WEEK 3 Edit

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
MAIN STORM DRAINAGE LINE

AL-NAQA LAKE / WADI RUMMA – BURAYDAH – Qassim Region
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………................................ 2
SITE DESCRIPTION …………………………………………………………..………………… 2
FIELD GEOTECHNICAL WORK ………………………………………………………………. 3
GROUND WATER SURFACE ……………………………………………..…………………… 3
LAB TESTS………………………………………………………….……………………………. 5
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITION AND PROPERTIES……………………………………… 5
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………27
CEMENT AND CONCRETE ………………………………………………..……………………..29
SEISMOLOGICAL DATA …………………………………………………………..………….. 29
APPENDIX – A (Layout & Site Photos)
APPENDIX – B (Boreholes Logs & Soil Section)
APPENDIX – C (Lab Testing Results)
APPENDIX – D (Seismic Maps)
1
INTRODUCTION
The current final report presents the results of the geotechnical soil investigations, conducted by
the geotechnical division of AL-JAZZAR (Omar Jazzar Consulting Engineers), along the
proposed route of “Main Storm Drainage Line” connecting between “AL-NAQA LAKE” and
“WADI RUMMA”. The report is a part of the Technical Studies and Designs for the projects of
“Avoiding Storm Hazards” and “Rainwater Drainage”, at BURAIDA city / QASSIM region.
The report is issued upon the request of our client M/s. SSEM Co.
The current final report is dealing with the results of only (24) boreholes. The report contains full
description for the subsurface soil and its engineering properties and the suggested execution
system at the location of each Man-hole along the drainage line.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of the proposed route of the abovementioned drainage line is extended between the
longitudes (E 405290.00) / (E 400200.88) and the latitudes (N 2908990.00) / (N 2914458.32). The
ground surface is uneven, where the elevations are varied between (608.30) and (600.50).
Appendix – A presents the general layout of the proposed route of the drainage line, providing the
locations and the elevations of the man-holes, which in the same time are the locations of the
boreholes. The following table summarizes the provided information:
Manhole Data Borehole Data

Drilling
No G.L. I.L. H No
depth
Tank-W-1 (608.30) (579.49) 28.81 End 35.00
MH-NQ-W-1 (628.25) (579.82) 48.43 BH-01 55.00
MH-NQ-W-2 (631.52) (580.15) 51.37 BH-02 60.00
MH-NQ-W-3 (628.65) (580.53) 48.12 BH-03 55.00
MH-NQ-W-4 (625.07) (580.73) 44.34 BH-04 50.00
MH-NQ-W-5 (631.92) (581.09) 50.83 BH-05 60.00
MH-NQ-W-6 (634.04) (581.20) 52.84 BH-06 60.00
MH-NQ-W-7 (626.75) (581.65) 45.10 BH-07 50.00
MH-NQ-W-8 (629.91) (582.12) 47.79 BH-08 55.00
MH-NQ-W-9 (619.76) (582.25) 37.51 BH-09 45.00
MH-NQ-W-10 (609.02) (582.62) 26.40 BH-10 35.00
MH-NQ-W-11 (606.84) (583.00) 23.84 BH-11 30.00
MH-NQ-W-12 (602.99) (583.32) 19.67 BH-12 25.00
MH-NQ-W-13 (601.21) (583.79) 17.42 BH-13 25.00
MH-NQ-W-14 (601.06) (584.27) 16.79 BH-14 25.00
2

Drilling
No G.L. I.L. H No
depth
MH-NQ-W-15 (599.74) (584.72) 15.02 BH-15 20.00
MH-NQ-W-16 (601.00) (585.17) 15.83 BH-16 20.00
MH-NQ-W-17 (602.33) (585.53) 16.80 BH-17 25.00
MH-NQ-W-18 (601.40) (585.98) 15.42 BH-18 20.00
MH-NQ-W-19 (601.22) (586.42) 14.8 BH-19 20.00
MH-NQ-W-20 (601.55) (586.87) 14.68 BH-20 20.00
MH-NQ-W-21 (600.46) (587.27) 13.19 BH-21 20.00
MH-NQ-W-22 (601.27) (587.66) 13.61 BH-22 20.00
MH-NQ-W-23 (600.50) (588.00) 12.50 BH-23 20.00
In the above table, all dimensions are in (m)

