Final Soil Investigation Report for Safwan DGS

ENI - IRAQ
ZUBAIR OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final Soil Investigation Report for Safwan DGS

phase 1 and 2
CD-FE 00 05.06.11 FINAL ISSUE

Validity Rev.
Prepared Checked Approved Contractor Company
Status number Date Description
by by by Approval Approval
Revision Index
Company logo and business name Project name Company Document ID
ZUBAIR OIL FIELD 00251400BARS95000
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
exploration & production division Job N.
Contractor logo and business name Contractor Document ID
Contract N.
Vendor logo and business name Vendor Document ID
Order N.
Facility Name Location Scale Sheet of Sheets
ZUBAIR FIELD – SAFWAN ONSHORE n.a. 1 of 124
DGS
Document Title Supersedes N.
Final Soil Investigation Report for Safwan DGS - phase 1 and 2 Superseded by N.
Plant Area Plant
Unit
Software: Microsoft Word 97-2003 File No. 00251400BARS95000_CDFE00_124.pdf
This document is property of Eni S.p.A. Exploration & Production Division.

It shall neither be shown to Third Parties not used for purposes other than those for which it has been sent.
University of Basra
College of Engineering
Engineering Consulting Bureau
Final Report/Phase 1 and 2
Soil Investigation for

Safwan DGS/Zubair Field
Basra, IRAQ
Submitted to
eni-Iraq
June/2011
Report No. 2/SI/F/2011

Contents
1- Introduction
1.1- General
1.2- Authorization
1.3- Site Location and Description
2- Field Investigation
2.1- General
2.2- Drilling and Sampling of Boreholes
2.3- Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
2.4- Spacing of Soil Samples
2.5- Test Pits
2.6- Plate Load Test (PLT)
2.7- Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Resistivity.
3- Laboratory Testing For Soils
3.1- General
3.2- Method of Testing
3.3- Moisture Content and Unit Weight
3.4- Particle Size Analysis
3.5- Direct Shear Test
3.6- Permeability
3.7- Modified Proctor Test
3.8- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test
3.9- Chemical Tests
4- Subsurface Conditions
4.1- Subsoil Material Description

4.2- Underground Water Level
5- Geology and Seismicity
5.1- Regional Geology

5.2- Local Subsurface and Surface Geology
5.3- Seismic Hazard
5.4- Other Risks and Hazards
5.5- Liquefaction Potential
5.6- Seismic Design Parameters
6- Earthwork
6.1- Lowering of Groundwater Level

6.2- Excavation Difficulties
6.3- Preparation Works
6.4- Fill Material
6.5- Roads
6.6- Compaction Requirements
6.7- Shrinkage of Soil
6.8- Cut and Filled slopes
6.9- Shoring
6.10- Drainage
6.11- Pavement Design
7- Results and Discussion
7.1- Shear Strength

7.2- Chemical Properties
7.3- Gypsum
7.4- Plate Loading Test
8- Analysis and Recommendations
8.1- Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) of Shallow Foundations

8.2- Allowable Bearing Capacity for Transient Loads
8.3- Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundations
8.4- Allowable Settlement
8.5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
8.6- Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure
8.7- Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation
8.8- Group Effect
8.9- Lateral Resistance of Piles
8.10- Pile Loading Test
8.11- Elastic Properties of Soil
8.12- Surface Drainage
8.13- Design Parameters Summary
8.14- Type of Foundation
References
Appendices
Appendix A: Borehole Logs

Appendix B: Test Pit Logs
Appendix C: SPT Results
Appendix D: Lab Tests Results
Appendix E: Thermal Resistivity Results
Appendix F: Plate Bearing Test Results
Appendix G: CBR and Modified Proctor Tests Results
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field / Safwan DGS - Phase 1 and 2
1-Introduction
1.1-General
This report presents the results of a subsurface investigation for proposed
constructions on Zubair Field/Safwan DGS – Phase 1 and 2 in Basra Governorate. It
summarizes the data obtained and presents our conclusions and recommendations based
on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. Design
parameters and a discussion of engineering conditions related to construction of the
proposed constructions are also included. The assignment was taken on April through
May, 2011.
1.2-Authorization
The soil investigation for the mentioned site has been conducted
by the Engineering Consulting Bureau (ECB) – University of Basra at the request by
eni-Iraq.
1.3- Site Location and Description

The proposed site is located in Basra Governorate about 49.29 km from Basra city.
At the time of field works, the site was an agricultural area. The site is relatively flat.
2- Field Investigation
2.1- General
The field work for this study was conducted in April, 2011. Field activities include
the following:
1- 14 boreholes to depths of 15m to 40m below existing ground surface.

2- 4 Test Pits to a depth of 3m.
3- 4 Plate Loading Tests.
4- 9 Thermal Resistivity Tests.
The locations of all field works were setup by the client. All activities were
continuously supervised on site by ECB engineers. UTM coordinates of all field activities
are shown in the attached appendices.
2.2- Drilling and Sampling of Boreholes

Boreholes were advanced using rotary drill method according to ASTM D-5783.
Undisturbed samples were extracted using Shelby tube according to ASTM D-1587.
These samples which represent as closely as the true in- situ structure and water contents
of the soil, are taken from the thin walled tube. The tube (75mm- diameter, 600mm-
length) is drive for its full extent into the soil and then withdraws with its content. After
extraction, the samples were trimmed off, caped with paraffin wax, and sealed properly at
both ends.
1
Eni-Iraq
2.3- Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The disturbed samples were collected by driving a 40mm outer diameter split
spoon sampler in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure
described in ASTM D-1586. The number of blows required for a 63.5 kg hammer falling
through 760mm to drive the split spoon sampler for the final 300mm of the total 450mm
penetration is usually referred to as the SPT value. If 50 blows are reached before
penetration of 300mm, no further blows are applied and the actual penetration is
recorded.
The measured SPT values have been corrected for effective overburden pressure,
using the following formula which proposed by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn:
NC = Cn x N
Cn= 0.77 log(2000/qo)
where:
N: the measured SPT value from the field test.
NC: the corrected SPT value.
Cn: the correction factor.
qo: the effective overburden pressure (kN/m2).
If the soil layer is below the water level and consists of silty fine sand, the above
corrected value is further corrected using the below formula suggested by Terzaghi and
Peck, 1967. This formula is used only when N > 15.
N = 15 + 0.5(NC – 15)
The corrected SPT values at different depths are listed in Appendix A. Undisturbed
samples were used for strength and compressibility tests and disturbed or undisturbed
samples as available are used for classification tests.
2.4- Spacing of Soil Samples

It is frequently specified that soil samples should be taken at intervals
(1.5-3.0m) and at each change of strata in boreholes. In this investigation, representative
samples were taken at every 1.5m and at changes in soil properties in the first 6m from
ground level and at every 3m and at changes in soil properties below 6m. The depths at
which the samples were recovered are shown on borehole logs (Appendix A).
2
Eni-Iraq
2.5- Test Pits
The field work also includes excavating (4) test pits to a depth of 3 m below
existing ground surface. Excavations were advanced by backhoe. Bulk samples were
obtained from tailings generated during excavation at intervals of 1 m. Recovered
samples were sealed in plastic containers and transported to the laboratory for further
classification and testing. The logs of test pits are included in Appendix B.
2.6- Plate Load Test (PLT)

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the modulus of subgrade reaction and to
facilitate and determine the bearing capacity and settlement of the top soil layers. The test
has been made according to ASTM D-1194 by using a circular plate with diameter of 0.3
m and load to a pressure of 550 kPa.
The field work consists of conducting (4) tests at the location, within the foundation
area at 0.5 m depth beneath the ground surface. At the laboratory, a program was used to
analyze the data and plot the curves between applied pressure and recorded settlement of
the plate, and evaluate the modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil. The test locations,
details, and results are included in Appendix F.
2.7- Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Resistively

Thermal parameters are usually used in the thermal analysis of underground electrical
transmission lines, oil pipelines, radioactive waste disposal, and solar thermal storage
facilities. In situ thermal conductivity and thermal resistivity have been measured using a
transient heat method according to ASTM-D5334. Single needle-KD2 pro device is used
for this purpose. The rate at which heat flows through a material is a measure of its
thermal conductivity. In this test method the thermal conductivity is determined by
inserting a relatively long needle of small diameter into the material. The needle consists
of both heating and temperature measuring elements. To perform the test a known
amount of current is passed through the heater element and the resulting variation of
temperature is monitored as a function of time.
Thermal conductivity (K) and thermal resistivity (ρ) of the specimen are computed
using the following formulae:
Q
K= ln(t 2 / t1 )
4π (T2 − T1 )
1
ρ =
K
3
Eni-Iraq
where:
Q: Power consumption of heater wire in Watts per unit length that is assumed to be the
equivalent of heat output per unit length of wire.
T1, T2: initial and final temperatures (oC)
t1, t2: initial and final times (seconds)
K: thermal conductivity (W/m- oC)
ρ: thermal resistivity (m- oC /W)
Locations of the tested samples and test results are shown in Appendix E.
3- Laboratory Testing for Soils

3.1- General:
A Laboratory testing program was carried out to aid classification and to evaluate the
engineering properties of the subsurface soil. The program includes the determination of
natural moisture content, unit weight (natural and dry), particle size distribution, direct
shear test, CBR, permeability, maximum dry density, and chemical tests for soil and
water.
The results of laboratory tests are summarized in Appendices D and G.
3.2- Method of Testing

All tests were carried out according to the recommendations and procedures of ASTM
and BSI. The types and numbers of laboratory tests are as follows:
Test No. of tests Method of Testing

Moisture content 75 ASTM-D2216
Grain size analysis 124 ASTM-D422
Direct shear test 30 ASTM-D3080
CBR test 4 ASTM-D1883
Permeability 4 ASTM-D2434
Modified Proctor test 77 ASTM D-1557
Chemical tests / soil 5 BS: 1377-3
Chemical tests / water 4 BS: 1377-3
3.3- Moisture Content and Unit Weight

Water content determination is a routine laboratory test to determine the amount of
water present in a quantity of soil in terms of its dry weight. The oven drying method
(standard method) is used with a procedure as indicated by ASTM D-2216.
The moisture content of the soil, w, is calculated as a percentage of the dry soil mass,
from the equation:
4
Eni-Iraq
m 2 − m3
w= × 100%
m3 − m1
where:
m1: the mass of container (g).
m2: the mass of container and wet soil (g).
m3: the mass of container and dry soil (g).
Bulk unit weight ( γ b ): is the weight of bulk soil per unit volume:
Wb
γb =
V
Dry unit weight ( γ d ): is the weight of dry soil per unit volume:
Wd γ
γd = =
V 1+ w
where:
Wb: weight of bulk soil (g).
Wd: weight of dry soil (g).
V: volume of soil simple (cm3)
w: moisture content.
3.4- Particle Size Analysis

