Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 03

    Uploaded by

    Franky Ken
    12 views41 pages

    Original Title

    11537859_03

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views41 pages

    03

    Uploaded by

    Franky Ken

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 41
    40 During the period between May 9 and 10", 1999, two boreholes were drilted at the site, The borcholes are numbered 1 & 2. Each borchole was drilled to a depth of 15.0 m, below the existing ground surface. The tocations of the boreholes are shown in Figure No. 2. limited scope of works was specified by the client, as the final des the project is not defined at this stage. ‘The drilling was executed with Edico Drill using the rotary air flush drilling method. The logs of the two boreholes are presented in Appendix A attached to this report, Sampling: Samples were obtained continuously from the borcholes, through ont the drilled depth. Double tube core barre! was used to obtain undisturbed samples of bedrock materials, whereas split spoon samples swere obtained from alluvial and mixed materials. The samples recovered were cxamined, described and classified by our geotechnical engineers, placed in proper sequence in wooden boxes and taken to our laboratories for testing. ‘The moist samples were placed in waterproof plastic bags before placing in wooden boxes. Down the hole hammer was used at intervals of tow engineering interest and where (he nature of the materials did not allow for coring, in order to advance the boring. Field Testing in Rorcholes: Standard Penetration Tests (S.P.T.) were performed at selected locations in the boreholes, to obtain approximate consistencies and relative densities of the ground materials. The tests were performed in accordance with: ASTM D 1586-67 (1974), "Penetration Test & Split Barrel Sampling OF Soils". The (est resulls are shown on the boring logs at depths corresponding to tests locations. MH Station #2 399031 ‘e\ The Stondard Penetiation ‘Test is defined in the legend to boring logs. attached at the end of this report. Interpretation of the test results is also given in the legend. 42 Laboratory Testing: In order to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the ground materials, Inboratory tests were performed on selected samples from each borehole. ‘The following tests were performed according to Ametican Socivty For Testing And Materials (ASTM) Standard, and the British B.S Standards: 1. ASTM DB 2216-92, “Laboratory Determination Of Water (Moisture) Content OF Soil, Rock And Soil Aggregate Mixtures" 2. ASTM D_ 422-92, standard test method for “Determination of Particte Size Distribution”. 3. ASTM —D__ 422-63 (Re-Approved 1990), Standard Test Method For “Particle -- Size Analysis Of Soil”, Hydrometer Method . 4. ASTM D4318-93,standard test method for, "Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index of Soil” 5. ASTM D 2166-66, "Tests for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock”. 6 BS. 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, Test 5, “Determination of The Sulphate Content of Soil & Ground Water". Gravimetric method for acid extracts in which hydrochtoric acid was used. 7. B.S. 1377 : Part 3: 1990, Test 7.3, “Determination of Acid-Soluble Chloride Content”. Nitric Acid was used. 43 Laboratory Tests Resiilts: The laboratory tests results are summarized in Tables No. 1 & 2. 106 MH Station 2 $9901 “Table No. t Laboratory Tests Results | Undstiinad Can Boring No LL: Liquid Limit Moisture Content PL: Plastic Lirait Bulk Density PI : Plasticity tndex. 4. : Unconfined Compressive Strength FS: Failure Strain ub 816 MH Station 2 sooast ‘Table No, 2 Chemical Tests Results BN $0308) cL (ea) BN : Boring Number $03 : Sulphate Content 1D: Depth of Sample Cl: Chloride Content 9726 MI Station # 2 899031 SO SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Ss nel Materic ‘The two borcholes chilled show that there are general similarities and continuities of the subsurface materials, in spite of some local variations. A. generalized subsurface profile (AB) was constructed and is presented in Figure No. 4. The profile was constructed through boreholes No, 1& 2, and its location is shown in Figure No. 2. ‘The profile was constructed by direct interpolation between the materials encountered in the boreholes. ‘The fines connecting the various ground strata arc made for illustration purposes only and are not to be considered as actual field conditions, ‘The geatogic description of the ground materials at the site ond the approximate average depth at which they were encountered in the borcholes are presented in Table No. 3. Further information about the materials encountered can be obtained fiom the logs of borings, Appendix A. Mate ils Physical and Mechanical Properties: ‘The field and laboratory tests results as well as the corresponding material classification were summarized for the various ground materials and are also presented in Table No. 3. Aterberg limits test resulls were plotted on Casagrande Plasticity Chart, Figure No. § to obtain the plasticity of the soils. In order to obtain the degree of potential expansiveness, the percentage of clay fraction for the tested samples were plotted against the plasticity index for the same samples on the chart for the degree of potential expansiveness (Williams & Donaldson , 1980 ), Figure No. 6 The results obtained from the particte size analysis tests were used to obtain the textural classification of the soils as shown in Figure No. 7. ‘The tables given in the legend to boring logs, Appendix A, were used to describe the consistency of the soils, and the strength and quality of the rocks. Further information about the materials encountered and theit physical and mechanical properties can be obtained from Table No. 1. 