Karbala Cement Factory-Report PDF

2017 Soil Investigation Report/Silos/Karbala Cement Plant/Karbala
SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

For
PROJECT
OF
SILOS
KARBALA CEMENT PLANT
KARBALA GOVERNORATE/IRAQ
Prepared by:
ROCK COMPANY
FOR
SOIL INVESTIGATION AND WELLS DRILLING
For Client:
LAFARGE COMPANY
OPTIMUM COMPANY FOR GENERAL CONTRACTING AND
ENGINEERING
1
The Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells Drilling
SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

for
PROJECT
OF
SILOS
KARBALA GOVERNORATE/IRAQ
Prepared by:
ROCK COMPANY
FOR
SOIL INVESTIGATION AND WELLS DRILLING
For Client:
LAFARGE COMPANY
OPTIMUM COMPANY FOR GENERAL CONTRACTING AND
ENGINEERING
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a
reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than 3 years from the date
of the report. Land or facility use, on and off-site conditions, regulations, or other
factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the
passage of time.
2
Subject: Soil Investigation Report

Project
of
Silos
Karbala Cement Plant
Karbala Governorate/Iraq
Dear Optimum Company for General Contracting and Engineering

The Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells Drilling is pleased to present the
attached geotechnical investigation report for the proposed Silos to be constructed in
the Karbala Cement Plant at Karbala Governorate. The purpose of our investigation
was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at various locations on the site in
order to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for project design and
construction.
Based on the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering
analyses, it is our professional opinion the site may be developed for the proposed Silos
using conventional grading and foundation. Recommendations regarding the
geotechnical aspects of project design and construction are presented in the following
report.
Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the

Additional Services and Limitations section of this report. Optimum Company for
General Contracting and Engineering should become familiar with these provisions in
order to assess further involvement by The Rock Company for Soil Investigation and
Wells Drilling and other potential impacts to the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services for this project. If you have
questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
Asst. Prof. Mahdi O. Karkush (Ph.D., CE, MISSMGE)

Consultant
Geotechnical Engineer
Mobile: 009647707930600-009647801089657
E-mail: mahdi_karkush@yahoo.com
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
No. Subject Page

1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1. Project Description 8
1.2. Purpose and Scope of Services 8
1.3. Report Organization 8
2 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING 8
2.1. Site Geology 8
2.2. Seismicity and Regional Faulting 11
3 SITE CONDITIONS 12
3.1. Climatologic Setting 12
3.2. Site Description 12
3.3. Soil Stratigraphy 12
3.4. Groundwater 12
3.5. Variations in Subsurface Conditions 13
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
4.1. Site Preparation 13
4.1.1. Site Stripping and Grubbing 13
4.1.2. Existing Utilities, Wells and Foundations 13
4.1.3. Scarification and Compaction 13
4.2. Engineering Fill 14
4.2.1. Compaction Requirements 14
4.2.2. Subgrade Preparation 15
4.2.3. Temporary Excavations and Slopes 15
4.2.4. Protection of Existing Facilities 15
4.3. Foundation Design Recommendations 17
4.3.1. Chemical Data 17
4.3.2. Bearing Capacity 17
4
No. Subject Page
4.3.3. Foundation Types and Depths 20

4.3.4. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 20
4.3.5. Earth Embankment 21
4.3.6. Settlement 22
4.4. Concrete Slab-Grade Floors 23
4.4.1. Subgrade Preparation 23
4.4.2. Floor Slab Considerations 23
4.5. Moisture Protection 23
4.6. Exterior Concrete Slabs Supported-on-Grade 24
5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS 25
5.1. Additional Services 25
5.2. Recommendations 25
5.3. Limitations 26
6 REFERENCES 26
APPENDICES 28
Appendix-A 29
Field Investigations 29
Appendix-B 32
Laboratory Testing and Records of Tests Results 32
5
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Definition
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
BH Borehole
BS British Standards
c Cohesion
CH High plasticity clay
CL Low plasticity clay
Cc Compression Index for Normally Consolidated Soil
Cl-1 Chloride content
Cs Swelling Index for Over Consolidated Soil
cv Coefficient of vertical consolidation
DS Disturbed soil sample
EGL Existing ground level
eo Initial void ratio
FFL Finishing floor level
Gs Specific gravity
GWT Ground water table
k Coefficient of permeability
L Length of pile
LL Liquid limit
mv Coefficient of volume compressibility
MH High plasticity silt
ML Low plasticity silt
N Standard penetration test value
N60 Corrected standard penetration test value
NGS Natural Ground Surface
NP Non-Plastic
OM Organic matter content
Pc Preconsolidation pressure
Ps Swelling pressure
PCA Portland Cement Association
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plastic limit
SL Shrinkage limit
SP Poorly graded sand
SW Well graded sand
SO3 Sulfur trioxide content
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SS Split spoon sample
T Thickness of consolidated clay layer
TSS Total soluble salts
US Undisturbed soil sample
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
Z The seismic zone factor
dry Dry density
t Total density
n Water content
6
1 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared by the Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells
Drilling, but the tests of soil samples for this project have been conducted by the
College of Engineering/University of Baghdad according to the authorization of
Optimum Company for General Contracting and Engineering via their official letter
No. No dated on 21/5/2017. This report presents the results of geotechnical
investigation for the proposed Silos Project at Karbala Cement Factory in Karbala
Governorate at the west of Iraq. A site location image is presented on Plate 1. The
following sections of this report describe the geotechnical properties of soils in the
locations of project and brief description about the parts of the project.
Plate 1: Image of Site.
7
1.1. Project Description

The proposed project will involve soil investigation at the site of Karbala Cement Plant.
The project consists of construction silos inside the site of plant. The silo height is about
12 m measured from ground level. The civil work including construction of foundation
for the proposed silos. The area of silo is about 4225 m2 located inside Karbala Cement
Plant. The silos foundation may isolated footing or strip footing. The type and
dimensions of foundation will depend on the load transmitted from the silo to the soil
and the bearing capacity of soil.
1.2. Purpose and Scope Services