 (G.L.) = Ground surface elevation
 (I.L.) = Internal bottom elevation of manhole
 (H) = The clear depth of the manhole.
FIELD GEOTECHNICAL WORK

The route of the proposed drainage line was geotechnically investigate via twenty-four (24)
boreholes, (as one borehole for each manhole of the line), drilled to depths between 20.00 m and
55.00 m below the existing natural ground surface at the location of each borehole. The boreholes
were drilled using rotary drilling system.
During drilling, the natural relative densities and natural consistencies of the sub-surface soils
were investigated by the regular conduction of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) at each 1.50
m of drilling depths. At each run, the number of blows (N), by a hammer weighing 62.50 kg and
falling from a height 0.76 m, required to penetrate 15 cm through the soil was registered three
times and the results were presented in the borehole-logs, as shown in Appendix – B. Sampling
was regularly done at each 1.50 m of drilling depth and at each sudden change of soil type. Also,
during the drilling through the bedrock, rock cores were extracted each 1.50 m of drilling. For each
core the values of the recovery factors (TCR) and quality factors (RQD) were measured and
recorded in the borehole-logs.
The extracted soil samples and rock cores were arranged, packed and sent to the lab for testing
and preparing the geotechnical report.
GROUND WATER SUFACE

The ground water surface was measured during drilling period of the boreholes. The free ground
water surface was found at depths ranging between 3.00 m and 33.95 m, according to the
3
existing ground surface at the location of each borehole. The following table presents the
measured depth of ground water below ground surface:

G.W. G.W.
No G.L. I.L. H No
at depth elevation
Tank-W-1 (608.30) (579.49) 28.81 End 3.60 (604.70)
MH-NQ-W-1 (628.25) (579.82) 48.43 BH-01 30.80 (597.45)
MH-NQ-W-2 (631.52) (580.15) 51.37 BH-02 33.95 (597.57)
MH-NQ-W-3 (628.65) (580.53) 48.12 BH-03 Not Encountered -
MH-NQ-W-4 (625.07) (580.73) 44.34 BH-04 26,00 (599.07)
MH-NQ-W-7 (626.75) (581.65) 45.10 BH-07 22,00 (604.75)
MH-NQ-W-8 (629.91) (582.12) 47.79 BH-08 19.80 (610.11)
MH-NQ-W-9 (619.76) (582.25) 37.51 BH-09 23.25 (596.51)
MH-NQ-W-10 (609.02) (582.62) 26.40 BH-10 11.30 (597.72)
MH-NQ-W-11 (606.84) (583.00) 23.84 BH-11 9.80 (597.04)
MH-NQ-W-12 (602.99) (583.32) 19.67 BH-12 7,00 (595.99)
MH-NQ-W-13 (601.21) (583.79) 17.42 BH-13 5,00 (596.21)
MH-NQ-W-14 (601.06) (584.27) 16.79 BH-14 3,00 (598.06)
MH-NQ-W-15 (599.74) (584.72) 15.02 BH-15 3.20 (596.54)
MH-NQ-W-16 (601.00) (585.17) 15.83 BH-16 4.20 (596.80)
MH-NQ-W-17 (602.33) (585.53) 16.80 BH-17 5.50 (596.83)
MH-NQ-W-18 (601.40) (585.98) 15.42 BH-18 3.80 (597.60)
MH-NQ-W-19 (601.22) (586.42) 14.8 BH-19 4.00 (597.22)
MH-NQ-W-20 (601.55) (586.87) 14.68 BH-20 4,00 (597.55)
MH-NQ-W-21 (600.46) (587.27) 13.19 BH-21 3,00 (597.46)
MH-NQ-W-22 (601.27) (587.66) 13.61 BH-22 4,00 (597.27)
MH-NQ-W-23 (600.50) (588.00) 12.50 BH-23 3,00 (597.50)
In the above table, all dimensions are in (m)
 (G.L.) = Ground surface elevation
 (I.L.) = Internal bottom elevation of manhole
 (H) = The clear depth of the manhole.
4
LAB TESTS
Soil samples and rock cores, extracted from the boreholes were delivered to our lab and visually
inspected by the lab supervisor for confirming the field classification. In accordance to BS and
ASTM standards, the following list of tests were conducted on representative soil samples:
 Moisture content (ASTM D 2216-98).