10726 MH Station # 2 $ 99081 150068 En vores py b ON ainBiy : “suoisueu: yaus. i 30 Sv0A8; Un ue suojsawy) 30! | Pappeqart pew ysiow) ==! jone28 popuncagns, uum uew “useas0 04 UsIODA, ig6zt- \sract Is’sce- sent IsrbLt Is's9u- js Zol- \s'sal- Is'cou- —r-—__ ‘s0eyng punoig BuNsiKy sob @y 31140ud SOVIUNSENS G3ZWYENIO Table No.3 Materials ‘Types and Prope ‘Summary of Tests Results Alluvial deposits of creamy silty mart with gravels af limestone and chert, LL26.7% PLi13.7% PLI3.9% Gravel.0.8% Sand:24.6 silt: 47.7 Clay : 26.9 PE: Medium ‘TC: Sandy & Silty chy & i] Creamy, moist, fractured, | D: Very poor £ 1 | weak marlstone with St Weak to very weak & 2 cas assessed by the fillings of moist marl geotogie hannie. pales Yellowish to creamy, eed “a6 Fr ed ’ ist \ 1:22. -244 to Medium ss] is | 2 [Map ee rant pu: M2-12.7 4C : Clay & Sandy hin layers of Pista 125 Sit, Sandy & Silty marlstone. Gravel :1.6~ 169 Sand :22.5~ 35.7 Silt: 32.7455, Clay : 16-294 Ne Clay to Clay MC: Moisture Content PL: Plastic Limit ‘qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength PL Plasticity Indes ‘St: Rock Strength Description VL Liquid Limit RQD: Rock Quality Designation P: Plasticity D: Rock Quality Description TC: Textutal Classification Ns Number & Blows (0 em) PE : Potential & Expansiventess FOR: End OF Boring ‘to Boring Logs, Appendix A 1RR6 MAH Station #2 849081 PLASTICITY INDEX PI. (%) Figure No. $: Casagrande Plasticity Chart ARAB CENTER FOR ENGINEERING STUDIES 1126 CHART OF EXPANSIVENESS TES MODIFIED ( Millloms and Donaldson 1980 ) (s) 2 § 2 z S ; 30 40 CLAY FRACTION (%) Pa. cuassmncariOn o 13.92 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION CHART CLAY (&) 52, I SAND (8) a. Sendy ct wheat” Figure No. 7: Textural Classification Chart ARAB CENTER FOR ENGINEERING STUDIES 1596 53 sa ‘e\ No ground water was encountered, in any of the boreholes to the depths, drilled. Ground Water And Ce Sulphate Content in Ground Material ‘the sulphate content expressed as sulphur (rioxide (SOs) for the soil samples tested from boreholes, are shown in Table No. 2. ulphate attack to concrete, is a well documented phenomenon and is: caused by the presence of the high sulphate content either by the ingress from the sulphate of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils, or by the presence of sulphate in the concrete ingredients such as the sand or aggregate, oF both, ‘The aitick results in a considerable intemal expansion which may lead to cracks and disintegration of the concrete. ‘The British Code of Practice BS 5328 : Part 1 :1990 “Guide to Specifying Concrete” have stated requirements for concrete exposed to sulphate attack, depending on the concentration of the sulphate in the surrounding soil or in water, These requirements state the type of water to cement ratio to be used, ‘the minimum cement content and maximum free water to cement ratio. A copy of BS 5328 : Part | requirements is attached to this repost in Appendix B. ‘The British Building Research Establishment (BRE), in: UK have shed Digest 363 “Sulphate and acid resistance of concrete in tlie ground”, 1991, in which the sites are divided into five categories of increasing severity, based on the sulphate contents of the soil or ground water (Table 1). However, having classified the site on the bases of sulphate level, type of exposure (Table Ja) and type of conerete (Tableth), further recommendations for concrete in acidic conditions are given in Table 2 and Fig. | Changes made to the basic classification given in Table | are commutative, Table 1 states for each of the five categories cement type, ’nimum cement content, and maximum free water/cement ratio. A copy of Tables 1, La, 1b, le, and 2 and fig 1 (procedure for classification of site) of BRE Digest 363 are attached to this report in Appendix B. Due {0 the sulphate content present in the foundations soils and ground water, this site is classified within Class (1) as categorized in BS "5328 : Part 1. ‘The requirements of BS 5328 : Part 1 is to use ordinary portland cement or combination of Porttand cements to BS 12, and Pfa to BS 3892: Part 1 containing not tess than 25 % Pfa and not more than 40% Pfa by mass of Pfa plus cement. The requirements for minimum cement content and maximum water cement ratio arc given in Table 1, class 1, presented in Appendix B. MH Station #2 ‘$9901 [a ‘The classification of the site on the basis of the sulphate level ean be determined according to Table | of BRE Digest 363. However, modifications to this classification