The purposes of this study were to explore subsurface conditions at the site and to
provide recommendations for geotechnical aspects of design and construction of the
proposed project. These purposes were accomplished by:
Reviewing readily-accessible geologic and geotechnical information in the general
site vicinity;
Drilling three boreholes of 6m depth to explore subsurface conditions and to obtain
core soil samples for laboratory testing. The number of boreholes and depth are
specified by the client Optimum Company for General Contracting and
Engineering;
Conducting geotechnical laboratory tests to assess chemical, physical and
mechanical properties of soil;
Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop conclusions and
recommendations; and
Preparing this report, which includes the calculations of bearing capacity,
consolidation settlement, types of foundations and necessary recommendations for
construction of foundations.
1.3. Report Organization

The following sections of this report describe the geologic and geotechnical properties
of the project site soil, describe the subsurface conditions, and present the conclusions
and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. A description of the
field exploration program and the exploratory boring logs are presented in Appendix
A. A description of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and laboratory test
results are presented in Appendix-B.
2 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING

2.1. Site Geology
Iraq can be considered as a large anticline that has the trend of NW-SE and contain
many small folds (Syncline and anticlines). The northeastern limb of this anticline has
suffered from recumbence and then thrusting over the southwestern limb. Because of
colliding of the Arabian and Iranian plates now Iraq is divided tectonically to, Western
desert, Mesopotamian (Unfolded Zone), Low, High, Imbricated and Thrust Zones from
southwest to northwest (Plate 2). Mesopotamia represented transgression and
regression of sea level started with in calcareous Sualy and Yamama Formations, then
clastic Ratawi and Zubair Formations and calcareous Shauba Formation, then clastic
Nahr umr formation and continue with a repetitive succession of clastic and calcareous
rock. Uplift might be sufficient to raise the shelf of the Mesopotamian passive-margin
8
basin above sea level. Uplift period designated disappear of Touronian age in the south
Iraq.
Plate 2: Tectonic Subdivisions Map of Iraq.
Geologic mapping for the site which is consider part of Karbala region has been
performed at the State Establishment of Geological Survey and Mining as shown in
Plate 2. The geologic formation of site is belonging to Holocene age which consists of
Aeolian deposits underlying flood plain deposits (fluvial deposits) of Euphrates River
which belonging to Pleistocene period. The geology of Karbala site consists of marsh
deposits, mud with organic material (symbol Qm) and shallow depression
deposits/sabkha (symbol Qd) as shown in Plate 2. However, the site is free from erosion
old rock surface. On the other hand there is depression fill deposits which accumulate
due to successively floods as shown in Plate 3.
9
Plate 3: Geological Map of Karbala.
10
2.2. Seismicity and Regional Faulting

According to Iraqi seismic code (No. 2/1997), the ordinary structure may be designed
by the equivalent static method using conventional liner elastic analysis. The seismic
analysis of structures shall take the dynamic properties of the structure into
consideration by equivalent static analysis. In this analysis the seismic hazard and
zoning coefficient (Z) are required. The evaluation of seismic hazard in different
seismic areas for the design of buildings and structures shall be performed according to
the seismic zoning map of Iraq, Plate 4. The site of the project is located in Zone I, so
the value of the seismic factor (Z) equals to 0.05 should be used in the design of
foundation.
Table 1: The value of seismic factor (Z).
Zone I II III
Value of Z 0.05 0.07 0.09
Plate 4: Seismic Zoning Map of Iraq.
11
3 SITE CONDITIONS
Discussions of the field investigation and laboratory testing programs are presented in
Appendices A and B, respectively, of this report. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface
conditions encountered during the field investigation are presented on the Logs of
Borings in Appendix A. Laboratory test results are provided on the boring logs and in
Appendix-B. The following sections describe the general site conditions that
interpreted from the available topographic, subsurface and laboratory test data.
3.1. Climatologic Setting

Karbala city is located in the west of Iraq, the four summer months (June, July, August
and September) are completely dry and the rain may fall in winter months (December,
January, February, March, and April). The average temperatures range from higher than
48 degree in July and August to below freezing in January. A majority of the rainfall
occurs from December through April. The summer months are marked by two kinds of
wind phenomena: the southern and southeasterly sharqi, a dry, dusty wind with
occasional gusts to eighty kilometers an hour, occurs from April to early June and again
from late September through November; the shamal, a steady wind from the north and
northwest, prevails from mid-June to mid-September. Dust storms accompany these
winds and may rise to height of several thousand meters.
The average annual rainfall was 91.9 mm for duration from 1970 to 2011. The probable
maximum rainfall intensity for duration of one hour was about 33.8 mm/hrs happened
in 8/12/1992. However, in spite of that the rainfall and other climatic elements causes
changes to the moisture contents of subsurface layers and may direct influencing the
stability and strength of these materials, the amount of rainfall in the investigated area
is insufficient and is considered to be very low rainfall unaffected to engineering
properties of the soil.
3.2. Site Description

The project site is construction of silos in Karbala Cement Plant. The bearing capacity
of site soil was measured by boring three boreholes of 6m depth upon the request from
client of Optimum Company for General Contracting and Engineering. The site have
specific geotechnical properties and parameters to be used in the design of foundation
depending on the location of silo within the site plan.
3.3. Soil Stratigraphy

The general description of subsurface profile for the study area is consist of a layer of
white to red gravel sand with clay and gypsum as shown in Appendix-A, Figures A-1
to A-3. Note that in this figure the soil stratification was started from the EGL (existing
ground level). The lines designating the interface between soil strata on the boring logs
represent approximate boundaries; transition between materials may be gradual.
3.4. Groundwater
At the time of field investigation 16th of May 2017, the groundwater table in the drilled
borehole depends on the ground level. The groundwater is far from the ground surface
and due to the shallow depth of coring. The groundwater table may be changed due to
seasonal variation.
12
3.5. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

The interpretations of soil and groundwater conditions, as described above, are based
on data obtained from the boring drilled for this study and review of existing
information. The conclusions and recommendations that follow are based on those
interpretations. Seasonal variation in groundwater table will be expected.
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our review of the field exploration and laboratory data collected to date, we
believe that the project as currently proposed is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into plans
for design and construction. The conclusions and recommendations that follow are
based on design information provided by others, the results of our field and laboratory
field investigations, our engineering analyses, and our professional judgment.
4.1. Site Preparation

