Islamic University – Gaza ‫اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯿﺔ – ﻏﺰة‬

Research and Graduate Affairs ‫ﺷﺆون اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ واﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﯿﺎ‬

Faculty of Science ‫ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم‬
Environmental Sciences Master ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم اﻟﺒﯿﺌﯿﺔ‬
Program-Environmental Monitoring ‫اﻹدارة واﻟﻤﺮاﻗﺒﺔ اﻟﺒﯿﺌﯿﺔ‬
and Management

ty of Science

Subsurface geological-geotechnical modeling of Gaza Strip

‫اﻟﺠﯿﻮﺗﻘﻨﯿﺔ أﺳﻔﻞ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻗﻄﺎع ﻏﺰة‬/ ‫اﻟﻨﻤﺬﺟﺔ اﻟﺠﯿﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿﺔ‬

By
Mohammed Mahmoud H. AL Aklouk

Supervisors
Dr. Zeyad H.Abu Heen Dr. Ahmed El Arabi M. Abu Foul
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
The Islamic University-Gaza The Islamic University-Gaza

2015-1436
Dedication

I dedicate this work to:

My Father and

My Kind-hearted and Sweet Mother

My Beloved Wife

My Sons & Daughters

My Brothers

My Friends

Mohammed M. Al Aklouk

I
 Acknowledgements

First of all, praise Allah for blessings and guidance in fulfilling this research.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to my supervisors " Dr. Zeyad H.
Abu Heen " and " Dr. Ahmed El Arabi M. Abu Foul" for their well-considered
advice and priceless support during the period of my study.
I would like to express appreciation to Palestinian water authority (PWA) and
materials and soil laboratory(MSL) of the Islamic University in Gaza
I would like to express my gratitude to my parents . I wish to thank my wife
for her patience, as her always remained very close, loving and supporting me,
sharing both the failure and the joys of success. I would like to thank my sons
and my daughter for their patience. Encouragements and continuous support
during my study.
Thanks for all after God. Without their cooperation and supporting, this
study could not complete.

II
 Abstract
There is a lack of the geotechnical and geological information of Gaza Strip. There are no
complete geology geotechnical reports for Gaza Strip but some studies carried out for
specific purposes by some researchers, engineering consulting offices, ministries or
government authorities such as the Palestinian Water Authority. Most of these researches
are special reports and not published, but little of this information has been published.

The internal reports and some of the published data for the study area characterized by a
degree of uncertainty, needs purification and re-classification and verified the presence of a
repeat in some of them need to be an accurate geological description

This study was conducted of Gaza Strip, and depend on some physical properties of the
surface (soil texture , water content, , density, liquid limit, bearing capacity) to depth 7.5m,
and subsurface layers, geological studying of characteristics geological of the layers. 749
boreholes or wells have been collected from Palestinian water authority (PWA) and
materials and soil laboratory(MSL) of the Islamic University in Gaza, 547 from PWA and
202 from MSL.

The study aimed to Drawing geological and geotechnical sections at different areas in Gaza
Strip in forms of 1D and 2D, Determination the geotechnical properties for different rocks
for the study area (nature water content, liquid limit, dry density, soil bearing capacity, soil
classification, rock texture..), Determine the characteristics (geological / engineering) for
the different rocks at different depths, Update geological cross sections in Gaza Strip to
identify of subsurface litho logical structure.

The results show that the small change happened to the Gaza strip at 0.5m top soil texture,
the soil type on the sea side beach areas is sandy pure soil and especially the northern and
southern areas, begin to change gradually as we head east to turn into a silt and clay in the
south and clay containing calcium in the north area as Beit Hanoun

There is relationship between the natural water content of the soil with the soil type in this
region at different depths.

There is a direct correlation between the liquid limit and moisture content at the same

III
depth. Sub-surface 8 lithological cross sections has been drawn in different locations. The
sections presents soil, and rock types along these locations .Some of these proposed
sections correlated well with previous sections suggested by others.

Data Bank was created as a nucleus for an electronic database using Rock ware program
and Google Earth.

The study gives recommendation for creating Data bank over the Internet that contains
geological and geotechnical characteristics to get them on demand and collect more data to
be as for building 3D model using Rock ware software for Gaza strip and adding new data
to get more accuracy in description, Selecting new geotechnical characteristics to conduct
the same studies and Standardization the geological terminology during drilling wells and
description.
Merge geological characteristics of the soil, water levels can be integrated to gain more
information about water resources with more areas.
collected data maps is a very important tool that can be used Determine location of solid
waste, building areas, areas for agriculture purposes and assign areas to be used for
wastewater treatment plants.

IV
 ‫‪Abstract in Arabic‬‬

‫صﻠﺧﺗﺳﻣﻟا‬

‫ﺗﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻧطﻘﺔ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة ﻣن ﻧﻘص اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت اﻟﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ واﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺗوﺟد ﺗﻘﺎرﯾر ﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻘطﺎع ﻏزة وﻟﻛن ﺑﻌض اﻟدراﺳﺎت اﻟﺗﻲ أﺟرﯾت ﻷﻏراض ﻣﺣددة ﻣن ﻗﺑل ﺑﻌض اﻟﺑﺎﺣﺛﯾن‪ ،‬وﻣﻛﺎﺗب‬
‫اﻻﺳﺗﺷﺎرات اﻟﻬﻧدﺳﯾﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟوزارات أو اﻟﺟﻬﺎت اﻟﺣﻛوﻣﯾﺔ ﻣﺛل ﺳﻠطﺔ اﻟﻣﯾﺎﻩ اﻟﻔﻠﺳطﯾﻧﯾﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻌظم ﻫذﻩ اﻷﺑﺣﺎث ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺎرﯾر ﺧﺎﺻﺔ واﻟﺗﻲ ﻟم ﺗﻧﺷر‪ ،‬وﻟﻛن اﻟﻘﻠﯾل ﻣن ﻫذﻩ اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت ﻗد ﺗم ﻧﺷرﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺗﻘﺎرﯾر اﻟداﺧﻠﯾﺔ وﺑﻌض اﻟﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻣﻧﺷورة ﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﺗﺗﻣﯾز ﺑدرﺟﺔﻣن ﻋدم اﻟﯾﻘﯾن‪ ،‬ﺗﺣﺗﺎج ﺗﻧﻘﯾﺔ وا ٕ ﻋﺎدة‬
‫ﺗﺻﻧﯾف واﻟﺗﺣﻘق ﻣﻧﻬﺎ ووﺟود ﺗﻛرار ﺣﯾث ان اﻟﺑﻌض ﺑﺣﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ أن ﯾﻛون وﺻﻔﺎ ﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺎ دﻗﯾﻘﺎ‬
‫وﻗد أﺟرﯾت ﻫذﻩ اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة‪ ،‬وﺗﻌﺗﻣد ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌض اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﻔﯾزﯾﺎﺋﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﺳطﺢ )ﻗوام اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻣﺣﺗوى‬
‫اﻟﻣﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﻛﺛﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬وﺣد ﻟﺳﯾوﻟﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻗوة ﺗﺣﻣل ضرﻷ ا(ﺣﺗﻰ ﻋﻣق ‪7.5‬م ‪ ،‬وطﺑﻘﺎت ﺗﺣت اﻟﺳطﺣﯾﺔ واﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ‬
‫ﺑدراﺳﺔ اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ﻟﻠطﺑﻘﺎت‪ 749 .‬ﺣﻔرة أو ﺑﺋر ﺗم ﺟﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻣن ﺳﻠطﺔ اﻟﻣﯾﺎﻩ اﻟﻔﻠﺳطﯾﻧﯾﺔ )‪(PWA‬‬
‫وﻣﺧﺗﺑرات اﻟﻣواد وﻣﺧﺗﺑر اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ )‪ (MSL‬ﻣن اﻟﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻏزة‪ 547 ،‬ﻣن ﺳﻠطﺔ اﻟﻣﯾﺎﻩ اﻟﻔﻠﺳطﯾﻧﯾﺔ و‬
‫‪ 202‬ﻣن ﻣﺧﺗﺑرات اﻟﻣواد واﻟﺗرﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫدﻓت اﻟدراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ رﺳم ﻣﻘﺎطﻊ ﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ و ﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺎطق ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة ﻓﻲ أﺷﻛﺎل ‪، 2D ،D 1‬‬
‫ﺗﺣدﯾد ﻟاﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﺻﺧور ﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟدراﺳﺔ ) ﻣﺣﺗوى اﻟﻣﺎء اﻟطﺑﯾﻌﺔ ‪ ،‬واﻟﺣد ﻣن اﻟﺳﺎﺋل ‪ ،‬واﻟﻛﺛﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺟﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬و ﻗدرة ﺗﺣﻣل اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ و ﺗﺻﻧﯾف اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ ‪ ، (..،‬ﺗﺣدﯾد ﻟاﺧﺻﺎﺋص ) اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ‪ /‬اﻟﻬﻧدﺳﺔ ( ﻹﺧﺗﻼف‬
‫اﻟﺻﺧور ﻓﻲ أﻋﻣﺎق ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺣدﯾث اﻟﻣﻘﺎطﻊ اﻟﻌرﺿﯾﺔ اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة ﻟﺗﺣدﯾد ﻟاﻬﯾﻛل اﻟﺻﺧرﯾﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫أظﻬرت اﻟﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ أن ﺗﻐﯾﯾر طﻔﯾف ﺣدث ﻟﻘطﺎع ﻏزة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻣق ‪0.5‬م ﻣن ﻧوع اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﺷﺎطﺊ ﺗرﺑﺔ‬
‫رﻣﻠﯾﺔ ﻧﻘﯾﺔ وﺧﺎﺻﺔ اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﺷﻣﺎﻟﯾﺔ واﻟﺟﻧوﺑﯾﺔ‪ ،‬وﯾﺑدأ اﻟﺗﻐﯾﯾر ﺗدرﯾﺟﯾﺎ ﻛﻠﻣﺎ اﺗﺟﻬﻧﺎ ﺷرﻗﺎ ﺗﺗﺣول إﻟﻰ اﻟﺳﻠت ‪،‬‬
‫واﻟطﻣﻲ واﻟطﯾن وﻓﻲ اﻟﺟﻧوب و اﻟﺷﻣﺎل اﻟﺷرﻗﻲ ﺗﺣﺗوي ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟطﯾن ﺣﯾث ﺑﯾت ﺣﺎﻧون‬
‫رﺳم ﺧراﺋط ﺗوﺿﺢ ﻋﻧﺎﺻر اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻣﺛل اﻟﻧﺳﯾﺦ اﻟﺻﺧري‪ ،‬اﻟﻣﺣﺗوى اﻟﻣﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺛﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ وﺣد اﻟﺳﯾوﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻟذو أﻋﻣﺎق ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ )‪ 7,5-0.5‬م( ﻟﻣﻌرﻓﺔ ﻛﯾﻔﯾﺔ ﺗﻐﯾر ﻫذﻩ اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص ﺑﺎﺧﺗﻼف اﻟﻣﻛﺎن اﻟﺟﻐراﻓﻲ أو‬ ‫ﻰﻠﻋ‬
‫اﺧﺗﻼف اﻟﻌﻣق‪.‬‬
‫تدﻛ ا اﻟدراﺳﺔ اﻧﻪ ﺗوﺟد ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﯾن ﻣﺣﺗوى اﻟﻣﯾﺎﻩ ﻣن اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ وﻧوع اﻟﺗرﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻋﻣﺎق ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗم رﺳم ‪ 8‬تﺎﻋﺎطﻗ ﻋرﺿﯾﺔ ﺻﺧرﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ اﺗﺟﺎﻫﺎت ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻣﻧطﻘﺔ اﻟدراﺳﺔ وﻋﻠﻰ أﻋﻣﺎق ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﺣﺳب ﺗوﻓر‬
‫اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎتو أظﻬرت ﺗﻠك اﻟﻘطﺎﻋﺎت ﺗواﻓﻘﺎً ﻣﻊ ﻗطﺎﻋﺎت رﺳﻣت ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌض اﻟﻣﻧﺎطق‪.‬‬
‫ﺗم إﻧﺷﺎء ﺑﻧك ﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت ﻛﻧواة ﻟﻘﺎﻋدة ﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﻛﺗروﻧﯾﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧدام ﺑرﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ Rock ware‬و ‪Google Earth‬‬

‫‪V‬‬
‫أوﺻت اﻟدراﺳﺔ إﻧﺷﺎء ﺑﻧك اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت ﻋﺑر ﺷﺑﻛﺔ اﻹﻧﺗرﻧت ﯾﺣﺗوي ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ و اﻟﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ‬
‫وﺟﻣﻊ اﻟﻣزﯾد ﻣن اﻟﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت ﻟﺗﻛون ﻧﻣوذج ﺛﻼﺛﻲ اﻷﺑﻌﺎد ﻟﻘطﺎع ﻏزة ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧدام ﺑرﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ ، Rock ware‬إﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت ﺟدﯾدة ﻟﻠﺣﺻول ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣزﯾد ﻣن اﻟدﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟوﺻف و اﺧﺗﯾﺎر ﺧﺻﺎﺋص ﺟﯾوﺗﻘﻧﯾﺔ ﺟدﯾدة ﻹﺟراء ﻧﻔس‬
‫اﻟدراﺳﺎت ﻋﻠﯾﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗوﺣﯾد اﻟﻣﺻطﻠﺣﺎت اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ﺧﻼل ﺣﻔر اﻵﺑﺎر واﻟوﺻف‪.‬‬
‫دﻣﺞ اﻟﺧﺻﺎﺋص اﻟﺟﯾوﻟوﺟﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﺗرﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬وﻣﺳﺗوﯾﺎت اﻟﻣﯾﺎﻩ ﯾﻣﻛن أن ﯾﻛن و ﺗﺻور دﻗﯾق ﻟﻠﺣﺻول ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣزﯾد ﻣن‬
‫اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت ﺣول اﻟﻣوارد اﻟﻣﺎﺋﯾﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻣزﯾد ﻣن اﻟﻣﺳﺎﺣﺎت ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺧراﺋط اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗم ﺟﻣﻌﻬﺎ اﻟﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﻌﺗﺑر أداة ﻣﻬﻣﺔ ﺟدا و ﯾﻣﻛن اﺳﺗﺧداﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﺗﺣدﯾد ﻣوﻗﻊ اﻟﻧﻔﺎﯾﺎت اﻟﺻﻠﺑﺔ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻧﺎطق اﻟﺑﻧﺎء‪ ،‬ﻣﻧﺎطق ﻷﻏراض اﻟزراﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﯾﯾن ﻣﻧﺎطق ﻻﺳﺗﺧداﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺣطﺎت ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺟﺔ ﻣﯾﺎﻩ اﻟﺻرف‬
‫اﻟﺻﺣﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬
 Table of Contents

Dedication…………………………………………………………………......................... I
Acknowledgements……………………………………………….……………................. II
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………… III
Abstract in Arabic…………………………………………..……………………………... V
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………… VII
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….. XI
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………. XII
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………... XIV
Acronyms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………... XV
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………… 1

1.1 Introduction ……………………………………….………………………………... 1

1.2 Problem Identification…………………………………………….………………… 2
1.3 Study Objectives………………………………………………………...................... 3
1.4 Stage of the study ………………………………………..…………………………. 3
1.5 Thesis Outline ………………………………………………………………………. 4
Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………...................... 6
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2 Geological-Geotechnical……………………………………………………………. 6
2.3 Laboratory tests…………………….,,,,…………………………………………….. 6
2.4 Soil Classification …………………………………………………………………... 8
2.4.1Unified Soil Classification System ….………………………………………….. 9
2.4.2AASHTO Soil Classification System…………………………………………… 10
2.5 Tools and programmers……………………………………………………………... 11
2.5.1RockWorks features applicable to the geotechnical industry…………………... 11
2.5.2Geographical Information System "GIS"………………………………………... 11

VII
 2.5.3Arc map…..……………………………………………………………………… 12
2.5.4GIS Interpolation Techniques …………………………………………………… 12
2.6 Previous Study ……………………………………………………………………… 16
Chapter Three: Study Area Description......................................................................... 19
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 19

3.2 Location of the study area ………………………………………………………….. 20

3.3 Topography…………………………….………………………..………………….. 20

3.4 Land Use………………………………………,,…………………………………… 22

3.5 Soil………………………………………………………………………….............. 24

3.6 Geology…………………………………………………………………………….. 26

Chapter Four: Approach, Methodology and Tools........................................................ 29

4.1 Methodology…………….......................................................................................... 29

4.2 Data Collection.......................................................................................................... 32

4.3 Site selection and identification……………………………………………………. 34

4.4 Data Storage and Processing..................................................................................... 37

4.5 Tools for Data Analysis…......................................................................................... 37

4.6 Laboratory tests method……………………………………………………………. 38
4.6.1 Natural Water Content………………………………………………………….. 38
4.6.2 Atterberg Limits………………………………………………………………… 38
4.6.3 Soil Dry Density………………………………………………………………… 39

Chapter Five: Results and Discussion ............................................................................ 40

5.1 Introduction ………………………………..…..................................................... 40

5.2 Soil in Gaza strip……............................................................................................ 40

5.2.1Soil at depth 0.5m………..………….............................................................. 40

5.2.2 Soil at depth 3.0m .......................................................................................... 42

5.2.3 Soil at depth 6.0m........................................................................................... 42

5.3 Natural Water Content ............................................................................................... 45

VIII
 5.3.1 Water Content at depth 0.5 m.............................................................................. 45

5.3.2 Water Content at depth 3.0 m.............................................................................. 47

5.3.3 Water Content at depth 6.0 m.............................................................................. 47

5.3.4 Water Content at depth 7.5 m.............................................................................. 50

5.4.Atterberg Limits …………………………………………………………………… 51

5.4.1 Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit at depth 0.5m …………………………...………. 51

5.4.2 Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit at depth 3.0m…………..…..…………………….. 53

5.4.3 Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit at depth 6.0m…………………………………….. 54

5.4.4 Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit at depth 7.5m…………………………………….. 56