should be made by the designers once the type of exposure to sulphate (such as types of floors exposures, static ground water and permeabitity of soils, the location and thickness of the structure and the hydrostatic head), and the (ypes of concrete used (such as precast concrete, cast-in-sitt concrete, wall units, piles, ete.) are finally determined. It should be noted however, that practical experience have indicated that mixes having both the minimum cement content and maximum free water to cement ratio recommended above may result in conerete of low level of workability, such that full compaction to achieve dense conerete of the necessary degree of impermeability to resist, as muuch as possible chemical attack, cannot be casily achieved. { may be therefore, practical to increase the cement content while maintaining, the recommended water to cement ratio in order to obtain the appropriate workability to achieve full compaction of the concrete. Alternatively, workabilily/compaction can be enhanced by using a plasticizing or superplasticizing admixtures. The admixtures should comply with BS 5075 Parts 1 and 3. Admixtures containing calcium chloride are not recommended for sulphate resisting, or any reinforced concrete. The CIRIA Guide to Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region, 1983, recommended maximum limit of sulphates as (S03), in the coarse or fine aggregate used for concrete as 0.4 % and recommended maximum limits for total sulphate content in concrete from all sources expressed as a percentage by weight of cement as 4% in all cases. It is our opinion that these limits must be adopted and specified for contamination of the concrete and its ingredients in onler to achieve durable concrete. Conetete cast in the ground will eure under the conditions normally favored for strength development and durability provided that the temperature rise due to the heat of hydration is kept low. In the particular case of resistance to sulphate attack, a period of air curing (o the structures has been shown to provide a protective layer associated by allowing the access of air to adry conerete surface for several weeks after the normal curing schedules (BRE Digest 363). It is emphasized however, that since good curing entails keeping the surface wet, the subsequent treatment of dry surface should be regarded as a specific secondary process. MU Station #2 899031 35 PX ‘The chloride content for the same soil samples are also shown in Table Chloride Coment in Grewnd Materials: No, 2. BS 5328, Part | grade soits and ground waters in five steps of sulphate concentéation : 0.2. % total sulphate (SOs), or 1.0g/L in 2:1 soil water extract is considered significant. However, there is no widely accepted view on the concentiation which chlorides become significant in soil or ground water, but fimited experience in the Gulf Region suggests it may be as low as 0.05 % panicularly in situations where alternate wetting and drying. or capillary rise affect the conerete. Chloride do not react expansively with portland cement as do sulphates, ‘Their effect when present in concrete is to increase the risk of corrosion of embedded metals of which the greatest volume used is steel reinforcement. They can be tolerated in plain conercte, although when present in farge amount some surface dampness may result, but widespread and serious damage has been caused by the use of chtoride-contaminated aggregates in reinforced concrete. ‘The corrosion products occupy more than twice the volume of steel, and their formation can be accompanied by very high tensile pressures as great as 32 N/mm2, resulting in cracking of the concrete, frequently followed by spalling of the cover. _ In severe cases of corrosion there may be a reduction in section of the reinforcing bars, leading to a toss of tensile strength of the reinforced concrete. ‘Therefore, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the maximurn Himits for chlorides. and sulphates in the aggregate components and in the concrete, are not exceeded, ‘These limits must be clearly stated in the technical specifications of the project. ‘The CIRIA Guide to Conerete Construction’ in the'Gulf Region, 1983, recommended maximum limit of chlorides, as CL, in the coarse and fine aggregates used for concrete as 0.03 and 0.06, respectively, and recommended maximum limits for total chloride content in concrete from all sources expressed as a percentage by weight of cement as 0.15 % for reinforced concrete made with Portland cements containing less than about 4 %C7A (e.g. sulphate resisting Portland cement) and 0.03 % for reinforced concrete made with Portland cements containing 4 % or more C?A (OPC and ASTM Type I and IT usually contain more than 4% C?A). For un-reinforced concrete the limit is 0.6 %. Additionally, it is advisable that concrete cover for the stecl reinforcement be increased in the members to protect the steel from the ingress of the chlorides preseat in the surrounding environment. Surface protection and sealing of the concrete and steel_may also be considered. 