The particle size distribution of a coarse-grained soil is determined by the method of
sieving. The soil sample is passed through a series of standard test sieves having
successively smaller mesh sizes. The weight of soil retained in each sieve is determined
and cumulative percentage by weight passing each sieve is calculated.
The particle size distribution of a fine-grained soil is determined by the method of
hydrometer. Full details of the determination of particle size distribution by both sieve
and hydrometer methods are given in ASTM D-422.
3.5- Direct Shear Test

Direct shear tests were performed on the samples obtained from boreholes of
different depths below ground level to compute shear resistance. The samples were
compacted in the standard square mould (10x10x3 cm) near the natural moisture content
and density. The shearing device is motorized strain controlled. The normal face is
applied by a lever loading yoke, which is activated by dead weights. Porous stones are
5
Eni-Iraq
inserted to allow drainage from the soil specimen along the top and bottom boundaries.
This test has been conducted according to ASTM-D3080.
3.6- Permeability
Two standard laboratory tests are used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of soil;
the constant head test and the falling head test.
The constant head test (ASTM-D2434) is used to determine the hydraulic

conductivity of coarse grained soils. Water is allowed to flow through a cylindrical
sample of soil under constant head (h). The outflow (Q) is collected in a measuring
cylinder at a convenient duration (t). The hydraulic conductivity in the vertical direction
is given by:
K z = QL /(t Ah)
where L and A are respectively, the length and cross-sectional area of the soil sample.
The falling head test is used for fine grained soils because the flow of water through
these soils is too slow to get reasonable measurements from the constant head test. Water
is allowed to flow through a sample from a stand pipe attached to the top of the cylinder.
The head of water (h) changes with times as flow occurs through the soil. At different
times, the head of water is recorded. The value of hydraulic conductivity is calculated as
follows:
K z = ((aL ) /( A(t 2 − t1 )) * ln(h1 / h2 )

where:
a: cross sectional area of the tube.
L, A: length and cross sectional area of the soil sample.
h1, h2: the head of water at times t1, t2 respectively.
3.7- Modified Proctor Test

The modified Proctor test (ASTM-D1557) was developed to cover laboratory
compaction method to determine the relationship between molding water content and dry
unit weight of soils. A soil at a selected molding water content is placed in five layers
into a mold of (101.6 mm) diameter, with each layer compacted by 25 blows of (44.48 N)
rammer dropped from a distance of (457.2mm) subjecting the soil to a total compaction
effort of about (2700 kN-m/m3). The resulting dry unit weight is determined. The
procedure is repeated for a sufficient number of molding water contents to establish
relationship between the dry unit weight and the molding water content for the soil. This
data, when plotted, represent a curvilinear relationship known as the compaction curve.
6
Eni-Iraq
The values of optimum water content and modified maximum dry unit weight are
determined from the compaction curve.
3.8- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

This test is carried out according to ASTM D-1883-07. This method covers the
determination of CBR of soil which is a load test applied to the surface and used in soil
investigations as an aid to the design of pavements. The laboratory test uses a circular
piston to penetrate material compacted in a mold at a constant rate of penetration. The
CBR is expressed as the ratio of the unit load on the piston required to penetrate 2.5 mm
and 5 mm of the test soil to the unit load required to penetrate a standard material of well-
graded crusted stone.
3.9- Chemical Tests

− −
Chemical tests for soil (chlorides Cl , sulphates So4 , gypsum, organic, carbonates,
− −
and PH) and water (chlorides Cl , sulpthates So4 , total dissolved solids TDS, and PH)
are carried out according to BS: 1377-part 3.
4- Subsurface Conditions
4.1- Subsoil Material Description
The subsoil strata encountered at the investigated location are detailed on the borehole
logs. The soil strata were found to be consisting of medium to very dense, brown, silty
sand and sometimes with gravel OR medium to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
with silt and sometimes with gravel. These layers are extended from the natural ground
surface to the end of boring. Lenses of dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded gravel
with silt and/or sand were appeared at some boreholes at different depths.
4.2- Underground Water Level

At the time of investigation, groundwater table was encountered at depths ranging
from 14.0m to 14.5m below the ground level (see below). This level may be changed by
the effects of rainfall, temperature, tides, dewatering, or by other effects. Therefore
reconfirmation is recommended prior to any works related to the ground water table. For
a long period monitoring, stand pipes or piezometers installed in boreholes are
recommended.
7
Eni-Iraq
Borehole No. GWL (m) Borehole No. GWL (m)

BH1101 14.0 BH1109 14.0
BH1102 14.3 BH1111 14.0
BH1103 14.5 BH1112 14.3
BH1104 14.0 BH1114 14.2
BH1105 14.4 BH1118 14.2
BH1106 14.2 BH2013 14.1
BH1108 14.4 BH2015 14.3
5- Geology and Seismicity

5.1-Regional Geology
Iraq is located in north-eastern part of Arabian plate. Tectonically, the stable platform
interior of the Arabian plate is surrounded by passive margins from the western and
southern sides which they are located at the spreading ridges of the Red Sea and the Gulf
of Aden. The north-western boundary is represented by Levant transcurrent fault.
Masirah fault zone, in Oman, is in the south eastern boundary of Arabian plate. And the
northern and northeastern boundaries of it are compressional zone due to the Late-
Tertiary collision of the Arabian Plate from one side and Turkish and Iranian contents
form the other side. During the Late-Precambrian Pan African development of the
Arabian Plate, the combined activity of successive subduction of Arabian plate
underneath the Iranian and Anatolian plates and arc accretion has led to form the
basement terranes. The outcrop of these terranes is well defined in Arabian shield of
Western Saudi Arabia. The subsequent development of the Phanerozoic basins of the
Arabian plate was highly affected by the basement terranes so that the tectonic fabric and
evolution of Iraq can be understood because of the extension of these terranes beneath the
sedimentary column of Iraq. The youngest sediments Quaternary and Neoene-aged lie
within the central depression (Fig. 1) while the flanks expose older strata of Palaeogene
to Palaeozoic age. The central depression is defined as a low-topographic cultivated area
and extends from Syria to the Arabian Gulf. Almost all the young sedimentary cover in
Iraq has filled the northwest-southeast oriented trough (central depression) which is
flanked by a gently-inclined plateau to the west and south-west and a series of ridges and
depressions passing into mountainous area in the northeast. In general, the Quaternary
deposits in Iraq can be divided into two zones, the Rutba-Jazira and Salman zone and the
Mesopotamian zone. The site of interest is classified in Mesopotamian zone. The
8
Eni-Iraq
Mesopotamian plain extends from northwest of Baiji as a narrow area and gradually
becomes much broader toward the Arabian Gulf southeast-ward. The total area covered
by this sedimentary zone is 110,000 km2 (Saad et al., 2006).
5.2- Local Subsurface and Surface Geology

The local stratigraphic sequence can be summarized in (Fig.2). The formation of
Zubair zone comprises 380-400 m of alternating shale, siltstone and sandstone. The type
section was divided into five informal sand and shale units used for reservoir description
in the Zubair oil field. To the SW the proportion of shale in the formation rapidly
decreases. In the Salman zone the formation consists only of sandstone. The proportion
of sandstone in the formation also decreases to the NE; the formation consists almost
entirely of shale near Dujaila in Central E Iraq. The Zubair formation passes laterally into
the limestone-marl of the Shu’aiba or Sarmord formations in the Buzurgan area. The
formation is thickest in the type area in S Iraq; the depocenter is located at the boundary
of the Salman and Mesoptamian zones. There are no surface structural features (e.g.,
faults, folds, and joints) in this area (OEC, 1996 and Saad et al., 2006).
9
Eni-Iraq

m
Safwan DGS Site
Figure 1: Topographic Map of Iraq shows the location of Safwan DGS site.
10
Eni-Iraq
Formation Age Average depth

Lithology
(m)
Dibdiba Holocene
Upper‐Faris
Tertiary
AlGa’ar
Dammam
1000
Um‐Rudima
Tayarat
Shiranish
Hartha
Sa’adi
Tanuma
Kaseeb
Mushrif
Cretaceous
Rumaila 3000
Ahmadi
Maudud
Nahar‐Umar
Shua’iba
Zubair
Ratawi
Yamama 4000
Sulay
Qutnia
Figure 2: Stratigraphic sequence of southern Iraq‐Basra, not to scale
(OEC, 1996 and Saad et al., 2006).
11
Eni-Iraq
5.3- Seismic Hazard
The seismological records of Iraq show that the annual seismic activity of different
strength. Highest level of seismic activity of Iraq is concentrated in the north and
northeastern parts of Iraq; these seismic activities are strongly diminution in the south
and southwestern parts of Iraq (Fig. 3).
Figure 3: Seismotectonic setting of Iraq and the geographical distribution of seismic
activities along the eastern border of Iraq. (Earthquakes records are from Advanced

National Seismic System (ANSS) Catalog).

The tectonic and seismic activities are because of the location of Iraq northeastern
boundaries of the Arabian plate. As it is clear from (Fig. 3), the geographical distribution
of seismicity is inhomogeneous and the activity is focused in the high folded and the
Balambo-Tanjero zones. The majority of focal depth is shallow. Alsinawi (2003)
constructed a historical isointensity map of Iraq (Fig.4-a) and a general isointensity map
(Fig.4-b). The potential seismic hazard and risk is always associated with the surface
rupture occurs as a fault breaks to the land surface during an earthquake. The site is not
12
Eni-Iraq
subject to such scenario because it is required an earthquake greater than 6.5 magnitude.
Therefore, the seismic hazard and risk is small in terms of the historical and current
seismic record of southern part of Iraq.
A B
Figure 4: A) historical isointensity map of Iraq. B) General isointesity of Iraq
(Alsinawi and Alqasrani, 2003)

Bolton (1958) divided the structural framework of Iraq into three prominent zones,
thrust zone, folded zone, and unfolded zone. The southern part of Iraq where located the
proposed site is situated in the unfolded zone so that it is unequivocal that the proposed
site resides in a relatively stable zone seismically and tectonically.
5.4- Other Risks and Hazards

The sits is relatively flat and no slopes were detected, so slope instability and
landslides are unlikely to take place. Moreover no flood hazard is expected in the site
because its location is far away for water masses.
5.5- Liquefaction Potential

