DX23-044 Final Report

Report No.
DX23-044
Page 2 of 26
Project: RFP 171 Design & Build of the Pulse Beachfront Residences
Table of Contents
Page No.
1.0 Introduction 04
2.0 Site and Project Description 05
3.0 Field Work 06
3.1 Stake out of the Investigative Locations 06
3.2 Drilling of Boreholes 06
3.3 Field Testing and Sampling 06
4.0 Laboratory Testing 09
5.0 Subsurface Conditions 10
5.1 Summary of SPT Results 10
5.2 Generalized geology 10
5.3 Groundwater 11
5.4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 11
6.0 Soil Liquefaction 12
7.0 Seismic Parameters 17
8.0 Soil/Rock Parameters 18
9.0 Foundation Recommendation 21
10.0 Foundation Construction 24
11.0 Foundation Concrete 25

Appendix – A Site Location Map
Appendix – B1 Borehole Legends
Appendix – B2 Borehole Logs
Appendix – C Laboratory Testing
Appendix – D Reference for Chemical Analysis
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 4 of 26
1.0 Introduction
This report presents an establishment of the soil/rock profile and the ground water conditions,
general characteristics and variability of the ground. This profile is supplemented by in-situ and
laboratory testing in order to provide the design with sufficient information for the suitability of the
site and foundation.
This report referred as R3/DX23-044, covers a total of Seven (07) boreholes drilled down to a
depth of 10.0m below existing ground level in order to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the
location of the project proposed “RFP 171 Design & Build of the Pulse Beachfront
Residences”.
1.1 Scope of Work
1. Collect information about the site and project drawing, proposed constructions, etc.
2. Conduct a desk study of existing information.
3. Conduct a site visit to see the location of the boreholes & plan for the site works.
4. Carrying out drilling of Seven (07) boreholes down to the depth of 10.0m below existing
ground level (EGL).
 Regular split-spoon sampling during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in soils.
 Undisturbed rock sampling by double tube core barrel rotary drilling.
 Groundwater Level Measurement and Sampling (if encountered).
5. Conduct laboratory tests on borehole samples.
6. Performing engineering analysis and developing conclusions and recommendations.
All investigative work was performed by experienced geotechnical personnel under the regular
supervision of an experienced geotechnical engineer.
1.2 Standards and Codes of Practices
The following international standards are followed for field and laboratory testing:
BS 1377 Part 9 : 1990

Method of tests for soils for Civil Engineering Purposes
AMD 8264 – 95
BS 5930:2015+ A1:2020 Code of practice for Ground Investigations
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 5 of 26
2.0 Site and Project Description

2.1 Site Location
The site lies on Plot No.RN-0S55, Phase 6E, Dubai South, UAE. The site location is shown In
Appendix A.
2.2 Site Topography
At the time of investigation, the site was slightly level; site levels are related to the Dubai
Municipality Datum level. The borehole locations were provided by the contractor, and it is
shown in Appendix A.
2.3 Project Description
The project is “RFP 171 Design & Build of the Pulse Beachfront Residences”. The Main
consultant on the project being M/s. Khatib & Alami and M/s. Citiscape LLC contractor is who
ordering this investigation & testing works to provide the design consultant with sufficient
information on the ground (soil / rock) and groundwater conditions to use in their design /
construction details.
2.4 Prevailing Weather Conditions
The site is located in Dubai; UAE climate is subtropical and arid, with very high seasonal
temperature variations. In summer (March to October), it is hot and humid and temperatures are
around 38o Celsius (100o Fahrenheit) during the day. Winter daytime temperatures average a
very pleasant 26oC, although nights can be relatively cool, between 12-15oC on the coast, and
less than 5oC in the depths of the desert or high in the mountains.
Humidity in coastal areas averages between 50 to 60 percent, touching over 90 percent in

summer and autumn. Inland, it is far less humid.
Rainfall is sparse and intermittent. In most years it rains during the winter months, usually in
February or March, but occasionally earlier.
Localized thunderstorms occasionally occur during the summer.
Accordingly, this climate imposes adverse conditions on the concrete structures, such as;
1. Rapid evaporation of water surface.
2. High temperature promotes rapid rates of collisions.
3. The difference between night and day temperatures affects concrete durability.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 6 of 26
3.0 Field Work

The assigned geotechnical investigation works mainly involve the following site activities /
testing:
 Drilling of boreholes of 10.0m depth - 07 Nos.
 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in soil - All Boreholes
 Undisturbed rock sampling - All Boreholes
 Groundwater Level Measurements - All Boreholes (if encountered).
 Groundwater Sampling - All Boreholes (if encountered).
3.1 Stake out of the Investigative Locations

The borehole locations at the project site were identified and staked out by the GTL based on
their design / construction details and requirements. The site plan reflecting the proposed
borehole locations is included in appendix-A for reference.
Table 1: Borehole Depth Details (Average ground +43.79 DMD Lvl)
Drilled Depth Easting Northing Ground Level
Borehole No.
(m, below *EGL) in *DMD
BH -01 10.0 489040.706 2758712.980 +42.429
BH -02 10.0 488984.430 2758737.590 +43.151
BH -03 10.0 488909.788 2758746.041 +43.811
BH -04 10.0 488828.272 2758717.907 +43.100
BH -05 10.0 488875.239 2758803.492 +44.106
BH -06 10.0 488885.495 2758870.636 +44.705
BH -07 10.0 488881.175 2758917.176 +45.233
*DMD-Dubai Municipality Datum, *EGL-Existing Ground Level
3.2 Drilling of Boreholes

All the investigative boreholes (07 Nos.) at the particular locations were drilled down to a depth
of 10.0m below existing ground level and at positions identified by the consultant, as seen in
appendix-A.
Drilling of these investigative boreholes was completed between 07th June 2023 and 14th June
2023 using RM 22 rotary drilling rig.
3.3 Field Testing and Sampling

The disturbed samples and split spoon samples were obtained through Standard Penetration
Tests (SPT) performed at 0.5 m intervals for the initial 3.0 m depth (from EGL) and at 1.0 m /
1.5m interval thereafter down to the rock head level to assess the relative densities of the
superficial materials. The tests were performed in accordance with BS 1377:1990 Part 9
AMD8264-95, “Determination of Penetration Resistance Using Split Barrel Sampler (SPT)”.
The SPT consists of driving a standard 50 mm diameter (outer) thin wall sampler into soil from
the top of the test section, using repeated blows of a 63.5kg hammer falling through 760mm. The
SPT ‘N’ value is the number of blows necessary to achieve the penetration of the split-barrel
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 7 of 26
sampler to a length of 300 mm (after its penetration under gravity and below the seating drive).
Disturbed and split spoon samples obtained from the boreholes were placed in airtight plastic
bags before being transported to the laboratory for testing.
The undisturbed rock core samples were obtained using a double core barrel having 76mm
internal diameter. The core samples recovered were examined, described and classified by our
geotechnical engineers, placed in proper sequence in wooden core boxes and were carefully
transported to laboratory for testing. The moist core samples were wrapped in polythene wraps
before being placed in wooden core boxes (5 x 1.0m). Whenever non-intact (NI) core samples
were recovered, standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted to confirm the relative density
of the strata at the subsequent depth.
The test results of the SPT and their relative densities are shown on the borehole logs in
appendix-B at the respective test depths along with detailed description of the samples obtained.
Soil / Rock sample descriptions were carried out in accordance with the requirements of BS
5930:2015 standards.
3.3.1 Description of Soil Sample

Description of soil samples covered; mass characteristics such as relative density, consistency &
strength, material characteristics (classification, composite and principle soil type), visual
properties like color, geological origin and origin of formation.
The relative density of granular materials (sands and gravels) was assigned to their respective
strata based on their characteristic standard penetration blow count (N) values, when tested as
per BS 1377: Part-9 and as per the criteria spelled out in table-2.
Table 2: Relative Density of Granular Soils Based on SPT N Values

Term SPT N-values (blows/300 mm penetration)
Very loose 0 to 4
Loose 4 to 10
Medium dense 10 to 30
Dense 30 to 50
Very dense over 50
However, for fine soils (silts & clays), consistency properties are expressed in terms of their
corresponding un-drained shear strength. Soil classification based on visual description by the
logging geologist, has subsequently been updated based on putting the available laboratory
classification test results together with the corresponding visual description and making a final
judgment as to the most appropriate soil classification to adopt for each of the strata in the
profile.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 8 of 26
3.3.2 Description of Rock Materials