5.4.5 Comparison of Soil liquid limit and moisture content at different depths. …….. 57

5.5 Soil Dry Density ……………………………………………………………………. 59

5.5.1 Soil Dry Density (γ Dry) at depth 0.5 m .………………………………………. 59

5.5.2 Soil Dry Density (γ Dry) at depth 3.0 m ….……………………………………. 61

5.5.3 Soil Dry Density (γ Dry) at depth 6.0 m ………………………………………... 61

5.6 Bearing Capacity……………………………………………………………………. 64

5.7 Stratigraphy of Gaza Strip.......................................................................................... 65

5.7.1 Cross sections.AI………....................................................................................... 67
5.7.2 Cross sections A2….............................................................................................. 69
5.7.3 Cross sections A3….............................................................................................. 71
5.7.4 Cross sections A4….............................................................................................. 73
5.7.5 Cross sections A5….............................................................................................. 75
5.7.6 Cross sections A6….............................................................................................. 77
5.7.7 Cross sections A7….............................................................................................. 77
5.7.8 Cross sections A8….............................................................................................. 78
5.7.9 Cross sections (A-9)…………………………………………………………….. 83

5.7.10 Cross sections (A-10)……….............................................................................. 83

Chapter six: Conclusions and Recommendations…....................................................... 85

IX
6.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 85
6.2 Recommendations…................................................................................................... 86
References.......................................................................................................................... 87
Annexes….......................................................................................................................... 91

X
 List of Tables

Table 2.1: Symbol chart for Unified Soil Classification……………………………...... 9

Table 2.2: Unified soil classification system.................................................................... 10

Table 3.1: Land use classes of Gaza Strip ………………………………...................... 24

Table 3.2: Summary of the geological history of area ………………………………… 28

Table 4.1: Soil classification and its properties from MSL…………………...………. 34
Table 5.1: Location of Cross Sections of Soil…………………………………………. 64

XI
 List o f Figures

Fig.1.1: Thesis Outline ………………........................................................................... 5

Fig.2.1: Different applied Geostatistical application in GIS ………………………….. 15
Fig.3.1:Location map of Gaza Strip ................................................................................. 19
Fig.3.2: Topographical map of the study area ................................................................. 21
Fig.3 .3: Land use classifications in Gaza Strip.............................................................. 23
Fig.3.4 :Soil map of the study area................................................................................. 25
Fig.3.5: Typical hydro geological cross section of Gaza Strip……........................ 27
Fig.4. 1: The study approach and methodology ............................................................... 30
Fig.4. 2: Data collection methodology ............................................................................. 31
Fig.4. 3: Soil profile log (MSL)…………………....................................................... 33
Fig.4. 4: Site Location of boreholes & Log from (PWA)……......................................... 35
Fig.4. 5: Site Location of boreholes & Log from (MSL).................................................. 36
Fig.5.1:Soil map at depth 0.5m in Gaza Strip …………………………........................ 41
Fig.5.2:Soil map at depth 3.0 m in Gaza Strip …………………………........................ 43
Fig.5.3:Soil map at depth 6.0 m in Gaza Strip …………………………........................ 44
Fig.5.4:Gaza Strip Soil natural water content map at depth 0.5m………...................... 46
Fig.5.5: Gaza Strip Soil natural water content map at depth 3.0m………...................... 48
Fig.5.6: Gaza Strip Soil natural water content map at depth 6.0m………...................... 49
Fig.5.7: Gaza Strip Soil natural water content map at depth 7.5m………...................... 50
Fig.5.8:Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit map at depth 0.5m…….…………….................... 52
Fig.5.9:Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit map at depth 3.0m…….……………................... 53
Fig.5.10:Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit map at depth 6.0m…….………………….......... 55
Fig.5.11:Gaza Strip Soil Liquid Limit map at depth 7.5m…….……………................ 56
Fig.5.12:Compareson of liquid limit and moisture content at different depth ........ 58
Fig.5.13:Gaza Strip Soil Dry Density at depth 0.5 m …………………………………. 60
Fig.5.14:Gaza Strip Soil Dry Density at depth 3.0 m …………………..…….………... 62
Fig.5.15:Gaza Strip Soil Dry Density at depth 6.0 m ………………………………….. 63
Fig.5.16: Gaza Strip Soil Bearing Capacity at depth 2.0m ……….……………………. 64
Fig.5.17: Site location of cross sections ………………………..................................... 65

XII
Fig.5.18: Cross section No. (A1-A1') .………………………………………………… 68
Fig.5.19: Cross section No. (A2-A2’) …………………………………………………. 70
Fig.5.20: Cross section No. (A3-A3’) …………………………………………………. 72
Fig.5.21: Cross section No. (A4-A4’) ………………………………………………..... 74
Fig. 5.22: Cross section No. (A5-A5’) ……………………………………………….. 76
Fig. 5.23: Cross section No. (A6-A6’) ……………………………………………….. 79
Fig. 5.24: Cross section No. (A7-A7’)………………………………………………... 80
Fig. 5.25: Cross section No. (A8-A8’)….…………………………………………….. 81
Fig.5.26: Site Location of cross section(No.3) (Al-Dasht. J 2012)…………………… 82
Fig.5.27:Site location of cross section A-9 (Pizo 38/84,L/182,L/184,L/70, P/151,Pi5,
7-1,191)………………………………………………………………………………. 82
Fig.5.28:Cross Section (A-9) of Khanyounis (Pizo 38/84, L/182, L/184, L/70, P/151,
Pi5,7-1,191)………………………………………………………………………….... 83
Fig.5.29: cross section No.10 (Greitzer and Dan, 1967)……………………………... 84
Fig.5.30: Cross section No.11 at KhanYounis area …………………………….......... 84

XIII
 List of Appendices
Annexes...…………………………………..........………....................................91
Annex I :Table of Boreholes and wells locations…...………………….………..92
Table: Data collected from MSL………………………….……….…….93
Table: Data collected from PWA……….……..…………………..…….98
Annex II: Lithological Cross sections …………………………….....................111

XIV
 Acronyms and Abbreviations
MSL Materials and Soil Labs
CAMP Coastal Aquifer Management Program
CMWU Coastal Municipalities Water Utility
PWA Palestinian Water Authority
GS Gaza Strip
BS British Standards
ASTM American Society for testing and Materials
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
G Gravel
S Sand
M Silt
C Clay
O Organic
P Poorly graded (uniform particle sizes)
W well-graded (diversified particle sizes)
H high plasticity
L low plasticity
GW well-graded gravel, fine to coarse gravel
GP poorly graded gravel
GM Silty gravel
GC Clayey gravel
SW well-graded sand, fine to coarse sand
SP Poorly graded sand
SM Silty sand
SC Clayey sand
ML Silt
CL Clay of low plasticity, lean clay
OL Organic silt, organic clay
MH Silt of high plasticity, elastic silt
CH Clay of high plasticity, fat clay
OH Organic clay, organic silt
Pt peat
GIS Geographical Information System
TIN Triangulated irregular networks
IDW Inverse distance weighted

XV
 Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

A lot of problems in major urban areas are directly or indirectly related to the geological,
geotechnical and hydro-geological conditions beneath and around the areas (Mc Call et
al., 1996).
For example, problems of differential settlement affecting buildings are directly linked
to geological or geotechnical conditions (Boscardin et al., 1989; Fenton and Griffiths,
2002; Breysse et al., 2005; Chrétien et al., 2007).
When planning new surface or underground infrastructures it is vital to anticipate what
geological conditions are likely to be encountered, even before taking any specific
survey or investigation work.
In a similar way, the design or management of underground sewer networks can be
improved with an appropriate knowledge of the soils which are likely to be surrounding
the network. An improved assessment of geometry and mechanical properties of
underground layers would minimize project risks as well as from an economical point of
view as from a technological point of view. It would also help to justify decisions
regarding works or urban planning and would help in assessing their impact on the
natural environment. This is why a 3D (3 dimensional) geological model integrating
various geo-engineering parameters is a key component of city management.
Building a geological model in an urban context remains a difficult task because of
several factors. In an urban environment, one can found many boreholes descriptions
when the prospects among various companies (builders, contactors) and technical
services. However, these data result from successive and uncorrelated investigation
programs, lacking any global strategy. The disordered accumulation of data does not
provide a homogeneous view (in terms of nature, quality or spatial distribution)of the
city undergrounds.

1
This points the question of controlling the consistency of data, as well as that of storing
and easily displaying available information. Furthermore, the quality of this information,
gathered along city history, is very heterogeneous. Available geological descriptions can
range from the highest to the lowest quality, and do not always use a consistent lexicon
because the data had not been gathered for a common purpose. As a consequence, any
data has to be reinterpreted prior any use. Finally, geotechnical and hydro geological
parameters are generally available at a much lower density than the geological
information, which is a problem for 3D models of these parameters. Despite experience
provided by several urban-geological models realized or attempted in the past
(Auvinet et al., 2001; Bozzano et al., 1999; Ellison et al., 1996‫ ؛‬Maurenbrecher and
Herbschleb, 1995; Morfeldt and Persson, 1997; Thierry et al., ‫؛‬2000Thierry et al., 2004)
there is still a need for methods aiming to combine data of different quality coming from
different sources, and for procedures helping automation of data management and
control.

1.2 Problem Identification:

The problem of this research is the lack of the geotechnical and geological
information to the Gaza Strip. There are some geology/ geotechnical reports for Gaza
Strip but some sporadic studies carried out for specific purposes by some researchers,
engineering consulting offices, ministries or government authorities such as the
Palestinian Water Authority. Most of these researches are special reports and is not
published, but little of this information has been published.

The internal reports and some of the published data for the study area characterized
by a degree of uncertainty, needs of purification and re-classification and verified the
presence of a repeat in many of them as some of them need to be an accurate
geological description as many of this reports were described as a description of non-
geologist.

2
1.3 Study Objectives:

The research objectives are follows to:

• Drawing geological and geotechnical sections at different areas in Gaza Srtip in

forms of 1D, 2D and 3D.
• Determination the geological and geotechnical properties for different rocks for the
study area (nature water content, liquid limit, dry density, soil bearing capacity, soil
classification, rock texture..)
• Determine the characteristics (geological / engineering) for the different rocks at
different depths.
• Draw contour maps and cross sections showing the distribution of the studied
geological/geotechnical properties for the study area.
• Update geological cross sections in Gaza Strip to identify of subsurface lithological
structure.

1.4 Stages of the study

The stages of the study can be summarized as follows:

§ Mobilization of the required tools and software needed for study purpose
and objectives.

§ Communication with materials and soil labs (MSL), Palestine water

authority (PWA), Costal Management & Water Utility (CMWU), Ministry
of Agriculture (MoA) and others.

§ Collection and review of some relevant literature, reports, and projects and
any other documents pertaining to the study objectives.

§ Gathering data of soil logs properties, locations, coordinate (X,Y,Z), tests

of soil and subsurface geologic structure.

3
 § Data tabulated in form of excel (tables), access (queries) office files and based
shape GIS files and themes

§ Managing the data in a GIS, Rockworks, Winlog, Winfense and other

softwares.

§ Analyzing the lithological data by using GIS and Rockworks softwares.

§ Elaborating the data presentation and dissemination of results in

appropriate various forms of data output (e.g. Graphs, Maps, Cross-
sections, etc...).

§ Interpreting the results to be sufficient and acceptable to describe the

overall trend in subsurface geologic & geotechnical structure of Gaza strip.

§ Data integration will be done to be an effective preliminary tool for

planning, policy and operational levels of decision making.

1.5 Thesis Outline

This study consists of six chapters described as follows (Figure 1.1):

* Chapter One (Introduction)

General introduction follows by problem identification, study objectives, methodology

and tools used in order to achieve the objectives and finally a plan for thesis outline.

* Chapter Two (Literature Review)

Chapter two covers a general literature review on the meaning and importance
of programs, tools, soil properties, and subsurface geologic & geotechnical
structure. It also review of the available published and unpublished data related
to the study objectives.

4
* Chapter Three (Study Area description)

Describes the intended area and Gaza Strip where the study area is located, with
respect to its geography, geology and geotechnical, and land use. Depending on
the available studies on the groundwater quality status of the area in order to
continue the progress of related works in this thesis.

* Chapter Four (Approach, Methodology and Tools)

It discusses the data collection, processing and analysis and representation in

different forms of maps, graphs, sections and tables by using different
softwares including Rockworks, GIS, WinLog version 4, WinFence and
Excel.

* Chapter Five (Results and Discussion)

Present the collected data in chapter four after processing, analyzing, interpretation and
integrating all the available data.

* Chapter Six (Conclusions and Recommendations)

The results and information gained from chapter five were utilized to
conclude some conclusions regarding the study objectives. Specific
recommendation will be extracted from this study for the interested
engineering companies, ministries, etc..

Chapter one Chapter Two Chapter Three

Introduction Literature Study Area description
Review

Chapter Six Chapter Five Chapter Four Approach,

Conclusions Results and Methodology and Tools
&Recommendations Discussion

Fig.1.1: Thesis Outline

5
 Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction:

This chapter included the required studies concerning the soil and the related
subjects, tools and programs. The following topics will be focused on:

• Geological-geotechnical
• Laboratory tests.
• Soil classification
• Tools and programmers
• GIS Interpolation Techniques
• Previous Studies

2.2 Geological-Geotechnical:

Geology: The science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth,
the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes
changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.
( http://www.aesgeo.com/#!geologic-assessments/c1mdd)

Geotechnical: The sub discipline of civil engineering that involves natural materials
found close to the surface of the earth. It includes the application of the principles of soil
mechanics and rock mechanics to the design of foundations, retaining structures, and
earth structures .
( http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/geot.1994.44.4.573)
2.3 Laboratory tests:
Representative samples of the soils were tested to determine the physical,
mechanical properties of the ground materials. The following tests were performed
according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the British
Standards (B.S.):

6
 • Natural Water Content Test. ASTM D 2216-92
• Grain Size Analysis by Sieves. ASTM D 422-92.
• Liquid and Plastic Limits and Plasticity Index. ASTM D 4318-93
• Bearing capacity of soils
• Dry Density of soils

Tested samples were classified according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

• Natural Water Content

Water content or moisture content is the quantity of water contained in a
material, such as soil (called soil moisture) rock, ceramics, fruit, or wood.
Water content is used in a wide range of scientific and technical areas, and is
expressed as a percentage(%), which can range from 0 (completely dry) to the
value of the material at saturation point. It can be given on a volumetric or
mass (gravimetric) basis. (Bowles, Joseph E. (1986)).
• Liquid and Plastic Limits and Plasticity Index.

o The plastic limit (PL): is the water content where soil starts to exhibit
plastic behavior.
o The liquid limit (LL): is the water content where a soil changes from
plastic to liquid behavior.
o The plasticity index (PI): is a measure of the plasticity of a soil. The
plasticity index is the size of the range of water contents where the soil
exhibits plastic properties. The PI is difference between the liquid limit
and the plastic limit (PI = LL-PL). Soils with a high PI tend to be clay,
those with a lower PI tend to be silt, and those with a PI of 0 tend to have
little or no silt or clay.
The importance of the liquid limit test is to classify soils. Different soils have
varying liquid limits. Also to find the plasticity index of a soil you need to
know the liquid limit and the plastic limit.( Bowles, Joseph E. (1986)).

7
 • Bearing capacity of soils.
Bearing capacity of soils is perhaps the most important of all the topics in soil
engineering. Soils behave in a complex manner when loaded so, it is important
to know the bearing capacity of soils. Soil when stressed due to loading, tend to
deform. The resistance to deformation of the soil depends upon factors like
water content, bulk density, angle of internal friction and the manner in which
load is applied on the soil. The maximum load per unit area which the soil or
rock can carry without yielding or displacement is termed as the bearing
capacity of soils. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearing_capacity)
2.4 Soil Classification.
Soil classification can be defined by the process of grouping all soil of the like
characteristics in separated groups. Accordingly, performance of soil of each group or in
the same group can be predicted to a certain limit. Different systems of classifications
were proposed to fit the intended purpose, geological, agricultural or structural
foundation engineering or structural high way engineering as described herein after Soil
classification shall be used in this thesis to include or find a relationship between the
different types of soil all over the Gaza Strip. In such a way when the classification or
the description is known, the corresponding soil could be defined by a range of many
values.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_classification)

The soils classification of any geographic location into categories representing the
results of prescribed laboratory tests to determine the particle-size characteristics, the
liquid limit, and the plasticity index.
There are two systems to classify soils Unified Soil Classification System and AASHTO
Soil Classification System. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_classification)

8
2.4.1 Unified Soil Classification System
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a soil classification system used in
engineering and geology to describe the texture and grain size of a soil. The
classification system can be applied to most materials, and is represented by a two-
letter symbol. Each letter is described below in Table no.(2.1 ) (Mckenzie,and
Ryan,(1999):

Table.(2.1 ) :Symbol chart for Unified Soil Classification.

First and/or second letters Second letters
Letter Definition Letter Definition
G Gravel P poorly graded (uniform particle sizes)
S Sand W well-graded (diversified particle sizes)
M Silt H high plasticity
C Clay L low plasticity
O Organic

If the soil has 5–12% by weight of fines passing a #200 sieve (5% < P#200 < 12%), both
grain size distribution and plasticity have a significant effect on the engineering
properties of the soil, and dual notation may be used for the group symbol. For example,
GW-GM corresponds to "well-graded gravel with silt.

If the soil has more than 15% by weight retained on a #4 sieve (R#4 > 15%), there is a
significant amount of gravel, and the suffix "with gravel" may be added to the group
name, but the group symbol does not change. For example, SP-SM could refer to
"poorly graded SAND with silt" or "poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel(Table
2.2).