 Sieve analysis (ASTM D 422-63).
 Consistency Limits (ASTM D 4318-93).
 Unconfined compressive strength (ASTM D 2938-79).
 Chemical analysis for soil (BS 812, BS 1377).
The results of the abovementioned tests are presented in Appendix – C.
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITION AND PROPERTIES

According to field classifications and lab tests, the borehole-logs in Appendix – B were
confirmed, and the subsurface soil profiles, within the explored depths, were found as follows:
At the location of (Tank-W-1) or (BH-END):.
The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:
First layer:
 Light brown, Very stiff, Low-plastic, Sandy CLAY.
 From ground surface, elevation (608.30), to elevation (591.80), i.e. of total thickness
16.50 m. Including a thin layer of “light brown, dense, silty sand, extending from
elevation (605.30) to elevation (603.80).
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Clay content (66%) and Sand content (34%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, Liquid limit (LL = 46%) and Plasticity index (PI =
23%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (CL), according to USCS, and
as (A-7-6), according to AASHTO.
 The following properties could be considered:
 Saturated unit weight (sat) = 1.90 t/m3
 Angle of internal friction () = 10o – 20o
 Undrained cohesion (c) = 2.00 kg/cm2
 Soil-Pile friction angle (δ) = 0.8.
Second layer:
 Brown, Dense, Non-plastic, Clayey SAND.
 From elevation (591.80) to elevation (584.30), i.e. of total thickness 7.50 m.
5
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Sand content (87%) and Clay content (13%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic.
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SC), according to USCS, and
Third layer:
 Brown, Hard, Low-plastic, Sandy CLAY.
 From elevation (584.30), to the end of borehole at elevation (580.80), i.e. of total
thickness 11.00 m.
 It is an extension of the first layer, i.e. the same properties of first layer could be
considered.
At the location of (MH-NQ-W-1) or (BH-01):
First layer:
 Light brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Clayey
SAND, with little gravel.
46.50 m.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Gravel content (10%), Sand content (78%) and Clay
content (12%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP) to (SC), according to
USCS, and as (A-3) to (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Grayish brown, Hard, Low-plastic, Sandy CLAY, with little gravel.
6
 From elevation (581.75), to elevation (578.75), i.e. of total thickness 3.00 m.

 Sieve analysis indicated that, Clay content (53%), Sand content (38%) and Gravel
content (9%).
19%).
Third layer:
 Brown, very dense, Non-plastic, Clayey SAND, with little gravel.
thickness 5.50 m.
content (22%).
The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:
First layer:
 Brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic low to medium plastic, poorly graded
SAND / Clayey SAND / Silty SAND, with little gravel.
58.50 m.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Gravel content (7.7%), Sand content (72.5%) and Clay
content (19.8%).
7
9.6%).
USCS, and as average (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Grayish brown, Hard, high-plastic, Sandy CLAY.
thickness 1.50 m.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Clay content (65.1%), Sand content (34.9%).
21.4%).
First layer:
 Brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty SAND,
with little gravel.
33.0 m.
content (9.7%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP) to (SM), according to
8

