UNIVERSITY OF TIKRIT

ENGINEERING CONSULTING
BUREAU

SOIL INVESTIGATION
REPORT

Muderiat Al-Ahwaal Al-Gensia Building

Samera’

May 2002
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. Authorization.

1.2. Site Location and Description.

2. FIELD EXPLORATION.

2.1. Method of Drilling.

2.2. Sampling.

3. LABORATORY TESTING.

3.1. Physical Tests.

3.2. Chemical Tests.

3.3. Mechanical and Strength Tests.

4. SOIL CONDITION.

5. CONCLUSIONS.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS.

7. APPENDEX.
1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1. AUTHORIZATION:

This soil investigation report which concerns the site of

Muderiat AL-Ahwaal Al-Gensia Building/Samera’
has been conducted by the Engineering Consulting
Bureau, University of Tikrit. The work was done for the
interest of salah al-deen governate according to their
letter No. dated / / 2002.
The soil investigation report presents the results of
physical, chemical and mechanical tests that were carried
on representative soil samples. These results were
analyzed to establish adequate recommendations for the
proposed project.

1.2. SITE LOCATION AND DESICRIPTION:

The proposed site of the project is located in East Samera’
district of Samera’ city. It is located behind the Electric Supply Power
of Samera’
The site area is not flat and the top soil is very loose with a
light brown color. The soil is almost seems as homogeneous
layer and contains some pieces of hard gypsum crystals with
little amount of gravel
2.FIELD EXPLORATION:
2.1 DRILLING METHOD:
Drilling was performed by excavating opened test pits at
selected positions. The depths of these pits was greater than
two meters. Representative soil samples were then carefully
secured.

2.2 SAMPLING:
Undisturbed soil blocks were taken from the pits in addition to
the disturbed soil samples. All these samples were wrapped,
sealed tightly in plastic bags, labeled and transported to the soil
mechanics laboratory, Engineering College, University of Tikrit
to perform the required tests.

3. LABORATORY TESTING:
The obtained samples were tested according to the procedure
of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or
the British Standards (BS) whichever is appropriate. The test
program of the samples includes the followings:

3.1. Physical Tests:

3.1.1. Grain Size Analysis:
The grain size analysis of the soil samples were carried out by
both:
a. Sieve Analysis.
 b. Hydrometer Test.
From the results of these tests Figure (1) below is plotted. It can
be noticed that percentage retained on No. 200 sieve (soil
fraction greater then 0.074 mm.) is about 87% . This finding
implies that the soil is mainly coarse grained soil and classified as
poorly graded gravel with a mixture of sand and silt.

3.1.2. Atterberg Limits:

The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the soil
samples were obtained. The results of these tests were used to
classify the soil according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. The obtained average values of these limits are as
follows:
Liquid Limit (L.L.) = 34.6
Plastic Limit (P.L.) = 31.6
Plasticity Index (P.I.) = 3
These values indicate that the tested soil is almost non-plastic
and therefore, it is mainly classified as a coarse grained soil.

3.1.3. Specific Gravity Test:

The specific gravity (Gs) of the soil samples were obtained as
well. An average value of (Gs) of about (2.72) is adopted in this
report.

3.1.4. Compaction Test:

Modified Procter compaction test was carried on some soil
samples. The main aim of this test is to obtain the maximum dry
density and the relevant optimum moister content. The results
of this test indicate that:
Maximum Dry Density = 17.0 kN/ m3 .
Optimum Moister Content = 15%.

3.2. Chemical Tests:

Due to the nature of the soil in this area, special emphasis
should be paid to the chemical composition of the soil. The
chemical tests in this report include:
a. Gypsum Content.
b. Total Soluble Salts (T.S.S.).
c. Sulphate Content (SO3 ).
d. Organic Matters Content.
e. Carbonate Content (CO3).
f. Chlorides Content (Cl).
g. PH value.
The results of these tests are displayed in Table (1) below:

Table (1): Results of The Chemical Tests.

Gypsum Content. 24%
Total Soluble Salts (T.S.S.). 28.18%
Sulphate Content (SO3 ) 19.2%
Organic Matters Content 14.5%
Carbonate Content (CO3) 0.51%
Chlorides Content (Cl) 0.31%
PH value 7.31
3.3. Mechanical and Strength Tests:
These important tests were carried out on representative
undisturbed samples. The main purposes of these tests were to
evaluate the shear strength parameters and the compression
index of the soil.

3.3.1. Direct Shear Test:

This test was achieved in the soil mechanics laboratory of the
University of Mosul. The results of this test indicate that:
a. The effective angle of internal friction (’ ) = 27-31o.
b. The effective cohesion ( c’ ) = 5 kN /m2.
The values of the strength parameters indicate that the soil is
almost (cohesionless soil).

3.3.2. One Dimensional Confined Compression Test:

This test was carried out to evaluate the compression index
(Cc) the soil. The value of this parameter is required in the
calculations of the foundation settlement. The obtained value of
this parameter is about (0.07-0.14). This value indicates that
the compressibility of the soil is relatively medium.

4. SOIL CONDITION:
Depending on the results of the laboratory tests and the field
observations, the soil condition at the proposed location can be
summarized as follows:
ㄱ The upper 1.0m of the soil is almost silty sand and gravel
It also contains some organic matters and crystals of
gypsum. This layer has insignificant effects on the
foundations because the depth of foundations is usually
greater than the thickness of this layer.
ㄱ The most important layer is that located below the
foundations and most of the laboratory tests carried on
representative samples obtained from this layer. The
results indicate that this layer is poorly graded gravel with a
mixture of sand and silt. The gypsum content is about 24%
while the total soluble salts is slightly greater than 28%.
ㄱ From the values of strength parameters an estimated
value for the ِallowable bearing capacity of about 100 kN/m 2
(10 ton/m2) can be proposed.
ㄱ The value of the compression index (Cc) indicates that the
expected settlement of the foundation will be the control
factor for the foundation design and must be within
acceptable limits.

5. CONCLUSIONS:
ㄱ It can be concluded that the upper 1.0 m of the soil is not
suitable to be a bearing layer because of the significant
amount of soluble salts and organic materials.
ㄱ Below 1.5m depth the soil is more suitable for placing the
building foundations. The existence of high amount of
soluble salts (about 28%) makes it necessary to account for
 some precautions regarding preventing the water from
reaching relevant depths.
ㄱ No signs were indicated regarding the depth of ground
water table which is expected to be countered at relatively
greater depths in this region.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations can be presented:
1. Considering the nature of the building and the soil condition, the
suggested foundation of the building is continuous wall footing.
2. The depth of excavated soil for placing the foundation is
recommended to be about 1.5 m. Not less than 0.50 m thick
compacted sub-base to be placed below the footing.
3. The footing width should not be less than 1.0 m.
4. The external walkways are recommended to be not less than 2.0m
wide. Sulphate resisting cement plus adequate protective coating
is recommended to be used in the foundation concrete which must
be reinforced.
Amera I. Hussian Rafi’ M. Sulaiman Dr. Ala’ N. Al-Jorany
Asst. Prof. Asst. Prof. Asst. Prof.
Geologist Soil Mech. & Found. Eng. Soil Mech. & Found. Eng
Univ. of Tikrit Univ. of Tikrit Univ. of Tikrit