TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial Number Description Page No

* Table of Contents……………………………………………… 1

* Appendices…………………………………………………….. 2

1 Introduction…………………………………………………….. 3

2 The Objectives of Site Investigation ………………………….. 3

3 Project Description ………………………………………….... 3

4 Assesment of Foundation Soil ………………………………… 4

5 Scope of Work………………………………………………….. 4

6 Method of Investigation…………………………….... 5

7 Regional Geology and Weather Conditions………………….. 8

8 Field Work……………………………………………………… 8

9 Subsurface Condition………………………………………… 9

10 Field Testing ………………………………………………….. 9

11 Ground Water ……………………………………................... 9

12 Review of Literature and Theories For………………………. 10

13 General Discussions………………….…..…………………….. 11

14 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………... 12

15 Concrete for Foundations….…………………………………. 18

16 General Comments ……………………………………………. 19

MSI-18-1122 Page 1/19

 APPENDICES

• APPENDIX A
* Site Plan Showing Boreholes Location

• APPENDIX B
* KEY TO BOREHOLES
* BOREHOLE LOGS

• APPENDIX C
* Particle Size Distribution Curves

• APPENDIX D
* Building Research Establishment Digest 363 (Extracts).

MSI-18-1122 Page 2/19

1. INTRODUCTION

The Geotechnical Investigation and Soil Testing phase of foundation engineering still
involves some degree of uncertainties. No matter how extensive it is, there still is a doubt
about its accuracy. Engineers attempt to compensate for these uncertainties by applying
factors of safety in the analysis but unfortunately, this solution also increases the cost of
construction due to over safe design.

In the effort of necessary level of conservatism in the Foundation design, the Geotechnical
Engineer may choose more extensive Soil Investigation and Testing Program to better
define the soil characteristics. The additional costs of such efforts will result in decreased
construction costs. However, at some point, it becomes a matter of diminishing returns and
eventually the increased cost of additional Soil Investigation and Testing does not produce
corresponding reduction in construction costs. There is always optimum level of Soil
Investigation and testing which gives the minimum cost of construction by providing the
most economical Foundation Design.

Although there are times soil mechanic techniques can be applied to rock mechanics
problems and vice versa but any such sharing must be done cautiously.

2. THE OBJECTIVES OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS

The objectives of Soil exploration and characterization program include:

• Determining the location and thickness of soil and rock strata.

• Determining the location of the Ground Water Table.
• Recovering samples for testing and evaluation.
• Conducting tests, either in the field or in the laboratory to measure relevant
engineering properties.
• Defining special problems and concerns.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project involves the construction of Proposed (G+M+6) Building for Mr. Harib
Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi & Mr. Salem Mohammed Salem Murad
Al Muzawi on Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah-U.A.E. The work was
carried out for (2) boreholes to depth of twenty (20) meter each upon the request of M/S
International Engineering Center. The site plan of the boreholes is shown in Drawing.
No. 1 (Appendix A)

MSI-18-1122 Page 3/19

4. ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION SOIL

The process of identifying the layers of deposits that underlie the proposed structure and
their physical characteristics is generally referred to as subsurface exploration.

The purpose of sub-surface exploration is to obtain information that will aid the
Geotechnical engineer to perform the following:

(a) Selecting the type and depth of foundation suitable for given structure.

(b) Evaluating the load bearing capacity of foundation.

(c) Estimating the probable settlement of a structure.

(d) Determining potential foundation problems due to the nature of the soil such as
expansive soil, collapsible soil, and Sanitary landfill or dredge material.

(e) Determining the location of the Ground Water Table.

(f) Predicting lateral earth pressure for structures such as retaining walls, sheet pile
bulkheads and braced cuts.

(g) Establishing construction methods for changing subsoil conditions.

Subsurface exploration may also be necessary when additions and alterations to existing
structures are contemplated.

5. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of works consists of the following:

• Making inspection visit to the site to collect information about the present land
use, surface topography, geological features and surface drainage.
• Drilling of 2 boreholes down to a depth of 20.0m each, and sampling of
disturbed and undisturbed samples.
• Carrying out necessary field and laboratory tests.
• Performing engineering analysis of fields and laboratory findings.
• Developing conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and
construction.

MSI-18-1122 Page 4/19

6. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

• Field Investigation

Fieldwork commenced on January 06, 2019 and was completed on January 08, 2019.
The scope of the work comprises the drilling of two boreholes (BH1, BH2) to depth of
20.0m each. The borehole locations are shown on the Site Plan in Appendix A.

A Drilling Rig Machine (Pilcon) was used for drilling the boreholes adopting percussive
drilling method.

Using procedures specified in the code of practice for site investigation BS 5930:2015,
Disturbed and split spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes for soil classification
and laboratory testing.

• Standard Penetration Test

In order to determine the relative density of the revealed strata, Standard Penetration Test at
frequent intervals of depth were conducted in accordance with BS 1377: Part 9:1990
“Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.”

The SPT consist of driving a 50mm external diameter thick walled tube (Split spoon
sampler) into the bottom of the borehole using a 63.5 Kg hammer falling freely through
760mm.

Initially the sampler is driven 150mm into the soil to be seated and to pass through
disturbed soil at the bottom of the borehole. The number of blows required for driving the
sampler a further 300mm is recorded and termed as the “N” value. The results are shown
on the attached borehole logs in Appendix B.