4.1.1. Site Stripping and Grubbing
Site preparation should include removing the concrete pavement, building rubble,
concrete foundations and any other debris noted on or below the existing ground surface
as part of the site preparation for the proposed construction area. Also, the stripping and
removal of existing vegetation, trees, topsoil, debris, and other deleterious materials
from the areas to be graded. The removal soil should be replaced with controlled clean
fill soil. Site clearing, grubbing and stripping will need to be performed only during dry
weather conditions. Operation of heavy equipment on the site during wet conditions
could result in excessive rutting and mixing of organic debris with the underlying soils.
Deeper stripping or grubbing may be required where existing structures, concentrations
of organic soils, or tree roots are encountered during site grading. Stripped topsoil (less
any debris) may be stockpiled and reused for landscape purposes provided it is not
contaminated with lead or other potentially hazardous material. The contaminated soils
and highly organic soils should not be included in any engineered fill.
4.1.2. Existing Utilities, Wells and Foundations

All utilities such as electricity towers, water pipes, buried electricity and telephone
cables existing in the parts of site should be removed and disposed of off-site. Existing
utility pipelines that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and that are
to be abandoned in-place should be plugged with cement grout to prevent migration of
soil and/or water. All excavations resulting from removal activities should be cleaned
of loose or disturbed material (including all previously placed backfill) and dish-shaped
(with sides sloped 3(h): 1(v) or flatter) to permit access for compaction equipment.
4.1.3. Scarification and Compaction

Following site stratification and any required grubbing and/or over-excavation, we
recommend all areas to receive engineered fill or to be used for the future support of
structures or concrete slabs supported-on-grade be scarified to a depth of 20cm,
uniformly moisture-conditioned to between 2 and 5 percent above the optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM (Test Method D1557). The upper 30cm of pavement subgrades
should be scarified; moisture conditioned slightly above the optimum moisture content,
and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Scarification and compaction
13
may not be required within earthwork cut areas consisting of cemented soils if approved
by the project Geotechnical Engineer during construction. In-place scarification and
compaction may not be adequate to densify all disturbed soil within areas grubbed or
otherwise disturbed below a depth of about 20cm. Therefore, over-excavation of
disturbed soil, scarification and compaction of the exposed subgrade, and replacement
with engineered fill may be required to sufficiently densify all disturbed soil.
4.2. Engineering Fill

The on-site soils consisted predominantly of silts, clays, silty clay and sandy silt. These
soils may be reused as engineered fill provided that strict moisture control is maintained
during and following placement and compaction. Where potentially expansive fat clay
soils are encountered during construction, they should not be placed within the
structures pad areas. If the on-site soils are used as engineered fill, these soils should be
placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section
4.2.1. Furthermore, oversized material (greater than 75mm in maximum dimension)
should not be included in any engineered fill that will support future structural loads.
Imported soils may be required to achieve the proposed site grades. All imported non-
expansive engineered fill soils should be nearly free of organic or other deleterious
debris, essentially non-plastic, and less than 75mm in maximum dimension. In general,
well-graded mixtures of gravel and sand are generally acceptable for use as engineered
fill for soil replacement under the footings of structures. Specific requirements for non-
expansive engineered fill are provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Imported non-expansive engineered fill requirements.
Fill Requirement Test Procedures
Gradation
Sieve Size Percent Passing ASTM
75mm 100 D 422
19mm 70-100
No. 4 50-100
No. 200 20-70
Plasticity
Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % ASTM
< 25 <6 D 4318
Organic Content
Less than 2% D 2974
Sulphate Content
SO3 < 0.5% BS 1377 : Part 3 : 1990, clause 5
Total soluble salts
TSS < 5% D4542
4.2.1. Compaction Requirements

Soils used for engineered fill should be uniformly moisture-conditioned to between 0
and 5 percent above the optimum moisture content, placed in horizontal lifts less than
20cm in loose thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as
determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. The upper 30cm of pavement subgrades
14
should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at a moisture content

slightly above optimum.
4.2.2. Subgrade Preparation

Prior to placement of bedding, the exposed subgrade at the bottoms of trench
excavations should be examined to detect soft, loose, or unstable areas. Loose materials
at trench bottoms resulting from excavation disturbance should be removed to firm
material. If soft or unstable areas are encountered, these areas should be over excavated
to a depth of at least 0.5m or to a firm base and be replaced with additional bedding
material. Where excavations cross existing trench backfill materials, the need for and
extent of over-excavation or stabilization measures should be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Engineer on an individual basis. Where clean crushed rock bedding
materials are specified, the bedding material should be surrounded by a non-woven
filter fabric to prevent migration of fines into the bedding layer.
4.2.3. Temporary Excavations and Slopes

All excavations must comply with applicable local regulations. Construction site safety
generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely
responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. The
Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths
(including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local
regulations.
Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic
should not be allowed within 1/3 the slope height from the top of any excavation. Where
the stability of adjoining buildings, walls, or other structures is endangered by
excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may
be required to provide structural stability and to protect personnel working within the
excavation. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for the project (if any) should
be designed by a professional engineer. During wet weather, earthen berms or other
methods should be used to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations. All
runoff water and/or groundwater encountered within the excavation(s) should be
collected and disposed of outside the construction limits.
4.2.4. Protection of Existing Facilities

The shoring designer should perform a deflection analysis for the proposed shoring
system. A survey of existing utilities, pavements, and structures adjacent to those
portions of the proposed excavation that will be shored should also be performed prior
to construction. The purpose of the analysis and survey would be to evaluate the ability
of existing structures, pipelines, or conduits to withstand anticipated horizontal and
vertical movements associated with a shored excavation. If movements are greater than
the tolerance of existing project features (utilities, pavements, structures, etc.),
alternative shoring systems employing the at-rest earth pressure, tie-backs, dead-man
anchors, or cross bracing may be needed to reduce deflections to acceptable levels.
The Contractor should anticipate repairing cracks in pavements adjacent to shored

excavations due to anticipated lateral displacements of the shoring system. In areas
where new excavations will encroach upon or pass under existing utilities, stabilization
15
of these utilities and backfill materials may be necessary. Alternatives for stabilization
include shoring or bracing systems, and various in-situ compaction or permeation
grouting methods.
The stabilization method chosen for support of adjacent utilities (and backfilling)
should be determined based on a thorough review of existing conditions and with the
approval of the utility owner. The proposed shoring system design should be reviewed
by the design tea to evaluate whether the proper soil parameters have been used and the
anticipated shoring deflections are within the tolerance established by the owners of
adjacent improvements that may be affected by nearby trench installations. The
Contractor should use means and methods that will limit vibrations at the locations
adjacent structures/facilities. Where construction operations such as sheet pile driving
demolition, or similar activities induce significant ground vibrations near critical
facilities. More stringent requirements may be needed adjacent to historic structures,
buildings in poor condition, or buildings where vibration sensitive equipment is being
operated.
4.3. Foundation Design Recommendations