 The unit weight () = 1.80 t/m3
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Light brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
SANDSTONE.
 Recovery factor (TCR) = 13% - 57%
 Quality factor (RQD) = 0%- 13%
thickness 22.0 m.
 Angle of internal friction () = 35o
The subsurface soil profile is composed of four layers as follows:
First layer:
 FILLED MATERIAL ( greyish brown, medium / dense , Non-plastic, poorly graded
SAND With Silt, with little gravel.
4.5 m.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Gravel content (14.95%), Sand content (76.05%) and
Clay content (9%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP-SM), according to USCS,
and as (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
9
Second layer:
 Grayish brown, dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty SAND,
with little gravel.
content (6.7%).
USCS, and as (A-3), according to AASHTO.
Third layer:
 Bedrock of “Greyish yellow, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally
fractured SANDSTONE.
 Quality factor (RQD) = 0%

Fourth layer:
 Greyish brown, very dense, Low-plastic, Clayey SAND / Silty SAND.
thickness 11.0 m.
content (26.2%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, Liquid limit (LL = 28.3%) and Plasticity index (PI =
5.4%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SM) to (SC), according to
10

First layer:
 Yellowish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND with
silt.
36.0 m.
content (3.2%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP), according to USCS, and
as average (A-1-b), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Reddish brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
SANDSTONE, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
Soil-Pile friction angle (δ) = 0.8.
11
Third layer:
 Bedrock of “Cream, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
LIMESTONE, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
 This layer of bedrock included of layer of Cream, very dense, medium-plastic,
SAND / Clayey SAND, with little gravel.
First layer:
 Reddish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND/
Clayey SAND / Silty SAND, with little gravel
50.0 m.
content (15.4%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, in general the soil is Non-plastic.
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP-SM) to (SC), according to
USCS, and as average (A-1-b), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Cream, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
SANDSTONE.
12

First layer:
 Greyish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty
SAND.
28.0 m.
content (7.2%).
USCS, and as (A-1-b), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Brownish yellow, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
LIMESTONE”, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
13
Third layer:
 Greyish brown, very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty SAND., with little
gravel.
thickness 16.0 m.
content (14.7%).
First layer:
 Reddish brown / brown, medium /dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND
/ Silty SAND.
35.0 m.
content (14.2%).
USCS, and as (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Reddish brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
SANDSTONE”.
14
thickness 20.0 m.
First layer:
 Reddish brown, medium /dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND /
Clayey SAND, with little gravel.
27.0 m.
content (8.0%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP-SM) and (SC), according
to USCS, and as (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Reddish brown, moderately strong, highly to moderately weathered, totally
fractured SANDSTONE”.
 Quality factor (RQD) = 0% - 28%
thickness 18.0 m.
15
First layer:
 Brown, medium /dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND WITH SILT.
12.0 m.
content (6.4%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP) and (SP-SM), according
to USCS, and as (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Reddish brown, moderately strong, highly to moderately weathered, totally
fractured SANDSTONE”.
 Quality factor (RQD) = 0% - 10%
thickness 23.0 m.
First layer:
 Brown, medium /dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty SAND,
with little gravel.
13.0 m.
16
content (12.4%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP) and (SM), according to
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Light brown/Light grey, moderately strong, highly to moderately weathered,
totally fractured SANDSTONE”.
thickness 17.0 m.
First layer:
 Light brown / brown, dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Clayey
15.50 m.
content (13%).
USCS, and as (A-3) to (A-2-4), according to AASHTO.
17

Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Light brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured
SANDSTONE”, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
thickness 9.50 m.
The subsurface soil profile is composed of four layers as follows:
First layer:
 Greyish brown, medium / dense / very dense , Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty
7.5 m.
content (13.2%).
Second layer:
 Creamish grey, Hard, high-plastic, Elastic SILT with sand.
18
 Sieve analysis indicated that, silt content (83.2%) and Sand content (16.8%).
27.8%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (MH), according to USCS,
Third layer:
 Bedrock of “Greyish brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally
fractured SANDSTONE, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
Fourth layer:
 Greyish brown, very dense, non-plastic, Silty SAND.
thickness 5.0 m.
content (15.4%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SM), according to USCS,
and as average (A-1-b), according to AASHTO.
19
First layer:
 Yellowish brown / Brownish grey, medium / dense / very dense , Non-plastic, poorly
graded SAND / Silty / Clayey SAND, with little gravel.
16.5 m.
content (20.8%).
7%).
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Yellowish brown, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally
fractured LIMESTONE, recovered as GRAVEL soil.
Third layer:
 Yellowish brown, very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND.
 From elevation (580.06), to the end of bore hole at elevation (576.06), i.e. of total
thickness 4.00 m.
content (3.8%).
20

 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (SP), according to USCS, and
as (A-1-b), according to AASHTO.
First layer:
 Brown / Red / Yellow, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, Clayey SAND, with
little gravel.
9.00 m.
content (23%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic / Low-plastic, where (LL =
28%) and (PI = 9%).
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Red, moderately strong, highly weathered, totally fractured SANDSTONE”,
mostly recovered as GRAVEL soil.
thickness 11.00 m.
21

The subsurface soil profile is composed of ONE Layer as follows:
Brown / Yellow brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded SAND / Silty
SAND, with gravel.
20.0 m.
content (10.7%).
Brown / Yellow brown /Grey, medium / dense / very dense, Non to medium - plastic, poorly
graded SAND / Clayey /Silty SAND, with gravel.
25.0 m. Including Two thin layer of “Grey, Hard, sandy Lean Clay, extending from
elevation (588.83) to elevation (587.33) And “Grey, Hard, sandy SILT, extending from
elevation (578.33) to elevation (577.33)
content (15.7%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic / Medium-plastic, where (LL =
32.4%) and (PI = 9.03%).
22

First layer:
 Brown / Grey / Yellow, Loose /medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded
SAND / Silty SAND, with gravel, with little gravel.
13.5 m.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Gravel content (7.4%), Sand content (83%) and Clay
content (9.6%).
Second layer:
 Brownish grey, Hard, high-plastic, Sandy SILT.
 Sieve analysis indicated that, Clay content (72.2%) and Sand content (27.8%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, Liquid limit (LL = 50.9%) and Plasticity index (PI =
23.1%).
 From the above results, this soil could be classified as (MH), according to USCS,
23

 Brown / Red / Yellowish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non to Low-plastic,
poorly graded SAND / Silty SAND, with gravel.
20.0 m.
content (12.2%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic, where (LL = 28.2%) and (PI =
5.8%).
The subsurface soil profile is composed of only ONE Layer as follows:
 Brownish grey / Greyish brown / Yellowish brown, dense / very dense, Non-plastic,
Clayey SAND, with trace gravel.
 From ground surface, elevation (601.55), to the end of borehole at elevation (581.55),
i.e. of total thickness 20.00 m.
content (15%).
24
 Greyish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non to Low-plastic, poorly graded
SAND / Silty SAND, with gravel.
20.0 m.
content (11.3%).
First layer:
 Brownish grey / Yellowish grey / Yellowish brown, medium / dense / very dense, Non-
plastic / Low-plastic, Clayey SAND, with trace gravel.
13.50 m.
content (23%).
 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic / Low-plastic, where (LL =
32%) and (PI = 9%).
25
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Creamy grey, moderately strong, moderately weathered, Intensely / totally
fractured LIMESTONE”, mostly recovered as GRAVEL soil.
 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) = 345 – 415 kg/cm2
thickness 6.50 m.
First layer:
 Yellowish / Greyish brown /, medium / dense / very dense, Non-plastic, poorly graded
SAND / Silty SAND with trace gravel.
12.5 m.Included thin layer of “Brownish / Creamish grey, Hard, sandy Lean Clay,
extending from elevation (594.50) to elevation (591.50) and from elevation (588.50) to
elevation (587.50)
content (24.9%).
Second layer:
 Bedrock of “Creamy grey, moderately strong, highly to moderately weathered,
Intensely / totally fractured LIMESTONE”.
26
thickness 7.50 m.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS:
In general, at any manhole location, the maximum net bearing stress (or, the stress increase) at
the foundation level could be estimated as follows:
Dex
H
tw tw
D
Hex
Natural soil
tb
The above sketch indicates a vertical section in a reinforced concrete cylindrical manhole,
executed by excavation in the natural soil, where, (H and D) are the internal dimensions of the
manhole, (tw) is the thickness of the side-wall, (tb) is the thickness of the base, and (Hex and Dex)
are the excavation dimensions. Considering the following values (for example),
 Let, H = 20.00 m , D = 5.00 m , tw = 0.30 m , tb = 0.40 m