The typical subsurface soil condition that is susceptible to liquefaction is loose sand
that has been newly deposited or placed, with a groundwater table near ground surface.
During an earthquake, the application of cyclic shear stresses induced by the propagation
of shear waves causes the loose sand to contract, resulting in an increase in pore water
pressure. Because seismic shaking occurs so quickly the cohesionless soil is subjected to
13
Eni-Iraq
an undrained loading. The increase in pore water pressure causes an upward flow of
water to the ground surface, where it emerges in the form of mud spouts or sand boils.
The development of high pore water pressures due to the ground shaking and the upward
flow of water my turn the sand into a liquefied condition, which has been termed
liquefaction. For this state of liquefaction, the effective stress is zero and the individual
soil particles are released from any confinement, as if the soil particles were floating in
water.
When liquefaction occurs, the soil can become a liquid and thus the shear strength of
the soil can be decreased to essentially zero. Without any shear strength, the liquefied soil
will be unable to support the foundations for buildings.
The potential for liquefaction increases as the earthquake intensity and duration of
shaking increases. According to the '' National Research Council , Ishihara 1985" , a
liquefaction analysis would typically not be needed for those sites having a peak ground
acceleration amax less than 0.1 g or a local magnitude ML less than 5.
The most common type of analysis to determine the liquefaction potential is to use the
standard penetration test (SPT). The analysis is based on the simplified method proposed
by Seed and Idriss (1971). This method has been implemented as “Guidelines for
Analyzing and mitigating Liquefaction in California” SP 117.
Based on the above guideline procedures, liquefaction is unlikely to take place for this
site.
5.6- Seismic Design Parameters

Based of the soil type and site location and conditions described in this report, we
recommend the following values to be used for seismic design of the project in
accordance with section 1613.5.3 of IBC/2006.
Table (1): IBC/2006 Seismic Design Values
Parameter Value
Soil profile site class D
0.2 second Spectral Acceleration Ss 0.3g
1.0 second Spectral Acceleration S1 0.12g
Site Coefficient Fa 1.6
Site Coefficient Fv 2.4
14
Eni-Iraq
6- Earthwork
6.1- Lowering of Groundwater Level
The field tests indicate that the groundwater level is ranged between 14.0m – 14.5m
below the natural ground level. Therefore the excavation works of the upper unsuitable
soil and the construction of shallow foundation does not require the ground water table to
be lowering. However, construction of foundations at depths below the groundwater level
requires the use of dewatering system. Well points system is the most suitable for such
site conditions.
6.2- Excavation Difficulties

Based on the excavation field works of boreholes and test pits, we anticipate no
significant excavation difficulties in the site with conventional heavy-duty excavation
equipment in good working condition.
6.3- Preparation Works

Prior to placement of fill, the top soil layer should be removed to a depth not less than
0.3 m. All debris, organic matter, salts, unsuitable soils and deleterious material shall be
removed and disposed out of the site. Excavated top soil should not be incorporated into
fills. Instead, it may be stockpiled during initial grading operations for placement in areas
to be landscaped or for other approved uses. Excavation for more than 0.3 m depth shall
be made where removal of unsuitable material is required. Material excavated below
designed levels shall be replaced with engineering fill (subbase) and placed and
compacted as specified below.
Prior to filling, the top 0.2 - 0.3 m of subgrade layer on which fill soils will be placed
should be scarified, moisture conditioned and properly compacted in accordance with the
recommendations below to provide a uniform base for fill placement. For regions of
compressible soils, the field density cannot be reaching the required degree of
compaction. Such soils should be removed to a depth of about 0.3-0.5m and replaced
with a mixture of cobbles and coarse aggregate (particle size ranged between 50 – 150
mm) and compacted before placement of fill materials.
6.4- Fill Material

The material for earth filling may be taken from approved borrows pits. These
materials cannot be used until they are sampled, tested and submitted to and approved by
client. The filling material is a mixture of sand and gravel and shall be free of organic
materials, soluble salts, sulphate and gypsum. However, subbase type A or B may be
used as filling materials. The grading of these types should be in accordance with
SORB/R6 (Table 2). The fill material shall be compacted in layers not more than 0.25m
thickness (before compaction). The existing native soils that are free of trash, organic
materials, gypsum, construction debris and other deleterious material and meet the
grading requirements could be used for placement as compacted fill.
15
Eni-Iraq
Table (2): Engineering fill gradation according to (SORB/R6)
Sieve size Passing %
(mm)
Type A Type B Type C Type D
75 100 -
50 95-100 100
25 75-95 100 100
9 30-65 50-85 50-85 60-100
4.75 25-55 35-65 35-65 50-85
2.36 16-42 26-52 26-52 42-72
0.30 7-18 14-28 14-28 23-42
0.075 2-8 5-15 5-15 5-20
6.5- Roads
Soils beneath any proposed traffic-bearing pavement, including minimum lateral
distance of at least 0.6 m beyond pavement edges, should be excavated a minimum of 0.6
m below the existing grade. The bottom of excavation should then be scarified 0.15 m, be
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and be uniformly compacted to at
least 95% of maximum dry density using mechanical compaction equipment.
Compaction should be verified by testing.
6.6- Compaction Requirements

1. The subgrade soil, after cleaning and removal of unsuitable soil, shall be compacted
to 95% of maximum dry density.
2. Fill material shall be compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density.
3. Maximum dry density shall be obtained according to modified Proctor test (ASTM-
D1557)
16
Eni-Iraq
4. In place density test shall be determined by method accordance with ASTM-D 1556
or ASTM-D 2922.
5. Laboratory determination of moisture content of soil shall be calculated according

to ASTM-D2216.
6. Sheeps foot roller is recommend for fine grained subgrade layer and rubber-tired
rollers or vibrating compacters are recommended for coarse grained subgrade and
fill layers.
6.7- Shrinkage of Soil

Shrinkage because of excavation and compaction of the upper site soils is expected to
be approximately 25 percent of any excavated site soils. This estimate is based upon
compaction effort needed to produce an average degree of relative compaction of
approximately 96 percent. Losses for site clearing and grubbing operations may affect
quantity calculations and should also be taken into account.
6.8 Cut and Filled Slopes

Permanent site slopes supported by on-site cohesionless soils up to 3 m in height, or
up to the groundwater level whichever is smaller, may be constructed no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical). We recommend 1.5:1 slope for temporary excavations. For deeper
excavations or when seepage is encountered, the Geotechnical Engineer should be
retained to evaluate the conditions and provided additional recommendations, as
appropriate. The risk of slope instability will be significantly increased in areas of
seepage along excavating slopes.
6.9- Shoring
Should site constraints prohibit the use of the recommended slope angles, temporary
shoring should be used. The shoring should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure
exerted by structure, hydrostatic pressure, traffic, equipment, and stock piles.
6.10- Drainage
Good surface drainage should be provided around temporary excavation slopes to
direct surface runoff from the slope faces. A properly designed swale should be provided
at the top of the excavations. In no case should water be allowed to pond at the site.
17
Eni-Iraq
6.11- Pavement Design
Referring to Fig.(5), the pavement layers consists of:
1- Subgrade:
The subgrade layer represents the natural material located along the horizontal
alignment of the pavement and serves as the foundation of the pavement structure. Soil
which contains the following materials is not suitable as subgrade layer;
- More than 12% organic materials.

- Branches, roots, and all decomposition vegetation.
- More than10% of gypsum.
- Liquid limit and plasticity index more than 70 and 45, respectively.
- Surface layer
- Base layer
- SubBase layer
- Subgrade layer
Fig.(5): The pavement layers
2- Subbase Layer:
The specification of subbase layer according to the general Specifications Of Roads
and Bridges (SORB/R6):
(a) Gravel (retained on sieve 4.75mm)

- Percent of corrosion not exceed 45% according to the test (AASHTO T74-96).
- Texture index not more than 35%.
- Protraction index not more than 15%
.
(b) Fine materials ( passing on 4.75 mm)
- Organic materials not more than 2%
- For the materials passing on 0.425mm: LL ≤ 25, PI ≤ 6.
- Materials passing on 0.075 mm ≤ 2/3 of that passing on 0.425mm.
- Total soluble salt not more than 10%.
- SO4 not more than 5%.
- Gradation according to table (2).
18
Eni-Iraq
(c) CBR:
The CBR not less than 35% for type B, 30 for type C, and 20% for type D at 95%
of maximum dry density.
(d) Climatic border:
- Materials must not be spread when the temperature equal to or less than 3oC.
- Thickness of subbase layer not more than 20 cm, and the degree of compaction
not less than 95% for maximum dry density.
3- Base Layer
This layer supports the surface layer and carries and distributes the traffic loads to
bottom layers. Also, it protects the surface road from swelling or depression of natural
soil and leaks of ground water. Therefore, this layer must have good properties of
durability and resistance. The CBR should not be less than 40%.
4- Surface Layer:
In designing pavement thickness, the following factors should be considered:
- Design axle load.

- Material characteristics.
- Climate or environment.
For roads using by heavy trucks, we suggest 10cm surface layer, 10 cm asphalt base
layer, 10 cm stone base layer, and 30cm subbase layer. For roads using by small cars and
light weight tracks, we suggest 5cm surface layer, 7.5 cm asphalt base layer, 7.5 cm stone
base layer, and 20 cm subbase layer. The minimum thickness of the pavement layers for
different types of axle loads are given in table (3).
Table (3): Minimum thickness of pavement layers
The type of sub grade layer Local street Collector street Arterial street
5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer

5cm surface layer
Excellent sub grade layer (CBR>9%) 5cm asphalt base layer 5cm asphalt base layer
15 cm base layer
20 cm base layer 25 cm base layer
5cm surface 5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer
Moderate sub grade layer (CBR 5-9%) layer 5cm asphalt base layer 5cm asphalt base layer
15 cm base layer 25 cm base layer 30 cm base layer
5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer

5cm surface layer
Weak sub grade layer (CBR 2-5%) 5cm asphalt base layer 7cm asphalt base layer
30 cm base layer
30 cm base layer 35 cm base layer
19
Eni-Iraq
7- Results and Discussion
7.1- Shear Strength
Shear strength of cohesionless soils is usually described in terms of relative density.
The relative density is an index that quantifies the degree of packing between the loosest
and densest state of coarse grained soils. The density state of cohesionless soil can be
described as very loose, loose, medium, dense, and very dense. Some standards (like BS
5930) give the following relationship between N-value and the relative density of
cohesionless soils.
N-value
Relative density
(blows/300mm of penetration)
Below 4 Very loose
4-10 Loose
10-30 Medium-dense
30-50 Dense
Over 50 Very dense
Referring to the results of Direct Shear Test and SPT values, the relative density of the
cohesionless soil layers is ranged between medium to very dense.
7.2- Chemical Properties