MSI-18-1122 Page 5/19

 • Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were tested in accordance with BS 1377 (1990) “Methods of Test for Soils for
Civil Engineering Purposes.”
Laboratory testing consisted of a visual classification on all the soil samples. Particle size
distribution and chemical analysis of soil were conducted on selected samples.

• Particle Size Distribution

Particle size distribution was carried out in accordance with B.S. 1377: 1990 Part 2:
Method 9 “Determination of Particle Size Distribution”.
Soil samples were mechanically analysed by wet sieving for classification. The results are
presented in the form of particle size distribution curves in Appendix C.

• Chemical Analysis

The likelihood of deterioration of the foundation concrete to aggressive in-situ condition

was assessed by the determination of the pH, sulphate as sulphur trioxide, and chloride
content of the soil and ground water samples in accordance with the following B.S.
Standards:
B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 5 “Determination of the Sulphate Content of soil and
Groundwater.”
B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 7 “Determination of the Chloride Content.”
B.S.1377: 1990: Part 3: Method 9”Determination of the pH Value.
Chemical Tests are presented in Table 6.1

TABLE 6.1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
SOIL
B.H. Depth
Sulphate Content Chloride Content,
as SO4, (g/l) pH Value
No. (m) (BS 1377:P3: (%) (BS 1377:P3:
1990:Cl.5.3) (BS 1377:P3: 1990:Cl9)
1990:Cl7.2)

BH 1 1.50 0.12 0.03 8.1

GROUNDWATER
B.H. Depth
Sulphate Content Chloride Content,
as SO4, (g/l) pH Value
No. (m) (BS 1377:P3: (g/l) (BS 1377:P3:
1990:Cl5.3) (BS 6068: 1990:Cl9)
Sec 2.37:1990)
BH 1 1.80m 0.15 0.04 7.8

Type of Concrete: Class 1

MSI-18-1122 Page 6/19

 TABLE 6.2
CONRETE SPECIFICATION AGAINST SULPHATE ATTACK
BRE Digest 363 July 1991
Concentration of Sulphate
Minimum Maximum
In soil or fill
Cement Cement free
By 2:1 In ground-
CLASS By acid Type (See kg/m3 water/cem
water/soil Water g/l
extraction Table 1c) (Notes 1 & ent ratio
extract – SO4
% SO4 2) (Note 1)
g/l SO4
1 <0.24 <1.2 <0.4 A-L Note 3 0.65
A-G 330 0.50
2 1.2-2.3 0.4-1.4 H 280 0.55
I-L 300 0.55
If>0.24 H 320 0.50
3 2.3-3.7 1.4-3.0
classify on I-L 340 0.50
basis of 2:1 H 360 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0
4 extract I-L 380 0.45
3.7-6.7 3.0-6.0 H 360 0.45
>6.7 >6.0 As for Class 4 plus surface protection –
5
>6.7 >6.0 see CP 102
Note 1 Cement content includes pfa and slag.
Note 2 Cement contents relate to 20mm nominal maximum size aggregate. In order to maintain the cement
content of the mortar fraction at similar values, the minimum cement contents given should be increased
by 40kg/m3 for 10mm nominal maximum size aggregate and may be decreased by 30kg/m3 for 40mm
nominal maximum size aggregate as described in Table 8 of BS 5328 : Part 1.
Note 3 The minimum value required in BS 8110 : 1985 and BS 5328 : Part 1 : 1990 is 275 kg/m3 for unreinforced
structural concrete in contact with non-aggressive soil. A minimum cement content of 300 kg/m3 for (BS
8110) and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.60 is required for reinforced concrete. A minimum
cement content of 220 kg/m3 and maximum free water/cement ratio of 0.80 is permissible for C20 grade
concrete when using unreinforced strip foundations and trench fill for low-rise Buildings in Class 1.
TABLE 6.3
TYPES OF CEMENT
CODE TYPE OR COMBINATION
A Portland cement to BS 12
B Portland blastfurnace cements to BS 146
C High slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246
D Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
E Portland pfa cements to BS 6588
F Combinations of Portland cement to BS 12 and to BS 3892 Part1
G Pozzolanic pfa-cement to BS 6610 : 1991
H Sulphate-resisting Portland cement to BS 4027
I High-slag blastfurnace cement to BS 4246 containing not less than 74% slag by
Mass of nucleus
J Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and blastfurnace slag to BS 6699
Containing not less than 70% slag and not more than 90% slag by mass of slag plus cement.
K Portland pfa cements to BS 6588 containing not than 26% pfa by mass of nucleus
L Combinations of Portland cements to BS 12 and pfa to BS 3892 : Part 1 containing
not less than 25% pfa and not more than 40% pfa by mass of pfa plus cement.
In codes I and J, slag with aluminia (A12O3) content over 14% should be used only with Portland cement
having low to moderate C3A content (Typically less than 10%).

MSI-18-1122 Page 7/19

7. REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND WEATHER CONDITIONS

The geology of the United Arab Emirate, and Arabian Gulf Area, has been substantially
influenced by the deposition of marine sediments associated with numerous sea level
changes during relatively recent geological time, with the exemption of mountainous
regions shared with Oman in the North-East, the country relatively low-lying with near
surface geology dominated by Quaternary to late Pleistocene age, mobile Aeolian dune
Sands and Sabhkha/ evaporates deposits.