9
 Table.(2.2) :The Unified soil classification system (Bowles, Joseph E. (1986)).

Group
Major divisions Group name
symbol
clean gravel well-graded gravel, fine
gravel GW
<5% smaller to coarse gravel
> 50% of coarse than #200
Coarse fraction retained Sieve GP poorly graded gravel
grained soils on sieve No. 4
gravel with GM silty gravel
more than (4.75 mm)
50% retained >12% fines GC clayey gravel
on or above well-graded sand, fine to
sand SW
sieve No.200 clean sand coarse sand
(0.075 mm) ≥ 50% of coarse SP poorly graded sand
fraction passes
No.4 sieve sand with SM silty sand
>12% fines SC clayey sand
ML Silt
silt and clay inorganic clay of low plasticity,
CL
Fine grained liquid limit < 50 lean clay
soils organic OL organic silt, organic clay
50% or more silt of high plasticity,
passing the MH
elastic silt
sieve No.200 silt and clay Inorganic
clay of high plasticity, fat
liquid limit ≥ 50 CH
clay
Organic OH organic clay, organic silt
Highly organic soils Pt peat

2.4.2 AASHTO Soil Classification System

AASHTO system of soil classification was developed by Tarzaghi and

Hogentogler in 1928, it was one of the first engineering classification systems. Intended
specifically for use in highway construction, it still survives as the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) system. It rates soils for their
suitability for support of roadway pavements, and is still widely used in such projects.

10
The AASHTO system uses both grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits data to
assign a group classification and a group index to the soil. The group classification
ranges from A-1 (best soils) to A-8 (worst soils). Group index values near 0 indicate
good soils, while values of 20 or more indicate very poor soils. However, a soil that may
be "good" for use as a highway subgrade might be "very poor" for other purposes, and
vice versa.
The system itself requires only that a portion of soil to pass through a 3-inch sieve. If
any material does not pass the 3-inch sieve, its percentage by weight should be recorded
and noted with the classification.(Hogentogler, Terzaghi, 1929)

2.5 Tools and programmers

2.5.1RockWorks features applicable to the geotechnical industry
Rockworks is a great tool for geotechnical and civil engineers to use when
evaluating construction and excavation sites. Whether you're in the beginning,
middle or ending phase of a project, find that Rockworks will save you and your
clients both time and money.
The Borehole Manager allows bring soil boring, sampling, well screening and other
information into the program via a simple Excel or ASCII file import.
View boreholes and wells information in 2D and 3D using a variety of methods and
color schemes. Create 2D and 3D contour maps of stratigraphic surfaces

A variety of gridding methods are available. Create sections showing modeled lithology
and stratigraphy. Generate solid models and volumetric estimations of stratigraphy,
lithology, and other down hole parameters. Create maps showing lithology and
stratigraphy at different levels. Easily estimate excavation volumetric.
Float or drape air photos over your 3D logs, solids, and surfaces.

2.5.2 A Geographical Information System "GIS"

A Geographical Information System "GIS" is defined as "an organized
collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel
designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all

11
forms of geographically referenced information". GIS technology has been
widely used in various fields, such as agriculture, business geographic, ecology,
electricity and gas, emergency management and public safety, environmental
management, forestry, health care, education, mining and geosciences, real
estate, remote sensing, telecommunications, transportation and water distribution
and resources (ESRI, 1992).
The use of geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing to facilitate the
estimation of hydrologic parameters for watersheds has gained increasing attention
in recent years. This is mainly due to the fact that hydrologic models include both
spatial and geomorphic variations. GIS technology provides suitable alternatives for
efficient management of large and complex databases (Melesse, 2002).
The application of any hydrologic model requires efficient management of large
spatial data. This is done by integrating watershed simulation models and GIS which
generates the capacity to manage large volumes of data in a common spatial
structure (A1-Sabhan et al, 2003).

2.5 .3 Arc Map

Arc Map is the main component of ESRI's ArcGIS suite of geospatial
processing programs, and it is used primarily to view, edit, create, and analyze
geospatial data. Arc Map allows the user to explore data within a data set,
symbolize features accordingly, and create maps for clients. (Wikipedia, 2009b). It
presents the Arc Map window under ArcGIS 9.2 software that been utilized during
the study.

2.5 .4 GIS Interp olati on Techni ques

Often geographic data are sampled at various locations, rather than a
complete census, because of time or money constraints. To create a surface from
sampled data, that is to estimate the values at all non-sampled locations, one needs
to interpolate. There is a variety of interpolation methods, but all make use of the
First Law of Geography, that things closer together tend to be more similar than

12
those farther away (Theobald, 2007).
Interpolation is the process by which a surface is created, usually a raster dataset,
through the input of data collected at a number of sample points. There are several
forms of interpolation, each which treats the data differently, depending on the
properties of the data set. In comparing interpolation methods, the first
consideration should be whether or not the source data will change (exact or
approximate). Interpolation is a justified measurement because of a Spatial
Autocorrelation Principle that recognizes that data collected at any position will
have a great similarity to, or influence of those locations within its immediate
vicinity. Digital elevation models (DEM), triangulated irregular networks (TIN),
Edge finding algorithms, Thiess Polygons, Fourier analysis, Weighted moving
averages, Inverse Distance Weighted, Moving averages, Kriging, Spline, and
Trend surface analysis are all mathematical methods to produce interpolative data
(Wikipedia, 2009a).

GIS based packages, offers several interpolation methods for creating surfaces.
These methods include but not limited to: trend surface (trend), inverse distance
weighted (IDW), triangulation, Kriging and others. Each of these methods has its
own advantages and disadvantages in terms of data interpolation processing.
None of these method works universally as the best for all the data set. Selection
of a particular method depends on the distribution of data points and the study
objectives (Jun, 2001).
Spatial interpolators may be used to estimate values at non-sampled sites. Spatial
interpolation can also be used when preparing irregularly scattered data to
construct a contour map or contour surface, which is a two-dimensional
representation of a three dimensional surface. All spatial interpolation methods
investigated accept irregularly scattered data and can create a regular grid of
interpolated points amenable to contouring.
Methods that produce smooth surfaces include various approaches that may
combine regression analyses and distance-based weighted averages. As

13
explained in more detail below, a key difference among these approaches is the
criteria used to weight values in relation to distance. Criteria may include simple
distance relations (e.g., inverse distance methods), minimization of variance
(e.g., Kriging and cokriging), minimization of curvature, and enforcement of
smoothness criteria (splining). On the basis of how weights are chosen, methods
are "deterministic" or "stochastic." Stochastic methods use statistical criteria to
determine weight factors (Hartkamp et al., 1999).
Interpolation methods can also be described as "global" or "local." Global
techniques (e.g. inverse distance weighted averaging; (IDWA) fit a model through
the prediction variable over all points in the study area. Typically, global
techniques do not accommodate local features well and are most often used for
modeling long-range variations. Local techniques, such as splining, estimate
values for a non-sampled point from a specific number of neighboring points.
Consequently, local anomalies can be accommodated without affecting the value
of interpolation at other points on the surface (Burrough, 1986). Splining, for
example, can be described as deterministic with a local stochastic component
(Burrough & McDonnell, 1998).

In ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst, it provides a variety of interpolation

methods for the creation of an optimal interpolated surface from your data. A
friendly wizard helps you through the interpolation process. There are two main
groupings of interpolation techniques: deterministic and Geostatistical.
Deterministic interpolation techniques are used for creating surfaces from
measured points based on either the extent of similarity (e.g., Inverse Distance
Weighted) or the degree of smoothing (e.g., Radial Basis Functions).
Geostatistical interpolation techniques are based on statistics and are used for
more advanced prediction surface modeling, which also includes error or
uncertainty of predictions (ESRI, 2000). Fig 2.1 below shows different spatial
representation through applying different interpolation method.

14
Inverse Distance Weighted Kriqing

Figure 2-1. Different applied Geostatistical application in GIS (ESRI, 2009a)

Surface interpolation functions create a continuous (or prediction) surface from

sampled point values. There is a variety of ways to derive a prediction for each
location; each method is referred to as a model. With each model, there are
different assumptions made of the data, and certain models are more applicable
for specific data—for example, one model may account for local variation better
than another. Each model produces predictions using different calculations
(ESRI, 2009a).

15
2.6 Previous Studies:
There is a number of researches in the world which dealt with this subject. A
lot of these researches has been carefully studied and some of the difficulties have
been identified .
These are some research which are the following:
-Hydro geological Evaluation of the Aquifer in the Southern Part of the Gaza Strip
(Al-Dasht. J 2012) This study was carried out at the Southern part of the coastal
aquifer in the Gaza Strip (KhanYounis and Rafah Governorates) considering its
geological and hydrogeological characteristics, water quality and water balance. This
study is an attempt to find out the natural and anthropogenic reasons impact on the
deterioration of groundwater in this part Subsurface lithological structure has been
drawn to determine the natural reasons behind the groundwater deterioration. Cross
sections had shown the shortage of storage capacity of high quantities of fresh water
in the coastal aquifer in the study area. Those sections show presence of clay that
reduces the replenishment processes for the aquifer from the rainfall and returns flow
from agricultural activities. So, lithological formation was evident as one of the
natural causes which accelerate destroying process of the coastal aquifer, particularly
with presence different clear in lithological structure within different places of the
Gaza Strip comparing in the study area, which in turn provides the opportunity to the
aquifer for increasing the storage capacity, as it clear in the North of Gaza Strip.

- Subsurface geological-geotechnical modeling to sustain underground civil planning

F. de Rienzo, P. Oreste, S. Pelizza. The aim of the paper was to document the use of
3D subsurface geological-geotechnical modeling to optimize the planning and
development of subsurface structures in city areas. The proposed procedure was
applied to the analysis of the subsoil of the City of Turin (Northern Italy). The
results of more than 300 boreholes were analyzed to develop a model of the
geological setting up to a depth of 60 m from the surface planning
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001379520700227X)

- GIS Applications in Geotechnical Engineering (New Jersey, United State)

16
New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and Bureau of Geotechnical
Engineering maintain a large database of boring locatio
n plans and corresponding test boring logs. They conducted a successful pilot study
to investigate the development of a GIS to better manage and disseminate soils
information, from test boring results. That makes it easier to obtain information
regarding soil types at a specific project location

-In practice, selection of a particular interpolation method should depend upon the
configuration of the data set, the type of surfaces to be generated, and tolerance of
estimation errors. In generating surfaces, a three step procedure is recommended: the
first step is to evaluate the data set. This give idea on how data are spatial distributed,
and may provide hints on which interpolation method should be used. The second step
is adopted and applies an interpolation method which is most suitable to both the data
set and the study objectives. The third step is compare the results using descriptive tools
and determines the most stratifying result and the most suitable method.

Burrough & McDonnell, 1998 state that when data are abundant most interpolation
techniques give similar results. When data are sparse, the underlying assumptions about
the variation among sampled points may differ and the choice of interpolation method
and parameters may become critical.

There are many interpolation methods available (Watson, 1992; Burrough, 1986;
Lam, 1983; and Ripley, 1981). Each of these methods works best for a particular
data set because of its inherent assumptions and algorithm design for estimation. For a
given data set, different interpolation methods may work best for different study
objectives (i.e. smooth surface vs. accurate surface).

Taking into consideration several papers and studies regarding the comparison of
interpolation methods and the best fitted models, where each study a/o paper is
investigating a wide variety of spatial interpolation techniques, it can be briefed as
following:

17
In recent study in 2008 done by Mehrjardi and others titled as: Application of
Geostastical Methods for Mapping Groundwater Quality in Azarbayjan Province,
Iran. They have compared efficiency of three interpolation techniques included
IDW, Kriging and cokriging for predicting of some groundwater quality indices such
as: Na, TH, EC, SAR, Cl_, Ca2 , Mg +2
and 504, as a prerequisite of ecosystem
management decisions is monitoring of soil and waters that geostatistics methods are
one of the most advanced techniques for monitoring of them. The data were taken
from 625 wells in Azarbayjan Province, Iran. After normalization of data,
variograme was computed. Suitable model for fitness on experimental variograme
was selected based on less RMSE value. Then the best method for interpolation was
selected, using cross-validation and RMSE. The results showed that for all
groundwater quality indices, cokriging performed better than other methods to
simulate groundwater quality indices.

In conclusion, the techniques assessed previously and that will be practiced in the study
are deterministic interpolation methods of INVERSE DISTANCE WEIGHTING
(IDW) that the exact data values for the sample points are included in the final output
surface.

18
 Chapter Three

Study Area Description

3.1Introduction :
This study deals with the Gaza Strip area (Map 3.1) with a total land area of 365 km 2.
The sea shore is about 42 km in length. The Area is divided administratively into five
Governorates: North, Gaza, Middle, Khan Yunis and Rafah Governorate. Gaza Strip has
25 municipalities, which constitute the study area. The Gaza Strip is classified as a
developing and one of the low income countries (PCBC, 2005).

Gaza Strip
The Study Area

Fig. (3.1): Location map of Gaza Strip (Abu Samra, 2014).

19
3.2 Location

Gaza Strip is part of the Palestinian coastal plain in southwest Palestine, where it
forms a long narrow rectangle. Its length is approximately 42 km 2 and its width
is 5 to 8 km in northern and central parts, attaining a maximum of 12 km at the
Southern end with a longitude of 34:21:38 E and a latitude of 31:29:45 N .

3.3 Topography
Gaza Strip surface as a whole is covered by the Pliocene-Quaternary sediments
varying from the Pliocene sand dunes and alternating Pleistocene loess and gravels
outcropping in Wadi Gaza (Picard 1943; El Khoudary & Anan, 1985). The Pleistocene
coastal area has alternating stratified calcareous sandstones (locally termed as
Kurkar) and red sandy paleosoils (locally termed as Hamra = Arabic word for red).
While the Holocene sediments, are represented by the coastal sand dunes and
alluvial deposits. The Kurkar is intercalated by the Hamra formed the coastal ridges.
These ridges are designated to represent typical longitudinal concave forms parallel
to the coastline by dominant wind direction perpendicular to the coast (Anan &
Zaineldeen, 2008).

The ridges have been dissected by Wadi Gaza, the largest surface water feature
in Gaza Strip. It rarely flows due to the diversion and storage projects upstream in
occupied areas in The occupied territories (PWA, 2010). Picard (1943) noted to the
Quaternary Kurkar is mainly distributed in the western half of the coastal plain and
formed at the surface 3-4 subdued ridges arranged more or less parallel to the coast.
This can be grouped into two main complexes of continental Kurkar.

Avnimelech (1952) distinguished four Kurkar complexes, while Neev and

others (1987) recorded three onshore and four offshore Kurkar ridges along the
Palestinian coastal plain. MOPIC (1994) mapped five scattered ridges on land Gaza
Strip. Anan & Zaineldeen (2008) are introduced two ridges with possibility for the
third one, and detected their type locality in the Gaza Strip. They named the first one

20
as 'Sheikh Ejlin Ridge' that extends up to the current coastline in the West, and the
other as 'Al Montar Ridge' in the East of Gaza Strip. The third ridge most probably
located Eastward outside of the Gaza Strip or just around the armistice line (Anan
and Zaineldeen, 2008). In addition, sand dunes are dominant along the shoreline with
elevations about 15 to 50m above MSL and their width is small in the South, increasing
northward. These dunes originate partly from Nile River sediments (Almahallawi,
2005; Abu El- Naeem, 2007).

Gaza Strip is characterized by narrow elongated ridges and depressions extend parallel
to the shoreline (NNE-SSW) (PWA, 2010). As well as topography characterized of
land surface elevations in Gaza Strip from mean sea level (zero) at shoreline to
about 1l0 m above MSL in some places in the side of Gaza strip area. Fig. 3.2
shows a contour map for Gaza Strip topography, (PWA. 2010: UNDP. 2010)

21
3.4—Land Use
Land use of the Gaza Strip is based on a regional plan developed by the
MOPIC for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Gaza Strip suffers from high population
density, and thus there is land scarcity for all kinds of uses (urban, industrial, and
agriculture). Most of the study area is categorized as agricultural and urban, but it
includes small sites industry, where cultivated area constitute about 49.1 Km of
total area in KhanYounis and about 36.6Km2 of total area of Rafah (MOA. 2010;
Almahallawi, 2005).
The agricultural land is considered dominant and economic sector in the
Eastern part of Gaza Strip. Urban and some agriculture expansion are concentrated
in the Western coastal zones of Gaza Strip. There is overcrowdness and related
housing problems, especially in the refugee camps areas Fig. 3.3 and Table 3.1
gives the area of each land use type of total area 365Km2,

22
Fig.3.3: Land use classifications in Gaza Strip (Shomar, 2010)

23
 — Area Description

Table.3.I: Land use classes of Gaza Strip (Saleh., 2007; Shomar, 2010)
ID Land Area Km2 Percent (%)
1 Airport 7.5 2%
2 Built-up 54 14.8%
3 Cultivated 226 62%
4 Harbour 0.35 0.10%
5 Roads 9.8 2.67%
6 Open Areas 67.35 18.45%

Total Area 365 100%

3.5 Soil

The Gaza Strip has several major soil types (Fig.3.4). It is composed mainly
of three types: sand, clay and loess. Along the shoreline there is a zone of sand
dunes with varying in thickness from 2m to 50m due to the hilly shape of the
dunes, and extends up from 4 to 5km in land in some area. The sandy soil at along
the coastline extends from south to outside the northern border of the Gaza Strip
at the form of sand dunes. The dunes have relatively high permeability. Moving
eastward, the soil type change and becomes less sandy with more silt, clay, and
loess. Clay soil is found in the North Eastern part of the study area (PWA, 2000;
Shaheen, 2007; Abu El-Naeem. 2007: Jaradat, 2010).

24
Fig.3.4: Soil map of the study area (MOPIC, 1997)

25
 3.6—Geology
Palestine is located within the Arabian Shield (Crystalline plutonic rock
and Met sediments) where most of the Palestine covered by Mesozoic to
Cenozoic carbonates rocks. Gaza Strip covered by Tertiary-Quaternary
sandstone rocks. During the Cambrian age continental environment
circumstances were prevailed in the Arabian Plate caused large quantities of
mechanical sedimentary rocks to be formed known as Nubian Sandstone (Picard,
1943; Black, 1937; Said, 1962). In Palestine, two sedimentary environments
were appeared and characterized by two sediments. The first was continental
sediments formed mainly sandstones, and the other was marine sediments frmed
mainly carbonate rocks (limestone’s). West Bank is covered by carbonates
rocks, while Gaza Strip is covered by sandstone (sand sediments), which it is
Quaternary sediments (Picard, 1943). At the beginning of Paleocene, Gaza Strip
was affected by earth movements caused regression of the Mediterranean Sea
and formation of swamps. At the beginning of Quaternary, sand sediments
started to form which considered as a good groundwater aquifer while the swaps
were dried and then filled with continental sediments (MOPIC, 1994). The
geology of the Gaza Strip consists of a series of geological formations sloping
gradually westwards as shown in Fig. 3.5. These formations are mainly of
Tertiary and Quaternary ages. An overview of the geological history is presented
in Table 3.2.

