images show, it’s likely located within an inter-tidal creek zone, subjected to soft conditions, and assumed to be
performed within old creek bed mud soils. It is interpreted that the ground conditions encountered in R1122 are not
applicable at our site of 1060/2 and, hence, were not considered in developing the ground model.
Two ground models (GM 1 and GM 2) were established based on review of available geotechnical information and site
conditions. GM 1 dedicated for underpass 1 (U-1) and underpass 1 (U-2) structures. While GM 2 dedicated for bridge 1 to
3 (BR-1 to BR-3) and underpass 3 (U-3) structures.
Table 3-5 and Table 3-6 below shows the selected/assigned design parameters that will be used to complete the pile
capacity calculations for soil and rock respectively along with idealized ground model based on conservative approach.
It should be noted that the recommended ground models and design parameters provided below will be utilized for the
general sites at specific structure based on available data that collected more than 1 KM away from subjected site. This
assumption may not be accurate due to the extent of the site, but it was made necessary due to the lack of site-specific GI
data. GMs shall be reviewed and modified upon receive the site-specific GI data.
AECOM
10/31
Memo
Table 3-5 Proposed Geotechnical Parameters 1 (GM 1) – For U-1 and U-2
Bulk
Elevation Elevation Youngs
From To Depth Design Design Friction Cohesion Unit Poisson’s
From To Stratigraphy Modulus
Depth (m) (m) SPT N1 UCS (MPa) Angle (°) (KPa) Weight Ratio
(mDMD) (mDMD) (KPa)
(kN/m3)
Medium dense
0.00 3.00 1.71 -1.29 18 - 322 0 188 0.309 18,0003
silty sand
3.00 6.00 -1.29 -4.27 Dense silty sand 32 - 362 0 188 0.309 32,0003
Very dense silty

6.00 6.31 -4.27 -4.58 50 - 412 0 198 0.309 50,0003
sand
Very Weak
6.31 25.00 -4.58 -23.29 - 0.806 325 405 20 0.254 60,0007
Calcarinite
Table 3-6 Proposed Geotechnical Parameters 2 (GM 2) – For BR-1, BR-2, BR-3 and U-3
Bulk
Elevation Elevation Youngs
From To Depth Design Design Friction Cohesion Unit Poisson’s
From To Stratigraphy Modulus
Depth (m) (m) SPT N1 UCS (MPa) Angle (°) (kPa) Weight Ratio
(mDMD) (mDMD) (kPa)
(kN/m3)
Medium Dense to
0.00 10.90 4.27 -6.50 Dense Silty 20 - 332 0 178 0.309 20,0003
Gravelly Sand
Medium Dense to
10.90 14.20 -6.50 -9.80 30 - 362 0 188 0.309 30,0003
Dense Silty Sand
Very Dense Silty
14.20 15.37 -9.80 -10.97 50 - 412 0 198 0.309 50,0003
Sand
Sandstone /
15.37 40.00 -10.97 -35.60 Calcisilite / - 0.696 345 385 20 0.254 61,2507
Conglomerate
1
Based on SPT results
2
Based on Peck et al. (1974)
3
Based SPT x 1
4
Based on Table C10.4.6.5-2 of AASHTO LRFD (2020)
5
Values obtained from Rocscience RSData
6
Chosen as a conservative geotechnical value due to the lack of site-specific data available and because of the variability of available factual data.
7
Equation for Ed = j x Mr x qe
8
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
9
Bowles (1997)
3.4 Groundwater Level

As mentioned earlier in this TM, the available GI data is very limited and provides high variation in groundwater-level overall
project location.
Based on the available data, GWL varied from +2.23 mDMD to -1.9 mDMD. Some of this data is collected based on
immediate observation from borehole and not from long term monitoring from piezometers.
Due to this lack of data, conservative design approach shall be selected during preliminary design stage with understanding
that revising design parameters will be necessary during DD stage.
A design groundwater level may be taken as +2.20 mDMD as based on data collected form the three spots marked in the
following Figure 3-1 (in orange ovals). The measured water level was recorded at an average of 1.20 mDMD with an
additional meter added to adjust for seasonal fluctuations.
AECOM
11/31
Memo
Figure 3-1: Source of Data Collection for Groundwater Level
3.5 Coefficient of Earth Pressure

The coefficient of earth pressure is estimated from Rankine’s formula and is provided in Table 3-7 for Geotechnical GM 1
as follows:
Table 3-7 Coefficient of Earth Pressure - Geotechnical Parameters 1 (GM 1)

Parameters Soil Soil Soil
(0.00 – 4.50 m) (4.50 – 11.75 m) (11.75 – 15.00 m)
Friction Angle (°) 32 36 41
Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 17 18 19
K0 0.47 0.41 0.34
Ka 0.31 0.26 0.21
Kp 3.25 3.85 4.81
The coefficient of earth pressure is estimated from Rankine’s formula and is provided in Table 3-8 for Geotechnical GM 2
as follows:
Table 3-8 Coefficient of Earth Pressure - Geotechnical Parameters 2 (GM 2)

Parameters Soil Soil Soil
(0.00 – 4.50 m) (4.50 – 11.75 m) (11.75 – 15.00 m)
Friction Angle (°) 33 36 41
Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 17.5 18 19
K0 0.46 0.41 0.34
Ka 0.29 0.26 0.21
Kp 3.39 3.85 4.81
AECOM
12/31
Memo
4. Geotechnical Design
4.1 Deep Foundation Recommendations / Pile Design Capacity

The main objective of the pile capacity analysis in this TM is to provide lateral and vertical stiffness values for the proposed
R1060/2 site. The pile capacity calculations were completed using a calculation sheet which has been provided in
Appendix B.
4.1.1 Analysis Information

Pile capacity analysis using AASHTO 2020 method has been carried out for the different pile diameters (1000mm,
1200mm, 1500mm, 1800mm, and 2000mm) to give a range of values for the infrastructure project. The following
parameters have been used throughout the analysis to complete the pile capacity calculations:
1. Diameters used are:

a. 1000mm,
b. 1200mm,
c. 1500mm,
d. 1800mm, and
e. 2000mm
2. Water level is considered to be +2.20 mDMD,
3. Rockhead level is considered to be -10.97 mDMD,
4. Ground level is considered to be +4.40 mDMD,
5. Factor of safety is considered to be 2.5,
6. Pile cut-off level has been assumed to be 2.5 mbgl,
7. All soil parameters have been taken from Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.
8. Grade of concrete of piles taken as fcu = 40N/mm2.
9. Minimum rock socket length shall be 4 times pile diameter (4D).
10. A total length of 30m is utilized for pile calculations.
11. End bearing capacities of rock-socketed pile is ignored.
12. Skin friction of soil layer is conservatively ignored.
Unit Skin friction of rock materials have been estimated based on correlation with intact UCS according to equation
proposed by Rosenberg and Journeaux (1976) (ref: CIRIA 181 – Piled Foundation in Weak Rocks):
fs = 0.375 x (UCS)0.515
where,
fs = ultimate unit shaft resistance.
UCS = uniaxial compressive strength in MPa.
Factor of safety of 2.5 is applied to ultimate skin friction resistance to estimate the allowable skin friction for Serviceability
Limit State (SLS). Resistance factor of 0.55 for compressive resistance and 0.4 for uplift resistance from AASHTO is
applied for Ultimate Limit State (ULS) check. The lower of the two is utilized to provide the total compressive and tension
capacity.
Regarding the ultimate skin friction resistance for the superficial deposits above rock formation, it is conservatively
ignored in the cumulative ultimate skin friction resistance for pile design because the rock head level is not known, and
the pile lengths calculated here are only for the socketing into rock.
Please note that these calculations are based on the ground investigation results obtained from the previously conducted
ground investigations in the vicinity of the project site and the ground model is preliminary. The pile capacities may require
optimization after receiving the final geotechnical investigations factual report.
AECOM
13/31
Memo
4.1.2 Pile Capacity Results

Results for the SLS and ULS vertical pile capacity for piers and abutments has been summarized in Table 4-1 and Table
4-2 below for different pile sizes. Pile Cut off level is assuemed at 1.9 mDMD for all the analysis provided.
Table 4-1 Summary of Vertical Compression Pile Capacity Calculations in Rock for 1000mm, 1200mm, and
1500mm Pile Diameter
1000 (mm) 1200 (mm) 1500 (mm)

Total
Pile L Embedme Pile Toe Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
(m), nt (Socket) Elevation Strata Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable
below Length (m) (mDMD) Pile Pile Pile Pile Pile Pile
cut-off Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
(SLS), kN (ULS), kN (SLS), kN (ULS), kN (SLS), kN (ULS), kN
14.00 1.1 -12.10 389 535 467 642 584 803
Conglomerate
15.00 2.1 -13.10 779 1070 934 1285 1168 1606
Conglomerate
16.00 3.1 -14.10 1168 1606 1401 1927 1752 2409
Conglomerate
17.00 4.1 -15.10 1557 2141 1868 2569 2336 3211
Conglomerate
18.00 5.1 -16.10 1946 2676 2336 3211 2920 4014
Conglomerate
19.00 6.1 -17.10 2336 3211 2803 3854 3503 4817
Conglomerate
20.00 7.1 -18.10 2725 3747 3270 4496 4087 5620
Conglomerate
21.00 8.1 -19.10 3114 4282 3737 5138 4671 6423
Conglomerate
22.00 9.1 -20.10 3503 4817 4204 5781 5255 7226
Conglomerate
23.00 10.1 -21.10 3893 5352 4671 6423 5839 8029
Conglomerate
24.00 11.1 -22.10 4282 5888 5138 7065 6423 8832
Conglomerate
25.00 12.1 -23.10 4671 6423 5605 7708 7007 9634
Conglomerate
26.00 13.1 -24.10 5060 6958 6073 8350 7591 10437
Conglomerate
27.00 14.1 -25.10 5450 7493 6540 8992 8175 11240
Conglomerate
28.00 15.1 -26.10 5839 8029 7007 9634 8759 12043
Conglomerate
29.00 16.1 -27.10 6228 8564 7474 10277 9342 12846
Conglomerate
30.00 17.1 -28.10 6618 9099 7941 10919 9926 13649
Conglomerate
31.00 18.1 -29.10 7007 9634 8408 11561 10510 14452
Conglomerate
AECOM
14/31
Memo
Table 4-2 Summary of Vertical Compression Pile Capacity Calculations in Rock for 1800mm and 2000mm Pile
Diameter
Emb- 1800 (mm) 2000 (mm)

Total
edment
Pile L Pile Toe
(Socket) Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
(m), Elevation Strata
Length (m) Allowable Pile Allowable Pile Allowable Pile Allowable Pile
below (mDMD)
Capacity (SLS), Capacity (ULS), Capacity (SLS), Capacity (ULS),
cut-off
kN kN kN kN
14.00 1.1 -12.10 701 963 779 1070
Conglomerate
15.00 2.1 -13.10 1401 1927 1557 2141
Conglomerate
16.00 3.1 -14.10 2102 2890 2336 3211
Conglomerate
17.00 4.1 -15.10 2803 3854 3114 4282
Conglomerate
18.00 5.1 -16.10 3503 4817 3893 5352
Conglomerate
19.00 6.1 -17.10 4204 5781 4671 6423
Conglomerate
20.00 7.1 -18.10 4905 6744 5450 7493
Conglomerate
21.00 8.1 -19.10 5605 7708 6228 8564
Conglomerate
22.00 9.1 -20.10 6306 8671 7007 9634
Conglomerate
23.00 10.1 -21.10 7007 9634 7785 10705
Conglomerate
24.00 11.1 -22.10 7708 10598 8564 11775
Conglomerate
25.00 12.1 -23.10 8408 11561 9342 12846
Conglomerate
26.00 13.1 -24.10 9109 12525 10121 13916
Conglomerate
27.00 14.1 -25.10 9810 13488 10899 14987
Conglomerate
28.00 15.1 -26.10 10510 14452 11678 16057
Conglomerate
29.00 16.1 -27.10 11211 15415 12457 17128
Conglomerate
30.00 17.1 -28.10 11912 16378 13235 18198
Conglomerate
31.00 18.1 -29.10 12612 17342 14014 19269
Conglomerate
Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 shows the summary of the vertical spring stiffness and pile settlement for all pile diameters vs pile
depth. Pile Cut off level is assuemed at 1.9 mDMD for all the analysis provided.
AECOM
15/31
Memo
Table 4-3 Summary of Vertical Pile Stiffness and Pile Settlement for 1000, 1200 and 1500 mm Pile Diameter
Emb- 1000 (mm) 1200 (mm) 1500 (mm)

Total
edment
Pile L Pile Toe
(Socket) Vertical Estimated Vertical Estimated Vertical Estimated
(m), Elevation Strata
Length Spring Pile Spring Pile Spring Pile
below (mDMD)
(m) Stiffness Settlement Stiffness Settlement Stiffness Settlement
cut-off
(kN/m) (mm) (kN/m) (mm) (kN/m) (mm)
14.00 1.1 -12.10 99,469 3.91 101,871 4.59 104,339 5.60
Conglomerate
15.00 2.1 -13.10 171,836 4.53 178,219 5.24 184,751 6.32
Conglomerate
16.00 3.1 -14.10 234,648 4.98 246,139 5.69 257,931 6.79
Conglomerate
17.00 4.1 -15.10 289,704 5.37 307,152 6.08 325,172 7.18
Conglomerate
18.00 5.1 -16.10 338,116 5.76 362,165 6.45 387,214 7.54
Conglomerate
19.00 6.1 -17.10 380,692 6.14 411,818 6.81 444,562 7.88
Conglomerate
20.00 7.1 -18.10 418,083 6.52 456,615 7.16 497,594 8.21
Conglomerate
21.00 8.1 -19.10 450,836 6.91 496,977 7.52 546,620 8.55
Conglomerate
22.00 9.1 -20.10 479,427 7.31 533,270 7.88 591,901 8.88
Conglomerate
23.00 10.1 -21.10 504,282 7.72 565,824 8.26 633,673 9.21
Conglomerate
24.00 11.1 -22.10 525,780 8.14 594,941 8.64 672,149 9.56
Conglomerate
25.00 12.1 -23.10 544,265 8.58 620,896 9.03 707,526 9.90
Conglomerate
26.00 13.1 -24.10 560,046 9.04 643,946 9.43 739,989 10.26
Conglomerate
27.00 14.1 -25.10 573,404 9.50 664,327 9.84 769,714 10.62
Conglomerate
28.00 15.1 -26.10 584,593 9.99 682,261 10.27 796,866 10.99
Conglomerate
29.00 16.1 -27.10 593,842 10.49 697,952 10.71 821,603 11.37
Conglomerate
30.00 17.1 -28.10 601,360 11.00 711,591 11.16 844,077 11.76
Conglomerate
31.00 18.1 -29.10 607,334 11.54 723,354 11.62 864,428 12.16
Conglomerate
AECOM
16/31
Memo
Table 4-4 Summary of Vertical Pile Stiffness and Pile Settlement for 1800 and 2000 mm Pile Diameter
Emb-edment 1800 (mm) 2000 (mm)

Total Pile L Pile Toe
(Socket)
(m), below Elevation Strata
Length (m) Vertical Spring Estimated Pile Vertical Spring Estimated Pile
cut-off (mDMD)
Stiffness (kN/m) Settlement (mm) Stiffness (kN/m) Settlement (mm)
Sandstone / Calcisilite
14.00 1.1 -12.10 106,051 6.61 106,939 7.28
/ Conglomerate
15.00 2.1 -13.10 189,247 7.40 191,563 8.13
/ Conglomerate
16.00 3.1 -14.10 266,034 7.90 270,195 8.64
/ Conglomerate
17.00 4.1 -15.10 337,573 8.30 343,934 9.05
/ Conglomerate
18.00 5.1 -16.10 404,517 8.66 413,393 9.42
/ Conglomerate
19.00 6.1 -17.10 467,297 9.00 478,977 9.75
/ Conglomerate
20.00 7.1 -18.10 526,232 9.32 540,976 10.07
/ Conglomerate
21.00 8.1 -19.10 581,568 9.64 599,614 10.39
/ Conglomerate
22.00 9.1 -20.10 633,513 9.95 655,074 10.70
/ Conglomerate
23.00 10.1 -21.10 682,245 10.27 707,513 11.00
/ Conglomerate
24.00 11.1 -22.10 727,926 10.59 757,068 11.31
/ Conglomerate
25.00 12.1 -23.10 770,701 10.91 803,865 11.62
/ Conglomerate
26.00 13.1 -24.10 810,709 11.24 848,018 11.93
/ Conglomerate
27.00 14.1 -25.10 848,079 11.57 889,638 12.25
/ Conglomerate
28.00 15.1 -26.10 882,935 11.90 928,826 12.57
/ Conglomerate
29.00 16.1 -27.10 915,395 12.25 965,683 12.90
/ Conglomerate
30.00 17.1 -28.10 945,576 12.60 1,000,303 13.23
/ Conglomerate
31.00 18.1 -29.10 973,585 12.95 1,032,780 13.57
/ Conglomerate
AECOM
17/31
Memo
Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found.Below shows how the vertical pile capacity changes
with depth for all pile diameters (for pier and abutment locations).
Figure 4-1 Vertical Pile Net Capacity vs. Elevation (mDMD)
4.2 Bearing Capacity
The main objective of the bearing capacity analysis in this report is to net allowable bearing capacity and modulus of
subgrade reaction values for the proposed R1060 site, under all three underpasses. The bearing capacity calculations
were completed using a calculation sheet and software call Settle3 these files have been provided in Appendix C.
4.2.1 Analysis Information

Bearing capacity analysis was completed using Meyerhof, Terzaghi, and Vesic method has been carried out for the different
foundation types and depths to give a range of values for the infrastructure project. The following parameters have been
used throughout the analysis to complete the bearing capacity calculations:
1. Raft Foundation types:

a. 10m x 20m,
b. 20m x 20m,
c. 30m x 20m.
2. Foundation depths:
a. 1m
b. 2m
c. 3m
AECOM
18/31
Memo
3. Water level is considered to be

a. +1.50 mDMD for GM1 (Recommendation for ACES Factual Report suggest using +1.5 mDMD for
conservative reasons),
b. +2.20 mDMD for GM2,
4. Rockhead level is considered to be
a. -4.60 mDMD for GM1,
b. -10.97 mDMD for GM2,
5. Ground level is considered to be
a. +3.2 mDMD for GM1 (Site specific elevation used due to the topography study conducted over area
where culvert will be constructed, to be conservative the additional elevation is expected to be medium
dense silty sand),
b. +4.40 mDMD for GM2,
6. Factor of safety is considered to be 3.0,
7. All soil parameters have been taken from Table 3-6
4.2.2 Bearing Capacity Results

Results for the raft foundation bearing capacity for GM 1 (Underpass 1 and 2) are summarized in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5 Raft Foundation Bearing Capacity Results – GM 1 (for U-1 and U-2)
Net allowable bearing Net allowable Modulus of

Ground Foundation Depth Allowable Net allowable bearing
capacity (Shear) bearing capacity Subgrade
Model Used Type (m) (m) Settlement (mm) capacity (Settle) (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa) Reaction
GM1 10 x 20 1 50 1090 145 145 2900
GM1 20 x 20 1 50 1590 115 115 2300
GM1 30 x 20 1 50 1750 102 102 2040
GM1 10 x 20 2 50 1350 158 158 3160
GM1 20 x 20 2 50 1880 123 123 2460
GM1 30 x 20 2 50 2050 108 108 2160
GM1 10 x 20 3 50 1550 172 172 3440
GM1 20 x 20 3 50 2010 131 131 2620
GM1 30 x 20 3 50 2370 115 115 2300
Results for the raft foundation bearing capacity for GM 2 (Underpass 3) are summarized in Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6 Raft Foundation Bearing Capacity Results – GM 2 (U-3)
Net allowable bearing Net allowable Modulus of

Ground Foundation Depth Allowable Net allowable bearing
capacity (Shear) bearing capacity Subgrade
Model Used Type (m) (m) Settlement (mm) capacity (Settle) (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa) Reaction
GM2 10 x 20 1 50 660 110 110 2200
GM2 20 x 20 1 50 1950 87 87 1740
GM2 30 x 20 1 50 2340 79 79 1580
GM2 10 x 20 2 50 810 114 114 2280
GM2 20 x 20 2 50 2350 90 90 1800
GM2 30 x 20 2 50 2790 82 82 1640
GM2 10 x 20 3 50 1100 118 118 2360
GM2 20 x 20 3 50 2610 94 94 1880
GM2 30 x 20 3 50 3260 85 85 1700
AECOM
19/31
Memo
4.3 Ground Treatment / Improvement
Where ground resistance/support is insufficient to support the proposed working load vertically or/and laterally, ground
improvement options may be considered as an alternative for structures that require higher bearing capacity than that
determined in this report.
In addition, ground improvement may be used for the areas where roads, foundations and other assets are not supported
by piles. For pile foundation, the lateral support of liquefiable soil shall be neglected if ground improvement will not be
done. Within the existing data a layer of very loose clay was observed and could potentially be problematic soil. Although
ground improvement has not be adopted in the preliminary ground models described herein, ground improvement may be
required if the loose clay layers are encountered with the site specific boreholes. It is recommended to consider ground
improvements as provisional items in the tender /BoQ to enhance any loose/soft strat that may exist within project limits.
The ground conditions shall be confirmed as per the site-specific geotechnical investigation.
The final improvement method should be decided in consultation with ground improvement specialist in function of soil
type (gradation and density), design criteria and other site limitations. The ground improvement criteria per each structure
shall be followed by the Contractor in reference to national and international design codes.
4.3.1 Excavation and Replacement

This involves excavation of unsuitable material and replacement with Engineered Fill or granular material. This option is
feasible for enhancing bearing capacity and reducing settlement up to a certain acceptable limit with careful controlled
construction practices. While using soil replacement the following points should be taken into consideration.
• Excavation can be limited only to a certain depth and up to a certain bearing capacity and therefore may not be
feasible for heavily loaded structures.
• Backfilling and compaction of Engineered Fill or granular material shall be carried out in layers of specified
thickness and to the required maximum dry density, which maybe time consuming for deeper depths.
• Temporary shoring will be required to support the sides of the proposed excavation in order to prevent collapse
of the sides and consequently undermining the existing structures/utilities in the vicinity of the excavation.
• Dewatering may be required during the excavation works. This dewatering may also have a detrimental effect on
the existing utilities and infrastructures around the boundaries of the area to be excavated due to loss of fines,
changes in the soil effective stress and the possibility of the formation of voids and cavities.
4.3.2 Vibro-Compaction / Vibro-Floatation

Vibro-Compaction is a ground improvement technique which used specially designed probe type depth vibrators for in-situ
densification of loose sands and gravels. Generally, Vibro-Compaction can be used to achieve the following results:
• Increase soil bearing capacity, permitting shallow foundation construction.
• Reduced foundation settlements.
• Increased resistance to liquefaction.
• Increase resistance to shear movements.
• Reduce permeability.
• Increased density.
• Filling of voids in treated areas.
As with any ground improvement technique, Vibro-Compaction has its limitations. The improved in-situ soil characteristics
depend on the in-situ soil type and its gradation, the spacing of the compaction points, the characteristics of the equipment
utilized and the compaction duration. Vibro-compaction imparts vibrations in the ground and may impact nearby structures
and/or utilities and, therefore, may not be feasible option.
4.3.3 Vibro-Replacement (Stone Columns)

This method of ground improvement is a technically accepted method of enhancing fill material and weak soils to improve
their load bearing and settlement characteristics where the ground contains high fines content or cohesive layers. The
construction process involves introducing a vibrating poker or driving a vibrating mandrill to penetrate to a designed depth,
AECOM
20/31
Memo
and then filling the resulting cavity with layers of inert stone or recycled material. The vibrator is then reintroduced to the
newly filled cavity, forcing each layer of stone into the surrounding ground creating confining pressure and densified
columns of support. This option may be considered for structures where the required bearing capacity is not met. This
option is a feasible for the following reasons,
• In granular material, this densification creates an improvement in settlement control and bearing capacity.
• In cohesive materials the overall effect is of reinforcement and settlement control.
However, practicality of its implementation to take into consideration the following:
• Adequate site layout/space to be provided for the plant & equipment which includes crawler crane (or) excavator
to suspend the vibrator, front end loader to feed stone, for stock piling of stone, water tanks, Air compressors
and high-pressure pumps etc.
• The design of the required ground improvement with regards to depth, extent, size and spacing will need to be
carried out by ground improvement specialist contractor. Stone column provides a bearing capacity, generally up
to about 200kPa-250kPa. In areas where maximum soil pressure of greater than 250kN/m2 will be required,
stone columns will not be feasible. With dewatering works envisaged to facilitate the excavation, there will be
movement of water subject to the dewatering works. With difference in grain sizes between the stone columns
(gravels/stone pieces) of larger grain size compared to soil silty SAND, there is risk associated with migration of
fines could lead to settlement issues.
Vibro-replacement impart vibrations in the ground and may impact nearby structures and/or utilities and, therefore, should
be selected carefuly considering vibration impacts.
4.3.4 Controlled Modulus Columns

Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC), also called rigid inclusions, is a type of ground improvement technique used to control
and reduce settlement and increase bearing capacity in soft or loose soils. It is an economical alternative to traditional
deep foundation solutions and in most cases, can prove to be beneficial for the global design of the overlying structure.
The increase of bearing capacity and settlement reduction is achieved through the reinforcement of the soft or loose soil
layers using rigid inclusions. The scheme details a load sharing system combining the existing soil capacity and the stiffer
rigid inclusions. Rigid inclusions are executed through a simple and efficient process with or without soil displacement by
low-pressure injection (generally up to 2 bars) of a grout or concrete through the hollow core of the drilling tool. These
columns generally have a diameter of between 250 and 500 mm
AECOM
21/31
Memo
5. Summary of Recommendations
• The geotechnical evaluation in this technical memorandum is based on available GI data sourced outside of
project footprint from other RTA projects and internal database (unoffical data). It should be noted that the available
borehole data is located near the north and south project limits which gives about 1 to 1.5 km of data gap within
the project limits. Therefore, the geotechnical deign parameters and recommendations provided herein are
preliminary and subject to review based on site-specific GI data.
• Given the lack of on-site boreholes information, high variation from ground conditions described in this
memorandum may be expected. AECOM should be afforded the opportunity to revisit and make alternations to
the geotechnical recommendations.
• As per the project delivery schedule and site-specific GI schedule, it is recommended to allow for additional
contingency for tendering and construction stages to allow for potential design change in case of encountering
high variation from conditions described in this memorandum and the actual site.
• Two (2) ground models are developed for the evaluation of piled and shallow foundations based on available GI
factual data. GM 1 dedicated for underpass 1 (U-1) and underpass 1 (U-2) structures. While GM 2 dedicated for
bridge 1 to 3 (BR-1 to BR-3) and underpass 3 (U-3) structures.
• The design parameters for soil are evaluated using the design SPT N values, in-situ and laboratory testing results.
The design parameters for rock are derived using the design UCS value and from the use of commercially
available software.
• The final length of the pile is to be decided by the structures team from recommended pile capacity tables in
accordance with the required pile capacity of the structures.
• As per the meeting held on April 01, 2024, between AECOM and RTA, these preliminary design recommendations
can be utilized to advance the final design due on April 19, 2024 and allow for design change during tendering
stage. It was agreed that pile design shall avoid modifiing pile diameters and numbers / configurations and
allowing for pile length changes due to ground condition variation.
• ISTL data has shown a layer of very loose clay, this would be problematic soil and therefore ground improvement
costs should be considered from the start of the design. However, this data may only be relevant for the southern
limits of the sites so full recommendations cannot be made until site specific data is obtained. It is recommended
to add a provisional item for ground improvement in the first tender issue that wuld be verified during the deailed
/ site-specific geptecncial investigation.
• Structural drawings shall state minimum rock socket length for each pile type along with pile capacity and pile toe
level/pile length.
AECOM
22/31
Memo
Appendix A – Sketches of Project Extent and

Available Factual Reports
AECOM
23/31
Memo
A.1 Sketches of Project Extent
AECOM
24/31
KEY PLAN:
THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF AECOM AND SHALL NOT BE USED, MODIFIED, REPRODUCED, OR RELIED UPON BY THIRD PARTIES, EXCEPT AS AGREED BY AECOM OR AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AECOM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND DENIES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, TO ANY PARTY THAT USES OR RELIES ON THIS DRAWING WITHOUT AECOM'S EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS, UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE.
2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. CHECK ALL
DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
3. ALL LEVELS ARE BASED ON DLTM DATUM.
4. ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON DUB-DLTM.
LEGEND:
R1060/2 PROJECT BOUNDARY
R1060/2 STUDY AREA
ARCHIVED RELEVANT BOREHOLES
ISTL RELEVANT BOREHOLES
ACES RELEVANT BOREHOLES
EXISTING ROAD
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE RAMP
PROPOSED BRIDGE
AT GRADE ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROJECT NAME:
R1060/2 - IMPROVEMENT OF SHEIKH RASHED -
ZONE: SECTION NO.: PLOT NO.:
- - -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF AL ASAYEL LINK
CLIENT:
CONSULTANT
Imagine it.
Delivered.
AECOM MIDDLE EAST LIMITED
Ubora Tower, Level 43, Business Bay - Dubai, United Arab Emirates
P.O. Box 51028-Phone +971 4 439 1000-Facsimile +971 4 439 1001
SKETCHES
S00 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION 2024-01-29

REV. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

DRAWING TITLE:
EXISTING BOREHOLE LAYOUT
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY:

S.N M.A M.Z
DRAWING NO.: REV.:
S00
Project Originator Zone Level Type Role Serial No. Rev. No.
PROJECT ID: DRAWING SIZE: SCALE:
- A1 N.T.S
Memo
A.2 ACES Report
AECOM
25/31
KEY PLAN:
NOTES:
OTHERWISE.
LEGEND:
R1060/2 STUDY AREA
EXISTING ROAD
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
AT GRADE ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROJECT NAME:
- - -
OF AL ASAYEL LINK
CLIENT:
CONSULTANT
Imagine it.
Delivered.
SKETCHES


DRAWING TITLE:

S.N M.A M.Z
DRAWING NO.: REV.:
S00
- A1 N.T.S
Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking to link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORKS .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 STANDARDS AND CODES OF PRACTICE .................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................2
3.0 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITIONS..............................................................................3
4.0 FIELD WORK........................................................................................................................4
4.1 DRILLING OF BOREHOLES........................................................................................................ 4
4.2 SAMPLING .............................................................................................................................. 4
4.3 FIELD TESTING IN BOREHOLES ................................................................................................ 4
4.4 INSTALLATION OF STANDPIPE PIEZOMETERS ............................................................................ 5
4.5 SITE SAFETY .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.6 BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT .................................................................................................... 6
4.7 SITE CLEAN OUT .................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................7
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..............................................................................................9
6.1 GROUND MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 9
6.2 CORE SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................... 10
6.3 GROUND-WATER AND CAVITIES ............................................................................................ 10
7.0 POTENTIAL GEO-HAZARDS: ...........................................................................................11
7.1 COLLAPSE POTENTIAL........................................................................................................... 11
7.2 SOIL ERODABILITY AND PROTECTION AGAINST EROSION ........................................................ 11
7.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL .................................................................................................... 11
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL MODEL..........................................................................11
9.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................13
9.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 13
9.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS (PILE FOUNDATION) .............................................................................. 16
9.2.1 Single Pile Capacity Calculations: .................................................................... 16
9.2.2 Settlement of Piles.............................................................................................. 24
9.2.3 Vertical Single Pile Stiffness ............................................................................. 26
9.2.4 Pile Group Action ............................................................................................... 27
9.2.5 Lateral Pile Stiffness .......................................................................................... 28
9.2.6 Pile Group Action (Lateral) ................................................................................ 31
9.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................. 32
9.4 SOIL PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES ................................................ 33
10.0 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................34
10.1 EXCAVATION METHODS ......................................................................................................... 34
10.2 EXCAVATION SIDE SLOPES.................................................................................................... 34
10.3 BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION CRITERIA .................................................................. 34
10.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................. 35
10.5 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM (DEWATERING) .................................................................. 35
11.0 FOUNDATION CONCRETE ...............................................................................................36
12.0 INTERACTION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY ................................................................41
12.1 EXCAVATION INSPECTION ...................................................................................................... 41
13.0 IMPORTANT NOTES..........................................................................................................42
14.0 SOFT COPY........................................................................................................................42
SD15000061-Rev 01- Final Interpretative Report TOC

LIST OF TABLES:
Table No. 1: Summary of Boreholes Information............................................................................... 4

Table No. 2: Standpipe Location and Installation data ...................................................................... 5
Table No. 3: Summary of Ground Material Properties and Classification:....................................... 10
Table No. 4: Geotechnical Analytical Model: ................................................................................... 12
Table No. 5: Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressure for different Footings:............................ 15
Table No. 6: Allowable Unit Skin Frictions (with account for drilling of piles with fluids such as
Polymer) (Cut-off Level = +0.00m DMD): ........................................................................................ 19
Table No. 7: Allowable Working Loads in Compression – (COL= +0.0m DMD).............................. 20
Table No. 8 : Allowable Working Loads in Uplift – (COL=+0.00m DMD)......................................... 22
Table No. 9: Vertical Single Pile Stiffness – (COL=+0.0m DMD): ................................................... 26
Table No. 10: Coefficients of Lateral Earth pressure ....................................................................... 33
Table No. 11: Classification of Ground Conditions .......................................................................... 37
Table No. 12: Concrete Quality & number of Additional Protective Measures ................................ 37
Table No. 13: Intended working life and number of APMs for concrete elements ........................... 38
Table No. 14: Concrete Qualities to resist chemical attack for the general use of in-situ and precast
concrete ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Table No. 15: Cement and Combination types for Concrete Qualities ............................................ 38
Table No. 16: Classification of exposure conditions in the Arabian Peninsula (Table 5.1 CS277-
2002)................................................................................................................................................ 39
Table No. 17: Typical concrete mix criteria and cover requirements for exposure conditions in the
Arabian Peninsula from above table (Table 5.2 CS277-2002) ........................................................ 40
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure No. 1 : The layout Section of the Bridge Structure ................................................................. 2

Figure No. 2: Graphical Representation of SPT N Vs Elevation........................................................ 5
Figure No. 3: Graphical Presentation of Point Load versus Elevation ............................................... 8
Figure No. 4: Graphical Presentation of UCS versus Elevation......................................................... 8
Figure No. 5: Typical Generalized Cross Section Profile................................................................... 9
Figure No. 6: Average load transfer in side shear for different construction methods (Brown, 2002
......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure No. 7: Recommended Pile Working Load in Compression – (COL=-+0.0m DMD) .............. 21
Figure No. 8: Recommended Pile Working Load in Uplift – (COL=+0.0m DMD) ............................ 23
Figure No. 9: Average Normalized Load-Displacement Curve that Forms the Basis of Load test .. 25
Figure No. 10: Model of a socketed pier under lateral load showing the concept of soil response: 29
Figure No. 11: Typical p – y curve for weak rock............................................................................. 30
Figure No. 12: Effective Peak Ground Acceleration, 10% Exceedance Probability for 50 Years
Exposure Time................................................................................................................................. 32

List of Appendices:
Appendix A : Site Plan

Appendix B : Logs of Boring and Geological Cross Section Profiles
Appendix B1 : Logs of Boring
Appendix B2 : Geological Cross Section Profiles
Appendix C : Field Test Results
Appendix C1 : Groundwater Readings from Installed Piezometers
Appendix D : Laboratory Test Results From Boreholes
Appendix D1 : Physical / Mechanical & Index Properties Results
Appendix D2 : Chemical Testing
Appendix D3 : Strength Test Results
Appendix E : Drilled Pile Methodology in Rock
Appendix F : Photographs of Core Samples
Recommendation for Foundation Concrete
Appendix G :
(Extract of BS 8500 – 1 : 2006 & BRE Special Digest 1 : 2005)

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This final Site and Geotechnical investigation Report for the Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi
Complex Parking to link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge in Dubai – U.A.E.
1.1 Purpose of Study
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to determine the character and distribution of
geologic materials and ground water within the project site for use in foundation and excavation
design. The main objectives of the study are:
1. Assess the stability of the site in general and the influence of the construction works, to provide
the design engineers with the required measures to enhance the stability and safety of the site
and provide necessary parameters and data for the selection and design of foundations.
2. Define and describe the subsurface materials within the site in order to assist in evaluating its
suitability to be used as backfill materials.
This investigation was conducted in accordance with the specifications provided.
1.2 Scope of Works
The geotechnical investigation consisted of field studies and laboratory analysis. The field portion
of the investigation employed test borings with in-situ tests such as Nspt, Permeability, PMT as
primary investigative techniques. Laboratory studies included tests to determine soil and rock
properties including physical and mechanical properties. Additionally, chemical analyses on
selected samples of soil, rock and ground water were also included.
The scope of works consists of:
1. Collecting information and maps particular to the building site
2. Making inspection visits to the site to collect information about the present land use, surface
topography, geological features and surface drainage.
3. Drilling of ten (03) boreholes upto a depth of 25.0m each (BH01 to BH03) and collecting disturbed
and undisturbed samples.
4. Installation of two (02) standpipe piezometers upto a depth of 12.0m each and taking
groundwater table readings.
5. Performing the required laboratory tests on soil, rock and groundwater samples.
6. Preparing interpretative report as per the project requirements.
1.3 Standards and Codes of Practice
Unless otherwise specified in this document, all equipment, materials and procedures associated
with this work comply with current editions of following relevant Standards and Codes of Practice.
1. BS 1377:1990 Part 9 AMD8264-95, “Method of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes”.
2. BS 5930: 1999+A2:2010, “Code of Practice for Site Investigations”.
SD15000061_Rev 01- Final Interpretative Report Page 1 of 42

3. Project Specifications.
4. Other technical references including software used are cited in the report as appropriate.
5. Abbreviations and definitions are identified as appropriate in the report.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project is Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking to link to Oud Metha Ramp
Bridge. The layout section of the bridge structure is shown below:
Figure No. 1 : The layout Section of the Bridge Structure
The proposed project will be constructed using shallow & deep pile foundations and the design cut-
off level for the bridge is expected to be +0.0m DMD.
The surface of the site is mostly covered silty sand and site has been excavated to 3.0 from EGL.
Noting that, small part of the site was occupied by construction materials. The current site level is
approximately ranging from +1.6m to +1.8m DMD with an average ground level of +1.70m DMD.
A general site plan showing the project layout and the locations of the boreholes is enclosed in
Appendix A.
General site photographs are also presented below showing the general nature of the site and
ground conditions:

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

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

4.0 FIELD WORK
4.1 Drilling of Boreholes
During the period from 01st September 2015 to 12th September 2015, three (03) boreholes were
drilled at the specified locations. The following table summarizes the boreholes information.
Table No. 1: Summary of Boreholes Information

BH No. Proposed Ground Coordinates (m) Drilling Date Rig Used
Depth Elevation
(m) (m DMD) Easting Northing Started Finished
BH-01 25.00 1.72 498340.93 2791625.63 08/09/15 12/09/15 ACES-DRILL-
2-D-11
BH-02 25.00 1.80 498339.64 2791611.99 01/09/15 03/09/15
BH-03 25.00 1.60 498351.76 2791588.65 05/09/15 07/09/15
The locations of the boreholes were set-out by ACES at locations provided by the client and are
shown on the site plan. The borehole logs are presented in Appendix B1.
The borings were advanced by using rotary drilling method with bentonite circulation. Temporary
steel casing was used to support the borehole sides through the upper soil upto the depths
mentioned in the borehole logs.
General photographs during drilling of boreholes are also presented below:
4.2 Sampling
Samples of ejected formation materials were obtained throughout the drilled depth. Split spoon
samples were obtained at selected intervals through soil materials as specified, in all boreholes.
Wherever cemented soil and rock materials were encountered, undisturbed core samples were
obtained using double tube core barrel.
The recovered samples were examined, described and classified by our geologist. They were then
placed in moisture proof plastic bags in proper sequence in wooden core boxes and transported to
our laboratories for testing. The moist samples were placed in airtight plastic bags before being
placed in wooden core boxes.
Moreover, groundwater samples were collected from the boreholes after flushing using clean bailer
sampler. Then after, filled in a plastic bottle and transported to our laboratories for further testing.
4.3 Field Testing in Boreholes
Standard Penetration Tests (S.P.T.) were performed at various depths in the boreholes to assess
the relative densities of the ground materials. The tests were performed in accordance with
BS1377:1990 Part 9 AMD8264-95, “Determination of Penetration Resistance Using Split-Barrel
Sampler (SPT)”.

The SPT consists of driving a Standard 1 10

SPT N Values
100
50mm outside diameter split spoon 2.0
Medium dense
Very dense
Very loose
sampler into soil at the bottom of a
Loose
Dense
borehole, using repeated blows of a
63.5kg hammer falling through 760mm. 1.0
The SPT N value is the number of

blows required to achieve a penetration
of 300mm, after an initial seating drive 0.0
of 150mm
The test results are shown on the

boring logs at the respective test -1.0
Elevation (m DMD)
depths. Interpretation of the SPT test
results can be found in the Legend to
Boring Logs (Appendix B). -2.0
The SPT-N data were also plotted

graphically against elevations for all the -3.0
boreholes in Figure No. 2. The relative

density classification boundaries are
also indicated in the figure below.
-4.0
BH-01 BH-02 BH-03
-5.0
Figure No. 2: Graphical Representation of SPT N Vs

Elevation
4.4 Installation of Standpipe Piezometers
A total of two (02) nos. specified 50mm standpipe piezometers are installed in boreholes (BH01
and BH3), to monitor the ground water table and collect the groundwater samples for further
testing. Each monitoring well to be composed of factory slotted (continuous slots), 50mm diameter
PVC screen, wrapped with geofabric, and filter gravel pack extending at least 1.0m above screen
level and with 50mm PVC stand pipe and top cap, as specified.
The details of the installed piezometers are given in the following table.
Table No. 2: Standpipe Location and Installation data
BH No. Ground Total length of Length of Remarks
Elevation the Piezometer Screen Section
(m DMD) (m) (m)
BH01 1.72 12.0 6.0 The wells were developed by flushing
water column several times using foot
BH03 1.60 12.0 6.0 valve and bailer to confirm connectivity to
adjacent ground water table.
After completion of the piezometer installations, groundwater levels were monitored for few days
from the installed piezometers using dip meters. The ground water readings are presented in
Appendix C.
4.5 Site Safety
ACES staff were fully committed for implementing the Health and Safety measures for all personnel
who were working at this project. Effective methods were adopted to ensure the policies and
procedures are communicated to, and properly understood by all crew personnel and followed
throughout the operations, controlled by inspection visits of the safety representative.