The site is situated in Ras Al Khaimah where a hot arid climate prevails. A hot arid
climate is one where evaporation exceeds precipitation such as rain, snow and dewfall. This
climate regime produces characteristics hot dessert terrains. Average annual rainfall may
only be a few centimeters (even only a few millimeters in some parts) which usually occurs
seasonally and sometimes only for single cloudburst. Summer shade temperatures are
frequently in excess 40°c and humidity maybe very high near the coast. The contrast
between maximum night and day temperatures and between night and day humidity is
often great. Strong persistent winds are normal in many areas. This unfavorable climate
imposes adverse on the concrete structures such as:

• High temperatures and seasonal changes

• High humidity and change in relative humidity
• Strong shifting winds during day time
• Condensation at night due to low temperature
• Windborne salt laden dust storm
• High solar radiation day time

8. FIELD WORK

• Drilling

Two boreholes were drilled on 06th to 08th of January 2019, down to a depth of 20.0m
each below the existing ground surface.

The drillings were executed by Pilcon Drilling Rig using Percussion Drilling Method. The
Borehole Logs are presented in Appendix B.

• Sampling

Soil Disturbed, undisturbed and Split Spoon samples were obtained from the boreholes.
The soil samples were placed in airtight plastic bags, and then transferred to the laboratory
for further testing.

MSI-18-1122 Page 8/19

9. SUBSURFACE CONDITION

The subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations have been summarized in
the borehole logs in Appendix B.

10. FIELD TESTING

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

• It was developed in the late 1920's and has been used extensively through out
the world because of this long record of experience; the SPT is well established
in engineering practice. The test procedure was standardized only in 1958 when
ASTM Standard D 1586 first appeared.

• Although SPT is plagued by many problems that affect its accuracy and
reproducibility, it is continued to be used, primarily because of its low cost and
increased familiarity with it. Even after standardization, the test has a poor
repeatability.

• Standard penetration Tests (SPT) was performed at various depths in the

boreholes to asses the relative densities of the ground materials. The tests were
performed in accordance with BS 1377: 1990 Part 9, "Determination of
Penetration Resistance using Split Barrel Sampler (SPT) or ASTM: D 1586.

• The SPT consists of driving a Standard 50mm outside diameter thin wall
sampler into soil at the bottom of a borehole, using repeated blows of a 63.5kg
hammer falling 760mm. The SPT N value is the number of blows required to
achieve a penetration of 300mm, after an initial seating drive of 150mm.

• The test results are shown on the boring logs at the respective test depths.
Interpretation of the SPT test results can be found in the Legend of Boring Logs
(Appendix B).

11. GROUND WATER

Observations concerning ground water were made during and at completion of the drilling
operations. At the time of investigation, the ground water level was established at a depth of
1.80m below working level (BH.1 & BH.2). However, this level may be subject to seasonal
variation or changes if de-watering takes place in the vicinity. Reconfirmation of the ground
water regime is recommended before the start of any work.

MSI-18-1122 Page 9/19

12. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORIES FOR THE DESIGN OF
FOUNDATIONS:

Geotechnical Parameters for Design of Shallow Foundations:

Proper selection of foundation members, dictates their being capable of sustaining the
structural loads and transmitting these loads safely to the supporting ground, so it must
provide for two points. One is to avoid foundation soil failure, which leads to structural
collapse, and the second is to prevent excessive settlement, which may lead to restricting
the possibility of using the structure.

Terzagi’s equation is one the most widely used equations to calculate bearing capacity for
Shallow Foundations. Despite that it was originally developed for soils, it is also used to
calculate the bearing capacity for foundations on rocks provided properly selected factors
are used. This equation is of the form.

qult = C Nc Sc + q`Nq + 0.5 BNγsγ

Where: qult = Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Sc, Sγ = are shape factors
q = γh
C = Cohesion of Soil
Nc, Nq, Nγ = are factors related to angle of internal friction (Ф)

On the other hand the settlement has to be within certain limits, and this may dictate some
limitations on the permissible bearing capacity which is obtained through applying a factor
of safety 3 on the ultimate bearing capacity.

• For sandy soils, the settlement occurs as the load is applied and there are no time
dependent effects. Under these conditions, settlement can be calculated using Elastic
Theory by using appropriate values for the Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the
soil mass.

MSI-18-1122 Page 10/19

13. GENERAL DISCUSSION FOR THE CHOICE OF SUITABLE FOUNDATIONS

In designing foundations, the engineer must satisfy two independent foundation

stability requirements, which must be met simultaneously:

1. There should be an adequate safety against shear failure within the soil mass. In
other words, the working loads should not exceed the allowable bearing
capacity of the soil being built upon.

2. The probable maximum and differential settlements of the soil under any part of
the foundations must be limited to safe and tolerable limits.

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:

1. The imposed loads from the proposed structures on the foundation ground are
expected to be light to medium due to the nature of the proposed structures.

2. Ground water was encountered at 1.80m down to the drilled depth.

3. The materials encountered along with field and laboratory test results are shown
in Appendix C and logs of borings in Appendix B.

According to the above conditions, shallow foundation (Raft) or deep

foundation (Pile) can be used to support the proposed structures as per the following
recommendations.