18726 MM Station #2 $9903 a fe Evidences of concrete eracking and stect corrosion were observed on many of the old concrete elements existing in the area. White corrosion can be initiated at lower chloride level in suiphate resisting porttand cement concrete than in ordinary Portkind cement, the use of sulphate resisting portland cement blended with pezzolanie materials, can reduce the risk of damage caused by the sulphate contaminated aggregates. If chtorides are also present, the use of sulphate resisting cement may inerease the risk of corrosion of reinforcing stech. Sulphates may. be present in the environment to which the concrete is exposed, often in combination with chlorides. ‘Their main effect is on the concrete itself, where their attack leads (o internal expansion and disruption, ‘Their effect can be reduced by the usc of sulphate-resisting cements, cements containing blast-furnace stag or pozzolanie, or in severe exposure conditions, by protceting the concrete hy tanking. Where sulphates and chlorides occur together, problems are accentuated hecause sulphate-resisting cements provide less protection to stect against attack in the presence of chlorides. Current research is giving grounds of increasing concem that where sulphates and chlorides occur together, the use of sulphate- resisting cement may be inadvisable, (CIRIA Guide to Concrete Construction in the Ciul Region, 1983). Sulphate-resisting cements do not make concrete immune from sulphate attack but only make it better able to withstand moderate concentrations. of sulphate since it contains less tricalcium aluminate (C’A) than OPC, to reduce the effect of the reaction between the C°A and sulphate. However, CA can also combine with chloride which might otherwise cause reinforcement to rust. 1976 MA Station #2 $9903! A Generally, where resistance is necded against sulphate altack, but there is NO significant risks of chloride-indueed corrosion, SULPHATE-RESISTING CEMENT to BS 4027 or ASTM Type V (i.e. cement with a maximum CA content of 3.5 or 5.0.%, respectively gives better protection) Recommendations Where improved resistance is needed against chloride corrosion of the reinforcement, but there is NO significant to sulphates, Cement with a medium to high C?A content is preferced. OPC or ASTM Type usually have high CA contents and ASTM Type Il usually has a medium C*A content. Where resistance is needed against both sulphates and chlorides, conerete may need to be protected form the soit and groundwater with waterproof membrane or tanking, and a compromise has to be made on the type of cement used. Generally. a cement containing at least 3.5 % but not more than 9A is preferred, Each situation shoutd be considered on its merits. In this case where both sulphate and chloride existence is very slight, then the minimum considerations stated above shalt be satisfied. However, it is advisable that the designer consult CIRIA Guide to Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region or any other simitar reference, once the exposure conditions of the designed structures are finally determined, in order to determine, more accurately, the cement type (Figure 6 and range of specifications limits requirements for minimum cement content, maximum water coment ratio and minimum cover for teinforeement (Table 13). Figure 6 and ‘Table 13 are attached in this report in Appendix B, 2006 MII Station #2 $9903 60 le CONCLUSION. EE According to field and laboratory investigations, subsurface conditions. engineering analysis and practical experience, it can be conchided that the proposed Duilding can be satisfactorily supported by the ground at the site, provided that the following recommendations are followed: 61 Forandation Depth And Txpe: The foundations of the proposed building shall be laid below the top overburden material of alluvial deposits into materiats of creamy (o yellowish tar! and marlstone encountered in all boreholes at depths ranging between 1 to 3m. The foundations shall be laid jnto coherent materials, and any friable, or soft inclusions of silly clay or any other material, shall be removed before forndations construction. Moreover, the foundations depth may vary according to architectural considerations, however, it should not be tess than 2.0m below the minimum adjacent, finished ground level. ‘The encountered foundations ground is suitable to support the structural loads using. spread footings with tie beams, however sitip footings mmay also be used, if required. 