26
 Fig.3 .5: Typical hydrogeological cross section of Gaza Strip (PWA,2000)

Gaza Strip lithologically consists of the Pleistocene age Kurkar group

(Gvirtzman, 1984) and recent (Holocene age) sand dunes. The Kurkar group
consists of marine and Aeolian calcareous sandstone (Kurkar), reddish silty
sandstone (Hamra), silt, clay, unconsolidated sand and conglomerates.
Regionally, the Kurkar group is distributed in a belt parallel to the coastline,
from Haifa to the Sinai (Saleh, 2007). Geology of the Gaza Strip was obtained
from oil and gas exploitation logs up to depth of about 2000m drilled by
Israelis and from wells had been drilled during the CAMP Project.

27
28
 Chapter Four
Approach, Methodology and Tools

In the current study parameters have been used to achieve clear and complete
information about subsurface geological-geotechnical modeling of Gaza Strip .

The study area includes all Gaza strip area was selected based on different motivations,
justifications and reasons that are mentioned in chapter one. The process of data
collection was relied in different sources including reports, articles and log wells , Soil
sampling and laboratory analysis were used to collect data and determine the
properties to obtain soil mapping by using geographical information system (GIS)
and rockworks program.

4.1 Methodology
This study aims to evaluate the geological-geotechnical of the surface and
subsurface of Gaza Strip using records and data generated by Materials & Soil
Laboratory-Islamic University –Gaza and Palestinian Water Authority.
The study approach and methodology are presented in Fig. 4.1 and Fig.4.2.
- Drawing contour maps showing the distribution of soil elements in the Gaza Strip (clay
sand-silt) and will be a comparison between it and the former Maaml
- distribution of different elements of the soil at depths 0.5, 3.0, 4.5 and 6.0 m .
Distribution of soil elements change up the rear geographically
- Contour mapping describes the difference geotechnical elements of soil at different
depths
- Draw geological sections of Litho logy in different from the west to the east and the
number of 8 cross sections the geological structure change.
-almgarna between the results of this study and the previous studies comparison.

29
 Problem Description
&
Research Opjectives

Study Area
Description

Literature
Review
Data Collection Local
Reports
Log wells

39- Bearing Elevation Coordinate Water Dry

46Gravel Capacity (Z) (E,N) conent(w.c% density
(%) )
Clay Total 39-46Log Type of soil Liquied
(%) depth(m) of wells Limit(LL)
%)
Plastic
Limit(PL)
%)
Rockworks
GIS Data Analysis
Winlog
Winfence
Excel
Access

Cross Maps Tables Graphs Logs

section

Conclusion and
Recommendation
Recommendation
Fig. 4.1:The study approach and methodology

30
 Data Collection

Materials & Soil Labs (PWA)

(MSL) Palestine Water Authority
Islamic University -Gaza

Geo-Technical Geo-Graphical
Data Data`

(x,y,z) 1- Unified Classify. (x,y,z)

2- Natural Water Content(%w .c) Soil Photo,
Photo, Attribute
Shape file 3- Grain Size Analysis by Sieves Shape file
4- Atterberg Limits (L.L, PL & P.I
5- (Gamma dry) g/cm3

Rock works
Save in Excel-
Arc Map
Access
Win Log
Win fence

Fig. 4.2:Data collection methodology

31
 4.2 Data Collection
Data needed for this study have been collected from Palestinian Water
Authority(PWA) and Materials & Soil Labs(MSL). The collected data are
including:
1) Borehole Logs are collected from MSL, more than 202 logs sample table
shown in appendix (I).
2) Wells are collected from the PWA for the hydrological purposes shown in
appendix (I) .
3) Soil classification and its properties from MSL shown in table (4.1) sample.
4) Lithological data; information’s about the subsurface geologic
structure are obtained through drilling boreholes processes for various
purposes, In this study, more than 547 water wells had been selected to
draw subsurface lithological structure in this area Fig. (4.3) showed the
borehole log locations collected from Gaza Strip during the study period from
MSL Fig.(4.4) and Fig.(4.5) showed the borehole log locations collected from
during the study period .

Correlation between these wells was presented as cross sections by using

Arc map and Rockworks software's. The direction of these sections is NW-SE
closely to the Southern boundary with Egypt. Eight cross-sections are drawn
within the study area.

32
Fig.(4.3)Soil profile log (MSL)

33
 Table (4.1): Soil classification and its properties from MSL
(Materials and soil labs –Islamic university –Gaza)

4.3 Site selection and identification.

Wells locations were selected for this study; wells sites were further
identified using Global Positioning System (GPS, Garmin GPS72- WGS 84)
Fig.(4.4). Fig.(4.5) showed the different soil boreholes and wells locations
collected from MSL and PWA in Gaza Strip .

34
 Boreholes & & logs

Fig.(4.4)

Fig.(4.4):Site Locations of Boreholes and Logs

from Palestine Water Authority(PWA)

35
 Boreholes & logs

Fig.(4.5)

Fig.(4.5):Site Locations of Boreholes and Logs

from Materials and Soil Labs(MSL)

36
4.4 Data Storage and Processing
The raw collected data may have some errors such as repetition of the
information. Most the existing errors in data from decrease of some test
another associated with human errors (Data entering) during written or
transcription of data from laboratory notebooks or during a computer
keyboard, and labeling or numbering these data, in addition, individuals
responsible for data entry in many institutions or ministries. Therefore, these
input errors can be reduced through careful and integrated design for raw data
recording forms and a computer entry template. Moreover the data should be
updated.

4.5 Tools for Data Analysis

The data must be available to be used by different softwares for the
interpretation of the different features of computer systems. Data analysis and
mapping can be done by using numerous software's as follow:
• Access & Excel for storing data
• Excel for drawing tables, statistical processes and graphs that shows the
spatial and temporal variations;
• ArcGIS (Version 9.3) for drawing various maps, that done by use
spatial analyses method
• WinLog (Version 4) and WinFence were used to create detailed colored
cross-section
• Rockworks15 were used to storing data and create detailed colored
cross-section
• Google Earth software that shows the spatial of boreholes and wells

37
4.6 Laboratory tests method
4.6.1 Natural Water Content
Natural Water Content is the percentage of the weight of the water in the soil to dry
weight of soil.
Weight of the water in the soil = Weight of the natural soil sample - Weight of the
dry soil sample.
We can get the weight of the dry soil sample from put the sample in the oven for 18-
24 hours under a temperature of 110-115 C.
W.C = weight of the water in the soil / dry weight of soil × 100.
After this definition we will take different samples for study the natural water
content of the soil at different depths of soil Gaza Strip.

4.6.2 Atterberg Limits

The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-
grained soil. Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in
four states: solid, semi-solid, plast ic and liquid. In each state the
consistency and behavior of a soil is different and thus so are its
engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be
defined based on a change in the soil's behavior. The Atterberg limits can
be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can distinguish between
different types of silts and clays. These limits were created by Albert
Atterberg, a Swedish chemist.
Shrinkage Limit:
It is the lowest percentage of water content and that does not happen then
the lack of any size in the soil as a result of loss of moisture in it.
Plastic Limit:
It is the water content of the soil, which, if it less the soil becomes no n
elastic.
Liquid limit:
It is the lowest percentage of water content of the soil and that if it has
become less elastic soil, After this content is about the soil to become
viscous liquid.

38
These test methods are used as an integral part of several engineering
classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fractions of soils
(ASM, D2487) and to specify the fine-grained fraction of construction
materials (ASM, D1241). The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticit y
index of soils are also used extensively, either individually or together,
with other soil properties to correlate with engineering behavior such as
compressibility, hydraulic conductivit y (permeabilit y), compatibility,
shrink-swell, and shear strength.

4.6.3 Soil Dry Density.

It is a dry mass of soil weight for its size, which is divided into two parts, a real dry
density, dry density and virtual.
The dry density true: it is a mass of dry soil for the size of the empty air spaces.
The virtual: a dry soil mass for its size with air spaces.
As for the results mentioned, which were taken mostly they are on the virtual, with
the knowledge that the difference between the two density is simple, and we can be
ignored.
As well as factors affecting the result of the dry density, is the gradation of the soil
and the homogeneity difference, the more homogeneous soil in inserting the greater
the dry density, as well as free of organic materials, materials are organic have the
opposite role in the dry soil density, and also those factors, the water content of the
soil .

39
 Chapter Five

Results and Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the results of different soil parameters on the study
area. It includes the soil type, the relation between soil from year 2005 to
2014. In general, the soil characteristics obtained from this study were compatible
with the previous physiographical map, which was created by the ministry of
planning in 2005 (MOPIC 2005) Fig. (3.4). However, the new generated map in
this research study gives more details Fig.(5.1). The comparison of both maps
confirmed that the small change happened to the Gaza Strip top soil texture. The
urban areas expansion can be the only phenomenon that could have caused change
in top soil physiographic in Gaza strip.

5.2-Soil in Gaza s t rip

5.2.1 Soil at Depth 0.5m.
By feeding the data collected from PWA and MSL at 0.5m depth
from earth surface in GIS program and using Inverse distance weight IDW
(GIS Interpolation Techniques) the output result is as shown in Fig.(5.1).
Gaza Strip has several major soil types distributed in the study area. The
top soil of Gaza strip can be classified into six types which are :sand(SP),
silt y sand(SM),clayey sand (SC),silt y clay (CL-ML), sandy clay (CL) and
reddish clay(CH).
Previous studies shows that the soil type on the sea side beach areas is mostly
sandy pure soil and especially the northern and southern areas, it begins to change
gradually towards the east to turn into a loess, silt and clay in the south and clay
containing calcium in the north area as Beit Hanoun, The middle regions and the city
of Gaza city it is clayey soil with dark color, going to be more softness in more
depth.

40
 Wadi_Gaza
Legend
Mediterranean_Sea
<VALUE>
Dune Sand (SP)
Silty Sand (SM)
Clayey Sand (SC)
Silty Clay(CL-ML)
Brown Sandy Clay(CL)
Reddish Clay (CH)

Fig.5.1: Soil map at 0.5m depth in Gaza Strip

Comparing with the previous map Fig:(5.1) we see the size of difference
between the soil type now on the top layer of the surface of the Gaza Strip on what it
was nine years ago, and it appears obvious change, especially in the middle regions
and the most densely populated areas, where clay soils tend to be more loess soil.

41
5.2.2 Soil at Depth 3.0m.

When we classify the soil at a depth of 3.0 meters and the study of
change, we note in Fig.(5.2), that the soil in general tend to the relative
softness, and in a manner similar somewhat to all parts of Gaza strip.
The Gaza strip at this depth as a cross-section of geological layer from
known earth layers, Because we find that the soil tends to be of clay sand
(SC), and silt y sand (SM) and silty clay (CL-ML).
It was found that in some location of the study area the soil is pure
clay, as well as yellow sand, in the middle of Gaza Strip, especially Deir
al-Balah and the Mawasi area in the north of the Khan Younis cit y and the
east of Beit Hanoun cit y areas contain ratios of pure clay. As well as in the
west of Rafah area and west of Beit Lahia town and west of Gaza City is
dominated by yellow sand.

5.2.3 Soil at Depth 6m.

The soil distribution at 6m depth in Gaza Strip using GIS program
and IDW (GIS Interpolation Techniques) the output is shown in Fig. (5.3).
In this map we see a clear change on soil type at this level in the
Gaza Strip. Going downwards the soil roughness increases and turns to
sandy soil (SP), especially in the northern areas in Beit Hanoun and Beit
Lahiya and the southern area in Rafah city and in the west of Gaza City.
Also it was observed that the nature of the soil is silt y sand (SM),
in the northern areas of the city of Khan Younis and extends north to the
north Gaza City, but in north Gaza it becomes a layer of sand wit h some
fine gravel (sandstone fragments), that is called Kurkar.

42
 SP
SP

SP

SP
SP

CL
CL
SP

CL
SP
Wadi_Gaza
SM Mediterranean_Sea
Legend
SP <VALUE>
CL
Dune Sand (SP)
SC Silty Sand (SM)
SM
Clayey Sand (SC)
Silty Clay(CL-ML)
Brown Sandy Clay(CL)
Reddish Clay (CH)

Fig.5.2: Soil map at depth 3.0m in Gaza Strip

43
 Wadi_Gaza
Mediterranean_Sea
Legend
<VALUE>
Dune Sand (SP)
Silty Sand (SM)
Clayey Sand (SC)
Silty Clay(CL-ML)
Brown Sandy Clay(CL)
Reddish Clay (CH)

Fig.5.3: Soil map at depth 6.0m in Gaza Strip

44
5.3- Natural Water Content
5.3.1- Water Content at depth 0.5m
The distribution of natural water content at 0.5 m depth is shown in Fig.:(5.4).
When studying this map and return to the previous maps can be observed
relationship between the natural water content of the soil with the soil type in this
region, as well as can be seen on the beach overlooking the western regions that
contain water rates lower than those far from the beach as we head east.
But it seems that the most powerful factor in determining the water content of the
soil is the soil type more than proximity to the surface of the wetter the sea, where
they will be more saturated than other areas with water
When you return to the soil maps at this depth we will see that the areas that are
dominated by sand containing less proportion of high water permeability, unlike
those that contain clay and silt.
This in sand areas, such as the west of Rafah and Khan Younis city areas, as well as
the northwest Gaza Strip, especially the town of Beit Lahiya areas.
But in the mud and silt areas, such as Central and Gaza City areas, we see a
significant increase in the water content ratio, and populated areas.

45
 SP

SP SM

CL
SM

SM
SP

Fig.5.4: Gaza Strip Soil Natural Water Content map at depth 0.5m

46
5.3.2 Water Content at depth 3.0m.
The distribution of natural water content at 3.0m depth is shown in Fig.:(5.5)
When studying the water content at depth 3 meters from surface, we will see a clear
difference, especially on the areas that they contain less water ratios in the previous
map, this far north in the town of Beit Lahiya, and the extreme south in the city of
Rafah. This is a natural thing, which is that whenever They walked greater depth will
increase the percentage of water, the soil after a drought of factors, soil properties
and such as sunlight, and water leaks into the soil.
Noting the change in the percentage of water in the middle of the lower areas,
the previous depth, and they seem to be reduced over the greater depth more,
probably due to the different soil type of the rougher, and more porous.

5.3.3Water Content at depth 6.0m

The highest water content is found in the end of wade Gaza near sea and at some
place in the north of Gaza strip .The output as shown in Fig.(5.6). When
studying the water content at a depth of 6.0 meters, can be seen the same results,
which as we head to the bottom of the increased relative water, as well as the
different soil type of the softest, clay and silt.
In northern areas, such as Beit Lahiya, they contain little water rates, on this
depth became contain relatively high water rates, and this is also due to non-soil type
of the blessed, and this holds in the southern Gaza Strip, but simple west of Khan
Younis city areas, as well as if we head south, towards the Egyptian Rafah, and
desert areas.
As we note a clear change in the proportions of water in the central regions
tend to A decrease from what it was.

47
Fig.5.5: Gaza Strip Soil Natural Water Content map at depth 3.0m

48
Fig.5.6: Gaza Strip Soil Natural Water Content map at depth6.0m

49
5.3.4 Water Content at depth 7.5m
It is more wet where wade Gaza and wade al salga found as shown
in Fig.(5.7). When studying the water content at a depth of 7.5 meters, we
see some obvious differences, especially in the northern and southern areas
of the Gaza Strip.
As for the south, it undergone impairment on the proportions of
water to this depth, which extends from the cit y of Khan Younis to Rafah,
either in the north, especially the northern town of Beit Lahiya, we see the
rise and clear, with a water content reduced to scattered areas in the
northern Gaza Strip as a whole, and perhaps this is why Alkhtlav is a
difference in the type of soil, and porosity.
The central regions and the city of Gaza, see low percentage of
water in the soil from the previous depth.

Fig.5.7: Gaza Strip Soil Natural Water Content map at depth 7.5m

50
5.4 Atterberg Limits
5.4.1 Gaza Strip Soil Liquid limit at Depth 0.5m
The results were divided into 6 values determine the liquidity of the existing
soil , as is evident in the map was determined the distribution of values
The distribution of liquid limit at 0.5 m depth is shown in Fig.:(5.8).It is
observed that the high liquid limit areas are those composed of clay soil ,while the
sandy clayey soils has low liquid limit and dune sand is non plastic .
The west side in the map in which there are sand, there is no liquid limit it
is non plastic and in the east side the liquid limit LL is (15-22).
When you know the liquidity of the soil fairly, and to know that the water content of
the soil, which, if less become has elastic soil, and if increased become soil liquid
viscous, note the close link between the extent of plasticity and liquidity with the soil
type, as well as the water content to them.
Since Aterberg limits associated with the identified to determine the water content of
the soil, so when reviewing maps of soil type, water content and maps them, we will
see a clear similarity between these levels with the liquidity ratio at the end of this
depth, and each depth.
Since the seaside beach areas, mostly on sand soil, the owner of the high porosity,
water content and little, will be the limits of liquidity in these areas tend to be low,
but may be non-existent.

51
 adi_Gaza
Legend
<VALUE>
5%-0.0
5% - 0%
5-0.0
15%-6%
15% - 6%
15-6
22%-16%
22% - 16%
22-16
23%-30%
30% - 23%
23-30
31%-38%
38% - 31%
31-38
39%-46%
46% - 39%

Fig.5.8: Gaza Strip Soil liquid limit map at depth 0.5m

In the central areas of the Gaza Strip, and some areas in the north, especially in the
town of Beit Hanoun, which tend to soil clay, soft soil, with low porosity, we see a
marked increase in the extent of liquidity of the soil in these areas, with tendencies to
the extent of plasticity at low the percentage of water in it.