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.
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.
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
20
Eni-Iraq
the concrete. This effect can be reduced by use of selected cements or by suitable
protection of the concrete.
The results of chemical analysis are given in Appendix D. Based on the requirements
of the International Building Code/2006 for concrete exposed to chlorides and sulphates,
we recommend to use sulphate resisting Portland Cement (Type V plus pozzolan) with
/
maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 and minimum concrete strength f c =31 N/mm2.
Also adequate coating of inert materials such as asphalt should protect all concrete works
that are in contact with subsoil.
7.3- Gypsum
The chemical tests of soil indicate to slightly-moderately gypsum content. The
gypsum particles are dense to the overburden and the applied loads. But after the site is
developed, there can be infiltration of water into the ground from rainfall, irrigation,
leaky water pipes or groundwater fluctuation. Gypsum is water soluble and it dissolves
when water penetrates the gypsiferous soils causing loss of cementation. The loss of
gypsum by dissolution leads not only to decrease in the strength and bearing capacity of
the foundation but also settlement of the footing. Two types of settlement can occur;
1. The collapse of the soil structure due to weakening of salt cemented bonds at
particle contacts.
2. The water can dissolve away the gypsum resulting in ground surface settlement.
As general to avoid problems of foundation on such soil, two kinds of provisions

are usually considered. First making the structure resistant to damage from soil
movement and this can be done by strengthening the structure to withstand movement
and second by avoiding percolation of water surround the structure’s foundation to the
zone beneath the base of footing. To insure the durability of the foundation the following
points were taken in the design criteria;
1. A factor of safety equal or greater than three (FS≥3) is adopted for all calculations
of bearing capacity formulas which is acceptable value for such type of soil.
2. One of the most practical and economical methods is through use of compaction
control for the backfill of the zone around the foundation with well compacted
subbase layer.
21
Eni-Iraq
7.4-Plate Loading Test
Obviously the most quick and fairly acceptable method of obtaining the ultimate
bearing capacity at a site is to perform a load test. This would directly give the bearing
capacity if the load test is on a full-size footing; however, this is not usually done since an
enormous load would have to be applied.
The plate bearing test is a well-known approach for determination of modulus of

subgrade reaction and bearing capacity of soils. This test, as in any other on-site testing
approach has advantages and disadvantages which could be briefly reviewed.
The advantages of the plate bearing test is that, it gives close simulation of actual
loading condition typically found in foundations. Also, the loaded volume of soil is large
by comparison with other tests, and therefore more representative. In plate bearing test,
there is close control of loading intensity, rate and duration which in turn provide more
representative results than laboratory testing not forgetting that plate bearing test could be
carried out in pits and open areas which reflects its flexibility.
On the other hand, the disadvantageous of this method of testing is that, a number of
tests are required to obtain coverage with depth for application to foundation designs.
Upward seepage pressure at the test level reduces effective stress and has significant
effects on the test results. Specialist technicians are necessary and the scale effects should
be considered as the results are difficult to interpret in some types of soils.
Although plate load tests may seem to be a reasonable approach, experience has
proven otherwise in certain cases. This is primarily because the plate is so much smaller
than the foundation, and we cannot always extrapolate the results accurately.
The depth of influence of the plate (about twice the plate width) is much shallower
than that of the real footing, as shown in the following figure, so the test reflects only the
properties of the near-surface soils.
In addition, because of the small size of the plate, and the fact that the test reflects
only the properties of the uppermost soils, results can be difficult to interpret especially
when the soil properties vary with depth.
Because of these problems, and because of the development of better methods of

testing and analysis, current engineering practice recommends strongly drilling boreholes
to obtain clearer image on the soil layers and properties. However, these tests are still
useful for other design problems, such as those involving wheel loads on pavement
subgrades, where the service loads act over smaller areas, and also for the foundations
where the area under question is well-known for the investigator historically and layer’s
nature wise.
22
Eni-Iraq
The stresses induced by a

plate load test do not
penetrate very deep into the
soil, so its load-settlement
behavior is not the same as
that of a full-sized footing
Back to the project in hand, the plot of pressure versus settlement and the modulus of
subgrade reaction values are enclosed in Appendix F. It is clear from the plots that the
modulus of subgrade reaction is high at one of the locations tested, while the result for
other locations yield moderate to low values. Gypsiferrous materials in appreciable
amount observed at some tested locations which shall seriously affect the settlement
magnitude especially when came in contact with water. The high figure of the modulus of
sub-grade reaction may be due the cementation of Sandy soil material with fine materials
and/or Gypsiferrous materials in its dry status.
8- Analysis and Recommendations

8.1- Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) for Shallow Foundations
Loads from structure are transferred to the soil through a foundation. A geotechnical
engineer must ensure that a foundation satisfies the following stability conditions:
1- The foundation must be safe agonist bearing capacity failure.

2- The foundation must not settle to such an extent that it damages the structure.
The allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations could be evaluated from one
of the following methods:
1- Bering capacity equation.
23
Eni-Iraq
The most commonly used bearing capacity equation is that equation developed by
Terzaghi:
q ult = C N c S c + 0 .5 γ B N γ S γ + γ D N q S q
where:
qult : ultimate bearing capacity (kPa).
B, L: width and length of the footing (m).
γ : unit weight of the soil (kN/m3).

D: depth of the footing (m).
C: Cohesion of the soil (kPa).
N c , N γ , N q : dimensionless bearing capacity factors.
S c , S γ , S q : dimensionless shape factors.
For strip footing, all of the shape factors equal 1.0. For rectangular footing of width B
and length L, commonly used shape factors are:
Sc = [1+0.3(B/L)], S γ = 0.8, Sq = 1.0
For cohesive soil, one should use the undrained shear strength in the ''Total Stress
Analysis’’. For such condition, the following parameters should be used:
φ = 0 , C = Su , Nc = 5.5 , N γ = 0 , Nq = 1 , and hence the bearing capacity equation

reduces to:
qult = 5.5 Su Sc + γ D
For cohesionless soils, the bearing capacity equation becomes:
q ult = 0.5 γB N γ S γ + γ D N q S q
The bearing capacity factor Nq is:
φ
N q = e π tan φ tan 2 ( 45 + )
2
24
Eni-Iraq
Various equations have been proposed for N γ in the literature. The one proposed by
Davis and Booker (1973) is based on a refined plasticity method and gives conservative
values compared with the others.
N γ = 0.1054 exp (9.6 φ ) for rough footing
N γ = 0.0663 exp (9.6 φ ) for smooth footing
The allowable bearing capacity ( qall ) , which is used to determine the size of
footing is given by the following equation .
qult
q all =
F
where:
qall : allowable bearing capacity (kPa).
F : factor of safety ( commonly F = 3).
2- The net allowable bearing capacity of cohesive soils is approximately equal to the
unconfined compressive strength ( qu ) with factor of safely F=3:
qall = qu
where qu is the unconfined compressive strength (kPa).
3- From SPT, AASHTO (2004) recommended that;

D
qult = 32 N B ( C w1 + C w 2 )
B
where:
N = SPT value (average value for a depth up to 1.5B below footing base).
B = foundation width.
Cw1, Cw2 = ground water factors given as:
25
Eni-Iraq
Depth of groundwater
Cw1 Cw2
Below finished grade
0 0.5 0.5
Df 0.5 1.0
1.5B + Df 1.0 1.0
Source AASHTO,2004.
4- For cohesionless material, the allowable bearing capacity could be estimated

based on the relationship between standard penetration resistance and the allowable
bearing capacity (Reproduced from K. Terzaghi and R.B. Peck-1967).
26
Eni-Iraq
5- Extrapotation of allowable bearing capacity for a full-size footing from the results
of plate loading test. For clay soils it is common to note that BNγ term is zero , so that
one might say that qult is independent of footing size, giving :
(qult) foundation = ( qult )plate

For cohesionless material one can use the following formula (J.E.Bowles);
B founndation
q ult = ( q ult ) plate ( )
B plate
The use of this equation is not recommended unless BFoundation / Bplate is not much more
than 3.
Based on the above equations, the allowable bearing capacity has been calculated
and the most critical values (minimum) among them were adopted. The recommended
allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundation is as listed below;
ABC at depth d=1.0m Alternative values of ABC at depth d

Borehole No
qall (kN/m2) qall (kN/m2) d (m)
BH1101 160 - -
BH1102 145 160 2.0
BH1103 70 160 2.5
BH1104 160 - -
BH1105 90 160 2.0
BH1106 130 160 2.0
BH1108 135 160 3.5
BH1109 160 - -
BH1111 50 160 2.0
BH1112 55 160 2.5
BH1114 160 - -
BH1118 160 - -
BH2013 160 - -
BH2015 105 160 2.5
27
Eni-Iraq
8.2- Allowable Bearing Capacity for Transient Loads
The indicated allowable bearing capacity values for shallow foundation (section 8.1)
may be increased by 1/3 when transient loads, such as wind or seismic forces are
included.
8.3- Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundations

It is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of coarse grained soils for testing in the
laboratory. Consequently, the settlement of footings on coarse-grained soils is obtained
based on empirical methods using test data from field tests. Meyerhof (1965) suggested
that the settlement under a shallow foundation can be estimated from SPT value using:
2q all
S e ( mm) = ; B ≤ 1.2m ; q all ( kPa)
N
3.2q all 1
S e (mm) = (1 + ) −2 ; B > 1.2m ; q all (kPa)
N 3.28 B
where qall is the allowable bearing capacity.
The elastic settlement could also be estimated from the results of plate loading test.
For D ≤ B and B≤ 6m:
4q B2
Se =
k v ( B + 0.3) 2
For D ≤ B and B ≥ 12m:
2q B2
Se =
k v ( B + 0.3) 2
where:
Se : elastic settlement of the footing (m).
q : vertical footing pressure (kPa)
B : footing width (m).
Kv : Subgrade modulus from the plate load test (kN/m3).
28
Eni-Iraq
D : depth of the footing below the ground surface (m).
It is necessary to interpolate between the above two equations for footing width between
6m and 12m.
8.4- Allowable Settlement

The excessive amount of differential settlement causes extra forces in the
superstructure. To reduce the amount of differential settlement (max. =12mm), the
maximum total settlement should be limited to a specific value. We recommend the
tolerable total settlement should not exceed 25mm for isolated footing or 50mm for raft
foundation.
8.5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

The modulus of vertical subgrade reaction required for design a continuous or raft
foundation may be computed using the following formulae (Bowles, J.E.):
Kv = 20 F qall kN/m3 [Mat foundation for settlement of 50mm]
Kv = 40 F qall kN/m3 [Spread or continuous footing for settlement 25mm]
where qall is the allowable bearing capacity of the soil and F is the factor of safety.
The modulus of subgrade reaction could also be estimated from the results of Plate
Loading Test. Back to the results of plate loading test given in Appendix F, it is clear
from the plots that the modulus of subgrade reaction is in the order of 82000 to 202000
kN/m3. We suggest a value for kv=120000 kN/m3 as a figure representing the site’s
subgrade reaction.
8.6- Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