MSI-18-1122 Page 11/19

14. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the Borehole Logs, Field and routine Laboratory tests results and position of
the Ground Water Table and nature of the project, the types of shallow foundations and
deep foundation are recommended.

At the time of investigation site was level, and approximately same level of adjacent paved road.

Option 1: Shallow Foundation

TABLE 14.1
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY FOR RAFT FOUNDATION
Foundation Type Allowable Bearing Pressure Modulus of sub-grade

Raft Foundation 280 kN/m2 16,800kN/m3

The foundation settlement related to these values of pressure is less than the tolerable limits of
2 inch (50mm) for Raft foundation

• In order to lay the shallow foundations, proceed as follows:

• Excavate and level the existing soil at the Level of -3.25m below the TBM (±0.0)
established on the adjacent paved road.

• Since excavation is below the water table, Dewatering is required.

• Compact using heavy rollers, the soil at the bottom of excavation at level of -3.25m
below the TBM (±0.0) established on the adjacent paved road, to at least 95% of its
maximum dry density at its optimum moisture content obtained from Modified Proctor
Compaction Test. The foundation depth may vary according to architectural
requirement.

• Place one (1) layer of selected granular backfill materials (Road Base) 25cm thick to
reach the required foundation level. The layer shall be compacted by heavy vibratory
roller to a degree of compaction not less than 98% of the maximum dry density as
obtained by modified proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557 – 98).

• Shallow foundation can be placed on engineered fill (i.e., approximately -3.00m below
the TBM (±0.0) established on the adjacent paved road).

• Adequate cover of backfill (minimum 0.5m) shall be provided above the top of the
foundation to protect the foundations ground from erosion and seasonal weather
variation.

• Plate bearing test shall be carried out at foundation level as quality control measure to
verify the required allowable bearing pressure and total settlement criteria under
foundations.

MSI-18-1122 Page 12/19

Option 2: Deep Foundation

Pile Foundations on Cohesion less Soils

For the ground conditions encountered at this site, it is considered that bored or augured
cast-in-situ piles can be used to support the proposed (G+M+6) Building.

Allowable working loads and allowable uplift resistance pile settlement, and pile
stiffness are presented in Tables No. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

The values in Tables No.1, 2 , & 4 are estimated for preliminary design only. A detailed
final design should be carried out by the structural engineer taking into consideration all
possible loading conditions which may be applied on the piles. The carrying capacity of
small diameter concrete pile can be further limited by the safe working load which can
be carried out by the shaft when considered as a structural member.

Pile load tests are considered the most satisfactory method to assess the carrying
capacity of a pile. It is therefore recommended that such tests be performed according
to British Standard Code of Practice 8004 on specially constructed piles installed before
the start of the general construction works during the foundation construction period.
However, if pre-contract testing is carried out, significant savings may result from a
more economical pile design based upon specific test data.

With any form of the pile, it is recommended that specialist contractors are consulted as
to the cost and performance characteristics of their particular form of pile with
particular reference to the proposed method of installation in the ground conditions
encountered at the site. The piling construction should be carried out by specialist well-
experienced and equipped piling contractor, who must submit a method statement for
the construction of the piles and should be requested to confirm the actual working
loads for his particular piling system before foundation design is finalized. Since the
theoretical design methods provide an approximate working load. The contractor
should also demonstrate by load test the piles performance and its load settlement
characteristics.

MSI-18-1122 Page 13/19

 TABLE No. 1
CALCULATED ALLOWABLE WORKING LOADS
(Factor of Safety = 3.00)

Pile Toe Pile Dia.

from Pile
Paved Length
road (m) 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
-14.00 12.00 111 164 227 274 326 381 441 505
-16.00 14.00 126 188 261 315 374 437 505 578
-18.00 16.00 142 212 295 356 423 495 571 653

TABLE NO. 2
ALLOWABLE UPLIFTING RESISTANCE
(Factor of Safety = 2.0)
Pile Toe Pile Dia.
from Pile
Paved Length
road (m) 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
-14.00 12.00 37 50 63 71 80 88 97 107
-16.00 14.00 44 59 75 86 96 106 117 128
-18.00 16.00 50 68 87 100 113 126 139 152

Settlement of Piles
Settlement of piles has been evaluated for different pile diameters, toe levels and working loads
provided in Table 3. Total settlement has been evaluated as summation of elastic settlement of
pile, settlement of pile caused by the load at the pile tip and settlement of pile caused by the
load transmitted along the pile shaft.

Table 3: Pile Settlement (mm)

Pile Toe Pile Dia.
from Pile
Paved Length
road (m) 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
-14.00 12.00 5.8 6.8 7.8 8.5 9.2 10.1 10.6 11.4
-16.00 14.00 6.8 8.0 9.1 9.9 10.7 11.5 12.3 13.1
-18.00 16.00 7.9 8.2 10.5 11.4 12.3 13.1 14.0 15.0

MSI-18-1122 Page 14/19

Pile Spring Stiffness
Pile spring stiffness has been evaluated as allowable working load in compression divided by
the total settlement, which is provided in the following table 4.