Foundations should satisfy two independent criteria with respect to foundation soils.
First, the foundation should have an adequate safety factor against bearing failure with
respect to shear strength of the foundation soils. Second, the vertical movements of the
foundation due to settlement of the foundation soils should be within tolerable limits.
According to preliminary grading plans of building, the building will be supported on

native materials. To reduce the potential for adverse foundation performance under
these conditions, the subgrade preparation and engineered fill material selection and
compaction recommendations presented in this report (Section 4.1, Site Preparation,
and Section 4.2, Engineered Fill) should be followed. The following paragraphs present
recommendations for different types of footings, raft foundation for medium weight
structures and pile foundation for heavy weight structures. According to the
calculations of bearing capacity of shallow foundations, the site divided into the
following regions to interest from the results geotechnical investigation report in
accurate form.
4.3.1. Chemical Data

Concrete degradation may have various causes. Concrete can be damaged by fire,
aggregate expansion, sea water effects, bacterial corrosion, calcium leaching, physical
damage and chemical damage (from carbonation, chlorides, sulfates and distilled
water). Chemical deicers can affect concrete both physically and chemically. Physical
effects are typically manifested as cracking and salt scaling. Several mechanisms have
been proposed to explain the phenomenon of salt scaling, including thermal shock,
precipitation and growth of salt crystals, and osmotic pressure. Chemical effects can
result from reactions involving cement hydration products, aggregates, or reinforcing
steel.
The most common chemical reactions caused by chlorides and sulfates. Chlorides,
particularly calcium chloride, have been used to shorten the setting time of
concrete. However, calcium chloride and sodium chloride have been shown to
16
leach calcium hydroxide and cause chemical changes in Portland cement, leading to
loss of concrete strength, as well as attacking the steel reinforcement present in most
concrete. Accumulation of critical concentrations of chloride ions in the vicinity of the
steel can initiate corrosion. Sulfates in solution in contact with concrete can cause
chemical changes to the cement, which can cause significant microstructural effects
leading to the weakening of the cement binder (chemical sulfate attack). Sulfate
solutions can also cause damage to porous cementation materials through
crystallization and recrystallization (salt attack).
Sulfates are ubiquitous in the natural environment and are present from many sources,
including gypsum (calcium sulfate) often present as an additive in 'blended' cements
which include fly ash and other sources of sulfate. With the notable exception of barium
sulfate, most sulfates are slightly - highly soluble in water. The chemical analysis of
soil and groundwater samples is important to get the necessary data for the durability
of foundation through providing protection against chlorides and sulfates attacks. The
necessary data, summary of soil samples are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Chemical data of soil samples used in design of foundations.
SO3 Gypsum Content OM Cl-1

pH
% % % mg/l
2.34 5.03 0.97 7.90 106.25
4.3.2. Bearing Capacity

The allowable bearing capacity for footings installed at the recommended depth on
firm, unyielding native soils or engineered fill. In addition, the net allowable bearing
capacity includes a safety factor (FS) of at least 3 with respect to shear failure of the
foundation soils. For safe foundation, the following criteria must be meet:
, =
,
, =

= , +

= , + = +

Where
qult = ultimate bearing capacity;
qult, net = ultimate bearing capacity;
qall = allowable bearing capacity;
qall, net = allowable bearing capacity;
FS = factor of safety (assumed to be 3);
Df = depth of footing placement.
17
1) The applied load must not cause shear failure in the soil (evaluating the ultimate
bearing capacity and using suitable factor of safety).
2) The settlement must not be excessive, beyond the allowable values.
During the last sixty years, several bearing capacity theories were proposed for
estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Generally, the most
bearing capacity could be evaluated from one of the following method:
A. Terzaghi bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

= . + + . For square foundation
= . + + . For circular foundation
= + + . For continuous or strip foundation
Where:
c' = cohesion;
q = effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation = Df;
= unit weight of soil;
Df = is the depth of footing placement;
B = width or diameter of foundation;
Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors (functions of the soil friction angle, );
B. Meyerhof bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

= + +
Where:
, , = shape factors;
, , = depth factors;
, , = load inclination factors.
C. Hansen bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

= + +
Where:
, , = base inclination factors;
, , = ground factors;
D. The ultimate load-carrying capacity Qult of a pile is:

= +
= = [ + + ]
18
Where:
Qp = load-carrying capacity of the pile point;
Ap = area of pile tip;
qp = unit point resistance;
c' = cohesion of the soil;
q' = effective vertical stress at the level of pile tip;
Nc , Nq , N = the bearing capacity factors;
Qs = frictional resistance (skin friction);
p = perimeter of the pile section;
L = incremental pile length;
f = unit friction resistance at any depth z.
For sandy soil (c=0);

= =
= (. )
Where
K= 1.5 for driven piles;
K= 1-sin' for bored piles;
o = average effective overburden pressure.
For clayey soil (=0);

= = =
= =
.