The lateral earth pressure is a significant design parameter in retaining and
underground structures. Therefore, a quantitative estimate of the total lateral pressure on
structural members is required for either a design or stability analysis.
Based on the Rankine earth pressure theory, the horizontal earth pressure (active and
passive) is defined by the following formulae:
σ A = γz K A − 2c K A
σ p = γz K p + 2c K p
29
Eni-Iraq
where:
σA: active soil pressure (kN/m2)
σP: passive soil pressure (kN/m2)
KA, KP :coefficients of lateral soil pressure of active and passive states, respectively.
φ/ φ/
KA = tan2 ( 45 − ) KP = tan2 ( 45 + )
2 2
γ : effective unit weight of the soil (kN/m3).
Z : depth of the soil (m).
c : cohesion (kN/m2).
Ǿ : angle of internal friction (effective).
For the case of at rest condition, Ko should be used instead of KA or Kp. The
lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) is defined as the ratio between the lateral and
vertical principal effective stresses when an earth retaining structure is at rest.
For overconsolidated soil (OCR > 1), Ko is calculated by;
K o = (1 − sin φ / ) (OCR ) sin φ

/
and for normally consolidated soil (OCR =1) the above equation reduced to:
K o = (1 − sin φ / )
The typical values of (Ko) for different types of soils is as listed below (R.F. Grieg,
2002).
Soil Ko
Dense sand 0.35
Loose sand 0.6
Normally consolidated clays (Norway) 0.5-0.6
Clay, OCR=3.5 (London) 1.0
Clay ,OCR=20 (London) 2.8
30
Eni-Iraq
8.7- Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation
(a) Point Bearing Capacity:
For piles driven into cohesionless soils, the point bearing capacity can be expressed
as:
__
Qb = A p ( q Nq / ) ≤ A p (11000) kN
where:
Ap: Pile cross sectional area (m2).
q : Effective overburden pressure at pile point (kN/m2).
Nq' : Berezantev's bearing capacity factor.
For piles driven into cohesive soils, the point bearing capacity can be expressed as .
Qb=Ap(C Nc')
where:
C : cohesion (or undrained shear strength).
Nc' : deep foundation bearing capacity factor for cohesion.
Nc' = 9.0 for C > 25 kPa
Nc' = 6.0 for C ≤ 25 kPa
For standard penetration test (SPT) data, Meyerhof (1976) proposed:
Lb
Qb = Ap (40 N) ≤ Ap (380 N) kN
B
where:
N : average value taken in a zone of about 8B above to 3B below the pile point.
B : width or diameter of pile point.
Lb: pile penetration depth into point bearing stratum.
(b) Skin Friction Capacity:
In general, skin friction resistance is computed as;

_
Q s = ∑ As (α c + p k s tan δ ) = ∑ As f s
where:
As: Effective pile surface area (m2)
α : Adhesion factor.
31
Eni-Iraq
c : Average cohesion (kN/m2)
P: Average effective overburden pressure (kN/m2)
ks: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
δ : Effective friction angle between soil and pile material.
Skin friction could also be estimated based an SPT data for piles in sand. Meyerhof
(1976) suggested obtaining fs as ;
a. For piles with large-volume displacement (solid piles);
fs = 2N ≤ 100 kPa
b. For piles with small-volume displacement (H-piles)
fs = 1N ≤ 50 kPa
Shioi and Fukui (1982) suggest the following :
a. For driven piles:
fs = 2 N for sand = 10 N for clay
b. For bored piles:
fs = 1 N for sand = 5 N for clay
where:
N= average blow count in the material indicated for the pile or pile segment length.
(c) Uplift Resistance:

Piles are not only subjected to compression forces but also to uplift forces from
applied loads and moments. An estimation of the uplift resistance can be obtained by
applying a reduction factor for the skin frictional stress Qs for compressive loads as:
(Qult) uplift = C × Q s
where:
C = 0.5 – 0.7 for sand and silt
C = 0.7 – 1.0 for clay
Based on the above analysis, the allowable carrying capacity, with factor of safety
F=3, of the precast concrete pile, driven and cast in place piles, and bored piles extending
32
Eni-Iraq
to the bearing layer are calculated and the results are listed below. Calculations show
approximately same values for pile carrying capacities for different boreholes.
Allowable Carrying Allowable

Pile
Pile Capacity (kN) Lateral
Pile Type Length
Dimensions (m) Resistance
(m)
Compression Tension (kN)
Precast Concrete
0.285 x 0.285 9 500 200 130
Pile (Square)
φ 0.5 10 900 170 285

Driven and Cast in
Place (Round)
φ 0.8 10 2100 320 600
φ 0.7 10 1000 195 485

Bored Pile (Round)
φ 1.0 10 1950 335 860
8.8- Group Effect

A 15% - 20% reduction should be applied to the allowable carrying capacity of piles
given in section (8.7) due to pile group effect.
8.9- Lateral Resistance of Piles

Generalized solutions for laterally loaded vertical piles are given by Matlock and
Reese (1960). The solution involves the concept of modulus of subgrade reaction which
is based on Winkler's assumption that soil medium may be approximated by a series of
closely spaced independent elastic springs.
The key to the solution lies in the determination of the value of the modulus of
subgrade reaction Es (soil modulus) with respect to depth along the pile. In general, the
variation of Es with depth may be expressed as:
Es = Kh Xn
In which Kh is termed the coefficient of soil modulus variation. The value of the power n
depends upon the type of soil. The most useful form of variation of Es is the linear
relationship expressed as:
33
Eni-Iraq
Es = Kh X
which is normally used by investigators of vertical piles. Typical values of Kh for

cohesive and cohesionless soils are as follows:
Soil type Kh (MN/m3) Reference
0.16 – 3.45 Reese and Matlock , 1956

Soft NC clay
0.27 – 0.54 Davisson and Prakash , 1963
0.11 – 0.27 Peck and Davisson , 1962

NC organic clay
0.11 – 0.81 Davisson , 1970
0.05 Davisson , 1970

Peat
0.027 – 0.11 Wilson and Hills, 1967
Soil type Kh (MN/m3) Reference
Dry sand
Loose 2.8 – 12.4 Reese , 1975
Medium 12.4 – 44.3 Reese , 1975
Dense 44.3 – 76.8 Reese , 1975
Submerged sand
Loose 2.8 – 8.8 Reese, 1975
Medium 8.8 – 25.9 Reese, 1975
Dense 25.9 – 43.4 Reese, 1975
Matlock and Reese (1960) have given equations for the determination of y, S, M, V,
and P at a point x along the pile based on dimensional analysis. The equations are.
34
Eni-Iraq
Pt T 3 M T2
Deflection y =[ ] Ay + [ t ]B y
EI EI
Pt T 2 MT
Slope S =[ ] As + [ t ]Bs
EI EI
Moment M = [ Pt T ] Am + [ M t ]Bm
Mt
Shear V = [ Pt ] Av + [ ]Bv
T
Pt M
Soil reaction P= AP + 2t B p
T T
Where T is the relative stiffness factor expressed as :
1
EI
T = [ ]5
Kh
Es = K h x
In the above equations, A and B are the set of non-dimensional coefficients whose values
are function of the depth coefficient, Z, expressed as
X
Z=
T
At ground level, the values of Ay and By are 2.43 and 1.62 respectively. Hence,
the corresponding deflection equation will be;
Pt T 3 M T2
y g = 2.43 + 1.62 t
EI EI
yg for fixed head is :
Pt T 3
yg = 0.93
EI
Moment at ground level for fixed head is :
Mt = – 0.93 Pt . T
35
Eni-Iraq
Using the above equations, the lateral pile capacity, for 12mm lateral movement
at the top of the pile, has been calculated and the results were listed in the table-section
8.7.
8.10- Pile Loading Test

Theoretical design methods provide an approximate working load and settlement of
the pile. The contractor should also demonstrate by load test the pile performance and its
load-settlement characteristics. Pile loading test gives:
1. The maximum permissible settlement in the region of the anticipated working load.
2. The ultimate carrying capacity as a check on the value calculated from theatrical
methods.
3. The final decision for pile length.
Therefore, it is recommended to perform sufficient pile tests before starting the general
construction works of pile installation.
8.11- Elastic Properties of Soil

The elastic properties of soil are described by three characteristics , modulus of elasticity
E , shear modulus G, and poisons ratio υ , but only two needs to be known, since the
third one can be determined from the relation :
E
G=
2(1 + υ )
Static Properties:
Typical values for Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity are as shown below (M.
Budhu, 2007):
Soil Type Description υ E (MPa)
Soft 0.35-0.40 1-15
Clay Medium 0.30-0.35 15-30
Stiff 0.20-0.30 30-100
Loose 0.15-0.25 10-20
Sand Medium 0.25-0.30 20-40
Dense 0.25-0.35 40-80
36
Eni-Iraq
The recommended values of elastic properties of soil are given in section 8.13.
8.12- Surface Drainage

The following drainage measures are recommended for design, construction and
should be maintained all times after the project has been completed:
1. Avoid the installation of service pipes inside the building.

2. All water supply and sewerage connections should be well embedded in
concrete to reduce possibility of damage.
3. Wetting or drying of excavation should be avoided during construction.
Permitting increases / variations in moisture to the adjacent or supporting soils
may result in a decrease in bearing capacity and an increase in volume change
of the underlying soils and / or differential movement.
4. Seepage of surface water should be prevented to reach the foundation and the
adjacent zone using impervious paving material such as asphalt or concrete
with mastic joints with a minimum 3 percent slope in the first 3m.
5. In no case should water be permitted to pond adjacent to or on sidewalks,
landscaping or other improvements as well as utility trench alignments, which
are likely to be adversely affected by moisture-volume changes in the
underlying soils or flow of infiltrating water.
6. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the perimeters of
the structure foundations, or be provided with positive conveyance off-site for
collected waters.
7. Vegetation that may require watering should ideally be located 3m or more
from building perimeters, flatwork, or other site improvements. As minimum,
vegetation requiring irrigation should not be located within 3m of structure
perimeters. Irrigation sprinkler heads should be deployed so that applied water
is not introduced near or into foundation/subgrade soils. Landscape irrigation
outside that 3m limit should be limited to the minimum quantities necessary to
sustain healthy plant growth.
8.13- Design Parameters Summary