62 wable Bearing Presst ‘The allowable bearing pressure corresponding to the encountered highly fractured, creamy, thinly bedded weak marlstone was estimated using the following equation, recommended by Tomlinson, for strip foundation on rock mass with closed joints: qua=eN+05yBN, + yDNy Ne. Ny & Nyare given as a function of the friction angle . Correction for the footing shape mnay also be applied. The shcar strength parameters were estimated according to Kuthawy and Goodman, as a tinction of the rock quality designation (RQD), and the unconfined compression strength que, a8: 30° 30° 60° 2106 MAH Station #2 ‘$9031 63 ‘The obtained parameters for the highly fractured marlstone4vé RQD : 0 %, therefore g? was taken as 30 for marlstone, and 20 for the marl. uc 1 Very weak as assessed with the geologic hammer (Unconfined compression test could not be carried out due to the highly fractured nature of the material), taken as 5 kg/cm? for marlstone, and 1 kg/cm? for the creamy marl. ‘Therefore, based on the obtained results, and considering the existence of weaker marl materials within the zone of influence of the Foundations, and based on our previous experience with similar materials, recommended that the allowable net foundation bearing pressure be taken as 2.2 kg/em?, for the whole site, provided that the recommendations given in paragraph 6.1 for "Foundation Depth And Type", are satistied. Important Note: ‘The above conclusions apply to the arcas of the site represented by the drilted boreholes, In case that the plan area of the proposed schoo! building and its layout over the site did not satisfy the above conditions, additional test borings are recommended in other areas of the site to confirm that the above conclusions and recommendations apply. Foundation Sett With the foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above recommendations, the settlement is cstimated to be within the tolerable limits. An estimate of the ar the following relationship : pated foundation settlement was carried out using 4B? Lye 1, Ey in which, s : Immediate, or elastic foundation settlement, Qe: Specified maximum net foundation pressure. By : Characteristic Dimeasion of the foundation. 1: Poisson's Ratio, token as 0.33 Fy __: Deformation Modulus, estimated as 150 kg/em2 I,& Ip : Shape & Depth Correction Factors. ‘The obtained settlement was insignificant, and negligible. Moreover, most of this settlement will take place during the construction period 22126 MH Station # ? 'S99031 64 65 66 67 68 A It is expected that the excavation will be through top soil of silty ck and marl deposits, and through, highty fractured, weak marlstone and mart, ‘erefore, conventional excavation equipment such as loaders and dozers, will be sufficient for the excavation works. However, pnoumatic equipment such as jack hammers with compression and rock breakers may be required, in some Jocations for the exeavation of marlstone materials. Excavation Lopes size the instability problems, the temporary side excavation during construction should be sloped at a face inclination not steeper than one horizontal to twa vertical (HH: 2V). Surface Rrainage: It is recommended to protect the foundation ground and excavation from surface water both during and after construction by providing proper drainage and protection system. Surface water should be diverted away from the edges of the excavations, Subsurface Drainage System: No fice ground water was encountered within the proposed zone of foundation depth, therefore, no subsurface drainage system is needed. However, in order to prevent water dampness at the basement walls, and ground floor, if any, all subsurface walls and bottom of foundations should be water insulated with proper insulating materials. Water stops should be used at all construction joints Pre ctipn of Foundation From Soil Environment : “The chemical tests results indicated that the soil environment is slightly hostile to the foundation concrete, ‘Therefore, no special considerations for foundation protection are required (see paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5). However. all subsurface structures should be totally protected by isolating the structures with appropriate protective coating or sheeting which shall extend up to and little above the finished ground level. Normal concrete cover (50-75 mm) shall also be provided, 2306 MAH Station #2 $9903 69 6.10 TX ‘The top silty clay materials are not suitable for backfilling purposes because of their plasticity. The marlstone crushings and creamy marl materials resulting. during excavation works, are probably suitable as backfilling materi. Uowever, the final decision shall be taken during construction and after testing. spaction Criteria: ‘The materials to be used for backfilling purposes behind underground walls and basement floor slab shall be a soil or soil-rock mixture which is free from organic matter or other deleterious substances, 1t shall not contain rocks or lumps over 15 cm in greatest dimension, and not more than 15 percent larger than 7 em, ‘The plasticity index for the backfill material shall not be more than, 15 percent. It shall be spread in lifts aot exceeding 25 em in uncompacted thickness, moisture conditioned to_ its optimum moisture content, and compacted to a dry density not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by standard proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698). Earth Pressure: The underground walls of the building, ifany, drained and backfilled as recommended above, shall be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 0.8 ginvem3 (800 kg/m3) plus a uniform lateral pressure which corresponds to the maxitnum expected surface loads, In all cases, additionat lateral pressures, if any, exerted on the underground walls from footings and loads at higher levels of the adjacent buildings shall be considered in the structural design. MU Station #2 S90 