52
5.4.2 Gaza Strip Soil liquid limit at Depth 3.0m
Fig. 5.9 shows The distribution of liquidlimit at 3.0m depth of the
layers from South to the North study area. It can be observed the rate
of liquid limit at middle area and eastern side is(23%-31%) as shown
and the west side is (0-5%).

adi_Gaza
Legend
<VALUE>
5%-0.0
5% - 0%
5-0.0
15%-6%
15% - 6%
15-6
22%-16%
22% - 16%
22-16
23%-30%
30% - 23%
23-30
31%-38%
38% - 31%
31-38
39%-46%
46% - 39%

Fig.5.9: Gaza Strip Soil liqui d limi t map at depth 3.0m

53
 When examining the liquidity extent of the soil at this depth, we do
not see clear and significant increase in the liquidity ratio of the soil
somewhat, and this is a natural thing, so do not undergone a marked
difference on the soil type at this depth, and therefore no difference in
the percentage of water in it.
Even as we move from liquidity limit to the extent of plasticit y or
cracking, there must be a clear difference in these ratios, water
content, and the gradation of the soil, and on the depth of this simple
difference.
So for the results of the previous no difference in the extent of
liquidit y on the depth from the previous depth, and this is at the leve l
of the Gaza Strip as a whole.

5.4.3 Gaza Strip Soil liquid limit at Depth 6.0m

The distribution of liquid limit at 6.0m depth of the layers from
South to the north study area. It can be observed the rate of liquid limit
at middle area and eastern south & north side is(23%-38%) as shown &
the west side where sand found nearly non liquid limit as shown in
fig.(5-10).
When examining the liquidity extent on the rear, and a clear change
on soil type occurring, as well as the water content to it, especially in
the northern areas of Gaza City and the West, East and areas south of
Khan Younis cit y, where we see a substantial rise on the liquidity of
the soil fairly, as well as the next stage It is fairly plasticit y.
Note with the lack of change in the areas dominated by sandy soil,
even with the increase in more depth, noting the increase in liquidit y
limit in areas already mentioned with increasing depth.

54
 adi_Gaza
Legend
<VALUE>
5%-0.0
5% - 0%
5-0.0
15%-6%
15% - 6%
15-6
22%-16%
22% - 16%
22-16
23%-30%
30% - 23%
23-30
31%-38%
38% - 31%
31-38
39%-46%
46% - 39%

Fig.5.10: Gaza Strip Soil liquid Limit map at depth 6.0m

55
5.4.4 Gaza Strip Soil liquid at depth 7.5m
Fig. 5.11 shows at depth 7.5 m of the layers from South to the North study
area. It can be observed that rate of liquid limit at middle area and eastern south &
north side maximize as shown & the west side where sand found nearly nun .
If a return to the soil map at this depth, we'll see that often on the areas of the north,
especially the town of Beit Lahiya, and the north and west of Gaza City, and parts of
the middle and south of Rafah on the Egyptian border, the soil is clay, and silt, and
this in turn will contain high levels of water, especially at this depth, and therefore
we will see a clear increase in the extent of liquidity in those areas already
mentioned, from the north, south and central Gaza Strip, and the center of the city of
Khan Younis, on the borders of Salah al-Din Street.

adi_Gaza
Legend
<VALUE>
5%-0.0
5% - 0%
5-0.0
15%-6%
15% - 6%
15-6
22%-16%
22% - 16%
22-16
23%-30%
30% - 23%
23-30
31%-38%
38% - 31%
31-38
39%-46%
46% - 39%

Fig.5.11: Gaza Strip So il liquid limit map at depth 7.5m

56
5.4.5 Comparison of soil liquid limit and moisture content at different depths:

Water content and liquid limit give indication of the soil physical
properties.
There is a relat ion between water content and liquid limit so by
comparing of them as shown at figure (5.12) There is a direct correlat io n
between the liquid limit and mo isture content at the same depth .

Comparing between similar depths in terms o f liquidit y extent

and rate water content , founding that there is a co nvergence limit
between ratios on the map and the result ing values , in the western side
where the water percent of (1-5) , founding that almost liquidity fairly.
value and the western side water rate increases and increased liquidit y
limit this shows that there are different types of soil every place shows
that there is a different soil on the exist ing co lor yellow give type that
this layer of sand and water by a few percentage and were similar wit h
the map in Fig.(5.3)

57
LL at depth 7.5m LL at depth 6.0m LL at depth 3.0m LL at depth 0.5m

Wadi_Gaza
Legend
Wadi_Gaza Wadi_Gaza
Wadi_Gaza
Legend Legend Legend <VALUE>
<VALUE> <VALUE> <VALUE>
5% - 0%
5% - 0% 5% - 0%
5% - 0% 15% - 6%
15% - 6% 15% - 6%
15% - 6% 22% - 16%
22% - 16% 22% - 16%
22% - 16% 30% - 23%
30% - 23% 30% - 23%
30% - 23% 38% - 31%
38% - 31% 38% - 31%
38% - 31% 46% - 39%
46% - 39% 46% - 39%
46% - 39%

w.c at depth 7.5m w.c at depth 6.0m w.c at depth3.0m w.c at depth 0.5m

Wadi_Gaza
Legend Wadi_Gaza
Mediterranean_Sea Legend Wadi_Gaza Wadi_Gaza
Mediterranean_Sea Legend Legend
<VALUE> Mediterranean_Sea Mediterranean_Sea
<VALUE>
% 5 -1 <VALUE> <VALUE>
% 5 -1
% 10 - 5 % 5 -1 % 5 -1
% 10 - 5
% 15 - 10 % 10 - 5 % 10 - 5
% 15 - 10
% 20 - 15 % 15 - 10 % 15 - 10
% 20 - 15
% 25 - 20 % 20 - 15 % 20 - 15
% 25 - 20
% 30 - 25 % 25 - 20 % 25 - 20
% 30 - 25
% 30 - 25 % 30 - 25

Fig.5.12: Comparison of Liquid limit and moisture water content at different depths

58
5.5 Soil Dry Density.
5.5.1Soil Dry Density (γ Dry)at depth 0.5 m
Specific gravity shows mass per unit volume of the solid part of the soil. This
parameter is obtained to understand its basic characteristics such as void ratio and
degree of saturation. Calculated test results should be digitally recorded by linking
with others such as moisture content, grain size and Atterberg limits, along with
recorded depth of soil samples Fig (5 – 13).
When examining the dry density of the soil in the Gaza Strip, see the similarity
remarkable similarity, and on the level of the Gaza Strip as a whole, but in some
areas, such as the west of Gaza City, and areas west of the city of Rafah and Khan
Younis, as well as most of the town of Beit Lahiya areas, we will see a slight
difference in this areas for the rest of the sector areas.

59
 Legend
Legend

1.5-1.4 g/cm3
KN/m3
1.6-1.7 g/cm3
KN/m3
1.8-1.9 g/cm3
3
KN/m
2.0-2.1 g/cm3
3
KN/m
2.2-2.4 g/cm3
KN/m3

Fig.5.13:Gaza Strip Soil Dry Densit y at depth 0.5 m

60
5.5.2 Soil Dry Density(γ Dry)at depth 3.0 m
The distribution of Soil Dry Density shown in Fig.(5.14) at 3.0 m give
knowledge about the Specific gravity of soil .
When examining the dry density of the soil to a depth of 3 meters, will not be
significantly different from the depth of 0.5 the previous meter, especially if there is
no difference in the type of soil at this depth from the previous depth, as well as the
water content, but we will find there are some differences, and in some areas , such
as areas of western Gaza City, as well as the southern Gaza Strip area, where we will
see a rise in the dry density, but a slight increase, and within the general framework
of its almost 1.7 g/cm3.

5.5.3 Soil Dry Density (γ Dry)at depth 6.0m

The distribution of Soil Dry Density shown in Fig.(5.15) at 6.0 m give
knowledge about the Specific of soil .
Looking at the map at a depth of 6.0 meters, we will see a clear and visible
change, especially in the western regions of the southern Gaza Strip, in the west of
Rafah the dry density is 1.5 g/cm3 and it is sand layer .
But in the north and contactless town of Beit Lahiya areas with Mudbna Beit
Hanoun, and it extends to the north of Gaza City, we will see a rise in dry soil
density, compared with a depth of 3 meters.

61
 Legend
Legend

1.5-1.4 g/cm3
KN/m3
1.6-1.7 g/cm3
3
KN/m
1.8-1.9 g/cm3
3
2.0-2.1
KN/m g/cm3
3 g/cm3
2.2-2.4
KN/m
KN/m3

Fig.5.14: Gaza Strip Soil Dry Density at depth 3.0 m

62
 Legend

1.5-1.4 g/cm3
KN/m3
1.6-1.7 g/cm3
KN/m3
1.8-1.9 g/cm3
KN/m3
2.0-2.1 g/cm3
KN/m3
2.2-2.4 g/cm3
KN/m3

Fig.5.15: Gaza Strip Soil Dry Density at depth 6.0 m

63
5.6 Bearing Capacity
The distribution of bearing capacity's shown in Fig.(5.16) at 2.0m give
knowledge about The ability of a soil to support a load from structural foundation
without failing in shear

Wadi_Gaza
Legend
Mediterranean_Sea
<VALUE>
Mpa 0-50
Mpa 50-100
Mpa 100-150
Mpa 150-200
Mpa 200<

Fig.5.16:Gaza Strip Soil Bearing Capacit y at Depth 2.0m

64
5.7 Stratigraphy of Gaza Strip
The sub-surface Stratigraphy faces in the study area plays very important role in
identification behavior ,One of the main objectives for this study is to develop a
Stratigraphy cross section for rock classification of Gaza Strip. as shown through
Fig(5.17).

Fig.5.17:Site Locations of cross sections

65
 Data of 749 boreholes and wells have been used to draw eight cross-sections along
NW-SE with path line 5 km width parallel to Egyptian border and one make comparison
with other studies .
From these data, cross sections have been created for Gaza strip .The cross sections
of the area are shown through Fig.(5.18), Fig. (5.19), Fig. (5.20),Fig(5.21),Fig (5.22) ,Fig
(5.23) ,Fig (5.24) , and Fig. (5.25) and the location of coordinate as shown in table (5-1) .

Table. (5.1) : Location of Stratigraphic Cross Sections

Name W(N)
A1-A1’ 100.150-109.100 106.712-103.904

A2-A2’ 97.405-105.331 103.426-100.134

A3-A3’ 94.179-101.562 100.141-95.365

A4-A4’ 90.894-97.793 96.855-92.566

A5-A5’ 87.608-94.024 93.570-88.827

A6-A6’ 84.323-90.255 90.284-85.058

A7-A7’ 81.037-85.485 86.999-81.289

A8-A8’ 77.752-82.715 83.714-77.520

The data that have been used for these sections are the lithological logs subsurface
that obtained through drilling boreholes as discussed in chapter 4. Cross sections show the
distribution of impervious to semi impervious layers and lenses alternating with
predominantly permeable sand and calcareous sandstones.
These cross sections will helps for identifying the effect of the lithological faces structure
of the study area.

66
5.7.1—Cross sections No. (A1)

It is a cross-section of the Gaza Strip, specifically the northern Gaza Strip,

stretches west of Beit Lahia town of, even up to the east of Beit Hanoun town.
It is a vertical section of the rock, to a depth of up to about 130 meters, a
sector which shows the difference in the type of rocks in this region, and it shows a
clear variation in soil type, and at different depths.
As has been shown in previous soil maps of soil classification at simple
depths of up to 6 meters, where he appeared at that depth, soil type, which is
dominated by mixed slity clay, and it shows us in this sector, and then begins to shift
gradually to the sand, until we reach eastward to town of Beit Hanoun, which
becomes to kurkar.
When more depth up to a distance of 20 meters, the sea level, we see a clear
change in the type of soil, which is dominated by sand, but it becomes more clear to
Kurkar mixed with some clay in the eastern regions of the lower town of Beit
Hanoun.
When more depth to a depth of 40 meters, in the western region of the town
of Beit Hanoun, the soil turns to sand clay, and then at the same level, down to the
town of Beit Hanoun predominantly sandy soil to a depth of approximately 80
meters.
Then after this depth start to turn silty clay, and at a depth of approximately
100 meters, the soil turns to sandstone, and to a depth of about 110 meters turn into
kurkar, it extends horizontally to the length of the section.

67
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system

Fig.5.18: Cross section No.(A1-A1')

68
5.7.2—Cross sections No. (A2)

Rock Profile A2 represents of second Profile this soil profile as shown in

Fig(5.19).from west to east. the section shows the fundamental difference
represented by thick clay lens extending to the east and middle side. the west side is
sand then sandy clay then clay then sandstone while the top of east side is clay then
sand then clay then sand then clay .

A section examines the city of Beit Hanoun in the southern region in the east,
to the town of Beit Lahiya in the west, and at a depth of up to approximately 130
meters, and shows through this section, that the soil on the simple depths of up to 6
meters, predominantly sandy soil, until we get to the beginning of the city Beit
Hanoun, and then turn to clay soil mixed sand and silt.

At this depth to a depth of up to 20 meters, the soil turns to the west in Beit
Lahia town to sandy clay, and go east to the sandy soil turns even get to the town of
Beit Hanoun.And descend to a depth of approximately 70 meters, the soil turns to
sand stone, and then turn to Kurkar, in the east of the town of Beit Lahiya, and then
to the sand as we head east towards the town of Beit Hanoun.
After that depth, and to depths of up to almost 100 meters, mainly soil is
kurkar, and that at the sector level with a simple change in the East.

69
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system

Fig.5.19: Cross section No. (A2-A2')

70
5.7.3 Cross sections No. (A3)
Soil Profile A3 represents of Third Profile this Soil Profile as shown in
Fig.(5.20). from west to east. the section shows the fundamental difference
represented by thick clay lens extending to the middle side. the west and east side is
sand then clay then sand then clay.

It is a cross-section of the Gaza Strip, specifically in the center of Gaza

City, runs from west to east, and it appears in this section are many types of soil, and
at different depths along this section. Where predominantly soil of Gaza City and
depths of up to 40 meters sandy soil, especially in the western regions, overlooking
the sea, then the soil changed downtown eastward, even turn into silty clay, and then
turn to the sandy stone as we head over to the east, and depths of up to 60 meters,
turns up at this depth to silty clay.

At a depth of 60 meters to almost 100 meters, mainly west areas of Gaza City kurkar
soil, but it is changing even the depth of 80 meters, even turn into a sandy stone, and
then turn and along this section to kurkar.
And at a depth of approximately 110 meters, turn the soil in Gaza City to silty clay,
depth of approximately 10 meters.

71
Depth (m) Legend

Coordinate system
Fig.5.20: Cross section No. (A3-A3')

72
5.7.4 Cross sections No. (A4)
Soil Profile A4 represents of Forth Profile this Soil Profile as shown in
fig(5.21).from west to east. the section shows the fundamental difference represented
by thick clay lens extending to the middle side. the west side is clay and the east side
is sand and sandy clay while middle section is clay then sandstone then clay .
It examines the central sector of the Gaza Strip, the region, and specifically the city
of Nuseirat west to east to the town of Bureij, a region dominated by the decline and
approaching the water level of the sea surface.
In the western regions of this section, and depths of up to 80 meters, predominantly
sandy soil, with a simple crust of silty clay soil, and with this crust extends as we
head east towards Bureij city, and at depths of up to 30 meters, the soil changed east
to the sandy soil , and then turn to the sandy stone to a depth of approximately 40
meters, then turn into the soil to kurkar the east, under the Bureij city.
And at a depth of approximately 60 meters, the soil turns to silty clay in the middle
of this section, and then turn to the east to kurkar.
And at a depth of 80 meters, dominated this class from the Gaza Strip, sandy soil,
and along this section, extends from the west to the east.
And then at a depth of approximately 100 meters, turn into the gravel in the west,
then turn to silty clay soil eastward, toward the city of al-Bureij, and along this
section.
Then follows this clay layer, a layer of kurkar stretching from west to east, and at a
depth of 10 meters approximately, and then turn again to the silty clay, and at a depth
of 20 meters.

73
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system

Fig.5.21: Cross section No. (A4-A4')

74
5.7.5—Cross sections No. (A5)
Soil Profile A5 represents of five Profile this Soil Profile as shown in fig(5.22).from
west to east. the section shows the fundamental difference represented by thick clay
lens extending to the middle side. the west side is sand and the east side is kurkar.
A section examines the soil in the central Gaza Strip area, specifically the city of
Deir al-Balah in the west, with the City of Maghazi in the east, and here we see as
usual, overlooking the beach western regions, large and deep sandy soils tend, then
turn in the middle of this section to the sandy stone, and this to the depths up almost
70 meters, surrounding a layer of sand up to a depth of approximately 10 meters.
At greater depth, and in the West, the soil turns from sandy to sandy stone, and then
to a layer of kurkar, extends to depths of up to 40 meters, and along that section,
followed by a layer of sandy clay, silty clay, extends east and west.
As the center of this section, it is dominated by sandy soil extends up along this
section until the east.

75
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system

Fig.5.22: Cross section No. (A5-A5')

76
5.7.6—Cross sections No. (A6)
Soil Profile A6 represents of six Profile this Soil Profile as shown in
fig(5.23).from west to east. the section shows the fundamental difference represented
by thick clay lens extending to the middle side. the west sideis sand and sandstone
and the east side is kurkar.
A section examines the type of soil in the south of the city of Deir al-Balah, and the
northern city of Khan Yunis area, these areas tend to soil is sandy soil gravel, when
considered for this section, we see the presence of a layer of sandy stone up to a
depth of about 30 was, in the West.
In the Middle is up to a depth of approximately 100 meters, while in the middle of
this section, we find a large layer of clay stretching eastward, and depths of up to
approximately 60 meters, as well as see in this region a simple layer of
conglomerate, as well as see along the strips of clay and at different levels of This
section, stretching from west to east.
And at a depth of approximately 60 meters from the surface of the earth, and in the
West see the extension of kurkar layer, extending to the east, with the mixing layers
of pure sand.
At greater depth, we see a variety layer of soil, including sand, and kurkar, sandy
stone, and at a depth of approximately 100 meters, this layer covering a layer of
kurkar, stretching the length of this section until the East, followed by a layer of silty
clay, and this also extends to along this section.