It is concluded that no accidents/incidents occurred during the period of site investigation work for
this project.
4.6 Borehole Abandonment
Cement – bentonite grout was used as specified to seal the entire depth of all boreholes except the
piezometer boreholes. A tremei pipe was lowered to the bottom of the borehole, and the grout was
mixed and injected using a special grouting pump (Bottom – up installation) up to the ground
surface.
4.7 Site Clean Out
Following the completion of field works, the location of each borehole was cleaned-off. Remains,
and cuttings was removed and the surface reinstated with surrounding sand.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
In order to determine the physical, chemical properties and shear strength of the ground materials
(soil, GW and rock samples), laboratory tests were performed on selected samples based on the
approved laboratory schedules and in according to the following Standards:
Physical & (1) Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving Method),
Index Properties BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, Cl.9.2. (Amd. 9027/96)
Sedimentation by the Hydrometer Method
(2)
BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, CI.9.5 (Amd. 9027/96)
(1) Determination of Natural Moisture Content for soil and rock,
BS1377 : Part2 :1990 (Amd.9027/96) Cl. 3.2.3.2
Determination of the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index
(1)
BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, CI.4, CI.5.3 & CI.5.4 *Amd. 9027/96)
Determination of Particle Density of Soil
(1)
BS 1377: 1990 Part 2 CI.8.3 (Amd. 9027/96)
Chemical (1) Determination of Sulphate for Soil and Ground Water

Testing BS 1377: Part 3 : 1990, Cl.5 (Amd. 9028/96)
(1) Determination of Chloride for Soil and Ground Water
BS 1377: Part 3 : 1990, Cl.7 (Amd. 9028/96)
(1) Determination of pH for Soil and Water
BS1377: Part 3 : 1990, Cl.9 (Amd. 9028/96)
(1) Determination of the Water Soluble Salt Content
BS 1377: Part 3 : Cl.8 (Amd. 9028-96)
(1) Determination of the Carbonate Content,
BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, Cl.6 (Amd. 9028/96)
Shear Strength (1) Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock
Tests Cores Spec. ASTM D 7012-07 / ASTM D 4543-08
(1) Point Load: Standard Test Method for Point Load Strength Index of Rock
(ASTM D 5731-2008) & Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216-05).
(1) a DAC accredited test method (Certificate No. LB-006)

(2) Non accredited tests
The laboratory test results are presented in separate appendices as follows:
1. Sieve Analysis Tests Results were presented on standard PSD graphical presentations in
Appendix D1. Hydrometer tests are also presented graphically along the sieve test results. The
BS 5930 classification and summary of gradation results and indices are also indicated on the
graphs*.
2. Chemical Test Results are presented in Appendix D2 in separate tables. The sulphate class
is shown for each sample as applicable according to BS 8500-1:2002 and BRE SP1:2005.
3. Point Load test results are presented in a separate table in Appendix D3. The values of
uncorrected point load strength index (MPa) and failure load (kN) are presented for each
sample at axial or diametral cases. Moreover, results are presented graphically as shown below
in Figure no. 3.
4. UCS test results: are presented in a standard test sheet in Appendix D3. Graphical
presentation of the axial strain (%) versus average compressive stress (MPa) is included for

each sample and schematic diagram of failure plane(s) is also shown.* Moreover, results are
presented graphically along with strength classification limits as shown below in Figure no. 4:
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MPa)

Point Load, Is (50) (MPa)
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
0.0
E xt. S tro n g
-3.0
E xt. W eak
M . S tro ng
V . S tro ng
V . W eak
S tron g
W eak
-1.5
-3.0
-5.0
-4.5
-7.0
-6.0
-7.5
-9.0
-9.0
-11.0
E L E V A T IO N , m (D M D )
-10.5
E L E V A T IO N , m (D M D )
-12.0
-13.0
-13.5
-15.0
-15.0
-16.5
-17.0
-18.0
-19.0 -19.5
-21.0
-21.0
BH-01 BH-02 -22.5

BH-01 BH-02 BH-03
BH-03
-23.0 -24.0
Figure No. 3: Graphical Presentation of Point Figure No. 4: Graphical Presentation of UCS
Load versus Elevation versus Elevation
*Specialized software was used for calculations and test report presentations.

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Ground Materials
The boreholes drilled have indicated general similarities and continuities of the subsurface
materials, in spite of some local variations.
A generalized subsurface profile was constructed through drilled boreholes over the site area and
is attached in Appendix B2. The below profile is illustrative of the general subsurface ground
conditions:
Figure No. 5: Typical Generalized Cross Section Profile
The geologic description of the subsurface materials encountered in the boreholes and the average
approximate elevations at which they are encountered in the different boreholes are presented in
the below table. Classification of the soils and rocks has been conducted according to BS 5930:
1999+A2: 2010. The tables given in the legend to boring logs in Appendix B1 were used to
describe the relative density/consistency of the respective coarse/ fine grained-soils and strength of
rocks.

Table No. 3: Summary of Ground Material Properties and Classification:

Elevation Thick BH Geologic Description Summary Material
(m DMD) (m) No. of Tests Classificati
From To Results on
1.72 -4.28 8.00 BH-01 Light brown / brown/ greyish brown SPT-N: RD:
1.80 -4.20 7.00 BH-02 / light grey, slightly silty, slightly 17 - 43 Medium
shelly, fine / fine to medium SAND. Dense to
1.60 -4.40 6.00 BH-03 Dense
-4.28 -4.59 0.25 BH-01 light brown silty to very silty, SPT-N: RD:
-4.20 -4.51 0.30 BH-02 gravelly to very gravelly, fine to >50 Very Dense
medium SAND / sandy sandy
-4.40 -4.67 1.40 BH-03 GRAVELS. Gravels are
subangular to subrounded of
calcarenite piceses.
-1.96 -26.83 24.87 BH-01 Light brown fine to medium RQD%: STR:
-1.40 -30.20 28.80 BH-02 grained CALCARENITE partially to 19 – 100 Extremley
distinctly weathered (B/C), Weak to
-1.36 -29.72 28.36 BH-03 fractures are very close to medium UCS Weak
-30.20 -64.10 (EOB) 33.90 BH-02 spaced. (MPa):
0.25–5.22
SPT: Standard Penetration Tests RD: Relative Density
RQD: Rock Quality Designation EOB: End of Boring
STR: Strength of Rock
6.2 Core sample photographs
Standard photographs of all the completed core samples were taken and are attached in Appendix
F. Moreover, a CD including all the core box photos in JPG format is also attached such that the
photographs can be reproduced by the client to the required size.
6.3 Ground-Water and Cavities
At the time of the investigation, ground water table was encountered in all drilled boreholes at
depths ranging from 3.40m to 3.60m below existing ground level (i.e. at R. L. of -1.60m to -1.90m
DMD). It is apparent that the dewatering was in progress in the area of the site. However, ground
water table is subjected to tidal and weather seasonal variations or by artificial induced effects.
Therefore, reconfirmation is recommended prior to any works related to ground water regime.
Design water level: A design GWT elevation shall be established considering the available data
from adjacent sites and considering likely changes of the GW regime. For structures subjected to
uplift forces from ground water (in case basements are constructed), then adequate safety factor
shall be adopted against uplift effects at the max. expected design GW elevation.
Based on accumulated recent information from several sites in the area, design water level is
recommended to be selected within the range of +1.0 to +2.0m DMD (+1.50m DMD recommended).
However, for stability requirements (e.g. uplift effects) it is highly advised that the safety factor at
extreme likely cases (such as GWT at +2.0m to +3.0m DMD) be checked to be not less than 1.10.
This would be important for light weight structures with basement floors.
It is to be noted that proposing Design-GW Level is outside the typical scope of site investigation,
accordingly, it should be confirmed and approved by the Engineer.
No cavities were encountered in any of the boreholes upto the drilled depths. However, partial to
complete water loss was noticed in some boreholes as indicated in the borehole logs.

7.0 POTENTIAL GEO-HAZARDS:
The following potential geo-hazards that are likely to affect the site are discussed in the followings:
7.1 Collapse Potential
Soils with apparent cementation of soluble materials / clay bonds, may collapse (experience high
sudden settlement) upon wetting.
The settlement to surface foundations corresponding to water soluble salts can be assessed using
the following equation:
S = SL Ho Gs / Gsol
Ho = height of soil layer with water soluble salts

Gs / Gsol are the specific gravity of insoluble soil menials and that for soluble soil minerals.
The results of water soluble salts tests show that the % of water soluble salts (%SL) were found to
be very low (0.14 to 0.89%).
Accordingly, noting the proposed deep excavation of the site, the risk of collapse potential is
considered in-significant and is ignored.
(Reference: Foundation Engineering Handbook, MacGraw Hill Construction / ASCE Press, Robert
W. Day 2006).
7.2 Soil Erodability and Protection against Erosion
Scour is the loss of soil by erosion due to flowing water around the foundations or supports. Design
of foundations under scour conditions requires careful consideration to evaluate the soil erodability.
Different materials erode at different rates. Granular soils are eroded rapidly by flowing water, while
cohesive or cemented soils are more scour-resistant. However, ultimate scour in cohesive or
cemented soils can be as deep as scour in sand-bed streams.
For this site, the recommended foundation ground at the foundation depth is highly
resistant to erosion; however, protection of the soil surrounding the edges of the
foundations / structures is recommended by side pavements, pitching or other suitable
measures, in addition to provision of efficient surface drainage.
7.3 Liquefaction Potential
Loose, fine, saturated sands may liquefy (experience significant loss of strength due to buildup of
pore water pressure and subsequent deformation) under the cyclic loading of earthquakes.
Based on “Recommended procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication - 117

guidelines for analyzing and mitigating liquefaction hazards in California. Implementation
Committee, March 1999 – “Preliminary screening for liquefaction” and noting the large proposed
foundation excavation depth, liquefaction is unlikely and the site is safe.
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL MODEL
The design geotechnical analytical model was established following a step by step procedure of
validation of the quality of the data, proper interpretation of in-situ and laboratory tests, establish
geological model of stratigraphy of the site, selection of representative parameters for each layer /
unit, and selection of representative deign value / Engineering parameters.

The generalized subsurface model that represents the site was presented above indicating the
main soil / rock layers and GW conditions with ranges main tests results and classifications. The
site subsurface geology has indicated almost uniform and homogeneous geological features, with
no appreciable discontinuities suggesting zoning of the site to different homogeneous zones.
Accordingly, single representative geotechnical analytical model has been established based on
the results of in-situ and laboratory tests.
Detailed description of the procedure adopted, correlations used and criteria for selection of
engineering parameters of soils and rocks may be presented on request.
The selected geotechnical analytical model of the site is presented below with shear strength and
stiffness parameters for each layer.
Table No. 4: Geotechnical Analytical Model:

Layer Elevation of each Material Description Engineering Parameters
layer (m DMD) (RD / GSI Classification)
N- UCS Unit Ed, MPa* Poisons C, φ°
From To SPT (MPa) Wt, ratio, υ kPa
KN/m^
3, γb
Lo.a +1.75 -1.00 MD Overburden - 17- - 18 15-25 0.35 0 33
Silty, sand 25
-1.00 -4.20 MD to 32- - 18 30-40 0.35 0 35

D 43
Lo.b -4.20 -4.60 VD silty Sand / sandy >50 - 19 60-75 0.33 0 38

Gravels
L1.a -4.60 -7.00 GSI: ARENITES: - 1.40 22 200-400 0.30 60 29-

30-50 CALCARENITE to 35
2.80
L1.b -7.00 -12.00 GSI: - 2.38 22 250-500 0.30 120 32-
40-60 to 38
5.20
L1.c -12.00 -16.00 GSI: - 1.36- 22 150-400 0.30 60 29-
30-50 2.28 35
L1.d -16.00 -18.50 GSI: - 0.62 22 100-300 0.30 25 29-

30-40 to 35
1.22
L1.e -18.50 << up to GSI: - 0.25 22 75-250 0.30 10 29-
(EOB) 30-40 to 35
1.11
*MD: Medium Dense, D: Dense, VD: Very Dense
It is to be noted that, no in-situ pressuremeter tests were conducted within this project to confirm
the elastic modulus for the site materials. Accordingly, the above selected Ed values are based on
empirical methods by Hoek & Brown using the rock data, such as UCS, RQD, ..etc, which are
slightly conservative.

9.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the examinations of the site materials, the field and laboratory testing,
engineering analysis and previous practical experience in the area with the soil materials
encountered in this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed structure(s) can be
satisfactorily supported by the ground materials at the site provided that the following
recommendations are followed:
Two alternative foundation types (Shallow and deep pile foundations) can be used to support the
structures; however, the final selection of the most convenient foundation system for any structure
would be technical feasibility, time and cost factors.
According to the provided information indicate that the foundations would be placed at
approximately depths ranging from 1.00m to 2.00m below ground level (i.e. generally at about
+0.75m and -0.25m DMD). The expected materials at this foundation depth composed of medium
dense to dense silty Sand, which forms suitable bearing formation.
9.1 Shallow Foundations
Shallow foundations (isolated footings / strip footings or raft) may be used as option for the
foundation of the proposed structures (if technically feasible). The above recommended foundation
ground forms suitable bearing formation.
The exposed foundation ground shall be inspected by a qualified engineer to confirm that the
required depth has been reached and that any undesirable materials are removed. Moreover, the
exposed foundation ground shall be proof rolled with heavy vibratory rollers to ensure that any
loose materials have been densified to not less than 95% of the max. dry density as determined
by ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent BS Procedure.
It should however be pointed out that if the excavation will be carried out below original ground
water table, then dewatering would be necessary. Groundwater table shall be kept at sufficient
depth below foundations to confirm that any uplift pressure is counter balanced by the building
weight during construction. Moreover, it should be confirmed that the permanent structure weight is
sufficient to counterbalance the uplift forces (established based on selected design GW level) with
adequate safety at the time of completion of construction.
Therefore, it is recommended that a layer of well compacted selected granular Engineered Fill
(Road Base) be furnished directly below the foundations to dissipate any upward seepage exit
gradient and provide a working plat form. The thickness of this layer is recommended to be not
less than 25cm and to be well compacted to not less than 98% of the max. dry density as
determined by Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557) or BS 1377: 1990 Part 4 Cl. 3.5.
In case the above requirements were not satisfied for any reason, then uplift resistance by deep
piles shall be considered. Micropile (if required) will be used where net uplift cannot be resisted by
building self-weight.
Bearing Capacity and Foundation Settlement:
Geotechnical analysis was carried out using specialist software (GGU footing) that considers both
allowable bearing capacity (qab) and settlement (qas).
A: analysis for qab: qab was assessed using the conventional bearing capacity equations with
specialized software GGU-Footing. The program considers the layered system of soil and rock and
GW table representing the site, in addition to the foundation shape and average specified loading.
The safety factor against BC failure is calculated using the conventional bearing capacity equation

which has the general form of: qult = c.Nc scdcicbcqc + ½ γ B Nγ sγdγiγbγqγ + q Nq sqdqiqbqqq , the
program adopts solution based on Terzaghi / Meyerhoff / Hansen / Vesic and the DIN 4017
formulation. A safety factor against general shear failure of 3 was adopted.
B: Analysis for qas: the program performs settlement analysis adopting the elastic theory. Each
layer is divided into thin sublayers, and the foundation pressure distribution in the subsoil layers is
calculated using the elastic theory. The settlement for each sublayer is then calculated as
∆s=∆σv.∆z/Ed. The final settlement is the sum of the settlement of each of the significant sublayers.
The settlement analysis was made for selected range of foundation pressure to select the most
appropriate value for qas and considering the effect of long term settlement as discussed below.
The analysis was carried out for different footing widths at 1.0m and 2.0m depths.
Long Term Settlement: Long term settlement may come from consolidation of clay soil and creep
effects of cohesionless soil and rocks, in general.
Clay soils were not encountered within the foundation soils in this site, therefore consolidation
settlement is unlikely.
The creep of rock depends on the rock joints, width of joints, joint filling soils, where clause of joints
with time produces creep movements. The encountered rock mass is characterized with closely to
moderately spaced joint system, with narrow to tight joints devoid of any compressible infilling
materials. Therefore, the long term creep settlement of bedrock would be in-significant and negligible.
Long term creep effects of the upper sandy soils are estimated as a small fraction of the short
term settlement component as discussed below.
Creep of foundation on cohesionless soil was assessed using the following two methods presented
in “Engineering and Design-Settlement Analysis”, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering
Manual 1110-1-1904.
1) Schmertmann Approximation: This procedure provides an estimate of the time-dependent

increase in the estimated “Immediate” settlement using a correction factor:
Ct = 1 + 0.2 · log10 (t/0.1)
Where, t = time in years
According to this procedure, Ct represents the time-dependent increase in settlement, related with
creep and secondary compression as observed in clays.
2) Burland and Burbidge Approximation: According to this procedure, the settlement after time
t at least 3 years following construction from creep and secondary effects may be estimated by:
ρ t = ft · ρ i
Where:
ft : 1 + R3 + R2 · Log t/3
R3 : time-dependent settlement ratio as a proportion of the immediate settlement ρi during first
3 years following construction, ~ 0.3
R2 : time-dependent settlement ratio as a proportion of the immediate settlement ρi for each log
cycle of time after 3 years, ~ 0.2

Values of R3 and R2 are conservative.
Using the above relations, the followings were obtained:
T (yr) Ct ft Recommended
3 1.3 1.3 1.15
5 1.34 1.34 1.20
10 1.40 1.37 1.25
20 1.46 1.38 1.30
50 1.54 1.54 1.50
Allowable settlement is a function of the structure tolerance. Cracks and damages are related to
high differential settlements and distortion of the foundation rather than the value of the uniform
settlement. The upper sandy soil has remarkable homogeneity of the foundation ground, in spite of
noticed variations, and hence differential settlements are expected to be minimal. To limit
differential settlements below an accepted level, it is typical practice to limit the maximum total
settlement below a certain tolerable value, as <25mm for spread footings. About 1/4th to 1/3rd of the
total settlement (<8mm) is estimated to contribute to differential settlement.
For normal column spacing of 4-5m, the likely distortion would be 1/500 to 1/600 which is
considered tolerable for framed structures. Raft foundation can tolerate higher total settlement of
upto 50mm which would correspond to same level of differential settlement.
Accordingly, the following allowable net bearing pressure values are recommended below:
Table No. 5: Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressure for different Footings:

Foundation Foundation Recommended Estimated total Average Modulus of
Type Depth (m EGL) Allowable Bearing (Max.) foundation Subgrade Reaction
3
Pressure, (kPa) Settlement Ks (MN/m )
Spread / Strip
150 <25mm -
Footing (B<4) 1.00
Raft (B>8) 170 <50mm 6.00
Spread / Strip
160 <25mm -
Footing (B<4) 2.00
Raft (B>8) 180 <50mm 6.50
The above recommended values are based on foundation settlement criteria. Further, most of the
foundation settlement will take place during the construction period.
The modulus of sub-grade reaction is a foundation-soil interaction parameter and not a

geotechnical property of the soil. The modulus of subgrade reaction is calculated directly as q/s
(where q is the contact pressure and s is the settlement). Accordingly, smaller Ks exist at the center
of footing (higher settlement) and lower Ks exist near the corners and edges of the footing. The
values recommended above represents the average modulus of sub-grade reaction to be used for
the raft foundation design.

9.2 Deep Foundations (Pile Foundation)
Drilled pile foundations (bored cast-in-situ piles) are recommended to support the
structural loads.
Drilled shaft foundations are particularly attractive for use in “intermediate geomaterials - IGMs” or
geomaterials at the boundary between soil and rock (as encountered in this site); since boreholes
in such geomaterials are relatively stable, the geomaterials are not usually difficult to excavate,
and the geomaterials provide excellent resistance to load. Driven piles are often more difficult to
install and are sometimes damaged in intermediate geomaterials. Drilled shafts in intermediate
geomaterials are most often constructed so as to provide most of their resistance to working load
by means of side resistance, as opposed to base resistance.
The typical behaviour, and methods of single pile capacity estimate for drilled shafts in sands,
gravels, and rocks adopted in this study are consistent to: Federal Highway Agency: FHWH-NHI-
10-016 "Drilled Shaft reference Manual". Design methods and equations presented in this
document are largely consistent with those presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2007). The AASHTO specifications are based on the 1999 version of the
above referenced manual (O'Neill and Reese, 1999). Further details may be given on request.
9.2.1 Single Pile Capacity Calculations:
Description of geotechnical capacity estimates for dilled shafts in Sand and Rock are summarized
in separate documents and are available upon request.
The skin friction for drilled shafts throughout the upper soil overburden was estimated using the β
method and for rock according to Williams and Pells method. These methods are described in the
above mentioned documents and summarized below:
For the upper sand, the β method adopted in the above referenced document was used as
follows:
The β method for skin friction of cohesionless soil: β is an empirical coefficient that depends on the
depth (Z) as the soil structure is highly disturbed in the vicinity of the pile shaft due to drilling
effects.
The method includes the following formulation:
fsz = β σz’
Qs = o∫ L β σz’
β = 1.5- 0.135 √z (ft)
β = 1.5- 0.245 √z (m) 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2
In very gravelly sands or gravels, from limited information:
β = 2.0 – 0.15 [z(m)]0.75 0.25≤ b ≤ 1.8;
Where;
z = depth below ground surface.
The calculations are typically conducted with specialist computer software (FB Deep, or Shaft) if
necessary to give a depth dependent estimates for any specific calculation. The above estimates
were only given for information only, because also the calculation would depend on the cut off
level.., ..etc.

For underlying weak rock, Williams and Pells proposed method for skin friction evaluation was
used, which is described as follows: (References: (a) Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone,
mudstone, and shale by A.F. Williams, P.J. N. Pells, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, 1981.
(b) Foundations on rock, 2nd ed., By Duncan C. Wyllie, 1999, Publisher: E & FN Spon). The
relationship between compressive strength of rock in socket and side-wall shear resistance, or
adhesion factor is presented below:
Accordingly, fmax = α . β UCS, where α = 0.5 (UCS)-0.5, therefore,

fmax = 0.5 β (UCS)0.5 Mpa, in which UCS is the unconfined compression strength in MPa.
Statistical average representative value for the rock strength throughout the rock socket was
established for different depth interval and graphical presentations for UCS results were made and
presented below for every interval separately.
The friction reduction factor (β) depends on the rock mass parameter J (=Em/Es, Em= Rock mass
modulus and Es is the modulus of intact rock (ref.23). Em/Es may be estimated based on
correlations with RQD and rock fracture spacing as given by (ref.24). Accordingly, the reduction
factor (β) was selected for the appropriate layers as presented in the below table.
A special computer software (FB Deep), prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida
Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, was used to perform the
calculations. The FB Deep computer program is a Windows based program used to estimate the
static axial capacity of single drilled shafts that allows for settlement estimate.
The skin friction was established using the above mentioned methods, and the pile load settlement
behavior was then established adopting: O'Neill, M.W. et al. (1996) "Load Transfer for Drilled
Shafts in Intermediate Geomaterials, with FB Deep software, which also predicts load transfer and
therefore establish end bearing and skin friction components.
The assessment of skin friction for piles in IGM, the roughness and nature of the IGM – Shaft
interface is the main significant factor. The method of drilling, drilling fluid, and pile construction
procedure determines the roughness / smoothness of the interface and hence the skin friction
resistance, in addition to the type and strength of the IGM, pile diameter, and length. The use of
Bentonite slurry in advancing the pile shaft would cause the formation of bentonite cake causing
smooth interface conditions. The use of other drilling fluids as chemical polymers would cause
some improvement to skin friction.

Bentonite Effect: The use of Bentonite slurry in advancing the pile shaft would cause the
formation of bentonite cake causing smooth interface conditions. The use of other drilling fluids as
chemical polymers would cause some improvement to skin friction.
The figure shows typical effects

of the use of different drilling
methods on the average unit
skin friction (extracted from
above referenced FHWA
document). It shows substantial
friction increase can be
achieved by using different
drilling fluids.
Figure No. 6: Average load transfer in side shear for different

construction methods (Brown, 2002
The following single pile capacities were established for the case of advancing the shaft drilling
using special fluids (such as polymer). In case other drilling fluids to be used (such as bentonite),
then further additional recommendations can be given on request, based on the proposed other
specific method.
Safety Factor:
A global safety factor of 2.5 was used for skin friction.
End bearing: is discussed in details in the attached document. The mobilized end bearing is
generally very small compared to the actual rock socket strength in end bearing as it requires high
settlement to occur. Therefore, it is typically a small fraction of the pile working load particularly for
long piles. Where doubts on the socket – IGM interface sound conditions at the pile toe, it is
advised to ignore the end bearing completely. For this project, the end bearing was ignored.
For Piles under uplift forces, Intermediate geomaterials - IGMs that are loaded in uplift will
develop values of fmax that are essentially identical to those developed in compression, provided
the shaft borehole is classified as "rough." When the borehole is "smooth" the Poisson's effect
influences shaft resistance. The shaft expands laterally when it is loaded in compression,
increasing the lateral effective stresses against the interface and consequently the shearing
resistance of the IGM at the interface, since the interface is drained and frictional.
However, when the drilled shaft is loaded in uplift, the shaft contracts laterally, reducing the lateral
effective stresses against the interface and the shearing resistance of the IGM at the interface. For
this reason values of fmax for uplift loading should be reduced slightly below the values used for
compression loading if the shaft is long and flexible. It is recommended that:
fmax (uplift) = ψ fmax (compression)
Therefore, reduction of 0.7 on skin friction values was made for uplift pile capacity calculations.
This recommendation is based upon a study by Carter and Kulhawy (1988) for sockets in rock.

Cut off Level: The specified foundation levels / cut off levels will be at +0.00 DMD. However, the
friction over the upper surface of sand directly 1.0m below the COL was ignored to account for
disturbance factor
Rock Socket Unit Skin Friction: The allowable skin frictions for different depth intervals were
adopted using Williams and Pells method as a liner function and are summarized in the following
table:
Table No. 6: Allowable Unit Skin Frictions (with account for drilling of piles with fluids such as
Polymer) (Cut-off Level = +0.00m DMD):
Elevation Material Representative fs max, Safety fs all, kPa* fs all, kPa*
(m DMD) UCS, kPa kPa Factor (Comp.) (Uplift)
0.00 to -1.00 MD Silty Sand - ignored - - -
-1.00 to -4.60 D to VD Silty - 28 2.50 11 8

Sand
-4.60 to -7.00 Calcarenite 1300 370 2.50 148 103
-7.00 to -12.0 Calcarenite 2750 538 2.50 215 150
-12.0 to -16.0 Calcarenite 1100 340 2.50 136 95
Below <-16.00 Calcarenite 300 150 2.50 60 42
*fs all = all skin friction. Uplift resistance is taken 70% of skin friction in compression.
End bearing (qb): ignored as described above.
Pile Head Settlement Prediction:
The adopted O'Neill, M.W. et al. (1996) "Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermediate
Geomaterials", model provides pile-load settlement analysis.
The input parameters are pile properties (D, L), fmax (max assessed skin friction), pile-IGM
boundary condition (smooth was selected), and rock mass deformation modulus. The method
accounts for load transfer along the pile shaft as settlement of pile head increases, and find the
mobilized end-bearing.
The analysis was carried out for a range of specified shaft diameters of 600,750mm, 900mm,
1000mm, 1200mm and 1500mm for different toe levels with 1.0m increment. For each case, the
working pile capacity is calculated as the sum of the allowable shaft friction and mobilized end
bearing resistance (however end bearing was ignored). Load-settlement curves developed by the
computer showing the skin friction and end bearing versus settlement were obtained.

Allowable Working Loads of Piles in Compression
The allowable working loads in compression for different pile diameters and toe levels are
presented in Table No. 7 below (adopting safety factor of 2.5). The results are also presented
graphically in Figure No. 7 below.
Table No. 7: Allowable Working Loads in Compression – (COL= +0.0m DMD)

Toe Allowable Working Loads in Compression (kN)
Pile Length
Level
below Cut- Pile Diameter (m)
of Piles
off Level
(m
(m) 0.60m 0.75m 0.90m 1.00m 1.20m 1.50m
DMD)
-10 10 1960 2450 2940 3267 3920 4900
-11 11 2366 2958 3549 3943 4732 5915
-12 12 2772 3465 4158 4620 5544 6930
-13 13 3029 3786 4543 5048 6058 7572
-14 14 3286 4107 4929 5476 6572 8214
-15 15 3543 4428 5314 5904 7085 8856
-16 16 3799 4749 5699 6332 7599 9499
-17 17 3913 4891 5869 6521 7826 9782
-18 18 4026 5033 6040 6711 8053 10066
-19 19 4140 5175 6210 6900 8280 10350
-20 20 4253 5317 6380 7089 8507 10633
-21 21 4367 5459 6550 7278 8734 10917
-22 22 4480 5600 6720 7467 8961 11201

Allowable Working Loads in Compression (kN)

-9.5
600mm dia
750mm dia
-11.0
900mm dia
1000mm dia
-12.5
1200mm dia
1500mm dia
-14.0
Elevation (m DMD)
-15.5
-17.0
-18.5
-20.0
-21.5
-23.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Figure No. 7: Recommended Pile Working Load in Compression – (COL=-+0.0m DMD)

Allowable Uplift Load Capacity of Piles
The allowable working loads in uplift for different pile diameters and depths are presented in Table
No.8 below. The results are also presented graphically in Figure No.8 below.
Table No. 8 : Allowable Working Loads in Uplift – (COL=+0.00m DMD)

Toe Allowable Working Loads in Uplift (kN)
Pile Length
Level
of Piles
off Level
(m
(m) 0.60m 0.75m 0.90m 1.00m 1.20m 1.50m
DMD)
-10 10 1,372 1,715 2,058 2,287 2,744 3,430
-11 11 1,656 2,070 2,484 2,760 3,312 4,141
-12 12 1,940 2,426 2,911 3,234 3,881 4,851
-13 13 2,120 2,650 3,180 3,534 4,241 5,301
-14 14 2,300 2,875 3,450 3,833 4,600 5,750
-15 15 2,480 3,100 3,720 4,133 4,960 6,200
-16 16 2,660 3,324 3,989 4,433 5,319 6,649
-17 17 2,739 3,424 4,109 4,565 5,478 6,848
-18 18 2,818 3,523 4,228 4,697 5,637 7,046
-19 19 2,898 3,622 4,347 4,830 5,796 7,245
-20 20 2,977 3,722 4,466 4,962 5,955 7,443
-21 21 3,057 3,821 4,585 5,095 6,114 7,642
-22 22 3,136 3,920 4,704 5,227 6,272 7,841

Allowable Working Loads in Uplift (kN)

-9.5
600mm dia
750mm dia
-11.0
900mm dia
1000mm dia
-12.5
1200mm dia
1500mm dia
-14.0
Elevation (m DMD)
-15.5
-17.0
-18.5
-20.0
-21.5
-23.0
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000
Figure No. 8: Recommended Pile Working Load in Uplift – (COL=+0.0m DMD)

Notes:
1. The center to center distance between the piles should not be less than 2.5 to 3.0 times the pile
diameter.
2. The pile loads specified above are based on geotechnical considerations only, and should
therefore, be limited on the basis of structural capacity of each pile.
Verification of Theoretical Pile Capacities:
The design piles capacities determined using the theoretical design methods should be confirmed
and supplemented as work progresses by results of pile load tests, pile installation and driving and
if considered necessary, by in-situ tests. The design length of piles represents the design
requirements but this may be varied to suit site conditions.
With any form of the pile, it is recommended that specialist contractors are consulted as to the cost
and performance characteristics of their particular form of pile with particular reference to the
proposed method of installation in the ground conditions encountered at the site. The piling
construction should be carried out by specialist well-experienced and equipped piling contractor,
who must submit a method statement for the construction of the piles and should be requested to
confirm the actual working loads for his particular piling system before foundation design is
finalized. Care should be taken when drilling for cast in place piles not to disturb or loosen the end
bearing strata, and to maintain direct and firm contact between these strata and the piles.
Since the theoretical design methods provide an approximate working load, the contractor should
also demonstrate by load test the piles performance and its load settlement characteristics.
Pile load tests are considered the most satisfactory method to assess the carrying capacity of a
pile. It is therefore recommended that such tests be performed either on specially constructed piles
installed before the start of the general construction works or during the foundation construction
period.
However, if pre-contract testing is carried out, significant savings may result from a more
economical pile design based upon specific test data.
Finally, strict program of QC should be planned and implemented during pile installation including
all tests necessary such as caliper logging, cross hole sonic, PIT, loading tests on working piles,
and all other necessary tests required by the project specifications and local authority
requirements.
Close Geotechnical supervision by qualified and experienced Engineers is also highly

recommended during all stages of pile foundation construction and testing.
9.2.2 Settlement of Piles
With the piles designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations given above, the
anticipated settlement is estimated to be less than the specified allowable limits. Short Term
Settlement of Single Piles under the recommended working loads is expected to be less than 0.5%
of the pile diameter, as explained in the following.
L1 - L2 Rule: Drilled Shaft Load - Settlement Behaviour
Reference: Federal Highway Agency: FHWH-NHI-10-016 "Drilled Shaft reference Manual".

Data base of high quality static loading tests has indicated that the following commonly known L1 -
L2 rule for interpretation of pile load test results, as shown in the following schematic graph:
Figure No. 9: Average Normalized Load-Displacement Curve that Forms the Basis of Load test
It shows that:
Failure load is defined as the load Qf, after which, the pile would settle at small or zero extra
loading in a linear mode (plunging) as shown in the above graph (Failure threshold point L2).
The pile behaves linearly up to about 50% of the failure load (Qf) - Point L1, at which the pile head
settlement will be about 0.4% D. At this stage, Qtip (Base resistance) will be about 0.11 QL1 or
5.5% Qf (Failure load, and Qs will be 0.89QL1 and 94.5% Qf or QL2).
This means that at working load Qw, which is based on safety factor of 2.5 (or 0.4Qf,
approximately), the pile head settlement will be less than 0.4D%. Also Qtip at Qw stage will also be
less than 5.5% Qf, as normally expected.
Failure (Qf) Threshold load (point L2) occurs at about 4% D pile head settlement (actually at 102%
Qf), and Qtip (base resistance) will reach only 24% of Qf or QL2, whereas Qsu will be about 76% of
Qf
Therefore, at the above recommended working loads in compression, the single pile short term
settlement is expected to be <0.5% of the pile diameter.
Long term settlement of drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials may come from consolidation
and creep. Consolidation settlement is unlikely, and creep can be estimated using the following
relationship suggested by Horvath and Chae. They defined the normalized settlement SN by:
SN = Em D wsocket / 2 Qsocket:
Em is the secant mass modulus at one-half the compressive strength, and the subscript socket
refers to load (Q) and deflection (w) at the top of the rock socket with diameter D. Then, if creep
settlement is defined as the settlement occurring in the period after 1 day of sustained load, then
ΔSN can be expressed as:
ΔSN = Cnrp log10 (tp) + Cnrs log10 (t - tp)

Cnrp and Cnrs are the normalized primary and secondary creep coefficient = 0.1 and 0.03 for
smooth sockets and 0.06 and 0.01 for rough sockets, respectively. tp (days) is the time required to
achieve primary creep (appr. 100 days).
Application of the above relation shows that creep settlement is in-significant and amounting 2-
4mm only.
Accordingly, the total long term single pile settlement would be around 0.5%D + 2-4mm which
makes it always <1% of the pile diameter.
9.2.3 Vertical Single Pile Stiffness
The pile vertical stiffness will be estimated according to the recommended procedure given in EM
1110-2-2906 “Design of Pile Foundation”, Dept of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, as
follows:
Axial pile stiffness b33 = c33 . AE / L
A, L & E are cross section, Length and Modulus of Elasticity of the Pile Shaft.
c33 is constant that accounts for the interaction between the soil and the pile, evaluated as: c33 =
Δ./δ
in Which Δ = PL/AE, P=Axial working pile load, and δ is the axial movement of the pile head due to
axial load. Accordingly, the vertical pile stiffness can be estimated for any desired pile and toe level,
using the above recommended single pile working loads in compression and estimated long term
settlement about 0.5% D + 2-4mm.
Table No. 9: Vertical Single Pile Stiffness – (COL=+0.0m DMD):

Toe Vertical Single Pile Stiffness (MN/m)
Pile Length
Level
of Piles
off Level
(m
(m) 0.60m 0.75m 0.90m 1.00m 1.20m 1.50m
DMD)
-10 10 327 363 392 408 436 467
-11 11 394 438 473 493 526 563
-12 12 462 513 554 578 616 660
-13 13 505 561 606 631 673 721
-14 14 548 608 657 685 730 782
-15 15 590 656 709 738 787 843
-16 16 633 704 760 792 844 905
-17 17 652 725 783 815 870 932
-18 18 671 746 805 839 895 959
-19 19 690 767 828 862 920 986
-20 20 709 788 851 886 945 1,013
-21 21 728 809 873 910 970 1,040
-22 22 747 830 896 933 996 1,067

9.2.4 Pile Group Action
Group effects in axial loading are accounted for by multiplying the estimated resistance of a single
drilled shaft by group efficiency factor η:
RT (One drilled shaft in a group) = ηRT (isolated drilled shaft of corresponding size)
η should not be taken to be greater that 1.
It is generally recommended that the designer determine η from simple block failure model when
the cap is in contact with the ground. This is based on the hypothesis that when drilled shafts
become too closely spaced they will fail as a “block” or as one large equivalent drilled shaft having
the shape of the outside boundary of the group. The ultimate resistance of the block and drilled
shafts outlined by the equivalent block is given by:
RTBlock = fmax D [ 2(Bg + Lg) ] + qmax(BgLg)
fmax is computed as if the peripheral surface of the block is a drilled shaft, and qmax is a net value
computed from an appropriate procedure. The value of fmax computed in this way will be
conservative because some of the shearing perimeter around the perimeter of the block will occur
in relatively undisturbed soil between the points of tangency of the bounding surface and the drilled
shafts.
η = RTBlock / (n.RTSingle shaft) ≤ 1
In which n is the number of drilled shafts in the group. For pile spacing >2.5 the diameter, η can
be taken as unity. For smaller pile spacing, an estimate of group efficiency shall be
established.
Further, settlement of groups of drilled shafts may be a concern. The following method for
assessing pile group settlement is proposed.
Settlement of Group of Drilled Shafts
Settlement or uplift is more often problematical in groups of drilled shafts than in single drilled
shafts because of the overlapping stresses produced in the soil or rock by the loads being
transferred from all of the drilled shafts in the group into the geomaterial. Therefore, settlement
should always be check for drilled shaft groups. Both short-term and long-term settlement should
be considered. Short-term settlement is associated with elastic deformations in the soil or rock and
possibly rapid compression of drained geomaterials. Ordinarily, long-term settlement is associated
with either creep in rock or consolidation of soft sediments below the bases of the drilled shafts,
which is in significant for this site.
Equivalent Raft Method
This method is the simplest general method for estimating group settlement and is applicable both
to short-term and long-term settlement problems (Poulos, 1993). Poulos (1993) suggests that the
equivalent raft method is expected to be reasonably accurate for large groups (16 piles or larger)
and for relatively uniform soils.
The method assumes that the drilled shaft group is equivalent to a raft or large footing buried in the
ground at some distance D below the ground surface. D is selected based upon whether the drilled
shafts resist load primarily in side shear (D = 0.67 Ldrilledshaft) or in base resistance (D = Ldrilledshaft).
The group is considered to be rigidly capped, so that all shaft heads settle the same amount. Under
this condition:

WTgroup = Wer + Δs
In which WTgroup is the settlement of the group cap (uniform settlement of the shafts), Wer is the
settlement of the embedded equivalent raft and Δs is the compression of the piles above the level
of the equivalent raft assuming that the drilled shafts are freestanding columns.
The settlement of the equivalent raft is computed by first dividing the geomaterail beneath the
elevation of the equivalent raft into several layers. The settlement of the equivalent raft is given by:
Wer = FD ∑ εzi hi
In which FD is a factor that corrects for the depth of the equivalent raft, εzi is the average vertical
strain in geomaterial layer i, hi is the thickness of layer. i is the number of layers down to the bottom
of the zone of influence.
ACES would provide group settlement assessment, if required based on specific piles
layout and loading.
Reference: “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods” – US Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025.
9.2.5 Lateral Pile Stiffness
The pile lateral stiffness is defined as the ratio of the lateral load at the pile head divided by the
lateral deflection of the pile head (KN/m).
Evaluation of the lateral pile head deflection requires a pile-soil interaction analysis (specialized
software are typically used, see e.g. FHWA Publications, FHWA-SA-91-048, COM624P-Laterally
Loaded Pile Program for the Microcomputer, Versions 2.0, by Wand and Reese (1993). The
soil/rock is represented in this analysis by the horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction/p-y curve as
discussed in the following.
Horizontal Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
The most widely used procedure for designing laterally loaded piers is the p-y method. The p-y
curves can model the condition of soil-structure interaction for laterally loaded piles. The p-y curve
represents the lateral deformation y of the soil and rock at any given depth below the ground
surface, and the horizontally applied rock and soil reaction p (KN/m) ranging from zero to the stage
of yielding of the rock-soil in ultimate shear when the deformation increases without any increase in
the load. P-y curves for soil and weak rock are to be typically obtained from the results of pressure
meter tests.
The following schematic diagram illustrates the concept of lateral load resistance for piles
embedded in soil and rock material (Reference: Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak Rock,
by Lymon C. Reese, Honorary Member, ASCE).
It shows that maximum lateral deflection depends on the stiffness of the upper most soil materials
near the pile head. The concept of p-y curves is also illustrated on the figure.