ou Seismisity of Site: ‘The study area is very close to the Jordan rif (the area is only few Kilometers from the Jordan rift) and is in fact affected by the tectonics of the rif. ‘The Jordan riN represents a focus of earthquake activity. Therefore, any activity in the rift would certainly have a bearing on the naturally or artificially instable carth blocks. According to the seismic photomap published by the Geologie Survey of Israel and which includes a record of the carthquakes measured in the area during the period of 1981 to 1993, there is evidence of the existence of numerous non-major earthquakes of Richter magnitudes of more than 5. According to Jordan National Building Code for Loads and Forees, the site may be classified as class A according to this code, This region has an earthquake intensity of VII to IX on Mercalli Scale, and of 0.75 intensity factor. This region is generally considered as the highest active seismological zone according 0 this code. Major hazards shall be expected in the arca of this region. The seismic hazard for any particular site could be assessed by Modified Mercalli intensity (Factor of intensity) or by Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). The PGA is very widely used for the assessment of seismic hazards al the sites of engineering projects. Due to the seismicity of the project area and because of its proximity from the Jordan Valley, a PGA value of 0.1g to 0.15g is recommentted for structural design purposes. (Richter 1958, has developed a correlation between the Richter Magnitude, Modified Mercalli Intensity, Vetocity, and Ground Acceleration. The above recommended ground acceleration corresponds to an earthquake of @ Richter Magnitude of 7, and modified Mercalli intensity of VII). 2576 MH Station # 2 $9031 6.12 Modificd Mercalli. Scale is a measure of the intensity of earthquakes and is correlated with Richter (Magnitude) Scale, as follows, (Richter 1958): uivatent Richter Ground Acceleration (2) Iv 0.007 - 0.015 4 v 0.015 ~ 0.035 vl 0.035 ~0.07 5 vil 0.07 -0.15 6 vit 0.15 0.35 7 1K 0.35--0.70 Foundation Excavation Inspection: The reconimendations given in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface materials and conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the borings. Our office should be notifted, in writing, immediately after foundation excavation and before foundation construction to inspect the excavations and confirm that the requited ground is reached and all the undesirable and loose 1s are removed. Such inspection, and any other routine foundation jan inspection (if requested), will be carried out at separate fees. 2626 MIT Station # 2 $9903 APPENDIX A LOGS OF BORING Mit Station # 599031 Sale SAMPLER TYPE Hm i al ld ceamtee -COREARCL AUGER SHELBY OVE OWE DANE goo rioey Bante GOON ws rth ecinay—Doind Vented EE aly ihe Uk Uaiobea Casas sown, nthe Stondrd Panton Ki requed io veo fie cenit omelet 1 eyo em) Ta ante of yy jee Mlograme welght Fotling teventy Us SU Mgt rompte e dotance of ty canines ong wat Centres Fig Grolnes_Soih Corte Groined Soils Fee ewtcors | Foy epee eet ny ponies ero} tote [au ec dened with ie ont i bt catty trove, Pennvoted sever cc som ih modo iggy [shorted wim ate. eae aed ese |taquin vic to loten a opted fortoving by Yond. ey wih et eo enna aga loing erheor| eet eevee. etd, wih Achy by thon ol Ma rwzovared a wech pone Be ot Regt of the core m, secarer The porcentge of 09h of co of nfo cove pleat tem conten oF eee the ack Gv Dutgnaan ihe prcstogy of the som of legit Wee he ttt agi oe cove se Ses an too sl cont nd fae cco by tl tlle cian ni od et el io oP fife 3 ween "R teleton ta como ant neo nanan cnn tar ie epee wih o ea erent) as eT oF eg cone Tow Same! of em (Best on fone IIR Rock Quotiy Ta ai eigestan tad 0-38 10 a7 now oar sata “PRAQ CENTER FOR ENGINEERING | STUOIES LOG PROJECT: Al-Nwaimah School Uullding LOCATION: Jericho DRITLING DATE: 09/05/09 DRILLING METHOD: rovany xR rivet OF BORING BORING No.: BHL (8 99031). BLRVATION: 161.50 GROUND WATER DEPTH: WB. ‘TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 16.00 ‘set (8) a DESCRIPTION wa ‘Allarlal deposits of wilty mart with trubreunded grarela of Limestone and chert. I LOG OF BORING PROJECT: 41-Hnalinah School Dulbting RORING Ni 1 LOCATION: tericho RLRVATION: 161.60 DRILLING DATE: 09/05/00 GROUND WATER DEPTH: Nz. DRITJING METIIOD: rotary am Fat ‘TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 16.00 mere | S| REC | RGD ‘.P.T (NY qa * w |r] @ | @ = veh leven Bit (8 99081), are. DESCRIPTION PROJECT:A-Neaimah School Guttdirg LOCATION: terioha DRILLING DATE: 10/05/69 DRILLING METHOD: rotaxy am rust LOG OF BORING BORING No.: BHa (8 89091). RLBYATION: 101.60 GROUND WATER DEPTH: N38, TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 16.00 chert, marirtone, DESCRIPTION ‘Alluvial doposita of ality mart with subrounded gravnls of limestone and Yelloriah to ereamy, mofat marl interbedded with thin lagers of LOG OF BORING PROJECT:AL-Nwalmah School Pullding TOCATION: Jortcha DRILLING DATR: DRILLING METHOD: rovarr am Lat ey 7 BORING No,: BH2 (S 99031). BLEVATION: 141.50 GROUND WATER DEPTH: Xx. TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 