The logging process of rock cores covered material characteristics such as; strength, structure,
color, texture, grain size, lithology (major and minor), mass characteristics such as state of
weathering / weathering grade (W), fracturing and any other general information as well.
These were naturally covered for every core run in addition to the standard core drilling
parameters such as; total core recovery (TCR), solid core recovery (SCR%) and rock quality
designation (RQD%), as per BS 5930:2015 standard definitions. Strength of the rock material
was determined during logging based on the standard practices prescribed by BS 5930:2015 as
well as the values of the unconfined compressive strength obtained in the laboratory, based on
which the final strength descriptions were adopted. The adopted scale of rock strength, based on
the unconfined compressive test and as per BS-5930 standard requirements is seen in table-3.
Table 3: Strength Scales of Rocks Cores Based on Standard UCS Test Value
Term Unconfined Compressive Strength (MN/m2)
Extremely weak 0.60 – 1.0
Very weak 1.0 to 5.0
Weak 5.0 to 25
Medium Strong 25 to 50
Strong 50 to 100
Very strong 100 to 250
Extremely strong > 250
Weathering grades of rock cores are provided in the logs in accordance with BS 5930:1999.
Different criteria have been used for quantitative description of the degree of fracturing of rock
cores; these are the total core recovery (TCR %), solid core recovery (SCR %), fracture index
(FI) and rock quality designation (RQD %).
 TCR (%): The ratio of the total length of the core recovered (intact and non-intact) to the
total length of the corresponding core run.
 SCR (%): The ratio of total length of solid (intact) core recovered to the total length of the
corresponding core run.
 RQD (%): The ratio of the total length of solid (intact) core pieces equal or longer than
100 mm to the total length of the corresponding core run.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 9 of 26
4.0 Laboratory Testing

Selected soil and groundwater samples were identified for laboratory testing and the following
tests were carried out as per the standard test method indicated in Clause 1.2.
Table 4: List of Laboratory Tests Conducted
Material Test Description Standard Used
Particle Size Analysis

BS 1377 Part 2 : 1990
Moisture Content
Chloride Content
Soil
Sulphate Content
pH
BS 1377 Part 3 :2018
Chloride Content
Ground
Sulphate Content
Water
pH
UCS ASTM D 7012:2014

Rock
Point Load ASTM D 5731:2005
The laboratory test results are presented in appendix C.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Reportt No. DX23--044
Page 10 of 26
Projectt: RFP 171 Design
D & Bu
uild of the Pu
ulse Beachffront Residences
5.0 Su
ubsurface Conditions
C s
5.1Sum
mmary of Sttandard Penetration Te
est Results
s
Figgure 1: SPT V
Values Vs Elevvation Level
5.2 Ge
eneralized Geology
G
The findings of the boreholes were

w generallly consistent with the antticipated geo
ology of the site.
s
The cla
assification of
o soil has been done in accordan
nce with BS
S 5930:2015
5+A1:2020. The
T
generalized geologiical strata are
e as follows:
Tablle 5: General Stratigraphyy (Avg. Grounnd Level = +443.79m DMD))
Depth* below
D
Description
m, EGL
Brown/light brown, sliightly gravelly,, silty, fine to m
medium graine ed, calcareouss
0.00
0 to 0.50 m
SAND. Gravels are w weathered, fine e to medium sized calcareou us sandstone rock
(+4
43.79 to +43.29)
pieces.
Mediumm dense to den nse, brown, slightly gravelly,, silty, fine to medium
m graine
ed,
0.50
0 to 3.00 m
calcareoous SAND. Grravels are wea athered, fine to o medium size ed calcareous
43.29 to +40.79)
(+4
sandstoone rock piece
es.
Very de
ense, brown, slightly gravellyy, silty, fine to medium grain ned, calcareou us
3.00
3 to 4.31 m
SAND. Gravels are w weathered fine to medium sizzed, sub- angular, sub-
(+4
40.79 to +39.48)
roundedd, calcareous sandstone roc ck pieces are rrecovered as SPT S sample.
Very weeak to weak, vvery thinly to medium
m beddeed, light brown//brown,
4..31 to 10.0 m
calcareoous SANDSTO ONE. Partiallyy to distinctly w weathered, verry closely to
(+399.48 to +33.799)
mediumm spaced, sub--horizontal rou ugh fractures.
*DMD-D
Dubai Municippality Datum, *EGL-Existing
* g Ground Levell
Form : GD/SI-33
G
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.20100], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 11 of 26
5.3 Groundwater
At the time of investigation, ground water table level encountered below the existing ground
surface is shown in table no. 6; variations in ground water table are anticipated due to seasonal
and tidal fluctuations or by artificial induced effects. Therefore, reconfirmation is recommended
prior to any works related to the ground water regime.
Table 6: Groundwater level records
Drilled Depth Ground Water Depth, Ground Water Depth,
Borehole No.
(m, below *EGL) m (*EGL) m (*DMD)
BH -01 10.0 4.70 +37.73
BH -02 10.0 4.80 +38.35
BH -03 10.0 5.60 +38.21
BH -04 10.0 5.60 +37.50
BH -05 10.0 6.20 +37.90
BH -06 10.0 5.45 +39.25
BH -07 10.0 5.60 +39.63
5.4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Refer Appendix C for the detailed test results.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 12 of 26
6.0 Soil Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated loose cohesion less soil is subjected to a
temporary, but essential total loss of strength induced by severe earthquakes. Significant factors
known to affect the liquefaction potential of these soil are the characteristics of the material, such
as the grain size distribution and relative: the initial stresses or monotonic shear stresses that
could even trigger flow liquefaction by the generation of excess pore water pressure and stain
softening: and the characteristics of the earthquake in, such as the intensity and duration of the
ground shaking.
Soil liquefaction describes the behavior of loose saturated unconsolidated soils, i.e., loose
sands, which go from a solid state to have the consistency of a heavy liquid or reach a liquefied
state as a consequence of increasing pore water pressures, and thus decreasing effective
stress, induced by their tendency to decrease in volume when subjected to cyclic untrained
loading (e.g., earthquake loading). Liquefaction is more likely to occur in loose to moderate
granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sands and gravels capped or containing
seams of impermeable sediments.
6.1.1 Calculation Methodology
The Seed-Idriss method of liquefaction analysis will be followed. This method is based is most
widely used worldwide and is based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results. Since the
development of this method in 1971, it has gone through many amendments and improvements.
These calculations will be based on procedure defined in the Summary Report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
published by T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss [Ref. 2].
Based on this procedure a shear stress is generated in the soil due to seismic loading which
can be calculated by the following equation:
 = 0.65 x σ0 x (amax / g) x rd
Where,
amax= peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface generated by the EQ
σ0- total overburden stress
rd- stress reduction coefficient given by
rd= 1.0 – 0.00765 z for z (depth) ≤ 9.15m
rd= 1.174 – 0.00267 z for 9.15m < z ≤ 23m
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 13 of 26
Evaluation of CSR
The Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) is the seismic demand of the soil layer and is calculated by
normalizing the above equivalent shear stress with the initial effective overburden pressure.
CSR = /σ'0 = 0.65 x (σ0 /σ'0) x (amax / g) x rd
Where,
σ'0 = effective overburden stress
Evaluation of CRR
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is another parameter which expresses the capacity of the soil to
resist liquefaction. The CRR can be determined based on SPT, CPT, shear wave velocity and
some other in-situ soil parameters.
Using the SPT value, the CRR can be approximated by
CRRM=7.5 = 1/[34-(N1)60cs]+(N1)60cs/135+50/[10(N1)60cs+45]2-1/200
Figure 2: Correlation between CRR and (N1)60
(N1)60cs is the equivalent SPT blow count for clean sand also corrected for the effective
overburden pressure, hammer energy, borehole diameter, sampling method and length of rod.
The CRR for the given earthquake (e.g. CRRM=5.5) is calculated by the following relationship:
CRRM=Given M = CRRM=7.5 x MSF
Where,
MSF is the Magnitude Scaling Factor
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 14 of 26
Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)