Figure No. 10: Model of a socketed pier under lateral load showing the concept of soil response:
(a) reaction of rock and soil layers replaced by springs; (b) stress-strain curves; (c) increase in
modulus with depth
For rock material: Estimate of the p-y curve can be developed based on investigation results using
published methods of (e.g Reese, 1997) for piers socketed in weak rock.
P-Y curves for Weak Rock
The capacity of a socketed pier to withstand lateral loads depends on the rigidity of the pier, as well
as the load – deformation characteristics and formation thickness of the rock and soil in which the
pier is socketed.
There are few records of p-y curves for rock, however, the results of a limited number of tests of
installations in very weak rock have been used in the development of a preliminary procedure for
drawing up p-y curves for weak rock based on the concepts and procedures recommended by
Reese, 1997 (Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak Rock, by Lymon C. Reese, Honorary
Member, ASCE). The main concepts are:
The geologic structure of the rock mass can significantly influence its behaviour.
The ultimate resistance pult for p-y curves will rarely, if ever, be developed in practice, but the
prediction of pult is necessary in order to reflect non-linear behaviour.
The compressive strength of the intact rock used for computing the value of pult may be obtained
from tests of intact samples. The modulus of rock mass Em may be taken from the initial slope of a
pressure meter curve or from correlations based on rock mass properties.

Typical p-y curve will have the following pattern (Reese, 1997):
Figure No. 11: Typical p – y curve for weak rock
The resulting curve show that the initial portion of the p-y curve is very stiff, which is consistent with
the very low deflections observed during the initial loading.
However, the lateral load resistance of the piles is controlled by materials within the vicinity
of the upper portion of the pile shaft, as indicated above.
Moreover, lateral pile stiffness estimated for single pile shall be modified to account for
group action. Approximate estimates exist, as described below.
Analysis for lateral load of Single Pile: For any specified horizontal load, and pile head condition,
analysis may be carried out to find the pile deflection and corresponding forces (BM and Shears),
adopting the p-y curves and evaluate lateral pile stiffness.
The analysis shall be performed using specialized software that is compatible to COM624P
calculation methods for lateral analysis (Ref. FHWA Publications, FHWA-SA-91-048, COM624P-
Laterally Loaded Pile Program for the Microcomputer, Versions 2.0, by Wand and Reese (1993).
The program (LPILEPLUS 5.0, for windows by Ensoft Inc, USA, written by: L. Reese, S. Tower
Wang, W. Isenhower, J. Arrelaga, & J. Hendrix), is proposed which solves the four nonlinear
differential equation to perform the lateral analysis, which are:
d4Y d2Y
EI -------- + Q -------- - P + W = 0
dX4 dX2
Where:
Q = axial compression load on the pile
Y = lateral deflection of pile at depth of X
X = depth from the top of pile
P = soil reaction per unit length
E = modules of elasticity of pile
I = moment of inertia of the pile
W = distributed load along the upper portion of the pile length.
And hence provides a solution to the single pile lateral stiffness. The client has to specify the pile
head fixity condition. For piles-raft systems, a fixed head condition is typically assumed.

Pile Head Condition
Fixed pile head conditions may be assumed in the analysis (zero slopes) to account for the pile-RC
Cap fixity. This assumption is justified and reasonable but should be confirmed by the structural
Engineer. It results in less lateral deflection at the pile head; however, fixed-end bending moments
at the pile head are generated.
Soil / Rock Parameters
P-y curves shall be established for each layer as described above by the computer using
representative material properties, as presented above in this report.
Results of Analysis
The analysis may be carried out for the specified lateral load, pile diameter, and cut off level.
Comprehensive results in the form of the following can be reported for each analysis:
1. P-y curves at selected depths

2. Pile lateral deflection (m)
3. Bending moment diagram (KN.m)
4. Shear force diagram (KN)
5. Soil reaction diagram (KN/m2)
Moreover, lateral pile stiffness may then be determined as a ratio of lateral load at the pile head
divided by the lateral deflection of the pile head.
ACES would carry out specific analysis based on the client request for any specified
combination of pile diameter, toe level, cut off level, lateral load value and pile head
condition, to provide the bending moments and shear forces in addition to pile head lateral
stiffness.
9.2.6 Pile Group Action (Lateral)
For pile group analysis, the lateral capacity of individual piles cannot be fully developed and
therefore, reduction factors are applied to the soil reaction based on the group configuration and
piles spacing. To obtain the group action, then …
Pgroup = Σ Psingle , for the same lateral deflection, or

Ygroup = Ysingle
Reference: “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundation, Workshop Manual – Volume 1”,
FHWA publication No. FHWA HI 97-013, Revised Nov. 1998, which describe the concept of group
action and reduction of soil stiffness, and proposed procedure.
Accordingly, if Ps was the p-y curve of single pile, then PmxPs is the p-y curve for single pile in a
group. The value of the reduction factor (Multiplier Pm) depends on the piles spacing and
configuration. For the far most row of piles (away from the lateral load), termed as front row, Pm of
0.80 is recommended, 0.40 for second row and 0.30 for third and subsequent row.
Accordingly, the lateral load single pile stiffnesses shall be reduced as necessary for the analysis.

9.3 Seismic Design Parameters
A. Soil Profile Type: According to uniform building code, UBC 1997 / International Building Code
IBC 2006 / ASCE/ISE 7-05 (American Society of Civil Engineers, the statistical average shear wave
velocity vs. of the upper 100ft (30m) below the foundation is used to select the soil profile type as
follows;
Hard Rock Rock Soft Rock Stiff Soil Soft Soil

Soil Profile Type
SA SB SC SD SE
Shear Wave 760 ≥ Vs ≤ 360 ≥ Vs ≤ 180 ≥ Vs ≤
Vs > 1500 Vs ≤ 180
Velocity, Vs (m/s) 1500 760 360
Standard
Not Applicable Not Applicable N > 50 15 ≥ N ≤ 50 N < 15
Penetration
Soil Undrained
Not Applicable Not Applicable Su > 100 50 ≥ Su ≤ 100 Su < 50
Strength, Su
Statistical; average Vs is calculated as Vs = Σ Vsi x Zi / Σ Zi
Based on the encountered subsurface materials, site class as SC (representing Soft Rock) is
recommended for this site. Verification by direct measurement (using down-hole seismic logging
or MASW - surface shear wave velocity - tests) is suggested, if required.
B. Very limited studies are available that describe seismic activity and zoning in the area. The
report “Earthquakes and Seismic Zones in the Middle east”, by J D Mortimer-Lloyd, BRE – Building
Research Establishment, Report No. Cl/SfB 1976 (H16), published 1983, provides an evaluation of
seismic history from previous records available and instruments data, and suggests zoning
classification and ground motion activity.
Accordingly, the site area is classified within UBC Seismic Zone 2A. Below is schematic of UBC
seismic zoning scale.
Figure No. 12: Effective Peak Ground Acceleration, 10% Exceedance Probability for 50 Years
Exposure Time
This also matches the new (modified) DM circular (No. 191) (Ref. No. 812/02/02/1/1306344 dated
15th May 2013) that requires all public buildings and all structures >G+4 floors and up to G+9 floors
to be designed for UBC zone 2A. Buildings of >G+9, shall be designed for UBC Zone 2B. It is
advised to directly refer to the above DM circular and any other DM requirements.
The above assessments are subject to the approval of the Engineer.

9.4 Soil Parameters for Design of Retaining Structures
The retaining walls, if any, drained and backfilled, shall be designed for an equivalent earth lateral
pressure, plus a uniform lateral pressure which corresponds to the maximum expected surface
loads.
For a general estimate of earth pressures on shallow sub-grade walls, the following parameters are
recommended:
Table No. 10: Coefficients of Lateral Earth pressure

Soil Parameters Elevation Range (m DMD)
Upper Silty -1.00m to -4.00m to Bedrock

SAND up -4.00m -4.50m (below
to -1.00m -4.50m)
Ground Material Type MD silty MD to D silty Very Dense Calcarenite
Sand Sand silty Sand
Angle of Shearing Resistance, deg 33 35 38 30
Cohesion (kPa) 0 0 0 60
Unit Weight of Soil (above water table) (kN/m3) 18 18 19 22
Unit Weight of Soil (below water table) (kN/m3) 8 8 9 12
Recommended Earth Pressure Coefficients
Active earth pressure coefficient (ka) 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.33
Passive earth pressure coefficient (kp) 3.39 3.69 4.20 3.00
Earth pressure at rest (k0) 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.50-0.75*
* Estimate of Lateral Pressure Coefficient (At Rest) for Rock:
In-situ horizontal stresses for a gravitationally loaded rock mass in which no strain is permitted (Ko
condition), where estimated by Terzaghi and Richart (1952) as:
σ'o = ko . σ’v = ko . γ . z
ko = ν/(1-ν), where ν is poisons ratio.
For ν = 0.3, then ko = 0.43
However, measurements of horizontal stresses have shown that the ratio ko tends to be high at
shallow depths and it decreases at depth (Hoek and Brown 1978, Herget, 1988). Accordingly, the
above estimate is recommended. These are generally supported by PMT interpreted Ko.
Notes:
1. Lateral earth pressure parameters were estimated without considering the wall / soil friction, the
wall is vertical and ground surface is horizontal. Moreover, likely over consolidation, aging or
cementation effects were not estimated. Deviations from these conditions, if encountered, shall
be considered by the foundation engineer. The data included in this report can be used for
more specific parameter estimates, if required.

2. Representative shear strength parameters shown above represent average estimates based on
soil classification index properties, in-situ and laboratory tests results as discussed above.
3. ACES would be pleased to provide further detailed recommendations, if required, for specific
design situations, at separate fees.
Lateral pressure is calculated using:
σ' a = σ’v Ka – 2c’ √(Ka), in which Ka = Tan2 (45- Φ’/2)

σ‘p = σ’v Kp + 2c’ √ (Kp), in which Kp = Tan2(45+ Φ’/2)
Lateral pressure at rest: σ‘0 = σ’v K0
Water pressure shall be added to calculate the total lateral pressure.
10.0 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION
10.1 Excavation Methods
The excavation works are to be carried out in accordance with good construction practice, as per
BS 6031: 1981, “Code of Practice for Earthworks” or a similar recognized standard. The proposed
shallow excavations are expected to be through sandy soil and underlying rock. Therefore,
conventional excavation equipment such as loaders and dozers will be needed for the excavation
works through the upper sandy materials. Rock breakers and jack hammers will be needed,
however, for the excavations in the underlying rock materials.
10.2 Excavation Side Slopes
Where space permits and above the water table, the side slopes in temporary excavations should
not be steeper than (3H: 2V) in the upper sandy soil, as recommended by the CIRIA Report No. 97
“Trenching Practice”. However, steeper temporary side slopes can be made through underlying
rock.
The excavations in the underlying bedrock must not be taken for granted that rock excavations will
stand with vertical slopes without trouble. Their stability depends on a number of factors related to
rock type, rock mass structure, such as dipping angle of discontinuities, thickness and degree of
fracturing of the rock mass, mass and material strength, type and nature of secondary filling
materials in discontinuities. The existence of ground water is also an important factor.
Therefore, excavation of side slopes of not steeper than one horizontal to four vertical (1H: 4V), are
considered fairly safe and stable and may be used. However, further recommendations may be
given if this option was selected. Close geotechnical supervision is highly advised during site
excavation.
If the above recommended side slopes cannot be achieved for insufficient lateral space or any
other reason, a temporary lateral support (shoring) system will be needed and shall be installed.
10.3 Backfill Material and Compaction Criteria
The material excavated during shallow site excavation will be composed mainly of sandy soils and
rock pieces which are generally suitable for backfilling purposes around foundations and against
underground walls.
The following general backfilling and compaction criteria are recommended, unless otherwise
stated in the project specifications:

Materials to be used for backfilling purposes against sub-grade walls and around foundations are
described as backfill. Because water penetration is not desired, the material to be used for this
purpose (unless otherwise stated by the project specifications) shall be a soil or soil-rock mixture of
low permeability, which is free of organic matter or other deleterious substances. It shall not contain
rocks or lumps over 15 cm in greatest dimension, and not more than 15 percent larger than 7 cm.
The percentage of the fine materials (passing sieve no. 200 shall not exceed 20%). The plasticity
index for the backfill material shall not be more than 10 percent. It shall be spread in lifts not
exceeding 25 cm in compacted thickness, moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content,
and compacted to a dry density not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined
by the procedures of ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor), or BS 1377 : 1990 Part 4 Cl 3.5.
10.4 Surface Drainage
It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at the location of the
project both during and after construction. Surface water should be diverted away from the edges
of the excavation.
10.5 Subsurface Drainage System (Dewatering)
If the excavation has to be carried out below the ground water table, dewatering is necessary. In
all cases, specialist contractors should be consulted in this regard. Care should be taken during
dewatering to ensure that fines are not removed during pumping since this could result in
unpredictable settlements of the surrounding ground and associated structures.
Different methods for site dewatering exist; ranging from shallow trenches and sumps, well point
dewatering system or deep wells depending on the depth of dewatering and site particulars.
Shallow trenches and pumping are only suitable for very shallow dewatering requirements,
whereas well points are more convenient for larger dewatering depth. The effective depth of a well
point system below the header pipe is about 5-6m only; therefore, a single, double or even multiple
systems may be used depending on the required depth of dewatering.
Specialist contractors, with sufficient previous experience, must be consulted for the selection and
design of the shoring and dewatering systems.
ACES would provide further specific recommendations, if necessary.

11.0 FOUNDATION CONCRETE
Introduction
The primary cause of serious deterioration in reinforced concrete is corrosion of the reinforcement,
due to attack by chlorides, present in concrete either within concrete aggregate and mixing water,
or through penetration from surrounding environment. Since chloride induced reinforcement
corrosion can only occur in the presence of oxygen and water, the risk of corrosion can be reduced
by control of chloride in concreting materials and by ensuring adequacy, integrity and
impermeability of the concrete cover.
Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by the presence of a high sulphate content either by the
ingress from the sulphate of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils or
groundwater, or by the presence of sulphate in the concrete ingredients. The attack results in a
considerable internal expansion which may lead to crack and disintegration of the concrete. This
effect can be reduced by use of selected cements or by suitable protection of the concrete.
Where sulphate and chloride occur together in high concentrations, sulphate resisting cement
provides less protection against the reinforcement corrosion. In such cases the test exposure
conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified recommendations for concrete mix
design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region, CIRIA Special Publication 31 (1984).
It may be noted that as per CIRIA Guide, there is no widely accepted view on the concentration at
which chlorides become significant in soil or ground water, but limited experience in the Gulf
Region suggests it may be as low as 0.05% particularly in situations where wetting and drying or
capillary rise affect the concrete.
Analysis & Guidelines
The results of chemical analysis for soil and ground water in the site are given in Appendix D2. The
methodology of assessment of ground for chemical agents aggressive for concrete has been based
on the latest publications concerning assessment of exposure conditions and specification of
concrete to resist chemical attack:
1. BS 8500-1:2006
2. BRE Special Digest 1, 2005, 3rd ed, “Concrete in Aggressive Ground”.
3. CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula.
Appendix G includes selected extracts from the above referenced documents.
Notes:
a. SD 1: 2005 includes some key changes over SD 1:2003 version. Direct reference to this
document is recommended for appreciation of these changes. SD 1 refers to conditions in UK,
however, the document is widely in use in the area and it includes very useful information that is
also in close matching with other references (e.g CIRIA C577, and BS 8500); therefore,
reference to SD 1 was made in this report.
b. The analysis conducted below is mainly intended to highlight the general procedure and main
steps and factors affecting the selection of durable concrete within the existing aggressive
environmental and site conditions. It presents a range of solutions and therefore, it is the
designer who must make the most appropriate selection. Further, other references may be used

as may be applicable to reach the optimum selection. It is our advice that the strictest
requirements be followed from the different resources.
c. In addition, several mix characteristics and aggregate property ranges from local experiences to
produce concrete of high durability and strength and other high quality engineering parameters
are included to demonstrate the typical concrete proportions and constituents that can be
achieved locally.
1.0 Classification of Ground conditions
Classification of the severity of chemical attack in the investigated site was based on the foundation
soil / GW sulphate content and PH value (Natural Soil and mobile GW conditions were adopted),
location of foundation, as well as the type of exposure conditions. Accordingly, the following
classification was obtained:
Table No. 11: Classification of Ground Conditions

Design Aggressive Chemical
DS based on Water
Sulphate Environment
Location of Soluble sulphates in
Class for Concrete Class Reference
Foundations
2:1 water / soil
(DS-Class) (ACEC-Class)
extract or GW
Table A.2 of BS
DS-2 Groundwater AC-2
8500-1:2006
Soil/Rock
DS-2 Groundwater AC-2 SD 1:2005, Table C1
Concrete Quality for Resisting Chemical attack
The concrete quality and number of additional protective measures are outlined in Tables A.9 of BS
8500-1:2006. The Design Chemical class (DC) is obtained for a specified Structural performance
level (SPL) and concrete section thickness.
The following preliminary design chemical classification may be proposed, subject to the following
provisions: Cast in-situ concrete for general use, well compacted with no face exposed to air, high
structural performance, and concrete section thickness >450mm,
Table No. 12: Concrete Quality & number of Additional Protective Measures
Design Chemical Class Additional Protective Measures
ACEC-Class
(DC Class) (APM)
AC-2 DC-2 (FND2) DC-2 (FND2)
Description of the options for the required additional protective measures for buried concrete is
given in the above referenced document.
However, adoption of the appropriate APMs, for particular application shall be carefully
considered. BS 8500-1: 2006 refers to SD 1: 2005, which provides full guidance and a series of
design guides that aid the selection of DC class and the relevant APMs. Design guides for
specifying concrete for common applications such as: Non-Domestic buildings including residential
buildings …, Low Rise Domestic Buildings, and Transport structures, are given in design guides No:
(1a … 1h, 2a … 2c, 3a … 3g) for the three categories, respectively in BRE Special Digest 1, 2005.
These design guides provide recommended DC (Design chemical class) according to the ACEC
class selected previously, and then recommends the appropriate APM number most suitable for the
particular foundation element. These design guides shall be referenced by the specifier.

BRE SD 1: 2005 has replaced the SPL by “Intended working life”. Table D1 provides selection of
the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to
groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete, using the ACEC class selected above.
Accordingly:
Table No. 13: Intended working life and number of APMs for concrete elements
Intended Working Life
ACEC – Class Reference
At Least 50 Years At Least 100 Years
AC-2 DC- 2 DC- 2 SD 1: 2005, Table D1
Concrete Mix
Table A.11 of BS 8500-1:2006, specifies Limiting values of composition and properties of concrete
where a DC class is specified, and recommend minimum cement or combination content for max.
aggregate sizes, maximum water cement ratio, Cement or Combination group. The selected
parameters apply to this site are (Please note that this assessment is based on preliminary estimate
of DC for general use. Consideration of changed DC class for particular application shall be made):
Table No. 14: Concrete Qualities to resist chemical attack for the general use of in-situ and precast
concrete
Max free w/c Minimum cement or
or combination content Recommended cement
DC Class Kg/m 3 Reference
combination and combination group
ratio For max. aggr size 20mm *
IIB-V+SR, IIIA+SR,
0.55 320
IIIB+SR, IVB-V
CEM1, SRPC, IIA-D, IIA-Q,
DC-2 0.50 340 BS 8500-1:2006
IIA-S, IIA-V, IIB-S, IIIA, IIIB
Table A.11
0.45 360 IIA-L or LL >42,5
0.40 380 IIA-L or LL 32, 5
BS 8500-1:2006 Table A.6 gives descriptions of cement and combination types.
*Note: for mixes with different max. aggregate size, please refer to above document.
SD 1: 2005, Table D2 and D3 provide Cement and Combination types for Concrete Qualities to
resist chemical attack for the general use of in-situ concrete. The followings are obtained:
Table No. 15: Cement and Combination types for Concrete Qualities
Minimum cement or Recommended
Max free w/c or combination content Kg/m3
DC Class cement and Reference
combination ratio
For max. aggr size 20mm * combination group
0.55 320 D,E,F
0.50 340 A, G SD 1: 2005,
DC-2
0.45 360 B Table D2
0.40 380 C
SD 1: 2005, Table D2 & D3 gives descriptions of cement and combination types.
*Note: for mixes with different max. aggregate size, please refer to above document.
Comparison between cements specified in British standards which are still current or are to be
withdrawn and common cements specified in BS EN 197-1 : 2011 adopted in SD-1:2005,Table D2
referred above is attached. For further details it is advised that BS EN 197-1:2011 CEMENT-
(Composition, specification and conformity criteria for common Cements) be referred.

Chloride Influences
The above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride ions in concrete surrounding. It
may be noted that as per CIRIA Special Publication 31, there is no widely accepted view on the
concentration at which chlorides become significant in soil or ground water, but limited experience
in the Gulf Region suggests it may be as low as 0.05% particularly in situations where wetting and
drying or capillary rise effect the concrete.
For this site Chloride Content in Concrete Surrounding is significant.
In such cases the site exposure conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified
recommendations for concrete mix design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region, CIRIA
Publication C577, 2002, “Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula”.
For reinforced concrete in the ground the need for protection from chlorides must be balanced
against the need of protection from sulphates and where necessary a cement resistant to both
sulphates and chlorides should be used.
The usual procedure is to use cement giving best protection against chlorides and to prevent
sulphates ingress by tanking (coating with an impervious material), the surface of the concrete.
Also in coastal regions or in locations where high levels of ground salts are present all foundation
concrete should be protected by tanking to minimize salt and water ingress. In every case the need
for good quality concrete with low permeability is desirable.
The following tables give information on typical exposure conditions and recommended concrete
mix and cover criteria.
Table No. 16: Classification of exposure conditions in the Arabian Peninsula (Table 5.1 CS277-2002)
Exposure
Locations
condition
A Superstructures inland with no risk of windborne salts
B Superstructures in areas of salt flats, inland or near the coast, exposed to windborne salts
C Parts of structures in contact with the soil, well above capillary rise zone, with no risk of water
introduced at the surface by irrigation, faulty drainage systems, washing down etc.
D Parts of structures in contract with the soil, within the capillary rise zone, below ground water
level or where water may be introduced at the surface by irrigation, discharge of wastes,
washing down etc. The situations all lead to a potential for the concentration of aggressive
salts by evaporation.
(i)Significant sulphate contamination only
(ii) Significant chloride contamination only.
(iii) Significant contamination with both sulphates and chlorides.
E Marine structures (splash zone)
F Water retaining structures (including sewerage treatment plants)

Table No. 17: Typical concrete mix criteria and cover requirements for exposure conditions in the
Arabian Peninsula from above table (Table 5.2 CS277-2002)
Minimum Maximum Minimum
Exposure Cementitious cementitious free- Additional cover to
Conditions material (s) content for 20mm water/cement requirements reinforcement
aggregates (kg/m3 ) ratio ** (mm)
Portland cement
A 300-320 0.52 None 30
or additions
B 320 0.50 None 40
c* 320-350 0.45 None 40-50
d(i), (ii) or
320-400 0.42 Tanking 40-50
(iii)
Portland
e and f Cement blends 370-400 0.40 None 100-150
with additions
*When concrete is cast directly in contact with soil the minimum cover should be increased to 75mm.
** On well supervised projects free-water /cement ratios down to 0.35 have successfully achieved using the latest
generation of super-plasticizers.
In general, Portland cement with a high C3A content is more resistant to chloride penetration than
Portland cement with a low C3A content.
Concrete containing pulverized fuel ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and silica fume are
highly resistant to penetration by chlorides, due to their increased binding capacity and refined pore
structure.
The following are the main methods of reducing the penetration chlorides. (Table 6.1 CS277-2002)
Approach Method
Selection of cement type.
Water/cement ratio
Use of conditions:-
Concrete mix design
Pulverized fuel ash.
Ground granulated blast furnace slag
Silica fume
Controlled Permeability
Formwork
Other measures
Coatings
Hydrophobic treatment of the concrete
Normal concrete containing silica fume will reduce the chloride penetration when used in
conjunction with a very low water /Cement ratio, the potential increase in resistance to chloride
penetration is considerable.
For further information refer Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula (CIRIA Publication C577:2002.)
Conclusion
Modified or confirmed design recommendations shall be the responsibility of the designer, who shall
finalize the concrete specification considering the designed structural performance level, section
thickness, hydrostatic pressure, local availability of aggregate.

The concrete mix design and construction details shall be in accordance to the project
specifications. The project specifications shall take precedence over the recommendations of this
report.
12.0 INTERACTION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY
The following important points should be taken into consideration at the design stage and during
construction.
1. Lateral support (shoring system) if required, then should be considered.
2. Supporting the adjacent buildings and roads should be considered, if required, and the method
and sequence of support should be studied and ensured prior to commencement of
excavation.
3. Thorough inspection of the adjacent buildings and roads and documentation of any existing
distortions, cracks, etc. should be carried out prior to any commencement of work on the site.
4. Methods for protection from surface water from the adjacent roads, buildings and areas must
be studied. Any water, sewer or service pipes or manholes must be diverted from the plot.
Dewatering during excavation and construction must be studied and a provisional system shall
be designed.
5. Accurate type and level of foundations at the adjacent buildings must be determined at the
design stage and the stress interaction between the two foundations must be studied.
Methods for supporting the existing foundations must be studied if the excavations reach the
existing foundations.
6. The type of foundation, retaining walls and its method of construction should be carefully
studied if all area of project site is intended for utilization as built area.
7. Extreme care must be ensured during excavation which should be carried out under close
supervision. Over excavation of the sides should be totally avoided and the effect of vibration
or impact during excavation should be avoided.
8. The scheduling of excavation and construction should be studied to provide maximum safety.
9. The design of support and all other measures and requirements mentioned above should be
studied by competent structural engineers.
All the above notes are outside the scope of this investigation but should be taken into
consideration at the design stage and prior to any excavation.
In addition to the above, all municipal and local requirements regarding site excavations adjacent to
existing structures, services and roads shall be fully satisfied.
12.1 Excavation Inspection
The recommendations given in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface
materials and conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the borings.
Our office should be notified, in writing, immediately after site excavations to inspect the
excavations and confirm that the existing materials and conditions are similar to those encountered
during the investigation.

13.0 IMPORTANT NOTES
1. The groundwater levels indicated on the logs of borings represent the measured levels at the
time of investigation. It should be noted however, that groundwater levels are subject to
variations caused by tidal and weather seasonal variations and by changes of local drainage
and or pumping conditions.
2. Conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the findings from the
drilled boreholes, and obtained tests results.
3. All information in this report is considered confidential and should not be copied or used without
the permission of "Arab Center for Engineering Studies". No part of this report may be
reproduced, photocopied, translated, published, recorded, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of ACES.
4. The content of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication or promotional
purposes. Citation of any trade name does not constitute promotion or approval of the use of
such product.
14.0 SOFT COPY
Electronic copy of the contents of this report & appendices is attached to this report.

APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF BORING AND GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTIONS

APPENDIX B1
LOGS OF BORING
LEGEND TO BOREHOLE LOGS
Soils
Fill / Made ground Sandy Gravel RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

( BS 5930 : 1999-A2:2010)
SPT N Value Angle of Internal
Relative Density
Boulders,cobbles & Gravel (Blows/300mm) Friction *
Gravelly Sand
o
0-4 Very loose < 30
o o
Gravel Silty Sand with s/fs and Gravel 4 - 10 Loose 30 - 35
10 - 30 Medium dense o
35 - 40
o
Silt Silty Sand with s/fs

o o
30 - 50 Dense 40 - 45
o
Clay Sandy Clay > 50 Very dense > 45
* After Meyerhof
Silty sand Gypsiferrous Sand
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

Rocks
(BS 5930 : 1999-A2:2010)
Undrained Shear Strength

Consistency
(kN/m²)
Class D Sandstone Class A/B/C Sandstone
Very Soft < 20
Soft 20 - 40
Claystone Calcarenite 40 - 75
Firm
Stiff 75 - 150
Class A/B/C Siltstone Class D Siltstone
Very Stiff 150 - 300
Hard > 300
Class A/B/C Calcisiltite Breccia
Class 'D' Conglomerate Class A/B/C Conglomerate

ROCK STRENGTH CLASSIFICATION
(BS 5930 : 1999-A2:2010)
Unconfined Compressive
Coral Class D Coral Strength (MN/m²) Description
0.6 - 1.0 Extremely Weak
Limestone Class D Limestone Very Weak

1-5
5 - 25 Weak
Gabbro Class D Gabbro
25 - 50 Medium Strong
Medium-grained Coarse-grained 50 - 100 Strong

Metamorphic Rock Metamorphic Rock
100 - 200 Very Strong
> 200 Extremely Strong

Concrete Gypsum
SO13000010-5-Rev-0- Interpretative Report Appendix D3, Page 1 of 22

Borehole Log
Project: Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking
Borehole No.
Project Ref. No.: SD15000061
BH-01
Location: Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Dubai, U.A.E.
Client: M/S. MKM COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC Sheet 1 of 3
Total Depth (m): 25 Drilling Method: Rotary Drilling Medium: Bentonite

Ground Level (m): 1.717 Boring Started: 08/09/2015 Boring Dia. (mm): 125/140/116 Core Dia. (mm): 93
Coordinates: N= 2,791,625.64 Boring Completed: 12/09/2015 Casing Dia. (mm): 136 Casing Depth (m): 6.00
E= 498,340.93 Rig: ACESDRILL-2-D-11 Driller: Amir Water Depth (m): 3.45
Samples SPT Records Core Recovery
Depth Reduced
Scale Field Records UCS Description of Strata Level Legend
(m) Type and Depth N TCR SCR RQD FI (MPa) (Thickness)
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Light brown, silty, shelly, gravelly, fine to medium
DB1 0 - 0.5 - - - - SAND. Gravels are sandstone fragments. (0.50)
0.5 1.22
Medium dense, light brown, silty, shelly, fine to
SPT1 0.5 - 0.95 7 9 9 18 medium SAND. (0.50)
1 0.72
1 Medium dense, greyish brown, fine to medium
SPT2 1 - 1.45 9 10 10 20 SAND.
SPT3 1.5 - 1.95 9 9 10 19

2 (2.00)
SPT4 2 - 2.45 10 5 12 17
SPT5 2.5 - 2.95 12 14 13 27

3 -1.28
3
Dense, light grey, slightly silty, fine SAND.
SPT6 3 - 3.45 16 19 21 40
4 (2.00)
SPT7 4 - 4.45 20 20 17 37
5 -3.28
5 Medium dense, light brown, silty, fine to medium
SPT8 5 - 5.45 4 7 19 26 SAND.
(1.00)
6 -4.28
6 Very dense, light brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL.
SPT9 6 - 6.31 24 39 11/1 >50 (0.31)
6.31 -4.59
Gravels are calcarenite fragments.
Very weak, light brown, fine to medium grained
CS1 6.31 - 7 72 71 19 CALCARENITE, locally cross bedded, distinctly to
partially weathered (C/B), fractures close to
7 medium spaced.
1.34
CS2 7 - 8.5 99 99 86
8
9
CS3 8.5 - 10 97 93 82
Undisturbed Sample Key: Disturbed Sample Key: Abbreviations: Remarks:

Ground Water Table • Ground levels are related to Dubai Municipality Datum (DMD).
CS: Core Sample P:Percussion • Ground water table was encountered at 3.45m depth, i,e. RL.
TCR: Total Core Recovery
-1.733m DMD.
SPT:Standard SCR: Solid Core Recovery • Strength assessment of rock is based on UCS results.
DB: Drive Barrel Penetration Test RQD: Rock Quality Designation • Rock core description is based on BS 5930 : 1999+A2: 2010.
FI: Fracture Index
SH: Shelby Tube AU:Auger UCS:Unconfined Comp. Strength
Logged By: JAMEEL Checked By: Engr. HUSSAIN
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report Appendix B1, Page 1 of 9

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-01

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Weak to Very weak, light brown, fine to medium
grained CALCARENITE, locally cross bedded,
distinctly to partially weathered (C/B), fractures
CS4 10 - 11.5 97 97 86 5.22
11
(10.19)
12
CS5 11.5 - 13 100 100 97
13 3.25
CS6 13 - 14.5 93 93 93
14
15 CS7 14.5 - 15.5 97 97 87
16 CS8 15.5 - 16.5 98 75 73 2.28
16.5 -14.78
Very weak, light brown, fine to medium grained,
CALCARENITE, occasionally crossbedded,
partially to unweathered (B/A), fractures close to
17
medium spaced.
CS9 16.5 - 18 100 96 79
18
CS10 18 - 19.5 100 81 79

19
1.22

-1.733m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-01

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Very weak to Extremely weak, light brown, fine to
CS11 19.5 - 21 100 100 98 medium grained, CALCARENITE, occasionally
crossbedded, partially to unweathered (B/A),
fractures close to medium spaced.
(8.50)
21
CS12 21 - 22.5 100 100 100

22 1.11
23
CS13 22.5 - 24 100 100 100
24
CS14 24 - 25 100 100 96

0.69
25 -23.28
25 END OF BORING.

-1.733m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-02

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Light brown, silty, gravelly, slightly shelly, fine to
DB1 0 - 0.5 - - - - medium SAND. Gravels are sandstone fragments. (0.50)
0.5 1.30
Medium dense, greyish brown, slightly silty,
SPT1 0.5 - 0.95 9 10 10 20 slightly shelly, gravelly, fine SAND.
1
SPT2 1 - 1.45 7 9 9 18 (1.50)
SPT3 1.5 - 1.95 10 10 13 23

2 -0.20
2
Medium dense, brownish grey, silty, slightly
SPT4 2 - 2.45 11 11 12 23 shelly, fine to medium SAND. (0.50)
2.5 -0.70
Medium dense to Dense, light grey, silty, slightly
SPT5 2.5 - 2.95 10 13 13 26 shelly, fine to medium SAND.
3
SPT6 3 - 3.45 11 15 17 32
(2.50)
4
SPT7 4 - 4.45 12 18 15 33
5 -3.20
5 Dense to Very dense, greyish brown, silty/ very
SPT8 5 - 5.45 13 18 18 36 silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND. Gravels are
calcarenite fragments.
(1.31)
6
SPT9 6 - 6.31 25 40 10/1 >50 6.31 -4.51
CALCARENITE, locally crossbedded, distinctly to
CS1 6.31 - 7.5 70 70 70 medium spaced.
7
1.39
8
CS2 7.5 - 9 96 85 55
CS3 9 - 10.5 97 94 78

-1.60m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-02

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
3.58 partially weathered (C/B), fractures close to
medium spaced.
(8.94)
11 CS4 10.5 - 11.5 96 96 86
12
CS5 11.5 - 13 98 98 89
13
2.38
CS6 13 - 14.5 97 97 91
14
CS7 14.5 - 100 100 92

15 15.25
15.25 -13.45
Very weak, light brown, fine to medium grained,
medium spaced.
16 CS8 15.25 - 100 100 99
16.75
17 1.36
CS9 16.75 - 94 93 85
18.25
18
CS10 18.25 - 97 97 88
19.25
19
CS11 19.25 - 98 98 82
20.25
-1.60m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-02

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Extremely weak, light brown, fine to medium (9.75)
0.69 grained, CALCARENITE, locally crossbedded,
distinctly to partially weathered (C/B), fractures
21 CS12 20.25 - 99 98 91
21.75
22
CS13 21.75 - 99 96 85
23.25
23
CS14 23.25 - 97 68 64
24.25
24 0.25
CS15 24.25 - 25 100 92 87

25 -23.20
25 END OF BORING.

-1.60m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-03

Ground Level (m): 1.600 Boring Started: 05/09/2015 Boring Dia. (mm): 140125/116 Core Dia. (mm): 93
Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
Greyish brown, silty, slightly shelly, slightly
DB1 0 - 0.5 - - - - gravelly, fine to medium sand. Gravels are (0.50)
fragments of basic rock. 0.5 1.10
Medium dense, greyish brown, silty, slightly
SPT1 0.5 - 0.95 7 10 8 18 shelly, slightly gravelly, fine to medium sand.
1 Gravels are fragments of basic rock. (1.00)
SPT2 1 - 1.45 7 10 9 19
1.5 0.10
Medium dense to Dense, light grey, silty, slightly
SPT3 1.5 - 1.95 8 9 10 19 shelly, fine SAND.
2
SPT4 2 - 2.45 9 10 12 22
SPT5 2.5 - 2.95 10 11 13 24

3
SPT6 3 - 3.45 13 17 19 36
(4.50)
4
SPT7 4 - 4.45 13 20 21 41
5
SPT8 5 - 5.45 25 20 23 43
6 -4.40
6 Dense to Very dense, light brown, silty, slightly
SPT9 6 - 6.27 25/11.5 45 5/1 >50 (0.27)
6.27 -4.67
shelly, very sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL.
Gravels are calcarenite fragments.
2.81 Very weak, light brown, fine to medium grained
CS1 6.27 - 7.5 79 77 53 occasional cavities at depth 9.92m, partially
7
weathered (B), fractures close to medium spaced,
locally very closely spaced.
8
CS2 7.5 - 9 100 83 52
3.22
CS3 9 - 10.5 91 84 63

-1.90m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-03

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
occasional cavities at depth 9.92m, partially
weathered (B), fractures close to medium spaced,
locally very closely spaced.
11 CS4 10.5 - 11.5 98 95 80
(10.23)
12 CS5 11.5 - 12.5 98 96 88
2.71
13
CS6 12.5 - 14 95 93 89
14
CS7 14 - 15.5 97 96 71
15 1.79
16 CS8 15.5 - 16.5 99 96 86
16.5 -14.90
Extremely weak, light brown, fine to medium
grained CALCARENITE, occasionally
crossbedded, partially weathered (B), fractures
17
close to medium spaced, locally very closely
CS9 16.5 - 18 95 82 63 spaced.
18
0.62
CS10 18 - 19.5 100 99 67

19

-1.90m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

Borehole Log
Borehole No.
BH-03

Depth Reduced
Number (m) 0-15 15-30 30-45 (m) (m)
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Blows (%) (%) (%)
CS11 19.5 - 20.5 95 94 77 Extremely weak, light brown, fine to medium
grained CALCARENITE, occasionally
crossbedded, partially weathered (B), fractures
close to medium spaced, locally very closely
spaced. (8.50)
21 CS12 20.5 - 21.5 95 91 91
0.38
22
CS13 21.5 - 23 100 87 71
23
CS14 23 - 24 94 94 90
24
CS15 24 - 25 100 100 91

0.42
25 -23.40
25 END OF BORING.