Table 4: Pile Stiffness (Ton/mm)

Pile Toe Pile Dia.
from Pile
Paved Length
road (m) 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
-14.00 12.00 19.1 24.1 29.1 32.2 35.4 37.7 41.6 44.3
-16.00 14.00 18.3 23.5 28.7 31.8 34.9 38.0 41.0 44.1
-18.00 16.00 17.9 25.9 28.1 31.2 34.4 37.8 40.8 43.5
The estimation of the bearing capacity was based on the following:
1. Materials Encountered : Dense to very dense Sand with
Gravel

2. Design SPT N-Value : 50 Blows

3. Angle of Internal Friction φ : 40.50
4. Soil Bulk Density : 1.7 ton/m3
5. Reinforced Concrete Density : 2.5 ton/m3
6. Top 2.00m (cut off level) were excluded from friction calculations.
7. Water was encountered 1.80m down to the drilling depth.
Note: These values are estimated for preliminary design only. A detailed final design should
be carried out by the structural engineer taking into consideration all possible loading
conditions which may be applied on the piles.

MSI-18-1122 Page 15/19

Seismic Design Parameters

Shear waver velocity has been estimated on the co-relation related to SPT values for the
sand strata based on published literature for rock strata. Based on the average shear velocity
and the classification based on uniform building Code 1997, the following seismic
parameters shall be adopted.
• Soil profile type SC.
• UAE has been grouped under Zone (2A) with seismic zone factor (Z) of 0.15
• The shear wave velocity of 360m/s.
• A site factor (S -factor) of 1.00m must be used in the design.
• Generally, Based on the SPT (N-Values): The soil profile types can be considered as
tabulated below.

ShearWave SPT UCT Range Soil Profile

Soil/Rock Description
Velocity (m/s) Range (Kpa) Type
Hard Rock 1500 - - SA
Rock 760to 1500 - - SB
Very Dense Soil & Soft
360 to 760 >50 100 SC
Rock
Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100 SD
Soft Soil Profile 180 <15 50 SE
Soil Requiring Site – Specific Evaluation SF

MSI-18-1122 Page 16/19

SOIL PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN OF SHORING SYSTEM

The following soil parameters (coefficient at rest, active and passive pressures, dry density and
the angle of friction resistance) are estimated at depth as given below based on the standard
penetration test (SPT) values and laboratory test. The coefficient of earth pressure is calculated
by Rankine’s Method. The recommended soil parameters are for different locations within the
first 3m depth. The following soil parameters may be adopted for the design of shoring system:

Depth Range

Soil Parameters
R.L. -0.00m*
to
R.L. -3.50m *
Angle of Shearing Resistance 32°
3
Unit Weight of Soil (above water table) (kN/m ) 17
3
Unit Weight of Soil (below water table) (kN/m ) 9.8
Earth Pressure Coefficients
• Active earth pressure coefficient (ka) 0.31
• Passive earth pressure coefficient (kp) 3.23
• Earth pressure at rest (ko) 0.47

MSI-18-1122 Page 17/19

15. CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATIONS:

The results of the chemical analysis of soil and ground water samples recovered from the
boreholes given in Table 6.1 should be studied in conjunction with Tables 6.2 and 6.3
which is an extract reproduced from BRE Digest 363 July 1991. Alternatively, the standard
requirements of Municipality/ relevant authorities should be strictly followed. Appendix D
of this report contains extracts from BRE Digest 363 July 1991.

Thus the recommended cement type and content, as well as the water/cement ratio for
concrete, should be selected in accordance with Class 2 of Table 6.2 & 6.3. Also taken into
account the recommendation of the above-mentioned CIRIA special publication.

The primary cause of serious deterioration in reinforced concrete is corrosion of the

reinforcement, due to attack by chlorides, present in concrete either within concrete
aggregate and mixing water, or through penetration from surrounding environment. Since
chloride induced reinforcement corrosion can only occur in the presence of oxygen and
water, the risk of corrosion can be reduced by control of chloride in concreting materials
and by ensuring adequacy, integrity and impermeability of the concrete cover.

Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by the presence of a high sulphate content either by
the ingress from the sulphate of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils or
groundwater, or by the presence of sulphate in the concrete ingredients. The attack results
in a considerable internal expansion which may lead to crack and disintegration of the
concrete. This effect can be reduced by use of selected cements or by suitable protection of
the concrete.

Conditions should be studied in conjunction with modified recommendations for concrete

mix design, based on local experience in the Gulf Region and CIRIA Special Publication
31 (1984).

MSI-18-1122 Page 18/19

16. GENERAL COMMENTS:

In the absence of availability of full loading conditions imposed by the structure to be

supported on the foundations it is not possible to decide the most appropriate analytic
model for evaluating the interaction between the structural loads with their configuration
and properties of the supporting soils and rock and such as the computations of parameters
like total settlements, differential settlements and angular are not feasible.

Conclusions and recommendations made in this report are based on the findings from the
drilled boreholes, and Laboratory tests results. Due to the limited extent of the soil
investigation, it is most probable that some variation may be found at the time of execution
of the project in the Sub – Strata encountered.

Most Engineers work with manufactured products that have very consistent and predictable
engineering properties, but Geotechnical engineers do not have this facility. They work
with soil and rock, which are natural materials whose engineering properties vary
dramatically from place to place, for example, one site may be underlain by strong, hard
deposits while another may be underlain by soft, weak deposits, and thus, instead of
specifying required properties, Geotechnical engineer's task becomes to determine the
properties of the existing soils.