5.7.7—Cross sections No. (A7)

Soil Profile A7 represents of seven Profile this Soil Profile as shown in
fig(5.24).from west to east. the section shows the west side is sand 57 m then clay
then kurkar and the east side is sandy clay then kurkar.
A section examines the type of soil in the city of Khan Younis area of the Gaza Strip,
and when considered in this section, see mostly on the soil type, soil is sandy, and
this is apparent on the surface of the city of Khan Younis, and especially the western
regions, including, Mawasi area.

77
However, there are some areas that contain clay soil, in the east of Khan Younis city,
known Ababsan, mediates this layer a layer of sandy clay, and up to a depth of
approximately 20 meters.
The bottom of this class, as we can see there is a layer of kurkar, and in different
parts of this section, especially in the West, where there is a deep layer of kurkar at a
depth of up to about 70 meters, above this layer of kurkar there is a layer of clay
depth of 40 meters approximately, and no layer clay extends over a wide distances,
starting from the center and extending to the east, at a depth of approximately 150
meters, in the eastern regions.Is so often the soil is sandy soil, sand stone.

5.7.8—Cross sections No. (A8)

Soil Profile A8 represents of eight Profile this Soil Profile as shown in fig(5.25).from
west to east. the section shows the top layer is sand 30m then sandstone . The west
side is clay then sand then clay and at middle sand and then kurkar.
A section examines the type of soil in the town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, but in this
section we see clearly change of soil type, and this over large areas.
As in the West, and this is mostly on the soil of Rafah, we see a large layer of sandy
soil, sand stone, up great depths greater than 60 meters, then turn into a layer of
kurkar, followed by a layer of sand eastward.
But in the far east of the town of Rafah, we see a wide layer of clay up to a depth of
20 meters approximately, and then followed by a layer of sand, then a layer of clay.
And at a depth of 80 meters approximately, and in the West, we see the presence of a
layer of clay, up to 20 meters, and extends toward the center, then followed by a
layer of kurkar, as we head east, and at different depths may extend along this
section.
After this class of kurkar there is a layer of clay, stretching from the west to the east,
and up to a depth of approximately 20 meters

78
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system
Fig.5.23: (A6-A6')Cross section of lithological layers from west to the east study area

79
 Legend
Depth (m)

Coordinate system
Fig.5.24: (A7-A7')Cross section of lithological layers from west to the east of the study area

80
 Legend
Depth (m)

. Coordinate system

Fig.5.25: (A8-A8')Cross section of lithological layers from west to the east of the study area

81
 A B

Fig(5.26 ).Site Location of cross section(No.3) Fig(5.27 ) Site location of cross section A-9 (Pizo 38/84,L/182,L/184,L/70,P/151,Pi5,7-1,191).
(Al-Dasht. J 2012)

82
 5.7.9—Cross sections (A-9)
Cross section (A-9) (Fig.5.28) is located between Rafah and
KhanYounis. This cross section eight lithological well logs have been used to
draw this cross-section. These wells include/81,Pizo38/84,L/182,
L/184,L/70,P/151,Pi5,7-1and 191. Cross section shows presence of two
separate thick clay lenses in West and the East of cross section, This result in
agreement with the result obtained that done by Greitzer and Dan, 1967
Fig.(5.29)
The result difference between this study and that result of Hydrogeological
Evaluation of the Aquifer in the Southern Part of the Gaza Strip, Palestine may be
due to jehad’s study focused at water Aquifer Fig.(5.30).

Legend

Fig( 5.28) Cross Section (A-9) of Khanyounis (Pizo 38/84,L/182,L/184,L/70,P/151,Pi5,7-1,191).

5.7.10—Cross sections (A-10)

Cross section No.10 (Fig.5.29) is located between Rafah and KhanYounis. This
cross section is almost the same as one that done by Greitzer and Dan, 1967 cross
section No.83. Nine lithological well logs have been used to draw this cross section.

83
These wells include L/81, Pizo/16, L/181, P7146, L/70 9 P/163, Pizo/lO, P151 and
PizoI7. Cross section No.11 shows presence of two separate thick clay lenses in
middle and the East of cross section, where these lenses are not shown in the old
cross section since 1967 due to no adequate available information in these
area(Fig.5.30). This section shows the lithological subsurface role in limiting the
aquifer storage capacity for receiving quantities of renewable water. From this
section, it can be summarized that: (Al Dasht .J 2012)

Fig( 5.29) cross section No.10 (Greitzer and Dan, 1967)

Fig.5.30: Cross section No11 at KhanYounis area (Al-Dasht. J 2012)

84
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
This research is considered to be one of the main studies which evaluate the geological,
geotechnical soil characteristics of Gaza Strip. The research mainly collected the
considerable number of top soil samples from all Gaza Strip Governorates the main
physical parameters of collected soils. The researcher collected 202 boreholes and wells
from material and soil labs different locations of study area. GIS (Maps) and collected
547 bore holes and wells from PWA and used Rockworks analyses were used to
present the findings.

The following conclusions that achieved:

1) This study is considered as initial digital Gaza strip geological and
geotechnical data bank and maps, which can help geologists, geotechnical
engineers, agricultural and environmental for collecting initial data for design
projects and soil investigation especially for areas with low borings.
2) The soil bearing capacity map can help engineering for shallow foundation
design .
3) The soil texture characteristics obtained from the study was compatible with
the previous physiographical map. However, the new generated map in this
research study gives more details. The comparison between both maps
confirmed that a small change happened to Gaza Strip top soil texture
4) There is relationship between the natural water content of the soil with the
soil type in this region at different depths.
5) Sub-surface lithological structures in the study area had been shown their
important and main . As well as, in comparison the revised cross sections
with old sections that created by Greitzer and Dan, 1967. It can be
concluded that's were used to present the findings
6) There is a direct correlation between the liquid limit and moisture content
at the same depth
7) The sections presents soil, and rock types changes along these directions
.some of these proposed sections correlated well with previous sections
suggested by others, while others show different sections.

85
6.2 Recommendations
According to obtained results the following main recommendations can be generated:

q Create Data bank over the Internet that contains geological and geotechnical
characteristics to get them on demand

q Collect more data to be as for building 3 dimensions model for Gaza strip.

q Adding new data to get more Accuracy in description.

q Selecting new geotechnical characteristics to conduct the same studies .

q Standardization the geological terminology during drilling wells and

description.

q Regards geological characteristics of the soil, water levels(tables) can be

integrated to gain more information about water resources with more areas.

q The collected data maps is a very important tool that can be used to:

ü Determine location of solid waste

ü Define, building areas

ü Mark areas for agriculture purposes

ü Assign areas to be used for wastewater treatment plants

86
 References
§ Abu El-Naeem, M. 2007. Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in North
Governorates of Gaza Strip (1994-2004). (Master’s Thesis). The Islamic
University – Gaza, Palestine.
§ Abu Samra, S. 2014. Determination of Physico-chemical Properties of Top
Soil in Gaza Strip for Agricultural Purposes (Master’s Thesis). The Islamic
University – Gaza, Palestine.
§ Al-Sabhan,W.Mulligan, M., and Blackburn,G.A., 2003.Areal-time hydrologic
model for flood prediction using GIS and the WWW.Computers,Environment
, and Urban Systems.27, P.9-32.
§ Al-Dasht, J. 2012. Hydrogeological Evaluation of the Aquifer in the
Southern Part of the Gaza Strip, Palestine. (Master’s Thesis). AL-Azhar
University - Gaza . Palestine.
§ Al-Mahallawi, K. 2005. Modelling Interaction of land Use, Urbanization and
Hydrological Factors for the Analysis of Groundwater Quality in
Mediterranean Zone (Example the Gaza Strip, Palestine). Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Lille, France.
§ Anan, H., Zaineldeen, U. 2008. Kurkar ridges in the Gaza Strip of Palestine.
M.E.R.0 Am Shams University, Earth Science series, vol. 22, 2008, P. 139-
146.
§ ASTM D4318-10e1, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,
and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2010, www.astm.org
§ ASTM D2487-11, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, www.astm.org
§ Avnimelech, M. 1952. Late Quaternary sediments of the Coastal Plain of
Israel.- Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, Jerusalem, 2 (1): 51-57.
§ Balkema-Morfeldt, D., Persson, L., 1997. Research and documentation on the
importance of engineering geology in some underground projects in
Stockholm. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 12, 473-477.
§ Black, G.S. 1937. Old shore lines of Palestine. Geological Magazine, v.74,p

87
 68-78.
§ Bowles, Joseph E. (1986).Engineering properties of Soils and their
measurement (Third edition). New york :Mcg raw-hill Book Company.
§ Burrough P.A. & McDonnell R.A., 1998. Principles of geographical
information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford University Press,
New York.
§ Burrough P.A., 1986. Principles of Geographic Information System for Land
Resource Assessment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
§ Coulibaly M. & Becker 5., 2007. Spatial Interpolation of Annual
Precipitation in South Africa - Comparison and Evaluation of Methods,
IWRA, Water International. Volume 32.
§ EL Khoudary, R.H. and Anan, H.S. 1985.Prelimiriary study on the geology
and geomorphology of Wadi Ghazzah, Gaza Strip. Proceeding 2nd Jordan
Geological Conference, Amman: p.531-539.
§ ESRI, 1992. Environmental Systems Research Institute. Understanding GIS:
The ARC/INFO Way, Environmental Systems Research Institute, and
Redlands, CA.
§ ESRI, 2000. Environmental Systems Research Institute. BLilletin of
ArcGIS® Geostatistical Analyst.
§ ESRI, 2009a. Environmental Systems Research Institute official website. GIS
and Mapping Software. (http://www.esri.com) access date in July 2009.
§ Hartkamp A.D., Beurs K. De., Stein A., and White J.W., 1999. Interpolation
Techniques for Climate Variables. NRG (Natural Resources Group)-GIS
Series 9901. Mexico.
§ Hogentogler, C.A.; Terzaghi, K. 1929. "Interrelationship of load, road and
subgrade". Public Roads: pp.37–64.
§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic in lormation system#Spatial analysis
with GIS.access date in November 2009.
§ http://www.aesgeo.com/#!geologic-assessments/c1mdd.
§ http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/geot.1994.44.4.573
§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atterberg_limits
§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearing_capacity

88
§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_classification
§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHTO_Soil_Classification_System
§ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001379520700227X)
§ Jun (John) Hu, 2001. ESRI Papers in Methods of Generating Surfaces in
Environmental GIS Applications, Bechtel Environmental Inc.
§ Jaradat, N. 2010. Evaluation of Water Resources Management Options in
Gaza Strip using WEAP (Master’s Thesis). An-Najah National University
Nablus, Palestine.
§ Mc Call, G.J.H., De Mulder, E.F.J., Marker, B.R., 1996. Urban Geoscience.
273 pp. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 9054106433.
§ Mckenzie,N.,and Ryan,P.(1999).Spatial prediction of soil properties using
environmental correlation, Geoderma, Volume 89, Issue 1, Pages 67-94
§ Mehrjardi Taghizadeh R, A. Akbarzadeh A., Sh. Mahmoodi, A.
Heidari and F. Sarmadian 2008, Application of Geostastical Methods
for Mapping Groundwater Quality in Azarbayjan Province, Iran.
§ Melesse M, Shih S.F. Spatially distributed storm runoff depth estimation
using Landsat images and GIS. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture.
2002; 37: 173-183.
§ MOA, General Directorate of Soil and Irrigation, 2010.Rain fall Report
for the season 2009/2010.
§ MOPIC. 1994. Gaza Environmental Profile, Part I. Environmental Planning
Directorate (EPD). MOPIC, Gaza, Palestine.
§ MOPIC. 1995, “Emergency Action Plan for Solid Wastes at the Gaza Strip “.
Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation(MOPIC), Physical
Planning and Institutional Building Project, Gaza on October 1995.
§ MOPIC. 1997, “Classification & characteristics of different soil types in
Gaza Strip”. Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation (MOPIC),
Gaza, Palestine.
§ New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). Retrieved July 19, 2009
§ Neev, D, N. Bakler & K O. Emery (1987): Mediterranean Coast of Israel and
Sinai, Holocene Tectonism from Geology, Geophysics and Archaeology –
Taylor and Francis Bub, 130p.

89
§ PCBC, 2005. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) (2005). Survey
of family expenditure in the Palestine. Final report (January 2004- January
2005), Ramallah- Palestine.
§ Picard, L. 1943. Structure and evolution of Palestine. Bulletin of the Geology
Department, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 4 (2-4): 134 p.
§ PWA. 2000. Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP). Final Model
Report (task 7). PWA, Palestine.
§ PWA. 2000. Integrated Aquifer Management Plan, CAMP. Final Report.
§ PWA. 2010. The Palestinian Water and Wastewater Sectors. Basic Needs and
Development Ongoing and Proposed Projects by Governorates
§ Said, 1962. Geology of Egypt. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 318 pp.
§ Saleh, A. 2007. Impact of Pumping On Saltwater Intrusion in Gaza Costal
Aquifer, Palestine. (Master’s Thesis). An-Najah National University, Nablus,
Palestine.
§ Settlement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
115(1), 1-21.

§ Shaheen, S. 2007. Nitrate Pollution and Groundwater Modeling of

Wastewater Plant in Rafah Area, Gaza Strip, Palestine. M.Sc Dissertation.
University Gent Vrije University Brussel, Belgium.
§ Shomar, B. 2007. Water and wastewater in the Gaza Strip: environmentally
as hot as politically, Zeitschrift ftir Geologische Wissenschaften, Vol. 35, pp.
165-176.
§ Shomar, B. 2010. Gaza Strip: Politics and environment, Water Policy, 2010.
§ Theobald David M., 2007. GIS Concepts and ArcGIS Methods, 3rd Edition,
July 2007.
§ UNDP. 2010. Provision of Consultancy Service for the Detailed Design for
the Construction of KhanYounis Wastewater Treatment Plant in Gaza Strip!
Environmental Impact Assessment. July. 2010, Final Report, 1310076 R3V3.
§ Watson, D.F. & G.M. Philip. 1985. A refinement of inverse distance
weighted interpolation. Geo-Processing 2.
§ Wikipedia, 2009a. The free encyclopedia.

§ Wikipedia, 2009b.The free encyclopedia access date in Dec. 2009.

90
Annexes

91
 AnnexI
Table of Boreholes and wells locations

92
 Table: Data collected from MSL
No. Name Easting Northing Elevation Total Depth
1 700050 94500.0 98500.0 29.00 10.5
2 702305 96100.0 101455.0 29.59 10.5
3 701421 99109.0 102253.7 20.57 10.5
4 712751 82900.0 86235.0 26.42 10.5
5 800078 96506.0 102394.0 30.59 10.5
6 3677/2000 102606.7 103964.8 33.16 10.5
7 3476/2000 103706.3 106237.4 16.00 10.5
8 3822/2000 101987.8 105105.0 22.72 10.5
9 1721/99 101980.0 105016.7 18.29 10.5
10 3127/2000 101968.7 104919.0 15.01 10.5
11 3151/2000 101988.0 105020.0 18.56 10.5
12 5006 88044.9 92046.0 18.00 10.5
13 6005 91835.0 94684.0 17.88 10.5
14 3820 100063.0 101322.0 29.83 10.5
15 48/2000 96635.0 101457.0 33.01 10.5
16 29/2000 96593.0 101409.0 32.01 10.5
17 168/2000 95705.0 102315.0 30.00 10.5
18 3129/2000 99246.0 101997.0 32.56 10.5
19 3381 99119.0 102816.0 32.00 10.5
20 6006 98788.3 106510.3 14.09 10.5
21 5007 100440.0 102339.4 20.41 10.5
22 5009 87706.0 93275.0 6.00 10.5
23 5010 98565.0 101954.0 21.37 10.5
24 2007 98533.0 104652.0 47.31 10.5
25 3128 92396.4 95297.5 21.00 10.5
26 60402 95908.0 103088.0 10.31 10.5
27 6013 92809.0 94873.0 19.00 10.5
28 3200/2000 94012.0 94385.7 20.95 10.5
29 008/2003 83000.0 83000.0 39.85 10.5
30 060/2003 86000.0 85500.0 48.00 10.5
31 1208/2003 84000.0 83400.0 42.27 12.5
32 201/2003 93026.7 96441.6 14.00 12.5
33 2554/2003 98483.0 101202.0 30.00 10.5
34 3855/2003 102600.0 102600.0 38.00 12.5
35 1795/2003 96821.0 102308.0 32.83 10.5
36 317/2003 101200.0 100800.0 49.65 10.5
37 1244/2003 99686.3 105997.2 38.60 21.5
38 391/2001 99278.7 101889.8 46.02 10.5
39 268/2001 103278.0 105187.0 31.29 12.5

93
40 865/2001 96592.2 99501.6 30.15 10.5
41 178/2001 102582.0 104348.3 26.88 17.5
42 321/2001 102129.6 105786.1 39.00 10.5
43 885/2001 102520.6 104394.8 24.53 10.5
44 644/2001 100163.0 101985.0 24.20 10.5
45 2803/2001 98693.5 104802.5 43.09 12.5
46 854/2001 98420.1 103511.4 35.74 12.5
47 2515/2001 97203.0 102478.0 41.06 10.5
48 1442/2001 96555.0 101446.0 32.77 12.5
49 179/2001 97316.9 102995.1 27.27 10.5
50 035/2001 97638.2 104973.3 15.22 10.5
51 1037/2001 92005.0 95436.0 31.00 12.5
52 122/2001 92328.5 96858.0 21.00 10.5
53 180/2001 92004.7 96735.6 8.00 10.5
54 181/2001 87685.0 93194.0 8.00 10.5
55 095/2001 91953.9 92503.8 42.29 12.5
56 126/2001 87141.9 92806.3 9.72 10.5
57 3783 98417.0 102556.0 29.06 10.5
58 3089 98775.0 102599.0 22.48 12
59 236 97052.0 104051.0 24.01 12.5
60 3440 95954.0 101773.0 40.08 17.5
61 3043 96785.0 101904.0 30.29 11
62 1311 79053.0 77995.0 62.57 11
63 1810 80796.6 76149.9 64.09 10.5
64 1593 78753.3 76880.1 74.01 10.5
65 2542 77631.0 80420.0 25.86 10.5
66 1280 97845.2 104096.8 28.05 12.5
67 5558 98278.0 104943.0 29.83 12.5
68 5617 100182.3 100750.6 40.68 12.5
69 2350 96217.0 102140.0 24.01 15
70 1785 96584.0 102817.0 26.61 12.5
71 3227/2000 89253.3 79918.4 79.97 10.5
72 4954 98865.0 102021.0 32.46 17.5
73 3441 96163.0 101569.0 29.96 17.5
74 5421 96071.0 101694.0 36.24 10.5
75 4705 84175.0 83911.1 38.95 15
76 5327 81663.4 74044.7 85.78 12.5
77 863 103127.3 105261.8 26.01 10.5
78 1112 102379.4 104509.5 34.00 10.5
79 862 86258.5 89921.8 20.00 12.5
80 731 88734.0 92870.0 12.00 10.5