-1.90m DMD.
FI: Fracture Index

APPENDIX B2
GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTIONS

Generalized Subsurface Profile
SPT UCS Core SPT UCS Core SPT UCS Core

2 (N) (MPa) Recovery (N) (MPa) Recovery (N) (MPa) Recovery 2
N- N-
N-
N 20 N 18
N 18
N 18 N 20
N 19
0 N 23 N 19 0
N 19
N 23 N 17
N 22
N 26 N 27
N 24
N 32 N 40
N 36
-2 -2
N 33 N 37
N 41
N 36 N 26
N 43
-4 -4
N >50 N >50 N >50
(2.81) 70/70/70 72/71/19
79/77/53
(1.39) (1.34)
-6 99/99/86 -6
96/85/55
100/83/52
97/93/82
-8 (3.22) 97/94/78 -8
91/84/63
Elevation (m)
(3.58)
96/96/86 (5.22) 97/97/86
98/95/80
-10 -10
98/96/88 98/98/89 100/100/97
(2.71)
(3.25)
95/93/89 (2.38)
-12 97/97/91 93/93/93 -12
97/96/71 100/100/92
(1.79) 97/97/87
-14 100/100/99 -14
99/96/86 (2.28) 98/75/73
(1.36)
95/82/63 94/93/85 100/96/79
-16 -16
(0.62) 97/97/88
100/99/67 100/81/79
(1.22)
-18 98/98/82 -18
95/94/77 (0.69) 100/100/98
99/98/91
(0.38)
95/91/91
-20 100/100/100 -20
(1.11)
100/87/71 99/96/85
100/100/100
-22 94/94/90 97/68/64 -22
(0.25)
100/100/91 100/92/87 100/100/96

(0.42) (0.69)
-24 BH-03 BH-02 BH-01 -24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Ground Water Table Distance Along Baseline (m)
Core Recovery: TCR/SCR/RQD
Silty SAND with Gravel Calcarenite
Boreholes Information
Project Name: Proposed Wafi Hotel Complex and Mall Expansion BH-No. Depth (m) Elev. (m)
Project Ref. No.: SD15000061 Calcarenite BH-01 25 1.717
BH-02 25 1.800
Location: Oud Metha Road, Dubai, U.A.E. BH-03 25 1.600
Client: M/S. MKM COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC
Profile No.: A-A Figure No.: 1 / 1
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report Appendix B2, Page 1 / 1

APPENDIX C
FIELD TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX C1
GROUNDWATER TABLE READINGS FROM INSTALLED

STANDPIPE PIEZOMETERS
GROUND WATER TABLE READINGS IN PIEZOMETER
Client M/S. MKM COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC Report No. SD15000061

th
Consultant M/S. PARSONS OVERSEAS LIMITED Date Reported 26 October 2015
Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking

Project Name Request No. SD15000061
to link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Dubai, U.A.E.
Drilling Method Rotary Installation Method BS 5930 : 2010
Recorded by SAJID Remarks NIL
Ground
GW Reduced Level
Elevation Water depth
BH No. Date Time (DMD)
(m) Below EGL
(m) (m RL)
05/09/2015 08:30 AM 4.52 -2.72

BH-02 1.80
06/09/2015 11:10 AM 4.40 -2.60
09/09/2015 08:15 AM 4.42 -2.82

BH-03 1.60
10/09/2015 08:50 AM 4.35 -2.75
Note: Dewatering was progress in the vicinity of the area
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report Appendix C1, Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FROM BOREHOLES

APPENDIX D1
PHYSICAL / MECHANICAL & INDEX PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS

Project No.: SD15000061 Test Method : BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Cl. 9.2 (Amd. 9027/96)
Project Name: Proposed Wafi Hotel Complex and Mall Expansion Tested By: GLENN
Client: M/S. PARSONS Test Date: 15/09/15
Smb BH S Depth SN Description %C Gravel %MGravel %F Gravel %C Sand %MSand %F Sand %Silt %Clay D10, mm D60, mm
BH-01 5.00m(h) SPT-08 Silty, gravelly, mediumto fine SAND. 0.0 1.4 10.7 4.6 22.2 52.4 8.0 1.0 0.076 0.197
BS Sieve Apertures
1000mm 200mm 75mm 37.5mm 28mm 20mm 14mm10mm 6.3mm 3.35mm 2.5mm 1.18mm 1mm 600um 425um 300um 212um 75 63 2 um
100 0
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report

90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
40 60
P e r c e n t F in e r b y W e ig h t
P e r c e n t C o a r se r b y W e ig h t
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
BS 5930:1999 Classification System Grain Size (mm)
Appendix D1, Page 1 / 9

BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
coarse medium fine coarse medium fine coarse medium fine
Project No.: SD15000061 Test Method : BS 1377 : Part 2 :1990, Cl. 9.2 (Amd. 9027/96)
Client: M/S. MKM COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC Test Date: 15/09/15
Smb BH S Depth SN Description %Cobbles %C Grav %MGrav %F Grav %C Sand %MSand %F Sand %Cl & Silt D10, mm D60, mm
BH-01 0.50m SPT-01 Slightly silty, gravelly, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.0 5.9 11.3 69.2 4.3 0.079 0.146
BH-01 3.00m SPT-06 Slightly silty, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.5 88.7 3.6 0.079 0.135
BS Sieve Apertures
100 0

90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01

BH-02 0.50m SPT-01 Slightly silty, gravelly, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 3.6 11.0 8.7 13.3 60.2 3.4 0.084 0.185
BH-02 3.00m SPT-06 Silty, slightly gravelly, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 3.5 16.0 72.2 7.1 0.077 0.149
BS Sieve Apertures
100 0

90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01

Project No.: SD15000061 Test Method : BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, Cl. 9.2 (Amd. 9027/96)
Smb BH S Depth SN Description %C Gravel %MGravel %F Gravel %C Sand %MSand %F Sand %Silt %Clay D10, mm D60, mm
BH-02 5.00m(h) SPT-08 Very silty, slightly gravelly, fine to mediumSAND. 0.0 0.0 3.8 15.4 33.3 26.0 20.3 1.3 0.011 0.270
BS Sieve Apertures
100 0

90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01

BH-03 0.00m DB-01 Silty, slightly gravelly, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 2.9 10.3 78.2 5.1 0.078 0.138
BH-03 3.00m SPT-06 Slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine SAND. 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 10.3 85.0 3.4 0.081 0.148
BH-03 6.00m SPT-09 Silty, very sandy, fine to mediumGRAVEL. 0.0 0.0 49.0 17.1 7.1 10.9 8.4 8.0 0.095 7.157
BS Sieve Apertures
100 0

90 10
80 20
70 30
60 40
50 50
40 60
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01

SUMMARY OF ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS

th
Contractor N.P. Date Reported 26 October 2015
Consultant M/S. PARSONS OVERSEAS LIMITED Sample No. See below
Project No. N.P. Request No. SD15000061

Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex
Project Name Parking to link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Client Reference N.P.
Dubai, U.A.E.
Sample Desc. Soil Sampled By ACES

Sampling Date 01/09/2015 – 12/09/2015 Sampling Method BS 5930 : 2010
Date Received 01/09/2015 – 12/09/2015 Sample Brt in by. ACES

Date Tested 06/09/2015 Tested by GLENN
Remarks Nil
Material
Depth Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
Borehole No. Passing
(m) (%) (%) (%)
425μm (%)
BH-02 5.00 175.3 23 * **
NB:
* - Could not be determined
** - Non Plastic
Test Method: BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 (Amd.9027/96), Cl.4.2, 4.6
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report Appendix D1, Page 6 of 9

SUMMARY OF INTACT DENSITY OF ROCK LUMPS

th

Sample Desc. Rock Sampled By ACES
Date Tested 08-15/09/2015 Tested by GLENN
Remarks Nil
Bulk density
Borehole No. Depth (m)
(mg/m3)
BH-01 24.30 1.92
BH-02 6.70 1.93
BH-03 14.50 1.84
Test Method: BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 (Amd. 9027/96),Cl.3.3

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN SOIL

th

Remarks Nil
Borehole No. Depth (m) Moisture Content (% )
BH-01 0.50 5.9
BH-02 0.50 13
BH-03 0.00 4.3
Test Method: BS1377: Part2: 1990 (Amd.9027/96) Cl. 3.2.3.2

SUMMARY OF PARTICLE DENSITY

th

Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking to
link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Dubai, U.A.E.
Remarks Nil
Borehole No. Depth (m) Particle Density (mg/m3)
BH-01 0.00 2.68
BH-02 1.00 2.60
BH-03 1.00 2.73
Test Method: BS 1377: PART 2: 1990 (Amd. 9027/96); Cl. 8.4

APPENDIX D2
CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS

REPORT ON CHEMICAL TESTS FOR SOIL & GROUND WATER

th
Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex Parking to
Project Name Client Reference N.P.
link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Dubai, U.A.E.
Sample Desc. Soil & GW Sampled By ACES


Date Tested 05-16/09/2015 Tested by TINTU
Remarks Nil
2:1 Water / Soil Extract Ground Water Sulphate Sulphate

Chloride Sulphate Chloride Class Class
Borehole Sample Depth Sulphate
% Passing as Cl as SO4 as Cl pH BS 8500- BRE
No. Type (m) as SO4
2mm (% by dry 1:2006 SP1:2005
(g/l) (g/l) (%)
wt.) Table A2 Table C1
8.5
BH-01 SPT 2.00 100 0.2 0.01 - - O DS-1 DS-1
@25 C
8.6
BH-02 SPT 2.00 100 0.3 0.01 - - O DS-1 DS-1
@25 C
8.8
BH-03 SPT 2.50 100 0.2 0.01 - - O DS-1 DS-1
@25 C
8.0
BH-02 GW 3.40 - - - 0.46 0.06 O DS-2 DS-2
@25 C
8.1
BH-03 GW 3.50 - - - 0.41 0.12 O DS-2 DS-2
@25 C
Test Methods:
- Sulphate Content of Soil : BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.5.3 / 5.2 (Water Extraction / Acid Extraction)
- Chloride Content of Soil : BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.7.2 / 7.3 (Water Extraction / Acid Extraction)
- Sulphate Content of Ground Water : BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.5
- Chloride Content of Ground Water : BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.7
- pH of Soil and Ground Water : BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.9.5
Sample Prep. Method:
- Sulphate Content of Soil & Groundwater: BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.5.2 / 5.3 (Water Extraction / Acid Extraction)
- Chloride Content of Soil and ground water: BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl.7.2.3 / 7.3.3 (Water Extraction / Acid Extraction)
- pH Value of Soil and groundwater: BS 1377: Part 3 : 1990 (Amd. 9028/96), Cl. 9.4
Test Method Var.
- Water soluble sulphate content of soil - Nil

- Water soluble chloride content of soil (a) 50 g of sample taken, (b) 10ml of filtrate taken for analysis
- pH value of soil – Commercial pH buffer was used for calibration
Note: SO4 value (g/l) determined by multiplying SO3 value (g/l) by 1.2

SUMMARY OF CARBONATE CONTENTS

th
Project Name Client Reference N.P.
Sample Desc. Rock Sampled By ACES


Date Tested 06-14/09/2015 Tested by MICHELLET
Remarks Nil
Carbonate Content
Borehole No. Depth (m) (% by wt.)
as CO2 as CaCO3
BH-01 6.31 25.16 57.18
BH-01 15.50 34.48 78.36
BH-01 24.90 26.21 59.57
BH-02 6.31 30.43 69.15
BH-02 14.50 33.56 76.27
BH-02 24.25 28.84 65.54
BH-03 7.50 38.32 87.09
BH-03 16.40 32.53 73.94
BH-03 24.90 27.25 61.94
Test Method: BS 1377: Part 3: Cl.6.3: 1990 (Amd.96)

REPORT ON WATER SOLUBLE SALT CONTENT
+Client M/S. MKM COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC Report No. SD15000061

th
Proposed Access Bridge for Wafi Complex
Project Name Parking to link to Oud Metha Ramp Bridge, Dubai, Client Reference N.P.
U.A.E.


Date Tested 05/09/2015 - 14/09/2015 Tested by TINTU
Remarks Nil
Water Soluble
Borehole Depth
Salt Content
No. (m)
(% by wt. of dry Soil)
BH-01 2.00 0.89
BH-02 2.00 0.14
BH-03 2.50 0.28
Test Method: BS 1377: Part 3: Cl.8 1990

APPENDIX D3
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E
DRILLED PILE METHODOLOGY IN ROCK

REPORT ON
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOADING IN DUBAI
By
Eng. Emad Sharif
This report provides brief description of the behaviour of drilled shafts socketed in
rocks and provides recommended procedure for geotechnical design of single piles in
compression. The back ground and behaviour description is generally extracted from:
Federal Highway Agency: FHWH-NHI-10-016 "Drilled Shaft reference Manual", however
reference to several other related literature is also made. The final recommendations are also
based on experience with wide range of static loading tests in the area.
INTRODUCTION
With proper design and construction, drilled shafts provide a highly effective system to
transmit axial compression and uplift loads to the ground. Design for axial loading requires
analysis of strength and service limit states for compression and uplift and may also require
evaluation of extreme event limit states, if necessary. This report presents specific
recommendations for design under axial compression and uplift loading through a simple
design procedure.
Design methods and equations presented herein are largely consistent with those presented in
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007). The AASHTO
specifications are based on the 1999 version of the above referenced manual (O'Neill and
Reese, 1999).
The subsurface ground conditions, sampling and evaluation of rock strength and rock mass
parameters are assumed to be conducted in accordance to standard procedures and good
practices.
Geotechnical design of drilled shaft requires understanding of the pile behaviour as the load
increases and load transfer and settlement mechanisms as described below.
SD15000061- Rev 01- Final Interpretative Report Appendix E, Page 1 of 10

AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER - BASIC CONCEPTS
The mechanisms of load transfer from a deep foundation to the surrounding ground are
fundamental to understanding the basis of design methods for axial loading. The basic load
transfer mechanisms were identified through early research on drilled shafts (O'Neill and
Reese, 1972) and driven piles (Vesic, 1977). For drilled shafts the general concepts are
summarized by Kulhawy (1991) as follows.
The below Figure illustrates the load transfer behavior of a drilled shaft of length L and
diameter B subjected to an axial compression load QT applied to the butt (top) of the shaft
(Figure a). Figure b shows the general relationship between axial resistance and downward
displacement.
Fig. No. 1: Generalized Load Transfer Behaviour of Drilled Shaft in Compression
Three components of resistance are shown: (1) side resistance Rs, (2) base (tip) resistance Rb,
and (3) combined (total) resistance. Figure c shows the idealized distribution of axial load as a
function of depth (z) for different displacements. As axial load on the shaft increases from
zero, the shaft displaces downward and side resistance in shear is mobilized (Point A in
Figure b). This transfer of load to the surrounding soil or rock results in decreasing load with
depth as shown by the dashed curve in Figure c. At this point, load is transferred
predominantly in side resistance and load transmitted to the base may be small. With
increasing load, the full side resistance is mobilized (Point B), typically at a displacement of
approximately 1/2 inch. Further increases in load beyond Point B must be resisted by the
base, until the maximum base and combined resistances are reached (Point C). The
displacement required to mobilize the maximum base resistance varies, but research suggests
that maximum resistance is reached at a displacement equivalent to about 4 to 5 percent of the
shaft diameter for bearing in cohesive soil or rock and about 10 percent of the shaft diameter
for bearing in cohesionless soils. Between Points B and C, side resistance may remain
constant or change (increase or decrease) depending upon the stress-strain behavior along the
interface between the shaft and soil or rock. In some cases the shaft continues to exhibit
increasing resistance with continued downward displacement, thus a well-defined maximum
total load is not achieved.

Several important behavioral aspects of drilled shafts are illustrated in the above Figure.
The first is that side and base resistances develop as a function of shaft displacement, and the
peak values of each occur at different displacements.
Maximum side resistance occurs at relatively small displacement and is independent of shaft
diameter.
Maximum base resistance occurs at relatively large displacement and is a function of shaft
diameter and geomaterial type.
Design for service limit states must, therefore, account for differences in side and base
resistance mobilization as a function of axial displacement.
DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOAD
This report covers the case for piles socketed in rocks
Side Resistance
The unit side resistance depends on many factors related to geomaterial and shaft interface
properties. Advanced theoretical models of rock socket behavior that account for the
mechanisms of shaft-rock interaction, such as adhesion, friction, dilatancy, roughness, and
rock mass strength and stiffness, can be applied to socket design. Additional rock mass
properties are required as input, including rock mass modulus and socket roughness.
However, for many foundation design cases, the only rock strength property available is the
intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), and therefore the foundation resistances
typically are related empirically to qu as presented in the following.
Unit side resistance for shafts in rock may be evaluated on the basis of mean uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock, as follows:
fSN / Pa = C √ (qu / Pa) ---------------------- eq. A

(Pa = 0.095 mpa), then fSN = 0.3 C √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa
in which qu = mean value of uniaxial compressive strength for the rock layer, pa =
atmospheric pressure in the same units as qu, and C = a regression coefficient used to analyze
load test results.
Studies relating side resistance to rock compressive strength include those of Horvath and
Kenney (1979), Rowe and Armitage (1987), Kulhawy and Phoon (1993), and others. The
most recent regression analysis of available load test data is reported by Kulhawy et al. (2005)
and demonstrates that the mean value of the coefficient C is approximately equal to 1.0. The
authors of the above manual recommend the use of Equation A with C = 1.0 for design of
"normal" rock sockets. A lower bound value of C = 0.63 was shown to encompass 90% of the
load test results (this makes fSN = 0.2 √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa).
The authors of the above referenced manual note several important aspects of their analysis
compared to earlier studies. First, only load test data exhibiting load-displacement curves to
failure were used so that capacities were evaluated in a consistent manner. Failure is defined
using the "L1-L2" method of load test interpretation described below in this report. Second,
earlier correlation equations incorporated data from load tests on rock anchors. Analysis by
Kulhawy et al. (2005) showed that these data constitute a separate population and should not
be included with drilled shafts.

Third, the authors of the above referenced manual emphasize the importance of using values
of qu determined from laboratory uniaxial compression tests in accordance with proper test
procedures such as those given by ASTM and on specimens at field moisture contents.
However, the value of qu used in Equation A should not exceed the compressive strength of
the drilled shaft concrete.
The term "normal" as used above applies to sockets constructed with conventional
equipment and resulting in nominally clean sidewalls without resorting to special procedures
or artificial roughening. Rocks that may be prone to smearing or rapid deterioration upon
exposure to atmospheric conditions, water, or slurry, are outside the "normal" range and may
require additional measures to insure reliable side resistance. Rocks exhibiting this type of
behavior include clay shales and are considered as special geomaterials. Rock that cannot
support construction of an unsupported socket without caving is also outside the "normal" and
will likely exhibit lower side resistance than given by the above Equation A, with C = 1.0.
The expression for unit side resistance in rock as given by O'Neill and Reese (1999), and
adopted in the AASHTO (2007) LRFD specifications has the same form as the above
Equation but with a recommended value of the coefficient C = 0.65 (this makes fSN = 0.2 √
(qu) --- qu in Mpa). This is referred to as the "Horvath and Kenney" method based on their
1979 paper.
O'Neill and Reese (1999) also applied an empirical reduction factor αE to account for the
degree of fracturing. The resulting expression is:
fSN / Pa = 0.65 αE √ (qu / Pa) ---------------------- eq. B
(Pa = 0.095 mpa), then fSN = 0.2 αE √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa
where the coefficient αE is determined as a function of the estimated ratio of rock mass
modulus to modulus of intact rock (EM/ER). This ratio is estimated from the RQD of the rock.
Fig. No. 2: Modulus Reduction Ratio as a Function of RQD (From Bieniawski, 1984)

The resulting relationship between RQD and αE is given in the below Table.
Table No. 1: Side Resistance Reduction Factor For Rock (αE)

RQD (%) Joint Modification Factor, αE
Closed joints Open or gouge-filled joints
100 1.00 0.85

70 0.85 0.55
50 0.60 0.55
30 0.50 0.50
20 0.45 0.45
Considering the most recent research on side resistance in rock, in particular the work cited
above by Kulhawy et al. (2005) that incorporates the original data of Horvath and Kenney
(1979) plus additional data compiled over the ensuing +25 years, the above Equation with C =
1.0 is recommended for routine design of rock sockets (fSN = 0.3 C √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa).
For rock that cannot be drilled without some type of artificial support, such as casing or by
grouting ahead of the excavation, the reduction factors given in Table 1 above (αE) based on
RQD are recommended for application to the resistance calculated by Equation B. The
resistance factor recommended with use of Equations A and B is φ = 0.55 based on fitting to
ASD with a factor of safety FS = 2.5 (for LRFD Design).
IGM: Intermediate Geomaterials (IGMs) were defined as: very weak to weak rocks (soft
rocks) that lie at the border of Hard Soil and Rock. Definite characterization of IGMs was
given as per the below Table.
IGM Name Description Properties

Category
1 Argillaceous Heavily overconsolidated clays, clay Cohesive:
shales, saprolites and mudstones qu = 0.5 to 5.0 MPA
prone to smearing when drilled
2 Calcareous Limestone and limerock and Cohesive:
argillaceous geomaterials not prone to qu = 0.5 to 5.0 MPA
smearing when drilled
3 Very dense Residual, completely decomposed Cohesionless:
Granular rock and glacial till SPT-N = 50-100
blows/0.3m.
Reference: O'Neill, M.W. et al. (1996) "Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermediate
Geomaterials".
IGM Model for drilled shaft design was established as closed form solution based on
parametric finite element study calibrated by many loading tests results. The following main
steps are described for smooth socket (socket where bentonite cake would form, or assurance
of rough interface is not confirmed).
Category 1 & 2 IGM, Smooth borehole, fa = α . qu; α is obtained from following figure
based on the finite element simulations:

σn is the normal stress between shaft and IGM following Concreting and depends on
Concrete Slump. Aslo, φrc is the angle of friction between the Shaft and IGM interface.
Estimate σn, the normal stress between the concrete and borehole at the time of loading,
evaluated at the time the concrete is fluid and therefore dependent on concrete slump.
Factor α for smooth Category 1 or 2 IGN's • Reduce fa to account for presence of soft
geomaterial within the IGM matrix.
Em/Ei * faa/fa
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.1 0.55
0.05 0.45
* same as Em/ER used above.
Specialist software (Shaft) adopts the above model for IGM rocks. However, estimates
indicated conservative results of unit skin friction for IGMs in UAE, and therefore, other
formulas such as formula B (Horvath and Kenny, 1979, fSN = 0.2 √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa) or
Williams and Pells formulas (described below) are preferred with suitable friction reduction
for smooth socket conditions as discussed above.
Williams and Pells Procedure for fSN
Williams and Pells proposed method for skin friction evaluation, which is described as
follows: (Reference: Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone, and shale by A.F.
Williams, P.J. N. Pells, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, 1981), as:
fSN = fmax = αβ UCS
Figure No. 3: Reduction Factors for rock socket shaft friction:

According to Foundations on rock, 2nd ed., By Duncan C. Wyllie, 1999, Publisher: E & FN
Spon), fmax or fSN can be presented as:
fmax = αβ UCS, where α = 0.5 (UCS)-0.5 , therefore,

fmax = 0.5 β (UCS)0.5 MPa, in which UCS is the unconfined compression strength in MPa.

The friction reduction factor (β) depends on the rock mass parameter J (=Em/Es, Em= Rock
mass modulus and Es is the modulus of intact rock (Williams 1980a,b). Em/Es may be
estimated based on correlations with RQD and rock fracture spacing as given by (Bieniawski,
1984), described above, and as also indicated in the below graphs
Mass Factor Value (After Hobbs) Reduction factor for discontinuities for rock mass
(after Williams and Pells)
Accordingly, the reduction factor (β) is selected as 0.4-0.65 for J <0.2 which typically
represent low RQD <25%.
Further, the above represents the case of clean socket, therefore, wherever doubts that
formation of bentonite cake is likely, then further reduction should be applied that may range
between 15-30%.
To conclude:
1. For Clean Sockets, use equation A with C = 1.0

fSN / Pa = C √ (qu / Pa) ---------------------- eq. A
(Pa = 0.095 mpa), then fSN = 0.3 C √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa
2. For smooth sockets, where Bentonite slurry is used, use equation B with C = 0.65.
fSN / Pa = 0.65 αE √ (qu / Pa) ---------------------- eq. B
(Pa = 0.095 mpa), then fSN = 0.2 αE √ (qu) --- qu in Mpa
αE , as defined above, is to be used where the rock socket is very weak to stand without the
need for support with casing or post grouting.
Base Resistance
Base resistance in rock is more complex than in soil because of the wide range of possible
rock mass conditions. Various failure modes are possible depending upon whether rock mass
strength is governed by intact rock, fractured rock mass, or structurally controlled by shearing
along dominant discontinuity surfaces. In practice, it is common to have information on the
uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock (qu) and the general condition of rock at the base
of a shaft. Empirical relationships between nominal unit base resistance (qBN) and rock
compressive strength can be expressed in the form:
qBN = N*cr qu ---------------------------------------- eq. C
where Ncr* is an empirical bearing capacity factor for rock. Studies relating qBN to qu are
reported by Zhang and Einstein (1998) and Prakoso and Kulhawy (2002).

Considering the results of their studies, a Base Resistance Factor for Rock (Prakoso and
value of Ncr* = 2.5 is recommended for Kulhawy 2002)
design when qu is the sole parameter
used for establishing qBN and the
following conditions are met:
• The drilled shaft base is bearing

on rock which is either massive or
tightly jointed (no compressible seams or
joints) to a depth of at least one diameter
beneath the base,
• It can be verified that no solution
cavities or voids exist beneath the base,
and
A clean base can be achieved and
verified using conventional clean-out
equipment
Note that the use of Equation C with the recommended value of Ncr* = 2.5 is consistent with
the previous version of FHWA manual and is based on the original work by Rowe and
Armitage (1987). The more recent research cited above validates the use of this equation for
routine design in competent rock.
LRFD resistance factor specified in AASHTO (2007) for use of Equation C with Ncr* = 2.5 is
9 = 0.55, based on fitting to an ASD factor of safety FS = 2.5.
Values of Ncr* greater than 2.5, which clearly are possible based on the above Figure, are
justified when they can be verified by local experience or load testing.
When data are available on the spacing and condition of discontinuities in rock beneath the
tip, the following method, which is covered by AASHTO (2007), can be applied. The method
is described in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (Canadian Geotechnical
Society, 1995) and provides a more refined estimate of Ncr* for shafts bearing on sedimentary
rock with primarily horizontal discontinuities, where discontinuity spacing is at least 1 ft, and
discontinuity aperture does not exceed 0.25 inch. The method is given by the following:
qBN = 3 qu Ksp d--------------------------------------- eq. D
In which:
Where:
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of the bearing rock,

sv = vertical spacing between discontinuities;

td = aperture (thickness) of discontinuities;

B = socket diameter,
D s = depth of socket (rock) embedment.
In this formulation, the quantity 3Ksp d is equivalent to the base resistance factor Ncr* of
Equation C. For the range of parameters over which this method is applicable, equivalent
values of Ncr* range approximately from 0.4 to 5.1. For rock that does not meet the criterion
that vertical join spacing is at least 1 ft, load testing is recommended to verify base resistance.
The resistance factor recommended for this method is φ= 0.50 (for LRFD Design) and is
based on fitting to ASD as reported by Barker et al. (1991).
Please note that qBN represents the maximum unit end bearing that would only mobilize at
large head settlement, and which should not be exceeded.
Additional Design Considerations for Rock Sockets:
A design decision to be addressed when using rock sockets is whether to neglect one or the
other component of resistance (side or base) for the purpose of evaluating strength limit
states. With regard to base resistance, AASHTO Article C.10.8.3.5.4a states "Design based on
side-wall shear alone should be considered for cases in which the base of the drilled hole
cannot be cleaned and inspected or where it is determined that large movements of the shaft
would be required to mobilize resistance in end bearing" (AASHTO, 2007). The philosophy
embraced in the above comment gives a designer the option of neglecting base resistance.
However, before making this decision, careful consideration should be given to applying
available methods of quality construction and inspection that can provide confidence in base
resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that good construction practices can result in
adequate clean-out at the base of rock sockets, including those constructed by wet methods.
Inspection tools, such as the Shaft Inspection Device (SID), probing tools, borehole calipers,
and others, can be applied more effectively to ensure quality of rock sockets prior to concrete
placement (Crapps and Schmertmann, 2002; Turner, 2006). Under most conditions, the cost
of quality control and assurance is offset by the economies achieved in socket design by
including base resistance.
Several Authorities have utilized load testing to develop confidence in the use of base
resistance in rock formations where base resistance had previously been neglected due to
uncertainty.
Reasons cited for neglecting side resistance of rock sockets include (1) the possibility of
strain-softening behavior of the sidewall interface, (2) the possibility of degradation of
material at the borehole wall in argillaceous rocks, and (3) uncertainty regarding the
roughness of the sidewall.
L1 - L2 Rule: Drilled Shaft Load - Settlement Behaviour
Data base of high quality static loading tests has indicated that the following commonly
known L1 - L2 rule for interpretation of pile load test results, as shown in the following
schematic graph:

Figure No. 4: Average Normalized Load-Displacement Curve that Forms the Basis of
Load test Interpretation for Compression (Chen and Kulhawy, 2002)
It shows that:
Failure load is defined as the load Qf, after which, the pile would settle at small or zero extra
loading in a linear mode (plunging) as shown in the above graph (Failure threshold point L2).
The pile behaves linearly up to about 50% of the failure load (Qf) - Point L1, at which the pile
head settlement will be about 0.4% D. At this stage, Qtip (Base resistance) will be about 0.11
QL1 or 5.5% Qf (Failure load, and Qs will be 0.89QL1 and 94.5% Qf or QL2).
This means that at working load Qw, which is based on safety factor of 2.5 (or 0.4Qf,
approximately), the pile head settlement will be less than 0.4D%. Also Qtip at Qw stage will
also be less than 5.5% Qf, as normally expected.
Failure (Qf) Threshold load (point L2) occurs at about 4% D pile head settlement (actually at
102% Qf), and Qtip (base resistance) will reach only 24% of Qf or QL2, whereas Qsu will be
about 76% of Qf
Therefore, at the above recommended working loads in compression, the single pile short
term settlement is expected to be <0.5% of the pile diameter.

APPENDIX F
CORE SAMPLES PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTOGRAPHS OF CORE SAMPLES
BH: 01, Depth: 6.31 – 11.50m
BH: 01, Depth: 11.50 – 16.50m
SD15000061-00-Rev 01-Final Interpretative Report Appendix F, Page 1 of 6

BH: 01, Depth: 16.50 – 21.00m
BH: 01, Depth: 21.00 – 25.00m

BH: 02, Depth: 6.31 – 11.50m
BH: 02, Depth: 15.25 – 20.25m

BH: 02, Depth: 20.25 – 25.00m

BH: 03, Depth: 6.27 – 11.50m
BH: 03, Depth: 11.50 – 16.50m

BH: 03, Depth: 16.50 – 21.50m
BH: 03, Depth: 21.50 – 25.00m

APPENDIX G
RECOMMENDATION FOR FOUNDATION CONCRETE

(Extract of BS 8500 – 1 : 2002 & BRE Special Digest 1 : 2005)
BS-8500-1-2006
BS 8500-1:2006
BRITISH STANDARD
Concrete –
Complementary
British Standard to
BS EN 206-1 –
Part 1: Method of specifying and
guidance for the specifier
ICS 91.100.30
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

BS 8500-1:2006
Table B.1 – Identity criteria for slump specified as a slump class 51

Table B.2 – Identity criteria for slump specified as a target value 51
Table B.3 – Identity criteria for flow specified as a flow class 52
Table B.4 – Identity criteria for flow specified as a flow value 52
Table C.1 – Target cement contents for nominal proportions 54
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i to iv, pages 1 to 59 and a back cover.
ii • © BSI 2006
BS 8500-1:2006
Foreword
Publishing information
This part of BS 8500 is published by BSI and came into effect
on 30 November 2006. It was prepared by Working
Group B/517/1/WG20, Specification drafting, under the authority of
Subcommittee B/517/1, Concrete production and testing, and
Technical Committee B/517, Concrete and related products. A list of
organizations represented on these committees can be obtained on
request to their secretary.
Supersession
This part of BS 8500 supersedes BS 8500-1:2002, which is withdrawn.
Relationship with other publications

BS 8500 contains additional United Kingdom provisions to be used in
conjunction with BS EN 206-1. Together they form a complete package
for the specification, production and conformity of fresh concrete.
BS 8500 is published in the following parts:
• BS 8500-1, Method of specifying and guidance for the
specifier;
• BS 8500-2, Specification for constituent materials and
concrete.
Information about this document

This is a full revision of the standard, and introduces the following
principal changes:
• changes to reflect changed guidance in BRE Special Digest 1 [1];
• revised guidance on resisting chloride-induced corrosion;
• extended guidance on recommended concrete quality in long life
structures;
• changes resulting from the withdrawal of British Standards;
• reducing the strength class of the FND designated concretes
to C25/30;
• new guidance on the chloride class for post-tensioned prestressed
concrete;
• changes resulting from new European standards published since
2003;
• simplification of the cement and combination designations;
• presentational changes to ease the use of this standard;
• corrections.
© BSI 2006 • iii

BS 8500-1:2006
Table A.2 Classification of ground conditions

Sulfate and magnesium Design Natural soil Brownfield A) ACEC-
sulfate class
2:1 water/soil Groundwater Total class Static Mobile Static Mobile (design
extract potential water water water water sulfate
sulfate B) class)
SO4 Mg C) SO4 Mg C) SO4
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l % pH pH pH D) ph D)
W2.5 — W2.5 — AC-1s
— >5.5 — >6.5 AC-1 E)
<500 — <400 — <0.24 DS-1 — 2.5 to 5.5 — 5.6 to 6.5 AC-2z
— — — 4.5 to 5.5 AC-3z
— — — 2.5 to 4.5 AC-4z
>3.5 — — AC-1s
— >5.5 — >6.5 AC-2
500 to — 400 to — 0.24 to 2.5 to 3.5 — — AC-2s
DS-2
1 500 1 400 0.6 — 2.5 to 5.5 — 5.6 to 6.5 AC3z
— — — 4.5 to 5.5 AC-4z
— — — 2.5 to 4.5 AC-5z
>3.5 — >5.5 — AC-2s
— >5.5 — >6.5 AC-3
1 600 to 1 500 to
— — 0.7 to 1.2 DS-3 2.5 to 3.5 — 2.5 to 5.5 — AC-3s
3 000 3 000
— 2.5 to 5.5 — 5.6 to 6.5 AC-4
— — — 2.5 to 5.5 AC-5
>3.5 >5.5 — AC-3s
3 100 to 3 100 to — >5.5 — >6.5 AC-4
u1 200 u1 000 1.3 to 2.4 DS-4
6 000 6 000 2.5 to 3.5 — 2.5 to 5.5 — AC-4s
— 2.5 to 5.5 — 2.5 to 6.5 AC-5
>5.5 AC-3s
3 100 to 3 100 to Not found in UK >6.5 AC-4m
>1 200 C) >1 000 C) 1.3 to 2.4 DS-4m
6 000 6 000 natural ground 2.5 to 5.5 AC-4ms
2.5 to 6.5 AC-5m
>3.5 — >5.5 — AC-4s
>6 000 u1 200 >6 000 u1 100 >2.4 DS-5
2.5 to 3.5 W2.5 2.5 to 5.5 W2.5 AC-5
Not found in UK >5.5 — AC-4ms
>6 000 >1 200 C) >6 000 >1 100 C) >2.4 DS-5m
natural ground 2.5 to 5.5 W2.5 AC-5m
A) “Brownfield” sites are those that might contain chemical residues remaining from previous industrial use or from
imported wastes.
B) Applies only to sites where concrete will be exposed to sulfate ions (SO4), which can result from the oxidation of
sulfides such as pyrite, following ground disturbance.
C) The limit on water-soluble magnesium does not apply to brackish groundwater (chloride content between 12 g/l and
18 g/l). This allows these sites to be classified in the row above. This table does not cover sea water and stronger brines.
D) An additional account is taken of hydrochloric and nitric acids by adjustment to sulfate content (see BRE Special
Digest 1 [1]).
E) For flowing water that is potentially aggressive to concrete owing to high purity or an aggressive carbon dioxide level
greater than 15 mg/l, increase the ACEC class to AC-2z (see BRE Special Digest 1 [1]).
© BSI 2006 • 21
BS 8500-1:2006
Table A.6 Cement and combination types A)

Broad designation B) Composition Comprises cement and
combination types
(see BS 8500-2:2006, Table 1)
CEM I Portland cement CEM I
SRPC Sulfate-resisting Portland cement SRPC
IIA Portland cement with 6% to 20% fly ash, ground CEM II/A-L, CEM II/A-LL, CIIA-L,
granulated blastfurnace slag, limestone, or 6% to CIIA-LL, CEM II/A-S, CIIA-S,
10% silica fume C) CEM II/A-V, CIIA-V, CEM II/A-D
IIB-S Portland cement with 21% to 35% ground granulated CEM II/B-S, CIIB-S
blastfurnace slag
IIB-V Portland cement with 21% to 35% fly ash CEM II/B-V, CIIB-V
IIB+SR Portland cement with 25% to 35% fly ash CEM II/B-V+SR, CIIB-V+SR
IIIA D), E) Portland cement with 36% to 65% ground granulated CEM III/A, CIIIA
blastfurnace slag
IIIA+SR E) Portland cement with 36% to 65% ground granulated CEM III/A+SR F), CIIIA+SR F)
blastfurnace slag with additional requirements that
enhance sulfate resistance
IIIB E), G) Portland cement with 66% to 80% ground granulated CEM III/B, CIIIB
blastfurnace slag
IIIB+SR E) Portland cement with 66% to 80% ground granulated CEM III/B+SR F), CIIIB+SR F)
blastfurnace slag with additional requirements that
enhance sulfate resistance
IVB-V Portland cement with 36% to 55% fly ash CEM IV/B(V), CIVB
A) There are a number of cements and combinations not listed in this table that may be specified for certain specialist
applications. See BRE Special Digest 1 [1] for the sulfate-resisting characteristics of other cements and combinations.
See IP 17/05 [7] for the use of high ggbs content cements and combinations in secant piling applications.
B) The use of these broad designations is sufficient for most applications. Where a more limited range of cement or
combinations types is required, select from the notations given in BS 8500-2:2006, Table 1.
C) When IIA or IIA-D is specified, CEM I and silica fume may be combined in the concrete mixer using the k-value
concept; see BS EN 206-1:2000, 5.2.5.2.3.
D) Where IIIA is specified, IIIA+SR may be used.
E) Inclusive of low early strength option (see BS EN 197-4 and the “L” classes in BS 8500-2:2006, Table A.1).
F) “+SR” indicates additional restrictions related to sulfate resistance. See BS 8500-2:2006, Table 1, footnote D.
G) Where IIIB is specified, IIIB+SR may be used.
32 • © BSI 2006
BS 8500-1:2006
Table A.9 Selection of the nominal cover and DC-class or designated

concrete and the number of APM for in-situ concrete elements A)
where the hydraulic gradient due to groundwater is five or
less B), C), D)
ACEC-class Lowest nominal Intended working life F)
cover E), mm
At least 50 years G), H) At least 100 years
AC-1s, AC-1 50 I), 75 J) DC-1 (RC25/30 if reinforced) DC-1 (RC25/30 if reinforced)
AC-2s, AC-2 50 I), 75 J) DC-2 (FND2) DC-2 (FND2)
AC-2z 50 I), 75 J) DC-2z (FND2z) DC-2z (FND2z)
AC-3s 50 I), 75 J) DC-3 (FND3) DC-3 (FND3)
DC-3 + one APM of choice, FND3 + one
AC-3 50 I), 75 J) DC-3 (FND3)
APM of choice, DC-4 or FND4
AC-4s 50 I), 75 J) DC-4 (FND4) DC-4 (FND4)
DC-4 + one APM from APM2 to APM5, or
AC-4 50 I), 75 J) DC-4 (FND4)
FND4 + one APM from APM2 to APM5
AC-4ms 50 I), 75 J) DC-4m (FND4m) DC-4m (FND4m)
DC-4m + one APM from APM2 to APM5, or
AC-4m 50 I), 75 J) DC-4m (FND4m)
FND4m + one APM from APM2 to APM5
AC-5z 50 I), 75 J) DC-4z (FND4z) + APM3 K) DC-4z (FND4z) + APM3 K)
AC-5 50 I), 75 J) DC-4 (FND4) + APM3 K) DC-4 (FND4) + APM3 K)
AC-5m 50 I), 75 J) DC-4m (FND4m)+ APM3 K) DC-4m (FND4m) + APM3 K)
A) For guidance on precast concrete products, see BRE Special Digest 1 [1].
B) Where the hydraulic gradient across a concrete element is greater than 5, one step in DC-class or one APM over and
above the number indicated in the table should be applied except where the original provisions included APM3. Where
APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an additional APM is not necessary.
C) A section thickness of 140 mm or less should be avoided in in-situ construction but where this is not practicable, apply
one step higher DC-class (designated concrete) or an additional APM except where the original provisions included
APM3. Where APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an additional APM is not necessary.
D) Where a section thickness greater than 450 mm is used and some surface chemical attack is acceptable, a relaxation of
one step in DC-class (designated concrete) may be applied. For reinforced concrete, the cover should be sufficiently
thick to allow for estimated surface degradation during the intended working life.
E) Where the ground contains chlorides, the nominal cover should comprise the recommended minimum cover for the
associated XD or XS class plus an allowance for deviation, Δc, of at least 25 mm for concrete to be cast against blinding
and at least 50 mm for concrete to be cast directly against soil, and the more onerous limiting values for the concrete
should be selected.
F) Designated concrete classes are given in parentheses.
G) Foundations of low-rise housing that has an intended working life of “at least 100 years” may be constructed with con-
crete selected from the column headed “at least 50 years”.
H) Structures with an intended working life of “at least 50 years” but for which the consequences of failure would be rela-
tively serious, should be classed as having an intended working life of “at least 100 years” for the selection of the DC-
class (designated concrete) and APM.
I) For concrete cast against blinding.
J) For concrete cast directly against the soil.
K) Where APM3 is not practical, select an alternative APM.
Table A.10 Additional protective measures (APMs)

Option code APM
APM1 Enhanced concrete quality
APM2 Use of controlled permeability formwork
APM3 Provide surface protection
APM4 Provide sacrificial layer
APM5 Address drainage of site
© BSI 2006 • 37
BS 8500-1:2006
Table A.11 Limiting values of composition and properties for concrete

where a DC-class is specified
DC-class Max. Min. cement or combination Cement and combination types Grouping
w/c content (kg/m3) for max. used in
ratio aggregate size BRE SD1:
2005 [1]
W40 mm 20 mm 14 mm 10 mm
DC-1 A) — — — — — All in Table A.6 A to G
0.55 300 320 340 360 IIB-V+SR, IIIA+SR, IIIB+SR, IVB-V D, E, F
0.50 320 340 360 380 CEM I, SRPC, IIA-D, IIA-Q, IIA-S, A, G
DC-2 IIA-V, IIB-S, IIB-V, IIIA, IIIB
0.45 340 360 380 380 IIA-L or LL W42,5 B
0.40 360 380 380 380 IIA-L or LL 32,5 C
DC-2z 0.55 300 320 340 360 All in Table A.6 A to G
0.50 320 340 360 380 IIIB+SR F
DC-3 0.45 340 360 380 380 IVB-V E
0.40 360 380 380 380 IIB-V+SR, IIIA+SR, SRPC D, G
0.45 340 360 380 380 IIIB+SR F
DC-4 0.40 360 380 380 380 IVB-V E
0.35 380 380 380 380 IIB-V+SR, IIIA+SR, SRPC D, G
DC-4m 0.45 340 360 380 380 IIIB+SR F
A) If the concrete is reinforced or contains embedded metal, the minimum concrete quality for 20 mm maximum aggregate
size is C25/30, 0.65, 260 or designated concrete RC25/30.
Where concrete is to be in contact with sea water, it needs to be of a

sufficient quality to resist sea water attack. The recommendations to
resist reinforcement corrosion induced by sea water (see Table A.4 and
Table A.5) provide concretes with adequate resistance to the chemical
attack on the concrete by sea water. Where unreinforced concrete is to
be in contact with sea water, the maximum w/c ratio should not be more
than and minimum cement or combination content should be not less
than that given in Table A.12.
Table A.12 Limiting values of composition for unreinforced concrete in

contact with sea water
Max. Min. cement or combination Cement and combination types A) Indicative
w/c ratio content (kg/m3) for max. aggregate size compressive
strength class B)
W40 mm 20 mm 14 mm 10 mm
0.55 280 300 320 340 CEM I, SRPC, IIA, IIB-S (C28/35)
0.55 280 300 320 340 IIB-V, IIB-V+SR, IIIA, IIIA+SR (C25/30)
0.55 280 300 320 340 IIIB, IIIB+SR, IVB-V (C20/25)
A) See Table A.6.
B) This is an indicative compressive strength class and not a recommended minimum compressive strength class for
durability; see A.4.2.
For the avoidance of deterioration due to sulfates within the original

concrete, see A.7.4 and A.8.2. For the avoidance of damaging
alkali–silica reaction, see A.8.1.
38 • © BSI 2006
BRE Digest 1- 2005
Special Digest 1:2005
Third edition
Concrete in
aggressive ground
BRE Construction Division

Assessing the aggressive chemical environment 31
Table C1 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for natural ground locations a
Sulfate Groundwater ACEC
Design Sulfate 2:1 water/soil Groundwater Total potential Static Mobile Class for
Class for location extract b sulfate c water water location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(SO4 mg/ l) (SO4 mg/ l) (SO4 %) (pH) (pH)
DS-1 < 500 < 400 < 0.24 ≥ 2.5 AC-1s