According to the field and laboratory tests results, the following soil parameters are
recommended for the design of shallow, deep, and retaining structures:
37
Eni-Iraq
Parameter Recommended Value
Bulk Unit Weight (g/cm3) 1.77-1.90
Dry Unit Weight (g/cm3) 1.70
Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2) 0
Angle of Interior Friction 37-40
Coefficient of permeability (cm/s) 6.59 x 10-3-2.14x10-2
Elastic Parameters:-
Es (MPa) 80-100
ν 0.35
Modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m3):
Dry soil 120000
CBR (dry soil) 50-60
Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:-
KA 0.22-0.25
KP 4.0-4.6
KO 0.35-0.4
8.14- Type of Foundation
The selection of appropriate type of foundation will normally depend on the

magnitude and distribution of structural loads (column loads), the bearing capacity, and
the settlement characteristics. No information regarding the magnitude and distribution of
column loads were available as of this writing. However, the following guidelines should
be considered in the selection of appropriate type of foundation:
1- For ordinary one story buildings, we recommend shallow foundation (strip or mat
foundation).
2- For pipe-rack steel structures, we recommend shallow foundation (strip footing).
38
Eni-Iraq
3- For equipment foundations, we recommend shallow foundation (strip or mat) or
pile foundation depending on the magnitude, distribution, and nature of the
applied loads.
4- For minor structures (lighting poles, minor equipment foundations, etc), we

recommend isolated footing.
5- For elevated tank, we recommend ring foundation, mat foundation, or piles on

mat foundation depending on the magnitude and distribution of applied loads.
6- When precast concrete pile is used, it should be provided with shoe to reduce the
effect of driving stresses.
Due to presence of gypsiferrous materials in the encountered strata at the

site, which will increase the problems of leaching and create the collapse problem,
special precaution should be taken into consideration;
1- For structures supported by shallow foundations, the provisions given in section

(8-12) should be considered. If these provisions are difficult or uncertain to be
achieved in the site, the construction should be supported by pile foundation.
2- Mat foundation is the most suitable among other types of shallow foundations in
such soils. However, if isolated or strip footing is used, it should be designed for
adequate rigidity to reduce the effects of differential settlement.
3- Shallow foundations are not recommended for structures exposed to liquid like
cooling towers, ground storage tanks, etc, even when the bearing capacity and
settlement requirements are satisfied, instead piles should be used.
4- For shallow foundations, a layer of compacted sub-base according to the

specification with thickness of 1.0 m for the structures founded by spread footing
and/or continuous foundations and 1.5 m for raft foundation under main structures
should be placed beneath the base of shallow foundations with following
requirements:
a. The value of CBR not less than 45% (ASTM D1883) at 95% of the max
dry density established according to (ASTM D1557)
b. Liquid limit 25 % maximum
c. Plasticity index 6 % maximum
d. Organic matter not more than 2 %
e. SO3 not more than 5 %
f. Total soluble salts not more than 5 %
g. Gypsum content not more than 10 %
h. Relative compaction not less than 95 % modified
39
Eni-Iraq
5- It is recommended to fill the zone around the foundation with a well compacted
clean clayey soil of low permeability following (ASTM D-1557) to conform the
requirements achieving a relative compaction of 95% with carrying out the
following tests:
a. Particle size distribution

b. In-situ dry density and optimum moisture content
c. Atterberg limits
d. Minimum C.B.R. is 4%
40
References
1- Peck, R.B, Hanson, W.E, and Thornburn. T. H , Foundation Engineering , 2nd ed, John Wiley ,
New York , 1967.
2- Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed, John Wiley , New
York , 1967.
3- Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Catalog.
4- Alsinawi, S.A, and Alqasrani, Z.O, 2003, Earthquake Hazards Considerations for Iraq.
5- Bolton, C.M, 1958, The Geology of Rania Area. Sight Investigations Co. Rep.Geol.Surv.Min.
Investigation. Lib, Report No. 271 Baghdad.
6- Saad,Z,J., Jeremy, C.G, and Layout, L.N,2006, Geology of Iraq. Hlavni 2732, Prague and
Moravian Museum, Zelny trh 6.brno, Czech Republic.
7- National Iraq Oil Exploration Company, 1996, Seismic Exploration Interpretations of Nahar-
Umr-Zubiar Area.
8- Seed, J.B. and Idriss, I.M.(1971), Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.97, No. SM9,
pp.1249-1273.
9- Ishihara, K. (1985), Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the

Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, San
Francisco, pp. 321-376.
10- "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG" Special Publication. A guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
11- Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), The CIRIA Guide to
Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region, Special Publication 31,London , 1984, pp. 1-95
12- Hughes, I.M.O, and withers, N.I, (1974), Reinforcing of Soft Cohesive Soils with Stone
Columns," Ground Engineering, Vol.7, No.3, pp: 42-49.
13- Hughes, J.M.O, Withers, N.J., and Greenwood, D.A, 1975, A Field Trial of the Reinforcing
Effect of a Stone Column in Soil”, Geotechnique, 25, (1):31-44.
14- Davis, E.H. and Booker, J.R. (1973), The Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings from Plasticity
Theory. " Proc. First Australia –New Zealand Conference on Geomechaincs, Vol .1,276-282.
15- Bowles, J.E, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th –Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1996.
16- Craig, R.F., Soil Mechanics, 6th –Edition, Spon Press, 2002.
17- Matlock, H, and L.C Reese: Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles, Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the A Mercian Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 86, No .SM5, October, 1960.
18- Budhu, M., Foundations and Earth Retaining Structures ", John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008.
19- Budhu, M., Soil Mechanics and Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007.
20- Day, R.W, Foundation Engineering Handbook, ASCE Press, 2nd edition, 2010.
21- Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design and Construction, 5th edition , Longman Scientific
Technical, 1986
22- ASTM Standards, Section 4-Construction. Volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), 2009.
23- ASTM Standards, Section 4-Construction, Volume 4-09, Soil and Rock (II), 2009.
24- International Building Code, 2006, ASCE.
25- Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05.
Appendix A
Borehole Logs
BOREHOLES UTM COORDINATES
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 & 2
(Safwan DGS)
UTM Coordinates
BH No.
X ± 10m Y ± 10m
1101 765260 3335003
1102 765341 3334934
1103 765280 3334859
1104 765200 3334928
1105 765179 3334905
1106 765262 3334837
1108 765225 3334784
1109 765143 3334854
1111 765353 3335039
1112 765497 3334891
2013 765565 3334974
1114 765650 3334910
2015 765583 3334825
1118 765574 3334900
Key to Boring Logs
PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse
0.002mm #200 #40 #10 #4 ¾ inch 3 inch 12 inch
STANDARD PENETRATION CLASSIFCATION*

Granular Soil Clayey Soil
Blows / Ft Density Blows / Ft Consistency
0–4 Very Loose 0–1 Very Soft
5 – 10 Loose 2–4 Soft
11 – 30 Medium Dense 4–8 Medium Stiff
31 – 50 Dense 8– 15 Stiff
Over 50 Very Dense 15 – 30 Very Stiff
* Standard Penetration Test (N), 140 Ib hammer 30 31 – 60 Hard
inch free fall on 2 inch O.D. x 1.4 I.D. sampler Over 60 Very Hard
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Group Legend Typical Soil Description
GW Well graded gravels, gravel – sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel – sand – clay mixtures
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand – silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand – clay mixtures
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with
ML
slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty
CL
clays, lean clays
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silt
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OL Organic silts and organic silt – clays of low plasticity
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
PT Peat and other highly organic soils
Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Safwan DGS
B.H. No. 1101 Date 12– 4 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 14.0m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (50/24)
Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/21)
3.0 Very dense, brown, silty sand
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/22)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/17)
6.0
7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (50/26)

8.0 and sometimes with gravel
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/24)
10.0
11.0
12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (50/25)
13.0
Very dense, brown, silty sand
14.0
15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (50/28)
U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

Borehole Log
B.H. No. 1102 Date 12 – 4 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (45)
1.0
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/16)
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/19)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/21)
6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/20)
7.0
Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
8.0 D6 8.0
with silt and sometimes with gravel
9.0
10.0 SPT 7 10.0 (50/24)
11.0
12.0
13.0 SPT 8 13.0 (48)
14.0
D9 14.5
15.0
16.0 SPT 10 16.0 (34)
17.0
18.0
19.0 SPT 11 19.0 (45)
20.0
D 12 20.5 Dense, brown, silty sand and sometimes with
21.0 gravel
22.0 SPT 13 22.0 (49)
23.0
24.0
25.0 SPT 14 25.0 (48)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (24)
Medium, brown, silty sand
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/22)
3.0
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/16)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/18)
6.0
7.0 D5 7.0
8.0 with silt and gravel
9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/23)
10.0
11.0
SPT 7 11.5 (42)
12.0
13.0
14.0
SPT 8 14.5 (50/28)
15.0
Very dense, brown, silty sand with gravel
16.0 D9 16.0
17.0
18.0 SPT 10 18.0 (50/28)
19.0
20.0
SPT 11 20.5 (47)
21.0 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
22.0 with silt and sometimes with gravel
D 12 22.5
23.0
24.0
25.0 SPT 13 25.0 (50)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (20/23)
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/19) Very dense, brown, silty sand and sometimes
3.0 with gravel
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/16)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/21)
6.0
7.0
SPT 5 7.5 (50/23)
8.0
9.0
10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (50/26)
11.0
12.0 D7 12.0
13.0
SPT 8 13.5 (48)
14.0
15.0 and sometimes with silt and/or gravel
16.0
SPT 9 16.5 (50/29)
17.0
18.0 D 10 18.0
19.0
20.0 SPT 11 20.0 (49)
21.0
22.0
23.0 SPT 12 23.0 (48)
24.0
25.0 SPT 13 25.0 (46) Dense, brown, silty sand

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (30)
1.0
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/22) with silt and sometimes with gravel
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/17)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/19)

Very dense, brown, poorly graded gravel with
6.0 silt and sand
D5 6.5
7.0
8.0
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/27)
10.0
11.0 D7 11.0
12.0
13.0
SPT 8 13.5 (50)
14.0
15.0
16.0 SPT 9 16.0 (46) Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
with silt and gravel
17.0
18.0
19.0 SPT 10 19.0 (47)
20.0
21.0 D 11 21.0
22.0
23.0 SPT 12 23.0 (45)
24.0

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (41)
1.0 Dense, brown, silty sand
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/21)
3.0 silt and sand
SPT 3 3.5 (50/18)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/20)
6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/23)
7.0
8.0
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/25)
10.0
11.0
12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (50/28)
13.0
14.0 D8 14.0
15.0
16.0 SPT 9 16.0 (47)

Dense, brown, silty sand
17.0
18.0
SPT 10 18.5 (50/29)
19.0
20.0
21.0
SPT 11 21.5 (50/29) Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
22.0 with silt and/or gravel
23.0
D 12 23.5
24.0
25.0 SPT 13 25.0 (48)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (50/20)
1.0
Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand and
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (42) sometimes with gravel
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/23)
4.0
Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/24) gravel and sometimes with silt
6.0
7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (50/18)
8.0
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/26) silt and sand
10.0
11.0
12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (49)
13.0
Dense to very dense, brown. Poorly graded sand
14.0 with silt
SPT 8 14.5 (50/29)
15.0
16.0
D9 16.5
17.0
18.0 Dense, brown, silty sand