The best way to deal with such uncertainties is continued monitoring of sub- surface during
construction. Often new information becomes available during construction and if the new
conditions are found to be different from the anticipated conditions, then the design may
need to be changed accordingly even at the execution stage. In well managed projects, site
characterization continues throughout construction, period since further data often becomes
available and may dictate changes in the design. Therefore, Geotechnical monitoring
during construction is most essential and is highly recommended.

Design of Geotechnical structures involves a certain amount of uncertainty in the value of

the input parameters which include the structural geology, material strengths, ground water
pressures, floods and seismic events, reliability of the analytical procedure and construction
methods. In view of these uncertainties and heterogeneous nature of the soils and rocks
along with the creep phenomenon the recommendations and procedures contained in this
report are intended to be used with caution, therefore, prior to their use in connection with
any design, report or specifications they should be reviewed with regard to the full
circumstances of such use.

MSI-18-1122 Page 19/19

 APPENDIX A

Site Plan Showing Borehole Locations

 APPENDIX B

Key to Boreholes
Borehole Logs
 KEY TO BOREHOLES (BS 5930:1999)

SOIL TYPES

MADE GROUND ( FILL ) BOULDERS and COBBLES GRAVEL

SAND SILT CLAY

PEAT Silty SAND Gravelly SAND

Shelly SAND Gravelly Silty SAND Sandy SILT

Gravelly Sandy SILT Sandy GRAVEL

ROCK TYPES

LIMESTONE CONGLOMERATE SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE MUDSTONE CALCARENITE

GYPSUM Igneous (MG)

SOILS
Non-Cohesive Soils Cohesive Soils
SPT N Value Relative Density Angle of Internal Consistency Undrained Shear Strength
(Blows / Friction* (kN/m2)
300mm)
0–4 Very Loose < 30o Very Soft < 20
4 – 10 Loose 30o- 35o Soft 20 – 40
10 – 30 Medium Dense 35o- 40o Firm 40 – 75
30 – 50 Dense 40o- 45o Stiff 75 – 150
> 50 Very Dense > 45o Very Stiff 150 – 300
* After Meyerhof Hard > 300

ROCK
Rock Strength Classification
Unconfined Compressive Strength Description
( MN/m2 )
< 1.25 Very Weak
1.25 – 5.0 Weak
5.0 – 12.5 Moderately Weak
12.5 – 50 Moderately Strong
50 – 100 Strong
100 – 200 Very Strong
> 200 Extremely Strong
 BOREHOLE LOG
OWNER Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi
PROJECT Proposed (G+M+6) Building
LOCATION Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah-U.A.E
COORDINATES: N: E: REPORT No. : MSI-18-1122
BORING EQUIPMENT: Pilcon DRILLING FLUID Water CASING DIA. 150 mm
BORING METHOD: Percussion CASING DEPTH 12.00m
BORE HOLE NO.: 1 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 1.80m DATE STARTED : 06-01-19 SHEET NO. 1/2

GROUND LEVEL: 0.00 m GROUND WATER LEVEL: 1.80m DATE COMPLETED: 07-01-19

THICKNESS
LEG- STRATIF
END ICATION
SAMPLE G. W.
REDUCED

DESCRIPTION OBS.
DEPTH

LEVEL

SPT
NUMBER
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
RQD
SCR

DEPTH(m)
TCR

TYPE

DATE
TIME
m m % % % N obs m
Medium dense to dense,
- SPT 1 24 2.5
grey, slightly silty to silty,
-1.0 SPT 2 31 very gravelly fine to medium
grained SAND. Gravel are
- SPT 3 38 rock fragments.
1.80m
-2.0 SPT 4 45

- SPT 5 >50
N. A.
N. A.

N. A.

Very dense, dark grey, 3.5

-3.0 SPT 6 >50 slightly silty, very gravelly to
very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel
-
are rock fragments.
-4.0 SPT 7 >50

-5.0 SPT 8 >50

-6.0 SPT 9 >50

Very dense, brown to 6.0
-
greyish brown, very silty,
-7.0 SPT 10 >50 gravelly fine to medium
grained SAND/clayey.
- Gravel are are rock
fragments with cemented
-8.0 SPT 11 >50
sand pieces.
-

-9.0 SPT 12 >50

1- TCR : Total Core Recovery. 4- SPT : Standared Penetration Test. 7- N.A. : Not Applicable.
2- SCR : Solid Core Recovery. 5- G.W.: Ground Water Table. 8- D. : Disturbed Sample.
3- RQD : Rock Quality Designation. 6- N.E. : Not Encountered. 9- B. : Bulk Sample.

REMARKS:-
 BOREHOLE LOG
OWNER Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi
PROJECT Proposed (G+M+6) Building
LOCATION Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah-U.A.E
COORDINATES: N: E: REPORT No. : MSI-18-1122
BORING EQUIPMENT: Pilcon DRILLING FLUID Water CASING DIA. 150 mm
BORING METHOD: Percussion CASING DEPTH 12.00m
BORE HOLE NO.: 1 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 1.80m DATE STARTED : 06-01-19 SHEET NO. 2/2

GROUND LEVEL: 0.00 m GROUND WATER LEVEL: 1.80m DATE COMPLETED: 07-01-19

THICKNESS
LEG- STRATIF
END ICATION
SAMPLE G. W.
REDUCED

DESCRIPTION OBS.
DEPTH

LEVEL

SPT
NUMBER
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
RQD
SCR

DEPTH(m)
TCR

TYPE

DATE
TIME
m m % % % N obs
10.0 SPT 13 >50 Same as above.
-
N. A.