> 5.5 d AC-1d
2.5–5.5 AC-2z
DS-2 500–1500 400–1400 0.24–0.6 > 3.5 AC-1s
> 5.5 AC-2
2.5–3.5 AC-2s
2.5–5.5 AC-3z
DS-3 1600–3000 1500–3000 0.7–1.2 > 3.5 AC-2s
> 5.5 AC-3
2.5–3.5 AC-3s
2.5–5.5 AC-4
DS-4 3100–6000 3100–6000 1.3–2.4 > 3.5 AC-3s
> 5.5 AC-4
2.5–3.5 AC-4s
2.5–5.5 AC-5
DS-5 > 6000 > 6000 > 2.4 > 3.5 AC-4s
2.5–3.5 ≥ 2.5 AC-5
Notes
a Applies to locations on sites that comprise either undisturbed ground that is in its natural state (ie is not brownfield – Table C2) or clean fill derived from such ground.
b The limits of Design Sulfate Classes based on 2:1 water/soil extracts have been lowered relative to previous Digests (Box C7).
c Applies only to locations where concrete will be exposed to sulfate ions (SO4) which may result from the oxidation of sulfides (eg pyrite) following ground disturbance
(Appendix A1 and Box C8).
d For flowing water that is potentially aggressive to concrete owing to high purity or an aggressive carbon dioxide level greater than 15 mg/l (Section C2.2.3), increase the
ACEC Class to AC-2z.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class
● Suffix ‘s’ indicates that the water has been classified as static.
● Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ primarily have to resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the cements or combinations listed in
Table D2 on page 42.
The sulfide content of the ground must be taken into Step 8 Compare the sulfate class for total potential sulfate
account if it is concluded that both: with the sulfate classes determined (in Section C5.1.1)
● pyrite is present in significant amounts for groundwater and water extract tests on soil. The
● the concrete is to be exposed to disturbed ground highest of these sulfate classes should then be taken as
(Appendix A1 and Box C8) which might be vulnerable to the Design Sulfate Class for the site location. A
oxidation. limitation can be applied if the sulfate class for the total
potential sulfate is initially found to be Sulfate Class 5,
This procedure should be done in four steps additional to but sulfate classes for groundwater and the water extracts
those listed in Section C5.1.1. tests are Sulfate Class 3 or less. In this case, the Design
Sulfate Class for the site location can be limited to DS-4.
Step 6 Determine the characteristic values of the total
potential sulfate content for the site location from a The reason for this limitation is that the procedure for
consideration of the results of several tests on the pyritic sulfate classification based on total potential sulfate is
ground. In a data set where five to nine results are often highly conservative as not all the pyrite in soil will
available for the location, the mean of the two highest be oxidised and only a part will be taken into solution by
TPS values should be taken as the characteristic value groundwater. Some reliance is placed therefore on the
(rounded to 0.1% SO4). In a data set where 10 or more findings of field studies of disturbed pyritic clay that has
TPS results are available, the mean of the highest 20% undergone oxidation. These have shown a maximum
should be taken as the characteristic value. sulfate class for groundwater in pyritic clay subject to
prolonged oxidation to be Sulfate Class 4.
Step 7 Determine the sulfate class equivalent to the
characteristic value of the total potential sulfate content Step 9 Determine the ACEC Class of the ground from the
using columns 1 and 6 of Table C2 on the next page. row of Table C1 that correlates first with the Design
Sulfate Class, second with the water conditions, and third
with the characteristic value of pH.
32 Part C
Table C2 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for brownfield locations a
Sulfate and magnesium Groundwater ACEC
Design Sulfate 2:1 water/soil extract b Groundwater Total potential Static Mobile Class for
Class for location sulfate c water water location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(SO4 mg/ l) (Mg mg/ l) (SO4 mg/ l) (Mg mg/ l) (SO4 %) (pH) d (pH) d
DS-1 < 500 < 400 < 0.24 ≥ 2.5 AC-1s

> 6.5 d AC-1
5.5–6.5 AC-2z
4.5–5.5 AC-3z
2.5–4.5 AC-4z
DS-2 500–1500 400–1400 0.24–0.6 > 5.5 AC-1s
> 6.5 AC-2
2.5–5.5 AC-2s
5.5–6.5 AC-3z
4.5–5.5 AC-4z
2.5–5.5 AC-5z
DS-3 1600–3000 1500–3000 0.7–1.2 > 5.5 AC-2s
> 6.5 AC-3
2.5–5.5 AC-3s
5.5–6.5 AC-4
2.5–5.5 AC-5
DS-4 3100–6000 ≤ 1200 3100–6000 ≤ 1000 1.3–2.4 > 5.5 AC-3s
> 6.5 AC-4
2.5–5.5 AC-4s
2.5–6.5 AC-5
DS-4m 3100–6000 > 1200 e 3100–6000 > 1000 e 1.3–2.4 > 5.5 AC-3s
> 6.5 AC-4m
2.5–5.5 AC-4ms
2.5–6.5 AC-5m
DS-5 > 6000 ≤ 1200 > 6000 ≤ 1000 > 2.4 > 5.5 AC-4s
2.5–5.5 ≥ 2.5 AC-5
DS-5m > 6000 > 1200 e > 6000 > 1000 e > 2.4 > 5.5 AC-4ms
2.5–5.5 ≥ 2.5 AC-5m
Notes
a Brownfield locations are those sites, or parts of sites, that might contain chemical residues produced by or associated with industrial production (Section C5.1.3).
b The limits of Design Sulfate Classes based on 2:1 water/soil extracts have been lowered from previous Digests (Box C7).
c Applies only to locations where concrete will be exposed to sulfate ions (SO4), which may result from the oxidation of sulfides such as pyrite, following ground disturbance
(Appendix A1 and Box C8).
d An additional account is taken of hydrochloric and nitric acids by adjustment to sulfate content (Section C5.1.3).
e The limit on water-soluble magnesium does not apply to brackish groundwater (chloride content between 12 000 mg/l and 17 000 mg/l). This allows ‘m’ to be omitted
from the relevant ACEC classification. Seawater (chloride content about 18 000 mg/l ) and stronger brines are not covered by this table.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class
● Suffix ‘s’ indicates that the water has been classified as static.
● Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ have primarily to resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the cements in Table D2 on page 42.
● Suffix ‘m’ relates to the higher levels of magnesium in Design Sulfate Classes 4 and 5.
Specifying concrete for general cast-in-situ use 41
Table D1 Selection of the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to
groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete a,b,c
ACEC Class Intended working life
(from Tables C1 and C2) At least 50 yearsd,e At least 100 years
AC-1s, AC-1 DC-1 DC-1

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

● Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ primarily must resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the cements listed in Table D2.
● Suffix ‘m’ relates to the higher levels of magnesium in DS Classes 4 and 5.
D5 Composition of concrete to resist A compressive strength requirement has never formed part
of BRE recommendations for sulfate resistance. However,
chemical attack it is recognised that the specification may need to contain a
D5.1 Background compressive strength class requirement for structural and
The main compositional factors that determine the durability purposes.
resistance of concrete to aggressive ground are its
water/cement ratio and type of cement or combination used. Considerable recent research (Section A3) has been focused
In the previous edition of this Special Digest, the on determining what is an adequate concrete specification
importance of carbonate in the aggregates was stressed in and performance of different cement types. The findings of
relation to TSA. A source of carbonate is still considered this research are incorporated into the recommendations
essential for occurrence of TSA, but recent research given in Table D2. The principal changes as compared with
(Section A3) has shown that sufficient carbonate can come SD1:2003 are:
from bicarbonate in groundwater. As a consequence, the ● the requirements for concrete made with aggregates
limiting values of concrete composition make no distinction having a medium or low carbonate content (former
between aggregates of different carbonate contents. aggregate carbonate ranges B or C) have been increased
to those given previously for concrete made with
Recent research has also shown that resistance to sulfate aggregates having a high carbonate content (former
attack is not a function of cement content. Concretes made range A aggregates)
with the same materials, and the same w/c ratio but different ● the excellent performance of concrete incorporating
cement/combination contents, have similar sulfate ground granulated blastfurnace slag (ggbs) cements has
resistance providing there is sufficient fine material to give been recognised and there is some relaxation of the
a closed microstructure. However, as there is not yet any requirements with these cements
agreed method for verifying that the concrete has a closed ● the mixed performance of concrete made with sulfate-
structure, this Special Digest continues to recommend a resisting Portland cement (SRPC) in sulfate conditions
minimum cement/combination content. conducive to TSA has led to tightening of requirements
42 Part D
● the performance of concrete incorporating pulverized D5.3 Cement and combination types
fuel ash (pfa), and fly ash cements and combinations, is D5.3.1 Recommendations in Tables D2 and D3
still under investigation and so a conservative approach The cements and combinations specifically recommended
to their use is taken. by this Special Digest for use in aggressive ground are listed
as groups A to G in Tables D2 and D3.
The effectiveness of concretes to resist chemical attack
depends to a high degree on their impermeability. Therefore, The groups are defined in Table D3 mainly in terms of
good compaction is most important. With low w/c ratios, resistance to sulfate attack. The designations used are based
such as those advocated here, it is probable that water on those of BS EN 197-1 for cement and BS 8500 for
reducing admixtures will be needed to achieve effective combinations. A suffix ‘+SR’ has been added to the
compaction. This is particularly true of concretes (eg for designations where a restriction on some element of the
piling) where mechanical compaction cannot be used. composition is necessary for sulfate resistance.
D5.2 Using Table D2 Cements and combinations of the same composition are
For a given DC Class, specifications for concrete are shown treated as being directly equivalent and are always grouped
in Table D2 in terms of maximum free-water/cement or together. Moreover, different types (eg CEM II/B-V+SR, a
combination ratio and minimum cement or combination fly ash cement, and CEM III/A+SR, a blastfurnace cement)
content for standard aggregate sizes, and recommended that show closely similar resistance to sulfate attack are
types of cement or combination. The cements and placed in the same Group – in this case, Group D.
combinations are in new groups, designated A to G, that are
defined in Table D3. Table D2 provides a wide range of While the grouping and nomenclature differ between Table
options for concrete at most DC Class levels so that, in most D3 and SD1:2003, in most cases the requirements of
cases, the concrete producer can use a cement or cements and combinations with respect to enhanced sulfate
combination which he normally has in stock. resistance remain unchanged.
Table D2 Concrete qualities to resist chemical attack for the general use of in-situ concrete: limiting values for composition
DC Class Maximum Minimum cement or combination content (kg/m3) Recommended cement and
free-water/cement for maximum aggregate size of: combination group
or combination ratio ≥ 40 mm 20 mm 14 mm 10 mm
DC-1 – – – – – A to G inclusive
DC-2 0.55 300 320 340 360 D, E, F
0.50 320 340 360 380 A, G
0.45 340 360 380 380 B
0.40 360 380 380 380 C
DC-2z 0.55 300 320 340 360 A to G inclusive
DC-3 0.50 320 340 360 380 F
0.45 340 360 380 380 E
0.40 360 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4 0.45 340 360 380 380 F
0.40 360 380 380 380 E
0.35 380 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4m 0.45 340 360 380 380 F
Grouped cements and combinations
Cements Combinations
A CEM I, CEM II/A-D, CEM II/A-Q, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM II/A-V, CIIA-V, CIIB-V, CII-S, CIIIA, CIIIB, CIIA-D,
CEM II/B-V, CEM III/A, CEM III/B CIIA-Q
B CEM II/A-La, CEM II/A-LLa CIIA-La, CIIA-LLa
a a
C CEM II/A-L , CEM II/A-LL CIIA-La, CIIA-LLa
D CEM II/B-V+SR, CEM III/A+SR CIIB-V+SR, CIIIA+SR
E CEM IV/B (V), VLH IV/B (V) CIVB-V
F CEM III/B+SR CIIIB+SR
G SRPC –
For cement and combination types, compositional restrictions and relevant Standards, see Table D3.
Note
a The classification is B if the cement/combination strength class is 42,5 or higher and C if it is 32,5.
Specifying concrete for general cast-in-situ use 43
Table D3 Cements and combinations for use in Table D2

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

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

b
Portland-pozzolana cement CEM II/A-Q BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-slag cements CEM II/A-S BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-S BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-fly ash cements– CEM II/A-V BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-V c BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-V+SR d BS EN 197-1 D
e
Blastfurnace cements CEM III/A BS EN 197-1 A
BS EN 197-4 A
CEM III/A+SR f BS EN 197-1 D
BS EN 197-4 D
CEM III/B BS EN 197-1 A
BS EN 197-4 A
CEM III/B+SR f BS EN 197-1 F
BS EN 197-4 F
g,h
Pozzolanic cement CEM IV/B (V) BS EN 197-1 E
Very low heat pozzolanic cement VLH IV/B (V) BS EN 14216 E
Sulfate-resisting Portland cement SRPC BS 4027 G
Combinations conforming to BS 8500-2, Annex A, manufactured in the
concrete mixer from Portland cement and fly ash, pfa, ggbs or limestone fines:
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-V BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 21 to 35 % CIIB-V c BS 8500-2, Annex A A
d
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1 CIIB-V+SR BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 55 % CIVB-V BS 8500-2, Annex A E
of combination fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 35 % CII-S BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 65 % CIIIA BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 CIIIA+SR f BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 66 to 80 % CIIIB BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 e CIIIB+SR f
BS 8500-2, Annex A F
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-L BS 8500-2, Annex A B a or C a
of combination of limestone fines conforming to BS 7979 CIIA-LL BS 8500-2, Annex A B a or C a
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 10 % CIIA-D See Note j A
of combination of silica fume conforming to BS EN 13263 i
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-Q See Note k A
of combination of metakaolin conforming to an appropriate Agrément certificate
Notes
a The classification is B if the cement or combination strength is class 42,5 or higher and C if it is class 32,5.
b Metakaolin only.
c Where the fly ash or pfa content is a mass fraction of 21 to 24%.
d The addition of the abbreviation ‘+SR’ denotes an additional requirement for sulfate resistance that the fly ash content should be a mass fraction of not less than 25% of
the cement or combination. Where it is less than 25%, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is ‘A’ (Note c).
e Cements or combinations with higher levels of slag than permitted in this table may be used for certain specialist applications, but no guidance is provided in this Special
Digest or BS 8500.
f The addition of the abbreviation ‘+SR’ denotes an additional requirement for sulfate resistance, that where the alumina content of the slag exceeds 14%, the tricalcium
aluminate content of the Portland cement fraction should not exceed 10%. Where this is not the case, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is ‘A’.
g CEM IV/A cement with siliceous fly ash should be classified as CEM II-V cement.
h (V) indicates siliceous fly ash only.
i Until BS EN 13263 is published, the silica fume should conform to an appropriate British Board of Agrément certificate.
j These combinations are not currently covered by BS 8500-2, Annex A. However, silica fume can be used in accordance with Clause 5.2.5 of BS EN 206-1.
k These combinations are not currently covered by B S 8500-2, Annex A. However, metakaolin conforming to Clause 4.4 of BS 8500-2 may be used in accordance with
Clause 5.2.5 of BS EN 206-1. If the k-value concept is used, a k-value with respect to sulfate resistance of 1.0 should be used.
CIRIA - 577
Guide to concrete in Arabian Pen
Memo
A.3 Archived Report (unofficial Data)
AECOM
26/31
KEY PLAN:
NOTES:
OTHERWISE.
LEGEND:
R1060/2 STUDY AREA
EXISTING ROAD
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
AT GRADE ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROJECT NAME:
- - -
OF AL ASAYEL LINK
CLIENT:
CONSULTANT
Imagine it.
Delivered.
SKETCHES


DRAWING TITLE:

S.N M.A M.Z
DRAWING NO.: REV.:
S00
- A1 N.T.S
‫ﺣﺳــــن اﻷﻣــﯾر‬
‫ﻟﻔﺤـﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ واﻟﻤﻮاد اﻷوﻟﯿﺔ‬
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SITE: Commercial & Residential Bldg (G+4P+14+R) TITLE: Site Location Plan
Plot No. 326-5498, Al Jadaf
Dubai
JOB REF : SIR2023-0557 United Arab Emirates
DATE: 20-Jan-24 CLIENT: M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engi PLATE No: A.1.2
Plate 1.2 Site Location Plan

UAE – Dubai –Al Quoz Ind. Third – Warehouse No. 22D. D 22 ‫اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة – دﺑﻰ – اﻟﻘﻮز اﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﯿﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ – ﺷﺒﺮة رﻗﻢ‬
Tel 04 – 341 6086 Fax 04 – 341 6096 - P.O. Box 510. 510 .‫ب‬.‫ – ص‬04 – 341 6096 ‫ ﻓﺎﻛﺲ‬04 – 341 6086 ‫ﺗﻠﯿﻔﻮن‬
Website: www.soilanalysis.hagalamir.com / Email: hasalab@hagalamir.com, hasa.lab1@gmail.com
(Document No. SR01, Issue No. 01, Rev. No. 0 - Issued on 16.02.2013) Page 47 of 134 Report Ref. No. SIR2023-0557 – Rev. No. 00
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SITE: Commercial & Residential Bldg (G+4P+14+R) TITLE: Site Plan

Dubai
DATE: 20-Jan-24 CLIENT: M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engi PLATE No: A.2
Plate A2.1 Site Affection Plan
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SIT E: Commercial & Residential Bldg (G+4P+14+RT IT LE: Borehole Location Plan
Plot No. 326-5498, Al Jadaf Downhole Seismic T est
Dubai (BH-B2, 40m)
DAT E: 27 Jan 24 CLIENT : M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engi PLAT E No: A.3
Plate A.3: Boreholes Location Plan.

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
'N' VALUES
1 10 100
0
Very Loose Loose M.Dense Dense V.Dense
2
6 Design Profile
10
12
14
16
18
DEPTH (m)
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
BH A1-S PT BH A2-S PT BH A3-S PT BH B1-S PT BH B2-S PT BH C1-SPT Design Profile
SITE: Commercial & Residential Bldg (G+4P+14+R) TITLE: Summary of SPT

Plot No. 326-5498, Al Jadaf Values vs Depth
Dubai
DATE: 20-Jan-24 CLIENT: M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Eng PLATE No: A.4
Plate A.4 SPT “N” Values VS Elevations

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
'UCS' VALUES- Mpa
1 10 100
15
16
17
18
19
Design Profile
20
21
22
23
24
DEPTH (m)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
BH A1-UCS BH A2-UCS BH A3-UCS BH B1-UCS BH B2-UCS BH C1-UCS Design Profile
SITE: Commercial & Residential Bldg (G+4P+14+R TITLE: Summary of UCS

Plot No. 326-5498, Al Jadaf Values vs Depth
Dubai
DATE: 27 Jan 24 CLIENT: M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engin PLATE No: A.4.2
Plate A4.1: UCS Values VS Depths
BH BH A1 BH A2 BH A3 BH B1 BH B2 BH C1
Elev: +3.31m DMD +3.15m DMD +4.24m DMD +3.14 DMD +3.40m DMD +3.37m DMD
020406080
100
0204 06 08100
0 0 020406080
100 020406080
1 00 LEGEND:
020406080
100 020406080
100 0
0 1 0
0 0
1 1 2 1 1 1
2 2 2
2 3 3 2
3 3 4 4 3
3
4 4 5 5 4
5 6 5 4
5 6 7
6 7 6 5
6 8
7 7 8 9 7 6
8 10 8
8 9 11 7
9 9
Soil Analysis
9 10 12 8
Hassan Al Amir
10 10 11 13 10
11 14 11 9
11 12 15
12 13 16 12 10
12
13 13 14 17 13 11
14 18 14
14 15 19 12
15 15
Tel 04 – 341 6086 Fax 04 – 341 6096 - P.O. Box 510.

15 16 20 13
16 16 17 21 16
UAE – Dubai –Al Quoz Ind. Third – Warehouse No. 22D.

17 22 17 14
17 18 23
18 24 18 15
(Document No. SR01, Issue No. 01, Rev. No. 0 - Issued on 16.02.2013)
19
Plate A5.1: Geotechnical Cross Section Profile

18
19 19 20 25 19 16
20 26 20
20 21 27 17
21 21 22 28 21
22 18
22 22 23 29
23 30 23 19
23 24 31
24 24 25 32 24 20
25 25 26 33 25 21
26 34 26
26 27 35 22
27 27 36 27
28
Page 52 of 134
28 23
28 28 29 37
29 38 29 24
29 30 39
30 40 30 25
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

SITE: Building (G + 4P + 14 + R) TITLE: Geotechnical Cross Section Profile
Report Ref. No. SIR2023-0557 – Rev. No. 00

Dubai
JOB REF.: SIR2023-0557 - DXB United Arab Emirates
DATE: 20-Jan-24 CLIENT: M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engineers TITLE: A.5
510 .‫ب‬.‫ – ص‬04 – 341 6096 ‫ ﻓﺎﻛﺲ‬04 – 341 6086 ‫ﺗﻠﯿﻔﻮن‬

D 22 ‫اﻹﻣﺎرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة – دﺑﻰ – اﻟﻘﻮز اﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﯿﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ – ﺷﺒﺮة رﻗﻢ‬
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
APPENDIX B (FIELD RESULTS)
BOREHOLE LOGS PLATE B1.1 TO B6.3

SKETCH FO RSTANDPIPE PIEZOMETER PLATE B7.1
FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TESTS PLATE B8.1 TO B8.6
GEOPHYSICAL DOWNHOLE SEISMIC TEST RESULTS (BH-02) PLATE B9.1 TO B9.6
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE NO. BH A1
SHEET NO. 1 of 3
Client M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engineers Name HS
Drilled By
Project Commercial & Residential Building (G + 4P + 14 + R) Sign
Location Plot 326-5498, Al Jadaf, Dubai, U.A.E. Name TY
Logged By
Ground Datum Level +4.23m DMD. Sign
Date Drilling Started 22/12/2023 Name MG
Checked By
Date Drilling Completed 23/12/2023 Sign
Drilling Method Percussion & Rotary Drilling N 2789901.4923
Coordinates
Drilling Fluid Used Water / Bentonite E 498794.7099
Sample STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION Lamination, Joints,
Type
Inclusions, Slip Planes,
Spacing, Fabric, Seams,
+4.23 x x D-1 GL
x Medium dense to dense, light brown to
0.5 x x brown, slightly shelly to shelly, slightly silty S-1 0.5 8,13,15
to silty, fine to medium SAND. N=28
1.0 x S-2 1.0 9,13,17
x x N=30
1.5 x S-3 1.5 10,14,16
x N=30
2.0 x S-4 2.0 9,13,17
x x N=30
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 11,16,19

N=35
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 12,16,24
x N=40
Cable Percussion Boring (150mm Dia)
x
0.23 4.0
x
x x Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly, S-7 4.50 14,19,31*
slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND. N=50/285mm
x x
4.9m 5.0 x
x x
x S-8 5.5 16,27,23*
x N=50/285mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 17,26,24*
x x N=50/275mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 19,29,21*
N=50/245mm
x
8.0 x x
x x S=11 8.5 20,26,24*

x x N=50/255mm
x
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 22,27,23*

x x N=50/245mm
-5.77 10.0
Continued
WATER LEVEL (m) REMARKS :
Date Time Water Level 1. Service Pit was manually excavated to 0.5m depths.
23/ 12/ 2023 5.00 p.m. 4.90m 2. Borehole was drilled up to 30.0m depth from existing ground level.
3. Ground water was encountered at 4.90m depths.
Key Note - SPT N value should be

TCR-Total Core Recovery C - Core Sample Sample Type recorded for each 15cm run as
SCR - Solid Core Recovery D- Disturbed Sample SPT Sample well as the total of the last two.
RQD-Rock Quality Designation UD - Undisturbed Sample Core Sample Vane test should include 3
SPT-Standard Penetration Test BD - Bulk Disturbed Sample Undisturbed Sample readings : undisturbed, after 5
HSA - Hollow Stem Auger SFA - Solid Flight Auger Groundwater Table Minutes and after 15 minutes
RCTB-RotaryCoring with T. Carbide B CPB - Cable Percussion Boring Bulk Sample/ Wash Boring/Tricone
RCDB-Rotary Coring with Diamond Bi RWB- Rotary Wash Boring Core with No Recovery
HWL -HQ Wire Line V - Vane
PLATE: 6.1 Report No.: SIR2023-0557
Plate B1.1 Borehole Log for Borehole No. A1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 3
Drilled By
Borehole Location Plot 326-5498, Al Jadaf, Dubai, U.A.E. Name TY
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
Discontinuities Shear Zones
-5.77 10.0 Same as previous.
x Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly,
x x S-13 10.5 20,32,18*
slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND N=50/190mm
11.0 x x with calcarenite fragments from 14.5m depth.
x
x x
x S-14 11.5 22,30,20*
x N=50/190mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 23,37,13*
x x N=50/170mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 23,36,14*
x N=50/170mm
14.0 x x
x x
x * S-17 14.5 23,45,5*
RCDB (100mm)
x x N=50/160mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 25,28,2*
-9.57 15.8 x x N=50/155mm
16.0 15.8
Extremely weak to very weak, light brown
to brown, very thinly to medium bedded,
C-1 83 79 17
fine to medium grained SANSTONE
17.0 17.0
17.0
C-2 80 80 40
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0
C-3 79 76 32
-15.8 20.0 20.0

Continued

SCR-Solid Core Recovery D- Disturbed Sample SPT Sample well as the total of the last two.

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
-15.8 20.0 Same as previous. 20.0 2.87
to brown, very thinly to medium bedded, Close to medium spaced
fine to medium grained SANSTONE C-4 83 83 40 horizontal fractures.
21.0
21.5
21.5
22.0
C-5 87 84 31
23.0 23.0
23.0
C-6 83 83 23
24.0
24.5
24.5
RCDB
25.0
C-7 89 47 07
26.0 26.0
26.0
-22.3 26.5
Extremely weak to very weak, brown to C-8 88 43 00

27.0 reddish brown, very thinly to medium bedded
slightly gypsiferous, slightly conglomeratic,
fine to medium grained SANSTONE. 27.5
27.5
28.0
C-9 67 37 07
29.0 29.0
29.0
C-10 80 80 52
-25.8 30.0 30.0 1.97

E.O.B.

RCTB-Rotary Coring with Tricone Bit CPB - Cable Percussion Boring Bulk Sample/ Wash Boring/Tricone

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE NO. BHA2
SHEET NO. 1 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
4.65 x x D-1 GL
1.0 x S-2 1.0 9,15,18
x x N=33
1.5 x S-3 1.5 12,15,19
x N=34
2.0 x S-4 2.0 10,17,20
x x N=37
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 12,16,22

N=38
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 13,17,20
x N=37
x
0.65 4.0
x
x x
4.95m 5.0 x
x x
x S-8 5.5 15,28,22*
x N=50/265mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 16,28,22*
x x N=50/255mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 17,29,21*
N=50/230mm
x
8.0 x x
x x S=11 8.5 16,19,31*

x x N=50/275mm
x
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 19,27,23*

x x N=50/255mm
-5.35 10.0
Continued


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
x
x x
Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly, S-13 10.5 22,32,18*
11.0 x x with calcareous rock fragments from depth
x 14.0m.
x x
x S-14 11.5 21,35,15*
x N=50/190mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 22,33,17*
x x N=50/200mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 23,36,14*
x N=50/180mm
14.0 x x
x x
x S-17 14.5 24,37,13*
RCDB (100mm)
x x N=50/170mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 25,43,7*
-11.2 15.81 x x N=50/155mm
16.0 15.81 2.31
C-1 82 82 00
17.0 17.0
17.0
C-2 89 72 27
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0 3.02
C-3 85 67 13
-15.4 20.0 20.0

Continued


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
-15.4 20.0 Same as previous. 20.0
21.0
21.5
21.5 2.86
22.0
C-5 85 80 32
23.0 23.0
23.0
C-6 91 87 17
24.0
24.5
24.5
RCDB
25.0
C-7 93 87 24
26.0 26.0
26.0
-21.9 26.5
Extremely weak to very weak, brown to C-8 84 80 32 Close to medium spaced

27.0 reddish brown, very thinly to medium bedded horizontal fractures.
fine to medium grained SANSTONE. 27.5
27.5
28.0
C-9 84 64 17
29.0 29.0
29.0
1.86
xxx Extremely weak to very weak, offwhite to C-10 80 53 30
xxx light brown, slightly gypsiferous, slightly
-25.4 30.0 xxx conglomeratic, CALCISILTITE. 30.0
E.O.B.


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 1 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
Water Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
+4.50 x x D-1 GL
1.0 x S-2 1.0 9,12,15
x x N=27
1.5 x S-3 1.5 10,12,15
x N=27
2.0 x S-4 2.0 9,15,18
x x N=33
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 11,16,19

N=35
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 12,16,19
x N=35
x
4.0
x
x x S-7 4.50 12,21,29*
N=50/295mm
x x
-0.50 4.9m 5.0 x
x x
x Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly, S-8 5.5 14,27,23*
x slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND. N=50/265mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 16,26,24*
x x N=50/265mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 17,30,20*
N=50/245mm
x
8.0 x x
x x S=11 8.5 15,18,32*

x x N=50/265mm
x
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 21,28,22*

x x N=50/245mm
-5.50 10.0
Continued

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
x
x x
Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly, S-13 10.5 22,32,18*
11.0 x x with calcarenite fragments from depth
x 14.50m.
x x
x S-14 11.5 22,30,20*
x N=50/220mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 22,35,15*
x x N=50/200mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 23,38,12*
x N=50/190mm
14.0 x x
x x
x S-17 14.5 24,35,15*
RCDB (100mm)
x x N=50/190mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 24,40,10*
-11.3 15.82 x x N=50/170m
16.0 15.82
C-1 93 86 51
17.0 17.0
17.0
C-2 84 78 33
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0 2.42
C-3 87 82 38
-15.5 20.0 20.0

Continued


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
21.0
21.5
21.5
22.0
C-5 85 77 35
23.0 23.0
23.0
C-6 87 83 54
24.0
24.5
24.5
RCDB
25.0
C-7 87 85 51
26.0 26.0
26.0
-22.5 C-8 90 86 37
27.0
Extremely weak to very weak, brown to
reddish brown, very thinly to medium bedded 27.5
slightly gypsiferous, slightly conglomeratic, 27.5
fine to medium grained SANSTONE.
28.0
C-9 90 64 47
29.0 29.0
29.0
-25.0 29.5
-25.5 30.0 xxx conglomeratic, CALCISILTITE. 30.0 1.57
E.O.B.

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE NO. BHB1
SHEET NO. 1 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
+4.50 x x D-1 GL
1.0 x S-2 1.0 9,13,16
x x N=29
1.5 x S-3 1.5 11,13,17
x N=30
2.0 x S-4 2.0 9,14,18
x x N=32
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 10,14,21

N=35
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 12,15,23
x N=38
x
4.0
x
x x S-7 4.50 14,20,30*
N=50/275mm
x x
-0.50 5.0 x
5.0m
x x
5.5 x Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly, S-8 5.5 14,25,25*
x slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND. N=50/255mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 16,27,23*
x x N=50/255mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 18,26,24*
N=50/245mm
x
8.0
x x Very dense, light brown to brown, slightly
x x silty to silty, fine to medium SAND with S=11 8.5 18,28,22*
x shell fragments. N=50/235mm
x
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 20,30,20*

x x N=50/230mm
-5.50 10.0
Continued

Plate B4.1 Borehole Log for Borehole No. B1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
x Very dense, light brown to brown, slightly
x x silty to silty, fine to medium SAND with S-13 10.5 21,32,18*
calcarenite fragments from depth 14.5m N=50/190mm
11.0 x x
x
x x
x S-14 11.5 23,35,15*
x N=50/180mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 20,36,14*
x x N=50/180mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 22,33,17*
x N=50/200mm
14.0 x x
x x
RCDB (100mm)
x S-17 14.5 24,43,7*

x x N=50/160mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 25,50,*

-11.3 15.8 x x N=50/150mm
16.0 15.8
C-1 83 80 17
17.0 17.0
17.0
C-2 88 85 35
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0 2.36
C-3 93 93 39
-15.5 20.0 20.0

Continued

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
21.0
21.5
21.5
22.0
C-5 80 78 53
23.0 23.0 1.81

23.0
C-6 88 85 28
24.0
24.5
24.5
RCDB
25.0
C-7 98 88 25
26.0 26.0
26.0
-22.5 C-8 83 81 20
27.0 Close to medium spaced
Extremely weak to very weak, brown to horizontal fractures.
reddish brown, very thinly to medium bedded 27.5 2.27
slightly gypsiferous, slightly conglomeratic, 27.5
fine to medium grained SANSTONE.
28.0
C-9 93 91 00
29.0 29.0
29.0
-25.0 29.5
-25.5 30.0 xxx conglomeratic, CALCISILTITE. 30.0



Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 4 of 4
Client Commercial & Residential Building (G + 4P + 14 + R) Name HS
Drilled By
Project Plot 326-5498, Al Jadaf, Dubai, U.A.E. Sign
Borehole Location +4.50m DMD. Name TY
Logged By
Ground Datum Level 21/12/2023 Sign
Checked By
Date Drilling Completed Percussion & Rotary Drilling Sign
Drilling Method Water / Bentonite N 2789929.0846
Coordinates
Drilling Fluid Used Legend E 498805.8609
Sample
Water Depth (m)
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
Sample Type
TCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Lamination, Joints,
Method
DESCRIPTION
Discontinuities, Shear Zones
-25.5 30.0 xxx Same as previous.
xxx Extremely weak to very weak, offwhite to
xxx light brown, slightly gypsiferous, slightly 30.5 Very close to close, locally
xxx conglomeratic, CALCISILTITE. medium spaced horizontal
31.0 xxx fractures.
xxx C-11 85 59 23
xxx
xxx
xxx
32.0 xxx 32.0
xxx 32.0
xxx
xxx
xxx C-12 87 83 40
33.0 xxx
xxx
xxx 33.5
x
xxxx
x 33.5
34.0 xxx
xxx
xxx C-13 85 69 53
xxx
xxx
RCDB
35.0 xxx 35.0

xxx 35.0
xxx
xxx
xxx C-14 75 30 00
36.0 xxx
xxx
xxx 36.5
x
xxxx
x 36.5
37.0 xxx
xxx
xxx C-15 85 13 00
xxx
xxx
38.0 xxx 38.0
xxx 38.0
xxx
xxx
xxx C-16 84 34 00
39.0 xxx
xxx
xxx 39.5
x
xxxx
x 39.5
C-17
-35.5 40.0 xxx 40.0
E.O.B. (40.0m)


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 1 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Ground Datum Level +4.95m DMD Sign
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
+4.95 x x D-1 GL
1.0 x S-2 1.0 8,11,14
x x N=25
1.5 x S-3 1.5 8,13,17
x N=30
2.0 x S-4 2.0 9,13,17
x x N=30
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 11,13,18

N=31
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 11,14,18
x N=32
x
0.95 4.0
x
x x
5.0 x
5.15m x x
x S-8 5.5 13,22,28*
x N=50/275mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 13,23,27*
x x N=50/275mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 15,25,25*
N=50/265mm
x
8.0 x x
x x Very dense, light brown to brown, slightly S=11 8.5 14,23,27*

x x silty to silty, fine to medium SAND with N=50/265mm
x shell fragments.
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 15,25,25*

x x N=50/245mm
-5.05 10.0
Continued
18/12/2023 5.00 p.m. 5.15m 2. Borehole was drilled up to 40.0m depth from existing ground level.
4. Downhole Seismic test was conducted in BH B2 to 40m depths.


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
calcarenite fragments from depth 14.5m N=50/210mm
11.0 x x
x
x x
x S-14 11.5 16,29,21*
x N=50/200mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 18,34,16*
x x N=50/190mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 19,34,16*
x N=50/190mm
14.0 x x
x x
x 20,40,10*
RCDB (100mm)
S-17 14.5
x x N=50/170mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 24,46,4*

#### 15.8 x x N=50/155mm
16.0 15.8
Extremely weak to very weak, light brown Close to medium spaced
to brown, very thinly to medium bedded, C-1 86 81 40 horizontal fractures.
16.8
17.0 16.8
C-2 92 91 43
18.0 18.0
18.0 3.11
C-3 89 85 48
19.0
19.5
#### 20.0
Continued


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 4
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
#### 20.0 Same as previous. 20.0
to brown, very thinly to medium bedded, C-4 91 90 60 Close to medium spaced
fine to medium grained SANSTONE horizontal fractures.
21.0 21.0
21.0
C-5 87 85 33
22.0
22.5
22.5 2.62
23.0
C-6 90 73 52
24.0 24.0
24.0
C-7 83 68 36
RCDB
-20.1 25.0
Extremely weak to very weak, brown to 25.5

reddish brown, very thinly to medium bedded 25.5
26.0 fine to medium grained SANSTONE.
C-8 92 73 50
27.0 27.0 0.40

27.0
C-9 93 78 49
28.0
28.5
28.5
-24.1 29.0
xxx Very weak to weak, off white to light brown,
xxx very thinly to medium bedded, C-10 77 40 27
xxx CALCISILTITE with slightly conglomeratic
xxx calcisiltite.
-25.1 30.0 xxx 30.0



Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 4 of 4
Client Commercial & Residential Building (G + 4P + 14 + R) Name HS
Drilled By
Project Plot 326-5498, Al Jadaf, Dubai, U.A.E. Sign
Borehole Location +4.95m DMD Name TY
Logged By
Ground Datum Level 16/12/2023 Sign
Checked By
Date Drilling Completed Percussion & Rotary Drilling Sign
Drilling Method Water / Bentonite N 2789956.6770
Coordinates
Drilling Fluid Used Legend E 498817.0118
Sample
Water Depth (m)
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
Sample Type
TCR (%)
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Lamination, Joints,
Method
DESCRIPTION
Discontinuities, Shear Zones
-25.1 30.0 xxx Same as previous. 30.0
xxx
xxx Very weak to weak, off white to light brown, Close to medium spaced,
xxx very thinly to medium bedded, C-11 67 20 00 locally very close spaced
31.0 xxx CALCISILTITE with slightly conglomeratic horizontal fractures.
xxx calcisiltite.
xxx 31.5 4.14
x
xxxx
x 31.5
32.0 xxx
xxx
xxx C-12 77 23 00
xxx
xxx
33.0 xxx 33.0
xxx 33.0
xxx
xxx
xxx C-13 53 16 00
34.0 xxx
xxx
xxx 34.5
xx
x xx
x 34.5
RCDB
35.0 xxx
xxx
xxx C-14 67 27 00
xxx
xxx
36.0 xxx 36.0
xxx 36.0
xxx
xxx
xxx C-15 62 21 00
37.0 xxx
xxx
xxx 37.5
x
xxxx
x 37.5
38.0 xxx
xxx
xxx C-16 67 27 00
xxx
xxx
39.0 xxx 39.0
xxx 39.0
xxx
xxx C-17 70 22 22
xxx
-35.1 40.0 xxx 40.0
E.O.B. (40.0m)

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE NO. BHC1
SHEET NO. 1 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
+4.40 x x D-1 GL
1.0 x S-2 1.0 9,13,16
x x N=29
1.5 x S-3 1.5 8,12,16
x N=28
2.0 x S-4 2.0 10,14,18
x x N=32
2.5 x x S-5 2.5 12,14,17

N=31
3.0 x
x
x x S-6 3.5 10,15,19
x N=34
x
4.0
x
-0.10 4.5 x x S-7 4.50 13,22,28*
N=50/285mm
x x Very dense,light grey to grey, slightly shelly,
4.92m 5.0 x slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND.
x x
x S-8 5.5 13,24,26*
x N=50/265mm
6.0 x
x x
S-9 6.5 14,23,27*
x x N=50/275mm
x
7.0 x x
x
x S-10 7.5 14,26,24*
N=50/255mm
x
-3.60 8.0 x x
x x Very dense, light brown to brown, slightly S=11 8.5 15,24,26*

x x silty to silty, fine to medium SAND with N=50/265mm
x shell fragments.
9.0 x
x S-12 9.5 16,26,24*

x x N=50/255mm
-5.60 10.0
Continued
4. Standpipe Piezometer installed in the borehole to 25m depths.

Plate B6.1 Borehole Log for Borehole No. C1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
SHEET NO. 2 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Water Depth
Casing ɸ m
Bedding, Foliation,
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
SCR (%)
Method
Legend
Depth (m)
Lamination, Joints,
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
DESCRIPTION
Type
some shell and calcarenite fragments. N=50/220mm
11.0 x x
x
x x
x S-14 11.5 15,27,23*
x N=50/210mm
12.0
x
x x
S-15 12.5 16,30,20*
x x N=50/210mm
13.0 x x
x
x
S-16 13.5 17,33,17*
x N=50/200mm
14.0 x x
x x
RCDB (100mm)
x S-17 14.5 18,37,13*

x x N=50/180mm
15.0 x
x
150mm
15.5m x S-18 15.5 22,43,7*

-11.4 15.81 x x N=50/160mm
16.0 15.81
Extremely weak to very weak, light brown 2.19 Close to medium spaced
C-1 84 77 32 horizontal fractures.
17.0 17.0
17.0
C-2 80 79 38
18.0
18.5
18.5
19.0 1.75
C-3 87 61 45
-15.6 20.0 20.0

Continued
15/12/2023 5.00 p.m. 4.92m 2. Borehole was drilled up to 30.0m depth from existing ground level.