= ( )

Where
C = 0.4 to 0.5 for bored piles and 0.5 for driven piles.
o = average effective overburden pressure.
The bearing capacity for different types of foundations is concluded from the results of
standard penetration tests and interpolated for the in between depths. The values of
bearing capacity given in Table 4 are based on factor of safety equal to 3 and the
consolidation settlement must be checked to be within allowable limits as listed in
section 4.3.7. The factor of safety is assumed to be 3 due to low friction between the
wall of bored pile and soil resulting from the silty clay nature of site soil.
The magnitude of bearing capacity for surface layers of soft soil can increased by soil
replacement, in such case the bearing capacity used in calculations of foundations
dimensions will be one at the depth of excavation and the addition weight resulting
from using well compacted soil layers should be taken into consideration. Nevertheless,
for deep layers of soft soil and for economical purposes, we should change the type of
foundation to be deeper than the depth of soft soil.
19
Table 4: Allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundation (qall).
qall
BH No.
Ton/m2
BH1 23.0
BH2 14.7
BH3 18.5
4.3.3. Foundation Types and Depths

A foundation is defined as the supporting base of a structure, which forms the interface
across which the loads are transmitted to the underlying soil or rock. In most cases
foundations in civil engineering are constructed of plain or reinforced concrete, notable
exceptions being roads, embankments and dams. Foundations are classified according
to the depth of founding, Df (depth of base of foundation below ground level) compared
to the width of the foundation, B.
Shallow foundations: are placed at shallow depths i.e. D < B or where D is less than
about 3m (i.e. within reach of normal excavation plant).
Deep foundations: are placed at greater depths i.e. D > 3m or D > B.
Pile foundations: transmit the loads to greater depths through steel or reinforced
concrete columns.
4.3.4. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Vesic (1961a, 1961b) proposed that the modulus of subgrade reaction could be
computed using the stress-strain modulus Es as:
0.65 12 Es B4 Es
ks =
B EF IF 1 2
Where:
Es is the modulus of elasticity of soil;
B is the foundation width;
EF is the modulus of elasticity of footing;
IF is the moment of inertia of footing;
is Poisson's ratio.
Since the twelfth root of any value 0.65 will be close to 1, for all practical purposes
the Vesic equation reduces to:
Es
ks =
B(1 2 )
The value of Es can be calculated from the results of odometer tests given the
Appendix-B of the report by plotting stress-strain relationship. The value of Poison's
ratio can be assumed to be 0.2.
20
For simplicity of finding the modulus of subgrade reaction, Bowels (1997) suggested
the following formula for approximating the ks value:
k s = 40 (FS) qall
Where
FS is the factor of safety to be taken 3;
qall is the allowable bearing capacity.
Table 5: Values of coefficient of sub-grade reaction.
BH No. Ks (MN/m3)
BH1 27.87
BH2 17.64
BH3 22.20
4.3.5 Earth Embankment

The embankment consists of a series of compacted layers or lifts of suitable material
placed on top of each other until the level of the subgrade surface is reached. The
subgrade surface is the top of the embankment and the surface upon which the sub-base
layer is placed.
The fill material (Section 4.2) should be taken from an approved, designated borrow
area. It should be free of roots, stumps, wood, rubbish, stones greater than 6 inches, and
frozen or other objectionable materials. Fill material for the center of the embankment
should conform to Unified Soil Classification GC, SC, or CL. Consideration may be
given to the use of other materials in the embankment based on the recommendations
of a geotechnical engineer supervises the design and construction. The maximum
dimension of any particle of the material may not be greater than the loose lift
thickness. Any particles that are larger than the loose lift thickness must be removed
and disposed of, or may be put in the embankment side slope. The use of select fills
was not a primary concern of the respondents. The compatibility of the existing
embankment soil with the new fill with respect to permeability was considered
important. The survey results also indicate that unreinforced slopes up to 2:1 (H:V) are
typically used for embankments.
The area on which fill is to be placed should be scarified before its placement. Fill
material should be placed in layers a maximum of 20cm thick (before compaction),
which should be continuous over the entire length of the fill. The most permeable
borrow material should be placed in the downstream portions of the embankment. The
principal spillway must be installed concurrently with fill placement and not excavated
into the embankment.
The fill material should be compacted with appropriate compaction equipment such as
a sheep's foot, rubber-tired or vibratory roller. The number of required passes by the
compaction equipment over the fill material may vary with soil conditions. Compaction
21
tests should be performed regularly throughout the embankment construction; typically,

one test per 500 square meter on each layer of fill or as directed by the geotechnical
engineer based on site and soil conditions and the size and type of structure being built.
Generally, the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557) will be used for compaction test
during the construction of embankment. A new Proctor test is required if the material
changes from that previously tested. The surface layer of compacted fill (top soil)
should be scarified prior to placement of at least 15cm of topsoil. The topsoil shall be
stabilized with in efficient cementing material.
4.3.6. Settlement
For foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in
this report and under static loading conditions, total post-construction foundation
settlement is expected to be calculated using the following equation (for more details
see Appendix-D). Post-construction differential settlement is expected to be about half
of the total settlement.

=
+
Where
Sc: is consolidation settlement.
H: is thickness of clayey soil layer;
eo: is initial void ratio;
e: is change in void ratio.
=
=
Where
Cc: is the compression index,
Cs: is the recompression index or swell index.
The tolerable settlements, total and differentiable, of different types of foundation

constructed in different types of soils based on experience of many agencies and
persons are given in Table 6.
Table 6: Tolerable magnitude of settlement.
Total Differentiable
Type
Type of footing settlement settlement Reference
of soil
mm mm
Isolated and Strip 25 - Terzaghi and Peck, 1967
Slab and raft 50 - Tomlinson, 1980
Sand
Isolated and Strip 40 51
Slab and raft 45-65 51-76 Skempton and
Isolated and Strip 65 76 McDonald, 1956
Clay
Slab and raft 65-100 76-126
Its recommended to adopt the values presented by Skempton and McDonald (1956)
in checking the settlement of structures foundation.
22
4.4. Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors

4.4.1. Subgrade Preparation
Floor slabs-on-grade should be structurally independent of the rest of the foundation
system. Slab thickness and reinforcing should be evaluated by the designer based on
the anticipated use and loadings. Prior to constructing interior concrete slabs supported-
on-grade, the subgrade soils should be prepared as recommended in Section 4.1, Site
Preparation, and Section 4.2, Engineered Fill. Scarification and compaction may not be
required if floor slabs are to be placed directly on undisturbed engineered fill, or native
soil compacted during site preparation, or within earthwork cut areas consisting of
cemented soils and if approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer during
construction. The compacted subgrade must be overlain with a minimum 20 cm
thickness of compacted crushed rock or boulders to serve as a capillary break. The
material should have less than 5 percent by weight passing the No. 4 sieve size. A
capillary break may reduce the potential for soil moisture migrating upwards toward
the slab.
A capillary break may not be required for some types of construction (such as
warehouses, equipment buildings, garages, and other non-habitable structures). For
these types of structures, the gravel capillary break recommended above may be omitted
and the slab placed directly on a minimum 20cm thick layer of compacted sub base
material (sand-gravel mixture). The material should be compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction at a moisture content slightly above optimum.
4.4.2. Floor Slab Considerations

