Appendices

Appendix A:

Site Plan

Appendix B:

Logs of Boring
Sec. B-1

Legend to Logs of Boring

Sec. B-2

Logs of Boring

Appendix C:
N/A

Field Test Results

Appendix D:

Laboratory Testing

Appendix E:

Sec.D-1

Grading Curves, Atterberg Limits & Soil Classification

Sec.D-2

Moisture Content Test Results

Sec.D-3

Point Load Strength Index Test of Rock

Sec.D-5

Chemical Test Results

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCRETE

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix A
Site Plan

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix B
Logs of Boring

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix B, Sec. B-1

Legend to Logs of Boring

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Soil and Rock Strength Definition

Granular soils-Relative Density (BS 5930:1999)

Cohesive soils Consistence (BS 5930:1999)

Consistency of Clay

Relative Density
SPT 'N' Value
Term
Field recognition
Cu(
Point
Classification
MPa
Load
Very Loose
<4
)
Strength
Loose
4-10
Medium dense
10-30 (MPa)
Extremel Rocks Ring on
>200
>12
Dense
30-50
y Strong hammer blows.
Very dense
>50
Sparks fly
Very
Strong

Strong
Moderat
ely
Strong
Moderat
ely weak
Weak
Very
Weak

Lumps only chip by

heavy hammer
blows. Dull ringing
sound
Lumps or core
broken by heavy
hammer blow
Lump or core
broken by light
hammer blow
Thin slabs broken
by heavy hand
pressure
Thin slabs break
easily in hand
Crumbles in hand

100200

6-12

50100

3-6

12.550

0.75-3

512.5

0.3-0.75

Undrained Shear Strength

kN/m2
<20
20-40
40-75

Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff

75-150

Very stiff

>150

1.250.0755
0.3
<1.2
<0.075
5
Rock strength classification (BS 5930:1999)

Consistency of Clays and approximate correlation to Standard Penetration Number, N

SPT N

Consistency

0-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-30
>30

Very Soft
Soft
Medium stiff
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard

Unconfined Compressive Strength

(kN/m2)
0-25
25-50
50-100
100-200
200-400
>400

Ref: Braja M. Das Principal of Foundation Engineering 3rd Edition, PWS Publishing, Page 89

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix B, Sec. B-2

Logs of Boring

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix C
Field Test Results

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix D
Laboratory Testing

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix D, Sec.D-1
Grading Curves, Atterberg Limits & Soil Classification

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix D, Sec.D-2
Moisture Content Test Results

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix D, Sec.D-3
Point Load Strength Index Test of
Rock

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix D, Sec.D-4
Chemical Test Results

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Appendix E
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCRETE

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

The following points must be taken into consideration as general notes, guides in conjunction with
the Chemical Conditions and recommendations included in this report.
1)

RECOMMENDED CEMENT TYPES

In practice, the use of proper cement type in the foundation should take into consideration the
sulphate and chloride contents encountered. However, one of the usual reasons for using other than
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is to reduce the effects of chemical attack on the concrete.
Since the following concepts play a crucial role in cement reactions. It is felt necessary to explain
them with respect to CIRIA special publication 31 (CIRIA guide to concrete construction in the gulf
region).

Tricalcium Aluminate (CA) is the component of the cement, which reacts with sulphates and
expands. CA (with high content) reacts with sulphates and causes undesirable expansion in
concrete, while it reacts with chloride to avoid the Expected chloride attack on reinforcement.

Thus, Sulphate-Resisting Portland Cement (SRC) contains less CA than OPC to reduce the
effect of the reaction between CA and sulphate. However, CA can also combine with chlorides,
which might otherwise cause reinforcement to rust, and current research grounds increasing concern
that where sulphates and chlorides occur together, the use of sulphate-resisting cement may be
inadvisable. Sulphate-resisting cement do not make concrete immune from sulphate attack, but only
make it better able to withstand moderate concentrations of sulphates.
Based on the above, CIRIA has concluded that the use of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is safer
in case of:

Higher contents of both sulphates and chlorides are occurring together so as to satisfy a balance

in aforementioned behaviors.
Higher contents of chlorides and lower contents of sulphates are available. Admixtures are
preferable also to be used here to avoid or decrease the possibility of chlorides (with high contents)
attacking the reinforcement.
Project No. ATGP-15-001
Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

Otherwise, it is recommended that the use of Sulphate-Resisting Pertained Cements (SRC) is safe

when:
Lower contents of both sulphates and chlorides are occurring together.
Higher contents of sulphates and lower contents of chlorides are present.

2)

ACCEPTANCE LIMITS OF CHLORIDES & SULPHATES

Chlorides: As per BS:3148: 1980: Recommended limiting values for total chloride (presence of
chlorides in the mixing water or other sources in concrete) by weight of cement in different types of
concrete are included in 6.3.8 of CP 110:Part 1:1972. As a guide, the chloride content of the water
should generally not exceeded 500 mg of chloride per liter (i.e., 0.5 g/l).

Sulphates: as per BS:3148: 1980: a general guide to the acceptability of sulphates in mixing
water is that the sulphate content should not be exceed 100mg of sulphur trioxide per litre (i.e., 1.0
g/l).
BRE digest 250 and CP 110 grade soils and groundwater in five levels of sulphate concentration:
0.2% total sulphate or 1.0 g/l in 2.1 soil water extract is considered significiant.

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan

REFERENCES

1)

Braja M. Das

Principles of foundation Engineering

PWS Publising Company

2)

Joseph E Bowles

Foundation Analysis and Design

Mc Graw Hill International Edition

Fourth Edition

3)

Joseph E Bowles

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of soils

Mc Graw Hill International Edition

Second Edition

4)

MJ Tomlinson

Foundation Design and Construction

Longman Scientific & Technical

5)

Hsai Yang Pang

Foundation Engineering Handbook

Van Nostrand Reinhold

6)

BS 5930:1999

Code of Practice for Site Investigation

7)

QAP-06-App. C

Site investigation Issue 6/ Rev.0

8)

CIRIA Publication-31 Guide to Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region

Project No. ATGP-15-001

Appendices

Third Edition

Fifth Edition
Second Edition

Geotechnical Investigation, GSM # 1376 Sharjah Ramla-Halwan