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

SHEET NO. 3 of 3
Drilled By
Logged By
Checked By
Coordinates
Size & Depth
Water Depth
UCS, N/mm2
Casing ɸ m
Depth (m)
Level (m)
Reduced
SCR (%)
RQD (%)
TCR (%)
Bedding, Foliation,
Legend
Method
Depth (m)
SPT
Method
Sample
(m)
Type
21.0
21.5
21.5
22.0
C-5 93 55 19
RCDB
23.0 23.0
23.0
C-6 97 77 17
24.0
24.5 3.24
24.5
C-7 92 82 76
-20.6 25.0 25.0
E.O.B.
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0



Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Top cap
Height above GL 0.5m

TOP of GL
Backfill with excavated soil
Soild Pipe
Depth to groundwater 4.92m below GL
50mm ID riser pipe
Bentonite Seal 21.50-22.00m

Depth to TOP of slotted screen 22.0m
washed fine pea size gravel filter
Length of slotted screen 3.00 m

(From 22.0m to 25.0m)
Depth to base of hole 25.0 m
SITE : TITLE"
Residential/ Commercial Building (G+4P+14+R)
Plot 326-5498, Al Jaddaf MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
Dubai SCHEMATIC MONITORING
JOB REF : SIR2023-0557 United Arab Emirates WELL NO. 1 (BHC1-30.0m Depth)
BH C1,
DATE: 27 Jan 24 CLIENT: Arkiteknik Int'l Engineering Consultants PLATE No: B7.1
Plate B7.1 Sketch for Standpipe Piezometer for Borehole No. C1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
HASSAN AL AMIR SOIL ANALYSIS

Variable Head Permeabilty Test Results
FIELD DATA
Project Name: Residential/ Commercial Building (G+4P+14+R)
Client: Arki tekni k Engi neeri ng Consul tants
Project Number: SIR2023-0557
Borehole number: BH-A1
Test Date: 22/12/2023
Depth of borehole before test: 4.00 m
Depth of borehole after test: 4.00 m
Height of casing above ground level: 0.50 m
Depth of casing below ground level: 3.50 m
Casing / Borehole diameter: 0.15 m
Groundwater level: 4.9 m below GL (Assumed)
Carried out by : TU
Elapsed time Depth of water Elapsed time Depth of water

from top casing from top casing
(min) (sec) (m) H/Ho (min) (sec) (m) H/Ho
0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700.00 3.480 0.36
0.5 30 0.200 0.96 50.0 3000.00 3.600 0.33
1.0 60 0.420 0.92 55.0 3300 3.750 0.31
1.5 90 0.760 0.86 60.0 3600 3.810 0.29
2.0 120 0.930 0.83
2.5 150 1.100 0.80
3.0 180 1.200 0.78
3.5 210 1.350 0.75
4.0 240 1.460 0.73
4.5 270 1.550 0.71
5.0 300 1.600 0.70
6.0 360 1.750 0.68
7.0 420 1.850 0.66
8.0 480 1.920 0.64
9.0 540 1.980 0.63
10.0 600 2.150 0.60
11.0 660 2.180 0.60
15.0 900 2.270 0.58
20.0 1200 2.470 0.54
25.0 1500 2.700 0.50
30.0 1800 2.920 0.46
35.0 2100 3.130 0.42
40.0 2400 3.35 0.38
Plate B8.1.1 Falling Head Permeability Test Data BHA1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elapsed time t (min)
FIELD DATA
Client: Arkiteknik Engineering Consultants
Test Date: 22/12/2023

Length of test section: 0.50 m
Length / Diameter: 3.33
Intake factor: (as per condition d) of Fig. 6 of BS 5930:1999) 1.64
Time factor H/H0 = 0.37 : 2520 s
Permeability by time factor:F = 2 p L / (log e ((L/D) + Sqrt(1+(L/D)2)) 4.3E-06 m/s
Permeability (general approach): k = A/(F (t2-t1) x log e (H1/H2) 1.5E-05 m/s
tested by: TU checked by: Shabir

date: 22/12/2023 date: 27 Jan 24
Notes 1. Falling head permeability test carried out in accordance with BS 5930 : 2015.
2. Permeability test was performed in standpipe installed in borehole BH09.
Plate B8.1.2 Falling Head Permeability Test Graph BHA1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

FIELD DATA
Test Date: 23/12/2023
Carried out by : TU

0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700.00 3.880 0.29
0.5 30 0.180 0.97 50.0 3000.00 4.260 0.22
1.0 60 0.390 0.93 55.0 3300 4.410 0.19
1.5 90 0.680 0.88 60.0 3600 4.600 0.16
2.0 120 0.880 0.84
2.5 150 0.970 0.82
3.0 180 1.090 0.80
3.5 210 1.180 0.78
4.0 240 1.320 0.76
4.5 270 1.390 0.74
5.0 300 1.480 0.73
6.0 360 1.610 0.70
7.0 420 1.770 0.68
8.0 480 1.940 0.64
9.0 540 2.110 0.61
10.0 600 2.280 0.58
11.0 660 2.360 0.57
15.0 900 2.640 0.52
20.0 1200 2.810 0.48
25.0 1500 3.080 0.43
30.0 1800 3.260 0.40
35.0 2100 3.450 0.37
40.0 2400 3.69 0.32

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIELD DATA
Test Date: 23/12/2023


date: 23/12/2023 date: 27 Jan 24
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

FIELD DATA
Test Date: 26/12/2023
Carried out by : TU

0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700 3.920 0.25
0.5 30 0.210 0.96 50.0 3000 4.210 0.19
1.0 60 0.360 0.93 55.0 3300 4.530 0.13
1.5 90 0.590 0.89 60.0 3600 4.790 0.08
2.0 120 0.760 0.85
2.5 150 0.840 0.84
3.0 180 0.990 0.81
3.5 210 1.060 0.80
4.0 240 1.180 0.77
4.5 270 1.270 0.76
5.0 300 1.370 0.74
6.0 360 1.490 0.71
7.0 420 1.660 0.68
8.0 480 1.790 0.66
9.0 540 1.880 0.64
10.0 600 1.980 0.62
11.0 660 2.110 0.59
15.0 900 2.410 0.54
20.0 1200 2.680 0.48
25.0 1500 2.870 0.45
30.0 1800 3.110 0.40
35.0 2100 3.340 0.36
40.0 2400 3.57 0.31

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIELD DATA
Test Date: 26/12/2023


date: 26 Dec 23 date: 27 Jan 24

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

FIELD DATA
Borehole number: BH-B1
Test Date: 23/12/2023
Groundwater level: 5 m below GL (Assumed)
Carried out by : TU

0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700.00 3.880 0.27
0.5 30 0.180 0.97 50.0 3000.00 4.260 0.20
1.0 60 0.390 0.93 55.0 3300 4.410 0.17
1.5 90 0.680 0.87 60.0 3600 4.710 0.11
2.0 120 0.880 0.83
2.5 150 0.970 0.82
3.0 180 1.090 0.79
3.5 210 1.180 0.78
4.0 240 1.320 0.75
4.5 270 1.390 0.74
5.0 300 1.480 0.72
6.0 360 1.610 0.70
7.0 420 1.770 0.67
8.0 480 1.940 0.63
9.0 540 2.110 0.60
10.0 600 2.280 0.57
11.0 660 2.360 0.55
15.0 900 2.640 0.50
20.0 1200 2.810 0.47
25.0 1500 3.080 0.42
30.0 1800 3.260 0.38
35.0 2100 3.450 0.35
40.0 2400 3.69 0.30
Plate B8.4.1 Falling Head Permeability Test Data BHB1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIELD DATA
Test Date: 23/12/2023


date: 23/12/2023 date: 27 Jan 24
Plate B8.4.2 Falling Head Permeability Test Graph BHB1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

FIELD DATA
Test Date: 16/12/2023
Carried out by : TU

0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700.00 3.940 0.30
0.5 30 0.290 0.95 50.0 3000.00 4.310 0.23
1.0 60 0.380 0.93 55.0 3300 4.670 0.17
1.5 90 0.490 0.91 60.0 3600 4.860 0.13
2.0 120 0.610 0.89
2.5 150 0.790 0.86
3.0 180 0.930 0.83
3.5 210 1.090 0.81
4.0 240 1.230 0.78
4.5 270 1.360 0.76
5.0 300 1.480 0.74
6.0 360 1.620 0.71
7.0 420 1.820 0.68
8.0 480 1.980 0.65
9.0 540 2.190 0.61
10.0 600 2.360 0.58
11.0 660 2.490 0.56
15.0 900 2.670 0.52
20.0 1200 2.860 0.49
25.0 1500 3.090 0.45
30.0 1800 3.290 0.41
35.0 2100 3.510 0.37
40.0 2400 3.69 0.34
Plate B8.5.1 Falling Head Permeability Test Data BHB2

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIELD DATA
Test Date: 16/12/2023


date: 16/12/2023 date: 27 Jan 24
Plate B8.5.2 Falling Head Permeability Test Graph BHB2
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

FIELD DATA
Borehole number: BH-C1
Test Date: 14/12/2023
Carried out by : TU

0.0 0 0.000 1.00 45.0 2700.00 3.710 0.31
0.5 30 0.160 0.97 50.0 3000.00 3.940 0.27
1.0 60 0.290 0.95 55.0 3300 4.230 0.21
1.5 90 0.380 0.93 60.0 3600 4.490 0.16
2.0 120 0.470 0.91
2.5 150 0.610 0.89
3.0 180 0.720 0.87
3.5 210 0.860 0.84
4.0 240 0.990 0.82
4.5 270 1.110 0.79
5.0 300 1.230 0.77
6.0 360 1.390 0.74
7.0 420 1.520 0.72
8.0 480 1.680 0.69
9.0 540 1.880 0.65
10.0 600 2.030 0.62
11.0 660 2.190 0.59
15.0 900 2.390 0.55
20.0 1200 2.560 0.52
25.0 1500 2.740 0.49
30.0 1800 2.940 0.45
35.0 2100 3.210 0.40
40.0 2400 3.48 0.35
Plate B8.6.1 Falling Head Permeability Test Data BHC1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

1.000
0.100
Head Ratio H/Ho
0.010
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FIELD DATA
Borehole number: BH-C1
Test Date: 14/12/2023


date: 14/12/2023 date: 27 Jan 24
Plate B8.6.2 Falling Head Permeability Test Graph BHC1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
THE ESTIMATION OF ENGINEERING PARAMETERS IN THE BH-B2
Plate 9.1: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Data BH B2)
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Plate 9.2: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Graph VP / Vs BH B2)
Plate 9.3: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Bulk Modulus BHB2)

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Plate 9.4: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Shear Modulus BHB2)
Plate 9.5: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Poisson Ratio BH B2)
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Plate 9.6: Geophysical Downhole Seismic (Young’s Modulus BH B2)
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
APPENDIX C (LABORATORY TEST RESULTS)
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLATE C1.1 TO C1.4

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PLATE C2.1 TO C2.8
CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS PLATE C3.1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
Consultant : M/s. Arkiteknik International Consulting Engineers Date : 28-Dec-2023

Client/ Contractor : Shaikh Mohammed Maktoum Rashed Saeed Al Maktoum Report Ref. Number : SIR2023-0557
Project Name : Building (G + 4P + 14 + R) Date Test Started : 23-Dec-2023
Plot Number : 326-5498 Date Test Completed : 27-Dec-2023
Location : Al Jadaf, Dubai Tested By : OU
Checked By : MG
Borehole No - , Sample No. -
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
BS aperture size - mm
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
f ine medium coarse f ine medium coarse f ine medium coarse
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm
Borehole No. Sample No. Depth, m Description Gravel, % Sand, % Silt & Clay, %
A1 S-03 1.00 - 1.45 Poorly Graded Sand w ith Silt (SP-SM) 3 91 6

BH-02 S-02 0.50 - 0.95 #N/A --- 0 100
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
BS aperture size - mm Borehole No - , Sample No. -
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm

BH-00 S-00 0.00 - 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Test M etho d : B S1377, P art 2 : Clause 10 : 2022, B S EN 17892/4
Sampling M etho d : B S1377, P art 2 : Clause 10 : 2022, B S EN 17892/4
Test M etho d Variatio n : Nil
Remarks : No ne
Authorized Signatory
Remarks: This report relates only to the sample tested and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of HASA Lab.
Plate C1.1: Particle Size Distribution for Borehole Nos. A1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Checked By : MG
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm

BH-02 S-02 0.50 - 0.95 #N/A --- 0 100
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
f ine medium coarse f ine medium coarse fine medium coarse
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm
A2 S-18 8.50 - 8.91 Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 0 98 2

Remarks : No ne
Plate C1.2: Particle Size Distribution for Borehole Nos. A2
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Checked By : MG
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.212
0.425
0.600
0.063
0.150
0.300
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm

BH-02 S-02 0.50 - 0.95 #N/A --- 0 100
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm
B1 S-03 1.00 - 1.45 Poorly Graded Sand w ith Silt (SP-SM) 3 91 6

Remarks : No ne
Plate C1.3: Particle Size Distribution for Borehole Nos. A3 & B1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Checked By : MG
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.212
0.425
0.600
0.063
0.150
0.300
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm
B2 S-04 1.50 - 1.95 Poorly Graded Sand w ith Silt (SP-SM) 0 93 7

BH-02 S-02 0.50 - 0.95 #N/A --- 0 100
1.18
3.35
10.0
14.0
20.0
28.0
37.5
0.063
0.150
0.212
0.300
0.425
0.600
2.0
5.0
6.3
50
63
75
100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Silt Sand Gravel

Clay
f ine medium coarse f ine medium coarse fine medium coarse
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60
Particle Size - mm
C1 S-04 1.50 - 1.95 Poorly Graded Sand w ith Silt (SP-SM) 4 88 8

Remarks : No ne
Plate C1.4: Particle Size Distribution for Borehole Nos. B2 & C1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST OF INTACT ROCK CORE REPORT
Date of sample received : 15th January 2024 Report Ref. No. : SIR2023-0557
Date of test started : 15th January 2024 Test method : ASTM D7012-14
Date of test finished : 17th January 2024 Sample prep. method : ASTM D4543-19
Plot No. – Location : 326-5498, Al Jadaf, Dubai. Tested by : SC (Material Lab)
Client : Arkiteknik International Consulting Engineers
Source / Borehole No. BH-A1 BH-A1

Sample No. 1 2
Depth, m 20.00 to 20.20 29.80 to 30.00
Straightness, S1 (Limits =≤0.50mm) 0.50 0.50

Flatness of ends, FP2 (Limits ≤25μm) 12 16
Perpendicularity, P2 (Limits = Δ/L ≤0.0043) 0.0028 0.0030
Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.12 0.15
Mean length, mm 128.0 156.0
Mean diameter, mm 75.00 75.00
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 1.71* 2.08
Moisture condition as received as received
Moisture content, % 10.6 122.3
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE Gypsiferous
SANDSTONE
Failure pattern
Sample temperature at test, oC 23.5 23.5

Rate of loading, mm/min 0.63 0.63
Time Taken for Failure (Min) 02:58 02:32
Maximum Load (kN) 12.8 8.8
Unconfined compressive strength, MPa 2.87 1.97
*Notes: Length to diameter ratio <2.0 to 2.50
Method of sample preparation: ASTM D4543-19 Procedures /Straightness-S1, End Flatness FP2, Perpendicularity-P2
Test Method Variation: None
Remarks: Best effort achieved in End Flatness preparation
Test result relates only to the item tested.

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written permission from the company
Plate C2.1: Unconfined Compressive Strength for Borehole No. A1

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Sample No. 1 2
Depth, m 15.81 to 16.01 19.00 to 19.20

Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.13 0.16
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 1.60* 1.96*
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE SANDSTONE
Failure pattern


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Sample No. 3 4
Depth, m 21.50 to 21.70 29.20 to 29.40

Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.15 0.16
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 2.21 2.28
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE Gypsiferous
SANDSTONE
Failure pattern



Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis

Sample No. 1 2
Depth, m 18.80 to 19.00 29.80 to 30.00

Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.15 0.13
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 2.20 1.92*
Failure pattern


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Source / Borehole No. BH-B1 BH-Ba BH-B1

Sample No. 1 2 3
Depth, m 18.70 to 18.90 22.80 to 23.00 27.30 to 27.50
Straightness, S1 (Limits =≤0.50mm) 0.50 0.50 0.50

Flatness of ends, FP2 (Limits ≤25μm) 15 16 15
Perpendicularity, P2 (Limits = Δ/L ≤0.0043) 0.0026 0.0021 0.0030
Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.18 0.12 0.15
Mean length, mm 157.0 133.0 143.0
Mean diameter, mm 75.00 75.00 75.00
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 2.09 1.77* 1.91*
Moisture condition as received as received as received
Moisture content, % 12.1 12.4 12.2
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE SANDSTONE SANDSTONE
Failure pattern
Sample temperature at test, oC 23.5 23.5 23.5

Rate of loading, mm/min 0.63 0.63 0.63
Time Taken for Failure (Min) 03:48 03:04 03.32
Maximum Load (kN) 10.5 8.1 10.1
Unconfined compressive strength, MPa 2.36 1.81 2.27

Plate C2.5: Unconfined Compressive Strength for Borehole No. B1
Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Source / Borehole No. BH-B2 BH-B2

Sample No. 1 1
Depth, m 18.00 to 18.20 22.50 to 22.70

Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.12 0.18
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 1.89* 2.29
Failure pattern

Time Taken for Failure (Min) 04:04 03.44

Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Source / Borehole No. BH-B2 BH-B2

Sample No. 3 4
Depth, m 26.80 to 27.00 31.30 to 31.50

Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.12 0.14
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 1.95* 1.72*
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE Calcisiltic
SANDSTONE
Failure pattern

Time Taken for Failure (Min) 02:46 04.02


Hassan Al Amir
Soil Analysis
Source / Borehole No. BH-C1 BH-C1 BH-C1

Sample No. 1 2 3
Depth, m 16.00 to 16.20 18.70 to 18.90 24.20 to 24.40
Straightness, S1 (Limits =≤0.50mm) 0.50 0.50 0.50

Flatness of ends, FP2 (Limits ≤25μm) 12 16 15
Perpendicularity, P2 (Limits = Δ/L ≤0.0043) 0.0020 0.0018 0.0025
Parallelism, ≤0.25˚ 0.14 0.15 0.16
Mean length, mm 140.0 148.0 132.0
Mean diameter, mm 75.00 75.00 75.00
Length to diameter ratio (L/D) 1.87* 1.97* 1.76*
Moisture condition as received as received as received
Moisture content, % 14.2 13.8 12.3
Visual description / Lithology SANDSTONE SANDSTONE SANDSTONE
Failure pattern
Sample temperature at test, oC 23.5 23.5 23.5

Rate of loading, mm/min 0.63 0.63 0.63
Time Taken for Failure (Min) 03:26 03:05 03.56
Maximum Load (kN) 9.8 7.8 14.5
Unconfined compressive strength, MPa 2.19 1.75 3.24

Plate C2.8: Unconfined Compressive Strength for Borehole No. C1
Memo
A.4 ISTL Report (R1122 Project)
AECOM
27/31
KEY PLAN:
NOTES:
OTHERWISE.
LEGEND:
R1060/2 STUDY AREA
EXISTING ROAD
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
AT GRADE ROAD
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROJECT NAME:
- - -
OF AL ASAYEL LINK
CLIENT:
CONSULTANT
Imagine it.
Delivered.
SKETCHES


DRAWING TITLE:

S.N M.A M.Z
DRAWING NO.: REV.:
S00
- A1 N.T.S
REPORT NUMBER: ISTL-DGT24-008
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

ON PROPOSED
EM-824 - R1122/1:IMPROVEMENT OF AL FAI ROAD (VARIOUS

IMPROVEMENT WORK IN AL KHAIL ROAD PHASE-1)
FOR
M/S. ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AT
ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION:4), DUBAI, UAE
CONTRACTOR : M/S WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING LLC.

CONSULTANT : M/S PARSONS
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Independent Laboratories LLC.

Tel : +971 45466547
Independent Laboratories.LLC
DIP-1,
PO Box: 393333, Dubai, UAE
Email:info.dxb@istl.ae
www.istl.ae
Geotechnical Investigation Report
PROJECT NAME : EM-824 - R1122/1 IMPROVEMENT OF AL FAI ROAD (Various
Improvement Works in Al Khail Road-Phase 1 )
OWNER : M/S. ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LOCATION : AT ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION: 4), DUBAI, UAE
CONSULTANT : M/S. PARSONS
REPORT NO. : ISTL-DGT24-008
REPORT ISSUE STATUS
Revision Date Description Prepared Review Approved

No.
Rev00 27-02-2024 Report Rev00 AKY AJN SP
Disclaimer:
1. This test report relates only to the items tested. TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
2. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of ISTL.
3. Recommendations and Conclusions provided in this report are not under the scope of the Emirates
International Accreditation Centre (EIAC). Refer individual test results for the accreditation status.
4. This report has been prepared for the Wade Adams Contracting LLC. ISTL cannot accept any
responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2024

Improvement Works in Al Khail Road-Phase 1)
OWNER : M/S ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LOCATION : AT ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
CONSULTATN : M/S PARSONS
CONTRACTOR : M/S WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING L.L.C
Dear Sir,
Independent Laboratories LLC, pleased to present you the report of the geotechnical investigation
for the above project location.
The task of this study is to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the proposed site.
Work had been carried out diligently to understand the mechanical, physical, and chemical
properties of the site.
In the event that additional information or clarifications are required, please contact our office at
your convenience. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your confidence and look
forward to be of service to you in the near future.
Yours faithfully,
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
For and on behalf of Independent Laboratories LLC,
Dubai, UAE
Ajmal Najeeb
Manager- Geotechnical Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SN SUBJECT Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 STANDARDS AND CODE OF PRACTIC 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
4 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITION 2
5 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA 3
6 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 6
7 FIELD TESTING & LABORATORY TESTING 7
8 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 8
9 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS & CAVITIES 9
12 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 10
13 CHEMICAL CONDITION 12
14 QUALITY CONTROL 13
15 LIMITATIONS & CONCLUSION 13
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Site Plan / Borehole Location
APPENDIX B: Borehole logs and Legends
APPENDIX C: Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D: PHOTOS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Independent Laboratories LLC., pleased to submit this interpretive report which presents the
results of our geotechnical soil investigation for the construction of Improvement of Al Fai Road
(Various Improvement Works in Al Khail Road-Phase 1) at Za'abeel Area (Location:4), Duabi,
United Arab Emirates.
This report was prepared for M/S WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING L.L.C. The following
sections of the report describe our understanding of the project and our scope of services.
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the plot limits. We
accomplish these purposes by:
 Collection of information about the site, site plans etc.
 Reviewing readily- accessible geologic and geotechnical information in the general site vicinity.
 Drilling of two (2) number of geotechnical boring up to a depth of Forty (40.0) meters from the
existing ground level to explore subsurface conditions and to obtain samples for laboratory
testing.
 Undertaking laboratory tests to assess pertinent soil engineering properties.
 Backfilling of boreholes with arising material
 Preparing the Geotechnical factual report.
Environmental evaluations, assessments and analytical testing for soil contaminants are outside the
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
scope of this report.
All the field/ In Situ tests and equipment’s, materials and procedures are as per:
 BS 1377
 BS 5930-2015
 ASTM 7012
Page1
 ASTM 4543
 ASTM D2216
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at Za'abeel Area (Location: 4), Dubai United Arab Emirates. The proposed site is
approximately leveled and there is an existing tower, At the West side of the site there is paved road
all the three sides of plot is open. No vegetation was observed at the proposed area during the time
of site works.
PROJECT LOCATION
Figure No.1: Project Location

The site is situated in Dubai Emirate where a hot arid climate prevails. A hot arid climate is one where
evaporation exceeds precipitation - such as rain and dewfall. This climate regime produces
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
characteristic hot desert terrains. Average annual rainfall may only be a few centimeters (even only a
few millimeters in some parts) which usually occurs seasonally and sometimes only from a single
o
cloudburst. Summer shade temperatures are frequently in excess of 40 C and humidity may be
around 100% near the cost. The contrast between maximum night and day temperatures and
 High temperature and high seasonal changes.

 High humidity and high change in relative humidity.
Page2
 Strong dry winds.

 Condensation at night.
 Windborne salt-laden dust.
 High solar radiation.
5.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
The Dubai emirate has an onshore area of 4,114 square kilometers, Compared with about 84,000 square
kilometers for the whole of the UAE.
The emirate is located on a broadly subsiding shelf dominated by a thick sedimentary formation.
Excellent reservoir rocks developed over wide areas with remarkable lateral continuity. Shale, anhydrites
and limestone are equally widespread, providing extremely efficient sealing mechanisms for the
reservoir. Geological Cross-Section of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is shown Figure No. 1.
Dubai lies on a broad synclinal area between the basement shield of the Arabian Peninsula and the up
Thrust Mountains of Oman's Musandam Peninsula. To the north, on the far side of the Arabian Gulf, the
sedimentary basin is controlled by the Zagros mountain front. Major warps on a north- south axis can be
distinguished under the Ghawar trend in Saudi Arabia and beneath the Qatar Arch. Within the territorial
limits of Dubai there are few exposures of rocks older than the Pleistocene and Recent sedimentary
cover. Deep wells drilled have penetrated the pre-Khuff Clastics of Permian and pre-Permian age.
The Qatar Arch and the western part of Dubai were uplifted in the Early Oligocene and part of the
Eocene was eroded. During the following transgression, the Asmari limestone formation was deposited
in the eastern portion of Dubai, extending westwards to the edge of the Pabdeh basin. Succeeding
Gachsaran and Mishan formations thickened from west to east and comprise carbonates, anhydrites,
marls and shales. During Late Miocene and Pliocene, the Alpine Orogeny produced the Zagros and Oman
mountains creating the structural framework seen today.The Cretaceous: The succeeding Early
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Cretaceous Thamama rocks are dominated by shallow water carbonates of remarkable, widespread
homogeneity. These rocks are of significant commercial importance and comprise a series of porous,
clean, pellet and fossiliferous limestone with interbedded tight (often stylolitic lime) mudstones and
packstones. They comprise, in ascending order the Habshan, Lekhwair, Kharaib and Shuaiba formations.
These are better known by their informal oilfield nomenclature of Thamama Zones I to VI offshore, or
Zones A to F onshore. (According to oilfield practice the zones are numbered or lettered from top
downwards in order of penetration). Shuaiba differs in that it contains referral build-ups of rudists
surrounded by dense basinal limestone of the Bab member.
Page3
Figure No. 2: Geological Cross-Section of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
A. Hydrogeological Setting
Dubai Emirate occurs in the subtropical arid climatic zone and is exposed to oceanic effects of the
Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Rainfall is erratic and unreliable. Groundwater, albeit mostly brackish
and saline in quality, still provides around 80% (ERWDA, 2003) of all water used in the Emirate. For
many million years, the land beneath the present day Emirate’ territory subsided as part of a large
geologic basin within which large volumes of sediment were deposited. The sediments character
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
proves that the area was sometimes covered by a shallow seas, influenced by tides and formation of
tidal flats and was also sometimes above sea level. Layers of dolomite, limestone, slit and clay were
deposited in the seas and the tidal flats comprised layers of sand, silt, clay and evaporate. During
terrestrial conditions, streams deposited layers of gravel, sands, slit and clay (USGS, 1996). Thousands
of meters of materials accumulated within the geologic basin and eventually consolidated into the
thick sequences of sedimentary limestone, dolomite, evaporate, conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone
and shales which underlie the Emirate today and from the aquifers and aquicludes which provide for
Page4
the present day groundwater resources development. Hyper aridity of present-day intensity began
only about 17,000 years ago (Brook et al, 2005). The current hydrographic situation is characterized by
the fact that not a single watercourse reaches the sea throughout the year. Current sea levels were
reached some 5000 years ago.
The subject site is part of the coastal flat sabkha area. The groundwater condition is controlled by the
regional topography, climate, rainfall and drainage pattern. It falls within the interface of two main
hydrological regimes; the continental water discharge and the marine water incursion.
The coastal area of the Arabian Peninsula along the Gulf, where the subject site is located, forms the
discharge area for the continental waters flowing from the interiors. These continental waters meet
the seawater of the Gulf at a very low velocity due to the low gradient of the topography across the
coastal plan. Groundwater table in the study area is very shallow, at places within few kilometers
inland from the shoreline, groundwater has been observed bonding on the surface. Seawater intrusion
in the low-lying areas is very common; however horizontal mixing needs to be investigated.
B. Sabkha Environment
Sabkha is the Arabic term for low-lying saline flats subject to periodic inundation. Three sabkha types
are recognized, based on their environment of formation. All are found in the UAE. Coastal sabkha, as
the name implies, forms at or near the marine shoreline. Fluvio-lacustrine (i.e. river-lake) sabkha of
this type is formed in association fluvial drainage patterns in arid areas. Inland or interdune sabkha is
found in low-lying basins within the sand desert.
All sabkhas share certain characteristics. Although they are restricted to hot, arid regions, the sabkha
surface is always very close to the local water table, usually within about a meter. Groundwater is
drawn towards the surface by capillary action and evaporates in the upper subsurface in response to
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
the high temperatures. There, it deposits the dissolved salts, including calcium carbonate, gypsum
(CaSO4-2H2O), anhydrite (CaSO4) and sodium chloride or halite (NaCl), which precipitate in that order.
These salts create a hard, impermeable crust cover about half a meter thick. This crust, along with
high salinity, discourages all plant growth. The crust also impedes the drainage of surface water, so
that after rains the sabkha retains rain water on the surface for a considerable time before getting
evaporated leaving behind a dazzling white crust of salt.
Page5
6.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
6.1 FIELDWORK
Fieldwork was carried out on 13th of February to 21st of February 2024, comprised of drilling of
two (2) numbers of boreholes up to a depth of Forty (40) meters below existing ground level using
Rotary Drilling Machines (GT-RIG -01) (GT-RIG-04) Borehole layout presented in Appendix A.
6.2 DRILLING
Two (2) boreholes were drilled from 13th of February to 21st of February 2024 down to a depth of
40.0m below the existing ground surface. Borehole layout presented in Appendix A
The drillings were executed by using Rotary Drilling Machines (GT-RIG-01) (FT-RIG-04), using rotary
Drilling Method. The boreholes co-ordinates are mention Table No. 1. Engineering log of the
borehole is presented in Appendix B, together with explanation Sheets (Borehole legends) defining
the terms and symbols used in preparing the logs.
Borehole No. Date started Date Coordinates Elevations Depth

finished Easting Northing (m DMD) Drilled(m)
BH-01 13/02/2024 21/02/2024 497325.035 2788329.186 3.387 40
BH-04 15/02/2024 19/02/2024 496986.000 2788240.000 4.707 40
The field investigation was directed by Independent Laboratory Geologist. Ground levels at the
boreholes were measured with reference to the original ground levels only
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
6.3 ROTARY DRILLING
Rotary drilling was carried out in the rock strata using T6-101 core barrel of 1.5m length with
diamond drilling bit having 78.0mm inner diameter with the rotary coring procedure specified in
BS 5930:2015 Section 6. The cores were extracted and thereafter stored in labeled boxes after
wrapping the cores in cling wrap to prevent moisture loss. The cores were transported to
laboratory for detailed logging and photography. Results of RQD (Rock Quality Designation), TCR
(Total Core Recovery) and SCR (Solid Core Recovery) are presented in the borehole logs.
Page6
6.0 FIELD TESTING
7.1 STANDERD PENETRATION TEST (SPT

SPT's were conducted in accordance with British Standard BS: 1377:1990 part 9 "Methods of Test
for Soils for civil engineering purpose" The test procedures involves driving a 50mm external
diameter thick walled split spoon sampler into the bottom of the bore hole with successive blows
by a 63.5kg hammer falling freely through a height of 760mm. The samples are driven through 6
intervals of 75mm and the number of blows required to penetrate each interval is recorded.
The initial 150mm interval or 25 blows (whichever first achieved) is intended to ensure “seating"of
sampler such that it penetrates beyond the zone of influence of any soil disturbance at the base of
the borehole. The sum number of blows required to drive the sampler over the final300mm is
termed as "N" value, and is considered indicative of the in-situ relative density of soil.
The laboratory testing does will be conducted on the selected samples as per the schedule
prepared by the geologist based on the type and properties of sample. The following tests were
carried out as per the standard test method; the results are presented in Appendix B of this report.
Table No.2: List of laboratory tests conducted
Particle size distribution BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 4

Atterberg Limits BS 1377: P2 2
Soil
Chloride content 2
Sulphate content BS 1377-3:2018 2
pH 2
Unconfined compressive ASTM D 7012 6
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Rock strength
Water Chloride content 2
pH 2
Page7
8.0 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY
Generalization of the subsurface Stratigraphy and subsurface water conditions within the
project limits are interpreted from the data obtained during our field exploration activities and
laboratory testing program. The classification of soil/rock has been conducted as per BS
5930:2015 Cl 33 & 36.
Table No.3: Summary of ground materials BH-01
Sl No. Depth(m) Description of strata

below EGL
1 0.0m-2.0m Bulk Sample-SAND
Dense locally loose, light brown, slightly silty, fine to

2 2.0m-4.0m
medium, carbonate SAND with shell fragments.
Very loose to loose, gray, slightly silty, clayey, fine to
3 4.0m-10.0m
medium carbonate SAND with shell fragments.
Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium,
4 10.0m-13.0m carbonate SAND with shell fragments.
Very dense, brownish gray, slightly silty to silty, slightly
5 13.0m-14.32m gravelly, fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
sub angular sandstone.
Extremely weak to weak / very weak/weak, very thinly to
thinly bedded, brown to reddish brown/brown/greenish
brownish gray, greenish white
6 14.32m-40.0m SANDSTONE/CONGLOMERITIC SANDSTONE/
CONGLOMERITIC SILTSTONE/MUDSTONE. Distinctly to
partially/partially weathered, very closely to closely
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Table No.4: Summary of ground materials BH-04

below EGL
Medium dense , brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine

2 2.00m-2.50m to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium cemented
sand pieces.
Dense, brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to
Page8
3 2.50m-3.50m medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium sub angular

sandstone.
Loose, light brown to grayish brown, slightly silty, slightly
4 3.50m-5.50m gravelly, fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
Very loose, gray, slightly silty, clayey, fine to medium
5 5.50m-11.50m SANDY CLAY with shells and shell fragments.
Medium dense locally loose, dark gray, slightly silty, fine
6 11.50m-13.50m to medium SAND with shell frgments.
13.50m-15.50 Medium dense, gray to yellowish gray, slightly silty,

7 clayey, fine to medium SANDY CLAY.
Very dense, brown, slightly silty to silty, slightly gravelly to
15.50m-16.74m gravelly, fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
8
(15.93m-16.43m)- NCR
Extremely weak to very weak / very weak/weak, very
thinly to thinly bedded, brown to reddish
brown/brown/off white, SANDSTONE
6 16.74m-40.0m
/CONGLOMERATE/MUDSTONE. Distinctly to
partially/partially weathered, very closely to closely
The stratum thickness and depths to the strata interface are approximate. Our measure-
ments are referenced from Existing Ground Level at the time of our drilling activities.
Classifications of the log of borings, presenting the actual stratum descriptions, types of sampling
used and additional field data, are presented in APPENDIX A.
9.0 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS & CAVITIES
The borings were drilled with rotary drilling machine to 10.0m& 15.0m depths below existing
ground level in an attempt to check the presence of subsurface water. The water table
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
observation we made after the equilibrium condition usually done after 24 hours as specified in
BS: 5930:2015 Cl 52. Subsurface water observations are presented in below table No.5.
Table No.5: Summary of Water table
Borehole No. Water table below existing Water table (m DMD)

ground level (m)
BH-01 2.30 1.087
Page9
BH-04 3.50 1.207

The short-term field observations do not permit an accurate evaluation of the subsurface water
levels at this location. Subsurface water levels are influenced by seasonal and climatic conditions
which can and will change. In addition, the sand materials encountered in the top portion of borings
are granular in nature and will transmit water easily.
9.1 VARIATIONS IN SUB SURFACE CONDITIONS

Our interpretations of soil and ground water conditions, as described above are based on data
obtained from the boring drilled for this study and review of existing information. It is likely that
disclosed variations in subsurface conditions exist at the site and that seasonal variations in
groundwater level occur. Although not observed at the site, it is common for seasonal seepage to
develop at the interface between the surficial soil and soil at deeper depths.
10.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
10.1 Geotechnical Parameters:
Proper selection of foundation members, dictates their being capable of sustaining the
structural loads and transmitting these loads safely to the supporting ground, so it must
provide for two points. One is to avoid foundation soil failure, which leads to structural
collapse, and the second is to prevent excessive settlement, which may lead to restricting
the possibility of using the structure.
Table No.6: Geotechnical Design Parameters (BH -01)
Average Active Passive At Rest

Depth **Angle of
SPT, N Bulk Friction Earth Earth Earth Poisson
(m) internal
value/ Density Coefficie Pressure Pressure Pressure 's Ratio,
Below friction(soi
RQD (ɣ) nt (f) Coefficie Coefficie Coefficie μ
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
EGL* l), φ (⁰)
kN/m3 nt, Ka nt, Kp nt, Ko
0.00 to
12 31 16.20 0.38 0.32 3.12 0.48 0.33
3.00
3.00 to
4 28 14.00 0.34 0.36 2.77 0.53 0.35
9.00
9.00 to
18 32 16.80 0.39 0.31 3.25 0.47 0.32
10.00
10.00 to
42 36 19.20 0.45 0.26 3.85 0.41 0.29
13.00
13.00 to
>50 38 20.40 0.47 0.24 4.20 0.38 0.28
14.32
14.32 to
- 34 22.00 0.42 0.28 3.54 0.44 0.31
Page10
40.00
Table No.6: Geotechnical Design Parameters (BH -04)
Average Active Passive At Rest

Depth **Angle of
SPT, N Bulk Friction Earth Earth Earth Poisson
(m) internal
value/ Density Coefficie Pressure Pressure Pressure 's Ratio,
Below friction(soi
RQD (ɣ) nt (f) Coefficie Coefficie Coefficie μ
EGL* l), φ (⁰)
kN/m3 nt, Ka nt, Kp nt, Ko
0.00 to
12 31 16.20 0.38 0.32 3.12 0.48 0.33
2.50
2.50 to
31 28 18.10 0.34 0.36 2.77 0.53 0.35
3.00
3.00 to
4 32 14.00 0.39 0.31 3.25 0.47 0.32
13.00
13.00 to
18 36 165.80 0.45 0.26 3.85 0.41 0.29
14.50
14.00 to
>50 38 20.40 0.47 0.24 4.20 0.38 0.28
15.90
15.90 to
- 34 22.00 0.42 0.28 3.54 0.44 0.31
40.00
10.2 EXCAVATION SIDE SLOPES:
Where space permits and above the water table, the sides of the excavations would be
necessary to be battered and as a guide the CIRIA Report No.97 “Trenching Practice”
recommends a maximum safe temporary slope of 26-37° to the horizontal up to 3.0m depth
below existing ground level. For deep excavations, if any, detailed study of the side slope
stability should be carried out by a competent engineering using the findings of investigation.
TableNo.7: Recommended Cut Slops
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
SPT Range Recommended Cut Slope
Material Type
(Horizontal : Vertical)
Very Loose to Loose SAND 0-10 2:1
Medium dense SAND 10-30 1.5:1
Dense SAND 30-50 1.3:1
Rock Material - Vertical

Page11
13.0 CHEMICAL CONDITION
Chemical analysis of soil and indicates possible Sulphate and chloride attack against corrosion. As per
BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 and based on Sulphate results of soil, the site has been classified as
follows:
- Design Sulphate class (DS-class): DS-2
- Aggressive chemical environment for concrete class (ACEC-Class): AC-2
- Design Chemical Class for intended working life of at least 100years: DC-2
For above mentioned site class, recommended cement and combination group as per Table D2 of
BRE SD1 is B&C.
However, it must be noted that the above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride
ions in concrete surroundings. Hence, careful consideration should be given to the recommendations
made in CIRIA Publication 2002\Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula”.
According to CIRIA Special Publication No.31guidelines, there is no widely accepted view on the
concentration as which chlorides becomes significant in soil or ground water but limited experience
in the gulf region suggests it may be as low as 0.05% particularly in situations where alternate
wetting and drying or capillary rise effect the concrete.
With this in view and as per table No.5.1&5.2 of CIRIA SP 31 following site classification and concrete
recommendations shall be taken.
- Exposure condition: d(ii)
- Minimum Cement content for 20mm aggregates (kg/m3) = 320kg/m3-400kg/m3
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
- Maximum free water/cement ratio: 0.42
As per CIRIA SP 31, concrete containing pulverized fuels ash (Pfa), ground granulated blast Furnace
slag (ggbs) and silica fumes (sf) are highly resistant to penetration by chlorides due to their increased
binding capacity and refined pore structure.
Also, when resistance is needed against both, sulphate and chlorides, concrete may need tobe
protected from the soil and ground water with a water proofing membrane or tanking and
acompromise has to be made on the type of cement to be used, generally, a cement containing
atleast3.5% but not more than9.0% C3A is preferred.
Page12
Each situation should be considered on its merit. With this in view, for present site condition,
foundation and other concrete structures coming in contact with the soil should be constructed using
MSRC/ASTM TYPE II mixed with GGBS/PFa/ silica fumes etc.
Note: More details on mix design and proportions will always need to be done with concrete specialist.
14.0 QUALITY CONTROL
Every project and construction site is unique, making it vitally important that appropriate design
data, construction drawings, specifications, change orders and related documents be reviewed by
the respective design and construction professionals participating in the project. The performance
of the foundations and building pads for this project will depend on correct interpretation of our
geotechnical engineering report and proper compliance of the project activities with regard to our
geotechnical recommendations and to the project drawings and specifications.
15.0. LIMITATIONS & CONCLUSION

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this geotechnical engineering report
are based on the borings drilled at the project site. Subsurface conditions have been observed and
interpreted at the boring locations only. It is possible that the subsurface conditions will vary
substantially from what was encountered at the borings. Everyone should be cognizant that
Variations may occur due to the aerial geologic conditions or previous site use that would not
become evident until construction begins.
If subsurface conditions vary significantly from those described in this report, we should be notified
immediately to determine if our opinions, conclusions and recommendations need to be re-
evaluated and to decide if additional field and laboratory tests need to be performed, so that
supplemental engineering analyses and recommendations can be provided.
This study was performed in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practice using the
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
standards and skill currently exercised by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area.
Yours faithfully,
Dubai, UAE
Asif Khan Yousafzai

Unit Head, Geotech.
Page13
-END OF TEXT-
APPENDIX: A
SITE PLAN
BOREHOLE LAYOUT
WAC-EM824-L4-BH-001_2.dgn 2/27/2024 7:17:35 AM
APPENDIX: B
LEGENDS
BORE HOLE LOGS

LEGEND TO BORING LOGS
SYMBOLS FOR COMMON SOIL AND ROCK TYPES
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL BOULDERS & FILL PEAT CONGLOMERATE BRECCIA
COBBLES
CHALK CALCARENITE MUDSTONE SILTSTONE SANDSTONE SHALE CRYSTALLINE COAL PYROCLASTIC

GYPSUM (Volanic Ash)
IGNEOUS IGNEOUS IGNEOUS METAMORPHIC METAMORPHIC METAMORPHIC

(Coarse-grained) (Medium-grained) (Fine-grained) (Coarse-grained) (Medium-grained) (Fine-grained)
SAMPLER TYPE
DRIVE TRICONE CORE BARREL AUGER SHELLBY DRIVE DRIVE