It should be noted that although capillary break and vapor barrier systems are currently
the industry standard, this system may not be completely effective in preventing floor
slab moisture problems. Various factors such as surface grades, adjacent planters, the
quality of slab concrete, and the permeability of the onsite soils affect slab moisture
control performance. In many cases, perceived floor moisture problems are the result
of improper curing of flooring adhesives, not excessive slab moisture transmission.
Special precautions must be taken during the placement and curing of all concrete slabs.
Excessive slump (high water-cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing
procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could lead to excessive
shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. High water-cement ratio and/or improper
curing also greatly increase the water vapor permeability of concrete. We recommend
that all concrete placement and curing operations be performed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual.
To reduce the potential for under slab moisture problems, we recommend that floor
slabs be established 15cm or more above surrounding final grades. Drainage should be
provided for planters adjacent to buildings such that water does not accumulate against
foundations.
4.5. Moisture Protection

Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well runoff waters drain from
the site. This drainage should be maintained both during construction and over the
entire life of the project. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that
water flows rapidly away from structures. The surface gradient needed to do this
23
depends on the landscaping type. In general, pavement and lawns within 1.5m of
buildings should slope away at gradients of at least two percent.
In general, the elevation of exterior grades should not be higher than the elevation of
the subgrade beneath the slab to help prevent water intrusion beneath slabs. In any
event, maintenance personnel should be instructed to limit irrigation to the minimum
actually necessary to properly sustain landscaping plants. Due to excessive irrigation,
waterline breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones and "perched"
groundwater may be developed. Consequently, the site should be graded so that water
drains away readily without saturating the foundation or landscaped areas. Potential
sources of water, such as water pipes, drains, and the like, should be frequently
examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be
promptly repaired. All utility trenches that pass beneath perimeter foundations should
be backfilled with compacted non-pervious fill material or a lean concrete trench plug
to reduce the potential for external water to migrate beneath the building through the
utility trenches. Special care should be taken during installation of sub-floor water and
sewer lines to reduce the possibility of leaks.
4.6. Exterior Concrete Slabs Supported-on-Grade

Prior to constructing exterior concrete slabs supported-on-grade such as walkways,
driveways, etc. surficial soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 20cm,
uniformly moisture-conditioned to between 2 and 5 percent above the optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Scarification and compaction may not be required if exterior slabs are to be placed
directly on undisturbed engineered fill, or native soil compacted during site preparation,
or within earthwork cut areas consisting of cemented soils if approved by the project
Geotechnical Engineer during construction. Once the slab subgrade soil has been
moisture conditioned and compacted, the soil should not be allowed to dry prior to
concrete placement. If the subgrade soil is too dry, the moisture content of the soil
should be restored to the recommended value prior to placement of concrete. The
geotechnical engineer should check the moisture content of the subgrade soil prior to
construction of the slabs.
Proper moisture conditioning and compaction of subgrade soils is important. Even with
proper site preparation, we anticipate that over time there will be some effects of soil
moisture change on concrete flatwork. Exterior flatwork will be subjected to edge
effects due to the drying out or wetting of subgrade soils where adjacent to landscaped
or non-paved areas. To help reduce edge effects, lateral cutoffs such as a thickened edge
are suggested. Control joints should be used to reduce the potential for panel cracks as
a result of soil displacement. Steel reinforcement will aid in keeping the control joints
and other cracks closed. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be cast free from
adjacent footings or other non-heaving edge restraints. This may be accomplished by
using a strip of 12.5cm asphalt-impregnated felt divider material between the slab edges
and the adjacent structure. Frequent construction or control joints should be provided
in all concrete slabs where cracking is objectionable. Dowels at the construction and
control joints will also aid in reducing uneven slab movements.
24
5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS

5.1. Additional Services
Variations in soil types and conditions are possible and may be encountered during
construction. To permit correlation between the soil data obtained during this
investigation and the actual soil conditions encountered during construction, we
recommend that The Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells Drilling be
retained to provide observation and testing services during site earthwork and
foundation construction. This will allow us the opportunity to compare actual
conditions exposed during construction with those encountered in our investigation and
to provide supplemental recommendations if warranted by the exposed conditions.
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in
this report, or as recommended by the Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells
Drilling during construction.
5.2. Recommendations
1) The natural ground must be compacted before starting any structure fill.
2) For deep excavation, designed braced wall (shoring) should be used.
3) The ground must be sloped away from structures as much as possible one of the
most practical and economical methods are through use of compaction control for
the backfill of the zone around the foundation with well-compacted layer of low
permeability. Those slope maintained so that runoff water will be carried away from
adjacent to stand near foundations, but must be drained into lined ditched.
4) Drainage pipe lines of water, sewers, and gas must be installed in such a way that
not make weakness of the foundations and should be designed to absorb movement
without breaking, these pipes also must be well fixed and laid with permeable
material cover all around.
5) Using expansion joints between columns and floor slab for long buildings and
fence.
6) Using a good rainfall drainage system to collect the rainfall from the site and out
the site.
7) It's recommended to protect the pavement from rain water and any other water
(surface and underground water), by using a good side ditch along all the road side
in the right-of-way of the road. Normal cross slopes including camber must be done
in slop not less than 1/50.
8) Soil replacement: it is recommended to use the following layers under all types of
foundation, isolated and strip.
a) Two layers of well-compacted sub-base (mixture of gravel and sand) of 30 cm
thickness after well compaction decided by the designer engineer of foundation.
9) The zone beside the roads (shoulders) should be filled with a well-compacted clayey
layer of low permeability according to (ASTM D-1557) to conform required a non-
permeable layer.
10) Using the sulphate resistant Portland cement in all concrete works in contact with
soil. The minimum cement content of 370 kg/m3 for maximum size of gravel 20mm
and water/cement ratio is 0.45 by weight. The cement content must be increased by
100 kg/m3 in case of using pile foundation. In addition, the minimum compressive
strength of concrete is 30 MPa.
25
11) The Gypsum content in the surface layer exceed 5%, so its important to take into
consideration in the design of footing and prevent surface water and groundwater
from reaching the silos foundations to avoid the dissolution of gypsum.
12) All concrete that is in contact with soil should coated with bitumen material at the
base and sides of the foundation.
13) Its recommended to use allowable bearing capacity of 18.5 Ton/m2 in the design of
footing to avoid the differential settlement of footings.
5.3. Limitations
The Rock Company for Soil Investigation and Wells Drilling has prepared this report
for the Optimum Company for General Contracting and Engineering, the project of
silos to be constructed at Karbala Cement Plant for use in the design of foundation of
the proposed Silos in Karbala Governorate, Iraq. This report prepared in substantial
accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists
in the project area at the time of our study. No warranty, express or implied, is made or
intended. It is likely that soil conditions vary between or beyond the locations that we
have explored to date. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and off-site) or other
factors may change over time, and additional geotechnical exploration may be required
if the construction plan or schedule changes. Only Project owner may use this report,
only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from its issuance. Any party
other than the building owner who wishes to use this report shall notify the Project
owner of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, the Rock Company
for Soil Investigation and Wells Drilling may require that additional work be conducted
and that an updated report be issued. Noncompliance with any of these requirements by
the client or anyone else will release the Rock Company for Soil Investigation and
Wells Drilling from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any
unauthorized party.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from subsurface explorations agreed by the Optimum Company for General
Contracting and Engineering. The recommendations contained herein are not intended
to dictate construction methods or sequences. Instead, they are furnished solely to help
designers identify potential construction problems related to foundation and earth plans
and specifications, based upon findings derived from sampling. Depending upon the
final design chosen for the project, the recommendations may also be useful to
personnel who observe construction activity.
6 REFERENCES
Al-Khafaji, A.W. and Andorslang O.B. (1992): "Geotechnical Engineering and Soil
Testing", S. Ink. USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
American Concrete Pipe Association (2000), Concrete Pipe Design Manual, Revised.
American Lifelines Alliance (2001), Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
American Society of Testing Materials, ASTM, (2004): "Soil and Rock".
Bowles, J. E. (1997), "FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN", fifth edition,
McGraw- Hill Companies, Singapore.
26
British Standard Institutions (1975): "Methods of Testing Soil for Civil Engineering
Purposes", B.S., 1377.
Budh, M. (2000): "Soil Mechanics and Foundation", John Wiley and Sons Inc., USA.
Craij, R.F (2003): "Craij's Soil Mechanics", 7the edition Spoon Press, London,
England.
Das, B.M (2011): "Principles of Foundation Engineering", Seventh Edition, Thomson
Brooks/ Cole, USA.
Howard, A.K., (1996), Pipeline Installation, by Relativity Publishing, Lakewood,
Colorado.
Lambe, T.W. (1951): "Soil Testing for Engineering", John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.
Spangler, M.G. and Handy, R.L. (1982), Soil Engineering, 4th Edition, Harper & Rowe,
New York, NY.
Peck, R.P; Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974): "Foundation Engineering", John
Wiley and Sons Inc., USA.
27
APPENDICES
28
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
1. General
The subsurface soil conditions at the site of project were explored 16th of May 2017 by
drilling three boreholes to a depth of 6m below existing ground surface. Boring was
drilled using truck-mounted drill rigs equipped with 100mm-diameter coring auger.
The location and depth of borehole was specified under the structure of project directly
to get detailed information about the geotechnical properties of subsurface soil. The
field Logs and descriptions of Boring, visually classified soils encountered according
to the Unified Soil Classification System (Figures A-1 to A-3).
Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were obtained from the subsurface materials to
be tested in the laboratory. Soil classifications were made in the field from samples and
auger cuttings in accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Visual-Manual Procedure). Sample
classifications, blow counts recorded during sampling after correction, and other related
information were recorded on the boring logs. Following laboratory testing, the visual
soil classifications made in the field were reviewed and reclassified in accordance with
ASTM D 2487.
2. Sampling Procedures
During the drilling operations, core soil samples were obtained from soil extracted
through the advance of auger into the subsurface soil, the core soil samples were used
for testing the physical, chemical and mechanical properties of soil. Core soil samples
obtained from the borings were packaged in wood molds to reduce disturbance, then
labeled and brought to Baghdad University/College of Engineering/Soil Mechanics
laboratory for testing.
3. Groundwater Measurement
After 24 hrs from completion drilling the groundwater table was measured by using
labeled rod from the ground surface.
29
Client:Karbala Cement Plant-Lafarge Com. Project: Silos

Boring No.: BH1 Boring Location:
Ground Water Table: - m from EGL Borehole Depth: 6 m
Drill Method: Coring Borehole Diameter: 10cm
Date Started: 16/5/2017 Date Completed: 16/5/2017
Depth From To Thickness Type of
Symbol Description
m m m m Sample
0.0
0.0 1.0
1.0 Core
1.0 2.0 White to red
2.0 gravel sand with
2.0 3.0 Core
3.0 6.0 clay and gypsum
3.0 4.0
4.0 Core
4.0 5.0
5.0
5.0 6.0 Core
6.0
Figure (A-1): Borehole log of BH1.

Symbol Description
m m m m Sample
0.0
0.0 1.0 Light reddish gray
1.0 2.5 Core
1.0 2.0 gravel sand with clay
2.0 and gypsum
2.0 3.0
3.0 Core
3.0 4.0 White to red
4.0 Core
4.0 5.0 3.5 gravel sand with
5.0 clay and gypsum
5.0 6.0 Core
6.0
30

Symbol Description
m m m m Sample
0.0
0.0 1.0 Reddish gravel sand
1.0 1.5 Core with clay and gypsum
1.0 2.0
2.0 Core
2.0 3.0
3.0 Light yellowish
3.0 4.0 Core
4.0 4.5 gravel sand with
4.0 5.0 clay and gypsum
5.0
5.0 6.0 Core
6.0
31
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING AND RECORDS OF TESTS RESULTS
1. General
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to aid in soil classification
and to evaluate chemical, physical and mechanical properties of the soils that may affect
the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. A description of the
laboratory testing program is presented below. A summary of the laboratory tests
performed are presented on the Records of Laboratory Tests Results, Tables B-1 to B-
5. Most of the laboratory test results are also included on the boring logs.
2. Physical Tests
2.1 Moisture Content
Moisture content tests were performed to evaluate moisture condition requirements
during site preparation and earthwork grading, soil overburden, and active and passive
earth pressures, and relative soil strength and compressibility. Moisture content was
evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. Results of these tests
are presented on the logs and are summarized on the Records of Laboratory Tests
Results. The soil samples are dry sand.
2.2 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity was performed to measure the density of solids in the soil samples and
to aid in calculations of soil properties. Tests were performed according to ASTM D
854. The results of tests are summarized on the Records of Laboratory Tests Results.
2.3 Atterberg's Limits