N. A.

N. A.

-11.0 SPT 14 >50

-12.0 SPT 15 >50

- Very dense, brownish grey to 4.0

grey, silty very gravelly fine to
-13.0 SPT 16 >50 medium grained SAND. Gravel
are rock fragments.
-

-14.0 SPT 17 >50

-15.0 SPT 18 >50

-16.0 SPT 19 >50

Very dense, dark grey, silty, 4.5
- very gravelly SAND. Gravel
-17.0 SPT 20 >50
are rock fragments.

- Dense to very dense,reddish

-18.0 SPT 21 >50

-19.0 SPT 22 >50

-
-20.0 SPT 23 >50 End of BH @ 20.50m
1- TCR : Total Core Recovery. 4- SPT : Standared Penetration Test. 7- N.A. : Not Applicable.
2- SCR : Solid Core Recovery. 5- G.W.: Ground Water Table. 8- D. : Disturbed Sample.
3- RQD : Rock Quality Designation. 6- N.E. : Not Encountered. 9- B. : Bulk Sample.

REMARKS:-
 BOREHOLE LOG
OWNER Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi
PROJECT Proposed (G+M+6) Building
LOCATION Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah-U.A.E
COORDINATES: N: E: REPORT No. : MSI-18-1122
BORING EQUIPMENT: Pilcon DRILLING FLUID Water CASING DIA. 150 mm
BORING METHOD: Percussion CASING DEPTH 12.00m
BORE HOLE NO.: 2 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 1.80m DATE STARTED : 08-01-19 SHEET NO. 1/2

GROUND LEVEL: 0.00 m GROUND WATER LEVEL: 1.80m DATE COMPLETED: 08-01-19

THICKNESS
LEG- STRATIF
END ICATION
SAMPLE G. W.
REDUCED

DESCRIPTION OBS.
DEPTH

LEVEL

SPT
NUMBER
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
RQD
SCR

DEPTH(m)
TCR

TYPE

DATE
TIME
m m % % % N obs m
Medium dense to dense,
- SPT 1 26 2.5
grey, slightly silty, very
-1.0 SPT 2 32 sandy GRAVEL. Gravel are
rock fragments.
- SPT 3 40
1.80m
-2.0 SPT 4 44

- SPT 5 >50
N. A.
N. A.

N. A.

Very dense, dark grey, 3.5

-3.0 SPT 6 >50 slightly silty, very gravelly to
very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel
-
are rock fragments.
-4.0 SPT 7 >50

-5.0 SPT 8 >50

-6.0 SPT 9 >50

Very dense, brown to 6.0
-
greyish brown, very silty,
-7.0 SPT 10 >50 gravelly fine to medium
grained SAND/clayey.
- Gravel are are rock
fragments with cemented
-8.0 SPT 11 >50
sand pieces.
-

-9.0 SPT 12 >50

1- TCR : Total Core Recovery. 4- SPT : Standared Penetration Test. 7- N.A. : Not Applicable.
2- SCR : Solid Core Recovery. 5- G.W.: Ground Water Table. 8- D. : Disturbed Sample.
3- RQD : Rock Quality Designation. 6- N.E. : Not Encountered. 9- B. : Bulk Sample.

REMARKS:-
 BOREHOLE LOG
OWNER Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi
PROJECT Proposed (G+M+6) Building
LOCATION Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah-U.A.E
COORDINATES: N: E: REPORT No. : MSI-18-1122
BORING EQUIPMENT: Pilcon DRILLING FLUID Water CASING DIA. 150 mm
BORING METHOD: Percussion CASING DEPTH 12.00m
BORE HOLE NO.: 2 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 1.80m DATE STARTED : 08-01-19 SHEET NO. 2/2

GROUND LEVEL: 0.00 m GROUND WATER LEVEL: 1.80m DATE COMPLETED: 08-01-19

THICKNESS
LEG- STRATIF
END ICATION
SAMPLE G. W.
REDUCED

DESCRIPTION OBS.
DEPTH

LEVEL

SPT
NUMBER
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
RQD
SCR

DEPTH(m)
TCR

TYPE

DATE
TIME
m m % % % N obs
10.0 SPT 13 >50 Same as above.
-
N. A.

N. A.

N. A.

-11.0 SPT 14 >50

-12.0 SPT 15 >50

- Very dense, brownish grey to 4.0

grey, silty very gravelly fine to
-13.0 SPT 16 >50 medium grained SAND. Gravel
are rock fragments.
-

-14.0 SPT 17 >50

-15.0 SPT 18 >50

-16.0 SPT 19 >50

Very dense, dark grey, silty, 4.5
- very gravelly SAND. Gravel
-17.0 SPT 20 >50
are rock fragments.

- Dense to very dense,reddish

-18.0 SPT 21 >50

-19.0 SPT 22 >50

-
-20.0 SPT 23 >50 End of BH @ 20.50m
1- TCR : Total Core Recovery. 4- SPT : Standared Penetration Test. 7- N.A. : Not Applicable.
2- SCR : Solid Core Recovery. 5- G.W.: Ground Water Table. 8- D. : Disturbed Sample.
3- RQD : Rock Quality Designation. 6- N.E. : Not Encountered. 9- B. : Bulk Sample.