SPLITPOON TUBE CYLINDER BARREL
(Manual)
Sample (S.P.T.) Disturbed Reltively Disturbed Undisturbed Relatively Relatively
Disturbance Disturbed Undisturbed Undisturbed Undisturbed
Fine grained Soil Coarse grained Soil
Unconfined Unconfined
S.P.T. Consistency Field Identification Compressive SPT Description Field Identification Compressive
(blows/30cm) Strength (blows/30cm) Strength
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
0-2 Very Soft Easily penetrated several cms < 0.25 0-4 Very loose Easily indented with finger, 0 - 20
with fist thumb or fist.
2-4 Soft Easily penetrated several cms 0.25 - 0.5 4 - 10 Loose Less easily indented with fist 20 - 40
with thumb but easily shoveled.
4-8 Firm Penetrated several cms by thumb 0.25 - 0.5 10 - 30 Medium Shoveled with difficulty 40 - 60
with moderate effort. Dense
8 - 15 Stiff Readily indented by thumb but 1.0 - 2.0 30 - 50 Dense Requires pick to loosen for 60 - 80
penetrated only with great effort shoveling by hand
15 - 30 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumb nail. 2.0 - 4.0
> 50 Very dense Requires blasting or heavy 80 - 100

equipment to loosen
>30 Indented with difficulty by thumb nail. >4.0
Hard
S.P.T. (blows/30cm): The number of blows in the Standard Penetration test, required to drive a five centimeter diameter split tube sampler a distance of thirty centimeters using sixty three
and half kilograms weight falling seventy six centimeters.
Rock Quality Rock Strength
Rock Quality Point Load Strength (for

Designation RQD Rock Quality Description Unconfined Compressive
Description 50mm diameter sample)
(%) Is50 (kg/cm2) Strength (kg/cm2)
0 - 25 Very Poor Very Weak <0.5 <12.5
25 - 50 Weak 0.5 - 2 12.5 - 50

Poor
Moderately Weak
2-5 50 - 125
50 - 70 Fair
Moderately Strong 5 - 20 125 - 500
70 - 90 Good
Strong 20 - 40 500 - 1000
90 - 100 Excellent Very Strong > 40 > 1000
Point Loads Strength and Unconfined Compressive Strength

In the point load test, a rock core is loaded between two steel cones and failure occurs by tensile splitting.
A point load strength index Is, is calculated as the ratio of the applied load P, at rupture to the square of the distance H, between the loading points Is = P/H2.
A correlation that is commonly used between the point load index and the unconfined compressive strength.
Qu of a cylinder with a length to diameter ratio of 2 to 1 is Qu = 24 Is (50)
where Is (50) is the point load strength corrected to a diameter of 50mm (Brock and Frankline, 1972)
R.Q.D.: The Rock Quality Designation is the percentage of the sum of length of intact core pieces ten centimeters or longer to the total.
Recovery: The percentage of length of core recovered in each run to the total length of the core run.
Appendix B, Page 1/49

1
BORE HOLE LOG SHEET Sheet(1/4 )
CLIENT: ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PROJECT: EM-824 - R1122/1

CONSULTANT: PARSONS IMPROVEMENT OF AL FAI ROAD
CONTRACTOR: WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING LLC. (Various Improvement Works in Al Khail
DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Boring Road-Phase 1 )
EQUIPMENT: GT-RIG-04 DRILLING FLUID: Bentonite+Water PROJECT NO.: ISTL-DGT24-008
BORE HOLE DIA: 125 mm CASING DIAMETER: N.A BORING NO: BH-01
DEPTH OF BORE HOLE: 40.0m LOCATION: ZA'ABEEL AREA
OPERATOR: Alim/Noman GROUND LEVEL: 3.387 EGL (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
GROUND WATER LEVEL CO-ORDINATES: E: 497325.035 DATE STARTED: 13/02/2024
2.30m N: 2788329.186 DATE FINISHED: 21/02/2024
Scale SPT Records( in mm) N-
Time(min)
Depth
Return(%)
Sample TCR SCR RQD
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
0 B - - - - - - -
B - - - - - - -
(0.0m-2.0m)
Brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly,
0.0-2.0
1 fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine
B - - - - - - -
and medium sub angular sandstone.
B - - - - - - -
2
2.0-2.45 SPT 2 2 3 4 4 4 15
(2.0m-4.0m)
2.50-2.95 SPT 2 2 3 4 4 6 17 Dense locally loose, light brown,
slightly silty, fine to medium, carbonate
3
3.0-3.45 SPT 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 SAND with shell fragments.
4
4.0-4.45 SPT 1 1 0 1 0 1 2
5
5.0-5.45 SPT 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
6
6.0-6.45 SPT 1 1 0 1 0 1 2
(4.0m-10.0m)
Very loose to loose, gray, slightly silty,
7
7.0-7.45 SPT 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 clayey, fine to medium carbonate SAND
with shell fragments.
8
8.0-8.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 2 1 5
9
9.0-9.45 SPT 1 0 1 1 2 1 5
10
Methods for Sampling & Testing: BS5930:2015+A1:2020 sec 4, Cl 25, BS 1377-1990 part 9
Ground water sampling : BS5930:2015+A1:2020 sec 4, Cl 26
Remarks:Groundwater level is encountered at 2.30m from EGL
CHECKED BY: ASIF LOGGED BY: ANAGHA
KEY:
SPT- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, B - BULK SAMPLE C - CORE SAMPLE D- DISTURBED SAMPLE
U- UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
TCR - TOTAL CORE RECOVERY SCR - SOLID CORE RECOVERY RQD- ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION NCR-NO CORE RECOVERY
Water Level GL- Ground Level WB-Wash Boring

2.30m N: 2788329.186 DATE FINISHED: 21/02/2024
Scale SPT Records( in mm)
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Depth Sample TCR SCR RQD
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
10
10.0-10.45 SPT 3 1 3 4 5 6 18
11 (10.0m-13.0m)
11.0-11.45 SPT 4 4 7 10 9 13 39
Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty,
fine to medium, carbonate SAND with
12 shell fragments.
12.0-12.45 SPT 4 6 8 10 10 14 42
13 (13.0m-14.32m)
13.0-13.35 SPT 10 14 15 18 17/50 - >50
Very dense, brownish gray, slightly silty to
silty, slightly gravelly, fine to medium
14 SAND. Gravel is fine to medium sub angular
14.0-14.32 SPT 12 13 18 24 8/20 - >50
sandstone.
14.32-15.50 C 100 69 44
15
15.50-17.0 C 100 85 80
16
(14.32m-23.50m)
reddish brown, very thinly to thinly
17
17.0-18.50 C 95 69 31 bedded SANDSTONE. Partially
18
18.50-20.0 C 91 47 24
19
20.0-21.50 C 89 32 8
20
KEY:

2.30m N: 2788329.186 DATE FINISHED: 21/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
20
20.0-21.50 C 89 32 8
(14.32m-23.50m)
21 Extremely weak to very weak, brown to
reddish brown, very thinly to thinly
21.50-23.0 C 93 31 31 bedded SANDSTONE. Partially
22 weathered, very closely to closely
23
23.0-24.50 C 89 65 59
24
(23.50m-26.0m)
24.50-26.0 C 91 73 58
Very weak, brown, thinly bedded
CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE.
25
Partially weathered, closely spaced, sub
horizontal fracture.
26
26.0-27.50 69 60 44
27 (26.0m-30.15m)
Very weak, brown to reddish brown,
very thinly to thinly bedded
27.50-29.0 93 46 43
SANDSTONE. Partially weathered,
28 very closely to closely spaced, sub
29 29.0-30.50 92 66 59
30
KEY:

2.30m N: 2788329.186 DATE FINISHED: 21/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
30
Same as Above
30.50-32.0 C 95 53 38 xxxx
31
xxxx
xxxx
32
32.0-33.50 C 89 62 43
xxxx (30.15m-36.0m)
Extremely weak to very weak, light
xxxx
greenish brownish gray, very thinly to
33
xxxx thinly bedded CONGLOMERITIC
33.50-35.0 C 93 69 51 xxxx SILTSTONE. Distinctily to partially
xxxx
spaced fracture.
xxxx
35
35.0-36.0 C 85 56 36
xxxx
xxxx
36
36.0-37.50 C 83 28 24
37 (36.0m-40.0m)
Extremely weak to very weak, greenish
white, very thinly to thinly bedded
37.50-39.0 C 93 47 27
MUDSTONE. Distictily weathered,
38 very thinly to thinly bedded, sub
39 39.0-40.0 C 98 43 22
40
Methods for Sampling & Testing: BS5930:2015+A1:2020 sec 4, Cl 25, BS 1377-1990 part 9 End of borehole at 40.0m Depth
KEY:

CONSULTANT: PARSONS IMPROVEMENT OF AL KHAIL ROAD
OPERATOR: Onkar GROUND LEVEL: 4.707 OGL (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
3.50m N: 2788240.000 DATE FINISHED: 19/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
0 0.00-0.50 B - - - - - - - Bulk Sample
0.50-0.95 SPT 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
(0.50m-2.50m)
1
1.0-1.45 SPT 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 Very loose, brown, slightly silty,
slightly gravelly, fine to medium
1.50-1.97 SPT 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
2 cemented sand pieces.
(2.50m-3.50m)
2.50-2.95 SPT 3 3 6 7 9 9 31 Dense, brown, slightly silty, slightly grvelly,
fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to
3
medium sub angular sandstone.
3.50-3.95 SPT 2 3 2 2 1 1 6 (3.50m-5.50m)
4 Loose, light brown to grayish brown,
slightly silty, slightly grvelly, fine to
4.50-4.95 SPT 1 0 1 1 1 1 4
medium SAND.Gravel is fine to
5
5.50-5.99 SPT 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
6
6.50-6.97 SPT 1 0 0 1 0 1 2
7 (5.50m-11.50m)
Very loose, gray, slightly silty, clayey,
7.50-7.95 SPT 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
fine to medium SANDY CLAY with
8
shells and shell fragments.
8.50-8.99 SPT 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
9
10 9.50-9.45 SPT 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
KEY:

CONTRACTOR: DETECH CONTRACTING LLC. (Various Improvement Works in Al Khail
OPERATOR: Onkar GROUND LEVEL: 4.707 OGL (LOCATION:4)
3.50m N: 2788240.000 DATE FINISHED: 19/02/2024
Time(min)
Depth
Return(%)
Sample TCR SCR RQD
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
10
(5.50m-11.50m)
10.50-1.95 1
Very loose, gray, slightly silty, clayey,
SPT 0 0 0 0 0 1
fine to medium SANDY CLAY with
11
shells and shell fragments.
11.50-11.95 SPT 2 2 3 4 4 5 16 (11.50m-13.50m)
12 Medium dense, dark gray, slightly
silty, fine to medium SAND with shell
12.50-12.95 SPT 1 2 1 2 2 3 8
frgments.
13
(12.50m-12.95m)- NCR
13.50-13.95 SPT 1 3 4 5 3 3 15
14 (13.50m-15.50m)
Medium dense, gray to yellowish gray,
14.50-14.95 SPT 2 2 4 4 5 7 20 slightly silty, clayey, fine to medium
15 SANDY CLAY.
15.50-15.93 SPT 7 12 12 13 13 12/5 >50 (15.50m-16.74m)

Very dense, brown, slightly silty to silty,
16 slightly gravelly to gravelly, fine to medium
15.93-16.43 C NCR
SAND. Gravel is fine to medium sub angular
sandstone.
16.43-16.74 SPT 9 16 18 26 6/1 - >50
(15.93m-16.43m)- NCR
17
16.74-17.24 100 78 44
(16.74m-29.20m)
17.24-18.24 74 24 0
Extremely weak to very weak, brown
18
18.24-19.74 82 53 38 to reddish brown, very thinly to thinly
bedded SANDSTONE. Distinctly to
partially weathered, very closely to
19
19.74-20.74 53 26 13
20
KEY:

3.50m N: 2788240.000 DATE FINISHED: 19/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
20
20.74-22.24 C 73 27 15
21
22
22.24-23.74 C 51 8 0
(16.74m-29.20m)
Extremely weak to very weak, brown
23
to reddish brown, very thinly to thinly
23.74-25.24 C 93 42 0 bedded SANDSTONE. Distinctly to
24 partially weathered, very closely to
25 [ (26.24m-26.94)
25.24-26.74 C 89 43 23
Very weak, brown, very thinly to thinly
bedded, fine to medium matrix
supported, CONGLOMERATE.
26
Partially weathered, very closely to
closely spaced, sub horizontal
26.74-28.24 C 78 44 20 fracture.]
27
28
28.24-29.74 C 85 73 47
29 (29.20m-30.52m)-Very weak, brown, very thinly to

thinly bedded, fine to medium mtrix supported,
CONGLOMERATE. Partially weathered, very
29.74-31.24 C 80 31 13
30 closely to closely spaced, sub horizontal fracture.
KEY:

3.50m N: 2788240.000 DATE FINISHED: 19/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
30
Same as Above
31
31.24-32.24 C 90 16 0
32
32.24-33.24 C 87 27 0
33
33.24-34.24 C 90 7 0
34
34.24-35.74 C 82 6 0
(30.52m-40.0m)
35 Extremely weak to very weak, off
35.74-36.0 C 100 100 100
MUDSTONE, Distinctly to prtially
36
36.0-37.0 C 86 63 63 spaced fracture.
37
37.0-37.50 C 66 64 64
37.50-39.0 C 93 53 47
38
39 39.0-40.0 C 87 73 64
40
KEY:
APPENDIX: C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX: D
PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
PROJECT NAME:EM-824 - R1122/1 IMPROVEMENT OF AL FAI ROAD (Various
PROJECT NO: ISTL-DGT24-008
SAMPLE PHOTOS
Sample Details: BH-01
PHOTOGRAPHED BY :ANAGHA Page No.01

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SITE PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHED BY : NOMAN Page No.07

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SITE PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHED BY : NOMAN Page No.08

REPORT NUMBER: ISTL-DGT24-008
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

ON PROPOSED
EM-824 - R1122/1:IMPROVEMENT OF AL FAI ROAD (VARIOUS

IMPROVEMENT WORK IN AL KHAIL ROAD PHASE-1)
FOR
M/S. ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AT
ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION:4), DUBAI, UAE

CONSULTANT : M/S PARSONS
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Independent Laboratories LLC.

Tel : +971 45466547
Independent Laboratories.LLC
DIP-1,
PO Box: 393333, Dubai, UAE
Email:info.dxb@istl.ae
www.istl.ae
Geotechnical Investigation Report
OWNER : M/S. ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LOCATION : AT ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION: 4), DUBAI, UAE
CONSULTANT : M/S. PARSONS
REPORT ISSUE STATUS
Revision Date Description Prepared Review Approved

No.
Rev00 24-02-2024 Report Rev00 AKY AJN SP
Disclaimer:
1. This test report relates only to the items tested. TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
2. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of ISTL.
3. Recommendations and Conclusions provided in this report are not under the scope of the Emirates
International Accreditation Centre (EIAC). Refer individual test results for the accreditation status.
4. This report has been prepared for the Wade Adams Contracting LLC. ISTL cannot accept any
responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
DATE : 24 FEBRUARY 2024

Improvement Works in Al Khail Road-Phase 1)
OWNER : M/S ROAD & TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LOCATION : AT ZA'ABEEL AREA (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
CONSULTATN : M/S PARSONS
CONTRACTOR : M/S WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING L.L.C
Dear Sir,
Independent Laboratories LLC, pleased to present you the report of the geotechnical investigation
for the above project location.
The task of this study is to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the proposed site.
Work had been carried out diligently to understand the mechanical, physical, and chemical
properties of the site.
In the event that additional information or clarifications are required, please contact our office at
your convenience. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your confidence and look
forward to be of service to you in the near future.
Yours faithfully,
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Dubai, UAE
Ajmal Najeeb
Manager- Geotechnical Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SN SUBJECT Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 STANDARDS AND CODE OF PRACTIC 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
4 PREVAILING WEATHER CONDITION 2
5 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA 3
6 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 6
7 FIELD TESTING & LABORATORY TESTING 7
8 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 8
9 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS & CAVITIES 9
12 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 10
13 CHEMICAL CONDITION 11
14 QUALITY CONTROL 12
15 LIMITATIONS & CONCLUSION 12
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Site Plan / Borehole Location
APPENDIX B: Borehole logs and Legends
APPENDIX C: Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D: PHOTOS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Independent Laboratories LLC., pleased to submit this interpretive report which presents the
results of our geotechnical soil investigation for the construction of Improvement of Al Fai Road
(Various Improvement Works in Al Khail Road-Phase 1) at Za'abeel Area (Location:4), Duabi,
United Arab Emirates.
This report was prepared for M/S WADE ADAMS CONTRACTING L.L.C. The following
sections of the report describe our understanding of the project and our scope of services.
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the plot limits. We
accomplish these purposes by:
 Collection of information about the site, site plans etc.
 Reviewing readily- accessible geologic and geotechnical information in the general site vicinity.
 Drilling of two (2) number of geotechnical boring up to a depth of Forty (40.0) meters from the
existing ground level to explore subsurface conditions and to obtain samples for laboratory
testing.
 Undertaking laboratory tests to assess pertinent soil engineering properties.
 Backfilling of boreholes with arising material
 Preparing the Geotechnical factual report.
Environmental evaluations, assessments and analytical testing for soil contaminants are outside the
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
scope of this report.
All the field/ In Situ tests and equipment’s, materials and procedures are as per:
 BS 1377
 BS 5930-2015
 ASTM 7012
Page1
 ASTM 4543
 ASTM D2216
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at Za'abeel Area (Location: 4), Dubai United Arab Emirates. The proposed site is
approximately leveled and there is an existing tower, At the West side of the site there is paved road
all the three sides of plot is open. No vegetation was observed at the proposed area during the time
of site works.
PROJECT LOCATION
Figure No.1: Project Location

TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
The site is situated in Dubai Emirate where a hot arid climate prevails. A hot arid climate is one where
evaporation exceeds precipitation - such as rain and dewfall. This climate regime produces
characteristic hot desert terrains. Average annual rainfall may only be a few centimeters (even only a
few millimeters in some parts) which usually occurs seasonally and sometimes only from a single
o
cloudburst. Summer shade temperatures are frequently in excess of 40 C and humidity may be
around 100% near the cost. The contrast between maximum night and day temperatures and
Page2
 High temperature and high seasonal changes.

 High humidity and high change in relative humidity.
 Strong dry winds.
 Condensation at night.
 Windborne salt-laden dust.
 High solar radiation.
5.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
The Dubai emirate has an onshore area of 4,114 square kilometers, Compared with about 84,000 square
kilometers for the whole of the UAE.
The emirate is located on a broadly subsiding shelf dominated by a thick sedimentary formation.
Excellent reservoir rocks developed over wide areas with remarkable lateral continuity. Shale, anhydrites
and limestone are equally widespread, providing extremely efficient sealing mechanisms for the
reservoir. Geological Cross-Section of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is shown Figure No. 1.
Dubai lies on a broad synclinal area between the basement shield of the Arabian Peninsula and the up
Thrust Mountains of Oman's Musandam Peninsula. To the north, on the far side of the Arabian Gulf, the
sedimentary basin is controlled by the Zagros mountain front. Major warps on a north- south axis can be
distinguished under the Ghawar trend in Saudi Arabia and beneath the Qatar Arch. Within the territorial
limits of Dubai there are few exposures of rocks older than the Pleistocene and Recent sedimentary
cover. Deep wells drilled have penetrated the pre-Khuff Clastics of Permian and pre-Permian age.
The Qatar Arch and the western part of Dubai were uplifted in the Early Oligocene and part of the
Eocene was eroded. During the following transgression, the Asmari limestone formation was deposited
in the eastern portion of Dubai, extending westwards to the edge of the Pabdeh basin. Succeeding
Gachsaran and Mishan formations thickened from west to east and comprise carbonates, anhydrites,
marls and shales. During Late Miocene and Pliocene, the Alpine Orogeny produced the Zagros and Oman
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
mountains creating the structural framework seen today.The Cretaceous: The succeeding Early
Cretaceous Thamama rocks are dominated by shallow water carbonates of remarkable, widespread
homogeneity. These rocks are of significant commercial importance and comprise a series of porous,
clean, pellet and fossiliferous limestone with interbedded tight (often stylolitic lime) mudstones and
packstones. They comprise, in ascending order the Habshan, Lekhwair, Kharaib and Shuaiba formations.
These are better known by their informal oilfield nomenclature of Thamama Zones I to VI offshore, or
Zones A to F onshore. (According to oilfield practice the zones are numbered or lettered from top
downwards in order of penetration). Shuaiba differs in that it contains referral build-ups of rudists
Page3
surrounded by dense basinal limestone of the Bab member.

Figure No. 2: Geological Cross-Section of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
A. Hydrogeological Setting
Dubai Emirate occurs in the subtropical arid climatic zone and is exposed to oceanic effects of the
Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Rainfall is erratic and unreliable. Groundwater, albeit mostly brackish
and saline in quality, still provides around 80% (ERWDA, 2003) of all water used in the Emirate. For
many million years, the land beneath the present day Emirate’ territory subsided as part of a large
geologic basin within which large volumes of sediment were deposited. The sediments character
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
proves that the area was sometimes covered by a shallow seas, influenced by tides and formation of
tidal flats and was also sometimes above sea level. Layers of dolomite, limestone, slit and clay were
deposited in the seas and the tidal flats comprised layers of sand, silt, clay and evaporate. During
terrestrial conditions, streams deposited layers of gravel, sands, slit and clay (USGS, 1996). Thousands
of meters of materials accumulated within the geologic basin and eventually consolidated into the
thick sequences of sedimentary limestone, dolomite, evaporate, conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone
and shales which underlie the Emirate today and from the aquifers and aquicludes which provide for
Page4
the present day groundwater resources development. Hyper aridity of present-day intensity began
only about 17,000 years ago (Brook et al, 2005). The current hydrographic situation is characterized by
the fact that not a single watercourse reaches the sea throughout the year. Current sea levels were
reached some 5000 years ago.
The subject site is part of the coastal flat sabkha area. The groundwater condition is controlled by the
regional topography, climate, rainfall and drainage pattern. It falls within the interface of two main
hydrological regimes; the continental water discharge and the marine water incursion.
The coastal area of the Arabian Peninsula along the Gulf, where the subject site is located, forms the
discharge area for the continental waters flowing from the interiors. These continental waters meet
the seawater of the Gulf at a very low velocity due to the low gradient of the topography across the
coastal plan. Groundwater table in the study area is very shallow, at places within few kilometers
inland from the shoreline, groundwater has been observed bonding on the surface. Seawater intrusion
in the low-lying areas is very common; however horizontal mixing needs to be investigated.
B. Sabkha Environment
Sabkha is the Arabic term for low-lying saline flats subject to periodic inundation. Three sabkha types
are recognized, based on their environment of formation. All are found in the UAE. Coastal sabkha, as
the name implies, forms at or near the marine shoreline. Fluvio-lacustrine (i.e. river-lake) sabkha of
this type is formed in association fluvial drainage patterns in arid areas. Inland or interdune sabkha is
found in low-lying basins within the sand desert.
All sabkhas share certain characteristics. Although they are restricted to hot, arid regions, the sabkha
surface is always very close to the local water table, usually within about a meter. Groundwater is
drawn towards the surface by capillary action and evaporates in the upper subsurface in response to
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
the high temperatures. There, it deposits the dissolved salts, including calcium carbonate, gypsum
(CaSO4-2H2O), anhydrite (CaSO4) and sodium chloride or halite (NaCl), which precipitate in that order.
These salts create a hard, impermeable crust cover about half a meter thick. This crust, along with
high salinity, discourages all plant growth. The crust also impedes the drainage of surface water, so
that after rains the sabkha retains rain water on the surface for a considerable time before getting
evaporated leaving behind a dazzling white crust of salt.
Page5
6.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
6.1 FIELDWORK
Fieldwork was carried out on 09th of February to 17th of February 2024, comprised of drilling of
two (2) numbers of boreholes up to a depth of Forty (40) meters below existing ground level using
Rotary Drilling Machines (GT-RIG -02) (GT-RIG-03) Borehole layout presented in Appendix A.
6.2 DRILLING
Two (2) boreholes were drilled from 09th of February to 17th of February 2024 down to a depth of
15.0m below the existing ground surface. Borehole layout presented in Appendix A
The drillings were executed by using Rotary Drilling Machines (GT-RIG-02) (FT-RIG-03), using rotary
Drilling Method. The boreholes co-ordinates are mention Table No. 1. Engineering log of the
borehole is presented in Appendix B, together with explanation Sheets (Borehole legends) defining
the terms and symbols used in preparing the logs.
Borehole No. Date started Date Coordinates Elevations Depth

finished Easting Northing (m DMD) Drilled(m)
BH-2 09/02/2024 17/02/2024 497207.000 2788309.000 4.431 40
BH-3 12/02/2024 15/02/2024 497092.055 2788273.270 4.541 40
The field investigation was directed by Independent Laboratory Geologist. Ground levels at the
boreholes were measured with reference to the original ground levels only
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
6.3 ROTARY DRILLING
Rotary drilling was carried out in the rock strata using T6-101 core barrel of 1.5m length with
diamond drilling bit having 78.0mm inner diameter with the rotary coring procedure specified in
BS 5930:2015 Section 6. The cores were extracted and thereafter stored in labeled boxes after
wrapping the cores in cling wrap to prevent moisture loss. The cores were transported to
laboratory for detailed logging and photography. Results of RQD (Rock Quality Designation), TCR
(Total Core Recovery) and SCR (Solid Core Recovery) are presented in the borehole logs.
Page6
7.0 FIELD TESTING
7.1 STANDERD PENETRATION TEST (SPT
SPT's were conducted in accordance with British Standard BS: 1377:1990 part 9 "Methods of Test
for Soils for civil engineering purpose" The test procedures involves driving a 50mm external
diameter thick walled split spoon sampler into the bottom of the bore hole with successive blows
by a 63.5kg hammer falling freely through a height of 760mm. The samples are driven through 6
intervals of 75mm and the number of blows required to penetrate each interval is recorded.
The initial 150mm interval or 25 blows (whichever first achieved) is intended to ensure “seating"of
sampler such that it penetrates beyond the zone of influence of any soil disturbance at the base of
the borehole. The sum number of blows required to drive the sampler over the final300mm is
termed as "N" value, and is considered indicative of the in-situ relative density of soil.
The laboratory testing does will be conducted on the selected samples as per the schedule
prepared by the geologist based on the type and properties of sample. The following tests were
carried out as per the standard test method; the results are presented in Appendix B of this report.
Table No.2: List of laboratory tests conducted
Particle size distribution BS EN ISO 17892-4:2016 4

Atterberg Limits BS 1377: P2 2
Soil
Chloride content 2
pH 2
Unconfined compressive ASTM D 7012 6
Rock strength
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Water Chloride content 2
pH 2 Page7
8.0 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY
Generalization of the subsurface Stratigraphy and subsurface water conditions within the
project limits are interpreted from the data obtained during our field exploration activities and
laboratory testing program. The classification of soil/rock has been conducted as per BS
5930:2015 Cl 33 & 36.
Table No.3: Summary of ground materials

below EGL
Medium dense /dense, light brown/brown/light gray,

2.0m-
2 slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND.
4.0m/5.0m
Gravel is fine to medium sub angular sandstone.
Very loose/loose, light gray, slightly silty, clayey, fine to
3 4.0m/5.0m-11.0
medium, carbonate Sandy CLAY with shell fragments.
Medium dense locally loose/dense, dark gray, slightly silty,
4 11.0m-13.0m fine to medium, carbonate SAND/SAND with shell
fragments.
Very dense, brown/light gray, slightly silty to silty, slightly
13.0m-
5 gravelly, fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
14.31m/14.37m
Extremely weak / very weak/weak, very thinly to thinly
bedded, light gray to light brown/brown/off white,
14.31m/14.37- CALCAREOUS
6
40.0m SANDSTONE/SANDSTONE/CONGLOMERATE/MUDSTONE
. Distinctly to partially/partially weathered, very closely to
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
um thickness and depths to the strata interface are approximate. Our measurements are
referenced from Existing Ground Level at the time of our drilling activities.
Classifications of the log of borings, presenting the actual stratum descriptions, types of sampling
used and additional field data, are presented in APPENDIX A.
Page8
9.0 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS & CAVITIES
The borings were drilled with rotary drilling machine to 10.0m& 15.0m depths below existing
ground level in an attempt to check the presence of subsurface water. The water table
observation we made after the equilibrium condition usually done after 24 hours as specified in
BS: 5930:2015 Cl 52. Subsurface water observations are presented in below table No.5.
Table No.4: Summary of Water table
Borehole No. Water table below Water table (m DMD)

existing ground level
(m)
BH-2 2.20 2.431
BH-3 4.27 0.271
The short-term field observations do not permit an accurate evaluation of the subsurface water
levels at this location. Subsurface water levels are influenced by seasonal and climatic conditions
which can and will change. In addition, the sand materials encountered in the top portion of borings
are granular in nature and will transmit water easily.
9.1 VARIATIONS IN SUB SURFACE CONDITIONS

Our interpretations of soil and ground water conditions, as described above are based on data
obtained from the boring drilled for this study and review of existing information. It is likely that
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
disclosed variations in subsurface conditions exist at the site and that seasonal variations in
groundwater level occur. Although not observed at the site, it is common for seasonal seepage to
develop at the interface between the surficial soil and soil at deeper depths. Page9
10.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
10.1 Geotechnical Parameters:
Proper selection of foundation members, dictates their being capable of sustaining the
structural loads and transmitting these loads safely to the supporting ground, so it must
provide for two points. One is to avoid foundation soil failure, which leads to structural
collapse, and the second is to prevent excessive settlement, which may lead to restricting
the possibility of using the structure.
Table No.5: Geotechnical Design Parameters
Averag Active Passive At Rest

**Angle of
SPT, N e Bulk Friction Earth Earth Earth Poisson'
Depth (m) internal
value/ Density Coefficie Pressure Pressure Pressure s Ratio,
Below EGL* friction(soil
RQD (ɣ) nt (f) Coefficien Coefficien Coefficien μ
), φ (⁰)
kN/m3 t, Ka t, Kp t, Ko
0.00 to 4.00 18 31 16.80 0.38 0.32 3.12 0.48 0.33
4.00 to
5 28 14.33 0.34 0.36 2.77 0.53 0.35
13.00
13.00 to
>50 38 20.40 0.47 0.24 4.20 0.38 0.28
14.37
14.37 to
- 34 22.00 0.42 0.28 3.54 0.44 0.31
40.00
10.2 EXCAVATION SIDE SLOPES:
Where space permits and above the water table, the sides of the excavations would be
necessary to be battered and as a guide the CIRIA Report No.97 “Trenching Practice”
recommends a maximum safe temporary slope of 26-37° to the horizontal up to 3.0m depth
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
below existing ground level. For deep excavations, if any, detailed study of the side slope
stability should be carried out by a competent engineering using the findings of investigation.
TableNo.8: Recommended Cut Slops
SPT Range Recommended Cut Slope

Material Type
(Horizontal : Vertical)
Very Loose to Loose SAND 0-10 2:1
Medium dense SAND 10-30 1.5:1

Page10
Dense SAND 30-50 1.3:1
Rock Material - Vertical

13.0 CHEMICAL CONDITION
Chemical analysis of soil and indicates possible Sulphate and chloride attack against corrosion. As per
BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 and based on Sulphate results of soil, the site has been classified as
follows:
- Design Sulphate class (DS-class): DS-2
- Aggressive chemical environment for concrete class (ACEC-Class): AC-2
- Design Chemical Class for intended working life of at least 100years: DC-2
For above mentioned site class, recommended cement and combination group as per Table D2 of
BRE SD1 is B&C.
However, it must be noted that the above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride
ions in concrete surroundings. Hence, careful consideration should be given to the recommendations
made in CIRIA Publication 2002\Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula”.
According to CIRIA Special Publication No.31guidelines, there is no widely accepted view on the
concentration as which chlorides becomes significant in soil or ground water but limited experience
in the gulf region suggests it may be as low as 0.05% particularly in situations where alternate
wetting and drying or capillary rise effect the concrete.
With this in view and as per table No.5.1&5.2 of CIRIA SP 31 following site classification and concrete
recommendations shall be taken.
- Exposure condition: d(ii)
- Minimum Cement content for 20mm aggregates (kg/m3) = 320kg/m3-400kg/m3
- Maximum free water/cement ratio: 0.42
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
As per CIRIA SP 31, concrete containing pulverized fuels ash (Pfa), ground granulated blast Furnace
slag (ggbs) and silica fumes (sf) are highly resistant to penetration by chlorides due to their increased
binding capacity and refined pore structure.
Also, when resistance is needed against both, sulphate and chlorides, concrete may need tobe
protected from the soil and ground water with a water proofing membrane or tanking and
acompromise has to be made on the type of cement to be used, generally, a cement containing
atleast3.5% but not more than9.0% C3A is preferred.
Each situation should be considered on its merit. With this in view, for present site condition,
Page11
foundation and other concrete structures coming in contact with the soil should be constructed using
MSRC/ASTM TYPE II mixed with GGBS/PFa/ silica fumes etc.
Note: More details on mix design and proportions will always need to be done with concrete specialist.
14.0 QUALITY CONTROL
Every project and construction site is unique, making it vitally important that appropriate design
data, construction drawings, specifications, change orders and related documents be reviewed by
the respective design and construction professionals participating in the project. The performance
of the foundations and building pads for this project will depend on correct interpretation of our
geotechnical engineering report and proper compliance of the project activities with regard to our
geotechnical recommendations and to the project drawings and specifications.
15.0. LIMITATIONS & CONCLUSION

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this geotechnical engineering report
are based on the borings drilled at the project site. Subsurface conditions have been observed and
interpreted at the boring locations only. It is possible that the subsurface conditions will vary
substantially from what was encountered at the borings. Everyone should be cognizant that
Variations may occur due to the aerial geologic conditions or previous site use that would not
become evident until construction begins.
If subsurface conditions vary significantly from those described in this report, we should be notified
immediately to determine if our opinions, conclusions and recommendations need to be re-
evaluated and to decide if additional field and laboratory tests need to be performed, so that
supplemental engineering analyses and recommendations can be provided.
This study was performed in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practice using the
standards and skill currently exercised by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area.
TF-101 Rev.00/Aug20
Yours faithfully,
Dubai, UAE
Asif Khan Yousafzai

Unit Head, Geotech.
Page12
-END OF TEXT-
APPENDIX: A
SITE PLAN
BOREHOLE LAYOUT
WAC-EM824-L4-BH-001_2.dgn 2/27/2024 7:17:35 AM
APPENDIX: B
LEGENDS
BORE HOLE LOGS

LEGEND TO BORING LOGS
SYMBOLS FOR COMMON SOIL AND ROCK TYPES
CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL BOULDERS & FILL PEAT CONGLOMERATE BRECCIA
COBBLES
CHALK CALCARENITE MUDSTONE SILTSTONE SANDSTONE SHALE CRYSTALLINE COAL PYROCLASTIC

GYPSUM (Volanic Ash)
IGNEOUS IGNEOUS IGNEOUS METAMORPHIC METAMORPHIC METAMORPHIC

(Coarse-grained) (Medium-grained) (Fine-grained) (Coarse-grained) (Medium-grained) (Fine-grained)
SAMPLER TYPE
DRIVE TRICONE CORE BARREL AUGER SHELLBY DRIVE DRIVE

SPLITPOON TUBE CYLINDER BARREL
(Manual)
Sample (S.P.T.) Disturbed Reltively Disturbed Undisturbed Relatively Relatively
Disturbance Disturbed Undisturbed Undisturbed Undisturbed
Fine grained Soil Coarse grained Soil
Unconfined Unconfined
S.P.T. Consistency Field Identification Compressive SPT Description Field Identification Compressive
(blows/30cm) Strength (blows/30cm) Strength
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
0-2 Very Soft Easily penetrated several cms < 0.25 0-4 Very loose Easily indented with finger, 0 - 20
with fist thumb or fist.
2-4 Soft Easily penetrated several cms 0.25 - 0.5 4 - 10 Loose Less easily indented with fist 20 - 40
with thumb but easily shoveled.
4-8 Firm Penetrated several cms by thumb 0.25 - 0.5 10 - 30 Medium Shoveled with difficulty 40 - 60
with moderate effort. Dense
8 - 15 Stiff Readily indented by thumb but 1.0 - 2.0 30 - 50 Dense Requires pick to loosen for 60 - 80
penetrated only with great effort shoveling by hand
15 - 30 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumb nail. 2.0 - 4.0
> 50 Very dense Requires blasting or heavy 80 - 100

equipment to loosen
>30 Indented with difficulty by thumb nail. >4.0
Hard
S.P.T. (blows/30cm): The number of blows in the Standard Penetration test, required to drive a five centimeter diameter split tube sampler a distance of thirty centimeters using sixty three
and half kilograms weight falling seventy six centimeters.
Rock Quality Rock Strength
Rock Quality Point Load Strength (for

Designation RQD Rock Quality Description Unconfined Compressive
Description 50mm diameter sample)
(%) Is50 (kg/cm2) Strength (kg/cm2)
0 - 25 Very Poor Very Weak <0.5 <12.5
25 - 50 Weak 0.5 - 2 12.5 - 50

Poor
Moderately Weak
2-5 50 - 125
50 - 70 Fair
Moderately Strong 5 - 20 125 - 500
70 - 90 Good
Strong 20 - 40 500 - 1000
90 - 100 Excellent Very Strong > 40 > 1000
Point Loads Strength and Unconfined Compressive Strength

In the point load test, a rock core is loaded between two steel cones and failure occurs by tensile splitting.
A point load strength index Is, is calculated as the ratio of the applied load P, at rupture to the square of the distance H, between the loading points Is = P/H2.
A correlation that is commonly used between the point load index and the unconfined compressive strength.
Qu of a cylinder with a length to diameter ratio of 2 to 1 is Qu = 24 Is (50)
where Is (50) is the point load strength corrected to a diameter of 50mm (Brock and Frankline, 1972)
R.Q.D.: The Rock Quality Designation is the percentage of the sum of length of intact core pieces ten centimeters or longer to the total.
Recovery: The percentage of length of core recovered in each run to the total length of the core run.
Appendix B, Page 1/49

1

OPERATOR: Arshad GROUND LEVEL: 4.431 OGL (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
2.20m N: 2788309.000 DATE FINISHED: 17/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
0 B - - - - - - -
(0.0m-2.0m)
B - - - - - - - Brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly,
1
0.0-2.0 fine to medium SAND. Gravel is fine
B - - - - - - -
to medium sub angular cemented sand
B - - - - - - -
pieces.
2
2.0-2.45 SPT 2 2 4 4 5 7 20
(2.0m-4.0m)
Medium dense, light brown to brown,
2.50-2.95 SPT 3 2 5 5 7 7 24
slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to
3
3.0-3.45 SPT 4 4 5 6 6 8 25
medium SAND. Gravel is fine to
4
4.0-4.45 SPT 1 1 1 2 2 2 7
5
5.0-5.45 SPT 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
6
6.0-6.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 (4.0m-11.0m)
Loose locally very loose, light gray,
7
slightly silty, clayey, fine to medium,
7.0-7.45 SPT 1 1 0 1 1 1 3
carbonate SANDY CLAY with shell
fragments.
8
8.0-8.45 SPT 2 1 0 1 1 0 2
9
9.0-9.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
10
: 60% Water Lose
KEY:

2.20m N: 2788309.000 DATE FINISHED: 17/02/2024
Time(min)
Depth
Return(%)
Sample TCR SCR RQD
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
10
10.0-10.45 SPT 2 1 1 1 1 2 5
Same as Above
11
11.0-11.45 SPT 4 5 6 7 10 13 36
(11.0m-13.0m)
Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to
12
12.0-12.45 SPT 4 6 6 8 11 14 39 medium SAND.
13 (13.0m-14.37m)
13.0-13.32 SPT 6 7 14 18 18/20 - >50
Very dense brown to light brown, slightly
silty to silty, slightly gravelly, fine to
14 medium SAND. Gravel is fine to medium
14.0-14.37 SPT 8 9 13 17 20 - >50
14.37-15.50 C 93 42 29
15
15.50-17.0 C 88 59 55 (14.37m-24.50m)
16
reddish brown becaming reddish
brown, very thinly bedded
SANDSTONE. Distinctly to partially
17.0-18.50 C 91 79 63
[ (21.50m-23.0m)- NCR
(23.0m-23.18m)- Very dense, light
18
reddish bown, silty. gravelly, fine to
18.50-20.0 C 84 29 17 medium SAND. ]
19
20
: 60% Water Lose
KEY:

2.20m N: 2788309.000 DATE FINISHED: 17/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
20
20.0-21.50 C 99 16 0
(14.37m-24.50m)
21
reddish brown becaming reddish
brown, very thinly bedded
21.50-23.0 C
SANDSTONE. Distinctly to partially
22 NCR weathered, very closely to closely
[ (21.50m-23.0m)- NCR
23
23.0-23.18 SPT 18 7/20 35 15/10 - - >50 (23.0m-23.18m)- Very dense, light
23.18-24.18 C 80 45 13 reddish bown, silty. gravelly, fine to
24 medium SAND. ]
24.18-25.18 C 95 50 26
(24.50m-25.54m)
Very weak, brown, very thinly to thinly
25 bedded, fine to medium matrix supported
25.18-26.18 C 98 66 20
CONGLOMERATE. Partially wethered,
very closely to closely spaced, sub horizontl
fracture.
26
26.18-27.18 C 96 83 76
(25.54m-28.73m)
27
27.18-28.18 C 97 73 65
Very weak, reddish brown, very thinly
to thinly bedded SANDSTONE.
Partially weathered, Very closely to
28
28.18-29.50 C 95 67 47
29
Same As Below
29.50-31.0 C 87 15 0
30
: 60% Water Lose
KEY:

OPERATOR: Arshad/ Noman GROUND LEVEL: 4.431 OGL (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
2.20m N: 2788309.000 DATE FINISHED: 17/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
30
(28.73m-33.0m)
31 Very weak, brown, very thinly to thinly
31.0-32.50 C 88 41 25
bedded, fine to medium matrix
supported CONGLOMERATE.
32 Partially wethered, very closely to
closely spaced, sub horizontl frcture.
32.50-34.0 C 77 27 11
33
34
34.0-35.50 C 85 15 0
35 (33.0m-40.0m)
Extremely weak to very weak, off
35.50-37.0 C 97 39 27 white, very thinly to thinly bedded
36 MUDSTONE. Distictly to partially
spced, sub horizontal fracture.
37 [ (37.0m-38.50m-NCR)
37.0-38.50 C
38.50m-38.69m)- Very dense, creamish
NCR white, slightly silty, fine to medium
SANDY CLAY.
38
38.50-38.69 SPT 20 5/10 32 18/30 - - >50

39 38.69-40.0 C 100 61 42
40
: 60% Water Lose
KEY:

OPERATOR: Noman GROUND LEVEL: 4.541 EGL (LOCATION:4), DUBAI
GROUND WATER LEVEL CO-ORDINATES: E:497092.055 DATE STARTED: 12/02/2024
4.27m N: 2788273.270 DATE FINISHED: 15/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
0 B - - - - - - -
B - - - - - - - (0.0m-2.0m)
1
0.0-2.0 Brown, slightly silty, fine to medium
B - - - - - - -
SAND.
B - - - - - - -
2
2.0-2.45 SPT 2 4 5 6 7 12 30
(2.0m-4.0m)
Dense, brown, slightly silty, slightly
2.50-2.95 SPT 7 10 10 11 11 11 43
gravelly, fine to medium SAND.
3
3.0-3.45 SPT 5 8 12 12 11 10 45
Gravel is fine to medium sub angular
sandstone.
4 (4.0m-5.0m)
4.0-4.45 SPT 3 3 3 3 4 3 13
Medium dense, light gray, slightly silty,
fine to medium SAND.
5
5.0-5.45 SPT 1 1 1 0 1 1 3
6
6.0-6.45 SPT 1 2 1 1 1 1 4
(5.0m-11.0m)
7
7.0-7.45 SPT 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 Very loose, light gray, slightly silty,
clayey, fine to medium, carbonate
8 SANDY CLAY with shell fragments.
8.0-8.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
9
9.0-9.45 SPT 1 0 0 1 1 0 2
10
KEY:

OPERATOR: Noman GROUND LEVEL: 4.541 EGL (LOCATION:4)
4.27m N: 2788273.270 DATE FINISHED: 15/02/2024
Time(min)
Depth
Return(%)
Sample TCR SCR RQD
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
10 (5.0m-11.0m)
10.0-10.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
Very loose, light gray, slightly silty, clayey, fine to
medium, carbonate SANDY CLY with shell
fragments
11
11.0-11.45 SPT 2 1 1 2 4 7 14
(11.0m-13.0m)
Medium dense locally loose, dark gray,
12
12.0-12.45 SPT 1 1 1 1 3 4 9 slightly silty, fine to medium,
carbonate SAND with shell fragments.
13 (13.0m-14.31m)
13.0-13.32 SPT 2 4 15 19 16/20 - >50
Very dense, light gray, slightly silty to silty,
slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND.
14 Gravel is fine to medium sub angular
14.0-14.31 SPT 7 10 20 22 8/10 - >50
sandstone.
14.31-15.31 C 97 84 76
15
15.31-16.0 C 100 86 72
16 (14.31m-25.70m)
16.0-17.50 C 97 67 52
Extremely weak to very weak, light
gray to light brown, very thinly to
17
thinly bedded CALCAREOUS
SANDSTONE TO SANDSTONE.
Distinctly to partially weathered, very
17.50-19.0 C 90 78 74 closely to closely spaced, sub
18 horizontal fracture.
19 19.0-20.50 100 75 62
C
20
KEY:

4.27m N: 2788273.270 DATE FINISHED: 15/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
20
20.50-22.0 C 93 51 34
21
(14.31m-25.70m)
22 Extremely weak to very weak, light
22.0-23.50 C 100 87 81
gray to light brown, very thinly to
thinly bedded CALCAREOUS
23
SANDSTONE TO SANDSTONE.
23.50-25.0 C 97 79 79 Distinctly to partially weathered, very
24 closely to closely spaced, sub
25
25.0-26.50 C 92 79 63
26
26.50-28.0 C 92 82 79
27 (25.70m-31.20)
Very weak to weak, brown, very thinly
to thinly bedded, fine to medium mtrix
supported, CONGLOMERATE.
28
28.0-29.50 C 87 75 68 Partially weathered, very closely to
29
29.50-31.0 C 90 49 8
30
KEY:

4.27m N: 2788273.270 DATE FINISHED: 15/02/2024
Time(min)
N-
Return(%)
Symbol
Description
Drilling
Legend
Flush
(m) (m) Type 75 150 225 300 375 450 Value % % %
30
(25.70m-31.20)
Very weak to weak, brown, very thinly to thinly
bedded, fine to medium mtrix supported,
CONGLOMERATE. Partially weathered, very
31
31.0-32.50 C 99 71 57 closely to closely spaced, sub horizontal fracture.
32
32.50-34.0 C 100 53 42
33
34
34.0-35.50 C 100 92 92
35
(31.20m-40.0m)
Extremely weak to very weak, off
35.50-37.0 C 99 40 30
36 MUDSTONE. Distinctly weathered,
very closely to closely spaced, sub
37
37.0-38.50 C 41 12 0
38
38.50-39.0 C 92 52 26
39 39.0-40.0 C 93 52 50
40
KEY:
APPENDIX: C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX: D
PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SAMPLE PHOTOS

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SITE PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHED BY : ARSHAD Page No.08

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
SITE PHOTOS
PHOTOGRAPHED BY : ARSHAD Page No.09

Memo
Appendix B – Pile Capacity Calculation Sheet
AECOM
28/31
Ref
R1060/2 - Development of Al Sayer Link
Location/Borehole No Rosenberg and Journeaux (1976)

Borehole Ground Elev. 4.40 mNADD Where
Pile Diameter 1.00 m qs = Ultimate unit side friction (MPa)
Drawing Ref.:
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of Structure:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Pile Cut-off Depth (mbgs) 2.50 m Assumed σc = UCS (MPa)
Pile Shaft Perimeter = D 3.14 m
Pile cut-off level (PCL) 1.90 mNADD 𝑞𝑠 = 0.375 (σ𝐶 )0.515
Concrete grade, fcu 40 N/mm2
Pile Modulus, Ep (kPa) 34,987,000
Rock Poisson's Ratio 0.25
Factor of Safety for comp 2.5 for SLS Capacity Ref. AASHTO 2020, Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 Ref. AASHTO 2020, Table 10.5.5.2.4-1
General for All Pier Locations

60724429
Uplift Resistance Factor of Single-Drilled Shafts, 0.40 Ref: AASHTO 2020 Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 (Brown
Ref: et
AASHTO
al. 2010)2020 Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 (Brown et al. 2010)
Resistance factor for Side resistance in rock 0.55 for ULS check
Ratio of Tension to Compression 0.73 (Source: Extract of CIRIA 181: Piled Foundation in Weak Rocks, Table 4.2)
Inferred Rockhead Level -10.97 (mDMD)
Strata Skin Friction Group Effect NSF SLS ULS Pile Settlement Vertical
Adjusted Pall-comp Est. Allow. Geo. Est. Pall- Pall-comp Est. Allow. Geo. Pall- Stiffness,
Average
Cumulative 1000mm Pile Capacity tension 1000mm Pile Capacity tension Embedment
Ultimate Cumulative Reduction factor Estimated Length Se1 Rock
From Top of Bottom (Pile Layer Skin Friction Ultimate (Socket) Estimated
Inferred Strata To depth UCS Capacity/St Ultimate for Group Effect, Negative Below Cut- (elastic Modulus Se3 % Dia Pile
depth Layer Toe Level) Thickness Unit/Strata Capacity for Length, L' Settlement
rata Capacity  Skin Friction Dia. (Limit: 1000mm Dia. Dia Dia. (Limit: 1000mm Dia. 1000mm off, L Settlement) along pile Dia
Reduction (m)
Pstruct) (a) (Limit: Pstruct- 1000mm Pstruct) (a) (Limit: Pstruct- Dia. shaft 1000mm
Factor
(SLS) NSF) (a) (SLS) (SLS) (ULS) NSF) (a) (ULS) (ULS)
[mbPCL] [mbPCL] mNADD mNADD m MPa kPa kN kN kPa kN kN kN kN kN kN kN m m mm kPa mm mm % kN/m
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 0.00 1.00 1.90 0.90 1.0 - - - - 1 - 0 - - - - - - 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 1.00 2.00 0.90 -0.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 2.00 3.00 -0.10 -1.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Pile Design Calculations

Medium Dense to Dense Silty Sand 9.00 10.00 -7.10 -8.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 13.00 14.00 -11.10 -12.10 1.0 0.69 310 973 973 973 389 389 283 535 535 389 14.0 1.1 0.13 64500 3.78 3.91 0.39 99,469
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 14.00 15.00 -12.10 -13.10 1.0 0.69 310 973 1946 1946 779 779 566 1,070 1,070 779 15.0 2.1 0.28 64500 4.25 4.53 0.45 171,836
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 15.00 16.00 -13.10 -14.10 1.0 0.69 310 973 2920 2920 1,168 1,168 849 1,606 1,606 1,168 16.0 3.1 0.46 64500 4.52 4.98 0.50 234,648
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 16.00 17.00 -14.10 -15.10 1.0 0.69 310 973 3893 3893 1,557 1,557 1,132 2,141 2,141 1,557 17.0 4.1 0.65 64500 4.73 5.37 0.54 289,704
SN
Calcs by
Design Notes:
(a) Geotechnical allowable capacity should not exceed structural capacity of pile, Pstruct, to be evaluated by Structural Engineer: Pstruct = 0.25fcuAp (AASHTO 2012, Eq 5.6.3.3.4-1). Ref. Principles of Foundation Engineering,
(b) If pile cut of level is already in rock, pile capacity of top 1m from pile cut-off level shall be ignored due to possible over-excavation. SI 7th Ed. By Braja Das
01/04/2024 MA
Date
(c) Contractor shall carry out his own tests to confirm ground conditions and ensure that bottom of drilled shafts 5m below pile toe are of competent rock and cleared of cavity/karst features. * Qwp = Load taken by Pile End Bearing = 0
(d) Contractor shall carry out pile load tests on Instrumented Preliminary Test pile to confirm the estimated pile capacity in compression as well as in tension prior to construction of working piles.
(e) Formula for ultimate unit shaft resitance is extracted from CIRIA 181: Piled Foundation in Weak Rocks, Table 4.2; Rosenberg and Journeaux; qs=0.375 x (qu) 0.515 is considered.
(f) Base resistance is ignored in pile capacity calculations.
Check by Date
Calc Sheet #
60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
(g) The socket length (rock embedment) of all piles should not be less than 4 times the pile diameter.
1
(h) It should be strictly restricted that no other additional fill by contractor is allowed for temporary/future works, to avoid Negative Skin Friction in the future.
Output
(i) MJ Tomlinson (2001), Foundation Design and Construction, 7th Ed pg306 indicated the factor of safety accounting for negative skin friction may be evaluated using the equation:
/ 11
Ultimate Carrying Capacity
FOS =
01/04/2024
Working Load + Negative Skin Friction
Rearranging the equation, the allowable working load on pile is estimated based on Pall-working load = ( Pult / FOS ) - NSF
0
(j) The given pile capacities are for single piles. The analysis shall include pile group effectiveness factor which shall be 0.9 and 1.0 for pile spacing (centre-to-centre) equal to 2.5 and 3 times the pile diameter respectively.
Rev.
(k) Pile toe level shall be selected against desired pile capacity.
(l) Final pile length shall be calculated from design pile toe level to cut-off level.
Ref

Drawing Ref.:
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of Structure:
Project Name:
Project Number:

60724429
Ref: et
AASHTO
1200mm Pile Capacity tension 1200mm Pile Capacity tension Average
Cumulative Embedment
From Top of Bottom (Pile Layer Skin Friction Ultimate (Socket) Estimated Pile
Inferred Strata To depth UCS Capacity/St Ultimate for Group Effect, Negative Below Cut- (elastic Modulus Se3 % Dia
rata Capacity  Skin Friction Dia. (Limit: 1200mm Dia. Dia Dia. (Limit: 1200mm Dia. 1200mm off, L Settlement) along pile
Dia
Reduction Pstruct) (a) (Limit: Pstruct- 1200mm Pstruct) (a)
(Limit: Pstruct- Dia. (m) 1200mm
shaft
Factor

VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
SN
Calcs by
Design Notes:
01/04/2024 MA
Date
Check by Date
Calc Sheet #
60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
2
Output
/ 11
FOS =
01/04/2024
0
Rev.
Ref

Drawing Ref.:
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of Structure:
Project Name:
Project Number:

60724429
Ref: et
AASHTO
Dia
shaft
Factor

VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 14.00 15.00 -12.10 -13.10 1.0 0.69 310 1460 2920 2920 1,168 1,168 849 1,606 1,606 1,168 15.0 2.1 0.19 64500 6.13 6.32 0.42 184,751
SN
Calcs by
Design Notes:
01/04/2024 MA
Date
Check by Date
Calc Sheet #
60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
3
Output
/ 11
FOS =
01/04/2024
0
Rev.
Ref

Drawing Ref.:
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of Structure:
Project Name:
Project Number:

60724429
Ref: et
AASHTO
Dia
shaft
Factor

VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
SN
Calcs by
Design Notes:
01/04/2024 MA
Date
Check by Date
Calc Sheet #
60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
4
Output
/ 11
FOS =
01/04/2024
0
Rev.
Ref

Drawing Ref.:
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of Structure:
Project Name:
Project Number:

60724429
Ref: et
AASHTO
Dia
shaft
Factor

VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 13.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 29.00 30.00 -27.10 -28.10 1.0 0.69 310 1946 33088 33088 13,235 13,235 9,626 18,198 18,198 13,235 30.0 17.1 2.42 64500 10.81 13.23 0.66 1,000,303
SN
Calcs by
Design Notes:
01/04/2024 MA
Date
Check by Date
Calc Sheet #
60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
5
Output
/ 11
FOS =
01/04/2024
0
Rev.
Project Number: Job Ref.:
R1060/2 - Development of Al Sayer Link 60724429
Part of structure: Calc sheet no rev
General for All Pier Locations 6 / 11 0
Drawing ref. Calcs by Date Check by Date
SN 01/04/2024 MA 01/04/2024
Ref Calculations Output
Ref: As per K. Terzhaghi (1995) - "Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction", if the pile is embeded in sand,
Terzhaghi the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh value can be estimated from:
1995, kh = nh x z
Evaluation B
of
coefficients where,
-3
of subgrade nh = is the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction for piles embedded in sand (in tons ft ).
reaction. z = depth
B = width of the beam/pile
Terzhaghi further indicated that, the factor nh can be evaluated from the equation:
nh = A 
1.35
where,
A = is the constant value estimated from Table 3 of Terzhaghi (1995) extract of which presented below.
 = unit weight of dry or moist sand

1 tons  2204.623 pounds
1 pound/ft3  16.01846 kg/m3
Comparison of Terzaghi's nh coefficient and Reese's nh coefficient is illustrated below.
(Source: Figure extracted from MJ Tomlinson 1994, Pile Design and Construction Practice, 4th edition)
Ref
Location/Borehole No Terzhaghi (1995) coefficient of horizontal subgrade modulus for vertical beam/pile
Borehole Ground Elev. 4.40 mNADD
Pile Diameter 1.00 m
Pile Shaft Perimeter = D
Drawing ref
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of structure:
Project Name:
Project:
3.14 m
Pile cut-off level (PCL) 1.90 mNADD where,
Concrete grade, fcu 40.00 N/mm2 nh = constant of horizontal subgrade reaction for piles embedded in sand
Pile Modulus, Ep (kPa) 34,987,000 kPa z = depth
Average Rock Modulus (kPa) 64,500.00 kPa B = width of the beam/pile
Rock Poisson's Ratio 0.25 constant of horizontal subgrade reaction of piles embedded in sand:
Factor of Safety for comp 2.50 for SLS Capacity
Uplift Resistance Factor of Single-Drilled Shafts, 0.40
Pile dia. 1.0 m

Coefficient of Horizontal Subgrade Modulus for Vertical Beam/Pile
60724429
Resistance Factor 0.55 for ULS check
Ratio of Tension to Compression 0.73
Inferred Rockhead Level -10.97 (mDMD) Ref. AASHTO 2020, Table 10.5.5.2.4-1
Ref: AASHTO 2020 Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 (Brown et al. 2010)
Inferred Coeff A
Bottom (Pile Layer Thick- Inferred Unit Weight, Inferred Unit Weight, Estimated nh based Estimated nh based Inferred nh - Overall Estimated kh
Inferred Strata From depth To depth Top of Layer Pile Dia, B SPT-N from Terzhaghi Estimated kh
Toe Level) ness dry submerged on Terzhaghi on Reese et al Average for Pile
(1995) Table 3
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (V)
[mbPCL] [mbPCL] mNADD mNADD m m blows kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 MN/m3
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 0.00 1.00 1.90 0.90 1.0 1.0 20
Ignored as per note (a)
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 1.00 2.00 0.90 -0.10 1.0 1.0 20
Medium Dense Silty / Gravelly Sand 2.00 3.00 -0.10 -1.10 1.0 1.0 20 633 17.0 7.2 3,373 16,865 10,119 10,119 10
Calculation Sheet
Medium Dense to Dense Silty Sand 9.00 10.00 -7.10 -8.10 1.0 1.0 30 967 18.0 8.2 5,864 24,715 15,290 122,318 100
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 1.0 50 2,000 19.0 9.2 13,615 40,600 27,107 298,181 100
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 13.00 14.00 -11.10 -12.10 1.0 1.0 50 2,000 20.0 10.2 15,096 40,600 27,848 334,178 100
Calcs by
SANDSTONE / Calcisilite / Conglomerate 37.00 38.00 -35.10 -36.10 1.0 1.0 50 2,000 20.0 10.2 15,096 40,600 27,848 1,002,533 100
SN
Notes:
01/04/2024
Date
(a) Top 2m from pile cut-off level, or when soil is potentially susceptible to liquefaction(as per liquefaction analyses), considered as free length.
(b) JE Bowles (1996) have indicated Poissons ratio of rock ranges from 0.1-0.4 and depends somewhat on type of rock.
Poisson's Ratio values for rocks have been inferred from Table C10.4.6.5-2 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2020.
(c) Provided no other additional settling fill is imposed on top.
Check by
Calc Sheet # Rev.

60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
(d) kh values were restricted to max. of 100 MN/m3
MA
7
/ 11
01/04/2024
Output
Date
0
Ref
Drawing ref
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of structure:
Project Name:
Project:
3.77 m
Pile dia. 1.2 m

60724429
Inferred Coeff A
(1995) Table 3
Calculation Sheet
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 1.2 50 2,000 19.0 9.2 13,615 40,600 27,107 248,485 100
Calcs by
SN
Notes:
01/04/2024
Date
Check by
Calc Sheet # Rev.

60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
MA
8
/ 11
01/04/2024
Output
Date
0
Ref
Drawing ref
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of structure:
Project Name:
Project:
4.71 m
Pile dia. 1.5 m

60724429
Inferred Coeff A
(1995) Table 3
Calculation Sheet
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 1.5 50 2,000 19.0 9.2 13,615 40,600 27,107 198,788 100
Calcs by
SN
Notes:
01/04/2024
Date
Check by
Calc Sheet # Rev.

60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
MA
9
/ 11
01/04/2024
Output
Date
0
Ref
Drawing ref
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of structure:
Project Name:
Project:
5.65 m
Pile dia. 1.8 m

60724429
Inferred Coeff A
(1995) Table 3
Calculation Sheet
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 1.8 50 2,000 19.0 9.2 13,615 40,600 27,107 165,656 100
Calcs by
SN
Notes:
01/04/2024
Date
Check by
Calc Sheet # Rev.

60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
MA
10
/ 11
01/04/2024
Output
Date
0
Ref
Drawing ref
Bridge Pile Design:
Part of structure:
Project Name:
Project:
6.28 m
Pile dia. 2.0 m

60724429
Inferred Coeff A
(1995) Table 3
Calculation Sheet
VD Silty Sand 12.00 13.00 -10.10 -11.10 1.0 2.0 50 2,000 19.0 9.2 13,615 40,600 27,107 149,091 100
Calcs by
SN
Notes:
01/04/2024
Date
Check by
Calc Sheet # Rev.

60724429
Job ref: R1060/2
MA
11
/ 11
01/04/2024
Output
Date
0
Memo
Appendix C Bearing Capacity Calculations
AECOM
29/31
Memo
C.1 Shear Bearing Capacity Calculations
AECOM
30/31
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Project R1060 - Al Sayel Development Date 02/04/2024
Location Dubai Calculated by SN
Client RTA Checked by MA
Footing Dimensions
Width of Footing B = 10 m
Length of Footing L = 20 m
Depth of Footing Df = 1 m
Dispersed Width of Footing B1 = 10 m
Dispersed Length of Footing L1 = 20 m
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
Depth of GWT from EGL dw = 1.70 m
Inclination of Footing α = 0 deg
Cohesion C = 0.0 kPa (Till Shear level)
Angle of internal friction ɸ = 33.7 deg (Till Shear level)
Saturated unit weight of soil Y = 18.0 kN/m3 (Till Shear level)
Unit weight of water Yw = 9.81 kN/m3
Failure Mode = Intermediate
EGL
0 m
1
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-1 H=0.5xB1xTan(45+ɸ/2)
Layer-2 9.34
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:
Friction angle below founding level 33.7 deg

Height of wedge below Footing 9.34 m
Depth, m Thickness C ɸ Y
Layer
From To m kN/m2 deg kN/m3
1 1 4.49 3.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 10.16 2.36 40 32 20
weighted average design shear parameter 9.16 10.3 33.7 18.9
Summary of Bearing Capacity in kPa
Local Intermediate General

Meyerhof 329.60 1250.92 1600.41
Terzaghi 326.12 1095.81 1383.41
Vesic 371.58 1185.37 1490.96
Recommended Bearing Capacity 1090 kPa

Local Shear Failure

Mobilised cohesion C' = 6.9 kPa
Mobilised angle of internal friction ɸ' = 24.0 Deg
Bearing Capacity factors Shape factors Depth factors Inclination factors

N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.015 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.015 iy = 1
Unit weight of water = 9.81 kN/m3

Effective overburden pressure = 18.88 kPa
Ultimate bearing capacity qu = 2/3CNcScdcic + q(Nq)Sqdqiq Cwq + 0.5BYNySydyiyCwy
qu = 988.8 kPa
Factor of Safety = 3
Safe Bearing capacity qslocal = 329.6 kPa
General Shear Failure

Cohesion C = 10.3 kPa
Angle of internal friction ɸ = 34.0 Deg

Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.354 dc = 1.038 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.177 dq = 1.019 iq = 1
Ny = 31.15 Sy = 1.177 dy = 1.019 iy = 1

Ultimate bearing capacity qu = CNcScdcic + q(Nq)Sqdqiq Cwq + 0.5BYNySydyiyCwy
qu = 4801 kPa
Safe Bearing capacity qsgeneral = 1600.4 kPa
Actual case
After interpolation qs = qslocal+(qsgeneral-qslocal)*(ɸ-28)/(36-28)

Gross Safe Bearing capacity qs = 1250.9 kPa
Design Base pressure below footing = kPa

Since base pressure is Less than SBC SAFE
Local Shear Failure

-0.7
N'c = 23.72 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 11.67 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 7.22 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 978.4 kPa


Nc = 52.64 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 36.50 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 36.50 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 4150 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1114.7 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.349 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.337 dq = 1.026 iq = 1
Ny = 41.06 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 4473 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
1
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.37
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 1 4.49 3.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 18.5 10.7 40 32 20

Meyerhof 696.56 2156.89 3054.91
Terzaghi 555.31 1693.62 2386.61
Vesic 618.95 1596.17 2186.60

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.474 dc = 1.015 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.237 dq = 1.008 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.237 dy = 1.008 iy = 1

qu = 2089.7 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.678 dc = 1.018 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.339 dq = 1.009 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.339 dy = 1.009 iy = 1

qu = 9165 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-0.7
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1665.9 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 7160 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.497 dc = 1.020 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.445 dq = 1.016 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1856.8 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.675 dc = 1.020 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.649 dq = 1.013 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 6560 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
1
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 27.40
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 1 4.49 3.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 26.84 19.04 40 32 20

Meyerhof 1068.80 3308.53 4927.19
Terzaghi 756.98 2269.67 3351.85
Vesic 700.88 1751.88 2493.36

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.711 dc = 1.010 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.356 dq = 1.005 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.356 dy = 1.005 iy = 1

qu = 3206.4 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.018 dc = 1.012 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.509 dq = 1.006 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.509 dy = 1.006 iy = 1

qu = 14782 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-0.7
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2270.9 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 10056 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.745 dc = 1.013 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.668 dq = 1.010 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2102.6 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.013 dc = 1.013 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.974 dq = 1.009 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 7480 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 9.34
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 4.49 2.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 11.08 3.28 40 32 20

Meyerhof 432.45 1560.24 1962.92
Terzaghi 420.30 1357.46 1687.14
Vesic 483.14 1507.38 1868.16

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.062 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.031 iy = 1

qu = 1297.4 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.354 dc = 1.075 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.177 dq = 1.038 iq = 1
Ny = 31.15 Sy = 1.177 dy = 1.038 iy = 1

qu = 5889 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.3
N'c = 23.72 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 11.67 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 7.22 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1260.9 kPa


Nc = 52.64 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 36.50 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 36.50 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 5061 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.080 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.063 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1449.4 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.349 dc = 1.080 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.337 dq = 1.052 iq = 1
Ny = 41.06 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 5604 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.38
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 4.49 2.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 19.43 11.63 40 32 20

Meyerhof 799.36 2418.69 3383.95
Terzaghi 631.21 1884.62 2622.14
Vesic 734.33 1882.42 2548.20

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.474 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.237 dq = 1.015 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.237 dy = 1.015 iy = 1

qu = 2398.1 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.678 dc = 1.037 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.339 dq = 1.018 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.339 dy = 1.018 iy = 1

qu = 10152 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.3
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1893.6 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 7866 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.497 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.445 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2203.0 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.675 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.649 dq = 1.027 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 7645 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 27.40
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 4.49 2.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 27.76 19.96 40 32 20

Meyerhof 1176.43 3577.99 5280.08
Terzaghi 828.69 2445.40 3573.99
Vesic 825.80 2057.80 2897.67

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.711 dc = 1.021 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.356 dq = 1.010 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.356 dy = 1.010 iy = 1

qu = 3529.3 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.018 dc = 1.025 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.509 dq = 1.012 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.509 dy = 1.012 iy = 1

qu = 15840 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.3
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2486.1 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 10722 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.745 dc = 1.027 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.668 dq = 1.021 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2477.4 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.013 dc = 1.027 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.974 dq = 1.018 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8693 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 9.35
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 4.49 1.49 0 32.00 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36.00 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41.00 19
4 7.8 12.01 4.21 40 32.00 20

Meyerhof 541.11 1888.26 2347.88
Terzaghi 490.17 1552.07 1915.06
Vesic 603.72 1853.03 2273.37

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.092 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.046 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.046 iy = 1

qu = 1623.3 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.354 dc = 1.113 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.177 dq = 1.056 iq = 1
Ny = 31.15 Sy = 1.177 dy = 1.056 iy = 1

qu = 7044 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

1.3
N'c = 23.72 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 11.67 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 7.22 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1470.5 kPa


Nc = 52.64 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 36.50 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 36.50 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 5745 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.120 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.094 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1811.2 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.349 dc = 1.120 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.337 dq = 1.079 iq = 1
Ny = 41.06 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 6820 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.38
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 4.49 1.49 0 32 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41 19
4 7.8 20.35 12.55 40 32 20

Meyerhof 904.86 2687.85 3722.29
Terzaghi 683.52 2016.64 2786.63
Vesic 854.33 2179.14 2923.01

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.474 dc = 1.046 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.237 dq = 1.023 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.237 dy = 1.023 iy = 1

qu = 2714.6 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.678 dc = 1.055 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.339 dq = 1.028 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.339 dy = 1.028 iy = 1

qu = 11167 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

1.3
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2050.6 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8360 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.497 dc = 1.060 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.445 dq = 1.047 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2563.0 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.675 dc = 1.060 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.649 dq = 1.040 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8769 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 27.40
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 4.49 1.49 0 32.00 18
2 4.49 7.49 3 0 36.00 19
3 7.49 7.8 0.31 0 41.00 19
4 7.8 28.68 20.88 40 32.00 20

Meyerhof 1285.97 3852.43 5639.73
Terzaghi 876.57 2562.98 3724.27
Vesic 954.17 2371.31 3312.13

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.711 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.356 dq = 1.015 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.356 dy = 1.015 iy = 1

qu = 3857.9 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.018 dc = 1.037 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.509 dq = 1.018 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.509 dy = 1.018 iy = 1

qu = 16919 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

1.3
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2629.7 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 11173 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.745 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.668 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2862.5 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 2.013 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.974 dq = 1.027 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 9936 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
3
Saturated unit weight of soil Y = 17.0 kN/m (Till Shear level)
3
Unit weight of water Yw = 9.81 kN/m
EGL
0 m
1
m B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 9.21
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer 2 3
From To m kN/m deg kN/m
1 1 10.21 9.21 0 33 17

Meyerhof 245.76 771.15 1059.19
Terzaghi 203.83 664.18 913.18
Vesic 282.63 747.19 998.72

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.015 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.015 iy = 1

qu = 737.3 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.339 dc = 1.037 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.170 dq = 1.018 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.170 dy = 1.018 iy = 1

qu = 3178 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-1.4
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 611.5 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2740 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 847.9 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.338 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.325 dq = 1.027 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2996 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
1
m B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.93
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 1 10.9 9.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 19.67 4.3 38 34 20

Meyerhof 651.46 2993.33 3594.23
Terzaghi 541.10 2071.20 2455.91
Vesic 549.19 1956.53 2308.55

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.493 dc = 1.016 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.246 dq = 1.008 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.246 dy = 1.008 iy = 1

qu = 1954.4 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.738 dc = 1.019 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.369 dq = 1.010 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.369 dy = 1.010 iy = 1

qu = 10783 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-1.4
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1623.3 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 7368 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.515 dc = 1.020 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.466 dq = 1.016 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1647.6 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.722 dc = 1.020 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.700 dq = 1.013 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 6926 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
1
m B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 28.34
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 1 10.9 9.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 28.52 13.15 38 34 20

Meyerhof 1106.90 5185.55 6332.41
Terzaghi 834.48 3158.27 3801.36
Vesic 670.04 2349.25 2807.30

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.739 dc = 1.010 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.370 dq = 1.005 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.370 dy = 1.005 iy = 1

qu = 3320.7 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.107 dc = 1.013 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.554 dq = 1.006 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.554 dy = 1.006 iy = 1

qu = 18997 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-1.4
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2503.4 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 11404 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.772 dc = 1.013 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.699 dq = 1.010 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2010.1 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.083 dc = 1.013 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 2.050 dq = 1.008 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8422 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 9.21
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 11.21 9.21 0 33 17

Meyerhof 312.23 937.11 1257.64
Terzaghi 264.41 818.04 1095.82
Vesic 355.42 923.79 1210.41

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.062 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.031 iy = 1

qu = 936.7 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.339 dc = 1.074 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.170 dq = 1.037 iq = 1
Ny = 26.17 Sy = 1.170 dy = 1.037 iy = 1

qu = 3773 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-0.4
N'c = 22.39 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 10.69 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 6.32 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 793.2 kPa


Nc = 48.09 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 32.23 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 32.23 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 3287 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.080 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.063 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1066.3 kPa


Nc = 38.64 Sc = 1.338 dc = 1.080 ic = 1
Nq = 26.09 Sq = 1.325 dq = 1.054 iq = 1
Ny = 35.19 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 3631 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.95
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 10.9 8.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 20.63 5.26 38 34 20

Meyerhof 757.93 3372.95 3996.09
Terzaghi 636.84 2376.33 2775.58
Vesic 668.06 2355.33 2741.23

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.493 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.246 dq = 1.016 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.246 dy = 1.016 iy = 1

qu = 2273.8 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.738 dc = 1.038 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.369 dq = 1.019 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.369 dy = 1.019 iy = 1

qu = 11988 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-0.4
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1910.5 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8327 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.515 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.466 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2004.2 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.722 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.700 dq = 1.025 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 8224 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
2
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 28.36
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 2 10.9 8.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 29.48 14.11 38 34 20

Meyerhof 1222.29 5604.51 6781.98
Terzaghi 928.08 3454.83 4113.43
Vesic 803.16 2799.48 3309.76

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.739 dc = 1.021 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.370 dq = 1.010 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.370 dy = 1.010 iy = 1

qu = 3666.9 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.107 dc = 1.026 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.554 dq = 1.013 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.554 dy = 1.013 iy = 1

qu = 20346 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

-0.4
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2784.3 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 12340 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.772 dc = 1.027 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.699 dq = 1.021 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2409.5 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.083 dc = 1.027 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 2.050 dq = 1.017 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 9929 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 9.30
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 10.9 7.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 12.29 1.39 0 36 18

Meyerhof 383.92 1357.57 1734.47
Terzaghi 342.33 1102.57 1388.96
Vesic 436.19 1328.23 1667.22

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.237 dc = 1.092 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.119 dq = 1.046 iq = 1
N'y = 5.72 Sy = 1.119 dy = 1.046 iy = 1

qu = 1151.8 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.354 dc = 1.113 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.177 dq = 1.056 iq = 1
Ny = 31.15 Sy = 1.177 dy = 1.056 iy = 1

qu = 5203 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.6
N'c = 23.72 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 11.67 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 7.22 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1027.0 kPa


Nc = 52.64 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 36.50 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 36.50 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 4167 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 19.32 Sc = 1.248 dc = 1.120 ic = 1
N'q = 9.60 Sq = 1.223 dq = 1.094 iq = 1
N'y = 9.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 1308.6 kPa


Nc = 42.16 Sc = 1.349 dc = 1.120 ic = 1
Nq = 29.44 Sq = 1.337 dq = 1.079 iq = 1
Ny = 41.06 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 5002 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 18.98
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 10.9 7.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 21.59 6.22 38 34 20

Meyerhof 867.68 3768.11 4411.11
Terzaghi 708.99 2612.71 3018.58
Vesic 792.25 2773.68 3191.28

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.493 dc = 1.047 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.246 dq = 1.024 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.246 dy = 1.024 iy = 1

qu = 2603.0 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.738 dc = 1.058 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.369 dq = 1.029 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.369 dy = 1.029 iy = 1

qu = 13233 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.6
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2127.0 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 9056 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.515 dc = 1.060 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.466 dq = 1.047 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2376.7 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 1.722 dc = 1.060 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.700 dq = 1.038 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.600 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 9574 kPa
Actual case


Footing Dimensions
Shape Rectangular
Ground Properties
EGL
0 m
3
m
B1 20 m
PCC
Layer-2 28.38
Layer-3 m
Layer-4
:

Layer
1 3 10.9 7.9 0 33 17
2 10.9 14.2 3.3 0 36 18
3 14.2 15.37 1.17 0 41 19
4 15.37 30.44 15.07 38 34 20

Meyerhof 1340.03 6034.88 7241.25
Terzaghi 997.63 3681.13 4347.32
Vesic 940.30 3264.87 3825.84

Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.739 dc = 1.031 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.370 dq = 1.016 iq = 1
N'y = 6.77 Sy = 1.370 dy = 1.016 iy = 1

qu = 4020.1 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.107 dc = 1.038 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 1.554 dq = 1.019 iq = 1
Ny = 37.15 Sy = 1.554 dy = 1.019 iy = 1

qu = 21724 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure

0.6
N'c = 25.18 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
N'q = 12.75 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
N'y = 8.35 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2992.9 kPa


Nc = 57.75 Sc = 1.300 dc = 1.000 ic = 1
Nq = 41.44 Sq = 1.000 dq = 1.000 iq = 1
Ny = 41.44 Sy = 0.800 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 13042 kPa
Actual case


Local Shear Failure


N'c = 20.72 Sc = 1.772 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
N'q = 10.66 Sq = 1.699 dq = 1.031 iq = 1
N'y = 10.88 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 2820.9 kPa


Nc = 46.12 Sc = 2.083 dc = 1.040 ic = 1
Nq = 33.30 Sq = 2.050 dq = 1.025 iq = 1
Ny = 48.03 Sy = 0.400 dy = 1.000 iy = 1

qu = 11478 kPa
Actual case


Memo
C.2 Settle Bearing Capacity Calculations
AECOM
31/31
40
30
20
10
38.38
Rectangular Load 1
0
Total Settlement (mm)

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
-10
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
-20
51.0
max (stage): 50.0 mm
max (all): 50.0 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
R1060 - Development of Al Sayel Link
Analysis Description
Underpass - BC Check - 1m - 10x20 - GM1
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-1m-10x20.s3z
40
30
20
10
50.2
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
-10
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
-20
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.2 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-1m-20x20.s3z
40
20
50.05
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
-20
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.1 mm
-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-1m-30x20.s3z
30
20
10
49.99
Rectangular Load 1
0

0
5
10
15
20
-10
25
30
35
40
45
50
-20
max (all): 50.0 mm

-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-2m-10x20.s3z
40
30
20
10
50.07
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
-10
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
-20
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.1 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-2m-20x20.s3z
40
20
45.66
Rectangular Load 1
0

0
5
10
-20
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-40
max (all): 49.9 mm

-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-2m-30x20.s3z
30
20
10
49.97
Rectangular Load 1
0

0
5
10
-10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-20

max (all): 50.0 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-3m-10x20.s3z
40
30
20
10
49.95
Rectangular Load 1
0

0
5
10
-10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-20
45
50
max (all): 49.9 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-3m-20x20.s3z
40
20
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
20.4
-20
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.2 mm
-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 ACES-3m-30x20.s3z
30
20
10
49.83
Rectangular Load 1
0

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10
35
40
45
50
max (all): 49.8 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
R1060 - Development of Al Asayel Link
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-1m-10x20.s3z
30
20
10
50.08
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
-10
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
-20

max (all): 50.1 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-1m-20x20.s3z
40
20
50.15
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
-20
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.2 mm
-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-1m-30x20.s3z
30
20
10
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
20.4
-10
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.0 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-2m-10x20.s3z
30
20
10
50.04
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
-10
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
-20

max (all): 50.0 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-2m-20x20.s3z
40
20
50.29
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
20.4
-20
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
max (all): 50.3 mm
-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-2m-30x20.s3z
30
20
10
49.8
Rectangular Load 1
0

-10
0
5
10
15
20
25
-20
30
35
40
45
50
max (all): 49.8 mm
-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-3m-10x20.s3z
30
20
10
50.12
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
15.3
20.4
-10
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
-20
max (all): 50.1 mm

-10 0 10 20 30
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-3m-20x20.s3z
40
20
50.05
Rectangular Load 1
0

0.0
5.1
10.2
-20
15.3
20.4
25.5
30.6
35.7
40.8
45.9
51.0
-40
max (all): 50.0 mm

-20 0 20 40
Project
Drawn By Company
SN AECOM
Date File Name
SETTLE3 5.023
28/03/2024 Gen-3m-30x20.s3z

Volume 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Volume 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROADS & TRANSPORT

‫ ﺗطوﯾر وﺻﻠﺔ اﻷﺻﺎﯾل‬- ‫ ﺗﺣﺳﯾﻧﺎت ﻣﺣور اﻟﺷﯾﺦ راﺷد‬- 1060/2‫ط‬

Roads & Transport Authority AECOM Middle East Ltd.

RTA MAY 2024

VOLUME 1 - TENDERER & CONTRACT CONDITIONS

 PART I - RTA SPECIFICATIONS

o BOOK 1 – ROAD WORKS

o BOOK 2 – SERVICE WORKS & APPENDICES

o BOOK 1 - DM GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS, PART-1

o BOOK 2 - DM GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS, PART-2

Volume 3 - BILL OF QUANTITIES

Volume 5 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

May 2024 Tender Document 1

C.R. No. 120196

T: +971 4 439 1000

To: Project name:

1.1 Project Description

• Oud Metha Road to the Wafi Interchange

The extent of the works includes potential works such as:

• Vehicle Bridges / overfly bridges,

• Retaining walls/MSE walls, and

• Underpasses (i.e., vehicular culverts)

The location of these features is shown in Figure 1-1 below.

Figure 1-1 Project Site Location

Table 1-1 Summary of Structures List within the Proposed Development

2. Available Geotechnical Data

2.1 Available Factual Reports

parking / link to Oud

Metha ramp bridge

R1060/2 Project Limits

Figure 2-1 Location of Available Factual Reports

2.2 Available Relevant Data

Table 2-1 Summary of Relevant Borehole and GI Data

700 m away from

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

Table 2-2 Summary of Subsurface Conditions with Each Region

Light brown / brown/ greyish brown /

Light brown silty to very silty, gravelly

Light brown fine to medium grained

Light brown to brown, slightly shelly to

Light brown to brown, slightly shelly to

-0.67 to Light grey to grey, slightly shelly,

Light brown to brown, very thinly to

Off white to light brown, slightly

Slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to Medium Dense

Grey to yellowish grey, slightly silty, Very Loose to

Brown to reddish brown, very thinly to

Very thinly to thinly bedded, fine to

Off white, very thinly to thinly bedded

2.4 Aerial / Satellite Images

Figure 2-2 Project Site History

3. Preliminary Ground Models

3.1 Design Values

‘Design Value = Average – 1.0 x Standard Deviation’

3.2 Inferred Regional Ground Models

0.00 3.00 1.71 -1.29 Medium dense silty Sand 21 3.2 18 - - -

3.00 6.00 -1.29 -4.29 Dense silty Sand 37 3.6 32 - - -

6.00 6.31 -4.29 -4.60 Very dense silty Sand 50 - 50 - - -

Medium dense silty

4.50 15.80 0.04 -11.26 Very dense silty Sand 50 - 50 - - -

3.3 Assigned Geotechnical Parameters

3.3.1 Rock Strength

Table 3-4: Characteristic Rock Mass Geotechnical Parameter Values

Relevant Lithology Unit Design J V2 GSI mi MR Values Erm Cohesion Friction