16.00 DESCRIPTION Yellowish to ereamy, moist marl Interbodded by thin Inyere of mmarletone, BQO | Rook qualtty Designation SPT Standard Penetration Test APPENDIX B SULPHATE & CHLORIDE MAL Station #2 $99031 Gnule 7, Concrete expgaed Ch euphinve attack Gane Ta ground “Cement couplptng with Denve, fatly compacted concrete ade wlth 20 mann complying with gan? oF BS 10¢T MRS tor methods of analysts, and to IRE ropectively Non 19 ow a 2 tb seceunmerated thatthe shanna content af ge dors mot exceed wl ee tess |hess [Less |Table t Tear 02 [ran 1.0 [than 0.9 fazte |how foste |nsi2, Bs 145, bs¢se8 toes 1.0 1-2 This 12 combined with teas than 26 % pla BS 12 combined with less than 70 % ggbs S12 combined with 26 % (0 40% pla’ BS 12 combined with 70 X to 00% gabs 195 4246 with at least 70% gas 1S 6588 with at least 25 % pla 154027 (SRPC) us 4248 (S50) HS 12 combined with 2 % to 40% pla 1S 12 combined with 70% (o 00 % gabs 15 4246 with at feast 70 % gabs 15S GG8B with at least 25 % pla 185.6610 with not more than 40 % pf US 4027 HFC} us 4248 (SSC) {Bs 4027 (SiPC) Us 4248 (SSC) 1S 4027 and U5 4248 (SSC) both with adequate of the sulphate fs present as love soliy calctum sulphate, analas onthe bans of ce ineancatton than tht obtained from the extraction of total SO, protective coating (see BS8110) BS 6610 with not more than 40 % pfa EET) {370 370 0.60 0.4 0 6 Tian should be made for agzesstes of moma maximus ace otver than 20% by 4.251 pater eateact may peer, Thcterence should be made to DRE Cerrent ‘Digests 720 and 276 for aterpeetation tn relation to natural sols and Cty /e Well - compacted castin-situ concrete betwee 14.0in to 4.50:rm thickness and exposed on ali faces to sulphate soit of il, Aggregates to G5 002 of OS 1047. For ollier exposures oF fypes of concrete seo Tables ta and 1b, ‘nendations for concrote ORE Digest 363, 1991 Table 1: Classilication of sites ant 0 Cement — Minimum = Maximum free Dy 2:4 waicrisoil type sco cement —waller/cement textiact - git gh table te content ratio gin Nolet A Notes 182 SO, 1.0 360 045 extract 760 <1 | As for Class 4 26.0 31.0 plus susface protection see GP 102 Note + Cement content includes pfa and slag, Note 2 Cement contents rctate to 20n1m nominal maximum size aggregate. fn order to maintain the cement cont ‘of the mortar fraction at similar valugs, the minimum cement contents given should be Increased by 40k for 10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be decreased by 30 kgim3 for 40mm nonv maximum size agoregate as described in Table 0 of DS $320 : Part 5. Mole 3 The minimum vakuo requirad in BS 8110: 1905 and BS 6328 ; Pail 4: 1090 Is 275kyhin® for uprolafor structural concrete in contact with non-aggressive soi. A mioimum cement content of 300kg/m" (BS 01 and maximum fice water/cement ration of 0.60 is required for reinforced concrete. A minimum com content of 220kgfm? and inaximum free waterfcement ration of 0.00 s pormissibte for C20 grade conc velien using unretntorced sbip foundations and trench fil for low-rise buildings in Class 4, i. Tate 1a Modification tv Tulle 1 for olficr types of exposure to sulphates URE Digest 363, 1991 General recommendations xposure Floors On Hor hant-coe cootsiving saobata In: Provide membrane betwoan the fil oc hard-core ondfoat fis, Opss LE a Provide. membrane between the fiLor haw) cose ans. any-sonctele, Chose 3 Aand Hol recommended for use.as.a base for concrete loans. Static groundwater For normaly dry sites or soils with permebilly tess than 10°avs. Tate 1 rolers to permeable seis (ies t04ivsin Figure Gof BS 8001) (og. unfssured clay) where fs deeldos Not the groundwater is sehich to mobile (09. Milly eta, the classification n Toble 1 for Ciasses 2, and 4 groundwater and would nckrte may be reduced by one Tess. exposure to freo water. tales pomieable soits, the amount of water movement will depend on the topography of the site and a judgment or a site measureiwent must be made to decide whether the greanwvater is static or movie. Hascment, embankment or ta hydrostatic head greater than five ines the thickness of the i ining walls roneole is created by the groundwater, the classification ia Table + | 1 Stoukd be increased by ono class. This required con be waived It a iamier fo prevent moisture (ransfer trough the walls provided or biter completion of normal curing, the concrete face thas fo be exposed fo suiphale has been exposed lo air But protected from rain {or several wocks. Table 1b Moditcations te tilts Lor otter types of concrete BRE Digest 369, 1994 Concrete Type Pooily compacted concicte de for full compaction 1 olasses 2, 3 and A the requirements for typo of cement, Cast-in-sity concrete over 45001 F i round beams, vail cenvant content and waterteemseat rato given in Yable ¥ may bo aus oe ples with smooth suifaces reduced by one class ifother durabitly and stasctoral idorations permit, which, after normal curing, have been con exposed to air but protected from rain for several weeks. Cast-in-silu concrete {other than Inctease classification in Table 1 by one class ground floor stabs) less Ahan 140m thick or having many edges aml corne’ Precast concrete: blocks Blocks should comply