The values of MSF have been taken as the average of the range recommended from NCEER
Workshop and are given below:
The chart given in Figure6 below was used to determine the MSF values.
Figure 3: Magnitude Scaling Factors from Youd and Noble 1997a
From the above graph For Earthquake Magnitude

MSF= 2.0 Mw=6.0
Evaluation of Safety Factor
Finally, the factor of safety against liquefaction will be calculated from the following:
FoS = CRRM=Given M / (CSR * FS)
The minimum required factor of safety against liquefaction triggering is 1.0. In evaluating the
need to address the hazards associated with the liquefaction of ground, an acceptable factor of
safety needs to be chosen. Often the acceptable factor of safety is chosen arbitrarily. Southern
California Earthquake Center of University of Southern California suggests the use of a factor of
safety between 1.0 depending on consequences of liquefaction.
Correction for SPT

The corrected SPT is given by the following equation:
(N1)60 = Nfield CN CE CB CR CS
Where,
CN=Overburden correction factor= (Patm/ σ'0)0.5
Where,
Patm = Atmospheric Pressure = 95.76kPa; Min CN = 1.7
CE = Energy correction factor = 0.83 used for 50% Energy transfer
CB = Correction factor for borehole diameter = 1.0 for dia 65-115mm
CR = Correction factor for Rod Length
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 15 of 26
= 0.75 for rod length 0-3m;

= 0.80 for 3-4m;
= 0.85 for 4-6m;
= 0.95 for 6-10m
CS = Correction factor for sampler = 1.0 for standard sampler
Correction for Fines Content (FC)

The corrected SPT N value ((N1)60) is further corrected for fines content to get equivalent
corrected N value for clean sand i.e. (N1)60cs by the following relationship:
(N1)60cs = a + b (N1)60
Where
a and b are coefficients determined from the following relationships:
 = 0 for FC ≤ 5%
 = exp [1.76-(190/FC2)] for 5% < FC <35%
 = 5.0 for FC ≥ 35%
and
 = 1.0 for FC ≤ 5%
 = [0.99 + (FC1.5/1000)] for 5% < FC <35%
 = 1.2 for FC ≥ 35%
Ka and Ks Factors
Correction factor Ka and Ks were developed by Seed in 1983 for large overburden pressures
(depth > 15m) and high static shear stresses (sloping ground). For the particular case both of
these factors are not applicable.
Assumptions Adopted During Calculations

The following assumptions were utilized as guidelines during the process of
calculations, as per
Authority (DM- DBC2021) Requirements: -
Peak Ground Acceleration (amax) = 0.20 g
Mw = 6.0 Richter’s
FOS = 1.5
References
1. T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss (2001); “Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering; p 297-313, April 2001
2. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines
For Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 16 of 26
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the results of SPTs undertaken as part of the latest ground investigation works, the
project site we found that the subsurface materials are dense to Very dense Silty, SAND material
and down to rock, liquefaction potential is unlikely /site can be considered as free from
liquefaction.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 17 of 26
7.0 Seismic parameters

7.1 Soil Profile Type:
Based on the provisions of ASCE7 and existing subsoil conditions in the site, The Site Class
type C representing Weak Rock may be adopted for the design.
Table-7.0: Site Seismic Classification as per ASCE7-16 & Dubai Building code
Recommended
Description Parameter Reference
Value
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for short
Ss, g 0.51
periods:
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for 1-sec
S1, g 0.18 Table F.20 DBC
period:
-Long-Period Transition Period (TL, s) TL, s 24
Weak
Site Class C Table 20.3-1, ASCE7-16
Rock
Short-Period Site Coefficient Fa 1.196
Table 11.4-1 & Table 11.4-2,
ASCE7-16
Long-Period Site Coefficient Fv 1.620
Peak Ground Acceleration PGA 0.13 Table F.20 DBC
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 18 of 26
8.0 Soil/Rock Parameters

This Section provides an assessment of the ground properties to be adopted in the foundation
designs, as well as their justification.
The geotechnical parameters recommended for design have been derived from the evaluation of
the:
 Geotechnical laboratory testing results and
 In situ test data and
 The usage of existing in the international literature well established empirical
relationships.
More specifically, where no in situ or laboratory data is available, certain geotechnical
parameters were assessed empirically, as previously mentioned.
Table-8.0: Summary of adopted empirical correlations/equations used to assess the
Geotechnical Parameters
Design Correlation
Notation Correlations/Equations Units References
Parameter with
Bowels, ‘Foundation
Unit weight γb SPT,N value Refer Table no:8.1 kN/m3 Analysis & Design’&
AASTHO LRFD
Modulus of
Es = 1000x N CIRI 143&AASTHO
Elasticity of Es SPT,N value kPa
( For Cohesive material refer Table 8.2) LRFD
Soil
Angle of Peck, Hanson, and
(°)
internal Ø SPT,N value
Degrees Thornburn (1974)
(soil)friction
Ka Ka = (1-sin Ø)/ (1+sin Ø)

Earth pressure Bowels, ‘Foundation
Coeffecients
Kp Ø Kp = (1+sin Ø)/ (1-sin Ø) - Analysis & Design’
K0 K0 = (1-sin Ø)
Jacky’s equation -
Poisson’s ratio µ K0 K0 = µ/(1- µ) - Bowels, ‘Foundation
Analysis & Design’
Shear
modulus
G Es, µ G = Es/2(1+ µ) MPa **FHWA
Cohesion
of C UCS C =0.1qu MPa
Rock Kulhawy&
Angle of Goodman,1988
For Very poor to fair rock having (°)
friction Ø RQD
RQD(%) = 0-70, Ø=27-34 Degrees
(rock)
Modulus of Hoek and Brown,
*GSI,UCS
Elasticity of Em MPa 1998 &AASTHO
value
Rock LRFD
*GSI – geological strength Index **FHWA – Federal Highway Administration for evaluation of soil and rock property
#For the angle of internal friction (ϕ)0 in Silty/Sandy Mixtures, a reduction of 5 degrees can be adopted (B.G.Look ,2007& FHWA) in
locations where lenses of Sandy Silt were encountered.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 19 of 26
Table-8.1: Unit Weight (γb) of Granular Soils

SPTN-Value Density of Sand γb (KN/m3)
<4 Very loose 11– 16
4–10 Loose 14– 18
10–30 Medium 17– 20
30-50 Dense 17– 22
>50 Very dense 20– 24
Table-8.2: Elastic constants of cohesive soil type
Soil Type Range of Equivalent Elastic Modulus (kPa)

Soft sensitive 2,500 to 15,000
Medium stiff 15,000 to 50,000
Very stiff 50,000 to 100,000
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 20 of 26
Table-8.3: Subsurface Parameters (Estimated from N –Values: SPT)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
Design Parameter Very weak to weak

Medium SAND Dense SAND Very Dense SAND
SANDSTONE
Ground Level, m DMD (+43.79 to +41.79) (+41.79 to +40.79) (+40.79 to +39.48) (+39.48 to +33.79)
Ground Level, m EGL 0.00 to 2.00 2.00 to 3.00 3.00 to 4.31 4.31 to 10.0 m
SPT, N value/ RQD 25 38 >50 -

3
Unit weight, γb, kN/m 17.50 18.80 20.00 22.00
Angle of internal friction(soil), φ (⁰) 34 37 38 30
Modulus of Elasticity of Soil, Es (MPa) 25 38 75 -
Modulus of Elasticity of Rock, Em (MPa) - - - 100
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.28 0.25 0.24 0.33
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 3.54 4.02 4.20 3.00
At Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.50
Poisson's Ratio, μ 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.33
Shear Modulus, G (MPa) 10 15 29 38
Cohesion, C (kPa) 0 0 0 90
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 21 of 26
9.0 Foundation Recommendations

9.1 Choice of the Type of Foundations
Based on the type of the proposed structure and the subsoil conditions encountered on site,
shallow foundation analysis has been carried out and the allowable bearing capacities at
different depths below EGL for a limiting settlement of 25.0mm (for isolated strip/ pad foundation)
and 50.0mm (for raft foundation) is provided in this section.
Allowable bearing pressures are dependent on the shear strength of the soil and the tolerance of
the proposed structure to settlement. In granular soils, the latter factor is normally more critical.
Settlement in such deposits normally takes place during construction and initial loading but,
where more silty or cohesive materials exist, there could be a degree of time dependent
consolidation.
9.1 Choice of the Type of Foundations
The choice of particular type of foundation depends upon the character of the soil, the presence
of ground water at the site, the magnitude of the imposed loads, and the project characteristics.
One has to choose the type of foundation, which is not merely safe but also economical.
For the particular case, the following prevailing load and site conditions exist:
 The imposed loads from the proposed structure on the foundation soil are light to
meditatively load due to the nature of the proposed structures.
 The observed sub-surface conditions are such that relatively medium load bearing soils
are present at the desired foundation depth.
9.2 Shallow Foundation.