Atterberg Limits tests were performed to aid in soil classification and to evaluate the
plasticity characteristics of the material. Additionally, test results were correlated to
published data to evaluate the shrink/swell potential of near-surface site soils. Tests
were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4318. The soil
samples are dry sand, so it have no moisture content and Atterbergs limits.
2.4 Particle-Size Analysis

Sieve and hydrometer analyses were performed to evaluate the gradational
characteristics of the material and to aid in soil classification. Tests were performed in
general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. Results of these tests are presented
in Tables B-1 to B-3.
3. Chemical Tests
Selected samples of the subsurface soils encountered at the site were subjected to
chemical analysis for the purpose of corrosion assessment of concrete reinforcement
and sulphate attack assessment. The samples were tested for organic matter content
(ASTM D 2974), chloride content (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, clause 7), total soluble salts
(ASTM D4542), sulfate content (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, clause 5), and gypsum content.
The test results are summarized in the Records of Laboratory Tests Results, Table B-4.
32
Table (B-1): Description and Results of Physical Tests for BH1.

From To Thickness Sample Gravel Sand Fines
Gs USCS DESCRIPTION
m m m Type % % %
0 1.5 Core 27.8 68.9 3.3 2.67
White to red gravel
1.5 3.5 Core
6.0 16.6 80.9 2.5 2.66 sand with clay and
3.5 4.5 Core
gypsum
4.5 6.0 Core 49.2 48.1 2.7 2.63

Gs USCS DESCRIPTION
m m m Type % % %
Light reddish gray
0 2.5 2.5 Core 40.5 54.9 4.6 2.66 gravel sand with clay
and gypsum
2.5 3.5 Core 29.0 69.2 1.8 2.65 White to red gravel
3.5 4.5 3.5 Core sand with clay and
19.9 79.0 1.1 2.66
4.5 6.0 Core gypsum

Gs USCS DESCRIPTION
m m m Type % % %
59.8 2.3 Reddish gravel sand
0 1.5 1.5 Core 37.9 2.64
with clay and gypsum
1.5 3.0 Core Light yellowish gravel
3.0 4.5 4.5 Core 46.2 52.9 0.9 2.68 sand with clay and
4.5 6.0 Core gypsum
Table (B-4): Summary of chemical tests results for soil samples.
Depth SO3 Gypsum Content OM Cl-1

BH No. pH
m % % % mg/l
0-1.5 3 6.45 0.85 7.83 100
BH1 3.5-4.5 2.2 4.73 1.20 7.92 100
4.5-5.5 2.8 6.02 0.95 8.10 100
0-2.5 2.0 4.30 0.90 7.91 100
BH2 2.5-3.5 1.8 3.87 0.85 7.96 100
3.5-4.5 2.6 5.59 1.00 7.78 100
0-1.5 2.4 5.16 1.00 7.79 100
BH3
1.5-3.0 1.9 4.09 1.0 7.87 150
Table (B-5): Results of direct shear tests.

BH No. c (kN/m2)
BH1 42
BH2 38
BH3 40
33

Karbala Cement Factory-Report PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Karbala Cement Factory-Report PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2017 Soil Investigation Report/Silos/Karbala Cement Plant/Karbala

SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOIL INVESTIGATION AND WELLS DRILLING

SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOIL INVESTIGATION AND WELLS DRILLING

Subject: Soil Investigation Report

Dear Optimum Company for General Contracting and Engineering

Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the

Asst. Prof. Mahdi O. Karkush (Ph.D., CE, MISSMGE)

No. Subject Page

No. Subject Page

4.3.3. Foundation Types and Depths 20

Plate 1: Image of Site.

1.1. Project Description

1.2. Purpose and Scope Services

1.3. Report Organization

2 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING

Plate 2: Tectonic Subdivisions Map of Iraq.

Plate 3: Geological Map of Karbala.

2.2. Seismicity and Regional Faulting

Plate 4: Seismic Zoning Map of Iraq.

3.1. Climatologic Setting

3.2. Site Description

3.3. Soil Stratigraphy

3.5. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Site Preparation

4.1.2. Existing Utilities, Wells and Foundations

4.1.3. Scarification and Compaction

4.2. Engineering Fill

4.2.1. Compaction Requirements

should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at a moisture content

4.2.2. Subgrade Preparation

4.2.3. Temporary Excavations and Slopes

4.2.4. Protection of Existing Facilities

The Contractor should anticipate repairing cracks in pavements adjacent to shored

4.3. Foundation Design Recommendations

According to preliminary grading plans of building, the building will be supported on

4.3.1. Chemical Data

Table 3: Chemical data of soil samples used in design of foundations.

SO3 Gypsum Content OM Cl-1

4.3.2. Bearing Capacity

A. Terzaghi bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

B. Meyerhof bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

C. Hansen bearing capacity equation (shallow foundation):

D. The ultimate load-carrying capacity Qult of a pile is:

For sandy soil (c=0);

For clayey soil (=0);

Table 4: Allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundation (qall).

4.3.3. Foundation Types and Depths

Deep foundations: are placed at greater depths i.e. D > 3m or D > B.

4.3.4. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Table 5: Values of coefficient of sub-grade reaction.

4.3.5 Earth Embankment

tests should be performed regularly throughout the embankment construction; typically,

The tolerable settlements, total and differentiable, of different types of foundation

Table 6: Tolerable magnitude of settlement.

4.4. Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors

4.4.2. Floor Slab Considerations

4.5. Moisture Protection

4.6. Exterior Concrete Slabs Supported-on-Grade

5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS

Client:Karbala Cement Plant-Lafarge Com. Project: Silos