with BS 6073 and with BS 5628 : Part 3 telating fo use below ground for classes 2 and 3 pf Tabte 1. As an bitemative to complince with the srininwin cement content and Waterfcoment ratio given In Table 1 for Classes 1 to 9. autoclaved Blocks (including aerated blocks - Alrerete - with a minimum dlensily of GO0kgim’) or pressed blocks wih nore than 5 their feast cioss-sectional area carbonated’ may be used. of | Concrete biicks Comptiance with BS 6073 and with Table 1 Concrete Pipes Classification with respect to lype of cement may be reduced by ‘ene class for pipes complying with Part 100 and 120 of DS 6911. Cement contents and watertcement ratios in Table t are not felovant, 7 ‘Goniplance wilh BS 1164, Porous Goncicle pines are not suitoble for use in Class 3, 4 and 5 soils. HH _ Porcus cone = atiated ty bxeakiny block sd opplying pheaoiphifalein - sec BRE information Paper 6/04 [a BRE Digest 363, 1991 Table te Iypes of Cement | Code type or Combination _ Coda Typo of Combination A Porttand cement to US 12 1 Sulphate resisting Ponland coment to OS 4027. High-stag blastturnace coment to OS 4246 containing not less than 74% slag hy mass of nucteus. -e-coments 1 Poilkand Masttenns tobs 146, Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace © High stay blasttumace coment ta J ‘stag lo BS 6699 containing not less than 70% slag and not BS 4246 ‘more than 90% slag by nrass of slag plus cement. 1D. Combinations of Portiand cements toBS {Zand blastiurnace slag to K_—_ Portland pfa cement to BS 6588 containing not tess than 26% bs 6699 fa by mass of nucleus. Combinations of Porting coments to BS 12 and pla to BS. 9002 : Pail 4 containing nol fess than 25% pla and not more: ian 40% pfa by mass of pfa plus cement. E_ Poiltand placements to DS.6503 A F Combinations of Portiand cement to BS 812 and pla to BS 3002: mitt G Pozzokwic pla-cement to BS 6610 Pel eeeceeReeee fn codos 1 sind J, stag with akinina (A1,0,) content over 14% should be used only with Portland cemnt fring low fo moderate CA content (Iypically tess than 10%). Fable 2 Requirements fcr concrete exposed fo attack from ackks of pl 2.5 Ribighet 309, 1991 Moinily ‘Chiange in Ciassitication with respect to of Wats mums cement content and niaximum Conesete it ete fa) | (tata | yaterfcement rato for ihe tyne of cement Use Contact wits, {pth | RLMeMe | Ts tte socommended on the basis of sulphate in Tables 1, teand 1b Viton aebvncing ehasses for coments = G into Classes 3-4, clionse the higher coment content tion g Foundations including poured No Change, ‘Advance by one Te piles. Ete For piles mado by spectat techniques, wing tow | Ground watercement | Containing ratio, stighly | wastes or stringent made-up requirements | graund to55 [Advance by two fess | may be ~ Advance by one fess [applicable _ ee | Advance by tines fess ina | S38 = No Change Ground [SEE eee eee fe Extewat Ground [25 | TH : Provide suiloce protection SO, is above Class 3 Suilsee Con: taining a Wo Giiange wastes oF madeup PAS PM Provide suilace prat if SO, is above Class 2 around ae A [Re Giange” Pipes to Naturat ‘No Change Ee BS 5O11 vwatereffivent _ [Re Cha Parts 100& | doemstic Provide suse praiecion wing WSO, Ts avve Gis 3 120 sewage Biovidesitaceproiocien ting WSO, f above Glass 2 Frovkie sotacepicketien ning respecive eT SO, | Chssiication _ [No Chan Concrete noi sutaiie ‘No Change. Parous pipes | Land toBS 1194 | Drainaye Haturat | Advance by one clos Culverts water offizent ‘Ravanee by one classes castin-sita = mi ‘Advance by two olaes of precast Industrial iM ‘Advance by two classes i f vent M = Advonceto Class ~| thik aetic ~~| Seo diary Floors = Ministry ot Ag Fish and Food 1967 ond Concicte in Ni acid) Parlows, Goments and Concrole Association, Farm Not.9:1900 Silage rovicoturat | fpcipaty | Contact Misty of Ag Fish and Food fr eaten econnenatons and Foctic acts) eee if Industiat | Aesd spillage ww | ~ industiat Refer to anecialist producers of acid resistance finishes and CP 204 SEE EEE rocesses Bee Eee a it site URE Digeersed Wt Fup Paceline tor cheesiest TATORAL OUND WATER EEF «| [ee | D WASTIECONTAINING CALCULATE EQUIVALENT SO, ‘and add to OETERMINED SO, SLASSIFY SITE ON BASIS: OF 0, choose: Type of cement Waleddeement tatio Cement content hom Taiblo 1 PRE: CLASSIFY SITE ON GASIS OF pH CHANGE: Woterfeement ratio Coment content cording to Toto 2 > Figures Tyjneaf exposure cominwns MesEstase arene unten tnenntccon chelaean ob anead tsi 1 Reconnmentlecoent tape Pareboceeteeutenasee Tate IE” Gromdtevel wettabsexapllsgyee bd Supertestoressinbond ih HO eK ofainthoene se ry r 0 Recuurwerdedeenent type Ferevectete crea, see Table 1 1 Grownstesctuaincapy een py lmnicn stare watertie Aa atat hate SS waterable ves Me coasts apse aw bane Supecsewetunesshaat a eee reconmenteacarecnpe Oop Z STN Forcuncicernera se table 13 eter aererancntion te HOPKOWSO Figen a) shouldbe stameitiseiesedehurahproceronmaghibe seeded santa the ui well stove capilory se eo, ad with NO ik of water nteodces atthe suetace by trig sate. o @ foi aten, eh For concrete eriteia seoTable 3 ecomceded cement ype posure comition GVO 0 SIA | Sptaitrsone vel) (or Saar?) | tmtewidatzane”

    You might also like