Meyerhof equation has been used for the bearing capacity (allowable) with the limiting
settlement of 25mm for isolated foundation. An immediate settlement has been calculated with
Schmertmann Method.
It is highly recommended to carry out the Plate Load Test at the foundation level in order to verify
the net allowable soil bearing pressure.
9.2.1 Allowable bearing capacity calculations by Meyerhof Method

The allowable bearing pressures are calculated using practical experience, the results obtained
from the field / laboratory tests and the empirical equations established by Terzaghi / Meyerhof
and developed by Joseph E Bowles:
𝑞 20 𝑁 𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐵 1.22𝑚
𝐵 0.305
𝑞 12.5 𝑁 𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐵 1.22𝑚
𝐵
∆
𝑞 12.5 N k For Raft /pad footing
Where:
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 22 of 26
𝐷
𝑘 1 0.33 1.33
𝐵
qa = allowable bearing capacity (kN/m2)
B =width of footing (m)
D = Depth of footing (m)
N =number of blows from SPT (N is the average for the footing influence zone of about 0.5B
above the footing base to at least 2B below).
ΔH = allowable settlement for Raft, 50mm and for isolated/strip/pad, 25mm
The modulus of sub-grade reaction is a conceptual relationship between soil pressure and
deformation / settlement.
q
Ks 

Where,
Ks = Modulus of Subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
q = Allowable bearing pressure (kN/m2)
δ = Corresponding settlement (mm)
9.2.2 Settlement Calculation by Schmertmann and Hartman Method

Immediate settlement for layered, predominately sandy soil has been calculated by use of semi-
empirical strain influence factor proposed by Schmertmann and Hartman (1978). According to
them the settlement is:
z2
S e  C1C 2 q  q 
Iz
z
0 Es
Where:
I z = Strain influence factor

C1 = A correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment
 1  0 . 5 q / q  q 
C2= A correction factor to account for creep in soil= 1 + 0.2 log (time in years/0.1)
q = Stress at the level of the foundation
q  D f
Based on the above equations shallow foundation analyses were made and are reported in
the table below. References are made from the published books “Foundation Analysis&
Design” by Joseph E bowels & “Foundation Design & Construction” by MJ Tomlinson.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 23 of 26
9.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

Table-9.1: Allowable Bearing Pressure for Isolated/Pad foundation
Depth of Allowable Bearing Pressure Modulus of Sub-grade Reaction
3
foundation (kN/m2) (kN/m )
Foundation
below m, Foundation Foundation
Type
EGL Width, m Width, m
(m, DMD) 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
1.00
210 190 180 175 25200 22800 21600 21000
(+42.79)
Shallow
Limiting 2.00
settlement of 230 220 210 200 27600 26400 25200 24000
25.0mm (+41.79)
3.00
250 240 230 220 30000 28800 27600 26400
(+40.79)
Table-9.2: Shallow Foundation Recommendations –Raft Foundation
Depth of Maximum Net Allowable Bearing Modulus of Sub-grade
Foundation
foundation below Foundation Pressure Reaction
Type
EGL (m) Width, m (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
1.00 250 15000

Raft (+42.79)
(Limiting 2.00 10.0 270 16200
settlement of (+41.79)
50.0mm)
3.00 290 17400
(+40.79)
9.2.4 Foundation Ground Preparation

 Foundation ground at excavated depth shall be compacted to 95% of maximum dry
density as determined in the Modified (heavy) Proctor Test (BS-1377).
 Any undesirable materials exposed during excavation (if any) shall be removed and
replaced with well compacted granular materials as described in the above sections.
 Existing material at the formation / foundation level should be grubbed (if needed),
graded and compacted to the criteria mentioned above.
 It is also recommended that the foundation ground shall be further inspected by an
experienced engineer.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 24 of 26
10.0 Foundation Construction

10.1 Excavation Methods
With reference to the site stratigraphy and the test results as given in borehole logs, it can be
summarized that; any earth excavation works down to ~4.00mbelow existing ground level is
expected to be through medium dense and dense SAND and hence conventional excavation
equipments such as dozers and loaders shall be sufficient for the excavation works. However,
excavation beyond ~4.00 m requires certain special excavation equipments since the strata
encountered is very dense SAND /bedrock.
The excavation works should be carried out in accordance with good construction practice, such
as BS 6031: 1981, “Code of Practice for Earthworks” or a similar recognized standard.
If these recommended side slopes cannot be achieved for insufficient lateral space or for any
other reason, a lateral support system for the sides of the excavation will be required, to maintain
safe working conditions, and should be considered. A berm with a minimum of 0.50m should be
provided at every height where the slope is changing and a maximum 3m height.
10.2 Excavation Side Slopes

Where space permits and above the water table, the sides of the excavations would be
necessary to be battered and as a guide the CIRIA Report No. 97 “Trenching Practice”
recommends a maximum safe temporary slope of 34 to the horizontal. For deep excavations, if
any, detailed study of the side slope stability should be carried out by a competent engineer
using the findings of investigation.
10.3 Drainage
It is recommended that proper and efficient surface drainage be provided at the location of the
project both during and after construction. Surface water should be directed away from the
edges of the excavation.
10.4 Backfill Material and Compaction Criteria

The materials to be used for backfilling purposes shall be of selected fill composed of sand
and/or granular mixture free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The plasticity
index of the backfill material shall not exceed 6 percent. The maximum particle size of backfill
material shall not exceed 63mm and percentage passing 63µm sieve shall not exceed 20%. The
organic matter content should not exceed 2% and the water-soluble salt content should not
exceed 5%. It shall be placed in layers of 150mm to 250mm compacted thickness with each
layer compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum dry density. Road base materials used for
backfilling shall be compacted to not less than 98% of the maximum dry density. It may be noted
that existing material available in situ can be used for general backfilling.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 25 of 26
11.0 Foundation Concrete
The results of the chemical analysis for soil and ground water in the site are given in Appendix D.
The methodology of assessment of ground for chemical agents aggressive for concrete has
been based on the latest publications concerning assessment of exposure conditions and
specification of concrete to resist chemical attack:
- BS 8500-1:2006
- BRE Digest 1, 2005, Concrete in Aggressive Ground
- CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsula.
Appendix D presents brief discussion on the chemical attack on buried concrete along with
extracts of references for assessment of exposure conditions and concrete specification.
Classification of the severity of chemical attack in the investigated site was based on the
foundation soil sulphate content as well as the type of exposure conditions. Accordingly, the site
has been classified as follows:
Table- 10: Site Classification*
Aggressive Chemical
Design Sulphate
Location of Foundations Environment for Concrete
Class (DS-Class)
Class (ACEC-Class)
Above Ground Water Table DS-3 AC-3
*Ref. Table C1 of BRE Special Digest 1, 2005, Concrete in Aggressive Ground
The above classification does not reflect the significance of chloride ions in concrete
surroundings. In such cases the site exposure conditions should be studied in conjunction with
modified recommendations for concrete mix design, based on local experience in the Gulf
region, CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, “Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the
Arabian Peninsula.”
In accordance to BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 and considering the existing site conditions and
the local experience in the Gulf Region, the following preliminary design chemical classification
of concrete may be proposed, subject to the following provisions: cast in-situ concrete for
general use with section thickness ranging from <140 to >450mm, well compacted with no face
exposed to air.
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
Report No. DX23-044
Page 26 of 26
Table-11: Foundation Concrete Recommendation