94
81 1250 82377.0 84690.0 46.00 10.5
82 2625 82223.4 84471.2 35.14 10.5
83 2381 85001.4 84054.3 49.25 12.5
84 3920 78587.2 77240.1 69.29 11
85 3770/2000 83161.4 83979.4 44.01 10.5
86 145/2002 84743.2 82018.3 66.00 10.5
87 701/2002 96603.0 102325.0 36.27 12.5
88 934/2002 96500.0 101500.0 33.99 20
89 1349/99 89713.0 91857.0 30.00 11
90 2727/99 87781.5 92211.5 11.00 10.5
91 2511/99 85324.9 83977.8 51.05 12.5
92 1721/99 100744.6 104964.6 13.00 15
93 2644/99 102497.5 103848.0 36.20 10.5
94 2681/99 106400.9 105927.6 37.45 11.5
95 3336/2000 82725.8 84489.9 40.12 10.5
96 2007/1 79447.0 76818.0 56.01 10.5
97 1718/99 96628.0 99426.0 28.10 14
98 3212/99 96435.0 102225.0 32.82 17.5
99 005/2000 79213.0 76609.0 64.47 10.5
100 868/2002 100261.0 99910.0 58.82 10.5
101 1417/2002 93089.0 98053.0 7.19 10.5
102 035 /2002 91795.0 94945.0 22.05 10.5
103 036 /2002 88663.0 90661.0 16.83 10.5
104 143 /2002 98293.0 101436.0 21.37 10.5
105 340/2002 78740.0 76875.0 84.00 10.5
106 4243/2002 82727.0 84499.0 53.00 10.5
107 4244/2002 82927.0 84493.0 39.39 10.5
108 800 /2002 88800.0 93311.0 7.00 10.5
109 1042 /2002 101940.6 104506.2 25.00 10.5
110 407/2008 91983.6 92352.8 40.01 10.5
111 1465 / 2002 80300.0 76000.0 49.01 10.5
112 699/2002 102440.0 109370.0 32.44 10.5
113 163/2008 101933.9 104980.3 19.60 10.5
114 125/2008 87176.2 85016.8 65.00 10.5
115 610/2008 99735.3 104491.2 36.00 12
116 313/2002 103087.5 105326.3 23.28 12
117 1690 /2002 92000.0 94700.0 16.02 10.5
118 265/1/02 77687.0 80390.0 26.57 10.5
119 265/2/02 77677.0 80456.0 24.85 10.5
120 265/3/02 77675.0 80511.0 21.95 10.5
121 266/2002 82980.0 85632.0 35.91 10.5

95
122 370/2002 96419.0 102816.0 22.83 15
123 1743/2001 99728.0 104486.0 24.32 10.5
124 108 /2002 96988.7 102422.7 34.13 15
125 494/2002 96240.0 101503.0 31.11 20
126 1442/2001 96555.0 101446.0 32.77 15
127 494/2002 96222.0 101510.0 31.67 10.5
128 1676/2003 81900.0 76100.0 59.62 11
129 1177/2002 102337.1 105592.6 35.00 10.5
130 1067 / 2002 100433.0 101961.0 28.47 15
131 149 /2002 98412.9 103925.6 47.51 10.5
132 650/02 97800.0 103600.0 37.58 10.5
133 2583/2002 87800.0 92600.0 9.00 10.5
134 934 /2002 96190.0 101548.0 32.60 20
135 1794/2003 90800.0 94400.0 23.00 11
136 2198 /2002 96555.0 101446.0 32.77 20
137 2139 /2002 96542.0 101482.0 33.04 20
138 701/2002 96911.9 102478.2 31.76 15
139 145 /2002 84743.5 82010.6 65.93 10.5
140 252/2002 91557.0 92400.0 34.25 10.5
141 820 /2002 98639.0 101482.0 28.31 15
142 1985 /2002 101944.6 104506.2 25.01 10.5
143 1969 /2002 96860.0 104556.0 7.00 10.5
144 1963 /2002 78800.0 80000.0 26.94 10.5
145 2582/2002 93500.0 97500.0 21.00 10.5
146 2583/2002 98000.0 97000.0 72.00 10.5
147 2581 /2002 107000.0 106000.0 35.03 10.5
148 2523 /2002 96511.0 100945.0 37.10 15
149 1041/2002 98877.0 104700.0 45.07 15
150 2173/2002 83677.0 81917.0 69.11 15
151 264 /2002 99832.3 106253.8 42.53 10.5
152 1962 / 2002 88200.0 91500.0 20.32 10.5
153 1929 / 2002 100239.0 102890.0 26.01 10.5
154 1820 /2002 99560.8 105271.2 42.71 10.5
155 1821 /2002 101597.3 106253.8 16.83 10.5
156 2415 / 2002 97143.3 103571.0 30.12 10.5
157 1819 /2002 98119.0 104367.0 40.14 10.5
158 2313 / 2002 82783.9 84546.7 39.01 10.5
159 868 /2002 100264.0 99945.0 58.62 10.5
160 2437 / 2002 97993.4 102652.6 45.24 10.5
161 1684 /2002 92000.0 94700.0 16.02 16
162 2524 /2002 98548.0 101546.0 27.09 10.5

96
163 2518 /2002 96696.4 102334.0 38.01 10.5
164 500455 106000.0 104522.0 33.11 15
165 505210 97417.0 100566.0 32.01 13
166 2742/2004 97199.0 103382.0 30.37 15
167 505264/2005 99131.0 105508.0 36.97 15
168 403283/2 102719.0 105121.6 18.01 35
169 492/2005 98156.0 101994.0 44.79 15
170 600591 96137.0 101548.0 27.75 18
171 505137 96346.0 101968.0 29.36 17.5
172 505088 98211.0 101379.0 20.71 15
173 505044 98669.0 101944.0 22.11 20
174 5349/2005 99762.0 101700.0 18.00 15
175 510992/2005 86855.9 82610.4 71.01 10.5
176 511012/2005 81091.2 76981.8 46.24 10.5
177 510892 82285.9 84698.1 41.01 20
178 600109/I 104461.0 107217.4 23.13 10.5
179 505058 97075.0 102667.0 32.45 15
180 50688/2005 96970.0 102973.0 30.89 15
181 505287 89178.1 82516.4 84.62 10.5
182 505300 97248.8 101153.0 31.93 15
183 505388 86584.2 86974.3 38.00 10.5
184 601495 98861.0 101230.0 32.02 15
185 601168 96399.0 102983.0 20.01 15
186 403283 102778.7 105153.3 18.01 37
187 512636 80471.0 78070.0 63.39 12.5
188 505004 82865.0 84410.0 43.05 10.5
189 505300 86000.0 76000.0 35.95 10.5
190 123456 93254.0 98542.0 5.09 10.5
191 800178 96833.0 104446.0 6.42 10.5
192 800076 103100.0 104100.0 52.83 15
193 701775 93100.0 97995.0 9.68 10.5
194 702337 98773.0 105561.0 28.84 15
195 712617 82600.0 78900.0 44.40 15
196 702346 98463.0 104060.0 58.49 12
197 710786 82945.0 85398.0 31.37 15
198 702298 89630.0 91400.0 22.58 12
199 1508/2002 86001.0 81000.0 50.45 10.5
200 2027/2003 96997.0 103157.0 31.86 10.5
201 2323/2003 82358.4 85095.8 46.18 10.5
202 1612/2003 99344.0 101455.0 42.42 12

97
 Table:Data collected from PWA
Elevatio Total
No. Name Easting Northing n Depth
1 well 27 97950 102620 42.0 50
2 well 28 99520 101880 28.0 25
3 Al Salah well-beit hanoon 106627.39 103917.35 71.0 95
4 well F9 86485 78842 66.5 75
5 well Merage 82691 79388 65.0 75
6 1 A-B-C 103450 107300 26.0 180
7 10A 81900 80840 26.0 120
8 16 A-B 79800 83250 29.0 81.5
9 19 A-B 82450 86250 22.0 85.5
10 22 A-B 86350 89650 18.0 80
11 25 A-B 99900 106700 39.0 104
12 26 A-B 100550 108550 16.0 54.5
13 2A-B-C-D-E-F 98329 105799 23.0 196
14 3 A-B 93600 95550 14.0 92
15 30 A-B 85450 90500 10.0 67.5
16 31 A-B 78300 82800 13.0 47
17 32 A-B-C 76150 81500 7.0 47
18 33 A-B 77050 80650 24.0 47
19 34 A-B 85300 90650 8.0 40.5
20 35 A-B 85560 87650 22.0 79
21 36 A-B 98950 105250 43.0 88
22 37 A-B 84951 89850 8.0 67.5
23 38 A-B 81150 85100 36.0 96
24 39_1 78400 79850 34.0 74
25 4_1 88250 92100 34.0 140
26 5_1 80750 85850 34.0 129
27 6_1 93155 99693 34.0 182.5
28 7_1 84150 77950 34.0 79
29 9_1 94540 99400 34.0 55.5
30 A/13/1 104671.49 105525.33 0.0 63.5
31 A/16 104547 105884 34.0 55
32 A/16/1 104547 105884 0.0 74
33 A/170A 100750 109100 22.0 34
34 A/172 102910 107963 17.0 55
35 A/188 104058 108119 37.0 75
36 A/189 100133 109038 2.0 78
37 A/190 102250 109380 44.0 72
38 A/192 101500 108600 43.0 76
39 A/193 102390 109221 51.0 82
40 A/194 100738.1 107771.8 38.0 46

98
41 A/195 101800 108480 48.0 80
42 A/196 101080 108032 32 53
43 A/199 103600 105400 59 80
44 A/201 103487.9 107632.3 27 42
45 A/205 103475 105100 50 79
46 A/210 104500 106150 64 90
47 A/211 103278 105433 40 75
48 A/60 102230 107556 59 40
49 AB/1 86500 84800 72 118
50 ACES-01 107077.7 104368.45 37.7 8.5
51 ACES-02 107013.8 104343.77 37.6 12
52 ACES-03 106914.75 104279.35 35.5 15.5
53 ACES-04 106750.87 104280.9 41.5 10.5
54 ACES-05 106571.87 104313.26 46.9 13.5
55 ACES-06 106604.87 104210.74 43.6 15.5
56 Al-Sattar Well 83745 87488 0 67
Al-Zahra City _ (Al Zahra
57 Garden Well) 93220 98090 0 29.5
58 Al-Zahra City Well (Closed) 93354 98188 0 41
Al-Zawayda_Khaled Ben Al
59 Waleed 90640 93663 0 50
60 B/01 103570 101715.9 50.9 15
61 B/02 103559.3 101590 52.0 19
62 B/03 103674.5 101664.7 54.1 14.5
63 B/04 103751.3 101714.4 56.2 14.5
64 B/05 103625.5 101513.9 54.1 18
65 B/06 103779.4 101613.3 58.7 7
66 B/07 103856.3 101663 60.3 11
67 B/08 103768.7 101487.4 56.6 17.5
68 B/09 103864.7 101549.6 60.39 14.5
69 B/10 103911.9 101460.9 61.57 12
70 B/11 103988.8 101510.6 64.43 6
71 B/14/1 106823 106457 72 64.7
72 B/17/1 107260.21 106140.88 0 68.5
73 B/26 108219 106024 0 73
74 BH/1 107750 106000 67 110
75 BH/2 106500 104900 66 125
76 BH/3 104700 104200 42 80
77 BH/4 105450 102900 42 114
78 BH/5 105600 104350 50 72
79 BH-01 106637.92 104052.71 35.8 25
80 BH-02 106674.7 103983.35 0 25
81 BH-03 106711.5 103903.5 32.12 25
82 BH-04 106655.78 103866.86 34.55 25
83 BH-05 106587.6 103927.54 35.85 25

99
 84 BH-07 106562 104063.4 37.4 25
85 BH-08 106521.8 104200.8 37.2 25
86 BH-09 106565.2 103835 29.65 25
87 BH1 95342.137 99949.84 43.36 8.5
88 BH10 95293.7 99698.74 0 9
89 BH-10 106528.4 103894.55 30.8 25
90 BH11 95471.82 99733.02 0 11
91 BH-11 106485.53 103978.67 34.7 25
92 BH12 95529.45 99665.76 0 11
93 BH-12 106476.33 104043.15 38.3 25
94 BH13 95506.647 99565.519 0 11
95 BH-13 106445.35 104132.6 36.6 25
96 BH14 95305.181 99447.584 0 5
97 BH-14 106457 103850.6 30.6 25
98 BH15 95232.387 99496.339 0 5
99 BH-15 106393.33 103921.8 35.45 25
100 BH16 95254.111 99559.534 0 5
101 BH-16 106445.35 103993.2 36.33 25
102 BH17 95181.245 99608.325 0 5
103 BH-18 106492.65 103870 33.6 25
104 BH19 96324.242 99231.149 0 36
105 BH-19 106504.84 103934.7 35.1 25
106 BH2 95221.151 99860.304 43.46 8.5
107 BH20 96307.075 99486.206 0 33.5
108 BH-20 106480.46 104018.7 39.06 25
109 BH-21 106434.87 103833.35 36.3 25
110 BH-22 106423.73 103887 35.4 25
111 BH3 95205.609 99907.855 43.47 8.5
112 BH4 95313.42 100005.24 0 8.5
113 BH5 95354.282 99781.636 0 9
114 BH6 95437.631 99710.15 0 9
115 BH7 95441.115 99609.535 0 9
116 BH8 95365.865 99547.54 43.14 9
117 BH9 95278.24 99636.028 0 9
118 BHBL/1S 104580 107340 34 25
119 BJ/1 95200 96000 20 43
120 BJ/2 97300 95800 51 80
121 BJ/3 97000 95200 35 75
122 BJ/4 95700 95300 45 46
123 BL/1 102000 105500 33 115
124 BL/2 102000 106300 31 90
125 BL1(D) 107232.3 104200.87 33.6 45
126 BL1(S) 107232.3 104200.87 33.5 25
127 BL2(D) 107078.69 103996.87 30.23 40
128 BL2(S) 107078.69 103996.87 30.2 20

100
129 BL3(S) 107015.5 104200 34.25 17
130 BL4(D) 106949.24 104296.75 34.6 40
131 BL4(S) 106949.24 104296.75 34.36 15
132 BLBH/10 104420 107060 35 11
133 BLBH/11 104520 107100 34 11
134 BLBH/12 104615 107140 35 13
135 BLBH/13 104690 107180 35 18
136 BLBH/14 104500 107180 33 40
137 BLBH/15 104660 107250 33 19.5
138 BLBH/16 104460 107270 31 15
139 BLBH/1D 104600 107350 34 45
140 BLBH/2S 103990 107140 30 40
141 BLBH/3S 104400 107140 34 17
142 BLBH/4D 104400 107000 35 40
143 BLBH/4S 104380 106990 34 15
144 BLBH/5 104440 106950 38 13
145 BLBH/6 104490 106990 38 12
146 BLBH/7 104570 107020 38 10
147 BLBH/8 104640 107050 38 15
148 BLBH/9 104740 107070 37 40
149 BN-05 106968.6 104354.4 38.39 13
150 BN-06 107010.76 104373.64 38.05 12
151 BN-07 107087.64 104372.73 37.53 10
152 BN-08 107168.1 104382 37.80 15
153 BN-09 107226.64 104401.25 36.82 40
154 BN-10 107051.76 104273.58 35.15 11
155 BN-11 107124.85 104286.43 34.28 11
156 BN-12 107203.92 104260.65 34.64 13
157 BN-13 107269.08 104314.67 34.69 18
158 BN-14 107139 104222.29 33.19 40
159 BN-15 107302 104237.43 33.08 19.5
160 BN-16 107167.76 104117.08 31.23 16
161 Boring BH-1 103500 101600 50 71
162 Boring BH-2 102700 101800 52 31
163 Boring BH-3 103800 101450 55 8
164 Boring BH-4 103500 101300 59 10
165 Boring BH-5 104000 101600 62 12
166 Boring BH-6 103750 101300 56 22
167 C/127 104778 106154 57 85
168 C/127A 104779.98 106150.75 56.9 127.6
169 C/127A-Pilot 104779.98 106150.75 56.5 150.3
170 C/129 104248 104762 43 85
171 C/134 105632 104211 0 67
172 C/137 105080 106350 66 91
173 C/140 104950 101500 37 63.5