 Then, the theoretical excavation depth (Hex) = 20.00 + 0.40 = 20.40 m
 and, the theoretical excavation diameter (Dex) = 5.00 + 2 (0.30) = 5.60 m
 Considering that the saturated unit weight of the natural soil is (sat = 1.80 t/m3)
 Then, the weight of the excavated soil is (Wsoil) = (sat) (Hex) () (Dex)2/4 = 610 tons
 The total volume (Vm) of R.C. wall and base of the manhole
27
= [(tb) () (Dex)2/4] + [() (D+tw) (H) (tw)] = 109.70 m3

 Then, the own-weight of the empty manhole (Wm) = 109.70 x 2.50 = 274.25 tons
 Weight of water that may totally fill the manhole (Ww) = (w) (H) () (D)2/4 = 392.50 tons
 Friction resistance between the manhole shaft and the surrounding soil is (Fs), as:
 Fs = (fs) () (Dex) (Hex)
 (fs) = friction stress = 7.50 t/m2 (for large diameter shafts in dense sand)
 (fs) = friction stress = 4.00 t/m2 (for large diameter shafts in very stiff / hard clay)
 Then, Fs = 2690 tons ………... (in dense sand)
Or, Fs = 1435 tons ………... (in very stiff / hard clay)
 Maximum net bearing stress (qb) = [(W m + W w) – (W soil) – (Fs)] / [() (Dex)2/4] = negative
value (i.e. zero stress increase).
Accordingly, there will be NO stress increase at the foundation level, i.e. the manhole foundation
will be of type “Floating Foundation”. This is a general conclusion for all the manholes.
For the execution, the followings are recommended at each manhole:

 Actual excavation depth = H + (tb) + (20 cm plain concrete) + (50 cm gravel replacement)
 Actual excavation width = D + 2(tw) + (6.00 m, i.e. 3.00 m in all directions)
 Suitable Dewatering System should be used for lowering the ground water to at least
(0.30 m) below the actual excavation depth.
 The excavation sides should be retained by a suitable Retaining System, such as:
 Temporary system as, “Timber or Steel Sheets” braced internally by “Ring Beams”.
 Permanent system as, “Secant Piles” braced internally by “Ring Beams”.
 The excavation bottom should be levelled and well compacted.
 Placing a layer of gravel of total thickness (50 cm) in two stages, each stage should be
levelled and well compacted.
 Placing the plain concrete base of (20 cm) thickness.
 Executing the manhole of reinforced concrete.
 Filling the clearance between the manhole shaft and the excavation sides with gravel or
rock-fragments, in layers each of maximum thickness (30 cm), levelled and well
compacted. The filling with gravel should start from the excavation bottom and go up to
(1.00 m), or less, below the pavement level.
 Filling above the top of gravel should be completed till the pavement level, with
engineering fill satisfying the properties of either group (A-1-a), or group (A-1-b), or group
(A-2-4). The filling should be in stages, each of maximum thickness (25 cm), levelled and
well compacted till satisfying a compaction ratio not less than 95% of its maximum dry
density.
It is important to mention that, if the permanent retaining system, “Secant Piles” braced internally
by “Ring Beams”, was used, it should be considered as part of the side-wall of the manhole. Then,
the actual excavation width should be modified (reduced) according to that, to be:
 Actual excavation width = D + 2(tw), i.e. in touch with the internal face of the secant pile
wall.
28
CEMENT AND CONCRETE