Design Chemical Class
Chloride Recommended Cement Content
Locations (DC Class) Water/
Content cement & for max. aggr.
of Intended working life Cement
In Concrete combination Size 20mm
Foundations At least At least Ratio
Surrounding group Kg/m3
50years 100 years
Above
F 0.50 340
Groundwater
Significant [1] DC-3 DC-3 E 0.45 360
table & capillary
D,G 0.40 380
zone
**Ref. Tables D1 & D2 and 6 of BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 and Tables 5.0.501 and 5.2 of CIRIA Publication C577, 2002.
[1]
Note: There is no widely accepted view of the concentration at which the chlorides become significant in soil or ground water,
but limited experience in Gulf region suggests it may be as low as 500 mg/L, particularly in situation where alternative wetting
and drying or capillary rise affect the concrete. (Ref. CIRIA Special Publication 31 (1984))
Form : GD/SI-33
[Issue : 01 / 26.10.2010], [Rev : 05 / 11.12.2021]
APPENDIX A
Site/Borehole Location Map

EGL
+42.429
+43.151
+43.811
+43.10
+44.106
+44.705
+45.233
APPENDIX B1
Borehole Legends
SOIL AND ROCK STRENGTH DEFINITIONS
Appendix B1 Page 1 of 3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (Based on BS5930)
SYMBOL LEGEND FOR GEOTECHNICAL LOGS
APPENDIX B2
Borehole Logs
GEOSCIENCE TESTING LABORATORY L.L.C BOREHOLE LOG
Client: M/s. Citiscape LLC BOREHOLE No.: BH 01

Location: Plot No.RN-0S55, Phase 6E, Dubai South, UAE. Sheet: 1/1
Boring Method: Rotary Cored Boring Equipment: RM 22 Ground Water Depth (m): 4.7 Ground Level (m): +42.429
Drill Fluid: Fresh Water/Bentonite Casing Diam (mm): 90 Core Diameter (mm): 65 Coordinates:
Boring Diameter (mm): 100 Casing Depth (m): 10 Core Barrel : T6-086 E 489040.706 N 2758712.98
Date Started: 12/06/2023 Date Finished: 12/06/2023 Operator: Clovis Report No.: R3/DX23-044
Standard Penetration Test Core Recovery
Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
0-75 75-150 150-225 225-300 300-375 375-450 SPT N TCR SCR RQD PLT UCS Description of Strata Legend
(m) mm mm mm mm mm mm Value MPa MPa
(%) (%) (%)
0 Light brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium
grained, calcareous SAND. Gravels are
B
weathered fine to medium sized rock pieces.
41.93
3 4 5 6 8 10 29 Medium dense to dense, brown, silty, fine to
SPT medium grained, calcareous SAND.
1 3 5 7 8 10 12 37
SPT
40.93
5 7 9 11 13 17/20 50/245 Very dense, brown, silty, fine to medium grained,
SPT calcareous SAND.
2 10 15/30 18 24 8/50 R 50/200

SPT
40.12
Extremely weak to very weak, very thinly to thinly
bedded, light brown/ brown, calcareous
CORE 100 0 0 SANDSTONE. Partially to distinctly weathered,
very closely to closely spaced, sub-horizontal rough
fractures.
3
CORE 84 62 57
CORE 98 20 8
6 CORE 67 25 18
CORE 62 0 0
9 CORE 78 11 0
LOG FILE UPDATED 06112016 R3/DX23-044
CORE 81 0 0 End of Borehole 32.43

10
Standards:- SAMPLE KEY
BS 5930:2015
BS 1377 Part 9 : 1990 AMD 8264 - 95 Shelby : Shelby Sample Ground Water Table
REMARKS: SPT : Standard Penetration Test TCR:Total Core Recovery
1) Ground levels are related to DMD. SPT(C) : SPT with cone SCR:Solid Core Recovery
2) Groundwater was encountered at 4.70m below the existing ground
level. B : Bulk Sample RQD:Rock Quality Designation
CORE : Core Sample FI :Fracture Index
Form: GD/SI-03, Issue 03/28.05.2019, Rev: 0/- Logged By: Sajad Checked By: Arun
Appendix 1 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
B
weathered fine to medium sized rock pieces.
42.65
1 4 5 7 9 10 10 36
SPT
4 7 8 10 11 12 41
SPT
2 41.15
10 15/20 18 23 9/50 R 50/200

SPT
40.35
3 CORE 92 20 20
SANDSTONE. Partially to distinctly weathered,
fractures.
CORE 96 50 33
4
5 CORE 100 87 44
CORE 60 31 20
8 CORE 66 16 16
9
CORE 88 7 0
End of Borehole 33.15

10
BS 5930:2015
Appendix 2 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
B
weathered fine sized rock pieces.
43.31
1 3 4 5 7 7 10 29
SPT
4 6 6 8 10 12 36
SPT
2 4 6 7 8 10 13 38
SPT
41.31
3 9 16/40 18 22 10/50 R 50/200

SPT
40.48
CORE 86 16 0 SANDSTONE. Partially to distinctly weathered,
fractures.
4
CORE 93 23 0
CORE 95 61 48
7 CORE 62 36 36
CORE 86 25 13
9
CORE 91 0 0
10
BS 5930:2015
Appendix 3 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
B
42.60
1 5 7 8 8 10 12 38
SPT
41.60
2 41.10
8 11 13 15 17 5/40 50/265 Very dense, brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to
SPT medium grained, calcareous SAND. Gravels are
weathered fine sized sandstone rock pieces are
recovered as SPT sample.
3 11 14/30 15 10 13 12/50 50/275

SPT 39.90
Extremely weak to very weak, very thinly to
medium bedded, light brown/ brown, calcareous
CORE 100 66 26 very closely to medium spaced, sub-horizontal
rough fractures.
CORE 94 48 48
CORE 92 74 68
7 CORE 95 75 75
CORE 33 0 0
9
12 13/30 40 52 8/60 R 100/210

SPT
CORE 100 0 0
10
BS 5930:2015
Appendix 4 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
B
43.61
3 5 8 7 8 8 31 Dense to very dense, brown, silty, fine to medium
SPT grained, calcareous SAND.
1 6 8 10 10 13 17/40 50/265
SPT
9 16/20 18 19 13/60 R 50/210

SPT
42.30
Extremely weak to very weak, very thinly to
2 CORE 82 14 0
medium bedded, light brown/ brown, calcareous
very closely to medium spaced, sub-horizontal
rough fractures.
CORE 93 48 30
3
4 CORE 87 52 45
CORE 82 24 12
7 CORE 67 56 56
8
CORE 31 0 0
13 12/30 45 51 4/10 R 100/160

CORE
9
SPT 56 0 0
CORE 80 0 0
10
BS 5930:2015
Appendix 5 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
0 Brown, silty, fine to medium grained, calcareous
SAND.
B
44.21
1 3 4 4 6 7 8 25
SPT
3 5 6 7 8 8 29
SPT
2 3 5 7 7 18 12 44
SPT
4 5 7 8 10 13 38
SPT
3 41.71
4 7 9 12 13 16/30 50/255 Very dense, brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium
SPT grained, calcareous SAND. Gravels are
weathered fine sized sub angular, sub rounded,
calcareous sandstone rock pieces are recovered as
SPT sample.
4 9 16/30 18 24 8/50 R 50/200

SPT
40.40
Very weak to weak, very thinly to medium bedded,
brown, calcareous SANDSTONE. Partially to
CORE 90 60 48 distinctly weathered, very closely to medium
spaced, sub-horizontal rough fractures.
5
CORE 86 78 70
CORE 92 84 80
8 CORE 70 68 62
9
CORE 72 60 54

10
BS 5930:2015
REMARKS: SPT : Standard Penetration Test TCR: Total Core Recovery
1) Ground levels are related to DMD. SPT(C) : SPT with cone SCR: Solid Core Recovery
level. B : Bulk Sample RQD: Rock Quality Designation
CORE : Core Sample FI : Fracture Index
Appendix 6 of

Reduced
Sample
Level
Scale
Type
(m)
(%) (%) (%)
0 Brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium
B
weathered fine to medium sized calcareous
sandstone pieces. 44.73
3 4 6 6 8 10 30 Medium dense, brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine
SPT to medium grained, calcareous SAND. Gravels
are weathered fine sized calcareous sandstone
1 pieces. 44.23
3 5 7 8 10 12 37 Dense, brown, silty, fine to medium grained,
4 7 8 10 12 14 44
SPT
2 43.23
42.73
10 15/30 17 23 10/50 R 50/200 Very dense, brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium
SPT grained, calcareous SAND. Gravels are fine to
medium sized weathered calcareous sandstone 42.42
pieces are recovered as SPT sample.
3 CORE 90 78 42 Very weak to weak, thinly to medium bedded,
brown, calcareous SANDSTONE. Partially to
distinctly weathered, closely to medium spaced,
sub-horizontal rough fractures.
CORE 88 72 32
4
5 CORE 92 78 26
CORE 86 50 30
8 CORE 80 70 48
9
CORE 88 0 0