101
174 C/155 106781 105371 70 90
175 C/20 106737.77 104856.9 36 95
176 C/79A 105349.29 105095.31 42.7 75
177 CAMP-1 Pilot 103589.22 107122.25 24.4 150
178 CAMP-10A 107438.13 103937.53 81.8 87.1
179 CAMP-10B 107429.54 103939.56 81.8 127
180 CAMP-10-Pilot 107429.54 103939.56 81.8 145
181 CAMP-11-Pilot 85231.875 84562.633 46.09 120
182 CAMP-12-Pilot 96335.21 100535.46 42.4 150
183 CAMP-13-Pilot 92589.258 97658.608 8.7 110
184 CAMP-14-Pilot 93112.456 91993.043 71.40 142.5
185 CAMP-1A 103593.63 107122.6 24.42 50.8
186 CAMP-1B 103596.3 107123.63 24.42 122.6
187 CAMP-1-Pilot 103589.22 107122.25 24.42 150
188 CAMP-2 104577.63 105088.15 37.86 52.6
189 CAMP-2-Pilot 104585.92 105078.58 37.86 150
190 CAMP-3A 98491.005 104402.57 49.89 64.5
191 CAMP-3B 98493.174 104400.13 49.89 85.1
192 CAMP-3-Pilot 98493.076 104402.52 49.89 151
193 CAMP-4 97737.686 96579.024 64.55 67.5
194 CAMP-4-Pilot 97734.685 96591.434 64.55 125
195 CAMP-5-Pilot 91792.423 94868.914 31.72 150
196 CAMP-6-Pilot 87091.024 89786.142 23.08 115
197 CAMP-7A 77355.652 79846.453 19.8 63.6
198 CAMP-7B 77353.315 79846.216 19.7 94
199 CAMP-7-Pilot 77360.988 79825.716 19.93 101.75
200 CAMP-8 86858.813 79606.827 81.75 82.3
201 CAMP-8-Pilot 86868.293 79614.62 81.75 99.5
202 CAMP-9 81041.057 75604.56 74.2 81.6
203 CAMP-9-Pilot 81044.869 75607.41 74.2 94.85
204 CB-01 103688 101777 53.02 63
205 CB-02 103705 101700 55.11 63.2
206 CB-03 103747 101585 0 65
207 CB-04 103873 101673 60.28 70.5
208 CB-05 103850 101476 59.38 66.6
209 CB-06 103916 101550 0 72.1
210 CB-07 103998 101582 0 73.1
211 CB-08 104010 101490 0 72.4
212 CD-01 103666.5 101718.9 53.41 8
213 CD-02 103743.2 101768.7 54.12 12.5
214 CD-03 103682.1 101609.9 54.49 9
215 CD-04 103771.2 101667.6 57.84 8.5
216 CD-05 103891.6 101507.2 60.95 13.5
217 CD-06 104035.3 101600.2 67.15 6.5
218 CD-07 103981.2 101426.6 63.86 10

102
219 CD-08 104091.6 101458.1 69.53 8.5
220 D.C.O 81800 85100 43 76
221 D/73 101036 106827 37 89
222 D/75 101076.76 105813.48 20.8 77.4
223 D/75 - Pilot 101076.76 105813.48 20.8 141
224 DB 01-OW1 103699 101652 55.94 100
225 DB 02-OW2 103842 101499.4 58.84 120
226 DB 03-OW3 103912 101582 62.24 120
227 DB 04-PW1 103826.31 101642.89 59.53 156
228 DB/1 89500 92500 24 42
229 DB/10 87800 90300 22 21
230 DB/11 89000 89600 36 48
231 DB/2 87700 92300 6 30
232 DB/3 87400 92400 6 30
233 DB/4 87000 91200 13 22
234 DB/5 85600 90600 9 30
235 DB/6 85100 91050 9 24
236 DB/7 84700 89200 5 35
237 DB/8 86700 89700 25 46
238 DB/9 87000 90100 27 40
239 DB-test 88100 93900 37 83
240 E/106 100216 103962 54 20
241 E/138 102720 104398 41 58
242 E/154A 99335 105060 0 68
243 E/156 102067 104589 27 80
244 E/160 98531 106055 35 48
245 E/161 100300 104000 28 43
246 E/162 99000 106270 0 30
247 E/163 99615 105270 45 63
248 E/164 102500 105600 0 102
249 E/168 102870 104470 0 77
250 E/29A 98360 105710 25 38
251 E/33A 99042 106540 28 40
252 E-6/P 102997.94 105334.1 33.68 150
253 EL Nasser 2 80033.38 80406.49 0 93
254 El-Musadar Well 91852 90909 0 78
255 EZ/1 89500 91250 30 53
256 F/104BA 96725 98250 40 54
257 F/104D 96700 97800 35 55
258 F/128 96370 96355 37 62
259 F/157 96402 95586 37 59
260 F/191 94959 98951 31.22 64
261 F/192 95403.73 98641.79 22 50
262 F/194 98450 97300 72 84
263 F/197 98598.5 97302.83 66 96

103
264 F/199 95150 98500 24 52.5
265 F/201 96900 97800 33 62.5
266 F/203 93660 97730 23.5 50
267 F/204 96850 95670 54 65
268 F/205 97120 96350 65 82
269 F/208 93320 97750 21 51
270 F/22 94197 96075 23 21.5
271 F/64 94498 96547 23 20
272 F/68B 94998 96627 32 35
273 Fi/1 95800 96500 32 30
274 Fi/2 96550 96880 32 49
275 Fi/3 96050 94750 32 35
276 Fi/4 94100 97850 32 52
277 Fi/5 95150 97500 32 21
278 Fi/6 96750 95900 32 57
279 Fi/7 96850 95950 32 60
280 Fi/8 95700 97200 32 44
281 G/1 90937 95740 22 60
282 G/2 90544 95713 22 60
283 G/22 90789 96714 22 19
284 G/24C 93082 98327 22 33
285 G/3 90304 95808 22 53
286 G/30 91479 95976 16 25
287 G/35 90207 95784 16 13
288 G/4 98600 103950 16 101
289 G/45 91853 95530 29 45
290 G/49 91376.812 96448.364 9 30
291 G/5 90360 96210 9 81
292 G/50 93155.69 98410.06 11 40
293 G/503 90308 96402 11 33
294 G/51 92800 97700 10 24
295 G/52 90100 96180 30 37
296 G/56 93450 97890 0 43.5
297 G/57 93610 97640 0 36.5
298 G/6 90512 96000 30 80
299 G/7 90760 96213 30 80
300 G/8 90831 96244 30 20
301 GBH/1 95342 99950 44 8.5
302 GBH/10 95294 99699 43 9
303 GBH/11 95472 99733 37 11
304 GBH/12 95529 99666 37 11
305 GBH/13 95507 99566 37 11
306 GBH/14 95305 99448 37 5
307 GBH/15 95232 99496 37 5
308 GBH/16 95254 99560 37 5

104
309 GBH/17 95181 99608 37 5
310 GBH/19 96324 99231 36 36
311 GBH/2 95221 99860 44 8.5
312 GBH/20 96307 99486 36 33.5
313 GBH/3 95206 99908 44 8.5
314 GBH/4 95313 100005 44 8.5
315 GBH/5 95354 99782 43 9
316 GBH/6 95438 99710 43 9
317 GBH/7 95441 99610 43 9
318 GBH/8 95366 99548 43 9
319 GBH/9 95278 99636 43 9
320 H/33 88348 93489 2 27
321 H/45 89538 94902 2 21
322 H/509 88637 94253 2 15
323 H/528 89378 95052 2 24
324 H/535 89941 95230 2 31
325 H/88 88999 94727 2 30
326 H/95 89463.17 92752.19 31 55
327 H/96 87800 93800 3 80
328 H/97 91700 95180 40 58
329 H/98 87700 93700 3.5 63
330 INF-01 107224.08 104315.18 33.6 13
331 INF-02 107244.35 104251.77 33.9 12.7
332 INF-03 107123.33 104210.1 34.78 10
333 INF-04 107001.29 104166.85 33.47 11.1
334 INF-05 106974.45 104239 33.89 12
335 INF-06 107101.64 104272.4 0 12
336 INF-07 106958.8 104304.57 32.6 10
337 INF-08 107076.12 104345.19 32.6 4
338 INF-10 107144.64 104367.86 32.6 7
339 INF-11 107193.24 104386.33 32.6 12
340 INF-12 107106 104355.7 32.6 4
341 INF-13 107114.59 104312.82 32.6 5
342 INF-14 107052.8 104300.5 32.6 4
343 Infilt-KH1 83600 85550 3 30
344 Infilt-KH2 83400 85750 3 40
345 Infilt-KH3 83570 85770 3 30
346 Infilt-PG 82250 84400 3 37
347 Infilt-SM 82350 84800 3 40.5
348 J/10 89279 91151 29 60.5
349 J/13 89464 90417 36 56
350 J/142A 88830 90950 0 40.8
351 J/146 91200 90460 61 96
352 J/157 87400 91050 20 51
353 J/17 90072 91217 33 36.5

105
354 J/25 88607 90964 33 25
355 J/28 88205 91049 33 70
356 J/67 85360 89969 33 40
357 J/70 86480 91409 33 20
358 J/85 88950 91606 33 27
359 JB/1 103000 105100 35 75
360 JBH/1D 103000 105100 35 30
361 JBH/1S 103000 105100 35 30
362 JBH/2D 103000 105100 35 34
363 JBH/2S 103000 105100 35 14
364 Ji/11 96000 93900 35 25.5
365 Ji/12 88400 91600 35 24
366 Ji/13 88460 91600 35 37
367 Ji/14 85180 90600 35 18
368 Ji/15 86650 90200 35 30
369 K/19 86461.66 88591.6 24.1 55
370 K/20 86265.3 89777.2 22 47
371 K/21 85916.635 89758.361 18 37.5
372 K/22 86967.211 88875.536 28 48
373 K/7A 86450 89400 21 46.5
374 KH/1 85400 84500 55 76
375 Ki/2 85550 87350 55 96
376 L/109 80692 85885 55 39
377 L/118 84787 89342 55 33.5
378 L/166 79988 84774 55 28
379 L/176 82187 83277 38 120
380 L/181 81360.6 82373.25 42.34 77
381 L/182 81859.44 82927.54 38.2 70
382 L/184 81606.231 82521.01 47 76.7
383 L/185 84306.95 86400.2 25.3 65.5
384 L/186 84100 85650 25 47
385 L/188 81750 82300 40 57
386 L/189 81630 82760 58 85
387 L/189A 81700 82700 50 75
388 L/190 85830 87250 28 65.5
389 L/198 83379 82007 0 106
390 L/2 86704 86855 28 32.5
391 L/200 83082 86133 0 64
392 L/201 82607.36 85871.94 43.84 72.5
393 L/203 82811.22 86106.16 0 65
394 L/3 81830 87430 28 38
395 L/43 83063 83461 60 80
396 L/506 83779 89293 60 30
397 L/545 82766 88066 60 28
398 L/555 82632 87857 60 28.5

106
399 L/70 82307 81432 60 100
400 L/81 79687 85175 60 38
401 L/88 81404 86784 5 40
402 L/97 83471 88790 5 19
403 Li/10 85950 87000 5 58.5
404 Li/12 85500 87150 5 70
405 Li/14 85100 84500 5 56
406 M/1 85407 84189 5 70
407 M/11 85150 83400 77.5 97.5
408 M/7 86434 82954 78 60
409 Maqboula 93265 92337 0 74
410 N/13 88026 80449 78 90
411 N/14 87355 79728 78 77
412 N-01 106679.4 104241 44.1 21
413 N-02 106666.4 104192.4 40.49 21
414 N-03 106638 104301.51 0 11
415 N-04 106506.14 104295.31 0 15.5
416 N-05 106555.23 104171 42.8 13
417 N-06 106592 104258 43.5 18
418 N-07 106580 104175 0 21
419 Netsarim 94561.59 99104.65 0 52
420 P/10 78613 77039 82 70
421 P/121 78567 79358 82 55
422 P/122 78467 79370 82 50
423 P/123 77920 79685 82 75
424 P/138 78772.697 79764.797 47.72 85
425 P/141 80565 78089 82 119
426 P/142 80149 79461 67 95
427 P/144A 78320 80350 32 73
428 P/145 79369 79856 48.21 82
429 P/146 80946.9 81867.1 43.02 76
430 P/147 80133 80166 60.41 87
431 P/148 78666.84 80053.05 49 78
432 P/150 81600 79400 70 108
433 P/151 82500 79450 65 84
434 P/152 82250 79400 68 102
435 P/153 77736.61 80521.123 33 66
436 P/154 80848.73 81465.17 54 74
437 P/163 80458 80698 0 91.5
438 P/164 77584.76 80731.97 0 79
439 P/71 80707 78450 55 89
440 P/76 79814 78555 74 94
441 P/77 80079 78456 74 93
442 P/78 80070 78015 80 108
443 P/94 80942 76960 59 56

107
444 Pi/2 80900 77400 59 88
445 Pi/3 77200 82500 59 33
446 Pi/4 76400 81700 59 35
447 Pi/5 82300 78900 59 97
448 PWA 88587 93453.616 0 42
449 Q/1 103585 104754 59 102
450 Q/16A 104339.39 101702.52 0 82.1
451 Q/40C 102773 103964 55 84.5
452 Q/68 102220.49 103529.96 42.25 100
453 Q/69 104900 102850 60 94
454 Q/70 104500 102980 51 86.5
455 Q/72 102530 103915 46 84
456 Q69A 105170 102900 0 111.5
457 QARARA1 102530 103915 46 83
458 QR/1 89110 87170 80 96
459 R/109A 94480 101440 18 25
460 R/162BA 98727.33 104413.61 54 70
461 R/162CA 98867.16 104589.23 51 71
462 R/162EA 98247.77 104479.26 40.03 68.5
463 R/189 99965 103462 40 78
464 R/213A 96850 99200 44 60
465 R/218 97464 100763 0 24
466 R/219 97818 100174 0 30
467 R/233 97728 100921 44 67
468 R/246 95360 100772 44 52
469 R/252 93408 100001 44 37
470 R/257 94974 101460 44 46
471 R/270 96230 99750 44 101
472 R/271 96750 101450 0 66
473 R/272A 99390 98470 66.35 95
474 R/272B 99828 98063 64.01 100.5
475 R/272C 99942 98344 61.82 101
476 R/273 96810.88 102765.3 35.9 52
477 R/274 101904 101547 65 100
478 R/275 97286 103807 32 50
479 R/277 96237 101529 33 70
480 R/278 99460 99140 70 84
481 R/279 96970 99780 41 60
482 R/280 95800 101100 36 70
483 R/282 102050 100950 36 94
484 R/288 94900 101445 29 38
485 R/293 96630 101300 41.5 67
486 R/299 97800 105000 0 42
487 R/300 97780 104200 0 60
488 R/305 97550.609 100273.54 39.8 63

108
489 R/306 97074.871 101806.37 41.4 65
490 R/307 97604.941 101509.5 38.45 56
491 R/308 98261.494 101595.92 26.93 59.5
492 R/309 99689.942 99201.182 72.91 91
493 R/310 97430.22 100282.2 39.87 63
494 R/311 99243.11 101670.11 0 70
495 R/312 100011.02 100042.16 0 106
496 R/313 97516.75 103065.1 0 62
497 R/314 99357.3 104175.56 0 73.5
498 R/315 99430 103620 0 56
499 R/75 100417 101299 42 4
500 RF/1 78300 80300 26 85
501 RG1 95900 101300 26 51
502 RG2 95700 102350 26 23.5
503 S/26 95156 92966 26 25.5
504 S/29 93179 93846 46 92
505 S/42A 92800 91500 64 90
506 S/44 92002 91462 57 60
507 S/49 91454 91055 57 61
508 S/50 91342 90668 62 90
509 S/61 93065 94481 26 29
510 S/65A 91580 92340 42 58
511 S/69 91768 90703 68 91
512 S/71 92675.57 91699.97 71.46 86
513 S/72 93201.025 93513.567 44.41 66
514 S/75 92930 91670 77 99
515 S/77 93090 91990 0 96
516 S/80 91984.93 91891.39 0 70
517 SB-01 96197 99556 36.17 36.5
518 SB01-OW4 103955.4 101548.5 63.55 71
519 SB-02 96399 99474 36.42 63
520 SB-03 96104 99413 31.82 63
521 SB-04/MW1 96270 99428 37.31 38.1
522 SB-05 96273 99260 35.2 30
523 SB-06 96398 99336 36.55 35.8
524 SB-07/MW2 96165 99310 35.83 36.4
525 SB-08 96080 99116 30.45 36
526 SB-09/MW3 96277 99139 36.34 63
527 SB-10 96425 99113 34.89 36
528 SB-11 96184 99208 37.95 37.4
529 SB-12 96278 99372 38.44 38.2
530 SB-13 96338 99185 37.33 36
531 SD 01-OLD 104020.9 101580.1 66.88 73
532 SD 02-OW5 103794.8 101556 57.82 70
533 SD 03-OW6 103889 101617 61.77 66

109
534 SD 04-OW7 103920 101694 60.19 66
535 Shiekh Radwan Health Clinic 99700 104530 0 65
536 T/37 90770 89900 77 67.6
537 T/42 90612 89400 77 61.5
538 T/43 90820 89460 50 96
539 T/44 89231 87642 87 126
540 T/46 91983.81 90272.48 78.5 101
541 T/47 90000 89500 79 68
542 T/48 90867 89121 79 58.5
543 T/50 88530 86880 65 96.18
544 T/51 89700 88800 0 76
545 T/52 89460 87800 77 98.5
546 Taftesh and Mutabah 96880 102930 0 56.5
Tunis AL Khadra - AL Zaytoun
547 3 98961 99705 39.871 58

110
 AnnexII
Lithological Cross sections

111
- lithological Cross sections From Log Profile .
The sub-surface lithological structure in the study area plays very important role in
identification behavior ,One of the main objectives for this study is develop a lithological
cross section for soil classification of Gaza Strip. To do this, data of 749 lithological
boreholes & wells have been used to draw eight cross-sections along SE-NW as shown .

The cross sections area are shown through Fig.(5.29), Fig. (5.30), Fig. (5.31),
Fig(5.32),Fig. (5.33), Fig. (5.34), Fig(5.35) and Fig.(5.36) .

112
 A10 A9
A11
A9'
A11' A10'
A12
A12'

Gaza City(3) North Gaza Strip(1)

Middle Area(4) Gaza City(2)

A13
A14
A13'
A15
A16 A14'
A15'

A16'
Rafah City(8) Khanyounis City(7) Deir El Balah(6) Middle Area(5)
Fig.5. 28:Site Locati ons of Cross sections

113
 W Profile A9 E
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.29) Cross section of the Soil la yers from west to the east North Gaza

W Profile A10 E
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.(5.30) Cross section of the Soil layers from west to the east Gaza

114
 Profile A11
W E
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.31) Cross section of the Soil la yers from west to the east Gaza

W Profile A12 E
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.32) Cross section of the Soil layers from west to the east MiddleArea

115
 W Profile A13 E

Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.33) Cross section of the Soil la yers from west to the east Middle Area

W Profile A14 E
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.34) Cross section of the Soil layers from west to the east Deir El Bala(

116
 Profile A15
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.35) Cross section of the Soil layers from west to the east Khanyounis City

Profile A16
Depth (m)

Length (km)

Fig.5.36) Cross section of the Soil la yers from west to the east Rafah City

117