Because of the chemical properties of the site soils, and referring to the Saudi Building Code
(SBC-304 , Chapter 4 , Section 4.5) , the followings are recommended:
 The suitable cement type is (Type – V).

 The minimum cement content is 350 kg/m3.
 The maximum Water-Cement ratio is 0.45
 The minimum characteristic strength of concrete is 300 kg/cm2.
 The minimum concrete cover is 60 mm.
 Isolation boxing system should be used to isolate the bottom and the sidewalls of the
manholes.
SEISMOLOGICAL DATA:
Referring to the seismic maps, presented in Appendix – D, the following seismic data could be
considered:
 Buraida is located within (Region – 4).

 Spectral Response Acceleration, long period, (S1 = 0.032 g).
 Spectral Response Acceleration, short period, (Ss = 0.113 g).
 The site could be classified as (Class – C).
 Liquefaction phenomenon is not expected during earthquakes because of the SPT results
The above seismic data are referred to

 Saudi Code of Practice (SBC-301), Chapter (09), “Seismic Design Criteria”.
 Saudi Code of Practice (SBC-301), Chapter (14), “Site Classification for Seismic Design”.
AL-JAZZAR CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Engr. Hosni Fakhry

Geotechnical Engineer
29

WEEK 3 Edit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WEEK 3 Edit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

MAIN STORM DRAINAGE LINE

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

SITE DESCRIPTION …………………………………………………………..………………… 2

FIELD GEOTECHNICAL WORK ………………………………………………………………. 3

GROUND WATER SURFACE ……………………………………………..…………………… 3

SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITION AND PROPERTIES……………………………………… 5

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………27

CEMENT AND CONCRETE ………………………………………………..……………………..29

SEISMOLOGICAL DATA …………………………………………………………..………….. 29

APPENDIX – A (Layout & Site Photos)

APPENDIX – B (Boreholes Logs & Soil Section)

APPENDIX – C (Lab Testing Results)

APPENDIX – D (Seismic Maps)

Manhole Data Borehole Data

Manhole Data Borehole Data

In the above table, all dimensions are in (m)

FIELD GEOTECHNICAL WORK

GROUND WATER SUFACE

Manhole Data Borehole Data

 Moisture content (ASTM D 2216-98).

The results of the abovementioned tests are presented in Appendix – C.

SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITION AND PROPERTIES

At the location of (Tank-W-1) or (BH-END):.

The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-1) or (BH-01):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:

 From elevation (581.75), to elevation (578.75), i.e. of total thickness 3.00 m.

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-2) or (BH-02):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-3) or (BH-03):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

 The following properties could be considered:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-4) or (BH-04):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of four layers as follows:

 From elevation (597.07), to elevation (586.07), i.e. of total thickness 11.0 m.

 Angle of internal friction () = 30o – 35o

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-5) or (BH-05):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-6) or (BH-06):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

 The unit weight () = 1.95 t/m3

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-7) or (BH-07):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-08) or (BH-08):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-09) or (BH-09):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-10) or (BH-10):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-11) or (BH-11):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-12) or (BH-12):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

 Angle of internal friction () = 30o – 35o

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-13) or (BH-13):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of four layers as follows:

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-14) or (BH-14):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of three layers as follows:

 Consistency limits indicated that, the soil is Non-plastic.

At the location of (MH-NQ-W-15) or (BH-15):

The subsurface soil profile is composed of two layers as follows:

 Undrained cohesion (c) = 0.00 kg/cm2