10
BS 5930:2015
Appendix 7 of
APPENDIX B3
CPT Logs
Report on Cone Penetration Test
Project Name RFP 171 Design & Build of the Pulse Beachfront Residences
Client M/s. Dubai South Report No. Q3-DX23-044

Consultant M/s. Khatib & Alami Date of Test 08/06/2023
Contractor M/s. Citiscape E
Coordinates
Location Dubai South, UAE N
CPT No. CPT-01 C EGL
qc (MPa) fs (kPa) Rf % U2 (kPa) Tilt [°]

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Equipmnet used : CPT2/MKJ-527
Test Method :BS 1377 Part 9 1990, Clause 3.14
Tested By :Sufyan Khalil
Remarks : Nil
ꞏThis test report relates only to the items tested.
ꞏThe reports shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory.

Coordinates

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil

Coordinates

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil

Coordinates
CPT No. CPT-04R C EGL

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil

Coordinates

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil

Coordinates

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil

Coordinates
CPT No. CPT-7 C EGL

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 250 500 750 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ‐20.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
Remarks : Nil
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing
Sieve Analysis
&
Moisture Content
UCS
Chemical Analysis on Soil
Chemical Analysis on Ground Water
APPENDIX D
Reference for Chemical Analysis

Introduction
CHEMICAL ATTACK ON BURIED CONCRETE
Sulphate Attack
Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by the presence of high sulphate content either by the ingress from the sulphate
of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils or ground water, 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
oftheconcrete.Thiseffectcanbereducedbyusedof selectedcementsorbysuitableprotectionoftheconcrete.
Chloride Attack
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.
Resistance to chlorides penetration is influenced by cement chemistry and concrete quality. In general, Portland
cement with a high C3A is more resistant to chloride penetration than Portland cement with a low C3A content. The
following approaches are recommended by CIRIA Publication C577, 2002, “Guide to the Construction of Reinforced
Concrete in the Arabian Peninsula”, Table 6.1 for reducing the penetration ofchlorides:
Approach: Method:
ConcreteMixDesign Selection of CementType

Water Cement ratio
Use of additions:
Pulverised fuel ash
Ground Granulated blast furnace slag
Silica Fume
OtherMeasures Controlled permeability formwork

Coatings
Hydrophobic treatment of the concrete
Chloride and Sulphate Attack
For reinforced concrete in the ground, the need for protection from chlorides must be balanced with the need for
protection from sulphates and where necessary, a cement resistant to both sulphates and chloride should be used. The
usual course is to use cement giving best protection against chloride and to prevent sulphate ingress by “tanking”
(coating with impervious material) the surface of concrete. In every case, the need for good quality concrete with low
permeability is paramount.
In the case where both sulphate & chlorides occur together, the designer should consider low water cement ratio, high
strength, suitable type of cement, use of epoxy or zinc coated reinforcement bars and concrete cover with adequate
thickness, impermeability & integrity. In such cases, the site exposure conditions should be studied in conjunction with
modified recommendations for concrete mix design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region, C577, 2002, “Guide
to the Construction of Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Peninsula”.
CONCRETE IN AGGRESSIVE GROUND
Selected Extra From
BRE Special Digest 1: 2005

Introduction 3
Part C
Stage 1 Consider design options for building or structure and prepare
Designer of building or specification for site investigation. Inform geotechnical
structure specialist of design concept and site investigationrequirements.
Carry out site investigation to determine chemical conditions for

concrete, including water mobility. See Part C.
Stage 2
GeotechnicalSpecial Determine DS Class and ACEC Class for site locations using
Tables C1 and C2. See Section C5 Parts D, E
and F
Determine the intended working life of proposed building or

structure, and the form and use of the specific concrete
elements. See Section D7
Stage 3
Designer ofbuildingor
structure
General use of cast-in-situ General use of surface- Specific precast concrete
concrete carbonated precast concrete products
Find specification of concrete and Find specification of concrete and ŏ Use Part F
APM using procedure in Part D: APM using procedure in Part E: ŏ Determine the DC Class
ŏ determine the DC Class and any ŏ determine the DC Class and any and
APM from Table D1 APM from Table E1 APM for the concrete using
ŏ adjust DC Class / APM for section ŏ adjust DC Class / APM for section Design Guides F1a, F1b,
thickness and hydraulicgradient thickness and hydraulicgradient F2a,
ŏ determine options for APM from ŏ determine options for APM from F2b, F3a, F3b
TableD4 TableD4
State in contract documents the DS Class and ACEC Class of the ground and the method of
deriving
the concrete specification (eg use of Tables C1, D1 and D2, or Table C2 and Design Guide F1a).
State requirements and options for concrete specification, including:
Ɣ specified DC Class of concrete after any enhancement
Ɣ specified number and type of APM and compressive strength class of concrete
Ɣ any other requirement
------------------------------------------------- Obtain from contract documents the specified DC Class

number and type of APM, and any other design
requirements for each concrete element
Stage 4
Contractor for building
Formulate concrete mix design and consistence for structural
or structure in liaison element taking into account specified DC Class, strength class
with any third party availability, and cost of materials and contract requirements
concrete producer
Where concrete is being supplied ready-mixed, check the

Proposed mix for conformity to the DC Class specification
Are all
requirements of
designguidesand No
contract documents
met
Yes
Figure A2 Procedure for design of buried concrete for use in an aggressive chemical environment
Assessing the AggressiveChemicalEnvironment 31
a
TableC1AggressiveChemicalEnvironmentforConcrete(ACEC)classificationsfornaturalgroundlocations
Sulfate Groundwater ACEC
Design Sulfate 2:1 water/ soil Groundwater Total potential Static Mobile Class for
Class for location extract sulfate c water water location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(SO4 mg/ I ) (SO4 mg/ I ) (SO4 %I ) (pH) (pH)
DS-1 <500 <400 <0.24 • 2.5 AC-1s

> 5.5 d AC-1d
2.5-5.5 AC-2z
DS-2 500-1500 400-1400 0.24-0.6 > 3.5 AC-1s

> 5.5 AC-2
2.5-3.5 AC-2s
2.5-5.5 AC-3z
DS-3 1600-3000 1500-3000 0.7-1.2 > 3.5 AC-2s

> 5.5 AC-3
2.5-3.5 AC-3s
2.5-5.5 AC-4
DS-4 3100-6000 3100-6000 1.3-2.4 > 3.5 AC-3s

> 5.5 AC-4
2.5-3.5 AC-4s
2.5-5.5 AC-5
DS-5 >6000 >6000 > 2.4 > 3.5 AC-4s

2.5-3.5 • 2.5 AC-5
Notes
a. Appliestolocationsonsitesthatcompriseeitherundisturbedgroundthatisinitsnaturalstate(ieisnotbrownfield–TableC2)orcleanfillderivedfromsuchground.
b. The limits of Design Sulfate Classes based on 2:1 water/ soil extracts have been lowered relative to previous Digests (BoxC7).
c. Appliesonlytolocationswhereconcretewillbeexposedtosulfateions(SO4)whichmayresultfromtheoxidationofsulfides(egpyrite)followinggroinddisturbance (Appendix A1
and BoxC8).
d. Forfollowingwaterthatispotentiallyaggressivetoconcreteowingtohighpurityoranaggressivecarbondioxidelevelgreaterthan15mg/1(SectionC2.2.3),increasethe ACEC Class
toAC-2z.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class