REMARKS:-
 APPENDIX C

Particle Size Distribution Curves

 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Client Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi Report No. MSI-18-1122
Consultant M/S INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER Date Reported 13-01-2019
Project Proposed (G+M+6) Building, Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah -U.A.E Date Tested 09-01-2019

Particle size (mm)

75 50 37.5 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.850 0.425 0.250 0.075 0.005 0.001
100

90

80

70
PERCENTAGE PASSING

60

50

40

30

20

10

0.006

0.002
3.35

1.18

0.600

0.300

0.212

0.150

0.063

0.02
63.0

28.0

20.0

14.0
10.0

6.3

2.0
5.0

GRAVEL SAND SILT

CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

Sample Description of Material Borehole Coordinates Gravel Sand Clay & Silt Plasticity Index
Borehole No. Sample No. Curve
Depth (%) (%) (%)
Easting Northing LL PL PI
Grey, silty, verys andy GRAVEL. Gravel are rock
BH1 1.00m 2 fragments. - - 67.3 25.5 7.2 - - -

Brown/grey verysilty, gravelly fine to medium grained

BH1 6.00m 9 SAND. Gravel are rock fragments with cemented sand - - 9.6 48.5 41.9 - - -
pieces.

Particle Size Distribution 1/4

 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Client Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi Report No. MSI-18-1122
Consultant M/S INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER Date Reported 13-01-2019
Project Proposed (G+M+6) Building, Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah -U.A.E Date Tested 09-01-2019

Particle size (mm)

75 50 37.5 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.850 0.425 0.250 0.075 0.005 0.001
100

90

80

70
PERCENTAGE PASSING

60

50

40

30

20

10

0.006

0.002
3.35

1.18

0.600

0.300

0.212

0.150

0.063

0.02
63.0

28.0

20.0

14.0
10.0

6.3

2.0
5.0

GRAVEL SAND SILT

CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

Sample Description of Material Borehole Coordinates Gravel Sand Clay & Silt Plasticity Index
Borehole No. Sample No. Curve
Depth (%) (%) (%)
Easting Northing LL PL PI
Brownish grey, very silty, very gravelly fine to medium
BH1 13.00m 16 grained SAND. Gravel are rock fragments. - - 21.8 58.2 20.1 - - -

Grey, silty, very sandy GRAVEL. Gravel are rock

BH1 20.00m 23 fragments. - - 50.2 42.7 7.1 - - -

Particle Size Distribution 2/4

 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Client Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi Report No. MSI-18-1122
Consultant M/S INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER Date Reported 13-01-2019
Project Proposed (G+M+6) Building, Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah -U.A.E Date Tested 09-01-2019

Particle size (mm)

75 50 37.5 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.850 0.425 0.250 0.075 0.005 0.001
100

90

80

70
PERCENTAGE PASSING

60

50

40

30

20

10

0.006

0.002
3.35

1.18

0.600

0.300

0.212

0.150

0.063

0.02
63.0

28.0

20.0

14.0
10.0

6.3

2.0
5.0

GRAVEL SAND SILT

CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

Sample Description of Material Borehole Coordinates Gravel Sand Clay & Silt Plasticity Index
Borehole No. Sample No. Curve
Depth (%) (%) (%)
Easting Northing LL PL PI
Grey slighlty silty, very sandy GARAVEL. Gravel are rock
BH2 3.00m 6 fragments. - - 59.1 39.2 1.7 - - -

Brown, gravelly very sandy SILT/clayey. Gravel are rock

BH2 10.00m 17 fragments with cemented sand pieces. - - 10.7 36.4 52.9 - - -

Particle Size Distribution 3/4

 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Client Mr. Harib Mohammed Salem Obaid Murad Al Muzawi Report No. MSI-18-1122
Consultant M/S INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CENTER Date Reported 13-01-2019
Project Proposed (G+M+6) Building, Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, Ras Al Khaimah -U.A.E Date Tested 09-01-2019

Particle size (mm)

75 50 37.5 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.850 0.425 0.250 0.075 0.005 0.001
100

90

80

70
PERCENTAGE PASSING

60

50

40

30

20

10

0.006

0.002
3.35

1.18

0.600

0.300

0.212

0.150

0.063

0.02
63.0

28.0

20.0

14.0
10.0

6.3

2.0
5.0

GRAVEL SAND SILT

CLAY
COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.006 0.002

Sample Description of Material Borehole Coordinates Gravel Sand Clay & Silt Plasticity Index
Borehole No. Sample No. Curve
Depth (%) (%) (%)
Easting Northing LL PL PI
Brownish grey, silty very gravelly fine to medium grained
BH2 14.00m 17 SAND. Gravel are rock fragments with cemented sand - - 20.7 61.4 18.0 - - -
pieces.

Dark grey, silty, very gravelly fine to medium grained

BH2 19.00m 22 SAND. Gravel are rock fragments. - - 35.4 57.5 7.1 - - -

Particle Size Distribution 4/4

 APPENDIX D

• Building Research Establishment Digest 363 (Extracts).

MSI-18-1122 Plot No. 310040096, Al Nakheel, RAK.