19.0 SPT 10 19.0 (48)
20.0
D 11 20.5
21.0
22.0
SPT 12 22.5 (47) Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt and
23.0
sometimes with gravel
24.0
25.0 SPT 13 25.0 (46)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (50/21)
1.0
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/23)

Very dense, brown, silty sand
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/16)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/17)
6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/19)
7.0
8.0 D6 8.0 and sometimes with gravel
9.0
10.0 SPT 7 10.0 (50/28)
11.0
12.0
SPT 8 12.5 (50/29)
13.0
14.0 silt and sand
D9 14.5
15.0
16.0 SPT 10 16.0 (44)

Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt and
17.0 gravel
18.0
SPT 11 18.5 (50/28)
19.0
20.0
21.0
SPT 12 21.5 (50)
22.0
Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand
23.0 D 13 23.0
24.0
25.0 SPT 14 25.0 (48)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (17)
1.0 Medium, brown, silty sand
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/20)
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/17)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/18)
6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/23)
7.0
8.0
D6 8.5 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
9.0 with silt and sometimes with gravel
10.0 SPT 7 10.0 (43)
11.0
12.0 D8 12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0 SPT 9 15.0 (40)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (19)
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/18)
3.0
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/21)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/23)
6.0
7.0 Medium to very dense, brown, poorly graded

SPT 5 7.5 (50/24) sand with silt and gravel
8.0
9.0
10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (50/27)
11.0
12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (46)
13.0
14.0

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (50/21)
2.0
Very dense, brown, silty sand with gravel
SPT 2 2.5 (50/19)
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/22)
Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
4.0
SPT 4 4.5 (50/23)
5.0
SPT 5 6.0 (50/22)

6.0
silt and sand
7.0
8.0
SPT 6 8.5 (50/25)
9.0
10.0 D7 10.0
11.0
12.0 SPT 8 12.0 (50/26) and sometimes gravel
13.0
14.0
15.0 SPT 9 15.0 (50/28)

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (50/29)
1.0 Very dense, brown, silty sand
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/19)
Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with
3.0 silt and gravel
SPT 3 3.5 (50/20)
4.0
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/20)

6.0 silt and sand
SPT 5 6.5 (50/17)
7.0
8.0
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/23)
10.0
11.0 D7 11.0 Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
and sometimes with gravel
12.0
13.0 SPT 8 13.0 (50/28)
14.0

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (34)
Dense, brown, silty sand with gravel
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/22)
3.0
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/26)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/21)
6.0
7.0
D5 7.5
8.0 Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
and sometimes with gravel
9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/24)
10.0
11.0
SPT 7 11.5 (50/29)
12.0
13.0 D8 13.0
14.0

Borehole Log
Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (49)
Dense, brown, silty sand
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/22)
3.0
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/25)
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/22)
6.0
7.0 D5 7.0
8.0
9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/25)
10.0
11.0
SPT 7 11.5 (50/26)
12.0
13.0 D8 13.0 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand

with silt and sometimes with gravel
14.0
15.0 SPT 9 15.0 (48)
16.0
17.0
SPT 10 17.5 (50/29)
18.0
19.0 D 11 19.0
20.0
21.0 SPT 12 21.0 (49)
22.0
23.0 D 13 23.0
24.0

Appendix B
Trial Pit Logs

TRIAL PITS UTM COORDINATES
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
(Safwan DGS)
UTM Coordinates
TP No.
X ± 10m Y ± 10m
1107 765247 3334813
1110 765162 3334883
1116 765581 3334865
1117 765570 3334936
Test Pit Logs
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project/Phase 1 Site Safwan DGS

T.P. No. 1107 Date April, 2011
Depth 3.0m W.T. Depth > 3.0m
Type
Scale Depth
& Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
0.5
1.0 B 1.0 Brown, silty sand
1.5
2.0 B 2.0
2.5 Brown, poorly graded gravel with silt and sand

3.0 B 3.0

Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
0.5
1.0 B 1.0
1.5
2.0 B 2.0 Brown, poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
2.5
3.0 B 3.0
U : Undisturbed Sample, B: Bulk Sample,

Test Pit Logs

Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
0.5
1.0 B 1.0
1.5
Brown, silty sand with gravel
2.0 B 2.0
2.5
3.0 B 3.0

Type
Scale Depth
(m) (m)
Number
0.5
1.0 B 1.0
1.5
2.0 B 2.0 Brown, silty sand with gravel
2.5
3.0 B 3.0
U : Undisturbed Sample, B: Bulk Sample,

Appendix C
SPT and DCPT Results

Site: Safwan DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1101
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765260 3335003
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765341 3334934
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765280 3334859
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765200 3334928
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765179 3334905
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765262 3334837
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765225 3334784
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765143 3334854
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765353 3335039
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765497 3334891
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765565 3334974
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765650 3334910
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765583 3334825
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Site: Safwan DGS
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
765574 3334900
0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
Appendix D
Lab Tests Results

Site: Safwan DGS Borehole No.: 1101 Depth: 15m Date: 12 – 4 – 2011
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 10 80 10 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.90 13

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 5.3 1.77 1.68 13 75 12 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 7 68 25 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.89 11
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 5.8 1.72 1.63 6 70 24 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 28 63 9 SM Silty sand 1.93 13
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 15.4 1.97 1.71 22 75 3 SM Silty sand
Shear Strength Parameters
Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen
Chemical Test
Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results
Triaxial
Unconf-
Results
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil)
(Water)
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 6590
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 5.38 16 11.41 0.17 3.5 6.7
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 7.0 7.5
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 12 83 5 SP Poorly graded sand with silt

5 SPT 6.5 7.0 1.91 12
6 D 8.0 8.5 7.2 1.81 1.69 11 84 5 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
8 SPT 13.0 13.5 7.8 1.85 1.72
9 D 14.5 15.0 12 79 9 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.96 12
10 SPT 16.0 16.5 15.2 2.00 1.74 24 71 5 SM Silty sand
11 SPT 19.0 19.5 13 69 18 SM Silty sand with gravel 1.95 13
12 D 20.5 21.0 13.1 1.92 1.70
13 SPT 22.0 22.5 23 68 9 SM Silty sand 1.93 13
14 SPT 25.0 25.5 14 61 25 SM Silty sand with gravel
Shear Strength
Permeability K (cm/s) x
Parameters
Specimen
Depth Consolidation Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(m) Test Results (Soil) (Water)
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
VS
T
10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 7.04 12 14.92 0.12 3.32 6.5 1870 5120 1830 6.9
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 21400
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 D 8.0 8.5 2 41
7 SPT 10.0 10.5
8 SPT 13.0 13.5
9 D 14.5 15.0 5 37
10 SPT 16.0 16.5
11 SPT 19.0 19.5
12 D 20.5 21.0 4 40
13 SPT 22.0 22.5
14 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 3.2 1.76 1.71 14 82 4 SM Silty sand

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 1.92 11
5 D 7.0 7.5 4.6 1.77 1.69
7 SPT 11.5 12.0 6.7 1.80 1.69
9 D 16.0 16.5 12.8 1.94 1.72
11 SPT 20.5 21.0 10.9 1.93 1.74 5 89 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
12 D 22.5 23.0 1.95 10
Specimen
Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 D 7.0 7.5 0 42
6 SPT 9.0 9.5
7 SPT 11.5 12.0
8 SPT 14.5 15.0
9 D 16.0 16.5 4 39
10 SPT 18.0 18.5
11 SPT 20.5 21.0
12 D 22.5 23.0 2 40
13 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 16 70 14 SM Silty sand 1.90 13

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 5.7 1.79 1.69 13 47 40 SM Silty sand with gravel
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 14 79 7 SM Silty sand 1.89 15
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 5.2 1.74 1.65 4 64 32 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel
5 SPT 7.5 8.0 1.89 10
7 D 12.0 12.5 6 62 32 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.92 10
8 SPT 13.5 14.0 9.8 1.87 1.70
10 D 18.0 18.5 11.1 1.91 1.72
13 SPT 25.0 25.5 15 78 7 SM Silty sand
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 2080 5480 1790 6.7
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 7.5 8.0
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 D 12.0 12.5 1 42
8 SPT 13.5 14.0
9 SPT 16.5 17.0
10 D 18.0 18.5 3 40
11 SPT 20.0 20.5
12 SPT 23.0 23.5
13 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil

3 SPT 3.5 4.0 4.3 1.74 1.67 7 40 53 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 6 42 52 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand 1.91 10
5 D 6.5 7.0 5.9 1.80 1.70
7 D 11.0 11.5 8.7 1.84 1.69
9 SPT 16.0 16.5 12.4 1.85 1.65
11 D 21.0 21.5 14.2 1.95 1.71 12 71 17 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
12 SPT 23.0 23.5 1.92 13
13 SPT 25.0 25.5 15.1 1.93 1.68 14 77 9 SM Silty sand
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 D 6.5 7.0 0 44
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 D 11.0 11.5 2 42
8 SPT 13.5 14.0
9 SPT 16.0 16.5
10 SPT 19.0 19.5
11 D 21.0 21.5 5 39
12 SPT 23.0 23.5
13 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 30 64 6 SM Silty sand

4 SPT 5.0 5.5 5.0 1.81 1.72 4 96 0 SP Poorly graded sand
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 1.97 8
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 1.94 10
8 D 14.0 14.5 11.6 1.90 1.70 17 70 13 SM Silty sand
9 SPT 16.0 16.5 1.92 14
11 SPT 21.5 22.0 1.92 11
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 D 14.0 14.5 3 41
9 SPT 16.0 16.5
10 SPT 18.5 19.0
11 SPT 21.5 22.0
12 D 23.5 24.0 2 42
13 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 14 74 12 SM Silty sand

4 SPT 5.5 6.0 4 56 40 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel 1.93 9
8 SPT 14.5 15.0 1.90 14
9 D 16.5 17.0 13.8 1.93 1.70 15 76 9 SM Silty sand
10 SPT 19.0 19.5 1.89 13
12 SPT 22.5 23.0 1.91 14
Shear Strength
Parameters
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
VS
T
10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 1930 6270 1560 6.8
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 14700
5 SPT 7.0 7.5
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 3.24 8 6.86 0.14 3.08 7.2
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 14.5 15.0
9 D 16.5 17.0 4 39
10 SPT 19.0 19.5
11 D 20.5 21.0 3 42
12 SPT 22.5 23.0
13 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 4.9 1.81 1.73 13 73 14 SM Silty sand
6 D 8.0 8.5 6.6 1.78 1.67
9 D 14.5 15.0 1.90 11
12 SPT 21.5 22.0 15.1 1.98 1.72 19 68 13 SM Silty sand
13 D 23.0 23.5 1.92 15
14 SPT 25.0 25.5 13.7 1.91 1.68 17 74 9 SM Silty sand
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 D 8.0 8.5 2 41
7 SPT 10.0 10.5
8 SPT 12.5 13.0
9 D 14.5 15.0 3 39
10 SPT 16.0 16.5
11 SPT 18.5 19.0
12 SPT 21.5 22.0
13 D 23.0 23.5 5 41
14 SPT 25.0 25.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.71 1.66 11 45 44 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.87 15
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 9 53 38 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 4 58 38 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel
6 D 8.5 9.0 6.8 1.80 1.69 9 84 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.92 12
8 D 12.0 12.5 8.5 1.88 1.73 12 79 9 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.95 12
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 D 8.5 9.0 4 42
7 SPT 10.0 10.5
8 D 12.0 12.5 3 38
9 SPT 15.0 15.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 7.2 1.83 1.71
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 13 82 5 SM Silty sand 1.92 14
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 7.5 8.0
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil

4 SPT 4.5 5.0 4.8 1.77 1.69 4 30 66 GP Poorly graded gravel with sand
6 SPT 8.5 9.0 6.5 1.83 1.72 4 54 42 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel
7 D 10.0 10.5 7 74 19 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.97 11
8 SPT 12.0 12.5 9.3 1.89 1.73
Specimen
Chemical Test
Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results
Triaxial
Unconf-
Results
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil)
(Water)
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 4 41
4 SPT 4.5 5.0
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 6.08 8 12.89 0.14 2.33 6.6
6 SPT 8.5 9.0
7 D 10.0 10.5 1 40
8 SPT 12.0 12.5
9 SPT 15.0 15.5 3 42
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 0.5 1.0 18 69 13 SM Silty sand

3 SPT 3.5 4.0 9 39 52 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 4.8 1.77 1.69 8 45 47 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand 1.93 10
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 6 34 60 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
7 D 11.0 11.5 9 78 13 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
8 SPT 13.0 13.5 10.0 1.87 1.70 1.91 14
9 SPT 15.0 15.5 17 77 6 SM Silty sand
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 D 11.0 11.5 2 43
8 SPT 13.0 13.5
9 SPT 15.0 15.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
5 D 7.5 8.0 5.7 1.81 1.71
7 SPT 11.5 12.0
8 D 13.0 13.5 11 77 13 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.88 15
9 SPT 15.0 15.5 12.8 1.91 1.69 15 77 8 SM Silty sand
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 3 41
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 D 7.5 8.0 2 44
6 SPT 9.0 9.5
7 SPT 11.5 12.0
8 D 13.0 13.5 6 38
9 SPT 15.0 15.5
Unit
Index Modified
Moisture Content
(g /cm3)
Content %
Gravel %
Optimum
Max. Dry
Moisture
Sand %
Clay %
Symbol
Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %
PL %
From
PI %
Type
Bulk
Dry
No.
To
Description of Soil
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 3.4 1.80 1.74 41 54 5 SM Silty sand

5 D 7.0 7.5 4.9 1.77 1.69
8 D 13.0 13.5 1.91 11
10 SPT 17.5 18.0 1.89 12
12 SPT 21.0 21.5 1.92 14
13 D 23.0 23.5 14.8 1.95 1.70 16 74 10 SM Silty sand
14 SPT 25.0 25.5
Shear Strength
Parameters
Specimen
Triaxial
Unconf-
Shear
(UU)
ined
Test
Box
VS
T
10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3
Org. %
Cr × 10-3
Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
From
Cl %
Type
TDS
SO4
ø°
No.
pH
pH
Cu
To
PC
Cl
C
e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 1800 5294 1704 6.7
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 6.25 16 13.29 0.17 3.08 6.6
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 D 7.0 7.5 3 40
6 SPT 9.0 9.5 7730
7 SPT 11.5 12.0
8 D 13.0 13.5 0 42
9 SPT 15.0 15.5
10 SPT 17.5 18.0
11 D 19.0 19.5 4 39
12 SPT 21.0 21.5
13 D 23.0 23.5 4 38
14 SPT 25.0 25.5
Appendix E
Thermal Resistivity Results

Thermal Resistivity Result
Thermal Thermal
T. R. UTM Coordinates Temperature. Moisture
Resistivity Conductivity
No. °C Content %
X±10 m Y±10 m (°C.cm /W) (w/m°c)
1 765496 3334891 689.0 0.145 25.9 5
2 765318 3334846 635.9 0.157 23.2 6
3 765224 3334734 405.9 0.246 25.6 6
4 765162 3334883 269.9 0.371 25.1 7
5 765143 3334854 130.8 0.764 24.5 6
6 765571 3334938 351.0 0.285 26.8 7
7 765566 3334973 140.6 0.711 26.6 3
8 765582 3334864 584.5 0.171 30.6 5
9 765654 3334912 300.8 0.332 31.2 6
Appendix F
Plate Bearing Test Results

Plate Load Test Procedure
The standard method for a field load test is given by the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) under Designation (ASTM D-1194, 1997). Circular steel bearing
plates 152 to 760 mm (6 to 30 in.) in diameter or (300 to 750) mm (1 ft x 2.5 ft) Square
Plates should be used for this type of test.
The bearing plate is placed on the ground surface soil at the required level, and an
incremental load on the bearing plate is applied. After the application of an incremental
load, enough time is allowed for settlement to occur. When the settlement of the bearing
plate becomes negligible, another incremental load is applied. In this manner, a load-
settlement plot can be obtained, as shown in the test results.
To conduct the test, below the existing natural ground level, one must have a pit of
required depth Df excavated. The width of the test pit should be at least four times the
width of the bearing plate to be used for the test.
The method of performing plate load test is outlined in the below sketch:
Df
1
Plate Load Apparatus
1- Bearing Plate
Circular steel bearing plates, not less than 25 mm thickness, and 707 cm2 in
area is used.
2- Hydraulic Jack
Hydraulic Jack with sufficient capacity to provide & maintain the maximum
load of 300 kN is used.
3- Settlement – Recording Devices
Dial gauge, capable of measuring settlement of the test plate to an accuracy of
at least 0.01 mm is used.
4- Pressure Gauge
Pressure Gauge with capacity of 300 kN is used.
5- Miscellaneous Apparatus
The miscellaneous apparatus Include loading columns, steel stands & other
construction tools required for preparation of the test pits & loading apparatus.
Method of the Operation

The plate load tests for twenty three locations were carried out at the project site. The
data was required for the design of the reinforced concrete foundation supporting the
project’s structures.
The test was conducted at the levels of (-0.5) below the surface of existing natural
ground soil, which consists of various types of soils as mentioned in the description of the
soil profile, by a circular plate having an area of 707 cm2 area with maximum applied
pressure of about (550) kPa.
The area under question was totally dry during the test process and hence, no
dewatering system was required.
2
UTM COORDINATES FOR PLATE BEARING POINTS
(Safwan DGS)
UTM Coordinates
TP No.
X ± 10m Y ± 10m
1107 765247 3334813
1110 765162 3334883
1116 765581 3334865
1117 765570 3334936
PLATE BEARING TEST
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project Test No. 1

Site Safwan DGS Date 21.3.2011
Location PL 1107 Procedure ASTM D1194
Circle Area
Depth 0.5 m
Plate: 30 , cm 706.86 cm2
600
500
400
Pressure (kPa)
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Settlement (mm)
REMARKS Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Ks = 91723 kPa/m

PLATE BEARING TEST

Circle Area
Depth 0.5 m
Plate: 30 , cm 706.86 cm2
550
500
450
400
350
Pressure (kPa)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Settlement (mm)

PLATE BEARING TEST

Circle Area
Depth 0.5 m
Plate: 30 , cm 706.86 cm2
600
500
400
Pressure (kPa)
300
200
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Settlement (mm)

PLATE BEARING TEST

Circle Area
Depth 0.5 m
Plate: 30 , cm 706.86 cm2
550
500
450
400
350
Pressure (kPa)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Settlement (mm)

Appendix G
CBR and Modified Proctor

Tests Results
CBR and Modified Procter Test Results
(Safwan DGS)
UTM Coordinates Modified Procter

TP No. CBR Optimum
Max. Dry Density
X ± 10m Y ± 10m Moisture Content
(g/cm3)
(%)
1107 765247 3334813 60 1.98 12
1110 765162 3334883 51 1.94 9
1116 765581 3334865 53 1.96 10
1117 765570 3334936 58 1.99 11

Final Soil Investigation Report for Safwan DGS - Phase 1 and 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Soil Investigation Report for Safwan DGS - Phase 1 and 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENI - IRAQ

ZUBAIR OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CD-FE 00 05.06.11 FINAL ISSUE

Software: Microsoft Word 97-2003 File No. 00251400BARS95000_CDFE00_124.pdf

This document is property of Eni S.p.A. Exploration & Production Division.

Final Report/Phase 1 and 2

Soil Investigation for

Report No. 2/SI/F/2011

3- Laboratory Testing For Soils

4.1- Subsoil Material Description

5.1- Regional Geology

6.1- Lowering of Groundwater Level

7- Results and Discussion

7.1- Shear Strength

8- Analysis and Recommendations

8.1- Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) of Shallow Foundations

Appendix A: Borehole Logs

1.3- Site Location and Description

1- 14 boreholes to depths of 15m to 40m below existing ground surface.

2.2- Drilling and Sampling of Boreholes

2.4- Spacing of Soil Samples

2.6- Plate Load Test (PLT)

2.7- Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Resistively

3- Laboratory Testing for Soils

3.2- Method of Testing

Test No. of tests Method of Testing

3.3- Moisture Content and Unit Weight

3.4- Particle Size Analysis

3.5- Direct Shear Test

The constant head test (ASTM-D2434) is used to determine the hydraulic

K z = ((aL ) /( A(t 2 − t1 )) * ln(h1 / h2 )

3.7- Modified Proctor Test

3.8- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

3.9- Chemical Tests

4.2- Underground Water Level

Borehole No. GWL (m) Borehole No. GWL (m)

BH1102 14.3 BH1111 14.0

BH1103 14.5 BH1112 14.3

BH1104 14.0 BH1114 14.2

BH1105 14.4 BH1118 14.2

BH1106 14.2 BH2013 14.1

BH1108 14.4 BH2015 14.3

5- Geology and Seismicity

5.2- Local Subsurface and Surface Geology

Formation Age Average depth

5.4- Other Risks and Hazards

5.5- Liquefaction Potential

5.6- Seismic Design Parameters

Table (1): IBC/2006 Seismic Design Values

Soil profile site class D

0.2 second Spectral Acceleration Ss 0.3g

1.0 second Spectral Acceleration S1 0.12g

Site Coefficient Fa 1.6

Site Coefficient Fv 2.4

6.2- Excavation Difficulties

6.3- Preparation Works

6.4- Fill Material

Table (2): Engineering fill gradation according to (SORB/R6)

Sieve size Passing %

25 75-95 100 100

9 30-65 50-85 50-85 60-100

4.75 25-55 35-65 35-65 50-85