Ɣ Suffix’s indicates that the water has been classified asstatic.
Ɣ ConcreteplacedinACECClassesthatincludethesuffix‘z’primarilyhavetoresistacidconditionsandmaybemadewithanyofthecementsorcombinationslistedin Table D2 on
page42.
The sulfide content of the ground must betakeninto Step 8 Compare the sulfate class for total potential sulfate
account if it is concludedthatboth with the sulfate classes determined (in SectionC5.1.1)
ŏ pyrite is present insignificantamounts for groundwater and water extract tests on soil.The
ŏ the concrete is to be exposed todisturbedground highest of these sulfate classes should then be takenas
(Appendix A1 and Box C8 which light bevulnerable to the Design Sulfate Class for the site location. A
oxidation. limitation can be applied if the sulfate class for thetotal
potential sulfate is initially found to be sulfate Class 5,
This procedure should be done in four stepsadditionalto but sulfate classes for underground and the waterextracts
Those listed inSectionC5.1.1. tests are Sulfate Class 3 or less. In this case, theDesign
Sulfate Class for the site location can be limited toDS-4.
Step 6 Determine the characteristic values of the total

potential sulfate content for the site locationfrom a The reason for this limitation is that the procedure for
consideration of the results of several tests onthepyretic sulfate classification based on total potential sulfate is
ground. In a data set where five to nineresults are often highly conservative as not all the pyrite in the soilwill
available for the location, the mean of thetwohighest be oxidized and only a part will be taken into solution by
TPS values should be taken as thecharacteristicvalue groundwater. Some reliance is placed therefore on the
(rounded to 0.1% SO4). In a date set where 10ormore findings of field studies of disturbed pyretic clay that has
TPS results are available, the mean of thehighest20% undergone oxidation. These have shown a maximum
Should be taken as thecharacteristicvalue. Sulfate class for groundwater in pyretic clay subjectto
prolonged oxidation to be Sulfate Class 4.
Step 7 Determine the sulfate class equivalent to the

characteristic value of the total potentialsulfatecontent Step 9 Determine the ACEC Class of the ground from the
using columns 1 and 6 of Table C2 on thenextpage. row of Table C1 that correlates first with theDesign
Sulfate Class, second with the water conditions, and third
with the characteristic value pf pH.
Specifying concrete for generalcast-in-situ use 41
Table D1 Selection of the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to
a.b.c
groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete
ACECClass Intended workinglife
(from Tables C1and C2) At least 50yearsd,e At least 100years
AC-1s,AC-1 DC-1 DC-
AC-2s,AC-2 DC-2 DC-2

AC-2z DC-2z DC-2z
AC-3s DC-3 DC-3

AC-3z DC-3z DC-3z
AC-3 DC-3 DC-3 + one APM ofchoice
AC-4s DC-4 DC-4

AC-4z DC-4z DC-4z
AC-4 DC-4 DC-4 + one APM ofchoice
AC-4ms DC-4m DC-4m
AC-4m DC-4m DC-4m + one APM ofchoice
AC-5z DC-4z+ apm3F DC-4z + APM3F

AC-5 DC-4 + APM3F DC-4 + APM3F
AC-5m DC-4m+ APM43F DC-4m + APM3F
For specification of DC Class, see Table D2. For choice of additional protective measures, see Table D4.
Notes
a Where the hydraulic gradient across a concrete element is greater than 5, one step in DC Class or one APM over and above the number indicated in this table should be
applied except where the original provisions included APM3. Where APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an extra APM is notneeded.
b A section thickness of 140 mm or less should be avoided in in-situ construction but, where this is not practical, apply one step higher DC Class or an extra APM except
where the original provisions included APM3. Where APM3 is already required, or has been selected, an extra APM is notneeded.
c Where a section thickness greater than 450 mm is used and some surface chemical attack is acceptable, a relaxation of one step in DC Class may beapplied.
For reinforced concrete, the cover should be sufficiently thick to allow for estimated surface degradation during the intended working life (Section D6.5).
d Foundation of low- rise housing that have an intended working life of at least 100 years may be constructed with concrete selected from the column headed. Atleast
50 years (SectionD7)
e Structures with an intended working life of at least 50 years but for which the consequences of failure would be relatively serious, should classed as having an
intended working life of at least 100 years for the selection of the DC Class and APM (SectionD7)
f Where APM3 is not practical, see Section D6.1 forguidance.
Explanation of suffix symbols to DC Class

ŏ Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ primarily must resist acid conditions and maybe made with any of the cements listed in TableD2.
ŏ Suffix ‘m’ relates to the higher levels of magnesium in DS Classes 4 and5.
D5 Composition of concretetoresist A compressive strength requirement has never formedpart

chemicalattack of BRE recommendations for sulfate resistance. However,it
is recognized that the specification may need to containa
D5.1Background compressive strength class requirement for structuraland
The main compositional factors thatdeterminethe durability purposes.
Resistance of concrete to aggressive ground areits
Water/ cement ratio and type of cement orcombinationused. Considerable recent research (Section A3) has been focused
In the previous edition of this SpecialDigest,the on determining what is an adequate concrete specification
Importance of carbonate in the aggregates wasstressedin and performance of different cement types. The findings of
relation to TSA. A source of carbonate isstillconsidered this research are incorporated into the recommendations
essential for occurrence of TSA, butrecentresearch given in Table D2. The principal changes as comparedwith
(Section A3) has shown that sufficient carbonatecancome SD1:2003 are:
from bicarbonate in ground water. As aconsequence,the ŏ the requirements for concrete made with aggregates
limiting values of concrete composition makenodistinction having a medium or low carbonate content (former
between aggregates of differentcarbonatecontents. aggregate carbonate ranges B or C) have beenincreased
to those given previously for concrete made with

Recent research has also shown that resistancetosulfate aggregates having a high carbonate content (former
attack is not a function of cement content.Concretesmade range A aggregates)
with the same materials, and the same w/c rationbutdifferent ŏ the excellent performance of concrete incorporating
cement/ combination contents, havesimilarsulfate ground granulated blastfurnace slag (ggbs) cements has
resistance providing there is sufficient fine materialtogive been recognized and there is some relaxation ofthe
a closed microstructure. However, as there is notyetany requirements with these cements
agreed method for verifying that the concrete hasa closed ŏ the mixed performance of concrete made with sulfate-
structure, this Special Digest continues torecommenda resisting Portland cement (SRPC) in sulfateconditions
minimum cement/combinationcontent. Conductive to TSA has led to tightening of requirements
42 PartD
ŏ the performance of concreteincorporatingpulverized D5.3 Cement and combinationtypes
fuel ash (pfa), and fly ash cements andcombinations, is D5.3.1 Recommendations in Tables D2 andD3
still under investigation and so aconservativeapproach The cements and combinations specificallyrecommended
to their useis taken. by this Special Digest for use in aggressive ground arelisted
as groups A to G in Tables D2 andD3.
The effectiveness of concretes to resist chemical attack

depends to a high degree on theirimpermeability. Therefore, The groups are defined in Table D3 mainly in termsof
good compaction is most important. With loww/cratios, resistance of sulfate attack. The designations used are based
such as those advocated here, it is probablethat water on those of BS EN 197-1 for cement and BS 8500 for
reducing admixtures will be needed toachieveeffective combinations. A suffix ‘+SR’ has been added to the
compaction. This is particularly true of concretes(eg for designations where a restriction on some element of the
piling) where mechanical compaction cannotbeused. Composition is necessary for sulfateresistance.
D5.2 UsingTableD2 Cements and combinations of the same composition are

For a given DC Class, specifications for concreteareshown treated as being directly equivalent and are alwaysgrouped
in Table D2 in terms of maximum free- water/cement or together. Moreover, different types (eg CEM II/B-V+SR,a
combination ratio and minimum cementorcombination fly ash cement, and CEM III/A+SR, a blastfurnace cement)
content for standard aggregate sizes,andrecommended that show closely similar resistance to sulfate attack are
types of cement or combination. Thecementsand placed in the same Group – in this case, Group D.
combinations are in new groups, designated A to G, thatare
defined in Table D3. Table D2 provides a widerange of While the grouping and nomenclature differ between Table
options for concrete at most DC Class levels so that,inmost D3 and SD1:2003, in most cases the requirements of
cases, the concrete producer can used acementor cements and combinations with respect to enhancedsulfate
combination which he normally hasin stock. resistance remainunchanged.
TableD2Concretequalitiestoresistchemicalattackforthegeneraluseofin-situconcrete:limitingvaluesforcomposition
DCClass Maximum Minimum cement or combinationcontent(kg/m3) Recommended cement and
free water/cement for maximum aggregatesizeof: combination group
orcombinationratio •40mm 20 mm 14mm 10 mm
DC-1 - - - - - A to G inclusive
_
DC-2 0.55 300 320 340 360 D, E, F
0.50 320 340 360 380 A, G
0.45 340 360 380 380 B
0.40 360 380 380 380 C
DC-2z 0.55 300 320 340 360 A to G inclusive
DC-3 0.50 320 340 360 380 F

0.45 340 360 380 380 E
0.40 360 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4 0.45 340 360 380 380 F

0.40 360 380 380 380 E
0.35 380 380 380 380 D, G
DC-4m 0.45 340 360 380 380 F

_ mDC-Grouped cements andcombinations
Cements Combinations
A CEM I, CEM II/ A-D, CEM II/ A-S, CEM II/ B-S, CEMII/A-V, CIIA-V, CIIB-V, CII-S, CIIIA, CIIIB, CIIA-D,
CEM II/B-V, CEM III/ A,CEMIII/B CIIA-Q
B CEM II/ A-La, CEMII/A-LLa CIIA-La,CIIA-LLa
C CEM II/ A-La, CEM II/A-LLa CIIA-La,CIIA-LLa
D CEM II/ B-V+SR, CEMIII/A+SR CIIB-V+SR,CIIIA+SR
E CEM IV/B (V), VLH IV /B(V) CIVB-V
F CEMIII/B+SR CIIIB+SR
G SRPC -
For cement and combination types, compositional restrictions and relevant Standards, see Table D3.
Note
aThe classification is B if the cement/ combination strength class is 42,5 or higher and C if it is 32,5.
Specifying concrete for generalcast-in-situ use 43
Table D3 Cements and combinations for used in TableD2
Type Designation Standard Grouping with
respect tosulfate
resistance
Portland cement CEMI BS EN 197-1 A_

Portland-silica fume cement CEM II/ A-D BS EN 197-1 A_
Portland-limestone cement CEM II/A-L BS EN197-1 Ba or
CEM II/A-LL BS EN197-1 CaBa or
Ca
Portland-pozzolana cement CEM II/A-Qb BS EN 197-1 A_
Portland-slag cements CEM II/A-S BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-S BS EN 197-1 A
Portland-fly ash cements- CEM II/ A-V BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-VC BS EN 197-1 A
CEM II/B-V+SRd BS EN 197-1 D
Blastfurnace cementse CEM III/ A BS EN 197-1 A
BSEN 197-4 A
CEMIII/A+SRf BSEN 197-1 D
BSEN 197-4 DCEMIII/B
BS EN197-1 A
BSEN 197-4 A
CEM III/ B+SRf BS EN197-1 F
BS EN197-4 F
Pozzolanic cement g.h CEM IV/ B (V) BS EN 197-1 E
Very low heat pozzolanic cement VLH IV/ B (V) BS EN 14216 E
Sulfate-resisting Portland cement SRPC BS 4027 G
Combinations conforming to BS 8500-2, Annex A, manufactured in the
concrete mixer from Portland cement and fly ash, pfa, ggbs or limestone fines:
CEM I cement conforming to BS En 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-V BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 21 to 35 % CIIB-V-c BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1 CIIB-V+SRd BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 55 % CIVB-V BS 8500-2, Annex A E
of combination fly ash conforming to BS EN 450 or pfa conforming to BS 3892-1
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197 with a mass fraction of 6 to 35 % CII-S BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 36 to 65 % CIIIA BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 CIIIA+SRf BS 8500-2, Annex A D
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 66 to 80 % CIIIB BS 8500-2, Annex A A
of combination of ggbs conforming to BS 6699 CIIIB+SRf BS 8500-2, Annex A A
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-L BS 8500-2, Annex A Ba or Ca
of combination of limestone fines conforming to BS 7979 CIIA-LL BS 8500-2, Annex A Bbor Ca
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 10 % CIIA-D See note j A
of combination of silica fume conforming to BS 13263i
CEM I cement conforming to BS EN 197-1 with a mass fraction of 6 to 20 % CIIA-Q See note k A
of combination of metakaolin conforming to an appropriate Agreement certificate
Notes
a. The classification is B if the cement or combination strength is class 42,5 or higher and C if it is class 32,5.
b. Metakaolinonly
c. Where the fly ash or pfa content is a mass fraction of 21 to24%.
d. The addition of the abbreviation “+SR’ denotes an additional requirement for sulfate resistance that the fly ash content should be a mass fraction of not less than 25% of the cement or
combination. Where it is less than 25%, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is ‘A’ (NoteC).
e. Cements or combinations with higher levels of slag that permitted in this table may be used for certain specialist applications, but no guidance is provided in this Special Digest or BS8500.
f. Theadditionoftheabbreviation‘+SR’denotesanadditionalrequirement forsulfateresistance,thatwherethealuminacontentoftheslagexceeds14%,the tricalcium aluminate content of thePortland
cement fraction should not exceed 10%. Where this is not the case, the grouping with respect to sulfate resistance is “A”.
g. CEM IV/ A cement with siliceous fly ash should be classified as CEM II-Vcement.
h. (V) indicates siliceous fly ashonly.
i. Until BS 13263 is published, the silica fume should conform to an appropriate British Board of Agreementcertificate.
j. Thesecombinationsarenotcurrently coveredbyBS8500-2,AnnexA.However,silicafumecanbeusedinaccordancewithClause5.2.5ofBSEN206-1.
k. These combinations are not currently covered by BS 8500-2, Annex A. However, metakaolin conforming to Clause 4.4 of BS 8500-2 may be used in accordance with Clause 5.2.5 of BS EN
206-1. If the k-value concept is used, a k-value with respect to sulfate is resistance of 1.0 should beused.

DX23-044 Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DX23-044 Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report No.

7.0 Seismic Parameters 17

8.0 Soil/Rock Parameters 18

9.0 Foundation Recommendation 21

10.0 Foundation Construction 24

11.0 Foundation Concrete 25

1.2 Standards and Codes of Practices

BS 1377 Part 9 : 1990

BS 5930:2015+ A1:2020 Code of practice for Ground Investigations

2.0 Site and Project Description

2.3 Project Description

Humidity in coastal areas averages between 50 to 60 percent, touching over 90 percent in

3.0 Field Work

3.1 Stake out of the Investigative Locations

3.2 Drilling of Boreholes

3.3 Field Testing and Sampling

3.3.1 Description of Soil Sample

Table 2: Relative Density of Granular Soils Based on SPT N Values

Very dense over 50

3.3.2 Description of Rock Materials

Extremely weak 0.60 – 1.0

Very weak 1.0 to 5.0

Very strong 100 to 250

Extremely strong > 250

4.0 Laboratory Testing

Table 4: List of Laboratory Tests Conducted

Material Test Description Standard Used

Particle Size Analysis

UCS ASTM D 7012:2014

The laboratory test results are presented in appendix C.

The findings of the boreholes were

5.4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

6.0 Soil Liquefaction

amax= peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface generated by the EQ

σ0- total overburden stress

rd- stress reduction coefficient given by

rd= 1.0 – 0.00765 z for z (depth) ≤ 9.15m

rd= 1.174 – 0.00267 z for 9.15m < z ≤ 23m

Figure 2: Correlation between CRR and (N1)60

Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)

Figure 3: Magnitude Scaling Factors from Youd and Noble 1997a

From the above graph For Earthquake Magnitude

FoS = CRRM=Given M / (CSR * FS)

Correction for SPT

= 0.75 for rod length 0-3m;

Correction for Fines Content (FC)

Assumptions Adopted During Calculations

7.0 Seismic parameters

Peak Ground Acceleration PGA 0.13 Table F.20 DBC

8.0 Soil/Rock Parameters

Ka Ka = (1-sin Ø)/ (1+sin Ø)

Table-8.1: Unit Weight (γb) of Granular Soils

Soil Type Range of Equivalent Elastic Modulus (kPa)

Table-8.3: Subsurface Parameters (Estimated from N –Values: SPT)

Design Parameter Very weak to weak

SPT, N value/ RQD 25 38 >50 -

9.0 Foundation Recommendations

9.2 Shallow Foundation.

9.2.1 Allowable bearing capacity calculations by Meyerhof Method

9.2.2 Settlement Calculation by Schmertmann and Hartman Method

I z = Strain influence factor

9.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

1.00 250 15000

9.2.4 Foundation Ground Preparation